# Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions



## lawxx

[video]http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjcxNDgyMzY4.html[/video]

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## Martian2

lawxx said:


> [video]http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjcxNDgyMzY4.html[/video]


 
Terrific video of J-20 Mighty Dragon take-off!

The trees were in the way, but the launch time was 15 or 16 seconds (according to my stopwatch).

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## khurasaan1

okay ! great video...Alhamdolillah...


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Thank you for your video.


----------



## houshanghai

J-20 flew June lst in Chengdu again

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


> J-20 flew June lst in Chengdu again


 
Any one get the take off this time?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

J-20 flew again today (June 2st) , two side-bay doors were opened in flight 








siegecrossbow said:


> Any one get the take off this time?






no...Nobody wants to AA's tea

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mikethedyke

houshanghai said:


> J-20 flew June lst in Chengdu again


 
It was flying for children everywhere!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

CD said that the plane flew again today and performed roll manoeuvres.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

I really want a high-def image of the plane with the gears folded. Though I know this is alot to ask as they tend to retract the gears at reasonably high altitude and it's hard to take clear pictures of it flying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

houshanghai said:


> no...Nobody wants to AA's tea


 
haha, so where are they taking pictures now?


----------



## Saifullah Sani



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## mil-avia

Can someone please provide link to the earlier J-20 thread? Thanx


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The internal weapon bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## no_name

Seems to be all short range missiles (?).
Doesn't look very credible


----------



## Kompromat

no_name said:


> Seems to be all short range missiles (?).
> Doesn't look very credible


 
Its just a model - the weapons bay on J-20 would look different , maybe even bigger than this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

This is a repost from a private email request.

One of the many jaw dropping and simply stupidest arguments for the J-20 being propagated on the Internet by the J-20's supporters is the assertion that the F-22's rudder system is 'less advanced' than the J-20's all moving vertical stabilators.

First...There is a difference between a 'stabilator' and a 'rudder' but in short, the stabilator contains the rudder. To put it another way, the rudder is an integral and a moving part of the vertical stab to effect yaw control. If the vertical stab is designed to be all moving, then there is no rudder, the whole flight control surface act to effect yaw control. But if the trailing edge of the vertical stab is moving, then we have a 'rudder system' where there is a large main stabilizing control surface holding a smaller movable segment of the trailing edge.

Second...Structurally and mechanically speaking, there are no gross degrees of differences between the rudder and the all-moving rear horizontal stabs. We could mentally 'rotate' the entire tailplane section to make one of the rear horizontal stabs to be the all-moving vertical stab.

So is there any valid technical foundation upon which that anyonce can stand and make such an assertion? Absolutely none. The aviation historical record simply cannot be more clear about the stupidity of this assertion.

The F-117 has all-moving vertical stabs and this is publicly available information...

Lockheed F-117A Stealth Fighter


> The F-117A uses *fully movable V-tail* surfaces and split full span trailing edge flaps.



The SR-71 has all-moving vertical stabs and this is publicly available information...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/sr71-faq.html


> Aerodynamic control surfaces consist of *all-moving vertical tail surfaces* above each engine nacelle, ailerons on the outer wings, and elevators on the trailing edges between the engine exhaust nozzles.



The A-5 Vigilante has an all-moving vertical stab and this is publicly available information...

The North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante


> The Vigilante was long and sleek, with a relatively small high-mounted swept-back wing, and *all-moving slab tailplanes* and tailfin.



Going back further into aviation history, even the WW I German Fokker DVII has an all-moving vertical stab and this is also publicly available information...

Factsheets : Fokker D. VII

So the aviation historical record is clear that an all-moving vertical stabilator to act as both yaw axis stabilizer and control is not something recently innovated by Chinese aviation. Then what could explain the reason why does the F-15, F-16, F-22 or any other high performance military jet fighters uses the rudder system instead of an all-moving stab when its application is well known and established since the early days of aviation.

The hint is in the A-5 source above and quoted below...



> North American had considered twin tailfins to meet the height restrictions of a carrier hangar deck, but although such a configuration is common now, it was too bold for the Navy at the time. North American went with a single tall tailfin that folded to one side.



A flight control element's real estate, shape, sweep angle, and effectively all aspects of its design simply cannot be put on paper and call it good. It must be precisely calculated based upon technical and human requirements. Sometimes one side will trump the other. Sometimes a compromise can be reached where the best level of each requirement is met but not its whole.

_North American_ had designed the A-5's twin vertical stabs to be of X real estate, Y shape, and Z sweep angle -- to simplify this explanation considerably. But the US Navy needed the aircraft to be stowable below deck and such a twin tailed configuration was too radical at the time for the Navy's comfort. So in order to satisfy the Navy's human demands and to balance those demands against the technical need for effective yaw axis control, _North American_ had to make a large single all-moving vertical stab that also fold to one side so the aircraft can be stowed below deck. The real estate of this single large all-movable vertical stab roughly equal to the original twin smaller vertical stabs for yaw axis stabilization. The all-movable feature would have the same effective yaw control as with the original twin rudders design. It was innovative but hardly inventive. It was innovative because it satisfy competing interests to high degrees while using existing knowledge and technology.

We know from established 'stealth' planforming that a single vertical stab would be detrimental towards low radar observability. That mean for the J-20 and the F-22, both must have twin canted vertical stabs. The reason why the J-20 needed both its vertical stabs to be all-moving whereas the F-22 does not is because of different flight control philosophies and demands based upon the overall design. The J-20's twin vertical stabs are smaller in real estate in comparison to the F-22 is from aerodynamic requirements. Any radar low observability benefit is incidental -- not intentional. Canting them to remove large 90deg corner reflectors is intentional.






The above illustration is of today's F-22 and WW I British BE2. The BE2's all-movable vertical stab is obvious from the F-22's rudders.

If there is a credible third party technical analysis that said the rudder system is 'less advanced' than the all-movable vertical stab, regardless of era, the readers, especially those in the aviation engineering community, would greatly benefit from this information. This is not 'classified' information by any stretch of the definition. The physics would have been well known, that is *IF* such an inferiority exist, under what conditions, and how is that inferiority manifested in flight, especially under air combat maneuvers.

In summary, there is nothing inventive and innovative about the J-20's twin canted all-movable vertical stabs. If the F-15 or F-22 does not have all-movable vertical stabs, it is because they do not need them, not because they are somehow design 'flawed' or 'less advanced' as asserted by the J-20's supporters. Given the fact that these are publicly available information, it can only be intellectual dishonesty among the J-20's crowd that compelled the dissemination of this gross technical error.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Martian2

J-20 Mighty Dragon ready for takeoff





Close-up of J-20 Mighty Dragon flying overhead

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## teddy

JH-XX unveiled !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## teddy

JH-7B???


----------



## Chanakyaa

It Looks Cool.
Great Work China !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cfldad

a piece of masterpiece

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

teddy said:


> JH-7B???


 
seems to be CG. have not confirmed in CD yet~


----------



## siegecrossbow

Go here to check out a few pictures of J-7, JF-17, J-10, and a new pict of the J-20 deploying airbrakes!

6.9»ÆÌï°ÓÖ®¡ª¡ªÎÒÍÃÏÔÁé£¨¸ÐÐ»ÉãÓ°Õß£ºÏ£ÍûÖ®¶Ü£©| Ó¥»÷³¤¿Õ - ·ÉÑï¾üÊÂ ÐñÈÕ³ö¶«·½£¬¾«²ÊÔÚ·ÉÑï - powered by phpwind.net

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

So when everything is going right the canopy pops up as a conventional one that ruins the CG lol..


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> Go here to check out a few pictures of J-7, JF-17, J-10, and a new pict of the J-20 deploying airbrakes!
> 
> 6.9»ÆÌï°ÓÖ®¡ª¡ªÎÒÍÃÏÔÁé£¨¸ÐÐ»ÉãÓ°Õß£ºÏ£ÍûÖ®¶Ü£©| Ó¥»÷³¤¿Õ - ·ÉÑï¾üÊÂ ÐñÈÕ³ö¶«·½£¬¾«²ÊÔÚ·ÉÑï - powered by phpwind.net

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Does anyone know who released the bunny balloon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

^^ It may be CAC's new secret weapon

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## fatman17

*Speculation mounts that China has developed the world&#8217;s second fifth-generation fighter after photographs emerge on web forums of an unknown aircraft standing at an aerodrome. Whilst the aircraft bears similarities with the J-20 prototype there are also rumors that it may be a stealth version of the JH-7 fighter. *

DID

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Thank you for your video.


----------



## Chinese

HOHO that so nice


----------



## houshanghai

Air Brake opened

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

I can't even remember how many times it has flown so far.


----------



## siegecrossbow

J-20 mega picture. The guy from feiyang said he will post the bigger version if he doesn't get invited over for tea.

Very good shot of the weapons bay:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## no_name

Sexy pic.

It's confirmed then that the J-20 has both side and bottom weapons bay, and that serrated edges are visible.


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> Sexy pic.
> 
> It's confirmed then that the J-20 has both side and bottom weapons bay, and that serrated edges are visible.


 
Confirmed a long time ago lol. 

If they took time to serrate the landing gear bay and the air brake there is no reason not to pay attention to the weapons bay.

Another thing. It looks like we have definitive proof that there are multiple J-20s:






p.s. If this is a photoshopped picture I suggest we launch a massive hacking campaign against CD and FY. No just kidding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

There are two J-20 Mighty Dragons in the center of the picture. It looks like we have definitive proof that there are multiple J-20s. 

[Note: Thank you to SiegeCrossbow for the post.]

----------






[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

I think this is the highest-resolution J-20 Mighty Dragon picture released.






[Note: Thank you to Magnus for the picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

There were two prototypes from the start with serial like 2000, 2001, I think you are confusing 2 prototypes with multiple prototypes.


----------



## cn_habs

mafiya said:


> There were two prototypes from the start with serial like 2000, 2001, I think you are confusing 2 prototypes with multiple prototypes.


 
Many assumed that there were 2 prototypes bearing the serial number 2001 each fitted with a AL31 and WS-10.


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> J-20 mega picture. The guy from feiyang said he will post the bigger version if he doesn't get invited over for tea.
> 
> Very good shot of the weapons bay:


 break apart and enlarge this photo.you will get some details about j20































thx hk299792458

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

thx hk299792458(a French Chinese)


link:http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php?topic=9981.1530

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

^^ Jagged weapons bay. The picture is so clear we could see the rivets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> Confirmed a long time ago lol.
> 
> If they took time to serrate the landing gear bay and the air brake there is no reason not to pay attention to the weapons bay.
> 
> Another thing. It looks like we have definitive proof that there are multiple J-20s:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. If this is a photoshopped picture I suggest we launch a massive hacking campaign against CD and FY. No just kidding.


 
According to &#20992;&#21475;, there should have at least 5-6 prototypes being built because this is the pattern for everyone.

Most likely he was right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

Possibility as to how the J-20's cockpit would partly look like:







Shows only the avionics part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

Toys for big boys.


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> Toys for big boys.


 
What is this for?


----------



## no_name

Dunno. It looks smaller than actual size. 

Put it in a park somewhere...? Or maybe a rich guy want it in his back yard. 
You know you can comission any model if the price is right.


----------



## siegecrossbow

^^ Couldn't have purchased it off Taobao, right??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## razgriz19



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

There are three J-20s in that pic.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

*1&#65292; 2&#65292; 3 or 4&#65311;*











[Note: Thank you to Marchpole for the post and ChineseTiger1986.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Some one please link the "J-20 invasion picture" from sinodefence. It cracked me up.


----------



## siegecrossbow

This looks familiar?


----------



## graphican

Image is not loading.


----------



## Broccoli

> There has been much speculation over whether the Chinese J-20 fighter is a prototype, technology demonstrator, or something else. Here&#8217;s a view of what the J-20 represents in the eyes of the U.S. aerospace industry:
> 
> &#8220;Many saw the J-20 &#8211; China&#8217;s new stealth fighter &#8211; as a military threat. I saw it as another player in the global defense marketplace,&#8221; says Jim Albaugh, the former president and CEO of Boeing&#8217;s defense business, before he took over his current role as president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.


Boeing's Take on the J-20


----------



## siegecrossbow

Broccoli said:


> Boeing's Take on the J-20


 
Quote I think this is an excellent opportunity to convince China's neighboring countries to start purchasing our products End Quote.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

j20 air brake and the flames of nozzle






































thx hk299792458

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

Air brake, check.















Beijing, we have ignition!





Tower, this is J-20 Mighty Dragon red leader. Ready for takeoff!

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and "hk299792458" for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

j20 new pic













by the way,j20 flew twice today and one of j20's engine was replaced(maybe ws10g or ws15???)



















Note:today,two nozzles are different

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Martian2

Looks like the "petals" of the concentric variable-area afterburner nozzles of the right engine was extended or set in the "open" position while the left one was not. It appears that the pair of engines can work independently to optimize performance. If this is true, it would say a whole lot about the integrated flight management & control system. The master computer needs to work seamlessly with the ultra complex FBW; coordinate FADEC of each engine with all the moving surfaces. It would be one hell of a super fighter when TVC is added when serial production begins. [Macau Boy's commentary]










Notice the two nozzles are different. [HouShanghai's comment]






[Note: Thank you to Marchpole and HouShanghai for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

J-20 with new indigenous engine?

[Note: Thank you to Marchpole for the post.]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Broccoli

What engine could it be? 

Wikipedia (unreliable source i know) claims that WS-10B and WS-10G have TVC, so it cannot be any of those.


----------



## cloneman

God knows.The engine issue was there since the J20 pictures were revealed.Even the insiders like Maya cant convincelly expain what is it.Mostlikely its a WS10 variant?


----------



## rcrmj

i wanna more news on J-20 or whatever new kits china is developing```its kinda boring for last few weeks, same as my business```why!!! i'm stressed -_-


----------



## houshanghai

today ,j20 broke own record,the bird flew 3 times a day
first two flights happened in the afternoon,Every flights spent about one hour .
the third flight in the evening ,about 40 minutes or so







videos
j20

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

houshanghai said:


> today ,j20 broke own record,the bird flew 3 times a day
> first two flights happened in the afternoon,Every flights spent about one hour .
> the third flight in the evening ,about 40 minutes or so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videos
> j20


 
where did you get this info? will you be invited for a 'tea talk'?

if its true as you claimed, the intensity proves that the current J-20 is a solid piece of craft, I think they must have more than one J-20.... few days ago there were some murky pictures about the 'second' J-20 conducting test flight`?


----------



## houshanghai

rcrmj said:


> where did you get this info? will you be invited for a 'tea talk'?
> 
> if its true as you claimed, the intensity proves that the current J-20 is a solid piece of craft, I think they must have more than one J-20.... few days ago there were some murky pictures about the 'second' J-20 conducting test flight`?



these infs from the chinese public forum(cd,feiyang),so I am not afraid of 'tea talk'....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## razgriz19

rcrmj said:


> where did you get this info? will you be invited for a 'tea talk'?
> 
> if its true as you claimed, the intensity proves that the current J-20 is a solid piece of craft, I think they must have more than one J-20.... few days ago there were some murky pictures about the 'second' J-20 conducting test flight`?


 
there are actually three of them. some one posted a picture a few days back...


----------



## Dragon Emperor

In 2 years many J-20s would have undergone hundreds of hours worth of flight time, matching F-35. I predict the J-20 will enter service the latest by 2016, with a minimum of 60 in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Broccoli

Could it be WS-15?


----------



## houshanghai

more pics


china j20 5 gen fighter pictures by houshanghai - Photobucket


original links

6.17µÚÒ»¼¾¡ª¡ªÖ®Ê²½õ´óÔÓ»â| Ó¥»÷³¤¿Õ - ·ÉÑï¾üÊÂ ÐñÈÕ³ö¶«·½£¬¾«²ÊÔÚ·ÉÑï - powered by phpwind.net

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

Tower, this is red leader. We have touch down.






[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

j20 gif

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

houshanghai said:


> j20 gif


 


What was the second picture?

Is it a air break or lift fan system like F-35??

Some1 please tell me.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Martian2 said:


> J-20 with new indigenous engine?
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Marchpole for the post.]


 

Hey guys, I think the yellow thing is actually a radar in the rear!

I can be wrong, but please some1 tell me what is it.

Thank you.


----------



## gambit

Braking chute.


----------



## siegecrossbow

AerospaceEngineer said:


> What was the second picture?
> 
> Is it a air break or lift fan system like F-35??
> 
> Some1 please tell me.


 
Just an airbrake. Frankly I don't even know if they are gonna have it on production models.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Exactly, no need for that stuff.

What about the yellow thing?

Is it a rear radar?


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Exactly, no need for that stuff.
> 
> What about the yellow thing?
> 
> Is it a rear radar?


 
Mr AerospaceEngineer doesn't seem to know the basics of aircraft design.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## no_name

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Exactly, no need for that stuff.
> 
> What about the yellow thing?
> 
> Is it a rear radar?


 
That yellow thing is the parachute housing. I think it's been designed to open automatically when the wheels are down. (all pic of the aircraft in air and on ground with landing wheels have that housing open.)


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

some old pics (9.June and 2.June) were posted in feiyang

http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/htm_data/27/1106/343311.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

j20 new pics (17.June)


side bay opened

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

link


http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/htm_data/27/1106/343381.html



who always criticize Chinese military are secret. If you get to chengdu , you'll very easy to see j20.however usa f22 could never open as same as j20

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007

both prototype use different engines
possibly 1 is using al-31 or al-41 which are Russian made
2nd prototype use home made engine possibly ws-10s or ws-15
some western media reports said that either Russia or Israel could also help china in 5th generation project
because china cannot make composite material at industrial level

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Pixelation obscures opened side-weapon bay.





Look closely, you can see the interior of the engines. [A.Man's comment]















J-20 with two different engine nozzles

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and A.Man for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

nomi007 said:


> both prototype use different engines
> possibly 1 is using al-31 or al-41 which are Russian made
> 2nd prototype use home made engine possibly ws-10s or ws-15
> some western media reports said that either Russia or Israel could also help china in 5th generation project
> because china cannot make composite material at industrial level



Sorry, the AL-41 engine doesn't exist at all, and China doesn't any need help from Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Speeder 2

> both prototype use different engines
> possibly 1 is using al-31 or al-41 which are Russian made
> 2nd prototype use home made engine possibly ws-10s or ws-15
> *some western media reports* said that either *Russia *or *Israel *could also help china in 5th generation project
> because china cannot make composite material at industrial level
> 
> *Original Post By nomi007 *




Puh-leeez! Which "western media reports"? care to share the source? else I would say some bigger western media reports that you are BSting.

regarding composite material, or material sciences in general, *both *China's direct R&D for the past 2 decades *and *the actual PCT (patents) / scholarly quotations in this area are leagues ahead of Russia and Israel.

So China can't do it, but Russia and Israel obviously can according you?

Bullocks!

I am not exactly sure about Russia ( on its current statue of inherited residual assets from the Soviet era), but Israel ?!

Israel has been hyped way over the top by the world media that Zionists control.

"Israel's tech" is 2nd or 3rd hand US tech mostly - in forms of direct aids and indirect leaks. 

With average IQ of 92, Israel itself is nothing, nothing, in big boy's game.

On most key sci-tech related to fundamental research areas, with comparable population size and far less (close to zero) US aids, Taiwan is a *full *league ahead of Israel in general, let alone Chinese maninland.

And "Israel hleps China to build it in industrial scale" ? 
.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

J-20 Mighty Dragon with pixelated side-weapon bay

[Note: Thank you to Deino for the picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Martian2 said:


> J-20 Mighty Dragon with pixelated side-weapon bay
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Deino for the picture.]


 
Looks like they are investigating the sidebay. I wonder if they installed the mechanism yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

j20 flew twice the day before yesterday

j20 sidebay opened

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

houshanghai said:


> j20 flew twice the day before yesterday
> 
> j20 sidebay opened


 
I can't see any of the pictures, because photobucket states your "bandwidth exceeded."

Please use imgur.com (link: http://imgur.com/)

1. Click "Computer" button
2. Select picture from your computer's hard drive
3. Select link format

OR

1. Click "Web" button
2. Paste in web address of picture
3. Select link format


----------



## houshanghai

Martian2 said:


> I can't see any of the pictures, because photobucket states your "bandwidth exceeded."
> 
> Please use imgur.com (link: imgur: the simple image sharer)
> 
> 1. Click "Computer" button
> 2. Select picture from your computer's hard drive
> 3. Select link format
> 
> OR
> 
> 1. Click "Web" button
> 2. Paste in web address of picture
> 3. Select link format


 






















how about now?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

J-20 Mighty Dragon side-weapon bay opened











[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

To be honest, the side weapon bay is smaller than I thought it would be. My guess is that it can only house a single PL-9 each.


----------



## houshanghai

delete.....


----------



## siegecrossbow

S10 said:


> To be honest, the side weapon bay is smaller than I thought it would be. My guess is that it can only house a single PL-9 each.


 
Why do you need the side weapons bays to be so big? They are used for dog fighting IR missiles and they don't need to be so large.


----------



## S10

siegecrossbow said:


> Why do you need the side weapons bays to be so big? They are used for dog fighting IR missiles and they don't need to be so large.


In large aerial engagements, two PL-9 may not be enough. Since J-20 is quite a bit larger than F-22, I was hoping the bay can fit 2 each. It seems both planes are similar in terms of internal carriage, 6&#20013;2&#36817;.


----------



## Martian2

[Note: Thank you to "Mpleio" for the pictures and "Kroko" for the link.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SQ8

Is the one with the silver nozzles the WS-10G(rumoured) .. or the one with the smaller black ones??


----------



## Chanakyaa

Great Pics Martian !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Clearest partial view of J-20 side-weapon bay internal structure






[Note: Thank you to "Mpleio" for the pictures and "Kroko" for the link.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Broccoli

Martian2 said:


>


 
J-20 does not look very big in this photo, about same size as the F-22. 

I would say that fuselage shape and delta wing configuration makes it look bigger & longer than it actually is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Broccoli said:


> J-20 does not look very big in this photo, about same size as the F-22.
> 
> I would say that fuselage shape and delta wing configuration makes it look bigger & longer than it actually is.


 
A bit of optical illusion is also at work. F-22's vertical stabilizers face inward while J-20's stabilizers face outward. So you get this effect:

File:Müller-Lyer illusion.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

siegecrossbow said:


> A bit of optical illusion is also at work. F-22's vertical stabilizers face inward while J-20's stabilizers face outward. So you get this effect:
> 
> File:Müller-Lyer illusion.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
You mean leaning backward and forward instead of inward and outward? Since they are both outward facing to me from the centreline.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> You mean leaning backward and forward instead of inward and outward? Since they are both outward facing to me from the centreline.


 
Yes that is what I meant. The vertical stabilizers on the J-20 sweep backward while the vertical stabilizers on the F-22 sweep forward.

Also note that the vertical stabilizers on the F-22 are much larger than those on the J-20. This also contribute to the longer appearance of the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

thx goodboy(cd)


btw, the whole pics posted by my photobucket were dead.why

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> Yes that is what I meant. The vertical stabilizers on the J-20 sweep backward while the *vertical stabilizers on the F-22 sweep forward.*
> 
> Also note that the vertical stabilizers on the F-22 are much larger than those on the J-20. This also contribute to the longer appearance of the J-20.


Say what...???


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Say what...???


 
Nvmd. I know that the stabilizers are canted. Just didn't have a better word for it at the moment.


----------



## gagaga

off topic 
i apologize to all people who feel uncomfortable after reading post #92. im really really sorry, not all Chinese people r like that. though many "thank you" from Chinese member under this "useful" post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Say what...???


Better illustrated with pic. Lines are similar length, tho one might appear longer. Not saying they're same size but the visual effect is there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Flew twice today! Total number of flights now = 19!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

siegecrossbow said:


> Flew twice today! Total number of flights now = 19!


 
still far too less if it plans to enter service in 2017, unless there are 3 more times unkonw flights up to today

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

26 June 2011 ~ VIEW COMMENTS
China SignPost&#8482; (&#27934;&#23519;&#20013;&#22269 #39: Jet Engine Development in China: Indigenous high-performance turbofans are a final step toward fully independent fighter production

China SignPost

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## S10

rcrmj said:


> still far too less if it plans to enter service in 2017, unless there are 3 more times unkonw flights up to today


I don't know why you have 2017 in mind, but the time frame for service is no earlier than 2018. There is an average of more than 4 flight tests per month which is decent, considering it takes time to analyze the test data and make adjustments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

S10 said:


> I don't know why you have 2017 in mind, but the time frame for service is no earlier than 2018. There is an average of more than 4 flight tests per month which is decent, considering it takes time to analyze the test data and make adjustments.


 
F-22 conducted more than 3000 flights, Rafale had roughly the same, even J-20 conducting 10 flights a month, 120 a year, 840 flights unil 2018, giving it a liner increase to over 1200 flights are still not enough for a 5th gen fighter```i hope CAC will build more j-20s for the test`

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

houshanghai said:


> 26 June 2011 ~ VIEW COMMENTS
> China SignPost&#8482; (&#27934;&#23519;&#20013;&#22269 #39: Jet Engine Development in China: Indigenous high-performance turbofans are a final step toward fully independent fighter production
> 
> China SignPost


 
i red it all```that was long, but very good article`quite neutral

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

Having no markings

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Martian2

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the pictures.]

-----

By the way, you can upload a group of pictures to imgur.com in one batch.

When you select the pictures from your computer, click on the first picture and hold "shift" and click on the last picture in the series. Or you can click on the first picture and then hold "ctrl" and click each individual picture for your batch.

----------

My original instructions:

Please use imgur.com (link: imgur: the simple image sharer)

1. Click "Computer" button
2. Select picture from your computer's hard drive
3. Select link format

OR

1. Click "Web" button
2. Paste in web address of picture
3. Select link format

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

cd goodboy new j20 videos





btw ,Thx bro Martian for sharing imgur.com and help (usage) message ( a nice job and very useful to me.=&#65289

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Credits go to Blitzo

















Apparently, some civilians are also some pretty big fans.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## houshanghai

note:j20 side bay and belly bay door opened

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## razgriz19

houshanghai said:


> note:j20 side bay and belly bay door opened


 
the weapons bay looks bigger than f-22. isn't it?


----------



## Martian2

Come on...I know I saw a F-22 on my radar a second ago.





Let's examine the J-20 Mighty Dragon side-weapon bay!





You (on the left) keep a "look out" while the rest of us sneak a peek.





Who wants to be the J-20 Mighty Dragon test pilot today?

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

Never seen all of the J-20's bays open before. Maybe they are gonna try opening it in the air next.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

razgriz19 said:


> the weapons bay looks bigger than f-22. isn't it?


 
The picture is misleading since the weapons bay doesn't extend past the landing gears. The merging of landing gear covers made the bay look longer than it really is.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aimarraul

found a new vedio 

?20???????????-20110629????-????-?????????????-???

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## aimarraul

[video]http://www.56.com/u32/v_NjE1ODM3NDE.html[/video]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

---------- Post added at 06:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 AM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype 

Air Power Australia Analysis 2011-03
4th July 2011
A Monograph by 
Dr Michael J Pelosi, MBA, MPA,
Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng
Text, computer graphics © 2011 Michael Pelosi, © 2011 Carlo Kopp

*Overall, the stealth shaping of the J-20 prototype design is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the United States' F-35 Joint Strike Fighter2,3.
*
link;
*A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype*

cdf link;

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1177460-1-1.html

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

I would not take Kopp's word at anything.. 
The shaping is good, but as to how it outmatches the F-35 I am not sure.


----------



## Zabaniyah

One thing that confuses me are the canards. Other than the J-20, I haven't seen a single aircraft intended for stealth having canards. Not even the PAK-FA has them.

I heard the Americans are now working on a 6th generation fighter


----------



## S10

Zabanya said:


> One thing that confuses me are the canards. Other than the J-20, I haven't seen a single aircraft intended for stealth having canards. Not even the PAK-FA has them.
> 
> I heard the Americans are now working on a 6th generation fighter


Beg to differ

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

J-20 Approaching Heads-on





J-20 "Fires Up" Its Engines





J-20 Low-pass Fly-by





J-20 Landing





J-20 Tests Its Control Surfaces





Some of you looked at HouShanghai's videos and said, "I can't watch all of those!" However, you should watch the five videos above.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the videos.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Arsalan

now that Chinese are finally having the world see a bit of this mighty machine, what are the chances that PAF might show interest in these as well.

if i can portray the scenario, the J-20 will be fully operational around 2020 and around the same time India will get there fifth generation planes most probably. this will surely force PAF to go for the J-20. the question is will this be offered by the Chinese, i guess, they wont have a problem with this!






regards!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

as far as i have read about the J-20, it more of a heavy weight interceptor aircraft. with greater payload capabilities, cruise ability and good range.
it is not great as a multi role fighter, like the F-35 is. do Chinese have a multi role stealth aircraft program up there sleves. perhaps we can see some development in this direction one the original J-20 materialize.

here is a link to latest news update about this mean machine:
July 03, 2011
The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
it says a lot about the aircraft development.

regards!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

i few video links from flight testing:










sorry if posted earlier.
it is reported that the Chinese plan to conduct around 12 initial proto type flight testings and this will help identify if there are any short comings and these can be then taken care of. this whole process will be completed around 2016~2017 and then we may well see initial small production batch for more extensive testing and evaluation and weapon and system integration.
please correct me if i am wrong!

regards!


----------



## gambit

> Zabanya said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that confuses me are the canards. *Other than the J-20, I haven't seen a single aircraft intended for stealth having canards. Not even the PAK-FA has them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beg to differ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I have been to many USAF bases and have yet to see a single *DEPLOYED* aircraft from the above listed images.


----------



## siegecrossbow

arsalanaslam123 said:


> here is a link to latest news update about this mean machine:
> July 03, 2011
> The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
> it says a lot about the aircraft development.
> 
> regards!


 
Dr. Goon is probably fed up with all the flak he is getting on aviation week... Although he is using scaremongering tactics once again (a sad setback from an attempt at technical analysis last time) I do admit that I thoroughly enjoyed his berating of Thompson and Aboulafia. Those were hilarious.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

In January 2011, I ranked the stealthiness of the world's premier fighters as F-22, J-20, and F-35 (see post replicated below). Six months have passed. How does my assessment hold up in comparison to professional analysis by "Peter Goon, BEng (Mech), FTE (USNTPS), Head of Test and Evaluation, Air Power Australia" (see http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-040711-1.html)?

Not surprisingly, the thorough analysis by Mr. Goon is in perfect agreement with my initial assessment from six months ago. Here is a key excerpt from Australia Air Power's analysis by Mr. Goon:

"Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: *&#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials* (Denys Overholser).

*The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability* above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.*

*While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*

In a market now dominated by &#8220;a total indifference to what is real&#8221;, no such option is now or ever was possible for the JSF, as its design is based upon meeting the bare minimum (a.k.a. &#8220;Threshold&#8221 requirements of the JORD wherein &#8220;excellence is the enemy of good enough&#8221;; as has the STOVL F-35B as the baseline design; and, thus, is heavily constrained by the specified roles for this aircraft as well as the risks to reputations based political imperatives of accelerating a much-delayed and grossly over-budget program.

The issue of the use of materials to suppress radar signature is interesting. Publications show that the Chinese are making a substantial investment in use of materials to reduce radar signature and have produced large volumes of research results. So far, there have been no Chinese public disclosures on materials that make a substantial reduction of signatures across a broad range of air combat radar frequencies. Come to think of it, there are no United States research papers on the subject. Why is that, one wonders?"

-----

Let me translate Mr. Goon's insights into plain English.

1. F-22 is fully optimized for stealth. Its clean lines and flattened engine nozzles are obvious to even a casual observer.

2. The J-20 is very close to the F-22 in stealth shaping. The two notable flaws from the *"Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands"* are "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles.

3. To save money, the F-35 has a compromised design of "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative." Also, the F-35 and the J-20 both share the round engine nozzles, which do not measure up to F-22 stealth standards.

Why are "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" a problem? Recall your experience of driving on a rain-slicked road at night with your headlights turned on. Very difficult to see the road, right? The rain-slicked road is almost a perfect mirror. The beams (which are electromagnetic radiation like radar waves) from the car headlights bounce away from you.

However, if there are lots of "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" in the road then you can see much better (like a radar receiver), because the car's lights are being bounced back into your eyes. For the same reason that you can easily see a bumpy rain-slicked road, it is much easier for a radar to detect a F-35 with bumpy surfaces.

Finally, the F-35 was always intended to be an economy-model stealth fighter. The U.S. military will not redesign the F-35's round engine nozzles. The U.S. already has the F-22. There is no point in redesigning the F-35 until it looks like a F-22. There wouldn't be any cost savings.

China's J-20 Mighty Dragon is a very different story. It is China's premier stealth fighter and its design won't be finalized until about 2018. It is likely the Chinese will alter the J-20 Mighty Dragon design in the next seven years to eliminate its partial weakness from "some curvature of the sides" and round engine nozzles. In 2018, do not be surprised to see a finalized J-20 Mighty Dragon that matches the F-22 in all-aspect stealth and with flattened engine nozzles.

----------

My January 22, 2011 post:

My estimate of J-20's RCS is 0.005-0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db)

From the front, the J-20 matches the F-22's stealth profile. While the J-20 is flying at you, the incremental increase in area from its canards is minimal (e.g. look at a piece of paper edge-wise; you only see a line). Also, the J-20's canards are probably made of composite material, coated with RAM, and curve-shaped to deflect radar waves. For all intents and purposes, the J-20 has a F-22 RCS frontal profile of 0.0001 m2.

From the rear, with its circular saw-toothed engine nozzles, the J-20 looks like the F-35 and it should have a similar rear RCS of 0.005 m2.

In conclusion, depending on your point of view, the J-20's RCS ranges from 0.005 to 0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db).

From Global Security: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Radar Cross Section (RCS) / RCS (m2) / RCS (dB)


automobile	100	20
B-52	100
B-1(A/B)	10
F-15	25
Su-27	15
cabin cruiser	10	10
Su-MKI	4
Mig-21	3
F-16	5
F-16C	1.2
man	1	0
F-18	1
Rafale	1
B-2	0.75 ?
Typhoon	0.5
Tomahawk SLCM	0.5
B-2	0.1 ?
A-12/SR-71	0.01 (22 in2)
bird	0.01	-20
*F-35 / JSF	0.005	-30*
F-117	0.003
insect	0.001	-30
*F-22	0.0001	-40*
B-2	0.0001	-40


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> In January 2011, I ranked the stealthiness of the world's premier fighters as F-22, J-20, and F-35 (see post replicated below). Six months have passed. How does my assessment hold up in comparison to professional analysis by "Peter Goon, BEng (Mech), FTE (USNTPS), Head of Test and Evaluation, Air Power Australia" (see The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?)?
> 
> Not surprisingly, the thorough analysis by Mr. Goon is in perfect agreement with my initial assessment from six months ago. Here is a key excerpt from Australia Air Power's analysis by Mr. Goon:
> 
> "Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: *&#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials* (Denys Overholser).
> 
> *The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability* above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.*
> 
> *While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*
> 
> In a market now dominated by &#8220;a total indifference to what is real&#8221;, no such option is now or ever was possible for the JSF, as its design is based upon meeting the bare minimum (a.k.a. &#8220;Threshold&#8221 requirements of the JORD wherein &#8220;excellence is the enemy of good enough&#8221;; as has the STOVL F-35B as the baseline design; and, thus, is heavily constrained by the specified roles for this aircraft as well as the risks to reputations based political imperatives of accelerating a much-delayed and grossly over-budget program.
> 
> The issue of the use of materials to suppress radar signature is interesting. Publications show that the Chinese are making a substantial investment in use of materials to reduce radar signature and have produced large volumes of research results. So far, there have been no Chinese public disclosures on materials that make a substantial reduction of signatures across a broad range of air combat radar frequencies. Come to think of it, there are no United States research papers on the subject. Why is that, one wonders?"
> 
> -----
> 
> Let me translate Mr. Goon's insights into plain English.
> 
> 1. F-22 is fully optimized for stealth. Its clean lines and flattened engine nozzles are obvious to even a casual observer.
> 
> 2. The J-20 is very close to the F-22 in stealth shaping. The two notable flaws from the "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" are "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles.
> 
> 3. To save money, the F-35 has a compromised design of "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative." Also, the F-35 and the J-20 both share the round engine nozzles, which do not measure up to F-22 stealth standards.
> 
> Why are "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" a problem? Recall your experience of driving on a rain-slicked road at night with your headlights turned on. Very difficult to see the road, right? The rain-slicked road is almost a perfect mirror. The beams (which are electromagnetic radiation like radar waves) from the car headlights bounce away from you.
> 
> However, if there are lots of "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" in the road then you can see much better (like a radar receiver), because the car's lights are being bounced back into your eyes. For the same reason that you can easily see a bumpy rain-slicked road, it is much easier for a radar to detect a F-35 with bumpy surfaces.
> 
> Finally, the F-35 was always intended to be an economy-model stealth fighter. The U.S. military will not redesign the F-35's round engine nozzles. The U.S. already has the F-22. There is no point in redesigning the F-35 until it looks like a F-22. There wouldn't be any cost savings.
> 
> China's J-20 Mighty Dragon is a very different story. It is China's premier stealth fighter and its design won't be finalized until about 2018. It is likely the Chinese will alter the J-20 Mighty Dragon design in the next seven years to eliminate its partial weakness from "some curvature of the sides" and round engine nozzles. In 2018, do not be surprised to see a finalized J-20 Mighty Dragon that matches the F-22 in all-aspect stealth and with flattened engine nozzles.
> 
> ----------
> 
> My January 22, 2011 post:
> 
> My estimate of J-20's RCS is 0.005-0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db)
> 
> From the front, the J-20 matches the F-22's stealth profile. While the J-20 is flying at you, the incremental increase in area from its canards is minimal (e.g. look at a piece of paper edge-wise; you only see a line). Also, the J-20's canards are probably made of composite material, coated with RAM, and curve-shaped to deflect radar waves. For all intents and purposes, the J-20 has a F-22 RCS frontal profile of 0.0001 m2.
> 
> From the rear, with its circular saw-toothed engine nozzles, the J-20 looks like the F-35 and it should have a similar rear RCS of 0.005 m2.
> 
> In conclusion, depending on your point of view, the J-20's RCS ranges from 0.005 to 0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db).
> 
> Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> Radar Cross Section (RCS) / RCS (m2) / RCS (dB)
> 
> 
> automobile	100	20
> B-52	100
> B-1(A/B)	10
> F-15	25
> Su-27	15
> cabin cruiser	10	10
> Su-MKI	4
> Mig-21	3
> F-16	5
> F-16C	1.2
> man	1	0
> F-18	1
> Rafale	1
> B-2	0.75 ?
> Typhoon	0.5
> Tomahawk SLCM	0.5
> B-2	0.1 ?
> A-12/SR-71	0.01 (22 in2)
> bird	0.01	-20
> *F-35 / JSF	0.005	-30*
> F-117	0.003
> insect	0.001	-30
> *F-22	0.0001	-40*
> B-2	0.0001	-40


----------



## Martian2

Are you still trolling this thread? Didn't I tell you that the canards were irrelevant to the J-20 Mighty Dragon's RCS profile?

The results from Australia Air Power's "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" prove my point.

Before you start disparaging Australia Air Power's Mr. Goon, you might want to look at his impressive credentials (see http://www.ausairpower.net/CV-PAG-2007.html).

He's an expert. You're not.

----------

Name Peter Anthony Goon

Date and Place of Birth 1953, Melbourne, Australia

Nationality Australian

Principal Qualifications BEng (Mechanical) - Qld Institute of Technology 1975

Post graduate Aeronautical Engineering and Officer training in the RAAF

Graduate US Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS Class 80), Flight Test Engineer Course - 1981 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Authorised Person under CARs 35/36

Areas of Expertise


Flight Test Engineering; Test and Evaluation (T&E); Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V); Aeronautical Engineering System Design; Senior Project Management; Risk Analysis; Air Power and Defence Capability Systems Analysis; Australian Defence Industry


Preferred Industry Roles


Consultant; Team (IPT) Leader; Integration and Test; Technical Specialist in Flight Test and Certification; T&E; Independent Analyst


Skills/Experience:

Over 27 years experience in aeronautical engineering design, aircraft maintenance and aircraft operations in both the military and civil aviation environments. Has extensive industry network.
22 years experience in Flight Test and related disciplines. Has well developed risk analysis skills.
22 years experience in the application of Test and Evaluation (T&E) principles, including Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V), Risk Planning and Treatment, DT&E, AT&E, OT&E, Type and Supplemental Type Certification, and Compliance & Conformity Assurance and Auditing.
14 years experience in the senior management of commercial activities. Focused strategic planner.
18 years experience in Company Directorships with over 12 years in the position of Managing Director. Strong understanding and appreciation of corporate governance issues and methodologies.
17 years experience as a CASA designated CAR 35/36 Authorised Person for Flight Test (performance, handling qualities, and systems) and structural, electrical and systems design with associated delegated approvals. Fully conversant with national and international aerospace regulatory environments and standards.
Inventor of a number of Patented, Supplemental Type Certificated and Registered designs. A discerning entrepreneur with a strategic approach to business process innovation and leveraging applied technologies to the benefit of his clients.
Author, Co-author and/or Approving Authority of over 300 Technical Reports and Papers, principally on aerospace systems and flight test/T&E projects. Effective oral and written communicator.
Over 500 hours aeronautical experience, mainly on flight test activities, in a variety of military and civil aircraft, including T-38 Talon (27 hrs), TA-4J Skyhawk (31 hrs), T-2C Buckeye (43 hrs), S-3 Viking (16 hrs), P-3B/C Orion (9 hrs), AH-1 Cobra (6 hrs), OH-58 Kiowa/JetRanger (23 hrs), UH-1B Iroquois, F-111C, MB-326H Macchi (75 hrs), Mirage IIID, Nomad, CT-4B Trainer (42 hrs), CT-4E Enhanced Flight Screener (27 hrs), C-441 Conquest, C-404 Titan, Cessna-340A (33 hrs), C-210 Centurion, C-172 Skyhawk, Beech B-200 Super King Air, Fokker F-27 Research Fokker Friendship.



Background/History:
2002 &#8211; Present - Service in the National Interest

1990 &#8211; 2005 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES &#8211; Managing Director/Director

Appointed Managing Director in November 1990 with charter to develop the company as a profitable enterprise through the provision of flight test, Test and Evaluation (T&E), and innovative engineering design related services and products of high quality and acknowledged value in the market place. Instrumental in the promotion and application of test and evaluation principles within the company's activities. Implemented Capability Maturity Model (CMM)[CMU] and Integrated Product Team (IPT) structures and practices in the company. Active in the areas of aeronautical engineering design and analysis as well as flight test engineering under AFTS Design & Engineering Procedures Manuals. Managed aircraft operations under the company's Air Operators Certificate. AFTS successfully completed a significant number of aircraft flight test, modification and certification projects under Peter's managing directorship. These included tasks on the C-130H & J, B-707 and Blackhawk helicopter aircraft plus a number of P-3C related projects, such as development of the High Capacity Cargo Pannier and prototyping of the ASH-33 DMTS Modification. Peter was one of the principal proponents in the formation of the Defence Teaming Centre, Inc. (DTC), author of the DTC Code to Ethics and Conduct, and held the position of DTC Deputy Chairman from 1996 through to 1999.

Activities and experience relevant to aeronautical design and aviation matters include:

17 years experience as a CASA designated CAR 35/36 Authorised Person for structural, electrical and systems design, and Flight Test (performance, handling qualities, and systems) with associated delegated approvals. Fully conversant with national and international aerospace regulatory environments and standards.
Author, Co-author and/or Approving Authority of over 300 Technical Reports and Papers, principally on aerospace systems and flight test/T&E projects. Effective oral and written communicator.
AFTS has satisfactorily completed over 1,500 projects, the bulk relating to aeronautical design and aviation matters. Projects included the development of repairs/modifications to address ageing aircraft issues through to the design, development, installation, integration and certification of aircraft modifications, defined as &#8216;Major&#8217; by the CASA.
Author of Unsolicited Innovative Proposal from Industry entitled &#8220;Project Tango Charlie&#8221; dated January 2000 for evolving the DHC4 Caribou aircraft through a COTS technology insertion program with inherent cost/capability improvements/savings in excess of AUD$1b.
Co-author of the innovative, cost effective family of risk mitigation strategies and the extant IV&V model for the NACC Project entitled &#8220;The Evolved F-111&#8221;, circa 2001.
Contributor to the ANAO Performance Audit titled &#8220;Test and Evaluation of Major Defence Equipment Acquisitions&#8221;, Audit Report No 30 of 2002.
Contributor on T&E and related matters to the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into &#8220;Materiel Acquisition and Management in the DMO&#8221; of 2002.
Contributor to the Kinnaird Procurement Review 2003 with a primary focus on Defence Capability Systems Life Cycle Management and the importance of capability requirements analysis, operational concept development, functional and performance specification, and the role of Test & Evaluation with various models and recommendations.
Provided Kinnaird Procurement Review Team with results of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) on &#8216;What Ails Defence Today&#8217; and recommendations on T&E models for Defence.
Co-author of the forensic analysis, written for the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled &#8220;Review of Defence Annual Report 2002-03: Analysis of Department of Defence Responses&#8221; dated 26 Jan 04, and related Parliamentary submissions.
Co-founder of Air Power Australia think tank &#8211; http://www.ausairpower.net

1986 &#8211; 1990 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES &#8211; Manager, Engineering Services Division (ESD)

Managed contracts for consulting engineering services to industry and also provided engineering support for company internal activities. Managed and mentored engineering activities which ranged from development of repairs for general aviation aircraft through to major systems development, primarily in, but not limited to, the aviation field. Established AFTS Resource Attribution System and Documentation Filing and Reporting System, along with AFTS Design Management System. Responsible for obtaining civil aviation regulatory approvals for company; establishing company's engineering design and T&E philosophy and principles; and achievement of third party accreditation of AS/NZS ISO 9001:1994 Quality System.

During this time, the company submitted a number of Innovative Proposals from Industry (solicited and unsolicited), including the Commercialisation of the Woomera Instrumented Range dated 1989, the core technical and commercial tenets of which have since been applied overseas.

1982 &#8211; 1986 AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT UNIT (ARDU) &#8211; Project Manager/ OIC Performance and Handling

Appointed Project Engineer responsible for technical management of the design, development, installation and integration of instrumentation into an F-111C aircraft for flight test purposes. In 1983, appointed Officer in Charge of Performance and Handling Flight in addition to the F-111C engineering position. Appointed Project Manager for TS1650 &#8211; Instrumentation of F-111C Aircraft Project in late 1983. Co-implementor of real time flight test methodologies and data processing. Inaugural Real Time Flight Test Director of Telemetry Ground Station.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Are you still trolling this thread? Didn't I tell you that the canards were irrelevant to the J-20 Mighty Dragon's RCS profile?




What you told me was irrelevant, claiming that canards are paper thin from the front only shows that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Further, I always maintained that canards may have negligible or little impact on the J-20, what I did do was explained why it could increase RCS and I only did this after you or others like you started talking nonsense about the pak-fa. 

Speaking of trolling if I recall correctly you actually started a thread in another forum for no other reason then to take cheep shots at the pak-fa, the worst part about it was that most of the nonsense you said about the pak-fa was from the perspective of someone with zero understanding about aircraft or 'stealth'.



Martian2 said:


> The results from Australia Air Power's ""Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" *prove my point.*





And what would that be? Unless Goon just so happened to have a J-20 and an anechoic chamber handy I can not take his internet estimates seriously.


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

self delete

&#20598;&#21018;&#24819;&#36148;&#65292;&#34987;&#27004;&#19978;&#25250;&#20808;&#20102;


----------



## siegecrossbow

I think it would be more appropriate if we post it under the J-16 speculations thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> What you told me was irrelevant, claiming that canards are paper thin from the front only shows that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Further, I always maintained that canards may have negligible or little impact on the J-20, what I did do was explained why it could increase RCS and I only did this after you or others like you started talking nonsense about the pak-fa.
> 
> Speaking of trolling if I recall correctly you actually started a thread in another forum for no other reason then to take cheep shots at the pak-fa, the worst part about it was that most of the nonsense you said about the pak-fa was from the perspective of someone with zero understanding about aircraft or 'stealth'.
> 
> And what would that be? Unless Goon just so happened to have a J-20 and an anechoic chamber handy I can not take his internet estimates seriously.


 
Based on the RCS benchmarks from Global Security, I have consistently stated the following for the last six months:

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2

6. F-16 5 m2

I have cited Global Security, Australia Air Power, and many other experts. As an irrational Russian nationalist, you PtldM3, have only rhetoric; which have been proven to be incorrect and based only on wishful thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Are you still trolling this thread? Didn't I tell you that the canards were irrelevant to the J-20 Mighty Dragon's RCS profile?
> 
> The results from Australia Air Power's ""Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" prove my point.
> 
> Before you start disparaging Australia Air Power's Mr. Goon, you might want to look at his impressive credentials (see CV - Peter Goon - APA Co-founder).
> 
> He's an expert. You're not.


Buddy...The section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' is three times as long as 'What the Simulation Does Demonstrate'. I doubt that you actually read the whole thing and understood 1/10th of it.

Here is what the section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' said right from the start...



> The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from edge diffraction effects, although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by edge treatments;


Wow...In other words, this 'Preliminary Assessment' is full of holes by the author's own admission.



> In all instances, the errors arising from the limitations of the PO computation method all fall into areas where well established RCS reduction treatments using RAS, RAM or coatings would be used, thus reducing the relative magnitude of the errors in the resulting RCS result for angles other than the peak mainlobes produced by these backscatter sources.


Let me see if I get this straight...

A physical optics computation was performed based *PURELY* upon physical dimensions derived from a non-controlled photographic experience. Right there is caused for concern. Then the author boldly proclaimed that if there are any errors, those errors would be compensated by materials based RCS reduction methods. But no one sees anything wrong with that.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Buddy...The section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' is three times as long as 'What the Simulation Does Demonstrate'. I doubt that you actually read the whole thing and understood 1/10th of it.
> 
> Here is what the section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' said right from the start...
> 
> Backscatter is minor and applies to all fighters. Once again, you made a big deal out of the J-20's canards. You have been proven wrong.
> 
> Wow...In other words, this 'Preliminary Assessment' is full of holes by the author's own admission.



My statements on the J-20 canards are far more accurate than your false claims.

I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:

1. Composite material composition

2. RAM coating

3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves

4. Small incremental increase in surface area

You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like.

You make it sound as if backscatter doesn't apply to all planes.

However, based on known knowledge and available testing tools, the world stealth fighter rankings and their associated RCS is probably very close to what I have listed.

----------

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2

6. F-16 5 m2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> My statements on the J-20 canards are far more accurate than your false claims.
> 
> I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:
> 
> 1. Composite material composition
> 
> 2. RAM coating
> 
> 3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves
> 
> 4. Small incremental increase in surface area
> 
> You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like.
> 
> You make it sound as if backscatter doesn't apply to all planes.
> 
> However, based on known knowledge and available testing tools, the world stealth fighter rankings and their associated RCS is probably very close to what I have listed.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Ranking of world stealth fighters:
> 
> 1. F-22 0.0001 m2
> 
> 2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2
> 
> 3. F-35 0.005 m2
> 
> 4. French Rafale 1 m2
> 
> 5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2
> 
> 6. F-16 5 m2


What is truly false claims here are *YOURS*. You made several baseless assumptions to start.

First...Composite materials does not guarantee absorbance. So the composite materials can be tossed.

Second...Absorbers are not %100 effective. There are always trace EM reflections from the surface. And it is their behaviors that are unpredictable.

Third...Curvature on the canards is a given but altering them for RCS reduction purposes would affect their airfoil shapes, reducing aerodynamic effectiveness.

And the fourth is meaningless.

So it is *YOU* who is making false and misleading claims.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Ranking of world stealth fighters:
> 
> 1. F-22 0.0001 m2
> 
> 2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2
> 
> 3. F-35 0.005 m2
> 
> 4. French Rafale 1 m2
> 
> 5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50)* 3 m2*
> 6. F-16 5 m2



I do hope you know that none of those are official but interestingly enough Sukhoi did reveal the SU-47's RCS and it was 0.3 m2, so tell me with all of the experience from the SU-47 program how did Sukhoi manage to make an aircraft with a far worse RCS despite a superior design?


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> I do hope you know that none of those are official but interestingly enough Sukhoi did reveal the SU-47's RCS and it was 0.3 m2, so tell me with all of the experience from the SU-47 program how did Sukhoi manage to make an aircraft with a far worse RCS despite a superior design?


 
Russians were low on money and chose an affordable design. If you have a better citation than Global Security, a widely-recognized source of information on military issues, I would like to see it.

----------

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm

"*Praise from Others*

"*GlobalSecurity.org is an invaluable resource on military, intelligence and national security matters."* [Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack, Simon & Schuster, April 2004]

National Journal's Guide To The Web: Iraq -- Peacekeeping National Journal (12/05/2003) "I find the Global Security Web site offers the best compilation of up-to-date news reports on Iraq, hard-to-find briefing materials from the Pentagon and other sources, and a comprehensive archive of articles and reports relating to Iraq. They also tend to steer clear of a lot of subjective analysis and stick to the straight facts."

National Journal's Guide To The Web: Military Transformation National Journal (12/05/2003) "Want to know more about the missiles that shot down U.S. helicopters in Iraq? Or how many U.S. forces are in which countries around the world? Or the brief history of each of 31 civil wars and uprisings currently under way around the globe? Or are you interested in the history of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone? That's just a fraction of the staggering (and sometimes bewildering) database compiled by the eminently quotable John Pike at GlobalSecurity.org."

National Journal's Guide To The Web: Weapons of Mass Destruction National Journal (12/05/2003) "GlobalSecurity.org mounts an extensive site covering the full spectrum of WMD issues, but providing a unique focus on U.S. weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities and policies. Want to know the status of Minuteman III ICBMs in North Dakota? Check this site first. Look here also for fresh satellite imagery of possible nuclear sites in the "axis of evil" nations. John Pike, another Web pioneer, heads the site and ensures an exhaustive supply of information."

"Gearheads will want to keep tabs on GlobalSecurity.org, the brainchild of defense guru John Pike. Great backgrounders here on the fedayeen and urban warfare, plus tons and tons of useful maps." [The Village Voice]

"Terry Atlas, assistant managing editor of U.S News and World Report, reads the Web sites of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org) and GlobalSecurity.org, which has detailed satellite photos."

*"The website that puts you in the commander-in-chief's chair." [The Times (London)]
*
"If conflict does erupt in the Gulf every private would be well-advised to take that proverbial Field Marshall's baton out of their packs and substitute it with a laptop with access to John Pike's superb site!" [Jonathan Macus, Defence Correspondent, BBC]

"With all the speculation about American intentions for Iraq, there has been one place where, to the chagrin of the administration, people can find a few hard facts." [The New York Times September 22, 2002]

" ... online resources such as GlobalSecurity.org's "Target: Iraq" are the closest thing we may have to thoughtful analysis of the matter. Includes pros and cons of attack, the likeliest battle scenarios, weaponry at our disposal, and more." USA Today

Ira Flatow NPR Talk of the Nation ".. go to John Pike's site and look up all this security stuff at GlobalSecurity.org.."

CNN's Joie Chen "A lot of us have turned into news junkies by what happened on September 11, and since that time.... One that I particularly liked is GlobalSecurity.org."

Forbes Best of the Web "There's no need to bother with TV's know-it-all talking heads and obnoxious ads when you can download the same videos and images from Pike's site.."

*The National Journal GlobalSecurity.org ranked among the five "Best of the Top Sites" among Defense Web Sites.*

*"The respected defense consultant GlobalSecurity.org serves up an online compendium of info about the war on terrorism."* USA Today"


----------



## SpArK

Martian2 said:


> My statements on the J-20 canards are far more accurate than your false claims.
> 
> I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:
> 
> 1. Composite material composition
> 
> 2. RAM coating
> 
> 3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves
> 
> 4. Small incremental increase in surface area
> 
> You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like.
> 
> You make it sound as if backscatter doesn't apply to all planes.
> 
> However, based on known knowledge and available testing tools, the world stealth fighter rankings and their associated RCS is probably very close to what I have listed.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Ranking of world stealth fighters:
> 
> 1. F-22 0.0001 m2
> 
> *2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2*
> 
> 3. F-35 0.005 m2
> 
> 4. French Rafale 1 m2
> 
> *5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2
> *
> 6. F-16 5 m2


 
Very funny indeed.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *Russians were low on money and chose an affordable design*. If you have a better citation than Global Security, a widely-recognized source of information on military issues, I would like to see it.




The SU-47 was an affordable design, in fact to save money it barrowed the SU-27's frontal fuselage, yet with all of this Sukhoi revealed the SU-47 to have a 0.3 m2 rcs, so again, how does the pak-fa, a program that is based off of the SU-47 experience and a program that has greater funding compared to the SU-47 manage to balloon its RCS all the way to 3 m2?


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> The SU-47 was an affordable design, in fact to save money it barrowed the SU-27's frontal fuselage, yet with all of this Sukhoi revealed the SU-47 to have a 0.3 m2 rcs, so again, how does the pak-fa, a program that is based off of the SU-47 experience and a program that has greater funding compared to the SU-47 manage to balloon its RCS all the way to 3 m2?


 
You can play around with your own little joke.

French Rafale's engine is 90% hidden. The plane has a RCS of 1m2, according to Global Security.

Russian Pak-Fa/T-50 has completely-exposed engine blades, it warrants a higher RCS of 3m2, which is my best estimate.

Simple physics analysis.


----------



## Black Widow

Martian2 said:


> My January 22, 2011 post:
> 
> My estimate of J-20's RCS is 0.005-0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db)
> 
> Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> Radar Cross Section (RCS) / RCS (m2) / RCS (dB)
> 
> 
> automobile	100	20
> B-52	100
> B-1(A/B)	10
> F-15	25
> Su-27	15
> cabin cruiser	10	10
> *[*]Su-MKI	4 *
> Mig-21	3
> F-16	5
> F-16C	1.2
> man	1	0
> F-18	1
> Rafale	1
> B-2	0.75 ?
> Typhoon	0.5
> Tomahawk SLCM	0.5
> B-2	0.1 ?
> A-12/SR-71	0.01 (22 in2)
> bird	0.01	-20
> *F-35 / JSF	0.005	-30*
> F-117	0.003
> insect	0.001	-30
> *F-22	0.0001	-40*
> B-2	0.0001	-40


 
Its good news nice to hear that MKI has 3m2 frontal RCS (in clean configuration)


----------



## SpArK

Black Widow said:


> Its good news nice to hear that MKI has 3m2 frontal RCS (in clean configuration)


 
Nowadays RCS is determined by fanboys by guessing and looking at pictures. Amazing technology , Isnt it?


----------



## Martian2

SpArK said:


> Nowadays RCS is determined by fanboys by guessing and looking at pictures. Amazing technology , Isnt it?


 
My estimate has been the most accurate. Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22, but superior to the F-35 in RCS. The "Physical Optic simulation" from Australia Air Power has confirmed by assessment.

Excerpt from Australia Air Power:

*Air Power Australia&#8217;s application of the Laws of Physics to the J-20 Physical Optic simulation analysis produces facts. Opinions that ignore the facts produce hubristic [Hubristic: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance] statements.*

Both Gambit and PtldM3 were dead wrong in their predictions.

I have the most credibility here with my impartial analysis, reasoning, support with facts, and citations to reputable sources. Those two guys only have rhetoric and predictions that have been proven false.


----------



## houshanghai

Martian2 said:


> Based on the RCS benchmarks from Global Security, I have consistently stated the following for the last six months:
> 
> Ranking of world stealth fighters:
> 
> 1. F-22 0.0001 m2
> 
> 2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2
> 
> 3. F-35 0.005 m2
> 
> 4. French Rafale 1 m2
> 
> 5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2
> 
> 6. F-16 5 m2
> 
> I have cited Global Security, Australia Air Power, and many other experts. As an irrational Russian nationalist, you PtldM3, have only rhetoric; which have been proven to be incorrect and based only on wishful thinking.


 
bro
To ignore these troller.
PT04 J20 is going to be absolutely different in 2014.
believe me.

ps:haha, j20 will have EODAS .however f22 haven't it. 
This was a big advantage as j20

And there will be laser weapon about j20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Martian2 said:


> My estimate has been the most accurate. Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22 and superior to the F-35 in RCS. The Physics Simulations from Australia Air Power has confirmed by assessment.
> 
> *Air Power Australia&#8217;s application of the Laws of Physics to the J-20 Physical Optic simulation analysis produces facts. Opinions that ignore the facts produce hubristic [Hubristic: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance] statements.*


*

Mate , i dont think you went with T-50 into a RCS chamber and recorded it by urself . 

PAK-FA is on testing phase and physical modifications including radar blockers will be there making it stealthier.

Your estimate is pure fanboyism and its okay in forums, cause it can make a few happy. Nothing more.*


----------



## Black Widow

Martian2 said:


> You can play around with your own little joke.
> 
> French Rafale's engine is 90% hidden. The plane has a RCS of 1m2, according to Global Security.
> 
> Russian Pak-Fa/T-50 has completely-exposed engine blades, it warrants a higher RCS of 3m2, which is my best estimate.
> 
> Simple physics analysis.


 

Thanks for your analysis.. But my logic says,
Russians are making fighter plane since many decade, and if they have claimed it to be 5th gen, be sure it will be 5th gen only, nothing more, nothing less... I have seen many friends targeting PAK-FA's LEVCON, they claimed LEVCON could increase the RCS. When there plane roll out with huge Cancard, they start targeting the open engine ..... They assume due to Y duct and DSI Bump J20 is super stealth (This myth was busted by Gambit).


Second point is your wild guess of 3m2 RCS, MiG35 in clean config have RCS lesser than 3 sqm, how can you fool yourself that PAK-FA will have RCS 3sqm??? And finally, Russia is making PAK-FA to replace its fleet, its not something cheap made only for India...They will make it best ...


----------



## S10

They did do testing with a mock up model of J-20 in an anechoic chamber at China's space agency, and they were very satisfied with the results. As far as Carlo Kopp goes, don't believe in him too much.


----------



## SpArK

Black Widow said:


> Thanks for your analysis.. But my logic says,
> Russians are making fighter plane since many decade, and if they have claimed it to be 5th gen, be sure it will be 5th gen only, nothing more, nothing less... I have seen many friends targeting PAK-FA's LEVCON, they claimed LEVCON could increase the RCS. When there plane roll out with huge Cancard, they start targeting the open engine ..... They assume due to Y duct and DSI Bump J20 is super stealth (This myth was busted by Gambit).
> 
> 
> Second point is your wild guess of 3m2 RCS, MiG35 in clean config have RCS lesser than 3 sqm, how can you fool yourself that PAK-FA will have RCS 3sqm??? And finally, Russia is making PAK-FA to replace its fleet, its not something cheap made only for India...They will make it best ...


 
The intake thing was explained many times. But it keeps coming back.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> I have been to many USAF bases and have yet to see a single *DEPLOYED* aircraft from the above listed images.


Well you're about to see the world's first operational one in a few years then. Gotta travel more.


----------



## Martian2

Black Widow said:


> Thanks for your analysis.. But my logic says,
> Russians are making fighter plane since many decade, and if they have claimed it to be 5th gen, be sure it will be 5th gen only, nothing more, nothing less... I have seen many friends targeting PAK-FA's LEVCON, they claimed LEVCON could increase the RCS. When there plane roll out with huge Cancard, they start targeting the open engine ..... They assume due to Y duct and DSI Bump J20 is super stealth (This myth was busted by Gambit).
> 
> Second point is your wild guess of 3m2 RCS, MiG35 in clean config have RCS lesser than 3 sqm, how can you fool yourself that PAK-FA will have RCS 3sqm??? And finally, Russia is making PAK-FA to replace its fleet, its not something cheap made only for India...They will make it best ...



1. Do you dispute the underside of the Pak-Fa/T-50 is a mess?

2. If you admit to "1" above then it is reasonable to believe Sukhoi skimped on the much-harder redesign for a serpentine air-inlet for the Pak-Fa/T-50. Hence, the result is a Pak-Fa/T-50 with a 3 m2 RCS from non-stealthy underside, exposed engine blades, and a whole host of other reasons in my citation below from Vijainder K Thakur.

----------

It doesn't take a genius to realize the Pak-Fa/T-50 is less stealthy than a French Rafale.

There are plenty of Russian T-50 deficiencies that everyone sees.



airsuperiority said:


> The lower fuselage of the Flanker is extremely unstealthy. Doesn't take too much to figure that one out







Russian T-50 underside is a messy design. Vents, gaps, stuff jutting out, etc. This is not stealthy.

The current Russian T-50 design has serious stealth limitations. If the Russian government has any sense, it will demand that Sukhoi radically redesign the T-50 to match the J-20 and F-22 in serpentine air-inlets, DSI technology, frameless cockpit canopy, continuous curvature, RAM coating, etc.

The puzzlement is: Why didn't Sukhoi adhere to the design elements pioneered by the U.S. F-22 and followed by China's J-20? The French also adhered to an almost-serpentine air-inlet design. It appears that Sukhoi was lazy and didn't bother to put too much effort into designing a stealthy T-50.

PAK-FA / T-50 - a knol by Vijainder K Thakur

"Not so LO [low observable] Features [for Russian T-50]

1. Circular exhaust.
2. Infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.
3. Canopy frame, 
4. Gaps around the inlets.
5. Various unshielded intakes and grilles. 
6. Limited use of composites for now. Eventually, 40% of the aircraft will be made using composites.
7. Many surface intersections and flight-test probes that increase the radar signature."

----------

It is my opinion that the French Rafale is far stealthier than the current Russian T-50. The French did a much better job of hiding their engine fan blades. Though the Rafale does not rise to the level of stealthiness of the F-22 or J-20, your eyes can see the obvious difference between the Rafale and the T-50.





French Rafale air intake. The designers did a good job in hiding most of the engine fan blades, but I can still see a portion of the exposed fan blades.





Russian T-50 air intake with fully-exposed engine fan blades

----------

Spark, stop posting cartoons. Try posting real pictures (see above).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

Martian2 said:


> My estimate has been the most accurate. Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22, but superior to the F-35 in RCS. The "Physical Optic simulation" from Australia Air Power has confirmed by assessment.
> 
> Excerpt from Australia Air Power:
> 
> *Air Power Australia&#8217;s application of the Laws of Physics to the J-20 Physical Optic simulation analysis produces facts. Opinions that ignore the facts produce hubristic [Hubristic: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance] statements.*
> 
> Both Gambit and PtldM3 were dead wrong in their predictions.
> 
> I have the most credibility here with my impartial analysis, reasoning, support with facts, and citations to reputable sources. Those two guys only have rhetoric and predictions that have been proven false.


bro, ignore them 
enjoy j20 CG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

SpArK said:


> The intake thing was explained many times. But it keeps coming back.


 
There is no S-curve for the intake. The area where the curve is in your pic would eliminate the front weapon bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

---------- Post added at 10:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

SpArK said:


> The intake thing was explained many times. But it keeps coming back.
> 
> []




there are 2 threads of j20 vs pakfa in PDF
FGFA VS J - XX&#30340;
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/39016-fgfa-vs-j-xx.html
PAK - FA VS J - XX
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/56918-pak-fa-vs-j-xx.html

*SO PLZ STOP POST SOME PAKFA PICS IN J20'S THREAD*!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

*Chinese calligraphy j20 Artwork*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> My estimate has been the most accurate. Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22, but superior to the F-35 in RCS. *The "Physical Optic simulation" from Australia Air Power has confirmed by assessment.*
> 
> Excerpt from Australia Air Power:
> 
> *Air Power Australia&#8217;s application of the Laws of Physics to the J-20 Physical Optic simulation analysis produces facts. Opinions that ignore the facts produce hubristic [Hubristic: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance] statements.*
> 
> Both Gambit and PtldM3 were dead wrong in their predictions.
> 
> I have the most credibility here with my impartial analysis, reasoning, support with facts, and citations to reputable sources. Those two guys only have rhetoric and predictions that have been proven false.


Yes...Let us take a look at APA's analysis...



> What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate
> 
> 1- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from edge diffraction effects*, although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by edge treatments;


Why not? In radar detection, what Richard Aboulafia said is truth by the laws of physics: that the greater the amount of reflection and edge diffraction generators, the greater the odds of detection. APA's physical optics simulation *WAS NOT* even based upon a controlled photographic record in order to ascertain precise physical characteristics of reflectors and edge diffraction generators but upon ad-hoc imprecise photographs where environmental conditions such as humidity can create erroneous physical dimensions perceptions. Item 1 alone is enough to disqualify this analysis. Its saving grace is that the authors were honest enough to call it a 'Preliminary Assessment'.



> 2- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from surface travelling wave effects.* In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations;


This is absurd. The reason why RCS control measures moved away from angled facetings is to exploit surface traveling wave properties. The smoother the surface and the longer its electrical path, meaning real estate wise, the longer the surface wave has to travel and that travel will continue to bleed off minute amount of radiation. At the end, the hope is that there is insufficient edge diffraction available for detection. Failure to model surface wave is a serious error.



> 3- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from the AESA bay in the passband of a bandpass radome, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same*, the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design much effort will be expended in suppressing passband RCS contributions;


Absence of data regarding radome construction? Fair enough, but radome internal cavity is a major RCS contributor.



> 4- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from the engine inlet tunnels or engine exhaust tailpipes, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same.* In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by suppressing these RCS contributions with absorbers, and in the case of inlet tunnels, by introducing a serpentine geometry to increase the number of bounces;


More missing data.



> 5- The simulator at this time *does not model structural mode RCS contributions from antenna and EO apertures, panel joins, panel and door gaps, fasteners and other minor contributors;* although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by RCS reduction treatments.


These are not minor contributors.



> 6- The *PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling.* The simulator does not implement the Mitzner/Ufimtsev corrections for edge currents. While a number of test runs with basic shapes showed good agreement between the PO simulation and backscatter peaks in third party test sample measurements, even at incidence angles below 10°, characteristically PO will underestimate backscatter in nulls. This limitation must be considered when assessing results for the nose and tail aspects, where most specular RCS contributions arise at very shallow angles39.


What the highlighted mean is that the PO computation that APA performed was best when the radar signal angle of arrival or incident is 'normal' or perpendicular. And the PO simulation's accuracy decreases as that angle of incident deviate from perpendicular. What are the odds of a radar constantly perpendicular to a flying aircraft? None.

How can anyone take these modeling flaws to be exactly representative of the J-20's radar cross section (RCS)? The authors basically *HOPE* that production models will compensate for their analysis's shortcomings.

Even the authors themselves acknowledged the flaws...



> Importantly, even were the simulator capable of modelling shallow angle specular and non-specular RCS contributors, the PLA would not permit sufficiently detailed disclosures on the RCS reduction treatments applied to the airframe design, as a result of which reasonable assumed parameters would have to be applied instead of actual values.


Basically...They admitted that since the PLA would not allow up close and personal physical measurements, the bulk of their report should be taken with a gigantic boulder of salt.

This is best for the gullibles' consumption and would not even pass vetting for a genuine peer review.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Well you're about to see the world's first operational one in a few years then. Gotta travel more.


You were commenting about US aircrafts. Now show me a *DEPLOYED* American fighter with canards. So instead of telling I should travel more, may be it should be *YOU* who should take your own advice. Better yet, enlist for a few years and open your eyes about a subject you now know zilch about.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> You were commenting about US aircrafts. Now show me a *DEPLOYED* American fighter with canards. So instead of telling I should travel more, may be it should be *YOU* who should take your own advice. Better yet, enlist for a few years and open your eyes about a subject you now know zilch about.


Are you denying that United States tested and proposed designs with canards? If they were incompatible with low observable design, would they have been proposed? It seems that just because United States did not put an operational one into service, that precludes others from doing the same.

PLAAF had expressed satisfaction with J-20's design when tested in an anechoic chamber, and you're here telling me otherwise? Hah.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Yes...Let us take a look at APA's analysis...
> 
> 
> Why not? In radar detection, what Richard Aboulafia said is truth by the laws of physics: that the greater the amount of reflection and edge diffraction generators, the greater the odds of detection. APA's physical optics simulation *WAS NOT* even based upon a controlled photographic record in order to ascertain precise physical characteristics of reflectors and edge diffraction generators but upon ad-hoc imprecise photographs where environmental conditions such as humidity can create erroneous physical dimensions perceptions. Item 1 alone is enough to disqualify this analysis. Its saving grace is that the authors were honest enough to call it a 'Preliminary Assessment'.
> 
> 
> This is absurd. The reason why RCS control measures moved away from angled facetings is to exploit surface traveling wave properties. The smoother the surface and the longer its electrical path, meaning real estate wise, the longer the surface wave has to travel and that travel will continue to bleed off minute amount of radiation. At the end, the hope is that there is insufficient edge diffraction available for detection. Failure to model surface wave is a serious error.
> 
> 
> Absence of data regarding radome construction? Fair enough, but radome internal cavity is a major RCS contributor.
> 
> 
> More missing data.
> 
> 
> These are not minor contributors.
> 
> 
> What the highlighted mean is that the PO computation that APA performed was best when the radar signal angle of arrival or incident is 'normal' or perpendicular. And the PO simulation's accuracy decreases as that angle of incident deviate from perpendicular. What are the odds of a radar constantly perpendicular to a flying aircraft? None.
> 
> How can anyone take these modeling flaws to be exactly representative of the J-20's radar cross section (RCS)? The authors basically *HOPE* that production models will compensate for their analysis's shortcomings.
> 
> Even the authors themselves acknowledged the flaws...
> 
> 
> Basically...They admitted that since the PLA would not allow up close and personal physical measurements, the bulk of their report should be taken with a gigantic boulder of salt.
> 
> This is best for the gullibles' consumption and would not even pass vetting for a genuine peer review.


 
Are you still trolling this thread? Didn't I tell you that the canards were irrelevant to the J-20 Mighty Dragon's RCS profile?

The results from Australia Air Power's "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" prove my point.

Before you start disparaging Australia Air Power's Mr. Goon, you might want to look at his impressive credentials (see CV - Peter Goon - APA Co-founder).

*He's an expert. You're not. If you want to claim otherwise, show us your credentials and your published works. Otherwise, stop blabbering endlessly.*

----------

Name Peter Anthony Goon

Date and Place of Birth 1953, Melbourne, Australia

Nationality Australian

Principal Qualifications BEng (Mechanical) - Qld Institute of Technology 1975

Post graduate Aeronautical Engineering and Officer training in the RAAF

Graduate US Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS Class 80), Flight Test Engineer Course - 1981 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Authorised Person under CARs 35/36

Areas of Expertise


Flight Test Engineering; Test and Evaluation (T&E); Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V); Aeronautical Engineering System Design; Senior Project Management; Risk Analysis; Air Power and Defence Capability Systems Analysis; Australian Defence Industry


Preferred Industry Roles


Consultant; Team (IPT) Leader; Integration and Test; Technical Specialist in Flight Test and Certification; T&E; Independent Analyst


Skills/Experience:

Over 27 years experience in aeronautical engineering design, aircraft maintenance and aircraft operations in both the military and civil aviation environments. Has extensive industry network.
22 years experience in Flight Test and related disciplines. Has well developed risk analysis skills.
22 years experience in the application of Test and Evaluation (T&E) principles, including Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V), Risk Planning and Treatment, DT&E, AT&E, OT&E, Type and Supplemental Type Certification, and Compliance & Conformity Assurance and Auditing.
14 years experience in the senior management of commercial activities. Focused strategic planner.
18 years experience in Company Directorships with over 12 years in the position of Managing Director. Strong understanding and appreciation of corporate governance issues and methodologies.
17 years experience as a CASA designated CAR 35/36 Authorised Person for Flight Test (performance, handling qualities, and systems) and structural, electrical and systems design with associated delegated approvals. Fully conversant with national and international aerospace regulatory environments and standards.
Inventor of a number of Patented, Supplemental Type Certificated and Registered designs. A discerning entrepreneur with a strategic approach to business process innovation and leveraging applied technologies to the benefit of his clients.
Author, Co-author and/or Approving Authority of over 300 Technical Reports and Papers, principally on aerospace systems and flight test/T&E projects. Effective oral and written communicator.
Over 500 hours aeronautical experience, mainly on flight test activities, in a variety of military and civil aircraft, including T-38 Talon (27 hrs), TA-4J Skyhawk (31 hrs), T-2C Buckeye (43 hrs), S-3 Viking (16 hrs), P-3B/C Orion (9 hrs), AH-1 Cobra (6 hrs), OH-58 Kiowa/JetRanger (23 hrs), UH-1B Iroquois, F-111C, MB-326H Macchi (75 hrs), Mirage IIID, Nomad, CT-4B Trainer (42 hrs), CT-4E Enhanced Flight Screener (27 hrs), C-441 Conquest, C-404 Titan, Cessna-340A (33 hrs), C-210 Centurion, C-172 Skyhawk, Beech B-200 Super King Air, Fokker F-27 Research Fokker Friendship.



Background/History:
2002 &#8211; Present - Service in the National Interest

1990 &#8211; 2005 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES &#8211; Managing Director/Director

Appointed Managing Director in November 1990 with charter to develop the company as a profitable enterprise through the provision of flight test, Test and Evaluation (T&E), and innovative engineering design related services and products of high quality and acknowledged value in the market place. Instrumental in the promotion and application of test and evaluation principles within the company's activities. Implemented Capability Maturity Model (CMM)[CMU] and Integrated Product Team (IPT) structures and practices in the company. Active in the areas of aeronautical engineering design and analysis as well as flight test engineering under AFTS Design & Engineering Procedures Manuals. Managed aircraft operations under the company's Air Operators Certificate. AFTS successfully completed a significant number of aircraft flight test, modification and certification projects under Peter's managing directorship. These included tasks on the C-130H & J, B-707 and Blackhawk helicopter aircraft plus a number of P-3C related projects, such as development of the High Capacity Cargo Pannier and prototyping of the ASH-33 DMTS Modification. Peter was one of the principal proponents in the formation of the Defence Teaming Centre, Inc. (DTC), author of the DTC Code to Ethics and Conduct, and held the position of DTC Deputy Chairman from 1996 through to 1999.

Activities and experience relevant to aeronautical design and aviation matters include:

17 years experience as a CASA designated CAR 35/36 Authorised Person for structural, electrical and systems design, and Flight Test (performance, handling qualities, and systems) with associated delegated approvals. Fully conversant with national and international aerospace regulatory environments and standards.
Author, Co-author and/or Approving Authority of over 300 Technical Reports and Papers, principally on aerospace systems and flight test/T&E projects. Effective oral and written communicator.
AFTS has satisfactorily completed over 1,500 projects, the bulk relating to aeronautical design and aviation matters. Projects included the development of repairs/modifications to address ageing aircraft issues through to the design, development, installation, integration and certification of aircraft modifications, defined as &#8216;Major&#8217; by the CASA.
Author of Unsolicited Innovative Proposal from Industry entitled &#8220;Project Tango Charlie&#8221; dated January 2000 for evolving the DHC4 Caribou aircraft through a COTS technology insertion program with inherent cost/capability improvements/savings in excess of AUD$1b.
Co-author of the innovative, cost effective family of risk mitigation strategies and the extant IV&V model for the NACC Project entitled &#8220;The Evolved F-111&#8221;, circa 2001.
Contributor to the ANAO Performance Audit titled &#8220;Test and Evaluation of Major Defence Equipment Acquisitions&#8221;, Audit Report No 30 of 2002.
Contributor on T&E and related matters to the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into &#8220;Materiel Acquisition and Management in the DMO&#8221; of 2002.
Contributor to the Kinnaird Procurement Review 2003 with a primary focus on Defence Capability Systems Life Cycle Management and the importance of capability requirements analysis, operational concept development, functional and performance specification, and the role of Test & Evaluation with various models and recommendations.
Provided Kinnaird Procurement Review Team with results of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) on &#8216;What Ails Defence Today&#8217; and recommendations on T&E models for Defence.
Co-author of the forensic analysis, written for the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled &#8220;Review of Defence Annual Report 2002-03: Analysis of Department of Defence Responses&#8221; dated 26 Jan 04, and related Parliamentary submissions.
Co-founder of Air Power Australia think tank &#8211; Air Power Australia - Home Page

1986 &#8211; 1990 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES &#8211; Manager, Engineering Services Division (ESD)

Managed contracts for consulting engineering services to industry and also provided engineering support for company internal activities. Managed and mentored engineering activities which ranged from development of repairs for general aviation aircraft through to major systems development, primarily in, but not limited to, the aviation field. Established AFTS Resource Attribution System and Documentation Filing and Reporting System, along with AFTS Design Management System. Responsible for obtaining civil aviation regulatory approvals for company; establishing company's engineering design and T&E philosophy and principles; and achievement of third party accreditation of AS/NZS ISO 9001:1994 Quality System.

During this time, the company submitted a number of Innovative Proposals from Industry (solicited and unsolicited), including the Commercialisation of the Woomera Instrumented Range dated 1989, the core technical and commercial tenets of which have since been applied overseas.

1982 &#8211; 1986 AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT UNIT (ARDU) &#8211; Project Manager/ OIC Performance and Handling

Appointed Project Engineer responsible for technical management of the design, development, installation and integration of instrumentation into an F-111C aircraft for flight test purposes. In 1983, appointed Officer in Charge of Performance and Handling Flight in addition to the F-111C engineering position. Appointed Project Manager for TS1650 &#8211; Instrumentation of F-111C Aircraft Project in late 1983. Co-implementor of real time flight test methodologies and data processing. Inaugural Real Time Flight Test Director of Telemetry Ground Station.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Are you denying that United States tested and proposed designs with canards? If they were incompatible with low observable design, would they have been proposed? It seems that just because United States did not put an operational one into service, that precludes others from doing the same.


I guess the word 'deployed' must be very difficult to understand. And no, just because the US does not deploy such a design, that does not mean others could not. But it does begs the question of why the US does not.



S10 said:


> PLAAF had expressed satisfaction with J-20's design when tested in an anechoic chamber, and you're here telling me otherwise? Hah.


Does that mean the PLAAF's expectations were the same for US?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Are you still trolling this thread? Didn't I tell you that the canards were irrelevant to the J-20 Mighty Dragon's RCS profile?


You are a nobody and I will put my posts about this subject against yours, not what you copy/paste, any day.



Martian2 said:


> The results from Australia Air Power's "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" prove my point.


And they admitted the flaws of their own analysis.



Martian2 said:


> Before you start disparaging Australia Air Power's Mr. Goon, you might want to look at his impressive credentials


Do not care. Goon is not above criticism, not even from anonymous critics. If anything, the official peer review process is quite anonymous. I guess you have never been through one.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> I guess the word 'deployed' must be very difficult to understand. And no, just because the US does not deploy such a design, that does not mean others could not. But it does begs the question of why the US does not.


Certainly, perhaps Americans consider their design to sufficiently meet requirement without canards. Is it required that everyone followed in US's steps without alternatives?



> Does that mean the PLAAF's expectations were the same for US?


I don't know. Why don't you send an email to China's defence ministry, American DoD then compare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Certainly, perhaps Americans consider their design to sufficiently meet requirement without canards. Is it required that everyone followed in US's steps without alternatives?


Let us take a review of the exchange, shall we...



> Zabanya said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that confuses me are the canards. *Other than the J-20, I haven't seen a single aircraft intended for stealth having canards. Not even the PAK-FA has them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beg to differ
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Since you 'Beg to differ' then you presented a list of American *EXPERIMENTAL* designs but the question was about deployed designs, why are you avoiding supporting your arguments? Never mind that rhetorical question. I do not expect much from the Chinese boys on these matters.



S10 said:


> I don't know. Why don't you send an email to China's defence ministry, American DoD then compare.


Then your argument about the PLAAF's satisfaction with the J-20's test results are meaningless in comparison to the F-22. Move along.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Let us take a review of the exchange, shall we...
> 
> 
> Since you 'Beg to differ' then you presented a list of American *EXPERIMENTAL* designs but the question was about deployed designs, why are you avoiding supporting your arguments? Never mind that rhetorical question. I do not expect much from the Chinese boys on these matters.


Did he mentioned American stealth planes in service or did he ask for canards on low observable designs? It seems you have a reading comprehension problem, and not a small one at that. However, given your history, I am not surprised.



> Then your argument about the PLAAF's satisfaction with the J-20's test results are meaningless in comparison to the F-22. Move along.


Unless you want to imply that only Americans can set standard for low observable, it should be you that move along.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Did he mentioned American stealth planes in service or did he ask for canards on low observable designs? It seems you have a reading comprehension problem, and not a small one at that. However, given your history, I am not surprised.


Yes...He said: '...intended for stealth having canards...' Looks like *YOU* are the one with the reading comprehension problem. And by posting experimental designs to 'prove' your argument, good jumping to conclusion skill at that.



S10 said:


> Unless you want to imply that only Americans can set standard for low observable, it should be you that move along.


Har...Absolutely I will move along. Nothing to see and learn from the conscript rejects.


----------



## houshanghai

indian had never taken USA figter in bid for MRCA .however they choiced to euro canard at last. 
It is obvious that canard fighter is better than USA conventional fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Yes...He said: '...intended for stealth having canards...' Looks like *YOU* are the one with the reading comprehension problem. And by posting experimental designs to 'prove' your argument, good jumping to conclusion skill at that.


Unless you meant to tell me that NATF and X-36 had no requirement in low observable characteristics, you're just embarassing yourself. Or how about that SAAB design? Clearly "stealth" is written on it.




> Har...Absolutely I will move along. Nothing to see and learn from the conscript rejects.


You're right, you'd definitely be a conscript reject had you been in China. They actually have reading comprehension exams. Run along now...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> You are a nobody and I will put my posts about this subject against yours, not what you copy/paste, any day.
> 
> And they admitted the flaws of their own analysis.
> 
> Do not care. Goon is not above criticism, not even from anonymous critics. If anything, the official peer review process is quite anonymous. I guess you have never been through one.


 
From Day One, you have been badmouthing the J-20 Mighty Dragon and playing up the Pak-Fa/T-50.

Expert analysis by Australia Air Power's Mr. Peter Goon has contradicted your misinformation and shown you to be a fraud. It's time to give up your charade.

I think everyone on this forum is getting tired of the misinformation spread by you and PtldM3 and your ridiculous excuses. The lack of analyzing backscatter is due to a limitation of available information, not a flaw in their analysis.

All planes have backscatter. Using common sense, we would expect the backscatter to be minor and not affect the overall standing of the world's three premier stealth fighters.

1. F-22
2. J-20
3. F-35

---------

Here is the bottom line from Australia Air Power's expert, Mr. Peter Goon:

"Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: *&#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials* (Denys Overholser).

*The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability* above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.*

*While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"

----------

Try reading the complete paragraphs on backscatter:



> What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate
> 
> 1- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from edge diffraction effects, although *the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by edge treatments*;
> 
> 2- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from surface travelling wave effects. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. *The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations*;
> 
> 3- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from the AESA bay in the passband of a bandpass radome, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same, *the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design much effort will be expended in suppressing passband RCS contributions*;
> 
> 4- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from the engine inlet tunnels or engine exhaust tailpipes, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. *The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by suppressing these RCS contributions with absorbers, and in the case of inlet tunnels, by introducing a serpentine geometry to increase the number of bounces*;
> 
> 5- The simulator at this time does not model structural mode RCS contributions from antenna and EO apertures, panel joins, panel and door gaps, fasteners and other minor contributors; *although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by RCS reduction treatments.*



The modeling software becomes less accurate on point #6. However, it is a far better estimate than someone pulling a number or conclusion out of thin air (like you know who). The modeling is still very useful, because an "underestimate backscatter in nulls" applies to all planes modeled.



> 6- The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling. The simulator does not implement the Mitzner/Ufimtsev corrections for edge currents. *While a number of test runs with basic shapes showed good agreement between the PO simulation and backscatter peaks in third party test sample measurements, even at incidence angles below 10°, characteristically PO will underestimate backscatter in nulls.* This limitation must be considered when assessing results for the nose and tail aspects, where most specular RCS contributions arise at very shallow angles39.



When has the United States permitted independent third-party up-close testing of the F-22? However, that absurd requirement does not prevent me from agreeing that the F-22 is the current gold standard and superior to the J-20 in two important respects (e.g. J-20's minor side-curvature design flaw and round engine nozzles).

I suggest everyone ignore Gambit's absurd demand and acknowledge that the best available information and modeling clearly show the J-20 is currently inferior to the F-22, but superior to the F-35.



> Importantly, even were the simulator capable of modelling shallow angle specular and non-specular RCS contributors, *the PLA would not permit sufficiently detailed disclosures on the RCS reduction treatments applied to the airframe design, as a result of which reasonable assumed parameters would have to be applied instead of actual values.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> From Day One, you have been badmouthing the J-20 Mighty Dragon and playing up the Pak-Fa/T-50.


Bunk...From day one, I have been advocating caution about making assumptions. Doubt is an important component of critical thinking skills. Something obviously the J-20 fanboys lack.



Martian2 said:


> Expert analysis by Australia Air Power's Mr. Peter Goon has contradicted your misinformation and shown you to be a fraud. It's time to give up your charade.
> 
> I think everyone on this forum is getting tired of the misinformation spread by you and PtldM3 and your ridiculous excuses. The lack of analyzing backscatter is due to a limitation of available information, not a flaw in their analysis.
> 
> All planes have backscatter. Using common sense, we would expect the backscatter to be minor and not affect the overall standing of the world's three premier stealth fighters.
> 
> 1. F-22
> 2. J-20
> 3. F-35
> 
> ---------
> 
> Here is the bottom line from Australia Air Power's expert, Mr. Peter Goon:
> 
> "Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: *&#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials* (Denys Overholser).
> 
> *The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability* above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.*
> 
> *While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"
> 
> ----------
> 
> Try reading the complete paragraphs on backscatter:


I have done more than just read the complete paragraphs. I posted them and what I said is true: That the authors hope that production models will 'mitigate' or correct the flaws in their guesswork. While reasonable, it is absurd to expect us to take as gospel what is guessed in their work.

Here are the main points:

What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate

1- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from edge diffraction effects*, although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by edge treatments;

2- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from surface travelling wave effects.* In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations;

3- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from the AESA bay in the passband of a bandpass radome*, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same, the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design much effort will be expended in suppressing passband RCS contributions;

4- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from the engine inlet tunnels or engine exhaust tailpipes*, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by suppressing these RCS contributions with absorbers, and in the case of inlet tunnels, by introducing a serpentine geometry to increase the number of bounces;

5- The simulator at this time *does not model structural mode RCS contributions from antenna and EO apertures, panel joins, panel and door gaps, fasteners and other minor contributors*; although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by RCS reduction treatments.







You are expecting us to take seriously a 'preliminary assessment' that *DOES NOT* contain data of the major causes of radiation coming off a body? Look at the highlighted and look at the illustration and see the obvious flaws.



Martian2 said:


> *The modeling software becomes less accurate on point #6.* However, it is a far better estimate than someone pulling a number or conclusion out of thin air (like you know who). The modeling is still very useful, because an "underestimate backscatter in nulls" applies to all planes modeled.


 Yes...The data on reflection is most accurate when the angle of incident is *NORMAL*.

6- The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling.

The only time we can have that data is when the body is completely *STATIONARY*. Show me how does the J-20 remain stationary in mid-air so we can measure it under 'real world' environment conditions.



Martian2 said:


> When has the United States permitted independent third-party up-close testing of the F-22? However, that absurd requirement does not prevent me from agreeing that the F-22 is the current gold standard and superior to the J-20 in two important respects (e.g. J-20's minor side-curvature design flaw and round engine nozzles).
> 
> I suggest everyone ignore Gambit's absurd demand and acknowledge that the best available information and modeling clearly show the J-20 is currently inferior to the F-22, but superior to the F-35.


Your suggestion relevant only for the Chinese members here who have put on their nationalistic blinders, not those who are willing to exercise critical thinking skills. I have no problems with APA's clearly stated 'preliminary assessment' with its flaws. But those who are willing to exercise critical thinking skills will have a problem with you demanding that they give such wide latitude for China.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Unless you meant to tell me that NATF and X-36 had no requirement in low observable characteristics, you're just embarassing yourself.


Are they *DEPLOYED* aircrafts?



S10 said:


> Or how about that SAAB design? Clearly "stealth" is written on it.


Is it a USAF aircraft?



S10 said:


> You're right, you'd definitely be a conscript reject had you been in China. They actually have reading comprehension exams. Run along now...


True...I would refuse to believe in 'Chinese physics' and would be expelled toot-sweet.


----------



## peaceful

SpArK said:


> The intake thing was explained many times. But it keeps coming back.


 
No one take this 2nd class toy seriously. 

F-22 > J-20 > F-35 > T-50. 

that is it. 

btw, don't be too excited, it is a russia fighter anyway. please just recall what russian did to your aircraft deal?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Are they *DEPLOYED* aircrafts?


Did he ask for deployed aircraft, or did he ask for aircraft intended to be low observable? Trying to twist his words won't save you.



> Is it a USAF aircraft?


Did he mention USAF in his entire post? No? Well do stop embarassing yourself.



> True...I would refuse to believe in 'Chinese physics' and would be expelled toot-sweet.


In order to learn "Chinese physics", you'd have to be at least somewhat capable of reading first. A trait you have not demonstrated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cn_habs

How knowledgeable is gambit in physics anyway? I wonder if he actually understood what he's been talking about the whole time....as if he was an aerospace engineer.


----------



## rcrmj

cn_habs said:


> How knowledgeable is gambit in physics anyway? I wonder if he actually understood what he's been talking the whole time.


 
dont worry he knows, if it is out of his understanding, he'd use the phrase like 'chinese physics' or 'you defy physics' sort of funny thing


----------



## Render.Insane

peaceful said:


> No one take this 2nd class toy seriously.
> 
> F-22 > J-20 > F-35 > T-50.
> 
> that is it.
> 
> btw, don't be too excited, it is a russia fighter anyway. please just recall what russian did to your aircraft deal?



f-35 was designed TO better than F-22, good going peacefull!!! to be cheaper, more tech savvy, and better capabilty in A2A combat!!! f-35 is number 1 hands down, F-22 is a failed project because it requires 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of FLIGHT....

O didn't chninese just order 121 Al-31 engines from Russia, WOW so you really think China has over taken the might russia in aircraft dev???? Su-47 berkut used to send shivers down american defence, Russia claims T-50 was supposed to comebat and be better than f-22!
SO I AM SURE RUSSIANS have a rep to consider!

As for chinese, well i just bought an iphone 4 and also picked one off from the china town a replica ... Looks pretty decent from the outside BUT ITS NOT ORGINAL and it will probably break in few day! So now you tell me china has the ability to make knockoff of iphones , so it can now make better planes than Russians and Americans???? pride .... hahahahah see what it does to one


----------



## UKBengali

Render.Insane said:


> f-35 was designed TO better than F-22, good going peacefull!!! to be cheaper, more tech savvy, and better capabilty in A2A combat!!! f-35 is number 1 hands down, F-22 is a failed project because it requires 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of FLIGHT....
> 
> O didn't chninese just order 121 Al-31 engines from Russia, WOW so you really think China has over taken the might russia in aircraft dev???? Su-47 berkut used to send shivers down american defence, Russia claims T-50 was supposed to comebat and be better than f-22!
> SO I AM SURE RUSSIANS have a rep to consider!
> 
> As for chinese, well i just bought an iphone 4 and also picked one off from the china town a replica ... Looks pretty decent from the outside BUT ITS NOT ORGINAL and it will probably break in few day! So now you tell me china has the ability to make knockoff of iphones , so it can now make better planes than Russians and Americans???? pride .... hahahahah see what it does to one



F-35 was not designed to be "better" than the F-22. The F-22 was concieved as a purely air-superioty fighter, whereas the F-35 was meant to be a much cheaper all-rounder that could do it all. The F-35 is much less stealthy, less manuevrable and has a subsonic cruise speed. Once the F-22 avionics have been updated, it would litreally buttf*ck F-35s in any air-to-air duel. Why do you think that the US will be exporting the F-35 and not the F-22?

As for China importing AL-31s, this has been answered many times and there is a very recent thread on the topic so I suggest you spend some time reading that to educate yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## rcrmj

Render.Insane said:


> f-35 was designed TO better than F-22, good going peacefull!!! to be cheaper, more tech savvy, and better capabilty in A2A combat!!! f-35 is number 1 hands down, F-22 is a failed project because it requires 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of FLIGHT....
> 
> O didn't chninese just order 121 Al-31 engines from Russia, WOW so you really think China has over taken the might russia in aircraft dev???? Su-47 berkut used to send shivers down american defence, Russia claims T-50 was supposed to comebat and be better than f-22!
> SO I AM SURE RUSSIANS have a rep to consider!
> 
> As for chinese, well i just bought an iphone 4 and also picked one off from the china town a replica ... Looks pretty decent from the outside BUT ITS NOT ORGINAL and it will probably break in few day! So now you tell me china has the ability to make knockoff of iphones , so it can now make better planes than Russians and Americans???? pride .... hahahahah see what it does to one


 
you make a real good laugh mate``welcome to the reality`


----------



## rcrmj

UKBengali said:


> F-35 was not designed to be "better" than the F-22. The F-22 was concieved as a purely air-superioty fighter, whereas the F-35 was meant to be a much cheaper all-rounder that could do it all. The F-35 is much less stealthy, less manuevrable and has a subsonic cruise speed. Once the F-22 avionics have been updated, it would litreally buttf*ck F-35s in any air-to-air duel. Why do you think that the US will be exporting the F-35 and not the F-22?
> 
> As for China importing AL-31s, this has been answered many times and there is a very recent thread on the topic so I suggest you spend some time reading that to educate yourself.


 
he is just one new newbi, will get some reality spank soon`


----------



## Render.Insane

rcrmj said:


> he is just one new newbi, will get some reality spank soon`



that or your can't handle the bit of reality i showed you, no matter, F-35 is being inducted with massive orders of upto 2000 planes for the U.S. NAVY< ARMY<AIRFORCE??? WHY because it made to better ECONIMICALLY, CAPABILITY wise, ALL-WEATHER, and a work horse!! BETTER as in that aspect, maybe i should of clarfied.... 

I am not a NEWBI, i spoke the TRUTH many times, and i got banned for it so not new


----------



## Martian2

cn_habs said:


> How knowledgeable is gambit in physics anyway? I wonder if he actually understood what he's been talking about the whole time....as if he was an aerospace engineer.


 
Gambit knows very little about physics.

A year ago, in the thread on China's ASBM, he insisted ALL ballistic missiles descend on their targets in a vertical trajectory. I showed him a picture of U.S. Peacekeeper MIRVs in their terminal phase at different angles. He claimed it was an optical illusion. Everyone on this forum saw our debate. He's a stubborn bugger.






Incoming Peacekeeper MIRVs. According to Gambit, he claims all of the warheads are falling vertically and you're seeing an optical illusion of angles. I'm still waiting for an apology from him or at least an acknowledgement that he was dead wrong. I have received neither.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Martian2 said:


> Incoming Peacekeeper MIRVs. According to Gambit, he claims all of the warheads are falling vertically and you're seeing an optical illusion of angles. I'm still waiting for an *apology from him or at least an acknowledgement* that he was dead wrong. I have received neither.


 
Two words for you:

Good Luck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Gambit knows very little about physics.
> 
> A year ago, in the thread on China's ASBM, he insisted ALL ballistic missiles descend on their targets in a vertical trajectory. I showed him a picture of U.S. Peacekeeper MIRVs in their terminal phase at different angles. He claimed it was an optical illusion. Everyone on this forum saw our debate. He's a stubborn bugger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming Peacekeeper MIRVs. According to Gambit, he claims all of the warheads are falling vertically and you're seeing an optical illusion of angles. I'm still waiting for an apology from him or at least an acknowledgement that he was dead wrong. I have received neither.


I know it better than you. In that discussion, the word 'vertical' is never meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be perspective. Similar to navigation where someone would argue that a shortest distance between two points is a great circle while from our personal perspectives, it is a straight line. The image you posted above is taken from a wide angle aspect but for the individual targets, each will see its own warhead very much vertical. And that was the point of how an ASBM defense would see.


----------



## gambit

> cn_habs said:
> 
> 
> 
> How knowledgeable is gambit in physics anyway? I wonder if he actually understood what he's been talking about the whole time....as if he was an aerospace engineer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcrmj said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont worry he knows, if it is out of his understanding, he'd use the phrase like 'chinese physics' or 'you defy physics' sort of funny thing
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Boys...You learned more from me about the basics of radar detection and this 'stealth' thingie than *ALL* of you Chinese boys have contributed to the subjects. I will put my posts against your 'Chinese physics' any day.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Did he ask for deployed aircraft, or did he ask for aircraft intended to be low observable? Trying to twist his words won't save you.
> 
> Did he mention USAF in his entire post? No? Well do stop embarassing yourself.


He does not need to. When it comes to aviation, most people, including avid enthusiasts in and out of the military, are more focused on what is available to the public to see. Most people know of the F-15's many deployed variants, but very few know of the AFTI version and other more obscure modified for specific research purposes. So when he made this comment...



Zabanya said:


> One thing that confuses me are the canards. Other than the J-20, I haven't seen a single aircraft intended for stealth having canards. Not even the PAK-FA has them.
> 
> I heard the Americans are now working on a 6th generation fighter


Just like most...He was not interested in experimental designs but deployed aircrafts. The question he asked is based upon what everyone know best: first are the F-117 and the B-2, then came the F-22 and F-35. None of them has canards. You, in trying to defend the J-20's canards, jumped in with a list of experimental US designs. Totally off base from what the man was curious about. The J-20, if its RCS qualify it to be 'stealth' based upon only nothing more than a general consensus of what is 'stealth', would be the first deployed 'stealth' aircraft with canards. Whatever the US had in experiments are irrelevant.



S10 said:


> In order to learn "Chinese physics", you'd have to be at least somewhat capable of reading first. A trait you have not demonstrated.


I can read just fine and with my military experience, I can see the context better than you can. Looky here...Your ignorance and non-experience in this matter created a very low knowledge ceiling. You jumped to conclusion and smacked your head on said low ceiling. Take some time and recover.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> He does not need to. When it comes to aviation, most people, including avid enthusiasts in and out of the military, are more focused on what is available to the public to see. Most people know of the F-15's many deployed variants, but very few know of the AFTI version and other more obscure modified for specific research purposes. So when he made this comment...
> 
> Just like most...He was not interested in experimental designs but deployed aircrafts. The question he asked is based upon what everyone know best: first are the F-117 and the B-2, then came the F-22 and F-35. None of them has canards. You, in trying to defend the J-20's canards, jumped in with a list of experimental US designs. Totally off base from what the man was curious about. The J-20, if its RCS qualify it to be 'stealth' based upon only nothing more than a general consensus of what is 'stealth', would be the first deployed 'stealth' aircraft with canards. Whatever the US had in experiments are irrelevant.


So now you resorted to twisting his words and reinterpreting them. He clearly asked for "aircraft intended for stealth". All of the designs I've posted had low radar observability as part of their design requirements. But no, you had to lie about "he meant deployed aircraft". Notice any objection he provided? Of course not, because you made it up. On the other hand, that thank you underneath my post by him, clearly there.

Twisting other's word to cover your own @ss. That's a new low.....wait you've always been low.



> I can read just fine and with my military experience, I can see the context better than you can. Looky here...Your ignorance and non-experience in this matter created a very low knowledge ceiling. You jumped to conclusion and smacked your head on said low ceiling. Take some time and recover.


The only thing you smacked is another hole your argument, more specifically, your inability to read. He asked a question in which I answered. If he had problem with that answer he would have voiced it, not providing a thanks. You jumped out like a clown, and I'm treating you like one.

Run along now with what little dignity you...wait you never had any, so just run along.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Boys...You learned more from me about the basics of radar detection and this 'stealth' thingie than *ALL* of you Chinese boys have contributed to the subjects. I will put my posts against your 'Chinese physics' any day.


Things I've learned from you:

- Cry about butthurt from racist Chinese boys for pages on end
- Interprete others' words liberally until they suit you, even if you have to fabricate.
- Generally being an @

You sir, taught us some great lessons which I hope we never learn.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Dude calm down now. Last time I had an outburst the old J-20 thread got deleted. We don't want history to repeat do we?


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> So now you resorted to twisting his words and reinterpreting them. He clearly asked for "aircraft intended for stealth". All of the designs I've posted had low radar observability as part of their design requirements. But no, you had to lie about "he meant deployed aircraft". Notice any objection he provided? Of course not, because you made it up. On the other hand, that thank you underneath my post by him, clearly there.
> 
> Twisting other's word to cover your own @ss. That's a new low.....wait you've always been low.
> 
> 
> The only thing you smacked is another hole your argument, more specifically, your inability to read. He asked a question in which I answered. If he had problem with that answer he would have voiced it, not providing a thanks. You jumped out like a clown, and I'm treating you like one.
> 
> Run along now with what little dignity you...wait you never had any, so just run along.


The man also said: 'Not even the PAK-FA has them'. The PAK-FA is not an experimental design. It may be a 'rough draft' but it is also meant for eventual deployment. It is unlikely that the Russians will install canards on the PAK-FA despite their experience with canards on other Russian aircrafts. You can find out what they are, no?


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Things I've learned from you:
> 
> - Cry about butthurt from racist Chinese boys for pages on end
> - Interprete others' words liberally until they suit you, even if you have to fabricate.
> - Generally being an @
> 
> You sir, taught us some great lessons which I hope we never learn.


Wrong...In the beginning, when I posted my challenges, I stayed on subject and supported my arguments with credible third party sources. It has been the Chinese boys here who interpreted and/or twisted my arguments to be 'racist' and proceeded to get personal since then. If my behavior is learned, it is learned from you Chinese boys here. Sooner or later, one of you will inject race/ethnicity or IQ or something to that effect into a discussion.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> The man also said: 'Not even the PAK-FA has them'. The PAK-FA is not an experimental design. It may be a 'rough draft' but it is also meant for eventual deployment. It is unlikely that the Russians will install canards on the PAK-FA despite their experience with canards on other Russian aircrafts. You can find out what they are, no?


Is T-50 deployed? No, only two prototype so far. Was the term "deployed" ever used or did you invent it? Did he ask for "intended for stealth" or did you invent "already in service"?

Fess up now.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> Dude calm down now. Last time I had an outburst the old J-20 thread got deleted. We don't want history to repeat do we?


The way I see it. It would be good to have it deleted so the public would not see how 'Chinese physics' got debunked. After all, it was *YOU* who swamped a discussion here with garbage posts from your other playground to hide how your man got debunked.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I know it better than you. In that discussion, the word 'vertical' is never meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be perspective. Similar to navigation where someone would argue that a shortest distance between two points is a great circle while from our personal perspectives, it is a straight line. The image you posted above is taken from a wide angle aspect but for the individual targets, each will see its own warhead very much vertical. And that was the point of how an ASBM defense would see.


 
You're ridiculous. Everyone saw our exchange. You meant it literally. Now, I know you're a liar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> *Is T-50 deployed?* No, only two prototype so far. Was the term "deployed" ever used or did you invent it? Did he ask for "intended for stealth" or did you invent "already in service"?
> 
> Fess up now.


That is why he said 'not even' because it was meant for eventual deployment. The physical evidences about the T-50 are clear enough: That as far as airframe goes, it is a finished product.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Wrong...In the beginning, when I posted my challenges, I stayed on subject and supported my arguments with credible third party sources. It has been the Chinese boys here who interpreted and/or twisted my arguments to be 'racist' and proceeded to get personal since then. If my behavior is learned, it is learned from you Chinese boys here. Sooner or later, one of you will inject race/ethnicity or IQ or something to that effect into a discussion.


I see you're complaining about butthurt again. Refer to point 1. You've managed to earn most of what was thrown your way in this thread so far, and that's no small feat in the art of being a pompus a-hole.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> The way I see it. It would be good to have it deleted so the public would not see how 'Chinese physics' got debunked. After all, it was *YOU* who swamped a discussion here with garbage posts from your other playground to hide how your man got debunked.


 
Hohoho still acting tough are we here? You got banned because you acted like a complete jerk and consistently used strawmen arguments. It is a good thing that the mods deleted the thread because it saved face for you, not that you had any to start with.

---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 AM ----------




Martian2 said:


> You're ridiculous. Everyone saw our exchange. You meant it literally. Now, I know you're a liar.


 
Blasphemy. Gambit never makes any mistakes and you know it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You're ridiculous. Everyone saw our exchange. You meant it literally. Now, I know you're a liar.


Answer this question: Which is the shortest distance between two points? Is it a straight line or is it a great circle? I have watched several Space Shuttle launches from either my house in Orlando or right outside the KSC. It was only up at very high altitude is when the Earth's rotation give us the perception that the vehicle 'turned' into a ascending curve. But everyone, from the lay person to the technical people, have no problem calling it a 'vertical' ascent.


----------



## Martian2

siegecrossbow said:


> Hohoho still acting tough are we here? You got banned because you acted like a complete jerk and consistently used strawmen arguments. It is a good thing that the mods deleted the thread because it saved face for you, not that you had any to start with.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Blasphemy. Gambit never makes any mistakes and you know it.


 
He pisses me off. I've made mistakes. I own up to them. When someone refuses to admit they made a mistake, you can't trust them. When they are feeding you false information or conclusions, you will never hear them say, "sorry guys, I made an error."

What happened last week on SinoDefence? I apologized for mixing up China's two SoarDragons. I don't have any problems admitting I'm human and make errors like everyone else.

That Gambit guy, he's ridiculous.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Difference between Gambit argument and a coherent one offered by Tphuang, a blogger quoted by Sweetman in one of his J-20 related articles:



> Re: New J-10 Thread III
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by gambit View Post
> It is a wrong assumption.
> that doesn't even make sense. I stated what Inst is saying certain thing and your reply is it is a wrong assumption?...... interesting.
> It is a wrong assumption.
> so you are saying that aircraft designers don't design the nose with the type of radar they would like to fit in mind?.... interesting.
> No...There is no such 'hint'. Antenna real estate, shape, and dimensions are independent of aerodynamic necessities evident by radome shape. By 'independent' it does not mean the antenna is not constrained by radome volume but that antenna real estate, shape, and dimensions are usually dictated from mission statements, in other words, if the main mission is volume search over other considerations, for example, then the antenna will shaped to produce a fan beam, regardless if the system is PESA or AESA.
> 
> 
> See above.
> You apparently don't speack any form of English or completely lack comprehension. I did not state definitively that J-10B is using AESA radar or PESA radar.
> 
> I said that if the following two statements are true:
> 1) CAC designed J-10B with AESA in mind
> 2) and the most optimal shape of the AESA radar is not circular.
> Then the following holds
> They would design a fighter in J-10B with a non circular nose.
> 
> In no where there did I say 1 or 2 is true. So, either you are too busy trying to shot me down to read that or you have no comprehension of English.
> 
> This is obviously said in response to Inst who thinks the reason that J-10B's antenna were shaped non-circular due to the shape of J-10B's nose. He failed to see that they designed J-10B's nose non-circular in the first place possibly due to what kind of radar they had in mind.
> 
> btw, you also seem to be a new member here. Do you mind showing a little less arrogance?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> That is why he said 'not even' because it was meant for eventual deployment. The physical evidences about the T-50 are clear enough: That as far as airframe goes, it is a finished product.


He asked for aircrafts intended for stealth, and there are/were a few of them. NATF was one, X-36 is one and planned SAAB design will be one. In which he agreed, thus the thank you button.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> Hohoho still acting tough are we here? You got banned because you acted like a complete jerk and consistently used strawmen arguments. It is a good thing that the mods deleted the thread because it saved face for you, not that you had any to start with.


Hohoho indeed. From you the liar who claimed that I abused everyone there when upon examination, from a join date of 2009 to now, I have barely 80-something post count with only *ONE* long discussion. So if I mistreated 'everyone' as you claimed here to cover up for your man, why did it took the admin staff so long to banned me? Still...I was not talking about your playground. Am talking your abuse of *THIS* forum's rules in posting garbage posts to drown out my debunking of your so-called 'Engineer'.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Hohoho indeed. From you the liar who claimed that I abused everyone there when upon examination, from a join date of 2009 to now, I have barely 80-something post count with only *ONE* long discussion. So if I mistreated 'everyone' as you claimed here to cover up for your man, why did it took the admin staff so long to banned me? Still...I was not talking about your playground. Am talking your abuse of *THIS* forum's rules in posting garbage posts to drown out my debunking of your so-called 'Engineer'.



The admin-staff takes time to reach a decision. As I said before I have no power to physically ban people, only the power to suggest it. Apparently our super moderators all decided that you were too pompous of an a*s to allow on our forum.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> He pisses me off. I've made mistakes. I own up to them. When someone refuses to admit they made a mistake, you can't trust them. *When they are feeding you false information* or conclusions, you will never hear them say, "sorry guys, I made an error."
> 
> What happened last week on SinoDefence? I apologized for mixing up China's two SoarDragons. I don't have any problems admitting I'm human and make errors like everyone else.
> 
> That Gambit guy, he's ridiculous.


Prove to everyone I fed the readers 'false information'. That is funny considering I often posted 'keyword search' and at least one source based upon those keyword search results.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> The admin-staff takes time to reach a decision. As I said before I have no power to physically ban people, only the power to suggest it. Apparently our super moderators all decided that you were too pompous of an a*s to allow on our forum.


You lied *HERE* that I 'mistreated everyone'. Explain to people here as to how I 'mistreated everyone' there when despite a join date of 2009 I have only 80-something posts and only *ONE* long discussion.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Prove to everyone I fed the readers 'false information'. That is funny considering I often posted 'keyword search' and at least one source based upon those keyword search results.


 
Read the ASBM thread. I'll eat my foot if you did not insist repeatedly that warheads drop vertically onto their targets. Everyone on this forum remembers. They know you're not telling the truth.

You've got some nerve telling a whopper of a lie like that.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> *THIS* forum's rules in posting garbage posts to drown out my debunking of your so-called 'Engineer'.


 
In your dreams. Putting words in people's mouth and employing strawmen tactics can only carry you so far. I am only glad that Engineer saw through the antics:

Heliocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a stationary Sun at the center of the solar system. The word comes from the Greek (&#7973;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#962; helios "sun" and &#954;&#941;&#957;&#964;&#961;&#959;&#957; kentron "center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2] but had received no support from most other ancient astronomers.
> 
> It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, this model was elaborated and expanded by Johannes Kepler and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.



See, I could do it too, to college undergrades:

Z-transform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In mathematics and signal processing, the Z-transform converts a discrete time-domain signal, which is a sequence of real or complex numbers, into a complex frequency-domain representation.
> 
> It can be considered as a discrete-time equivalent of the Laplace transform. This similarity is explored in the theory of time scale calculus.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Read the ASBM thread. I'll eat my foot if you did not insist repeatedly that warheads drop vertically onto their targets. Everyone on this forum remembers. They know you're not telling the truth.
> 
> You've got some nerve telling a whopper of a lie like that.


From the target's perspective, yes, it is quite a vertical descent. We are not talking about a few hundred meters travel span. We are talking about several *THOUSANDS* of km with a suborbital parabolic arc, sometimes assisted by the Earth's rotation.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> You lied *HERE* that I 'mistreated everyone'. Explain to people here as to how I 'mistreated everyone' there when despite a join date of 2009 I have only 80-something posts and only *ONE* long discussion.


 
That is because you started acting like a complete a-hole recently when tphuang politely asked you to stop acting like one. There are guys who have been members from the very beginning (2005 2006ish) who got banned due to rule breaking. Your glorious records are still up on sinodefence. Here is a link for everyone interested in seeing the glorious antics:

http://www.sino .com/air-force/new-j-10-thread-iii-129-4290.html

remove the space to see the link.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> You lied *HERE* that I 'mistreated everyone'. Explain to people here as to how I 'mistreated everyone' there when despite *a join date of 2009 I have only 80-something posts and only ONE long discussion*.



LUL WUT?

Posts: 5,918

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> In your dreams. Putting words in people's mouth and employing strawmen tactics can only carry you so far. I am only glad that Engineer saw through the antics:


Yeah...This 'Engineer' claimed that the F-22's rudder system is 'less advanced' than the J-20's all-moving stabs despite historical evidences that goes back decades to WW I. I presented that argument link to my friends at Nellis and Hill, the latter the F-16 depot maintenance facility, and they all have a good laugh.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------




S10 said:


> LUL WUT?
> 
> Posts: 5,918


Not here but somewhere else.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Oh yeah Gambit regarding your comments about "Chinese physics" and the tendency to dismiss an entire group of people based on a few individuals on the internet. What you are saying is the equivalent of me using "American behaviour" to describe an otherwise mentally sound adult who acts like a little kid with no manners. However you won't see guys like me making dumb comments like this because most Americans I know, in real life, don't act in such a manner and are nice decent people who treat others with respect.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> That is because you started acting like a complete a-hole recently when tphuang politely asked you to stop acting like one. There are guys who have been members from the very beginning (2005 2006ish) who got banned due to rule breaking. Your glorious records are still up on sinodefence. Here is a link for everyone interested in seeing the glorious antics:
> 
> http://www.sino .com/air-force/new-j-10-thread-iii-129-4290.html
> 
> remove the space to see the link.


Answer the question: Where is that 'everyone' that you lied *HERE* that I supposedly 'mistreated' since 2009 over your playground?


----------



## houshanghai

in this thread,I am sure nobody will listen to a American vietnamese poor expert prating on about his experience and seniority of American army


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> From the target's perspective, yes, it is quite a vertical descent. We are not talking about a few hundred meters travel span. We are talking about several *THOUSANDS* of km with a suborbital parabolic arc, sometimes assisted by the Earth's rotation.


 
You're still going to argue that vertical doesn't mean vertical?!

Let me refresh your memory.

1. You said warheads fall vertically onto their targets.

2. I said "no." Warheads have horizontal and vertical velocity. They can fall onto their targets at an angle.

3. You called me a know-nothing fanboy.

4. I posted the Peacekeeper MIRV picture to prove my point.

5. You said it was an optical illusion.

6. I posted the vertical rocket marker contrails for a nuclear test to prove my point again (e.g. vertical contrails actually look vertical; the angled Peacekeeper trajectories are truly angled).

7. You claimed I was still wrong.

8. I told everyone to place 8 pens vertically on their desks and look at it from all angles. I said it was impossible to replicate the angles in the Peacekeeper MIRV picture.

9. You still said I was wrong.

10. I posted a RAND study showing angular incoming trajectories for missiles and warheads. I posted a second source that showed the same thing.

11. You disappeared from the thread without apologizing to me or admitting you were wrong.

Does the sequence of events ring a bell? Or are you going to continue with your big lie?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

houshanghai said:


> in this thread,I am sure nobody will listen to a American vietnamese poor expert prating on about his experience and seniority of American army


Then even less seriously will they take a Chinese conscript who does not understand what is a 'critical review' about a subject he has no experience in.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Poor Gambit still couldn't explain why he, of all people, was banned on sinodefence. People who consistently critique China like bladerunner, Mr.T, and JeffHead are respected members on the forum because they follow the rules, act nicely despite different political views, and offer valuable insights in their posts. On the other hand pro-Chinese bashers like migdriver and countless propaganda spewing IDs are banned because they breach forum rules and treat others like dirt.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You're still going to argue that vertical doesn't mean vertical?!
> 
> Let me refresh your memory.
> 
> 1. You said warheads fall vertically onto their targets.
> 
> 2. I said "no." Warheads have horizontal and vertical velocity. They can fall onto their targets at an angle.
> 
> 3. You called me a know-nothing fanboy.
> 
> 4. I posted the Peacekeeper MIRV picture to prove my point.
> 
> 5. You said it was an optical illusion.
> 
> 6. I posted the vertical rocket marker contrails for a nuclear test to prove my point again (e.g. vertical contrails actually look vertical; the angled Peacekeeper trajectories are truly angled).
> 
> 7. You claimed I was still wrong.
> 
> 8. I told everyone to place 8 pens vertically on their desks and look at it from all angles. I said it was impossible to replicate the angles in the Peacekeeper MIRV picture.
> 
> 9. You still said I was wrong.
> 
> 10. I posted a RAND study showing angular incoming trajectories for missiles and warheads. I posted a second source that showed the same thing.
> 
> 11. You disappeared from the thread without apologizing to me or admitting you were wrong.
> 
> Does the sequence of events ring a bell? Or are you going to continue with your big lie?


From a great perspective. Short range ASBM radars look relatively 'up'. It is the long range large arrays that will look at the horizon for when the warhead appears while still in orbit. It is from the ground perspective that I was trying to explain to you.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Banlist on sinodefence in case anyone still doubts what I said. We do things as fairly there as possible. Doesn't matter if you are the President of the United States or the Marshall of PLAAF if you break the rules we'll warn you and then off to the banlist you go.

http://www.sino .com/announcements/banned-members-list-54.html

remove the space to see the link.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> From a great perspective. Short range ASBM radars look relatively 'up'. It is the long range large arrays that will look at the horizon for when the warhead appears while still in orbit. It is from the ground perspective that I was trying to explain to you.


 
Arghhh!!! I give up.

When you grow up, feel free to post your apology or acknowledge that you were wrong. I spent hours to prove that you were wrong and you annoyed the hell out of me. Now, you claim I lost the debate? Sheesh!


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> Poor Gambit still couldn't explain why he, of all people, was banned on sinodefence. People who consistently critique China like bladerunner, Mr.T, and JeffHead are respected members on the forum because they follow the rules, act nicely despite different political views, and offer valuable insights in their posts. On the other hand pro-Chinese bashers like migdriver and countless propaganda spewing IDs are banned because they breach forum rules and treat others like dirt.


I can see you are still dodging the lie you posted here. You said that I 'mistreated everyone' at your playground. Evidences are that despite a join date of 2009, I have only 80-something post count with only *ONE* long discussion, from which I got banned. So explain to everyone here how is it that I 'mistreated everyone' when I have only *ONE* long discussion. It should be simple enough, no?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Arghhh!!! I give up.
> 
> When you grow up, feel free to post your apology or acknowledge that you were wrong. I spent hours to prove that you were wrong and you annoyed the hell out of me. Now, you claim I lost the argument. Sheesh!


No...You spent hours in trying to prove a point in an issue where I pointed out that with different perspective, certain system must behave in certain ways. You know that what I said is true regarding the different detection systems for different purposes.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> No...You spent hours in trying to prove a point in an issue where I pointed out that with different perspective, certain system must behave in certain ways. You know that what I said is true regarding the different detection systems for different purposes.


 
You were wrong at least twice in the ASBM thread. I called you on the warhead vertical-drop nonsense. I also proved to everyone that my contention of China's ASBM having a 1,000 km range was correct. I raised the SOSUS argument and calculated something close to 930 or 960 km range by placing the acoustic detectors at the edge of the continental shelf.

You lost twice in that thread. Factually, you were proven wrong that all ballistic warheads impact their targets vertically. Your biased claim that China's ASBM did not have an 1,000 km range was proven incorrect as well.

However, you vociferously fought me on both issues. Despite the mountain of evidence that I cited, you kept claiming I was wrong and called me a fanboy over and over again. After that experience, I didn't want to keep wasting more hours to prove your erroneous claims. You make errors like everyone else, but your vehement denials are legendary. People just don't want to waste valuable parts of their lives arguing with you endlessly.

I'm stopping here. I think you're a hopeless case. You've definitely lost my respect for twisting the truth about our last major debate.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> I can see you are still dodging the lie you posted here. You said that I 'mistreated everyone' at your playground. Evidences are that despite a join date of 2009, I have only 80-something post count with only *ONE* long discussion, from which I got banned. So explain to everyone here how is it that I 'mistreated everyone' when I have only *ONE* long discussion. It should be simple enough, no?


 
You are the guy who is still dodging his responsibilities and not owning up to the fact that he consistently acted like a jerk and offended many people, most of whom strangers, on the forum. I own up to my mistakes while you never own up to anything. Difference between man and boy, I guess?

---------- Post added at 08:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 AM ----------




Martian2 said:


> I'm stopping here. I think you're a hopeless case. You've definitely lost my respect for twisting the truth about our last major debate.


 
You JUST REALIZED THAT WTF WTF WTF!!!!!!!!>??????

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Martian2 said:


> I'm stopping here. I think you're a hopeless case. You've definitely lost my respect for twisting the truth about our last major debate.


 
He never deserved any to start with. At least no more than I did when I bullied the undergraduate students on their calculus skills.

Any ways good night. Tired of wasting my time on this. Like I said before Gambit if you feel that you've been wronged feel to contact popeye or another supermod and protest the decision. Say that I acted in defence of Engineer and banned you unfairly. Since you've been hesitant to do so I am forced to conclude that you are in fact guilty of acting like a complete jerk-a*s and not following forum rules (reading them helps).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> You are the guy who is still dodging his responsibilities and not owning up to the fact that he consistently acted like a jerk and *offended many people*, most of whom strangers, on the forum. I own up to my mistakes while you never own up to anything. Difference between man and boy, I guess?


Many people? Since 2009? With only an 80-something post count since 2009, you should have no problems showing those 'many people', no?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You were wrong at least twice in the ASBM thread. I called you on the warhead vertical-drop nonsense. I also proved to everyone that my contention of China's ASBM having a 1,000 km range was correct. I raised the SOSUS argument and calculated something close to 930 or 960 km range by placing the acoustic detectors at the edge of the continental shelf.
> 
> You lost twice in that thread. Factually, you were proven wrong that all ballistic warheads impact their targets vertically. Your biased claim that China's ASBM did not have an 1,000 km range was proven incorrect as well.
> 
> However, you vociferously fought me on both issues. Despite the mountain of evidence that I cited, you kept claiming I was wrong and called me a fanboy over and over again. After that experience, I didn't want to keep wasting more hours to prove your erroneous claims. You make errors like everyone else, but your vehement denials are legendary. People just don't want to waste valuable parts of their lives arguing with you endlessly.


Hey, buddy...Even cluster munitions can descend in a relatively 'vertical' perspective...







When distances approaches 4-digits of km, the Earth's rotation is used *IF* possible, in that case, the missile ascent quite 'vertically' and sort of 'wait' for the target to approach what is called the 'pitch over' point, which from a great perspective, is angled, but by the time the target meet a certain point, the warhead descent quite 'vertically'...








Martian2 said:


> I'm stopping here. I think you're a hopeless case. You've definitely lost my respect for twisting the truth about our last major debate.


I do not care about respect from the Chinese boys here. Like I said before that *NONE* of you can dispute, I have given the Chinese group here the respect I believe everyone should receive in the initial meeting. But since then, I have received far more cheap racist insults than respect from the lot of you. So you can take your 'respect' and shove it.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> He never deserved any to start with. At least no more than I did when I bullied the undergraduate students on their calculus skills.
> 
> Any ways good night. Tired of wasting my time on this. Like I said before Gambit if you feel that you've been wronged feel to contact popeye or another supermod and protest the decision. Say that I acted in defence of Engineer and banned you unfairly. Since you've been hesitant to do so I am forced to conclude that you are in fact guilty of acting like a complete jerk-a*s and not following forum rules (reading them helps).


Uh...huh...No profanity and no racist slurs. Forceful language, perhaps, but would not even qualify as 'strong'. But no, I will not stoop to petition the admin staff. Now where are those 'many people' I allegedly mistreated?


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:

3


----------



## Render.Insane

siegecrossbow said:


> Difference between Gambit argument and a coherent one offered by Tphuang, a blogger quoted by Sweetman in one of his J-20 related articles:



YOU are not an Aerospace Engineer, please stop it with canards bs, you trying to defend the aircraft is silly beyond words, judging by your diction, your are too American and glad u dont use google translator, many of your folks dont no that its still in beta mode, but i digress...

If you LOVE china so MUCH, the nearest air port to you is a 10 mile vicinity... catch the Jade Airline, peace out of here...

LMAO "Look at stealthiness, the canards, the unbelievable serpentine Air intakes, bubble canopy," Amazing how stealthy it look, hey i bet its better than the Russian's underdeveloped t-50... Wait i think fares better than the notorious f-35, i mean look it's stealiness, how can U.S. and Russia compete against the black dragon!" ......... thats pretty much your chinese fanboy slogan and defence against us....


----------



## houshanghai

^^ One of the best pics of this craft

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

BEST OF LUCK TO J-20
I WISH CHINA MAY STOLEN EJ-200 FROM ANY EUROPEAN COUNTRY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF J-20


----------



## rcrmj

Render.Insane said:


> YOU are not an Aerospace Engineer, please stop it with canards bs, you trying to defend the aircraft is silly beyond words, judging by your diction, your are too American and glad u dont use google translator, many of your folks dont no that its still in beta mode, but i digress...
> 
> If you LOVE china so MUCH, the nearest air port to you is a 10 mile vicinity... catch the Jade Airline, peace out of here...
> 
> LMAO "Look at stealthiness, the canards, the unbelievable serpentine Air intakes, bubble canopy," Amazing how stealthy it look, hey i bet its better than the Russian's underdeveloped t-50... Wait i think fares better than the notorious f-35, i mean look it's stealiness, how can U.S. and Russia compete against the black dragon!" ......... thats pretty much your chinese fanboy slogan and defence against us....


 
havent i told you nwbei`there are lots threads about the very basic idea of stealth tech and 5th gen here on PDF, you better read them before get banned for your sheer ignorance about J-20, F-22, T-50 and F-35.

and you better keep the F-35 is superior than F-22 in AA capability nonsense to youself


----------



## Aramsogo

It's "don't know", not "dont no". Talk about your own diction. Why don't *YOU* stop using a Google translator?

And how do you know he's not an aerospace engineer ?? You're not an English teacher, I can tell you that.

If you LOVE the PAK-FA so much, the nearest airport is 500 miles away. Catch that Indigo to Moscow.



Render.Insane said:


> YOU are not an Aerospace Engineer, please stop it with canards bs, you trying to defend the aircraft is silly beyond words, *judging by your diction*, your are too American and glad u dont use google translator, many of your folks *dont no* that its still in beta mode, but i digress...
> 
> If you LOVE china so MUCH, the nearest air port to you is a 10 mile vicinity... catch the Jade Airline

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cloneman

nomi007 said:


> BEST OF LUCK TO J-20
> I WISH CHINA MAY STOLEN EJ-200 FROM ANY EUROPEAN COUNTRY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF J-20


 
This is a bad joke.Instalation the EJ-200 on the J-20 will make it a sitting duck.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Render.Insane said:


> YOU are not an Aerospace Engineer, please stop it with canards bs, you trying to defend the aircraft is silly beyond words, judging by your diction, your are too American and glad u dont use google translator, many of your folks dont no that its still in beta mode, but i digress...
> 
> If you LOVE china so MUCH, the nearest air port to you is a 10 mile vicinity... catch the Jade Airline, peace out of here...
> 
> LMAO "Look at stealthiness, the canards, the unbelievable serpentine Air intakes, bubble canopy," Amazing how stealthy it look, hey i bet its better than the Russian's underdeveloped t-50... Wait i think fares better than the notorious f-35, i mean look it's stealiness, how can U.S. and Russia compete against the black dragon!" ......... thats pretty much your chinese fanboy slogan and defence against us....


 
You are the most shameless troll I've ever encountered. When did I say anything thing that you claim I said? Find a post where I claimed that the J-20 was a super fighter way better than the T-50 and F-35, I dare you!

How is loving China contradictory with loving America? There are plenty of Americans who I admire and respect in real life because they act civilly. There are also guys like Jeff Head and Bdpopeye, who formerly served in the U.S. military and are often critical of China, that I respect because they act like mature adults unlike our friend Gambit here. 

The nonsensical personal attack that you directed against me is proof of your inner insecurity as well as an advanced case of inferiority complex. Go see a mental doctor before it could advance any further.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cn_habs

gambit said:


> From a great perspective. Short range ASBM radars look relatively 'up'. It is the long range large arrays that will look at the horizon for when the warhead appears while still in orbit. It is from the ground perspective that I was trying to explain to you.



To the naked eye it may look that way but the physics says otherwise no matter how you twist it. 

How did you ever fully comprehend your arguments that included all the graphs and charts you've presented all the time without knowing grade 5 physics? 

Secondary effects from Agent Orange maybe?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Aramsogo said:


> It's "don't know", not "dont no". Talk about your own diction. Why don't *YOU* stop using a Google translator?
> 
> And how do you know he's not an aerospace engineer ?? You're not an English teacher, I can tell you that.
> 
> If you LOVE the PAK-FA so much, the nearest airport is 500 miles away. Catch that Indigo to Moscow.


 
No I am not an aerospace engineer (I am more of an electrical engineering person). You don't have to be one to know how much of a moron Render.Insane is either. Real engineers/experts don't spend that much time on the internet. Saying that Gambit is an aerospace engineer/expert is the same as saying that I am an mathematician just because I spend hours lecturing undergraduate students on basic differential calculus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Render.Insane

Aramsogo said:


> It's "don't know", not "dont no". Talk about your own diction. Why don't *YOU* stop using a Google translator?
> 
> And how do you know he's not an aerospace engineer ?? You're not an English teacher, I can tell you that.
> 
> If you LOVE the PAK-FA so much, the nearest airport is 500 miles away. Catch that Indigo to Moscow.


 


If i used google transilator, i am sure it would catch my spelling errors, well thats a quite a big logic you missed... anyway i am actually in the states, lol if your gonna take guess as some, atleast take the time to analyse it logically....

F-22 stopped serial production, hey tell me have you personally got on an f-22 and flew the to talk about it's advantage over the recent f-35, No? than what grounds do you have to declare f-35 is inferior... you know maybe you should join the special agencies of China, your unfound skill of scanning aircrafts through computer screen and declaring inferiority and superiority over fans pics online


----------



## siegecrossbow

Oh yeah one more thing Gambit. I am looking for your professional advice on implementing the SIFT algorithm for image identification/matching. Most of the code are open source and written in Matlab, a high level language that most aerospace undergraduates at my school have no problem mastering. This is certainly a very easy task given your "superior" understanding of science and engineering compared with everyone here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Render.Insane said:


> F-22 stopped serial production, hey tell me have you personally got on an f-22 and flew the to talk about it's advantage over the recent f-35, No? than what grounds do you have to declare f-35 is inferior... you know maybe you should join the special agencies of China, your unfound skill of scanning aircrafts through computer screen and declaring inferiority and superiority over fans pics online



I am still waiting for proof that I claimed that the J-20 was a "super fighter leagues above the T-50 and F-35" as well as proof that I bashed the T-50 on this forum.


----------



## rcrmj

Render.Insane said:


> If i used google transilator, i am sure it would catch my spelling errors, well thats a quite a big logic you missed... anyway i am actually in the states, lol if your gonna take guess as some, atleast take the time to analyse it logically....
> 
> F-22 stopped serial production, hey tell me have you personally got on an f-22 and flew the to talk about it's advantage over the recent f-35, No? than what grounds do you have to declare f-35 is inferior... you know maybe you should join the special agencies of China, your unfound skill of scanning aircrafts through computer screen and declaring inferiority and superiority over fans pics online


 
kido``how do you know F-35 is better than F-22? lol do you even have any ideas of what you are talking about`?


----------



## siegecrossbow

rcrmj said:


> kido``how do you know F-35 is better than F-22? lol do you even have any ideas of what you are talking about`?


 
Wait till he found proof that I bashed the F-35 and T-50 first. The fact that he called me a fanboy is a clear indication that he doesn't do "research" before he posts anything.


----------



## cloneman

You guys really have a lot of spare time to give a dam to the Vietnamnese and Indians.Lol,if you have enough time,why not try to contribute positivelly to this forum,for example,try to post some nice pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

cloneman said:


> You guys really have a lot of spare time to give a dam to the Vietnamnese and Indians.Lol,if you have enough time,why not try to contribute positivelly to this forum,for example,try to post some nice pictures.


 
lol``we are just trying to provide basic education to some (very few) ignorant PDF memebers``i think its quite season atm, more awesome pics of new chinese weapons will be coming soon after october`


----------



## Martian2

Render.Insane said:


> If i used google transilator, i am sure it would catch my spelling errors, well thats a quite a big logic you missed... anyway i am actually in the states, lol if your gonna take guess as some, *atleast take the time to analyse it logically*....
> 
> F-22 stopped serial production, hey tell me have you personally got on an f-22 and flew the to talk about it's advantage over the recent f-35, No? than *what grounds do you have to declare f-35 is inferior*... you know maybe you should join the special agencies of China, your unfound skill of scanning aircrafts through computer screen and declaring inferiority and superiority over fans pics online


 
Well-known facts (but not to you obviously):

1. F-22 can supercruise. F-35 can't.

2. F-22 has all-aspect stealth. F-35 has round engine nozzles with inferior stealth. (See Global Security citation in my earlier post discussing 0.0001 m2 RCS for F-22 and 0.005 m2 RCS for F-35)

3. F-22 has larger weapon payload. F-35 has smaller weapon payload.

4. United States has banned F-22 exports due to its high-technology. F-35 is offered for export; it is clearly second-class.

Are these sufficient facts and logic for you?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Render.Insane said:


> If i used google transilator, i am sure it would catch my spelling errors, well thats a quite a big logic you missed... anyway i am actually in the states, lol if your gonna take guess as some, atleast take the time to analyse it logically....
> 
> F-22 stopped serial production, hey tell me have you personally got on an f-22 and flew the to talk about it's advantage over the recent f-35, No? than what grounds do you have to declare f-35 is inferior... you know maybe you should join the special agencies of China, your unfound skill of scanning aircrafts through computer screen and declaring inferiority and superiority over fans pics online


 
F-35 has only the better avionics systems, but F-22 is much better as an overall platform.

Saying F-35 is superior to F-22 is just like saying Varyag is better than the early ships of the Nimitz class (CVN-68 to CVN-70), only just because Varyag is equipped with much more advanced superior AESA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Unobstructed view of J-20 Mighty Dragon's underside

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Martian2 said:


> 3. F-22 has larger weapon payload. F-35 has smaller weapon payload.


 
Not to nickpick but I think you are wrong about the payload. The F-35 has better strike capabilities and in fact has a higher weapons payload than the F-22.


----------



## Martian2

Martian2 said:


> 3. F-22 has larger weapon payload. F-35 has smaller weapon payload.





siegecrossbow said:


> Not to nickpick but I think you are wrong about the payload. The F-35 has better strike capabilities and in fact has a higher weapons payload than the F-22.



F-22 weapon payload of 4 missiles and 2 bombs is greater than F-35's 2 missiles and 2 bombs.

F-22 can carry a total of six medium-range and two short-range missiles. The total number of missiles is eight. Alternatively, the F-22 can carry two medium-range missiles, two medium bombs, and two short-range missiles. In this configuration, the total armament is *four missiles and two bombs.*

F-35 can carry *two short-range missiles and two bombs.*

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Raptor has three internal weapons bays on the bottom and sides of the fuselage.[143] *It can carry six compressed carriage medium range missiles[144] in the center bay and one short range missile in each of the two side bays.* Four of the medium range missiles can be replaced with two bombracks that can each carry one medium-size bomb or four small diameter bombs.[145]"

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Internally, up to two 2,000 lb (910 kg) air-to-ground bombs can be carried in A and C models (BRU-68) (two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs in the B model (BRU-67)[106][107]) along with two smaller weapons, normally expected to be air-to-air missiles."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Martian2 said:


> The F-22 is the far deadlier air superiority fighter. The F-35 is a glorified bomb truck. Nevertheless, the F-22 is still more deadly in bomb-mode. It can carry two bombs and four missiles to penetrate air space defended by enemy fighters.
> 
> F-22 can carry a total of six medium-range and two short-range missiles. The total number of missiles is eight. Alternatively, the F-22 can carry two medium-range missiles, two medium bombs, and two short-range missiles. In this configuration, the total armament is *four missiles and two bombs.*
> 
> F-35 can carry *two short-range missiles and two bombs.*
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "The Raptor has three internal weapons bays on the bottom and sides of the fuselage.[143] *It can carry six compressed carriage medium range missiles[144] in the center bay and one short range missile in each of the two side bays.* Four of the medium range missiles can be replaced with two bombracks that can each carry one medium-size bomb or four small diameter bombs.[145]"
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Internally, up to two 2,000 lb (910 kg) air-to-ground bombs can be carried in A and C models (BRU-68) (two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs in the B model (BRU-67)[106][107]) along with two smaller weapons, normally expected to be air-to-air missiles."


 
That is the internal weapons load. The F-35 could carry a lot more on external pylons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

siegecrossbow said:


> That is the internal weapons load. The F-35 could carry a lot more on external pylons.


 
F-22 have external pylons``there are 4


----------



## Martian2

siegecrossbow said:


> That is the internal weapons load. The F-35 could carry a lot more on external pylons.


 
F-22 has external pylons too. When I originally referred to weapon payload, I was discussing both planes in stealth mode. As you say, the F-35 ("bomb truck") wins in non-stealth mode.

Next time, I'll qualify the statement with a "in stealth mode." I was unclear.

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*While the F-22 typically carries its weapons internally, the wings include four hardpoints, each rated to handle 5,000 lb (2,300 kg). Each hardpoint has a pylon that can carry a detachable 600 gallon fuel tank or a launcher holding two air-air missiles.* However, the use of external stores has a detrimental effect on the F-22's stealth, maneuverability and speed. The two inner hardpoints are "plumbed" for external fuel tanks; the hardpoints can be jettisoned in flight so the fighter can maximise its stealth after exhausting external stores.[152] A stealth ordnance pod and pylon is being developed, designed to carry additional weapons internally.[153]"


----------



## siegecrossbow

rcrmj said:


> F-22 have external pylons``there are 4


 
I know but the max load on the F-35 is higher if all internal and external pylons are included. Martian compared internal pylons only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Render.Insane

siegecrossbow said:


> No I am not an aerospace engineer (I am more of an electrical engineering person). You don't have to be one to know how much of a moron Render.Insane is either. Real engineers/experts don't spend that much time on the internet. Saying that Gambit is an aerospace engineer/expert is the same as saying that I am an mathematician just because I spend hours lecturing undergraduate students on basic differential calculus.



you lack logic and base things of hypothetical things... Calculus? lol


----------



## SQ8

IF ONE CANNOT CONVINCE THE OTHER PERSON OF THE ARGUMENT, PLEASE LET GO AND MOVE ON.. INSTEAD OF MAKING IT AN EGO FEST.
Personal attacks, nationality attacks.. dont do you or this thread justice.. especially with all of you behind IP addresses.


For the record (and I dont mean this in a derogatory way)..
I don't have to be an automotive engineer.. however, If I have an electrical degree and work in the showroom and service section of a Toyota or Honda..
I am expected to know more than the average person about CVT's, Fuel injectors, Car electronics, Anti lock brakes.. the works..even if all I work on is Car electronics.

Stick to what you know, if you dont agree.. state your point, cant convince the other guy.. then leave it..
and 

SHUT UP.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Render.Insane said:


> you lack logic and base things of hypothetical things... Calculus? lol


 
Where did I bash the T-50 or say that the J-20 was way superior to the F-35 and T-50? I am still waiting for an apology.

You are the one talking about logic? Lol. I can't even understand what you are trying to say. As my friend popeye would probably advise you: improve your English skills! Other wise it is really easy for us to have misunderstandings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Render.Insane said:


> If i Was the President of India, damn MY every move would be to counter china in the region....
> 
> CHINESE ARE MAKING ENIMES FASTER THAN THEIR FALSE(bulding unfilled homes and malls) econmic growth...
> 
> GOOD LUCK


 
First of all this is a blog, not a forum.

Second of all calling me a "" is not a smart move, since I've just reported you for personal attacks.

Third of all I hope you understand the difference between "was" and "were" and if you actually took time to go over the offensive personal attack you directed against me, you will realize why a guy like you could never be the president of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Render.Insane said:


> the fact is J-20 is NOT comparable to Russian and American aircrafts, and i would like to make it clear, the pictures of avatars on chinese-dragon, and you confirming him in other post just is asisine way of showing pride for one's country... seriously you guys need to bug off...


 
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I can't stop whatever I am doing that I am offending you unless you take your time to explain what chinese-dragon or any other Chinese member is doing to offend you.


----------



## Render.Insane

siegecrossbow said:


> I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I can't stop whatever I am doing that I am offending you unless you take your time to explain what chinese-dragon or any other Chinese member is doing to offend you.


 

No no its fine, mr.texas... your not offending anyone i would like inform you cut the pridefull chest thumping, that is all

I conclude


----------



## siegecrossbow

Render.Insane said:


> No no its fine, mr.texas... your not offending anyone i would like inform you cut the pridefull chest thumping, that is all
> 
> I conclude


 
Where did I chest thump? What is your definition of "Chest thumping"? American bashing, Indian bashing, Russian bashing? Do you have any PROOF of this? Where did I make all those derogatory comments that you claimed that I made?

I am proud of being Texan. You've got a problem with that? Don't mess with Texas.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Where is the proof Insane? Are you a little too "SCARED" because my post history is absolutely clean?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Render.Insane said:


> NO, i was banned a couple times because of you and Chinese-dragon... i sill get banned... these mods are absoultely biased... but what can i say this is Pak forum


 
Plenty of Chinese and Pakistanis members get banned for trolling. 

So you are acknowledging that you hate me just because you get banned because of me?

Still waiting for proof of me chest thumping/bashing the T-50, F-35, India, Russia, etc.


----------



## grey boy 2

siegecrossbow said:


> Plenty of Chinese and Pakistanis members get banned for trolling.
> 
> So you are acknowledging that you hate me just because you get banned because of me?
> 
> Still waiting for proof of me chest thumping/bashing the T-50, F-35, India, Russia, etc.



Bro, ignore him, he is on a mission to derail the thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

grey boy 2 said:


> Bro, ignore him, he is on a mission to derail the thread.


 
Good advice. I am putting him on my ignore list.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## peaceful

Render.Insane said:


> NO, i was banned a couple times because of you and Chinese-dragon... i sill get banned... these mods are absoultely biased... but what can i say this is Pak forum


 
I am a Chinese and I got banned on a monthly basis. The mod is doing their job. 

Now pack up your crap and piss off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> Oh yeah one more thing Gambit. I am looking for your professional advice on implementing the SIFT algorithm for image identification/matching. Most of the code are open source and written in Matlab, a high level language that most aerospace undergraduates at my school have no problem mastering.


Programming is not my work although I do hack around a bit with Perl and Python in data processing of my wafers before shipping them off to customers. SIFT and Matlab? I hope you understand that while SIFT is useful for creating objects, even 3D ones, from features extracted from images, SIFT does a terrible job at extrapolating or inferring the original physical dimensions of whatever it is in the photo image.

Experimental high resolution radars utilizing double-digit ghz freq can pass their results to an image processor, such as SIFT, to try to create a photo-like image of the target. However, because of the dynamic nature of the target, the 'invariant' part of SIFT can only produce more of a snapshot of the target rather than a 'moving pictures' result. Still useful but still require more development.



siegecrossbow said:


> This is certainly a very easy task given your "superior" understanding of science and engineering compared with everyone here.


Am flattered......But the reality is that my mockery of you Chinese boys has more to do with your willingness to engage in intellectual dishonesty than of your intelligence and education. If anything, the more intelligent and educated the person, the greater that willingness to cast aside his education and the demand for critical thinking from that education to support a view and/or express an opinion he knows to be wrong.

A chemical engineer can exercise critical thinking when a mechanical engineer make a claim that his gut tell him is questionable. He can draw up his experience in investigative techniques and research for himself. That is why I encourage people to use keyword searches to verify everything I said about subjects that I yakked about. *NO ONE* can deny that fact. The reason I do that is because, unlike you Chinese boys, I have respect for people's intelligence, even if they are ignorant of the subjects under discussions. I cleared up misconceptions, explained concepts and practices using easily relatable analogies, and support my arguments will credible third party sources. Something you Chinese boys hate to do and hate even more to see when you are challenged.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Programming is not my work although I do hack around a bit with Perl and Python in data processing of my wafers before shipping them off to customers. SIFT and Matlab? I hope you understand that while SIFT is useful for creating objects, even 3D ones, from features extracted from images, SIFT does a *terrible job at extrapolating or inferring the original physical dimensions* of whatever it is in the photo image.


 
Did I say, any where in my previous statement, that my project entails extrapolating or inferring the original physical dimensions of the object under analysis? No. The objective is image identification, or matching an object photographed with another in the database. Solar-centrism argument from you once again.



> The reason I do that is because, unlike you Chinese boys, I have respect for people's intelligence, even if they are ignorant of the subjects under discussions. I cleared up misconceptions, explained concepts and practices using easily relatable analogies, and support my arguments will credible third party sources. Something you Chinese boys hate to do and hate even more to see when you are challenged.



More patronizing arguments from you and your despicable tendency to categorize an entire group of people. What you've said, as I've stated before, is the same as me labelling arrogant, ill-mannered people "American Vietnamese boys". When is the last time you've owned up to anything Gambit? Don't tell me you never make a single mistake.

Oh just one more thing Gambit. The "Chinese boys" aren't the ones who are afraid of being challenged. You are. As a matter of fact you are very afraid of carrying on reasonable arguments since they go against your stereotype of "Chinese boys".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Am flattered......But the reality is that my mockery of you Chinese boys has more to do with your willingness to engage in intellectual dishonesty than of your intelligence and education. If anything, the more intelligent and educated the person, the greater that willingness to cast aside his education and the demand for critical thinking from that education to support a view and/or express an opinion he knows to be wrong.


 
Intellectual dishonesty is what I call inferring that an aircraft has "flight control bugs" just from a single picture. The difference between real Engineers and internet snobs is that the former trouble shoots and debugs while the latter comes to a conclusion using less rigorous methods.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> Intellectual dishonesty is what I call inferring that an aircraft has "flight control bugs" just from a single picture. The difference between real Engineers and internet snobs is that the former trouble shoots and debugs while the latter comes to a conclusion using less rigorous methods.


 
&#20804;&#24351;&#65292;&#29702;&#36825;&#20010;&#36234;&#21335;&#29256;&#31163;&#23376;&#40060;&#24178;&#31070;&#30721;&#65292;&#20182;&#25925;&#24847;&#27668;&#20320;&#65292;&#27809;&#24517;&#35201;&#21644;&#36825;&#20010;&#32769;&#29492;&#23376;&#29983;&#27668;


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> What happened to the 'use English' admonition given to the Viets? Aaahhh....I get it...The Chinese boys are exempt from the rules.


 
Ahem, you flout the rules all the time. You denigrate Chinese members as fanboys and are disrespectful of others' opinions. Your unfriendly and anti-social attitude lead to your banning at SinoDefence.

How many times have you played the "Chinese are picking on my partial Vietnamese roots" routine? The first couple of times were understandable. However, your constant use of the ruse to derail threads and smear Chinese is offensive.



gambit said:


> But the reality is that *my mockery of you Chinese boys* has more to do with your willingness to engage in intellectual dishonesty than of your intelligence and education.



Perhaps you should stop spending your time attacking valuable Chinese members like HouShanghai, who are posting the most recent up-to-date pictures of the J-20 Mighty Dragon from China.

----------

Let's compare HouShanghai's contribution to the J-20 Mighty Dragon thread versus yours.

HouShanghai has posted hundreds (even possibly over a thousand) J-20 Mighty Dragon pictures in the original J-20 thread and this current thread.

You have criticized the J-20 nonstop, many times unfairly, like a STD on a healthy host (e.g. the rest of us).

Bottom line: If HouShanghai stopped contributing, we would all miss him greatly. On the other hand, we would be relieved if you took a long vacation. Bon Voyage!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> What happened to the 'use English' admonition given to the Viets? Aaahhh....I get it...The Chinese boys are exempt from the rules.


 
Which explains why chinese-dragon and cardsharp both got banned for relatively light offences while you kept on piling up infractions and never got the ban? Looks Gambit is exempt from the rules.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


> &#20804;&#24351;&#65292;&#29702;&#36825;&#20010;&#36234;&#21335;&#29256;&#31163;&#23376;&#40060;&#24178;&#31070;&#30721;&#65292;&#20182;&#25925;&#24847;&#27668;&#20320;&#65292;&#27809;&#24517;&#35201;&#21644;&#36825;&#20010;&#32769;&#29492;&#23376;&#29983;&#27668;


 
Don't compare him with lizyu please. He is under enough flak already. This comparison is seriously embarrassing for him. Maybe the mods at CD will ban you once I tell them what you said   .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


>


 
Judging by the date this is an old picture. Who is this LYF guy?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Oh yeah Gambit looking for your page long retort tomorrow. Good night and please do answer my questions instead of deviously evading them with half-relevant strawmen tomorrow.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> Did I say, any where in my previous statement, that my project entails extrapolating or inferring the original physical dimensions of the object under analysis? No. The objective is image identification, or matching an object photographed with another in the database. Solar-centrism argument from you once again.


Hey...You asked for advice so I gave it to you. Without specifics about the project, anyone must give advice based upon guesses. Heck...I would venture that if an object exists in multiple images in this database but with different aspect angles of a certain feature, say an F-15 cockpit canopy, SIFT would give at best %50 result because different poses of the F-15 would give different aspects of the same canopy. That is from the 'invariant' demand of the SIFT algorithm.



siegecrossbow said:


> More patronizing arguments from you and your despicable tendency to categorize an entire group of people. What you've said, as I've stated before, is the same as me labelling arrogant, ill-mannered people "American Vietnamese boys". When is the last time you've owned up to anything Gambit? *Don't tell me you never make a single mistake.*


My English is terrible despite the fact that I learned the language in only one year. I make grammatical mistakes all the time, so much that I make only half hearted effort to monitor myself. But for technical issues, I make extra efforts to be as accurate as possible without giving away certain knowledge. Since I encourage people to use keyword searches to verify my posts and so far no one came back to me and showed me where am I wrong...But in contrast to your so-called 'Engineer' in your playground who made that collosal technical blunder about certain flight controls issues, he refused to admit he was wrong, made a flippant remark when faced with overwhelming evidences, and *YOU* 'Thanked' him for a 'useful' post. A technical mistake of that level is 'useful'...???



siegecrossbow said:


> Oh just one more thing Gambit. The "Chinese boys" aren't the ones who are afraid of being challenged. You are. As a matter of fact you are very afraid of carrying on reasonable arguments since they go against your stereotype of "Chinese boys".


Of course you Chinese boys are afraid of being challenged. So far, none of you dispute the fact that in the beginning, I gave the Chinese members here the respect I believe everyone deserve and I did that by staying on topic and support my arguments with credible third party sources. In return, I was figuratively spat on, called a 'racist' because I challenged Chinese fantastic claims, and received cheap and personal racist insults for no other reasons. Once you Chinese boys found out I am a Viet, the insults got worse. Does the fact that some of you Chinese boys are banned mean nothing to you?



siegecrossbow said:


> Intellectual dishonesty is what I call inferring that an aircraft has "flight control bugs" just from a single picture. The difference between real Engineers and internet snobs is that the former trouble shoots and debugs while the latter comes to a conclusion using less rigorous methods.


That is a good belly laugh. That show the need for you, an academic, to get out of the classroom and be among working professionals. Good technicians and engineers *FIRST* infer, then they troubleshoot and debug. An inference, based upon sound basic system knowledge, make for an excellent starting point in resolving complex problems. If anything, the more complex the machineries and problem involved, the greater the need for the man to take a deep breath, pause for a few moments to infer or guess what the cause(s) may be, then act. Basic system knowledge is the foundation of good guesses or inferrences, even if the guess is wrong, at least it eliminate one what was thought to be probable causes.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Your unfriendly and anti-social attitude lead to your banning at SinoDefence.


Yeah...The evidences said despite a join date of 2009, I have only 80-something post count and *ONE* long discussion. But hey...Exaggerations and the lies, there and here, are the Chinese boys' stock in trade.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Yeah...The evidences said despite a join date of 2009, I have only 80-something post count and ONE long discussion. But hey...*Exaggerations and the lies, there and here, are the Chinese boys' stock in trade.*


 
There you go again.

You're accusing us of: "Exaggerations and the lies, there and here, are the Chinese boys' stock in trade." This is your standard routine. Never miss an opportunity to smear the Chinese members. Come on, take a break.

If you made the same baseless accusation in the Indian sub-forum, you would be banned instantly. The only reason you haven't been banned in the Chinese sub-forum by now is due to the gracious forbearance of the Chinese members. Think about that for a while.

----------

Since I just remembered, I will take this opportunity to remind you of another bogus criticism of yours about the J-20. Based on a picture of the J-20's vertical stabilizers, you claimed the J-20 likely/possibly had a software integration problem. You remember that crazy claim of yours?

Another erroneous, misleading, and totally unwarranted criticism of China's J-20 Mighty Dragon as a result of your strong anti-China bias.

----------

In an earlier post you challenged me to name a single untrue claim/statement by you. Here are three:

1. Your stubborn claim that warheads only fall vertically onto their targets. (Yes, I know about your latest excuses. I don't find them convincing. You screwed up, admit it.)

2. You objected to my claim that China's ASBM had a 1,000 km range. I remember you also called me a "fanboy" repeatedly in that thread, which made me more determined to prove you wrong. Otherwise, I might have just let the issue slide. Anyway, using my argument of a likely Chinese SOSUS system, my calculation of 930 to 960 km detection range proved my claim of a 1,000 km range for China's ASBM was perfectly reasonable.

3. You made the crazy claim about J-20 software integration problems based on a picture of a parked J-20 and the position of its vertical stabilizers. I argued that China had over a decade of experience with fly-by-wire on the J-10 (since its first flight in 1998). You ignored my insight and insisted there was a software integration problem. The J-20 Mighty Dragon flew within a couple of weeks of your crazy claim. You were proven wrong.

Bottom line: There you have it. You make plenty of mistakes like the rest of us. Stop claiming to be infallible. You're embarrassing yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10#Flight_control_system

"Due to the J-10's aerodynamically unstable design, a digital quadruplex-redundant fly-by-wire flight control system aids the pilot in flying the aircraft. Chinese aircraft designer Yang Wei is claimed to be the chief designer of the fly-by-wire flight control system....The flight control computer provides automatic flight coordination and keeps the aircraft from entering potentially dangerous situations such as unintentional slops or skids. This therefore frees the pilot to concentrate on his intended tasks during the combat."


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> Don't compare him with lizyu please. He is under enough flak already. This comparison is seriously embarrassing for him. Maybe the mods at CD will ban you once I tell them what you said   .


 

Better not


----------



## mughaljee

Pakistan is the part of it or not ?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Since I just remembered, I will take this opportunity to remind you of another bogus criticism of yours about the J-20. Based on a picture of the J-20's vertical stabilizers, you claimed the J-20 likely/possibly had a software integration problem. You remember that crazy claim of yours?
> 
> Another erroneous, misleading, and totally unwarranted criticism of China's J-20 Mighty Dragon as a result of your strong anti-China bias.


You should read up what I said about what make a good technician or engineer. Looks like you would make neither.


----------



## houshanghai

nomi007 said:


> BEST OF LUCK TO J-20
> I WISH CHINA MAY STOLEN EJ-200 FROM ANY EUROPEAN COUNTRY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF J-20


 

a bad idea,ej200 is a middle-class turbofan engine(ex.rd93, f404/414,m88,ws13).it is too small to j20
j20 need a F119-PW-100 or 117s high-class turbofan engine. 
The answer is WS15 turbofan engine for j20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Yeah...The evidences said despite a join date of 2009, I have only 80-something post count and *ONE* long discussion. But hey...Exaggerations and the lies, there and here, are the Chinese boys' stock in trade.


 
You joined in 2009 and BEHAVED NICELY like not jumping out at other people in a flash of emotional insecurity. Why would any one ban you if you didn't breech any rules during that time??? You getting banned had nothing to do with you posting a long discussion and every thing to do with you acting like a complete jerk, not following forum rules, and repeated ignoring and challenging MOD warnings!

Yeah continue with the Chinese boy generalization. You know what I found interesting Gambit??? Instead of calling us Communist boys, Commies, Socialist boys, or anything else you continuously refer to us as Chinese boys? This is clearly a case of racism and prejudice against a particular country. Why else would you suddenly lashed out against TyroneG despite the fact that he wasn't even Chinese. Always safe to make assumptions isn't it? Why don't you stop your antics and call us what you really wanted to call us all this time?

My only regret is giving Engineer infractions during the incident. The way he treated you was no better than the way you treated him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

More on Gambit's "mod protection". All of your arguments and posts are still up there on display on sinodefence, for all to judge whereas our previous quarrel on the previous J-20 thread mysteriously disappeared (not just the arguments, the entire thread) in what I believe is an attempt to help Gambit save face. I am prepared for this thread to "disappear" overnight and/or get banned for saying those things. Forums go a long way to protect their "professionals", Lizyu being the case and point on CJDBY.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

This thread is no longer about the J-20.. but a hodgepodge of Vietnam-China issues and apparently personal history.
any post found by me here that does not discuss the J-20..AND ONLY THE J-20... will be considered trolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Way to go

Deleted.....


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> You joined in 2009 and BEHAVED NICELY...


Good...Then we can call you a liar for saying that I 'mistreated everyone' over at your playground.

Moving on...

===

Readers,

Recently some supposedly 'evidences' were presented to support the argument that we can be conclusive about the J-20's radar reflective properties. Said 'evidences' are in the form of physical optics measurement performed by an Australian group => Air Power Australia - Home Page <= APA does have some excellent articles with credible technical analysis worthy of being references themselves. But APA dropped the ball on this one...

What APA did was performed a physical optics (PO) simulation on the J-20 regarding its radar reflectivity. They *DID NOT* performed said measurements with established physical dimensions commonly known from profile views: top, bottom, front, and sides. In other words, any physical dimensions input into the simulation were of inferences from photographs. As if that was not bad enough, the photographic experience was out of their control. It is very feasible to have very accurate physical dimensions of any complex body from photographic experience. We do that regularly with satellite imagery. But the difference here is that we have ownership of said photographic experience and whenever we do not we made it clear to our audience, be it the public or the President himself, that because we did not have control of the photographic experience, the physical dimensions of said body should be taken with a large margin of error. In efffect, APA guessed what the J-20's physical dimensions could be and inserted them into a PO simulation. The computing adage 'Garbage in. Garbage out.' is very true and applicable here. APA could be as lucky as we have from satellite imagery and what they inferred are true. But hope is insufficient for any critical thinking person to accept as part of any declaration of any argument he is willing to stake his intellect upon and defend.

Here are the admitted flaws in APA's simulation of the J-20's radar reflectivity...

1- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from edge diffraction effects*, although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by edge treatments;

2- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from surface travelling wave effects.* In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations;

3- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from the AESA bay in the passband of a bandpass radome,* due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same, the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design much effort will be expended in suppressing passband RCS contributions;

4- The simulator at this time *does not model backscatter from the engine inlet tunnels or engine exhaust tailpipes,* due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by suppressing these RCS contributions with absorbers, and in the case of inlet tunnels, by introducing a serpentine geometry to increase the number of bounces;

5- The simulator at this time *does not model structural mode RCS contributions from antenna and EO apertures, panel joins, panel and door gaps, fasteners and other minor contributors;* although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by RCS reduction treatments.

All the highlighted items that APA's PO simulation did not collect data are what make a complex body electronically visible on a 'radar scope'...As illustrated below...







In all five items, APA essentially hope or gamble that the J-20's manufacturer will successfully compensate. The J-20's supporters then gleefully leap over the APA statement that theirs is a 'Preliminary Assessment' and ignore the APA admitted 6 important shortcomings, five outlined above, and demand that everyone, including those who have relevant experience in the radar detection, to accept blindly that the J-20 has a conclusive RCS. It is possible that APA is correct. But that is not how critical thinking people work.

For the ignorant but curious and critical thinking lay person, those five points above would be enough to cast a healthy measure of doubt on APA's methodology. But the J-20's supporters would counter via the 'appeal to authority' argument by laying out the credentials of the simulation's author: Peter Goon => CV - Peter Goon - APA Co-founder . No offense to Mr. Goon, presumably a very nice man, but his _curriculum vitae_ seems to involve more of test flights than of radar detection. For the ignorant but curious and critical thinking lay person, he is now being beaten over the head and hopefully into intellectual submission via Mr. Goon's credentials.

It is quite unfair to the lay readers to see paywalled sources from an advocate. For all we know, the advocate is being selective with his sources to deceive. But considering someone's credentials are being used as an 'appeal to authority' argument club, it is only reasonable that the lay readers have a shield so they can resume to exercise that which is critical for any thinking person: objectivity.

So here comes that shield...

In the radar community, there are very very very few personalities that has the technical gravitas as that of Merril Sknolnik or Eugene Knott. Their works are required reading. Combined, the pair alone have decades of technical knowledge, experience, accomplishments, and published works that set the standards in the community. Any engineer who claim to specialize in radar detection better have their most famous works on his/her bookshelf.






Regarding the above, it is a 1985 summary/abstract of Knott's paper about the techniques used to predict and model a complex body under radar measurement. An abstract is usually written by a reviewer, rarely by the paper's author. In this paper, Knott outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the major methods and what he said about physical optics (PO), as the reviewer pointed out, is significant...



> Physical optics does yield results in those cases. but *fails by progressively wider margins* as the scattering directions swings farther from the specular direction.



Thirty years later, we have this...






The readers should note that the paper's authors are: *IRANIANS*. Look who they referenced for their submission: E F Knott. And look at what the Iranians said about PO...



> As is observed, PO *give erroneous results at wide angles.*
> 
> Physical Optics (PO) is a common EM analysis tool on which many efficient computer codes are based. Despite the method's efficiency in case of surface structures and in specular regions, *it looses its significance when applied to objects having edges or discontinuities.*



To their credit, APA did admitted the shortcomings of their analysis and did called it a 'Preliminary Assessment'. We should take it no more than that and based no assertions upon it. If we have a bias or being an advocate, then we should be intellectually honest enough to state that it is only our own opinions and not demand that others accept those opinions as gospel truth. Thirty years passed and the technique passed through countless hands but the conclusion is still the same: That Physical Optics (PO) is *NOT* the correct tool for a complex body and APA stated why in the 6th caveat...



> 6- *The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling.* The simulator does not implement the Mitzner/Ufimtsev corrections for edge currents. While a number of test runs with basic shapes showed good agreement between the PO simulation and backscatter peaks in third party test sample measurements, even at incidence angles below 10°, characteristically PO will underestimate backscatter in nulls. This limitation must be considered when assessing results for the nose and tail aspects, where most specular RCS contributions arise at very shallow angles39.



That does not mean that APA is absolutely wrong but what it mean is that if an incorrect tool was used, or must be used because of some reasons, then an objective person should take a neutral stance and wait for when the target is available so we can impose the correct tool or correct combinations of tools to have a more honest analysis. This should have nothing to do with one's own wishes out of nationalistic pride. This is about common sense regardless of whether APA may be correct or incorrect.

Physical Optics (PO) is best for individual RCS contributors in a complex body. Not on the total assembly itself. If the Iranians recognized PO's limitations, odds are very good that Chinese engineers have as well. And they have Skolnik's and Knott's works -- real physics -- on their bookshelves.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

houshanghai said:


> a bad idea,ej200 is a middle-class turbofan engine(ex.rd93, f404/414,m88,ws13).it is too small to j20
> j20 need a F119-PW-100 or 117s high-class turbofan engine.
> The answer is WS15 turbofan engine for j20


 
The 117S is just a 3.5th gen turbofan engine, not a true 4th gen turbofan engine like F-119.


----------



## Project 627

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The 117S is just a 3.5th gen turbofan engine, not a true 4th gen turbofan engine like F-119.



Ever heard about the TYPE 30 engine


----------



## houshanghai

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The 117S is just a 3.5th gen turbofan engine, not a true 4th gen turbofan engine like F-119.


 
my means is the sizes of turbofan


----------



## Martian2

Gambit fails to understand the importance of Australia Air Power's "Physics Optics" simulation. They informed you that all of the potential errors are mitigated or reduced by a list of factors. He is making a mountain out of a molehill to try and discredit the J-20 Mighty Dragon's superlative design.

He is making the classical argument: "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?" I'll trust my eyes over his misleading verbiage any day. Let's look at an example.



> 2- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from surface travelling wave effects. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations;



"Backscatter from surface travelling wave effects" sounds important, right? No. Mr. Goon told you that "edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations" can take care of the problem.

Your eyes have seen the saw-toothed "panel serrations" on the landing and weapon bay panels. Your eyes can see the "lossy surface coatings" or radar-absorbent material on the F-22 and J-20.

Your eyes can also see the gap treatments on the F-22 and J-20. Both have smooth underside surfaces. The Russian Pak-Fa/T-50 is the one that has little or no gap treatments. Your eyes can see the mess on the underside of the Pak-Fa/T-50.





J-20 underside is smooth and clutter-free from vents, gaps, and stuff jutting out.

With regard to edge treatment, I have already covered part of this topic in my video. If you haven't watched it yet, make sure to do so and bring yourself up-to-date on stealth fighter design.

Edge treatment occurs in the following ways: "edge alignment , improved inlet , wing shaping and some nozzle edge treatment." On the J-20 Mighty Dragon, edge alignment is obvious from the "planform alignment" shown in my video. Improved inlet is the J-20 DSI bump. J-20 wing shaping has been modeled and tested on supercomputers and in wind tunnels. J-20 nozzle edge treatment is obvious from the saw-toothed engine nozzles and saw-toothed integration with the fuselage, which are shown in a picture below.





J-20 advanced inlet with DSI technology is readily apparent.





J-20 has saw-toothed engine nozzles and saw-toothed integration with the fuselage.

Gambit is determined to downplay the J-20 Mighty Dragon's excellent stealth design. He's anti-China. On the other hand, I'm objective.

He will keep posting an endless wall of text without discussing their relevance. His obfuscating tactic is to say or imply: "Look at this mountain of text. There must be a problem in here." However, I try to explain ideas to make them easily understandable to allow you to make an informed judgment.

My J-20 video has over 74,000 views. After you watch it, you will be a more knowledgeable person about stealth design. Gambit cannot point to a video that he has made on stealth design that is helpful to the public.

In my opinion, the disclaimer on backscatter point #2 (discussed above) has a minor effect on the results of Australia Air Power's "Physics Optics" simulation. Similarly, all of the disclaimed factors have a minor effect. Mr. Goon tells you that everything is "mitigated" or "reduced."

Please ignore Gambit. He will try to confuse you to pursue his anti-China political agenda. I've been straight with all of you from "day one." Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22 and superior to the F-35. Now, Australia Air Power has confirmed my analysis.


----------



## S10

Truth is nobody knows the performance of J-20 in terms of low obserability. What Kopps did was a very basic experiment with a model of the design that may not be 100% consistent with the actual plane. All we know so far is that CAC was happy with the results they obtained from anechoic chamber testing. The aft body tailbooms and strakes will be removed when the production model is ready, confirmed by pupu. On the other hand, the nozzle is here to stay.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Gambit, you fail to understand the importance of Australia Air Power's "Physics Optics" simulation.


I understand it better than you do.



Martian2 said:


> They informed you that all of the errors are mitigated or reduced by a list of factors.


What they mean is they hope that it would.



Martian2 said:


> You are making a mountain out of a molehill to try and discredit the J-20 Mighty Dragon's superlative design.


Superlative? Look who is making a mountain of a largely unknown 'molehill' now? 



Martian2 said:


> You are making the classical argument: "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?" I'll trust my eyes over your misleading verbiage any day. Let's look at an example.


I trust the authors Skolnik and Knott. I have their superlative texts in my little library.



Martian2 said:


> "Backscatter from surface travelling wave effects" sounds important, right? No. Mr. Goon told you that "edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations" can take care of the problem.


Then we should wait and see before Mr. Goon made his highly dubious PO measurement. Given the available technical knowledge out there that even the Iranians know them, we could only wonder as to why APA did not use the necessary combinations of measurement tools to measure their highly contrived virtual model.



Martian2 said:


> Your eyes have seen the saw-toothed "panel serrations" on the landing and weapon bay panels. Your eyes can see the "lossy surface coatings" or radar-absorbent material on the F-22 and J-20.


Then why did APA use only PO?



Martian2 said:


> He's anti-China.


Yes...Of course...Being critical and supporting of one's argument make one 'anti-China'.



Martian2 said:


> On the other hand, I'm objective.


You mean you are wishful.

I see no need to address the rest of your drivel. Anyone, including your fellow Chinese, who is/are intellectually honest enough to read my post will see that I have history on my side. APA was wrong in using only Physical Optics.


----------



## Martian2

For those of you that followed the original J-20 thread and continued onto this thread, you remember that Gambit has made a big deal about "edge diffraction."

Also, Gambit makes a big deal about "edge diffraction" again with regard to Australia Air Power's point #1. To wit:



> 1- The simulator at this time does not model *backscatter from edge diffraction effects*, although *the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by edge treatments*;



I have already mentioned that "the resulting error will be mitigated...by edge treatments."

However, I want to ask all of you an important question. Why isn't the supposed "military professional" informing you that NASA considers edge diffraction effects to be trivial?

Planet Quest: Technology - A Close Look at Diffraction

"A Closer Look at Diffraction

*When an electromagnetic wave passes by an obstacle in space, the wave is bent around the object.* This phenomenon is known as diffraction. *The effects of diffraction are usually very small, so we seldom notice it.*"

After all the articles that Gambit has read on edge diffraction, why hasn't he ever told you that Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA states the effects of diffraction are trivial?

I did tell you guys that Gambit will mislead you to pursue his anti-China agenda. He hides behind technical terms to make false claims. In contrast, I explain "backscatter from edge diffraction" in understandable terms and provide a citation from a mainstream source.

Do you trust NASA's claim that "edge diffraction" is trivial or would you rather trust Gambit's anti-China agenda that "edge diffraction" is a really big problem (and only for the J-20, but not for the F-22 or F-35)?

[Note: The web address for my citation shows its from "jpl.nasa.gov".]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Your eyes can also see the gap treatments on the F-22 and J-20. Both have smooth underside surfaces. *The Russian Pak-Fa/T-50 is the one that has little or no gap treatments*. Your eyes can see the mess on the underside of the Pak-Fa/T-50.





You call others trolls and accuse them of downplaying the J-20 but here you are shamelessly taking cheap shots at the pak-fa, ironically no one said a think about the pak-fa and no pak-fa fanboy insulted the mighty *dragqueen* and than you go crying that the J-20 mighty drag queen gets downplayed.





Martian2 said:


> J-20 underside is smooth and clutter-free from vents, gaps, and stuff jutting out.





And those four sphere like objects under the wings that are about the size of a small outomobile are an elussion?




As for edge diffraction, please just keep quiet, you are the last person to lecture anyone on edge diffraction, let me remind the readers that you claimed the J-20's canards to be paper thin and thus good for 'stealth', how emmbaressing 




Martian2 said:


> Do you trust NASA's claim that "edge diffraction" is trivial or would you rather trust Gambit's anti-China agenda that "edge diffraction" is a really big problem (*and only for the J-20, but not for the F-22 or F-35*)?






That's because neither of those aircraft have canards. Any surface will give off edge diffraction, in this case the F-35 and F-22 have EM energy diffract off of their horizontal stabilizers--there is nothing behind those horizontal stabilizers, but with the J-20 the edge diffraction occurs off of the canards--a canards is located towards the front of the aircraft. It's also interesting that while you downplay edge diffraction while you rave about the 'saw tooth' patterns on the J-20, what do you think those are for?




Martian2 said:


> When an electromagnetic wave passes by an obstacle in space, the wave is bent around the object. This phenomenon is known as diffraction. The effects of diffraction are usually very small, so we seldom notice it."







Why don't you try reading your sourse more carefully so next time so you spare yourself the humiliation. Lets see if anyone else notices you blunder.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> And those four sphere like objects under the wings that are about the size of a small outomobile are an elussion?







Hydraulically-powered aileron control systems

Look at the location of the J-20 pods. They are located next to the ailerons. Hence, the pods are most likely hydraulically-powered aileron control systems encased in a radar-deflecting enclosure.

Look at the size of an oval aileron control pod and compare it to one of the tires. Each pod is merely the size of a tire, not an automobile. Feel free to retract your claim "about the size of [an aileron control pod being] a small automobile" and thank me for correcting your error.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Martian2 said:


> Hydraulically-powered aileron control systems
> 
> Look at the location of the J-20 pods. They are located next to the ailerons. Hence, the pods are most likely hydraulically-powered aileron control systems encased in a radar-deflecting enclosure.



Martian2, i would not try to convince naysayers here about the potential of the Chinese J-20 fighter.


The only slight worry is whether they can have the WS-15 ready on time. There seems very little doubt that it will be top notch in terms of stealth, avionics and missiles like the ramjet-powered PL-21D are just really scary.

They are just jealous and envious of China's massive military strides. While all countries are progressing, China is just progressing quicker than anyone else at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The creamy white nozzled engine in fact could be WS-15, but they are very careful with it by applying a WS-10G and a WS-15 on each side.

BTW, we might be able to see the twin WS-15 in the next year.


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The creamy white nozzled engine in fact could be WS-15, but they are very careful with it by applying a WS-10G and a WS-15 on each side.


 
Nah the WS-15 engines will feature TVC.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> Nah the WS-15 engines will feature TVC.


 
&#20992;&#21475; could put his reputation at stake that this is the 4th gen engine for J-20.

Considering he never fooled people in the past, i think this one could be a safe bet.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Hydraulically-powered aileron control systems
> 
> Look at the location of the J-20 pods. They are located next to the ailerons. Hence, the pods are most likely hydraulically-powered aileron control systems encased in a radar-deflecting enclosure.




I know what those are for. You made a cheap claim about the pak-fa while claiming that the J-20 has nothing 'jetting out'--that was wrong. Now recall how you claimed spheres are 'bad for stealth'. Those protrusions are no different than a sphere when looking at the J-20 from bellow. Either way you were wrong about the J-20 being flat. Your hero Kopp made a clever illustration of how the F-35's belly with sphere and all would increase radar returns, so with you being such a die hard Kopp beleiver what makes you think that the J-20 is excluded? If Kopp claimes that the F-35's sphere is poor for 'stealth' what makes you think that four spheres on the J-20 wouln't be?




Martian2 said:


> Look at the size of an oval aileron control pod and compare it to one of the tires. Each pod is merely the *size of a tire*, not an automobile. Feel free to retract your claim "about the size of [an aileron control pod being] a small automobile" and thank me for correcting your error.



And that is a good thing? When i made the comment about them being the size of an automobile i was being sarcastics, how can anyone take that literally?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> For those of you that followed the original J-20 thread and continued onto this thread, you remember that Gambit has made a big deal about "edge diffraction."
> 
> Also, Gambit makes a big deal about "edge diffraction" again with regard to Australia Air Power's point #1. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already mentioned that "the resulting error will be mitigated...by edge treatments."
> 
> However, I want to ask all of you an important question. Why isn't the supposed "military professional" informing you that NASA considers edge diffraction effects to be trivial?
> 
> Planet Quest: Technology - A Close Look at Diffraction
> 
> "A Closer Look at Diffraction
> 
> *When an electromagnetic wave passes by an obstacle in space, the wave is bent around the object.* This phenomenon is known as diffraction. *The effects of diffraction are usually very small, so we seldom notice it.*"
> 
> After all the articles that Gambit has read on edge diffraction, why hasn't he ever told you that Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA states the effects of diffraction are trivial?
> 
> I did tell you guys that Gambit will mislead you to pursue his anti-China agenda. He hides behind technical terms to make false claims. In contrast, I explain "backscatter from edge diffraction" in understandable terms and provide a citation from a mainstream source.
> 
> Do you trust NASA's claim that "edge diffraction" is trivial or would you rather trust Gambit's anti-China agenda that "edge diffraction" is a really big problem (and only for the J-20, but not for the F-22 or F-35)?
> 
> [Note: The web address for my citation shows its from "jpl.nasa.gov".]


Here is the difference between you and I: critical thinking skills.

The NASA source is an explanation of *WHAT* is edge diffraction and how does it pertain to certain applications...



> All *telescopes* must take diffraction into account. In the case of *telescopes intended to resolve objects (planets)* that, at best, will appear as a single pixel in the image, diffraction must be managed to allow that pixel to shine through.


In other words, different needs will deal with certain properties and/or behaviors differently. This is not just about edge diffraction effects but for all things in life. For NASA, the astronomers are not trying to hide anything. They need to understand edge diffraction effects so they can deal with it to *REVEAL* very faint objects.

For military purposes such as 'stealth', it is a different need so even though the basic understanding of edge diffraction effects is still the same, we must deal with it differently because we are trying to *CONCEAL* some things. That is why snipers pay close attention to details that could reveal their positions. That is why there are so many arguments about the PAK-FA's data measurements probes typical of developmental flights.

Another example of this is the wheel. Most people could not conceive of the tank tread as a wheel but that is exactly what it is: a mechanical wheel. We understand the basic principles of sidewalls, tread dimensions, flexibility, and so on...But for different needs, we created the 'tank tread', the typical rubber 'tire', the old wooden and steel wagon 'wheel', and so on...For different applications.

You want to dismiss these effects because you have a substantial emotional investment in the J-20 out of nationalistic pride. If these effects are so trivial, then why are they such a big deal for any one who is trying to develop a 'stealth' aircraft. The reason is because they, like me, exercised their critical thinking skills and determine that different needs require different methods of negotiations of these effects. That is why the Iranians published their report that different tools such as GTD must be employed at different locations on a complex body. That is why we have something called Iterative Physical Optics (IPO) to deal with cavity RCS measurement...

PIER Online - Computation of EM Field Scattered by an Open-Ended Cavity and by a Cavity Under Radome Using the Iterative Physical Optics


> Abstract:
> It is always a challenge to predict Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a full scale military platform with a good accuracy. *Most of the time antennas and cavities are the main contributors of aircrafts RCS.* Several methods have been developed to compute the RCS of cavities such as analytical methods (modal methods) and asymptotic methods (geometrical optics (GO) methods and physical optics (PO) methods). This article presents the *Iterative Physical Optics (IPO)* method which consists in an iterative resolution of the Magnetic Field Integral Equation (MFIE) to compute the currents on the inner walls of the cavity. This method allows computing arbitrarily shaped cavity with a good accuracy even for cavity with a depth inferior to the wavelength. Comparisons of IPO results with Rays and Finite element methods show a better accuracy of IPO than Rays especially for cross polarization. But computation time represents one of the main limitations of the IPO method. We present here a new formulation of the Segmented IPO method which coupled with the generalized reciprocity theorem decreases significantly the complexity of the method and consequently the computation time. The S-IPO method has been validated by comparisons with Modal method and measurements. We have observed that the repartition of the electric currents density on the inner walls of the cavity is quite the same with IPO and S-IPO computations. Lastly we propose an evolution of the IPO method we have developed to compute the RCSof cavities under radome. This method has been validated by comparison with finite element results.


Does APA know about IPO? If not then why not?

This is why no one who has relevant experience in this matter do not take seriously your video, the one that boosted your ego with your repeated boast of view count. Talk about vanity...

What APA did was wrong on several levels, but the most egregious are two: questionable physical dimensions and the use of physical optics (PO) as the *ONLY* tool.

Did China give APA the precise physical dimensions? If not, then why is it wrong for us to be suspicious that what dimensions APA used are undersized and therefore their data are naturally skewed towards a smaller RCS, the one that you have so much emotional investment in? The computing adage 'Garbage in. Garbage out.' is very true when the basic information required is in doubt.

You once argued since the US never allowed anyone to have his own independent analysis of the F-22 but everyone pretty much acknowledged that the F-22 is the premier 'stealth' aircraft, why not give the J-20 the same latitude? That is a reasonable argument but only on its surface.

If I apply for a loan, the lender will look at two main factors: income and credit history. Income is a variable. I may receive a pay raise or not or even a reduction. I may continue to have employment or be terminated. The lender does not know but only have some faith based upon income history. Credit history is a different issue. It is established and quite unalterable. The lender can look at my credit history and assess my ability to repay debts of various sizes. Income and credit history are like the parallel rails for a train.

Does China have a history that involve an F-117 equivalent? The reality is that the US does not care what people believe about the F-117, let alone the B-2 or the F-22. But the reason why people are willing to give US a healthy measure of their faith is because of established combat record of our 'stealth' aircraft, as in credit history, and our lead in aviation, as in potential income. Chinese aviation is still far behind US but here you are asking intellectual 'lenders' to exercise faith in its military variant when contrasted against US military aviation history and combat record?






One of the pair above is the size of a bird for radar detection. When China can demonstrate the same then intellectual 'lenders' will be willing to give China the same faith as they have given US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> And that is a good thing? When i made the comment about them being the size of an automobile i was being sarcastics, how can anyone take that literally?


 
I see. All of your comments and Gambit's downplaying the J-20 Mighty Dragon and talking up the Pak-Fa/T-50 have been sarcasm. It all makes sense now. I should not have called the two of you J-20 trolls. I should have called you J-20 jokers.

Gambit, you've been suspicious to the point of paranoia. How else can you explain your suspicion that the J-20 was having software integration problems (even after I pointed out the J-10 had been using a fly-by-wire control system for over 10 years) based on one picture of a parked J-20 Mighty Dragon?

However, I grow weary of both of you. Both of you are clearly wrong in many instances and have a bad tendency of refusing to admit it.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Martian2 said:


> Gambit, you've been suspicious to the point of paranoia. How else can you explain your suspicion that the J-20 was having software integration problems (even after I pointed out the J-10 had been using a fly-by-wire control system for over 10 years) based on one picture of a parked J-20 Mighty Dragon?



By acknowledging that programming wasn't his work a few posts back. 



gambit said:


> Programming is not my work...


 
ChineseTiger. Daokou is primarily a navy person. Some of his allegations, such as Feng Bu Bei and Hao hai zi being agents of the CAC who purposefully photoshopped the WS-10 nozzles to conceal the TVC, are simply absurd. I liked his naval interviews but you mustn't believe him superstitiously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> I see. All of your comments and Gambit's downplaying the J-20 Mighty Dragon and talking up the Pak-Fa/T-50 have been sarcasm. It all makes sense now.


 


No one has down played anything, if you haven't noticed the discussion about RCS guestemates have been aimed at the methods used and not whether the J-20's RCS is whatever Goon claimed. Similarly the canards and edge diffraction discussion has been in response to J-20 fanboys claiming canards pose no problem. The only thing I have claimed about canards is that edge diffraction is a real phenomenon and that all wing structures give off edge diffraction, I always used a disclaimer when talking about edge diffraction- I never made any ridiculous claims that said canards increase RCS by a fact of X. But J-20 fanboys have made similar claims about the pak-fa.

Ironic that for someone that calls others trolls and accuses people of downplaying you are the one that brings up the pak-fa into every post and you are the one that shamelessly made threads about how poor the pak-fa is. Who is downplaying what? If anyone insults or downplays it is *you*, if anyone goes off topic by randomly bashing other aircraft it is *you*. If you don't like it when others criticize the J-20 than keep quite about other aircraft , you have no problems insulting the Rafale, pak-fa and F-22 but cry foul when someone challenges your beloved J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> By acknowledging that programming wasn't his work a few posts back.
> 
> 
> 
> ChineseTiger. Daokou is primarily a navy person. Some of his allegations, such as Feng Bu Bei and Hao hai zi being agents of the CAC who purposefully photoshopped the WS-10 nozzles to conceal the TVC, are simply absurd. I liked his naval interviews but you mustn't believe him superstitiously.


 
I know he is not an insider of the J-20 and other air force related stuffs.

But this guy is damn brilliant, and he is unbelievable accurate in most of the speculation because his perception is so damn good.

I will put my bet on him this time. Even Huzigeng also confirmed that WS-15 will be installed on J-20 in the next year, so this year they already start to testify a single WS-15, then next year it will be a twin WS-15.


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I know he is not an insider of the J-20 and other air force related stuffs.
> 
> But this guy is damn brilliant, and he has unbelievable accurate in most of the speculation because his perception is so damn good.
> 
> I will put my bet on him this time. Even Huzigeng also confirmed that WS-15 will be installed on J-20 in the next year, so this year they already start to testify a single WS-15, then next year it will be a twin WS-15.


 
Then wait till next year. Huzigeng is more trustworthy on air force related matters. Once we notice something unusual happened to the nozzles then we'll know.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> Then wait till next year. Huzigeng is more trustworthy on air force related matters. Once we notice something unusual happened to the nozzles then we'll know.


 
Huzigeng should be almost a first hand source, but daokou is still quite reliable when it comes to this matter. I'd say he is 9/10 at least.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Gambit, you've been suspicious to the point of paranoia. How else can you explain your suspicion that the J-20 was having software integration problems (even after I pointed out the J-10 had been using a fly-by-wire control system for over 10 years) based on one picture of a parked J-20 Mighty Dragon?


Just because Boeing and Airbus has FBW FLCS does that mean the flight control laws are the same? You have a problem grasping the concept of these laws in the first place. But for those who have relevant experience in flight control systems, from its mechanical aspects to the architecture of these laws to the integration of both and finally to flight testing, there is nothing wrong with observing behaviors and making informed guesses.

For example...






Beechcraft Bonanza has a v-tail variant as well as a conventional rudder and horizontal stabs configuration...

Beechcraft Bonanza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> This feature started with the *V-tail* and persists on the current production model.


The flight control laws, as defined by mechanical construction, will be slightly different against the conventional arrangement.

The concept of these laws is mainly philosophical: a one-meter long stick will increase your reach by one meter, not two. So if we create a virtual one meter stick in a program, the output of whatever that uses this virtual meter stick will be increased by one meter.

Failure to grasp this philosophy is the cause of your belief that all FBW FLCS are the same.



Martian2 said:


> However, I grow weary of both of you. Both of you are clearly wrong in many instances and have a bad tendency of refusing to admit it.


Please......More like as time goes by, you found yourself running out of credible arguments.


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> No has down played anything, if you haven't noticed the discussion about RCS guestemates have been aimed at the methods used and not whether the J-20's RCS is whatever Goon claimed. Similarly the canards and edge diffraction discussion has been in response to J-20 fanboys claiming canards pose no problem. The only thing I have claimed about canards is that edge diffraction is a real phenomenon and that all wing structures give off edge diffraction, I always used a disclaimer when talking about edge diffraction- *I never made any ridiculous claims that said canards increase RCS by a fact of X. But J-20 fanboys have made similar claims about the pak-fa.*
> 
> Ironic that for someone that calls others trolls and accuses people of downplaying you are the one that brings up the pak-fa into every post and you are the one that shamelessly made threads about how poor the pak-fa is. Who is downplaying what? If anyone insults or downplays it is *you*, if anyone goes off topic by randomly bashing other aircraft it is *you*. If you don't like it when others criticize the J-20 than keep quite about other aircraft , you have no problems insulting the Rafale, pak-fa and F-22 but cry foul when someone challenges your beloved J-20.


Intellectual consistency has never been these guys' strong suit.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> By acknowledging that programming wasn't his work a few posts back.


Then we should disqualify every Chinese member here since *NONE* of you even served in the military, let alone yak about technical issues relating to military gear. Like I said, intellectual consistency has never been the Chinese boys' strong suit.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Then we should disqualify every Chinese member here since *NONE* of you even served in the military, let alone yak about technical issues relating to military gear. Like I said, intellectual consistency has never been the Chinese boys' strong suit.


 
How do you know we don't have Chinese members who never served in the military here? Did you do a back ground check of every Chinese member here???

Programming is not your strong suit either. Doesn't change the fact that you can "yak" about "software errors" just from a single picture of a plane parked on the ground. Perhaps someone needs to get better with the "computer thing" before he gets better at the "internet thing"?

Consistency in general, not just the intellectual part, has never been your strong suit to start with.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

UKBengali said:


> They are just jealous and envious of China's massive military strides. While all countries are progressing, China is just progressing quicker than anyone else at the moment.


 
They are neither jealous nor envious. They are skeptical. To be fair it is completely normal for them to be skeptical since the most advanced fighter that China could produce a mere two decades ago was the J-8II. Just let time be the judge here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> How do you know we don't have Chinese members who never served in the military here? Did you do a back ground check of every Chinese member here???


None ever claimed. And if he did, there are certain clues, even in written speech, that both active duty and former military members can pick up, regardless of country of service, that will eventually reveal the truth. I already busted one fraud.



siegecrossbow said:


> *Programming is not your strong suit either. Doesn't change the fact that you can "yak" about "software errors" just from a single picture of a plane parked on the ground.* Perhaps someone needs to get better with the "computer thing" before he gets better at the "internet thing"?
> 
> Consistency in general, not just the intellectual part, has never been your strong suit to start with.


Much more than you think...I do not need to actually program the flight control laws to understand the architecture involved.

For example...







I do not need to design the mechanical aspects of the FLCS to understand the philosophy behind the above three examples. If I know that a system has a 'force summation' method to actuate a surface, I can reasonably suspect that there might be something amiss just from watching a command symmetrical deflection of the horizontal stabs if one of them does not deflect as quickly and/or to the same degree as its companion. We can do the same for all of them in software and there would be no difference in principle.






The above example is an excellent illustration of FLCS design and implementation. In both mechanical and software.

The 'serial' design will have the command servo convert pilot stick displacement into a 'compensated' or 'corrected' command for the power actuator that will deflect the flight control surface. The design is simple in both physical hardware and flight control laws architecture. The downside is that this architecture have what FLCS engineers call 'large area of vulnerability'. The word 'large' does not mean area but in component counts. The design would give the aircraft at least two points where an externally induced failure, such as being shot at, would create a catastrophic failure of the subsystem.

The 'nested' design is more complex in both hardware and software architecture. Pilot command is compared against actual power actuator position and the comparator output is called an 'error' which then becomes the final command signal to the power actuator. Some engineers prefer 'differential' over 'error'. The advantage of the 'nested' design is that it is ideal for a FBW FLCS in that the command servo is physically housed with the power actuator. This architecture give the aircraft only one count where a catastrophic failure could occur or a 'small area of vulnerability'. With the 'serial' architecture, if either the command servo or the power actuator is damaged, the entire channel collapse. With the 'nested' architecture, it will take greater odds just to create the same catastrophic failure.

I do not have access to the J-20 but am willing to bet my next year's salary that the J-20's FLCS utilizes the 'nested' architecture in all axis and all channels. With the 'nested' architecture, the flight control laws must be written, not just to have gyros, accelerometers, and air data inputs like 'serial' but also to include power actuator position feedbacks. In both, said laws must be flawless. Any FLCS engineer, hardware or software, will immediately see the 'nested' architecture as the one with the highest potential for 'Byzentine failures'.

Byzantine fault tolerance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> A Byzantine fault is an arbitrary fault that occurs during the execution of an algorithm by a distributed system. It encompasses both omission failures (e.g., crash failures, failing to receive a request, or failing to send a response) and commission failures (e.g., processing a request incorrectly, corrupting local state, and/or sending an incorrect or inconsistent response to a request.) *When a Byzantine failure has occurred, the system may respond in any unpredictable way*, unless it is designed to have Byzantine fault tolerance.


For a FBW FLCS, the area and greatest potential for Byzentine faults are shifted from the hardware to the software.

So yeah...Any FLCS engineer, either process integration or subsystem designer, can watch the ground movements of the FLCS surfaces and can make reasonable assumptions.

BTW...The two illustrations above are from my F-16 35mm training slides.


----------



## Martian2

J-20 aileron-control-system stealth enclosure is only about half the size of a wheel

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

If we may or a moment, step out of the Chinese / American whatever we are having here..

And .. even if as an analogy. look at the LM JAST proposed back in the 90's(which 'surprise surprise' looks a lot like the J-20), one wonders if LM had figured some way out or had a roadmap to figuring out how to keep the RCS down of that concept??
Any ideas? (and forget the J-20,PAK-FA whatever.. I want to know how this could have been made to work).


----------



## siegecrossbow

Santro said:


> If we may or a moment, step out of the Chinese / American whatever we are having here..
> 
> And .. even if as an analogy. look at the LM JAST proposed back in the 90's(which 'surprise surprise' looks a lot like the J-20), one wonders if LM had figured some way out or had a roadmap to figuring out how to keep the RCS down of that concept??
> Any ideas? (and forget the J-20,PAK-FA whatever.. I want to know how this could have been made to work).


 
Here is a talk on Aviation Week that you may find enlightening. It is in the commentary section:

From JAST To J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Ive read it before.. thanks.
My point being, if that was a valid concept( I am sure LM thought it through)..
and LO being a important part of JAST.. then data, concepts must have existed to make it work then.
Why would it not work now?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Santro said:


> Ive read it before.. thanks.
> My point being, if that was a valid concept( I am sure LM thought it through)..
> and LO being a important part of JAST.. then data, concepts must have existed to make it work then.
> Why would it not work now?


 
Judging from this post I don't think LO was the worst issue with the JAST concept:



> Harrier wrote:
> I attended an aircraft design course where Paul Bevilaqua lectured a few years back. He made the very good point that it is easy to design a STOVL aircraft to hover, or to fly in forward flight, but hard to handle the transition as a designer.
> 
> As the lift-fan flow of the JAST/JSF exits from the lower forward fuselage it would mean that in transition, with the lift-fan flow deflected aft, there would be a strong nose-up pitch moment to trim out, and using a canard to do that would have meant using it to push the nose down, which would have meant negative lift from the canard. As transition is when you need maximum lift it is possible the canard, whatever wave drag benefits it gave, was cut for a fundamental STOVL reason.



However comparisons between the JAST and the J-20 have limitations. Just for starters the canards on the JAST appear to be on the same plane as that of the wing whereas those are the J-20, whose dihedral canards and anhedral wings keep them from being coplanar. 

I think there is no dispute regarding the fact that canards degrade the RCS. The question is just how big of a contributor canards are to the frontal RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> Ive read it before.. thanks.
> My point being, if that was a valid concept( I am sure LM thought it through)..
> and LO being a important part of JAST.. then data, concepts must have existed to make it work then.
> Why would it not work now?


It is not as you think. Despite some who conveniently dismiss canards whenever it suits them, there is no disputing that on a complex body, the greater the amount of reflectors and edge diffraction generators, the greater the odds of detection. On the frontal view, canards as contributors are negligible, but the frontal aspect view is brief in any dynamic air-air engagement. Our resident former F-15 now airline pilot can attest to that rarity. It is the non-frontal aspects that canards as contributors are most suspicious. We can 'treat' them in some ways but their positions and shapes as dictated by aerodynamic demands take preference over RCS control. In the non-frontal aspects the canards can raise the aircraft above a certain level that may be unacceptable to the original intent. In that case, a decision must be made to either redesign the entire aircraft to exclude canards or live with the fact that they are unacceptable to some degrees.


----------



## Martian2

Canards involve a small trade-off.

With canards, superior maneuverability can be attained. However, the increased surface area (though minor) does result in a slightly larger radar-cross-section (RCS). The United States possesses the world's most powerful jet engines and canards are unnecessary.

China is still climbing the jet-engine technological ladder and the canards provide increased lift. This results in a larger payload and offsets the weakness of an engine with a lower-than-desired thrust.

In the end, the United States military has demonstrated a strong bias against canards; which is not present in China (e.g. J-10 and J-20) or Europe (e.g. Eurofighter, Rafale, Viggen, etc.). The choice of placing canards on a jet fighter reflects a preference. It only has a small effect on a plane's RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Canards involve a small trade-off.
> 
> With canards, superior maneuverability can be attained. However, the increased surface area (though minor) does result in a slightly larger radar-cross-section (RCS). The United States possesses the world's most powerful jet engines and canards are unnecessary.
> 
> China is still climbing the jet-engine technological ladder and the canards provide increased lift. This results in a larger payload and offsets the weakness of an engine with a lower-than-desired thrust.
> 
> In the end, the United States military has demonstrated a strong bias against canards; which is not present in China (e.g. J-10 and J-20) or Europe (e.g. Eurofighter, Rafale, Viggen, etc.). The choice of placing canards on a jet fighter reflects a preference. *It has little effect on a plane's RCS.*


You cannot have it any ways you like. Either canards as edge diffraction generators are significant overall. Or they are not significant overall. On the one hand, you made great efforts at pointing out similar treatments on the J-20 as the F-22: saw-toothed panels, canted twin vertical stabs, or curvatures. All are great efforts at controlling reflectors and edge diffraction generators. But when you found out that decades of experiences and studies proved what you emotionally invested in APA's flawed measurement methodology on the J-20, all of a sudden, canards as edge diffraction generators are nothing to worry about. Panel gaps are far less power generators than moving flight controls elements.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> You cannot have it any ways you like. Either canards as edge diffraction generators are significant overall. Or they are not significant overall. On the one hand, you made great efforts at pointing out similar treatments on the J-20 as the F-22: saw-toothed panels, canted twin vertical stabs, or curvatures. All are great efforts at controlling reflectors and edge diffraction generators. But when you found out that decades of experiences and studies proved what you emotionally invested in APA's flawed measurement methodology on the J-20, all of a sudden, canards as edge diffraction generators are nothing to worry about. Panel gaps are far less power generators than moving flight controls elements.


 
I've already explained edge diffraction in two earlier posts. I'm not explaining them again.

You've already read my earlier posts in the first thread on the J-20 regarding "moving flight control elements." I said many times that the canards have negligible contribution to RCS when the J-20 is flying towards enemy fighters. The canards' RCS becomes noticeable within-visual-range (WVR) as it performs maneuvers. However, when the J-20 is dogfighting WVR, RCS becomes irrelevant.

Why do you keep forcing me to repeat myself?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I've already explained edge diffraction in two earlier posts. I'm not explaining them again.


And you were wrong then...And I have no problems explaining again why. I will put my posts about this subject against yours any day.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And you were wrong then...And I have no problems explaining again why. I will put my posts about this subject against yours any day.


 
I don't think you understand how this works. You don't decide. The reader makes the decision in who they want to believe. I think they'll select me over you and your walls of text.



Martian2 said:


> Gambit fails to understand the importance of Australia Air Power's "Physics Optics" simulation. They informed you that all of the potential errors are mitigated or reduced by a list of factors. He is making a mountain out of a molehill to try and discredit the J-20 Mighty Dragon's superlative design.
> 
> He is making the classical argument: "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?" I'll trust my eyes over his misleading verbiage any day. Let's look at an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from surface travelling wave effects. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Backscatter from surface travelling wave effects" sounds important, right? No. Mr. Goon told you that "edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations" can take care of the problem.
> 
> Your eyes have seen the saw-toothed "panel serrations" on the landing and weapon bay panels. Your eyes can see the "lossy surface coatings" or radar-absorbent material on the F-22 and J-20.
> 
> Your eyes can also see the gap treatments on the F-22 and J-20. Both have smooth underside surfaces. The Russian Pak-Fa/T-50 is the one that has little or no gap treatments. Your eyes can see the mess on the underside of the Pak-Fa/T-50.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 underside is smooth and clutter-free from vents, gaps, and stuff jutting out.
> 
> With regard to edge treatment, I have already covered part of this topic in my video. If you haven't watched it yet, make sure to do so and bring yourself up-to-date on stealth fighter design.
> 
> Edge treatment occurs in the following ways: "edge alignment , improved inlet , wing shaping and some nozzle edge treatment." On the J-20 Mighty Dragon, edge alignment is obvious from the "planform alignment" shown in my video. Improved inlet is the J-20 DSI bump. J-20 wing shaping has been modeled and tested on supercomputers and in wind tunnels. J-20 nozzle edge treatment is obvious from the saw-toothed engine nozzles and saw-toothed integration with the fuselage, which are shown in a picture below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 advanced inlet with DSI technology is readily apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 has saw-toothed engine nozzles and saw-toothed integration with the fuselage.
> 
> Gambit is determined to downplay the J-20 Mighty Dragon's excellent stealth design. He's anti-China. On the other hand, I'm objective.
> 
> He will keep posting an endless wall of text without discussing their relevance. His obfuscating tactic is to say or imply: "Look at this mountain of text. There must be a problem in here." However, I try to explain ideas to make them easily understandable to allow you to make an informed judgment.
> 
> My J-20 video has over 74,000 views. After you watch it, you will be a more knowledgeable person about stealth design. Gambit cannot point to a video that he has made on stealth design that is helpful to the public.
> 
> In my opinion, the disclaimer on backscatter point #2 (discussed above) has a minor effect on the results of Australia Air Power's "Physics Optics" simulation. Similarly, all of the disclaimed factors have a minor effect. Mr. Goon tells you that everything is "mitigated" or "reduced."
> 
> Please ignore Gambit. He will try to confuse you to pursue his anti-China political agenda. I've been straight with all of you from "day one." Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22 and superior to the F-35. Now, Australia Air Power has confirmed my analysis.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I don't think you understand how this works. You don't decide. The reader makes the decision in who they want to believe. I think they'll select me over you.


And your own post contradict you. As far as the readers goes, they have yet to see anything from the Chinese members even half way close to post 333. I have no problems with their intelligence to see through your pseudo-technical blather.

On post 306 I have shown the readers on why physical optics (PO) is an inappropriate and inadequate tool for this project. That inadequacy was known even to the Iranians and no doubt to the Chinese. But here are the reasons why APA had to use PO...

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html


> The assessment cannot be more than preliminary for a number of good reasons:
> 
> 1. The final airframe shaping remains unknown, and changes may arise through the development cycle, to improve aerodynamic performance, operational characteristics, and LO/VLO performance;
> 
> 2. The state of Chinese Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM), Radar Absorbent Structures (RAS) and radar absorbent coatings technology is not well understood in the West;
> 
> 3. The state of Chinese technologies for sensor aperture (radar, EO, passive RF) structural mode RCS reduction is not well understood in the West;
> 
> 4. The state of Chinese technologies for RCS flare spot reduction, in areas such as navigation/communications antennas, seals, panel joins, drain apertures, cooling vents, and fasteners is not well understood in the West.


In other words, all the necessary information for them to use other tools to make an even more accurate assessment are unavailable. Physical Optics (PO) is best when we want to assess a surface's specular reflection *STRAIGHT ON* and said specular measurement gets progressively worse when we depart from perpendicular. So even if we are to be generous and grant APA's methodology as valid, the best we can say is that the J-20's RCS aspect RCS values are very good (or very low) in the normal view in all four profiles: top, bottom, front, and rear. But its RCS from angles are unknown. And that alone is enough to disqualify APA's methodology from being anything other than 'preliminary', which they had to admit.

Here is what APA said about canards...



> The choice of all moving slab stabilators and canards will impact RCS at deflection angles away from the neutral position. If large control deflections are produced in flight regimes other than close combat manoeuvring, the specular RCS of the all moving slab controls would need to be considered.


Right...So may be the canards and their movements are not so trivial after all. I wonder how this concession by APA will affect a certain 'Engineer' who loudly proclaimed the F-22's rudder system is 'less advanced' than the J-20's all-movable stabs now that even APA cautioned against the design in light of RCS contributorship.



> At this time the simulator does not implement surface travelling wave modelling and associated edge or gap backscatter modelling, or edge diffraction scattering effect modelling. As the backscatter from these, in real aircraft, depends upon leading and trailing edge absorbent treatments, *it is a reasonable assumption that in a production design these RCS contributions would be strongly suppressed as a result of effective treatments, and thus the magnitude of these RCS contributions would be smaller than specular returns, from angles other than the peak mainlobes.*


It is a reasonable assumption or rather -- hope. Nevertheless, even if we grant APA this latitude, the fact that APA does not have the J-20's precise *PHYSICAL* measurements to 'plug in' into the PO's algorithm, any RCS estimation from the simulation should be considered suspect. This is not being hostile to anyone but in being in line with the standard peer review process. In fact, the peer review process has a great deal of institutional hostility designed to discourage trivial submissions.



> *The engine inlet tunnels were modelled as Perfect Electrical Absorbers (PEA; Refer Annex E). Given the absence of any useful data on the internal configuration of the inlets and tunnels, a more elaborate model would again be entirely speculative.* This is consistent with an ideal S-bend inlet tunnel clad with ideal RAM on its interior walls, and the use of an ideal engine face blocker. This is an optimistic assumption given historically observed difficulties in inlet tunnel signature reduction, as in many designs the inlet tunnel cavity RCS is a dominant wideband contributor in the forward aspect.
> 
> *The exhaust tailpipe RCS contributions were also modelled as Perfect Electrical Absorbers (PEA). Given the absence of any useful data on the internal configuration of the tailpipes, a more elaborate model would be as before entirely speculative.* The PEA model is consistent with an ideal tailpipe internally clad with ideal heat resistant RAM, and the use of an ideal turbine face and afterburner fuel spraybar blocker. This is an inherently optimistic assumption, as can be shown by employing an approximate model for an untreated tailpipe cavity, accounting for the reduction in projected nozzle area. This is detailed in Annex C.


That is true. Inlet tunnel construct in terms of ducting and materials are variables unknown to all, not just to APA. Therefore, it was reasonable for APA to default to PEA as baseline. However, this ideal situation would naturally contribute to the preferred conclusion that the J-20 has a VLO body.



> *The photographic imagery of the J-20 prototypes was not of sufficient quality* to incorporate any useful detail of panel join boundaries, door boundaries, and other surface features which produce RCS contributions due to surface travelling waves coupled to the aircraft skin. Even were such detail available, there is no guarantee production aircraft would retain the prototype configuration, reducing the value of any such results.


Further admission that APA had no choice but to use an inadequate tool for this project.



> The position of the canards, delta wing leading and trailing edge surfaces, and fully moving tail surfaces was set to neutral, reflecting an optimal cruise configuration at nominal supercruise altitudes and airspeeds. Large deflections by these control surfaces in flight would produce *large but transient* increases in specular backscatter.


In a life-or-death situation, this would be turned around as 'transient but large'. Against an AESA equipped opponent, as long as these transients are localized or 'clustered' against a neutral background, the J-20 can be accurately tracked.



> *As the simulation technique is confined to the Physical Optics method, care must be taken in the interpretation of results, as at grazing or shallow angles of incidence the method will usually underestimate the magnitude of the RCS.* In the most critical nose and tail aspect angular sectors, a good design will have no major scattering sources producing specular returns captured by the simulation, and the RCS will be dominated by nonspecular mechanisms, primarily diffraction and surface travelling waves, engine inlet and exhaust backscatter, as well as the structural mode RCS of antennas, panel join gaps, or other electrical apertures35.


The highlighted is the clincher that APA had to concede: That the PO method has serious shortcomings and that the results will be skewed towards underestimation or to a certain preferred view.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> It is not as you think. Despite some who conveniently dismiss canards whenever it suits them, there is no disputing that on a complex body, the greater the amount of reflectors and edge diffraction generators, the greater the odds of detection. On the frontal view, canards as contributors are negligible, but the frontal aspect view is brief in any dynamic air-air engagement. Our resident former F-15 now airline pilot can attest to that rarity. It is the non-frontal aspects that canards as contributors are most suspicious. We can 'treat' them in some ways but their positions and shapes as dictated by aerodynamic demands take preference over RCS control. In the non-frontal aspects the canards can raise the aircraft above a certain level that may be unacceptable to the original intent. In that case, a decision must be made to either redesign the entire aircraft to exclude canards or live with the fact that they are unacceptable to some degrees.


 


Martian2 said:


> I've already explained edge diffraction in two earlier posts. I'm not explaining them again.
> 
> You've already read my earlier posts in the first thread on the J-20 regarding "moving flight control elements." I said many times that the canards have negligible contribution to RCS when the J-20 is flying towards enemy fighters. The canards' RCS becomes noticeable within-visual-range (WVR) as it performs maneuvers. However, when the J-20 is dogfighting WVR, RCS becomes irrelevant.
> 
> Why do you keep forcing me to repeat myself?


 


gambit said:


> And your own post contradict you. As far as the readers goes, they have yet to see anything from the Chinese members even half way close to post 333. I have no problems with their intelligence to see through your pseudo-technical blather.
> 
> On post 306 I have shown the readers on why physical optics (PO) is an inappropriate and inadequate tool for this project. That inadequacy was known even to the Iranians and no doubt to the Chinese. But here are the reasons why APA had to use PO...
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype
> 
> In other words, all the necessary information for them to use other tools to make an even more accurate assessment are unavailable. Physical Optics (PO) is best when we want to assess a surface's specular reflection *STRAIGHT ON* and said specular measurement gets progressively worse when we depart from perpendicular. So even if we are to be generous and grant APA's methodology as valid, the best we can say is that the J-20's RCS aspect RCS values are very good (or very low) in the normal view in all four profiles: top, bottom, front, and rear. But its RCS from angles are unknown. And that alone is enough to disqualify APA's methodology from being anything other than 'preliminary', which they had to admit.
> 
> Here is what APA said about canards...
> 
> 
> Right...So may be the canards and their movements are not so trivial after all. I wonder how this concession by APA will affect a certain 'Engineer' who loudly proclaimed the F-22's rudder system is 'less advanced' than the J-20's all-movable stabs now that even APA cautioned against the design in light of RCS contributorship.
> 
> 
> It is a reasonable assumption or rather -- hope. Nevertheless, even if we grant APA this latitude, the fact that APA does not have the J-20's precise *PHYSICAL* measurements to 'plug in' into the PO's algorithm, any RCS estimation from the simulation should be considered suspect. This is not being hostile to anyone but in being in line with the standard peer review process. In fact, the peer review process has a great deal of institutional hostility designed to discourage trivial submissions.
> 
> 
> That is true. Inlet tunnel construct in terms of ducting and materials are variables unknown to all, not just to APA. Therefore, it was reasonable for APA to default to PEA as baseline. However, this ideal situation would naturally contribute to the preferred conclusion that the J-20 has a VLO body.


 
So have kind of established that the J-20, will have very low frontal RCS..and even somebody like me who messed up in wave theory at school can get how a flat plate(relatively) sticking out the front isn't going to sit well with its RCS at angles.
Question is.. how do these pro's and con's translate operationally?
We have discussed what its RCS is despite you guys having differences over it.. allowed me to get a picture of where the J-20 stands(and helped my RCS fundamentals)..

Now, head on.. in an interceptor role.. how much will the J-20's canards effect its picture on a
1. Good ol Pulse doppler.
2. AESA

as a start I am assuming the J-20 is flying at 350 at M 1.3 .. heading for a group of F-18's. I am also assuming for the while that the same technique claimed by the Eurofighter guys for their frontal RCS canard management is employed on the J-20.
When does the J-20 go from being something in the RCS range of say a seagull.. to a cessna.. specifically due to the canards?

Then, assuming a strike role, in a straight border penetration.. who gets to see the J-20 first?.

A Sa-20 site a 80km from the border..say a few degrees off the J-20's nose?
or a Sa-17 site 90km northeast of it?

Again.. I am assuming that during this time, canard movement is minimal..and the jet is trying to fly a profile that avoids enemy threat circles.


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> So have kind of established that the J-20, will have very low frontal RCS..and even somebody like me who messed up in wave theory at school can get how a flat plate(relatively) sticking out the front isn't going to sit well with its RCS at angles.
> Question is.. how do these pro's and con's translate operationally?
> We have discussed what its RCS is despite you guys having differences over it.. allowed me to get a picture of where the J-20 stands(and helped my RCS fundamentals)..
> 
> Now, head on.. in an interceptor role.. how much will the J-20's canards effect its picture on a
> 1. Good ol Pulse doppler.
> 2. AESA
> 
> as a start I am assuming the J-20 is flying at 350 at M 1.3 .. heading for a group of F-18's. I am also assuming for the while that the same technique claimed by the Eurofighter guys for their frontal RCS canard management is employed on the J-20.
> When does the J-20 go from being something in the RCS range of say a seagull.. to a cessna.. specifically due to the canards?
> 
> Then, assuming a strike role, in a straight border penetration.. who gets to see the J-20 first?.
> 
> A Sa-20 site a 80km from the border..say a few degrees off the J-20's nose?
> or a Sa-17 site 90km northeast of it?
> 
> Again.. I am assuming that during this time, canard movement is minimal..and the jet is trying to fly a profile that avoids enemy threat circles.


Presenting a minimum radar return via frontal aspect is not new. We knew about it back in the Vietnam War. The J-20's canards in this situation would be statistically negligible. But the problem, not just for the J-20 but to everyone, is even admitted by APA in that other than frontal aspect, the more generators a body has, the greater the odds of detection.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Presenting a minimum radar return via frontal aspect is not new. We knew about it back in the Vietnam War. The J-20's canards in this situation would be statistically negligible. But the problem, not just for the J-20 but to everyone, is even admitted by APA in that other than frontal aspect, the more generators a body has, the greater the odds of detection.


 
How does that translate operationally gambit.. 

P.s.. Im not a big fan of APA and Dr Copp.. so I take his analysis with a pinch of salt.


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> How does that translate operationally gambit..


It is not easy to *ALWAYS* present your least visible view. That is why we have mission planning where pilots carefully plan out whatever it is that they must do. Avoiding known enemy radar sites is part of that planning. But as far as something as unpredictable as meeting the enemy in the air, with what we know today of the advantages of 'stealth', being as low radar observable as possible and being lower than your enemy is an advantage that must be exploited to the full.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.

2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."

3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."

In conclusion, aside from avionics, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the F-35 in both supercruise ability and stealth across all "nine radio-frequency bands."

----------

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[126] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[127] *The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.*[127] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[128] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[129][130]"






F-35 with "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."

----------





J-20 Mighty Dragon has smooth and flat underside.

The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

"*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*






_Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi)._






Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative*, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.

*While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the J-20 underside picture and Stereospace for the F-35 underside picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."


APA's flawed methodology is explained here => http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-23.html#post1934472



Martian2 said:


> "In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[126] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[127] The *F-35* on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are *shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band*, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[127] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[128] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[129][130]"


The highlighted is either a gross misconception of how an EM wave behave on a surface or a deliberate deception of the same. In radar detection, the only body that will produce the same behavior of EM radiation of any freq is the sphere, which is the simplest body. So other than the sphere, for any complex body as that of an aircraft, if appearances alone is enough for anyone to declare, with *NO RESERVATIONS OR CAVEATS*, on what band(s) of the EM spectrum will produces what behaviors, then Kopp should have no problems telling everyone what the B-52, the F-102, the F-111, or the Concord will produces what simply by looking at photographs.



Martian2 said:


> However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "&#8216;*hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."*
> 
> Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys *Overholser*).


If aesthetics has any influence on an EM wave's behavior on a complex body, then the F-117, which is quite the ugliest thing flying, would be all over the radar scope for everyone to see. Angled facetings definitively falls under Overholser's admonition, after all, he was the one who exploited Ufimtsev's work to create the F-117. When Overholser spoke about shaping, he was not referring to angled facetings alone. Angled faceting is just one of the many techniques for 'stealth' for complex bodies and for the 1970s computational technology at that time, angled faceting was the only technique Lockheed could exploit. Overholser said nothing about curvatures, of which 'lumps, bumps, and humps' are quite evident, are detrimental in designing a 'stealthy' complex body.

APA's and Kopp's hostility to the F-35 is known but has taken to an absurd level.


----------



## SQ8

Kopp has big issues with anything less than the F-22 from the west( due to his own personal history).
So to make his point.. he glorifies and bloats/gloats on all hardware from Russian and Chinese sources.
Bringing in all sorts of exaggerated figures from "reliable" sources to somehow show his main idea that if the RAAF purchase the f-35 they are screwed.


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> Kopp has big issues with anything less than the F-22 from the west( due to his own personal history).
> So to make his point.. *he glorifies and bloats/gloats on all hardware from Russian and Chinese sources.*
> Bringing in all sorts of exaggerated figures from "reliable" sources to somehow show his main idea that if the RAAF purchase the f-35 they are screwed.


And with this supposedly 'analysis' APA did really expose their dishonesty. If the J20's edge diffractions are irrelevant, then why are the F-35's assorted 'lumps, bumps, humps and warts' so relevant to place it below the J-20? Has APA performed the same flawed Physical Optics (PO) analysis on the F-16, F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2 for the readers to see the comparisons? We are talking quite diverse planforms and shapings here. The F-16 would make an ideal 'non-stealth' baseline for these comparisons. A major part of any peer review process and the *FIRST* thing the reviewers will do is to analyze the methodology involved. APA had to admit that they used an inadequate tool for the job. That alone should be reason enough to disqualify.


----------



## Martian2

Martian2 said:


> 1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.
> 
> 2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."
> 
> 3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."
> 
> In conclusion, aside from avionics, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the F-35 in both supercruise ability and stealth across all "nine radio-frequency bands."
> 
> ----------
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[126] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[127] *The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.*[127] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[128] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[129][130]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 with "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."
> 
> ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 Mighty Dragon has smooth and flat underside.
> 
> The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
> 
> "*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi)._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).
> 
> The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative*, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.
> 
> *While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"
> 
> [Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the J-20 underside picture and Stereospace for the F-35 underside picture.]


 




To be thorough, I should mention the F-35 has two "lumps" on the topside (above the air inlets) as well.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> To be thorough, I should mention the F-35 has two "lumps" on the topside (above the air inlets) as well.


Are you really that 'thorough'? Because if you are, you would have withdrawn just about everything you posted from APA...


----------



## houshanghai

BEIJING 207 institute had done total RCS test on J-20 not long ago and the result of j20 rcs test is very amazing.they were satisfied with j20's rcs












j20's bottom is very smooth like F22,not like F35.


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

houshanghai said:


> BEIJING 207 institute had done total RCS test on J-20 not long ago and the result of j20 rcs test is very amazing.they were satisfied with j20's rcs


Being 'satisfied' really does not mean much. They may be satisfied with the J-20's RCS being higher than what is speculated for the F-35 despite all the work done on it.



houshanghai said:


> j20's bottom is very smooth like F22,not like F35.


The correct word is 'underside', and how do you know that the F-35's underside is somehow a negative? Because China said so?


----------



## Martian2

houshanghai said:


> BEIJING 207 institute had done total RCS test on J-20 not long ago and the result of j20 rcs test is very amazing.they were satisfied with j20's rcs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j20's bottom is very smooth like F22,not like F35.


 
If I were you, I would ignore the troll. He repeats the same things over and over again, despite being presented with new evidence. He only posts after I put up a comprehensive analysis. Indians used to do it to me all the time.

They rehash the same old arguments from months ago to clutter the thread. This way no one will see my exhaustive analysis after I've spent hours collecting the information and presenting it in a streamlined manner. You'll notice that I am ignoring his taunts and him.

It's a standard trick to keep arguing with you; then the quality of the thread deteriorates, which is what he wants. Please ignore him or he'll clutter this thread again. Thank you.

-----

The important thing is that people all over the internet recognize the importance of my analyses:

[quote='khh' date='Jul 12 2011, 01:56 PM' (from another forum)]
Nice info about the J20, F-35 and F-22 stealthy features......  [/quote]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> The correct word is 'underside', and how do you know that the F-35's underside is somehow a negative? Because China said so?


 
Stop putting words in people's mouth.

Houshanghai did not compare J-20's RCS with that of the F-35 in his post. All he did was state the fact that the 207 institute was satisfied with the RCS readings and that the J-20's underside is smooth and similar to that of the F-22 in that respect. Where did he say that the F-35's underside was a negative and how did China figure into this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> If I were you, I would ignore the troll. He repeats the same thing over and over again despite being presented with new evidence. He only posts after I put up a comprehensive analysis. Indians used to do it to me all the time.
> 
> They rehash the same old arguments from months ago to clutter the thread. This way no one will see *my exhaustive analysis* after spending hours collecting the information and presenting it in a streamlined manner.
> 
> Please ignore him or he'll clutter this thread again. Thank you.


*YOU* have done *NOTHING* of the kind. What you have done is simply look for and zero in on the opinions that you agree with. Nothing more. You ignored valid criticisms of your 'analysis', which is fine with me. The issue here is I present credible challenges for the readers to see.


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> Stop putting words in people's mouth.
> 
> Houshanghai did not compare J-20's RCS with that of the F-35 in his post. All he did was state the fact that the 207 institute was satisfied with the RCS readings and that the J-20's underside is smooth and similar to that of the F-22 in that respect. Where did he say that the F-35's underside was a negative and how did China figure into this?


Touchy...eh? My questions are just as valid as his without inserting anything.


----------



## EagleEyes

Continue with the discussions on *J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions* or get banned.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> If I were you, I would ignore the troll. He repeats the same things over and over again, despite being presented with new evidence.


This is a publicly accessible forum. Your 'evidences' are not exempted from challenges and especially if the challenges are valid.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-23.html#post1934472

In the above, I pointed out where APA had to admit they used a flawed tool in their analysis. What I questioned are legitimate points for discussion as 'The Man' pointed out. When you used an inappropriate tool and exclude data, any result is immediately suspect and any interpretation from that suspect result are disqualified. That is not being unfair but valid peer review process. I have been through several peer reviews, formal and informal. Not one of my formal submissions were rejected. If you want to be taken seriously by knowledgeable and fair minded people, you need to address the points I raised about APA's flawed methodology. Else you are misleading people.


----------



## SQ8

I certainly doubt the bumps and ridges on the F-35 create problems.. from my layman's point of view.. they arent angles from any "angle"..
And whilst the F-35 may never be as stealthy as the F-22.. for its required task... I think its enough.
Although I understand how an export F-16 may not have the "have glass" modifications.. how do you make a F-35 less stealthy??? 


On the subject of the J-20.. Kopp's analysis or not, it is clear that the jet is designed for LO. How much of it? it is a certainty that it's RCS is definitely less than that of existing 4.5++ gen jets. Now does it approach the F-35's?
Looking at it head on.. I can by comparison to the F-22 and f-35 see that it exhibits similar clean lines... and has similar shaping which should put its Frontal RCS close to if not equal to the F-35's. However.. looking at the sides of the jet, and those Canards I am inclined to think that any carefree microwave is going to bounce back to a waiting receiver when it hits those canards, or even the tiny gaps that will come and go when the jet's FBW system makes tiny corrections. The EF designers too claim that their RCS reduction technique for the canard works only head on, not when looked at from beyond a certain angle.

However, whether the above is accurate is true or not.. what matters in my view is how these advantages and disadvantages matter operationally.
If the J-20 is supercruising.. as an interceptor it still will be in my view(if armed with appropriate Long range AAM's, coupled with support systems that China is also manufacturing) as good or better as an interceptor than the F-35. simply because it can get into a fight faster.. provide greater kinetic energy to its missile shots.. and get out faster. 

As a strike craft.. the J-20 may have the advantage of surprising a CAP(although it seems rather useless , since even if a CAP is shot down.. people know its shot down) and getting through to a target. Inside hostile airspace however, I am doubtful that the consistent threat circle concept applicable to jets such as the F-22 and F-117 may not apply here.. a radar may pick up the J-20 a lot later when its approaching from the front.. but probably quicker if its coming to its 2 or 10 o clock.

If the J-20 is equipped with Standoff weapons though. .. whatever advantages its LO .. even if partial give it, may make a big difference in a conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

Yangwei, China's First Master Designer



2011-07-07 (China Military Article cited from strategypage.com) -- After years of trying to keep it a secret, China has confirmed that one of their aircraft engineers, Yang Wei, is actually one of those extraordinary designers who produces one successful design after another. Born in 1963, he graduated from college at age 19 and finished graduate school three years later. He soon went to work at the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, and a decade later was appointed director. So far, he has designed a working fly-by-wire system, as well as the JF-17, J-10B and J-20. He did not design the original J-10, but did design the most successful version, the J-10B, and provided important upgrades for other J-10 models. The new J-20 (a stealth design that is still in development) is less of a surprise now that it's known the Chinese have a genuine ace designer working on it.
Ace aircraft designers are rare, and those that do show up tend to create a number of exceptional designs during a few decades (or much less, if there's a war going on). For example, Russian designer Mikhail Simonov recently died (at age 81). He was responsible for the Su-24 bomber, the Su-25 ground attack plane and the Su-27 fighter. Starting during World War II, for example, one American designer (who was trained in Germany), Edgar Schmued, designed the P-51, followed by the F-86 and F-100 after the war. In Germany, Willie Messerschmitt designed the Me-109, Me-110 and the first jet fighter (Me-262) plus several others during World War II, and a few after the war.




J-20 Stealth Fighter
In China, Yang Wei appears to be the first designer in this tradition. He had nothing to do with the original J-10, the first modern jet fighter designed and built in China. That appears to explain the many problems this aircraft has had. The J-10 was an attempt to create a modern fighter-bomber that could compete with foreign designs. The experiment was not completely successful. Work on the J-10 began over twenty years ago, in an attempt to develop an aircraft that would be comparable to the Russian MiG-29s and Su-27s, and the American F-16. But the first prototype did not fly until 1998. There were continued problems, and it wasn't until 2000 that the basic design flaws were fixed. By 2002, nine prototypes had been built, and flight testing was going forward to find, and fix, hundreds of smaller flaws. It was a great learning experience for Chinese engineers, but it was becoming apparent that the J-10 was not going to be competitive with the Su-27s/30s China was buying from Russia. The J-10 looks something like the American F-16, and weighs about the same (19 tons). Like the F-16, and unlike the Su-27, the J-10 has only one engine. Yang Wei improved the J-10 considerably with his J-10B version.
But it was the JF-17 (also known as FC-1) that made Yang Mei's reputation. The JF-17 was developed by China in cooperation with Pakistan, which originally only wanted to buy 150 of them. All this came about because Pakistan could not get modern fighters from anyone else, and turned to China. At the time, China had nothing comparable to the early model F-16s Pakistan already had. The 13 ton JF-17 is meant to be a low cost alternative to the American F-16. The JF-17 is considered the equal to earlier versions of the F-16, but only 80 percent as effective as more recent F16 models. The JF-17 design is based on a cancelled Russian project, the MiG-33. Originally, Pakistan wanted Western electronics in the JF-17, but because of the risk of Chinese technology theft, and pressure from the United States (who did not want China to steal more Western aviation electronics), the JF-17 uses Chinese and Pakistani electronics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

From Aviation Week in 2009: If you want to claim the "APA has got their models wrong, it probably wouldn't compromise security to explain why." Don't try to hide behind the argument of secrecy. The Chinese and Russians already have their own radar modeling software. "The worst argument against APA, though, is that of secrecy."

Since Lockheed or another reputable organization has not published a study to challenge the APA analysis in two years, we can only conclude the APA models are accurate.

*Aviation Week has implicitly acknowledged the F-35's shortcoming by suggesting the F-35 is "stealthy enough to survive."* However, that was two years ago, before the debut of the J-20 Mighty Dragon in 2011.

JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised

"*JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised*
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/7/*2009* 7:30 AM CST

*The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22* - and in fact is comparable in radar cross-section (RCS), under some circumstances, to a conventional fighter in clean condition. APA's updated surveys of modern Russian radars - which are most likely to form the basis of the threat systems that it would encounter from the late 2010s onwards - have set the scene for this analysis.

*The report is unprecedented because it's the first "civilian" use of radar scattering models to take a first-order look at an aircraft's RCS. It was the development of computer-based RCS models that opened the way to the development of stealth in the 1970s: the theory of scattering was well known but was too hard to apply to a 3-D shape without those tools.*

The APA analysis will no doubt be countered by the JSF team in several ways. They'll argue that the APA team has an agenda. They will argue that the analysis is too crude to reflect reality; that anything it does show is not operationally relevant; and that the true picture is much more complex and (of course) secret.

The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) but that does not mean that their data is bad.

The analysis is crude insofar as it doesn't make any detailed estimates of the effects of radar absorbent material (RAM). On the other hand, the doctrine laid down by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials.

On the other hand, the APA analysis is a lot more detailed than the cartoon representations in Lockheed Martin briefings. And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF's behalf.

*The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.*






Of course, *it's possible to argue that the F-35 meets its stealth requirements (which may or not be the same for all F-35s), and that it will be stealthy enough to survive - combined with situational awareness and tactics.*

But that in turn depends on what the requirements are, and what threats it was designed against. (That's why stealth air vehicles are as diverse as they are, from the DarkStar to the AGM-129, while submarines look pretty much the same.) In the design of the F-22, for example, features such as 2-D nozzles, edges swept at 42 degrees, and high-altitude, high-speed flight were required to address that threat set.

More recently, the Northrop Grumman X-47B and Boeing X-45C designs have clearly been aimed at all-aspect, wideband stealth - although that's particularly important for an unmanned vehicle, which may not be as flexible in its response to a pop-up threat.

*The worst argument against APA, though, is that of secrecy.* Implemented on an experimental airplane 30 years ago, stealth is no longer covered by Arthur C. Clarke's principle that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." *Competitors and potential adversaries around the world have assuredly run F-35 models in simulations, in RCS chambers and on open ranges. So if APA has got their models wrong, it probably wouldn't compromise security to explain why.*"

----------

I explained the physics behind the compromise in stealth caused by "lumps, bumps, and warts" in an earlier post.



> 3. To save money, the F-35 has a compromised design of "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative." Also, the F-35 and the J-20 both share the round engine nozzles, which do not measure up to F-22 stealth standards.
> 
> Why are "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" a problem? Recall your experience of driving on a rain-slicked road at night with your headlights turned on. Very difficult to see the road, right? The rain-slicked road is almost a perfect mirror. The beams (which are electromagnetic radiation like radar waves) from the car headlights bounce away from you.
> 
> However, if there are lots of "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" in the road then you can see much better (like a radar receiver), because the car's lights are being bounced back into your eyes. For the same reason that you can easily see a bumpy rain-slicked road, it is much easier for a radar to detect a F-35 with bumpy surfaces.
> 
> Finally, the F-35 was always intended to be an economy-model stealth fighter. The U.S. military will not redesign the F-35's round engine nozzles. The U.S. already has the F-22. There is no point in redesigning the F-35 until it looks like a F-22. There wouldn't be any cost savings.



If you want a more technical answer, the "lumps, bumps, and warts" create surfaces that are oblique (which are sometimes orthogonal from the perspective of an incoming radar wave) and increases the likelihood that the angle of reflection will equal the angle of incidence. Therefore, the stealth of the airplane with "lumps, bumps, and warts" has been compromised, because of the greater likelihood of detection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Martian2 said:


> Arthur C. Clarke's principle that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


 
Guess Sweetman was an A C. Clarke reader back when he was young...


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> And your own post contradict you. As far as the readers goes, they have yet to see anything from the Chinese members even half way close to post 333. I have no problems with their intelligence to see through your pseudo-technical blather.
> 
> On post 306 I have shown the readers on why physical optics (PO) is an inappropriate and inadequate tool for this project. That inadequacy was known even to the Iranians and no doubt to the Chinese. But here are the reasons why APA had to use PO.............
> 
> etc
> etc
> etc




Hey , sorry for jumping on the wagon too late, but now that I saw it, hey ... one of the same. 

For once, Gambit, your understanding of APA's paper is .. well .. spotless.. I'd give it a first class grade. 

I think you analysed the paper correct and although a kudos is out for you, well you'll agree with me you just used your extensive understanding of .... english ... 

isn't that so? I didn't see any deep mysteries in that paper. 

I agree it only verifies that the J-20 shows that the chinese understand about stealth shaping .. in a 2D POV (top,bottom, front rear,sides) as we can see. 

incorporating this into a flying weapon.. well that is a tad harder now isn't it?


----------



## Martian2

I see that more trolls are jumping in. Why can't we have two separate threads on the J-20?

This is the method that everyone agreed to on SinoDefence and Indian Defence. We, the Chinese members, would like to post new pictures, our new insights, and informative articles with new information in a J-20 thread. We don't care if the anti-China crowd want to badmouth the J-20 in their own separate thread.

However, we do OBJECT to the trolls (e.g. Gambit, PtldM3, Amalakas, etc.) constantly regurgitating the same old tired arguments and cluttering up our thread, which is meant to inform "guest" readers. The goal is to share our hobby of military watching, not to keep arguing endlessly with the anti-China trolls.

If the trolls are again permitted to keep posting endlessly after I (or another important Chinese member, like HouShanghai) post a new picture, article, or fresh insights then I will once again stop posting on this forum for many months. I don't like to waste my time and see my insightful posts buried three pages back within one day, where I (or a guest reader) have trouble finding it.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I see that more trolls are jumping in. Why can't we have two separate threads on the J-20?
> 
> This is the method that everyone agreed to on SinoDefence and Indian Defence. We, the Chinese members, would like to post new pictures, our new insights, and informative articles with new information in a J-20 thread. We don't care if the anti-China crowd want to badmouth the J-20 in their own separate thread.
> 
> However, we do OBJECT to the trolls (e.g. Gambit, PtldM3, Amalakas, etc.) constantly regurgitating the same old tired arguments and cluttering up our thread, which is meant to inform "guest" readers. The goal is to share our hobby of military watching, not to keep arguing endlessly with the anti-China trolls.
> 
> If the trolls are again permitted to keep posting endlessly after I (or another important Chinese member, like HouShanghai) post a new picture, article, or fresh insights then I will once again stop posting on this forum for many months. I don't like to waste my time and see my insightful posts buried three pages back within one day, where I (or a guest reader) have trouble finding it.


Sounds like someone does not like his ego to be challenged. The topic is about the J-20 and related *DISCUSSIONS*, not about the Chinese members here making claims, some reasonable, some outrageous, and be exempted from credible criticisms. Someone sent me a list of links of where you have been on the Internet promoting your arguments and you have been very busy. So far, not one of those places have challenged you the way I have here. That should tell the readers something.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Hey , sorry for jumping on the wagon too late, but now that I saw it, hey ... one of the same.
> 
> For once, Gambit, your understanding of APA's paper is .. well .. spotless.. *I'd give it a first class grade. *
> 
> I think you analysed the paper correct and although a kudos is out for you, well you'll agree with me you just used your extensive understanding of .... english ...
> 
> isn't that so? I didn't see any deep mysteries in that paper.
> 
> I agree it only verifies that the J-20 shows that the chinese understand about stealth shaping .. in a 2D POV (top,bottom, front rear,sides) as we can see.
> 
> incorporating this into a flying weapon.. well that is a tad harder now isn't it?


Thanks...But as someone who have been through several formal peer reviews, it is not a big deal on how to be critical of any submission, especially when the subject infringes upon one's relevant experience. The peer review process is inherently hostile and the moment anyone make public his opinion on any topic, he should be matured enough to expect such hostility. It is nothing personal but very much professional.

For now, the current argument is that the secret for 'stealth' is no longer secret. I respectfully disagree. The secret for 'stealth' lies in the data and the more data gathered and exploited, the better the design that is appropriate for the goals. The US is the leader in gathering and exploiting those data.

The argument also said that advances in personal computing places the tools into the public domain. The 'stealth' people have no issues with that because they know full well the old computing adage of 'Garbage in. Garbage out.' applies regardless of the sophistication of the tools. I pointed this out back on post 306 of this discussion where despite 30+ years of computing advances, the Iranians themselves reaffirmed what E F Knott said before them: That Physical Optics *ALONE* is a totally inadequate tool for a complex body. This is not a state secret. And that mean APA's methodology and analysis are wide open to credible criticisms. No one need to reveal any trade or state secret to do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Here is proof that people don't want to read anti-China troll posts.

----------

The best anti-China troll is MIG-29/MIG-29MLD. SinoDefence gave him his own anti-China J-20 thread: "Discussion on J-20's aerodynamics, comparison with F-22 and some 'guesswork'"

Reference: http://www./air-force/discussion-j-20s-aerodynamics-comparison-f-22-some-guesswork-5603.html

With 1,469 posts, there are only 35,307 views. The view rate is *24 views per post*.

-----

The troll-free J-20 Mighty Dragon thread has almost four times the viewership of the troll thread on J-20.

Reference: http://www./air-force/j-20-new-generation-fighter-iii-35-5600.html#post155027

The *troll-free* "J-20... The New Generation Fighter III" thread has 517 posts and 47,738 views. The view rate is *92 views per post*.

----------

The public has spoken. They do not want to read a troll-infested J-20 Mighty Dragon thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I explained the physics behind the compromise in stealth caused by "lumps, bumps, and warts" in an earlier post.
> 
> If you want a more technical answer, the "lumps, bumps, and warts" create surfaces that are oblique (which are sometimes orthogonal from the perspective of an incoming radar wave) and increases the likelihood that the angle of reflection will equal the angle of incidence. Therefore, the stealth of the airplane with "lumps, bumps, and warts" has been compromised, because of the greater likelihood of detection.


More like you learned the basics of radar detection and 'stealth' from me. So give me something new instead of what you rehashed from my posts about the subjects.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Here is proof that people don't want to read anti-China troll posts.
> 
> ----------
> 
> The best anti-China troll is MIG-29/MIG-29MLD. SinoDefence gave him his own anti-China J-20 thread: "Discussion on J-20's aerodynamics, comparison with F-22 and some 'guesswork'"
> 
> Reference: http://www./air-force/discussion-j-20s-aerodynamics-comparison-f-22-some-guesswork-5603.html
> 
> With 1,469 posts, there are only 35,307 views. The view rate is *24 views per post*.
> 
> -----
> 
> The troll-free J-20 Mighty Dragon thread has almost four times the viewership of the troll thread on J-20.
> 
> Reference: http://www./air-force/j-20-new-generation-fighter-iii-35-5600.html#post155027
> 
> The *troll-free* "J-20... The New Generation Fighter III" thread has 517 posts and 47,738 views. The view rate is *92 views per post*.
> 
> ----------
> 
> The public has spoken. They do not want to read a troll-infested J-20 Mighty Dragon thread.


I challenge you to post your arguments on a more incredulous public: airliners.net. It would be amusing to see how far your arguments travels.


----------



## houshanghai

self delete 
there is no need

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

houshanghai said:


> sir,ignore these trollers especially a american-*vietnamese* poor experts and a anti-china racists


Still cannot resist putting that in, can you?  Care to explain to the readers what does one's ethnicity has to do with aviation 'stealth'?


----------



## Martian2

houshanghai said:


> sir,ignore these trollers especially a american-vietnamese poor experts and a anti-china racists


 
Two ways to resolve the problem:

1. Separate the Chinese members who post updated pictures, insights, and articles from the anti-China trolls by creating two distinct threads.

2. Moderators stop the anti-China trolls from posting a ridiculous number of frivolous anti-China comments or irrelevant clutter. Everyone knows Gambit is abusing his privilege as a "professional" to rampantly troll the J-20 thread as he wishes.

Gambit makes 10 posts for every one that I post.

*My new post on the J-20 and F-35 comparison*, where I contrast the J-20's optimization across "nine radar-frequency bands" and the F-35's optimization across only two radar bands (e.g. X and upper S) and I explain the non-stealthy lumps and bumps on the F-35's underside, *has been buried in a landslide of regurgitated Gambit arguments from months ago or his endless discussion about his personal background.*

If a solution is not found, either one or two listed above, I will stop posting here soon.

Last time, Amalakas trolled me to death. This time Gambit is doing the same thing. You cannot argue the principle of freedom of speech and let trolls run loose. It's called abuse of member privileges and making sure that my comparison post on the J-20 and F-35 will not be read by guests, who visit the forum once a week.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Two ways to resolve the problem:
> 
> 1. Separate the Chinese members who post updated pictures, insights, and articles from the anti-China trolls by creating two distinct threads.
> 
> 2. Moderators stop the *anti-China trolls from posting a ridiculous number of frivolous anti-China comments.*
> 
> Gambit makes 10 to 15 posts for every one that I post. My new post on the J-20 and F-35 comparison, where I contrast the J-20's optimization across "nine radar-frequency bands" and the F-35's optimization across only two radar bands (e.g. X and upper S) and I explain the non-stealthy lumps and bumps on the F-35's underside, has been buried in a landslide of regurgitated Gambit posts from months ago or his endless discussion about his personal background.
> 
> If a solution is not found, either one or two, I will stop posting here soon.


Challenging the APA's flawed methodology and report is not being anti-China. And if anything, I dare say based upon my postings about the basics of radar detection and 'stealth', my background seems more valid than yours about the subjects.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Still cannot resist putting that in, can you?  Care to explain to the readers what does one's ethnicity has to do with aviation 'stealth'?


 
No more than "Chinese" has to do with physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

*get back to j20's original point*

today. The weather improved in chengdu
J20 replaced the old engine with a new one by the rumor.it made a high-speed taxi testing???

there is only a climb-grass party's pic today and there is nothing in it

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Who took this picture. The weather doesn't look too good today. Too foggy.


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> Who took this picture. The weather doesn't look too good today. Too foggy.


 http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1183528-1-1.html
dammed recent weather in chengdu!
it influenced j20's trial flight recently

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

I know Santro is not convinced that "lumps and bumps" are not stealthy. I am posting my response from another forum to explain the issue further.

----------



siegecrossbow said:


> Fan blockers could reduce RCS by covering up exposed fan blades too. However some damage is done. I am not sure that I agree with Kopp's assertion that the F-35 has a similar RCS to "clean" Fourth gen though.


 
That's not what Kopp said. He said only from certain angles; especially a ground-radar illuminating the underside of the lumpy F-35. Basically, the lumpy F-35 underside is not that much different from a lumpy F-15 or F-16 underside.



latenlazy said:


> Wouldn't using continuous curvature help reduce RCS with those bumps though?



The more lumps that you have, the less stealthy you become.

If you do a ray trace of a narrow beam impacting on a sphere, like a small beach ball, there would be very few rays bouncing directly back. This is the concept of continuous curvature.

However, if you do a ray trace of a golf ball with many dimples, there would be many more rays bouncing back from those dimples. Technically speaking, the golf dimples are concave surfaces and the F-35 lumps are convex surfaces. However, the effect is the same. This is the best analogy I can think of.

In conclusion, the principle of continuous curvature does not mean that if you make a surface smooth and curvy then you're stealthy. It is important to understand the limitations of a design principle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gagaga

he belittling f-35... i dont believe it neither... yankees has made the most powerful turbofan engine F135... are u sayin that u know something that the yankees dont konw... my layman point of view...

the logic behind the talks about J-20 vs F-22, not vs F-35, i think its because F-35 isnt comparable to f-22 in the mind of yankees netizen... it become metal conditioning to the whole world, and to the Chinese poster here... actually, the EODAS on f-35 give it some kind of advantages when it comes to against another stealth fighter eg. f-22...

about lumps on f-35 affect its stealthiness, isnt b-2 bomber a all round stealth aircraft? its rear side is W shaping... does it affect its stealthiness? its like f-117, i think, according to my layman point of view, its all about avoid the microwave that has arrived the airframe go straightly back to the emitter... the lumps seems to me dont affect much...


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I know Santro is not convinced that "lumps and bumps" are not stealthy. I am posting my response from another forum to explain the issue further.
> 
> ----------
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Kopp said. He said only from certain angles; especially a ground-radar illuminating the underside of the lumpy F-35. Basically, the lumpy F-35 underside is not that much different from a lumpy F-15 or F-16 underside.
> 
> 
> 
> The more lumps that you have, the less stealthy you become.


If that is truly what Kopp said, then he is an idiot. A flat underside is no less reflective than a 'bumpy' one...






The truth is that no aircraft's underside is truly flat and a 'bumpy' one does not dramatically increase reflectivity *IF* those 'bumps' are shaped in ways that obey the rules of 'stealth', which is the denial of the seeking radar any reflections.

Further...






Against a bi-static configuration, then it is irrelevant how flat or 'bumpy' any aircraft's underside. The receiver in the bi-static triangle, as illustrated above, will always receive far more reflective signals and the transmitter's position.

You do not know what you are talking about.



Martian2 said:


> If you do a ray trace of a narrow beam impacting on a sphere, like a small beach ball, there would be very few rays bouncing directly back. This is the concept of continuous curvature.


No issues here.



Martian2 said:


> However, if you do a ray trace of a golf ball with many dimples, there would be many more rays bouncing back from those dimples. Technically speaking, the golf dimples are concave surfaces and the F-35 lumps are convex surfaces. However, the effect is the same. This is the best analogy I can think of.


The difference here is that the golf ball's dimples are uniformly arrayed and for a different purpose. At best, this is a partially appropriate analogy.



Martian2 said:


> In conclusion, the principle of continuous curvature does not mean that if you make a surface smooth and curvy then you're stealthy. *It is important to understand the limitations of a design principle.*


And I will say without reservations that *YOU* do not have that understanding.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> From Aviation Week in 2009: If you want to claim the "APA has got their models wrong, it probably wouldn't compromise security to explain why." Don't try to hide behind the argument of secrecy. The Chinese and Russians already have their own radar modeling software. "The worst argument against APA, though, is that of secrecy."


The flaw here is that APA does not have the true physical dimensions of the Russian's or the Chinese's aircrafts. So in criticizing APA's methodology, no state secrets need be revealed. If APA is so confident of their Physical Optics *ONLY* modeling of the J-20, then why do they not perform the same for all the famous 'stealth' aircrafts currently in the public eye? Then throw in a few 'non-stealth' aircrafts for baseline comparisons?



Martian2 said:


> Since Lockheed or another reputable organization has not published a study to challenge the APA analysis in two years, *we can only conclude the APA models are accurate.*


No, we cannot. At best, we can only give APA credit for being honest enough to admit that their Physical Optics *ONLY* modeling has shortcomings. If flawed methodology alone is enough to make APA's result suspect, then there is no need for Lockheed to response with their data.



Martian2 said:


> *Aviation Week has implicitly acknowledged the F-35's shortcoming by suggesting the F-35 is "stealthy enough to survive."* However, that was two years ago, before the debut of the J-20 Mighty Dragon in 2011.


In no way does that make the J-20 superior to the F-35. There is no logical relationship.



Martian2 said:


> JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised
> 
> JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised
> Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/7/*2009* 7:30 AM CST
> 
> The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22[/B] - *and in fact is comparable in radar cross-section (RCS), under some circumstances, to a conventional fighter in clean condition.* APA's updated surveys of modern Russian radars - which are most likely to form the basis of the threat systems that it would encounter from the late 2010s onwards - have set the scene for this analysis.


And which is that 'conventional fighter'? Could it be the F-16? A clean F-16 is very difficult to find by other 'conventional' fighters of the same era and technology, including Russian radars, airborne or ground stations. However, assuming we grant this argument that wide a latitude, we must understand that a clean F-35's lethality is much greater than a clean F-16. A visually clean F-35 can be armed or unarmed. A clean F-16 is unarmed. This is a very weak criticism.



Martian2 said:


> The report is unprecedented because it's the first "civilian" use of radar scattering models to take a first-order look at an aircraft's RCS. It was the development of computer-based RCS models that opened the way to the development of stealth in the 1970s: the theory of scattering was well known but was too hard to apply to a 3-D shape without those tools.


It also mean that there are much more powerful computing tools to predict, model, then verify complex bodies than civilians could access. Further, civilians do not have access to the aircraft itself and EM anechoic chambers to verify the true physical dimensions of these complex bodies.



Martian2 said:


> The APA analysis will no doubt be countered by the JSF team in several ways. They'll argue that the APA team has an agenda. They will argue that the analysis is too crude to reflect reality; that anything it does show is not operationally relevant; and that the true picture is much more complex and (of course) secret.
> 
> The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) *but that does not mean that their data is bad.*


It also does not mean their data should be taken as gospel, especially when they do not have access to the aircraft's true physical dimensions.



Martian2 said:


> The analysis is crude insofar as it doesn't make any detailed estimates of the effects of radar absorbent material (RAM). On the other hand, the doctrine laid down by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials.


Fine...Then we can dismiss materials. But that does not mean Overholser's admonition has been violated in any way by the F-35. Shaping to influence radar signal behaviors goes beyond specular reflections but edge diffractions and assort surface wave variables. APA's methodology admitted they do not have the aircraft's true physical dimensions and do not process non-specular signals. If the F-35's various 'bumps and humps' do not raise the aircraft above a certain threshold commonly known as 'stealthy' enough, then the F-35 is true to Overholser's admonition.



Martian2 said:


> On the other hand, the APA analysis is a lot more detailed than the cartoon representations in Lockheed Martin briefings. And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF's behalf.


Then APA is free to perform the same flawed Physical Optics *ONLY* methodology on the F-15, F-16, F-117, F-22, F-35, and the B-2 to benefit the public over Lockheed's cartoons. Why have APA not done so but instead zero in only on the J-20?



Martian2 said:


> The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.


Then perhaps a more legitimate comparison would be between the F-22 and the J-20? This make no sense. APA performed a flawed measurement/analysis *ONLY* on the J-20 but not on both the F-22 and F-35. Then despite the absence of comparative data, APA declared that while the J-20 is inferior to the F-22 despite having the same flat underside, it is superior to the F-35 based upon the latter's 'bumps and humps'. How can the J-20 be inferior to the F-22 in the first place? Based upon what comparative data? The moving canards? But then if the all-moving canards made the J-20 inferior to the F-35, is it possible that those same canards make the J-20's RCS the same or higher than the F-35 despite the latter's underside 'bumps and humps'?



Martian2 said:


> Of course, it's possible to argue that the F-35 meets its stealth requirements (which may or not be the same for all F-35s), and that it will be stealthy enough to survive - combined with situational awareness and tactics.


Very seldom do aircrafts go anywhere alone. A pack of F-35, even if we grant that they are as detectable as clean F-16s, with their superior avionics and networking capabilities, they will do more than just survive. They can fight and win. What do we know of the J-20's avionics?



Martian2 said:


> But *that in turn depends on what the requirements are, and what threats it was designed against.* (That's why stealth air vehicles are as diverse as they are, from the DarkStar to the AGM-129, while submarines look pretty much the same.) In the design of the F-22, for example, features such as 2-D nozzles, edges swept at 42 degrees, and high-altitude, high-speed flight were required to address that threat set.


Reasonable enough. Then unless we know what the J-20's threat requirements are, the comparison between the J-20 and the F-35 is an invalid one. The F-35's missions are well known. It is to be a jack-of-all-trades with high standards for all of those trades. What do we know of the J-20? Nothing other than we know there are speculations.



Martian2 said:


> More recently, the Northrop Grumman X-47B and Boeing X-45C designs have clearly been aimed at all-aspect, wideband stealth - although that's particularly important for an unmanned vehicle, which may not be as flexible in its response to a pop-up threat.
> 
> The worst argument against APA, though, is that of secrecy. Implemented on an experimental airplane 30 years ago, stealth is no longer covered by Arthur C. Clarke's principle that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." *Competitors and potential adversaries around the world have assuredly run F-35 models in simulations, in RCS chambers and on open ranges. So if APA has got their models wrong, it probably wouldn't compromise security to explain why.*


In simulations, yes. But in EM anechoic chambers? Not likely. Absent precise physical dimensions, any simulated results are suspect.


----------



## Martian2

The original X-35 was a stealthy design. The current F-35 SDD AA-1 is a "much inferior contoured design, clearly intended to accommodate the larger weapon bays."

This is a familiar story. The X-35 was well-designed to meet the original military specifications (e.g. "bomb truck"). The military changed its mind and Lockheed had to drastically alter its design to accommodate the new military specifications (of an air superiority fighter) to carry a larger weapons load. This compromised the F-35 stealth design.

Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities

"*Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities*
Air Power Australia Analysis 2009-01
7th January 2009

by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, MIEEE, PEng
© 2008, 2009 Carlo Kopp





_The evolution of the JSF design from the X-35 demonstrators to the F-35A/B/C SDD configuration has seen significant changes to the aircraft's shaping, critical to its stealth performance. *While the design of the inlets was improved, the lower fuselage design is now inferior to the original X-35 configuration.* The latter has important implications for the JSF's ability to survive when penetrating modern Integrated Air Defence Systems (Image via Air Force Link)._
...
Joint Strike Fighter Stealth Capabilities

*The Joint Strike Fighter is an unusual airframe design, since it departs from many of the well established ground rules in stealth shaping*, established in other designs such as the F-117A, B-2A, A-12A, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor. *Stealth shaping is widely regarded to account for the first hundredfold reduction in aircraft radar signature, compared to non-stealthy designs of similar size, with application of lossy and absorbent materials used to further reduce the signature where feasible.*
...
*The first major departure from established shaping conventions is the angular or aspect dependency of the Joint Strike Fighters radar signature.*





_Diagram 3._





_Diagram 4._

*Study of the shaping of the aircraft and comparison with other designs shows that the Joint Strike Fighter can provide genuinely good stealth performance only in a fairly narrow ~29° sector about the aircrafts nose*, where the shaping of the nose, engine inlets, panel edge serrations, and alignment of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators results in the absence of major lobes or spikes in the radar signature. The ±14.5° angular limit is constrained by the principal reflecting lobe of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators. The signature degrades rapidly due to the influence of the lower centre fuselage as the angle swings past ±45° off the nose, refer Diagram 4.

An important development was that the SDD aircraft saw the original inlet design discarded and replaced with a scaled down inlet arrangement based on the F-22A design. Concurrently the lower fuselage was redesigned.

*In the SDD design, the beam/side aspect radar signature is especially problematic, due to the presence of multiple specular reflecting shapes, specifically due to singly and doubly curved lower fuselage surface feature shaping. The Joint Strike Fighter has a complex lower fuselage shape as well as a wing and fuselage lower join shape, unlike any other aircraft designed with stealth in mind, refer preceding images. The result of this design choice is that the beam/side aspect Radar Cross Section will be closer in magnitude to a conventional fighter flown clean than a classical stealth aircraft.* This is an inevitable result of clustering no less than nine unique convex specular scattering shapes in the lower hemisphere of the aircraft. Diagram 3 illustrates this.

Given that the dimensions of many of these shapes are of the order of metres, the application of absorbent or lossy coatings or laminates will not be sufficient to drive the critical lower hemisphere beam/side aspect signature down to values which qualify as VLO and thus stealthy. Refer Annex C.

The aft sector radar signature is also problematic, as a result of the use of an axisymmetric nozzle design. While the aft fuselage and tailboom shaping qualify as stealthy across the upper bands, the nozzle presents as a specular reflector in bands where the wavelength is comparable or exceeds the dimensions of the nozzle segments. This is discussed below.

*The second major departure from established stealth conventions is that the Joint Strike Fighter is designed to perform in the X-band, and upper portions of the S-band, with little effort expended in optimizing for the lower L-band, UHF-band and VHF-band. This design strategy is consistent with defeating mobile battlefield short range point defence SAM and AAA systems* such as the SA-8 Gecko, SA-9 Gaskin, Chapparel, Crotale, Roland, SA-15 Gauntlet, SA-19 Grison and SA-22 Greyhound, where limited radar antenna size forces all acquisition and engagement functions into the X-band and upper S-band. Joint Strike Fighter literature refers to this optimization in terms of breaking the kill chain, the intent being to deny the effective use of X-band engagement radars and X/Ku-Band missile seekers, but not acquisition radars in lower bands.

*Such SAM systems are the category of residual threat which a battlefield interdiction aircraft will encounter once the F-22A force has sanitized an area by destroying the long range search/acquisition radars and area defence SAM batteries.* With limited range and coverage footprint, but high mobility and autonomous capability, battlefield short range point defence SAM and AAA systems can pop-up from hidden locations and ambush interdiction aircraft at medium to low altitudes. Significantly, in a sanitized environment such air defence weapons are operating without external support from other sensors or the top cover provided by long range area defence SAMs such as the SA-12/23, SA-20 and SA-21.

The engine nozzle presents a good case study of the band dependency of stealth performance in the Joint Strike Fighter design. In the upper X-band and Ku-band, the individual nozzle segments present as flat panels with a serrated trailing edge. The result will be a circular pattern of narrow reflecting lobes which will produce mostly good effect in these bands. *However, in the lower bands this arrangement will rapidly degrade in behaviour to that of a truncated conical shape, which is a strong specular reflector.* The resulting external shape related signature will be much the same as a conventional exhaust nozzle on a non-stealthy fighter, with an outer skin contribution and rim contribution. While the interior of the nozzle will be coated with broadband lossy materials and a tailpipe blocker used to obscure the turbine face, the signature of the nozzle exterior below the X-band cannot qualify as stealthy. Refer Annex C.






_X-35 Dev/Val prototype (above) vs F-35 SDD AA-1 (below). *The clean wing fuselage join and flat low curvature lower fuselage of the X-35 had the potential to yield quite good beam/side aspect radar signature, but the revised SDD design discarded this arrangement in favour of a much inferior contoured design, clearly intended to accommodate the larger weapon bays.* While the F-35 SDD engine inlet arrangement is superior to the X-35 Dev/Val prototype inlet design, the gains in the forward sector cannot overcome the performance losses incurred in the beam/side aspect sectors (Images via Air Force Link)._










_Diagram 5: *Very Low Observable airframe shaping should be optimised to produce best effect, i.e. lowest radar cross section, from those angles from which the aircraft is most likely to be illuminated by a threat system such as an engagement or acquisition radar in a Surface to Air Missile battery.* This diagram shows the cardinal depression angles for an aircraft at the tropopause, accounting for the curvature of the earth and atmospheric refractive effects which 'bend' the ray path between the aircraft and threat radar. The specific angles in this diagram are determined using Russian specifications for missile range, the SBF refractive model for short ranges, and an exponential CRPL refractive model for ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles. It is important to observe that in straight and level flight all surface based threats are firmly in the lower hemisphere, putting a premium on low Radar Cross Section in the angular range between 3.7 and 36.5 , as area defence missile systems will illuminate the aircraft within this angular range. Point defence missiles systems and 'trash fire' such as AAA and MANPADS are generally altitude limited to 10 - 15 kft and are a much less critical threat. A smart IADS operator will not radiate until a potential target is close enough to get a steep elevation angle for a shot, a tactic commonly associated with 'shoot and scoot' operations - the cardinal example being Serbian ZRK Kvadrat / SA-6 operations in 1999 (Author)._






_The shaping changes to the inlet area and lower fuselage are prominent on these images of F-35A SDD prototype AA-1 (Images via Air Force Link)._






Diagram 4 summarises the qualitative comparisons of Joint Strike Fighter shaping aspect and band dependency, with green denoting performance which qualifies as Very Low Observable, yellow as Low Observable, and red as order of magnitude closest to conventional reduced signature aircraft designs. The aircraft performs best in the X-band, and Ku-band, with performance declining through the S-band with increasing wavelength. In the L-band the axisymmetric nozzle design no longer produces useful effect, and the length of the inlet edges sits in resonant mode scattering rather than clean optical scattering, degrading performance. In the VHF band (~2 metres) Joint Strike Fighter airframe shaping has become largely ineffective.

The aircraft will have a credible ability to defeat S-band search/acquisition radars, X-band engagement radars and X/Ku/K/Ka-band missile seekers only in the narrow ±14.5° angular sector under the nose. As the angle relative to the threat radars increases, the unfortunate lower fuselage shaping features will produce an increasingly strong effect with a cluster of flare spot peaks around 90° where the longitudinal panel and door edge joins produce effect.

In the narrow ±14.5° angular sector under the tail, the design will produce best effect against X/Ku/K/Ka-band missile seekers, but less useful effect against X-band engagement radars due to their higher power-aperture performance. *At S-band the nozzle exterior signature will become increasingly prominent, leading to loss of effect in the vicinity of the L-band.*

It is clear that these design choices were intentional and no accident. By confining proper stealth shaping technique only to the forward fuselage and inlet geometry, the designers avoided incurring the development, and to a lesser extent, the associated manufacturing costs of a fully stealthy design, with the YF-23A and F-22A presenting good comparisons.

*This is an acceptable optimization if the intent is only to defeat an isolated individual low power aperture pop-up short/medium range mobile battlefield air defence system* in the category of the SA-6 Gainful, SA-8 Gecko, SA-9 Gaskin, Chapparel, Crotale, Roland, SA-11 Gadfly, SA-15 Gauntlet, SA-19 Grison or SA-22 Greyhound. It is a completely unsuitable optimization for a wide range of other threat types which are in service, and the associated characteristic engagement geometries. *It is also a problematic optimisation where short/medium range battlefield air defence systems are deployed in a coordinated manner.*

_*The most generous description of the stealth design used in the Joint Strike Fighter is that it is 25% VLO, in the nose sector, 25% LO in the tail sector, and 50% reduced observable in the beam sectors*, with a strong threat operating frequency and angular aspect dependency in stealth performance. It is clearly not a stealth design in the same sense as the F-117A Nighthawk, B-2A Spirit, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor, and to label it a VLO design is at best a quarter-truth, quite indifferent to the physical realities of the design and the threat systems it will need to defeat in future conflicts._"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lawxx

According to reliable sources: J-20 of which a prototype has changed WS-15 engine


----------



## laowai

houshanghai said:


> false flag and you arenot a real chinese


 


tanlixiang28776 said:


> Or how about you get banned for being a false flagging suicide troll.



so now i'm not chinese for not agreeing with martian's nonsense, just shows how far you guys are being deluded in def.pk

my father and mother is chinese, i'm proud to be chinese, and i don't have anything to prove, check my flag if you wish, and you will get a hint

i tell you a thing, there are two kinds of forums where you won't raise a voice and be a lurker

one is where you are not up to the caliber of people in it that you don't dare to raise your voice
the other one is where posting is waste of time, and you read it just for the lulz

nevertheless i still respect defence.pk

think about it, are gambit's posts or martian's posts the ones that educating you? use your brain

gambit have been toying with the lot of you, when people earned their professional tag in a forum, it's not just for show

i'm posting this for you people's sake


----------



## Martian2

Please ignore the troll. I attract trolls like flies to honey.

As a troll, his goal is the same. He keeps provoking you to respond and my latest post on the F-35 gets pushed into the back pages where no guests to this forum will read it, because they won't know it exists.

The trolls always come out when I put up a significant post with important information. Just starve the troll and he'll go away.

*You know he's a troll, because I'm not giving you my rhetorical opinion. I am quoting an expert and I've highlighted the sentences that I believe are important. I am merely suggesting you read them and form your own opinion.*

I spent hours on my last informative F-35 post. I collected the relevant information, edited out unimportant paragraphs, copied the pictures and adjusted their color, brightness, and contrast; and highlighted important passages. He doesn't want others to read it. Don't enable him.

Thank you everyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

laowai said:


> nope, i lurk, and have been seeing some CDFers posting, you guys made a splash with the J-20 photos there
> and people like i.e that's the one that we should respect


 
I enjoy i.e.'s comments as well. Do you know johnq?


----------



## Martian2

Dear moderator,

Please move the troll Laowai's posts to a different thread. Personal complaints about me are not relevant to China's J-20 Mighty Dragon.

*Please delete posts #393-#401. They are all irrelevant to this thread and only clutter it.*

Thank you.

Best regards,

Martin

----------

I've also filed a formal complaint against the new member Laowai for flooding this thread with posts irrelevant to China's J-20 Mighty Dragon. I also don't appreciate personal attacks against me, because they are irrelevant to this thread and it is an overt attempt to flood it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The original X-35 was a stealthy design. The current F-35 SDD AA-1 is a "much inferior contoured design, clearly intended to accommodate the larger weapon bays."
> 
> This is a familiar story. The X-35 was well-designed to meet the original military specifications (e.g. "bomb truck"). The military changed its mind and Lockheed had to drastically alter its design to accommodate the new military specifications (of an air superiority fighter) to carry a larger weapons load. This compromised the F-35 stealth design.


Nothing wrong with meeting customer's requirements.



Martian2 said:


> In the SDD design, the beam/side aspect radar signature is especially problematic, due to the presence of multiple specular reflecting shapes, specifically due to singly and doubly curved lower fuselage surface feature shaping. The Joint Strike Fighter has a complex lower fuselage shape as well as a wing and fuselage lower join shape, unlike any other aircraft designed with stealth in mind, refer preceding images. The result of this design choice is that the beam/side aspect Radar Cross Section will be closer in magnitude to a conventional fighter flown clean than a classical stealth aircraft.*This is an inevitable result of clustering no less than nine unique convex specular scattering shapes in the lower hemisphere of the aircraft. Diagram 3 illustrates this.*


Fair enough. This so-called 'analysis' was done back in 2009. Today, we can compare the F-35's and the J-20's frontal aspects with respect to lateral radar impingement for better illustration. Keep in mind we are using Kopp's own standards...







Whatever is good for the goose, it is equally good for the gander, as the Americans say. Looks like the J-20 does not depart much from the F-35 and therefore would fail Kopp's own standards.


----------



## houshanghai

*Is it me, or the J-10 looked alot larger than the J-20 as it passed by, 0:10 secs. Note, the J-20 is closer to the camera as the J-10 momentarily disappears behind the J-20 as it passes by to get to the main taxi-way!*

*by Dizasta(other forum)*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Nothing wrong with meeting customer's requirements.
> 
> Fair enough. This so-called 'analysis' was done back in 2009. Today, we can compare the F-35's and the J-20's frontal aspects with respect to lateral radar impingement for better illustration. Keep in mind we are using Kopp's own standards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever is good for the goose, it is equally good for the gander, as the Americans say. Looks like the J-20 does not depart much from the F-35 and therefore would fail Kopp's own standards.


 
The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not have the F-35's meter-plus-long "lumps, bumps, and warts." However, you may have a point with the stealth enclosures of the aileron-control system. I will put that on my list of possible minor deficiencies in the J-20 vs F-22 comparison. I will conduct further investigation into the size of the stealth enclosures.

At this point in time, the F-22 is superior to the J-20 on three counts: J-20 lacks flat engine nozzles (can be remedied); J-20 has partially curved-side surface that needs to be reworked (can be remedied); and minor deduction for canards and ventral fins on edge diffraction (this cannot be changed).

----------

After an investigation, this is my conclusion:

J-20 stealth aileron-control enclosures are similar to F-22 enclosures. No deduction for J-20 stealth aileron-control enclosures, because F-22 has them too.





F-22 has stealth aileron-control enclosures, just like the J-20. Both planes are on roughly equal footing on this standard.





J-20 hydraulically-powered aileron-control system in oval stealth enclosures

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## laowai

houshanghai said:


> *Is it me, or the J-10 looked alot larger than the J-20 as it passed by, 0:10 secs. Note, the J-20 is closer to the camera as the J-10 momentarily disappears behind the J-20 as it passes by to get to the main taxi-way!*
> 
> *by Dizasta(other forum)*



poor video quality + camera over exposure

if you notice also, when the J-10 passed the J-20, the wingspan of J-20 is almost at the same with J-10 body length



Martian2 said:


> F-22 has stealth aileron-control enclosures, just like the J-20. Both planes are on roughly equal footing on this standard.


 
what standard? eyeball mk.1 standard? you try to establish a standard between 2 VLO aircrafts with visual eyeballing from low quality photographs?


----------



## houshanghai

actually j20 isnot a lot larger than j10

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not have the F-35's meter-plus long "lumps, bumps, and warts."


Not going to work. On a curve, specular reflection is dominant, then comes surface wave properties. The J-20's expanse of flat surface from that same incident angle will produces the same specular reflections but probably greater.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Not going to work. On a curve, specular reflection is dominant, then comes surface wave properties. The J-20's expanse of *flat surface from that same incident angle* will produces the same specular reflections but probably greater.


 
which is funny because if we are talking about the underside, the F22 has a similar surface, and on the other hand, the flat sides of the J-20 as opposed to the unexpected (to me perhaps innovative) sides of the T-50 is tooted as a key stealth feature. 

I suspected that the absorption of surface and creeping waves in the F-35 overall shape has a lot to do with the LO signature, perhaps even more so than the F22 because the F22 had fewer design compromises in terms of shape. 

How well does the J-20 deal with surface and creeping waves? from incident angles typical to SAM systems I cannot see the vertical stabilizer fins in the rear underside being less of a problem to the plane than the humps in the F-35, nor do I see the gaps between the two engine nozzles in the J20 being less of an issue keeping all things equal of course or the space between the canard and the main wing. 

Is the shape (and/or the materials) enough to counter the surface waves and attenuate them enough? who knows? 





It is this modelling (and furthermore testing to confirm and evaluate the results) that makes the difference in a design. I still maintain that the F-35 is an inferior to expectations plane and perhaps not what the world needs. But I cannot doubt that the modelling-testing-evaluate phase took place.


----------



## no_name

J-20 is longer and much wider than J-10. J-10 only looks larger because it is higher due to chin intakes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Are there higher reso versions of this photo?


----------



## no_name

No that I know of.


----------



## gambit

Readers,

From the below is an illustration of RCS contributors on a complex body:






- Scattered waves: Summation from all possible scatter points (generators).

- Specular reflections: Immediate upon impact. This occurs even if the surface is an absorber, albeit at a lesser energy level.

- Surface waves: Occurs when the incident angle is less than perpendicular (normal). As incident angle departs from perpendicular and approaches parallel the surface become an inducer to the creation of the surface wave phenomena and a conductor to the same. At this point, the surface's expanse is called 'the electrical path'. In a dynamic situation, as in a maneuvering aircraft, surface waves are not constant.

- Diffraction signals: Occurs when there is an abrupt interruption of the surface wave's travel path. Infinite surfaces are theoretical. Practical surfaces are finite and will always produces diffraction signals.

- Traveling waves: A category of surface waves. Usually occurs on the gradual curvature of a surface. A conducting flat surface can also induce the traveling wave effect. Same for a wire. For an aircraft, traveling wave effects are more prominent at nose-on illumination by the seeking radar.

- Creeping waves: Occurs when a surface wave has sufficient energy to travel into the 'shadow region' of a curvature. Best illustration of this is the sphere or a cylinder. At the radar signal's impact point on the sphere or the cylinder, the opposite side is 'the shadow region'. There is a rule called the 'ten lambda' rule that may not allow the creation of the creeping wave effect. Lambda is the symbol for wavelength. For a wavelenght at a fixed distance, if the diameter of the sphere or cylinder is greater than ten lambda, as the surface wave travels, 'leaky waves' radiation will be the primary loss mechanism and eventually will dissipate the surface wave completely. If the diameter of the sphere or cylinder is ten lambda or less, the creeping wave effect will occur and as the wave emerge from 'the shadow region' into the impact side, constructive interference with the specular reflection will enhance the body's detectability.

- Trapped waves: Occurs in cavities such as a tube or a pocket of any shape of a volume. For an aircraft, the cockpit and the engine inlet tunnels are trapped waves creators. Also called 'guided waves'. Depending on length and diameter, a tube with trapped waves from pulses may create continuous wave (CW) emissions that ring (time domain) or resonate (freq domain) and can escape the cavity through the same entry point.

- Ducted waves: Occurs in longitudinal depressions such as between the engines on the aircraft's underside or longitudinal depressions for missile attachments.

The concept of radar cross section (RCS) is not new. But what is 'new' or at least continually being updated it what kind of data are we receiving and *CAPABLE* of processing. Since the early days of radar detection, *ALL* of the above have been with us but we were not capable of processing them as well as we knew of them and as well as we would like.

What APA did recently for the J-20 was perform Physical Optics (PO) measurements *ONLY* and PO is for item two: specular reflections. And I have shown everyone here via post 306 with decades of historical evidences that PO is an inappropriate tool for a complex body. It was not technically wrong because the PO tool can be used any where on a complex body, but it was clearly an inappropriate one. Given the facts that radar detection is essentially a statistical process and that against a neutral background contributors on a complex body will naturally cluster, targets are categorized into two main states: Steady and Dynamic.

- Steady: Geographical features like mountains. Man made features like buildings or towers. These items have a uniform distribution. No further discussions needed for them.

- Dynamic slow: A ship is an example of this. The ship's superstructure is a dominant contributor where lesser structural contributors are clustered around the dominant contributor. In the time domain, lesser contributors may disappear but when they do reappear and even in different aspect angles to the seeking radar, they still cluster around said dominant contributor. To correlate is to examine a detail under different conditions and record the results. Such a slow moving target will require several seconds of target focus to process all major and minor contributors before we can assure ourselves that we are looking at an oil tanker with an aft superstructure, or an aircraft carrier with a center superstructure, or a submarine that is on the sea surface, or a float plane.

- Dynamic fast: A maneuvering aircraft is an example of this. Before the F-117, all aircrafts have a dominant contributor: the corner reflector. As seen below...






Even though the airliner is not a high-g fighter, it still qualify as a 'dynamic fast' target because its operating environment require it to travel at several hundreds km/h.

The airliner has a dominant contributor: the tail assembly corner reflector as seen by the large spike. Then many lesser contributors clustered *WITH* (not necessarily around) the tail assembly. Even if we treat these lesser contributors, the tail assembly reflector as the dominant contributor will reveal the aircraft any way. Going back to the 'untreated' airliner, to correlate and therefore assure ourselves that we are looking at a valid target, because of the airliner's speed that will quickly recreate contributors (spikes) that were destroyed earlier, the correlation process will take mere milliseconds. The dominant contributor give us one target characteristic. The lesser contributors, based upon their spatial distribution, give us another target characteristic because its (air)speed over time continually destroy and create new spikes and they all clustered. Hence, it takes only milliseconds or faster to correlate a 'dynamic fast' target.

Things changed radically for military aviation after the F-117. Now despite the fact that we have a 'dynamic fast' body that supposedly need only milliseconds to correlate we have no dominant contributor. The twin canted vertical stabs deny us the corner reflector. Enclosed weapons further deny us the corner reflectors created by missile fins. Treated cockpit canopy deny us the corner reflectors inside the cockpit. And so on. As for the lesser contributors, they are treated in ways that make it difficult for us to find them as a cluster in the first place. So for our newly design 'stealth' aircraft, even though it is true that specular signals are dominant, we bodyshaped the aircraft and made them so low, hopefully into the clutter rejection threshold, that we have no choice but to include tools, and combinations of tools, far more sophisticated than Physical Optics (PO) to capture as much as possible our model's RCS contributors before we can declare that we achieved our goal. That is the honest way to go.

This is why it is totally inappropriate for APA, a third party that has no access to the J-20, to confine their measurements to just Physical Optics (PO) in their J-20 'analysis', favorably downplay those specular reflections, and simply hand-waved away other contributing mechanisms to support their preconceived ideas on how the J-20 should be. This is seriously flawed because the concept of a radar cross section (RCS) is *INCLUSIVE* of all radiating mechanisms. It is the degrees of contributorship, based upon comparisons to each other, that will determine if a particular contributor is of interest for further attempts at reduction measures. For all we know, it could be those non-specular contributors that will provide us with sufficient energy level and spatial distribution to make the J-20 detectable. By performing only Physical Optics (PO) and dismissing away other radiating mechanisms, APA is effectively redefining the concept of RCS to suit their pet 'du jour'.

How would any Chinese member like it if I go to China and only after one month, I start making declarations about China's agriculture and the Chinese people based upon...aaahhh...18th century Buddhist pagoda architecture? Would you be offended? Sometimes the group does not need to be vocal in its disapproval of a wrong committed by a person. What APA did was the equivalent of a loudmouthed fool in the company of silent sages.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## krash

^^^ Please stop copy pasting everything and anything you find anywhere and everywhere. Going through this clutter is seriously cumbersome and annoying. Stick to the thread and open another thread on "principles of a stealth design" or whatever. That should take care of your 'copy pasting' fix.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

krash said:


> ^^^ Please stop copy pasting everything and anything you find anywhere and everywhere. Going through this clutter is seriously cumbersome and annoying. Stick to the thread and open another thread on "principles of a stealth design" or whatever. That should take care of your 'copy pasting' fix.


If what I posted went 'whhhooooosssshhhhh' over your head, let me know and I will seriously try to make it sssssslllllloooooooowwwwwweeeeeerrrrrr.


----------



## krash

gambit said:


> If what I posted went 'whhhooooosssshhhhh' over your head, let me know and I will seriously try to make it sssssslllllloooooooowwwwwweeeeeerrrrrr.


 
Hahahahaha..........I remember this being a legitimate comeback when i was in 5th grade . Now please dont come back with "my dad can beat up your dad"........make a new thread and stop cluttering this one. Move on.......

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

krash said:


> Hahahahaha..........I remember this being a legitimate comeback *when i was in 5th grade* . Now please dont come back with "my dad can beat up your dad"........make a new thread and stop cluttering this one. Move on.......


With *YOU*...Looks like I have to go down to that level.


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> With *YOU*...Looks like I have to go down to that level.


 
you already are, look all the 'one-bigger-upper' posts you have

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Juice

krash said:


> Hahahahaha..........I remember this being a legitimate comeback when i was in 5th grade . Now please dont come back with "my dad can beat up your dad"........make a new thread and stop cluttering this one. Move on.......


 
I know you are...but what am I? Lol, debate WAS simpler in those days!


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> If what I posted went 'whhhooooosssshhhhh' over your head, let me know and I will seriously try to make it sssssslllllloooooooowwwwwweeeeeerrrrrr.



Your post would be perfectly legitimate if it was the first time. As I recall, between the original thread and this thread, my estimate is I've seen that exact same diagram and post about 7 to 10 times now. Come on, post something new.

Stop beating us over the head with your message of "information is incomplete and therefore we can draw no conclusions." No one is buying it. Surface, traveling, creeping, and other waves apply equally to the F-22 and J-20.

My posts have been attempts to contrast the known differences in the designs of the F-22, J-20, and F-35 to illuminate the issue of which one is stealthier and why.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

*Any resemblance of a story in this videos to a living plot is purely incidental.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

Martian2 said:


> Your post would be perfectly legitimate if it were the first time. As I recall, between the original thread and this thread, my estimate is I've seen that exact same diagram and post about 7 to 10 times now. Come on, post something new.
> 
> Stop beating us over the head with your message of "information is incomplete and therefore we can draw no conclusions." No one is buying it. Surface, traveling, creeping, and other waves apply equally to the F-22 and J-20.
> 
> My posts have been attempts to contrast the known differences in the designs of the F-22, J-20, and F-35 to illuminate the issue of which one is stealthier and why.



Actually, he has been posting the same old stuffs for yrs. He might have forgotten we all join in the class of "2009" 
Its simply getting so boring and annoying looking at the same old things over and over again="outdated ideology craps and copy and paste from his bible" , perhaps thats what they called "old people symptom"  best to avoid him at all cost, he ain't worth our breath period.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Gambit's posts may be old and repetative but on the other hand
some members of this forum are too eager to accept that a given fighter (J-20 in this instance) is God's gift to man. 

Just like how martian makes guesttimations on RCS and canard size of the plane (which are both extremely wrong) so does Gambit some times point the obvious. 

Why do you have so hard a time seeing this? 

RADAR waves are not made out of jelly beans, nor is RADAR detection something that works the way you see in movies. 

to pick up an aircraft and detect its presence is one thing, to actually track it to produce a firing solution for a weapon is quite another. 

to make a stealth plane is one thing, to make an all aspect stealth plane is quite another. 

The US downplayed the ability of Russian L band systems to detect stealth aircraft, they did design the F22 however to have some stealth characteristics in the L band. I am sure they were playing it safe. 

The J20 is a great achievement, is it stealthy ? yes, is it enough, we won't know until the day it'll surprise a western made system


----------



## krash

gambit said:


> With *YOU*...Looks like I have to go down to that level.


 
No need to do it purposefully.......it comes to you naturally. Btw you've been there since long before I ever joined this forum. Iv reasoned with you, tried to make you change your ways, tried to show where you were going wrong, even tried ignoring you, tried letting it go, all with due respect and all to no avail. You just dont get it. Now if the mods are too busy banning Indians then I guess ill stand up myself.



Juice said:


> I know you are...but what am I? Lol, debate WAS simpler in those days!


 
Didnt get that.



amalakas said:


> Gambit's posts may be old and repetative but on the other hand
> some members of this forum are too eager to accept that a given fighter (J-20 in this instance) is God's gift to man.
> 
> Just like how martian makes guesttimations on RCS and canard size of the plane (which are both extremely wrong) so does Gambit some times point the obvious.
> 
> Why do you have so hard a time seeing this?
> 
> RADAR waves are not made out of jelly beans, nor is RADAR detection something that works the way you see in movies.
> 
> to pick up an aircraft and detect its presence is one thing, to actually track it to produce a firing solution for a weapon is quite another.
> 
> to make a stealth plane is one thing, to make an all aspect stealth plane is quite another.
> 
> The US downplayed the ability of Russian L band systems to detect stealth aircraft, they did design the F22 however to have some stealth characteristics in the L band. I am sure they were playing it safe.
> 
> The J20 is a great achievement, is it stealthy ? yes, is it enough, we won't know until the day it'll surprise a western made system


 
My issue is not with him pointing out supposed or legitimate flaws with J-20/T-50/F-22. My issue is with his attitude in this forum. He never lets go any opportunity to troll, flame and derail any Chinese thread. Look at this thread. Its supposed to be about the J-20. Not a lesson in 'principles governing stealth in aircrafts' with hundreds of pages of readings assigned by Mr.Gambit. He can, by all means, open up a new thread on that matter and teach us all that he knows about 'stealth' (Come to think of it, this thread truly is a brilliant idea. You can thank me later for it Mr.Gambit). I know that I am one who would avidly follow that thread. But all that stuff here is seriously annoying, out of place and, dare I say it, derailing the thread. I dont know where the mods go to sleep whenever he comes out. Im sorry mods but this is unacceptable, his demeanor is unacceptable. 

A man of his knowledge and standing should have been one of the most beloved of this forum. But instead he is the one due to whom you start phasing out when ever he joins in on any Chinese thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

krash said:


> My issue is not with him pointing out supposed or legitimate flaws with J-20/T-50/F-22. My issue is with his attitude in this forum.* He never lets go any opportunity to troll, flame and derail any Chinese thread.* Look at this thread. Its supposed to be about the J-20. Not a lesson in 'principles governing stealth in aircrafts' with hundreds of pages of readings assigned by Mr.Gambit. He can, by all means, open up a new thread on that matter and teach us all that he knows about 'stealth' (Come to think of it, this thread truly is a brilliant idea. You can thank me later for it Mr.Gambit). I know that I am one who would avidly follow that thread. But all that stuff here is seriously annoying, out of place and, dare I say it, derailing the thread. I dont know where the mods go to sleep whenever he comes out. Im sorry mods but this is unacceptable, his demeanor is unacceptable.
> 
> A man of his knowledge and standing should have been one of the most beloved of this forum. But instead he is the one due to whom you start phasing out when ever he joins in on any Chinese thread.


 
And Martian does not? While Martian calls people trolls he is the instigator. The conversation *was* about the J-20 but it was Martian that started taking cheap shots at the pak-fa and F-35. What gives him the right to blatantly make claims with out sources and take cheap shots while calling other members trolls for nothing more than challenging his kid claims? Notice most people here including me, Gambit, and amalakas are not taking cheap shots at the J-20, we have not claimed it to not be 'stealth', nor has anyone purposely made any unprovoked attacks against the J-20, instead the conversation is about methods used to determine RCS and about some of the claims Martian makes. 

Remember this is the same guy that took cheap shots at the F-35 and pak-fa by claiming its hideous, humps and bumps are poor for 'stealth' at the same time he ignored the fact that the J-20 also had these humps and bumps but when confronted with evidence he claimed that the F-22 has the same and as so the J-20 is on equal footing with the F-22 despite the fact that the J-20's control mechanisms are enormous while the F-22's are barely noticeable.

Also the same guy that claimed radar blocker are poor for 'stealth' but when confronted about Silent Eagle's frontal RCS being equal to the F-35's he went into denial mode by calling Boeing liars. He than kept ignoring the fact that the F-117 also used radar blockers.

His other claims about canards and edge diffraction have all been epic embarrassments on his part.

So who is the one that really derails the thread? Who is the real troll? Who makes up pathetic claims? This kid goes to different forums and makes thread about how un stealthy the pak-fa is, if that is not a pathetic troll I do not know what is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> And Martian does not? While Martian calls people trolls he is the instigator. The conversation *was* about the J-20 but it was Martian that started taking cheap shots at the pak-fa and F-35. What gives him the right to blatantly make claims with out sources and take cheap shots while calling other members trolls for nothing more than challenging his kid claims? Notice most people here including me, Gambit, and amalakas are not taking cheap shots at the J-20, we have not claimed it to not be 'stealth', nor has anyone purposely made any unprovoked attacks against the J-20, instead the conversation is about methods used to determine RCS and about some of the claims Martian makes.
> 
> Remember this is the same guy that took cheap shots at the F-35 and pak-fa by claiming its hideous, humps and bumps are poor for 'stealth' at the same time he ignored the fact that the J-20 also had these humps and bumps but when confronted with evidence he claimed that the F-22 has the same and as so the J-20 is on equal footing with the F-22 despite the fact that the J-20's control mechanisms are enormous while the F-22's are barely noticeable.
> 
> Also the same guy that claimed radar blocker are poor for 'stealth' but when confronted about Silent Eagle's frontal RCS being equal to the F-35's he went into denial mode by calling Boeing liars. He than kept ignoring the fact that the F-117 also used radar blockers.
> 
> His other claims about canards and edge diffraction have all been epic embarrassments on his part.
> 
> So who is the one that really derails the thread? Who is the real troll? Who makes up pathetic claims? This kid goes to different forums and makes thread about how un stealthy the pak-fa is, if that is not a pathetic troll I do not know what is.


 
unlike that self proclaimed 'never wrong' gamebit```martian does admit his mistakes some times`

if someone never admits his mistakes and errors then there is no creditability at all....because technology, innovation and science is all about correcting past mistakes and errors`

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Hmm,talking about taking "Cheap shot"? perhaps someone had forgotten how he even opened up a thread about HOW Chinese J-20 pictures were some PS from a picture of a Russian plane (T-50)? 
Wondering who had actually unleashed the "first cheap shot"? wow, "hypocrite to the core".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> unlike that self proclaimed 'never wrong' gamebit```*martian does admit his mistakes some times*`
> 
> if someone never admits his mistakes and errors then there is no creditability at all....because technology, innovation and science is all about correcting past mistakes and errors`



The only times he does that is if he backs himself into a corner and he has no other options, like with the F-35's 'humps and bumps' and the J-20's control mechanisms. He had no other choice but to admit that the J-20 also has 'bumps and humps' but even then it was hardly an admittance since he compared the J-20's control mechanisms to the F-22 and claimed it to be on equal footing--this despite the fact that the J-20's control mechanisms (bumps or humps) are many time larger than the F-22's So even when his nonsense came back to bite him in the rear he tried to weasel his way out. He also, still to this day, has not admitted his bias views of radar blockers despite the fact that Boeing and Lockheed proved that they are very effective. And if he had any honesty he would also acknowledge DSI's to be 'bumps and humps'.

As for Air Power Australia's RCS measurements they are ridiculous, I do hope the readers realize that you can not predict an aircraft's RCS by simply looking at it, as one F-117 engineer put it, &#8220;We couldn&#8217;t allow even the tiniest imperfection in the fit of the landing gear door, for example, that could triple the airplane&#8217;s RCS if it wasn&#8217;t precisely flush with the body.&#8221; So how does APA know that every panel and bay is exactly flush? How did APA calculate the J-20's RCS when APA does not know the J-20's intake geometry? Did APA ever take into account the J-20's 'humps and dumps' aka the wings control mechanisms&#8216;, or the DSI's which they crucified the F-35 for? How did APA make calculations based off of pictures? I can tell you right now that the exact size, dimensions, geometry is not 100% accurate. How can it be when looking at pictures? It would be foolish to assume that every slope on the J-20 was accurately predicted, every component was to exact dimensions, and every slope and curve was at the correct degree. Did APA take into account eve the minute details such as the rivets on the vertical stabs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

grey boy 2 said:


> Hmm,talking about taking "Cheap shot"? perhaps someone had forgotten how he even opened up a thread about HOW Chinese J-20 pictures were some PS from a picture of a Russian plane (T-50)?
> Wondering who had actually unleashed the "first cheap shot"? wow, "hypocrite to the core".


 
Those first pictures were *altered* and had many inconsistencies that even Chinese members pointed out such as being sliced in half and then being pasted back together which resulted in the rear landing gears being out of place--something like a poor Photoshop--the fact that they were blurry was also suspicious . There is nothing wrong with being skeptical especially when every other week previous to the J-20's arrival there has been fake photoshops. And even fellow Chinese and Pakisanis' were skeptical of the first blury images of the J-20.

After it was established that the pictures were credible I never claimed otherwise, most important I never made cheap claims such as the J-20 is not 'stealthy' or that it is 'junk' but people like Martian made those same claims about the pak-fa.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Your post would be perfectly legitimate if it was the first time. As I recall, between the original thread and this thread, my estimate is *I've seen that exact same diagram and post about 7 to 10 times now.* Come on, post something new.


Good...Perhaps the lessons will sink in. Do you think 2+2=4 changes from generation to generation?



Martian2 said:


> Stop beating us over the head with your message of "information is incomplete and therefore we can draw no conclusions." No one is buying it. *Surface, traveling, creeping, and other waves apply equally to the F-22 and J-20.*


But not how they come off the bodies.



Martian2 said:


> My posts have been attempts to contrast the known differences in the designs of the F-22, J-20, and F-35 to illuminate the issue of which one is stealthier and why.


And I have shown how the methodology is seriously flawed. Readers do notice that logic that if the methodology is flawed, so will be equally flawed the result.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Gambit's posts may be old and repetative but on the other hand
> some members of this forum are too eager to accept that a given fighter (J-20 in this instance) is God's gift to man.
> 
> Just like how martian makes guesttimations on RCS and canard size of the plane (which are both extremely wrong) so does Gambit some times point the obvious.
> 
> Why do you have so hard a time seeing this?
> 
> RADAR waves are not made out of jelly beans, nor is *RADAR detection something that works the way you see in movies. *
> 
> to pick up an aircraft and detect its presence is one thing, to actually track it to produce a firing solution for a weapon is quite another.
> 
> to make a stealth plane is one thing, to make an all aspect stealth plane is quite another.
> 
> The US downplayed the ability of Russian L band systems to detect stealth aircraft, they did design the F22 however to have some stealth characteristics in the L band. I am sure they were playing it safe.
> 
> The J20 is a great achievement, is it stealthy ? yes, is it enough, we won't know until the day it'll surprise a western made system


Nope...Just works any way you can Photochop.


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> *unlike that self proclaimed 'never wrong' gamebit*```martian does admit his mistakes some times`
> 
> if someone never admits his mistakes and errors then there is no creditability at all....because technology, innovation and science is all about correcting past mistakes and errors`


If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is use keyword searches, which I always encourage people to do with my posts, and bring those sources *TO THE PUBLIC* so all can see where am I wrong. You cannot prove someone wrong just because you do not like that person or that you have a different opinion. Back in posts 306 and 345 I showed where APA had to admit their methodology was flawed and how decades of history, from the US to the Iranians, supported APA's own admittance. Why no J-20's supporters concede to that?

So if you want to prove me wrong, you need to show sources that said Physical Optics *ALONE* is sufficient for a complex body. That is a very reasonable request.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Pictures of the J-20 today. High speed taxi test:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## houshanghai

&#26479;&#20855; 
Cup and Tea-things 
&#27004;&#19978;&#25163;&#24555;&#19968;&#27493;
Upstairs's hand is too fast

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cloneman

houshanghai said:


> &#26479;&#20855;
> Cup and Tea-things
> &#27004;&#19978;&#25163;&#24555;&#19968;&#27493;
> Upstairs's hand is too fast


 
&#20804;&#24351;&#65292;&#20320;&#20063;&#26377;&#25163;&#24930;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;&#21834;&#65292;&#21516;&#24773;&#20013;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cloneman

So after a while the wall climbing party in Chengdu is working again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

cloneman said:


> So after a while the wall climbing party in Chengdu is working again.


 
actually 
All the CAC wall climbing college kids party have been back home for their summer holiday

these pic must come from the CAC wall climbing worker party

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


> actually
> All the CAC wall climbing college kids party have been back home for their summer holiday
> 
> these pic must come from the CAC wall climbing worker party



Didn't &#20013;&#21335;&#28023;&#20445;&#38230; say he is gonna return to Chengdu pretty soon?


----------



## rcrmj

houshanghai said:


> actually
> All the CAC wall climbing college kids party have been back home for their summer holiday
> 
> these pic must come from the CAC wall climbing worker party


 
okey``thats why havent heard anything about J-20 lately``


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> Mr AerospaceEngineer doesn't seem to know the basics of aircraft design.


 

No, I dont. I got my degree as Aerospace Engineering

But I am a control engineer working for Raytheon!!!

I dumped 80% of aerospace knowledge. I got my master degree in electrical engineer from Standford!!!

Never build a plane before!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Martian2 said:


> Based on the RCS benchmarks from Global Security, I have consistently stated the following for the last six months:
> 
> Ranking of world stealth fighters:
> 
> 1. F-22 0.0001 m2
> 
> 2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2
> 
> 3. F-35 0.005 m2
> 
> 4. French Rafale 1 m2
> 
> 5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) *3 m2*6. F-16 5 m2
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Martian, keep up the good work.
> 
> I love how you post some thing and PtldM3 gets mad.
> 
> Keep this coming.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> I do hope you know that none of those are official but interestingly enough Sukhoi did reveal the SU-47's RCS and it was 0.3 m2, so tell me with all of the experience from the SU-47 program how did Sukhoi manage to make an aircraft with a far worse RCS despite a superior design?


 

HAHAHA, SU-47 has 0.3 m2??

lol, if SU-47 has 0.3 m2 then you Russians will not bother to make Pka-Af. lol, every one know that SU-47 is just a demo!


----------



## amalakas

AerospaceEngineer said:


> No, I dont. I got my degree as Aerospace Engineering
> 
> But I am a control engineer working for Raytheon!!!
> 
> I dumped 80% of aerospace knowledge. I got my master degree in electrical engineer from Standford!!!
> 
> Never build a plane before!


 
Righttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

amalakas said:


> Righttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
Yes !!!!

And I also know that you know NOTHING about Engineering!


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> No, I don*[']*t. I got my degree as *[in]* Aerospace Engineering
> 
> But I am a control engineer working for Raytheon!!!
> 
> I dumped 80% of aerospace knowledge. I got my master degree in electrical engineer*[ing]* from Standford!!!
> 
> Never build a plane before!





I didn't know that Stanford excepted people that could not compile coherent sentences.



AerospaceEngineer said:


> [
> 
> Martian, keep up the good work.
> 
> I love how you post some thing and PtldM3 gets mad.
> 
> Keep this coming.






I love how you post something and get banned again, and again, and again......





AerospaceEngineer said:


> HAHAHA, SU-47 has 0.3 m2??
> 
> lol, if SU-47 has 0.3 m2 then you Russians will not bother to make Pka-Af. lol, every one know that SU-47 is just a demo!



The SU-47 was a technology demonstrator. The SU-47 explored new ideas such as forward swept wings, composites, avionics, weapons bays, ect. The SU-47 had some RCS reduction measures but RCS was not the SU-47's main criteria, if Sukhoi wanted to they could have further reduced the aircraft's RCS. The pak-fa incorporates technology from the SU-47.

And stop harassing me via private messages. I don't need to read your incoherent crap about how I get 'beat down'. You claim I get 'beat down' by people such as Broccoli even though it was Broccoli that got beat down' by claiming that radar blockers would not fit into the pak-fa's intakes based off of a poorly angled photograph. Yet when I gave Broccoli the estimated number on the engine (16 feet) and the room that the engine occupies from the intake to the compressors, which is roughly the same size as the engine itself, Broccoli ran away and could not challenge me, yet in your eyes he gave me a 'beat down'. As for Martian beating me down this is very much a laugh, he rarely can back up his claims with authentic sources, instead he often quotes people from other forums. He also ignores facts and sources and lets not forget how may times he has been proven wrong, as for Pakistani members 'owning me', jee I never knew I can get 'beat down' by people that I rarely speak to. 98% of the conversations I have had with Pakistani's were positive and not related to military maters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> I didn't know that Stanford excepted people that could not compile coherent sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you post something and get banned again, and again, and again......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SU-47 was a technology demonstrator. The SU-47 explored new ideas such as forward swept wings, composites, avionics, weapons bays, ect. The SU-47 had some RCS reduction measures but RCS was not the SU-47's main criteria, if Sukhoi wanted to they could have further reduced the aircraft's RCS. The pak-fa incorporates technology from the SU-47.
> 
> And stop harassing me via private messages. I don't need to read your incoherent crap about how I get 'beat down'. You claim I get 'beat down' by people such as Broccoli even though it was Broccoli that got beat down' by claiming that radar blockers would not fit into the pak-fa's intakes based off of a poorly angled photograph. Yet when I gave Broccoli the estimated number on the engine (16 feet) and the room that the engine occupies from the intake to the compressors, which is roughly the same size as the engine itself, Broccoli ran away and could not challenge me, yet in your eyes he gave me a 'beat down'. As for Martian beating me down this is very much a laugh, he rarely can back up his claims with authentic sources, instead he often quotes people from other forums. He also ignores facts and sources and lets not forget how may times he has been proven wrong, as for Pakistani members 'owning me', jee I never knew I can get 'beat down' by people that I rarely speak to. 98% of the conversations I have had with Pakistani's were positive and not related to military maters.


 


Me getting banned again? 

Nah, you can't. You are just a member here!


Stanford accept me and I did not even pay for it, my company did.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

And stop harassing me via private messages. [COLOR="red" said:


> I don't need to read your incoherent crap about how I get 'beat down[/COLOR]'. You claim I get 'beat down' by people such as Broccoli even though it was Broccoli that got beat down' by claiming that radar blockers would not fit into the pak-fa's intakes based off of a poorly angled photograph. Yet when I gave Broccoli the estimated number on the engine (16 feet) and the room that the engine occupies from the intake to the compressors, which is roughly the same size as the engine itself, Broccoli ran away and could not challenge me, yet in your eyes he gave me a 'beat down'. As for Martian beating me down this is very much a laugh, he rarely can back up his claims with authentic sources, instead he often quotes people from other forums. He also ignores facts and sources and lets not forget how may times he has been proven wrong, as for Pakistani members 'owning me', jee I never knew I can get 'beat down' by people that I rarely speak to. 98% of the conversations I have had with Pakistani's were positive and not related to military maters.


 
then dont reply!


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> then dont reply!


 
Don't reply to what you illiterate stalker? The nonsense you post is not only incoherent but also has no substance, even if i wanted to there is nothing to reply to--literally. You have stated on numerous occasions that I get 'owned' or 'beat down' yet you fail to point out how and where this happened. You are more than welcome to point out these 'beat downs', in fact I want everyone to see. I am more than happy to embarrass you in front of everyone, I don't make claims without facts, but you and your buddies do, with that said I have no problems taking you on and making you look like a fool. 

And stop stalking me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> And stop harassing me via private messages.


Dang...Now that is just pathetic. But you should really enjoy such attention, it reveals a deeply insecure personality from the stalker.


----------



## Martian2

"Roll eyes" at the drama in this thread.

Gentlemen, let's not take things too personally. Everybody should relax. It's summer time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

gambit said:


> Dang...Now that is just pathetic. But you should really enjoy such attention, it reveals a deeply insecure personality from the stalker.


 
You should read some of the bizarre messages he left me on my profile, today alone I received five. I didn't bother replying to his first messages so he kept on bombarding my profile with incoherent and desperate rants. Even funnier is that I have not spoke to him in weeks perhaps months and today he just so happened to bombard my profile.

He constantly tells me I&#8217;m wrong and that I got 'owned' and I always tell him to find these posts where I got owned, needless to say he never can find those posts. I am more than happy to have a technical discussion with this Stanford educated engineer. I have told him that if he feels I&#8217;m so wrong that he should expose me for everyone to see, again he did not take up my offer. There are a few things this guy is good at, one stalking, and two running away when he is challenged.


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hulian12

i dont think so


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Yes !!!!
> 
> And I also know that you know NOTHING about Engineering!


 
Oh really ? I don't ? 
and you are now a control engineer? 
for raytheon ? 

perhaps you can tell us then how you can find the PM of a CL system, and from where, and what PM would any decent control engineer allow for a simple application of say follow a reference signal or line ...


----------



## amalakas

houshanghai said:


>


 
It would be a bit underwhelming if the J-20 can only hold 6 weapons+gun. I thought information from china indicated it has bigger weapon bays.


----------



## siegecrossbow

amalakas said:


> It would be a bit underwhelming if the J-20 can only hold 6 weapons+gun. I thought information from china indicated it has bigger weapon bays.


 
Nah. People took photos of the plane when it flew over head and we also have photos of the plane with the weapons bay open on the ground. Estimation of the weaponsbay size from those photos pretty much match with what we see in those imaginary pictures. Given the J-20's relatively thin wings (compared with other 5th gen jets) it might've been necessary for them to add more fuel tanks in those areas.


----------



## amalakas

siegecrossbow said:


> Nah. People took photos of the plane when it flew over head and we also have photos of the plane with the weapons bay open on the ground. Estimation of the weaponsbay size from those photos pretty much match with what we see in those imaginary pictures. Given the J-20's relatively thin wings (compared with other 5th gen jets) it might've been necessary for them to add more fuel tanks in those areas.


 
Valid point, perhaps newer weapons (i.e. smaller and with foldable wings etc) will allow for a greater weapons load as the plane matures in service.


----------



## siegecrossbow

J-20 flying in the rain:

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## houshanghai

j20 has retracted its landing gear in rain

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IceCold

siegecrossbow said:


> J-20 flying in the rain:


 
Its a beautiful bird. I have missed alot of the updates on this thread and am too lazy to start from the beginning. Any one kind up to lay few of the updates since the 1st flight took place. Has weapon testing begin or just the flying parameters are being evaluated?


----------



## Martian2

First J-20 Mighty Dragon flying through the rain picture

[Note: Thank you to SiegeCrossbow for the post.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

IceCold said:


> Its a beautiful bird. I have missed alot of the updates on this thread and am too lazy to start from the beginning. Any one kind up to lay few of the updates since the 1st flight took place. Has weapon testing begin or just the flying parameters are being evaluated?


 
Not much. Retracted the landing gears, couple of tight turns, a few rolls, takeoff with afterburners on... etc. So yes the plane is just evaluating the flying parameters. Weapon testing won't begin in a couple more years.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## IceCold

siegecrossbow said:


> Not much. Retracted the landing gears, couple of tight turns, a few rolls, takeoff with afterburners on... etc. So yes the plane is just evaluating the flying parameters. Weapon testing won't begin in a couple more years.


 
Thanks man you saved me alot of trouble of going back and reading all the way from there.


----------



## siegecrossbow

IceCold said:


> Thanks man you saved me alot of trouble of going back and reading all the way from there.


 
Lots of material aren't even available any more lol. If you suddenly want to read up on all of that stuff for some strange reason you can visit the J-20 threads on Secret Projects, China Defence, or Keypublishing. They kept some pretty good logs.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Looks like I was wrong about the fact that there was only one picture taken on the 24th. Here are two more pictures of the J-20 dumping fuel over Chengdu:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## houshanghai

j20 new pics( 24.July )

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## aimarraul

CAC strengthen security measures around the airport

www.avic.com.cn/xwzx/cydt/369997.shtml

88,J20


----------



## rcrmj

aimarraul said:


> CAC strengthen security measures around the airport
> 
> ³ÉÔ±¶¯Ì¬
> 
> 88,J20



oh``no`!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

aimarraul said:


> CAC strengthen security measures around the airport
> 
> ³ÉÔ±¶¯Ì¬
> 
> 88,J20



too bad


----------



## Nestea

j20 new pics( 30 July )


----------



## houshanghai

new j20s pic today

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Nestea

new j20s pic Yesterday

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## localoca

ptldM3 said:


> So who is the one that really derails the thread? Who is the real troll? Who makes up pathetic claims? This kid goes to different forums and makes thread about how un stealthy the pak-fa is, if that is not a pathetic troll I do not know what is.


 Please dont derail this thread with the Unstealthy T-50 Please...

and I just reported you for Trolling...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

localoca said:


> Please dont derail this thread with the Unstealthy T-50 Please...
> 
> and I just reported you for Trolling...


You need to get something straight: That this is also about *DISCUSSIONS*. Challenging someone's claims is not 'trolling', especially if said challenge has credible technical merits. Pointing out flaws in someone's reasoning is not 'trolling', especially when the supporting arguments also has credible technical merits.


----------



## Imran Khan

houshanghai said:


> new j20s pic today


 
its mean they fly it daily now great what abut PT-02 ? any news?


----------



## localoca

gambit said:


> You need to get something straight: That this is also about *DISCUSSIONS*. Challenging someone's claims is not 'trolling', especially if said challenge has credible technical merits. Pointing out flaws in someone's reasoning is not 'trolling', especially when the supporting arguments also has credible technical merits.


 is this Bozo for real....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

localoca said:


> is this Bozo for real....


More real than you.


----------



## S10

Imran Khan said:


> its mean they fly it daily now great what abut PT-02 ? any news?


They have two prototypes for flight tests, and one for ground stress test. Currently the prototypes do not have a radar and lacks many features that are intended for the production model. The third flight testing prototype, which will unveil next year, is meant to test China's own EODAS system and avionics. These have been confirmed by insiders.

I speculate that PT04 is for weapons test and system integration, and will unveil around 2015. PT05 might be the pre-production model with WS-15 engine installed.



amalakas said:


> It would be a bit underwhelming if the J-20 can only hold 6 weapons+gun. I thought information from china indicated it has bigger weapon bays.


The bay is slightly bigger than F-22's, but you have to keep in mind that Chinese missiles are slightly larger in size. Americans have managed to produce more potent fuel mix for their rocket boosters.


----------



## ptldM3

localoca said:


> Please dont derail this thread with the Unstealthy T-50 Please...
> 
> and I just reported you for Trolling...


 
Why don't you read a little further back and see who brought up the pak-fa. And please, spare me the 'trolling' nonsense, if you want to report anyone for trolling report yourself since it is you that brings up the pak-fa in every thread. For anyone interested look through this loco's posts and you will see that this guy does the same thing he accused me of doing.

PS cry me a river.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

In another news, SAC's fifth gen (4th in Chinese terms) will resemble a mix between F-22 in front and T-50 in back. CARET inlet without the moving LERX though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Description:

If you look at the PLA flag, you will notice it is emblazoned with the Chinese characters for "8" and "1." This video (released on July 30, 2011) is in commemoration of the PLA's 84th birthday on August 1st.

According to "SiegeCrossbow," it is foggy in Chengdu, China during this time of the year. I have removed most of the fog from the video. The improved video quality is really noticeable 22 seconds after the beginning.

[More description on video page]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

This so-called "J-10B" in the video could be a J-10C in fact, since it is a navalized version.

Many people are surprised that the first J-10 using the WS-10X engine is the naval one.


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This so-called "J-10B" in the video could be a J-10C in fact, since it is a navalized version.
> 
> Many people are surprised that the first J-10 using the WS-10X engine is the naval one.


 
I don't think it is the naval version. If it were you should be able to see deep red numbers written on the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This so-called "J-10B" in the video could be a J-10C in fact, since it is a navalized version.
> 
> Many people are surprised that the first J-10 using the WS-10X engine is the naval one.


It's B, confirmed by huzhigeng already.


----------



## nomi007

i wish that china will resolve engine issue soon


----------



## Nestea

Weapons magazine PIC

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## aimarraul

http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/attachments/Mon_1108/27_72972_865b308b24c0c90.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Today's J-20 images:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Nestea

Today's J-20 images:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## laowai

siegecrossbow said:


> Today's J-20 images:
> 
> i.imgur.com/RRZEM.jpg



is this the best side view of J-20 to date?
shows some edge alignment of ventral fins and vertical stabs

also didn't realize how clean the canard planform is


----------



## SpArK

Congrats to houshanghai.. live fist ( a premium Indian defence blog) has *tweeted* ur video link.. 

This video....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nestea

Today's J-20 images (8.14):

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nestea



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nestea

Today's J-20 images (No test flight):

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Link to the J-20 performing rolling maneuvers and small diameter turns. 

½ñÌìÌ«²»Õý³£ÁË£¬ºÚË¿¾¡È»Íæ»¨»î¡£MD, ²»ÊÇÍæ¸ø°×µÆ¿´µÄ°É£¿| Ó¥»÷³¤¿Õ - ·ÉÑï¾üÊÂ ÐñÈÕ³ö¶«·½£¬¾«²ÊÔÚ·ÉÑï - powered by phpwind.net

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CardSharp

siegecrossbow said:


> Link to the J-20 performing rolling maneuvers and small diameter turns.
> 
> ½ñÌìÌ«²»Õý³£ÁË£¬ºÚË¿¾¡È»Íæ»¨»î¡£MD, ²»ÊÇÍæ¸ø°×µÆ¿´µÄ°É£¿| Ó¥»÷³¤¿Õ - ·ÉÑï¾üÊÂ ÐñÈÕ³ö¶«·½£¬¾«²ÊÔÚ·ÉÑï - powered by phpwind.net



Neat! Especially the first video. Is there a way you can post the yoku links directly though? A bit hard to navigate for others I think.


----------



## siegecrossbow

CardSharp said:


> Neat! Especially the first video. Is there a way you can post the yoku links directly though? A bit hard to navigate for others I think.


 
We should just wait till Houshanghai upload them on youtube.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> We should just wait till Houshanghai upload them on youtube.


 
&#32769;&#22823;&#25105;&#24597;&#21917;&#33590;&#65292;&#25105;&#19981;&#25954;&#19978;&#20256;--&#12290;


&#36825;&#20301;&#20804;&#21488;&#19978;&#20256;&#20102;

new videos j20 today 
http://www.youtube.com/user/himitechworld
thx cd 8800

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

One of the better videos:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Another one with a roll:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


> &#32769;&#22823;&#25105;&#24597;&#21917;&#33590;&#65292;&#25105;&#19981;&#25954;&#19978;&#20256;--&#12290;
> 
> 
> &#36825;&#20301;&#20804;&#21488;&#19978;&#20256;&#20102;
> 
> new videos j20 today
> himitechworld&#39;s Channel - YouTube
> thx cd 8800


 
Wait a second here that means Rx8800 redeemed himself????


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> Wait a second here that means Rx8800 redeemed himself????


 
However,We think 8800 is a goodboy now^^

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


> However,We think 8800 is a goodboy now^^


 
I've heard that there were even crazier stunts that weren't photographed... Is that true?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Climbing video. Unfortunately the plane took off too fast and the cameraman couldn't keep up.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Looks like both the canards and LERX are capable of generating vortices... Looks like the article I translated had some merit to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseLuver

[video]http://v.ifeng.com/vblog/discover/201108/c840cc85-9619-4db7-80ad-a61e7c5f0b4d.shtml[/video]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zon95

J-20 and the performance alone 

While headlining show Russian T-50 prototype at the MAKS-2011, China suddenly announced a new series of pictures of J-20. 

After a trip earlier this month appeared suddenly 1 / 2011, prototype stealth fighter J-20 in China almost fell into silence. The evolution in the development of the prototype was nearly not published.

However, while Russia's recent aggressive preparation for the rollout prototype T-50 before the public in the MAKS-2011, held in Moscow, Russia.

In China suddenly announced a new series of photographs of the test flight of the prototype stealth fighter J-20.

There are some rumors that the prototype J-20 is equipped with a WS-15 produced by China. According to rumors WS-15 is a vector propulsion, flow control of jet engines, but this information has not been confirmed.


----------



## April.lyrics

vietminh said:


> J-20 and the performance alone
> 
> While headlining show Russian T-50 prototype at the MAKS-2011, China suddenly announced a new series of pictures of J-20.
> 
> After a trip earlier this month appeared suddenly 1 / 2011, prototype stealth fighter J-20 in China almost fell into silence. The evolution in the development of the prototype was nearly not published.
> 
> However, while Russia's recent aggressive preparation for the rollout prototype T-50 before the public in the MAKS-2011, held in Moscow, Russia.
> 
> In China suddenly announced a new series of photographs of the test flight of the prototype stealth fighter J-20.
> 
> There are some rumors that the prototype J-20 is equipped with a WS-15 produced by China. According to rumors WS-15 is a vector propulsion, flow control of jet engines, but this information has not been confirmed.




since 2011.1.11,J-20 finished about 29 flying test.and each time there r photoes being taken by fans.7 months 29 tests.about 4 tests every month on average.what do u mean "fell into silence"?it's really hard for J-20 to keep silence....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zon95

hey I really pity you, not a concert audience 



April.lyrics said:


> since 2011.1.11,J-20 finished about 29 flying test.and each time there r photoes being taken by fans.7 months 29 tests.about 4 tests every month on average.what do u mean "fell into silence"?it's really hard for J-20 to keep silence....


----------



## rcrmj

vietminh said:


> J-20 and the performance alone
> 
> While headlining show Russian T-50 prototype at the MAKS-2011, China suddenly announced a new series of pictures of J-20.
> 
> After a trip earlier this month appeared suddenly 1 / 2011, prototype stealth fighter J-20 in China almost fell into silence. The evolution in the development of the prototype was nearly not published.
> 
> However, while Russia's recent aggressive preparation for the rollout prototype T-50 before the public in the MAKS-2011, held in Moscow, Russia.
> 
> In China suddenly announced a new series of photographs of the test flight of the prototype stealth fighter J-20.
> 
> There are some rumors that the prototype J-20 is equipped with a WS-15 produced by China. According to rumors WS-15 is a vector propulsion, flow control of jet engines, but this information has not been confirmed.



lol more vietcon web warriors coming with their vietcon style conspiracy``lol

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## April.lyrics

vietminh said:


> hey I really pity you, not a concert audience



O,i am fan of onerepublic and Bob Schneider.i like OneRebublic's Apologize and good life and secrets and....the pity is i cant see their concert right there in their concert.some of Jason Mraz is also nice.

besides..did u accept the fact that J-20 is not that "ungeilivable" like what u said?like few days ago SB meets LGD.....


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## April.lyrics

ChineseLuver said:


> [video]http://v.ifeng.com/vblog/discover/201108/c840cc85-9619-4db7-80ad-a61e7c5f0b4d.shtml[/video]



those aline fighters r Ravens,which is from terran,starcraftII.

it confused me when i saw J-20 fight ravens with a cannon....anyway,the idea is not bad.


----------



## siegecrossbow

The plane flew for the 30th time yesterday. It performed two rolls as well as many small diameter turns and "figure 8" turns. The bad news is that the security around the CAC was high since Biden visited Chengdu and Xi was there (he went over there to see the J-20 since it was convenient)? If people took photos/videos, they aren't releasing them yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

China's J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter





J-20 Mighty Dragon has no gaps between rear part of engines and fuselage. Notice the frameless one-piece bubble canopy. The continuous-curvature upper-body design of the J-20 is obvious to an untrained eye.





Russian T-50 or Pak-Fa "stealth" fighter

*Easy fixes*

The first of many non-stealthy features, which are immediately noticeable about the Russian T-50, is the metal-framed cockpit canopy. Also, the protruding IRST probe in front of the cockpit needs to be recessed.

*Medium fixes*

Thirdly, the gaps between the engines need to be filled to eliminate a stronger radar echo. Fourthly, unlike the J-20, there is no RAM coating over the gleaming Russian T-50 engines on the entire exposed upper-body surface. The T-50 designers may have to resolve cooling issues with its engines if they are covered with RAM material.

*Hard fix*

The fifth problem with the top-side design of the T-50 is the lack of continuous-curvature. On the Chinese J-20, there is a nice round curve to the entire upper-body fuselage. On the Russian T-50, there are sharp and oblique angles, especially behind the cockpit. The Russians need to obtain a supercomputer and fix the design problem.

[Note: Thank you to "MwRYum" for the J-20 pictures and Aimarraul for the Russian T-50 pictures.]

----------

This is a clinical and objective post to contrast and compare stealth design features. This is not a "versus" comparison. If Sukhoi doesn't like what I'm pointing out, they should fix the problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> ----------
> 
> This is a clinical and objective post to contrast and compare stealth design features. This is not a "versus" comparison. If Sukhoi doesn't like what I'm pointing out, they should fix the problems.


 

I am pretty sure that a bunch of Sukhoi engineers know a lot more about plane design than you or I. 

if they are happy with their product perhaps you should begin to think how this can work rather on how it can't ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

Martian2 said:


>



A question to Chinese members:

JF-17 / FC-1 being on the same airfield where 2 of the Chinese future main fighters are being tested and with them FC-1 / JF-17 also flying & being tested doesn't sends a message that may be the CAF is looking into FC-1 as somewhat a future fighter at the low end side ??

Insights are welcomed as to me the 3 fighter jets being tested on the same facility may mean that they all are being looked as future fighter platforms.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

amalakas said:


> I am pretty sure that a bunch of Sukhoi engineers know a lot more about plane design than you or I.
> 
> if they are happy with their product perhaps you should begin to think how this can work rather on how it can't ..



The engineers may be good, but without the tools like super computing power, it is almost impossible to design an airframe that's both stealth and agile, otherwise you get some hideous look thing like the F-117.

There is the last list of top computers in the world (kindly tell me if you see Russia anywhere):

Rank	Site	Computer
1	RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science (AICS)
Japan	K computer, SPARC64 VIIIfx 2.0GHz, Tofu interconnect
Fujitsu
2	National Supercomputing Center in Tianjin
China	Tianhe-1A - NUDT TH MPP, X5670 2.93Ghz 6C, NVIDIA GPU, FT-1000 8C
NUDT
3	DOE/SC/Oak Ridge National Laboratory
United States	Jaguar - Cray XT5-HE Opteron 6-core 2.6 GHz
Cray Inc.
4	National Supercomputing Centre in Shenzhen (NSCS)
China	Nebulae - Dawning TC3600 Blade, Intel X5650, NVidia Tesla C2050 GPU
Dawning
5	GSIC Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Japan	TSUBAME 2.0 - HP ProLiant SL390s G7 Xeon 6C X5670, Nvidia GPU, Linux/Windows
NEC/HP
6	DOE/NNSA/LANL/SNL
United States	Cielo - Cray XE6 8-core 2.4 GHz
Cray Inc.
7	NASA/Ames Research Center/NAS
United States	Pleiades - SGI Altix ICE 8200EX/8400EX, Xeon HT QC 3.0/Xeon 5570/5670 2.93 Ghz, Infiniband
SGI
8	DOE/SC/LBNL/NERSC
United States	Hopper - Cray XE6 12-core 2.1 GHz
Cray Inc.
9	Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (CEA)
France	Tera-100 - Bull bullx super-node S6010/S6030
Bull SA
10	DOE/NNSA/LANL
United States	Roadrunner - BladeCenter QS22/LS21 Cluster, PowerXCell 8i 3.2 Ghz / Opteron DC 1.8 GHz, Voltaire Infiniband

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Bigger picture of J-20's vortices:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## peaceful

&#23454;&#35805;&#23454;&#35828;&#65292;&#20391;&#38754;&#26368;&#28418;&#20142;


----------



## amalakas

conworldus said:


> The engineers may be good, but without the tools like super computing power, it is almost impossible to design an airframe that's both stealth and agile, otherwise you get some hideous look thing like the F-117.
> 
> There is the last list of top computers in the world (kindly tell me if you see Russia anywhere):
> 
> Rank	Site	Computer
> 1	RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science (AICS)
> Japan	K computer, SPARC64 VIIIfx 2.0GHz, Tofu interconnect
> Fujitsu
> 2	National Supercomputing Center in Tianjin
> China	Tianhe-1A - NUDT TH MPP, X5670 2.93Ghz 6C, NVIDIA GPU, FT-1000 8C
> NUDT
> 3	DOE/SC/Oak Ridge National Laboratory
> United States	Jaguar - Cray XT5-HE Opteron 6-core 2.6 GHz
> Cray Inc.
> 4	National Supercomputing Centre in Shenzhen (NSCS)
> China	Nebulae - Dawning TC3600 Blade, Intel X5650, NVidia Tesla C2050 GPU
> Dawning
> 5	GSIC Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology
> Japan	TSUBAME 2.0 - HP ProLiant SL390s G7 Xeon 6C X5670, Nvidia GPU, Linux/Windows
> NEC/HP
> 6	DOE/NNSA/LANL/SNL
> United States	Cielo - Cray XE6 8-core 2.4 GHz
> Cray Inc.
> 7	NASA/Ames Research Center/NAS
> United States	Pleiades - SGI Altix ICE 8200EX/8400EX, Xeon HT QC 3.0/Xeon 5570/5670 2.93 Ghz, Infiniband
> SGI
> 8	DOE/SC/LBNL/NERSC
> United States	Hopper - Cray XE6 12-core 2.1 GHz
> Cray Inc.
> 9	Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (CEA)
> France	Tera-100 - Bull bullx super-node S6010/S6030
> Bull SA
> 10	DOE/NNSA/LANL
> United States	Roadrunner - BladeCenter QS22/LS21 Cluster, PowerXCell 8i 3.2 Ghz / Opteron DC 1.8 GHz, Voltaire Infiniband


 
you can even build a supercomputer with a few hundreds of PS3s and anything with Nvidia Tesla.. 

you don't have to advertise it to the world, especially if it is not a money making machine like the rest on the list.


----------



## Martian2

China occupies the Nos. 2 and 4 spots on the Supercomputer Top Ten

It is not a coincidence that the world's top three supercomputing powers are Japan, China, and the United States. There is a strong correlation between the size of a country's economy (e.g. U.S., China, and Japan as world's top three) and its supercomputing power.

Race is on for new generation of supercomputer

"*Race is on for new generation of supercomputer*
Updated: 2011-08-20 07:52
By Chen Jia (China Daily)

BEIJING - Chinese scientists are charting a new roadmap for the country's independent research into building the fastest supercomputer in 2020.

*"China is preparing to work on a supercomputer with a capacity of 100 petaflops by 2015 and try to produce the first exascale computer in 2020," said Hu Qingfeng, deputy chief designer of Tianhe-1A, one of the world's top 10 fastest supercomputers.*

"We have kicked off the research of some core technologies and manpower cultivation for the plan," Hu, a professor at the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), told China Daily.

*Exascale computing is an attempt by scientists to take computing beyond the current petascale. If achieved, it will represent a thousandfold increase on that scale.*

The challenges in core techniques include the performance of central processing unit (CPU), interconnection network, programming, energy management and system fault tolerance, he said.

Tianhe-1A was ranked No 1 in November last year by Top500, an organization that collates information on high-performance computing.

The capacity of Tianhe-1A is 2.57 petaflops, or 2.57 quadrillion calculations a second, which allows researchers to solve equations with far more variables, making results more accurate.

The challenges in developing supercomputers not only include technology breakthroughs, but also the promotion among users who usually prefer the old systems they are used to operating, said Lu Yutong, a professor at NUDT and a member of the Tianhe team.

"In a move to promote supercomputers' application among users, we need to better understand their practical demand," she said.

The application of Tianhe-1A has won positive feedback from about 100 users in fields such as seismic science, meteorology, medicine, commercial design, construction and manufacturing.

For example, Feoso Oil needs more than six months to get oil data analysis on a 10-square-kilometer piece of land with a depth of 5 km. However, after entering their equation into Tianhe-1A, the results come out in 16 hours, Hu said .

In 1978, then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping chose NUDT as one of the major institutions to develop China's own supercomputer. Five years later, the college produced its first supercomputer, Yinhe-I. It could perform 100 million calculations a second.

*The next target for the Tianhe-1A team is to build a machine that can perform tens of petaflops per second, as well as developing new CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs).*

Although the supercomputer uses the 2048 FT-1000 CPUs developed by NUDT, it largely runs on the 14,336 CPUs made by Intel, the US chipmakers, and 7,186 GPUs from Nvidia, also based in the US."

[Note: Thank you to Conworldus for elucidating the world's top supercomputers and Grey Boy 2 for the newslink.]


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *J-20 Mighty Dragon has no gaps between rear part of engines and fuselage*. Notice the frameless one-piece bubble canopy. The continuous-curvature upper-body design of the J-20 is obvious to an untrained eye..





Absolutely ridiculous, a 'gap' is there, but it matters not. Having a tail boom between the engines has no adverse affects. In fact, it was put there to eliminate EM waves from bouncing back by incorporating a sharp point at the very rear.






Martian2 said:


> *Easy fixes*
> 
> The first of many non-stealthy features, which are immediately noticeable about the Russian T-50, *is the metal-framed cockpit canopy*. Also, the protruding IRST probe in front of the cockpit needs to be recessed..






For the last time the metal has nothing to do with a canopy not being 'stealthy', it is the joints and the position of the joints. If the frame is horizontal to the receiver than there may be a problem. In the case of the pak-fa's frame is not horizontal. For real life references look at the F-117 and B-2 canopies and the positioning of their frames. 






Martian2 said:


> *Hard fix*
> 
> *The fifth problem with the top-side design of the T-50 is the lack of continuous-curvature*..






Continuous what? Why dont you pull up a quote from a credible source describing this phenomenon, than explain how it works and what principles apply to this 'continuous curvature. I bet you can't, I have exposed you and other like you, when I ask for sources and explanation you chums crumble like a brick--at least know what you are talking about before you make claims.





Martian2 said:


> On the Chinese J-20, there is a nice round curve to the entire upper-body fuselage. .






Jee and I though the entire purpose of reduced RCS was to have the smallest possible cross section, if we go by your logic, it is the J-20 that has the larger RCS since its 'round curve' traverses the entire fuselage while the pak-fa's 'round curve' fades into the fuselage, thus presenting less cross section.

Pay attention to the B-2's engines, they certainly have no 'continuous curvature'. Moreover, the B-2 has no one piece canopy yet somehow it RCS is in the class of the F-22, this gives us several theories to go off of, firstly the B-2 is not 'stealthy' or you are shamelessly making up facticuious claims--as usual.




Martian2 said:


> On the Russian T-50, there are sharp and oblique angles, especially behind the cockpit. *The Russians need to obtain a supercomputer and fix the design problem.*.






There are no angles of any kind behind the cockpit, and even if there was this proves what exactly? If you did your homework you would realize that every 'stealth' aircraft has a form of sharp angles to prevent EM energy from returning to the receiver--edge diffraction. The F-117 has a large point above the cockpit, other aircraft have sharp corners or sawtooth patterns on wings, bays, engines ect.

As for supercomputers Russia has plenty of them, if fact Russia even has supercomputers from the United States--IBM to be more specific. And realize what a computer does, a computer only does what it was programmed to do. The only advantage a computer has is that it does things quickly. A man with relevant experience in computers once told me that a computer is a fast idiot, and it is true it. People can do everything that a computer can do, but why should it matter when those so called supercomputers were used in the pak-fa's design?





Martian2 said:


> This is a clinical and objective post to contrast and compare stealth design features. This is not a "versus" comparison. If Sukhoi doesn't like what I'm pointing out, they should fix the problems.




We all know your agenda. You have bashed the pak-fa countless times, you have even started threads about how poor the pak-fa's design is and how superior the J-20 is. No need no be a coward just admit it, you have an unhealthy obsession with the pak-fa and the J-20 gave you an ego ride.

Moreover, you have been calling everyone and anyone that has scrutinized the J-20 'trolls', so when you unfairly point out factitious 'flaws' it is being objective?


----------



## siegecrossbow

TaimiKhan said:


> A question to Chinese members:
> 
> JF-17 / FC-1 being on the same airfield where 2 of the Chinese future main fighters are being tested and with them FC-1 / JF-17 also flying & being tested doesn't sends a message that may be the CAF is looking into FC-1 as somewhat a future fighter at the low end side ??
> 
> Insights are welcomed as to me the 3 fighter jets being tested on the same facility may mean that they all are being looked as future fighter platforms.



Hard to say... I guess either the CAC is upgrading the JF-17 or perhaps the PLAAF expressed interest in procuring them as replacements for the J-7s. Really not sure at this point.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> J-20 Mighty Dragon has no gaps between rear part of engines and fuselage.


You mean a 'gap' between the engines? No matter what, such a 'gap' is irrelevant if the design take into consideration the edge diffraction effects coming off the structures that created said 'gap' and if the design direct those edge diffracted signals *AWAY* from source direction.

- An aircraft is a finite body.
- Impinging radar signals must leave this finite body somehow and sometime.
- Radar detection depends on the reception of these signals.

Therefore, the goal is (re)direct these signals away from source direction. No reception, no detection. Structural gaps exist? Meaningless if the seeking radar cannot pick up these signals.



Martian2 said:


> The continuous-curvature upper-body design of the J-20 is obvious to an untrained eye.


You bandied this 'continuous-curvature' phrasing without a clue of what it mean. In fact, it is meaningless in your arguments. Yours, not mine.






The goal is not so much about incorporating curvatures into a complex body to control RCS. Yes, we moved away from the F-117's angled facetings to control RCS. Rather, the goal is to reduce *SURFACE DISCONTINUITIES* as illustrated above. I said 'reduce' because currently we cannot eliminate them. A complex body can have structural 'continuous curvatures' but if there are enough surface discontinuities on these structures, there will be enough edge diffracted signals to make detection possible. So if a region of a complex body has a relatively flat surface, the only time this 'flat plate' is detrimental to RCS control is if the impinging radar signal directly reflected off the surface, like a directly facing a mirror. But if the incident angle is less than 90 deg and approaches parallel, then the 'flat plate' is irrelevant and surface discontinuities gains relevance.


----------



## DARKY

Martian2 said:


> China's J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 Mighty Dragon has no gaps between rear part of engines and fuselage. Notice the frameless one-piece bubble canopy. The continuous-curvature upper-body design of the J-20 is obvious to an untrained eye.



The *GAP* can be seen clearly if you can't see ask some one around you to see that.



Martian2 said:


> The first of many non-stealthy features, which are immediately noticeable about the Russian T-50, is the metal-framed cockpit canopy. Also, the protruding IRST probe in front of the cockpit needs to be recessed.



So what problem does the metal frame canopy has..... what does it has got to do with stealth ?? F-117 and B-2 have Metal framed canopies for cockpit what doe that has got to do any thing with stealth ??..... I guess glass bubble canopy was introduced in F-16 and F-22 for giving a clear view to the jock while flying in a dog fight. What kind of RCS would that small bubble produce have an to effect on the huge plane..... Its already as small as a cricket ball or little bit bigger than that so what kind of RCS it would add ??.....Even on that note AFAIK Sukhoi has been working on to get that thing hidden from radar waves.



Martian2 said:


> Thirdly, the gaps between the engines need to be filled to eliminate a stronger radar echo. Fourthly, unlike the J-20, there is no RAM coating over the gleaming Russian T-50 engines on the entire exposed upper-body surface. The T-50 designers may have to resolve cooling issues with its engines if they are covered with RAM material.



The gaps have been left since it generates greater lift while super maneuverability and keeps the whole plane stable in such highly unstable maneuvers done at Supersonic speeds....... And what time would take it to paint them with RAMs.....They are currently testing the plane the strength of airframes etc... not creating a fancy show..... Is there some fancy party going on there in China where this poor ugly looking jet has to dress up and attend to.




Martian2 said:


> The fifth problem with the top-side design of the T-50 is the lack of continuous-curvature. On the Chinese J-20, there is a nice round curve to the entire upper-body fuselage. On the Russian T-50, there are sharp and oblique angles, especially behind the cockpit. The Russians need to obtain a supercomputer and fix the design problem.



Which Stealth fighter has that continuous curve I didn't see that on F-22, F-117, F-35...... what that curve has to do with making a plane stealth..... the best thing such a curve can do is reflect back smaller wave length radar waves like X-band back to the receivers....... such a huge continuous curve works effectively only under longer wavelengths like L-band..... don't try to bring out your silly imaginary theories to create some BS excuse..... J-20 is a big fighter so it has curve to balance the plane there nothing it has to do with stealth..... even fan boys can say that round objects reflect more radar waves.




Martian2 said:


> ----------
> 
> This is a clinical and objective post to contrast and compare stealth design features. This is not a "versus" comparison. If Sukhoi doesn't like what I'm pointing out, they should fix the problems.



This nothing but some retard excuses presented by you against the available flaws in the J-20 design...... the two closely packed engines and that tail would make this plane highly unstable if it tries to perform some high speed maneuvers....... hence there is are huge canards to lessen that effect but that would still wear the airframe and control surface more quickly.

There is continuous curve is there since the plane is too big and heavy for those tiny engines which look like monsters even on huge flanker jets plus they are closely packed and does have the wing shaping to control the plane in a high speed turn hence the curve to and canards to make it possible that J-20 can turn.


P.S. Just a friendly question what are you and do you have any authority to question Sukhoi who are making plane even before PLA had farmers armed with sticks and spades as their National Soldiers......so have some damn respect about their authority and the ones who taught you so much...... I have heard they respect old and wise people there in China.


----------



## CardSharp

TaimiKhan said:


> A question to Chinese members:
> 
> JF-17 / FC-1 being on the same airfield where 2 of the Chinese future main fighters are being tested and with them FC-1 / JF-17 also flying & being tested doesn't sends a message that may be the CAF is looking into FC-1 as somewhat a future fighter at the low end side ??
> 
> Insights are welcomed as to me the 3 fighter jets being tested on the same facility may mean that they all are being looked as future fighter platforms.



I don't think the FC-1 being tested at the same field is necessarily a commitment by the PLAAF to induct the FC-1. I personally don't see a gap for the FC-1 to fill. There is no need to replace the J-7s because I think are pretty much going to be shifted over to the west for local air defence and be allowed to obsolesce there.


----------



## houshanghai

*J-20 Mighty Dragon and J-10B Vigorous Dragon together*





J-20 Mighty Dragon and J-10B prepared for another test flight.





China's most-advanced J-20 stealth fighter parked next to pioneering J-10B with DSI.

[Note: Thank you to Martian and "cd nx1974nx" for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

TaimiKhan said:


> A question to Chinese members:
> 
> JF-17 / FC-1 being on the same airfield where 2 of the Chinese future main fighters are being tested and with them FC-1 / JF-17 also flying & being tested doesn't sends a message that may be the CAF is looking into FC-1 as somewhat a future fighter at the low end side ??
> 
> Insights are welcomed as to me the 3 fighter jets being tested on the same facility may mean that they all are being looked as future fighter platforms.





It is reported that PLAAF will equip 150 FC-1 with WS13 from cdf.but no one really knows the truth now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Huzhigeng said that the J-20 is 20.3 meters long from nose to tail and has a wingspan of 13.4 meters.


----------



## CardSharp

siegecrossbow said:


> Huzhigeng said that the J-20 is 20.3 meters long from nose to tail and has a wingspan of 13.4 meters.



So we were in the same ball park/slight over estimation?


----------



## S10

Dimension of J-20 has been revealed by huzhigeng:

20.3 13.4 &#39640;&#24230;&#19981;&#39640;&#12290;&#27604;&#27516;10&#35201;&#30702;&#24471;&#22810;&#12290;

Length: 20.3m
Height: 13.4m

¸÷Î»Ì¸¶ÔT-50³ß´çµÄ¹À¼Æ£¨¸½¹ó±öÊý¾Ý£©£¬64Â¥¾ªÏÖhuzhigeng Ì¸J-20³ß´ç¡£ - µÚ2Ò³ - ¿Õ¾ü°æ - ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³


----------



## siegecrossbow

CardSharp said:


> So we were in the same ball park/slight over estimation?



That would be correct.


----------



## Martian2

Huzhigeng's estimate is consistent with my upper-limit estimate from months ago.

*China J-20 Mighty Dragon is roughly the size of a Su-27*

The wheels on the J-20 and Su-27 are about the same size. Same thing for length of cockpit, size of pilots' heads, size of pilot helmets, and engine size.






J-20 Mighty Dragon and Su-27 comparison

[Note: Thank you to "MIG-23MLD" for the picture.]

----------

*Pixel-by-pixel analysis confirms China J-20 Mighty Dragon is the size of a Su-27UB*






You are quite right, I examine the picture pixel by pixel - everything seems to line up almost perfectly, *EXCEPT* the pilot's head - either Chinese pilot's head is enormous (its about 130% larger) or the J-20 is smaller. 

For some reason, J-20 looks closer to the camera hence the pilot looks larger. If you scale it down slightly, I think it might even be smaller than F-22 or PAK FA.

Also Su-27UB is 21.9 m long, from tip of the nose to the end of the boom, even measuring against that J-20 is shorter by quite a bit.

[Note: Thank you to "Asymptote" for the post and analysis.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## localoca

ptldM3 said:


> For the last time the metal has nothing to do with a canopy not being 'stealthy',


 
Please stay away from this thread troll.. all you do here is contaminate this informative forum..


and reported for trolling...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

localoca said:


> Please stay away from this thread troll.. all you do here is contaminate this informative forum..
> 
> 
> and reported for trolling...



Wrong, your friend Martian contaminated this thread--once again it was him that went off topic by comparing the J-20 to the pak-fa.

Know what you're talking about next time so you spare yourself the humiliation. And he even thanked you for your post dispite the fact that he did what you accused me of doing.


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> Wrong, your friend Martian contaminated this thread--once again it was him that went off topic by comparing the J-20 to the pak-fa.
> 
> Know what you're talking about next time so you spare yourself the humiliation. And he even thanked you for your post dispite the fact that he did what you accused me of doing.


 
It's funny how people think insightful commenting comes from people who think making a supersonic highly integrated ultramaneuverable LO fighter plane is something you can do in your back garden garage and in reality you don't need a few PhDs to do, while trolling is stating the obvious and occasionaly providing scientific sources too. !!! 

ptldM3 .. it's quite obvious, Sukhoi don't know what they are doing, because someone in here measures RCS by mk1 eyeball... !! I mean after all Sukhoi used to make barbie dolls before they got into the fighter business.. right ? 

and don't forget, the J-20 is ultra stealthy, F-22 class, because ...well, it is painted black, can't you see? 

how weird we are indeed !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## conworldus

amalakas said:


> It's funny how people think insightful commenting comes from people who think making a supersonic highly integrated ultramaneuverable LO fighter plane is something you can do in your back garden garage and in reality you don't need a few PhDs to do, while trolling is stating the obvious and occasionaly providing scientific sources too. !!!
> 
> ptldM3 .. it's quite obvious, Sukhoi don't know what they are doing, because someone in here measures RCS by mk1 eyeball... !! I mean after all Sukhoi used to make barbie dolls before they got into the fighter business.. right ?
> 
> and don't forget, the J-20 is ultra stealthy, F-22 class, because ...*well, it is painted black, can't you see*?
> 
> how weird we are indeed !




It has nothing to do with the color. The J-20 is not painted. The radar absorbing surface material is naturally black. Also the shaping of the J-20 observed the stealth requirements closely besides some few minor points such as engine exhaust which I hope will be addressed in future.

The T-50 "prototype" is nothing but a money grabbing tool because it lacks stealth features. Yes I think the Sukhoi engineers know exactly what they are doing. They a building a plane with the only purpose of making money. I mean, if the T-50 is as good as the Russian propaganda, why is Russia trying to sell it to EVERY COUNTRY including a western ally like Korea? Is America selling any of the F-22s? 

On the surface of it, the T-50's shaping is just, horrible. Apparently the Sukhoi engineers haven't been able to solve the engine cooling problem so they have to total expose it without a serpentine intake and a flat belly. Sukhoi is also not taking small care such as the canopy and surface material. The plane is of just pure metal frame. Yes you can say "it is just a prototype", but it is the Russians who say that this plane will enter "production" in 2015! Just 3 and half years from now! That's some amazing development span you have there. A fifth gen plane that will be inducted just 5 years after its maiden flight! 

I don't believe Russia has the ability to make a true 5th gen fighter anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

conworldus said:


> It has nothing to do with the color. The J-20 is not painted. The radar absorbing surface material is naturally black. Also the shaping of the J-20 observed the stealth requirements closely besides some few minor points such as engine exhaust which I hope will be addressed in future.
> 
> The T-50 "prototype" is nothing but a money grabbing tool because it lacks stealth features. Yes I think the Sukhoi engineers know exactly what they are doing. They a building a plane with the only purpose of making money. I mean, if the T-50 is as good as the Russian propaganda, why is Russia trying to sell it to EVERY COUNTRY including a western ally like Korea? Is America selling any of the F-22s?
> 
> On the surface of it, the T-50's shaping is just, horrible. Apparently the Sukhoi engineers haven't been able to solve the engine cooling problem so they have to total expose it without a serpentine intake and a flat belly. Sukhoi is also not taking small care such as the canopy and surface material. The plane is of just pure metal frame. Yes you can say "it is just a prototype", but it is the Russians who say that this plane will enter "production" in 2015! Just 3 and half years from now! That's some amazing development span you have there. A fifth gen plane that will be inducted just 5 years after its maiden flight!
> 
> I don't believe Russia has the ability to make a true 5th gen fighter anymore.


 

ok, so this money grabbing machine will be exposed when the russians do take the T-50 on a tour on EVERY country they are trying to sell it to, and those countries turn their fighters' radars on and see that the bloody thing is not stealthy !!!!! 

wow talk about a very short lived and expensive scam ... which leaves you only with the expenses to fly the T-50 to the various countries... and be exposed... 

and the russians didn't have the problems you mention, because the S-47 had semi-serpantine ducts and hidden engines and no cooling problems .. and supercruise.. so if they chose to do it this way , there is some reason...

just as there is a reason the J-20 has canards and stabs etc etc..


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> It's funny how people think insightful commenting comes from people who think making a supersonic highly integrated ultramaneuverable LO fighter plane is something you can do in your back garden garage and in reality you don't need a few PhDs to do, while trolling is stating the obvious and occasionaly providing scientific sources too. !!!
> 
> ptldM3 .. *it's quite obvious, Sukhoi don't know what they are doing, because someone in here measures RCS by mk1 eyeball*... !! I mean after all Sukhoi used to make barbie dolls before they got into the fighter business.. right ?
> 
> and don't forget, the J-20 is ultra stealthy, F-22 class, because ...well, it is painted black, can't you see?
> 
> how weird we are indeed !


And made a video that despite filled with errors has thousands of views and should be taken as more technically authoritative than what experienced engineers may say. Popular gullible consensus trump science and if there are criticisms, said criticism can only come from petty jealousy since critics has no popular videos of their own.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> *And made a video* that despite filled with errors has thousands of views and should be taken as more technically authoritative than what experienced engineers may say. Popular gullible consensus trump science and if there are criticisms, said criticism can only come from petty jealousy since critics has no popular videos of their own.


 
You are obviously referring to the "Blair Stealth Project" .. true story I've heard .....


----------



## conworldus

amalakas said:


> ok, so this money grabbing machine will be exposed when the russians do take the T-50 on a tour on EVERY country they are trying to sell it to, and those countries turn their fighters' radars on and see that the bloody thing is not stealthy !!!!!
> 
> wow talk about a very short lived and expensive scam ... which leaves you only with the expenses to fly the T-50 to the various countries... and be exposed...
> 
> and the russians didn't have the problems you mention, because the S-47 had semi-serpantine ducts and hidden engines and no cooling problems .. and supercruise.. so if they chose to do it this way , there is some reason...
> 
> just as there is a reason the J-20 has canards and stabs etc etc..



We will see that when the T-50 is taken to other countries. Insofar it has not flown outside Russia, so you should just shut up about it.

The Su-47 design was a huge fail. The Russians never solved the many many problems it had so they have to ditch it for a more primitive design like the T-50, so don't tell me that they solved all the problems and don't tell me that exposed engine vents like the T-50 has any advantage to it.

The J-20 has canards because the engine is not powerful enough and because 611 corp is experienced with canards. Once the WS-15 engine is mature I am sure the canards can be removed. 

The thing is that at least we admit J-20 shortcomings. The Russian T-50 is nothing but a money scam.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Melting

Whatever Indians say whatever americans say whatever russians says but we dont care we only need PLAAF with stealth fighters and it is only likely market for our future hopes of 5th generation:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

conworldus said:


> We will see that when the T-50 is taken to other countries. Insofar it has not flown outside Russia, so you should just shut up about it.
> 
> *The Su-47 design was a huge fail*. The Russians never solved the many many problems it had so they have to ditch it for a more primitive design like the T-50, so don't tell me that they solved all the problems and don't tell me that exposed engine vents like the T-50 has any advantage to it.
> 
> The J-20 has canards because the engine is not powerful enough and because 611 corp is experienced with canards. Once the WS-15 engine is mature I am sure the canards can be removed.
> 
> The thing is that at least we admit J-20 shortcomings. The Russian T-50 is nothing but a money scam.


 
Really ? a huge fail ? a forward swept wing supersonic heavy twin engine fighter with hypermaneuverability and supercruise?? 

wow.. didn't know that making a plane like that is a fail ...


----------



## Abhishek_

self-delete


----------



## conworldus

amalakas said:


> Really ? a huge fail ? a forward swept wing supersonic heavy twin engine fighter with hypermaneuverability and supercruise??
> 
> wow.. didn't know that making a plane like that is a fail ...



Yeah, Su-47 is so successful that not a single one of them is in service. Go do some research. The plane was a huge fail. It is not even considered safe enough to fly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

conworldus said:


> Yeah, Su-47 is so successful that not a single one of them is in service. Go do some research. The plane was a huge fail. It is not even considered safe enough to fly.


 
The s-47 was a technology demonstrator, designed to explore various things. It then moved on to perform numerous times on air shows and for research purposes, it is perhaps not considered safe to flyanymore because only one was made and hence spares may not be available or ever considered for this plane. 

that my educated friend (!) doesn't take away from the feat of the engineers who designed, built and flown the said plane .... which part do you not get ?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And made a video that despite filled with errors has *thousands of views* and should be taken as more technically authoritative than what experienced engineers may say. Popular gullible consensus trump science and if there are criticisms, said criticism can only come from petty jealousy since critics has no popular videos of their own.



Your statement is misleading. My video has *78,209 views* and it keeps increasing. You give the impression of only a few thousand views. If you had said "many tens of thousands of views," I would have been fine with that.


----------



## no_name

conworldus said:


> The J-20 has canards because the engine is not powerful enough and because 611 corp is experienced with canards. Once the WS-15 engine is mature I am sure the canards can be removed.



Don't think they'll remove the canards, a more powerful engine with the canards will just results in a even more maneuverable plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## conworldus

amalakas said:


> The s-47 was a technology demonstrator, designed to explore various things. It then moved on to perform numerous times on air shows and for research purposes, it is perhaps not considered safe to flyanymore because only one was made and hence spares may not be available or ever considered for this plane.
> 
> that my educated friend (!) doesn't take away from the feat of the engineers who designed, built and flown the said plane .... which part do you not get ?



No country builds demonstrators just for exploration. They wanted to build the Su-47 only to find out that Russia had no capacity to build material of sufficient strength to hold the Su-47's frame. The plane was about to disintegrate in the air at the later stage of testing. Also, the engine problem was never solved because AL37 was no good and they did not have S117 yet. This is why the Ruskies gave up on the project. Just accept it, they screwed up, so now we have a T-50 which has very few of Su-47's technologies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Your statement is misleading. My video has *78,209 views* and it keeps increasing. You give the impression of only a few thousand views. If you had said "many tens of thousands of views," I would have been fine with that.


Fine...So there are more gullible people than expected...

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------




conworldus said:


> *No country builds demonstrators just for exploration.* They wanted to build the Su-47 only to find out that Russia had no capacity to build material of sufficient strength to hold the Su-47's frame. The plane was about to disintegrate in the air at the later stage of testing. Also, the engine problem was never solved because AL37 was no good and they did not have S117 yet. This is why the Ruskies gave up on the project. Just accept it, they screwed up, so now we have a T-50 which has very few of Su-47's technologies.


Are you really serious about that...???  What the hell do you think the American X-series were for? Show and tell?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

gambit said:


> Fine...So there are more gullible people than expected...
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------
> 
> 
> *Are you really serious about that...???  What the hell do you think the American X-series were for? Show and tell?*



People had expectation that X-series and all the secret project America is doing would become reality one day. You stop a project when you realize that the prospect of success has been reduced to zero. No country starts a project if there is ZERO expectation or possibility that the project would be a success to begin with. Otherwise, why no one is building, say, a teleporting stargate or something? Why don't we just build a prototype for study purpose?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> People had expectation that X-series and all the secret project America is doing would become reality one day. You stop a project when you realize that the prospect of success has been reduced to zero. No country starts a project if there is ZERO expectation or possibility that the project would be a success to begin with.


Wrong. All wrong. The X-series is exactly why I do not take you seriously. In aviation research, it is entirely appropriate to build a certain platform with emphasis on a particular part of flight. The X-1 was for supersonic research. Were there any X-1 derivative? No. But there were plenty of later aircrafts that took advantage of the data the X-1 revealed about the supersonic region. You are wrong. Admit it.



conworldus said:


> Otherwise, why no one is building, say, a teleporting stargate or something? Why don't we just build a prototype for study purpose?


Are you serious? A prototype cannot be built unless we know the basic principles of something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Wrong. All wrong. The X-series is exactly why I do not take you seriously. In aviation research, it is entirely appropriate to build a certain platform with emphasis on a particular part of flight. The X-1 was for supersonic research. Were there any X-1 derivative? No. But there were plenty of later aircrafts that took advantage of the data the X-1 revealed about the supersonic region. You are wrong. Admit it.
> 
> 
> *Are you serious?* A prototype cannot be built unless we know the basic principles of something.


 
You have to ask him? 

I don't know how good the J-20 is, ( I wish it is very good) but boy some people commit the sin of hybris in here...


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> You have to ask him?


I have to make sure. Sort of a virtual self pinch.



amalakas said:


> I don't know how good the J-20 is, ( I wish it is very good) but boy some people commit the sin of hybris in here...


From a radar perspective, I will be generous and say just right below the F-16 on the RCS scale. And I know what the F-16 look like on the scope. But I have no problems proved wrong. Many of us were proved wrong when the F-117 came out. We were way off base.


----------



## houshanghai

*J20 become a transformer and J15 fighting the invasion of aliens(an interesting chinese 3D animation)*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## fakein

Pleas stop contrasting CAC J20 with Sukhoi T50 or bashing Sukhoi's abilities to develop a 5th gen. fighter, either of which would be irrelevant to the topic and meaningless without substantial evidence and professional analysis. It is an area too sophisticated and confidential for we amateurs to claim his/her creditability. Why not refrain from futile debates with others, in which you've provided no convincing data, of which many are growing tired, and just appreciate these mighty and beautiful beasts?

We are witnessing the rise of our country. A healthy does of national pride is good, but don't let it overgrow to blind your eyes and erode your heart. Humbleness and respect are virtues.

Whatsoever, regards and thanks for your hard work of many pics and texts of J20, and your patriotism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

fans captured that J-20 was equiped with missile on the ground today.

8-24, ¹Ò4Ã¶PL-12µÄ10A¿´ÉÏÈ¥ºÜ×§, Ê×¼ûËÄÃÃ¹Òµ°| Ó¥»÷³¤¿Õ - ·ÉÑï¾üÊÂ ÐñÈÕ³ö¶«·½£¬¾«²ÊÔÚ·ÉÑï - powered by phpwind.net

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> *The T-50 "prototype" is nothing but a money grabbing tool because it lacks stealth features.*



As if a knuckle head like yourself has an idea of 'stealth' features. If we take the F-15 Silent Eagle, for example, most people like yourself would shout out the top of their longs that it is not 'stealthy' yet Boeing has acknowledges that it has a frontal RCS of the F-35, small details such as treated canopy, removal of pylons, 'RAM', radar blockers, masking canon, and other small details has reduced its RCS many times over. It's one thing if an individual with knowledge in 'stealth' principles makes an observation on how low an aircraft's RCS can be, it is entirely another thing when someone that is incompetent and utterly confused about 'stealth' tries to make a definitive claim.





conworldus said:


> Yes I think the Sukhoi engineers know exactly what they are doing. They a building a plane with the only purpose of making money. I mean, if the T-50 is as good as the Russian propaganda, why is Russia trying to sell it to EVERY COUNTRY including a western ally like Korea? Is America selling any of the F-22s?




Unlike you Sukhoi is not that naive, do you think that the Russian, Air Force, Indian Air Force, or Korean Air force would not test out the pak-fa before they purchased it or at least receive some test data on the aircraft? There is also nothing wrong with trying to sell aircraft to other countries. The F-22 is not being sold because of politics, although Lockheed would love to make money off of it, but that is where the F-35 comes in. Russia and South Korea also have a good relationship, it is no surprise that Russia is offering South Korea the pak-fa, after all South Korea operates other Russian weapons and even come to Russia for training and or using the vast Russian landscape for conducting military exercises.






conworldus said:


> *On the surface of it, the T-50's shaping is just, horrible. Apparently the Sukhoi engineers haven't been able to solve the engine cooling problem so they have to total expose it without a serpentine intake and a flat belly*. Sukhoi is also not taking small care such as the canopy and surface material. The plane is of just pure metal frame. Yes you can say "it is just a prototype", but it is the Russians who say that this plane will enter "production" in 2015! Just 3 and half years from now! That's some amazing development span you have there. A fifth gen plane that will be inducted just 5 years after its maiden flight!






Apparently you do not keep up with the times, do a search of the pak-fa and see what the designers claim for IR. And stop with the serpentine intake nonsense, people like yourself have abused and misused that word. Serpentine intakes have been on certain Russian aircraft for decades, if it was wonder method Sukhoi would have used it, but in stead that went with a radar blocker concept, the same concept that was used on the F-117 and now the Silent Eagle albeit both aircraft use different methods with one using mesh and the other a traditional set up.

Now as for the flat belly nonsense. There is no law or design principle that says a flat belly is the only way to achieve low RCS from the bottom side of an aircraft. The flat belly fuselage is the cleanest and simplest way to evade radar. The pak-fa's intakes are sloped, and interestingly enough they are faceted much like the F-117's nose was, meaning that when EM energy hits the intakes the EM energy behaves in a complex manner.








conworldus said:


> *The Su-47 design was a huge fail. The Russians never solved the many problems it had so they have to ditch it for a more primitive design like the T-50*, so don't tell me that they solved all the problems and don't tell me that exposed engine vents like the T-50 has any advantage to it.





The only thing that is a huge fail is this embarrassing comment. The SU-47 was only built for testing new technology, even before the pak-fa was a concept on paper it was know that the technology and experienced gained from the SU-47 would translate into Sukhoi's next generation aircraft. 








conworldus said:


> *Yeah, Su-47 is so successful that not a single one of them is in service. Go do some research. The plane was a huge fail. It is not even considered safe enough to fly*.





It was a technology demonstrator you knuckle head, and please do explain how it was a fail, the aircraft gave way to new technology and it did what it was designed to do. And please do elaborate how it is not safe to fly.






conworldus said:


> No country builds demonstrators just for exploration.




Wow, am i really reading this correctly? Are you that naive and ill informed? 






conworldus said:


> * They wanted to build the Su-47 only to find out that Russia had no capacity to build material of sufficient strength to hold the Su-47's frame. *




Yet it was able to perform high G maneuvers at both subsonic and supersonic speeds, mind explaining how it achieved this without the wings snapping off? There are plenty of videos that bust your claim out of the water.




conworldus said:


> The plane was about to disintegrate in the air at the later stage of testing.





Sources? And did it disintegrate?







conworldus said:


> Also, the engine problem was never solved because AL37 was no good and they did not have S117 yet.




You do know that the engines were a part of the testing technology correct? 






conworldus said:


> This is why the Ruskies gave up on the project. Just accept it, they screwed up, so now we have a *T-50 which has very few of Su-47's technologies*.




Jee, lets actually take the time and see what technology the SU-47 had.

-TVC engines.
-digital fly-by-wire
-weapons bays
-composite materials


All of those are on the pak-fa and all are major systems.



conworldus said:


> People had expectation that X-series and all the secret project America is doing would become reality one day.




The X series was purely for testing, aircraft such as the X-29 explored different concepts in an attempt to gain knowledge an perhaps apply that knowledge to future aircraft, just like the SU-47. So what makes you think that Sukhoi didn't have expectations that the SU-47 would yield advances that would one day be incorporated in other aircraft? The reality is that the SU-47 had many technologies that were implemented in aircraft such as the Flanker series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> As if a knuckle head like yourself has an idea of 'stealth' features. .....................................etc etc etc


 
I mentioned before that a lot of people in here commit the sin of Hybris. Being Greek I cannot avoid falling back on the wisdom of my forefathers.. 

Hybris is commited when you believe yourself to be so much better than you really are that you begin to think you are the one and none other. 


People must begin to realise that things build up slowly and you can't dismiss know how and skills of years and years, just because your eyes are pleased with some shapes and colours...


Americans build planes, russians build planes.. french build planes, sweeds build planes.. that is it!!! 

every one else is just entering the football pitch when the game is already at peak time...


----------



## Nestea

J-20 8.25

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## teddy

Indian is stupid enough! they pay money to russian to develop russian steath fighter, but all tech goes into russian pocket.
It is indian helping russian indeed! Just like you growth up your children, but found out that he is not really your child. This is one of the reasons that china refuse to join the T50 project, when russian invided.
Indian never learn when they trade with russian.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

aimarraul said:


>



I need a new avatar. Thnx.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

Oh wow is that a photo?

Siege, I'd trim the dimensions a bit if I were you. It'd look better.


----------



## kingofkings

I thought the initially secret ( ie J 20 ) accidentally got out, But now Every possible view of it is available. It shows that it was quite intentional.

BTW kool pics.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

amalakas said:


> Really ? a huge fail ? a forward swept wing supersonic heavy twin engine fighter with hypermaneuverability and supercruise??
> 
> wow.. didn't know that making a plane like that is a fail ...




Oh SHUT UP!!!!

SU-47 failed, it is nothing more than a demo!!

If SU-47 succeeded? Why the T-50 looks NOTHING like the SU-47? Instead it looks a lot like the F-22 with much inferior stealth. You can clearly see the fan blade!!!

You are just a white european, greek and I realy feel sorry for your country. A nation with collapsed encomny. You are just ENVY with the fact that China a None White country build a fighter J-20, much better than the White Russians!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

conworldus said:


> *Yeah, Su-47 is so successful that not a single one of them is in service*. Go do some research. The plane was a huge fail. It is not even considered safe enough to fly.




Well said!!

Dont forget to mention Russian's T-50 looks NOTHING like the SU-47. If their crap SU-47 is soooooooooo good why not make the T-50 like it? *Yet the russians shamelessly siad that they are "helping" China to build J-20. Do you know that the Russians themselves can not even build T-50 on its own and need to co-op with india[/B]. LMFAO **


RUssian junk T-50 looks like a copy of F-22 with SH#T stealth. 1. Fully exposed engine fan blade which means no frontal stealth. 2. lack of single canopy, poor side stealth. 3. BIllions and Billions of rivits which also add huge RCS. 4. Last their engine is not even better than J-20's current WS-10G(WS-10g 155Kn, 117S 148KN), yet the russians still brag about their engine.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## below_freezing

The US already has all the numbers on the J-20 so they're not worried. Even if it was superior to the F-22 there might be kill switches built into the J-20 to prevent it from locking onto US targets.


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> I mentioned before that a lot of people in here commit the sin of Hybris. Being Greek I cannot avoid falling back on the wisdom of my forefathers..
> 
> Hybris is commited when you believe yourself to be so much better than you really are that you begin to think you are the one and none other.
> 
> People must begin to realise that things build up slowly and you can't dismiss know how and skills of years and years, just because your eyes are pleased with some shapes and colours...
> 
> Americans build planes, russians build planes.. french build planes, sweeds build planes.. that is it!!!
> 
> every one else is just entering the football pitch when the game is already at peak time...



A delusional Greek. Give me a break. At least give us a Russian (like PtldM3) or a German (living in past glory).

A trash-talking Greek is not much better than a Jamaican dissing China's space program. A citizen from a country with zero technology, zero accomplishments, and an imploding economy. I'm disappointed.

Let me know if Greece manages to conduct a spacewalk anytime in the next 10,000 years. I'm betting you can't. Until then, you should know your place and watch that big mouth of yours.


----------



## S10

below_freezing said:


> The US already has all the numbers on the J-20 so they're not worried. Even if it was superior to the F-22 there might be kill switches built into the J-20 to prevent it from locking onto US targets.


Source? Or are you inventing stories again?


----------



## April.lyrics

calm down buddy.we all see what T50 doing in Moskow.it engine burned....
&#21035;&#32473;&#27611;&#23376;&#38634;&#19978;&#21152;&#38684;&#20102;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;

---------- Post added at 06:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 AM ----------

calm down buddy.we all see what T50 doing in Moskow.it engine burned....
&#21035;&#32473;&#27611;&#23376;&#38634;&#19978;&#21152;&#38684;&#20102;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Oh SHUT UP!!!!
> *SU-47 failed, it is nothing more than a demo!!*





So how did it fail exactly? It was a technology demonstrator that explored new ideas for future implementation. Technology demonstrators are not meant to go into production--ever. For something to be considered a failure it should at least have poor performance and be extremely over priced, the SU-47 was neither. Your mission to degrade Russian aviation is pathetic, at least have some knowledge to back up your fairytale claims.




AerospaceEngineer said:


> *If SU-47 succeeded? Why the T-50 looks NOTHING like the SU-47?* Instead it looks a lot like the F-22 with much inferior stealth. You can clearly see the fan blade!!!




 you seriously have no business on this forum let alone making any kind of aviation claims with questions like that. The SU-47 was designed before the pak-fa, the whole concept of the SU-47 was to test new concepts and technologies, and in fact the SU-47 used parts from the SU-27 to save money, so of course it is not going to look anything like the pak-fa. The SU-47 was *not* a 'stealth' aircraft it was a test bed for future aircraft. It tested TVC engines, weapons bays, digital fly-by-wire, composite material and much more. Obviously TVC engines, weapons bay, digital fly-by-wire, and composites are all present on the pak-fa, so in fact, the pak-fa has many of the technologies that the SU-47 pioneered.




AerospaceEngineer said:


> Well said!!





No not well said, knuckle head made the error of thinking that the SU-47 was intended for production when it was only a technology demonstrator. This puts you in the same league a the knuckle head.




AerospaceEngineer said:


> . Last their engine is not even better than J-20's current WS-10G(WS-10g 155Kn, 117S 148KN), yet the russians still brag about their engine.



 make a decent engine before making claims of 155Kn. What if i told you Russia has built a *245 Kn* engine decades ago  and it still remains the most powerful military jet engine today. You should also know that there is a more powerful 117 engine and thrust will increase from 15-25% without increasing size.

Lets assume that the news about the WS-10G isn't some fabricated news based off of here say from blogs and forums which is usually the case with the Chinese military, lets assume the WS-10G does produce said thrust.

What matters is size and thrust-to-weight ratio. The 117s and 117 improved thrust without increasing weight--that is extremely important because the engines trust to weight ratio increases. The larger the engine the more power it will produce based off of volume--cubic volume of air the engine can take in. One of the ways the 117s increased power was to increase the inlet diameter by about 1' inch as compared to the AL-31, but even with a 905 millimeters diameter it is still far smaller compared to the WS-10's 950 diameter but produces much more thrust, and as I said it is trust to weight ration that matters most the 117S (not the more powerful 117) has a thrust-to weight ratio of 10.5:1 compared to the original WS-10's 7.5.

Nextly factors such as a usable by-pass ratio, efficiency, time between overhauls (TBO), service life, ect...ect all play factors in how good an engine is.

High thrust engines that have low by-pass ratios will suffer from poor fuel consumption, also a high by-pass ratio engine has poor performance at high speeds but good performance at low speeds. The challenge is engineering an engine that has usable thrust through out the flight envelope. Similarly the by-pass ratio will dictate the efficiency of the engine, the by-pass ratio will also determine the operating temperature of the turbines,--cooler turbines=less IR signature. The higher by-pass ratio the cooler the turbines, the cooler the turbines the longer the engine will last--generally. So when someone claims X engine has X trust this means little if you don't understand how an engine works, it means even less if the thrust is not usable, so a low by-pass engine may give supercruise if the aircraft's drag or lack there of permits but it's low speed performance may not be very good.

Also the life of an engine and TBO's gives a good indication of just how advanced the engine is, those two features are also extremely important in terms of cost and maintenance. The 117S has a 4000 hour life and 1000 TBO, far superior to any Chinese engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## razgriz19

MAIN WEAPON BAY OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:

3


----------



## razgriz19

J-20 pulling and rolling!

???J20??????_?_?_?_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

razgriz19 said:


> J-20 pulling and rolling!
> 
> ???J20??????_?_?_?_



You are way too late on the action bro... We've seen that a hundred times at least...


----------



## razgriz19

siegecrossbow said:


> You are way too late on the action bro... We've seen that a hundred times at least...



i had a feeling it was posted here before.......but my friend sent it to me so i just posted incase anyone missed it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

J-20 Mighty Dragon has canard winglets, but no tailplanes.





F-22 Raptor has no canards, but it has tailplane winglets.

From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).

However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design. Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.

In conclusion, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior evolutionary design of its chronological F-22 predecessor.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and Feiyang for the J-20 picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> J-20 Mighty Dragon has canard winglets, but no tailplanes.


Big deal.



Martian2 said:


> F-22 Raptor has no canards, but it has tailplane winglets.
> 
> From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).


Utter garbage. From a radiation generator perspective, the more generators there are on a non-spherical complex body, the greater the odds of detection. This is established fact. Real physics, not Chinese physics.



Martian2 said:


> However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. *This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design.*


Older does not mean obsolete or inefficient and canards are nothing new.



Martian2 said:


> Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.


Does not mean every country can design the same.



Martian2 said:


> In conclusion, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior evolutionary design of its chronological F-22 predecessor.


Bunk. It is telling that you consistently demand 'extraordinary proofs' from others but equally consistently refused to provide your own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).



We went through this before.



Martian2 said:


> However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. *The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design. Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.*




The notion that canards are a one and all solution to maneuverability is a myth. Yes canards usually improve an aircraft's AoA, however, with today's advances in fly-by-wire, TVC engines, and high trust-to-weight ratios canards are, dare I say, obsolete or overshadowed. This is one of the reasons the SU-35 did away with canards, that and a reduction in RCS, but from a maneuverability stand-point the SU-35 can do everything that an SU-30 with canards can, if not better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> The notion that canards are a one and all solution to maneuverability is a myth. Yes canards usually improve an aircraft's AoA, however, with today's advances in *fly-by-wire*, TVC engines, and *high trust-to-weight ratios* canards are, dare I say, obsolete or overshadowed. This is one of the reasons the SU-35 did away with canards, that and a reduction in RCS, but from a maneuverability stand-point the SU-35 can do everything that an SU-30 with canards can, if not better.


Here is where these guys totally missed the point: The *ANALOG* version of the F-16 wildly succeeded was because of the highlighted combination. High thrust-to-weight ratio enabled the F-16's FLCS to create greater displacement of the rear horizontal stabs at greater rate of displacement.

Greater displacement and greater *RATE* of displacement.

Our engine technology made canards unnecessary. Because of its ability to reach its limit of 25.5 deg AoA and the rate of that change, the F-16 needed that outsized vertical stab because as AoA increases so does the fuselage's ability to block airflow to that axis. With the F-22's 2D vectored thrust and power, canards are totally worthless.


----------



## Black Widow

> However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design. Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.


Original Post By Martian2

Food for Thought:


Just open the old thread of PAK-FA. Many expert from Pakistan and China questioned PAK-FA LREX. Some of the radar/stealth experts even claim that LREX of PAK-FA can contribute 1 m2 to RCS. Now when chinese J20 has cancard, there tone is changed... 

 


@Topic: What I believe is , if Russia or chines are making 5th gen fighter, they will definitely come with 5th gen fighter. By passing such comments (J20/PAK-fa will less stealthy than F22) We are insulting the engineers, or boosting our ego..


----------



## gambit

Black Widow said:


> Food for Thought:
> 
> 
> Just open the old thread of PAK-FA. Many expert from Pakistan and China questioned PAK-FA LREX. Some of the radar/stealth experts even claim that LREX of PAK-FA can contribute 1 m2 to RCS. Now when chinese J20 has cancard, there tone is changed...


Hold up a sec...

In edge diffraction of movable bodies, there are three areas of interests: leading edge, trailing edge, and end. Remember, these are finite bodies that made up the greater finite body called 'aircraft'.

A canard has all three of those points of interests. The T-50's movable leading edge root extension has two: leading edge and end.

The more radiation generators, the greater the odds of detection.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

ptldM3 said:


> We went through this before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The notion that canards are a one and all solution to maneuverability is a myth. Yes canards usually improve an aircraft's AoA, however, with today's advances in fly-by-wire, TVC engines, and high trust-to-weight ratios canards are, dare I say, obsolete or overshadowed. This is one of the reasons the SU-35 did away with canards, that and a reduction in RCS, but from a maneuverability stand-point the SU-35 can do everything that an SU-30 with canards can, if not better.



An insider from CAC had already revealed in the past that the J-20 requirment for AoA alpha was 80 degree without the use of thrust vectoring. That eliminated all conventional designs from the start.


----------



## S10

Black Widow said:


> Food for Thought:
> 
> 
> Just open the old thread of PAK-FA. *Many expert from Pakistan and China questioned PAK-FA LREX*. Some of the radar/stealth experts even claim that LREX of PAK-FA can contribute 1 m2 to RCS. Now when chinese J20 has cancard, there tone is changed...


What experts? Show me one legit source that Chinese "experts" made such assertions. No, Martian2 doesn't count as one.


----------



## ptldM3

S10 said:


> An insider from CAC had already revealed in the past that the J-20 requirment for AoA alpha was 80 degree without the use of thrust vectoring. *That eliminated all conventional designs from the start*.



There is a number of conventional aircraft (no canards and no TVC) that can acheive a 90+ degree A0A, so your statement about conventinal designs needing to be eliminated in order to acheive such an A0A is not true.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> An insider from CAC had already revealed in the past that the J-20 requirment for AoA alpha was 80 degree without the use of thrust vectoring. That eliminated all conventional designs from the start.


Let us take that at face value. It can begs the questions:

- Were there any justifications for that requirement?

- Achieving such AoA does not equate to controllability at such high AoA.

This does not mean that if sometime in the future China is able to produce a durable thrust vectoring engine, achievable AoA and associated controllability is doubled. What this implies is that the J-20 may be 'stuck' with the current engine configuration.

Here are the advantages and disadvantages of canards:

Canard Advantages and Disadvantages


> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design.


As far as RCS contributorship goes, aeroelasticity is a factor...

Aeroelasticity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Aeroelasticity is the science which studies the interactions among inertial, elastic, and aerodynamic forces. It was defined by Arthur Collar in 1947 as "the study of the mutual interaction that takes place within the triangle of the inertial, elastic, and aerodynamic forces acting on structural members exposed to an airstream, and the influence of this study on design." In more simple terms, it is the same set of conditions causing a flag to flutter in a stiff breeze or a reed to tremble in fast-flowing water. *Flutter may occur* in any fluid medium.


The dominant aeroelastic form in the canard is flutter and as an active flight control element, this effect increases the RCS contributorship of these flight control elements. Discussions about this effect can be found at 'canardaviation.com'. But as far as unpredictable EM edge diffraction effects goes, fluttering of any structure is detrimental to the overall RCS, especially when there are 'downstream' structures like the fuselage and the main wings to surface propagate and possibly amplify these signals.


----------



## S10

ptldM3 said:


> There is a number of conventional aircraft (no canards and no TVC) that can acheive a 90+ degree A0A, so your statement about conventinal designs needing to be eliminated in order to acheive such an A0A is not true.


To my knowledge, there is not a single operational fighter plane, without TVC, that can achieve achieve 80+ degree controllable AoA. Even the F-18 HARV with thrust vectoring was roughly in the same ballpark.

Note: I rechecked his statement. It was 90 AoA without the use of thrust vectoring.



gambit said:


> Let us take that at face value. It can begs the questions:
> 
> - Were there any justifications for that requirement?
> 
> - Achieving such AoA does not equate to controllability at such high AoA.
> 
> This does not mean that if sometime in the future China is able to produce a durable thrust vectoring engine, achievable AoA and associated controllability is doubled. What this implies is that the J-20 may be 'stuck' with the current engine configuration.



1. You will have to ask PLAAF for their justification.

2. He said "90&#24230;&#21487;&#25511;", meaning 90 degree controllable.

Like I said before, China uses the "*4S*" requirements for its 5th gen fighter program. *S*tealth, *S*uper-manoevurable, *S*upercruise and *S*ensor fusion are all part of it. However, some requirment have higher priority than others. For China, supermanovurability and supercruise are the most paramount. Not my words, but the words of the guy working for the design bureau.

There had been an assortment of academic journals from two Chinese universities that specialize in aviation regarding blending the canard with a LO design. They also conducted tests in anechoic chamber belonging to Chinese space agency, and the military was satisfied of the results. I trust them to know what they're doing.


----------



## ptldM3

S10 said:


> To my knowledge, there is not a single operational fighter plane that can achieve achieve 80+ degree controllable AoA. Even the F-18 HARV with thrust vectoring was roughly in the same ballpark.



A very very short clip (16 seconds):

Russian MiG-29 & Su-27 doing Cobra Maneuver - YouTube

The higher the AoA the less control an aircraft will have due to forward momentum. however, TVC and high thrust engines allow aircraft to quickly point the nose in any direction they wish after a high AoA has been achieved. Similarly the fly-by-wire, TVC and high thrust engines allow to pilot to have control at all times.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> There had been an assortment of academic journals from two Chinese universities that specialize in aviation regarding blending the canard with a LO design. They also conducted tests in anechoic chamber belonging to Chinese space agency, and the military was satisfied of the results. *I trust them to know what they're doing.*


You are certainly free to so trust. However, good thing for the lay readers that this is not just another Chinese playground 'echo chamber' where challengers are shut down with feeble justifications when they made pet members uncomfortable. Given the dearth of credible technical sources the lay readers have seen from the J-20's supporters versus the amount they have seen from me regarding basic principles and how they cannot be violated, the lay readers can better make up their own minds here.


----------



## amalakas

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Oh SHUT UP!!!!
> 
> SU-47 failed, it is nothing more than a demo!!
> 
> If SU-47 succeeded? Why the T-50 looks NOTHING like the SU-47? Instead it looks a lot like the F-22 with much inferior stealth. You can clearly see the fan blade!!!
> 
> You are just a white european, greek and I realy feel sorry for your country. A nation with collapsed encomny. You are just ENVY with the fact that China a None White country build a fighter J-20, much better than the White Russians!!




aaaaaaaaaaaaaa My friend the aerospace engineer.... tell me you engineer you...

do you remember this ? 



> Oh really ? I don't ?
> and you are now a control engineer?
> for raytheon ?
> 
> perhaps you can tell us then how you can find the PM of a CL system, and from where, and what PM would any decent engineer allow for a simple application of say follow a reference signal or line ...



I asked you a while back ...

you still haven't answered.. I am still waiting...


oh and Martian2 ... I can see that besides foolish you are also petty.. when the arguments of the weak are taken down, they always result to insult ... hahahaha.. 


as for the rest, I think Gambit and ptdl3 put you back in the real world firmly... not that you wish to be there for long.

---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 AM ----------




gambit said:


> You are certainly free to so trust. However, good thing for the lay readers that this is not just another Chinese playground 'echo chamber' where challengers are shut down with feeble justifications when they made pet members uncomfortable. Given the dearth of credible technical sources the lay readers have seen from the J-20's supporters versus the amount they have seen from me regarding basic principles and how they cannot be violated, the lay readers can better make up their own minds here.



it is funny how some people trust their side's engineers to know what they are doing, but not the other's , as if engineering is not providing solutions to given problems...

so apparently the J-20 is the result of extreme engineering, but the f-22 or other fitghters were just stumbled upon by accident....


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> You are certainly free to so trust. However, good thing for the lay readers that this is not just another Chinese playground 'echo chamber' where challengers are shut down with feeble justifications when they made pet members uncomfortable. Given the dearth of credible technical sources the lay readers have seen from the J-20's supporters versus the amount they have seen from me regarding basic principles and how they cannot be violated, the lay readers can better make up their own minds here.


Unless you meant to tell me that you have a better sense of how J-20 performs in meeting requirements than designer bureau of the aircraft, I am certainly going to trust someone working for the project and rightfully so.



amalakas said:


> it is funny how some people trust their side's engineers to know what they are doing, but not the other's , as if engineering is not providing solutions to given problems...
> 
> so apparently the J-20 is the result of extreme engineering, but the f-22 or other fitghters were just stumbled upon by accident....


It's funny how you will not be able to find a shred of evidence where I stated F-22 or any other planes were stumbled upon by accident. Perhaps only in your little dream world.


----------



## ptldM3

amalakas said:


> oh and Martian2 ... I can see that besides foolish you are also petty..* when the arguments of the weak are taken down, they always result to insult *... hahahaha.. .




Nothing new here, look at all the cheap insults about the pak-fa and even F-22, there are countless posts where aircraft such as the pak-fa are called 'junk', 'unstealthy', 'crap' ect such petty insults usually results in a barrage of thanks. Funny thing is that Martian is usually the one quick to push the thanks button. However, when he compares the J-20 to the pak-fa it is only 'objective' and when others like me speak about the J-20 even if no insults are used, no fabricated claims are made, and the aircraft's performance is not even questioned, I am called a 'troll'. Apparently it's okay to insult another country (Greece) and make ridiculous claims/slash insults on other aircraft but how dare we defend our aircraft based on sources and well know facts. 

It goes like this, the thread is going well and on topic, certain members will out of no where make cheap claims such as 'the pak-fa is garbage and not stealthy'. I will usually ask for them to explain themselves, then I will usually challenge their claims. Shortly after either a Chinese or a die-hard Chinese suck-up will call me a troll and then accuse me of 'polluting' the thread with the pak-fa when in fact it was a Chinese member that brought it up. Than in an ironic twist the guy that derailed the thread by starting the J-20/pak-fa comparison thanks the guy that accused me of derailing or polluting the thread with the pak-fa. 



amalakas said:


> *as for the rest, I think Gambit and ptdl3 put you back in the real world firmly*... not that you wish to be there for long..





Yes but they have their own view of physics, essentially they re-writing physics the way they deem appropriate or they just plainly disregard physics and maintain their claims with zero evidence to back their claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

S10 said:


> It's funny how you will not be able to find a shred of evidence where I stated F-22 or any other planes were stumbled upon by accident. Perhaps only in your little dream world.



I was not talking about you specifically, it is easy to see who from my posts.. not everything in a forum is personal my dream world or yours..


----------



## below_freezing

Aerospace engineer, please... no more... damn man...

I don't know too much about electromagnetics, so I'm keeping my mouth shut for now. A refresher on how surface discontinuities affect radio waves would be great.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> With the F-22's 2D vectored thrust and power, canards are totally worthless.




You are wasting your time, explaining notions to people used to playing pokemon card games. 

Some people tend to think that the more features a plane has the awesomeness factor increases.. to put it simply, if we add magically canards and all moving stabs and black paint and DSI to the F-22 then we by definition made it more awesome than before.. 

the concepts of meeting requirements, answering complex technical questions, fabrication, manufacturing, strict minimum performance, desired maximum performance, contralability throughout the envelope, design trade offs, and blending with used tried and proven methods are nothing but words that geeks with thick glasses use.. 

the oomph factor is how many features our plane has... some people will never learn that it's not the size of the gun, it is the size of the gun relative to the hand that holds it that makes the difference...

to support some of my points, I claimed a while back, that even and F-117 taking out of mothballs today, it would fly a mission in china and back and the chinese will only find out from watching CNN... 

to further support my point (to those who see it) .. I'd say that in a hypothetical confrontation today between a PLAAF equiped with X number of J-20s and a USA force equiped with X number of F-16s .. the USA force would still come on top .. and relatively easily . 


and this is not to flame the thread... people need to read between the lines of what the above comment means... to those who understand the complexities of modern warfare.
for further info on why I think so, feel free to also ask Gambit, I am not entirely sure, but I would bet he might have a similar feeling..... might


----------



## below_freezing

amalakas said:


> You are wasting your time, explaining notions to people used to playing pokemon card games.
> 
> Some people tend to think that the more features a plane has the awesomeness factor increases.. to put it simply, if we add magically canards and all moving stabs and black paint and DSI to the F-22 then we by definition made it more awesome than before..
> 
> the concepts of meeting requirements, answering complex technical questions, fabrication, manufacturing, strict minimum performance, desired maximum performance, contralability throughout the envelope, design trade offs, and blending with used tried and proven methods are nothing but words that geeks with thick glasses use..
> 
> the oomph factor is how many features our plane has... some people will never learn that it's not the size of the gun, it is the size of the gun relative to the hand that holds it that makes the difference...
> 
> to support some of my points, I claimed a while back, that even and F-117 taking out of mothballs today, it would fly a mission in china and back and the chinese will only find out from watching CNN...
> 
> to further support my point (to those who see it) .. I'd say that in a hypothetical confrontation today between a PLAAF equiped with X number of J-20s and a USA force equiped with X number of F-16s .. the USA force would still come on top .. and relatively easily .
> 
> 
> and this is not to flame the thread... people need to read between the lines of what the above comment means... to those who understand the complexities of modern warfare.
> for further info on why I think so, feel free to also ask Gambit, I am not entirely sure, but I would bet he might have a similar feeling..... might



if it was that easy, the US would've done it already.

dont become ideological lol. just because 1 dumbass said something, doesn't make everything opposite of what he says true.

DSI indeed reduces RCS. whats more to say? the gap between the fuselage and intakes of the F-22 can cause constructive interference. is that not fact? i'm not going to get into the canards thing. the canards may or may not contribute to RCS depending on their material and on the specific shaping. there are critical phenomena that may take place and the canards could be just over or just under some threshhold.


----------



## amalakas

below_freezing said:


> if it was that easy, the US would've done it already.
> 
> dont become ideological lol. just because 1 dumbass said something, doesn't make everything opposite of what he says true.
> 
> DSI indeed reduces RCS. whats more to say? the gap between the fuselage and intakes of the F-22 can cause constructive interference. is that not fact? i'm not going to get into the canards thing. the canards may or may not contribute to RCS depending on their material and on the specific shaping. there are critical phenomena that may take place and the canards could be just over or just under some threshhold.



I didn't say it is easy, nor that the US or china wants that. I was making a point about other things.


----------



## Vibs

below_freezing said:


> if it was that easy, the US would've done it already.
> 
> dont become ideological lol. just because 1 dumbass said something, doesn't make everything opposite of what he says true.
> 
> DSI indeed reduces RCS. whats more to say? the gap between the fuselage and intakes of the F-22 can cause constructive interference. is that not fact? i'm not going to get into the canards thing. the canards may or may not contribute to RCS depending on their material and on the specific shaping. there are critical phenomena that may take place and the canards could be just over or just under some threshhold.



I'm not entirely convinced about the DSI argument. Remember RCS is calculated by area covered. So even if you have a big solid block in the center of the air frame it's contribution to the RCS will be much lower than 2 points at the end of the wing tips. Unless the rest of the aircraft has reached a level of stealth (wrt to RCS) the intakes won't matter much. The RCS will be low enough to prevent detection from ground based radars.

But to be honest, no aircraft is invisible to aerial surveillance and once detected and in the presence of a real time relay of information it will be highly vunerable (any 5th gen aircraft)


----------



## below_freezing

Vibs said:


> I'm not entirely convinced about the DSI argument. Remember RCS is calculated by area covered. So even if you have a big solid block in the center of the air frame it's contribution to the RCS will be much lower than 2 points at the end of the wing tips. Unless the rest of the aircraft has reached a level of stealth (wrt to RCS) the intakes won't matter much. The RCS will be low enough to prevent detection from ground based radars.
> 
> But to be honest, no aircraft is invisible to aerial surveillance and once detected and in the presence of a real time relay of information it will be highly vunerable (any 5th gen aircraft)



The intakes are one of the greatest contributors to RCS for the entire airplane, I think.


----------



## fakein

Wow, guys you should have opened a new thread for comparison among F22, J20 and T50 to avoid derailing this one, though that new thread would very possibly be unsubstantial and meaningless since basically none of the confidential data is available. I am curious why the mods sleep on such irrelevant debates.

Martian and AerospaceEngineer please stop propping claims devoid of credible evidence and analysis and bashing the rivaling jets. Both LM and Sukhoi are leading design bureaus of fighters, to which respect is due, and from which many other design bureaus, CAC included, need to draw insights. 

J20, emerging as an eye-catching stunt, is just one indication of the iceberg tipping out of the surface, whose unofficial release was arguably officially intended. Yet too much attention on such a piece of weapon might easily lead someone to neglect the fact that modern wars are confrontations between systems. Scheduled as part of the system, to what kind of performance and effect J20 could achieve depends on how well it fits into the whole and what the whole system would become. But I would bet few have the audacity and arrogance to underestimate China's determination and capability to upgrade and modernize her defense system. Raising F117 and F16 in such context, if one has a glance of the panorama of the world from a military perspective, is reminiscent of extolling Cho-Ko-Nu, Cataphract or Zero in history books.

Better to take J20 as a signal rather than a symbol or much less possibly a gimmick.


----------



## amalakas

below_freezing said:


> The intakes are one of the greatest contributors to RCS for the entire airplane, I think.



you are forgetting though that they are only to the frontal aspect i.e. you have to be looking straight in the engine intake to get a strong component reflection.. 

depending on the engine intake design of a flying plane, a Radar receiver on the ground may get none of the reflection from the intakes.

so in a look down situation the engine intakes don't contribute at all

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vibs

below_freezing said:


> The intakes are one of the greatest contributors to RCS for the entire airplane, I think.



It is a contributor to the RCS from the front. For ground radars not so much. Like I said before we have to take into account total area covered. From the ground or the sides, the contribution of the inlets will not be too high. Even from the front wing tip to wing tip coverage if not designed by stealth will add a lot more than the inlets. 
But eventually there will be a move towards better inlet design. But we may have reached the treshhold of this aspect of stealth.


----------



## fakein

below_freezing said:


> The intakes are one of the greatest contributors to RCS for the entire airplane, I think.



The utmost advantage of DSI is reduction of weight and complexity, though its bump serves some function of a serpentine intake in hiding the engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> so apparently the J-20 is the result of extreme engineering, but the f-22 or other fitghters were just stumbled upon by accident....


Right...



Martian2 said:


> In conclusion, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior evolutionary design of its chronological F-22 predecessor.



The canard-delta-wing is a superior evolution? Wonder how could the Chinese explain the same configuration in the XB-70 Valkyrie nearly sixty years ago. This is from the same crowd who asserted that the J-20's all-moving vertical stabs are 'superior' to the classical rudder design despite nearly 100 years of aviation history that anyone can search and verify the absurdity of that assertion.


----------



## Black Widow

below_freezing said:


> if it was that easy, the US would've done it already.
> 
> dont become ideological lol. just because 1 dumbass said something, doesn't make everything opposite of what he says true.
> 
> DSI indeed reduces RCS. whats more to say? the gap between the fuselage and intakes of the F-22 can cause constructive interference. is that not fact? i'm not going to get into the canards thing. the canards may or may not contribute to RCS depending on their material and on the specific shaping. there are critical phenomena that may take place and the canards could be just over or just under some threshhold.



1.DSI indeed reduces RCS.: Its myth and its already busted in the same Forum. Please come with Other Argument.
2. Open/Visible blade Increase RCS: Its also myth. YF23 had similar visible blade (like PAK-FA) still that was better stealth.
3. Gap between engine: I am not sure how it affect RCS.
4. Cancard: I assume it increase RCS, But there whold be some way to counter it.


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Unless you meant to tell me that *you have a better sense of how J-20 performs* in meeting requirements than designer bureau of the aircraft, I am certainly going to trust someone working for the project and rightfully so.


No, I do not and I have consistently advised caution to *ANYONE*, critic or supporter, about the J-20 until there are more data. But when we more often than advised see claims from the Chinese side that practically defy the laws of physics and/or common sense, I have no problems stepping in to give the lay readers sources on basic principles upon which they could use to guard themselves against lies and deceptions. Sources that the J-20's supporters usually do not bring to the discussion.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Right...
> 
> 
> 
> The canard-delta-wing is a superior evolution? Wonder how could the Chinese explain the same configuration in the XB-70 Valkyrie nearly sixty years ago. This is from the same crowd who asserted that the J-20's all-moving vertical stabs are 'superior' to the classical rudder design despite nearly 100 years of aviation history that anyone can search and verify the absurdity of that assertion.




And perhaps they can explain how other research has indeed contemplated canards of different sizes, design, lift etc etc etc
and by complete and utter accident .. with vectored thrust !!! 







and perhaps a canard design is as old as planes almost 

XP-55





strange how X series planes do actually provide scientific information, isn't it ? !!!! 
1.33


----------



## below_freezing

Black Widow said:


> 1.DSI indeed reduces RCS.: Its myth and its already busted in the same Forum. Please come with Other Argument.
> 2. Open/Visible blade Increase RCS: Its also myth. YF23 had similar visible blade (like PAK-FA) still that was better stealth.
> 3. Gap between engine: I am not sure how it affect RCS.
> 4. Cancard: I assume it increase RCS, But there whold be some way to counter it.



gap between engine and fuselage: because gap is on order of centimeters comparable to wavelength of waves used in radar there may be constructive interference at some angles.

i dont know how you can say that engines blades dont contribute to RCS; even the super hornet uses engine blade blockers, are the designers dumb?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Two more flights today. THis makes it... I don't know... These flights are significant, however, since the J-20 and the JF-17 performed aerobatic maneuvers for Xi Jinping! Here are the pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## below_freezing

siegecrossbow said:


> Two more flights today. THis makes it... I don't know... These flights are significant, however, since the J-20 and the JF-17 performed aerobatic maneuvers for Xi Jinping! Here are the pictures.



 they're all photochops! fake chinese photochops! cant fly! copy of F-22, Mig-1.44, F-117 all at the same time!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chengdusudise



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## chengdusudise



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## chengdusudise



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

J20's flight pics yesterday

















weapon bay opened





all moving verticalfin





wing testing













&#25105;&#25830;&#65292;&#26368;&#36817;&#40657;&#19997;&#39134;&#30340;&#22826;&#30127;&#29378;&#20102;&#65292;&#36825;&#20004;&#22825;&#40657;&#19997;&#30340;&#22270;&#29255;&#22810;&#30340;&#25968;&#19981;&#36807;&#26469;&#65292;&#36148;&#19981;&#23436;&#20102;--&#12290;

omg,j20 flew too crazy recently.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

J20's flight pics yesterday

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

Today,J20 made two maneuverability performances.




















Today,J20 made two maneuverability performances.






















thx feiyang &#26426;&#22806;&#20572;&#36710;

thx feiyang &#26426;&#22806;&#20572;&#36710;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

Today,J20 made two maneuverability performances.
















thx feiyang dpchina







thx feiyang &#26426;&#22806;&#20572;&#36710;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

Well so much for secrecy. Isn't stuff like this suppose to be hush hush?


----------



## DARKY

amalakas said:


> strange how X series planes do actually provide scientific information, isn't it ? !!!!
> 1.33



Who cares when one can steal the data and hack some damn pentagon website....... aswell as capture some crashed planes.
And how dare you say such Things don't you realize Greeks have not performed space walks you can only talk against Chinese people when you have performed a space walks now run and come only after you have had a space walk.


----------



## siegecrossbow

CardSharp said:


> Well so much for secrecy. Isn't stuff like this suppose to be hush hush?



They are showing it off to the officials...


----------



## amalakas

DARKY said:


> Who cares when one can steal the data and hack some damn pentagon website....... aswell as capture some crashed planes.
> And how dare you say such Things don't you realize Greeks have not performed space walks you can only talk against Chinese people when you have performed a space walks now run and come only after you have had a space walk.



you are right, I am sorry... I will go home and try to start a space program and get a space walk


----------



## razgriz19

hmm i think they're testing the performence of the fly-by-wire system by pulling all those Gs.


----------



## below_freezing

I do not doubt the technical ability of this plane too much.

I doubt our ability to use it effectively.

As of now, our military command, especially our air force, seems to be more focused on how to prevent a military coup from happening, rather than on effectively defending Chinese airspace.

Seems to me like the Deng Xiaoping clique was nervous from the beginning. The Air Force is placed at the same level of importance as the useless General Political Department. A political commissar, not a soldier, represents the air force in the CMC.

"If the CPC becomes a party of capitalists, if it becomes a fake party of traitors, then it is no longer communism. This CPC would be far worse and far more cruel than the actual capitalists; they would become a party of fascists, and it is the duty of the people to destroy and smash such a traitorous CPC" - Mao Zedong


----------



## below_freezing

The USAF has no need to worry. Hu Jintao already sold this airplane's radar signature, full aspect RCS, names of subcontractors, designers, engineers, exact material used in coatings, etc. to the US in exchange for the US not harming his daughter. He wouldn't dare shoot down the plane of his son in law's country. You cannot even say something bad about his son in law's country, or you get sacked from the air force.

The imperialists never have to worry about the colonial slave states, especially when they have the 2nd strongest military in the world acting as the colonial police force.


----------



## amalakas

below_freezing said:


> The USAF has no need to worry. Hu Jintao already sold this airplane's radar signature, full aspect RCS, names of subcontractors, designers, engineers, exact material used in coatings, etc. to the US in exchange for the US not harming his daughter. He wouldn't dare shoot down the plane of his son in law's country. You cannot even say something bad about his son in law's country, or you get sacked from the air force.
> 
> The imperialists never have to worry about the colonial slave states, especially when they have the 2nd strongest military in the world acting as the colonial police force.



you seem bitter, what is up ? something wrong in relation to the Commanders in chief in china ?


----------



## below_freezing

amalakas said:


> you seem bitter, what is up ? something wrong in relation to the Commanders in chief in china ?



im serious. not bitter for saying that (though I am bitter). the reality is, no matter how good the J-20 is, it will be no match for the USAF, because the PLAAF is restricted by a backwards doctrine, backwards organization, and corruption. so the discussion of technical features is just on paper; the actual use of this plane is just to fly in airshows and serve as an engineering project to employ more people.


----------



## amalakas

below_freezing said:


> im serious. not bitter for saying that (though I am bitter). the reality is, no matter how good the J-20 is, it will be no match for the USAF, because the PLAAF is restricted by a backwards doctrine, backwards organization, and corruption. so the discussion of technical features is just on paper; the actual use of this plane is just to fly in airshows and serve as an engineering project to employ more people.



That's what I (and others) meant in some previous posts, but I didn't realise corruption is also an issue ... how so ?


----------



## ashokdeiva

below_freezing said:


> im serious. not bitter for saying that (though I am bitter). the reality is, no matter how good the J-20 is, it will be no match for the USAF, because the PLAAF is restricted by a backwards doctrine, backwards organization, and corruption. so the discussion of technical features is just on paper; the actual use of this plane is just to fly in airshows and serve as an engineering project to employ more people.



Come on man, I was personaly hoping that the J 20 was the plane of the future and you are giving me goose bumps to me by saying the above.
will Hu Jintao let down his country men for his daughter, I don't think so. Jiang Zamin was a wise man, how could he chosen a rotten apple as a successor as you accuse of him


----------



## below_freezing

ashokdeiva said:


> Come on man, I was personaly hoping that the J 20 was the plane of the future and you are giving me goose bumps to me by saying the above.
> will Hu Jintao let down his country men for his daughter, I don't think so. Jiang Zamin was a wise man, how could he chosen a rotten apple as a successor as you accuse of him



Jiang Zemin was one of the most corrupt bastard in the history of China. Hu is better than Jiang, sad huh?

J-20 might be a good plane but planes are only as good as their pilots, and pilots are only as good as their training and doctrine allow them to be.


----------



## S10

below_freezing said:


> The USAF has no need to worry. Hu Jintao already sold this airplane's radar signature, full aspect RCS, names of subcontractors, designers, engineers, exact material used in coatings, etc. to the US in exchange for the US not harming his daughter. He wouldn't dare shoot down the plane of his son in law's country. You cannot even say something bad about his son in law's country, or you get sacked from the air force.
> 
> The imperialists never have to worry about the colonial slave states, especially when they have the 2nd strongest military in the world acting as the colonial police force.


Okay your conspiracy theories were funny for a while, and now they're just becoming downright pathetic. You're like those idiots at Stormfront lamenting how Jews control America and selling it it. I guess all extremists are alike.


----------



## lmjiao

below_freezing said:


> Jiang Zemin was one of the most corrupt bastard in the history of China. Hu is better than Jiang, sad huh?
> 
> J-20 might be a good plane but planes are only as good as their pilots, and pilots are only as good as their training and doctrine allow them to be.



Please keep on topic.
If you have any confirmed information you can open a new thread if you like.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thorough Pro

Any idiot, sparing you, would know that Pentagon site will not have any aircraft designs. they should be with the aircraft manufacturers.




DARKY said:


> Who cares when one can steal the data and hack some damn pentagon website....... aswell as capture some crashed planes.
> And how dare you say such Things don't you realize Greeks have not performed space walks you can only talk against Chinese people when you have performed a space walks now run and come only after you have had a space walk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## no_name

below_freezing said:


> im serious. not bitter for saying that (though I am bitter). the reality is, no matter how good the J-20 is, it will be no match for the USAF, because the PLAAF is restricted by a backwards doctrine, backwards organization, and corruption. so the discussion of technical features is just on paper; the actual use of this plane is just to fly in airshows and serve as an engineering project to employ more people.



Hey, why the pessimistic tone all of a sudden. Just a few days ago you were still sounding defiant. You sure you don't have bi-polars? 


Btw lots of great pics. Was just down south for one day. They're testing her out more and also there are more sensor patches across her wings, back and tails for collecting data.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aimarraul

993e3.gif at Free Image Hosting

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## houshanghai

The Russians are getting jealous.That's because MIG 1.44 isn't stealth.

MiG denies stealth technology transfer to China for J-20 fighter

17:35 26/08/2011
MOSCOW, August 26 (RIA Novosti)
Related News

China's 5G fighter 'a showoff'
Photos of possible fifth-generation fighter appear on Chinese websites
China confirms maiden flight of fifth-generation fighter
Chinese websites claim fifth-generation fighter has made maiden flight

Multimedia

MiG: between Past and Future
The T-50 fifth-generation fighter
China&#8217;s air force woos customers with its J-10 fighter 

Russia has never transferred any stealth technology to China to assist it with its J-20 Black Eagle fifth-generation stealth fighter prototype, Russian plane maker MiG said on Friday.

"We are not delivering any equipment to China, and never have," MiG spokeswoman Yelena Fyodorova said.

MiG's statement follows claims in the Russian and foreign press last week that China's J-20, unveiled over six months ago, is based on technology and components from the Russian Mikoyan Article 1.44, a stealth technology demonstrator aircraft, development of which was suspended.

Some analysts say the aircraft have close similarities.

"The back end of the J-20 looks awfully like the 1.44, as does the overall layout with delta canards," said Douglas Barrie, an air warfare specialist at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.

"If it's a coincidence, it's a striking one. Russia may have provided technical support, but there is nothing substantial to prove that. China has however relied on Russia for much of its defense procurement for a decade and a half," he added.

China's J-20 Black Eagle is thought to be conceptually similar to the U.S. F-22 Raptor and the Russian T-50 jets, but is likely to be just a technology demonstrator or prototype rather than a viable fighter.

China has been working on a future fighter program since the mid-1990s, but the J-20 is not expected to enter service before 2018-2020.

Earlier in the month, Mikhail Pogosyan, the head of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation said that China's fifth-generation fighter program is more for effect than substance and branded the maiden flight as a "show-off."

China relied on the Soviet Union for much of its aviation technology until the Sino-Soviet split after 1961. China then carried on developing copies of Soviet and Russian aircraft.

Beijing also relies on Russian engines, radars and electronic components for many of its other aircraft, such as the JF-17 fighter it developed jointly with Pakistan.





---------- Post added at 07:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

China&#8217;s J-20 to be effective capability by 2018 - Pentagon


2011-08-27 (China Military News cited from flightglobal.com and by Greg Waldron) 



A Pentagon report has highlighted major advances by the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), with specific mention of the developmental Chengdu J-20 aircraft.
Washington believes the J-20 could achieve an "effective operational capability" by 2018, and suggests the aircraft's role is as not a fighter, but rather a long-range attack platform. It says engine technology is the main challenge China will face in developing the J-20.
The US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress, entitled "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China," covers all aspects of China's defence modernisation.

© Rex Features

"The J-20 will eventually give the People's Liberation Army Air Force a platform capable of long-range, penetrating strikes into complex air defense environments," said the report.
There has been debate in defence circles as to the exact role of the J-20. Some have speculated that it is intended as a direct rival to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter. Another popular theory indicates that it is designed specially for long-range attacks against American aircraft carriers and other targets.
One table in the report underlined the speed and scale of PLAAF modernisation over the last decade.
In 2000, around 2% of its platforms were considered modern, whereas today the number is 25%, with the force being filled out with types such as the Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30, as well as the Chengdu J-10.
The report indicated that most of China's modernisation efforts are aimed squarely at being able to prevail in a conflict over Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway province.
China has a total of 1,680 fighter aircraft, of which 330 are stationed within range of Taiwan, where they are opposed by Taiwan's fighter fleet of just 388 aircraft. As for bombers and attack aircraft, 160 are within range of Taiwan, out of a total of 620.
"Currently, 490 aircraft could conduct combat operations against Taiwan without refueling," said the report. "This number could be significantly increased through any combination of aircraft forward deployment, decreased ordnance loads or altered mission profiles."
A war over Taiwan could draw in the USA. Recognising this, China has developed new capabilities tailored for an "anti-access" strategy, aimed at delaying or preventing American intervention.
Links posted in this story:

China

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## teddy

Peoples keep saying china depends on russian component, it seems likely this could make them feels better.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Here is the gif.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## siegecrossbow

^^ Do you know how they made this? Did the cameraman actually snap the pictures in sequence or did some one just put all the photos taken by other people together?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> ^^ Do you know how they made this? Did the cameraman actually snap the pictures in sequence or did some one just put all the photos taken by other people together?



Definitely, an easy cheap way.

I think the middle of sequence is compiled together, the rest is taken by the camera.


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Definitely, an easy cheap way.
> 
> I think the middle of sequence is compiled together, the rest is taken by the camera.



If he could snap all those photos in sequence why not take a video . Anyways the GIF looks great.


----------



## DARKY

Thorough Pro said:


> Any idiot, sparing you, would know that Pentagon site will not have any aircraft designs. they should be with the aircraft manufacturers.



You proved beyond doubt..... the user always have the detailed analysis of the design, parts, blueprints of the product in case If it is manufactured by the the same country itself to understand the machine properly........ and train their pilots accordingly aswell as the maintenance staff.... so eagerly you jumped in to prove about yourself..... what difference it makes if its stealing the data from some user website or the manufacturer's website...... its stealing in the end.


----------



## akinkhoo

so they are carrying out air manoeuvres over populated area, something tells me that this is not the first time they did this... the project might be further along than we know...


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## April.lyrics

DARKY said:


> You proved beyond doubt..... the user always have the detailed analysis of the design, parts, blueprints of the product in case If it is manufactured by the the same country itself to understand the machine properly........ and train their pilots accordingly aswell as the maintenance staff.... so eagerly you jumped in to prove about yourself..... what difference it makes if its stealing the data from some user website or the manufacturer's website...... its stealing in the end.



I dont know where ur information about J20 come from&#65311;u said it is a copy.seems u r getting messages from more reliable places rather than websites&#65311;or just come from websites either.u said ' what difference it makes if its stealing the data from some user website or the manufacturer's website . ' now i am asking where u get that ? Stone on ur own feet

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


>



The actual roll was no where as fast lol.

Take a look at this. Looking familiar?






Huzhigeng commenting on Russian involvement in the J-20 project:

&#21335;&#22235;&#25220;&#34989;I44&#26159;&#27809;&#24433;&#30340;&#20107;&#24773;&#12290;&#20294;&#26159;611&#30830;&#23454;&#21644;&#31859;&#26684;&#20851;&#31995;&#19981;&#38169;&#12290;&#24456;&#20037;&#20197;&#21069;611&#20174;&#27611;&#23376;&#37027;&#37324;&#20063;&#23398;&#21040;&#20102;&#24456;&#22810;&#26377;&#29992;&#30340;&#19996;&#35199;&#12290;&#27516;20&#30830;&#23454;&#26377;&#27611;&#23376;&#30340;&#21151;&#21171;&#65292;&#27604;&#22914;611&#30340;&#27611;&#23376;&#19987;&#23478;&#23601;&#19981;&#26159;&#20154;&#20102;&#65311;&#21621;&#21621;&#12290;&#24403;&#24180;&#21457;&#22270;&#23601;&#30475;&#21040;&#22909;&#20960;&#20010;&#12290;

The J-20 definitely did not copy the MIG 1.44. However the 611 research facility has good relations with the MIG corporation. A long time ago 611 learned very important stuff from the Russians as well. The Russians did contribute to the development of the J-20. Take the Russian experts at 611, for example. We've seen quite a few in past photos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## J-20

April.lyrics said:


> I dont know where ur information about J20 come from&#65311;u said it is a copy.seems u r getting messages from more reliable places rather than websites&#65311;or just come from websites either.u said ' what difference it makes if its stealing the data from some user website or the manufacturer's website . ' now i am asking where u get that ? Stone on ur own feet



whatever... sitting on LCA, shouting we stealing J-20 from others, laughable enough. Indian people, keep on your innovative work on LCA....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Xracer2

Right Bro 


J-20 said:


> whatever... sitting on LCA, shouting we stealing J-20 from others, laughable enough. Indian people, keep on your innovative work on LCA....


----------



## houshanghai

chinese newspaper

---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------







---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

thx rx8800

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## qing

Ah so advanced, the time to go see

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Broccoli



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------







---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

We need more Chinese officials visiting the CAC facility...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## razgriz19



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## razgriz19



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Broccoli

Opening weapon bay doors. 
J20 opened weapon-bays, 8

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

................................


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

amalakas said:


> aaaaaaaaaaaaaa My friend the aerospace engineer.... tell me you engineer you...
> 
> do you remember this ?
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=6[COLOR="#FF0000"]]I asked you a while back ...
> 
> you still haven't answered.. I am still waiting...[/[/COLOR]SIZE]
> 
> 
> COLOR="Silver"]
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 AM ----------
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> ....






########################################################



To answer your question very easy!!!!!!

1. PM phase margin. CL closed loop system.

To find the phase margin you can use many ways, root locus is useful to determine if the system is stable. I use MATLAB to do that, so easy. But the best way is to use frequency response method. Use the bode plot, MATLAB dose it all!!! However, your question is very very foolish to even ask. 

Finding out the phase margin and gain margin these things are for linear systems only, you can linearlize the nonlinear system but 90% of the time you CAN NOT!!!! So you need much more advanced method!!! lol

I bet you greeks have no idea right?? Otherwise you will not even ask me such a simple question!!!

WELL LET ME show you white greek europeans how to do it then!!!!

The controls I do is far more complex. I am a dynamics system enginneer. I model complex solid model and then use dynamic modeling to obtain differential equations.


I am expert at Solid Works but now using Pro-E, because raytheon uses Pro-E. First I draw the model using Pro-E. I am also now an expert at FEA( Finite Element Analysis). I input my solid work or Pro e model into ABAQUS or NASTRAN to do stress analysis!!
Again stress analysis has nothing to do with control. But it is also part of my work!!

Now for advanced control!!

1. Use hamaliton method as well as lagraguage method get the equation of motion. It is of course nonlinear!!! 
2. Then use laponov method tp determine stability!!!!!
3. Then apply non linear control theory to design and analysis the system.
4. I also write code in C language to implement my control design.

You are just a moron, aske me some baby questions and you think you are an engineer??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Hers is a good joke:


A very very lame, dumb greek guy with premitive brain functioning thinks that he is really smart. So one day he decided to challenge Issac Newton, he sees Newton and asks:" Hey Newton, 1+1 equal what"?

Newtwon anserwed: " *What do you think it should equal*."



Seriously man, if you want do know that PM is just google it.

You live in greece or sweden right? I am sure you can afford a cheap computer and internet. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Hers is a good joke:
> 
> 
> A very very lame, dumb greek guy with premitive brain functioning thinks that he is really smart. So one day he decided to challenge Issac Newton, he sees Newton and asks:" Hey Newton, 1+1 equal what"?
> 
> Newtwon anserwed: " *What do you think it should equal*."
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously man, if you want do know that PM is just google it.
> 
> You live in greece or sweden right? I am sure you can afford a cheap computer and internet. lol




Here's a joke, you still haven't answered.... 

You answered with info foundation -(pre university) students know, and tools found mostly in all university laboratories. Not to mention that ProE and Nastran are mostly Mech. Eng. tools. But anyway, lets see past that. 

So what PM would a decent engineer such as you allow for a system in such a case.. ?? this is an answer most control engineers know, by experience ... so what is it ?

if you are such an advanced engineer (wow) that you simply don't remember, ask some of your raytheon buddies .. they will still remember .. even if you claim you don't ... 

oh i forgot to say .. lol, because lol makes everything better ..right?


----------



## razgriz19

close up of the engine nozzles

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zhang2011

Support China!


----------



## no_name

razgriz19 said:


> close up of the engine nozzles



If you look closely the serration edges seems to be simply painted on.

However they might really intends for a serration design with new engines.


----------



## houshanghai

celebrate August 1, anniversary 2011&#8212;&#8212;J-20 pt01&#65292; JF-17 pt06&#65292;J-10B pt05 &#65288;WS10B&#65289;&#65292;Flight Testing* HD1080p version* 

thx himitechworld

original chinese youku link;

J20 J10

thx &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

no_name said:


> If you look closely *the serration edges seems to be simply painted on.*
> 
> However they might really intends for a serration design with new engines.



I doubt it is painted because the extreme heat will burnt the paint away. Also what is the purpose of painting the serration edges?


----------



## no_name

It may have be plated, who knows, but you can already see some triangles blurred in that photo, also lines from the engine nozzle flap/seal/what you call it is running though the middle. Lastly they mismatch with the silver plates behind.


----------



## mymeaningislion

no_name said:


> It may have be plated, who knows, but you can already see some triangles blurred in that photo, also lines from the engine nozzle flap/seal/what you call it is running though the middle. Lastly they mismatch with the silver plates behind.




BRO GO TO EYE SPECIALIST


----------



## amalakas

mymeaningislion said:


> BRO GO TO EYE SPECIALIST



They do LOOK painted on, perhaps the photo is not very high quality. there seems to be no real edge where there should be. 

But AGAIN, it looks that way.. we are just commenting on a photo..not reality ..


----------



## no_name

mymeaningislion said:


> BRO GO TO EYE SPECIALIST



Well I appreciate your support for china, it may have blinded you to something that is obvious even to fellow chinese members, if you ask around.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

I look at it this way. If the plane could perform decently with underpowered AL-31 engines, imagine what it could do with WS-15.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

It would be funny if Chinese also can do vertical landing


----------



## DARKY

siegecrossbow said:


> I look at it this way. If the plane could perform decently with underpowered AL-31 engines, imagine what it could do with WS-15.



The maneuver performed are just simple rolls to change the angle..... most probably used in airshows and to land the plane in constrained environments quickly without taking a long loop....... the performance of the plane with that half roll.... has to be attributed to those large pair of canard fore planes which makes its turning radius smaller and eye pleasing.... however it has little or NO significance to air combats in all aspects..... the best such rolls could do is to make the plane land quickly and get applause from the audience in some air shows..... the real performance worthwhile for air combat could be only seen with a larger engine with higher thrust levels.... enabling maneuvers at near supersonic speeds.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------




AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> It would be *funny* if Chinese also can do vertical landing



Do we have some circus going on in Chengdu ??


----------



## monitor

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> It would be funny if Chinese also can do vertical landing


 
It will take china year to do that even America haven't induct it vertical landing F-35B just the prototype tested so far i know .


----------



## TaimiKhan

houshanghai said:


>


 
Nice videos, good to see all the 3 major fighters jets in action, hope they all get inducted. 

The video shows the take off speed of all the jets and gives us a pretty good idea of their landing and take off characteristic. 


One thing which is bothering me and wanna clarify from the Chinese members, that J-20 when took off, the after burner stage was showing blue flame, while the J-10B when taking off had red flame. Since the J-20had those silver color engine nozzles, suggesting they are the Chinese variant of WS-10 series engine, while J-1-B also had the WS-10A engine most probably. So if both engines are of WS-10 series, then why different colored flames at the after burning stage, plus why the difference between the engine nozzles of the same engine with just being different variants.

Or is the J-20 in picture flying with Russian AL series of engine ?? Since the blue flame at the time of afterburner is seen in AL-series engines and the nozzle also is very much similar to the AL-series engine. 

Clarification plzzzz. Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Anyone knows when these photos were taken?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## krash

DARKY said:


> The maneuver performed are just simple rolls to change the angle..... most probably used in airshows and to land the plane in constrained environments quickly without taking a long loop....... the performance of the plane with that half roll.... has to be attributed to those large pair of canard fore planes which makes its turning radius smaller and eye pleasing.... however it has little or NO significance to air combats in all aspects..... the best such rolls could do is to make the plane land quickly and get applause from the audience in some air shows..... the real performance worthwhile for air combat could be only seen with a larger engine with higher thrust levels.... enabling maneuvers at near supersonic speeds.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have some circus going on in Chengdu ??



Wait so what your saying is that shorter turning radius is useless in air combat..........? Brova mate bravo...... Wonder what the TVC on your MKIs is good for.....


----------



## SQ8

krash said:


> Wait so what your saying is that shorter turning radius is useless in air combat..........? Brova mate bravo...... Wonder what the TVC on your MKIs is good for.....



Rules for the MKI, the LCA, and MMCRA , the FGFA and anything has has to fly with an Indian flag are separate from the rest of the aviation world.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

TaimiKhan said:


> Nice videos, good to see all the 3 major fighters jets in action, hope they all get inducted.
> 
> The video shows the take off speed of all the jets and gives us a pretty good idea of their landing and take off characteristic.
> 
> 
> One thing which is bothering me and wanna clarify from the Chinese members, that J-20 when took off, the after burner stage was showing blue flame, while the J-10B when taking off had red flame. Since the J-20had those silver color engine nozzles, suggesting they are the Chinese variant of WS-10 series engine, while J-1-B also had the WS-10A engine most probably. So if both engines are of WS-10 series, then why different colored flames at the after burning stage, plus why the difference between the engine nozzles of the same engine with just being different variants.
> 
> Or is the J-20 in picture flying with Russian AL series of engine ?? Since the blue flame at the time of afterburner is seen in AL-series engines and the nozzle also is very much similar to the AL-series engine.
> 
> Clarification plzzzz. Thanks



The J-20 engine is the prototype of WS-15 according to some insiders, but we will see it later what it is exactly.

And the blue flame isn't exclusively among the Russian engine.


Here is the F-135 engine.







The WS-10 engine can produce the blue flame as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DARKY

krash said:


> Wait so what your saying is that shorter turning radius is useless in air combat..........? Brova mate bravo...... Wonder what the TVC on your MKIs is good for.....



Look at the speed at which the plane takes the roll..... and notice the speed of an MKI when it takes such a roll..... what I was trying to point out is the engine is still insufficient.... in providing adequate thrust for such a plane..... while design features also come into play as the pilot sitting in a EF2000 will be less reluctant to make a quick roll using TVC while a pilot in a flanker would do it at ease.... cause of this difference is the separation between engines.... however in a do or die situation no one thinks twice.


----------



## DARKY

TaimiKhan said:


> Nice videos, good to see all the 3 major fighters jets in action, hope they all get inducted.
> 
> The video shows the take off speed of all the jets and gives us a pretty good idea of their landing and take off characteristic.
> 
> 
> One thing which is bothering me and wanna clarify from the Chinese members, that J-20 when took off, the after burner stage was showing blue flame, while the J-10B when taking off had red flame. Since the J-20had those silver color engine nozzles, suggesting they are the Chinese variant of WS-10 series engine, while J-1-B also had the WS-10A engine most probably. So if both engines are of WS-10 series, then why different colored flames at the after burning stage, plus why the difference between the engine nozzles of the same engine with just being different variants.
> 
> Or is the J-20 in picture flying with Russian AL series of engine ?? Since the blue flame at the time of afterburner is seen in AL-series engines and the nozzle also is very much similar to the AL-series engine.
> 
> Clarification plzzzz. Thanks



The difference in the color of flames while in AB mode can be due to many factors..... one of the most common is the condition of lighting on the flame while the video or snap is taken.... an engine flame can appear of different color during different lighting conditions..... In case you could also see a pink or a violet flame from an engine.....

Now on condition that the light condition is common for all three engines the flame with longer wavelength or moving towards red would denote a lower core temperature as compared to that of the ones moving towards blue color in the visible spectrum.... aswell as the carbon content burnout.... the redder the flame more carbon content it has in the fuel.

If you have seen the earlier models of the AL-31 engines or Kimov engines they also showed red flame chareteristics.... which is now not seen in newer AL-31s and RD-33s.


ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20 engine is the prototype of WS-15 according to some insiders, but we will see it later what it is exactly.
> 
> And the blue flame isn't exclusively among the Russian engine.
> 
> 
> Here is the F-135 engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WS-10 engine can produce the blue flame as well.



That engine in J-20 1st prototype is the WS-10 variant probably WS-10G as mentioned a hundred times by you aswell as your counterparts now how does that become WS-15 prototype ??..... or is WS-15 based on WS-10 and not a new technology ??


----------



## S10

DARKY said:


> The difference in the color of flames while in AB mode can be due to many factors..... one of the most common is the condition of lighting on the flame while the video or snap is taken.... an engine flame can appear of different color during different lighting conditions..... In case you could also see a pink or a violet flame from an engine.....
> 
> Now on condition that the light condition is common for all three engines the flame with longer wavelength or moving towards red would denote a lower core temperature as compared to that of the ones moving towards blue color in the visible spectrum.... aswell as the carbon content burnout.... the redder the flame more carbon content it has in the fuel.
> 
> If you have seen the earlier models of the AL-31 engines or Kimov engines they also showed red flame chareteristics.... which is now not seen in newer AL-31s and RD-33s.
> 
> 
> That engine in J-20 1st prototype is the WS-10 variant probably WS-10G as mentioned a hundred times by you aswell as your counterparts now how does that become WS-15 prototype ??..... or is WS-15 based on WS-10 and not a new technology ??


WS-15 is a completely new design from WS-10, not its evolution. WS-10's fundamental design was based on American CFM56 (F108), with elements from AL-31F.

There's still a great deal of debates regarding the current engines on J-20 prototypes in China. Most people think it's AL-31FN though. WS-10 is still a maturing design, and I don't think they would take the extra risk putting it on such an expensive and important prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

Why doesn't J-20 has IRST, while we see them on J-11, J-15, J-10, and will be added to JF-17's as well


----------



## houshanghai

mafiya said:


> Why doesn't J-20 has IRST, while we see them on J-11, J-15, J-10, and will be added to JF-17's as well



J20 will have EODAS like f35,no need IRST.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

houshanghai said:


> J20 will have EODAS like f35,no need IRST.



I do hope you realize that the EODAS is comprised of an IRST. And you have a source for your claim?


----------



## houshanghai

ptldM3 said:


> I do hope you realize that the EODAS is comprised of an IRST. And you have a source for your claim?



i know it........


sorry , only have chinese source now. 

link:
ÈñÀûÓ¥ÑÛ-Ç³Îö¼ß-20µÄ·Ö²¼Ê½¹âµçÏµÍ³ - ¿Õ¾ü°æ - ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³


chinese official link about EADOS

º½¿Õ»úÔØ¹âµçÁìÓòµÄ¿ªÍØÕß¡ª¡ª¼ÇÖÐº½¹¤Òµ¹âµçËùËù³¤ÖúÀí¡¢Ê×Ï¯×¨¼Ò³µºê_º½¿ÕÈËÎï_ÖÐ¹úº½¿ÕÐÂÎÅÍø

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

> houshanghai said:
> 
> 
> 
> J20 will have *EODAS like f35*,no need IRST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptldM3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do hope you *realize* that the EODAS is comprised of an IRST. And you have a source for your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

These guys generally do not so 'realize'. They made so many such claims -- before I set their arguments straight -- that it is expected to see such gross technical errors. They made these claims to appear knowledgeable, not that they bothered to do any research even when the public domain is filled with convenient information...

Avionics Magazine :: F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection


> Although the RF-based EW system and *infrared (IR) -based EODAS* system are built to run separately in different frequency domains, they are tied together at the ICP level.


But then again, if China decided not to include infrared into any sensor integration processes and display, I say go for it.


----------



## houshanghai

gambit said:


> These guys generally do not so 'realize'. They made so many such claims -- before I set their arguments straight -- that it is expected to see such gross technical errors. They made these claims to appear knowledgeable, not that they bothered to do any research even when the public domain is filled with convenient information...
> 
> Avionics Magazine :: F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection
> But then again, if China decided not to include infrared into any sensor integration processes and display, I say go for it.



my means that J20 havet protuberance bump of IRST in the nose like f35 .you misunderstand me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Broccoli

Real or fake?


----------



## S10

mafiya said:


> Why doesn't J-20 has IRST, while we see them on J-11, J-15, J-10, and will be added to JF-17's as well


Right now there are only two prototypes, 2001 and 2002. There is a third one for static stress testing. The first two are meant for basic flight tests, with basic avionics and no radar installed. Prototype 2003 will be the one that features full avionics suite, including a system similar to EODAS. That one will be unveiled in 2013.


----------



## no_name

Broccoli said:


> Real or fake?



Most likely dubious, like they have the time or felt the need for you to take a pic of your girl next to the thing.


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> Most likely dubious, like they have the time or felt the need for you to take a pic of your girl next to the thing.



It does look as if they threw a blanket over it though...


----------



## akinkhoo

S10 said:


> That one will be unveiled in 2013.


WTF, they haven't even technically unveiled 2001... that is the wrong word to use...


----------



## Broccoli

This is supposedly pic of chinese (of course could be fake/from other country) 2D nozzles. 




Looks very similar to ones what americans tested in F-15 Active. 



McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## no_name

^^^ That was reportedly tested around 1995, which is prob. around the time US started test flying F-22s with 2D TVC.

They do stuff to stay relevant in the field.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## razgriz19

RUSSIAN MEDIA SAID J-20 SIMULATED A BOMB DROPPING RUN!!


----------



## S10

razgriz19 said:


> RUSSIAN MEDIA SAID J-20 SIMULATED A BOMB DROPPING RUN!!


Fake.

That is all.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

razgriz19 said:


> RUSSIAN MEDIA SAID J-20 SIMULATED A BOMB DROPPING RUN!!



Rx8800 should be proud... He wished to fool Pinkov but now it appears that he managed to fool both the Russian media and Aviation Week...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

J20's canards are differential moving in wing test

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Broccoli



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

2 OLD PICS OF CHINESE TVC IN 90S

CHINESE 2D TVC 





CHINESE 3D TVC

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

J-20 with landing gear doors closed, along with a F-22 for comparison.


----------



## Bratva

j20blackdragon said:


> J-20 with landing gear doors closed, along with a F-22 for comparison.



Any news about china making serpentile type of WS-15 like F-22 have?


----------



## aimarraul

?20???????? -???? - ?????????????

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

chinese 3D TVC nozzles gif

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## April.lyrics

houshanghai said:


> chinese 3D TVC nozzles gif


 
Yoooooooooo~....

that movement looks sexy....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Broccoli

It's a clip from F-16 documentary. 

2:14
General Dynamics NF-16 VISTA - YouTube


----------



## houshanghai

Broccoli said:


> It's a clip from F-16 documentary.
> 
> 2:14
> General Dynamics NF-16 VISTA - YouTube



damn ccav......

It seems as if chinese 3D tvc nozzle learn from USA's version.not russian version.

WS15 engine will be a 3d tvc nozzle by the rumor . i can hardly wait to see the ws15 engine's tvc nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## April.lyrics

excuse me,what is the defference between USA's and russia's?


----------



## houshanghai

April.lyrics said:


> excuse me,what is the defference between USA's and russia's?



USA's TVC nozzle offers greater sensitivity, longer endurance and lighter weight
Now,no one knows what is J20's TVC nozzle like.but most people think j20 will have a all-aspect TVC nozzle.and not a flat 2D TVC nozzles like F22. 
Every thing is a speculation now,that&#8217;s all. 
However, one thing is certain.TVC has been studied by chinese engineers for many years.Nowadays, the chinese TVC technology has become mature.maybe a special and pure nozzle of China. Who knows....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

*The real J20's grandpa and j10's father,CAC J9 (had been canceled)*


*CAC J9 twin vertical stabilizers concept *






















*CAC J9 single vertical tail concept*

















Chengdu J-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

houshanghai said:


> * USA's TVC nozzle offers greater sensitivity, longer endurance and lighter weight*Now,no one knows what is J20's TVC nozzle like.but most people think j20 will have a all-aspect TVC nozzle.and not a flat 2D TVC nozzles like F22.
> Every thing is a speculation now,that&#8217;s all.
> However, one thing is certain.TVC has been studied by chinese engineers for many years.Nowadays, the chinese TVC technology has become mature.maybe a special and pure nozzle of China. Who knows....



And your source is?


----------



## houshanghai

Needless to ask this question?every knows this,
USA TVC keep a technical step ahead in world,Russia TVC technology is second.


----------



## ptldM3

houshanghai said:


> Needless to ask this question?every knows this,
> USA TVC keep a technical step ahead in world,Russia TVC technology is second.



Stop making up claims, just because you say so does not make it true. In China do opinions equate to facts? So explain this 'sensitivity', give us the 'endurance' figures and post the weights, otherwise don't speak of things you have no knowledge of.

Without making this into a competition or picking sides lets examine a few things, Firstly:

US experimental TVC aircraft were all 1980's to early 1990's era aircraft which relied on fly-by-wire/computers from that era, the F-22's TVC was conceived sometime in the 1990's and is limited to the pitch axis, what we know about the F-22 is that it has a quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire system. Comparing that to something like the SU-35BM reveals that the SU-35BM also has a quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire system although slightly newer by a about a decade or more. Other than that the SU-35 features a 3 devotional axis that allows for the nozzles to fluxuate aka propelling nozzles. Looking at the F-22's and SU-35's fly-by-wire systems I can't tell which one is better, I do not know how you came to your conclusion about which is better, more interestingly i do not know where or how you got your sensitivity and endurance let alone your weight information from, oh i remember you pulled those figures out of thin air.

In terms of 3 dimensional TVC, the US has not done much in the past 20 year while Russia has at least 3 new platforms (SU-35BM, Mig-29 OVT, pak-fa) and many older platforms such as SU-37, SU-30 (variants), SU-47 and a few VSTOL platforms which aren&#8217;t in the same class as the other aircraft but nevertheless they are TVC aircraft. When it comes down to TVC Russia has more experience than anyone.



Your comments are empty opinions based on....well nothing, this is very typical amongst the J-20 crowed. 

You made a claim that China has 'learn from USA's version.not russian version.' Whatever that means, yet than you claimed that the J-20 would have '3d TVC' , whatever you meant it was silly considering the US operates flat pitch axis nozzles. Moreover US and Russian 3 dimensional TVC rely on similar principles, and the US 3 dimensional nozzle program is about 20 years old. In the end you not only managed to disregard all the achievements and experience Russia has had with TVC but you also managed to look silly. Bravo&#8230;bravo&#8230;hands clapping&#8230;.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

US engines on F-22&F-35A/C seems to be more reliable.

about russian engines,of course they should be better than china's.but compared with america's....

seems both of the T50s on MAKS2011 meet engine problems.this made me doubt whether they r better than america's


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

April.lyrics said:


> US engines on F-22&F-35A/C seems to be more reliable.
> 
> about russian engines,of course they should be better than china's.but compared with america's....
> 
> seems both of the T50s on MAKS2011 meet engine problems.this made me doubt whether they r better than america's



If the Russian engine is better, then we should use it in our J-20.

The AL-31 is crap btw.


----------



## deep.ocean

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If the Russian engine is better, then we should use it in our J-20.
> 
> The AL-31 is crap btw.


So are you using American Engines for J-20?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

deep.ocean said:


> So are you using American Engines for J-20?



It could be the Indian engine if you wish.


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If the Russian engine is better, then we should use it in our J-20.
> 
> *The AL-31 is crap btw*.



That didn't stop you from recently ordering a large batch.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> That didn't stop you from recently ordering a large batch.



It was for our old J-10A and J-11A, since they were designed to be equipped with your engine.

However, the quality of your AL-31 is too subpar to be the engine of our much more superior J-10B and J-11B.

Once J-10A and J-11A are out of the service, then you will probably not see PLAAF operating your jet engines anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deep.ocean

ptldM3 said:


> That didn't stop you from recently ordering a large batch.


Don't you know they generally import crap items and make them world class items by Reverse Enginnering... 
We have plenty of examples Chinese innvation and creation..Don't we..


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

houshanghai said:


> *The real J20's grandpa and j10's father,CAC J9 (had been canceled)*
> 
> 
> *CAC J9 twin vertical stabilizers concept *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CAC J9 single vertical tail concept*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chengdu J-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Most likely this is the biological father of both J-10 and J-20, since J-10 is the older brother of J-20, not father.


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It was for our old J-10A and J-11A, since they were designed to be equipped with your engine.





If Chinese designer made the WS-10 incompatible with the early J-10's and J-11's than they are simply fools. Why oh why wouldn't engineers want to make the WS-10 compatible with J-10A's and J-11A's so that they can simply replace the Russian engines when their life cycle is through instead of relying on Russian engines for the next decade or more? Fail.

They didn't think that one through did they? Or perhaps you just made up that claim? So which one is it? Are Chinese engineers that incompetent or did you just lie?






ChineseTiger1986 said:


> However, the quality of your AL-31 is too subpar to be the engine of our much more superior J-10B and J-11B.






Yea because the WS-10 is of the highest quality  the WS-10 program has been plagued with quality issues.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> If Chinese designer made the WS-10 incompatible with the early J-10's and J-11's than they are simply fools. Why oh why wouldn't engineers want to make the WS-10 compatible with J-10A's and J-11A's so that they can simply replace the Russian engines when their life cycle is through?
> 
> They didn't think that one through did they? Or perhaps you just made up that claim? So which one is it? Are Chinese engineers that incompetent or did you just lie?



The WS-10 engine was successful back in 2005, whereas J-11A entered in service back 1999 and J-10A in 2003.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> Yea because the WS-10 is of the highest quality  the WS-10 program has been plagued with quality issues.



Yeah, the usage WS-10 has became more and more popular as they just install it to naval aircraft like J-15 and single engined aircraft like J-10B.

And this means they have so many issues with it, meanwhile India's Kaveri is so successful as the whole program just got terminated. What a wonderful logic you just provided here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10 engine was successful back in 2005, whereas J-11A entered in service back 1999 and J-10A in 2003.



Clearing some bench tests does not make an engine successful, Chinese pilots complained of performance issues back in 2007 and even as recently as 2009 Lin Zuoming stated that the WS-10 had quality issues. Regardless of when the WS-10 entered service the production line of both the J-11A and J-10A lasted *years beyond their introductory dates.*


In total China operates over 200 J-10A's and J-11A's, one has to not only factor in time between overhauls TBO but also engine life and lets not forget that the J-11 uses 2 engines. Both the J-10A and J-11A will remain in service for a long time likely at least a decade.

So again, were Chinese engineers that incompetent and foolish to make the WS-10 incompatible with J-10A's and J-11A's? What is even the point of making the engine incompatible? If they were smart they would make all their engines universal so that when a J-10A's or J-11A's engines are due to be replaced they can replace them with Chinese made ones that are likely cheaper than the imported Al-31 counterparts. Again assuming that what you said is true, the incompetence level at Shenyang is at a fever pitch.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> Clearing some bench tests does not make an engine successful, Chinese pilots complained of performance issues back in 2007 and even as recently as 2009 Lin Zuoming stated that the WS-10 had quality issues. Regardless of when the WS-10 entered service the production line of both the J-11A and J-10A lasted *years beyond their introductory dates.*
> 
> 
> In total China operates over 200 J-10A's and J-11A's, one has to not only factor in time between overhauls TBO but also engine life and lets not forget that the J-11 uses 2 engines. Both the J-10A and J-11A will remain in service for a long time likely at least a decade.
> 
> So again, were Chinese engineers that incompetent and foolish to make the WS-10 incompatible with J-10A's and J-11A's? What is even the point of making the engine incompatible? If they were smart they would make all their engines universal so that when a J-10A's or J-11A's engines are due to be replaced they can replace them with Chinese made ones that are likely cheaper than the imported Al-31 counterparts. Again assuming that what you said is true, the incompetence level at Shenyang is at a fever pitch.



The report by Mr.Lin back in April 2009 was about few minor issues when WS-10 was producing in large quantity.

This is due the corruption of a director from one particular factory. Afterall we just caught that muthafcker few months later and shot him in the head.

Overall nothing big issues happened to WS-10, since its design is nearly flawless. There was one crash of J-11B that happened few years ago, but the failure had nothing to do with WS-10.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

And since WS-10 and AL-31 are totally unrelated to each other, they have different size/length/diameter.

You certainly cannot fit WS-10 into J-11A when it was designed to fit with AL-31, a engine with totally diffrent size.

Unless you have to redesign J-11A, which will waste more money to modify the older aircraft.

The J-10B with a golden Taihang engine is in fact a naval J-10C, since the real J-10B was designed many years ago to fit with AL-31FN.


----------



## April.lyrics

all we need is time.we dont need to debate on ws-10 or al-31f.we dont have the detail data.

but we have time.ALL we need is to see how many PLAF engines will be used on chinese fighters.

but i have heard Russian engines' life time is short compared with American's.i heard russian fighters such as Su-27 or else need 3 or 4 pair of engines during its life time.while americans such as F15/F16 just need the original one. is it true?

if this is true.Those AL-31Fs we bought several days ago maybe a store for future use.

but WS-10 still can not be large-scale equiped. 

PS:forgive my chineseway english~~i would like to talk about this in mother language.many of my opinion can not be expressed well


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The report by Mr.Lin back in April 2009 was about few minor issues when WS-10 was producing in large quantity.




There is zero room, absolutely zero room for any issues in an engine design, minor or not, the slightest imperfection with the compressor blades could cause a catastrophic failure, a loose screw or loose faulty gasket can also cause a catastrophic failure.





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This is due the corruption of a director from one particular factory. Now we just caught this fcker few months later and shot him in the head.





And what was he guilty of? An engines quality is only as good as its manufacturing process allows it to be, meaning if you have precision machinery you will have precise components. If you have employees with the latest tools you will have the best quality, meaning that instead of traditional wrenches you give them torque wrenches which will allow for precise torque specifications.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

April.lyrics said:


> all we need is time.we dont need to debate on ws-10 or al-31f.we dont have the detail data.
> 
> but we have time.ALL we need is to see how many PLAF engines will be used on chinese fighters.
> 
> but i have heard Russian engines' life time is short compared with American's.i heard russian fighters such as Su-27 or else need 3 or 4 pair of engines during its life time.while americans such as F15/F16 just need the original one. is it true?
> 
> if this is true.Those AL-31Fs we bought several days ago maybe a store for future use.
> 
> but WS-10 still can not be large-scale equiped.
> 
> PS:forgive my chineseway english~~i would like to talk about this in mother language.many of my opinion can not be expressed well



More than hundred J-11B have all equipped with WS-10A, later J-15/J-10B/J-10C, so this is still not good enough for you?

&#22826;&#34892;&#20960;&#24180;&#21069;&#23601;&#34892;&#20102;&#65292;&#21482;&#19981;&#36807;&#34987;&#35199;&#26041;&#23186;&#20307;&#21644;&#22269;&#20869;&#19968;&#20123;&#31070;&#26829;&#23567;&#30333;&#32473;&#19981;&#26029;&#30340;&#25273;&#40657;&#32780;&#24050;


----------



## April.lyrics

&#36825;&#20010;&#25105;&#20498;&#26159;&#19981;&#28165;&#26970;&#12290;&#25105;&#21482;&#26159;&#21548;&#35828;&#27516;15&#27979;&#35797;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;&#29992;&#30340;&#22826;&#34892;&#65292;&#27516;&#21313;B&#20063;&#22312;&#29992;&#22826;&#34892;&#27979;&#35797;&#12290;&#36824;&#26377;&#23601;&#26159;&#30475;&#21040;&#26377;&#35013;&#22791;&#22826;&#34892;&#30340;&#27516;11&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#21482;&#30475;&#21040;&#19968;&#26550;&#12290;&#25105;&#24819;&#35201;&#24819;&#30830;&#23450;&#22826;&#34892;&#26159;&#21542;&#30495;&#30340;&#25104;&#21151;&#20102;&#65292;&#36824;&#24471;&#30475;&#26159;&#21542;&#26377;&#25972;&#25209;&#27425;&#35013;&#22791;&#23427;&#30340;&#25112;&#26007;&#26426;&#21543;&#12290;&#19981;&#36807;&#27611;&#23376;&#35828;&#30340;&#38382;&#39064;&#20063;&#26159;&#65292;&#21069;&#19968;&#27573;&#26102;&#38388;&#36827;&#21475;&#30340;&#37027;&#25209;AL31&#26159;&#32473;&#27516;&#21313;&#29992;&#30340;&#65311;&#26032;&#25209;&#27425;&#30340;&#27516;&#21313;&#36824;&#26159;&#29992;&#26469;&#20648;&#22791;&#26356;&#25442;&#26087;&#25209;&#27425;&#30340;&#65311;


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

April.lyrics said:


> &#36825;&#20010;&#25105;&#20498;&#26159;&#19981;&#28165;&#26970;&#12290;&#25105;&#21482;&#26159;&#21548;&#35828;&#27516;15&#27979;&#35797;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;&#29992;&#30340;&#22826;&#34892;&#65292;&#27516;&#21313;B&#20063;&#22312;&#29992;&#22826;&#34892;&#27979;&#35797;&#12290;&#36824;&#26377;&#23601;&#26159;&#30475;&#21040;&#26377;&#35013;&#22791;&#22826;&#34892;&#30340;&#27516;11&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#21482;&#30475;&#21040;&#19968;&#26550;&#12290;&#25105;&#24819;&#35201;&#24819;&#30830;&#23450;&#22826;&#34892;&#26159;&#21542;&#30495;&#30340;&#25104;&#21151;&#20102;&#65292;&#36824;&#24471;&#30475;&#26159;&#21542;&#26377;&#25972;&#25209;&#27425;&#35013;&#22791;&#23427;&#30340;&#25112;&#26007;&#26426;&#21543;&#12290;&#19981;&#36807;&#27611;&#23376;&#35828;&#30340;&#38382;&#39064;&#20063;&#26159;&#65292;&#21069;&#19968;&#27573;&#26102;&#38388;&#36827;&#21475;&#30340;&#37027;&#25209;AL31&#26159;&#32473;&#27516;&#21313;&#29992;&#30340;&#65311;&#26032;&#25209;&#27425;&#30340;&#27516;&#21313;&#36824;&#26159;&#29992;&#26469;&#20648;&#22791;&#26356;&#25442;&#26087;&#25209;&#27425;&#30340;&#65311;



&#26089;&#23601;&#25104;&#29087;&#20102;&#65292;&#19981;&#28982;&#19981;&#20250;&#25226;&#23427;&#35013;&#22312;&#33328;&#36733;&#26426;&#21644;J-10&#19978;&#38754;&#30340;

&#33328;&#36733;&#26426;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#21487;&#38752;&#24615;&#35201;&#27714;&#35201;&#27604;&#26222;&#36890;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#39640;&#24471;&#22810;&#65292;&#24212;&#20026;&#22312;&#28023;&#27915;&#37027;&#37324;&#23545;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26377;&#39640;&#24230;&#30340;&#33104;&#34432;&#24615;

&#32780;&#27516;10B/C&#19978;&#38754;&#35013;&#22826;&#34892;&#36825;&#26356;&#26159;&#35777;&#26126;&#22826;&#34892;&#29616;&#22312;&#21487;&#38752;&#24615;&#30456;&#24403;&#30340;&#39640;&#65292;&#19981;&#38656;&#35201;&#20004;&#20010;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#21516;&#26102;&#25165;&#33021;&#20445;&#35777;&#22312;&#31354;&#20013;&#19981;&#29060;&#28779;

&#37027;&#20010;&#29022;&#31508;&#27611;&#23376;&#19968;&#22825;&#21040;&#26202;&#21916;&#27426;&#40657;&#20013;&#22269;&#65292;&#22823;&#23478;&#21035;&#29702;&#20182;&#23601;&#26159;&#20102;

&#21681;&#20204;&#30340;&#22235;&#20195;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30340;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#37117;&#25104;&#21151;&#20102;&#65292;&#32780;&#27611;&#23376;&#25152;&#35859;&#30340;&#22235;&#20195;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#36824;&#20572;&#30041;&#22312;&#32440;&#19978;&#21602;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

WS-10 was certified in 2005, and began testing on J-11B. However, limited production stopped in 2007 after quality control issues surfaced, leading to several accidents. Production restarted again in 2009, and now close to 100 J-11Bs are in service. J-10B will also be equipped with the engine, going into service early next year.

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 PM ----------




ptldM3 said:


> And what was he guilty of? An engines quality is only as good as its manufacturing process allows it to be, meaning if you have precision machinery you will have precise components. If you have employees with the latest tools you will have the best quality, meaning that instead of traditional wrenches you give them torque wrenches which will allow for precise torque specifications.


 
Taking funds for R&D as well as manufacturing equipment upgrade to invest in stock market.


----------



## marshall

ptldM3 said:


> And what was he guilty of? An engines quality is only as good as its manufacturing process allows it to be, meaning if you have precision machinery you will have precise components. If you have employees with the latest tools you will have the best quality, meaning that instead of traditional wrenches you give them torque wrenches which will allow for precise torque specifications.





S10 said:


> Taking funds for R&D as well as manufacturing equipment upgrade to invest in stock market.


This doesn't sound right. The WS-10 engine had quality issues for years and we all know it was attributed to over-reliance on the individual technicians working on each individual engine. Manufacturing equipment is usually installed on a planned schedule so why would China allow needed manufacturing equipment go uninstalled and unordered for many years while the WS-10 project languished with quality issues? Plus, lack of R&D funds would be detected very quickly by the other managers if lack of R&D were a known issue.

The fact that the WS-10 had quality issues for many years after it's initial certification means this excuse is either BS or that the embezzler was made a scapegoat. It's more likely they either found flaws after the engine was already certified or simply didn't have the required technical capability for effective mass production until years later.


----------



## muse

J9 seems like a Sovietized version of the Saab Viggen - anyway, something good came from it.




> The fact that the WS-10 had quality issues for many years after it's initial certification means this excuse is either BS or that the embezzler was made a scapegoat. It's more likely they either found flaws after the engine was already certified or simply didn't have the required technical capability for effective mass production until years later.


Like the way you think.


----------



## S10

marshall said:


> This doesn't sound right. The WS-10 engine had quality issues for years and we all know it was attributed to over-reliance on the individual technicians working on each individual engine. Manufacturing equipment is usually installed on a planned schedule so why would China allow needed manufacturing equipment go uninstalled and unordered for many years while the WS-10 project languished with quality issues? Plus, lack of R&D funds would be detected very quickly by the other managers if lack of R&D were a known issue.
> 
> The fact that the WS-10 had quality issues for many years after it's initial certification means this excuse is either BS or that the embezzler was made a scapegoat. It's more likely they either found flaws after the engine was already certified or simply didn't have the required technical capability for effective mass production until years later.


He asked why he was convicted, and I answered. It does not address the quality issue.

You obviously haven't read about the interal office conflicts within AVIC I, but I am in no mood to type 20 pages of details either. Look up current &#26519;&#24038;&#40483;, and you'll get a glimpse of why the engine industry performed so poorly in the last few years. Bottom line, quality problems are related to management, not with any flaws in design.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

As for now, Taihang engine has quantity issue, not the quality one.


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> There is zero room, absolutely zero room for any issues in an engine design, minor or not, the slightest imperfection with the compressor blades could cause a catastrophic failure, a loose screw or loose faulty gasket can also cause a catastrophic failure.
> .


 
then please educate us why russian engines only having few hunder hourse life spam, but Chinese and Western engines have few thousands? as according to your limited knowledge that every engine has to be perfect otherwise 'catastrophy'``

the major issue WS-10 had in the past was the quality *consistancy* of the fac blades during production... not the design of the WS itself.

there are 41 WS-10 engines were produced and non-stop tested since late 1990s, (life spam 1600 hrs like double those of AL-31s) for last few years the main focus was to improve WS production line quality control management not the technical design of WS.


----------



## siegecrossbow

New flight photos from the 23rd:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## houshanghai

J20 had flown at least 5 times for two days..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dark Eagle

J-2x is a single engine NAVY variant??


----------



## Akasa

Dark Eagle said:


> J-2x is a single engine NAVY variant??



It is able to be turned into one.


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> *then please educate us why russian engines only having few hunder hourse life spam, but Chinese and Western engines have few thousands*? as according to your limited knowledge that every engine has to be perfect otherwise 'catastrophy'``
> 
> the major issue WS-10 had in the past was the quality *consistancy* of the fac blades during production... not the design of the WS itself.
> 
> there are 41 *WS-10 engines were produced and non-stop tested since late 1990s*, (*life spam 1600 hrs *like double those of AL-31s) for last few years the main focus was to improve WS production line quality control management not the technical design of WS.



The 117S as well as RD-33 both have a 4,000 hour life. Anything else you want to add?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> The 117S as well as RD-33 both have a 4,000 hour life. Anything else you want to add?



On the paper for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Dark Eagle said:


> J-2x is a single engine NAVY variant??


No, naval one will start competition soon, based on either J-20 or SAC's conventional design. J-2X is a side project funded by CAC designed for export, with Pakistan in mind.


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> On the paper for sure.



By that token we can expect the WS-10's poor 1600 hour life to also be a paper claim....


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> By that token we can expect the WS-10's poor 1600 hour life to also be a paper claim....


 
Another blank cheque just like claiming build 5-6 carrier battlegroups which you have built none so far.

Gimme a break, the 117 engine with 4000 hours of lifespan? Who are you trying to fool?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

houshanghai said:


> J20 had flown at least 5 times for two days..



yeah,one witness(&#26426;&#22806;&#20572;&#36710; in the picture) said J-20 flew 3 time on Sep.22nd.

Just the next day,on Sep.23rd,J-20 was pulled out before 10 a.m.and did some roll in the sky and &#26426;&#22806;&#20572;&#36710; photoed them&#12290;


----------



## April.lyrics

ptldM3 said:


> By that token we can expect the WS-10's poor 1600 hour life to also be a paper claim....



hey,if russia would like to sell 117s at a convinient price,i think we should think about it.

thats what all businessman do.dont hurt ur trading partner


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

April.lyrics said:


> yeah,one witness(&#26426;&#22806;&#20572;&#36710; in the picture) said J-20 flew 3 time on Sep.22nd.
> 
> Just the next day,on Sep.23rd,J-20 was pulled out before 10 a.m.and did some roll in the sky and &#26426;&#22806;&#20572;&#36710; photoed them&#12290;



&#30475;&#26469;&#30690;&#37327;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#24456;&#32473;&#21147;&#20102;&#65292;&#30475;&#30475;&#29233;&#25242;&#23064;&#23064;&#22797;&#20986;&#21518;&#30340;&#31532;&#19968;&#20010;&#39640;&#38590;&#24230;&#21160;&#20316;&#65292;&#21681;&#20204;&#30340;&#40657;&#19997;&#21644;&#22905;&#30456;&#27604;&#24590;&#20040;&#26679;&#65311;

http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMjgzMTAzMzI4/v.swf


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

rcrmj said:


> then please educate us why russian engines only having few hunder hourse life spam, but Chinese and Western engines have few thousands? as according to your limited knowledge that every engine has to be perfect otherwise 'catastrophy'``
> 
> the major issue WS-10 had in the past was the quality *consistancy* of the fac blades during production... not the design of the WS itself.
> 
> there are 41 WS-10 engines were produced and non-stop tested since late 1990s, (life spam 1600 hrs like double those of AL-31s) for last few years the main focus was to improve WS production line quality control management not the technical design of WS.



Now the quality control for the mass production has been solved.

And F-110 has encountered the similar problem during the 1990s.

---------- Post added at 04:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 AM ----------




April.lyrics said:


> hey,if russia would like to sell 117s at a convinient price,i think we should think about it.
> 
> thats what all businessman do.dont hurt ur trading partner



The 117 engine would be a good choice for the export version of our stealth fighter, so we could still consider it if its price is really cheap enough.


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Another blank cheque just like claiming build 5-6 carrier battlegroups which you have built none so far.
> 
> Gimme a break, the 117 engine with 4000 hours of lifespan? Who are you trying to fool?



Pure denial, that is low of you, low but expected.


The truth is hard to swollow, but the claims are officially from Saturn and the engines have undergone and passed endurance tests long ago  To be more specific 5 engines or batches have been tested including two that were sent for in flight tests onboard the SU-35 117S-04 and 117S-05, and recently the pre production SU-35S has been undergoing flight tests.

As for your imature and off topic aircraft carrier rant, the blue prints for the future carrier(s) will not be ready until 2012, so your rant just backfired.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> Pure denial, that is low of you, low but expected.
> 
> 
> The truth is hard to swollow, but the claims are officially from Saturn and the engine have undergone and passed endurance tests long ago  To be more specific 5 engines or batches have been tested including two that were sent for in flight tests onboard the SU-35 117S-04 and 117S-05, and recently the pre production SU-35S has been undergoing flight tests.
> 
> As for your imature and off topic aircraft carrier rant, the blue prints for the future carrier(s) will not be ready until 2012, so your rant just backfired.



Our deal of Il-76 was toasted because you guys keep making the blank cheque. Meanwhile it pushed us to develop our own cargo Y-20.

BTW, you can keep posting your statement. However, none of these would be convincing for us.


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Our deal of Il-76 was toasted because you guys keep making the blank cheque. Meanwhile it pushed us to develop our own cargo Y-20.
> 
> BTW, you can keep posting your statement. However, none of these would be convincing for us.



Spare us the your pathetic off topic rants, what do aircraft carriers and IL-76's have anything to do with the 117s claimed engine life? At least if you're going to go into an off topic rant get your facts in order so you do not look like a fool. 

And who is 'us' thus far you are the only one claiming that the 117s figures are fabricated so do not try to drag others down into your agenda or pretend that you have the support of others because you are alone here. And the statements come directly from Saturn so really your argument or lack there of equates to nothing more than a bias opionion.


----------



## conworldus

The AL31 supplied to China go between 600-800 hours. They need to be replaced every 3-4 years because of it, thus the recent order of another 128 AL31. Don't know about 117, but for China to buy it would be incredibly stupid given that the AL31 track record is far from good. For export a WS variant would be better. I don't expect any more engine order from Russia as WS is maturing except a few replacement orders for J-10A and J-11. Another option is to structurally upgrade the old J-10A and J-11 to retrofit the WS10A but I am not sure it is economical.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> Spare us the your pathetic off topic rants, what do aircraft carriers and IL-76's have anything to do with the 117s claimed engine life? At least if you're going to go into an off topic rant get your facts in order so you do not look like a fool.
> 
> And who is 'us' thus far you are the only one claiming that the 117s figures are fabricated so do not try to drag others down into your agenda or pretend that you have the support of others because you are alone here. And the statements come directly from Saturn so really your argument or lack there of equates to nothing more than a bias opionion.



Ok, you can say whatever you want, but we simply don't believe it.


----------



## conworldus

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Ok, you can say whatever you want, but we simply don't believe it.



There was this drunk ex-Russian military engineer who told me in his extremely intoxicated state: "Mother Russia can make anything, with absolutely NO GUARANTEE that it can work!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

conworldus said:


> There was this drunk ex-Russian military engineer who told me in his extremely intoxicated state: "Mother Russia can make anything, with absolutely NO GUARANTEE that it can work!"



Hopefully their engineers can leave the alcohol.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> *The AL31 supplied to China go between 600-800 hours*. They need to be replaced every 3-4 years because of it, thus the recent order of another 128 AL31. Don't know about 117, but for China to buy it would be incredibly stupid given that the AL31 track record is far from good. For export a WS variant would be better. I don't expect any more engine order from Russia as WS is maturing except a few replacement orders for J-10A and J-11. Another option is to structurally upgrade the old J-10A and J-11 to retrofit the WS10A but I am not sure it is economical.



Learn the difference between mean time between overhauls (MTBO) and service life. The AL-31 that China originally received is a 30 year old engine and the MTBO is 1000 hours. Every engine is different and the MTBO as well as service life is only a guideline. The MTBO as well as service life is dependent on how much abuse the engine receives, this abuse can be in the form of small debris being sucked into the engine, or poor fuel grades which will cause the fuel filter to foul up and thus cause a lean air fuel mixture. Even the way or how often a pilot uses the throttle can have consequences on the gear box.

A good example would be the German Luftwaffe and their Mig-29's, the Germans managed to reduce the operating temperature of the RD-33 and as a result the MTBO was doubled. This would also equate to afterburner mode, an engine that sees a lot of afterburner will likely need to have overhauls more often.

Two AL-31's with the same hours clocked being brought in for MTBO will not always have the same parts replaced. A visual expection as well as a diagnostics will reveal what if anything needs to be replaced.





conworldus said:


> There was this drunk ex-Russian military engineer who told me in his extremely intoxicated state: "Mother Russia can make anything, with absolutely NO GUARANTEE that it can work!"



Spare us your nonsense half the Chinese member on this forum have claimed something similar, no matter what part of the world you go to some random Chinese guy always seems to stumble upon a random drunk Russian engineer.


----------



## aimarraul

AESA T/R module

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

^^^ Are those for ships? They look somewhat large in size.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Newest test flight video from the 23rd. Luckily the guy's hands were relatively steady/he picked a pretty good spot. People who are motion sick shouldn't worry about it:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## pzkilo

&#25105;&#20204;&#19981;&#20250;&#29992;117s&#20570;4&#20195;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30340;&#65292;117s&#22312;&#21508;&#26041;&#38754;&#37117;&#36798;&#19981;&#21040;4&#20195;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30340;&#26631;&#20934;&#65292;&#20854;&#26412;&#26469;&#20063;&#19981;&#26159;&#20316;&#20026;4&#20195;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#32780;&#21457;&#23637;&#30340;&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#33258;&#24049;&#30340;ws15&#29616;&#38454;&#27573;&#36827;&#23637;&#24456;&#24555;&#24456;&#22909;&#65292;&#19981;&#20986;&#24847;&#22806;&#20063;&#23601;&#36825;2&#24180;&#20102;&#12290; 20&#24517;&#39035;&#26159;&#30690;&#37327;&#65292;&#19981;&#28982;&#26426;&#21160;&#38590;&#20197;&#36214;&#30340;&#19978;f22&#12290; &#32780;117s&#35201;&#20080;&#30340;&#35805;&#20063;&#26159;&#20026;&#20854;&#20182;&#39134;&#26426;&#20080;&#30340;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#25105;&#36824;&#26159;&#24863;&#35273;&#24076;&#26395;&#19981;&#22823;&#65292;&#22240;&#20026;&#22826;&#34892;&#20063;&#22312;&#25104;&#29087;&#20013;&#65292;&#21508;&#31181;&#22826;&#34892;&#25913;&#22411;&#20063;&#22312;&#21457;&#23637;&#12290;

&#36825;&#20123;&#20420;&#22269;&#20332;&#26368;&#24754;&#21095;&#30340;&#26159;&#32769;&#36824;&#25226;&#33258;&#24049;&#24403;&#33487;&#32852;&#65292;&#32769;&#25308;&#25176;&#19981;&#20102;&#33258;&#24049;&#26089;&#24050;&#19981;&#26159;&#36229;&#32423;&#22823;&#22269;&#20102;&#36825;&#19968;&#29366;&#24577;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pzkilo said:


> &#25105;&#20204;&#19981;&#20250;&#29992;117s&#20570;4&#20195;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30340;&#65292;117s&#22312;&#21508;&#26041;&#38754;&#37117;&#36798;&#19981;&#21040;4&#20195;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30340;&#26631;&#20934;&#65292;&#20854;&#26412;&#26469;&#20063;&#19981;&#26159;&#20316;&#20026;4&#20195;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#32780;&#21457;&#23637;&#30340;&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#33258;&#24049;&#30340;ws15&#29616;&#38454;&#27573;&#36827;&#23637;&#24456;&#24555;&#24456;&#22909;&#65292;&#19981;&#20986;&#24847;&#22806;&#20063;&#23601;&#36825;2&#24180;&#20102;&#12290; 20&#24517;&#39035;&#26159;&#30690;&#37327;&#65292;&#19981;&#28982;&#26426;&#21160;&#38590;&#20197;&#36214;&#30340;&#19978;f22&#12290; &#32780;117s&#35201;&#20080;&#30340;&#35805;&#20063;&#26159;&#20026;&#20854;&#20182;&#39134;&#26426;&#20080;&#30340;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#25105;&#36824;&#26159;&#24863;&#35273;&#24076;&#26395;&#19981;&#22823;&#65292;&#22240;&#20026;&#22826;&#34892;&#20063;&#22312;&#25104;&#29087;&#20013;&#65292;&#21508;&#31181;&#22826;&#34892;&#25913;&#22411;&#20063;&#22312;&#21457;&#23637;&#12290;
> 
> &#36825;&#20123;&#20420;&#22269;&#20332;&#26368;&#24754;&#21095;&#30340;&#26159;&#32769;&#36824;&#25226;&#33258;&#24049;&#24403;&#33487;&#32852;&#65292;&#32769;&#25308;&#25176;&#19981;&#20102;&#33258;&#24049;&#26089;&#24050;&#19981;&#26159;&#36229;&#32423;&#22823;&#22269;&#20102;&#36825;&#19968;&#29366;&#24577;



117&#30340;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#36824;&#26159;&#38463;&#21202;31&#30340;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;&#20805;&#20854;&#37327;&#23601;&#26159;&#19968;&#20010;&#20266;4&#20195;

&#35828;&#23551;&#21629;4000&#20010;&#23567;&#26102;&#32431;&#31929;&#32993;&#25199;&#65292;&#26377;1000&#20010;&#23567;&#26102;&#23601;&#19981;&#38169;&#20102;&#65292;&#29616;&#22312;&#30340;&#27611;&#36135;&#30340;&#36136;&#37327;&#30456;&#27604;&#21069;&#33487;&#32852;&#30340;&#26102;&#20195;&#24046;&#36828;&#20102;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> Newest test flight video from the 23rd. Luckily the guy's hands were relatively steady/he picked a pretty good spot. People who are motion sick shouldn't worry about it:



&#26681;&#25454;&#21351;&#33609;&#20826;&#30340;&#26368;&#26032;&#25253;&#21578;&#65292;&#40657;&#19997;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30340;&#22768;&#38899;&#21644;&#38463;&#21202;&#25110;&#22826;&#34892;&#37117;&#22823;&#19981;&#30456;&#21516;&#65292;&#35828;&#19981;&#23450;&#23601;&#26159;WS-15&#30340;&#21407;&#22411;&#26426;


----------



## ptldM3

Use English, the moderators have warned you before.


----------



## conworldus

ptldM3 said:


> Use English, the moderators have warned you before.



Relax. Basically they are saying that you are full of sh--, and I tend to agree after that little engine analysis of yours. Let down the vodka, the Ruskie engineer I met was an ex-Mig guy who left the soviet union for states way back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> Relax. Basically they are saying that you are full of sh--, and I tend to agree after that little engine analysis of yours. Let down the vodka, the Ruskie engineer I met was an ex-Mig guy who left the soviet union for states way back.



The only people here full of 'sh--' is you and your fellow brothers. How can someone that doesn't know the difference between MTBO and service life be taken serious? What about someone that is in shameful denial? It's sad when someone has to resort to linking the building of aircraft carriers to MTBO and the worst part of it is he was oblivious to the fact the carrier is still in the design phase. In any case you guys are cowards, too afraid to use English so you have to pump each other up by using a language I can not read, thus something I can not challenge? 

And how shameful do some Chinese people have to be to resort to always stereotyping Russians with vodka and calling us Ruskies, here is something you might find interesting, i do not drink. And calling a Russian a Ruskie is offensive, it would be like me calling you an oriental or chink.

Than again, i mentioned this to many Chinese members and they still continue to stereotype with the vodka none sense and language that is offensive. 

Thus far I have given you people the courtesy of not using stereotypical insults as well as explaining everything in detail and trying to be objective. What have you done? All that comes from people like you is that the AL-31 sucks, and Russian engines don&#8217;t last X amount of hours. In the mean time I took the time to explain MTBO and service life and how it works.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## pzkilo

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> &#26681;&#25454;&#21351;&#33609;&#20826;&#30340;&#26368;&#26032;&#25253;&#21578;&#65292;&#40657;&#19997;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#30340;&#22768;&#38899;&#21644;&#38463;&#21202;&#25110;&#22826;&#34892;&#37117;&#22823;&#19981;&#30456;&#21516;&#65292;&#35828;&#19981;&#23450;&#23601;&#26159;WS-15&#30340;&#21407;&#22411;&#26426;


 
It cant be ws15.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pzkilo said:


> It cant be ws15.



It doesn't matter what name it uses.

This new engine is China's equivalence of F-119 with the 3D TVC capability.


----------



## conworldus

ptldM3 said:


> The only people here full of 'sh--' is you and your fellow brothers. How can someone that doesn't know the difference between MTBO and service life be taken serious? What about someone that is in shameful denial? It's sad when someone has to resort to linking the building of aircraft carriers to MTBO and the worst part of it is he was oblivious to the fact the carrier is still in the design phase. In any case you guys are cowards, too afraid to use English so you have to pump each other up by using a language I can not read, thus something I can not challenge?
> 
> And how shameful do some Chinese people have to be to resort to always stereotyping Russians with vodka and calling us Ruskies, here is something you might find interesting, i do not drink. And calling a Russian a Ruskie is offensive, it would be like me calling you an oriental or chink.
> 
> Than again, i mentioned this to many Chinese members and they still continue to stereotype with the vodka none sense and language that is offensive.
> 
> Thus far I have given you people the courtesy of not using stereotypical insults as well as explaining everything in detail and trying to be objective. What have you done? All that comes from people like you is that the AL-31 sucks, and Russian engines don&#8217;t last X amount of hours. In the mean time I took the time to explain MTBO and service life and how it works.



Oh please, Ruskie is not a slur to begin with. Go get a dictionary before you compare it to a word like "chink". No one is saying that the Al-31 sucks. Benchmarking it against the WS engine apparently just hit your nerve because OMG, how can the mighty Russian equipment possibly be inferior? You defend EVERYTHING Russia makes, from radar blocker to T-90s (which even your own military is criticizing) to Al-31 to Su-30 as if they are all the greatest. You are just full of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## houshanghai

LiGang, one of the first J-20 test pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> The only people here full of 'sh--' is you and your fellow brothers. How can someone that doesn't know the difference between MTBO and service life be taken serious? What about someone that is in shameful denial? It's sad when someone has to resort to linking the building of aircraft carriers to *MTBO* and the worst part of it is he was oblivious to the fact the carrier is still in the design phase. In any case you guys are cowards, too afraid to use English so you have to pump each other up by using a language I can not read, thus something I can not challenge?
> 
> And how shameful do some Chinese people have to be to resort to always stereotyping Russians with vodka and calling us Ruskies, here is something you might find interesting, i do not drink. And calling a Russian a Ruskie is offensive, it would be like me calling you an oriental or chink.
> 
> Than again, i mentioned this to many Chinese members and they still continue to stereotype with the vodka none sense and language that is offensive.
> 
> Thus far I have given you people the courtesy of not using stereotypical insults as well as explaining everything in detail and trying to be objective. What have you done? All that comes from people like you is that the AL-31 sucks, and Russian engines don&#8217;t last X amount of hours. In the mean time I took the time to explain MTBO and service life and how it works.



FYI AL-31's Mean time between outages is 900 hours whereas WS-10 (basic version) is 1600 hours sorry to crash your vivid dream


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> Oh please, Ruskie is not a slur to begin with.




You aren&#8217;t Russian so don't pretend to know how Russians feel when outsiders use the Russki word, people like you may find it funny but it is not. We are Russians not Russkis, I don't think you will every hear important public figures refer to Russian as Russkies and there is a reason for that. Come up to a random Russian and call him a Russki, do you have the guts? 





conworldus said:


> Go get a dictionary before you compare it to a word like "chink". *No one is saying that the Al-31 sucks. Benchmarking it against the WS engine apparently just hit your nerve* because OMG, how can the mighty Russian equipment possibly be inferior? You defend EVERYTHING Russia makes, from radar blocker to T-90s (which even your own military is criticizing) to Al-31 to Su-30 as if they are all the greatest. You are just full of it.



Why would it hit my nerves when upgraded AL-31's surpass the WS-10? We are talking about a 30 year old engine here. Russia has engines that are superior to the AL-31 and certainly superior to the WS-10, so really your point is mute.

The only issue I had was people mixing up MTBO and service life, people comparing some of the earliest AL-31's and people denying the 117's performance despite official reports that confirm it's authenticity.


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> FYI AL-31's Mean time between outages is 900 hours whereas WS-10 (basic version) is 1600 hours sorry to crash your vivid dream



And which varient of the AL-31 are you referring to, the ancient AL-31F? And post a source for your claim, most of you are still confused between MTBO and service life.

Checking your other post you claimed the WS-10 to have a service life of 1,600 hours and now you claim it to have a MTBO at 1,600 hours. Again learned the difference between the two and post a sourse claiming the 1,600 hour MTBO. And try comparing newer AL-31 varients like the upgraded AL-31FN, or perhaps the 117S.


----------



## mil-avia

*Eight photos from xilu.com :











































Slideshow*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## conworldus

ptldM3 said:


> You aren&#8217;t Russian so don't pretend to know how Russians feel when outsiders use the Russki word, people like you may find it funny but it is not. We are Russians not Russkis, I don't think you will every hear important public figures refer to Russian as Russkies and there is a reason for that. Come up to a random Russian and call him a Russki, do you have the guts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it hit my nerves when upgraded AL-31's surpass the WS-10? We are talking about a 30 year old engine here. Russia has engines that are superior to the AL-31 and certainly superior to the WS-10, so really your point is mute.
> 
> The only issue I had was people mixing up MTBO and service life, people comparing some of the earliest AL-31's and people denying the 117's performance despite official reports that confirm it's authenticity.



Tone down your sensitivity radar when you keep slapping everyone for even the slightest criticism of Russian equipment everytime.
The WS10 series has longer service life and greater thrust than all AL31 in both MTBO and service life just live with it. I know Russia has engines in development that will surpass the WS-10, but China is also developing WS-15 so what's your point? You Russians have been spilling BS on national TV against the J-20 since its inception, calling it a demostrator, a show off, inferior, blah blah, so don't expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> Tone down your sensitivity radar when you keep slapping everyone for even the slightest criticism of Russian equipment everytime.
> *The WS10 series has longer service life and greater thrust than all AL31 in both MTBO and service life just live with it.* I




So than you want to post a link to show everyone? 

Also be specific about the AL-31, the engine design is 30 years old and conveniently you and your compatriots keep comparing the WS-10 to the original AL-31F. Why don't you compare it to something more modern such as AL-31FN or AL-31FM1?




conworldus said:


> *know Russia has engines in development that will surpass the WS-10*, but China is also developing WS-15 so what's your point? You Russians have been spilling BS on national TV against the J-20 since its inception, calling it a demostrator, a show off, inferior, blah blah, so don't expect anyone to take you seriously.



Will surpass? The WS-10 has never surpass anything from Saturn or Salyut and the 117S as well as the more advanced 117 simply outclass the WS-10 in every category.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oct605032048

Even the russian engines were as advances as alien's technology it is still a second choice compared to home made fighter hearts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

amalakas said:


> Here's a joke, you still haven't answered....
> 
> You answered with info foundation -(pre university) students know, and tools found mostly in all university laboratories. Not to mention that ProE and Nastran are mostly Mech. Eng. tools. But anyway, lets see past that.
> 
> So what PM would a decent engineer such as you allow for a system in such a case.. ?? this is an answer most control engineers know, by experience ... so what is it ?
> 
> if you are such an advanced engineer (wow) that you simply don't remember, ask some of your raytheon buddies .. they will still remember .. even if you claim you don't ...
> 
> oh i forgot to say .. lol, because lol makes everything better ..right?




You still acting like a child!!!!

In mordern control it is all state space, and none linear control. But again these are theory. We control engineers use mostly software to do it!!! 

Lame crap like PM, are used only for classical control and only for single input single output systems only. Also, it is completely NOT useful for nonlinear control!!!

you need to STFU and learn some basics!!!

---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------




houshanghai said:


>



This is amazing, J-20 at its early stage can already perform such tight turns like this!!!

F-35 can NEVER do this!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> Pure denial, that is low of you, low but expected.
> 
> 
> The truth is hard to swollow, but the claims are officially from Saturn and the engines have undergone and passed endurance tests long ago  To be more specific 5 engines or batches have been tested including two that were sent for in flight tests onboard the SU-35 117S-04 and 117S-05, and recently the pre production SU-35S has been undergoing flight tests.
> 
> As for your imature and off topic aircraft carrier rant, the blue prints for the future carrier(s) will not be ready until 2012, so your rant just backfired.




You are talking bullshit!!!

J-20 uses WS-10G, and is clearly NOT your russian S-117 engine. So how do you explain that?

The Chinese are confident enough to use WS-10G on their most important Stealth fighter prototype!! How can you mere russian say that WS-10 still have quality issues??

The fact is that your crappy Pka-af, still does not have TVC engine and still use S-117, yet you mere russians keep brag about how advanced your TVC is and how good your so called AL-41 is going!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> Use English, the moderators have warned you before.




What they are saying is that AL-31 has very short engine life. WS-10A has entered mass production and now comparable with AL-31FN, but WS-10G is far superior than AL-31FN, WS-10G is even better than S-117.

Russia has no chance selling S-117 to China. The reason China recently bought 150 AL-31FN is because has very short life around700 hours. That is why they are being replaced so fast.

But dont worry, after this batch China will not buy anymore AL-31FN, because WS-10A will be fully ready!


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> So than you want to post a link to show everyone?
> 
> Also be specific about the AL-31, the engine design is 30 years old and conveniently you and your compatriots keep comparing the WS-10 to the original AL-31F. *Why don't you compare it to something more modern such as AL-31FN or AL-31FM1?*
> 
> .



You are wrong. There are some thing compareable already. WS-10A is comparable with AL-31FN, but WS-10A has more thrust.
WS-10G is even better than S-117, it has 155KN while S-117 has just 147KN. WS-10G is on J-20 now!!

Go learn some facts!!!

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------




[B said:


> ptldM3;[/B]2136446]





[B said:


> Will surpass? The WS-10 has never surpass anything from Saturn or Salyut and the *117S as well as the more advanced 117 simply outclass the WS-10 in every category.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> //////////////////////////////////////
> 
> 
> 
> *BullSH!T !!!! *
> 
> WS-10G is BETTER than your S-117. WS-10G is on J-20, and it has 155KN of thrust while your so called "advanced" S-117 has just 147KN. Also, WS-10G is VERY VERY realiable. That is why the Chinese put it on J-20. Even thogh J-20 is still at its prototype stage!!
> 
> Your Pka-af after 2 years of testing still uses S-117 with no TVC!!! [B]WHAT A SHAME!!!!!! WHAT A SHAME!!!!![/B]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Luftwaffe

Out Classed

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> You are talking bullshit!!!
> J-20 uses WS-10G, and is clearly NOT your russian S-117 engine. So how do you explain that?




I challenge you to find a post where i said that the J-20 used the 117s. Don't mix me up with other people or put words in my mouth.



AerospaceEngineer said:


> The Chinese are confident enough to use WS-10G on their most important Stealth fighter prototype!! * How can you mere russian say that WS-10 still have quality issues??*




It came directly from people either involved in the WS-10 development or testing. And just because an engine is used in a test aircraft does not mean it does not have problems that need to be worked out. The WS-10 is not bad, i nerver said it was, i only pointed out that it had problems which many engines do in the early stages and that it's MTBO and service life isn't anything special.





AerospaceEngineer said:


> *The fact is that your crappy Pka-af, still does not have TVC engine and still use S-117*, yet you mere russians keep brag about how advanced your TVC is and how good your so called AL-41 is going!!!





 The pak-fa does have TVC, this has been know since day one, if you still don't beleive me i can post a video with the nozzles moving. And explain the word 'still', how does the pak-fa 'still' use an engine that has never been installed on any previous aircraft? And the pak-fa is not equipied with the S-117, it is equiped with the 117 not to be confused with the 117S. The future powerplant is neither of those.

And a quick search would yeild that Russia has more experience with TVC engines than anyone else. However, to date China has little experience with TVC engines, in fact there has been zero Chinese aircraft with TVC. So to put things into perspective, a Chinese guy insults the pak-fa for not having TVC engines when in reality the pak-fa does have TVC, to add injury to insult China has nearly no experience with TVC engines besides maybe some prototype while Russia has at least 4 different types of aircraft with TVC.




AerospaceEngineer said:


> What they are saying is that AL-31 has very short engine life. WS-10A has entered mass production and now comparable with AL-31FN, but WS-10G is far superior than AL-31FN, WS-10G is even better than S-117.





No such thing as a 'S-117". As stated before there is the 117s and the more powerful 117. And there is no reliable or solid information about the mythical WS-10G. If thrust numbers is what you go by--and take those thrust accounts with caution. The AL-41 produced unheard of thrust when it was in its prototype stage (40,000lbs), but just because a prototype produced X amount of thrust does not mean it will produce the same number when production starts. Thrust alone means nothing, what really matters is *T/W ratio* if Russia wanted to produce an engine only meant for thrust they could, in fact Russia has the most powerful military jet engine in terms of thrust, it *produced 245kn or over 55,000 lbs thrust*. It comes down to producing the most thrust from the smallest and lightest engine possible. Furthermore, efficientcy, bypass ratio, MTBO and service life are all important factors. So can you give the readers an example of how the WS-10G is superior?And please don't use thrust numbers because even then the WS-10G does not match the 25 year old AL-41.





AerospaceEngineer said:


> Russia has no chance selling S-117 to China. The reason China recently bought 150 AL-31FN is *because has very short life around700 hours*. That is why they are being replaced so fast.




 the 117s has a minimum life of 4000 hours and as i told others stop mixing up MTBO with service life, the AL-31FN has a service life of 1,500 hours, the upgraded one is atleast 2,000 hours.








AerospaceEngineer said:


> You are wrong. There are some thing compareable already. WS-10A is comparable with AL-31FN, but WS-10A has more thrust.
> WS-10G is even better than S-117, it has 155KN while S-117 has just 147KN. WS-10G is on J-20 now!!




Read the previous things i said about thrust, the WS-10G could very well have more thrust but that does not mean that it has a better T/W ratio. For that kind of thrust the engineers likely made the engine larger than the standard WS-10. Larger engines means more power, making a very large engine that produces high thrust does not mean it will have a favorable T/W ratio or that it will even be any good. The AL-41 produced 40,000lbs thrust 25 years ago  that is 177kn, so what is your point about thrust? It means nothing if you don't have other information such as T/W ratio or efficiency.




Luftwaffe said:


> Out Classed




A Pakistani of all people trying to take a cheap shot at Russian engines. Ironically the JF-17 uses Russian engines that China has to import from Russia due to China's inability to produce its own engine. And the problem with the the 117 engine was emediately solved. It was nothing more than a glitch in the fuel supply systems, problems like this is not unusual in the development stage when the engine has a new and complex FADEC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AerospaceEngineer said:


> You are talking bullshit!!!
> 
> J-20 uses WS-10G, and is clearly NOT your russian S-117 engine. So how do you explain that?
> 
> The Chinese are confident enough to use WS-10G on their most important Stealth fighter prototype!! How can you mere russian say that WS-10 still have quality issues??
> 
> The fact is that your crappy Pka-af, still does not have TVC engine and still use S-117, yet you mere russians keep brag about how advanced your TVC is and how good your so called AL-41 is going!!!



The J-20 uses the prototype of WS-15, and i know it is hard to believe. However, we will figure out later.


----------



## pzkilo

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20 uses the prototype of WS-15, and i know it is hard to believe. However, we will figure out later.


I disagree with u in this case. But J20 will use ws15 very soon. I think that will happen in 1 or 2 years.


----------



## amalakas

AerospaceEngineer said:


> You still acting like a child!!!!
> 
> In mordern control it is all state space, and none linear control. But again these are theory. We control engineers use mostly software to do it!!!
> 
> Lame crap like PM, are used only for classical control and only for single input single output systems only. Also, it is completely NOT useful for nonlinear control!!!
> 
> you need to STFU and learn some basics!!!
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> This is amazing, J-20 at its early stage can already perform such tight turns like this!!!
> 
> F-35 can NEVER do this!!




What difference does it make? If you don't know, go out and find some of your Raytheon collegues and ask them. I'll take that for an answer. But you can't can you? You can quote things you can google as much as you want, but when it comes to real experience you have no clue, don't you? 

My guess is that you are a kid and it is your dad that is the engineer. And that is the best case scenario. All the others are just too insulting for you, I don't care to mention.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pzkilo said:


> I disagree with u in this case. But J20 will use ws15 very soon. I think that will happen in 1 or 2 years.



What's the point to fly with an engine that will not be serve as the production aircraft?

Just check the history of F-22 4001, then you will get a clear picture how it works.


----------



## pzkilo

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> What's the point to fly with an engine that will not be serve as the production aircraft?
> 
> Just check the history of F-22 4001, then you will get a clear picture how it works.


sigh, Because that is USA, I think u dont often pay attention with CD Fy &#33322;&#22825;&#33322;&#31354;&#28207;, do u?&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290; 
we can not compare with USA right now, especially engine tech. OK? we r far away behind USA&#12290;And J20 couldnt wait for WS15 to maiden flight, for political reasons, technical reasons and etc.
&#22810;&#21435;&#22269;&#20869;&#35770;&#22363;&#37324;&#30475;&#30475;&#23601;&#26126;&#30333;&#20102;


----------



## ishrat287

http://www.7mliveonline.com ?7m.cn 
J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions
7m | 7m.cn | ????? | 7m latest Football live scores 7m.cn | 7m.cn News | 7m soccer | 7m.cn ????? ??????


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pzkilo said:


> sigh, Because that is USA, I think u dont often pay attention with CD Fy &#33322;&#22825;&#33322;&#31354;&#28207;, do u?&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;
> we can not compare with USA right now, especially engine tech. OK? we r far away behind USA&#12290;And J20 couldnt wait for WS15 to maiden flight, for political reasons, technical reasons and etc.
> &#22810;&#21435;&#22269;&#20869;&#35770;&#22363;&#37324;&#30475;&#30475;&#23601;&#26126;&#30333;&#20102;



CD&#39134;&#25196;&#20043;&#31867;&#30340;&#25105;&#23601;&#19981;&#22810;&#30475;&#20102;&#65292;&#29616;&#22312;&#21482;&#30475;&#22823;&#31070;&#35770;&#22363;&#32593;&#22825;


----------



## houshanghai

Congratulations on the 62th anniversary of China

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Broccoli



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## April.lyrics

houshanghai said:


> Congratulations on the 62th anniversary of China



now,lets talk about the lenth of J20 again.

from this pic,CDer measured the lenth of JF-17,J10B and J20.

JF17&#65288;with Pitot tube&#65289; 1593pixel
JF17&#65288;without Pitot tube&#65289; 1520pixel
J20&#65288;with Pitot tube&#65289;2275pixel
J20&#65288;without Pitot tube&#65289;2125pixel

after compared with JF17 and cauculate,they find J20 is 20.3m

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai




----------



## pzkilo

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> CD&#39134;&#25196;&#20043;&#31867;&#30340;&#25105;&#23601;&#19981;&#22810;&#30475;&#20102;&#65292;&#29616;&#22312;&#21482;&#30475;&#22823;&#31070;&#35770;&#22363;&#32593;&#22825;


 
&#21733;&#20204;&#65292;&#20320;&#35201;&#21523;&#27515;&#25105;&#21834;&#65292;&#32593;&#22825;&#20320;&#37117;&#25954;&#21435;&#12290;&#12290;&#20272;&#35745;&#25105;&#21435;&#32593;&#22825;&#27604;&#20320;&#26089;&#65292;&#19981;&#36807;&#26089;&#19981;&#21435;&#20102;&#12290;&#32593;&#22825;&#30495;&#27491;&#33021;&#35848;&#20891;&#20107;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;&#26159;&#38472;&#24544;&#35328;&#22312;&#30340;&#37027;&#27573;&#26102;&#38388;&#65292;&#37027;&#26159;&#26377;&#22909;&#20960;&#20010;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#22763;&#22312;&#37027;&#65292;&#21518;&#26469;&#38472;&#22826;&#38451;&#33086;&#27668;&#22826;&#24046;&#34987;&#36720;&#36208;&#20102;&#65292;&#21738;&#37324;&#20877;&#20063;&#27809;&#26377;&#20219;&#20309;&#25216;&#26415;&#38382;&#39064;&#21487;&#20197;&#35752;&#35770;&#20102;&#12290;&#37027;&#37324;&#30340;&#25152;&#35859;&#22823;&#31070;&#65292;&#21518;&#38754;&#26469;&#30340;&#27963;&#25417;she&#25105;&#19981;&#30693;&#36947;&#24590;&#20040;&#26679;&#65292;&#30475;&#19978;&#21435;&#36824;&#34892;&#65292;&#20854;&#20182;&#23601;&#20010;&#20992;&#21475;&#38752;&#28857;&#35889;&#12290;&#32780;&#19988;&#20182;&#20204;&#33258;&#24049;&#26126;&#26174;&#21487;&#20197;&#30475;&#20986;&#26469;&#26412;&#36523;&#19981;&#26159;&#22312;&#20891;&#24037;&#37324;&#25630;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#65292;&#30830;&#23454;&#33021;&#21548;&#21040;&#28857;&#28040;&#24687;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#28040;&#24687;&#30340;&#21487;&#38752;&#24615;&#38750;&#24120;&#19981;&#30830;&#23450;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#37117;&#26159;&#19968;&#36716;2&#36716;3&#36716;&#36716;&#20102;7,8&#25163;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#20102;&#65292;&#23601;&#26159;&#30495;&#28040;&#24687;&#37117;&#21487;&#33021;&#36716;&#38169;&#20102;&#12290; &#20320;&#27809;&#30475;&#30495;&#27491;&#35848;&#35770;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#20154;&#36208;&#20102;&#21518;&#65292;&#32593;&#22825;&#37117;&#22312;&#35752;&#35770;&#20160;&#20040;&#65311;ufo,&#21608;&#26131;&#65281; &#20026;&#20160;&#20040;&#65292;&#35828;&#30333;&#20102;&#65292;&#37027;&#25991;&#31185;&#29983;&#22810;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#21435;&#37027;&#37324;&#24182;&#19981;&#26159;&#20102;&#35299;&#20891;&#20107;&#65292;&#35828;&#26159;&#21435;&#30475;&#28909;&#38393;&#27604;&#36739;&#21512;&#36866;&#12290;

&#30495;&#27491;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#22763;&#26159;&#24403;&#24180;&#22312;&#37027;&#30340;&#26032;&#26376;&#22914;&#27700;&#65288;&#22909;&#20687;&#26159;&#32418;&#26071;&#21378;&#36824;&#26159;&#32418;&#26143;&#21378;&#30340;&#65292;&#25105;&#24536;&#20102;&#65289;&#65292;&#36824;&#26377;&#20010;&#31661;&#23450;&#22825;&#23665;&#65292;&#33433;&#33993;&#31561;&#65292;&#32418;&#33394;&#21355;&#22763;&#31561;&#37117;&#26159;&#22269;&#20869;&#20891;&#24037;&#20307;&#21046;&#20869;&#30340;&#20154;&#12290;&#32780;huzhigeng&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#21548;&#19968;&#21548;&#21442;&#32771;&#19979;&#65292;&#21548;&#35828;&#20182;&#30340;&#20146;&#25114;&#65288;&#22909;&#20687;&#26159;&#29238;&#20146;&#65289;&#26159;4&#20195;&#26576;&#31995;&#32479;&#30340;&#35774;&#35745;&#24072;&#65292;&#32780;&#20182;&#22909;&#20687;&#27605;&#19994;&#20110;&#20271;&#20811;&#21033;&#20998;&#26657;&#12290;

&#32780;&#39134;&#25196;cd&#24403;&#28982;&#19981;&#26159;&#37117;&#38752;&#35889;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#21487;&#20197;&#35828;&#19981;&#26159;&#37027;&#20040;&#30340;&#38752;&#35889;&#65292;&#37027;&#37324;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#19981;&#22810;&#65292;&#40060;&#40857;&#28151;&#26434;&#12290; &#19981;&#36807;&#24403;&#24180;&#34394;&#24187;&#65292;&#32593;&#21451;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#33328;&#33337;&#20998;&#20986;&#26469;&#30340;&#19968;&#20123;&#26377;&#27700;&#24179;&#30340;&#20154;&#25955;&#22312;&#37027;&#30340;&#25402;&#22810;&#30340;&#12290;

&#33267;&#20110;&#20320;&#19978;&#38754;&#35828;&#30340;ws15&#65292;&#22810;&#26041;&#28040;&#24687;&#35777;&#23454;&#20854;&#36827;&#23637;&#38750;&#24120;&#39034;&#21033;&#65292;&#20294;&#20063;&#21516;&#26102;&#35777;&#23454;&#20854;&#29616;&#22312;&#36824;&#27809;&#20934;&#22791;&#22909;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;&#39318;&#39134;&#19981;&#21487;&#33021;&#26159;&#23427;&#12290;&#25402;huzhigeng&#35828;&#26126;&#24180;&#21021;&#21487;&#33021;&#20250;&#35013;j2003&#35797;&#39134;&#12290;&#33267;&#20110;&#20320;&#35828;&#30340;&#20026;&#20160;&#20040;&#29992;&#19968;&#20010;&#19981;&#26368;&#32456;&#21644;20&#19968;&#36215;&#20934;&#22791;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26469;&#35013;&#26426;&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#24456;&#31616;&#21333;&#65292;j2001&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#35201;&#39564;&#35777;&#30340;&#19996;&#35199;&#19981;&#26159;&#37027;&#20040;&#22810;&#65292;&#29992;&#20854;&#20182;&#27604;&#36739;&#25104;&#29087;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#20808;&#26469;&#20195;&#26367;&#32780;&#21518;&#31561;15&#25104;&#29087;&#21518;&#20877;&#26469;&#35013;&#26426;&#36825;&#20010;&#31574;&#30053;&#23436;&#20840;&#27809;&#38382;&#39064;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#20854;&#20182;&#31995;&#32479;&#37117;ok&#20102;&#27809;&#24517;&#35201;&#19987;&#38376;&#21435;&#31561;ws15&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#20063;&#19981;&#20445;&#38505;&#12290;&#19981;&#35201;&#20197;&#20026;&#32769;&#32654;&#33021;&#26377;&#26032;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26469;&#35797;&#39134;22&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#23601;&#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#25216;&#26415;&#21644;&#32769;&#32654;&#24046;&#24471;&#36828;&#30528;&#21602;&#65292;&#29992;&#25105;&#20204;&#20013;&#33322;&#33258;&#24049;&#30340;&#35805;&#26469;&#35828;&#26159;&#25105;&#20204;&#29616;&#22312;&#32456;&#20110;&#21487;&#20197;&#26395;&#20854;&#39033;&#32972;&#20102;&#65281;&#33258;&#24049;&#24819;&#21543;&#12290;&#32780;&#19988;&#20174;&#25919;&#27835;&#26469;&#35828;&#65292;&#26472;&#20255;&#24403;&#24180;&#22312;&#22823;&#20250;&#19978;&#25171;&#21253;&#31080;4&#20195;&#35201;&#22312;11&#24180;&#39134;&#36215;&#26469;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#36824;&#22841;&#26434;&#30528;sf cf&#31454;&#20105;&#31561;&#31561;&#22240;&#32032;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;&#22312;&#20854;&#20182;&#37096;&#20214;&#20801;&#35768;&#30340;&#24773;&#20917;&#19979;&#65292;&#25216;&#26415;&#19978;&#21448;&#20801;&#35768;&#30340;&#24773;&#20917;&#19979;&#65292;&#29992;&#25104;&#29087;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#20808;&#26469;&#39318;&#39134;&#26159;&#24456;&#27491;&#24120;&#30340;&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

pzkilo said:


> &#21733;&#20204;&#65292;&#20320;&#35201;&#21523;&#27515;&#25105;&#21834;&#65292;&#32593;&#22825;&#20320;&#37117;&#25954;&#21435;&#12290;&#12290;&#20272;&#35745;&#25105;&#21435;&#32593;&#22825;&#27604;&#20320;&#26089;&#65292;&#19981;&#36807;&#26089;&#19981;&#21435;&#20102;&#12290;&#32593;&#22825;&#30495;&#27491;&#33021;&#35848;&#20891;&#20107;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;&#26159;&#38472;&#24544;&#35328;&#22312;&#30340;&#37027;&#27573;&#26102;&#38388;&#65292;&#37027;&#26159;&#26377;&#22909;&#20960;&#20010;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#22763;&#22312;&#37027;&#65292;&#21518;&#26469;&#38472;&#22826;&#38451;&#33086;&#27668;&#22826;&#24046;&#34987;&#36720;&#36208;&#20102;&#65292;&#21738;&#37324;&#20877;&#20063;&#27809;&#26377;&#20219;&#20309;&#25216;&#26415;&#38382;&#39064;&#21487;&#20197;&#35752;&#35770;&#20102;&#12290;&#37027;&#37324;&#30340;&#25152;&#35859;&#22823;&#31070;&#65292;&#21518;&#38754;&#26469;&#30340;&#27963;&#25417;she&#25105;&#19981;&#30693;&#36947;&#24590;&#20040;&#26679;&#65292;&#30475;&#19978;&#21435;&#36824;&#34892;&#65292;&#20854;&#20182;&#23601;&#20010;&#20992;&#21475;&#38752;&#28857;&#35889;&#12290;&#32780;&#19988;&#20182;&#20204;&#33258;&#24049;&#26126;&#26174;&#21487;&#20197;&#30475;&#20986;&#26469;&#26412;&#36523;&#19981;&#26159;&#22312;&#20891;&#24037;&#37324;&#25630;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#65292;&#30830;&#23454;&#33021;&#21548;&#21040;&#28857;&#28040;&#24687;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#28040;&#24687;&#30340;&#21487;&#38752;&#24615;&#38750;&#24120;&#19981;&#30830;&#23450;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#37117;&#26159;&#19968;&#36716;2&#36716;3&#36716;&#36716;&#20102;7,8&#25163;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#20102;&#65292;&#23601;&#26159;&#30495;&#28040;&#24687;&#37117;&#21487;&#33021;&#36716;&#38169;&#20102;&#12290; &#20320;&#27809;&#30475;&#30495;&#27491;&#35848;&#35770;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#20154;&#36208;&#20102;&#21518;&#65292;&#32593;&#22825;&#37117;&#22312;&#35752;&#35770;&#20160;&#20040;&#65311;ufo,&#21608;&#26131;&#65281; &#20026;&#20160;&#20040;&#65292;&#35828;&#30333;&#20102;&#65292;&#37027;&#25991;&#31185;&#29983;&#22810;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#21435;&#37027;&#37324;&#24182;&#19981;&#26159;&#20102;&#35299;&#20891;&#20107;&#65292;&#35828;&#26159;&#21435;&#30475;&#28909;&#38393;&#27604;&#36739;&#21512;&#36866;&#12290;
> 
> &#30495;&#27491;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#22763;&#26159;&#24403;&#24180;&#22312;&#37027;&#30340;&#26032;&#26376;&#22914;&#27700;&#65288;&#22909;&#20687;&#26159;&#32418;&#26071;&#21378;&#36824;&#26159;&#32418;&#26143;&#21378;&#30340;&#65292;&#25105;&#24536;&#20102;&#65289;&#65292;&#36824;&#26377;&#20010;&#31661;&#23450;&#22825;&#23665;&#65292;&#33433;&#33993;&#31561;&#65292;&#32418;&#33394;&#21355;&#22763;&#31561;&#37117;&#26159;&#22269;&#20869;&#20891;&#24037;&#20307;&#21046;&#20869;&#30340;&#20154;&#12290;&#32780;huzhigeng&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#21548;&#19968;&#21548;&#21442;&#32771;&#19979;&#65292;&#21548;&#35828;&#20182;&#30340;&#20146;&#25114;&#65288;&#22909;&#20687;&#26159;&#29238;&#20146;&#65289;&#26159;4&#20195;&#26576;&#31995;&#32479;&#30340;&#35774;&#35745;&#24072;&#65292;&#32780;&#20182;&#22909;&#20687;&#27605;&#19994;&#20110;&#20271;&#20811;&#21033;&#20998;&#26657;&#12290;
> 
> &#32780;&#39134;&#25196;cd&#24403;&#28982;&#19981;&#26159;&#37117;&#38752;&#35889;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#21487;&#20197;&#35828;&#19981;&#26159;&#37027;&#20040;&#30340;&#38752;&#35889;&#65292;&#37027;&#37324;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#19981;&#22810;&#65292;&#40060;&#40857;&#28151;&#26434;&#12290; &#19981;&#36807;&#24403;&#24180;&#34394;&#24187;&#65292;&#32593;&#21451;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#33328;&#33337;&#20998;&#20986;&#26469;&#30340;&#19968;&#20123;&#26377;&#27700;&#24179;&#30340;&#20154;&#25955;&#22312;&#37027;&#30340;&#25402;&#22810;&#30340;&#12290;
> 
> &#33267;&#20110;&#20320;&#19978;&#38754;&#35828;&#30340;ws15&#65292;&#22810;&#26041;&#28040;&#24687;&#35777;&#23454;&#20854;&#36827;&#23637;&#38750;&#24120;&#39034;&#21033;&#65292;&#20294;&#20063;&#21516;&#26102;&#35777;&#23454;&#20854;&#29616;&#22312;&#36824;&#27809;&#20934;&#22791;&#22909;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;&#39318;&#39134;&#19981;&#21487;&#33021;&#26159;&#23427;&#12290;&#25402;huzhigeng&#35828;&#26126;&#24180;&#21021;&#21487;&#33021;&#20250;&#35013;j2003&#35797;&#39134;&#12290;&#33267;&#20110;&#20320;&#35828;&#30340;&#20026;&#20160;&#20040;&#29992;&#19968;&#20010;&#19981;&#26368;&#32456;&#21644;20&#19968;&#36215;&#20934;&#22791;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26469;&#35013;&#26426;&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#24456;&#31616;&#21333;&#65292;j2001&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#35201;&#39564;&#35777;&#30340;&#19996;&#35199;&#19981;&#26159;&#37027;&#20040;&#22810;&#65292;&#29992;&#20854;&#20182;&#27604;&#36739;&#25104;&#29087;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#20808;&#26469;&#20195;&#26367;&#32780;&#21518;&#31561;15&#25104;&#29087;&#21518;&#20877;&#26469;&#35013;&#26426;&#36825;&#20010;&#31574;&#30053;&#23436;&#20840;&#27809;&#38382;&#39064;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#20854;&#20182;&#31995;&#32479;&#37117;ok&#20102;&#27809;&#24517;&#35201;&#19987;&#38376;&#21435;&#31561;ws15&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#20063;&#19981;&#20445;&#38505;&#12290;&#19981;&#35201;&#20197;&#20026;&#32769;&#32654;&#33021;&#26377;&#26032;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26469;&#35797;&#39134;22&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#23601;&#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#25216;&#26415;&#21644;&#32769;&#32654;&#24046;&#24471;&#36828;&#30528;&#21602;&#65292;&#29992;&#25105;&#20204;&#20013;&#33322;&#33258;&#24049;&#30340;&#35805;&#26469;&#35828;&#26159;&#25105;&#20204;&#29616;&#22312;&#32456;&#20110;&#21487;&#20197;&#26395;&#20854;&#39033;&#32972;&#20102;&#65281;&#33258;&#24049;&#24819;&#21543;&#12290;&#32780;&#19988;&#20174;&#25919;&#27835;&#26469;&#35828;&#65292;&#26472;&#20255;&#24403;&#24180;&#22312;&#22823;&#20250;&#19978;&#25171;&#21253;&#31080;4&#20195;&#35201;&#22312;11&#24180;&#39134;&#36215;&#26469;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#36824;&#22841;&#26434;&#30528;sf cf&#31454;&#20105;&#31561;&#31561;&#22240;&#32032;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;&#22312;&#20854;&#20182;&#37096;&#20214;&#20801;&#35768;&#30340;&#24773;&#20917;&#19979;&#65292;&#25216;&#26415;&#19978;&#21448;&#20801;&#35768;&#30340;&#24773;&#20917;&#19979;&#65292;&#29992;&#25104;&#29087;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#20808;&#26469;&#39318;&#39134;&#26159;&#24456;&#27491;&#24120;&#30340;&#12290;



xiong di, what forum is good in China now``I'm going back soon wanna join a good defence forum`?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pzkilo said:


> &#21733;&#20204;&#65292;&#20320;&#35201;&#21523;&#27515;&#25105;&#21834;&#65292;&#32593;&#22825;&#20320;&#37117;&#25954;&#21435;&#12290;&#12290;&#20272;&#35745;&#25105;&#21435;&#32593;&#22825;&#27604;&#20320;&#26089;&#65292;&#19981;&#36807;&#26089;&#19981;&#21435;&#20102;&#12290;&#32593;&#22825;&#30495;&#27491;&#33021;&#35848;&#20891;&#20107;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;&#26159;&#38472;&#24544;&#35328;&#22312;&#30340;&#37027;&#27573;&#26102;&#38388;&#65292;&#37027;&#26159;&#26377;&#22909;&#20960;&#20010;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#22763;&#22312;&#37027;&#65292;&#21518;&#26469;&#38472;&#22826;&#38451;&#33086;&#27668;&#22826;&#24046;&#34987;&#36720;&#36208;&#20102;&#65292;&#21738;&#37324;&#20877;&#20063;&#27809;&#26377;&#20219;&#20309;&#25216;&#26415;&#38382;&#39064;&#21487;&#20197;&#35752;&#35770;&#20102;&#12290;&#37027;&#37324;&#30340;&#25152;&#35859;&#22823;&#31070;&#65292;&#21518;&#38754;&#26469;&#30340;&#27963;&#25417;she&#25105;&#19981;&#30693;&#36947;&#24590;&#20040;&#26679;&#65292;&#30475;&#19978;&#21435;&#36824;&#34892;&#65292;&#20854;&#20182;&#23601;&#20010;&#20992;&#21475;&#38752;&#28857;&#35889;&#12290;&#32780;&#19988;&#20182;&#20204;&#33258;&#24049;&#26126;&#26174;&#21487;&#20197;&#30475;&#20986;&#26469;&#26412;&#36523;&#19981;&#26159;&#22312;&#20891;&#24037;&#37324;&#25630;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#65292;&#30830;&#23454;&#33021;&#21548;&#21040;&#28857;&#28040;&#24687;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#28040;&#24687;&#30340;&#21487;&#38752;&#24615;&#38750;&#24120;&#19981;&#30830;&#23450;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#37117;&#26159;&#19968;&#36716;2&#36716;3&#36716;&#36716;&#20102;7,8&#25163;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#20102;&#65292;&#23601;&#26159;&#30495;&#28040;&#24687;&#37117;&#21487;&#33021;&#36716;&#38169;&#20102;&#12290; &#20320;&#27809;&#30475;&#30495;&#27491;&#35848;&#35770;&#25216;&#26415;&#30340;&#20154;&#36208;&#20102;&#21518;&#65292;&#32593;&#22825;&#37117;&#22312;&#35752;&#35770;&#20160;&#20040;&#65311;ufo,&#21608;&#26131;&#65281; &#20026;&#20160;&#20040;&#65292;&#35828;&#30333;&#20102;&#65292;&#37027;&#25991;&#31185;&#29983;&#22810;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#21435;&#37027;&#37324;&#24182;&#19981;&#26159;&#20102;&#35299;&#20891;&#20107;&#65292;&#35828;&#26159;&#21435;&#30475;&#28909;&#38393;&#27604;&#36739;&#21512;&#36866;&#12290;
> 
> &#30495;&#27491;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#22763;&#26159;&#24403;&#24180;&#22312;&#37027;&#30340;&#26032;&#26376;&#22914;&#27700;&#65288;&#22909;&#20687;&#26159;&#32418;&#26071;&#21378;&#36824;&#26159;&#32418;&#26143;&#21378;&#30340;&#65292;&#25105;&#24536;&#20102;&#65289;&#65292;&#36824;&#26377;&#20010;&#31661;&#23450;&#22825;&#23665;&#65292;&#33433;&#33993;&#31561;&#65292;&#32418;&#33394;&#21355;&#22763;&#31561;&#37117;&#26159;&#22269;&#20869;&#20891;&#24037;&#20307;&#21046;&#20869;&#30340;&#20154;&#12290;&#32780;huzhigeng&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#21548;&#19968;&#21548;&#21442;&#32771;&#19979;&#65292;&#21548;&#35828;&#20182;&#30340;&#20146;&#25114;&#65288;&#22909;&#20687;&#26159;&#29238;&#20146;&#65289;&#26159;4&#20195;&#26576;&#31995;&#32479;&#30340;&#35774;&#35745;&#24072;&#65292;&#32780;&#20182;&#22909;&#20687;&#27605;&#19994;&#20110;&#20271;&#20811;&#21033;&#20998;&#26657;&#12290;
> 
> &#32780;&#39134;&#25196;cd&#24403;&#28982;&#19981;&#26159;&#37117;&#38752;&#35889;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#21487;&#20197;&#35828;&#19981;&#26159;&#37027;&#20040;&#30340;&#38752;&#35889;&#65292;&#37027;&#37324;&#19994;&#20869;&#20154;&#19981;&#22810;&#65292;&#40060;&#40857;&#28151;&#26434;&#12290; &#19981;&#36807;&#24403;&#24180;&#34394;&#24187;&#65292;&#32593;&#21451;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#33328;&#33337;&#20998;&#20986;&#26469;&#30340;&#19968;&#20123;&#26377;&#27700;&#24179;&#30340;&#20154;&#25955;&#22312;&#37027;&#30340;&#25402;&#22810;&#30340;&#12290;
> 
> &#33267;&#20110;&#20320;&#19978;&#38754;&#35828;&#30340;ws15&#65292;&#22810;&#26041;&#28040;&#24687;&#35777;&#23454;&#20854;&#36827;&#23637;&#38750;&#24120;&#39034;&#21033;&#65292;&#20294;&#20063;&#21516;&#26102;&#35777;&#23454;&#20854;&#29616;&#22312;&#36824;&#27809;&#20934;&#22791;&#22909;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;&#39318;&#39134;&#19981;&#21487;&#33021;&#26159;&#23427;&#12290;&#25402;huzhigeng&#35828;&#26126;&#24180;&#21021;&#21487;&#33021;&#20250;&#35013;j2003&#35797;&#39134;&#12290;&#33267;&#20110;&#20320;&#35828;&#30340;&#20026;&#20160;&#20040;&#29992;&#19968;&#20010;&#19981;&#26368;&#32456;&#21644;20&#19968;&#36215;&#20934;&#22791;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26469;&#35013;&#26426;&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#24456;&#31616;&#21333;&#65292;j2001&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#35201;&#39564;&#35777;&#30340;&#19996;&#35199;&#19981;&#26159;&#37027;&#20040;&#22810;&#65292;&#29992;&#20854;&#20182;&#27604;&#36739;&#25104;&#29087;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#20808;&#26469;&#20195;&#26367;&#32780;&#21518;&#31561;15&#25104;&#29087;&#21518;&#20877;&#26469;&#35013;&#26426;&#36825;&#20010;&#31574;&#30053;&#23436;&#20840;&#27809;&#38382;&#39064;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#20854;&#20182;&#31995;&#32479;&#37117;ok&#20102;&#27809;&#24517;&#35201;&#19987;&#38376;&#21435;&#31561;ws15&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#20063;&#19981;&#20445;&#38505;&#12290;&#19981;&#35201;&#20197;&#20026;&#32769;&#32654;&#33021;&#26377;&#26032;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26469;&#35797;&#39134;22&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#23601;&#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#25216;&#26415;&#21644;&#32769;&#32654;&#24046;&#24471;&#36828;&#30528;&#21602;&#65292;&#29992;&#25105;&#20204;&#20013;&#33322;&#33258;&#24049;&#30340;&#35805;&#26469;&#35828;&#26159;&#25105;&#20204;&#29616;&#22312;&#32456;&#20110;&#21487;&#20197;&#26395;&#20854;&#39033;&#32972;&#20102;&#65281;&#33258;&#24049;&#24819;&#21543;&#12290;&#32780;&#19988;&#20174;&#25919;&#27835;&#26469;&#35828;&#65292;&#26472;&#20255;&#24403;&#24180;&#22312;&#22823;&#20250;&#19978;&#25171;&#21253;&#31080;4&#20195;&#35201;&#22312;11&#24180;&#39134;&#36215;&#26469;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#36824;&#22841;&#26434;&#30528;sf cf&#31454;&#20105;&#31561;&#31561;&#22240;&#32032;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;&#22312;&#20854;&#20182;&#37096;&#20214;&#20801;&#35768;&#30340;&#24773;&#20917;&#19979;&#65292;&#25216;&#26415;&#19978;&#21448;&#20801;&#35768;&#30340;&#24773;&#20917;&#19979;&#65292;&#29992;&#25104;&#29087;&#30340;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#20808;&#26469;&#39318;&#39134;&#26159;&#24456;&#27491;&#24120;&#30340;&#12290;



&#32593;&#22825;&#37324;&#38754;&#38752;&#38138;&#30340;&#26377;&#20992;&#21475;&#24067;&#34915;&#27468;&#39118;&#27743;&#23665;&#27963;&#25417;3P&#65292;&#20854;&#20013;&#30340;&#20992;&#21475;&#26159;&#24120;&#39547;&#22312;&#37027;&#37324;&#65292;&#25105;&#30041;&#24847;&#20182;&#22312;&#20891;&#29256;&#30340;&#19977;&#20010;&#20027;&#35201;&#24086;&#23376;&#65292;&#20854;&#23427;&#25105;&#37117;&#19981;&#20851;&#27880;

CD&#39134;&#25196;&#20043;&#31867;&#30340;&#26377;&#32993;&#23376;&#26356;&#65292;&#20294;&#32769;&#32993;&#19981;&#26159;&#24120;&#30041;&#22312;&#37027;&#37324;&#65292;&#35201;&#21548;&#20182;&#29190;&#26009;&#20063;&#19981;&#23481;&#26131;&#65292;&#24179;&#26102;&#32477;&#22823;&#22810;&#25968;&#37117;&#26159;&#19968;&#20123;&#27809;&#24178;&#36135;&#30340;&#23567;&#30333;&#22312;&#37027;&#37324;&#35013;&#22823;&#23158;&#65292;&#21644;&#20992;&#21475;&#27604;&#20182;&#20204;&#37117;&#24046;&#36828;&#20102;

&#20197;&#21069;&#22312;&#33328;&#33337;&#37027;&#37324;&#20063;&#35265;&#36807;&#20992;&#21475;&#65292;&#35273;&#24471;&#20182;&#25402;&#26377;&#26009;&#30340;&#65292;&#24456;&#22810;&#34987;&#20182;&#29190;&#36807;&#30340;&#32593;&#32476;&#19978;&#19968;&#25163;&#36164;&#26009;&#21518;&#26469;&#37117;&#34987;&#35777;&#23454;&#20102;


----------



## houshanghai

rcrmj said:


> xiong di, what forum is good in China now``I'm going back soon wanna join a good defence forum`?



tiexie . sina. zhonghua..


----------



## houshanghai

ANTIBODY said:


>




thx ANTIBODY

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## S10

houshanghai said:


> tiexie . sina. zhonghua..


You've mentioned all the crap defence forums in China.

CD and FY are the places to be if you want to look for actual discussion and insider news, although both places have gone downhill recently.


----------



## April.lyrics

S10 said:


> You've mentioned all the crap defence forums in China.
> 
> CD and FY are the places to be if you want to look for actual discussion and insider news, although both places have gone downhill recently.



&#25105;&#31639;&#26159;&#20170;&#24180;&#19968;&#26376;&#20221;&#24320;&#22987;&#20851;&#27880;&#20891;&#20107;&#30340;&#65292;&#24863;&#35273;CD&#21644;&#39134;&#25196;&#26377;&#20123;&#20154;&#35828;&#35805;&#30340;&#35805;&#33021;&#36879;&#38706;&#20123;&#20449;&#24687;&#65292;&#20854;&#23427;&#23601;&#26159;&#19968;&#24110;&#20154;&#25199;&#28129;&#12290;&#20854;&#23427;&#20891;&#32593;&#23601;&#27809;&#24590;&#20040;&#21435;&#36807;&#20102;&#12290;Huzhigeng&#35980;&#20284;&#32463;&#24120;&#21435;CD&#65292;&#32463;&#24120;&#19968;&#24110;&#20154;&#25214;&#20182;&#38382;&#38382;&#39064;


----------



## HavocHeaven

S10 said:


> You've mentioned all the crap defence forums in China.
> 
> CD and FY are the places to be if you want to look for actual discussion and insider news, although both places have gone downhill recently.



The unveiling of J-20 created a ton of fans over night lol. CDF has become a chat room, to be quite honest.
&#20294;&#26159;&#25105;&#21916;&#27426;&#37027;&#31181;&#28909;&#38393;&#21704;&#21704;&#21704;

BTW 9ifly is pretty cool. Neat and serious discussions.


----------



## pzkilo

HavocHeaven said:


> The unveiling of J-20 created a ton of fans over night lol. CDF has become a chat room, to be quite honest.
> &#20294;&#26159;&#25105;&#21916;&#27426;&#37027;&#31181;&#28909;&#38393;&#21704;&#21704;&#21704;
> 
> BTW 9ifly is pretty cool. Neat and serious discussions.


9ifly(&#33322;&#31354;&#33322;&#22825;&#28207;&#65289;is awesome. 

&#20294;&#26159;&#36807;&#20110;&#19987;&#19994;&#30340;&#35770;&#22363;&#19968;&#23450;&#20250;&#23548;&#33268;&#20919;&#28165;&#65292;&#33322;&#22825;&#28207;&#23601;&#26159;&#36825;&#26679;&#12290;&#22823;&#23478;&#36824;&#26159;&#27604;&#36739;&#21916;&#27426;&#20154;&#27668;&#26106;&#30340;&#35770;&#22363;&#65292;&#21253;&#25324;&#25105;&#12290;
&#20992;&#21475;&#20854;&#20154;&#30495;&#23454;&#36523;&#20221;&#26089;&#24050;&#34987;&#35777;&#23454;&#65292;&#20854;&#20154;&#30475;&#26469;&#20063;&#27604;&#36739;&#27491;&#27966;&#65292;&#20182;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#21487;&#20197;&#19968;&#30475;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#25105;&#21069;&#38754;&#35828;&#36807;&#65292;&#20992;&#21475;&#31561;&#20154;&#65292;&#33258;&#24049;&#26159;&#20891;&#20869;&#30340;&#25110;&#32773;&#21644;&#20891;&#38431;&#26377;&#20851;&#31995;&#30340;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#27605;&#31455;&#19981;&#26159;&#19981;&#26159;&#20891;&#24037;&#34892;&#19994;&#30340;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#24456;&#22810;&#28040;&#24687;&#21487;&#33021;&#37117;&#36716;&#20102;7,&#65292;8&#27425;&#20102;&#65292;&#21487;&#33021;&#26089;&#23601;&#21464;&#20102;&#26679;&#20102;&#65292;&#32780;&#26377;&#20123;&#28040;&#24687;&#20063;&#19981;&#19968;&#23450;&#20934;&#30830;&#12290; &#33267;&#20110;&#24403;&#38138;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#27963;&#25417;&#31561;&#20154;&#65292;&#25105;&#30475;&#19981;&#36879;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#22909;&#20687;&#20160;&#20040;&#37117;&#25026;&#65292;&#30693;&#35782;&#38754;&#24456;&#20016;&#23500;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#21448;&#32473;&#20154;&#24863;&#35273;&#19981;&#26159;&#30452;&#25509;&#24178;&#20891;&#24037;&#30340;&#65292;&#32780;&#20182;&#20204;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#26377;&#23545;&#26377;&#19981;&#23545;&#30340;&#65292;&#38590;&#35828;&#12290;
cd fy &#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#21435;&#65292;&#22810;&#21548;&#22810;&#25209;&#21028;&#65292;&#32593;&#32476;&#19978;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#65292;&#37117;&#21482;&#33021;&#20570;&#21442;&#32771;&#65292;&#35841;&#30340;&#35805;&#20063;&#19981;&#35201;&#20840;&#20449;&#65292;&#33258;&#24049;&#21028;&#26029;&#23601;&#34892;&#20102;&#65292;&#27605;&#31455;&#37027;2&#20010;&#27604;&#36739;&#26434;&#12290;&#21407;&#26469;&#30340;&#38472;&#24544;&#35328;&#36824;&#21487;&#20197;&#65292;&#21518;&#26469;&#20182;&#24050;&#32463;&#26497;&#31471;&#20102;&#65292;&#19981;&#20540;&#24471;&#20851;&#27880;&#20102;&#12290; &#20854;&#23454;&#24403;&#26102;&#21253;&#25324;huzhigeng&#65292; &#38472;&#65292;&#33433;&#33993;&#31561;&#31561;&#24403;&#26102;&#30340;&#37027;&#20249;hkc&#22823;&#20332;&#20204;&#26089;&#23601;&#29190;&#20986;&#25105;&#20204;&#22312;2010~2012&#33021;&#26377;4&#20195;&#19978;&#22825;&#65292;&#26472;&#20255;&#24403;&#26102;&#26159;&#22312;&#22823;&#20250;&#19978;&#25171;&#21253;&#31080;&#30340;&#65292;&#22823;&#27010;&#26159;05,06&#24180;&#36825;&#20123;&#28040;&#24687;&#23601;&#26377;&#20102;&#12290;&#21487;&#26159;&#24403;&#26102;&#20320;&#35201;&#26159;&#22312;cd , fy&#35828;&#36825;&#20010;&#65292;&#26377;&#20960;&#20010;&#20154;&#30456;&#20449;&#20320;&#65311;&#20320;&#20250;&#34987;&#24403;&#30333;&#30196;&#25915;&#20987;&#30340;&#12290;&#29305;&#21035;&#26159;cd&#30340;&#26576;&#20123;&#36149;&#23486;&#12290;

&#19968;&#33324;&#26469;&#35828;&#25105;bkc hkc&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#37117;&#30475;&#12290;


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pzkilo said:


> 9ifly(&#33322;&#31354;&#33322;&#22825;&#28207;&#65289;is awesome.
> 
> &#20294;&#26159;&#36807;&#20110;&#19987;&#19994;&#30340;&#35770;&#22363;&#19968;&#23450;&#20250;&#23548;&#33268;&#20919;&#28165;&#65292;&#33322;&#22825;&#28207;&#23601;&#26159;&#36825;&#26679;&#12290;&#22823;&#23478;&#36824;&#26159;&#27604;&#36739;&#21916;&#27426;&#20154;&#27668;&#26106;&#30340;&#35770;&#22363;&#65292;&#21253;&#25324;&#25105;&#12290;
> &#20992;&#21475;&#20854;&#20154;&#30495;&#23454;&#36523;&#20221;&#26089;&#24050;&#34987;&#35777;&#23454;&#65292;&#20854;&#20154;&#30475;&#26469;&#20063;&#27604;&#36739;&#27491;&#27966;&#65292;&#20182;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#21487;&#20197;&#19968;&#30475;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#25105;&#21069;&#38754;&#35828;&#36807;&#65292;&#20992;&#21475;&#31561;&#20154;&#65292;&#33258;&#24049;&#26159;&#20891;&#20869;&#30340;&#25110;&#32773;&#21644;&#20891;&#38431;&#26377;&#20851;&#31995;&#30340;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#27605;&#31455;&#19981;&#26159;&#19981;&#26159;&#20891;&#24037;&#34892;&#19994;&#30340;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#24456;&#22810;&#28040;&#24687;&#21487;&#33021;&#37117;&#36716;&#20102;7,&#65292;8&#27425;&#20102;&#65292;&#21487;&#33021;&#26089;&#23601;&#21464;&#20102;&#26679;&#20102;&#65292;&#32780;&#26377;&#20123;&#28040;&#24687;&#20063;&#19981;&#19968;&#23450;&#20934;&#30830;&#12290; &#33267;&#20110;&#24403;&#38138;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#27963;&#25417;&#31561;&#20154;&#65292;&#25105;&#30475;&#19981;&#36879;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#22909;&#20687;&#20160;&#20040;&#37117;&#25026;&#65292;&#30693;&#35782;&#38754;&#24456;&#20016;&#23500;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#21448;&#32473;&#20154;&#24863;&#35273;&#19981;&#26159;&#30452;&#25509;&#24178;&#20891;&#24037;&#30340;&#65292;&#32780;&#20182;&#20204;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#26377;&#23545;&#26377;&#19981;&#23545;&#30340;&#65292;&#38590;&#35828;&#12290;
> cd fy &#20063;&#21487;&#20197;&#21435;&#65292;&#22810;&#21548;&#22810;&#25209;&#21028;&#65292;&#32593;&#32476;&#19978;&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#65292;&#37117;&#21482;&#33021;&#20570;&#21442;&#32771;&#65292;&#35841;&#30340;&#35805;&#20063;&#19981;&#35201;&#20840;&#20449;&#65292;&#33258;&#24049;&#21028;&#26029;&#23601;&#34892;&#20102;&#65292;&#27605;&#31455;&#37027;2&#20010;&#27604;&#36739;&#26434;&#12290;&#21407;&#26469;&#30340;&#38472;&#24544;&#35328;&#36824;&#21487;&#20197;&#65292;&#21518;&#26469;&#20182;&#24050;&#32463;&#26497;&#31471;&#20102;&#65292;&#19981;&#20540;&#24471;&#20851;&#27880;&#20102;&#12290; &#20854;&#23454;&#24403;&#26102;&#21253;&#25324;huzhigeng&#65292; &#38472;&#65292;&#33433;&#33993;&#31561;&#31561;&#24403;&#26102;&#30340;&#37027;&#20249;hkc&#22823;&#20332;&#20204;&#26089;&#23601;&#29190;&#20986;&#25105;&#20204;&#22312;2010~2012&#33021;&#26377;4&#20195;&#19978;&#22825;&#65292;&#26472;&#20255;&#24403;&#26102;&#26159;&#22312;&#22823;&#20250;&#19978;&#25171;&#21253;&#31080;&#30340;&#65292;&#22823;&#27010;&#26159;05,06&#24180;&#36825;&#20123;&#28040;&#24687;&#23601;&#26377;&#20102;&#12290;&#21487;&#26159;&#24403;&#26102;&#20320;&#35201;&#26159;&#22312;cd , fy&#35828;&#36825;&#20010;&#65292;&#26377;&#20960;&#20010;&#20154;&#30456;&#20449;&#20320;&#65311;&#20320;&#20250;&#34987;&#24403;&#30333;&#30196;&#25915;&#20987;&#30340;&#12290;&#29305;&#21035;&#26159;cd&#30340;&#26576;&#20123;&#36149;&#23486;&#12290;
> 
> &#19968;&#33324;&#26469;&#35828;&#25105;bkc hkc&#30340;&#28040;&#24687;&#37117;&#30475;&#12290;




&#30495;&#27491;&#30340;&#20891;&#24037;&#20307;&#21046;&#20869;&#30340;&#20154;&#21453;&#32780;&#26377;&#22826;&#22810;&#30340;&#20272;&#35745;&#65292;&#19981;&#25954;&#22810;&#29190;&#26009;

&#32780;&#20687;&#20992;&#21475;&#37027;&#20123;&#20154;&#34429;&#28982;&#19981;&#26159;&#20891;&#24037;&#37027;&#37324;&#30340;&#25216;&#26415;&#20154;&#21592;&#65292;&#20294;&#20182;&#20204;&#37027;&#26679;&#30340;&#20891;&#20154;&#24178;&#37096;&#33021;&#25509;&#35302;&#21040;&#30340;&#19968;&#25163;&#36135;&#36164;&#26009;&#27605;&#31455;&#27604;&#26222;&#36890;&#20154;&#35201;&#22810;&#24471;&#22810;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#30340;&#20998;&#26512;&#23601;&#31639;&#27809;&#26377;&#21313;&#20998;&#65292;&#20063;&#26377;&#20843;&#20061;&#20998;


----------



## marshall

Saw these interesting videos on J-20 aerodynamic flight characteristics, enjoy! hehehe

*Aerodynamic Performance*
- J-20 - YouTube
- J-20: Flight Testing! - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Luftwaffe said:


> Out Classed





_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is what I call "high quality" russian junks.!!!!!

Do you know that S-117 has super after burner?? In this picture, it uses that capability. It produce 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 pounds of thrust and make Pka-af go faster than the speed of light. 

At last, PtldM3. JF-17 no longer uses russian engine. They bought 60 RD-93 just in case WS-13A is no ready. But WS-13A is ready and in the Farnborough air show, two JF-17 flow with Chinese WS-13A engine. Also, the newly delivered 50 JF-17 also uses Chinese WS-13A engine!!!

Do you care to explain what happen in the picture?? You ULTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA realiable, S-117 engine??


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> _--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> This is what I call "high quality" russian junks.!!!!!





Please sunny boy, China still buys Russian engines. And by your logic the F-22 must be American junk because one prototype crashed. Take your petty comments elsewere and start acting like an adult.



AerospaceEngineer said:


> At last, PtldM3. JF-17 no longer uses russian engine.





Yes it does, don't make stories up.




AerospaceEngineer said:


> They bought 60 RD-93 just in case WS-13A is no ready.





Clearly it was not ready and it still is not ready.




AerospaceEngineer said:


> But WS-13A is ready and in the Farnborough air show, two JF-17 flow with Chinese WS-13A engine. Also, the newly delivered 50 JF-17 also uses Chinese WS-13A engine!!!





Bringing an engine or radar or anything to an airshow does not mean it is ready, various vendors often bring products that are still in development to showcase at airshows. And two JF-17 flying with the WS-13 engine means little, at some point all engine have to be instaled on an actual aircraft to undergo real world endurance tests. So what is your point? The Astra, NIIP radar and dozens of other prototype products have been exhibited at air shows, again what is your point?





AerospaceEngineer said:


> Do you *care to explain what happen in the picture?? *You ULTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA realiable, S-117 engine??



Yea, it was a malfunction in the automatic flight control system caused by a malfunctioning multi-parameter sensor. And to be clear the engine never failed, the malfunctioning sensor merely caused additional fuel to be fed into the engine. More importantly the problem was quickly identified and corrected.

It's also a prototype engine. These things happen in new engines, the only difference is that with Sukhoi it happened in front of 200,000 people. What makes you sure that China has not had something similar or worse happen? Considering that both prototype F-22 and SU-35's aircraft have crashed it's safe to say that China has also had some serious problams with it's prototype aircraft.

Didn't the J-11BS desintegrate in mid air do to the WS-10 engine? An aircraft desintegrating due to an engine problem is alot more serious than a faulty sensor that was quickly replaced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

It does not matter what you say.

You keep saying that S-117 is so realiable. But now this happened!!1

Yet you still say that your AL-31 "outclass" WS-10. 



You mere russian must drink too much vodaka. Or holy indian urine!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Aerospace you are a embarrassment.



lol, but he was right about the WS-10 and AL-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Our Russian friend ptldM3's skin is thicker than the wall of Berlin, and he virtually spams in every China related topic like crazy.

Even the most low-profile and pessimistic Chinese members here can't take his BS anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Luftwaffe said:


> Out Classed




LOL. check this out.

Russia's ULTRA realiable S-117 with super after burner. Which can drive T-50 faster than the speed of light!


----------



## tanlixiang28776

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Our Russian friend ptldM3's skin is thicker than the wall of Berlin, and he virtually spams every China related topic like crazy.
> 
> Even the most low-profile and pessimistic Chinese members here can't take his BS anymore.



True. But arguing with poorly formed responses even if they are correct matters little on the internet.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Using ignorant and racist insults towards others does nothing for your country's image.
> 
> I got banned for religious images others found offensive. The mods actually applauded me on keeping idiots like you in line.




lol, oh really?/

Then tell me why you are still not a mod yet?


----------



## tanlixiang28776

AerospaceEngineer said:


> lol, oh really?/
> 
> Then tell me why you are still not a mod yet?



Have you seen a non Pakistani mod wiseguy?


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Our Russian friend *ptldM3's skin is thicker than the wall of Berlin*, and he virtually spams in every China related topic like crazy.
> 
> Even the most low-profile and pessimistic Chinese members here can't take his BS anymore.




In order to treat a moron you must BEAT IT DOWN!!!!

You can not talk nice to then, othwer wise they will do worse!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tanlixiang28776

AerospaceEngineer said:


> In order to treat a moron you must BEAT IT DOWN!!!!
> 
> You can not talk nice to then, othwer wise they will do worse!!!



You beat them by being above above their petty crap. Not by going the other way.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Soon WS-10G(which is now on J-20) will be the core engine for the advanced J-10B!!



Could the new golden TH engine being WS-10G? Since it looks very different from the regular TH engine. The 'G' stands for &#8216;&#22823;&#25913;&#8217;, which stands for a major improvement. Whereas the WS-10B is not a major improvement from the WS-10A.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Could the new golden TH engine being WS-10G? Since it looks very different from the regular TH engine. The 'G' stands for &#8216;&#22823;&#25913;&#8217;, which stands for a major improvement. Whereas the WS-10B is not a major improvement from the WS-10A.



Could you show a picture thanks.


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> It does not matter what you say.





So facts that can be proven with sources do not matter? Okay keep living in denial. 




AerospaceEngineer said:


> You keep saying that S-117 is so realiable. But now this happened!!1






I only mentioned this numerous times but it's not the S-117 it is the 117, read what I post. And it has been explained what happened it was a multi-parameter sensor--the problem was corrected. The 117 is also a new engine and as I stated new technology always has flaws.

It makes me wonder if you even actually read what I post. If you won't take the time to read all of the posts do not bother commenting.

Your persistent mockery of the 'flameout' incident also shows your ignorance and immaturity. It's a new engine that had a flaw, that flaw is now fixed.




AerospaceEngineer said:


> Yet you still say that your AL-31 "outclass" WS-10.





When did I ever say anything about the AL-31 outclassing the WS-10? Do not put words in my mouth. I said that the 117s and 117 outclass the WS-10 and they do in virtually every aspect. And the AL-31F's MTBO and service life do seem to be better than the WS-10 if the WS-10 numbers are to be trusted. 




AerospaceEngineer said:


> You mere russian must drink too much vodaka. Or holy indian urine!!




What was that? Is that frustration I hear? As if your childish colorful fonts and choice of words such as 'lol' was not embarrassing enough now you stoop to racism.




tanlixiang28776 said:


> Aerospace you are a embarrassment.




This is a self proclaimed Stanford 'AerospaceEngineer' that can not compile a cohesive sentence, nor does he know the most basic aspects of anything aircraft related. 





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Our Russian friend ptldM3's skin is thicker than the wall of Berlin, and he virtually spams in every China related topic like crazy.
> 
> Even the most low-profile and pessimistic Chinese members here can't take his BS anymore.




I mostly stay out of Chinese related threads. I only comment when someone claims something that is not true. I'm sure you remember some of your past comments badmouthing Russian technology, don't you? People like you like to sit back, make up fantastic claims and then run away when someone proves you wrong. A good part of the time it is people like yourself that are the instigators so do not complain.

And spam, do I? I took the time to explain how engine overhauls work, how and how often parts need replacing, and the criteria of establishing the MTBO.

It sure does beat calling people vodka and urine drinkers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Could you show a picture thanks.



I mean the golden TH engine used by the new J-10B. Its noise is still TH, but the nozzle has a lot of improvement from the old one.


----------



## monitor

J-20 &#8216;Mighty Dragon&#8217; fifth-generation single-seat air dominance multi-role fighter jet has been developed by the China&#8217;s Chengdu Aircraft Industries Corp (CAC).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

The stealth shaping of the J-20 fighter jet is better than that of the Sukhoi OKB-designed T-50 PAK-FA multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) prototypes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Good news.

It is being confirmed that J-10B has an AESA radar and has over 1100 TR modulus.

J-10B also fitted with WS-10A. 

The 123 AL-31FN is for the J-10A. It seems that J-10B mass production will begin in early 2012 and uses WS-10A. While J-10A will continue production for 1 more year.

I got this from Sino Defence Fourm. Which is very accurate!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Good news.
> 
> It is being confirmed that J-10B has an AESA radar and has over 1100 TR modulus.
> 
> J-10B also fitted with WS-10A.
> 
> The 123 AL-31FN is for the J-10A. It seems that J-10B mass production will begin in early 2012 and uses WS-10A. While J-10A will continue production for 1 more year.
> 
> I got this from Sino Defence Fourm. Which is very accurate!



So you got this from an internet forum? Sigh~


----------



## Bratva

There is a very long path ahead for J-20. What it still needs, a Joint Helmeted mounted Cueing system, An IRST or equivalent system.A true thrust vectoring engine with stealth nose like of F-22.

P.S. I never heard china is making any advance JHMS? Any news on this?


----------



## Broccoli



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Johny D

who will provide engines, stealth tech, tech for aesa, other crucial tech for 5th gen avionics? Hope, all roads are not going to Russia..may its PakFA or Pak J20....lol..


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Broccoli said:


>






Very nice. 

---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------




JD_In said:


> who will provide engines, stealth tech, tech for aesa, other crucial tech for 5th gen avionics? Hope, all roads are not going to Russia..may its PakFA or Pak J20....lol..




Do you mean who provide J-20's engines, stealth tech, aesa?

Answer China.

J-20 has nothing to do with Russia.

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------




S10 said:


> So you got this from an internet forum? Sigh~




Thuphan. 

The famous military pro. Provided this info on SDF.

He is very trustworthly.

There are also photos of the Aesa Radar with about 1100 TR modulus.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------




mafiya said:


> There is a very long path ahead for J-20. What it still needs, a Joint Helmeted mounted Cueing system, An IRST or equivalent system.A true thrust vectoring engine with stealth nose like of F-22.
> 
> P.S. I never heard china is making any advance JHMS? Any news on this?




China already has JHMS.

Also, J-20 will have more advanced stuff called EOTS(Electrical Optical targeting system) . F-35 Has it and J-20 will too.

EOTS has all the stuff IRST has plus much more!


----------



## Dil Pakistan

Broccoli said:


>



The blue fire from engines is very impressive. Shows the quality of engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

J20 NEW PICS

























THX feiyang &#24428;&#24428;&#26377;&#31036;

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## April.lyrics

Broccoli said:


>



i feel from this view j20 a little like Su-27 series.especially the head.


----------



## siegecrossbow

April.lyrics said:


> i feel from this view j20 a little like Su-27 series.especially the head.



Guess that is just your personal view... The only similarity between the J-20 and Su-27 is probably the engines and maybe the size.


----------



## April.lyrics

siegecrossbow said:


> Guess that is just your personal view... The only similarity between the J-20 and Su-27 is probably the engines and maybe the size.



i compared Su27(Su33) with J20


----------



## houshanghai

April.lyrics said:


> i compared Su27(Su33) with J20





i don't think there have any similar designs between J20 and flanker. 
It was only your feelings......
If you said so&#65292; well, then some people can say quickly that J20 must be a flanker's copy because it has wings and two engines like a flanker. Russia getting angry..........


---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------






j20 has a nice rear view visibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## teddy

[/COLOR]




j20 has a nice rear view visibility.[/QUOTE]

Just like any other girl, the rear bottom is most sexy.


----------



## Broccoli

I haven't seen these bumps in the side before. 



Any idea what is the one in the middle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

The plane is fantastic !!! What a great achivement by Chinese Engineers make me proud of these Engineers



houshanghai said:


> i don't think there have any similar designs between J20 and flanker.
> It was only your feelings......
> If you said so&#65292; well, then some people can say quickly that J20 must be a flanker's copy because it has wings and two engines like a flanker. Russia getting angry..........
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j20 has a nice rear view visibility.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Dil Pakistan said:


> The blue fire from engines is very impressive. Shows the quality of engine.




Yes, indeed. 


If you take a look at the engine from Pak-Fa. You will see that it shots out yellow flam!!

lol

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------




houshanghai said:


> i don't think there have any similar designs between J20 and flanker.
> It was only your feelings......
> If you said so&#65292; well, then some people can say quickly that J20 must be a flanker's copy because it has wings and two engines like a flanker. Russia getting angry..........
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------
> 
> j20 has a nice rear view visibility.





Russia gets angry everytime China come up with some thing brilliant. In the near future. 

USA, Russia, Hinda, japen. Will ALL get VERY VERY VERY angry. 

lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

Broccoli said:


> I haven't seen these bumps in the side before.
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea what is the one in the middle?



acne&#65292;maybe....


----------



## S10

Broccoli said:


> I haven't seen these bumps in the side before.
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea what is the one in the middle?


Perhaps corner reflectors to increase radar signature.


----------



## Zabaniyah

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Yes, indeed.
> 
> 
> If you take a look at the engine from Pak-Fa. You will see that it shots out yellow flam!!
> 
> lol



Really? 
PAK FA:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/5/4/1970458.jpg

SU-30MKI
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/0/6/5/1343560.jpg


----------



## amalakas

Zabanya said:


> Really?
> PAK FA:
> http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/5/4/1970458.jpg
> 
> SU-30MKI
> http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/0/6/5/1343560.jpg


 
If this man is an aerospace engineer or indeed anything other than an landscape engineer, I am Batman.. and ironman and spiderman and Clark Kent... in one ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Perhaps corner reflectors to increase radar signature.


Deliberately? Do not think so. These 'bumps' looks nothing like corner reflectors, more like typical component covers.


----------



## ptldM3

Zabanya said:


> Really?
> PAK FA:
> http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/5/4/1970458.jpg
> 
> SU-30MKI
> http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/0/6/5/1343560.jpg



He was taking a cheap shot at the pak-fa when the 117 had a 'flameout' which was fixed long ago. And does anyone else think it is ironic that someone from China would have the audacity to make such comments considering the WS-10 program has been plagued with problems, so much so that a J-11 is rumored to have disintegrated because of the WS-10.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Yes, indeed.
> 
> 
> If you take a look at the engine from Pak-Fa. You will see that it shots out yellow flam!!
> 
> lol
> 
> ---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia gets angry everytime China come up with some thing brilliant. In the near future.
> 
> USA, Russia, Hinda, japen. Will ALL get VERY VERY VERY angry.
> 
> lol



To be honestly, i think it is nothing special to have the bluish flame in afterburner, i've seen many other aircrafts such as F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18/F-22.

The most important thing for us is to get it done with the production model of WS-15 in the next year. So far, i think the engines we have now on the J-20 are the prototype model of WS-15.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Luftwaffe said:


> Out Classed





I am talking about his one!!![

---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

[/COLOR]


Zabanya said:


> Really?
> PAK FA:
> http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/5/4/1970458.jpg
> 
> SU-30MKI
> http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/0/6/5/1343560.jpg




Look the picture above!


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Deliberately? Do not think so. These 'bumps' looks nothing like corner reflectors, more like typical component covers.


Strange shape for component cover.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> He was taking a cheap shot at the pak-fa when the 117 had a 'flameout' which was fixed long ago. And does anyone else think it is ironic that someone from China would have the audacity to make such comments considering the WS-10 program has been plagued with problems, so much so that a J-11 is rumored to have disintegrated because of the WS-10.




You are talking bullcrap!!!


WS-10A is now sed on J-11B, J-15.

Also official news confirmed that WS-10A is installed on J-10B.

The 143 AL-31FN is for the older J-10A. Since your russian engines typically wont last more than 5 years!!


Why wont you go take a look at your junk S-117 engine. It shoots out yellow flame!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer2192578 said:


> ;You are talking bullcrap!!!




Everything that i have stated has came from Chinese officials, so now Chinese pilots as well as people involved in the WS-10 program are 'talking bullcrap'. 




AerospaceEngineer2192578 said:


> Since your russian engines typically wont last more than 5 years!!




This is funny considering Chinese engines come no where close to Russian ones when it comes to service life. And it doesn't go by years it goes by hours.




AerospaceEngineer2192578 said:


> Why wont you go take a look at your junk S-117 engine. It shoots out yellow flame!!!



Although you think your trolling is clever that 'junk' kills anything China has in T/W ratio and MTBO/service life. Your comments are truely petty and juvenile, funny that for someone that claims to be an engineer i have yet to see anything technical let alone mature in your posts.

And i forgot Chinese aircraft don't develope problems at airshows. 

Why don't *you* take a look:

China fighter jet crash: JH-7 &#39;Flying Leopard&#39; nose-dives into field - YouTube


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> Everything that i have stated has came from Chinese officials, so now Chinese pilots as well as people involved in the WS-10 program are 'talking bullcrap'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny considering Chinese engines come no where close to Russian ones when it comes to service life. And it doesn't go by years it goes by hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although you think your trolling is clever that 'junk' kills anything China has in T/W ratio and MTBO/service life. Your comments are truely petty and juvenile, funny that for someone that claims to be an engineer i have yet to see anything technical let alone mature in your posts.
> 
> And i forgot Chinese aircraft don't develope problems at airshows.
> 
> Why don't *you* take a look:
> 
> China fighter jet crash: JH-7 'Flying Leopard' nose-dives into field - YouTube





lol. 

First, you are still denying the fact that WS-10A is now on J-15, J-11B, even J-10B. You are digging out old sh@t to deny WS-10A!

Second, JH-7's crash has nothing to do with WS-10A. Do you know how many Mig-29, SU-27 crashed?? Su-27 crashed in an air show and killed over 35 people with AL-31F engine, yet you still said that it "outclass" WS-10A!!!

Also, you russians wanted to sell Mig-29 at first, but the Mig-29 demo plane crashed during the demo!!!!! Almost killed the Chinese general who is inspecting it!!! After that you russians are soooooo embarassed that you offered SU-27 right away!!

AL-31FN is much better than AL-31F, no doubt. But WS-10A is better, it has more thrust and much longer serverice life. That is why All new variants of J-11 and J-10 are using it!!

Also, J-20 does NOT use your crapy S-117 engine which shots out yellow flame!!! J-20 uses CHinese made engine. WS-10G which far outclass your AL-31FN!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> lol.
> 
> First, you are still denying the fact that WS-10A is now on J-15, J-11B, even J-10B. You are digging out old sh@t to deny WS-10A!




When did I deny that? Find the post, I want everyone to see.



AerospaceEngineer said:


> Second, JH-7's crash has nothing to do with WS-10A. Do you know how many Mig-29, SU-27 crashed?? Su-27 crashed in an air show and killed over 35 people with AL-31F engine, yet you still said that it "outclass" WS-10A!!!




 and did *you* know that none of those crashes had anything to do with mechanical problems? All were either caused by* pilot error or a bird strike *

You clearly do not have the capacity to connect the JH-7 crash and the 117S 'flameout'. It seems like you enjoy making fun of other's misfortune (117 air show incident) but when something comparable happens in China (JH-7 air show incident) you, of course, have excuses lined up. 




AerospaceEngineer said:


> AL-31FN is much better than AL-31F, no doubt. But WS-10A is better, it has more thrust and *much longer serverice life*. That is why All new variants of J-11 and J-10 are using it!!





Source please.






AerospaceEngineer said:


> Also, J-20 does NOT use your crapy S-117 engine which shots out yellow flame!!! J-20 uses CHinese made engine. WS-10G which far outclass your AL-31FN!!!



I never said that the J-20 used the 'S-117'. But one J-20 is said to use a pair of AL-31's, so if the 'S-117" is such 'unreliable junk' than why is one of the J-20 prototypes equipped with and older inferior Russian engine.

Must be because Russian engines are so unreliable


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AerospaceEngineer said:


> lol.
> 
> First, you are still denying the fact that WS-10A is now on J-15, J-11B, even J-10B. You are digging out old sh@t to deny WS-10A!
> 
> Second, JH-7's crash has nothing to do with WS-10A. Do you know how many Mig-29, SU-27 crashed?? Su-27 crashed in an air show and killed over 35 people with AL-31F engine, yet you still said that it "outclass" WS-10A!!!
> 
> Also, you russians wanted to sell Mig-29 at first, but the Mig-29 demo plane crashed during the demo!!!!! Almost killed the Chinese general who is inspecting it!!! After that you russians are soooooo embarassed that you offered SU-27 right away!!
> 
> AL-31FN is much better than AL-31F, no doubt. But WS-10A is better, it has more thrust and much longer serverice life. That is why All new variants of J-11 and J-10 are using it!!
> 
> Also, J-20 does NOT use your crapy S-117 engine which shots out yellow flame!!! J-20 uses CHinese made engine. WS-10G which far outclass your AL-31FN!!!



I think J-10B uses the new WS-10X, not the older WS-10A.


----------



## hulian12

&#39134;&#26426;&#20063;&#29609;&#26434;&#25216;&#65281;&#26519;&#23376;&#22823;&#20102;&#65292;&#20160;&#20040;&#40479;&#37117;&#26377;&#65281;&#65281;&#65281;&#65281;


----------



## nomi007

j- is the best Chinese achievement
engine issue will be resolve with the passage of time
but why Chinese design have Canard 










---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

please any Chinese member can confirm that china is making also f-35 type fighter for Pakistan like j-2x.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

nomi007 said:


> j- is the best Chinese achievement
> engine issue will be resolve with the passage of time
> but why Chinese design have Canard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------
> 
> please any Chinese member can confirm that china is making also f-35 type fighter for Pakistan like j-2x.


 
The engine will become stronger with the passage of time, but the problem was already solved.


----------



## S10

nomi007 said:


> but why Chinese design have Canard


High controllable angle of attack in low speeds and additional lift surface.



> please any Chinese member can confirm that china is making also f-35 type fighter for Pakistan like j-2x.


It's been confirmed by huzhigeng, who is an employee of CAC. It's not just made for Pakistan though.


----------



## Zabaniyah

S10 said:


> High controllable angle of attack in low speeds and additional lift surface.
> 
> 
> It's been confirmed by huzhigeng, who is an employee of CAC. *It's not just made for Pakistan though.*



Who else, if I may ask?



AerospaceEngineer said:


> Look the picture above!



Yes, I have seen it. You do know that engine malfunctioned during the event? Right Mr. Aerospace Engineer? Hell, I am a science graduate doing MBA


----------



## Zabaniyah

nomi007 said:


> j- is the best Chinese achievement
> engine issue will be resolve with the passage of time
> but why Chinese design have Canard
> 
> [/COLOR]please any Chinese member can confirm that china is making also f-35 type fighter for Pakistan like j-2x.



According to some analysts, the J-20 is actually a derivative from a little known Lockheed Martin prototype, which was part of the JSF program.


















http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/pics02.shtml
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2665598/posts
http://www.stormclimb.com/2011/08/2...-aircraft-powered-model-seen-on-google-earth/

I really doubt if the Russians actually shared the technology with anyone, from the F-117 that was shot down over Serbia during the Balkan wars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Zabanya said:


> According to some analysts, the J-20 is actually a derivative from a little known Lockheed Martin prototype, which was part of the JSF program.


False.

J-9VII that never made it out of concept stage in early 1980's.





---------- Post added at 02:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------




Zabanya said:


> Who else, if I may ask?


Chinese AF and export in general.


----------



## rcrmj

Zabanya said:


> According to some analysts, the J-20 is actually a derivative from a little known Lockheed Martin prototype, which was part of the JSF program.
> .



i understand why you think that```it is indeed a convenient excuse for western analysis to raise this issue```to some extend they can even assum that J-20 is a 'copy' of downed F-117`! lol```so we cannot take their assumption too seriously.

they ofter neglect the fact that CAC has beening researching and developing canard config fighters for over 40 years, from J-9 (70s) to J-10 and now J-20, so we can see a contingency of their areodynamic researches.

so those so-called J-10 is a Lavi 'copy' and J-20 is a F-117 or Mig I.42 'copy' is just some unprofessional assumptions based on some third party rumors

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

*HEY I GOT SOME INTERESTING PICS OF J20 *












Do not know if paint chips by the end of the nozzle close to dramatic temperature changes may have implications for it I hope that is wrong
well is it true or it is due to cheap chinese paint job plz tell
*REGARDS*


----------



## Kompromat

@Somnath. This is not cheap paint job , this is RAM coming off , the one thing about RAM is that it has to be layred continuously to keep the stealth profile smooth. Its part of regular maintenance for 5th gen air crafts.

I would look at it as a hard proof that J-20 uses RAM.


----------



## monitor

@ Aeronaut Why the RAM coting is falling off ? technical fault or its normal ?


----------



## SpArK

Are prototypes painted with RAM coatings?


----------



## Kompromat

monitor said:


> @ Aeronaut Why the RAM coting is falling off ? technical fault or its normal ?



Its normal when elements like moisture , temperature are around , as i said its part of a normal maintenance routine , the RAM coating is like a paste that has to be examined and re-pasted [if required] after each sortie. 



SpArK said:


> Are prototypes painted with RAM coatings?



For testing the stealth profile benny.


----------



## rcrmj

DrSomnath999 said:


> *HEY I GOT SOME INTERESTING PICS OF J20 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not know if paint chips by the end of the nozzle close to dramatic temperature changes may have implications for it I hope that is wrong
> well is it true or it is due to cheap chinese paint job plz tell
> 
> 
> *REGARDS*



USA's F-22, F-117 and B-2 needs constant care of its coating, they have to re-coat the paint after few flights``it has nothing to do with 'cheap' chinese job or India style paint job, sorry to dissapoint you kid

and this picture has been on chinese forum for few days, some insiders said it is part of the coating durability test since after the first flight this plane has gone through a very intensive flight testings, and it is very expensive to have war-time standard maintainance jobs


----------



## Dazzler

rcrmj said:


> USA's F-22, F-117 and B-2 needs constant care of its coating, they have to re-coat the paint after few flights``it has nothing to do with 'cheap' chinese job or India style paint job, sorry to dissapoint you kid
> 
> and this picture has been on chinese forum for few days, some insiders said it is part of the coating durability test since after the first flight this plane has gone through a very intensive flight testings, and it is very expensive to have war-time standard maintainance jobs



This photo validates one thing, J-20 is rigorously tested by PLA for an early induction. Losing paint in this fashion is nothing to worry about if you remember the J-10 prototype that developed cracks in airframe due to rigorous flight schedule.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Zabanya said:


> Yes, I have seen it. You do know that engine malfunctioned during the event? Right Mr. Aerospace Engineer? Hell, I am a science graduate doing MBA


 



Yes, I know. But you shoulld ask PtdLM. He is one who constantly spewing crap on this wonder thread. 

He is the one who has problem.!


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> USA's F-22, F-117 and B-2 needs constant care of its coating, they have to *re-coat the paint after few flights*


You sure about that?


----------



## amalakas

rcrmj said:


> USA's F-22, F-117 and B-2 needs constant care of its coating, they have to re-coat the paint after few flights``


 
Not so sure about that.


----------



## Firemaster

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Yes, I know. But you shoulld ask *PtdLM. * He is one who constantly spewing crap on this wonder thread.
> 
> He is the one who has problem.!



There is no member with that username


----------



## razgriz19

video of j-20 with WEAPONS BAY open!!

[video]http://www.womil.com/Content_2645.html[/video]


----------



## ptldM3

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Yes, I know. But you shoulld ask PtdLM. He is one who constantly spewing crap on this wonder thread.
> 
> He is the one who has problem.!



I havn't said much in this thread, most of my post are a response to you or others like you. This thread is usually on topic; however, you keep on disrupting it by constantly mentioniong the pak-fa and how it is 'junk'. Moreover, you keep accusing me of saying things that i never said.

If you want to this thread to remain a 'wonder thread' i suggest you stop mentioning the pak-fa.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Firemaster said:


> There is no member with that username




It is called sarcasm. Something indians are very very poor at.


----------



## houshanghai

DrSomnath999 said:


> *HEY I GOT SOME INTERESTING PICS OF J20 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not know if paint chips by the end of the nozzle close to dramatic temperature changes may have implications for it I hope that is wrong
> well is it true or it is due to cheap chinese paint job plz tell
> *REGARDS*


 








well is it true or it is due to most cheap and dirty indian paint job in the world plz tell???:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

NICE WORK

J20 WITH 2D TVC NOZZLE,











---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 AM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tanlixiang28776

pretty sure thats psed


----------



## CardSharp

houshanghai said:


> well is it true or it is due to most cheap and dirty indian paint job in the world plz tell???:


 
Looks like it was put together with masking tape.



tanlixiang28776 said:


> pretty sure thats psed



No one claimed it was real. People are just messing around with the pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

THX feiyang &#36215;&#20102;&#21517;&#23383;&#24819;&#21322;&#22825; and hk299792458


----------



## Kompromat

Photoshoped ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Firemaster

AerospaceEngineer said:


> It is called sarcasm. Something indians are very very poor at.


And Chinese are very very rich in hate mongering


----------



## Firemaster

houshanghai said:


> well is it true or it is due to most cheap and dirty indian paint job in the world plz tell???:



Well it is 5th gen aircraft which should be cared for paint job(j20) rather than 4th gen(Tejas).

BTW The paint job on Tejas in the pic above is intentional not like as if paint patches are detached from it during flight. 
But that on j20 seems as if paint is dismantling from it


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Firemaster said:


> Well it is 5th gen aircraft which should be cared for paint job(j20) rather than 4th gen(Tejas).
> 
> BTW The paint job on Tejas in the pic above is intentional not like as if paint patches are detached from it during flight.
> But that on j20 seems as if paint is dismantling from it



That pic of J-20 losing its paint was PSed, it has been proved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Firemaster

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> That pic of J-20 losing its paint was PSed, it has been proved.


Then ok


----------



## applesauce

Firemaster said:


> And Chinese are very very rich in hate mongering



says the master of hate mongering, have you read some of the stuff in indian papers?


----------



## Firemaster

applesauce said:


> says the master of hate mongering, have you read some of the stuff in indian papers?


Yes I have read some but perhaps You haven't read yours
I am the master of Fire but if you call "fire" as "hate" then Dragons emit a lot of fire lol

BTW I was talking about Mr. Aerospace Engineer type chinese because He was showing his best engineering skills here


----------



## houshanghai

J-20 Mighty Dragon 5gen fighter (some nice photographs) + majestic martial music







&#19977;&#21733;&#20809;&#40657;&#40657;&#19997;&#65292;&#33258;&#24049;&#36896;&#19981;&#20986;&#20102;&#65292;&#23601;&#20250;&#20080;&#27611;&#23376;&#30340;&#20080;md&#30340;&#20080;&#27431;&#27954;&#30340;......&#22920;&#30340;&#65292;&#25918;&#28857;&#20891;&#20048;&#29256;&#40657;&#19997;&#27668;&#27515;&#19968;&#19979;&#20182;&#20204;&#65292;&#35753;&#20011;&#37240;&#27515;&#12290;


----------



## applesauce

Firemaster said:


> Yes I have read some but perhaps You haven't read yours
> I am the master of Fire but if you call "fire" as "hate" then Dragons emit a lot of fire lol
> 
> BTW I was talking about Mr. Aerospace Engineer type chinese because He was showing his best engineering skills here



what? who called "fire" as "hate"? are you high?

and about Aerospace Engineer...no comment


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Firemaster said:


> Well it is 5th gen aircraft which should be cared for paint job(j20) rather than 4th gen(Tejas).
> 
> BTW The paint job on Tejas in the pic above is intentional not like as if paint patches are detached from it during flight.
> But that on j20 seems as if paint is dismantling from it




Your lca is CRAP.

Why bring it to this section.


----------



## Vimana

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Your lca is CRAP.
> 
> Why bring it to this section.




your mentality is crap also like your post

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

Firemaster said:


> And Chinese are very very rich in hate mongering




Chinese dont hate, it is you indians who are ENVY!!!


----------



## amalakas

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Chinese dont hate, it is you indians who are ENVY!!!



indians are envy ?? really ? wow. The English language has never hurt so much.. I wonder how you talk with you mates in raytheon....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Firemaster

amalakas said:


> indians are envy ?? really ? wow. The English language has never hurt so much.. I wonder how you talk with you mates in raytheon....


He is not an Aerospace Engineer He is an Aerofake Engineer


----------



## Firemaster

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Chinese dont hate, *it is you indians who are ENVY*!!!


Look at the bold part It shows the hatemongerness of a chinese boy and also look back at your previous posts it will show you how
Much hatemongerness inside u

---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------




AerospaceEngineer said:


> Your lca is CRAP.
> 
> Why bring it to this section.


Did I bring???
r u on weeds??

---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------




applesauce said:


> what? who called "fire" as "hate"? are you high?
> 
> and about Aerospace Engineer...no comment


lol you missed the sarcasm


----------



## April.lyrics

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> That pic of J-20 losing its paint was PSed, it has been proved.



so,it's just another fishing PIC.....like the J-20 hanged on a balloon.

some boring fans like playing tricks on others..


----------



## applesauce

Firemaster said:


> lol you missed the sarcasm



internet sarcasm -_-

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## J-20

@ Mr. Aerospace Engineer, What's the story behind your avatar?! Are you bragging?!


----------



## Secur

gubbi said:


> Damn it! Didnt I tell DRDO repeatedly NOT to use cheap "made in China" paints? This exactly what I had forewarned.


 LOL so you use the same Chinese commercial goods for your defense hardwares too ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

Why are we comparing a 5th gen stealth fighter with a mig-21 variant LCA? Focus people...


----------



## SQ8

*Avoid idiotic statements, stick to the topic instead of dragging in comparisons for idiocy.*


----------



## S10

westtowel said:


> *Master *of *Reverse engineering* and *Copying*.


Indians: Master of *ignorance* and *inferiority complex*.






Everyone else, also feel free to rub this in Indians' faces when they start shooting their mouth on J-10:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## oct605032048

westtowel said:


> *Master *of *Reverse engineering* and *Copying*.



T50 is actually the smallest bird among the three.


----------



## localoca

oct605032048 said:


> T50 is actually the smallest bird among the three.


Wrong.. what´s up with this FanBoys being allowed to post in this thread?


----------



## gagaga

Is China developing any radar (AESA) that allow frequency hopping (like AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81) for J-20??? I guess... no ?!!


----------



## S10

gagaga said:


> Is China developing any radar (AESA) that allow frequency hopping (like AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81) for J-20??? I guess... no ?!!


LPI mode is a must for Chinese AESA radar.


----------



## amalakas

S10 said:


> LPI mode is a must for Chinese AESA radar.


 
yes..but needs to be done first.


----------



## teddy

amalakas said:


> yes..but needs to be done first.


China will be done it just like their spacecraft dock success, and none can stop it.


----------



## nomi007

can any 1 tell about the performance about chinese jet engine
because china order more than 1000 al-31 engines from russia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

amalakas said:


> yes..but needs to be done first.


It's already been done at the 14th institute and undergoing tests on J-10B.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

nomi007 said:


> can any 1 tell about the performance about chinese jet engine
> because china order more than 1000 al-31 engines from russia


 
We did not even order 1000 engines from the past decade.

If you have nothing else to contribute, then better to stay away from this thread.


----------



## amalakas

S10 said:


> It's already been done at the 14th institute and undergoing tests on J-10B.


 
I don't mean an AESA radar. I mean a functioning LPI implementation.


----------



## houshanghai

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> We did not even order 1000 engines from the past decade.
> 
> If you have nothing else to contribute, then better to stay away from this thread.



nomi007 &#65292;this guy did not even know that EJ200 is just a middle-class turbofan engine and it cannot be used in J10 or J20. his knowledge of aviation is such poor.you never has to explain anything to him .
china order more than 1000 al-31 engines from russia.These many many news are only russian fake newS. 
However, truth is china only order 125 al31 this year . Another part of the 100 al31 are still in the negotiation.if chinese WS10 are still so bad now,why were WS10 still being equiped J11B J15 even J10B PT1035?so china still need russian al31fn that is just the problem of capacity of production.not quality Problems .I think I have noting to say him.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

houshanghai said:


> nomi007 &#65292;this guy did not even know that EJ200 is just a middle-class turbofan engine and it cannot be used in J10 or J20. his knowledge of aviation is such poor.you never has to explain anything to him .
> china order more than 1000 al-31 engines from russia.These many many news are only russian fake newS.
> However, truth is china only order 125 al31 this year . Another part of the 100 al31 are still in the negotiation.I think I have noting to say. time proved who is right.



It looks like this deal of 123 AL-31 engines will be last one as some big shrimps suggested before.

Now the production of the TH engines can even cover the old birds like J-11A and Su-30, then there is no reason to buy more Russian engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gagaga

i thought the radar on J-10B was a PESA ?!!


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gagaga said:


> i thought the radar on J-10B was a PESA ?!!



You spare less time to troll, then we will all be pleased.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Darth Vader

i want thiisss aircraft ; my birthday is coming


----------



## homing28




----------



## westtowel

westtowel said:


> *Master *of *Reverse engineering* and *Copying*.



MiG-1.42


----------



## CallsignAlzaeem

westtowel said:


> MiG-1.42



Do you think only copying the air frame is enough to make a jet ''5th Gen.'' Idiotic post.


----------



## westtowel

CallsignAlzaeem said:


> Do you think only copying the air frame is enough to make a jet ''5th Gen.'' Idiotic post.



J-20 is a Airframe as of now, with a russian engine.
Does it have radar,missiles,Ir pods etc.


----------



## oct605032048

westtowel said:


> J-20 is a Airframe as of now, with a russian engine.
> Does it have radar,missiles,Ir pods etc.



If you can't do the very basic math, you can always go back to kindergarten.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

westtowel said:


> MiG-1.42


 Do you guys have to show your inferiority complex everywhere ?  If even it was copied , then you are even not capable of doing so being producing license aircraft for the last 25 years and still cant get a plane operational !


----------



## Zabaniyah

gagaga said:


> i thought the radar on J-10B was a PESA ?!!



The J-10B is AESA.

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------




Secur said:


> Do you guys have to show your inferiority complex everywhere ?  If even it was copied , then you are even not capable of doing so being producing license aircraft for the last 25 years and still cant get a plane operational !



Ignore him man, he is a troll.

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------




oct605032048 said:


> T50 is actually the smallest bird among the three.



Biggest. Russians like things big


----------



## S10

westtowel said:


> MiG-1.42


 
Mig 1.42 must have copied off of Chinese J-9 VII, because J-9 predates Mig 1.42 by more than a decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bratva

Just couple of things to know, any news if chinese implementing FADEC on their WS-10 series or any other upcoming engine or especially on engines for J-20 and what are the prospects of adding thrust vector capability to J-20. I have seen photos earlier Chinese testing thrust vector nozzles but Will they be implemented in J-20 and especially in J-10 engine WS-10?


----------



## S10

mafiya said:


> Just couple of things to know, any news if chinese implementing FADEC on their WS-10 series or any other upcoming engine or especially on engines for J-20 and what are the prospects of adding thrust vector capability to J-20. I have seen photos earlier Chinese testing thrust vector nozzles but Will they be implemented in J-20 and especially in J-10 engine WS-10?


WS-10G is meant to come with FADEC, though there aren't any known plans for thrust vector. WS-15 engine for J-20 will have it though.


----------



## siegecrossbow

The J-20, like the J-10, probably incorporated significant knowledge from the wind tunnel testing the CAC did while developing the J-9. Too bad it was never made.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

westtowel said:


> J-20 is a Airframe as of now, with a russian engine.
> Does it have radar,missiles,Ir pods etc.




This once again proves that indians are "incrediable"


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

J-20 said:


> @ Mr. Aerospace Engineer, What's the story behind your avatar?! Are you bragging?!





I am not bragging about anything.

Just deciced to have a new avatar thats all.


----------



## houshanghai

J20 PIC today.








lol,J20 and J7, 
J7 looks too small beside J20.
but some African friends still like CAC's J7

THX fengbubei

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## teddy

The JF17 still have no order from oversea, may be the price is still too high for most target customer. they rather buy the old J7E.


----------



## Zabaniyah

houshanghai said:


> J20 PIC today.
> lol,J20 and J7,
> J7 looks too small beside J20.
> but some African friends still like CAC's J7
> 
> THX fengbubei



Aww...the F-7 looks like a baby 



teddy said:


> The JF17 still have no order from oversea, may be the price is still too high for most target customer. they rather buy the old J7E.



The J-7 is no longer in production.


----------



## houshanghai

Zabanya said:


> Aww...the F-7 looks like a baby
> 
> 
> 
> The J-7 is no longer in production.



CAC just got a new order of J7 from Africa by the rumor.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Zabanya said:


> Aww...the F-7 looks like a baby
> 
> 
> 
> The J-7 is no longer in production.



I think export versions of the J-7 (for Zimbabwe and other African countries) are still in production. JF-17 will supplant them soon though.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

> According to Daokou, the Yankees were simply getting pissed off when they saw our technicians can easily step on the aircraft without damaging the RAM skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part may be true regarding China's more advanced RAM material. This is not surprising, because China's J-20 is based on more recent advanced technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Do you guys realize how stupid those comments really are...Over at your playground???






There are many things wrong but I will cover just the major ones.

Assuming that the J-20's low radar observability is mainly from shaping, then absorber will be confined to a minimum where direct specular reflections will be dominant, such as leading edges. That mean walking on the surfaces will be acceptable because there will no absorber in those areas. This is applicable to the F-22 as well. Second, just because it is acceptable to walk on them, that does not mean we should because of the potential danger of gouging the surfaces with our footwear. That is why for the USAF, maintainers don 'booties' to cover up their combat boots prior to getting on the aircraft. For the J-20, assuming the same body shaping principles as primary for low radar observability, the Chinese maintainers will most likely have the same protocols for themselves.

So do tell whoever is 'Daokou' whether it is a person or an organization that said comment is based upon sheer ignorance. And you guys actually 'thanked' that as 'useful' over there?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> Do you guys realize how stupid those comments really are...Over at your playground???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many things wrong but I will cover just the major ones.
> 
> Assuming that the J-20's low radar observability is mainly from shaping, then absorber will be confined to a minimum where direct specular reflections will be dominant, such as leading edges. That mean walking on the surfaces will be acceptable because there will no absorber in those areas. This is applicable to the F-22 as well. Second, just because it is acceptable to walk on them, that does not mean we should because of the potential danger of gouging the surfaces with our footwear. That is why for the USAF, maintainers don 'booties' to cover up their combat boots prior to getting on the aircraft. For the J-20, assuming the same body shaping principles as primary for low radar observability, the Chinese maintainers will most likely have the same protocols for themselves.
> 
> So do tell whoever is 'Daokou' whether it is a person or an organization that said comment is based upon sheer ignorance. And you guys actually 'thanked' that as 'useful' over there?



Why you brought my CDF comment to PDF?

You are just a troll beyond pathetic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> Do you guys realize how stupid those comments really are...Over at your playground???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many things wrong but I will cover just the major ones.
> 
> Assuming that the J-20's low radar observability is mainly from shaping, then absorber will be confined to a minimum where direct specular reflections will be dominant, such as leading edges. That mean walking on the surfaces will be acceptable because there will no absorber in those areas. This is applicable to the F-22 as well. Second, just because it is acceptable to walk on them, that does not mean we should because of the potential danger of gouging the surfaces with our footwear. That is why for the USAF, maintainers don 'booties' to cover up their combat boots prior to getting on the aircraft. For the J-20, assuming the same body shaping principles as primary for low radar observability, the Chinese maintainers will most likely have the same protocols for themselves.
> 
> So do tell whoever is 'Daokou' whether it is a person or an organization that said comment is based upon sheer ignorance. And you guys actually 'thanked' that as 'useful' over there?



Here i have a more recent news for you.

AFP: US Air Force grounds F-22 fighters -- again: officers


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Why you brought my CDF comment to PDF?
> 
> You are just a troll beyond pathetic.


Where you post does not give you immunity from being challenged. What is truly pathetic is *YOUR* gullibility.


----------



## Firemaster

gambit said:


> Where you post does not give you immunity from being challenged. What is truly pathetic is *YOUR* gullibility.


Hey Sir are you registered at CDF


----------



## gambit

Firemaster said:


> Hey Sir are you registered at CDF


 Do you really think that with my comments about aviation in general and 'stealth' in particular, me and my posts would last long over there? Post 939 here would be deleted by their admin staff toot-sweet.


----------



## DARKY

gambit said:


> Do you really think that with my comments about aviation in general and 'stealth' in particular, me and my posts would last long over there? Post 939 here would be deleted by their admin staff toot-sweet.



So silly...


----------



## gambit

DARKY said:


> So silly...


The thing is...If you go there, you will find they cannot rebut because they know they got caught with their pants down. The USAF have been climbing around our 'stealth' aircrafts while the Chinese were still dreaming of a 'stealth' aircraft. Sometimes I cannot feel but feel a bit sorry for how gullible they are to every claim, no matter how baseless, just to put the J-20 over.


----------



## DARKY

gambit said:


> The thing is...If you go there, you will find they cannot rebut because they know they got caught with their pants down. The USAF have been climbing around our 'stealth' aircrafts while the Chinese were still dreaming of a 'stealth' aircraft. Sometimes I cannot feel but feel a bit sorry for how gullible they are to every claim, no matter how baseless, just to put the J-20 over.



I seriously think that they could've done better than J-20.... however would wait and watch.


----------



## gambit

DARKY said:


> I seriously think that they could've done better than J-20.... however would wait and watch.


I doubt that. The J-20 is an admirable accomplishment for China, however, the US already had at least two iterations of 'stealth' gains in knowledge and experience.


----------



## SQ8

Doesn't the F-22 use newer Zip strips for its RAM coating?

The fact remains, apart from "leaks" what do we know of the J-20?
Compared to that, there are over a hundred books on the F-22 detailing all declassified stuff. 
The same goes for many of the other Chinese things..
Till Victor Belenko defected, the west thought the Mig-25 to be a monster. ..
Is the J-20 a monster?.. unless there is similar public exposure, we will never be sure.


----------



## DARKY

gambit said:


> I doubt that. The J-20 is an admirable accomplishment for China, however, the US already had at least two iterations of 'stealth' gains in knowledge and experience.



yes they do... in case of USAF.... and that's why they're a generation ahead... by the time the J-20s and PAK FAs come out they would've started working on their own 5.5th gen....

---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------




Santro said:


> Doesn't the F-22 use newer Zip strips for its RAM coating?
> 
> The fact remains, apart from "leaks" what do we know of the J-20?
> Compared to that, there are over a hundred books on the F-22 detailing all declassified stuff.
> The same goes for many of the other Chinese things..
> Till Victor Belenko defected, the west thought the Mig-25 to be a monster. ..
> Is the J-20 a monster?.. unless there is similar public exposure, we will never be sure.



The monster is still taking baby steps... so lets wait until we get some more leaks which have reasonable explanations about the electronics and weapons package...


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> Doesn't the F-22 use newer Zip strips for its RAM coating?


What are called 'zip strips' are advantageous for exposing panel gaps for quicker access to the internals. Absorbers for the F-22 and F-35 are for controlling the initial development of specular reflections, the rest of 'stealth' is achieved mainly through shaping. What this mean is that even if absorber, new or old, is *NOT* used, the F-22 will still be a formidable goal to match in terms of low radar observability.



Santro said:


> The fact remains, apart from "leaks" what do we know of the J-20?
> Compared to that, there are over a hundred books on the F-22 detailing all declassified stuff.
> The same goes for many of the other Chinese things..
> Till Victor Belenko defected, the west thought the Mig-25 to be a monster. ..
> Is the J-20 a monster?.. unless there is similar public exposure, we will never be sure.


The US military rightly overestimated the MIG-25. We can criticize in highsight the excess of that overestimation, but we cannot fault the motivation behind it.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> What are called 'zip strips' are advantageous for exposing panel gaps for quicker access to the internals. Absorbers for the F-22 and F-35 are for controlling the initial development of specular reflections, the rest of 'stealth' is achieved mainly through shaping. What this mean is that even if absorber, new or old, is *NOT* used, the F-22 will still be a formidable goal to match in terms of low radar observability.
> 
> 
> The US military rightly overestimated the MIG-25. *We can criticize in highsight the excess* of that overestimation, but we cannot fault the motivation behind it.



Considering the result was a fighter with an *unbroken* 105.5 to zero kills.. in over four wars..
I would be an idiot to critique that.


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> Considering the result was a fighter with an *unbroken* 105.5 to zero kills.. in over four wars..
> I would be an idiot to critique that.


I hope you are not trying to infer that the F-15 came from the MIG-25 in any stretch of the imagination. The truth is difficult to bear for many: The MIG-25 came from the North American A-5 Vigilante.

The A-5 originally had twin vertical stabs, which the US Navy at that time thought it was too 'radical' of a design. North American then redesigned the A-5 to have a single large vertical stab. The Soviets got a hold of the A-5's design, who knows how, and built the MIG-25. The F-15 also has the same parentage.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> I hope you are not trying to infer that the F-15 came from the MIG-25 in any stretch of the imagination. The truth is difficult to bear for many: The MIG-25 came from the North American A-5 Vigilante.
> 
> The A-5 originally had twin vertical stabs, which the US Navy at that time thought it was too 'radical' of a design. North American then redesigned the A-5 to have a single large vertical stab. The Soviets got a hold of the A-5's design, who knows how, and built the MIG-25. The F-15 also has the same parentage.



I think Ive been into aviation enough not to make that assumption.
What I meant was, that the hype of the Mig-25 was partially responsible for spurring on the F-X program...which for those who dont know...led to the F-15.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> I hope you are not trying to infer that the F-15 came from the MIG-25 in any stretch of the imagination. The truth is difficult to bear for many: The MIG-25 came from the North American A-5 Vigilante.
> 
> The A-5 originally had twin vertical stabs, which the US Navy at that time thought it was too 'radical' of a design. North American then redesigned the A-5 to have a single large vertical stab. The Soviets got a hold of the A-5's design, who knows how, and built the MIG-25. The F-15 also has the same parentage.


 
I don't know how well documented this theory is, but simply theorising about it, I would say that it doesn't sound very likely, first of all, the MiG-25 and the F-15 are two drastically different airplanes,just because the US thought it to be a super fighter, it never meant that the russians intended it to be anything else than a long range, high speed interceptor. Actually I think the MiG-25/31 may be the best interceptor airplanes ever built. They had a very different goal and mission than what the F-15 has or will have. as for the A-5 it was meant to be a bomber.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I don't know how well documented this theory is, but simply theorising about it, I would say that it doesn't sound very likely, first of all, the MiG-25 and the F-15 are two drastically different airplanes,just because the US thought it to be a super fighter, it never meant that the russians intended it to be anything else than a long range, high speed interceptor. Actually I think the MiG-25/31 may be the best interceptor airplanes ever built. They had a very different goal and mission than what the F-15 has or will have. as for the A-5 it was meant to be a bomber.


Those who claimed that the F-15 'came from' the MIG-25 did so based upon appearance and timeline. If that is the method, then my argument stands equally valid. We cannot avoid the fact that many (not all) Soviet-era aircrafts have strikingly similar appearances to US ones. As for the A-5, it is irrelevant what was its original mission. That aircraft became a tactical reconnaissance aircraft as well. So did the MIG-25 and the F-4.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Those who claimed that the F-15 'came from' the MIG-25 did so based upon appearance and timeline. If that is the method, then my argument stands equally valid. We cannot avoid the fact that many (not all) Soviet-era aircrafts have strikingly similar appearances to US ones. As for the A-5, it is irrelevant what was its original mission. That aircraft became a tactical reconnaissance aircraft as well. So did the MIG-25 and the F-4.


 
How is it irrelevant Gambit? a plane's intended mission plays a crucial role in the design. 
And that is why I mentioned the intended mission of the MiG-25 & A-5 & F-15. If one was a bomber and the other was an interceptor and the other a air-superiority figher, then how can they have striking similarities ?


----------



## houshanghai

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> That pic of J-20 losing its paint was PSed, it has been proved.


BRO.ChineseTiger report has been certified correct now,J20's paint have never come off.

the latest photo of J20












THX FENGBUBEI


----------



## houshanghai

----------

There are three photographs of the J-20 Mighty Dragon with its side-bay doors opened. The important thing to remember about the side-bay is that it is smaller than the underside main weapon bay. Each side-bay can only hold one short-range missile, such as the "PL-9 infrared-homing air-to-air missile (AAM)." The main weapon bay can hold longer-range missiles and more of them.









THX Martian AND FENGBUBEI


----------



## houshanghai

thx hk299792458 and &#21521;&#32769;&#22823;&#21733;&#33268;&#25964;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Xracer

houshanghai said:


>


So SEXY man

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## peaceful

houshanghai said:


> thx hk299792458 and &#21521;&#32769;&#22823;&#21733;&#33268;&#25964;





&#24076;&#26395;&#26089;&#26085;&#35013;&#37197;&#22269;&#20135;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#65292;&#23436;&#25104;&#20840;&#22269;&#20135;&#21270;&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> How is it irrelevant Gambit? a plane's intended mission plays a crucial role in the design.
> And that is why I mentioned the intended mission of the MiG-25 & A-5 & F-15. If one was a bomber and the other was an interceptor and the other a air-superiority figher, then how can they have striking similarities ?


It is irrelevant in the sense that its original mission was brought into the debate in trying to distinguish one aircraft's origin from another when the aircraft itself gained many more missions. I am not saying that the original missions made them physically similar. I am saying that their physical similarities hinted at the same original design, which in this case the A-5 is the oldest.


----------



## houshanghai

J20 AND J10B

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Why you brought my CDF comment to PDF?
> 
> You are just a troll beyond pathetic.


----------



## VelocuR

Just curious, what kind of advanced engines on J20? reliables?

How come JF-17/J-10B don't have own engines apart from Russian engines??


----------



## homing28

2011-11-12 

J20 video
j-20 11


----------



## houshanghai

J 20 - 2011 11 12 - J20 45th Test Flight in Chengdu

thx &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; shoot and thx himitechworld upload


----------



## Bratva

RaptorRX707 said:


> Just curious, what kind of advanced engines on J20? reliables?
> 
> How come JF-17/J-10B don't have own engines apart from Russian engines??



1. Advance engines are in making for J-20 with reduce IR signature as well as reduce harmonics generating from engine which is can be detected by radar too.

2. Engine reliability issues. Chinese have just mastered the engine technology so next is mass production which they lack right now kind of ,so in order to compensate all these, they use russian engines

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

A conversation about flight controls from elsewhere...



> Actually I see only slight bobbing during the take off which could be due to a slight flipping of the elevon during that time. I remember seeing a video of the *elevons and stabilizers flipping wildly during take off. The oscillation could also be due to the undulating surface of the runway somehow matching close to the oscillaton frequency of the undercarriage.*


Wrong.



> It's the other way around: the movement of the control surfaces is a response by the FBW to the of uneven surface of the runway.


Correct. It still does not redeem you, O 'Engineer', of that spectacular gaff about the F-22's rudder system being 'inferior' to the J-20's all moving vertical stabs. 



> In other words the FBW thinks that the movements of the plane due to uneveness of the runway as the plane's movements in flight and tries to correct it using the control surfaces?


Yes.



> *If the FBW were to actually counteract the undulating movement, instead of letting it be, the aerodynamic drag would be increased considerably.* I saw the wild flipping of the control surfaces in only one of the many videos of J-20 taking off and I presumed it was part of the scheduled testings in the particular flight test.


Wrong. Aerodynamic drag has nothing to do with this.

Stability augmentation (stabaug) is not confined to fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FLCS). In its crudest form, whenever a pilot try to compensate for the inevitable in-flight turbulence, it is an attempt at stabaug. When he command a maneuver and the aircraft respond, as the pilot continues to hold the controls and strive to compensate for any 'roughness' during the maneuver, it is also an attempt at stabaug throughout the maneuver. We have been doing this since the biplane era. As the aircraft became more 'high performance' in speed, altitude, agility, and rate of response, the human factor at stabaug did not rise to match. In other words, we suck at stabaug and the result was many of us died in aviation's progress.

Entered electronics and hydraulics to take up where the human failed.

STRIKE - RAAF STYLE


> Due to the nature of its role, *the F-111 has* a rather complicated flight control system, using hydromechanical actuators controlled by electrical signals from *a stability augmentation system (SAS)*, that is in turn controlled by an autopilot slaved to the TFR computer. The SAS is analogue, using pitch rate and normal acceleration feedback, however the system employs self adaptive loop gain (this was chosen to cope with the multiplicity of CG /CP configurations associated with various fuel, wing sweep and stores configurations) and has some quirks, particularly in TF operation (this system was subsequently modified in later US versions).


Stabaug exists in hydro-mechanical FLCS like the F-111 and the F-15. So we can do away with any disputes about the fly-by-wire part being necessary for stabaug.

Computer controlled stabaug, fly-by-wire or electro-hydro-mech, is possible through a combination of inputs:

Fly-by-wire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Fly-by-wire control systems allow aircraft computers to perform tasks without pilot input. Automatic stability systems operate in this way. *Gyroscopes fitted with sensors are mounted in an aircraft to sense movement changes* in the pitch, roll and yaw axes. Any movement (from straight and level flight for example) results in signals to the *computer*, which *automatically moves control actuators to stabilize the aircraft.*


What the wiki source left out is an equally important factor: Air data.

GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION AND CONTROL


> In atmospheric flight, flight control adjusts control sensitivity based on air data parameters derived from local pressures sensed by *air data probes* and performs turn coordination using body attitude angles derived from IMU angles. Thus, GN&C hardware required to support flight control is a function of the mission phase.


It does not matter if the aircraft is the Space Shuttle or the F-111. If there is atmospheric flight and computer controlled stabaug, air data is required: Airspeed and altitude. They came from pitot and static pressures respectively. The pitot probe on the F-16's radome is an example. The hole on the probe's tip is pitot or raw rammed air. There are smaller holes on the probe's underside for static pressure measurement. The 'Central Air Data Computer' (CADC), or equivalent in other aircrafts, processes these raw air data to give us computed airspeed, which include Mach number, and computed altitude.

NAE Website - Technology and the F-16 Fighting Falcon Jet Fighter


> The resulting system is a quad-redundant (fail-operative, fail-operative, fail-safe), high-authority, command-and-stability augmentation system. *The system consists of a series of sensors (accelerometers, rate gyros, air data converter)*, computers, selectors, transducers, and inverters that collectively generate the pitch, roll, and yaw rates that are transmitted as electronic signals to the five triplex electrohydraulic, servoactuators that control the flaperons (roll and flaps), elevons (pitch and roll), and rudder.



Regarding the conversation above where we observed the highly visible movements of the flight control surfaces during uneven ground travel. It does not matter if the aircraft is the J-20 or the F-111. What happens is that traveling over the uneven ground induces gyroscopes' and accelerometers' signal changes, the FLCS detects those changes and initiate stabaug, but since part of stabaug calculations to command the flight control surfaces require air data, as in airspeed and altitude, and because ground travel has practically none of those data, the FLCS deflects the surfaces to a higher degree.

It is an inverse relationship that we know since the beginning of aviation: That low airspeed require high surface deflection to initiate and sustain a maneuver. Any student pilot learned this from day one. No different when the computer take over stabaug and most of the responsibility of flight controls: Low air data will result in a higher deflection of the flight control surfaces. So on uneven ground travel with practically no air data, any gyro and accel inputs to the FLCS will result in very high surface deflections. Once there is weight-off-wheels and airspeed and altitude data increases, surface deflections becomes minimal, practically not visible, and yet still enough to push the human pilot to his maximum tolerance of 9g.

This is basic avionics engineering so stop all the speculations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rizzy139

Hi Gambit, I need your help - Im doing a project on Flight Control Systems and the images youve inserted on page 20 are perfect for what I need, please could you refer me to where you got them from? 

Rizzy139 at hotmail.com

---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 AM ----------

In case you want to know why im asking, im a final year student of Aeronautical Engineering looking into the new PBW systems being used, for background research I need diagrams and the ones youve posted are perfect so I just need a source to reference., please help mate


----------



## 500

gambit said:


> I hope you are not trying to infer that the F-15 came from the MIG-25 in any stretch of the imagination. The truth is difficult to bear for many: The MIG-25 came from the North American A-5 Vigilante.
> 
> The A-5 originally had twin vertical stabs, which the US Navy at that time thought it was too 'radical' of a design. North American then redesigned the A-5 to have a single large vertical stab. The Soviets got a hold of the A-5's design, who knows how, and built the MIG-25. The F-15 also has the same parentage.


Twin tail A-5 Vigilante concept:


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

mafiya said:


> 1. Advance engines are in making for J-20 with reduce IR signature as well as reduce harmonics generating from engine which is can be detected by radar too.
> 
> 2. Engine reliability issues. Chinese have just mastered the engine technology so next is mass production which they lack right now kind of ,so in order to compensate all these, they use russian engines



The TH engine is in the state of mass production right now, and soon J-10B will be largely equipped with this engine.

BTW, JF-17 will eventually use WS-13 which will be ready for the next year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

J-20 5th Generation Fighter - Page 27


> Here is a video about an alleged encounter between the Eurofighter and the F-22.
> 
> Eurofighter Typhoon beat the F-22 Raptor - YouTube
> 
> *Pay attention to the part at 0:46 about how the F-22 was "unstealthed," thus it was detected by the Eurofighter. Maybe the F-22 didn't receive its maximum or optimum stealth coat/paint, thus, it wasn't as stealthy as expected.*
> 
> There is convincing evidence that the F-22's initial stealth coat/paint was much more fragile than expected, it requires extra and special maintenance, and is constantly being improved.


Wrong. And it proved how gullible you really are. Bottom line is you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

What we call 'stealth' is nothing like an OFF/ON switch. The closest thing to such a switch is a radar enhancer that is removable...

The F-22 Is Battle Ready


> The F-22 has a special feature that will allow it to be seen on radar when flying Noble Eagle and area training missions, Hecker said, but that feature is removed if the aircraft is going to war or practicing full-up. He declined to describe it, due to classification, but acknowledged that it is not unlike a special *radar enhancer* used on the F-117.


The device is called a 'Luneberg lens' and we have covered this device here before...

RCS Radar Cross Section, Lüneberg Reflector lensref - Luneburg radar


> The Luneberg reflector significantly increases the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of any system which has little or none at all.
> 
> Its Radar Cross Section is several hundred times the RCS of a metallic sphere of same diameter.


There are many uses for radar enhancer in the civilian world. One of them is to install enhancers on tall radio transmitters for aviation safety purposes or in marine safety to highlight small objects on sea surfaces...

The West Advisor: Radar Reflectors


> Radar Reflectors (more accurately called Radar Target Enhancers, or RTEs) reflect radar energy from other vessels' radars so that your boat shows up as a larger and more consistent "target". If you operate your boat in areas with shipping traffic or where fog and low visibility are common, the ability to be seen by radar-equipped ships can make the difference between being seen and being sunk.


The Luneberg lens device installed on the F-22 can be seen here...

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/20100805_F22_08052010_01_1267828237_2863.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_001AFF_091119_0012_SM_1267828237_2127.jpg






It is that small cylinder on the aircraft's underside. The Luneberg lens device is chosen because of all enhancer designs, it offer the *HIGHEST* reflectivity towards any direction and it has the lowest aerodynamic drag. The B-2 and F-117 also routinely fly with enhancers to assist civilian traffic controllers.

In short, the Eurofighter pilots were picking up more of the enhancers and far less of the F-22 itself.

As far as any coatings applied to decrease surface reflectivity goes...


> Perhaps the biggest question long posed about the F-22 has been its ability to operate like any other fighter, even though stealth technology has historically demanded meticulous care of aircraft surfaces, well beyond what could be managed at an austere expeditionary airstrip. In real-world F-22 operations, though, it has proved not to be an issue.
> 
> &#8220;We&#8217;ve made huge advancements as far as the coating application, the durability, and maintainability as a whole&#8221; of the F-22&#8217;s stealth systems, according to MSgt. Renee Daig, noncommissioned officer in charge of Langley&#8217;s Low Observable Composite Repair Facility.
> 
> She said the F-117 is considered first generation stealth, the B-2 was second generation, and the F-22 is third generation. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter &#8220;will be considered the fourth generation,&#8221; she noted.
> 
> On the F-117, radar-absorbent material had to be fitted to the aircraft with virtually artistic skill, and any intrusion into a panel to repair a part caused huge downtimes as the material had to be painstakingly reapplied. On the B-2, things improved with the addition of more access hatches and panels, but the coatings and tape that sealed seams still posed a headache of reapplication after every mission.
> 
> By contrast, the F-22&#8217;s stealth systems can be fixed outside, on a ramp, not requiring substantial touch-ups for long periods of time, Daig said.
> 
> *&#8220;Ninety-five percent of the restorations that we do on the aircraft we can do with a standard brush or roller,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Now, does that mean you can do it out on the open flight line? ... You sure can.&#8221;*
> 
> Just as &#8220;you wouldn&#8217;t consider painting your house&#8221; in bad weather, the F-22&#8217;s LO maintainer also must use common sense, and &#8220;in a deployed environment, ... we would prefer to have some type of shelter or overhang&#8221; to work under. But it isn&#8217;t always necessary. Stealth materials were touched up on the Nellis ramp during a deployment last year because it was a sunny day, 70 degrees, and there was no wind, she noted.


But here is the clincher...



> Rather than clean up every single defect after every mission&#8212;&#8220;whether it be missing material, a crack, disbond, delamination, what have you&#8221;&#8212;the F-22&#8217;s handlers aim to keep the aircraft stealthy within certain parameters. After every inspection, the surface defects are cataloged and fed into a computer program called the *Signature Assessment System. From a &#8220;pristine&#8221; aircraft fresh from the factory with no stealth defects&#8212;zero percent stealth impact&#8212;the percentage of dings on each Raptor accumulates over time in the computer model.*
> 
> &#8220;When it broaches the 80 percent mark, we start to think about ... doing some repairs to get us back where we need to be,&#8221; Daig explained.
> 
> The model system is a far cry from the F-117 and B-2, which both originally required elaborate measuring devices&#8212;sometimes instrumented flying ranges&#8212;to measure their stealth. The B-2 has since moved to a system similar to SAS.
> 
> The &#8220;effects of defects&#8221; model &#8220;works very well for us, because *you can find yourself with 200 to 300 nicks, dings, and scratches on the aircraft and still be an LO platform and still meet your LO missions,&#8221;* Daig asserted. After the SAS registers 100 percent, &#8220;we can no longer guarantee to that pilot that he&#8217;s where he needs to be&#8221; in terms of stealth, she said.


Put it another way: Maintainers can control how much scratches they can give the F-22's surfaces so they try to minimize that by wearing 'booties' when working on the aircraft. However, because some scratches will be created by flying there is an RCS 'peacetime tolerance' of when an F-22 is allowed to have over the baseline measurement before it must be 'reconditioned' to match that lower baseline. That is what that Signature Assessment System (SAS) is for. What it also mean is that even if the F-22 is completely devoid of absorber coating, its RCS through body shaping will still be a formidable goal to match by any aspiring 'stealth' fighter.

My advice: Instead of paying attention to fanboy Youtube vids, you should pay attention to your own ignorance and gullibility.


----------



## Rizzy139

Hi Gambit, please could you help me this is urgent, I really need to know where you obtained them images, ive been looking all over the internet with no luck , they are on page 20 of this forum and they display the flight control system, there are a few images ranging from mechanic FCS to FBW FCS.

please could you either reply on here or email me on rizzy139 at hotmail.com


----------



## gambit

Rizzy139 said:


> Hi Gambit, please could you help me this is urgent, I really need to know where you obtained them images, ive been looking all over the internet with no luck , they are on page 20 of this forum and they display the flight control system, there are a few images ranging from mechanic FCS to FBW FCS.
> 
> please could you either reply on here or email me on rizzy139 at hotmail.com


If you are referring to page 23 of this thread, those came from a General Dynamics' training program about the F-16's FBW-FLCS back in the '80s. They were used to train engineers and technicians on the basics of flight control systems philosophy and engineering. This was before the Internet when I was still keeping records on DEC's VAX computer system. It was a small box of 35mm slides, of which the projector is a museum piece today, and contain illustrations of FLCS engineering principles to the F-16's hydraulics actuators themselves. I do not know if the material can be obtained any more. Sorry, but you are talking to an old dog here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

J-20 flight test on Nov. 13, 2011 (HD1080p reload version)

J-20 flight test on Nov. 13, 2011 (HD1080p reload version) - YouTube

thx &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; and himitechworld

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

J-20 ground test on Nov.14 (1/2) - preparing






J-20 ground test on Nov.14 (2/2) - high speed texi






THX&#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118;&#21644;himitechworld


----------



## gambit

> J-20 5th Generation Fighter - Page 28
> 
> 
> 
> I think the J-20 has two landing parachutes instead of one like single engined J-10, so that each chute catches part of the thrust from each of the two engines.
> 
> If you only have one chute, it might deviate and catches jet exhaust from one of the two engines predominantly, making it dangerous for the plane during landing.
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 5th Generation Fighter - Page 28
> 
> 
> 
> Are drag chutes design to catch engine thrust? I thought they were just there to increase drag (therefore slowing it down).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> J-20 5th Generation Fighter - Page 28
> 
> 
> 
> Or one could install a larger chute instead of two. I'm guessing it's easier to install with two smaller ones. Wouldn't the chute catch on fire if catching jet exhaust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> J-20 5th Generation Fighter - Page 29
> 
> 
> 
> I think two smaller chutes is used because of room/clearance constraint, and the fact that the chute opening is close to the engine nozzle.
> 
> Military cargo planes use one large chute, but they are larger and their engines are situated under the wings and do not interfere.
> 
> They are not designed to catch the immediate exhaust leaving the engine but I think the backwash from the engine exhaust extends for quite some distance behind the plane.
> 
> Anyway it's my pet theory so don't look too deeply into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> J-20 5th Generation Fighter - Page 29
> 
> 
> 
> There could be something to it. One large chute would collapse if two stream of thrust is directed at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Boys, stop it. You are talking nonsense.

First...There is a difference between a 'drogue' chute, which is a subcategory of the parachute, and the parachute itself.

Drogue parachute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> A drogue parachute is more elongated and has a far smaller area than a conventional parachute, and thus provides less drag. This means that a drogue parachute cannot slow an object as much as a conventional parachute, but it can be deployed at speeds at which conventional parachutes would be torn apart.[1]
> 
> The drogue parachute's simpler design allows for easier deployment. Where a conventional parachute could get caught in itself while unfolding and fail to inflate properly (thus not slowing the falling object as much as it should), the drogue parachute will inflate more easily and more reliably to generate the expected amount of drag.


A drogue chute can be easily distinguished by the fact that one can literally see through it because it has many openings to allow air pass through, that is why a drogue chute does not slow down a speeding body, like an aircraft or a race car, as much as a full parachute. This pass through feature also make the drogue chute more stable once deployed, especially for any high speed body, like an aircraft or a race car.

Second...Even though the drogue chute is more stable, that does not mean it is completely immune from being collapsed by turbulence and when it is deployed behind a moving body like an aircraft or a race car, *IF* it is directly behind the body, as in being inline with the centerline of said body, the aerodynamic wake created by the body can cause oscillation, which increases the odds of the oddity 'the tail wagging the dog' effect and cause a crash during the landing run. The closer the deployed drogue chute to the body, the greater the odds of oscillation.

Project Excelsior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> ...a multi-stage parachute system to facilitate manned tests. This consisted of a small 6 feet (2 m) stabilizer or *"drogue" parachute, designed to prevent uncontrolled spinning at high altitudes*, and a 28 ft (8.5 m) main parachute that deployed at a lower altitude.


The highlighted is significant in that in the skydiving environment, there is a relatively equal amount of 3D air flow around the body as it travel. The danger of the speeding body going out of control still exists. But now with a landing aircraft, especially when the aircraft is as small and quite near the ground as a fighter, the asymmetrical air flow will create differential pressures that will come into contact with the drogue chute and will increase the risk of the aircraft going out of control.

One solution is to increase the distance between the deployed drogue chute and the aircraft. Another solution is to increase the ground clearance between the deployed drogue chute and the ground, which for as small an aircraft like a fighter, this solution is not possible. The better solution is to use two drogue chutes that when deployed, each will be off the aircraft's centerline to reduce the odds of oscillation (or swaying) and turbulence induced collapse. The decision to use a single parachute or drogue chute or two drogue chutes depends on the aircraft itself and how much study was involved before the decision.

This has nothing to do with catching engine exhaust. What the heck for?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

J20 new photo







thx &#34013;&#32982;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

houshanghai said:


> J20 new photo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thx &#34013;&#32982;


What's with all the paint chips on the aircraft? They don't look like they are there by accident either.


----------



## houshanghai

S10 said:


> What's with all the paint chips on the aircraft? They don't look like they are there by accident either.



the paint chips have been there for a long time

*Those are just sensors*...__thx siegecrossbow


J20 old pic





link;


½ñÌìµÄÎÞÂëÍ¼£¨ZTWC£© - ¿Õ¾ü°æ - ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³

826?? ?ô| ?? - ??? - powered by phpwind.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

> J-20 5th Generation Fighter - Page 30
> 
> 
> 
> holy ****. i think this might be short/vertical takeoff booster like you said. the J-20 had an amazingly short takeoff distance without even engaging the afterburners.
Click to expand...

 Typical exaggeration.

No. It is the exhaust for the jet engine starter. The device is itself a turbine (jet) engine, a small one. For the F-15 and F-16, it is called the Jet Fuel Starter (JFS)...

Auxiliary power unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The primary purpose of an aircraft APU is to provide power to start the main engines. Turbine engines must be accelerated to a high rotational speed in order to provide sufficient air compression for self-sustaining operation. Smaller jet engines are usually started by an electric motor, while larger engines are usually started by an air turbine motor. Before engines are to be turned, the APU is started, generally by a battery or hydraulic accumulator. Once the APU is running, it provides power (electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic, depending on the design) to start the aircraft's main engines.



F-15E.info: Strike Eagle reference and resources - F-15E.info - Jet Fuel Starter


> The JFS has its *exhaust on the bottom fuselage of the aircraft*, behind the central external hardpoint (SUU-73/A pylon).


Looks like the J-20's main engine starting system is no different than the American's.

Jet Fuel Starter


> MicroTurbo supplies the Noelle 180 Jet Fuel Starter Model 086 that is employed in the Mirage 2000.


But of course, since this is the J-20, gross speculations and exaggerations *MUST* be made.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

Dragon breath fire from his stomach, too much chili.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## homing28

from ÏëÄîºÚË¿µÄÈÕ×Ó-³É¶¼£¬ÎÒÒª»ØÀ´ÁË£¡£¡-¸£ÀûÔÚ20¡¢21Â¥£¬Ë­ÓÐ20Â¥µÄ´ð°¸£¿ - ¿Õ¾ü°æ - ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

> *The automatic control system uses the measured air speed to calculate the control surface deflection necessary. So at low air speed these deflections will be large and very visible.* But it might also feel that the undercarriage is rolling over the runway and therefore desist from these deflections. This refinement has apparently not been applied perhaps because a false signal that the aircraft is on the ground would lead to the loss of the aircraft.


Correct. Stability augmentation (stabaug) uses calculated airspeed and altitude as *FACTORS* in creating compensatory signals to displace flight control surfaces.



> Flight control system uses more than that. The basic inputs are up-down-sideway acceleration, angular rates in pitch-roll-yaw, angle-of-attack, side-slip angle, airspeed, static pressure, and position of the flight control surfaces.


Correct.



> Air data computer can detect the airspeed as being in single digit, but *that does not mean the FBW uses that speed as input.* There's no point in making a FBW to work that far below the stall speed of the aircraft. At such slow speed, the FBW is just going to work as if the plane is flying at stall speed.


Wrong, or at best you are using improper contexts. This is not about fly-by-wire FLCS but about stabaug, whose architecture has been established long before the advent of FBW-FLCS and air data is *CONTINUOUSLY* computed and send to the FLCC. If air data signals falls below a certain threshold, that does not mean they are ignored but *CONTINUOUSLY* monitored because they are variable factors that affect flight control responses. If they change, stabaug must instantly take in those changes.



> No. You miss my point! *I'm saying the FBW will behave differently during takeoff, cruise flight or landing and it's the job of the pilot to set the FBW to the task at hand. *
> 
> During takeoff, for example, the FBW will maintain the elevon and leading edge slat at a set fixed position since this would give a more streamline flow with uniform lift and less drag, instead of varying the positions of the control surfaces to counteract the undulating movement and mess up the airflow and increase drag considerably. Of course, during a cruise flight, one would expect the FBW to respond differently to any undulating movements caused by changing air pressure for example. (Ok, time to go to sleep.)
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> I get your point completely, and I explained it doesn't work that way. *FBW has to be transparent to the pilot, and your assumption that the pilot gets to select takeoff, cruise, and landing mode violates that transparency.* How the FBW behaves at different stages of flight is the responsibility of the designers, not the pilot, and the designers have to work in the confine of sensor data that is available to the FBW.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, it does not, and this is not about FBW-FLCS but about stabaug. There are many situations where the entire FLCS changes to a preset, such as landing gear handle position or external load configuration that impose a g-limit. All of this is still transparent to pilot but in principle, the first comment is correct.


----------



## Rizzy139

gambit said:


> If you are referring to page 23 of this thread, those came from a General Dynamics' training program about the F-16's FBW-FLCS back in the '80s. They were used to train engineers and technicians on the basics of flight control systems philosophy and engineering. This was before the Internet when I was still keeping records on DEC's VAX computer system. It was a small box of 35mm slides, of which the projector is a museum piece today, and contain illustrations of FLCS engineering principles to the F-16's hydraulics actuators themselves. I do not know if the material can be obtained any more. Sorry, but you are talking to an old dog here.


 
Hi, ive just seen the ones you referred to and no not them, they do look like there from the 80s , the one I am referring to is:

---------- Post added at 10:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------




Rizzy139 said:


> Hi, ive just seen the ones you referred to and no not them, they do look like there from the 80s , the one I am referring to is:



im sorry im taking up a page, i need to post a link and it wont let me until i hit 5 posts

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------




Rizzy139 said:


> Hi, ive just seen the ones you referred to and no not them, they do look like there from the 80s , the one I am referring to is:
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> im sorry im taking up a page, i need to post a link and it wont let me until i hit 5 posts


 
apologies again


----------



## Rizzy139

gambit said:


> If you are referring to page 23 of this thread, those came from a General Dynamics' training program about the F-16's FBW-FLCS back in the '80s. They were used to train engineers and technicians on the basics of flight control systems philosophy and engineering. This was before the Internet when I was still keeping records on DEC's VAX computer system. It was a small box of 35mm slides, of which the projector is a museum piece today, and contain illustrations of FLCS engineering principles to the F-16's hydraulics actuators themselves. I do not know if the material can be obtained any more. Sorry, but you are talking to an old dog here.



Here is the link finally ! 

<a href="http://s1005.photobucket.com/albums/af171/Rizzler123/?action=view&amp;current=actuator.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af171/Rizzler123/actuator.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


----------



## Rizzy139

Rizzy139 said:


> Here is the link finally !
> 
> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://s1005.photobucket.com/albums/af171/Rizzler123/?action=view&current=actuator.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af171/Rizzler123/actuator.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>



I do apologise gambit, they were on page 20 of a different thread. (this one http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/88438-j-20-successfully-conducts-first-flight-20.html)


----------



## gambit

Rizzy139 said:


> I do apologise gambit, they were on page 20 of a different thread. (this one http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/88438-j-20-successfully-conducts-first-flight-20.html)


I am trying to remember where they came from. But I do know that they do not came from what was given to me either by the USAF or from literature given to me by manufacturers or from text books I acquired a long time ago. Several of my friends became instructors, some at Embry Riddle here in the US, some went overseas working for foreign air forces, either as contractors or manufacturer tech reps, and a few became tech reps for the US Navy and assigned to carriers, and I helped some of them put together training materials for their people. These may be from materials I reviewed and critique rather than helped put together. If so, then I would not have any formal documents but rather separate items they sent me for opinions.


----------



## LetsGetRowdy

8

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

J20 - the* 50th* open flight test on Nov.22. 2011 - take off (HD1080p) yesterday






thx &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; AND himitechworld

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## razgriz19

looks like a compact version of SD-10A or maybe a totally new missile for J-20's internal weapons bay!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Anybody remember that news a full mock up model of J-20 was sent to Beijing 207th Institute? I was curious to why they would sent the thing to a test facility operated by China's space program (aviation/space are separate in China). It turns out 207th has the most advanced anechoic chambers as well as outdoor radar testing facilities in China. The place specializes in developing radar profile of weapons in China, epecially surface-to-air missiles.

Photo of them testing a cruise missile.





It seems they were pleasantly surprised by the results, as mentioned by pupu.

"&#21271;&#20140;&#26080;&#32447;&#30005;&#27979;&#37327;&#30740;&#31350;&#25152; &#65288;&#33322;&#22825;&#24037;&#19994;&#24635;&#20844;&#21496;&#20108;&#38498;207&#25152;&#65289;&#65292;&#33322;&#22825;&#20154;&#22312;&#36825;&#37324;&#36190;&#21497;&#33322;&#31354;&#24037;&#19994;&#30340;&#25104;&#23601;&#65292;&#23459;&#25196;&#33322;&#31354;&#20154;&#30340;&#21151;&#32489;&#21543;&#65281;"
±±¾©ÎÞÏßµç²âÁ¿ÑÐ¾¿Ëù £¨º½Ìì¹¤Òµ×Ü¹«Ë¾¶þÔº207Ëù£© - ¿Õ¾ü°æ - ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

What engine is J-20 using..


Sorry for the ignorant question.


----------



## Imran Khan

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> What engine is J-20 using..
> 
> 
> Sorry for the ignorant question.



Saturn 117S


----------



## Zabaniyah

Imran Khan said:


> Saturn 117S



Russian?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> What engine is J-20 using..
> 
> 
> Sorry for the ignorant question.



Either a WS-10X or a prototype of WS-15.


----------



## Imran Khan

Bludgeon said:


> Russian?



yes till its own get mature dear


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Imran Khan said:


> yes till its own get mature dear



We now have dozen of different J-20 prototypes, only the very first one appeared in December 2010 used the Russian engine so far.

But it was not 117S, but AL-31M2.


----------



## Zabaniyah

Imran Khan said:


> yes till its own get mature dear





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> We now have dozen of different J-20 prototypes, only the very first one appeared in December 2010 used the Russian engine so far.
> 
> But it was not 117S, but AL-31M2.



Indeed. Having to manufacture an engine for a 5th generation plane is going to be a challenge.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Bludgeon said:


> Indeed. Having to manufacture an engine for a 5th generation plane is going to be a challenge.



It was once a challenge for us, but not anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

Some very latest photographs of J20 



































thx hk and &#21521;&#32769;&#22823;&#21733;&#33268;&#25964;

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

Some very latest photographs of J20 



























thx hk and saga

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

J20 - opening the weapon-bays in Nov. 2011 (HD1080p)






thx &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; and himitechworld

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

houshanghai said:


> Some very latest photographs of J20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thx hk and &#21521;&#32769;&#22823;&#21733;&#33268;&#25964;



Another new aircraft?


----------



## houshanghai

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Another new aircraft?




There is a rumor that CAC is expected to roll out a new prototype of J20&#65288;2003&#65289; next year&#65292;


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

houshanghai said:


> There is a rumor that CAC is expected to roll out a new prototype of J20&#65288;2003&#65289; next year&#65292;



Maybe it should be the production model, since there are already many different prototypes hang out there, just it all paints with 2001.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gagaga

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> What engine is J-20 using..
> 
> 
> Sorry for the ignorant question.





Imran Khan said:


> Saturn 117S



AL-31......


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


> Some very latest photographs of J20



Weren't those taken during September?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

siegecrossbow said:


> Weren't those taken during September?



&#25105;&#30340;&#38169;&#35823;&#65292; 
You always correct my mistakes&#8857;&#65103;&#8857;b&#27735;
&#25105;&#20174;&#19968;&#20010;&#27861;&#22269;&#31570;&#23376;hk&#37027;&#37324;&#25366;&#30340;&#22270;&#65292;&#40657;&#19997;&#22270;&#29255;&#29616;&#22312;&#22826;&#22810;&#20102;&#20598;&#37117;&#28151;&#20102;&#65292;sorry sorry...


Armée de l'air Chinoise


----------



## regular

Excellent! pics brother....Wonderful.....Nice to see J-20 flying so splendously......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gagaga

houshanghai said:


> &#25105;&#30340;&#38169;&#35823;&#65292;
> You always correct my mistakes&#8857;&#65103;&#8857;b&#27735;
> &#25105;&#20174;&#19968;&#20010;&#27861;&#22269;&#31570;&#23376;hk&#37027;&#37324;&#25366;&#30340;&#22270;&#65292;&#40657;&#19997;&#22270;&#29255;&#29616;&#22312;&#22826;&#22810;&#20102;&#20598;&#37117;&#28151;&#20102;&#65292;sorry sorry...
> 
> 
> Armée de l'air Chinoise



&#27861;&#22269;&#21326;&#20392;&#26469;&#30340;
&#35265;&#36807;&#20182;&#19981;&#35760;&#24471;&#26159;&#21738;&#20010;&#20891;&#20107;&#35770;&#22363; &#29992;&#27861;&#25991;&#30340; &#34987;&#20854;&#20182;&#20154;&#25351;&#36131;&#20599;&#31363; &#36896;&#20551; &#20043;&#31867;&#30340; &#22909;&#20687;&#26159;&#35828;&#20182;&#26412;&#20154;&#20570;&#20551;&#22270;&#36824;&#26159;j-20&#20599;&#20102;&#20154;&#23478;&#30340;&#35774;&#35745; &#27861;&#22269;&#20332;&#24456;&#24694;&#24847;&#30340;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zcx91529

we are still so thirsty of new pics because of CHENGDU's bad weather in winter.

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

I dont think so,there is no need to take this action.And there is no such need to build more prototypes using AL31...


----------



## Great China

J-20 is a beast!! Hope it will rule the skies very soon


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xuxu1457



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fjavaid

xuxu1457 said:


>


 
hahah ..lol ...cant stop laughing....
dude u need to be a little less creative .!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

Man, that is nasty


----------



## houshanghai

*J-20 - the 53th open flight test on Dec.01. 2011 (HD1080p, original version)*







*J-20 landing - the 53th open flight test on Dec.01. 2011 - 2011.12.01 (HD1080p music video)*






*spy shot of J20 take off with afterburn in December 2011

*





thx to &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; and himitechworld upload


chinese 56.com link



j 0

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DrSomnath999

xuxu1457 said:


>


haaa.haaaaa


----------



## S10

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> What engine is J-20 using..
> 
> 
> Sorry for the ignorant question.


Some say AL-31FN, while others say WS-10A. I personally lean towards AL-31FN.


----------



## teddy

Breaking news!!
The j20 planned to do 3 Mach wind tunnel test!
It means the design speed was up to 3 Mach+
And the engine will not be al31 finally.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

teddy said:


> Breaking news!!
> The j20 planned to do 3 Mach wind tunnel test!
> *It means the design speed was up to 3 Mach+*
> And the engine will not be al31 finally.


Or it could mean this is a test to see what happens to a Mach 2 aircraft at Mach 3. Ever heard of 'stress' testing?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

teddy said:


> Breaking news!!
> The j20 planned to do 3 Mach wind tunnel test!
> It means the design speed was up to 3 Mach+
> And the engine will not be al31 finally.



The engine of J-20 was never the underpowered AL-31FN from the beginning.


----------



## ptldM3

teddy said:


> Breaking news!!
> The j20 planned to do 3 Mach wind tunnel test!
> *It means the design speed was up to 3 Mach+
> And the engine will not be al31 finally*.



To me it seems that you are implying that the al-31 or any similar or weaker engine will not be sufficient for mach 3 flight. This is not the case, the mig-25's engines only produced about 22,000 lbs thrust. What is important is aerodynamics and an engine with a low by-pass ration.



gambit said:


> Or it could mean this is a test to see what happens to a Mach 2 aircraft at Mach 3. Ever heard of 'stress' testing?



true...


----------



## Zabaniyah

teddy said:


> Breaking news!!
> *The j20 planned to do 3 Mach wind tunnel test!
> It means the design speed was up to 3 Mach+
> And the engine will not be al31 finally.*



What the...? What is this...? I mean I don't even...?


----------



## S10

teddy said:


> Breaking news!!
> The j20 planned to do 3 Mach wind tunnel test!
> It means the design speed was up to 3 Mach+
> And the engine will not be al31 finally.


Or they could just be testing to see how far they can push the airframe, in order to look for structural weakness and fatigue properties.

WS-10 or AL-31, is simply stop-gap measure at the moment. The WS-15 is the one that will be fitted on to the bird when it becomes operational. Although I heard that Russian AL-31 99m2 (did I get the designation right?) might be a reserve choice in case that plan cannot be met.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

S10 said:


> Or they could just be testing to see how far they can push the airframe, in order to look for structural weakness and fatigue properties.
> 
> WS-10 or AL-31, is simply stop-gap measure at the moment. The WS-15 is the one that will be fitted on to the bird when it becomes operational. Although I heard that Russian AL-31 99m2 (did I get the designation right?) might be a reserve choice in case that plan cannot be met.



The AL-31FM2 is the black nozzled engine of J-20.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

I think the engine controversy of J-20 is simply pointless right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

*J20 - 56th open flight test on Dec.7 2011 - low pass the airfield (HD1080p music video)*

a real beautiful bird and nice music

Chinese stealth fighter J-20 finished its *56th, 57th and 58th *open test flights at chengdu on Dec.07 2011.





thx to &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; and himitechworld upload


2011&#24180;12&#26376;07&#26085;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#38544;&#24418;&#25112;&#26426;&#27516;-20&#22312;&#25104;&#37117;&#23436;&#25104;&#20102;&#20854;&#31532;56&#12289;57&#12289;58&#27425;&#20844;&#24320;&#27979;&#35797;&#39134;&#34892;&#12290;

video source&#65306;http://www.56.com/u72/v_NjUxNzY5MDk.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Secur

Chengdu Wall Climbing Party - I salute you

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## houshanghai

j20 flew 2 times yesterday and j20 flew again today ,The number of flight test have reached 60 times now

today






thx toJ202001NB


J20 - *58th, 59th & 60th *open test flights - 2011.12.08 (HD1080p music video)








thx to &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; and himitechworld upload


----------



## April.lyrics

one year,more than 60 PUBLIC flight tests.

is this fast or slow?


----------



## Obambam

April.lyrics said:


> one year,more than 60 PUBLIC flight tests.
> 
> is this fast or slow?



At this rate, we will soon get to see it carry live ammunitions.


----------



## S10

Obambam said:


> At this rate, we will soon get to see it carry live ammunitions.


Avionics testing is for 03 prototype next year. Weapons integration won't happen until the 04 prototype, which should be around the 2014 to 2015 frame.


----------



## teddy

It say
net weight : 17 ton
Payload : 11 ton
wingspan : 12.88M
Cruise speed : Mach 1.83(WS-15)
Max Att : 20000M
Combat range : 2000KM
Combat weight : 25ton
Length : 21.26m
Height : 4.45M
Max speed : Mach 2.5
Max range : 5500KM(with 2 fuel tank)
Pilot : 1

Weapon : PL21 composit engine Long-rang AA missile, PL12D(SD-10D)Mid-range AA misslile, PL10 combat missile, LS-6 guidence Bomb, cruise missile, 30mm cannon gun, 4 rocket luncher.


----------



## teddy

teddy said:


> It say
> net weight : 15 ton
> wingspan : 12.88M
> Cruise speed : Mach 1.83(WS-15)
> Max Att : 20000M
> Combat range : 2000KM
> Combat weight : 25ton
> Length : 21.26
> Height : 4.45M
> Max speed : Mach 2.5
> Max range : 5500KM(with 2 fuel tank)
> Pilot : 1
> 
> Weapon : PL21 composit engine Long-rang AA missile, PL12D(SD-10D)Mid-range AA misslile, PL10 combat missile, LS-6 guidence Bomb, cruise missile, 30mm cannon gun, 4 rocket luncher.



I believe it will have 4 under wing hard point to carry fuel tank or weapon, and internal bay is for AA missile only.


----------



## Kylin

hmm, it is aiming to be faster than F22
hopefully WS15 will be available soon


----------



## conworldus

2000km combat radius? wow that's sick!


----------



## Kylin

actually, it looks like a bad PS job, the text don't line up with the frame or the shadow of the grid.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Kylin said:


> actually, it looks like a bad PS job, the text don't line up with the frame or the shadow of the grid.



Agree, it is definitely the PS job of few military fanboys.


----------



## April.lyrics

teddy said:


> It say
> net weight : 17 ton
> wingspan : 12.88M
> Cruise speed : Mach 1.83(WS-15)
> Max Att : 20000M
> Combat range : 2000KM
> Combat weight : 25ton
> Length : 21.26
> Height : 4.45M
> Max speed : Mach 2.5
> Max range : 5500KM(with 2 fuel tank)
> Pilot : 1
> 
> Weapon : PL21 composit engine Long-rang AA missile, PL12D(SD-10D)Mid-range AA misslile, PL10 combat missile, LS-6 guidence Bomb, cruise missile, 30mm cannon gun, 4 rocket luncher.



where is this photo being taken?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

April.lyrics said:


> where is this photo being taken?



It is fake, just ignore it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Riz

April.lyrics said:


> one year,more than 60 PUBLIC flight tests.
> 
> is this fast or slow?


 
Very slow as compare to super LCA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

teddy said:


> It say
> net weight : 17 ton
> wingspan : 12.88M
> Cruise speed : Mach 1.83(WS-15)
> Max Att : 20000M
> Combat range : 2000KM
> Combat weight : 25ton
> Length : 21.26
> Height : 4.45M
> Max speed : Mach 2.5
> Max range : 5500KM(with 2 fuel tank)
> Pilot : 1
> 
> Weapon : PL21 composit engine Long-rang AA missile, PL12D(SD-10D)Mid-range AA misslile, PL10 combat missile, LS-6 guidence Bomb, cruise missile, 30mm cannon gun, 4 rocket luncher.


what is the engine of j-20


----------



## nomi007

any 1 tell about the j-2x that pakistan wants

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------






nice image


----------



## teddy

April.lyrics said:


> where is this photo being taken?



I duno.... they should be taken from outside of a military museum, there is more.


----------



## teddy

nomi007 said:


> what is the engine of j-20



It will be WS15


----------



## April.lyrics

nomi007 said:


> what is the engine of j-20




somebody says this one seems to be al-31 series.not confirmed&#12290;


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

April.lyrics said:


> somebody says this one seems to be al-31 series.not confirmed&#12290;



It is the time to stop listening those "&#31070;&#26829;" from CD and Feiyang.


----------



## S10

April.lyrics said:


> somebody says this one seems to be al-31 series.not confirmed&#12290;


pupu made a bet that the engine was WS-10, but he later posted a thread and admitted he lost. I think it's fairly safe to say AL-31 is used on the prototype at the moment.

From what I can gather so far:

#2001 - Basic flight control tests (2011)
#2002 - Ground static stress test (2011)
#2003 - Avionics + EODAS + Radar (2012, confirmed by huzhigeng)
#2004 - Weapons intergration (est 2014)
#2005 - Finalized pre-production protoype with WS-15 (est 2016)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

J20 was being tested yesterday.







































THX TO dj1023(&#39134;&#25196;&#65289;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

S10 said:


> pupu made a bet that the engine was WS-10, but he later posted a thread and admitted he lost. I think it's fairly safe to say AL-31 is used on the prototype at the moment.
> 
> From what I can gather so far:
> 
> #2001 - Basic flight control tests (2011)
> #2002 - Ground static stress test (2011)
> #2003 - Avionics + EODAS + Radar (2012, confirmed by huzhigeng)
> #2004 - Weapons intergration (est 2014)
> #2005 - Finalized pre-production protoype with WS-15 (est 2016)



The WS-15 engine (170kn) gonna be tested on J-20 by 2012 according to Huzhigeng.


----------



## Akasa

teddy said:


>



Translate?


----------



## IndoUS

Sorry I haven't been through the whole thread but, just wanted to know how many test beds have been made to test the avionics on the aircraft. Plus is this the final design or will there be any more changes??


Thanks in advance


----------



## CardSharp

SinoSoldier said:


> Translate?



Don't bother with the posters. Siegecrossbow said they came from a military themed amusement park not a museum.


----------



## S10

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-15 engine (170kn) gonna be tested on J-20 by 2012 according to Huzhigeng.


Nope, only avionics. The term he used was &#20840;&#33322;&#30005;&#29366;&#24577;. WS-15 is not projected to enter trial anytime soon.


----------



## marshall

IndoUS said:


> Sorry I haven't been through the whole thread but, just wanted to know how many test beds have been made to test the avionics on the aircraft. Plus is this the final design or will there be any more changes??
> 
> Thanks in advance


Nobody knows what "exactly" is being tested on each flight so avionics testing guesstimates are mostly educated guesses. I would be wary of so-called insider claims when well over 99% of these are simply speculation. Concerning whether this is the final design, considering first flight was only 11 months ago and the engine currently used is a stopgap measure to expedite testing, I speculate final design won't be ready until at least 2014 at the earliest, probably later.


----------



## Tumba

houshanghai said:


> J20 was being tested yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THX TO dj1023(&#39134;&#25196;&#65289;



looks bulky... 
probably the production version will be slimmer ... most of the prototypes leave ample space for extra modifications ... once finalize the production version will be slimmer ... great effort by Chinese ... will be really interesting to see the engine fitted in the production model...


----------



## April.lyrics

S10 said:


> pupu made a bet that the engine was WS-10, but he later posted a thread and admitted he lost. I think it's fairly safe to say AL-31 is used on the prototype at the moment.
> 
> From what I can gather so far:
> 
> #2001 - Basic flight control tests (2011)
> #2002 - Ground static stress test (2011)
> #2003 - Avionics + EODAS + Radar (2012, confirmed by huzhigeng)
> #2004 - Weapons intergration (est 2014)
> #2005 - Finalized pre-production protoype with WS-15 (est 2016)



wow EODAS?!eager to seem some alien-looks helmets.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

This claim of J-20 flying with AL-31 is nonsense, since J-20 never runs the compatible software with AL-31.

This crap is getting really tired. Anyway, people are free to believe whatever they want to believe.


----------



## Lawrie

marshall said:


> Nobody knows what "exactly" is being tested on each flight so avionics testing guesstimates are mostly educated guesses. I would be wary of so-called insider claims when well over 99% of these are simply speculation. Concerning whether this is the final design, considering first flight was only 11 months ago and the engine currently used is a stopgap measure to expedite testing, I speculate final design won't be ready until at least 2014 at the earliest, probably later.


Indeed, it all depends on how the progress on new engines is made so far. So the final design will be different. I also read that 606 institute of Shenyang is working on 2-D convergent-divergent vector nozzles. We will see.


----------



## gambit

Lawrie said:


> Indeed, it all depends on how the progress on new engines is made so far. So the final design will be different. I also read that 606 institute of Shenyang is working on *2-D convergent-divergent vector nozzles.* We will see.


There is a reason why: F-22.

No, am not saying the Chinese designers are simply copying the F-22, but the reason why the F-22 has that nozzle design is because of an unclassified NASA research showing a direct relationship between nozzle design/shape and engine efficiency in the attempt to supercruise an aircraft. There is a difference between the 'supersonic dash' and 'supersonic cruise' nozzles with the latter actually being more sophisticated in design and construction. Most people laughs at the F-22's nozzles because it has a loss of overall thrust but they did not know about this relationship between nozzle shape and overall engine efficiency. The ability to supercruise by payment of some overall thrust loss is more than acceptable -- if there are engine power to spare.

"Wind tunnel testing of a supersonic cruise nozzle in subsonic ejector " by Jesse Thomas Jones


> Wind tunnel testing of a *supersonic cruise nozzle* in subsonic ejector configuration
> 
> The convergent-divergent geometry necessary for cruise efficiency, will separate when operated at the lower nozzle pressure ratios associated with take-off and initial climb, causing unacceptable noise levels. One proposed solution is to comprise the divergent geometry of two rotatable *clamshell bodies.*


The 'clamshell bodies' are exactly what the F-22 has.






On the other hand, if China cannot come up with an engine that can produce sufficient thrust to exploit the supercruise nozzle design, then there is no need to change the J-20 as is.

Currently, there are three avenues for a jet engine to supercruise an aircraft:

- The SR-71 style of a complex inlet system where the majority of total power actually came from the inlets, in other words, the SR-71 can be accurately describe as 'sucking' its way through the air rather than through thrust.

- The Concorde method where the engines are in constant afterburn through the transonic region, then deactivate.

- A combination of sufficient thrust and nozzle shaping.

The third path has been elusive until now.


----------



## SQ8

Uh.. gambit. If its not too much trouble..
That loss of thrust on the raptor translates to a loss in acceleration was well?
Arent the F-119's a little different from other engines as well... at least until the F-135?


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> Uh.. gambit. If its not too much trouble..
> That loss of thrust on the raptor translates to a loss in acceleration was well?
> Arent the F-119's a little different from other engines as well... at least until the F-135?


Thrust and acceleration are different things. Let us take space for an extreme example. I can have a very low thrust engine but since in space my body has practically no drag to speak of, I can accelerate until the speed of light if I wanted to. It would just take a very long time. But for what we are talking about, the need for near instant acceleration can be through afterburner, which the F-22 does have. So far we do not know how long did an F-22 took to reach supersonic *WITHOUT* afterburner, that would tell us its acceleration capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Thrust and acceleration are different things. Let us take space for an extreme example. I can have a very low thrust engine but since in space my body has practically no drag to speak of, I can accelerate until the speed of light if I wanted to. It would just take a very long time. But for what we are talking about, the need for near instant acceleration can be through afterburner, which the F-22 does have. So far we do not know how long did an F-22 took to reach supersonic *WITHOUT* afterburner, that would tell us its acceleration capability.



So if I may take liberty on that statement and correlate it with the claims that the J-20 is aerodynamically optimized to slip into the the supersonic regime more easily.. perhaps the J-20 does not need as powerful an engine relative to the F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> So if I may take liberty on that statement and correlate it with the claims that the J-20 is aerodynamically *optimized to slip into the the supersonic regime more easily*.. perhaps the J-20 does not need as powerful an engine relative to the F-22.


You can. No difference if you use a very streamlined body like a 'rocket' and it is hard to be more 'optimized' than that. The problem is to prove that claim about the J-20. But am open minded about that.


----------



## ameer219

gambit said:


> You can. No difference if you use a very streamlined body like a 'rocket' and it is hard to be more 'optimized' than that. The problem is to prove that claim about the J-20. But am open minded about that.



Greetings Gambit,

Just curious, is it possible to sustain supersonic speed during dogfight without an afterburner?

Regards
Ameer


----------



## gambit

ameer219 said:


> Greetings Gambit,
> 
> Just curious, is it possible to sustain supersonic speed during dogfight without an afterburner?
> 
> Regards
> Ameer


Theoretically, it is possible. But you would need an extremely robust airframe and engine. Anytime you make a maneuver, you lose speed, so your engine had better be responsive and powerful enough to regain that loss in as short a time as possible, preferably instantly. You are treading into an area that I do not think would be technologically feasible in the next 50yrs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

ameer219 said:


> Greetings Gambit,
> 
> Just curious, is it possible to sustain supersonic speed during dogfight without an afterburner?
> 
> Regards
> Ameer



super maneuverability will simply kill the pilot, it is possible to have speed at M+ but as long as the G-force wont be as high as 10G+


----------



## DALAI LAMA 4477

rcrmj said:


> super maneuverability will simply kill the pilot, it is possible to have speed at M+ but as long as the G-force wont be as high as 10G+


who told u that man "super maneuverability will simply kill the pilot," then all pliots would have been dead


----------



## Zabaniyah

DALAI LAMA 4477 said:


> who told u that man "super maneuverability will simply kill the pilot," then all pliots would have been dead



He meant taking high G's through maneuvers, it can cause damage to both the aircraft and pilot. 

For instance, you can't simply take a sharp turn using TVC on an MKI at high speeds. It'd injure or even kill the pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DALAI LAMA 4477

Zabaniya said:


> He meant taking high G's through maneuvers, it can cause damage to both the aircraft and pilot.
> 
> For instance, you can't simply take a sharp turn using TVC on an MKI at high speeds. It'd injure or even kill the pilot.


well mate then how does the russians perform those spectacular air manuververrs in airshows then they should all have been killed
& also special g suit are developed to counter the g limits


----------



## rcrmj

DALAI LAMA 4477 said:


> well mate then how does the russians perform those spectacular air manuververrs in airshows then they should all have been killed
> & also special g suit are developed to counter the g limits


all the maneuvers are done within the G limites, the G-suit can only afford certain amount Gs


----------



## Zabaniyah

DALAI LAMA 4477 said:


> well mate then how does the russians perform those spectacular air manuververrs in airshows then they should all have been killed
> & also special g suit are developed to counter the g limits



And they have limits. They never push beyond the aircraft's limits.


----------



## DALAI LAMA 4477

Zabaniya said:


> And they have limits. They never push beyond the aircraft's limits.


can u kindly tell me the g limit for a cobra manuvere & tailside manuvere


----------



## houshanghai

*
J20 trial flight with J10S today.*

thx to &#21521;&#32769;&#22823;&#21733;&#33268;&#25964;


----------



## razgriz19

Zabaniya said:


> He meant taking high G's through maneuvers, it can cause damage to both the aircraft and pilot.
> 
> For instance, you can't simply take a sharp turn using TVC on an MKI at high speeds. It'd injure or even kill the pilot.



but if the on board computers are smart enough then they wouldn't let you kill yourself.
when pulling sharp maneuvers at supersonic speed, flight computers doesn't let the pilot exceed above 9Gs or so otherwise, like you pointed out it would kill the pilot or would make him unconscious.


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SQ8

Nothing new from Pupu??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Santro said:


> Nothing new from Pupu??



Pupu is not a military insider, but someone who is seeking for the online fame.

I never took his words seriously.


----------



## DARKY

Zabaniya said:


> And they have limits. They never push beyond the aircraft's limits.



The control stick is programmed as such that more physical force would be required by the pilot to make a sharper turn at higher Gs... and there are computer programmed maneuvers also... which are more like an auto-pilot.


----------



## SQ8

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Pupu is not a military insider, but someone who is seeking for the online fame.
> 
> I never took his words seriously.



His words though.. are basically tits and bits gleaned from other more informed sources.
Some of his statements one can corroborate from other sources.
Military insiders usually give balanced statements... those that reflect reality.
Rare to find those where it comes to Asian states.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Pupu is not a military insider, but someone who is seeking for the online fame.
> 
> I never took his words seriously.


Shows that you know nothing of him. He was a military liason with CAC, and visisted Pakistan many times. After his stint in the military, he transferred over to ministry of state security. His buddies are all over in the military. Doesn't get anymore insider than pupu.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

S10 said:


> Shows that you know nothing of him. He was a military liason with CAC, and visisted Pakistan many times. After his stint in the military, he transferred over to ministry of state security. His buddies are all over in the military. Doesn't get anymore insider than pupu.



Funny you think that someone who is a magazine seller is the most reliable truthteller.

Pupu's word can be taken consideration, but you cannot take it 100% seriously.

In fact, no one can be taken 100%, we have to see the outcome first.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

Both GOODBOY and &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; will soon come out &#12298; phoenix rising &#12299;(7'53") New Year blockbuster of J20 in 2011 
&#22909;&#23401;&#23376; &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; &#32852;&#25163;&#25512;&#20986;7&#20998;53&#31186;&#30340;&#20891;&#36855;&#36154;&#23681;&#22823;&#29255; &#12298;&#20976;&#22825;&#38712;&#12299; &#24433;&#29255;&#39044;&#21578;


*the promotional trailer*of &#12298; phoenix rising &#12299;by *WCP*





56.com original source

å¥½å*©å* æ±&#8240;é*&#8218;é&#8250;&#8222;é£&#381; è&#8221;æ&#8240;&#8249;æ&#381;¨å&#8225;º7å&#710;&#8224;53ç§&#8217;ç&#353;&#8222;å&#8224;&#8250;è¿·è´ºå²å¤§ç&#8240;&#8225;ã&#8364;&#352;å&#8225;°å¤©é&#339;¸ã&#8364;&#8249;å½±ç&#8240;&#8225;é¢&#8222;å&#8216;&#352; -å&#381;&#376;å&#710;&#8250;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; å&#339;¨çº¿è§&#8218;ç&#339;&#8249; è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;ä¸&#8249;è½½-56ç½&#8216;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;


BTW, PUPU always have startling inside stories to reveal from CDF,haha.anyway we all love pupu

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

houshanghai said:


> Both GOODBOY and &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; will soon come out &#12298; phoenix rising &#12299;(7'53") New Year blockbuster of J20 in 2011
> &#22909;&#23401;&#23376; &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; &#32852;&#25163;&#25512;&#20986;7&#20998;53&#31186;&#30340;&#20891;&#36855;&#36154;&#23681;&#22823;&#29255;&#12298;&#20976;&#22825;&#38712;&#12299;&#24433;&#29255;&#39044;&#21578;
> 
> 
> *the promotional trailer*of &#12298; phoenix rising &#12299;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 56.com original source
> 
> å¥½å*©å* æ±&#8240;é*&#8218;é&#8250;&#8222;é£&#381; è&#8221;æ&#8240;&#8249;æ&#381;¨å&#8225;º7å&#710;&#8224;53ç§&#8217;ç&#353;&#8222;å&#8224;&#8250;è¿·è´ºå²å¤§ç&#8240;&#8225;ã&#8364;&#352;å&#8225;°å¤©é&#339;¸ã&#8364;&#8249;å½±ç&#8240;&#8225;é¢&#8222;å&#8216;&#352; -å&#381;&#376;å&#710;&#8250;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; å&#339;¨çº¿è§&#8218;ç&#339;&#8249; è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;ä¸&#8249;è½½-56ç½&#8216;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;
> 
> 
> BTW, PUPU always have startling inside stories to reveal from CDF,haha.anyway we all love pupu



Thank for the video bro.

But Pupu does always look like a rookie amateur compared to a true military insider like Daokou or Jiangshan.

The only good think he did is to not force you guys to share his extreme far right political view.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

What about Eagle Hannan?


----------



## houshanghai

*remember these most wonderful segments of J-20 Mighty Dragon in 2011*








thank &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; very much

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Li Gang, J-20's test pilot, was commended by Hu Jintao for contributions to the testflight program.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

Merry Christmas, Top 10 good footage of J20 Mighty Dragon in 2011






thx &#28450;&#39746;&#38596;&#39080; and himitechworld upload

link;

http://www.warisboring.com/2011/12/...m_campaign=merry-christmas-america-love-china


----------



## houshanghai

artie said:


> LMAO u talked like a PLA's leader while actually u r just one of 1.2 bilion slaves residing in commie China. u made my day. Cheers.



you troll , plz out of the threads

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## peaceful

let's don't waste time with those low lives living in their dream land.


----------



## houshanghai

&#12298; phoenix rising &#12299; 2012 New Year blockbuster of J20 Mighty Dragon in 2011 






thx &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118; (who is a most famous chengdu WCP)and GOODBOY(very famous chinese video Editer*)
56.com link:

ã&#8364;56å&#376;&#381;äº&#8249;æ&#8249;å®¢ã&#8364;&#8216;æ*¼20é¦&#8211;é£&#382;å&#8216;¨å¹´é&#339;&#8225;æ&#8217;¼çºªå½&#8226; å&#8224;&#8250;è¿·è´ºå²å¤§ç&#8240;&#8225;ã&#8364;&#352;å&#8225;°å¤©é&#339;¸ã&#8364;&#8249; -å&#381;&#376;å&#710;&#8250;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; å&#339;¨çº¿è§&#8218;ç&#339;&#8249; è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;ä¸&#8249;è½½-56ç½&#8216;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;








J20 J-20 Mighty Dragon CGI 

THX &#20319;&#26093;&#65288;Chinese famous CGer)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## yyetttt

Nice aircraft can it compete with the F-22? And will Pakistan acquire it?


----------



## sweetgrape

J-20 2011 last trial flight -65th 2011.12.30

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## farhan_9909

so far i heard that j-20 doesnt use indegenous ws-10 bt both the prototype 2001-1 and 2001-2 both use the russian only the difference is that the one has lowered RCS nozzel and the other not

is it true?
if nt plzz provide me info regarding this
as i was questioned by an indian about this


----------



## houshanghai

Actually&#65292;nobody really knows which engine was being used in pt01 J20, That's only guesswork, it is unlikely to use pure AL31F in pt01 J20 ,you know chinese AL31F lacked sufficient thrust and it have't FADEC.

the engine of current pt01 j20 that is still a secret.


----------



## houshanghai

some interesting GIFs
The last test flight of J20 in 2011

























thx &#20940;&#20113;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sweetgrape

Yes, Most of chinese don't know the engine of J20!! It is secret!!
But I believe that chinese engine fit to J20 is on the way, the breakthrough do made, The problem of these engine is mass production and their reliability, If these technology doesn't overcame, China Government will not publicize J-20 programe.
Many people focurse on the technology news, But I had read the news, chinese intergrate many scatterd engine R&D and manufacture, Before, there are many engine R&D and manufacture, which disperse money and vigour. But in those year, china govern have make many reform in military company. And more focus on engine. When J20 get into survice, The matched engine will be good too!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tvsram1992

jellodragon said:


> Nice aircraft can it compete with the F-22? And will Pakistan acquire it?


certainly no


----------



## Secur

tvsram1992 said:


> certainly no


 why not ?  Pakistan cant acquire J 20 ?  Every new Chinese tech is offered to us


----------



## The enlightened

Secur said:


> why not ?  Pakistan cant acquire J 20 ?  Every new Chinese tech is offered to us


He was probably responding to the query as to whether it could better the F 22.
Which it is unlikely to do.


----------



## Jiang

The enlightened said:


> He was probably responding to the query as to whether it could better the F 22.
> Which it is unlikely to do.



Is pretty much guaranteed to beat F22 considering the ongoing train wreck of the F22 program.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

farhan_9909 said:


> so far i heard that j-20 doesnt use indegenous ws-10 bt both the prototype 2001-1 and 2001-2 both use the russian only the difference is that the one has lowered RCS nozzel and the other not
> 
> is it true?
> if nt plzz provide me info regarding this
> as i was questioned by an indian about this



Well, according to Senior Colonel Xu Yongling, a well-known veteran test pilot in China, the J-20 indeed uses the Chinese engine, but just not as good as the F119 engine of F-22 for now.

I just don't know why some people always prefer to choose the words from few Internet fanboys over his expertise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bratva

Whenever J-20 flies, does near by Air space is shutdown for civilian aircraft? and also during test flights, is there special thing put on J-20 so that it can be detected by ground based radars?


----------



## DrSomnath999

mafiya said:


> also during test flights, is there special thing put on J-20 so that it can be detected by ground based radars?


are u so sure about j20's stealth that it cannot be detected by chinese's radar on it's own that a special thing is put on j20 so 
that it can be detected by ground based radars.Common give me a break


----------



## gambit

DrSomnath999 said:


> are u so sure about j20's stealth that it cannot be detected by chinese's radar on it's own that a special thing is put on j20 so
> that it can be detected by ground based radars.Common give me a break


That is the problem for the J-20's claim to 'stealth'. The PLAAF can just simply slapped some enhancers on it for the gullible Chinese public and none will be the wiser. Enhancers masks the body's true RCS but that does not mean the true RCS is anything close to what we consider to be 'stealth', which is below a clean F-16 at a couple hundreds km out. Whereas for the F-22, both civilian and military controllers have seen for their own eyes, human and electronic, on how 'stealthy' the F-22 really is, with and without enhancers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A1Kaid

jellodragon said:


> Nice aircraft can it compete with the F-22? And will Pakistan acquire it?




I don't think PAF has trust in the J-20 little is known about the aircraft. I don't think PAF even wants to acquire this aircraft. It seems the J-20 is a China specific aircraft, and they will be the sole operators.


----------



## conworldus

gambit said:


> That is the problem for the J-20's claim to 'stealth'. The PLAAF can just simply slapped some enhancers on it for the gullible Chinese public and none will be the wiser. Enhancers masks the body's true RCS but that does not mean the true RCS is anything close to what we consider to be 'stealth', which is below a clean F-16 at a couple hundreds km out. Whereas for the F-22, both civilian and military controllers have seen for their own eyes, human and electronic, on how 'stealthy' the F-22 really is, with and without enhancers.



Right, like you know anything about the J-20. Pretender.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> Right, like you know anything about the J-20. Pretender.


Even my speculations has more credibility than whatever you can bring on. Clueless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yyetttt

gambit said:


> That is the problem for the J-20's claim to 'stealth'. The PLAAF can just simply slapped some enhancers on it for the gullible Chinese public and none will be the wiser. Enhancers masks the body's true RCS but that does not mean the true RCS is anything close to what we consider to be 'stealth', which is below a clean F-16 at a couple hundreds km out. Whereas for the F-22, both civilian and military controllers have seen for their own eyes, human and electronic, on how 'stealthy' the F-22 really is, with and without enhancers.


 
Dang, you know more than China itself! [SARCASTIC]


----------



## gambit

jellodragon said:


> Dang, you know more than China itself! [SARCASTIC]


Probably not. But at least I know more than you. And that is not sarcastic, either.


----------



## yyetttt

gambit said:


> Probably not. But at least I know more than you. And that is not sarcastic, either.


 
Why are you acting like a smart-aleck? Something got in your pants?


----------



## nomi007

who many prototypes are under construction ?


----------



## rcrmj

jellodragon said:


> Why are you acting like a smart-aleck? Something got in your pants?


he is pissed that no one in real life has noticed his 'telant' so for all his life switching inbetween army maintenace life to basement virtual warrior life, so at least can track some attentions from virtual world.

you can read all his 8000+ 'i must right' posts and you'd get a clear picture ``


----------



## Firemaster

rcrmj said:


> he is pissed that no one in real life has noticed his 'telant' so for all his life switching inbetween army maintenace life to basement virtual warrior life, so at least can track some attentions from virtual world.
> 
> you can read all his 8000+ 'i must right' posts and you'd get a clear picture ``


Why Personal attack???


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> That is the problem for the J-20's claim to 'stealth'. The PLAAF can just simply slapped some enhancers on it for the gullible Chinese public and none will be the wiser. Enhancers masks the body's true RCS but that does not mean the true RCS is anything close to what we consider to be 'stealth', which is below a clean F-16 at a couple hundreds km out. Whereas for the F-22, both civilian and military controllers have seen for their own eyes, human and electronic, on how 'stealthy' the F-22 really is, with and without enhancers.


not only for that also for some hopeless & alarmist australian air force analyst that produces a fictitious P.O algorithnm stealth 
report on J20 stealth to get F22 for it's ownairforce & publish that fictiouis report it on a website for recreation of some 
chinese fanbouys , & they assume it superior it to F22


----------



## DrSomnath999

Firemaster said:


> Why Personal attack???


becoz when a knowledgable person speaks any thing right which exposes the true face of some fraud thing ,their illiterate fraud follower's A$$ starts to burn & they resort to personal attack & starts 
to bark to satisfy their bruised ego & we should ignore them for benefit of our selfs


----------



## April.lyrics

this "knowledgable" person,didnt trust J-20 exist that time.but then J-20 pic came out.

then,he was one of those who thought J-20 was just a PS work.but then the video of J-20 came out.

then,he was one of those who thought J-20 couldnt fly.but then J-20 flew.

what can we expect from him


----------



## conworldus

gambit said:


> Even my speculations has more credibility than whatever you can bring on. Clueless.



You just admitted that you are purely speculating, a.k.a bullsh!ting and mindless bashing. Your credibility is lost right there. This thread is about about pictures and videos. We are fans, and not some self claimed "professionals" who copy and paste articles to make himself look legit.


----------



## applesauce

gambit said:


> That is the problem for the J-20's claim to 'stealth'. The PLAAF can just simply slapped some enhancers on it for the gullible Chinese public and none will be the wiser. Enhancers masks the body's true RCS but that does not mean the true RCS is anything close to what we consider to be 'stealth', which is below a clean F-16 at a couple hundreds km out. Whereas for the F-22, both civilian and military controllers have seen for their own eyes, human and electronic, on how 'stealthy' the F-22 really is, with and without enhancers.



im pretty a purpose built aircraft aimed at reducing its signatures with modern supercomputers can out do a f-16 in sig control which is your definition of stealth, i mean seriously even without any ram


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> You just admitted that you are purely speculating, a.k.a bullsh!ting and mindless bashing. Your credibility is lost right there. This thread is about about pictures and videos. We are fans, and not some self claimed "professionals" who copy and paste articles to make himself look legit.


My speculations are more 'legit' than *ALL* of yours combined. What you sneered as mere copy paste of articles is supporting one's argument, something none of you know how to do.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------




applesauce said:


> im pretty a purpose built aircraft aimed at reducing its signatures with modern supercomputers can out do a f-16 in sig control which is your definition of stealth, i mean seriously even without any ram


I have no problems being that generous. However, a clean F-16 at 150-200 km is only a guideline, there is no committee who set down a standard on what is 'stealth', so if you want/need a standard, then use the F-117.


----------



## conworldus

gambit said:


> *My speculations are more 'legit'* than *ALL* of yours combined. What you sneered as mere copy paste of articles is supporting one's argument, something none of you know how to do.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------
> 
> 
> I have no problems being that generous. However, a clean F-16 at 150-200 km is only a guideline, there is no committee who set down a standard on what is 'stealth', so if you want/need a standard, then use the F-117.



Then you are the only person on the planet with legit brainphart. Congratulations. I am so grateful that such a legit person is on this forum reminding us amateurs of how worthless the J-20 is with his... very legit speculation. Your life sounds like a fail man. I am a fan and I enjoy the pictures and videos. Basher with "legit speculation" are not welcome.


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> Then you are the only person on the planet with legit brainphart. Congratulations. I am so grateful that such a legit person is on this forum reminding us amateurs of how worthless the J-20 is with his... very legit speculation. Your life sounds like a fail man. I am a fan and I enjoy the pictures and videos. Basher with "legit speculation" are not welcome.


Who are the failed here are those who are gullible enough to believe uncritically everything fanboys vomited up while I have been the one who consistently provided sources that you have no choice but to sneer at.


----------



## Jiang

Hahaha, apparently people still believe in the mystical power of US technology.

Need I remind you of the failures associated with F22, the complete incompetence of F35 development.

You need to realize the military industrial complex are no longer capable engineers, who need a good plane when you can just lobby for more money on craps like F35 fattening.

Also you are losing two wars in middle east and is printing money by the truckload.


----------



## gambit

Jiang said:


> Hahaha, apparently people still believe in the mystical power of US technology.
> 
> *Need I remind you of the failures associated with F22*, the complete incompetence of F35 development.
> 
> You need to realize the military industrial complex are no longer capable engineers, who need a good plane when you can just lobby for more money on craps like F35 fattening.
> 
> Also you are losing two wars in middle east and is printing money by the truckload.


Ah...Another 12-yr old who think Rachel Maddow was a credible source. Kid, you are no longer in your sandbox. Use the Search feature and read up on what you think you know about this issue.


----------



## Jiang

gambit said:


> Ah...Another 12-yr old who think Rachel Maddow was a credible source. Kid, you are no longer in your sandbox. Use the Search feature and read up on what you think you know about this issue.



The source is from pentagon who never used it in combat and cancelled the program, and then it got grounded 

You are in serious denial, do you actually live in the US? Has the price of food not alarmed you?


----------



## gambit

Jiang said:


> The source is from pentagon who never used it in combat and cancelled the program, and then it got grounded


 And how many of China's weapons actually seen combat? And we are not talking about the AK-47.



Jiang said:


> You are in serious denial, do you actually live in the US? Has the price of food not alarmed you?


This actually make me wonder if you actually live in Canada.


----------



## Jiang

gambit said:


> And how many of China's weapons actually seen combat? And we are not talking about the AK-47.
> 
> 
> This actually make me wonder if you actually live in Canada.



Toronto is like 3 hours from border. 

We don't have a theatre of war to test our weapons, in fact we haven't had a war since modernization of the economy. Maybe your politicians should take note of the benefit of peace.

The F22 program obviously had multitude of problem, it never get modified to go on carrier, program got downsized, and then ceased production.


----------



## gambit

Jiang said:


> Toronto is like 3 hours from border.
> 
> We don't have a theatre of war to test our weapons, in fact we haven't had a war since modernization of the economy. Maybe your politicians should take note of the benefit of peace.
> 
> *The F22 program obviously had multitude of problem, it never get modified to go on carrier, program got downsized, and then ceased production.*


This tells me you clearly are still in skool. Utterly lacking in critical thinking and logical thoughts. You think the J-20 is going to be without problems? How willing are you to apply this criticism to the J-20 if the aircraft is not going to be modified for a carrier? How much per unit is it going to cost? May be too much for the PLAAF's budget? Can we use it to call the J-20 a 'failure' as well? Go back to your sandbox. You are out of your league here.


----------



## Jiang

gambit said:


> This tells me you clearly are still in skool. Utterly lacking in critical thinking and logical thoughts. You think the J-20 is going to be without problems? How willing are you to apply this criticism to the J-20 if the aircraft is not going to be modified for a carrier? How much per unit is it going to cost? May be too much for the PLAAF's budget? Can we use it to call the J-20 a 'failure' as well? Go back to your sandbox. You are out of your league here.



Did I say J20 is going to be a cake walk? I was merely establishing the fact that F22 is already a failure, however amazing it's technology may be. I'd welcome any informative input on F22, but I think my logic on why F22 doesn't work is quit sound.

PLAAF will have enough budget, the growth of military spending is steady and consistent.

It is you who lives in a sand box, your DoD budget will be significantly downsized through the deterioration of the purchasing power of the dollar. By then it would be difficult to even maintain the military hardwares you currently have.


----------



## gambit

Jiang said:


> Did I say J20 is going to be a cake walk? I was merely establishing the fact that F22 is already a failure, however amazing it's technology may be.


How is it a 'failure'? By insinuating that the F-22 is a 'failure' without explaining why you are equally insinuating the J-20's development will be easy.



Jiang said:


> I'd welcome any informative input on F22, but I think my logic on why F22 doesn't work is quit sound.


We have yet to see any kind of 'logic' from you. Your criticism about the F-22 not being carrier capable was patently absurd and clearly from an immature mind. Why not the same for the J-20?



Jiang said:


> PLAAF will have enough budget, the growth of military spending is steady and consistent.


This is a general statement. Nothing to clarify the question of cost per J-20 and how a fleet will factor into a budget.

Bottom line is that you do not know what you are talking about here.


----------



## sms

Jiang said:


> Did I say J20 is going to be a cake walk? I was merely establishing the fact that F22 is already a failure, however amazing it's technology may be. I'd welcome any informative input on F22, but I think my logic on why F22 doesn't work is quit sound.
> 
> PLAAF will have enough budget, the growth of military spending is steady and consistent.
> 
> It is you who lives in a sand box, your DoD budget will be significantly downsized through the deterioration of the purchasing power of the dollar. By then it would be difficult to even maintain the military hardwares you currently have.




You seems to be confused! Get to the point. Project failure and budget of arm forces are two different issues. Decide which one you want to discuss. 

PS: I'm not aviation expert but a fielded plane in numbers cannot be called a failed project. About J20 time will tell it has not graduated yet!


----------



## Jiang

sms said:


> You seems to be confused! Get to the point. Project failure and budget of arm forces are two different issues. Decide which one you want to discuss.
> 
> PS: I'm not aviation expert but a fielded plane in numbers cannot be called a failed project. About J20 time will tell it has not graduated yet!



I think you are the one who is confused. I was responding to someone else who brought up the budget issue.

And no, it doesn't matter how many F22 is built, the plane wasn't reliable to be utilized. It was a mistake right from the beginning to mass produce an unproven technology.


----------



## ptldM3

Jiang said:


> Hahaha, apparently people still believe in the mystical power of US technology.
> 
> *Need I remind you of the failures associated with F22*, the complete incompetence of F35 development.
> 
> You need to realize the military industrial complex are no longer capable engineers, who need a good plane when you can just lobby for more money on craps like F35 fattening.
> 
> Also you are losing two wars in middle east and is printing money by the truckload.



Besides being very expensive I see no downside to the aircraft. Furthermore, from an engineering standpoint the F-22 is an engineering achievement. I challenge you to find one aircraft without flaws, all aircraft especially early variants have some flaws in design that are usually sorted out and in terms of cost all aircraft and governments have to balance cost/need/serviceability, its not unusual for governments to cut orders due to cost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sms

Jiang said:


> I think you are the one who is confused. I was responding to someone else who brought up the budget issue.



My Bad ... But I still stand correct that project success / failure and Defense budget are to deferent topics for discussion and you have acknowledged it!



Jiang said:


> And no, it doesn't matter how many F22 is built, the plane wasn't reliable to be utilized. It was a mistake right from the beginning to mass produce an unproven technology.



This is where I disagree

Again I'm not expert ...but if *a product meets it's design objective, accepted by end user and fielded in numbers is called successful project.*

We'd like you to share your reason to call it a failure in very objective manner. *At least let everyone know that what is the design objective F22 could not meet?* Just saying it a fail project does not hold any ground. If you have something credible share it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

F-22 is hell of a standerd and enginering achievement, no one can second```end of story

those F-22 grounding is more political rather than technical as there is no aircraft in the world doesnt have tech issues

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jiang

sms said:


> This is where I disagree
> 
> Again I'm not expert ...but if *a product meets it's design objective, accepted by end user and fielded in numbers is called successful project.*
> 
> We'd like you to share your reason to call it a failure in very objective manner. *At least let everyone know that what is the design objective F22 could not meet?* Just saying it a fail project does not hold any ground. If you have something credible share it.



The F22 was and continue to be an amazing technology.

However, it had multitude of reliability issues, it didn't get to fly much, but still had numerous accidents. The F22 is difficult and expensive to maintain, and couldn't be counted on in actual battle. 

The end user got distorted by politics, where it is mired by various interest groups.


----------



## Black Widow

ptldM3 said:


> Besides being very expensive I see no downside to the aircraft. Furthermore, from an engineering standpoint the F-22 is an engineering achievement. I challenge you to find one aircraft without flaws, all aircraft especially early variants have some flaws in design that are usually sorted out and in terms of cost all aircraft and governments have to balance cost/need/serviceability, its not unusual for governments to cut orders due to cost.



Completely agree with you. F22 is a masterpiece of engineering. Thats too first time, incredible... I will give an analogy, Consider light bulb, how simple it looks, but imagine the creativity of Tom Alva edison when he created it. 

May be 5th gen fighter creation is piece of cake by chinese ctrl-c, ctrl-v engineers, but making it first is something extraordinary.


----------



## sms

Jiang said:


> The F22 was and continue to be an amazing technology.
> 
> However, it had multitude of reliability issues, it didn't get to fly much, but still had numerous accidents. The F22 is difficult and expensive to maintain, and couldn't be counted on in actual battle.
> 
> The end user got distorted by politics, where it is mired by various interest groups.




Heck... my coffee machine, mobile phone, ipad ..everything have some problem .. all of these must be called failed project. 
NO.
F22 is marvel and will be an inspiration for others to emulate it for decades


----------



## gambit

Jiang said:


> The F22 was and continue to be an amazing technology.
> 
> *However, it had multitude of reliability issues, it didn't get to fly much, but still had numerous accidents. The F22 is difficult and expensive to maintain, and couldn't be counted on in actual battle. *
> 
> The end user got distorted by politics, where it is mired by various interest groups.


Yeah...From my 10 yrs active duty USAF and nearly 7 more yrs in avionics post USAF designing field tests from drones to missiles, I can see you are nothing but a Chinese kid living the good life in Canada trying in vain to have some kind of specious emotional attachment to China via criticizing US. Take a friendly advice: Leave the subject while you still have some 'face' left. Keep quiet, read, and you will learn how stupid you really were when you started yakking on things you know nothing about.


----------



## tvsram1992

Secur said:


> why not ?  Pakistan cant acquire J 20 ?  Every new Chinese tech is offered to us


 
Perhaps you didnt see the smiley . Even the reverse of your question has equal probability . It doesnt mean that China will offer you every thing .
and you dont need me to explain why J20 will still be inferior to F22 in a fight even when J20 features are not yet known .


----------



## houshanghai

How sour these grapes in here !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jiang

gambit said:


> Yeah...From my 10 yrs active duty USAF and nearly 7 more yrs in avionics post USAF designing field tests from drones to missiles, I can see you are nothing but a Chinese kid living the good life in Canada trying in vain to have some kind of specious emotional attachment to China via criticizing US. Take a friendly advice: Leave the subject while you still have some 'face' left. Keep quiet, read, and you will learn how stupid you really were when you started yakking on things you know nothing about.



Hahaha why would US let veits in sensitive project, your country was an enemy of the united state. In their view the likes of jungle people like you should be massacred village by village, which they did! 

Your so called expertise in designing and flying airplane in the land of unicorn and fairies has only delivered failures. You have yet to explain why F22 was not a complete failed mess that need massive maintenance budget and is rusting by the dozens.

I'd love to hear you discussing your "expertise" in aviation, but unfortunately all your posts are consist of worthless illogical garbage of little substance, clearly demonstrating why the US empire is failing if retards like you is in charge of important jobs. You are truly a reflection of the general lack of intelligence of Vietnamanese whom has always steered their pathetic economy into disasters.


----------



## yyetttt

F-22 cannot be counted on killing militants in Afghanistan. That's like killing an ant with a monster truck. The F-22's will cause so much collateral damage that they will be counter-productive. So it is basically be useless against any enemy without the lates technology.


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> Dear Pakistan brothers and sisters:
> Happy Chinese new yaear to you all&#65281;This is the first time i've been posting in this forum. F-20 is kind of flight will give Pakistan air force the ability to fight against Indians and proctect your homeland in this terrible Centuary . China engine scientist is ready to bring out the new WS-15 engine on F-20 to give it super-sonic navigation ability. Recently several aircraft scientists were awarded millions of cash for their progress on WS-15, let's looking forward to it !



buddy F-20 is PAF designation for J-10, not for J-20, and also WS-15 is developed for J-20 not J-10(F-20)


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> Herebelow is the latest flying video link of F20, check it out guys~
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------
> 
> i've got to type it again for post post post post video
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------
> 
> blalalalalalalalalalalalalal



are you alright mate? where is the video?

---------- Post added at 05:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 AM ----------




wanglaokan said:


> hahhahhahhahhahhahhahhahhahhahhah


you cant spam here, you will get banned, this is not some flaming domestic forums


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> And how many of China's weapons actually seen combat? And we are not talking about the AK-47.
> 
> 
> This actually make me wonder if you actually live in Canada.



Bro,You've forget how PLA kicked US armys' *** in North Koear in 1950th .American and President Obama set misellaneous barriers on China's development only to grab limited resource on this pathetic little planet called earth. I bet you guys only have the courageous to blow those countries of week defence technology like Irak,Libria. Why don't you just try it again to provoke us ?? China defence will teach you what really a war is like. And i was so pissed of the Nato bomed Pakistan defence soldiers nearby Afganistan boundry, you test our bottom line . F-22 is God on Iraq sky, but just loads of trash against our Defence system.


----------



## 帅的一匹

æ­¼20ææ°è¯é£è§é¢ - è§é¢ - ä¼é·è§é¢ - å¨çº¿è§ç


----------



## Martian2

*J-20 Mighty Dragon soars in 2011*





Notice the yellowish-orange RAM (radar absorbent material) coating on the J-20 glass cockpit.

You might be asking yourself, "why do I see a yellowish-orange cockpit in some pictures and a relatively clear glass cockpit in other pictures?" You will notice that this dual appearance applies to the F-22 as well.

The best analogy is the visual effect when you look at butterfly wings. From some angles, the butterfly wing looks iridescent. At other angles, the butterfly wing looks plain. This is an effect of thin films. The J-20 thin film(s) of RAM coating creates an effect similar to butterfly wings.

To read more about the physics of "thin-film interference," see Thin-film interference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Note: Thank you to Post_Human_Warrior for the picture.]


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Notice the yellowish-orange RAM (radar absorbent material) coating on the J-20 glass cockpit.



When will people learn that opaque (or yellow/orange) canopies are not meant to absorb anything. Opaque canopies prevent EM energy from penetrating the cockpit. Moreover, this technology is nothing special, electronic warfare aircraft such as the A-6 Prowler used an opaque canopy to prevent EM interference, the Mig-31 also has a gold canopy.

And contrary to popular belief the canopy does not need to be gold or yellow to prevent EM interference. In short canopies are not meant to be absorbers.


----------



## SQ8

ptldM3 said:


> When will people learn that opaque (or yellow/orange) canopies are not meant to absorb anything. Opaque canopies prevent EM energy from penetrating the cockpit. Moreover, this technology is nothing special, electronic warfare aircraft such as the A-6 Prowler used an opaque canopy to prevent EM interference, the Mig-31 also has a gold canopy.
> 
> *And contrary to popular belief the canopy does not need to be gold or yellow to prevent EM interference. In short canopies are not meant to be absorbers.*



I dont think he meant the canopy color.. rather the coating on it.


----------



## ptldM3

Santro said:


> I dont think he meant the canopy color.. rather the coating on it.



That makes no sense, the coating gives the canopy the color, and yes it's very obvious he was talking about the coating which happens to be yellow/orange.


----------



## Martian2

J 20

This is a fantastic video. The J-20 Mighty Dragon shows off its super-maneuverability and the advantage of a canard-based (instead of F-22 horizontal tailplane-based) stealth fighter design.

Canards and horizontal tailplanes are both horizontal stabilizers that provide stability and control for an airplane. However, a canard enables superior maneuverability.

Supermaneuverability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The theory behind canards as the sole elevator surface is that no elevator configuration&#65279; aft of the wings is truly satisfactory for maneuvering purposes; the airflow over the wings creates turbulence, however small, and thus affects elevators placed directly behind the wings."

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the video.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> This is a fantastic video. *The J-20 Mighty Dragon shows off its super-maneuverability *and the advantage of a canard-based (instead of F-22 horizontal tailplane-based) stealth fighter design.



Sorry, but I did not see anything remotely close to super-maneuverability, just an aircraft making wide turns.




Martian2 said:


> The theory behind canards as the sole elevator surface is that no elevator configuration&#65279; aft of the wings is truly satisfactory for maneuvering purposes; the airflow over the wings creates turbulence, however small, and thus affects elevators placed directly behind the wings."



This is silly, maneuverability or ability to pull high angles of attack goes beyond just canards versus horizontal tail plain. Every fuselage, every wing, almost anything on an aircraft (including canards) gives off vortexes which interfere with airflow on any lifting surface. 

And I have yet to see any canard configuration pull extreme AoA maneuvers such as the cobra yet the ancient Mig-29A with no digital fly-by-wire and no thrust vectoring can, even F-18's can pull off cobras. In fact I have yet to see any canard configuration (bar Sukhoi) do anything special in terms of high AoA. Aircraft such as the F-22 and SU-35bm/s and even the Mig-29 put most canard platforms to shame.


----------



## Martian2

*J-20 Mighty Dragon and F-22 Raptor have the best planform alignment*

Definitions and Terminologies:

Stealth technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs. *Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure.* For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle. Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. *The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles.*"

F-22 Stealth
"Jul 7, 2011 &#8211; *The leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail have identical sweep angles (a design technique called planform alignment).*"

----------

Let's examine the planform alignment for the Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon, U.S. F-22 Raptor, and Russian Pak Fa/T-50. The comparison will focus on the main wings and the winglets (e.g. canards for J-20 and tailplanes for the F-22 and T-50).






The J-20 Mighty Dragon edge alignment for its main wings and canards has only five different sweep angles (e.g. red, green, orange, yellow, and blue).





The F-22 matches the J-20 in edge-alignment design for its main wings and rear horizontal tailplanes. The F-22 also has a total of only five different sweep angles (e.g. red, green, orange, yellow, and blue).




*The Pak Fa/T-50 has the worst edge-alignment design for its main wings and rear horizontal tailplanes.* The Pak Fa/T-50 has a massive total of 11 different sweep angles (e.g. addition of pink, light blue, purple, dark red, black, and white).

In conclusion, the Pak Fa/T-50 cannot match the stealthiness of the planform alignment design of the main wings and winglets for the J-20 and F-22. With an extra six different sweep angles, the Pak Fa/T-50 is clearly more detectable by radar in many more directions.

[Note 1: There is a small correction to this post. This picture of the Pak Fa led me to conclude that the Pak Fa has a total of 11 different sweep angles. If you look at other more vertical pictures of the Pak Fa, it is clear the Pak Fa has nine different sweep angles. The conclusion of this post doesn't change. The Pak Fa's nine different sweep angles are still almost twice as many as the J-20's and F-22's five sweep angles.]

[Note 2: I want to credit "Phaid" (post on 10/3/2010 8:03:28 AM) with noticing the inferior planform alignment of the Pak Fa/T-50. Though he did not perform the detailed analysis that I just did, I want to credit him with the earlier insight.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*A few more observations about Russian T-50 non-stealthy underside*





Russian T-50 aircraft aerobatic flight at Moscow air show (MAKS-2011) on August 19, 2011

I have a few more complaints (in addition to the lack of "S" ducts) about the T-50 underside that I want Sukhoi to fix.

1. I've already mentioned the non-stealthy gaps, vents, and stuff jutting out. Notice the engine pods and fuselage are at different heights.

2. It has been over a year since the T-50 debut. *There is no excuse to not cover the exposed T-50/Pak Fa engine nacelle with RAM material. Do you see the non-stealthy gleaming metal?* If Sukhoi has a cooling problem, hire more engineers to fix the problem.

3. The air ducts are canted only for the forward-portion. The photograph clearly shows that Sukhoi did not bother to encase the engine pod in a fully canted air duct. The rear-part of the air ducts are the round engine pods, which are not stealthy.

----------

The underside of a stealth superfighter should look like China's J-20 Mighty Dragon:





J-20 Mighty Dragon enters into a dive.

1. No vents, gaps, or stuff jutting out.

2. Engine pods are completely enclosed in RAM material.

3. Entire air duct is canted.

[Note: Thank you to Marchpole for the J-20 picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

RUssian is smart human race.what they lack of is cash otherwise they wil never sell s27 to CHina.Not to offend,Pak Fa is more like suhoi company going through the motions with developing capital shortage.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *J-20 Mighty Dragon and F-22 Raptor have the best planform alignment*
> 
> Definitions and Terminologies:
> 
> Stealth technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs. *Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure.* For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle. Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. *The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles.*"
> 
> F-22 Stealth
> "Jul 7, 2011  *The leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail have identical sweep angles (a design technique called planform alignment).*"
> 
> ----------
> 
> Let's examine the planform alignment for the Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon, U.S. F-22 Raptor, and Russian Pak Fa/T-50. The comparison will focus on the main wings and the winglets (e.g. canards for J-20 and tailplanes for the F-22 and T-50).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 Mighty Dragon edge alignment for its main wings and canards has only five different sweep angles (e.g. red, green, orange, yellow, and blue).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 matches the J-20 in edge-alignment design for its main wings and rear horizontal tailplanes. The F-22 also has a total of only five different sweep angles (e.g. red, green, orange, yellow, and blue).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pak Fa/T-50 has the worst edge-alignment design for its main wings and rear horizontal tailplanes. The Pak Fa/T-50 has a massive total of 11 different sweep angles (e.g. addition of pink, light blue, purple, dark red, black, and white).
> 
> In conclusion, the Pak Fa/T-50 cannot match the stealthiness of the planform alignment design of the main wings and winglets for the J-20 and F-22. With an extra six different sweep angles, the Pak Fa/T-50 is clearly more detectable by radar in many more directions.
> 
> [Note 1: There is a small correction to this post. This picture of the Pak Fa led me to conclude that the Pak Fa has a total of 11 different sweep angles. If you look at other more vertical pictures of the Pak Fa, it is clear the Pak Fa has nine different sweep angles. The conclusion of this post doesn't change. The Pak Fa's nine different sweep angles are still almost twice as many as the J-20's and F-22's five sweep angles.]
> 
> [Note 2: I want to credit "Phaid" (post on 10/3/2010 8:03:28 AM) with noticing the inferior planform alignment of the Pak Fa/T-50. Though he did not perform the detailed analysis that I just did, I want to credit him with the earlier insight.]



One again you proved your ignorance and unrelenting drive to downplay the pak-fa no matter how foolish and wrong your arguments are. 

Firstly, those angles are there to redirect EM energy from coming back to the original source. You never want the wings to be parallel because the returns will be great especially when wing flaps are in the equation, thus those angles are necessary to redirect EM energy. It does not matter how many angles you have so as long as those angles redirect EM energy.

Any wow, that is all I can say about your childish illustrations. How can the pak-fa have *11 *different sweep angles when *all angles combined* (whether they are the same or different) *come out to be 8*.  it never ceases to amaze me how low you will stoop to degrade the pak-fa 

Now if you were honest you would point out *all* the J-20's platform alignment.

So here are a few things you purposely missed:





Going off of your logic the J-20 is the worst perpetrator.


----------



## ptldM3

And Martian didn't you say you were done with Pakistan defense? Sometimes I wonder how you managed not to get banned even after bad mouthing the moderators and Pakistan defense. If that was not bad enough you derail threads with off topic subjects (f-22 and pak-fa) and use double standards (what applies to the pak-fa does not apply to the J-20).


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> And Martian didn't you say you were done with Pakistan defense? Sometimes I wonder how you managed not to get banned even after bad mouthing the moderators and Pakistan defense. If that was not bad enough you derail threads with off topic subjects (f-22 and pak-fa) and use double standards (what applies to the pak-fa does not apply to the J-20).



Who's the one that was warned about outrageous improper behavior? That's right. It's you.

As I recall, you are the one who was in trouble with the WebMaster. He specifically told you to never start a thread about me again. You really should stop stalking me.

By the way, my J-20 video has 85,076 views. You should thank me for not making a video comparing the J-20 Mighty Dragon and the vastly inferior Pak Fa/T-50. Imagine having tens of thousands of people see the Pak Fa's flaws.

Have you come up with a ridiculous explanation for the Pak Fa's exposed non-stealthy metallic engine enclosures yet? Are you going to say something goofy like plasma stealth or Russian radar blocker? Ha ha ha. I can't wait to hear your lame excuse this time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> One again you proved your ignorance and unrelenting drive to downplay the pak-fa no matter how foolish and wrong your arguments are.
> 
> Firstly, those angles are there to redirect EM energy from coming back to the original source. You never want the wings to be parallel because the returns will be great especially when wing flaps are in the equation, thus those angles are necessary to redirect EM energy. It does not matter how many angles you have so as long as those angles redirect EM energy.
> 
> Any wow, that is all I can say about your childish illustrations. How can the pak-fa have *11 *different sweep angles when *all angles combined* (whether they are the same or different) *come out to be 8*.  it never ceases to amaze me how low you will stoop to degrade the pak-fa
> 
> Now if you were honest you would point out *all* the J-20's platform alignment.
> 
> So here are a few things you purposely missed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going off of your logic the J-20 is the worst perpetrator.


dont take different opinions as the meanings to degrate T-50, just tell me how come these stealthy?? the mysterious Plasma?



[/URL][/IMG]

and also please educate 'ignorant' me how a smooth surface is not stealthy?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> Sorry, but I did not see anything remotely close to super-maneuverability, just an aircraft making wide turns.


Neither did I. The video was jerky, absolutely useless if the intention is to show maneuvers, which for clarity should show the aircraft in smooth transitions between positions and attitude. If that was fantastic, he should be stunned to silence at the T-birds vids.



ptldM3 said:


> This is silly, maneuverability or ability to pull high angles of attack goes beyond just canards versus horizontal tail plain. Every fuselage, every wing, almost anything on an aircraft (including canards) gives off vortexes which interfere with airflow on any lifting surface.
> 
> And I have yet to see any canard configuration pull extreme AoA maneuvers such as the cobra yet the ancient Mig-29A with no digital fly-by-wire and no thrust vectoring can, even F-18's can pull off cobras. In fact I have yet to see any canard configuration (bar Sukhoi) do anything special in terms of high AoA. Aircraft such as the F-22 and SU-35bm/s and even the Mig-29 put most canard platforms to shame.


The man is confused. The best -- if not the only -- advantage canards has over conventional tailplane design is that canards offers the aircraft a *QUICKER* attitude change compared to their size. Here is where things get suspicious: Not all FBW-FLCS are the same, just like hard linked mechanical FLCS. Thrust vectoring offers the same responsiveness regarding attitude changes as canards. The better the FBW-FLCS, the greater the deflection, rate of deflection, and size of the tailplane we can implement. Coupled the two together and any advantages that canards offers are negated while keeping RCS contributorship from the front to near zero. This make the FBW-FLCS on the J-20 suspect in that it may not be comparable to the F-22, hence the need for canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Who's the one that was warned about outrageous improper behavior? That's right. It's you.
> 
> As I recall, you are the one who was in trouble with the WebMaster. He specifically told you to never start a thread about me again. You really should stop stalking me.




Who was the one that got his post deleted and through a hissy fit? That's right. It's you. So after all the bad mouthing about the moderators and threats to never come back here, i'm still wondering why you are here?


You are truely petty, everytime i correct you like i did about the J-20 canopy you throw hissy fits and take it as an insult towards the J-20 even though i never said anything bad about your beloved J-20. As an example i only stated the J-20's canopy just like all other canopies are meant to keep EM energy out of the cockpit rather than absorb it.

Yet you resort to your old tricks by bringing the pak-fa into the thread and than bad mouthing it with the most rediculous arguments. What's wrong, can't take the heat? Why are you always going off topic and bring in the pak-fa? 




Martian2 said:


> *By the way, my J-20 video has 85,076 views*. You should thank me for not making a video comparing the J-20 Mighty Dragon and the vastly inferior Pak Fa/T-50. Imagine having tens of thousands of people see the Pak Fa's flaws.




Tell it to someone who cares, this video has *3,214,553*, so what's your point? People will watch the dumbest things and your video is no different.

Fat Guy with little Pistol - YouTube



Martian2 said:


> *Have you come up with a ridiculous explanation for the Pak Fa's exposed non-stealthy metallic engine enclosures* yet? *Are you going to say something goofy like *plasma stealth or Russian *radar blocker*? Ha ha ha. I can't wait to hear your lame excuse this time.



I don't need a rediculous explanation, the people at Sukhoi have already stated that they are working on radar blockers--and if that is hard for you to swollow than look no further than the F-117, and silent eagle both utalize radar blockers.











Cool video's i bet Chinese teenagers are drooling over it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> dont take different opinions as the meanings to degrate T-50, just tell me how come these stealthy?? the mysterious Plasma?



Look here, i didn't degrade anything, i corrected Martian about canopies, never did i say anything about the J-20--he through a hissy fit and started attacking the pak-fa (as he always does when he is wrong). In any case i applied Martians criteria to the J-20 and it backfired on him.




rcrmj said:


> *and also please educate 'ignorant' me how a smooth surface is not stealthy*?



Smooth? Yea like those giant spheres under the wings? Or the uneven air brake--and yes even an uneven air brake makes a big difference.


----------



## ptldM3

gambit said:


> The man is confused. The best -- if not the only -- advantage canards has over conventional tailplane design is that canards offers the aircraft a *QUICKER* attitude change compared to their size. Here is where things get suspicious: Not all FBW-FLCS are the same, just like hard linked mechanical FLCS. Thrust vectoring offers the same responsiveness regarding attitude changes as canards. The better the FBW-FLCS, the greater the deflection, rate of deflection, and size of the tailplane we can implement. Coupled the two together and any advantages that canards offers are negated while keeping RCS contributorship from the front to near zero. This make the FBW-FLCS on the J-20 suspect in that it may not be comparable to the F-22, hence the need for canards.









He is more than confused, there are many, many factors that effect an aircraft&#8217;s performance, yet he is clinging on to the notion that a canard setup is superior to the traditional horizontal stabilizer setup. It&#8217;s like throwing a pair of canards on a Q-5, and expecting it to have super maneuverability when in reality it might go from 747 performance to 737 performance. With the advent of a quality FTW systems that are in sync with TV, canards are redundant if not worthless. In some aircraft canards are not there because of choice but because of necessity as in the case of nose heavy aircraft.


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> Smooth? Yea like those giant spheres under the wings? Or the uneven air brake--and yes *even an uneven air brake makes a big difference*.


you just proved Martians point that T-50 is not a very stealthy aircraft according to the bold part you suggested. T-50 not only has the giant fan blade that will appear on radar as 'bright' as red light districts in Amsterdam, but also to many other details that T-50 design team didnt pay much attention to.

there no such fighter that can acheive 100% stealthness, not F-22 nor J-20 or T-50, they are the products of compromise between stealthness and manueverability. due to americans superior turbofan engine technology that enables F-22 to go very far on its stealthness. J-20 is in a different case, whereas its prime objective is to deal with F-22, however there is probably 20 years gap of engine techs so CAC spent lots time and money on areodymanics to off-set the inferior engine techs (70s-80s J-9 is a perfect example) and meanwhile to achieve fronto maximum stealthness.

and in T-50's case due to short funds and a decade stagnation of R&D, Russia didnt have the luxry to develop a well rounded 5th gen stealth fighter. the whole plane looks like a 'modified' version of Flanker family

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> I don't need a rediculous explanation, the people at Sukhoi have already stated that they are working on radar blockers--and if that is hard for you to swollow than look no further than the F-117, and silent eagle both utalize radar blockers.
> Cool video's i bet Chinese teenagers are drooling over it.



radar blocker isnt the perfect way to reduce emission from blades, F-117 is decades old design, besides its inlets are located on the top of the fuslage, a considering amount of radio signal has been deflected or obsorbed by the lower part of the fuslage.

and also S-inlet isnt a peice of easy job, the requirement of the materials used on that particuler part is very rigid. all of 5th gen fighters J-20, F-22 and F-35 using S-inlet and DIS to reduce engine signal emission apart from T-50. U.S.A and China has been doing research on these technologies for long time, but we still fail to see similar R&D done from Russian part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> *radar blocker isnt the perfect way* to reduce emission from blades, F-117 is decades old design, besides its inlets are located on the top of the fuslage, a considering amount of radio signal has been deflected or obsorbed by the lower part of the fuslage.
> 
> and also S-inlet isnt a peice of easy job, the requirement of the materials used on that particuler part is very rigid. all of 5th gen fighters J-20, F-22 and F-35 using S-inlet and DIS to reduce engine signal emission apart from T-50. U.S.A and China has been doing research on these technologies for long time, but we still fail to see similar R&D done from Russian part.


Why does it have to be 'perfect'? If it reduces the engines' contributorship, it worked.


----------



## 帅的一匹

The problem is that J20 is not Q-5. The using of Canards on J20 is to compensate the maneuverability shortage period while we don't have thrust vectoring in service. 
The best method of telling which is better comes to Pak-FA or J-20 depending on endusers' comment and feedback. So stoping bitching around here for quarrelling useless BS. china and Russia should join hand to protect ourlands aganist NATO eastern-oriented expansion. F22 does't only have one opponent PAK-FA, as well as J-20 in real word situation. J-20 only compete with PAK-FA in comercial battle aircraft market, not a real war~my russian friend!
silly Russian and Chinese stop this nonsense, cause the empire will take advantage.


----------



## 帅的一匹

In consder of russian sure will sell PAK-FA to idian, there might be a possible battle between it and J-20. I think this will happen some years later. The problem is weird, russia need china to have its back when it deal with strong NATO.In the meantime Ruassia sells weapons to india in order to tie down China, on the otherhand sells RD-93 engine to pack up Thunder.


----------



## 帅的一匹

the battle result of PAK-FA and J-20 depends on whether deal indian pilot could get enough training from Russia and the possibity and feasibility of Russia replenish the comeponents and parts to india.That's why we chinese insist to build, some guys call it copy and paste engineering ability, our own battle plane by costing so many huaman resouce and cash. That's the point why US don't like us , casue we bing uncertainty infinite possibility to them. You can't gain respect when you don't have know-how and just buying finished products.


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> He is more than confused, there are many, many factors that effect an aircraft&#8217;s performance, yet he is clinging on to the notion that a canard setup is superior to the traditional horizontal stabilizer setup. *It&#8217;s like throwing a pair of canards on a Q-5, and expecting it to have super maneuverability when in reality it might go from 747 performance to 737 performance. With the advent of a quality FTW systems that are in sync with TV, canards are redundant if not worthless. In some aircraft canards are not there because of choice but because of necessity as in the case of nose heavy aircraft*.


 you sound very ameture on this part. design a fighter is not drawing a fancy picture, every bit of the aircraft design is accountable. and it says very clear on CAC that their prime objective is to make a 5th gen (4th in chinese) plane with advanced areodynamics that can balance out lagged engine techs.

and it is also the common sense canard config is not very controllable as convensional design, it requires very complicated computer control system to assist the pilot, CAC or any other design teams wouldnt apply canard just for the sake of adding canard, there must be signifficent fissible adcantages for them to do so.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nomi007

where are weapon bays





su-35 vs pakfa




pakfa vs f-22




j-20





---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

f-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> Why does it have to be 'perfect'? If it reduces the engines' contributorship, it worked.


can you work out the percentage amount will be reduced by blocker and the percentage of signal been blocked by s-inlet and DIS? you cant```

and also why doesnt F-22 and F-35 uses blockers rather than those extreemly difficult s-inlet and DIS?
its like you can effectively kill enemies with bolt action rifles why using automatic assault rifles?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

And according to reliable domestic source, President Gilani is talking about purchasing J-20 in the future, and recieve highly active feedback from China goverment in his latest vist in China .


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> And according to reliable domestic source, President Gilani is talking about purchasing J-20 in the future, and recieve highly active feedback from China goverment in his latest vist in China .


where I couldnt find any, other than some random forum rummors


----------



## 帅的一匹

I shall make final conclusion, PAK-FA is a aircraft to rope indian in. Another ripp-off senario is gonna happen!!!! Russia shall have something better stuff than PAK-FA, they still hide it for up-keeping military superiority. PITTY indians~


----------



## Zabaniyah

nomi007 said:


> j-20



Photoshopped


----------



## 帅的一匹

a rumor could come true in the future


----------



## 帅的一匹

the main problem of China is we have lot's of technical analyser indulging in exaggeration other than pragmatic smart politician with brace heart, that's why Vietnam don't fear us~

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

just like a goup of Lions led by sheep

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 PM ----------

i'm sure i'm a highflyer not a crap


----------



## 帅的一匹

don't every time telling us China is layouting a very complicated political arrangement to copy with those who everytime provoking us. To tell someone what he doing is wrong is to bang him deadly, not protesting always by ministry of foreign affairs. hawk is not welcomed in China culture and political surrounding, and i'm the one. Chinese talk too much do less, so let Vietnam laugh us .....


----------



## 帅的一匹

I think we Chinese have responsibility to protect Pakistan, especially in their difficult time. To be a leading top country in the world, you must be warn to your real friend and fight back to your enemy, we shall never play ambiguity on any event happending on our allies. If Pakistan is invaded, i'll be the first Chinese to sign up the force to protect it~

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

I love Maozedong cause he is a real man with masculine, that's why China was respected although it was poor then.

---------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 PM ----------

wake up your so called China elite in this forum ~

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Advanced technology is not the only way of building respect , it's the brave. I saw by my-self in Malaysia serveral years ago. only 5 Vietnams fight with 30 strong indian guys, and to my surprise they win the battle. Cause they know they are week, so they gather together to join force. That's terrible and i got shocked, that's exactly what we Chinese need, not Confucisim that's just a joke in jungle monster political atmosphere in the world now. Confucism is good to your freind, but just a joke to your enemy.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Japanese will never tell you how pissed of he is before he kick you, just learn it . That's why Chinese is always a loser when it comes to deal with Japanese.

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

LESS BS AND DO MORE

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

I know i might be banned by mod, but, it is some saying from my heart, ihave no regret saying this.

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------

In China has a proverb: Bitter medicine could cure you.


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> you just proved Martians point that T-50 is not a very stealthy aircraft according to the bold part you suggested. T-50 not only has the giant fan blade that will appear on radar as 'bright' as red light districts in Amsterdam, but also to many other details that T-50 design team didnt pay much attention to.





All though the pak-fa is still far from perfect most of the pak-fa's so called weaknesses is pure fanboy speculation that is fabricated, it is then picked up by other fanboys as truth--sadly most fanboys that pick up internet myths have no clue as to what they are talking about.

A few laughable examles come from the canopy--it's been circulated (mostly by Chinese) that a two piece canopy is bad for stealth because of the 'metal strip'--this has been debunked. Another myth is about treated canopies being absorbers, from what is know treated canopies are not absorbers but rather reflector, in other words they prevent EM energy from penetrating the cockpit.

Case, in point most people that spread this misinformation are full of crap.





rcrmj said:


> and in T-50's case due to short funds and a decade stagnation of R&D, Russia didnt have the luxry to develop a well rounded 5th gen stealth fighter. the whole plane looks like a 'modified' version of Flanker family



Short funds? I suggest you stop reading wekiedia there figure is wrong. As for R&D im not sure where you get your information. But in the past decade money has not been an issue, if it was Russia would not be able to produce technology demonstrators and prototypes, nor would they be able to field new aircraft and technologies yet that is not the case. If stagnation was the case than how is it possible that companies such as Sukhoi are constantly offering upgraded Sukhoi variants. How would companies such as Salute and Saturn be able to upgrade and create so many new engines?



rcrmj said:


> radar blocker isnt the perfect way to reduce emission from blades,




And no one said it was, although I will believe Boeing over anyone here when they say that the Silent Eagle with radar blockers and all achieves about the same RCS from the front as the F-35.




rcrmj said:


> F-117 is decades old design, besides its inlets are located on the top of the fuslage, a considering amount of radio signal has been *deflected or obsorbed by the lower part of the fuslage.*





The f-117 has no fuselage bellow the intakes  in fact its intakes are at the lowest point of the aircraft--nice try though.

a


rcrmj said:


> nd also *S-inlet isnt a peice of easy job*, the requirement of the materials used on that particuler part is very rigid. all of 5th gen fighters J-20, F-22 and F-35 using S-inlet and DIS to reduce engine signal emission apart from T-50. U.S.A and China has been doing research on these technologies for long time, *but we still fail to see similar R&D done from Russian part*.



You really should do your homework before making such statements, oh wait look a magical S-inlets on a 1960 Russian aircraft.











nomi007 said:


> where are weapon bays




I&#8217;m guess you went to Harvard because only a genius is capable of asking where weapons bays are only to post a picture of the weapons bays describing its payload. And stop polluting the forum with photoshoped pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

omg``now we have a Chinese bharati`! hope you wont become another Hongwu! much of your posts have nothing to do with J-20

&#19981;&#35201;&#21457;&#21644;J-20&#27809;&#20851;&#31995;&#30340;&#19996;&#35199;&#12290;&#24590;&#20040;&#19968;&#19979;&#23376;&#23601;&#36825;&#20040;&#24868;&#38738;&#20102;&#65311;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> All though the pak-fa is still far from perfect most of the pak-fa's so called weaknesses is pure fanboy speculation that is fabricated, it is then picked up by other fanboys as truth--sadly most fanboys that pick up internet myths have no clue as to what they are talking about.


 I dont see any myth here, 
fan blades are stealthness killer--check
'suspending engines' are bad for stealth- check
unsmooth surface is bad for stealth - check
dozens of bits and bots are bad for stealth - check



> A few laughable examles come from the canopy--it's been circulated (mostly by Chinese) that a two piece canopy is bad for stealth because of the 'metal strip'--this has been debunked. Another myth is about treated canopies being absorbers, from what is know treated canopies are not absorbers but rather reflector, in other words they prevent EM energy from penetrating the cockpit.


 then again please answer me this question (same as DIS and S-inlet), why Chinese and Amrican engineers went the difficult way to make a one peice canopy instead of much conventional and no tech challenge two peices with metal strip in the middle? i told you, you need to differenciate between drawing nice plane and making a nice plane



> Short funds? I suggest you stop reading wekiedia there figure is wrong. As for R&D im not sure where you get your information. But in the past decade money has not been an issue, if it was Russia would not be able to produce technology demonstrators and prototypes, nor would they be able to field new aircraft and technologies yet that is not the case. If stagnation was the case than how is it possible that companies such as Sukhoi are constantly offering upgraded Sukhoi variants. How would companies such as Salute and Saturn be able to upgrade and create so many new engines?


guess you need to learn more about industrial capacity and capability. 

for more than 2 decades we didnt see one brand new Russian kit going out your inventory but all Soviet upgrades or completion of half-made projects. this is the perfect prove of Russia defence industry faces serious financial problem, we dont need those 'mythes' or wiki 'sources' to come to this conclusion.

investing money on just one design institution or entity will not make a successful completion of 5th gen fighter. the reason why U.S is so technologically superior to anyone is because it has a complete health and prograssing industry, from defence to civilian, from auto to aivation, from machinery to electronics etc``, which Russia lack far behind.

arguably there could be significent amount of money invested on whatever institutions that develops T-50, but how about those thousand of other entities that supply bits and bots to make a T-50? I wouldnt be suprised to find out 'made in China' components from T-50



> And no one said it was, although I will believe Boeing over anyone here when they say that the Silent Eagle with radar blockers and all achieves about the same RCS from the front as the F-35.


does Boeing give the exactly RCS figures for both jet``no? so I'd take that as their advertisment slogan, if thats really the case why would USA spent so much money on developing F-35, why not just upgrade F-15? 



> The f-117 has no fuselage bellow the intakes  in fact its intakes are at the lowest point of the aircraft--nice try though.


 you really need to learn the basic terminology of a plane, which is consisted of fuselage, wings, horizontal stablizer and vertial stablizer, the F-117's inlet is kind blended with its fuselage and its located on the top of plane, (most fighters have that on either side or belly of fuselage)




> You really should do your homework before making such statements, oh wait look we magical S-inlets on a 1960 Russian aircraft.


 i dont think there is any problem for me to labling S-inlet and DSI as difficult technologies

again dont use your own knowledge to against yourself

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> I dont see any myth here,
> fan blades are stealthness killer--check
> 'suspending engines' are bad for stealth- check
> unsmooth surface is bad for stealth - check
> dozens of bits and bots are bad for stealth - check





Check yourself.

fan blades will be covered, is that difficult to understand?

Suspending engine bad for stealth? It's clear you have fallen for the same old crap. If the engines and intake are designed to redirect EM energy (which they are) than how is it bad for stealth?

Unsmooth surface, by that do you mean the J-20&#8217;s spheres and protruding panels or perhaps some of its rivets which are now visible on some parts of the aircraft.





rcrmj said:


> then again please answer me this question (same as DIS and S-inlet), why Chinese and Amrican engineers went the difficult way to make a one piece canopy instead of much conventional and no tech challenge two pieces with metal strip in the middle? i told you, you need to differenciate between drawing nice plane and making a nice plane




Why don&#8217;t you tell me why the Silent Eagle uses a two piece canopy or why other prototype aircraft such as YF-23 used a two piece canopy? Furthermore, the two piece canopy keeps the pilot safe upon ejecting and the Russians take safety very serious, the K-36 ejection seat the standard for safety in ejection seats by incorporating many safety features one of which is a shield to prevent injury, a once piece canopy can cause serious injury to a pilot at high speeds due to the HUD breaking off and striking the pilot and no matter how strong the HUD is it will sheer off at a certain threshold, just like helmets have been know to rip off pilots at high speed ejections.


Cost is another factor, why spent 2,3 or 4 times more money on a single piece canopy when a two piece canopy meets the needs?





rcrmj said:


> guess you need to learn more about industrial capacity and capability.
> 
> for more than 2 decades we didnt see one brand new Russian kit going out your inventory but all Soviet upgrades or completion of half-made projects. this is the perfect prove of Russia defence industry faces serious financial problem, we dont need those 'mythes' or wiki 'sources' to come to this conclusion.




Right so the KA-50 is what? Or Buyan corvetts? What about the Steregushchy class corvets or the Geopard perhaps the Ivan Gren? Or the Baluva or the Borey or Grany class submarines, or the GAZ 2975, what about the 117 and 117s, the Irbus or Zhuk AESA&#8217;s, or all of the avionic on new Russian aircraft? Perhaps you have not heard of the Yak-130 or the KA-60, maybe the S-400 is an alien concept. I am sure you have not heard of the Skat UCAV. I can go on and on from everything to MANPADS to short and medium range SAM&#8217;s and mobile radars and command and control aircraft and vehicles, Russia even has a prototype tank called the T-90AM which has nothing in common to the older T-90&#8217;s. 






rcrmj said:


> arguably there could be significent amount of money invested on whatever institutions that develops T-50, but how about those thousand of other entities that supply bits and bots to make a T-50? I wouldnt be suprised to find out 'made in China' components from T-50




All aircraft have subcontractors much of the time dozens of them, what is your point?




rcrmj said:


> does Boeing give the exactly RCS figures for both jet``no? so I'd take that as their advertisment slogan, if thats really the case why would USA spent so much money on developing F-35, why not just upgrade F-15?




And why would Boeing be so foolish as to give away the aircraft&#8217;s RCS? And the US spent all that money on the F-35 because they built many variants of them, VSTOL, carrier based and one of the air force. The F-15 is not a carrier aircraft and it can never be a VSTOL. Boeing is also not stupid enough to lie about the Silent Eagles performance for the sake of advertisement--its not as if customers do not evaluate aircraft.





rcrmj said:


> you really need to learn the basic terminology of a plane, which is consisted of fuselage, wings, horizontal stablizer and vertial stablizer, the F-117's inlet is kind blended with its fuselage and its located on the top of plane, (most fighters have that on either side or belly of fuselage)




I have flown aircraft kid, so don&#8217;t try to lecture me--you can&#8216;t even spell vertical stabilizer correctly. To say the F-117&#8217;s inlets are located on top of the aircraft is plain wrong, the pilot sits well above the inlets and regardless your original assertion that the F-117&#8217;s intakes are less prone to EM energy because most EM energy is absorbed or deflected by other parts of the aircraft is silly. Firstly, EM energy will make contact with the inlet regardless of what it is surrounded by in fact you want the least possible area around an intake to minimize returns.




rcrmj said:


> i dont think there is any problem for me to labling S-inlet and DSI as difficult technologies



Try to make sense kid, lets look back you claimed that Russia has not done research in to &#8216;S-inlets&#8217; you were wrong, the Mig-23 had them and I proved it with a photograph. And sorry there is nothing difficult about an S-shape duct, Russia has had S-ducts since at least the 1960&#8217;s.





rcrmj said:


> again dont use your own knowledge to against yourself



That makes no sense, go take some English courses. If anything it is you that used your knowledge or lack there off against yourself. You are totally clueless and your arguments have been weak and based off of poor guesses and inaccurate information.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*J-20 Mighty Dragon design is a fusion of stealth and aesthetics*






The J-20 DSI intake melds seamlessly into the fuselage.





The entire J-20 is a smooth blend of stealth design and aesthetics.

To the best of my knowledge, the Russians lack advanced diverterless supersonic intake (DSI) technology that is seen only on Chinese (e.g. J-10B and J-20) and American (e.g. F-35) aircraft.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and EastWind for the pictures.]

----------

For your information, the J-10B Vigorous Dragon served as the early prototype to test China's advanced DSI technology. You can clearly see the similarity between the supercomputer-designed DSI bumps at the air inlets of both the J-20 Mighty Dragon and J-10B.

*J-10B Vigorous Dragon carries missiles and extra fuel pods to extend flight range*





J-10B Vigorous Dragon carries missiles and extra fuel pods to extend flight range.











[Note: Thank you to Aimarraul for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> Check yourself.
> 
> fan blades will be covered, is that difficult to understand?
> 
> Suspending engine bad for stealth? It's clear you have fallen for the same old crap. If the engines and intake are designed to redirect EM energy (which they are) than how is it bad for stealth?
> 
> Unsmooth surface, by that do you mean the J-20&#8217;s spheres and protruding panels or perhaps some of its rivets which are now visible on some parts of the aircraft.


 why is that so hard for you to admit that T-50 is not a stealthy aircraft according to any available knowledge out there about 5th gen craft?
And also there is nothing but your vague claim of T-50's engines and intake are designed to redirect EM energy, do we see S-inlet? Do we see DSI? Do we see smooth surface? Can we find any in service or on drawing board 5th gen planes that have 4th gen under fuselage like T-50? Nope, nothing but gigantic blades, suspending engine inlets and rivets

The whole argument is based on current T-50 and J-20 we have now, so there is no point to discuss what future it is going to be. No one knows what changes will bring to T-50 and J-20 

Isnt that too difficult to tell which surface has better control over EM energy direction? I start to doubt your knowledge of aircraft design, really! Or you are just cannot to admit that you are misinformed.



[/URL][/IMG]





> Why don&#8217;t you tell me why the Silent Eagle uses a two piece canopy or why other prototype aircraft such as YF-23 used a two piece canopy? Furthermore, the two piece canopy keeps the pilot safe upon ejecting and the Russians take safety very serious, the K-36 ejection seat the standard for safety in ejection seats by incorporating many safety features one of which is a shield to prevent injury, a once piece canopy can cause serious injury to a pilot at high speeds due to the HUD breaking off and striking the pilot and no matter how strong the HUD is it will sheer off at a certain threshold, just like helmets have been know to rip off pilots at high speed ejections.
> 
> 
> Cost is another factor, why spent 2,3 or 4 times more money on a single piece canopy when a two piece canopy meets the needs?


 you cant be more ridicule to have this analogy, where even do you get the idea that two pieces canopies are safer than one piece, and it cost 2,3 or 4 times more? Again your usual convenient assumption?
YF-23 was a demonstrator, according to your 'will add blocker later' theory YF-23 could change that too if it won the competition. You know USA always put survivability and user friendly on top when design any weapon systems which again Russia is not






> Right so the KA-50 is what? Or Buyan corvetts? What about the Steregushchy class corvets or the Geopard perhaps the Ivan Gren? Or the Baluva or the Borey or Grany class submarines, or the GAZ 2975, what about the 117 and 117s, the Irbus or Zhuk AESA&#8217;s, or all of the avionic on new Russian aircraft? Perhaps you have not heard of the Yak-130 or the KA-60, maybe the S-400 is an alien concept. I am sure you have not heard of the Skat UCAV. I can go on and on from everything to MANPADS to short and medium range SAM&#8217;s and mobile radars and command and control aircraft and vehicles, Russia even has a prototype tank called the T-90AM which has nothing in common to the older T-90&#8217;s.


KA-50 was started in 80s
T-90 is actually T-72 upgrade which again deployed during Soviet time
What exactly 'new' technologies used on Steregushchy class, Buyan class corvette, Ivan Gren landing ship and GAZ 2975 vehicle ? And the problematic Graney class subs was planned to enter service in later 90s but due to financial and technique difficulties i have no idea when it will actually enter the services? And 117 is belonging to Al-31 family that again was old Soviet techs.
So all the kits you have listed further prove my point that the current 'new' russian toys are upgrades of old Soviet techs and half-finished projects









> All aircraft have subcontractors much of the time dozens of them, what is your point?



You didnt live up to my expectation, the Soviet defence industry was centrally planned, not as holistic and pragmatic as America's and Chinese after 1982. Therefore the existence of those old soviet subcontractors were the results of to complete up-down mission rather than those subcontractors and vendor from U.S and Chin nowadays that is to excel in fierce and fair competition. So even the government doesnt invest for those thousand vendors (mostly it does not), but those individual entities they will invest on R&D in order to have competitive advantages over their rivals.

So far we still fail to see that Russia has any reputable computer, semi-conductor and material industry, thats why there is Russia which the economy is entirely based on natural resources exports.




> And why would Boeing be so foolish as to give away the aircraft&#8217;s RCS? And the US spent all that money on the F-35 because they built many variants of them, VSTOL, carrier based and one of the air force. The F-15 is not a carrier aircraft and it can never be a VSTOL. Boeing is also not stupid enough to lie about the Silent Eagles performance for the sake of advertisement--its not as if customers do not evaluate aircraft.


Why wouldnt they? They give out F-22's RCS, they gave out F-35's and they gave out F-16s, F-15s, F-18s and etc, why not F-15 silent egles? As long as they dont give out the exact number we all have the rights to believe thats just their advertisement campaign.







> I have flown aircraft kid, so don&#8217;t try to lecture me--you can&#8216;t even spell vertical stabilizer correctly. To say the F-117&#8217;s inlets are located on top of the aircraft is plain wrong, the pilot sits well above the inlets and regardless your original assertion that the F-117&#8217;s intakes are less prone to EM energy because most EM energy is absorbed or deflected by other parts of the aircraft is silly. Firstly, EM energy will make contact with the inlet regardless of what it is surrounded by in fact you want the least possible area around an intake to minimize returns.


For your own denialbility sake please have a close look at my sketch



[/URL][/IMG]




> Try to make sense kid, lets look back you claimed that Russia has not done research in to &#8216;S-inlets&#8217; you were wrong, the Mig-23 had them and I proved it with a photograph. And sorry there is nothing difficult about an S-shape duct, Russia has had S-ducts since at least the 1960&#8217;s.


 ````````seriously common sense, why american and chinese engineers used S-inlet and DSI on their brand new planes? Just for the sake of it?





> That makes no sense, go take some English courses. If anything it is you that used your knowledge or lack there off against yourself. You are totally clueless and your arguments have been weak and based off of poor guesses and inaccurate information.


 talking about guesses, hehe, god know how many guesses you used on PDF for the sake of denying your own ignorance?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> can you work out the percentage amount will be reduced by blocker and the percentage of signal been blocked by s-inlet and DIS? you cant```


How does this prove blockers do not work? Or not as effective?



rcrmj said:


> and also why doesnt F-22 and F-35 uses blockers rather than those extreemly difficult s-inlet and DIS?
> its like you can effectively kill enemies with bolt action rifles why using automatic assault rifles?


This is where your reasoning failed. Epic. So much for that supposedly 'high Chinese IQ'.

Both aircrafts were not designed originally with a *MANDATE* to have a serpentine inlet system. Both aircrafts have engine placement in the fuselage where a serpentine inlet system is inevitable. Does this mean the designers were ignorant of the effect of a serpentine inlet on reducing engine radar signature? No, they were fully aware of it. But the way both aircrafts were originally designed, it made the *MANDATE* for such a system unnecessary. You have to stop the line of thinking/assumption that based upon result, everything must have been mandated. Sometimes benefits are incidental, sometimes they are from contrivances.

Get it?


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> Do we see DSI? Do we see smooth surface? Can we find any in service or on drawing board 5th gen planes that have 4th gen under fuselage like T-50? Nope, nothing but gigantic blades, suspending engine inlets and rivets




Obviously you have not done your homework (nothing new), Lockhheed&#8217;s C-130 successor or at least the wind tunnel model has so called &#8216;suspending engine(s)&#8217; as well as &#8216;gigantic blades&#8217;. You act like you know more than Lockheed and Sukhoi&#8230;next time be careful what you type, it keeps backfiring on you. Just like your claim about Russian not having &#8216;S-duct aircraft&#8217;.










rcrmj said:


> The whole argument is based on current T-50 and J-20 we have now, so there is no point to discuss what future it is going to be. No one knows what changes will bring to T-50 and J-20






Great, take your own advise and leave the discussion--you are the one arguing about the T-50, I just have good rebuttals for your poor arguments.





rcrmj said:


> Isn&#8217;t that too difficult to tell which surface has better control over EM energy direction? I start to doubt your knowledge of aircraft design, really! Or you are just cannot to admit that you are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL][/IMG]
> pak-fa underside






Cute picture, how long did that poor and inaccurate illustration take you? This is how the real T-50 underside fuselage looks like. It is not round but flat and canted, your illustration is a pile that may pass as genuine or accurate at Sino Defense or some other Chinese circle jerk forum but not here.

So here is the real thing, and its nothing like in your picture:








Here is also a patent describing the pak-fa&#8217;s fusalage which was submitted by the head of Sukhoi which just happens to be an aeronautical engineer.





> In addition a flattening of the fuselage reduces the effective area of the radar in the most likely areas of exposure: side and projection plane.





Who do you think has more credibility aeronautical engineers including the head of Sukhoi or you? 



Lets also apply your criteria to the J-20:




[/QUOTE]


So lets review, the T-50&#8217;s curved fuselage provides and incident angle yet the J-20&#8217;s rounded DSI and enormous round under wing pods (4 of them) don&#8217;t? Ladies and gentlemen once again the J-20&#8217;s defies physics.






rcrmj said:


> you cant be more ridicule to have this analogy, where even do you get the idea that two pieces canopies are safer than one piece, and it cost 2,3 or 4 times more?






The F-22&#8217;s canopy costs $182,205, in comparison the F-16&#8217;s canopy is about $30,000, undoubtedly the F-22&#8217;s will be more expensive because it is treated, and that is why my figure of 2-4 was extremely conservative, in reality a one piece canopy can be over 6 time more expensive than a two piece canopy. Clearly we do not have a Russian one piece canopy at least not yet so I used the closest reference and put a very conservative estimate on it. So, yes a one piece is very expensive to manufacture and it will be many time more expensive for the Russian to manufacture a one piece as apposed to a two piece, just like it is for the Americans.







rcrmj said:


> Again your usual convenient assumption?
> YF-23 was a demonstrator, according to your 'will add blocker later' theory YF-23 could change that too if it won the competition.





My assumption? No, try harder. The pak-fa will use a coaxial labyrinth radar blocker and that is no assumption from me.







rcrmj said:


> You know USA always put survivability and user friendly on top when design any weapon systems which again Russia is not




And do you know that the K-36 was considered for the F-35 and that it was tested by the US? The K-36 set the standard for safety. The K-36 restrained the pilots arms and legs to prevent them from breaking at high speeds, it also employed a face shield to protect the pilots face and neck from high presure as well as debris, the seat also tilted back to prevent injury to the back. Moreover, the seat employed a shield to protect the pilots uper torso from the violent wind streams upon ejection, and the seat kept the pilot strapped until the altimeter automatically opened the parachute, this prevents the pilot from separating from the seat at high speeds by essentially being a rag doll. All of these functions happen within mileseconds and best of all the seat worked at zero altitude.

Your assumptions that the Russians did not care for pilot survivability is nothing more than an ignorant assumption the Russian have always taken great measures for pilot survivability and this is plainly demonstrated by the K-36 ejection seat a seat that set the standard for all others. Even Russian helicopters come with ejection seats, and the ability to withstand .50 caliber rounds to the rotor blades. Also if you did a little research you would learn that the Russians actually install expensive titanium tubs on a number of different aircraft in the name of protecting the pilot. Redundancy systems have also been a norm for some time now.

The Russians don&#8217;t cut corners when it comes to pilot safety and survivability, I can&#8217;t say the same for everyone and at least our pilot have ejection seats that deploy.









rcrmj said:


> KA-50 was started in 80s
> T-90 is actually T-72 upgrade which again deployed during Soviet time
> What exactly 'new' technologies used on Steregushchy class, Buyan class corvette, Ivan Gren landing ship and GAZ 2975 vehicle ? And the problematic Graney class subs was planned to enter service in later 90s but due to financial and technique difficulties i have no idea when it will actually enter the services? And 117 is belonging to Al-31 family that again was old Soviet techs.
> So all the kits you have listed further prove my point that the current 'new' russian toys are upgrades of old Soviet techs and half-finished projects





I meant to say the KA-52 which didn&#8217;t start production until 2008. And what new technologies do the Steregushchy class, Buyan class corvette, Ivan Gren landing ship and GAZ 2975 vehicle use? Is this a joke question, they are new ships, and the GAZ is a new armored vehicle. Again you have a weak argument (no argument actually) you claimed Russia hasn&#8217;t developed anything new but when you were disproven you resort to questioning what technology these new corvettes and armored vehicles have--by your logic I can scrutinize the J-20 by claiming it not to have new technologies because virtually nothing concrete or detailed is know about it.

And what does the Graney submarines delays have anything to do with the conversation? Do not change subjects. Topic was about post Soviet weapons systems and the Graney is a post Soviet submarine.

And please do stop making up claims the 117 and 117S have nothing to do with the AL-31, The only thing they have in common is that they are similar in size. Unless the 117/117s engineers and designers are liars and you have inspected both the AL-31 and the 117/117s its safe to say you are full of crap. Would you like me to post a video acknowledging you are full of crap? You look like a fool when you are denying official statements of actual designers.


And I said T-90AM, do a search if you do not know the difference and while you are at it compare a T-72 with a T-90, the T-90 was a development of the T-72 but by no means was it remotely close to the T-90. The T-90 has seen so many upgrades that the latest T-90 bares no resemblence or performance to the first T-90 let alone the T-72.


Different armor, turret, gun, engines, ect










rcrmj said:


> So far we still fail to see that Russia has any reputable computer, semi-conductor and material industry, thats why there is Russia which the economy is entirely based on natural resources exports.




Right that is why China still continues to purchase Russian seekers and radars and a host of other military electronics, so why purchase electronics from Russia if your semi-conductor industry is so much better? Why has China been so slow to adapt crystal blade technology if your material industry is so super duper advanced? 





rcrmj said:


> Why wouldnt they? They give out F-22's RCS, they gave out F-35's and they gave out F-16s, F-15s, F-18s and etc, why not F-15 silent egles? As long as they dont give out the exact number we all have the rights to believe thats just their advertisement campaign.






You are dismissed, there is no official RCS for any of those aircraft, the closest thing to a RCS that Lockheed has disclosed in regards to the F-22 is that it has a marble size RCS which is vague, considering we don&#8217;t know what frequency bands and ranges the F-22 was tested under and we certainly do not know what hemesphere the F-22 was tested under.








rcrmj said:


> For your own denialbility sake please have a close look at my sketch
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL][/IMG]






Your sketch just proved that you are clueless, ignorant and plainly confused. The frontal hemesphere isn&#8217;t going to produce the same incident angle as a side hemesphere&#8230;..dududa .


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> Lets also apply your criteria to the J-20:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So lets review, the T-50&#8217;s curved fuselage provides and incident angle yet the J-20&#8217;s rounded DSI and enormous round under wing pods (4 of them) don&#8217;t? Ladies and gentlemen once again the J-20&#8217;s defies physics.



I do not agree with your assessment, because it is flawed. Look carefully again at the shape of the J-20's DSI (see pictures below). To the naked eye, it is obvious the shape resembles the shaped-nose of the J-20. Both observe the stealth principle of continuous curvature, where the radii constantly changes. The J-20 DSI is stealthy.

The J-20 aileron pods are too small to compromise stealth. You do not seem to understand that wavelength resolution affects the probability of detecting an object. Also, since the incidental surface is incredibly small (especially when viewed from tens of miles away), the reflected signal from that tiny portion of an aileron pod is negligible. Finally, the RAM coating on the aileron pod would have reduced the already-tiny reflected incidental signal by another two magnitudes. You've got nothing.

*J-20 Mighty Dragon design is a fusion of stealth and aesthetics*





The J-20 DSI intake melds seamlessly into the fuselage.





The entire J-20 is a smooth blend of stealth design and aesthetics.

To the best of my knowledge, the Russians lack advanced diverterless supersonic intake (DSI) technology that is seen only on Chinese (e.g. J-10B and J-20) and American (e.g. F-35) aircraft.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and EastWind for the pictures.]

----------

For your information, the J-10B Vigorous Dragon served as the early prototype to test China's advanced DSI technology. You can clearly see the similarity between the supercomputer-designed DSI bumps at the air inlets of both the J-20 Mighty Dragon and J-10B.

*J-10B Vigorous Dragon carries missiles and extra fuel pods to extend flight range*





J-10B Vigorous Dragon carries missiles and extra fuel pods to extend flight range.











[Note: Thank you to Aimarraul for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I do not agree with your assessment, because it is flawed. Look carefully again at the shape of the J-20's DSI (see pictures below). To the naked eye, it is obvious the shape resembles the shaped-nose of the J-20. Both observe the stealth principle of continuous curvature, where the radii constantly changes. The J-20 DSI is stealthy.
> 
> *The J-20 aileron pods are too small to compromise stealth.* You do not seem to understand that wavelength resolution affects the probability of detecting an object. Also, since the incidental surface is incredibly small (especially when viewed from tens of miles away), the reflected signal from that tiny portion of an aileron pod is negligible. Finally, the RAM coating on the aileron pod would have reduced the already-tiny reflected incidental signal by another two magnitudes. You've got nothing.


That is funny. You got no problems saying that such protuberances on the F-35 are detrimental to 'stealth'. But for the J-20, they are irrelevant. Once again, 'Chinese physics' comes into play.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> I do not agree with your assessment, because it is flawed. Look carefully again at the shape of the J-20's DSI (see pictures below). To the naked eye, it is obvious the shape resembles the shaped-nose of the J-20. Both observe the stealth principle of continuous curvature, where the radii constantly changes. The J-20 DSI is stealthy.




It&#8217;s what you like to call a &#8216;hump&#8217; or &#8216;lump&#8217; and stop using double standards, the slightest sphere, &#8216;hump&#8217; or bump on either the F-35 or pak-fa is, according to you, &#8216;bad for stealth&#8217; but the &#8216;bumps&#8217; and &#8216;humps&#8217; on the J-20 are &#8216;stealthy&#8217;, give me a break. And no the shape does not resemble anything remotely close to the J-20&#8217;s nose--it&#8217;s a oval shaped sphere and according to you that is bad for stealth so now you and your amigo have to eat your own words.

And from the photographers point of view that DSI intake is a sphere. A little lesson:



Ellipsoid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *If all three radii are equal, the solid body is a sphere*; if two radii are equal, the ellipsoid is a spheroid:
> 
> Sphere;
> Oblate spheroid (disk-shaped);
> Prolate spheroid (like a rugby ball);
> Scalene ellipsoid ("three unequal sides").





For any sphere angle is completely irrelevant so just because the spherical DSI is mounted on a canted chin that does not change its properties. 






Martian2 said:


> The J-20 aileron pods are too small to compromise stealth.






This is why you lost all credibility. How are four large spheres too small to compromise stealth when you claimed the pak-fa&#8217;s small IRST which is no more than 6 inches across is poor for stealth?

I would love to hear this explanation. Talk about fanatical double standard.

Lets look at those &#8216;small&#8217; pods:





Those pods are very large--many, many times larger than an IRST and there are 4 of them, so why are the pak-fa&#8217;s and F-35 smaller spheres poor for stealth? 






Martian2 said:


> You do not seem to understand that wavelength resolution affects the probability of detecting an object. Also, since the incidental surface is incredibly small (especially when viewed from tens of miles away), the reflected signal from that tiny portion of an aileron pod is negligible.




So again why is the pak-fa&#8217;s much smaller single sphere poor for stealth when the J-20&#8217;s 4 larger pods are not? Your bias view are unbelievable.


----------



## Martian2

You guys are blind.

The J-20 DSI intake starts with a somewhat pointy edge and rakes backward into a large radius (e.g. look at the picture below carefully and analytically). That is called continuous curvature, because the radius changes. Also, the radius is different longitudinally from the radius laterally. In contrast, the lump on the F-35 is a long rectangular bump. The radius is constant throughout most of the F-35 lump (e.g. basically a constant-radius cylinder with tapered ends).

The Pak Fa IRST probe is not covered in RAM material. To function, the Pak Fa IRST probe has a non-RAM-covered transparent surface.

A J-20 RAM-covered aileron pod is stealthy. A Pak Fa non-Ram-covered IRST probe is not stealthy. Where is the difficulty in comprehension?

Can you two understand these critical differences? I hope you can grasp the concepts of continuous curvature and RAM-covered surfaces.





J-20 DSI intake clearly starts off very small and grows larger as it moves backwards. Ergo, the radius of the DSI intake continues to increase as we move rearward. Also, the ratio of the longitudinal and lateral radii of the DSI intake varies. This is the stealth principle of continuous curvature. Get it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

You are a real genius. It does not matter if the DSI is sharp or oval, it is still a sphere from certain angles. It's like cutting a sphere in a sharp oval shape such as the J-20's DSI. And the pak-fa's IRST is not translucent it is treated with a gold orange film that you love to rave about. In fact according to you the treated canopies just like the pak-fa's treated IRST are absorbers.

Now this is where you once again get caught in your own web. The IRST on the pak-fa is very small, however, the J-20's pods are large, very large, now according to you those pods on the J-20 are too small to 'compromise stealth' yet you claim an IRST ball is poor for stealth even though it is many times smaller than those under wing pods on the J-20. You have numerous contradictory claims.

J-20's large pods are too small to compromise stealth--but a single and much smaller IRST is poor for stealth.

The J-20's large 4 pods are treated with RAM which you claim make it stealthy but the pak-fa's IRST which is treated in a goldish film is not stealthy? 

The J-20's yellowish canopy which you claim is like RAM absorbs EM radiation but the pak-fa's IRST which is also treated does not absorb EM emissions?


Your arguments are con-tra-dic-tory

Contradictory and did I mention contradictory?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> You are a real genius. It does not matter if the DSI is sharp or oval, it is still a sphere from certain angles. It's like cutting a sphere in a sharp oval shape such as the J-20's DSI. And the pak-fa's IRST is not translucent it is treated with a gold orange film that you love to rave about. In fact according to you the treated canopies just like the pak-fa's treated IRST are absorbers.
> 
> Now this is where you once again get caught in your own web. The IRST on the pak-fa is very small, however, the J-20's pods are large, very large, now according to you those pods on the J-20 are too small to 'compromise stealth' yet you claim an IRST ball is poor for stealth even though it is many times smaller than those under wing pods on the J-20. You have numerous contradictory claims.
> 
> J-20's large pods are too small to compromise stealth--but a single and much smaller IRST is poor for stealth.
> 
> The J-20's large 4 pods are treated with RAM which you claim make it stealthy but the pak-fa's IRST which is treated in a goldish film is not stealthy?
> 
> The J-20's yellowish canopy which you claim is like RAM absorbs EM radiation but the pak-fa's IRST which is also treated does not absorb EM emissions?
> 
> 
> Your arguments are con-tra-dic-tory
> 
> Contradictory and did I mention contradictory?



You are correct that there is an extremely small perpendicular surface from the J-20 DSI intake in relation to a radar emitter. Want me to say RAM-covered surface for the third time (see previous posts #1197 and #1200)?

I will not say RAM-covered surface for the fourth time. If you don't understand it then I can't help you. I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over again.

----------

Okay, if the IRST probe has an orange RAM-coated surface then there is no penalty in stealth for the transparent surface. However, the IRST probe geometry is a half-sphere of constant radius. The shape is not stealthy. It is basically a small non-stealthy semi-circular beach ball.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You guys are blind.
> 
> The J-20 DSI intake starts with a somewhat pointy edge and rakes backward into a large radius (e.g. look at the picture below carefully and analytically). That is called continuous curvature, because the radius changes. Also, the radius is different longitudinally from the radius laterally. In contrast, the lump on the F-35 is a long rectangular bump. The radius is constant throughout most of the F-35 lump (e.g. basically a constant-radius cylinder with tapered ends).
> 
> The Pak Fa IRST probe is not covered in RAM material. To function, the Pak Fa IRST probe has a non-RAM-covered transparent or translucent surface.
> 
> A J-20 RAM-covered aileron pod is stealthy. A Pak Fa non-Ram-covered IRST probe is not stealthy. Where is the difficulty in comprehension?
> 
> Can you two understand these critical differences? I hope you can grasp the concepts of continuous curvature and RAM-covered surfaces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 DSI intake clearly starts off very small and grows larger as it moves backwards. Ergo, the radius of the DSI intake continues to increase as we move rearward. This is the stealth principle of continuous curvature. Get it?


You are wrong. And I dare say that *EVERYTHING* you learned about 'stealth' you learned it here from me. I corrected you many times long ago about your often physics defying claims. So do not presume to ask me about this made up notion from you called 'continuous curvature'. You got the concept wrong as well as the terminology wrong.

On a curvature, any changes in the electrical path, which is the surface itself, either through enlargement or reduction, affects only the creeping wave mode, not the initial specular reflection. So if the J-20's DSI shaping is not relevant, then neither are the F-35's many protuberances. A structure's RCS contributorship is affected by its aspect to the impinging signal's direction of approach, so for the F-35's assorted protuberances that has curvatures and lengths, if those electrical paths are of the frontal aspect angle, then they are of minimal contributorship.

See if you can figure out what I just said. But the reality is that I doubt it.


----------



## Zabaniyah

I don't think DSI has any contribution in stealth. It simply helps with ease of manufacturing and maintenance. Also, it is cheaper compared to non-DSI ones. 

The F-22 has no DSI intakes.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> You are wrong. And I dare say that *EVERYTHING* you learned about 'stealth' you learned it here from me. I corrected you many times long ago about your often physics defying claims. So do not presume to ask me about this made up notion from you called 'continuous curvature'. You got the concept wrong as well as the terminology wrong.
> 
> On a curvature, any changes in the electrical path, which is the surface itself, either through enlargement or reduction, affects only the creeping wave mode, not the initial specular reflection. So if the J-20's DSI shaping is not relevant, then neither are the F-35's many protuberances. A structure's RCS contributorship is affected by its aspect to the impinging signal's direction of approach, so for the F-35's assorted protuberances that has curvatures and lengths, if those electrical paths are of the frontal aspect angle, then they are of minimal contributorship.
> 
> See if you can figure out what I just said. But the reality is that I doubt it.



Do you really want me to repost the report from Australia Air Power on the non-stealthiness of the F-35 "lumps, bumps, and warts?" Also, do you want me to post the article from Aviation Week which requested Lockheed Martin to respond to the Australia Air Power report?

Come on, continuous curvature isn't that hard to understand. A sphere or parts-thereof is not stealthy. A constant-radius object like a cylinder is not stealthy. Both surfaces reflect a strong radar signal.

A continuous curvature surface like a duck-bill or the constantly-changing radii of the J-20 DSI intake is stealthy, because it reflects the vast majority of radar waves in different directions away from the emitter. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself?

The reasoning is simple. Let's just say 99% of incoming radar waves are deflected by the J-20 DSI-intake stealth shape. A RAM-covered surface absorbs 99.99% (or so) of an incoming radar wave. When you multiply 0.01 x 0.0001, you get 0.00001. Good luck trying to detect a 0.00001 radar reflection from fifty miles away.





J-20 continuous-curvature design is readily apparent in the single "smooth broad curve" on the upper-body fuselage. Do you see how the width/radius keeps changing? Just look at the shadows of the upper-body fuselage. The cast-shadow radius constantly varies.

----------





F-35 with "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative." F-35 lumps are basically long tubes (or cylinders of constant radius). Of course, they're not stealthy; the radius is constant. The F-35 lumps exist, because of ad hoc changes to accommodate a bigger payload and side air-to-air missiles. They grafted those lumps onto the F-35 and they couldn't make it stealthy without redesigning the whole plane. If you enlarge the entire airframe, the non-stealthy F-35 lumps along the bottom would all go away. However, there is no money or time for a complete redesign of the F-35. If you change the size and weight of the F-35, you have to change the single engine to ensure sufficient power. It's a nightmare.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Do you really want me to repost the report from Australia Air Power on the non-stealthiness of the F-35 "lumps, bumps, and warts?" Also, do you want me to post the article from Aviation Week which requested Lockheed Martin to respond to the Australia Air Power report?


And I got no problems posting Chinese engineers sources that said physical optics *ALONE* is a totally inadequate tool to guesstimate a complex body's RCS.



Martian2 said:


> Come on, continuous curvature isn't that hard to understand. A sphere or parts-thereof is not stealthy. A constant-radius object like a cylinder is not stealthy. Both surfaces reflect a strong radar signal.


Apparently, *YOU* do not understand. Not only did you made up that 'continuous curvature' phrasing, you got whatever few principles involving EM signal behaviors wrong as well as evident in the above post.

_*A constant-radius object like a cylinder is not stealthy.*_ -- Really? I thought I posted plenty enough about the 10-lambda rule and how it affect a sphere and a cylinder regarding RCS.



Martian2 said:


> A continuous curvature surface like a duck-bill or the constantly-changing radii of the J-20 DSI intake is stealthy, because it reflects the vast majority of radar waves in different directions away from the emitter. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself?


In radar detection and RCS control measures, there is no such thing as 'continuous curvature'. There is consistent or continuous surface integrity, as in no surface gaps that could create edge diffractions. You can repeat the same wrong crap over and over and it still would not change what it is -- crap.


----------



## gambit

Zabaniya said:


> I don't think DSI has any contribution in stealth. It simply helps with ease of manufacturing and maintenance. Also, it is cheaper compared to non-DSI ones.
> 
> The F-22 has no DSI intakes.


The only advantage a diverterless inlet system (DSI) has over a 'conventional' inlet as far as RCS contributorship goes is that a DSI has a lower contributorship but that is incidental. If a 'conventional' inlet system is used on the F-22, it is because when compared against the other contributors such as wings or cockpit, the 'conventional' inlet system was found to pale in comparison. In other words, it make no sense to work on something when there are greater issues with other things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*"Lumps and bumps" seriously degrade F-35 stealthiness*

The original X-35 was a stealthy design. The current F-35 SDD AA-1 is a "much inferior contoured design, clearly intended to accommodate the larger weapon bays."

This is a familiar story. The X-35 was well-designed (e.g. "bomb truck") to meet the original military specifications. The military changed its mind and Lockheed had to drastically alter its design to accommodate the new military specifications (of an air superiority fighter) to carry a larger weapons load. This compromised the F-35 stealth design.

Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities

"*Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities*
Air Power Australia Analysis 2009-01
7th January 2009

by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, MIEEE, PEng
© 2008, 2009 Carlo Kopp





_The evolution of the JSF design from the X-35 demonstrators to the F-35A/B/C SDD configuration has seen significant changes to the aircraft's shaping, critical to its stealth performance. *While the design of the inlets was improved, the lower fuselage design is now inferior to the original X-35 configuration.* The latter has important implications for the JSF's ability to survive when penetrating modern Integrated Air Defence Systems (Image via Air Force Link)._
...
Joint Strike Fighter Stealth Capabilities

*The Joint Strike Fighter is an unusual airframe design, since it departs from many of the well established ground rules in stealth shaping*, established in other designs such as the F-117A, B-2A, A-12A, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor. *Stealth shaping is widely regarded to account for the first hundredfold reduction in aircraft radar signature, compared to non-stealthy designs of similar size, with application of lossy and absorbent materials used to further reduce the signature where feasible.*
...
*The first major departure from established shaping conventions is the angular or aspect dependency of the Joint Strike Fighter&#8217;s radar signature.*




_Diagram 3._




_Diagram 4._

*Study of the shaping of the aircraft and comparison with other designs shows that the Joint Strike Fighter can provide genuinely good stealth performance only in a fairly narrow ~29° sector about the aircraft&#8217;s nose*, where the shaping of the nose, engine inlets, panel edge serrations, and alignment of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators results in the absence of major lobes or &#8220;spikes&#8221; in the radar signature. The ±14.5° angular limit is constrained by the principal reflecting lobe of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators. The signature degrades rapidly due to the influence of the lower centre fuselage as the angle swings past ±45° off the nose, refer Diagram 4.

An important development was that the SDD aircraft saw the original inlet design discarded and replaced with a scaled down inlet arrangement based on the F-22A design. Concurrently the lower fuselage was redesigned.

*In the SDD design, the beam/side aspect radar signature is especially problematic, due to the presence of multiple specular reflecting shapes, specifically due to singly and doubly curved lower fuselage surface feature shaping. The Joint Strike Fighter has a complex lower fuselage shape as well as a wing and fuselage lower join shape, unlike any other aircraft designed with stealth in mind, refer preceding images. The result of this design choice is that the beam/side aspect Radar Cross Section will be closer in magnitude to a conventional fighter flown clean than a &#8220;classical&#8221; stealth aircraft. This is an inevitable result of clustering no less than nine unique convex specular scattering shapes in the lower hemisphere of the aircraft. Diagram 3 illustrates this.

Given that the dimensions of many of these shapes are of the order of metres, the application of absorbent or lossy coatings or laminates will not be sufficient to drive the critical lower hemisphere beam/side aspect signature down to values which qualify as VLO and thus &#8220;stealthy&#8221;.* Refer Annex C.

The aft sector radar signature is also problematic, as a result of the use of an axisymmetric nozzle design. While the aft fuselage and tailboom shaping qualify as &#8220;stealthy&#8221; across the upper bands, the nozzle presents as a specular reflector in bands where the wavelength is comparable or exceeds the dimensions of the nozzle segments. This is discussed below.

*The second major departure from established stealth conventions is that the Joint Strike Fighter is designed to perform in the X-band, and upper portions of the S-band, with little effort expended in optimizing for the lower L-band, UHF-band and VHF-band. This design strategy is consistent with defeating mobile battlefield short range point defence SAM and AAA systems* such as the SA-8 Gecko, SA-9 Gaskin, Chapparel, Crotale, Roland, SA-15 Gauntlet, SA-19 Grison and SA-22 &#8220;Greyhound&#8221;, where limited radar antenna size forces all acquisition and engagement functions into the X-band and upper S-band. Joint Strike Fighter literature refers to this optimization in terms of &#8220;breaking the kill chain&#8221;, the intent being to deny the effective use of X-band engagement radars and X/Ku-Band missile seekers, but not acquisition radars in lower bands.

*Such SAM systems are the category of &#8220;residual&#8221; threat which a battlefield interdiction aircraft will encounter once the F-22A force has &#8220;sanitized&#8221; an area by destroying the long range search/acquisition radars and area defence SAM batteries.* With limited range and coverage footprint, but high mobility and autonomous capability, battlefield short range point defence SAM and AAA systems can &#8220;pop-up&#8221; from hidden locations and ambush interdiction aircraft at medium to low altitudes. Significantly, in a &#8220;sanitized&#8221; environment such air defence weapons are operating without external support from other sensors or the top cover provided by long range area defence SAMs such as the SA-12/23, SA-20 and SA-21.

The engine nozzle presents a good case study of the band dependency of stealth performance in the Joint Strike Fighter design. In the upper X-band and Ku-band, the individual nozzle segments present as flat panels with a serrated trailing edge. The result will be a circular pattern of narrow reflecting lobes which will produce mostly good effect in these bands. *However, in the lower bands this arrangement will rapidly degrade in behaviour to that of a truncated conical shape, which is a strong specular reflector.* The resulting external shape related signature will be much the same as a conventional exhaust nozzle on a non-stealthy fighter, with an outer skin contribution and rim contribution. While the interior of the nozzle will be coated with broadband lossy materials and a tailpipe blocker used to obscure the turbine face, the signature of the nozzle exterior below the X-band cannot qualify as &#8220;stealthy&#8221;. Refer Annex C.





_X-35 Dev/Val prototype (above) vs F-35 SDD AA-1 (below). *The clean wing fuselage join and flat low curvature lower fuselage of the X-35 had the potential to yield quite good beam/side aspect radar signature, but the revised SDD design discarded this arrangement in favour of a much inferior contoured design, clearly intended to accommodate the larger weapon bays.* While the F-35 SDD engine inlet arrangement is superior to the X-35 Dev/Val prototype inlet design, the gains in the forward sector cannot overcome the performance losses incurred in the beam/side aspect sectors (Images via Air Force Link)._









_Diagram 5: *Very Low Observable airframe shaping should be optimised to produce best effect, i.e. lowest radar cross section, from those angles from which the aircraft is most likely to be illuminated by a threat system such as an engagement or acquisition radar in a Surface to Air Missile battery.* This diagram shows the cardinal depression angles for an aircraft at the tropopause, accounting for the curvature of the earth and atmospheric refractive effects which 'bend' the ray path between the aircraft and threat radar. The specific angles in this diagram are determined using Russian specifications for missile range, the SBF refractive model for short ranges, and an exponential CRPL refractive model for ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles. It is important to observe that in straight and level flight all surface based threats are firmly in the lower hemisphere, putting a premium on low Radar Cross Section in the angular range between 3.7 and 36.5 , as area defence missile systems will illuminate the aircraft within this angular range. Point defence missiles systems and 'trash fire' such as AAA and MANPADS are generally altitude limited to 10 - 15 kft and are a much less critical threat. A smart IADS operator will not radiate until a potential target is close enough to get a steep elevation angle for a shot, a tactic commonly associated with 'shoot and scoot' operations - the cardinal example being Serbian ZRK Kvadrat / SA-6 operations in 1999 (Author)._





_The shaping changes to the inlet area and lower fuselage are prominent on these images of F-35A SDD prototype AA-1 (Images via Air Force Link)._





Diagram 4 summarises the qualitative comparisons of Joint Strike Fighter shaping aspect and band dependency, with green denoting performance which qualifies as Very Low Observable, yellow as Low Observable, and red as order of magnitude closest to conventional reduced signature aircraft designs. The aircraft performs best in the X-band, and Ku-band, with performance declining through the S-band with increasing wavelength. *In the L-band the axisymmetric nozzle design no longer produces useful effect, and the length of the inlet edges sits in resonant mode scattering rather than clean optical scattering, degrading performance. In the VHF band (~2 metres) Joint Strike Fighter airframe shaping has become largely ineffective.*

The aircraft will have a credible ability to defeat S-band search/acquisition radars, X-band engagement radars and X/Ku/K/Ka-band missile seekers only in the narrow ±14.5° angular sector under the nose. *As the angle relative to the threat radars increases, the unfortunate lower fuselage shaping features will produce an increasingly strong effect with a cluster of &#8220;flare spot&#8221; peaks around 90° where the longitudinal panel and door edge joins produce effect.*

In the narrow ±14.5° angular sector under the tail, the design will produce best effect against X/Ku/K/Ka-band missile seekers, but less useful effect against X-band engagement radars due to their higher power-aperture performance. *At S-band the nozzle exterior signature will become increasingly prominent, leading to loss of effect in the vicinity of the L-band.*

*It is clear that these design choices were intentional and no accident. By confining proper stealth shaping technique only to the forward fuselage and inlet geometry, the designers avoided incurring the development, and to a lesser extent, the associated manufacturing costs of a fully stealthy design, with the YF-23A and F-22A presenting good comparisons.

This is an acceptable optimization if the intent is only to defeat an isolated individual low power aperture pop-up short/medium range mobile battlefield air defence system* in the category of the SA-6 Gainful, SA-8 Gecko, SA-9 Gaskin, Chapparel, Crotale, Roland, SA-11 Gadfly, SA-15 Gauntlet, SA-19 Grison or SA-22 &#8220;Greyhound&#8221;. It is a completely unsuitable optimization for a wide range of other threat types which are in service, and the associated characteristic engagement geometries. *It is also a problematic optimisation where short/medium range battlefield air defence systems are deployed in a coordinated manner.*

_*The most generous description of the stealth design used in the Joint Strike Fighter is that it is 25% VLO, in the nose sector, 25% LO in the tail sector, and 50% &#8220;reduced observable&#8221; in the beam sectors*, with a strong threat operating frequency and angular aspect dependency in stealth performance. It is clearly not a stealth design in the same sense as the F-117A Nighthawk, B-2A Spirit, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor, and to label it a &#8220;VLO design&#8221; is at best a &#8220;quarter-truth&#8221;, quite indifferent to the physical realities of the design and the threat systems it will need to defeat in future conflicts._"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> _*A constant-radius object like a cylinder is not stealthy.*_ -- Really? I thought I posted plenty enough about the 10-lambda rule and how it affect a sphere and a cylinder regarding RCS.



It's simple physics to understand the reason that a cylinder is not stealthy. An incoming radar beam impacts the side of a cylinder. The entire length of the cylinder reflects the radar signal. This is obvious and Gambit has lost his mind in claiming otherwise.

*In the citation below, do you see the spikes to 5 dbsm on the graph when the cylinder is perpendicular to the radar emitter?* You can ignore the -30 to -40 dbsm when a cylinder is turned on its edge. Obviously, when you look down the tube of a straw, it has a very low dbsm. However, when you are looking at a straw from the side, you can see the entire length. So can a radar. Don't listen to Gambit, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-070109-1.html

"Air Power Australia NOTAM
7th January, 2009
WgCdr Chris Mills, RAAF (Retd)

You have all seen the movie. Our top-gun heroes fly their F-35 Lightning II&#8217;s on an Offensive Counter-Air mission. They have four AIM-120Ds aboard and the mission is Air Dominance.

Today, the enemy is being cooperative, and they have old Su-27s on combat air patrol. The F-35&#8217;s sensors detect the Su-27&#8217;s radar, and to clear the air, the Lightning IIs head towards these targets. The 100% reliable, 100% kill probability AIM-120Ds quickly down each Sukhoi with a single shot, so each F-35 kills up to four Su-27s until all are gone from the sky. Our heroes fly back to base, where they enjoy the adoring applause from the troops in the same way as Top Gun&#8217;s Maverick and Iceman returning from their air combat defence of their Aircraft Carrier.

This scenario draws on the thesis that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter&#8217;s &#8216;invisibility equals invincibility&#8217;, such that the invisible Lightning II always wins, no matter what the odds. While stealth comes at a high cost, it's value is eminently &#8216;marketable&#8217;. The recent fighter competition in Norway has produced a rubbery, but pre-world economic crisis price-point for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter somewhere between $US160-230M per copy. That price is substantially more that the price of aircraft that provide the same, or superior fighter characteristics like greater speed, range, payload, flexibility and agility, but without &#8216;stealthiness&#8217;. 

Every thesis has its antithesis. Stealth technology has played an important part of modern battles, and complicates an enemy&#8217;s air control strategies and tactics, but the advantages of partial or &#8216;CAIV-driven&#8217; low observability are fading as &#8216;counter-stealth&#8217; systems and tactics penetrate its cover. So this is a reasonable question: &#8216;would a rational Nation purchase the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at an inflated price if it were not stealthy, when lower cost, more effective air combat aircraft are available?&#8217; The answer is self-evident. 

There is a deadly corollary to this antithesis. If a Nation purchases the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter without testing its actual stealthiness, it runs the risk of buying an aircraft that is stealthy from some aspects, but observable and hence vulnerable from others. Any competent enemy would know these weaknesses, and exploit them on the first day of battle in a way that a substantial portion of the air combat fleet would be lost. The consequences are dire: probable defeat in battle and loss of sovereignty. It is this &#8216;sovereign risk&#8217; that makes it imperative to know the real limitations of the Joint Strike Fighter&#8217;s stealthiness.

The signature of stealth aircraft is a closely guarded State secret, and for most people is &#8216;unknowable&#8217;. Until now that is. A State can classify its secrets like radar signatures, but it cannot classify the Laws of Physics.

A colleague, Dr Carlo Kopp, has used open-source radar signature analysis software verified against known shapes and empirical results, to generate radar signature estimations for two key components of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the section of the lower fuselage around the weapons bays, and the axi-symmetric nozzle of the F135 engine. This &#8216;radar cross section simulator&#8217; can cope with a range of radar operating frequencies used in modern air combat, and plot reflections from complex shapes from any angle. 

Many people will find it incredible that a private individual can generate radar signatures of a supposedly stealth aircraft, notwithstanding that Dr Kopp is an internationally recognised expert in the field, and an experienced design engineer and university research scientist. I am as sceptical as the next scientist, and demand proof that an open-source academic radar signature tool can produce reliable results. What convinced me was the calibration of the software output. In this case, the radar signature of a cylinder of known size was used, with the simulation output being compared with actual measurements of a physical object. The results can be seen in these images:










Simulator calibration plots for a cylindrical shape at 5.8 GHz V-pol (Knott et al and Kopp).

Even a non-expert eye can see the high degree of similarity between the actual and simulated measurements. Experts in the field advise that the correlation is remarkable and highly significant. This result is an important part of the validation and verification of the radar signature simulator. (article continues)"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Martian2 said:


> It's simple physics to understand the reason that a cylinder is not stealthy. An incoming radar beam impacts the side of a cylinder. The entire length of the cylinder reflects the radar signal. This is obvious and Gambit has lost his mind in claiming otherwise.
> 
> *In the citation below, do you see the spikes to 5 dbsm when the cylinder is perpendicular to the radar emitter?* You can ignore the -30 to -40 dbsm when a cylinder is turned on its edge. Obviously, when you look down the tube of a straw, it has a very low dbsm. However, when you are looking at a straw from the side, you can see the entire length. So can a radar. Don't listen to Gambit, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Coffin Corners for the Joint Strike Fighter
> 
> "Air Power Australia NOTAM
> 7th January, 2009
> WgCdr Chris Mills, RAAF (Retd)
> 
> You have all seen the movie. Our top-gun heroes fly their F-35 Lightning IIs on an Offensive Counter-Air mission. They have four AIM-120Ds aboard and the mission is Air Dominance.
> 
> Today, the enemy is being cooperative, and they have old Su-27s on combat air patrol. The F-35s sensors detect the Su-27s radar, and to clear the air, the Lightning IIs head towards these targets. The 100% reliable, 100% kill probability AIM-120Ds quickly down each Sukhoi with a single shot, so each F-35 kills up to four Su-27s until all are gone from the sky. Our heroes fly back to base, where they enjoy the adoring applause from the troops in the same way as Top Guns Maverick and Iceman returning from their air combat defence of their Aircraft Carrier.
> 
> This scenario draws on the thesis that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters invisibility equals invincibility, such that the invisible Lightning II always wins, no matter what the odds. While stealth comes at a high cost, it's value is eminently marketable. The recent fighter competition in Norway has produced a rubbery, but pre-world economic crisis price-point for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter somewhere between $US160-230M per copy. That price is substantially more that the price of aircraft that provide the same, or superior fighter characteristics like greater speed, range, payload, flexibility and agility, but without stealthiness.
> 
> Every thesis has its antithesis. Stealth technology has played an important part of modern battles, and complicates an enemys air control strategies and tactics, but the advantages of partial or CAIV-driven low observability are fading as counter-stealth systems and tactics penetrate its cover. So this is a reasonable question: would a rational Nation purchase the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at an inflated price if it were not stealthy, when lower cost, more effective air combat aircraft are available? The answer is self-evident.
> 
> There is a deadly corollary to this antithesis. If a Nation purchases the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter without testing its actual stealthiness, it runs the risk of buying an aircraft that is stealthy from some aspects, but observable and hence vulnerable from others. Any competent enemy would know these weaknesses, and exploit them on the first day of battle in a way that a substantial portion of the air combat fleet would be lost. The consequences are dire: probable defeat in battle and loss of sovereignty. It is this sovereign risk that makes it imperative to know the real limitations of the Joint Strike Fighters stealthiness.
> 
> The signature of stealth aircraft is a closely guarded State secret, and for most people is unknowable. Until now that is. A State can classify its secrets like radar signatures, but it cannot classify the Laws of Physics.
> 
> A colleague, Dr Carlo Kopp, has used open-source radar signature analysis software verified against known shapes and empirical results, to generate radar signature estimations for two key components of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the section of the lower fuselage around the weapons bays, and the axi-symmetric nozzle of the F135 engine. This radar cross section simulator can cope with a range of radar operating frequencies used in modern air combat, and plot reflections from complex shapes from any angle.
> 
> Many people will find it incredible that a private individual can generate radar signatures of a supposedly stealth aircraft, notwithstanding that Dr Kopp is an internationally recognised expert in the field, and an experienced design engineer and university research scientist. I am as sceptical as the next scientist, and demand proof that an open-source academic radar signature tool can produce reliable results. What convinced me was the calibration of the software output. In this case, the radar signature of a cylinder of known size was used, with the simulation output being compared with actual measurements of a physical object. The results can be seen in these images:



Here's a question though: you're using the ray model (with the implicit assumption that the cylinder is very large compared to wavelengths; good in optics, bad in radar). what about diffraction effects of the cylinder? what if the cylinder is conducting?

however, I do remember a physical optics model that takes into account diffraction and interference in Air Power Australia that gave J-20 all directional stealth in 9 wavebands.


----------



## Martian2

FairAndUnbiased said:


> Here's a question though: you're using the ray model (with the implicit assumption that the cylinder is very large compared to wavelengths; good in optics, bad in radar). what about diffraction effects of the cylinder? what if the cylinder is conducting?
> 
> however, I do remember a physical optics model that takes into account diffraction and interference in Air Power Australia that gave J-20 all directional stealth in 9 wavebands.



I've been typing for hours in having to deal with those two guys, who were clearly wrong. I'm sorry, but I'm done for tonight. My eyes hurt.

However, let me say that I've never heard of a cylinder conducting all of the incoming radar energy in the real world. You might be able to build a small laboratory prototype under specialized conditions. However, I'll like to see them build a fully-conducting flying airframe. It's b.s.

Also, why bother stopping at a cylinder? Why not make the whole plane conducting and not worry about stealth shaping at all?

I would put an entirely radar-conducting surface/airframe into the same b.s. heap as plasma stealth and Russian radar blockers. What a bunch of hooey. They never have a reputable citation and keep throwing crazy ideas out there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

If F-35 is a cost-effective stealthy platform as Gambit said,why Japanese at the begining want to buy F-22 even not considering F-35 a bit. who tell me the reason?

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

Every one in the world could understand except for Gambit.


----------



## Zabaniyah

wanglaokan said:


> If F-35 is a cost-effective stealthy platform as Gambit said,why Japanese at the begining want to buy F-22 even not considering F-35 a bit. who tell me the reason?



The Japanese did ask for the F-22. The Americans refused. The F-22 is strictly not for export after Congress voted for a ban on exports.


----------



## 帅的一匹

don't compare J-20 with lamed F-35, otherwise it'll be downgraded.


----------



## Roybot

wanglaokan said:


> If F-35 is a cost-effective stealthy platform as Gambit said,why Japanese at the begining want to buy F-22 even not considering F-35 a bit. who tell me the reason?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------
> 
> Every one in the world could understand except for Gambit.



Thats because F-22 is not available for export, so Japan went for second best. Besides Japan can use F-35's on its helicopter carriers(with some modifications).


----------



## 帅的一匹

just bring F-22 on the table

---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

Japan is very clever when they make decision in military procurement.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Roybot said:


> Thats because F-22 is not available for export, so Japan went for second best. Besides Japan can use F-35's on its helicopter carriers(with some modifications).


You are right man! The truth is F-35 is not the best in stealthy design, it accomadate too many using request of investment sides, this make it no special. I think SU-35 is even better, Indians should go for that.


----------



## Obambam

Zabaniya said:


> The Japanese did ask for the F-22. *The Americans refused*. The F-22 *is strictly not for export* after *Congress voted for a ban on exports*.



The Japanese military think tanks cost/benefit analysis tells them F-22 is the one to go for. 

However, the American military think tanks cost/benefit analysis tells them otherwise. Hence the F-35 was offered instead and will be the one they will get at best.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Broccoli

USA would never sell a plane (even for friendly country) what could give really hard time for USAF in case of war.

That is the reason why they refuse to sell F-22.


----------



## Zabaniyah

wanglaokan said:


> You are right man! The truth is F-35 is not the best in stealthy design, it accomadate too many using request of investment sides, this make it no special. I think SU-35 is even better, Indians should go for that.



The F-35 is still a 5th generation plane, a generation ahead of the SU-35. It has the most advanced avionics, even more so than the current F-22s. But inferior in terms of stealth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Zabaniya said:


> The F-35 is still a 5th generation plane, a generation ahead of the SU-35. It has the most advanced avionics, even more so than the current F-22s. But inferior in terms of stealth.


S-35 is not that as advanced as F-35, but it's lot more radius, cheap and affordable.

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------

I would rather have 1000 J-10b not 200 F-22 in hands.Volume is important in war.

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

especially for those country not kind rich debt as uncle Sam.


----------



## Zabaniyah

^Compared to other 4.5G planes, the SU-35 doesn't come cheap my friend. 

The F-22 is a class of its own.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *"Lumps and bumps" seriously degrade F-35 stealthiness*
> 
> The original X-35 was a stealthy design. The current F-35 SDD AA-1 is a "much inferior contoured design, clearly intended to accommodate the larger weapon bays."


And challenged, if not outright debunked, here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-21.html#post1929505
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-23.html#post1934472
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-24.html#post1937502
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-26.html#post1942400
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-27.html#post1945087


----------



## DrSomnath999

it should also be noted that a flat plate focuses its backscattering
on a very narrow angular sector, with a high RCS value.
A sphere, by contrast, has a low RCS value which is uniform at all angles.
Thus, on a limited angular sector around the specular direction, spheres
and cylinders give the lowest RCS values. If otherwise, RCS must be kept
low on a wide angular sector, then it is better to use very narrow-beam
shapes such as the flat plate, correctly aimed in order to avoid the specular
flash [7].

are single piece canopies more stealth than two pieces if so what about F-35, B-2 or F-117?





Square trihedral corner reflector Strongest radar return due to triple reflection of incident wave 



Right dihedral corner reflector Second strongest radar return due to double reflection of incident wave; decreases from maximum slowly with changing &#952; and rapidly with changing &#966; 


Flat plate Third strongest radar return due to direct reflection of incident wave; decreases rapidly as incidence angle changes from perpendicular 



Right circular cylinder Strong radar return as aspect (&#952 changes, but decreases rapidly as azimuth (&#966 changes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple physics to understand the reason that a cylinder is not stealthy. An incoming radar beam impacts the side of a cylinder. The entire length of the cylinder reflects the radar signal. This is obvious and Gambit has lost his mind in claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FairAndUnbiased said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question though: you're using the ray model (with the implicit assumption that the cylinder is very large compared to wavelengths; good in optics, bad in radar). *what about diffraction effects of the cylinder? what if the cylinder is conducting?*
> 
> however, I do remember a physical optics model that takes into account diffraction and interference in Air Power Australia that gave J-20 all directional stealth in 9 wavebands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been typing for hours in having to deal with those two guys, who were clearly wrong. I'm sorry, but I'm done for tonight. My eyes hurt.
> 
> However, *let me say that I've never heard of a cylinder conducting all of the incoming radar energy in the real world.* You might be able to build a small laboratory prototype under specialized conditions. However, I'll like to see them build a fully-conducting flying airframe. It's b.s.
> 
> Also, why bother stopping at a cylinder? Why not make the whole plane conducting and not worry about stealth shaping at all?
> 
> I would put an entirely radar-conducting surface/airframe into the same b.s. heap as plasma stealth and Russian radar blockers. What a bunch of hooey. They never have a reputable citation and keep throwing crazy ideas out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The *BOTH* of you have a false understanding of the word 'conducting' in this context. As English is not my first language, am going to be kind to both of you for this.

Get this straight: *EVERYTHING IS A CONDUCTOR*. We will confine this to EM signals for now but the idea is applicable to sound as well.

Whenever an EM signal impact a body, the body's surface is a 'conducting' pathway or 'electrical path'. It does not matter if the body is the simple sphere, a plate, a cylinder, or as complex as an aircraft.

*EVERY BODY* is effectively a 'conductor'.

*EVERY STRUCTURE* on said body that made up said complex body is a 'conductor'.

A golf ball is not a simple sphere. All those 'dimples' turned it into a complex body and every dimple is a 'conductor' in both electrical paths and in diffraction behaviors.

Now comes the cylinder...



Martian2 said:


> It's simple physics to understand the reason that a cylinder is not stealthy. An incoming radar beam impacts the side of a cylinder. The entire length of the cylinder reflects the radar signal. This is obvious and Gambit has lost his mind in claiming otherwise.



This is stupid. I have explained many times here on what is called the '10-lambda' rule when it comes to spheres, cylinders, and effectively curvatures. Of all who are interested in more technical details, looks like *YOU* are the only person who is ignorant of it.

The most recent of that explanation is here => http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-ratios-all-fighter-planes-5.html#post2473648

When it comes to curvatures, either on a sphere, a cylinder, or just an arc that is part of a structure, the '10-lambda' rule comes into effect -- *IMMEDIATELY*. The issue is *NOT* the structure itself, which is the cylinder, but rather the wavelength (lambda) to radius (or diameter) of the conducting path. In essence, the '10-lambda' rule said: For that curved electrical path, be it on a sphere or a cylinder or as an arc on a structure, if that path is greater than 10 wavelengths (lambda) of travel, the creeping wave effect *WILL NOT* occur.

This is what/how a 'creeping wave' effect is visualized...






A rod is a cylinder. A rod is called that because of its visual effect as a cylinder is not as pronounced. But structurally speaking, a rod is very much a cylinder.

For the illustration above...

The first example is what happens *IF* the diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths. The 'creeping wave' effect will just simply radiate itself into free space and very much away from source source direction, giving the detector only that tiny amount of initial specular reflection. Even on a curve, there is always a tiny amount of real estate that is flat enough and perpendicular to the impinging signal. Hence, even on a curve, there is always a tiny amount of specular reflection.

The second example is when the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths (lambda). The detector will receive the initial specular reflection. But now there is a creeping wave effect to add to that tiny amount of specular reflection.

So when measuring a cylinder *ONLY* from its ends, that is being deceitful to the readers. Even the simple sphere deserves more than one measurement methods: One to measure that initial specular reflection, then another to measure its diameter regarding surface behavior on the 'shadow' region. That is why posts 1208 and 1209 cannot be taken seriously regarding any objective criticisms for the F-35.

The '10-lambda' rule and its parent, the wavelength to diameter ratio (or relationship), are well known as in *DECADES* of radar experience over many countries.






Note the significant: *As a result, quantitative analyses, for spheres as large as 10&#955; in radius, of arbitrary materials, even in contact become feasible.*

Ten wavelengths &#955; in radius.

Equally significant is the phrase *'of arbitrary materials'* because it means different materials have been tested and found to be *CONDUCTING* materials.

But there are more...






Note the wavelength to diameter relationship in the first paragraph: *'The creeping wave is the largest single contributor to backscatter near nose-on for cone-spheres with sphere radius-to-wavelength (a/&#955 ratios less than about 3 and for cone half-angles less than about 20°.*

This wavelength to diameter relationship is once again significant but this time instead of being 10 wavelengths we have less. This is because we are dealing with cone-spheres what complex body has a 'cone-sphere' like structure? A missile. This paragraph is talking about using the wavelength to diameter relationship in trying to detect missiles.

Finally...






Once again, the '10-lambda' rule or wavelength to diameter (a/&#955 relationship is used by other people in their research. But note the authors' names and guess their national origin.

So now we have at least three examples of how, when it comes to curvatures on any complex body, specular reflections becomes less significant compared to surface wave behaviors. The APA so-called 'analysis' using Physical Optics *ALONE* does not take into consideration these surface wave behaviors. What APA did was effectively hand-waved away such trivialities out of their hostility to the F-35.

And a certain Chinese member here is telling the readers that I have no support for my arguments...???


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> ]What APA did was effectively hand-waved away such trivialities out of their hostility to the F-35.
> [/B]



And a lot more..
It is Extremely biased in exaggeration of eastern equipment capabilities for THIS very reason and therefore unreliable.


----------



## gambit

DrSomnath999 said:


>


I like that. I suck at Photochopping stuff but saved a copy of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

Broccoli said:


> USA would never sell a plane (even for friendly country) what could give really hard time for USAF in case of war.
> 
> That is the reason why they refuse to sell F-22.


This clearly shows that F35 is degrade version of F22. Less technology, Less stealthier than the original F22. Only speed is Mach 1.6+.
USA is very clever. They have less budget for more F22, That's why USA offered F35 and opened it for export to help same money For F22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Peaceful Civlian said:


> This clearly shows that *F35 is degrade version of F22*. Less technology, Less stealthier than the original F22. Only speed is Mach 1.6+.
> USA is very clever. They have less budget for more F22, That's why USA offered F35 and opened it for export to help same money For F22.


Please...Stop...The F-35 is not any type of 'degradation' of the F-22. The F-35 is a totally different aircraft for a different mission type. Why not say the F-35 is a 'degraded' version of the B-2 since both aircrafts drop bombs?


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> I like that. I suck at Photochopping stuff but saved a copy of it.


Sir ,i have not been promoted to researcher in my forum just for granted .


----------



## SQ8

DrSomnath999 said:


>



Prototype vs Operational AC.
A better look would be comparing the J-20 with the YF-22.
its hard to find a similar shot for the YF-22..
but I do see some irregularities in this image as well as pointed out in the image above.


----------



## Martian2

Regarding DrSomnath's J-20 and F-22 comparison, it is true that the J-20 Mighty Dragon has a few minor faults. China has six more years to fix the minor faults before the 2018 IOC. Also, the key question is what is the increase in detectability from the J-20's minor faults?

Let's say the collective increase from minor design faults is 10% greater detection than the F-22. This means the F-22 can detect the J-20 from 22 miles away and the J-20 cannot detect the F-22 until it is 20 miles away.

Let's say the J-20 and F-22 are supercruising towards each other at Mach 1.5. Their collective speed is Mach 3 in closing the distance between them. At sea level, Mach one is 761 mph. Mach 3 means a speed of 2,283 mph in closing the distance between them.

The F-22 advantage is a greater detection distance of 2 miles.

Math:

2 miles / 2,283 mph = 0.000876 hours

0.000876 hours * 60 minutes per hour = 0.05265 minutes

0.05265 minutes * 60 seconds per minute = 3.15 seconds

Conclusion:

Due to the minor flaws on the J-20 Mighty Dragon, we can expect the F-22 pilot to have a tiny edge of approximately 3.15 seconds in earlier detection against a J-20. The F-22 will have the opportunity to fire its air-to-air missile against the J-20 about 3 seconds earlier than the J-20's launch of air-to-air missiles against the F-22.

In my judgment, a 3 second advantage when both planes are roughly twenty miles away is operationally worthless. You can change the assumptions within reason, but I doubt the F-22 pilot will have more than a 5 second or so advantage. I don't think it makes any difference in combat, but you would have to decide for yourself.

----------

Here are some new high-resolution pictures of J-20 Mighty Dragon from angles that you may not have yet seen:
















[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

Santro said:


> Prototype vs Operational AC.
> A better look would be comparing the J-20 with the YF-22.
> its hard to find a similar shot for the YF-22..
> but I do see some irregularities in this image as well as pointed out in the image above.


well why should we compare a test protype with j20 ,it has no relevance .as Yf22 had many design changes which evolved into 
F22 Am i right ???


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Let's say the collective increase from minor design faults is 10% greater detection than the F-22. This means the F-22 can detect the J-20 from 22 miles away and the J-20 cannot detect the F-22 until it is 20 miles away.


From what foundation do you based this '10%' ?


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

gambit said:


> Please...Stop...The F-35 is not any type of 'degradation' of the F-22. The F-35 is a totally different aircraft for a different mission type. Why not say the F-35 is a 'degraded' version of the B-2 since both aircrafts drop bombs?


Dude about F35, 1.6 Mach speed is nothing for modern aircraft.
Conventional takeoff , short take off and vertical-landing is understandable. But 1.6 Mach speed is nothing for this Role.
This aircraft is Mix of 5th generation and 4th generation technology.
Again i say, 1.6 Mach speed.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> From what foundation do you based this '10%' ?



Not major flaws, only minor flaws.

Major flaws are 10%+. Minor flaws are 2 to 3% each. 10% is my best ballpark guess to illustrate a point.

A little gap between the canard and fuselage will not yield a 10%+ penalty. It's only a LITTLE gap.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Not major flaws, only minor flaws.
> 
> Major flaws are 10%+. Minor flaws are 2 to 3% each. 10% is my best ballpark guess to illustrate a point.


In other words, what you did would *IMMEDIATELY* disqualify you from any peer review process -- a baseless guess.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> Regarding DrSomnath's J-20 and F-22 comparison, it is true that the J-20 Mighty Dragon has a few minor faults. China has six more years to fix the minor faults before the 2018 IOC. Also, the key question is what is the increase in detectability from the J-20's minor faults.
> 
> Let's say the collective increase from minor design faults is 10% greater detection than the F-22. This means the F-22 can detect the J-20 from 22 miles away and the J-20 cannot detect the F-22 until it is 20 miles away.
> 
> Let's say the J-20 and F-22 are supercruising towards each other at Mach 1.5. Their collective speed is Mach 3 in closing the distance between them. At sea level, Mach one is 761 mph. Mach 3 means a speed of 2,283 mph in closing the distance between them.
> 
> The F-22 advantage is a greater detection distance of 2 miles.
> 
> Math:
> 
> 2 miles / 2,283 mph = 0.000876 hours
> 
> 0.000876 hours * 60 minutes per hour = 0.05265 minutes
> 
> 0.05265 minutes * 60 seconds per minute = 3.15 seconds
> 
> Conclusion:
> 
> Due to the minor flaws on the J-20 Mighty Dragon, we can expect the F-22 pilot to have a tiny edge of approximately 3.15 seconds in earlier detection against a J-20. The F-22 will have the opportunity to fire its air-to-air missile against the J-20 about 3 seconds earlier than the J-20's launch of air-to-air missiles against the F-22.
> 
> In my judgment, a 3 second advantage when both planes are roughly twenty miles away is operationally worthless. You can change the assumptions within reason, but I doubt the F-22 pilot will have more than a 5 second or so advantage. I don't think it makes any difference in combat, but you would have to decide for yourself.
> 
> ----------


here F22 rules baby because of this 
*ALR 94 passive detection capabilty*

*The AN/ALR-94 is a passive receiver system capable of detecting the radar signals in the environment. Composed of more than 30 antennae smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage, it is described by the former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin Tom Burbage as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft." With greater range (250+ nmi) than the radar, it enables the F-22 to limit its own radar emission which might otherwise compromise its stealth. As the target approaches, AN/ALR-94 can cue the AN/APG-77 radar to keep track of its motion with a narrow beam, which can be as focused as 2° by 2° in azimuth and elevation.The AN/APG-77 AESA radar, designed for air-superiority and strike operations, features a low-observable, active-aperture, electronically-scanned array that can track multiple targets in all kinds of weather. The AN/APG-77 changes frequencies more than 1,000 times per second to reduce the chance of being intercepted. The radar can also focus its emissions to overload enemy sensors, giving the aircraft an electronic-attack capability.A pair on patrol.The radar&#8217;s information is processed by two Raytheon Common Integrated Processor (CIP)s. Each CIP operates at 10.5 billion instructions per second and has 300 megabytes of memory. Information can be gathered from the radar and other onboard and offboard systems, filtered by the CIP, and offered in easy-to-digest ways on several cockpit displays, enabling the pilot to remain on top of complicated situations. The Raptor&#8217;s software is composed of over 1.7 million lines of code, most of which concerns processing data from the radar. The radar has an estimated range of 125-150 miles, though planned upgrades will allow a range of 250 miles or more in narrow beams*
airlines: The AN/ALR-94 is a passive receiver system capable of detecting the radar signals in the environment.

so even if both are stealthy if one on one combat happens between the two F22 can detect J20 passively 220 miles away becoz
f22 passive detection capabilty(ESM) provided J20 turns on it aesa radar for detection of F22


*remember everyone apart from ALR 94 ,only rafale's spectra has this capabilty *(CHEERS)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> In other words, what you did would *IMMEDIATELY* disqualify from any peer review process -- a baseless guess.



You can talk trash all you want. You still believe that cylinders are stealthy.

I let the readers decide. My best estimate is that a F-22 pilot will have a 3 to 5 second advantage over a J-20 pilot in launching its missile first.

You can go ahead and claim the J-20's little canard gap yields a 100% stealth penalty if you want. I don't really care about your anti-China views.

----------

Dr. Somnath, I've already posted a ground-based EADS 3D radar and made the calculation that a F-22 is detectable only 20 miles away. If you want to claim a J-20 stealth fighter (widely acknowledged as a close peer of the F-22) is detectable over 200 miles away, I couldn't care less. You can make all the silly claims you want. My goal is to make the most reasonable estimates and let the readers decide.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> Dr. Somnath, I've already posted a ground-based EADS 3D radar and made the calculation that a F-22 is detectable only 20 miles away. If you want to claim a J-20 stealth fighter (widely acknowledged as a close peer of the F-22) is detectable *over 200 miles away,* I couldn't care less. You can make all the silly claims you want. My goal is to make the most reasonable estimates and let the readers decide.


plz read the bold part for that condition 
so even if both are stealthy if one on one combat happens between the two F22 can detect J20 passively 220 miles away becoz
f22 passive detection capabilty(ESM) *provided J20 turns on it aesa radar for detection of F22*


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You can talk trash all you want. You still believe that cylinders are stealthy.


Nowhere did I say so. You have a reading comprehension problem.



Martian2 said:


> I let the readers decide.


 You mean at this point *ALL* the Chinese boys will start 'thanking' you for those 'useful' posts? Even though they have been found to be dubious at best? Yup, to you, that is about the extent of the word 'readers'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

From my February 5, 2011 post:

*Ground-based radar can detect F-22/J-20 at 13.5 km, Rafale at 135 km, T-50 at 178 km*

The EADS mobile ground-based "3D Radar System DR 174" can detect a F-22/J-20 at approximately 13.5 km, French Rafale at 135 km, and a Russian T-50 at 178 km.

The DR 174 only has 24 kilowatts of peak power and it operates in the L-band. Obviously, a permanent ground-based radar or AWACS will have more peak power, more radar bands (e.g. X-band, S-band, L-band, etc.), more powerful computers, better discriminating software, better-trained personnel, etc.

My calculations:

According to GlobalSecurity (see one of my earlier posts), the French Rafale has a RCS of 1 m2. We know that "the detection range [of the DR 174] against tactical aircrafts ("Swerling 1- targets) with a radar cross section (RCS) of 1 m² is 135 km at a probability of detection of 90%."

We know that the "reflected power density at the radar receiver" is proportional to the fourth-root of the distance from the emitting radar or RCS (see Radar cross-section - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

According to GlobalSecurity, the F-22 (and my estimate of J-20's front-profile) has a RCS of 0.0001. The F-22's/J-20's RCS is 10,000 times smaller than the French Rafale. The fourth-root of 10,000 is 10. Therefore, the detection range of the F-22/J-20 in comparison to the French Rafale is 13.5 km (e.g. 135 km/factor of 10 from much smaller RCS = 13.5 km).

Since the Russian T-50, with exposed engine compressor blades, has a RCS greater than the French Rafale's 1 m2, I have estimated the Russian T-50 RCS to be about 3 m2. The fourth-root of 3 is 1.316. Therefore, the detection range of the Russian T-50 in comparison to the French Rafale is 178 km (e.g. 135 km * factor of 1.316 from larger RCS = 178 km).

----------

Radar Basics

3D Radar System DR 174





Bild 1: © EADS

The 3D radar system DR 174 is a highly mobile short/mid range surveillance radar operating in the L-Band. The radar system can be used as coastal radar for sea and air surveillance or as gap fillers for areas longer radars do not cover. The system can be integrated into existing defence networks, anti-aircraft (AA) weapon systems and other networks. It can also serve as a stand alone control center due the fully integrated state of the art working positions. A wide range of ECCM features and excellent clutter suppression ensure the detection of small targets even in a very hostile environment.

This 3D radar system operates in L-Band using a stacked beam active planar antenna. It features up to 8 elevation beams on receive. The system is designed in fully solid state technology.

The DR 174 Doppler radar features

* High unambiguous radial velocity due to appropriate pulse repetition frequency (PRF) stagger
* Frequency diversity
* High doppler resolution
* Detecting of tangential flying targets due to self learning ground clutter map

*The detection range against tactical aircrafts (Swerling 1- targets) with a radar cross section (RCS) of 1 m² is 135 km at a probability of detection of 90%.* The detection range against tactical ballistic missiles with a radar cross section (RCS) of 0.1 m² is 75 km at the same conditions.

*Waveform selection*

The following statements highlight the capabilities of the DR 174 waveform selection:

* Different waveforms for various radar modes
* Non-linear frequency modulation
* Burst-to-Burst frequency change
* Burst-to-Burst pulse repetition frequency change
* Dual pulse for near range covering
* High range resolution waveforms

*ECCM features*

The electronic counter counter measures used by the DR 174 are:

* Frequency change from Burst-to-Burst
* Moving target detection processing with Doppler selective constant false alarm rate
* Low antenna sidelobes in azimuth and elevation
* Sidelobe blanking (SLB) (optional)
* Large receive dynamic range
* Selectable beam-processing
* Automatic jamming avoidance circuit (AJAC)

*Clutter rejection*

Excellent clutter suppression and detection of small targets in any type of clutter (ground- and rainclutter, seaclutter, chaff and angles) by:

* Very stable solid state transmitter
* Frequency agile synthesizer
* Moving target detection Doppler processing in frequency domain (sub clutter visibility)
* Ordered statistic constant false alarm rate in time domain
* High resolution clutter map
* Decreasing the size of resolution cell of radar (pulse compression with time sidelobes <45 dB)
* Matched detection threshold for each Doppler channel
* Tilting the antenna to higher elevation angles

*ARM protection*

Protecting against Anti Radar Missiles is supported by:

* LPT due to low transmitter peak power
* Transmitter silent sectors
* Very low antenna sidelobes
* Inherent system protection due to radar operating frequency band (L-Band)

The system consists of four major components the sensor (antenna group consisting of primary ans secondary radar), the Signal Processing (SiP) shelter, the Operations and Missions Control (OMC) shelter and the generator for reliable power supply in mobile deployment.

Also available is the DR 184, the long range version (400 km) of DR 174.





_Figure 2: The concept of the DR 174 sensor_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> From my February 5, 2011 post:
> 
> *Ground-based radar can detect F-22/J-20 at 13.5 km, Rafale at 135 km, T-50 at 178 km*
> 
> The EADS mobile ground-based "3D Radar System DR 174" can detect a F-22/J-20 at approximately 13.5 km, French Rafale at 135 km, and a Russian T-50 at 178 km.
> 
> The DR 174 only has 24 kilowatts of peak power and it operates in the L-band. Obviously, a permanent ground-based radar or AWACS will have more peak power, more radar bands (e.g. X-band, S-band, L-band, etc.), more powerful computers, better discriminating software, better-trained personnel, etc.
> 
> *My calculations:*


I doubt that you understand even 1/10th was what said in these sources. If anyone who is truly guilty of copy/paste things in trying to put on a facade of knowledge, it is *YOU*.


----------



## DrSomnath999

hey martian u didnt understand the meaning & advantage of passive detection .PLZ read this article u would learn something 
about passive detection





> *THE NEXT GENERATION*
> The fourth Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, aircraft 4004. Is due to make its first flight from Marietta. GA, in late July. As the first F-22 to carry offensive avionics. Its task is to demonstrate that a stealthy aircraft can be a fighter. Under a deal struck with Congress last year, the F-22 has to prove this key technology by the end of this year if the next ten aircraft are to be authorized.
> 
> The F-22 represents a radical departure from the traditional approach to EW. Passive systems, once considered to be defensive in nature, are now critical to detecting, tracking and even attacking the target. The active radar, while still a primary sensor, is used sparingly for specific tasks. Active jamming in the traditional sense has disappeared. The F-22 approach is echoed to some extent in most of today's advanced fighter programs, including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter typhoon and Saab JAS Gripen. It is also fundamental to the future of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
> 
> The F-22's EW philosophy is rooted in some of the earliest work on stealth. As the US Air Force (USAF) defined requirements and operational doctrine for the F-117 stealth strike aircraft and B-2 bomber, in 1980-81, A "Red Team" headed by Dr. Paul Kaminski was charged with looking for weaknesses and vulnerabilities in stealth technology. One of the Red Team's Most important conclusions was that a stealth aircraft could not survive by low radar cross-section (RCS) alone, but by stealth and tactics.
> 
> In the case of the F-117 the Red Team's recommendation resulted in the development of one of the first automated mission-planning systems, but this left the aircraft dependent on a pre-programmed flight plan. The B-2 was designed to feature a sophisticated defensive management system (DMS) which would allow the crew to respond to threat radars not anticipated by the mission plan. The initial DMS was abandoned in the late 1980s. Its successor is the APR-50, developed by IBM Federal Systems (later acquired by Loral and now part of Lockheed Martin).
> The USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter project, which led to the F-22, presented greater challenges. In the air-to-air regime, the primary threats are airborne and move rapidly, making identification, location and tracking more complex. The F-22's sustained speed also shortens engagement timelines by as much as 40 percent.
> At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.
> The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.
> 
> The data from the APG-77, ALR-94 and the datalinks are correlated according to their azimuth, elevation and range. Data is combined into a track file, and the final target picture is obtained by choosing the read-out from the most accurate sensor. For example, the passive system may provide the best azimuth data, while the radar produces the most accurate range.
> 
> CIP software controls the APG-77 according to emission-control principles. The radar's signals are managed in intensity, duration and space to maintain the pilot's situational awareness while minimizing the chance that its signals will be intercepted. More distant targets get less radar attention; as they get closer to the F-22, they will be identified and prioritized; and when they are close enough to be engaged or avoided, they are continuously tracked.
> 
> Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others.
> The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."
> 
> The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector.
> 
> A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it "a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don't track targets that are too far away to be a threat."
> 
> The system also automatically increases revisit rates according to the threat posed by the targets. Another technique is "closed-loop tracking," in which the radar constantly adjusts the power and number of pulses to retain a lock on its target while using the smallest possible amount of energy.
> 
> High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM.
> 
> Of course, there are some targets that do not emit signals. "We prefer it that way, because he's dumb," remarked one Boeing engineer. In this case, the F-22 can use its LPI features to track the target -- which is not a threat unless another radar is tracking the F-22 and datalinking information to the "quiet" aircraft -- and can, if necessary, identify it.
> 
> NCTR is a highly classified area. One of the few known techniques is jet-engine modulation, which involves analyzing the raw radar return for the characteristic beat produced by a combination of the radar-pulse frequency and the rotating blades of the engine. This technique is already used on operational radars (including the APG-70 in the F-15) but is vulnerable to countermeasures and dependent on target aspect.
> 
> Other NCTR techniques involve very precise range measurements. If the target's orientation is known, the distribution of the signature over very small range bins can yield a range profile which is characteristic of a certain aircraft type. It is possible that the F-22, which has a great deal of onboard processing power -- as well as a flexible, frequency-agile radar -- is designed to use an NCTR technique of this kind.
> 
> Unlike the Eurofighter Typhoon , the F-22 does not have an electro-optical (EO) system for target identification. F-22 program managers have said consistently that they believe that the F-22 pilot will be able to identify any target -- emitting or not -- beyond visual range (BVR). "We are confident that we can demonstrate to our leadership that we know what's out there, and that we will operate with rules of engagement that reflect that fact," USAF program manager Gen Mike Mushala remarked at a conference in 1997.
> 
> The ALR-94 drives the F-22's defensive displays. The system determines the bearing, range and type of the threat, and then computes the distance at which the enemy radar can detect the F-22. The pilot is the decision-maker and is provided with timely, graphic information to guide defensive maneuvers. On the main defense display, usually shown on the left-hand screen in the cockpit, threat surface-to-air missile (SAM) and airborne early warning (AEW) radars are surrounded by circles that show their computed effective range. On the right-hand attack display, fighter radars are shown as blue beams extending towards the F-22's
> position.
> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268-start-0.html


----------



## Martian2

From fifty miles away, the subtended angle of the LITTLE canard gap approaches zero. That's why the stealth penalty should be only about 2% from about 20 miles away.

The subtending of an angle is easy to understand. The Moon subtends a distance of roughly your thumb, when held at arms distance. The Sun is a gazillion times larger than the Moon and yet, it appears the same size in the sky. The subtended angle of an object is a function of size AND distance.

To use the principle of subtending angle, let's say the J-20 canard gap is a few inches if you stand close to it. Let's just say 3 inches. 3 inches from fifty miles away subtends a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a degree. It's microscopic.

I stand by my estimate that a little canard gap will yield a stealth penalty in the 2 to 3% range. The angle it subtends is simply too small. The extremely small subtended angle can be expressed as a percentage of the entire subtended angle of the J-20 aircraft to yield the conclusion of a 2% effect.

I just don't feel like spending 30 minutes to calculate a precise number. It wouldn't change the minds of the rabid anti-China crowd.

----------

Dr. Somnath, you are mixing apples and oranges in this discussion. Why don't you do a reverse post and claim the J-20 can passively detect a F-22 from over 200 miles away? Of course, a modern radar can passively detect an emitting radar from 200 miles away. Everyone knows that. What is your point?

I'm trying to make the point that there are indeed minor flaws present on the J-20 Mighty Dragon. There is indeed a slight advantage for a F-22 pilot. I have shown that the advantage is roughly 3 to 5 seconds from twenty miles away, which I believe is operationally useless. Readers are free to make their own independent judgment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> ----------
> 
> Dr. Somnath, you are mixing apples and oranges in this discussion. _*Why don't you do a reverse post and claim the J-20 can passively detect a F-22 from over 200 miles away? Of course, a modern radar can passively detect an emitting radar from 200 miles away. Everyone knows that. What is your point?*_
> 
> .


oh boy u are trully a fanbouy ,no it cant as F22 wont turn it's radar as it would depend upon passive detection for detection of 
J20 so how can j20 aesa radr detect f22 if it doesnt turn on it's radar ,


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> From fifty miles away, the subtended angle of the LITTLE canard gap approaches zero. That's why the stealth penalty should be only about 2% from about 20 miles away.
> 
> The subtending of an angle is easy to understand. The Moon subtends a distance of roughly your thumb, when held at arms distance. The Sun is a gazillion times larger than the Moon and yet, it appears the same size in the sky. The subtended angle of an object is a function of size AND distance.
> 
> To use the principle of subtending angle, let's say the J-20 canard gap is a few inches if you stand close to it. Let's just say 3 inches. 3 inches from fifty miles away subtends a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a degree. It's microscopic.
> 
> I stand by my estimate that a little canard gap will yield a stealth penalty in the 2 to 3% range. The angle it subtends is simply too small. The extremely small subtended angle can be expressed as a percentage of the entire subtended angle of the J-20 aircraft to yield the conclusion of a 2% effect.
> 
> I just don't feel like spending 30 minutes to calculate a precise number. It wouldn't change the minds of the rabid anti-China crowd.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Dr. Somnath, you are mixing apples and oranges in this discussion. Why don't you do a reverse post and claim the J-20 can passively detect a F-22 from over 200 miles away? Of course, a modern radar can passively detect an emitting radar from 200 miles away. Everyone knows that. What is your point?
> 
> I'm trying to make the point that there are indeed minor flaws present on the J-20 Mighty Dragon. There is indeed a slight advantage for a F-22 pilot. I have shown that the advantage is roughly 3 to 5 seconds from twenty miles away, which I believe is operationally useless. Readers are free to make their own independent judgment.


The subtending argument is misleading here.







If we raise the detection threshold to cover most of the airliner's smaller RCS contributors to expose only the major ones, this is how we should compare these various 'stealth' aircrafts. If one aircraft has a structure or combination of structures that raised it above the detection threshold, which is the clutter rejection threshold, it will be detected, tracked, and targeted while the other will be discarded as part of 'clutter'. It does not matter if the disadvantage (or difference) is less than 10pct. If it is above the clutter rejection threshold, it will be focused upon.


----------



## SQ8

DrSomnath999 said:


> well why should we compare a test protype with j20 ,it has no relevance .as Yf22 had many design changes which evolved into
> F22 Am i right ???



I fail to see why it has no relevance.. what if the J-20 is also a test prototype which is supposed to evolve into something else?


----------



## Firemaster

gambit said:


> The subtending argument is misleading here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we raise the detection threshold to cover most of the airliner's smaller RCS contributors to expose only the major ones, this is how we should compare these various 'stealth' aircrafts. If one aircraft has a structure or combination of structures that raised it above the detection threshold, which is the clutter rejection threshold, it will be detected, tracked, and targeted while the other will be discarded as part of 'clutter'. It does not matter if the disadvantage (or difference) is less than 10pct. If it is above the clutter rejection threshold, it will be focused upon.


@ Gambit 
Is this image from Skolnik's work?

And shall u please You explain figure2(b)??


----------



## DrSomnath999

Santro said:


> I fail to see why it has no relevance.. what if the J-20 is also a test prototype which is supposed to evolve into something else?


then why are we wasting time here by debating tell me ? then we should wait for final production protype  when martian can 
find out loopholes in pakfa then we can also say the samething as u are saying ,NOw tell me?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

DrSomnath999 said:


> then why are we wasting time here by debating tell me ? then we should wait for final production protype  when martian can
> find out loopholes in pakfa then we can also say the samething as u are saying ,NOw tell me?




First.. The thread is on the J-20.. so ANYONE can discuss the J-20.
Second.. Pak-Fa CAN be compared to the J-20 as a test aircraft ..
Third.. That is a very lame attempt at being cynical..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Firemaster said:


> @ Gambit
> Is this image from Skolnik's work?


Nope.



Firemaster said:


> And shall u please You explain figure2(b)??


It is a graphical illustration of the various voltage spikes, as how all contributors really are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Santro said:


> First.. The thread is on the J-20.. so ANYONE can discuss the J-20.


so what am i discussing now LCA


Santro said:


> Second.. Pak-Fa CAN be compared to the J-20 as a test aircraft ..


so f22 cannot be compared as it is a productioon aircraft & we have to compare only a protype aircaft of yf 23 as it is handicapped
stealth aircraft & Chinese can compare J20 as F22 peer well that's precious


Santro said:


> Third.. That is a very lame attempt at being cynical..


well i can understand that very well why r u saying this . i dont want to elaborate it


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Santro said:


> First.. The thread is on the J-20.. so ANYONE can discuss the J-20.
> Second.. Pak-Fa CAN be compared to the J-20 as a test aircraft ..
> Third.. That is a very lame attempt at being cynical..



J-20 has undergone 62 flight tests in the past year. PAK-FA underwent 3.

DrSomanth999 found many "irregularities" in the J-20 some of which are also present in the F-22.

It is absolutely insane or stupid to think that the much larger gap between fuselage and intakes on the F-22 has zero contribution to RCS while the gap between canards and fuselage on the J-20 puts it above clutter rejection threshold without actual tests, which no one has.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

DrSomnath999 said:


> so what am i discussing now LCA
> 
> so f22 cannot be compared as it is a productioon aircraft & we have to compare only a protype aircaft of yf 23 as it is handicapped
> stealth aircraft & Chinese can compare J20 as F22 peer well that's precious
> 
> well i can understand that very well why r u saying this . i dont want to elaborate it



well.. so far your last two posts have involved cheapshots so I am wondering if there is any worth coming down to your level.
Your assumptions on what is allowed or not are all based on your own issues.
Find me one post where I said its Halal or Haram?
Again.. sad to see that you too have inclinations to join the lot which makes low quality posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Note the gap between fuselage and intakes.

Fortunately it's American. American planes, no matter their flaws, are always faster, stealthier, and far superior to the planes of others. Doesn't need technical explanation. Team USA **** yeah.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> DrSomanth999 found many "irregularities" in the J-20 some of which are also present in the F-22.
> 
> It is absolutely insane or stupid to think that the much larger gap between fuselage and intakes on the F-22 has zero contribution to RCS while the gap between canards and fuselage on the J-20 puts it above clutter rejection threshold *without actual tests*, which no one has.


Then it is equally insane to make baseless assumptions as to the J-20's low radar observability if it is comparable to the F-22 within any statistical significance. In that case, saying the J-20's RCS is less than 5% to the F-22 is pretty insane.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> The subtending argument is misleading here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we raise the detection threshold to cover most of the airliner's smaller RCS contributors to expose only the major ones, this is how we should compare these various 'stealth' aircrafts. If one aircraft has a structure or combination of structures that raised it above the detection threshold, which is the clutter rejection threshold, it will be detected, tracked, and targeted while the other will be discarded as part of 'clutter'. It does not matter if the disadvantage (or difference) is less than 10pct. If it is above the clutter rejection threshold, it will be focused upon.



Man here we go again. 

Martian2 is slipping more and more into madness. First came the photo of the planform alignment of the J-20 which is I suspect much worse than that of the T-50, then came the arguments about the canards, then instead of silencing his mouth after
been exposed for double standards on the T-50 IRST sensor , he carried on. 

The final nail on the coffin is his ability to guest-imate percentages, 2% this , 10% that... man, the collective pride and dignity of all my respected lecturers and professors is going down the drain by me reading what this guy writes. 

He gets pleasure from writing "mighty dragon" over and over again, ... I suggest you should write fighting falcon and super hornet and raptor every time you write. 
also fulcrum and flanker B etc etc etc ... man ....

i can say one thing for sure, science has taken quite a hit on this thread despite some brave efforts by some to maintain some reasonable scientific level ... 

where does one begin with this one?

Martian have you ever been involved with the tech you so easily talk about ? 

I will give you an example, a 50 year old design, the venerable MiG-21 (fishbed i think) since you like the nicknames so much, is almost impossible to detect head on from most modern day fighters, even F-16s blk 52+ cannot detect it head on at about 100km or approx 60miles. Do you know what kind of a pain in the butt that is ? 

I dare say you have never looked down a radar screen in a fighter plane trying to test the radar for your country's particular terrain and see how it behaves in various modes and what kind of performance it provides in different scenarios. 

to you a radar sees all and stealth absorbs all !!! 

I got news buddy ... it ain't so !


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> The final nail on the coffin is his ability to guest-imate percentages, 2% this , 10% that... man, the collective pride and dignity of all my respected lecturers and professors is going down the drain by me reading what this guy writes.


But do not forget, his video has over 80k views while we who tried to inject a little bit is scientific integrity into the discussion have no videos therefore our challenges to his nonsense are based upon racism and jealousy.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> But do not forget, his video has over 80k views while we who tried to inject a little bit is scientific integrity into the discussion have no videos therefore our challenges to his nonsense are based upon racism and jealousy.



Alright folks.. Think thats enough there.
Those who do KNOW the subjects(Sat in Wave theory class jacked up on caffeine) know what is right and what is wrong.
Those who DONT KNOW the subjects will continue to accept whatever suits their fancy...period.
Its best to make the point.. and move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> But do not forget, his video has over 80k views while we who tried to inject a little bit is scientific integrity into the discussion have no videos therefore our challenges to his nonsense are based upon racism and* jealousy*.



i am jealous indeed.... LM engineers are also thankful because they finally acknowledged all the things they couldn't figure out all this time with the F-35 if only he had gotten his hands on these issues earlier the USAF would now have finished with this monumental project.


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> oh boy u are trully a fanbouy ,no it cant as F22 wont turn it's radar as it would depend upon passive detection for detection of
> J20 so how can j20 aesa radr detect f22 if it doesnt turn on it's radar ,



Use KJ-2000 AWACS AESA radar to search for F-22s.






KJ-2000 AWACS (i.e. Airborne Warning and Control System)

----------

Calculating the subtended surface of 3 inches by 1 foot from 50 miles away.

The surface of a sphere is 4*pi*R^2.

The surface of a sphere with a fifty mile radius is 4*3.14*(50 miles * 5,280 feet per mile)^2

The surface is therefore 875,381,760,000 square feet.

The radar covers a semi-circle. Therefore the coverage area is 437,690,880,000 square feet.

The assumed little canard gap is 3 inches by say 1 foot. The square footage is 0.25 foot x 1 foot = 0.25 square foot.

The radar will be looking at an additional reflection (after RAM absorption) of 0.25 square foot in a sphere with surface area of 437,690,880,000 square feet.

The additional ratio (after discounting 99.99% or so RAM absorption) is 0.25 square foot / 437,690,880,000 square feet = 0.0000000000005712 return with respect to the power of the emitted radar upon impact

However, the reflected radar signal must now head back to the radar receiver. That's another 50 miles journey back.

Hence, the surface of a half sphere is again 437,690,880,000 square feet.

The reflected signal is 0.0000000000005712.

Let's say the radar receiver has a 3 feet by 3 feet area. This means the radar receiver is 9 square feet in size.

The formula for reception is size of reflected signal * proportion of returned energy.

The signal received by the radar receiver is 0.0000000000005712 * (9 square feet / 437,690,880,000 square feet) = 0.0000000000005712 * 0.00000000002056 = 0.000000000000000000000011745 (* original radar emitting power)

*I don't think a reflected signal off a canard gap (after 99.99% RAM absorption, which I did not subtract from the calculated figure because I want to illustrate the effect of distance in mitigating the signal) with a ratio of 0.000000000000000000000011745 to the original power emission is detectable.

However, you guys can feel free to claim otherwise. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person doing the calculations. You guys just keep harping there is a little canard gap. So what? It's trivial.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

amalakas said:


> Man here we go again.
> 
> Martian2 is slipping more and more into madness. First came the photo of the planform alignment of the J-20 which is I suspect much worse than that of the T-50, then came the arguments about the canards, then instead of silencing his mouth after
> been exposed for double standards on the T-50 IRST sensor , he carried on.
> 
> The final nail on the coffin is his ability to guest-imate percentages, 2% this , 10% that... man, the collective pride and dignity of all my respected lecturers and professors is going down the drain by me reading what this guy writes.
> 
> He gets pleasure from writing "mighty dragon" over and over again, ... I suggest you should write fighting falcon and super hornet and raptor every time you write.
> also fulcrum and flanker B etc etc etc ... man ....
> 
> i can say one thing for sure, science has taken quite a hit on this thread despite some brave efforts by some to maintain some reasonable scientific level ...
> 
> where does one begin with this one?
> 
> Martian have you ever been involved with the tech you so easily talk about ?
> 
> I will give you an example, a 50 year old design, the venerable MiG-21 (fishbed i think) since you like the nicknames so much, is almost impossible to detect head on from most modern day fighters, even F-16s blk 52+ cannot detect it head on at about 100km or approx 60miles. Do you know what kind of a pain in the butt that is ?
> 
> I dare say you have never looked down a radar screen in a fighter plane trying to test the radar for your country's particular terrain and see how it behaves in various modes and what kind of performance it provides in different scenarios.
> 
> to you a radar sees all and stealth absorbs all !!!
> 
> I got news buddy ... it ain't so !



There is a hint to break F22 stealthy features. When F22 penetrate in your Country, Hack the F22 AN/APG-77 signals from ground. Same signals and deplete its instructions from CIP(Common Integrated Processor) of F22.. Now virus has penetrated and CIP instructions are alternated. Now we have control over F22 than the US airbase. Now, These alternated instructions will almost Malfuntion the F22. 
Same virus that iran has used to control the drone.
*Tomorrow is World of Hackers*


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Use KJ-2000 AWACS AESA radar to search for F-22s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KJ-2000 AWACS (i.e. Airborne Warning and Control System)
> 
> ----------
> 
> Calculating the subtended surface of 3 inches by 1 foot from 50 miles away.
> 
> The surface of a sphere is 4*pi*R^2.
> 
> The surface of a sphere with a fifty mile radius is 4*3.14*(50 miles * 5,280 feet per mile)^2
> 
> The surface is therefore 875,381,760,000 square feet.
> 
> The radar covers a semi-circle. Therefore the coverage area is 437,690,880,000 square feet.
> 
> The assumed little canard gap is 3 inches by say 1 foot. The square footage is 0.25 foot x 1 foot = 0.25 square foot.
> 
> The radar will be looking at an additional reflection (after RAM absorption) of 0.25 square foot in a sphere with surface area of 175,076,352 square feet.
> 
> The additional ratio (after discounting 99.99% or so RAM absorption) is 0.25 square foot / 175,076,352 square feet = 0.000000001428 return with respect to the power of the emitted radar upon impact
> 
> However, the reflected radar signal must now head back to the radar receiver. That's another 50 miles journey back.
> 
> Hence, the surface of a half sphere is again 175,076,352 square feet.
> 
> The reflected signal is 0.000000001428.
> 
> Let's say the radar receiver has a 3 feet by 3 feet area. This means the radar receiver is 9 square feet in size.
> 
> The formula for reception is emitted signal * size of reflected signal.
> 
> The signal received by the radar receiver is 0.000000001428 * (9 square feet / 175,076,352) = 0.000000001428 * 0.0000000514 = 0.0000000000000000734 (* original radar emitting power)
> 
> *I don't think a reflected signal off a canard gap (after 99.99% RAM absorption, which I did not subtract from the calculated figure because I want to illustrate the effect of distance in mitigating the signal) with a ratio of 0.0000000000000000734 to the original power emission is detectable.
> 
> However, you guys can feel free to claim otherwise. As far a I can tell, I'm the only person doing the calculations. You guys just keep harping there is a little canard gap. So what? It's trivial.*



So the chinese engineers used a super computer to calculate the DSI et al but you just pulled out a pocket calculator to enlighten us all? 

wow !


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> So the chinese engineers used a super computer to calculate the DSI et al but you just pulled out a pocket calculator to enlighten us all?
> 
> wow !


More like an abacus. That is how amazing he is.


----------



## Martian2

I have explained that the reflected signal from the little canard gap is trivial.

The exact return from the little canard gap is 0.000000000000000000000011745 * 0.00001 (approximate reduction from RAM coating) = *0.000000000000000000000000000011745 of original radar signal*.

*Now that I have completed the calculations, it should be obvious to everyone that the additional radar reflection is far less than 2%. It's negligible at 50 miles away.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I have explained that the reflected signal from the little canard gap is trivial.
> 
> The exact return from the little canard gap is 0.000000000000000000000011745 * 0.00001 (approximate reduction from RAM coating) = 0.000000000000000000000000000011745 of original radar signal.
> 
> Now that I have completed the calculations, it should be obvious to everyone that the additional radar reflection is far less than 2%. It's negligible at 50 miles away.


What you have done is nothing more than basic radar range equation which I used to do in my head when I was active duty over 20 yrs ago. The point here is what I pointed out in post 1247. For the J-20, the angles and gaps from the canards, the inlets, the wing leading edges, and everything else contributed to the overall RCS and this is something not even APA can do on their consumer grade *PERSONAL COMPUTERS*. Complex bodies can be broken down into individual components and run through these algorithms but not when these components are assembled into the original complex body. Why the hell do you think the designers uses supercomputers in the first place? Because the interactions between the diffracted signals from these discrete structures are extremely difficult to predict and model. But here you are using the consumer grade equivalence of abacus to tell us how 'stealthy' is the J-20. No wonder only the Chinese boys take you seriously.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> I have explained that the reflected signal from the little canard gap is trivial.
> 
> The exact return from the little canard gap is 0.000000000000000000000011745 * 0.00001 (approximate reduction from RAM coating) = *0.000000000000000000000000000011745 of original radar signal*.
> 
> *Now that I have completed the calculations, it should be obvious to everyone that the additional radar reflection is far less than 2%. It's negligible at 50 miles away.*



you don't even know the dimensions of the canard gap!


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

gambit said:


> Then it is equally insane to make baseless assumptions as to the J-20's low radar observability if it is comparable to the F-22 within any statistical significance. In that case, saying the J-20's RCS is less than 5% to the F-22 is pretty insane.


 
I am making no judgments here, just saying that the J-20's RCS and the F-22's should be comparable, due to similar wing shaping and many of the same design features. Perhaps the J-20 has a larger RCS. Perhaps not.

I'm just going to throw out a wild guess at an upper bound. The J-20's RCS is smaller than a clean EF-2000. Both planes have canards and 2 engines, but the J-20 at the very least has radar absorbing paint. Since the J-20 has internal weapons bays, putting weapons in it won't make its RCS bigger than the EF-2000. Do you dispute this?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

FairAndUnbiased said:


> I am making no judgments here, just saying that the J-20's RCS and the F-22's should be comparable, due to similar wing shaping and many of the same design features. Perhaps the J-20 has a larger RCS. Perhaps not.
> 
> I'm just going to throw out a wild guess at an upper bound. The J-20's RCS is smaller than a clean EF-2000. Both planes have canards and 2 engines, but the J-20 at the very least has* radar absorbing pain*t. Since the J-20 has internal weapons bays, putting weapons in it won't make its RCS bigger than the EF-2000. Do you dispute this?



it would be funny if it turns out to be just black paint


----------



## yyetttt

^ You'd have to be stupid. RAM doesn't shine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## houshanghai

New Angle of J20















a good pic display J20's weapon-bay






thx to Henri K

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

jellodragon said:


> ^ You'd have to be stupid. RAM doesn't shine.



you have heard of matte paints right?


----------



## marshall

Santro said:


> First.. The thread is on the J-20.. so ANYONE can discuss the J-20.
> Second.. Pak-Fa CAN be compared to the J-20 as a test aircraft ..
> Third.. That is a very lame attempt at being cynical..


Couldn't agree more with your Third observation. How many times have we heard that RCS cannot at the least be roughly estimated from observations to shut down a losing argument? LOL That's the whole point of these speculations and debates, not to troll and pursue agendas.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

amalakas said:


> it would be funny if it turns out to be just black paint


the CAC guy says it is radar absorbing paint, do you have any problem with that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> I am making no judgments here, just saying that the J-20's RCS and the F-22's should be comparable, due to similar wing shaping and many of the same design features. *Perhaps the J-20 has a larger RCS. Perhaps not.
> *


This is what I have been trying to say all this time: Wait.

The J-20 is too early. If the aircraft turned out to be as 'stealthy' as the F-22 within a couple of percentage points, I have no problems calling it an F-22 equivalent. People should realize that the reason why the aviation world give US the latitude they did with the F-22 is because we have a record: F-117 and B-2.

China has no such record. Not even close. So if the aviation world, professional and lay, are skeptical of any claim by any fanboy, we have good cause to do so: No record.



FairAndUnbiased said:


> I'm just going to throw out a wild guess at an upper bound. *The J-20's RCS is smaller than a clean EF-2000.* Both planes have canards and 2 engines, but the J-20 at the very least has radar absorbing paint. Since the J-20 has internal weapons bays, putting weapons in it won't make its RCS bigger than the EF-2000. Do you dispute this?


Upon what foundation did you make that guess?


----------



## Martian2

J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.

The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

"*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*






_Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi)._





Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative*, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.

*While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and &#34013;&#32982; for the picture.]


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.


Flooding the discussion with debunked crap is not going to get you anywhere...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-21.html#post1929505
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-23.html#post1934472
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-24.html#post1937502
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-26.html#post1942400
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-27.html#post1945087

Things must be pretty dead over at your new playground.


----------



## amalakas

rcrmj said:


> the CAC guy says it is radar absorbing paint, do you have any problem with that?



Yes I do, since you put it this way, for all you know I could be a CAC guy and he may be full of BS .. how do you know . 

the internet is full of circumstantial evidence of things....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Flooding the discussion with debunked crap is not going to get you anywhere...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-21.html#post1929505
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-23.html#post1934472
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-24.html#post1937502
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-26.html#post1942400
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-27.html#post1945087
> 
> Things must be pretty dead over at your new playground.



I would appreciate it if you would stop trash talking. You have made over ten posts in the last couple of days. I'm just trying to get a few posts to inform readers.

Why don't you go start your own anti-China J-20 thread? If not, I ask the moderators for permission to start my own J-20 Frequently Asked Questions thread that would specifically exclude Gambit, PtldM3, and Amalakas. I'm tired of these trolls.

Thank you for considering my request. I have a lot more calculations and diagrams to post, but it can't be done with the constant trash-talk that accompanies one of my posts.

The alternative is that I will stop posting in this thread soon and all of you can wait years until Gambit's "it's too soon to tell" approach yields absolutely zero analysis.

My approach is to provide readers with the best approximations possible. Whether you agree with Australia Air Power's nine radar frequency band simulation or not, I believe readers have the right to be made aware of the information and decide for themselves.

*COMPLAINT*: *Gambit is flooding this thread with his trash talk and repetitive posts. Post #1278 is exactly identical to his post #1223 twelve hours ago at 10:33 AM TODAY!*

That looks like trolling to me. Why is he making the exact same point within twelve hours? Also, look at the mountain of his posts in the last twelve hours. *Gambit has made 20 posts in the last 24 hours in this thread! I just finished counting. He just mostly keeps trash talking without offering new insights. I can't get a word in here!*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I would appreciate it if you would stop trash talking. You have made over ten posts in the last couple of days. *I'm just trying to get a few posts to inform readers.* Why don't you go start your own anti-China J-20 thread? If not, I ask the moderators for permission to start my own J-20 Frequently Asked Questions thread that would specifically exclude Gambit, PtldM3, and Amalakas. I'm tired of these trolls.


So am I. What are you afraid of? Reality?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> My approach is to provide readers with the best approximation possible. Whether you agree with Australia Air Power's nine radar frequency band simulation or not, I believe readers have the right to be made aware of the information and decide for themselves.


And my approach is to provide the readers with counterpoints, and using APA's own weaknesses to boot.



Martian2 said:


> The alternative is that I will stop posting in this thread soon and all of you can wait years until Gambit's "it's too soon to tell" approach yields absolutely zero analysis.


You made that threat before and retreated to your new playground. It must be pretty dead with only the racist threads being active and turned the place into a Chinese version of stormfront so you returned here.



Martian2 said:


> *COMPLAINT*: Gambit is flooding this thread with his trash talk and repetitive posts. Post #1278 is exactly identical to his post #1233 twelve hours ago. That looks like trolling to me. Why is he making the exact same point within twelve hours. Also, look at the mountain of his posts in the last twelve hours. He just mostly keeps trash talking without offering new insights. I can't get a word in here!


And your reposting of APA's debunked crap is what...???


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> Yes I do, since you put it this way, for all you know I could be a CAC guy and he may be full of BS .. how do you know .
> 
> the internet is full of circumstantial evidence of things....


Most of those predictions from so called CAC big wigs are BSers. I've lost count at the number of failed predictions announced as breaking news from the same small handful of so-called China nationalists. The best sources are almost always from regular military analysts from the general public who are simply able to put 2 and 2 together logically.


----------



## Pfpilot

@Gambit

How come the Russians and Chinese, as well as the f-35 have no stealthy nozzles for a lack of a better term? Shouldn't the exposed nozzles be a big detriment to any low observability aircraft? It doesn't make sense to my uninformed mind to go through the trouble of building expensive aircraft for the sole purpose to go undetected and leave engine nozzle unattended...are there any positives to leaving them unmasked?


----------



## gambit

Pfpilot said:


> @Gambit
> 
> How come the Russians and Chinese, as well as the f-35 have no stealthy nozzles for a lack of a better term? Shouldn't the exposed nozzles be a big detriment to any low observability aircraft? It doesn't make sense to my uninformed mind to go through the trouble of building expensive aircraft for the sole purpose to go undetected and leave engine nozzle unattended...are there any positives to leaving them unmasked?


Try these...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-71.html#post2392632
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111258

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Pfpilot said:


> @Gambit
> 
> How come the Russians and Chinese, as well as the f-35 have no stealthy nozzles for a lack of a better term? Shouldn't the exposed nozzles be a big detriment to any low observability aircraft? It doesn't make sense to my uninformed mind to go through the trouble of building expensive aircraft for the sole purpose to go undetected and leave engine nozzle unattended...are there any positives to leaving them unmasked?


Even for the F-22, if the seeking radar is looking straight up his @$$, nothing than active cancellation can hide the engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

jellodragon said:


> Pooooooop!


Quick...!!! Some Chinese member 'Thank' him for this 'useful' post...


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> Why don't you go start your own anti-China J-20 thread? If not, I ask the moderators for permission to start my own J-20 Frequently Asked Questions thread that would specifically exclude Gambit, PtldM3, and Amalakas. I'm tired of these trolls.


In defense of PtldM3 and Amalakas, I do not agree that they are trolls and actually agree with the majority of what they say. 




Martian2 said:


> That looks like trolling to me. Why is he making the exact same point within twelve hours? Also, look at the mountain of his posts in the last twelve hours. He just mostly keeps trash talking without offering new insights. I can't get a word in here!


I'm sure everybody here realized a long time ago that Gambit has a chip on his shoulder and a major bone to pick with everything China related. Not long ago, he carried on in a debate with me on various subjects he couldn't definitively back up and all he did was repeat the same things over and over while repeatedly trying to derail the context of the original debate with red herrings and other semi-related nonsense. This carried on and on until our debate stretched into *over 20 PAGES per message*. 
What does that tell you???

Consider this along with the fact that this guy admitted to hanging out at STORMFRONT, stated 1 of the fundamental strategies of Stormfront, something that few people know of other than those who are more than curious browsers of Stormfront and who then went on to quote links from AMREN, a known white supremacist website similar to Stormfront as proof of some of his debates, on multiple occasions. To make this even more galling, the guy has the nerve to accuse the 1.4 billion Chinese of racism when individual Internet morons, who claim they are Chinese, say things that can be construed as prejudiced. I mean really, get a grip. This is a debate forum and as long as somebody isn't blatantly breaking the rules, which he is not, then he has every right to pursue his agenda just as you have the right to pursue yours.


----------



## rcrmj

amalakas said:


> Yes I do, since you put it this way, for all you know I could be a CAC guy and he may be full of BS .. how do you know .
> 
> the internet is full of circumstantial evidence of things....


first you have next to zero knowledge of Chinese language, second you have zero knowledge of of which sources we chinese get we consider it as reliable, thirdly Chinese anuual '&#31185;&#30740;&#34920;&#24432;&#22823;&#20250;' wont give out money and prize for nothing kid.

one lead egnieer were given a heavy prize for developing stealth coating, but so far no big prizes given out for turbofan engine (wws-15) yet, so thats why on all Chinese defense and aviation tech forums there are still big debates on ws-15 but no one doubts the coating. but ignorant and stereotyped people like you will always have those 'fake' moon landing conspiracies

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> I'm sure everybody here realized a long time ago that Gambit has a chip on his shoulder...


I give the chip only when it is earned. As for the rest, especially AMREN, it was to show everyone that racists recognize each other, regardless of skin color.


----------



## rcrmj

marshall said:


> Most of those predictions from so called CAC big wigs are BSers. I've lost count at the number of failed predictions announced as breaking news from the same small handful of so-called China nationalists. The best sources are almost always from regular military analysts from the general public who are simply able to put 2 and 2 together logically.


sources please, i mean reliable, not some maybe this and maby that.

what prediction we failed? CAC J-20? I remember people were laughing at 'fangoys' claim before 2011, and people were laughing CAC JF-17 like 10 years ago, and laughing at J-10 like 15 years ago, remember those so called regular 'military analysts' were laughing the loudest and at end the day all got heavy slaps in their face

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

rcrmj said:


> sources please, i mean reliable, not some maybe this and maby that.
> 
> what prediction we failed? CAC J-20? I remember people were laughing at 'fangoys' claim before 2011, and people were laughing CAC JF-17 like 10 years ago, and laughing at J-10 like 15 years ago, remember those so called regular 'military analysts' were laughing the loudest and at end the day all got heavy slaps in their face


Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...

* imminent J-16 1st flight _(announced 3 or 4 times all fake)_
* J-20 using WS-15 confirmed _(unverifiable)_
* J-20 using WS-10G confirmed _(unverifiable)_
* J-20 using WS-10A confirmed _(unverifiable)_ - but probable
* 052D under construction confirmed _(was actually hospital ship)_
* T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun _(widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)_

...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would *indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE* nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

gambit said:


> This is what I have been trying to say all this time: Wait.
> 
> The J-20 is too early. If the aircraft turned out to be as 'stealthy' as the F-22 within a couple of percentage points, I have no problems calling it an F-22 equivalent. People should realize that the reason why the aviation world give US the latitude they did with the F-22 is because we have a record: F-117 and B-2.
> 
> China has no such record. Not even close. So if the aviation world, professional and lay, are skeptical of any claim by any fanboy, we have good cause to do so: No record.
> 
> 
> Upon what foundation did you make that guess?



Here's why I say the upper bound RCS is clean EF-2000.

1. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 share many design traits. Of the ones that differ, they differ only as to reduce the RCS of that particular design trait, while seeming to not affect other parts.

2. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 have 2 engines and a delta canard configuration.

3. The EF-2000 has its intakes in a row at the bottom of the fuselage. The J-20 has side intakes. This is one major design difference. I cannot say one way or another that one would result in a larger RCS or whether the RCS difference is significant. However, I don't think you can either. The easiest way to say it is, they're going to be the same.

4. There is another major design difference: the J-20 has internal weapons bays, so its RCS will not change with or without weapons. Can't be said of EF-2000.

5. And the final part is, it at least has RAM paint on a frame that's similar enough to the EF-2000 to have it as a model.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

marshall said:


> Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...
> 
> * imminent J-16 1st flight _(announced 3 or 4 times all fake)_
> * J-20 using WS-15 confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10G confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10A confirmed _(unverifiable)_ - but probable
> * 052D under construction confirmed _(was actually hospital ship)_
> * T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun _(widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)_
> 
> ...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would *indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE* nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.



I don't know what to say except for the tunnels, I'm just going to make a simple analogy.

Would I build 50 garages for 3 cars?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> You are correct that there is an extremely small perpendicular surface from the J-20 DSI intake in relation to a radar emitter. Want me to say RAM-covered surface for the third time (see previous posts #1197 and #1200)?




Once again you are playing the two card. You are telling everyone here that because the J-20 has RAM it's humps or bumps (as you like to say) do not pose a problem; however, with regards to the F-35 or pak-fa you claim that both aircraft are 'unstealthy' because of their bumps and humps. There are many things wrong with your assertions but the two that really stand out is that you claim size as a measurment of 'stealth'--now ironically the J-20's bumps and humps are very large and there are numerious (4 wing pods, DSI, buldges under the canards and curved fuselage aft of the aircraft before the nozzles).

Moreover, your DSI argumant has little merit. Just because you say the DSI is stealth does not make it so. No matter how smooth you claim it to be, no matter how stealthy you claim it to be it is still a *convex* structure. It's no suprise that a convex structure has the strongest returnes from its center mass. The J-20's DSI is a convex structure therefor it has a point of center mass.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

ptldM3 said:


> Once again you are playing the two card. You are telling everyone here that because the J-20 has RAM it's humps or bumps (as you like to say) do not pose a problem; however, with regards to the F-35 or pak-fa you claim that both aircraft are 'unstealthy' because of their bumps and humps. There are many things wrong with your assertions but the two that really stand out is that you claim size as a measurment of 'stealth'--now ironically the J-20's bumps and humps are very large and there are numerious (4 wing pods, DSI, buldges under the canards and curved fuselage aft of the aircraft before the nozzles).
> 
> Moreover, your DSI argumant has little merit. Just because you say the DSI is stealth does not make it so. No matter how smooth you claim it to be, no matter how stealthy you claim it to be it is still a *convex* structure. It's no suprise that a convex structure has the strongest returnes from its center mass. The J-20's DSI is a convex structure therefor it has a point of center mass.



the DSI is also partially within the intake, so do you think it may be likely that it was designed to take the destructive interference of the intakes into account?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

FairAndUnbiased said:


> I don't know what to say except for the tunnels, I'm just going to make a simple analogy.
> 
> Would I build 50 garages for 3 cars?


You have to consider the strategy behind those tunnels because they are obviously to improve survivability. If China's strategy *BEFORE* these supposed THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels _(BS in my opinion)_ were constructed were to keep a few hundred nuclear missiles vulnerable and out in the open, why would they now keep THOUSANDS of them in much more survivable tunnels? It makes no sense unless you are trying to provide an incentive to maintain or increase the American military budget. Surprise surprise, the people promoting this ridiculous idea are American right-wing neocons and gullible China military enthusiasts. If China wanted to have THOUSANDS of nukes, they would have already had them BEFORE the creation of these tunnels. Note that I do not dispute these tunnels existence, I dispute their extent. The much more realistic, cheaper, survivable and simpler solution would be to deploy more strategic nuclear subs.


----------



## 帅的一匹

marshall said:


> Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...
> 
> * imminent J-16 1st flight _(announced 3 or 4 times all fake)_
> * J-20 using WS-15 confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10G confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10A confirmed _(unverifiable)_ - but probable
> * 052D under construction confirmed _(was actually hospital ship)_
> * T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun _(widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)_
> 
> ...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would *indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE* nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.


I've got to say you're a goofy clown. You try to coax us out where is the precise location of those tunnel by keeping provoking us, re you? You've never been to China , you're not qualified laughing at us due to your retarded head and ignorant. We started to build tunnle since last 1950's, and we successfully build train rail on frozen ground in Tibetan when no country could believe that.By the way, it is understandable why you think it hard to build tunnel by penetrating granite casue Marshall is not that geograghly big.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

marshall said:


> Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...
> 
> * imminent J-16 1st flight _(announced 3 or 4 times all fake)_
> * J-20 using WS-15 confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10G confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10A confirmed _(unverifiable)_ - but probable
> * 052D under construction confirmed _(was actually hospital ship)_
> * T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun _(widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)_
> 
> ...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would *indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE* nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.


 
read post 1291 you will get the idea why we like to laugh at your people's doubt of certain things, unverified doesnt make it BS, its just your ignorant pre-judgment. before 2011 CAC J-20 was also not 'verified'``we chinese know very well the CCP style of revealing sensitive datas, thats why we have the 'wall climbing parties' and whats why we know what is certain and what is speculation from 'insiders'

and if you take T99 with 155mm gun seriosuly then I really doubt your ability to diffrienciate what is nonsens and what is BS with stereotyps.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

marshall said:


> Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...
> 
> * imminent J-16 1st flight _(announced 3 or 4 times all fake)_
> * J-20 using WS-15 confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10G confirmed _(unverifiable)_
> * J-20 using WS-10A confirmed _(unverifiable)_ - but probable
> * 052D under construction confirmed _(was actually hospital ship)_
> * T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun _(widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)_
> 
> ...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would *indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE* nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.



When you are dealing with something that you don't have any idea, then it would be better for you to stay out of it.

Like Martian said before, if you have any complaint, then just create a new topic, and stop polluting environment here just like the three trolls we already have here.

If you have nothing else positive to contribute, then this thread is not welcome for you.


----------



## ptldM3

FairAndUnbiased said:


> the DSI is also partially within the intake, so do you think it may be likely that it was designed to take the destructive interference of the intakes into account?



I do not feel that the DSI is a major problem (or any problem at all). My only problem is With Martian's views. On one hand he accuses the F-35's and pak-fa's bumps and humps of being detrimental to stealth; however, he denies that the J-20 has the same issues by simply calling the J-20's bumps and humps stealthy. The DSI in question is a convex structure, it being oval or sleek does not change that fact, and the whole argument behind a sphere not being so called stealthy is because of its convex property.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

marshall said:


> You have to consider the strategy behind those tunnels because they are obviously to improve survivability. If China's strategy *BEFORE* these supposed THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels _(BS in my opinion)_ were constructed were to keep a few hundred nuclear missiles vulnerable and out in the open, why would they now keep THOUSANDS of them in much more survivable tunnels? It makes no sense unless you are trying to provide an incentive to maintain or increase the American military budget. Surprise surprise, the people promoting this ridiculous idea are American right-wing neocons and gullible China military enthusiasts. If China wanted to have THOUSANDS of nukes, they would have already had them BEFORE the creation of these tunnels. Note that I do not dispute these tunnels existence, I dispute their extent. The much more realistic, cheaper, survivable and simpler solution would be to deploy more strategic nuclear subs.



SLBMs are not the way to solve China's deterrent problems because it is not realistic, cheaper, survivable and simple. It is unrealistic, expensive, unsurvivable and complicated because the subs can't even leave the East China Sea without being tracked by the USN, and the maximum range of JL-2 is 8000 km, which cannot reach the US mainland.

A DF-31 road (or tunnel) mobile launcher can.

CCTV broadcasts talked about the tunnels a long time ago. Here's some photos from TV

http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_3942806_1.html

I'm just going to leave it at this. This is obviously top secret and no one knows where the tunnels actually are, their true extent, or whatever, just as no one knows how many nuclear warheads there are. All I know is, the US estimates of China's arsenal haven't changed for 20 years, so I'm going to take whatever the US government says with a supertanker full of salt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

FairAndUnbiased said:


> SLBMs are not the way to solve China's deterrent problems because it is not realistic, cheaper, survivable and simple. It is unrealistic, expensive, unsurvivable and complicated because the subs can't even leave the East China Sea without being tracked by the USN, and the maximum range of JL-2 is 8000 km, which cannot reach the US mainland.
> 
> A DF-31 road (or tunnel) mobile launcher can.
> 
> CCTV broadcasts talked about the tunnels a long time ago. Here's some photos from TV
> 
> http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_3942806_1.html
> 
> I'm just going to leave it at this. This is obviously top secret and no one knows where the tunnels actually are, their true extent, or whatever, just as no one knows how many nuclear warheads there are. All I know is, the US estimates of China's arsenal haven't changed for 20 years, so I'm going to take whatever the US government says with a supertanker full of salt.



The maximum range of JL-2A is 12000km, but we still do rely on the underground tunnel because it is a double insurance for our second strike capability.

BTW, this thread is about J-20, let's discuss the nuclear arsenal somewhere else.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

ptldM3 said:


> I do not feel that the DSI is a major problem (or any problem at all). My only problem is With Martian's views. On one hand he accuses the F-35's and pak-fa's bumps and humps of being detrimental to stealth; however, he denies that the J-20 has the same issues by simply calling the J-20's bumps and humps stealthy. The DSI in question is a convex structure, it being oval or sleek does not change that fact, and the whole argument behind a sphere not being so called stealthy is because of its convex property.


 
I'm just going to say this. The J-20 has been flight tested 62 times this year. That means this is a serious project. The PAK-FA has been flight tested 3 times I think. I'm not saying that the PAK-FA is bad, just that the priority seems to be lower.


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> the DSI is also partially within the intake, so do you think it may be likely that it was designed to take the destructive interference of the intakes into account?


What make you think that there is *ONLY* destructive interference? Chinese physics? News for you: Whenever a cavity or tunnel is present, the default fear when it comes to RCS control is constructive interference.


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> Here's why I say the upper bound RCS is clean EF-2000.
> 
> 1. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 share many design traits. Of the ones that differ, they differ only as to reduce the RCS of that particular design trait, while seeming to not affect other parts.
> 
> 2. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 have 2 engines and a delta canard configuration.
> 
> 3. The EF-2000 has its intakes in a row at the bottom of the fuselage. The J-20 has side intakes. This is one major design difference. I cannot say one way or another that one would result in a larger RCS or whether the RCS difference is significant. However, I don't think you can either. The easiest way to say it is, they're going to be the same.
> 
> 4. There is another major design difference: the J-20 has internal weapons bays, so its RCS will not change with or without weapons. Can't be said of EF-2000.
> 
> 5. And the final part is, it at least has RAM paint on a frame that's similar enough to the EF-2000 to have it as a model.


The Eurofighter was not designed with RCS control as high priority, especially with its single vertical stab. Credit to the Chinese to recognize that in order to reduce RCS, twin canted vertical stabs must be installed. Still, if the Eurofighter is the standard against which you or anyone else perceived to be a legitimate standard held, then either the F-22 has nothing to worry about or the lot of you take my advice and simply wait until more J-20 data is available.


----------



## 帅的一匹

?20?? ????ã_?_?
J-20 Year 2012 first flight video


----------



## marshall

FairAndUnbiased said:


> SLBMs are not the way to solve China's deterrent problems because it is not realistic, cheaper, survivable and simple. It is unrealistic, expensive, unsurvivable and complicated because the subs can't even leave the East China Sea without being tracked by the USN, and the maximum range of JL-2 is 8000 km, which cannot reach the US mainland.


I was speaking relatively to building a couple thousand miles of tunnels big enough to house mobile ICBM TELs. Besides, China's 094 subs are not as easy to track as you're making it out, but yes they're not stealthy enough. No matter the "actual" extent of China's tunnels, the US has enough ICBMs to saturate China and entomb the majority of these supposed underground nukes. Compared to the cost and reliability of building these tunnels, it would make much more sense to simply build a hell of alot more mobile ICBM TELs and have them hidden all over China, especially in the northeast. Once China's nuke sub tech reaches a more competitive technological state, then China could move the bulk of its 2nd strike deterrence there.




FairAndUnbiased said:


> A DF-31 road (or tunnel) mobile launcher can.
> 
> CCTV broadcasts talked about the tunnels a long time ago. Here's some photos from TV
> 
> http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_3942806_1.html
> 
> I'm just going to leave it at this. This is obviously top secret and no one knows where the tunnels actually are, their true extent, or whatever, just as no one knows how many nuclear warheads there are. All I know is, the US estimates of China's arsenal haven't changed for 20 years, so I'm going to take whatever the US government says with a supertanker full of salt.


Like I said earlier, I dispute the extent of these tunnels, NOT their existence. Their construction was begun in the 1950s but for tunnels designed to be large enough and deep enough to sustain possible nuclear strikes, these tunnels would need to be built within granite and many hundreds if not over 1000 feet underground. Those sorts of tunnels did not begin construction until the 1990s as stated by various sources. Building thousands of miles of these sorts or tunnels to this level of quality is *impossible* in the short amount of time claimed. We should gauge these reports with some judgment, especially when they are used by American neocons as justification to demonize China and excuses for yet more military funding.


----------



## ptldM3

FairAndUnbiased said:


> I'm just going to say this. The J-20 has been flight tested 62 times this year. That means this is a serious project. *The PAK-FA has been flight tested 3 times I think*. I'm not saying that the PAK-FA is bad, just that the priority seems to be lower.



Thats incorrect.


----------



## marshall

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> When you are dealing with something that you don't have any idea, then it would be better for you to stay out of it...
> 
> ...If you have nothing else positive to contribute, then this thread is not welcome for you.


Maybe that's your opinion because you are the source of alot of the examples of BS that I mentioned. LOL There is a difference between speculation and analysis and somebody like you claiming something as fact from so-called insider sources as you often do. I have yet to see official proof of the WS-10G turbofan installed on the J-20 prototype as you said months ago was a done deal. You also once claimed that a CAC source said the WS-15 might be installed on the J-20 next year, which is now THIS year. Let's see if that happens shall we? I also have yet to see the J-16 1st flight that you also claimed was a done deal by a CAC insider and would happen during that weekend. That's something you repeated again on a different occasion yet again, also BS yet again. I have no problem with speculation, what I don't like is outright BS and made up "facts" that are wishful thinking or perhaps purposeful deception. Aren't you also the guy who was talking about the T99KM like a year ago? Still no proof, nothing but Photoshops and yet this fantasy has made it into Wikipedia that some American right-wing think tanks use as their insider sources. LOL


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

marshall said:


> Maybe that's your opinion because you are the source of alot of the examples of BS that I mentioned. LOL There is a difference between speculation and analysis and somebody like you claiming something as fact from so-called insider sources as you often do. I have yet to see official proof of the WS-10G turbofan installed on the J-20 prototype as you said months ago was a done deal. You also once claimed that a CAC source said the WS-15 might be installed on the J-20 next year, which is now THIS year. Let's see if that happens shall we? I also have yet to see the J-16 1st flight that you also claimed was a done deal by a CAC insider and would happen during that weekend. That's something you repeated again on a different occasion yet again, also BS yet again. I have no problem with speculation, what I don't like is outright BS and made up "facts" that are wishful thinking or perhaps purposeful deception. Aren't you also the guy who was talking about the T99KM like a year ago? Still no proof, nothing but Photoshops and yet this fantasy has made it into Wikipedia that some American right-wing think tanks use as their insider sources. LOL



If you don't like it, then just don't take it. No one here is forcing you.

Honestly, i am only exchanging our insider information with the specific Chinese member here like Houshanghai.

We play with the rule and we don't impose our idea on other people here.

Furthermore, we never derailed a sticky thread.

For example, i personally don't believe that India has reached the ICBM technology level yet, but have you seen that i used to derail the topic about the Indian ICBM?

Same for you, now it is the time to leave this thread if you have nothing else to contribute, and don't just go down to the level of Gambit and other trolls here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

gambit said:


> The Eurofighter was not designed with RCS control as high priority, especially with its single vertical stab. Credit to the Chinese to recognize that in order to reduce RCS, twin canted vertical stabs must be installed. Still, if the Eurofighter is the standard against which you or anyone else perceived to be a legitimate standard held, then either the F-22 has nothing to worry about or the lot of you take my advice and simply wait until more J-20 data is available.



I am saying that the Eurofighter RCS is an upper bound. It has a clean RCS of 1m2, and J-20 has internal weapons bays, so at the very most, it is an Eurofighter. It is likely to be better due to a few "superior" design features, but no worse. Do you agree in principle to this sort of assessment?


----------



## amalakas

wanglaokan said:


> Take care of your own stuff man, otherwise your lovely Greece will bankrupt without borrowing money from China,that's whole loads of BS about what you say. Archimedes will be shamed by what you'd said just now.Every one in theis forum who is racist.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 AM ----------
> 
> you're the one



because my country goes bankrupt , it means my mind has stopped working ? what kind of logic is this? and you are telling me i should be ashamed? I say probably not...


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Even for the F-22, if the seeking radar is looking straight up his @$$, nothing than active cancellation can hide the engines.




Sources that I trust, told me that the APG-68 radar (V)9 cannot track the rear end of the F-22 at about 15 miles ...


----------



## amalakas

FairAndUnbiased said:


> I am saying that the Eurofighter RCS is an upper bound. It has a clean RCS of 1m2, and J-20 has internal weapons bays, so at the very most, it is an Eurofighter. It is likely to be better due to a few "superior" design features, but no worse. Do you agree in principle to this sort of assessment?




This is a rough approach. EF2000's have been picked up and tracked and targeted in common NATO exercises, by planes, AWACS, and ground stations. 
During such missions, the planes usually fly clean with instrumentation pods on and sometimes with training missiles, which the EF2000 carries in conformal slots in its belly. 
The EF2000 is only marginally better than an F-16, and by marginally i mean it makes no real difference to the seeking radar.


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> Once again you are playing the two card. You are telling everyone here that because the J-20 has RAM it's humps or bumps (as you like to say) do not pose a problem; however, with regards to the F-35 or pak-fa you claim that both aircraft are 'unstealthy' because of their bumps and humps. There are many things wrong with your assertions but the two that really stand out is that you claim size as a measurment of 'stealth'--now ironically the J-20's bumps and humps are very large and there are numerious (4 wing pods, DSI, buldges under the canards and curved fuselage aft of the aircraft before the nozzles).
> 
> Moreover, your DSI argumant has little merit. Just because you say the DSI is stealth does not make it so. No matter how smooth you claim it to be, no matter how stealthy you claim it to be it is still a *convex* structure. It's no suprise that a convex structure has the strongest returnes from its center mass. The J-20's DSI is a convex structure therefor it has a point of center mass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


>



The only noticeable gaps on the T-50, that vary significantly with say the F22 are the gaps between the weapon bay doors. 
These are of some concern, perhaps there is a reason or perhaps these are mock doors.


----------



## DrSomnath999

FairAndUnbiased said:


> DrSomanth999 found many "irregularities" in the J-20 some of which are also present in the F-22.
> 
> It is absolutely insane or stupid to think that the much larger gap between fuselage and intakes on the F-22 has zero contribution to RCS while the gap between canards and fuselage on the J-20 puts it above clutter rejection threshold without actual tests, which no one has.


well 1st of all apart from gaps u can also see many other things i had also pointed out plz kindly see it before saying me insane







FairAndUnbiased said:


> Note the gap between fuselage and intakes.
> 
> Fortunately it's American. American planes, no matter their flaws, are always faster, stealthier, and far superior to the planes of others. Doesn't need technical explanation. Team USA **** yeah.


well stealth doesnt mean the jet is completely invisible the same rule applies for all country's 5th gen jet including USA .



FairAndUnbiased said:


> J-20 has undergone 62 flight tests in the past year. PAK-FA underwent 3.


now how does it related to stealth(LOL).& on the top of it u r accusing me of insanity & stupidy ,that so fair & unbiased of u

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

FairAndUnbiased said:


> I am saying that the Eurofighter RCS is an upper bound. It has a clean RCS of 1m2, and J-20 has internal weapons bays, so at the very most, it is an Eurofighter. It is likely to be better due to a few "superior" design features, but no worse. Do you agree in principle to this sort of assessment?





amalakas said:


> This is a rough approach. EF2000's have been picked up and tracked and targeted in common NATO exercises, by planes, AWACS, and ground stations.
> During such missions, the planes usually fly clean with instrumentation pods on and sometimes with training missiles, which the EF2000 carries in conformal slots in its belly.
> The EF2000 is only marginally better than an F-16, and by marginally i mean it makes no real difference to the seeking radar.


You stated that the Eurofighter with it's 1m2 RCS is easily tracked but that's not the question he asked. The question was if the J-20's design features of internal weapons bay, RAM coating, etc, etc, would in principle indicate that it would at the minimum have equal or better stealth performance to the Eurofighter when illuminated by an enemy radar.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> Use KJ-2000 AWACS AESA radar to search for F-22s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KJ-2000 AWACS (i.e. Airborne Warning and Control System)
> 
> ----------



well mate apart from wasting time on doing worthless mathematical calculation ,instead u read the 
advantage of passive detection capabilty of f22 raptor as it is the key of f22 survival in modern 
conflict. 
yes AWACS can be used for detection of F22 but the problem is by the time AWACS detected f22.
F22 would have earlier detected it thorugh it's passive detection capabilty & launched its AIM120d
BVraam missile towrads it .


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

amalakas said:


> This is a rough approach. EF2000's have been picked up and tracked and targeted in common NATO exercises, by planes, AWACS, and ground stations.
> During such missions, the planes usually fly clean with instrumentation pods on and sometimes with training missiles, which the EF2000 carries in conformal slots in its belly.
> The EF2000 is only marginally better than an F-16, and by marginally i mean it makes no real difference to the seeking radar.


 
I'm just establishing an upper bound. The EF-2000 has many non-optimal features such as single straight slab tail like Gambit said, instead of twin verticle canted slabs, lack of RAM paint and little consideration being made in wing and fuselage shaping, intake design, materials, etc.

What I'm saying is, the J-20 is not like a 15 m2 F-15 or Su-30. The upper bound of its RCS is the Eurofighter.

The lower bound for its RCS is probably the APA physical optics model.

I think it is more useful to establish lower and upper bounds for its RCS, rather than argue on how "truly" stealthy it is. No one will ever know.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


>


For this image, you are looking at the F-117. So stop posting images to illustrate certain principles unless you can provide an explanation as to how these principles are applicable in many situations.


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> For this image, you are looking at the F-117. So stop posting images to illustrate certain principles unless you can provide an explanation as to how these principles are applicable in many situations.



So diffraction only applies to the F-117 and not to the PAK FA or any other aircraft? Please teach me more! I'm learning so much from you!


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> The only noticeable gaps on the T-50, that vary significantly with say the F22 are the gaps between the weapon bay doors.
> These are of some concern, perhaps there is a reason or perhaps these are mock doors.



Gaps are just *one* of the problems on the PAK FA.


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

DrSomnath999 said:


> well mate apart from wasting time on doing worthless mathematical calculation ,instead u read the
> advantage of passive detection capabilty of f22 raptor as it is the key of f22 survival in modern
> conflict.
> yes AWACS can be used for detection of F22 but the problem is by the time AWACS detected f22.
> F22 would have earlier detected it thorugh it's passive detection capabilty & launched its AIM120d
> BVraam missile towrads it .


 
Dude AWACS like ZDK-03 are very useful for detection. but there is still question who detect first.
But there are many alternatives.
Just need to Hack the F22 AN/APG-77 signals when F22 penetrate into enemy land., CIP(Common Integrated Processor) instructions of F22 can be alternated.When virus has penetrated into CIP THEN CIP instructions are alternated.Now we have control over F22 than the US airbase. Just see the advantage of this.
Even if CIP of f22 is alternated with malware. It can malfunction the F22.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Sources that I trust, told me that the APG-68 radar (V)9 cannot track the rear end of the F-22 at about 15 miles ...


Established systems like the AN-APG series can be improved with range increase and data processing power improvements, but against F-117 class targets, it is beamwidth tightening than range that can improve odds of detection. Beamwidth improvement or tightening can only be achieved with a new planar array and at some point, might as well drop the series and invest in AESA systems. According to my sources here in Nellis, with no enhancers, the beamshape loss effect, which is the combination of beamwidth and data processing, is exploited by the F-22's and F-35's backends to reduce their observability, which make the best position to detect both aircrafts from the aft sector is pretty much directly behind.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------




j20blackdragon said:


> So *diffraction only applies to the F-117* and not to the PAK FA or any other aircraft? Please teach me more! I'm learning so much from you!


Man...So much for that supposedly 'high Chinese IQ'.

Kid, if you want to learn from me, use the 'Search' feature. Else keep quiet.


----------



## marshall

DrSomnath999 said:


> yes AWACS can be used for detection of F22 but the problem is by the time AWACS detected f22.
> F22 would have earlier detected it thorugh it's passive detection capabilty & launched its AIM120d
> BVraam missile towrads it .


The KJ2000 AWACS would be parked way beyond the range of the AIM120D. Besides, China is relying more and more on its UAVs and most likely has been developing datalinks to all of its air assets to improve its redundant real-time battlefield awareness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> I am saying that the Eurofighter RCS is an upper bound. It has a clean RCS of 1m2, and J-20 has internal weapons bays, so at the very most, it is an Eurofighter. It is likely to be better due to a few "superior" design features, but no worse. *Do you agree in principle to this sort of assessment?*


If you want to give the J-20 this latitude-cum-assessment, I have no problems with this speculation.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> ... with no enhancers, the beamshape loss effect, which is the combination of beamwidth and data processing, is exploited by the F-22's and F-35's backends to reduce their observability.



Compared to the 22's fairly concealed nozzles.. arent the 35's a bit more exposed?


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> Compared to the 22's fairly concealed nozzles.. arent the 35's a bit more exposed?


Engine nozzles are *NOT* engine exhausts, even though it is easy to conflate the two. Engine exhaust is physically part of the engine. The nozzle is ancillary, meaning while it is crucial to support thrust operation and shaping, it can be discarded for another nozzle design and/or shape without you discarding the engine. So it is the exhaust that is sort of 'concealed' and it is the nozzle that is exposed.

You can try these...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-71.html#post2392632
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111258

For both of the above, both nozzle designs incorporated the famous 'saw-tooth' pattern to disperse diffracted signals in directions other than back to source direction. The F-22's nozzles just happened to have the largest of that pattern.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Engine nozzles are *NOT* engine exhausts, even though it is easy to conflate the two. Engine exhaust is physically part of the engine. The nozzle is ancillary, meaning while it is crucial to support thrust operation and shaping, it can be discarded for another nozzle design and/or shape without you discarding the engine. So it is the exhaust that is sort of 'concealed' and it is the nozzle that is exposed.
> 
> You can try these...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...craft-updates-discussions-71.html#post2392632
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111258
> 
> For both of the above, both nozzle designs incorporated the famous 'saw-tooth' pattern to disperse diffracted signals in directions other than back to source direction. The F-22's nozzles just happened to have the largest of that pattern.



Ok..
What I intended to actually point out what that the F-22's clamshell nozzles fit clean between the two "_protrusions_" if you will of the tailplane.





Compared to that.. the F-35's nozzle(taking the picture in your redirects as ref) have a large space between them and the tailplane. 
a)How does that possibly contribute to the RCS when either viewed from an angle or from below?
b)what possible phenomenon/engineering reduces that return(not counting the saw tooth petals)?


----------



## gambit

Santro said:


> Ok..
> What I intended to actually point out what that the F-22's clamshell nozzles fit clean between the two "_protrusions_" if you will of the tailplane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to that.. the F-35's nozzle(taking the picture in your redirects as ref) have a large space between them and the tailplane.
> a)How does that possibly contribute to the RCS when either viewed from an angle or from below?
> b)what possible phenomenon/engineering reduces that return(not counting the saw tooth petals)?


You are correct there. The F-35's engine/nozzle configuration is necessary that way because of its multi-role multi-service requirements. But for the F-35, the gaps between the nozzle and tailplane assembly may not be as significant an RCS contributor as feared. That does not mean the F-35's backend is as low observability as the F-22's. At least not in my opinion any way. But what it mean, in my opinion, is that under certain scan/view angle, the F-35's nozzle may have a greater EM 'flare' or 'glint' than the F-22's.

Let me put in this analogy...

Say you are looking at a line of soldiers. At the extreme ends, your target view would be minimal, you would not know if there are any gaps between individual soldiers. In fact, you may see only one soldier. But as you move or increase your scan/view angle to approach perpendicular, you will begin to see more soldiers and those gaps between them.

This is how radar often perceive complex bodies: That instead of a gradual rise in reflected signals, certain structures on said body will create a spike, and the system will flag that spike in memory for other purposes.

I do not think that the F-22's and F-35's nozzles are comparable in RCS contributorship with the F-35's the greater. But I believe that difference is significant to only within a very narrow range of scan angles from any direction. We may never know the degree of that difference and at which scan angle will that difference manifest itself.


----------



## houshanghai

*J20 made its first flight on this day last year 2011.1.11
*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## teddy

New J20 video


----------



## DrSomnath999

marshall said:


> The KJ2000 AWACS would be parked way beyond the range of the AIM120D. Besides, China is relying more and more on its UAVs and most likely has been developing datalinks to all of its air assets to improve its redundant real-time battlefield awareness.


no man u r completely wrong on this F22 is not 4or4.5 gen fighter that it would detect it from 
miles away

i quote from an article 



> According to the information I know, the modern AWACSs today like E-2C Hawkeye 2000 and
> E-3C are capable to the detect the target of RCS = 1m2 class 250~300 km away.
> 
> And their maximal effective detection range to the fighters in the world should be:
> F-15C & Su-27 (RCS = 10~15m2): 450 ~ 600 km
> Tornado (RCS = 8 m2): 420 ~ 500 km
> MIG-29 (RCS = 5 m2): 370 ~ 450 km
> F/A-18C (RCS = 3 m2): 330 ~ 395 km
> F-16C (RCS = 1.2 m2): 260 ~ 310 km
> JAS39 (RCS = 0.5 m2): 210 ~ 250 km
> Su-47 (RCS = 0.3 m2): 185 ~ 220 km
> Rafale (RCS = 0.1~0.2 m2): 140 ~ 200 km
> F-18E (RCS = 0.1 m2): 140 ~ 170 km
> MIG-42 (RCS = 0.1 m2): 140 ~ 170 km
> EF2K (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2): 120 ~ 170 km
> F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 50 ~ 60 km
> *F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km*
> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3018-start-30.html



but F22 can detect it from 150 -200 miles thanks to it's ALR 94 passive detection ability 

& regarding range of aim 120 d i quote


> AIM-120D
> Formerly known as AIM-120C-8, the AIM-120D has a two-way data link, more accurate navigation using a GPS-enhanced IMU, an expanded no-escape envelope, improved HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability, and a 50% increase in range, bring it to the 180 km class. The AIM-120D is a joint US Air Force/US Navy project.
> Raytheon (Hughes) AIM-120 AMRAAM - Scramble


so F22 can easily lock & fire aim120D thanks to the help OF ALR 94 system 


And UAVs can detect F22 i doubt if u can prove it i would be enlightened


----------



## Martian2

To commemorate the one-year anniversary of the official disclosure for the J-20 Mighty Dragon, I want to inform the new members (or silent viewers) about one of the most popular (i.e. Top 7) YouTube videos on the J-20.

It is highly informative and covers basic stealth principles, such as continuous curvature and planform alignment. It also happens to be my creation. There are over 85,000 views and I hope you like it.






----------

Also, I have a second YouTube video that shows the J-20 prior to takeoff, firing its engines, and launching. It was a special release to celebrate the August 1st anniversary of the PLA.

It is worth watching from beginning to end. You just have to wait through the first 20 seconds as the aircraft is towed into position. After that, it's all action-packed.






----------

While I'm on the subject of informative and entertaining military videos, if you are interested in China's Shi Lang aircraft carrier or the anticipated complement of navalized J-15 Flying Shark fighters then please watch my video on "China's J-15 Flying Shark Naval Fighter."

The beautiful soundtrack alone makes this video worth your time.






----------

Finally, I would like to mention the latest addition to my collection of entertaining and instructive military videos. My brother, Felix, decided to cover the different flight stages of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

Outside of big-budget Hollywood trailers, I believe his video on "America's Thermonuclear Strike" is the most exciting on YouTube. See for yourself and decide whether you agree.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DrSomnath999

Peaceful Civlian said:


> Dude AWACS like ZDK-03 are very useful for detection. but there is still question who detect first.


and it's f22 for sure thanks to it's passive detection abilty


Peaceful Civlian said:


> But there are many alternatives.
> Just need to Hack the F22 AN/APG-77 signals when F22 penetrate into enemy land., CIP(Common Integrated Processor) instructions of F22 can be alternated.When virus has penetrated into CIP THEN CIP instructions are alternated.Now we have control over F22 than the US airbase. Just see the advantage of this.
> Even if CIP of f22 is alternated with malware. It can malfunction the F22.


well u tell this cool story to any hollywood director they would make a hollwood film on it


----------



## DrSomnath999

nice cool pics j20 blackdragon , i really liked that escpecially of F22  it's sexy raptor


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

DrSomnath999 said:


> and it's f22 for sure thanks to it's passive detection abilty
> 
> well u tell this cool story to any hollywood director they would make a hollwood film on it



every plane has passive detection. if what you said was true, every plane would just maintain radio silence... doesn't happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

FairAndUnbiased said:


> *every plane has passive detection.* if what you said was true, every plane would just maintain radio silence... doesn't happen.


But not all are the same in terms of quality and capability. The F-22's ALR-94 system provides 360 deg passive detection, yes, but the 30+ conformal antennas on the wings and fuselage as an integrated system is good enough that it can actually direct an AMRAAM to an active transmitter from any direction that tries to find the aircraft, leaving the missile to activate its own transmitter at the appropriate moment to completely lock on the target. In other words, if the J-20 goes active in trying to find the F-22 he will die, but if he does not try to find it, then he will die just a little later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> But not all are the same in terms of quality and capability. The F-22's ALR-94 system provides 360 deg passive detection, yes, but the 30+ conformal antennas on the wings and fuselage as an integrated system is good enough that it can actually direct an AMRAAM to an active transmitter from any direction that tries to find the aircraft, leaving the missile to activate its own transmitter at the appropriate moment to completely lock on the target. In other words, if the J-20 goes active in trying to find the F-22 he will die, but if he does not try to find it, then he will die just a little later.



The efficacy (alleged) but I have no reason to doubt it, my experience with both russian and american systems is that they do exactly what the system is meant to do... of the passive system is remarkable and perhaps more lethal than the actual VLO of the raptor itself. 
The point is...... can the limited radar on the missile lock on a LO target? Personally I doubt it. A very large percentage of AiM -7s and AiM-120s I have seen fired (the 7s in all three configurations, sea, air and land launched) I have monitored have less than brilliant performance and that is under ideal conditions against target drones. 

I very much doubt current versions of active or semi active missiles can lock on a LO target.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

amalakas said:


> The efficacy (alleged) but I have no reason to doubt it, my experience with both russian and american systems is that they do exactly what the system is meant to do... of the passive system is remarkable and perhaps more lethal than the actual VLO of the raptor itself.
> The point is...... can the limited radar on the missile lock on a LO target? Personally I doubt it. A very large percentage of AiM -7s and AiM-120s I have seen fired (the 7s in all three configurations, sea, air and land launched) I have monitored have less than brilliant performance and that is under ideal conditions against target drones.
> 
> I very much doubt current versions of active or semi active missiles can lock on a LO target.



there is little reason to believe that the J-20 does not have a similar system.

in addition, i believe that optical sensors have a bright future. visible stealth is not really possible yet and on clear days, optical systems can see for 70 kms which is good enough for final guidance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> But not all are the same in terms of quality and capability. The F-22's ALR-94 system provides 360 deg passive detection, yes, but the 30+ conformal antennas on the wings and fuselage as an integrated system is good enough that it can actually direct an AMRAAM to an active transmitter from any direction that tries to find the aircraft, leaving the missile to activate its own transmitter at the appropriate moment to completely lock on the target. In other words, if the J-20 goes active in trying to find the F-22 he will die, but if he does not try to find it, then he will die just a little later.



You're assuming the small active radar seeker in the AMRAAM can even acquire the J-20 (or any stealth aircraft).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> You're assuming the small active radar seeker in the AMRAAM can even acquire the J-20 (or any stealth aircraft).



As i said above, the same goes for all active or semi active missiles in the world, be it russian, american, french or chinese .. if your main radar has trouble picking up a LO target, the missile seeker has very little hope.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

amalakas said:


> As i said above, the same goes for all active or semi active missiles in the world, be it russian, american, french or chinese .. if your main radar has trouble picking up a LO target, the missile seeker has very little hope.



what do you think of optical sensors for guidance applications? no such thing as optical stealth on aircraft (yet...) and some optical sensors can sense up to 70 km.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> The efficacy (alleged) but I have no reason to doubt it, my experience with both russian and american systems is that they do exactly what the system is meant to do... of the passive system is remarkable and perhaps more lethal than the actual VLO of the raptor itself.
> The point is...... *can the limited radar on the missile lock on a LO target?* Personally I doubt it. A very large percentage of AiM -7s and AiM-120s I have seen fired (the 7s in all three configurations, sea, air and land launched) I have monitored have less than brilliant performance and that is under ideal conditions against target drones.
> 
> I very much doubt current versions of active or semi active missiles can lock on a LO target.


Depends on the range. For at least the next 20yrs, low radar observable fighters will be very limited in deployment, this is being generous to the J-20 enough to place it into this category. So for that, the current evolution of radar guided missiles will continue to gain lethality enough to make it effective against LO targets.


----------



## amalakas

FairAndUnbiased said:


> what do you think of optical sensors for guidance applications? no such thing as optical stealth on aircraft (yet...) and some optical sensors can sense up to 70 km.



the sensors are optical, but usually in IR region. They can pick up a fighter sized target at about 70km head on, but at given altitudes and conditions. your optical sensor will not pick up a low flying target at 70km and an F-35 for example would not fly high all the time. 

even so, it is hard to tell the vector of the plane in the IRST, and more over , even if the IRST sensor picks up the plane, a disturbing piece of news i got recently (last year) was that the IR sensor on an IRIS-T missile (state of the art) tracked the rear end of an F22 happily ... but could not get a lock on it ... and the F22 was close enough for the JHMS i.e. visual range .. that is really disturbing ..it means that even say an EF2000 were to drop behind an F22 by surprise and fired a salvo of IRIS-T missiles, some missiles would never acquire a lock on it.. the success rate of a missile that is fired without a lock on is ... a roll of a die at best..

gives an indication of how effective the nozzles on the raptor are. The russians claim the seekers on their short range missiles are more sensitive than the IRIS-T.. perhaps they are, but nobody knows for sure.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Stealth vs stealth is going to be like the air to air version of submarine warfare. It's a nightmare for both sides. 

One way for the J-20 to "defeat" the F-22 would be to bypass the F-22 completely and destroy the USAF aerial refueling tankers. If the F-22 can't even get to the fight, the J-20 wins by default. At the end of the day, the F-22 still has to operate from a limited number of fixed airbases and it doesn't have an infinite combat radius.

An even better strategy would be to destroy the airbase itself with conventional ballistic and cruise missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

FairAndUnbiased said:


> every plane has passive detection. if what you said was true, every plane would just maintain radio silence... doesn't happen.


yes every jet may have passive detection but they dont have both ELINT & SIGNIT capabilty like alr 94 of f22 & spectra of 
rafale(defensive & offensive ability) which separates them from the rest .LIke gambit sir had replied u earlier the same thing i am going to say to u that f22 doent need to turn on it's radar to detect j20 but j20 may have to turn on it's radar to detect it and once it's does ALR 94 detects it & cue it's aimraam 120d missiles towards it with out turning on it's own aesa radar for locking 
it's target .The problem is j20 can detect f22 in passive mode, only & unless if f22 turns on it's radar which might not happen 
until china develops a similiar system of it's own .Until then f22 has an unfair advantage to j20

thats why i insist u to read about passive detection abiliy of f22 then only u can understand what i mean
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268-start-0.html


----------



## Shaggy82

j20blackdragon said:


> Stealth vs stealth is going to be like the air to air version of submarine warfare. It's a nightmare for both sides.
> 
> One way for the J-20 to "defeat" the F-22 would be to bypass the F-22 completely and destroy the USAF aerial refueling tankers. If the F-22 can't even get to the fight, the J-20 wins by default. At the end of the day, the F-22 still has to operate from a limited number of fixed airbases and it doesn't have an infinite combat radius.
> 
> An even better strategy would be to destroy the airbase itself with conventional ballistic and cruise missiles.



Wow..... You think that Americans are so dumb?


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

j20blackdragon said:


> Stealth vs stealth is going to be like the air to air version of submarine warfare. It's a nightmare for both sides.



Different from sub wars because subs leave acoustic wakes which is sonar detected but there's no EM analog for planes, and acoustic detection in gases for supersonic objects is essentially impossible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

amalakas said:


> the sensors are optical, but usually in IR region. They can pick up a fighter sized target at about 70km head on, but at given altitudes and conditions. your optical sensor will not pick up a low flying target at 70km and an F-35 for example would not fly high all the time.
> 
> even so, it is hard to tell the vector of the plane in the IRST, and more over , even if the IRST sensor picks up the plane, a disturbing piece of news i got recently (last year) was that the IR sensor on an IRIS-T missile (state of the art) tracked the rear end of an F22 happily ... but could not get a lock on it ... and the F22 was close enough for the JHMS i.e. visual range .. that is really disturbing ..it means that even say an EF2000 were to drop behind an F22 by surprise and fired a salvo of IRIS-T missiles, some missiles would never acquire a lock on it.. the success rate of a missile that is fired without a lock on is ... a roll of a die at best..
> 
> gives an indication of how effective the nozzles on the raptor are. The russians claim the seekers on their short range missiles are more sensitive than the IRIS-T.. perhaps they are, but nobody knows for sure.



thermal IR is strongly attenuated by the atmosphere, which diminishes passive seekers like those used on IR trackers for IR missiles today. What about active IR/red vis laser tracking, or even combined sensors? Atmospheric attenuation of near IR/visible is only slightly lower than radar.

Also, I think TV guided AA missiles could be a valid choice. Nothing has optical stealth, and you can just get a TV guided missile and either get a gunner in the backseat or program the computer to look for the USAF rondel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

Google Translate
Shock exposure: two F-14 SAC appeared more prestige than the F-20 cooler


----------



## houshanghai

A contrast of side-bay opened between J20 and F22










---------- Post added at 06:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 AM ----------

a commanding view of all 5 gen fighter in the world
J20




F22




PAKFA/T50




YF23




F35

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## houshanghai

*J-20 first ground test on new year 2012.01.08*






thx to himitechworld uploading

original source 56.com&#65306;ã&#8364;56å&#376;&#381;äº&#8249;æ&#8249;å®¢-æ&#710;é&#402;½ã&#8364;&#8216;æ*¼20æ&#8211;°å¹´é¦&#8211;æ¬¡äº®ç&#8250;¸è¯&#8226;é£&#382; å&#8230;¨å&#352;¨å°¾ç¿¼ -å&#381;&#376;å&#710;&#8250;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; å&#339;¨çº¿è§&#8218;ç&#339;&#8249; è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;ä¸&#8249;è½½-56ç½&#8216;è§&#8224;é¢&#8216;
editor&#65306;&#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118;

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

*J-20 first test flight on new year 2012.01.13*





thx to himitechworld uploading

original source 56.com&#65306;j-20 2012
editor&#65306;&#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CANARDS ANGULATION & IT'S RELATION TO STEALTH*





*ABRUPT CHANGES IN ANGULATION OF ALIGNMENT OF CANARDS IN J20 *







*WELL NOW SEE RAFALE 'S CANARDS*


----------



## Martian2

1. The J-20 is designed for stealth. Rafale is not. We can expect J-20 canards to be made of composites. The Rafale probably has a much lower composite content to minimize cost.

The much higher use of composites for the J-20 canards and canard-fuselage junction will lead to a significantly smaller RCS than the Rafale.

2. The J-20 canards and junction have RAM (radar absorbent material) coating. Rafale does not.

3. I have already calculated that the fraction of radar return for J-20 canard junction/gap is incredibly miniscule at 1.1745 x 10E-23 of the original power emission (see post #1262) prior to additional reduction from the RAM coating.

4. Australia Air Power has already simulated the J-20 radar return across nine radar bands and concluded it can achieve all-aspect stealth across all nine radar bands (see post #1277).

5. Since the J-20 is in the test flight stage until 2018, the Chinese engineers could easily modify the J-20 design to include a "structure to hide the canard gap" if they felt it was necessary.

6. The shape of the junction between the J-20 canard and fuselage is absolutely critical. My calculation was based on a flat surface junction. If, as I suspect, the J-20 canard junction is shaped at a 45-degree angle like the F-22 (see below) then the incoming radar signal will become similarly attenuated beyond detection and also deflected away.

*F-22 Raptor airduct-fuselage gap is not a stealth hindrance*

Normally, the gap between the F-22 Raptor airduct and the fuselage is poor stealth design. A gap permits additional radar reflections and it should be avoided. However, a close examination of the F-22 Raptor's airduct-fuselage gap shows no penalty in stealth.





The gap between the F-22 Raptor airduct and fuselage is clearly noticeable.





F-22 Raptor underside. The back of the airduct and fuselage gap is intentionally angled at approximately 45 degrees.





A ray-trace analysis of a radar beam shows a minimum of four reflections from the RAM-coated surface of the F-22.

The effectiveness of RAM coating is a 99.684% reduction (or 0.00316 left) in radar energy (see citation below).

To calculate the amount of the original radar energy that entered the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap and was able to egress/reflect out of the gap after striking the angled surface in the back, we have to reduce the original radar energy by four reflections from the RAM-coated airduct and fuselage walls.

Amount of original radar energy that can escape F-22 airduct-fuselage gap = (0.00316) ^ 4 = 9.97 x 10E-11

The maximum amount of radar energy that can escape from the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap is identical to the maximum radar energy that can escape from the F-22 S-duct. The radar reflections are both extremely low and virtually undetectable at 9.97 x 10E-11 of the original incoming radar energy.

----------

Citation for RAM coating reduction of 99.684% reduction in radar energy.

From my February 12, 2011 post:

Revised final estimate for J-20 canards' radar return energy is 1.035 x 10^-17

I find Gambit's arguments for a -25 dB reduction, instead of -50 dB, from RAM coating to be convincing. I have revised my calculations for the effect from China J-20's canards. Quickie is correct that -25 dB is equivalent to 99.684% reduction (e.g. 10^2.5; take inverse; and convert to percentage). Thank you to Delft for highlighting the issue.
...
After hitting the canards, we know that 99.684% of the reflected energy is reduced by the military-grade RAM. (See Radar-absorbing materials: Definition from Answers.com) This means that only 0.00316 (e.g. 1 - 0.99684 = 0.00316) of the impacting radar energy survives contact with the canard's RAM surface.



gambit said:


> Even if you do not have relevant experience in the field, *IF* you actually read your source carefully, scant as it is, you would not have made the ridiculous claim that an airborne absorber would affect up to five-9s of the impinging signal.
> 
> Your quite general source reads...
> 
> 
> The quarter wavelength rule is quite applicable to airborne absorber. As material *DECREASING* thickness approaches quarter wavelength of the targeted freq, absorber performances decreases. In most cases, the targeted freq is the X-band, which is the centimetric (cm) band. We found out a long time ago that increasing thickness to greater than quarter wavelength would incur an unacceptable weight penalty, especially if the absorber is of the magnetic type, which are ferrite particles in a dielectric containment, aka sheet or liquid applique.
> 
> Here is a source to prove that...
> 
> HYFRAL&#8482; CATALOGUE - Types of absorbers (THEOREMS AND PRINCIPES) - ELECTROMAGNETIC ABSORBERS
> 
> 
> The only type of absorber that can affect up to five-9s of the impinging signal would be the pyramidal type...
> 
> 
> 
> Absorber performance is highly dependent upon the targeted freqs, even if it is 'wideband'.
> 
> Here is an F-22 in an EM anechoic chamber...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those pyramidal absorbers would give us the most accurate RCS measurement of any object since they will absorb any chamber walls reflections that could constructively interfere with the reflections off the aircraft.
> 
> If absorber in general would affect five-9s of the impinging radar signal as you (falsely) claimed, there would be no need for shaping at all since whatever left of the signal -- the echo -- would lose even more energy on the way back to the seeking radar. What is that about energy loss to the square of the distance rule? Why not coat the whole aircraft with the stuff instead of just the canards? If this is true, we would have never built the F-117 in the first place looking funky as it is?



----------

I don't understand why Dr. Somnath thinks the J-20 canard junction could be a stealth hindrance. Australia Air Power has already modeled it across nine radar bands and concluded there is no design problem to match the F-22 in all-aspect stealth.

The key question is the lack of stealthy flat nozzles on the J-20. Will China be able to develop stealthy flat nozzles without significantly impairing the thrust output/engine performance of the J-20 by 2018?

*Australia Air Power: J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design"*





J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.

The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

"*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*






_Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi)._





Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. (article continues)"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> 1. The J-20 is designed for stealth. Rafale is not. We can expect J-20 canards to be made of composites. The Rafale probably has a much lower composite content to minimize cost.
> 
> The much higher use of composites for the J-20 canards and canard-fuselage junction will lead to a significantly smaller RCS than the Rafale.


true rafale is not a stealth fighter everyone knows it ,but the motto of my posting rafale pics is to 
clear say that angulation of canards with respect to it's body in rafale is more ideal for stealth
than j20 's canards .Thats why i posted a pics in my above post clearly saying the importance 
of angulation of canards with respect to stealth



Martian2 said:


> 2. The J-20 canards and junction have RAM (radar absorbent material) coating. Rafale does not.


good but it has no role or atbest minimal role in preventing backscattering of reflected radar 
waves from a constantly mobile canards
ram coating are not always effective clear example is F117 shot down by serbian due to weather
changes


> Radar-absorbent material, or RAM, is a class of materials used in stealth technology to disguise a vehicle or structure from radar detection. A material's absorbency at a given frequency of radar wave depends upon its composition. RAM cannot perfectly absorb radar at any frequency, but any given composition does have greater absorbency at some frequencies than others; there is no one RAM that is suited to absorption of all radar frequencies.
> 
> A common misunderstanding is that RAM makes an object invisible to radar. A radar absorbent material can significantly reduce an object's radar cross-section in specific radar frequencies, but it does not result in "invisibility" on any frequency. Bad weather may contribute to deficiencies in stealth capability. A particularly disastrous example occurred during the Kosovo war, in which moisture on the surface of an F-117 Nighthawk allowed long-wavelength radar to track and shoot it down. RAM is only a part of achieving stealth.





Martian2 said:


> 3. I have already calculated that the fraction of radar return for J-20 canard junction/gap is incredibly miniscule at 1.1745 x 10E-23 of the original power emission (see post #1262) prior to additional reduction from the RAM coating.


well the calculation of reflected is based upon static condition only but the calculation abrupty
changes when the plane moves at different angulation or manuveurs 



Martian2 said:


> 4. Australia Air Power has already simulated the J-20 radar return across nine radar bands and concluded it can achieve all-aspect stealth across all nine radar bands (see post #1277).


again that god damned PO algorithm drama that is based upon static condition only &
mathematical equations ,which automatically changes when the target is mobile or at different angulation .It has not been tested in real time with radar frequencies of all range .It is based on 
calculation only.
One more thing i like to say is Kaapo is an alarmist.his ploy is to delibertley sully the image of JSF-35 & to acquire F22 from US for australian air force .





Martian2 said:


> 5. Since the J-20 is in the test flight stage until 2018, the Chinese engineers could easily modify the J-20 design to include a "structure to hide the canard gap" if they felt it was necessary.


yes it is in protype stages so u can say that changes can be made on it & i have to accept it.But my view is they should remove canards & have 3 axis TVC instead .But it wont happen i think



Martian2 said:


> 6. *The shape of the junction between the J-20 canard and fuselage is absolutely critical. *My calculation was based on a flat surface junction. If, as I suspect, the J-20 canard junction is shaped at a 45-degree angle like the F-22 (see below) then the incoming radar signal will become similarly attenuated beyond detection and also deflected away.


yes thats the key which j20 dont have but rafale has ,as their is abrupt change in angulation due 
to DSI intake in j20 & that's what i am trying to say that these provide corner reflecting surface which is detrimental for stealth purpose




Martian2 said:


> *F-22 Raptor airduct-fuselage gap is not a stealth hindrance*
> 
> Normally, the gap between the F-22 Raptor airduct and the fuselage is poor stealth design. A gap permits additional radar reflections and it should be avoided. However, a close examination of the F-22 Raptor's airduct-fuselage gap shows no penalty in stealth.
> 
> 
> The gap between the F-22 Raptor airduct and fuselage is clearly noticeable.
> 
> 
> F-22 Raptor underside. The back of the airduct and fuselage gap is intentionally angled at approximately 45 degrees.
> 
> 
> A ray-trace analysis of a radar beam shows a minimum of four reflections from the RAM-coated surface of the F-22.
> 
> The effectiveness of RAM coating is a 99.684% reduction (or 0.00316 left) in radar energy (see citation below).
> 
> To calculate the amount of the original radar energy that entered the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap and was able to egress/reflect out of the gap after striking the angled surface in the back, we have to reduce the original radar energy by four reflections from the RAM-coated airduct and fuselage walls.
> 
> Amount of original radar energy that can escape F-22 airduct-fuselage gap = (0.00316) ^ 4 = 9.97 x 10E-11
> 
> The maximum amount of radar energy that can escape from the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap is identical to the maximum radar energy that can escape from the F-22 S-duct. The radar reflections are both extremely low and virtually undetectable at 9.97 x 10E-11 of the original incoming radar energy.


true but it doesnt act as corner reflecting surface like canards while it's backscaterring is absorbed 90-95% by body while canards 's back scaterring of radar waves is impossible to absorb 100% even if it may be build of 100% composites & have RAM coating in canard fuselarge juntion while it 
is mobile constantly 

----------





----------


Martian2 said:


> I don't understand why Dr. Somnath thinks the J-20 canard junction could be a stealth hindrance. Australia Air Power has already modeled it across nine radar bands and concluded there is no design problem to match the F-22 in all-aspect stealth.


well thats why i clearly posted the pics explaining the importance of canards location with respect
to it's body regarding stealth & also u can see from the pics below as there is abrupt changes in 
alignment angle of canards due to gap between DSI & CANARDS







Martian2 said:


> The key question is the lack of stealthy flat nozzles on the J-20. Will China be able to develop stealthy flat nozzles without significantly impairing the thrust output/engine performance of the J-20 by 2018?


well this is another factor, but JSF also has round nozzles with saw tooth edges & also u cannot 
have 3 axis TVC if u have 2d nozzles.But most important aspect of stealth is Frontal radar cross
section as this is the key for most aerial bvr combat & that's why canard has always raises doubt
regarding stealth aspects of plane as compare to rear tail fins of F22 & pakfa though canards have
more advantage in manuverabilty as compare to rear tail fins of F22 & pakfa 



Martian2 said:


> *Australia Air Power: J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design"*
> 
> 
> J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.
> 
> 
> "*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*
> 
> Engineers and Scientists who work in stealth (AKA Low Observable) designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: Stealth is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).
> 
> The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. (article continues)"



well same thing as i said above no reapeat on this 

BUt i want to ask a simple question answer me 

*ARE CYLINDERS LESS STEALTHY COMPARE TO FLAT SURFACE?*

In this context it should also be noted that a flat plate focuses its backscattering
on a very narrow angular sector, with a high RCS value.
A sphere, by contrast, has a low RCS value which is uniform at all angles.
Thus, on a limited angular sector around the specular direction, spheres
and cylinders give the lowest RCS values. If otherwise, RCS must be kept
low on a wide angular sector, then it is better to use very narrow-beam
shapes such as the flat plate, correctly aimed in order to avoid the specular
flash [7].
http://hamwaves.com/stealth/contents/chapter_01.pdf

can the jet engine have stealth features it self?


are single piece canopies more stealth than two pieces if so what about F-35, B-2 or F-117?









F-22 flat nacelles only give a very big RCS when the radar is on a perpendicular direction to the radar, 

Square trihedral corner reflector Strongest radar return due to triple reflection of incident wave 







Right dihedral corner reflector Second strongest radar return due to double reflection of incident wave; decreases from maximum slowly with changing &#952; and rapidly with changing &#966; 






Flat plate Third strongest radar return due to direct reflection of incident wave; decreases rapidly as incidence angle changes from perpendicular 



Right circular cylinder Strong radar return as aspect (&#952 changes, but decreases rapidly as azimuth (&#966 changes 






Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Radar Cross Section


From a frontal view the F-22 is very stealthy






however radars will see the F-22 from angles more like this


----------



## Martian2

Dr. Somnath, I agree with you that the J-20 and F-22 are imperfect. From an angular side-view, there is more surface area for a radar reflection. However, the radar return will be minimized by the RAM coating and shaping to deflect the radar away from the emitter.

My point is that you seem to focus on what I consider to be minor matters on the J-20. It is inconsequential if the J-20 has a less-clean angle regarding the air-intake and canard than a Rafale. It is more than offset by the J-20 canard's composite construction, RAM coating, and probably 45-degree-angle-shaped canard-fuselage junction.

*Your posts are rather strange (and somewhat like Gambit's). You can't just look at a minor design choice and ignore the J-20's strengths.* You have to weigh a design choice against the J-20's strengths (e.g. composites, shaped canard to deflect away radar, RAM coating, and shaped junction) to determine whether it makes any difference stealth-wise.

*Attention to detail allows the J-20 and F-22 designers to circumvent or minimize the broad general problems that you mention.*

For example, the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap is a poor design choice. However, my ray-trace analysis and calculations have shown that the gap is inconsequential to the F-22's stealth. This is called thoroughly examining a perceived weakness and properly analyzing it against its strength (e.g. 45-degree angled backface).

That is all that I want to say on this issue. As customary, I will give you the last word.

----------

If you do a ray trace of the J-20's edge along the air-inlet and canard area, it should be obvious that incoming radar waves will be minimized by the RAM coating and deflected away.





J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.





This is a closer look at the J-20 canard from the picture above. Look closely at the careful shaping of the edge along the air-inlet and canard area. The J-20 designers had carefully used a continuous-curvature shaped surface to minimize and deflect the incoming radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> Dr. Somnath, I agree with you that the J-20 and F-22 are imperfect.


now u r getting me completly wrong when did i say j20 & f22 are imperfect ,i was just stating an example from stealth point of 
view only .U r doing great injustice to me & f22 raptor that f22 is imperfect ,raptor is a great jet no doubt about it.BUt j20 is in developmental stages only so it's very premature for me to say it as perfect or imperfect .YEs i had also stated some flaws in pakfa but that doesnt mean that pakfa is imperfect .



Martian2 said:


> From an angular side-view, there is more surface area for a radar reflection. However, the radar return will be minimized by the RAM coating and shaping to deflect the radar away from the emitter.


well material is secondary but 1st is shaping & angulation ,the motto for our stealth jet should be to reflect as less radar waves/
energy to it's tracker's jet/ awacs/sam radars as much as possible



Martian2 said:


> My point is that you seem to focus on what I consider to be minor matters on the J-20. It is inconsequential if the J-20 has a less-clean angle regarding the air-intake and canard than a Rafale. It is more than offset by the J-20 canard's composite construction, RAM coating, and probably 45-degree-angle-shaped canard-fuselage junction.


minor matters may be round engine nozzles for radar evading issues only ,but for IR signatures may be it's important .
But canards angulation is important for reduction of FRONTAL RADAR CROSS SECTION though u can say many reasons to deny it like composties ,ram coating.
U see even russian had mig mfi fighter which had canards also sukoi flanker derivaties had canards but russians sticked to LERX &
LEVCONS instead of CANARDS in pakfa why ? becoz they gave importance to FRONTAL radar cross section as compare to general
airframe .



Martian2 said:


> *Your posts are rather strange (and somewhat like Gambit's). *


*
 now i have tried my level best to explain my POV regarding stealth aspect as clearly as possible within my capabilties.though
if u cant get it or u dont want to get it that i cant do anything.
Well every guy has it's own POV whether it may be gambit sir ,MIG 23 mld or PDtm 3 ,so it's upto u to decide & compare my 
views with them or not .


Martian2 said:



You can't just look at a minor design choice and ignore the J-20's strengths.

Click to expand...

*


Martian2 said:


> You have to weigh a design choice against the J-20's strengths (e.g. composites, shaped canard to deflect away radar, RAM coating, and shaped junction) to determine whether it makes any difference stealth-wise.


well j20 is in developmental stages but it still has many good stealth features apart from certain flaws & i had to accept that .
YES u have to consider some negatives point also along with positive points about any plane in a fair way that includes every jet



Martian2 said:


> *Attention to detail allows the J-20 and F-22 designers to circumvent or minimize the broad general problems that you mention.*
> 
> For example, the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap is a poor design choice. However, my ray-trace analysis and calculations have shown that the gap is inconsequential to the F-22's stealth. This is called thoroughly examining a perceived weakness and properly analyzing it against its strength (e.g. 45-degree angled backface).


well the same explanation i had given above about it ,i am not gonna repeat that same thing again & again



----------




Martian2 said:


> J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.


no need to fix instead have a supercruise engine with 3 axis TVC would be more useful i assume 



Martian2 said:


> This is a closer look at the J-20 canard from the picture above. Look closely at the careful shaping of the edge along the air-inlet and canard area. The J-20 designers had carefully used a continuous-curvature shaped surface to minimize and deflect the incoming radar.


but this pics is from a certain angle only if u look it from another angle when the canards are mobile the whole scenario changes ,a stealth plane should remain stealthy from all aspect like B2 bomber.


Also the angulation of canards is wrong regarding J20 & i have shown in the pics 



Martian2 said:


> That is all that I want to say on this issue. As customary, I will give you the last word.


hmm plz dont say that as there are many more issues still left to debate


----------



## j20blackdragon

Yes, the canards are horrible but all the moving control surfaces on the F-22 are just fine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Yes, the canards are horrible but all the moving control surfaces on the F-22 are just fine.


It is the locations of structures that are the issues. Your post shows you know little about this subject. Use the 'Search' feature and learn.


----------



## Azmal

J-20 ARE BETTER THAN f-22 paistanb will have them soon...some 300 neede


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> It is the locations of structures that are the issues. Your post shows you know little about this subject. Use the 'Search' feature and learn.



The *location* of the inlets are in front correct? 



> The diverterless supersonic inlet avoids a signature problem caused by a conventional boundary layer diverter plate  the F-22 has a conventional inlet, which is likely to require extensive radar absorbent material (RAM) treatment.



J-20's Stealth Signature Poses Interesting Unknowns

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> The *location* of the inlets are in front correct?
> 
> 
> 
> J-20's Stealth Signature Poses Interesting Unknowns


Another gullible DSI believer...


----------



## j20blackdragon

Would anyone like to step up to the plate and refute David Fulghum and Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week? 



> The diverterless supersonic inlet avoids a signature problem caused by a conventional boundary layer diverter plate  the F-22 has a conventional inlet, which is likely to require extensive radar absorbent material (RAM) treatment.



J-20's Stealth Signature Poses Interesting Unknowns

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Would anyone like to step up to the plate and refute David Fulghum and Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week?
> 
> 
> 
> J-20's Stealth Signature Poses Interesting Unknowns


It is called 'Search'. The subject has been discussed here before. Do not think for one moment you have brought on anything new.


----------



## j20blackdragon

> With a top speed of Mach 1.6, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has an inlet design that is far simpler than that of the Mach 3-plus SR-71; the single-engine JSF inlet cannot vary its geometry. The F-35&#8217;s engineers could get away with a less complicated design because at vehicle speeds up to about Mach 2, the shape of the inlet itself can slow down much of the supersonic air before it enters the inlet. The JSF inlet is, however, a breakthrough design: It has no diverters. Traditional fighter inlets, such as those found on the F/A-18 and *F-22, have slots, slats, and moving parts to divert or channel airflow*. The F-15 inlet has ramps and doors that alter its external and internal shape to adjust airflow as needed.



How Things Work: Supersonic Inlets | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> How Things Work: Supersonic Inlets | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine


Wow...After dozens of pages and only now one guy from China shows us something we have never seen before...


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> Yes, the canards are horrible but all the moving control surfaces on the F-22 are just fine.


lol 
no boy i would explain u see
the f22 tail fins are more angulated at it's rear end as compare to canard's rear end which help in reflection of radar waves &
gives less backscattering of radar waves as compare to canards 
now see the pics





& NOW compare it with pakfa





& now see the 4th gen fighter tail fins & appreciate the difference 





now i hope u had a fair idea why f22 is designed as a true stealth fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Yes, the canards are horrible but all the moving control surfaces on the F-22 are just fine.



With any moving surface there will be edge diffraction, horizontal stabilizers are in the very rear of an aircraft and those sharp points at the end of the wing is where the diffraction occurs. In other words the diffraction occurs behind the aircraft as opposed to in front of it like with canards.


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> With any moving surface there will be edge diffraction, horizontal stabilizers are in the very rear of an aircraft and those sharp points at the end of the wing is where the diffraction occurs. In other words the diffraction occurs behind the aircraft as opposed to in front of it like with canards.



Edge diffraction happens at *leading* edges of the horizontal stabilizer as well. It doesn't just conveniently go out the back into space like you would like it to every time.


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Edge diffraction happens at *leading* edges of the horizontal stabilizer as well. It doesn't just conveniently go out the back into space like you would like it to every time.



Wrong, a swept wing will direct EM energy outwards. The only way diffraction can happen on a wing is if the trailing edge has cavities or the trailing edge is not swept, thus the junction between the wing and slat causes diffraction.


Take a look:


http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...IQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGXbLcWPYm8QpRaWye6RbWyAGpSBA



> Swept edges on a trailing edge wing edge can direct the transmitted energy away from the direction of the threat.




In a traditional wing diffraction may occur in the places I mentioned as well as the wing tips. The sharp edges you see on &#8216;stealth&#8217; aircraft such as the B-2 is to direct energy from that one point. 

Like this:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

ptldM3 said:


> Take a look:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a traditional wing diffraction may occur in the places I mentioned as well as the wing tips. The sharp edges you see on stealth aircraft such as the B-2 is to direct energy from that one point.
> 
> Like this:



correct thats what, is seen in case of F22 tailfins or horizontal stabilizers as they are angulated


----------



## gambit

Does this *j20bleakdragon* have anything new to add?


----------



## Martian2

When you guys get tired of going over the same old topics again and again, I will consider exploring new issues such as China's ability to detect stealth fighters. As usual, I will include citations and logical reasoning.

I have difficulty understanding why you guys like to keep repeating yourself. I have seen the same arguments over and over again. Don't you guys ever get tired of it?

Also, it is disturbing that some of you anti-Chinese members seem to have a dysfunctional interest in turning this thread into your private chat. Most of your posts have no information content and drown out the useful posts.

Anyway, you seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk anti-China trash. I'll come back in three to six months and discuss China's stealth detection capabilities.

In the meantime, look for my post on the Chinese version of the P-3 Orion this weekend.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> When you guys get tired of going over the same old topics again and again, I will consider exploring new issues such as China's ability to detect stealth fighters. As usual, I will include citations and logical reasoning.
> 
> I have difficulty understanding why you guys like to keep repeating yourself. I have seen the same arguments over and over again. Don't you guys ever get tired of it?
> 
> Also, it is disturbing that some of you anti-Chinese members seem to have a dysfunctional interest in turning this thread into your private chat. Most of your posts have no information content and drown out the useful posts.
> 
> Anyway, you seem to enjoy your hearing yourself talk anti-China trash. *I'll come back in three to six months and discuss China's stealth detection capabilities.*
> 
> In the meantime, look for my post on the Chinese version of the P-3 Orion this weekend.


No...It is *YOU* who have been rehashing the same old debunked crap over and over. And if you really have anything new to tell us on how to detect 'stealth', you would have said so by now.

Let us see what you got...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...t-step-processor-evolution-4.html#post2513340

I doubt you would understand even half of what I said there.


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> Does this *j20bleakdragon* have anything new to add?



I would like to *add* that the F-22 is most vulnerable when it's on the ground.


----------



## PERSIAN GOD KING

I like the colour of chinese Trucks.


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Huitong just updated his J-19 photo. Look, no canards. 






http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/J-19_model.jpg


----------



## Bratva

any insider news or guess which radar is being used by j-20 prototype?


----------



## rcrmj

mafiya said:


> any insider news or guess which radar is being used by j-20 prototype?


lol they just hinted its AESA..haha


----------



## Jon Snow

j20blackdragon said:


> Huitong just updated his J-19 photo. Look, no canards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/J-19_model.jpg


What is this?? I didn't know the chinese were working on another twin engined 5th gen fighter - thought it would be a single engined cheaper version of the J 20 mainly built for numbers and exports like the F 35.
Are any details available??


----------



## Bratva

rcrmj said:


> lol they just hinted its AESA..haha



But it's been under production?


----------



## Sasquatch



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The official confirmation from CCTV, the engine of J-20 is WS-10B, and its AESA is a 100 kW peak power one. 

2011&#24180;12&#26376;31&#26085;&#27490;&#20849;&#39134;&#34892;65&#27425;&#12290;
&#30001;&#20013;&#33322;&#25104;&#39134;&#30740;&#21046;&#40657;&#19997;&#24102;J-20&#65307;
&#35013;&#22791;&#20004;&#21488;WS-10B&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#65307;
&#21313;&#19975;&#29926;&#26377;&#28304;&#30456;&#25511;&#38453;&#38647;&#36798;&#65307;
&#40493;&#32764;&#26426;&#36523;&#65307;
&#20809;&#20256;&#25805;&#32437;&#31995;&#32479;&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Speeder 2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The official confirmation from CCTV, the engine of J-20 is WS-10B, and its AESA is a 100 kW peak power one.
> 
> 2011&#24180;12&#26376;31&#26085;&#27490;&#20849;&#39134;&#34892;65&#27425;&#12290;
> &#30001;&#20013;&#33322;&#25104;&#39134;&#30740;&#21046;&#40657;&#19997;&#24102;J-20&#65307;
> &#35013;&#22791;&#20004;&#21488;WS-10B&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#65307;
> &#21313;&#19975;&#29926;&#26377;&#28304;&#30456;&#25511;&#38453;&#38647;&#36798;&#65307;
> &#40493;&#32764;&#26426;&#36523;&#65307;
> &#20809;&#20256;&#25805;&#32437;&#31995;&#32479;&#12290;



WOW. You sure is 100kw?? How to confirm it?

Is it likely that its AESA is out since it's still at prototype stage? Isn't that info classified?

Rafale's AESA (peak power) = 10 kw?

Mig-35's AESA ( Russia's first) = 20 kw?

What's those of F-22 and F-35?

If it's true, then wouldn't J-20 vs. Rafale/Mig-35 be something like USA vs Afganistan, eh?  too good to be true?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Speeder 2 said:


> WOW. You sure is 100kw?? How to confirm it?
> 
> Is it likely that its AESA is out since it's still at prototype stage? Isn't that info classified?
> 
> Rafale's AESA (peak power) = 10 kw?
> 
> Mig-35's AESA ( Russia's first) = 20 kw?
> 
> What's those of F-22 and F-35?
> 
> If it's true, then wouldn't J-20 vs. Rafale/Mig-35 be something like USA vs Afganistan, eh?  too good to be true?



100kW.. that is along the lines of a small ship. Possibly a typo?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Speeder 2 said:


> WOW. You sure is 100kw?? How to confirm it?
> 
> Is it likely that its AESA is out since it's still at prototype stage? Isn't that info classified?
> 
> Rafale's AESA (peak power) = 10 kw?
> 
> Mig-35's AESA ( Russia's first) = 20 kw?
> 
> What's those of F-22 and F-35?
> 
> If it's true, then wouldn't J-20 vs. Rafale/Mig-35 be something like USA vs Afganistan, eh?  too good to be true?



It is from the commentator from a PPV channel of CCTV, and some big shrimps have acknowledged it.

Maybe China has done a lot groundbreaking improvement on the AESA technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2

I dunno know a thing about AESA, yet I find 10:1 and 5:1 margins of lead in this crucial technology somwhat astonishing. I won't believe it at this stage until a reliable source confirms it.


----------



## Speeder 2

amalakas said:


> 100kW.. that is along the lines of a small ship. Possibly a typo?



France hasn't that much experiences as China in AESA and rafale has 10kw. So it seems to me that J-20 radar would have a much better profile, not 10kw( typo?) but something along the line of Russian's or slightly better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Speeder 2 said:


> France hasn't that much experiences as China in AESA and rafale has 10kw. So it seems to me that J-20 radar would have a much better profile, not 10kw( typo?) but something along the line of Russian's or slightly better.



I don't disagree, but you have to think what kind of power generation a plane has to produce 100kw just for its radar. A bit too much maybe?


----------



## ptldM3

amalakas said:


> I don't disagree, but you have to think what kind of power generation a plane has to produce 100kw just for its radar.* A bit too much maybe?*



Like licking a transformer...


----------



## Project 627

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The official confirmation from CCTV, the engine of J-20 is *WS-10B*, and its AESA is a 100 kW peak power one.
> 
> 2011&#24180;12&#26376;31&#26085;&#27490;&#20849;&#39134;&#34892;65&#27425;&#12290;
> &#30001;&#20013;&#33322;&#25104;&#39134;&#30740;&#21046;&#40657;&#19997;&#24102;J-20&#65307;
> &#35013;&#22791;&#20004;&#21488;WS-10B&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#65307;
> &#21313;&#19975;&#29926;&#26377;&#28304;&#30456;&#25511;&#38453;&#38647;&#36798;&#65307;
> &#40493;&#32764;&#26426;&#36523;&#65307;
> &#20809;&#20256;&#25805;&#32437;&#31995;&#32479;&#12290;



The most funny thing about this clam is the WS-10B cannot produce anywhere near the power needed for that kind of a radar.

So it looks like a another media screw up.


----------



## conworldus

Ogannisyan said:


> The most funny thing about this clam is the WS-10B cannot produce anywhere near the power needed for that kind of a radar.
> 
> So it looks like a another media screw up.



Of course it can produce 100kw. A diesel generator for 800 kw costs about 200,000 dollars. My pickup truck produces 100kw!

Fight jet engines usually produce several megawatts of power. Hell, even helicopter engines produce several mega watts.

In other words, radar, even at 100kw, will consume only a fraction of the power produced. Basically, a 100kw radar will just require the engine to burn a bit more fuel that's it. 

the only question is, how do you fit a huge radar that consumes 100kw into the little nose cone. For that, the 100kw claim is a bit suspicious.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

conworldus said:


> Of course it can produce 100kw. A diesel generator for 800 kw costs about 200,000 dollars. My pickup truck produces 100kw!
> 
> Fight jet engines usually produce several megawatts of power. Hell, even helicopter engines produce several mega watts.
> 
> In other words, radar, even at 100kw, will consume only a fraction of the power produced. Basically, a 100kw radar will just require the engine to burn a bit more fuel that's it.
> 
> the only question is, how do you fit a huge radar that consumes 100kw into the little nose cone. For that, the 100kw claim is a bit suspicious.



yes we know, but you are missing the point. 

a car can produce indeed about 800 to 1000kW . .BUT .. it is using all that to push itself forward ! 

so does the jet engine. The electrical power generation is a different thing


----------



## Alpery

*peak 100kw* ..not 100kw...you can use batteries power to rise total power generation..for a second..may be milisecond.
you dont need to a 100kw/h generator run always

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2

Alpery said:


> *peak 100kw* ..not 100kw...you can use batteries power to rise total power generation..for a second..may be milisecond.
> you dont need to a 100kw/h generator run always



Then with peak power of "only" 10kw, the best of French toys must be very pathetic in comparison...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Speeder 2 said:


> Then with peak power of "only" 10kw, the best of French toys must be very pathetic in comparison...



None of you know a thing about radars and it shows. High kw output is like bragging about high HP in a heavy V8 truck only to be badly beat by a small 4 banger compact.

High kw does give improved jam resistance but with frequency hoping that is really not necessary, and it may, and I say, may, improve range if complimented by a larger antenna. And simply having more range does not mean you have the ability to engage the other guy first. And do not assume that just because one aircraft may have a high kw output that he will automatically have the ability to see you first--think Beam width and antenna.

And try to figure what happens if one aircraft has his radar cranked to a high kw output--hint it may not end well for him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

amalakas said:


> yes we know, but you are missing the point.
> 
> a car can produce indeed about 800 to 1000kW . .BUT .. it is using all that to push itself forward !
> 
> so does the jet engine. The electrical power generation is a different thing



Revisit your grade school physics teacher again and he will tell you that kinetic energy and electric energy are easily converted... That's what generators are for. They spin, yeah... All the friction, heat, etc. generated by a moving jet is utilizable wasted energy. Wonder how your car is powered? Like I said, even the power is not enough, just apply a bit more gas and 100kw for a jet is peanut...

Btw, cars typically produce between 80 and 200 kw, unless you buy a Bughatti or Lamborghini. Bughatti Veyron I think produces about 700-800kw or 1100hp. Don't exaggerate my number. My Ford Ranger produces about 100 kw.

NO CAR produces 1000 kw. The only moving land thing that produces that much is called Main Battle Tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> *Wonder how your car is powered? * Like I said, even the power is not enough, just apply a bit more gas and 100kw for a jet is peanut....



By an alternator that produces as many kw as you can count on your fingers.




conworldus said:


> Btw, cars typically produce between 80 and 200 kw, unless you buy a Bughatti or Lamborghini. Bughatti Veyron I think produces about 700-800kw or 1100hp. Don't exaggerate my number. My Ford Ranger produces about 100 kw..




I belive the kw is just a way to measure power just like HP and all cars suffer drivetrain losses, this can be well over 15%. Moreover, depending on rpm an alternator can only operate on whatever is driving it; for instance, some alternators may only work at 50% efficiency or less. Alternators also do not operate a 100% efficiency to to power being lost through belts and so on.


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> By an alternator that produces as many kw as you can count on your fingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I belive the kw is just a way to measure power just like HP and all cars suffer drivetrain losses, this can be well over 15%. Moreover, depending on rpm an alternator can only operate on whatever is driving it; for instance, some alternators may only work at 50% efficiency or less. Alternators also do not operate a 100% efficiency to to power being lost through belts and so on.



in any case, 100kW is a bit too much for a fighter size plane.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

High angle of attack. It is so maneuverable.

The above video is a RC model of the J-20, demostrate its ability to maneuver at very high angle of attack.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Feel free to argue against Bill Sweetman. 



> The J-20 echoes the canard configuration of the J-10, but with canards level with, and immediately in front of, the wing. Two small, canted, all-moving vertical stabilizers are fitted. Although no U.S. manned stealth aircraft have flown with canards, a tail-first layout was featured by early Joint Strike Fighter designs, including Lockheed Martinswhich the J-20 resemblesand McDonnell Douglas X-36 unmanned demonstrator.
> 
> *Stealth design features mostly follow Lockheed Martin F-22 and X-35 practice.* A high chine line around the forebody continues through the inlets and upper body, and flat, canted side surfaces blend into a flat underside via a small-radius edge. The canopy shape is also reminiscent of the F-22. The J-20 uses a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI)originally developed by Lockheed Martin, DSI technology is now used on the J&#8209;10B, JF-17 and (according to one report) the Saab Gripen JAS 39E/F.



Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Advances | AVIATION WEEK

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

KW and HP are exactly the same thing except that KW is closer to the metric system and HP is closer to the English system. 

My point is, you can't say the WS-10B can't even produce 100kw spare power for the radar. The numbers are not even close. 





ptldM3 said:


> By an alternator that produces as many kw as you can count on your fingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I belive the kw is just a way to measure power just like HP and all cars suffer drivetrain losses, this can be well over 15%. Moreover, depending on rpm an alternator can only operate on whatever is driving it; for instance, some alternators may only work at 50% efficiency or less. Alternators also do not operate a 100% efficiency to to power being lost through belts and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kurutoga

100 KW = 135.96 HP

I watched the video. The report is highly unreliable since it mentioned something like "optical fly by wire" or "fly-by optics". I honestly do not believe J-20 is that advanced.

Also, think of the air conditioning needed to cool down a 100kw AESA radar?


----------



## S10

kurutoga said:


> 100 KW = 135.96 HP
> 
> I watched the video. The report is highly unreliable since it mentioned something like "optical fly by wire" or "fly-by optics". I honestly do not believe J-20 is that advanced.
> 
> Also, think of the air conditioning needed to cool down a 100kw AESA radar?


Fly-by-optics is simply a next evolution of fly-by-wire, replacing electric cables with optic cables. It's not that big of a technological leap. In addition, huzhigeng already mentioned J-20 will feature the largest radar (in terms of dimensions) amongst all 4th gens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Stop arguing guys. Let's just enjoy new photos for now:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## farhan_9909

Blue flame?

means ws-10 one?


----------



## Nefory

farhan_9909 said:


> Blue flame?
> 
> means ws-10 one?



nope. AL31


----------



## Sasquatch




----------



## Sasquatch




----------



## Sasquatch

Updating more soon.


----------



## Sasquatch

siegecrossbow said:


> Stop arguing guys. Let's just enjoy new photos for now:



Thanks for these siege.


----------



## Sasquatch

Trying to update.....


----------



## Bratva

why side bay door is opened in every test flight of J-20? so radar can pick up j-20 that's why ?


----------



## S10

mafiya said:


> why side bay door is opened in every test flight of J-20? so radar can pick up j-20 that's why ?


You mean planes don't need their landing gear to takeo off and land?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## scholseys

is it more advanced than the raptor?


----------



## gambit

aazidane said:


> is it more advanced than the raptor?


According to 'Chinese physics', the J-20 is far more advanced than the F-22, which was designed based upon 'regular physics'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LetsGetRowdy

gambit said:


> According to 'Chinese physics', the J-20 is far more advanced than the F-22, which was designed based upon 'regular physics'.



carefully chosen wording there for maximum reaction. where is the chinese source that says j-20 is more advanced than f-22? even if it were true there would not be a way for you to know unless of course it was officially stated otherwise. 

your attempt at reverse psychology here makes you look like a complete fool.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Nefory said:


> nope. AL31



AL-31 isn't the only engine that is capable to produce the blue flame.

The blue flame is a sign of not having the afterburner thrust, just watch the takeoff of F-16/F-15, these aircrafts all have the blue flame while not hit the afterburner.


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> AL-31 isn't the only engine that is capable to produce the blue flame.
> 
> The blue flame is a sign of not having the afterburner thrust, just watch the takeoff of *F-16/F-15, these aircrafts all have the blue flame while not hit the afterburner.*


Stop...I was on the F-16 for five years and gone through many exercises that involved aircrafts of diverse origins. Do a keyword search 'f-16 afterburner video'.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> Stop...I was on the F-16 for five years and gone through many exercises that involved aircrafts of diverse origins. Do a keyword search 'f-16 afterburner video'.



Two afterburner video of F-16, one with orange flame, other one with blue flame. The color of the flame doesn't determine the type of engine. In Canada, i have seen the takeoff of F-18, it does have blue flame sometimes, but not always in afterburner.

F-16 Full Afterburn - YouTube

F-16 Afterburner Run - YouTube


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Two afterburner video of F-16, one with orange flame, other one with blue flame. The color of the flame doesn't determine the type of engine. In Canada, i have seen the takeoff of F-18, it does have blue flame sometimes, but not always in afterburner.


When you see a 'flame' you see an engine in afterburn mode. The color of the flame cone depends on many factors such as: atmospheric condition, bypass ratio, stages, and fuel mixture.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> When you see a 'flame' you see an engine in afterburn mode. The color of the flame cone depends on many factors such as: atmospheric condition, bypass ratio, stages, and fuel mixture.



Ok, you are maybe right, and this pic is J-20 with the blue flame afterburner.


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Ok, you are maybe right, and this pic is J-20 the blue flame afterburner.


If you look closely at the flame cone, you will see what is called 'Mach discs' or 'shock diamonds'...

Shock diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Shock diamonds (also known as Mach diamonds, Mach disks, thrust diamonds, or dancing diamonds) are a *formation of stationary wave patterns that appears in the supersonic exhaust plume of an aerospace propulsion system*, such as a supersonic jet engine, rocket, ramjet, or scramjet, when it is operated in an atmosphere. The diamonds form from a complex flow field and are visible due to the ignition of excess fuel. Mach diamonds (or disks) are named for Ernst Mach, the physicist who first described them.


You can see a better hi-res example here...

http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/110627-F-RC891-046.JPG

You can see a blue-red blend of colors in this 'hush house' engine run. The atmospheric condition inside the 'hush house' is different than that of the open flight line or in-flight. If you see 'Mach discs' the engine is in afterburn mode.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## killerx

J20 officail specs any one


----------



## Alpery

mafiya said:


> why side bay door is opened in every test flight of J-20? so radar can pick up j-20 that's why ?


you will not land on enemy airbases

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

A neat form of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## asad71

DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

*Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Advances*


Jan 31, 2012




By Bill Sweetman
Washington

Every indication is that nobody in Western intelligence saw the Chengdu J-20 coming. While it was known that China was developing a stealthy combat aircraft, the J-20 has emerged earlier than expected and appears to be more mature than the X&#8209;plane or demonstrator that many people anticipated.

The debut of the J-20 had been predicted in a November 2009 interview on Chinese television by Gen. He Weirong, deputy commander of the People&#8217;s Liberation Army Air Force. The general said at the time that a &#8220;fourth-generation&#8221; fighter would be flown in 2010-11 and be operational in 2017-19.

At least two J-20 prototypes were complete by the time the aircraft made its first flight&#8212;or at least its first public flight&#8212;on Jan. 11, 2011. The two aircraft are distinguished by the detail design of their exhaust nozzles, leading to speculation that one of the aircraft has Russian-supplied AL-31F engines, of the type fitted to the Chengdu J-10, and the other has the Chinese-developed WS-10 engine.

The J-20 is a big aircraft. Although its overall length (around 66 ft.) is not much greater than that of the 62-ft. Lockheed Martin F-22, the main structure from nose to exhaust nozzles is considerably longer. Like the F-22, it has large weapon bays in the lower fuselage and smaller side bays, the latter probably dedicated to air-to-air missiles.

The J-20 echoes the canard configuration of the J-10, but with canards level with, and immediately in front of, the wing. Two small, canted, all-moving vertical stabilizers are fitted. Although no U.S. manned stealth aircraft have flown with canards, a tail-first layout was featured by early Joint Strike Fighter designs, including Lockheed Martin&#8217;s&#8212;which the J-20 resembles&#8212;and McDonnell Douglas&#8217; X-36 unmanned demonstrator.

Stealth design features mostly follow Lockheed Martin F-22 and X-35 practice. A high chine line around the forebody continues through the inlets and upper body, and flat, canted side surfaces blend into a flat underside via a small-radius edge. The canopy shape is also reminiscent of the F-22. The J-20 uses a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI)&#8212;originally developed by Lockheed Martin, DSI technology is now used on the J&#8209;10B, JF-17 and (according to one report) the Saab Gripen JAS 39E/F.

The rear-aspect view of the aircraft is not as stealthy, a feature also seen on the Sukhoi T-50. This is clearly an intentional trade, eliminating the heavy 2D nozzles of the F-22. In this respect, both the T-50 and J-20 reflect the philosophy behind the pre-1986 Advanced Tactical Fighter studies that preceded the F-22, based on the theory that a fast, high-flying, agile aircraft is relatively immune from rear-quarter attacks.

According to a Chinese paper released on the Internet, the main goal of the design was to achieve high speed and maneuverability with the engines that would be available to China in the near future&#8212;the AL-31F and WS-10&#8212;which do not have the same thrust/weight ratio as the latest Western engines. This resulted in the selection of a delta wing and relatively long body for low supersonic drag, plus large, high-deflection canards to provide agility. The all-moving vertical tails are said to be 40% smaller than conventional fin/rudder designs, and accordingly lighter. Supercruise is probably not attainable with existing engines, but the design looks capable of it, once propulsion technology in China improves.

In 2012, China-watchers will be monitoring progress with the flight-test program and looking for signs of work on the many challenging aspects of stealth. A stealth fighter needs multispectral, active and passive sensors to detect and track its targets, and those sensors need to be fused and managed to minimize emissions. Similarly, to operate at maximum effectiveness as part of a networked force, stealth aircraft need effective low-probability-of-intercept voice and data communication systems. These are problems that the U.S. is still wrestling with, after 25 years of work.

There is another, more fundamental question: What is the J-20 for? The fighter is large for air combat&#8212;but China, simply because of geographical factors, doesn&#8217;t face an adversary fighter force of the kind that the F-22 was designed to counter. At the same time, the J-20 weapon bays are not large enough for most standoff air-to-surface weapons. One possibility is that the J-20 is intended to threaten intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and tankers, by using stealth and speed to defeat their escorts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

Anybody read this excellent review of stealth fighters?

????-----?20????????????????_????_?????--??????--????????


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Nice

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sasquatch

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Nice



Nice Pic Bro.    trying to update J-20 Pics


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Hu Songshan said:


> Nice Pic Bro.    trying to update J-20 Pics



I have the feeling there are several J-20 prototypes all painted with 2001.

Since TG has the record of playing the trick, just check how J-15 prototypes were all painted the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Nice



This is p.s.ed over a picture of the Raptor going supersonic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Roybot

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Nice



Typical chinese photochop

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sasquatch

Hu Songshan said:


>



Last one ^^^^

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

I have looked at the pictures and videos of all three T-50/Pak-Fa planes. All three still have exposed metal engine pods. These planes are not stealthy.

Those gigantic metal engine pods will provide a huge radar reflection for any emitting radar above or below the horizontal plane of the T-50/Pak-Fa.

I've waited two years to see major design changes on the T-50/Pak-Fa. To date, I haven't seen any. When the T-50/Pak-Fa is rolled out in 2015-2016, it will still be a non-stealthy plane.





The T-50/Pak-Fa has exposed non-stealthy metal engine pods like the Su-30.

----------

Third PAK FA Prototype Flies: key.Aero, Military Aviation

"*Third PAK FA Prototype Flies*
Dave Allport - 23-Nov-2011

*The third prototype of the new Russian fifth-generation PAK FA fighter made its maiden flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22.*





The third prototype PAK FA takes off from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22, 2011, for its maiden flight. (Credit: Sukhoi)

MAKING ITS maiden flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22 was the third prototype of the Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA fifth-generation fighter. The aircraft, flown by test pilot Sergey Bogdan, was airborne for just over an hour before landing back at the KNAAPO factory airfield.

The flight was deemed a success, with all tests of stability and evaluation of engine performance proceeding as planned. The pilot reported reliable operation of all systems and components.

Maiden flight of the first prototype took place on January 29, 2010, also at Komsomolsk-on-Amur, followed by the second aircraft on March 3, 2011. Both prototypes made their public debut at the MAKS 2011 International Aviation and Space Salon in Zhukovsky, Moscow. The aircraft have now completed more than 100 test flights."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Why is a J-20 larger than a F-22? Unique recallable thermonuclear strike capability.*




The J-20 Mighty Dragon was most likely designed with thermonuclear strike capability as a cornerstone.

Why is the J-20 Mighty Dragon larger than a F-22 Raptor? The answer should be obvious. The smaller F-22 Raptor is designed strictly as an air-dominance fighter. The larger J-20 is designed as a multi-role air-dominance and strike fighter.

The F-22 has the simple job of gaining air-superiority over an airspace. The J-20 has a more versatile function. The J-20 is designed to challenge the F-22 for control of an airspace. In addition, I believe the J-20 serves the purpose of a stealthy air-to-surface strike fighter.

The J-20 provides the CCP with the unique capability of a stealthy recallable thermonuclear weapon platform. If the CCP chooses, it can send out stealthy J-20s with W-88 class thermonuclear warheads to eliminate all major enemy bases within its range.

The J-20 is a nightmare weapon for enemies of China. The J-20 is a piloted supercruising maneuverable stealth fighter capable of carrying two W-88 class thermonuclear warheads with 475 kilotons each.

The stealthy J-20 is a superb first-strike weapon. The J-20 greatly complicates the planning of any potential adversary of China. Large enemy military bases can be eliminated in the blink of an eye. The J-20 puts the pressure on the adversary to detect and defend against all J-20 fighters.

Missile defense systems are useless against a stealthy J-20 that literally drops a 475-kiloton thermonuclear warhead right on top of your base.

The argument that the J-20 was intentionally designed to be larger than the F-22 due to inferior engine technology never made any sense. China had planned to match F-22 engine performance in the future. It would not have mattered if the J-20 (with currently less-powerful engines) cruised at a slower speed or did not supercruise at all for now.

If it was intended to be an air-dominance fighter, the J-20 should have been roughly the size of a F-22. Future J-20 engine upgrades were part of the plan.

Instead, the J-20 was intentionally designed to be significantly larger than the F-22. The J-20 has subsumed the role of a Q-5A thermonuclear-capable aircraft. The Q-5A with a thermonuclear payload is not currently survivable in enemy airspace. However, the J-20 is designed specifically to penetrate enemy defenses and fulfill the role of a stealthy thermonuclear-armed Q-5A (see citation below).

----------

*China's Q-5A attack aircraft dropped an one megaton thermonuclear warhead in 1972*





A Nanchang Q-5A attack aircraft dropped a one megaton KB-1 thermonuclear warhead in 1972.

Chinese Nuclear Test "CHIC-12" - YouTube
"This is a short video of the 12th Chinese nuclear weapons test. This was a test of the [one megaton] KB-1 thermonuclear warhead dropped from a Qiang-5 attack aircraft."

----------

We have previously examined China's thermonuclear weapon delivery vehicles.

1. DF-31A ICBM from silos or a road-mobile TEL (transporter, erector, launcher)

2. JL-2 SLBM from Type 094 Jin-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN)

3. CJ-10A nuclear-capable ALCM (air-launched cruise missile) with 2,000 to 2,200km range from a H-6K bomber, which can carry six CJ-10A ALCMs at a time.

4. A Nanchang Q-5A attack aircraft with a one megaton KB-1 thermonuclear payload. Using American criterion, a one megaton warhead is classified as a "city-buster."

5. DH-10 nuclear-capable LACM (land-attack cruise missile) with over 4,000km range

DH-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"According to Jane's, the DH-10 is a second-generation land-attack cruise missile (LACM), integrated inertial navigation system, GPS, terrain contour mapping system, and digital scene-matching terminal-homing system.[3] The missile is estimated to have a circular error probable (CEP) of 10 meters. In 2008, a Pentagon report estimated the range of the DH-10 as over 4,000 km and that from 50 to 250 missiles had been deployed.[1]
...
Some sources predicted that the first operational deployment of Chinese indigenous LACM took place in 2004~2005. The PLA Second Artillery Corps (Strategic Missile Force) has formed a Cruise Missile Brigade based at Jianshui, Yunnan Province in southern China."





DH-10 nuclear-capable LACM with over 4,000km range

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> I have looked at the pictures and videos of all three T-50/Pak-Fa planes. All three still have exposed metal engine pods. These planes are not stealthy.
> 
> Those gigantic metal engine pods will provide a huge radar reflection for any emitting radar above or below the horizontal plane of the T-50/Pak-Fa.


The compressor blades are still exposed the same way? Not good for the RCS and I doubt Russia has some as yet unknown super stealthy radar absorbent material/paint/whatever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> *Why is a J-20 larger than a F-22? Unique recallable thermonuclear strike capability.*
> 
> The J-20 Mighty Dragon was most likely designed with thermonuclear strike capability as a cornerstone.
> 
> Why is the J-20 Mighty Dragon larger than a F-22 Raptor? The answer should be obvious. The smaller F-22 Raptor is designed strictly as an air-dominance fighter. The larger J-20 is designed as a multi-role air-dominance and strike fighter.
> 
> 3. CJ-10A nuclear-capable ALCM (air-launched cruise missile) with 2,000 to 2,200km range from a H-6K bomber, which can carry six CJ-10A ALCMs at a time.
> 
> 5. DH-10 nuclear-capable LACM (land-attack cruise missile) with over 4,000km range


I think these cruise missiles are too big to fit in the internal bays of the J-20 and I don't think they are stealthy either. If China were to ever need to retaliate against an unprovoked American nuclear 1st strike with these missiles, they would have to sling under a bomber.

Now, if you're talking about the T-50, it is possible if Sukhoi had a customized weapon bay where the bays between the engines were combined into a single super long weapon bay. Then you could even fit a long-range anti-ship missile in there.


----------



## pakje

marshall said:


> I think these cruise missiles are too big to fit in the internal bays of the J-20 and I don't think they are stealthy either. If China were to ever need to retaliate against an unprovoked American nuclear 1st strike with these missiles, they would have to sling under a bomber.
> 
> Now, if you're talking about the T-50, it is possible if Sukhoi had a customized weapon bay where the bays between the engines were combined into a single super long weapon bay. Then you could even fit a long-range anti-ship missile in there.



I don't think he meant placing cruising missiles in the weapon bays, just the warhead itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> The compressor blades are still exposed the same way? Not good for the RCS and I doubt Russia has some as yet unknown super stealthy radar absorbent material/paint/whatever.



Read the ITAE paper on RAM.Stealthy Sukhois


----------



## Martian2

*My annual review of T-50/Pak-Fa progress or lack thereof*

Two years have passed since the January 2010 unveiling of the T-50/Pak-Fa. Let's look at the stealth design issues that remain.






----------

By the way, none of the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa problems exists on the Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter.

*Terrific J-20 Mighty Dragon close-up photographs*





J-20 taxiing





Another day of tests

[Note: Thank you to Hu Songshan and J-20 Mighty Dragon Continue Flight Testing in February 2012 ~ Chinese Military Review]


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> I have looked at the pictures and videos of all three T-50/Pak-Fa planes. All three still have exposed metal engine pods. These planes are not stealthy.
> 
> Those gigantic metal engine pods will provide a huge radar reflection for any emitting radar above or below the horizontal plane of the T-50/Pak-Fa.
> 
> I've waited two years to see major design changes on the T-50/Pak-Fa. To date, I haven't seen any. When the T-50/Pak-Fa is rolled out in 2015-2016, it will still be a non-stealthy plane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T-50/Pak-Fa has exposed non-stealthy metal engine pods like the Su-30.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Third PAK FA Prototype Flies: key.Aero, Military Aviation
> 
> "*Third PAK FA Prototype Flies*
> Dave Allport - 23-Nov-2011
> 
> *The third prototype of the new Russian fifth-generation PAK FA fighter made its maiden flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The third prototype PAK FA takes off from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22, 2011, for its maiden flight. (Credit: Sukhoi)
> 
> MAKING ITS maiden flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on November 22 was the third prototype of the Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA fifth-generation fighter. The aircraft, flown by test pilot Sergey Bogdan, was airborne for just over an hour before landing back at the KNAAPO factory airfield.
> 
> The flight was deemed a success, with all tests of stability and evaluation of engine performance proceeding as planned. The pilot reported reliable operation of all systems and components.
> 
> Maiden flight of the first prototype took place on January 29, 2010, also at Komsomolsk-on-Amur, followed by the second aircraft on March 3, 2011. Both prototypes made their public debut at the MAKS 2011 International Aviation and Space Salon in Zhukovsky, Moscow. The aircraft have now completed more than 100 test flights."



The thread was going well and on topic and out of the blue i come stumble upon this crap and ironically you are the same guy that has, on multiple occasions, occused me, Gambit, and amalakas of trolling. It&#8217;s very clear that you have some deeply rooted sociological issues and an unhealthy obsession with the pak-fa, who else devotes as much time as you in posting pages upon pages of nonsense in multiple forums. I can imagine you in your parent&#8217;s basement with dark circles under your eyes.

I am also curious as to why the &#8216;gaps&#8217; between the pak-fa&#8217;s intake and fuselage are &#8216;poor for stealth&#8217; when the F-22 has the same &#8216;gaps&#8217; both are angled down and outwards. Ironically you claimed this not to be a problem for the F-22. 

Ladies and gentlemen this is also the guys that claimed that the Chinese made WZ-10 was stealthy even though it had a vertical stab, pylons, a large spherical FLIR, gun, and countless protrusions. 

The amount of bias and double standards from you is rediculous. You can't even remeber what you have stated in the past and often times it comes back to bite you. Chinese aircraft are special they can have vertical stabs and fixed landing gear and still be stealthy but the pak-fa is none stealthy crap.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> I am also curious as to why the gaps between the pak-fas intake and fuselage are poor for stealth when the F-22 has the same gaps both are angled down and outwards. Ironically you claimed this not to be a problem for the F-22.



The gaps divert boundary layer air.

DSI fixes that problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## marshall

pakje said:


> I don't think he meant placing cruising missiles in the weapon bays, just the warhead itself.


I just assumed the warheads would be mounted on missiles within the internal weapon bays due to the required range to reach distant targets. There is some speculation that the J-20 can take the role of a small stealth bomber but if that is in the works, I highly doubt its primary purpose is as a nuclear delivery platform. It would make more sense to use it to penetrate heavy defenses to attack high value targets from standoff range like AWACs, aircraft carriers, Aegis equipped ships, runways, etc. Not sure if China has any anti-ship missiles small enough to fit in those internal weapon bays and still retain a half decent range but this would make alot more sense.


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> Read the ITAE paper on RAM.Stealthy Sukhois


An effective RAM for the compressor blades is the last thing that I expected could solve this problem. I just assumed it would have to be either some sort of as yet non-existent RAM composite, but definitely not simply a RAM paint, especially on compressor blades with the stresses. Has there been any further news on the required maintenance of this RAM coating?

Concerning the metallic canopy, I was pretty sure they have plans to eventually coat it between polycarbonate. This is one of the easier things to do but the fact that they still haven't incorporated it leads me to believe they are behind schedule. When the T-50 had first flight, most people assumed the traditional metal frame + rivets were to speed up development and testing. It took them almost a full year before the 2nd test flight and it's now into the 3rd prototype with no significant changes to the airframe build. Unless the RAM that ITAE is talking about can simply be applied to an airframe to witness F-22 like LO stealth performance, they are not going to be ready by 2015.


----------



## Martian2

*Russian Embassy in India official website states 0.5m2 RCS for T-50/Pak-Fa*

India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> *Russian Embassy in India official website states 0.5m2 RCS for T-50/Pak-Fa*


I'd be skeptical of this 0.5sq/m2 claim until the official's credentials were verified. There's no way the Russians will not evolve the T-50 to a true LO stealth aircraft unless they really are going to do nothing about the blades.


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> An effective RAM for the compressor blades is the last thing that I expected could solve this problem. I just assumed it would have to be either some sort of as yet non-existent RAM composite, but definitely not simply a RAM paint, especially on compressor blades with the stresses. Has there been any further news on the required maintenance of this RAM coating?
> 
> Concerning the metallic canopy, I was pretty sure they have plans to eventually coat it between polycarbonate. This is one of the easier things to do but the fact that they still haven't incorporated it leads me to believe they are behind schedule. When the T-50 had first flight, most people assumed the traditional metal frame + rivets were to speed up development and testing. It took them almost a full year before the 2nd test flight and it's now into the 3rd prototype with no significant changes to the airframe build. Unless the RAM that ITAE is talking about can simply be applied to an airframe to witness F-22 like LO stealth performance, they are not going to be ready by 2015.



It just goes to show that there are more solutions to a problem than the ones that we have in mind. 

I am not claiming that this RAM coating (and not paint) is the panacea for the RCS reduction problem. All I am saying is that sometimes people will take different roots to an equally valid solution. 

I too am concerned about some aspects of the T-50. As an example the framed canopy doesn't concern me in terms of RCS, it concerns me in terms of visibility. A hunter killer should have excellent view and not obstructions.


----------



## rcrmj

marshall said:


> I'd be skeptical of this 0.5sq/m2 claim until the official's credentials were verified. There's no way the Russians will not evolve the T-50 to a true LO stealth aircraft unless they really are going to do nothing about the blades.


whether the 0.5m2 is true or not, but the fact is the mighty Soviet aviation industry was long gone, no exciting things coming from Russia for decades, and now the T-50 is a big disappointment of their true capability


----------



## HongWu

Martian2 said:


> *Russian Embassy in India official website states 0.5m2 RCS for T-50/Pak-Fa*
> 
> India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter


Ouch! It's not even 5th generation. I wonder if it can supercruise?

Maybe we can sell J-20 export version to Russia in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

rcrmj said:


> whether the 0.5m2 is true or not, but the fact is the mighty Soviet aviation industry was long gone, no exciting things coming from Russia for decades, and now the T-50 is a big disappointment of their true capability



I don't think so


----------



## Martian2

*Reconciling my estimate of 3m2 RCS with Russian embassy statement of 0.5m2 RCS*

The statement of T-50/Pak-Fa 0.5m2 RCS on the official Russian embassy website has existed for two years. Sukhoi had ample opportunity to dispute the 0.5m2 RCS. The Russian embassy in India statement of 0.5m2 RCS makes sense, because all of us can clearly see the glaring deficiencies in the third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype (see first citation below).

However, I still have to explain the discrepancy between my estimate from January 2011 (see second citation below) and the lower RCS by the Russian embassy in India. My estimate of a frontal RCS of 3m2 for the T-50/Pak-Fa was probably correct, but it was incomplete.

I want to clarify that my comparison between the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa and the French Rafale was strictly an exercise in determining the RCS of the Russian fighter. Obviously, in a real war, a "clean" Rafale is impossible. It has to carry missiles and bombs, which destroys the Rafale's RCS rating.

Anyway, let me continue with my analysis from last year.

From the front, the T-50/Pak-Fa and Rafale are both deficient with a metal-framed cockpit canopy. The Rafale is further deficient with a round nose (not having a shaped nose) and lacks RAM coating. The T-50/Pak-Fa has its own problems of a protruding IRST probe and straight engine inlets (whereas the Rafale engine is 90% hidden).

Also, both the T-50/Pak-Fa and Rafale lack gold-colored transparent cockpit canopy RAM. I have never seen a picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa with gold-colored RAM and I can only conclude the Russians have been unable to develop transparent RAM.

The 0.5m2 RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa is an average from all perspectives. Last year, I had forgotten to highlight the T-50's superiority to the French Rafale in side-aspect RCS. From the side, the T-50/Pak-Fa has a partially canted airduct, which deflects radar away from the emitter. 

Additionally, the T-50's RAM coating provides a much lower RCS in comparison to the French Rafale. The T-50's canted vertical stabilizers further reduce its side-profile RCS. In a real war, the T-50 was always far superior to the French Rafale. The T-50 has internal weapon bays and its RCS was always much lower than a French Rafale in combat.

After considering the T-50's superiority over the French Rafale in side-aspect RCS, I concur with the overall 0.5m2 RCS for the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa.

----------

Citations:



> *My annual review of T-50/Pak-Fa progress or lack thereof*
> 
> Two years have passed since the January 2010 unveiling of the T-50/Pak-Fa. Let's look at the stealth design issues that remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> By the way, none of the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa problems exists on the Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter.
> 
> *Terrific J-20 Mighty Dragon close-up photographs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 taxiing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another day of tests
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Hu Songshan and J-20 Mighty Dragon Continue Flight Testing in February 2012 ~ Chinese Military Review]


-----



> We know T-50 is inferior in stealth to French Rafale, which means T-50's RCS > 1m2
> 
> According to GlobalSecurity, the French Rafale has a RCS of 1 m2. Since the Rafale has most of its engine blades shielded by an almost-serpentine air-inlet, the T-50's fully-exposed engine blades will cause the T-50's RCS to be greater than the Rafale's 1m2.
> 
> However, the T-50 has a shaped-nose. This means the T-50's RCS is probably a little lower than a F-16. *My best estimate of the T-50's RCS is 3m2.* (See GlobalSecurity RCS chart below. The T-50's RCS is most likely bound by the F-16 as an upper limit and the French Rafale as the lower limit.) Exposed engine blades are a glaring deficiency for stealth. However, I awarded points to the T-50 for having a shaped-nose, canted air-ducts and tails, and planform alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> Martian date='Jan 22 2011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My estimate of J-20's RCS is 0.005-0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db)
> 
> From the front, the J-20 matches the F-22's stealth profile. While the J-20 is flying at you, the incremental increase in area from its canards is minimal (e.g. look at a piece of paper edge-wise; you only see a line). Also, the J-20's canards are probably made of composite material, coated with RAM, and curve-shaped to deflect radar waves. For all intents and purposes, the J-20 has a F-22 RCS frontal profile of 0.0001 m2.
> 
> From the rear, with its circular saw-toothed engine nozzles, the J-20 looks like the F-35 and it should have a similar rear RCS of 0.005 m2.
> 
> In conclusion, depending on your point of view, the J-20's RCS ranges from 0.005 to 0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db).
> 
> Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> Radar Cross Section (RCS) / RCS (m2) / RCS (dB)
> 
> 
> automobile	100	20
> B-52	100
> B-1(A/B)	10
> F-15	25
> Su-27	15
> cabin cruiser	10	10
> Su-MKI	4
> Mig-21	3
> *F-16	5*
> F-16C	1.2
> man	1	0
> F-18	1
> *Rafale	1*
> B-2	0.75 ?
> Typhoon	0.5
> Tomahawk SLCM	0.5
> B-2	0.1 ?
> A-12/SR-71	0.01 (22 in2)
> bird	0.01	-20
> *F-35 / JSF	0.005	-30*
> F-117	0.003
> insect	0.001	-30
> *F-22	0.0001	-40*
> B-2	0.0001	-40
Click to expand...


----------



## gubbi

I wonder where Martian 2 pulls out all those fantastic numbers!! Gotta bet its from Planet (Martian 2's) Uranus. But then gotta give the dude his credit. No matter how stupid, how inane and how ridiculous his posts and "calculations" - all based on assumptions, the dude passionately believes in what he posts. He passionately believes that the stupidity displayed in his posts is the standard for intelligence. 

Keep regaling us with your antics, jester.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Here's Bill Sweetman's preliminary analysis of the PAK FA posted back in 2010. 



> The big new feature of the T-50 is stealth. The aircraft that flew today is a prototype - and it does not show visible features like a frameless canopy and panel alignment that you'd expect on a production aircraft. *Other not-very-stealthy-looking features include the gaps around the inlet* (compare the YF-23) and a spherical infrared search and track housing in front of the windshield. And, of course, the nozzles are round. But it has a chined forebody, edge alignment and (probably) inlet line-of-sight blockage and internal weapons.
> 
> Apparently the designers and systems analysts have looked at the thorny question of "how much stealth do we want to pay for?" and have come up with a different answer than the F-22 designers. The fact that the armed forces of potential adversaries don't have S-300 and S-400 missiles may have something to do with that answer.



T-50: A Preliminary Analysis

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

gubbi said:


> I wonder where Martian 2 pulls out all those fantastic numbers!! Gotta bet its from Planet (Martian 2's) Uranus. But then gotta give the dude his credit. No matter how stupid, how inane and how ridiculous his posts and "calculations" - all based on assumptions, the dude passionately believes in what he posts. He passionately believes that the stupidity displayed in his posts is the standard for intelligence.
> 
> Keep regaling us with your antics, jester.


Notice his 'citations' -- Himself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Notice his 'citations' -- Himself.



can't go wrong with that one.


----------



## Martian2

*World stealth fighter rankings*






#1 F-22 Raptor - RCS is 0.0001 m2 (from GlobalSecurity citation)

#2 J-20 Mighty Dragon - RCS is intermediate between F-22 and F-35 (Frontal and side-aspect RCS is 0.0001 m2 like F-22. Rear-aspect RCS with round LOAN engine nozzles is 0.005 m2 like F-35. See my previous analyses.)

#3 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - RCS is 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity citation)

#4 T-50/Pak-Fa - RCS is 0.5 m2 (from Russian Embassy in India official website citation)

References:

GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Russian Embassy in India official website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> whether the 0.5m2 is true or not, but the fact is the mighty Soviet aviation industry was long gone, no exciting things coming from Russia for decades, and now the T-50 is a big disappointment of their true capability



How is it a big disappointment? Did you get to fly it? Did you get your hands on some classified information&#8217;s? What you think is irrelevant, your eye-ball test is irrelevant, and you preconceived and false notions of aerospace design is irrelevant. The pak-fa far exceeds all other known fighter aircraft in range, speed, ect. I would hardly call that a disappointment. I would not call the avionics in the pak-fa a disappointment either.

As for the RCS claim it came from a journalist--I have seen the original broadcast where they claimed so, most Chinese on this forum call Russians liars and Russian journalists notoriously inaccurate. When Russian journalist report something about China that doesn&#8217;t sit well with Chinese cheerleaders than Russians are liars, when journalist report something that makes Russia look bad than it is the definitive truth.



gubbi said:


> I wonder where Martian 2 pulls out all those fantastic numbers!! Gotta bet its from Planet (Martian 2's) Uranus. But then gotta give the dude his credit. No matter how stupid, how inane and how ridiculous his posts and "calculations" - all based on assumptions, the dude passionately believes in what he posts. He passionately believes that the stupidity displayed in his posts is the standard for intelligence.
> 
> Keep regaling us with your antics, jester.



He got his numbers from thin air. In the real world aircraft are tested and scrutinized by mathematical models that predict complex wave scattering as well as anechoic chambers. His layman analysis is not only flawed it is butchered. His reasoning is something like this: The Rafales&#8217; RCS is 1m2 from the front therefore the pak-fa&#8217;s RCS should be much larger because its compressor blades are exposed. He fails to take into all other factors such as pylons, the scatter of EM energy from the cockpit and even an aircraft&#8217;s flaps, in the Rafales&#8217; case its flaps are perpendicular in relation to the front of the aircraft--the pak-fa has no such problem.

He also called Boeing liars when they claimed there Silent Eagle could achieve the same frontal RCS as the F-35. Comparing the latest Flankers including the Chinese J-11 and SU-35 we know that both aircraft have had significant RCS reductions. There are figures of 1m2 to 3m2 for both aircraft, so how is that possible? How do you take a Flanker airframe and reduce the RCS by that large of a margin especially with fully exposed compressor blades and all? This is where his layman analysis falls apart, by his logic, if an SU-30 has a RCS of 10m2 than the SU-35 and J-11 also have to have the same RCS but this is not the case.

Here is one of Martian&#8217;s old posts, in it he is trying to convince everyone that the WZ-10 is stealthy despite a vertical freaking stab, pylons, fixed landing gears, gun, FLIR probe, a metal canopy, and too many protrusions to count. Here it is enjoy everyone:





Martian2 said:


> What about the stealth shape of the fuselage to reflect radar away from the emitter? Or are your eyes incapable of seeing the obvious faceted shaping?
> 
> If you&#8217;re having problems comprehending the stealth shaping, let me educate you. When radar hit&#8217;s the top-half of the WZ-10, it reflects away into space. When radar hit&#8217;s the bottom-half of the WZ-10, it reflects into the ground. Either way, the radar is redirected away from the receiver.




So while he nit picks the pak-fa over the slightest of things such as a small IRST probe, he turns around and calls the WZ-10 stealthy even though it has an enormous FLIR and gun hanging off it nose. If it&#8217;s Chinese, it&#8217;s stealthy no matter what, you see, the WZ-10 is special, it can still be stealthy even with a framed canopy, and FLIR but the pak-fa is definitely not stealthy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Martian2 said:


> *Reconciling my estimate of 3m2 RCS with Russian embassy statement of 0.5m2 RCS*
> 
> The statement of T-50/Pak-Fa 0.5m2 RCS on the official Russian embassy website has existed for two years. Sukhoi had ample opportunity to dispute the 0.5m2 RCS. The Russian embassy in India statement of 0.5m2 RCS makes sense, because all of us can clearly see the glaring deficiencies in the third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype (see first citation below).
> 
> However, I still have to explain the discrepancy between my estimate from January 2011 (see second citation below) and the lower RCS by the Russian embassy in India. My estimate of a frontal RCS of 3m2 for the T-50/Pak-Fa was probably correct, but it was incomplete.
> 
> I want to clarify that my comparison between the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa and the French Rafale was strictly an exercise in determining the RCS of the Russian fighter. Obviously, in a real war, a "clean" Rafale is impossible. It has to carry missiles and bombs, which destroys the Rafale's RCS rating.
> 
> Anyway, let me continue with my analysis from last year.
> 
> From the front, the T-50/Pak-Fa and Rafale are both deficient with a metal-framed cockpit canopy. The Rafale is further deficient with a round nose (not having a shaped nose) and lacks RAM coating. The T-50/Pak-Fa has its own problems of a protruding IRST probe and straight engine inlets (whereas the Rafale engine is 90% hidden).
> 
> Also, both the T-50/Pak-Fa and Rafale lack gold-colored transparent cockpit canopy RAM. I have never seen a picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa with gold-colored RAM and I can only conclude the Russians have been unable to develop transparent RAM.
> 
> The 0.5m2 RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa is an average from all perspectives. Last year, I had forgotten to highlight the T-50's superiority to the French Rafale in side-aspect RCS. From the side, the T-50/Pak-Fa has a partially canted airduct, which deflects radar away from the emitter.
> 
> Additionally, the T-50's RAM coating provides a much lower RCS in comparison to the French Rafale. The T-50's canted vertical stabilizers further reduce its side-profile RCS. In a real war, the T-50 was always far superior to the French Rafale. The T-50 has internal weapon bays and its RCS was always much lower than a French Rafale in combat.
> 
> After considering the T-50's superiority over the French Rafale in side-aspect RCS, I concur with the overall 0.5m2 RCS for the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Citations:
> 
> 
> -----





Hi, 
Please Do Some Research Before Posting...*Your Post Are Non Credible And Nonconstructive.* 
You Really Think THAT---- Only Saw Toothed Edges Are Stealthy ?? Or didn't Know How A Metal frame Canopy Contribute In Over All RCS ?? 

Learn Basics 1st
ThankYou

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Hi,
> Please Do Some Research Before Posting...*Your Post Are Non Credible And Nonconstructive.*
> You Really Think THAT---- Only Saw Toothed Edges Are Stealthy ?? Or didn't Know How A Metal frame Canopy Contribute In Over All RCS ??
> 
> Learn Basics 1st
> ThankYou



Unfortunately he is more knowledgeable than the hundreds of engineers at Sukhoi. And he is right the J-20 *mighty drag-queen *is super duper superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian just used *Global security* and *himeself as a citation * And did he actually take the time to put those pictures together? That's sad.


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

j20blackdragon said:


>




Shaping in stealth aircraft more related to angle of approach than true stealthiness, if you look a flat plate perpendicular to the radar it will send most of the radar back to the transmitter, by tilting the flat plate you reduce signature a great deal, however look that any flat plate at 90 degrees to the radar it will be very visible, at shallow angles of 30 degrees will be stealthy.

now the J-20 flat wings will be very visible depending in the angle the radar looks at them. the flat canted sides are stealthy if the radar is positoned on an angle of 30 degrees with respect them, but on an angle perperdicular to the flat surface of the canted fuselage sides like 90 degrees they are very visible, the flat canted fuselage sides are visible to the radar at 90 degree angles but invisible at shallow angles of 30 degrees or less.

*it is not like the J-20 is more stealthy than PAKFA, the J-20 is only more stealthy from certain angles but as visible from others, so the angle of approach is quiet important for the J-20 with respect the radar*....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HongWu

ptldM3 said:


> So while he nit picks the pak-fa over the slightest of things such as a small IRST probe, he turns around and calls the WZ-10 stealthy even though it has an enormous FLIR and gun hanging off it nose. If it&#8217;s Chinese, it&#8217;s stealthy no matter what, you see, the WZ-10 is special, it can still be stealthy even with a framed canopy, and FLIR but the pak-fa is definitely not stealthy.


WZ-10 is a stealthy helicopter. It is stealthy because it has low RCS features not found on most other combat helicopters like an Mi-24.

J-20 is a true 5th generation VLO fighter with RCS comparable to F-22. T-50's RCS is 0.5m2 so it is not a true 5th generation VLO fighter. It is an LO fighter like Silent Eagle (which also has internal bay), so basically it's a Silent Flanker.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

HongWu said:


> WZ-10 is a stealthy helicopter. It is stealthy because it has low RCS features not found in most other combat helicopters like an Mi-24.
> 
> J-20 is a true 5th generation VLO fighter with RCS comparable to F-22. T-50's RCS is 0.5m2 so it is not a true 5th generation VLO fighter. It is an LO fighter like Silent Eagle (which also has internal bay), so basically it's a Silent Flanker.



The WZ-10 is just about as stealthy as a dump truck full of manure. I was not aware that fix landing gears, vertical stabs, large gun, pylons, and a FLIR were stealthy. I still find it funny that Chinese members here jump up and down pointing fingers at something as small as an IRST on the pak-fa and than shrug off the fact the WZ-10 has more junk hanging off of it than a Christmas tree.

And for your information the Silent Eagle has the same frontal RCS as the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tracy

Hey My 1st Post
Canards have poor stealth characteristics....but is there anything like stealthy canards ?


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Tracy said:


> Hey My 1st Post
> Canards have poor stealth characteristics....but is there anything like stealthy canards ?



Hello Tracy And Welcome 

YES Canards can be stealthy but stealthy canards are usally very difficult to shape and harmonize with performance, the J-20 has planform alignment in the canards trailing and leading edges but its planforming is not as good as on other designs, its canards have leading edges aligned with the wing leading edges and their trailing edges aligned with the wing trailing edges, however the wing`s LERX is not aligned with the wing or canard so the LERX leading edge is not aligned with the wing or canard leading edges or trailing edges, this will affect its stealth and reduce its effectiveness....

The Dihedral of the canard is not aligned as the dorsal V tail with the flat sides of the fuselage and the forebody flat sides in fact is not aligned with anything, this is only an aerodynamic need, this also will reduce its stealth effectiveness.
So its planform alignment is not PERFECT.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

HongWu said:


> *WZ-10 is a stealthy helicopter. *It is stealthy because it has low RCS features not found on most other combat helicopters like an Mi-24.
> 
> J-20 is a true 5th generation VLO fighter with RCS comparable to F-22. T-50's RCS is 0.5m2 so it is not a true 5th generation VLO fighter. It is an LO fighter like Silent Eagle (which also has internal bay), so basically it's a Silent Flanker.



I stopped reading after that. I really did.


----------



## Martian2

*World stealth fighter rankings (updated citations)*







#1 F-22 Raptor - RCS is 0.0001 m2 (from *GlobalSecurity* citation)

#2 J-20 Mighty Dragon - RCS is intermediate between F-22 and F-35 (Frontal and side-aspect RCS is 0.0001 m2 like F-22. Rear-aspect RCS with round LOAN engine nozzles is 0.005 m2 like F-35. See *Australia Air Power* citation below.)

#3 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - RCS is 0.005 m2 (from *GlobalSecurity* citation)

#4 T-50/Pak-Fa - RCS is 0.5 m2 (from *Russian Embassy in India* official website citation)

References:

GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Russian Embassy in India official website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

----------

*Australia Air Power: J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design"*





J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.

The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

"*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*






_Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi)._






Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative*, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.

*While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and &#34013;&#32982; for the picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Martian2 said:


> *World stealth fighter rankings (updated citations)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 F-22 Raptor - RCS is 0.0001 m2 (from *GlobalSecurity* citation)
> 
> #2 J-20 Mighty Dragon - RCS is intermediate between F-22 and F-35 (Frontal and side-aspect RCS is 0.0001 m2 like F-22. Rear-aspect RCS with round LOAN engine nozzles is 0.005 m2 like F-35. See *Australia Air Power* citation below.)
> 
> #3 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - RCS is 0.005 m2 (from *GlobalSecurity* citation)
> 
> #4 T-50/Pak-Fa - RCS is 0.5 m2 (from *Russian Embassy in India* official website citation)
> 
> References:
> 
> GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> Russian Embassy in India official website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Australia Air Power: J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.
> 
> The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
> 
> "*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi)._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).
> 
> The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative*, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.
> 
> *While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"
> 
> [Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and &#34013;&#32982; for the picture.]



The stimulation takes the Azm angle at 180degree while in X-band... sorry but planes don't fly on flat surfaces... any deviation from that 180degree plane would make the RCS jump like a jack in the box thanks to those extra large canards... and these days radar processors don't miss such jumps.

On a lighter note how did the RCS of J-20 come in between F-22 from front an F-35 from behind ?... Looks ?..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tracy

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Hello Tracy And Welcome
> 
> YES Canards can be stealthy but stealthy canards are usally very difficult to shape and harmonize with performance, the J-20 has planform alignment in the canards trailing and leading edges but its planforming is not as good as on other designs, its canards have leading edges aligned with the wing leading edges and their trailing edges aligned with the wing trailing edges, however the wing`s LERX is not aligned with the wing or canard so the LERX leading edge is not aligned with the wing or canard leading edges or trailing edges, this will affect its stealth and reduce its effectiveness....
> 
> The Dihedral of the canard is not aligned as the dorsal V tail with the flat sides of the fuselage and the forebody flat sides in fact is not aligned with anything, this is only an aerodynamic need, this also will reduce its stealth effectiveness.
> So its planform alignment is not PERFECT.....



Thnx for replying you seems knowledgeable. 
Some Sources says That J-20 engines are, not as powerful as Western Or Russian ones. Canards are there to enhance maneuverability / Agility / performance ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Tracy said:


> Thnx for replying you seems knowledgeable.
> Some Sources says That J-20 engines are, not as powerful as Western Or Russian ones. Canards are there to enhance maneuverability / Agility / performance ?



Without canards J-20 would have to take off like a jumbo jet... yes the TVC on those Saturn engines also helps.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> *Without canards J-20 would have to take off like a jumbo jet*... yes the TVC on those Saturn engines also helps.



Explain through aerodynamic principles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Tracy said:


> Thnx for replying you seems knowledgeable.
> Some Sources says That J-20 engines are, not as powerful as Western Or Russian ones. Canards are there to enhance maneuverability / Agility / performance ?





Yes, However *the V tail if used as pitch control can enhance J20 agility in a similar way as if it was a triplane configuration, V tails can pitch the J-20 reducing the "AoA" of its canards and reducing the use of wing flaps.* They can also be used as air brakes at the same time they are used for pitch control. this is not a unique ability of the J-20, the T50, YF-23, F-35, F-22 can also do it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Explain through aerodynamic principles.



Haven't you seen a jumbo jet takeoff.


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> Haven't you seen a jumbo jet takeoff.



Yes, but then again I dont think a lumbering jumbo jet is comparable to a supersonic fighter.. does Kopp think so?


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Yes, but then again I dont think a lumbering jumbo jet is comparable to a supersonic fighter.. does Kopp think so?



Really..






Let me call Kopp... He busy these days testing J-20 RCS in the special optical chamber with some China boys.

Would like posters here to SPECULATE the weight of J-20..


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> And for your information the Silent Eagle has the same frontal RCS as the F-35.







> Jim Albaugh, who heads Boeing's defense business, told reporters in Paris on Sunday that the new F-15 offered a comparable level of stealth capability to what Washington was willing to sell to foreign military sales customers.
> 
> "We are not trying to say that this is an airplane that has full-aspect stealth capability," Albaugh said. "It doesn't. But from a front-radar cross-section, it has all the stealth that has been approved for export by the U.S. government."
> 
> Heinz first criticized how Boeing was marketing its F-15 Silent Eagle at a news conference in Washington on June 2, and also took a swipe at its radar-evading capabilities.
> 
> He said Boeing's work to reduce the frontal radar signature of the F-15 Silent Eagle would give it an edge over other fighters of its generation, but was still no match for the F-35: "You put (the new F-15) against a fifth-generation guy, the second he turns, he looks just like the Goodyear blimp."



AIRSHOW-UPDATE 1-Pentagon F-35 chief blasts Boeing comments | Reuters

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tracy

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Yes, However *the V tail if used as pitch control can enhance J20 agility in a similar way as if it was a triplane configuration, V tails can pitch the J-20 reducing the "AoA" of its canards and reducing the use of wing flaps.* They can also be used as air brakes at the same time they are used for pitch control. this is not a unique ability of the J-20, the T50, YF-23, F-35, F-22 can also do it



ty More Question's Coming 
In Other Forums Members says That A plane to be *stealth must be designed "as flat as possible" (like b-2)* BUT Here I have a doubt.....*flat surface reflects more radar energy compared to curved or saw tooth surface* Right ?


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> Really..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me call Kopp... He busy these days testing J-20 RCS in the *special optical chamber with some China boys.*
> 
> Would like posters here to SPECULATE the weight of J-20..



Yes... pretty similar to his earlier nonsense on Russian radars and their superiority.
Unless the J-20 is built from steel.. One could speculate something close to the weight of a tornado or F-111.


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> Really..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me call Kopp... He busy these days testing J-20 RCS in the *special optical chamber with some China boys.*
> 
> Would like posters here to SPECULATE the weight of J-20..



Yes... pretty similar to his earlier nonsense on Russian radars and their superiority.
Unless the J-20 is built from steel.. One could speculate something close to the weight of a tornado or F-111.


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> AIRSHOW-UPDATE 1-Pentagon F-35 chief blasts Boeing comments | Reuters



That post you just posted *confirmed *what i have been saying, that the Silent Eagle had the same *frontal RCS *as the F-35. 

Next time read your sources


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> That post you just posted *confirmed *what i have been saying, that the Silent Eagle had the same *frontal RCS *as the F-35.
> 
> Next time read your sources



Boeing's claim has always been that the F-15SE was comparable in frontal RCS to a "dumbed down" (their words not mine) version of the F-35 being sold to foreign countries.

But I have a couple of questions for you or anyone else who feels like answering:

1. Do we know for sure that there is a "dumbed down" version of the F-35?

2. How does Boeing know the RCS of the F-35 to begin with?

3. Does anyone honestly believe that an aircraft designed in the 60s with modifications is somehow comparable in frontal RCS to a purpose-built stealth fighter that is still in development?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Tracy said:


> ty More Question's Coming
> In Other Forums Members says That A plane to be stealth must be designed "as flat as possible" (like b-2) BUT Here I have a doubt.....*flat surface reflects more radar energy compared to curved or saw tooth surface* Right ?


Depends on the 'angle of approach' or 'incident angle' or variations of the phrasing. But essentially...
















Pay attention to the third illustration.

The further away from perpendicular, the less energy is reflected back to the seeking radar. On the other hand, if your structure is two angled plates joined together to form a 'corner reflector', then it is just as bad as if you have a single plate that is perpendicular to the seeking radar, as in illustration 1.






Pre F-117 aircrafts are filled with 90deg 'corner reflectors' as illustrated above. So if you must have a 'corner reflector' avoid forming a 90deg structure. That is why 'stealth' aircrafts must either have no vertical stabilators at all, like the B-2, or have twin canted vertical stabs like the F-117, F-22, and the F-35. Note that that SR-71 and the F-18 have their vertical stabs in non 90deg configuration.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> But I have a couple of questions for you or anyone else who feels like answering:


Sure.



j20blackdragon said:


> 1. Do we know for sure that there is a "dumbed down" version of the F-35?


The public may not, but there are *NO* technical barriers in creating an 'inferior' version of the F-35, in both avionics and radar observability, in other words, we can produce an export version of the F-35 that is 'dumber' than the US version and with a higher RCS.



j20blackdragon said:


> 2. How does Boeing know the RCS of the F-35 to begin with?


People talk as in 'shop talk'.



j20blackdragon said:


> 3. Does anyone honestly believe that an aircraft designed in the 60s with modifications is somehow comparable in frontal RCS to a purpose-built stealth fighter that is still in development?


Frontal RCS is tactically more important than other aspect angles. It make logical sense. If an aircraft is in the frontal view, it mean he is approaching you and if he is military aircraft, you should assume he is hostile unless assured otherwise. But after he delivered his missiles or bombs and exit the area, then how 'fat' is his behind, EM-speaking, to you is less important to him than his exit speed, which would probably be the proverbial 'balls to the wall' throttle setting. So to answer your question: Yes, it is possible to reduce the frontal RCS of a 1970s era fighter like the F-16 or F-16 or F-18 to very close as that of the F-35. It would take a lot of work but it is 'doable'. Keep in mind that the F-16 is the one that set the official unofficial standard for 'stealth'.


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Boeing's claim has always been that the F-15SE was comparable in frontal RCS to a "dumbed down" (their words not mine) version of the F-35 being sold to foreign countries.
> 
> But I have a couple of questions for you or anyone else who feels like answering:
> 
> 1. Do we know for sure that there is a "dumbed down" version of the F-35?




You really are confused arent you? Boeing has claimed that the Silent Eagles RCS is equal to export versions of the F-35, by dumbed down the guy at Lockheed probably is refering to the export model of the F-35. Get it?




j20blackdragon said:


> 2. How does Boeing know the RCS of the F-35 to begin with?




Boeing is also involved in the F-35 development. 






j20blackdragon said:


> 3. Does anyone honestly believe that an aircraft designed in the 60s with modifications is somehow comparable in frontal RCS to a purpose-built stealth fighter that is still in development?





I believe what Boeing says over what some magazine editors or armchair generals say.


----------



## nafsiati

Does China have thrust vectoring technology like russians or americans?


----------



## gambit

nafsiati said:


> Does China have thrust vectoring technology like russians or americans?


So far: No.

You should understand that on any aircraft, from the WW I biplane era to today's modern jets, the engine is the component with the highest concentration of moving parts that create an environment with harshness equal to that of a smelting furnace. Not everyone can produce a modern Mach capable jet engine. Do that before start talking about thrust vectoring.


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Tracy said:


> ty More Question's Coming
> In Other Forums Members says That A plane to be *stealth must be designed "as flat as possible" (like b-2)* BUT Here I have a doubt.....*flat surface reflects more radar energy compared to curved or saw tooth surface* Right ?





Look Carefully.....B2 *FLAT is it ?* 

B2 uses a triangle frontally and a serrated trailing edge however it uses *continuos curvature*, it has been smoothed to a degree it becomes aerodynamically efficient, contrary to the Older Generation Stealth Design Like F-117 with its *anti-aerodynamic multi faceted fuselage and airfoils, the continous curvature adds aerodynamic efficiency and scatters radar waves away at different directions but following the leading edge swept of the flying wing. Flattened things have small cross sections*, the B-2 Stealth Bomber have been minimized to a degree the amount of radar reflections is decreased as the aerodynamically cross section has.







Although The ideal shape of an stealth aircraft is a rhombus (2D) 







Well a (3D) would be Something like pyramid ,* first stealth aircraft like F-117 used a a multi facet diamond shaped fuselage that scattered radar waves at several directions* F-117 Pic Below

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

nafsiati said:


> Does China have thrust vectoring technology like russians or americans?


They had technology demonstrator set up in the early 2000's. It's been 10 years since then, so I imagine they have at least made some progress. As far as a operational TVC goes, not yet.


----------



## artaxerces

ptldM3 said:


> How is it a big disappointment? Did you get to fly it? Did you get your hands on some classified information&#8217;s? What you think is irrelevant, your eye-ball test is irrelevant, and you preconceived and false notions of aerospace design is irrelevant. The pak-fa far exceeds all other known fighter aircraft in range, speed, ect. I would hardly call that a disappointment. I would not call the avionics in the pak-fa a disappointment either.




Hongwu, ptldM3, and Martian2

I wouldn't call the PAK-FA a disappointment just yet. In fact, I would warn against underestimating the capabilities of Russian fighter design teams. We have to remember that China's military aircraft industry is built on the foundation of Soviet technical expertise. The Mikoyan and Yak design bureaus basically trained the founding engineering teams at SAC, CAC, and XAC. 

We know that the Pak-Fa will outclass just about any 4.5 Gen fighter by a substantial margin. The best 4.5 Gen fighter (Eurofighter) has a clean configuration RCS of about 1m^2, loaded with weapons, it would have a much larger RCS. A fully loaded Pak-FA, if we take the words of news reporters as gospel, would have an RCS of only 0.5 m^2. 

With that said, I don't think a direct aircraft to aircraft comparison between the J-20 and the PAK-FA is very useful. It is way more instructive, imho, to understand the role that each aircraft intends to play in the overall operational doctrine. It might well be that Pak-FA is less stealthy than the J-20. But the real question to ask is why that design choice was made? It would be very foolish for us to assume that the Russians didn't do it because they couldn't.

Stealth comes with a cost. Extreme levels of stealth drastically increases the cost per aircraft. The ultra-stealthy skin on an F-22 takes 30 hours of maintenance effort to sustain 1 hour of flight time. If the J-20 is shooting for F-22 levels of stealth, I suspect that similar problems would be encountered.

If the Pak-FA is indeed less stealthy, it might also be cheaper to produce, cheaper to maintain. It might have a MUCH higher level of operational readiness than the J-20. It will likely have superior engines. It might even have superior avionics.

The point here is that in a real shooting war, stealth is not the only factor to consider.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tracy

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Look Carefully.....B2 *FLAT is it ?*
> 
> B2 uses a triangle frontally and a serrated trailing edge however it uses *continuos curvature*, it has been smoothed to a degree it becomes aerodynamically efficient, contrary to the Older Generation Stealth Design Like F-117 with its *anti-aerodynamic multi faceted fuselage and airfoils, the continous curvature adds aerodynamic efficiency and scatters radar waves away at different directions but following the leading edge swept of the flying wing. Flattened things have small cross sections*, the B-2 Stealth Bomber have been minimized to a degree the amount of radar reflections is decreased as the aerodynamically cross section has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although The ideal shape of an stealth aircraft is a rhombus (2D)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well a (3D) would be Something like pyramid ,* first stealth aircraft like F-117 used a a multi facet diamond shaped fuselage that scattered radar waves at several directions* F-117 Pic Below




Thanks Wet-Shirt Context and Gambit your post are very informative, i'll ask more questions later 1st let me absorb this.
from where you guys get this info ?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

artaxerces said:


> Hongwu, ptldM3, and Martian2
> 
> I wouldn't call the PAK-FA a disappointment just yet. In fact, I would warn against underestimating the capabilities of Russian fighter design teams. We have to remember that China's military aircraft industry is built on the foundation of Soviet technical expertise. The Mikoyan and Yak design bureaus basically trained the founding engineering teams at SAC, CAC, and XAC.
> 
> We know that the Pak-Fa will outclass just about any 4.5 Gen fighter by a substantial margin. The best 4.5 Gen fighter (Eurofighter) has a clean configuration RCS of about 1m^2, loaded with weapons, it would have a much larger RCS. A fully loaded Pak-FA, if we take the words of news reporters as gospel, would have an RCS of only 0.5 m^2.
> 
> With that said, I don't think a direct aircraft to aircraft comparison between the J-20 and the PAK-FA is very useful. It is way more instructive, imho, to understand the role that each aircraft intends to play in the overall operational doctrine. It might well be that Pak-FA is less stealthy than the J-20. But the real question to ask is why that design choice was made? It would be very foolish for us to assume that the Russians didn't do it because they couldn't.
> 
> Stealth comes with a cost. Extreme levels of stealth drastically increases the cost per aircraft. The ultra-stealthy skin on an F-22 takes 30 hours of maintenance effort to sustain 1 hour of flight time. If the J-20 is shooting for F-22 levels of stealth, I suspect that similar problems would be encountered.
> 
> If the Pak-FA is indeed less stealthy, it might also be cheaper to produce, cheaper to maintain. *It might have a MUCH higher level of operational readiness than the J-20. It will likely have superior engines. It might even have superior avionics.*
> 
> The point here is that in a real shooting war, stealth is not the only factor to consider.



Worthless opinion, how can they have better avionics when our AESA is superior than theirs?


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Worthless opinion, how can they have better avionics when our AESA is superior than theirs?



No, your opinion is worthless. You have no details on either AESA's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> No, your opinion is worthless. You have no details on either AESA's.



lol, we can fit AESA into the smaller J-10B and JF-17, while you can only fit for your Mig-31.

It is quite clear that your AESA is oversized and underpowered, while you haven't built a warship with AESA comparable to Type 052C.

Also, J-20 uses WS-10BIII or WS-10G engine, while T-50 uses 117 engine, no big difference between the engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tracy

Any concrete reports available on working Chinese AESA ? (for fighters)


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> lol, we can fit AESA into the smaller J-10B and JF-17, while you can only fit for your Mig-31.



Mig-31 doesn&#8217;t have AESA, the J-10 isn&#8217;t small, the JF-17 has no AESA, and the Zhuk-AE which is in the Mig-35 is only 600 mm.





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is quite clear that your AESA is oversized and underpowered, while you haven't built a warship with AESA comparable to Type 052C.




Yea, 600 mm is oversized. And define, underpowered, are you talking Range? Aperture? And underpowered compared to what? You can&#8217;t even give me details on any Chinese based AESA.

It&#8217;s clear you know nothing about the subject of radars, how many channels does the Chinese radar use, what&#8217;s the resolution, range, aperture, type of transistors, frequency agility, targets engaged, ect? You can&#8217;t answer, if you can&#8217;t answer I wouldn&#8217;t be pounding my chest claiming that China has &#8216;superior AESA&#8217;.




ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Also, J-20 uses WS-10BIII or WS-10G engine, while T-50 uses 117 engine, no big difference between the engines.



Says the layman. You want to pull up the MTBO&#8217;s, service life, T/W ratio, super cruise?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tracy said:


> Any concrete reports available on working Chinese AESA ? (for fighters)



There is the official report that the customers of JF-17 can receive their AESA upgrade at any time.

Even now so far there is only Pakistan, but AESA is a must feature for block II and an optional feature for block I.


----------



## artaxerces

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Worthless opinion, how can they have better avionics when our AESA is superior than theirs?



We don't know that our AESA is better since neither air force has deployed an operational fighter with AESA yet. Moreover, I said the T50 "might" have better avionics. My reasoning is that while CAC has access to a much larger commercial electronics ecosystem and can utilize more COTS technologies, Sukhoi does have about 2 decades more experience in terms of 4 gen Avionics Design. In terms of avionics, it would be a close call either way imho.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> Mig-31 doesn&#8217;t have AESA, the J-10 isn&#8217;t small, the JF-17 has no AESA, and the Zhuk-AE which is in the Mig-35 is only 600 mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, 600 mm is oversized. And define, underpowered, are you talking Range? Aperture? And underpowered compared to what? You can&#8217;t even give me details on any Chinese based AESA.
> 
> It&#8217;s clear you know nothing about the subject of radars, how many channels does the Chinese radar use, what&#8217;s the resolution, range, aperture, type of transistors, frequency agility, targets engaged, ect? You can&#8217;t answer, if you can&#8217;t answer I wouldn&#8217;t be pounding my chest claiming that China has &#8216;superior AESA&#8217;.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the layman. You want to pull up the MTBO&#8217;s, service life, T/W ratio, super cruise?



Is Mig-35 an operational aircraft?

But J-11B is an operational aircraft with AESA radar.

http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/12/96/61/99/milit203.jpg

And our engine has been passed thousands hours of test, otherwise they won't take the risk to install it on an expensive prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Tracy said:


> Thanks Wet-Shirt *Context* and Gambit your post are very informative, i'll ask more questions later 1st let me absorb this.
> *from where you guys get this info ?*



Your Welcome, Always Good To Know That My Post's Are Helpful....
And I Am The Source Myself With 1st Hand Information


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

artaxerces said:


> We don't know that our AESA is better since neither air force has deployed an operational fighter with AESA yet. Moreover, I said the T50 "might" have better avionics. My reasoning is that while CAC has access to a much larger commercial electronics ecosystem and can utilize more COTS technologies, Sukhoi does have about 2 decades more experience in terms of 4 gen Avionics Design. In terms of avionics, it would be a close call either way imho.



J-11B is operational and it does have AESA, just do some researches before talking like a &#23567;&#30333;.


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Is Mig-35 an operational aircraft?





It doesn&#8217;t need to be, the Zhuk-AE has been produce in enough quantities to demonstrate the ability the manufacture the radar in mass.

And please lets not divert the subject. Just admit you were wrong, your were wrong about the Zhuk&#8217;s size, and can&#8217;t not provide any proof for your claims.





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> But J-11B is an operational aircraft with AESA radar.




Perhaps, but what is this based off, the usual &#8216;insiders&#8217;?





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/12/96/61/99/milit203.jpg
> 
> And our engine has been passed thousands hours of test, otherwise they won't take the risk to install it on an expensive prototype.




Great, that is totally unrelated to the subject and proves nothing.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> Perhaps, but what is this based off, the usual &#8216;insiders&#8217;?



Based from the official report, since we are ready to upgrade the AESA for the basic model of JF-17 of our customers (for now it is only Pakistan) right now.

????????????????????_??_???

Since JF-17 is already being ready for AESA, i don't see why J-11B can't be done.

plus the additional confirmation from the insiders, it is quite clear it does have AESA most likely.


----------



## DARKY

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Is Mig-35 an operational aircraft?
> 
> But J-11B is an operational aircraft with AESA radar.
> 
> http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/12/96/61/99/milit203.jpg
> 
> And our engine has been passed thousands hours of test, otherwise they won't take the risk to install it on an expensive prototype.



Don't come up with Imaginary concepts until you can prove them... we have seen Russian, American, Isreali and French Radars.. but None from China yet.. so claiming them is meaningless.... brag when you have them...No ugly looking posters or white sheets of papers..... BTW... do you want to see India's AESA ?.. yes the X-band FCR for Combat planes like Tejas.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

DARKY said:


> Don't come up with Imaginary concepts until you can prove them... we have seen Russian, American, Isreali and French Radars.. but None from China yet.. so claiming them is meaningless.... brag when you have them...No ugly looking posters or white sheets of papers..... BTW... do you want to see India's AESA ?.. yes the X-band FCR for Combat planes like Tejas.



The Chinese AESA radar, now i want to see the Indian AESA radar.


----------



## DARKY

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The Chinese AESA radar, now i want to see the Indian AESA radar.



Thats the Passive-ESA...lol..

I asked AESA... don't worry I'll show you the Indian AESA... work a little harder.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

DARKY said:


> Thats the Passive-ESA...lol..
> 
> I asked AESA... don't worry I'll show you the Indian AESA... work a little harder.



Sure it is AESA, and i don't wanna waste time with you little Indian troll.

You sound like India has already mastered the AESA, while you still purchase Rafael, a PESA aircraft. 

Even French themselves would equip AESA for their Rafael no earlier than 2014, and i doubt India can even make its own PESA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DARKY

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Sure it is AESA, and i don't wanna waste time with you little Indian troll.
> 
> You sound like India has already mastered the AESA, while you still purchase Rafael, a PESA aircraft.
> 
> Even French themselves would equip AESA for their Rafael no earlier than 2014, and i doubt India can even make its own PESA.



Says who ?... You.. what are your qualifications ??

On whats grounds can you prove it as an AESA ?.. 120 IQ ?

Ever studied about radar engineering...

Answer one correctly I would show you the Indian X-band AESA FCR... along with Transistor chips...


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

DARKY said:


> Says who ?... You.. what are your qualifications ??
> 
> On whats grounds can you prove it as an AESA ?.. 120 IQ ?
> 
> Ever studied about radar engineering...
> 
> Answer one correctly I would show you the Indian X-band AESA FCR... along with Transistor chips...



Because i have the direct proof.

J-11 with AESA








J-10B with PESA, but it was the early prototype.






So it is better to STFU if you have nothing to contribute except trolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

artaxerces said:


> Stealth comes with a cost. Extreme levels of stealth drastically increases the cost per aircraft. *The ultra-stealthy skin on an F-22 takes 30 hours of maintenance effort to sustain 1 hour of flight time.* If the J-20 is shooting for F-22 levels of stealth, I suspect that similar problems would be encountered.


You need to stop believing that crap from Rachel Maddow. The F-22 has far less absorber than the F-117 does. The reason why extra care must be taken in maintenance is not because of the material itself but because of minute surface imperfections that may raise the aircraft's RCS above a certain threshold...











Surface wave behaviors can occur at unpredictable moments, especially during maneuvers, so the problem for maintainers is to reduce surface imperfections that can create diffractions as illustrated above. That does not mean the F-22 is completely free of tiny nicks, divots, or gouges. Flying through the atmosphere inevitably will give any aircrafts such. It is that as long as those tiny nicks, divots, and gouges do not make the aircraft's RCS rise above a certain threshold, the aircraft is considered fit for combat. Each aircraft is periodically measured after X amount of flight hours and if any RCS is measured to be above a certain threshold, and that figure is secret, then the aircraft is removed from the list to be 'reconditioned' to get it below that threshold.



artaxerces said:


> The point here is that in a real shooting war, stealth is not the only factor to consider.


But for now, low radar observability is the highest. The F-22 may be costly, but losing a war or publicly capitulate because your air force has been shredded is much more expensive. Your choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Look Carefully.....B2 *FLAT is it ?*
> 
> B2 uses a triangle frontally and a serrated trailing edge however it uses *continuos curvature*, it has been smoothed to a degree it becomes aerodynamically efficient, contrary to the Older Generation Stealth Design Like F-117 with its *anti-aerodynamic multi faceted fuselage and airfoils, the continous curvature adds aerodynamic efficiency and scatters radar waves away at different directions but following the leading edge swept of the flying wing. Flattened things have small cross sections*, the B-2 Stealth Bomber have been minimized to a degree the amount of radar reflections is decreased as the aerodynamically cross section has.


You need to stop believing that 'continuous curvature' crap. That phrasing does not exist in low radar observable engineering literature. At least not in the reputable kind.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> You need to stop believing that crap from Rachel Maddow. The F-22 has far less absorber than the F-117 does. The reason why extra care must be taken in maintenance is not because of the material itself but because of minute surface imperfections that may raise the aircraft's RCS above a certain threshold...



Didn't the new RAM "zip strips" reduce the RCS maint time?


----------



## gambit

Tracy said:


> Thanks Wet-Shirt Context and Gambit your post are very informative, i'll ask more questions later 1st let me absorb this.
> from where you guys get this info ?


Speaking for myself: Ten years active USAF and almost ten more years in civilian aviation in the same avionics field. I used to design field tests involving radars and targets, air- and water-borne, off the Florida coast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> Didn't the new RAM "zip strips" reduce the RCS maint time?


Not for RCS maintenance but for panels that are designed for maintenance purposes. Those panels have gaps that will raise certain areas above a certain threshold and those gaps cannot be helped *IF* the aircraft is to be field maintainable. So the 'zip strips' are used to cover up those gaps.


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

gambit said:


> You need to stop believing that 'continuous curvature' crap. That phrasing does not exist in low radar observable engineering literature. At least not in the reputable kind.




I Guess Even F-22 uses a combination of different ways (including Continuous curves ) to keep radar waves from bouncing back to their origin ? 






_______________________________________________________________________________

&#8233;B&#8208;2 &#8233;outer &#8233;profile &#8233;has &#8233;a &#8233;variable &#8233;radius, continuous&#8233;curve &#8233;that &#8233;deflects &#8233;RADAR&#8233; waves&#8233; at &#8233;any &#8233;angle&#8233; (non&#8208;tangential &#8233;surface)......&#8233;reducing &#8233;RCS.&#8233;..?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> I Guess Even F-22 uses a combination of different ways (including Continuous curves ) to keep radar waves from bouncing back to their origin ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> &#8233;B&#8208;2 &#8233;outer &#8233;profile &#8233;has &#8233;a &#8233;variable &#8233;radius, continuous&#8233;curve &#8233;that &#8233;deflects &#8233;RADAR&#8233; waves&#8233; at &#8233;any &#8233;angle&#8233; (non&#8208;tangential &#8233;surface)......&#8233;reducing &#8233;RCS.&#8233;..?


Give me a credible source for that 'continuous curvature' phrasing. I want to see its proper context.

I know where you lifted that image. I want to see a credible technical source.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

gambit said:


> Give me a credible source for that 'continuous curvature' phrasing. I want to see its proper context.



Gambit Google is Not My friend 
That the best i can try for now
___________________________________________________________________________________


Stealth&#8233; Part
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/B2Spr09.pdf

___________________________________________________________________________________
F22 Continuous curves Part
:: F-22 Raptor Stealthfighter :: 


FYI I Read some Few Interesting Documents on CC Need To find them....
Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Not for RCS maintenance but for panels that are designed for maintenance purposes. Those panels have gaps that will raise certain areas above a certain threshold and those gaps cannot be helped *IF* the aircraft is to be field maintainable. So the 'zip strips' are used to cover up those gaps.



So the RCS coating for the aircraft as a whole is maintained with a different technique?
Is it the same putty used on the F-117?if I recall correctly that was a tedious task..


----------



## gambit

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Gambit Google is Not My friend
> That the best i can try for now
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Stealth&#8233; Part
> http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/B2Spr09.pdf
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> F22 Continuous curves Part
> :: F-22 Raptor Stealthfighter ::
> 
> 
> FYI I Read some Few Interesting Documents on CC Need To find them....
> Regards


The idea behind that phrasing is 'surface discontinuities' and it is a more accurate and precise descriptor on how these post F-117 aircrafts are designed. Surface discontinuities can be large or small and even structural, as where two or more structures meet and because of aerodynamic demands, a curvature must be interrupted. The one thing I consistently try to do here is introduce the correct terminologies used in the field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> So the *RCS coating for the aircraft as a whole is maintained with a different technique?*
> Is it the same putty used on the F-117?if I recall correctly that was a tedious task..


Yes. Try to differentiate between material formula versus structure. Ferrite particles embedded below the surface is material. Gouges, nicks, and dings from flight or rocks stuck on underside of boots are structural, meaning they do not affect the ferrite particles at all. A gouge is a structural defect.


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

gambit said:


> The idea behind that phrasing is 'surface discontinuities' and it is a more accurate and precise descriptor on how these post F-117 aircrafts are designed. Surface discontinuities can be large or small and even structural, as where two or more structures meet and because of aerodynamic demands, a curvature must be interrupted. The one thing I consistently try to do here is introduce the correct terminologies used in the field.



I don't Think So, I can't Upload paper docs on pdf....maybe this can help (lil info on Cc)
Inside the Stealth Bomber - Bill Sweetman - Google Books

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Yes. Try to differentiate between material formula versus structure. Ferrite particles embedded below the surface is material. Gouges, nicks, and dings from flight or rocks stuck on underside of boots are structural, meaning they do not affect the ferrite particles at all. A gouge is a structural defect.



I do believe when the F-22 is maintained special cotten socks or something of that sort is worn? is it not?
which brings another question.. do RAM coatings cover the entire aircraft? or just these _ irregularities_ such as maint panels, bay doors edges.. etc.


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> I do believe when the F-22 is maintained special cotten socks or something of that sort is worn? is it not?


They are called 'booties'. Once I was assigned to work on a 'special' F-16 that required 'booties' to go over the combat boots. Either that or remove the combat boots completely prior to climbing on the aircraft. Other guys did not know why this F-16 was 'special' but I did. People have no idea how much the F-16 was the test bed for so many 'stealth' principles that became applications. The F-16 will have a very honored place in aviation history in more ways than believe.



Oscar said:


> which brings another question.. do RAM coatings cover the entire aircraft? or just these _ irregularities_ such as maint panels, bay doors edges.. etc.


For the F-22, absorbers are strategically placed at leading edges such as flight control surfaces and intake lips. Much are said about composites relating to 'stealth' but the truth is that composites on the F-22 and F-35 are more for weight saving measures than for RCS control. Composites does not automatically equal to 'stealth'. Concrete and plywood are composites -- gross. Stainless steel is a composite -- molecular. When shaping is enough to lower RCS to below a certain level, absorber that will increase maintenance complexity and manufacturing costs while are of negligible benefits is no benefit at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tracy

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The Chinese AESA radar, now i want to see the Indian AESA radar.




Whats the difference between AESA and PESA Radar ? Can you tell in points it'll be easier to understand. 

Wet Shirt , Gambit ?


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Tracy said:


> Whats the difference between AESA and PESA Radar ? *Can you tell in points*  it'll be easier to understand.
> 
> Wet Shirt , Gambit ?



Here We Go, 
. Active - Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
. Passive - Electronically Scanned Array (PESA)


1) PESAs have a central rf source in the form of TWT or klystron, whereas in AESA each t/r module (which is a MMIC) has it's own power amplifier transistor

2) Because of this ability that AESA have much higher frequency agility than it's PESA cousin...

3) Normally in a PESA (FCR, x-band) , dual mode ferrite phase shifters are used, whereas in AESA all phase shifters are solid state electronic elements, ferrite phase shifters are more efficient than diodes, because of "switching times" of diodes, it can't reverse the direction at very high frequency bands like 8-12 ghz (x-band)

4) Each T/R module is a complete radar in itself,it is like this, all the components of a radar viz amplifier, LNA, duplexer, control circuitry is embedded on a single chip

5) Normally the phase shifters installed on PESAs have to deal with huge powers, whereas in AESA phase shifter power requirements are very les as compared to PESA

6) AESA can be partitioned in "sub-arrays" depending on the complexity of software coding running it, whereas this is NOT possible in a PESA

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

*So an AESA can perform all the tasks simultaneously, it can perform, scanning, tracking and ECM all at once

With the advent of GaN HEMT, now it is possible to achieve 80 watts/module..And radars with 250 kw are theoretically feasible, yet not in practicality, because of cooling requirements.*

I Am Out For Now
Adios

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Edevelop

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The Chinese AESA radar, now i want to see the Indian AESA radar.



For some reason, the pilot in J-10B looks squeezed. Whereas in the F-16, it looks like it has far more room for the pilot.
Anyways aircraft performance wise, J-10B is indeed pretty good.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> When shaping is enough to lower RCS to below a certain level, absorber that will increase maintenance complexity and manufacturing costs while are of negligible benefits is no benefit at all.



I am familiar with a local effort here to produce a RAM tile which produced promising effects on a Mirage.. but the process to install .. adjust..and remove these tiles was very complicated and completely cost ineffective.


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> You really are confused aren&#8217;t you? Boeing has claimed that the Silent Eagle&#8217;s RCS is equal to export versions of the F-35, by &#8216;dumbed down&#8217; the guy at Lockheed probably is refering to the export model of the F-35. Get it?



Prove that there is a degraded export version of the F-35. 

Post some links and show your sources.



> Partners to Get Equal JSF Stealth
> 
> Posted by Amy Butler at 6/22/2011 9:17 AM CDT
> 
> JSF partners and customers will be able to have the same stealth characteristics as the U.S., according to Joe Dellavedova, the F-35 program office spokesman.



Partners to Get Equal JSF Stealth



> Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, said Boeing was free to market its F-15 "Silent Eagle" plane, but rejected a claim by Boeing executives that Washington was selling a "dumbed down" version of the F-35 to international partners.
> 
> "I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today," Heinz told Reuters in an interview at the Paris Air Show.
> 
> He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
> 
> "So for Boeing to make statements about a 'dumbed down' variant ... is absolutely incorrect and it is speculative and I believe, a very disappointing marketing ploy to drum up business," Heinz added.



AIRSHOW-UPDATE 1-Pentagon F-35 chief blasts Boeing comments | Reuters

My point is this. If a "dumbed down" version of the F-35 doesn't exist, that means Boeing is full of crap to begin with. They're comparing the F-15SE's frontal RCS to an aircraft that *doesn't exist*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tracy

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Here We Go,
> . Active - Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
> . Passive - Electronically Scanned Array (PESA)
> 
> 
> 1) PESAs have a central rf source in the form of TWT or klystron, whereas in AESA each t/r module (which is a MMIC) has it's own power amplifier transistor
> 
> 2) Because of this ability that AESA have much higher frequency agility than it's PESA cousin...
> 
> 3) Normally in a PESA (FCR, x-band) , dual mode ferrite phase shifters are used, whereas in AESA all phase shifters are solid state electronic elements, ferrite phase shifters are more efficient than diodes, because of "switching times" of diodes, it can't reverse the direction at very high frequency bands like 8-12 ghz (x-band)
> 
> 4) Each T/R module is a complete radar in itself,it is like this, all the components of a radar viz amplifier, LNA, duplexer, control circuitry is embedded on a single chip
> 
> 5) Normally the phase shifters installed on PESAs have to deal with huge powers, whereas in AESA phase shifter power requirements are very les as compared to PESA
> 
> 6) AESA can be partitioned in "sub-arrays" depending on the complexity of software coding running it, whereas this is NOT possible in a PESA
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------
> 
> *So an AESA can perform all the tasks simultaneously, it can perform, scanning, tracking and ECM all at once
> 
> With the advent of GaN HEMT, now it is possible to achieve 80 watts/module..And radars with 250 kw are theoretically feasible, yet not in practicality, because of cooling requirements.*
> 
> I Am Out For Now
> Adios




Ty I Saved all Info...I still didn't get all points clearly. Pretty Intense stuff to be honest 
Sorry I know i am asking to many questions....but it's a defence forum with many valuable members so i expect nothing less 


Q. What would be J-20's wing loading ?

Wikipedia Gives This Info only

Crew: one (pilot)
Length: 21.26 m (69 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 12.88 m (42 ft 3 in)
Height: 4.45 m (14 ft 7 in)
Wing area: 59 m2 (630 sq ft)
Empty weight: 17,000 kg (37,479 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 36,287 kg (80,000 lb) upper estimate[2]
Powerplant: 2 × WS-10G (prototype); WS-15 when J-20 is serving afterburning turbofans dry, 180 kN (40,000 lbf) with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 2.5
Range: 5,500 km (3,418 mi; 2,970 nmi)
Combat range: 2,000 km (1,243 mi; 1,080 nmi)
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,617 ft)


Any Chinese Member Can help ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tracy said:


> Ty I Saved all Info...I still didn't get all points clearly. Pretty Intense stuff to be honest
> Sorry I know i am asking to many questions....but it's a defence forum with many valuable members so i expect nothing less
> 
> 
> Q. What would be J-20's wing loading ?
> 
> Wikipedia Gives This Info only
> 
> Crew: one (pilot)
> Length: 21.26 m (69 ft 9 in)
> Wingspan: 12.88 m (42 ft 3 in)
> Height: 4.45 m (14 ft 7 in)
> Wing area: 59 m2 (630 sq ft)
> Empty weight: 17,000 kg (37,479 lb)
> Max takeoff weight: 36,287 kg (80,000 lb) upper estimate[2]
> Powerplant: 2 × WS-10G (prototype); WS-15 when J-20 is serving afterburning turbofans dry, 180 kN (40,000 lbf) with afterburner
> Maximum speed: Mach 2.5
> Range: 5,500 km (3,418 mi; 2,970 nmi)
> Combat range: 2,000 km (1,243 mi; 1,080 nmi)
> Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,617 ft)
> 
> 
> Any Chinese Member Can help ?



Yeah, pretty close to the actual stat of the production aircraft, but i think its maximum takeoff is going to be around 40 tonnes since it is a bit larger than F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nafsiati

S10 said:


> They had technology demonstrator set up in the early 2000's. It's been 10 years since then, so I imagine they have at least made some progress. As far as a operational TVC goes, not yet.



So what i want to ask is that in 5th generation fighter jets thrust vectoring is mandatory or just stealth with high performance avionics is enough? i mean thrust vectoring is a fifth generation mandatory feature?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Surface to air missile radars are on the ground looking up at your lower fuselage.

You gotta ask yourself which aircraft you would rather be in.


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Surface to air missile radars are on the ground looking up at your lower fuselage.
> 
> You gotta ask yourself which aircraft you would rather be in.



My first suggestion would be to stop posting unessesary, off topic, and redundant photos that slow down everyone's computer. My second suggestion would be to stop acting like a little puke and show some respect or atleast contribute. My third Suggestion would be to minimize the J-20's underwing pods. They are down right rediculously large, so if i was you i would worry about those 4 giant warts hanging off the J-20's wing. 

And here is photo that shows the pak-fa fuselage from a good angle with good lighting. Looks quite different doesn't? Quite flat even.

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9421/maks2011d6096.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kaykay

j20blackdragon said:


> Surface to air missile radars are on the ground looking up at your lower fuselage.
> 
> You gotta ask yourself which aircraft you would rather be in.




*which aircraft is that (the first pic one)..??????????*


----------



## ptldM3

It's an F-35 and there is no need to quote the entire post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Tracy said:


> Ty I Saved all Info...I still didn't get all points clearly. Pretty Intense stuff to be honest
> Sorry I know i am asking to many questions....but it's a defence forum with many valuable members so i expect nothing less
> 
> 
> Q. What would be J-20's wing loading ?
> 
> Wikipedia Gives This Info only
> 
> Crew: one (pilot)
> Length: 21.26 m (69 ft 9 in)
> Wingspan: 12.88 m (42 ft 3 in)
> Height: 4.45 m (14 ft 7 in)
> Wing area: 59 m2 (630 sq ft)
> Empty weight: 17,000 kg (37,479 lb)
> Max takeoff weight: 36,287 kg (80,000 lb) upper estimate[2]
> Powerplant: 2 × WS-10G (prototype); WS-15 when J-20 is serving afterburning turbofans dry, 180 kN (40,000 lbf) with afterburner
> Maximum speed: Mach 2.5
> Range: 5,500 km (3,418 mi; 2,970 nmi)
> Combat range: 2,000 km (1,243 mi; 1,080 nmi)
> Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,617 ft)
> 
> 
> Any Chinese Member Can help ?



a Tricky Question InDeed, 

1) However,this will depend in Few factors, first if it is built with simillar materials to the F-22 it will be heavier than 35 tonnes due to larger inlet dUcts, fuselage and fuel capacit

2)THe oTher factor is its degree of its longitudinal stability, if it is quit stable it will be slow at pitch, the wing position shows a long fuselage to reduce drag and increase internal volume but wings positioned quit back at the aircraft's aft End this is a result of a high wing position for both canard and wing in order to make canted nacelle walls for stealth p0rpuses, this will give it a rather stable configuration and thus quit sluggish response at pitch.

3) HavinG canards will mean the wing will lOse lift due to canard drag downwash increasing its real wing loading

4) If iT fAils to have higher tHrust engines than the USAF F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100, it will be heavier but with less thrust to weight ratio and higher drag due to longer fUselage, this means it is not agile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kaykay

ptldM3 said:


> It's an F-35 and there is no need to quote the entire post.



okay....hehe..your pc gets slow...lol


----------



## Tracy

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> a Tricky Question InDeed,
> 
> 1) However,this will depend in Few factors, first if it is built with simillar materials to the F-22 it will be heavier than 35 tonnes due to larger inlet dUcts, fuselage and fuel capacit
> 
> 2)THe oTher factor is its degree of its longitudinal stability, if it is quit stable it will be slow at pitch, the wing position shows a long fuselage to reduce drag and increase internal volume but wings positioned quit back at the aircraft's aft End,,,,,,,this is a result of a high wing position for both canard and wing in order to make canted nacelle walls for stealth p0rpuses, this will give it a rather stable configuration and thus quit sluggish response at pitch.
> 
> 3) HavinG canards will mean the wing will lOse lift due to canard drag downwash increasing its real wing loading
> 
> 4) If iT fAils to have higher tHrust engines than the USAF F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100, it will be heavier but with less thrust to weight ratio and higher drag due to longer fUselage, this means it is not agile.




Informative Post Thankx......So Canards Are Good or Not Good For Agility ? What in In case of J20 ?
Is J20 a Bomber ?


----------



## Birbal

Tracy said:


> Whats the difference between AESA and PESA Radar ? Can you tell in points it'll be easier to understand.
> 
> Wet Shirt , Gambit ?



Both use electronic steering based on phase shifting (each part of the array electronically shifts the signal by a certain amount, so that all the signals cancel each other except at a certain angle where they interfere constructively). Compared to mechanical parabolic mirror radars, this gives you a better beamforming ability (the beam can be formed into a single cone without much leakage to sidelobes) which gives you resistance against a lot of jamming techniques. Additionally, it can steer much faster, because the phase shifting is done eletronicaly rather than mechanically.

In a PESA radar, the beam is formed in a RF generator at a single frequency and then sent to the phase-shifting modules. In an AESA radar, each part of the array generates its own signal. Thus, you can dedicate some parts of the array to a certain frequency and angle while dedicating other parts to another frequency and angle. This allows you to use multiple frequencies at once against a single target (something you can't do with PESA since the amount of phase shifting at each array element depends on the frequency). Additionally for example, you can have some array elements work against one target and others work against another target, while yet others work on jamming.

Of course some PESA radars are quite close to AESA radars in capability, such as the Bars radar in the Su-30MKI or the Irbis-E on the Su-35, as each part of the array has an amplifier to amplify the received signal, and careful usage of computing power for signal processing can further reproduce some of the qualities of an AESA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Tracy said:


> Informative Post Thankx......So Canards Are Good or Not Good For Agility ? What in In case of J20 ?
> Is J20 a Bomber ??



Depends On Few Factors..in the case of J20. canards placement increases lateral unstability and reduces drag.







2) No It's Not

I am Out For Now
Adios

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Bill Sweetman explains why the PAK FA's frontal RCS is complete crap. 



> The compressor face of a jet engine is one of the least stealthy parts of an airplane. Not only will the whirling blades, at some point, reflect radar energy directly back at whoever is looking for you, but the shape and rotational rate will identify you, because computers can count very, very fast.
> 
> Step 1 in dealing with this problem is to coat the inlet duct with radar absorbent material, because a lot of radar energy bounces off the duct wall several times on the way in and out again. High-level stealth, though, means physically blocking the line of sight with a "serpentine" duct (which is done on the F-22, JSF and Typhoon). But that can take up a lot of space, particularly with big engines, and isn't practical for a stealth retrofit or on some new designs.
> 
> The Super Hornet, for example, has short inlet ducts so line-of-sight blockage by curvature isn't practical. The solution was to install a blocker in the inlet duct - looking down the duct, you see what looks like a compressor face, but isn't. It's a fixed composite structure, RAM-coated. And of course any stray electrons that do make it through the blocker and hit the compressor have to make it out through the blocker again. Problem: what bends electron flux also bends airflow, so you can get losses.



PAK-FA Secrets Via YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DARKY

j20blackdragon said:


> Bill Sweetman explains why the *PAK FA's frontal RCS is complete crap*.
> 
> 
> 
> PAK-FA Secrets Via YouTube



He must have explained the same for this....











apparently Its RCS turned out to be lesser than F-22... ask "Bill Sweetman"... he'll tell you *why ?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

DARKY said:


> apparently Its RCS turned out to be lesser than F-22... ask "Bill Sweetman"... he'll tell you *why ?*



The guy is a nobody, just some magazine editor that the j-20 mighty drag-queen fanboys have erections over.


I guess if some magazine editor says the pak-fa is not stealthy than someone that works for an aerospace consulting firm must be even more credible.

Richard Aboulafia explains why the J-20's RCS is crap 



> In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense consulting firm, said China is still years away from perfecting stealth aircraft.
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s certainly stealthy-looking,&#8221; Mr. Aboulafia said. It looks like it&#8217;s got some of the faceting and some of the shaping that characterizes the front of the F-22, for example.
> 
> &#8220;But then you look the details and you realize this thing is just sort of cobbled together,&#8221; he added.
> 
> Take, for instance, the canards: forewings close to the nose of the aircraft that provide maneuverability. According to Mr. Aboulafia, &#8220;There&#8217;s no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth&#8221; than adding canards to the aircraft.
> 
> The same goes for the engine nozzles, which Mr. Aboulafia said were clearly not designed to be stealthy, as well the large overall size of the aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

> Its certainly stealthy-looking, Mr. Aboulafia said. It looks like its got some of the faceting and some of the shaping that characterizes the front of the F-22, for example.



This part is a compliment. He just said it looks like the F-22.



> Take, for instance, the canards: forewings close to the nose of the aircraft that provide maneuverability. According to Mr. Aboulafia, Theres no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth than adding canards to the aircraft.



This part is true. The J-20 does have canards.








> The same goes for the engine nozzles, which Mr. Aboulafia said were clearly not designed to be stealthy



This part is also true. The J-20 has round nozzles. 

But has he seen the nozzles on the PAK FA?


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> This part is a compliment. He just said it looks like the F-22.




A Pontiac Fiero looks like a Ferrari, but the Fiero's performance is poor.





j20blackdragon said:


> This part is true. The J-20 does have canards.



Yes, it does and he also claimed it compromises 'stealth'.






j20blackdragon said:


> This part is also true. The J-20 has round nozzles.
> 
> 
> 
> But has he seen the nozzles on the PAK FA?




The nozzles on the pak-fa have nothing to do with the conversation. You keep posting some nonsense by Sweetman describing how the pak-fa is poor for 'stealth'. Now I post a similar article describing how the J-20 is poor for 'stealth' written or described by someone with better credentials than Sweetman does that make it true?

Tasting your own medicine is always bitter.


----------



## Black Widow

Chinese Logic: 
J20 is stealth coz
1. Its looking stealth
2. Its more like F22
3. It has DSI
4. Its Engine is not exposed
5. Its painted in Black (may be RAM coating)

Brother, F22 is not only way to achieve stealth. Both China and Russia are making there first 5th gen fighter, so until the final product comes up claiming stealth and non-stealth is foolish. I am shocked to hear some fan-boy comment "PAK-FA doesn't look stealth". Son are you qualified enough to validate the stealth feature based on visual inspection????

Russians are pioneer in making fighter planes, They have long experience. They have 2 early 5th gen projects (MiG1.44 and Berkut). They have learnt many thing from the two early projects. 

Some experts believe that J20 inherit the MiG1.44 (tail section). 

But no matter who copy whom, finally result counts..


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> A Pontiac Fiero looks like a Ferrari, but the Fiero's performance is poor.



That's a horrible analogy and you know it. If cars actually had a stealth requirement, shaping would matter a great deal.



> Yes, it does and he also claimed it compromises 'stealth'.



I agreed with the entire quote from Richard Aboulafia. From a stealth perspective, and from a stealth perspective only, canards are inferior to stabilators. 








> You keep posting some nonsense by Sweetman describing how the pak-fa is poor for 'stealth'.



Bill Sweetman's analysis of the PAK FA isn't nonsense at all. He's just saying things you don't want to hear.



> Now I post a similar article describing how the J-20 is poor for 'stealth' written or described by someone with better credentials than Sweetman does that make it true?
> 
> Tasting your own medicine is always bitter.



How is it bitter? I agreed twice with Richard Aboulafia.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> [B*]My annual review of T-50/Pak-Fa progress or lack thereof*[/B]
> 
> Two years have passed since the January 2010 unveiling of the T-50/Pak-Fa. Let's look at the stealth design issues that remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> By the way, none of the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa problems exists on the Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter.


well martian i dont know why the hell u always add pakfa into this thread & can also see many problems in that jet which no one cant see.
& on top of it u cant see any flaws in J20 which a blind man can also see 
u r simply great 
BTW when is ur next annual review on PAKFA coming


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

j20blackdragon said:


> Surface to air missile radars are on the ground looking up at your lower fuselage.
> 
> You gotta ask yourself which aircraft you would rather be in.




Thank You For Uploading Pics ...PAK FA Stealth Shaping Is Pretty Good


----------



## conworldus

It is not easy for Russia to produce stealth aircraft. A stealth shaping and acceptable aerodynamic performance combination is much better achieved with high performance mainframe computer which Russia doesn't have. With that said, I guess we will see the true RCS when the Indian T-50 flies by Chinese border...

&#19981;&#35201;&#20105;&#20102;&#12290;&#27611;&#23376;&#21644;&#19977;&#21733;&#26159;&#19968;&#20010;&#24895;&#25171;&#65292;&#19968;&#20010;&#24895;&#25384;&#12290;&#19977;&#21733;&#38500;&#20102;&#27611;&#23376;&#30340;T-50&#36824;&#26377;&#36873;&#25321;&#21527;&#65311;&#33258;&#24049;&#36830;&#19968;&#20010;&#21644;&#27516;7&#24046;&#19981;&#22810;&#30340;LCA&#37117;&#20570;&#19981;&#20986;&#26469;&#12290;


----------



## j20blackdragon

conworldus said:


> It is not easy for Russia to produce stealth aircraft. A stealth shaping and acceptable aerodynamic performance combination is much better achieved with high performance mainframe computer which Russia doesn't have. With that said, I guess we will see the true RCS when the Indian T-50 flies by Chinese border...
> 
> &#19981;&#35201;&#20105;&#20102;&#12290;&#27611;&#23376;&#21644;&#19977;&#21733;&#26159;&#19968;&#20010;&#24895;&#25171;,&#19968;&#20010;&#24895;&#25384;&#12290;&#19977;&#21733;&#38500;&#20102;&#27611;&#23376;&#30340;T-50&#36824;&#26377;&#36873;&#25321;&#21527;?&#33258;&#24049;&#36830;&#19968;&#20010;&#21644;&#27516;7&#24046;&#19981;&#22810;&#30340;LCA&#37117;&#20570;&#19981;&#20986;&#26469;&#12290;



China has two supercomputers in the top 5, including one that is faster than anything in the US.

Russia has zero in the top 10.

As for India, are they even on the list? 

November 2011 | TOP500 Supercomputing Sites

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> China has two supercomputers in the top 5, including one that is faster than anything in the US.
> 
> Russia has zero in the top 10.
> 
> As for India, are they even on the list?
> 
> November 2011 | TOP500 Supercomputing Sites


somebody plz for god sake thank him for this useful post


----------



## DrSomnath999

conworldus said:


> .
> 
> &#19981;&#35201;&#20105;&#20102;&#12290;&#27611;&#23376;&#21644;&#19977;&#21733;&#26159;&#19968;&#20010;&#24895;&#25171;&#65292;&#19968;&#20010;&#24895;&#25384;&#12290;&#19977;&#21733;&#38500;&#20102;&#27611;&#23376;&#30340;T-50&#36824;&#26377;&#36873;&#25321;&#21527;&#65311;&#33258;&#24049;&#36830;&#19968;&#20010;&#21644;&#27516;7&#24046;&#19981;&#22810;&#30340;LCA&#37117;&#20570;&#19981;&#20986;&#26469;&#12290;



*&#35831; &#21035; &#25285;&#24515; &#29978;&#33267; &#25105;&#20204;&#30340; &#25105;&#20204; &#21487;&#20197; &#20173; &#20987;&#36133; &#20320;&#30340; &#23617;&#32929; *


----------



## conworldus

DrSomnath999 said:


> *&#35831; &#21035; &#25285;&#24515; &#29978;&#33267; &#25105;&#20204;&#30340; &#25105;&#20204; &#21487;&#20197; &#20173; &#20987;&#36133; &#20320;&#30340; &#23617;&#32929; *



Google Translator fail...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## oct605032048

It would take years of evolution for A3 to learn to speak Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

DrSomnath999 said:


> *&#35831; &#21035; &#25285;&#24515; &#29978;&#33267; &#25105;&#20204;&#30340; &#25105;&#20204; &#21487;&#20197; &#20173; &#20987;&#36133; &#20320;&#30340; &#23617;&#32929; *




oh, my dear bhudda. You are using google translate, they Chinese you wrote does not make j@ck sense!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

DARKY said:


> Says who ?... You.. what are your qualifications ??
> 
> On whats grounds can you prove it as an AESA ?.. 120 IQ ?
> 
> Ever studied about radar engineering...
> 
> Answer one correctly I would show you the Indian X-band AESA FCR... along with Transistor chips...




____________________________________________________________________

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2012/01/close-up-of-j-10b-and-j-20-aes.html


Chinese AESA radar for J-10B!!! Just look at the picture it is the same as the one from the other picture. It has over 1100 T/R mods, count it if you have time!!


Oh, you are indian you must have lots of free time, so take you sweet time and count it, it is around 1100-1200 T/R.

Here is the link again!!!

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2012/01/close-up-of-j-10b-and-j-20-aes.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

AerospaceEngineer said:


> ____________________________________________________________________
> 
> Close up of J-10B and J-20 AESA set? - Asian Skies
> 
> 
> Chinese AESA radar for J-10B!!! Just look at the picture it is the same as the one from the other picture. It has over 1100 T/R mods, count it if you have time!!
> 
> 
> Oh, you are indian you must have lots of free time, so take you sweet time and count it, it is around 1100-1200 T/R.
> 
> Here is the link again!!!
> 
> Close up of J-10B and J-20 AESA set? - Asian Skies


 
Same crap again...

It has been proved that its a PESA antenna.. even that white paper confirms it.. better Update yourself..

and come up with some thing better.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

DARKY said:


> Same crap again...
> 
> It has been proved that its a PESA antenna.. even that white paper confirms it.. better Update yourself..
> 
> and come up with some thing better.



____________________________________________________________

Prove it is a PESA to me!!! Back up with source not indian source nor Russian source but Chinese source!!!!


haha, still in denial. What kinda of PESA would have slanted angle for the antena?? All the TR mods are clearly visiable!!! The middle IFF are a unique design for the J-10B AESA!!!

You can not find another radar like it, see just because you indians can not come up with AESA does not mean Chinese can not. Just because you indians can not come up witha 5th gen fighter does not mean China can not!!

That is why you are buying Rafale, lol. When it is delivered it will be 2015 or so and J-20 will be ready!! Beside J-10B alone is enough to handle your indian air force!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakje

DARKY said:


> Same crap again...
> 
> It has been proved that its a PESA antenna.. even that white paper confirms it.. better Update yourself..
> 
> and come up with some thing better.



There have been multiple sources confirming it's an AESA.
The only source saying it's a PESA was based on a mistranslation

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

hi, i am new to the forum and my English is worst (sorry in advanced). i read this thread from page 1, it is an interesting debate between Mr gambit,ptldM3 and martian2, i agree with Mr gambit, ptldM3 and i ask one question to martian2 that is how could APA simulate Physical Optics experiment, they didn't know what is the material of this aircraft, what is RAM coating used in the aircraft and as for canard there worst effect in the forward sector of airspace in the battlefield, giving extra surface to enemy radar and btw ptldM3 i read somewhere in net that Russian scientist that *"we make PAK FA less stealthy than F-22
"* and one more question for ptldM3 does PAK FA have fixed intake or variable ramp intake just like su27, and last thing i do not degrading j-20, it's awesome fighter but it has some flaws, both J-20 and PAK FA has a great potential, remember both in devopment.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

DARKY said:


> Where are the T/R modules I can't see that with my eyes.. can any one see T/R modules on AESA antenna without dismantling it ?.. or may be that is also a unique feature about Chinese design...
> 
> All Kinds of PESA can have slanted antenna... since it is ESA...
> 
> See for the translated posts made by a Pakistani poster Antibody in the Radar range thread... BTW P-ESA too has T/R modules in the form of Phase shifors but they are controlled by other devices unlike in AESA where they are Independent.
> 
> No AESA have those IFF Probes on the main antenna... That's common with PESA FCR in general even the South Korean AESA Don't have them...
> 
> 
> 
> Indian S-Band AESA for Airborne Surveillance..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian 4D AESA LRTR with over 400km range...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian X-Band AESA MMFCR for combat planes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian Destroyer Kolkata class to be mounted with AESA..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Ship enters Navy this year...




_________________________________________

lol as usual!!

Your AESA are all imported!! All of China's AESA are designed and MADE IN CHINA: 052C, KJ-2000, J-10B, J-20, KJ-200, HQ-9A, all uses AESA radar!

From planes to ships all imported from Europe or Isreal. lol and you call it yours. 

LCA is crap!!! That radar you showed is a model, the picture I showed you actually was installed on J-10B. Why not show a picture of LCA with "your" AESA radar?? lol




Here is F-22's AESA radar.

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...6&tbnw=139&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

Can you see the TR mods now??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Bill Sweetman on canards.



> I remember talking this over with Paul Bevilaqua at the 1993 Powered Lift Conference in Palo Alto. If I remember correctly, one reason for the canard delta was that it was good for the *cross-sectional area distribution (area ruling)* and hence transonic drag.
> 
> The challenge was that the shaft-driven lift fan design inevitably had a big cross-section peak well forward, where the inlets wrapped around the fan bay (it needed a large-diameter fan and lots of airflow to work). A canard delta compensated for that by moving the thickest part of the wing as far back as possible.
> 
> Somehow I don't think we're going to see a J-20 with a lift fan. *However, don't be surprised if the weapons bays turn out to be more capacious (and versatile) than on other designs.* It looks like the idea of the canard configuration is to get a large-volume mid-body section through the transonic zone and into supersonic flight with minimal fuss, bother and expenditure of fuel.



From JAST To J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soldierofallah

Oh man id love to see PAF equiped with this beast, itll sure give our air defence a BIG boost, what is the price tag plus when will it be ready for exports and the million dollar question, will pakistan be the first customer for this baby.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

Tracy said:


> Hello Sir,That Radar Is AESA ?


a question we all need answered a lot op ppl say it a PESA .many say its AESA and than there are some who call it a HYBRED.


----------



## Nishan_101

So id PAC have initiated a separate project for the 5th Generation aircraft or they are planning to have this J-20s


----------



## Firemaster

DrSomnath999 said:


> No offence . infact u r fool expecting high quality post from him


He is a new member drsaaab
He just saw his senior member tag


----------



## j20blackdragon

Huitong created a new section on his site for the J-19. 

If I remember correctly, Huitong reported on the J-20 taxi trials several weeks before the first pictures came out.



> A scale-down model of J-19 was unveiled by the 601 Institute at the first International UAV Innovation Grand Prix held in Beijing in September 2011. It was first rumored in April 2011 that 601/SAC are developing a 4th generation medium multi-role stealth fighter as J-19 (or J-21?). The aircraft has a conventional design featuring twin engines and DSIs similar to American F-22 and F-35. The prototype could initially be powered by the 8.5t class WS-13 turbofan but later by the new 9.5t class "medium thrust" engine. A full-scale metal model may have been built in early 2011. The first prototype has been under construction since late 2011. First flight was projected to be in September 2012. J-19 is expected to be promoted at the international market as well as a low-cost alternative to American F-35.
> 
> - Last Updated 2/24/12



Chinese Military Aviation | China Air Force

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

DSI and no more canards.

Not much left to criticize now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> DSI and *no more canards.*


Why not? Did they learned something?



j20blackdragon said:


> Not much left to criticize now.


Sure. Looks like an F-35


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Why not? Did they learned something?
> 
> Sure. Looks like an F-35



Only a neophyte would claim the SAIC plane looks like a F-35. The Chinese plane is a twin-engine fighter. Go look at pictures of the F-35, it has a single engine. Their missions are completely different.

The Chinese twin-engine plane is designed as a multirole combat fighter. The F-35 was designed primarily as a strike aircraft. Anyone who is familiar with the F-35 would know its history.

Furthermore, the F-35 has had numerous ad-hoc changes to make it more survivable with the development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon. The F-35 has been given a gun, which creates a non-stealthy bump above the pilot's port-side airduct.

Also, the underside of the F-35 has been completely ruined. The weapons payload bay has been expanded to accommodate air-to-air missiles and larger bombs. The F-35 underside is not stealthy anymore (see Australia Air Power citation; link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html).

All of the ad hoc changes and non-stealthy F-35 problems do not exist on the SAIC clean-sheet design. These two fighters are not alike at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Only a neophyte would claim the SAIC plane looks like a F-35. The Chinese plane is a twin-engine fighter. Go look at pictures of the F-35, it has a single engine. Their missions are completely different.
> 
> The Chinese twin-engine plane is designed as a multi-role combat fighter. The F-35 was designed primarily a a strike fighter. Anyone who is familiar with the F-35 would know its history.


Me a neophyte? You learned more from me than you could ever repay in kind, kid. Twin engined or not, it looks like the overall shape is lifted from the F-35. The reason why the F-35 is single-engined is because of the requirement for VTOL.


----------



## sms

j20blackdragon said:


> DSI and no more canards.
> 
> Not much left to criticize now.



Looks good better than J20.

Going by Martin's logic..it's not stealth fighter because Chinese designers forget to put saw tooth panels.


----------



## gambit

sms said:


> Looks good better than J20.
> 
> Going by Martin's logic..it's not stealth fighter as cause Chinese designers forget to put saw tooth panels.


The man will come up with some version of 'Chinese physics' to say something about 'stealth'.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Me a neophyte? You learned more from me than you could ever repay in kind, kid. Twin engined or not, it looks like the overall shape is lifted from the F-35. The reason why the F-35 is single-engined is because of the requirement for VTOL.



Stop saying stupid things and I won't have to correct you.

Otherwise, you'll mislead all of the forum readers. They'll leave the thread and think the SAIC twin-engine multirole combat fighter is similar to the F-35 single-engine strike aircraft with a ruined underside.

I had to go to the trouble of correcting your nonsense and find the citation to prove it.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Furthermore, the F-35 has had numerous ad-hoc changes to make it more survivable with the development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon. The F-35 has been given a gun, which creates a non-stealthy bump above the pilot's port-side airduct.
> 
> Also, the underside of the F-35 has been completely ruined. The weapons payload bay has been expanded to accommodate air-to-air weapons and larger bombs. The F-35 underside is not stealthy anymore (see Australia Air Power citation; link: Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities).


I would think that by now, after all the explanations I have given about RCS measurements and their pitfalls, you would know better than to take someone's opinion as gospel. The difference between you and I is that I am more honest than you are about this matter. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' *DO NOT* raise the aircraft above a certain threshold, those 'lumps and bumps' *DO NOT* matter. It really is amazing that you consistently failed to understand this -- threshold.

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------




Martian2 said:


> Stop saying stupid things and I won't have to correct you. Otherwise, you'll mislead all of the forum readers. They'll leave the thread and think the SAIC twin-engine multirole combat fighter is similar to the F-35 single engine strike aircraft with a ruined underside.


You have yet to 'correct' me on anything. You have never corrected me on anything. It is *YOU* who have been misleading the interested readers here and am willing to put my arguments against yours any day.


----------



## sms

@ Dear Martian, Please analyze following pictures and enlighten us about stealth deficiencies in this design ...regards. 



>


----------



## pakje

why is everyone taking this model so seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if SAC were trolling you all


----------



## Martian2

sms said:


> @ Dear Martian, Please analyze following pictures and enlighten us about stealth deficiencies in this design ...regards.







Sukhoi hasn't fixed a single stealth design problem in two years.





China's SAIC stealth design is far superior to the deficiencies-ridden Russian T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.

The first thing you notice is that the SAIC stealth fighter has a frameless bubble cockpit canopy. For stealth, this is superior to the radar-reflecting metal-framed cockpit canopy on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.

You will also notice the SAIC fighter has gold-colored RAM on the cockpit canopy. After two years, Sukhoi has failed to show a single picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa with gold-colored transparent RAM.

Thirdly, the SAIC design is superior to the Sukhoi T-50/Pak-Fa, because the Chinese fighter does not have a radar-reflecting protruding IRST.

Unlike the T-50/Pak-Fa, the fuselage area behind the cockpit drops off quickly to meld into the main fuselage. This means greater stealth, because less radar energy will be reflected from a side illumination.

Fourthly, SAIC incorporated a S-duct design to hide the engine fan blades.





China's SAIC stealth fighter has a S-duct design to hide the radar reflections from the engine fan blades. This is far superior to the straight and non-stealth air-inlet for the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype. I have drawn the airflow properly to properly wrap around the advanced DSI inlet on the SAIC fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Thirdly, the SAIC design is superior to the Sukhoi T-50/Pak-Fa, because the Chinese fighter does not have a radar-reflecting protruding IRST.


This argument is completely wrong. Not because the IRST device structure is not radar reflecting. It is. But your argument is wrong on a more fundamental issue -- threshold -- which apparently you do not understand.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> This argument is completely wrong. Not because the IRST device structure is not radar reflecting. It is. But your argument is wrong on a more fundamental issue -- threshold -- which apparently you do not understand.



You're clueless.

X-band radar can easily see the "large" IRST probe. X-band wavelength is 2.5 to 4 cm.

Are you arguing the IRST probe is much smaller than 2.5 (one inch) to 4 cm?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You're clueless.
> 
> X-band radar can easily see the "large" IRST probe. X-band wavelength is 2.5 to 4 cm.
> 
> Are you arguing the IRST probe is smaller than 4 cm?


No...It is *YOU* who are clueless. Just about 99.999% of surface structures on any aircraft, including the F-117, F-22, and the J-20, is larger than a single X-band pulse.

Every surface structure is legitimately a *'SURFACE DISCONTINUITY'* and that include the T-50's IRST device structure.

So take a look at this...






How many 'surface discontinuities' do you see there? And yet the F-117 set the initial standard for 'stealth'. In fact, the F-117 produces far more 'surface discontinuities' than the F-22 and B-2 *COMBINED*.

Do you now see how wrong is the IRST argument?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> No...It is *YOU* who are clueless. Just about 99.999% of surface structures on any aircraft, including the F-117, F-22, and the J-20, is larger than a single X-band pulse.
> 
> Every surface structure is legitimately a *'SURFACE DISCONTINUITY'* and that include the T-50's IRST device structure.
> 
> So take a look at this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many 'surface discontinuities' do you see there? And yet the F-117 set the initial standard for 'stealth'. In fact, the F-117 produces far more 'surface discontinuities' than the F-22 and B-2 *COMBINED*.
> 
> Do you now see how wrong is the IRST argument?



You're telling me you can't see the saw-toothed edges on the F-117? Does the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe look like a giant radar-reflecting globe to you or a two-dimensional saw-toothed edge?

I swear, your eyes are terrible. The T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is about the size of a pilot's head. What do you think will happen to a plane's radar signature when you stick a pilot's helmet on the plane's nose (like an IRST probe)? That's right. It's a giant radar reflector. You really are totally clueless.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Slight update to Huitong's site.

It's now the J-21.



> J-21
> 
> A scale-down model of J-21 was unveiled by the 601 Institute at the first International UAV Innovation Grand Prix held in Beijing in September 2011. It was first rumored in April 2011 that 601/SAC are developing a 4th generation medium multi-role stealth fighter as J-21. The aircraft has a conventional design featuring twin engines and DSIs similar to both American F-22 and F-35. The prototype could initially be powered by the 8.5t class WS-13 turbofan but later by the new 9.5t class "medium thrust" engine. A full-scale metal model may have been built in early 2011. The first prototype has been under construction since late 2011. First flight was projected to be in September 2012. J-21 is expected to be promoted at the international market as well as a low-cost alternative to American F-35.
> 
> - Last Updated 2/24/12









Chinese Military Aviation | China Air Force

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You're telling me you can't see the saw-toothed edges on the F-117? Does the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe look like a giant radar-reflecting globe to you or a two-dimensional saw-toothed edge?
> 
> I swear, *your eyes are terrible.*


My visions, physical and intellectual, are superior to yours. Those saw-tooth structures are called 'geometric absorbers' and they are still physically larger than an X-band transmission. If they can deny the seeking radar reflections, what make you think the IRST device structure is not doing the same?

Like I said before, you are way over your head about this.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> My visions, physical and intellectual, are superior to yours. Those saw-tooth structures are called 'geometric absorbers' and they are still physically larger than an X-band transmission. If they can deny the seeking radar reflections, what make you think the IRST device structure is not doing the same?
> 
> Like I said before, you are way over your head about this.



Do you remember when we were discussing the reason for a shaped nose (like a duck bill) to make a plane stealthy? FYI, fourth-generation non-stealthy fighters have a general non-stealthy aircraft nose. Can you dig up your old citation that round objects, like the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe, are good radar reflectors? It will bolster my argument. Thanks.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is about the size of a pilot's head. What do you think will happen to a plane's radar signature when you stick a pilot's helmet on the plane's nose (like an IRST probe)? That's right. It's a giant radar reflector. You really are totally clueless.


In radar detection, paradoxical as it sounds, because of the 10-lambda rule, the larger the spheroid structure, it may be appear smaller to the seeking radar. Now go and look up my explanation of the 10-lambda rule.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Do you remember when we were discussing the reason for a shaped nose (like a duck bill) to make a plane stealthy? FYI, fourth-generation non-stealthy fighters have a general non-stealthy aircraft nose. *Can you dig up your old citation that round objects, like the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe, are good radar reflectors? It will bolster my argument.* Thanks.


You are mistaken. All structures are radar reflectors or 'contributors'. The issue is how much the receiver is 'receiving' those reflections. It is clear by now that you have not understood a single thing I explained.


----------



## Martian2

HowStuffWorks "How does stealth technology work?"

"*How does stealth technology work?*
...
Most conventional aircraft have a rounded shape. This shape makes them aerodynamic, but it also creates a very efficient radar reflector. The round shape means that no matter where the radar signal hits the plane, some of the signal gets reflected back:
..."





Three posts ago, Gambit was arguing the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is like a two-dimensional saw-toothed edge and is therefore stealthy. Do you agree with him? Or does the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe look like an excellent round radar reflector to you?

Gambit also tried the ridiculous "threshold" argument. Until I pointed out the IRST probe is clearly larger than 2.5cm (or 1 inch). The guy annoys me with his absurd arguments.

That's it folks. I'm tired of debunking the crackpot. Maybe we'll do it again on another night. Gambit, get some glasses for your eyes and more importantly, get a brain.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> HowStuffWorks "How does stealth technology work?"
> 
> "*How does stealth technology work?*
> ...
> Most conventional aircraft have a rounded shape. This shape makes them aerodynamic, but it also creates a very efficient radar reflector. The round shape means that no matter where the radar signal hits the plane, *some of the signal gets reflected back*


*
Some. But the same can be argued even for an angled plate because of microscopic surface discontinuities. These are called 'specular' reflections and if the cumulative energy level is below a certain threshold, specular reflections off a curvature can be irrelevant.



Martian2 said:



Three posts ago, Gambit was arguing the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is a saw-toothed edge and is therefore stealthy. Do you agree with him? Or does the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe look like an excellent round radar reflector to you?

Click to expand...

Did I? This make you a liar.

Your problem is obvious: That you are incapable of integrating disparate items into a single coherent idea.*


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Gambit also tried the ridiculous "threshold" argument.


 Looks like you got caught in a hole of your own digging. The threshold argument is not 'ridiculous', unless we are talking about 'Chinese physics'. A threshold may be arbitrary but at least it set a goal or a standard. Clutter rejection is a threshold and it can be removed/discarded/disregarded. However, once that happens, the system is overwhelmed with data that it cannot process. That is why we have a 'clutter rejection' threshold in the first place.



Martian2 said:


> Until I pointed out the IRST probe is clearly larger than 2.5cm (or 1 inch).


So are the serrations on the F-117's and J-20's panels. They certainly are much larger than cm. Now explain to us how are those serrations and the T-50's IRST device are *NOT* surface discontinuities.



Martian2 said:


> The guy annoys me with his absurd arguments.


And we are amused by your stupidity.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> The first thing you notice is that the SAIC stealth fighter has a frameless bubble cockpit canopy. For stealth, this is superior to the radar-reflecting metal-framed cockpit canopy on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.
> 
> You will also notice the SAIC fighter has gold-colored RAM on the cockpit canopy. After two years, Sukhoi has failed to show a single picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa with gold-colored transparent RAM.




Some plastic toy now has a gold canopy? Since you are so critical of Russian aircraft and constantly claim that they have an inability to create a gold canopy than explain the Mig-31BM. And who set a criteria that says you need a so called gold canopy? The F-35 does not have a gold canopy and either does the SU-35, nor does the SE, and I dont recall any gold canopies on the F-117 or B-2. 





Martian2 said:


> Thirdly, the SAIC design is superior to the Sukhoi T-50/Pak-Fa, because the Chinese fighter does not have a radar-reflecting protruding IRST.




You were jumping up and down with your miniskirt and pom-poms cheering that the WZ-10 is stealthy even though it had a *FLIR *that is probably 5 times larger than the IRST found in the pak-fa. Not only that but the WZ-10 had countless 90 degree angles which violates the fundamental principle of stealth.

You are still shamelessly avoiding answering or explaining yourself with the comments you made about the WZ-10, and its easy to see why. There also appears to be a sort of a spherical object right above the F-117s nose.





Martian2 said:


> Unlike the T-50/Pak-Fa, the fuselage area behind the cockpit drops off quickly to meld into the main fuselage. This means greater stealth, because less radar energy will be reflected from a side illumination.




You made a lot of stupid comments in the past and this is no different. Even if the pak-fas fuselage behind the cockpit sits higher than many comparable aircraft it makes up for it with a flat fuselage. The J-20 may not have much of a bump behind the canopy but its side profile is large, it would probably take two pak-fas stacked one upon the other to equal the side profile of the J-20. In other words the J-20 is a fat pig.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> HowStuffWorks "How does stealth technology work?"
> 
> "*How does stealth technology work?*
> ...
> Most conventional aircraft have a rounded shape. This shape makes them aerodynamic, but it also creates a very efficient radar reflector. The round shape means that no matter where the radar signal hits the plane, some of the signal gets reflected back:


This goes to prove how stupid you really are. Your source give only a *PARTIAL* explanation on how 'stealth' is possible. But what you brought on really clinched your ignorance and stupidity because the J-20 has more curvatures than angled facetings. So if we go by your argument, the J-20 is not 'stealthy' at all. Other than the blimp, no aircraft is completely rounded. That is why your source is good only for *GENERAL* understanding.

Go back to your playgrounds, CDF and Sino, where the other gullible Chinese will swallow uncritically whatever you say. People here are already exposed to the truth.


----------



## laowai

the reason why he's been posting here is because he's been kicked out of SDF, or rather removed himself

and while you're at it, please get off your high horse, there are far many more knowledgeable people out there, your presence here to play around with these kids only show your standards


----------



## Martian2

laowai said:


> the reason why he's been posting here is because he's been kicked out of SDF, or rather removed himself
> 
> and while you're at it, please get off your high horse, there are far many more knowledgeable people out there, your presence here to play around with these kids only show your standards



For the record, I'm currently a senior member of SDF (who has never received a warning or infraction). Similarly, I am a senior member here. I've never been kicked out of anywhere. Whether I choose to post my insights or not, it is my decision.

Across all forums, I have approximately 1.5 "thanks" for every one of my posts. People recognize quality.

Gambit only has himself to blame for making ridiculous arguments. I caught him and now he's embarrassed.

1. In post #1587, he raised the "threshold" argument. When I challenged him by mentioning that X-band has a wavelength of 2.5 (one inch) to 4cm, he quietly withdrew his goofy "threshold" argument.

2. In post #1589, he tried to use 2-D saw-toothed edges to illustrate the possibility of a stealthy IRST probe. This Jedi mind trick only works on clueless members. I called him on his b.s. and put up a citation that large round 3-D objects, like the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe, are excellent radar reflectors.

Moral of the story: Don't try to b.s. your way into arguing the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is stealthy. It is not. Raising non-applicable analogies will only draw my withering fire and a citation to prove you wrong. You'll look like an idiot. You have only yourself to blame for trying to pull a cheap trick.

[Note: Quite frankly, I enjoy debating Gambit when he's at his best. However, when Gambit tries to pull a fast one, I will call him on it. That is not why I'm here.

Sooner or later, Gambit will demonstrate a deeper knowledge in some niche area that I find useful. I have a lot of respect for Gambit when he's objective. I find him annoying when he's playing politics and twisting arguments to achieve a political end. Unlike him, I always try to stick to the facts.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Firemaster

@ Martian 
What will j20 be having for passive detection if IRST is so non stealthy
just curious

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Firemaster said:


> @ Martian
> What will j20 be having for passive detection if IRST is so non stealthy
> just curious



As I had mentioned in the Pak Fa/FGFA thread, one possibility is to recess the IRST equipment into the airframe. That is hard to do on the T-50/Pak-Fa, which is mostly based on the non-stealthy Su-30 MKI airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Firemaster

Martian2 said:


> As I had mentioned in the Pak Fa/FGFA thread, one possibility is to recess the IRST equipment into the airframe. That is hard to do on the T-50/Pak-Fa, *which is mostly based on the non-stealthy Su-30 MKI airframe.*



not the whole aircraft just the gap between air intakes
, and nacelles


----------



## sms

Martian2 said:


> As I had mentioned in the Pak Fa/FGFA thread, one possibility is to recess the IRST equipment into the airframe. That is hard to do on the T-50/Pak-Fa, which is mostly based on the non-stealthy Su-30 MKI airframe.



That's a very good idea. Can you show us where IRST located on J20?
Just curious because a stealth (LO) fighter without IRST will less effective.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> As I had mentioned in the Pak Fa/FGFA thread, one possibility is to recess the IRST equipment into the airframe. That is hard to do on the T-50/Pak-Fa, which is mostly based on the non-stealthy Su-30 MKI airframe.


he asked u about J20 's IRST probe not pakfa


----------



## DrSomnath999

*IRST*
well i think this is the most important avionics a 5th gen fighter must have as more future wars would be fought within 
visual range as stealth planes comes in future wars .Remember it is very difficult to achieve complete suppresion of IR 
signature no matter how a stealthy a plane .So u can compromise some stealth for it as it is definiltely worth of having it in 
your plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

sms said:


> That's a very good idea. Can you show us where IRST located on J20?
> Just curious because a stealth (LO) fighter without IRST will less effective.



Yes Since It would be Forced to use His radar in Active mode and all the Stealth goes in Drain... Passive Sensors like IRST is a way to go... against Stealth planes and to keep ones plane Stealth.... May be It doesn't applies to Chinese design.. which is offcourse Unique and laws of Physics for the outside world does not apply... according to the self esteemed stealth/VLO expert we have here.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Your problem is obvious: That you are incapable of integrating disparate items into a single coherent idea.



Well now you hit the nail on the head with this one.


----------



## Martian2

sms said:


> That's a very good idea. Can you show us where IRST located on J20?
> Just curious because a stealth (LO) fighter without IRST will less effective.



I have no idea. I was answering Firemaster's question on a solution to a non-stealthy and protruding IRST on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

If a stealth aircraft has a nose designed to house a recessed IRST then a retracting door can be used to unveil the IRST only when needed. With this design, the fighter aircraft remains stealthy until the IRST is needed. This minimizes the possibility of detection.

Another route is to redesign the IRST to minimize its footprint. Huge advances have been made in electronics and optics in the past decades. However, you would have to ask electronics and optics experts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> .................. get a brain.




Dear Martian2. 

You are an amateur and it clearly shows. That is not a bad thing. I have met amateurs that really love what they do and really contribute to science. You are not one of them. Reason being you are stubborn and you refuse to open your eyes. Plus you have an unhealthy fascination with the words "mighty dragon". Do you also play AD&D in your basement? 

I have on a number of occasions asked you to open your eyes and consider what you are saying. you haven't. Let me enlighten you on some things. 



> According to the paper, the ITAE researchers had found materials that solved the dominant problem in the Sukhoi design: straight-through inlets to the compressor face, with no line-of-sight blockage. Rather than placing an absorber-treated blocker in front of the engine, as on the Super Hornet, ITAE developed a radar absorbent material (RAM) that could be applied to the first-stage compressor blades. The rest of the RAM suite included a metallic treated canopy and sprayed-on RAM coatings on the missiles



I think I have asked you again to read the said paper and you have refused. Fine. The only reason I am pointing this out, it once again to show you and others what engineers (you clearly aren't one) know from day one. Engineering is the discipline of finding solutions to problems. And there are always more solutions than one. The only way to verify your solution against someone else's is to go out and compare/compete. 

The ITAE paper clearly illustrates why the russians may not care about the straight through ducts or the IRST nose ball. 
They have foundations made in engineering principles, principles which you ignore. 
They may be proved lacking if their plane goes out tomorrow and proves inferior as an engineering solutioni, but they have made a hypothesis, conducted their experiments, got their measurements and evaluated their results. 

What have you got to offer other than assumptions and 2nd grade calculations? 








If they have managed to reduce the dBs of the Su-27 class target by as much, imagine what the same treatment can do to an already LO design. 

and again, I am not saying the T-50 is better or worst than the J-20 (Mighty dragon if it makes you wet) or the F-22 /35 . 
All I am saying is that there is more behind every engineering choice made than you will ever understand it seems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> Dear Martian2.
> 
> You are an amateur and it clearly shows. That is not a bad thing. I have met amateurs that really love what they do and really contribute to science. You are not one of them. Reason being you are stubborn and you refuse to open your eyes. Plus you have an unhealthy fascination with the words "mighty dragon". Do you also play AD&D in your basement?
> 
> I have on a number of occasions asked you to open your eyes and consider what you are saying. you haven't. Let me enlighten you on some things.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I have asked you again to read the said paper and you have refused. Fine. The only reason I am pointing this out, it once again to show you and others what engineers (you clearly aren't one) know from day one. Engineering is the discipline of finding solutions to problems. And there are always more solutions than one. The only way to verify your solution against someone else's is to go out and compare/compete.
> 
> The ITAE paper clearly illustrates why the russians may not care about the straight through ducts or the IRST nose ball.
> They have foundations made in engineering principles, principles which you ignore.
> They may be proved lacking if their plane goes out tomorrow and proves inferior as an engineering solutioni, but they have made a hypothesis, conducted their experiments, got their measurements and evaluated their results.
> 
> What have you got to offer other than assumptions and 2nd grade calculations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they have managed to reduce the dBs of the Su-27 class target by as much, imagine what the same treatment can do to an already LO design.
> 
> and again, I am not saying the T-50 is better or worst than the J-20 (Mighty dragon if it makes you wet) or the F-22 /35 .
> All I am saying is that there is more behind every engineering choice made than you will ever understand it seems.



I haven't read any of your posts for almost a year. You never write anything worthwhile. So, I ignore them.

Feel free to keep writing if it makes you feel better to keep slandering me. It takes me 0 second to skip over your post.

You have 916 posts and 287 "thanks." Virtually everyone agrees your posts are worthless.

It took you two years to accumulate 287 "thanks." It will take you roughly 20 years to accumulate 2,870 "thanks." My current 2,966 "thanks" will still exceed yours in the year 2030.

My point is that you're just a clown.

If you want to earn my respect, try writing an informative post like the one below. If you can accomplish this feat, I might consider reading your posts.



Martian2 said:


> *Top 6 reasons why Type 039G Song-class submarine is very quiet*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Chinese Type 039G Song-class No. 314 naval submarine docks at the Ngong Shuen Chau naval base in Hong Kong."
> 
> 1. Modern teardrop hull shape
> 
> 2. Engine mounted on shock absorbers
> 
> 3. Anechoic tiles. "Internet-source photos of Type 039s under construction also show Chinese mastery of advanced multi-layer rubber/polymer hull coatings that greatly reduce hull-radiated noise while also limiting the effectiveness of active-sonar detection."
> 
> 4. "Large asymmetrical seven-bladed skewed propeller" to reduce cavitation
> 
> 5. Diesel-electric engine design "insulates the noisy diesel engines from the pressure hull, making the submarine quieter." A diesel-electric submarine can "operate virtually silently while on battery power."
> 
> 6. Tight tolerances during manufacturing by using advanced Chinese 7-axis machine tools. "It probably should be noted that blade noise among Soviet/Russian submarine types dropped dramatically after Japanese electronics company Toshiba and Norwegian company Kongsberg sold advanced milling machinery and control equipment to the USSR in the mid 1980s."
> 
> References:
> 
> a. Type 039 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [1,2,3]
> 
> b. International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments (see section VIII) [3; second sentence]
> 
> c. Chinese Navy [3,4]
> 
> d. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/propellers-supercavitating.htm [4; reduce cavitation]
> 
> e. Submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [5; first sentence]
> 
> f. http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=445936 (p. 29) [5; second sentence]
> 
> g. HarpGamer > Tactics 101: Anti-Submarine Warfare - Part 3 (see _Target Identification_) [6; second sentence]
> 
> ----------
> 
> From my April 14, 2011 post:
> 
> *China's CKX5680 Digitally Controlled 7-axis Contour Milling Machine*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Wuhan Heavy Industry Corp. just made a breakthrough in an 863 Project. This is the CKX5680 Digitally Controlled 7-axis Contour Milling machine. This is significant as it is specialised in building ship propellers, like this one, for aircraft carriers and submarines. It is much more precise than 5-axis machines.
> 
> [Note: Thank you to "pugachev_diver" for the post.]
> 
> ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 039 Song-class submarine with asymmetric seven-bladed skewed propeller to reduce cavitation

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> I haven't read any of your posts for almost a year. You never write anything worthwhile. So, I ignore them.
> 
> Feel free to keep writing if it makes you feel better to keep slandering me. It takes me 0 second to skip over your post.
> 
> You have 916 posts and 287 "thanks." Virtually everyone agrees your posts are worthless.
> 
> It took you two years to accumulate 287 "thanks." It will take you roughly 20 years to accumulate 2,870 "thanks." My current 2,966 "thanks" will still exceed yours in the year 2030.
> 
> My point is that you're just a clown.
> 
> If you want to earn my respect, try writing an informative post like the one below. If you can accomplish this feat, I might consider reading your posts.


 
You have just proved my point. QED

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> As I had mentioned in the Pak Fa/FGFA thread, one possibility is to recess the IRST equipment into the airframe. That is hard to do on the *T-50/Pak-Fa, which is mostly based on the non-stealthy Su-30 MKI airframe*.



You're a moron 


The J-20 must also be based on the J-10 and the F-22 must also be based on the F-15. And why are you still avoiding my questions? I have asked you on many, many occasions to explain how the WZ-10 is 'stealthy' with a large FLIR while the pak-fa is not 'stealth' with a small IRST, how is the WZ-10 stealth with countless 90 degree angles, how is the WZ-10 stealth with a multiple piece canopy, how about rivets? Or more surface discontinuities than possibly any other aircraft in history.

As usual you are shamelessly using double standards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> You're a moron
> 
> 
> The J-20 must also be based on the J-10 and the F-22 must also be based on the F-15. And why are you still avoiding my questions? I have asked you on many, many occasions to explain how the WZ-10 is 'stealthy' with a large FLIR while the pak-fa is not 'stealth' with a small IRST, how is the WZ-10 stealth with countless 90 degree angles, how is the WZ-10 stealth with a multiple piece canopy, how about rivets? Or more surface discontinuities than possibly any other aircraft in history.
> 
> As usual you are shamelessly using double standards.



double standards ?? this is his biggest problem you think? read what he answered to my post.. haha ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

amalakas said:


> double standards ?? this is his biggest problem you think? read what he answered to my post.. haha ..



Yes I know, I already read it. He claimed he ignores what you write, which is a pitty and childish. The point of a forum is to discuss topics and or counter challenge other people. In reality I do think he reads your post, or at least some because (he still quotes and replies) but he has no counter arguments so he just ignores you just like he has no counter arguments for me when I asked him to explain how the WZ-10 defies every rule in the stealth world yet in Martian's eyes is still stealthy. He still has just ignored me because he realized he made an epic blunder in which there is no way to get around. Like I said I still want an explanation as to why a large FLIR is stealthy and a small IRST is not, why 90 degree angles are stealth, why pylons are stealthy, why fixed landing gears are stealthy?

Notice the pattern, Martian will crucify the pak-fa on something such as IRST but, on the other hand claim the WZ-10 is stealthy with a FLIR, he will crucify the pak-fa for having rivets while claiming the WZ-10 is stealthy with rivets, he will crucify the pak-fa for having a two piece canopy while the WZ-10 has a multiple piece canopy. The guy is being laughed at in multiple forums and not just by Indians or Russians but by all nationalities.

Moral of the story is that he will ignore anything that is official and or anything that disproves him or gives praise to the pak-fa but he will pick up and quote armature and unofficial crap if it works in his favor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> Yes I know, I already read it. He claimed he ignores what you write, which is a pitty and childish. The point of a forum is to discuss topics and or counter challenge other people. In reality I do think he reads your post, or at least some because (he still quotes and replies) but he has no counter arguments so he just ignores you just like he has no counter arguments for me when I asked him to explain how the WZ-10 defies every rule in the stealth world yet in Martian's eyes is still stealthy. He still has just ignored me because he realized he made an epic blunder in which there is no way to get around. Like I said I still want an explanation as to why a large FLIR is stealthy and a small IRST is not, why 90 degree angles are stealth, why pylons are stealthy, why fixed landing gears are stealthy?
> 
> Notice the pattern, Martian will crucify the pak-fa on something such as IRST but, on the other hand claim the WZ-10 is stealthy with a FLIR, he will crucify the pak-fa for having rivets while claiming the WZ-10 is stealthy with rivets, he will crucify the pak-fa for having a two piece canopy while the WZ-10 has a multiple piece canopy.* The guy is being laugh at multiple forums and not just by Indians or Russians but by all nationalities*.


 
Hard not to. He reminds me of that southpark episode "0 friends" i think it was called about facebook. 

The point however is here that we have a twisted mentality. Basic engineering principles and rules are not respected in favour of simple estimations based on visual inspections of SUPERSONIC FIGHTER PLANES!!!!! as if that is a trivial matter on its own right. 

I cannot as an engineer sit idle by and allow him to do that. It is unprofessional and unethical. 

On every decent, grounded, supported claim any of us has made he has come back with.. nothing. and yet he still believes that the credibility of what he says comes from the amount of people who thank him. man that is just sad.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pissybits

amalakas said:


> Hard not to. He reminds me of that southpark episode "0 friends" i think it was called about facebook.
> 
> The point however is here that we have a twisted mentality. Basic engineering principles and rules are not respected in favour of simple estimations based on visual inspections of SUPERSONIC FIGHTER PLANES!!!!! as if that is a trivial matter on its own right.
> 
> I cannot as an engineer sit idle by and allow him to do that. It is unprofessional and unethical.
> 
> On every decent, grounded, supported claim any of us has made he has come back with.. nothing. and yet he still believes that the credibility of what he says comes from the amount of people who thank him. man that is just sad.



Lol I also thought of that episode when he started going on about the number of "thanks" he's got.
Might as well grab your rulers and pull down your zippers; settle this once and for all...

I think it's fun and interesting to examine the physical implications of shifting geopolitics in terms of military hardware and how they are deployed. I'm Chinese by ethnicity, and I would be lying if I were to say that the rise of China as a major strategic player isn't an exciting (or at least extremely interesting) development. I must acknowledge the fact that China is by no means a perfect country, just as the J-20 though impressive is by no means a perfect fighter. What I cannot understand is the blind nationalist zeal and lack of self-examination in some posts by fellow Chinese members on this forum. 

Perhaps I am wrong to single out Chinese posters as we all know that it is not only the Chinese that like to shamelessly toot their own horns, because I spend more time in the Chinese Defense section of these forums so that this simply seems more apparent to me. Remember folks that you don't damage your own reputation when you post blowhard claims and antagonize others on this site, you damage the reputations of whichever flags you fly and whatever countries you represent in front of people from all over the world.

Don't toot your own horn when you're playing off key.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Gambit only has himself to blame for making ridiculous arguments. I caught him and now he's embarrassed.
> 
> 1. In post #1587, he raised the "threshold" argument. When I challenged him by mentioning that X-band has a wavelength of 2.5 (one inch) to 4cm, *he quietly withdrew his goofy "threshold" argument.*


Did I really? Do not presume your simplemindedness onto my arguments.

When Denys Overholser said this: "shape, shape, shape and materials", what he mean is very much threshold and this...






Shaping includes treatments of structures of various sizes, of curvatures, and of planes. For the above illustration, what Overholser meant is to focus on the largest EM structure/radiator/contributor (singular) that your modeling/predicting hinted at and measurement revealed *BEFORE* you work on the lesser structures/radiators/contributors (plural). If you cannot reduce that single contributor to below a threshold, any work done on the lesser contributors would be a waste of time, effort, and money because that single dominant radiator would give the aircraft away anyway. Then once that dominant radiator is no longer the dominant contributor you can move on to the lesser contributors, find out which among them became the next dominant radiator, and the process of treatment starts all over again on this new dominant contributor.

With supercomputers, things can accelerate considerably. If your modeling/prediction of the RCS contributorship of one or more dominant radiators hinted at successful reduction by the time of measurement, and if those reductions will reveal potential new dominant radiators, then you can safely perform parallel treatment of those potential dominant radiators. This is a push/pull relationship that must have 'milestones' or pauses to perform genuine measurements between work of modeling/predicting to verify if everyone and every computers have 'carried the two' in their figures.

Threshold -- Get it?

In shaping, what Overholser meant was that you should avoid the 'corner reflector' as much as possible, but if you cannot, then avoid having the 90 deg 'corner reflector' type. That was why the General Dynamics competitor design failed against Lockheed's and Northrop's. The GD design had a single vertical stabilator, creating the typical tail-end vertical-horizontal stabs 'corner reflector' while Lockheed's and Northrop's designs each had twin canted vertical stabs. The 'corner reflector' structures do exist but by canting them away from perpendicular to the fuselage, the Lockheed and Norhthrop designs avoided the 90 deg 'corner reflector'.

But there was the catch: If the (rejected) GD design was competing against pre F-117 aircrafts or 'pre-stealth' but newer designs, most likely it would have beaten them all in the low radar observability area. That was how good (or how low) it was. But against Lockheed's or Northrop's, the GD design could not descend to the lower threshold set by its competitors. In the end, Lockheed and Northrop had to battle it out in other 'non-stealth' or 'less stealth significant' areas such as avionics and aerodynamics to win the contract.

In RCS control, what Overholser meant was that you use the angled faceting technique when applicable, curvatures of various radii to control surface wave behaviors when applicable, material absorber when applicable, geometric absorber or 'saw tooth' devices when applicable, and combinations of these techniques whenever applicable to lower the overall body to meet a certain threshold. Northrop's was lower in RCS but Lockheed's scored higher in other areas and both were lower in the low radar observability threshold.

HAVE BLUE - Experimental Survivable Testbed (XST)


> A study began of whether a manned stealth aircraft could be produced. Perko asked five U.S. aircraft companies to examine two questions. First, what were the *signature thresholds* that an air vehicle would have to achieve to be essentially undetectable at an *operationally useful range?*
> 
> McDonnell Douglas was the first to identify what appeared to be *appropriate RCS thresholds* (although it couldn't design an aircraft to meet those values). Hughes Aircraft confirmed these. *DARPA defined these thresholds as program goals.* It was clear that Lockheed and Northrop were far ahead of the others in terms of stealth aircraft design. Northrop had a more comprehensive RCS prediction capability than Lockheed, but, at the time, both capabilities were based on heuristics and empirical testing.



RCS threshold -- Get it?

Major global aviation masters get it. DARPA get it. People here get it. Why not you?

What is that 'operationally useful range'? About 150-200 km distance based upon the typical radar antenna size of the typical fighter, not the AWACS, but the fighter class. That 150-200 km distance is a threshold among many. It is a criteria that you mock and effectively call Overholser -- the man you often quote -- an 'idiot'. Congratulations, you are the first debater I know who calls his supporting source stupid.



> Echo 1 was limited to calculations in only two dimensions; this led designers to a faceted design rather than a smooth, seamless one.



This totally shreds your arguments. The more dimensions we are able calculate reflection behaviors, both on surfaces and in free space, the better we are able to understand where and how to set those thresholds to minimize development time.

Threshold -- Get it?

That is why it is laughable for you to declare definitively that a certain structure is 'not stealthy'. Based upon what measurements have you *PERFORMED*? Your crayola based ray tracing or full range and anechoic chamber testing? This is why it is laughable for you to say that those saw-toothed geometric absorber devices are 2D while the IRST device is 3D. May be it should be *YOU* who should have his eyes checked. Just like the other Chinese boys here who have no relevant experience, you do not understand words in their proper technical contexts and proceed to make absurd pronouncements based upon your flawed understanding and nationalistic zeal.

Go back to CDF and sinodefence where other gullible Chinese will mindlessly swallow what you peddle.



Martian2 said:


> 2. In post #1589, he tried to use 2-D saw-toothed edges to illustrate the possibility of a stealthy IRST probe. This Jedi mind trick only works on clueless members. I called him on his b.s. and put up a citation that large round 3-D objects, like the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe, are excellent radar reflectors.


News for you, kid, your source -- howstuffworks -- give only the most general information of anything. Not wrong. Just not enough.






In RCS control, a concave structure is far far deadlier to RCS contributorship than a convex structure.



Martian2 said:


> Moral of the story: Don't try to b.s. your way into arguing the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is stealthy. It is not. Raising non-applicable analogies will only draw my withering fire and a citation to prove you wrong. You'll look like an idiot. You have only yourself to blame for trying to pull a cheap trick.
> 
> [Note: Quite frankly, I enjoy debating Gambit when he's at his best. However, *when Gambit tries to pull a fast one, I will call him on it.* That is not why I'm here.
> 
> Sooner or later, Gambit will demonstrate a deeper knowledge in some niche area that I find useful. I have a lot of respect for Gambit when he's objective. I find him annoying when he's playing politics and twisting arguments to achieve a political end. Unlike him, I always try to stick to the facts.]


The moral of the story here is that 'Chinese physics' are not applicable in this world. The difference between you and I is that I have nearly 20 yrs of aviation experience with most of that in avionics, in and out of the military. It has been *YOU* and the Chinese boys here who have tried to pull many fast ones with your ridiculous claims. Not once have any of you explained things at the foundational level. You may claim to stick to the facts, but you consistently twist the interpretations of them to mislead people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

DARKY said:


> Yes Since It would be Forced to use His radar in Active mode and all the Stealth goes in Drain... *Passive Sensors like IRST is a way to go*... against Stealth planes and to keep ones plane Stealth.... May be It doesn't applies to Chinese design.. which is offcourse Unique and laws of Physics for the outside world does not apply... according to the self esteemed stealth/VLO expert we have here.


It is a combination of both and at appropriate time to be backed up with sufficiently sophisticated data processing. In a high EM environment, being able to sense or pick up as many EM transmission sources as possible is worthless without the requisite data processing prowess to sort out what is useful from what is not, from one moment to the next. Part of that data processing is ranging information of a target and IR data does not provide that information.

The solution is the extremely judicious use of the active sensor -- radar -- backed up intense data processing of raw passively collected data of any EM environment. The most easily processed data is direction, as in where is that signal coming from, the active sensor -- radar -- is then redirected towards that potential threat direction and use sparingly to gather basic target information. From that point on, if the target produce matches of certain criteria, such as range, intrusion into a threat 'bubble', or heading because if the target is inside said threat 'bubble' but is heading outward then said target can be considered irrelevant, then the active sensor use can be adjusted according to needs.

This is where the F-22 shines and the F-35 is even better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I have no idea. I was answering Firemaster's question on a solution to a non-stealthy and protruding IRST on the T-50/Pak-Fa.
> 
> *If a stealth aircraft has a nose designed to house a recessed IRST then a retracting door can be used to unveil the IRST only when needed. With this design, the fighter aircraft remains stealthy until the IRST is needed. This minimizes the possibility of detection.*
> 
> Another route is to redesign the IRST to minimize its footprint. Huge advances have been made in electronics and optics in the past decades. However, you would have to ask electronics and optics experts.


This is where you are mistaken.

A passive sensor is useful only when it is in use and because it is passive, it should, if not must, be used all the time. Your eyes and ears are passive sensors. Your hands are active sensor and they are directional. You use your passive sensors to direct where your active sensors must go. A recessed compartment render your passive sensor highly directional, must like looking through a tube or up from the bottom of a well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> You have just proved my point. QED


Next to his obsession with accompanying 'J-20' with 'Mighty Dragon', he is very nearly obsessed with those worthless 'Thanks' by fellow Chinese who pushed that button whether each of them had anything 'useful' to say or not. Childishly obsessive.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> This is where you are mistaken.
> 
> A passive sensor is useful only when it is in use and because it is passive, it should, if not must, be used all the time. Your eyes and ears are passive sensors. Your hands are active sensor and they are directional. You use your passive sensors to direct where your active sensors must go. A recessed compartment render your passive sensor highly directional, must like looking through a tube or up from the bottom of a well.



You're not making any sense.

No stealth designer would compromise a plane's stealthiness for the sake of a passive sensor. The only reason Sukhoi didn't bother to address the stealthiness issue for the IRST probe is that it is minor compared to the other much larger problems on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.






Sukhoi hasn't fixed a single stealth design problem in two years.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You're not making any sense.
> 
> No stealth designer would compromise a plane's stealthiness for the sake of a passive sensor. The only reason Sukhoi didn't bother to address the stealthiness issue for the IRST probe is that it is minor compared to the other much larger problems on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.


Much more sense than you, and backed up with related experience to boot. Your argument is based upon the presumption that all structures are detrimental to 'stealth', as if there is a standard for 'stealth' in the first place. You clearly are over your head in this subject.


----------



## ptldM3

gambit said:


> Threshold -- Get it?









gambit said:


> -- the man you often quote -- an 'idiot'. Congratulations, you are the first debater I know who calls his supporting source stupid.





Why is this surprising? While he uses sources that acknowledge the obvious such as 90 degree angles or reflectors are bad for stealth he than shamelessly claims that Chinese aircraft such as the J-10 and WZ-10 are &#8216;stealthy&#8217; even though they violate the principles of stealth. And the entire threshold argument is valid considering most people (and I have cited sources) acknowledge that there is an unofficial threshold for aircraft to qualify as stealth aircraft, Rebecca grant has a scale in which she or a source of hers list the stealth threshold at below 1m2. And I&#8217;m sorry but I really do doubt that a monstrosity such as the WZ-10 will get anywhere close to 1m2.






gambit said:


> That is why it is laughable for you to declare definitively that a certain structure is 'not stealthy'. Based upon what measurements have you *PERFORMED*? Your crayola based ray tracing or full range and anechoic chamber testing? This is why it is laughable for you to say that those saw-toothed geometric absorber devices are 2D while the IRST device is 3D. May be it should be *YOU* who should have his eyes checked. Just like the other Chinese boys here who have no relevant experience, you do not understand words in their proper technical contexts and proceed to make absurd pronouncements based upon your flawed understanding and nationalistic zeal.




The guy has a gift. He is able to seamlessly predict RCS&#8217;s off the internet. He is in high demand, I bet aerospace companies around the world would save millions if they hired him. Why spend millions on anechoic chambers and conduct countless hours of testing? Why develop software and supercomputers to model rcs, or higher engineers when good ol&#8217; Martian can use the eye ball test .

I bet he would cringe or go in denial mode if he read what one F-117 engineer said about rcs.






gambit said:


> Go back to CDF and sinodefence where other gullible Chinese will mindlessly swallow what you peddle.




He received thanks in a post where he bragged about receiving thanks, it just shows how useful his posts are.







gambit said:


> News for you, kid, your source -- howstuffworks -- give only the most general information of anything. Not wrong. Just not enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In RCS control, a concave structure is far far deadlier to RCS contributorship than a convex structure.





I brought up the convex argument before. Although he passionately agrees that spherical or convex objects omit large rcs returns he can not see all the curvature and convex shaping in the J-20, which includes but is not limited to the DSI, the pods underneath the wings, the aft part of the fuselage, the engine nozzles, the upper portion of the cockpit, the lower chin, the upper nose and the upper fuselage. Some of this is very subtle yet some areas such as lower chin and DSI are extreme example of convex shaping. Likewise, as I mentioned numerous times he adamantly defended the WZ-10 even though it violated the same principles he preaches. I&#8217;m guessing he has multiple personality disorder. 






Martian2 said:


> You're not making any sense.
> 
> No stealth designer would compromise a plane's stealthiness for the sake of a passive sensor. The only reason Sukhoi didn't bother to address the stealthiness issue for the IRST probe is that it is minor compared to the other much larger problems on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sukhoi hasn't fixed a single stealth design problem in two years.




Stop posting the same garbage, especially when it is not applicable to the conversation. You seem to have some sort of sexual fetish with that picture that overrides all impulses to the point that you are uncontrollably posting the same crap repeatedly no matter what the subject matter is.

And the only one that is not making any sense is you. The real reason they don&#8217;t bother with the IRST is because these prototypes are aerodynamic test beds with the number 3 being the avionics test bed. 

It&#8217;s still unbelievable that you still point out that the gaps between the pak-fa intakes and fuselage are a problem when they are basically identical to the gaps on the F-22, the same gaps that you conceded are not a problem on the F-22. I also am quite aware that you were unaware of the vents in the YF-23 and that the YF-23 test pilot acknowledged that the YF-23 had a smaller rocs than the YF-22. As usual you are a hypocrite and a shameless one at that.

Most of the rcs violators that you listed in that picture are present on the WZ-10 and to a much larger degree. Yet you have no problem calling the WZ-10 stealthy. Chinese aircraft are excluded from the rules right? In fact a Chinese aircraft can have 90 degree reflectors and still be stealthy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Illustration of the need for a flat underside to achieve stealth*

For example, let me illustrate why the T-50's uneven underside is not stealthy.





The uneven underside on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype creates a natural 90-degree angle. This allows enemy radar to reflect off the fuselage, bounce off the inside-face of the air-inlet, and return to the transmitter/detector for detection.

The enemy radar can see the T-50/Pak-Fa, because of the uneven underside. This result should not surprise you. The Su-30 (which is not stealthy) also has an uneven underside like the T-50/Pak-Fa.





When the same enemy radar (either airborne or ground-based) tries to detect a Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon, it fails.

Both the J-20 Mighty Dragon and F-22 Raptor have smooth and flat undersides to deflect radar away from the transmitter/detector. On this criterion, it is obvious the J-20 and F-22 are stealthy. It is also equally obvious the uneven underside of the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is not stealthy.

If Sukhoi ever fixes this problem then I would credit Sukhoi with another stealth characteristic. However, right now, the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is deficient in comparison to the J-20 and F-22 across at least 10 stealth design requirements.

[Note: In both pictures, I performed a ray trace of the incoming radar and its reflection off of the underside of the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype and China's J-20 Mighty Dragon. You are familiar with a ray trace, because you see visible light bouncing off mirrors all the time.

Radar is an electromagnetic wave like visible light. The only critical differences are that radar has a much longer wavelength and it's invisible to the naked eye. Otherwise, a ray trace of radar resembles visible light.]


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *Illustration of the need for a flat underside to achieve stealth*
> 
> For example, let me illustrate why the T-50's uneven underside is not stealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The uneven underside on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype creates a natural 90-degree angle.



Too bad the fuselage is canted. By your logic the same thing would happen if the EM energy hit the side of the J-20's fuselage. And since you like pointing out potential and imaginary flaws in the pak-fa, let me point out some for the J-20 as well. 

I also forgot to highligh the curvature in the nose sinse you keep claiming rounded surfaces are a big no, no.







And you have to be kidding me when you say the pak-fa has the same round and tall fuselage as the SU-30, they are geometrically very different and the result of an extremely flat fuselage. If the J-20's aft fuselage would be flattened you would get the same thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Next to his obsession with accompanying 'J-20' with 'Mighty Dragon', he is very nearly obsessed with those worthless 'Thanks' by fellow Chinese who pushed that button whether each of them had anything 'useful' to say or not. Childishly obsessive.



That doesn't take away the fact that in engineering terms, his comments and arguments are found wanting and at least I as an engineer cannot let him do that. It is unethical. 

The amount of work it takes for a plane from paper design to the point where it can get off the ground is mind boggling, I cannot allow him to taint that with his mighty dragon fascination.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> Too bad the fuselage is canted. By your logic the same thing would happen if the EM energy hit the side of the J-20's fuselage. And since you like pointing out potential and imaginary flaws in the pak-fa, let me point out some for the J-20 as well.
> 
> I also forgot to highligh the curvature in the nose sinse you keep claiming rounded surfaces are a big no, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to be kidding me when you say the pak-fa has the same round and tall fuselage as the SU-30, they are geometrically very different and the result of an extremely flat fuselage. If the J-20's aft fuselage would be flattened you would get the same thing.



The canards are unimportant, because the main wing and side fuselage (at exactly the right angle) would have reflected that particular incoming radar wave. Except for takeoffs, landings, and dogfights, the J-20 canards will be locked into place at the same level as the main wings. The presence of the canards has a marginal effect.

*Your perfect-angle problem also applies to the main wings of the F-22 Raptor and T-50/Pak-Fa. You are making the error of comparing apples to oranges.*

You missed the point of my analysis. The T-50/Pak-Fa's uneven underside (e.g. fuselage and airducts) will create many radar reflections at different angles. This makes the T-50/Pak-Fa very unstealthy.

Also, your point on the small radar reflection from RAM-covered aileron controls applies to all fighters (including the F-22 and T-50/Pak-Fa). Therefore, all planes would have the same deduction. That is why I omit aileron controls from my list. It's tiny and all planes have it. Not worth discussing.

*The point remains. The undersides of the J-20 and F-22 are stealthy. The T-50/Pak-Fa underside is far from stealthy.*


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Martian2 said:


> *Illustration of the need for a flat underside to achieve stealth*
> 
> For example, let me illustrate why the T-50's uneven underside is not stealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The uneven underside on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype creates a natural 90-degree angle. This allows enemy radar to reflect off the fuselage, bounce off the inside-face of the air-inlet, and return to the transmitter/detector for detection.
> 
> The enemy radar can see the T-50/Pak-Fa, because of the uneven underside. This result should not surprise you. The Su-30 (which is not stealthy) also has an uneven underside like the T-50/Pak-Fa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the same enemy radar (either airborne or ground-based) tries to detect a Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon, it fails.
> 
> Both the J-20 Mighty Dragon and F-22 Raptor have smooth and flat undersides to deflect radar away from the transmitter/detector. On this criterion, it is obvious the J-20 and F-22 are stealthy. It is also equally obvious the uneven underside of the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is not stealthy
> 
> If Sukhoi ever fixes this problem then I would credit Sukhoi with another stealth characteristic. However, right now, the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is deficient in comparison to the J-20 and F-22 across at least 10 stealth design requirements.
> 
> [Note: In both pictures, I performed a ray trace of the incoming radar and its reflection off of the underside of the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype and China's J-20 Mighty Dragon. You are familiar with a ray trace, because you see visible light bouncing off mirrors all the time.
> 
> Radar is an electromagnetic wave like visible light. The only critical differences are that radar has a much longer wavelength and it's invisible to the naked eye. Otherwise, a ray trace of radar resembles visible light.]




Troll There Is No Rule Saying You Have To Have A Flat Fuselage To Achieve >Stealth< Although The Flat Fuselage Is the Simplest way that assures the least chance of any signals coming back. You can have an underside that is anything but flat, what is important is controlling and redirecting EM energy. 

LOOK At F-117 It has Many Faceted Surfaces, Some In Close Proximity For today's Standards All that Faceting Is NOT Necessary but the point is the complex faceting on the F-117 caused EM energy to behave in a complex manner. The same philosophy holds true for the Ruskies PAK-FA. YOU Clearly Don't Know a JACK!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

New recent photographs of J-20 Mighty Dragon.





J-20 is parked among other fighter planes.





On the left, one J-10 single-seat Vigorous Dragon. Four J-10S twin-seat fighter-trainers in the middle. J-20 on the right.





A closer look at J-20 cockpit area.

[Note: Thank you to SiegeCrossbow for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tracy

Canards are MOVING parts. so they DO increase RCS (j20 canards are BIG one) Right ?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Another small update.



> J-21
> 
> A scale-down model of J-21 was unveiled by the 601 Institute at the first International UAV Innovation Grand Prix held in Beijing in September 2011. It was first rumored in April 2011 that 601/SAC are developing a 4th generation medium multi-role stealth fighter as J-21 which would complement the heavier J-20 (see above). The aircraft has a conventional design featuring twin engines and DSIs similar to both American F-22 and F-35. The prototype could initially be powered by the 8.5t class WS-13A turbofan but later by the new 9.5t class "medium thrust" engine (WS-13B/Tianshan?). A full-scale metal model was probably built in early 2011. The first prototype has been under construction since late 2011. First flight was projected to be in September 2012. J-21 (dubbed AMF/Advanced Multi-role Fighter?) is expected to be promoted at the international market as a low-cost alternative to American F-35.
> 
> - Last Updated 2/25/12



Chinese Military Aviation | China Air Force
















Huitong confirms the authenticity of the J-21 on his own forum.



> the authenticity of that J-21 model was confirmed by the admin at cjdby.net, J-21 also aims at the international market so it is expected to be declassified later this year



Chinese Military Aviation - j2x

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> The canards are unimportant, because the main wing and side fuselage (at exactly the right angle) would have reflected that particular incoming radar wave. Except for takeoffs, landings, and dogfights, the J-20 canards will be locked into place at the same level as the main wings. The presence of the canards has a marginal effect.
> 
> *Your perfect-angle problem also applies to the main wings of the F-22 Raptor and T-50/Pak-Fa. You are making the error of comparing apples to oranges.*
> 
> 
> You missed the point of my analysis. The T-50/Pak-Fa's uneven underside (e.g. fuselage and airducts) will create many radar reflections at different angles. This makes the T-50/Pak-Fa very unstealthy.
> 
> Also, your point on the small radar reflection from RAM-covered aileron controls applies to all fighters (including the F-22 and T-50/Pak-Fa). Therefore, all planes would have the same deduction. That is why I omit aileron controls from my list. It's tiny and all planes have it. Not worth discussing.
> 
> *The point remains. The undersides of the J-20 and F-22 are stealthy. The T-50/Pak-Fa underside is far from stealthy.*


Canards locked in place?? i don't think so...

Since you are so nice pointing out the deficiencies of other designs, perhaps we should point out some of the things that don't
add up with your magnificent theories.

first of all assuming the canards are ok for stealth we need to move to the shape and position of the canards. 

the trailing edge of the J-20 MIGHTY DRAGON (whoo hoo) canard does NOT align with any other on the craft. 
I am pretty sure the leading edge of the canard does not align either but I will wait for someone to use a good top view of the plane to do this. 

The canards are on a dihedral which means the edge of the trailing edge (!) is over the entire upper wing area.. I call this a huge source and a huge reflector, I don't know how you call it.. 

The canards are followed by a lerx .. 

the trailing edge of the J-20 MIGHTY DRAGON !!! appears not aligned with the main control surfaces of the plane, i.e. the canards. 

the angles of the fuselage and the nozzles do not align with others on the plane. 

seriously ..look it up ...


----------



## farhan_9909

why are you guys comparing 2 aircraft at prototype stage

Both Pak fa and J-20 will never face each other nor we dnt knw about the mass produced variant..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.*

Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.

It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.






Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.





In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Just use your eyes.

American stealth fighters look like this.
















Russian stealth fighters look like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ARCHON

^^^^

dont worry US and russia will buy J-20 for sure.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> The canards are unimportant, because the main wing and side fuselage (at exactly the right angle) would have reflected that particular incoming radar wave. Except for takeoffs, landings, and dogfights, the J-20 canards will be locked into place at the same level as the main wings. The presence of the canards has a marginal effect.





A few points:


You clearly don&#8217;t know jack about edge diffraction.

You just made up some gibberish about the canard lining up with the &#8216;side fuselage&#8217;.

You just made up some nonsense about the canard locking into place (I want a source).

The J-20 mighty drag queen violates your own theory about edge alignment.

Why on earth is there a round LERX in front of the canard? If something like this would be present on the pak-fa you would not be able to shut up about it.





Martian2 said:


> *Your perfect-angle problem also applies to the main wings of the F-22 Raptor and T-50/Pak-Fa. You are making the error of comparing apples to oranges.*




And quess who brought up the argument, you! When your own bullshit backfires on you, the conversation terns into---&#8217;well the F-22 and pak-fa have the same problem&#8217;. You are too predictable. 

Case into point that same little layman illustration you made about the pak-fa equally applies to the mighty drag queen.





Martian2 said:


> You missed the point of my analysis. The T-50/Pak-Fa's uneven underside (e.g. fuselage and airducts) will create many radar reflections at different angles. This makes the T-50/Pak-Fa very unstealthy.





No you missed the point. The same argument can be made for the mighty drag queen with the illustration of all the protrusions, curvatures, and edges that do not align. These are your criteria not mine.







Martian2 said:


> Also, your point on the small radar reflection from RAM-covered aileron controls applies to all fighters (including the F-22 and T-50/Pak-Fa). Therefore, all planes would have the same deduction. That is why I omit aileron controls from my list. It's tiny and all planes have it. Not worth discussing.




Except that those &#8216;aileron controls&#8217; on mighty drag queen are many, many, many&#8230;&#8230;many times larger than the ones found on either the F-22 or pak-fa. In other words, the ones on the F-22 and pak-fa are almost not noticeable while the ones on the mighty drag queen are a prominent eye sore.

And here since you have an unhealthy sexual fantasy with posting some made up nonsense about the pak-fa let me return the favor. Actually allow me to rub it in your face.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Just use your eyes.
> 
> American stealth fighters look like this.




Why American stealth fighter? Too ashamed to post pictures of the mighty drag queen? 





j20blackdragon said:


> Russian stealth fighters look like this.




The same Russia fighters that China shamelessly copies

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> The same Russia fighters that China shamelessly copies



There's nothing wrong with Russian fighters. 

Russia makes excellent non-stealth 4th generation fighters, which includes the PAK FA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ARCHON

j20blackdragon said:


> There's nothing wrong with Russian fighters.
> 
> Russia makes excellent non-stealth 4th generation fighters, which includes the PAK FA.



There is nothing wrong with Chinese fighters too

China makes excellent copies of russian non stealth 4th genearation fighters, including J-20


----------



## oct605032048

ARCHON said:


> There is nothing wrong with Chinese fighters too
> 
> China makes excellent copies of russian non stealth 4th genearation fighters, including J-20



Are you blind? Or you simply don't have brain.


----------



## ARCHON

oct605032048 said:


> Are you blind? Or you simply don't have brain.



ask ur fellowman who suits the description u posted...


----------



## IndoUS

oct605032048 said:


> Are you blind? Or you simply don't have brain.



You can say the same thing to your dear Chinese friends. Who can't see the same mistakes in their on J20 "drag queen."


----------



## ptldM3

ARCHON said:


> There is nothing wrong with Chinese fighters too
> 
> China makes excellent copies of russian non stealth 4th genearation fighters, including J-20



No...no, the J-20 is a copy of the J-10 (according to Martians theory). Martian concludes that simlarities between the pak-fa and Flanker definately means that the pak-fa is a copy of the Flanker, even if geometrically they are completely different.

Martian's logic:

J-10 has rear fins, so does J-20
J-10 has DSI, so does J-20.
J-10 has canards , so does J-20.
J-10 has engine curvature, so does J-20.
J-10 has nose entenna, so does J-20.
J-10 is a delta, so is J-20.
J-10 strait fuselage aft of canopy, J-20 same feature.

Therefore the J-20 is a copy of the J-10 (Martian's theory) and has many none-stealthy feature of the J-10 (Again Martian's theory).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

i want to make clear to the Chinese members that it is not the J-20 we have problem with, it is martians unhealthy fascination with it that is the problem

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Bill Sweetman:



> The big new feature of the T-50 is stealth. The aircraft that flew today is a prototype - and it does not show visible features like a frameless canopy and panel alignment that you'd expect on a production aircraft. Other not-very-stealthy-looking features include the gaps around the inlet (compare the YF-23) and a spherical infrared search and track housing in front of the windshield. And, of course, the nozzles are round. But it has a chined forebody, edge alignment and (probably) inlet line-of-sight blockage and internal weapons.
> 
> Apparently the designers and systems analysts have looked at the thorny question of "how much stealth do we want to pay for?" and have come up with a different answer than the F-22 designers. The fact that the armed forces of potential adversaries don't have S-300 and S-400 missiles may have something to do with that answer.



T-50: A Preliminary Analysis

Bill Sweetman:



> The compressor face of a jet engine is one of the least stealthy parts of an airplane. Not only will the whirling blades, at some point, reflect radar energy directly back at whoever is looking for you, but the shape and rotational rate will identify you, because computers can count very, very fast.
> 
> Step 1 in dealing with this problem is to coat the inlet duct with radar absorbent material, because a lot of radar energy bounces off the duct wall several times on the way in and out again. High-level stealth, though, means physically blocking the line of sight with a "serpentine" duct (which is done on the F-22, JSF and Typhoon). But that can take up a lot of space, particularly with big engines, and isn't practical for a stealth retrofit or on some new designs.
> 
> The Super Hornet, for example, has short inlet ducts so line-of-sight blockage by curvature isn't practical. The solution was to install a blocker in the inlet duct - looking down the duct, you see what looks like a compressor face, but isn't. It's a fixed composite structure, RAM-coated. And of course any stray electrons that do make it through the blocker and hit the compressor have to make it out through the blocker again. Problem: what bends electron flux also bends airflow, so you can get losses.



PAK-FA Secrets Via YouTube

David A Fulghum, Maxim Pyadushkin and Douglas Barrie:



> It is apparent that more concern has been paid to shaping, but there are still many surface intersections and flight-test probes that will [increase the radar] signature, says a senior U.S. Air Force officer involved in development of the F-117 and F-35. In addition, we need to understand the mechanics of the very large inlets to determine how and if engine [radar reflection] blockage is achieved. And those wing leading-edge devices present a challenge for signature control.
> 
> The prototype has a number of features that are not stealthy, including the infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose, the canopy frame, gaps around the inlets, and various unshielded intakes and grilles.



Major Work Ahead On T-50 Stealth Fighter | AVIATION WEEK

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

Can we stop this nonsense? I am ABSOLUTELY SICK OF HEARING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN T50.

China has J-20, so let's just talk about the J-20. Post pictures, videos, and I love this bird!

I don't want to talk about the T-50. China has turned down Russia's proposal to co-develop the T-50 so we have NO MORE relationship with that plane. I don't care if it is a 100 gen stealth craft or WWI piece of horse dung. The point is that China does not and will NEVER buy it. Indians are buy the T-50 so leave the analysis to them!

If there is a ever a point where the T-50 and J-20 are competing for export, we can bring up a separate thread. Till this time, we know very little of the J-20, and the T-50 has only finished just that airframe with NOTHING inside being final. So there is no point to discuss it! So don't trash it; don't praise it; leave it!

Please just post J-20 pics and videos and no mas TONTARIA!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> Can we stop this nonsense? I am ABSOLUTELY SICK OF HEARING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN T50.



Thank Martian, he always derails the thread by bringing up the pak-fa. The only posts i have made in this threads have been rebuttals to Martians twisted views.

J-20 black dragon has also bombarded the thread with pictures of everything from the SU-27 to the F-22, to the F-35 and of course the pak-fa.

Neither Martian nor J-20 Black Dragon will stop their provocative behaviors so if you have a problem report them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oct605032048

ptldM3 said:


> No...no, the J-20 is a copy of the J-10 (according to Martians theory). Martian concludes that simlarities between the pak-fa and Flanker definately means that the pak-fa is a copy of the Flanker, even if geometrically they are completely different.
> 
> Martian's logic:
> 
> J-10 has rear fins, so does J-20
> J-10 has DSI, so does J-20.
> J-10 has canards , so does J-20.
> J-10 has engine curvature, so does J-20.
> J-10 has nose entenna, so does J-20.
> J-10 is a delta, so is J-20.
> J-10 strait fuselage aft of canopy, J-20 same feature.
> 
> Therefore the J-20 is a copy of the J-10 (Martian's theory) and has many none-stealthy feature of the J-10 (Again Martian's theory).



You made mistake about J-10,* J-10 doesn't have DSI*. 611 add that on JF-17 and then on J-10B.

I do agree that J-20 is more similar to J-10 than any other fighters, (it comes from the same designer after all) but *anyone with eyes and brains will see the different*: *J-20 has two engines while J-10 has only one!!!* 

If that is not a difference big enough to distinct the two models than all the russian/US duel engine fighters are all the same.

FYI 20 is larger than 10.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> J-20 black dragon has also bombarded the thread with pictures of everything from the SU-27 to the F-22, to the F-35 and of course the pak-fa.



I guess all 3 of these are stealth aircraft?

They sure look similar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## laowai

j20blackdragon said:


> I guess all 3 of these are stealth aircraft?
> 
> They sure look similar.



i hope you are joking, or at least being sarcastic with that comment


----------



## S10

There's definitely some design lineage from Su-27 family on the T-50. Su-27 had a very good aerodynamic design, and it makes sense for Russians to incorporate the design to reduce time and risk. I don't know why some Chinese seem to look down on the whole Su-27 family, since China is still developing newer models based on it.


----------



## ptldM3

J-20 black dragon, some Chinese members here have complained about the off topic rants in this thread which you are mainly responsible for. I Mentioned that you have bombarded the thread with off topic pictures and than you quote me, post more off topic pictures and write some incoherent rant about stealth. Your're a bigger idiot than i thought


----------



## ptldM3

S10 said:


> There's definitely some design lineage from Su-27 family on the T-50. Su-27 had a very good aerodynamic design, and it makes sense for Russians to incorporate the design to reduce time and risk. I don't know why some Chinese seem to look down on the whole Su-27 family, since China is still developing newer models based on it.



Of course, some similarities are just unavoidable, the F-15 also has many similarities to the F-22 and the J-20 to the J-10, but some people here take it too far.


----------



## Sasquatch

conworldus said:


> Can we stop this nonsense? I am ABSOLUTELY SICK OF HEARING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN T50.
> 
> China has J-20, so let's just talk about the J-20. Post pictures, videos, and I love this bird!
> 
> I don't want to talk about the T-50. China has turned down Russia's proposal to co-develop the T-50 so we have NO MORE relationship with that plane. I don't care if it is a 100 gen stealth craft or WWI piece of horse dung. The point is that China does not and will NEVER buy it. Indians are buy the T-50 so leave the analysis to them!
> 
> If there is a ever a point where the T-50 and J-20 are competing for export, we can bring up a separate thread. Till this time, we know very little of the J-20, and the T-50 has only finished just that airframe with NOTHING inside being final. So there is no point to discuss it! So don't trash it; don't praise it; leave it!
> 
> Please just post J-20 pics and videos and no mas TONTARIA!!!



I agree need the Mods to clean up the thread has turned from J-20 to F-22 and T-50 thread.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------




ptldM3 said:


> J-20 black dragon, some Chinese members here have complained about the off topic rants in this thread which you are mainly responsible for. I Mentioned that you have bombarded the thread with off topic pictures and than you quote me, post more off topic pictures and write some incoherent rant about stealth. Your're a bigger idiot than i thought



J-20black dragon was banned for this before for these things, as one could best put it he is a troll don't respond to him if you feel it's provocative.


----------



## ptldM3

laowai said:


> i hope you are joking, or at least being sarcastic with that comment



Which part? If it's the latter, the only similarities that the aircraft have is the widely space engines. And intakes that sit below the fuselage. The two intake are geometrically very different, one being semi recessed and canted, the other not, one flaring out outward while the other flaring out inward. I&#8217;m beginning to think that the black dragon has probably not even hit puberty and that he probably uses Google translator.


----------



## homing28

2012-2-26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-zL42UKrnI&feature

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## oct605032048

Very nice music and very in-time video.


&#22826;&#32473;&#21147;&#20102;&#65281;


----------



## Zabaniyah

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "The J-20 vs. the T-50" thread. 

Since it isn't about the J-20 anymore. 

And I thought vs. threads and discussions weren't allowed. 

I'd be butthurt if mods close this section.


----------



## ptldM3

Zabaniya said:


> Perhaps this thread should be renamed "The J-20 vs. the T-50" thread.
> 
> Since it isn't about the J-20 anymore.
> 
> And I thought vs. threads and discussions weren't allowed.
> 
> I'd be butthurt if mods close this section.



Perhaps Martian should be banned?


----------



## Zabaniyah

ptldM3 said:


> Perhaps Martian should be banned?



Up to mods I guess  

I mean this "Martian" fellow is posting T-50 discussions on both the FGFA and the J-20 thread all at the same time


----------



## Martian2

Zabaniya said:


> Up to mods I guess
> 
> I mean this "Martian" fellow is posting T-50 discussions on both the FGFA and the J-20 thread all at the same time



In two years, I've only received two infractions for arguing with Indians in the World Affairs forum. I have never received a warning or infraction for anything that I have posted in the Chinese sub-forum. You guys can try to get me banned. I wish you luck.

My position has been consistent on all forums. If the mods ask me to leave, I will. It is their forum and if they don't want to read my military insights then I don't have any problems with that.

----------

In this post, I discuss stealth design. It will help you to develop a better understanding. You don't really need to see the original questions, because the answers are mostly self-explanatory.

By the way, for those who want to see only pictures and videos of the J-20 without any analysis or comparison to other stealth fighters, I suggest you open a thread in the multimedia section.

This is a professional forum to enlighten readers on stealth design, not a picture and video forum. All you have to do is go to YouTube for videos on the J-20. You don't need to come here.

----------

Technical reply to issues raised by Angeldemon_007.

1. Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa IRST creates a radar signature, because AESA radar is X-band. X-band wavelength is 2.5 (one inch) to 4cm. Also, IRST is a round sphere and not a shaped nose (e.g. duck bill shape/continuous curvature or faceted/diamond shape).

Therefore, X-band radar will detect the Su-30/Pak-Fa IRST. Hence, the Su-30/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

Citation: HowStuffWorks "How does stealth technology work?"

"*How does stealth technology work?*
...
Most conventional aircraft have a rounded shape. This shape makes them aerodynamic, but it also creates a very efficient radar reflector. The round shape means that no matter where the radar signal hits the plane, some of the signal gets reflected back:
..."





Three posts ago, Gambit was arguing the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is like a two-dimensional saw-toothed edge and is therefore stealthy. Do you agree with him? Or does the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe look like an excellent round radar reflector to you?

2. Look at the picture above with the rivets. Does it look like a metal-framed canopy to you? Even China's advanced materials science doesn't have the high-strength plastics that you are theorizing. Everyone has to climb the same tech ladder.

The F-22 uses a frameless bubble cockpit canopy. China also developed a frameless bubble cockpit canopy for the J-20. It is highly unlikely that Russia could just leapfrog past the next technological step of a framles bubble cockpit canopy.

3. Look at your picture again (see below). I have drawn the surface area of the fuselage behind the pilot. The T-50/Pak-Fa is much taller and occupies a lot of area. This will strongly reflect radar at many angles.

If you look at other pictures of the F-22 and J-20, you will notice they use continuous curvature to shape the area behind their cockpit canopy. However, when you look at pictures of the T-50/Pak-Fa, you will see two large triangular slabs from the side.





Compare the small surface area behind the F-22 pilot to the large surface area behind the T-50/Pak-Fa pilot.

4. RULE #1 - never look at cartoons in performing an analysis. Let me show you real photographs of the T-50/Pak-Fa. All of them show there is no S-duct on the T-50/Pak-Fa.





From the midpoint of the airduct to the midpoint of the engine, it is a straight line. There is no curved duct. The T-50/Pak-Fa engine layout is identical to the Su-30.





From a lateral view, we will once again draw a line from the midpoint of the airduct to the midpoint of the engine, it is clearly a straight line. There is no curved duct.

5. It has been two years and Sukhoi's T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype looks exactly like the first prototype externally. Unless Sukhoi performs a radical redesign (which increasingly appears unlikely), a straight airduct will mean the T-50/Pak-Fa will be almost as non-stealthy as a Su-30.

When the enemy radar waves bounce off the single-crystal metallic engine fan blades on the T-50/Pak-Fa, the F-22 or J-20 radar screen will light up like a Christmas tree.

6. It has been two years and Sukhoi hasn't been able to wrap the T-50/Pak-Fa engines in RAM cladding. As more years pass, it becomes increasingly unlikely that Sukhoi can fix this problem. I believe it is a cooling issue.

If we keep seeing this exposed metal-engine problem on the next few prototypes then it means Sukhoi can't change the design due to a likely cooling need for the engines.

7. When the T-50/Pak-Fa or Su-30 bay doors are closed during flight, they lie flush against the fuselage. However, due to the non-saw-toothed edges, enemy radar will reflect off the large discontinuities. The F-22, F-35, and J-20 all have saw-toothed bay doors to minimize this RCS problem.

8. Vents are not stealthy, because of radar scattering from edge diffraction.

9. An uneven underside is not stealthy. It creates many new angles for a radar reflection. Australia Air Power wrote a detailed report and criticized the modified F-35 for the "lumps and bumps" along its underside. The original F-35 prototype had a clean and flat underside like the F-22 and J-20. 

Due to the need for air-to-air missiles with the development of the J-20, the F-35 underside is a mess and it is less stealthy.

Reference: Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities

10. When an enemy radar hits the "back wall" (or intersection between fuselage and airduct), it will produce a nice radar return. This is poor stealth design. This problem exists on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

Zabaniya said:


> Up to mods I guess
> 
> I mean this "Martian" fellow is posting T-50 discussions on both the FGFA and the J-20 thread all at the same time



Yes, he has taken a crap in both thread. His last post he claimed the pak-fa has more surface area so it will have greater returns from the side, when he lost the argument he contradicted himself by saying that the larger vertical stabalizers are not relivant because they are canted


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> In this post, I discuss stealth design. It will help you to develop a better understanding. You don't really need to see the original questions, because the answers are mostly self-explanatory.
> 
> By the way, for those who want to see only pictures and videos of the J-20 without any analysis or comparison to other stealth fighters, I suggest you open a thread in the multimedia section.
> 
> *This is a professional forum to enlighten readers on stealth design*, not a picture and video forum. All you have to do is go to YouTube for videos on the J-20. You don't need to come here.


And *YOU* are hardly a 'professional', neither in military nor in the subject under discussion.



Martian2 said:


> Citation: HowStuffWorks "How does stealth technology work?"
> 
> How does stealth technology work?
> ...
> Most conventional aircraft have a rounded shape. This shape makes them aerodynamic, but it also creates a very efficient radar reflector. The round shape means that no matter where the radar signal hits the plane, some of the signal gets reflected back


And yet today's 'stealth' aircrafts are filled with rounded edges and your 'continuous curvature'. Reconcile this, if you can.

There are plenty of literature that speaks of Keller cone from edge diffraction whose behaviors are difficult to predict and model and whose energy levels are greater than that of the specular reflections off the surface of a curvature. You need to reconcile this as well. This make the J-20's canards more problematic for RCS controls than the T-50's IRST device.



Martian2 said:


> Three posts ago, Gambit was arguing the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is like a *two-dimensional saw-toothed edge* and is therefore stealthy. Do you agree with him? Or does the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe look like an excellent round radar reflector to you?


If that geometric absorber is two-dimensional, you need to get your eyes check. Are they truly two-dimensions? Truly physically two-dimensions? Or are we talking about 'Chinese physics' again?



Martian2 said:


> 2. Look at the picture above with the rivets. Does it look like a metal-framed canopy to you?


Yes, does this look like a metal-framed canopy to you?







And do our eyes deceive us? Those geometric absorber devices, aka 'saw-toothed' physical structures, look awfully three-dimensional to me.



Martian2 said:


> 3. Look at your picture again (see below). I have drawn the surface area of the fuselage behind the pilot. The T-50/Pak-Fa is much taller and occupies a lot of area. *This will strongly reflect radar at many angles.*


Your drawing and the conclusion you made have no basis in reality. That is nothing but sheer speculation on your part. By your own argument, the F-117 failed in every 'stealth' respects.



Martian2 said:


> 4. RULE #1 - never look at cartoons in performing an analysis.


And never look at ridiculous drawings made by ignorant and inexperience Chinese fanboys.


----------



## antonius123

^^^^^

Please do not equate the "'saw-toothed' physical structures" of F-117 which is intentionally designed to scatter radar reflection with rivets, it is different.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

At Gambit, I don't understand why you keep making moronic arguments.

J-20 canards are made of RAM-coated composite materials (which makes it stealthy) and it is carefully shaped to deflect radar. Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa IRST is a giant sphere of metal, glass, and electronics.

You can't seem to understand the difference.

Also, saw-toothed edges are designed to bleed radar energy away from the direction of the emitter. The IRST is simply a giant sphere that reflects substantial radar energy back to the emitter. I've already provided a citation from "How Does Stealth Technology Work?"

It is obvious you don't understand basic stealth technology.


----------



## gambit

Tracy said:


> Canards are MOVING parts. so they DO increase RCS (j20 canards are BIG one) Right ?


*EVERYTHING* is a contributor to the overall RCS of a body.






The above is just about my favorite and best illustration of how a radar system 'sees' a target: As a *CLUSTER* of voltage spikes. The final user -- you, me, the pilot, or the radar operator -- does not see the target as such. We only see the typical 'blip' of light on a screen.

Anyway...Each of those spikes have a source and that source is a physical structure. Upon radar signal impingement, *ANY* physical structure will reflect or as we in the radar field call the structure: A 'radiator' or 'emitter'. But generally the word 'radiator' is used. Since the physical structure is now a radiator, it become a 'contributor'.

Structure/radiator/contributor = contributorship.

So if you ever hear/read a radar engineer use the word 'contributor' or 'contributorship' you will know -- from now on -- he is talking about a radiation *STATUS* of a physical structure belonging to a complex body while under radar bombardment. The reason I use the word 'status' is because if there is no radar bombardment, there is no radiation off the structure. Simple enough.

When you have a complex body like an aircraft with its many discrete structures that radiate, you will have destructive and constructive interference.

For example...

Principles of COSYNA Radar Modules


> The scattering mechanism is known as "Braggscatter" and interprets the backwards directed part of the radar power induced by *constructive interference* of the electromagnetic wave with the structures of the entire radar footprint



When it comes to RCS control regarding the minimization of the overall RCS figure:

- Constructive interference = Bad. Very bad.
- Destructive interference = Good and we should strive to produce it all the time.

Constructive interference is when many radiated signals collide with each other and actually build to create a concentrated signal. Destructive interference is when they collide with each other and actually cancel or 'destroy' each other out.






Currently, there is no way for us to predict on how the many radiation patterns created by the above external stores will behave. Because an aircraft is a dynamic object, meaning it moves in space and it maneuvers, presenting different viewing angles to the radar at different times, the same cluster of physical structures may have mostly constructive interference one moment and mostly destructive the next. Or some ratio of the two types.

So the most important thing you should understand is this:

*THE MORE PHYSICAL STRUCTURES THERE ARE FOR THE SEEKING RADAR, THE GREATER THE AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL CONTRIBUTORS OR CONTRIBUTORSHIPS TO THE OVERALL RADAR CROSS SECTION (RCS) VALUE.*

That is why we enclosed or 'internalized' weapons such as missiles and bombs. To deny the seeking radar of these contributors.

Since we still must produce an aircraft with flight control surfaces and since those devices *WILL BE* contributors, we must find some other ways to redirect as much radiation as possible away from the seeking radar's direction.

Enter 'planforming' or 'planform alignment'...

Stealth technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs.* Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure. For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle. Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. *The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles.*



In other words, if we cannot eliminate radiation off a physical structure, the least we can do is try to redirect their radiation patterns elsewhere, preferably away from the seeking radar's direction.

Structure/radiator/contributor + planforming = Reduced contributorship.

So how does canards threaten or increase the odds of a higher RCS? By their locations: In front of the wings, which equals to interactions of radiated signals that came off the trailing edges of the canards and the radiated signals that came off the leading edges of the wings. Because of the quite unpredictability of which type of interference that may rise, this make canards highly suspect, but not guaranteed, of being a higher RCS contributorship than other structures that may be in front of the wings.

Now...You may ask: What about the F-22's wings being in front of the horizontal stabilators? Would there be a higher risk as well?

Reasonable questions but then we have 'planform alignment' for the F-22...The leading edges of the wings have the same angle as the leading edges of the horizontal stabs. That and the horizontal stabs are much smaller than the wings. In RCS control tactics, placement of different sizes of diverse physical structures have direct effects on the energy level produced.

A surface is very much a 'conductor' or as we in the radar field call it the 'electrical path'. Sometimes we can exploit this for RCS control by using it as long as we can to redirect any portion of the radar signal that we cannot absorb, other times we should radiate the radar signal off into free space as soon as possible. Which option depends on the aircraft body design that we started off with. But usually we should try to get rid of it ASAP.

This is why most of the expert observers' attention is on the J-20's canards rather than the T-50's IRST device. The canards are much larger and they move in flight, no matter how minute those movements may be those movements do matter when it comes to interference.

Finally, do not expect this kind of foundational explanation of 'stealth' from the Chinese members here. None of them have the relevant experience and the results are the many laughable claims that damn near defy the laws of physics.

---------- Post added at 03:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 AM ----------




Martian2 said:


> At Gambit, I don't understand why you keep making moronic arguments.
> 
> J-20 canards are made of RAM-coated composite materials (which makes it stealthy) and it is carefully shaped to deflect radar. Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa IRST is a giant sphere of metal, glass, and electronics.
> 
> You can't seem to understand the difference.
> 
> Also, saw-toothed edges are designed to bleed radar energy away from the direction of the emitter. The IRST is simply a giant sphere that reflects substantial radar energy back to the emitter. I've already provided a citation from "How Does Stealth Technology Work?"
> 
> *It is obvious you don't understand basic stealth technology.*


See this post.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Please do not equate the "'saw-toothed' physical structures" of F-117 which is intentionally designed to scatter radar reflection with rivets, it is different.


I will put up what I know about this subject against what you think you know any day. Ready whenever you are.


----------



## Martian2

At Gambit, no one cares about your irrelevant diagrams.

The bottom line is very simple. A giant round IRST sphere is not stealthy and it is not the same thing as stealthy saw-toothed edges. No amount of text or diagrams will convince anyone otherwise. Stop wasting our time trying to claim something that is not true.

Your insistence that IRST = saw-toothed edges only makes you look like a stubborn ignorant fool.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

At S10, we are trying to resolve whether Gambit will continue to insist: non-stealthy spherical T-50/Pak-Fa IRST = stealthy flat saw-toothed edges.

If Gambit doesn't retract his ridiculous assertion, every guest reader will conclude he has no credibility.

Retract your stupid IRST = saw-toothed edges analysis or become a laughingstock. The choice is yours Gambit.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> At Gambit, no one cares about your irrelevant diagrams.


 They are far far more illustrative about the subject than your crap.



Martian2 said:


> The bottom line is very simple. A giant round IRST sphere is not stealthy and it is not the same thing as stealthy saw-toothed edges. No amount of text or diagrams will convince anyone otherwise. Stop wasting our time trying to claim something that is not true.


News for you, kid: You have no credible data about the RCS contributorship of the T-50's IRST device. Whatever sources you may bring, they can only speak of general principles, but when it comes to true level of contributorship, only *MEASUREMENT* data count. You got any?



Martian2 said:


> Your insistence that IRST = saw-toothed edges only makes you look like a stubborn ignorant fool.


And your nonsense made you look the fool and immature child a long time ago.


----------



## DrSomnath999

amalakas said:


> Hmmm things like range make a difference to you or not ?
> 
> I mean the damn bat is picked up in that chamber.
> 
> I'd like to see the J-20 radar pick up a bat at 100km and then we talk.


that means a bat has more radar cross section than PAKFA


----------



## 帅的一匹

[video]http://www.56.com/u12/v_NjY1NDE4MTc.html[/video]
The latest video of J-20, absolutely a state of art. USA never image we could build this kind of thing now, which is 10 year faster than they think! Martian2, just ingnore what gambit said, Uncle Sam never want to play fair with China in their guts and bone.


----------



## killerx

china is grown so fasta nd building up that poor amaricans are taking loans from china and china is the future world power for sure its equipment are advance and in large no

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

killerx said:


> china is grown so fasta nd building up that poor amaricans are taking loans from china and china is the future world power for sure its equipment are advance and in large no



That has nothing to do with the J-20.


----------



## siegecrossbow

The J-20 also performed some maneuvers on the 27th. Apparently they looked better than what the J-10 had been doing at airshows. Stay tuned for the videos!

New images of the plane in action:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DARKY

Martian2 said:


> At Gambit, no one cares about your irrelevant diagrams.
> 
> The bottom line is very simple. A giant round IRST sphere is not stealthy and it is not the same thing as stealthy saw-toothed edges. No amount of text or diagrams will convince anyone otherwise. Stop wasting our time trying to claim something that is not true.
> 
> Your insistence that IRST = saw-toothed edges only makes you look like a stubborn ignorant fool.



I guess the round Bubble canopy of J-20 is a bigger a Bigger bubble than PAK FA's IRST.











Hence *J-20 is clearly an Unstealthy aircraft according to you*.


----------



## qwerrty

DARKY said:


> I guess the round Bubble canopy of J-20 is a bigger a Bigger bubble than PAK FA's IRST.
> Hence *J-20 is clearly an Unstealthy aircraft according to you*.



vs. round bubble canopy+ rivets/metal frame and round IRST..


ok, carry on


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ARCHON said:


> ^^^^
> 
> dont worry US and russia will buy J-20 for sure.





Nah, we will not sell J-20.

---------- Post added at 05:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 AM ----------




ptldM3 said:


> A few points:
> 
> 
> You clearly dont know jack about edge diffraction.
> 
> You just made up some gibberish about the canard lining up with the side fuselage.
> 
> You just made up some nonsense about the canard locking into place (I want a source).
> 
> The J-20 mighty drag queen violates your own theory about edge alignment.
> 
> Why on earth is there a round LERX in front of the canard? If something like this would be present on the pak-fa you would not be able to shut up about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And quess who brought up the argument, you! When your own bullshit backfires on you, the conversation terns into---well the F-22 and pak-fa have the same problem. You are too predictable.
> 
> Case into point that same little layman illustration you made about the pak-fa equally applies to the mighty drag queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you missed the point. The same argument can be made for the mighty drag queen with the illustration of all the protrusions, curvatures, and edges that do not align. These are your criteria not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that those aileron controls on mighty drag queen are many, many, manymany times larger than the ones found on either the F-22 or pak-fa. In other words, the ones on the F-22 and pak-fa are almost not noticeable while the ones on the mighty drag queen are a prominent eye sore.
> 
> And here since you have an unhealthy sexual fantasy with posting some made up nonsense about the pak-fa let me return the favor. Actually allow me to rub it in your face.






ptldM3, the un-stealth features you pointed out on J-20 can also be found on T-50 !!!!!

However, you can not find the same un-stealth feature on T-50 that is present on J-20. !!!

This is the difference !!!


----------



## danger007

AerospaceEngineer said:


> lol, but your crappy T-50 looks nothing like the Mig-1.44
> 
> lol, it look like crap !!! With exposed engine fan blade that stare at your face !! Also with billions and billions of rivets and metal canopy!!




crappy mind, India is funding to T-50 that is why you are calling crappy right. what a cheap attitude.....


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

DARKY said:


> I guess the round Bubble canopy of J-20 is a bigger a Bigger bubble than PAK FA's IRST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence *J-20 is clearly an Unstealthy aircraft according to you*.





your moronic logic is amazing!!!!

According to your logic, F-22's round Bubble canopy must be un-stealth as well.

lol


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

gambit said:


> Why not? Did they learned something?
> 
> 
> Sure. Looks like an F-35






Haha, yes. They learned that with canard, it makes the plane much more manuvarable and thus a better fighter. Especially at super sonic speed, the double delta wing and canard makes it ultra agile, thus comes super manuverbility!!


As for the new plane SAC is developing, it is a stike plane like F-35, thus need less agility!


----------



## siegecrossbow

Can't find the video of the spectacular performance on the 27th so we just have to make do with the warm up round on the 26th:


----------



## SQ8

Interesting on how they are expanding the flight envelope... 
but more interesting on how this is being done in full *public view at low level.*


----------



## j20blackdragon

Hello India.


----------



## Tshering22

j20blackdragon said:


> Hello India.



Neither of these pics have anything to do with us. Hello back to you BTW.


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Haha, yes. They learned that with *canard, it makes the plane much more manuvarable and thus a better fighter. Especially at super sonic speed, the double delta wing and canard makes it ultra agile, thus comes super manuverbility!!*
> 
> 
> As for the new plane SAC is developing, it is a stike plane like F-35, thus need less agility!




Mind Giving.... Some Aerodynamics Lessons ?


----------



## Zabaniyah

I'd have to say, the J-20 looks rather intimidating when it flies


----------



## amalakas

Zabaniya said:


> I'd have to say, the J-20 looks rather intimidating when it flies


 

Ah .. it's because it is painted black.


----------



## Zabaniyah

amalakas said:


> Ah .. it's because it is painted black.



Partly. 

I mean, it's big, has big canards, and delta winged. 

Buuuurrr....


----------



## amalakas

Zabaniya said:


> Partly.
> 
> I mean, it's big, has big canards, and delta winged.
> 
> Buuuurrr....



So does the Saab Viggen ..


----------



## j20blackdragon

The PAK FA wishes it looked like this.


----------



## marshall

farhan_9909 said:


> why are you guys comparing 2 aircraft at prototype stage
> 
> Both Pak fa and J-20 will never face each other nor we dnt knw about the mass produced variant..


The PAK FA follow-on variant will be sold to India, who is financing PAK FA development. Once India gets its hands on a few regiments of this, given the Indian government's belligerent behavior against China, it wouldn't be surprising if India's government concocts a crisis, gets their population into a frenzy through "Times of India", etc, before launching an unprovoked attack against China. The Indian government knows it will win the propaganda war even though it will be the aggressor. It happened before in 1962 and Indian leadership is far more xenophobic today then it was then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

ptldM3 said:


> You just made up some nonsense about the canard locking into place (I want a source).


I've never seen a quote about this but depending on the situation, it makes sense. Last year I speculated that the FBW probably has this sort of flight mode in mind. It would probably allow a few degrees movement and not strictly lock the canards but it would definitely improve the stealth.


----------



## marshall

wanglaokan said:


> [video]http://www.56.com/u12/v_NjY1NDE4MTc.html[/video]
> The latest video of J-20, absolutely a state of art. USA never image we could build this kind of thing now, which is 10 year faster than they think! Martian2, just ingnore what gambit said, Uncle Sam never want to play fair with China in their guts and bone.


Solid progress, but it hasn't been pushed yet. If it's pulling 8+ Gs, I want to see a 360 in under 20 seconds. I don't think it's been fully loaded or conducted supersonic flights yet.


----------



## DARKY

AerospaceEngineer said:


> your moronic logic is amazing!!!!
> 
> According to your logic, F-22's round Bubble canopy must be un-stealth as well.
> 
> lol



Not according to me... But your fellow Martin2's logic.


----------



## gambit

AerospaceEngineer said:


> Haha, yes. They learned that with canard, it makes the plane much more manuvarable and thus a better fighter. Especially at super sonic speed, the double delta wing and canard makes it ultra agile, thus comes super manuverbility!!
> 
> 
> As for the new plane SAC is developing, it is a stike plane like F-35, thus need less agility!


And apparently you did not learned or know that the US have had far more extensive research and knowledge than China on canards. The F-16 set the standard for agility -- without canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> I've never seen a quote about this but depending on the situation, it makes sense. Last year I speculated that the FBW probably has this sort of flight mode in mind. It would probably allow a few degrees movement and not strictly lock the canards but it would definitely improve the stealth.


 

I don't think so, the canards on the J-20 are the primary control surfaces. They can't be locked into place. At least I don't see the way

---------- Post added at 12:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 AM ----------




gambit said:


> And apparently you did not learned or know that the US have had far more extensive research and knowledge than China on canards. The F-16 set the standard for agility -- without canards.



Or perhaps even with this.... 







because others have discovered the wheel too


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> because other have discovered the wheel too


What is this 'wheel' thing you speak of?

But seriously...

I have a friend who was on F-16/AFTI program, specifically flight testing, and it was absolutely mind-boggling what that F-16 can do -- 20 yrs ago.

NASA Dryden AFTI/F-16 Photo Collection


> The AFTI F-16 phase I tests began following its arrival at Dryden on July 15, 1982. The initial flights checked out the airplane's stability and control systems.These included a triplex digital flight control computer system, and the *two triangular "chin" canards mounted under the aircraft's intake, which form an inverted "V"-shape. These canards allow the AFTI F-16 to make flat turns.* By late December 1982, tests began of the *Voice Command System. This allowed the pilot to change switch positions, display formats, and modes simply by saying the correct word.* The initial tests were of the system's ability to recognize words.



I wonder if this is where Apple lifted the technology to develop Siri.

Anyway, we are talking about as much as 20 deg nose off angle gun solution while the entire aircraft was still moving/heading 'forward'. The flight control laws written for it was twice as large as the standard F-16's and is still secret, as far as I know, and I might give my left nut to take a gander at it. My friend passed away years ago. Its maneuverability was radical enough to make experienced test pilots physically ill at times.


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> ...speculated that the FBW probably has this sort of flight mode in mind. It would probably allow a few degrees movement and not strictly lock the canards but it would definitely improve the stealth.





amalakas said:


> I don't think so, the canards on the J-20 are the primary control surfaces. They can't be locked into place. At least I don't see the way


Never said it should lock in place. The FBW would compensate with the other control surfaces so that the canard would essentially be a big LERX, albeit able to move a few degrees when necessary. The goal is to minimize canard movement, especially larger angles. Not having this sort of FBW flight mode would validate the main criticisms people have about canards in a threat environment, not that I ever agreed with canards to begin with. Unbeatable for maneuverability though, if done right.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Never said it should lock in place. The FBW would compensate with the other control surfaces so that the canard would essentially be a big LERX, albeit able to move a few degrees when necessary. *The goal is to minimize canard movement, especially larger angles.* Not having this sort of FBW flight mode would validate the main criticisms people have about canards in a threat environment, not that I ever agreed with canards to begin with. Unbeatable for maneuverability though, if done right.


This reveals you do not know what you are talking about but can only patch together words to put on a pretense of knowledge. Just like the Chinese boys here.

Anyway, computer assisted/augmented or completely FBW-FLCS flight control surfaces deflections are governed by calculations from these sources:

- Gyroscopes

- Accelerometers or rate of changes in any axis

- Commands (stick)

- Pitot/Static inputs: Altitude and Airspeed

- Angle of attack

The pilot have no control over their calculations. If the J-20 canards are active flight control elements, and signs are likely that they are, then they are constantly in motion. Their deflection angles and rate of deflections are necessary to maintain stable flight in all regimes, from TO-L to supersonic. The only time we can see a flight control surface's visible displacement is at TO-L speed, but when the aircraft is at cruising speed, which is normally several hundreds km/h to just below Mach, large displacements would make aircraft 'depart from controlled flight'.

You can see examples of what I said here...

U.S F-16 Flight (cockpit view)

At various timestamps such as 1:48 where we can see the F-15's external view, its flight control surfaces' movements are barely noticeable. Then at the end when the jets are landing do we see large deflections of flight control surfaces.

So there is no 'goal to minimize canard movement'. There can be no such goal to accommodate other desires.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> This reveals you do not know what you are talking about but can only patch together words to put on a pretense of knowledge. Just like the Chinese boys here.
> 
> Anyway, computer assisted/augmented or completely FBW-FLCS flight control surfaces deflections are governed by calculations from these sources:
> ...
> ...
> The pilot have no control over their calculations. If the J-20 canards are active flight control elements, and signs are likely that they are, then they are constantly in motion. Their deflection angles and rate of deflections are necessary to maintain stable flight in all regimes, from TO-L to supersonic. The only time we can see a flight control surface's visible displacement is at TO-L speed, but when the aircraft is at cruising speed, which is normally several hundreds km/h to just below Mach, large displacements would make aircraft 'depart from controlled flight'.
> ...
> ...
> At various timestamps such as 1:48 where we can see the F-15's external view, its flight control surfaces' movements are barely noticeable. Then at the end when the jets are landing do we see large deflections of flight control surfaces.
> 
> So there is no 'goal to minimize canard movement'. There can be no such goal to accommodate other desires.


Why am I not surprised you would bring up yet another irrelevant out-of-context red-herring? The point is to *maintain maximum stealth* in a *threat environment*. The speculation was about the *development of a FBW flight mode* to do just that. Notice the use of the term FBW _(Fly By Wire)_...which is basically computer control of flight surfaces...something already mentioned even though you find it necessary to say is wrong while saying it is right at the same time. LOL

The goal is to ensure maximum stealth in a threat environment. In a threat environment, you can have many illuminating radars. For a stealth aircraft trying to penetrate this sort of tactical environment, every kilometer matters and the stealth issues with a moving canard are magnified. Your ridiculous example of an F-16 flying in calm weather under blue skies is NOT a threat environment. Sigh! As I said in the past, strategic thinking is not your forte....and neither is tactical thinking it appears. In any case, you are free to post irrelevant factoids ad nauseum to your heart's content.


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> I swear, your eyes are terrible. The T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is about the size of a pilot's head. What do you think will happen to a plane's radar signature when you stick a pilot's helmet on the plane's nose (like an IRST probe)? That's right. It's a giant radar reflector. You really are totally clueless.





gambit said:


> In radar detection, paradoxical as it sounds, because of the 10-lambda rule, the larger the spheroid structure, it may be appear smaller to the seeking radar. Now go and look up my explanation of the 10-lambda rule.


Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you, since you posted this little factoid in *the context of the above message* from "Martian2" about a non-faceted spheroidal IRST. I'm sure you can convince China's communist government to finance your proposal to the US Air Force.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Link to video from the 27th. 

The Good:

Couple of ultra tight figure 8s from 4:40 onwards.

The bad:

You can't see a darn thing cause the video is so grainy.

Enjoy:

æ­¼20-27æ¥æºå¨è§é¢ - è§é¢ - ä¼é·è§é¢ - å¨çº¿è§ç

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

siegecrossbow said:


> Link to video from the 27th.
> 
> The Good:
> 
> Couple of ultra tight figure 8s from 4:40 onwards.
> 
> The bad:
> 
> You can't see a darn thing cause the video is so grainy.
> 
> Enjoy:
> 
> æ*¼20-27æ&#8212;¥æ&#339;ºå&#352;¨è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; - è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; - ä¼&#732;é&#8230;·è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; - å&#339;¨çº¿è§&#8218;ç&#339;&#8249;



Good videos man. thanks

The question I guess still remains. Is there any info (more) in chinese news if the plane is after all a fighter like the F-15 say or a strike plane like the F-15E ?


----------



## ARSENAL6

marshall said:


> Why am I not surprised you would bring up yet another irrelevant out-of-context red-herring? .


 
You Shouldn't be its redneck retard Gambit here , STill believing in fairytales, Moon is made out of cheese, ISrael is a force for good, the world's still flat and OBL is not part of the CIA. 
Gambit has his head up the ar$£ , musta smelt reall good down their gambit ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

amalakas said:


> Good videos man. thanks
> 
> The question I guess still remains. Is there any info (more) in chinese news if the plane is after all a fighter like the F-15 say or a strike plane like the F-15E ?



There is nothing official. Judging from past papers (including the one written by Dr. Song, designer of J-10) and interview with General He Wei-Rong in 2009 the plane will assume air superiority and interception roles. We were able to verify some of Dr. Song's designs, such as the creation of lift enhancing vortices generated by LEX, LERX, and canards, in some of the high-def photos that J-20 watchers managed to snap.

We were also able to verify that the J-20 is around 20.5 meters long using high-def photos of the J-20 next to the J-10A and J-10B. I think Sweetman addressed this in a recent article as well. However the J-20's physical "body length" is still larger than that of the F-22 due to the fact that much of the F-22's length are added by the horizontal stabilizors. The nose to nozzle length of the F-22 is only around 16 meters. However the J-20 has a smaller cross sectional area than the raptor. In the end I think that the J-20 is probably heavier than the raptor, but not by too much. Since the engine currently being used are still AL-31 variants the full potential of the plane has yet to be unleashed. We will have to wait until WS-15s are installed before we see it doing anything special.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Link to a superior quality video by GoodBoy from CJDBY.net:

Ïò×æ¹ú»ã±¨(1)-J20³¬µÍ¿Õ»ú¶¯±íÑÝ(2.26-27)-¿Õ¾ü°æ-³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³


----------



## marshall

siegecrossbow said:


> Link to video from the 27th.
> 
> The Good:
> 
> Couple of ultra tight figure 8s from 4:40 onwards.
> æ*¼20-27æ&#8212;¥æ&#339;ºå&#352;¨è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; - è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; - ä¼&#732;é&#8230;·è§&#8224;é¢&#8216; - å&#339;¨çº¿è§&#8218;ç&#339;&#8249;


Those turns weren't that tight. it's obvious they aren't pushing it. It actually looked underpowered if you ask me. Each turn was over 10 seconds and those 8s you're talking about seemed like it was gaining lost speed from the last turn before doing another tight turn. If it were loaded with missiles, with all else being equal, it would lose in a dogfight. It absolutely needs the WS-15.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Why am I not surprised you would bring up yet another irrelevant out-of-context red-herring? The point is to *maintain maximum stealth* in a *threat environment*. The speculation was about the *development of a FBW flight mode* to do just that. Notice the use of the term FBW _(Fly By Wire)_...which is basically computer control of flight surfaces...something already mentioned even though you find it necessary to say is wrong while saying it is right at the same time. LOL


It is 'irrelevant' to you simply because you do not understand despite the effort at dumbing down the concept as much as possible. I cannot dumb it down any further. If the canards are active flight control elements, then your speculations are simply put -- wrong. Creating a FBW 'mode' to 'lock' them in place to reduce their RCS contributorships would reduce the J-20's maneuverability, if not make it depart from controlled flight altogether.

Like I said, all you are doing is cobbling together words and phrases that you have misconceptions about in trying to present a facade of knowledge.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you, since you posted this little factoid in *the context of the above message* from "Martian2" about a non-faceted spheroidal IRST. I'm sure you can convince China's communist government to finance your proposal to the US Air Force.


Wrong. The IRST's curvature already conformed to the 10-lambda rule. No need to make it larger. This is a clear indicator that neither of you understand what it means.


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

DARKY said:


> Not according to me... But your fellow Martin2's logic.




Nope, it is your logic.

Matin2 says the IRST is clearly un stealth on T-50.

You can go take a look at F-35. It has a much more advanced sensor called EOTS (Electro Optical Targeting System). It combines IRST and targeting system into one. Also, it is a lot stealthier!!! 

J-20 will have EOTS too on the later model, perhaps 2003, or 2004 !!!


http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...3&tbnw=151&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0


See the gold diamond??? That is EOTS, that is called stealth sensor!!! Not the round shape crap on T-50 !!!

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...8&tbnw=157&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0


----------



## DARKY

Martian2 said:


> At Gambit, no one cares about your irrelevant diagrams.
> 
> The bottom line is very simple. *A giant round IRST sphere is not stealthy* and it is not the same thing as stealthy saw-toothed edges. No amount of text or diagrams will convince anyone otherwise. Stop wasting our time trying to claim something that is not true.
> 
> Your insistence that IRST = saw-toothed edges only makes you look like a stubborn ignorant fool.



Hence If the IRST is a giant round object.. then the canopy is even a bigger super giant.

As for EOTS.. They are used on drones and helicopters.. and are not known for good range figures... and are mostly used to attack ground targets from close ranges.... Best of luck exposing J-20 to shoulder SAM fire...

I was of the opinion the J-20 isn't an Air-superiority fighter and the EOTS on it would make it stronger.


----------



## siegecrossbow

marshall said:


> Those turns weren't that tight. it's obvious they aren't pushing it. It actually looked underpowered if you ask me. Each turn was over 10 seconds and those 8s you're talking about seemed like it was gaining lost speed from the last turn before doing another tight turn. If it were loaded with missiles, with all else being equal, it would lose in a dogfight. It absolutely needs the WS-15.



Each turn was over 10 second... How did you calculate that? Each 180 degree turn (the one with reference) was around 9 seconds tops. Not bad for AL-31 engines.

Also I was talking about figure 8s, a type of maneuver, at not 8 second turns.


----------



## Sasquatch




----------



## Sasquatch




----------



## Sasquatch

Thanks for the video siege.


----------



## conworldus

I am getting a feeling that the first batch of the J-20 won't have vector thrust...


----------



## HongWu

conworldus said:


> I am getting a feeling that the first batch of the J-20 won't have vector thrust...


*That is true, but the first batch will be mass produced by second half of 2013!
*

By 2015, we'll have several regiments of J-20 and start mass producing the improved block with WS-15 engines!


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> Wrong. The IRST's curvature already conformed to the 10-lambda rule. No need to make it larger. This is a clear indicator that neither of you understand what it means.


You're the one who insinuated the *non-faceted spheroidal* IRST of the PAK FA could be larger according to the lambda rule not me. Nice try at role reversal there Houdini but no cigar. I suggested you had an interesting psychosis at some point but I didn't know it was this bad. LOL Those who have been paying attention know the history behind that statement.

Btw, if, as you suggest, the IRST's curvature already conforms to the lambda rule, what radar bands are you referring to exactly? The IRST looks to be somewhere between 22cm-28cm, typical fighter radar targets X-Band _(2.5-3.75cm)_. Only the lower bound of X-Band somewhat applies and it wouldn't be effective because of the surface discontinuities of the IRST. It would have to be shaped more like a WOK, or better yet like the underwing protrusions of the J-20, for it to be reasonably stealth shaped.

Here's that message again I recently wrote pointing out just 1 of the countless inconsistencies and willful out-of-context irrelevant factoids you pull out at random times. It says it all..



marshall said:


> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear, your eyes are terrible. The T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is about the size of a pilot's head. What do you think will happen to a plane's radar signature when you stick a pilot's helmet on the plane's nose (like an IRST probe)? That's right. It's a giant radar reflector. You really are totally clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gambit said:
> 
> 
> 
> In radar detection, paradoxical as it sounds, because of the 10-lambda rule, the larger the spheroid structure, it may be appear smaller to the seeking radar. Now go and look up my explanation of the 10-lambda rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you, since you posted this little factoid in *the context of the above message* from "Martian2" about a non-faceted spheroidal IRST. I'm sure you can convince China's communist government to finance your proposal to the US Air Force.
Click to expand...


----------



## Zabaniyah

Hu Songshan said:


>



mmm...the J-20 has a blue hud?


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> It is 'irrelevant' to you simply because you do not understand despite the effort at dumbing down the concept as much as possible. I cannot dumb it down any further. If the canards are active flight control elements, then your speculations are simply put -- wrong. Creating a FBW 'mode' to 'lock' them in place to reduce their RCS contributorships would reduce the J-20's maneuverability, if not make it depart from controlled flight altogether.
> 
> Like I said, all you are doing is cobbling together words and phrases that you have misconceptions about in trying to present a facade of knowledge.


Here are the 2 messages I wrote relating to this specific sub-topic...



marshall said:


> I've never seen a quote about this but depending on the situation, it makes sense. Last year I speculated that the FBW probably has this sort of flight mode in mind. It would probably allow a few degrees movement and not strictly lock the canards but it would definitely improve the stealth.





marshall said:


> Never said it should lock in place. The FBW would compensate with the other control surfaces so that the canard would essentially be a big LERX, albeit able to move a few degrees when necessary. The goal is to minimize canard movement, especially larger angles. Not having this sort of FBW flight mode would validate the main criticisms people have about canards in a threat environment, not that I ever agreed with canards to begin with. Unbeatable for maneuverability though, if done right.


Like I have pointed out before, you have a chip on your shoulders and you increasingly rely on lies and deception. Why am I not surprised given the level of integrity you demonstrate with many of your messages. You don't understand the tactical requirement to minimize the effects of moving canards in a *threat environment* and are purposely pretending that canard movements cannot be reduced with corresponding compensatory adjustments from the other control surfaces. This is basic logic that any neophyte can understand. In addition, your umpteenth red-herring that it would reduce maneuverability is irrelevant because such a flight mode would be used in a threat environment, as in *before you were detected* by any of the probable multiple illuminating enemy radars in the vicinity, stealth would be the primary goal at that juncture not maneuverability, since the objective at that point in time would be to get as close as possible to the engagement zone. Like I said, not your forte. Your attempts to prove 1+3=13 is simply wrong.


----------



## SyrianChristianPatriot

Good Job China to bad won't be exported for a while.


----------



## marshall

siegecrossbow said:


> Each turn was over 10 second... How did you calculate that? Each 180 degree turn (the one with reference) was around 9 seconds tops. Not bad for AL-31 engines.
> 
> Also I was talking about figure 8s, a type of maneuver, at not 8 second turns.


Looked like 10-11 seconds to me, hard to be sure. 9 seconds is good but completing a full turn at that rate is the issue. I was talking about figure 8s not 8 second turns. It can't maintain good turn performance at speed if it continued from a 180 to a 360. It was carrying no load while at low altitude. Unless the pilot was holding back or throttled the engines, the J-20 is way underpowered. These rumours about the fast development of the WS-15 haven't produced any concrete news yet except for a publicly declared milestone. Unless it is ready for first flight by 2014, there's no way the J-20 will be competitive in a dogfight in its first iteration. I don't buy the malarky about the existence of the ethereal WS-10G engine.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

there's a materials solution to everything.

canards holding back stealth? make radio transparent canards. it can be done. they're also extremely strong to boot. ceramics are just too heavy but that can be done away with through weight reduction elsewhere. machining the ceramics is easy for the low curvature canards.

Refractories and Industrial Ceramics, Volume 43, Numbers 3-4 - SpringerLink


----------



## amalakas

FairAndUnbiased said:


> there's a materials solution to everything.
> 
> canards holding back stealth? make radio transparent canards. it can be done. they're also extremely strong to boot. ceramics are just too heavy but that can be done away with through weight reduction elsewhere. machining the ceramics is easy for the low curvature canards.
> 
> Refractories and Industrial Ceramics, Volume 43, Numbers 3-4 - SpringerLink



perhaps .. but right now noone has made a widely produced and used dielectric control surface. There must be a reason for it. 
And although I do believe the strides the chinese industry is making, I don't think they have gotten to the point where they made such a material.


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> Here are the 2 messages I wrote relating to this specific sub-topic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have pointed out before, you have a chip on your shoulders and you increasingly rely on lies and deception. Why am I not surprised given the level of integrity you demonstrate with many of your messages. You don't understand the tactical requirement to minimize the effects of moving canards in a *threat environment* and are purposely pretending that canard movements cannot be reduced with corresponding compensatory adjustments from the other control surfaces. This is basic logic that any neophyte can understand. In addition, your umpteenth red-herring that it would reduce maneuverability is irrelevant because such a flight mode would be used in a threat environment, as in *before you were detected* by any of the probable multiple illuminating enemy radars in the vicinity, stealth would be the primary goal at that juncture not maneuverability, since the objective at that point in time would be to get as close as possible to the engagement zone. Like I said, not your forte. Your attempts to prove 1+3=13 is simply wrong.




I think you take this personally. I don't know how big the IRST probe appears to a radar, but on the other hand you have to think in terms of the russian engineers having a tiny bit of brain too. 

if a 12 year old geek from his mums basement can see the IRST, and ***** about it, I guess an engineering team full of PhDs would see it too. 

coming to the canards, I don't think you are realising what you are saying. 
in normal level flight, the primary control surfaces deflect only a little, there would be no point in limiting them anyway. 
don't know how else to put it really


----------



## Luftwaffe

amalakas said:


> I think you take this personally. I don't know how big the IRST probe appears to a radar, but on the other hand you have to think in terms of the russian engineers having a tiny bit of brain too.
> 
> if a 12 year old geek from his mums basement can see the IRST, and ***** about it, I guess an engineering team full of PhDs would see it too.



If Americans and Chinese could hide IRST then russian Phds could have done it before it would have been criticized even that damn Rafale IRST has relatively low observability then pak-fa. We hope russian Phds would grow brains.


----------



## Luftwaffe

marshall said:


> Looked like 10-11 seconds to me, hard to be sure. 9 seconds is good but completing a full turn at that rate is the issue. I was talking about figure 8s not 8 second turns. It can't maintain good turn performance at speed if it continued from a 180 to a 360. It was carrying no load while at low altitude. Unless the pilot was holding back or throttled the engines, the J-20 is way underpowered. These rumours about the fast development of the WS-15 haven't produced any concrete news yet except for a publicly declared milestone. Unless it is ready for first flight by 2014, there's no way the J-20 will be competitive in a dogfight in its first iteration. I don't buy the malarky about the existence of the ethereal WS-10G engine.



Seriously.. you expect prototype to perform full fledged aerobatics. You think all critical maneuvers to be perform at public sites they would be far away from the population area just few flights over the air base can't be the conclusion.


----------



## amalakas

Luftwaffe said:


> If Americans and Chinese could hide IRST then russian Phds could have done it before it would have been criticized even that damn Rafale IRST has relatively low observability then pak-fa. We hope russian Phds would grow brains.



I would disagree, the rafale probes are no different to the PAK-FA ones, the only difference is a fairing that connects the pak fa probe to the front of the cockpit. 

I don't think these arguments hold any water, and I don't appreciate you thinking a team of people who make supersonic jets, don't know what they are doing.


----------



## Luftwaffe

amalakas said:


> I would disagree, the rafale probes are no different to the PAK-FA ones, the only difference is a fairing that connects the pak fa probe to the front of the cockpit.
> 
> I don't think these arguments hold any water, and I don't appreciate you thinking a team of people who make supersonic jets, don't know what they are doing.



Don't care if you don't appreciate what has been said is to the point and scientifically proven. I don't need to repeat what Martain2 has already explained in detail in reference to pak-fa's overall huge rcs and design. 

To start off with pak-fa complete design is non stealthy. Let me port what Martain2 posted nothing better than to re-posted which is to the point. So pak-fa team actually did not work that hard to design a stealth prototype lets see if in later stages their brains growup.

*1. Circular exhaust.
2. Infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.
3. Canopy frame,
4. Gaps around the inlets.
5. Various unshielded intakes and grilles.
6. Limited use of composites for now. Eventually, 40% of the aircraft will be made using composites.
7. Many surface intersections and flight-test probes that increase the radar signature.*

So russians need to work hard to come up with a refined revamp design.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Once again, surface to air missile radars are on the ground looking up at your lower fuselage.

American stealth fighters look like this.












Russian "stealth" fighters look like this.































These pictures speak for themselves.


----------



## amalakas

Luftwaffe said:


> Don't care if you don't appreciate what has been said is to the point and scientifically proven. I don't need to repeat what Martain2 has already explained in detail in reference to pak-fa's overall huge rcs and design.
> 
> To start off with pak-fa complete design is non stealthy. Let me port what Martain2 posted nothing better than to re-posted which is to the point. So pak-fa team actually did not work that hard to design a stealth prototype lets see if in later stages their brains growup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Circular exhaust.
> 2. Infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.
> 3. Canopy frame,
> 4. Gaps around the inlets.
> 5. Various unshielded intakes and grilles.
> 6. Limited use of composites for now. Eventually, 40% of the aircraft will be made using composites.
> 7. Many surface intersections and flight-test probes that increase the radar signature.*
> 
> So russians need to work hard to come up with a refined revamp design.




Right.. you believe martian.. conversation ended.. nothing more to say


----------



## DARKY

amalakas said:


> Right.. you believe martian.. conversation ended.. nothing more to say



He thinks He and Martin2 knows more than the ones who are doing the Job.. may be their respective govt. should enroll them in their next Gen. combat aircraft teams as Brainy engineers.

Yet to see a functioning IRST which is hidden...


----------



## j20blackdragon

DARKY said:


> Yet to see a functioning IRST which is hidden...



The F-35's Distributed Aperture System would be one example.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> You're the one who insinuated the *non-faceted spheroidal* IRST of the PAK FA could be larger according to the lambda rule not me. Nice try at role reversal there Houdini but no cigar. I suggested you had an interesting psychosis at some point but I didn't know it was this bad. LOL Those who have been paying attention know the history behind that statement.
> 
> Btw, if, as you suggest, the IRST's curvature already conforms to the lambda rule, *what radar bands are you referring to exactly?* The IRST looks to be somewhere between 22cm-28cm, typical fighter radar targets X-Band _(2.5-3.75cm)_. Only the lower bound of X-Band somewhat applies and it wouldn't be effective because of the surface discontinuities of the IRST. It would have to be shaped more like a WOK, or better yet like the underwing protrusions of the J-20, for it to be reasonably stealth shaped.


 You and that other guy are indeed dense.






The 10-lambda rule applies to *ALL* wavelengths. The rule is about the *RELATIONSHIP* between wavelength and diameter and less towards curvatures.

If the wavelength is one meter, as in the HF/VHF/UHF bands, if the diameter is less than 10 meters, then the creeping wave occurs, and if the diameter is greater than 10 meters, then the creeping wave does not occur.

Heck, even the Chinese engineers understand it...






If the wavelength is centimetric, as in the X-band, the rule still applies. As long as the diameter is 10 times greater than X-wavelength, no creeping wave will occur. No creeping wave? No increase in RCS contributorship. So let us take a look at your silly argument again...



marshall said:


> Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that *IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you,*



This is outright stupid. If the diameter is 11x the wavelength -- in this case the cm -- why the hell would we need to make it larger? There is already specular reflection *REGARDLESS* of diameter. So enlarging the diameter to 12x or even 11.5x does not reduce RCS contributorship. The creeping wave already is negated at 11 or 10.5x.

On a non-spheroidal structure like the IRST device, the 10-lambda rule is still highly applicable even though the surface wave will meet a larger structure -- the fuselage. If the curvature is large enough, as in being 10x greater than the impinging wavelength *IF* it was a sphere, whatever surface wave behaviors that finally meet the fuselage and reflected off it, its energy level may be small enough to make that energy level statistically insignificant to the total RCS.

Get it?

This is why the T-50's IRST device does not need to be any larger nor should we make any declaration on its negative effects on the total RCS or not. Your man did and it was a colossal technical and *PUBLIC* blunder.

This is why the Chinese boys and their fan club, of which you are a member, continues to make fools out of yourselves. All of you have no interests in learning new things. It is understandable to have misconceptions. We all do about many things. But the honest thing to do is to admit ignorance and correction when evidences and reasonable arguments are presented, especially when those arguments are backed up by unimpeachable sources.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------




amalakas said:


> Right.. you believe martian.. conversation ended.. nothing more to say


I stopped paying attention to lufty a long time ago. I do believe he is a 12yr old.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Like I have pointed out before, you have a chip on your shoulders and you increasingly rely on lies and deception.


Just because you are too stupid to understand dumbed down concepts does not mean they are 'lies and deceptions'.



marshall said:


> You don't understand the tactical requirement to minimize the effects of moving canards in a *threat environment*...


News for you, kid. Aerodynamic requirements trumps any and all tactical desires. Without aerodynamic exploitation, we do not have this thing call 'flight'.



marshall said:


> ...and are purposely pretending that canard movements cannot be reduced with corresponding compensatory adjustments from the other control surfaces.


Really? Then why bother with canards in the first place? Why not make those other flight control surfaces do the work that includes those compensatory actions?

More news for you, kid...

Delta Wings


> A delta wing is a wing whose shape when viewed from above looks like a triangle, often with its tip cut off. It sweeps sharply back from the fuselage with the angle between the leading edge (the front) of the wing often as high as 60 degrees and the angle between the fuselage and the trailing edge of the wing at around 90 degrees. Often delta-wing airplanes lack horizontal stabilizers. Despite the fact that paper airplanes have delta wings and appear to fly quite well when launched from a height, delta wings actually perform poorly at low speeds and often are unstable (i.e., they do not stay in level flight on their own). Their primary advantage is efficiency in high-speed flight.



The J-20 without canards is essentially the old F-102 Delta Dart and F-106 Delta Dagger. Installing canards give the J-20 the medium to low (cruising) speed maneuverability the designers *WANT*, not need. In other words, the J-20 does not need the canards.

Fly-by-wire you say?

More news for you, kid...

The WW I era Sopwith Camel and its companions, friends and foes, approached the negative stability regime in their designs. In other words, FBW-FLCS was designed to deal with (or in response to) negative stability, not to create or introduced negative stability.

Sukhoi Su-7 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> A Su-7U modified with canards and a longitudinal stability augmentation system. It was designed as a testbed for a fly-by-wire system for the Sukhoi T-4. It was later used in 19731974 during the development of the Su-27's fly-by-wire system.



What happened was we both deliberately and accidentally intrude into the negative stability regime throughout aviation history with many designs. We found out we could not handle it, and we backed off. Until the advent of electronics.

The entire idea is called 'control configured vehicle'...

ARTIFICIAL STABILITY & FLY-BY-WIRE CONTROL


> The lower the natural static stability of the aircraft, the larger the number of corrections required, thus diverting attention from other tasks. This doesn't last forever, because *there comes a point where the pilot himself can no longer respond fast enough to make the appropriate correction, with that degree of instability the aircraft becomes unflyable.*
> 
> A large number of current applications point to the necessity of lower static stability, for one reason or another, yet the aircraft must remain flyable.
> 
> In a *Control Configured Vehicle* (diagram 2.) corrections to the aircraft's attitude are carried out by a computer. Assuming the pilot is not touching the controls, we shall examine the system's behaviour.



The first paragraph clearly indicated that we do not need FBW in order to design and actually fly a negative stability aircraft. We done that and paid dearly for those experimentations. As the Sukhoi Su-7 source showed, we often used positive longitudinal stability designs to test out the FBW-FLCS intended for newer designs with negative stability. Sometimes we even take the aircraft that was originally designed with positive stability and introduce flight control surfaces to make it more unstable to test out the FLCC that is supposed to go into the newer designs that will be built with negative stability.

Next...

The greater the quantity of flight control surfaces and associated their locations, the greater the increase in stability in all axes, even for a negative stability design, in other words, if we have an aircraft that was originally design with negative stability, if we add more flight control surfaces to it in any axis, we moved the aircraft a further away from the point that gave it its signature negative stability characteristic. Computerized CCV moved the aircraft back to that point. The more flight control surfaces are there, the greater the flexibility we must give the FLC computer, or FLCC, so it can do its job.

So if the J-20 which is pretty much a delta winged design, which have inherent poor cruising speed maneuverability, and added canards to remedy that deficiency, you can bet your next decade's salary that the canards will not be 'locked' in place for *ANY* reason.

Looks like I have far more respect to the Chinese engineers than you and the Chinese boys do. None of you have even turned a wrench on an aircraft, let alone study its foundations, but you have no problems making declarations. You guys are too damn arrogant and full of yourselves to know to pick up a clue even when it is tossed in front of you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Luftwaffe said:


> Don't care if you don't appreciate what has been said is to the point and scientifically proven. I don't need to repeat what Martain2 has already explained in detail in reference to pak-fa's overall huge rcs and design.
> 
> To start off with pak-fa complete design is non stealthy. Let me port what Martain2 posted nothing better than to re-posted which is to the point. So pak-fa team actually did not work that hard to design a stealth prototype lets see if in later stages their brains growup.
> 
> *1. Circular exhaust.
> 2. Infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.
> 3. Canopy frame,
> 4. Gaps around the inlets.
> 5. Various unshielded intakes and grilles.
> 6. Limited use of composites for now. Eventually, 40% of the aircraft will be made using composites.
> 7. Many surface intersections and flight-test probes that increase the radar signature.*
> 
> So russians need to work hard to come up with a refined revamp design.




One ill informed person taking the words of a well know liar and hypocrite. Your beloved Martian has been caught contradicting himself more times than I care to count and sadly you have fallen for it. On one occasion he claimed that the F-22&#8217;s gaps between the engines were &#8216;stealthy&#8217;, but on the other Martian claimed that identical gaps on the pak-fa were not stealthy. And as for the IRST argument, it is weak, to say the least especially when the J-20 has countless curved, round or spherical protrusions--but according to J-20 fan boys these rules do not apply to the J-20.

Martian and blind followers of the barf that comes out of his mouth still can not digest that something as the F-15 SE has the same frontal RCS as the F-35-with its framed canopy, intakes and all. The F-15 SE as well as other &#8216;LO&#8217; aircraft take everything that you believe about &#8216;stealth&#8217; and throws it into the trash where it rightfully belongs.


----------



## danger007

Default Re: J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions

At Gambit, I don't understand why you keep making moronic arguments.

J-20 canards are made of RAM-coated composite materials (which makes it stealthy) and it is carefully shaped to deflect radar. Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa IRST is a giant sphere of metal, glass, and electronics.

You can't seem to understand the difference.

Also, saw-toothed edges are designed to bleed radar energy away from the direction of the emitter. The IRST is simply a giant sphere that reflects substantial radar energy back to the emitter. I've already provided a citation from "How Does Stealth Technology Work?"

It is obvious you don't understand basic stealth technology. 

@Martian2


Does you have knowledge on Stealth technology. You are making every one laugh on you by your nasty arguments. do you think Russian engineers don't have knowledge than an ordinary web digger....... good to know about Chinese physics.. I guess F-22 is a 4th gen jet according to chinese while it is 5th gen jet to the rest of world. keep continue..... 

BY the way thread is about J-20 only and you are turning it into J20 vs PAK-FA/T-50/F-22/ F-35 you are not even leaving Su-30 and rafale also....


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> Martian and blind followers of the barf that comes out of his mouth still can not digest that something as the F-15 SE has the same frontal RCS as the F-35-with its framed canopy, intakes and all. The F-15 SE as well as other LO aircraft take everything that you believe about stealth and throws it into the trash where it rightfully belongs.



Not this propaganda again. 



> Boeing has *backed down* from previous statements comparing the frontal-aspect radar cross-section of the F-15SE to an *international release standard* for the F-35.
> 
> However, Jones confirms that Boeing's original briefing chart - claiming the F-15SE provides frontal-aspect stealth offered by fifth-generation fighters - remains accurate.
> 
> Boeing unveiled the F-15SE in March 2009. The redesign adds conformal weapons bays, stealth techniques, fly-by-wire and canted tails to the F-15E configuration, providing a "first-day-of-war" stealth capability.
> 
> Lockheed and F-35 programme officials, however, have criticised Boeing's assertions that the F-15SE offers equivalent front-aspect stealth as the JSF, and *denied that an international release standard exists* for F-35 stealth characteristics.



Boeing applies to export F-15SE to South Korea



> Partners to Get Equal JSF Stealth
> 
> Posted by Amy Butler at 6/22/2011 9:17 AM CDT
> 
> JSF partners and customers will be able to have the same stealth characteristics as the U.S., according to Joe Dellavedova, the F-35 program office spokesman.
> 
> There is a caveat: "each partner will have the option to add 'unique' capabilities that may have minor LO characteristics," he tells Aviation Week. One example, he says, is the addition of a drag chute, an item Norway has eyed.
> 
> Such "capabilities may have minor implications on LO characteristics," Dellavedova says.



Partners to Get Equal JSF Stealth


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> However, Jones confirms that Boeing's original briefing chart - claiming the F-15SE provides frontal-aspect stealth offered by fifth-generation fighters -* remains accurate*.



Did you forget to highlight this part? Your own source is contradicting you 

Taking some ESL classes wouln't hurt


----------



## j20blackdragon

People can decide for themselves with their own eyes.

F-15SE vs F-35:


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> People can decide for themselves with their own eyes.
> 
> F-15SE vs F-35:




In the real world things aren&#8217;t decided by looking at them, especially not by clueless Chinese adolescent girls. I will hold my trust in engineers not in what comes out of your mouth. The frontal area of any aircraft always presents the smallest RCS. The biggest contributors to an aircraft&#8217;s frontal RCS would likely be the cockpit and engines, with a treated canopy and shielded compressor face those two factors are now resolved. It&#8217;s also no surprise that the pylons were removed, canon hidden, and a number of other subtle changes made. 

And since Chinese adolescent girls love to point out size as a factor, the F-15 is noticeably smaller/more narrower than the F-35. Essentially the F-15 is not much different from a frontal perspective when compared to the F-35, with minimal differences such as nose, and &#8216;serration&#8217; other than that many of the same features and techniques that are found in the F-35 are also found in the F-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## conworldus

ptldM3 said:


> In the real world things aren&#8217;t decided by looking at them, especially not by clueless Chinese adolescent girls. I will hold my trust in engineers not in what comes out of your mouth. The frontal area of any aircraft always presents the smallest RCS. The biggest contributors to an aircraft&#8217;s frontal RCS would likely be the cockpit and engines, with a treated canopy and shielded compressor face those two factors are now resolved. It&#8217;s also no surprise that the pylons were removed, canon hidden, and a number of other subtle changes made.
> 
> And since Chinese adolescent girls love to point out size as a factor, *the F-15 is noticeably smaller/more narrower than the F-35*. Essentially the F-15 is not much different from a frontal perspective when compared to the F-35, with minimal differences such as nose, and &#8216;serration&#8217; other than that many of the same features and techniques that are found in the F-35 are also found in the F-15.



 The F-15 is a heavy fighter.... Su-27 class fighter... 
Length: 19.43 meters
Wingspan: 13.05 meters

F-35
Length: 15.67 m 
Wingspan: 10.07 m

Please go home... I want to call you names but I don't want another warning from PDF. 

No more hijacking this thread. ptlDM3, gambit, Martian... you three should have a private amateur discussion and stop pretending to be professionals because you simply do not have the knowledge.

Let's post more J-20 pictures and videos!!!


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> The F-15 is a heavy fighter.... Su-27 class fighter...
> Length: 19.43 meters
> Wingspan: 13.05 meters
> 
> F-35
> Length: 15.67 m
> Wingspan: 10.07 m
> 
> Please go home... I want to call you names but I don't want another warning from PDF.
> 
> No more hijacking this thread. ptlDM3, gambit, Martian... you three should have a private amateur discussion and stop pretending to be professionals because you simply do not have the knowledge.
> 
> Let's post more J-20 pictures and videos!!!



I was referring to the* frontal profile *not length or width. And before you go around accusing me of hijacking, I only replied to 2 members both of which started the off topic and provocative posts. Go and find one post where I deliberately mentioned anything off topic for no apparent reason. All of my posts are replies, in fact if no one would mentioned anything ridiculous about the pak-fa or F-35 or F-15 I would have no reason to post anything in this worthless thread.


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> I think you take this personally. I don't know how big the IRST probe appears to a radar, but on the other hand you have to think in terms of the russian engineers having a tiny bit of brain too.


You're right, I absolutely take personal pleasure in this.  There's a distinct difference between you/PtldM3, and this troll who has admitted to hanging out at Stormfront and AMREN, which are white power racist websites. He isn't here to debate like other hobbyists, plus exposing fakers is fun! lol For the record, I don't think the IRST or even the engine blades will be an issue, but not for the reasons discussed here so far.




amalakas said:


> coming to the canards, I don't think you are realising what you are saying.
> in normal level flight, the primary control surfaces deflect only a little, there would be no point in limiting them anyway.
> don't know how else to put it really


True, if only in level flight. When the J-20 and PAK FA/FGFA are eventually produced in numbers in the 2020s, the hypothetical radar grids that are being discussed today will probably exist in some form. This would probably consist of a combination of multi-modal radars, UCAV radar grids _(X & L band)_, AWACs, etc...all datalinked and using much much more powerful onboard processing than we have today. The detection threshold will be an order of magnitude lower and the illuminating radars would be from multiple directions. Why not add an FBW mode for the canards to maximize the stealth?


----------



## marshall

Luftwaffe said:


> Seriously.. you expect prototype to perform full fledged aerobatics. You think all critical maneuvers to be perform at public sites they would be far away from the population area just few flights over the air base can't be the conclusion.


Of course not, but there were some observers who were talking about the spectacular 02/27 test flight as if it was full of acrobatic stunts. I'm just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> The F-15 is a heavy fighter.... Su-27 class fighter...
> Length: 19.43 meters
> Wingspan: 13.05 meters
> 
> F-35
> Length: 15.67 m
> Wingspan: 10.07 m
> 
> Please go home... I want to call you names but I don't want another warning from PDF.
> 
> No more hijacking this thread. ptlDM3, gambit, Martian... you three should have a private amateur discussion and stop pretending to be professionals because *you simply do not have the knowledge.*
> 
> Let's post more J-20 pictures and videos!!!


And *YOU* do?  I have yet to see anything remotely edukashional from you. But then again, I do not major in 'Chinese physics'.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> You're the one who insinuated the non-faceted spheroidal IRST of the PAK FA could be larger according to the lambda rule not me. Nice try at role reversal there Houdini but no cigar. I suggested you had an interesting psychosis at some point but I didn't know it was this bad. LOL Those who have been paying attention know the history behind that statement.
> 
> Btw, if, as you suggest, the IRST's curvature already conforms to the lambda rule, what radar bands are you referring to exactly? The IRST looks to be somewhere between 22cm-28cm, typical fighter radar targets X-Band _(2.5-3.75cm)_. Only the lower bound of X-Band somewhat applies and it wouldn't be effective because of the surface discontinuities of the IRST. It would have to be shaped more like a WOK, or better yet like the underwing protrusions of the J-20, for it to be reasonably stealth shaped.





gambit said:


> This is outright stupid. If the diameter is 11x the wavelength -- in this case the cm -- why the hell would we need to make it larger? There is already specular reflection REGARDLESS of diameter. So enlarging the diameter to 12x or even 11.5x does not reduce RCS contributorship. The creeping wave already is negated at 11 or 10.5x.
> 
> On a non-spheroidal structure like the IRST device, the 10-lambda rule is still highly applicable even though the surface wave will meet a larger structure -- the fuselage. If the curvature is large enough, as in being 10x greater than the impinging wavelength IF it was a sphere, whatever surface wave behaviors that finally meet the fuselage and reflected off it, its energy level may be small enough to make that energy level statistically insignificant to the total RCS.
> 
> Get it?


It's interesting how you contradict yourself depending on whatever you are trying to prove. Here is that original classic again, remember to pay attention to the context, enjoy everybody...



marshall said:


> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear, your eyes are terrible. The T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is about the size of a pilot's head. What do you think will happen to a plane's radar signature when you stick a pilot's helmet on the plane's nose (like an IRST probe)? That's right. It's a giant radar reflector. You really are totally clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gambit said:
> 
> 
> 
> In radar detection, paradoxical as it sounds, because of the 10-lambda rule, the larger the spheroid structure, it may be appear smaller to the seeking radar. Now go and look up my explanation of the 10-lambda rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you, since you posted this little factoid in *the context of the above message* from "Martian2" about a non-faceted spheroidal IRST. I'm sure you can convince China's communist government to finance your proposal to the US Air Force.
Click to expand...


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> You don't understand the tactical requirement to minimize the effects of moving canards in a *threat environment* and are purposely pretending that canard movements cannot be reduced with corresponding compensatory adjustments from the other control surfaces. This is basic logic that any neophyte can understand.





gambit said:


> Really? Then why bother with canards in the first place? Why not make those other flight control surfaces do the work that includes those compensatory actions?


Sigh! The canards negatively affect stealth, that's why they are a source of heavy criticism and the reason this idea of a canard stealth mode in the FBW even began. Your contention is some back-assward logic that the canards were put there to control negative stability rather than for any other reasons. Like I said, you lack tactical and strategic foresight and cannot conceive that there is a time, place and reason for everything. This is called "Strategy"...

strat·e·gy/&#712;strat&#601;j&#275;/
Noun:	

1. A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
2. The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle.




gambit said:


> So if the J-20 which is pretty much a delta winged design, which have inherent poor cruising speed maneuverability, and added canards to remedy that deficiency, you can bet your next decade's salary that the canards will not be 'locked' in place for ANY reason.


Yet another red herring, surprise! surprise! Fyi, your declaration that the canards are there only to compensate for negative stability is your personal guess and something you just threw in there so you can claim the canards function cannot be compensated *whatsoever* by the other control surfaces. All the control surfaces work together and the other control surfaces could compensate for less "severe" angling of the canards and vice-versa.

You then incorrectly and purposely quote a bogus accusation that I said the canards should be locked in place for such a FBW mode, something that is patently false and already proven false by message #1725. Like I've already said, you lack integrity and constantly resort to lies and deceptive use of out-of-context minutiae.

Fyi, the primary reason the J-20 has canards is because it was designed by CAC. Chengdu's primary strength where it is most experienced is with the delta canard layout with its most advanced fighter aircraft being the delta canard J-10B. The same developmental evolution is present with the PAK FA as derived from the family lineage of Sukhoi Flankers. If stability was the issue, the J-20 could simply have used a small LERX instead of having the delta wing so far back and using a canard. You quoted 10 pages of minutiae for a simple solution that could be summarized in 1 sentence Einstein. lol


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> It's interesting how you contradict yourself depending on whatever you are trying to prove. Here is that original classic again, remember to pay attention to the context, enjoy everybody...


You have not showed where is that 'contradiction'. Instead, you ended up showing everyone how you and your man are fools. If the IRST device is 'not stealthy', then so is the J-20's canopy since it is much much larger than the IRST device. But since you guys insisted that the *ROUNDED* canopy is 'stealthy', then how so is the IRST device 'not stealthy' when despite being rounded and much much smaller than the canopy? Your 'logic' does not hold up. This is real physics, not 'Chinese physics'.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> True, if only in level flight. When the J-20 and PAK FA/FGFA are eventually produced in numbers in the 2020s, the hypothetical radar grids that are being discussed today will probably exist in some form. This would probably consist of a combination of multi-modal radars, UCAV radar grids _(X & L band)_, AWACs, etc...all datalinked and using much much more powerful onboard processing than we have today. The detection threshold will be an order of magnitude lower and the illuminating radars would be from multiple directions. *Why not add an FBW mode for the canards to maximize the stealth?*


Now that is more stupidity.

It is true that the bi-static radar is 'stealth' greatest threat. But what is not true is that by the '20s such networks will be so widely deployed that it will render 'stealth' worthless. Even so, assuming that speculation -- wild as it is -- is true, then why the hell would the J-20 have canards in the first place given the usual decade long development time from test flight to volume manufacture?


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Sigh! The canards negatively affect stealth, that's why they are a source of heavy criticism...


Canards have an adverse contributorship to low radar observability compared to other structures on an aircraft whose intention is towards being low radar observable. Get your phrasing straight, neophyte. 



marshall said:


> ...and the reason this idea of a canard stealth mode in the FBW even began.


It is an idea not worth the blood sugar spent in speculating about.



marshall said:


> Your contention is some back-assward logic that the canards were put there to control negative stability rather than for any other reasons.


Prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong that WW I era bi-planes were practically negative stability designs... 

Elevator - Wright 1903 Flyer


> *The Wright flyers were highly maneuverable but not very stable.* The brothers had to constantly provide the stability for the aircraft by working the flight controls to change the elevator setting. Like the Wright 1903, modern fighters are also designed to be highly maneuverable but not very stable. Fighters now use a computerized stability augmentation system (SAS) to reduce the work load on the pilot.


You, like the rest of the Chinese neophytes, confused stability with aerodynamics.

The Wright Flyer had canards and was not very stable. WW I bi-planes were practically negative stability designs themselves. So prove me wrong in post 1740 that we have *ALWAYS* have negative stability flight experience, especially when the Wright brothers over one hundreds years ago experienced it *WITHOUT FLY-BY-WIRE* technology. What 'other reasons' are there if not for the allowance of safe entrance into the negative stability flight regime, stay there, and have effective controls of the aircraft at all times?



marshall said:


> Like I said, you lack tactical and strategic foresight and cannot conceive that there is a time, place and reason for everything. This is called "Strategy"...
> 
> strat·e·gy/&#712;strat&#601;j&#275;/
> Noun:
> 
> 1. A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
> 2. The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle.


When you made one serious technical blunder after another, failed to recognize your error, refused to admit ignorance, and continues to repeat the same cycle in the face of unimpeachable sources that proved you wrong......I hope *ALL* Chinese generals and admirals take after you.



marshall said:


> Yet another red herring, surprise! surprise! Fyi, *your declaration that the canards are there only to compensate for negative stability is your personal guess* and something you just threw in there so you can claim the canards function cannot be compensated *whatsoever* by the other control surfaces. All the control surfaces work together and the other control surfaces could compensate for less "severe" angling of the canards and vice-versa.


And yet I managed to find far more evidences to support my 'guess' than you have for yours -- that these flight control elements can be made selectively active at the flick of a switch at the pilot's convenience.

More stuff for you and the Chinese boys to learn how ignorant and foolish your arguments really are...'control effectors'...

IEEE Xplore - Reconfigurable flight control for UAV with multiple control effectors based on neural network and dynamic inversion


> A reconfigurable flight control based on a single hidden layer perception (SHL) neural network (NN) for adaptive compensation of dynamic inversion for the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) with multiple control effectors is described. This approach has not to depend on failure identification and isolation. The basic control law is designed by nonlinear dynamic inversion, and SHL neural networks are used to eliminate the inversion error due to parameter uncertainty, disturbance, control effectors' failure, etc. The simulation results indicate that SHL NN can eliminate the inversion error adaptively and properly, and this reconfigurable flight control method can improve the robustness of the system when the *control effectors*' failure occurs.


Whenever there is an item that have at least two degrees of movements in 3D space and that it has a direct effect on an aircraft's attitude, it is call a 'control effector'.

Title page for ETD etd-072299-150703


> A comparison of two control allocation methods is performed utilizing the F-15 ACTIVE research vehicle. The control allocator currently implemented on the aircraft is replaced in the simulation with a control allocator that accounts for both *control effector* positions and rates. Validation of the performance of this Moment Rate Allocation scheme through real-time piloted simulations is desired for an aircraft with a high fidelity control law and a larger control effector suite.









Look at the description:



> _*The F-15 ACTIVE had nine control effectors: left canard, right canard, left aileron, right aileron, left stabilizer, right stabilizer, rudder (two surfaces counted as one effector since they move together), pitch nozzle, and yaw nozzle.*_



Flight control surfaces totaled 7, so what account for the other 2?

NASA - ACTIVE Home Page - Thrust vectoring technology


> Encoded in the ACTIVE dataset is the selection of: 1) either the Programmable Test Input (PTI) or AdAPT research control law mode, 2) aerodynamic or *propulsion control effector* commands,...



You read that right, kid. Thrust vectoring qualify as a 'control effector'. Pitch and yaw thrust vectoring for the F-15 ACTIVE were 'control effectors'.

The F-22 have these 'control effectors': left and right flaperons, left and right stabilators, rudders, and pitch (only) TVC. Total of 6. The F-16 have these 'control effectors': left and right flaperons, left and right stabilators, rudder. Total of 5. Fixed ventrals do not count because they are fixed and therefore provide only single direction stability. Control effectors are for attitudinal changes.

Now that we established that I do not make sh!t up but actually have relevant experience to debate and to back up my arguments with credible sources, the reality is that the more 'control effectors' you have, the better the flexibility you have to increase maneuverability at greater ranges of airspeed and AoA. The greater the flexibility you have the greater the demand upon you to provide the necessary flight control laws to exploit this flexibility. Conversely, if you have poor programming skills, then all the flight control effectors doo-dads in the world are not going to help you. High maneuverability, especially at low aerodynamic forces (low speed), require as many 'control effectors' as you can bring, and whatever you have should be able to deflect as wide a margin as you can afford, hardware and software.

The J-20 -- without TVC -- have the same amount of 'control effectors' as the F-16. Canards are 'control effectors'. Limiting their movements in the hope -- *HOPE* -- of minimizing their RCS contributorships is asking for an in-flight disaster. That is like US reducing the gains on the F-16's tail horizontal stabilators when entering a high EM environment where possibly the best route may take aircraft to low altitude where there is limited maneuvering room and therefore he is going to need as many 'control effectors' as he have and be able to use them as much as he can.

So by all means, just to satisfy the Chinese boys and their fan club, it is technically feasible for the J-20 to 'lock' the canards in place when in a high EM threat environment. And I do hope the Chinese *DO NOT* exercise technical and operational common sense when they do give the J-20 this 'feature'. ...It will make the Americans' -- and possibly the Indians' -- job easier at shooting the PLAAF out of the sky.



marshall said:


> You then incorrectly and purposely quote a bogus accusation that I said the canards should be locked in place for such a FBW mode, something that is patently false and already proven false by message #1725. Like I've already said, you lack integrity and constantly resort to lies and deceptive use of out-of-context minutiae.


Did I? That 'locked into place' comment was from post 1630. Even though it is not yours, the fact that you subscribe to the same reasoning made it irrelevant. And I never quoted you anyway, I only used the word to describe *BOTH* of you guys' arguments.



marshall said:


> Fyi, the primary reason the J-20 has canards is because it was designed by CAC. Chengdu's primary strength where it is most experienced is with the delta canard layout with its most advanced fighter aircraft being the delta canard J-10B. The same developmental evolution is present with the PAK FA as derived from the family lineage of Sukhoi Flankers. If stability was the issue, the J-20 could simply have used a small LERX instead of having the delta wing so far back and using a canard. You quoted 10 pages of minutiae for a simple solution that could be summarized in 1 sentence Einstein. lol


Here is where you clearly did not understand my post 1740.

The issue is not stability, or more precisely negative stability, the issue is which *METHOD* to maintain controlled flight when the design is with deliberate negative stability. You already demonstrated you know zilch-o when it comes to aviation related subjects and whatever you chose to speak about -- thereby making a fool out of yourself -- you leaned on fellow ignoramuses, like the guy who used 'Chinese physics' to call the IRST device 'not stealthy' but the left the much larger canopy as 'stealthy'. So upon what foundation do you stand upon to say declare that so-and-so could have use an alternate method? But if they did, the final product would not be the current J-20 under discussion, would it? The fact that the J-20 is 'what it is' made those alternate methods irrelevant. Might as well be discussing another aircraft.

Finally, am going to give one last chance to make at least a feeble attempt at salvaging your face. Let us grant that the J-20 have this canard 'stealth' mode, which of these other 'control effectors' is/are the best candidate to make that speculative 'compensatory' movements to maintain controlled flight while the canards are 'locked' or have their gains reduced: The rudders or the flaperons?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## conworldus

gambit said:


> And *YOU* do?  I have yet to see anything remotely edukashional from you. But then again, I do not major in 'Chinese physics'.



I don't and I don't pretend. You are nothing more than a copy and pasting zombie, plus a bit racism being an Indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> I don't and I don't pretend. You are nothing more than a copy and pasting zombie, *plus a bit racism being an Indian.*



So you accuse someone of being racist on the grounds of their supposed nationality? What i find ironic is that your own racism has just manifested.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> In the real world things arent decided by looking at them, especially not by clueless Chinese adolescent girls. I will hold my trust in engineers not in what comes out of your mouth. The frontal area of any aircraft always presents the smallest RCS. The biggest contributors to an aircrafts frontal RCS would likely be the cockpit and engines, with a treated canopy and shielded compressor face those two factors are now resolved. Its also no surprise that the pylons were removed, canon hidden, and a number of other subtle changes made.
> 
> And since Chinese adolescent girls love to point out size as a factor, the F-15 is noticeably smaller/more narrower than the F-35. Essentially the F-15 is not much different from a frontal perspective when compared to the F-35, with minimal differences such as nose, and serration other than that many of the same features and techniques that are found in the F-35 are also found in the F-15.


 
I have two requests:

1. Show me a single example in which Boeing compares the frontal RCS of the F-15SE to the US military version of the F-35, not the international release version.

2. Prove to me that an international version of the F-35 (with degraded stealth) even exists.

Back it up with some links.



> Jim Albaugh, who heads Boeing's defense business, told reporters in Paris on Sunday that the new F-15 offered a comparable level of stealth capability to what Washington was willing to sell to foreign military sales customers.
> 
> "We are not trying to say that this is an airplane that has full-aspect stealth capability," Albaugh said. "It doesn't. But from a front-radar cross-section, it has all the stealth that has been *approved for export by the U.S. government*."



AIRSHOW-UPDATE 1-Pentagon F-35 chief blasts Boeing comments | Reuters



> Boeing has *backed down* from previous statements comparing the frontal-aspect radar cross-section of the F-15SE to an *international release standard* for the F-35.
> 
> However, Jones confirms that Boeing's original briefing chart - claiming the F-15SE provides frontal-aspect stealth offered by fifth-generation fighters - remains accurate.
> 
> Boeing unveiled the F-15SE in March 2009. The redesign adds conformal weapons bays, stealth techniques, fly-by-wire and canted tails to the F-15E configuration, providing a "first-day-of-war" stealth capability.
> 
> Lockheed and F-35 programme officials, however, have criticised Boeing's assertions that the F-15SE offers equivalent front-aspect stealth as the JSF, and *denied that an international release standard* exists for F-35 stealth characteristics.



Boeing applies to export F-15SE to South Korea


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> I have two requests:
> 
> 1. Show me a single example in which Boeing compares the frontal RCS of the F-15SE to the US military version of the F-35, not the international release version.
> 
> 2. Prove to me that an international version of the F-35 (with degraded stealth) even exists.
> 
> Back it up with some links.
> 
> 
> 
> AIRSHOW-UPDATE 1-Pentagon F-35 chief blasts Boeing comments | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing applies to export F-15SE to South Korea


 
I am sorry, don't you just prove ptldm3's argument with what you just quoted ?


----------



## j20blackdragon




----------



## ptldM3

amalakas said:


> I am sorry, don't you just prove ptldm3's argument with what you just quoted ?



Yes he did, he also posted a link by Lockheed that acknowledged that the F-15SE does indeed have the same frontal RCS as the F-35. However, in that link Lockheed confirmed that the F-15SE is only comparable to the F-35 from the frontal aspect.

I also explicitly said export version of F-15SE, I guess Black Dragon has a short memory span. Here is that link he asked for:

PICTURES: Boeing unveils upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle with fifth-generation features


----------



## TalkToMe:D

j20blackdragon said:


>



Isn't the plane in the first picture a F-22 ?


----------



## Zabaniyah

TalkToMe:D said:


> Isn't the plane in the first picture a F-22 ?



Yes it is.


----------



## yyetttt

F-22 is the best stealth plane ever. I have to admit, nothing comes close to it.

Not PAK FA, nor J-20.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Finally, the production capability of the WS-10 family has been largely increased and WS-15 is nearly ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SinoChallenger

^ I'm confused. This is from Shenyang Liming? I thought WS-15 is the responsibility of the Chengdu engine company?


----------



## pakje

SinoChallenger said:


> ^ I'm confused. This is from Shenyang Liming? I thought WS-15 is the responsibility of the Chengdu engine company?



I'm pretty sure there's some overlap between the 2 companies


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> You have not showed where is that 'contradiction'. Instead, you ended up showing everyone how you and your man are fools. If the IRST device is 'not stealthy', then so is the J-20's canopy since it is much much larger than the IRST device. But since you guys insisted that the *ROUNDED* canopy is 'stealthy', then how so is the IRST device 'not stealthy' when despite being rounded and much much smaller than the canopy? Your 'logic' does not hold up. This is real physics, not 'Chinese physics'.


The IRST device is not properly stealth shaped. It's a front facing spheroidal shape providing specular reflection back to source. You do not have this with the canopy. That is the difference. The context was talking about the IRST and you brought up the lambda rule suggesting a larger IRST would be more stealthy. The same IRST which you can see is not shaped to deflect radar away from the source and is spheroidal. On an untreated canopy, the cockpit is considered the 2nd worst contributor of RCS and the pilots helmut the worst within the cockpit. Guess what a front facing round IRST most resembles? Hmmm...and you think a *BIGGER* IRST could be better? Hey, why don't you patent your invention and present it as a stealth breakthrough? LOL

Btw, I've been arguing with that guy for years because he constantly posts questionable stuff. You're simply the flipside of your doppelganger. You and your bloodbrother are Internet cheerleaders to the max.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> Now that is more stupidity.
> 
> It is true that the bi-static radar is 'stealth' greatest threat. But what is not true is that by the '20s such networks will be so widely deployed that it will render 'stealth' worthless. Even so, assuming that speculation -- wild as it is -- is true, then why the hell would the J-20 have canards in the first place given the usual decade long development time from test flight to volume manufacture?


I never said I agree with canards on a stealth airframe. CACs design tradition and strength is with canards. I can only presume it was a trade-off considering the J-20 design began in the late 1990s when China's aeronautics industry was still relatively backwards and couldn't afford the extra development time, especially given that the J-10 only recently began flight testing. That's the most probable reason I can assume for the canards on a stealth airframe, not the maneuverability.

Concerning radar grids, yes it is speculation but it is also *probable* that this will be an integral part of stealth detection once processing is powerful enough, which just happens to be the main roadblock why multi-modal radars are not effective, YET. If there is enough processing, with an integrated radar grid you can fudge around with the filters to hypothetically find the most stealthy aircraft from 100km+ out. Even L-Band could be used to triangulate position with respectable accuracy *IF* the processing were there within such a datalinked radar grid.

I don't think the advanced form of what I just described will exist by the 2020s, mostly due to development time, but some form of it will exist since it's already been researched for years and the main thing holding it back is onboard processing+development time. I would presume the radars would mostly be from AWACs and/or battlefield UCAVs as the wingmen of the stealth fighters controlling them from standoff distance all connected with narrow beam datalinks.


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> ...and the reason this idea of a canard stealth mode in the FBW even began.





gambit said:


> It is an idea not worth the blood sugar spent in speculating about.


I guess those dummies who designed the Eurofighter were just total morons to be programming code for the FBW to make the canard as stealthy as possible then right? Hey, why don't you submit your resume to get those incompetent aerospace engineers fired, they deserve the whip! LOL




gambit said:


> Prove me wrong.
> 
> Prove me wrong that WW I era bi-planes were practically negative stability designs...


Another red herring! LOL Your claim that the J-20 has canards solely to account for negative stability is a leap of giant proportions and as I said back-assward logic. Canards are usually part of a fighter design to add maneuverability in the absence of other measures like thrust vectoring and these decisions are done early on in the design, NOT to regain stability after the design is almost complete. In the case of the J-20 it's mostly a result of the historical development of China's indigenous fighter designs.




gambit said:


> Conversely, *if you have poor programming skills, then all the flight control effectors doo-dads in the world are not going to help you.*
> ...
> The J-20 -- without TVC -- have the same amount of 'control effectors' as the F-16. Canards are 'control effectors'. Limiting their movements in the hope -- HOPE -- of minimizing their RCS contributorships is asking for an in-flight disaster.


Yet another red herring. lol Obviously the FBW would set upper bounds to how much the canard movements could be minimized if the flight environment at any given specific moment warranted it. You claim it might crash? I claim you wouldn't make a very good programmer. Falsely repeating that I said the canards could be locked will get you nowhere.




gambit said:


> I do hope the Chinese DO NOT exercise technical and operational common sense when they do give the J-20 this 'feature'. ...It will make the Americans' -- and possibly the Indians' -- job easier at shooting the PLAAF out of the sky.


This is ridiculous. Again, *the Eurofighter already has this "feature" in the FBW for its canards*. It's been around for over 10 years! I'm done with this thread. Go claim your victory. Yeehaw!


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> I guess those dummies who designed the Eurofighter were just total morons to be programming code for the FBW to make the canard as stealthy as possible then right? Hey, why don't you submit your resume to get those incompetent aerospace engineers fired, they deserve the whip! LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Another red herring! LOL Your claim that the J-20 has canards solely to account for negative stability is a leap of giant proportions and as I said back-assward logic. Canards are usually part of a fighter design to add maneuverability in the absence of other measures like thrust vectoring and these decisions are done early on in the design, NOT to regain stability after the design is almost complete. In the case of the J-20 it's mostly a result of the historical development of China's indigenous fighter designs.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another red herring. lol Obviously the FBW would set upper bounds to how much the canard movements could be minimized if the flight environment at any given specific moment warranted it. You claim it might crash? I claim you wouldn't make a very good programmer. Falsely repeating that I said the canards could be locked will get you nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous. Again, *the Eurofighter already has this "feature" in the FBW for its canards*. It's been around for over 10 years! I'm done with this thread. Go claim your victory. Yeehaw!





It isn't quite so. And it happens to step into an area of my expertise. 

First of all, the canards are not added to the design for the reasons you mentioned. The aircraft is designed from scratch with canards. 

Canards become the main control surfaces just as the tail planes are on other aircraft. 
The addition of canards usually provides greatest control authority on the plane as they are usually affecting the shifting center of gravity of the plane to a greater extent than the traditional tail planes (eg. su 30, EF2000) would or are. 

There is no stealth canard mode, at least not in the way you describe it. Control surfaces don't move based on programming alone. 

the flight control laws for a particular aircraft are indeed programmed, but the control surfaces are governed by dynamic and adaptive control laws also. 

if you attempt to use linear logic to a control surface actuators on a modern inherently unstable aircraft there is only one way you are going, and that is down and very fast too. 

You cannot programme a "minimum amount" of movement for a control surface. I don't see how, that would mean that either the pilot would have to disengage the mode, or the mode is disengaged automatically when it detects there is a reason for it.. how would it ? based on control stick inputs? relative position and acceleration ? use the gyros ? But the system is already doing that.... the FCS will not use excessive deflection for flight path level correction anyway... not if it is decent anyway so what is the pioint ?


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> It isn't quite so. And it happens to step into an area of my expertise.
> 
> First of all, the canards are not added to the design for the reasons you mentioned. The aircraft is designed from scratch with canards.


That was actually what I was saying. He was suggesting the J-20 canards were solely designed and added to account for negative stability.




amalakas said:


> Canards become the main control surfaces just as the tail planes are on other aircraft.
> The addition of canards usually provides greatest control authority on the plane as they are usually affecting the shifting center of gravity of the plane to a greater extent than the traditional tail planes (eg. su 30, EF2000) would or are.
> 
> There is no stealth canard mode, at least not in the way you describe it. Control surfaces don't move based on programming alone.
> 
> the flight control laws for a particular aircraft are indeed programmed, but the control surfaces are governed by dynamic and adaptive control laws also.
> 
> if you attempt to use linear logic to a control surface actuators on a modern inherently unstable aircraft there is only one way you are going, and that is down and very fast too.
> 
> You cannot programme a "minimum amount" of movement for a control surface. I don't see how, that would mean that either the pilot would have to disengage the mode, or the mode is disengaged automatically when it detects there is a reason for it.. how would it ? based on control stick inputs? relative position and acceleration ? use the gyros ? But the system is already doing that.... the FCS will not use excessive deflection for flight path level correction anyway... not if it is decent anyway so what is the pioint ?


I assumed excessive movements could trigger an instantaneous and temporary automatic override before switching back. I learned of the Eurofighter FBW programmed to maximize stealth with the canards but never really investigated it. Can you explain its principles? Sorry about the tirade, I like to have fun sometimes.


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> That was actually what I was saying. He was suggesting the J-20 canards were solely designed and added to account for negative stability.
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed excessive movements could trigger an instantaneous and temporary automatic override before switching back. I learned of the Eurofighter FBW programmed to maximize stealth with the canards but never really investigated it. Can you explain its principles? Sorry about the tirade, I like to have fun sometimes.



I never investigated the EF2000 FCS controls in particular. I have no idea what it is supposed to do. I don't see how the canards of the EF2000 can be stealthy managed though. If you can find some source I would be more than happy to read it.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> The IRST device is not properly stealth shaped. It's a front facing spheroidal shape providing specular reflection back to source. You do not have this with the canopy. That is the difference.


And what is that difference? How is the canopy's curvature *DOES NOT* produce specular reflections?



marshall said:


> The context was talking about the IRST and you brought up the lambda rule suggesting a larger IRST would be more stealthy. The same IRST which you can see is not shaped to deflect radar away from the source and is spheroidal. On an untreated canopy, the cockpit is considered the 2nd worst contributor of RCS and the pilots helmut the worst within the cockpit. Guess what a front facing round IRST most resembles? Hmmm...and you think a *BIGGER* IRST could be better? Hey, why don't you patent your invention and present it as a stealth breakthrough?


This is exactly what I mean by you guys' failure to understand 'stealth' in general. *EVERYTHING* is a contributor, front facing or not, edge diffraction producer or not, specular reflections or not. If the IRST device's contributorship does not violate a certain threshold, the same concept that J-20 Chinese engineers adheres to but is disparaged by the clueless and inexperienced Chinese conscript rejects members here, then the IRST device does not pose a negative factor to final RCS. In nowhere did I even 'suggest' that when it comes to the 10-lambda rule, larger mean smaller in RCS. It seems for all your boasting of your edukashun, you have poor logical reasoning skills. So let me say this again: If the diameter is just large *ENOUGH* to be greater than 10 wavelengths, then there is no need to make that diameter *ANY* larger.



marshall said:


> Btw, I've been arguing with that guy for years because he constantly posts questionable stuff. You're simply the flipside of your doppelganger. You and your bloodbrother are Internet cheerleaders to the max.


I do not major in 'Chinese physics'. So there is no 'flipside' to *YOUR* man here. In fact, by the ways you agreed with him in this IRST device subject, both of you are clueless allies. And wrong.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> I guess those dummies who designed the Eurofighter were just total morons to be programming code for the FBW to make the canard as stealthy as possible then right? Hey, why don't you submit your resume to get those incompetent aerospace engineers fired, they deserve the whip! LOL


The Eurofighter is a 'stealth' aircraft? Yeah, if those engineers call it that, they do deserve my whip.



marshall said:


> Another red herring! LOL *Your claim that the J-20 has canards solely to account for negative stability* is a leap of giant proportions and as I said back-assward logic. Canards are usually part of a fighter design to add maneuverability in the absence of other measures like thrust vectoring and these decisions are done early on in the design, NOT to regain stability after the design is almost complete. In the case of the J-20 it's mostly a result of the historical development of China's indigenous fighter designs.


Wrong. I said that fly-by-wire FLCS, not canards. In a FBW-FLCS system, *IF* the canards are intended to be active flight control surface, then any feature to 'lock' or minimize their movements to reduce dynamic RCS contributorship may have adverse flight control effects.



marshall said:


> Yet another red herring. lol Obviously the FBW would set upper bounds to how much the canard movements could be minimized if the flight environment at any given specific moment warranted it. You claim it might crash? I claim you wouldn't make a very good programmer. Falsely repeating that I said the canards could be locked will get you nowhere.


Are you speaking here from experience or just baseless speculations?



marshall said:


> This is ridiculous. Again, *the Eurofighter already has this "feature" in the FBW for its canards*. It's been around for over 10 years!


Source for this claim, please. I want to see a non-Chinese source that says the Eurofighter's canards can and *WILL* be 'locked' in place *SOLELY* for RCS purposes.







Under very specific conditions will any flight control surfaces will move to a preset position, as in how the Gripen's canards are so positioned. In the above image, those are landing/speedbrake positions for the canards. They would not be in those positions for take-off because they would produce the most drag.



marshall said:


> I'm done with this thread. Go claim your victory. Yeehaw!


Your failed arguments and lack of logical thought processes rendered you 'done' with this thread a long time ago. So yeah...Yeehaw...


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> It isn't quite so. And it happens to step into an area of my expertise.
> 
> First of all, the canards are not added to the design for the reasons you mentioned. The aircraft is designed from scratch with canards.
> 
> Canards become the main control surfaces just as the tail planes are on other aircraft.
> The addition of canards usually provides greatest control authority on the plane as they are usually affecting the shifting center of gravity of the plane to a greater extent than the traditional tail planes (eg. su 30, EF2000) would or are.
> 
> There is no stealth canard mode, at least not in the way you describe it. Control surfaces don't move based on programming alone.
> 
> the flight control laws for a particular aircraft are indeed programmed, but the control surfaces are governed by dynamic and adaptive control laws also.
> 
> *if you attempt to use linear logic to a control surface actuators on a modern inherently unstable aircraft there is only one way you are going, and that is down and very fast too. *
> 
> You cannot programme a "minimum amount" of movement for a control surface. I don't see how, that would mean that either the pilot would have to disengage the mode, or the mode is disengaged automatically when it detects there is a reason for it.. how would it ? based on control stick inputs? relative position and acceleration ? use the gyros ? But the system is already doing that.... the FCS will not use excessive deflection for flight path level correction anyway... not if it is decent anyway so what is the pioint ?


But if a Chinese on an anonymous Internet forum says so, then it is so. This is 'Chinese physics' at their best.


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> I never investigated the EF2000 FCS controls in particular. I have no idea what it is supposed to do. I don't see how the canards of the EF2000 can be stealthy managed though. If you can find some source I would be more than happy to read it.


double posted, sorry.


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> I never investigated the EF2000 FCS controls in particular. I have no idea what it is supposed to do. I don't see how the canards of the EF2000 can be stealthy managed though. If you can find some source I would be more than happy to read it.


There is mention of it in most descriptions of the Eurofighter but no specific details. The closest details I've read is that the canards work in unison with the elevons to realize a lower RCS. How that is done is never actually explained but since it was described as programmed adjustments to reduce the contribution of the canards, it sounded suspiciously like canard adjustments that are in turn compensated by elevon adjustments. The canards were a huge bone of contention when the J-20 was first unveiled.

Btw, on an unrelated note. I have a question concerning Greece that you might know about that I can't find in the history texts I've read. I know an Armenian who can't stand Turkish and he has been telling me an alternative history. He told me that western Turkey _(Asia Minor)_ was once mostly populated by Greeks and eastern Turkey populated by Armenians and Kurds. Then the original Turks, who he claims actually came from central Asia, not vice versa, migrated to Turkey proper over centuries and after out breeding both the Greeks and Armenians, claimed all of present day Turkey. He was basically saying the present day Turks are actually Asians and that Turks are a mixture of Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and central Asian Turks?


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> There is mention of it in most descriptions of the Eurofighter but no specific details. The closest details I've read is that the canards work in unison with the elevons to realize a lower RCS. How that is done is never actually explained but since it was described as programmed adjustments to reduce the contribution of the canards, it sounded suspiciously like canard adjustments that are in turn compensated by elevon adjustments. The canards were a huge bone of contention when the J-20 was first unveiled.
> 
> Btw, on an unrelated note. I have a question concerning Greece that you might know about that I can't find in the history texts I've read. I know an Armenian who can't stand Turkish and he has been telling me an alternative history. He told me that western Turkey _(Asia Minor)_ was once mostly populated by Greeks and eastern Turkey populated by Armenians and Kurds. Then the original Turks, who he claims actually came from central Asia, not vice versa, migrated to Turkey proper over centuries and after out breeding both the Greeks and Armenians, claimed all of present day Turkey. He was basically saying the present day Turks are actually Asians and that Turks are a mixture of Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and central Asian Turks?


 
ohh... you are opening a can of worms here buddy. Let me put it this way. The present day turks, especially the ones who live now on near east (i.e. the Mediterranean basin) have very little in common (genetically) with the turks who invaded the land about 1000 years ago.


----------



## no_name

The ancient Turkic people are more like a confederation of nomadic tribes, They tend to migrate around asia and where ever they settled over time they become close in appearance to local populations since they tend to be the minority. Thus turkic people in eastward asia took on oriental features and those in Turkey took on caucasoid features, while those in central asia looks different to both.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> ohh... you are opening a can of worms here buddy. Let me put it this way. The present day turks, especially the ones who live now on near east (i.e. the Mediterranean basin) have very little in common (genetically) with the turks who invaded the land about 1000 years ago.


Interesting, since it conflicts with some of the history you read concerning this yet what you just said is what I've heard from an Armenian and a few Greeks. This is related to something I'm debating about Xinjiang on another forum site.




no_name said:


> The ancient Turkic people are more like a confederation of nomadic tribes, They tend to migrate around asia and where ever they settled over time they become close in appearance to local populations since they tend to be the minority. Thus turkic people in eastward asia took on oriental features and those in Turkey took on caucasoid features, while those in central asia looks different to both.


Yes, that's true, I was trying to get an accurate background about Turkey as it exists today because a group of Turkish nationalists are attacking me at a blog defending Uighur _(turkic sub-group)_ machete attacks against Chinese civilians. It's interesting that what happened demographically to former Greek & Armenian territory is what also happened to Xinjiang, formerly ethnic Mongolian & Chinese areas where these Turkic sub-groups usurped the existing populations, mixed with them but still remained essentially Turkic.


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> Interesting, since it conflicts with some of the history you read concerning this yet what you just said is what I've heard from an Armenian and a few Greeks. This is related to something I'm debating about Xinjiang on another forum site.
> 
> 
> Yes, that's true, I was trying to get an accurate background about Turkey as it exists today because a group of Turkish nationalists are attacking me at a blog defending Uighur _(turkic sub-group)_ machete attacks against Chinese civilians. It's interesting that what happened demographically to former Greek & Armenian territory is what also happened to Xinjiang, formerly ethnic Mongolian & Chinese areas where these Turkic sub-groups usurped the existing populations, mixed with them but still remained essentially Turkic.


 

This is a common theme throughout turkish conquests, the local indigenous populations are absorbed first through religion and then through the erasure of ethnic backgrounds slowly, indigenous populations forget their ethnic backgrounds and identify as turkic.


----------



## ARSENAL6

no_name said:


> The ancient Turkic people are more like a confederation of nomadic tribes, They tend to migrate around asia and where ever they settled over time they become close in appearance to local populations since they tend to be the minority. Thus turkic people in eastward asia took on oriental features and those in Turkey took on caucasoid features, while those in central asia looks different to both.


 
Ah-ha
So inconclusion J-20s were kinda like normadic tribes that went around asia an became close appearnce in local populations. Therefore J-20s in eastward asia took on oriental features and those in Turkey took on caucasoid features, while those in central asia looks different to both. If you don't agree why bring it up. This is about j-20 5th gen stop going off topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Link to newest flight Video (March 10th). I think you need a CJDBY account to watch it.

3


----------



## Sasquatch



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## oct605032048

Let's prime.


----------



## oct605032048

Earth Protector!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sasquatch



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Alpery

ARSENAL6 said:


> Ah-ha
> So inconclusion J-20s were kinda like normadic tribes that went around asia an became close appearnce in local populations. Therefore J-20s in eastward asia took on oriental features and those in Turkey took on caucasoid features, while those in central asia looks different to both. If you don't agree why bring it up. This is about j-20 5th gen stop going off topic.


Mr.Knoweverything asks about Turks to Mr.Enemyturk...and ..

Mr.Enemyturk teachs about Turks to Mr.Knoweverything 

so...same mechanism on J-20 discuscion...


----------



## no_name

ARSENAL6 said:


> Ah-ha
> So inconclusion J-20s were kinda like normadic tribes that went around asia an became close appearnce in local populations. Therefore J-20s in eastward asia took on oriental features and those in Turkey took on caucasoid features, while those in central asia looks different to both. If you don't agree why bring it up. This is about j-20 5th gen stop going off topic.


 
I wasn't the first one off topic, nor the last one. But whatever makes you feel good, meh. 



Alpery said:


> Mr.Knoweverything asks about Turks to Mr.Enemyturk...and ..
> 
> Mr.Enemyturk teachs about Turks to Mr.Knoweverything
> 
> so...same mechanism on J-20 discuscion...


 
Please...it's off topic

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Mr martian i have say that your assumption and arguments r baseless, how can u compare PAK FA's IR ST has bigger radar cross section than huge canard surface than J-20, please elaborate, but i agree that PAK FA has more flaws than J-20, and BTW as for your information soviet/Russian aircraft industry is more mature than Chinese aerospace industry.
Think sincerely

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

And as for APA physical optics experiment is wrong because they're not know what material used in the construction of J20, what kind of RAM coating is applied to the J-20,canard has a bad effects on front RCS for sure,no matter how sophisticated canard r.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

pakistanipower said:


> And as for APA physical optics experiment is wrong because they're not know what material used in the construction of J20, what kind of RAM coating is applied to the J-20,canard has a bad effects on front RCS for sure,no matter how sophisticated canard r.


mate now they would start to curse u for telling the truth



pakistanipower said:


> And as for APA physical optics experiment is wrong because they're not know what material used in the construction of J20, what kind of RAM coating is applied to the J-20,canard has a bad effects on front RCS for sure,no matter how sophisticated canard r.


mate now they would start to curse u for telling the truth


----------



## lepziboy

j20blackdragon said:


> LEVCONs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framed canopy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully exposed compressor face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps around the inlets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Su-27 style lower fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally conventional nozzles.



whats wrong with LEVCONS?


----------



## DrSomnath999

lepziboy said:


> whats wrong with LEVCONS?


it is not in j20 so it is not stealthy


----------



## HANI

DrSomnath999 said:


> it is not in j20 so it is not stealthy



Yes and its PAK FA so what ever it is its the best stealth fighters humans can make

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aramsogo

HANI said:


> Yes and its PAK FA so what ever it is its the best stealth fighters humans can make



Disagree. It's the best Indians can afford to pay Russians to make. That alone should tell you everything. If India gave Russians $100 billion cheque (that didn't bounce), I'm sure Russians can make a much better plane. It's just like if Bill Gates and I both ask the same contractor to build us a house. Even if it's the same builder, I guarantee you Bill's house will be 100x better.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## marshall

lepziboy said:


> whats wrong with LEVCONS?


He's suggesting the junction where the LEVCONs meet the leading edge of the wings make good reflectors because of their relatively flat angular surface, which is probably mitigated by RAM at the leading edge and geometric shaping for the frontal aspect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oct605032048

DrSomnath999 said:


> it is not in j20 so it is not stealthy



NO one ever discovered secret Indian 4-G aircraft, so it must be stealthy. LOL


----------



## Ultima Thule

But i think that J-21 is better than J20, it more balanced design than J20


----------



## rcrmj

pakistanipower said:


> But i think that J-21 is better than J20, it more balanced design than J20


be honest CAC J-20 design is quite radical and innovative, but the jets coming out of SAC are very conventional like the J-21 on your avatar, however, CAC shares much better reputation among Chinese aviation fans may due to their independent design and thinking


----------



## Ultima Thule

rcrmj said:


> be honest CAC J-20 design is quite radical and innovative, but the jets coming out of SAC are very conventional like the J-21 on your avatar, however, CAC shares much better reputation among Chinese aviation fans may due to their independent design and thinking


but i still not convinced with canard+wing platform, front of the aircraft is the most important part of an aircraft, canard+wing will give slightly higher surface area to enemy radar, and as for side there r two ventral fins which may increases radar reflection to side, i think J-21 more mature and balanced design than J-20


----------



## j20blackdragon

Flat lower fuselage.







Flat lower fuselage.






Flat lower fuselage.






Flat lower fuselage.






???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

pakistanipower said:


> but i still not convinced with canard+wing platform, front of the aircraft is the most important part of an aircraft, canard+wing will give slightly higher surface area to enemy radar, and as for side there r two ventral fins which may increases radar reflection to side, i think J-21 more mature and balanced design than J-20


 high tech is all about innovation and bring new concept into practise, all european fighters are canard configration, and CAC has been working on this line of thinking too for almost 4 decades. a jet fighter is a product of compromise and find the right balance of what the end user really wants


----------



## siegecrossbow

Flight images from the 17th:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DrSomnath999

hey crossbow bro do u know what are these that i had pointed out in arrows???




i think they are some sensor ports


----------



## sms

^^^ highlighted in red are vents used during engine startup ..blue I'm not sure!


----------



## Sasquatch

siegecrossbow said:


> Flight images from the 17th:



Beat me to these siege.


----------



## DrSomnath999

sms said:


> ^^^ highlighted in red are vents used during engine startup ..blue I'm not sure!


no i got this from PDF file from baidu

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Firemaster

DrSomnath999 said:


> no i got this from PDF file from baidu


Any link of PDF?


----------



## DrSomnath999

Firemaster said:


> Any link of PDF?


sorry it's classified  .


----------



## Agent_47

New Video


----------



## no_name

How do single engined planes like J-10 turn by themselves without being towed while on the ground? Does the tail flap works at such low speeds?


----------



## gambit

no_name said:


> How do single engined planes like J-10 turn by themselves without being towed while on the ground? Does the tail flap works at such low speeds?


Nose wheel steering. There is a switch on the control stick that activate nose wheel steering, contingent upon the weight-on-wheel switch engaged when there is actual weight of the aircraft on the main and nose landing gear. The nose wheel steering feature is thru the rudder pedals, which also turns the rudder but it actually have little to no effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA'S WS 15 ENGINE PICS*


----------



## antonius123

nomi007 said:


> su-35 vs pakfa



From this perspective, Pakfa seems like the Silent Flanker

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Reply to J-20 and Rafale canards comparison*

1. The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not need a saw-tooth design at the rear of the canard, because the J-20 canard is made of composite material, shaped to deflect radar away from transmitter, RAM-coated (which Rafale lacks), and the canard-fuselage intersection is specifically designed to deflect radar. In conclusion, the J-20 canard is very stealthy.

The claim that the J-20 canard gap is a corner reflector is not true. Go ahead and try to draw a ray trace diagram to show a corner reflector. You cannot. It is a surface discontinuity as a tiny radar source. This kind of surface discontinuity is also seen in the T-50/Pak-Fa's airfoil gap and main wing control surfaces for the F-22, J-20, and T-50/Pak-Fa.

In my opinion, the Rafale canard design is clearly inferior. The Rafale built a thick structure to avoid a continuity gap. The round Rafale nose (which is not shaped) and the attendant large canard bridge are terrible for stealth. I think they designed it this way for structural integrity. [I'll label the problems on the Rafale later tonight when I return]

*T-50/Pak-Fa Front Airfoil Gap Back-end is not shaped to deflect radar*





T-50/Pak-Fa front airfoil gap will reflect radar when it bounces off the back end.





Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.





Notice the subtle angled curve of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard back-end to deflect radar.

----------

2. J-20 slightly-rounded LERX is a minor criticism. It can be easily fixed. It is trivial.

3. The third point about the angle of the J-20's wings is without merit. I have already written a post to compare the planform alignment of the J-20, F-22, and T-50/Pak-Fa. It is silly to argue for more planform alignment angles on the J-20.

The shape of the main wings is designed to match the aerodynamics of an aircraft. The J-20 has canards and its wing shape is the most appropriate aerodynamically for the aircraft. The guiding design principle is "form follows function" and not why don't you copy design features from other planes.

----------

Explanation of corner reflector (a 90 degree angle):

*Illustration of corner reflector on T-50/Pak Fa*

For example, let me illustrate why the T-50's uneven underside is not stealthy.





The uneven underside on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype creates a natural 90-degree angle. This allows enemy radar to reflect off the fuselage, bounce off the inside-face of the air-inlet, and return to the transmitter/detector for detection.

----------

Off-topic: Nice try Mr. Somnath. However, this nit-picking won't work. You need to find a major flaw to grab people's attention. The only major flaw on the J-20 is the round engine nozzles. The J-20 engine nozzles are serrated like the F-35, but they are clearly not as stealthy (in both radar and infrared wavelengths) as the F-22.

----------

*French Rafale is a very non-stealthy 4th generation fighter*





Mr. Somnath picked a terrible example in the French Rafale when he attempted to illustrate a perceived deficiency in the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard design. The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter. The round shielding to hide the canard gap is far less stealthy than the J-20 canard's elegant back-end to deflect radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.


That is dishonest. You pointed to two different locations when the same gap exists for both aircrafts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

gambit said:


> That is dishonest. You pointed to two different locations when the same gap exists for both aircrafts.



Anything new here? He also claimed that the fuselage creates a 90 degree angle, i guess in China a 90 degree angle means something else 


If the chum claims that the pak-fa's fuselage is a 'natural 90 degree angle' than this following picture also shows the same in regards to the J-20:



http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/11368202/j202.jpg.html



But of course chumie is going to make some bogus excuses, bend the truth, and re-write physics, but the truth is, if the pak-fa's fuselage presents a corner reflector so does the J-20's vertical stabs and tail fins

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> That is dishonest. You pointed to two different locations when the same gap exists for both aircrafts.



Try reading the text. That's the reason captions for photographs were invented.

Radar reflects off the back-end of the T-50/Pak-Fa airfoil gap. You want me to point to the junction at the very end? People aren't that stupid. I wanted to highlight the airfoil gap and the difference in the airfoil/canard back-end for the T-50 and J-20.





Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.





Notice the subtle angled curve of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard back-end to deflect radar.



ptldM3 said:


> Anything new here? He also claimed that the fuselage creates a 90 degree angle, i guess in China a 90 degree angle means something else



Are you blind? Have you never seen the messy underside of a T-50/Pak-Fa? I've said this many times. The different vertical heights of the T-50/Pak-Fa fuselage and airducts create a 90 degree angle or corner.





PtldM3, can you see the 90 degree angle (or corner) in the T-50/Pak-Fa underside now? It's in bright red.


----------



## gubbi

^^^ That thing that you call 'front airfoil' - the correct technical term is a LERX - leading edge root extension - to be employed in extreme maneuvering - very high AoA, or short landing. IIRC not employed during normal flying.

You dont know the correct terms, are unwilling to learn and yet want us to take your anal'lysis seriously? Take a hike dude.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Try reading the text. That's the reason captions for photographs were invented.
> 
> Radar reflects off the back-end of the T-50/Pak-Fa airfoil gap. You want me to point to the junction at the very end? People aren't that stupid. I wanted to highlight the airfoil gap and the difference in the airfoil/canard back-end for the T-50 and J-20.


People are not that stupid, especially when they have been forewarned by me against the likes of you. You pointed to two different areas and that is dishonest. Fix your sh!t else be considered a deceiver.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

[


Martian2 said:


> Try reading the text. That's the reason captions for photographs were invented.
> 
> Radar reflects off the back-end of the T-50/Pak-Fa airfoil gap. You want me to point to the junction at the very end? People aren't that stupid. I wanted to highlight the airfoil gap and the difference in the airfoil/canard back-end for the T-50 and J-20.
> 
> 
> Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.








It&#8217;s called camera angle genius, the back of the canard being tilted up gives the elusion that there is an &#8216;angle&#8217; but other photos of the J-20&#8217;s canards prove that there is no such thing. Again its an illusion.



Martian2 said:


> Notice the subtle angled curve of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard back-end to deflect radar.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blind? Have you never seen the messy underside of a T-50/Pak-Fa? I've said this many times. The different vertical heights of the fuselage and airduct create a 90 degree angle or corner. I'll show you another picture.







So how is a 90 degree corner present when the intake and fuselage are not 90 degrees? If you are trying to imply that the pak-fa&#8217;s fuselage is a corner reflector than so is the J-20&#8217;s vertical stab&#8217;s/tail fins arrangement. You can&#8217;t have both, otherwise you contradict your own claim, so which is it?


----------



## Martian2

gubbi said:


> ^^^ That thing that you call 'front airfoil' - the correct technical term is a LERX - leading edge root extension - to be employed in extreme maneuvering - very high AoA, or short landing. IIRC not employed during normal flying.
> 
> You dont know the correct terms, are unwilling to learn and yet want us to take your anal'lysis seriously? Take a hike dude.



A LERX is a front airfoil. I can call an aircraft's radar housing as the nose or a radome. Only dummies like you think there is only a single term.

I can refer to a person as a man/woman, human being, homo sapien, person, sentient being, etc. I choose the term that I prefer.

By the way, I think you're a fool.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> A LERX is a front airfoil. I can call an aircraft's radar housing as the nose or a radome. Only dummies like you think there is only a single term.
> 
> I can refer to a person as a man/woman, human being, homo sapien, person, sentient being, etc. I choose the term that I prefer.
> 
> By the way, I think you're a fool.


An 'airfoil' is a complete structure. What the PAK has is a leading edge component of the wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gubbi

Martian2 said:


> A LERX is a front airfoil. I can call an aircraft's radar housing as the nose or a radome. Only dummies like you think there is only a single term.
> 
> I can refer to a person as a man/woman, human being, homo sapien, person, sentient being, etc. I choose the term that I prefer.
> 
> By the way, I think you're a fool.



Lol. You dont know stuff, simple technicalities and want to argue with professionals? You know nothing, you are simply pulling numbers out of Planet Uranus! You are one ignorant tool. And you go the audacity to call someone a fool. Great! ROFL.
People already consider you a tool, how much more low can one really stoop?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s called camera angle genius, the back of the canard being tilted up gives the elusion that there is an &#8216;angle&#8217; but other photos of the J-20&#8217;s canards prove that there is no such thing. Again its an illusion.
> 
> So how is a 90 degree corner present when the intake and fuselage are not 90 degrees? If you are trying to imply that the pak-fa&#8217;s fuselage is a corner reflector than so is the J-20&#8217;s vertical stab&#8217;s/tail fins arrangement. You can&#8217;t have both, otherwise you contradict your own claim, so which is it?



Are you seriously that blind. Look at the nearer T-50/Pak-Fa airduct. It is obvious that it extends vertically down below the fuselage. You have a flat mid-body fuselage underside and a vertical airduct that extends beyond it. That forms a 90 degree angle in any geometry class.

Regarding the J-20 vertical stabilizer and ventral fin, if you trace the angle then you'll realize it is an obtuse angle and not 90 degrees.



gambit said:


> An 'airfoil' is a complete structure. What the PAK has is a leading edge component of the wing.



A mere technicality. I'm not labeling the photograph with "leading edge component of the wing" gap. If you want to do that, label your own photograph.

By the way, I believe my terminology of an "airfoil" is correct. However, I don't feel like arguing with you all day (which you seem to enjoy doing).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/airfoil?s=t

"*air·foil*
&#8194; &#8194;[air-foil] Show IPA
noun Aeronautics .
*any surface, as a wing, aileron, or stabilizer, designed to aid in lifting or controlling an aircraft by making use of the air currents through which it moves.*"


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Are you seriously that blind. Look at the nearer T-50/Pak-Fa airduct. *It is obvious that it extends vertically down below the fuselage.* You have a flat mid-body fuselage underside and a vertical airduct that extends beyond it. That forms a 90 degree angle in any geometry class.
> 
> Regarding the J-20 vertical stabilizer and ventral fin, if you trace the angle then you'll realize it is an obtuse angle and not 90 degrees.




Really?

Extends vertically? The pictures prove otherwise:











I don&#8217;t see anything vertical, so it is you who is blind. We have concluded that your claim is bogus. If you still want to stick to your failed claim which clearly is debunked with photographic evidence than the J-20 also has a corner reflector.


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> Really?
> 
> Extends vertically? The pictures prove otherwise:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don&#8217;t see anything vertical, so it is you who is blind. We have concluded that your claim is bogus. If you still want to stick to your failed claim which clearly is debunked with photographic evidence than the J-20 also has a corner reflector.



The airduct doesn't have to be exactly vertical. Look closely at your photograph. The mid-portion is nearly vertical. The T-50/Pak-Fa fuselage-airduct corner is not a perfect corner reflector, but it approximates one.






It is undeniable that radar waves will bounce off the T-50/Pak-Fa fuselage, reflect off the airduct, and return to the emitter. You cannot argue away the non-stealthiness of the uneven underside.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *A mere technicality*. I'm not labeling the photograph with "leading edge component of the wing" gap. If you want to do that, label your own photograph.


Convenient. But then again, that is what we here at PDF is used to seeing in believers of 'Chinese physics'. Your crap may be eagerly swallowed up over at CDF and sino, but not here. So far, it is unlikely that the admin staff will ban me to protect you.



Martian2 said:


> The airduct doesn't have to be exactly vertical. Look closely at your photograph. The mid-portion is nearly vertical. *The T-50/Pak-Fa fuselage-airduct corner is not a perfect corner reflector, but it approximates one.*


That will be seen only in certain aspect angle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> The airduct doesn't have to be exactly vertical. Look closely at your photograph. The mid-portion is nearly vertical. The T-50/Pak-Fa fuselage-airduct corner is not a perfect corner reflector, but it approximates one.




Nice try, but it is either a 90 degree cornor or it is not. In your eyes i'm sure it does look 'nearly vertical' since you see things in a negative light when it comes to the pak-fa. 

I can also play the same game and claim that the J-20's vertical stabs/tail fins are also almost a 90 degree angle, so without you even realizing it your own claim just backfired. Now the J-20's tail fins create a corner reflector.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Regarding the J-20 vertical stabilizer and ventral fin, if you trace the angle then you'll realize it is an obtuse angle and not 90 degrees.


Does not have to be 90 deg.






The most popular corner reflector in marine safety is the 90 deg type, specifically the trihedral design. However, the 60 and 120 type are sometimes used when high accuracy is not necessary and when wind load are taken into consideration. So as far as the J-20's vertical stabs goes, they do form corner reflectors with a lower intensity level than the exact 90 deg type. This is applicable to the PAK and the F-22 as well.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Convenient. But then again, that is what we here at PDF is used to seeing in believers of 'Chinese physics'. Your crap may be eagerly swallowed up over at CDF and sino, but not here. So far, it is unlikely that the admin staff will ban me to protect you.
> 
> 
> That will be seen only in certain aspect angle.



You don't even know what an airfoil means.

Give me a break, I never complained about any of your posts at SDF. To date (in over two years), I have only complained once to the moderators here at PDF about you and that was when you posted twenty comments in 24 hours. I wrote, "can you do something about it." That's it.

Airfoil | Define Airfoil at Dictionary.com

"*air·foil*
&#8194; &#8194;[air-foil] Show IPA
noun Aeronautics .
*any surface, as a wing, aileron, or stabilizer, designed to aid in lifting or controlling an aircraft by making use of the air currents through which it moves.*"



ptldM3 said:


> Nice try, but it is either a 90 degree cornor or it is not. In your eyes i'm sure it does look 'nearly vertical' since you see things in a negative light when it comes to the pak-fa.
> 
> I can also play the same game and claim that the J-20's vertical stabs/tail fins are also almost a 90 degree angle, so without you even realizing it your own claim just backfired. Now the J-20's tail fins create a corner reflector.



We've been through this before. Last time, I said F-22 and J-20 are imperfect as well. However, the F-22 and J-20 are far stealthier than T-50/Pak-Fa. The F-22 and J-20 have a flat and smooth underside to reflect radar away from the transmitter. How many times do I have to repeat that?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You don't even know what an airfoil means.
> 
> Airfoil | Define Airfoil at Dictionary.com
> 
> "*air·foil*
> &#8194; &#8194;[air-foil] Show IPA
> noun Aeronautics .
> any surface, as *a wing, aileron, or stabilizer*, designed to aid in lifting or controlling an aircraft by making use of the air currents through which it moves."


Better than you do. The proper context for 'surface' does not mean a portion of a structure. In aviation, something which you do not have experience, the word 'surface' usually mean a flight control element. What the PAK have is not that much different in function than leading edge flaps, or as we in the F-16 community call it -- slat. But we do not call it an 'airfoil'.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> It is undeniable that radar waves will bounce off the fuselage, reflect off the airduct, and return to the emitter. You cannot argue away the non-stealthiness of the uneven underside.



So how is that any different to a wing and outer fuselage? It isn't. And it does not change the fact that your statement contradicts itself.


----------



## Martian2

Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys. This isn't dictionary class. I'm discussing stealth.

How many times do I have so say this? I'm calling it a "front airfoil gap" and not that long technical gibberish, which no one can remember.

From my post #1829:



> A mere technicality. I'm not labeling the photograph with "leading edge component of the wing" gap. If you want to do that, label your own photograph.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys. This isn't dictionary class.* I'm discussing stealth*.



Your're faking it.


----------



## Abhishek_

Martian2 said:


> Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys. This isn't dictionary class. I'm discussing chinese physics.



fixed it for you


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Jesus Christ, *what's wrong with you guys*. This isn't dictionary class. I'm discussing stealth.
> 
> How many times do I have so say this? I'm calling it a "front airfoil gap" and not that long technical gibberish, which no one can remember.


I work with real physics. The kind that Jesus created.


----------



## Martian2

You two keep arguing over trivial stuff, which I find annoying. If you are done, I would like to hear Dr. Somnath's response. He made a provocative post and let's see if he's changed his mind.

----------

*Reply to J-20 and Rafale canards comparison*

1. The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not need a saw-tooth design at the rear of the canard, because the J-20 canard is made of composite material, shaped to deflect radar away from transmitter, RAM-coated (which Rafale lacks), and the canard-fuselage intersection is specifically designed to deflect radar. In conclusion, the J-20 canard is very stealthy.

The claim that the J-20 canard gap is a corner reflector is not true. Go ahead and try to draw a ray trace diagram to show a corner reflector. You cannot. It is a surface discontinuity as a tiny radar source. This kind of surface discontinuity is also seen in the T-50/Pak-Fa's airfoil gap and main wing control surfaces for the F-22, J-20, and T-50/Pak-Fa.

In my opinion, the Rafale canard design is clearly inferior. The Rafale built a thick structure to avoid a continuity gap. The round Rafale nose (which is not shaped) and the attendant large canard bridge are terrible for stealth. I think they designed it this way for structural integrity. [I'll label the problems on the Rafale later tonight when I return]

*T-50/Pak-Fa Front Airfoil Gap Back-end is not shaped to deflect radar*





T-50/Pak-Fa front airfoil gap will reflect radar when it bounces off the back end.





Another look at T-50/Pak-Fa radar-reflecting back-end of front airfoil gap.





Notice the subtle angled curve of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard back-end to deflect radar.

----------

2. J-20 slightly-rounded LERX is a minor criticism. It can be easily fixed. It is trivial.

3. The third point about the angle of the J-20's wings is without merit. I have already written a post to compare the planform alignment of the J-20, F-22, and T-50/Pak-Fa. It is silly to argue for more planform alignment angles on the J-20.

The shape of the main wings is designed to match the aerodynamics of an aircraft. The J-20 has canards and its wing shape is the most appropriate aerodynamically for the aircraft. The guiding design principle is "form follows function" and not why don't you copy design features from other planes.

----------

Explanation of corner reflector (a 90 degree angle):

*Illustration of corner reflector on T-50/Pak Fa*

For example, let me illustrate why the T-50's uneven underside is not stealthy.





The uneven underside on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype creates a natural 90-degree angle. This allows enemy radar to reflect off the fuselage, bounce off the inside-face of the air-inlet, and return to the transmitter/detector for detection.

----------

Off-topic: Nice try Mr. Somnath. However, this nit-picking won't work. You need to find a major flaw to grab people's attention. The only major flaw on the J-20 is the round engine nozzles. The J-20 engine nozzles are serrated like the F-35, but they are clearly not as stealthy (in both radar and infrared wavelengths) as the F-22.

----------

*French Rafale is a very non-stealthy 4th generation fighter*





Mr. Somnath picked a terrible example in the French Rafale when he attempted to illustrate a perceived deficiency in the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard design. The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter. The round shielding to hide the canard gap is far less stealthy than the J-20 canard's elegant back-end to deflect radar.


----------



## Abhishek_

repeating posts might help in brainwashing. here on pdf it makes you look like a tool. 
nobody is buying your BS, although I understand it may be tied to your wages, in which case please continue

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

gambit said:


> I work with real physics. The kind that Jesus created.



Pure gold.


----------



## Martian2

I roll my eyes at you two dummies. My J-20 stealth fighter video has been seen over 88,000 times worldwide. If I felt like it, I could make another J-20 video for everyone around the world to see. No one has ever heard of you two and they never will.


----------



## ptldM3

Abhishek_ said:


> repeating posts might help in brainwashing. here on pdf it makes you look like a tool.
> nobody is buying your BS, although I understand it may be tied to your wages, in which case please continue



He is stubborn as a rock. He still insists that J-20 has an 'angled' canard when in fact that is the back side of the canard covering the LERX to give an illusion of an angle. The rest of his claims are silly, if the pak-fa has a corner reflector from the inner fuselage than the same is applicable to the J-20 from the outside of the fuselage where the wing and intake join.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

Martian2 said:


> I roll my eyes at you two dummies. My J-20 stealth fighter video has been seen over 88,000 times worldwide. If I felt like it, I could make another J-20 video for everyone around the world to see. No one has ever heard of you two and they never will.



you mean there are over 88000 believers in chinese physics?? i was hoping for more


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> I roll my eyes at you two dummies. My J-20 stealth fighter video has been seen over 88,000 times worldwide. If I felt like it, I could make another J-20 video for everyone around the world to see. No one has ever heard of you two and they never will.



Cool story bro, there are video's with people picking their noses that have received more views than your video.



Abhishek_ said:


> you mean there are over 88000 believers in chinese physics?? i was hoping for more



No he means that he parades and advertises his video's on every forum that he visits. I am one of those 88,000 viewers and the only reason i seen the video was because he kept bombarding the forum with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

At Gambit, it just occurred to me why you thought I had you banned at SDF. I mischievously "thanked" the post when you were temporarily (?) banned. I thought it would be funny when you saw it. However, to clarify, I never complained about you at SDF.

Similarly, I have never complained about PtldM3; even when he made that thread directed at me. Nor against Abishek or that Greek guy, Amalakas (?). I just go on vacation and hope I won't run into you dummies when I come back occasionally.

At Gambit, it just occurred to me why you thought I had you banned at SDF. I mischievously "thanked" the post when you were temporarily (?) banned. I thought it would be funny when you saw it. However, to clarify, I never complained about you at SDF.

Similarly, I have never complained about PtldM3; even when he made that thread directed at me. Nor against Abishek or that Greek guy, Amalakas (?). I just go on vacation and hope I won't run into you dummies when I come back occasionally.

Oh hey, look at my signature. The J-20 video views are at 88,521!


----------



## Abhishek_

Martian2 said:


> At Gambit, it just occurred to me why you thought I had you banned at SDF. I mischievously "thanked" the post when you were temporarily (?) banned. I thought it would be funny when you saw it. However, to clarify, I never complained about you at SDF.
> 
> Similarly, I have never complained about PtldM3; even when he made that thread directed at me. Nor against Abishek or that Greek guy, Amalakas (?). I just go on vacation and hope I won't run into you dummies when I come back occasionally.
> 
> Oh hey, look at my signature. The J-20 video views are at 88,521!



you make for a poor salesman, try something else.


----------



## Martian2

By the way, though I'm a Gallery moderator at CDF, I promise that I would never try to get any of you banned at CDF.

Don't let me intimidate you with my authoritative J-20 video, widely-known reputation on many forums, etc.

Feel free to join CDF, I'm only a window-dressing mod. I can't ban anyone and I wouldn't report any of you. It's not my style.

Years ago, I tried to recruit your help and ban "ao333." When that failed, I gave up. A lot of effort for no result.


----------



## Abhishek_

Martian2 said:


> By the way, though I'm a Gallery moderator at CDF, I promise that I would never try to get any of you banned at CDF.
> 
> Don't let me intimidate you with my authoritative J-20 video, widely-known reputation on many forums, etc.
> 
> Feel free to join CDF, I'm only a window-dressing mod. I can't ban anyone and I wouldn't report any of you.



ROFL, you just keep getting funnier. come back on topic now son.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> At Gambit, it just occurred to me why you thought I had you banned at SDF. I mischievously "thanked" the post when you were temporarily (?) banned. I thought it would be funny when you saw it. However, to clarify, I never complained about you at SDF.


I never said *YOU* did. My experience over at sino was that Chinese will stick up for each other, especially when one is challenged by a member of an 'inferior' Asian race.

At sino, we have an 'Engineer', someone who gave himself that title to set himself apart from the rest of humanity, implying his education and experience is exceptional in a specialized field of the sciences. Then he boldly and baselessly declared that the J-20's all moving vertical stabs are more 'advanced' than the F-22's rudder system. No supporting evidences/arguments. Just a declaration that flies (pun intended) in the face of 100 yrs of aviation history. I forwarded that link to my friends at Hill, Nellis, and Langley. Everyone had a good laugh. The consensus is that if this 'Engineer' is typical of Chinese engineers on the J-20, then we have nothing to fear from the J-20.

This is the kind of 'Chinese physics' that you are trying to foist upon us here and it is not going to go unchallenged. Come to think of it, I think the reason you return here is because once in a while you need to learn something new. Because certainly CDF is quite dead -- intellectually. No one is offering anything of technical worth, like how you just learned that a corner reflector does not need to be 90 deg to be a reflector. Anyway...The longer you stay there at CDF, the more intellectually stagnant you become. That is why you keep returning here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I never said *YOU* did. My experience over at sino was that Chinese will stick up for each other, especially when one is challenged by a member of an 'inferior' Asian race.
> 
> At sino, we have an 'Engineer', someone who gave himself that title to set himself apart from the rest of humanity, implying his education and experience is exceptional in a specialized field of the sciences. Then he boldly and baselessly declared that the J-20's all moving vertical stabs are more 'advanced' than the F-22's rudder system. No supporting evidences/arguments. Just a declaration that flies (pun intended) in the face of 100 yrs of aviation history. I forwarded that link to my friends at Hill, Nellis, and Langley. Everyone had a good laugh. The consensus is that if this 'Engineer' is typical of Chinese engineers on the J-20, then we have nothing to fear from the J-20.
> 
> This is the kind of 'Chinese physics' that you are trying to foist upon us here and it is not going to go unchallenged. Come to think of it, I think the reason you return here is because once in a while you need to learn something new. Because certainly CDF is quite dead -- intellectually. No one is offering anything of technical worth, like how you just learned that a corner reflector does not need to be 90 deg to be a reflector. Anyway...The longer you stay there at CDF, the more intellectually stagnant you become. That is why you keep returning here.



Are you still crabbing about that "inferior race" thing? Come on, let it go. A couple of guys said that to make you mad. No one believes that.

Actually, I came back briefly because Dr. Somnath shoved his "J-20 sucks" post in my face at CDF. If he stops provoking me, I won't come back for a long time. I like my vacation at CDF. I don't have to deal with you guys and your constant complaints.

Anyway, I'm off. If Dr. Somnath shoves another "J-20 sucks" post in my face, I'll be back.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Are you still crabbing about that "inferior race" thing? Come on, let it go. A couple of guys said that to make you mad. No one believes that.


I did not get mad. In fact, I usually encourage it. It reveal you Chinese boys here for what you are -- racists to the core.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I did not get mad. In fact, I usually encourage it. It reveal you Chinese boys here for what you are -- racists to the core.



The 99.99999% majority of Chinese are not. I like you and I respect your knowledge about military matters, except when you're wrong about the J-20 Mighty Dragon. Farewell.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Actually, I came back briefly because Dr. Somnath shoved his "J-20 sucks" post in my face at CDF. If he stops provoking me, I won't come back for a long time. I like my vacation at CDF. I don't have to deal with you guys and *your constant complaints.*


What are we 'complaining' about? Or is it your arrogance and self centeredness made you believe that to challenge you is to 'complain'? 



Martian2 said:


> The 99.99999% majority of Chinese are not. I like you and I respect your knowledge about military matters, except when *you're wrong about the J-20 Mighty Dragon*. Farewell.


If anything, especially in the sensor area, I am more right about the J-20 than you think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

Abhishek_ said:


> you mean there are over 88000 believers in chinese physics?? i was hoping for more


 
In indian physics: 

- reflection = emission
- round shape has the same reflection pattern with sphere shape
- flat surface diffract Radar Wave
- 120 degree or more corner = corner reflector too
- round shape is not detrimental to RCS

Ask gambit, he is the master of Indian physics

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Does not have to be 90 deg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most popular corner reflector in marine safety is the 90 deg type, specifically the trihedral design. However, the 60 and 120 type are sometimes used when high accuracy is not necessary and when wind load are taken into consideration. So as far as the J-20's vertical stabs goes, they do form corner reflectors with a lower intensity level than the exact 90 deg type. This is applicable to the PAK and the F-22 as well.



Again you can only base your claim on vague picture.
This vague picture doesn't help to support your claim.

I believe Martian has requested you evidence or diagram according to acceptable physics rule (not indian physics) that depict how 120 degree or more would be corner reflector.

This is the diagram that show how 90 degree corner = corner reflector






Could you show the similar diagram with 120 degree / more?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Again you can only base your claim on vague picture.
> This vague picture doesn't help to support your claim.
> 
> I believe Martian has requested you evidence or diagram according to acceptable physics rule (not indian physics) that depict how 120 degree or more would be corner reflector.
> 
> This is the diagram that show how 90 degree corner = corner reflector


Kid, no one take you seriously, not even the Chinese. This illustration...






Is to show the radiation patterns of a plate perpendicular to the source as a reference, and the radiation patterns of a 60, 90, and 120 corner reflector for comparison where S is wavelength spacing apart. If that is mysterious to you, I understand. You ain't smart enough for it. It probably is mysterious to the Chinese boys as well but they know I do not post incredible sources. At least they are smart enough to know they have learned something relevant to the discussion.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Kid, no one take you seriously, not even the Chinese. This illustration...
> 
> Is to show the radiation patterns of a plate perpendicular to the source as a reference, and the radiation patterns of a 60, 90, and 120 corner reflector for comparison where S is wavelength spacing apart. If that is mysterious to you, I understand. You ain't smart enough for it. It probably is mysterious to the Chinese boys as well but they know I do not post incredible sources. At least they are smart enough to know they have learned something relevant to the discussion.



Your claim that 120 degree corner = corner reflector is already proving you are silly and clueless about the subject you are thinking you know. 

As the matter of fact, nobody take your silly claim with vague picture seriously because you have demonstrate your inability to to prove and response my and martian challenge against you; thats why nobody care to respond

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I roll my eyes at you two dummies. My J-20 stealth fighter video has been seen over 88,000 times worldwide. If I felt like it, I could make another J-20 video for everyone around the world to see. No one has ever heard of you two and they never will.


And how many of those 88k actually have any experience in aviation? Probably 99% *NONE*...!!!  The other 1% laughed their @$$eS off. My friends over at Hill, Nellis, and Langley are in that 1%.


----------



## Prahar007

antonius123 said:


> In indian physics:
> 
> - reflection = emission
> - round shape has the same reflection pattern with sphere shape
> - flat surface diffract Radar Wave
> - 120 degree or more corner = corner reflector too
> - round shape is not detrimental to RCS
> 
> Ask gambit, *he is the master of Indian physics*



Atleast Indian Physics has earned a noble prize

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Luftwaffe

Martian2 said:


> Anyway, I'm off. If Dr. Somnath shoves another "J-20 sucks" post in my face, I'll be back.



Actually dr. somnath is planning on making/declaring Rafale more stealthier than J-20. 
don't remember where he opened thread you may need to find it because the thread is ridiculous. 
he/his mates declare Rafale to be better once isrealified poor mmrca deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian said:


> 1. The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not need a saw-tooth design at the rear of the canard, because the J-20 canard is made of composite material, shaped to deflect radar away from transmitter, RAM-coated (which Rafale lacks),



LOLLLZ , really martian ur stupidity is unrivalled in this planet thats for sure 
1)composites: Do u have x ray in ur eyes?? then how do u know it is made entirely of composites ,BTW rafale also has composites compare but not entirely .

2)RAM coating : what rafale canards doesnt have ram coating LOLLZ . Is it mandatory that all ram coating should be black like
j20 .??? then F22 also doent have ram coating lollz 

1st of all understand the basics of stealth or order of importance of stealth in a plane 

1st.comes shaping of plane ( Angled or canted surface/ saw tooth pattern ) , then comes composition of air frame (composites) , then at the last comes surface coating (ram coating) .
because composites & RAM coating doesnt guarantee stealth always as RAM properties is unreliable at all radar frequencies .The most important part is shaping .

now see the importance of SAW TOOTH pattern in rafale's canards , i hope u could understand from the pic the importance of
saw tooth in stealthiness of rafale's canards as compare to J20 canards










Martian said:


> *the canard-fuselage intersection is specifically designed to deflect radar*. In conclusion, the J-20 canard is very stealthy.
> The claim that the J-20 canard gap is a corner reflector is not true. Go ahead and try to draw a ray trace diagram to show a corner reflector. You cannot. It is a surface discontinuity as a tiny radar source. This kind of surface discontinuity is also seen in the T-50/Pak-Fa's airfoil gap and main wing control surfaces for the F-22, J-20, and T-50/Pak-Fa.




Tell u what man ... J20 's canard-fuselage intersection is a stealth disaster as it's junction has rounded protusion 
which allows the radar waves enter into that J20 gap & bounce back to it's radar source .Not only through gap but from below
also the radar waves can hit the surface round protusion on it's canard & fuselarge junction. This rounded canard-fuselage protusion gives a source of tiny corner reflector for J-20's canard gap. It is not found in rafale as usual clearly justifying my point that rafale's canards are much beter in stealth design than canards

OMG (facepalm) what u compared "surface discontinuity in the T-50/Pak-Fa's airfoil gap as corner reflector surface??? lolllz 
U forgot pakfa doent have any rounded surface protusion in it's wings & fuselarge junction like J20 


now see the pics u would understand what i mean



















Martian said:


> 2. J-20 slightly-rounded LERX is a minor criticism. It can be easily fixed. It is trivial.


Lollz It is minor criticism as u urself claim round surface are big No for stealth as in PAKFA IRST as it round .
as any round edge or surface may reflect some amount of radar waves back to it's source 





Radar cross-section - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Martian said:


> 3. The third point about the angle of the J-20's wings is without merit. I have already written a post to compare the planform alignment of the J-20, F-22, and T-50/Pak-Fa. It is silly to argue for more planform alignment angles on the J-20.
> 
> 
> The shape of the main wings is designed to match the aerodynamics of an aircraft. The J-20 has canards and its wing shape is the most appropriate aerodynamically for the aircraft. The guiding design principle is "form follows function" and not why don't you copy design features from other planes.



blah ... 


i am comparing the edges of all the 5th generation plane as it should be & J20 clearly has less edges & less angular as compare to all 5th gen fighters which is due to it's vintage design features like DELTA wing, Rounded lerx & CANARDS which clearly raises question mark on its effectiveness on stealth ground 
.








Martian said:


> Off-topic: Nice try Mr. Somnath. However, this nit-picking won't work. You need to find a major flaw to grab people's attention. The only major flaw on the J-20 is the round engine nozzles. The J-20 engine nozzles are serrated like the F-35, but they are clearly not as stealthy (in both radar and infrared wavelengths) as the F-22.


LLOLLZ martian i had proved my case clearly but u turndown all my critiscism as minor .Meanwhile u can find all flaws in pakfa as major including Rounded IRST. This shows what double standard u have .
what J20 engine NOZZLES are serrated Seriously ???? ,have u ever compare F35 nozzles with J20 nozzles in ur life time 




Martian said:


> Mr. Somnath picked a terrible example in the French Rafale when he attempted to illustrate a perceived deficiency in the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard design. The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter. The round shielding to hide the canard gap is far less stealthy than the J-20 canard's elegant back-end to deflect radar.



OMG (facepalm).!!!!




as usual martian time & again u have proved ur unrivalled stupidity in this planet ,nothing cant be the greatest example like
u have done here .HEY man i had compared only the stealth of rafale's canard with J20's canards which clearly is more stealthy as shown by me above .But god damn it u compare entire 4.5 gen rafale plane with a 5th gen J20 plane ..Hey man even a new born baby knows rafale is unstealthy compare to any 5th gen plane .This shows the height of stupidity u have attained today in the entire foruming history of yours .




Not only that u have posted a trash pic containing many wrong information about rafale's stealth .U r simply a great J%%K%$$



Martian said:


> Anyway, I'm off. If Dr. Somnath shoves another * "J-20 sucks"* post in my face, I'll be back.


LOLLLZ martian perhaps u have said one thing right in ur entire lifetime about J20 .This is the reality yes it does but in terms of stealth

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qwerrty

you're genius..dr. DODO would really love to have you on em team!


----------



## DrSomnath999

qwerrty said:


> you're genius..dr. DODO would really love to have you on em team!


yes why not but i charge high fees can u afford it  If yes then i would change my national flag to china & start bashing any anti china or anti J20 members

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 1. *The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not need a saw-tooth design at the rear of the canard, because the J-20 canard is made of composite material, shaped to deflect radar away from transmitter,* RAM-coated (which Rafale lacks), and the canard-fuselage intersection is specifically designed to deflect radar. In conclusion, the J-20 canard is very stealthy.


This is actually a bad argument for the J-20's canards.

If it is as simple as you claimed to just shape the canards *WITHOUT* aerodynamic consideration, then the Rafale's canards would have done it already. But that is not the case once aerodynamic considerations are taken as priority. In other words, there is no way -- without credible measurement data -- to declare the J-20's canards *EITHER WAY*. Composites does not automatically equal to being absorbers.

Assume that the Rafale's canards are modified to contain geometric tactics of RCS control, aka 'sawtooth' surface devices, near the trailing edges, we can guess that:

- Either aerodynamics trumped the desire to reshape the canards for better RCS control.

- Or it was found that there were no adverse effects on aerodynamic from re-shaping the canards but it was the cost of retrofitting existing fleet with new canards that compelled the -- perhaps inferior -- surface geometric methods of RCS control. At this point we can also ask if measurement data of and from these geometric 'absorbers' were sufficiently compelling.

My take? Aerodynamics. And that mean it is equally possible that the J-20's canards are no lower than the Rafale's in terms of RCS contributorship despite outward appearances of differences. Aerodynamics trumps all considerations.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The only major flaw on the J-20 is the round engine nozzles. The J-20 engine nozzles are serrated like the F-35,...


You sure about that...???


----------



## Martian2

*French Rafale has at least 21 non-stealth features*





In this photograph of the French Rafale, I have incompletely labeled only 17 non-stealth features. The actual list is at least 21 non-stealth features. For example, the round engine nozzles, non-canted vertical stabilizer, non-saw toothed wheel bay doors, and lack of continuous curvature for the fuselage behind the cockpit are additional French Rafale non-stealth features.

It saddens me to see Mr. Somnath fall victim to French marketing. The French have made the silly claim that the Rafale is partially stealthy. Unfortunately, Mr. Somnath has swallowed the French propaganda. Aside from the partially stealthy S-duct, there are 20 fully non-stealthy features on the French Rafale.

In conclusion, the French Rafale suffers from 20 non-stealth features and one partial stealth feature. This means the French Rafale is just like any other non-stealthy 4th generation fighter.

----------



Luftwaffe said:


> Actually dr. somnath is planning on making/declaring Rafale more stealthier than J-20.
> don't remember where he opened thread you may need to find it because the thread is ridiculous.
> he/his mates declare Rafale to be better once isrealified poor mmrca deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Prahar007 said:


> Atleast Indian Physics has earned a noble prize


 
and few american presidents won Nobel 'peace' prize, so much creditability for that nose prize


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter.* The round shielding to hide the canard gap is far less stealthy than the J-20 canard's elegant back-end to deflect radar.


Then why not copy the F-22's layout?






Unless...The J-20 is not a '5th generation' design.

In RCS control, the major flight control elements are the first targets for contributorship reduction. In looking at the comparison above, the J-20 have one more radiator than the Rafale in having twin vertical stabilators. However, the Rafale's single vertical stab produces two corner reflectors while the J-20's twin vertical stabs produces no 90 deg corners. Similarly shaped and sized complex bodies will produce similar clusters of discrete radiators.

Like this...






The counter-argument would be: Why is the F-117, which look nothing like the B-2, have supposedly similar RCS to the B-2, and vice versa?

It is a legitimate argument and the appropriate response is that size have a direct effect on RCS as well as those discrete structures on a complex body. When Northrop designed the B-2, they did not referenced the F-117. Instead, they went back to its predecessor -- the YB-49. Northrop already knew of the flying wing's naturally low RCS and what stopped the YB-49 back then was the limits on flight control technology because the flying wing design was inherently more demanding to fly.

But for the F-117, Lockheed had nothing to referenced. No historical precedence for what they wanted to create. Lockheed had to start from scratch as far as complex bodies goes. The result is that the F-117 look nothing like anything in aviation history -- 100 yrs of it -- and unto today. What Lockheed did with the F-117 was pure understated genius. Grossly understated. And far more in terms of efforts than what CAC have done with the J-20.

So if the Rafale is not to be emulated, and you are using the word 'emulated' wrongly anyway, then why does the J-20 look so similar to the Rafale and the MIG 1.44?

The F-22 look nothing like the F-15. After the B-2 experience, it became obvious to the top military aviation companies that the demands of low radar observability would force them to discard many -- if not most -- of conventional wisdom regarding aircraft design. The F-22 is physically larger than the F-15. The F-22's reference was the F-117, not the F-15, when it comes to radar behaviors. Northrop's YF-23 also had nothing in common with the F-15 and also referenced the F-117 regarding radar behaviors.

And yet, the J-20 have striking physical similarities with the Rafale and the MIG 1.44 when it is boldly declared that the Rafale is not to be 'emulated'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Canard and delta wing design is widespread. Not used only by the French.





Chinese J-7 (with first flight in 1966) was a delta wing.





Chinese J-10A Vigorous Dragon (with first flight in 1998) is a canard and delta wing design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Canard and delta wing design is widespread. Not used only by the French.
> 
> Chinese J-7 was a delta wing.
> 
> Chinese J-10A Vigorous Dragon is a canard and delta wing design.


All the more devastating for your argument...



Martian2 said:


> The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter.


We already know of at least one '5th generation' fighter -- the F-22. The next upcoming will be the F-35. We know what they look like.

So if the Rafale is not to be 'emulated', then why does the J-20 Drag Queen and the J-10b Viagrous Dragon looks more like the Rafale than the F-22?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> All the more devastating for your argument...
> 
> 
> We already know of at least one '5th generation' fighter -- the F-22. The next upcoming will be the F-35. We know what they look like.
> 
> So if the Rafale is not to be 'emulated', then why does the J-20 Drag Queen and the J-10b Viagrous Dragon looks more like the Rafale than the F-22?



I find you boring with your attempts at slander. Chinese fighter aircraft design has a multi-decade history of using delta wings. Canards were later added to provide additional lift.

The diagram listing 21 stealth defects on the French Rafale is a clear contrast to the J-20 Mighty Dragon, which has none of the Rafale's 21 deficiencies. It is debatable whether the J-20 LOAN engine nozzles (like the F-35) count as a deficiency.

Anyway, you haven't raised a legitimate point and I'm leaving. If Dr. Somnath keeps trash talking the J-20, I'll be back.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I find you boring with your attempts at slander.


As if what you have been posting so far is anything new.



Martian2 said:


> Chinese fighter aircraft design has a multi-decade history of using delta wings. Canards were later added to provide additional lift.


All the more reason to think the J-20 is more '4th gen' than '5th gen'.



Martian2 said:


> The diagram listing 21 stealth defects on the French Rafale is a clear contrast to the J-20 Mighty Dragon, which has none of the Rafale's 21 deficiencies.


And would be irrelevant if both aircrafts rises above a certain threshold. I know you have difficulty in understanding the concept of a threshold but this is more for the readers than for you.



Martian2 said:


> It is debatable whether the J-20 LOAN engine nozzles (like the F-35) count as a deficiency.


The J-20's nozzles are nothing like the F-35's.



Martian2 said:


> Anyway, you haven't raised a legitimate point and I'm leaving. If Dr. Somnath keeps trash talking the J-20, I'll be back.


Wrong...I have raised many legitimate points.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> *French Rafale has at least 21 non-stealth features*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this photograph of the French Rafale, I have incompletely labeled only 17 non-stealth features. The actual list is at least 21 non-stealth features. For example, the round engine nozzles, non-canted vertical stabilizer, non-saw toothed wheel bay doors, and lack of continuous curvature for the fuselage behind the cockpit are additional French Rafale non-stealth features.
> 
> It saddens me to see Mr. Somnath fall victim to French marketing. The French have made the silly claim that the Rafale is partially stealthy. Unfortunately, Mr. Somnath has swallowed the French propaganda. Aside from the partially stealthy S-duct, there are 20 fully non-stealthy features on the French Rafale.
> 
> In conclusion, the French Rafale suffers from 20 non-stealth features and one partial stealth feature. This means the French Rafale is just like any other non-stealthy 4th generation fighter.
> 
> ----------


LLLOLLLZ martian so u agrree my POV about rafale's canards stealth superiority & all those flaws i had posted in reply to our POV.
Is int.??? 
hey man when did i say rafale is a stealth plane ,it is a 4.5 GEN fighter
Dude even a new born baby knows rafale is a not stealth plane .But in order to divert attention or to hide ur defeat in debate ur unnecessary dragging Rafale into it .

But 1 thing i want to state is that rafale is much stealthier than all china"s 4th & 4.5 gen fighters .




Martian2 said:


> The diagram listing 21 stealth defects on the French Rafale is a clear contrast to the J-20 Mighty Dragon, which has none of the Rafale's 21 deficiencies. It is debatable whether the J-20 LOAN engine nozzles (like the F-35) count as a deficiency.


Loollz atleast it has much stealthier canard than J20 .& plz check ur eyes dude how can u say J20 nozzles same as F35



Martian2 said:


> Anyway, you haven't raised a legitimate point and I'm leaving.


no he have always raised legitimate point about j20 but u cant answer it . for that u need to have knowledege about stealth & aerodynamics which u dont have 



Martian2 said:


> If Dr. Somnath keeps trash talking the J-20, I'll be back.


llllollz u have also said that same thing earliear that i ll be back ,but what d^ck hair did u defend J20 but instead u pointed out flaws in rafale which everyone knows it is a not a stealth plane like J20.
This shows that u can only bark but cant bite


----------



## Aramsogo

Prahar007 said:


> Atleast Indian Physics has earned a noble prize


 
British India. Not India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## conworldus

Funny all these people trashing "Chinese physics", pltM3, gambit, and all the hindu trolls, are practically glued to this thread dedicated to the J-20. If the J-20 is so bad, why do all the experts consider it worth talking about?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> Funny all these *people trashing "Chinese physics", pltM3, gambit*, and all the hindu trolls, are practically *glued to this thread *dedicated to the J-20. If the J-20 is so bad, why do all the experts consider it worth talking about?



We arn't the ones who start it. It's PHDs with degrees in Chinese physics that start all of the trash talking. I usually never post anything in this thread unless someone claims something provocative and there is no shortage of Chinese PHDs that are itching for a fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sasquatch

Any WS-15 updates ?


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> Funny all these people trashing "Chinese physics", pltM3, gambit, and all the hindu trolls, are practically glued to this thread dedicated to the J-20. *If the J-20 is so bad*, why do all the experts consider it worth talking about?


Rather odd, I think. Who said the J-20 is 'bad'? What is 'good' or 'bad' is quite relative, meaning the object must be in comparison to another. So if the J-20's believers start making claims about it, those who are interested in the subject would naturally begin to make comparisons. Believers and critics alike. But this further confirms what I have been saying all along -- that you Chinese boys simply do not like to be challenged. I said it before and will repeat: Wait for more definitive data.

Still...











There is no denying the J-20's philosophical ancestry. The B-2's ancestry is the YB-49, not the B-52. The F-14, F-15, F-16, and the F-117 have no ancestry at all. The most standalone is the F-117. So for a claimed '5th gen' fighter, why is the J-20 so similar to the 1.44 and the Rafale?


----------



## conworldus

gambit said:


> Rather odd, I think. Who said the J-20 is 'bad'? What is 'good' or 'bad' is quite relative, meaning the object must be in comparison to another. So if the J-20's believers start making claims about it, those who are interested in the subject would naturally begin to make comparisons. Believers and critics alike. But this further confirms what I have been saying all along -- that you Chinese boys simply do not like to be challenged. I said it before and will repeat: Wait for more definitive data.
> 
> Still...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no denying the J-20's philosophical ancestry. The B-2's ancestry is the YB-49, not the B-52. The F-14, F-15, F-16, and the F-117 have no ancestry at all. The most standalone is the F-117. So for a claimed '5th gen' fighter, why is the J-20 so similar to the 1.44 and the Rafale?



For all your genius analysis, I have one answer to your question: I don't know.


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> For all your genius analysis, I have one answer to your question: I don't know.


My guess is that the Chinese engineers *NEEDED* a foundation for the J-20. The J-20 is certainly a more refined aircraft than the Rafale and the 1.44 in terms of surface sophistication, but in terms of major RCS contributors, similarly complex bodies will produce similar clusterings of RCS contributors. The difference would be the intensity levels of these contributors. This will make it difficult for the J-20 to go below a clean F-18E/F in terms of total RCS.


----------



## conworldus

gambit said:


> My guess is that the Chinese engineers *NEEDED* a foundation for the J-20. The J-20 is certainly a more refined aircraft than the Rafale and the 1.44 in terms of surface sophistication, but in terms of major RCS contributors, similarly complex bodies will produce similar clusterings of RCS contributors. The difference would be the intensity levels of these contributors. *This will make it difficult for the J-20 to go below a clean F-18E/F in terms of total RCS*.



I am just going to agree with you from now on. Everything.  Clearly Lockheed Martin missed hiring one of the greatest engineers!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nestea

J-20 2002#


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> I am just going to agree with you from now on. Everything.


  Wise decision. Would make for a discussion far less cluttered with worthless 'Chinese physics'.



conworldus said:


> Clearly Lockheed Martin missed hiring one of the greatest engineers!


Then perhaps Lockheed should start investigating 'Chinese physics', beginning with trolling anonymous Internet forums. Bound to discover new laws of nature. We could only wonder why China is not winning Nobels left and right.


----------



## homing28

2002


----------



## nomi007

New images of the Chengdu J-20 fifth generation stealth fighter often appear on the Chinese Internet.

Those published in this post were taken in the last few days at Chengdu airport and uploaded on one of the most interesting Chinese military forums.

It looks like a new prototype (fourth, based on the 2004 code of an image someone thinks may have been photoshopped&#8230 could soon fly along the first one, coded 2001, that has been involved in the testing activities since Jan. 11, 2011.

Here&#8217;s the image allegedly showing the J-20 coded 2004.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

nomi007 said:


> New images of the Chengdu J-20 fifth generation stealth fighter often appear on the Chinese Internet.
> 
> Those published in this post were taken in the last few days at Chengdu airport and uploaded on one of the most interesting Chinese military forums.
> 
> It looks like a new prototype (fourth, based on the 2004 code of an image someone thinks may have been photoshopped&#8230 could soon fly along the first one, coded 2001, that has been involved in the testing activities since Jan. 11, 2011.
> 
> Here&#8217;s the image allegedly showing the J-20 coded 2004.


it looks like anew prototype, 
if true then it,s a great news...


----------



## siegecrossbow

Second J-20 prototype is indeed out. Look at the designation:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pzkilo

siegecrossbow said:


> Second J-20 prototype is indeed out. Look at the designation:



Awesome~~~~

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> We arn't the ones who start it. It's PHDs with degrees in Chinese physics that start all of the trash talking. I usually never post anything in this thread unless someone claims something provocative and there is no shortage of Chinese PHDs that are itching for a fight.


 
Either your physics or math understanding is pathetic.

You dont even understand the difference between curve and sphere and cylinder; 
You also do not have clue about obtuse and reflect angle, etc.

You don't either have clue about how framed glass is formed


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Then *why not copy the F-22's layout*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unless...The J-20 is not a '5th generation' design.*
> 
> In RCS control, the major flight control elements are the first targets for contributorship reduction. In looking at the comparison above, the J-20 have one more radiator than the Rafale in having twin vertical stabilators. However, the Rafale's single vertical stab produces two corner reflectors while the J-20's twin vertical stabs produces no 90 deg corners. Similarly shaped and sized complex bodies will produce similar clusters of discrete radiators.
> 
> Like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The counter-argument would be: Why is the F-117, which look nothing like the B-2, have supposedly similar RCS to the B-2, and vice versa?
> 
> It is a legitimate argument and the appropriate response is that size have a direct effect on RCS as well as those discrete structures on a complex body. When Northrop designed the B-2, they did not referenced the F-117. Instead, they went back to its predecessor -- the YB-49. Northrop already knew of the flying wing's naturally low RCS and what stopped the YB-49 back then was the limits on flight control technology because the flying wing design was inherently more demanding to fly.
> 
> But for the F-117, Lockheed had nothing to referenced. No historical precedence for what they wanted to create. Lockheed had to start from scratch as far as complex bodies goes. The result is that the F-117 look nothing like anything in aviation history -- 100 yrs of it -- and unto today. What Lockheed did with the F-117 was pure understated genius. Grossly understated. And far more in terms of efforts than what CAC have done with the J-20.
> 
> So if the Rafale is not to be emulated, and you are using the word 'emulated' wrongly anyway, then why does the J-20 look so similar to the Rafale and the MIG 1.44?
> 
> The F-22 look nothing like the F-15. After the B-2 experience, it became obvious to the top military aviation companies that the demands of low radar observability would force them to discard many -- if not most -- of conventional wisdom regarding aircraft design. The F-22 is physically larger than the F-15. The F-22's reference was the F-117, not the F-15, when it comes to radar behaviors. Northrop's YF-23 also had nothing in common with the F-15 and also referenced the F-117 regarding radar behaviors.
> 
> And yet, the J-20 have striking physical similarities with the Rafale and the MIG 1.44 when it is boldly declared that the Rafale is not to be 'emulated'.




Your argumentation is SILLY.

Instead talking about the continuous curvature on fuselage shaping, you are arguing J-20's stealth performance on Wing Configuration.

This is another evidence about how clueless you are about Stealth. By your logic B-2, F-117 and F-35 is not really stealth since the wing configuration is not emulating that of F-22.

As the matter of fact J-20's shaping is emulating F-22 very much compared to PAKFA.

Internal carriage, continuous curvature of Fuselage, flat bottom fuselage, clean surface, hidden fan blade, etc is the base you should refer to judge whether the aircraft falls into Stealth category or not, instead of wing configuration.

There is no rule to avoid delta wing for being stealth.

I notice martian and many people do not care about your argument, since most of your argument is silly and baseless, just a bias claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> The great Gambit declares that the F-22 looks nothing like the F-15, but the J-20 looks like Rafale and Mig 1.44.
> 
> We are all blind except gambit! Heil gambit!


 Fine...Perhaps 'look nothing' was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. Still...

Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

If the F-15 was the F-22's parent, Metz would have mentioned it.

Take note of Metz's comment on the history of 'stealth' evolution...



> ...evolution from the first generation stealth aircraft represented by the SR-71 and A-12. Second generation stealth as evidenced by the F-117 had yet to allow aerodynamic efficiency to co-exist with stealth. Only with the third generation of stealth inherent in the B-2 bomber were we able to achieve efficient aerodynamic shapes with a low radar signature.


The F-15's layout was proven to the most efficient for what it was designed to be. At best, it was a combination of the F-15, F-117, and the B-2 that gave US the F-22. Not the F-15 alone. Many analysts even included the YF-12A, the cousin of the SR-71, as a member of the F-22's history.

But you can take LM's word for it...


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Either your physics or math understanding is pathetic.
> 
> You dont even understand the difference between curve and sphere and cylinder;
> You also do not have clue about obtuse and reflect angle, etc.
> 
> You don't either have clue about how framed glass is formed


O, Believer of 'Chinese physics'...

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page


> When a high-frequency electromagnetic wave strikes a smooth curved object at grazing incidence on the convex side, surface ray fields are excited. The surface ray propagates along the surface in a manner determined by the usual differential equations for rays on a surface. Therefore, in a homogeneous medium it is an arc of a geodesic path on the surface. The surface ray propagating on the convex smooth surface known as creeping wave sheds a diffracted ray, satisfying the law of surface diffraction at every point on the surface. All properties of surface diffracted rays follow from generalized Fermet's principle for surface diffraction. Smooth and convex surfaces such as the sphere and the infinite cylinder have been considered by Keller and Levy and surface diffraction coefficients and attenuation constants were obtained.


Did you know that the above paper made you look like a fool regarding spheres, cylinders, and curvatures? You do not understand? We feel sorry for you, just a little bit, anyway...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Either your physics or math understanding is pathetic.
> 
> You dont even understand the difference between curve and sphere and cylinder;
> You also do not have clue about obtuse and reflect angle, etc.
> 
> You don't either have clue about how framed glass is formed




Yes you are right i don&#8217;t know what a curve, sphere and cylinder is. I was born yesterday. The problem is not me but you and your piss poor reading comprehension.


And I don&#8217;t know how framed glass is formed or perhaps that you are a liar in denial? The entire argument was you claiming the pak-fa&#8217;s &#8216;frame&#8217; overlaps the canopy. You had no proof to back that claim, even when I posted high resolutions photographs of the canopy you still were in denial claiming that there is an overlap when high resolutions pictures busted your claim. Like I said a recessed canopy must be a new concept for you.


And an FYI even F-22 and J-20 have a &#8216;metal strip&#8217; in the canopies, except this strip is located beneath the canopy and is especially made to be strong because it locks the canopies into place. So where do you see an overlap in the F-22 &#8216;metal frame&#8217;? And where do you see an over lap in the pa-fa&#8217;s frame? The simple question is that you don&#8217;t.


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> Fine...Perhaps 'look nothing' was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. Still...


IS THAT SO THEN CHECK THIS OUT 


This the French Wind Tunnel model of the Rafale 




compared to the model tested by China in their Wind Tunnel.


----------



## conworldus

That's a CCTV news reporting about the Rafale. They are the same. You fail 



DrSomnath999 said:


> IS THAT SO THEN CHECK THIS OUT
> 
> 
> This the French Wind Tunnel model of the Rafale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compared to the model tested by China in their Wind Tunnel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> That's a CCTV news reporting about the Rafale. They are the same. You fail


Amazon.com: Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed (9780316743006): Ben R. Rich, Leo Janos: Books

Ben Rich was very open about how much Lockheed poached components and even entire systems from the F-15, F-16, and F-18 to build the prototypes of their 'stealth' aircrafts. Unashamedly. And yet not once did he stated that the F-15 had any significant contributorship to the development of his 'stealth' aircrafts other than to be a parts donor.











So where did the J-20 came from? Looks like the 1.44 and the Rafale coupled and whelped the J-20.

It is so funny that if a Chinese make a claim about the J-20 based upon pure sight and a healthy dose of imagination, it is quickly applauded and the rest of the Chinese crowd tripped over each other to 'Thank' him for a 'useful' post. And yet when an American do the same but not to the Chinese's liking...The kitty claws came out...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> O, Believer of 'Chinese physics'...
> 
> IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page
> 
> Did you know that the above paper made you look like a fool regarding spheres, cylinders, and curvatures? You do not understand? We feel sorry for you, just a little bit, anyway...



I know exactly what the article is saying about; in fact I suspect you have no clue regarding the article you quoted above.
You obviously just drag article arbitrarily without understanding the relevance with the topic discussed here

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> *I know exactly what the article is saying about*; in fact I suspect you have no clue regarding the article you quoted above.
> You obviously just drag article arbitrarily without understanding the relevance with the topic discussed here


I doubt that. You did not even know 'dB' is used in EM measurement. So it is the readers who are laughing at your fumblings and mublings.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Yes you are right i don&#8217;t know what a curve, sphere and cylinder is. I was born yesterday. The problem is not me but you and your piss poor reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> And I don&#8217;t know how framed glass is formed or perhaps that you are a liar in denial? The entire argument was you claiming the pak-fa&#8217;s &#8216;frame&#8217; overlaps the canopy. You had no proof to back that claim, even when I posted high resolutions photographs of the canopy you still were in denial claiming that there is an overlap when high resolutions pictures busted your claim. Like I said a recessed canopy must be a new concept for you.



Thats why you dont know what you are claiming when you said the metal frame is flush with the glass, as you dont know what the frame on the glass is for and how it is formed on the glass.

I cannot drag evidence from shukhoi, but if you understand and by the logic it should be formed by wrapping the edge of the glass as i explained to you. Technically this is the most feasible way to create the frame in purpose to enforce the glass structure. 

Maybe Shukhoi/Rusia has better way to create frame by very super strong glue that guarantee it will give the same performance as the current way (wrapping the edge of the glass), therefore it is flush with the glass; but you have to bring the evidence; otherwise the frame should be the same with those on other canopy of planes.



> And an FYI even F-22 and J-20 have a &#8216;metal strip&#8217; in the canopies, except this strip is located beneath the canopy and is especially made to be strong because it locks the canopies into place. So where do you see an overlap in the F-22 &#8216;metal frame&#8217;? And where do you see an over lap in the pa-fa&#8217;s frame? The simple question is that you don&#8217;t.


 
Since it is located beneath it is not exposed to ground radar; even if exposed the detrimental is still relatively small compared to the metal frame canopy.



gambit said:


> I doubt that. You did not even know 'dB' is used in EM measurement. So it is the readers who are laughing at your fumblings and mublings.



That is only your baseless accusation; there is no evidence except your suspicion.

By fact there are countless of your misconception and clueless that have been proved in these 2 threads

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

By gambit logic, *F-15 Eagle should be much more stealthy than Rafale/Eurofighter Typhoon/J-20*, as F-15 wing configuration is not delta wing, therefore much closer to F-22's wing configuration than that of Rafale/Eurofighter/J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SinoChallenger

gambit said:


> So where did the J-20 came from? Looks like the 1.44 and the Rafale coupled and whelped the J-20.
> 
> It is so funny that if a Chinese make a claim about the J-20 based upon pure sight and a healthy dose of imagination, it is quickly applauded and the rest of the Chinese crowd tripped over each other to 'Thank' him for a 'useful' post. And yet when an American do the same but not to the Chinese's liking...The kitty claws came out...


LOL at the USAF enlisted maintenance worker comparing J-20 to non-existent Mig 1.44 and external weapons carriage, single vertical stabilizer Rafale. Ironically ignoring the 4th generation aircraft J-20 really evolved from -- the J-10 from the same Chengdu Aircraft Company!

This Western-worshipping Vietnamese has finally become indian. Congratulations gambit, jai hind!





antonius123 said:


> I know exactly what the article is saying about; in fact I suspect you have no clue regarding the article you quoted above.
> You obviously just drag article arbitrarily without understanding the relevance with the topic discussed here


That enlisted maintenance worker who talks like he's a chief aircraft designer is a joke. He just copies and pastes irrelevant excerpts from engineering texts. I guess that's what you spew when you are a Sinophobic Vietnamese-American jealous of the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> That is only your baseless accusation; there is no evidence except your suspicion.


No it is not. The evidence is right here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eady-doing-whole-lot-more-42.html#post2751770

*YOU* did not know that 'dB' is a measurement method for large ratios.



antonius123 said:


> By fact there are countless of your misconception and clueless that have been proved in these 2 threads


There is no 'fact' about it. You are new here so you are excused from knowing that I encourage people to double check my arguments. To date, no one, not even the Chinese boys, have provided proof that my sources are wrong and that my arguments are flawed. What you call 'misconceptions' on my part are *YOURS*, who did not even know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.

So tell us, since you claimed to have aviation experience, what was it?



SinoChallenged said:


> LOL at the USAF enlisted maintenance worker comparing J-20 to non-existent Mig 1.44 and single vertical stabilizer Rafale. Ironically ignoring the 4th generation aircraft J-20 really evolved from -- the J-10 from the same Chengdu Aircraft Company!
> 
> This Western-worshipping Vietnamese has finally become indian. Congratulations gambit, jai hind!
> 
> 
> 
> That enlisted maintenance worker who talks like he's a chief aircraft designer is a joke. He just copies and pastes irrelevant excerpts from engineering texts. I guess that's what you spew when you are a Sinophobic Vietnamese-American jealous of the J-20.


And so the conscript reject try to cover for his equally ignorant and no experience friends.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No it is not. The evidence is right here...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eady-doing-whole-lot-more-42.html#post2751770
> 
> *YOU* did not know that 'dB' is a measurement method for large ratios.



Which sentence of mine that saying dB is not a measurement method for large ratios there? none! only your suspicion or twisting my mouth.

I did not say about that; I was questioning your point regarding the vague picture you drag to proof you claim that 120 degree corner = corner reflector too, and until now you fail to prove that claim 




> There is no 'fact' about it. You are new here so you are excused from knowing that I encourage people to double check my arguments. To date, no one, not even the Chinese boys, have provided proof that my sources are wrong and that my arguments are flawed. What you call 'misconceptions' on my part are *YOURS*, who did not even know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.
> 
> So tell us, since you claimed to have aviation experience, what was it?
> 
> 
> And so the conscript reject try to cover for his equally ignorant and no experience friends.


 
You are twisting my argument again; I never said that your source was wrong! I said your understanding and concept are wrong! and that you just drag article and vague picture arbitrarily without understanding the content and subject.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Which sentence of mine that saying dB is not a measurement method for large ratios there? none! only your suspicion or twisting my mouth.


If you did not know it, then of course you did not say it. But the truth is that the debate is about EM, not sound, so for you to respond the way you did mean you were ignorant about it.



antonius123 said:


> I did not say about that; I was questioning your point regarding the vague picture you drag to proof you claim that 120 degree corner = corner reflector too, and until now you fail to prove that claim


 Of course I proved that a 120 deg corner is corner reflector. It is only *YOUR* limited understanding that a 'corner reflector' *MUST* be 90 deg.

So here it is again...












Those are radiation pattern measurements of 60, 90, and 120 deg. corner reflectors. People who are far smarter than you would not have provided such information unless the 60 and 120 are not corner reflectors, which they are. You do know what radiation pattern measurement does, right?





antonius123 said:


> You are twisting my argument again; I never said that your source was wrong! I said your understanding and concept are wrong! and that you just drag article and vague picture arbitrarily without understanding the content and subject.


So what kind of aviation experience do *YOU* have? People here know mine and others. Why not enlighten us with your experience? We welcome people of diverse aviation experience. Or is it that you are scared sh!tless of being busted being a fraud?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> If you did not know it, then of course you did not say it. But the truth is that the debate is about EM, not sound, so for you to respond the way you did mean you were ignorant about it.



 it is only your assumption.
Say nothing doesn't always mean doesnt know.




> Of course I proved that a 120 deg corner is corner reflector. It is only *YOUR* limited understanding that a 'corner reflector' *MUST* be 90 deg.
> 
> So here it is again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are radiation pattern measurements of 60, 90, and 120 deg. corner reflectors. People who are far smarter than you would not have provided such information unless the 60 and 120 are not corner reflectors, which they are. You do know what radiation pattern measurement does, right?



I have told you that the corner reflector mentioned in that vague picture may not refer to the corner reflector that returning the wave back to its origin. Bring us solid evidence that you terribly lack so far!

No evidence you have brought except vague picture + your own bias explanation 



> So what kind of aviation experience do *YOU* have? People here know mine and others. Why not enlighten us with your experience? We welcome people of diverse aviation experience. Or is it that you are scared sh!tless of being busted being a fraud?



 only clueless indians with substandard physics understanding who fall for your claim that you are an expert.

Aviation was one of my study. Maintenance experience (if true that you have experience in it) only guarantee you the practical knowledge in the field, but wont make you to have the right concept and understanding if you do not learn correctly.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> it is only your assumption.
> Say nothing doesn't always mean doesnt know.


You are busted. Again. There was no 'assumption' on my part. The debate is about EM and you brought up sound. You did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.



antonius123 said:


> I have told you that the corner reflector mentioned in that vague picture may not refer to the corner reflector that returning the wave back to its origin. Bring us solid evidence!
> 
> No evidence you have brought except vague picture + your own bias explanation


 What a weak response. News for you, 'Chinese physics' believer...






The above is a 'pentagonal corner reflector' and the sides are *NOT* 90 deg to each other. There are hexagonal corner reflectors as well. All corner reflectors direct back to source direction but there are times when we do not want the strongest, which is the 90 deg. So we use more 'diffused' designs. In weapons testing, different designs help calibrate the weapon's seeker radar.

You are busted for being stubbornly ignorant. Again.



antonius123 said:


> *Aviation was one of my study.* Maintenance experience (if true that you have experience in it) only guarantee you the practical knowledge in the field, but doesn't guarantee you to understand the right concept and understanding.


Study? Is that it?  So how far was this 'study'? Past the introduction in the text book and you found that it was too difficult for you?



antonius123 said:


> I am not an aerospace engineer, but for sure *my aviation background* is much much better than clueless ignorant child like you



First it was 'background' and now it is 'study'. Make up your mind. You are a fake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You are busted. Again. There was no 'assumption' on my part. The debate is about EM and you brought up sound. You did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.



If you think say nothing = must always doesnt know then you are narrow minded.

You just accuse without evidence; means you are playing with your own assumption.




> What a weak response. News for you, 'Chinese physics' believer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is a 'pentagonal corner reflector' and the sides are *NOT* 90 deg to each other. There are hexagonal corner reflectors as well. All corner reflectors direct back to source direction but there are times when we do not want the strongest, which is the 90 deg. So we use more 'diffused' designs. In weapons testing, different designs help calibrate the weapon's seeker radar.
> 
> You are busted for being stubbornly ignorant. Again.



This is again demonstrating your idiocy and clueless about corner reflector.

The corner reflector that the picture indicates should refer to the 90 degree one (the one that face upward), not the 120 degree "side ones" that form hexagon shape 

Btw your picture credibility is questionable, as the one in that picture is Hexagon not Pentagon




> Study? Is that it?  So how far was this 'study'? Past the introduction in the text book and you found that it was too difficult for you?


Quite sufficient to know either you are clueless or a liar 



> First it was 'background' and now it is 'study'. Make up your mind. You are a fake.



My background since it is my study as well :p


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> If you think say nothing = must always doesnt know then you are narrow minded.


No...You responded with 'sound' when the discussion is about EM. You did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.



antonius123 said:


> This is again demonstrating your idiocy and clueless about corner reflector.
> 
> The corner reflector that the picture indicates should refer to the 90 degree one (the one that face upward), not the 120 degree ones that form hexagon shape
> 
> Btw your picture credibility is questionable, as the one in that picture is Hexagon not Pentagon


More lameness. A corner reflector is shaped to concentrate and to be directional. There is nothing to say that a corner reflector *MUST* be 90 deg. You must be very stupid because it is not that difficult to use keyword searches to verify what I say.



antonius123 said:


> Quite sufficient to know either you are clueless or you are a liar
> 
> My background since it is my study as well :p


So the truth is that you have *NO* aviation experience at all. You are a fraud.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No...You responded with 'sound' when the discussion is about EM. You did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.


Because you were only bringing vague picture; dont blame me if I assumed/suspected you were making another misconception by mixing the sound wave with EM wave.




> More lameness. A corner reflector is shaped to concentrate and to be directional. There is nothing to say that a corner reflector *MUST* be 90 deg. You must be very stupid because it is not that difficult to use keyword searches to verify what I say.


I have showed you solid evidence + solid diagram according to physics rule. While you are bringing nothing except claim and vague picture.

Should I repost the diagram and solid evidence to remind you? 




> So the truth is that you have *NO* aviation experience at all. You are a fraud.


I never claim experience. It is you that claim your self experienced one but demonstrating clueless, making people suspect you were a big liar.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Because you were only bringing vague picture; dont blame me if I assumed/suspected you were making another misconception by mixing the sound wave with EM wave.
> 
> I have showed you solid evidence + solid diagram according to physics rule. While you are bringing nothing except claim and vague picture.
> 
> Should I repost the diagram and solid evidence to remind you?


Yeah...Keep going with that 'vague picture' garbage.



antonius123 said:


> *I never claim experience.* It is you that claim your self experienced one but demonstrating clueless, making people suspect you were a big liar.


Nope...You just made it bigger with 'background'. When people said 'background', they usually mean to include experience. No one asks for the name of the company you worked for. No one care because those things can be made up. But what cannot be made up is experience and that will reflect in how you present your arguments. The less experience you have, the less people will take you seriously. So first you lied about your 'background', then your arguments revealed that you did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement, now you have to back off and resort to 'study' when pressed about your 'background'.

You are a fraud. And the Chinese 'Thanked' you for your 'useful' posts.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Yeah...Keep going with that 'vague picture' garbage.



Loose again ehm?? 

Nice try, but you failed again to prove that 120 degree corner is corner reflector, even you were demonstrating clueless about the corner reflector and hexagon 



> Nope...You just made it bigger with 'background'. When people said 'background', they usually mean to include experience. No one asks for the name of the company you worked for. No one care because those things can be made up.


Background can refer to educational background honey 



> But what cannot be made up is experience and that will reflect in how you present your arguments. The less experience you have, the less people will take you seriously. So first you lied about your 'background', then your arguments revealed that you did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement, now you have to back off and resort to 'study' when pressed about your 'background'.
> 
> You are a fraud. And the Chinese 'Thanked' you for your 'useful' posts.


 

If this is true, then you are a liar because of having demonstrating countless clueless about a lot of things here.

How come the maintenance guy doesn't know about nacelle? and airduct?? etc? 

I do not need to care your wall of ignorance regarding my dB explanation.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> You are busted. Again. There was no 'assumption' on my part. The debate is about EM and you brought up sound. You did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.
> 
> 
> What a weak response. News for you, 'Chinese physics' believer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is a 'pentagonal corner reflector' and the sides are *NOT* 90 deg to each other. There are hexagonal corner reflectors as well. All corner reflectors direct back to source direction but there are times when we do not want the strongest, which is the 90 deg. So we use more 'diffused' designs. In weapons testing, different designs help calibrate the weapon's seeker radar.
> 
> You are busted for being stubbornly ignorant. Again.
> 
> 
> Study? Is that it?  So how far was this 'study'? Past the introduction in the text book and you found that it was too difficult for you?
> 
> 
> 
> First it was 'background' and now it is 'study'. Make up your mind. You are a fake.




Man I had enough of this utter nonsense. 

He hasn't brought forward a single argument of even a true (even laughable) position. He just refutes and opposes everyone elses.. this is a childish joke. 

It is clear ..
he has no aviation experience. 
he has no engineering experience
he has no basic physics knowledge 
he has no military experience 

he has not even the faintest idea of what he is talking about. He just plays with words like a little kid. 

every time he demands evidence and it is provided, he just claims the evidence is garbage and WE don't understand what we are posting. 

This is enough nonsense and if nothing else is hurting the J-20 supporters credibility too. 

He refuses to acknowledge angles, shapes, schematics, basic principles and real hard photographic and text evidence with sources .. 

what more do you want, the guy is %&$£%"ed .. !!!


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Man I had enough of this utter nonsense.
> 
> He hasn't brought forward a single argument of even a true (even laughable) position. He just refutes and opposes everyone elses.. this is a childish joke. tr
> 
> It is clear ..
> he has no aviation experience.
> he has no engineering experience
> he has no basic physics knowledge
> he has no military experience
> 
> he has not even the faintest idea of what he is talking about. He just plays with words like a little kid.
> 
> every time he demands evidence and it is provided, he just claims the evidence is garbage and WE don't understand what we are posting.
> 
> This is enough nonsense and if nothing else is hurting the J-20 supporters credibility too.
> 
> He refuses to acknowledge angles, shapes, schematics, basic principles and real hard photographic and text evidence with sources ..
> 
> what more do you want, the guy is %&$£%"ed .. !!!



The one who has no experience, no knowledge, and no brain here is you.

The one who lack experience and knowledge and sufficient iq here is gambit


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> The one who has no experience, no knowledge, and no brain here is you.
> 
> The one who lack experience and knowledge and sufficient iq here is gambit



In what way kid? I am asking you again, prove your background and your knowledge..


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> In what way kid? I am asking you again, prove your background and your knowledge..



In a lot of ways kid. Your argument is empty. compared to you with your clueless my background is much more solid by far.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> In a lot of ways kid. *Your argument is empty*. compared to you with your clueless my background is much more solid by far.



Really ? 

Once again you are NOT answering anything. You are full of talk but no juice. Which argument of mine is empty ? which one? 
point it out ! say this is the one that is empty ! this is where you are wrong for this and this reason etc. 

Tell us, where your background comes from and what it is you're experienced in! We have identified our backgrounds.. time for yours..


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Really ?
> 
> Once again you are NOT answering anything. You are full of talk but no juice. Which argument of mine is empty ? which one?
> point it out ! say this is the one that is empty ! this is where you are wrong for this and this reason etc.
> 
> Tell us, where your background comes from and what it is you're experienced in! We have identified our backgrounds.. time for yours..



I am bored with stupidity. Could you bring anything smarter?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I am bored with stupidity. Could you bring anything smarter?



No kid, sooner or later everybody has to put their money where their mouth is, and you haven't !!! 

Everytime you are called out, you fail to respond and you come back with nonsense such as "i am bored with this and that" ..

Either you come out and you prove what you say, or you are just a joke... you can't have it both ways..


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> No kid, sooner or later everybody has to put their money where their mouth is, and you haven't !!!
> 
> Everytime you are called out, you fail to respond and you come back with nonsense such as "i am bored with this and that" ..
> 
> Either you come out and you prove what you say, or you are just a joke... you can't have it both ways..


 
You are shameless!

It is you who are not able to prove all your claim and failed to response my challenge.

Where is the proof of your latest failed claim that there is conventional radar that could detect STEALTH at distance 4700km?? this is only one of your failed claim from many!


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You are shameless!
> 
> It is you who are not able to prove all your claim and failed to response my challenge.
> 
> Where is the proof of your latest failed claim that there is conventional radar that could detect STEALTH at distance 4700km?? this is only one of your failed claim from many!


Did you know that we have a 'radar range' that could...Wait...You do know what a 'radar range' is, right...??? How about a 'compass swing' on a 'compass rose'? How do these things affect navigation? Ever been in a 'hush house'?  Yeah...Buddy...You are busted big time.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Did you know that we have a 'radar range' that could...Wait...You do know what a 'radar range' is, right...??? How about a 'compass swing' on a 'compass rose'? How do these things affect navigation? Ever been in a 'hush house'?  Yeah...Buddy...You are busted big time.



Havent you learnt some lesson having been beaten up severely many times for your being clueless?

I am afraid you dont know what you are talking about; just as you dont know what the picture and quoted articles you were dragging in many threads are saying about


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I am afraid you dont know what you are talking about; just as you dont know what the picture and quoted articles you were dragging in many threads are saying about



The radar is called SBX-1, and is part of the GMD of the MDA, what is your problem? you cannot look up things ? Do you not have sources ? 

Where is the proof for your arguments kid? 

We are all still waiting ..


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> The radar is called SBX-1, and is part of the GMD of the MDA, what is your problem? you cannot look up things ?



Where is the proof saying SBX-1 could detect stealth object at distance 4700km as you claim!



> Do you not have sources ?



Aren't you shameless with this moron statement?

It is the claimer's obligation to bring credible source as the proof! non me.



> Where is the proof for your arguments kid?
> 
> We are all still waiting ..


Which of my arguments that I havent bring proof?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Havent you learnt some lesson having been beaten up severely many times for your being clueless?
> 
> I am afraid you dont know what you are talking about; just as you dont know what the picture and quoted articles you were dragging in many threads are saying about



the only one who should be taught is you!


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> the only one who should be taught is you!



Where is the proof then?? are you able to prove or not?


----------



## amalakas

to prove what? tell me



antonius123 said:


> Where is the proof saying SBX-1 could detect *stealth object* at distance 4700km as you claim!
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you shameless with this moron statement?
> 
> It is the claimer's obligation to bring credible source as the proof! non me.
> 
> 
> Which of my arguments that I havent bring proof?




fine

there you go, 

Raytheon Company: Sea-based X-Band Radar (SBX)


and 

Sea-Based X-band (SBX) Radar - Video

oh and I said a baseball sized ball ..not a stealth target , it may mean similar but don't change my words..


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> to prove what? tell me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fine
> 
> there you go,
> 
> Raytheon Company: Sea-based X-Band Radar (SBX)
> 
> 
> and
> 
> Sea-Based X-band (SBX) Radar - Video
> 
> oh and I said a baseball sized ball ..not a stealth target , it may mean similar but don't change my words..



Obviously you are getting hard time to bring prove for what you have claimed.

In which part of the article saying this SBX could detect Stealth air fighter at distance 4700km? I do not find any statement in those source saying that this SBX could do so....as per your claim

Besides it is not awacs nor radar on fighter that ptldm3 claim could detect stealth fighter like J-20; it is still very much powerful ground radar. You lost the point.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Obviously you are getting hard time to bring prove for what you have claimed.
> 
> In which part of the article saying this SBX could detect Stealth air fighter at distance 4700km? I do not find any statement in those source saying that this SBX could do so....as per your claim
> 
> Besides it is not awacs nor radar on fighter that ptldm3 claim could detect stealth fighter like J-20; it is still very much powerful ground radar. You lost the point.



You have a hard time taking something on your own and tracing it.. I trust you don't have a hard time reading too. 

http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/sbx_booklet.pdf


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> You have a hard time taking something on your own and tracing it.. I trust you don't have a hard time reading too.
> 
> http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/sbx_booklet.pdf



Why dont you quote the sentence in that booklet saying so, instead ask other to read whole booklet. 



amalakas said:


> You have a hard time taking something on your own and tracing it.. I trust you don't have a hard time reading too.
> 
> http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/sbx_booklet.pdf



Why dont you quote the sentence in that booklet saying so, instead ask other to read whole booklet.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Why dont you quote the sentence in that booklet saying so, instead ask other to read whole booklet.
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you quote the sentence in that booklet saying so, instead ask other to read whole booklet.



Why should I ? Everyone in this forum is expected to be able to read. What kind of mentality is this you have ? 
The proof is there, from the most official lips.. 

where is your arguments' proof ?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Why should I ? Everyone in this forum is expected to be able to read. What kind of mentality is this you have ?
> The proof is there, from the most official lips..
> 
> where is your arguments' proof ?



Bringing evidence is your obligation not mine. It is your irresponsible mentality that is the problem, not mine.

If you just drag article without capability to explain and quote specific statement in that article as your proof then it means nothing! everybody could drag any articles arbitrarily that he think support his claim but as the matter of fact doesn't at all.

Besides everybody could spend their time reading the whole article, but they may not receive the same understanding as yours.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Bringing evidence is your obligation not mine. It is your irresponsible mentality that is the problem, not mine.
> 
> If you just drag article without capability to quote specific statement in that article as your proof then your effort means nothing!
> 
> Besides everybody could spend their time reading the whole article, but they may not receive the same understanding as yours.



I acknowledge my obligation and link the MDA document. it is there for everyone to read. People who do not have my understanding are not my concern. I sympathise but I cannot help. What is my concern is people who come on public fora and claim things that are simply not real.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I acknowledge my obligation and link the MDA document. it is there for everyone to read. People who do not have my understanding are not my concern. I sympathise but I cannot help. What is my concern is people who come on public fora and claim things that are simply not real.


 
It is not enough and irresponsible!

You could bring hundred or thousand articles here as your effort to bring evidence, but not everyone would have time to read the whole hundred/thousands articles that you drag here irresponsibly.

That is not the way to prove responsibly.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> It is not enough and irresponsible!
> 
> You could bring hundred or thousand articles here as your effort to bring evidence, but not everyone would have time to read the whole hundred/thousands articles that you drag here irresponsibly.
> 
> That is not the way to prove responsibly.



Get used to it, that is how knowledgeable people interact at a certain level. And don't change the subject.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Get used to it, that is how knowledgeable people interact at a certain level. And don't change the subject.



If you think knowledgeable people = those who are unable to prove then no wonder if you share simillar behaviour with those who live in delusion.

Everybody could act like you by claiming himself expert and drag bulshitt here


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> If you think knowledgeable people = those who are unable to prove then no wonder if you share simillar behaviour with those who live in delusion.
> 
> Everybody could act like you by claiming himself expert and drag bulshitt here



I drag bullshit? I have provided proof and your objection is that I don't quote the specific line??? 
You clearly are a joke.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I drag bullshit? I have provided proof and your objection is that I don't quote the specific line???
> You clearly are a joke.


Basically, what this loser mean is that no matter how much supporting arguments knowledgeable people bring in, the only thing he can do to save his sorry face is to simply dismiss them all. People with a sense of shame would have left the discussion a long time ago, even the Chinese boys knew when to back off when their ignorance and errors exposed. This kid simply have no shame.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I drag bullshit? I have provided proof and your objection is that I don't quote the specific line???
> You clearly are a joke.



You bring nothing here except claim with link article without explanation where it support your claim



gambit said:


> Basically, what this loser mean is that no matter how much supporting arguments knowledgeable people bring in, the only thing he can do to save his sorry face is to simply dismiss them all. People with a sense of shame would have left the discussion a long time ago, even the Chinese boys knew when to back off when their ignorance and errors exposed. This kid simply have no shame.



What you are bringing is vague picture and arbitrary article without relevance to the topics; the latest case is your vague picture of hexagon corner reflection which you did not understand where the corner reflector lied and even you did know the shape is not pentagonal at all 

There are many blunder and terrible mistakes that you have demonstrated here, i cant mentioned them all since it is countless, but evidence posted in this thread and the other one.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You bring nothing here except claim *with link article* without explanation where it support your claim
> 
> 
> 
> What you are bringing is vague picture and arbitrary article without relevance to the topics; the latest case is your vague picture of hexagon corner reflection which you did not understand where the corner reflector lied and even you did know the shape is not pentagonal at all
> 
> There are many blunder and terrible mistakes that you have demonstrated here, i cant mentioned them all since it is countless, but evidence posted in this thread and the other one.



Not an article.. a brochure from MDA itself!


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Not an article.. a brochure from MDA itself!



Makes no difference, since you are unable to prove except drag article/brochure without ability to explain where and how those support your claim


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Makes no difference, since you are unable to prove except drag article/brochure without ability to explain where and how those support your claim



Ok, if you don't want to understand, let me play your game.. eventually you won't be able to hide anymore you know.

there you go, I have even underlined it for you, so you don't have to get tired looking..






My point is there is a Radar that can track a baseball sized object from 4700km away, the proof is in the previous link I posted the MDA brochure on SBX-1 itself, that is not enough for you, there is page 4 of the same brochure with the lines that illustrate the point highlighted.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Ok, if you don't want to understand, let me play your game.. eventually you won't be able to hide anymore you know.
> 
> there you go, I have even underlined it for you, so you don't have to get tired looking..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is there is a Radar that can track a baseball sized object from 4700km away, the proof is in the previous link I posted the MDA brochure on SBX-1 itself, that is not enough for you, there is page 4 of the same brochure with the lines that illustrate the point highlighted.



Good! that is the proper way to bring evidence, at least you learn something here.

Now back to the discussion; 

1. My question to you: how effective this radar could be used againts stealth fighter like F-22 / J-20?
2. It is not Airborne radar, therefore your and your friends argument that AWACS and Fighter radar could detect stealth fighter effectively is wrong. There is airborne system to detect F-22 stealth but so far i know it is still in progress


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Good! that is the proper way to bring evidence, at least you learn something here.
> 
> Now back to the discussion;
> 
> 1. My question to you: how effective this radar could be used againts stealth fighter like F-22 / J-20?
> 2. It is not Airborne radar, therefore your and your friends argument that AWACS and Fighter radar could detect stealth fighter effectively is wrong.



Haha and haha 

and to answer you questions... 

1. This radar tracks a baseball sized target at 2500miles.. that means it will see a J-20 at roughly that distance give or take a few miles (not counting curvature) .
2. It doesn't matter it is not an airborne radar .. my argument was about that radar, just to illustrate your ignorance on the topic of radars. AWACS and Fighter radars have excellent ranges and tracking capabilities. Depends on model and version.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Haha and haha
> 
> and to answer you questions...
> 
> 1. This radar tracks a baseball sized target at 2500miles.. that means it will see a J-20 at roughly that distance give or take a few miles (not counting curvature) .



Is there any claim that this SBX-1 radar could be effectively detect and track stealt a/c like F-22??



> 2. It doesn't matter it is not an airborne radar .. my argument was about that radar, just to illustrate your ignorance on the topic of radars. AWACS and Fighter radars have excellent ranges and tracking capabilities. Depends on model and version.



You miss my point.

If you want to detect stealth air craft, there are some solution like: passive radar, or bistatic radar, including the kind of radar using ionosfir to reflect the wave that i have mentioned to you before, so even F-22 is also vulnerable to them. Also like i said: stealth doesnt mean guarantee to be free of detection at all. So the ability to detect stealth is not my point there.

If this radar is so effective, then not only J-20 is render useless - even F-22 will be also a waste of money


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Is there any claim that this SBX-1 radar could be effectively detect and track stealt a/c like F-22??


If there is, why should we make it known?



antonius123 said:


> You miss my point.
> 
> If you want to detect stealth air craft, there are some solution like: passive radar, or bistatic radar, including the kind of radar using ionosfir to reflect the wave that i have mentioned to you before, so even F-22 is also vulnerable to them. Also like i said: stealth doesnt mean guarantee to be free of detection at all. So the ability to detect stealth is not my point there.
> 
> If this radar is so effective, then not only J-20 is render useless - even F-22 will be also a waste of money


This goes to further confirm your stupidity in this discussion.

First, you could not explain the basics of these systems.

Second, not all radar systems are identical. The Soviets/Russians are known to be inferior to US in this area, even to today. So just because some country can field an AWACS that does not mean its capability is comparable to ours.

Third, so what if these systems of ours can detect an F-22? If anything, may be you should worry that our systems can detect the F-22, because if we can detect the F-22, we certainly can detect the J-20. So guess who really wasted their money? Not US.

Finally, we do know how to detect and track 'stealth'. See if you are smart enough to even have an educated guess. And no, am *NOT* talking about bi-static or atmospheric deflections.


----------



## stardave

Ok, so I read this post from page 100 to now, and there is only 1 thing I would like to say.... guys, don't argue with gambit, it is like trying to win the special Olympic, even if you win, you still feel handicapped.

I see he is using all the old school 4chan troll tactics, you bring up the argument such as Iris is not stealthy, he respond by saying so is the bubble canopy because they are both the same shape... But at what point does he not realize both plane have canopy, but only one of them have the iris prob, and when he realize this, of course the next argument is the iris prob is too small so it won't matter. And if that fails he says well, since we are all armatures so you don't know for certain it will have a negative effect, so yes you would be wrong. I mean, this is like going in circles over and over again.

And when all else fails, he respond by ignore the question and question your own posting history, and if all else fails, he always play the race card, or "Chinese physic" in fact I see by page 110 every post he made were always started by insulting your intelligence, point out how stupid you are, then he will try his best to derail your point with circle logic, and maybe, maybe if you are lucky he will offer some new points.

Oh yeah, he use to work with F-16 so that make him the authority.

He used to bring out some good points around page 100, but as it goes on I can feel his sanity is slipping, by page 127 when he said J-20 will not be as stealthy as the F-18, and J-20 is a copy from Mig 1:44 and Rafael, I know he have finally lost his mind. Or rather, did he had it in 1st place?

Seriously guys, let him win the argument, don't post anything anymore, just tell him PAK-FA is the best there is, it beats J-20 in every way possible, and only reason Chinese made or in his logic "steal/copy/clone/hack" because Chinese is in no possible way can produce their own, so they have to steal from Russia and France.

Just let him win.

Oh and yes gambit I very much expect you to flame me on this one, and let me respond to that by saying, yes everything you are about to say is right.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

stardave said:


> Ok, so I read this post from page 100 to now,...


You should read more. I posted plenty enough about this subject. I posted reputable sources. I encouraged people to use keywords searches to verify what I say and often I even provided those keywords. To date, no one have ever return to this forum and proved that I lied. Perhaps you would be the first?



stardave said:


> ... let me respond to that by saying, yes everything you are about to say is right.


Wise decision.



stardave said:


> ...J-20 is a copy from Mig 1:44 and Rafael, I know he have finally lost his mind. Or rather, did he had it in 1st place?


Copy? Where did I said 'copy'? Or is it a typical 'troll' tactic by twisting someone else's argument to suit yours?







So where do you think the J-20 came from?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## stardave

Well where else gambit? You are always right, the only way Chinese can make anything is by stealing and cheating. That picture you show me proves your point, case sealed. You know what? we should go out there and tell the whole world how evil the Chinese is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## stardave

Ok none troll post this time.

Here is my amature take of J-20 vs PAK-FA

J-20 is definitively a more stealthy, simply it has a lot less surface protrusions, especially when it come to the under belly, I mean, seriously PAK-FA underside is almost identical to the Flanker jets. Just by that alone, defeats the whole purpose of stealth.

Both J-20 and PAK-FA have other problems that is unstealthy, just like J-20's canard, or the area between the carnard to the body, and the gaps on PAK-FA's engine intake from front, and it is huge exposed metal engine at the back. And both jet's round engine nozzle in the end, but I think this one will be different for the production version in 8 years.

When it come to maneuverability, J-20 wins hands down, better than F-22 or PAK-FA, simply because the canard+delta wing gives great AOA and low speed stability.

When it come to sensor and radar, both China and Russia will have comparable technology by the time they are both induct into service, maybe there is a chance China will be slightly ahead, however both will still be inferior to F-22. Unless US is too poor to upgrade the them when the time comes. And oh yes F-22 beats both in stealth aspect.

As for how much did J-20 got influenced from outside? I would say the influence is there, but only by concept and appearance, because there is nothing wrong by taking proven concepts, mash them together to make it better. And in the end, J-20 will be different enough to stand out from the crowd and make a good impact on the battlefield. 

And I am proud for China's progress. I remember in the mid 1990s people were joking that Chinese can't make a decent Mig-21 clone... when they did that, people were joking the best fighter Chinese had was the 1960s era J-8, then they come up with J-10, and people said, so what? J-10 is 1990s technology. And Chinese respond by J-20, when people see J-20 they still say no way Chinese can produce this, it must be a copy/clone/technology demonstrator, in fact the initial online review by the western press is nothing short of racism, and once again I know they will be prove wrong, 

However those naysayer do have one good point, because is so far the Chinese had made great effort mostly because of learning from existing technology, however they are now approaching world standard, so the question is can they build upon this concept and produce the next generation of hardware that is more advanced than US? Only time will tell to see if the Chinese system can produce true innovations, I see argument from both side and they are equal valid, so only time will tell.


----------



## gambit

stardave said:


> Well where else gambit? You are always right, the only way Chinese can make anything is by stealing and cheating. That picture you show me proves your point, case sealed. You know what? we should go out there and tell the whole world how evil the Chinese is.


Give the readers your best guess. Entertain us...Where do *YOU* think the J-20 came from? The Chinese boys would have us take their words for the J-20's low radar observability based upon looks alone. I have been advising caution and patience all this time. So now am using the same method -- looks.

Many people here believe that the F-15 came from the MIG-25 but we know that is not true. The F-15 and the MIG-25 came from the A-5...






The genealogy between the aircrafts are undeniable. This is what happened when you use one as a template for another. It does not mean the products must be exactly alike but it does mean that if there are certain performance characteristics worthy of reproduction, some things must be emulated, if not outright cloned.

So where did the J-20 came from?


----------



## stardave

Well again gambit you have made a flawless argument, I for one, want to thank you for your *"caution and patience all this time*" in this trying times. J-20 must be clone from anywhere but China, because obviously Chinese can't do anything without stealing from others, very well done.


----------



## gambit

stardave said:


> Ok none troll post this time.


That is usually expected.



stardave said:


> Here is my amature take of J-20 vs PAK-FA


No problems there.



stardave said:


> J-20 is definitively a more stealthy, simply it has a lot less surface protrusions, especially when it come to the under belly, I mean, seriously PAK-FA underside is almost identical to the Flanker jets. Just by that alone, defeats the whole purpose of stealth.


A reasonable argument concerning surface topography and surface discontinuities. However, being 'more stealthy' is quite meaningless unless we have credible data held against a known standard, which at this time is a clean F-16 at between 150-200 km out. Got any?



stardave said:


> When it come to maneuverability, J-20 wins hands down, better than F-22 or PAK-FA, simply because the canard+delta wing gives great AOA and low speed stability.


Bunk...There is nothing 'simple' about it. For your information, flight control elements are called 'control effectors'...

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page


> Due to increased requirements on the reliability, maneuverability and survivability of modern and future manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, more control effectors/surfaces are being introduced. This introduces redundant or overactuated *control effectors* and requires the control allocation function, together with baseline flight control law, to be implemented in the overall flight control systems. In particular, in the case of control effector (actuator) failures or control surface damages, an effective re-distribution (or reallocation) of the control surface deflections with the remaining healthy control effectors is needed in order to achieve acceptable performance even in the presence of control effector failures.


The F-22's TVC-ed engines made them control effectors, in other words, in flight control systems design, *ANYTHING* that can alter an aircraft's attitude in at least two axes is qualified as a 'control effector'. The F-22's TVC-ed engines are just as effective as canards. The real issue is the differences in range of the canards versus the engines.



stardave said:


> As for how much did J-20 got influenced from outside? I would say the influence is there, but only by concept and appearance, because *there is nothing wrong by taking proven concepts, mash them together to make it better.* And in the end, J-20 will be different enough to stand out from the crowd and make a good impact on the battlefield.


Never said there is. However, there is something wrong in denying it.



stardave said:


> Well again gambit you have made a flawless argument, *I for one, want to thank you* for your "caution and patience all this time" in this trying times. J-20 must be clone from anywhere but China, because obviously Chinese can't do anything without stealing from others, very well done.


You are welcome.


----------



## antonius123

stardave said:


> Ok, so I read this post from page 100 to now, and there is only 1 thing I would like to say.... guys, don't argue with gambit, it is like trying to win the special Olympic, even if you win, you still feel handicapped.



Exactly! 

He never dare to admit his clueless and loss


----------



## stardave

This is so sad, its getting hilarious.


----------



## gambit

stardave said:


> This is so sad, its getting hilarious.


Responses like this mean you have no interests in a real discussion, let alone a debate to defend your arguments. What was that about being a troll?



antonius123 said:


> Exactly!
> 
> He never dare to admit his clueless and loss


Yeah...You never served in the military. You lied about your aviation 'background'. And you got busted for not knowing that 'dB' is used in EM measurements. So of course everything we said is going to be 'nonsense' to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

stardave said:


> Well again gambit you have made a flawless argument, I for one, want to thank you for your *"caution and patience all this time*" in this trying times. J-20 must be clone from anywhere but China, because obviously Chinese can't do anything without stealing from others, very well done.


 
Exactly! what he can do is claiming, accusing, but when asked the evidence - he can't.

I have been asking him many times the proof that J-20 emulate the Rafale.

By his logic - Mig 1.4 and Typhoon also emulate Rafale due to similarity among them 



gambit said:


> Responses like this mean you have no interests in a real discussion, let alone a debate to defend your arguments. What was that about being a troll?
> 
> 
> Yeah...You never served in the military. You lied about your aviation 'background'. And you got busted for not knowing that 'dB' is used in EM measurements. So of course everything we said is going to be 'nonsense' to you.



It is you that lie; you were busted for not knowing a lot of things (nacelle, airduct, corner reflector, shaping, continuous curvature, and countless things else). Your qualification for low level maintenance guy is also far from being sufficient judging from your misconception and clueless


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Exactly! what he can do is claiming, accusing, but when asked the evidence - he can't.
> 
> I have been asking him many times the proof that J-20 emulate the Rafale.
> 
> *By his logic - Mig 1.4 and Typhoon also emulate Rafale due to similarity among them *


 I can tell that our new member are not impressed with your line of reasoning here, especially when the 1.44 is older than the Rafale.



antonius123 said:


> It is you that lie; you were busted for not knowing a lot of things (nacelle, airduct, corner reflector, shaping, continuous curvature, and countless things else).


That is funny because I have been here longer than you. And yet no one agreed with you on that. So what you are implying here is that everyone here does not know the differences between nacelles, airducts, and corner reflectors. Congratulations, you have made yourself smarter than several hundred people.


----------



## stardave

antonius123 forget about it, remember what I said about the special Olympic?


----------



## gambit

stardave said:


> antonius123 forget about it, remember what I said about the special Olympic?


Your friend is in that league.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> I can tell that our new member are not impressed with your line of reasoning here, especially when the 1.44 is older than the Rafale.



So you mean Rafale emulate mig 1.44?? 

Your logic is still false.



> That is funny because I have been here longer than you. And yet no one agreed with you on that. So what you are implying here is that everyone here does not know the differences between nacelles, airducts, and corner reflectors. Congratulations, you have made yourself smarter than several hundred people.


 
Really? because you are delusional.

Your friends is only silly amalakas, not qualified dr. sommath and only few delusional indians here; only they who could agree with you


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Really? because you are delusional.
> 
> Your friends is only silly amalakas, not qualified dr. sommath and only few delusional indians here; only they who could agree with you


Fine...Then tell us what is your 'aviation background'? The one that you claimed to have when you tried to shut down the Indians.


----------



## antonius123

stardave said:


> antonius123 forget about it, remember what I said about the special Olympic?



Thanks for your advice friend. I am just trying to make him conscious from delusion and self deception, even I know it may be a wasting time due to his ignorance.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Thanks for your advice friend. I am just trying to make him conscious from delusion and self deception, even I know it may be a wasting time due to *his ignorance.*


Then tell us what is your 'aviation background'. Am completely ready to be impressed with your 'aviation background'.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Then tell us what is your 'aviation background'. Am completely ready to be impressed with your 'aviation background'.



I have told you before.

Then tell me what is your genuine background, i am wondering


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> *I have told you before.*
> 
> Then tell me what is your genuine background, i am wondering


Yeah...You got busted for not knowing that 'dB' is used in EM measurement so you backtracked to aviation 'study'. So what was it that you studied? My specialty was Avionics, sub-specialty radar. What was it that you studied?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Yeah...You got busted for not knowing that 'dB' is used in EM measurement so you backtracked to aviation 'study'. So what was it that you studied? My specialty was Avionics, sub-specialty radar. What was it that you studied?



Is this the best you can do?? repeat it again and again? 

How many times should i make you aware that you can't prove your own prejudice/accusation, while I can.

What make you think you are competent to discuss aviation other than radar?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Is this the best you can do?? repeat it again and again?
> 
> How many times should i make you aware that you can't prove your own prejudice/accusation, while I can.
> 
> What make you think you are competent to discuss aviation other than radar?


This is a clear sign of a fraud.



antonius123 said:


> I am not an aerospace engineer, but for sure *my aviation background is much much better than clueless ignorant child like you*
> 
> You cant use winning tender as a benchmark, as we know china has not participate in any international tender for their J-11B/J-15/J-16 / J-20, so your logic is false then your argument is irrelevant.
> 
> The question is: why u are thinking MKI is better than PAKFA? while PAKFA's stealth performance is still questionable compared to J-20?


The USAF is well known throughout the world. So is the Lomonosov Moscow State University, or MIT, or the Royal Academy, and so on. No one is asking for your university. No one is asking for your employer. No one is asking for your name. On an anonymous Internet forum like this one, people are willing to be generous and accept you at your word on what you are and what experience you have. But when your language does not match the subject in discussion, people will be suspicious. If you do have any aviation background, it should be easy for you to come up with some reasonable evidence. Very easy.

So what did you 'study' in aviation? Remember, you did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> This is a clear sign of a fraud.



Your countless major mistakes are very clear sign you are fraud with self claimed pilot- expert etc.



> The USAF is well known throughout the world. So is the Lomonosov Moscow State University, or MIT, or the Royal Academy, and so on. No one is asking for your university. No one is asking for your employer. No one is asking for your name. On an anonymous Internet forum like this one, people are willing to be generous and accept you at your word on what you are and what experience you have. But when your language does not match the subject in discussion, people will be suspicious. If you do have any aviation background, it should be easy for you to come up with some reasonable evidence. Very easy.



Your assumption should be applied for yourself, meaning your vague in most cases and backgound indicates you are fraud



> So what did you 'study' in aviation? Remember, you did not know that 'dB' is used in EM measurement.



I have answerd this.

Your blunder with 120 degree corner reflector end up with your inability to further explain and prove excet dragging vague pictur had made me suspected you mixed em wave with sound wave

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I have answerd this.


No, you did not. You made a weak excuse for it. So what was your 'study' in aviation?


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> No, you did not. You made a weak excuse for it. So what was your 'study' in aviation?



I have been asking him for the past two days.. you ain't gonna get anything out of him ..


----------



## sms

Dear antonius123,
I've wrote it before and admit again (I'm not making any judgment about your intellect here) that I've started admiring your persistence and quest of knowledge.

As you've claimed that your are an aviation expert and tried to prove by your numerous posts. I'd request your to enlighten me about the frontal RCS of the J20. Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone and if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plat (radar antenna and **** pit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.

Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?

regards


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> Dear antonius123,
> I've wrote it before and admit again (I'm not making any judgment about your intellect here) that I've started admiring your persistence and quest of knowledge.
> 
> As you've claimed that your are an aviation expert and tried to prove by your numerous posts. I'd request your to enlighten me about the frontal RCS of the J20. Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone and if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plat (radar antenna and **** pit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> regards



Be patient please, i am still on tablet


----------



## Pfpilot

gambit said:


> The F-22's TVC-ed engines made them control effectors, in other words, in flight control systems design, *ANYTHING* that can alter an aircraft's attitude in at least two axes is qualified as a 'control effector'. The F-22's TVC-ed engines are just as effective as canards. *The real issue is the differences in range of the canards versus the engines.*



Could you please shed more light on that? I don't understand what you mean by "range". 

On side note, the original X-32 and the YF-23 had no canards and both suffered from a relative lack of maneuverability; would they have been able to maneuver with the F-35 and the F-22, respectively, were TVC employed?


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> Dear antonius123,
> I've wrote it before and admit again (I'm not making any judgment about your intellect here) that I've started admiring your persistence and quest of knowledge.
> 
> As you've claimed that your are an aviation expert and tried to prove by your numerous posts. I'd request your to enlighten me about the frontal RCS of the J20. Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone and if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plat (radar antenna and **** pit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> regards



Firstly, I never claim i am an expert;

Second, i have no classified data about J-20' rcs, ram material etc.

Third: which do you mean by flat plate on J-20?


----------



## sms

antonius123 said:


> Firstly, I never claim i am an expert;
> 
> Second, i have no classified data about J-20' rcs, ram material etc.
> 
> Third: which do you mean by flat plate on J-20?



Ok let me rephrase my question....

To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.

But being transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) put between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How did Chinese engineers hide J20's radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?


----------



## DrSomnath999

sms said:


> Ok let me rephrase my question....
> 
> To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.
> 
> But being transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) put between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How did Chinese engineers hide J20's radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?



sorry i couldnt resist myself on commenting that part.

See usually all latest 4.5+ & 5th gen plane's radome material are made up of composites / or some carbon fibre related product.
like for instance for rafale it has kevlar & for ef 2000 it has glass reinforced composites which are transparent & stealthy .& have 
no interfernce with plane 's radar signal transmission & recieving signals effectively ,But the best bet is to not to turn on ur 
radar for stealth reason ,becoz todays new gen fighter like F22/f35 even 4.5 gen fighter like rafale have ESM suites which can 
detect radar transmission location & can cue it's air to air missiles without turning on it's own aesa radar for stealth reason,

But the million dollar question is can china build an ESM suite which has both ELINT & SIGNIT capablity.

Well IR detection can be made through EODAS & china can develop it but long range IR missile are nt effective like Active radar 
guided BVRAAMS at long range

REGARDS


----------



## gambit

Pfpilot said:


> Could you please shed more light on that? I don't understand what you mean by "range".


By 'range' it is meant 'range of motion' or 'degree of deflection', for example...

Control surface actuation system - Patent application


> However, the flow-effector may also be used in other parts of airborne munitions or, indeed, in other parts of aircraft. Furthermore, the control surface may be other than micro-flow effectors--any control surface whose actuation involves a *range of motion* at right angles to a rectilinear activating motion may be used.









The question regarding this 'range' was studied in the FLCS ACTIVE program with above F-15 equipped with canards and TVC-ed engines. What NASA did was bolted a pair of F-18 rear horizontal stabs to the F-15 to function as canards and see their effects, standalone and in concert. Canards do have a greater 'range of motion' than TVC-ed engine, however, they do not provide thrust and this is where many have a misconception about high AoA. Canards depends on aerodynamic forces to be effective 'control effectors'. Engines do not. No matter the AoA, the engines will *ALWAYS* be 'control effectors' while there will be a point where canards will lose their effectiveness at aerodynamic exploitation.



Pfpilot said:


> On side note, the original X-32 and the YF-23 had no canards and both suffered from a relative *lack of maneuverability*; would they have been able to maneuver with the F-35 and the F-22, respectively, were TVC employed?


That is a loaded phrasing because it seems to imply the X-32 and YF-23 would be flying bricks. That is not the case. Their maneuverability may be *LESSER* than the F-22 or even the F-16 -- at AoA greater than 25 deg -- or something to that effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Firstly, I never claim i am an expert;


No need to be an expert to participate. Those who have no aviation experience have no problems saying so and those who have aviation experience in any degree also have no problems telling the forum what are their experience.

So when you say this...



antonius123 said:


> I am not an aerospace engineer, but for sure *my aviation background is much much better than clueless ignorant child like you*
> 
> You cant use winning tender as a benchmark, as we know china has not participate in any international tender for their J-11B/J-15/J-16 / J-20, so your logic is false then your argument is irrelevant.
> 
> The question is: why u are thinking MKI is better than PAKFA? while PAKFA's stealth performance is still questionable compared to J-20?


...To shut down the Indians, then by all means tell us what are your 'aviation background'. And sorry, getting on/off an airliner does not count.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pfpilot

gambit said:


> That is a loaded phrasing because it seems to imply the X-32 and YF-23 would be flying bricks. That is not the case. Their maneuverability may be *LESSER* than the F-22 or even the F-16 -- at AoA greater than 25 deg -- or something to that effect.



Sorry about that, I got a bit carried away there. What I meant to ask, more specifically, was in relation to the j-20 employing canards at the expense of LO. Based on my understanding of your posts in the past, regarding control surfaces, I was wondering if TVC (were it available) would be able to compensate for the lack of horizontal stabilizers and canards...in short, providing a similar level of maneuverability, while allowing for the elimination of a major contributor of RCS in canards. Ok, this sounds just as vague as the last post, I hope it makes a little more sense.


----------



## gambit

Pfpilot said:


> Sorry about that, I got a bit carried away there. What I meant to ask, more specifically, was in relation to the j-20 employing canards at the expense of LO. Based on my understanding of your posts in the past, regarding control surfaces, I was wondering *if TVC (were it available) would be able to compensate for the lack of horizontal stabilizers and canards*...in short, providing a similar level of maneuverability, while allowing for the elimination of a major contributor of RCS in canards. Ok, this sounds just as vague as the last post, I hope it makes a little more sense.


Delta Wings


> While delta wings are critical to achieving high lift for supersonic flight, they also have a number of disadvantages for less high-performing aircraft. They require high landing and takeoff speeds and long takeoff and landing runs, are unstable at high angles of attack, and produce tremendous drag when "trimmed" to keep the plane level. Of these disadvantages, pilots and designers usually consider the high landing and takeoff speeds the most important because they make flying the plane dangerous. Indeed, when the Concorde had its first ever crash in 2000, after two decades of safe operations, the high-speed takeoff was a factor in this terrible accident, for the plane's high ground speed before becoming airborne placed major stress upon the aircraft's tires, which exploded upon striking an object on the runway.
> 
> Computer-controlled "fly-by-wire" flight control systems have allowed designers to compensate for some of the delta wing's poor control qualities. Canards are small horizontal fins (or small wings) mounted on the fuselage in front of an aircraft's main wings to provide greater control, particularly during high angles of attack. When they are part of a delta-wing aircraft, they improve its stability and maneuverability.


The decision to relocate the rear horizontal stabs to the front as canards is not to be made lightly and because I have far more respect for the Chinese engineers -- the real ones -- than the Chinese members here have for said group, I am certain they know the LO sacrifices necessary when they decided to go with canards.

The delta wing's advantages in a narrow region is considered to be inadequate when the aircraft that we operate must be flexible in many regions, from near-stall to stable subsonic to transonic to supersonic. I do not think that given what we know today, we would install TVC in an F-102/106 pure delta platform. But for speculation's sake, say we give the J-20 TVC and remove the canards, we would need to redesign the aircraft...

Area rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The area rule was immediately applied to a number of development efforts. One of the most famous was Whitcomb's personal work on the re-design of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, a U.S. Air Force jet fighter that was demonstrating performance considerably worse than expected. *By indenting the fuselage beside the wings, and (paradoxically) adding more volume to the rear of the plane, transonic drag was considerably reduced and the original Mach 1.2 design speeds were reached.* The culminating design of this research was the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, an aircraft which for many years was the USAF's primary all-weather interceptor.


Is the J-20's fuselage sufficiently accommodating? Or may be it does not need to accommodate this rule?

Concorde supersonique jet / Engineering / Features / Delta wing


> The wings were put through 5,000 hours of wind tunnel tests. As a result of the delta shape, the wings would be efficient for supersonic flight and also provide enough lift to allow the Concorde to land at a speed of 177 miles per hours.
> 
> Yet the delta wing also requires steeper angles of descent when landing. Instead of the traditional 3 or 4 degrees of traditional subsonic jets, Concorde must take off and land at angles of 10 to 11 degrees.













Keep in mind that even though canards and the engine are 'control effectors' they have different behaviors. A canard affect attitude changes through changes in its own lift. The engine does nothing of the kind. It provide thrust.

A delta winged aircraft have a surface area displacement issue, meaning there is more surface area *BEHIND* the center of gravity (CG) than in front or in equal. 

ch10-4


> The delta wing is particularly well suited to tailless, all-wing configurations since the flap-type longitudinal controls can be located on the wing trailing edge, *far behind the aircraft center of gravity.*


This works in concert with the forward area of the wing where it is designed to generate lift at a certain AoA. The result is that even though the elevons are trailing edge up, which usually implies a nose-down direction, the forward part of the wings lift the nose up at the same time the elevons is forcing the tail down. The aircraft takes off. In flight, because of this surface area displacement issue, the delta wing is an inherently unstable aircraft, giving it a natural high maneuverability.

Given the current preference for highly blended body-wing design so our fighters can operate in as variety of conditions as possible, I do not see how the J-20 could be modified to accept TVC-ed engines without a redesign of the delta wings and possibly to include redesigning of the body to recover/replace the aerodynamic exploitation that was lost by the removal of the canards. Remember, the canards are not needed but they are preferred *IF* there are performance desires, such as controlled flight at greater than 25 AoA. But once they are incorporated into the design and assigned certain burdens for flight, then for that aircraft design, the canards are indeed needed.

That was why NASA chose the F-15 to explore more complex flight control systems designs. The F-15 does not need canards to fly and to maneuver. But to have an increased quantity of flight 'control effectors' mean greater flexibility in assigning which effector group will do what tasks to what degree in in-flight experiments. For the ACTIVE F-15, there were test flights where the rear horizontal stabs were effectively disabled, meaning they were locked in neutral positions.

Another consideration that most people do not realize is the re-writing of the flight control laws. This is a fly-by-wire FLCS and it require constant inputs and feedbacks from all flight control elements and air data. Do not mistaken that a '0' v. response is a non-response. In flight control laws, a '0' v. response is a different response than a no volt response at all. No volt usually mean the expected input is not available. The '0' volt response mean the input is available but is not experiencing any changes. Lose power to one gyro and the system will flag as a potential catastrophic fail but nothing will happen if the gyro is sensing no aircraft movements.

Removal of the canards require the FLC laws to be rewritten to discard (not merely ignore) the canards as if the canards never existed in the first place. If there is an enlargement of the wings, this must also be rewritten in as an expansion of an existing parameter. Rate of attitude changes sensed by the gyros and accelerometers will be affected by these flight control effectors alterations so they also must be rewritten. The TVC-ed engines inputs must be rewritten to include additional axes of changes and to what extent. Previously, the engines was affecting the aircraft in only one axis, now there are two axes or three. If the TVC-ed engines are to be under arbitrary pilot control instead of purely under computer control, this exception must be written in as new and the laws must be able to compensate for when the pilot may do something funky and exceed safe parameters.

The list of reconsiderations and refactorings is long and financially costly enough that China might as well design a whole new aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sms

sms said:


> Dear antonius123,
> I've wrote it before and admit again (I'm not making any judgment about your intellect here) that I've started admiring your persistence and quest of knowledge.
> 
> As you've claimed that your are an aviation expert and tried to prove by your numerous posts. I'd request your to enlighten me about the frontal RCS of the J20. Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone and if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plat (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> regards


 


antonius123 said:


> Be patient please, i am still on tablet


 


antonius123 said:


> Firstly, I never claim i am an expert;
> Second, i have no classified data about J-20' rcs, ram material etc.
> Third: which do you mean by flat plate on J-20?


 


sms said:


> Ok let me rephrase my question....
> To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.
> 
> But being transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) put between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How did Chinese engineers hide J20's radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?



Dear antonius123, I've tried Google but till now I'm not able to find good answer. I hope you can help me here. ...waiting for your reply. 

Additionally, why don't you speak about your experience and specialization in aeronautics / aerospace/ aviation to stop some form members from insulting you and tell them STFU?


----------



## conworldus

Guys. To sum up Gambit's point:

1. The J-20 is a copy of the Rafale/Mig 1.44/concord and other aircraft
2. The J-20 is less stealthy than the F-18

So anyways... whatever.


----------



## scholseys

conworldus said:


> Guys. To sum up Gambit's point:
> 
> 1. The J-20 is a copy of the Rafale/Mig 1.44/concord and other aircraft
> 2. The J-20 is less stealthy than the F-18
> 
> So anyways... whatever.



how can it be a copy of 2 fighters and other aircrafts? by that logic everything is a copy.


----------



## stardave

Because there are many people from the western world that are very much still in denial about Chinese's technological progress, because our "free" media's position on china can only be explain by severe schizophrenia, on one point we report them as a dirt poor third world nation where they are 50 years behind, and they have no human right, people get shot on the street randomly. On the other hand we see them as a nation full of cheater and child slaves workers, and they are out there to steal the hard working American jobs and destroy our economy.

So in the first scenario, when the dirt poor China is able to accomplish anything worthwhile such as J-20 or manned space program, of course we dismiss it by saying it is either a direct clone of existing technology or they must have steal it, and oh yeah, of course it is inferior to USA and Russia, Europe... 

So what you seeing from gambit and many other is the text book definition of *Cognitive dissonance*, when their own belief is being shattered by what they see, so they must justify it by giving it alternative execuse such as Chinese clone/cheating etc...

It is all good, I kinda gone through this stage myself a bit, then I learn to admire what the Chinese has accomplished, I am indeed very proud of their progress. Because I see a lot of area where China and USA can be partners in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

stardave said:


> Because there are many people from the western world that are very much still in denial about Chinese's technological progress, because our "free" media's position on china can only be explain by severe schizophrenia, on one point we report them as a dirt poor third world nation where they are 50 years behind, and they have no human right, people get shot on the street randomly. On the other hand we see them as a nation full of cheater and child slaves workers, and they are out there to steal the hard working American jobs and destroy our economy.
> 
> So in the first scenario, when the dirt poor China is able to accomplish anything worthwhile such as J-20 or manned space program, of course we dismiss it by saying it is either a direct clone of existing technology or they must have steal it, and oh yeah, of course it is inferior to USA and Russia, Europe...
> 
> So what you seeing from gambit and many other is the text book definition of *Cognitive dissonance*, when their own belief is being shattered by what they see, so they must justify it by giving it alternative execuse such as Chinese clone/cheating etc...
> 
> It is all good, I kinda gone through this stage myself a bit, then I learn to admire what the Chinese has accomplished, I am indeed very proud of their progress. Because I see a lot of area where China and USA can be partners in the future.



Very well said from an american. China can be proud of their ascend to world stage in such a short time. But the rapid progress is at the sacrifice of some of the good values practice by china through out their history. I hoped china leadership is able to balance it..


----------



## stardave

Beast said:


> Very well said from an american. China can be proud of their ascend to world stage in such a short time. But the rapid progress is at the sacrifice of some of the good values practice by china through out their history. I hoped china leadership is able to balance it..



Agreed, I am afraid sometimes China is adopting western value wholesale, both the good and the bad. But I don't think it will destroy their core values, after all I see they have been through worse, there were those 2 successful invasion and occupation by Mongols and Manchu for hundreds of years.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

stardave said:


> Agreed, I am afraid sometimes China is adopting western value wholesale, both the good and the bad. But I don't think it will destroy their core values, after all I see they have been through worse, there were those 2 successful invasion and occupation by Mongols and Manchu for hundreds of years.



we have absorbed alot of other cultures throughout Chinese history...to form our core value...this's remind me Borg star trek.


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> Guys. To sum up Gambit's point:
> 
> 1. The J-20 is a copy of the Rafale/Mig 1.44/concord and other aircraft
> 2. The J-20 is less stealthy than the F-18
> 
> So anyways... whatever.


Anything you do not understand in this post...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-133.html#post2775869

Let me know and I will try my hardest to dumb it down further. But keep in mind that dumbing down any concept can only go so far.


----------



## sms

sms said:


> Dear antonius123,
> I've wrote it before and admit again (I'm not making any judgment about your intellect here) that I've started admiring your persistence and quest of knowledge.
> 
> As you've claimed that your are an aviation expert and tried to prove by your numerous posts. I'd request your to enlighten me about the frontal RCS of the J20. Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone and if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plat (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> regards





antonius123 said:


> Be patient please, i am still on tablet





antonius123 said:


> Firstly, I never claim i am an expert;
> Second, i have no classified data about J-20' rcs, ram material etc.
> Third: which do you mean by flat plate on J-20?
> Quote Originally Posted by sms View Post





sms said:


> Ok let me rephrase my question....
> To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.
> 
> But being transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) put between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How did Chinese engineers hide J20's radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?





sms said:


> Dear antonius123, I've tried Google but till now I'm not able to find good answer. I hope you can help me here. ...waiting for your reply.
> 
> Additionally, why don't you speak about your experience and specialization in aeronautics / aerospace/ aviation to stop some form members from insulting you and tell them STFU?


 
*Dear antonius123, hope you are enjoying holidays of Qingming Festival (&#28165;&#26126;&#33410. I'm egarly waiting for your reply.*


----------



## homing28




----------



## Kompromat

Are there any visible differences between the new and old PT?


----------



## LTE-TDD

Have to wait for more photo to know. But I am sure that you would't to wait for long.


----------



## tomluter

2002






1,New airspeed head for violent maneuverability test.
2,


----------



## oct605032048

2 0 0 2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No need to be an expert to participate. Those who have no aviation experience have no problems saying so and those who have aviation experience in any degree also have no problems telling the forum what are their experience.



Who said we need to be an expert in order to participate? dont make it up 

I simply answered him that I am not an expert as he said 



> So when you say this...
> 
> 
> ...To shut down the Indians, then by all means tell us what are your 'aviation background'. And sorry, getting on/off an airliner does not count.



I've told you that aviation was one of my study, not a pilot / aviation engineer, but it is genuine, not fake, and it is enough to handle fake expert 



conworldus said:


> Guys. To sum up Gambit's point:
> 
> 1. The J-20 is a copy of the Rafale/Mig 1.44/concord and other aircraft
> 2. The J-20 is less stealthy than the F-18
> 
> So anyways... whatever.


 
I dont know if he is willing to admit that Tejas emulate Mirage 2K due to the resemblance and the similarity of planform


----------



## Audio

So any (official) word on what exactly the J-20 will do? It seems to be too big for an air superiority fighter.
I've seen a number of theories proposing everything from AWACS interceptor to anti ship missile carrier.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Who said we need to be an expert in order to participate? dont make it up
> 
> I simply answered him that I am not an expert as he said
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you that *aviation was one of my study*, not a pilot / aviation engineer, but it is genuine, not fake, and it is enough to handle fake expert


 Yeah...First you said you have 'aviation background', then after you got pressed for what is it, you turned it to 'study'. So what was it? Aviation have many sub-disciplines, and many of them even have their own sub-disciplines. So what did you studied?


----------



## sms

sms said:


> Dear antonius123, I've tried Google but till now I'm not able to find good answer. I hope you can help me here. ...waiting for your reply.
> 
> Additionally, why don't you speak about your experience and specialization in aeronautics / aerospace/ aviation to stop some form members from insulting you and tell them STFU?


 


sms said:


> *Dear antonius123, hope you are enjoying holidays of Qingming Festival (&#28165;&#26126;&#33410. I'm egarly waiting for your reply.*


 


antonius123 said:


> Who said we need to be an expert in order to participate? dont make it up
> I simply answered him that I am not an expert as he said
> 
> I've told you that aviation was one of my study, not a pilot / aviation engineer, but it is genuine, not fake, and it is enough to handle fake expert
> 
> I dont know if he is willing to admit that Tejas emulate Mirage 2K due to the resemblance and the similarity of planform



*antonius123 - you are logging ...but not answering my query. Evading my question goes against your reputation and put lots of question mark on your intensions to be on this form. Hope you are not an usual troll.*


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> *antonius123 - you are logging ...but not answering my query. Evading my question goes against your reputation and put lots of question mark on your intensions to be on this form. Hope you are not an usual troll.*


 
My aviation background is my study.
I never claim I have field experience or pilot experience or aviation engineering experience from the beginning. Dont try to twist again.

It is you that claim as ex pilot and aviation expert.
Prove me if I've ever claim I am an expert.

I am not an expert, but have adequate and genuine background to expose the fraud and fake claim that you have made.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> My aviation background is my study.
> I never claim I have field experience or pilot experience or aviation engineering experience from the beginning. Dont try to twist again.
> 
> It is you that claim as ex pilot and aviation expert.
> Prove me if I've ever claim I am an expert.
> 
> I am not an expert, but have adequate and genuine background to expose the fraud and fake claim that you have made.


So what was the 'study'? The truth is that you are a liar. When people use the word 'background' they usually include academic and practical experience. You got busted so now all you can do is keeping to the vague 'study'.


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> *antonius123 - you are logging ...but not answering my query. Evading my question goes against your reputation and put lots of question mark on your intensions to be on this form. Hope you are not an usual troll.*



I have answered you that I have no classified information regarding J-20 as per your request.

I am in a middle of project that I have no time to do some research in order to answer your questions; You may see me logged in (because I am indeed log in on my tablet) but I cannot follow intensely your debata at the moment.

I am replying and straightening a lot of misconception on your friend's claims, not trolling. The only troller here might be you. 

Why dont you ask to "our expert" Mr. Gambit and chase him for the precise answer?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I have answered you that I have no classified information regarding J-20 as per your request.


No one is asking for that. We want to know what was your specific 'study' in aviation. If you truly did have any at all, you should have no problems telling us what was it. More like you know you will be expose even the greater liar.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> So what was the 'study'?



I have told you one of my study was aviation.



> The truth is that you are a liar. When people use the word 'background' they usually include academic and practical experience. You got busted so now all you can do is keeping to the vague 'study'.



Not really. You are notorious with misconception.
Background could refer to study; + practical experience will refer to expertise. I never claim I am expert, but it is you that claim an expert.

The liar here is you who claim ex pilot, and aviation expert but failed with countless basic concepts.



gambit said:


> No one is asking for that. We want to know what was your specific 'study' in aviation. If you truly did have any at all, you should have no problems telling us what was it. More like you know you will be expose even the greater liar.



Why do you want to know, while it is you that is hiding your education and experience 

We are still not clear with your own claim, are you an ex pilot? or engineer? 

My specific study is aerospace engineering, there was no more specific major yet that I took.

Now tell me about yourself, you havent tell us much; I suspect you keep asking me that in order to hide your own


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I have told you one of my study was aviation.


Aviation have many disciplines. Many of them have their own sub-disciplines. If you have any real experience at all, even book study, you should have no problems at all telling us what was it.



antonius123 said:


> Not really. You are notorious with misconception.
> Background could refer to study; + practical experience will refer to expertise. I never claim I am expert, but it is you that claim an expert.
> 
> The liar here is you who claim ex pilot, and aviation expert but *failed with countless basic concepts.*


Fine...Then tell us what was your specific 'study' in aviation. We will check with publicly available sources to see how wrong am I.

Or is it more likely that you are terrified of being exposed the greater liar than you already are.



antonius123 said:


> Why do you want to know, while it is you that is hiding your education and experience
> 
> We are still not clear with your own claim, are you an ex pilot? or engineer?
> 
> *My specific study is aerospace engineering*, there was no more specific major yet that I took.
> 
> Now tell me about yourself, you havent tell us much; I suspect you keep asking me that in order to hide your own


How conveniently vague...Again...


----------



## Capt.Popeye

sms said:


> *antonius123 - you are logging ...but not answering my query. Evading my question goes against your reputation and put lots of question mark on your intensions to be on this form. Hope you are not an usual troll.*



Why are you wasting your time on that clown antonius 123! He has nothing sensible to say, he is just a "bodo".
They way he is just repeating and regurgitating the SOS, he does'nt seem to know '$hit from molasses'.


----------



## sms

Capt.Popeye said:


> Why are you wasting your time on that clown antonius 123! He has nothing sensible to say, he is just a "bodo".
> They way he is just repeating and regurgitating the SOS, he does'nt seem to know '$hit from molasses'.



I was on my mission to corner so call bobo to admit that he do not know anything. his latest reply is last nail in coffin. He is an official troll who has officially admitted.


----------



## sms

sms said:


> *antonius123 - you are logging ...but not answering my query. Evading my question goes against your reputation and put lots of question mark on your intensions to be on this form. Hope you are not an usual troll.*


 


antonius123 said:


> My *aviation background is my study*.
> I never claim I have field experience or pilot experience or aviation engineering experience from the beginning. Dont try to twist again.
> 
> It is you that claim as ex pilot and aviation expert.
> Prove me if I've ever claim I am an expert.
> 
> I am not an expert, but have adequate and genuine background to expose the fraud and fake claim that you have made.


 


antonius123 said:


> I have answered you that I have no classified information regarding J-20 as per your request.
> 
> I am in a middle of project that I have no time to do some research in order to answer your questions; You may see me logged in (because I am indeed log in on my tablet) but I cannot follow intensely your debata at the moment.
> 
> I am replying and straightening a lot of misconception on your friend's claims, not trolling. The only troller here might be you.
> 
> Why dont you ask to "our expert" Mr. Gambit and chase him for the precise answer?



Dear antonius123,
Your reply proves that you are not expert but an armature hobbyist (I doubt it because hobbyist have good understanding of subject) pretending to be an expert. My question is very simple and you do not need to do too much research to provide the basic concept. 

Dear Gambit, 
Alas, my reliable (self assumed) source/ reference on engg. proved to be an great troll. We need your help to answer the following question.




> Ok let me rephrase my question....
> To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.
> 
> But being EM transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) placed between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How does engineers hide radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?


----------



## gambit

sms said:


> Dear Gambit,
> Alas, my reliable (self assumed) source/ reference on engg. proved to be an great troll. We need your help to answer the following question.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let me rephrase my question....
> To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.
> 
> But being EM transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) placed between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How does engineers hide radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?
Click to expand...

It is interesting that he *'angled'* his answer to be of the J-20 when the problem is common to every aircraft. Not sure what his *'angle'* is here.


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> Dear antonius123,
> Your reply proves that you are not expert but an armature hobbyist (I doubt it because hobbyist have good understanding of subject) pretending to be an expert. My question is very simple and you do not need to do too much research to provide the basic concept.
> 
> Dear Gambit,
> Alas, my reliable (self assumed) source/ reference on engg. proved to be an great troll. We need your help to answer the following question.


 
I've told you I never claim I am an expert you idiot ... 

But my background and knowledge are adequate to expose faked expert claimed by your friends 

You are the troller.

Let see the explanation from your friend the self claimed expert


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I've told you I never claim I am an expert you idiot ...
> 
> But my background and knowledge are adequate to expose faked expert claimed by your friends
> 
> You are the troller.
> 
> Let see our the explanation from your friend the self claimed expert


But you claimed 'aviation background' to shut the Indians up. So you should have no problems at all -- *AT ALL* -- in answering his question, which is how does one preserve low radar observability when a radome must be EM transparent?

By the way, as someone who 'studied' aerospace engineering, as you claimed to be, what is 'CNI'?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> But you claimed 'aviation background' to shut the Indians up. So you should have no problems at all -- *AT ALL* -- in answering his question, which is how does one preserve low radar observability when a radome must be EM transparent?
> 
> By the way, as someone who 'studied' aerospace engineering, as you claimed to be, what is 'CNI'?



Why should you test me and I follow your game?
Should I test you again? oh... but you have failed with a lot of your misconceptions 

In fact you haven't been able to response a lot of my challenges, but expect other people to response to your challenge. You are shameless.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Why should you test me and I follow your game?
> Should I test you again? oh... but you have failed with a lot of your misconceptions
> 
> In fact you haven't been able to response a lot of my challenges, but expect other people to response to your challenge. You are shameless.


Right...So you do not know how would a low radar observable aircraft maintain that level despite the radome being EM transparent. Clue for you, the clueless: The answer is aplenty in this forum.

By the way, the initials 'CNI' stands for: Communication, Navigation, and Identification.

So much for your 'study' in aerospace engineering. And if you do not why CNI is crucial in the area you supposedly claimed to have studied, all the more reasons why we should see you as a fraud.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Right...*So you do not know how would a low radar observable aircraft maintain that level despite the radome being EM transparent*. Clue for you, the clueless: The answer is aplenty in this forum.
> 
> By the way, the initials 'CNI' stands for: Communication, Navigation, and Identification.
> 
> So much for your 'study' in aerospace engineering. And if you do not why CNI is crucial in the area you supposedly claimed to have studied, all the more reasons why we should see you as a fraud.



I doubt if he even knows or recognises that it is a two fold problem .. 

he just goes off the topic ever which way..


----------



## SQ8

Can we come back to a technical discussion if the whole girly fight is over??

From the intelligent to the semi-intelligent posts it seems that the J-20 is a compromise if there was ever a word.
But compromise to what role? HVAA interceptor? Stand off weapon equipped penetrator?


----------



## Audio

Some thoughts from another forum, not saying it means anything definitive, just throwing it out there...



> The Chinese have always copied Soviet/Russian aircraft, and used similar combat philosophies in design and deployment. The Russians have had an ongoing string of gigantic aircraft designed for long-range, high-altitude defense and interception to protect their vast length of border. China is a large nation, but nowhere near as large as the Soviet Union, or even modern Russia. So why the need for a big, long-range defense fighter, possibly with very high altitude capabilities?
> 
> I think the primary potential adversary that China worries about is the U.S., possibly in combination with other western powers and some local nations that allies of the U.S. China's air force has some more modern aircraft, but they would mostly not fare well against a mixed force of F-22s and F-35s, backed up with a whole lot of earlier generation fighters. In addition, many Chinese airbases are within a hundred miles of the coast, and are quite vulnerable to cruise missile strikes. If China based most of their forces forward near the coast, the attrition rate would be very high and very rapid.
> 
> The Chinese are not stupid, and I think they have a different strategy in mind. If they created bands of dense and sophisticated, redundant SAM defenses, that would be tough for an attacking force to deal with. SEAD planes and drones would go for active RADARs, which could be real or decoys. The Chinese would activate other RADARs and launch SAMs only when attacking planes were overhead. But SAMs are not enough by themselves. Airbases farther inland could host conventional aircraft to harry attacking aircraft with long range AAMs as they are trying to deal with the SAMs. Other conventional aircraft would be tasked with using their look down/shoot down RADARs to intercept air- and sea-launched cruise missiles. Far inland in well-protected airbases, J-20s could be operated in relative safety, behind the multiple bands of defenses. They would have the range to fly defensive missions from their safe deep inland bases out beyond China's coast, and attack the most vital assets; as has been said, the AWACs, P-8s hunting Chinese subs and tanker aircraft. If those assets can be sufficiently degraded, attacking into Chinese territory becomes much more difficult. I would be looking for word of development of a Chinese copy of or long-range AAM similar to the Russian Vympel R-33 missile. A longer-range version of the Pl-21 AAM might fit the bill.
> 
> In addition, in the tradition of high-altitude Soviet/Russian interceptors like the MiG-25 and -31, the J-20 coming out to meet an incoming attack force could be a formidable adversary. With its LO design, it would be difficult to spot. I would bet it also has an LPI RADAR. If, like the two aircraft mentioned, it carried large, long-range missiles, it could move in on an attacking American force, fire from 20-30k feet above the attacking force at a distance of over 100 miles, then turn and escape easily after disrupting the attack. Another flight of J-20s could come in a ways behind the first to break up the attacking aircraft again if they reformed after the first missile barrage. This would be a very difficult defense tactic to overcome.
> 
> This is all pure speculation, of course, but it seems to be a viable strategy. One other factor that makes this even more likely is that China was going to purchase some MiG-31s from Russia, as they were reportedly very impressed with their capabilities. It would not surprise me at all to see similar capabilities designed into the J-20.


----------



## amalakas

Oscar said:


> Can we come back to a technical discussion if the whole girly fight is over??
> 
> From the intelligent to the semi-intelligent posts it seems that the J-20 is a compromise if there was ever a word.
> But compromise to what role? HVAA interceptor? Stand off weapon equipped penetrator?



I think we are pretty much on topic. 
Let me explain. 
although I do appreciate the fact that you are trying (and are obliged even) to keep the thread on track, you must realize that talking about technical achievements in or around a given field, one must not allow irrelevant, ignorant and dubious opinions and claims. 

Military aviation is not an insignificant matter where claims can simply go unsupported. 


coming to you assumption / question, without taking away any of the achievement merit.. I don't think the J-20 is designed to be something in particular. 

My assumption (and that is what it is) and I have stated it before, is that the J-20 is an evolution of the MiG-1.44, to be more precise a stealthified evolution of the MiG-1.44, and hence it's size comes from the "stealthification" process, not a particular design goal. 

that's my 2p to your question.


----------



## SQ8

amalakas said:


> I think we are pretty much on topic.
> Let me explain.
> although I do appreciate the fact that you are trying (and are obliged even) to keep the thread on track, you must realize that talking about technical achievements in or around a given field, one must not allow *irrelevant, ignorant and dubious opinions* and claims.
> 
> Military aviation is not an insignificant matter where claims can simply go unsupported.
> 
> 
> coming to you assumption / question, without taking away any of the achievement merit.. I don't think the J-20 is designed to be something in particular.
> 
> My assumption (and that is what it is) and I have stated it before, is that the J-20 is an evolution of the MiG-1.44, to be more precise a stealthified evolution of the MiG-1.44, and hence it's size comes from the "stealthification" process, not a particular design goal.
> 
> that's my 2p to your question.



But a prolonged tirade by any side "_To prove I am right_" wastes time and effort and derails the discussion. 
Agreeing to disagree not only keeps the discussion on track..but also creates a level of respect. One can ignore pointless posts by using the ignore option.

On your claim that the J-20 is a continuation of the 1.44.. I disagree. 
Sweetman was right in pointing out the similarities between a concept JAST and the J-20.
There is a lot more similarity there than the mig 1.44.
Which makes sense as the Chinese have been hoarding information using their "Student spies" in the US.
Taking bits and pieces of incomplete irrelevant information to come up with a relevant study.. 
And this was in the 90's. Now they are much better placed to come up with genuine research..
Their technique is simple "Copy, Adapt, Innovate, Create"...
And from a personal experience as an embedded systems engineer.. Ill vouch for that.

There are two more confirmed Chinese programs in the pipeline which are being touted as more focused on air dominance.
The J-20 does look more like the FB-22 idea than the F-22.. but in my view we are dealing with a modern day Avro-105.
Targeting Key assets such as AWACS ,Refuellers and Bombers.

In this day's age of HOBS and HMS.. Perhaps the Chinese have chosen to compromise on maneuverablity and stealth.. and trade it for speed.

but I wonder that in a scenario other than a head on engagement.. if the multiple flat surfaces near the tail will make it stand out on the EM spectrum


----------



## amalakas

Oscar said:


> But a prolonged tirade by any side "_To prove I am right_" wastes time and effort and derails the discussion.
> Agreeing to disagree not only keeps the discussion on track..but also creates a level of respect. One can ignore pointless posts by using the ignore option.
> 
> On your claim that the J-20 is a continuation of the 1.44.. I disagree.
> Sweetman was right in pointing out the similarities between a concept JAST and the J-20.
> There is a lot more similarity there than the mig 1.44.
> Which makes sense as the Chinese have been hoarding information using their "Student spies" in the US.
> Taking bits and pieces of incomplete irrelevant information to come up with a relevant study..
> And this was in the 90's. Now they are much better placed to come up with genuine research..
> Their technique is simple "Copy, Adapt, Innovate, Create"...
> And from a personal experience as an embedded systems engineer.. Ill vouch for that.
> 
> There are two more confirmed Chinese programs in the pipeline which are being touted as more focused on air dominance.
> The J-20 does look more like the FB-22 idea than the F-22.. but in my view we are dealing with a modern day Avro-105.
> Targeting Key assets such as AWACS ,Refuellers and Bombers.
> 
> In this day's age of HOBS and HMS.. Perhaps the Chinese have chosen to compromise on maneuverablity and stealth.. and trade it for speed.
> 
> but I wonder that in a scenario other than a head on engagement.. if the multiple flat surfaces near the tail will make it stand out on the EM spectrum



I see where you are coming from, however I must point out that the JAST concept was merely a powered mock up. The MiG 1.44 actually flew. That would mean there is a tonne more of available information on the particular design than the JAST abandoned project. 

If you contemplate on what kind of redesign is needed to convert those bottom chin intakes into side ones and blend the upper fuselage with the wing for a smooth blended surface above and allow for a weapons bay, it is immediately clear how you end up with a size like the J-20. 

A lot of people here claim that there is a 3D TVC engine in the pipeline, not seeing that in the J-20 there is simply not enough separation of the engines to make 3D TVC effective. Which means the plane (in my book) was designed as such. 

I don't know what validity an interceptor would have in China's arsenal. The plane obviously seems capable to carry enough fuel to extend the reach well into the sea.. but can it carry competent weapons to do any damage ?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I see where you are coming from, however I must point out that the JAST concept was merely a powered mock up. The MiG 1.44 actually flew. That would mean there is a tonne more of available information on the particular design than the JAST abandoned project.
> 
> If you contemplate on what kind of redesign is needed to convert those bottom chin intakes into side ones and blend the upper fuselage with the wing for a smooth blended surface above and allow for a weapons bay, it is immediately clear how you end up with a size like the J-20.
> 
> A lot of people here claim that there is a 3D TVC engine in the pipeline, not seeing that in the J-20 there is simply not enough separation of the engines to make 3D TVC effective. Which means the plane (in my book) was designed as such.
> 
> I don't know what validity an interceptor would have in China's arsenal. The plane obviously seems capable to carry enough fuel to extend the reach well into the sea.. but can it carry competent weapons to do any damage ?



Again.. if following your fanboy thinking, redesigning flanker to become PAKFA is much easier than redesign Mig 1.44 to become J-20.

The changing from Flanker to PAKFA is not far from like changing F-15C to Silent Eagle F-15 SE
The changing from Mig 1.44 to J-20 cannot follow evolution pattern, but require the design from begining, because the airframe of both are totally different.

Delta wing & canard is not exclusively belong to Mig 1.44; a lot of a/c like rafale, typhoon, J-10, grippen, vigen apply the same configuration, hence there is no emulation logic here. If the stealth a/c will assume delta wing & canard configuration, then it must have wing configuration similarities with that of Mig 1.44/rafale/typhoon/vigen/j-10/grippen, and doesn't mean that stealth a/c is an evolution from one of the a/c


----------



## gambit

> Oscar said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the intelligent to the semi-intelligent posts it seems that the J-20 is a compromise if there was ever a word.
> But compromise to what role? HVAA interceptor? Stand off weapon equipped penetrator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar said:
> 
> 
> 
> On your claim that the J-20 is a continuation of the 1.44.. I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My take is that the J-20 -- planform wise -- is not a compromise but an improvement from the 1.44...







To include aerodynamics from the Rafale...






Some focused on the Rafale's single vertical stab and that missed the point completely regarding adoption of diverse sources to make an improvement.


----------



## SQ8

amalakas said:


> I see where you are coming from, however I must point out that the JAST concept was merely a powered mock up. _*The MiG 1.44 actually flew. That would mean there is a tonne more of available information on the particular design than the JAST abandoned project. *_
> 
> If you contemplate on what kind of redesign is needed to convert those bottom chin intakes into side ones and blend the upper fuselage with the wing for a smooth blended surface above and allow for a weapons bay, it is immediately clear how you end up with a size like the J-20.
> 
> A lot of people here claim that there is a 3D TVC engine in the pipeline, not seeing that in the J-20 there is simply not enough separation of the engines to make 3D TVC effective. Which means the plane (in my book) was designed as such.
> 
> I don't know what validity an interceptor would have in China's arsenal. The plane obviously seems capable to carry enough fuel to extend the reach well into the sea.. but can it carry competent weapons to do any damage ?



That may have provided a basic avionics databook.. but the refinements in design clearly have an American hue to them.
It may have been a case of _"Lets take that idea and that idea and make this_"..rather than "_lets see how we can make this better_".

I am not sure of the 3D TVC engine theories since there was a 2D TVC engine made for a fighter of the J-10 class(from a PAF source) but it was 1.4 times heavier than its conventional counterpart and not feasible yet. The Chinese may or may not have made improvements then.. but this is recent news to me so I do not expect a Chinese TVC anytime soon.
I see the J-20 relying more on its aerodynamics .. and possible breaking its canard RCS limiters when needed.. 
Although I imagine the result on a radar scope would show up like a blinker going on and off.

An interceptor or rather penetrating interceptor may have the capacity to get close enough to High value aerial force multiplier assets and pose a serious threat even with escorts present. The Russians had this idea with the mig-25 when the E-3 first came into the scene I think... having it zoom climb above escorts and launch R-40's at high speed toward the E-3.
While such a doctrine was simplistic at best.. a relatively stealthy attacker using a dogleg course could make it close enough to launch Passive homers at an Electromagnetic powerhouse such as an AEW&C system.
The same logic could be applied to execute attacks on bases such as Kadena and fly outside of detection ranges of Aegis missle pickets and the like to take out key targets on the ground.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> My take is that the J-20 -- planform wise -- is not a compromise but an improvement from the 1.44...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To include aerodynamics from the Rafale...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some focused on the Rafale's single vertical stab and that missed the point completely regarding adoption of diverse sources to make an improvement.



You still can say Mig 31 is an improvement of Mig 25, F-16block 60 is an improvement of F16A, or at farthest Mirage 4000 is improvement from Mirage 2000, since the airframe is not much different

But with the case of Mig 1.44 vs J-20 where the airframe is totally diferent (likewise the planform), we can not say j-20 is an improvement of Mig 1.44/Rafale/Typhoon/Grippen/J-10.

What you are showing above is only wing configuration similarity, but the airframe is glaringly different. Internalizing is not about improvement but require redesigning and totally change the airframe; not to mention the air intake, and continuous curvature.

Besides, why are you pushing your "emulating/improvement" idea on J-20 vs Mig 1.44 so vehemently? Because improvement/evolution is much more suitable explanation on PAKFA vs Flanker by far; as the planform similarity is so obvious

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> My take is that the J-20 -- planform wise -- is not a compromise but an improvement from the 1.44...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To include aerodynamics from the Rafale...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some focused on the Rafale's single vertical stab and that missed the point completely regarding adoption of diverse sources to make an improvement.



But it does seem that the JAST was an inspiration(or that the JAST was also inspired in a similar fashion??)..

I think the delta platform commonality is not a justification for taking the Rafale as an inspiration..although I do see your point regarding planform shaping especially the blended fuselage and leading edge.

Which does open up a canard discussion..
leaving the saucers and the flying wings aside.. are there no other conventional stealth designs other than those following the F-22 pattern?


----------



## amalakas

Oscar said:


> That may have provided a basic avionics databook.. but the refinements in design clearly have an American hue to them.
> It may have been a case of _"Lets take that idea and that idea and make this_"..rather than "_lets see how we can make this better_".
> 
> I am not sure of the 3D TVC engine theories since there was a 2D TVC engine made for a fighter of the J-10 class(from a PAF source) but it was 1.4 times heavier than its conventional counterpart and not feasible yet. The Chinese may or may not have made improvements then.. but this is recent news to me so I do not expect a Chinese TVC anytime soon.
> I see the J-20 relying more on its aerodynamics .. and possible breaking its canard RCS limiters when needed..
> Although I imagine the result on a radar scope would show up like a blinker going on and off.
> 
> An interceptor or rather penetrating interceptor may have the capacity to get close enough to High value aerial force multiplier assets and pose a serious threat even with escorts present. The Russians had this idea with the mig-25 when the E-3 first came into the scene I think... having it zoom climb above escorts and launch R-40's at high speed toward the E-3.
> While such a doctrine was simplistic at best.. a relatively stealthy attacker using a dogleg course could make it close enough to launch Passive homers at an Electromagnetic powerhouse such as an AEW&C system.
> The same logic could be applied to execute attacks on bases such as Kadena and fly outside of detection ranges of Aegis missle pickets and the like to take out key targets on the ground.



But would you have a dedicated design for such a mission? Russia had a need for the MiG-25 because of its sheer vastness. So using a tool already there to do something else is sensible. Making a specialized tool from scratch ... a bit harder and consuming. No ?


----------



## SQ8

amalakas said:


> But would you have a dedicated design for such a mission? Russia had a need for the MiG-25 because of its sheer vastness. So using a tool already there to do something else is sensible. Making a specialized tool from scratch ... a bit harder and consuming. No ?



There are dedicated designs already for specialized strike missions.
And the vast amount of territory China would have to cover over sea to hit adversary assets..
and not to mention the possibility of striking south into India as well.
I think the J-20 is a good tool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Audio

In my opinion there are only 2 options: 
interceptor or strike fighter along the lines of the F-111, possibly one of the counters to carrier groups and/or a supplement to the J-8's. 
I would argue against a pure technology demonstrator in light of the recent unveilment of the 2nd prototype ie. to prove a technology you shouldn't need 2 aircraft.
A mix of the two is also possible.


----------



## amalakas

Oscar said:


> There are dedicated designs already for specialized strike missions.
> And the vast amount of territory China would have to cover over sea to hit adversary assets..
> and not to mention the possibility of striking south into India as well.
> I think the J-20 is a good tool.



True there are. Strange though that the strike plane came first then. 



Audio said:


> In my opinion there are only 2 options:
> interceptor or strike fighter along the lines of the F-111, possibly one of the counters to carrier groups and/or a supplement to the J-8's.
> I would argue against a pure technology demonstrator in light of the recent unveilment of the 2nd prototype ie. to prove a technology you shouldn't need 2 aircraft.
> A mix of the two is also possible.



We don't know how agile the plane is yet. It may be agile enough to fulfil the fighter role.


----------



## stardave

Looking from the air frame design, J-20 is definitely a good dog fighter, better than F-22 and Pak-FA. Canard and big wing will give it excellent control at lower speed and angle of attack.

J-20: Flight Testing! - YouTube

I think this plane will be multi-role platform, from anti air to anti ground. But the most useful role is to launch air to sea attack missiles over the pacific, however the biggest problem with that is that currently China does not have any long range anti ship missile that can fit inside the J-20's weapon bay. Such as this one Naval Strike Missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 200+ km range and as short as AAM.

So that means they either have to develop a antiship missile that have 150+ km range and can fit inside the weapon bay, or it will perform role of combat air patrol over the ocean. It has enough fuel for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## stardave

As for the canard, yes it is very un-stealthy, however that can be changed if the canard does not move or move very little during flight. I am sure we all see photo that J-20's canard can almost move up and down by as much as 90 degrees. So that means if the jet is making a turn using canard it will show up as a blib on the radar, then it will disappear because the canard has return to the original position.

But I think it should be easy enough to write a software the restrict the canard's movement as little as possible during normal flight, because the plan can easily turn on it is own using ruder and flaps. That way, the canard will stay flat at 180 degrees with +- 10 degree of movements max.

And when the J-20 gets in close range combat, the canard will be able to allow to freely move again. 

This is very possible, because remember, this is all being done with fly by wire. The pilot tells the jet where to turn and the jet move it is control surface automatically calculated by computers. That means there can be a mode in which it restrict the canard's movement to as little as 10 degree of movements during normal flight. 

I know for sure Typhoon has some kind of software that uses to control of its canards in order to reduce its radar cross section. I don't know what it is, but it is probably this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Audio

stardave said:


> Looking from the air frame design, J-20 is definitely a good dog fighter, better than F-22 and Pak-FA.



How does an RC plane video you posted help in establishing that?

In my opinion it's just a bit too big to be a proper fighter or maybe it is just me having problems imagining something as big and heavy looking can turn on a dime.


----------



## stardave

Audio said:


> How does an RC plane video you posted help in establishing that?
> 
> In my opinion it's just a bit too big to be a proper fighter or maybe it is just me having problems imagining something as big and heavy looking can turn on a dime.



Well, at least the RC plane has some evidence base in real physics, but your opinion is just your opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

stardave said:


> Well, at least the RC plane has some evidence base in real physics, but your opinion is just your opinion.



And there is a video by the (same?) people who have a model of the pak fa. Even more spectacular. 

Rc planes made from derpon have no weight. that is the big difference here.


----------



## stardave

J-20 VS T-50 - YouTube I don't think they said pak fa. Even more spectacular.

J-20's layout is extremely maneuverable, the only reason it would not be maneuverable is if the engine is underpowered, when that happens the jet will have no energy to turn, kinda like Taiwan's IDF.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

stardave said:


> J-20 VS T-50 - YouTube I don't think they said pak fa. Even more spectacular.
> 
> J-20's layout is extremely maneuverable, the only reason it would not be maneuverable is if the engine is underpowered, when that happens the jet will have no energy to turn, kinda like Taiwan's IDF.




RC models are not the same. the pak fa model has a single thruster, the J-20 two , and the point made in the video from the RC model is that the T-50 model is unstable. If you know what is what you know what that means. On the other hand the rc model of the j-20 is stable. Stable is NOT what you are looking for in a modern air design.


----------



## stardave

Yes I understand RC model is NOT the real thing, however aerodynamic speaking, it still shares many of the law of physics with the real world, because you can also build a RC 747 and they won't be as agile as a F-16, because even if it is smaller and lighter it still have to follow the law of air friction and newton.

And what do you mean stable is NOT what you are looking or in a modern air design? The ability to make quick turns and sustain high alpha is indeed extremely important in a modern air design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## applesauce

Seriously, we're basing discussions based on models made by a nobody that obviously didn't even attempt to make the models remotely similar to the real thing?

for the record, you can make just about anything fly with enough power(and/or light enough materials)

for instance:









a company that does this : FlyingThingZ &#8211; Cut Up the Sky!

now try to power them with jet engines and fly it at mach 1.5 and see how stable they are


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> But it does seem that the JAST was an inspiration(or that the JAST was also inspired in a similar fashion??)..
> 
> I think the delta platform commonality is not a justification for taking the Rafale as an inspiration..although I do see your point regarding planform shaping especially the blended fuselage and leading edge.


I would say it is a combination of inspiration and necessity. If we go back to WW II, we will find that planform wise, the majority of front line fighters were pretty much alike. How many swept wing were there? Inverted gull? The most famous were the Stuka and the Corsair. The Lightning and the Black Widow were anomalies. The Mosquito was unusual because of its material, not of anything ground breaking in terms of planform to exploit new aerodynamic principles. Same thing for bombers. Pretty much straight wings with wing mounted engines. We did have diverse airfoils but everyone had straight wings.

Not much different today despite advances in aerodynamics knowledge. If you want to do A, B, and C well you must have X, Y, and Z. The pure delta is gone with the Concorde as the last of its kind. Instead we have variations with the cropped delta the most popular. No one need to poach a complete airframe from someone else to build his own version of another's aircraft. The long straight wings have been relegated to civilian designs and long duration high altitude drones. If you want to go fast with a certain degree of maneuverability, a delta variation is a necessity.

No different on the avionics front. If you want to exploit the aerodynamic advantages of these new fandangle planforms, you must have a FBW-FLCS. My apologies to our Russian friends but the days of the hybrid mechanically commanded and electronically assisted FLCS is done for. If the US is going to hang on to the F-15 out of financial constraints, the new F-15 will be FBW-FLCS and deadlier than it is today.

China does not need a complete 1.44 or a complete Rafale to emulate either's and both's best features to create the J-20. But in doing so, the final product will end up with remarkable resemblance to both.



Oscar said:


> Which does open up a canard discussion..
> leaving the saucers and the flying wings aside.. *are there no other conventional stealth designs other than those following the F-22 pattern?*


Put aside the B-2 for now. Your question must include the YF-23 because to a sensor specialist like meself, both aircrafts are very similar in their 'global' perspectives regarding RCS control methods and results...







Northrop's planform was rumored -- strongly -- to be inferior in terms of *CONCENTRATIONS* of reflections. But Lockheed scored the contract because its planform was superior to Northrop's in terms of agility and supercruise. Both planforms induces very similar behaviors and the YF-23's produced a greater spread of diffracted signals, resulting in an inferior concentration of these signals in most aspect angles.

The YF-23's leading and trailing edges are more uniform and further apart from each other. The F-22's planform produces a concentration of diffracted signals at the hindmost aspect, the region that the USAF considered to be the least tactically significant. We can see commonality between the YF-23 and the B-2 in this area with their 'sawtooth' patterned trailing edges. the F-22 does not have this arrangement. And the YF-23 have two less diffraction generators because the canted rudders also perform the horizontal stabs' duties.

So what this means is that for any design wishing to emulate the F-22/YF-23 in terms of low radar observability, its planform arrangement most likely will exhibit very similar visual cues. But just like how the USAF placed one set of tactical demands over another that ended up with the F-22, our latest 'stealth' aspirant will face the same debates that will ended up with it having some compromises.


----------



## gambit

stardave said:


> Yes I understand RC model is NOT the real thing, however aerodynamic speaking, it still shares many of the law of physics with the real world, because you can also build a RC 747 and they won't be as agile as a F-16, because even if it is smaller and lighter it still have to follow the law of air friction and newton.
> 
> And what do you mean stable is NOT what you are looking or in a modern air design? The ability to make quick turns and sustain high alpha is indeed extremely important in a modern air design.


Then you should have no problems explaining why is that model so stable when the real aircraft is unstable. You confused stability with aerodynamics. The F-16 is very aerodynamics but is unstable. And so was the Wright Flyer...

Wright brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Modern analysis by Professor Fred E. C. Culick and Henry R. Jex (in 1985) has demonstrated that the 1903 Wright Flyer was so unstable as to be almost unmanageable by anyone but the Wrights, who had trained themselves in the 1902 glider.


Virtually the entire WW I line of fighters were inherently unstable designs.


----------



## Audio

stardave said:


> Well, at least the RC plane has _some evidence base_ in real physics, but your opinion is just your opinion.



  

It's not even the same shape as the real thing. Wings are different, canards are bigger on the model, no weight, diff. power/weight ratio.

You are funny and that's also my opinion.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> ..
> Put aside the B-2 for now. Your question must include the YF-23 because to a sensor specialist like meself, both aircrafts are very similar in their 'global' perspectives regarding RCS control methods and results...
> 
> 
> Northrop's planform was rumored -- strongly -- to be inferior in terms of *CONCENTRATIONS* of reflections. But Lockheed scored the contract because its planform was superior to Northrop's in terms of agility and supercruise. Both planforms induces very similar behaviors and the YF-23's produced a greater spread of diffracted signals, resulting in an inferior concentration of these signals in most aspect angles.
> 
> The YF-23's leading and trailing edges are more uniform and further apart from each other. The F-22's planform produces a concentration of diffracted signals at the hindmost aspect, the region that the USAF considered to be the least tactically significant. We can see commonality between the YF-23 and the B-2 in this area with their 'sawtooth' patterned trailing edges. the F-22 does not have this arrangement. And the YF-23 have two less diffraction generators because the canted rudders also perform the horizontal stabs' duties.
> 
> So what this means is that for any design wishing to emulate the F-22/YF-23 in terms of low radar observability, its planform arrangement most likely will exhibit very similar visual cues. But just like how the USAF placed one set of tactical demands over another that ended up with the F-22, our latest 'stealth' aspirant will face the same debates that will ended up with it having some compromises.



So taking your cues to the planform concentrations.. The J-20 should have high levels of concentration towards the hinds of both the canards and the wing planform???

Im not exactly sure if the USAF will ever go for golden eagles(unless its the SE).. but a golden falcon is thought likely. 
In that respect Im not sure what further could be done beyond the "Have glass" modification standard to a F-16.

Which brings me to an EM question regarding communication alternatives for stealth A/C.
The F-22 still uses JTIDS and even if it is upgraded to link-22 you are still using the Em spectrum to Xmt and Rcv.. which leaves the possibility of somebody being able to know you are around. I believe there was a laser or IR comm system planned but whether it made it into the design or not.. sweetman wasnt sure about it.

So if an EM wave is susceptible to detection, what other alternatives would a stealth A/C have to communicate... ??


----------



## Diamond_Gold

applesauce said:


> Seriously, we're basing discussions based on models made by a nobody that obviously didn't even attempt to make the models remotely similar to the real thing?
> 
> for the record, you can make just about anything fly with enough power(and/or light enough materials)
> 
> for instance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a company that does this : FlyingThingZ  Cut Up the Sky!
> 
> now try to power them with jet engines and fly it at mach 1.5 and see how stable they are



LOL. can you get a "Coffin" version of this? I would like to see one.


----------



## gambit

Audio said:


> It's not even the same shape as the real thing. Wings are different, canards are bigger on the model, no weight, diff. power/weight ratio.
> 
> You are funny and that's also my opinion.


Here is a valuable lesson on scaling...

Scaling down aerodynamics? - Topic


> As ming says, the Reynolds number has to be considered. *Using a scale model doesn't scale down the Air*, so, to get a correct scale effect, you have to account for the difference in viscosities compared to the scale of the model. For example, a 1/4 scale model would require 4 X the flow velocity to get the correct scale effects. 1/28th scale models would require an impossibly high airflow rate and probably would work better in water.


Hollywood special effects people are well versed in this when they have to deal with scaled down models of real items. We cannot scale down smoke, fire, and water. Under water are the various water based phenomenon like fog and mist. We cannot scale them down either.

That is why it is hilarious that anyone would bring up that J-20's scaled down models to illustrate the real aircraft's aerodynamics and agility. Air's viscosity remain the same on both the scaled down model and the real aircraft. The man obviously have never been to an RC model event. The 'pilots' of scaled down models of the F-15 have done maneuvers that pilots of the real F-15 wish they could perform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Here is a valuable lesson on scaling...
> 
> Scaling down aerodynamics? - Topic
> 
> Hollywood special effects people are well versed in this when they have to deal with scaled down models of real items. We cannot scale down smoke, fire, and water. Under water are the various water based phenomenon like fog and mist. We cannot scale them down either.
> 
> That is why it is hilarious that anyone would bring up that J-20's scaled down models to illustrate the real aircraft's aerodynamics and agility. Air's viscosity remain the same on both the scaled down model and the real aircraft. The man obviously have never been to an RC model event. The 'pilots' of scaled down models of the F-15 have done maneuvers that pilots of the real F-15 wish they could perform.



I have a Blade 400 RC chopper.. And have been able to mimic part of this.. I dont think any actual piloted chopper can do this without tearing itself apart.


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> So taking your cues to the planform concentrations.. The J-20 should have high levels of concentration towards the hinds of both the canards and the wing planform???
> 
> Im not exactly sure if the USAF will ever go for golden eagles(unless its the SE).. but a golden falcon is thought likely.
> In that respect Im not sure what further could be done beyond the "Have glass" modification standard to a F-16.


What you are asking require us to go back to the basics, which am certain is abhorrent to most people, here and on other forums elsewhere, because they usually come to these places with minds *ALREADY* made up. So please bear with me...






The top line -- the smoothest one -- represent the sphere, or the diameter of a cylinder. Our Chinese members of this forum have taken this to mean that the sphere (shape) or the curvature (surface topography) are the worst in terms of RCS production.

*NOTHING* can be further from the truth.

What the sphere (or diameter on a cylinder) represent is *UNIFORMITY* and *CONSISTENCY* in terms of radiation. They are usually employed as standards for measurements and calibration of just about anything involving radar.

For the illustration above, we have one thing in common for those simple shapes: Surface wave inducers. And that the RCS graphs for each shape are non-rotational with the radar signal going 'left-right', if you will.






Tilt the plate enough and we will have an RCS that is far lower than the sphere when the plate will present only one edge diffraction signal: The edge facing the radar. But continuing in rotating the plate and eventually the plate will present the 'full Monty' to the radar, producing an RCS far far far greater than the sphere.

The same argument applies to all of the above shapes, not that all of them will produce an RCS greater than the sphere while under rotation, but the lesson remains: Uniformity and Consistency. In radar detection and data processing, variables and variations of any kind are natural attention attractants.

The ogive (oh-ghee-vee) may have a natural RCS lower than the sphere regardless of rotational aspect angles -- *MAY* because we have not touch size. But the ogive shape have three radiation modes: Surface, Specular and Edge, with four locations: two sides and two points.

Same thing with the plate except that when the plate is in 'full Monty' to the radar, there will be no surface wave behaviors whereas with the ogive, even if the ogive is completely perpendicular to the seeking radar, surface topography via curvature will induce surface wave behaviors and will deny the seeking radar some measure of detection.

For the double-rounded cone, we have three modes of radiation: Surface, Plate, and Edge. And these radiators: Two points, four plates, and two curvatures.

I will leave the other shapes as entertaining mental exercise for interested readers to figure out.

Keep in mind that the shape illustration is non-rotational. Now we will add in the '10-lambda' rule...






What the '10-lambda' (wavelength) says is that if the diameter (sphere or cylinder) is less than 10-wavelengths -- regardless of wavelengths -- then the 'creeping wave' behavior will occur. If the diameter is greater than 10-wavelengths, then the creeping wave behavior *WILL NOT* occur. So for the diameter (sphere or cylinder) there will be a situation where the sphere will have only one radiation mode for the seeking radar: Specular. And this is regardless of rotational aspect angles.

Now apply the '10-lambda' rule to all of the above shapes while each is under rotation.

Now amplify *EVERYTHING* above a million times because we are dealing with a complex body call an 'aircraft'.

An aircraft is a symmetrical but irregular body. People must understand this. Irregularity produces uncertainty which produces variations which will naturally attract attentions. This is inevitable for an aircraft whose surface topography contains rare instances of discrete of any of the above shapes but usually far worse: Combinations of those shapes.

The result is that *IF* our goal is to control the behaviors of these radiation patterns, we must first understand the behaviors and we started with Ufimtsev. Since we cannot avoid the plate and its accompanying edges, aka 'wings' for example, we should try to contain their numbers and avoid placing them in clusters. This led us to the next rules: Containment of radiation modes. Avoidance of radiation clusters.

Now watch the bloodbaths between the radar and aerodynamic geeks.

Nowhere am I saying that the American 'stealth' aircrafts are the ones the world should go by. What I am saying is that if a foreign power want to enter the 'stealth' arena, it would behoove said 'stealth' fighter aspirant to return to the basics, study how we did it, self examine the technological capabilities, and give it a go. But do not think that the product is beyond critical examinations by observers especially when they have at least one generation of this technology as an unofficial standard to measure all 'stealth' aspirants.



Oscar said:


> Which brings me to an EM question regarding communication alternatives for stealth A/C.
> The F-22 still uses JTIDS and even if it is upgraded to link-22 you are still using the Em spectrum to Xmt and Rcv.. which leaves the possibility of somebody being able to know you are around. I believe there was a laser or IR comm system planned but whether it made it into the design or not.. sweetman wasnt sure about it.
> 
> So if an EM wave is susceptible to detection, what other alternatives would a stealth A/C have to communicate... ??


These are burst data and while they can be intercepted, the bursts are so brief that at best they could be used as an warning, not as a locator.


----------



## Sasquatch



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> These are burst data and while they can be intercepted, the bursts are so brief that at best they could be used as an warning, not as a locator.



The refresher in wave theory was appreciated.. since its been a while since I took that course.. but the object of my question was how those visual similarities between the delta platform of the J-20 and the platform of the YF-22 may allow for a certain approximation of having similar characteristics in return.

Coming to the question of bursts.. I am well aware of it since triangulation of a burst is difficult but since it does still give itself away.. Can one avoid even that?
No warning at all. yet communications continue between a stealth aircraft flight group(and no I dont mean hand signals )


----------



## amalakas

Oscar said:


> The refresher in wave theory was appreciated.. since its been a while since I took that course.. but the object of my question was how those visual similarities between the delta platform of the J-20 and the platform of the YF-22 may allow for a certain approximation of having similar characteristics in return.
> 
> Coming to the question of bursts.. I am well aware of it since triangulation of a burst is difficult but since it does still give itself away.. Can one avoid even that?
> No warning at all. yet communications continue between a stealth aircraft flight group(and no I dont mean hand signals )



around 1998-99 we successfully hid signal in background noise. We used wavelets and stochastic statistical algorithms to retrieve the information. 

Not easy though .


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> The refresher in wave theory was appreciated.. since its been a while since I took that course.. but the object of *my question was how those visual similarities between the delta platform of the J-20 and the platform of the YF-22 may allow for a certain approximation of having similar characteristics in return.*


What I posted was for the benefits of the interested lay readers as well. But for your current question, I am going to have to tread very carefully here...

The RCS control tactic goes: Model, Predict, and Measurement.

With computer assist, 'super' or not, the 'Model' and 'Predict' are often interchanged. But 'Measurement' always have the final words: Yea or Nay (dumbass).

Based upon what we know of the above simple shapes and how they would respond, we can take a step up and model/predict how these shapes would respond in combination with each other. We have done such modeling/predicting and our measurement, which is the final step in any RCS control experiment, have bear out our modeling/predicting. As the complex body increases in complexity in terms of shape combinants to include their sizes, our modeling/predicting equally increases in complexity and of course, errors when measurements do not support our theories. Then it is back to the proverbial drawing board.






If modeling/predicting is that easy to support by measurements, we would not be enclosing the above RCS mess, as in 'internalizing' them in some ways, fuselage or RCS controlled 'pods'. But what we also do know is that complex structures on a complex body do exhibit identifiable signal characteristics and our problem have always been discernment then extraction of those characteristics out of the background. The greater the complexity, the greater the uniqueness of those characteristics, but not necessarily in amplitude since destructive interference will deny us that factor.

A wing is a much more complex structure than the sphere or a cylinder but far less than a cluster of missiles and bombs as shown above. So have anyone in the 'stealth' arena did a study on the ranges of these signals, from the simple sphere to a cluster of cylinders and plates (missiles and bombs), to anywhere in the middle? Yes, we did. Anyone else? I do not know.

Here is where I must tread carefully and I will use *PUBLICLY* available sources to give you a hint of what we 'may' have in store for potential 'stealth' aspirants...

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page


> Cluster Sorting of Radar Signals Using Intra-pulse Feature
> 
> Author(s): Song Yunzhao Univ. of Electron. Sci. & Technol. of China, Chengdu
> Wan Qun ; Liu Gang
> 
> Common parameters for signal description can hardly meet practical requirement of radar signal sorting and recognition. Aiming at the problem of signal sorting system, DCT (discrete cosine transform) features and BT (product of bandwidth and time width) feature are introduced to form a new description vector. DCT features not only can reflect modulation mode but also are not sensitive to noise. BT feature can reflect some parameters of modulation. Both of DCT features and BT feature are easy to get. At last, results of weighted dynamic cluster show that DCT features and BT feature are effective for sorting.


What the abstract really mean is that we are trying to extract a cluster of signals that are related to each other in some significant ways. The signals *MUST* relate to each other.

First...The words 'Cluster Sorting'...






The above is an example of such a cluster or 'clustering' of signals and whose discrete members are related to each other by virtue of their parent -- the aircraft.

The floor represent a threshold and that is usually the 'clutter rejection threshold'. Clutter is extremely problematic in radar detection. What 'clutter' is -- Is a set of signals that matches a library of signal characteristics that we *IMMEDIATELY* discard. Primary in that library is amplitude. Cosmic background radiation (CBR) is a member in that library. Do we want CBR to be on our scope? No. But our astronomer pal would want to study this CBR thingie. We do not want to see birds, but our ornithologist pal does. We do not want to see hyrdometeors, but our meteorologist pal does. So what clutter really mean is that it is completely arbitrary. One man's junk is another man's treasure. The library and line that represent clutter processing depends on what one is looking for (above) and discarded signal characteristics that matches said library (below). A radar engineer can spend his entire professional career -- *DECADES* -- just working on clutter processing, then retire in comfort to a boathouse in Florida.

Now...The words 'Intra-pulse'...






The above is an example of the basic characteristics of a standard radar pulse transmission. The words 'Intra-pulse' refers to the periods of 'silence' or non-transmission between each pulse.

Not the PRI. *NOT*.

The PRI is measured either from leading edge to leading edge or trailing edge to trailing edge. The intra-pulse period is measured from trailing edge to leading edge.

The problem for 99% of the world's radars regarding 'stealth' is that the aircraft produces a set of signal characteristics that matches the most commonly known clutter libraries that contains: birds, insects, hydrometeors, flora, and fauna. When you buy a radar system, civilian or military, these libraries are already included either by hardware via electronics engineering of interchangeable circuit boards or by software. Usually a combination of both.

The 'non-stealth' aircraft produces a cluster of signals that rises above the clutter rejection threshold, hence it is 'detected' and 'tracked'. The individuals of this cluster have one thing in common with each other: amplitude. Cluster sorting by amplitude alone is sufficient to 'detect' and 'track' this target.

The 'stealth' aircraft produces a cluster of signals that *DOES NOT* rises above the clutter rejection threshold, hence the entire cluster is 'discarded'. The individuals of this cluster also have one thing in common with each other: amplitude. But much much much less of it. So cluster sorting by amplitude alone is insufficient. We dare not lower the clutter rejection threshold because we would be overwhelmed by so much raw data. But if we have no choice but to lower this threshold, we must find some other ways to process the raw data based upon signal characteristics other than amplitude.

An aircraft is a complex body comprised of diverse shapes, from spheres to spheroids to plates to ovoids to cylinders to half cylinders to ogives and so on. The sharp transitions from one shape to another -- surface discontinuities -- and from one material to another -- medium discontinuities -- are what made an aircraft 'non-stealth'. A 'stealth' aircraft is still a complex body except that it has much lower incidences (events) of surface discontinuities and medium discontinuities. But if a surface discontinuity and/or a medium discontinuity must exist, and they do exist, the next goal is to deny the seeking radar the availability of the signals produced and if that denial is not possible, then reduce the intensity of that availability. Put it another way: Both the denial of availability and the reduction of intensity of what is available made an aircraft 'stealthy', based upon the clutter rejection threshold, of course.

We know from long ago that complex bodies produces different signal characteristics based upon the diverse shapes and relationships of those shapes. What the authors are putting forth is an attempt at data processing of what happens to a target with respect to the clutter rejection threshold by analyzing the target's clustering characteristics *BETWEEN* pulses.

Here is how...

Because the target in question is a moving target across a *KNOWN* background that is usually discarded as 'junk' or clutter, the target will produce a phase shift that could occur from pulse to pulse. The 'junk' or clutter' will not produce such a phase shift.

The proposed method would: 

- Analyze *EACH* signal inside the clutter rejection threshold, from pulse to pulse,...

- Search for phase shifts from pulse to pulse,...

- Determine if these phase shifts are in a cluster,...

- Determine if the background clutter produces any phase shifts,...

- Cancelation of any non-shifting signals.

Then declare a 'target' or not. Hence the words 'Intra-pulse'. The potential for false target declaration is great because of dependencies on avionics hardware and/or software sophistication. However, *IF* the system is comprised of physically and spatially distinct antenna arrays technique called 'displaced phase center'...

Theory of displaced phase center antenna for space based radar applications


> A theory of the *displaced phase center antenna system* for space based on radar applications is presented. The matching condition required to compensate for the motion of the satellite platform so that *clutter cancellation* can be achieved is first derived. Analytical expressions for the signal and clutter covariance matrices are given. With the aid of a simplified model, numerical values of an improvement factor are obtained. These results illustrate the dependence of the level of clutter rejection on radar parameters such as: grazing angle, pulse train duration, pulse repetition rate, and antenna aperture size.



Phased Arrays and Radars


> Clutter Rejection for an Airborne System (STAP and DPCA)
> 
> To cope with ground clutter and sidelobe jamming for airborne radar, extensive work is ongoing toward the development of an airborne phased array using space-time adaptive processing (STAP).25,26 STAP is a general form of *displaced phase center antenna (DPCA)* processing. STAP had been demonstrated several years ago on a modified E2-C system by NRL.27,28 More recently, a flight demonstration STAP provided 52 to 69 dB of sidelobe clutter cancellation relative to the main beam clutter.29 This system used an array mounted on the side of an aircraft. The antenna had 11 degrees of freedom in azimuth and two in elevation, for a total of 22. Before STAP, the antenna RMS sidelobe level was -30 dBi; with STAP, it was 45 dBi.


...Then this potentiality is removed but currently it is not yet feasible for something small like a fighter aircraft, which does not have sufficient volume space to carry two antennas and to space them apart to take the full effect. Data processing is intensive because the system is effectively processing everything from CBR to birds to insects to flora and to fauna. The system does not lower its clutter rejection threshold, it simply uses it as a reference, so in a way, the word 'rejection' here is a bit of a misnomer. The system can even have a dynamic clutter rejection threshold capability based upon situational needs, but that would increase the data processing requirement to cover all possible tactical scenarios. So to date, only something as large like an AWACS can have this DPCA capability.

The results are extremely dramatic...






Dual antennas for DPCA capability is not an option for small aircrafts. Cluster sorting via intra-pulse analysis is one of *MANY* techniques and is a more attractive possibility for a single antenna system but is limited to just the PRI. Keep in mind that this single antenna system is also limited in scan direction and area.

Frequency is probably the most talked about characteristic of anything related to EM discussions, particularly the phrase 'frequency hopping'. The more precise phrase is 'frequency agility'. Some radar systems are more frequency agile than others, at the expense of system hardware and cost, of course. But as we can see above with the illustration containing all the basic signal characteristics of a transmission, frequency is not the only signal characteristic in a typical radar transmission. If our system is more capable, we would have 'parameters agility', meaning the ability to manipulate -- at will -- all signal characteristics of a transmission.

For example...






The typical AM radio signal is amplitude agile. The FM side is frequency agile. The above example is the lesser known PRI agile or PRI 'jittering' in electronics warfare jargon. Data analysis of complex returned signals from a PRI agile transmission is already possible. The probability of a radar system to have this capability is another issue. Now add in amplitude, frequency, bursts of continuous wave (CW), and many other combinations. Each combination have been studied (by US) to see what kind of signal a certain planform will produce.

So if we know that complex bodies will produce complex variations of signals, from phase shifts to Doppler to amplitude and so on, is it possible to have a single antenna system sophisticated and powerful enough and is equipped with a comprehensive library of clustered signals characteristics to fully exploit parameters agility to detect low radar observable aircrafts? Yes.

We *ALREADY* know what a 'delta wing' look like as far as complexity of returned echo goes. As long as one aircraft give us a reference signal, we can extrapolate with high confidence of precision and accuracy what a smaller or larger delta wing will look like. A canard is just another wing. It is a 'canard' by virtue of physical placement but its aerodynamics and EM characteristics are no different than the 'wing'. But because of its size and physical location on a complex body, the final set of signal characteristics will be different than that of the 'delta wing' and the fuselage. We know what this set of signal characteristics look like.

Dual antennas for DPCA capability is largely hardware based for discernment and extraction of unique clusters inside a background. Pulsed transmissions with parameter agility is another method for the same desire. You can bet your next year's salary that there are more methods than what I have presented here.

I made no claims on exact figures but based upon the visual similarities of planforms and upon what I know from my own experience, I will 'opine'  that we (the US) know what each planform look like under EM bombardment and those libraries will be waiting for the next 'stealth' aspirants.



Oscar said:


> Coming to the question of bursts.. I am well aware of it since triangulation of a burst is difficult but since it does still give itself away.. Can one avoid even that?
> No warning at all. yet communications continue between a stealth aircraft flight group(and no I dont mean hand signals )


It does give itself away, of course. But a reasonably directional communication method can further reduce the odds of detection...






The initials 'CNI' stands for: Communication, Navigation, and Identification.

That is what the USAF chose to disseminate to the public. Now you know why the F-22 is called 'an antenna farm'. Between each fighter, the entire system can passively monitor each friendly aircraft's position and will use only the appropriate antenna for these data transmission bursts.

Then you add in this...



amalakas said:


> around 1998-99 we successfully *hid signal in background noise*. We used *wavelets and stochastic statistical algorithms* to retrieve the information.
> 
> Not easy though .


And the odds of detection by a hostile force is reduced even further.

A flight of 4 F-22s can divide the sky into discrete areas of responsibility for each aircraft with everyone in 99% passive detection mode and communicate with each other using only physically discrete antennas.

Now multiply this capability at least twice for the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Audio

gambit said:


> ...We dare not lower the clutter rejection threshold because we would be overwhelmed by so much raw data....



is this a computer hardware issue? As in lack of processing power? To process more data and thus lower it.

The isometric image is also interesting. I'm assuming that picture isnt that new (going by the looks/print of the scan, the Boeing 727), it's made with a stationary radar at 2.7km.
Could a radar in a today's fighter draw that up in higher detail at a larger distance (some military value, lets say 60km intercept distance-or more if power allows it) in real time ? 
To help the pilot identify precisely what he is up against.


----------



## gambit

Audio said:


> is this a computer hardware issue? As in lack of processing power? To process more data and thus lower it.


Sort of 'Yes' and 'No'. Lack of processing power in terms of hardware can be compensated by having a very narrow beam, after all, a radar cannot process anything that is outside of its capture capability -- beamwidth. The downside to that is increase search time if there is a volume assigned.



Audio said:


> The isometric image is also interesting. I'm assuming that picture isnt that new (going by the looks/print of the scan, the Boeing 727), it's made with a stationary radar at 2.7km.
> *Could a radar in a today's fighter draw that up in higher detail at a larger distance* (some military value, lets say 60km intercept distance-or more if power allows it) in real time ?
> To help the pilot identify precisely what he is up against.


Yes. But you should understand that a radar scope is nothing like that graph. I used it to illustrate the point about a cluster of radiation generators. Or 'unnatural' sources, if you will. We have radars that against stationary targets, can produce visualizations whose clarity that approaches that of a B/W photograph.


----------



## Audio

gambit said:


> Yes. But you should understand that a radar scope is nothing like that graph. I used it to illustrate the point about a cluster of radiation generators. Or 'unnatural' sources, if you will. We have radars that against stationary targets, can produce visualizations whose clarity that approaches that of a B/W photograph.



I didnt mean radar scope.
I meant software would be taking real time raw data from the radar, and drawing it on some display in the cockpit if the pilot wanted to.

You can imagine better with a crude example: 
Pilot gets intercept order, target unknown, he gets into some sort of range, points the radar in the general direction, finds it, software/radio camera snaps an image and then gets that image drawn on a display.

And yes i have seen decent detail radar images of stationary objects (buildings) and moving (asteroids) before, i was just wondering if there is any sort of military application along the lines of what i described in use. Is the image resolution big enough to allow type recognition for example.


----------



## gambit

Audio said:


> I didnt mean radar scope.
> I meant software would be taking real time raw data from the radar, and drawing it on some display in the cockpit if the pilot wanted to.
> 
> You can imagine better with a crude example:
> Pilot gets intercept order, target unknown, he gets into some sort of range, points the radar in the general direction, finds it, software/radio camera snaps an image and then gets that image drawn on a display.
> 
> And yes i have seen decent detail radar images of stationary objects (buildings) and moving (asteroids) before, i was just wondering if there is any sort of military application along the lines of what i described in use. *Is the image resolution big enough to allow type recognition for example.*


Absolutely. Just keyword search on 'synthetic aperature radar' and see for yourself. But again, a SAR is best against a stationary target. With a dynamic target and if he is resistant to detection, the moment his RWR alerted him to being bombarded, his maneuvers will render any SAR attempt useless. In this case, the only and still best solution is through cluster sorting and analysis.


----------



## no_name

Oscar said:


> I have a Blade 400 RC chopper.. And have been able to mimic part of this.. I dont think any actual piloted chopper can do this without tearing itself apart.



Lol, based on models, that chopper is more maneuverable than the J-20 and T-50


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> I have a Blade 400 RC chopper.. And have been able to mimic part of this.. I dont think any actual piloted chopper can do this without tearing itself apart.


Wait about 90 seconds into the vid...

17 Year Old RC Pilot Stuns Crowd - YouTube

So according to our man who felled for that J-20 model, *EVERYBODY* are fools for going after the delta wings, canards, twin vertical stabs, and TVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Wait about 90 seconds into the vid...
> 
> 17 Year Old RC Pilot Stuns Crowd - YouTube
> 
> So according to our man who felled for that J-20 model, *EVERYBODY* are fools for going after the delta wings, canards, twin vertical stabs, and TVC.



if memory serves... ww2 dogfights were just like that ..


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> if memory serves... ww2 dogfights were just like that ..


We should 'enshrine' these words...Somehow...



> stardave said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Looking from the air frame design, J-20 is definitely a good dog fighter, better than F-22 and Pak-FA. Canard and big wing will give it excellent control at lower speed and angle of attack.*
> 
> J-20: Flight Testing! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stardave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least the RC plane has some evidence base in *real physics*, but your opinion is just your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And to think that they were 'Thanked' as 'useful' posts......More like should be 'tanked' for knowledge and understanding of real physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> We should 'enshrine' these words...Somehow...
> 
> 
> And to think that they were 'Thanked' as 'useful' posts......More like should be 'tanked' for knowledge and understanding of real physics.




I think the J-20 ( an achievement in its own right) has dropped the last drop in the glass of chinese overpatriotism and pride. 
If nothing else that is already the major J-20 achievement. 

What I have noticed before though and again and again, is an over expression of bravado without equal. I remember mentioning before that one should not discard the established in favour of the new. 

It is not just the toys that make a fighting force. It is the way one uses them. 

by taking a far stretched example, I could say with a degree of confidence that in a fictional scenario where a couple of nato countries go up against chinese forces (even without 5th and 4.5++ gen planes), the outcome would be so profoundly one sided that our chinese friends would be speechless for some time. 

heck .. half of the training our guys got was about understanding what the weapon is, and what it does. and then they went to international and bilateral training to find out what others have found out about the weapon. 

In exercises US pilots were surprised to see ways HAF used their F-16s and USAF didn't . On the other hand HAF pilots found out how the F-16 can be so incredibly deadly when it is part of a cooperating larger package. 

E.G. HAF F-16s are the superiority fighters in their homeland, but working with the F-15s pilots realise the potential coverage and deadly combinations of tactics that can be deployed even against deadlier aircraft such as the SU-xx or the EF-2000 and what a force multiplier a superiority fighter can be.. far beyond its own fighting capabilities. 

its not the weapons that make the army.. its the men ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SinoChallenger

amalakas said:


> I think the J-20 ( an achievement in its own right) has dropped the last drop in the glass of chinese overpatriotism and pride.
> If nothing else that is already the major J-20 achievement.
> 
> What I have noticed before though and again and again, is an over expression of bravado without equal. I remember mentioning before that one should not discard the established in favour of the new.
> 
> It is not just the toys that make a fighting force. It is the way one uses them.
> 
> *by taking a far stretched example, I could say with a degree of confidence that in a fictional scenario where a couple of nato countries go up against chinese forces (even without 5th and 4.5++ gen planes), the outcome would be so profoundly one sided that our chinese friends would be speechless for some time. *
> 
> heck .. half of the training our guys got was about understanding what the weapon is, and what it does. and then they went to international and bilateral training to find out what others have found out about the weapon.
> 
> In exercises US pilots were surprised to see ways HAF used their F-16s and USAF didn't . On the other hand HAF pilots found out how the F-16 can be so incredibly deadly when it is part of a cooperating larger package.
> 
> E.G. HAF F-16s are the superiority fighters in their homeland, but working with the F-15s pilots realise the potential coverage and deadly combinations of tactics that can be deployed even against deadlier aircraft such as the SU-xx or the EF-2000 and what a force multiplier a superiority fighter can be.. far beyond its own fighting capabilities.
> 
> its not the weapons that make the army.. its the men ..


LOL who cares about your fictional story. In reality China smashed the USA and UN forces so badly in the Korea War they went on the biggest and fastest retreat in their whole military history! So speechless was the USA after Korean War and Vietnam War that Nixon came begging to Mao to normalize relations and before you know it PRC became UN security council permanent member!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

SinoChallenger said:


> LOL who cares about your fictional story. In reality China smashed the USA and UN forces so badly in the Korea War they went on the biggest and fastest retreat in their whole military history! So speechless was the USA after Korean War and Vietnam War that Nixon came begging to Mao to normalize relations and before you know it PRC became UN security council permanent member!



am.. not quite ..


----------



## mosu

i think this is toys picture


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> What you are asking require us to go back to the basics, which am certain is abhorrent to most people, here and on other forums elsewhere, because they usually come to these places with minds *ALREADY* made up. So please bear with me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top line -- the smoothest one -- represent the sphere, or the diameter of a cylinder. Our Chinese members of this forum have taken this to mean that the sphere (shape) or the curvature (surface topography) are the worst in terms of RCS production.
> 
> *NOTHING* can be further from the truth.
> 
> What the sphere (or diameter on a cylinder) represent is *UNIFORMITY* and *CONSISTENCY* in terms of radiation. They are usually employed as standards for measurements and calibration of just about anything involving radar.
> 
> For the illustration above, we have one thing in common for those simple shapes: Surface wave inducers. And that the RCS graphs for each shape are non-rotational with the radar signal going 'left-right', if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tilt the plate enough and we will have an RCS that is far lower than the sphere when the plate will present only one edge diffraction signal: The edge facing the radar. But continuing in rotating the plate and eventually the plate will present the 'full Monty' to the radar, producing an RCS far far far greater than the sphere.
> 
> The same argument applies to all of the above shapes, not that all of them will produce an RCS greater than the sphere while under rotation, but the lesson remains: Uniformity and Consistency. In radar detection and data processing, variables and variations of any kind are natural attention attractants.
> 
> The ogive (oh-ghee-vee) may have a natural RCS lower than the sphere regardless of rotational aspect angles -- *MAY* because we have not touch size. But the ogive shape have three radiation modes: Surface, Specular and Edge, with four locations: two sides and two points.
> 
> Same thing with the plate except that when the plate is in 'full Monty' to the radar, there will be no surface wave behaviors whereas with the ogive, even if the ogive is completely perpendicular to the seeking radar, surface topography via curvature will induce surface wave behaviors and will deny the seeking radar some measure of detection.
> 
> For the double-rounded cone, we have three modes of radiation: Surface, Plate, and Edge. And these radiators: Two points, four plates, and two curvatures.
> 
> I will leave the other shapes as entertaining mental exercise for interested readers to figure out.
> 
> Keep in mind that the shape illustration is non-rotational. Now we will add in the '10-lambda' rule...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the '10-lambda' (wavelength) says is that if the diameter (sphere or cylinder) is less than 10-wavelengths -- regardless of wavelengths -- then the 'creeping wave' behavior will occur. If the diameter is greater than 10-wavelengths, then the creeping wave behavior *WILL NOT* occur. So for the diameter (sphere or cylinder) there will be a situation where the sphere will have only one radiation mode for the seeking radar: Specular. And this is regardless of rotational aspect angles.
> 
> Now apply the '10-lambda' rule to all of the above shapes while each is under rotation.
> 
> Now amplify *EVERYTHING* above a million times because we are dealing with a complex body call an 'aircraft'.
> 
> An aircraft is a symmetrical but irregular body. People must understand this. Irregularity produces uncertainty which produces variations which will naturally attract attentions. This is inevitable for an aircraft whose surface topography contains rare instances of discrete of any of the above shapes but usually far worse: Combinations of those shapes.
> 
> The result is that *IF* our goal is to control the behaviors of these radiation patterns, we must first understand the behaviors and we started with Ufimtsev. Since we cannot avoid the plate and its accompanying edges, aka 'wings' for example, we should try to contain their numbers and avoid placing them in clusters. This led us to the next rules: Containment of radiation modes. Avoidance of radiation clusters.
> 
> Now watch the bloodbaths between the radar and aerodynamic geeks.
> 
> Nowhere am I saying that the American 'stealth' aircrafts are the ones the world should go by. What I am saying is that if a foreign power want to enter the 'stealth' arena, it would behoove said 'stealth' fighter aspirant to return to the basics, study how we did it, self examine the technological capabilities, and give it a go. But do not think that the product is beyond critical examinations by observers especially when they have at least one generation of this technology as an unofficial standard to measure all 'stealth' aspirants.
> 
> 
> These are burst data and while they can be intercepted, the bursts are so brief that at best they could be used as an warning, not as a locator.


To all PDF members we have nothing information about J-20, for e.g. what kind of RAM coating is applied on J-20, what kind of RAS structure J-20 have, we don't have even official specification about J-20
And i asked one question to Mr.gambit, you talked about surface creeping wave,then what about these surface creeping wave acted on the surface of F-22, F-35, PakFA, you shows us that these surface creeping wave only interfere on the surface of J-20, you laugh at Chinese physics, and i laugh at your American physics

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

pakistanipower said:


> To all PDF members we have nothing information about J-20, for e.g. what kind of RAM coating is applied on J-20, what kind of RAS structure J-20 have, we don't have even official specification about J-20
> And i asked one question to Mr.gambit, you talked about surface creeping wave,then what about these surface creeping wave acted on the surface of F-22, F-35, PakFA, you shows us that these surface creeping wave *only interfere on the surface of J-20*, you laugh at Chinese physics, and i laugh at your American physics


Are you serious? Do you really to tell every readers that you interpreted what I said to mean *ONLY* for the J-20? How old are you? 12?


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> Are you serious? Do you really to tell every readers that you interpreted what I said to mean *ONLY* for the J-20? How old are you? 12?


but you intentionally targeted the J-20 weakness, btw no plane is perfect, even f-22 and f-35 have their own weakness

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sweetgrape

Could you find the second J20?


----------



## DF-41 ICBM

gambit said:


> We should 'enshrine' these words...Somehow...
> 
> 
> And to think that they were 'Thanked' as 'useful' posts......More like should be 'tanked' for knowledge and understanding of real physics.



Agent orange sniffer wouldn't know the first thing about science. All your posts are quoted from other forums. You have zero knowledge. All your posts are mental mastubations.



gambit said:


> Are you serious? Do you really to tell every readers that you interpreted what I said to mean *ONLY* for the J-20? How old are you? 12?



Says a 40 year old geezer that can't get laid, 24/7 on PDF.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

J-20 2002

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## no_name

A merry couple:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Aramsogo

I thinks it's time for a LEGO J-20.

Any other Lego fans here...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007

how many more are under construction


----------



## Safriz

has j-20 DSI+CARET+Adjustable inlets?
Read this on another forum?


----------



## Aramsogo



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## oct605032048

sexy indeed.


----------



## no_name

Aramsogo said:


> I thinks it's time for a LEGO J-20.
> 
> Any other Lego fans here...



Does it have open-able weapon bays?


----------



## xuxu1457

Video of the two J20
??????-20?????? ????-20120511????-????-?????????????-???


----------



## qwerrty



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

homing28 said:


>



What is that???


----------



## Safriz

Probably a new video....All captions in Chinese which i wont understand...You can see a J-10B prototype in the background and a JF-17 joins in at 6:40.


----------



## no_name

Awesome pics above, view them in a separate tab to see more details



Beast said:


> What is that???



The red thing looks like air flow sensor/pitot tube covers. There seems to be two of them, but I think the front one will be removed for production variant.


----------



## S10

Prototype number 2001 is actually the second one. The first one, intended for static stress testing, was not assigned a serial number. 2002 is where they plan to test the avionics, at least according to huzhigeng who has not posted for a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## homing28

2200x1117
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2274/2002large.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## tomluter



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

nomi007 said:


> how many more are under construction



The second batch of prototypes consisted of 2002 and 2003 so there are at least three excluding the static testing model.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" first flight*

J20

Extended version follows:

J20

[Note: Thank you to Frank Lau for the video links.]

----------

*J-20 Mighty Dragon has three times the combat radius of the F-22 Raptor*

I view the J-20 Mighty Dragon as a large F-22. It has greater range and a similar payload. Two side-bays for short-range air-to-air missiles and a main weapon bay to carry medium-range air-to-air missiles.

J-20 combat range: 1,243 miles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20#Specifications)

F-22 combat range: 471 miles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications)

----------

*The cube root of 3*

In an earlier post, I made the claim that the J-20 Mighty Dragon has a far greater combat radius (e.g. 1,243 miles) than the F-22 (e.g. 471 miles).

Obviously, it is indisputable the J-20 has significantly longer range than the F-22. Your eyes can easily note the larger physical size of the J-20 in a photographic comparison (with the pictures normalized to match the sizes of the pilots' helmets and airplane wheels).

Anyway, we're moving onward to a mathematical analysis. For a J-20 to have three times the range of a F-22, it needs to carry three times the fuel. Volume is determined by three dimensions (e.g. length, width, and height).

To carry three times the fuel of a F-22, the J-20 must have a fuel tank that is three times larger. The cube root of three will indicate how much larger the J-20 fuel tank must be in physical dimensions.

The cube root of 3 = 1.44

Thus, if the J-20 fuel tank is 1.44 times longer, 1.44 times wider, and 1.44 times taller than the F-22 then the J-20 has three times the fuel load of the F-22.

Anyway, I don't have the schematics for the J-20 and F-22. However, it is entirely plausible that the J-20 fuel tank is 1.44 times larger than the F-22 in all three dimensions. Therefore, it is credible the J-20 has three times the combat radius of the F-22. The US Air Force screwed up in building an air superiority fighter with such a short range.

China can easily bomb (with ballistic, cruise, or MLRS missiles) any potential airfields that may serve as a base of operations for the F-22. Without a base to resupply fuel and ammunition, the F-22 is out of action in the Chinese theater of operation.

[Note: I am aware the J-20 will weigh a little more than the F-22 and it will have to carry a little more than three times the fuel load. However, this is offset by more lift from the canards and the calculations are meant to be approximate to illustrate a point.]


----------



## air marshal

*Chengdu J-20 could enter service by 2018*
May 18, 2012

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

The stealthy Chengdu J-20 fighter could enter operational service by early 2018 and join a rapidly improving Chinese military armed with long-range strike weapons, new unmanned air vehicles and command and control aircraft fleets, the US Department of Defense says in an annual assessment.

The J-20 is "still in a prototype phase," says David Helvey, the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia for the US Department of Defense.

"So we'd like to be able to continue to monitor it--to continue monitor developments on that to understand exactly what China may intend to use it for, and I wouldn't want to speculate at this point for what those specific missions would be," he adds.

But the report itself says that the J-20 reflects "China's ambition to produce a fighter aircraft that incorporates stealth attributes, advanced avionics, and supercruise-capable engines."

The first J-20 prototype started flight tests in January 2011 and a second example started flying earlier this month. But the US government is adamant that the aircraft will not enter frontline squadron service until much later this decade.

"We expect the J-20 to achieve an effective operational capability no sooner than 2018," Helvey says. "That reflects our judgment and interpretation of how far they are along in doing the research and development and flight testing of the prototypes," he adds.

Operational capability as the DoD defines it means that there should be enough aircraft, weapons and trained air crew to conduct real-world missions, Helvey says.

The DoD also believes that the Chinese have an interest in developing new unmanned aircraft.

"We know that China is interested in developing unmanned air systems, and they have in the past acquired a number of different types of UAVs," Helvey says. "This report doesn't make a net assessment between China's capabilities for unmanned air systems and US capabilities, but that is an area that China is interested in developing."

China has a number of unmanned aerial vehicles including the Israeli-made Israel Aerospace Industries Harpy and a number of domestic types.

Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is not neglecting its long-range strike capabilities. The country is upgrading its Tupolev Tu-16 Badger-derived Xian B-6 bomber fleet with a new, longer-range variation, which will be armed with new long-range cruise missiles, the report says.

The Chinese are also developing several types of airborne early warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft. These include the Shaanxi Y-8 Moth, based on the Antonov An-12, and the KJ-2000, based on the Ilyushin IL-76 airlifter, the report says.

Meanwhile, China's navy is moving on getting its first aircraft carrier into service. The refurbished Soviet-built ship started sea trials last August, but it not yet operational.

"This aircraft [carrier] could become operationally available to China's navy by the end of this year," Helvey says. "But we expect it'll take several additional years for an air group to achieve a minimal operational capability aboard the aircraft carrier."

The report also indicates that China is probably designing and possibly building in own indigenous carriers.

While China's public statements on its defence budget about $106 billion for 2012, the DoD estimates that the Chinese will actually spend more than $180 billion.

Helvey says the DoD believe that many aspects of China's military modernization actually comes from different spending accounts rather than the main defence budget. Foreign acquisitions such as Russian-built fighters are counted the same way.

"For example, we think that some of their nuclear forces modernisation occurs off budget," he says. "So when you add all of that together, that helps us to develop, I think, a more accurate estimate of what the totality of the military expenditure is."

Chengdu J-20 could enter service by 2018

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> *J-20 Mighty Dragon "2002" first flight*
> 
> J20
> 
> Extended version follows:
> 
> J20
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Frank Lau for the video links.]
> 
> ----------
> 
> *J-20 Mighty Dragon has three times the combat radius of the F-22 Raptor*
> 
> I view the J-20 Mighty Dragon as a large F-22. It has greater range and a similar payload. Two side-bays for short-range air-to-air missiles and a main weapon bay to carry medium-range air-to-air missiles.
> 
> J-20 combat range: 1,243 miles (see Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> F-22 combat range: 471 miles (see Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> ----------
> 
> *The cube root of 3*
> 
> In an earlier post, I made the claim that the J-20 Mighty Dragon has a far greater combat radius (e.g. 1,243 miles) than the F-22 (e.g. 471 miles).
> 
> Obviously, it is indisputable the J-20 has significantly longer range than the F-22. Your eyes can easily note the larger physical size of the J-20 in a photographic comparison (with the pictures normalized to match the sizes of the pilots' helmets and airplane wheels).
> 
> Anyway, we're moving onward to a mathematical analysis. For a J-20 to have three times the range of a F-22, it needs to carry three times the fuel. Volume is determined by three dimensions (e.g. length, width, and height).
> 
> To carry three times the fuel of a F-22, the J-20 must have a fuel tank that is three times larger. The cube root of three will indicate how much larger the J-20 fuel tank must be in physical dimensions.
> 
> The cube root of 3 = 1.44
> 
> Thus, if the J-20 fuel tank is 1.44 times longer, 1.44 times wider, and 1.44 times taller than the F-22 then the J-20 has three times the fuel load of the F-22.
> 
> Anyway, I don't have the schematics for the J-20 and F-22. However, it is entirely plausible that the J-20 fuel tank is 1.44 times larger than the F-22 in all three dimensions. Therefore, it is credible the J-20 has three times the combat radius of the F-22. The US Air Force screwed up in building an air superiority fighter with such a short range.
> 
> China can easily bomb (with ballistic, cruise, or MLRS missiles) any potential airfields that may serve as a base of operations for the F-22. Without a base to resupply fuel and ammunition, the F-22 is out of action in the Chinese theater of operation.
> 
> [Note: I am aware the J-20 will weigh a little more than the F-22 and it will have to carry a little more than three times the fuel load. However, this is offset by more lift from the canards and the calculations are meant to be approximate to illustrate a point.]




Seriously ??? to travel 3 times longer, it needs to have 3 times larger fuel tanks? Which planet did you come from? 

the terms engine efficiency, drag, sustain military thrust consumption, operational load capacity mean nothing to you?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BronzePlaque

amalakas said:


> Seriously ??? to travel 3 times longer, it needs to have 3 times larger fuel tanks? *Which planet did you come from? *
> 
> the terms engine efficiency, drag, sustain military thrust consumption, operational load capacity mean nothing to you?



From Mars obviously

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

amalakas said:


> *Seriously ??? to travel 3 times longer, it needs to have 3 times larger fuel tanks? * Which planet did you come from?
> 
> the terms engine efficiency, drag, sustain military thrust consumption, operational load capacity mean nothing to you?



Heck that is confusing.. 
By that logic .. an A-380 should outrange the B-777LR by how much???


----------



## Audio

Oscar said:


> Heck that is confusing..
> By that logic .. an A-380 should outrange the B-777LR by how much???



By cube root of 3! duh.....


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> Seriously ??? to travel 3 times longer, it needs to have 3 times larger fuel tanks? Which planet did you come from?
> 
> the terms engine efficiency, drag, sustain military thrust consumption, operational load capacity mean nothing to you?



The J-20 and F-22 are both using turbofan engines. The difference in efficiency should not be significant (e.g. it will only be marginal). The higher compression ratio of the F-22 engine will give it a slight edge in efficiency. However, as I have already stated in my "note," the J-20 has canards to provide extra lift that gives it its own fuel-efficiency advantage.

I have already stated the operational load capacity is approximately the same: two side-bay SRAAM and main-bay MRAAM.

Regarding drag, the J-20 is a more aerodynamic plane than the F-22. The F-22 has two large gaps between the engine airducts and the fuselage. Air will flow into the gaps and create drag for the F-22. The J-20 is a later and more modern design. There is no drag-inducing gap. Instead, the J-20 airduct has been seamlessly integrated into the fuselage. Therefore, the superior design and less drag favor the J-20.

Finally, did you read the "note" at the bottom of the post? Does it say the comparison is a rough approximation to illustrate a point? Or are you blind?



Oscar said:


> Heck that is confusing..
> By that logic .. an A-380 should outrange the B-777LR by how much???



A-380 carries almost a thousand passengers (e.g. certified for 853) in economy class. B-777LR has a much lower passenger capacity (e.g. 440 maximum). You can't compare apples to oranges.

In contrast, the J-20 and F-22 both carry one pilot, two side-bay SRAAM, and main-bay MRAAM. Both the J-20 and F-22 are twin-engine fighters. My comparison makes sense.

Your analogy with the A-380 and B-777LR is silly. A-380 has four engines. B-777LR has only two engines.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *J-20 Mighty Dragon has three times the combat radius of the F-22 Raptor*
> 
> I view the J-20 Mighty Dragon as a large F-22. It has greater range and a similar payload. Two side-bays for short-range air-to-air missiles and a main weapon bay to carry medium-range air-to-air missiles.
> 
> J-20 combat range: 1,243 miles (see Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> F-22 combat range: 471 miles (see Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> ----------
> 
> *The cube root of 3*
> 
> In an earlier post, I made the claim that the J-20 Mighty Dragon has a far greater combat radius (e.g. 1,243 miles) than the F-22 (e.g. 471 miles).
> 
> Obviously, it is indisputable the J-20 has significantly longer range than the F-22. Your eyes can easily note the larger physical size of the J-20 in a photographic comparison (with the pictures normalized to match the sizes of the pilots' helmets and airplane wheels).
> 
> Anyway, we're moving onward to a mathematical analysis. For a J-20 to have three times the range of a F-22, it needs to carry three times the fuel. Volume is determined by three dimensions (e.g. length, width, and height).
> 
> To carry three times the fuel of a F-22, the J-20 must have a fuel tank that is three times larger. The cube root of three will indicate how much larger the J-20 fuel tank must be in physical dimensions.
> 
> The cube root of 3 = 1.44
> 
> Thus, if the J-20 fuel tank is 1.44 times longer, 1.44 times wider, and 1.44 times taller than the F-22 then the J-20 has three times the fuel load of the F-22.


Utter nonsense. This is what happens when we have someone with absolutely no relevant experience going by 'looks' alone and starts making a fool out of himself.

You make the classic mistake of assuming that all aircrafts are constructed with the same internal planform.

*WRONG*.

One wing can be larger in surface area than another but its internal construction may not allow even the same amount of fuel store, let alone larger. Things such as baffles, spars, mechanical devices for the flight control surfaces, airfoil design specific for the mission type, and so on. Same argument applies to the internal fuselage construction as well.



Martian2 said:


> Anyway, I don't have the schematics for the J-20 and F-22. However, it is entirely plausible that the J-20 fuel tank is 1.44 times larger than the F-22 in all three dimensions. Therefore, it is credible the J-20 has three times the combat radius of the F-22. *The US Air Force screwed up in building an air superiority fighter with such a short range.*


Wow...

First, there is no definitive argument on what is 'short' versus 'long'. The F-16's combat radius is comparable to the F-22. An aircraft's combat radius is determined by its mission type, which is dictated by something you never heard of until now: DoD Mission Need Statement (MNS).

Something like this...

MISSION NEED STATEMENT (MNS) FOR THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE


> a.	This *mission need statement (MNS)* provides requirements for a theater missile defense (TMD) capability.



Second, here is something you might want to learn from *REAL* history, not the kind sanitized by the Chinese government propaganda offices...






Note what the Japanese said about focus on ranges instead of survivability: *BIG MISTAKE*. Essentially speaking.

For the F-22, its mission type is a balanced compromise between these attributes:

- Low radar observability
- Supercruise
- Acceleration
- Maneuverability
- Payload
- Radar detection range
- Airlift support
- Sortie generation rate
- Mean time between maintenance
- Situational awareness capacity

All of the above affects combat radius and survivability. Most fighters grossly sacrifice several attributes in favor of other attributes. Until the F-22, next to nothing attempts have been made to achieve a weighing of these attributes, let alone a balanced approach. How many of the above attributes were sacrificed by the Soviets during the Cold War development? How about most? In other words, the Soviets places so low emphasis on some of them they might as well be eliminated. For the MIG-25 as an example, acceleration and Mach dash grossly overrode everything else.

Awareness (situational) and avoidance of threats increases survivability and being low radar observable coupled with terrain masking greatly increases that survivability *WITHIN* that combat radius, for example. In other words, any adversary within that combat radius monitored by the F-22 will probably die before he know which direction the missile came from.

Third, if you want to know how large an area is between 400-500 nm operational (or combat) radius, here it is...






So 500 nm is nearly half of continental US (CONUS). In short, nearly half of CONUS is a 'kill box' with near 100% death rate certainty for the F-22's targets.






So when we take in all the attributes as specified by the F-22's MNS, its low-ball combat radius estimate is impressive in light of past fighters with outstanding combat records like the F-15 and F-16. Further, an F-22 can be equipped with external tanks that can/will be jettisoned prior to entering any contested airspace anywhere in the world.



Martian2 said:


> China can easily bomb (with ballistic, cruise, or MLRS missiles) any potential airfields that may serve as a base of operations for the F-22. Without a base to resupply fuel and ammunition, the F-22 is out of action in the Chinese theater of operation.


Fine......How about all of China's is within the B-2's combat radius. Remember, during the Yugoslavia air campaign, B-2s flew from CONUS to Yugoslavia and back without landing.



Martian2 said:


> [Note: I am aware the J-20 will weigh a little more than the F-22 and it will have to carry a little more than three times the fuel load. However, this is offset by more lift from the canards and the calculations are meant to be approximate to illustrate a point.]


Now that is more 'Chinese physics' in play. If this is true, then why are airliners, aircrafts whose weight lifting capability is paramount, do not have canards?  If anything, these airlifters should be festooned with various sized wings and winglets *EVERYWHERE*.

Keep this crap over at your playgrounds where other Chinese are gullible enough.



Martian2 said:


> Regarding drag, *the J-20 is a more aerodynamic plane than the F-22.* The F-22 has two large gaps between the engine airducts and the fuselage. Air will flow into the gaps and create drag for the F-22. The J-20 is a later and more modern design. There is no drag-inducing gap. Instead, the J-20 airduct has been seamlessly integrated into the fuselage. Therefore, the superior design and less drag favor the J-20.


Any real data to go with that...??? Or is this more 'Chinese physics'?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

1. J-20 Mighty Dragon 1,243-mile combat radius is indisputably LONGER than F-22 471-mile combat radius. Look up the word "longer" in the dictionary.

2. The F-22's short 471-mile combat radius is a problem, because it means that it must fly from a base in Japan (or Korea). However, China's SRBM, IRBM, and cruise missiles can easily destroy all major air bases on Japan.

3. Using a drop tank on the F-22 would render it less stealthy. By the way genius, how is the F-22 supposed to fly from Shanghai back to Alaska? Is there a drop tank store in mid-air on the way back?

By the way, there is an additional problem. Even if a F-22 flying out of Alaska (or Guam) was able to somehow reach the Chinese coast with drop tanks, it would have little to no loiter time. Basically, the F-22 is useless and cannot engage in aerial combat. It's out of fuel. If it doesn't leave immediately, it will have to crash land. This is a one-way trip.

4. The use of gigantic air-refueling tankers is out of the question. They'll be shot down by Chinese surface-to-air missiles, J-10 air-to-air missiles, or a stealthy J-20 (when inducted).

5. The B-2 is subsonic. It is a slow moving and lumbering aircraft. One of the designers for the B-2's engine has already spilled many of its secrets to China. The B-2 should be detectable with Low-Band radar (see http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html). Chinese interceptor aircraft can be vectored in to intercept the subsonic B-2 sitting duck.

6. Are you a moron? The air gap between the airduct and fuselage on the F-22 leads to a roughly 45-degree angled wall in the back. Are you telling me you don't understand that there is significant drag when high-velocity air (especially when the F-22 is flying supersonic during supercruise) collides with a solid angled wall? You make it sound as if you've never seen a photograph of the rear of the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap.

You irritate me when I have to explain basic physics to you. The momentum of the colliding air molecules is transferred to the F-22. This is called "drag."


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 1. J-20 Mighty Dragon 1,243-mile combat radius is indisputably LONGER than F-22 471-mile combat radius. Look up the word "longer" in the dictionary.


A longer combat radius does not automatically equal to superiority. The F-15 have a greater combat radius than the F-22 but guess who is going to die first when they meet each other?



Martian2 said:


> 2. The F-22's short 471-mile combat radius is a problem, because it means that it must fly from a base in Japan (or Korea). However, China's SRBM, IRBM, and cruise missiles can easily destroy all major air bases on Japan.


China have no experience in such attacks, let alone 'easily'.



Martian2 said:


> 3. Using a drop tank on the F-22 would render it less stealthy. By the way genius, how is the F-22 supposed to fly from Shanghai back to Alaska? Is there a drop tank store in mid-air on the way back?


When an F-22 is 'less stealthy' it is within someone's radar detection range. Get it? But since you have demonstrated gross ignorance and misunderstanding of 'stealth' to start, I would not be surprised if you do not understand.

By the way, ever heard of in-flight refueling? But of course...You have no military experience in the first place, let alone aviation experience. 



Martian2 said:


> By the way, there is an additional problem. Even if a F-22 flying out of Alaska (or Guam) was able to somehow reach the Chinese coast with drop tanks, *it would have little to no loiter time.* Basically, the F-22 is useless and cannot engage in aerial combat. It's out of fuel. If it doesn't leave immediately, it will have to crash land. This is a one-way trip.


This indicate you do not understand how external fuel works at all.



Martian2 said:


> 4. The use of gigantic air-refueling tankers is out of the question. They'll be shot down by Chinese surface-to-air missiles, J-10 air-to-air missiles, or a stealthy J-20 (when inducted).


That is funny considering no one have as much experience as we do. So now you are telling everyone that the USAF never -- *NEVER* -- considered that possibility. I hope the PLAAF thinks like you do.



Martian2 said:


> 5. The B-2 is subsonic. It is a slow moving and lumbering aircraft. One of the designers for the B-2's engine has already spilled many of its secrets to China. The B-2 should be detectable with Low-Band radar (see Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)). Chinese interceptor aircraft can be vectored in to intercept the subsonic B-2 sitting duck.


Look up effective radar horizon and see how useful those radars can be. Not much.



Martian2 said:


> 6. Are you a moron? The air gap between the airduct and fuselage on the F-22 leads to a roughly 45-degree angled wall in the back. Are you telling me you don't understand that there is significant drag when high-velocity air (especially when the F-22 is flying supersonic during supercruise) collides with a solid angled wall? You make it sound as if you've never seen a photograph of the rear of the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap.


Got any hard data?


----------



## Martian2

1. Low-Band radar can provide information on the general location of a stealth plane. It doesn't have the cm-resolution to guide a missile to its target. However, the meter-resolution Low-Band radar can guide an interceptor to the general location of an enemy stealth plane. Using an AESA-equipped radar, an interceptor should be able to detect an enemy stealth fighter within 20 miles and shoot a missile at it from close range.

2. Try reading the definition of "drag." It perfectly fits supersonic air slamming into the rear wall of the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap. Jesus, I can't believe you're questioning the basic definition of "air resistance." Are you for real?

Do I have any hard data on the exact amount of drag on the F-22 from the airduct-fuselage gap? I don't know. Have you heard the F-22 is classified?

Drag (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance or fluid resistance) refers to forces which act on a solid object in the direction of the relative fluid flow velocity.*[1][2][3][4] Unlike other resistive forces such as dry friction, which is nearly independent of velocity, *drag forces depend on velocity*.[5]"


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 1. Low-Band radar can provide information on the general location of a stealth plane. The Low-Band radar can guide an interceptor to the general location of an enemy stealth plane. Using an AESA-equipped radar, an interceptor should be able to detect an enemy stealth fighter within 20 miles.


Meters lengths freqs systems are ground based, therefore their *EFFECTIVE* detection range are line-of-sight limited from the ground, not from being airborne. 



Martian2 said:


> 2. Try reading the definition of "drag." It perfectly fits supersonic air slamming into the rear wall of the F-22 airduct-fuselage gap. Jesus, I can't believe you're questioning the basic definition of "air resistance." Are you for real?
> 
> Drag (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "*In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance or fluid resistance) refers to forces which act on a solid object in the direction of the relative fluid flow velocity.*[1][2][3][4] Unlike other resistive forces such as dry friction, which is nearly independent of velocity, drag forces depend on velocity.[5]"


That is not the issue. Your argument is that the J-20 is 'more aerodynamics' than the F-22 based solely upon the diverter assembly.

Provide hard data for that argument.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Meters lengths freqs systems are ground based, therefore their *EFFECTIVE* detection range are line-of-sight limited from the ground, not from being airborne.
> 
> 
> That is not the issue. Your argument is that the J-20 is 'more aerodynamics' than the F-22 based solely upon the diverter assembly.
> 
> Provide hard data for that argument.



1. What are you talking about? Ground-based Low-Band radar detects the general location of an enemy stealth fighter and relays the general coordinates to an interceptor.

2. I said airduct-fuselage gap. I made no mention of the diverter assembly. Try reading my posts properly.

Gee, I wonder why the F-35 doesn't have an airduct-fuselage gap. Instead, the F-35 has a seamless integrated airduct-fuselage design like the J-20. Hmmm...could it be that it's more aerodynamic?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 1. What are you talking about? Ground-based Low-Band radar detects the general location of an enemy stealth fighter and relays the general coordinates to an interceptor.


The efficacy of *GROUND BASED* meters lengths systems against low radar observable bodies, even when those bodies are shaped to be against centimetric and millimetric freqs, have not been proven. The truth is that those meters lengths freqs have been employed for long distance before the advent of 'stealth'. What this at least implied is that the original designers of 'stealth', meaning US, investigated this alleged efficacy and found the technical and operational claims to be dubious at best.

Here is the proper definition of 'efficacy'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy


> Efficacy is the capacity to produce an effect.


Regarding the claim of long wavelengths 'efficacy' on low radar observable bodies, this has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubts due to the fact that no one have an F-117 class body to test out their claims. This fall under *TECHNICAL EFFICACY*. The most the Russians can do is extrapolate from 'regular' bodies and hope the sales brochures works.

Since meters lengths freqs system must be ground based due to antenna size, this limitation fall under *TACTICAL EFFICACY*. Just like ordinary human vision, radar is equally limited to line-of-sight limitations and being on the ground is the worst place to be if the goal is to be long distance. That is why these system try atmospheric 'bounces' to extend their reach.

Combine both and the overall efficacy of meters lengths freqs against 'stealth' in a tactical setting is dubious at best.



Martian2 said:


> 2. I said airduct-fuselage gap. I made no mention of the diverter assembly. Try reading my posts properly.


An aircraft is a vehicle in motion with complete six degrees of freedom: three linear and three rotational.

But what make an aircraft fly is the aerodynamic efficiency of the wings, not the fuselage. In other words, literally a brick can fly if it has sufficient propulsive power, efficient wings, and sophisticated flight controls to actuate those wings to compensate for the brick's 'blocky' or 'chunky' fuselage.

The overall 'aerodynamic' efficiency of an aircraft is about the amount of power needed to maintain stable flight, in other words, reshaping the brick's fuselage decreases the power necessary to keep it flying. Reshaping it further enough and eventually you will reach the physical limits you can without crashing this body. Now you need to address the weight issue. Hollowing out the fuselage further reduces power required to maintain flight. Do this enough and eventually you will reach physical limits needed to maintain fuselage integrity.

But we are not talking about a brick with wings versus a paper airplane. We are talking about two finely shaped bodies. So if you make the claim that the J-20 is 'more aerodynamic' than the F-22, please provide hard data.


----------



## Armstrong

*Gambit*, *Martian2* - Gentlemen any chance of visiting Pakistan ?


----------



## gambit

Armstrong said:


> *Gambit*, *Martian2* - Gentlemen any chance of visiting Pakistan ?


No. Why? Got any hot chicks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NeutralCitizen

gambit said:


> No. Why? Got any hot chicks?



Didn't you state back here your old over your 50's ? I'm not doubting your role with women but it raises questions.


----------



## Armstrong

gambit said:


> No. Why? Got any hot chicks?



Nope...but I was hoping that you could help me reduce my bike's *rcs* ! 

Naaah...I'm just messing with you guys ! If you ever do drop in gimme a PM and though I may not be able to arrange for some 'chicks'...I'd be sure to introduce you to the most tantalizing cuisines from this part of the world ! A Nihari with hot Naans, topped with a glass of Lasssi and ice-cooled Mangos is worth more than all the F-22s and J-20s in the world !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Armstrong said:


> *Gambit*, *Martian2* - Gentlemen any chance of visiting Pakistan ?



Someday, I might visit Pakistan if the opportunity arises. I have to see those Sino-Pakistani joint venture fighters for myself. 

I sure as hell won't pass up the mango offer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

NeutralCitizen said:


> Didn't you state back here your old over your 50's ? I'm not doubting your role with women but it raises questions.


I am not over 50. But seriously, my traveling days are severely limited at this stage in my life due to family (age) related issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NeutralCitizen

gambit said:


> I am not over 50. But seriously, my traveling days are severely limited at this stage in my life due to family (age) related issues.



Your a very interesting person in regard not only to your Military background but your Vietnamese background you feelings to your origin country is interesting.



gambit said:


> I am not over 50. But seriously, my traveling days are severely limited at this stage in my life due to family (age) related issues.



your relationship to the Chinese on the forum to me seems like a tough grandpa against the kids that still have a lot to learn.


----------



## gambit

NeutralCitizen said:


> Your a very interesting person in regard not only to your Military background but your Vietnamese background you feelings to your origin country is interesting.


I have no hostile feelings for Viet Nam if that is what you are wondering about. If anything, over the decades I have been living in the US, much of my money earned I have sent back to Viet Nam to support democracy movements.



NeutralCitizen said:


> your relationship to the Chinese on the forum to me seems like a tough grandpa against the kids that still have a lot to learn.


And they still have much to learn. The Chinese do not have much respect for other Asians and their hostility to my challenges to their claims reflects that racially based contempt. In the beginning, I was respectful to them. I challenged their claims with credible sources and reasonable arguments. They did not like that. When they found out I was a Viet, the kitty claws came out.  And their insults got personal and racial. I expected that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

China's ground testing of the 2D TVC nozzle from 2005, not sure if this will be implemented as the final shape for the engine of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NeutralCitizen

gambit said:


> I have no hostile feelings for Viet Nam if that is what you are wondering about. If anything, over the decades I have been living in the US, much of my money earned I have sent back to Viet Nam to support democracy movements.
> 
> 
> And they still have much to learn. The Chinese do not have much respect for other Asians and their hostility to my challenges to their claims reflects that racially based contempt. In the beginning, I was respectful to them. I challenged their claims with credible sources and reasonable arguments. They did not like that. When they found out I was a Viet, the kitty claws came out.  And their insults got personal and racial. I expected that.



Well they do have much to learn rather in a respectful way wouldn't call all of them racist , I would like your complete Opinion the the J-20 analysis including China current Engine Achilles heel problem.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China's ground testing of the 2D TVC nozzle from 2005, not sure if this will be implemented as the final shape for the engine of J-20.



WS-15 engines are still in testing correct ? and China won't have to use russian engines anymore since the WS-10 engines are up and running ?


----------



## Armstrong

gambit said:


> I
> And they still have much to learn. *The Chinese do not have much respect for other Asians and their hostility to my challenges to their claims reflects that racially based contempt.* In the beginning, I was respectful to them. I challenged their claims with credible sources and reasonable arguments. They did not like that. *When they found out I was a Viet, the kitty claws came out.  And their insults got personal and racial. I expected that.*



Surely thats a bit harsh !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

NeutralCitizen said:


> WS-15 engines are still in testing correct ? and China won't have to use russian engines anymore since the WS-10 engines are up and running ?



WS-15 will be on J-20 by the end of this year or the early of next year, and some older aircrafts of PLAAF still use AL-31F like J-11A/J-10A/Su-30.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NeutralCitizen

Armstrong said:


> Surely thats a bit harsh !



Agree. 



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> WS-15 will be on J-20 by the end of this year or the early of next year, and some older aircrafts of PLAAF still use AL-31F like J-11A/J-10A/Su-30.



Thanks Ctiger it's been a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

NeutralCitizen said:


> ...I would like your complete Opinion the the J-20 analysis including China current Engine Achilles heel problem.


The internal combustion and jet engines are probably the two most inhospitable environments we have produced to date that we exploit for long term use.

For the internal combustion engine, we have an explosion powerful enough to deny a human being the use of a hand or foot confined inside a metal chamber that we turn into mechanical motion via a moving device called a 'piston'. The entire contraption must be durable enough to start and stop upon our whims and under varying temperatures. It must be made to suffer our abuses, from fuel grades to how we physically handle it.

Now multiply that a thousand folds for the jet engine.

How effective is the J-20 regarding its role as a tactical air superiority platform depends on its engines. We are not talking about smooth and stable movements on the throttles like an airliner but abrupt detent to detent and everywhere in the middle of those detents. The responses must be instantaneous. We must have durability but this is not the same as reliability, the latter is about maintenance that may not be under ideal hangar-ed environments. The list of engineering issues is long.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese Century

gambit said:


> I have no hostile feelings for Viet Nam if that is what you are wondering about. If anything, over the decades I have been living in the US, much of my money earned I have sent back to Viet Nam to support democracy movements.
> 
> 
> And they still have much to learn. The Chinese do not have much respect for other Asians and their hostility to my challenges to their claims reflects that racially based contempt. In the beginning, I was respectful to them. I challenged their claims with credible sources and reasonable arguments. They did not like that. When they found out I was a Viet, the kitty claws came out.  And their insults got personal and racial. I expected that.




this guy is 50 years old?

no wonder he is a frustrated old geezer spewing hate on china.

china is here, we will always be here, you dont like us, tough, learn to live with it.

i higly doubt this guy has any military background, he just seems to be a copy and paste guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NeutralCitizen

Thanks Gambit & ChineseTiger been a while but needed to be refreshed on this up to date info on the J-20 and Engines .


----------



## NeutralCitizen

Been reading about China WS-15, found only few sources looking for more any links would help thanks.


----------



## gambit

NeutralCitizen said:


> Thanks Gambit & ChineseTiger been a while but needed to be refreshed on this up to date info on the J-20 and Engines .


The performance profiles look like this...







So we can immediately infer with reasonable accuracy that each profile will have different rate of fuel consumption, throttle cyclings, material stresses, altitude variations and rate of, payload and their rate of discard of, turbojet or turbofan, and many other quite educated guesses. Cost is also a factor. Does it make sense to install components that are Mach capable into an engine designed for cargo aircrafts?


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Got any hard data?


 

you mean eyeball and rough paper calculations don't count? 


aaa....

things get weirder and weirder on this forum by the day.


----------



## SQ8

Martian2 said:


> Your analogy with the A-380 and B-777LR is silly. A-380 has four engines. B-777LR has only two engines.



Im actually following yours ..


----------



## siegecrossbow

NeutralCitizen said:


> Been reading about China WS-15, found only few sources looking for more any links would help thanks.



Most info regarding the WS-15 are speculative.


----------



## DrSomnath999

siegecrossbow said:


> Most info regarding the WS-15 are speculative.


bro any recent news about WS 15


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> you mean eyeball and rough paper calculations don't count?
> 
> 
> aaa....
> 
> things get weirder and weirder on this forum by the day.


The 'rough' paper is being generous. But then we should expect this sort of nonsense from our man.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> Most info regarding the WS-15 are speculative.


 
Well, at least it is much more reliable than the AL-31F nonsense from the so-called big shrimps anyway.


----------



## gambit

DrSomnath999 said:


> bro any recent news about WS 15


Here is something new for the Chinese boys to learn about jet engines...

Boeing 747


> The flight tests disclosed a new engine problem known as *"ovalization,"* which cropped up only after hundreds of hours in the air. It resulted from wear in the compressor assemblies that distorted the circular cross sections of elements of the compressor into an oval shape, with loss of power and considerable increase in fuel consumption. This resulted from the engines' high thrust, which reacted against their supports and bent the engine casings. Though cure emerged in the form of a steel yoke that would stiffen the case, it took time to apply.


Axial stresses dominate in any complex structures that are circular in configuration. Constant axial stresses in a cylinder, as a jet engine is, when it is coupled into another and larger complex structures like a fuselage, give us the differences between uninstalled thrust, installed thrust, and the dreaded 'ovalization' of that cylinder or casing if the connection method is inadequate. That connection is dictated by airframe design. This effect is not visible as in if we remove an engine we would see an 'oval' opening instead of a circle at the turbine opening. The effects are reduced efficiency, increased vibrations, reduced aircraft reliability, increase maintenance in time and resources, reduced engine life, and increased odds of catastrophic failure in flight.


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> Here is something new for the Chinese boys to learn about jet engines...
> 
> Boeing 747
> 
> Axial stresses dominate in any complex structures that are circular in configuration. Constant axial stresses in a cylinder, as a jet engine is, when it is coupled into another and larger complex structures like a fuselage, give us the differences between uninstalled thrust, installed thrust, and the dreaded 'ovalization' of that cylinder or casing if the connection method is inadequate. That connection is dictated by airframe design. This effect is not visible as in if we remove an engine we would see an 'oval' opening instead of a circle at the turbine opening. The effects are reduced efficiency, increased vibrations, reduced aircraft reliability, increase maintenance in time and resources, reduced engine life, and increased odds of catastrophic failure in flight.



hmm interesting

but how is related to WS 15 engine ,IS it any secret info that WS 15 is also marred by such ovalization problem


----------



## amalakas

DrSomnath999 said:


> hmm interesting
> 
> but how is related to WS 15 engine ,IS it any secret info that WS 15 is also marred by such ovalization problem



no he simply implies that making jet engines is not like making pies.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Interesting new insights on the J-20 and China's potential sixth gen fighter, coming from a PLAAF Korean War ACE pilot:

Interview link: I Was There: Bring Down the Spyplane | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine



> What do you think of China&#8217;s new J-20 stealth aircraft?
> 
> I was invited to watch the J-20&#8217;s first flight at Chengdu, and *I asked the engineers a few questions*. Fighter aircraft seem to have reached their maximum limits. Whether the aircraft is made in the U.S. or Russia, there is not much difference between the latest aircraft from these countries. Further development is limited by the physical stress a pilot&#8217;s body can tolerate. The U.S. is leading the way in the use of unmanned aircraft. *I think there is a role for unmanned aircraft in China.*


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

The J-20 has the electro-optical distributed aperature system. Basically, IRST sensors scattered around the aircraft. Yes, I know it's been done on the F-35. However, the J-20's large payload and high range, coupled with F-35 level electronics and sensors, makes for a plane with high survivability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

DrSomnath999 said:


> hmm interesting
> 
> but how is related to WS 15 engine ,IS it any secret info that WS 15 is also marred by such ovalization problem


It is applicable to *ALL* jet engine designs. The tighter the tolerances, the greater the odds of turbine blades rubbing against the casing over time as the casing deforms from circular. Do not forget that the constant high temperature aid in this deformation. Even non-cylinders are affected when physically stressed and subjected to high temperature.

The Effect of the Ovality of the Balls of a Radial-Thrust Bearing on the Axial Vibration of a Rapidly Rotating Rotor of an Engine,


> Abstract : It is shown that *ovality of radial thrust bearing balls* generate vibrations in an engine with a rapidly rotating turbine, and that the vibration spectrum contains harmonic components which are multiples of the double frequency of revolution of the balls. Formulas for calculating the amplitudes of these components are proposed.



Ovalization in circular structures is well known in non-aviation manufacturing as well.

Induction Bending & High Precision Bends | Advanced Bending Technologies


> The following information is measured and recorded:
> 
> Induction Bending Temperature
> Degree of Bend
> Material Hardness
> *Precentage of Ovality*
> Percentage of Wall Thinning


A jet engine is not an easy endeavor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

FairAndUnbiased said:


> The J-20 has the electro-optical distributed aperature system. Basically, IRST sensors scattered around the aircraft. Yes, I know it's been done on the F-35. However, the J-20's large payload and high range, coupled with F-35 level electronics and sensors, makes for a plane with high survivability.



NOW what has large payload & high range got to with "high survivability"

if thats the case then long range bomber is more survivable than jet.

& dont think J20's electronics & sensor equal to F 35 ,there is a god damned limit to be biased


----------



## Martian2

*My proposal on shooting down a true fifth-generation stealth fighter (F-22 or J-20)*

Bi-static or multi-static radar is problematic in shooting down a F-22, because the most likely conflict is over Taiwan. Taiwan is an island in the ocean and it's difficult to receive the radar bounce from the underbelly of a transient F-22 flying overhead.

My proposal is purely theoretical. I don't believe the actual scenario will happen.

a. Chinese SRBM can neutralize all Taiwanese military bases in about 20 minutes. The war is over.

b. F-22 has too short a combat radius (e.g. 471 miles) to be deployed in the Asian theater. Japanese airbases can also be vaporized by Chinese SRBM, IRBM, and cruise missiles in 20 minutes. This war is over. There are no Japanese air bases available for F-22 operation.

I can't think of a plausible scenario where the F-22 can realistically reach the Chinese coast. Air-refueling tankers are giant targets and they'll be shot out of the sky in record time. Drop tanks imply a one-way kamikaze trip. Also, the F-22 will not have enough fuel to loiter and fight in the airspace above the eastern Chinese coast.

----------

Anyway, let's move on to the more interesting discussion of shooting down a F-22 (or J-20).

1. A F-22 or J-20 is optimized to minimize its reflection of centimeter-resolution X-band AESA radar.

2. However, a F-22 can be detected with meter-resolution Low-Band radar (see Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)).

The problem with Low-Band radar is that it can only provide a general location (within a few meters or tens of meters) of a fast-moving stealth fighter. How do we narrow down its true position in space?

Let's use triangulation. While the Low-Band radar from a single unit will provide uncertainty in a bubble of space, we will use multiple Low-Band radar units scattered over the entire eastern Chinese coast. We will aggregate the readings from multiple Low-Band radars over a wide area and that should provide the location of an incoming F-22.






Using triangulation, we can pinpoint the location of a F-22 with meter-resolution Low-Band radars. Relay the targeting information to a SAM or air-to-air missile and you have a good chance of shooting down a stealth fighter.

Alternatively, we can conceptually build a dual-seeker missile. The missile could fly towards the center-point of its Low-Band radar reflection. Within 20km of its target, it activates its AESA radar and looks for a F-22. Even if the success rate is only 20%, it would only require five missiles to shoot down a F-22. If you like, you can experiment with a Low-Band radar and tv dual-head seeker.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> My proposal is purely theoretical.


And quite  entertaining  for those of us who have relevant experience in the matter. Kinda like one of your 'Engineer' who proclaimed the J-20's all moving stabs are 'more advanced' than the F-22's rudders despite nearly 100 yrs of aviation history that says nothing of the sort.


----------



## Martian2

*Tracking a F-22 with a low-band radar through statistical averaging*

The problem with meter-resolution low-band radar is that it provides a general area where an enemy stealth fighter is located. Previously, I discussed the technique of triangulation from multiple low-band radar sites to narrow down the position of the F-22.

Today, I want to discuss the technique of statistical averaging. Using a single low-band radar, it might be possible to predict the coordinates for the location of a F-22. Though a single low-band radar reflection may be imprecise, the continuous tracking of a F-22 and the plotting of a smooth curve would show the current F-22 location.





By tracking the radar reflections from a single low-band radar, it may be possible to precisely identify the location of a F-22 through statistical averaging.

Obviously, the most effective defense is to use a network of low-band radars and combine the techniques of triangulation and statistical averaging to identify the exact location of a F-22. To neutralize an enemy stealth fighter, SAMs or air-to-air missiles can be used.

If all else fails, vector in a squadron of J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighters for an intercept.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

DrSomnath999 said:


> NOW *what has large payload & high range got to with "high survivability"*
> 
> if thats the case then long range bomber is more survivable than jet.
> 
> & dont think J20's electronics & sensor equal to F 35 ,there is a god damned limit to be biased


Very little if any. He does not understand the idea in the first place.

Aircraft Combat Survivability (ACS) by practical definition, not by someone who have no military experience, is...

The Aircraft Combat Survivability Education Web Site


> The aircraft combat survivability discipline is dedicated to enhancing the survivability and effectiveness of aircraft that fly in man-made hostile environments.


ACS is about entrant into a hostile air environment whose threats ranges from EM to physical contacts -- bullets and missiles. Each type of threats warrant a distinct response. Enhanced survivability is possible by the integration of those responses in some ways to either avoid or nullify a threat or a series of threats that came from one or more sensor modes working in concert to create what we call 'modern air defense'.

Just as EM is a method of foreknowledge by one side to detect incoming threats such as aircrafts or missiles, intelligence about an air defense network also constitute foreknowledge by the attacking side when that side is formulating an attack plan. Knowledge of locations of air defense radar and their accompanying missile launch sites, air bases within combat distance, or commmand and control centers allow the attacker to create an ingress path to avoid the first threat -- EM. And if avoidance is successful and allow the attacking aircraft to accomplish its mission, whatever it may be, and escape relatively unharmed, then that is a successful event of ACS.

Vulnerability is defined as the degrees of ability to withstand contact -- EM or physical -- in this hostile environment. Believe it or not, in the early days of EM integration into air defense, it was found that some unprotected electronics actually did fail when the aircraft came into EM contact. Fortunately, that lesson was learned during peace time and inside friendly soil during modernization of aviation. Vulnerability can be from design weaknesses and flaws as well and nothing to do with the enemy.

For a few examples...

- The F-14's widely spaced engines enhanced battle damage survivability in the event one engine is degraded but it increases difficulty to maintain controlled flight due to asymmetric thrust. Which is more important?

- The lack of fuel tank fire suppression in one aircraft design compared to another, which is going to survive combat to accomplish its mission and get the crew home?

- How robust is the flight control systems? The A-10's mechanical FLCS is proven to be very robust in contact with the enemy whereas the F-16's all electronics FLCS must rely on strategic internal placements of components and software redundancies to maintain flight in combat if the FLCS is damaged.

Because an aircraft is an exercise in practical compromises, its combat survivability is never deterministic. Technological enhancements in one or more sub-disciplines such as avionics may increases its vulnerability to the point where whatever advancements are simply not worth the integration or reduced the aircraft's versatility. Case in point is the F-117's new low radar observable technology. The technology was deemed worthwhile enough to integrate into the overall battle plans for the USAF but because the technology's own weaknesses limited the aircraft's usability to largely night time missions to reduce its vulnerability in the visual spectrum. When the technology progressed enough, that lack of versatility disappeared with the B-2, F-22, and F-35.

Large payload and distance, long or short, have next to nothing value regarding survivability.


----------



## Martian2

*J-20 Mighty Dragon is critical to building low-band radar defense against F-22*

In theory, we know we can use the physics principle of "resonance" (see citation below) to determine the approximate location of a F-22 stealth fighter. In addition, we know we can use the principles of triangulation and "tracking through statistical averaging over time" to pinpoint the location of a F-22.

Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)

"The Rezonans-N radar is a mobile highly automated coherent all-round surveillance phased-array radar employing the *resonance wave reflection effect in the metric wavelength band*. It is designed to monitor airspace, to acquire, identify and measure with high accuracy co-ordinates and flight characteristics of a wide range of existing and prospective air targets at long ranges and high altitudes, including low-observable cruise and ballistic missiles and hypersonic aircraft, as well as stealthy ones, in severe jamming and clutter environment, as well as to be used within automated/non-automated command and control systems, non-strategic missile defence systems, rapid deployment assets, and in various military/civil-purpose applications."

----------

How do we utilize these physics principles and build an effective low-band radar defense network against a F-22? The development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter becomes critical. Except for the rear aspect (due to the current lack of flat nozzles), a J-20 is a close approximation of a F-22 in frontal, side, and underside aspect stealth.

Chinese engineers need access to a real stealth fighter (e.g. J-20 or F-22) to test and refine their low-band radar defense network. The development of the J-20 allows Chinese engineers the opportunity to evaluate their low-band radar defense network performance and perfect an effective defense against intruding F-22s.





65th test flight of China's J-20 stealth fighter. (Sourced from Xinhuanet: 65th test flight of China's stealth fighter J-20 - Xinhua | English.news.cn)

A precondition to building an effective low-band radar defense network is the construction of a stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragon. By pitting a J-20 against their low-band radar defenses, Chinese engineers can perfect a functioning and reliable defense system.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> In theory, we know we can use the physics principle of "resonance" (see citation below) to determine the approximate location of a F-22 stealth fighter.


In reality, we know that meters lengths freqs are always ground based and powerful in order to support those meters lengths pulses. They are powerful enough that they will advertise their presence and operations long before their effective detection distance is breached, meaning the F-22 will detect them and their operations at the 100% maximum distance while the effective detection distance of *ANY* radar system is about 80% or less of that maximum. The intruding F-22 or F-35 can use an assortment of tactics to avoid these powerful systems: 'beamrider' navigation, terrain masking via avoidance and following, EM distraction via drones emitting pulses with similar signal characteristics, and many others that the Chinese air defense have no experience in usage and responses.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> In theory, we know we can use the *physics principle of "resonance"* (see citation below) to determine the approximate location of a F-22 stealth fighter. In addition, we know we can use the principles of triangulation and "tracking through statistical averaging over time" to pinpoint the location of a F-22.
> 
> Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)
> 
> The Rezonans-N radar is a mobile highly automated coherent all-round surveillance phased-array radar employing the *resonance wave reflection effect in the metric wavelength band*. It is designed to monitor airspace, to acquire, identify and measure with high accuracy co-ordinates and flight characteristics of a wide range of existing and prospective air targets at long ranges and high altitudes, including low-observable cruise and ballistic missiles and hypersonic aircraft, as well as stealthy ones, in severe jamming and clutter environment, as well as to be used within automated/non-automated command and control systems, non-strategic missile defence systems, rapid deployment assets, and in various military/civil-purpose applications."


What is the specific behavior of an impinging signal upon a body that result in 'resonance'? Does it occur only at certain wavelengths independent of body dimensions?


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> *J-20 Mighty Dragon is critical to building low-band radar defense against F-22*
> 
> *In theory, we know we can use the physics principle of "resonance" (see citation below) to determine the approximate location of a F-22 stealth fighter. In addition, we know we can use the principles of triangulation and "tracking through statistical averaging over time" to pinpoint the location of a F-22.*




In practice however, we all know you are theorising things out of thin air and pretty much nothing you say makes scientific sense. 


Triangulation ?? what are we going to see next ? 

Oh I know.. let me suggest a novel and ingenious way to detect the F-22. 






how about that.. no triangulation and anything.. huh ?


----------



## Martian2

*PLA low-band radars to detect stealth fighters*

CCTV: PLA low-band radars designed especially for tracking a stealth fighter like the F-22 (&#22830;&#35270;&#26333;&#20809;&#65306;&#35299;&#25918;&#20891;&#35013;&#22791;&#38024;&#23545;F22&#30340;&#21508;&#22411;&#38647;&#36798.




































Reference: http://bbs.news.163.com/bbs/mil/212932075.html

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the post.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> PLA low-band radars to detect stealth fighters
> 
> CCTV: PLA low-band radars designed especially for tracking a stealth fighter like the F-22 (&#22830;&#35270;&#26333;&#20809;&#65306;&#35299;&#25918;&#20891;&#35013;&#22791;&#38024;&#23545;F22&#30340;&#21508;&#22411;&#38647;&#36798.


How? We are curious to see some reasonable technical explanations.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> How? We are curious to see some reasonable technical explanations.



If you hadn't been spamming my posts with b.s. rhetoric, I would have explained it.

You make me unhappy. I ignore you.

There are three critical differences. You can figure it out yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

DrSomnath999 said:


> NOW what has large payload & high range got to with "high survivability"
> 
> if thats the case then long range bomber is more survivable than jet.
> 
> & dont think J20's electronics & sensor equal to F 35 ,there is a god damned limit to be biased



There are 2 planes in the world with EODAS. That'd be the J-20 and F-35; the PAK-FA still uses a single IRST camera ball. These provide full 3-D situational awareness in the IR spectrum. If the J-20's electronics are not at the level of F-35, then it is at least 2nd best. Payload and high range influence survivability due to being able to strategically deploy the aircraft at airfields further away from places where they are more likely to be destroyed by a preemptive attack and to place more buffer radars/IADS so that they can perform at maximum efficiency. In addition, it reduces the constraints of fuel on maneuvering. High payload influences survivability by giving the plane more opportunities to shoot down other planes before being forced to retreat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## telephone

whats the top speed on this plane?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> If you hadn't been spamming my posts with b.s. rhetoric, I would have explained it.
> 
> You make me unhappy. I ignore you.
> 
> There are three critical differences. You can figure it out yourself.


 I doubt that you can explain the basics of resonance behaviors. Actually, I explained it a long time ago before you got here. But clue for you, complex bodies degrades resonance behaviors.



FairAndUnbiased said:


> There are 2 planes in the world with EODAS. That'd be the J-20 and F-35; the PAK-FA still uses a single IRST camera ball. These provide full 3-D situational awareness in the IR spectrum. If the J-20's electronics are not at the level of F-35, then it is at least 2nd best. Payload and high range influence survivability due to being *able to strategically deploy the aircraft at airfields further away from places where they are more likely to be destroyed by a preemptive attack* and to place more buffer radars/IADS so that they can perform at maximum efficiency. In addition, it reduces the constraints of fuel on maneuvering. High payload influences survivability by giving the plane more opportunities to shoot down other planes before being forced to retreat.


That is not survivability, which is about the ability to avoid physical threats and/or survive them *WHILE* being in a hostile environment, not out of it.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> I doubt that you can explain the basics of resonance behaviors. Actually, I explained it a long time ago before you got here. But clue for you, complex bodies degrades resonance behaviors.
> 
> 
> That is not survivability, which is about the ability to avoid physical threats and/or survive them *WHILE* being in a hostile environment, not out of it.



I think you must have heard wrong Gambit, or must have served in a naive service like me (no wonder since we follow your doctrine mostly) 

survivability is not what you think apparently, neither is what air forces demand on paper when the issue letters of interest on particular requirements. They just need bigger tanks on the planes. 

And apparently, the stupid russians who cannot produce a stealth plane, can produce L band radars (ground nonetheless) that can *track* an F-22 class body. 

and moreover you can triangulate using them to find *A* single F-22!! 

all I say is WOW. 

let me summarise

: proper use of term survivability thrown to garbage
: understanding of what role L -band ground radars play, thrown to garbage
: Stealth design of the F-22, thrown to garbage because of statistical mean and resonance

need I go on?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> : Stealth design of the F-22, thrown to garbage because of statistical mean and resonance


Here is a Chinese source and a clue to our Chinese friend who thinks that the resonance effect can be so simple to create and model...

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


> The complex natural resonances (poles) of complex radar targets are usually extracted from measured signature, and have low precision because of being extremely sensitive to noise. In numerically methods to calculate targets' poles, the method of moment (MoM) combined with contour integration is a smart one and widely used. *But that method is limited to simple shaped or revolution objects.* For complex shaped targets by that method, the number of poles in contour is incorrectly estimated, and the results are inaccurate.


There are no shortages of publicly available information on how as complex a body as an aircraft compared to a blimp or the simple sphere can screw up what was originally believed to be simple by overwhelming said complex body with wavelengths that matches or larger than target dimensions.

Another example...

ScienceDirect.com - AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications - Extraction of electromagnetic target poles from multiple scattered fields with damped Min-norm method


> In this study, the estimation of complex natural resonance frequencies (target poles) by using damped minimum-norm (DMin-norm) method is presented. The method mainly utilizes from the scattered fields belonging to multiple aspect angle/polarization cases of a target in resonance scattering region. By employing DMin-norm algorithm, the proposed method constitutes a function from which target poles can be efficiently extracted as its roots. However, the method in its conventional form should be executed as many times as the number of scattered fields to collect sufficient number of resonance frequencies. Therefore, the method is further improved in terms of computational time to acquire target poles with a single process for multiple scattered data. The described method is applied to a dielectric sphere having high number of target poles and good agreement between estimated and theoretical poles is observed.


Complex bodies create multiple interruptions during the travel time and distance of the impinging wave and each scattering point is called a 'pole'.

Another example...



> CHARACTERIZATION OF PERFECTLY CONDUCTING TARGETS IN RESONANCE DOMAIN WITH THEIR QUALITY OF RESONANCE
> 
> J. Chauveau, N. de Beaucoudrey, and J. Saillard
> 
> Institut de Recherche en Electrotechnique
> et Electronique de Nantes Atlantique (IREENA)
> Universit´ de Nantese
> PolytechNantes, rue Christian Pauc, BP50609
> 44306 Nantes Cedex 03, France
> 
> Abstract*In resonance domain, the radar scattering response of any object can be modelled by natural poles of resonance* with the formalism of the Singularity Expansion Method. The mapping of these poles in the complex plane gives useful information for the discrimination of a radar target, as its general shape, its characteristic dimension and its constitution. In this paper, we use an analogy with resonant circuits modelling to de&#64257;ne the quality factor Q of each resonance. Therefore, we propose to characterize the resonance behavior of perfectly conducting targets with this quality factor Q and the natural pulsation of resonance &#969;0 . Indeed, this new representation in {&#969;0 ; Q} allows to better separate information than the usual mapping of *natural poles of resonance* in the complex plane. For perfectly conducting canonical and complex shape targets, we present results exhibiting advantages of these two parameters {&#969;0 ; Q}.
> 
> 1. INTRODUCTION
> 
> For years, the Singularity Expansion Method (SEM) has been used to characterize the electromagnetic response of structures in both the time and the frequency domains. SEM was &#64257;rst introduced by Baum [1, 2] and was inspired by observing that typical *transient temporal responses of various scatterers (e.g. aircrafts, antennas, ...)* behave as a combination of exponentially damped sinusoids. Such damped sinusoids correspond, in the complex frequency domain, to complex conjugate poles called *natural poles of resonance.*


How to compensate for these disturbances is not to eliminate them from calculations but to increase the complexity of the algorithms and it all returned to the simple sphere and the 10-lambda rule,which our man omitted from his 'discussion' because he does not understand how all these things integrate.







That undulation is because of the signal continually wrapping itself around the sphere *IF* its wavelength is greater than sphere/cylinder diameter, aka the '10-lambda' rule. As the wavelength/diameter ratio increases that undulation disappear because the electrical path (diameter) is too great and signal loss via 'leaky waves' eliminate that 'wrapping' around effect.

Which lead us to this point...






The SR-71's nose shape will allow the surface wave effect to exist, but as the signal travels to the other (shadow) side, the edge will create an interruption -- scattering point -- that will radiate into free space away from the seeking radar.

*IF* wavelength is greater than diameter, that undulation from resonance will occur for the F-15 but not as pronounced for the SR-71 because of that interruption. This is why complex bodies create issues no less difficult to resolve in the resonance region if the complex body is *DELIBERATELY* shaped for RCS manipulations. This is why even APA, our man's source, had to admit that using 'long wavelengths' is not a solution against 'stealth'.

Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)


> *Low band radars are not a panacea for the defeat of VLO (Very Low Observable) aircraft.* Their angular accuracy has been until recently poor, and the required antenna size results in ungainly systems which are usually slow to deploy and stow, even if designed from the outset for mobility. The size and high power emissions of these radars, in types with limited mobility, makes them much easier to detect and destroy than typical mobile systems operating in the decimetric and centimetric bands, which can relocate rapidly after a missile shot.


This forum is the only place where his nonsense will be challenged. And with Chinese sources at that. This is why he acts as petulant as he does because this forum is one less place where his ego will be stroked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Here is a Chinese source and a clue to our Chinese friend who thinks that the resonance effect can be so simple to create and model...
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> There are no shortages of publicly available information on how as complex a body as an aircraft compared to a blimp or the simple sphere can screw up what was originally believed to be simple by overwhelming said complex body with wavelengths that matches or larger than target dimensions.
> 
> Another example...
> 
> ScienceDirect.com - AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications - Extraction of electromagnetic target poles from multiple scattered fields with damped Min-norm method
> 
> Complex bodies create multiple interruptions during the travel time and distance of the impinging wave and each scattering point is called a 'pole'.
> 
> Another example...
> 
> 
> How to compensate for these disturbances is not to eliminate them from calculations but to increase the complexity of the algorithms and it all returned to the simple sphere and the 10-lambda rule,which our man omitted from his 'discussion' because he does not understand how all these things integrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That undulation is because of the signal continually wrapping itself around the sphere *IF* its wavelength is greater than sphere/cylinder diameter, aka the '10-lambda' rule. As the wavelength/diameter ratio increases that undulation disappear because the electrical path (diameter) is too great and signal loss via 'leaky waves' eliminate that 'wrapping' around effect.
> 
> Which lead us to this point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SR-71's nose shape will allow the surface wave effect to exist, but as the signal travels to the other (shadow) side, the edge will create an interruption -- scattering point -- that will radiate into free space away from the seeking radar.
> 
> *IF* wavelength is greater than diameter, that undulation from resonance will occur for the F-15 but not as pronounced for the SR-71 because of that interruption. This is why complex bodies create issues no less difficult to resolve in the resonance region if the complex body is *DELIBERATELY* shaped for RCS manipulations. This is why even APA, our man's source, had to admit that using 'long wavelengths' is not a solution against 'stealth'.
> 
> Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)
> 
> This forum is the only place where his nonsense will be challenged. And with Chinese sources at that. This is why he acts as petulant as he does because this forum is one less place where his ego will be stroked.


 
I believed I started questioning my sanity when he proposed chinese to use statistical mean to extrapolate a "tracking" for an F-22. 

I really don't know what to say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2

gambit said:


> Here is a Chinese source and a clue to our Chinese friend who thinks that the resonance effect can be so simple to create and model...
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> There are no shortages of publicly available information on how as complex a body as an aircraft compared to a blimp or the simple sphere can screw up what was originally believed to be simple by overwhelming said complex body with wavelengths that matches or larger than target dimensions.
> 
> Another example...
> 
> ScienceDirect.com - AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications - Extraction of electromagnetic target poles from multiple scattered fields with damped Min-norm method
> 
> Complex bodies create multiple interruptions during the travel time and distance of the impinging wave and each scattering point is called a 'pole'.
> 
> Another example...
> 
> 
> How to compensate for these disturbances is not to eliminate them from calculations but to increase the complexity of the algorithms and it all returned to the simple sphere and the 10-lambda rule,which our man omitted from his 'discussion' because he does not understand how all these things integrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That undulation is because of the signal continually wrapping itself around the sphere *IF* its wavelength is greater than sphere/cylinder diameter, aka the '10-lambda' rule. As the wavelength/diameter ratio increases that undulation disappear because the electrical path (diameter) is too great and signal loss via 'leaky waves' eliminate that 'wrapping' around effect.
> 
> Which lead us to this point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SR-71's nose shape will allow the surface wave effect to exist, but as the signal travels to the other (shadow) side, the edge will create an interruption -- scattering point -- that will radiate into free space away from the seeking radar.
> 
> *IF* wavelength is greater than diameter, that undulation from resonance will occur for the F-15 but not as pronounced for the SR-71 because of that interruption. This is why complex bodies create issues no less difficult to resolve in the resonance region if the complex body is *DELIBERATELY* shaped for RCS manipulations. This is why even APA, our man's source, had to admit that using 'long wavelengths' is not a solution against 'stealth'.
> 
> Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radar Systems (Counter Low Observable Technology Radars)
> 
> This forum is the only place where his nonsense will be challenged. And with Chinese sources at that. This is why he acts as petulant as he does because this forum is one less place where his ego will be stroked.




Yo Gambit old bean, long time no see, how's your pumping going lately? Judging this posr of yours, dare I say that without my frenquent presence you and your usual mate (I mean you, amalaks, say hello!) have been pumping out of charts? 



This forum is the only place where someone's nonsense will be challenged. 

I fully agree!


In fact, the principle of what Martian argues is NOT wrong, but correct, even though the detailed method is perhaps over-simplified (e.g. moving avg part). And contrary to what you intended to pump, your quotations just proved he&#8217;s right instead . :


This principle deals with 2 things: 1 is to collect raw data and 2 is to model them. 

Your first quotation (science.direct) is to try to prove that to collect resonance points is hard - well, of course it is and who said no? while your second quotation ( the French essay) is to provide one way trying to model it other than traditional Dmin-norm method, both of which are pretty primitive ones to me though to be honest.

Now, it comes to one of my territories: advanced modelling of complex phenomena. Hence fortunately I don't need to quote what others say as you do, because, for once, I am the darn source here when talking about modelling, oke? the expert one in fact  

1. there is no fixed way ( only conventional one, the one, like what you google that you do with a passion, accepted by the mainstream which usually represents the dumbstream) of how to collect raw data a.k.a. resonance frequencies (target poles). There are many ways to define the how and what raw data one needs to collect, and what methodology and factors one intends for his modelling.

2. There is no fixed way, contrary to what you try to argue, on how to separate the noises from the core pole frequencies. Increasing the complexity of algorithms, as you argue, is only one way to tackle it, but not necessarily, or not definitely, the only way. There are many models to my expert knowledge that do a good job in eliminating, so called &#8220;taking out&#8221; noises without increase unnecessary complexity which leads to unwanted increase of computing power & time consumed. 

3.The principle is provided that the Chinese have managed to collect enough resonance frequencies emitted by F-22 by effective/smartly re-arranging their radar frequencies etc I don't care, it is both theoretically and practically *entirely* feasible to have a reasonablely high quality result of where is F-22 by deploying state-of-art (means you can't google it) modelling methods which are not in the public domain.

Aforementioned modelling in principle are not that too different from advanced financial modelling deployed in areas such as ones for high-frequency trading and other proprietary models of quant hedge funds, albeit with slight adjustments. From some angles they are even *much* less complex than the latter, since 

i) F-22 is mission-driven thus its fly pattern is non-random; 

ii) its movements, if we artificially assume some key resonance frequency points for the sake of argument, are not stochastic but path-dependent and even linear (!) in many cases, and

iii) its paths are predetermined, in the sense that it won't go straight into heavily-monitored/defended radar zones of the East and North China but in between and along the border blind points... this could eliminate many flight paths and further limit the scope of the potential ones...all in all very helpful for modelling.

Therefore, Gambit old chap, yes, there&#8217;s no shortage of publicly available info on complex bodies and their modelling, but almost all of them are way off the mark as the good ones cost a lot of money thus not for free. So don't quote me some irrelevant info on this topic to fill the page and gain sympathies of the ignorant many. As I said, as along as China manages to get the full raw data (even with noises) one way or another I don&#8217;t care, to determine where more or less exactly is F-22 is "impossible" (errr...for the nuts), but do-able!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## amalakas

Speeder 2 said:


> Yo Gambit old bean, long time no see, how's your pumping going lately? Judging this posr of yours, dare I say that without my frenquent presence you and your usual mate (I mean you, amalaks, say hello!) have been pumping out of charts?
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is the only place where someone's nonsense will be challenged.
> 
> I fully agree!
> 
> 
> In fact, the principle of what Martian argues is NOT wrong, but correct, even though the detailed method is perhaps over-simplified (e.g. moving avg part). And contrary to what you intended to pump, your quotations just proved hes right instead . :
> 
> 
> This principle deals with 2 things: 1 is to collect raw data and 2 is to model them.
> 
> Your first quotation (science.direct) is to try to prove that to collect resonance points is hard - well, of course it is and who said no? while your second quotation ( the French essay) is to provide one way trying to model it other than traditional Dmin-norm method, both of which are pretty primitive ones to me though to be honest.
> 
> Now, it comes to one of my territories: advanced modelling of complex phenomena. Hence fortunately I don't need to quote what others say as you do, because, for once, I am the darn source here when talking about modelling, oke? the expert one in fact
> 
> 1. there is no fixed way ( only conventional one, the one, like what you google that you do with a passion, accepted by the mainstream which usually represents the dumbstream) of how to collect raw data a.k.a. resonance frequencies (target poles). There are many ways to define the how and what raw data one needs to collect, and what methodology and factors one intends for his modelling.
> 
> 2. There is no fixed way, contrary to what you try to argue, on how to separate the noises from the core pole frequencies. Increasing the complexity of algorithms, as you argue, is only one way to tackle it, but not necessarily, or not definitely, the only way. There are many models to my expert knowledge that do a good job in eliminating, so called taking out noises without increase unnecessary complexity which leads to unwanted increase of computing power & time consumed.
> 
> 3.The principle is provided that the Chinese have managed to collect enough resonance frequencies emitted by F-22 by effective/smartly re-arranging their radar frequencies etc I don't care, it is both theoretically and practically *entirely* feasible to have a reasonablely high quality result of where is F-22 by deploying state-of-art (means you can't google it) modelling methods which are not in the public domain.
> 
> Aforementioned modelling in principle are not that too different from advanced financial modelling deployed in areas such as ones for high-frequency trading and other proprietary models of quant hedge funds, albeit with slight adjustments. From some angles they are even *much* less complex than the latter, since
> 
> i) F-22 is mission-driven thus its fly pattern is non-random;
> 
> ii) its movements, if we artificially assume some key resonance frequency points for the sake of argument, are not stochastic but path-dependent and even linear (!) in many cases, and
> 
> iii) its paths are predetermined, in the sense that it won't go straight into heavily-monitored/defended radar zones of the East and North China but in between and along the border blind points... this could eliminate many flight paths and further limit the scope of the potential ones...all in all very helpful for modelling.
> 
> Therefore, Gambit old chap, yes, theres no shortage of publicly available info on complex bodies and their modelling, but almost all of them are way off the mark as the good ones cost a lot of money thus not for free. So don't quote me some irrelevant info on this topic to fill the page and gain sympathies of the ignorant many. As I said, as along as China manages to get the full raw data (even with noises) one way or another I dont care, to determine where more or less exactly is F-22 is "impossible" (errr...for the nuts), but do-able!


 
Tell me oh wise and knowledgeable one. 

How will your model distinguish between the raw data of (and I am being lenient here) two F-22s feeding your system. 

I'll save you the trouble, it can't !


----------



## Speeder 2

amalakas said:


> Tell me oh wise and knowledgeable one.
> 
> How will your model distinguish between the raw data of (and I am being lenient here) two F-22s feeding your system.
> 
> I'll save you the trouble, it can't !



Oh wise and knowldgeble one answers:

unless the "2" F-22 are sticking together, quite figuratively, creating flying paths 100% identical to each other from all angles all the time hence by definition "2" becoming 1, a decent model can, by bootstrapping just for a simple example, seperate the two as easy and as natural as a Greek chef (prehaps I overestimate the Greeks here nonetheless) seperates pork from chicken, or a bond trader seperates the seemingly "identical" streams of numbers along Coca Cola 10 yrs swap curve from Pepsi 10 yrs convertable curve.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*The real reason F-22 Raptor was canceled: Superseded by Chinese military technology*

1. The Serbs shot down a state-of-the-art F-117 stealth fighter in 1999.

2. Chinese military technology, funding, low-band radars, supercomputing power, and network defenses are magnitudes beyond what the Serbs were capable. The integration of a variety of low-band radars, bi-static radars, multi-static radars, airborne AWACS, triangulation, tracking through "statistical averaging over time," and other advanced techniques should easily allow China to locate and track a F-22.

3. Since the public unveiling of the F-117 and B-2 in 1988, China has had 24 years to prepare in the shooting down of a stealth aircraft.

4. I hope you guys aren't dumb enough to believe the public explanation that the F-22 was canceled due to budget pressure. Behind closed doors, the Senate oversight committee receives classified reports of the true strength of Chinese air defenses.

This is simple common sense. Why would the United States cancel its most technologically advanced F-22 air-superiority fighter? The obvious answer is the U.S. wouldn't cancel it unless the F-22 was no longer effective for its intended purpose of fighting a near-peer (i.e. China).

I can't prove it (because I don't have access to classified reports), but the only logical explanation is the U.S. government has concluded the F-22 is no longer a trump card against China. Hence, the production of the F-22 was intentionally halted. The F-22 is unsuitable, because of its short combat radius of 471 miles and/or the Chinese air defense network.

In conclusion, shooting down a F-22 is well within China's technological capability. That is the expected outcome of a near-peer in military technology (e.g. a country that can build its own J-20 Mighty Dragon all-aspect stealth fighter). However, the Serbs will always own the distinction of being the first to shoot down a at-the-time state-of-the-art stealth fighter.

----------

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in October 2009, without F-22 funding.[84][85]"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## amalakas

Speeder 2 said:


> Oh wise and knowldgeble one answers:
> 
> unless the "2" F-22 are sticking together, quite figuratively, creating flying paths 100% identical to each other from all angles all the time hence by definition "2" becoming 1, a decent model can, by bootstrapping just for a simple example, seperate the two as easy and as natural as a Greek chef (prehaps I overestimate the Greeks here nonetheless) seperates pork from chicken, or a bond trader seperates the seemingly "identical" streams of numbers along Coca Cola 10 yrs swap curve from Pepsi 10 yrs convertable curve.



haha, it ain't the same and you know it. 

stop selling it. 

and you example is not suitable.. think about it. 

(see ..and no insults in my answer)


you really can't see the flaw in your reasoning???


----------



## gambit

Speeder 2 said:


> Oh wise and knowldgeble one answers:
> 
> unless the "2" F-22 are sticking together, quite figuratively, creating flying paths 100% identical to each other from all angles all the time hence by definition *"2" becoming 1, a decent model can, by bootstrapping just for a simple example, seperate the two as easy* and as natural as a Greek chef (prehaps I overestimate the Greeks here nonetheless) seperates pork from chicken, or a bond trader seperates the seemingly "identical" streams of numbers along Coca Cola 10 yrs swap curve from Pepsi 10 yrs convertable curve.


 Your friend's source had to admit that the meters length freqs *ALREADY* have very poor angular resolution, plus there is this...

Definition: radar resolution cell


> radar resolution cell: The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: *The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.*








Long wavelengths inevitably produces very wide beam, so in order to have beamwidth that matches the resolution capability of the decimetric and centimetric bands...

Over-the-horizon radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In order to achieve a beamwidth of 1/2 degree at HF, an antenna *array several kilometres long* is required.


Oh, yeah......Several kms wide...Very 'portable' there...And very 'easily' hidden from sight as well.

Clue for you, conscript reject, we have been practicing the tactic of hiding multiple attackers inside a resolution cell long before you were borned. It drove the Soviets nuts even when we used the old F-111, of which I was on.



Martian2 said:


> The real reason F-22 Raptor was canceled: Superseded by Chinese military technolog


Bunk.



Martian2 said:


> 1. The Serbs shot down a state-of-the-art F-117 stealth fighter in 1999.


The F-117 flew over 800 sorties. One out of 800 is not an air defense combat record to boast about.

The F-117 is/was hardly 'state of the art'. This is sheer hyperbole to suit your fanciful argument that somehow US 'stealth' aircraft is 'easily' defeated by Chinese methods.

The F-117:

- Used the FLCS from the F-16. How is that 'state of the art'?

- Have no radar. How is that 'state of the art'?



Martian2 said:


> 2. Chinese military technology, funding, low-band radars, supercomputing power, and network defenses are magnitudes beyond what the Serbs were capable. The integration of a variety of low-band radars, bi-static radars, multi-static radars, airborne AWACS, triangulation, tracking through "statistical averaging over time," and other advanced techniques should easily allow China to locate and track a F-22.


Has yet to be proven as *WORKABLE*.



Martian2 said:


> 3. Since the public unveiling of the F-117 and B-2 in 1988, China has had 24 years to prepare in the shooting down of a stealth fighter.


Without a low observable body to test? Doubtful.



Martian2 said:


> 4. I hope you guys aren't dumb enough to believe the public explanation that the F-22 was canceled due to budget pressure. Behind closed doors, the Senate oversight committee receives classified reports of the true strength of Chinese air defenses.
> 
> This is simple common sense. Why would the United States cancel its most technologically advanced F-22 air-superiority fighter? The obvious answer is the U.S. wouldn't cancel it unless the F-22 was no longer effective for its intended purpose of fighting a near-peer (i.e. China).
> 
> *I can't prove it (because I don't have access to classified reports)*, but the only logical explanation is the U.S. government has concluded the F-22 is no longer a trump card against China. Hence, the production of the F-22 was intentionally halted. The F-22 is unsuitable, because of its short combat radius of 471 miles and/or the Chinese air defense network.
> 
> In conclusion, shooting down a F-22 is well within China's technological capability. That is the expected outcome of a near-peer in military technology (e.g. a country that can build its own J-20 Mighty Dragon all-aspect stealth fighter). However, the Serbs will always own the distinction of being the first to shoot down a at-the-time state-of-the-art stealth fighter.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in October 2009, without F-22 funding.[84][85]"


If you cannot prove it then you have nothing to go on. That is the real logic.


----------



## Martian2

By the way Gambit, I don't read your posts. You have become a troll like Amalakas.

It doesn't matter the logic or substance of my posts, you two trolls will always say "bunk" in a knee-jerk reaction. That is not a substantive argument.

You can go ahead and keep up your anti-China rhetoric. Just thought you should know, I don't read your garbage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> By the way Gambit, I don't read your posts. You have become a troll like Amalakas.
> 
> It doesn't matter the logic or substance of my posts, you two trolls will always say "bunk" in a knee-jerk reaction. That is not a substantive argument.
> 
> You can go ahead and keep up your anti-China rhetoric. Just thought you should know, I don't read your garbage.




First of all mister, it is not anti-china rhetoric. And if anyone is a troll , it is you. 

your theories are at best laughable, and I tried to give them some basis for argument at least, but you are just conjuring things out of thin air. No basis whatsoever. A mix of things put together than make a mess. 


* you cannot triangulate because your space will have more than one planes in it. You can't make viable cells of triangulation. Moreover, if you have a decoy or a conventional plane in there too, your plan shoots to hell faster than ghostrider. 

* You cannot use statistical average because you don't have a single source for data. 

* you cannot use statistical average because even to get to that point you imply that you get tracking from an L-band radar. That is not the real case scenario. You will simply not get tracking of a LO body from an L-band radar. 

* You cannot use statistical models for predicting the position of the ghost pings you get in a sporadic fashion because some of them will be false or not even belong to the same plane, not to mention few and far apart in both space and time.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *By the way Gambit, I don't read your posts.* You have become a troll like Amalakas.
> 
> It doesn't matter the logic or substance of my posts, you two trolls will always say "bunk" in a knee-jerk reaction. That is not a substantive argument.
> 
> You can go ahead and keep up your anti-China rhetoric. Just thought you should know, I don't read your garbage.


Do not care. This is not about you but about the readers who are not interested in stroking your ego. Keep your nonsense over at your playgrounds where there are plenty of gullible Chinese who will not hesitate to swallow everything you say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Speeder 2 said:


> Yo Gambit old bean, long time no see, how's your pumping going lately? Judging this posr of yours, dare I say that without my frenquent presence you and your usual mate (I mean you, amalaks, say hello!) have been pumping out of charts?


Your previous presence never mattered much since you never contributed anything of worth that is *RELEVANT* to the topic anyway. Go and pump yourself elsewhere.



Speeder 2 said:


> This forum is the only place where someone's nonsense will be challenged.
> 
> *I fully agree!*


Good.



Speeder 2 said:


> In fact, the principle of what Martian argues is NOT wrong, but correct, even though the detailed method is perhaps over-simplified (e.g. moving avg part).


Grossly over-simplified. But that is the extent of his knowledge. Keep in mind he is a confused Chinese-American who have no relevant experience let alone military experience.



Speeder 2 said:


> And contrary to what you intended to pump, your quotations just proved he&#8217;s right instead . :


Anyone can be correct at the theoretical level. Unfortunately, Chinese engineers who have relevant experience proved your man, not necessarily wrong, but woefully inadequate. Or did you missed those Chinese names in one of my sources?



Speeder 2 said:


> This principle deals with 2 things: 1 is to collect raw data and 2 is to model them.
> 
> Your first quotation (science.direct) is to try to prove that to collect resonance points is hard - well, of course it is and who said no? while your second quotation ( the French essay) is to provide one way trying to model it other than traditional *Dmin-norm method, both of which are pretty primitive ones to me though to be honest.*


Aaaawww...Are we supposed to be 'impressed'? Not...

ScienceDirect.com - AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications - Extraction of electromagnetic target poles from multiple scattered fields with damped Min-norm method


> *Mustafa Secmen
> 
> Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Yasar University, Bornova, 35100, Izmir, Turkey*
> Received 22 September 2011. Accepted 27 February 2012. Available online 28 March 2012.
> 
> In this study, the estimation of complex natural resonance frequencies (target poles) by using damped minimum-norm (DMin-norm) method is presented. The method mainly utilizes from the scattered fields belonging to multiple aspect angle/polarization cases of a target in resonance scattering region. By employing DMin-norm algorithm, the proposed method constitutes a function from which target poles can be efficiently extracted as its roots. However, the method in its conventional form should be executed as many times as the number of scattered fields to collect sufficient number of resonance frequencies. Therefore, the method is further improved in terms of computational time to acquire target poles with a single process for multiple scattered data. The described method is applied to a dielectric sphere having high number of target poles and good agreement between estimated and theoretical poles is observed.


Why not take some time and tell Senor Secmen how out of date he really is. 

But if you have any relevant experience which is radar detection you would have known that data analysis in radar detection depends entirely upon the quantity and quality of data *RECEIVED*. The Doppler component is pretty much standard issued in multi-purpose radars but if it is not available due to *NON*-radial movement of the target, why bother to call it up?

Radial Velocity: measured by Doppler radars


> Doppler radars can measure the component of the velocity of targets toward or away from the radar. This component is called the *"radial velocity". *
> 
> If the target is moving sideways so that its distance relative to the radar does not change, the radar will record zero radial velocity for that target.


You do know how the Doppler component works, right?

In shaping for RCS control, method of moment (MoM) is quite 'primitive' but it is still being used when applicable.

Another example is in flight control laws. Pure pursuit laws are the simplest and by your egotistical standard: primitive. And yet PP is an absolute requirement and PP serves as the foundation for composite FLCS laws in every digital FLCS from missiles to fighter aircrafts. You mean you did not know about such a thing as 'flight control laws'? Sorry if it is too 'primitive' for you. 



Speeder 2 said:


> Now, it comes to one of my territories: advanced modelling of complex phenomena. Hence fortunately I don't need to quote what others say as you do, because, for once, *I am the darn source* here when talking about modelling, oke? *the expert one* in fact


I doubt that. If you are then it make you an intellectually dishonest expert since your friend have made one technical blunder after another usually from ignorance and ego. Chinese solidarity comes first at the expense of honesty, right?



Speeder 2 said:


> 1. there is no fixed way ( only conventional one, the one, like what you google that you do with a passion, accepted by the mainstream which usually represents the dumbstream) of how to collect raw data a.k.a. resonance frequencies (target poles). *There are many ways to define the how and what raw data one needs to collect, and what methodology and factors one intends for his modelling.*


True...But in radar detection, you are at the mercy of the target, so either you cast as wide a net in terms of methodology as possible, from Doppler to space-time adaptive to SAR to iSAR and many more, to cover for every possible contingency, or you restrict your system to single use, such as the moving target indicator (MTI) radar.



Speeder 2 said:


> 2. *There is no fixed way*, contrary to what you try to argue, on how to separate the noises from the core pole frequencies.
> 
> Increasing the complexity of algorithms, as you argue, is only one way to tackle it, but not necessarily, or not definitely, the only way. There are many models to my expert knowledge that do a good job in eliminating, so called &#8220;taking out&#8221; noises without increase unnecessary complexity which leads to unwanted increase of computing power & time consumed.


Nowhere did I even implied so. But for the interested readers, noise comes from primarily two sources: background and self generated. Internally generated noise, which is as inevitable as background, is treated as zero mean Gaussian and can be simplistically eliminated. The higher the quality of the hardware, the easier it is to eliminate hardware related noise.

What Senors S. G. Wang, X. P. Guan, X. Y. Ma, D. W. Wang, and Y. Su of the National University of Defense Technology of Changsha, China, referred to was background radiation that contaminated the many scattering points (poles) of a complex body. Regardless of wavelengths employed, there will be signal loss because of the inverse square law *TO* the target, target caused losses such as absorbers, and the same inverse square law *FROM* the target back to the seeking radar.

Cosmic background radiation (CBR) can also be treated as zero mean Gaussian and easily eliminated. But signals or rather 'clutter' from flora, topography, and/or water have different distributions such as lognormal or Weibull, cannot be so easily discarded, worst of all is sea state or the Douglas Sea Scale => Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waves at sea generally fall under two main categories: capillary and gravity.

Capillary wavelengths are usually 2 cm or less. Surface tension is the retaining or 'restoring' force.

On the other hand, gravity wavelengths can range from a few hundreds meters to about one meter, give or take a few cm. Gravity waves also fall under two sub-categories: _sea_ and _swell_. The _sea_ state is when the waves are created/blown by the wind. The _swell_ state is when the waves are no longer under the influence of the wind that created them.

These are not independent and identically distributed (IID) noise. The surface they travel upon is sufficiently stable that it can act as a low pass filter for us to reduce some algorithm complexity and processing time.

Beamwidth also affect the amount of these signals received and that will increase or decrease processing time. Grazing angle and multi-paths propagation will affect the quantity and quality of data received and in that data includes noise. There is constant false alarm (CFAR) processing and there is cell averaging constant false alarm (CACFAR). This is not yet considering ECM, which is very much noise.

And you are telling everyone that increasing algorithm complexity is not necessary when modern air combat require the mission to be able to change from high altitude to Earth grazing within a few seconds?



Speeder 2 said:


> 3.The principle is provided that the Chinese have managed to collect enough resonance frequencies emitted by F-22 by effective/smartly re-arranging their radar frequencies etc I don't care, it is both theoretically and practically *entirely* feasible to have a reasonablely high quality result of where is F-22 by deploying state-of-art (means you can't google it) modelling methods which are not in the public domain.


This is wishful thinking at best. Yeah...We will grant you that it is theoretically possible. So is building the Death Star.



Speeder 2 said:


> Aforementioned modelling in principle are not that too different from advanced financial modelling deployed in areas such as ones for high-frequency trading and other proprietary models of quant hedge funds, albeit with slight adjustments. From some angles they are even *much* less complex than the latter, since
> 
> i) F-22 is mission-driven thus its fly pattern is non-random;
> 
> ii) its movements, if we artificially assume some key resonance frequency points for the sake of argument, are not stochastic but path-dependent and even linear (!) in many cases, and
> 
> iii) its paths are predetermined, in the sense that it won't go straight into heavily-monitored/defended radar zones of the East and North China but in between and along the border blind points... this could eliminate many flight paths and further limit the scope of the potential ones...all in all very helpful for modelling.


Right...So what you are doing is imposing your own limitations upon the USAF on how to deploy and operate the F-22 for the sake of giving some technical credibility to your friend's extremely dubious arguments.



Speeder 2 said:


> Therefore, Gambit old chap, yes, there&#8217;s no shortage of publicly available info on complex bodies and their modelling, but almost all of them are way off the mark as the good ones cost a lot of money thus not for free. So don't quote me some irrelevant info on this topic to fill the page and gain sympathies of the ignorant many. As I said, as along as China manages to get the full raw data (even with noises) one way or another I don&#8217;t care, to determine where more or less exactly is F-22 is "impossible" (errr...for the nuts), but do-able!


The difference between me and you Chinese boys is that I do not insult the intelligence of the readers, or as you put it the 'dumbstream', even though I realize they are lay people ignorant of the basics of this complex subject, I give them credible sources and keyword searches for them to verify for themselves. What I provide is not about proving me right or wrong but about giving them the necessary direction for them to verify for themselves. I do not care how deep anyone dig. For me, I travels regularly between Edwards, Hill, and Nellis. You can search for yourself and see what goes on at those bases. I know better than what your friend claim and try to convince people that he is right. Whereas I do not try to convince people that I am right, only that they look in this or that direction.

So yes, there are plenty of publicly available sources on how your friend's claims should be looked at with a critical eye. Not with blind approval and praise like over at your playgrounds. Go there if all you want is a mutual admiration society in a circle jerk inside the echo chamber they initially feared it will become -- and did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

FairAndUnbiased said:


> There are 2 planes in the world with EODAS. That'd be the J-20 and F-35; the PAK-FA still uses a single IRST camera ball. These provide full 3-D situational awareness in the IR spectrum. If the J-20's electronics are not at the level of F-35, then it is at least 2nd best.


oh boy!!
do u know the capablity of F 35's EODAS system .PLz know about it's capabilty before comparing it with J20 which is just in 
protype stages only .As j20 has 4-5 holes in it it's airframe it makes a jack sense that j20 ''s so called EODAS & it's electronics would be world's 2nd best,even calling them superior to even french electronicsDo u know french Sofradir produces one of 
the best Infra red Seekers in the world.Even PAKFA's IRST is supposed to have european seekers most probably french

1st of all see this video of F 35's EODAS system





 capabilty of EODAS sytem
The DAS provides:

1)Missile detection and tracking

2)Launch point detection

3)Situational awareness IRST & cueing

4)Weapons support

5)Day/night navigation

well it is possible due it's advanced COTS Freescale PowerPC processors & software ,
It is also augmented by the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) mounted under the nose of the aircraft, designed by Lockheed Martin.I doubt seriously can J20 have all such capabilty 


What ever advanced EODAS system may be but dont expect these system can be effective in evading latest 5th gen SHORT range infra red guided missile like AIM 9x & python 5 which has highly advanced FPA/electroptical seeker & also these missiles can do G manuveurabilty of more than 70G .Those flares wont work with these kind of missiles .These seekers can only be deactivated by laser beam.



Have u ever heard about LASER based DIRCM in ur entire life time.These laser based DIRCM can effectively take care of these 
5th gen IR guided missiles.
well United states Northrop Grumman & France's thales have mastered these technology ,well northrop grunman's
Viper Mid-IR Laser & Thales FLASH dircm are one of the most succesful DIRCM available in the market. .
Viper Mid-IR Laser
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Documents/Flash_brochure_pdf/

so the best solution for a stealth fighter is to avoid within visual range warfare rather focus on bvr warfare as those were specifically designed for those kind of warfare 







FairAndUnbiased said:


> Payload and high range influence survivability due to being able to strategically deploy the aircraft at airfields further away from places where they are more likely to be destroyed by a preemptive attack and to place more buffer radars/IADS so that they can perform at maximum efficiency.In addition, it reduces the constraints of fuel on maneuvering.


what bag of B.S man!!!
well until & unless u deploy ur jets underneath the fortified bunkers/hangers it is impossible to prevent it from being destroyed by a preemptive attack ,as enemy's Baliistic Missiles & Cruise Missile"S armed with tactical nukes can easily destroy it in it's hangars from long range.


well what the hell buffer SAM radars has to do with long range of an aircraft .?????

well even air to air refuelling can dramatically increase the range of fighter aircraft & that is usually done nowdays in todays aerial warfare.Well drop tanks hinder manuverabilty i agree .



FairAndUnbiased said:


> High payload influences survivability by giving the plane more opportunities to shoot down other planes before being forced to retreat.


well unfortunately all stealth planes have this disadvantage of carrying limited air to air missiles compare to conventional 4th or 4.5 gen fighters as they have to carry weapons internally ,if they have to carry more weapons then they have to place it
externally & this compromises stealth which can be fatal in BVR warfare.

Well the most important factors which affect survivalabilty of a plane are
1) STEALTH

2) EXCEPTIONAL ELECTRONIC WARFARE SUITE ( INCLUDING LATEST ECM LIKE CHAFFS)

3) HIGH MANUVEURABILTY

4) LONG RANGE ACTIVE RADAR GUIDED BVRAAMS

5) LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST THE PILOT'S TRAINING & SKILLS ITSELF


----------



## SinoChallenger

Martian2 said:


> *The real reason F-22 Raptor was canceled: Superseded by Chinese military technology*
> 
> 1. The Serbs shot down a state-of-the-art F-117 stealth fighter in 1999.
> 
> 2. Chinese military technology, funding, low-band radars, supercomputing power, and network defenses are magnitudes beyond what the Serbs were capable. The integration of a variety of low-band radars, bi-static radars, multi-static radars, airborne AWACS, triangulation, tracking through "statistical averaging over time," and other advanced techniques should easily allow China to locate and track a F-22.
> 
> 3. Since the public unveiling of the F-117 and B-2 in 1988, China has had 24 years to prepare in the shooting down of a stealth aircraft.
> 
> 4. I hope you guys aren't dumb enough to believe the public explanation that the F-22 was canceled due to budget pressure. Behind closed doors, the Senate oversight committee receives classified reports of the true strength of Chinese air defenses.
> 
> This is simple common sense. Why would the United States cancel its most technologically advanced F-22 air-superiority fighter? The obvious answer is the U.S. wouldn't cancel it unless the F-22 was no longer effective for its intended purpose of fighting a near-peer (i.e. China).
> 
> I can't prove it (because I don't have access to classified reports), but the only logical explanation is the U.S. government has concluded the F-22 is no longer a trump card against China. Hence, the production of the F-22 was intentionally halted. The F-22 is unsuitable, because of its short combat radius of 471 miles and/or the Chinese air defense network.
> 
> In conclusion, shooting down a F-22 is well within China's technological capability. That is the expected outcome of a near-peer in military technology (e.g. a country that can build its own J-20 Mighty Dragon all-aspect stealth fighter). However, the Serbs will always own the distinction of being the first to shoot down a at-the-time state-of-the-art stealth fighter.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in October 2009, without F-22 funding.[84][85]"


The cockpit's oxygen system is totally screwed. The stealth coating is hazardous to maintenance workers and pilots. The computer systems were archaic before the F-22 went into service (they took a totally different route for F-35). In short, it was a good try at building a stealth fighter, but the USA ultimately failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> ........................


 


Speeder 2 said:


> .....................



You guys can argue all you want trying to appear civilised or in the spirit of "let's talk about it in general terms". 

This is simply not the case. 

Martian is over simplifying generic ideas to apply them into a very very very difficult problem. 

One of the basic approaches in solving problems is to look at what the problem asks, and what the problem statement gives as info.

Martian always mixes these up. 

He cannot use what he proposed to track a VLO target. The way he describes there is no way to associate any pings with a real aircraft in time and space in a way that is meaningful for tracking.


----------



## nomi007

Just in case you might get confused, only one bird below is the J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SBD-3

New: Janes is reporting citing source in CAC that there are *4* fully assembled prototypes at CAC, however, only two are being tested, engines remain the most considerable headwind.


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

SinoChallenger said:


> The cockpit's oxygen system is totally screwed. The stealth coating is hazardous to maintenance workers and pilots. The computer systems were archaic before the F-22 went into service (they took a totally different route for F-35). In short, it was a good try at building a stealth fighter, but the USA *ultimately failed.*



Care to give me some solid technical details, that how and why *YOU* tagged it *FAILED* ?


----------



## alimobin memon

Wet Shirt Contest said:


> Care to give me some solid technical details, that how and why *YOU* tagged it *FAILED* ?


It is not failed but Obama Administration and parts of agencies investigated there were several useless parts inside f22 to complete the money as f22 creators might have to face charges for "where the money" as u know u cant ask for extra money as backup and at the other hand F22 cannot fly in rain , Oxygen generator failures , maintenance cost is like buying a single f16 per week maintenance of f22 , it's ram coated material is hazardous, most importantly it has very low combat radius which can be a problem not many internal capacity to carry weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

alimobin memon said:


> ...and at the other hand F22 cannot fly in rain...


Another Rachel Maddow suckered. Care to explain, in reasonably technical terms, if the F-22 cannot fly in rain, why is it stationed in Alaska and Hawaii?


----------



## alimobin memon

gambit said:


> Another Rachel Maddow suckered. Care to explain, in reasonably technical terms, if the F-22 cannot fly in rain, why is it stationed in Alaska and Hawaii?


I agree with what you said but I just stated the what is published.


----------



## Oldman1

alimobin memon said:


> I agree with what you said but I just stated the what is published.



Don't believer EVERYTHING what is published.


----------



## gagaga

nomi007 said:


> Just in case you might get confused, only one bird below is the J-20



hmmm, that means F-35 pwned, F-35 pilot helmet do the hud job...


----------



## DrSomnath999

^^^ hey what does that mean "f 35 pawned" ????
by seeing pics u make out conclusion that F 35 pawned


----------



## masoomchichora

weldone china


----------



## danger007

I have a doubt, there are plenty sources which points, Chinese companies supplied counterfeit equipments to US war machines like P-8A etc..... which is no direct threat to those systems but may cause malfunction in dsiplay so and so........ can any one assure that J-20, J-10 or some other chinese machines will come out with out any fake or counterfeit equipment....


----------



## MightyDragon

danger007 said:


> I have a doubt, there are plenty sources which points, Chinese companies supplied counterfeit equipments to US war machines like P-8A etc..... which is no direct threat to those systems but may cause malfunction in dsiplay so and so........ can any one assure that J-20, J-10 or some other chinese machines will come out with out any fake or counterfeit equipment....


Don't believe all words that Americans said! They just find the excuse of malfunctioning of plane because of using cheap, unchecked (or "faked") parts from unknown source. About the issue of "backdoor", I think other countries importing fighters containing USA-made chips should be more careful instead


----------



## Audio

gagaga said:


> hmmm, that means F-35 pwned



You sure?









> Designed for a &#8220;HUD-less&#8221; cockpit, the heads up display travels with the pilot&#8217;s head, yielding pictures like this to the occupant:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SuperFieryDragon

waiting about five to eight years J20 will enter china pla I only know so much



telephone said:


> whats the top speed on this plane?


maybe has 2.0 to 2.35Mach

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SBD-3

Janes Defence Weekly on J-20


----------



## oct605032048

J-20 is not designed to fight against India. There is no reason for them to worried about it at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Diivil

wonderful~~

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) is inferior to J-20 Mighty Dragon*

1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.

2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.

The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.

3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.

4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.

5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.

6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.

7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.

The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.

8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.

In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).

Sensor fusion doesn't mean much when the J-20 has a larger radar and greater detection range than the F-35. Furthermore, the J-20 has a cleaner design and is stealthier than the F-35. Sending a F-35 against the J-20 is unwise.

----------
*
Latest J-20 "2002" Mighty Dragon photographs*





Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this advanced material science technology.





The prominent DSI (diverterless supersonic inlet) strake was probably extensively modeled with Chinese supercomputers.





When the WS-15 engine is ready in a few years, China can replace the J-20 LOAN nozzles with flat nozzles. The J-20 will be good to go against the F-22.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *JSF is inferior to J-20 Mighty Dragon*
> 
> 1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.
> 
> 2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.
> 
> The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.
> 
> 3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.
> 
> 4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.
> 
> 5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.
> 
> 6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.
> 
> 7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.
> 
> The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.
> 
> 8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.
> 
> In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).
> 
> Sensor fusion doesn't mean much when the J-20 has a larger radar and greater detection range than the F-35. Furthermore, the J-20 has a cleaner design and is stealthier than the F-35. Sending a F-35 against the J-20 is unwise.
> 
> Latest J-20 "2002" Mighty Dragon photographs[/B][/COLOR]
> 
> Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this technology.
> 
> The prominent DSI (diverterless supersonic inlet) strake was probably extensively modeled with Chinese supercomputers.
> 
> When the WS-15 engine is ready in a few years, China can replace the J-20 LOAN nozzles with flat nozzles. The J-20 will be good to go against the F-22.
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]


Must be a slow news day on the J-20 front.


----------



## Pfpilot

That just sounds insane. How can one compare the combat radius of the f-35 with an aircraft that is yet to have any official figures regarding the performance of the engine or fuel capacity released. Generally everything negative about the f-35 plagues the j-20 as well. It is a bit rich to assume China's first attempt at a stealth aircraft can match US stealth developments that have taken place over the last three decades.

On the other hand, sensor fusion is of crucial importance; when that massive j-20 radar is turned on, the f-35 sensors will be able to detect it and pinpoint it's location to the pilot, long before the j-20 detects any f-35s. It is a little far fetched to assume that the Chinese can match the USA in radar technology in the first place; a smaller American radar is probably superior to far larger radars produced by other nations. The Americans have various operational AESA radars in their fighters and have had the opportunity to test and improve them over the last decade and a half. The Chinese may well get to there someday, but at this point the American hegemony over sensors and avionics cannot be challenged.

The Chinese are very capable, but you are not giving them their due and underestimating the challenge they face in trying to catch up to American technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Pfpilot said:


> That just sounds insane. How can one compare the combat radius of the f-35 with an aircraft that is yet to have any official figures regarding the performance of the engine or fuel capacity released. Generally everything negative about the f-35 plagues the j-20 as well. It is a bit rich to assume China's first attempt at a stealth aircraft can match US stealth developments that have taken place over the last three decades.
> 
> On the other hand, sensor fusion is of crucial importance; *when that massive j-20 radar is turned on, the f-35 sensors will be able to detect it and pinpoint it's location to the pilot, long before the j-20 detects any f-35s.* It is a little far fetched to assume that the Chinese can match the USA in radar technology in the first place; a smaller American radar is probably superior to far larger radars produced by other nations. The Americans have various operational AESA radars in their fighters and have had the opportunity to test and improve them over the last decade and a half. The Chinese may well get to there someday, but at this point the American hegemony over sensors and avionics cannot be challenged.
> 
> The Chinese are very capable, but you are not giving them their due and underestimating the challenge they face in trying to catch up to American technology.


Like I said -- slow news day. The J-20 discussion have been stagnant for a long time. The Chinese playgrounds are intellectually dead on the technical issues because none of them have relevant experience to talk in any sensible manner, hence the ridiculous exaggerations on the J-20's side and the gross misunderstanding on tactics.






That is what the F-22's Communication/Navigation/Identification (CNI) configuration. The F-35's CNI is even better and the plan is to transition the F-35's CNI over to the F-22 in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

Yes there is a news that the f-35 can jam the f-22's radar! 

It said, Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may already be an operational capability. In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 2009, Lockheed Martin?s CATbird avionics testbed&#8212;a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?s entire avionics system&#8212;engaged a mixed force of F-22s and Boeing F-15s and was able to locate and jam F-22 radars, according to researchers. 

Source: aviation week. Gambit, what unit controls the Band 2 antenna arrays?


----------



## eachus

Esc8781 said:


> Yes there is a news that the f-35 can jam the f-22's radar!
> 
> Source: aviation week. Gambit, what unit controls the Band 2 antenna arrays?




F-35 does not know what type of radar J20 is going to use, J20 knows what F35 is using and will export. how do you and how can you jam something you dont know? 



let me translate the comparison in my own words. F-22 is air superior fighter, it has great stealthy features and also powerful engine. since it was introduced too early, it rivals were 3G fighters and electronic only 10 years outdated. the F35 is new one but its pocket is full of knifes, none of its knife is shape. 

J20 was develop/introduced 20 later, it has clear rivals --- F22 and F35(possible T50, but T50 is only 3.9G, not true stealthy). J20 has more advance/newer electronic. and J20 focus on air-superior, its top priority is to reduce its front RCS. make it extremely stealthy from front. its has large nose, new radar, new electronics, large weapon bay can carry larger longer range missiles. 

J20 is the only one to be "first find, first kill" killing machine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> *F-35 does not know what type of radar J20 is going to use, J20 knows what F35 is using and will export. how do you and how can you jam something you dont know? *
> 
> 
> 
> let me translate the comparison in my own words. F-22 is air superior fighter, it has great stealthy features and also powerful engine. since it was introduced too early, it rivals were 3G fighters and electronic only 10 years outdated. the F35 is new one but its pocket is full of knifes, none of its knife is shape.
> 
> J20 was develop/introduced 20 later, it has clear rivals --- F22 and F35(possible T50, but T50 is only 3.9G, not true stealthy). J20 has more advance/newer electronic. and J20 focus on air-superior, its top priority is to reduce its front RCS. make it extremely stealthy from front. its has large nose, new radar, new electronics, large weapon bay can carry larger longer range missiles.
> 
> J20 is the only one to be "first find, first kill" killing machine.


Another fine example of 'Chinese physics'.

A transmission at X freq is going to be the same X freq no matter who receive it. Detailed knowledge of pulse characteristics mean a more tailored response, meaning the jamming signals will have reduced effects on peripheral receivers in the area, such as friendly aircrafts that may be transmitting at the same freq but not with the same pulse characteristics.

You are wrong.


----------



## Esc8781

eachus said:


> F-35 does not know what type of radar J20 is going to use, J20 knows what F35 is using and will export. how do you and how can you jam something you dont know?
> 
> 
> 
> let me translate the comparison in my own words. F-22 is air superior fighter, it has great stealthy features and also powerful engine. since it was introduced too early, it rivals were 3G fighters and electronic only 10 years outdated. the F35 is new one but its pocket is full of knifes, none of its knife is shape.
> 
> J20 was develop/introduced 20 later, it has clear rivals --- F22 and F35(possible T50, but T50 is only 3.9G, not true stealthy). J20 has more advance/newer electronic. and J20 focus on air-superior, its top priority is to reduce its front RCS. make it extremely stealthy from front. its has large nose, new radar, new electronics, large weapon bay can carry larger longer range missiles.
> 
> J20 is the only one to be "first find, first kill" killing machine.


 The f-22 can be upgraded with its avionics that one of the reasons it was chosen over the YF-23, it was more upgradable, like Gambit says "A transmission at X freq is going to be the same X freq no matter who receive it", I love it when they underestimate the f-35's capability. Anyways I think the real rival to the f-35 is the su-35. If the j-20 and f-35 meets the it will most likely be the F-35C.


----------



## eachus

gambit said:


> Another fine example of 'Chinese physics'.
> 
> A transmission at X freq is going to be the same X freq no matter who receive it. Detailed knowledge of pulse characteristics mean a more tailored response, meaning the jamming signals will have reduced effects on peripheral receivers in the area, such as friendly aircrafts that may be transmitting at the same freq but not with the same pulse characteristics.
> 
> You are wrong.



I see the other way around, J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35. if F35 tries to jam J20, j20 will fire missile and take it down since F20 will see further and can kill longer distance.



Esc8781 said:


> The f-22 can be upgraded with its avionics that one of the reasons it was chosen over the YF-23, it was more upgradable, like Gambit says "A transmission at X freq is going to be the same X freq no matter who receive it", I love it when they underestimate the f-35's capability. Anyways I think the real rival to the f-35 is the su-35. If the j-20 and f-35 meets the it will most likely be the F-35C.



F22 has its legs too short, 500KM is nothing and if you fight against China you can not refuel around 500km radius. China is not Iraq. for F35, it is not air-superior fighter, J20 is specified on air-superior and focus on pointing only 2 objects, f35 and f22. none of f35 nor f22 is specified to fight J20 since J20 is newer version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

eachus said:


> I see the other way around, *J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35.* if F35 tries to jam J20, j20 will fire missile and take it down since F20 will see further and can kill longer distance.



What do you mean by 'more powerful' exactly?


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> I see the other way around, J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35. if F35 tries to jam J20, j20 will fire missile and take it down since F20 will see further and can kill longer distance.
> 
> 
> 
> F22 has its legs too short, 500KM is nothing and if you fight against China you can not refuel around 500km radius. China is not Iraq. for F35, it is not air-superior fighter, J20 is specified on air-superior and focus on pointing only 2 objects, f35 and f22. none of f35 nor f22 is specified to fight J20 since J20 is newer version.



I have never been a fan of the F-35 and I strongly believe that it is a weak aircraft. But only when price is taken into account. 

These are gross overestimations and underestimations and they have no realistic basis. 

At this stage one must consider what exactly is the J-20 ? Right now nothing more than the &#1057;&#1091;-47 &#1041;&#1077;&#1088;&#1082;&#1091;&#1090;. An aircraft being tested that is painted black !!! 

Back then the Russians suggested initially that the Su-47 will lead to a production aircraft, time however showed that it was just a valuable technology demonstrator. At this stage it may turn out the J-20 is nothing more than that! 
There isn't a single thread of evidence that the J-20 is superior to even an F-16. 

Why should it be? 

*because people claim it is VLO? -- do we know it is? at this point in time we have no idea, and black paint stealth does not make. 

*Better avionics? -- says who ? Chinese fanboys? Have we seen the J-20 avionics efficacy? Do we know how it reduces pilot workload or even if it does? Do we know if the intended radar for the J-20 has any actual combat worthy capability? Do we know what modes and with what level of efficiency it provides? The western & russian companies are already talking about reducing the LPI effect of modern radar systems on RWR hardware. How do we know the J-20's LPI will be even a factor in its operation? 

*What is this nonsense about range ? As if you guys know which engines the J-20 will be flying with! The fuel consumption is very much dependent on the engine profile used and the mission profile. You will be surprised to know that there are two kinds of ranges, the ferrying range and the combat range.. vastly different animals. 

*And then we move into the most ridiculous territory ... "the J-20 will shoot the XX-XX down long before..." .. how?? 
even if the J-20 "sees" a target on the radar and acquires a lock .. it is the missiles seeker that needs to find the target too. 

if the missile seeker is not up to the task you can kiss your $%& goodbuy whatever you fly. ... 


There is currently no air to air mid range or otherwise EM guided missile that can hit a VLO target. 

The very way mid course guidance works means there is a window of failure there.. and if planes like the Su-27 and the EF2000 can take advantage of it, a VLO target has even more of a chance.


----------



## mil-avia

lawxx said:


> *The clearest J-20 pictures.*
> 
> ?????????20???? ?????????_??_???





timetravel said:


> PAKFA is so superior to ur J-20 that it is a non comparison. Russia is China's grand father's grand father's grandfatger in making fighter aircrafts... But i suppose chinese have to create such sensationalism that J-20 is there with f-22 (when in reality it wont be able to face MKI or mig 29 even) to satisfy their public..
> 
> so J-20 neither has RCS... (goes the stealth).. neither it will have the weapons nor the ecm of the other advanced fighters like MKI or MIG-29 as no one gave them any of that...
> so J-20 is china's attempt to say hey other's got 5th Gen how come we also dont have. so lets say to public we have j-20 which is also 5th gen (when it cant even face MKI/mig 29) to keep them quite.. thats all about j-20.


 


UKBengali said:


> You really have no idea what you are talking about.


 
*Posts of another PDF thread about the Jian-20 aircraft reproduced in several Chinese websites along with translation.*


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> *I see the other way around*, J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35. if F35 tries to jam J20, j20 will fire missile and take it down since F20 will see further and can kill longer distance.
> 
> 
> 
> F22 has its legs too short, 500KM is nothing and if you fight against China you can not refuel around 500km radius. China is not Iraq. for F35, it is not air-superior fighter, J20 is specified on air-superior and focus on pointing only 2 objects, f35 and f22. none of f35 nor f22 is specified to fight J20 since J20 is newer version.


And you see it wrong. From what I have seen of your posts so far, you are no different than the other Chinese boys who have no relevant experience and ended up making either baseless claims or seriously flawed 'analysis'.

*J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35.* -- What the hell does that mean? More powerful in what area?

China is not Iraq? The US military today is not the one that fought in Iraq. It is much better. If anything, Iraq under Saddam Hussein had more combat experience than the PLA. So what does 'China is not Iraq' mean? It mean if China cannot handle Iraq back then, what make you think the PLA can handle the US of today? As for the rest of your post, I do not mean to pick on your language but it is clear to me that you really have no idea of what you are talking about and can only mindlessly regurgitate what others said before.


----------



## danger007

eachus said:


> ]F-35 does not know what type of radar J20 is going to use, J20 knows what F35 is using and will export.[/B] how do you and how can you jam something you dont know?
> 
> 
> 
> let me translate the comparison in my own words. F-22 is air superior fighter, it has great stealthy features and also powerful engine. since it was introduced too early, it rivals were 3G fighters and electronic only 10 years outdated. the F35 is new one but its pocket is full of knifes, none of its knife is shape.
> 
> J20 was develop/introduced 20 later, it has clear rivals --- F22 and F35(*possible T50, but T50 is only 3.9G, not true stealthy*). *J20 has more advance/newer electronic*. *and J20 focus on air-superior, its top priority is to reduce its front RCS*. * make it extremely stealthy from front. its has large nose, new radar, new electronics, large weapon bay can carry larger longer range missiles. *
> 
> *J20 is the only one to be "first find, first kill" killing machine*.




I don't understand the first line meaning........
you are saying T- 50 has only 3.9G ,is that according to chinese physics r what...... like generally rest of world calls F-22 as 5gen jet but only chinese calls 4th gen..... lolz.... 3.9g???? please don't make silly arguments when you don't have knowledge...... else you will become idiot infront of all except those cheerleaders who always thank you for idiotic replies.....

just you people making J-20 superior because of how it looks..... look at your statment..... it have large nose, new radar ,new electronics etc...... how suppose that large nose will help an jet during the combat???

please do you know the weapons package and avionics ,radar details etc about J-20... please share with us.... don't copy paste......... how did you claimed J-20 is the only one to be" first find,first kill" killing machine...........

bottom line: i love this thread....... just my fellow members arguing according the looks only.......


----------



## Esc8781

eachus said:


> I see the other way around, J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35. if F35 tries to jam J20, j20 will fire missile and take it down since F20 will see further and can kill longer distance.
> 
> 
> 
> F22 has its legs too short, 500KM is nothing and if you fight against China you can not refuel around 500km radius. China is not Iraq. for F35, it is not air-superior fighter, J20 is specified on air-superior and focus on pointing only 2 objects, f35 and f22. none of f35 nor f22 is specified to fight J20 since J20 is newer version.


What in the world are you talking about more powerful WTF, so by your logic then AWACS can take the j-20 out because it is more powerful.


----------



## amalakas

Esc8781 said:


> What in the world are you talking about more powerful WTF, so by your logic then AWACS can take the j-20 out because it is more powerful.



haven't you heard.. AWACS cannot pick up J-20 ..


----------



## Esc8781

amalakas said:


> haven't you heard.. AWACS cannot pick up J-20 ..


 I am talking about Chinese Physics here.


----------



## feilong

gambit said:


> And you see it wrong. From what I have seen of your posts so far, you are no different than the other Chinese boys who have no relevant experience and ended up making either baseless claims or seriously flawed 'analysis'.
> 
> *J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35.* -- What the hell does that mean? More powerful in what area?
> 
> China is not Iraq? The US military today is not the one that fought in Iraq. It is much better. If anything, Iraq under Saddam Hussein had more combat experience than the PLA. So what does 'China is not Iraq' mean? It mean if China cannot handle Iraq back then, what make you think the PLA can handle the US of today? As for the rest of your post, I do not mean to pick on your language but it is clear to me that you really have no idea of what you are talking about and can only mindlessly regurgitate what others said before.


 
What make you think china is Iraq? I think US is Iraq, without NATO the United stated is garbage. Think about it, any war US declared they never do it by themselves. They have high technology but have no balls to fight on it owns. Even a Viet cong can kick *** of the US and it allies NATO.


----------



## eachus

Esc8781 said:


> What in the world are you talking about more powerful WTF, so by your logic then AWACS can take the j-20 out because it is more powerful.



most of the thoughts from you are momentum logic. 
you assume anything you dont see means China does not have.
anything you can not prove, that means China is inferior the west. 

J20 and F22 are heavy fighter, they have ability to installed more advance electronic with larger volume and consume more electricity. J20 compares with F22 is even larger. F35 is a single engine fighter and try to have mutifunctions. Air superior is not its priority or not its advantage. kind of family doctor not specialist. anyone knows airforce can understand it without problem until you dont want to.



danger007 said:


> I don't understand the first line meaning........
> you are saying T- 50 has only 3.9G ,is that according to chinese physics r what...... like generally rest of world calls F-22 as 5gen jet but only chinese calls 4th gen..... lolz.... 3.9g???? please don't make silly arguments when you don't have knowledge...... else you will become idiot infront of all except those cheerleaders who always thank you for idiotic replies.....
> 
> just you people making J-20 superior because of how it looks..... look at your statment..... it have large nose, new radar ,new electronics etc...... how suppose that large nose will help an jet during the combat???
> 
> please do you know the weapons package and avionics ,radar details etc about J-20... please share with us.... don't copy paste......... how did you claimed J-20 is the only one to be" first find,first kill" killing machine...........
> 
> bottom line: i love this thread....... just my fellow members arguing according the looks only.......




yes, Russian T50 is 3.9G(US standard, or 4.9G Russian standard), no matter what, T50 is not a true stealthy fighter in the same level F22 and J20 are in. T50 has too large front radar signature determine it will be shot down first. you don&#8217;t have much option to next stage of the game. 

large nose can installed a larger radar, bigger body has bigger weapon bays and more advance electronics, J20 shoot down T50 is a no brainer no matter you like it or not. yes, 
J-20 is the only one to be" first find,first kill" killing machine........... especially in front of T50.


----------



## zzzz

eachus said:


> yes, Russian T50 is 3.9G(US standard, or 4.9G Russian standard), no matter what, T50 is not a true stealthy fighter in the same level F22 and J20 are in. T50 has too large front radar signature determine it will be shot down first. you don&#8217;t have much option to next stage of the game.
> 
> large nose can installed a larger radar, bigger body has bigger weapon bays and more advance electronics, J20 shoot down T50 is a no brainer no matter you like it or not. yes,
> J-20 is the only one to be" first find,first kill" killing machine........... especially in front of T50.




















Compare front views of PAK FA, F-22 and J-20. PAK FA has the smallest and most slim profile. F-22 profile is bit a larger. And now look at this scary monstrosity that is called J-20  Is there anything common between this and low RCS concept?  Look at canards which are incompatible with stealth. Did anyone hear about 5g aircrafts with canards?  J-20 is not even stealth aircraft, 4.5g at best. F-22 and PAK FA are in different league.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Esc8781 said:


> I am talking about Chinese Physics here.



That's what I mean ...


----------



## Esc8781

amalakas said:


> That's what I mean ...


 First rule of Chinese Physics every rule can be broken even its own rules.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

danger007 said:


> I don't understand the first line meaning........
> you are saying T- 50 has only 3.9G ,is that according to chinese physics r what...... like generally rest of world calls F-22 as 5gen jet but only chinese calls 4th gen..... lolz.... 3.9g???? please don't make silly arguments when you don't have knowledge...... else you will become idiot infront of all except those cheerleaders who always thank you for idiotic replies.....



The Chinese call 5th generation fighters 4th, 4th generation 3rd, and so on. 



eachus said:


> J20 and F22 are heavy fighter, they have ability to installed more advance electronic with larger volume and consume more electricity. *J20 compares with F22 is even larger.* F35 is a single engine fighter and try to have mutifunctions. Air superior is not its priority or not its advantage. kind of family doctor not specialist. anyone knows airforce can understand it without problem until you dont want to.



Bigger doesn't automatically mean it is better. What is mutifunctions?


----------



## danger007

eachus said:


> most of the thoughts from you are momentum logic.
> you assume anything you dont see means China does not have.
> anything you can not prove, that means China is inferior the west.
> 
> J20 and F22 are heavy fighter, they have ability to installed more advance electronic with larger volume and consume more electricity. J20 compares with F22 is even larger. F35 is a single engine fighter and try to have mutifunctions. Air superior is not its priority or not its advantage. kind of family doctor not specialist. anyone knows airforce can understand it without problem until you dont want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, Russian T50 is 3.9G(US standard, or 4.9G Russian standard), no matter what, T50 is not a true stealthy fighter in the same level F22 and J20 are in. T50 has too large front radar signature determine it will be shot down first. you don&#8217;t have much option to next stage of the game.
> 
> large nose can installed a larger radar, bigger body has bigger weapon bays and more advance electronics, J20 shoot down T50 is a no brainer no matter you like it or not. yes,
> J-20 is the only one to be" first find,first kill" killing machine........... especially in front of T50.



Russians and Americans etc... are trying to reduce the size of radar and to increase it's range..... but you are saying bigger size radar will only have great range..... you are clueless...... i know about 4th gen,4++ gen,4.5+ gen jet.... but from where did this 4.9gen jet came????? lolz ...... china is able to copy some russian jet's..... that doesn't mean china is mastered in every thing....... china secretly acquiring technologies ..... that's well known fact.... look at your statements bigger body has bigger weapons bays and more advance electronics.... why don't you try to make Boeing 747 .... you will get hell lot space for weapons ,radar, etc....


----------



## danger007

feilong said:


> What make you think china is Iraq? I think US is Iraq, without NATO the United stated is garbage. Think about it, any war US declared they never do it by themselves. They have high technology but have no balls to fight on it owns. Even a Viet cong can kick *** of the US and it allies NATO.


 with the US only NATO became powerful alliance in the world......


----------



## IceCold

Zabaniya said:


> Bigger doesn't automatically mean it is better.



In terms of payload yes it does. Though what is important for a 5th generation is its RCS. This is where i believe Chinese needs to focus w.r.t J-20.


----------



## eachus

danger007 said:


> Russians and Americans etc... are trying to reduce the size of radar and to increase it's range..... but you are saying bigger size radar will only have great range..... you are clueless...... i know about etc....




haha, you dont know what radars are.



Zabaniya said:


> The Chinese call 5th generation fighters 4th, 4th generation 3rd, and so on.
> Bigger doesn't automatically mean it is better. What is mutifunctions?



F35 is one plane to meet dozens countries's requirements. added too much feature, land attack, short take off, vertical landing,,,, and is not specified on front line air fighting. 

J20 is simple, get F35 and T50 from front in 40-50km before they see J20. and have ability to fight against F22. that is it. anything else is optional.



zzzz said:


> Compare front views of PAK FA, F-22 and J-20. PAK FA has the smallest and most slim profile. F-22 profile is bit a larger. And now look at this scary monstrosity that is called J-20  Is there anything common between this and low RCS concept?  Look at canards which are incompatible with stealth. Did anyone hear about 5g aircrafts with canards?  J-20 is not even stealth aircraft, 4.5g at best. F-22 and PAK FA are in different league.




I will reply to you later. F16 is also smaller in size compare to T50. you are totally selling cookies at the door, dingdong!


----------



## eachus

zzzz here we go, I dont want to re-invent the wheels. found some old messages and photos.











Framed canopy, Fully exposed compressor face. Gaps around the inlets. Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface, discontinuities all over the lower fuselage. --- by Martian2


other than that, we have comments from famous persons.
something is very interesting, at the introduction of T50 and J20, US had different comments


&#8220;I didn&#8217;t see anything &#8230; that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-
22 or F-35,&#8221; Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters Feb. 18 at
the Air Force Association&#8217;s winter conference, held in Orlando, Fla.

The Air Force ordered the last of its 187 F-22s in 2009. Russia has not had
a new fighter in nearly 20 years; the Indian air force is also sponsoring
development of a version of the T-50.
&#8220;It looks like a plane we&#8217;ve seen before,&#8221; Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss
for NATO and commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said at the conference.

Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, made clear his impression
of the fighter: &#8220;I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you.&#8221;

---------compare-----

Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense consulting firm, 
"When the photos were first released to the public, The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of average Americans and the U.S. military complex."


China is farther along in its development of a new stealth fighter jet than
the U.S. had predicted, and that plane and other Chinese military advances
are worrisome, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday.

"They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk," Gates
said en route to military talks with Chinese leaders. "We have to pay
attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs."

The United States has long known that China wanted to field a stealth jet,
but development outpaced U.S. intelligence estimates, Gates said.


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> zzzz here we go, I dont want to re-invent the wheels. found some old messages and photos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framed canopy, Fully exposed compressor face. Gaps around the inlets. Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface, discontinuities all over the lower fuselage. --- by Martian2
> 
> 
> other than that, we have comments from famous persons.
> something is very interesting, at the introduction of T50 and J20, US had different comments
> 
> 
> &#8220;I didn&#8217;t see anything &#8230; that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-
> 22 or F-35,&#8221; Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters Feb. 18 at
> the Air Force Association&#8217;s winter conference, held in Orlando, Fla.
> 
> The Air Force ordered the last of its 187 F-22s in 2009. Russia has not had
> a new fighter in nearly 20 years; the Indian air force is also sponsoring
> development of a version of the T-50.
> &#8220;It looks like a plane we&#8217;ve seen before,&#8221; Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss
> for NATO and commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said at the conference.
> 
> Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, made clear his impression
> of the fighter: &#8220;I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you.&#8221;
> 
> ---------compare-----
> 
> Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense consulting firm,
> "When the photos were first released to the public, The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of average Americans and the U.S. military complex."
> 
> 
> China is farther along in its development of a new stealth fighter jet than
> the U.S. had predicted, and that plane and other Chinese military advances
> are worrisome, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday.
> 
> "They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk," Gates
> said en route to military talks with Chinese leaders. "We have to pay
> attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs."
> 
> The United States has long known that China wanted to field a stealth jet,
> but development outpaced U.S. intelligence estimates, Gates said.




Wishful thinking. Bottom line is there isn't anyone who has hard data on the plane. All you got is a bunch of wishes for Santa Clause ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eachus

amalakas said:


> Wishful thinking. Bottom line is there isn't anyone who has hard data on the plane. All you got is a bunch of wishes for Santa Clause ..




ignorance is truly happy!!!!

he even can not understand what do those meant when 2 people from different locations and gave out such accurate words: 
"I didn&#8217;t see anything &#8230;" and &#8220;It looks like a plane we&#8217;ve seen before,&#8221;



guys, you see a "metal framed canopy" is thinking not description. you need have data such as I see the 183cm long, 19cm width and 5cm thick metal frame on T50 canopy. or if you see the "Fully exposed compressor face", that is also a pure thinking, give data please...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zzzz

eachus said:


> Framed canopy, Fully exposed compressor face. Gaps around the inlets. Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface, discontinuities all over the lower fuselage. --- by Martian2



Stop the BS about compressor face. It will not be exposed in any way on production aircraft.
Now i will comment on the rest.

What you said is the same as saying that SU-27 with unframed canopy would have lower RCS than PAK-FA because of canopy 




Look at this. What gaps, what rivets? The left canard of this thing probably has 10 times bigger RCS than the whole PAK FA from front view. Add to this the same gaps, rivets, discontinuities of J-20. Dude, forget it. The aircrafts are not even comparable they are in different leagues from RCS point of view. J-20 will be lighting up like a christmas tree from hundreds of km away on radar of PAK FA.  It should be a decent strike aircraft with its slightly lowered RCS though. But in air superiority role this thing doesnt stand a chance against true 5g fighters


----------



## antonius123

^^^^^


Stop talking something you know nothing fan boy
You need to learn basic radar reflection first, before outburst severely laughable comments like the above


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> ignorance is truly happy!!!!
> ........



yes whenever people like you write something in here. ..



antonius123 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> Stop talking something you know nothing fan boy
> You need to learn basic radar reflection first, before outburst severely laughable comments like the above




And you need to stop giving other people advice and go back to school and graduate. You have no knowledge whatsoever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> yes whenever people like you write something in here. ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you need to stop giving other people advice and go back to school and graduate. You have no knowledge whatsoever.



Then explain why you think what zzzz said the above is true.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Then explain why you think what zzzz said the above is true.



I don't have to explain anything to you specifically because I (and others) have tried to explain many things to you. You just ignore them no matter what kind of sources or literature is attached to them. 

even in my statement above about the wishful thinking, you can't disprove it. You (or anyone else) have no real data for J-20. You just go by looks alone. 

you don't know its range, its radar range, its radar/avionics composition, its internal fuel / weapon load. You don't know the weapons it is going to carry, if they have been tested or not. The relevant capabilities of said weapons. You don't know the efficacy of its self protection suit. If there is going to be a secondary sensor array. If the plane is going to incorporate sensor fusion successfully or just a mix of data on some screen. You don't even know which engines it is going to be flying with.
You specifically know nothing about manufacturing engineering, material engineering, aeronautics (I think we established that), electronics and Communication engineering. So you better tone it down a bit because you are not just way out of your league. You are on a different galaxy from your league.

At least for the T-50 the world knows that even without its 5th gen. engines, the plane can supercruise because the Su-35 already does with those engines. For the J-20 we know NOTHING! 

Yet you are all happy to just say it is the superplane. Fine by me..

just make sure you give it a cape and a big red S painted on its belly. 

...fanboys ts


----------



## eachus

zzzz said:


> Stop the BS about ...
> 
> What you said is the same as saying that SU-27 with unframed canopy would have lower RCS than PAK-FA because of canopy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this. What gaps, what rivets?





oh boy, you came here and have never see a Su27? "SU-27 with unframed canopy" were you from the moon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eachus

amalakas said:


> At least for the T-50 the world knows that even without its 5th gen. engines, the plane can supercruise because the Su-35 already does with those engines. For the J-20 we know NOTHING!




supercruise is not max speed, you need to have supersonic last for 30 minutes. under 50km Su27 can do. by the way, 5G is called stealthy fighter, not supercruise fighter. its hard condition is stealthy, anything else is optional --- sure not out of range. you can see the stealthy on T50 is kind of sucky if not out of the class. you dont know J20 is ok, Americans knows.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I don't have to explain anything to you specifically because I (and others) have tried to explain many things to you. You just ignore them no matter what kind of sources or literature is attached to them.
> 
> even in my statement above about the wishful thinking, you can't disprove it. You (or anyone else) have no real data for J-20. You just go by looks alone.
> 
> you don't know its range, its radar range, its radar/avionics composition, its internal fuel / weapon load. You don't know the weapons it is going to carry, if they have been tested or not. The relevant capabilities of said weapons. You don't know the efficacy of its self protection suit. If there is going to be a secondary sensor array. If the plane is going to incorporate sensor fusion successfully or just a mix of data on some screen. You don't even know which engines it is going to be flying with.
> You specifically know nothing about manufacturing engineering, material engineering, aeronautics (I think we established that), electronics and Communication engineering. So you better tone it down a bit because you are not just way out of your league. You are on a different galaxy from your league.
> 
> At least for the T-50 the world knows that even without its 5th gen. engines, the plane can supercruise because the Su-35 already does with those engines. For the J-20 we know NOTHING!
> 
> Yet you are all happy to just say it is the superplane. Fine by me..
> 
> just make sure you give it a cape and a big red S painted on its belly.
> 
> ...fanboys ts



You like to make it up.
You never bring evidence nor able to defend your own argument.

You talk as if you know, but in fact you dont know anything.

Your new friend zzzz claim that the J-20 canard will make J-20 like a christmast tree on radar.

Please explain and bring evidence to support your friend's claim.


----------



## amalakas

lordwedggie said:


> I guess what my fellow countryman tried to prove to you is that, the US (the country the J20 is designed to counter) is considering it as a threat, while they (the US) is dismissing the Paa...k..fA(?) as non-competing. That is enough info for the layman such as myself.
> 
> As for the chart above, your country is bankrupting itself, number one shipping or not. While it's not relevant IMO on this topic it does raises concerns for it could be the first step to the fall of the EU. Being number one in one industry certainly is not impressive to anyone ATM for your effort should be focused on not falling apart, that will hurt everybody on this planet (more so to you than everybody else)
> 
> The UK, the country you live in, will not fare much better in the next ten years either. Time to start working rather than shouting useless trash on a forum (I understand where Gambit is coming from but what is it to you?).



I have served and worked with fighter jets for a number of years. I cannot as an engineer and someone who has served allow fanboys no older than 14 spread nonsense. Is that good enough for you? 

Trash? I think not. Trash is all this speculative nonsense about a plane that noone has yet tested independently and evaluated. 

get it ?


----------



## Esc8781

amalakas said:


> I have served and worked with fighter jets for a number of years. I cannot as an engineer and someone who has served allow fanboys no older than 14 spread nonsense. Is that good enough for you?
> 
> Trash? I think not. Trash is all this speculative nonsense about a plane that noone has yet tested independently and evaluated.
> 
> get it ?


 You are going too soft on them.


----------



## Sasquatch

Stick to the topic this isn't about PAK FA/Greece/Russia.


----------



## amalakas

Esc8781 said:


> You are going too soft on them.



they are just boys .. and a couple of guys living in their mother's basement. 



Hu Songshan said:


> Stick to the topic this isn't about PAK FA/Greece/Russia.




I beg to differ. This is about the J-20 and all I am trying to do is bring out the truth in conjunction to reality about a piece of modern engineering. 

Greece/PakFa/Russia have something to do only when they are used when all other arguments have gone into dust. Feel free to go back and track who uses these arguments first.


----------



## Sasquatch

amalakas said:


> they are just boys .. and a couple of guys living in their mother's basement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. This is about the J-20 and all I am trying to do is bring out the truth in conjunction to reality about a piece of modern engineering.
> 
> Greece/PakFa/Russia have something to do only when they are used when all other arguments have gone into dust. Feel free to go back and track who uses these arguments first.



I respect your points yes it's about the the J-20 and chinese members tend to go off topic was my point.


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> I have served and worked with fighter jets for a number of years. I cannot as an engineer and someone who has served allow fanboys no older than 14 spread nonsense. Is that good enough for you?
> 
> Trash? I think not. Trash is all this speculative nonsense about a plane that noone has yet tested independently and evaluated.
> 
> get it ?



*Are you a hypocrite, Amalakas?*

Has the F-22 been "tested independently and evaluated"?

How about the T-50/Pak-Fa? Has that been "tested independently and evaluated"?

How about the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc.? Have any of these military planes fulfilled your criteria of being "tested independently and evaluated"? If so, by whom?

If not, I hear you making a whole bunch of claims about all of these planes. Are you not a hypocrite who cannot meet your own self-proclaimed standards?

Have you been talking trash all this time according to your own demand for an independent test and evaluation?

----------

One more thing, how is your former experience with fighter jets relevant to this J-20 thread? Have you ever worked on a stealth fighter? If not, how is your experience relevant to the discussion of stealth design that we mostly discuss in here?

By the way, you've also said a lot of idiotic things in this thread that I refuted with citations. I just don't feel like digging through your old garbage to remind you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> *Are you a hypocrite, Amalakas?*
> 
> Has the F-22 been "tested independently and evaluated"?
> 
> How about the T-50/Pak-Fa? Has that been "tested independently and evaluated"?
> 
> How about the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc.? Have any of these military planes fulfilled your criteria of being "tested independently and evaluated"? If so, by whom?
> 
> If not, I hear you making a whole bunch of claims about all of these planes. Are you not a hypocrite who cannot meet your own self-proclaimed standards?
> 
> Have you been talking trash all this time according to your own demand for an independent test and evaluation?




I can happily reply to this.. you couldn't have served me better. 

"Has the F-22 been "tested independently and evaluated"?"

Unfortunately for you, yes. LM has been more than forthcoming with the plane. NATO members have access to the plane's performance during exercises. Many NATO members have flown against it during RED FLAG. We know how the plane looks as an adversary. 
Independent ACMI has shown how the Raptor engaged and sim destroyed targets while it also indicated how friendlies could not track and lock on the Raptor. Even here we have discussed those things, but you were not paying attention. 

"How about the T-50/Pak-Fa? Has that been "tested independently and evaluated"?"

No it hasn't. But you don't see anyone claiming it has this range, this many missiles, it will be used like this, it can outfly this and that, its radar can pick the F-22 before the F-22 can pick it up etc etc etc etc. 

"How about the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc.? Have any of these military planes fulfilled your criteria of being "tested independently and evaluated"? If so, by whom?"

Yes they have, as have the MiG-23,25,29 and Su-27. 

By whom? Dutch, Italian, Spanish,Greek, Turkish, Egyptian, UAE, Israeli, Bulgarian, German airforces and the common exercises these people have conducted over a period spanning 4 decades. 

Support and maintenance personnel, Wing commanders and pilots have all sat down and exchanged experiences and know hows more times than you can imagine. 

I have sat down with people from Germany and France and discussed the merits of flying and operating a MiG-29. I have discussed with Russian crews the maintenance cycles of an Su-27. I have tracked a Turkish F-16 with the Radar of an SA-8, and I know how well the AA system and the countermeasures system of the F-16 worked. 


NATO is currently in a position to know that the aforementioned planes do exactly what they say they do on the tin. 

It is more than anyone can say about the J-20, and I am not blaming the J-20 for this. I am resting the blame solely on people with your attitude. Someone who has calculated the canard of the J-20 to be roughly the size of a large skateboard. 

Someone who is meriting a plane simply because it is painted black. 
Someone who refuses to see the same "shortcomings" on the J-20 as all the other planes he is putting down.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eachus

amalakas said:


> I can happily reply to this.. you couldn't have served me better.
> 
> "Has the F-22 been "tested independently and evaluated"?"
> 
> Unfortunately for you, yes. LM has been more than forthcoming with the plane. NATO members have access to the plane's performance during exercises. Many NATO members have flown against it during RED FLAG. We know how the plane looks as an adversary.
> Independent ACMI has shown how the Raptor engaged and sim destroyed targets while it also indicated how friendlies could not track and lock on the Raptor. Even here we have discussed those things, but you were not paying attention.




I dont argue with the export version of fighters like Su27, F16. but for F22, I doubt it. all valuable specifications are top secrets of the Pentagon. If F22 tested by other than USA, the info can be leak out so that will not be a case. all tests are fake. you wont have those tests and no meaningful tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> Stop talking something you know nothing fan boy
> *You need to learn basic radar reflection first*, before outburst severely laughable comments like the above


And what is your aviation 'experience' or 'study' again?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> I dont argue with the export version of fighters like Su27, F16. but for F22, I doubt it. all valuable specifications are top secrets of the Pentagon. If F22 tested by other than USA, the info can be leak out so that will not be a case. all tests are fake. you wont have those tests and no meaningful tests.




I didn't talk about specification, nor did I say the plane was given out to be tested. Read carefully what I wrote. 

LM is in a marketing campaign for years for the F-35. They have been very forthcoming in showing off. 

Nobody took an F-22 home to test it, we have however seen that our systems have severe limitations against it. Missiles don't get a lock on it, F-16 and F-15 radars cannot track it. ACMI indicates how the planes pick out targets without AWACS present. 

it shows you how they behave like a pack of wolves picking out sheep. That's how we know it can do its job. 

But no, nobody handed us a dossier with the technical specs of the F-22.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *Are you a hypocrite, Amalakas?*
> 
> Has the F-22 been "tested independently and evaluated"?


In the specific area of low radar observability? Yes. From more than one country with more than one radar system, which include those long wavelengths the lot of you erroneously believes to be 'stealth' killer.

This is not 'Chinese physics' where radiation patterns differs from between an American product versus a Chinese product. We have no control over how a French or German radar operator using his own gear, be it a ground or aircraft system, to try to detect a 'clean' F-22, meaning no radar enhancers installed, and gave his analysis to his own country's military leadership. So either all these countries are in cahoots with each other in a conspiracy to hype up the F-22, or that they do not like what they see or rather do not see, and kept quiet about their experiences.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> In the specific area of low radar observability? Yes. From more than one country with more than one radar system, which include those long wavelengths the lot of you erroneously believes to be 'stealth' killer.
> 
> This is not 'Chinese physics' where radiation patterns differs from between an American product versus a Chinese product. We have no control over how a French or German radar operator using his own gear, be it a ground or aircraft system, to try to detect a 'clean' F-22, meaning no radar enhancers installed, and gave his analysis to his own country's military leadership. So either all these countries are in cahoots with each other in a conspiracy to hype up the F-22, or that they do not like what they see or rather do not see, and kept quiet about their experiences.



They haven't kept quiet. As you know, people in uniform talk with other people in uniform when it not "top secret". 

I have long left the service, but I had already heard about the Greek RED FLAG participation just a week after our boys flew back.

People are not impressed. They are sceptical. They have began to recognise the limitations imposed on their systems.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> They haven't kept quiet. As you know, people in uniform talk with other people in uniform when it not "top secret".
> 
> I have long left the service, but I had already heard about the Greek RED FLAG participation just a week after our boys flew back.
> 
> *People are not impressed. They are sceptical.* They have began to recognise the limitations imposed on their systems.


Am curious by what you mean. Are you saying the Greeks were not impressed by the F-22's under radar? Or that they were not impressed with their own gear and performance?


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Am curious by what you mean. Are you saying the Greeks were not impressed by the F-22's under radar? Or that they were not impressed with their own gear and performance?



Only our F-16s got a glimpse of the F-22. No F-22 has flown in Greek airspace (that we know of). and Greek AWACS aircrews who shared their experiences. 

No, I mean there is not much time for lasting impression feeling, you start being sceptical about the limitations of your own gear in the light of these potential adversary systems. 

Greeks have a very unique perspective of things. Greeks will be flying against F-35s very soon. Turkey is a developing member. They will be getting them at least 5-8 years before we are able to get them. So we are very sceptical about the ability of our systems to help us carry out our mission. We have a big problem on our hands. That is what I meant.


----------



## eachus

amalakas said:


> I didn't talk about specification, nor did I say the plane was given out to be tested. Read carefully what I wrote.
> 
> LM is in a marketing campaign for years for the F-35. They have been very forthcoming in showing off.
> 
> Nobody took an F-22 home to test it, we have however seen that our systems have severe limitations against it. Missiles don't get a lock on it, F-16 and F-15 radars cannot track it. ACMI indicates how the planes pick out targets without AWACS present.
> 
> it shows you how they behave like a pack of wolves picking out sheep. That's how we know it can do its job.
> 
> But no, nobody handed us a dossier with the technical specs of the F-22.




even US partners had been ordered F35, UK for instance they only get one copy F35 for a test purpose, then later may order a few more for eval. who is going to trust US "tested independently and evaluated" results. every country will test again by its own "independent" organization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> I can happily reply to this.. you couldn't have served me better.
> 
> "Has the F-22 been "tested independently and evaluated"?"
> 
> Unfortunately for you, yes. LM has been more than forthcoming with the plane. NATO members have access to the plane's performance during exercises. Many NATO members have flown against it during RED FLAG. We know how the plane looks as an adversary.
> Independent ACMI has shown how the Raptor engaged and sim destroyed targets while it also indicated how friendlies could not track and lock on the Raptor. Even here we have discussed those things, but you were not paying attention.
> 
> "How about the T-50/Pak-Fa? Has that been "tested independently and evaluated"?"
> 
> No it hasn't. But you don't see anyone claiming it has this range, this many missiles, it will be used like this, it can outfly this and that, its radar can pick the F-22 before the F-22 can pick it up etc etc etc etc.
> 
> "How about the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc.? Have any of these military planes fulfilled your criteria of being "tested independently and evaluated"? If so, by whom?"
> 
> Yes they have, as have the MiG-23,25,29 and Su-27.
> 
> By whom? Dutch, Italian, Spanish,Greek, Turkish, Egyptian, UAE, Israeli, Bulgarian, German airforces and the common exercises these people have conducted over a period spanning 4 decades.
> 
> Support and maintenance personnel, Wing commanders and pilots have all sat down and exchanged experiences and know hows more times than you can imagine.
> 
> I have sat down with people from Germany and France and discussed the merits of flying and operating a MiG-29. I have discussed with Russian crews the maintenance cycles of an Su-27. I have tracked a Turkish F-16 with the Radar of an SA-8, and I know how well the AA system and the countermeasures system of the F-16 worked.
> 
> 
> NATO is currently in a position to know that the aforementioned planes do exactly what they say they do on the tin.
> 
> It is more than anyone can say about the J-20, and I am not blaming the J-20 for this. I am resting the blame solely on people with your attitude. Someone who has calculated the canard of the J-20 to be roughly the size of a large skateboard.
> 
> Someone who is meriting a plane simply because it is painted black.
> Someone who refuses to see the same "shortcomings" on the J-20 as all the other planes he is putting down.



1. Show me the citations where they published the specific performance results of non-stealth aircraft comparisons (e.g. how far did each missile fly to its maximum range, the maximum g's in a turn, the service ceiling, etc.). As far as I know, the detailed results are confidential.

2. You have just admitted you're a hypocrite. You have been going on and on about the T-50/Pak-Fa. Yet, according to your own admission, there have been no independent tests and evaluations.

3. You claim hearsay from support personnel. Basically, a reporter claim they heard someone say something. There is another word for that. It's called gossip. It does not qualify as fact or evidence under your self-stated standard of independent tests and evaluations.

4. Lockheed Martin is the builder of the F-22. How can they also conduct an INDEPENDENT test? You're not making any sense. Since the F-22 is classified, all of your comments have also been trash under your own standard, yes?

5. I didn't hear your comment regarding your worthless experience with non-stealth fighters and your comments in a J-20 stealth fighter thread. Did you forget to address the issue?



amalakas said:


> Nobody took an F-22 home to test it, we have however seen that our systems have severe limitations against it. *Missiles don't get a lock on it, F-16 and F-15 radars cannot track it.* ACMI indicates how the planes pick out targets without AWACS present.
> ...
> But no, nobody handed us a dossier with the technical specs of the F-22.



Where is your citation from independent tests and evaluations to support your claim? Or is your comment just trash according to your self-stated standard? I disagree with your claim. My understanding is a F-16 or F-15 with an AESA radar can track the F-22 under 20km. Do you want me to show you some open-source graphs on the F-22's RCS under 20km?

Make up your mind Amalakas. Either everyone has been making reasonable comments based on open-source information or all of your comments are trash because you can't cite independent tests and evaluations.

You set a very high standard and I'm only asking you to live up to your own expectations. I think you're a hypocrite. You can either climb down or keep looking ridiculous (e.g. I'm going to call your comments trash if you can't provide an independent test and evaluation to meet your own standard).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> 3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.





And the J-20 also has bumps as well as an array of corner reflectors, and sorry just because you say that the F-35 is less stealthy does not make it so. Reality is that companies spent large sums of money testing aircraft in anechoic chambers, as well as scrutinizing their designs by CAD programs. And this is before a team of engineers, designers, scientists, ect lay out the design and carefully choose, design, and redesign a final product that will be built with rcs reduction in mind.




Martian2 said:


> 4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.





Post a source.





Martian2 said:


> 6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.






And that makes it inferior how?





Martian2 said:


> 7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.






And what makes you think that even if the F-35 caries less T/R modules that it will be inferior? You don&#8217;t know jack about radars, stop spreading misinformation. If it was as easy as throwing a bunch of T/R models together than radar engineers would not spend years designing their radars and years testing them.






Martian2 said:


> The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.






Where is the proof? 





Martian2 said:


> In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20.







No match? ECM, weapons, data-link, training, and in general all systems working as one determines who wins. 






Martian2 said:


> Sensor fusion doesn't mean much when the J-20 has a larger radar and greater detection range than the F-35. Furthermore, the J-20 has a cleaner design and is stealthier than the F-35. Sending a F-35 against the J-20 is unwise.






Detecting an aircraft does not mean much, achieving and holding a lock is another story.. And even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that the J-20&#8217;s radar, a radar that we know nothing about, can detect the F-35 before the F-35 can detect the J-20. We know that it does not translate to achieving a lock or even being within firing range.







Martian2 said:


> ----------
> *
> Latest J-20 "2002" Mighty Dragon photographs*
> 
> 
> Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this advanced material science technology.





No, we don&#8217;t notice a gold transparent &#8216;RAM&#8217; canopy, because there is nothing even remotely gold to it. And I&#8217;m sorry but the technology doesn&#8217;t have anything to do with RAM, guess why the A-6 had a gold canopy? 










eachus said:


> F-35 does not know what type of radar J20 is going to use, J20 knows what F35 is using and will export. how do you and how can you jam something you dont know?





And how does the J-20 know what type of radar the F-35 has besides knowing the basic facts such as it&#8217;s an X band AESA, which the J-20 is also.





J


eachus said:


> J-20 was develop/introduced 20 later, it has clear rivals --- F22 and F35(possible T50, but T50 is only 3.9G,







I didn&#8217;t know the Russian managed to take the latest flanker which is widely regarded as a 4.5 aircraft and make a crappier version. But 3.9? I was thinking more like 4.206245. The Chinese still use or have very recently used Russian technology in their aircraft, whether its hiring a Russian company to develop a seeker, or hiring a Russian company to help develop a radar, or just plainly importing engines and such, the point is that it&#8217;s pretty silly to listen to Chinese chest thumping when clearly China still is behind in a number of areas. Having a black jet does not automatically mean it&#8217;s futuristic.








eachus said:


> not true stealthy). J20 has more advance/newer electronic.






Why don&#8217;t you provide a source?





eachus said:


> J20 is the only one to be "first find, first kill" killing machine.






J-20 fan boys never disappoint when it comes to chest thumping. &#8216;killing machine&#8217;, &#8216;devastating&#8217;, &#8216;might dragon&#8217;.








eachus said:


> I see the other way around, J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35.




I hear this a lot coming from the J-20 crew. What do you mean by &#8216;more powerful&#8217;? You don&#8217;t know a thing about the J-20 to make such claims. And explain exactly how the J-20 will jam the F-35, what type of jamming will it use? And please explain to everyone how you get your hands on the F-35 to know about it&#8217;s electronic counter measures.








eachus said:


> If F35 tries to jam J20, j20 will fire missile and take it down since F20 will see further and can kill longer distance.






These silly scenarios can work both ways.

And what if F-35 does jam? What if the J-20 is out of missile range, what if the J-20 is within range but can not achieve a lock? What if the J-20 can achieve a lock but the missiles have a poor hit rate?

And how do you know that the J-20 will see further?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rcrmj

some of my factory workers have been making fashion clothing for decades, and I never made one in my entire life```but I am the one who is making decisions of what to make, what techniques to use and which market to enter, because I know what is fashion clothing as a whole``but those factory workers they just know of how to sew things together``

so please never use lines like 'i worked in this and I worked in that, thus I'm right'`coz its embarrising````so please look at what positions you are at before judging, if you are like the maintainance guy gamebit, then you are just the one who to be told to put things together, nothing more

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

ptldM3 said:


> And the J-20 also has bumps as well as an array of corner reflectors, and sorry just because you say that the F-35 is less stealthy does not make it so. Reality is that companies spent large sums of money testing aircraft in anechoic chambers, as well as scrutinizing their designs by CAD programs. And this is before a team of engineers, designers, scientists, ect lay out the design and carefully choose, design, and redesign a final product that will be built with rcs reduction in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post a source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes it inferior how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes you think that even if the F-35 caries less T/R modules that it will be inferior? You don&#8217;t know jack about radars, stop spreading misinformation. If it was as easy as throwing a bunch of T/R models together than radar engineers would not spend years designing their radars and years testing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No match? ECM, weapons, data-link, training, and in general all systems working as one determines who wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detecting an aircraft does not mean much, achieving and holding a lock is another story.. And even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that the J-20&#8217;s radar, a radar that we know nothing about, can detect the F-35 before the F-35 can detect the J-20. We know that it does not translate to achieving a lock or even being within firing range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this advanced material science technology.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don&#8217;t notice a gold transparent &#8216;RAM&#8217; canopy, because there is nothing even remotely gold to it. And I&#8217;m sorry but the technology doesn&#8217;t have anything to do with RAM, guess why the A-6 had a gold canopy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 fan boys never disappoint when it comes to chest thumping. &#8216;killing machine&#8217;, &#8216;devastating&#8217;, &#8216;might dragon&#8217;.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eachus;3163495] I see the other way around, J20 will jam F35 since J20 is more powerful than F35.
> 
> 
> I hear this a lot coming from the J-20 crew. What do you mean by &#8216;more powerful&#8217;? You don&#8217;t know a thing about the J-20 to make such claims. And explain exactly how the J-20 will jam the F-35, what type of jamming will it use? And please explain to everyone how you get your hands on the F-35 to know about it&#8217;s electronic counter measures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These silly scenarios can work both ways.
> 
> And what if F-35 does jam? What if the J-20 is out of missile range, what if the J-20 is within range but can not achieve a lock? What if the J-20 can achieve a lock but the missiles have a poor hit rate?
> 
> And how do you know that the J-20 will see further?


 Not to mention the f-22 has bumps right behind its canopy it is just one of its bump.







Anyways anyone knows what is number 50 on the f-22

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

J-20 is unproven, while JSF is somehow proven, not literally, since US raptors are proven platform, so those technologies are used in F-35. All I can say is, no official document or source is there to know what J-20 has. All people has seen is leaked photos and making things up.


----------



## Martian2

At PtldM3, your reply is basically: prove everything. I've done that over the past two years. To show my goodwill, I will address the first couple of questions on your list.

1. The F-35 uses cheaper composite materials for stealth and avoids the expensive F-22 multi-layers of stealth paint applications.

Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter; Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter

"*The stealth capability in the JSF is designed for low cost and maintainability, rather than best possible stealth performance.* Stealth is achieved by a combination of shaping, detail design and absorbent/lossy materials, with shaping being the most dominant feature by some degree. While detail design and materials can evolve over the life of a design, and be upgraded incrementally to match an evolving threat, airframe shaping is fixed and whatever limits it imposes are unchangable."

2. After two years in this thread, I can only conclude you are brain dead. You're seriously telling me you don't understand why the lack of internal side weapon bays make the F-35 inferior to the J-20? It is obvious.

Let's say both the F-35 and J-20 carry MRAAM in their main underside weapon bay. Since only the J-20 has side internal weapon bays, which carry SRAAM, the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a dogfight. WVR combat is likely to occur because the AESA radar won't pick up the other fighter until close range.

No matter how you look at it, a J-20 fighter with six missiles is superior to a F-35 fighter with four missiles. I can't believe you can't figure that out yourself and I have to explain it to you.

I don't have the time or inclination to keep answering your goofy questions. If you have a serious point that I haven't covered before, I am willing to address it. However, I'm not willing to keep addressing issues that I have covered in the last two years in the J-20 threads.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

Martian2 said:


> At PtldM3, your reply is basically: prove everything. I've done that over the past two years. To show my goodwill, I will address the first couple of questions on your list.
> 
> 1. The F-35 uses cheaper composite materials for stealth and avoids the expensive F-22 multi-layers of stealth paint applications.
> 
> Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter; Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter
> 
> "*The stealth capability in the JSF is designed for low cost and maintainability, rather than best possible stealth performance.* Stealth is achieved by a combination of shaping, detail design and absorbent/lossy materials, with shaping being the most dominant feature by some degree. While detail design and materials can evolve over the life of a design, and be upgraded incrementally to match an evolving threat, airframe shaping is fixed and whatever limits it imposes are unchangable."
> 
> 2. After two years in this thread, I can only conclude you are brain dead. You're seriously telling me you don't understand why the lack of internal side weapon bays make the F-35 inferior to the J-20? It is obvious.
> 
> Let's say both the F-35 and J-20 carry MRAAM in their main underside weapon bay. Since only the J-20 has side internal weapon bays, which carry SRAAM, the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a dogfight. WVR combat is likely to occur because the AESA radar won't pick up the other fighter until close range.
> 
> I don't have the time or inclination to keep answering your goofy questions. If you have a serious point that I haven't covered before, I am willing to address it. However, I'm not willing to keep addressing issues that I have covered in the last two years in the J-20 threads.


 Global security: "An integrated airframe design, advanced materials and an axisymmetric nozzle maximize the F-35's stealth features. A quick look at the aircraft reveals an adherence to fundamental shaping principles of a stealthy design. The leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail have identical sweep angles (a design technique called planform alignment). The fuselage and canopy have sloping sides. The canopy seam and bay doors are sawtoothed. The vertical tails are canted. The engine face is deeply hidden by a serpentine inlet duct. The inlet itself has no boundary layer diverter channel, the space between the duct and the fuselage, to reflect radar energy. And, of course, weapons can be carried internally. Each internal bay contains two hardpoints onto which a wide variety of bombs and missiles can be attached. According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2. Much has been improved between the design of the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35 doors for landing gear and equipment, as well as control surface, all have straight lines. The F-35 does not require "saw tooth" openings to divert RF energy. One reason the openings on the F-35 are straight lines is reported to be embedded electrical wires near the edges whcih interfer with RF signals. The F-35 RAM is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances compared to that of the F-22. The tighter tolerances means less radar signal can penetrate openings and reflect back to its source. The newer RAM is more effective against lower frequency radars, and maintenance should cost about a tenth that of the F-22 or B-2. Some forms of RAM have have electrical plates or layers within the layers of carbon composits." 

Source Global security.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> The Chinese still use or have very recently used Russian technology in their aircraft, whether its hiring a Russian company to develop a seeker, or hiring a Russian company to help develop a radar, or just plainly importing engines and such, the point is that it&#8217;s pretty silly to listen to Chinese chest thumping when clearly China still is behind in a number of areas. Having a black jet does not automatically mean it&#8217;s futuristic.
> 
> 
> 
> I hear this a lot coming from the J-20 crew. What do you mean by &#8216;more powerful&#8217;? You don&#8217;t know a thing about the J-20 to make such claims. And explain exactly how the J-20 will jam the F-35, what type of jamming will it use? And please explain to everyone how you get your hands on the F-35 to know about it&#8217;s electronic counter measures.
> 
> 
> These silly scenarios can work both ways.
> 
> And what if F-35 does jam? What if the J-20 is out of missile range, what if the J-20 is within range but can not achieve a lock? What if the J-20 can achieve a lock but the missiles have a poor hit rate?
> 
> And how do you know that the J-20 will see further?




you guess China is still relies on Russians, what age is now? 1990s? Today, China can develop radars far better than Russia. there is an example, China reject Russian offer to build its own one. 
The current KJ-2000 AWACS in Chinese service is equipped with a domestic AESA (active electronically scanned array),[4] also known as active phased array, radar. The radar was designed by the Research Institute of Electronic Technology (also more commonly known as the 14th Institute) at Nanjing,,,,



it starts by someone "F35 jams J20", anyway, 5G fighter is not jammer which require a lot of power, electricity power. dual engine J20 certainly can over power F35. also J20 can installed large and more powerful radar. longer range missiles. your claim of poor hit rate is clueless. Chinese lately test number of missiles with 100% hit rate.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

I hate the rumors where someone says F-35 can jam the F-22 radar. My first question is how?

The F-22 probably uses frequency hopping. How is the F-35 going to jam a wide range of frequencies? Where is all that power going to come from? The F-35 has only one small engine to supply power to the plane.

Secondly, let's assume the F-35 broadcasts in a wide range of frequencies with sufficient power to drown out the signal from the F-22 radar. That's the quickest way to die by broadcasting away the F-35's position.

I hate stupid rumors like the awesome F-35 radar can jam the F-22 (and implicitly the J-20). I haven't heard a good physics explanation of how that is possible without broadcasting the F-35's position.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eachus

AWACS and electronic jammer are not stealthy and can not be stealthy, once you emit radar and waves, everyone will see you and detect the distance and direction then you are dead. that is contradiction to the stealthy purpose. AWACS and electronic jammer require power in MW units, where fighters can only provide KW. that is a 3 digits difference. 


front line air superiority fighter are all dual engine heavy fighters. back in 3rd generation, 4G and also current 5G, all no exception. only export version low cost fighter fit with single engine. F16, FC1, F35. some people call them high-low. low cost fight will make up the quantity. I am not a insider, but that is common sense that FC1, F35 will use cheaper parts or do what every they can to cut costs. F35 has lower performance is not LM's fault. high price, high quality and low price low performance. that is a ironic law in economic. 

there is another reason, F35 has tens of customers, everyone add a requirement to F35 add more weight and use some more space. do you all agree F35 carry a heavy landing fan will help it fights J20 in air combat? what is the point to carry a landing fan to fight? and how does ground attack features will help air superiority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

rcrmj said:


> some of my factory workers have been making fashion clothing for decades, and I never made one in my entire life```but I am the one who is making decisions of what to make, what techniques to use and which market to enter, because I know what is fashion clothing as a whole``but those factory workers they just know of how to sew things together``
> 
> so please never use lines like 'i worked in this and I worked in that, thus I'm right'`coz its embarrising````so please look at what positions you are at before judging, if you are like the maintainance guy gamebit, then you are just the one who to be told to put things together, nothing more




Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am just a guy who was asked to put things together. 

By that reasoning though, you and others, who have never: 

seen an aircraft, touch it, maintain it, 
read the manuals, spend hours and hours and hours in training
go to seminars, understand exactly what each part of the plane does and how
talk to company people, express your views about the parts they are sending
Go to re-training when the planes are upgraded, learn how the plane is different than before
talk to pilots, hear them express concern or satisfaction about real missions 
work with ACTUAL WEAPONS, load them on planes, maintain them, test fire them, monitor their performance.
work with REAL AVIONICS, spend months in some other country learning how to maintain it, fix it, troubleshoot it. 
Learn by experience what they can and what they cannot do.
FLY with a REAL FIGHTER PLANE, to calibrate and test the equipment in realistic conditions
receive and compile data about systems performance during live firings and exercises.

are all far better to talk about things you have no "taste" for. 

fine by me man. keep saying things like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

amalakas said:


> Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am just a guy who was asked to put things together.
> 
> By that reasoning though, you and others, who have never:
> 
> seen an aircraft, touch it, maintain it,
> read the manuals, spend hours and hours and hours in training
> go to seminars, understand exactly what each part of the plane does and how
> talk to company people, express your views about the parts they are sending
> Go to re-training when the planes are upgraded, learn how the plane is different than before
> talk to pilots, hear them express concern or satisfaction about real missions
> work with ACTUAL WEAPONS, load them on planes, maintain them, test fire them, monitor their performance.
> work with REAL AVIONICS, spend months in some other country learning how to maintain it, fix it, troubleshoot it.
> Learn by experience what they can and what they cannot do.
> FLY with a REAL FIGHTER PLANE, to calibrate and test the equipment in realistic conditions
> receive and compile data about systems performance during live firings and exercises.
> 
> are all far better to talk about things you have no "taste" for.
> 
> fine by me man. keep saying things like that.


have a look at all of your own posts, you prejudge verything just because you had 'experiences'````and very stereotyped
you might have flew few western fighters, but none Chinese ones, so that puts you in no position to judge Chinese planes and avionics (same as Chinese members)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

* Any plane with canards(which increase RCS considerably) is made for mainly dog fights which occur at visual range , I still don't understand why they are using canards on a stealth fighter like J20. Stealth and canards which incorporated into J20 are two different and opposite things or is it a chinese propaganda hiding another fighter program from the world by advertising J20*.


----------



## rcrmj

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> * Any plane with canards(which increase RCS considerably) is made for mainly dog fights which occur at visual range , I still don't understand why they are using canards on a stealth fighter like J20. Stealth and canards which incorporated into J20 are two different and opposite things or is it a chinese propaganda hiding another fighter program from the world by advertising J20*.



J-20 is the deal, CAC knows it better why using canards, and the government evaluated it (SAC's conventional config 5th gen lost to CAC's J-20 long time ago) and thinks J-20 in overall better than conventional configration.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## WS-10 Engine

The last time Russia was relevant was back in 1991.

China is ahead of Russia on many things.

Russia cant even do successful space launches without crashing every 5 launches, the recent joint mission to mars is proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

rcrmj said:


> have a look at all of your own posts, you prejudge verything just because you had 'experiences'````and very stereotyped
> you might have flew few western fighters, but none Chinese ones, so that puts you in no position to judge Chinese planes and avionics (same as Chinese members)




You are absolutely right there. I believe I mentioned this some time ago. 

And here is where I believe the problem lies. 

I am not judging the J-20! Not at all. What I am judging is the way some members believe the J-20 is the second coming of Jesus Christ. In short, I have a problem with hubris that touches on the absurd. 

When for example someone comes out and says "the j-20 will be able to do this and that ...." I have to challenge it. Because there is no way someone can support this rationally. 

Take the classic case of J-20 vs T-50. Personally I do not know which plane has better performance. However when someone comes (let's not name names) and says the T-50 is worst than the J-20 because of say the IRST sensor position, 

as a reasonable and quite well educated person and with relative experience in the field, I have to challenge this and show where the J-20 might have similar characteristics that are overlooked out of national pride or something. 

are you with me so far?



rcrmj said:


> J-20 is the deal, CAC knows it better why using canards, and the government evaluated it (SAC's conventional config 5th gen lost to CAC's J-20 long time ago) and thinks J-20 in overall better than conventional configration.




And here is a fine example of me challenging such perceptions based on your own words. 

Since CAC khows better when using canards, why then Sukhoi OKB (who by the way has far greater lineage in fighter design) doesn't know better with the T-50. LM (which has produced some of the best planes globally) doesn't know better with the F-35?? 

See.. it has nothing to do with bashing the J-20 .. it has to do with what you present and believe ...


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 1. The F-35 uses cheaper composite materials for stealth and avoids the expensive F-22 multi-layers of stealth paint applications.
> 
> Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter; Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter
> 
> "*The stealth capability in the JSF is designed for low cost and maintainability, rather than best possible stealth performance.* Stealth is achieved by a combination of shaping, detail design and absorbent/lossy materials, with shaping being the most dominant feature by some degree. While detail design and materials can evolve over the life of a design, and be upgraded incrementally to match an evolving threat, airframe shaping is fixed and whatever limits it imposes are unchangable."


And where in that quote does it say anything about 'inferior' materials being detrimental to the F-35's low radar observability?



Martian2 said:


> 2. After two years in this thread, I can only conclude you are brain dead. You're seriously telling me you don't understand why the lack of internal side weapon bays make the F-35 inferior to the J-20? It is obvious.


This is utter BS. The location of the weapons bay in no way make the F-35 inferior.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

If anything, it can be argued that the J-20 is inferior to the F-35 due to its limitations in the type of weapons it can carry. Say the same for the F-22 as well -- inferior.



Martian2 said:


> Let's say both the F-35 and J-20 carry MRAAM in their main underside weapon bay. Since only the J-20 has side internal weapon bays, which carry SRAAM, the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a dogfight. WVR combat is likely to occur because the AESA radar won't pick up the other fighter until close range.


Since when is a missile restricted to a specific location on an aircraft? Is this another example of 'Chinese physics'?



Martian2 said:


> No matter how you look at it, a J-20 fighter with six missiles is superior to a F-35 fighter with four missiles. I can't believe you can't figure that out yourself and I have to explain it to you.


The quantity of missiles carried is irrelevant. It depends on who shoot first. With the J-20's higher missile count, it will make a larger fireball on destruction.



Martian2 said:


> I don't have the time or inclination to keep answering your goofy questions. If you have a serious point that I haven't covered before, I am willing to address it. However, I'm not willing to keep addressing issues that I have covered in the last two years in the J-20 threads.


And we do not have time for 'Chinese physics'.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I hate the rumors where someone says F-35 can jam the F-22 radar. My first question is how?
> 
> The F-22 probably uses frequency hopping. How is the F-35 going to jam a wide range of frequencies? Where is all that power going to come from? The F-35 has only one small engine to supply power to the plane.
> 
> Secondly, let's assume the F-35 broadcasts in a wide range of frequencies with sufficient power to drown out the signal from the F-22 radar. That's the quickest way to die by broadcasting away the F-35's position.
> 
> I hate stupid rumors like the awesome F-35 radar can jam the F-22 (and implicitly the J-20). *I haven't heard a good physics explanation of how that is possible without broadcasting the F-35's position.*


This is where your lack of relevant experience make your postings look silly if not outright stupid. I have posted plenty of explanations on the differences between jamming and avoidance before. Apparently the lessons were lost upon you.

Jamming is active transmission. The goal of such a transmission *IS NOT* to avoid detection but to deny tracking. There is a great deal of difference between detection and tracking and it looks like those differences are beyond your ken.

Jamming is like a shield. You can see the shield but not 'track' the man behind that shield.

Avoidance is 'stealth', meaning you do whatever you can to deny the enemy a discernable pattern for him to perform that same tracking. You blend in with the background the way a well camo-ed soldier would. You have no protection, or in the case of 'stealth' you have no EM protection.

So the goal is not to deny the enemy one's position but to deny him the opportunity to track you.

As for how can the F-35 jam the J-20? Pulse characteristic analysis. Power is not required in this because if the J-20 is going to use the typical X band then frequency agility will be only within a very narrow region. No need for a large range of power.

Learn anything yet?



rcrmj said:


> have a look at all of your own posts, you *prejudge verything just because you had 'experiences'*````and very stereotyped


Why not? Are you saying experience is irrelevant?



rcrmj said:


> you might have flew few western fighters, but none Chinese ones, so that puts you in no position to judge Chinese planes and avionics (same as Chinese members)


Are Chinese aircrafts under a different set of physical laws?


----------



## Pfpilot

gambit said:


> Since when is a missile restricted to a specific location on an aircraft? Is this another example of 'Chinese physics'?


 
Can a high off-boresight WVR missile be fully utilized while being carried in an internal carriage like that of the f-35? Would the missile be launched and then lock on to the target or is there some other way?



gambit said:


> As for how can the F-35 jam the J-20? Pulse characteristic analysis. Power is not required in this because if the J-20 is going to use the typical X band then frequency agility will be only within a very narrow region. No need for a large range of power.



If you have the time, could you please explain Pulse Characteristic analysis and how it would be employed? Sounds interesting and went right over my head.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 1. Show me the citations where they published the specific performance results of non-stealth aircraft comparisons (e.g. how far did each missile fly to its maximum range, the maximum g's in a turn, the service ceiling, etc.). As far as I know, the detailed results are confidential.
> 
> 2. You have just admitted you're a hypocrite. You have been going on and on about the T-50/Pak-Fa. Yet, according to your own admission, there have been no independent tests and evaluations.
> 
> 3. You claim hearsay from support personnel. Basically, a reporter claim they heard someone say something. There is another word for that. It's called gossip. It does not qualify as fact or evidence under your self-stated standard of independent tests and evaluations.
> 
> 4. Lockheed Martin is the builder of the F-22. How can they also conduct an INDEPENDENT test? You're not making any sense. Since the F-22 is classified, all of your comments have also been trash under your own standard, yes?
> 
> 5. I didn't hear your comment regarding your worthless experience with non-stealth fighters and your comments in a J-20 stealth fighter thread. Did you forget to address the issue?


And yet you have no problems making outrageous claims for the J-20.



Martian2 said:


> Where is your citation from independent tests and evaluations to support your claim? Or is your comment just trash according to your self-stated standard? I disagree with your claim. *My understanding is a F-16 or F-15 with an AESA radar can track the F-22 under 20km.* Do you want me to show you some open-source graphs on the F-22's RCS under 20km?


You mean like this...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies


> "*The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy,*" said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."


Detection is one thing, tracking is another, then targeting is quite another. Your lack of relevant experience once again made you look foolish.



Martian2 said:


> Make up your mind Amalakas. Either everyone has been making reasonable comments based on open-source information or all of your comments are trash because you can't cite independent tests and evaluations.
> 
> You set a very high standard and I'm only asking you to live up to your own expectations. I think you're a hypocrite. You can either climb down or keep looking ridiculous (e.g. I'm going to call your comments trash if you can't provide an independent test and evaluation to meet your own standard).


Then you should refrain from using that silly 'analysis' from APA. After all, they have neither the F-35 nor J-20 to perform any measurement.


----------



## gambit

Pfpilot said:


> Can a high off-boresight WVR missile be fully utilized while being carried in an internal carriage like that of the f-35? Would the missile be launched and then lock on to the target or is there some other way?


Absolutely. There is nothing to say that an aircraft is somehow 'inferior' just because it dispenses missile from a centerline configuration. The off-boresight capability is a different issue. That has more to do with the missile integration with sensor/guidance package than with where it is located on the aircraft.



Pfpilot said:


> If you have the time, could you please explain Pulse Characteristic analysis and how it would be employed? Sounds interesting and went right over my head.


No problems...And you will *NEVER* be able to read something like this from the Chinese crowd...







The above is a reasonable illustration of what a typical wavelength look like -- one cycle.

If you turn power on then off after one cycle, you have a pulse. You have a leading edge and a trailing edge. You have a timestamp of when the pulse began and when a pulse ended. The whole thing is called 'finite pulse length'.

If you have such consistent timing -- pulse start and pulse end -- you can use those timestamps to track a target through 3D space because each reflection pulse will also have a start and end time.

Unfortunately, such a short pulse -- one cycle -- is simply too short to be of any use. So we have what is called a 'pulse train' where we have multiple pulses together.

Like this...






So as you can see above, each pulse train also have a start and end timestamps. This makes tracking a target through 3D space much more accurate.

We can vary any of the above pulse characteristics such as pulse duration or pulse width (PW), or the interpulse period or pulse repetition interval (PRI), or power or pulse amplitude (PA), and many more. We can vary them from pulse train to pulse train. We can have pulse train with one set of characteristics and the next pulse train with a completely different set of characteristics. Very confusing to any analysis that have inferior avionics. The greater these variations the more expensive your hardware.

Pulse characteristics analysis is critical in creating countermeasures, especially if there are friendlies in the area. You do not want to broadcast a blanket that can confuse your own side. You want to broadcast an arrow in terms of uniqueness.

There are much more complex issues but this basic information should suffice for now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Detection is one thing, tracking is another, then targeting is quite another. Your lack of relevant experience once again made you look foolish.




and yet those who do not understand how the weapon systems of an aircraft operate make assumptions.


----------



## Martian2

Gambit, you're even worse than PtldM3. You two clowns keep asking me to prove every trivial item (many of which I've already proven with citations in the last two years). I have no intention of spending hours to refute your rhetorical crap. I have better things to do with my time.

An unwritten rule of discussion to to select your best argument and to hold a debate. You and PtldM3 like to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at me over and over again. Only dummies fall for such a trick.

By the way, your argument is pure idiocy. A F-35 has a small radome and a single engine. It is a much smaller plane than the F-22. It can generate very little radar energy. It is unlikely to jam a F-22 as suggested by the rumor mongers in here.

Also, a F-35 emitting wide-spectrum radar energy will be shot out of the sky with a MRAAM within a few minutes. The whole idea of a F-35 jamming a F-22 is preposterous. Your blind cheerleading of the F-35 shows your mindless bias and lack of objectivity.

If you want to claim the F-35 can jam the F-22 radar, show me a reputable citation with a general explanation of the mechanism. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

Martian2 said:


> Gambit, you're even worse than PtldM3. You two clowns keep asking me to prove every trivial item (many of which I've already proven with citations in the last two years). I have no intention of spending hours to refute your rhetorical crap. I have better things to do with my time.
> 
> An unwritten rule of discussion to to select your best argument and to hold a debate. You and PtldM3 like to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at me over and over again. Only dummies fall for such a trick.
> 
> By the way, your argument is pure idiocy. A F-35 has a small radome and a single engine. It is a much smaller plane than the F-22. It can generate very little radar energy. It is unlikely to jam a F-22 as suggested by the rumor mongers in here.
> 
> Also, a F-35 emitting wide-spectrum radar energy will be shot out of the sky with a MRAAM within a few minutes. The whole idea of a F-35 jamming a F-22 is preposterous. Your blind cheerleading of the F-35 shows your mindless bias and lack of objectivity.
> 
> If you want to claim the F-35 can jam the F-22 radar, show me a reputable citation with a general explanation of the mechanism. Otherwise, shut the hell up.


 Why do you want the f-35 random to be longer? Why because the aero pitch and yaw balance has been completely screwed. To re-establish the desired pitch and yaw balance, vertical and horizontal tails will have to be enlarged, at considerable cost, drag, weight, and rats!, all the LO is affected. Or you can simply (?) keep the same tails and extend the aft fuselage. But doesn't that affect weight, cost, LO, and everything else? Yes. Among many other things, the flight control computer will have to be completely re-programmed.


----------



## Martian2

Esc8781 said:


> Why do you want the f-35 random to be longer? Why because the aero pitch and yaw balance has been completely screwed. To re-establish the desired pitch and yaw balance, vertical and horizontal tails will have to be enlarged, at considerable cost, drag, weight, and rats!, all the LO is affected. Or you can simply (?) keep the same tails and extend the aft fuselage. But doesn't that affect weight, cost, LO, and everything else? Yes. Among many other things, the flight control computer will have to be completely re-programmed.



Bigger, not longer. You're completely on the wrong track.

I'm discussing the important factors of radar size, available power, and jamming without being shot down. Gambit is wrong on all three and he doesn't have the courage to admit it. He's just going to keep cheerleading the F-35 without providing any reputable citations to back up his ridiculous claims.

In his earlier posts, he is implicitly claiming the F-35 can jam the much larger F-22 radar (which is also supplied with more power). I'm calling him on it.

----------

In my view, there's nothing special about the F-35. Sensor fusion simply means you present all of the sensory information into a more concise presentation to highlight critical information for the pilot.

To my knowledge, the F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and less available power than the F-22. The F-35's jamming capability is that of a lesser AESA radar. The bogus claim of the F-35 able to jam the F-22 really irritates me. It flies in the face of known physics.

Here's my citation for the limited jamming capability of the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar. As you can see from the citation, it does not suggest a F-35 can jam the F-22's frequency-hopping radar over a wide range of frequencies. Notice the word "selectively."

The jamming capabilities of a F-35 radar is the same as all AESA radars. There is no magical formula. I don't care what Gambit says to the contrary without any reputable citations.

-----

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/mil...fare-Suite-More-Than-Self-Protection_845.html

"Deep Integration

Integration of EW sensors with the F-35's AN/APG 81 active electronically scanned array (AESA), communications and electro-optical distributed aperture systems puts offensive, defensive, coms and data-gathering sensors at the service of the pilot to process onboard and offboard data. The EW system employs a range of dedicated antennas and shares the AESA antenna for tasks such as electronic support measures or signals collection and analysis. The F-35's high-gain, electronically steered radar array provides jamming support under the control of the EW system. Because the AESA array provides very directional radio frequency (RF) output, the JSF could target a very small area and *selectively* jam it, which enhances survivability by reducing electronic emissions."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Gambit, you're even worse than PtldM3. You two clowns keep asking me to prove every trivial item (many of which I've already proven with citations in the last two years). I have no intention of spending hours to refute your rhetorical crap. I have better things to do with my time.
> 
> An unwritten rule of discussion to to select your best argument and to hold a debate. You and PtldM3 like to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at me over and over again. Only dummies fall for such a trick.
> 
> By the way, your argument is pure idiocy. A F-35 has a small radome and a single engine. It is a much smaller plane than the F-22. It can generate very little radar energy. It is unlikely to jam a F-22 as suggested by the rumor mongers in here.
> 
> Also, a F-35 emitting wide-spectrum radar energy will be shot out of the sky with a MRAAM within a few minutes. The whole idea of a F-35 jamming a F-22 is preposterous. Your blind cheerleading of the F-35 shows your mindless bias and lack of objectivity.
> 
> If you want to claim the F-35 can jam the F-22 radar, show me a reputable citation with a general explanation of the mechanism. Otherwise, shut the hell up.


 


Martian2 said:


> Bigger, not longer. You're completely on the wrong track.
> 
> I'm discussing the important factors of radar size, available power, and jamming without being shot down. Gambit is wrong on all three and he doesn't have the courage to admit it. He's just going to keep cheerleading the F-35 without providing any reputable citations to back up his ridiculous claims.
> 
> In his earlier posts, he is implicitly claiming the F-35 can jam the much larger F-22 radar (which is also supplied with more power). I'm calling him on it.



You asked for it, are you going to understand it, it's a different story. 


There are two kinds of jamming and so that you can show us your excellent knowledge I will not identify which is which in the text below. 

Right ..and this is theoretical .. like what engineers who know make educated guesses as to how it could potentially be done. 



1- Let's assume the jamming system (F-35) can modulate every echo's pulse phase with noise, then as a direct result every spectrum line will be broadened. When the modulation gets sufficient the spectrum lines overspill to the entire frequency domain and cover the echo pulses. Now if we set the bandwidth to being very very narrow (as we can), the efficiency gets very very high, so you *don't need too much power*... get it ? 

2- One can use cross polarisation jamming, this reverses the angle of error signal which is provided by the tracking filter usually. Or you can use cooperative jamming which obviously is harder to achieve. 


get it ? 


oh .. and because you usually ask for citations ... here they are .. i wonder if you are going to read them.. .

D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc. 

George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar

Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research

have fun man..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> You asked for it, are you going to understand it, it's a different story.
> 
> 
> There are two kinds of jamming and so that you can show us your excellent knowledge I will not identify which is which in the text below.
> 
> Right ..and this is theoretical .. like what engineers who know make educated guesses as to how it could potentially be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 1- Let's assume the jamming system (F-35) can modulate every echo's pulse phase with noise, then as a direct result every spectrum line will be broadened. When the modulation gets sufficient the spectrum lines overspill to the entire frequency domain and cover the echo pulses. Now if we set the bandwidth to being very very narrow (as we can), the efficiency gets very very high, so you *don't need too much power*... get it ?
> 
> 2- One can use cross polarisation jamming, this reverses the angle of error signal which is provided by the tracking filter usually. Or you can use cooperative jamming which obviously is harder to achieve.
> 
> 
> get it ?
> 
> 
> oh .. and because you usually ask for citations ... here they are .. i wonder if you are going to read them.. .
> 
> D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc.
> 
> George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar
> 
> Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research
> 
> have fun man..



Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? You never post a reputable citation to back up your crap. It gets annoying.

Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?

The F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and its jamming capability is consistent with all AESA radars. It can jam a narrow frequency range. Big deal. All AESA radars can do that. The F-22 has a bigger AESA radar and it hops over a wide range of frequencies.

Since my citation already informed you the F-35 can only jam "selectively," it means the F-35 cannot jam the larger frequency-hopping F-22 radar.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you trolls over and over again. This is the last time.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? You never post a reputable citation to back up your crap. It gets annoying.
> 
> Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?
> 
> The F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and its jamming capability is consistent with all AESA radars. It can jam a narrow frequency range. Big deal. All AESA radars can do that. The F-22 has a bigger AESA radar and it hops over a wide range of frequencies.
> 
> Since my citation already informed you the F-35 can only jam "selectively," it means the F-35 cannot jam the larger frequency-hopping F-22 radar.
> 
> I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you trolls over and over again. This is the last time.





Just because I knew you were going to say that ... and you fell right into the trap .. here are the full citations ...

D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc. 1999;

George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar (Second Edition), SciTech Publishing, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1998;

Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research, Journal of UEST of China, Vol.34, No.4, Aug.2005;


How about it now genius ? a Journal of UEST of China is not *reputable* according to you ?? ?


keep at it man.. the hole is getting deeper every time you post...


----------



## Esc8781

Oh yeah read this all of you it is interesting 

http://www.turma-aguia.com/davi/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_1.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Esc8781 said:


> Oh yeah read this all of you it is interesting
> 
> http://www.turma-aguia.com/davi/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_1.pdf



You're an idiot. I didn't ask for a citation for "Introduction to Radar" (as shown in your PDF file).

I asked for a reputable citation to back up the incredible claim that the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar can jam the larger and more powerful frequency-hopping F-22 AESA radar.

----------

I have been in here for over an hour and you idiots cannot show me a reputable citation to back up your bogus claim. You have wasted enough of my time.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> You're an idiot. I didn't ask for a citation for "Introduction to Radar" (as shown in your PDF file).
> 
> I asked for a reputable citation to back up the incredible claim that the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar can jam the larger and more powerful frequency-hopping F-22 AESA radar.
> 
> ----------
> 
> I have been in here for over an hour and you idiots cannot show me a reputable citation to back up your bogus claim. You have wasted enough of my time.



Really ???? 


what about the citation from UEST in China mate ? ...not good for you all of a sudden ? ?? 


right....


keep at it...


----------



## Esc8781

Martian2 said:


> You're an idiot. I didn't ask for a citation for "Introduction to Radar" (as shown in your PDF file).
> 
> I asked for a reputable citation to back up the incredible claim that the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar can jam the larger and more powerful frequency-hopping F-22 AESA radar.


 Wow someone is in a bad mood , no it is an introduction to people who didn't know the basics, it is not related, but interesting.


----------



## UKBengali

Martian2 said:


> You're an idiot. I didn't ask for a citation for "Introduction to Radar" (as shown in your PDF file).
> 
> I asked for a reputable citation to back up the incredible claim that the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar can jam the larger and more powerful frequency-hopping F-22 AESA radar.
> 
> ----------
> 
> I have been in here for over an hour and you idiots cannot show me a reputable citation to back up your bogus claim. You have wasted enough of my time.



Why do you bother?

It is clear as daylight that the F-35 will be the biggest turkey in the history of fighter aircraft.

The US needs to be able to sell this white-elephant to as many countries as possible.

Since the F-35 lacks both in top-speed and manuverability, the US has invented this ability to jam F-22 nonsense to persuade gullible countries to buy this overpriced piece of rubbish.

All of a sudden the US has this magic radar that they are implying can now jam anything!

Only idiots will believe this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? You never post a reputable citation to back up your crap. It gets annoying.
> 
> Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?
> 
> The F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and its jamming capability is consistent with all AESA radars. It can jam a narrow frequency range. Big deal. All AESA radars can do that. The F-22 has a bigger AESA radar and it hops over a wide range of frequencies.
> 
> *Since my citation already informed you the F-35 can only jam "selectively," it means the F-35 cannot jam the larger frequency-hopping F-22 radar.*


You have the wrong understanding of the word 'selectively' in that source and it came from no relevant experience.

Avionics Magazine :: F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection


> Because the AESA array provides very directional radio frequency (RF) output, the JSF could target a very small area and *selectively* jam it, which enhances survivability by reducing electronic emissions.


The phrase does not say '...the JSF could *ONLY* target a very small area and selectively jam it...'. If the word 'only' is there, it would be a clear indicator of the AESA's limitation as a a jammer.

Instead, what it really mean is that because the AESA's superiority over other forms of radar, the F-35's EW capability can use the AESA's antenna to much more precision in direction, beamwidth, and energy level in jamming. This will lead to greater EM protection for self and friendlies in the area.

It is good that you have sources. You learned that from me. But your lack of relevant experience make your interpretations of your sources dubious.



Martian2 said:


> I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you trolls over and over again. This is the last time.


How many times have we seen this 'last time' nonsense from you along with 'Chinese physics'?

The reason why you repeatedly have this 'last time' over here is because here is where your nonsense will be challenged and debunked. Your playground is intellectually dead in being nothing more than a mutual admiration society. Everyone will just simply parrot everyone else and thanked each other for 'useful' posts in a circle jerk. Stay there if you want your egotistical dick stroked.



UKBengali said:


> Why do you bother?
> 
> It is clear as daylight that the F-35 will be the biggest turkey in the history of fighter aircraft.
> 
> The US needs to be able to sell this white-elephant to as many countries as possible.
> 
> Since the F-35 lacks both in top-speed and manuverability, the US has invented this ability to jam F-22 nonsense to persuade gullible countries to buy this overpriced piece of rubbish.
> 
> All of a sudden the US has this magic radar that they are implying can now jam anything!
> 
> Only idiots will believe this.


Hmmm...What can we do to change the above nonsense for the J-20's many physics defying claims...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

UKBengali said:


> Why do you bother?
> 
> It is clear as daylight that the F-35 will be the biggest turkey in the history of fighter aircraft.
> 
> The US needs to be able to sell this white-elephant to as many countries as possible.
> 
> Since the F-35 lacks both in top-speed and manuverability, the US has invented this ability to jam F-22 nonsense to persuade gullible countries to buy this overpriced piece of rubbish.
> 
> All of a sudden the US has this magic radar that they are implying can now jam anything!
> 
> Only idiots will believe this.


 Man there are so many things wrong with that comment, I don't need to reply to.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Here's one way to counter the F-35's jamming. 



> The other main aspect of ECCM, is to program sensors or seekers to detect attempts at ECM and possible even to take advantage of it. For example, some modern fire-and-forget missiles like the Vympel R-77 and the AMRAAM are able to home in directly on sources of radar jamming if the jamming is too powerful to allow them to find and track the target normally. This mode, called 'home-on-jam', actually makes the missile's job easier. Some missile seekers actually target the enemy's radiation sources, and are therefore called "anti-radiation missiles" (ARM). The jamming in this case effectively becomes a beacon announcing the presence and location of the transmitter. This makes the use of such ECM a difficult decision; it may serve to obscure an exact location from a non-ARM missile, but in doing so it must put the jamming vehicle at risk of being targeted and hit by ARMs.



Electronic counter-countermeasures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

One more thing.

Just because you've jammed the F-22s radar, doesn't mean you've jammed the *AN/ALR-94*.


----------



## Esc8781

Image of the f-35's integrated avionics Suite compare it with the f-22 if you want.


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> Why not? Are you saying experience is irrelevant?


 read post 2237



gambit said:


> Are Chinese aircrafts under a different set of physical laws?


I always drive German cars, and never tried Korean and Japenese cars, so it gives me better understanding of German cars than K, or J cars````as I said clearly on post 2237, you are just a maintainance guy (just like my garment facotry line workers), to be told what to do, in terms of the holitic aviation industry and modern technology, you are just as much as the half cups same as the rest members here``

but, the funny part is that you are acting as if you are the one knows 'everything' and more importantly yours are 'right'``if you got refuted then you start using the same old tricks like```' i have 'experiences so you are B.S' or 'chinese physics' 

you are probably around 45 but acting like 15``sad

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

^^^^

Old trick of old guy: by claiming to have experience in Aviation maintenance, he thinks he know everything and demand other people to believe on him rather than to real expert on that field or valid sources

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

We know that the americans have alot of experience in aviation industry and with radars since they were the first ones to successfully deploy active AESA radars while others were still struggling. Base on that rich experience, we can give the benefit of the doubt to the F-35 that it can indeed jam a much powerful F-22 radar.
But....
From a layman point of understanding, bigger is always better. The more power a radar can get, the more further it can detect ( maybe i am not choosing the right words so correct me here). The F-22 radar is bigger, its twin engines can give in more power, then how exactly a less powerful radar of the F-35 Jam F-22?

Gambit a question for you sir?
F-22 is not open for sale even to countries such as Japan, Israel while F-35 is and the reason for that is because Americans like to keep the edge. So how exactly will the edge be maintained if according to you sir, F-35 proves to be superior to the F-22 and yet is cheaper.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

rcrmj said:


> read post 2237
> 
> 
> I always drive German cars, and never tried Korean and Japenese cars, so it gives me better understanding of German cars than K, or J cars````as I said clearly on post 2237, you are just a maintainance guy (just like my garment facotry line workers), to be told what to do, in terms of the holitic aviation industry and modern technology, you are just as much as the half cups same as the rest members here``
> 
> but, the funny part is that you are acting as if you are the one knows 'everything' and more importantly yours are 'right'``if you got refuted then you start using the same old tricks like```' i have 'experiences so you are B.S' or 'chinese physics'
> 
> you are probably around 45 but acting like 15``sad



Yes, yes you have told us these before.. care to even answer on the following which I asked you before? 




> J-20 is the deal,* CAC knows it better why using canards*, and the government evaluated it (SAC's conventional config 5th gen lost to CAC's J-20 long time ago) and thinks J-20 in overall better than conventional configration.
> Original Post By rcrmj
> 
> And here is a fine example of me challenging such perceptions based on your own words.
> 
> *Since CAC khows better when using canards, why then Sukhoi OKB (who by the way has far greater lineage in fighter design) doesn't know better with the T-50. LM (which has produced some of the best planes globally) doesn't know better with the F-35??*
> 
> See.. it has nothing to do with bashing the J-20 .. it has to do with what you present and believe ...
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-150.html#ixzz20UXYQjFv



Remember, its your own words.



IceCold said:


> We know that the americans have alot of experience in aviation industry and with radars since they were the first ones to successfully deploy active AESA radars while others were still struggling. Base on that rich experience, we can give the benefit of the doubt to the F-35 that it can indeed jam a much powerful F-22 radar.
> But....
> From a layman point of understanding, bigger is always better. The more power a radar can get, the more further it can detect ( maybe i am not choosing the right words so correct me here). The F-22 radar is bigger, its twin engines can give in more power, then how exactly a less powerful radar of the F-35 Jam F-22?
> 
> Gambit a question for you sir?
> F-22 is not open for sale even to countries such as Japan, Israel while F-35 is and the reason for that is because Americans like to keep the edge. So how exactly will the edge be maintained if according to you sir, F-35 proves to be superior to the F-22 and yet is cheaper.




There you go ...




> There are two kinds of jamming and so that you can show us your excellent knowledge I will not identify which is which in the text below.
> 
> Right ..and this is theoretical .. like what engineers who know make educated guesses as to how it could potentially be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 1- Let's assume the jamming system (F-35) can modulate every echo's pulse phase with noise, then as a direct result every spectrum line will be broadened. When the modulation gets sufficient the spectrum lines overspill to the entire frequency domain and cover the echo pulses. Now if we set the bandwidth to being very very narrow (as we can), the efficiency gets very very high, so you don't need too much power... get it ?
> 
> 2- One can use cross polarisation jamming, this reverses the angle of error signal which is provided by the tracking filter usually. Or you can use cooperative jamming which obviously is harder to achieve.
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-151.html#ixzz20UYKeV5P




And just to be clear ... I have Martian2 cornered with this one and his ridiculous response .. a lot of exposing is imminent here..


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> read post 2237
> 
> 
> I always drive German cars, and never tried Korean and Japenese cars, so it gives me better understanding of German cars than K, or J cars````as I said clearly on post 2237, you are just a maintainance guy (just like my garment facotry line workers), to be told what to do, in terms of the holitic aviation industry and modern technology, you are just as much as the half cups same as the rest members here``
> 
> but, the funny part is that you are acting as if you are the one knows 'everything' and more importantly yours are 'right'``if you got refuted then you start using the same old tricks like```' i have 'experiences so you are B.S' or 'chinese physics'
> 
> you are probably around 45 but acting like 15``sad


Yeeaaaa...So just because you read a few books about wars that mean you can tell a general how to plan his battles or a sniper how to shoot.



antonius123 said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Old trick of old guy: by claiming to have experience in Aviation maintenance, he thinks he know everything and demand other people to believe on him rather than to real expert on that field or valid sources


What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?

So what was your aviation 'experience' or 'study' again?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Yeeaaaa...So just because you read a few books about wars that mean you can tell a general how to plan his battles or a sniper how to shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> believe on him rather than to *real expert* on that field or valid sources
> Original Post By antonius123
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-152.html#ixzz20VgUwZXL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> 
> So what was your aviation 'experience' or 'study' again?
Click to expand...


what I missed was who the real expert is supposed to be here...


----------



## danger007

after reading many chinese members posts..... i got one thing, that chinese got radars etc in their eyes..... they can decide whether the jet is superior or inferior just by looks..... i wonder just an ordinary chinese who read a few articles about a jet, have more knowledge than west and russian oldies who got plenty experience in jet designing etc...... i can't imagine chinese engineers who got complete knowledge about chinese physics.....


----------



## gambit

IceCold said:


> From a layman point of understanding, bigger is always better.


Basically...Yes.



IceCold said:


> The more power a radar can get, the more further it can detect ( maybe i am not choosing the right words so correct me here). The F-22 radar is bigger, its twin engines can give in more power, then how exactly a less powerful radar of the F-35 Jam F-22?


Just because you have a lot of reserve power, that does not necessarily mean every transmission is of max power. This applied even to the classic dish system. The MIG-25's radar was so powerful that it can achieve 'burn through' of most jamming back then. But its target resolutions were so poor that saying it was sh1tty was to be kind. It can barely tell the pilot the target's altitude, heading, speed, and aspect angle. All vital components *BEFORE* engagement. It was so bad that the best it can do tell for the pilot was the target's general direction.

Power allows range and that is good. But target resolution depends on beamwidth for *ANY* freq, which is inversely affected by antenna size. In other words, the larger the antenna/array the tighter the beamwidth, the smaller the array, the wider the beamwidth -- *IF* the same freq is used for both situations. However, if you have a smaller antenna/array but a matching higher freq, then you will have the same beamwidth as the larger antenna/array.

For most fighters, a 2-3 deg beamwidth is desirable.






The above is one degree.






That is the advantage of small beamwidth, which is a complex relationship between antenna size and freq employed. So if you want a 2-3 deg beamwidth while using the HF/VHF/UHF bands which are meters length freqs, your antenna will be literally dozens of meters span. The tighter the beamwidth, the better to discriminate targets that grouped close together.

So just because you have twin engines, that does not automatically mean your radar is better. Reserve electrical generation is a different issue.



IceCold said:


> Gambit a question for you sir?
> F-22 is not open for sale even to countries such as Japan, Israel while F-35 is and the reason for that is because Americans like to keep the edge. So how exactly will the edge be maintained if according to you sir, F-35 proves to be superior to the F-22 and yet is cheaper.


I never said that the F-35 is superior to the F-22.

The F-35 is as different from the F-22 as the F-16 is from the F-15. The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter with any air to ground capability as secondary. For the F-35, it is the opposite. The F-35 is intended to be a better jack-of-all-trades than the F-16. So just because the F-35 may have an advantage in one area, that does not mean it is overall 'superior' to the F-22.



amalakas said:


> what I missed was who the real expert is supposed to be here...


He said he has aviation 'experience' in trying to shut the Indians up. Then he backed down to 'study', which we have yet to know what. So the question is: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?

Let us see how he respond.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## doidoi2

From what I read on this forum, I think we can conclude that all of you don't know what you're talking about. 
*
There has been no detailed leaked about the J-20, systems, radar, avionics, nada.

There has been scant details about the F35 and F22, info like range and detailed radar characteristics are CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
*
Is it fun for you guys to debate about stuff you have NO IDEA about? Much less who would win in your imaginary mental contests?

To the Russian guys too about the Pakfa There's no need to take part in the denigration of Chinese aircraft industry whilst defending the PAKFA. Ultimately Russia today and China are allies. China owes its aircraft development to much of Russian industry. We admire Russian industry.

What I see in this thread is childish namecalling based not on facts, but imaginary factoids dreamed out thin air. 

As a Chinese, I'll also say that I am actually flattered to be discussed so vigorously and for Chinese aircraft to be so viciously attacked by so many people from so many nations without knowing anything about the J-20 other than its shape. It's more revealing because these verbal attacks betray a sense of insecurity and vulnerability. 

Like it or not, The J-20 has revealed that China has made rapid progress in stealth fighters. The torrent of criticism with no information has also revealed that other nations are nervous about China's progress. *The J-20 clearly pushes a lot of buttons.*

*
To me, the ludicrous criticism that we're receiving on the J-20 means we're definitely on the right path for China's Defense. So please carry on sh*t-talking the J-20, folks. Show us just how afraid you are to be passed by China technologically.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## amalakas

doidoi2 said:


> From what I read on this forum, I think we can conclude that all of you don't know what you're talking about.
> *
> There has been no detailed leaked about the J-20, systems, radar, avionics, nada.
> 
> There has been scant details about the F35 and F22, info like range and detailed radar characteristics are CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
> *
> Is it fun for you guys to debate about stuff you have NO IDEA about? Much less who would win in your imaginary mental contests?
> 
> To the Russian guys too about the Pakfa There's no need to take part in the denigration of Chinese aircraft industry whilst defending the PAKFA. Ultimately Russia today and China are allies. China owes its aircraft development to much of Russian industry. We admire Russian industry.
> 
> What I see in this thread is childish namecalling based not on facts, but imaginary factoids dreamed out thin air.
> 
> As a Chinese, I'll also say that I am actually flattered to be discussed so vigorously and for Chinese aircraft to be so viciously attacked by so many people from so many nations without knowing anything about the J-20 other than its shape. It's more revealing because these verbal attacks betray a sense of insecurity and vulnerability.
> 
> Like it or not, The J-20 has revealed that China has made rapid progress in stealth fighters. The torrent of criticism with no information has also revealed that other nations are nervous about China's progress. *The J-20 clearly pushes a lot of buttons.*
> 
> *
> To me, the ludicrous criticism that we're receiving on the J-20 means we're definitely on the right path for China's Defense. So please carry on sh*t-talking the J-20, folks. Show us just how afraid you are to be passed by China technologically.*



if this is all you understood then you clearly didn't read everything!!


----------



## gambit

doidoi2 said:


> So please carry on sh*t-talking the J-20, folks.


 The only people who have been talking sh1t about the J-20 have been the Chinese boys and one Indonesian teenager, not us who have relevant experience. All we have been doing is trying to tone down the sh1t.


----------



## Esc8781

doidoi2 said:


> From what I read on this forum, I think we can conclude that all of you don't know what you're talking about.
> *
> There has been no detailed leaked about the J-20, systems, radar, avionics, nada.
> 
> There has been scant details about the F35 and F22, info like range and detailed radar characteristics are CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
> *
> Is it fun for you guys to debate about stuff you have NO IDEA about? Much less who would win in your imaginary mental contests?
> 
> To the Russian guys too about the Pakfa There's no need to take part in the denigration of Chinese aircraft industry whilst defending the PAKFA. Ultimately Russia today and China are allies. China owes its aircraft development to much of Russian industry. We admire Russian industry.
> 
> What I see in this thread is childish namecalling based not on facts, but imaginary factoids dreamed out thin air.
> 
> As a Chinese, I'll also say that I am actually flattered to be discussed so vigorously and for Chinese aircraft to be so viciously attacked by so many people from so many nations without knowing anything about the J-20 other than its shape. It's more revealing because these verbal attacks betray a sense of insecurity and vulnerability.
> 
> Like it or not, The J-20 has revealed that China has made rapid progress in stealth fighters. The torrent of criticism with no information has also revealed that other nations are nervous about China's progress. *The J-20 clearly pushes a lot of buttons.*
> 
> *
> To me, the ludicrous criticism that we're receiving on the J-20 means we're definitely on the right path for China's Defense. So please carry on sh*t-talking the J-20, folks. Show us just how afraid you are to be passed by China technologically.*


 We can say the same thing about the f-35.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> 1. The F-35 uses cheaper composite materials for stealth and avoids the expensive F-22 multi-layers of stealth paint applications.
> 
> Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter; Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter
> 
> "*The stealth capability in the JSF is designed for low cost and maintainability, rather than best possible stealth performance.* Stealth is achieved by a combination of shaping, detail design and absorbent/lossy materials, with shaping being the most dominant feature by some degree. While detail design and materials can evolve over the life of a design, and be upgraded incrementally to match an evolving threat, airframe shaping is fixed and whatever limits it imposes are unchangable."







So where does it say anything about quality of materials? You are implying that the F-35 is inferior because of the types of &#8220;cheap&#8221; material it uses, but since when did cheap materials imply low quality? You are either new to LEAN manufacturing or have never heard the term. In lean manufacturing, manpower and unnecessary waste/ is reduced. Products and material is purchased in such as manner as to eliminate over stocking and wasting material, quicker and more efficient methods of manufacturing is used. 


Lets bust your claim:


Lockheed Martin reveals F-35 to feature nanocomposite structures





> Lockheed Martin has revealed the F-35 Lightning II will be the first mass-produced aircraft to integrate structural nanocomposites in non-load bearing airframe components.
> 
> 
> A thermoset epoxy reinforced by carbon nanotubes will replace carbon fibre as the material used to produce F-35 wingtip fairings beginning with low rate initial production.
> 
> 
> The shift to CNRP as an airframe material has been anticipated ever since carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991. *It is widely considered one of the strongest materials ever invented - several times stronger than carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP), yet lighter by about 25-30%.*
> 
> *The high cost and complexity *of producing the structures means they have so far had limited applications in aerospace programmes.
> 
> 
> *Lockheed, however, has invented a process that dramatically reduces the cost to build carbon nanotube composites for aircraft structures, Earles said. The new wingtip fairing is being made for one-tenth of the cost of the equivalent CFRP component*, he said.





So basically you are a liar, the F-35 uses some of the most adanced materials know, and the materials are very expensive. However, Lockheed's manufacturing process is able to produce the material at a very cheap price.












Martian2 said:


> 2. After two years in this thread, I can only conclude you are brain dead. You're seriously telling me you don't understand why the lack of internal side weapon bays make the F-35 inferior to the J-20? It is obvious.
> 
> *Let's say* both the F-35 and J-20 carry MRAAM in their main underside weapon bay. Since only the J-20 has side internal weapon bays, which carry SRAAM, the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a dogfight. WVR combat is likely to occur because the AESA radar won't pick up the other fighter until close range.





Lets not say, the F-35 can carry both short and long range AAM&#8217;s. That is the end of the story but if you want to get more in depth all good air forces usually fly in groups or formations , or they can quickly scramble fighters if needed. The reason for this is because they want to outnumber the enemy, a plus to this is if the formation is flying close enough and the range is far enough enemy aircraft struggle achieve lock because the enemy radar essentially sees one large blob but can not identify individual aircraft.


The types of weapons also plays a role, we don&#8217;t know how good Chinese systems are. What will be the hit rate? We don&#8217;t know how resistant if at all Chinese AAM&#8217;s are to counter measures. We don&#8217;t know how maneuverable the F-35 is despite all the internet claims. A good missile with high hit rate, high off bore sight integrated with a helmet mounted systems can easily destroy a more maneuverable aircraft. If that aircraft happens to be highly maneuverable that will just be icing on the cake.





Martian2 said:


> No matter how you look at it, a J-20 fighter with six missiles is superior to a F-35 fighter with four missiles. I can't believe you can't figure that out yourself and I have to explain it to you.





There is more to it than that. How many J-20&#8217;s will face F-35&#8217;s is hypothetical, one can always claim that the F-35 will outnumber the J-20 and based on production numbers this is a real possibility. Then of course is other factors, weapons, training, and avionics.








eachus said:


> you guess China is still relies on Russians, what age is now? 1990s? Today, China can develop radars far better than Russia. there is an example, China reject Russian offer to build its own one.
> The current KJ-2000 AWACS in Chinese service is equipped with a domestic AESA (active electronically scanned array),[4] also known as active phased array, radar. The radar was designed by the Research Institute of Electronic Technology (also more commonly known as the 14th Institute) at Nanjing,,,,





Really? So where is the proof? Because China has an AWACS with AESA it automatically has better radars? Russia also has various AESA radars, whether its ground or air based, or the naval based ones that are being developed. The point is that you have zero proof the back your claims.





eachus said:


> it starts by someone "F35 jams J20", anyway, 5G fighter is not jammer which require a lot of power, electricity power. dual engine J20 certainly can over power F35. also J20 can installed large and more powerful radar. longer range missiles. your claim of poor hit rate is clueless. Chinese lately test number of missiles with 100% hit rate.




Jamming does not require a lot of power, the F-18 Growler which is a dedicated electronics warfare aircraft has two small engines rated at 22,000lbs in afterburner and more importantly 14,000 dry thrust. The F-35 has one massive engine which produces 43,000 in afterburner and 28,000lbs dry thrust. The point here is that the Growler is fitted with all sorts of electronic warfare equipment, it doesn&#8217;t just use its radar.










rcrmj said:


> but, the funny part is that you are acting as if you are the one knows 'everything' and more importantly yours are 'right'``if you got refuted then you start using the same old tricks like```' i have 'experiences so you are B.S' or 'chinese physics'
> 
> you are probably around 45 but acting like 15``sad




This is funny considering that Chinese members here are the ones acting like they know everything and claims to have experience whether its claiming to have studied some field of aviation or calling themselves aerospace engineers or boasting about how many you tube views they have.

So how many of use have claimed anything bad about the J-20?

Now how many Chinese members have claimed outrageous and provocative claims that they could not prove?

Chinese members here have claimed:


The J-20 can jam the F-35.

They claim the J-20 can track the F-35 at further distances.

They claim that Chinese radars are better than Russian ones.

They claim that the F-35 uses &#8216;cheap material&#8217;.

They claim that the J-20 is more maneuverable than the pak-fa and F-22.

They claimed that the J-20 has a superior RCS than the F-35.


Funny how its Chinese members start trash talking but when their nonsense is challenged we are the big bad trash talkers even though we rarely if ever say anything about the J-20.








doidoi2 said:


> From what I read on this forum, I think we can conclude that all of you don't know what you're talking about.
> *
> There has been no detailed leaked about the J-20, systems, radar, avionics, nada.
> 
> There has been scant details about the F35 and F22, info like range and detailed radar characteristics are CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.*


*



This is exactly why many Chinese members on this forum look like fools.








doidoi2 said:



As a Chinese, I'll also say that I am actually flattered to be discussed so vigorously and for Chinese aircraft to be so viciously attacked by so many people from so many nations without knowing anything about the J-20 other than its shape. It's more revealing because these verbal attacks betray a sense of insecurity and vulnerability.

Click to expand...



If you actually been on the thread long enough you would know that the attacks come from Chinese members. The entire argument right now is because Martian2 derailed the thread with how bad the F-35 is. He also often posts the same about the pak-fa and how bad it is. The point is that, he and other Chinese members are the instigators. Instigators that derail threads and than blame others for being &#8216;anti Chinese&#8217; or &#8216;attacking the J-20&#8217;. When In reality hardly anyone has ever even mentions the J-20; the argument from me and others is to challenge some of the ridiculous claims made by Chinese members.



In short it goes like this, the thread is on topic. Some Chinese guy interrupts and derails the thread by posting an &#8216;assessment&#8217; of how the pak-fa and F-35 are crap. Than that Chinese member receives thanks, other Chinese members quickly join in and make more claims such as the J-20 has a superior radar to the F-35, the J-20 is more maneuverable than the pak-fa and F-22, the J-20 can jam the F-35, the J-20 can shoot down the F-35 before it will be detected, ect, ect, ect.


When those claims are challenged, we are called trolls, anti Chinese, J-20 haters and other various things. How Ironic.*


----------



## j20blackdragon

The PAK FA is a shoddy looking piece of crap compared to the F-35. It doesn't even come close.

Check out the sawtooth panel edge alignment on the F-35.







The PAK FA doesn't even bother. What a joke.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

j20blackdragon said:


> The PAK FA is a shoddy looking piece of crap compared to the F-35. It doesn't even come close.
> 
> Check out the sawtooth panel edge alignment on the F-35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PAK FA doesn't even bother. What a joke.


 I think the t-50 is in the X-35 development stage


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> The PAK FA is a shoddy looking piece of crap compared to the F-35. It doesn't even come close.
> 
> Check out the sawtooth panel edge alignment on the F-35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PAK FA doesn't even bother. What a joke.




This is a perfect example of Chinese chest thumping, instigating trouble and insulting. Either way J-20black-dragqueen seems to be frustrated that his fellow brothers dug themselves in a hole, so in accordance to Chinese physics some pictures are posted to distract the readers attention and some petty comments are made. 

And i would be more worried about the corner reflects from the J-20's tails fins and the concave structures.



Esc8781 said:


> I think the t-50 is in the X-35 development stage



These kids wouldn&#8217;t know what a development stage is if it hit them in the face.  The X-35 had very little serration anywhere including bay doors, even the engine was conventional, as was the two piece canopy.

The pak-fa has far more serration than the X-35 ever had. The X-35 eventually evolved into the F-35 where many prototypes were produced. No need to add serration to a temporary access panel or add serration to bays that will be altered.


And yes, the pak-fa is in the X-35 development stage, the pak-fa doesn't even have an official designation such as SU-XX similar to how the X was used in the X-35 designation, hence no official designation just an experimental one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

The PAK FA is shoddy looking, end of story. 

The PAK FA is like a used Toyota Camry next to the Mercedes S65 J-20.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> 
> So what was your aviation 'experience' or 'study' again?



LOL still stick on old trick, old guy 

What is the degree of corner reflector? 120 deg? 



j20blackdragon said:


> The PAK FA is shoddy looking, end of story.
> 
> The PAK FA is like a used Toyota Camry next to the Mercedes S65 J-20.




Let me guess.

That picture shows how Russia still lack technology to develop/manufacture "bubble canopy" and "DSI" technology ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> Yeeaaaa...So just because you read a few books about wars that mean you can tell a general how to plan his battles or a sniper how to shoot.
> :


 you just pictured yourself vivdly



gambit said:


> The only people who have been talking sh1t about the J-20 have been the Chinese boys and one Indonesian teenager, not us* who have relevant experience*. All we have been doing is trying to tone down the sh1t.


 I'd rather say your 'sewing' experiences


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> LOL still stick on old trick, old guy
> 
> What is the degree of corner reflector? 120 deg?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess.
> 
> That picture shows how Russia still lack technology to develop/manufacture "bubble canopy" and "DSI" technology ??


 Why do you people think that Russians lack the technology? Anyways the engineers know that it is not stealthy, and they will improve on it. Not being rude but what aviation skill do you have (anything that deal with jets), not trying to be mean here.


----------



## antonius123

Esc8781 said:


> Why do you people think that Russians lack the technology?



Why are you still asking?
You can see yourself on the picture above



> Anyways the engineers know that it is not stealthy, and they will improve on it.



Use your logic.

If Russia is already capable, why the latest prototype of PAKFA is still showing non DSI air intake and no bubble canopy?



> Not being rude but what aviation skill do you have (anything that deal with jets), not trying to be mean here.


 
Why are you asking my aviation skill?? what is the connection with my statement above? behaving like gambit?


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Let me guess.
> 
> That picture shows how Russia still lack technology to develop/manufacture "bubble canopy" and "DSI" technology ??




Yes Russia lacks the ability to manufacture a bubble canopy just like the Americans lacked the ability to manufacture a bubble canopy in the X-35 and YF-23 


And yes, Russia can not develop a big lump in front of an intake, aka DSI. All the engineers, designers, scientists, with all the money available to them and resources such as wind tunnels, computers, machining tools can&#8217;t develop a lousy hump in front of the intake. They must be ripping their hair out 


But I know what&#8217;s coming you need supercomputers to develop such as device, and the answer to that is not you do not, you need a wind tunnel. And just for the brain dead Russia has supercomputers both domestic as well as foreign.


The 1950&#8217;s Migs had divertless intakes in the form of cones but those could be adjusted, unlike the Chinese ones, thus there was no loss in certain flight regimes.


Check this out:








Congratulations, you&#8217;re boasting about 1950&#8217;s technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> Why are you still asking?
> You can see yourself on the picture above
> 
> 
> 
> Use your logic.
> 
> If Russia is already capable, why the latest prototype of PAKFA is still showing non DSI air intake and no bubble canopy?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking my aviation skill?? what is the connection with my statement above? behaving like gambit?


 Why does it has to be DSI, don't you see it is like in the X-35 like stage 






See this pause at the second 2, you see that vent? They improved on it and so will the Russians. 

Why is it so hard to just say it man, spit it out that either you have experience or not, just do it man(nike)


----------



## Black Widow

ptldM3 said:


> Yes Russia lacks the ability to manufacture a bubble canopy just like the Americans lacked the ability to manufacture a bubble canopy in the X-35 and YF-23
> 
> 
> And yes, Russia can not develop a big lump in front of an intake, aka DSI. All the engineers, designers, scientists, with all the money available to them and resources such as wind tunnels, computers, machining tools can&#8217;t develop a lousy hump in front of the intake. They must be ripping their hair out
> 
> 
> But I know what&#8217;s coming you need supercomputers to develop such as device, and the answer to that is not you do not, you need a wind tunnel. And just for the brain dead Russia has supercomputers both domestic as well as foreign.
> 
> 
> The 1950&#8217;s Migs had divertless intakes in the form of cones but those could be adjusted, unlike the Chinese ones, thus there was no loss in certain flight regimes.
> 
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations, you&#8217;re boasting about 1950&#8217;s technology.



I have made a rule for me,I don't reply to those who have lesser posts (say less than 1000). This really help... I am annoyed of the visual inspectors, 

These chines kids knows that J20 is better coz
1. It is black in color.
2. It has canard
3. It has DSI (though in your earlier post you have cleared that DSI has nothing to do with stealth.
4. and coz its Chinese...


----------



## antonius123

Esc8781 said:


> Why does it has to be DSI, don't you see it is like in the X-35 like stage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this pause at the second 2, you see that vent? They improved on it and so will the Russians.
> 
> Why is it so hard to just say it man, spit it out that either you have experience or not, just do it man(nike)


 
OK, you may say that PAKFA could eventually tranform to be like F-22 

But the point is: even the most recent prototype of PAKFA still has NO such feature, does it mean that Russia still unable to incorporate that technology to the recent their most advanced 5th Fighter?

I hope you got it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Yes Russia lacks the ability to manufacture a bubble canopy just like the Americans lacked the ability to manufacture a bubble canopy in the X-35 and YF-23



Exactly!

But now USA is obviously capable to incorporate DSI and buble canopy to their most modern aircraft, earlier than China.

How about Russia?



> And yes, Russia can not develop a big lump in front of an intake, aka DSI. All the engineers, designers, scientists, with all the money available to them and resources such as wind tunnels, computers, machining tools cant develop a lousy hump in front of the intake. They must be ripping their hair out
> 
> 
> But I know whats coming you need supercomputers to develop such as device, and the answer to that is not you do not, you need a wind tunnel. And just for the brain dead Russia has supercomputers both domestic as well as foreign.
> 
> 
> The 1950s Migs had divertless intakes in the form of cones but those could be adjusted, unlike the Chinese ones, thus there was no loss in certain flight regimes.
> 
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations, youre boasting about 1950s technology.


 
You obviously dont know what DSI.
Just as usual you are talking something you dont know 

Check this out:
Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Black Widow said:


> I have made a rule for me,I don't reply to those who have lesser posts (say less than 1000). This really help... I am annoyed of the visual inspectors,
> 
> These chines kids knows that J20 is better coz
> 1. It is black in color.
> 2. It has canard
> 3. It has DSI (though in your earlier post you have cleared that DSI has nothing to do with stealth.
> 4. and coz its Chinese...



Obviously you have poor reading comprehension capability, you dont get the point why we are saying J-20 is better in stealth shaping compared to PAKFA.


About DSI, check this:

_It was found that the DSI gave high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching.[2]_
Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> OK, you may say that PAKFA could eventually tranform to be like F-22
> 
> But the point is: even the most recent prototype of PAKFA still has NO such feature, does it mean that Russia still unable to incorporate that technology to the recent their most advanced 5th Fighter?
> 
> I hope you got it


 I am saying that it might come out with a stealthier air-frame.


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Exactly!
> 
> But now USA is obviously capable to incorporate DSI and buble canopy to their most modern aircraft, earlier than China.
> 
> How about Russia?






Why are you under the assumption that Russia would want DSI? If they would want it they would have it, there is nothing special about it.

As for a one piece canopy, it&#8217;s very heavy and expensive. Perhaps the production aircraft will incorporate it but if not than the weight and price would not be worth it.

And sorry, there is nothing special about a one piece canopy. All it is, is either Acrylate polymers or an Acrylic compound that is vacuumed in a mold.


Even civilian aircraft have one piece canopies:










antonius123 said:


> You obviously dont know what DSI.
> Just as usual you are talking something you dont know
> 
> Check this out:
> Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





More like you don&#8217;t know what you are talking about. Lets use your source, Wekipedia to disprove you.




> Some air inlets feature a biconic centrebody to form two conic shock waves, both focused on the lip of the intake. This improves pressure recovery. *Some aircraft (F-35 Lightning II, Mirage III) use a semi-conic centrebody*.




Now would you look at that, the Mirage and F-35 use the same type of intakes, not identical but the same. Both do the same thing.


Lets look further into this:


DSI first:


Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







> It consists of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which* work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed.*
> *The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine*.




Now a cone intake:



Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 





> Air passing through the conical shock wave (and subsequent reflections) *slows to a low supersonic speed*.




Interesting the two do exactly the same thing, yet those stupid Russian can&#8217;t create a wart in front of an intake.







And now lets look at more, this from the very source you posted:



Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






> The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer , such as the intake ramp and *inlet cone, which are more complex*, heavy and expensive.






Russia can not produce a DSI? The inlet cone of the Mig-21 does exactly the same thing as your precious &#8216;DSI&#8217; it just goes under a different name. More importantly is that the cone intake is far more complex than the DSI, so now the question is how is Russia not capable of producing a DSI or basically a bump in front of the intake if they produced a system in the 1950s that is far more complex than a DSI, a systems that adjust at different airspeeds.















antonius123 said:


> About DSI, check this:
> 
> _It was found that the DSI gave high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching.[2]_
> Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




And I bet you have no clue as to what &#8216;high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; is.

I have a hench you don't know what any of those mean, and since you mocked me by telling me i don't know anything about DSI inlets which it turns out i knew far more than you, i am now calling you out, the self proclaim expert that 'studied' aviation.

Lets see who is talking about things they don't know

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Why are you under the assumption that Russia would want DSI? If they would want it they would have it, there is nothing special about it.



That is your assumption? 

As I said because you have no clue about DSI but thinking as if you knew.

I have posted why DSI is better, why dont you read?



> As for a one piece canopy, it&#8217;s very heavy and expensive. Perhaps the production aircraft will incorporate it but if not than the weight and price would not be worth it.
> 
> And sorry, there is nothing special about a one piece canopy. All it is, is either Acrylate polymers or an Acrylic compound that is vacuumed in a mold.



As usual your talking is demonstrating your clueless about the topic you intend to debate.

The size matters. Manufacturing small single canopy require small mold; while big 1 piece canopy like that of J-20/F-22 require huge mold. And the huge piece/mold require more complicated technology.

You cannot distinguish the size, as you cannot distinguish the shape (remember you cant distinguish curvature vs round, and cone / ovoid vs cylinder)



> Even civilian aircraft have one piece canopies:



Yeah, on what plane? and how is the size?

Again your blind claim legitimate your clueless.




> More like you don&#8217;t know what you are talking about. Lets use your source, Wekipedia to disprove you.
> 
> 
> Now would you look at that, the Mirage and F-35 use the same type of intakes, not identical but the same. Both do the same thing.




Your claim that Mirage already use DSI just because they share some similarity - more demonstrating your clueless and idiocy.

The same type of intake doesnt mean the intake of Mirage meets the requirement to be DSI, if the intake doesnt have the feature of DSI.

You should read and learn again:


_*It consists of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl*, which work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer airflow, such as the intake ramp and inlet cone, which are more complex, heavy and expensive_
Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> Lets look further into this:
> 
> 
> DSI first:
> 
> 
> Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Now a cone intake:
> 
> 
> 
> Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Such an idiotic and delusional thinking.

You only talk about 1 feature that CONE and DSI share, but ignore other things they dont share.

CONE is CONE, DSI is DSI. Those 2 never meant to be the same thing/system. There is glaring reasons as explained in the article why both called differently, idiot.



> Interesting the two do exactly the same thing, yet those stupid Russian can&#8217;t create a wart in front of an intake.
> 
> And now lets look at more, this from the very source you posted:
> 
> 
> 
> Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Russia can not produce a DSI? The inlet cone of the Mig-21 does exactly the same thing as your precious &#8216;DSI&#8217; it just goes under a different name. More importantly is that the cone intake is far more complex than the DSI, so now the question is how is Russia not capable of producing a DSI or basically a bump in front of the intake if they produced a system in the 1950s that is far more complex than a DSI, a systems that adjust at different airspeeds.



Such a silly and delusional.

CONE is CONE, DSI is DSI. Those 2 never meant to be the same thing/system. There is glaring reasons as explained in the article why both called differently, idiot.

Those 2 do the same/exactly thing, with difference performance (DSI better).

CONE has NO *bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl*, which work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed.

Those things which are unavailable on Mirage/Mig21 air intake - which create DSI and give high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching

Intake Ramp and Cone said to be more complex - in the meaning that it involve a lot of mechanical plate/system which is heavier, more expensive, and detrimental to RCS, not about TECHNOLOGY.

Dont be delusional.




> And I bet you have no clue as to what &#8216;high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; is.
> 
> I have a hench you don't know what any of those mean, and since you mocked me by telling me i don't know anything about DSI inlets which it turns out i knew far more than you, i am now calling you out, the self proclaim expert that 'studied' aviation.
> 
> Lets see who is talking about things they don't know


 

It is you who dont know the meaning and have no clue about that sentence.

If you have a brain even if a little, you should realize that JF-17II and F-35 wont use DSI if the performance is the same as Mirage/Mig 21 style CONE


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> LOL still stick on old trick, old guy


For someone who claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study' and do not know the answer to the question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability? Is inexcusable.



antonius123 said:


> What is the degree of corner reflector? 120 deg?


Yes, there are many degrees of corner reflectors and the 120 deg design is one of them.

The answer to the question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability? Is: Power.

That is basic aerodynamics, as in *FIRST YEAR* aerodynamics or even ground school.

Aeronautics


> Power or thrust can also have a destabilizing effect in that an increase of power may tend to make the nose rise.


Also in either that first year aerodynamics or ground school, one learn that the dominant variable in lateral stability is the wing's dihedral.



> There are four main design factors that make an airplane stable laterally: *dihedral*, keel effect, sweepback, and weight distribution.


So for someone to claim that he has aviation 'experience' then backed it down to 'study' and yet cannot answer a basic aerodynamics question, what else can we see but a fraud?

It is telling of your maturity that you started off telling the Indians to shut up because you have aviation 'experience', in other words, you tried to use experience as a foundation to challenge others. But now you are busted as a fraud you criticize those who use their *REAL* aviation experience to challenge the Chinese. 

The reason the Chinese boys 'Thanked' you is not because you posted anything genuinely 'useful'. We already know at least half of what they posted are debunked as nonsense anyway. No...The reason the Chinese boys 'Thanked' you is because you serve as nothing more than a useful parroting idiot to echo their debunked nonsense.

If you cannot answer the most basic of aerodynamics questions, the kind that even a first year drop-out would remember for the rest of his life, when you claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study', am not going to bother with deeper issues like stabaug configurations or pitot-static tube functions in CADC systems.

Fool.



> Esc8781 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that it might come out with a stealthier air-frame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptldM3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you under the assumption that Russia would want DSI? If they would want it they would have it, there is nothing special about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Guys, let this idiot go. He ain't that smart and he is too stupid to know how stupid he is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jha

antonius123 said:


> LOL still stick on old trick, old guy
> 
> *What is the degree of corner reflector? 120 deg?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess.
> 
> That picture shows how Russia still lack technology to develop/manufacture *"bubble canopy" and "DSI" technology* ??



Oh boy... Do you have any idea about Stealth..? or, just read some wikipedia pages..?


----------



## zzzz

ptldM3 said:


> And I bet you have no clue as to what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching is.
> 
> I have a hench you don't know what any of those mean, and since you mocked me by telling me i don't know anything about DSI inlets which it turns out i knew far more than you, i am now calling you out, the self proclaim expert that 'studied' aviation.
> 
> Lets see who is talking about things they don't know



That imbecile doesnt even understand the difference between missile and warhead or what is ballistic trajectory. And you are asking him such questions


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> For someone who claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study' and do not know the answer to the question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability? Is inexcusable.



For someone who claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study' and do not know what is the corner reflector is inexcusable.



> Yes, there are many degrees of corner reflectors and the 120 deg design is one of them.
> 
> The answer to the question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability? Is: Power.
> 
> That is basic aerodynamics, as in *FIRST YEAR* aerodynamics or even ground school.
> 
> Aeronautics
> 
> Also in either that first year aerodynamics or ground school, one learn that the dominant variable in lateral stability is the wing's dihedral.



Wrong! corner reflector is perpendicular (~ 90 degree).







_Radar corner reflectors are designed to reflect the microwave radio waves emitted by radar sets back toward the radar antenna. This causes them to show a strong "return" on radar screens. A simple corner reflector consists of three conducting sheet metal or screen surfaces at *90° angles* to each other, attached to one another at the edges, forming a "corner". _
Corner reflector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See.. how could people believe your self claimed as expert if you dont know the basic.



> So for someone to claim that he has aviation 'experience' then backed it down to 'study' and yet cannot answer a basic aerodynamics question, what else can we see but a fraud?
> 
> It is telling of your maturity that you started off telling the Indians to shut up because you have aviation 'experience', in other words, you tried to use experience as a foundation to challenge others. But now you are busted as a fraud you criticize those who use their *REAL* aviation experience to challenge the Chinese.
> 
> The reason the Chinese boys 'Thanked' you is not because you posted anything genuinely 'useful'. We already know at least half of what they posted are debunked as nonsense anyway. No...The reason the Chinese boys 'Thanked' you is because you serve as nothing more than a useful parroting idiot to echo their debunked nonsense.
> 
> If you cannot answer the most basic of aerodynamics questions, the kind that even a first year drop-out would remember for the rest of his life, when you claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study', am not going to bother with deeper issues like stabaug configurations or pitot-static tube functions in CADC systems.
> 
> Fool.
> 
> Guys, let this idiot go. He ain't that smart and he is too stupid to know how stupid he is.


 
You've just demonstrated big MISTAKE about corner reflector by saying 120 degree is corner reflector, and now you still dare to act like Expert ? 



jha said:


> Oh boy... Do you have any idea about Stealth..? or, just read some wikipedia pages..?


 
Do you have intellect and capability to discuss about the STEALTH? or just act like cheerleader ? 

Why dont you tell us where is the mistake in my statement above, according to your understanding, instead cheerleading?



zzzz said:


> That imbecile doesnt even understand the difference between missile and warhead or what is ballistic trajectory. And you are asking him such questions



It is you who dont understand the difference between missile and warhead, and have demonstrated clueless in another thread about ballistic missile.

Now, do you understand why DF-21D is far more advanced than R-27K - as you stupidly claim DF-21D is a copy of R-27K

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

China will be using a high-low mix of J-20 and J-21 very soon.

Meanwhile, the Indian trolls and haters continue to flap their lips with no actual results.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

Anyone know what is the area rule?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Esc8781 said:


> Anyone know what is the area rule?


 
What about it?



> From JAST To J-20
> 
> Posted by Bill Sweetman 11:42 AM on Jan 14, 2011
> 
> Sometimes the analysis of a new design is one of those areas where you get a whack-on-the-side-of-the-head moment.
> 
> This one was induced by the discussion here of the origins of the F-35 design, wherein I suddenly realized what the J-20 reminded me of - Lockheed's immediate pre-JAST/JSF design, tested in the form of a large powered mock-up.
> 
> The similarity is quite close in terms of wing/canard relationship, sweep angles, and body shaping, although the Chengdu engineers decided to align the trailing edges of the canards (and rudders) with the trailing edges of the opposite wings, giving them more sweep at the quarter-chord line.
> 
> I remember talking this over with Paul Bevilaqua at the 1993 Powered Lift Conference in Palo Alto. If I remember correctly, *one reason for the canard delta was that it was good for the cross-sectional area distribution (area ruling) and hence transonic drag. *
> 
> The challenge was that the shaft-driven lift fan design inevitably had a big cross-section peak well forward, where the inlets wrapped around the fan bay (it needed a large-diameter fan and lots of airflow to work). *A canard delta compensated for that by moving the thickest part of the wing as far back as possible. *
> 
> *Somehow I don't think we're going to see a J-20 with a lift fan. However, don't be surprised if the weapons bays turn out to be more capacious (and versatile) than on other designs.* It looks like the idea of the canard configuration is to get a large-volume mid-body section through the transonic zone and into supersonic flight with minimal fuss, bother and expenditure of fuel.
> 
> Bevilaqua's paper on the origins of the F-35 design cites risk as the reason for the reversion to a quad-tail design for the JSF competition in 1996 - and at the time both Eurofighter and Saab were dealing with unexpected issues in this area.
> 
> However, another Lockheed Martin engineer explained that the final JSF planform design was more flexible in terms of being enlarged to meet Navy requirements (given that LO constraints and commonality mandated the same sweep angle for all versions).
> 
> That may have been the biggest non-STOVL driver to affect the design, although canards were definitely not popular in the US in the mid-1990s - and I suspect that fitting the canard design on to an LHA elevator might have been a challenge.



From JAST To J-20


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> For someone who claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study' and do not know what is the corner reflector is inexcusable.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! corner reflector is perpendicular (~ 90 degree).



You are wrong and you are utterly uneducated and over your head. 

After I debunked and uncovered Martian2 as a big mouth only, I think it was high-time I did the same to you so you can quit coming here and go back and finish school so you can one day become a productive member of society. 

And because you are hiding behind that false need of yours for citations and references I am including all references from the highest institution on this planet for engineering. IEEE. I even include the page numbers .. let's see how you will wiggle your way out of this one little boy! 

Here we go.. 






From:
Optimum corner reflectors for calibration of imaging radars
Sarabandi, K.; Tsen-Chieh Chiu
Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on 
Volume:	44 , Issue: 10	
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/8.537329 
Publication Year: 1996 , Page(s): 1348	- 1361 






From: 
Cylindrical and three-dimensional corner reflector antennas
Elkamchouchi, H.
Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on 
Volume:	31 , Issue: 3	
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TAP.1983.1143063 
Publication Year: 1983 , Page(s): 451	- 455







From:
Dihedral corner reflector antenna excited by a probe inside rectangular ring
Lamultree, S.; Phongcharoenpanich, C.; Kosulvit, S.; Krairiksh, M.
Communications, 2003. APCC 2003. The 9th Asia-Pacific Conference on 
Volume:	2	
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/APCC.2003.1274463 
Publication Year: 2003 , Page(s): 773	- 776 Vol.2






From: 
The Corner-Reflector Antenna
Kraus, J.D.
Proceedings of the IRE 
Volume:	28 , Issue: 11	
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/JRPROC.1940.228959 
Publication Year: 1940 , Page(s): 513	- 519 







From: 
Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures
Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
Electronics Letters 
Volume:	42 , Issue: 20	
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712 
Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135	- 1136






From: 

Backscattering analysis of coated plate and coated dihedral corner reflector
Zanqin Jiang; Zhensen Wu; Xiang Su; Xiaobing Wang
Electronics and Optoelectronics (ICEOE), 2011 International Conference on 
Volume:	3	
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ICEOE.2011.6013381 
Publication Year: 2011 , Page(s): V3-361	- V3-364



What possibly can you invent to say now? 


So .. now that you are exposed for the utter 10 year old that you are, I suggest you stop flooding this nice thread with nonsense. OK boy ???


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> You are wrong and you are utterly uneducated and over your head.
> 
> After I debunked and uncovered Martian2 as a big mouth only, I think it was high-time I did the same to you so you can quit coming here and go back and finish school so you can one day become a productive member of society.
> 
> And because you are hiding behind that false need of yours for citations and references I am including all references from the highest institution on this planet for engineering. IEEE. I even include the page numbers .. let's see how you will wiggle your way out of this one little boy!
> 
> Here we go..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Optimum corner reflectors for calibration of imaging radars
> Sarabandi, K.; Tsen-Chieh Chiu
> Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on
> Volume:	44 , Issue: 10
> Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/8.537329
> Publication Year: 1996 , Page(s): 1348	- 1361
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Cylindrical and three-dimensional corner reflector antennas
> Elkamchouchi, H.
> Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on
> Volume:	31 , Issue: 3
> Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TAP.1983.1143063
> Publication Year: 1983 , Page(s): 451	- 455
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Dihedral corner reflector antenna excited by a probe inside rectangular ring
> Lamultree, S.; Phongcharoenpanich, C.; Kosulvit, S.; Krairiksh, M.
> Communications, 2003. APCC 2003. The 9th Asia-Pacific Conference on
> Volume:	2
> Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/APCC.2003.1274463
> Publication Year: 2003 , Page(s): 773	- 776 Vol.2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> The Corner-Reflector Antenna
> Kraus, J.D.
> Proceedings of the IRE
> Volume:	28 , Issue: 11
> Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/JRPROC.1940.228959
> Publication Year: 1940 , Page(s): 513	- 519
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures
> Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
> Electronics Letters
> Volume:	42 , Issue: 20
> Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712
> Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135	- 1136
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> 
> Backscattering analysis of coated plate and coated dihedral corner reflector
> Zanqin Jiang; Zhensen Wu; Xiang Su; Xiaobing Wang
> Electronics and Optoelectronics (ICEOE), 2011 International Conference on
> Volume:	3
> Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ICEOE.2011.6013381
> Publication Year: 2011 , Page(s): V3-361	- V3-364
> 
> 
> 
> What possibly can you invent to say now?
> 
> 
> So .. now that you are exposed for the utter 10 year old that you are, I suggest you stop flooding this nice thread with nonsense. OK boy ???



Hahahahaha .. 

Do you understand what the article you are dragging from internet are trying to explain? 

Tell me what is the meaning/definition of "corner reflector" in the article you drag above!

You act like your master Gambit by only dragging article and highlight the word "corner reflector" without understanding and ability to explain. That is far from enough to make you seem like an expert than an internet boy.

Then now explain us: *why that non 90 degree corner behave like corner reflector?* *show us the ray path of those non 90 degree corner!* just like many people here have explained and show the the ray path like bellow picture, or you are just able to drag article without capability to explain?






Remember "corner reflector" here meant the corner that *return the radar wave back to its origin*. We are talking about stealth right? IF the corner only reflect but not returning to its origin, it must be the corner reflector in other meaning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

^^^^^

The clue:

From:
*Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures*
Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
Electronics Letters
Volume: 42 , Issue: 20
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712
Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135 - 1136


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Then now explain us: *why that non 90 degree corner behave like corner reflector?* *show us the ray path of those non 90 degree corner!* just like many people here have explained and show the the ray path like bellow picture, or you are just able to drag article without capability to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember "corner reflector" here meant the corner that *return the radar wave back to its origin*. We are talking about stealth right? IF the corner only reflect but not returning to its origin, it must be the corner reflector in other meaning.


This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...

Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...






Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.

So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?


----------



## gambit

> Martin,
> 
> *You are making a mistake by over-emphasizing the flat-nozzles.* Let me explain it simply: From the rear, the greatest giveaway is the heat signature. To escape from AAM, manuevability is essential.


Marty,

You might want to educate your friend on how wrong he is. And I will be generous and not demand that you attribute this lesson from me when you rebut him in your playground...

Infrared detection is passive, meaning you are at the mercy of the target in terms of characterization.

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Engine exhaust passes over the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer and between the twin tails, decreasing the A-10's infrared signature and lowering the likelihood that the aircraft can be targeted by heat-seeking missiles fired from the ground.


Infrared detector detects infrared radiation, not heat. We humans feel heat but can neither see nor feel infrared radiation. So when there are plates blocking the detector's view of the infrared radiation source, it is as if the aircraft is not there. That is why we designed the A-10's engines the way they are located. The location *REDUCES* but not totally eliminated the odds of infrared radiation. In other words, the target is in control of the detection medium: infrared radiation.

On the other hand, radar detection is active in the sense that you -- not the target -- control the detection medium: radar signals. The more objects there are in the path of the medium's travel path, the greater the odds of detection via reflections. No matter what angle of approach, with radar detection, you will always have reflections. Whether those reflections reaches you or not is another issue. So with infrared detection, the best location for detection is *DIRECTLY* behind the aircraft with gradual decrease in detected strength when there is an increase in off angle view. With radar detection, it really does not matter whether you are facing directly the engines or not because there will always be some reflections that will return to you thanks to the flight control surfaces and the engine nozzles. Of course, facing the engines directly is the greatest.

That is why your friend is waaaaaayyyy off the mark.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...
> 
> Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.
> 
> So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?



Where I come from, this guy would be in special care. I think he has a serious learning deficiency... 

For the most part I consider him "done for". Now I am waiting for the other "scientist" of the lot to come and repeat his dislike of "unreliable" references .. when the references come directly from IEEE!


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Where I come from, this guy would be in special care. I think he has a serious learning deficiency...


That and he is probably a 'tweenager'.



amalakas said:


> For the most part I consider him "done for". Now I am waiting for *the other "scientist"* of the lot to come and repeat his dislike of "unreliable" references .. when the references come directly from IEEE!


What these yay-hoos do not understand that is that ray tracing shows the *HIGHEST* intensity from the main lobe's reflection, which then create its own main and side lobes. In reality, incidental side lobe reflections are often enough to give the target away because in the real world, ideal situations rarely exists. May be not enough for tracking and targeting, but would be enough to alert the operator. No wonder they believe those straight lines and arrows to be definitive of what a radar transmission look like.


----------



## Esc8781

gambit said:


> This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...
> 
> Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.
> 
> So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?


 Does the shape depends on the band like X-band?


----------



## amalakas

Esc8781 said:


> Does the shape depends on the band like X-band?




"The radiation pattern is a graphical depiction of the relative field strength transmitted from or received by the
antenna. Antenna radiation patterns are taken at one frequency, one polarization, and one plane cut. The patterns are
usually presented in polar or rectilinear form with a dB strength scale."

The main contributor to the radiation pattern is the antenna type. 

hope that helps.


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Does the shape depends on the band like X-band?


What he said...

The side lobes' intensity depends on transmitter's quality such as hardware and increasingly software in the case of digital phase arrays. But for general purposes, low side lobes -- good. You will always have side lobes. The main beam is where the majority of the work get done.






Beam broadening or beam spread is inevitable with distance so for high resolution systems, like targeting X bands or greater ghz, 2-3 deg main beam is desirable but at the cost of time if there is a volume of space to be searched. Then the inverse applies, if time over a volume is a necessity, then a wide beam is desirable but at the cost of target resolutions like speed, altitude, heading and aspect angle (to you). The wider the main beam, the lower those resolutions.

Then we get into beam shapes with that volume criteria...






A main beam's shape is always 90 deg of its antenna's shape.

The left antenna is for sheer volume search as the antenna rotates in 360. We will have some elevation resolution but that depends on antenna height off the ground. So an AWACS will have greater elevation resolutions of targets than an airport's antenna doing the same motion. The right antenna is what we see as typical at the airport. It usually does not rotate but just 'nod' up-down in one direction. Runway approach is important for this.

A round antenna will produce a conical main beam as previously illustrated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

antonius1233181299 said:


> That is your assumption?






No it is your assumption--knucklehead. You are the one under the impression that Russia wants DSI by asking why they have not incorporated it.





antonius1233181299 said:


> As I said because you have no clue about DSI but thinking as if you knew.





More like you don&#8217;t know, I find it utterly sad that you still think a cone intake, half cone, and DSI are different apart from the shape. 









antonius1233181299 said:


> As usual your talking is demonstrating your clueless about the topic you intend to debate.
> 
> The size matters. Manufacturing small single canopy require small mold; while big 1 piece canopy like that of J-20/F-22 require huge mold. And the huge piece/mold require more complicated technology.
> 
> You cannot distinguish the size, as you cannot distinguish the shape (remember you cant distinguish curvature vs round, and cone / ovoid vs cylinder)





Where are you getting at? All I see is a whole lot of ranting, much of the time unrelated. Stop diverting from the subject by spouting a bunch of incoherent crap. And yes I know the difference between curvature and something that is round, you are just too brain dead to know what a contour is, as in contour of a circle.










antonius1233181299 said:


> Your claim that Mirage already use DSI just because they share some similarity - more demonstrating your clueless and idiocy.





My claim? Your source busts your nonsense out of the water. The Main purpose of the DSI is to slow airflow down to subsonic speed before it enters the intake. Similarly, a cone intake or half cone is built for the same purpose, so the only clueless idiot is you.




I know the response that will come from you; deny, deny, call me an idiot, twist the subject and make some unsubstantiated claims, tell me I don&#8217;t understand, call me an idiot again and than change the subject.





antonius1233181299 said:


> The same type of intake doesnt mean the intake of Mirage meets the requirement to be DSI, if the intake doesnt have the feature of DSI.
> 
> You should read and learn again:






More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, a half cone or cone intake have their own features but all three intakes do the same job.






antonius1233181299 said:


> _*It consists of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl*, which work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer airflow, such as the intake ramp and inlet cone, which are more complex, heavy and expensive_
> Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia











You don&#8217;t say,  thanks for stating the obvious genius. We all know that a DSI intake consists of a bump, what is your point? To me it sounds like you are dragging in a bunch of irrelevant crap in order to stay relevant. It&#8217;s clear you have nothing, you&#8217;re on empty and you are desperate. You should also bring up an article stating wheels are round too.















antonius1233181299 said:


> CONE has NO *bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl*, which work together to *divert boundary layer airflow *away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to *slow it down from supersonic speed*.
> 
> *Those things which are unavailable on Mirage/Mig21 air intake* - which create DSI and give high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching





Really? You are a miserable liar.



Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> *The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine.*
> 
> 
> ---*The boundary layer on the cone *is stretched as it moves up the cone---





Owned 






antonius1233181299 said:


> It is you who dont know the meaning and have no clue about that sentence.
> 
> If you have a brain even if a little, you should realize that JF-17II and F-35 wont use DSI if the performance is the same as Mirage/Mig 21 style CONE





Answer the question, self proclaimed expert. Funny how you accuse people of dragging in articals without explaining them yet you quote something and tell everyone to &#8216;check it out&#8217; with out any explanation, and now someone asks you explain your quote and you outright avioid it. It's clear you don't know what the hell your talking about. 


So now again, explain what:



&#8216;high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; means.
Afterall you quoted it.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...
> 
> Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.
> 
> So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?



How idiot you are. We are not talking about transmission, but reflection.

Sorry, mine is from SOLID source and evidence, not fake from me like yours; i gave you the link, and you can track the citation in that wikipedia.

You havent proven anything yet to support your claim about how non 90 degree reflection wave, and show us the ray path at the non 90 degree corner to return the wave.

You not only FAIL, but demonstrating idiocy and FAKE.

While your claim is not only contradictive to solid evidence, but there is no credible source. You are FAKE.



amalakas said:


> Where I come from, this guy would be in special care. I think he has a serious learning deficiency...
> 
> For the most part I consider him "done for". Now I am waiting for the other "scientist" of the lot to come and repeat his dislike of "unreliable" references .. when the references come directly from IEEE!


 
You havent answered my challenge. You like always only cheerleading your master and evading other people challenge.

Read again carefully your own article. The non 90 degree corner reflector happen only because of fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures, and you are idiotic if you think that metallo-dielectric structure exist on J-20 surface.

You are the one who have a serious learning deficiency... internet boy...


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> No it is your assumption--knucklehead. You are the one under the impression that Russia wants DSI by asking why they have not incorporated it.



I showed you evidence how DSI is better in performance.
So the only reason Russia has not applied it yet because of the technology they have to mastered yet.




> More like you dont know, I find it utterly sad that you still think a cone intake, half cone, and DSI are different apart from the shape.



By naked eye you should be able to see the difference!
DSI show "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl.






This is Cone





How amazing you cant see the glaring difference.




> Where are you getting at? All I see is a whole lot of ranting, much of the time unrelated. Stop diverting from the subject by spouting a bunch of incoherent crap. And yes I know the difference between curvature and something that is round, you are just too brain dead to know what a contour is, as in contour of a circle.



Sorry, but your inability to difference glaringly different shape is so amazing!

This happen not only now, but in the previous case like round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc.




> My claim? Your source busts your nonsense out of the water. The Main purpose of the DSI is to slow airflow down to subsonic speed before it enters the intake. Similarly, a cone intake or half cone is built for the same purpose, so the only clueless idiot is you.
> 
> I know the response that will come from you; deny, deny, call me an idiot, twist the subject and make some unsubstantiated claims, tell me I dont understand, call me an idiot again and than change the subject.


Only that?
Then you have reading comprehension problem.

Read again the article!





> More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, a half cone or cone intake have their own features but all three intakes do the same job.



Who said no need? you? 

It no need, OK, but the performance will be difference. The citation said DSI offer better performance. Why you deny deny and deny??



> You dont say,  thanks for stating the obvious genius. We all know that a DSI intake consists of a bump, *what is your point*? To me it sounds like you are dragging in a bunch of irrelevant crap in order to stay relevant. Its clear you have nothing, youre on empty and you are desperate. You should also bring up an article stating wheels are round too.



As I said you are idiot and having severe reading comprehension problem.

My point is obvious: DSI is different from Cone intake, both from the shape, and subsequenly the performance.

The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. This things doesnt exist on cone inlet. It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.




> Really? You are a miserable liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Owned




I said Cone doesnt have "bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl" idiot... you are demonstrating reading comprehension problem.

As explained above, It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.

The point is : "Performance difference".
*** be too idiotic.



> Answer the question, self proclaimed expert. Funny how you accuse people of dragging in articals without explaining them yet you quote something and tell everyone to check it out with out any explanation, and now someone asks you explain your quote and you outright avioid it. It's clear you don't know what the hell your talking about.


You are so histeric; that is one reason you are not reading and comprehending the article you drag and my explanation.



> So now again, explain what:
> high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means.
> Afterall you quoted it.



You dont know that? Then why you are so sure that Cone offer the same performance with DSI?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> How idiot you are. We are not talking about transmission, but reflection.


And this just goes to show further what a fraud and liar you are when you claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study'.

In radar detection, a reflection is the same thing as a transmission. The surface radiate, whether that radiation is of its own internal generation or from an external source, it qualifies as a transmission.

So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again, little boy?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Read again carefully your own article. *The non 90 degree corner reflector happen only because of fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures,* and you are idiotic if you think that metallo-dielectric structure exist on J-20 surface.
> 
> You are the one who have a serious learning deficiency... internet boy...


Holy Sh1t...!!! This is amazing...!!! This is a definite must-save of someone who the Chinese boys 'Thanked' for 'useful' posts.

The idiot completely misunderstood what this mean...

From: 
*Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures*
Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
Electronics Letters 
Volume:	42 , Issue: 20	
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712 
Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135	- 1136

And the Chinese boys actually thinks this kid is worth their praise.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> And this just goes to show further what a fraud and liar you are when you claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study'.
> 
> In radar detection, a *reflection is the same thing as a transmission*. The surface radiate, whether that radiation is of its own internal generation or from an external source, it qualifies as a transmission.
> 
> So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again, little boy?



Wrong!

It is not. Prove me if i am wrong! no more fake please.

What is your real education? 



gambit said:


> Holy Sh1t...!!! This is amazing...!!! This is a definite must-save of someone who the Chinese boys 'Thanked' for 'useful' posts.
> 
> The idiot completely misunderstood what this mean...
> 
> From:
> *Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures*
> Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
> Electronics Letters
> Volume:	42 , Issue: 20
> Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712
> Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135	- 1136
> 
> And the Chinese boys actually thinks this kid is worth their praise.


 
Explain and elaborate please...

No more pretend, fake and deceiving anymore


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Wrong!
> 
> It is not. Prove me if i am wrong! no more fake please.
> 
> What is your real education?


A transmission is a *METHOD* or *MECHANISM* of/for radiation. Same if the radiation is generated by a reflecting *METHOD* or *MECHANISM*. You are beyond any doubt a moron as well as a fraud.



antonius123 said:


> Wrong!
> Explain and elaborate please...
> 
> No more pretend, fake and deceiving anymore


Sure...Metallo-dielectric is material. A corner reflector is physical orientation of structures. But it looks like you have no real technical education at all to understand the difference.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> A transmission is a *METHOD* or *MECHANISM* of/for radiation. Same if the radiation is generated by a reflecting *METHOD* or *MECHANISM*. You are beyond any doubt a moron as well as a fraud.



Hahaha... then where is your explanation that reflection = transmission??
I can prove that your claim is TOTALLY WRONG! but I am still waiting your evidence to prove me wrong... where??

It further proves that you are an internet old guy with capability only dragging internet article without adequate background to explain 



> Sure...Metallo-dielectric is material. A corner reflector is physical orientation of structures. But it looks like you have no real technical education at all to understand the difference.


 
Really?? for us it is sure that you are FAKE and have no background.

See.. you cant prove your own claim as usual when challenged.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

@ Gambit,

You cannot keep claiming without explaining and showing evidence.

Explain why transmission is = reflection, and give us the proof.

I could easily prove that your claim is TOTALLY WRONG. But I am still waiting yours because you are the claimer.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> @ Gambit,
> 
> You cannot keep claiming without explaining and showing evidence.
> 
> Explain why transmission is = reflection, and give us the proof.
> 
> I could easily prove that your claim is TOTALLY WRONG. But I am still waiting yours because you are the claimer.


This just further proved that you have no technical education whatsoever, least of all in aviation which you claimed to have. Fraud.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> How idiot you are. We are not talking about transmission, but reflection.
> 
> Sorry, mine is from SOLID source and evidence, not fake from me like yours; i gave you the link, and you can track the citation in that wikipedia.



Just as a future reference boy. IEEE is the world's most prestigious institution for Electronic and Electrical Engineers. Go to IEEE - The world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology and there you can search all the publications I have cited. Be aware though that you have to be a *member* to have access to the complete articles, which shows you who is an engineer in this forum and who isn't. 

Wiki is nothing but a user contributed site boy. I can write a wiki about being abducted by yellow aliens and cite stuff at the bottom. It don't mean much though. 


Not transmission but reflection? *WOOOOOOW* Man you are as precious as the ring from Mordor. 

I have news for you, besides Gambit's schooling, Transmission in most radars was achieved by reflection too. *Just to show how much of an aviation experience you really have, for not ever looking a RADAR from up close* 

There is a transceiver mounted on the focal point bouncing wave cones off the dish! like so : 













My GOD !!! have you ever been inside anything more technical than an APPLE store ? 




antonius123 said:


> Read again carefully your own article. The non 90 degree corner reflector happen only because of fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures, and you are idiotic if you think that metallo-dielectric structure exist on J-20 surface.
> 
> You are the one who have a serious learning deficiency... internet boy...




I am speechless, I am drowning in the ocean of idiocy you have unleashed upon my poor atlantis-brain. !!! 

Listen boy.. you haven't even understood the english on that article title. Pack up and go home. No shame in graduating highschool first.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

Guys can you omit insults....it is hard to read relevant information out of these....

@Serious professionals....Can anyone give a list of few posters whose posts are worth looking for...really want to understand aviation and radar working....


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I have news for you, besides Gambit's schooling, Transmission in most radars was achieved by reflection too. *Just to show how much of an aviation experience you really have, for not ever looking a RADAR from up close*
> 
> There is a transceiver mounted on the focal point bouncing wave cones off the dish! like so :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My GOD !!! have you ever been inside anything more technical than an APPLE store ?


Methinks we better stop. If we start talking about 'feed horns' he might accuse us of diverting to livestock. 



KRAIT said:


> Guys can you omit insults....it is hard to read relevant information out of these....
> 
> @Serious professionals....*Can anyone give a list of few posters whose posts are worth looking for...really want to understand aviation and radar working....*


You can rule out the Chinese boys and this Indonesian tweenager.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Methinks we better stop. If we start talking about 'feed horns' he might accuse us of diverting to livestock.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Just as a future reference boy. IEEE is the world's most prestigious institution for Electronic and Electrical Engineers. Go to IEEE - The world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology and there you can search all the publications I have cited. Be aware though that you have to be a *member* to have access to the complete articles, which shows you who is an engineer in this forum and who isn't.
> 
> Wiki is nothing but a user contributed site boy. I can write a wiki about being abducted by yellow aliens and cite stuff at the bottom. It don't mean much though.
> 
> 
> Not transmission but reflection? *WOOOOOOW* Man you are as precious as the ring from Mordor.
> 
> I have news for you, besides Gambit's schooling, Transmission in most radars was achieved by reflection too. *Just to show how much of an aviation experience you really have, for not ever looking a RADAR from up close*
> 
> There is a transceiver mounted on the focal point bouncing wave cones off the dish! like so :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My GOD !!! have you ever been inside anything more technical than an APPLE store ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am speechless, I am drowning in the ocean of idiocy you have unleashed upon my poor atlantis-brain. !!!
> 
> Listen boy.. you haven't even understood the english on that article title. Pack up and go home. No shame in graduating highschool first.


 
Dear Internet boy.. is that your own assumption / perception? do you have evidence to support you - or not?

Obviously not, as you are only an internet boy just like Gambit, dragging internet picture and put your own assumption/perception there 

Do you understand that _The* transmitter must have the ability to generate the required mean RF power and the required peak power*_

This is my citation:
Radar Basics - Radar Transmitters
How Radar Works

Where is yours?



gambit said:


> This just further proved that you have no technical education whatsoever, least of all in aviation which you claimed to have. Fraud.



See.... you cant do anything here. No explanation nor EVIDENCE demanded you can bring. 

You were daring to throw claim that non 90 degree corner is corner reflector too, then you throw another claim that reflection is = transmission too. But as usual when challenged - no evidence you can bring! At the end you just do the cheer-leading as the amalakas.


----------



## IceCold

Guys please this thread is about J-20 and not whether corner reflection is 90 degrees or not, not to mention the personal insults. Seriously lets move past this. Whats the latest on J-20, updates any?


----------



## danger007

antonius123 said:


> Dear Internet boy.. is that your own assumption / perception? do you have evidence to support you - or not?
> 
> Obviously not, as you are only an internet boy just like Gambit, dragging internet picture and put your own assumption/perception there
> 
> Do you understand that _The* transmitter must have the ability to generate the required mean RF power and the required peak power*_
> 
> This is my citation:
> Radar Basics - Radar Transmitters
> How Radar Works
> 
> Where is yours?
> 
> 
> 
> See.... you cant do anything here. No explanation nor EVIDENCE demanded you can bring.
> 
> You were daring to throw claim that non 90 degree corner is corner reflector too, then you throw another claim that reflection is = transmission too. But as usual when challenged - no evidence you can bring! At the end you just do the cheer-leading as the amalakas.




yes i do agree with you...... gambit indeed don't have knowledge like you..... He spent alot of time on practical work.... But you are getting more knowledge by reading from these kinda sites....Radar Basics - Radar Transmitters

forgive them bud..... they are too old to study basics again..... you gave me thanks???? do you understand my posts......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

this is one of the last times I will post here cause I'm going on a vacation at 1:00 pm today antonius 123 you misunderstood danger007 He was sarcastic.


----------



## gambit

IceCold said:


> Guys please this thread is about J-20 and not whether corner reflection is 90 degrees or not, not to mention the personal insults. Seriously lets move past this. Whats the latest on J-20, updates any?


On the surface, it may be easy to say so, but the reality is that the Chinese and their fanboys have twisted a lot of foundational principles to suit their own nationalistic biases. I have seen it misled many people to gross misconceptions on the technical side of this subject. Half of it is because of sheer non-experience and ignorance, the other half is out of sheer intellectual dishonesty after credible well supported counter-arguments presented that debunked most if not all of their claims.

On one of their playgrounds, a Chinese who goes by the handle 'Engineer' said that the J-20's all moving vertical stabs are technically more advanced than the F-22's rudder system. The rudder is a part of the vertical stab.

So here it is...






That mean according to 'Chinese physics' the WW I B.E.2 have a more advanced yaw axis stabilization system than the F-22. Never mind that the SR-71 and F-117 have all-moving vertical stabs. When presented with this debunking, this Chinese 'Engineer' simply dismissed it out of hand as because it came from another forum, it is meaningless. Then all the other Chinese rushed to 'Thank' him for that 'useful' post.

Never in my technical life have I ever met such a bunch of intellectually dishonest people. Often times *WILLFULLY* dishonest. These guys simply cannot concede to the fact that their non-experience is a factor in these highly technical issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

IceCold said:


> Guys please this thread is about J-20 and not whether corner reflection is 90 degrees or not, not to mention the personal insults. Seriously lets move past this. Whats the latest on J-20, updates any?



I beg to differ. All this guys have been saying are creating a false image for the J-20 and its technical capabilities. Do you want that to float around?



gambit said:


> On the surface, it may be easy to say so, but the reality is that the Chinese and their fanboys have twisted a lot of foundational principles to suit their own nationalistic biases. I have seen it misled many people to gross misconceptions on the technical side of this subject. Half of it is because of sheer non-experience and ignorance, the other half is out of sheer intellectual dishonesty after credible well supported counter-arguments presented that debunked most if not all of their claims.
> 
> On one of their playgrounds, a Chinese who goes by the handle 'Engineer' said that the J-20's all moving vertical stabs are technically more advanced than the F-22's rudder system. The rudder is a part of the vertical stab.
> 
> So here it is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That mean according to 'Chinese physics' the WW I B.E.2 have a more advanced yaw axis stabilization system than the F-22. Never mind that the SR-71 and F-117 have all-moving vertical stabs. When presented with this debunking, this Chinese 'Engineer' simply dismissed it out of hand as because it came from another forum, it is meaningless. Then all the other Chinese rushed to 'Thank' him for that 'useful' post.
> 
> Never in my technical life have I ever met such a bunch of intellectually dishonest people. Often times *WILLFULLY* dishonest. These guys simply cannot concede to the fact that their non-experience is a factor in these highly technical issues.



or the :


----------



## IceCold

amalakas said:


> I beg to differ. All this guys have been saying are creating a false image for the J-20 and its technical capabilities. Do you want that to float around?



Obviously not but really do you see it happening with both sides claiming other to be an Idiot or a fake and questioning his background. 
Since the thread is about J-20 and its updates, lets keep it that way shall we



gambit said:


> On the surface, it may be easy to say so, but the reality is that the Chinese and their fanboys have twisted a lot of foundational principles to suit their own nationalistic biases. I have seen it misled many people to gross misconceptions on the technical side of this subject. Half of it is because of sheer non-experience and ignorance, the other half is out of sheer intellectual dishonesty after credible well supported counter-arguments presented that debunked most if not all of their claims.
> 
> On one of their playgrounds, a Chinese who goes by the handle 'Engineer' said that the J-20's all moving vertical stabs are technically more advanced than the F-22's rudder system. The rudder is a part of the vertical stab.
> 
> So here it is...
> 
> That mean according to 'Chinese physics' the WW I B.E.2 have a more advanced yaw axis stabilization system than the F-22. Never mind that the SR-71 and F-117 have all-moving vertical stabs. When presented with this debunking, this Chinese 'Engineer' simply dismissed it out of hand as because it came from another forum, it is meaningless. Then all the other Chinese rushed to 'Thank' him for that 'useful' post.
> 
> Never in my technical life have I ever met such a bunch of intellectually dishonest people. Often times *WILLFULLY* dishonest. These guys simply cannot concede to the fact that their non-experience is a factor in these highly technical issues.



Right sir! but past few days so much information has flown that an average joe like myself would hardly be able to tell or decide which information is correct. 
Chinese may want to call J-20 superior, in the end does it matter? after all the real Chinese will know where does J-20 stand w.r.t F-22. US arm industry is no joke, Chinese know that, Russia knows that. Other then that it hardly matters.


----------



## antonius123

Esc8781 said:


> this is one of the last times I will post here cause I'm going on a vacation at 1:00 pm today antonius 123 you misunderstood danger007 He was sarcastic.


 
No problem, what ever he mean it will demonstrate his quality as well, whether he is just another cheerleader or have capability to understand the points.

It is right that practical experience doesn't guarantee deep knowledge in science and engineering knowledge, more over for pretending to know everything. Gambit and amalakas have demonstrated internet copy paste without capability to explain and prove. He is right if he know this, and on the contrary he will demonstrate clueless of what he is speaking if it is sarcastis.


----------



## IceCold

antonius123 said:


> No problem, what ever he mean it will demonstrate his quality as well, whether he is just another cheerleader or have capability to understand the points.
> 
> It is right that practical experience doesn't guarantee deep knowledge in science and engineering knowledge, more over for pretending to know everything. Gambit and amalakas have demonstrated internet copy paste without capability to explain and prove. He is right if he know this, and on the contrary he will demonstrate clueless of what he is speaking if it is sarcastis.



Sir there is a reason you see professional written underneath Gambits name. Not mine not yours. Lets just move pass the usual insult. Its serves no purpose.


----------



## antonius123

IceCold said:


> Sir there is a reason you see professional written underneath Gambits name. Not mine not yours. Lets just move pass the usual insult. Its serves no purpose.



My point is professional in maintenance or professional forum predicate received due to number of posting or thanks doesnt guarantee the deep knowledge in science he has. If we believe what he has said just because this predicate we could be misled. Do you believe in him that non 90 degree corner is also corner reflector - after several months pass he could not able to explain and prove yet? Or do you believe his claim that reflector = transmitter in radar technology, in spite of his inability to prove while I am able to prove him wrong?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

IceCold said:


> Obviously not but really do you see it happening with both sides claiming other to be an Idiot or a fake and questioning his background.
> Since the thread is about J-20 and its updates, lets keep it that way shall we



What would you have me do? I am an engineer. I served as an engineer. I am proud of it. Engineering is not just a profession. It is a discipline. We have professional bodies. Accreditation. People go through rigorous tests and evaluations before they are allowed to do something. 

Would you have me disregard everything I have learned all my professional life so some funboy can have his two cents creating a false impression and taking others with him believing things about engineering that are simply not true ? 

Should I allow that? If yes then this forum doesn't take itself seriously and I can post images of UFOs! If yes then I have an obligation as a professional to say something about the gross misunderstanding and fallacies that I see posted. 

With all due respect IceCold, I am open to your suggestions.


----------



## gambit

IceCold said:


> Right sir! but past few days so much information has flown that an average joe like myself would hardly be able to tell or decide which information is correct.


The difference between the Chinese boys and I is that no one have and probably never will see posts that are foundational in principles to *ALL* sides, meaning whatever I explained those principles will contain strengths and weaknesses that depends on someone's ability to exploit and/or avoids, from the Chinese members here.

You will never see posts like these from the Chinese side...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-155.html#post3185058

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-151.html#post3174302

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...-ratios-all-fighter-planes-4.html#post2473648

Prior to my participation here, people were throwing the word 'stealth' around willy nilly to make this or that fighter 'fully stealth' or 'partial stealth'. They, including the Chinese, did not know about details like the corner reflector, edge diffraction, and general radar behaviors. I do not post claims like this...



Martian2 said:


> 4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.


This is completely meaningless with no explanations on the hows and the whys. If you want to know the rebuttal, mine is nothing new. The word 'composite' have little to do with low radar observability in the radar community. The proper word is 'absorber'. Composite materials are used mainly for weight reduction versus structural strength. Absorbers are limited in freqs and bandwidths and are not as dominant as shaping in today's low observable designs. The word 'absorber' have a context that is applicable to geometric structures whose intention is to deny the seeking radar much reflections -- 'geometric absorber'.

ECCOSORB Principles


> Geometrical shaping means breaking the front surface into an aggregate of shaped pointed elements (such as cones or pyramids), where the axis of individual elements is oriented perpendicular to the plane of the absorber.


This Indonesian tweenager that could not understand the difference between mechanisms of radiation and the radiation itself would never get the context of 'geometric absorber'. With his continued insistence about the corner reflector can only be 90 deg, he has effectively called millions of professionals and decades of experience -- worthless. This is typical behavior from the Chinese and their fanboys.

This 'stealth' issue is technically complex. These intellectually dishonest people knows it and they intends to exploit the layman's ignorance and honest desire to learn -- to mislead. They will *NEVER* get down to the foundations of 'stealth' because they never had the education, training and experience in the first place so they will resort to twisting the 'middle layers' of knowledge to suit whatever nationalistic biases they have.



IceCold said:


> Chinese may want to call J-20 superior, in the end does it matter? after all the real Chinese will know where does J-20 stand w.r.t F-22. US arm industry is no joke, Chinese know that, Russia knows that. *Other then that it hardly matters.*


People like *YOU* and other members do matter, to me and those who have relevant experience, and to the intellectually dishonest Chinese. If these foundational principles and truths matter to the working professionals then it should and does matter to interested laymen like yourself and to me. The Chinese claims must be challenged and it is your responsibility to verify all sides' arguments. The moment you entered the debate even with just a question about a basic principle, you have taken on that burden.

So what would you like to know?



antonius123 said:


> My point is professional in maintenance or professional forum predicate received due to number of posting or thanks doesnt guarantee the deep knowledge in science he has. If we believe what he has said just because this predicate we could be misled. Do you believe in him that non 90 degree corner is also corner reflector - after several months pass he could not able to explain and prove yet? Or do you believe his claim that reflector = transmitter in radar technology, in spite of his inability to prove while I am able to prove him wrong?


You claimed to have aviation 'experience' to try to shut the Indians up. Then you backed down to 'study'. So if you have either, it should be a simple matter to tell us what was your 'study'. Aviation have many sub-disciplines. What do you have?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> My point is professional in maintenance or professional forum predicate received due to number of posting or thanks doesnt guarantee the deep knowledge in science he has. If we believe what he has said just because this predicate we could be misled. Do you believe in him that non 90 degree corner is also corner reflector - after several months pass he could not able to explain and prove yet? Or do you believe his claim that reflector = transmitter in radar technology, in spite of his inability to prove while I am able to prove him wrong?




Nobody has to prove anything to you. IEEE - The world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology proved everything to you and everyone else. sleep tight !


----------



## no_name

antonius123 said:


> @ Gambit,
> 
> You cannot keep claiming without explaining and showing evidence.
> 
> Explain why transmission is = reflection, and give us the proof.
> 
> I could easily prove that your claim is TOTALLY WRONG. But I am still waiting yours because you are the claimer.



What Gambit is saying is that transmission and reflection just refers to different mechanisms of EM radiation. The pattern he posted is a radiation pattern. Radiation occurs due to electrons within a conducting element or dielectric being accelerated by an imposed changing field. This can happen from a feed signal (voltage difference) to the antenna or excited from a EM wave incident on a suitable element, in the reflection case it is the flat surface, in the diffraction case it is an edge or breaking off at physical/material discontinuities.

The different terms are to distinguish for different form of interaction that caused the radiation, not radiation itself.


----------



## gambit

no_name said:


> What Gambit is saying is that transmission and reflection just refers to different mechanisms of EM radiation. The pattern he posted is a radiation pattern. Radiation occurs due to electrons within a conducting element or dielectric being accelerated by an imposed changing field. This can happen from a *feed* signal (voltage difference) to the antenna or excited from a EM wave incident on a suitable element, in the reflection case it is the flat surface, in the diffraction case it is an edge or breaking off at physical/material discontinuities.
> 
> The different terms are to distinguish for different form of interaction that caused the radiation, not radiation itself.


That is just great...!!! Now you have done it...!!! The word 'feed' is associated with livestock...!!! The kid already have a hard time grasping what you understood. Now he is going to ask why are you bringing in farm animals?


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> I showed you evidence how DSI is better in performance.
> So the only reason Russia has not applied it yet because of the technology they have to mastered yet.





Thats funny considering cone intakes perform the same function as a DSI (verified) and the Russians have had the technology since the 50s. The SU-27 broke no less than 40 world records, much of this was thanks to its aerodynamics and the extensive research that went into it such as mathematical modeling, wind tunnel testing, and computer modeling.


And now some Indonesian kid is claiming that that these people cant stick a bump in front of an intake. 






antonius123 said:


> By naked eye you should be able to see the difference!
> DSI show "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How amazing you cant see the glaring difference.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Sorry, but your inability to difference glaringly different shape is so amazing*!







Not only are you illiterate but you seriously have some learning deficiencies which would constitute taking special classes in most countries.

So *where* did I claim that the two intakes look different? I claimed the very opposite. I clearly distinguished between the two by stating a DSI has curvatures while a cone intake is, well you guessed it, a cone.

Here is proof:





ptldM3 said:


> More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. *A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, a half cone or cone intake have their own features* but all three intakes do the same job.




Stop putting worlds in my mouth. But I suppose when someone is stupid they will have a hard time grasping simple sentences.








antonius123 said:


> This happen not only now, but in the previous case like round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc.






More like this happens when someone embarrasses themselves like you did above, and please sunny boy. If anyone doesnt understand curvature, cylinders, cones ect, its you. But please feel free to continue your denial and masquerading, no matter what is presented you twist every word like you did with DSI vs. cone intakes. No matter how credible a sources is you disregard it by asking if we understand our own sources. In general you are pathetic, petty, and you have nothing to bring to the table other than entertaining everyone with your stupidity.










antonius123 said:


> As I said you are idiot and having severe reading comprehension problem.






Wow really? This hilarious based on your past history. Your DSI vs. cone intake gaffe doesnt ring any empty bells? Of course there are many others, someone like you can confuse an airfoil for tinfoil. 








antonius123 said:


> My point is obvious: DSI is different from Cone intake, both from the shape, and subsequenly the performance.
> 
> *The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. This things doesnt exist on cone inlet*. It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.








Once again to show everyone that you are a fraud:


Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine. *
> 
> ---*The boundary layer on the cone *is stretched as it moves up the cone---











antonius123 said:


> It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.





Dont talk your way out of it. First you claimed that a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed by claiming that those features dont exist on a cone intake And now you are making a vague claim that contradicts your original statement, not only that but you bring no evidence.













antonius123 said:


> I said Cone doesnt have "bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl" idiot... you are demonstrating reading comprehension problem.
> 
> As explained above, It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.





Once again it is you that is demonstrating reading comprehension as well as serious learning disabilities. I always acknowledged that a DSI has curvature and that it is distinctly different in shape to a cone intake. I just couldnt stop laughing when you pulled up a quote stating that a DSI has a bump. Firstly I already new and stated that, secondly I could not resist the opportunity to laugh at you quoting something so insignificant, it just demonstrated that you have reading comprehension/learning disabilities, you have lost the argument, you have nothing to bring to the table, and you are desperately trying to stay relevant by quoting random common facts.






antonius123 said:


> *You dont know that?* Then why you are so sure that Cone offer the same performance with DSI?




No *you* don't know. Don't pretend to know what it means by twisting the subject and implying that i don't know. I am the one asking you to explain your sourse, and it's not that i don't know, it's that you don't and i want to hold you accountable for running your mouth.



I asked to explain what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means since you quoted it and told everyone to check it out. 

This is utterly embarrassing on your part, I have asked many times for you to explain what it is and every time you have avoided the question. Remember it was *you *mocking everyone by saying they dont understand their sources and it was you mocking everyone by saying they could not explain their sources.

And now when I ask you to explain what your own source said so are avoiding it. 


*Once again what does high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching mean?*

I Know you are clueless to what it is.


----------



## doidoi2

with all due respect. None of you know what you're talking about (Antonius, Gambit, amalakas et al). Reading tech journals on the internet doesn't count as expertise. Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics. 

Debating the specifics of the science of radar and reflective surfaces is best left to those with real knowledge on the matter. Claiming to have superior knowledge on this only makes you guys look foolish. If you guys had any insight to offer, you wouldn't be posting here because your access would be restricted.

So take a chill pill and relax. Just take comfort in the fact that you're all ignorant.


----------



## gambit

doidoi2 said:


> with all due respect. None of you know what you're talking about (Antonius, Gambit, amalakas et al). Reading tech journals on the internet doesn't count as expertise. Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics.
> 
> Debating the specifics of the science of radar and reflective surfaces is best left to those with real knowledge on the matter. Claiming to have superior knowledge on this only makes you guys look foolish. If you guys had any insight to offer, you wouldn't be posting here because your access would be restricted.
> 
> So take a chill pill and relax. Just take comfort in the fact that you're all ignorant.


Why not single out your fellow Chinese? After all, even he admitted that he has not one ounce of relevant experience. But I guess intellectual honesty is far second to racial solidarity.


----------



## amalakas

doidoi2 said:


> with all due respect. None of you know what you're talking about (Antonius, Gambit, amalakas et al). Reading tech journals on the internet doesn't count as expertise. Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics.
> 
> Debating the specifics of the science of radar and reflective surfaces is best left to those with real knowledge on the matter. Claiming to have superior knowledge on this only makes you guys look foolish. If you guys had any insight to offer, you wouldn't be posting here because your access would be restricted.
> 
> *So take a chill pill and relax. Just take comfort in the fact that you're all ignorant.*




I am sorry .. my degrees say otherwise.


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> I am sorry .. my degrees say otherwise.



And yet Greece doesn't have a stealth fighter despite all your degrees.

China is about to have two.

Turkey is about to have the F-35.


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> And yet Greece doesn't have a stealth fighter despite all your degrees.
> 
> China is about to have two.
> 
> Turkey is about to have the F-35.




Greece Population : 9.000.000 
Turkey Population : 80.000.000 ( 71.000.000 more)
China Population : 1.400.000.000 ( 1.391.000.000 more) 

You want to comment on individual personal achievement weight / per population ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

no_name said:


> *What Gambit is saying is that transmission and reflection just refers to different mechanisms of EM radiation*. The pattern he posted is a radiation pattern. Radiation occurs due to electrons within a conducting element or dielectric being accelerated by an imposed changing field. This can happen from a feed signal (voltage difference) to the antenna or excited from a EM wave incident on a suitable element, in the reflection case it is the flat surface, in the diffraction case it is an edge or breaking off at physical/material discontinuities.
> 
> The different terms are to distinguish for different form of interaction that caused the radiation, not radiation itself.


 
Correct.

He is talking about EM Radiation caused by electrons within conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, it means he is talking about transmission.

But the sad thing is He doesnt know that Transmission is not the same as Reflection.
So if you read the history of the debate, you will see how funny as he think people believe him as expert while he saying something stupid like the above 



gambit said:


> Why not single out your fellow Chinese? After all, even he admitted that he has not one ounce of relevant experience. But I guess intellectual honesty is far second to racial solidarity.



Read again what he wrote above:

*"Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics."*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Correct.
> 
> He is talking about EM Radiation caused by electrons within conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, it means he is talking about transmission.
> 
> But the sad thing is He doesnt know that Transmission is not the same as Reflection.
> So if you read the history of the debate, you will see how funny as he think people believe him as expert while he saying something stupid like the above
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what he wrote above:
> 
> *"Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics."*




What is the difference between transmission and reflection genius? Ok, we have no idea. Enlighten us. 

Not that you will, because clearly you have no idea about anything anyway.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Read again what he wrote above:
> 
> *"Changing a couple of gearboxes or even disassembling a jet engine for maintenance doesn't make you an expert in stealth detection or aerodynamics."*


So what make *YOU* an expert on it? Lying about your 'experience' and 'study'?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abhishek_

gambit said:


> So what make *YOU* an expert on it? Lying about your 'experience' and 'study'?



his manual says so

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

antonius123 said:


> Correct.
> 
> He is talking about EM Radiation caused by electrons within conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, it means he is talking about transmission.
> 
> But the sad thing is He doesnt know that Transmission is not the same as Reflection.
> So if you read the history of the debate, you will see how funny as he think people believe him as expert while he saying something stupid like the above



In this case it depends on the wordings. Transmission is often used to describe a desired or deliberate propagation of EM radiation. Reflection can be a form of transmission, in the case of a parabolic dish as a antenna to reflect signal in the desired direction, or it could be unintended/unwanted, in the case of a EM wave incident on a aircraft trying to hide itself. Reflection is still caused by conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, so in the broad sense the reflecting object is itself the intended or unintended radiating element excited by the incoming EM field. 

So when Gambit talk about transmission, he could mean the return transmission from the target aircraft, and that transmission process can be caused by reflection/diffraction mechanisms.

But I also get what you are coming from because in some areas, such as waveguides and coax theory and impedance matching transmission and reflection is used to refer to signals traveling in opposite direction at a mismatched junction, so in this case distinction is made to avoid confusion.


----------



## gambit

no_name said:


> In this case it depends on the wordings. Transmission is often used to describe a desired or deliberate propagation of EM radiation. Reflection can be a form of transmission, in the case of a parabolic dish as a antenna to reflect signal in the desired direction, or it could be unintended/unwanted, in the case of a EM wave incident on a aircraft trying to hide itself. Reflection is still caused by conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, so in the broad sense the reflecting object is itself the intended or unintended radiating element excited by the incoming EM field.
> 
> So when Gambit talk about transmission, he could mean the return transmission from the target aircraft, and that transmission process can be caused by reflection/diffraction mechanisms.
> 
> But *I also get what you are coming from* because in some areas, such as waveguides and coax theory and impedance matching transmission and reflection is used to refer to signals traveling in opposite direction at a mismatched junction, so in this case distinction is made to avoid confusion.


You guessed wrong and you are talking over his head. He does not 'come from' anywhere because if he does have this specific area of aviation experience he would have said so and if he does have this specific area of aviation experience he would not have dispute. First year aerodynamics question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability? Answer: Power. And he does not know.

This tweenager is a liar and now instead of wisely slinking off into the Internet jungle with his tail between his legs, he foolishly try to preserve this online face and further making a fool out of himself.


----------



## antonius123

no_name said:


> In this case it depends on the wordings. Transmission is often used to describe a desired or deliberate propagation of EM radiation. *Reflection can be a form of transmission*, in the case of a parabolic dish as a antenna to reflect signal in the desired direction, or it could be unintended/unwanted, in the case of a EM wave incident on a aircraft trying to hide itself. Reflection is still caused by conducting elements or dielectric being accelerated by imposed changing field, so in the broad sense the reflecting object is itself the intended or unintended radiating element excited by the incoming EM field.
> 
> So when Gambit talk about transmission, he could mean the return transmission from the target aircraft, and that transmission process can be caused by reflection/diffraction mechanisms.
> 
> But I also get what you are coming from because in some areas, such as waveguides and coax theory and impedance matching transmission and reflection is used to refer to signals traveling in opposite direction at a mismatched junction, so in this case distinction is made to avoid confusion.


You should understand what is being debated.

That "Reflection is part of Transmission" is really really depend on the specific context! not in general meaning. We were not talking about how transmission delivered through disc (limited) context, but how the reflection on "CORNER REFLECTOR" context. Of course it is wrong to say "reflection" = transmission" in every context, as Gambit want it to be.

So even if he want to excuse by playing with wording - still not reasonable. As the debate is about reflection on *corner reflector*, or at least in general, not about reflection or radar transmitting disc.

Even the statement "Reflection is part of Transmission" is very much debatable. What transmission meant is the transmission itself not about any reflection involved to convey the wave transmitted; it is according to the citation I have given. However I am not saying you are wrong in this matter, as you said it is about "wording".

That guy really has no clue.



gambit said:


> You guessed wrong and you are talking over his head. He does not 'come from' anywhere because if he does have this specific area of aviation experience he would have said so and if he does have this specific area of aviation experience he would not have dispute. First year aerodynamics question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability? Answer: Power. And he does not know.
> 
> This tweenager is a liar and now instead of wisely slinking off into the Internet jungle with his tail between his legs, he foolishly try to preserve this online face and further making a fool out of himself.



You cant bring any citation or evidence to back up your last Mistaken claim that : "Transmission is = Reflection" or vice versa.

Even you dont realize that no_name explain mean is not the same with you mean.
No_Name saying : "Reflection is PART of Transmission (in very limited context), while you claim that Transmission is = Reflection or vice versa.

So your wording and evading game => FAILED.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> What is the difference between transmission and reflection genius? Ok, we have no idea. Enlighten us.
> 
> Not that you will, because clearly you have no idea about anything anyway.



It is so shamefull you dont know the difference.

Even my and No_Name explanation above has implied the difference between Transmission and Reflection.

What is your real background?


----------



## no_name

New picture, open in a new tab to enlarge.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> It is so shamefull you dont know the difference.
> 
> Even my and No_Name explanation above has implied the difference between Transmission and Reflection.
> 
> What is your real background?



There is NO debate boy. A reflection behaves exactly as a transmission. For all intends and purposes they are the same thing, especially when discussing the merits of a corner reflector, OR a VLO plane. 

Your game is playing with words. Ours ain't. 

school is still not over for you.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> What is your real background?


What is yours? Remember, you brought it up to shut down the Indians. So what is your aviation 'experience' or 'study'?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## chisty_chowdhury

no_name said:


> New picture, open in a new tab to enlarge.


----------



## p3avi8tor69

Has that Indonesian kid ever realized that he is making a fool of himself? Kid you have been busted as a poser and liar, perhaps its time for you do some more reading and cease humiliating yourself. You are not making a case at all. gambit and amalakas has completely destroyed you.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> There is NO debate boy. A *reflection behaves exactly as a transmission*. For all intends and purposes they are the same thing, especially when discussing the merits of a corner reflector, OR a VLO plane.
> 
> Your game is playing with words. Ours ain't.
> 
> school is still not over for you.


 
 

You obviously dont know what TRANSMISSION and what REFLECTION is.

You need to learn and finish physics education. I have given you my citation while you dont except lying. Even English basic can teach you how different is "transmission" vs "reflection" meaning.

Basic difference:

Transmitter => Produce Radio Wave
Reflector => Reflect Radio Wave

The transmitter itself generates a radio frequency alternating current,

Citation:
Transmitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Has that Indonesian kid ever realized that he is making a fool of himself? Kid you have been busted as a poser and liar, perhaps its time for you do some more reading and cease humiliating yourself. You are not making a case at all. gambit and amalakas has completely destroyed you.


 
Such as??

Dont you see your master Gambit cannot provide any evidence requested? while on the other way round I have given a lot of evidence of basic physics explaining 90 degree corner reflector and "transmission is not the same as reflection" which is contrary to your master Gambit and his cronies claim!

You are obviously another "Cheer Leader"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## p3avi8tor69

Not a cheerleader Antonius but another one with actual aviation experience as opposed to your "previous years in aviation/study" while still learning high school algebra.

I never pretend to know a lot, yet, I strive to continue to learn even though I have been out of aviation for a long time. It would be good for you to do the same and cease pretending to know a lot which only serves to betray you as a poser.


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Not a cheerleader Antonius but another one with actual aviation experience as opposed to your "previous years in aviation/study" while still learning high school algebra.
> 
> I never pretend to know a lot, yet, I strive to continue to learn even though I have been out of aviation for a long time. It would be good for you to do the same and cease pretending to know a lot which only serves to betray you as a poser.



How do you judge me such a thing?

You and your master even can not defeat my challenge to him.
Why don't you accuse this to your master Gambit? since he failed many times to prove and defend his claims, while I have been able to prove he is wrong.

Ooh, I forget that slave never defy his master

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p3avi8tor69

Its the other way around.


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Its the other way around.



Instead of answering my question, you only throw empty accusation.

It shows your quality as merely a cheer leader

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> *Instead of answering my question*, you only throw empty accusation.
> 
> It shows your quality as merely a cheer leader






Speaking of answering questions why haven&#8217;t you answered mine? 


You dismiss people&#8217;s sources because those people, according to you, do not or can not explain the context of what they quote yet when I have asked you to explain your quote you have repeatedly refused to do so, often you try to change the subject but the best excuse you had was this:


Me:




ptldM3 said:


> So now again, explain what: &#8216;high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; means. Afterall you quoted it.





You:




antonius123 said:


> *You dont know that?* Then why you are so sure that Cone offer the same performance with DSI?





No, *you *don&#8217;t know, answer my question with a question, you truely are an expert.


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> Speaking of answering questions why havent you answered mine?
> 
> 
> You dismiss peoples sources because those people, according to you, do not or can not explain the context of what they quote yet when I have asked you to explain your quote you have repeatedly refused to do so, often you try to change the subject but the best excuse you had was this:
> 
> 
> Me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, *you *dont know, answer my question with a question, you truely are an expert.




I don't know about you guys.. but he (Antonius) is beginning to tire me!


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I don't know about you guys.. but he (Antonius) is beginning to tire me!


Really? I get a kick out of picking on the kid. The really funny part is that the Chinese who are smarter than him knows he is wrong and continues to look like an idjit post after post. He truly is a 'useful idiot'.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Really? I get a kick out of picking on the kid. The really funny part is that the Chinese who are smarter than him knows he is wrong and continues to look like an idjit post after post. He truly is a 'useful idiot'.



Ahhh I guess you are right. I guess it helps looking at it from that perspective!


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Speaking of answering questions why havent you answered mine?



You want me answered your garbage, while you ignore a lot of my questions?

If you need my attention to your garbage, please a bit patient as I dont have much time now, just wait.



> You dismiss peoples sources because those people, according to you, do not or can not explain the context of what they quote yet when I have asked you to explain your quote you have repeatedly refused to do so, often you try to change the subject but the best excuse you had was this:


Which one?

I found you are the one you are talking about.

This is one example of my last question to you that you ignore: "Yeah, on what plane? and how is the size?"

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-154.html#ixzz21HfOf7Rf



> Me:
> 
> You:
> 
> No, *you *dont know, answer my question with a question, you truely are an expert.



Tell me first: what is the connection those things with your arguments? isn't your argument saying that : Cone is doing exactly the same thing as DSI do? *Actually I am more than enough to beat your argument claiming *that Cone will do totally the same things as DSI do with the same performance which is obviously and glaringly contradictive to the citation i have given/showed you, without explaining what the meaning of those phrase as per your request.

But I am willing to answer if you are responsible and answer my question.

Otherwise, why should I be so kind to you by answering every question/request from you while you have been acting like an expert defying my argument without clue but pretending like an expert? especially as you yourself is ignorant and ignore many questions of mine? 



gambit said:


> Really? I get a kick out of picking on the kid. The really funny part is that the Chinese who are smarter than him knows he is wrong and continues to look like an idjit post after post. He truly is a 'useful idiot'.



Now you are becoming a cheer leader quality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Thats funny considering cone intakes perform the same function as a DSI (verified) and the Russians have had the technology since the 50s. The SU-27 broke no less than 40 world records, much of this was thanks to its aerodynamics and the extensive research that went into it such as mathematical modeling, wind tunnel testing, and computer modeling.
> 
> 
> And now some Indonesian kid is claiming that that these people cant stick a bump in front of an intake.



Hellow.. is there any evidence you can bring to prove that CONE perform exactly the same functions as DSI with THE SAME PERFORMANCE??

We dont need your claim, or another empty claim. If you say it perform the same, then prove it!

My citation is already my solid evidence that DSI offer better performance than cone.



> Not only are you illiterate but you seriously have some learning deficiencies which would constitute taking special classes in most countries.
> 
> So *where* did I claim that the two intakes look different? I claimed the very opposite. I clearly distinguished between the two by stating a DSI has curvatures while a cone intake is, well you guessed it, a cone.
> 
> Here is proof:
> 
> Stop putting worlds in my mouth. But I suppose when someone is stupid they will have a hard time grasping simple sentences.



OK, then we need the proof. Where is the proof of your such a claim?





> More like this happens when someone embarrasses themselves like you did above, and please sunny boy. If anyone doesnt understand curvature, cylinders, cones ect, its you. But please feel free to continue your denial and masquerading, no matter what is presented you twist every word like you did with DSI vs. cone intakes. No matter how credible a sources is you disregard it by asking if we understand our own sources. In general you are pathetic, petty, and you have nothing to bring to the table other than entertaining everyone with your stupidity.
> 
> Wow really? This hilarious based on your past history. Your DSI vs. cone intake gaffe doesnt ring any empty bells? Of course there are many others, someone like you can confuse an airfoil for tinfoil.



Oooh, it is! 

You have demonstrated your inability to understand and distinguish the difference of round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc. Dont blame me if I suspect you will do the same with other case.




> Once again to show everyone that you are a fraud:
> 
> 
> Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Nobody deny or argue that.

I am saying you have problem with reading comprehension on my citation which is implying that DSI prove to be better than Cone. Also you are delusional by throwing another empty claim by saying cone perform as well as dsi, without ability to bring evidence.



> Dont talk your way out of it. First you claimed that a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed by claiming that those features dont exist on a cone intake And now you are making a vague claim that contradicts your original statement, not only that but you bring no evidence.



Really?? show me where/when did I said so, or you are FRAUD.



> Once again it is you that is demonstrating reading comprehension as well as serious learning disabilities. I always acknowledged that a DSI has curvature and that it is distinctly different in shape to a cone intake. I just couldnt stop laughing when you pulled up a quote stating that a DSI has a bump. Firstly I already new and stated that, secondly I could not resist the opportunity to laugh at you quoting something so insignificant, it just demonstrated that you have reading comprehension/learning disabilities, you have lost the argument, you have nothing to bring to the table, and you are desperately trying to stay relevant by quoting random common facts.



See... you are just demonstrating poor reading comprehension 

I am talking about performance difference, while you are talking about feature difference 




> No *you* don't know. Don't pretend to know what it means by twisting the subject and implying that i don't know. I am the one asking you to explain your sourse, and it's not that i don't know, it's that you don't and i want to hold you accountable for running your mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked to explain what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means since you quoted it and told everyone to check it out.
> 
> This is utterly embarrassing on your part, I have asked many times for you to explain what it is and every time you have avoided the question. Remember it was *you *mocking everyone by saying they dont understand their sources and it was you mocking everyone by saying they could not explain their sources.
> 
> And now when I ask you to explain what your own source said so are avoiding it.


 
Why are you asking this? I have defend my argument very well with adequate explanation and citation/evidence, while you are not bringing any evidence to prove your claim that cone do exactly like DSI with exactly the same performance.

Why dont you focus on answering my questions that is challenging your argument instead throwing many questions that you dont know the purpose?



> *Once again what does high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching mean?*
> 
> I Know you are clueless to what it is.



Do you think you understand?

I can answer that easily and will answer that for you if you can answer my questions too with responsibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Hellow.. is there any evidence you can bring to prove that CONE perform exactly the same functions as DSI with THE SAME PERFORMANCE??
> 
> We dont need your claim, or another empty claim. If you say it perform the same, then prove it!
> 
> My citation is already my solid evidence that DSI offer better performance than cone.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then we need the proof. Where is the proof of your such a claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh, it is!
> 
> You have demonstrated your inability to understand and distinguish the difference of round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc. Dont blame me if I suspect you will do the same with other case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody deny or argue that.
> 
> I am saying you have problem with reading comprehension on my citation which is implying that DSI prove to be better than Cone. Also you are delusional by throwing another empty claim by saying cone perform as well as dsi, without ability to bring evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? show me where/when did I said so, or you are FRAUD.
> 
> 
> 
> See... you are just demonstrating poor reading comprehension
> 
> I am talking about performance difference, while you are talking about feature difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking this? I have defend my argument very well with adequate explanation and citation/evidence, while you are not bringing any evidence to prove your claim that cone do exactly like DSI with exactly the same performance.
> 
> Why dont you focus on answering my questions that is challenging your argument instead throwing many questions that you dont know the purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you understand?
> 
> I can answer that easily and will answer that for you if you can answer my questions too with responsibility.



You haven't answered a single thing since the first time I read one of your posts. 
I think you need some kind of medical help. Seriously.


----------



## zzzz

amalakas said:


> You haven't answered a single thing since the first time I read one of your posts.
> I think you need some kind of medical help. Seriously.



Word salad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Word salad is a mixture of random words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance. The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused.

Word salad may describe a symptom of mental conditions in which a person attempts to communicate an idea, but random words come out instead. Often, the person is unaware that he or she did not make sense. It appears in people with dementia and schizophrenia,[1] as well as after anoxic brain injury.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Now you are becoming a cheer leader quality.


So what was your aviation 'experience' or 'study' again? Is it lying about it?


----------



## p3avi8tor69

Haven't you had enough kid? Gambit, amalakas, ptldm3 has already debunked your rubbish. Save yourself further embarassment as you have been exposed as a fraud.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> You haven't answered a single thing since the first time I read one of your posts.
> I think you need some kind of medical help. Seriously.


 
Really? you dont even see a single?

I think it is you who need some kind of medical help seriously.

You are talking about yourself but amazingly you dont have a mirror to see yourself.

I havent seen you answered my question at all so far.



zzzz said:


> Word salad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Word salad is a mixture of random words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance. The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused.
> 
> Word salad may describe a symptom of mental conditions in which a person attempts to communicate an idea, but random words come out instead. Often, the person is unaware that he or she did not make sense. It appears in people with dementia and schizophrenia,[1] as well as after anoxic brain injury.


 
Another cheer leader quality

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Haven't you had enough kid? Gambit, amalakas, ptldm3 has already debunked your rubbish. Save yourself further embarassment as you have been exposed as a fraud.



You are blind. I am debunking Gambit, amalakas, ptldm3 claims about a lot of things. Especially recently about their claim that *Reflection = Transmission*, non 90 degree corner reflector, etc.

Cant you see my argument, evidence and citation? cant you see they cant bring any evidence to support their claim and break my argument? where are they/the citation/evidence? show me!

Obviously you are blind and another cheer leader mentality. I notice from the beginning you are bringing no single argument except cheerleading your master.

Those guys you are cheerleading (gambit, amalakas, ptldm3) are notorious clueless and faker who have been busted, debunked, and heavily censured by a lot of knowledgeable and respectable member here like: martian, rcjmi, aerospaceengineer, blackdragon, and many others

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You are blind. I am debunking Gambit, amalakas, ptldm3 claims about a lot of things. Especially recently about their claim that *Reflection = Transmission*, non 90 degree corner reflector, etc.
> 
> Cant you see my argument, evidence and citation? cant you see they cant bring any evidence to support their claim and break my argument? where are they/the citation/evidence? show me!
> 
> Obviously you are blind and another cheer leader mentality. I notice from the beginning you are bringing no single argument except cheerleading your master.
> 
> Those guys you are cheerleading (gambit, amalakas, ptldm3) are notorious clueless and faker who have been busted, debunked, and heavily censured by a lot of knowledgeable and respectable member here like: martian, rcjmi, aerospaceengineer, blackdragon, and many others




All these things have happened in the land where you live, in a land where dwarfs and leprechauns dance with Smurfs and all together go out behind the rainbow riding on unicorns chasing the dragons!!!!!


----------



## p3avi8tor69

antonius123 said:


> You are blind. I am debunking Gambit, amalakas, ptldm3 claims about a lot of things. Especially recently about their claim that *Reflection = Transmission*, non 90 degree corner reflector, etc.
> 
> Cant you see my argument, evidence and citation? cant you see they cant bring any evidence to support their claim and break my argument? where are they/the citation/evidence? show me!
> 
> Obviously you are blind and another cheer leader mentality. I notice from the beginning you are bringing no single argument except cheerleading your master.
> 
> Those guys you are cheerleading (gambit, amalakas, ptldm3) are notorious clueless and faker who have been busted, debunked, and heavily censured by a lot of knowledgeable and respectable member here like: martian, rcjmi, aerospaceengineer, blackdragon, and many others


 
Those three are the only ones that bring real science into the debate backed up by real world experience. You on the other hand subscribe to fanboy engineering. Anyways this is enough for me. You can go on with making a fool of yourself and continue to live in la-la land.


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Those three are the only ones that bring real science into the debate backed up by real world experience. You on the other hand subscribe to fanboy engineering. Anyways this is enough for me. You can go on with making a fool of yourself and continue to live in la-la land.


 
Real science? 

Prove us Reflection = Transmission is real science 

Those who you said to have bring real science in this forum as the matter of fact do not have clue about mold manufacturing, cannot distinguish round vs oval or cylinder vs cone shape, bringing claim 120 degree corner = corner reflector without ability to prove, etc.

See how your master gambit until now cannot prove / bring citation supporting his claim that Reflection = Transmission.

They are faker, fan boys and china hater in fact. What they are doing is only vilifying china's military tech because it is not their fan, while you are a perfect "cheer leader" here

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Those three are the only ones that bring real science into the debate backed up by real world experience.



Why dont we make it simple.

Your master Gambit claim: Reflection is Transmission also.

I with my numerous citation/evidence said: Transmission is not reflection; transmission produce wave and doing modulation, while reflection dont!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmitter

Prove us that his claim is the "real science" and mine is not. Bring us citation/physical evidence, and bust my citation/evidence that say on the other way round. Otherwise you are the same fake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

Another picture from a good angle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Why dont we make it simple.
> 
> Your master Gambit claim: Reflection is Transmission also.
> 
> I with my numerous citation/evidence said: Transmission is not reflection; transmission produce wave and doing modulation, while reflection dont!
> Transmitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Prove us that his claim is the "real science" and mine is not. Bring us citation/physical evidence, and bust my citation/evidence that say on the other way round. Otherwise you are the same fake.




Oh my God, please carry on bringing in these amazing gems of intellect. Every time I think there is no lower for you to get, you amaze me with new depths of ignorance. 

Your wiki explains what the role of a transmitter as a physical device is, not what transmission and reflection is genius! 

You are too numbnuts to even think for yourself. 

If reflection and transmission were the two different things you are saying Einstein why would Radar antennas have parabolic dishes ?

I want to see you explain that.

And although I hate wiki, since you say it is a nice citation, I'll use it as well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Antenna_design

perhaps you want to scroll down the point where it talks about *"parabolic reflectors"* !!


Ahhh kids these days....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Oh my God, please carry on bringing in these amazing gems of intellect. Every time I think there is no lower for you to get, you amaze me with new depths of ignorance.
> 
> Your *wiki explains what the role of a transmitter as a physical device is, not what transmission and reflection is genius! *
> 
> You are too numbnuts to even think for yourself.
> 
> If reflection and transmission were the two different things you are saying Einstein why would Radar antennas have parabolic dishes ?
> 
> I want to see you explain that.
> 
> And although I hate wiki, since you say it is a nice citation, I'll use it as well.
> 
> Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> perhaps you want to scroll down the point where it talks about *"parabolic reflectors"* !!
> 
> 
> Ahhh kids these days....


He is too stupid to realize how stupid he is.

Transmitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In electronics and telecommunications a transmitter or radio transmitter is an electronic device which, with the aid of an antenna, *produces radio waves.*


The highlighted is significant -- *produces radio waves*.






*Readers,*

The above is an example of a bi-static radar configuration. In this radar set up, receivers are physically distinct from transmitters, sometimes as far as hundreds of km apart. Usually, receivers are in sync with the transmitter regarding transmit freq characteristics in order to separate target reflections/echoes from background interference.

However, *ANY* receiver can also pick up those signals and if a receiver have no clue of what the transmitter is doing, when it is doing it, how it is doing it, and what this 'doing' look like, then as far as this clueless receiver goes, the target *IS* a transmitter despite the *METHOD* of producing radio waves is reflection.

So if 'Receiver B' is not a conscious part of the bi-static network, conscious meaning its ID is known to all in the network, then it has no clue on whether the signals it picked up from the aircraft is transmitted by the aircraft's radar or communication antennas, or from reflections of unknown transmission sources, or both. So as far as 'Receiver B' is concerned, any detected signal is transmission = reflection.

Hence, in radar detection, transmission is often equate to reflection. It is necessary semantics to conveniently categorize any and all radiation sources of known and unknown methods.

Mr. *antonius123*'s obsession with a citation that literally read 'transmission = reflection' is a reflection of his own technical ignorance, of which he lied about when he tried to use his aviation 'experience' and 'study' to shut down the Indian challengers to his nonsense. Too bad he is not matured enough to realize that on a military oriented forum, odds are very good that there would be members who are veterans of some militaries and who may have relevant experience in the fields under discussions.

Any wonder why he is a useful idiot to the Chinese?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Oh my God, please carry on bringing in these amazing gems of intellect. Every time I think there is no lower for you to get, you amaze me with new depths of ignorance.
> 
> Your wiki explains what the role of a transmitter as a physical device is, not what transmission and reflection is genius!
> 
> You are too numbnuts to even think for yourself.
> 
> If reflection and transmission were the two different things you are saying Einstein *why would Radar antennas have parabolic dishes ?
> *
> I want to see you explain that.
> 
> And although I hate wiki, since you say it is a nice citation, I'll use it as well.
> 
> Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> perhaps you want to scroll down the point where it talks about *"parabolic reflectors"* !!
> 
> 
> Ahhh kids these days....


 
Idiot.

Reflection on radar dish doesn't mean that Reflection = Transmission. 

It means Radar send the wave to object by involving 2 (different) activities: "Transmission" and "Reflection". And it doesn't make transmission become reflection or vice versa as you wish.

Maybe you still can play with word gaming by saying reflection is part of transmission which is much debatable, but for sure reflection is not transmission.

I have explained this before. You are repeating the same idiocy which i have debunked. It indicates that you are ignorant and numb.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> He is too stupid to realize how stupid he is.
> 
> Transmitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The highlighted is significant -- *produces radio waves*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Readers,*
> 
> The above is an example of a bi-static radar configuration. In this radar set up, receivers are physically distinct from transmitters, sometimes as far as hundreds of km apart. Usually, receivers are in sync with the transmitter regarding transmit freq characteristics in order to separate target reflections/echoes from background interference.
> 
> However, *ANY* receiver can also pick up those signals and if a receiver have no clue of what the transmitter is doing, when it is doing it, how it is doing it, and what this 'doing' look like, then as far as this clueless receiver goes, the target *IS* a transmitter despite the *METHOD* of producing radio waves is reflection.
> 
> So if 'Receiver B' is not a conscious part of the bi-static network, conscious meaning its ID is known to all in the network, then it has no clue on whether the signals it picked up from the aircraft is transmitted by the aircraft's radar or communication antennas, or from reflections of unknown transmission sources, or both. So as far as 'Receiver B' is concerned, *any detected signal is transmission* = reflection.
> 
> Hence, in radar detection, transmission is often equate to reflection. It is necessary semantics to conveniently categorize any and all radiation sources of known and unknown methods.
> 
> Mr. *antonius123*'s obsession with a citation that literally read 'transmission = reflection' is a reflection of his own technical ignorance, of which he lied about when he tried to use his aviation 'experience' and 'study' to shut down the Indian challengers to his nonsense. Too bad he is not matured enough to realize that on a military oriented forum, odds are very good that there would be members who are veterans of some militaries and who may have relevant experience in the fields under discussions.
> 
> Any wonder why he is a useful idiot to the Chinese?


 
Who said: "any detected signal is transmission"? science? or you yourself? 

Dont ever try to claim your perception in the name of science (unless you can bring scientific evidence), it will make you a genuine faker and miss leader.

Gambit, you can only deceive member without critical thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Who said: "any detected signal is transmission"? science? or you yourself?
> 
> Dont ever try to claim your perception in the name of science (unless you can bring scientific evidence), it will make you a genuine faker and miss leader.
> 
> Gambit, you can only deceive member without critical thinking.


So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again? Lying about them?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> of which he lied about when he tried to use his aviation 'experience' and 'study' *to shut down the Indian challengers* to his nonsense.



You always mentioned this repeatedly in order to lure indian member support on you right? so pathetic 



gambit said:


> So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again? Lying about them?



I have mentioned this and anybody else could see my answer while you dont and repeated the same question on and on.

I wont re answer this, and let you use this issue to distract the debate.

Your scientific evidence are still being waited, otherwise you are proving yourself a faker and liar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You always mentioned this repeatedly in order to lure indian member support on you right? so pathetic


Then all you have to do is answer. *ANYONE* who have relevant experience about a subject in discussion would be proud to reveal it, especially if the subject have many sub-disciplines, like aviation.

So the really pathetic one is *YOU* for lying about your aviation 'experience' and 'study', which is further confirmed when you got busted for not knowing the answer to the question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?', which is first year aerodynamics.



antonius123 said:


> I have mentioned this and anybody else could see my answer while you dont and repeated the same question on and on.


Humor me and everyone else and say it again. Does not take too much blood sugar to type, right?



antonius123 said:


> Who said: "any detected signal is transmission"? science? or you yourself?


The receiver does. It does not know the *METHOD OF PRODUCTION* of the signal. So as far as it is concerned, any received signal came from a transmitter or radiator.

But, if you really have aviation experience and study, you would know this.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Then all you have to do is answer. *ANYONE* who have relevant experience about a subject in discussion would be proud to reveal it, especially if the subject have many sub-disciplines, like aviation.
> 
> So the really pathetic one is *YOU* for lying about your aviation 'experience' and 'study', which is further confirmed when you got busted for not knowing the answer to the question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?', which is first year aerodynamics.
> 
> 
> Humor me and everyone else and say it again. Does not take too much blood sugar to type, right?
> 
> 
> The receiver does. It does not know the *METHOD OF PRODUCTION* of the signal. So as far as it is concerned, any received signal came from a transmitter or radiator.
> 
> But, if you really have aviation experience and study, you would know this.




Does making paper aeroplanes count for "aviation study" ? 

If it does , then does writing RADAR on the nose of said paper aeroplane make you an avionics expert? 
And if you draw tiny missiles and bombs on the underside of said paper aeroplane, does that make you a weapons tech? 

and if you make a dozen paper aeroplanes, does that make you a squadron commander or an aircraft design bureau like LM or Sukhoi ?

questions questions questions !!!

I want somebody to please PLEASE tell me the level of education is not THIS to the rest of that hemisphere !!!



antonius123 said:


> Idiot.
> 
> Reflection on radar dish doesn't mean that Reflection = Transmission.
> 
> *It means Radar send the wave to object by involving 2 (different) activities: "Transmission" and "Reflection". And it doesn't make transmission become reflection or vice versa as you wish.*
> 
> Maybe you still can play with word gaming by saying reflection is part of transmission which is much debatable, but for sure reflection is not transmission.
> 
> I have explained this before. You are repeating the same idiocy which i have debunked. It indicates that you are ignorant and numb.



So oh enlightened ONE, do tell us.. in what you posted above, after the second of the two activities, the "Reflection" as you typed.. is the wave any different ?






On a slightly related topic... look at the image above, do tell us, Receiver B is receiving a *transmission* of Transmitter A or a *reflection* of the *transmission* of Receiver A ? or Better still, a *reflection* of a *reflection* of the *transmission* from Transmitter A and vice versa ? Have fun ...


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> So oh enlightened ONE, do tell us.. in what you posted above, after the second of the two activities, the "Reflection" as you typed.. is the wave any different ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a slightly related topic... look at the image above, do tell us, Receiver B is receiving a *transmission* of Transmitter A or a *reflection* of the *transmission* of Receiver A ? or Better still, a *reflection* of a *reflection* of the *transmission* from Transmitter A and vice versa ? Have fun ...


 
Transceiver B received the transmitted wave from Transmitter A, or from reflected wave from reflector/Dish A.

Still the transmistter is not reflector as per your wish

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Transceiver B received the transmitted wave from Transmitter A, or from reflected wave from reflector/Dish A.
> 
> Still the transmistter is not reflector as per your wish



wow, another precious example of clarity. 

want to try again because that doesn't make sense?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Then all you have to do is answer. *ANYONE* who have relevant experience about a subject in discussion would be proud to reveal it, especially if the subject have many sub-disciplines, like aviation.
> 
> So the really pathetic one is *YOU* for lying about your aviation 'experience' and 'study', which is further confirmed when you got busted for not knowing the answer to the question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?', which is first year aerodynamics.
> 
> 
> Humor me and everyone else and say it again. Does not take too much blood sugar to type, right?



I never lied by saying I have experience in aviation. It is you who is lying and faking about aviation experience.

I've told you that I ever took aviation study, it was Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics.

What is your study?




> The receiver does. It does not know the *METHOD OF PRODUCTION* of the signal. So as far as it is concerned, any received signal came from a transmitter or radiator.



Your sentence is not precise.

I have replied to amalakas above.

Any detected signal should be transmitted wave from transmitter or reflected wave from reflector/dish; that is the precise sentence; and it doesnt make transmission = reflection.



> But, if you really have aviation experience and study, you would know this.



Really?? you are thinking that your experience make you think so? 
It is another proof that you are a self claimer and faker.

In fact you are trapped with your own word gaming. 



amalakas said:


> wow, another precious example of clarity.
> 
> want to try again because that doesn't make sense?



Explain why it doesnt make sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> ..........
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why it doesnt make sense.






antonius123 said:


> Transceiver B received the transmitted wave from Transmitter A, *or from reflected wave* from reflector/Dish A.
> 
> Still the transmistter is not reflector as per your wish



It is not clear because you are again playing with words. You cannot have it both ways. The transmitted wave *OR * the reflected wave ? 
And I asked you above again, is the wave after reflection different? 

and to clear the thing up. 

look at the following image : 







This explains to *EVERYBODY* with *ENGINEERING BACKGROUND* why for all intends and purposes a transmission = reflection. 

Not that I expect you to understand it.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> It is not clear because you are again playing with words. You cannot have it both ways. The transmitted wave *OR * the reflected wave ?
> And I asked you above again, is the wave after reflection different?
> 
> and to clear the thing up.
> 
> look at the following image :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This explains to *EVERYBODY* with *ENGINEERING BACKGROUND* why for all intends and purposes a transmission = reflection.
> 
> Not that I expect you to understand it.



It is you who is trying to play with words. Those picture doesnt indicate transmission = reflection, it is your own word gaming which is trying to indicate as if it were the same.

If you have basical physic you will understand instantly the difference if you know *that transmitter produce wave and modulation while reflection not*; it automatically imply both are totally different.

But if you like to play word gaming, you will be trapped with your own word gaming like gambit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I never lied by saying I have experience in aviation. It is you who is lying and faking about aviation experience.
> 
> I've told you that I ever took aviation study, it was *Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics.*


Sounds like some made up sh1t to me. Word salad indeed.



antonius123 said:


> What is your study?


Avionics. Ten years of it in the USAF. More real than you can ever 'word salad' together.



antonius123 said:


> Your sentence is not precise.
> 
> I have replied to amalakas above.
> 
> Any detected signal should be transmitted wave from transmitter or reflected wave from reflector/dish; that is the precise sentence; and *it doesnt make transmission = reflection.*


Yes it does. For the receiver it does. For *ANY* receiver it does. Any target is a radiator and the *METHOD OF PRODUCTION* is usually discarded as a factor by receiver design. The word 'receiver' here can mean a physically distinct antenna or it can mean the receiver portion of the radar computer. Why should the receiver care whether the signal it picked up came from a transmitter or from a reflection? And if it does not care, then all targets are radiators/transmitters regardless of method.

But of course, if you have any *REAL* aviation study, not the made up sh1t you 'word salad-ed' up, you would have known this. 



amalakas said:


> Does making paper aeroplanes count for "aviation study" ?
> 
> If it does , then does writing RADAR on the nose of said paper aeroplane make you an avionics expert?
> And if you draw tiny missiles and bombs on the underside of said paper aeroplane, does that make you a weapons tech?
> 
> and if you make a dozen paper aeroplanes, does that make you a squadron commander or an aircraft design bureau like LM or Sukhoi ?


Then he used his home printer to print up a diploma that says honors graduate from 'Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics'.

There...That is the extent of his aviation 'experience' and 'study'.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Sounds like some made up sh1t to me. Word salad indeed.



Why is that?

I have fulfill your request even though i have no obligation for that.



> Avionics. Ten years of it in the USAF. More real than you can ever 'word salad' together.



In fact you are demonstrating "word salad" and clueless.

If you are not fake, then why cant you bring evidence of your claim instead of word gaming?



> Yes it does. For the receiver it does. For *ANY* receiver it does. Any target is a radiator and the *METHOD OF PRODUCTION* is usually discarded as a factor by receiver design. The word 'receiver' here can mean a physically distinct antenna or it can mean the receiver portion of the radar computer. Why should the receiver care whether the signal it picked up came from a transmitter or from a reflection? And if it does not care, then all targets are radiators/transmitters regardless of method.
> 
> But of course, if you have any *REAL* aviation study, not the made up sh1t you 'word salad-ed' up, you would have known this.


 
It does for you because you are trapped with your own word gaming. 

In fact reflection doesn't produce wave and modulation like transmission do. This is already a very basic difference of both. If your background not FAKE, you should know that instantly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Why is that?
> 
> I have fulfill your request even though i have no obligation for that.


When you used that made up 'experience' to try to shut down the Indians, then you are obligated to show everyone what is that experience. This sh1t 'Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics' sounds made up to me.



antonius123 said:


> *In fact reflection doesn't produce wave and modulation like transmission do.* This is already a very basic difference of both. If your background not FAKE, you should know that instantly.


A reflected signal usually matches the transmitted signal. It is just as much a wave as the transmitted signal and contains all the pulse characteristics. This tells everyone that you do not even have the basic sciences required. And to think you actually got 'Thanked' for your nonsense. It says much about the intelligence of those who 'Thanked' you for your nonsensical posts.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> When you used that made up 'experience' to try to shut down the Indians, then you are obligated to show everyone what is that experience. This sh1t 'Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics' sounds made up to me.



Prove it that I ever claim aviation experience!

Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics' sounds made up to you, because you really dont have aviation background at all; thats why you dont have clue 



> A reflected signal usually matches the transmitted signal. It is just as much a wave as the transmitted signal and contains all the pulse characteristics. This tells everyone that you do not even have the basic sciences required. And to think you actually got 'Thanked' for your nonsense. It says much about the intelligence of those who 'Thanked' you for your nonsensical posts.


 
Matched doesnt mean the same. You are idiot.
See.. you are trapped with your own word gaming.

I said: reflection does not produce wave and modulation while transmission does.
Do you understand that? If you do - why cant you see the glaring difference?

It proves that you dont have background. You are just a liar and fake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Prove it that I ever claim aviation experience!
> 
> Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics' sounds made up to you, because you really dont have aviation background at all; thats why you dont have clue
> 
> 
> 
> Matched doesnt mean the same. You are idiot.
> See.. you are trapped with your own word gaming.
> 
> I said: reflection does not produce wave and modulation while transmission does.
> Do you understand that? If you do - why cant you see the glaring difference?
> 
> It proves that you dont have background. You are just a liar and fake.


You are busted, little boy. When you cannot even answer a first year aerodynamics question while you claimed 'experience' or 'study' -- you are busted.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You are busted, little boy. When you cannot even answer a first year aerodynamics question while you claimed 'experience' or 'study' -- you are busted.


 
Is that all you can reply?

See.. you cant respond to my argument any more 

Prove it that I claimed aviation experience!
Prove it that I am wrong when I said: reflection does not produce wave and modulation as transmission does, because it is the basic and glaring difference of both (between reflection vs transmission). If you cant prove, then it means you with your word gaming loose. And you are busted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> It is you who is trying to play with words.
> 
> If you have physic basic you will understand the difference if you know that transmitter produce wave and modulation while reflection not; it automatically imply both are totally different.
> 
> But if you like to play word gaming, you will be trapped with your own word gaming like gambit.



and once more you are replying to NOTHING. 

You clearly have no background or study on anything other than a secondary school. 
You have repeatedly displayed ignorance on basic nomenclature and ideas used in engineering. 

Your insistence on transmission /= reflection is based on a high-school level understanding of what a transmitter is. 

that is why I often ask you to finish school, because you clearly haven't.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> and once more you are replying to NOTHING.



See.. what you can do is DENY, DENY and DENY! 

I have told you "that transmitter produce wave and modulation while reflection not; it automatically imply both are totally different. And you cant replied nor bust anymore.



> You clearly have no background or study on anything other than a secondary school.
> You have repeatedly displayed ignorance on basic nomenclature and ideas used in engineering.



If i dont and you have, then why cant you bring any evidence/citation to bust my argument? 

You are denying and grumbling like an old pa 




> Your insistence on transmission /= reflection is based on a high-school level understanding of what a transmitter is.
> 
> that is why I often ask you to finish school, because you clearly haven't.


 
And where is it the professional citation that oppose to my argument (reflection doesnt produce wave/modulation as transmission does) ?

You claim that it is a high school level of understanding but the sadness you cant even bring any professional citation or evidence to prove that I am wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> See.. what you can do is DENY, DENY and DENY!
> 
> I have told you "that transmitter produce wave and modulation while reflection not; it automatically imply both are totally different. And you cant replied nor bust anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> If i dont and you have, then why cant you bring any evidence/citation to bust my argument?
> 
> You are denying and grumbling like an old pa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is it the professional citation that oppose to my argument (reflection doesnt produce wave/modulation as transmission does) ?
> 
> You claim that it is a high school level of understanding but the sadness you cant even bring any professional citation or evidence to prove that I am wrong.





There is no point for citations because when we bring you citations (from IEEE nonetheless) you can't understand them and you ignore them. 

It matters not, because even with your high school education you managed to corner yourself yet once more. 

So, transmission produces wave and modulation while reflection does not? This is your corner stone argument. 

Fine. What about cobalt-60 say? Does that produce any modulation ? How are you going to bend the laws of physics this time? 

I can't wait to be enlightened again. 

Oh and not to forget.. you clearly (and evidently to all) you have no engineering background, you didn't understand anything from that image I posted. literally anything. And it is sad because it is entry level telecomms stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

duplicate post


----------



## v9s

This is hilarious.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KRAIT

A reflective surface can be replaced by equivalent transmitting surface to make calculations/understanding easy, and this technique is used in elementary Physics. So Gambit is right.


----------



## Esc8781

Can somebody put a picture of the j-20s vertical stabilizers.
P


----------



## amalakas

Esc8781 said:


> Can somebody put a picture of the j-20s vertical stabilizers.
> P



There ya go... .....


----------



## Esc8781

Just comparing it with the f-22's and f-35 vertical stabilizers to me it looks like it might form a dihedral.


----------



## amalakas

Esc8781 said:


> Just comparing it with the f-22's and f-35 vertical stabilizers to me it looks like it might form a dihedral.




It is a point brought forward a few times, not to highlight J-20 shortcomings but to illustrate to some of the funboys in here that criticism is a two way game and that there are points for concern on all designs. 

but alas... talk to a wall you'll get more results.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> There is no point for citations because when we bring you citations (from IEEE nonetheless) you can't understand them and you ignore them.
> 
> It matters not, because even with your high school education you managed to corner yourself yet once more.
> 
> So, *transmission produces wave and modulation while reflection does not?* This is your corner stone argument.
> 
> Fine. What about cobalt-60 say? Does that produce any modulation ? How are you going to bend the laws of physics this time?
> 
> I can't wait to be enlightened again.
> 
> Oh and not to forget.. you clearly (and evidently to all) you have no engineering background, you didn't understand anything from that image I posted. literally anything. And it is sad because it is entry level telecomms stuff.


We all know that 'Chinese physics' are quite flexible.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Prove it that I claimed aviation experience!


You mean like this...



antonius123 said:


> I am not an aerospace engineer, but for sure *my aviation background* is much much better than clueless ignorant child like you
> 
> You cant use winning tender as a benchmark, as we know china has not participate in any international tender for their J-11B/J-15/J-16 / J-20, so your logic is false then your argument is irrelevant.
> 
> The question is: why u are thinking MKI is better than PAKFA? while PAKFA's stealth performance is still questionable compared to J-20?


Question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?'
Answer: 'Power'.

*YOU* did not know that.



antonius123 said:


> *How could people with ignorant post like you try to convince other people in technology matters like aerospace?*
> 
> Your knowledge about china's products obviously is limited to toys, while you need to learn and find fact that your country import a lot high tech fromchina.


Yes, do tell. How could someone as clueless as you are on first year aerodynamics is engaging in a discussion involving technical education, training and experience in the relevant fields and telling people to shut up?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You mean like this...



Which of my sentence that saying I have experience in aviation? none!

You are evidently a liar.



> Question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?'
> Answer: 'Power'.
> 
> *YOU* did not know that.



Old & stupid trick.

Nobody is debating about that, it is you drag it and mix salad in order to pretend as if you were an expert. A failed expert 

Where is evidence that transmission = reflection??
You are not able to prove it. Then you are a fake.




> Yes, do tell. How could someone as clueless as you are on first year aerodynamics is engaging in a discussion involving technical education, training and experience in the relevant fields and telling people to shut up?


 
I am the one who is able to bust faker here 

I debunk your numerous claim in many debates, while you failed to defend and prove your numerous claims.

Even it is proved that you dont have any clue about Aeronautics & Astronautics Study Program. What kind of Aviation expert who doesnt know that?? obviously you are faker

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> There is no point for citations because when we bring you citations (from IEEE nonetheless) you can't understand them and you ignore them.



If you think my solid citation is against citation from IEEE, then it means you dont understand nor have clue about the citation you are talking about



> It matters not, because even with your high school education you managed to corner yourself yet once more.
> 
> So, transmission produces wave and modulation while reflection does not? This is your corner stone argument.
> 
> Fine. What about cobalt-60 say? Does that produce any modulation ? How are you going to bend the laws of physics this time?
> I can't wait to be enlightened again.



Explain what you are trying to argue with cobalt-60 is? which physics law I am going to bend?
Be clear with your argument.



> Oh and not to forget.. you clearly (and evidently to all) you have no engineering background, you didn't understand anything from that image I posted. literally anything. And it is sad because it is entry level telecomms stuff.



You are obviously delusional.

I claim my engineering educational background, and I can prove it with my ability to bust and debunk you - the faked expert 

While it is you, gambit and some cheerleader who find difficult time in googling evidence and defend empty claims 

And it is another strong evidence that you and Gambit has no clue about "Aeronautics & Astronautics Study Program", which demonstrating your fake and clueless about aviation and the study

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Which of my sentence that saying I have experience in aviation? none!
> 
> You are evidently a liar.


Right here...



antonius123 said:


> I am not an aerospace engineer, but for sure *my aviation background* is much much better than clueless ignorant child like you


The liar and fraud is *YOU*.



antonius123 said:


> Old & stupid trick.
> 
> Nobody is debating about that, it is you drag it and mix salad in order to pretend as if you were an expert. A failed expert


Not a trick but a test. And you flunked first year aerodynamics.



antonius123 said:


> Where is evidence that transmission = reflection??
> You are not able to prove it. Then you are a fake.


I have proven it many times over and those who have technical education agreed.



antonius123 said:


> I am the one who is able to bust faker here


The only one you busted is yourself.



antonius123 said:


> Even it is proved that you dont have any clue about *Aeronautics & Astronautics Study Program.* What kind of Aviation expert who doesnt know that?? obviously you are faker


I doubt that there is such a program in Indonesia. More likely you 'word salad-ed' it up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Right here...
> 
> 
> The liar and fraud is *YOU*.
> 
> 
> *Not a trick but a test. And you flunked first year aerodynamics.*
> 
> 
> I have proven it many times over and those who have technical education agreed.
> 
> 
> The only one you busted is yourself.
> 
> 
> I doubt that there is such a program in Indonesia. More likely you 'word salad-ed' it up.




He has flanked 1st year education in general. period. 


Antonius123 is such an expert in Aeronautics and Astronautics that he doesn't realize that if *Reflection and Transmission* are not equivalent (for this context) then we wouldn't have jammers..... how simple is the truth really...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p3avi8tor69

What exactly is his "aviation background" ? Plane spotting at Jakarta International Airport where he is engaged in Aeronautics & Astronautics study where they study how big and loud airliners are


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Right here...
> 
> 
> The liar and fraud is *YOU*.



See... you are still denying your lie.

None of my sentence there word "experience", only "background", and now you are trying to twist background to experience.

How deep is your degree of lie and fake 



> Not a trick but a test. And you flunked first year aerodynamics.



Why dont you stick to the test which is currently debated? why dont you just bring citation/evidence? You obviously failed the real test, and now you are playing diverting? 



> I have proven it many times over and those who have technical education agreed.
> 
> The only one you busted is yourself.


Prove with what? your claim? 
Claim cannot be proved by another claim, word gaming or twisting like you always do.

Only bunch of clueless like amalakas, ptldm3, and few indians fan boys that agree with you.



> I doubt that there is such a program in Indonesia. More likely you 'word salad-ed' it up.


 
Because you have no aviation background therefore you have no clue!

FAKULTAS TEKNIK MESIN DAN DIRGANTARA / ITB » Struktur Kurikulum Program Studi Aeronotika & Astronotika

See... again you prove to be clueless. You can use google translator if you dont understand Indonesian language.


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> What exactly is his "aviation background" ? Plane spotting at Jakarta International Airport where he is engaged in Aeronautics & Astronautics study where they study how big and loud airliners are



If your aviation background is as a janitor in boeing/lockheed, no wonder you have no clue about that 

FAKULTAS TEKNIK MESIN DAN DIRGANTARA / ITB » Struktur Kurikulum Program Studi Aeronotika & Astronotika


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See... you are still denying your lie.
> 
> None of my sentence there word "experience", only "background", and now you are trying to twist background to experience.


That is really amazing and it reveals to every *ADULT* on this forum the depths of your tweenage dishonesty and desperation at being busted. For every *ADULT* who have real jobs and earned real paychecks, the words 'background' and 'experience' are quite the same when someone is talking about him/her-self. The word 'background' is more comprehensive in that it includes education, training, experience and depth of all three.

You are caught in a lie of your own making and is now worming your way through wordplays to get out of it.



antonius123 said:


> Why dont you stick to the test which is currently debated? why dont you just bring citation/evidence? You obviously failed the real test, and now you are playing diverting?


Question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
Answer: Power.

Anyone who have real aviation background would know this. You failed and now you are telling everyone what an 'expert' you are in radar detection. 



antonius123 said:


> FAKULTAS TEKNIK MESIN DAN DIRGANTARA / ITB » Struktur Kurikulum Program Studi Aeronotika & Astronotika
> 
> See... again you prove to be clueless. You can use google translator if you dont understand Indonesian language.


So what if such exist in Indonesia?  How does that proved that you actually attended and completed it? But when you failed to answer a first year aerodynamics question, the existence of such an education is meaningless to you.

Any wonder why you are such a truly useful idiot to the Chinese?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> That is really amazing and it reveals to every *ADULT* on this forum the depths of your tweenage dishonesty and desperation at being busted. For every *ADULT* who have real jobs and earned real paychecks, the words 'background' and 'experience' are quite the same when someone is talking about him/her-self. The word 'background' is more comprehensive in that it includes education, training, experience and depth of all three.
> 
> You are caught in a lie of your own making and is now worming your way through wordplays to get out of it.



Hahahaha.. that is according to you and few people like amalakas, ptldm3. 

We dont need your other claim, as it will be empty claims as usual.
Background is not has to be experience or including field experience. This is another evidence that you are clueless and liar. Prove me if i am wrong!

Our knowledge and background can be tested here; we will be able to see whether you are real expert or fake, not the other way round like you do: trying to prove your counter debate wrong by self claiming. 

If you cant prove sufficiently, then you should draw your empty claim including your such self claimed expert/experience 




> Question: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> Answer: Power.
> 
> Anyone who have real aviation background would know this. You failed and now you are telling everyone what an 'expert' you are in radar detection.



You repost.

Why dont you just prove and bring solid citation to prove your claim? 



> So what if such exist in Indonesia?  How does that proved that you actually attended and completed it? But when you failed to answer a first year aerodynamics question, the existence of such an education is meaningless to you.
> 
> Any wonder why you are such a truly useful idiot to the Chinese?



Same question to you: How do you prove that you have Aviation education and experience?


----------



## p3avi8tor69

So you have no clue what experience and background means. Mommy still gives ya weekly allowance.

At least a janitor at Boeing earns an honest and decent living. You on the other hand, have to fake it to make it, 

Why did it take you so long to come up with Fakultas when you have been challenged to prove your authenticity a long time ago?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Background is not has to be experience or including field experience.


So if background *DOES NOT* include experience, what does it contain? In your case, making paper airplanes and exaggerating it to 'manufacture'.



antonius123 said:


> Our knowledge and background can be tested here;


Yes, and you flunked first year aerodynamics.

According to your source...

FAKULTAS TEKNIK MESIN DAN DIRGANTARA / ITB » Struktur Kurikulum Program Studi Aeronotika & Astronotika

AE4132 is 'Control Theory'.







Which of the above is applicable in a pitch-roll coordinated turn situation?



antonius123 said:


> Same question to you: How do you prove that you have Aviation education and experience?


By my explanations of basic principles here. The same ones that the Chinese learned for the first time in their ignorant and non-experience lives about things military. I have proven myself many times over. In your case, my experience exposed a liar and a fraud.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> So if background *DOES NOT* include experience, what does it contain? In your case, making paper airplanes and exaggerating it to 'manufacture'.



Education.
Idiot 




> Yes, and you flunked first year aerodynamics.
> 
> According to your source...
> 
> FAKULTAS TEKNIK MESIN DAN DIRGANTARA / ITB » Struktur Kurikulum Program Studi Aeronotika & Astronotika
> 
> AE4132 is 'Control Theory'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the above is applicable in a pitch-roll coordinated turn situation?


What is the relationship of your picture above with my educational link??

I am afraid you should go to psychiatrist for mental check 


You failed in 90 degree corner reflector test
You failed in electromagnetic wave transmission test.
You failed to recognize one of Aviation program study.
You failed to distinguish Nacelle with Airduct.
so on...

So you are should be the one who need to be tested here, as you always failed in numerous basic understanding tested during debates. 

Are you ready for another test from me? 



> By my explanations of basic principles here. The same ones that the Chinese learned for the first time in their ignorant and non-experience lives about things military. I have proven myself many times over. In your case, my experience exposed a liar and a fraud.



On the contrary we have proven many times that your basic principle understanding is wrong. 

And you cannot prove your claim with another claim!

When bringing solid citation => you FAILED!

Also I have just proven you dont have any clue about aviation engineering education.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

guys many greats have fallen because of their ego. why don't you people with such knowledge can't keep the ego aside and explain in friendly manner and accept mistakes or ignorance when there is.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Education.


Which we see plenty you have none. So the extent of your aviation 'background' or 'experience' or 'study', however you want to dance, is of lying about it.



antonius123 said:


> What is the relationship of your picture above with my educational link??
> 
> I am afraid you should go to psychiatrist for mental check


It falls under 'Control Theory'. Looks like you brought that link without knowing what it contains.



antonius123 said:


> You failed in 90 degree corner reflector test
> You failed in electromagnetic wave transmission test.
> You failed to recognize one of Aviation program study.
> You failed to distinguish Nacelle with Airduct.
> so on...
> 
> So you are should be the one who need to be tested here, as you always failed in numerous basic understanding tested during debates.


That is a list of *YOUR* ignorance. If you do not have the necessary education then you will have a false understanding of those things. We already know you are a liar.



antonius123 said:


> Are you ready for another test from me?


Are *YOU*?

Name the three main areas in designing an airframe regarding their parameters.

Kid, I toy with you because I like it. And the Indians, who you tried to shut down with your lies about your aviation 'experience', are enjoying this spectacle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Education.
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> What is the relationship of your picture above with my educational link??
> 
> I am afraid you should go to psychiatrist for mental check
> 
> 
> You failed in 90 degree corner reflector test
> You failed in electromagnetic wave transmission test.
> You failed to recognize one of Aviation program study.
> You failed to distinguish Nacelle with Airduct.
> so on...
> 
> So you are should be the one who need to be tested here, as you always failed in numerous basic understanding tested during debates.
> 
> Are you ready for another test from me?
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary we have proven many times that your basic principle understanding is wrong.
> 
> And you cannot prove your claim with another claim!
> 
> When bringing solid citation => you FAILED!
> 
> Also I have just proven you dont have any clue about aviation engineering education.



You are the one who hasn't answered anything. Unfortunately for you, this forum is also a record of what each one of us has posted. 

It is ironic, how much damage to the integrity of chinese achievements your claims and the fanboyism does. 

shame really.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Which we see plenty you have none. So the extent of your aviation 'background' or 'experience' or 'study', however you want to dance, is of lying about it.



On the contrary, we see none of your claimed aviation education.




> It falls under 'Control Theory'. Looks like you brought that link without knowing what it contains.


Tell me *what the advantage of PLC over DCS*, and vice versa?
This is still the basic questions regarding the control technology 



> That is a list of *YOUR* ignorance. If you do not have the necessary education then you will have a false understanding of those things. We already know you are a liar.



How could you claim my ignorance while you cant even defend your claim and answer my challenge? 

If i were ignorant, then I would have repeated the same questioned which had been answered many times. But in fact you bury your head into sand when your logic and argumentation were challenged. 



> Are *YOU*?
> 
> Name the three main areas in designing an airframe regarding their parameters.
> 
> Kid, I toy with you because I like it. And the Indians, who you tried to shut down with your lies about your aviation 'experience', are enjoying this spectacle.


 
If you cannot defend your previous argumentations, cannot admit your clueless, and keep denying many citations/evidences given, how could I convince you my answer? looser .. 

How could you challenge me and plan to judge me about my aviation knowledge, if you dont understand the basic aviation thing like : "the *difference between NACELLE vs AIRDUCT* !? "

What a joker and faker you are 



amalakas said:


> You are the one who hasn't answered anything. Unfortunately for you, this forum is also a record of what each one of us has posted.
> 
> It is ironic, how much damage to the integrity of chinese achievements your claims and the fanboyism does.
> 
> shame really.


 
This forum is a record indeed.

Thats why your inability to prove your claim about my statement is self explanatory about your lie, fake and cheer leader mentality.

Also remember when I busted your claim and your miss understanding on the citations you bring about non 90 degree corner and transmission=reflection? what have you defended ?

Instead you are burying you head into sand, playing with word gaming and denial, and cheer leading your master gambit

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> And the Indians, who you tried to shut down with your lies about your aviation 'experience', are enjoying this spectacle.


 

Are you still keep burning indian member's fire and kissing arss in order that they keep supporting your indefensible delusion and fake?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> On the contrary, we see none of your claimed aviation education.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me *what the advantage of PLC over DCS*, and vice versa?
> This is still the basic questions regarding the control technology
> 
> 
> 
> How could you claim my ignorance while you cant even defend your claim and answer my challenge?
> 
> If i were ignorant, then I would have repeated the same questioned which had been answered many times. But in fact you bury your head into sand when your logic and argumentation were challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot defend your previous argumentations, cannot admit your clueless, and keep denying many citations/evidences given, how could I convince you my answer? looser ..
> 
> How could you challenge me and plan to judge me about my aviation knowledge, if you dont understand the basic aviation thing like : "the *difference between NACELLE vs AIRDUCT* !? "
> 
> What a joker and faker you are
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is a record indeed.
> 
> Thats why your inability to prove your claim about my statement is self explanatory about your lie, fake and cheer leader mentality.
> 
> Also remember when I busted your claim and your miss understanding on the citations you bring about non 90 degree corner and transmission=reflection? what have you defended ?
> 
> Instead you are burying you head into sand, playing with word gaming and denial, and cheer leading your master gambit



You busted my claim about the corner reflector ????

You couldn't even understand what the publications titles were about !!!! well that is the joke of the ages !!!!


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> On the contrary, we see none of your claimed aviation education.


You mean only *YOU* do not see it. I have been here far longer than you have and plenty of people have seen it through my posts. Whereas with you, everyone can see what a fraud you are.



antonius123 said:


> Tell me *what the advantage of PLC over DCS*, and vice versa?
> This is still the basic questions regarding the control technology


This is further evidence of your lack of aviation 'background' like you claimed to have. In avionics, 'Control Theory' is beyond PLC vs DCS. It is about pneudraulics, mechanics, and flight control laws.



antonius123 said:


> How could you claim my ignorance while you cant even defend your claim and answer my challenge?


A challenge from one who lied about his 'experience' or 'background' or 'study' is worthless.



antonius123 said:


> If i were ignorant, then I would have repeated the same questioned which had been answered many times. But in fact you bury your head into sand when your logic and argumentation were challenged.


But you are ignorant.

Question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?'
Answer: Power.

That is first year aerodynamics. Why did you not know it?



antonius123 said:


> If you cannot defend your previous argumentations, cannot admit your clueless, and keep denying many citations/evidences given, how could I convince you my answer? looser


The real loser here is *YOU* because you do not understand the true meaning of those sources because you have no real technical education. You lied about it.



antonius123 said:


> How could you challenge me and plan to judge me about my aviation knowledge, if you dont understand the basic aviation thing like : "the *difference between NACELLE vs AIRDUCT* !? "


If you have no real aviation education, training and experience, it will be *YOU* who will have a false understanding of them.



antonius123 said:


> What a joker and faker you are
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is a record indeed.
> 
> Thats why your inability to prove your claim about my statement is self explanatory about your lie, fake and cheer leader mentality.
> 
> Also remember when I busted your claim and your miss understanding on the citations you bring about non 90 degree corner and transmission=reflection? what have you defended ?
> 
> Instead you are burying you head into sand, playing with word gaming and denial, and cheer leading your master gambit


Since you failed to answer my question on post 2434, I will make it easier on you.

For any design, fuselage and range motivate the minimum takeoff weight engineering. So what motivate the wing area?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> On the contrary, we see none of your claimed aviation education.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me *what the advantage of PLC over DCS*, and vice versa?



Answering generic control technology questions is supposed to make us prove ourselves. Large scale replacements to factory relays have anything to do with Aviation and avionics ? what are you ? some kind of a crazy person? 


And just so you don't think we are running away : 

PLC=Programmable Logic Controller
DCS=Distributed Control System

PLC's main purpose is to replace the relay logic controls which is "On" or "Off". And DCS "Distributed Control Systems" its emphasis is Fast analog handling because of communications through Bus systems, networking etc.

PLC was developed as a replacement for many relays. DCS was developed as a replacement for many PID controllers.

These days the difference between these two architectures is not very big. Both have a CPU card (controller module) and an I/O subsystem with I/O modules. In the past a PLC was purely logic and the DCS purely continuous controller. The PLC was programmed in ladder and the DCS in function blocks. Today both handle all kinds of I/O and can be programmed in multiple languages. In the past a DCS included servers and workstations software whereas for the PLC the HMI software was purchased separately. I.e. with a
DCS you got an integrated system whereas with PLC you did system integration.
**** there is a footnote to this which may or may not be relevant in the future * 


Now, what large scale factory control systems have to do with Aviation is anyone's guess. 

*Now I have a question for you, what is QFT ?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Are you still keep burning indian member's fire and kissing arss in order that they keep supporting your indefensible delusion and fake?


You tried to use your aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians.

It is understood that the word 'background' usually includes: education, training and experience, in that order. But in your case, you redefined 'background' to eliminate experience.

Fine with me.

So *YOU* eliminate experience out of background for your own face saving convenience. We know that you have no aviation related education because you failed to answer a first year aerodynamics question:

- What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
- Power.

So now we can eliminate education from your aviation background. But we all know that training is not possible unless a person have the necessary education to put to practice theories learned in education. Since we have eliminated education from your background, *YOU* eliminated experience and logic eliminated training.

That leave your aviation 'background' as -- *NOTHING*.



You are not doing the Chinese and the J-20 any good, buddy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> You are not doing the Chinese and the J-20 any good, buddy.



That is the sad thing with all the thanks one gives the other. Most of the time they have no idea what amount of ignorance they have just supported, rendering at once all of their posts useless for any purpose other than comedy!


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> That is the sad thing with all the thanks one gives the other. Most of the time they have no idea what amount of ignorance they have just supported, rendering at once all of their posts useless for any purpose other than comedy!


The 'Thank' feature have been rendered next to worthless, not just by the Chinese but by anyone who is basically anti-US for any reason. It is a feeble attempt at a backhanded slap to the Americans here by saying that: 'Of all the posts I see only this and that I find useful.' Even if the supposedly 'useful' post contains nothing more than a 'troll' comment or a cheap insult.


----------



## Firemaster

amalakas said:


> That is the sad thing with all the thanks one gives the other. Most of the time they have no idea what amount of ignorance they have just supported, rendering at once all of their posts useless for any purpose other than comedy!


Well most of the times when I like posts of yours or gambit or any other professional, It is for the amount of knowledge you guys are posting in order to make correct terminologies and ideas for readers and some sane members.
regards,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Firemaster said:


> Well most of the times when I like posts of yours or gambit or any other professional, It is for the amount of knowledge you guys are posting in order to make correct terminologies and ideas for readers and some sane members.
> regards,



I have to admit that this particular guy has brought me to the end of my stamina a few times...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Firemaster

amalakas said:


> I have to admit that this particular guy has brought me to the end of my stamina a few times...


Well Sir, We cant made someone forcibly to agree with us.If he is not agreeing with you for this long, he wont agree even after this, no matter how long you keep him convincing or busting.
It is upto the silent watchers, the sane ones who know and can judge that who has actual experience.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You tried to use your aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians.
> 
> It is understood that the word 'background' usually includes: education, training and experience, in that order. But in your case, you redefined 'background' to eliminate experience.
> 
> Fine with me.
> 
> So *YOU* eliminate experience out of background for your own face saving convenience. We know that you have no aviation related education because you failed to answer a first year aerodynamics question:
> 
> - What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> - Power.
> 
> So now we can eliminate education from your aviation background. But we all know that training is not possible unless a person have the necessary education to put to practice theories learned in education. Since we have eliminated education from your background, *YOU* eliminated experience and logic eliminated training.
> 
> That leave your aviation 'background' as -- *NOTHING*.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not doing the Chinese and the J-20 any good, buddy.


 
See .. you re post the same question that I already replied/answered. It prove how severe your ignorance is.

Furthermore, you are insisting and forcing your own thought (miss conception) to other peoples. What kind of faker are you? 

I have been waiting any evidence you can bring to support your claim that Background has to include experience...where???

Arent you ashamed glaringly demonstrating your emptiness, idiocy and ignorance? 



amalakas said:


> That is the sad thing with all the thanks one gives the other. Most of the time they have no idea what amount of ignorance they have just supported, rendering at once all of their posts useless for any purpose other than comedy!


 
And again you are coming as his cheer leader 



gambit said:


> The 'Thank' feature have been rendered next to worthless, not just by the Chinese but by anyone who is basically anti-US for any reason. It is a feeble attempt at a backhanded slap to the Americans here by saying that: 'Of all the posts I see only this and that I find useful.' Even if the supposedly 'useful' post contains nothing more than a 'troll' comment or a cheap insult.


 
Bla bla bla... the slap is only for faker, ignorance and clueless like you and the cheerleaders (amalakas, etc)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Answering generic control technology questions is supposed to make us prove ourselves. Large scale replacements to factory relays have anything to do with Aviation and avionics ? what are you ? some kind of a crazy person?



I am just following gambit's game.



> And just so you don't think we are running away :
> 
> PLC=Programmable Logic Controller
> DCS=Distributed Control System
> 
> PLC's main purpose is to replace the relay logic controls which is "On" or "Off". And DCS "Distributed Control Systems" its emphasis is Fast analog handling because of communications through Bus systems, networking etc.
> 
> PLC was developed as a replacement for many relays. DCS was developed as a replacement for many PID controllers.
> 
> These days the difference between these two architectures is not very big. Both have a CPU card (controller module) and an I/O subsystem with I/O modules. In the past a PLC was purely logic and the DCS purely continuous controller. The PLC was programmed in ladder and the DCS in function blocks. Today both handle all kinds of I/O and can be programmed in multiple languages. In the past a DCS included servers and workstations software whereas for the PLC the HMI software was purchased separately. I.e. with a
> DCS you got an integrated system whereas with PLC you did system integration.
> **** there is a footnote to this which may or may not be relevant in the future *
> 
> 
> Now, what large scale factory control systems have to do with Aviation is anyone's guess.
> 
> *Now I have a question for you, what is QFT ?*


 
You are not answering my questions at all. Instead you are only copy and paste internet article about PLC and DCS 

I ask you again: what is the advantage of PLC over DCS? this is the basic about control engineering. And I am not surprised the faker Gambit until now cannot come with clue or answer


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> See .. you re post the same question that I already replied/answered. It prove how severe your ignorance is.
> 
> Furthermore, you are insisting and forcing your own thought (miss conception) to other peoples. What kind of faker are you?
> 
> I have been waiting any evidence you can bring to support your claim that Background has to include experience...where???
> 
> Arent you ashamed glaringly demonstrating your emptiness, idiocy and ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> And again you are coming as his cheer leader
> 
> 
> 
> Bla bla bla... the slap is only for faker, ignorance and clueless like you and the cheerleaders (amalakas, etc)



will you reply to anything of value ? because you are still just taking up valuable space here


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See .. you re post the same question that I already replied/answered. It prove how severe your ignorance is.
> 
> Furthermore, you are insisting and forcing your own thought (miss conception) to other peoples. What kind of faker are you?
> 
> *I have been waiting any evidence you can bring to support your claim that Background has to include experience...where???*
> 
> Arent you ashamed glaringly demonstrating your emptiness, idiocy and ignorance?


Sure...

Background | Define Background at Dictionary.com


> one's origin, *education, experience, etc.*, in relation to one's present character, status, etc.


You have none of education and experience.

You failed to answer my question regarding the relationship wing area engineering in post 2439...



gambit said:


> Since you failed to answer my question on post 2434, I will make it easier on you.
> 
> For any design, fuselage and range motivate the minimum takeoff weight engineering. So *what motivate the wing area?*


...So the answer is: Approach speed, initial cruise altitude and balanced field length.

Balanced field takeoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The *balanced field length* is the shortest field length at which a balanced field takeoff can be performed.


Next first year aerodynamics/aviation question: What motivate the propulsion engineering?

No one is asking for any hard math here. Heck, I do not remember much -- if not most -- of it......But at least I remember the principles. Surely you who tried to shut down the Indians with your aviation 'background' should remember these, after all, you certainly are much younger than I am.


----------



## eachus

gambit, can you read and explain how that happens? 

July 13, 2012


&#8220;Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch&#8221; 
Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska 

Farnborough 2012: &#8220;Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch&#8221; Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska « The Aviationist


As we have already reported, the Typhoons and the Raptor had the opportunity engage each other in dissimilar air combat training but only a part of the story about the outcome of the mock engagements has been reported so far: the one about the German commander saying that the F-22&#8242;s capabilities are &#8220;overwhelming,&#8221; a statement that, according to Eurofighter sources, was taken out of context.

Indeed, Typhoon pilots at Farnborough said that, when flying without their external fuel tanks, in the WVR (Within Visual Range) arena, the Eurofighter not only held its own, but proved to be better than the Raptor.

Indeed, it looks like the F-22 tends to lose too much energy when using thrust vectoring (TV): TV can be useful to enable a rapid direction change without losing sight of the adversary but, unless the Raptor can manage to immediately get in the proper position to score a kill, the energy it loses makes the then slow moving stealth combat plane quite vulnerable.

This would be coherent by analysis made in the past according to which the TV it&#8217;s not worth the energy cost unless the fighter is in the post stall regime, especially in the era of High Off Bore Sight and Helmet Mounted Display (features that the F-22 lacks).

Obviously, U.S. fighter pilots could argue that, flying a stealthy plane they will never need to engage an enemy in WVR dogfight, proving that, as already explained several times, kills and HUD captures scored during air combat training are not particularly interesting unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.

However, not all the modern and future scenarios envisage BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements and the risk of coming to close range 1 vs 1 (or 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 etc) is still high, especially considered that the F-22 currently uses AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, whose maximum range is around 100 km (below the Meteor missile used by the Typhoon).

Moreover, at a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane &#8220;especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22&#8243; a Eurofighter pilot said.

Anyway, the Typhoons scored several Raptor kills during the Red Flag Alaska. On one day a German pilot, recounting a succesfull mission ironically commented: &#8220;yesterday, we have had a Raptor salad for lunch.&#8221;


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> gambit, can you read and explain how that happens?


Already answered...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-we-had-raptor-salad-lunch-2.html#post3228751


----------



## eachus

gambit said:


> Already answered...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-we-had-raptor-salad-lunch-2.html#post3228751



you did not answer this,

Moreover, at a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane &#8220;especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22&#8243; a Eurofighter pilot said.


I thought F22 has 3-S, how come it lost to Typhoon, the older generation.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> will you reply to anything of value ? because you are still just taking up valuable space here


 
What kind of value do you expect from your counter debate for your no valuable word gaming and cheerleading?

Check again your own post. Do you think all or most of your post is valuable? 



gambit said:


> Already answered...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-we-had-raptor-salad-lunch-2.html#post3228751


 
Do you think you have answered? You dont answered anything yet as usual

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Sure...
> 
> Background | Define Background at Dictionary.com
> 
> You have none of education and experience.



See again the sentence, idiot.

You have poor reading comprehension.

Experience could be one ingredient of the background.

Do you think one without field/working experience = having no background at all? 



> You failed to answer my question regarding the relationship wing area engineering in post 2439...
> 
> 
> ...So the answer is: Approach speed, initial cruise altitude and balanced field length.
> 
> Balanced field takeoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Next first year aerodynamics/aviation question: What motivate the propulsion engineering?
> 
> No one is asking for any hard math here. Heck, I do not remember much -- if not most -- of it......But at least I remember the principles. Surely you who tried to shut down the Indians with your aviation 'background' should remember these, after all, you certainly are much younger than I am.


 
Do you think you will have a credit by showing off your internet copy and paste? 
Do you think people will fall to believe you are an expert by copy and paste?



I've told you that you have lost your credibility since you claim: Airduct/intake = Nacelle. What kind of aviation expert that unable to distinguish Air Intake with Nacelle? 

If you can't accept my citation, explanation and evidence when I busted you regarding Nacelle = air intake, then what can we expect you to accept my valid answer? 

I give you another chance to prove your claim. Tell me why do you call the PAKFA's air intake as a nacelle? What is nacelle?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> gambit, can you read and explain how that happens?
> 
> July 13, 2012
> 
> 
> &#8220;Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch&#8221;
> Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska
> 
> Farnborough 2012: &#8220;Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch&#8221; Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska « The Aviationist
> 
> 
> As we have already reported, the Typhoons and the Raptor had the opportunity engage each other in dissimilar air combat training but only a part of the story about the outcome of the mock engagements has been reported so far: the one about the German commander saying that the F-22&#8242;s capabilities are &#8220;overwhelming,&#8221; a statement that, according to Eurofighter sources, was taken out of context.
> 
> Indeed, Typhoon pilots at Farnborough said that, when flying without their external fuel tanks, in the WVR (Within Visual Range) arena, the Eurofighter not only held its own, but proved to be better than the Raptor.
> 
> Indeed, it looks like the F-22 tends to lose too much energy when using thrust vectoring (TV): TV can be useful to enable a rapid direction change without losing sight of the adversary but, unless the Raptor can manage to immediately get in the proper position to score a kill, the energy it loses makes the then slow moving stealth combat plane quite vulnerable.
> 
> This would be coherent by analysis made in the past according to which the TV it&#8217;s not worth the energy cost unless the fighter is in the post stall regime, especially in the era of High Off Bore Sight and Helmet Mounted Display (features that the F-22 lacks).
> 
> Obviously, U.S. fighter pilots could argue that, flying a stealthy plane they will never need to engage an enemy in WVR dogfight, proving that, as already explained several times, kills and HUD captures scored during air combat training are not particularly interesting unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.
> 
> However, not all the modern and future scenarios envisage BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements and the risk of coming to close range 1 vs 1 (or 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 etc) is still high, especially considered that the F-22 currently uses AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, whose maximum range is around 100 km (below the Meteor missile used by the Typhoon).
> 
> Moreover, at a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane &#8220;especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22&#8243; a Eurofighter pilot said.
> 
> Anyway, the Typhoons scored several Raptor kills during the Red Flag Alaska. On one day a German pilot, recounting a succesfull mission ironically commented: &#8220;yesterday, we have had a Raptor salad for lunch.&#8221;


 


eachus said:


> you did not answer this,
> 
> Moreover, at a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane &#8220;especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22&#8243; a Eurofighter pilot said.
> 
> 
> I thought F22 has 3-S, how come it lost to Typhoon, the older generation.



See how some times we get trapped into our own arguments.

No plane is unbeatable. 

The F-22 is perhaps not as agile as the EF2000 or the Su-xxx s .. so some victories are going to be scored. Remember the ratio given often is the 10-1 against Su-30s and such. 

It implies that some Raptors may be lost. As any reasonable man would assume in war anything is possible. 


However when some of us where discussing these issues in favour of russian and european planes the chinese members were ready to point out that the J-20 will have no such weak points.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> See again the sentence, idiot.
> 
> You have poor reading comprehension.
> 
> Experience could be one ingredient of the background.
> 
> Do you think one without field/working experience = having no background at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you will have a credit by showing off your internet copy and paste?
> Do you think people will fall to believe you are an expert by copy and paste?
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you that you have lost your credibility since you claim: Airduct/intake = Nacelle. What kind of aviation expert that unable to distinguish Air Intake with Nacelle?
> 
> If you can't accept my citation, explanation and evidence when I busted you regarding Nacelle = air intake, then what can we expect you to accept my valid answer?
> 
> I give you another chance to prove your claim. Tell me why do you call the PAKFA's air intake as a nacelle? What is nacelle?




and I thought I wouldn't be entertained tonite... 

here is an air duct 







Notice how it is from an *air conditioning unit !!*


Yet another one :







So as you can see an air duct is anything that pretty much ... guides air...


Actually the *dictionary * of the *english language* supports the reasonable claim.. 

Nacelle | Define Nacelle at Dictionary.com


> nacelle&#8194;
> 
> noun
> 
> 1.the enclosed part of an airplane, dirigible, etc., in which the engine is housed or in which cargo or passengers are carried.
> 2. the car of a balloon.




Air duct | Define Air duct at Dictionary.com


> air duct&#8194;
> noun
> an enclosure, usually of sheet metal, that conducts heated or conditioned air.
> noun
> a duct that provides ventilation (as in mines)



What are you going to say now? you don't like online dictionaries ? 


keep up the comedy man...


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> See how some times we get trapped into our own arguments.
> 
> No plane is unbeatable.
> 
> The F-22 is perhaps not as agile as the EF2000 or the Su-xxx s .. so some victories are going to be scored. Remember the ratio given often is the 10-1 against Su-30s and such.
> 
> It implies that some Raptors may be lost. As any reasonable man would assume in war anything is possible.
> 
> 
> However when some of us where discussing these issues in favour of russian and european planes the chinese members were ready to point out that the J-20 will have no such weak points.


Why should you drag J-20 here? nobody claim that J-20 has no weakness point. It is you who are too sensitive with some member's explanation.

Btw your explanation is too general, and the skin level, with many "perhaps" and "maybe". Not touching yet about WVR explanation, which is actually the essential explanation here. Actually that ratio you mentioned is about BVR engagement.



amalakas said:


> and I thought I wouldn't be entertained tonite...


You are busting your own master 

Why dont you feel entertained by your own master gambit? it is him who claimed Nacelle when I mentioned about uneven "Air Intake" gap on PAKFA (that contribute rcs) 



> here is an air duct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how it is from an *air conditioning unit !!*
> 
> 
> Yet another one :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as you can see an air duct is anything that pretty much ... guides air...
> 
> 
> Actually the *dictionary * of the *english language* supports the reasonable claim..
> 
> Nacelle | Define Nacelle at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> Air duct | Define Air duct at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> What are you going to say now? you don't like online dictionaries ?
> 
> 
> keep up the comedy man...


I already know what airduct, air intake, and nacelle. I challenge your master Gambit because he doesnt know which is paradox to his self claimed aviation expert 

And, where is the Nacelle part on PAKFA?? Remember your master Gambit call it as Nacelle when I mentioned PAKFA's air intake. 

I am feeling entertained with your comedy actually

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Why should you drag J-20 here? nobody claim that J-20 has no weakness point. It is you who are too sensitive with some member's explanation.
> 
> Btw your explanation is too general, and the skin level, with many "perhaps" and "maybe". Not touching yet about WVR explanation, which is actually the essential explanation here. Actually that ratio you mentioned is about BVR engagement.
> 
> 
> You are busting your own master
> 
> Why dont you feel entertained by your own master gambit? it is him who claimed Nacelle when I mentioned about uneven "Air Intake" gap on PAKFA (that contribute rcs)
> 
> 
> I already know what airduct, air intake, and nacelle. I challenge your master Gambit because he doesnt know which is paradox to his self claimed aviation expert
> 
> And, where is the Nacelle part on PAKFA?? Remember your master Gambit call it as Nacelle when I mentioned PAKFA's air intake.
> 
> I am feeling entertained with your comedy actually



That is because the engines in the pak fa are in nacelles maybe ??

The engines in the MiG 29,Su-27-xx and the PakFa are in a Nacelle each. the front part of any nacelle is the air intake genius .... 

keep coming back comedy man, we'll kindly respond to anything...


----------



## eachus

amalakas said:


> See how some times we get trapped into our own arguments.
> 
> No plane is unbeatable.
> 
> The F-22 is perhaps not as agile as the EF2000 or the Su-xxx s .. so some victories are going to be scored. Remember the ratio given often is the 10-1 against Su-30s and such.
> 
> It implies that some Raptors may be lost. As any reasonable man would assume in war anything is possible.
> 
> 
> However when some of us where discussing these issues in favour of russian and european planes the chinese members were ready to point out that the J-20 will have no such weak points.




Well, J-20 nobody claim it is perfect. very few ppl insist it has supercruise capability at least for now. 
but, F-22 is different, it it supposed to be the king of the sky. 


fifth-generation fighters F-22 defined as big "3S".
1) having all-aspect stealth even when armed.
2) with super maneuverability achieve through thrust vectoring.
3) supercruise capability. 


the king with "super maneuverability" get into the lunch salad by 4th generation on dog fighting, it is a surprise to me. the F16 pilot said he saw a F-22 in the front suddenly the same F-22 locks the F16 from behind. F-22 was God like fighter. 

I still dont understand "super maneuverability achieve through thrust vectoring" can shoot down by older generation easily. how that is possible. I am not talking about something with "good" maneuverability, it is "super"!


Anyway, the Typhoons scored several Raptor kills during the Red Flag Alaska. On one day a German pilot, recounting a succesfull mission ironically commented: &#8220;yesterday, we have had a Raptor salad for lunch.&#8221;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> Well, J-20 nobody claim it is perfect. very few ppl insist it has supercruise capability at least for now.
> but, F-22 is different, it it supposed to be the king of the sky.
> 
> 
> fifth-generation fighters F-22 defined as big "3S".
> 1) having all-aspect stealth even when armed.
> 2) with super maneuverability achieve through thrust vectoring.
> 3) supercruise capability.
> 
> 
> the king with "super maneuverability" get into the lunch salad by 4th generation on dog fighting, it is a surprise to me. the F16 pilot said he saw a F-22 in the front suddenly the same F-22 locks the F16 from behind. F-22 was God like fighter.
> 
> I still dont understand "super maneuverability achieve through thrust vectoring" can shoot down by older generation easily. how that is possible. I am not talking about something with "good" maneuverability, it is "super"!
> 
> 
> Anyway, the Typhoons scored several Raptor kills during the Red Flag Alaska. On one day a German pilot, recounting a succesfull mission ironically commented: yesterday, we have had a Raptor salad for lunch.


 
There are certain areas in the flight envelope considered "super maneuverability". 
Besides the EF2000 has HMQS and IRST, it makes things easier than the simple F-16.


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> you did not answer this,


Yes, I did. Here is the significant passage that others and you ignored because it is too inconvenient...

F-22 Raptor kill markings shown off by German Eurofighter Typhoons. &#8220;The F-22 is not invincible&#8221; saga continues. « The Aviationist


> However, as already explained several times, simulated kills scored during dissimilar BFM engagements dont prove a fighter plane is better than another one, and are almost *meaningless unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.*


We do not know what those rules were at that time. Probably unknown to you, the reality is that instructors often lose to students, not because they are inferior pilots, but because they set themselves up in inferior positions to illustrate principles, to teach students how to maintain advantages, and how to cope with dissimilar flight capabilities. Anyone can be an instructor for a short amount of time in Red Flag. That comment by the German pilot could be simple bravado. I know you do not like to know facts that may challenge your made up mind about this, especially when the pull of China is strong in you. 



eachus said:


> Moreover, at a distance of about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22&#8243; a Eurofighter pilot said.


No one is immuned from his own IR radiation, meaning no one has yet able to control his own IR radiation the way we could with EM via shaping. So there is nothing new here. Further, IR sensor do not give vital target resolutions like: altitude, heading, speed and aspect angle. It only give general direction. For aspect angle, if the IR source is fluctuating and there is a highest read, that could be accurately guessed to be the target's engines, meaning the target is heading away from the sensor.

However, this does not mean the F-22 will *ALWAYS* be in such a disadvantaged situations.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See again the sentence, idiot.
> 
> You have poor reading comprehension.
> 
> *Experience could be one ingredient of the background.*
> 
> Do you think one without field/working experience = having no background at all?


In your case, you have no experience at all, correct?



antonius123 said:


> Do you think you will have a credit by showing off your internet copy and paste?
> Do you think people will fall to believe you are an expert by copy and paste?
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you that you have lost your credibility since you claim: Airduct/intake = Nacelle. What kind of aviation expert that unable to distinguish Air Intake with Nacelle?
> 
> If you can't accept my citation, explanation and evidence when I busted you regarding Nacelle = air intake, then what can we expect you to accept my valid answer?
> 
> I give you another chance to prove your claim. Tell me why do you call the PAKFA's air intake as a nacelle? What is nacelle?


Since you failed to answer another first year aerodynamics/aviation question, the answer to: 'What motivate the propulsion engineering?'

Is: Initial cruise altitude, balanced field length, cruise speed and maximum cruise speed.

So here is what we do know about you and your lie about your 'background':

You tried to use your 'background' to shut down the Indians. But when challenged about what 'background' you sputtered something about 'study' and gave a link about an Indonesian aviation college source.

You do not know a basic first year aerodynamics question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?'

You do not know the three main engineering points in designing an aircraft: minimum takeof weight (MTOW), wing area and propulsion. As well what factors motivate them. That mean you have no education in aviation at all.

So if you have no education and experience, that mean you have no training and that mean your 'background' is completely empty.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> In your case, you have no experience at all, correct?



No relevant experience, but relevant education have.

How about your education and experience? Please no more fake.



> Since you failed to answer another first year aerodynamics/aviation question, the answer to: 'What motivate the propulsion engineering?'
> 
> Is: Initial cruise altitude, balanced field length, cruise speed and maximum cruise speed.
> 
> So here is what we do know about you and your lie about your 'background':
> 
> You tried to use your 'background' to shut down the Indians. But when challenged about what 'background' you sputtered something about 'study' and gave a link about an Indonesian aviation college source.
> 
> You do not know a basic first year aerodynamics question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?'
> 
> You do not know the three main engineering points in designing an aircraft: minimum takeof weight (MTOW), wing area and propulsion. As well what factors motivate them. That mean you have no education in aviation at all.
> 
> So if you have no education and experience, that mean you have no training and that mean your 'background' is completely empty.


 
I dont answered yet, not failed. It is your bad habit in twisting other people statement. 

I am still waiting your answer on my question that is very much relevant to our debate.

If you fail, then no need for me to answer any question you like to throw.

You have ruin your credibility you have built by dragging and copy & past internet article, as you failled in many topics. Aviation expert should know what nacelle is and what air intake is, why cant you? 



amalakas said:


> That is because the engines in the pak fa are in nacelles maybe ??
> 
> The engines in the MiG 29,Su-27-xx and the PakFa are in a Nacelle each. the front part of any nacelle is the air intake genius ....
> 
> keep coming back comedy man, we'll kindly respond to anything...



Well, you are slapping your own master Gambit 

Since he claims that the uneven "Air Intake" I referred as the contributor to RCS should have been called "Nacelle" according to your master the expert 



amalakas said:


> There are certain areas in the flight envelope considered "super maneuverability".
> Besides the EF2000 has HMQS and IRST, it makes things easier than the simple F-16.



the Typhoons scored several Raptor kills during the Red Flag Alaska. On one day a German pilot, recounting a succesfull mission ironically commented: yesterday, we have had a Raptor salad for lunch.

If both EF2K and Raptor each has it's own flight envelope of super maneuverability as the reason, then it doesnt answered yet.

The article has indicate the "clue", if you have adequate reading comprehension

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> No relevant experience, but relevant education have.
> 
> How about your education and experience? Please no more fake.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont answered yet, not failed. It is your bad habit in twisting other people statement.
> 
> I am still waiting your answer on my question that is very much relevant to our debate.
> 
> If you fail, then no need for me to answer any question you like to throw.
> 
> You have ruin your credibility you have built by dragging and copy & past internet article, as you failled in many topics. Aviation expert should know what nacelle is and what air intake is, why cant you?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are slapping your own master Gambit
> 
> Since he claims that the uneven "Air Intake" I referred as the contributor to RCS should have been called "Nacelle" according to your master the expert
> 
> 
> 
> the Typhoons scored several Raptor kills during the Red Flag Alaska. On one day a German pilot, recounting a succesfull mission ironically commented: &#8220;yesterday, we have had a Raptor salad for lunch.&#8221;
> 
> If both EF2K and Raptor each has it's own flight envelope of super maneuverability as the reason, then it doesnt answered yet.
> 
> The article has indicate the "clue", if you have adequate reading comprehension




Your posts deteriorate with time, do you know that? it is harder and harder to understand what you are on about.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Your posts deteriorate with time, do you know that? it is harder and harder to understand what you are on about.


 
Which one? about the Raptor salad lunch for Typhoon?

Which part you dont understand?

There is no excuse for you to say you dont understand what I am telling as the above; you claim yourself as one with military/aviation experience, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Which one? about the Raptor salad lunch for Typhoon?
> 
> Which part you dont understand?
> 
> There is no excuse for you to say you dont understand what I am telling as the above; you claim yourself as one with military/aviation experience, right?



everything you wrote is a mess. 

On the raptors issue I have nothing more to comment. The question is why do some people think that EF2000 scoring kills in exercises with Raptors is news? 

Until relatively recently (or maybe still even, Gambit will know more about this), the aggressors where still using F-5Es! 

These planes regularly sweep the floor with much more advanced aircraft because of their agility and performance. 

The point is exercises are mostly to sharpen a pilot's skills and get him to use his aircraft to the limit. 

Combat operations have little to do with these exercises in terms of goals and use of assets. 

Greek F-16s decimated the aggressors in RED FLAG a few years ago. What is that supposed to mean? That we could beat the USAF ? It simply means the pilots are excellent and they performed excellent in the test! 

It is known that a Raptor would very rarely get caught in a dogfight. Why? its pilot would simply choose NOT to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> No relevant experience, but *relevant education have.*


Bullsh1t.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You did not know it. There goes your claim about having aviation education.



antonius123 said:


> How about your education and experience? Please no more fake.


I have proven myself to many here many times over long before you got here, little boy.



antonius123 said:


> I dont answered yet, not failed.


You do not answer at all but simply danced around the question. 



antonius123 said:


> I am still waiting your answer on my question that is very much relevant to our debate.


Your question about PLC is irrelevant. This is about aviation of which you claimed to have education.



antonius123 said:


> If you fail, then no need for me to answer any question you like to throw.


You do not answer my questions because you have no education. You lied.



antonius123 said:


> You have ruin your credibility you have built by dragging and copy & past internet article, as you failled in many topics. Aviation expert should know what nacelle is and what air intake is, why cant you?


Say that I do not know a damn thing about aviation. Why does that prevent you from answering? 

So here is another one...

Q: Name two major advantages in having a reasonably circular/elliptical fuselage.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> everything you wrote is a mess.


He is scrambling to cover his exposed ****.



amalakas said:


> Until relatively recently (or maybe still even, Gambit will know more about this), the aggressors where still using F-5Es!


F-16s.


----------



## eachus

gambit said:


> Yes, I did. Here is the significant passage that others and you ignored because it is too inconvenient...
> 
> F-22 Raptor kill markings shown off by German Eurofighter Typhoons. &#8220;The F-22 is not invincible&#8221; saga continues. « The Aviationist
> 
> We do not know what those rules were at that time. Probably unknown to you, the reality is that instructors often lose to students, not because they are inferior pilots, but because they set themselves up in inferior positions to illustrate principles, to teach students how to maintain advantages, and how to cope with dissimilar flight capabilities. Anyone can be an instructor for a short amount of time in Red Flag. That comment by the German pilot could be simple bravado. I know you do not like to know facts that may challenge your made up mind about this, especially when the pull of China is strong in you.
> 
> 
> No one is immuned from his own IR radiation, meaning no one has yet able to control his own IR radiation the way we could with EM via shaping. So there is nothing new here. Further, IR sensor do not give vital target resolutions like: altitude, heading, speed and aspect angle. It only give general direction. For aspect angle, if the IR source is fluctuating and there is a highest read, that could be accurately guessed to be the target's engines, meaning the target is heading away from the sensor.
> 
> However, this does not mean the F-22 will *ALWAYS* be in such a disadvantaged situations.




gambit, lets go back to the point of argument, dont drive too far off.
you still playing the old trick, "I can not convince you, I will confuse you.". I read your link and replies carefully, those are unprofessional replies(or too professional replies). not convince at all. 

first, you win the game, then you say certainly is since the rule is good, when you lose the game, you said something else that blame "almost meaningless", let me borrow your word once, "LOL"! In an international contest with Germany Typhoon invited, do you think the game rule is not fare? the rules were not evaluated, passed by both sides? I doubt it. if the rules were not meaningful, what was the point to try? 

2nd, in some domestic long range trial, the F22 may carry your device 'Luneberg lens' to keep the bird in track, for short distance WBR, who needs it? lets say the front RCS of F22 is baseball size, Typhoon can detects in 30km, or can engage it in 20+km. IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is a backup to keep F22 under control. and by the way, dogfighting, how many chance F22 can nose to nose face the Typhoon? everyone already aware the side, the top, the bottom, and from the rear F22 has much large RSC. arguing the Typhoon can not lock and kill F22 is glossy under estimate Germany. 

Dogfighting should be within 20km or 10km, you insisted that Typhoon requires handicap to lock F22 even from side, from rear? that must be a joke of the day. do you apply same logic on other arguments? 


I am actually more interested on the score ratio, if Typhoon make "several kills" were clean kills in that day, I will say my goodness.... God bless the F22.


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> gambit, lets go back to the point of argument, dont drive too far off.
> you still playing the old trick, "I can not convince you, I will confuse you.". I read your link and replies carefully, those are unprofessional reply. not convince at all.
> 
> first, you win the game, then you say certainly is since the rule is good, when you lose the game, you said something else that blame "almost meaningless", let me borrow your word once, "LOL"! in an international contest with Germany Typhoon invited, do you think the game rule is not fare? the rules were not valuated, passed by both sides? I doubt it. if the rules were not meaningful, what was the point to try?
> 
> 2nd, in some domestic long range trial, the F22 may carry your device 'Luneberg lens' to keep the bird in track, for short distance WBR, who needs it? lets say the front RCS of F22 is baseball size, Typhoon can detects in 30km, or can engage it in 20+km. IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is a backup to keep F22 under control. and by the way, dogfighting, how many chance F22 can nose to nose face the Typhoon? everyone already aware the side, the top, the bottom, and from the rear F22 has much large RSC. arguing the Typhoon can not lock and kill F22 is glossy under estimate Germany.
> 
> 
> I am actually interested on the score ratio, if Typhoon make "several kills" were clean kills in that day, I will say my goodness.... God bless the F22.


I do not care to convince you. I have nearly 20 yrs in aviation, in and out of the military. I am interested in presenting technical and experiential aspects of events, things that you clearly do not have. So if you are not interested in being open minded, then I have no interested in convincing you of anything. It is clear to me that you are no different than those who *ALREADY* made up their minds about this. Any reasonable arguments, technical or else, will never convince you.

By the way, God does not need to bless the F-22, He knows what it can do without His help. 

Let me know when you are ready to be objective about this.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> He is scrambling to cover his exposed ****.



Too late I think for that. 



gambit said:


> F-16s.



I was under the impression that the VFC-13 still uses F-5 E's . I could be wrong.


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> gambit, lets go back to the point of argument, dont drive too far off.
> you still playing the old trick, "I can not convince you, I will confuse you.". I read your link and replies carefully, those are unprofessional reply. not convince at all.
> 
> first, you win the game, then you say certainly is since the rule is good, when you lose the game, you said something else that blame "almost meaningless", let me borrow your word once, "LOL"! In an international contest with Germany Typhoon invited, do you think the game rule is not fare? the rules were not evaluated, passed by both sides? I doubt it. if the rules were not meaningful, what was the point to try?
> 
> 2nd, in some domestic long range trial, the F22 may carry your device 'Luneberg lens' to keep the bird in track, for short distance WBR, who needs it? lets say the front RCS of F22 is baseball size, Typhoon can detects in 30km, or can engage it in 20+km. IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is a backup to keep F22 under control. and by the way, dogfighting, how many chance F22 can nose to nose face the Typhoon? everyone already aware the side, the top, the bottom, and from the rear F22 has much large RSC. arguing the Typhoon can not lock and kill F22 is glossy under estimate Germany.
> 
> 
> I am actually interested on the score ratio, if Typhoon make "several kills" were clean kills in that day, I will say my goodness.... God bless the F22.




Ok, I am not an American, nor have I any "considerable" experience with the F-22. I will however try to explain to you a couple of things as I know them. 

First of all, no aircraft is an absolute killer of all. 
Aircraft are built according to a very specific requirement and are trying to meet this requirement. 
To understand better, think of the F-15. 
The F-15 is an air superiority fighter plane. Its primary mission is to achieve air superiority over the given battle space. 
If one carefully examines the F-15 however, one will notice that the F-15 is not a dedicated dogfighter. That doesn't mean it cannot dogfight. It means it is not the best in dogfights. Other planes have the lead on the dogfighting skills and that is not necessarily a bad thing. 
If I were to enter a dogfighting training exercise, I would choose an F-16 or even better a MiG-29. These two planes are far better dogfighters than the F-15. 
If I needed to hit the enemy air assets hard over the battle space and deny them operations over a given area for a given time however I would be forced to use the F-15. Higher capability Radar, higher weapons load, more fuel etc etc. 

When you consider the F-22 you have a higher expression of the air-superiority fighter, the air supremacy fighter. 
That means that the F-22 can use its major advantages, VLO, passive target tracking, supercruise, to its advantage in order to carry out a number of high probability kills on a significant number of enemy assets. 

If an F-22 has scored let's say a 50% kill rate with its medium range weapons and can see due to its excellent situational awareness capabilities that an enemy plane (for argument's sake we will call it a MiG-29) is nearing a range were its weapons and sensors can pose a threat. I can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty that any pilot would take the easy option out, 
in other words, use the fact that you have momentum due to your high speed, alter course and put distance between yourself and the potentially dangerous target, use the fact that you have VLO and higher fuel load on your side, and when you have achieved a safe distance again, turn, target and fire on the target. 

Just because the F-22 is currently the most dangerous fighter plane we know, doesn't mean it has to be used carelessly or that it is untouchable. It is deadly out of a combination of technology and tactics.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Ok, I am not an American, nor have I any "considerable" experience with the F-22. I will however try to explain to you a couple of things as I know them.
> 
> First of all, no aircraft is an absolute killer of all.
> Aircraft are built according to a very specific requirement and are trying to meet this requirement.
> To understand better, think of the F-15.
> The F-15 is an air superiority fighter plane. Its primary mission is to achieve air superiority over the given battle space.
> If one carefully examines the F-15 however, one will notice that the F-15 is not a dedicated dogfighter. That doesn't mean it cannot dogfight. It means it is not the best in dogfights. Other planes have the lead on the dogfighting skills and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
> If I were to enter a dogfighting training exercise, I would choose an F-16 or even better a MiG-29. These two planes are far better dogfighters than the F-15.
> If I needed to hit the enemy air assets hard over the battle space and deny them operations over a given area for a given time however I would be forced to use the F-15. Higher capability Radar, higher weapons load, more fuel etc etc.
> 
> When you consider the F-22 you have a higher expression of the air-superiority fighter, the air supremacy fighter.
> That means that the F-22 can use its major advantages, VLO, passive target tracking, supercruise, to its advantage in order to carry out a number of high probability kills on a significant number of enemy assets.
> 
> If an F-22 has scored let's say a 50% kill rate with its medium range weapons and can see due to its excellent situational awareness capabilities that an enemy plane (for argument's sake we will call it a MiG-29) is nearing a range were its weapons and sensors can pose a threat. I can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty that any pilot would take the easy option out,
> in other words, use the fact that you have momentum due to your high speed, alter course and put distance between yourself and the potentially dangerous target, use the fact that you have VLO and higher fuel load on your side, and when you have achieved a safe distance again, turn, target and fire on the target.
> 
> Just because the F-22 is currently the most dangerous fighter plane we know, doesn't mean it has to be used carelessly or that it is untouchable. It is deadly out of a combination of technology and tactics.


Now you have done it...!!! You just confused the hell out of him......Best to just stick to what he already convinced himself.


----------



## eachus

gambit said:


> Now you have done it...!!! You just confused the hell out of him......Best to just stick to what he already convinced himself.




he does learning fast, try to drive off the road and confuse everybody.
the latest argument was focus on these key words, please stay on. 
"WVR and (Within Visual Range), dogfight, salad and super maneuverability". 


he claimed "If I were to enter a dogfighting training exercise, I would choose an F-16 or even better a MiG-29. These two planes are far better dogfighters than the F-15.", already, I trust him. but F-16 was hands down against F22 in number of dogfighting, 10-0 lost to F22 on domestic testing. can you explain why the result is far off on Typhoons? 

F-15, F16, Typhoons,,, those are older generation, they may be "good", just good in maneuverability. none of these are super. guess what, only F22 is truly claimed as "super maneuverability", which was easily killed by Typhoons --- in dogfights. 


fifth-generation fighters F-22 defined as big "3S".
1) Stealthy, having all-aspect stealth even when armed.
2) Super maneuverability achieve through thrust vectoring.
3) Supercruise capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> he does learning fast, try to drive off the road and confuse everybody.
> the latest argument was focus on these key words, please stay on.
> "WVR and (Within Visual Range), dogfight, salad and super maneuverability".
> 
> 
> he claimed "If I were to enter a dogfighting training exercise, I would choose an F-16 or even better a MiG-29. These two planes are far better dogfighters than the F-15.", already, I trust him. but F-16 was hands down against F22 in number of dogfighting, 10-0 lost to F22 on domestic testing. can you explain why the result is far off on Typhoons?
> 
> F-15, F16, Typhoons,,, those are older generation, they may be "good", just good in maneuverability. none of these are super. guess what, only F22 is truly claimed as "super maneuverability", which was easily killed by Typhoons --- in dogfights.
> 
> 
> fifth-generation fighters F-22 defined as big "3S".
> 1) Stealthy, having all-aspect stealth even when armed.
> 2) Super maneuverability achieve through thrust vectoring.
> 3) Supercruise capability.


 

Ok, I believe I can answer all your questions, just bear with me. 

on the first question, "why the F-16 scores so bad against the F-22, while the Typhoon does not?"

The answer is simple and it has to do with the F-16. You see in all versions in US inventory the F-16 is NOT equipped with IRST or helmet mounted cueing systems. That means that essentially the plane has to turn its nose to the F-22 to target it. However in planes without an IRST the aircraft takes info from the sensor in the missile not the sensor on the plane and a large number of western IR missiles do not have a seeker capable of locking on the F-22 from the usual ranges. 

So to answer you short, even if the F-16 was in favourable position, for the exercise parameters it wouldn't matter because it did NOT achieve a lock. It would have to switch to guns to get a kill. It may or may not have happened, or Guns may have not been part of the exercise. Besides, we do not know if at the particular training scenarios dogfighting with the F-16 was the goal. Perhaps they wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of the F-22 tactics against agile fighters. 

You have to remember that if a tactic defeats the F-16 then it is highly likely that it will defeat the MiG-29 as well. 


on the other hand the Typhoon suffers not from the same lack of equipment. The Typhoon has an IRST and a HMCS which means that in an WVR scenario all the typhoon pilot had to do was turn and look at the F-22 and he got a kill! 

Your other confusion comes from misunderstanding what supermaneuverability means. It doesn't mean that a supermaneuverable plane can outfly another. 

To be more precise it means that a certain aircraft can display attitude control exceeding that which is possible by pure aerodynamic maneuverability. Usually a good indicator is high alpha maneuvers. If I am not mistaken the F-22 has demonstrated it can achieve around 60 degrees of AoA. 
That definitely places the F-22 in the league of supermaneuverable aircraft. It doesn't mean however that another plane cannot get on its tail or than indeed another plane needs to get on its tail. 


I hope I helped.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eachus

amalakas said:


> Ok,
> The answer is simple and it has to do with the F-16. You see in all versions in US inventory the F-16 is NOT equipped with IRST or helmet mounted cueing systems.
> 
> I hope I helped.




Yes, I am sure it helps, F16 equips with IRST can have salad lunch. you make a cheap shot on F22 turns out Gamgit is not happy.


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> Yes, I am sure it helps, F16 equips with IRST can have salad lunch. you make a cheap shot on F22 turns out Gamgit is not happy.



I think you are not understanding me. 

In an exercise the rules of engagement are chosen so that particular aspects of the pilot's training are brought to the surface. 

In real world engagement, an F-16 would almost never find itself in a WVR engagement with an F-22. 

Similarly a flight of Typhoons would most likely never get WVR of a flight of Raptors during actual operational circumstances, the reason being the F-22 is not meant to be used that way.


----------



## eachus

getting tired to keeping you on topic. I will let go of you.


----------



## eachus

has some more details

Facing the Raptor

&#8216;Distant Frontier&#8217;threw up one of the most exciting opportunities for the Luftwaffe Eurofighters, as eight 1-V-1 BFM (basic fighter manoeuvres) sorties were arranged with the 525th Fighter Squadron&#8217;s F-22s.

Oberstleutnant Marc &#8216;Turbo&#8217; Grune is the commander of 742 Squadron &#8216;Zapata&#8217; and the operational group commander for the Alaskan detachment. He told Combat Aircraft:&#8217; I was talking to the squadron commander of the Raptors (525th FS) and he said they were working towards taking part in &#8216;Red Flag&#8217;. So I said we are also there, maybe we could exchange ideas&#8230; work out synergies with the Raptor. We put two mornings in where we flew against them 1-v-1. We pulled off all the tanks to get the most Alpha on it [the Eurofighters], and it&#8217;s an animal with no tanks.

&#8216;To tell you the truth, the Raptor is not built for air combat; you build the Raptor for other purposes. [It's] not going to the merge because you don&#8217;t want to end up there. It was a mission to get to know each other, the first contact by German Eurofighters in the continental US. We are not planning on facing each other in combat, we want to work together, but it was a starter for us to work together. They were impressed, as we were impressed by them. We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didn&#8217;t&#8230; we were evenly matched.They didn&#8217;t expect us to turn so aggressively!&#8217;

Maj Gumbrecht went further: &#8216;If I get everything right BVR (beyond visual range), I&#8217;m not going to get closer than 20 miles. The Raptor has BVR capabilities that we don&#8217;t, but we did some neutral high-aspect set-ups and both sides were surprised how the results came back.&#8217;

Col Pfeiffer summed up: &#8216;Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat, but as soon as you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area, at least, the Typhoon doesn&#8217;t necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects&#8230; We gain energy better than the F-22 when we are slow, for example, and we recognise that. In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22 with advantages in some aspects. We feel pretty comfortable in that situation right now out of the experience we have had here, and we&#8217;re in a position to survive against almost all jets in close combat.&#8217;



&#8216;In &#8216;Red Flag&#8217; we have two missions as overall Mission Commander and 11 as Package Commanders (for the air defence element). The air defence package is a mix of four Typhoons, four F-15js and four F-22s. We have a pretty good time on task; we refuel pre-strike and then we can be on station for 40-45 minutes in the VUL. We tend to be first in, last out. The F-22s have a unique capability but they don&#8217;t have as long on station as we do, because if they aren&#8217;t flying clean (without external tanks) they aren&#8217;t stealthy. All our communications with the F-22s are voice commands. We assign each formation element to an area, and if we have a &#8216;leaker&#8217; (Red Air pushing through the Blue Air defences) we tell the AWACS to target them and the Package Commander works with them [to tackle the threat]. We tell the Aggressors what we want to see, and then they debrief us on what they did. They aren&#8217;t assessing our tactics, just providing the threat profiles we request.



Finally, personally I see the F22 still on the top, Typhoons can hold its own under certain conduction in WBR. and the myth of killing F16 10-0 in dogfight vanished.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> getting tired to keeping you on topic. I will let go of you.


Yeah...Just as we thought...Once the details starts to make sense, you run.



amalakas said:


> I think you are not understanding me.
> 
> *In an exercise the rules of engagement are chosen so that particular aspects of the pilot's training are brought to the surface. *
> 
> In real world engagement, an F-16 would almost never find itself in a WVR engagement with an F-22.
> 
> Similarly a flight of Typhoons would most likely never get WVR of a flight of Raptors during actual operational circumstances, the reason being the F-22 is not meant to be used that way.


These guys have no military experience. They do not know what is and is not involved in an exercise, not its intentions and not its goals.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> everything you wrote is a mess.
> 
> On the raptors issue I have nothing more to comment. The question is why do some people think that EF2000 scoring kills in exercises with Raptors is news?
> 
> Until relatively recently (or maybe still even, Gambit will know more about this), the aggressors where still using F-5Es!
> 
> These planes regularly sweep the floor with much more advanced aircraft because of their agility and performance.
> 
> The point is exercises are mostly to sharpen a pilot's skills and get him to use his aircraft to the limit.
> 
> Combat operations have little to do with these exercises in terms of goals and use of assets.
> 
> Greek F-16s decimated the aggressors in RED FLAG a few years ago. What is that supposed to mean? That we could beat the USAF ? It simply means the pilots are excellent and they performed excellent in the test!
> 
> It is known that a Raptor would very rarely get caught in a dogfight. Why? its pilot would simply choose NOT to.


 
It is obviously you who write a mess as usual.

The question addressed to gambit/you is: explanation why EF2K score several Raptor kill, and your answer is going here and there as usual but not touching the core which is implied in the article.

Also regarding the nacelle and air intake, you were answering here and there without understanding what other people's mean while it is obvious in my explanation, as a result you were slapping your own master gambit.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Bullsh1t.
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You did not know it. There goes your claim about having aviation education.



I have told you many times, idiot : You are not in the position to test me! since you failed to prove your numerous claims and to prove your self claimed expert.

You failed in aviation test (nacelle, corner reflector, etc)
You failed in control engineering knowledge.




> I have proven myself to many here many times over long before you got here, little boy.



Where?? when?? post again your so called proof then.

Your so called "proof" is not more than another claim 





> You do not answer at all but simply danced around the question.



As I said: you are not in position to test me.
But I am willing to do that as long as you are willing to answer my test as well, and you are able to answer.




> Your question about PLC is irrelevant. This is about aviation of which you claimed to have education.



PLC is still relevant even for aviation world. While DCS is not. That is the right answer

See.. you are demonstrating clueless again about aviation and control technology, then how come you dare to test me? 




> You do not answer my questions because you have no education. You lied.


It always prove to be you 



> Say that I do not know a damn thing about aviation. Why does that prevent you from answering?
> 
> So here is another one...
> 
> Q: Name two major advantages in having a reasonably circular/elliptical fuselage.


 
Because as I said : you are not in position to test me. And it is useless to give you answer in other numerous topics since in existing relevant topic you run away and refuse to accept other people answer with a lot of citation and proof.

If you have gut to finish the existing discussion, answering my questions properly and accept other people answer with citation then your question / test deserve to be served.



eachus said:


> has some more details
> 
> Facing the Raptor
> 
> Distant Frontierthrew up one of the most exciting opportunities for the Luftwaffe Eurofighters, as eight 1-V-1 BFM (basic fighter manoeuvres) sorties were arranged with the 525th Fighter Squadrons F-22s.
> 
> Oberstleutnant Marc Turbo Grune is the commander of 742 Squadron Zapata and the operational group commander for the Alaskan detachment. He told Combat Aircraft: I was talking to the squadron commander of the Raptors (525th FS) and he said they were working towards taking part in Red Flag. So I said we are also there, maybe we could exchange ideas work out synergies with the Raptor. We put two mornings in where we flew against them 1-v-1. We pulled off all the tanks to get the most Alpha on it [the Eurofighters], and its an animal with no tanks.
> 
> To tell you the truth, the Raptor is not built for air combat; you build the Raptor for other purposes. [It's] not going to the merge because you dont want to end up there. It was a mission to get to know each other, the first contact by German Eurofighters in the continental US. We are not planning on facing each other in combat, we want to work together, but it was a starter for us to work together. They were impressed, as we were impressed by them. We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didnt we were evenly matched.They didnt expect us to turn so aggressively!
> 
> Maj Gumbrecht went further: If I get everything right BVR (beyond visual range), Im not going to get closer than 20 miles. The Raptor has BVR capabilities that we dont, but we did some neutral high-aspect set-ups and both sides were surprised how the results came back.
> 
> Col Pfeiffer summed up: Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat, but as soon as you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area, at least, the Typhoon doesnt necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects We gain energy better than the F-22 when we are slow, for example, and we recognise that. In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22 with advantages in some aspects. We feel pretty comfortable in that situation right now out of the experience we have had here, and were in a position to survive against almost all jets in close combat.
> 
> 
> 
> In Red Flag we have two missions as overall Mission Commander and 11 as Package Commanders (for the air defence element). The air defence package is a mix of four Typhoons, four F-15js and four F-22s. We have a pretty good time on task; we refuel pre-strike and then we can be on station for 40-45 minutes in the VUL. We tend to be first in, last out. The F-22s have a unique capability but they dont have as long on station as we do, because if they arent flying clean (without external tanks) they arent stealthy. All our communications with the F-22s are voice commands. We assign each formation element to an area, and if we have a leaker (Red Air pushing through the Blue Air defences) we tell the AWACS to target them and the Package Commander works with them [to tackle the threat]. We tell the Aggressors what we want to see, and then they debrief us on what they did. They arent assessing our tactics, just providing the threat profiles we request.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, personally I see the F22 still on the top, Typhoons can hold its own under certain conduction in WBR. and the myth of killing F16 10-0 in dogfight vanished.


 
You are giving the right answer. 

Instead of bunch people who self proclaimed as an aviation expert but trying to show off by answering here and there but not to the core

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I have told you many times, idiot : You are not in the position to test me! since you failed to prove your numerous claims and to prove your self claimed expert.
> 
> You failed in aviation test (nacelle, corner reflector, etc)
> You failed in control engineering knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where?? when?? post again your so called proof then.
> 
> Your so called "proof" is not more than another claim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said: you are not in position to test me.
> But I am willing to do that as long as you are willing to answer my test as well, and you are able to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLC is still relevant even for aviation world. While DCS is not. That is the right answer
> 
> See.. you are demonstrating clueless again about aviation and control technology, then how come you dare to test me?
> 
> 
> 
> It always prove to be you
> 
> 
> 
> Because as I said : you are not in position to test me. And it is useless to give you answer in other numerous topics since in existing relevant topic you run away and refuse to accept other people answer with a lot of citation and proof.
> 
> If you have gut to finish the existing discussion, answering my questions properly and accept other people answer with citation then your question / test deserve to be served.
> 
> 
> 
> You are giving the right answer.
> 
> Instead of bunch people who self proclaimed as an aviation expert but trying to show off by answering here and there but not to the core




and as usual you are providing the entertainment for the night. Keep up the comedy, I told you..

If you were not so blind you would have seen that the article posted above supports what I have been saying. 

You lack of expertise is so evident that it amazes me that you are even allowed to post here pretending you have some.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> and as usual you are providing the entertainment for the night. Keep up the comedy, I told you..


The joker and cheer leader here is you.

Your inability to comprehend my points and slapping your own master gambit is the blatant proof, and you like always deny and deny.



> If you were not so blind you would have seen that the article posted above supports what I have been saying.
> 
> You lack of expertise is so evident that it amazes me that you are even allowed to post here pretending you have some.



Your explanation is a salad mix, and do not touch the core.

The article has implied about WVR that you dont cover yet in your here and there showing off answer 

Agility, off bore sight missile, even size of the aircraft count much in WVR.

Besides agility, bigger plane like F-22 is at disadvantage against smaller one like EF2K in WVR engagement.

So amazing that people who self proclaim as expert aviation has no idea about that

Reactions: Like Like:
 1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> The joker and cheer leader here is you.
> 
> Your inability to comprehend my points and slapping your own master gambit is the blatant proof, and you like always deny and deny.
> 
> 
> 
> Your explanation is a salad mix, and do not touch the core.
> 
> The article has implied about WVR that you dont cover yet in your here and there showing off answer
> 
> Agility, off bore sight missile, even size of the aircraft count much in WVR.
> 
> Besides agility, bigger plane like F-22 is at disadvantage against smaller one like EF2K in WVR engagement.
> 
> So amazing that people who self proclaim as expert aviation has no idea about that


 
what are u on about? can u, do u even read? do you realise you don't even make sense?

sometimes I think your account is just a bot randomly throwing words from previous posts together.

Who is denying? who is the master ? what slap when both people are saying the same thing and only you don't understand. What on earth are you on about! 

you read an article that nontheless one of your chinese friends posted, and you still fail to understand what it says.. 

what on earth are you smoking?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> what are u on about? can u, do u even read? do you realise you don't even make sense?
> 
> sometimes I think your account is just a bot randomly throwing words from previous posts together.
> 
> Who is denying? who is the master ? what slap when both people are saying the same thing and only you don't understand. What on earth are you on about!
> 
> you read an article that nontheless one of your chinese friends posted, and you still fail to understand what it says..
> 
> what on earth are you smoking?


 
Thats why if you dont understand other people argument, dont give any comment just in order to cheerlead your master gambit. If will only demonstrate your idiocy.

I've told you a few times that your master Gambit claimed the air intake of PAKFA as Nacelle when he tried to correct me as usual, dont you understand that? You have poor reading comprehension.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Thats why if you dont understand other people argument, dont give any comment. If will only demonstrate your idiocy.
> 
> I've told you a few times that your master Gambit claimed the air intake of PAKFA as Nacelle when he tried to correct me as usual, dont you understand that? You have poor reading comprehension.


 
The pak fa has nacelles, 2 of them. each engine is housed in a nacelle. 
it is a jet, so naturally the front of the nacelle forms the air intake, what part of this make Gambit wrong and you right? 

this is why i am saying you really can't tell what is what. You don't seem to connect facts.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> The pak fa has nacelles, 2 of them. each engine is housed in a nacelle.
> it is a jet, so naturally the front of the nacelle forms the air intake, what part of this make Gambit wrong and you right?
> 
> this is why i am saying you really can't tell what is what. You don't seem to connect facts.


 
I've told you few times, that your master Gambit refer to (the cover of) "air intake" as the nacelle, not the engine cover that you are mentioning above. Thats why this is your slapping on your master gambit.

Besides, your explanation about nacelle is also WRONG!

Nacelle is referring to engine cover that separated from fuselage.






Again this is proof that you and gambit has no clue about aviation stuff


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I've told you few times, that your master Gambit refer to (the cover of) "air intake" as the nacelle, not the engine cover that you are mentioning above. Thats why this is your slapping on your master gambit.
> 
> Besides, your explanation about nacelle is also WRONG!
> 
> Nacelle is referring to engine cover that separated from fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again this is proof that you and gambit has no clue about aviation stuff



my explanation is from a standard english language dictionary genius...... 

any more comedy points to make ?????


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I've told you few times, that your master *Gambit refer to (the cover of) "air intake" as the nacelle*, not the engine cover that you are mentioning above. Thats why this is your slapping on your master gambit.


Wrong. I tried to explain to your ignorant mind that the intake system is part of the nacelle.



antonius123 said:


> Besides, your explanation about nacelle is also WRONG!
> 
> *Nacelle is referring to engine cover that separated from fuselage.*


Wrong. The nacelle is the engine cover. Its placement can be in the wing itself.

Engine Placement


> Another influence of *wing-mounted nacelles* is the effect on flaps.
> 
> One disadvantage of *pylon mounted nacelles* on low wing aircraft is that the engines, mounted close to the ground, tend to suck dirt, pebbles, rocks, etc. into the inlet.
> 
> An *aft fuselage mounted nacelle* has many special problems.


So there you have it: A nacelle is the engine cover and the entire engine assembly can be wing mounted, pylon mounted, or fuselage mounted. It is not only separated from the fuselage as you ignorantly claimed.



antonius123 said:


> Again this is proof that you and gambit has no clue about aviation stuff


So you did not know the answer to the first year aerodynamics question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?' Answer: 'Power'.

What else did you not know...

Q: Name the three main areas in designing an airframe regarding their parameters.
A: Minimum takeoff weight (MTOW), Wing area, and Propulsion.

Q: Since fuselage and range motivate the MTOW engineering, what motivate the wing area?
A: Approach speed, initial cruise altitude, and balanced field length.

Q: What motivate the propulsion engineering?
A: Initial cruise altitude, balanced field length, cruise speed, and maximum cruise speed.

Q: Name two major advantages in having a reasonably circular/elliptical fuselage.
A: No flow separation at moderate AoA/slideslip. And under pressurization, a circular/elliptical fuselage is better at withstanding tension stresses than non circular/elliptical fuselages.

That is four questions that you should have known *IF* you have any aviation 'study' like you claimed and tried to use to shut down the Indians.

Then you redefined 'background' to exclude experience, which we know by now you do not have. What a joke of a J-20 supporter. 

So here is the next question: 'What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> PLC is still relevant even for aviation world. While DCS is not. That is the right answer
> 
> See.. you are demonstrating clueless again about aviation and control technology, then how come you dare to test me?


Now that is just stupid.

If a tire engineer from BF Goodrich ask a wing designer from Boeing on how a tire is made and the Boeing engineer cannot answer, does that mean the Boeing engineer is clueless about aviation? 

I guess for someone totally brainwashed in 'Chinese physics' it would be so 'logical'.

I do not work at the component level, little boy. I worked at the systems and processes levels, that mean I made sure all sub-systems work *TOGETHER* as the aircraft designers intended, specifically integrated flight controls avionics. That mean I designed tests -- *FIELD TESTS* -- of the complete vehicle, specifically small vehicles like 'low visual/radar horizon highly autonomous flight vehicle'. See if you can figure out what that mean.

So here is another question for you...







In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed? Hint: In the 'Reference Wing Area', you must use the underside surface, that is why the illustration have the red field intrude into the fuselage.


----------



## Esc8781

This thread makes me  off the physics defying claims.


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> This thread makes me


The J-20 supporters make me


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Wrong. I tried to explain to your ignorant mind that the intake system is part of the nacelle.



IF there is nacelle on PAKFA, it wont include the intake system.

Your argument is laughable especially as you think yourself as an aviation expert 

The more you speak, the more evident that you are FAKE.




> Wrong. The nacelle is the engine cover. Its placement can be in the wing itself.
> 
> Engine Placement
> 
> So there you have it: A nacelle is the engine cover and the entire engine assembly can be wing mounted, pylon mounted, or fuselage mounted. It is not only separated from the fuselage as you ignorantly claimed.



Idiot! it is what is said as separated from fuselage.

You are only playing with idiotic word gaming.
Except, if you dont know what fuselage is 

See.. another evidence how FAKE is your self claimed aviation expert 



> So you did not know the answer to the first year aerodynamics question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?' Answer: 'Power'.
> 
> What else did you not know...
> 
> Q: Name the three main areas in designing an airframe regarding their parameters.
> A: Minimum takeoff weight (MTOW), Wing area, and Propulsion.
> 
> Q: Since fuselage and range motivate the MTOW engineering, what motivate the wing area?
> A: Approach speed, initial cruise altitude, and balanced field length.
> 
> Q: What motivate the propulsion engineering?
> A: Initial cruise altitude, balanced field length, cruise speed, and maximum cruise speed.
> 
> Q: Name two major advantages in having a reasonably circular/elliptical fuselage.
> A: No flow separation at moderate AoA/slideslip. And under pressurization, a circular/elliptical fuselage is better at withstanding tension stresses than non circular/elliptical fuselages.
> 
> That is four questions that you should have known *IF* you have any aviation 'study' like you claimed and tried to use to shut down the Indians.
> 
> Then you redefined 'background' to exclude experience, which we know by now you do not have. What a joke of a J-20 supporter.
> 
> So here is the next question: 'What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?'



Blablabla... again you are showing severe ignorance by repeating the idiotic questions that has been answered many many times without your ability to response properly.

Besides you are only proving you are a faker, liar, ignorant and fact twister.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> my explanation is from a standard english language dictionary genius......
> 
> any more comedy points to make ?????



Dont fake and lie anymore!

No dictionary you can draw conclusion that: The pakfa has nacelles, 2 of them. each engine is housed in a nacelle, as you claim above. 

You and Gambit are clueless about aviation.

Nacelle is commonly used for podded engine.

*Both of you => show us any evidence that Nacelle is said used in aircraft fighter like Pakfa/Flanker/Fulcrum/etc!

Instead of ability to show evidence, I bet both of you will bury your head into sand again* 

*My Citation:*
_The nacelle (play /n&#601;&#712;s&#603;l/ n&#601;-SELL) is a cover housing (separate from the fuselage) that holds engines, fuel, or equipment on an aircraft. In some cases&#8212;for instance in the typical "Farman" type "pusher" aircraft, or the World War II-era P-38 Lightning&#8212;an aircraft's cockpit may also be housed in a nacelle, which essentially fills the function of a conventional fuselage_
Nacelle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Nacelle Design



gambit said:


> Now that is just stupid.
> 
> If a tire engineer from BF Goodrich ask a wing designer from Boeing on how a tire is made and the Boeing engineer cannot answer, does that mean the Boeing engineer is clueless about aviation?
> 
> I guess for someone totally brainwashed in 'Chinese physics' it would be so 'logical'.



It was you who challenge me with control theory questions, then I challenge you back with the control technology question, and as usual you FAILED again 



> I do not work at the component level, little boy. I worked at the systems and processes levels, that mean I made sure all sub-systems work *TOGETHER* as the aircraft designers intended, specifically integrated flight controls avionics. That mean I designed tests -- *FIELD TESTS* -- of the complete vehicle, specifically small vehicles like 'low visual/radar horizon highly autonomous flight vehicle'. See if you can figure out what that mean.



It is totally bullshits and big FAKE if you claim you are an expert in system and process level, but have no idea about PLC and control technology 

Do you think you can lie and fool people here? You are fake and busted pall ..


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> IF there is nacelle on PAKFA, it wont include the intake system.
> 
> Your argument is laughable especially as you think yourself as an aviation expert
> 
> The more you speak, the more evident that you are FAKE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot! it is what is said as separated from fuselage.
> 
> You are only playing with idiotic word gaming.
> Except, if you dont know what fuselage is
> 
> See.. another evidence how FAKE is your self claimed aviation expert
> 
> 
> 
> Blablabla... again you are showing severe ignorance by repeating the idiotic questions that has been answered many many times without your ability to response properly.
> 
> Besides you are only proving you are a faker, liar, ignorant and fact twister.




I have finally found out what and where you studied. 

my apologies for not believing you ..


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I have finally found out what and where you studied.
> 
> my apologies for not believing you ..


 
See... at the end all you can do is bringing JUNK, because you are stripped, failed, and cannot argue anymore.

Of course you will not be able to defend lie and fake finally 

This is evidence you are the looser :


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Dont fake and lie anymore!
> 
> No dictionary you can draw conclusion that: The pakfa has nacelles, 2 of them. each engine is housed in a nacelle, as you claim above.
> 
> You and Gambit are clueless about aviation.
> 
> Nacelle is commonly used for podded engine.
> 
> *Both of you => show us any evidence that Nacelle is said used in aircraft fighter like Pakfa/Flanker/Fulcrum/etc!
> 
> Instead of ability to show evidence, I bet both of you will bury your head into sand again*
> 
> *My Citation:*
> _The nacelle (play /n&#601;&#712;s&#603;l/ n&#601;-SELL) is a cover housing (separate from the fuselage) that holds engines, fuel, or equipment on an aircraft. In some casesfor instance in the typical "Farman" type "pusher" aircraft, or the World War II-era P-38 Lightningan aircraft's cockpit may also be housed in a nacelle, which essentially fills the function of a conventional fuselage_
> Nacelle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> and
> Nacelle Design
> 
> 
> 
> It was you who challenge me with control theory questions, then I challenge you back with the control technology question, and as usual you FAILED again
> 
> 
> 
> It is totally bullshits and big FAKE if you claim you are an expert in system and process level, but have no idea about PLC and control technology
> 
> Do you think you can lie and fool people here? You are fake and busted pall ..




Further to our little game of unmasking your lack of education and deep deep almost obsessive ability to be a moron, here is more on nacelles: 

Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback; Russia's New Heavy Strike Fighter






how about now? 


or even this site : 

Su-27 Fuselage | Airplanes and Helicopters



> The Su-27 Fuselage is made up of five subassemblies: forward, center, and rear fuselage, and* two engine nacelles*.



How about it genius ? 

what are you going to say now ? 

keep up the comedy man ...



antonius123 said:


> See... at the end all you can do is bringing JUNK, because you are stripped, failed, and cannot argue anymore.
> 
> Of course you will not be able to defend lie and fake finally
> 
> This is evidence you are the looser :




Look the post above, I provided plenty of evidence... but by all means... keep on laughing ... please...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Where are you genius ?????


wikipedia which you so much love is again proving you WRONG. and I quote : 

Sukhoi Su-34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Design*
> 
> The aircraft shares most of its wing structure, tail, *and engine nacelles with the Su-27/Su-30*, with canards like the Su-30MKI/Su-33/Su-27M/35 to increase static instability (higher manoeuvrability) and to reduce trim drag. The aircraft has an entirely new nose and forward fuselage with a cockpit providing side-by-side seating for a crew of two.




Should I stop whooping your bum or should I continue?

*F-15C Eagle Units in Combat
By Steve Davies*

in page 93 the said book mentions..



>



and before you disregard it, there is the link on Google books : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UECKO451kAwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=F-15C+Eagle+Units+in+Combat&source=bl&ots=XRXe_G8H3f&sig=CWr9NfqTtHRmZntZs-xpO8omNIk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KjEUUPyyO9Sa1AX49IHAAw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=F-15C%20Eagle%20Units%20in%20Combat&f=false


How about this link about the F-14 and its nacelles ? 

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-event.htm






Or in your favorite wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Overview



> The F-14's fuselage and wings allow it to climb faster than the F-4, while the twin-tail arrangement offers better stability. The F-14 is equipped with an internal 20 mm M61 Vulcan Gatling cannon mounted on the left side, and can carry AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-7 Sparrow, and AIM-9 Sidewinder anti-aircraft missiles. *The twin engines are housed in nacelles*, spaced apart by 1 to 3 ft (0.30 to 0.91 m). The flat area of the *fuselage between the nacelles* is used to contain fuel and avionics systems such as the wing-sweep mechanism and flight controls




Are you done being the village idiot ? or do you want more whooping ?

I told you, go finish school, it has its benefits ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Further to our little game of unmasking your lack of education and deep deep almost obsessive ability to be a moron, here is more on nacelles:
> 
> Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback; Russia's New Heavy Strike Fighter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about now?
> 
> 
> or even this site :
> 
> Su-27 Fuselage | Airplanes and Helicopters
> 
> 
> 
> How about it genius ?
> 
> what are you going to say now ?
> 
> keep up the comedy man ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look the post above, I provided plenty of evidence... but by all means... keep on laughing ... please...



OK, I am not saying it cannot be used for fighter *at all*, but *it is not common*, as nacelle by definition is used to refer to the cover of engine separated from fuselage, as my citation said. That is the standard definition of nacelle. But everybody is free to use word nacelle not according to the strict meaning.

Then since when "air intake" is part of the Nacelle for Flanker/Pakfa case? Can you prove your and gambit claim for this?



amalakas said:


> Look the post above, I provided plenty of evidence... but by all means... keep on laughing ... please...


 
A plenty?? cmon stop lying!

You could only answer my 1 challenge about the non strictly application of nacelle word. For that you are happy and proud? 

See again our discussion, there are still many things that you failed to answer/prove 

Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> *OK, I am not saying it cannot be used for fighter at all, but it is not common,* as nacelle by definition is used to refer to the cover of engine separated from fuselage, as my citation said. That is the standard definition of nacelle. But everybody is free to use word nacelle not according to the strict meaning.
> 
> Then since when "air intake" is part of the Nacelle for Flanker/Pakfa case? Can you prove your and gambit claim for this?
> 
> 
> 
> A plenty?? cmon stop lying!
> 
> You could only answer my 1 challenge about the non strictly application of nacelle word. For that you are happy and proud?
> 
> See again our discussion, there are still many things that you failed to answer/prove
> 
> Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!




I have warned you, you are embarrassing yourself. And now even more so.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I have warned you, you are embarrassing yourself. And now even more so.


 
Warn me? 

You can only answer my 1 challenge of numerous challenges/questions that you FAILED to answer.

Remember that 

With that only one success + numerous FAILURE you want to be proud without shame? 

Then why cant you answer the next challenge => prove me that air intake on Pakfa is part of Nacelle!


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Warn me?
> 
> You can only answer my 1 challenge of numerous challenges/questions that you FAILED to answer.
> 
> Remember that
> 
> With that only one success + numerous FAILURE you want to be proud without shame?
> 
> Then why cant you answer the next challenge => prove me that air intake on Pakfa is part of Nacelle!



You seriously want to play this game? 

Ok, for all to see, list all your challenges one by one in bullet points now and I *PROMISE* you we will take them down one by one following your OWN list. 


go on ...

I am waiting. ..


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> You seriously want to play this game?
> 
> Ok, for all to see, list all your challenges one by one in bullet points now and I *PROMISE* you we will take them down one by one following your OWN list.
> 
> 
> go on ...
> 
> I am waiting. ..



Why dont you answer my last challenge/question to you that you still cant answer yet? before I list many of them that you failed to answer.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Why dont you answer my last challenge/question to you that you still cant answer yet? before I list many of them that you failed to answer.



which one ? state it clearly...

but even more so...entertain us... list ALL your so called challenges in bullet points .. go on.. ALL


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> which one ? state it clearly...
> 
> but even more so...entertain us... list ALL your so called challenges in bullet points .. go on.. ALL


 
See... pretend like a faker 

Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-167.html#ixzz21wv5Hmz3


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> See... pretend like a faker
> 
> Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-167.html#ixzz21wv5Hmz3


 

Oh man you are such a comedy provider... 

F-14 Tomcat Jet Intake - Danger! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!








or this :


HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: detail air intake 








Or perhaps a wikipedia which you so seem to love ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intake_ramp


> An intake ramp is a rectangular, plate-like device *within the air intake* of a jet engine, designed to generate a shock wave to aid the inlet compression process at supersonic speeds.





What else....let me think...mmmm, perhaps this: 

HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: F-14 Air Intake 







we have established the F-14 has nacelles ..and now we have established the F-14 has ramps in its *air-intakes* ... 

what else...?

OH I FORGET ..THIS IS THE F-14 NACELLE..IT DOESN'T PROVE THE PAKFA HAS NACELLES WITH AIR INTAKES..RIGHT? 

oh well.... here we go...

remember you and the chinese members love Air power australia...right ?



Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA





from the same link we have 

Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA


> Examination of the publicly displayed PAK-FA prototypes show that this design is a continuation of the highly evolved pedigree of Flanker aerodynamic design. However, as observed in and predicted from the most recent Flanker variant, the Su-35S, and the work done during the deep modernisation program that resulted in this design, Sukhoi have evidently taken the next step by providing the PAK-FA with relaxed static stability in the directional axis.
> 
> Open source materials such as high resolution imagery and video camera footage show there are a number of features about the aerodynamic design of the PAK-FA that are different to, but clearly enhancements on the tried and proven aerodynamics of the Flanker family of aircraft, including:
> Fully articulated, reduced aspect ratio dorsal fins that are canted outwards. These provide large control power and control authority while minimising drag and side area with the additional LO benefit of the latter.
> Articulated LEX sections/control surfaces above and immediately *forward of the quite large intakes of the propulsion system*.



right... what next? ....

oh yes...

Defence Professionals: Part 2 of a comprehensive overview on Sukhoi&#8217;s 5th generation fighter


> In this way, the upper surface of the *air intake* contributes to overall lift generation. It is also possible that the movements of these peculiar elements, when linked to the full authority digital flight control system, could contribute in some way to the aircraft&#8217;s longitudinal control, acting like a third control surface (in line with the Sukhoi tradition as exemplified in the three-surfaces Su-30MKI). It seem however clear that the &#8220;lips&#8221; cannot move as fully independent control surfaces, due to their primary role in ensuring a correct airflow to the engines.




Do you want me to carry on ?




antonius123 said:


> See... pretend like a faker
> 
> *Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!*



comprehensively and thoroughly proven to your embarrassment.. 

I am still waiting for your list of "unanswered" challenges .... .. I'll be here... ain't going anywhere...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I have warned you, you are embarrassing yourself. And now even more so.


His behaviors are typical of the J-20's supporters who are long on wind but short on substance. When confronted with credible sources and logic, just simply redefine and/or dismiss. In essence, they are never wrong and can never be wrong as long as this intellectually dishonesty option is available.


----------



## Esc8781

Gambit can you provide me a link of the wing area subject?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> It was you who challenge me with control theory questions, then I challenge you back with the control technology question, and as usual you FAILED again


Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight controls, not at the component level, kid. Your failure to respond to even a first year aerodynamics question marked you as a fraud.



antonius123 said:


> It is totally bullshits and big FAKE if you claim you are an expert in system and process level, but have no idea about PLC and control technology
> 
> Do you think you can lie and fool people here? You are fake and busted pall ..


Fine...Then regardless of what I say about myself, why have you been unable to answer all these aviation related questions? Remember, it was you who claimed to have aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians, and yet out of six questions, four you did not know and two pending.

So here they are again...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?






Q: In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed? Hint: In the 'Reference Wing Area', you must use the underside surface, that is why the illustration have the red field intrude into the fuselage.

Should be simple enough for you, right?


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> His behaviors are typical of the J-20's supporters who are long on wind but short on substance. When confronted with credible sources and logic, just simply redefine and/or dismiss. In essence, they are never wrong and can never be wrong as long as this intellectually dishonesty option is available.


 
not willing to listen.... sad i think.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Oh man you are such a comedy provider...
> 
> F-14 Tomcat Jet Intake - Danger! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this :
> 
> 
> HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: detail air intake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps a wikipedia which you so seem to love ...
> 
> Intake ramp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else....let me think...mmmm, perhaps this:
> 
> HOME OF M.A.T.S. F-14 Reference Work Fighter Squadron Eleven Homepage: F-14 Air Intake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have established the F-14 has nacelles ..and now we have established the F-14 has ramps in its *air-intakes* ...
> 
> what else...?
> 
> OH I FORGET ..THIS IS THE F-14 NACELLE..IT DOESN'T PROVE THE PAKFA HAS NACELLES WITH AIR INTAKES..RIGHT?
> 
> oh well.... here we go...
> 
> remember you and the chinese members love Air power australia...right ?
> 
> 
> 
> Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from the same link we have
> 
> Air Power Australia Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA
> 
> 
> right... what next? ....
> 
> oh yes...
> 
> Defence Professionals: Part 2 of a comprehensive overview on Sukhoi&#8217;s 5th generation fighter
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to carry on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comprehensively and thoroughly proven to your embarrassment..
> 
> I am still waiting for your list of "unanswered" challenges .... .. I'll be here... ain't going anywhere...



Hahahahaha... you are demonstrating idiocy and frustration 

You are only showing where Air Intake is on the Airfighter, which everybody in this forum already knows long long time ago 

What you are asked to prove for your own claim is: Where is the proof that Air Intake is part / covered by Nacelle?? 

It is accepted that Nacelle is a cover of engine, we agree that cover of engine of Flanker/Pakfa/F-15/etc is also called nacelle.

But if you said "air intake cover" is also called Nacelle, then it is confirmed that you are clueless about aviation and only capable in drag, copy & paste internet article which limited to fanboyism capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight controls, not at the component level, kid. Your failure to respond to even a first year aerodynamics question marked you as a fraud.



Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight control is not at the component level?? hello??
Are you denying what you were just bursting without any clue? 

In designing aircraft, flight control not only one component, but also very important and critical thing in integration, of course it involve control engineering, and of course the control theory is basic of control engineering. 

See .. you are again and again demonstrating your clueless about aviation, as you really-really has no idea about what you are claiming 





> Fine...Then regardless of what I say about myself, why have you been unable to answer all these aviation related questions? Remember, it was you who claimed to have aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians, and yet out of six questions, four you did not know and two pending.
> 
> So here they are again...
> 
> Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed? Hint: In the 'Reference Wing Area', you must use the underside surface, that is why the illustration have the red field intrude into the fuselage.
> 
> Should be simple enough for you, right?


 
Again you repeat the stale question which has been responded and challenged many times.

Where is your answer for my questions which is very much related to our debate??
Where is your proof that Pakfa's air intake is so called NACELLE, as per your claim??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Hahahahaha... you are demonstrating idiocy and frustration
> 
> You are only showing where Air Intake is on the Airfighter, which everybody in this forum already knows long long time ago
> 
> What you are asked to prove for your own claim is: Where is the proof that Air Intake is part / covered by Nacelle??
> 
> It is accepted that Nacelle is a cover of engine, we agree that cover of engine of Flanker/Pakfa/F-15/etc is also called nacelle.
> 
> But if you said "air intake cover" is also called Nacelle, then it is confirmed that you are clueless about aviation and only capable in drag, copy & paste internet article which limited to fanboyism capability.




You said... and I quote:




antonius123 said:


> See... pretend like a faker
> 
> *Prove me that air intake is part of nacelle on Flanker/Pakfa case, as you and gambit claim!*



air intake is part of the nacelle. Proven. 

And besides all the proof I provided, astronautics genius... a nacelle is housing a JET engine, it needs to suck in air.. it needs an intake at the front. Man your IQ must be approaching zero..

All the rest you are throwing out now is word play. Give it up you are outgunned and outmatched. All the silly smileys in the world can help you save face now. And sadly it is for all to see. I did warn you.



antonius123 said:


> Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight control is not at the component level?? hello??
> Are you denying what you were just bursting without any clue?
> 
> In designing aircraft, flight control not only one component, but also very important and critical thing in integration, of course it involve control engineering, and of course the control theory is basic of control engineering.
> 
> See .. you are again and again demonstrating your clueless about aviation, as you really-really has no idea about what you are claiming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you repeat the stale question which has been responded and challenged many times.
> 
> Where is your answer for my questions which is very much related to our debate??
> *Where is your proof that Pakfa's air intake is so called NACELLE, as per your claim??*



Shown in my posts.... stop being intellectually challenged by choice. 

as for your expertise .. do me a favour. What is this ? 




[/IMG]


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> You said... and I quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> air intake is part of nacelle. Proven.
> 
> All the rest you are throwing out now is word play. Give it up you are outgunned and outmatched. All the silly smileys in the world can help you save face now. And sadly it is for all to see. I did warn you.
> 
> 
> 
> Shown in my posts.... stop being intellectually challenged by choice.
> 
> as for your expertise .. do me a favour. What is this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]


 
Proof with what?? is there any statement in your valid citation saying that Air Intake is part / within / covered by Nacelle??

Hello?? are you getting frustrated?? 

You can not prove your claim with another claim of yours

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Proof with what?? is there any statement in your valid citation saying that Air Intake is part / within / covered by Nacelle??
> 
> Hello?? are you getting frustrated??
> 
> You can not prove your claim with another claim of yours




My posts are full of links and citations by sites and people previously used by you and other chinese members and yes they are saying it with words and pictures.. you just need to open you eyes and obviously be able to read and understand. Playing this game won't help you and it is exposing you as the village idiot. 

Know what the equation I posted is ? wanna tell me genius?


Also you may want to read this : 


EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION







I can keep this up until everyone sees that what you and your friends have been spilling in here have nothing to do with aviation...


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> My posts are full of links and citations by sites and people previously used by you and other chinese members and yes they are saying it with words and pictures.. you just need to open you eyes and obviously be able to read and understand. Playing this game won't help you and it is exposing you as the village idiot.
> 
> Know what the equation I posted is ? wanna tell me genius?
> 
> 
> Also you may want to read this :
> 
> 
> EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can keep this up until everyone sees that what you and your friends have been spilling in here have nothing to do with aviation...




Idiot!!!!! 

Nacelle indeed a cover of engine + air intake.... in ... a podded engine, as I said many times to you 

But NOT a cover of engine + air intake (at once) ... in PAKFA, Flanker, and most of airfighter .. idiot 

Do you understand what podded engine is??

Look again the picture that I've posted many times for both of you!





Is that a kind of engine that Pakfa/Flanker has? 

Is this the quality of so called aviation expert?? 

*You obviously HAVE NO CLUE about aviation stuff.*

You have been busted many many times and prove to be faker, pal !! 

Can you distinguish "podded engine" with PAKFA/Flanker/F-14 engine .. amalakas? 

You need to go back to school, kidz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Idiot!!!!!
> 
> Nacelle indeed a cover of engine + air intake.... in ... a podded engine, as I said many times to you
> 
> But NOT a cover of engine + air intake (at once) ... in PAKFA, Flanker, and most of airfighter .. idiot
> 
> Do you understand what podded engine is??
> 
> Look again the picture that I've posted many times for both of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a kind of engine that Pakfa/Flanker has?
> 
> Is this the quality of so called aviation expert??
> 
> *You obviously HAVE NO CLUE about aviation stuff.*
> 
> You have been busted many many times and prove to be faker, pal !!




In the previous posts I made it clearly indicates PakFa, Su-34, F-14 have nacelles, everybody can see these no matter what garbage you say. 

besides all is there to see in my previous posts.. You have been exposed for the world player and utter useless contributor of anything really of meaning.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> In the previous posts I made it clearly indicates PakFa, Su-34, F-14 have nacelles, everybody can see these no matter what garbage you say.
> 
> besides all is there to see in my previous posts.. You have been exposed for the world player and utter useless contributor of anything really of meaning.



I've given a credit to you for that nacelle on pakfa/flanker kid....

*But where is the proof of your claim that "Air Intake" is part of / covered by Nacelle - on the PAKFA/Flanker case? as per your and gambit claim??*

You cant claim your contribution if all you can do is just copying and pasting capability.
I could bring my own analysis based on citation, instead of merely dragging internet article and copy & paste article like you and gambit usually do. Gambit some times brings his analysis, but many times his claim/analysis contradict to available citations.

I am busting you and gambit, it is also my contribution to reveal how fake your self proclaimed expert and the real quality of both of you!


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I've given a credit to you for that nacelle on pakfa/flanker kid....
> 
> *But where is the proof of your claim that "Air Intake" is part of / covered by Nacelle? as per your and gambit claim??*
> 
> You cant claim your contribution if all you can do is just copying and pasting capability.
> I could bring my own analysis based on citation, instead of merely dragging internet article and copy & paste article like you and gambit usually do. Gambit some times brings his analysis, but many times his claim/analysis contradict to available citations.
> 
> I am busting you and gambit, it is also my contribution to reveal how fake your self proclaimed expert and the real quality of both of you!



At some point you must realise you just make a fool of yourself. 

here play with this...

it is from the actual patent filed by Sukhoi for PakFa. 

Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, T-50 PAK-FA design & testing:






Tired of being made to look like the uneducated fool you are yet ?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> At some point you must realise you just make a fool of yourself.
> 
> here play with this...
> 
> it is from the actual patent filed by Sukhoi for PakFa.
> 
> Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, T-50 PAK-FA design & testing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tired of being made to look like the uneducated fool you are yet ?



What do you want to prove with that picture kid??

Do you think your picture above support your mistaken assumption?? 

You more and more only demonstrating your clueless about aviation stuff!
Everybody in this forum knows well and exactly where the air intake and where the nacelle is on airfighter (Pakfa/flanker/etc) without your need to show the picture above.

But most people in this forum already knows that "Air Intake" is placed in front, while nacelle is placed at rear of PAKFA/Flanker. 

*Only you and gambit think that Air Intake is covered by Nacelle - on Pakfa case.* 

In the other way round your picture above is proving how wrong your claim is about Air Intake covered by Nacelle! more proving how clueless you are about aviation stuff! So pathetic

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhishek_

martian's minions continue to provide comic relief on pdf.  
on the other hand, thanks gambit, amalakas for sharing your technical know-how


----------



## amalakas

Abhishek_ said:


> martian's minions continue to provide comic relief on pdf.
> on the other hand, thanks gambit, amalakas for sharing your technical know-how




appreciate it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

Abhishek_ said:


> martian's minions continue to provide comic relief on pdf.
> on the other hand, thanks gambit, amalakas for sharing your technical know-how



Because of your national pride (and perhaps your hatred to china) then you say Air Intake on Pakfa is = Nacelle, as per amalakas and gambit claim?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> What do you want to prove with that picture kid??
> 
> Do you think your picture above support your mistaken assumption??
> 
> You more and more only demonstrating your clueless about aviation stuff!
> Everybody in this forum knows well and exactly where the air intake and where the nacelle is on airfighter (Pakfa/flanker/etc) without your need to show the picture above.
> 
> But most people in this forum already knows that "Air Intake" is placed in front, *while nacelle is placed at rear of PAKFA/Flanker.*
> 
> *Only you and gambit think that Air Intake is covered by Nacelle - on Pakfa case.*
> 
> So pathetic




while nacelle is placed at rear of PAKFA/Flanker ?????  oh God.. you are precious aviation challenged kid, the nacelle is the entire housing from front to back. 

Keep them coming ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> appreciate it



Look again on the flag of your cheerleader


----------



## Abhishek_

antonius123 said:


> Because of your national pride (and perhaps your hatred to china) then you say Air Intake on Pakfa is = Nacelle, as per amalakas and gambit claim?


please don't misunderstand my comment. I deeply appreciate the content you post, and I encourage you to post even more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> while nacelle is placed at rear of PAKFA/Flanker ?????  oh God.. you are precious aviation challenged kid, the nacelle is the entire housing from front to back.
> 
> Keep them coming ...


 
Prove it!

I've been waiting long for your proof while you are coming only with word gaming.

The available solid citation only say: Nacelle is engine cover.
Never been said that "Air Intake" on fighter like flanker/f-14/f-15 is Nacelle as you and gambit claim 

Nacelle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Abhishek_ said:


> please don't misunderstand my comment. I deeply appreciate the content you post, and I encourage you to post even more.



OK good if you can be objective, people will appreciate it.


----------



## Abhishek_

antonius123 said:


> OK good if you can be objective, people will appreciate it.



of course, the objective for reading some posts is comic relief while others is to learn something I didn't know before. 
carry on the discussion gentlemen.


----------



## antonius123

Tiktok ..

Amalakas, are you getting difficult time to find the proof?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Prove it!
> 
> I've been waiting long for your proof while you are coming only with word gaming.
> 
> The available solid citation only say: Nacelle is engine cover.
> Never been said that "Air Intake" on fighter like flanker/f-14/f-15 is Nacelle as you and gambit claim
> 
> Nacelle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> OK good if you can be objective, people will appreciate it.




I did, it's in the posts and the links, staring you in the face.. you are just to dumb to see it.



But I just remembered, the "citation" you are so happy about, is from wikipedia.. right ? haha..

ok.. so how about that then ? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intake_ramp


> The nacelle has a round outer lip to defect spillage back into the longitudinal direction. The nacelle thus gets a very large cross section with more volume than needed for the engine and *in the F-22 the nacelles are combined with the fuselage to create a large weapon bay, place for fuel, and a wide body, which generates some lift.*



Oh my God!!! wiki is contradicting itself and you.. wow... !! 

keep'em coming kid.. I am telling you.. best comedy ever...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I did, it's in the posts and the links, staring you in the face.. you are just to dumb to see it.



See .. only "*word gaming*" finally you can bring 

Where is the waited proof? 
in your post ? fine, quote your post that stating the citation/evidence!
in your link? fine, quote the statement of the linked citation you mean that saying "Air Intake" of those fighter is so called Nacelle too.

It wont be too hard for both of you to show evidence if it is not merely your own (wrong) assumption.

No more fake, no more word gaming please


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> See .. only "*word gaming*" finally you can bring
> 
> Where is the waited proof?
> in your post ? fine, quote your post that stating the citation/evidence!
> in your link? fine, quote the statement of the linked citation you mean that saying "Air Intake" of those fighter is so called Nacelle too.
> 
> It wont be too hard for both of you to show evidence if it is not merely your own (wrong) assumption.
> 
> No more fake, no more word gaming please




read above genius.. you are so smart, you can do it ... I am sure..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> read above genius.. you are so smart, you can do it ... I am sure..



You are running out of word of gaming?

I've read your picture and article you drag, all is proving that your assumption is totally wrong!
Your picture show that Air Intake is separated with Nacelle.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You are running out of word of gaming?
> 
> I've read your picture and article you drag, all is proving that your assumption is totally wrong!
> Your picture show that Air Intake is separated with Nacelle.



Which proves that you have a reading comprehension problem.


----------



## antonius123

This is your last effort in proving your wrong assumption, look again:



amalakas said:


> Intake ramp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The nacelle has a round outer lip to defect spillage back into the longitudinal direction. The nacelle thus gets a very large cross section with more volume than needed for the engine and in *the F-22 the nacelles are combined with the fuselage* to create a large weapon bay, place for fuel, and a wide body, which generates some lift.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-169.html#ixzz21zR7F4n1



It is said that: Nacelle is combined with fuselage (on F-22 case), nothing new, everybody already knows.

There no mentioned that "Air Intake" is also combined with fuselage, as per your WRONG claim! 

Again you are demonstrating fake, clueless, and poor reading comprehension 



amalakas said:


> Which proves that you have a reading comprehension problem.



Which one of mine?

See the above evidence of your poor reading comprehension?

It is another junk word gaming you end up finally


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> air intake is part of the nacelle. Proven.


And summarily dismissed. Not by an engine specialist or even by someone who is part of design engineering team, but by a person who have no aviation education, training and experience and still claimed to have an aviation 'background'.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Control theory in aviation, specifically in flight control is not at the component level?? hello??
> Are you denying what you were just bursting without any clue?


Control theory is not the same thing as components, fool.

You brought on something that is several degrees apart from aviation: PLC versus DCS.

Those are components.



antonius123 said:


> In designing aircraft, flight control not only one component, but also very important and critical thing in integration, of course it involve control engineering, and of course the control theory is basic of control engineering.
> 
> See .. you are again and again demonstrating your clueless about aviation, as you really-really has no idea about what you are claiming


The laugh is on you, kid.

You continues to prove what a fool and a masochist you are. 

https://ngc.taleo.net/careersection/ngc_pro/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=139235&src=JB-202


> The GNC Engineer 3 will design, develop, implement, verify and test algorithms and software and simulation tools to perform guidance, navigation and control of aircraft, spacecraft, missiles, launch vehicles and upper stages during powered and coast phases of launch, flight, earth orbit, interplanetary cruise and orbital insertion, as well as during staging events. Navigation functions are to include the statistical processing of measured data points and their substitution into algorithms simulating physical reality. Guidance functions are to include the formulation of specific equations to achieve a desired position, orientation or orbit in space. Activities include development of the control laws and hardware and software requirements for aircraft, launch vehicles and/or spacecraft; non-linear 6DOF Simulation analysis (including stress testing, trade studies, mission analysis, etc); linear MATLAB/SIMULINK analysis (gain/phase margin determination, gain/filter determination, etc); embedded flight control software design/code/test, and supporting flight testing (pre-flight predictions, inertial instrument performance, post flight analysis, parameter identification, etc); as well as use and support of missile/ICBM specific heritage tools.



Apply for Job: Flight Controls Engineer


> Job Title:	Flight Controls Engineer
> Description:	Bachelors degree in engineering, a related curriculum, or equivalent combination of education and experience.
> 
> - Designs and integrates components and systems within the Advanced Programs Flight Controls (Fly by Wire) System to define design, performance, reliability and safety.
> *- Understands the Flight Control System: Fly-by-wire, Flight Control Computers, Related Electronic Flight Controls Systems Architectures, Primary Flight Controls (Ailerons, Elevator, Rudder), Secondary Flight Controls (Flaps, Spoilers), Actuators, Flight Controls and Fly-by-wire System Indication and Control.*
> - Performs operations in Catia V5 with minimal guidance or support. Includes 3-D modelling, 3-D creative modelling, projections, layout drawings, installations, dimensions and tolerances.
> - Demonstrated experience in Enovia/LCA/Smarteam required.
> - Applies company standards, procedures and processes against the Flight Control (Fly-by-wire) System.
> - Shows a general understanding of aircraft integration and design at the enterprise level.
> - Demonstrates a working knowledge of key elements of airworthiness, regulatory compliance, OEM, and industry-recognized compliance requirements.
> - Adheres to Lean and/or Six Sigma principles to ensure quality initiatives and standard testing procedures are met.
> - Performs operations and procedures in MS Office Suite with minimal guidance or support. Includes EXCEL and related statistical and analytical tools, MS Project, Access, and PowerPoint.
> - Performs Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) to assess risk and severity of failure on system. Includes assessing risk in design, probability testing and factor weighting.
> - Applies technical principles, theories, and concepts to solve a wide range of difficult engineering problems.
> - Working with the Group Head, provides engineering and technical direction and support to less experienced engineers.
> - With the Group Head, represents Advanced Programs, Flight Controls at key Systems Engineering, Programs, and other internal meetings with senior management attendance and visibility.
> - Demonstrated experience in presenting to, and interfacing with senior management.
> - Experience in coordinating with Suppliers on technical issues related to flight controls / fly-by-wire.


For the above two positions, *NEITHER* engineer will be concerned whether the flight control computer on the table has PLC or not. That is for the avionics component engineer to design and sell. For the above two positions, both would be concerned on whether that computer is applicable for their intended usage. That is 'system integration', a phrase that you probably never heard of until now.

If you go into their job interviews and you boast about how knowledgeable you are of PLC, you will not get either job. You will asked about flight control laws, which are mathematical in nature. You will be asked about aviation maintenance experience if any, because the system you are designing must be maintenance accessible. You will be asked about softwares such as MS Word or AutoCad, because you will use those tools to present your arguments. You will be asked about your flight experience, if any, because airborne time give the engineer insights of what a pilot will encounter, need and want. You will be asked about statistics, because your projects will involve a lot of number crunching. But most important of all, you will be asked about the highlighted in the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position.

You failed. Again. Liar.



antonius123 said:


> Again you repeat the stale question which has been responded and challenged many times.


What? Where? 

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

Show us where did you answered that first year aerodynamics question. Show us which post number.

Anyway, the other questions that you dodged, and now lied about answering them, they are directly related to the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position as highlighted in the job description.






Q: In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed?
A: Lift distribution.

We can chalk that one up to the list of your aviation 'background' ignorance and lies.

So here are a couple more for you to show everyone your so called aviation 'background', the one that you lied about and tried to use to shut down the Indians...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?

Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.

Remember, they have nothing to do with PLC vs DCS......But directly with aerodynamics and flight controls. I never worked with the POL (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubrication) engineers, so do not ask questions about POL. But then again...You probably have never heard of 'POL' in relations to aviation until now. So try to stick to aerodynamics and flight controls, got it?

You are the best example of the worst of the J-20's supporters in this forum: Technically ignorant but too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SOHEIL

Dear gambit !

we can't deny that J-20 is a Great step for china

but i agree with you in some cases


----------



## gambit

Soheil said:


> Dear gambit !
> 
> we can't deny that J-20 is a Great step for china


I have never said things about the J-20 the same way many here say about the F-22 'Craptor'. I have always advocated caution in making any claims. A caution that the J-20's supporters consistently ignored and ended up making fools out of themselves.



Soheil said:


> but i agree with you in some cases


You mean like the Indonesian tweenager making a fool out of himself?


----------



## SOHEIL

gambit said:


> I have never said things about the J-20 the same way many here say about the F-22 'Craptor'. I have always advocated caution in making any claims. A caution that the J-20's supporters consistently ignored and ended up making fools out of themselves.
> 
> 
> *You mean like the Indonesian tweenager making a fool out of himself?*



Oh ! CMON MAN


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> You want me answered your garbage, while you ignore a lot of my questions?





Like what?






antonius123 said:


> If you need my attention to your garbage, please a bit patient as *I dont have much time now, just wait*.






So you quoted something without understanding what you quoted and now you need time to research what you quoted? You just admitted that you don&#8217;t know what your own quote meant. This is embarrassing on your part since you claimed to have a background in aviation, not only that but you mocked other members by claiming they do not understand what they quote. Once called out it is you who demonstrated zero knowledge in your own source. If you understood what you quoted you simple would have explain it a long time ago.







antonius123 said:


> Which one?




This one:





> You act like your master Gambit by only dragging article and highlight the word "corner reflector" without understanding and ability to explain. That is far from enough to make you seem like an internet boy.





Proof you dismiss people&#8217;s claims no matter how reputable the source is based on the fact that you feel they did not explain the source, ironic since you have been caught quoting articles without understanding the context of what you quoted, so much so that you have asked for time in order to do the research and what you quoted.









antonius123 said:


> This is one example of my last question to you that you ignore: "Yeah, on what plane? and how is the size?"
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-154.html#ixzz21HfOf7Rf




The canopy was from an aerobatics aircraft and obviously its smaller than a canopy from a fighter. Lets look deeper into buble canopies/weight and such. First let me start with the F-16. Here is various types of F-16 canopies, everything except the length is given:









http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...sQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHx1zeVb25ScpPF-IQCWjyGkbZBqQ 




Various F-16 canopy weight by bird strike protection, thickness and material:




> Laminated polycarbonate, 4-lbs-350kt. Canopy weight 127lbs
> 
> 
> Laminated polycarbonate, 4-lbs-350kt. Canopy weight 123lbs
> 
> 
> Laminated polycarbonate, 4-lbs-350kt. Canopy weight 133lbs









In comparison the F-22&#8217;s canopy is 140 inches long and 360lbs. The F-22 has a thicker canopy compared to the F-16, and this is needed because of manufacturing process. When we compare the F16 and the F-22 canopy we will see that they both share similarities in that the F-16 has a monolithic polycarbonate canopy that is manufactured by laminated sheets. The F-16 has one frame in the very aft of the canopy followed by a small continuation of the canopy. If the F-16 wanted to it could have had a one piece canopy at the cost of poorer visibility and or poorer safety.

Here is a comparison of canopies: 


F-22








F-16









So yes even an old fashion canopy that employs laminated sheets can be formed to make a bubble canopy. A one peice canopy is not that special, laminated canopies with frames are logical because they are generally safer against bird strikes.











antonius123 said:


> Tell me first: what is the connection those things with your arguments? isn't your argument saying that : Cone is doing exactly the same thing as DSI do? *Actually I am more than enough to beat your argument claiming *that Cone will do totally the same things as DSI do with the same performance which is obviously and glaringly contradictive to the citation i have given/showed you, without explaining what the meaning of those phrase as per your request.






The connection is that you were claiming that a cone intake can not do what a DSI can do, which is divert airflow and slow it down to subsonic speeds, my source proved that you were wrong, a cone does the same exact thing as a DSI, it diverts airflow and slows it down to subsonic speeds before it enters the engine. You claimed that a cone intake could not do either of those things--you were wrong.



And your source where you claim DSI is better is referring to the JF-17. If DSI&#8217;s improved the JF-17&#8217;s performance it does not mean it will improve the performance of other aircraft or that the DSI would be better over other methods. Every aircraft is different, everything from an intake lip, to an intake ramp to a serpentine intake effects *airflow* patterns and *velocity*. This means that if we take an aircraft such as a Mig-23 which utilizes serpentine intakes and we install a DSI the results would be different compared to installing DSI&#8217;s on a JF-17.









antonius123 said:


> Hellow.. is there any evidence you can bring to prove that CONE perform exactly the same functions as DSI with THE SAME PERFORMANCE??







Either you did not bother reading my previous sources or you are just blatantly trolling but once again here it is:



Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 




> *The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine.*
> 
> The *boundary layer on the cone *is stretched as it moves up the cone preventing flow separation.
> 
> 
> 
> The resulting intake system is *more efficient (in terms of pressure recovery)* than the much simpler pitot intake.







That&#8217;s the bread and butter of a DSI. Inlet cone does what a DSI does, any improvements that the JF-17 had with a DSI is coincidental to its unique design. Remember, all aircraft will have different results with a DSI depending on the intake design.







antonius123 said:


> We dont need your claim, or another empty claim. If you say it perform the same, then prove it!




Already have.







antonius123 said:


> My citation is already my solid evidence that DSI offer better performance than cone.






And what was your citation? And what did it prove exactly?








antonius123 said:


> OK, then we need the proof. *Where is the proof of your such a claim?*







You can not be serious. *You quoted my post where I provided proof *and now you want me to give you proof again? Further proof that you either do not read anything that anyone posts or you have a problem with reading comprehension, or a combination of the two.


I never claimed that a DSI and a Cone intake look the same, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I clearly and explicitly stated the very opposite.

Here is proof of that:





PtldM3 said:


> More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, *a half cone or cone intake have their own features but all three intakes do the same job*.




Proof enough for you?








antonius123 said:


> Oooh, it is!
> 
> You have demonstrated your inability to understand and distinguish the difference of round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc. Dont blame me if I suspect you will do the same with other case.





No, the only one that has demonstrated the inability to understand &#8216;round vs. curvature is you. When I spoke about curvature I was referring to the J-20&#8217;s chin. The J-20&#8217;s chin fit&#8217;s the contour of a circle, a perfect circle. I never stated that the chin is a circle. I only stated that the J-20&#8217;s chin fit&#8217;s the contour of a perfect circle. I further provided visual proof by illustrating that a circle when imposed over the J-20 does prove that the J-20&#8217;s lower chin does follow the curvature of a perfect circle. It&#8217;s very simple and impossible to dispute.









antonius123 said:


> *Really?? show me where/when did I said so*, or you are FRAUD.






Here it is for everyone to see:





antonius123 said:


> *The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed.* *This things doesnt exist on cone inlet*.






You clearly stated a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow and slow it down to supersonic speed, by claiming *neither of those functions exist on the cone intake*. So I&#8217;m not a fraud, you simply have been making claims and than forgetting that you made those claims, if you were humble you would either admit that you made a mistake (I quoted you on that mistake) or you apologize for calling me a fraud. Because the evidence shows you did make those claims, and now you claim you did not make those claim.


The proof is here for everyone to see but i suppose you will deny you said that even though i quoted you than you will call me an idiot.


















antonius123 said:


> Do you think you understand?
> 
> I can answer that easily and will answer that for you if you can answer my questions too with responsibility.




Yes I understand, I can answer what &#8216;high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; means and I can provide sources.

The problem is that you can not. I have asked you many times to explain what it means and every time you have refused to do so. And I would not have made I big deal about it but you were the one that accused other people of not understanding what they quote, so I used your tactic against you. Can you explain your quote? So far you have shown that you were not familiar with what your quote meant, so much so that you admitted that you need more time to do research. If you really knew what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching meant you would have answered it long ago. Clearly at the time that you quoted your source you had no understanding of what you actually quoted.






antonius123 said:


> But *where is the proof of your claim that "Air Intake" is part of / covered by Nacelle? *as per your and gambit claim??




This is not directed at me but both of them were correct.




Here is a source:





Patent US6966524 - Aircraft engine nacelles and methods for their manufacture - Google Patents






> Engine nacelles for use with aircraft. In one embodiment,* an engine nacelle includes an inlet *having an inlet aperture and an outlet having an outlet aperture.







There you go an intake or inlet is a part of a nacelle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

The trolls continue to *talk* while China forges ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> The trolls continue to *talk* while China forges ahead.


 
are you referring to us ? 

we are the trolls ?


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> The trolls continue to *talk* while China forges ahead.


You mean the ones who have no aviation related education, training and experience and yet are making physics defying claims? Got it...


----------



## A.Rafay

j20blackdragon said:


>



I think pak should talk to china about starting the production of joint fighter twin engined JF-18 based on this j-20 , the successor of JF-17, IF not then Pak should just consider buying these.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

Close picture of the head of the j-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

double post.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Like what?


Like most of your comments



> So you quoted something without understanding what you quoted and now you need time to research what you quoted? You just admitted that you dont know what your own quote meant. This is embarrassing on your part since you claimed to have a background in aviation, not only that but you mocked other members by claiming they do not understand what they quote. Once called out it is you who demonstrated zero knowledge in your own source. If you understood what you quoted you simple would have explain it a long time ago.



Bla bla bla.. you talk to much but idiot. I've told you that you had serious reading comprehension problem.
Read again my posting.

It is you who do not understand what you wrote. You need to be responsible in debate.



> This one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof you dismiss peoples claims no matter how reputable the source is based on the fact that you feel they did not explain the source, ironic since you have been caught quoting articles without understanding the context of what you quoted, so much so that you have asked for time in order to do the research and what you quoted.


As I said, you have severe reading comprehension problem.




> The canopy was from an aerobatics aircraft and obviously its smaller than a canopy from a fighter. Lets look deeper into buble canopies/weight and such. First let me start with the F-16. Here is various types of F-16 canopies, everything except the length is given:
> 
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...sQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHx1zeVb25ScpPF-IQCWjyGkbZBqQ
> 
> 
> Various F-16 canopy weight by bird strike protection, thickness and material:
> 
> 
> In comparison the F-22s canopy is 140 inches long and 360lbs. The F-22 has a thicker canopy compared to the F-16, and this is needed because of manufacturing process. When we compare the F16 and the F-22 canopy we will see that they both share similarities in that the F-16 has a monolithic polycarbonate canopy that is manufactured by laminated sheets. The F-16 has one frame in the very aft of the canopy followed by a small continuation of the canopy. If the F-16 wanted to it could have had a one piece canopy at the cost of poorer visibility and or poorer safety.
> 
> Here is a comparison of canopies:
> 
> F-22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yes even an old fashion canopy that employs laminated sheets can be formed to make a bubble canopy. A one peice canopy is not that special, laminated canopies with frames are logical because they are generally safer against bird strikes.



You are talking without any knowledge.

I've explain you that the complexity is on the mold making technology.
Of course you have no idea about it, because you are only an English Teacher for kindergarten 

Your clueless about molding injection technology is already a blatant proof that you have no knowledge about the thing that you want to debate!




> The connection is that you were claiming that a cone intake can not do what a DSI can do, which is divert airflow and slow it down to subsonic speeds, my source proved that you were wrong, a cone does the same exact thing as a DSI, it diverts airflow and slows it down to subsonic speeds before it enters the engine. You claimed that a cone intake could not do either of those things--you were wrong.



See .. more and more you are demonstrating "reading comprehension" problem.
Many times I've told you that it is not what I said; I said about the performance difference, but you are stubbornly idiot miss understanding.

See again my explanation as i wont repeat for 100 times.



> And your source where you claim DSI is better is referring to the JF-17. If DSIs improved the JF-17s performance it does not mean it will improve the performance of other aircraft or that the DSI would be better over other methods. Every aircraft is different, everything from an intake lip, to an intake ramp to a serpentine intake effects *airflow* patterns and *velocity*. This means that if we take an aircraft such as a Mig-23 which utilizes serpentine intakes and we install a DSI the results would be different compared to installing DSIs on a JF-17.



The source is not saying the performance only good for JF-17 or limited to several aircraft.. idiot. Prove it if there is any sentence that showing so.

You are having severe reading comprehension!



> Either you did not bother reading my previous sources or you are just blatantly trolling but once again here it is:
> 
> Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the bread and butter of a DSI. Inlet cone does what a DSI does, any improvements that the JF-17 had with a DSI is coincidental to its unique design. Remember, all aircraft will have different results with a DSI depending on the intake design.



Again you are demonstrating severe reading comprehension problem.

There is no such a sentence that saying or implying that "Cone" has the same performance nor as good as "DSI". 

You are delusional and daydreaming.

Furthermore, either you ignore or miss understand the sentence of the source:

_
The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer airflow, such =as the intake ramp and inlet cone, which are more complex, heavy and expensive.[1] _
Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?




> Already have.


No you dont; what you think as proof is actually your severe miss understanding.





> And what was your citation? And what did it prove exactly?


Are you idiot or something?
How many times should I put the citation so that you could see?

It proves that DSI is better in term of efficiency, lower complexity (no moving parts, hence no ram coating needed).

You could read here: 
_Also, while the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) intakes are easier to maintain than more complex stealth-compatible intakes, such as on the F-22,_
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The clue for you: the moving parts should be ram coated in order to reduce RCS; but with DSI there is no moving parts therefore no need additional ram coating, reduce weight with same low RCS of the coated moving parts more complex intake.
But i doubt you with your severe reading comprehension could catch what implied there 





> You can not be serious. *You quoted my post where I provided proof *and now you want me to give you proof again? Further proof that you either do not read anything that anyone posts or you have a problem with reading comprehension, or a combination of the two.


As said above: your have severe reading comprehension problem.



> I never claimed that a DSI and a Cone intake look the same, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I clearly and explicitly stated the very opposite.
> 
> Here is proof of that:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof enough for you?



OK, a one credit goes to you for that.

But what make you thing Cone and DSI will bring out the same efficiency in spite of the evidences implied in the citation? Thats the problem with you, you are claiming something not only without backing evidence, but also againts evidence.




> No, the only one that has demonstrated the inability to understand round vs. curvature is you. When I spoke about curvature I was referring to the J-20s chin. The J-20s chin fits the contour of a circle, a perfect circle. I never stated that the chin is a circle. I only stated that the J-20s chin fits the contour of a perfect circle. I further provided visual proof by illustrating that a circle when imposed over the J-20 does prove that the J-20s lower chin does follow the curvature of a perfect circle. Its very simple and impossible to dispute.



You obviously ignored the basic /elementary math evidence that I showed you.

I've explained you about equidistant. The requirement of the so called "circle" is:
1. equidistant
2. close curve
Circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you were trying to say is "arc" which is an open curve as a part of a (closed curve) circle.





The circle is a curvature, but curvature is not always circle.

Furthermore, you are still wrong if you think that the curve of J-20 chin is = arc, as it is not equidistant.

So, you are absolutely wrong!

See .. you are repeating the same idiocy that has been explained many times.





> Here it is for everyone to see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly stated a cone intake can not divert boundary layer airflow and slow it down to supersonic speed, by claiming *neither of those functions exist on the cone intake*. So Im not a fraud, you simply have been making claims and than forgetting that you made those claims, if you were humble you would either admit that you made a mistake (I quoted you on that mistake) or you apologize for calling me a fraud. Because the evidence shows you did make those claims, and now you claim you did not make those claim.
> 
> 
> The proof is here for everyone to see but i suppose you will deny you said that even though i quoted you than you will call me an idiot.



Idiot! The things that do not exist on cone is: "The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl" 

This is a proof of your idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem.




> Yes I understand, I can answer what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means and I can provide sources.
> 
> The problem is that you can not. I have asked you many times to explain what it means and every time you have refused to do so. And I would not have made I big deal about it but you were the one that accused other people of not understanding what they quote, so I used your tactic against you. Can you explain your quote? So far you have shown that you were not familiar with what your quote meant, so much so that you admitted that you need more time to do research. If you really knew what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching meant you would have answered it long ago. Clearly at the time that you quoted your source you had no understanding of what you actually quoted.



Where is the evidence that I cannot answer that?
Where is the evidence that you can answer that?

You are throwing empty claims as usual.

The evidence exist that you have demonstrating is => your idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem!





> This is not directed at me but both of them were correct.
> 
> Here is a source:
> 
> 
> Patent US6966524 - Aircraft engine nacelles and methods for their manufacture - Google Patents
> 
> There you go an intake or inlet is a part of a nacelle.


 
Again and again you are demonstrating idiocy 

I have several times told you that this is only applied on "PODDED ENGINE", not on the engine like those on Pakfa/Flanker/F-15/etc.

Now I am afraid you have no clue about "PODDED ENGINE"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> ..................
> 
> Again and again you are demonstrating idiocy
> 
> I have several times told you that this is only applied on "PODDED ENGINE", not on the engine like those on Pakfa/Flanker/F-15/etc.
> 
> Now I am afraid you have no clue about "PODDED ENGINE"


 
Are you here again ? did you not have enough whooping and being made a fool for everyone here to see with your ignorance and stubbornness ? 

you seem to like wikipedia alot .. 

well here you are : 

Components of jet engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Air intakes
> The air intake can be designed to be part of the fuselage of the aircraft (Corsair A-7, A-8, Dassault Mirage III, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21) or *integrated part of the nacelle* (Grumman F-14 Tomcat, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, Sukhoi Su-27, Sukhoi PakFa, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, Boeing 737,747, Airbus A380).



Let's see what nonsense you are going to come up once more 

Let's see how many sources you are going to reject, you don't like common sense, you don't like reputable papers from IEEE and others, you don't like technology patents, you don't like wikipedia although it is the ONLY one you ever use, you pretty much don't like anything if you didn't write it. 

This calls for a doctor I think, and this maniacal wish you have to make a fool of yourself, well bring it on, as I said, I get a kick out of showing everyone what a fool you are.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Control theory is not the same thing as components, fool.
> 
> You brought on something that is several degrees apart from aviation: PLC versus DCS.
> 
> Those are components.



Ha ha ha ... again you are caught on lying and faking 

Both PLC and DCS are not apart from Aviation as you think, as both are related much in flight control.

You think PLC and DCS are apart of Aviation control, because YOU HAVE NO CLUE at all.

All you are doing are faking and deceiving many people in the forums to obtain credibility and thanks.

It is time for you to admit you are a faker and liar! or should I show you evidence and strip you again until you are totally naked? 




> The laugh is on you, kid.
> 
> You continues to prove what a fool and a masochist you are.
> 
> https://ngc.taleo.net/careersection/ngc_pro/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=139235&src=JB-202
> 
> 
> Apply for Job: Flight Controls Engineer
> 
> For the above two positions, *NEITHER* engineer will be concerned whether the flight control computer on the table has PLC or not. That is for the avionics component engineer to design and sell. For the above two positions, both would be concerned on whether that computer is applicable for their intended usage. That is 'system integration', a phrase that you probably never heard of until now.



See .. this is another proof that you are liar and faker.

Nonsense if you say that flight control engineer doesnt care whether it is using computer, PLC or else, he should!! because it is much related to the control engineering. The way we do algorithm in PLC, and on other controller or computer is not the same, how could you claim the control engineer doesnt care??

Ha ha ha .. you are again cought on lying and faking 



> If you go into their job interviews and you boast about how knowledgeable you are of PLC, you will not get either job. You will asked about flight control laws, which are mathematical in nature. You will be asked about aviation maintenance experience if any, because the system you are designing must be maintenance accessible. You will be asked about softwares such as MS Word or AutoCad, because you will use those tools to present your arguments. You will be asked about your flight experience, if any, because airborne time give the engineer insights of what a pilot will encounter, need and want. You will be asked about statistics, because your projects will involve a lot of number crunching. But most important of all, you will be asked about the highlighted in the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position.
> 
> You failed. Again. Liar.



You are totally wrong !

The difference between PLC and DCS is something basic!
How could the interviewer will be sure that you have good basic control engineering knowledge if you dont know what PLC and what DCS, and the difference??





> What? Where?
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> Show us where did you answered that first year aerodynamics question. Show us which post number.
> 
> Anyway, the other questions that you dodged, and now lied about answering them, they are directly related to the 'Flight Controls Engineer' position as highlighted in the job description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: In the above example of one wing that illustrate three different areas, what is the common denominator of all three areas that directly affect wing geometry design, which in consequence determine a wing's characteristics such as drag and stall speed?
> A: Lift distribution.
> 
> We can chalk that one up to the list of your aviation 'background' ignorance and lies.
> 
> So here are a couple more for you to show everyone your so called aviation 'background', the one that you lied about and tried to use to shut down the Indians...
> 
> Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
> 
> Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.
> 
> Remember, they have nothing to do with PLC vs DCS......But directly with aerodynamics and flight controls. I never worked with the POL (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubrication) engineers, so do not ask questions about POL. But then again...You probably have never heard of 'POL' in relations to aviation until now. So try to stick to aerodynamics and flight controls, got it?
> 
> You are the best example of the worst of the J-20's supporters in this forum: Technically ignorant but too intellectually dishonest to admit it.


 
Demonstrating ignorance by repeating the same question that already replied many times? 

What for you are acting like an expert by testing me, if you are caught many time as a clueless, faker and liar even in your effort to test me?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Are you here again ? did you not have enough whooping and being made a fool for everyone here to see with your ignorance and stubbornness ?
> 
> you seem to like wikipedia alot ..
> 
> well here you are :
> 
> Components of jet engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Let's see what nonsense you are going to come up once more
> 
> Let's see how many sources you are going to reject, you don't like common sense, you don't like reputable papers from IEEE and others, you don't like technology patents, you don't like wikipedia although it is the ONLY one you ever use, you pretty much don't like anything if you didn't write it.
> 
> This calls for a doctor I think, and this maniacal wish you have to make a fool of yourself, well bring it on, as I said, I get a kick out of showing everyone what a fool you are.



Integrated part of nacelle doesnt mean the air intake is covered or within a Nacelle, you idiot .. 

I think i have told you this a few times. When will you get a little bit smarter?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Integrated part of nacelle doesnt mean the air intake is covered or within a Nacelle, you idiot ..
> 
> I think i have told you this a few times. When will you get a little bit smarter?




care to explain to all of us what integrated means then, so as to prove to us that you are not the idiot ?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> care to explain to all of us what integrated means then, so as to prove to us that you are not the idiot ?



Integrated parts mean that the parts are combined or coordinated together. The meaning is not narrow as what you think. Wing could be said integrated to Fuselage, but it doesnt mean that "wing = fuselage" as your idiotic thought 

If you are not idiot, then why dont you explain what make you think that integration of Air Intake and Nacelle must mean that Air Intake = Nacelle? or Air Intake is within Nacelle? Are you aware that it is you who is claiming that integration of nacelle and air intake makes air intake = nacelle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Ha ha ha ... again you are caught on lying and faking
> 
> Both PLC and DCS are not apart from Aviation as you think, as both are related much in flight control.
> 
> You think PLC and DCS are apart of Aviation control, because YOU HAVE NO CLUE at all.
> 
> All you are doing are faking and deceiving many people in the forums to obtain credibility and thanks.
> 
> It is time for you to admit you are a faker and liar! or should I show you evidence and strip you again until you are totally naked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See .. this is another proof that you are liar and faker.
> 
> Nonsense if you say that flight control engineer doesnt care whether it is using computer, PLC or else, he should!! because it is much related to the control engineering. The way we do algorithm in PLC, and on other controller or computer is not the same, how could you claim the control engineer doesnt care??
> 
> Ha ha ha .. you are again cought on lying and faking
> 
> 
> 
> You are totally wrong !
> 
> The difference between PLC and DCS is something basic!
> How could the interviewer will be sure that you have good basic control engineering knowledge if you dont know what PLC and what DCS, and the difference??


Did I say that basic electronics have no role in aviation engineering? But just as you redefined 'background' to eliminate experience, now you have to resort to twisting people's words to hide your ignorance.

If I was to ask 100 semiconductor Probe engineers on how much do they remember resistor color codes, 99 of them will start laughing and admit that they remember nothing about it. Does that mean they are stupid? No, it just mean that the level of electronics knowledge are not applicable to their daily tasks.

Here is what a 'Probe engineer' does...

Micron Semiconductor Asia Pte Ltd


> Responsibilities:
> 
> JOB SUMMARY
> As a Probe Process Engineer, you will ensure the smooth running of the Probe Production line by partnering various teams and optimizing the robustness of Probe systems & operations. In addition, you will also be responsible for deploying/maintaining business processes & automated systems for product disposition and quality control.
> 
> JOB RESPONSIBILITIES
> Set up and maintain automated systems (Probe Auto-Dispo, AllCrunch etc) to support running of material at Probe, and enforce Micron quality requirements on products shipped out of Fab10
> Define and streamline business processes at Probe to improve coordination across multiple teams & areas
> Collaborate with the worldwide Probe community on projects with significant impact to Probe
> Requirements:
> 
> Education
> Bachelors degree in Engineering is preferred.
> Candidates with basic/intermediate grasp of programming preferred.
> Experience, Skills, Knowledge and Abilities
> Good understanding of systems and able to take a helicopter-view of the situation
> Demonstrated ability to cope with complex and fast-changing situation, while tackling multiple tasks at the same time. Must be able to deliver results while working under pressure
> Strong written and verbal communication skills
> Solid technical judgment with good analytical and problem solving skills


By the way, I used to work for Micron.

On the other hand, if I go down to Facilities maintenance and ask the 100 Chemical engineers whose responsibilities includes proper routing of deadly chemicals to their appropriate places about resistor color codes, 100 of them would be able to answer correctly.

Again, it is about the level of knowledge that is appropriately applicable to the job.

*YOU* are nothing but an ignorant fool. You found some words in an Indonesian aviation college course saying 'Control Theory' and immediately assume that it must be about components. In aviation, control theories are about the exploitations of aerodynamic forces via surfaces, simple or complex hydraulic actuators, computers, and finally the pilot. Not about whether I need to know if the computer in front of me have PLC or DCS control methods.



antonius123 said:


> Demonstrating ignorance by repeating the same question that already replied many times?
> 
> What for you are acting like an expert by testing me, if you are caught many time as a clueless, faker and liar even in your effort to test me?


Then show everyone which post number did you answer this basic first year aerodynamics question:

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

For the recent two that you did not answered despite claiming an aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians...

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
A: Pressure distribution over the wing.

Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.
A: The LE flap extends the range of angles that flow can remains attached to the wing.

That is about 9 or 10 basic aviation questions that you could not answer with your supposedly aviation 'background' or 'study'. You think the job interviewer is going to be impressed by knowledge of PLC versus DCS? 

What a pathetic figure you cut on this forum, my little Indonesian tweenager. You came on here to suck up to the Chinese and to shut down the Americans and the Indians but ended up being a spectacular **** of jokes. The Chinese are wise enough not to make (easily challenged) claims about themselves -- but not you.



amalakas said:


> care to explain to all of us what integrated means then, so as to prove to us that you are not the idiot ?


The kid redefined 'background' to eliminate experience. We know he does not have the education and training. So just as his 'background' is pretty much empty, so does whatever definition of 'integrated' he may have.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Did I say that basic electronics have no role in aviation engineering? But just as you redefined 'background' to eliminate experience, now you have to resort to twisting people's words to hide your ignorance.
> 
> If I was to ask 100 semiconductor Probe engineers on how much do they remember resistor color codes, 99 of them will start laughing and admit that they remember nothing about it. Does that mean they are stupid? No, it just mean that the level of electronics knowledge are not applicable to their daily tasks.
> 
> Here is what a 'Probe engineer' does...
> 
> Micron Semiconductor Asia Pte Ltd
> 
> By the way, I used to work for Micron.
> 
> On the other hand, if I go down to Facilities maintenance and ask the 100 Chemical engineers whose responsibilities includes proper routing of deadly chemicals to their appropriate places about resistor color codes, 100 of them would be able to answer correctly.
> 
> Again, it is about the level of knowledge that is appropriately applicable to the job.
> 
> *YOU* are nothing but an ignorant fool. You found some words in an Indonesian aviation college course saying 'Control Theory' and immediately assume that it must be about components. In aviation, control theories are about the exploitations of aerodynamic forces via surfaces, simple or complex hydraulic actuators, computers, and finally the pilot. Not about whether I need to know if the computer in front of me have PLC or DCS control methods.
> 
> 
> Then show everyone which post number did you answer this basic first year aerodynamics question:
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> For the recent two that you did not answered despite claiming an aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians...
> 
> Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
> A: Pressure distribution over the wing.
> 
> Q: What does the slat (leading edge flap) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not directly affect lift. Or kinda sorta does affect lift.
> A: The LE flap extends the range of angles that flow can remains attached to the wing.
> 
> That is about 9 or 10 basic aviation questions that you could not answer with your supposedly aviation 'background' or 'study'. You think the job interviewer is going to be impressed by knowledge of PLC versus DCS?
> 
> What a pathetic figure you cut on this forum, my little Indonesian tweenager. You came on here to suck up to the Chinese and to shut down the Americans and the Indians but ended up being a spectacular **** of jokes. The Chinese are wise enough not to make (easily challenged) claims about themselves -- but not you.
> 
> 
> The kid redefined 'background' to eliminate experience. We know he does not have the education and training. So just as his 'background' is pretty much empty, so does whatever definition of 'integrated' he may have.


 
Dont play diverting gambit...

You have been joking and exposing the your real competence here.

Control theory is the basic of control engineering; and control engineering is the mother of flight control engineering. So if you claim yourself as an Aviation Expert in Avionics, you should have learned about control engineering.

Remember you are the first one asking me about "Control Theory", then I challenge you by asking control engineering (PLC and DCS), then *you are excusing that you cant answer/dont know because you are not working in component level!* From here many people in this forum will laugh and can see glaringly how you are* caught as a FAKER and LIAR* 

Your excuse has demonstrated that you have no clue if PLC and Control is something basic in control engineering, including in flight control engineering! So if you are trying to test me with basic control theory but you yourself has no knowledge in basic control engineering you are demonstrating how joking, idiotic, liar and faker you are

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Integrated parts mean that the parts are combined or coordinated together. The meaning is not narrow as what you think. Wing could be said integrated to Fuselage, but it doesnt mean that "wing = fuselage" as your idiotic thought
> 
> If you are not idiot, then why dont you explain what make you think that integration of Air Intake and Nacelle must mean that Air Intake = Nacelle? or Air Intake is within Nacelle? Are you aware that it is you who is claiming that integration of nacelle and air intake makes air intake = nacelle?



in·te·grate&#8194; &#8194;

1. to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.
2. to make up, combine, or complete to produce a whole or a larger unit, as parts do. 

this simply means that if the air-intake is an integrated part of the nacelle, in plain english it means they are inseparable , as in integrated circuits genius ... you wanna try separate those ?? 
Your inability to understand english is beyond belief. An air intake is an inlet as it is correctly called. You cannot have a jet engine without sucking in air from somewhere. 

when the jet engine is housed inside the nacelle, the air-intake is the front of the nacelle and the exhaust is the back of the nacelle. 

You cannot fathom that if one was to remove a jet engine from a nacelle, the air intake is STILL part of the nacelle !



keep up the comedy, you are now making more people than just me laugh...


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> in·te·grate&#8194; &#8194;
> 
> 1. to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.
> 2. to make up, combine, or complete to produce a whole or a larger unit, as parts do.
> 
> this simply means that if the air-intake is an integrated part of the nacelle, in plain english it means they are inseparable , as in integrated circuits genius ... you wanna try separate those ??
> Your inability to understand english is beyond belief. An air intake is an inlet as it is correctly called. You cannot have a jet engine without sucking in air from somewhere.
> 
> when the jet engine is housed inside the nacelle, the air-intake is the front of the nacelle and the exhaust is the back of the nacelle.
> 
> You cannot fathom that if one was to remove a jet engine from a nacelle, the air intake is STILL part of the nacelle !
> 
> 
> 
> keep up the comedy, you are now making more people than just me laugh...


 
Nobody deny the definition, idiot!

What has been asked to you is: why do you think "the integrated" must mean "=" ? 

Remember you, your master Gambit and other cheerleaders claim that the part that I said as Air Intake should be called Nacelle? 

When will you get a little bit smarter?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Remember you are the first one asking me about "Control Theory",...


Which is about aviation.

Q: What the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

That is first year aerodynamics and *DIRECTLY* applicable to aviation control theory. You did not know the answer despite your claim of having aviation 'background' or 'study' to try to shut down the Indians. Now you are saying that you answered it. Show us where.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Nobody deny the definition, idiot!
> 
> What has been asked to you is: why do you think "the integrated" must mean "=" ?
> 
> Remember you, your master Gambit and other cheerleaders claim that the part that I said as Air Intake should be called Nacelle?
> 
> When will you get a little bit smarter?



First you said that a given plane has no nacelles, 
then when it was shown that it does, you started the air-intake nonsense, i.e. that an air-intake is not part of the nacelle
then when it was shown to you, you said "it doesn't mean it is in or covered by the nacelle" 
then it does not = nacelle... 

I am pretty sure this list is going to grow larger.. 

if integrated means inseparable, i.e. you cannot take them apart, that pretty much means one and the same.

Yes they said that because when you look at a nacelle from the front you look at the air intake, when you look at it from the back you look at the exhaust or nozzle...  mr. aviation study.. the whole is the nacelle... 

But you are playing with words, again. An arm does not = a person, but every person comes with arms from birth. Semantics and you are playing with them.. carry on ...as I said, that list above needs to grow...


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> First you said that a given plane has no nacelles,
> then when it was shown that it does, you started the air-intake nonsense, i.e. that an air-intake is not part of the nacelle
> then when it was shown to you, you said "it doesn't mean it is in or covered by the nacelle"
> then it does not = nacelle...
> 
> I am pretty sure this list is going to grow larger..



Dont try to lie again boy..

I ve told you from beginning that i agree nacelle exist at pakfa as nacelle is a cover of engine.
Trace again my post, and dont lie.

Ive also give you credit when you could prove your answe to my test, it shows that i am fair, not unjust denial like you and crownies



> if integrated means inseparable, i.e. you cannot take them apart, that pretty much means one and the same.
> 
> Yes they said that because when you look at a nacelle from the front you look at the air intake, when you look at it from the back you look at the exhaust or nozzle...  mr. aviation study.. the whole is the nacelle...
> 
> But you are playing with words, again. An arm does not = a person, but every person comes with arms from birth. Semantics and you are playing with them.. carry on ...as I said, that list above needs to grow...


 
I repeat again for third times: nobody deny that integrated means inseparable, etc.

What i am asking you is why u claim air intake = nacelle? be integrated doesnt mean that nacelle cover air intake (in pakfa case).

Is it too dificult for you to understand the point? dont be too idiotic.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Which is about aviation.
> 
> Q: What the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> That is first year aerodynamics and *DIRECTLY* applicable to aviation control theory. You did not know the answer despite your claim of having aviation 'background' or 'study' to try to shut down the Indians. Now you are saying that you answered it. Show us where.


 
Try to lie again??

I dont answered yet, how could you claim i dont know? You even dare to lie for this simple thing.

For sure you failed to answer about controll technology and cought to be fake there

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Try to lie again??
> 
> I dont answered yet, how could you claim i dont know? You even dare to lie for this simple thing.


Yet?  What a loser...!!!



antonius123 said:


> For sure you failed to answer about controll technology and cought to be fake there


I do not answer 'yet'. So how can you say I do not know?

Kid, everyone can see by now what a liar you are about yourself and this latest post nailed it.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You said many times you answered it...



antonius123 said:


> Demonstrating ignorance by repeating the same question that already replied many times?



Now show us where.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Dont try to lie again boy..
> 
> I ve told you from beginning that i agree nacelle exist at pakfa as nacelle is a cover of engine.
> Trace again my post, and dont lie.
> 
> Ive also give you credit when you could prove your answe to my test, it shows that i am fair, not unjust denial like you and crownies
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat again for third times: nobody deny that integrated means inseparable, etc.
> 
> What i am asking you is why u claim air intake = nacelle? be integrated doesnt mean that nacelle cover air intake (in pakfa case).
> 
> Is it too dificult for you to understand the point? dont be too idiotic.




Again you comprehension problem shows. Half of the time you don't even know what you are asking.
You know why though. Just to mess up the discussion.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Again you comprehension problem shows. Half of the time you don't even know what you are asking.
> You know why though. Just to mess up the discussion.


 
Is that all you can do?? denial and denial? 

Cannot argue any more? 



gambit said:


> Yet?  What a loser...!!!
> 
> 
> I do not answer 'yet'. So how can you say I do not know?
> 
> Kid, everyone can see by now what a liar you are about yourself and this latest post nailed it.
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You said many times you answered it...
> 
> Now show us where


I've answered you with this:

"it is useless to give you answer in other numerous topics since in existing relevant topic you run away and refuse to accept other people answer with a lot of citation and proof.

If you have gut to finish the existing discussion, answering my questions properly and accept other people answer with citation then your question / test deserve to be served."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-166.html#ixzz22h6DtlAd

Now, will you admit your defeat and fake? can you admit that you have no clue about control technology?? If you can, then it is my time to serve your testing me.

So?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I've answered you with this:
> 
> "it is useless to give you answer in other numerous topics since in existing relevant topic you run away and refuse to accept other people answer with a lot of citation and proof.
> 
> If you have gut to finish the existing discussion, answering my questions properly and accept other people answer with citation then your question / test deserve to be served."
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-166.html#ixzz22h6DtlAd
> 
> Now, will you admit your defeat and fake? can you admit that you have no clue about control technology?? If you can, then it is my time to serve your testing me.
> 
> So?


In other words, you have no real aviation background at all. Then you lied about answering them.

It is not useless to answer someone who is wrong. In fact, it is the obligation of those who have knowledge -- *REAL* knowledge and experience -- to answer those questions. It shows the readers that you are honest about your claim about yourself, especially when you tried to use that claim to shut down others. The more questions you answered correctly, the greater your credibility. So far you answered: *ZILCHO*.



Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You did not know this.

In naval air, this knowledge is crucial because a carrier based aircraft must have stability throughout power ranges regardless of command. This stability is important in 'waveoff' situations.

Go-around - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In naval aviation, the term *"wave-off"* is used instead of go-around. A pilot will always initiate a wave-off by *applying full thrust when touching down on an aircraft carrier as a fail-safe measure.* That way, if his plane's tailhook fails to catch any of the arrestor cables (known as a (deck) "bolter") the aircraft can climb again. If the tailhook catches a cable the aircraft will stop in short order regardless. Conversely if wave-off was not initiated and the aircraft was not arrested, it would not have enough power and/or runway to take off from the carrier.



So here is the next question that have *DIRECT* relation to the power to longitudinal stability relationship...

Q: What about the thrust line?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> In other words, you have no real aviation background at all. Then you lied about answering them.
> 
> It is not useless to answer someone who is wrong. In fact, it is the obligation of those who have knowledge -- *REAL* knowledge and experience -- to answer those questions. It shows the readers that you are honest about your claim about yourself, especially when you tried to use that claim to shut down others. The more questions you answered correctly, the greater your credibility. So far you answered: *ZILCHO*.
> 
> 
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> In naval air, this knowledge is crucial because a carrier based aircraft must have stability throughout power ranges regardless of command. This stability is important in 'waveoff' situations.
> 
> Go-around - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> So here is the next question that have *DIRECT* relation to the power to longitudinal stability relationship...
> 
> Q: What about the thrust line?




Blablabla... whatever you said or want to say, you have failed!

You failed remember?

You failed in Control Engineering debate => you have tried to answer, failed and cant answer anymore.
You failed in your other numerous effort to defend your clueless claims (air intake = nacelle, corner reflector, etc)

Let me enjoy this moment and have a beautiful rest

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> In other words, you have no real aviation background at all. Then you lied about answering them.
> 
> It is not useless to answer someone who is wrong. In fact, it is the obligation of those who have knowledge -- *REAL* knowledge and experience -- to answer those questions. It shows the readers that you are honest about your claim about yourself, especially when you tried to use that claim to shut down others. The more questions you answered correctly, the greater your credibility. So far you answered: *ZILCHO*.
> 
> 
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> In naval air, this knowledge is crucial because a carrier based aircraft must have stability throughout power ranges regardless of command. This stability is important in 'waveoff' situations.
> 
> Go-around - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> So here is the next question that have *DIRECT* relation to the power to longitudinal stability relationship...
> 
> Q: What about the thrust line?




I think it is apparent to anyone now that his game is playing with words. 
I still feel sorry about all the damage he inflicts on credibility in here.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Blablabla... whatever you said or want to say, you have failed!
> 
> You failed remember?
> 
> You failed in Control Engineering debate => you have tried to answer, failed and cant answer anymore.
> You failed in your other numerous effort to defend your clueless claims (air intake = nacelle, corner reflector, etc)
> 
> Let me enjoy this moment and have a beautiful rest


Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You did not know this.

Q: What about the thrust line?
A: The vertical location of the thrust line. If the thrust line is below center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a positive (nose-up) moment and it is considered destabilizing. If the thrust line is above center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a negative moment and is considered stabilizing.

Stability


> *The thrust line may lie above or below the center of gravity.* The moments about the center of gravity are the forces times the distance between them and the center of gravity. The lift and thrust both contribute nose-down moments whereas the drag contributes a nose-up moment. If these do not cancel each other out, the airplane will not be in equilibrium.


This is why that even though this is applicable to all designs, it is of particular interest to naval aviation because of the short landing condition. Naval aviators are educated about this. Flight controls engineers must know about this because they never know they may be assigned to a design team that will work for the Navy. Even if the country does not have naval aviation, this knowledge is so basic that it cannot be eliminated from education.

Next question that have *DIRECT* relationship to the power, longitudinal stability and thrust line relationship...

Q: What about the thrust slipstream?



amalakas said:


> I think it is apparent to anyone now that his game is playing with words.
> I still feel sorry about all the damage he inflicts on credibility in here.


And to think someone actually 'Thanked' his nonsense. More like 'Tanked'...


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Q: What about the thrust line?
> A: The vertical location of the thrust line. If the thrust line is below center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a positive (nose-up) moment and it is considered destabilizing. If the thrust line is above center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a negative moment and is considered stabilizing.
> 
> Stability
> 
> This is why that even though this is applicable to all designs, it is of particular interest to naval aviation because of the short landing condition. Naval aviators are educated about this. Flight controls engineers must know about this because they never know they may be assigned to a design team that will work for the Navy. Even if the country does not have naval aviation, this knowledge is so basic that it cannot be eliminated from education.
> 
> Next question that have *DIRECT* relationship to the power, longitudinal stability and thrust line relationship...
> 
> Q: What about the thrust slipstream?



Its apparent now that your weapon in this forum to defend your self empty claims is only: "*Ignorance*" and "*Shameless*" 

As you shamelessly ignore my response to your post, while unable to pass the test and defend your claims 

You cannot fool the audience here by showing off questions and answers, as everybody has known that you FAILED in numerous test and proving your own claims.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Its apparent now that your weapon in this forum to defend your self empty claims is only: "*Ignorance*" and "*Shameless*"
> 
> As you shamelessly ignore my response to your post, while unable to pass the test and defend your claims
> 
> You cannot fool the audience here by showing off questions and answers, as everybody has known that you FAILED in numerous test and proving your own claims.


Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You did not know this.

Q: What about the thrust line?
A: The vertical location of the thrust line. If the thrust line is below center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a positive (nose-up) moment and it is considered destabilizing. If the thrust line is above center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a negative moment and is considered stabilizing.

You did not know this.

Q: What about the thrust slipstream?
A: There are two types of thrust slipstreams: Jet and Prop (wash). For the Prop, this is assuming the 'puller' type instead of the rarer 'pusher' type. Thrust slipstream type is further complicated by dual engines design and how far apart the engines are from aircraft centerline.

Next question...

Q: For the Prop slipstream, what is the main effect on the wing?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Is that all you can do?? denial and denial?



denial about what ? what am I in denial of ?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Q: What about the thrust line?
> A: The vertical location of the thrust line. If the thrust line is below center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a positive (nose-up) moment and it is considered destabilizing. If the thrust line is above center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a negative moment and is considered stabilizing.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Q: What about the thrust slipstream?
> A: There are two types of thrust slipstreams: Jet and Prop (wash). For the Prop, this is assuming the 'puller' type instead of the rarer 'pusher' type. Thrust slipstream type is further complicated by dual engines design and how far apart the engines are from aircraft centerline.
> 
> Next question...
> 
> Q: For the Prop slipstream, what is the main effect on the wing?


 


See... you are right proving what I am saying => Ignorance and Shameless as the main weapon for your existence here


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> denial about what ? what am I in denial of ?


You are in denial of his aviation 'background' and 'study', of which he redefined to eliminate experience. We know he has no aviation education and training, so that make his 'background' as completely empty. But you are still in denial of the new fact that a background can be empty but still legitimate. Are you dizzy now from the mental gymnastics?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See... you are right proving what I am saying => Ignorance and Shameless as the main weapon for your existence here


Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You did not know this.

Q: What about the thrust line?
A: The vertical location of the thrust line. If the thrust line is below center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a positive (nose-up) moment and it is considered destabilizing. If the thrust line is above center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a negative moment and is considered stabilizing.

You did not know this.

Q: What about the thrust slipstream?
A: There are two types of thrust slipstreams: Jet and Prop (wash). For the Prop, this is assuming the 'puller' type instead of the rarer 'pusher' type. Thrust slipstream type is further complicated by dual engines design and how far apart the engines are from aircraft centerline.

You did not know this.

Next question...

Q: For the Prop slipstream, what is the main effect on the wing?

We are still waiting for the answer. If you have any real aviation 'background' as you claimed and tried to use to shut down the Indians, you should have no problems -- *NONE AT ALL* -- at answering any of them. So far, we have nothing from you in terms of credibility. These are very basic knowledge.


----------



## Esc8781

Should we make a sticky for an aerodynamics thread?


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Should we make a sticky for an aerodynamics thread?


No need. This will not last long. This kid is busted big time.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Q: What about the thrust line?
> A: The vertical location of the thrust line. If the thrust line is below center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a positive (nose-up) moment and it is considered destabilizing. If the thrust line is above center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a negative moment and is considered stabilizing.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Q: What about the thrust slipstream?
> A: There are two types of thrust slipstreams: Jet and Prop (wash). For the Prop, this is assuming the 'puller' type instead of the rarer 'pusher' type. Thrust slipstream type is further complicated by dual engines design and how far apart the engines are from aircraft centerline.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Next question...
> 
> Q: For the Prop slipstream, what is the main effect on the wing?
> 
> We are still waiting for the answer. If you have any real aviation 'background' as you claimed and tried to use to shut down the Indians, you should have no problems -- *NONE AT ALL* -- at answering any of them. So far, we have nothing from you in terms of credibility. These are very basic knowledge.




On the same subject, let's remind the readers that he never replied to us, what this equation is; 







. and it has been a few days since he was asked.


----------



## p3avi8tor69

He's the answer Antonius123

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1998-2010/ICAS2004/PAPERS/065.PDF


http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1998-2010/ICAS2000/PAPERS/ICA0344.PDF

I hope you understand what it means.


----------



## no_name

amalakas said:


> On the same subject, let's remind the readers that he never replied to us, what this equation is;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . and it has been a few days since he was asked.



Looks like a general expression for PID controller. 

The integral part is to take care of deviations over time. Differential part to react faster to potential changes. Proportional part to minimise present errors.

Kp, Ki and Kd are weighted constants.

The constants chosen are usually balanced to ensure fast enough response to set value, but not too much to cause large overshoot and oscillation.


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> Looks like a general expression for PID controller.
> 
> The integral part is to take care of deviations over time. Differential part to react faster to potential changes. Proportional part to minimise present errors.



Oh automatic controls and the good old days when the prof forced us to do differential equation proofs...


----------



## no_name

And the Nyquist plots. 

Control is quite easy to study for once you understood everything just follow the steps.

But solving diff equations for itself is not very fun.


----------



## amalakas

no_name said:


> Looks like a general expression for PID controller.
> 
> The integral part is to take care of deviations over time. Differential part to react faster to potential changes. Proportional part to minimise present errors.
> 
> Kp, Ki and Kd are weighted constants.
> 
> The constants chosen are usually balanced to ensure fast enough response to set value, but not too much to cause large overshoot and oscillation.


 


siegecrossbow said:


> Oh automatic controls and the good old days when the prof forced us to do differential equation proofs...


 


no_name said:


> And the Nyquist plots.
> 
> Control is quite easy to study for once you understood everything just follow the steps.
> 
> But solving diff equations for itself is not very fun.




Guys the point I was trying to make was that a specific member should answer this simple question.


----------



## gambit

p3avi8tor69 said:


> He's the answer Antonius123
> 
> http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1998-2010/ICAS2004/PAPERS/065.PDF
> 
> 
> http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1998-2010/ICAS2000/PAPERS/ICA0344.PDF
> 
> I hope you understand what it means.


He will not. This is not a math contest. When I left the USAF back in '92, I could do radar range and push-pull rod lengths equations in my head. When I left aviation (avionics) back in '01, only one flight controls engineer I know could work a slide rule. A couple more collect slide rules as curio items in their dens.

The point is that if you are going to use your claimed aviation 'background' to shut others up when they questioned your claim, then the very least you could do is be able to answer aviation related questions at the principle level.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

No math is involved here. Flight controls and propulsion engineers must know this basic fact. This liar got busted.

Q: For the Prop slipstream, what is the main effect on the wing?
A: Different pressure area.

The slipstream is conic in shape and depending on the wing length and locations of lift devices, aka 'flaps', take off distance will be affected. The intro in your second source hinted at it.

And there are more publicly available info on it...






The guy claimed to have aviation 'background' then he redefined 'background' to exclude experience. Usually in a resume, to say 'background' mean to have education, training and experience in that order. I have never heard of anyone who have any 'background' in any field but have no experience in it.


----------



## siegecrossbow

While every one is still focused on the olympics:
 

j 20 2002

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p3avi8tor69

gambit said:


> He will not. This is not a math contest. When I left the USAF back in '92, I could do radar range and push-pull rod lengths equations in my head. When I left aviation (avionics) back in '01, only one flight controls engineer I know could work a slide rule. A couple more collect slide rules as curio items in their dens.



I totally understand what you mean. I myself don't think I can use a manual E6B anymore. Now we got E-charts with geo referenced approach plates and even apps for that in our smartphones. Flight planning, CG calculations, weather now are all done super easy with Jepp as opposed to the old fashion way of using pencil and folding and highlighting enoute charts.

Anyhow, that Indo kid has been busted so many times, but his comical response and comical effort to look smart I somehow find strangely amusing and entertaining.


----------



## amalakas

p3avi8tor69 said:


> I totally understand what you mean. I myself don't think I can use a manual E6B anymore. Now we got E-charts with geo referenced approach plates and even apps for that in our smartphones. Flight planning, CG calculations, weather now are all done super easy with Jepp as opposed to the old fashion way of using pencil and folding and highlighting enoute charts.
> 
> Anyhow, that Indo kid has been busted so many times, but his comical response and comical effort to look smart I somehow find strangely amusing and entertaining.




it is, and I have to give him credit for persistence too. But he has been busted more times than a mythbuster's myth..


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No need. This will not last long. This kid is busted big time.


 
In your dream .. faker 

You have been busted many many times, and your glaring failure is recorded in this thread.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> On the same subject, let's remind the readers that he never replied to us, what this equation is;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . and it has been a few days since he was asked.


 


siegecrossbow said:


> Oh automatic controls and the good old days when the prof forced us to do differential equation proofs...



Bla bla bla .. you are such a BIG LIAR 

Remind me when you ask me that.

And do you think you will look smart by showing off that basic control theory that should be studied in major engineering divisions? not at all! 

Now tell me what it is:


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> In your dream .. faker
> 
> You have been busted many many times, and your glaring failure is recorded in this thread.


If I admit to anything you say about me, would you answer the next question? Given your aviation 'background' and 'study', it would educate me beyond my dreams.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Q: What about the thrust line?
> A: The vertical location of the thrust line. If the thrust line is below center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a positive (nose-up) moment and it is considered destabilizing. If the thrust line is above center-of-gravity, changes in power will produce a negative moment and is considered stabilizing.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Q: What about the thrust slipstream?
> A: There are two types of thrust slipstreams: Jet and Prop (wash). For the Prop, this is assuming the 'puller' type instead of the rarer 'pusher' type. Thrust slipstream type is further complicated by dual engines design and how far apart the engines are from aircraft centerline.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Next question...
> 
> Q: For the Prop slipstream, what is the main effect on the wing?
> 
> We are still waiting for the answer. If you have any real aviation 'background' as you claimed and tried to use to shut down the Indians, you should have no problems -- *NONE AT ALL* -- at answering any of them. So far, we have nothing from you in terms of credibility. These are very basic knowledge.


 
Again you repeat your ignorance.

Have you give up with the control quiz test for you? will you admit your defeat and fake? can you admit that you have no clue about control technology??

As I said few times to you: If you have finish with that then it is my time to serve your question; otherwise, I dont let you play diverting to cover your shame and clueless.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Bla bla bla .. you are such a BIG LIAR
> 
> Remind me when you ask me that.
> 
> And do you think you will look smart by showing off that basic control theory that should be studied in major engineering divisions? not at all!
> 
> Now tell me what it is:


So the way you debate is that when issued a challenge you refused to answer. But then if someone refused to answer yours because you refused to answer his, you call the person a 'failure'.



antonius123 said:


> Again you repeat your ignorance.
> 
> Have you give up with the control quiz test for you? *will you admit your defeat and fake?* can you admit that you have no clue about control technology??
> 
> As I said few times to you: If you have finish with that then it is my time to serve your question; otherwise, I dont let you play diverting to cover your shame and clueless.


If I do, will you answer the next question?


----------



## antonius123

p3avi8tor69 said:


> He's the answer Antonius123
> 
> http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1998-2010/ICAS2004/PAPERS/065.PDF
> 
> 
> http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1998-2010/ICAS2000/PAPERS/ICA0344.PDF
> 
> I hope you understand what it means.



I dont get your point. Seems no head no tail.

Tell me what do you want to say?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I dont get your point. Seems no head no tail.
> 
> Tell me what do you want to say?


You did not understand those sources at all, did you?


----------



## gambit

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Anyhow, that Indo kid has been busted so many times, but his comical response and comical effort to look smart *I somehow find strangely amusing and entertaining.*


So do I. But you should understand that we Americans are guests here on this inherently anti-US playground. Anything that can be used to insult the US will be used and if that require the person to suck up to a US adversary, that suck up will occur. This Indonesian tweenager is doing exactly just that. Unfortunately for him and to the Chinese, never in his immaturity did it ever occurred to him that on a military oriented forum that someone may have real military experience.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> So the way you debate is that when issued a challenge you refused to answer. But then if someone refused to answer yours because you refused to answer his, you call the person a 'failure'.



Of course I will refuse to answer any arbitrary and irresponsible questions with bad intention.

Remember you are the first one who put yourself as an Aviation Expert and tried to point mistakes on my statement by bringing so many claims. Then when I served you in debate, you fail to prove your claims; then you ignore - just leave (irresponsible) and divert by asking other question to test me (bad intention) by acting like an undisputed expert.

Do you think I have to follow your test? Who do you think you are?

Why dont you just stick to the unfinished debate, and finish it! prove your unproven claims and defend your argument.




> If I do, will you answer the next question?



If you admit it sincerely, and your intention to ask is also sincere then I will.

Otherwise your self claimed "Expert" has to be legitimated first.

Only a legitimated expert deserve to test other people.



gambit said:


> You did not understand those sources at all, did you?



Then read again my sentence carefully, if you dont want to be said as having reading comprehension problem.

I was asking what he wanted to say. That is the most important thing.
This is discussion forum; it is important for the participant to express their mind in the right manner so that other participant would understand his points. No use if you just drag rocket science articles into forum but cannot express what your understanding.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> If you admit it sincerely, and your intention to ask is also sincere then I will.


Sure...I sincerely admit I am nothing but a janitor who got kicked out of the USAF for disciplinary problems. I never finished high school but paid someone to take and passed my GED for me so I can get into the military for a cushy job. I failed in the military and failed in my civilian life.

Now I sincerely ask you, someone who have aviation 'background' and 'study', that I heard that when an aircraft is subjected to normal acceleration, something happened, actually two things happens. But I was too drunk to remember the answer. Can you tell me what those two things are?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Sure...I sincerely admit I am nothing but a janitor who got kicked out of the USAF for disciplinary problems. I never finished high school but paid someone to take and passed my GED for me so I can get into the military for a cushy job. I failed in the military and failed in my civilian life.
> 
> Now I sincerely ask you, someone who have aviation 'background' and 'study', that I heard that when an aircraft is subjected to normal acceleration, something happened, actually two things happens. But I was too drunk to remember the answer. Can you tell me what those two things are?


 


For many days you have demonstrated insincerity by acting as "undisputed expert" in this forum; then your effort to test other people without ability to prove your own claims are automatic proof that you are insincere.

Now, your such confession with intention to test me is another demonstration of insincerity of yours 

How stupid are you? 

Now I will be willing to be tested by you, if you are a legitimated Expert.

Can you prove that you are a legitimate / real expert?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> For many days you have demonstrated insincerity by acting as "undisputed expert" in this forum; then your effort to test other people without ability to prove your claims are automatic proof that you are insincere.
> 
> Now, your such confession with intention to test me is another demonstration of insincerity of yours
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Now I will be willing to be tested by you, if you are a legitimated Expert.
> 
> *Can you prove that you are a legitimate / real expert?*


I cannot. But neither can you prove that you have any aviation 'background' and 'study'. 

You are truly an idiot. On an anonymous Internet forum, the *ONLY* way anyone can prove himself is through the *CONTENTS* of his arguments. You have no such contents. You have no aviation 'background' or 'study'. You are a busted liar.

By the way, the answer...

Q: What two main occurrences when an aircraft experience normal acceleration?
A: A pitching velocity which result in a curved flight path.

Freaking moron...


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> I cannot. But neither can you prove that you have any aviation 'background' and 'study'.



Well actually you could prove you are an indisputable and legitimated Expert in this forum if you can answer most questions from the forum members.

Could you answer ones from me?



> You are truly an idiot. On an anonymous Internet forum, the *ONLY* way anyone can prove himself is through the *CONTENTS* of his arguments. You have no such contents. You have no aviation 'background' or 'study'. You are a busted liar.





Unfortunately the CONTENT of your arguments that you have demonstrated in debate when you were trying to defend and prove your claim - say the other way around regarding your knowledge 

Your such claims: Air Intake = Nacele, 120 degree corner reflector, transmission = reflection, and your failure to show off with control knowledge due to your inability to answer my challenge - is a HARD EVIDENCE that you are a faker.

See the last thing: about control engineering challenge that you have left due to your inability to answer? 




> By the way, the answer...
> 
> Q: What two main occurrences when an aircraft experience normal acceleration?
> A: A pitching velocity which result in a curved flight path.
> 
> Freaking moron...


 
I dont care with your showing off.

Your this showing off doesnt make you look like an expert; as any fanboy in internet world could do the same trick like yours, throwing questions according to your own flavor and answer it by yourself as if it is indisputable. I can throw any questions with my answer like the way you do easily if I want.

You can show off that way, but for sure you have failed in proving your claims and answering my challenges


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I dont care with your showing off.
> 
> Your this showing off doesnt make you look like an expert; as any fanboy in internet world could do the same trick like yours, throwing questions according to your own flavor and answer it by yourself as if it is indisputable. I can throw any questions with my answer like the way you do easily if I want.
> 
> You can show off that way, but for sure you have failed in proving your claims and answering my challenges


It is not showing off. The one who tried to show of and got busted is *YOU*.

Others do not care what you say any more. A dozen basic aviation questions were posted and you know the answers to *NONE*. When someone gave you the answer to one of them, you did not understand it. The man who gave it to you, by all evidences, was either a pilot or a flight crew member of a P3.

Next question and this is directly related to Flight Controls...

Q: What is the first effect when a spring is added to the stick?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> It is not showing off. The one who tried to show of and got busted is *YOU*.
> 
> Others do not care what you say any more. A dozen basic aviation questions were posted and you know the answers to *NONE*. When someone gave you the answer to one of them, you did not understand it. The man who gave it to you, by all evidences, was either a pilot or a flight crew member of a P3.
> 
> Next question and this is directly related to Flight Controls...
> 
> Q: What is the first effect when a spring is added to the stick?


 
That is according to your LIE 

Prove me that I dont know the answer as your claim!

And what do you know about aviation if you dont have idea what nacelle is 

As I said, I am willing to answer your test if you are a legitimate expert.

This is another questions that you have to answer to prove you are the real expert:

Explain us what is this equation about:


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Prove me that I dont know the answer as your claim!


This is illogical. You cannot prove a negative. This mean you never took basic logic.

Anyway...

Q: What is the first effect when a spring is added to the stick?
A: It centered the stick.

 How freaking easy can it get?

Now we know you do not know the answers to a dozen basic aerodynamics questions, we moved onto Flight Controls, my first specialty.

Q: Since fly-by-wire eliminate the mechanical connections between the stick and the hydraulics, what is the spring used for?

You *MUST* be able to search for this. If you have even just one semester of aerodynamics, that should be sufficient to give you enough keywords to search for this answer.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> This is illogical. You cannot prove a negative. This mean you never took basic logic.



You are the one being Illogical here, as you are accusing me for not knowing the answer, without evidence. 



> Anyway...
> 
> Q: What is the first effect when a spring is added to the stick?
> A: It centered the stick.
> 
> How freaking easy can it get?
> 
> Now we know you do not know the answers to a dozen basic aerodynamics questions, we moved onto Flight Controls, my first specialty.
> 
> Q: Since fly-by-wire eliminate the mechanical connections between the stick and the hydraulics, what is the spring used for?
> 
> You *MUST* be able to search for this. If you have even just one semester of aerodynamics, that should be sufficient to give you enough keywords to search for this answer.



Then why cant you answer this?

1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC?

2. Explain us what is this equation about:


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You are the one being Illogical here, as you are accusing me for not knowing the answer, without evidence.


Q: Since fly-by-wire eliminate the mechanical connections between the stick and the hydraulics, what is the spring used for?
A: Artificial feel. It is to give the pilot a sense of movement. Not that the system actually need the stick to move in any real meaningful way. The stick's transducer record minute stick movements in mili V, too tiny to have any actual physical displacement.

You did not know this.

Next question...

Q: When is pitot heat engaged?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Q: Since fly-by-wire eliminate the mechanical connections between the stick and the hydraulics, what is the spring used for?
> A: Artificial feel. It is to give the pilot a sense of movement. Not that the system actually need the stick to move in any real meaningful way. The stick's transducer record minute stick movements in mili V, too tiny to have any actual physical displacement.
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Next question...
> 
> Q: When is pitot heat engaged?


 
1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC? => you dont know this

2. Explain us what is this equation about:



=> you dont know this too

Then another question goes to you:

3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You are the one being Illogical here, as you are accusing me for not knowing the answer, without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why cant you answer this?
> 
> 1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC?
> 
> 2. Explain us what is this equation about:


 
*
This is an optimisation cost function for model predictive control. *

See how quickly we respond to your supposed challenges.. it is you who have failed time and time again to respond to any of the questions posed in this forum. 

So now that your challenge has been met, what is described by this equation?








antonius123 said:


> 1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC? => you dont know this
> 
> 2. Explain us what is this equation about:
> 
> 
> 
> => you dont know this too




Which/ what type of controller ? 

and second, your challenge was answered. 

not a single one of ours has been answered by you!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> *
> This is an optimisation cost function for model predictive control. *
> 
> See how quickly we respond to your supposed challenges.. it is you who have failed time and time again to respond to any of the questions posed in this forum.
> 
> So now that your challenge has been met, what is described by this equation?



Thats because i dont hide the image view source, therefore kind of internet boy like you can trace 

Question for Validation purpose: *Why should we use MPC than others?* (simple one, to validate if you really know or just an internet boy who guess from the image code)




> Which/ what type of controller ?
> 
> and second, your challenge was answered.



Any type that come to your mind.



> not a single one of ours has been answered by you!


Your test is not finish yet.


----------



## Firemaster

amalakas said:


> *
> This is an optimisation cost function for model predictive control. *
> 
> See how quickly we respond to your supposed challenges.. it is you who have failed time and time again to respond to any of the questions posed in this forum.


Sir
How his question was related to aviation or Aeronautical Engineering?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Thats because i dont hide the image view source, therefore kind of internet boy like you can trace
> 
> Question for Validation purpose: *Why should we use MPC than others?* (simple one, to validate if you really know or just an internet boy who guess from the image code)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any type that come to your mind.
> 
> 
> Your test is not finish yet.




Really???? my test has not finished yet? WOW !!!!

right genius...

first of all I have no idea what you mean with image source code. I am assuming you are implying I found where you got your equation from. Or even worse, you tried to find my equation on the net ???? 
Let me save you some trouble, it is on a research paper puplication... 

Don't worry because true knowledge is easy to verify. 

right.. 

your answer is: 

a) MPC doesn't really need a process model. *now you can tell us what it does with step or impulse responses, right? you can ocourse.* and it doesn't because of that need a PIP. 

b) the controller can be described by plotting the closed loop responses and show exactly where and why the variable is changed.

c) it is real time optimised which means it is tolerant to .... *what genius???*

and now that I have answered you... can you tell me where else I can find uses of an MPC ???

and on an unrelated question.. .can you tell me what this is ?









Firemaster said:


> Sir
> How his question was related to aviation or Aeronautical Engineering?



There are some studies on the use of MPC on flight control systems, but really the MPC shines in other areas. 

in one form or another the entire control theory material has been used in aviation over the last 80 years or so.. so he is bound to get something related. 

The point is, does he understand ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p3avi8tor69

Antonius123,

I'll give you a hint on the pitot tube.

IMC

With your "aviation background & study" it should be elementary.

"if its blocked, your fuc#ed"


----------



## p3avi8tor69

gambit said:


> So do I. But you should understand that we Americans are guests here on this inherently anti-US playground. Anything that can be used to insult the US will be used and if that require the person to suck up to a US adversary, that suck up will occur. This Indonesian tweenager is doing exactly just that. Unfortunately for him and to the Chinese, never in his immaturity did it ever occurred to him that on a military oriented forum that someone may have real military experience.



Agreed. But ya know, it is entertaining when you and several others with real knowledge and experience puts a lid on fantasy physics and how the fanboys react by twisting facts to suit their fantasies.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> 3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?


Term? Are you kidding me? Whoever is coaching you in this -- fire him. 

The more correct question should be: 'What is the effect of aspect ratio, finite or infinite, on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?'

An 'aspect ratio' is...

Geometry Definitions


> ...*a measure of how long and slender a wing is from tip to tip.* The Aspect Ratio of a wing is defined to be the square of the span divided by the wing area and is given the symbol AR.


The effect is lift reduction. The theoretical infinite AR will have no reduction. The real world AR will have the wing tip as the limit, hence, the longer the wing, as in the glider U-2 design, the lower (or less) the lift reduction.

Further...

Geometry Definitions


> The F-14 and F-111 have the best of both worlds. They can *change the aspect ratio in flight by pivoting the wings*--large span for low speed, small span for high speed.


I was on the F-111 for five yrs. This basic aerodynamics principle is well known in the swing wings community.

There is also an inverse relationship between AR and induced drag: Infinite AR = Zero induced drag.

Now that I have answered yours, unlike you who have dodged more than a dozen questions, how about you answered mine.

Q: When is pitot heat engaged?

This is a practical engineering question and have nothing to do with theories. You must first have to know what is a pitot probe in principle, then how would you incorporate it into an aircraft and make it a long term working device.


----------



## gambit

Firemaster said:


> Sir
> How his question was related to aviation or Aeronautical Engineering?


Our ID tweenager lifted the MPC equation image from a wiki source...

Model predictive control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> MPC models predict the change in the dependent variables of the modeled system that will be caused by changes in the independent variables. In a chemical process, independent variables that can be adjusted by the controller are often either the setpoints of regulatory PID controllers (pressure, flow, temperature, etc.) or the final control element (valves, dampers, etc.). Independent variables that cannot be adjusted by the controller are used as disturbances. Dependent variables in these processes are other measurements that represent either control objectives or process constraints.


This is how dishonest this guy really is. You can find that equation image half way down the page.

All the questions posed to him, someone who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' to try to shut down you Indians, are *DIRECTLY* related to aviation. Control theories that he brought on in trying to make himself look good, are at least a couple of degrees away from aviation and aviation practical engineering. It is not wrong but it is inappropriate.

MPC in aviation is new. Am not talking about within the last few yrs but more like post WW II when the concept started to be explored with the advent of computer assisted and computerized flight controls.



> In a chemical process, independent *variables that can be adjusted* by the controller are often either the setpoints of regulatory PID controllers (pressure, flow, temperature, etc.) or the final control element (valves, dampers, etc.).


The aeronautical engineering equivalent of the above are items that are internal to the aircraft such as hydraulics, command signals, surface displacement feedback signals, or air data signals.



> Independent *variables that cannot be adjusted* by the controller are used as disturbances. Dependent variables in these processes are other measurements that represent either control objectives or process constraints.


The highlighted for both of the above are significant.

Variables that cannot be adjusted by the aircraft are loss of functions induced usually by damages. Bird strikes or combat damages are a couple of examples. None of the aircraft's systems are able to predict when any of these 'disturbances' will occur.

What Model Predictive Control (MPC) does is to enable the aircraft to adjust its flight controls system out of the usual operations in the event any of these 'disturbances' occur and does it without pilot interactions.






The above is an excellent example of MPC. But what made this event unusual is that this was both an exercise in MPC by the pilot and by the inherent design of the F-15 itself.

The pilot had to increase thrust via afterburner to increase airspeed, hence airflow, over whatever was remained in terms of lift surfaces. The F-15's fuselage was designed to be a major contributor to lift, aka 'lifting body' or 'body-wing blend' design. The automated version of this would have the FLCC does everything automatically, from an increase in thrust to maintain airspeed, to increase in AoA, to deflecting the opposite flight control surfaces to compensate for lift loss. MD was called and according to folklore, MD engineers declared that based upon their computer simulations, what happened was impossible. Should have been a complete loss of aircraft, not land.

So now you know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Bla bla bla.. you talk to much but idiot. I've told you that you had serious reading comprehension problem.
> Read again my posting.
> 
> It is you who do not understand what you wrote. You need to be responsible in debate.







Wow, seriously? Not only does that not make any sense in regards to the topic and context of the topic it&#8217;s a cheesy way of diverting attention away from you. Come up with something original instead of calling me an idiot with reading comprehension problems. My English writing as well as English comprehension is far more advanced than your incoherent rants.

In any case point out to everyone how, where, and why I have problems with reading comprehension. You quoted me where I stated that you were slandering others in this thread for quoting sources they did not have adequate knowledge of. (that is a verifiable fact, you said so). You quoted the following: &#8216;high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; (a verifiable fact). I asked you to explain what it meant since you were accusing others of not understanding what sources they quote. (verifiable fact). Now, after countless times of asking you explain the meaning of your own source you have yet to answer and, in fact keep coming up with excuses. (verifiable fact).








antonius123 said:


> As I said, you have severe reading comprehension problem.






You don&#8217;t make any sense. I keep asking you to explain the context of your own quote and you keep avoiding it. It has nothing to do with reading. In fact, the only rebuttals you have had was telling me I have a reading comprhension problem.


This is how our conversation has gone:


Antonius: None of you understand your own sources.

Antonius: Hey look how great DSI is, weki states the following: &#8216;[DSI gives] high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; 

PtldM3: Can you explain the context of your quote since you accused others of not understand their own source?

Antonius: NO response.

PtldM3: Again can you explain your quote?

Antonius: NO response.

PtldM3: You do not know what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; means.

Antonius: You have reading comprehension problems and you are an idiot.

PtldM3: You still have not answered.

Antonius: What you don&#8217;t know what it means? You&#8217;re an idiot.

PtldM3: I&#8217;m asking you what it means, don&#8217;t try to change the subject.

Antonius: I need time to do the research. 

PtldM3: So if you need to do the research that means you did not know what it meant when you quoted it.

Antonius: You have severe reading comprehension and you&#8217;re an idiot.

PtldM3:You still have not answered.

Antonius: where is the evidence that I can not answer?













antonius123 said:


> You are talking without any knowledge.





Really? I have covered the weight, dimensions, and type of canopies, and what have you covered? You stated that if I answer your question about canopies that you will answer mine. For far you have not lived up to your promise, deadbeat flaker.







antonius123 said:


> *I've explain you that the complexity is on the mold making* technology.





Really? *Pull up that quote *I would like everyone to see your technical explanation. So far you haven&#8217;t said jack about canopies other than the fact that they are &#8216;complex&#8217;. Using such vague language demonstrates that you have no clue about what you are talking about.




antonius123 said:


> Of course you have no idea about it, because you are only an English Teacher for kindergarten










Better to be an English teacher for kindergarten than an illiterate liar with metal health problems.






antonius123 said:


> See .. more and more you are demonstrating "reading comprehension" problem.
> Many times I've told you that it is not what I said; I said about the performance difference, but you are stubbornly idiot miss understanding.
> 
> See again my explanation as i wont repeat for 100 times.






Nope, my reading is fine. You are just a liar that plays with words or completely denies that you ever made certain claims despite the fact that you have been quoted on making those claims.



What you stated was that DSI diverts boundary airflow layers away from the engines and than slows it down to supersonic speeds. *You than claimed that neither of those functions exists on a cone intake*. I posted sources that show a cone intake does the very same functions. So what was that performance difference again?

And for everyone&#8217;s benefit here is his quote:




antonius123 said:


> The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. *This things doesnt exist on cone inlet*.





He claimed those functions don&#8217;t exist on a cone intake which is untrue. Now he claims he was talking about performance differences. What those difference are, are a mystery.









antonius123 said:


> The source is not saying the performance only good for JF-17 or limited to several aircraft.. idiot. Prove it if there is any sentence that showing so.
> 
> You are having severe reading comprehension!






You really are brain dead. Your Weki source spoke about the JF-17. Take a look:





> *The JF-17 *Thunder also uses a DSI. Work on the DSI was started in 1999 with the aim of improving aircraft performance and took almost two years, during which a number of models underwent wind tunnel tests at different speed regimes. It was found that the DSI gave high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching.




 
Two things to note. Firstly they are talking about the JF-17; secondly, it merely stated that *the JF-17 had good performance with a DSI*. It doesn&#8217;t show any data results of a JF-17 pre DSI. For all you know an aircraft such as the Mig-21 could have similar or better performance than a JF-17 with DSI.









antonius123 said:


> Again you are demonstrating severe reading comprehension problem.
> 
> There is no such a sentence that saying or implying that "Cone" has the same performance nor as good as "DSI".





Wow, you really are stooping to new lows. You claimed that DSI is &#8216;better&#8217; than other intake methods. Your reasoning for that was because it diverts boundary airflow and than slows it down to subsonic speeds; you than claimed the a cone intake can do neither of those functions. To your amazement the intake cone does the very same functions.

So to some it up, your reasons as to why a DSI is better backfired in your face since the very same functions exist on a cone intake. *It is up to you to prove than a DSI is better than a cone intake since it was you that made the claim that the DSI is better in performance. *







antonius123 said:


> _
> The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer airflow, such =as the intake ramp and inlet cone, which are more complex, heavy and expensive.[1] _
> Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and *the moving parts contributes bigger RCS*?







Word for you, *a cone intake has no moving parts*, your source is talking about an *intake ramp*. A cone intake, if it is adjustable, has all it moving parts hidden inside the aircraft. This is just more reason as to why you should never be taken seriously.











antonius123 said:


> It proves that DSI is better in term of efficiency, lower complexity (no moving parts, hence no ram coating needed).
> 
> You could read here:
> _Also, while the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) intakes are easier to maintain than more complex stealth-compatible intakes, such as on the F-22,_
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






*It says nothing about a DSI having better efficiency compared to a cone intake*. You&#8217;re playing your little game again. Also lower complexity does not mean that something is better , the Mig-23 had probably one of the most complex landing gears ever conceived and because of this its wheel bays were extremely small. Similarly the cone intakes on aircraft such as the Mi-21 and SR-71 were more complex for a reason. At different flight regimes the intakes cones would adjust to compensate for the shockwave, without adjustable intake cones both aircraft would have worse performance.







antonius123 said:


> The clue for you: the moving parts should be ram coated in order to reduce RCS; but with DSI there is no moving parts therefore no need additional ram coating, reduce weight with same low RCS of the coated moving parts more complex intake.
> But i doubt you with your severe reading comprehension could catch what implied there





A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts.






antonius123 said:


> As said above: your have severe reading comprehension problem.








No, you quoted my post where I provided a source, you than demanded a source. Little did you know the source was already provided when you quoted me. The only thing this proves is that you are the one that has severe ready comprehension problems. 









antonius123 said:


> You obviously ignored the basic /elementary math evidence that I showed you.
> 
> I've explained you about equidistant. The requirement of the so called "circle" is:
> 1. equidistant
> 2. close curve
> Circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> What you were trying to say is "arc" which is an open curve as a part of a (closed curve) circle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The circle is a curvature, but curvature is not always circle.






You didn&#8217;t teach me anything new. I stated that the J-20&#8217;s lower chin follows the contours of a perfect circle, I even had a perfect circle imposed over the J-20&#8217;s chin. The lower chin followed the arc of a perfect circle, thus it fit the contour perfectly.







antonius123 said:


> Furthermore, you are still wrong if you think that the curve of J-20 chin is = arc, as it is not equidistant.





It does not need to be, it already matches the arc of a circle. By your claim and your fellow J-20 fan boys all the nonsense about the pak-fa can be regarded as lies since there is nothing that is equidistant on the aircraft.











antonius123 said:


> *Idiot! The things that do not exist on cone is: "The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl" *
> 
> This is a proof of your idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem.





Don&#8217;t try to save face or change the subject. You stated that, *'a bump and forward inlet cowl work together to divert to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down to subsonic speeds'*. The problem is that you quoted a passage that stated that a DSI deverts boundary airflow and slows it down to subsonic speed, you basically tried to convince everyone that a cone intake can not do those things. The fact that a bump and cowl exists is irrelevant, we all know that a DSI consists of a bump while a cone consists of sharp point. It would be like my quoting that a cone has a conical structure (duh obvious) and that it diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speeds (first part is irrelevant, the second part is relevant). We all know how a cone looks like so we can disregard the fact that it has a point, the point i would be trying to make is that the cone intake diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speed.















Nice try though at trying to change the subject by twisting words. We weren't talking about the differences in looks but the differences in performance.









antonius123 said:


> *Where is the evidence that I cannot answer that?*Where is the evidence that you can answer that?
> 
> You are throwing empty claims as usual.






You have to be kidding me. The evidence is that *there is not one post that shows you answered the question*. This is really low, before you just ignored the question, that you played games with me by stating &#8216;what you don&#8217;t know what it means?&#8217;, that you said you need &#8216;time&#8217; to answer and now you are shamelessly claiming to show evidence that you can not answer, and the evidence is, or lack there of, shows that you have not answer the question .









antonius123 said:


> Again and again you are demonstrating idiocy
> 
> I have several times told you that this is only applied on "PODDED ENGINE", not on the engine like thoseon Pakfa/Flanker/F-15/etc.







And the source for that is?








amalakas said:


> First you said that a given plane has no nacelles,
> then when it was shown that it does, you started the air-intake nonsense, i.e. that an air-intake is not part of the nacelle
> then when it was shown to you, you said "it doesn't mean it is in or covered by the nacelle"
> then it does not = nacelle...
> 
> I am pretty sure this list is going to grow larger..





The guys stories grow more an more elaborate, he makes claims, when those claims are busted, he than make some hypothetical claims that he can not provide sources for. There has been a few times when he denied he made certain statements, when I pull up a quote he just calls me an idiot that can&#8217;t read. He manipulates sources as well, he tried to claim that a cone intake will have a higher RCS because of moving parts, when in fact his source was talking about an intake ramp. 








gambit said:


> Then show everyone which post number did you answer this basic first year aerodynamics question:








The guy will not answer, he does not live up to his end of the bargain. He outright claims he will not answer question but than in the same sentence demands we answer his questions. Even worse is that he makes promises that he will answer my question if I answer his, when I answered his question he continued to refusing to answer my question. His last excuse was that &#8216;were is the evidence I can not answer&#8217;. prior to that he tried to play reverse psychology by stating&#8217; what you don&#8217;t know the answer?&#8217;. 


I don&#8217;t know if you have been reading our exchanges but I highly encourage you to at least read my latest exchange with him. It is highly entertaining watching him struggle and get caught in his own web of lies.


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> Wow, seriously? Not only does that not make any sense in regards to the topic and context of the topic it&#8217;s a cheesy way of diverting attention away from you. Come up with something original instead of calling me an idiot with reading comprehension problems. My English writing as well as English comprehension is far more advanced than your incoherent rants.
> 
> In any case point out to everyone how, where, and why I have problems with reading comprehension. You quoted me where I stated that you were slandering others in this thread for quoting sources they did not have adequate knowledge of. (that is a verifiable fact, you said so). You quoted the following: &#8216;high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; (a verifiable fact). I asked you to explain what it meant since you were accusing others of not understanding what sources they quote. (verifiable fact). Now, after countless times of asking you explain the meaning of your own source you have yet to answer and, in fact keep coming up with excuses. (verifiable fact).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don&#8217;t make any sense. I keep asking you to explain the context of your own quote and you keep avoiding it. It has nothing to do with reading. In fact, the only rebuttals you have had was telling me I have a reading comprhension problem.
> 
> 
> This is how our conversation has gone:
> 
> 
> Antonius: None of you understand your own sources.
> 
> Antonius: Hey look how great DSI is, weki states the following: &#8216;[DSI gives] high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217;
> 
> PtldM3: Can you explain the context of your quote since you accused others of not understand their own source?
> 
> Antonius: NO response.
> 
> PtldM3: Again can you explain your quote?
> 
> Antonius: NO response.
> 
> PtldM3: You do not know what high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching&#8217; means.
> 
> Antonius: You have reading comprehension problems and you are an idiot.
> 
> PtldM3: You still have not answered.
> 
> Antonius: What you don&#8217;t know what it means? You&#8217;re an idiot.
> 
> PtldM3: I&#8217;m asking you what it means, don&#8217;t try to change the subject.
> 
> Antonius: I need time to do the research.
> 
> PtldM3: So if you need to do the research that means you did not know what it meant when you quoted it.
> 
> Antonius: You have severe reading comprehension and you&#8217;re an idiot.
> 
> PtldM3:You still have not answered.
> 
> Antonius: where is the evidence that I can not answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I have covered the weight, dimensions, and type of canopies, and what have you covered? You stated that if I answer your question about canopies that you will answer mine. For far you have not lived up to your promise, deadbeat flaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? *Pull up that quote *I would like everyone to see your technical explanation. So far you haven&#8217;t said jack about canopies other than the fact that they are &#8216;complex&#8217;. Using such vague language demonstrates that you have no clue about what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better to be an English teacher for kindergarten than an illiterate liar with metal health problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, my reading is fine. You are just a liar that plays with words or completely denies that you ever made certain claims despite the fact that you have been quoted on making those claims.
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that DSI diverts boundary airflow layers away from the engines and than slows it down to supersonic speeds. *You than claimed that neither of those functions exists on a cone intake*. I posted sources that show a cone intake does the very same functions. So what was that performance difference again?
> 
> And for everyone&#8217;s benefit here is his quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He claimed those functions don&#8217;t exist on a cone intake which is untrue. Now he claims he was talking about performance differences. What those difference are, are a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are brain dead. Your Weki source spoke about the JF-17. Take a look:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things to note. Firstly they are talking about the JF-17; secondly, it merely stated that *the JF-17 had good performance with a DSI*. It doesn&#8217;t show any data results of a JF-17 pre DSI. For all you know an aircraft such as the Mig-21 could have similar or better performance than a JF-17 with DSI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are stooping to new lows. You claimed that DSI is &#8216;better&#8217; than other intake methods. Your reasoning for that was because it diverts boundary airflow and than slows it down to subsonic speeds; you than claimed the a cone intake can do neither of those functions. To your amazement the intake cone does the very same functions.
> 
> So to some it up, your reasons as to why a DSI is better backfired in your face since the very same functions exist on a cone intake. *It is up to you to prove than a DSI is better than a cone intake since it was you that made the claim that the DSI is better in performance. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word for you, *a cone intake has no moving parts*, your source is talking about an *intake ramp*. A cone intake, if it is adjustable, has all it moving parts hidden inside the aircraft. This is just more reason as to why you should never be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It says nothing about a DSI having better efficiency compared to a cone intake*. You&#8217;re playing your little game again. Also lower complexity does not mean that something is better , the Mig-23 had probably one of the most complex landing gears ever conceived and because of this its wheel bays were extremely small. Similarly the cone intakes on aircraft such as the Mi-21 and SR-71 were more complex for a reason. At different flight regimes the intakes cones would adjust to compensate for the shockwave, without adjustable intake cones both aircraft would have worse performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you quoted my post where I provided a source, you than demanded a source. Little did you know the source was already provided when you quoted me. The only thing this proves is that you are the one that has severe ready comprehension problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn&#8217;t teach me anything new. I stated that the J-20&#8217;s lower chin follows the contours of a perfect circle, I even had a perfect circle imposed over the J-20&#8217;s chin. The lower chin followed the arc of a perfect circle, thus it fit the contour perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not need to be, it already matches the arc of a circle. By your claim and your fellow J-20 fan boys all the nonsense about the pak-fa can be regarded as lies since there is nothing that is equidistant on the aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don&#8217;t try to save face or change the subject. You stated that, *'a bump and forward inlet cowl work together to divert to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down to subsonic speeds'*. The problem is that you quoted a passage that stated that a DSI deverts boundary airflow and slows it down to subsonic speed, you basically tried to convince everyone that a cone intake can not do those things. The fact that a bump and cowl exists is irrelevant, we all know that a DSI consists of a bump while a cone consists of sharp point. It would be like my quoting that a cone has a conical structure (duh obvious) and that it diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speeds (first part is irrelevant, the second part is relevant). We all know how a cone looks like so we can disregard the fact that it has a point, the point i would be trying to make is that the cone intake diverts air and slows it down to subsonic speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try though at trying to change the subject by twisting words. We weren't talking about the differences in looks but the differences in performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be kidding me. The evidence is that *there is not one post that shows you answered the question*. This is really low, before you just ignored the question, that you played games with me by stating &#8216;what you don&#8217;t know what it means?&#8217;, that you said you need &#8216;time&#8217; to answer and now you are shamelessly claiming to show evidence that you can not answer, and the evidence is, or lack there of, shows that you have not answer the question .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the source for that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guys stories grow more an more elaborate, he makes claims, when those claims are busted, he than make some hypothetical claims that he can not provide sources for. There has been a few times when he denied he made certain statements, when I pull up a quote he just calls me an idiot that can&#8217;t read. He manipulates sources as well, he tried to claim that a cone intake will have a higher RCS because of moving parts, when in fact his source was talking about an intake ramp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy will not answer, he does not live up to his end of the bargain. He outright claims he will not answer question but than in the same sentence demands we answer his questions. Even worse is that he makes promises that he will answer my question if I answer his, when I answered his question he continued to refusing to answer my question. His last excuse was that &#8216;were is the evidence I can not answer&#8217;. prior to that he tried to play reverse psychology by stating&#8217; what you don&#8217;t know the answer?&#8217;.
> 
> 
> I don&#8217;t know if you have been reading our exchanges but I highly encourage you to at least read my latest exchange with him. It is highly entertaining watching him struggle and get caught in his own web of lies.




Man, I for one read everything. I have made a personal trail of busting that begun quite some time ago. 
There hasn't been a single ..not 1 point that he has made that has gone unanswered by at least one member of this forum, yet he hasn't answered to a single question. And I am not talking about aviation related questions, any questions in general, prime example being, what was his aviation study particulars or his expertise. Even when he posted an obscure course in some college, he did not clearly say he followed that course. 

He doesn't know basic aviation topics, he doesn't know basic control topics, he doesn't seem to understand the content and context of the debates in this forum and by far his most favourite expression is


> you are an idiot!


..

similarly I do not know if you are following my personal exchanges with him, but they are just comedy..pure comedy channel stuff..

and not to forget his mentor, a certain guy from Mars who has declared IEEE publication sources as non reputable!


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> I don&#8217;t know if you have been reading our exchanges...


Yes, I do. The tweenager's favorite tactic against everyone, which he erroneously believe make him look clever, is to demand that we 'prove' that he does not know what was challenged to him whenever he refused to answer. Whenever anyone has to redefine 'background' to exclude experience, we can be certain that this person has none. If all you have is book knowledge from formal education, there is no shame in that, at least you made an entry into the field under discussion. But if you try to use whatever knowledge you have to shut others down, then you have an obligation to show everyone what you learned from the contents of your posts. This guy have done nothing of the sort.

The reason why he persists when a wiser man would have bolted a long time ago is because he is a kid and have much emotional investment into this electronic persona he created here. His pride will not let him abandon this version of himself. In the end, he does more damages to the J-20 crowd with this persistent stupidity than he may realize.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Really???? my test has not finished yet? WOW !!!!
> 
> right genius...
> 
> first of all I have no idea what you mean with image source code. I am assuming you are implying I found where you got your equation from. Or even worse, you tried to find my equation on the net ????
> Let me save you some trouble, it is on a research paper puplication...
> 
> Don't worry because true knowledge is easy to verify.
> 
> right..



You can check the view image info by right click on the picture, and you will find the address of wikipedia that I take the picture; from there you will be able to find the source.



> *your answer is*:
> 
> a) MPC doesn't really need a process model. *now you can tell us what it does with step or impulse responses, right? you can ocourse.* and it doesn't because of that need a PIP.
> 
> b) the controller can be described by plotting the closed loop responses and show exactly where and why the variable is changed.
> 
> c) it is real time optimised which means it is tolerant to .... *what genius???*
> 
> and now that I have answered you... can you tell me where else I can find uses of an MPC ???
> 
> and on an unrelated question.. .can you tell me what this is ?



Whats your point? it is your answer for my question or (according to you) my answer to your questions? because I am not answering your question.

I dont see you have answered my question yet (Why should we use MPC than others)



p3avi8tor69 said:


> Antonius123,
> 
> I'll give you a hint on the pitot tube.
> 
> IMC
> 
> With your "aviation background & study" it should be elementary.
> 
> "if its blocked, your fuc#ed"


 


p3avi8tor69 said:


> Agreed. But ya know, it is entertaining when you and several others with real knowledge and experience puts a lid on fantasy physics and how the fanboys react by twisting facts to suit their fantasies.


 
OK, I see you are another cheerleader here.

I am not bothering to answer Gambit's questions as his question is not related to debate that he is running off.

If you think Gambit is real aviation expert, then why dont you help him to answer my challenge?

Gambit tried to correct me when I am explaining that uneven "Air Intake" of Pakfa contribute to RCS, he said it is not so called "Air Intake", but according to aviation professional realm it should be called "*Nacele*". Thats is totally WRONG according to aviation world! prove me if i am wrong.

Also prove me that transmission = reflection, as Gambit claims!


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> You can check the view image info by right click on the picture, and you will find the address of wikipedia that I take the picture; from there you will be able to find the source.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your point? it is your answer for my question or (according to you) my answer to your questions? because I am not answering your question.
> 
> I dont see you have answered my question yet (Why should we use MPC than others)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I see you are another cheerleader here.
> 
> I am not bothering to answer Gambit's questions as his question is not related to debate that he is running off.
> 
> If you think Gambit is real aviation expert, then why dont you help him to answer my challenge?
> 
> Gambit tried to correct me when I am explaining that uneven "Air Intake" of Pakfa contribute to RCS, he said it is not so called "Air Intake", but according to aviation professional realm it should be called "*Nacele*". Thats is totally WRONG according to aviation world! prove me if i am wrong.
> 
> Also prove me that transmission = reflection, as Gambit claims!


 Can you get an image not off of wikipedia then? If you don't want to tell them the answer?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Our ID tweenager lifted the MPC equation image from a wiki source...
> 
> Model predictive control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is how dishonest this guy really is. You can find that equation image half way down the page.
> 
> All the questions posed to him, someone who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' to try to shut down you Indians, are *DIRECTLY* related to aviation. Control theories that he brought on in trying to make himself look good, are at least a couple of degrees away from aviation and aviation practical engineering. It is not wrong but it is inappropriate.
> 
> MPC in aviation is new. Am not talking about within the last few yrs but more like post WW II when the concept started to be explored with the advent of computer assisted and computerized flight controls.
> 
> 
> The aeronautical engineering equivalent of the above are items that are internal to the aircraft such as hydraulics, command signals, surface displacement feedback signals, or air data signals.
> 
> 
> The highlighted for both of the above are significant.
> 
> Variables that cannot be adjusted by the aircraft are loss of functions induced usually by damages. Bird strikes or combat damages are a couple of examples. None of the aircraft's systems are able to predict when any of these 'disturbances' will occur.
> 
> What Model Predictive Control (MPC) does is to enable the aircraft to adjust its flight controls system out of the usual operations in the event any of these 'disturbances' occur and does it without pilot interactions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is an excellent example of MPC. But what made this event unusual is that this was both an exercise in MPC by the pilot and by the inherent design of the F-15 itself.
> 
> The pilot had to increase thrust via afterburner to increase airspeed, hence airflow, over whatever was remained in terms of lift surfaces. The F-15's fuselage was designed to be a major contributor to lift, aka 'lifting body' or 'body-wing blend' design. The automated version of this would have the FLCC does everything automatically, from an increase in thrust to maintain airspeed, to increase in AoA, to deflecting the opposite flight control surfaces to compensate for lift loss. MD was called and according to folklore, MD engineers declared that based upon their computer simulations, what happened was impossible. Should have been a complete loss of aircraft, not land.
> 
> So now you know.




Here we go .. some one who cannot answer my questions about control engineering things, and trying to avoid my challenge about control, suddenly pop up with dragged internet article about MPC, not so long after some one else has answered about MPC and agreed by the counter debate (me) 


You cannot answer the simple thing (MPC Equation) when this question is directed by you, then suddenly you drag a lot of internet article when someone else already answer (and agreed) 

Why dont you come earlier with the answer, instead of waiting other people mention the answer? 

I am still waiting your answer to my other control engineering questions directed to you that you havent answered and havent answered successfully


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Here we go .. some one who cannot answer my questions about control engineering things, and trying to avoid my challenge about control, suddenly pop up with dragged internet article about MPC, not so long after some one else has answered about MPC and agreed by the counter debate (me)
> 
> 
> You cannot answer the simple thing (MPC Equation) when this question is directed by you, then suddenly you drag a lot of internet article when someone else already answer (and agreed)
> 
> Why dont you come earlier with the answer, instead of waiting other people mention the answer?
> 
> I am still waiting your answer to my other control engineering questions directed to you that you havent answered and havent answered successfully


Your challenge about the aspect ratio effect on lift coefficient was more than adequately met, and I corrected you on your own challenge at that. 

Now here is a practical aviation engineering question...

Q: When is pitot heat engaged?


----------



## Esc8781

gambit said:


> Your challenge about the aspect ratio effect on lift coefficient was more than adequately met, and I corrected you on your own challenge at that.
> 
> Now here is a practical aviation engineering question...
> 
> Q: When is pitot heat engaged?


 Can I say the answer?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> because I am not answering your question.


You never answered any to start. You tried to use your aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians. Fair enough. But when challenged as to what is that 'background', you never explained. So why should we take you seriously other than to mock you?



Esc8781 said:


> Can I say the answer?


Please...No. Let the fool continue to make a fool out of himself.


----------



## antonius123

@ ptldM3,

Your are talking rubbish with your reply, as it is not more than silly word gaming and ignorance.

I dont have much time to play with your rubbish by answering one by one of your reply at the moment, I will do it later.

But I want to show in front of your eyes, how silly and clueless you are about "Cone Air Intake" *as you say : "A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts*".

It demonstrate you dont know how Cone air intake works!

Do you know that Cone is moved to handle the shock wave?? how it will be moved *without* moving parts as you claim above??

Silly answer!


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Man, I for one read everything. I have made a personal trail of busting that begun quite some time ago.
> There hasn't been a single ..not 1 point that he has made that has gone unanswered by at least one member of this forum, yet he hasn't answered to a single question. And I am not talking about aviation related questions, any questions in general, prime example being, what was his aviation study particulars or his expertise. Even when he posted an obscure course in some college, he did not clearly say he followed that course.
> 
> He doesn't know basic aviation topics, he doesn't know basic control topics, he doesn't seem to understand the content and context of the debates in this forum and by far his most favourite expression is ..


 
Boy .. do you forget that you are running off of a lot of questions during debates?

You said you can prove that Air Intake = Nacelle, where is it??

You said you can prove that Transmission = Reflection, you've been busted!

You said you can prove that 120 degree corner is a corner reflector too, and you've been busted!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Boy .. do you forget that you are running off of a lot of questions during debates?
> 
> You said you can prove that Air Intake = Nacelle, where is it??


A nacelle contains the intake. Proven many times over. Those sources went over your head because you have no real aviation 'background'.



antonius123 said:


> You said you can prove that Transmission = Reflection, you've been busted!


Transmission and reflection are modes of radiation, so as far as the receiver is concerned, the modes are irrelevant because it does not know which mode a target is working under. So transmission is equivalent to reflection. You have a flawed understanding of this because you have no real aviation 'background'.



antonius123 said:


> You said you can prove that 120 degree corner is a corner reflector too, and you've been busted!


And this have been proven many times over. The sources went over your head because you have no real aviation 'background'.

You failed to answer adequately a dozen basic aerodynamics questions. So far you failed to answer 2 basic aviation practical engineering questions.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Your challenge about the aspect ratio effect on lift coefficient was more than adequately met, and I corrected you on your own challenge at that.
> 
> Now here is a practical aviation engineering question...
> 
> Q: When is pitot heat engaged?


 
Remember this??

On the top of debates you are running off, you are unable yet to answer the following questions:



antonius123 said:


> 1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC? => you dont know this
> 
> 2. Explain us what is this equation about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> => you dont know this too
> 
> Then another question goes to you:
> 
> *3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?*



Look at my question no 3, gambit ..

If you are clueless about control engineering, at least you should be able to answer that, but you FAIL

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Look at my question no 3, gambit ..
> 
> If you are clueless about control engineering, at least you should be able to answer that, but you FAIL


Here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-175.html#post3276087

So not only do you have a lie about your aviation 'background' you cannot keep up with the debate as well.

Your challenge question about aspect ratio to lift coefficient was worded incorrectly, reflecting an ignorance. I corrected it for the benefit of the readers.

Q: When is pitot heat engage?
A: On weight off wheels (WoW). Usually on weight off both nose and main landing gear.

Now that is three basic aviation engineering questions you did not know despite claiming an aviation 'background'.

Next...

Q: For the majority of powered controls method in fly-by-wire FLCS, non-linear gearing is usually used. But why?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> A nacelle contains the intake. Proven many times over. Those sources went over your head because you have no real aviation 'background'.



You've been busted here.

*Nacelle is cover of engine*; in plane like PAKFA - nacelle doesnt cover air intake. Shall I prove it again to you?

Never been Air Intake on plane like pakfa/flanker/f-16 is so called Nacelle! Could you prove me wrong?




> Transmission and reflection are modes of radiation, so as far as the receiver is concerned, the modes are irrelevant because it does not know which mode a target is working under. So transmission is equivalent to reflection. You have a flawed understanding of this because you have no real aviation 'background'.



Modes of radiation doesnt mean that transmission = reflection; i dont deny both has simmilarity, but obviously both have basic difference.

For the receiver as you are referring, the transmission and reflection still much relevant!

There is no such equivalent of transmission and reflection at all.

Especially as we are talking about "corner reflector", the reflected wave is not transmitted wave, as both are different things!

You have flawed perception as you have no educational background



> And this have been proven many times over. The sources went over your head because you have no real aviation 'background'.



No you dont.

You prove nothing as your proof is another claim/ own (wrong) perception, just like the above.



> You failed to answer adequately a dozen basic aerodynamics questions. So far you failed to answer 2 basic aviation practical engineering questions.



That is according to your Lie, as you are demonstrating you are a liar and faker.

In fact you have failed to answer basic things in aviation and running away from the debate playing diverting with your silly and ignored test.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You've been busted here.
> 
> *Nacelle is cover of engine*; in plane like PAKFA - nacelle doesnt cover air intake. Shall I prove it again to you?
> 
> Never been Air Intake on plane like pakfa/flanker/f-16 is so called Nacelle! Could you prove me wrong?


No...That have been proven over and over many pages back and you are wrong. A podded engine will have a nacelle and its air inlet in one unit. A elongate nacelle in a fuselage configuration can, but not always, contain the inlet/intake system.



antonius123 said:


> Modes of radiation doesnt mean that transmission = reflection;


I never said that it was. But because you have no experience in this field, you do not understand the proper context of what I tried to explained to you.



antonius123 said:


> i dont deny both has simmilarity, but obviously both have basic difference.
> 
> *For the receiver as you are referring, the transmission and reflection still much relevant!*


Really...???






A bi-static radar configuration have physically distinct receivers, usually multiple receivers.

Now explain to the readers how are Receivers A and B would know if the signals they received are from mode of transmission, as in the aircraft is transmitting its own radar, or from mode of reflection, as in the aircraft is reflecting someone else's radar.

I asked you this before and you ran.



antonius123 said:


> There is no such equivalent of transmission and reflection at all.


And because you have no aviation 'background', you do not understand the proper context as explained above.



antonius123 said:


> Especially as we are talking about "corner reflector", the reflected wave is not transmitted wave, as both are different things!
> 
> You have flawed perception as you have no educational background
> 
> 
> 
> No you dont.
> 
> You prove nothing as your proof is another claim/ own (wrong) perception, just like the above.
> 
> 
> 
> That is according to your Lie, as you are demonstrating you are a liar and faker.
> 
> In fact you have failed to answer basic things in aviation and running away from the debate playing diverting with your silly and ignored test.


It is over. We have provided many sources to prove you wrong and ignorant about aviation.

Q: For the majority of powered controls method in fly-by-wire FLCS, non-linear gearing is usually used. But why?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Here...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-175.html#post3276087



Where?? 

I dont see your answer at all, except your lie.



> So not only do you have a lie about your aviation 'background' you cannot keep up with the debate as well.
> 
> Your challenge question about aspect ratio to lift coefficient was worded incorrectly, reflecting an ignorance. I corrected it for the benefit of the readers.
> 
> Q: When is pitot heat engage?
> A: On weight off wheels (WoW). Usually on weight off both nose and main landing gear.
> 
> Now that is three basic aviation engineering questions you did not know despite claiming an aviation 'background'.
> 
> Next...
> 
> Q: For the majority of powered controls method in fly-by-wire FLCS, non-linear gearing is usually used. But why?


 
Remember on the top of dozen failure in the debates, you have failed to answered my test, as following:

1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC? => you dont know this

2. Explain us what is this equation about:



=> you dont know this too

Then another question goes to you:

3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?
=> you dont know this too..



So this is next question:


4. How to calculate the lift of an experimental airfoil ?



gambit said:


> Here...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-175.html#post3276087



Where?? 

I dont see your answer at all, except your lie.



> So not only do you have a lie about your aviation 'background' you cannot keep up with the debate as well.
> 
> Your challenge question about aspect ratio to lift coefficient was worded incorrectly, reflecting an ignorance. I corrected it for the benefit of the readers.
> 
> Q: When is pitot heat engage?
> A: On weight off wheels (WoW). Usually on weight off both nose and main landing gear.
> 
> Now that is three basic aviation engineering questions you did not know despite claiming an aviation 'background'.
> 
> Next...
> 
> Q: For the majority of powered controls method in fly-by-wire FLCS, non-linear gearing is usually used. But why?


 
Remember on the top of dozen failure in the debates, you have failed to answered my test, as following:

1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC? => you dont know this

2. Explain us what is this equation about:



=> you dont know this too

Then another question goes to you:

3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?
=> you dont know this too..



So this is next question:


4. How to calculate the lift of an experimental airfoil ?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Where??
> 
> I dont see your answer at all, except your lie.


Yeah...We are familiar with this tactic by now. When the answer is over your head, all you can do is simply declare that you do not see it, or dismiss it.



antonius123 said:


> So this is next question:
> 
> 
> 4. How to calculate the lift of an experimental airfoil ?


Right here, kid...

Modern Lift Equation

You will have to try harder than that.

Questions I ask can only come from real experience, which you do not have.

Q: For the majority of powered controls method in fly-by-wire FLCS, non-linear gearing is usually used. But why?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No...That have been proven over and over many pages back and you are wrong. A podded engine will have a nacelle and its air inlet in one unit. A elongate nacelle in a fuselage configuration can, but not always, contain the inlet/intake system.



Its a lie .. 

A lie from the faker 

In fact your so called prove has been busted over and over as no more than claim and wrong perception.

Proof has to be citation, not perception 

I've told you that air intake inside nacelle is only in podded engine case. It is you who doesnt recognize podded engine for nacelle case 





> I never said that it was. But because you have no experience in this field, you do not understand the proper context of what I tried to explained to you.
> 
> 
> Really...???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bi-static radar configuration have physically distinct receivers, usually multiple receivers.
> 
> Now explain to the readers how are Receivers A and B would know if the signals they received are from mode of transmission, as in the aircraft is transmitting its own radar, or from mode of reflection, as in the aircraft is reflecting someone else's radar.
> 
> I asked you this before and you ran.



You are silly 

The inability of the radar receiver equipment to distinguish whether the wave received is transmission or reflection doesnt make both reflection = transmission.

Both are different regardless of the receiver.

And dont try to forget, that we are talking in "corner reflector" context. You call reflection as transmission when we are in corner reflector debate.

The incident wave and reflected wave is distinguished, regardless of the same character of both incident and reflected wave..we still call incidence for the incoming, and reflection for the reflected.




> And because you have no aviation 'background', you do not understand the proper context as explained above.



It is what you call as evidence?? another claim of yours and perception?? 

With claim and perception, you think you have prove your claim.

What a delusional faker

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Its a lie ..
> 
> A lie from the faker
> 
> In fact your so called prove has been busted over and over as no more than claim and wrong perception.
> 
> *Proof has to be citation, not perception *
> 
> I've told you that air intake inside nacelle is only in podded engine case. It is you who doesnt recognize podded engine for nacelle case


And plenty of citations provided, which you simply dismissed. The usual tactic when you do not understand the answers.



antonius123 said:


> You are silly
> 
> The inability of the radar receiver equipment to distinguish whether the wave received is transmission or reflection doesnt make both reflection = transmission.


For the receiver -- it is. Which is what have been explained to you over and over. 

It is over, kid.

Q: For the majority of powered controls method in fly-by-wire FLCS, non-linear gearing is usually used. But why?
A: Non-linear gearing is used because when the design is intended for high dynamic pressure, aka 'high q', like in fighters or the Space Shuttle, flight control surface displacement cannot be the same throughout maneuvers, speed, altitude and angle-of-attack.

Max Q - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In aerospace engineering, the maximum dynamic pressure, often referred to as maximum Q or max Q, is the point at which aerodynamic stress on a vehicle in atmospheric flight is maximized.


So if command signal, be it mechanical or electrically transduced, is linear, the aircraft would depart from controlled flight. Hence, for high _q_ designs, non-linear gearing is used in its FLCS.

That is three basic aviation engineering questions you do not know.

Next...

Q: When there is a centering force on the stick, what is the initial displacement force called?

This is so easy that it would be a 'gimme'.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Yeah...We are familiar with this tactic by now. When the answer is over your head, all you can do is simply declare that you do not see it, or dismiss it.
> 
> 
> Right here, kid...
> 
> Modern Lift Equation
> 
> You will have to try harder than that.
> 
> Questions I ask can only come from real experience, which you do not have.
> 
> Q: For the majority of powered controls method in fly-by-wire FLCS, non-linear gearing is usually used. But why?


 
See .. all readers can see now that you only answer the question that you think you can answer, when you are baited with basic easy question 

You are demonstrating to all readers that you are unable to answer almost whole questions directed to you., except the very basic thing 

Even the way you answer for the basic is still not far from dragging internet article.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Gambit tried to correct me when *I am explaining that uneven "Air Intake" of Pakfa contribute to RCS*, he said it is not so called "Air Intake", but according to aviation professional realm it should be called "*Nacele*". Thats is totally WRONG according to aviation world! prove me if i am wrong.
> 
> Also prove me that transmission = reflection, as Gambit claims!






This is interesting. The pak-fas fuselage certainly has curvature, but is not round unless you include nozzles. Any kind of curvature in the J-20 is quickly refuted, rebuffed, and dismissed, whether its the DSI, chin, nozzles, space between nozzles, or the bulging under wing actuators. So how is the J-20 excluded from this rule? Seems to me that the J-20 gets automatic immunity.

Or could it be that the uneven fuselage creates a corner reflector? But that cant be right. You said that a corner reflector has to be 90 degrees.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See .. all readers can see now that you only answer the question that you think you can answer, when you are baited with basic easy question
> 
> You are demonstrating to all readers that you are unable to answer almost whole questions directed to you., except the very basic thing
> 
> Even the way you answer for the basic is still not far from dragging internet article.


Q: When there is a centering force on the stick, what is the initial displacement force called?
A: Break out.

How freaking easy can it get? 

That is a dozen basic aerodynamics questions and now four basic flight controls engineering questions you cannot answer. Remember, you claimed aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians.

Next...

Q: What is the most adverse effect in the relationship between the break out force and friction?


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> @ ptldM3,
> 
> Your are talking rubbish with your reply, as it is not more than silly word gaming and ignorance.
> 
> I dont have much time to play with your rubbish by answering one by one of your reply at the moment, I will do it later.
> 
> But I want to show in front of your eyes, how silly and clueless you are about "Cone Air Intake" *as you say : "A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts*".
> 
> It demonstrate you dont know how Cone air intake works!
> 
> *Do you know that Cone is moved to handle the shock wave*?? how it will be moved *without* moving parts as you claim above??
> 
> Silly answer!




And did *you know *that I stated the cone intake has all of its moving parts *housed inside the aircraft?* A cone intake retracting will not contribute to RCS the way an inlet ramp would. More proof that you dont know how to read or comprehend simple sentences.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> This is interesting. The pak-fa&#8217;s fuselage certainly has curvature, but is not round unless you include nozzles. Any kind of curvature in the J-20 is quickly refuted, rebuffed, and dismissed, whether it&#8217;s the DSI, chin, nozzles, space between nozzles, or the bulging under wing actuators. So how is the J-20 excluded from this rule? Seems to me that the J-20 gets automatic immunity.
> 
> Or could it be that the uneven fuselage creates a corner reflector? But that can&#8217;t be right. You said that a corner reflector has to be 90 degrees.



Who said the Pakfa fuselage is round? I said the PAkfa's uneven air intake creates almost 90 degree tunels; check again the picture I've brought to you and friends many times.

Also, where is your answer to my response to your WRONG claim about "Cone has no moving parts"?



antonius123 said:


> @ ptldM3,
> 
> Your are talking rubbish with your reply, as it is not more than silly word gaming and ignorance.
> 
> I dont have much time to play with your rubbish by answering one by one of your reply at the moment, I will do it later.
> 
> But I want to show in front of your eyes, how silly and clueless you are about "Cone Air Intake" *as you say : "A cone intake has no moving parts numb nuts*".
> 
> It demonstrate you dont know how Cone air intake works!
> 
> Do you know that Cone is moved to handle the shock wave?? how it will be moved *without* moving parts as you claim above??
> 
> Silly answer!





ptldM3 said:


> And did *you know *that I stated *the cone intake has all of its moving parts* *housed inside the aircraft?* A cone intake retracting will not contribute to RCS the way an inlet ramp would. More proof that you don&#8217;t know how to read or comprehend simple sentences.


 
Are you drunk?

This is what you claimed:



ptldM3 said:


> Word for you, *a cone intake has no moving parts*, your source is talking about an *intake ramp*. A cone intake, if it is adjustable, has all it moving parts hidden inside the aircraft. This is just more reason as to why you should never be taken seriously.



After I busted you, then you want to correct?? cannot 

And who said A cone intake retracting will not contribute to RCS ?? what a silly joke from clueless person

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Who said the Pakfa fuselage is round? I said the PAkfa's uneven air intake creates *almost 90 degree* tunels; check again the picture I've brought to you and friends many times.






&#8216;almost 90 degrees&#8217; wow. Talk about having no moral standards. You first were arguing that there is only one type of corner reflector and that was the 90 degree corner reflector but when you are talking about the pak-f you start to bend the rules, all of the sudden there are none 90 degree corner reflectors.







antonius123 said:


> Also, *where is your answer to my response to your WRONG claim about "Cone has no moving parts"*?





*The post right above yours. Post #2639* to be specific. And this is the same guy that accuses other of having problems with reading comprehension. 







antonius123 said:


> Are you drunk?
> 
> This is what you claimed:
> 
> 
> 
> After I busted you, then you want to correct?? cannot





Try reading the entire thing next time. This is what you quoted, *the highlighted part is what you purposely emitted.*





ptldM3 said:


> Word for you, a cone intake has no moving parts, your source is talking about an intake ramp. *A cone intake, if it is adjustable, has all it moving parts hidden inside the aircraft. *This is just more reason as to why you should never be taken seriously.








antonius123 said:


> And who said A cone intake retracting will not contribute to RCS ?? what a silly joke from clueless person




Put your money were your mouth is and *provide a source.* We know how an inlet ramp can potentially increase RCS, but please explain how a inlet cone would increase RCS if it were to either retract inwards or outwards.


----------



## amalakas

hey guys 

I see we are at it again..

This aeronautics genius is stunning the crowds with feats of amazing knowledge again! 


Right!!!



antonius123 said:


> And who said A cone intake retracting will not contribute to RCS ?? what a silly joke from clueless person




Hey genius ...


MiG-21 with extended nose cone 








MiG-21 with retracted nose cone 







care to explain how the first case increases RCS ?


----------



## ptldM3

amalakas said:


> hey guys
> 
> I see we are at it again..
> 
> This aeronautics genius is stunning the crowds with feats of amazing knowledge again!
> 
> 
> Right!!!




We are in shock and awe at his amazing knowledge in all things aviation. All of us are just witnesses to his greatness. 








amalakas said:


> Hey genius ...
> 
> 
> MiG-21 with extended nose cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MiG-21 with retracted nose cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain how the first case increases RCS ?




I know what he will say, it will be something along the lines of: you are an idiot, prove to me that a cone does not increase RCS.

An arguments with him is futile, he simply ignores all fact and all post. I do not remember how many times he demanded I answer him or provide a source yet all the while my answer/source was right before his post or he actually quoted it. It&#8217;s times like this that I think to myself, wow, I&#8217;m dealing with a moron. 

Post #2641, my post before this is pure gold.


----------



## Esc8781

Some one tell me why they retracted the mig-21's nose?


----------



## no_name

Maybe different compression ratio required for different flight envelope?

Compressing air makes it slow down, as jet engine does not operate on supersonic air. So at different speeds/altitudes the cones are at different locations which among others changes the size of the intake viewed from front.

I think it is similar to how F-15s intake ramp moving to different positions. (method is different and the intake ramp does not operate by volume compression.)

For a DSI the bump does the compression. Since it is not moveable there is a envelope that it will perform best and I think it also has a top speed limit. It also separate boundary layers.


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> Maybe different compression ratio required for different flight envelope?
> 
> Compressing air makes it slow down, as jet engine does not operate on supersonic air. So at different speeds/altitudes the cones are at different locations which among others changes the size of the intake viewed from front.
> 
> I think it is similar to how F-22s intake ramp moving to different positions.
> For a DSI the bump does the compression. Since it is not moveable there is a envelope that it will perform best and I think it also has a top speed limit.



Pretty sure the raptor doesn't have movable intake ramps.


----------



## no_name

edit you're right I've changed example.


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Some one tell me why they retracted the mig-21's nose?


The supersonic shockwave does changes shape as Mach increases. Keyword search 'sr-71 spikes'. You will find plenty of info on that.

SR-71 J-58 Powerplant


> At Mach 3+ the spike is *three feet to the rear of it's takeoff position*, slowing down the incoming airflow, establishing an area of pressure within the nacelle, which is now pushing the engine.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> And who said A cone intake retracting will not contribute to RCS ?? what a silly joke from clueless person


How does a conical intake system with variable positions of the cone have a higher RCS at the extended position? Are you talking about the cone itself, or something else?

Do not forget...

Q: What is the most adverse effect in the relationship between the break out force and friction?

And this...






Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime for both aircrafts, which is *MORE LIKELY* to have superior command response?


----------



## sms

sms said:


> Dear antonius123,
> I've wrote it before and admit again (I'm not making any judgment about your intellect here) that I've started admiring your persistence and quest of knowledge.
> 
> As you've claimed that your are an aviation expert and tried to prove by your numerous posts. I'd request your to enlighten me about the frontal RCS of the J20. Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone and if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plate (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> regards


 


antonius123 said:


> Be patient please, i am still on tablet


 


antonius123 said:


> Firstly, I never claim i am an expert;
> 
> Second, i have no classified data about J-20' rcs, ram material etc.
> 
> Third: which do you mean by flat plate on J-20?


 


sms said:


> Ok let me rephrase my question....
> 
> To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.
> 
> But being transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) put between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How did Chinese engineers hide J20's radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?


 


sms said:


> Dear antonius123, I've tried Google but till now I'm not able to find good answer. I hope you can help me here. ...waiting for your reply.
> 
> Additionally, why don't you speak about your experience and specialization in aeronautics / aerospace/ aviation to stop some form members from insulting you and tell them STFU?


 


sms said:


> *Dear antonius123, hope you are enjoying holidays of Qingming Festival (&#28165;&#26126;&#33410. I'm egarly waiting for your reply.*


 


sms said:


> *antonius123 - you are logging ...but not answering my query. Evading my question goes against your reputation and put lots of question mark on your intensions to be on this form. Hope you are not an usual troll.*


 


antonius123 said:


> My aviation background is my study.
> I never claim I have field experience or pilot experience or aviation engineering experience from the beginning. Dont try to twist again.
> 
> It is you that claim as ex pilot and aviation expert.
> Prove me if I've ever claim I am an expert.
> 
> I am not an expert, but have adequate and genuine background to expose the fraud and fake claim that you have made.


 


antonius123 said:


> I have answered you that I have no classified information regarding J-20 as per your request.
> 
> I am in a middle of project that I have no time to do some research in order to answer your questions; You may see me logged in (because I am indeed log in on my tablet) but I cannot follow intensely your debata at the moment.
> 
> I am replying and straightening a lot of misconception on your friend's claims, not trolling. The only troller here might be you.



Hi Antonius123,
I've admitted several time that I'm your fan and admire your resilience and die hard attitude. But not answering the question asked and diverting the talks is not at all admirable but crates doubt about your claim of being very knowledgeable person and your study of aerospace/ avionics. 

Hope you'll not evade my question wafting reply for last 5 months. I did not disturb you as you were in middle oa project. Hope youll not disappoint this time as you had 5 months to study to get me a good reply.

Sincerely

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> hey guys
> 
> I see we are at it again..
> 
> This aeronautics genius is stunning the crowds with feats of amazing knowledge again!



You mean the crowd of clueless like you, gambit, ptldm3 and the cheerleaders? 



> Right!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey genius ...
> 
> 
> MiG-21 with extended nose cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MiG-21 with retracted nose cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain how the first case increases RCS ?


 
I dont claim that retracted nose will increase RCS. Do you see my sentence as a claim? or questions?

Your friend claim that retracted cone doesnt contribute to RCS, then why dont you ask him?


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> We are in shock and awe at his amazing knowledge in all things aviation. All of us are just witnesses to his greatness.



You are idiot! you are the one who claim that retracted cone wont increase RCS, then prove it!
I was asking you then why dont you answer?? 

You are shocked because you have no clue about moving cone with its moving parts 

The evidence is clear and blatant, while you are trying to correct your wrong statement 

You are the one with the least knowledge among you, gambit, and amalakas, because you are an elementary english teacher and fan boy of military fighter.



> I know what he will say, it will be something along the lines of: you are an idiot, prove to me that a cone does not increase RCS.
> 
> An arguments with him is futile, he simply ignores all fact and all post. I do not remember how many times he demanded I answer him or provide a source yet all the while my answer/source was right before his post or he actually quoted it. It&#8217;s times like this that I think to myself, wow, I&#8217;m dealing with a moron.
> 
> Post #2641, my post before this is pure gold.


 
Your evidence never support your argument, in fact against your wrong perceptions.

The mix of delusional + ignorant + severe reading comprehension problem is the cause.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> *I dont claim that retracted nose will increase RCS.* Do you see my sentence as a claim? or questions?
> 
> Your friend claim that retracted cone doesnt contribute to RCS, then why dont you ask him?


Yes, *YOU* effectively said so...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?


Not only are you a liar and a fraud, but you cannot keep up with your own arguments.


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> Hi Antonius123,
> I've admitted several time that I'm your fan and admire your resilience and die hard attitude. But not answering the question asked and diverting the talks is not at all admirable but crates doubt about your claim of being very knowledgeable person and your study of aerospace/ avionics.
> 
> Hope you'll not evade my question wafting reply for last 5 months. I did not disturb you as you were in middle oa project. Hope youll not disappoint this time as you had 5 months to study to get me a good reply.
> 
> Sincerely


 
Sorry to have missed your question pal 

Your 1st question: Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone

A: I dont know the classified ram data of J-20.

Your 2nd question: if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plate (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.

A: RAM is not a transparent EM wave material; in fact RAM commonly according to its name (Radar Absorbent Material) is a material that absorb EM wave. When radar impacts radar absorbent material, the energy acts as though it "sees" infinite free space instead of a boundary. The absorbed electromagnetic energy is dissipated as heat and very little energy is reflected.Therefore no such reflection from radar antena and anything behind the nose of J-20/Raptor.

Your 3rd question: Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?

A: I dont know, as I have no connection with them.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> A: I dont know the classified ram data of J-20.


Then STFU about it. You know nothing about aviation anyway.



antonius123 said:


> Your 2nd question: if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plate (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> A: *RAM is not a transparent EM wave material*; in fact RAM commonly according to its name (Radar Absorbent Material) is a material that absorb EM wave.


Wrong.






The reason why the material is called an 'absorber' is because it it EM transparent *TO SOME DEGREE*. Not 100%. But only enough to pass the impinging signal through the surface. If it is not EM transparent to a certain degree it would reflect like any other 'normal' surface and would not be called an 'absorber'.

You do not know what the hell you are talking about.



antonius123 said:


> When radar impacts radar absorbent material, the energy acts as though it "sees" infinite free space instead of a boundary.


Source for this.



antonius123 said:


> The absorbed electromagnetic energy is dissipated as heat and very little energy is reflected.


Finally...You got something right...



antonius123 said:


> Therefore no such reflection from radar antena and anything behind the nose of J-20/Raptor.


Yes there are. But am willing to bet you do now know why.



antonius123 said:


> Your 3rd question: Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> A: I dont know, as I have no connection with them.


Then STFU about the J-20. You do not know anything about aviation anyway.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Then STFU about it. You know nothing about aviation anyway.



It is you old boy  you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.



> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why the material is called an 'absorber' is because it it EM transparent *TO SOME DEGREE*. Not 100%. But only enough to pass the impinging signal through the surface. If it is not EM transparent to a certain degree it would reflect like any other 'normal' surface and would not be called an 'absorber'.
> 
> You do not know what the hell you are talking about.



Owwhh ..U *TOTALLY WRONG*!

*Partially transparent means: the part of EM wave still able to go through the material!*, not trapped inside the material as your stupid thought. 

What SMS refer as transparent is the EM Wave piercing the material, not trapped inside as what your thinking.

See .. again you are demonstrating idiocy here  

Gambit! when will you stop misleading readers by pretending as undisputed aviation expert but bursting MISCONCEPTION??

You are busted again for uncountable times here! 




> Source for this.



You have no clue about this? 




> Finally...You got something right...


You cant find anything to criticize about this? 



> Yes there are. But am willing to bet you do now know why.


Then tell us why.



> Then STFU about the J-20. You do not know anything about aviation anyway.


 
It is you old boy  you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Then STFU about it. You know nothing about aviation anyway.



It is you old boy  you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.



> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why the material is called an 'absorber' is because it it EM transparent *TO SOME DEGREE*. Not 100%. But only enough to pass the impinging signal through the surface. If it is not EM transparent to a certain degree it would reflect like any other 'normal' surface and would not be called an 'absorber'.
> 
> You do not know what the hell you are talking about.



Owwhh ..U *TOTALLY WRONG*!

*Partially transparent means: the part of EM wave still able to go through the material!*, not trapped inside the material as your stupid thought. 

What SMS refer as transparent is the EM Wave piercing the material, not trapped inside as what your thinking.

See .. again you are demonstrating idiocy here  

Gambit! when will you stop misleading readers by pretending as undisputed aviation expert but bursting MISCONCEPTION??

You are busted again for uncountable times here! 




> Source for this.



You have no clue about this? 




> Finally...You got something right...


You cant find anything to criticize about this? 



> Yes there are. But am willing to bet you do now know why.


Then tell us why.



> Then STFU about the J-20. You do not know anything about aviation anyway.


 
It is you old boy  you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Yes, *YOU* effectively said so...
> 
> 
> Not only are you a liar and a fraud, but you cannot keep up with your own arguments.



See .. you have severe reading comprehension problem, then you blame me for your idiocy 

I said: the moving parts! not the retracted cone, idiot

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> It is you old boy  you are caught make a lot of WRONG claims, unable to answer many questions aimed to you.


You could not answer a dozen questions on basic aerodynamics and four on basic flight controls engineering. But we will continue on that in a bit.



antonius123 said:


> Owwhh ..U *TOTALLY WRONG*!
> 
> *Partially transparent means: the part of EM wave still able to go through the material!*, not trapped inside the material as your stupid thought.


The illustration showed an absorber allows *SURFACE PENETRATION*, fool. That is what is meant by *PARTIAL TRANSPARENCY*.

KTH | Publication database at ETK


> The new FSS back Jaumann absorber design not only provides a *partial transparency* for the radome but it also shows an improvement in radar cross section compare with ordinary Jaumann absorber.


The radome is made of such partial transparent material, so is RAM for RCS control purposes.



antonius123 said:


> What SMS refer as transparent is the EM Wave piercing the material, not trapped inside as what your thinking.


And what I corrected you was on your comment about how an absorber works.

Now to continue exposing your ignorance...

Q: What is the most adverse effect in the relationship between the break out force of the stick and friction?
A: Increasing friction increases difficulty in precise command at maneuvers.

You did not know this. And this make 5 basic flight controls engineering questions you failed.






Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime for both aircrafts, which is *MORE LIKELY* to have superior command response?


----------



## sms

antonius123 said:


> Sorry to have missed your question pal
> 
> Your 1st question: Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone
> 
> A: I dont know the classified ram data of J-20.
> 
> Your 2nd question: if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plate (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> A: RAM is *not a transparent EM wave material; i*n fact RAM commonly according to its name (Radar Absorbent Material) is a material that absorb EM wave. When radar impacts radar absorbent material, the energy acts as though it "sees" infinite free space instead of a boundary. The absorbed electromagnetic energy is dissipated as heat and very little energy is reflected.Therefore *no such reflection from radar antena and anything behind the nose of J-20/Raptor.*
> 
> Your 3rd question: Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> A: I dont know, as I have no connection with them.



Thanks, for your reply ...
But highlighted portion raises a big question about J20's capability to transmit it's own radar signals. How it's possible to do so if cone is not EMC transparent? If it blocks reflection it must block it's own transmission..does this mean J20 will go blind (without radar) in enemy territory?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See .. you have severe reading comprehension problem, then you blame me for your idiocy
> 
> I said: the moving parts! not the retracted cone, idiot


Let us review your original post...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?



What this mean is that you do not know what a conic intake system look like. The system do not have exposed translation mechanisms in the airstream. All of that are secured behind/inside the cone itself. So for you to say that the moving parts contribute to higher RCS mean you thought that those mechanisms are exposed.

So yes, it is *YOU* who said that a translating supersonic cone increases RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Then STFU about it. You know nothing about aviation anyway.



It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you


Am not mad at you. Am picking on you. And no, the readers have seen and will continually see what a fool you really are.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Source for this.




his source is : Radar Glossary Page 7 - Super Glossary


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> his source is : Radar Glossary Page 7 - Super Glossary


Now that is just freaking pathetic. Looks like this is the extent of his aviation 'study' and the most of his intellect.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you




disbelieve what ? simple common sense and educated responses with credible sources or the fantasies of a 10year old ?



gambit said:


> Now that is just freaking pathetic. Looks like this is the extent of his aviation 'study' and the most of his intellect.




The thing is .. why does the quote refer to a "boundary" ... does he know why the term is used, and what it means?



antonius123 said:


> It seems you are jealous and mad at me when readers start to disbelieve you




will you just for once simply tell us what this is ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> The thing is .. why does the quote refer to a "boundary" ... does he know why the term is used, and what it means?


That is so pathetic that he does it verbatim from a definition. This guy's aviation 'study' is about studying on how to patch together disparate aviation related words into what he hoped to be a coherent technical sentence.

This clued me in...



antonius123 said:


> Then another question goes to you:
> 
> 3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?


Explain the 'term'? What does the definition of aspect ratio have to do with lift coefficient? Any first year engineer on his first aviation job would recognize it as nonsensical.

The proper question should be: 'What *IS* aspect ratio and what effect does it have on lift coefficient?'

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-175.html#post3276087

And it is clear the answer to his challenge question went over his head because he simply dismissed it.



antonius123 said:


> Where??
> 
> I dont see your answer at all, except your lie.


Even when the source is given, it is a lie. But then again, we are dealing with a crowd that dismissed IEEE as not reputable, even though I posted sources that have Chinese names in them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p3avi8tor69

antonius123 said:


> OK, I see you are another cheerleader here.
> 
> I am not bothering to answer Gambit's questions as his question is not related to debate that he is running off.
> 
> If you think Gambit is real aviation expert, then why dont you help him to answer my challenge?
> 
> Gambit tried to correct me when I am explaining that uneven "Air Intake" of Pakfa contribute to RCS, he said it is not so called "Air Intake", but according to aviation professional realm it should be called "*Nacele*". Thats is totally WRONG according to aviation world! prove me if i am wrong.
> 
> Also prove me that transmission = reflection, as Gambit claims!



Kid you don't even know what you have been posting. You google, find similar terms and make what you think is a connection and the proceed to post that in this thread. Then you get busted and you reply, "idiot, comprehension problem blah blah". Your source was a glossary that you pasted and it was quite apparent because the pasted sentences made grammatical sense as opposed to your usual drivel. Now I am not criticizing your english as it is clear english is your second language (as it has no bearing in this thread) I only pointed it out because it was plain as jane to see your pasting.

You were asked basic aviation theory questions that you should have been able to answer if you trully had aviation background or study, yet, you continually avoid them and insist in your nacelle air intake nonsense.


----------



## amalakas

p3avi8tor69 said:


> Kid you don't even know what you have been posting. You google, find similar terms and make what you think is a connection and the proceed to post that in this thread. Then you get busted and you reply, "idiot, comprehension problem blah blah". Your source was a glossary that you pasted and it was quite apparent because the pasted sentences made grammatical sense as opposed to your usual drivel. Now I am not criticizing your english as it is clear english is your second language (as it has no bearing in this thread) I only pointed it out because it was plain as jane to see your pasting.
> 
> You were asked basic aviation theory questions that you should have been able to answer if you trully had aviation background or study,* yet, you continually avoid them and insist in your nacelle air intake nonsense*.



Which has been thoroughly proven over and over and over again. Yet, his "you're idiot" argument is still there.. it seems it works for everything...


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> You are idiot! you are the one who claim that retracted cone wont increase RCS, then prove it!





A cone has no moving parts, so there is nothing that will cause an increase in RCS. All of the parts/retractable mechanisms that control the cone are housed inside the aircraft. Your source was talking about an inlet ramp, you than tried to claim that the inlet cone has moving parts and that it will increase RCS.






antonius123 said:


> You are shocked because you have no clue about moving cone with its moving parts






Me shocked? I knew that a Mig-21 cone is retractable since I was like 6 years old, in fact I mentioned it before you did. 







antonius123 said:


> The evidence is clear and blatant, while you are trying to correct your wrong statement
> 
> You are the one with the least knowledge among you, gambit, and amalakas, because *you are an elementary english teacher *and fan boy of military fighter.





Maybe I am, i certainly schooled you many times or maybe I am a military pilot that holds real degrees, than again maybe I run a successful internet business from Nigeria. Or maybe I tend to my rice field? I can be all or none of those things, heck i can be batman if that is what you want to hear but what i am not is someone that lied about a 'backround' that they did not have.







antonius123 said:


> The mix of delusional + ignorant + severe reading comprehension problem is the cause.






What comprehension problems? You constantly ask for sources and demand answers when in fact those sources and answers are literally in front of your face. It goes like this (you) Where is my source? (me) you quoted it. 


By the way am I going to have to weight 5 months for you to answer my question? Actually it&#8217;s not even my question, I asked you to explain what your own quote meant. You said you would if I answered your question about canopies, I lived up to my end of the bargain.


----------



## sms

antonius123 said:


> Sorry to have missed your question pal
> 
> Your 1st question: Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone
> 
> A: I dont know the classified ram data of J-20.
> 
> Your 2nd question: if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plate (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> A: RAM is *not a transparent EM wave material*; in fact RAM commonly according to its name (Radar Absorbent Material) is a material that absorb EM wave. When radar impacts radar absorbent material, the energy acts as though it "sees" infinite free space instead of a boundary. The absorbed electromagnetic energy is dissipated as heat and very little energy is reflected.Therefore *no such reflection from radar antena and anything behind the nose of J-20/*Raptor.
> 
> Your 3rd question: Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> A: I dont know, as I have no connection with them.


 



sms said:


> Thanks, for your reply ...
> But highlighted portion raises a big question about J20's capability to transmit it's own radar signals. How it's possible to do so if cone is not EMC transparent? If it blocks reflection it must block it's own transmission..does this mean J20 will go blind (without radar) in enemy territory?



Why are you ignoring my question... please reply at the earliest

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Perceptron

gambit said:


> Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime for both aircrafts, which is *MORE LIKELY* to have superior command response?


Now, if this Indonesian kid flunks this part, then he will be the proven for what he is...a child who goes on and on about his shiny new Algebra book even though he has been schooled repeatedly for his SATs. I say kid, drop the pretense and educate yourself. It will give all of us a better opportunity of discussing worthwhile problems afflicting the Drag-Queen.


----------



## gambit

Perceptron said:


> Now, if this Indonesian kid flunks this part,...


He will. The answer is not as obvious as the he thinks. The illustration ties in with previous questions and to today's aircraft. The C-17, to be exact.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> He will. The answer is not as obvious as the he thinks. The illustration ties in with previous questions and to today's aircraft. The C-17, to be exact.


 

He won't answer.


----------



## anarchy 99

Ignore gambit, no one takes that guy seriously except a bunch of Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

anarchy 99 said:


> Ignore gambit, *no one takes that guy seriously except a bunch of Indians*.



Didn't know

Araz , notorious_eagle, Muradk (former PAF pilot), Taimikhan, Irfan Baloch, etc were all Indians


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You could not answer a dozen questions on basic aerodynamics and four on basic flight controls engineering. But we will continue on that in a bit.



You are talking about yourself.

Transmission = reflection, where? you failed again on your last attempt 

Not to mention: nacelle, and corner reflector, and dozen questions about control etc.




> The illustration showed an absorber allows *SURFACE PENETRATION*, fool. That is what is meant by *PARTIAL TRANSPARENCY*.
> 
> KTH | Publication database at ETK
> 
> The radome is made of such partial transparent material, so is RAM for RCS control purposes.
> And what I corrected you was on your comment about how an absorber works.



Your correction is actually totally wrong and fool.

Partially transparent meant in your article is not absorbent like you think and your illustration above, you idiot! 

Partially transparent as I said mean: some wave pass/pierce the radome, some not (reflected, or absorbed by RAM).

Again you are demonstrating idiocy, reading comprehension problem, and clueless 




> Now to continue exposing your ignorance...
> 
> Q: What is the most adverse effect in the relationship between the break out force of the stick and friction?
> A: Increasing friction increases difficulty in precise command at maneuvers.
> 
> You did not know this. And this make 5 basic flight controls engineering questions you failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime for both aircrafts, which is *MORE LIKELY* to have superior command response?



Remember on the top of dozen failure in the debates, you have failed to answered my test, as following:

1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC? => you dont know this

2. Explain us what is this equation about:



=> you dont know this too

Then another question goes to you:

3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?
=> you dont know this too..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> Thanks, for your reply ...
> But highlighted portion raises a big question about J20's capability to transmit it's own radar signals. How it's possible to do so if cone is not EMC transparent? If it blocks reflection it must block it's own transmission..does this mean J20 will go blind (without radar) in enemy territory?


 
Cone is semi transparent, some wave is passed some is reflected or absorbed by RAM.

But remember that the semi transparent here is not the same as what Gambit think which actually a misleading clueless concept. He thinks that semi transparent = absorbing 



gambit said:


> Explain the 'term'? What does the definition of aspect ratio have to do with lift coefficient? Any first year engineer on his first aviation job would recognize it as nonsensical.
> 
> The proper question should be: 'What *IS* aspect ratio and what effect does it have on lift coefficient?'
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-175.html#post3276087
> 
> And it is clear the answer to his challenge question went over his head because he simply dismissed it.


 
That is because you have no clue about the topic, thats why you cant answer

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> A cone has no moving parts, so there is nothing that will cause an increase in RCS. All of the parts/retractable mechanisms that control the cone are housed inside the aircraft. Your source was talking about an inlet ramp, you than tried to claim that the inlet cone has moving parts and that it will increase RCS.



Then explain to all readers how the cone without moving parts is moved with moving parts/mechanism that is housed inside the aircraft which is not a moving part attached to the cone?




> Me shocked? I knew that a Mig-21 cone is retractable since I was like 6 years old, in fact I mentioned it before you did.


But you dont know that Cone has moving parts attached to the cone 

You are stupidly think that moving parts of the cone is not attached to the cone, but somewhere else and not connected to cone.




> Maybe I am, i certainly schooled you many times or maybe I am a military pilot that holds real degrees, than again maybe I run a successful internet business from Nigeria. Or maybe I tend to my rice field? I can be all or none of those things, heck i can be batman if that is what you want to hear but what i am not is someone that lied about a 'backround' that they did not have.



You and your master Gambit is a liar about background.



> What comprehension problems? You constantly ask for sources and demand answers when in fact those sources and answers are literally in front of your face. It goes like this (you) Where is my source? (me) you quoted it.


You cant prove your claim that Cone has same performance with DSI.

You are using your own perception that you claim as a prove 




> By the way am I going to have to weight 5 months for you to answer my question? Actually its not even my question, I asked you to explain what your own quote meant. You said you would if I answered your question about canopies, I lived up to my end of the bargain.


Which questions?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Partially transparent meant in your article is not absorbent like you think and your illustration above, you idiot!


This is how stupid you really are.

The word 'absorb' denote a feature. The words 'pass through' mean an *ACTION*. An 'absorber' cannot absorb unless it 'pass through' its surface whatever the medium that comes into contact with it. Therefore, an 'absorber' must always have *SOME DEGREES* of transparency on its surface, otherwise it cannot 'absorb' or 'pass through' anything.

Radiative properties of semi-transparent particles


> Many substances are *semi-transparent* in the visible and infrared spectral ranges. The well-known example is pure water, which is practically transparent in the visible and semi-transparent in the short-wave part of the near-infrared range (Hale and Querry, 1973; Zolotarev and Dyomin, 1977).



http://thenauticalsite.com/NauticalNotes/Radar/MyRadar-Lesson04-NatureTarget.htm


> Surfaces that are *semi-transparent to radar energy* &#8211; GRP/fibre glass boats


So there you have it, the proper definitions and contexts that you never knew before. Until now.



antonius123 said:


> Partially transparent as I said mean: some wave pass/pierce the radome, some not (reflected, or absorbed by RAM).


Wrong...A surface can be partially transparent as well as the entire layer of the material can be partially transparent.



antonius123 said:


> Remember on the top of dozen failure in the debates, you have failed to answered my test, as following:
> 
> 1. What is the disadvantage of controller againts PLC? => you dont know this
> 
> 2. Explain us what is this equation about:
> 
> 
> 
> => you dont know this too
> 
> Then another question goes to you:
> 
> 3. Explain the term finite aspect ratio or infinite aspect ratio on an airfoil's coefficient of lift?
> => you dont know this too..


All of those have been answered by me and others while you repeated failed to answer any at all.

Last chance, little buddy...






Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime for both aircrafts, which is MORE LIKELY to have superior command response?

If you have any real aviation 'background' and 'study' at all, the answer should come very easily based upon previous questions I posed for you. But then again, since you never knew the answer to all of them, odds are not very good that you would know the answer to this one.





antonius123 said:


> Cone is semi transparent, some wave is passed some is reflected or absorbed by RAM.


He was asking on what is that method or mechanism. Looks like you do not know this one either.



antonius123 said:


> That is because you have no clue about the topic, thats why you cant answer


But not only did I answered, I corrected your inappropriately worded question. The answer just happened to go whoooossshh over your head.



antonius123 said:


> Then explain to all readers how the cone without moving parts is moved with moving parts/mechanism that is housed inside the aircraft which is not a moving part attached to the cone?


Wrong. If you said that a conic intake system have exposed moving parts, the burden is upon *YOU* to show it. We know the MIG-21 have a translating cone and we do not see any exposed moving parts. This mean you have no clue on mechanical engineering.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Wrong. If you said that a conic intake system have exposed moving parts, the burden is upon *YOU* to show it. We know the MIG-21 have a translating cone and we do not see any exposed moving parts. This mean you have no clue on mechanical engineering.


 
he has no clue about anything. I begun to make a list of all the things we answered and all the questions he dodged. It is just too long. 

P.S. His explanation on the radome is pure comedy.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> he has no clue about anything. I begun to make a list of all the things we answered and all the questions he dodged. It is just too long.
> 
> P.S. His explanation on the radome is pure comedy.


This kid have a serious reading and technical comprehension problem, and I mean at the elementary reading level...



> ptldM3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cone has no moving parts, so there is nothing that will cause an increase in RCS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antonius123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain to all readers how the cone without moving parts is moved with moving parts/mechanism that is housed inside the aircraft which is not a moving part attached to the cone?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A cone has no moving parts -- true. Meaning the cone itself. Meaning the cone's surface is not fragmented. The translating mechanisms are independent of the cone. This Indonesian tweenager does not know the proper use of the words 'moving' and 'translating'. He genuinely believes the cone itself transform into something else -- moving -- and therefore increasing its surface area for reflection. He really does not have *ANY* technical education at all.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Then explain to all readers how the cone without moving parts is moved with moving parts/mechanism that is housed inside the aircraft which is not a moving part attached to the cone?
> 
> 
> 
> But you dont know that Cone has moving parts attached to the cone
> 
> You are stupidly think that moving parts of the cone is not attached to the cone, but somewhere else and not connected to cone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and your master Gambit is a liar about background.
> 
> 
> You cant prove your claim that Cone has same performance with DSI.
> 
> You are using your own perception that you claim as a prove
> 
> 
> ......


 

I have no idea what you were trying to say on this one... but here is the F-104, one of my favorites. 








It has *FIXED* inlet cones. A maximum speed or M 2.1. 

The MiG-21 had a retractable cone and top speed of M 2.0 ,
so how come the Cone hasn't the same performance as the DSI ?


----------



## Esc8781

wanglaokan said:


> Bro,You've forget how PLA kicked US armys' *** in North Koear in 1950th .American and President Obama set misellaneous barriers on China's development only to grab limited resource on this pathetic little planet called earth. I bet you guys only have the courageous to blow those countries of week defence technology like Irak,Libria. Why don't you just try it again to provoke us ?? China defence will teach you what really a war is like. And i was so pissed of the Nato bomed Pakistan defence soldiers nearby Afganistan boundry, you test our bottom line . F-22 is God on Iraq sky, but just loads of trash against our Defence system.


 I know this is an old post but wouldn't the j-20 be a load of trash (to you) against the United States technology because you are using our technology, plus the US already got its teaching of what war really was in WWII, so shush.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> This is how stupid you really are.
> 
> The word 'absorb' denote a feature. The words 'pass through' mean an *ACTION*. An 'absorber' cannot absorb unless it 'pass through' its surface whatever the medium that comes into contact with it. Therefore, an 'absorber' must always have *SOME DEGREES* of transparency on its surface, otherwise it cannot 'absorb' or 'pass through' anything.
> 
> Radiative properties of semi-transparent particles
> 
> http://thenauticalsite.com/NauticalNotes/Radar/MyRadar-Lesson04-NatureTarget.htm
> 
> So there you have it, the proper definitions and contexts that you never knew before. Until now.



Now you know that absorber cannot absorb unless it pass through its surface.

But before you said this:

"_The reason why the material is called an 'absorber' is because it it EM transparent TO SOME DEGREE_."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-177.html#ixzz23D0sP4TJ

*That is stupid*! because "EM transparent to some degree" is not the reason why it is called "absorber". Non RAM also has semi EM transparent, otherwise how could the radar receiver receive the reflected wave?  Semi EM transparent always exist in non ram coated or ram coated, therefore your argument that material is called "absorber" because its semi EM transparent is TOTALLY WRONG! and stupid.

You are busted again, and cannot run away 






> Wrong...A surface can be partially transparent as well as the entire layer of the material can be partially transparent.



Did I say not? 

You have severe reading comprehension problem. 




> All of those have been answered by me and others while you repeated failed to answer any at all.
> 
> Last chance, little buddy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime for both aircrafts, which is MORE LIKELY to have superior command response?
> 
> If you have any real aviation 'background' and 'study' at all, the answer should come very easily based upon previous questions I posed for you. But then again, since you never knew the answer to all of them, odds are not very good that you would know the answer to this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was asking on what is that method or mechanism. Looks like you do not know this one either.
> 
> 
> But not only did I answered, I corrected your inappropriately worded question. The answer just happened to go whoooossshh over your head.
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you said that a conic intake system have exposed moving parts, the burden is upon *YOU* to show it. We know the MIG-21 have a translating cone and we do not see any exposed moving parts. This mean you have no clue on mechanical engineering.


 
Nope, you LIE 

You failed those questions.

You only drag internet article when somebody has guess answer no.2 and I agree (with following confirmation test, which is not answered yet). 

Now all readers can see LIE is your bad habit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I have no idea what you were trying to say on this one... but here is the F-104, one of my favorites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has *FIXED* inlet cones. A maximum speed or M 2.1.
> 
> The MiG-21 had a retractable cone and top speed of M 2.0 ,
> so how come the Cone hasn't the same performance as the DSI ?


 
I have explained a few times and give you citations on how DSI improve performance on the modified F-16 and JF-17; and why F-35 use DSI for this reasons.

I have also explained how DSI remove the moving parts that necessary for intake ramp and cone, this reduce the weight, complexity, and necessary ram coating to reduce RCS.

Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explain; if Cone has the same performance as DSI, why modern air fighter like F-22, F-35, J-20, even PAKFA/Flanker/Rafale/etc no more using Cone Inlet?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> This kid have a serious reading and technical comprehension problem, and I mean at the elementary reading level...
> 
> 
> A cone has no moving parts -- true. Meaning the cone itself. *Meaning the cone's surface is not fragmented. The translating mechanisms are independent of the cone*. This Indonesian tweenager does not know the proper use of the words 'moving' and 'translating'. He genuinely believes *the cone itself transform into something else* -- moving -- and therefore increasing its surface area for reflection. He really does not have *ANY* technical education at all.


 
This make you look like a clown to readers 

Moving parts doesnt mean that the cones is fragmented nor it will transform into something else.

The moving parts is attached to the cone, this moving part will move the cone inward or outward.

Again this is demonstrating your clueless about how the cone is working with the moving part

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> This make you look like a clown to readers
> 
> Moving parts doesnt mean that the cones is fragmented nor it will transform into something else.
> 
> The moving parts is attached to the cone, this moving part will move the cone inward or outward.
> 
> Again this is demonstrating your clueless about how the cone is working with the moving part


 


You look like a clown over and over again. 

and your usual game is to claim something ridiculous and then after we have all corrected you, to claim something that is still wrong, but at least more relative to the nonsense you claimed initially. 

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, and let's all remember that it is you who quoted (WIKI ) but never actually explained what the DSI does... 

because you don't know of course.


----------



## sms

SMS said:


> But highlighted portion raises a big question about J20's capability to transmit it's own radar signals. How it's possible to do so if cone is not EMC transparent? If it blocks reflection it must block it's own transmission..does this mean J20 will go blind (without radar) in enemy territory?





antonius123 said:


> Cone is semi transparent, some wave is passed some is reflected or absorbed by RAM.
> 
> But remember that the semi transparent here is not the same as what Gambit think which actually a misleading clueless concept. He thinks that semi transparent = absorbing
> 
> That is because you have no clue about the topic, thats why you cant answer



Now I'm confused your answer raises two questions.....

*Scenario1 *- Cone is semi transparent - it implies that nosecone (Radome) attenuates out going transmission/ reflection and incoming reflected signals from other aircraft/ object or incoming EM transmission from other aircraft/ land based radar. 

Its an ideal situation to avoid detection as J20 nosecone will be very effective to attenuate/ absorb in coming signal to avoid detection. But .. 

It will do bad to it's own detection range as it will also attenuate out going transmission from its own radar and incoming reflected signals from other object. In layman's term it will impact J20's ability to effectively locate, track and engage targets at long ranges. It defies the whole idea of gen 5 aircrafts to locate targets at ranges without detected by others. 

*Scenario 2* - EM Transparent material..
There will be no attenuation for transmission from its own radar and no attenuation on reflected signals. SO it will be very good at detecting targets at range.

But, Transparent nosecone will expose its own radar (flat metal plate at least 1mtr dia) and other equipments on board beside radar and will result in lot reflection and will be easy to get detected. If detected at range its not gen-5 aircraft.


Please clarify how does J20 engineers strike a balance to get good LO and long search n track range.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Now you know that absorber cannot absorb unless it pass through its surface.


Now? I have discussed the RAM issue long before you got on here, little boy. Am willing to bet that this is the first time you ever seen the word 'absorber' used in this context.



antonius123 said:


> But before you said this:
> 
> "_The reason why the material is called an 'absorber' is because it it EM transparent TO SOME DEGREE_."
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-177.html#ixzz23D0sP4TJ
> 
> *That is stupid*! because "EM transparent to some degree" is not the reason why it is called "absorber". Non RAM also has semi EM transparent, otherwise how could the radar receiver receive the reflected wave?  Semi EM transparent always exist in non ram coated or ram coated, therefore your argument that material is called "absorber" because its semi EM transparent is TOTALLY WRONG! and stupid.
> 
> You are busted again, and cannot run away


No, it is *YOU* who are stupid.

First we have 'Chinese physics'. Now we have 'Indonesian physics'.

The receiver can do its job because it is 'semi EM transparent'. That is simply incredible. Do you have a source for that? Let me guess...That source is your anal orifice? 

Do you even know the proper context of the word 'receiver' in radio communication engineering? In this field, the word 'receiver' refers to the data processing of reception operation. But it is the antenna -- *ANTENNA* -- that have actual contact with EM signals and the antenna does not 'absorb' anything.

Over one hundred yrs of antenna knowledge and engineering down the toilet thanks to 'Indonesian physics'. Induction, polarization, electrical and magnetic fields -- gone. Maxwell, Hertz, Marconi, Popov et al are all spinning in their graves.



> Non RAM also has semi EM transparent, otherwise how could the radar receiver receive the reflected wave?


Wow...

So what 'Indonesian physics' say is that any material has some degrees of EM transparency and that mean any material can be used to 'absorb' or ingest EM signals and process them.



> Semi EM transparent always exist in non ram coated or ram coated, therefore your argument that material is called "absorber" because its semi EM transparent is TOTALLY WRONG! and stupid.


This makes no sense. I understand that English is not your native language. It is not mine either. But if anyone is going to get involved in technology, proficiency in English is pretty much mandatory to explain one's argument in a technically coherent manner. This tells me you do not have that technical education.



antonius123 said:


> Nope, you LIE
> 
> You failed those questions.
> 
> You only drag internet article when somebody has guess answer no.2 and I agree (with following confirmation test, which is not answered yet).
> 
> Now all readers can see LIE is your bad habit


It is over. You can say we 'lie' over and over but no one is going to believe you. If anyone ask, we can give them post by post where your lame-*** challenge questions were answered. It is *YOU* who lied about answering mine.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

Show everyone where you answered that question. It does not matter if I answered yours or not. If you have the aviation 'background' or 'study' like you claimed and tried to use to shut down the Indians, then it does not matter if *ANYONE* else have any aviation knowledge or not. You should be able to answer that basic first year aerodynamics question -- easily. So show us where you answered it.

Q: Name two major advantages in having a reasonably circular/elliptical fuselage.
A: No flow separation at moderate AoA/slideslip. And under pressurization, a circular/elliptical fuselage is better at withstanding tension stresses than non circular/elliptical fuselages.

Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
A: Pressure distribution over the wing.

Q: What does the leading edge flap (slat) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not affect lift.
A: The LE flap extends the range of angles that flow can remains attached to the wing.

Show everyone where you answered those questions...But even though we know that you are nothing more than an ignorant tweenager pretending to be an adult, we shall continue to treat your claim to have aviation 'background' and 'study' at least as a source of entertainment.





Q: Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime, which is the *MORE LIKELY* to have a better command response?
A: The prop jobber.

Here is why...

XF5U "Flying Pancake" Vought-Sikorsky V-173 "Zimmer Skimmer"


> The propellers are so placed relative to the remainder of the craft that the *'propeller slip-streams "are at all times directed over the lifting and control surfaces.* With the fairly high loading of the propellers employed the slip-stream velocity will always be high, 60 to 100 miles per hour, so that the control surfaces will be very effective in hovering and low-speed flight.



This question directly tied in with the previous question on thrust line and stability. If you have any real aviation 'background' or 'study' you would have recognized the relationship. The F-5U's design exploited the principle that thrust directly over the flight controls surfaces give the aircraft greater lifting forces than airstream through forward motion.

The modern day C-17 exploited this as well to give the aircraft its exceptionally short take-off distance...

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III


> the engine exhaust flow is directed *below and through* slotted flaps to produce additional lifting force and allow steeper landing descents.


Thrust over flight control surfaces is what give model aircrafts their amazing maneuverability. But I doubt that you would know why. Hint: It has to do with scalability.

This is now a dozen basic aerodynamics and 5 flight controls engineering questions you could not answer despite your claim to have aviation 'background' and 'study'. Instrumentation is the next challenge subject to you.

Next...

Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?

Now...We know that there is no widespread use of the swing wing design in the civilian world. However, that does not mean the aspiring engineer should be ignorant of an implied relationship posed by that question.

You are not doing the J-20 crowd any favor by continuing to make a fool out of yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> This make you look like a clown to readers
> 
> Moving parts doesnt mean that the cones is fragmented nor it will transform into something else.
> 
> The moving parts is attached to the cone, *this moving part will move the cone inward or outward.*
> 
> Again this is demonstrating your clueless about how the cone is working with the moving part


Fine...Then show everyone a source where a conical intake system have *EXPOSED* moving parts. Remember, it was *YOU* who said that those exposed moving parts will increase RCS.



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?


So show us a source of a jet engine aircraft with a conical intake that have exposed moving parts.

Yours is a very juvenile debating tactic: Make claims but provide no sources to back them up, but when someone does provide sources to back up their arguments, you criticize them for using the Internet.

And you think this make you look smart? No, it make you look stupid and it is *YOU* who are the clown to the readers.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Now? I have discussed the RAM issue long before you got on here, little boy. Am willing to bet that this is the first time you ever seen the word 'absorber' used in this context.



Again all you can do just force your claim as an undisputed claim but fail in prove/bring evidence.

We dont accept unproven claim, instead bust the wrong claim like yours 



> No, it is *YOU* who are stupid.
> 
> First we have 'Chinese physics'. Now we have 'Indonesian physics'.



There is only International physics vs Vietnam physics sponsored by you in this thread 



> The receiver can do its job because it is 'semi EM transparent'. That is simply incredible. Do you have a source for that? Let me guess...That source is your anal orifice?



It is you who are demonstrating idiocy and severe reading comprehension problem,

Who said the receiver can do the job due to semi transparent?? 
But in fact you are claiming that absorbing happen because of "semi transparent", but in the wrong perception. 

Now you are demonstrating antique "Vietnam Physics" 



> Do you even know the proper context of the word 'receiver' in radio communication engineering? In this field, the word 'receiver' refers to the data processing of reception operation. But it is the antenna -- *ANTENNA* -- that have actual contact with EM signals and the antenna does not 'absorb' anything.
> 
> Over one hundred yrs of antenna knowledge and engineering down the toilet thanks to 'Indonesian physics'. Induction, polarization, electrical and magnetic fields -- gone. Maxwell, Hertz, Marconi, Popov et al are all spinning in their graves.



And who said Antena absorb something? except your stupid reading comprehension?



> Wow...
> 
> So what 'Indonesian physics' say is that any material has some degrees of EM transparency and that mean any material can be used to 'absorb' or ingest EM signals and process them.
> 
> 
> This makes no sense. I understand that English is not your native language. It is not mine either. But if anyone is going to get involved in technology, proficiency in English is pretty much mandatory to explain one's argument in a technically coherent manner. This tells me you do not have that technical education.



Who said so??

You are not only demonstrating poor English reading comprehension, but also technical standard terminology.

Remember "nacelle = air intake"? remember "transmission = reflection", and many other else?

You cant prove those misconception as acceptable technical terminology, right 



> It is over. You can say we 'lie' over and over but no one is going to believe you. If anyone ask, we can give them post by post where your lame-*** challenge questions were answered. It is *YOU* who lied about answering mine.
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> Show everyone where you answered that question. It does not matter if I answered yours or not. If you have the aviation 'background' or 'study' like you claimed and tried to use to shut down the Indians, then it does not matter if *ANYONE* else have any aviation knowledge or not. You should be able to answer that basic first year aerodynamics question -- easily. So show us where you answered it.
> 
> Q: Name two major advantages in having a reasonably circular/elliptical fuselage.
> A: No flow separation at moderate AoA/slideslip. And under pressurization, a circular/elliptical fuselage is better at withstanding tension stresses than non circular/elliptical fuselages.
> 
> Q: What else does a flap change, other than the physical layout of the wing?
> A: Pressure distribution over the wing.
> 
> Q: What does the leading edge flap (slat) do in relation to lift? Hint: Does not affect lift.
> A: The LE flap extends the range of angles that flow can remains attached to the wing.
> 
> Show everyone where you answered those questions...But even though we know that you are nothing more than an ignorant tweenager pretending to be an adult, we shall continue to treat your claim to have aviation 'background' and 'study' at least as a source of entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: Of the above example, at any given airspeed in the subsonic regime, which is the *MORE LIKELY* to have a better command response?
> A: The prop jobber.
> 
> Here is why...
> 
> XF5U "Flying Pancake" Vought-Sikorsky V-173 "Zimmer Skimmer"
> 
> 
> This question directly tied in with the previous question on thrust line and stability. If you have any real aviation 'background' or 'study' you would have recognized the relationship. The F-5U's design exploited the principle that thrust directly over the flight controls surfaces give the aircraft greater lifting forces than airstream through forward motion.
> 
> The modern day C-17 exploited this as well to give the aircraft its exceptionally short take-off distance...
> 
> Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
> 
> Thrust over flight control surfaces is what give model aircrafts their amazing maneuverability. But I doubt that you would know why. Hint: It has to do with scalability.
> 
> This is now a dozen basic aerodynamics and 5 flight controls engineering questions you could not answer despite your claim to have aviation 'background' and 'study'. Instrumentation is the next challenge subject to you.
> 
> Next...
> 
> Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?
> 
> Now...We know that there is no widespread use of the swing wing design in the civilian world. However, that does not mean the aspiring engineer should be ignorant of an implied relationship posed by that question.
> 
> You are not doing the J-20 crowd any favor by continuing to make a fool out of yourself.


 
Are you sick?

Not only you are answering your own questions. But you force your self (the incompetent one) to test other people.

Remember how you failed in numerous test


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Fine...Then show everyone a source where a conical intake system have *EXPOSED* moving parts. Remember, it was *YOU* who said that those exposed moving parts will increase RCS.



Now you understand that you are exposing your clueless when you claim that cone has no moving parts? 

What do you mean by exposed moving parts here?
And show me my statement saying the cone has EXPOSED moving parts!



> So show us a source of a jet engine aircraft with a conical intake that have exposed moving parts.
> 
> Yours is a very juvenile debating tactic: *Make claims but provide no sources to back them up*, but when someone does provide sources to back up their arguments, you criticize them for using the Internet.
> 
> And you think this make you look smart? No, it make you look stupid and it is *YOU* who are the clown to the readers.


 
Which of my claim? Show me my statement saying the cone has EXPOSED moving parts!
But before that, please explain what you mean by exposed moving parts here?

It is you who is immature here, as you always force your own claim without evidence.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Again all you can do just force your claim as an undisputed claim but fail in prove/bring evidence.
> 
> We dont accept unproven claim, instead bust the wrong claim like yours


I have supported my arguments far better than you -- and the Chinese who you sucked up to -- have done regarding this issue.

If you think you handle yourself, go here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/68207-jf-17-thunder-multirole-fighter-thread-4-a-499.html

Never mind what I say. Mind only what you say and support yourself. Let us see how much you know.



antonius123 said:


> Who said the receiver can do the job due to semi transparent??


*YOU* did, here...



antonius123 said:


> Non RAM also has semi EM transparent, otherwise how could the radar receiver receive the reflected wave?


In communication engineering, the 'receiver' have nothing to do with absorber. That statement by you is completely nonsensical and it further confirms what we know so far: That you are technically uneducated, foolish and is capable of only patching together words and hope that it make sense.



antonius123 said:


> But in fact you are claiming that absorbing happen because of "semi transparent", but in the wrong perception.


It is not 'wrong perception'. I provided sources on what it means. The answer just went over your head, just like everything else.



antonius123 said:


> Now you are demonstrating antique "Vietnam Physics"


I work with real physics, kid.



antonius123 said:


> And who said Antena absorb something? except your stupid reading comprehension?


I was educating you on what happens at the reception process in communication. It is clear that you did not know that it is the antenna that have actual contact with EM signals.



antonius123 said:


> Remember "nacelle = air intake"? remember "transmission = reflection", and many other else?
> 
> You cant prove those misconception as acceptable technical terminology, right


Those 'misconception' are *YOURS* because you have no real aviation 'background' or 'study' like you claimed. And because you have no real technical education, the real answers will -- and did -- went over your head.



antonius123 said:


> Are you sick?
> 
> Not only you are answering your own questions. But you force your self (the incompetent one) to test other people.
> 
> Remember how you failed in numerous test


Last chance, buddy...

Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?

You claimed to have an aviation 'background' which you tried to use to shut down the Indians. When challenged as to what is inside that 'background', you diverted to 'study'. The vagueness of it tells us that you really do not know what you are talking about regarding aviation in general. Aviation have many disciplines. Do you even know what that word 'disciplines' means when it comes to professions? It does not mean self control. It means specialties under the larger heading.

It does not matter if I or everyone else in this forum have no aviation experience at all. The moment you claimed to have it and tried to shut down others with it, you have an obligation to prove yourself. We are trying to establish what kind of aviation 'study' do you have. You failed to answer a dozen questions on basic aerodynamics. Why? Now there are 5 questions on flight controls engineering that you failed to answer as well. There are coming Instrumentation, Navigation, Communication and Radar coming up.

So last chance...

Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Now you understand that you are exposing your clueless when you claim that cone has no moving parts?
> 
> What do you mean by exposed moving parts here?
> *And show me my statement saying the cone has EXPOSED moving parts!*
> 
> 
> 
> Which of my claim? *Show me my statement saying the cone has EXPOSED moving parts!*
> But before that, please explain what you mean by exposed moving parts here?
> 
> It is you who is immature here, as you always force your own claim without evidence.


Right here...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?


A 'bigger RCS' is possible only if those moving parts are exposed to radar bombardment.

Here is the F-111 that have a quarter cone, called a 'spike', that not only translate fore/aft but also expand or 'blossom' to become larger...

F-111 Inlets

I was on the F-111 for 5 yrs. Never have I seen any exposed moving parts on the spikes. So if we can do it for the F-111's intake system, we can do the same for the conical intake.

So show us a source that have a jet engine aircraft with a conical intake that have exposed moving parts.


----------



## Alpery

a RADAR uses radio beam or radio waves?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Alpery said:


> a RADAR uses radio beam or radio waves?


What else does it use?

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> ...an acronym for *RAdio* Detection And Ranging.


There is no such thing as radar specific type of EM wave. Believe it or not, technically speaking, radar is a method of communication and it uses radio type waves.


----------



## Alpery

so..something is wrong at this illustration..
what is the wavelength and ferrite particle's length supposed?
isn't that effect reflection and passing?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Alpery said:


> so..something is wrong at this illustration..
> what is the wavelength and ferrite particule's length supposed?
> isn't that effect reflection and passing?


An 'absorber' is a composite material, meaning it has many discrete constituents from different materials bind in some ways into a 'new' material.

To give you a basic understanding of composites...

- Atomic. Another word for this is 'elemental'. This level is where the material has different atoms bound together. Technically speaking, a molecule is a composite.

- Molecular. Another word for this is 'microstructural'. This level is where the material has different molecules bound together. Technically speaking, water is a composite. Different crystalline structures can be combined to be a composite such as steel.

- Gross. Another word for this is 'macrostructural'. Concrete and plywood are composites.

So the general public have a very different perception and definition of 'composite'. They think that it has to do with only 'high tech' items and 'stealth'. The reality is that in military aviation, composites are used *MAINLY* for weight savings measures. It is a type of composites called 'radar absorber' that is specifically for 'stealth'.

So for the 'radar stealth' composites, the ferrite particles type is the most common design and its formulation, from particle size to distribution, are quite 'Top Secret'.

Other types and designs of absorber are...

IEEE Xplore - The two-sheet capacitive Jaumann absorber


> Many *Jaumann absorber* designs rely on purely resistive sheets spaced &#955;/4 apart, and the designs are based on the requirement that the voltage reflection coefficient and its derivatives vanish at the center frequency.



IEEE Xplore - Optimum design of a Salisbury screen radar absorber


> ...*Salisbury screen radar absorber* which will yield the maximum bandwidth for a specified level of reflectivity performance, angle of incidence and polarisation.



And there are many other hybrid designs out there.

An absorber, unlike 'Chinese physics' and 'Indonesian physics', does not have to be completely 'pass-through'. Because an absorber is a composite, we can design one constituent material, usually the surface material, to be 100% pass-through in order to initiate the process. The underlying constituent materials will then begin to do their jobs.

For the basic ferrite particles, the goal is to 'bounce' or create multiple reflections *INSIDE* this substrate layer. The downside to this design is weight and because weight is a limitation, the wavelengths being affected is very narrow. Technically, we can make a ferrite particle based absorber that can handle the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands but that would mean the layer must be meters thick as well. Not practical at all.

And here is why...






The above is a reasonable approximation scaling of commonly used freqs/wavelengths in radar detection.

Most radar operations are pulsed operations, meaning each transmission is composed of a series of on/off smaller transmissions.

Like this...






So for a pulse of the centimetric (ghz) freq, we can have a single pulse that is 1 or 2 centimeters long.

For an absorber to do its job, it must absorb or 'ingest' the pulse completely, or more like 90%. For a crude example, if a pulse is 1cm long, the absorber should be 1.1cm thick. There will be some inevitable reflection on the surface because nothing is perfect. So as the pulse is allowed pass-through by the surface, the ferrite particles will begin to do their jobs. But if the absorber paint thickness is less than pulse length, then we will have less effective negation of that pulse, meaning more of the pulse will be reflected.

This principle is applicable to all of the above wavelengths illustration. So the problem for the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands is that we must have an absorber layer thickness to match -- meters thick. Not practical in aviation at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

gambit said:


> An 'absorber' is a composite material, meaning it has many discrete constituents from different materials bind in some ways into a 'new' material.
> 
> To give you a basic understanding of composites...
> 
> - Atomic. Another word for this is 'elemental'. This level is where the material has different atoms bound together. Technically speaking, a molecule is a composite.
> 
> - Molecular. Another word for this is 'microstructural'. This level is where the material has different molecules bound together. Technically speaking, water is a composite. Different crystalline structures can be combined to be a composite such as steel.
> 
> - Gross. Another word for this is 'macrostructural'. Concrete and plywood are composites.
> 
> So the general public have a very different perception and definition of 'composite'. They think that it has to do with only 'high tech' items and 'stealth'. The reality is that in military aviation, composites are used *MAINLY* for weight savings measures. It is a type of composites called 'radar absorber' that is specifically for 'stealth'.
> 
> So for the 'radar stealth' composites, the ferrite particles type is the most common design and its formulation, from particle size to distribution, are quite 'Top Secret'.
> 
> Other types and designs of absorber are...
> 
> IEEE Xplore - The two-sheet capacitive Jaumann absorber
> 
> 
> IEEE Xplore - Optimum design of a Salisbury screen radar absorber
> 
> 
> And there are many other hybrid designs out there.
> 
> An absorber, unlike 'Chinese physics' and 'Indonesian physics', does not have to be completely 'pass-through'. Because an absorber is a composite, we can design one constituent material, usually the surface material, to be 100% pass-through in order to initiate the process. The underlying constituent materials will then begin to do their jobs.
> 
> For the basic ferrite particles, the goal is to 'bounce' or create multiple reflections *INSIDE* this substrate layer. The downside to this design is weight and because weight is a limitation, the wavelengths being affected is very narrow. Technically, we can make a ferrite particle based absorber that can handle the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands but that would mean the layer must be meters thick as well. Not practical at all.
> 
> And here is why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is a reasonable approximation scaling of commonly used freqs/wavelengths in radar detection.
> 
> Most radar operations are pulsed operations, meaning each transmission is composed of a series of on/off smaller transmissions.
> 
> Like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for a pulse of the centimetric (ghz) freq, we can have a single pulse that is 1 or 2 centimeters long.
> 
> For an absorber to do its job, it must absorb or 'ingest' the pulse completely, or more like 90%. For a crude example, if a pulse is 1cm long, the absorber should be 1.1cm thick. There will be some inevitable reflection on the surface because nothing is perfect. So as the pulse is allowed pass-through by the surface, the ferrite particles will begin to do their jobs. But if the absorber paint thickness is less than pulse length, then we will have less effective negation of that pulse, meaning more of the pulse will be reflected.
> 
> This principle is applicable to all of the above wavelengths illustration. So the problem for the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands is that we must have an absorber layer thickness to match -- meters thick. Not practical in aviation at all.


 Sir does the ellipsoid like the j-20's actuators apply to the 10-lambda rule?


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Sir does the ellipsoid like the j-20's actuators apply to the 10-lambda rule?


Any time you have a physical path where a portion of the wave can *POTENTIALLY* return or wrap around to the point of impact, the 10-lambda rule is in play. It does not mean there will be such a wrap around travel, it just mean that there is a physical path where this potentiality exist.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Right here...
> 
> 
> A 'bigger RCS' is possible only if those moving parts are exposed to radar bombardment.
> 
> Here is the F-111 that have a quarter cone, called a 'spike', that not only translate fore/aft but also expand or 'blossom' to become larger...
> 
> F-111 Inlets
> 
> I was on the F-111 for 5 yrs. Never have I seen any exposed moving parts on the spikes. So if we can do it for the F-111's intake system, we can do the same for the conical intake.
> 
> So show us a source that have a jet engine aircraft with a conical intake that have exposed moving parts.



Sorry not to reply you soon as I am traveling for 2 weeks now.

Why do you think the traveling wave could reach the moving parts?
And why do you think the cone itself will not contribute to RCS?



gambit said:


> What else does it use?
> 
> Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There is no such thing as radar specific type of EM wave. Believe it or not, technically speaking, radar is a method of communication and it uses radio type waves.



Then explain how this way of work will absorb the "traveling wave" ?


----------



## antonius123

@ Gambit,

Its funny and hilarious to see your fanboyism claim in Thread: China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier that China will have the same fate as Serbia 






You are simply equating China's military power with Serbia is again demonstrating your idiocy and fanboy mentality of old guy. 

Serbia have no ability to blow down US' Satellites, nor can not screw US military information infrastructure.

Do you think the tomahawk could hit the target without the help of Satelite?
Do you think B-2 and F-22 could easily reach china coast unnoticed and will freely enter China's air without facing china air defense system (J-10, J-11B, J-20, anti stealth radar, HQ9, HQ-15, etc), and freely drop the bomb there?

Shame on you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Why do you think the traveling wave could reach the moving parts?


Do not try to evade.

Here is *YOUR* post...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?


The only way the mechanisms that translate the cone's position could increase RCS is to be exposed. So according to *YOUR* post, such exposure does exist. So show us a source that have a jet engine-ed fighter with a conical intake with exposed cone translating mechanisms.



antonius123 said:


> And why do you think the cone itself will not contribute to RCS?


Did I say it does not?



antonius123 said:


> Then explain how this way of work will absorb the "traveling wave" ?


You are stupid if you have to ask.

One more chance...

Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Do not try to evade.
> 
> Here is *YOUR* post...
> 
> The only way the mechanisms that translate the cone's position could increase RCS is to be exposed. So according to *YOUR* post, such exposure does exist. So show us a source that have a jet engine-ed fighter with a conical intake with exposed cone translating mechanisms.



I did not evade 

My questions is very much related to your question; if you dont catch/understand where I am asking about it means you dont know what you are talking about.

Let me make my question a bit clearer : Why do you think the traveling wave could not reach the moving parts (of the Mig-21's cone)?





> You are stupid if you have to ask.
> 
> One more chance...
> 
> Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?


 
This is what should be called : "trying to evade" of yours 

Dont start to play diverting.

Again I am asking you: "explain how this way of work will absorb the traveling wave ?"

If you cannot answer, it means you dont know what you are trying to explain regarding the picture you drag.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I did not evade
> 
> My questions is very much related to your question; if you dont catch/understand where I am asking about it means you dont know what you are talking about.
> 
> Let me make my question a bit clearer : Why do you think the traveling wave could not reach the moving parts (of the Mig-21's cone)?


Yes, you did evade.

Let us examine your post...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, *and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?*


You said 'and' because you believe that the translation mechanism are *EXPOSED* in some ways where radar signals could make impact and make those mechanisms contributors to the final RCS.

So here is the MIG-21's nosecone...

SqC: MiG-21 PFM Nosecone | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I see no *EXPOSED* moving parts there.

Now it is your turn to show us how smart and knowledgeable you are about aviation by showing us a jet engine-ed fighter with a conical intake that have *EXPOSED* moving parts.



antonius123 said:


> This is what should be called : "trying to evade" of yours
> 
> Dont start to play diverting.
> 
> Again I am asking you: "explain how this way of work will absorb the traveling wave ?"
> 
> If you cannot answer, it means you dont know what you are trying to explain regarding the picture you drag.


Indeed I can answer. But so far we have yet to see you make any *TECHNICAL* contribution in this forum.

Here is an example of what I contributed...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/187501-clearest-j-20-pictures-6.html#post3068542

Keep in mind that you claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use that to shut down the Indians. Now why not show us how knowledgeable you are by explaining how a radar absorber material (RAM) work. Never mind what I may know or does not know. A PhD or a high school student can pose the same question and both can expect an answer. So it does not matter if I know anything or not. You tried to shut down the Indians, now here is your chance to show them why they should listen to you and not to me.

Finally...

Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?
A: Affects the wing's center of pressure (CP).

Center of Pressure

Swing Wings | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine


> The flow needed to move the wings aft was about double that, and was accomplished with a variable displacement pump. The reason for the mismatch was that the *positioning of the wing pivot in relation to the wing's center of pressure* made it easier to unsweep than to sweep.
> 
> *On the F-111, the pivot locations were relatively inboard*, resulting in excessive trim drag at transonic and supersonic conditions. Tomcat designers were not going to repeat that mistake.
> 
> "In those days, [the Navy] wanted high-altitude maneuverability," says Tom Lawrence, a NAVAIR aerodynamics expert who evaluated this capability for the Tomcat. "*If you had the wing pivots closer to the fuselage, you get a very large shift in the center of pressure*" when the wing changes its angle of sweep. That could lead to the kind of instability that killed Raymond Popson in the X-5.


You did not know this.

Considering you claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use that to shut down the Indians, this make a dozen basic aerodynamics and six flight controls engineering questions you do not know.

Next...

Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?

We still have these areas to go through: Instrumentation, Navigation, Communication, Radar, Fuel, Propulsion and Sheetmetal.


----------



## Esc8781

You guys should take a chill pill. Just ignore and there you go problem solved


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Yes, you did evade.
> 
> Let us examine your post...
> 
> 
> You said 'and' because you believe that the translation mechanism are *EXPOSED* in some ways where radar signals could make impact and make those mechanisms contributors to the final RCS.
> 
> So here is the MIG-21's nosecone...
> 
> SqC: MiG-21 PFM Nosecone | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> I see no *EXPOSED* moving parts there.
> 
> Now it is your turn to show us how smart and knowledgeable you are about aviation by showing us a jet engine-ed fighter with a conical intake that have *EXPOSED* moving parts.



When did I said the moving parts of the Cone is exposed??

You like to twist people argument just like your like of lying and faking 




> Indeed I can answer. But so far we have yet to see you make any *TECHNICAL* contribution in this forum.



Nooo you are obviously trying to evade 



> Here is an example of what I contributed...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/187501-clearest-j-20-pictures-6.html#post3068542
> 
> Keep in mind that you claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use that to shut down the Indians. Now why not show us how knowledgeable you are by explaining how a radar absorber material (RAM) work. Never mind what I may know or does not know. A PhD or a high school student can pose the same question and both can expect an answer. So it does not matter if I know anything or not. You tried to shut down the Indians, now here is your chance to show them why they should listen to you and not to me.
> 
> Finally...
> 
> Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?
> A: Affects the wing's center of pressure (CP).
> 
> Center of Pressure
> 
> Swing Wings | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine
> 
> You did not know this.
> 
> Considering you claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use that to shut down the Indians, this make a dozen basic aerodynamics and six flight controls engineering questions you do not know.
> 
> Next...
> 
> Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?
> 
> We still have these areas to go through: Instrumentation, Navigation, Communication, Radar, Fuel, Propulsion and Sheetmetal.


 
What kind of contribution if you can only do copy paste and drag article from the internet, but has no adequate understanding? 

Remember you have drag a lot of article with missunderstanding? one of example is the article that you claim as explaining 120 degree corner reflector.

Your understanding is the important thing here, not the article that you drag


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> When did I said the moving parts of the Cone is exposed??


Right here...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, *and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?*


Cannot evade. Even if you were to go back and edit it out to cover up your stupidity, it is too late. Too many knows.



antonius123 said:


> You like to twist people argument just like your like of lying and faking


People can see who is really twisting here -- *YOU*.



antonius123 said:


> Nooo you are obviously trying to evade
> 
> What kind of contribution if you can only do copy paste and drag article from the internet, but has no adequate understanding?


Then show us what you do know. Remember, *YOU* claimed to have an aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use that to shut down the Indians. So show us what you do know.

One more time...

Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?

It does not look good for you, buddy.



Esc8781 said:


> You guys should take a chill pill. Just ignore and there you go problem solved


And lose the fun? No problem here. Actually, the ones with the real problem are the Chinese crowd. This Indonesian suck-up is doing a terrible job at defending the J-20.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Right here...
> 
> 
> Cannot evade. Even if you were to go back and edit it out to cover up your stupidity, it is too late. Too many knows.
> 
> 
> People can see who is really twisting here -- *YOU*.



Ow really??

Then show me and the readers where the word "exposed" in that sentence of mine!

I bet you will again caught twisting and lying here 



> Then show us what you do know. Remember, *YOU* claimed to have an aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use that to shut down the Indians. So show us what you do know.
> 
> One more time...
> 
> Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?
> 
> It does not look good for you, buddy.



See .. you are playing diverting again.
Remember how you loose in so many test and questions directed to you, and remember how you are busted at so many misconception that you have claimed.

And you are trying to conflict me with indian members and kissing their ars so that you keep getting supported and thanks from indian members? 



> And lose the fun? No problem here. Actually, the ones with the real problem are the Chinese crowd. This Indonesian suck-up is doing a terrible job at defending the J-20.


 
You have no mirror right? 

You can get support from some indians and other russian/american members due to your kissing their ars, just like the above


----------



## DrSomnath999

antonius123 said:


> You are simply equating China's military power with Serbia is again demonstrating your idiocy and fanboy mentality of old guy.
> 
> *Serbia have no ability to blow down US' Satellites, nor can not screw US military information infrastructure.*



sorry to spoil ur party mr chinese einstein ,but i couldnt resist myself.

but the biggest irony is SERBIA may be the only nation which has technically shot down an american stealth fighter F117 in kosovo war .


----------



## UKBengali

DrSomnath999 said:


> sorry to spoil ur party mr chinese einstein ,but i couldnt resist myself.
> 
> but the biggest irony is SERBIA may be the only nation which has technically shot down an american stealth fighter F117 in kosovo war .



And that did not stop Serbian infrastructure still being bombed to pieces.

Point remains that the US cannot bomb China without suffering serious damage itself.

China's air-defences are now very strong and it has a strong ability to strike US bases and ships out in the Ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

DrSomnath999 said:


> sorry to spoil ur party mr chinese einstein ,but i couldnt resist myself.
> 
> but the biggest irony is SERBIA may be the only nation which has technically shot down an american stealth fighter F117 in kosovo war .


 
Really??

How do you know its due to the technology that Serbia poses?
How do you know China has no anti stealth radar technology?

Do you know the F-117 shot down in serbia mostly was because of the mistake that the Pilot of F-117 had made? and it is a very small probability occasion? It means in other F-117's sortie serbia may not be able to shoot down F-117 for the second time


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Really??
> 
> How do you know its due to the technology that Serbia poses?
> How do you know China has no anti stealth radar technology?
> 
> Do you know the F-117 shot down in serbia mostly was because of the mistake that the Pilot of F-117 had made? and it is a very small probability occasion? It means in other F-117's sortie serbia may not be able to shoot down F-117 for the second time



another incoherent bubbling...


----------



## sms

antonius123 said:


> Sorry to have missed your question pal
> 
> Your 1st question: Please let us know what does it use as material for nose cone
> 
> A: I dont know the classified ram data of J-20.
> 
> Your 2nd question: if this material is transparent EM wave how does J20 achieve LO capability? The flat plate (radar antenna and cockpit instruments) will result in huge reflection and detection at long range.
> 
> A: RAM is *not a transparent EM wave material*; in fact RAM commonly according to its name (Radar Absorbent Material) is a material that absorb EM wave. When radar impacts radar absorbent material, the energy acts as though it "sees" infinite free space instead of a boundary. The absorbed electromagnetic energy is dissipated as heat and very little energy is reflected.Therefore no such reflection from radar antena and anything behind the nose of J-20/Raptor.
> 
> Your 3rd question: Please advise how did Chinese engineers solved this problem and achieved a marvel gem of extreme engineering?
> 
> A: I dont know, as I have no connection with them.





sms said:


> Thanks, for your reply ...
> But highlighted portion raises a big question about J20's capability to transmit it's own radar signals. How it's possible to do so if cone is not EMC transparent? If it blocks reflection it must block it's own transmission..does this mean J20 will go blind (without radar) in enemy territory?


 


sms said:


> Why are you ignoring my question... please reply at the earliest


 


antonius123 said:


> Cone is semi transparent, some wave is passed some is reflected or absorbed by RAM.
> 
> But remember that the semi transparent here is not the same as what Gambit think which actually a misleading clueless concept. He thinks that semi transparent = absorbing
> 
> That is because you have no clue about the topic, thats why you cant answer





sms said:


> Now I'm confused your answer raises two questions.....
> 
> *Scenario1 *- Cone is semi transparent - it implies that nosecone (Radome) attenuates out going transmission/ reflection and incoming reflected signals from other aircraft/ object or incoming EM transmission from other aircraft/ land based radar.
> 
> It&#8217;s an ideal situation to avoid detection as J20 nosecone will be very effective to attenuate/ absorb in coming signal to avoid detection. But ..
> 
> It will do bad to it's own detection range as it will also attenuate out going transmission from its own radar and incoming reflected signals from other object. In layman's term it will impact J20's ability to effectively locate, track and engage targets at long ranges. It defies the whole idea of gen 5 aircrafts to locate targets at ranges without detected by others.
> 
> *Scenario 2* - EM Transparent material..
> There will be no attenuation for transmission from it&#8217;s own radar and no attenuation on reflected signals. SO it will be very good at detecting targets at range.
> 
> But, Transparent nosecone will expose it&#8217;s own radar (flat metal plate at least 1mtr dia) and other equipments on board beside radar and will result in lot reflection and will be easy to get detected. If detected at range it&#8217;s not gen-5 aircraft.
> 
> 
> Please clarify how does J20 engineers strike a balance to get good LO and long search n track range.


 
Hi antonius123, 
It's more than 4 months I'm still waiting for a reply from you. I'm not asking any tricky question as Gambit and gang is indulged but a simple query from a person with very low subject knowledge. I expect a better response and reply from you. 

Thanks


----------



## p3avi8tor69

Antonius 123,

Here are two hints. P factor & Lift

Another hint. Rudder but which one?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Ow really??
> 
> Then show me and the readers where the word "exposed" in that sentence of mine!
> 
> I bet you will again caught twisting and lying here


You do not have to use the word exposed.

Here is your post again...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?


Logic tells us that in order for RCS to increase, more structures must be exposed to radar bombardment. So when you said this _*'and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS'*_ you are saying exposed without using the exact word.

So now show us a source that have a jet engine-ed fighter with a conical intake that have translating mechanisms visible. If those mechanisms are visible to the human eyes, they would be visible to the seeking radar.



antonius123 said:


> See .. you are playing diverting again.
> Remember how you loose in so many test and questions directed to you, and remember how you are busted at so many misconception that you have claimed.


Fine...So what if I am a fraud? How does that excuse you from answering basic aerodynamics questions -- a dozen of them?

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power

Show everyone where you answered that.

The truth is that you have a flawed understanding of just about everything related to aviation despite claiming to have an aviation 'background' and 'study' that you tried to use to shut down the Indians. So why did you not know this question...

Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?
A: Affects the wing's center of pressure (CP).

What is preventing you from answering it? But let us continue with that charade for entertainment purposes.

Last chance...

Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?

There are no fancy math in the basic answer. No high theories or principles. Asymmetric thrust cannot happen in a single engine aircraft but all aircrafts must operate in 3 axes: Pitch, Roll and Yaw. On the other hand, we do have multi-engine aircrafts so asymmetric thrust must be important for a flight controls engineer, no? So what is a 'yawing moment' in flight? Surely with your formidable aviation 'background' and 'study', so powerful that the Indians must acknowledged your superiority, you should have no problems answering, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You do not have to use the word exposed.
> 
> Here is your post again...
> 
> 
> Logic tells us that in order for RCS to increase, more structures must be exposed to radar bombardment. So when you said this _*'and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS'*_ you are saying exposed without using the exact word.
> 
> So now show us a source that have a jet engine-ed fighter with a conical intake that have translating mechanisms visible. If those mechanisms are visible to the human eyes, they would be visible to the seeking radar.



See .. either you are twisting or idiot 

That is your narrow minded logic that saying the moving parts contribution to RCS is due to its exposure.

I have asked you whether you think the Traveling Wave could not reach the moving parts? then you dont answer yet. Either you have no idea or confused?

If the traveling wave could reach the hidden moving parts, then why should it exposed in order to contribute to RCS? idiot? 



> Fine...*So what if I am a fraud? *How does that excuse you from answering basic aerodynamics questions -- a dozen of them?
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power
> 
> Show everyone where you answered that.
> 
> The truth is that you have a flawed understanding of just about everything related to aviation despite claiming to have an aviation 'background' and 'study' that you tried to use to shut down the Indians. So why did you not know this question...
> 
> Q: In designing a variable sweep wing system, like that on the F-111, what role does the wing's pivot point have on its aerodynamics?
> A: Affects the wing's center of pressure (CP).
> 
> What is preventing you from answering it? But let us continue with that charade for entertainment purposes.
> 
> Last chance...
> 
> Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?
> 
> There are no fancy math in the basic answer. No high theories or principles. Asymmetric thrust cannot happen in a single engine aircraft but all aircrafts must operate in 3 axes: Pitch, Roll and Yaw. On the other hand, we do have multi-engine aircrafts so asymmetric thrust must be important for a flight controls engineer, no? So what is a 'yawing moment' in flight? Surely with your formidable aviation 'background' and 'study', so powerful that the Indians must acknowledged your superiority, you should have no problems answering, right?


 
What you are fraud is your pretending as an Expert and trying to convince all readers about how expert you are, but in fact your capability is only dragging internet article like the above 

Your failure to answer the corresponding question to your claim and dragged article is a proof that you dont have understanding about the article you are dragging 

And gambit, this is the proof that you have no understanding about the internet article you are trying to drag in order to impress reader:



antonius123 said:


> Then explain how this way of work will absorb the "traveling wave" ?



You cannot answer my question for your own internet dragged article


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See .. either you are twisting or idiot
> 
> That is your narrow minded logic that saying the moving parts contribution to RCS is due to its exposure.
> 
> I have asked you whether you think the Traveling Wave could not reach the moving parts? then you dont answer yet. Either you have no idea or confused?
> 
> If the traveling wave could reach the hidden moving parts, then why should it exposed in order to contribute to RCS? idiot?


This shows it is *YOU* who are the idiot. There are plenty of moving parts behind the engine blades, but the parts that actually contribute the greatest to engine RCS are the foremost fan blades. That is how reflections/diffractions works. Any diffracted signals that travels the interior of the engine either exited to the rear and/or get attenuated through multiple reflections. Same with the cone's translating mechanisms that are usually behind the cone itself, if edge diffracted signals managed to reach those parts, moving or not, multiple reflections will either attenuate them enough tolower their contributorship or eliminate said contributorship altogether.

I doubt if you even understand the word 'attenuate'. The reason why the DSI structure has far less RCS contributorship is its lack of exposed items to the radar view. The ramp and the cone and variations of the cone have more such exposed items and none are from translating mechanisms.



antonius123 said:


> What you are fraud is your pretending as an Expert and trying to convince all readers about how expert you are, but in fact your capability is only dragging internet article like the above
> 
> Your failure to answer the corresponding question to your claim and dragged article is a proof that you dont have understanding about the article you are dragging
> 
> And gambit, this is the proof that you have no understanding about the internet article you are trying to drag in order to impress reader:
> 
> You cannot answer my question for your own internet dragged article


And what make you think that by avoidance, insults and smilies make *YOU* an 'expert'? Remember, it was *YOU* who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study'. So what was that 'study'?

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You claimed many times to have answered that and other questions. Show us where.

But let us continue the charade that you do have that aviation 'background' and 'study'...

Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?
A: The aircraft's true path.

How freaking basic is that for any aspiring flight controls engineer? Potential asymmetric thrust condition comes with multiple engines, even when they are as near to each other in the fuselage as on the F-15, further apart in the fuselage as on the F-14, and greatest when they are on the wings like on the airliner. Yawing moments are created in crosswinds or in front mounted single prop slipstream over the fuselage and flight control surfaces. Deflections of the rudder are necessary to create counter-balancing yawing moments to keep the aircraft on its true path (heading). Manual deflections via the pilot's rudder pedals are usually for small prop jobbers. Automated are usually compensated through the flight control 'putah (FLCC) like on the airliner.

Stalls Explained


> ...corkscrewing effect of the *propeller slipstream*. When viewed from behind the airplane, this invisible force is creating a clockwise swirling mass of air that *strikes the left side of the airplane and the vertical stabilizer.*


The working flight controls engineer must know this effect to work with the aerodynamicists and pilot to create a safe and functional aircraft.

On a side note -- In small scale modeling, because it is not possible to scale down air molecules, these forces are powerful enough on these smaller bodies that they gives these small aircrafts maneuverability that is not possible with their much larger brothers. That is why that video with the small scale J-20 cannot and should not be taken as representative on the real aircraft's maneuverability. Only the technically gullible would take that video seriously and we know who they are in this forum. 

Now that is a dozen basic aerodynamics and 6 or 7 flight controls engineering questions that you could not answer despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use it to shut down the Indians.

Q:In a 'bicycle' landing gear configuration, what item counter-balances another item? Hint: High speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sms

It's pity Antonius123 is not able to answer my question about nose cone even after 4 month


----------



## gambit

sms said:


> It's pity noe one is able to answer my question about nose cone even after 4 month


No one? Or are you waiting for a particular person in mind?

Either it is our Indonesian friend with an aviation 'background' and 'study' or our Chinese armchair general with a J-20 video that has tens of thousands of views and yet no one asked for his experience. But it is strange that no Chinese member 'expert' came to your queries.


----------



## sms

Edited ... now you know who I'm waiting to reply ... 

I'm not able to find any convincing answer on web. It would be great if you can PM me a link or a mail with possible answer


----------



## amalakas

sms said:


> Edited ... now you know who I'm waiting to reply ...
> 
> I'm not able to find any convincing answer on web. It would be great if you can PM me a link or a mail with possible answer




You are gonna be waiting a long time. It is worth retracing this thread and take note of how many things he actually hasn't answered. 

Come to think of it, he hasn't answered a single ONE! + he loves his wikipedia. According to him, if wiki doesn't say it, it's not real.


----------



## sms

^^^ LOL, be nice to them they are finding it hard to digest the overwhelming info against their belief. Time is very good medicine, give them some time they will understand and realize the truth. 


Thanks to Gambit I've received few links and now I have better idea about approach and principles involved  
But how the engineers take those approach to the perfect product is still mystery.


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> It's pity Antonius123 is not able to answer my question about nose cone even after 4 month


 
Sorry I've just come back from traveling overseas.

Not able to answer you after 4 months? haven't I answered you recently about 2 weeks ago?

And you said only me not able? I think there are a lot of expert here, especially the viet guy who proclaim as highly reputable Aviation Expert who has educational and professional background in Aviation, then why you only judge upon me, and chase me?

*Now I start to think that you are another cheer leader* of him.

Tell me which one that I havent answered yet? I'll finish it. If cant, then our forum Aviation Expert certainly will give you satisfactory answer.


----------



## feilong

antonius123 said:


> Sorry I've just come back from traveling overseas.
> 
> Not able to answer you after 4 months? haven't I answered you recently about 2 weeks ago?
> 
> And you said only me not able? I think there are a lot of expert here, especially the viet guy who proclaim as highly reputable Aviation Expert who has educational and professional background in Aviation, then why you only judge upon me, and chase me?
> 
> *Now I start to think that you are another cheer leader* of him.
> 
> Tell me which one that I havent answered yet? I'll finish it. If cant, then our forum Aviation Expert certainly will give you satisfactory answer.



Ah, you mean the viet guy name rabbit(gambit)? He no expert, he is a janitor in the UNited airliner. He got book about everything from AViation, so he pretend to be an expert. But everything in the book give him answer, if he can't answer everyone to him is Idiot. So don't bother to argued with him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> This shows it is *YOU* who are the idiot. *There are plenty of moving parts behind the engine blades, but the parts that actually contribute the greatest to engine RCS are the foremost fan blades.* That is how reflections/diffractions works. Any diffracted signals that travels the interior of the engine either exited to the rear and/or get attenuated through multiple reflections. Same with the cone's translating mechanisms that are usually behind the cone itself, if edge diffracted signals managed to reach those parts, moving or not, multiple reflections will either attenuate them enough tolower their contributorship or eliminate said contributorship altogether.



Of course because fan blade is placed in front of the moving parts of the engine that make it much more exposed to radar wave, not mainly because as you explained above, you idiot.

In fact the traveling wave still could reach the hidden fan blades, but its weak and will be absorbed by RAM coating the wall of airduct easily.

The same way happen with moving parts, thats why it there is ram coating on the intake ramp of F-22.




> I doubt if you even understand the word 'attenuate'. The reason why the DSI structure has far less RCS contributorship is its lack of exposed items to the radar view. The ramp and the cone and variations of the cone have more such exposed items and none are from translating mechanisms.



Then what is the exposed items at the Cone?

You are answering your own question, this is idiot. 

Why do you think Cone is less hidding the fan blade compared to DSI?



> And what make you think that by avoidance, insults and smilies make *YOU* an 'expert'? Remember, it was *YOU* who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study'. So what was that 'study'?


I dont feel as an expert by the smilies. I just feel funny to see how you are trying hard to legitimate your self claimed expert, and with inaccurate even misconceptions 



> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You claimed many times to have answered that and other questions. Show us where.
> 
> But let us continue the charade that you do have that aviation 'background' and 'study'...
> 
> Q: What does asymmetrical thrust and yawing moment affects?
> A: The aircraft's true path.
> 
> How freaking basic is that for any aspiring flight controls engineer? Potential asymmetric thrust condition comes with multiple engines, even when they are as near to each other in the fuselage as on the F-15, further apart in the fuselage as on the F-14, and greatest when they are on the wings like on the airliner. Yawing moments are created in crosswinds or in front mounted single prop slipstream over the fuselage and flight control surfaces. Deflections of the rudder are necessary to create counter-balancing yawing moments to keep the aircraft on its true path (heading). Manual deflections via the pilot's rudder pedals are usually for small prop jobbers. Automated are usually compensated through the flight control 'putah (FLCC) like on the airliner.
> 
> Stalls Explained
> 
> The working flight controls engineer must know this effect to work with the aerodynamicists and pilot to create a safe and functional aircraft.
> 
> On a side note -- In small scale modeling, because it is not possible to scale down air molecules, these forces are powerful enough on these smaller bodies that they gives these small aircrafts maneuverability that is not possible with their much larger brothers. That is why that video with the small scale J-20 cannot and should not be taken as representative on the real aircraft's maneuverability. Only the technically gullible would take that video seriously and we know who they are in this forum.
> 
> Now that is a dozen basic aerodynamics and 6 or 7 flight controls engineering questions that you could not answer despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study' and tried to use it to shut down the Indians.
> 
> Q:In a 'bicycle' landing gear configuration, what item counter-balances another item? Hint: High speed.


 
Dont try to evade.. this is why you look so hilarious and funny, as you cant answer the question then evade with childhood act by drag question that you feel you can answer and answer it yourself like the above 

I am still waiting your answer resulting from your own explanation:

*Explain how this way of work will absorb the "traveling wave" ?*





Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24Q9P8irG

I bet you cant answer?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

feilong said:


> Ah, you mean the viet guy name rabbit(gambit)? He no expert, he is a janitor in the UNited airliner. He got book about everything from AViation, so he pretend to be an expert. But everything in the book give him answer, if he can't answer everyone to him is Idiot. So don't bother to argued with him.



Janitor in the UNITED Airliner? this is new for me, as I thought he was at best only a mechanist 

But everybody can see he is not an expert as he want everybody to believe, as he has thrown a lot of mistakes/misconceptions in this forum. But to pitty he doesnt realize and force all readers to accept that his expertise is undissputable 

I did not want to bother with him at the beginning, but just cant let some readers misled by his self proclaimed expertise and missconception.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sms

antonius123 said:


> Sorry I've just come back from traveling overseas.
> 
> Not able to answer you after 4 months? haven't I answered you recently about 2 weeks ago?
> 
> And you said only me not able? I think there are a lot of expert here, especially the viet guy who proclaim as highly reputable Aviation Expert who has educational and professional background in Aviation, then why you only judge upon me, and chase me?
> 
> *Now I start to think that you are another cheer leader* of him.
> 
> Tell me which one that I havent answered yet? I'll finish it. If cant, then our forum Aviation Expert certainly will give you satisfactory answer.



Antonius,

I was curious to know something about the subject mentioned in my previous mails as I was not able to get info from web. I found you to be very consistent in defending the J20 and pretended to be an expert of it. So I've directed my question to you and after several request you've provided vague answers without addressing the question and left me disappointed. 

Finally I've asked Gambit and got reply within few minutes. I've saved this info and it has addressed 95% of my queries rest (manufacturing process and material to achieve certain behavior for certain band frequency) may be confidential info (unique to plane and it's radar) and definitely not available in public domain. 

Please note *I'm not in competition with you* and definitely not a part of the mudslinging contest between Gambit & his group and you and your gang. I was craving for knowledge. I got my reply from mechanic (Gambit) and now Im content till I get new query.

Cheers!!


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> Antonius,
> 
> I was curious to know something about the subject mentioned in my previous mails as I was not able to get info from web. I found you to be very consistent in defending the J20 and pretended to be an expert of it. So I've directed my question to you and after several request you've provided vague answers without addressing the question and left me disappointed.
> 
> Finally I've asked Gambit and got reply within few minutes. I've saved this info and it has addressed 95% of my queries rest (manufacturing process and material to achieve certain behavior for certain band frequency) may be confidential info (unique to plane and it's radar) and definitely not available in public domain.
> 
> Please note *I'm not in competition with you* and definitely not a part of the mudslinging contest between Gambit & his group and you and your gang. I was craving for knowledge. I got my reply from mechanic (Gambit) and now I&#8217;m content till I get new query.
> 
> Cheers!!


 
I not only finished answering you yet, but neither replying Gambit, amalakas and other yet as well, as I said I was traveling overseas. You can see that on my previous post.

I dont see Gambit answered the same question you directed to me; please show me one - maybe I am wrong


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I not only finished answering you yet, but neither replying Gambit, amalakas and other yet as well, as I said I was traveling overseas. You can see that on my previous post.
> 
> I dont see Gambit answered the same question you directed to me; please show me one - maybe I am wrong


 

You just enjoy your vacation buddy. It's good for ya


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I not only finished answering you yet, but neither replying Gambit, amalakas and other yet as well, as I said I was traveling overseas. You can see that on my previous post.
> 
> I dont see Gambit answered the same question you directed to me; please show me one - maybe I am wrong


You are not going to answer his question. You do not know what I gave him. I bet you do not even know what he asked. There is nothing to prevent you from answering his question *IF* you even understood what he asked.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Of course because fan blade is placed in front of the moving parts of the engine that make it much more exposed to radar wave, not mainly because as you explained above, you idiot.


You have a serious reading comprehension problem regarding technical language. You basically repeated what I said in different form, then tells me I am wrong. 



antonius123 said:


> In fact the traveling wave still could reach the hidden fan blades, but its weak and will be absorbed by RAM coating the wall of airduct easily.


We are talking about *AFTER* those signals breached the foremost fan blades. Not before. So absorber is not the issue here.



antonius123 said:


> Then what is the exposed items at the Cone?


Nothing but the cone itself. If you are so certain that there are exposed translation mechanisms, then show us a source. Do you even know the proper context of 'translation' here?



antonius123 said:


> Why do you think Cone is less hidding the fan blade compared to DSI?


Yours is a childish method of debate by answering questions with questions. It is a sign of ignorance of the subject matter.



antonius123 said:


> I dont feel as an expert by the smilies. I just feel funny to see how you are trying hard to legitimate your self claimed expert, and with inaccurate even misconceptions


Then show us what an 'expert' *YOU* are. You claimed to have an aviation 'background' and 'study'. Since aviation have many sub disciplines, what was your 'study'? So far we know it is not even in basic aerodynamics.



antonius123 said:


> Dont try to evade.. this is why you look so hilarious and funny, as you cant answer the question then evade with childhood act by drag question that you feel you can answer and answer it yourself like the above
> 
> I am still waiting your answer resulting from your own explanation:
> 
> *Explain how this way of work will absorb the "traveling wave" ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24Q9P8irG
> 
> I bet you cant answer?


I already answered it but will again. The surface is EM transparent and allows penetration into the substrate where the portions of the traveling wave will be attenuated by embedded ferrite particles. I bet you do not even understand what I just said.

Q: In a 'bicycle' landing gear configuration, what item counter-balances another item? Hint: High speed.
A: At high speed for a 'bicycle' landing gear config, as in higher than normal take-off/landing for the aircraft, the front gear will bear a disproportionate load of force and potential for instability exist, however, at the same time there exists sufficient aerodynamic forces at the rudder to counterbalance.

This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and seven flight controls engineering questions that you failed to answer despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study' that you tried to use to shut down the Indians.

Next...This question will touch on your philosophical understanding of Engineering as a profession in general.

Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?

Here is the definition of 'establishment'...

Verb: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.

Now here is the next flight controls engineering question...

Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You are not going to answer his question. You do not know what I gave him. I bet you do not even know what he asked. There is nothing to prevent you from answering his question *IF* you even understood what he asked.


 
I can answer his question if he prove to be genuine, not a cheerleader.

In fact you dont answer his question.

Your explanation about semi transparent absorbent is not making sense, as the semi transparent meant is not like what you are describing. Semi transparent mean that some wave go through the material.

You also fail to explain about how the absorbent material absorb the traveling wave.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I can answer his question if he prove to be genuine, not a cheerleader.
> 
> In fact you dont answer his question.
> 
> Your explanation about semi transparent absorbent is not making sense, as the semi transparent meant is not like what you are describing. Semi transparent mean that some wave go through the material.
> 
> You also fail to explain about how the absorbent material absorb the traveling wave.





..........................................


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I can answer his question if he prove to be genuine, not a cheerleader.


In other words, you have no idea what he asked at all. Just another evasion.



antonius123 said:


> In fact you dont answer his question.


Yes I did. In a private message. I want to see if you even understood what he was asking for.



antonius123 said:


> Your explanation about semi transparent absorbent is not making sense, as the semi transparent meant is not like what you are describing. Semi transparent mean that some wave go through the material.


A composite material is composed of many different materials. Each of them can have different permissivity to allow penetration. Do you even understand what I just said?



antonius123 said:


> You also fail to explain about how the absorbent material absorb the traveling wave.


Yes I did. This is how you 'debate'. You have no technical education so you do not understand technical language. In response, all you can do is consistently accuse others of not explaining themselves.

To continue...

Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?

Here is the definition of 'establishment'...

Verb: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.

Now here is the next flight controls engineering question...

Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-183.html#ixzz24TdanumS


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You have a serious reading comprehension problem regarding technical language. You basically repeated what I said in different form, then tells me I am wrong.



If that is the case, then you dont answer my question yet.

This is my question: "If the traveling wave could reach the hidden moving parts, then why should it exposed in order to contribute to RCS? idiot?"

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24TiovKsL


Then this is what you tried to answer:

*There are plenty of moving parts behind the engine blades, but the parts that actually contribute the greatest to engine RCS are the foremost fan blades.
*
Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24TchcqiS

What is the relevance of your answer with my question?

Everybody knows that Fanblade contribute more to RCS than moving parts behind it.
Just like everybody knows that the cone (of mig-21) contribute more to RCS than the moving parts behind it.

We have agreed that the point we are debating here is not the cone or fanblade itself as RCS contributor, but how the moving part could contribute to RCS.





> We are talking about *AFTER* those signals breached the foremost fan blades. Not before. So absorber is not the issue here.


The same!

The traveling wave reflected from the blade will be absorbed by the RAM coating.




> Nothing but the cone itself. If you are so certain that there are exposed translation mechanisms, then show us a source. Do you even know the proper context of 'translation' here?


Nothing?

This is what you said:
*The ramp and the cone and variations of the cone have more such exposed items and none are from translating mechanisms.*

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24TdqNN7f

Which more exposed items of the cone you mean?




> Yours is a childish method of debate by answering questions with questions. It is a sign of ignorance of the subject matter.



I am not answering, in fact I am asking what you are claiming!
If your statement false, then your argument ruins.

You seem trying to evade, why? cant you answered that? 



> Then show us what an 'expert' *YOU* are. You claimed to have an aviation 'background' and 'study'. Since aviation have many sub disciplines, what was your 'study'? So far we know it is not even in basic aerodynamics.



You are stupid.

I've told you : "I dont feel as an expert by the smilies."

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-183.html#ixzz24TfSiHFC

It is you who claim as an Aviation Expert with educational and professional background 




> I already answered it but will again. The surface is EM transparent and allows penetration into the substrate where the portions of the traveling wave will be attenuated by embedded ferrite particles. I bet you do not even understand what I just said.



Wrong!

The right explanation is: EM waves induce molecular oscillations from the alternating magnetic field in this paint, which leads to conversion of the radar energy into heat. The heat is then transferred to the aircraft and dissipated.

Nothing to do with EM transparent, as I said: EM transparent mean that part of EM wave is going through the material, part is reflected, or part is absorbed in case of RAM coat.




> Q: In a 'bicycle' landing gear configuration, what item counter-balances another item? Hint: High speed.
> A: At high speed for a 'bicycle' landing gear config, as in higher than normal take-off/landing for the aircraft, the front gear will bear a disproportionate load of force and potential for instability exist, however, at the same time there exists sufficient aerodynamic forces at the rudder to counterbalance.
> 
> This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and seven flight controls engineering questions that you failed to answer despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study' that you tried to use to shut down the Indians.
> 
> Next...This question will touch on your philosophical understanding of Engineering as a profession in general.
> 
> Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?
> 
> Here is the definition of 'establishment'...
> 
> Verb: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
> 
> Now here is the next flight controls engineering question...
> 
> Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?


 
This is what we call a childish attitude.

Nobody is debating the above topic, but you are throwing the question to show off.



amalakas said:


> ..........................................



What a loyal cheer leader you are 



gambit said:


> In other words, you have no idea what he asked at all. Just another evasion.



That is only your assumption.




> Yes I did. In a private message. I want to see if you even understood what he was asking for.



Hahahaha 

You are the one who like to show off, why dont you answer his question here so that all readers can read and thank you ? 

I understand what he is asking.
But I want to see if you understand with what you are trying to explain first.




> A composite material is composed of many different materials. Each of them can have different permissivity to allow penetration. Do you even understand what I just said?



I understand what you said.

Do you understand my point?

That your explanation is strange and not according to the science.
There is no semi transparent as you explain.

The semi transparent mean that part of the wave is going through the material.

The semi permissivity or semi transparent is not the one that make EM wave absorbed;




> Yes I did. This is how you 'debate'. You have no technical education so you do not understand technical language. In response, all you can do is consistently accuse others of not explaining themselves.



Ok.

But your answer is wrong.
See my reply as the above.



> To continue...
> 
> Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?
> 
> Here is the definition of 'establishment'...
> 
> Verb: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
> 
> Now here is the next flight controls engineering question...
> 
> Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-183.html#ixzz24TdanumS


 
Dont be childish.
We are not debating these topics, just focus on topic we are debating, dont try to evade!


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> If that is the case, then you dont answer my question yet.
> 
> This is my question: "If the traveling wave could reach the hidden moving parts, then why should it exposed in order to contribute to RCS? idiot?"
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24TiovKsL
> 
> 
> Then this is what you tried to answer:
> 
> *There are plenty of moving parts behind the engine blades, but the parts that actually contribute the greatest to engine RCS are the foremost fan blades.
> *
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24TchcqiS
> 
> *What is the relevance of your answer with my question?*
> 
> Everybody knows that Fanblade contribute more to RCS than moving parts behind it.
> Just like everybody knows that the cone (of mig-21) contribute more to RCS than the moving parts behind it.
> 
> We have agreed that the point we are debating here is not the cone or fanblade itself as RCS contributor, but how the moving part could contribute to RCS.


If the hidden parts of the engine does not contribute to RCS, then the cone's translation mechanisms also will not contribute to RCS. That is the relevance.

Remember, it was *YOU* who said this...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?


Cone translating mechanisms are out of radar view. So even if any diffracted signals happened to make contact with them, their contributorship will be either none or statistically insignificant. So for you to say that 'moving parts contribute to bigger RCS' mean those translating mechanisms must be exposed to radar view. Show us a source that have a jet engine fighter with a conical intake that have exposed cone translating mechanisms. Simple enough request, right? 



antonius123 said:


> The same!
> 
> The traveling wave reflected from the blade will be absorbed by the RAM coating.


There are no absorber inside the engine core. So you are way off base here.



antonius123 said:


> Nothing?
> 
> This is what you said:
> *The ramp and the cone and variations of the cone have more such exposed items and none are from translating mechanisms.*
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24TdqNN7f
> 
> Which more exposed items of the cone you mean?


The cone itself. For the ramp, we have many sharp edges and angles. For the DSI inlet, we have only half a cone. That is why the cone and the ramp are higher RCS contributors but *NOT FROM TRANSLATING MECHANISMS*. I bet you do not understand a word I used. 



antonius123 said:


> I am not answering, in fact I am asking what you are claiming!
> If your statement false, then your argument ruins.
> 
> You seem trying to evade, why? cant you answered that?


You are correct that you do not answer. Because you are a fraud.



antonius123 said:


> Wrong!
> 
> The right explanation is: EM waves *induce molecular oscillations from the alternating magnetic field in this paint, which leads to conversion of the radar energy into heat. The heat is then transferred to the aircraft and dissipated.*
> 
> Nothing to do with EM transparent, as I said: EM transparent mean that part of EM wave is going through the material, part is reflected, or part is absorbed in case of RAM coat.


And how do we have that molecular vibrations? Through permissivity or permittivity which equate to degrees of transparency.

If you are going to lift your answer from wiki, be honest and give the source...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar-absorbent_materialv


> One of the most commonly known types of RAM is iron ball paint. It contains tiny spheres coated with carbonyl iron or ferrite. Radar waves *induce molecular oscillations from the alternating magnetic field in this paint, which leads to conversion of the radar energy into heat. The heat is then transferred to the aircraft and dissipated.* The iron particles in the paint are obtained by decomposition of iron pentacarbonyl and may contain traces of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.


But to your stupidity, inside that wiki source where you stole your answer also contains the essence of what I said about permissivity. See if you can find it. But I doubt if you can. So in the end, it is still *YOU* who are wrong and an idiot.



antonius123 said:


> This is what we call a childish attitude.
> 
> Nobody is debating the above topic, but you are throwing the question to show off.


Last chance, buddy...

Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?

Here is the definition of 'establishment'...

Verb: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.

Now here is the next flight controls engineering question...

Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?



antonius123 said:


> That is only your assumption.


And a correct one.



antonius123 said:


> You are the one who like to show off, why dont you answer his question here so that all readers can read and thank you ?
> 
> I understand what he is asking.
> But I want to see if you understand with what you are trying to explain first.


No, you do not understand what he asked for. I gave Mr. sms the relevant keyword search and a link to a discussion on what he asked for. That discussion is several months old. Long before you got on here and made a fool out of yourself.

But if you are so certain that you can answer him, you can start by telling everyone what Mr. sms is asking about?


----------



## Pfpilot

The most interesting part of this thread is the master class undertaken by Gambit and Amalakas in the basics of aeronautics. When casual enthusiasts, like myself, can begin to understand the wider discussion based simply on the sheer volume of information provided by you two guys then no one else has any excuse to play ignorant. Had certain members on this thread made the effort to read and comprehend the information provided; and done so just for the sake of expanding their knowledge, instead of trying to dispel it in order to come across as more intelligent...they may have, in fact, come out of the discussion as more informed and perceptibly more intelligent...ah, the irony.


----------



## amalakas

Pfpilot said:


> The most interesting part of this thread is the master class undertaken by Gambit and Amalakas in the basics of aeronautics. When casual enthusiasts, like myself, can begin to understand the wider discussion based simply on the sheer volume of information provided by you two guys then no one else has any excuse to play ignorant. Had certain members on this thread made the effort to read and comprehend the information provided; and done so just for the sake of expanding their knowledge, instead of trying to dispel it in order to come across as more intelligent...they may have, in fact, come out of the discussion as more informed and perceptibly more intelligent...ah, the irony.



Thank you for your kind words. 

I take this opportunity to say that the primary motivation (other than enjoyment between work and TV) is to adhere to Engineering Principles. 

Engineering is a discipline, and all who have come in touch with it in one form or the other understand that while the sky is the limit to engineering, there are ground rules to everything, and there is no magic. Just a hell of a lot of people sweating a hell of a lot of sweat both physical and mental. 

Some people in here have called me (and others) China haters or blinded by envy because of the J-20 or some missile or some submarine. 

On the contrary, I think the J-20 is an engineering achievement and I treat it as such. You will find a post of mine in :



> As far as I know, no airplane that ever served, anywhere in the world was a piece of crap.
> 
> Sure there were other planes far superior or better performing, but all planes that ever served where as far removed from crap as you can possibly imagine.



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...r-better-than-f-35-pakfa-3.html#ixzz24UR0rkhd

This shows an engineer's perspective on things. Because an engineer can appreciate the technical challenges everyone who has to make something like a supersonic fighter jet has to face. 

All else is funboyism and misinformation that I am trying to put down. As others do too. 

I said before that the irony is that I ( and others) appreciate the J-20 far more than some funboys with posters of missiles and planes on their walls.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> If the hidden parts of the engine does not contribute to RCS, then the cone's translation mechanisms also will not contribute to RCS. That is the relevance.
> 
> Remember, it was *YOU* who said this...
> 
> 
> Cone translating mechanisms are out of radar view. So even if any diffracted signals happened to make contact with them, their contributorship will be either none or statistically insignificant. So for you to say that 'moving parts contribute to bigger RCS' mean those translating mechanisms must be exposed to radar view. Show us a source that have a jet engine fighter with a conical intake that have exposed cone translating mechanisms. Simple enough request, right?



See, you still dont get what I've explained to you.

I've been talking many times about traveling wave; now I am afraid you dont understand what traveling wave is.

If the traveling wave that reach fanblade could be absorbed by RAM coating the airduct, then exposure of moving part behind the blade to the traveling wave wouldn't be problem either.

I've told you the RAM material is also used to coat the moving parts of the intake ramp on F-22




> There are no absorber inside the engine core. So you are way off base here.



Nobody said there is absorber inside the engine core. You have severe reading comprehension problem.

I am saying about absorber coating the inside wall of airduct and rampt intake of F-22.





> The cone itself. For the ramp, we have many sharp edges and angles. For the DSI inlet, we have only half a cone. That is why the cone and the ramp are higher RCS contributors but *NOT FROM TRANSLATING MECHANISMS*. I bet you do not understand a word I used.



Thats why I am saying that cone itself contribute to RCS.

But since you agree on it, but you dont agree on the moving part's rcs contribution, then we are debating about RCS contribution of the moving part, not the RCS contribution of the cone itself or the DSI itself.

How many times should I repeat this? please dont be too idiotic.




> You are correct that you do not answer. Because you are a fraud.



See.. you are ignoring and try to evade the topic.

I am asking you, because you are making another claim that most probably is FALSE claim.

You are claiming that "Cone is less hidding the fan blade compared to DSI"

This is your claim:
_The reason why the DSI structure has far less RCS contributorship is *its lack of exposed items to the radar view*_

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24UPIeQSu

So, me and readers need to ask you why you think Cone has more items exposed to radar view than DSI?

Why dont you dare to answer? 

I bet you dont know again. Thats why never throw claim that you cannot defend 



> And how do we have that molecular vibrations? Through permissivity or permittivity which equate to degrees of transparency.



If you think that the more transparent the material, the more EM absorbing it is, then you are stupid.

Molecular vibration is not caused by the transparency of the material like you think! you are misled or have misconception again 





> If you are going to lift your answer from wiki, be honest and give the source...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar-absorbent_materialv



Did I said that my explanation coming from myself without source? why dont you ask 

Where is your citation that back your claim that absorbing is caused by the transparency? none!




> But to your stupidity, inside that wiki source where you stole your answer also contains the essence of what I said about permissivity. See if you can find it. But I doubt if you can. So in the end, it is still *YOU* who are wrong and an idiot.



First of all, explain us what the permissivity you mean here?

For sure there is no explanation about the semi transparency as the cause of the absorbing there, as per your claim 





> Last chance, buddy...
> 
> Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?
> 
> Here is the definition of 'establishment'...
> 
> Verb: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
> 
> Now here is the next flight controls engineering question...
> 
> Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?
> 
> 
> And a correct one.
> 
> 
> No, you do not understand what he asked for. I gave Mr. sms the relevant keyword search and a link to a discussion on what he asked for. That discussion is several months old. Long before you got on here and made a fool out of yourself.
> 
> But if you are so certain that you can answer him, you can start by telling everyone what Mr. sms is asking about?


 
No wonder Martian, etc don bother to serve you; and some members warn me to ignore you. It is clearly because your STUBBORNNESS and IGNORANCE.

How many times should I tell you not to evade the topic, and suggest that you focus on the topic being debated? do you want to run away from the topic that you can't answer any more?


----------



## DrSomnath999

UKBengali said:


> And that did not stop Serbian infrastructure still being bombed to pieces.
> 
> Point remains that the US cannot bomb China without suffering serious damage itself.
> 
> China's air-defences are now very strong and it has a strong ability to strike US bases and ships out in the Ocean.


u need to understand the "pun" in my sentence 
well i know that serbian were hammmered & u cant blame them for that as they are tiny insect compare to the might of US & Nato at that time .But still they somehow managed to shoot down a stealth fighter which was supposed to be invisible to radar





antonius123 said:


> Really??
> 
> How do you know its due to the technology that Serbia poses?
> How do you know China has no anti stealth radar technology?
> 
> Do you know the F-117 shot down in serbia mostly was because of the mistake that the Pilot of F-117 had made? and it is a very small probability occasion? It means in other F-117's sortie serbia may not be able to shoot down F-117 for the second time



"""really ???"""

it is the word that i should be asking u not u to me.ok as u urself are unaware of the true facts .
what did u say ????""PILOT errror""" LOLLLZZZ.1st check the true facts about the shooting of that plane then comeback
there was also unconfirmed report that a second F117 was also hit but it never flew after it returned to base

Oh boy!!
i never said china has no anti stealth radar technology & nor i didnt even mention chinese name altogether in my posts.I was mentioning about serbia only .1st learn to comprehend properly then post


----------



## sms

^^^ Gambit sent me few links with summary. I'll send you via PM once I get enough psot count. Mean timeyou can read thru other thread highlighted but Many and Gambit...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-air-force/124571-mystery-bandpass-radome.html


----------



## Esc8781

feilong said:


> Ah, you mean the viet guy name rabbit(gambit)? He no expert, he is a janitor in the UNited airliner. He got book about everything from AViation, so he pretend to be an expert. But everything in the book give him answer, if he can't answer everyone to him is Idiot. So don't bother to argued with him.


How did you know that? Have you been stalking him, ew.


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> ^^^ Gambit sent me few links with summary. I'll send you via PM once I get enough psot count. Mean timeyou can read thru other thread highlighted but Many and Gambit...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-air-force/124571-mystery-bandpass-radome.html


 
I am not impressed with link brought by somebody. 
I am impressed with explanation of somebody, as it indicate the understanding in his mine.

Everybody can googling to find internet article easily; everybody can drag internet article into this forum thread, but only qualified person can understand and explain.

The way he explain about "semi transparent" should not satisfy you about radome.

But to my surprise, you never asked him about it (you only ask me and chase me)


----------



## sms

antonius123 said:


> I am not impressed with link brought by somebody.
> I am impressed with explanation of somebody, as it indicate the understanding in his mine.
> 
> Everybody can googling to find internet article easily; everybody can drag internet article into this forum thread, but only qualified person can understand and explain.
> 
> The way he explain about "semi transparent" should not satisfy you about radome.
> 
> But to my surprise, you never asked him about it (you only ask me and chase me)



antonius123, 
Initially my questions was J20 specific and later I realized that it's the same problem for all fighter aircrafts. Since you did not answer (the person I was expecting to get best answer) I had no option but to approach Gambit's gang.

All links and info received I'm able to understand the process and basic principles involved and thats enough for me for time being as Im not a professional but a person in quest for info/ knowledge.

I also hope this lin has helped you to understand it better


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> See, you still dont get what I've explained to you.


You 'explained' nothing here so far. The only thing you are good at is evading and lying about yourself.



antonius123 said:


> I've been talking many times about traveling wave; now I am afraid you dont understand what traveling wave is.
> 
> If the traveling wave that reach fanblade could be absorbed by RAM coating the airduct, then exposure of moving part behind the blade to the traveling wave wouldn't be problem either.
> 
> I've told you the RAM material is also used to coat the moving parts of the intake ramp on F-22


I bet you picked up that 'traveling wave' somewhere but have no clue on what it means. 

We are not talking about the fan blades. We are talking about your ignorance and pigheadedness in the face of education, even when it is free of charge. We are talking about your gross misunderstanding of technical issues regarding radar absorbant material (RAM).

As in this illustration and how it works regarding its effects on the *SURFACE TRAVELING WAVE*...







All RAM are composites and there are different designs of RAM and each design have its own formulations. The above illustration is the simplest design and formula that contains ferrite particles. Composites contains at least two different constituent materials. All RAM designs have more than two and *EACH* material inside the parent material may be designed to have different degrees of EM transparency. But all RAM designs have one thing in common: That the outer most layer, the one that is exposed to the environment and to radar bombardment, must be EM transparent to as high degrees as possible. No material is 100 pct transparent under this condition when it must withstand physical handling, temperature changes and rate of changes, and weather.

A radar signal have two components: Electrical and Magnetic. Hence the word 'electromagnetic' (EM), get it? When a radar signal impact a surface, even at perfectly perpendicular, a surface traveling wave is produced. The physical surface is called the 'electrical path' and if the surface has a high degree of permissivity or permittivity or 'lossy', both electrical and magnetic components will be affected. The higher the degree of 'lossy-ness', the lower the level of 'leaky waves' (LW) throughout this electrical path, which eventually leads to lower RCS contributorship.

Here is an example of materials used in radome construction...

Radome Materials

Here is something that will blow your mind: In designing radomes and absorber, we do not use the words 'block' or 'blockage'.

Absorbancy/transparency is graded and spoken in terms of percentages. Steel reflects everything, so we classify this material as 'zero percent absorbant/transparent'. A sponge is 100 pct water absorbant and a block of steel is 0 pct water absorbant. Get it? I know you have a problem understanding the technical contexts of words and phrases since we know you lied about your aviation 'background' and 'study' so I just threw that out in a sadistic twist. 

A radome is a radar 'pass through' device, meaning its materials are absorbant/transparent to very high degree, but not 100 pct. To reduce this 'pass through' ability is to produce RAM for 'stealth' purposes. We do not want the radar signal to completely pass through the material and impact the aircraft structures. We want to stop the radar signal somewhere *INSIDE* the material. So what we do is create *GRADATIONS* of absorbancy/transparency inside our parent material.

For the above illustration of the typical and simple ferrite particles absorber, the outer most layer material is the most absorbant/transparent. As portions of the surface wave (SW) penetrate this layer and travels deeper into the substrate, these signals will impact those ferrite particles and get multiple reflections inside this substrate layer, some of those reflections may actually exit the material completely and back into free space, but most will get attenuated by the particles.

Complex designs such as Salisbury, Jaumann and Dallenbach absorbers and their hybrids can focus on either the electrical or the magnetic component individually.

http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/BASIS/p...e'+ORDER+BY+Repdate/Descend&M=20&K=103061&U=1


> Abstract: Radar is a sensitive detection tool and since its development, methods for reducing microwave reflections have been explored. Radar absorbers can be classified as impedance matching or resonant absorbers. Radar absorbing materials are made from resistive and/or magnetic materials. Circuit analog materials give more design freedom through access to capacitive and inductive loss mechanisms. Dynamic absorbers can tune the absorption frequency through control of resistive and capacitive terms. Many conductive and magnetic materials have been trialed for absorption including carbon, metals and conducting polymers.


Hybrid absorbers can affect the electrical component in one substrate and the magnetic component in another substrate. Instead of substrates, hybrids can even be designed to affect the electrical component on one section or length of the parent material and the magnetic component on a separate section or length of the parent material. We can study on how the SW travels on the aircraft and custom tailor our hybrid absorber designs accordingly: substrate designs at some points and sectional designs at some other points.

I will stop here because am approaching the 'classified' or 'good stuff' info.

Much more intelligent people than you will take what I said above and do their own research. They will verify that everything I said have more legitimate sources. They will exercise reasonable imagination to see where the technology can go and suspect where the US is at. They will see you for the idiot that you are.

The F-117 is retired. Yours and the Chinese boys' understanding of RAM belongs in that era. The F-22 and F-35 are not the F-117. Uncle Sam got sh1t coming down his pipe that will make the J-20 China's F-117.



antonius123 said:


> Nobody said there is absorber inside the engine core. You have severe reading comprehension problem.
> 
> *I am saying about absorber coating the inside wall of airduct and rampt intake of F-22.*


Which have nothing to do with the cone. You have a problem keeping track of the discussion. I used the engine core as an example on how its component does not contribute to RCS.



antonius123 said:


> Thats why I am saying that cone itself contribute to RCS.


No, you did not. Here is what you said...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the *moving parts contributes bigger RCS?*


You cannot escape your own words. If the cone's moving parts contributes to 'bigger RCS', then it must be exposed. So show us a source that have a jet engine fighter with a conical intake that have exposed cone translation mechanisms.



antonius123 said:


> But since you agree on it, but you dont agree on the moving part's rcs contribution, *then we are debating about RCS contribution of the moving part*, not the RCS contribution of the cone itself or the DSI itself.


Yeah...So since you believe that those moving parts contribute to 'bigger RCS', show us a source that have a jet engine fighter with a conical intake that have exposed cone translation mechanisms.



antonius123 said:


> How many times should I repeat this? please dont be too idiotic.


The idiot is *YOU* for making that claim.



antonius123 said:


> See.. you are ignoring and try to evade the topic.
> 
> I am asking you, because you are making another claim that most probably is FALSE claim.
> 
> You are claiming that "Cone is less hidding the fan blade compared to DSI"
> 
> This is your claim:
> _The reason why the DSI structure has far less RCS contributorship is *its lack of exposed items to the radar view*_
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-182.html#ixzz24UPIeQSu


Your argument is completely contradictory. What the hell does 'Cone is less hidding the fan blade...' mean? It make no sense when compared to my real quote, which you brought on. You accused me of saying something I never did, then brought on my comment to support your accusation when my comment said nothing of the kind. You clearly have a problem with technical English.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

anarchy 99 said:


> Copy and paste expert, dude that is all you do
> atleast have the decency to post the article you copied and pasted from
> 
> You're own knowledge is limited at best.
> Don't come here and act like the founder of the fighter jet and an 'expert' while copying and pasting from articles on the Internet.
> 
> Uncle SAM got one thing coming alright...... One massive economic collapse once the bond bubble bursts and the military has no money to maintain the things they have now let alone money to buy new weapons.



You have limited understanding of economics here. 

I keep telling you boys, your "supposed" chinese economic growth is founded on western markets consuming chinese products. 

You are forgetting that if the west crashes.. china will sell its products....... were ?

I am putting it in simple terms.

Greece is insignificant in many terms, and yet now we are bust, the germans have a dip in their exports graph just because of Greece. 

International trade is a chain. always remember that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

anarchy 99 said:


> Copy and paste expert, dude that is all you do
> atleast have the decency to post the article you copied and pasted from
> 
> You're own knowledge is limited at best.
> Don't come here and act like the founder of the fighter jet and an 'expert' while copying and pasting from articles on the Internet.
> 
> Uncle SAM got one thing coming alright...... One massive economic collapse once the bond bubble bursts and the military has no money to maintain the things they have now let alone money to buy new weapons.


And what can *YOU* do other than waste US invented Internet bandwidth and generally be a minor pest, conscript reject?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> So, me and readers need to ask you why you think Cone has more items exposed to radar view than DSI?
> 
> Why dont you dare to answer?
> 
> I bet you dont know again. Thats why never throw claim that you cannot defend


Simple...The cone have more surface area. The ramp have edges and angles. I said this before. So what make you think I am 'afraid' to answer?

The DSI 'bump' is at best half a cone, so it has less surface area than the cone. How much more simple can it get?

Now...If you want to get into which is the better to hide the fan blades, it is the cone, not the DSI 'bump'.

Here is why...And people will see how I put this issue to rest...For good...

The engine's contributorship to RCS is more than just the fan blades...Much more...






In the above example, we see how a helicopter's rotating blades produces recognizable radar flash patterns. Not only do blade flashes are in recognizable patterns, but because a blade is not symmetrical in construction due to aerodynamics reasons, which will present variations in surface exposure to the radar which affects reflection amplitudes, the amplitude variations of the flashes will also be in a recognizable pattern. Odd number of blades will produce higher flash frequencies because each blade make two flashes per revolution.

Helo rotors EM analyses is called 'radar detection of agitated metals' (RADAM)...

Analysis of radar detection of agitated metals (RADAM)


> It has been observed that the *radar returns from moving multielement metal targets* often exhibit an unexpected modulation that has both random (or noise-like) and semicoherent components.
> 
> To accomplish any of these, the effect must be well understood, and we have therefore undertaken a program of research to study the *radar detection of agitated metals (RADAM).*


This mean we can tell which pattern came from an even bladed rotor or from an odd bladed rotor, which hint at what model and eventually the helo's origin country.

RADAM analyses are already deployed...

MSTAR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Man-portable Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar (MSTAR) is a light weight all-weather battlefield radar Doppler radar operating in the J band. It is usually used by Artillery Observers to acquire and engage targets in bad visibility or at night. It is capable of *detecting, recognizing and tracking helicopters, slow moving fixed-wing aircraft, tracked and wheeled vehicles and troops*, as well as observing and adjusting the fall of shot.


All of the highlighted have one thing in common: That each object have something on it that is repetitious, predictable in motion, and is metallic, hence the words 'agitated metals' in 'radar detection of agitated metals' (RADAM).

Amazing, ain't it? Is your supposedly aviation 'background' or 'study' helping you understanding this sh1t? 

Anyway...No different than when the radar is looking face on at a jet engine's fan blades. In fact, looking face on at a jet engine's fan blades will produces far more blade flashes and recognizable patterns than looking edge on as in the helo's rotors.






In the above example, the top illustration is a simplified visual representation of the multiple stages of a jet engine.

The second illustration is a civilian type jet engine. The third illustration is a military jet engine. See the size differences and location of those differences?

The general construction and working theory of the jet engine works this way: The fan assemblies are connected to a common shaft. Each fan assembly represent a compression stage. There are different blade count per compression stage. Not only blade counts are different but blade sizes are usually different as well from one compression stage to the next successive stage. The diameters of the fan assemblies is progressively smaller into the engine. The distances between stages get shorter into the engine.

The process is called 'jet engine modulations' (JEM) detection for target recognition, tracking, and (hopefully) identification.

Radar MASINT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> One open-literature study combined several pieces of radar information: cross-section, range, and Doppler measurements.[20] A 1997 Defense Department report mentions "Air Force and Navy combat identification efforts focus on noncooperative target recognition technologies, including inverse synthetic aperture radar imaging, *jet engine modulation (JEM)*, and unintentional modulation on pulse-based specific emitters".



http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1606562&tag=1


> In this paper, the modulating mechanism of radar echo, namely *jet engine modulation* effect, caused by the rotating-blades, is analyzed by equivalent the engine intake as a wave-guide model in this paper. And a changing law of target RCS and modulation spectrum is studied.



PIER Online - A Novel Hybrid Aipo-MoM Technique for Jet Engine Modulation Analysis


> A NOVEL HYBRID AIPO-MOM TECHNIQUE FOR *JET ENGINE MODULATION* ANALYSIS
> 
> A novel hybrid adaptive iterative physical optics-method of moments (AIPO-MoM) technique is presented for the *electromagnetic analysis of jet engine structures* that are both electrically large and complex in both stationary and dynamic cases. In this technique, the AIPO method is used to analyze the smooth inlet region, and the MoM method is used to *analyze the electrically complex compressor region, including blades and a hub.* It is efficient and accurate by virtue of combining the respective merits of both methods. In the dynamic case, a concept for modified impedance equation is proposed to reduce computational load. Numerical results are presented and verified through comparison with Mode-FDTD and measured and commercial simulation packages results.


RADAM is sufficient for helicopter rotor signature analyses but not for complex structures like a multistage turbine engine.

For the civilian jet engine, its mission requirement have its fan assemblies very large compared to the military engine with the humans to provide scale. Not only are the civilian engine have large fan assemblies but they are more concentrated towards the front end of the engine itself. Thrust from the civilian engine comes from the combination of fan and compressed exhaust. Thrust from the military engine comes mostly from the compressed exhaust. That is the 'bypass air' difference.

As the radar signal impact the first fan blade assembly, a recognizable pattern is produced. As portions of the transmission is diffracted and travels through the engine to successive stages, each stage produces its own recognizable pattern. The closer the fan assemblies are together, like how the civilian engine is, the greater the interactions between multiple reflections and this equals to a higher RCS contributorship. Then if the seeking radar is sophisticated enough in data processing, a very unique and complex engine signature will be produced. We can store this knowledge and disseminate it later for everyone, or the immediate radar can use it to enhance tracking. However, it is accepted that beyond stage 3 or 4, and given the fact that this is inside a highly dynamic target, the EM interactions are too mathematically complex to model and predict.

JEM analyses is much more difficult -- not impossible -- with the military engine. For the military engine, each fan stage is smaller in diameter than the civilian engine, giving the radar less surface area to reflect. The stages themselves are further apart from each other so diffracted signals will impact the stages in less consistent directions. Civilian jet engines often are podded and therefore have very short intake lengths, whereas military jet engines in the fighter class are usually fuselage enclosed and have very long intake lengths similar to a waveguide and if there are any deviations from straight, the radar signal may be weakened from multiple reflections before meeting the first fan blade stage. This short versus long intake length difference necessitate a near true frontal radar view of the engine face on the fighter aircraft for any significant radar encounter. Because the civilian jet engine is so much larger in fan stage diameter and have very short intake lengths, there is a greater range of freqs (wavelengths) available to create the JEM effect, even down to the single digit ghz freq, whereas for the military jet engine, its physical construction and layout in the aircraft does not guaranteed that the JEM effect is consistent enough for tracking, let alone identification, for any freq.

This is why the criticism against the PAK for its intake system is only *PARTIALLY* valid. Its engines are too deep inside the fuselage, requiring a near true frontal radar view. It is only because of JEM analyses that the PAK would have a vulnerability in that event.

Any radar can process EM reflections from the engine's first fan stage, but only radars specifically designed for specific military purposes may -- not will -- have JEM analysis capability.

So how do we deny the seeking radar the JEM effect on our fighter jet engine? Certainly not by putting a little DSI zit or boil or bump in front of the engine face. 

Either make the intake system serpentine or put the engine face behind a cone.

The serpentine intake system like on the F-22 and F-35 is obvious enough in its ability to weakened a radar signal thru multiple reflections.

For the cone, its position in front of the engine face is sort of a 'mini serpentine' intake system by forcing the radar signal, especially high freq (short wavelength), to become surface wave (SW) on the cone's surface. Diffracted signals on the cone's backside edges will be weakened before they meet the engine face. Any backscatter from the engine face will meet the cone's backside, resulting in even more multiple reflections. So while as a structure, the cone does present a greater amount of surface area to the seeking radar then the DSI zit/boil/bump, its ability to protect the engine face from the seeking radar far outweighs its negative in comparison to the DSI setup.

I do not expect you to understand even 1/10th of what I presented above. You are too much of a dumbass, too stubborn and too technically illiterate. I do not expect the Chinese crowd here concede that they are wrong in the belief that the DSI zit/boil/bump was intentional for RCS control. They are too blinded by nationalism to admit to any amount of intellectual honesty, even when confronted with irrefutable proofs.

For the truly objective minded readers, any time any of the Chinese boys starts spouting off about DSI zit/boil/bump being for RCS controls, feel free to use the above arguments to debunk such nonsense. Or just point the fool to this post and watch him sputter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> If you think that the more transparent the material, the more EM absorbing it is, then you are stupid.
> 
> Molecular vibration is not caused by the transparency of the material like you think! you are misled or have misconception again


No, it is *YOU* who are stupid. Transparency is the 'how' that allow those molecular vibrations. It is not the cause. Absorbancy make the material transparent. Not the other way around. It is clear that you have no technical education.



antonius123 said:


> Did I said that my explanation coming from myself without source? why dont you ask


When you copied practically verbatim from a source and say nothing about it, you are being dishonest. This is not the first time you got busted. That is theft.



antonius123 said:


> Where is your citation that back your claim that absorbing is caused by the transparency? none!


Already explained how you got it backward.



antonius123 said:


> First of all, explain us what the permissivity you mean here?


You debate on RAM but have no understanding of the words 'permissivity', of 'permittivity', or of 'lossy'. 

The words 'permissivity' and 'permittivity' can be used interchangeably. Those who have relevant experience, which we know you do not and lied about it, understand when which word is used.

permissiveness - definition of permissiveness by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
1. Granting or inclined to grant permission; tolerant or lenient.

Regarding radar absorbers, there is permeability which enables permittivity.



antonius123 said:


> No wonder Martian, etc don bother to serve you; and some members warn me to ignore you. It is clearly because your STUBBORNNESS and IGNORANCE.
> 
> How many times should I tell you not to evade the topic, and suggest that you focus on the topic being debated? do you want to run away from the topic that you can't answer any more?


I have debunked those fools more often than they dare to admit and I did it the same way I made an equal fool out of you. Neither them nor you can ignore me any more than the readers can ignore superior arguments. In fact, the more you and them ignore my challenges, the more fools all of you look. What they do not want to admit is that everything they learned about military aviation so far they learned from me. Certainly not because they have any real experience. But at least they are wise enough not to make up sh1t about themselves like you have.

But we will continue with the pretense that you have an aviation 'background' and 'study'.

In post 2738 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-183.html#post3344030

I asked you, someone who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study'...

Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?

Establishment definition: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.

A: Experimental. Empirical. Theoretical.

1- Experimental. To establish physical facts and how to manipulate those facts.
2- Empirical. To establish values of said physical facts.
3- Theoretical. To establish an explanation of events based from experiments and analyses.

For example: You determined that water is 'wet' and boils/freezes at so-and-so temperatures. That established physical properties of water. Along the way you have values such as temperatures and time to reach those temperatures. That established the empirical records. You may experiment further by doping water with different substances and record different temperature and time ranges. More known physical facts and empirical values of these properties. Finally, you posit an explanation of what you believe to be eternal for water. This is the theory of/for water.

It is pretty sad that for you who tried to shut down the Indians with your claimed aviation 'background' and 'study' -- you cannot answer even basic engineering philosophy.

Now to the flight control engineering question...

Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?
A: To have the maximum allowable surface area for lift. Roll maneuvers are through split tailplane operation.

This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and eight flight control engineering questions that you failed to give even the most rudimentary answers.

Next...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.


----------



## anarchy 99

economic noob said:


> You have limited understanding of economics here.
> 
> I keep telling you boys, your "supposed" chinese economic growth is founded on western markets consuming chinese products.
> 
> You are forgetting that if the west crashes.. china will sell its products....... were ?
> 
> I am putting it in simple terms.
> 
> Greece is insignificant in many terms, and yet now we are bust, the germans have a dip in their exports graph just because of Greece.
> 
> International trade is a chain. always remember that.



 says a dude from greece.
learn economics son and more importantly.....learn the chinese economy.
you are brainwashed with western propaganda about china.

western consumer markets consume *less than 40%* of our total exports(20% europe and 18% US). and you know where you get the money to buy our products with? we lent it to you.
without us, america would be in the dustbin of history.

our economy is investment driven, not export driven. we have other non-western exports markets thats growing much much faster than the bankrupt west and our domestic consumption is rising fast with rising incomes and is now the 3rd largest consumer market in the world. we already are the largest market for many goods such as cars, smartphones, PCs, etc.

the west has crashed since 2008 and we are still growing fast, just go and ask your multinationals where their fastest growth is coming from.....

the west is bankrupt and are falling like dominoes.....

your economic knowledge is more limited than gambit's military knowledge, and that takes a beating

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

anarchy 99 said:


> says a dude from greece.
> learn economics son and more importantly.....learn the chinese economy.
> you are brainwashed with western propaganda about china.
> 
> western consumer markets consume *less than 40%* of our total exports(20% europe and 18% US). and you know where you get the money to buy our products with? we lent it to you.
> without us, america would be in the dustbin of history.
> 
> our economy is investment driven, not export driven. we have other non-western exports markets thats growing much much faster than the bankrupt west and our domestic consumption is rising fast with rising incomes and is now the 3rd largest consumer market in the world. we already are the largest market for many goods such as cars, smartphones, PCs, etc.
> 
> the west has crashed since 2008 and we are still growing fast, just go and ask your multinationals where their fastest growth is coming from.....
> 
> the west is bankrupt and are falling like dominoes.....
> 
> your economic knowledge is more limited than gambit's military knowledge, and that takes a beating



Rightttttt. I am wearing my convinced face now. Your arguments really set me straight. I am actually forwarding this to the EU leaders so they can call you to help them fix this crisis straight !


----------



## amalakas

anarchy 99 said:


> I am the guy that will put *YOU* down everytime you try to take me on. Just like I have done now. I quite enjoy humiliating you old man.
> 
> F-22 craptor is an overhyped piece of trash that is not even proven in battle. If the F-22 craptor is trash, F-35 cant even fly (Carlo Kopp who is a real expert says so)
> But im sure you know more than all these experts riiiight my vietnamese 'reeeeeeal' expert with playstation experience?
> Not hard for the J-20 to surpass a fighter where the pilot will die due to no oxygen (F-22)
> 
> F22 Raptor Exposed - Why the F22 Was Cancelled - YouTube




.......................................


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Simple...The cone have more surface area. The ramp have edges and angles. I said this before. So what make you think I am 'afraid' to answer?
> 
> The DSI 'bump' is at best half a cone, so it has less surface area than the cone. How much more simple can it get?



We are not talking about which one has more surface area, as we have agreed that Cone itself contributes to RCS.

But we are talking about things behind the cone!

So your answer about the surface area of the cone become "irrelevant" or FAILED.

And how do you prove that DSI bump is at best half a cone as you claim?

Cone inlet





DSI bump








> Now...*If you want to get into which is the better to hide the fan blades, it is the cone, not the DSI 'bump'.*
> 
> Here is why...And people will see how I put this issue to rest...For good...
> 
> The engine's contributorship to RCS is more than just the fan blades...Much more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the above example, we see how a helicopter's rotating blades produces recognizable radar flash patterns. Not only do blade flashes are in recognizable patterns, but because a blade is not symmetrical in construction due to aerodynamics reasons, which will present variations in surface exposure to the radar which affects reflection amplitudes, the amplitude variations of the flashes will also be in a recognizable pattern. Odd number of blades will produce higher flash frequencies because each blade make two flashes per revolution.
> 
> Helo rotors EM analyses is called 'radar detection of agitated metals' (RADAM)...
> 
> Analysis of radar detection of agitated metals (RADAM)
> 
> This mean we can tell which pattern came from an even bladed rotor or from an odd bladed rotor, which hint at what model and eventually the helo's origin country.
> 
> RADAM analyses are already deployed...
> 
> MSTAR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> All of the highlighted have one thing in common: That each object have something on it that is repetitious, predictable in motion, and is metallic, hence the words 'agitated metals' in 'radar detection of agitated metals' (RADAM).
> 
> Amazing, ain't it? Is your supposedly aviation 'background' or 'study' helping you understanding this sh1t?
> 
> Anyway...No different than when the radar is looking face on at a jet engine's fan blades. In fact, looking face on at a jet engine's fan blades will produces far more blade flashes and recognizable patterns than looking edge on as in the helo's rotors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the above example, the top illustration is a simplified visual representation of the multiple stages of a jet engine.
> 
> The second illustration is a civilian type jet engine. The third illustration is a military jet engine. See the size differences and location of those differences?
> 
> The general construction and working theory of the jet engine works this way: The fan assemblies are connected to a common shaft. Each fan assembly represent a compression stage. There are different blade count per compression stage. Not only blade counts are different but blade sizes are usually different as well from one compression stage to the next successive stage. The diameters of the fan assemblies is progressively smaller into the engine. The distances between stages get shorter into the engine.
> 
> The process is called 'jet engine modulations' (JEM) detection for target recognition, tracking, and (hopefully) identification.
> 
> Radar MASINT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1606562&tag=1
> 
> 
> PIER Online - A Novel Hybrid Aipo-MoM Technique for Jet Engine Modulation Analysis
> 
> RADAM is sufficient for helicopter rotor signature analyses but not for complex structures like a multistage turbine engine.
> 
> For the civilian jet engine, its mission requirement have its fan assemblies very large compared to the military engine with the humans to provide scale. Not only are the civilian engine have large fan assemblies but they are more concentrated towards the front end of the engine itself. Thrust from the civilian engine comes from the combination of fan and compressed exhaust. Thrust from the military engine comes mostly from the compressed exhaust. That is the 'bypass air' difference.
> 
> As the radar signal impact the first fan blade assembly, a recognizable pattern is produced. As portions of the transmission is diffracted and travels through the engine to successive stages, each stage produces its own recognizable pattern. The closer the fan assemblies are together, like how the civilian engine is, the greater the interactions between multiple reflections and this equals to a higher RCS contributorship. Then if the seeking radar is sophisticated enough in data processing, a very unique and complex engine signature will be produced. We can store this knowledge and disseminate it later for everyone, or the immediate radar can use it to enhance tracking. However, it is accepted that beyond stage 3 or 4, and given the fact that this is inside a highly dynamic target, the EM interactions are too mathematically complex to model and predict.
> 
> JEM analyses is much more difficult -- not impossible -- with the military engine. For the military engine, each fan stage is smaller in diameter than the civilian engine, giving the radar less surface area to reflect. The stages themselves are further apart from each other so diffracted signals will impact the stages in less consistent directions. Civilian jet engines often are podded and therefore have very short intake lengths, whereas military jet engines in the fighter class are usually fuselage enclosed and have very long intake lengths similar to a waveguide and if there are any deviations from straight, the radar signal may be weakened from multiple reflections before meeting the first fan blade stage. This short versus long intake length difference necessitate a near true frontal radar view of the engine face on the fighter aircraft for any significant radar encounter. Because the civilian jet engine is so much larger in fan stage diameter and have very short intake lengths, there is a greater range of freqs (wavelengths) available to create the JEM effect, even down to the single digit ghz freq, whereas for the military jet engine, its physical construction and layout in the aircraft does not guaranteed that the JEM effect is consistent enough for tracking, let alone identification, for any freq.
> 
> This is why the criticism against the PAK for its intake system is only *PARTIALLY* valid. Its engines are too deep inside the fuselage, requiring a near true frontal radar view. It is only because of JEM analyses that the PAK would have a vulnerability in that event.
> 
> Any radar can process EM reflections from the engine's first fan stage, but only radars specifically designed for specific military purposes may -- not will -- have JEM analysis capability.
> 
> So how do we deny the seeking radar the JEM effect on our fighter jet engine? Certainly not by putting a little DSI zit or boil or bump in front of the engine face.
> 
> Either make the intake system serpentine or put the engine face behind a cone.
> 
> The serpentine intake system like on the F-22 and F-35 is obvious enough in its ability to weakened a radar signal thru multiple reflections.
> 
> For the cone, i*ts position in front of the engine face is sort of a 'mini serpentine' intake system by forcing the radar signal*, especially high freq (short wavelength), to become surface wave (SW) on the cone's surface. Diffracted signals on the cone's backside edges will be weakened before they meet the engine face. Any backscatter from the engine face will meet the cone's backside, resulting in even more multiple reflections. So while as a structure, the cone does present a greater amount of surface area to the seeking radar then the DSI zit/boil/bump, its ability to protect the engine face from the seeking radar far outweighs its negative in comparison to the DSI setup.



From your explanation, I dont see yet the evidence that there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade?

If your claim is true that Cone will be effective like serpentine, then why F-22/J-20 or even PAKFA (that is still strugling to hide its fan blade) not using the Cone to hide the Fan Blade? 

In fact I dont see the 5th generation/stealth fighter is still using cone, which according to your claim is very effective in hiding the Fan Blade (the big contributor to RCS of the intake)?

You are also wrong; it is not only DSI bump that hide the fan blade, but the combination between DSI bump with a forward-swept inlet cowl! and also the serpentine.




> I do not expect you to understand even 1/10th of what I presented above. You are too much of a dumbass, too stubborn and too technically illiterate. I do not expect the Chinese crowd here concede that they are wrong in the belief that the DSI zit/boil/bump was intentional for RCS control. They are too blinded by nationalism to admit to any amount of intellectual honesty, even when confronted with irrefutable proofs.
> 
> For the truly objective minded readers, any time any of the Chinese boys starts spouting off about DSI zit/boil/bump being for RCS controls, feel free to use the above arguments to debunk such nonsense. Or just point the fool to this post and watch him sputter.



Why are you so proud with that long explanation but severely lack of citations of your debated claims?

Like always you either like to drag internet article, or explain things very long to impress readers, but you loose relevant point or the points of your argument are still misconceptions.

You already demonstrated clueless by saying that only DSI bump alone that works to hide the blade, ignoring the combination of forward swept inlet cowl + the serpentine (in F-35 and J-20 case).

You already demonstrated idiocy when you think that the Cone Inlet will be always like that of Mig 21!

Remember all of your debated claims will be rubbish without citation


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No, it is *YOU* who are stupid. Transparency is the 'how' that allow those molecular vibrations. It is not the cause. Absorbancy make the material transparent. Not the other way around. It is clear that you have no technical education.



Wrong!

Transperancy is about how much the EM wave pass through the material!

By your misconception, the transparent Radome cannot pass the EM wave therefore the wave from the radar's transmitter behind the radome cannot deliver the wave outward. 






> When you copied practically verbatim from a source and say nothing about it, you are being dishonest. This is not the first time you got busted. That is theft.



Dishonest if you are telling lie! just like what you are saying and claiming in this forum.

Say nothing is not lying!
You are lying here.




> Already explained how you got it backward.



Your citation doesnt say so.
Either you are lying or you are demonstrating misconception.




> You debate on RAM but have no understanding of the words 'permissivity', of 'permittivity', or of 'lossy'.
> 
> The words 'permissivity' and 'permittivity' can be used interchangeably. Those who have relevant experience, which we know you do not and lied about it, understand when which word is used.
> 
> permissiveness - definition of permissiveness by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 1. Granting or inclined to grant permission; tolerant or lenient.
> 
> Regarding radar absorbers, there is permeability which enables permittivity.



I am not saying I dont know, you liar.

I am afraid you dont know the meaning of permeability/permissivity, or have wrong understanding about them, as you think that transparency is due to permeability/permittivity 



> I have debunked those fools more often than they dare to admit and I did it the same way I made an equal fool out of you. Neither them nor you can ignore me any more than the readers can ignore superior arguments. In fact, the more you and them ignore my challenges, the more fools all of you look. What they do not want to admit is that everything they learned about military aviation so far they learned from me. Certainly not because they have any real experience. But at least they are wise enough not to make up sh1t about themselves like you have.



You are the one debunked here, and busted many times for misconceptions; but you refuse to admit it




> But we will continue with the pretense that you have an aviation 'background' and 'study'.
> 
> In post 2738 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-183.html#post3344030
> 
> I asked you, someone who claimed to have aviation 'background' and 'study'...
> 
> Q: What are the three principles of Engineering in order of establishments and priority?
> 
> Establishment definition: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
> 
> A: Experimental. Empirical. Theoretical.
> 
> 1- Experimental. To establish physical facts and how to manipulate those facts.
> 2- Empirical. To establish values of said physical facts.
> 3- Theoretical. To establish an explanation of events based from experiments and analyses.
> 
> For example: You determined that water is 'wet' and boils/freezes at so-and-so temperatures. That established physical properties of water. Along the way you have values such as temperatures and time to reach those temperatures. That established the empirical records. You may experiment further by doping water with different substances and record different temperature and time ranges. More known physical facts and empirical values of these properties. Finally, you posit an explanation of what you believe to be eternal for water. This is the theory of/for water.
> 
> It is pretty sad that for you who tried to shut down the Indians with your claimed aviation 'background' and 'study' -- you cannot answer even basic engineering philosophy.
> 
> Now to the flight control engineering question...
> 
> Q: Why the F-111 and F-14 have no ailerons?
> A: To have the maximum allowable surface area for lift. Roll maneuvers are through split tailplane operation.
> 
> This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and eight flight control engineering questions that you failed to give even the most rudimentary answers.
> 
> Next...
> 
> Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.


 
You are proving what Martian says about you => ignorance, stubborn, tend to evade the debate by bringing other topic/question.


----------



## antonius123

anarchy 99 said:


> Copy and paste expert, dude that is all you do
> atleast have the decency to post the article you copied and pasted from
> 
> You're own knowledge is limited at best.
> Don't come here and act like the founder of the fighter jet and an 'expert' while copying and pasting from articles on the Internet.
> 
> Uncle SAM got one thing coming alright...... One massive economic collapse once the bond bubble bursts and the military has no money to maintain the things they have now let alone money to buy new weapons.



He likes to copy paste long article from internet, but demonstrate misconception.

He think by dragging long article or long explanation he will be admitted as an expert 
Instead people will judge his point/claims and bust his misconception.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> You have limited understanding of economics here.
> 
> I keep telling you boys, your "supposed" chinese economic growth is founded on western markets consuming chinese products.
> 
> You are forgetting that if the west crashes.. china will sell its products....... were ?
> 
> I am putting it in simple terms.
> 
> Greece is insignificant in many terms, and yet now we are bust, the germans have a dip in their exports graph just because of Greece.
> 
> International trade is a chain. always remember that.



He means America economy will doom first and more severely doomed than China if USA economy is collapsed.

China growth is 8% vs USA 2 - 3%
USA is burdened with huge debt.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> He means America economy will doom first and more severely doomed than China if USA economy is collapsed.
> 
> China growth is 8% vs USA 2 - 3%
> USA is burdened with huge debt.




Chinese growth is based on Western consumption. That is the point. China has growth because the west is buying. If west stops buying then China has no growth. get it?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> We are not talking about which one has more surface area, as we have agreed that Cone itself contributes to RCS.
> 
> *But we are talking about things behind the cone!*
> 
> So your answer about the surface area of the cone become "irrelevant" or FAILED.


Then show us a source that have a jet engine fighter with exposed cone translation mechanisms.

Here are your words...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?


If cone translation mechanisms do contribute to RCS, then they must be exposed to radar view to some degrees. All you have to do is show everyone such a source.



antonius123 said:


> And how do you prove that DSI bump is at best half a cone as you claim?
> 
> Cone inlet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSI bump


Does look pretty much just a bump off the surface, ain't it? 



antonius123 said:


> From your explanation, I dont see yet the evidence that there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade?


Then you confirmed what I said that you do not understand even 1/10th of what I posted.



antonius123 said:


> If your claim is true that Cone will be effective like serpentine, then why F-22/J-20 or even PAKFA (that is still strugling to hide its fan blade) not using the Cone to hide the Fan Blade?


Why have a small cone when we can design a full serpentine intake system? This just goes to show how pathetic your logical thinking really is.



antonius123 said:


> In fact I dont see the 5th generation/stealth fighter is still using cone, which according to your claim is very effective in hiding the Fan Blade (the big contributor to RCS of the intake)?


Further evidence of a small mind and of lying about your aviation 'background' and 'study'. The location of the engines dictate the design of the intake system.



antonius123 said:


> You are also wrong; it is not only DSI bump that hide the fan blade, but the combination between DSI bump with a forward-swept inlet cowl! and also the serpentine.


As if you really understand what all those aviation related words really mean and how they actually function.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You cannot answer that first year Basic Aerodynamics question.



antonius123 said:


> Why are you so proud with that long explanation but severely lack of citations of your debated claims?


You dismiss citations anyway? So why are you crying for them now? 



antonius123 said:


> Like always you either like to drag internet article, or explain things very long to impress readers, but you loose relevant point or the points of your argument are still misconceptions.


You are unable to be consistent. First you demand citations in one sentence, then you criticize them as 'drag internet article'.



antonius123 said:


> You already demonstrated clueless by saying that only DSI bump alone that works to hide the blade, ignoring the combination of forward swept inlet cowl + the serpentine (in F-35 and J-20 case).
> 
> You already demonstrated idiocy when you think that the Cone Inlet will be always like that of Mig 21!


Show me a cone intake system that does not contain a cone.



antonius123 said:


> Remember all of your debated claims will be rubbish without citation


And remember your inconsistency, demand citations in one sentence, then dismiss them the next.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Wrong!
> 
> *Transperancy is about how much the EM wave pass through the material!*
> 
> By your misconception, the transparent Radome cannot pass the EM wave therefore the wave from the radar's transmitter behind the radome cannot deliver the wave outward.


Yes, and a radome is a structure that is made of composites and composites are constructed from different materials. This is further evidence of your small mind. You are incapable of thinking what is a substrate or a constituent child material in a composite parent.



antonius123 said:


> Say nothing is not lying!


Saying nothing in a technically relevant debate is lying by omission.



antonius123 said:


> I am not saying I dont know, you liar.


I do not care what you say about yourself. We already know that you are a liar.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You said you answered that first year Basic Aerodynamics question to proved you had an aviation 'background'. Where is that post, liar?



antonius123 said:


> I am afraid you dont know the meaning of permeability/permissivity, or have wrong understanding about them, as you think that transparency is due to permeability/permittivity


If permeability does not allow permittivity, or to use another word permissivity, then what does? This is how you childishly debate in trying to hide your ignorance.



antonius123 said:


> You are proving what Martian says about you => ignorance, stubborn, tend to evade the debate by bringing other topic/question.


They could no more answer those questions as you proved yourself the liar about your aviation 'background' and 'study', but we will continue with that charade.

One more time...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.



antonius123 said:


> He likes to copy paste long article from internet, but demonstrate misconception.
> 
> He think by dragging long article or long explanation he will be admitted as an expert
> Instead people will judge his point/claims and bust his misconception.


People? Who? Certainly not you or the Chinese boys here.



anarchy 99 said:


> I am the guy that will put *YOU* down everytime you try to take me on. Just like I have done now. I quite enjoy humiliating you old man.


The only thing you successfully done is spammed the discussion with garbage to hide the embarrassment that is your friends.

What technical contributions have you done to 'humiliate' me, conscript reject?



anarchy 99 said:


> F-22 craptor is an overhyped piece of trash that is not even proven in battle.


Has the J-20 been proven even in an exercise? Wait...It is still in test fight stages. But already you Chinese boys are talking about taking out ships and bases 



anarchy 99 said:


> If the F-22 craptor is trash, F-35 cant even fly (Carlo Kopp who is a real expert says so)


Kopp have no aviation background. Did you know that?



anarchy 99 said:


> But im sure you know more than all these experts riiiight my vietnamese 'reeeeeeal' expert with playstation experience?


Must be tough to see your fellow Chinese, members of the 'superior' Asian race, be actually humiliated by a Viet.



anarchy 99 said:


> Not hard for the J-20 to surpass a fighter where the pilot will die due to no oxygen (F-22)


Riiiiight...For an aircraft that is still in the test flight stages.



anarchy 99 said:


> F22 Raptor Exposed - Why the F22 Was Cancelled - YouTube


Debunked here a long time ago, conscript reject.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mitro

Wow very nice picture Good job China Mighty Dragon


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I am not impressed with link brought by somebody.
> I am impressed with explanation of somebody, as it indicate the understanding in his mine.
> 
> Everybody can googling to find internet article easily; everybody can drag internet article into this forum thread, but only qualified person can understand and explain.
> 
> The way he explain about "semi transparent" should not satisfy you about radome.
> 
> But to my surprise, you never asked him about it (you only ask me and chase me)


What this mean is that you never understood what he was asking for. He wants to know how is it possible that a radome can limit a radar signal from the outside to penetrate its structure but can still allow the aircraft's radar to penetrate the same radome to allow transmission.

You did not know what he was asking for and performed your typical evasion dance.

The answer is freq selective surfaces (FSS). The radome's outer surface is made up of a material that will limit, not completely block, penetration. The radome's inner surface is made up of a different material that will allow pass through. Between the two layers, outer and inner, are layers of composites to support the structure.

This subject was discussed a long time ago and I gave sources that helped everyone in understanding, sources that you dismissed because you do not understand them.

I gave him those sources in private to see how much further an evading liar you can be and you proved yourself -- again.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

31.08.2012&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Then show us a source that have a jet engine fighter with exposed cone translation mechanisms.
> 
> Here are your words...
> 
> 
> If cone translation mechanisms do contribute to RCS, then they must be exposed to radar view to some degrees. All you have to do is show everyone such a source.



I've explained you many times about traveling wave, but you still dont know.

It confirm that you dont have clue about traveling wave.





> Does look pretty much just a bump off the surface, ain't it?



Wow! you are demonstrating your real expert quality by claiming bump is only half cone at best only by LOOK, while you despise Copp in spite of his simulation 

Readers can see now how fake you are 




> Then you confirmed what I said that you do not understand even 1/10th of what I posted.



Why? how?? prove?

I can say on the other way round, that you are confirming what I said that your capability is only drag internet article and throw empty claim 





> Why have a small cone when we can design a full serpentine intake system? This just goes to show how pathetic your logical thinking really is.



See .. you dont know the function of Cone at all, readers can see that cleary 

You know the cone like that of Mig 21 could hide the moving part! Why are you making such a idiotic argument? 



> Further evidence of a small mind and of lying about your aviation 'background' and 'study'. The location of the engines dictate the design of the intake system.



Nope! on the contrary this is evidence of your idiocy and your lying about your Aviation Expert and Background.

You dont have idea what is main purpose of CONE.

You dont know that F-22 is using ramp intake instead of cone. J-20 and F-35 choose to use DSI instead of Cone.

Wherever the engine locates, we still need either cone or ramp intake or dsi to controll the airflow



> As if you really understand what all those aviation related words really mean and how they actually function.
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You cannot answer that first year Basic Aerodynamics question.



Readers can see that you are not addressing my challenge to you, instead you are trying to evade it by bringing irrelevant questions.

Playing diverting is you bad habit 





> You dismiss citations anyway? So why are you crying for them now?



Dont play diverting.

So you now admit that your claim is without citation? 




> You are unable to be consistent. First you demand citations in one sentence, then you criticize them as 'drag internet article'.



Dont be idiotic. Read again carefully my sentence.

Some your explanation is indeed attached with dragged internet article as citation; but this is not what I am debating.

I am not debating your some explanation with your dragged internet article.

But your debated claims that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations. Even you dont show clearly which is the things contribute RCS more than Fan Blade of the air intake.

Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.

Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.

Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.




> Show me a cone intake system that does not contain a cone.



Who claims that the cone intake system is without cone? 

You are crazy 



> And remember your inconsistency, demand citations in one sentence, then dismiss them the next.



Read again the above.

You can only bring citation for your showing off explanation which is not debated.

*But you always fail to bring citation for your own claims that are being challenged.*

claims that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations. Even you dont show clearly which is the things contribute RCS more than Fan Blade of the air intake.

Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.

Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.

Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Yes, and a radome is a structure that is made of composites and composites are constructed from different materials. This is further evidence of your small mind. You are incapable of thinking what is a substrate or a constituent child material in a composite parent.


Why are you answering for thing not being asked? 

I said to you: by your misconception that semi transparent as the cause of absorption, then the transparent radome should be a perfect absorbing material 

You are idiot, and fake 




> Saying nothing in a technically relevant debate is lying by omission.



Where do you get that morality? 

In fact you are lying and trying to mislead readers here. 

Lying is saying untruth.
Not saying or not yet saying is not a lie.

See .. *how you are demonstrating your self as TRUTH TWISTER and SLANDERER!*

If I say that my statement is coming from myself not from other source, then you can accuse me a liar. In fact I always tell you that my claims is always based on citation; therefore using your accusation, I am always throw claim that I can back with citation/evidence/source, not like you.

But if we use your FAKING Morality, *you are the one who lie the most*, as you havent answered most of my question, *throwing claims without citation/evidence and playing diverting* 

*Furthermore your accusation that I am stealing wiki just because I dont mention the source - is a strong evidence that you are not only a kind of Faker and Liar, but a SLENDERER too.*



> I do not care what you say about yourself. We already know that you are a liar.
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You said you answered that first year Basic Aerodynamics question to proved you had an aviation 'background'. Where is that post, liar?



See .. you are lying again by twisting and playing diverting.

Readers can see that. 

Remember you are proving your self as *SLANDERER*, worse than a Liar and Faker.



> If permeability does not allow permittivity, or to use another word permissivity, then what does? This is how you childishly debate in trying to hide your ignorance.



OK, then explain to us why do you think permittivity/permissivity is the cause of transparency.

Remember you bring this permittivity/permissivity when I am debating your misconception about semi transparency.



> They could no more answer those questions as you proved yourself the liar about your aviation 'background' and 'study', but we will continue with that charade.
> 
> One more time...
> 
> Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.



Why should we believe in you why you are always demonstrating yourself as a liar, twister and slenderer?




> People? Who? Certainly not you or the Chinese boys here.



Remember you are only supported by some indians, and few people with questionable flags.
It is because you always kiss their arss, and conflicting me with them - everytime you loose support from them

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I've explained you many times about traveling wave, but you still dont know.
> 
> It confirm that you dont have clue about traveling wave.


Where have you 'explained' anything?

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You claimed you answered that and several other questions pertaining to basic aerodynamics. You failed to bring on those posts. So why should anyone believed you?



antonius123 said:


> Wow! you are demonstrating your real expert quality by claiming bump is only half cone at best only by LOOK, while you despise Copp in spite of his simulation


It is. Half a cone or a bump is not a full cone.






The above are examples of what a cone really look like. Not a bump.



antonius123 said:


> Readers can see now how fake you are


And for you who claimed to have an aviation 'study' and yet still cannot say what is that 'study'? We know who is the real fraud here. Aviation have many sub-disciplines. The reason why you cannot say what discipline is your 'study' is that you have no aviation background at all. You lied about it. You are absolutely *TERRIFIED* of what you are going to say about yourself next because you know that I will bust you.



antonius123 said:


> Why? how?? prove?
> 
> I can say on the other way round, that you are confirming what I said that your capability is only drag internet article and throw empty claim


I have already proved it.

Here is what you said about post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237



antonius123 said:


> From your explanation, I dont see yet the evidence that there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade?


Post 2750 have 5 credible sources explaining what are RADAM and JEM and yet you insisted that there are no evidences of how things behind the first fan stage contribute to RCS -- if exposed to radar.

You are an idiot.



antonius123 said:


> See .. you dont know the function of Cone at all, readers can see that cleary


The functions of a cone is to hold a glob of ice cream, to shield a radar antenna or a cluster of warheads, or to provide aerodynamic efficiency to either an engine or flight control surfaces.

I know more about the cone regarding aviation than you do.



antonius123 said:


> You know the cone like that of Mig 21 could hide the moving part! Why are you making such a idiotic argument?


So here is your claim again...



antonius123 said:


> Do you understand that Cone will be heavier, and *the moving parts contributes bigger RCS?*


Show us a source that has a jet engine with a cone intake system where the cone translation mechanisms are exposed in order to contribute to RCS. You made that claim. Now support it.



antonius123 said:


> Nope! on the contrary this is evidence of your idiocy and your lying about your Aviation Expert and Background.


Fine...Then show everyone what a liar I am by showing us where you answered...

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.



antonius123 said:


> You dont know that F-22 is using ramp intake instead of cone. J-20 and F-35 choose to use DSI instead of Cone.
> 
> *Wherever the engine locates, we still need either cone or ramp intake or dsi to controll the airflow*


Wrong. The F-16 have neither.



antonius123 said:


> Readers can see that you are not addressing my challenge to you, instead you are trying to evade it by bringing irrelevant questions.


I have more than answered your questions. I proved that you are a liar about yourself.



antonius123 said:


> So you now admit that your claim is without citation?


Post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237 <= have five credible sources that went over your head. Your Chinese friends learned about importance of providing sources from me.



antonius123 said:


> Dont be idiotic. Read again carefully my sentence.
> 
> Some your explanation is indeed attached with dragged internet article as citation; but this is not what I am debating.
> 
> I am not debating your some explanation with your dragged internet article.


Then you cannot complain about citations. It looks like you do not even understand the meaning of 'citation', let alone how to use it.



antonius123 said:


> But your debated claims that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations. Even you dont show clearly which is the things contribute RCS more than Fan Blade of the air intake.


This make no sense, as usual. I never said the things behind the first fan stage contribute more. My sources showed how they contribute. It is obvious that those sources went over your head.



antonius123 said:


> Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.


I do not citation for that one. Just appearance will do. But then again, this comment shows you inconsistent you are: First you demand citations, but when they are provided, you dismissed them.



antonius123 said:


> Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.


No need for citations on this one as well. Radar behaviors will do. The same behaviors that you do not understand.



antonius123 said:


> Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.


This is a clear misrepresentation of what I actually explained.

See post 2747 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3356514

It is over for you a long time ago, liar and fraud. 

Last chance, little boy...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Why are you answering for thing not being asked?
> 
> I said to you: by your misconception that semi transparent as the cause of absorption, then the transparent radome should be a perfect absorbing material
> 
> You are idiot, and fake


What a dumbass...!!! 

The radome is not a material, idiot.

The radome is a *STRUCTURE*.

A building is a structure. It has many materials such as concrete, steel, or plastic.

Likewise, a radome as a structure have many materials in layers or substrates...

Patent US20100225563 - DUAL POLARIZATION ANTENNA STRUCTURE, RADOME AND DESIGN METHOD THEREOF - Google Patents


> A dual polarization antenna radome includes a *plurality of dielectric substrates.* Each dielectric substrate provides a plurality of metal totems, and the pattern of the metal totems is unchanged after the metal totems rotate by 90 degrees around the axis perpendicular to the dielectric substrate.


A radome can be 0-100% transparent. Zero meaning completely opaque and 100 mean completely transparent. It depends on the substrates formulations.


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> I am not impressed with link brought by somebody.
> I am impressed with explanation of somebody, as it indicate the understanding in his mine.
> 
> Everybody can googling to find internet article easily; everybody can drag internet article into this forum thread, *but only qualified person can understand and explain.*
> The way he explain about "semi transparent" should not satisfy you about radome.
> 
> But to my surprise, you never asked him about it (you only ask me and chase me)



So why after asking you dozens of times over a period of several months you still have not been able to explain your own quote?

So what is high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Where have you 'explained' anything?
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> You claimed you answered that and several other questions pertaining to basic aerodynamics. You failed to bring on those posts. So why should anyone believed you?



Are you playing diverting again?

OR it is your confirmation that you cant answer and dont have a clue about traveling wave.




> It is. Half a cone or a bump is not a full cone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above are examples of what a cone really look like. Not a bump.



Then why are you ignoring other kind of cone, like this:






to be compared with this:






Are you trying to lie or twisting fact here .. 




> And for you who claimed to have an aviation 'study' and yet still cannot say what is that 'study'? We know who is the real fraud here. Aviation have many sub-disciplines. The reason why you cannot say what discipline is your 'study' is that you have no aviation background at all. You lied about it. You are absolutely *TERRIFIED* of what you are going to say about yourself next because you know that I will bust you.



You are lying here. I have told you the study and disciplines. And I dont want to be trapped with your diverting game.

In fact you cannot explain what your Aviation job and level of your expertise that deserve you act like a very highly aviation expert in this forum.

Then you are the liar and faker here.




> I have already proved it.
> 
> Here is what you said about post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237



You are not proving anything, but playing dirty games as usual!

I am challenging you: why you accuse me that I know less than 10% of the technical explanation?

You are not giving concrete and clear answer, instead you are playing hide and seek.

This is evidence how dirty your mentality.




> Post 2750 have 5 credible sources explaining what are RADAM and JEM and yet you insisted that there are no evidences of how things behind the first fan stage contribute to RCS -- if exposed to radar.
> 
> You are an idiot.


There is no prove in that article saying that something contribute more RCS than fan blades.

There is no prove in that article saying that the things behind the first fan blade contributes more RCS than the first fan blade.

I am afraid this is only your imagination or assumption.

Your claim that fan blade on the second or more stages contribute more RCS than the first stage need to be proved.

By the logic the second stage will only received smaller EM wave than first stage receive, as most EM Wave has been reflected by first stage. Consequently it reflect much smaller EM too. 
Simply speaking: the stage behind first stage is only receiving and reflecting residual EM WAVE that pass the first stage, which indicates that the amount should be smaller.






> The functions of a cone is to hold a glob of ice cream, to shield a radar antenna or a cluster of warheads, or to provide aerodynamic efficiency to either an engine or flight control surfaces.
> 
> I know more about the cone regarding aviation than you do.



WRONG!!!

*The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine*

Ironically you are demonstrating your clueless and fake more and more while you are thinking that you are an aviation expert 




> So here is your claim again...
> 
> 
> Show us a source that has a jet engine with a cone intake system where the cone translation mechanisms are exposed in order to contribute to RCS. You made that claim. Now support it.



I have explained you about "traveling wave"

What make you still dont understand?




> Fine...Then show everyone what a liar I am by showing us where you answered...
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.



No need.
You have demonstrated again your fake + clueless + twister + slenderer 




> Wrong. The F-16 have neither.



You mean F-16 doesnt need to control airflow?

What kind of Aviation Expert are you? for not recognizing the requirement of airflow control ! 
F-16 is using pitot intake as alternative.

So your evasion is FAILED, and you are demonstrating your clueless about the function of CONE! Hence another prove you are a fake self proclaimed expert.




> I have more than answered your questions. I proved that you are a liar about yourself.
> 
> 
> Post 2750 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3357237 <= have five credible sources that went over your head. Your Chinese friends learned about importance of providing sources from me.



But unfortunately your credible source do not support your claims!

Your claim that: there is other thing of engine that contributes RCS more than Fan Blade, has no citations.

Your claim that Bump at best is half cone is also without citation; only your arbitrary opinion.

Your claim that Cone will be effective like serpentine is also baseless and without citation.

Your claim that absorbtion is due to semi transparency is also not only without citation, but a mis conception.




> Then you cannot complain about citations. It looks like you do not even understand the meaning of 'citation', let alone how to use it.



Whoooats??? so you mean you want every single of your claim to be accepted as a truth in spite of no citation nor evidence? 

You are a clown, and your statement indicates that you dont know ethics 




> This make no sense, as usual. I never said the things behind the first fan stage contribute more. My sources showed how they contribute. It is obvious that those sources went over your head.



But you claim that inside the air intake, there is other thing contribute more RCS than Fanblade. what is that?




> I do not citation for that one. Just appearance will do. But then again, this comment shows you inconsistent you are: First you demand citations, but when they are provided, you dismissed them.



Judging quantitative thing by appearance is not only idiotic, but also demonstrating that you did not attend university.

Also it prove my words that you like to throw subjective claims without evidence. 




> No need for citations on this one as well. Radar behaviors will do. The same behaviors that you do not understand.



Without citation and evidence, then every 5 years old fan boys can say something like that. 

The fact that most Stealth Fighter choose not use cone as serpentine replacement is a bust to your arbitrary claims.

Even PAKFA do not choose Cone to settle the fan blade exposure issue there.

So your claim => FAILED.





> This is a clear misrepresentation of what I actually explained.
> 
> See post 2747 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-184.html#post3356514
> 
> It is over for you a long time ago, liar and fraud.



Explain us how am I misrepresentating your explanation?

Dont play seek and hide, it is degrading your reputation lower and lower.




> Last chance, little boy...
> 
> Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.


 
Strong evidence of your stubborness and dirty mentality.

How many times should I warn you not to play diverting, do not run away, and stick on the topic being debated!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> What a dumbass...!!!
> 
> The radome is not a material, idiot.
> 
> The radome is a *STRUCTURE*.
> 
> A building is a structure. It has many materials such as concrete, steel, or plastic.
> 
> Likewise, a radome as a structure have many materials in layers or substrates...
> 
> Patent US20100225563 - DUAL POLARIZATION ANTENNA STRUCTURE, RADOME AND DESIGN METHOD THEREOF - Google Patents
> 
> A radome can be 0-100% transparent. Zero meaning completely opaque and 100 mean completely transparent. It depends on the substrates formulations.


 
Your answering that radome is not material but structure is not addressing my question to you; instead it is just like evading effort just you usually do.

Let me reprhase my statement:

I said to you: by your misconception that semi transparent as the cause of absorption, then the transparent material at the radome should be a perfect absorbing material

What is your answer?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> So why after asking you dozens of times over a period of several months you still have not been able to explain your own quote?
> 
> So what is high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching?


Please remind me:

Why do you think I owe you that?

What claim have I made regarding that issue? Why do you think I have obligation to answer every question you throw?

Have you answered all my questions against all of your claims?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Please remind me:
> 
> 
> What claim have I made regarding that issue? *Why do you think I have obligation to answer every question you throw?*



I'm not asking you to answer any random questions, i am asking you to explain your own quote. Remember you stated that only a *qualified* person can explain their source. I for one would like to know if you actually know what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means since you quoted it. Are you qualified?






antonius123 said:


> *Why do you think I owe you that?*





You owe the readers an explanation, and if the readers of this forum mean nothing to you than you owe it to yourself to let to nay sayers know that you know what you are talking about. It is you who keeps advocating that only qualified people can explain their sources and that many people here do not understand what they quote. Can you practice what you preach and educate the readers? I&#8217;m sure that there are many people on this forum that would appreciate knowing the answer to what your quote means.





antonius123 said:


> Have you answered all my questions against all of your claims?





To the best of my knowledge i have. You promised me that if i answered your question about canopies that you would explain to the readers what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means. I did my part, i answered the question about canopies (at least the best that i could) but you still have not explained what your own quote meant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> I'm not asking you to answer any random questions, i am asking you to explain your own quote. Remember you stated that only a *qualified* person can explain their source. *I for one would like to know if you actually know what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching* means since you quoted it. Are you qualified?



IF you want to ask me in order to TEST my qualification during the debate, then please show your own QUALIFICATION first.

Do you know what you are debating? Do you know that matters? because if you dont know, you were not supposed to debate severely with stubborn.




> You owe the readers an explanation, and if the readers of this forum mean nothing to you than you owe it to yourself to let to nay sayers know that you know what you are talking about.




Noo... so far i notice the reader asking me that is only you, dont lie!

OR can you prove other many readers asking that?? you have to be honest here.



> *It is you who keeps advocating that only qualified people can explain their sources and that many people here do not understand what they quote*. Can you practice what you preach and educate the readers? Im sure that there are many people on this forum that would appreciate knowing the answer to what your quote means.



You are lying. I never claim my self expert, you are slandering like your master Gambit now 

It is funny if you claim you want to learn from me while you are debating me like hell and show your attitude of stubborn and ignorance against me.

And if you want to learn about that issue, why dont you go to the one who proclaim as True / Real Aviation Expert here, then come back to me to continue our debate?

Evidence => Gambit: "*I know more about the cone regarding aviation than you do"*.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-185.html#ixzz25Hjpb2Tf

*Asking me for thirst of knowledge and debating me is 2 contradictive things that prove your hypocrisy! *




> To the best of my knowledge i have. You promised me that if i answered your question about canopies that you would explain to the readers what total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching means. I did my part, i answered the question about canopies (at least the best that i could) but you still have not explained what your own quote meant.


 
Nooo ... i did not see that; or please show me your satisfactory answer for your claim that I am challenging you. I remember you leave my last question.

I want to see your genuine motive behind your question, before I address your question that you claim as a genuine question in quest.

Your statement that you want to know *genuinely from me for the thirst of knowledge* in fact is contradicting to your behavior/attitude with your ignorance, stubborn and accusation against me during the debate.

But if you ask me in order to test me, then let me know first if you yourself really understand the issue as relevance to the debate. The tester should be more qualified or at least as qualified.

Shame on you for your hypocrisy!


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> IF you want to ask me in order to TEST my qualification during the debate, then please show your own QUALIFICATION first.


That is *BULLSH1T*, kid.

*YOU* were the one who boasted about your aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians so you opened the door to test your claim to that 'background'.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

It is absolutely amazing that you do not know that basic aerodynamics question given what you claimed about yourself and to tell others to shut up and defer to you. So far, you could not answer a dozen basic aerodynamics and seven flight controls engineering questions.

So to continue to expose your lie about yourself...

Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.
A: Operational efficiency. Capacity for continuous development. Market viability.

For example: The C-130 airframe is an example of a 'successful' airframe design in all three areas. The target audience or market is the transport community. Its largely tubular airframe is operationally efficient at all altitudes with varying atmospheric pressure. Very few compound curvatures. Straight and broad wings for high lift and stability. And the list is considerable that gives this airframe longevity in terms of evolution and improvements throughout these decades. In the fighter aircrafts community, there are plenty of obsoleted and retired airframes. But in the transport community, although there are plenty of airframes that have similar physical traits as the -130, most of them have sub-systems that do not contribute as well to operational efficiency, or discourages continuous developments, or is so complex that market viability is limited, in other words, even though the Concord is a member of this community, it has a very limited utility. The C-130 design is not going to be retired any time soon.

This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and eight flight controls engineering questions you could not answer.

Next...






Q: For the above illustration, when is the inboard spoilers used?


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> IF you want to ask me in order to TEST my qualification during the debate, then please show your own QUALIFICATION first.






Don&#8217;t play games. I want to test you because you were the one bragging that other people don&#8217;t know what they are quoting, so I want to know if you know what you are quoting. Remember it was *you* that stated, only a* qualified person can explain *the context of their quote. If you ask me to explain my quote I would be more than happy to do so but you refuse to do the same, why? Because you can&#8217;t answer, it&#8217;s not that you don&#8217;t want to answer but that you are simply not able to answer. 







antonius123 said:


> Do you know what you are debating? Do you know that matters? because if you dont know, you were not supposed to debate severely with stubborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying. I never claim my self expert, you are slandering like your master Gambit now
> 
> It is funny if you claim you want to learn from me while you are debating me like hell and show your attitude of stubborn and ignorance against me.
> 
> And if you want to learn about that issue, why dont you go to the one who proclaim as True / Real Aviation Expert here, then come back to me to continue our debate?
> 
> Evidence => Gambit: "*I know more about the cone regarding aviation than you do"*.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-185.html#ixzz25Hjpb2Tf
> 
> *Asking me for thirst of knowledge and debating me is 2 contradictive things that prove your hypocrisy! *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nooo ... i did not see that; or please show me your satisfactory answer for your claim that I am challenging you. I remember you leave my last question.
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement that you want to know *genuinely from me for the thirst of knowledge* in fact is contradicting to your behavior/attitude with your ignorance, stubborn and accusation against me during the debate.
> 
> But if you ask me in order to test me, then let me know first if you yourself really understand the issue as relevance to the debate. The tester should be more qualified or at least as qualified.





antonius123 said:


> Shame on you for your hypocrisy!




It would be easier to just admit you that you do not know the answer to the question instead of posting an emotional rant.


If you knew the answer you would have answered me months ago, instead you keep playing these games and making excuses such as, &#8220;why should I answer?&#8221; Or, &#8220;The tester should be more qualified or at least as qualified&#8221; You keep accusing other members of not knowing what they quote, or not understanding their own source yet when I called you out and asked you to explain your own source you stopped dead in your tracks. 


I am merely asking you to explain what your own quote meant. I&#8217;m not asking you to explain my quote, I&#8217;m not asking you to explain a random question, I&#8217;m asking you to explain your quote, something that you keep refusing to do even though it goes against everything you have been saying. You don&#8217;t know the answer to your own quote, that much is clear.






antonius123 said:


> Noo... so far i notice the reader asking me that is only you, dont lie!
> 
> OR can you prove other many readers asking that?? you have to be honest here.






I&#8217;m a reader, I want to know. Other reader do not need to openly ask for the answer to the question , it&#8217;s reasonable to assume that the readers of this military forum would like to know the answers to aviation questions especially when someone quotes something and someone else asks what that quote means.








antonius123 said:


> * I want to see your genuine motive behind your question*, before I address your question that you claim as a genuine question in quest.






All I want to know is if you knew what you quoted, it&#8217;s simple as that. After asking you a dozen times it&#8217;s clear you don&#8217;t know the answer, an answer to your own quote nevertheless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Don&#8217;t play games. I want to test you because you were the one bragging that other people don&#8217;t know what they are quoting, so I want to know if you know what you are quoting. Remember it was *you* that stated, only a* qualified person can explain *the context of their quote. If you ask me to explain my quote I would be more than happy to do so but you refuse to do the same, why? Because you can&#8217;t answer, it&#8217;s not that you don&#8217;t want to answer but that you are simply not able to answer.



Ow, you finally come out from hypocrisy and admit that the motive is to test me. 

OK, thats fine; before you test me and I take the challenge, please answer me: "Do you know the answer"?

If you know, then lets the game.
If you dont know, then you are a clown who doesnt deserve to test other with more knowledge than you






> It would be easier to just admit you that you do not know the answer to the question instead of posting an emotional rant.
> 
> 
> If you knew the answer you would have answered me months ago, instead you keep playing these games and making excuses such as, &#8220;why should I answer?&#8221; Or, &#8220;The tester should be more qualified or at least as qualified&#8221; You keep accusing other members of not knowing what they quote, or not understanding their own source yet when I called you out and asked you to explain your own source you stopped dead in your tracks.



I can give you the answer.

But since your motive is to test; then before I answer your test, I want to know if you also know?

If yes, then lets begin.



> I am merely asking you to explain what your own quote meant. I&#8217;m not asking you to explain my quote, I&#8217;m not asking you to explain a random question, I&#8217;m asking you to explain your quote, something that you keep refusing to do even though it goes against everything you have been saying. You don&#8217;t know the answer to your own quote, that much is clear.



Its so funny 

I took it from wikipedia; 
So since you are debating me, it means you should know much much better than I do.
Why you debated me, if you dont have a clue about that? 



> I&#8217;m a reader, I want to know. Other reader do not need to openly ask for the answer to the question , it&#8217;s reasonable to assume that the readers of this military forum would like to know the answers to aviation questions especially when someone quotes something and someone else asks what that quote means.



That is assumption from a liar.
You were caught lie, as you claimed that other readers were asking to me.

If thats so, then they should ask this question to you too, since you act like an expert and debating me.




> All I want to know is if you knew what you quoted, it&#8217;s simple as that. After asking you a dozen times it&#8217;s clear you don&#8217;t know the answer, an answer to your own quote nevertheless.


 
I know what I quote.

Do you know what I quote? that is from wikipedia regarding the advantage of DCS over cone/etc.
If you dont know, then you were acting like a clown when debating me. 



gambit said:


> That is *BULLSH1T*, kid.
> 
> *YOU* were the one who boasted about your aviation 'background' to shut down the Indians so you opened the door to test your claim to that 'background'.
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> It is absolutely amazing that you do not know that basic aerodynamics question given what you claimed about yourself and to tell others to shut up and defer to you. So far, you could not answer a dozen basic aerodynamics and seven flight controls engineering questions.
> 
> So to continue to expose your lie about yourself...
> 
> Q: What constitute a 'successful' airframe design? Caveat: There are very few 'failure' with respect to 'successful'. Essentially, if an airframe flew, then it is not a failure because it exploited aerodynamic forces to its advantage to become airborne. So what this mean is that some airframes are less successful than others regarding their target audience or specific mission type. Then what other factors are there that would make some airframes more successful than others to the point where it serves as a standard to be measured against in terms of design? Hint: 3 items.
> A: Operational efficiency. Capacity for continuous development. Market viability.
> 
> For example: The C-130 airframe is an example of a 'successful' airframe design in all three areas. The target audience or market is the transport community. Its largely tubular airframe is operationally efficient at all altitudes with varying atmospheric pressure. Very few compound curvatures. Straight and broad wings for high lift and stability. And the list is considerable that gives this airframe longevity in terms of evolution and improvements throughout these decades. In the fighter aircrafts community, there are plenty of obsoleted and retired airframes. But in the transport community, although there are plenty of airframes that have similar physical traits as the -130, most of them have sub-systems that do not contribute as well to operational efficiency, or discourages continuous developments, or is so complex that market viability is limited, in other words, even though the Concord is a member of this community, it has a very limited utility. The C-130 design is not going to be retired any time soon.
> 
> This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and eight flight controls engineering questions you could not answer.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: For the above illustration, when is the inboard spoilers used?



Sorry, I dont accept any test, especially from a LOOSER like you 

Remember you have FAILED many many times in proving and defending your claims

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I know what I quote.
> 
> Do you know what I quote? that is from wikipedia regarding the advantage of DCS over cone/etc.
> If you dont know, then you were acting like a clown when debating me.



do you know anything else other than wikipedia? 




> Sorry, I dont accept any test, especially from a LOOSER like you
> 
> Remember you have FAILED many many times in proving and defending your claims



many many times? 

List them. For everyone to see. Why don't you?


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Ow,* you finally come out from hypocrisy and admit that the motive is to test me*.






Yes and I always stated that from day one. You opened the flood gates when you said that other people don&#8217;t know what they quote and that only a qualified person can explain their quote. You are saying that you have an intimate knowledge of what you quoted. Prove it.








antonius123 said:


> OK, thats fine; before you test me and I take the challenge, please answer me: "Do you know the answer"?
> 
> If you know, then lets the game.
> If you dont know, then you are a clown who doesnt deserve to test other with more knowledge than you







Do you want me to give you the answer(s) to the question? That would defeat the purpose. Hypothetically even if I didn&#8217;t know the answer it would be irrelevant, lets say I&#8217;m just a casual member and I would be interested in knowing more about what you quoted. It would be your obligation to provide a detailed insight to what you quoted since you quoted it and claimed to have knowledge about everything you quote.








antonius123 said:


> *I can give you the answer.*
> 
> But since your motive is to test; then before I answer your test, I want to know if you also know?
> 
> If yes, then lets begin.








Okay, give the answer(s).





antonius123 said:


> Its so funny
> 
> I took it from wikipedia;
> *So since you are debating me, it means you should know much much better than I do.*
> Why you debated me, if you dont have a clue about that?






I do know much better than you. I am debating with you because you claimed you know better than everyone else. Remember what you said about other people quoting sources? You said they don&#8217;t know what they quote. Do you know what you quote? You claimed you did, so prove it.





antonius123 said:


> That is assumption from a liar.
> You were caught lie, as you claimed that other readers were asking to me.
> 
> If thats so, then they should ask this question to you too, since you act like an expert and debating me.








You just like to twist the subject, this is exactly what I said:





ptldM3 said:


> I&#8217;m sure that there are many people on this forum that would appreciate knowing the answer to what your quote means.





Now where in that quote did I say other people were asking? I said that it would be reasonable to assume that other people, apart from me, would like to know the answer to your quote. If it would make you feel better would you like for me to ask other members such as Gambit or perhaps some random forum members if they would like to know the answer? I can assure you I can get hordes of people asking you for the answer.



amalakas said:


> do you know anything else other than wikipedia?



The problem is that i don't think he can find the answer on Wikipedia.


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> Now where in that quote did I say other people were asking? I said that it would be reasonable to assume that other people, apart from me, would like to know the answer to your quote. If it would make you feel better would you like for me to ask other members such as Gambit or perhaps some random forum members if they would like to know the answer? I can assure you I can get hordes of people asking you for the answer.



Yes. I want to know too.



ptldM3 said:


> The problem is that i don't think he can find the answer on Wikipedia.



No, I don't think so either. 

Besides his game is to make us answer so he can come back and pick on the answers for more knowledge. Essentially he is learning.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Yes and I always stated that from day one. You opened the flood gates when you said that other people dont know what they quote and that only a qualified person can explain their quote. You are saying that you have an intimate knowledge of what you quoted. Prove it.



But yesterday you pretend as if you wanted to learn. That hipocrisy.

I can explain! but do you know what you were debating?

If you dont know basic thing I quote about DCS advantage, then why you pretend like an expert and debated me?







> Do you want me to give you the answer(s) to the question? That would defeat the purpose. Hypothetically even if I didnt know the answer it would be irrelevant, lets say Im just a casual member and I would be interested in knowing more about what you quoted. It would be your obligation to provide a detailed insight to what you quoted since you quoted it and claimed to have knowledge about everything you quote.



Nevermind, I will give you my answer first, then you will give yours.

But I need you to admit first: whether you know the issue or not?

If you dont know, then why you were debating me?





> Okay, give the answer(s).



Tell me first if you know or not?

You can't test me if you yourself dont know.




> I do know much better than you. I am debating you because you claimed you know better than everyone else. Remember what you said about other people quoting sources? You said they dont know what they quote. Do you know what you quote? You claimed you did, so prove it.



Ok, I take your word.

I will answer one, and you will give your answer for the other.
You test me, and I test you; OK?





> You just like to twist the subject, this is exactly what I said:
> 
> Now where in that quote did I say other people were asking? I said that it would be reasonable to assume that other people, apart from me, would like to know the answer to your quote. If it would make you feel better would you like for me to ask other members such as Gambit or perhaps some random forum members if they would like to know the answer? I can assure you I can get hordes of people asking you for the answer.


 
This is what you were saying: "You owe the readers an explanation"

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eration-aircraft-updates-discussions-185.html

It implies that readers want me to give answer about the issue..

Then that mean the readers will appreciate if you can answer that too, and bust my argument with what you know about that issue

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

amalakas said:


> Yes. I want to know too.





That is at least 2 people that would like for him to explain his quote.





amalakas said:


> No, I don't think so either.
> 
> Besides his game is to make us answer so he can come back and pick on the answers for more knowledge. Essentially he is learning.




That is correct, much of his arguing has nothing to do with the subject or technical maters it&#8217;s usually word games, such as &#8220;why should I answer?&#8221; or insult such as, &#8220;you&#8217;re an idiot&#8221;, or it&#8217;s bragging about how we don&#8217;t understand our sources when in fact he does not understand his sources. He essentially doesn&#8217;t say anything until after we provide sources with explanations and after we do so he picks up tid-bits and tries, and I say tries to argue.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Yes. I want to know too.



@ ptldM3,

See .. your friend want you to answer too 



> No, I don't think so either.
> 
> Besides his game is to make us answer so he can come back and pick on the answers for more knowledge. Essentially he is learning.



If thats the case, then why I bust your master everytime he throw claim and drag internet article? 

You are too idiotic to give objective and fair assessment.

In fact I give your master gambit my own answer and bust his answer, instead of picking up his answer as you claim.



amalakas said:


> do you know anything else other than wikipedia?



What do you mean?




> many many times?
> 
> List them. For everyone to see. Why don't you?


 
Read how I bust your master above! dont be lazy



amalakas said:


> do you know anything else other than wikipedia?



What do you mean?




> many many times?
> 
> List them. For everyone to see. Why don't you?


 
Read how I bust your master above! dont be lazy


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Tell me first if you know or not?
> 
> You can't test me if you yourself dont know.






Like I said before don&#8217;t play games with me, I asked you if you knew the answer to your own quote, and now you have the audacity to ask me if I know? And yes I know the answer.






antonius123 said:


> Ok, I take your word.
> 
> I will answer one, and you will give your answer for the other.
> You test me, and I test you; OK?





So you want me to answer half of your question for you?  So you answer only what you are able to and what you can not answer you expect me to answer for you?


You answer the question in its entirety or admit that you don&#8217;t know.







antonius123 said:


> This is what you were saying: "You owe the readers an explanation"
> 
> 
> It implies that readers want me to give answer about the issue..





Yes and you do owe the readers an explanation if asked to do so. So far I have asked for you to explain your quote and so has amalakas.



antonius123 said:


> @ ptldM3,
> 
> See .. your friend want you to answer too




No, he wants you to answer not me. More proof you can't comprehend simple sentences.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Sorry, I dont accept any test, especially from a LOOSER like you


Your credibility is not up to you to determine. It is up to the readers. So if you want to apologize, do it to them.



antonius123 said:


> Remember you have FAILED many many times in proving and defending your claims


You cannot answer this first year aerodynamics question...

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

That and a long list of first year Basic Aerodynamics. When I was in aviation, active duty and civilian life, I trained many foreigners, from Saudis to Egyptians to Spaniards, from aviation technicians to engineers. All of my 'on-aircraft' trainees, not students because they are beyond the classroom stage, have a mastery of technical English that were obvious even over two decades ago. You *DO NOT* have that mastery and that gave you a flawed understanding of every basic principles in aviation. You are too stubborn to admit it your lack of knowledge and understanding of technical issues. The result is that no matter what citations or logical reasoning presented, your childish pride will not allow you to concede you are wrong and you must insist that everyone else are wrong.






Q: For the above illustration, when is the inboard spoilers used?
A: Inboard spoilers are discouraged in designs for use in flight because their deployments for rolling maneuvers may cause airflow disruptions on the empennage (tail structure) and that would cause buffeting. Discouraged -- not forbidden -- in designs. Outboard spoilers are used for in flight rolling maneuvers instead. When weight is fully on wheels on landing, inboard spoilers are deployed as speed brakes or 'liftdumpers'.

Flight control surfaces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> After touchdown, the ground spoilers deploy, and *"dump" the lift generated by the wings*, thus placing the aircraft's weight on the wheels,...


While the Internet is available for all to find information, when it comes to technical issues, only experience can guide a person on where to look for sources to support his arguments. That is why no one here dare to tell the forum on how to operate on the human brain even though there are no brain surgeons members here. So your convenient dismissal of publicly available sources when they proved you wrong and ignorant further show the readers what an immature child you really are. You have no formal education in aviation, no real experience in aviation, and therefore nothing but flawed understandings of aviation from basic aerodynamics to actually working on the aircraft itself.

Next...

Q: In designing a spoiler system, what is the most dangerous condition/effect a spoiler system could have?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Q: For the above illustration, when is the inboard spoilers used?
> A: Inboard spoilers are discouraged in designs for use in flight because their deployments for rolling maneuvers may cause airflow disruptions on the empennage (tail structure) and that would cause buffeting. Discouraged -- not forbidden -- in designs. Outboard spoilers are used for in flight rolling maneuvers instead. When weight is fully on wheels on landing, inboard spoilers are deployed as speed brakes or 'liftdumpers'.
> 
> Flight control surfaces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Although I definitely know the 727 and the 747 do not use the inboard spoilers in-flight, I think there are designs were rolling aid is progressively with speed moved from the outboard ones to the inboard ones for wing loading issues.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Like I said before dont play games with me, I asked you if you knew the answer to your own quote, and now you have the audacity to ask me if I know? And yes I know the answer.



You are playing the game with me.

If you say you know the answer and even claim know better than me, then I deserve to test you too.




> So you want me to answer half of your question for you?  So you answer only what you are able to and what you can not answer you expect me to answer for you?



Not like that.

I will give you my answer, and I will be expecting your answer too. I will start for the first question, then you will start for the second question. It is fair enough.

Dare you?



> You answer the question in its entirety or admit that you dont know.



I will of course.

But you must give your answer too, then it is fair. Otherwise, you are only an unfair coward 




> Yes and you do owe the readers an explanation if asked to do so. So far I have asked for you to explain your quote and so has amalakas.



Then what make you think you - who claim know the answer and know better than me - do not owe to readers? 



> No, he wants you to answer not me. More proof you can't comprehend simple sentences.



Why is that?

Do you forget that you claim you know it too and even know better than me? then readers want to know from the one who claim know better


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Why is that?
> 
> Do you forget that you claim you know it too and even know better than me? then readers want to know from the one who claim know better


 
No, you posted it, you explain it. 

You don't see any of us letting others explain what we post, do you?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> No, you posted it, you explain it.
> 
> You don't see any of us letting others explain what we post, do you?



You are demonstrating your bad motive pal.

You just want to attack me blindly, and defend your beloved friend blindly 

You should be more interested to know from one who claim know better than me.
To be fair, at least you should ask both of us not only me alone.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You are demonstrating your bad motive pal.
> 
> You just want to attack me blindly, and defend your beloved friend blindly
> 
> You should be more interested to know from one who claim know better than me.
> To be fair, at least you should ask both of us not only me alone.


What a crybaby...!!! 

The kid is a member in a military oriented forum, with no military experience. He engages in a highly technical discussion, of which he lied about his experience, then when challenged he boo-hoo-hoo about being questioned.


----------



## Viet

Gambit and friends: Pls ignore this kid antonius123. He is just stupid and ignorant but does not know that.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You are demonstrating your bad motive pal.
> 
> You just want to attack me blindly, and defend your beloved friend blindly
> 
> You should be more interested to know from one who claim know better than me.
> To be fair, at least you should ask both of us not only me alone.


 

When person A posts something I am interested in, I ask person A, 
if person B posts, I ask person B. 

You posted it, you explain it. Why should I ask someone else?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> When person A posts something I am interested in, I ask person A,
> if person B posts, I ask person B.
> 
> You posted it, you explain it. Why should I ask someone else?



That means you are very subjective.

There is someone else who claim know more than me and countering me regarding the issue you are asking, but you dont want to ask him.

It doesnt mean i dont want to answer you. I will, but since it is kind of test from my debating counterpart, then I need to test him too.

I am waiting whether he (the one who claim know more and me is wrong) dare to take my challenge. If he dare, then i will give my answer. So you better persuade your friend to accept my challenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> What a crybaby...!!!
> 
> The kid is a member in a military oriented forum, with no military experience. He engages in a highly technical discussion, of which he lied about his experience, then when challenged he boo-hoo-hoo about being questioned.



Talking about technical discussion, you forget that you have lost your face when you FAILED to defend your imaginary claims here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eration-aircraft-updates-discussions-185.html





Viet said:


> Gambit and friends: Pls ignore this kid antonius123. He is just stupid and ignorant but does not know that.


 
Unfortunately your master is not that kind of person 

If he were like that, then he had been back off from the beginning. 

In fact - he consistently demonstrates stubborness, ignorance in defending his claims and self proclaimed expert by any means; that make many of his contenders become frustrated. 

But finally it comes to an end that he cant defend his imaginary claims anymore, as you can see here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eration-aircraft-updates-discussions-185.html

He cant defend his assumption/claim about inlet cone, semi transparency that cause absorption, more RCS contributor than fanblade, DSI is at best half of cone, etc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyperion

Wow... going through this thread, the word "troll" gets promoted to whole different level...."trolls with a vengeance"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Hyperion said:


> Wow... going through this thread, the word "troll" gets promoted to whole different level...."trolls with a vengeance"



may I ask what you mean?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Talking about technical discussion, you forget that you have lost your face when you FAILED to defend your imaginary claims here:
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eration-aircraft-updates-discussions-185.html


So say the kid who cannot distinguish the difference between a 'structure' and a 'material'.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

This is *DIRECTLY* related to aviation at the top most level, not three or even two degrees away like what you tried to do earlier. This is basic aerodynamics in the first year. You said you answered it. Show us where.

Q: In designing a spoiler system, what is the most dangerous condition/effect a spoiler system could have?
A: Flutter. Spoiler flutter could come from the spoiler itself or from its deployment mechanisms such as actuator and support or from both spoiler and its deployment mechanisms. For the spoiler itself, the issue is with its torsional and bending stiffness. For the spoiler deployment mechanisms, the issue is with their overall design such as hydraulic pressure and material.

This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and eight flight controls questions that you could not answer despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study'.

Next...

Q: What are the forces that have direct physical effects on a body that enable their exploitations and resulting in flight, in other words, what are these forces that help create what is called 'kinematics'?

kin·e·mat·ics (Noun):
1- The branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces that cause the motion.
2- The features or properties of motion in an object, regarded in such a way.


----------



## PLA supremacy

gambit said:


> So say the kid who cannot distinguish the difference between a 'structure' and a 'material'.
> 
> Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
> A: Power.
> 
> This is *DIRECTLY* related to aviation at the top most level, not three or even two degrees away like what you tried to do earlier. This is basic aerodynamics in the first year. You said you answered it. Show us where.
> 
> Q: In designing a spoiler system, what is the most dangerous condition/effect a spoiler system could have?
> A: Flutter. Spoiler flutter could come from the spoiler itself or from its deployment mechanisms such as actuator and support or from both spoiler and its deployment mechanisms. For the spoiler itself, the issue is with its torsional and bending stiffness. For the spoiler deployment mechanisms, the issue is with their overall design such as hydraulic pressure and material.
> 
> This make a dozen basic aerodynamics and eight flight controls questions that you could not answer despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study'.
> 
> Next...
> 
> Q: What are the forces that have direct physical effects on a body that enable their exploitations and resulting in flight, in other words, what are these forces that help create what is called 'kinematics'?
> 
> kin·e·mat·ics (Noun):
> 1- The branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces that cause the motion.
> 2- The features or properties of motion in an object, regarded in such a way.



 you have no life besides PDF do you?

go get a job you bum!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## conworldus

PLA supremacy said:


> you have no life besides PDF do you?
> 
> go get a job you bum!



Some people get paid for posting things.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

conworldus said:


> Some people get paid for posting things.


Guess that is why we see so much 'Chinese physics' for the J-20 and extravagant claims for the PLA.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Guess that is why we see so much 'Chinese physics' for the J-20 and extravagant claims for the PLA.



They are referring to you 

Judging your post like the above 

And remember you have just been busted heavily

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> They are referring to you
> 
> Judging your post like the above
> 
> And remember you have just been busted heavily


Can you explain why you did not know this basic first year aerodynamics question?

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

This post => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...raft-updates-discussions-186.html#post3368186 <= describe you perfectly -- Ignorant and a liar.

Last chance...

Q: What are the forces that have direct physical effects on a body that enable their exploitations and resulting in flight, in other words, what are these forces that help create what is called 'kinematics'?

kin·e·mat·ics (Noun):
1- The branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces that cause the motion.
2- The features or properties of motion in an object, regarded in such a way.


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> That means you are very subjective.
> 
> *There is someone else who claim know more than me and countering me regarding the issue you are asking, but you dont want to ask him.*




I do know more than you, I taught you a few lessons while you have not shown me anything I didnt already know. Lets get back to the *real* purpose of our debate, it is not whether I know more than you but whether you can show that you knew what you quoted especially after all the bragging you did about having knowledge of your quotes.

You stated that only a qualified person can explain their quote, so why after several months and dozens of requests have you not been able to answer? Furthermore, you made claims that we do not understand or explain our sources--yet why have you not explained your source?

You say one thing and do something very different. Why would I explain your source for you? I would just be doing half of the work for you. I dont want you to explain half the source, or 1/3, but the source in its entirety. Remember all those things you said? Only a qualified person can explain their source and we dont understand our sources. If the above is true than prove it.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> *I do know more than you*, I taught you a few lessons while you have not shown me anything I didn&#8216;t already know. Lets get back to the *real* purpose of our debate, it is not whether I know more than you but whether you can show that you knew what you quoted especially after all the bragging you did about having knowledge of your quotes.



No you dont know anything; your answer to my questions is mistaken and misconceptions.

I know what I quote. But do you know what you are debating?

If you want to test me it is ok, but you have to be willing to be tested likewise.

So it depends on you, if you dare to take the challenge then I will give you answer immediately. Otherwise, you only play hide and seeks.



> You stated that only a qualified person can explain their quote, so why after several months and dozens of requests have you not been able to answer? Furthermore, you made claims that we do not understand or explain our sources--yet why have you not explained your source?



I can explain my quote, and ready to do that for you.

But I demand you to explain me your own version after I explain to you.

Why do you mind, and afraid of the challenge? You just claim again above that you have more knowledge than me, so you should not be afraid. You test me and I test you.



> You say one thing and do something very different. Why would I explain your source for you? I would just be doing half of the work for you. I don&#8217;t want you to explain half the source, or 1/3, but the source in its entirety. Remember all those things you said? Only a qualified person can explain their source and we don&#8217;t understand our sources. If the above is true than prove it.



I am using the same source that you were referring.

Why should I elaborate my quoted source to you, while you -with the same source - are debating me and claiming know more than me? 

Instead I am wondering if you know your own resource? because you keep debating and refusing while claiming you know more than me.

Why you are evading while demanding me to answer?

Again I challenge you: I will explain what I understand about the citation I quote, and you should do the same too because you are confronting me using the same citation, even you claim you know more than me.

So will you take it or not?? if not then you are a coward. Bcs I am ready to give you my answer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Antonius, these clowns have been annoying me for years. I suggest you just ignore them.

I ask them for reputable citations and they don't have any. They make ridiculous claims with no relation to reality.

You can keep arguing with them if you want to, but there is no end.

Instead of wasting my time with these numbskulls, I made a YouTube video on the J-20 Mighty Dragon with over 92,763 views. I got my message out and these anti-China clowns can only vent their frustration in here. I won and they lost. Too bad for these dummies.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Exported/Downgraded F-35 has beach ball-size RCS of 0.15 m2*

Let's address the obvious question. Why would the United States downgrade exported F-35s?

Well, the U.S. Congress banned the export of F-22s. The F-35 is close to the F-22 in stealth. Therefore, if foreign countries obtain the full stealth version of the F-35 and make incremental upgrades then foreign countries would possess a fighter close in performance to the F-22.

Hence, to avoid foreign countries from obtaining stealth technology comparable to U.S. performance, the United States downgraded the exported F-35 to a RCS of 0.15 m2.

This means the 42 exported/downgraded F-35s expected to be bought by Japan can be easily detected and shot down by China's stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragons or modern overlapping air defense system.

Stealth rankings:

1. F-22: 0.0001 m2 RCS (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of marble" on radar]

2. J-20: 0.0001 m2 (frontal) to 0.005 m2 (rear) (from Australia Air Power)
[intermediate size between marble and golf ball]

3. F-35: 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of golf ball"]

4. Exported F-35: 0.15 m2 (see citations below)
["size of beach ball"]

5. T-50/Pak Fa: 0.5 m2 (from official Russian Embassy in India website)
[size of a gigantic beach ball]

----------

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au

"Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters
By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006






Like a beach ball on the radar &#8230; the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the fighter. (Photo: Jason South)

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: 'We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision.'"

----------

eurofighter @ starstreak.net &bull; View topic - Typhoon for South Korea?

"Export model F-35 is revealed to have a frontal RCS rating in 0.1~0.25 m2 (Hence the LO rating) class thanks to Canada's Defense Ministry disclosure."

"Scribd
In the page 2.

F-35 has a 95% RCS reduction over 4th-gen jets according to Julian Fantino, the vice defense minister of Canada. Going by the standard RCS of a generic 4th gen fighter used by radar vendors (5 m2), that would be 0.25 m2. If he was going by CF-18's RCS of 3 m2, then it would be 0.15 m2."





Canadian government defense document page 1





Canadian government defense document page 2





Canadian government defense document page 3





Canadian government defense document page 4

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Antonius, these clowns have been annoying me for years. I suggest you just ignore them.
> 
> I ask them for reputable citations and they don't have any. They make ridiculous claims with no relation to reality.
> 
> You can keep arguing with them if you want to, but there is no end.
> 
> Instead of wasting my time with these numbskulls, I made a YouTube video on the J-20 Mighty Dragon with over 92,763 views. I got my message out and these anti-China clowns can only vent their frustration in here. I won and they lost. Too bad for these dummies.
> 
> Anyway, that's just my two cents.






Your resorting to insults again will have no bearing. 

You are once again talking about citations. Let us all examine what happened last time you asked me for some! 


In post #2260 in the J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions I posted:



amalakas said:


> oh .. and because you usually ask for citations ... here they are .. i wonder if you are going to read them.. .
> 
> D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc.
> 
> George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar
> 
> Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research
> 
> have fun man..





Your amazingly intellectual answer to that was : 

post #2261


Martian2 said:


> Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? You never post a *reputable citation* to back up your crap. It gets annoying.
> 
> Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?
> 
> The F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and its jamming capability is consistent with all AESA radars. It can jam a narrow frequency range. Big deal. All AESA radars can do that. The F-22 has a bigger AESA radar and it hops over a wide range of frequencies.
> 
> Since my citation already informed you the F-35 can only jam "selectively," it means the F-35 cannot jam the larger frequency-hopping F-22 radar.
> 
> I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you trolls over and over again. This is the last time.




And in my response to that amazing comment by you was : 
post #2262




amalakas said:


> Just because I knew you were going to say that ... and you fell right into the trap .. here are the full citations ...
> 
> D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc. 1999;
> 
> George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar (Second Edition), SciTech Publishing, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1998;
> 
> *Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research, Journal of UEST of China, Vol.34, No.4, Aug.2005;*


Source: J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions


You *never came back to us* with more explanation as to why you consider the above references for that topic as non reputable, especially seeing as a particularly important one for my arguments was actually* Chinese !* .. 

*you only attacked again asking for exact word phrases that mention what only you understand, not realising that the Chinese citation had been written for exactly what you were asking for!!! *


In other words you have been busted .. and you have lost all (if any) credibility you might have had in asking for citations , because when they are given to you , you lack the proper education and understanding to use them and evaluate them. 

end of story. 

unfortunately for you, a forum is a timeline of all the things we post. And guess what, it exposes YOU, not us. 

keep it up exposing yourself ..


----------



## Esc8781

Martian2 said:


> Antonius, these clowns have been annoying me for years. I suggest you just ignore them.
> 
> I ask them for reputable citations and they don't have any. They make ridiculous claims with no relation to reality.
> 
> You can keep arguing with them if you want to, but there is no end.
> 
> Instead of wasting my time with these numbskulls, I made a YouTube video on the J-20 Mighty Dragon with over 92,763 views. I got my message out and these anti-China clowns can only vent their frustration in here. I won and they lost. Too bad for these dummies.
> 
> Anyway, that's just my two cents.


 No offence, earlier in the forum people called Gambit the copy and paste guy and now you want citations from him, gee

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Antonius, these clowns have been annoying me for years. I suggest you just ignore them.
> 
> *I ask them for reputable citations and they don't have any. They make ridiculous claims with no relation to reality.*
> 
> You can keep arguing with them if you want to, but there is no end.
> 
> Instead of wasting my time with these numbskulls, I made a YouTube video on the J-20 Mighty Dragon with over 92,763 views. I got my message out and these anti-China clowns can only vent their frustration in here. I won and they lost. Too bad for these dummies.
> 
> Anyway, that's just my two cents.


Now that is delusional and an outright lie. It was *YOU* who once admitted the importance of providing sources to support one's arguments and that you learned it from me. And now you are telling the forum that I do not provide sources. You continue to prove yourself dishonest.

You won nothing but the dunce cap. Your claims are repeatedly debunked with sources that you do not understand, just like your Indonesian friend. It is you who are frustrated because you keep coming back here. You are frustrated because...

1- Your playground is intellectually dead and your ego is tired of being stroked by Chinese who are obligated to do so.

2- And because of (1) you must try to convince non-Chinese to your claims, which unfortunately for you, real physics and real experience trumps fantasies.



Esc8781 said:


> No offence, earlier in the forum people called Gambit the copy and paste guy and now you want citations from him, gee


Intellectual consistency has never been real to these yay-hoos.


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> I can explain my quote, and ready to do that for you.






Really? That&#8217;s funny since I&#8217;ve asked you dozens of times in the past two months and each time you have came up with excuses. Now is no different, now you want me to explain parts of your source.








antonius123 said:


> But I demand you to explain me your own version after I explain to you.







Fine, explain it than. If you actually know what you are talking about than there would be no need for my own version. If you are wrong or too vague than I can give you &#8216;my version.&#8217; But don'e expect that i will give you the answers to questions that you do not know.







antonius123 said:


> Why do you mind, and afraid of the challenge?






You seriously have some nerves. I have been asking you for months to explain your quote and you have refused to do so. First you just ignored my request, than you called me names, than you tried to play cute with me by pulling a, &#8220;what you don&#8217;t know?&#8221;, afterwards you said you, &#8220;needed more time&#8221;, and then you wanted me to explain your source.








antonius123 said:


> You just claim again above that you have more knowledge than me, so you should not be afraid. You test me and I test you.





More like you want me to give you the answers because you can&#8217;t find the information you need from Wekepedia.


You know why I know your full of it? Because earlier you claimed you needed &#8220;more time&#8221;, which means you quoted something that you did not understand thus you stated you needed time for research. Funny how that goes against everything you have claimed. What happened to &#8216;you guys don&#8217;t understand your sources&#8217;? And &#8216;only a qualified person can explain their sources&#8217;? The hypocrisy is amazing.

Not only that, you have had your time, where is an explanation to your source?







antonius123 said:


> I am using the same source that you were referring.




I never offered a source to your quote.







antonius123 said:


> *Why should I elaborate my quoted source to you*, while you -with the same source - are debating me and claiming know more than me?





Jee, I don&#8217;t know because of all the trash you have been talking. You claimed we don&#8217;t understand our sources, do you? Can you prove it? You claimed that only a qualified person can explain their sources. So explain it than.

You make provocative comments in which you portray yourself as a know it all. You open yourself up to challenges when you make bold statements about you knowing your sources and us not knowing ours. So prove it instead of running away like you have been for the last two months.







antonius123 said:


> Instead I am wondering if you know your own resource? because you keep debating and refusing while claiming you know more than me.






*You are describing yourself *

*You* posted the source not me, *you* claimed you know more than me. And *you* have been refusing to answer for the past two months. You have a psychological disorder.






antonius123 said:


> Why you are evading while demanding me to answer?





Why are you demanding I explain *your source *for you? Especially after all the bragging you have been doing about being qualified to answer sources. You seem to brag about having knowledge about your source. So where is it?









antonius123 said:


> Again I challenge you: I will explain what I understand about the citation I quote, and you should do the same too because you are confronting me using the same citation, even you claim you know more than me.




Go ahead and explain the *whole quote*, we&#8217;ll see if you know.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *Exported/Downgraded F-35 has beach ball-size RCS of 0.15 m2*
> 
> Let's address the obvious question. Why would the United States downgrade exported F-35s?
> 
> Well, the U.S. Congress banned the export of F-22s. The F-35 is close to the F-22 in stealth. Therefore, if foreign countries obtain the full stealth version of the F-35 and make incremental upgrades then foreign countries would possess a fighter close in performance to the F-22.
> 
> Hence, to avoid foreign countries from obtaining stealth technology comparable to U.S. performance, the United States downgraded the exported F-35 to a RCS of 0.15 m2.


A reasonable enough speculation. It is reasonable because there are no hard data for either aircrafts regarding each RCS value. What this mean is that the speculator can go to either extremes



Martian2 said:


> This means the 42 exported/downgraded F-35s expected to be bought by Japan can be easily detected and shot down by China's stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragons or modern overlapping air defense system.


No, it does not mean. It is only your hope so. We can safely assume that if a 'degraded' version does exist, it will be through shaping and it is well known in the radar community, one that we can safely assume *YOU* are not a member, that diverse quality of radar systems results in diverse detection range on the same body. You have no hard data but only a hard-on for the J-20 on which to make this weak claim.



Martian2 said:


> Stealth rankings:
> 
> 1. F-22: 0.0001 m2 RCS (from GlobalSecurity)
> ["size of marble" on radar]
> 
> 2. J-20: 0.0001 m2 (frontal) to 0.005 m2 (rear) (from Australia Air Power)
> [intermediate size between marble and golf ball]
> 
> 3. F-35: 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity)
> ["size of golf ball"]
> 
> 4. Exported F-35: 0.15 m2 (*see citations below*)
> ["size of beach ball"]
> 
> 5. T-50/Pak Fa: 0.5 m2 (from official Russian Embassy in India website)
> [size of a gigantic beach ball]
> 
> ----------
> 
> Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au


Your liberal interpretation of 'citation' does not fly with me. What you brought on is an opinion. A true citation would have hard data. I see nothing of the sort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*My reputable citations from GlobalSecurity, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India*

I have no idea what you're mumbling about.

I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past. Anyway, I don't intend to spend any more time on your anti-China rhetoric. I came into this thread to save Antonius from you clowns.

----------

References:

GlobalSecurity (F-22 and F-35 RCS): Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Australia Air Power (J-20 RCS): The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

Official Russian Embassy in India website (T-50/Pak Fa RCS): India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *I have no idea what you're mumbling about.*
> 
> I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past.
> 
> References:
> 
> GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> Australia Air Power: The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
> 
> Official Russian Embassy in India website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter


How convenient...

Show me where you explained to the readers something foundational as the '10-lambda rule'. More likely prior to reading me, you have never heard of such a rule and how important is it in radar detection. More likely prior to reading me, you have never heard of things like the 'corner reflector' or 'bi-static' or many others. All of these foundational principles I presented to the readers are accompanied by credible third party sources. Unimpeachable ones. Not only that, I often gave the readers keyword searches for them to go and verify me. To date, *NO ONE* ever came back and told me I lied. Not the same can be said for you.

You brought on Kopp? I want you to tell the readers right now that I never provided a Chinese source on why APA was wrong on using only Physical Optics.

Got balls?


----------



## Kesang

Martian2 said:


> *My reputable citations from GlobalSecurity, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India*
> 
> I have no idea what you're mumbling about.
> 
> I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past. Anyway, I don't intend to spend any more time on your anti-China rhetoric. I came into this thread to save Antonius from you clowns.
> 
> ----------
> 
> References:
> 
> GlobalSecurity (F-22 and F-35 RCS): Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> Australia Air Power (J-20 RCS): The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
> 
> Official Russian Embassy in India website (T-50/Pak Fa RCS): India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter



wow. According to GlobalSecurity, the rcs of Mki is 4 m2 and according to website of Official Russian Embassy in India, RCS of mki is 20 m2,


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> Official Russian Embassy in India website (T-50/Pak Fa RCS): India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter





This was from your link:




> Compiled from the article of *Ajai Shukla*, Business Standart, January, 2010



Copied and pasted from a fanboy blogger 


By the way where was that source were you claimed that the F-35 used cheap materials? Funny that you had no source, you simply claimed that it is 'cheaper' and had a bigger RCS thus it had to use cheap materials. Funny how you simply bolted after i posted a source where Lockheed claimed that the F-35 is the first production aircraft to use nanocomposites and that nanocomposites are the most advanced composite know and the most costly. I would probably bolt too if a source shot down every single claim i have made.



Kesang said:


> wow. According to GlobalSecurity, the rcs of Mki is 4 m2 and according to website of Official Russian Embassy in India, RCS of mki is 20 m2,




His source are about as reputable as a con artist. It's nothing more than guesses cobbed together by bloggers with too much time on their hands. One source claims one thing, another claimes something totally different.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Really? Thats funny since Ive asked you dozens of times in the past two months and each time you have came up with excuses. Now is no different, now you want me to explain parts of your source.



See.. you are demonstrating idiocy and ignorance with your repost that has been answered.

I've explained you that I have no obligation to answer any question you throw, whether i want to answer or not is up to me; if your motive is good I am willing to give answer. If your motive is to test then i expect you want to be tested too. 

Dont you understand that? I am dragging me to low level if i serve your idiotic debate.




> Fine, explain it than. If you actually know what you are talking about than there would be no need for my own version. If you are wrong or too vague than I can give you my version. But don'e expect that i will give you the answers to questions that you do not know.



See .. you are such a coward.

You want to test me but dont dare to be tested likewise even for the same source we refer. Even I let you to be tested later after me 







> You seriously have some nerves. I have been asking you for months to explain your quote and you have refused to do so. First you just ignored my request, than you called me names, than you tried to play cute with me by pulling a, what you dont know?, afterwards you said you, needed more time, and then you wanted me to explain your source.





See .. this repeated idiocy.

I've told you many times that I have no obligation to serve question with unclear motive.
I've explained you many times why I dont care with your test if you dont want to accept test too, but you are to coward.

You claim that you have answered my challenges satisfactory while i dont see yet except repeated idiocy. Similar to the repeated idiocy above.





> More like you want me to give you the answers because you cant find the information you need from Wekepedia.



Why everything has to be there in wikipedia? I can give you my answer without that, and I am willing to give my answer first then followed by your turn.

Why are you so afraid to do likewise?
We have wasted our time in debating this so far, so why dont you just take my fair challenge?
Why are you so afraid with that challenge?




> You know why I know your full of it? Because earlier you claimed you needed more time, which means you quoted something that you did not understand thus you stated you needed time for research. Funny how that goes against everything you have claimed. What happened to you guys dont understand your sources? And only a qualified person can explain their sources? The hypocrisy is amazing.
> 
> Not only that, you have had your time, where is an explanation to your source?



Dont lie, you lie to much.

I dont answer your question with unclear motive - because I dont feel to have obligation on that.

But since you admit that the purpose is to test me, then I am willing to answer but require you to be tested too, and this is regarding the quote on the wikipedia which was the same source we use.

And the more we debate this, the more evidence that you dont know the answer and dont dare to take the challenge to be tested. Admit it!




> I never offered a source to your quote.


So what source were you using then? in debating me about DSI and Cone?



> Jee, I dont know because of all the trash you have been talking. You claimed we dont understand our sources, do you? Can you prove it? You claimed that only a qualified person can explain their sources. So explain it than.
> 
> You make provocative comments in which you portray yourself as a know it all. You open yourself up to challenges when you make bold statements about you knowing your sources and us not knowing ours. So prove it instead of running away like you have been for the last two months.



See .. you finally admit that you dont know what you are debating 
If you dont understand yet, why dont you ask clarification? instead debating and judging other argument as trash while claiming you know better.

If you dont know the answer about the thing we are debating and the quote of the source we together refer, then you prove you have no idea about what you are debating, then prove that you dont know, then prove that you dont deserve to test me and debating me. Gee...





> *You are describing yourself *
> 
> *You* posted the source not me, *you* claimed you know more than me. And *you* have been refusing to answer for the past two months. You have a psychological disorder.



Dont you claim yourself know more too??
Dont you refer to the same source too?
If you demand me to answer, dont I deserve to demand likewise to you too? 

It is you who are the one with psychological disorder, since you are asking me the clue at the same time claiming you know better than me and debating me like hell 





> Why are you demanding I explain *your source *for you? Especially after all the bragging you have been doing about being qualified to answer sources. You seem to brag about having knowledge about your source. So where is it?



Because 
- you claim you know more, and 
- you use/refer to the same source too 

:p






> Go ahead and explain the *whole quote*, well see if you know.


 
Are you taking my challenges or not?
Will you explain to me your own answer too after that?

You have psychology disorder then, if you want to test me but refused to be tested likewise even after me first.
You have psychology disorder then, if you want my explanation and refuse to give your own explanation while at the same time claiming yourself know better than me and debating me

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

Esc8781 said:


> No offence, earlier in the forum people called Gambit the copy and paste guy and now you want citations from him, gee


 
You are right that people already called him so 

He like to drag citation, unfortunately he doesnt really understand the citation he drags.

I bet he will drag another citation that he misunderstanding too

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You are right that people already called him so
> 
> He like to drag citation, unfortunately he doesnt really understand the citation he drags.
> 
> I bet he will drag another citation that he misunderstanding too





.............................................


you are the funniest person on this forum. 

keep on twisting words buddy.... it cracks me up ..


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You are right that people already called him so
> 
> He like to drag citation, *unfortunately he doesnt really understand the citation he drags.*
> 
> I bet he will drag another citation that he misunderstanding too


And yet we do not see you grabbing on to those sources that I alleged do not understand and explained to the readers what those sources really mean. 

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

Why do I or you need sources to answer that question? Why did you not know it despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study'? Why did you lied about answering it?



antonius123 said:


> ...if you want to test me but refused to be tested likewise even after me first.


I already tested you and the grade is: F for Failure and L for Liar.



Martian2 said:


> I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past.


And just like him, you do not understand your own sources at the foundational level.



Martian2 said:


> Anyway, I don't intend to spend any more time on your anti-China rhetoric. I came into this thread to save Antonius from you clowns.


He shot himself in the foot, head, and just about every place else -- a long time ago.

But if you want to save him...

Q: What are the forces that have direct physical effects on a body that enable their exploitations and resulting in flight, in other words, what are these forces that help create what is called 'kinematics'?

kin·e·mat·ics (Noun):
1- The branch of mechanics concerned with *the motion of objects without reference to the forces that cause the motion.*
2- The features or properties of motion in an object, regarded in such a way.

Keep in mind that your Indonesian suck-up failed to answer a dozen first year Basic Aerodynamics and eight flight controls engineering questions. Arrogant ignoramuses need to be saved from those who have genuine experience? Here is your chance to save him. Keep in mind the highlighted definition of 'kinematics'. It is important because it allows us to study those forces independently.


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

*2003 is around the corner&#12290;*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

cirr said:


> *2003 is around the corner&#12290;*


 What role is it going to take ? Like for the testing.


----------



## lcloo

Each prototype may be used for different tests. 2001 and 2002 are definitely been used for Handling and Performamce tests, 2002 may have done avionic test judging by the modifications compare with 2001.

A third non-flying prototype (not 2003) was built for static struuctural load tests. 

2003 may be used for more advance tests and also to speed up the testing programe by sharing the the workload with 2001 and 2002. More advance tests include aerial refueling, weapon intergration etc. My 2 ct.

Normal test programme will take more than 1000 hours, stealth jet may take even significantly more than 4th gen jets.

Anyway, none of us will know actual tests 2003 will perform, not even CIA unless they have a man in J-20 testing team. We can only make educated guess.


These are some of the flight tests (from wikipedia), may not be thorough nor details but will give us some idea on the tests.

_*Handling qualities*, which evaluates the aircraft's controllability and response to pilot inputs throughout the range of flight;
*Performance testing* evaluates aircraft in relation to its projected abilities, such as speed, range, power available, drag, airflow characteristics, and so forth;
*Aero-elastic/flutter stability*, evaluates the dynamic response of the aircraft controls and structure to aerodynamic (i.e. air-induced) loads;
* Avionics/systems* testing verifies all electronic systems (navigation, communications, radars, sensors, etc.) perform as designed;
*Structural loads* measure the stresses on the airframe, dynamic components, and controls to verify structural integrity in all flight regimes.

*Testing that is specific to military aircraft includes *:
* Weapons delivery*, which looks at the pilots ability to acquire the target using on-board systems and accurately deliver the ordnance on target;
An evaluation of the separation of the ordnance as it leaves the aircraft to ensure there are no safety issues;
* air-to-air refueling*;
*Radar/infrared signature measurement*;

*Emergency situations* are evaluated as a normal part of all flight test program. Examples are: engine failure during various phases of flight (takeoff, cruise, landing), systems failures, and controls degradation. The overall operations envelope (allowable gross weights, centers-of-gravity, altitude, max/min airspeeds, maneuvers, etc.) is established and verified during flight testing. Aircraft are always demonstrated to be safe beyond the limits allowed for normal operations in the Flight Manual._


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates





































You're mad, old viet?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 (2001) showcasing its super maneuverability

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates





















J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

I'm wondering if China gonna introduce the 2D vector nuzzle into this aircraft.


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates (pictures from the September 26 test flight part 1)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates (pictures from the September 26 test flight part 2)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

3 test flights in a day&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> I'm wondering if China gonna introduce the 2D vector nuzzle into this aircraft.



Hope 2003 will install WS-15 with 2D nozzle. It will be a very good stealthy plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## no_name

I think I'm suffering from 'appreciation fatigue' of the J-20 where one just get used to looking at pictures of the same thing over and over again. I want to see J-31 flying soon to have something new to look at 

Suffered the same problem with J-10 and J-11. I discovered J-10 ~3 years ago and at first it was pretty interesting. (Even J-8 was interesting when I first found it)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SBD-3

One of the J-20 prototypes have reached CFTE.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

no_name said:


> I think I'm *suffering from 'appreciation fatigue' of the J-20 where one just get used to looking at pictures of the same thing over and over again.* I want to see J-31 flying soon to have something new to look at
> 
> Suffered the same problem with J-10 and J-11. I discovered J-10 ~3 years ago and at first it was pretty interesting. (Even J-8 was interesting when I first found it)


You really cannot blame those who keeps on posting those pictures because they can do nothing else. They have no relevant experience to explain to the readers as to why an aircraft does this at so and so attitude at so and so altitude because of so and so situation.

It also depends on the subject as well. If an aircraft is an exhibit of newly discovered aerodynamic principles, then we would have aerodynamicists going ga-ga over the tiniest structure and speculations -- some legit and some not -- abounds. That is not the case here. Am no aerodynamicist but a sensory and avionics specialist and it is difficult enough for the interested lay readers to visualize air flow at several hundreds km/h, let alone electromagnetic behaviors that occurs at speed of light. So the only thing we can do is seek out foundational principles of the subject to reduce some of the technical fog, if not outright dispel them. Unfortunately for real science, these guys have no relevant experience in the EM spectrum either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

hasnain0099 said:


> One of the J-20 prototypes have reached CFTE.



That is J-15 not J-20.


----------



## no_name

Well it's new pics each time, just under similar settings from similar angles. I'm not saying that it's not a good looking plane, just that the novelty had worn off, like the difference between when you get your first car and 6 months later.

If they shoot photos of something new, like weapon testing, high altitude flying, flying over new terrains/ in formations etc then it will be interesting again. But the PLAAF is not obviously going to do these or release the photos just to satisfy me, they will do things according to their own schedules.



Aeronaut said:


> That is J-15 not J-20.



You are looking at the left side of pic. There is J-20 on the right.


----------



## gambit

no_name said:


> If they shoot photos of something new, like weapon testing, high altitude flying, flying over new terrains/ in formations etc then it will be interesting again.


Or a 'mishap'. Now *THAT* will start the whole speculation thing as well as trolling behaviors going again.


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Esc8781

anarchy 99 said:


> Wake me up when the F-22 don't suffocate the pilot.
> It's unproven in battle and far inferior to the J-20.
> F-22 is another American media hyped propaganda equipment.
> 
> 
> J-31 is now VASTLY superior to the F-35 which is so crap many countries don't even want it.
> 
> I think now we are ahead of the US in 5th generation technology.
> US had the lead, but now is falling behind china just like they are economically.


 How do you know tell me what is the drag to weight ratio of the f-22, the F-35 man there's a lot orders in it.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

gambit said:


> You really cannot blame those who keeps on posting those pictures because they can do nothing else. They have no relevant experience to explain to the readers as to why an aircraft does this at so and so attitude at so and so altitude because of so and so situation.
> 
> It also depends on the subject as well. If an aircraft is an exhibit of newly discovered aerodynamic principles, then we would have aerodynamicists going ga-ga over the tiniest structure and speculations -- some legit and some not -- abounds. That is not the case here. Am no aerodynamicist but a sensory and avionics specialist and it is difficult enough for the interested lay readers to visualize air flow at several hundreds km/h, let alone electromagnetic behaviors that occurs at speed of light. So the only thing we can do is seek out foundational principles of the subject to reduce some of the technical fog, if not outright dispel them. Unfortunately for real science, these guys have no relevant experience in the EM spectrum either.



porting new pic is of importance.they keep uploading new pic,as J20 is continuing its flying test.this shows important information of J20 progress.but we are just fans so we can only get some direct information with out deep ones,which is cia's job.
uploading new pics is a contribution to this forum,even for some intelligence agency.


----------



## 帅的一匹

a lovely cat was glancing at J-20 at ground test.http://tuku.military.china.com/military/html/2012-10-10/208587_2247336.htm#pic


----------



## no_name

cirr said:


>



These are good pics. I actually still want to see more pics of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

2003&#65311;






Yes or no&#65292;03 is around the corner&#12290;One can almost hear her footsteps&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

cirr said:


> 2003&#65311;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no&#65292;03 is around the corner&#12290;One can almost hear her footsteps&#12290;



very likely to be the 3rd one, I checked that thread on forums``2001 and 2002 parked outside the bunker

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WS-10 Engine

How many prototypes will eventually be built?


----------



## cirr

Yes or no&#65311; This is the question&#12290;






This is 2003.

Notice the colour of the radome&#65281;


----------



## Esc8781

I belive this might be 2003. 






Looks really nice


----------



## Esc8781

Deleted post


----------



## Esc8781

It seems that 2003 has a gray like randome, anyways too early to tell, I am very excited


----------



## peaceful

who cares? 

China has the proven ability to put this into mess production.


----------



## cirr

2003

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

AESA radar installed&#65281;&#65281;

Hopefully better pictures will be available when the weather clears up&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Obambam

This will further enhance our tests and speed up our developments on the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sasi

cirr said:


> AESA radar installed£¡£¡
> 
> Hopefully better pictures will be available when the weather clears up¡£



Any links to prove it as a AESA radar ?
|
Also i would like to know more details abt it ? Thanks in advance !


----------



## sweetgrape

The progress is not a little fast, hehe. Or, this reflect that the trial flight evaluation system are high efficient indirectly, so it can collect the data well from each flight and analyze it efficiently, good job chinese scientis and engineer.


----------



## rcrmj

for all the best wishes to J-20 projects, engine is the one I worried the most``WS-15 is the most critical part of all the CAC's 5th gen project``my opinion

only if we iron out WS-15 then SAC J-31's WS-13 can see a light, so i'd say 2010-2020 is the decade that will determine the future shape of PLAAF, and hence the final aims of catching-up USAAF

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sweetgrape

rcrmj said:


> for all the best wishes to J-20 projects, engine is the one I worried the most``WS-15 is the most critical part of all the CAC's 5th gen project``my opinion
> 
> only if we iron out WS-15 then SAC J-31's WS-13 can see a light, so i'd say 2010-2020 is the decade that will determine the future shape of PLAAF, and hence the final aims of catching-up USAAF


That's also my concern, although some postive news about engine are divulged indirectly, but, I still heavily worry about it, I don't doubt that we can manufacture engine, but the good one, it depend on relevant industries, material, lethal, and experiment equipment, control system etc!
I don't know much about this, but as the CCP manner, If they divulge J20 postively, I think they have much indepence on the project, or they will lose their big face! 
I think the indigenous engine are under the testing like J20 parallelly to verify its properities, reliability and durability. It will be mounted on J20 when it be inducted in PLAAF, we can't depend on Russian engine forever, and they also want to give us the chance, hehe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

huzhigeng stated 2001 and 2002 would be for basic and advanced flight control tests. 2003 is where they test intergrated avionics and radar. 2004 will be for weapon system and 2005 would be the pre-production model.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

2003 looked on from a different angle&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

A much clearer image&#65306;

deleted

All pieces will come together by the time this bird gets induction&#65292;which is due in 201X&#12290;


----------



## rcrmj

S10 said:


> huzhigeng stated 2001 and 2002 would be for basic and advanced flight control tests. 2003 is where they test intergrated avionics and radar. 2004 will be for weapon system and 2005 would be the pre-production model.



where is the thread, I couldnt find it on &#36229;&#22823;, did he mentioned anything about the engine?


----------



## Nestea



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xuxu1457

Nestea said:


>



2003 with new radar????????????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ion-j-20-j-31-pics-videos-15.html#post3519113

guys please keep this thread up to date!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xuxu1457

2003 with new radar

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LTE-TDD

look like this is still 2002, but with new installed Radar.


----------



## theniubt

Is it just me or the body of this bird is a little different from the previous j20s?


----------



## Nestea



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nestea



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MightyDragon

sasi said:


> Any links to prove it as a AESA radar ?
> |
> Also i would like to know more details abt it ? Thanks in advance !



Leaked information indicates that J-20's radar should be made by Nanjing 14 Research Institute's radar project...
Asking whether it is an AESA is meaningless... we just care about how much it can surpass the specification of AN/APG-77

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Nefory

MightyDragon said:


> Leaked information indicates that J-20's radar should be made by Nanjing 14 Research Institute's radar project...
> Asking whether it is an AESA is meaningless... we just care about how much it can surpass the specification of AN/APG-77



Guys, we do not know how good it can be, and it's all right to be optimistic, but don't forget our old Chinese quality to be humble and modest. We should appreciate those who've dedicated so much in our military R&D. They never talk big, but deliver results. Just my personal advice

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

THIS AESA radar is better than the ONE that's installed on the J-16&#12290;

But how much better&#65311;


----------



## fab78

What type of aircraft are equipped with these new AESA. Only j-20 and j-16? or there are other ?


----------



## April.lyrics

fab78 said:


> What type of aircraft are equipped with these new AESA. Only j-20 and j-16? or there are other ?



it is said J31 would also be installed with AESA.and the radar supplier is different from J20 and J16,whose supplier is nanking 14 institute.and the argument about whether J10B with AESA or PESA never stopped


----------



## fab78

> it is said J31 would also be installed with AESA.and the radar supplier is different from J20 and J16,whose supplier is nanking 14 institute.and the argument about whether J10B with AESA or PESA never stopped




thank you.


----------



## MightyDragon

I don't think China is hard to make a radar close to what used in F-22 now! The technology of MMIC advances very fast, what China still lag behind is the yield rate, which makes the price very high...


----------



## hk299792458

rcrmj said:


> for all the best wishes to J-20 projects, engine is the one I worried the most``WS-15 is the most critical part of all the CAC's 5th gen project``my opinion
> 
> only if we iron out WS-15 then SAC J-31's WS-13 can see a light, so i'd say 2010-2020 is the decade that will determine the future shape of PLAAF, and hence the final aims of catching-up USAAF



Not only the engine but also the structural conception and material as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

fab78 said:


> What type of aircraft are equipped with these new AESA. Only j-20 and j-16? or there are other ?



J-10B (_??_), J-11B, J-11BS, J-15, J-16, J-20 and Project 310 are all reported to have or to be equiped with ESA.


----------



## hk299792458

I've created a playlist in Youtube dedicated to J-20, so far 87 videos have been collected - Link

In the meanwhile there is a new video on J-20 #2003 (_??_) from &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

hk299792458 said:


> I've created a playlist in Youtube dedicated to J-20, so far 87 videos have been collected - Link
> 
> In the meanwhile there is a new video on J-20 #2003 (_??_) from &#27721;&#39746;&#38596;&#39118;



HI HK29979458, are you the same guy as the one poste in armé de l'air Chinois?? I mean while ago..I know your'e not longer post Chinese's military new there.

Armée de l'air Chinoise

Soyez le bienvenu cher compatriot.


----------



## Kompromat

More photos of 2003 please ?


----------



## hk299792458

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> HI HK29979458, are you the same guy as the one poste in armé de l'air Chinois?? I mean while ago..I know your'e not longer post Chinese's military new there.
> 
> Armée de l'air Chinoise
> 
> Soyez le bienvenu cher compatriot.



Yes, it was me.

I've changed forum in France, now I post mainly in Chine

But it is also nice here so I will try to post more often here... 



Aeronaut said:


> More photos of 2003 please ?



So far we have here all photos of 2003.


----------



## April.lyrics

Aeronaut said:


> More photos of 2003 please ?



people in Chinese forum say its not 2003.its modification of 2002


----------



## Zabaniyah

Third possible J-20 prototype: 







> A quick update on China's stealth fighter program: Photos newly published on a Chinese Web sites show what might be a third prototype J-20 stealth jet.
> 
> China has two different types of stealthy-looking fighters: the large J-20 and the smaller J-31. Many speculate that because of its large size, the J-20 is high-speed interceptor designed to fly out and shoot down enemy bombers -- similar to the old Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat -- or that it is a high-speed stealthy bomber designed to use a combination of stealth and speed to penetrate enemy air defenses and fire cruise missiles or bombs at targets such as bases or ships.
> 
> The latest photos show a J-20 with open compartments on the forward sections of its fuselage, which may contain avionics, communications gear or sensors. It is also worth noting that the third aircraft appears to have a different nose radome than its sibling J-20s, meaning that this jet may also contain an Active Electronically Scanned Array radar. All of this suggests the Chinese may be testing the sensors it plans to include on production J-20s. Still, without confirmation from the Chinese air force, this is pure speculation.
> 
> Photos of the first two J-20 prototypes, dubbed J-20 2001 and J-20 2002, have been appearing on Chinese Web forums for nearly two years, with the first jet making its maiden flight in early 2011.
> 
> The smaller J-31, revealed in September, appears to blatantly copy the shape of two American-made fighters: Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (It's worth pointing out that Lockheed's F-35 program was badly hacked several years ago. Loads of information was stolen, forcing a costly and time consuming redesign of several systems.) Little is known about the J-31 or what it will be used for.


Source: This might be China's third J-20 stealth fighter | Killer Apps


----------



## cirr

So 2003 was not to be&#65306;


----------



## Zabaniyah

^^^^^

"-_-

345345


----------



## Bratva

cirr said:


> So 2003 was not to be&#65306;




Is it a Photoshop or nose of J-20 really changed?


----------



## 帅的一匹

mafiya said:


> Is it a Photoshop or nose of J-20 really changed?


Really changed, this picture is J20 number 2002 mounted with AESA radar, said it contains more than 2000 electronic emission units. Just FYI

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

mafiya said:


> Is it a Photoshop or nose of J-20 really changed?



This picture in particular seems to be a fake - As you can see, the radome is in a kind of strange light green and the pitot is disappeared, for these two points I think it is a fake.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*But*, spottors have taken some other real pictures, and the nose radome had really changed...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

New photo...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

Enjoy my Chinese friends

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

comparing previous J-20 nose and this new nose, was this possible to change nose on exisiting airframe? :/ this is what confusing me if aircraft was 2003, i would have assumed they made the structure this way. But changing nose on existing structure if you think how previous nose was sharply made?


----------



## hk299792458

mafiya said:


> comparing previous J-20 nose and this new nose, was this possible to change nose on exisiting airframe? :/ this is what confusing me if aircraft was 2003, i would have assumed they made the structure this way. But changing nose on existing structure if you think how previous nose was sharply made?



2001 is still in CFTE.

These new pictures and video show a 2002 with radome changed, probably with an ESA radar (AESA or PESA??) installed.

2003 has not been seen yet.


----------



## cirr

03&#65311;&#65311;&#65311;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Very beautiful photos...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Secur

wanglaokan said:


> Really changed, this picture is J20 number 2002 mounted with AESA radar, said it contains more than *2000 electronic emission units*. Just FYI


T/R modules to be precise

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hk299792458



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

New photos...


----------



## rcrmj

Esc8781 said:


>



if i were the cat``i'd run closer to Sister No.4 AKA J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Has anyone noticed that the rear landing gear has been raised. 2002 has higher ground clearance, and the the "lean back" rear landing gear has been extended, is it just me ?


----------



## hk299792458

New photos, we can see J-7BGI and J-20, 3 generations of difference...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

New video of J-20 #2002...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

From the Chinese playground...



> 1. We know for a fact that an AESA radar has transmit and receive modules. Therefore, the paint on the J-20 radome must be transparent to X-band radar waves for both emission and reception.


Utter garbage. The T/R modules as an array is no different in operation than the classical dish or the newer planar: Transmit and Receive. That mean the word 'Therefore' is misleading. The radome must be a 'pass through' device to some degree. It is not the paint that must be transparent, although the ingredients that made up the paint can contain some trace metallic elements and this could interfere with transmission. Rather, these are the items that determine the color of the radome that so often different from the aircraft:

- The radome material itself must have a high degree of 'pass through',

- It is the construction of the material,

- It is the construction of the radome itself,

- Avoidance of trace metallic elements in any surface applique, aka 'paint'.

And these items give us why a radome is often different in color than the rest of the aircraft. It is the material, not the paint.

This is a case of someone who does not know what he is talking about but pretending he does.



> 2. If the radome paint is transparent in X-band then how does the J-20 stay stealthy in light of enemy X-band radar? Wouldn't enemy X-band radar pass through the transparent radome paint and composite nose to strike and reflect off of the interior AESA radar? The obvious solution is to have interior retractable panels coated with RAM.
> 
> Think of it this way. Divide the J-20 nose into four sections. Place four equal-sized RAM-coated panels underneath the radome. When the J-20 is in stealth mode, the interior RAM-coated panels are flush against the inside of the radome walls.
> 
> Incoming radar will penetrate the radome paint and composite walls. The enemy X-band radar will strike the RAM-coated interior panel and be absorbed. Hence, the J-20 remains stealthy.
> 
> When the J-20 is in search or attack mode, the four interior RAM-coated radome panels are hydraulically moved backwards. This allows the J-20 AESA radar to emit and receive X-band radar waves. If the J-20 pilot wants to shift back into stealth mode, the RAM-coated panels are hydraulically moved back into place against the composite radome walls and the fighter is stealthy once again.


This is hilarious and I got people, from Nellis to Hill, yucking themselves silly. 

What this pretender is saying that the J-20 should have at least one thousand lbs of hydraulic pressure and complex high speed hydraulic actuators inside the radome to operate RAM panels. Weight? Reduce volume for the radar itself?



> 3. However, the most elegant solution is to have a radome paint composed of "phase change material" (PCM). I just don't know if the material currently exists to permit switching back-and-forth between transparency and opaqueness to X-band radar waves. Basically, I'm looking for a material where I can run an electric current through it to change its optical property with respect to X-band radar.


There is a near equal solution and one that *REAL* engineers, including the Chinese ones for the J-20, know: Frequency Selective Surfaces.

Readers: Keyword search 'ansoft frequency selective surfaces'.

Definition of 'inhomogeneous': Not uniform in character or content; diverse.

If the reader perform a search on the above keywords, he would come up on the name 'Ally Ying Liu' who is an 'Application Engineer' for ANSOFT China.

Frequency Selective Surfaces (FSS) are materials that are essentially absorber in operation. Some are more absorbent than others. The most basic FSS is the ferrite particle embedded liquid or thin film...






To the more complex designs such as 'analog circuits'...

8.5: CIRCUIT ANALOG RAM AND FREQUENCY-SELECTIVE SURFACES On GlobalSpec


> The term *circuit analog (CA)* for such absorbers is derived from the fact that *the geometrical patterns are often defined in terms of their effective resistance, capacitance, and inductance;* and then equivalent circuit techniques are used in the subsequent analysis and design of the resulting absorber.


The above source have illustrations for those geometric patterns and yes, those are *PHYSICAL* structures in a thin film designed to alter the travel path of a radar signal *INSIDE* the material. Each structure, from a length of simple wire to the more complex Jerusalem Cross produces an effect, electrical and/or magnetic, upon the radar signal. We can *LAYER* these sheets into much more complex FSS to allow near complete 'pass through' in one direction and near complete blockage in the opposite direction. Some of the more complex designs are active, meaning electrically excited at will, that can be %100 'pass through' in one direction and %100 blockage in the opposite direction.

Of course, I have no knowledge of where these designs may be. I swear as God is my witness. None at all. 

Anyway...This is what is meant when it is said a radome is an inhomogeneous device. The layers are not uniform in contents and configurations.

Further...When examining a radome, it is clear, at least to me, that an outgoing signal or 'transmission' have only one direction whereas an incoming signal, like that of an enemy radar signal, can come from any direction: top, bottom, either side, straight on, or oblique. So armed with this fact, it is obvious that we should design our inhomogeneous layers in such a manner to reduce non-frontal entrant signals to minimize our radar antenna's RCS contributorship. This is why frontal entrant signals -- from the enemy -- is highest because our layers have to allow outgoing signals. It is a trade off we are willing to live with: If we want the maximum and highest quality of signals out, then we must be willing to pay the price for letting the same in. We can see hints of this in Mr. Liu's paper 'Radome design for airborne radar' starting with slide 29 titled "Let's take an example of a curvature conformal FSS radome'. Slide 35 have examples of those geometric designs important in any FSS.

This is real engineering with credible sources. 

Ansoft Announces HFSS Version 8.0


> PITTSBURGH, PA- January 10, 2001-Ansoft (NASDAQ: ANST) today announced version 8.0 of the Ansoft High Frequency Structure Simulator (Ansoft HFSS). Ansoft HFSS is a full-wave finite element electromagnetic (EM) simulator that *enables engineers to design three-dimensional (3D) high-frequency structures such as connectors, IC packages, and antennas found in cellular telephones, broadband communications systems, and microwave circuits.*
> 
> Technology leaders like Nortel, Lucent, and Cisco already use Ansoft HFSS to design broadband communications circuits and components. Now those companies can include models generated by HFSS for their physical layer transient simulations of Gigabit Ethernet IC packages, boards and connectors; optoelectronic devices for broadband fiber modulators, receivers, and routers; and electronic devices for signal conversion in hybrid fiber-coax systems.



Absent relevant experience and we will see absurd ideas like hydraulic actuators inside the radome and everyone rushes to 'Thank' for such a 'useful' post.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## skyknight




----------



## j20blackdragon

Gambit,

Tell us what you think about the J-31. We're all waiting for your expert opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

"Maiden" flight of J-20 #2002 after having installed it's radar... Someone knows more about it? Is it from 14th Institut or 607th Institut? GaAs or GaN? MMIC pic power rate?..etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Esc8781

WS-10 Engine said:


> Bumbit is back!
> 
> The J-20 is better than the F-22.
> The J-31 is better than the F-35.


 How?



WS-10 Engine said:


> Unlike the F-22, our fighters don't starve the pilot of oxygen.


Got proof that the J-20 isn't too?


WS-10 Engine said:


> And the F-35, Carlo Kopp has shredded that fighter to bits.


Carlo Kopp contradicts himself in his conclusions.



WS-10 Engine said:


> The F-35 is not even stealth, it's basically an upgraded F-16.


No $h!t.


----------



## scholseys

hk299792458 said:


> New photos, we can see J-7BGI and J-20, 3 generations of difference...



this is the closest Bangladesh will get to a 5th generation craft for a loooooooooooong time.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

aazidane said:


> this is the closest Bangladesh will get to a 5th generation craft for a loooooooooooong time.



Don't worry dude, we still use J-7 too, all 5th gen fighters are still at testing stages...we won't get these untill 2017 or 2020...at that time...who know? Bangladesh will get one or two squadrons

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Gambit,
> 
> Tell us what you think about the J-31. We're all waiting for your expert opinion.


Sure. The J-31 is a copy of the F-22. Now please do not insult the intelligence of the readers by pointing out differences in details.


----------



## WS-10 Engine

bumbit said:


> Sure. The J-31 is a copy of the F-22. Now please do not insult the intelligence of the readers by pointing out differences in details.



Sorry but we don't copy failed fighters like the F-22. Unlike the F-22 we want our pilot to get oxygen. Very important thing you know, didn't they teach you those things when you make your so called 'stealth' fighters.

Don't insult 5th generation fighters like the J-31 and J-20 by comparing it to 4.5 generation fighters like F-35 and the pilot killer F-22.

We all know how American 'stealth' fighters turn out.....getting shot down over Serbia (F-117) by soviet anti-aircraft. 
Oh yes I'm sure American propaganda departments have brainwashed the gullible American public into believing the pilot lost control right? Oh sure it did  Anything to coverup the humiliation to the American airforce.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xuxu1457

J-20 fly with new radar

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

WS-10 Engine said:


> Sorry but we don't copy failed fighters like the F-22. Unlike the F-22 we want our pilot to get oxygen. Very important thing you know, didn't they teach you those things when you make your so called 'stealth' fighters.
> 
> Don't insult 5th generation fighters like the J-31 and J-20 by comparing it to 4.5 generation fighters like F-35 and the pilot killer F-22.
> 
> *We all know how American 'stealth' fighters turn out.....getting shot down over Serbia (F-117) by soviet anti-aircraft.*
> Oh yes I'm sure American propaganda departments have brainwashed the gullible American public into believing the pilot lost control right? Oh sure it did  Anything to coverup the humiliation to the American airforce.


Yeah...One loss out of 850 sorties.  How about the fact that the PLA predicted Desert Storm would result in tens of thousands of US casualties and had to withdraw that report/prediction with eggs on the generals' faces?


----------



## Nestea



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

gambit said:


> Sure. *The J-31 is a copy of the F-22*. Now please do not insult the intelligence of the readers by pointing out differences in details.



Let me be disagreed with you - from the PoV of some of my friends from Dassault, Project 310 only "_got inspiration_" from *YF-22* and also *F-35*.

They told me that when 2 aircrafts have 2 different roles, the similarity in physical appearance is only a "_Trompe-l&#8217;&#339;il_".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Donation

bhedgehog said:


> Anyone helps to translate&#65311;



this a online community of a Islamic nation, culture here is much difference from east asia, this **** cartoon pics will get your id ban by webmaster,

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## skyknight

bhedgehog said:


> Anyone helps to translate&#65311;


delete it plz
many people would consider this pic as an insult to j20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

*Fan-art* of navalized J-20...






Some old photos of J-20 #2001, when it was still in Chengdu's 132th Factory...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

New photo...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bhedgehog

Donation said:


> this a online community of a Islamic nation, culture here is much difference from east asia, this **** cartoon pics will get your id ban by webmaster,



Is it really that serious. I have consulted some of my Muslim friends before I posted those pics, and they thought it is OK.

My Pakistani brothers, please do let me know if those pics are truly insulting, and in that case I will for sure delete them. While if they are not, well, I just want to change the atmosphere a little bit.... in the good and easy way of course....


----------



## hk299792458

A new video that tries to explain the different things installed on J-20 #2002 aircraft. According to this video, AESA radar and EODAS system, as well as the airborn calculators, are installed onboard...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> Sure. The J-31 is a copy of the F-22. Now please do not insult the intelligence of the readers by pointing out differences in details.



Whatever you say expert.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Some old #2001 photos, just to test if the new photos holding site is working...


























_Edit 1 : Imagur is pretty good..._
_Edit 2 : J-20 program is called Project 718, whereas Project 310 of Shenyang doesn't receive any official J-xx reference as the program is a "private" one from AVIC and not a national one._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tomluter

&#19968;&#20123;&#33258;&#31216;&#26469;&#33258;&#20013;&#22269;&#65292;&#22312;&#36825;&#37324;&#21457;&#35064;&#20307;&#22270;&#30340;&#32593;&#31449;&#25104;&#21592;&#65292;&#35831;&#20320;&#20204;&#23562;&#37325;&#24403;&#22320;&#27665;&#26063;&#20064;&#24815;&#65292;&#21024;&#38500;&#20320;&#20204;&#21457;&#22312;&#36825;&#37324;&#30340;&#65292;&#21463;&#21040;&#26085;&#26412;&#25991;&#21270;&#24433;&#21709;&#30340;&#22270;&#29255;&#12290;
&#29305;&#21035;&#26159;&#19981;&#35201;&#23558;&#36825;&#20123;&#26085;&#26412;&#24335;&#24651;&#31461;&#30294;&#21019;&#24847;&#30340;&#20316;&#21697;&#65292;&#36148;&#22312;&#20013;&#22269;&#20135;&#30340;&#39134;&#26426;&#19978;&#65292;&#23548;&#33268;&#20013;&#22269;&#22312;&#24403;&#22320;&#30340;&#36127;&#38754;&#24433;&#21709;&#12290;
&#25265;&#27465;&#25105;&#30452;&#25509;&#29992;&#27721;&#35821;&#21457;&#24086;&#65292;&#30475;&#30475;&#26159;&#19981;&#26159;&#30495;&#27491;&#20013;&#22269;&#20154;&#21457;&#30340;&#22270;&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## djsjs

tomluter said:


> &#19968;&#20123;&#33258;&#31216;&#26469;&#33258;&#20013;&#22269;&#65292;&#22312;&#36825;&#37324;&#21457;&#35064;&#20307;&#22270;&#30340;&#32593;&#31449;&#25104;&#21592;&#65292;&#35831;&#20320;&#20204;&#23562;&#37325;&#24403;&#22320;&#27665;&#26063;&#20064;&#24815;&#65292;&#21024;&#38500;&#20320;&#20204;&#21457;&#22312;&#36825;&#37324;&#30340;&#65292;&#21463;&#21040;&#26085;&#26412;&#25991;&#21270;&#24433;&#21709;&#30340;&#22270;&#29255;&#12290;
> &#29305;&#21035;&#26159;&#19981;&#35201;&#23558;&#36825;&#20123;&#26085;&#26412;&#24335;&#24651;&#31461;&#30294;&#21019;&#24847;&#30340;&#20316;&#21697;&#65292;&#36148;&#22312;&#20013;&#22269;&#20135;&#30340;&#39134;&#26426;&#19978;&#65292;&#23548;&#33268;&#20013;&#22269;&#22312;&#24403;&#22320;&#30340;&#36127;&#38754;&#24433;&#21709;&#12290;
> &#25265;&#27465;&#25105;&#30452;&#25509;&#29992;&#27721;&#35821;&#21457;&#24086;&#65292;&#30475;&#30475;&#26159;&#19981;&#26159;&#30495;&#27491;&#20013;&#22269;&#20154;&#21457;&#30340;&#22270;&#12290;



&#37027;&#26031;&#24590;&#30693;&#21566;&#21326;&#22799;&#20043;&#25991;&#65311;&#37034;&#39764;&#22806;&#36947;&#20551;&#20197;&#20154;&#30382;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bhedgehog

tomluter said:


> &#19968;&#20123;&#33258;&#31216;&#26469;&#33258;&#20013;&#22269;&#65292;&#22312;&#36825;&#37324;&#21457;&#35064;&#20307;&#22270;&#30340;&#32593;&#31449;&#25104;&#21592;&#65292;&#35831;&#20320;&#20204;&#23562;&#37325;&#24403;&#22320;&#27665;&#26063;&#20064;&#24815;&#65292;&#21024;&#38500;&#20320;&#20204;&#21457;&#22312;&#36825;&#37324;&#30340;&#65292;&#21463;&#21040;&#26085;&#26412;&#25991;&#21270;&#24433;&#21709;&#30340;&#22270;&#29255;&#12290;
> &#29305;&#21035;&#26159;&#19981;&#35201;&#23558;&#36825;&#20123;&#26085;&#26412;&#24335;&#24651;&#31461;&#30294;&#21019;&#24847;&#30340;&#20316;&#21697;&#65292;&#36148;&#22312;&#20013;&#22269;&#20135;&#30340;&#39134;&#26426;&#19978;&#65292;&#23548;&#33268;&#20013;&#22269;&#22312;&#24403;&#22320;&#30340;&#36127;&#38754;&#24433;&#21709;&#12290;
> &#25265;&#27465;&#25105;&#30452;&#25509;&#29992;&#27721;&#35821;&#21457;&#24086;&#65292;&#30475;&#30475;&#26159;&#19981;&#26159;&#30495;&#27491;&#20013;&#22269;&#20154;&#21457;&#30340;&#22270;&#12290;



&#22270;&#26159;&#25105;&#21457;&#30340;&#65292;&#25105;&#37117;&#35828;&#20102;&#22914;&#26524;&#24052;&#38081;&#30340;&#32593;&#27665;&#26377;&#24847;&#35265;&#25105;&#23601;&#31435;&#21051;&#21024;&#20102;&#12290;&#21040;&#29616;&#22312;&#26377;&#30475;&#35265;&#21035;&#20154;&#35828;&#20160;&#20040;&#20102;&#65311;
&#20160;&#20040;&#21483;&#8220;&#23562;&#37325;&#24403;&#22320;&#27665;&#26063;&#20064;&#24815;"?&#25105;&#21457;&#20004;&#24352;&#28459;&#30011;&#20398;&#36785;&#20808;&#30693;&#20102;&#21527;&#65311;&#20398;&#36785;&#30495;&#20027;&#20102;&#21527;&#65311;&#20149;&#28174;&#20234;&#26031;&#20848;&#25945;&#30340;&#25945;&#20041;&#20102;&#21527;&#65311;
&#24052;&#38081;&#37117;&#26159;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#65292;&#20294;&#26159;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#24590;&#20040;&#20102;&#65311;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#23601;&#19968;&#23450;&#35201;&#29983;&#27963;&#22312;&#20445;&#23432;&#30340;&#20013;&#19990;&#32426;&#25991;&#21270;&#37324;&#65311;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#23601;&#19968;&#23450;&#35201;&#37117;&#20687;&#27801;&#29305;&#38463;&#25289;&#20271;&#37027;&#26679;&#20986;&#38376;&#25226;&#22919;&#22899;&#35065;&#24471;&#36319;&#31933;&#23376;&#19968;&#26679;&#65292;&#27809;&#26377;&#29238;&#20804;&#38506;&#20276;&#19981;&#25954;&#19978;&#34903;&#65311;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#23601;&#19981;&#33021;&#26377;&#20016;&#23500;&#22810;&#24425;&#26356;&#23500;&#26377;&#21253;&#23481;&#24615;&#30340;&#25991;&#21270;&#65311;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#23601;&#19981;&#33021;&#29983;&#27963;&#22312;21&#19990;&#32426;&#65311;&#20320;&#20204;&#30495;&#27491;&#25918;&#19979;&#20320;&#20204;&#30340;&#20559;&#35265;&#21435;&#20102;&#35299;&#36807;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#21527;&#65311;&#20320;&#20204;&#26377;&#31302;&#26031;&#26519;&#26379;&#21451;&#21527;&#65311;&#20320;&#20204;&#36825;&#23436;&#20840;&#26159;&#26080;&#30693;&#19982;&#20559;&#35265;&#65281;

&#25105;&#23601;&#26159;&#35273;&#24471;&#36825;&#20123;&#22270;&#21487;&#29233;&#65292;&#21457;&#24086;&#20043;&#21069;&#25105;&#20063;&#38382;&#36807;&#25105;&#35748;&#35782;&#30340;&#20234;&#26391;&#21644;&#24052;&#38081;&#30340;&#26379;&#21451;&#25165;&#21457;&#30340;&#12290;&#22914;&#26524;&#35273;&#24471;&#25105;&#21457;&#30340;&#22270;&#21644;&#35770;&#22363;&#30340;&#20869;&#23481;&#26080;&#20851;&#65292;&#35753;&#25105;&#21024;&#21487;&#20197;&#12290;&#25105;&#20063;&#23562;&#37325;&#36825;&#37324;&#30340;&#24052;&#38081;&#26379;&#21451;&#20204;&#65292;&#20320;&#23601;&#19981;&#35201;&#36234;&#20430;&#20195;&#24214;&#20102;&#21543;....

&#39134;&#26426;&#38506;&#32654;&#22899;&#65292;&#20840;&#29699;&#30342;&#28982;&#12290;&#25226;&#32654;&#22899;&#30011;&#22312;&#26426;&#36523;&#19978;&#30340;&#39134;&#26426;&#29031;&#26679;&#22312;&#20108;&#25112;&#28856;&#36807;&#23567;&#26085;&#26412;&#12290;&#22825;&#31354;&#19982;&#28010;&#28459;&#26412;&#26469;&#23601;&#26159;&#26377;&#26426;&#32467;&#21512;&#30340;&#12290;&#21478;&#22806;&#36825;&#20063;&#19981;&#26159;&#24651;&#31461;&#30294;&#65292;&#25105;&#23545;loli&#20063;&#27809;&#26377;&#20852;&#36259;&#12290;

Sorry for handling discussions in Chinese...... ^_^


----------



## bhedgehog

djsjs said:


> &#37027;&#26031;&#24590;&#30693;&#21566;&#21326;&#22799;&#20043;&#25991;&#65311;&#37034;&#39764;&#22806;&#36947;&#20551;&#20197;&#20154;&#30382;


&#26159;&#37027;&#8220;&#21422;&#8221;&#65292;&#35874;&#35874;&#12290;
&#21478;&#22806;&#36865;&#20320;&#19968;&#21477;&#35805;&#65292;&#24110;&#21161;&#20320;&#21152;&#28145;&#19968;&#19979;&#22269;&#23398;&#20462;&#20859;&#65306;
&#8220;&#28023;&#32435;&#30334;&#24029;&#65292;&#26377;&#23481;&#20035;&#22823;&#8221;&#8212;&#8212;&#26519;&#21017;&#24464;

Again. Sorry for handling discussions in Chinese...... ^_^
There are somethings very hard for me to explain in English, thank you for understanding~~


----------



## skyknight

I reported that disgusting post&#12290;
Someone should know the earth just dont move around you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

New photos of J-20 #2002...


----------



## hk299792458

A short video of J-20's flight...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## qwerrty

that maneuver doesn't look like 75 ft long flying bathtub heavy striker blabla.. experts..


----------



## hk299792458

I'm looking for photos of J-20 that proof that this aircraft can carry out differential motion of it's canards as J-10A/J-10S, for the moment the only one I found that might be the case is this one, if someone have somthing else, please kindly let me know...







Some "_new_" old photos of J-20 #2001...


----------



## Yasir_Tiger

​
This is Chinese Stealth Fighter J-20 Black Eagle Now Fitted With AESA Radar.
Well Done China.

Chinese-J-20-Stealth-Fighter-Fitted-With-Chinese-AESA-Radar.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Type 052D

Erm there are vids showing this, the Aircraft's cone was open during the refit...


----------



## BlueDot_in_Space

sexy gun said:


> ROFLxD !! where are the specs ? links ? seems a brainfart to me !! open the windows someone plz



Your are committing a blasphemy by not trusting what Chinese claim. If they say it is AESA, it must be AESA, just like mass produced WS10s, 5th generation J20 and 5++ generation J31 with advanced aerodynamics, highly advanced avionics and very high thrust WS15 with thrust vectoring and more.


----------



## bhedgehog

People are just discussing here, you do not need to put it in such a ironical way.


----------



## no_name

This looks pretty maneuverable to me. It's with an underpowered engine.

[video]http://www.56.com/u/v_NzgwMzE2NjI.html[/video]


----------



## hk299792458

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> Your are committing a blasphemy by not trusting what Chinese claim. If they say it is AESA, it must be AESA, just like mass produced WS10s, 5th generation J20 and 5++ generation J31 with advanced aerodynamics, highly advanced avionics and very high thrust WS15 with thrust vectoring and more.



Should we trust what is shown clearly in the China national aeronautic museum of Beijing, that the airborn X-band APAR has rolled out...






And we can also find the PPAR (_with PESA antenna_) in the same museum, this PPAR is believed to be installed on J-10B...































(_By the way, could we be more "professionnal" with the wording, when we use AESA it means the antenna it-self, when we use APAR it means the whole radar system. We can use AESA antenna with old transmitter/receiver + MMIC + traveling-wave tube from "mechanical scan radar", for example..._)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BlueDot_in_Space

hk299792458 said:


> Should we trust what is shown clearly in the China national aeronautic museum of Beijing, that the airborn X-band APAR has rolled out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we can also find the PPAR (_with PESA antenna_) in the same museum, this PPAR is believed to be installed on J-10B...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (_By the way, could we be more "professionnal" with the wording, when we use AESA it means the antenna it-self, when we use APAR it means the whole radar system. We can use AESA antenna with old transmitter/receiver + MMIC + traveling-wave tube from "mechanical scan radar", for example..._)



That is what I said, we should never doubt Chinese, they are the only country apart from USA that now has two 5th gen fighters with very Low RCS, higly advanced avionics and very high power WS15 thrust vectoring engine, all this accomplished just within 30 yrs of experience. Look at Russia and Europe, with so many years of experience no where on the scene.


----------



## hk299792458

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> That is what I said, we should never doubt Chinese, they are the only country apart from USA that now has two 5th gen fighters with very Low RCS, higly advanced avionics and very high power WS15 thrust vectoring engine, all this accomplished just within 30 yrs of experience. Look at Russia and Europe, with so many years of experience no where on the scene.



It is never a question of doubt, it is a question when you have a doubt, could you find real fact to proof, or invalidate, your doubt.

In your case, correct me if I'm wrong, it's what I called "_Doubt because we use to doubt_"?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> Your are committing a blasphemy by not trusting what Chinese claim. If they say it is AESA, it must be AESA, just like mass produced WS10s, 5th generation J20 and 5++ generation J31 with advanced aerodynamics, highly advanced avionics and very high thrust WS15 with thrust vectoring and more.



What makes you so sure that there is any kind of radar in your best plane that's known by the outside world as the &#8220;junk&#8221; Su-30MKI&#65311;

Have you got any concrete proof beside claims by the Russians or ur helping AF&#65311;

It could be a model for all we know&#12290;


----------



## hk299792458

New photos...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

J-20 #2002 had performed it's 36th test flight on November 5th...






The first photo is not from today...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Merilion

hk299792458 said:


> J-20 #2002 had performed it's 36th test flight on November 5th...



such a ugly dirty smoke! why it abandoned fuel again and again for what? isn't that waste of money?


----------



## hk299792458

For test flight safety and security, all aircraft should be filled with the double of quantity of kerosene than needed, if my memory is not wrong...


----------



## applesauce

you have to test the fuel dump system too

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

New pictures...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sohail.ishaque

hk299792458 said:


> New photos...



Wooohooo.... This jet has some terrorizing looks... my all times favourite jet... and the background of thundering sky perfectly suits this jet... Thanks for sharing.. keep them coming....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

An old picture showing #2001 and #2002 together, it should have been taken before May 2012...


----------



## 帅的一匹

What type of engine J20 use now?


----------



## UKBengali

wanglaokan said:


> What type of engine J20 use now?



My guess is that it uses a WS-10X variant.

This may have more thrust that a regular WS-10A at the expense of engine life.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Will it be WS15?


----------



## hk299792458

Old pictures, some of them are showing the two J-20, #2001 and #2002, together...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Broccoli



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nefory

UKBengali said:


> My guess is that it uses a WS-10X variant.
> 
> This may have more thrust that a regular WS-10A at the expense of engine life.



So far, all J20 still installed with AL31F.


----------



## Esc8781

J-20 cockpit


----------



## hk299792458

Esc8781 said:


> J-20 cockpit



According to the spottors' drawing, the #2001's cockpit looks like this -











A very old picture suggests that the first version of J-20's cockpit should be something like this -






But as a technical demonstrator, especially for the first one, no need to integrate all electronic, just what is necessary for the flight. Don't forget how it looked like the cockpit of YF-22 and YF-23...


----------



## Broccoli

I found this from sinodefence. This was spotted today near SAC... J-20 before paint job?


----------



## sweetgrape

Broccoli said:


> I found this from sinodefence. This was spotted today near SAC... J-20 before paint job?



seems it is not J20, J20 is CAC project, it is not logic, I think is anothor project of SAC, the second picture is a little weird, can't confirm it, maybe VTOL plane, wait for another surprise.

And maybe it is just a fake toy, someone make it.


----------



## hk299792458

2 flights of *J-20* #2002 on December 1st...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## hk299792458

The video of J-20's Decembre 1st flight...






December 2nd, J-20 #2002's 39th flight...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

2002 had left for YL&#65292;which means&#65292;among other things&#65292;that 2003 is to debut anytime now&#12290;


----------



## hk299792458

cirr said:


> 2002 had left for YL&#65292;which means&#65292;among other things&#65292;that 2003 is to debut anytime now&#12290;



Yes, #2002 left 132 factory's airport today at around 12:58 to reach Xi'an CFTE. This shows clearly that the 718 project is running well.

IOC of Block 0 still planned for 2015?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## hk299792458

The flight of J-20 #2002 from Chengdu to CFTE, this could be the last time we saw "_in public_" this aircraft...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## giant panda



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Awesome J20 pics, ths all.


----------



## giant panda



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

What J-20 is doing in XAC? Isn't it rather at CFTE?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

J-20 #2002 is back to Chengdu, with some changes...

Did missiles firing already carry out from side weapon bay?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

The remaining photos...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

Only, if Chinese weather ever cleared up, the photos would have been way too great.


----------



## Manticore

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-5th-generation-j-20-j-31-pics-videos-16.html

please post updates whenever possible


----------



## giant panda

hk299792458 said:


> J-20 #2002 is back to Chengdu, with some changes...
> 
> Did missiles firing already carry out from side weapon bay?



weapon release test like F-35???


----------



## Mian H Amin.

WAO thats a beautiful piece of **** <3


----------



## hk299792458

2 years already...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

Weapons testing&#12290;

The 1st batch of J-20s in so-called &#8220;STATE A&#8221; will be inducted by 2015.


----------



## hk299792458




----------



## nitetrogen70

so weapon testing coming soon, everything seems to be going on time


----------



## 7freedom7

cirr said:


> Weapons testing&#12290;
> 
> The 1st batch of J-20s in so-called &#8220;STATE A&#8221; will be inducted by 2015.



The technical development is goddamn fast.


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

Seems like weapon testing has started !


----------



## hk299792458

J-20 #2002 carried out 3 flights today, something seems to have happened during the second flight...









































Henri K.


----------



## Kompromat

@Oscar What are these stickers? Sensors?


----------



## no_name

Looks like position markers for tracking by cameras.


----------



## SQ8

Aeronaut said:


> @Oscar What are these stickers? Sensors?



Test measurement points..to act as reference points for testing and instrumentation by visual means.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

The 3 flights of January 21st...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## subanday

its a big plane to be a fighter... agility ??


----------



## qwerrty

it's not that big


----------



## hk299792458

January 24th, another 2 test flights of J-20 #2002...


----------



## cnleio

Two seat J-20x bomber/fighter will come out this year, developing two seat J-20x for PLAN anti-ship

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

Symbols on J-20...






A new photo of J-20 #2002...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

*"Fangs out!"*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Aeronaut said:


> *"Fangs out!"*



Flight refueling probe and AA missiles ...very interesting


----------



## Akasa

cnleio said:


> Two seat J-20x bomber/fighter will come out this year, developing two seat J-20x for PLAN anti-ship



As much as I find your posts interesting (and that's only because some of them have turned out accurate), please do elaborate. There's no way we could label them as credible if you provide no sources and no evidence that we could see.


----------



## RIMPAC

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Flight refueling probe and AA missiles ...very interesting



That's apparently a photoshopped picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

RIMPAC said:


> That's apparently a photoshopped picture.



oh crap ...well next time


----------



## hk299792458

Aeronaut said:


> *"Fangs out!"*



The author of these images has precised that these are CG pictures.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Luftwaffe

Apparently 3-4 years before J-20 was revealed,we seen photoshops that turned out 85% accurate so maybe earlier next year or end of this year we might see retractable IFR probe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Clock ticking&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;tick tock&#12290;&#12290;&#12290;


----------



## hk299792458

February 25th, J-20 #2002 had performed 2 test flights...






Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sweetgrape

Side bay of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indian_foxhound

As China reaches an agreement with Russia to
buy Sukhoi Su-35 fighters, the domestic J-20
fighter program might have developed problems
that China cannot solve on its own anytime soon. Seemingly prompted by the well publicized Su-35
deal, photos of the second J-20 prototype
undergoing flight tests became easily available on
Chinese websites recently, likely to assure the
public that the J-20 program is proceeding well.
This aircraft made its first flight last May. The first prototype made its maiden flight in January
2011, grabbing much international attention. It
made more than 60 additional flights that year. A
third J-20 prototype is believed to exist, but only
for ground and lab tests. The recent J-20 photos featured white circles on
the fuselage of No. 2002. These are thought to be
markings for optical measurements of the
airplane from the ground or from another
aircraft, as is routine in new combat aircraft
development. Some unofficial Chinese commentators concluded that J-20 weapons
systems tests had begun, marking an
important milestone. In contrast to the optimism based on a few
photos, however, the fact that China has yet to
succeed in developing a powerful engine for the
J-20the much-expected WS15tells a different
story. Of the two J-20 prototypes that have been
made known to the public, one is powered by the Russian-made AL31FN and the other by the
domestically built WS10G. The Chinese version of
the Su-27SK, the J-11, is powered by the WS10A.
Many observers believe that a strong incentive
for China to buy the Su-35 is the airplanes 117S
engine, an AL31 derivative. According to some estimates, the J-20 program
will take at least six years to complete, meaning
that the J-20 would not become operational until
2017. But deliveries of 24 Su-35s and an
unknown number of spare engines are expected
to start in 2015, granting China time to cash in on new Russian technology gained from that
program. As some Russian officials have noted, it
would take China a long time to copy the Su-35, a
process that ostensibly would not be cost-
effective for China. What China urgently needs is
a technical breakthrough in the development of fighter jet engines. China does not seem so deficient in radar
technology, and the Russian Irbis-E radar of the
Su-35, though ranked among the worlds best,
might not be something the Chinese are
desperate to acquire.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...hinas-j-20-fighter-might-need-russian-engines

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## danger007

where is the source my friend.


----------



## indian_foxhound

danger007 said:


> where is the source my friend.



I think its there.. See the bottom of the news...
Anyways i am giving you again China


----------



## Globenim

indian_foxhound said:


> I think its there.. See the bottom of the news...
> Anyways i am giving you again China


*The source confirming this rumour*, no matter how often cross quoted and falsely re-recited as actual news report, only jealous Indians projecting their centuries of incompetence against China, trough continued self delusion, would believe with no grain of doubt and desire for any sort of verification.
*Not just another random website stating the rumour again*, pointing only at even more recitations of the same rumour at best ending up on an Indian or Russian blog as usual.

PS. Private American Falun Gong websites posing as Chinese news outlets are not any more of a credible source to confirm "Chinese arms import deals" than say the Hindustantimes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ayush

these problems have been haunting china for sometime.but still they have made great advances in their indegenous development.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Some Indian desperate to prove that China cannot make turbofans.

China already has the WS-10A in mass production and so they have a good base to build better engines like WS-15 now.

At the very least, when the J-20 is in service towards the end of the decade, it will be equipped with a WS-10X type engine which will still make it much better than 4th generation fighters by a wide margin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

State A&#65306;J-20A&#65292;induction 2015&#65292;Russian engines&#12290;
State B&#65306;J-20B&#65292;induction 2018-2020&#65292;WS-15&#12290;


----------



## Sergi

cirr said:


> State A&#65306;J-20A&#65292;induction 2015&#65292;Russian engines&#12290;
> State B&#65306;J-20B&#65292;induction 2018-2020&#65292;WS-15&#12290;



But the question is 
"*Is Chinese 5th Gen plane happy with Current generation Russian engine ???"*

Will it not sacrifice decent amount of stealth feature due to heat signature of non NG engines ???


----------



## bigzgvr4

Please Stay on topic as i already explained to you about china wont loose its stealth as it is Superior then the Pak-fa and f-35 even if it uses russian engines on low observation missions because of the weapons lay out and i know you wont stop because your a true troll


----------



## SQ8

Gentlemen.. let me make this very clear.. 
IF I see demeaning references to a simple support for China by a Pakistani member I will throw the offending member out for a while.

The same goes for baseless posts about Russian equipment.


As for the topic.. Id ignore most of the speculation about the Su-35's need and the like except the engine part..
That is THE only area where China is lagging behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bigzgvr4

thankx bro and thats what i was saying that china j-20 wont loose stealth because of the weapons lay out and Radar Absorbant Airframe even if it uses Russian JEts


----------



## SQ8

bigzgvr4 said:


> thankx bro and thats what i was saying that china j-20 wont loose stealth because of the weapons lay out and Radar Absorbant Airframe even if it uses Russian JEts



The J-20 will lose out on stealth if
1. Does extreme maneuvers that cause the canards to deflect enough to create e spike in RCS.
2. Stays with the non-stealthy exhaust.

At this point.. the canards offer both a benefit and a boon.
They provide better maneuverability for the delta at supersonic speeds... but in doing so will generate a RCS spike that will have it show up much earlier on radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

@Oscar : appreciated. 
Please answer post 8 wrt to cirr's post 7.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

cirr said:


> State A&#65306;J-20A&#65292;induction 2015&#65292;WS-15A&#12290;
> State B&#65306;J-20B&#65292;induction 2018-2020&#65292;WS-15B&#12290;



I fix it for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I fix it for you.



So you mean there won't be Russian engine in the j20. 
Russian engines will be only used on Protos and for R&D


----------



## Skull and Bones

UKBengali said:


> Some Indian desperate to prove that China cannot make turbofans.
> 
> China already has the WS-10A in mass production and so they have a good base to build better engines like WS-15 now.
> 
> At the very least, when the J-20 is in service towards the end of the decade, it will be equipped with a WS-10X type engine which will still make it much better than 4th generation fighters by a wide margin.



Two things. 

1. Search for 'TBO of WS-10A Engines'. 

2. J-10A crashes and reasons. 

Then ping me again for further discussion and clarifications.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Skull and Bones said:


> Two things.
> 
> 1. Search for 'TBO of WS-10A Engines'.
> 
> 2. J-10A crashes and reasons.
> 
> Then ping me again for further discussion and clarifications.



All J-10A use the AL-31FN engine so far, only one prototype of J-10B uses the WS-10X engine. 









Sergi said:


> So you mean there won't be Russian engine in the j20.
> Russian engines will be only used on Protos and for R&D



The first prototype of J-20 appeared in December 2010, it seemed to have equipped with the modified version of AL-31 series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Haters can keep hating, but China's engine development won't be stalled because of their ignorance.

Just like China's economy won't be crashed because of the haters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Sergi said:


> @Oscar : appreciated.
> Please answer post 8 wrt to cirr's post 7.



Russian engines will probably stay on for the prototypes.. The WS-10 series will have to suffice for early models.
However, the issue with Chinese engines is not with design.. but with materials.
Think of the SR-71 but made with aluminium.. it would melt away.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Oscar said:


> Russian engines will probably stay on for the prototypes.. The WS-10 series will have to suffice for early models.
> However, the issue with Chinese engines is not with design.. but with materials.
> Think of the SR-71 but made with aluminium.. it would melt away.



We have good materials so far, but what we need to enlarge our engine production is to raise more skilled workers in the assembly lines.

It is very hard to produce those skilled workers with high performance, when you got 0.1mm of difference during the installation, the engine might lose 10% of the thrust, or it can get even worse.


----------



## SQ8

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> We have *good materials so far*, but what we need to enlarge our engine production is to raise more skilled workers in the assembly lines.
> 
> It is very hard to produce those* skilled workers with high performance*, when you got 0.1mm of difference during the installation, the engine might lose 10% of the thrust, or it can get even worse.



Depends on the definition of good for the application.
For eg.. in the Wopen-7 and 13 the materials requirements were not that high.. .

But for something like the WS-10 or WS-15.. the precision requirements for both composition and dimensions are much higher.
And China lacks one very very important thing in its work ethos.. in a big way.. Which is quality control.

Where I used to work.. there were two radio systems in design process.. each of them having a chipset(so to speak)..
The one from Turkey.. had say.. 1 faulty in every 50... 
The one from China.. 1 in every 5.
It was not until someone went to the substrate facility in China that the ratio improved to 1 in 30.. 

Yes there is a big issue of skilled workers.. but there is also an issue of instilling those ethos.. 
However, in the newer generation of Chinese these skills may be coming up faster..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nitetrogen70

@Oscar so how long do you think this engine will be 100% ready ?


----------



## SQ8

nitetrogen70 said:


> @Oscar so how long do you think this engine will be 100% ready ?



5-8 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bigzgvr4

ALmost all the american Electronic consumer products are made in China and We here never have any problem with them i guess quality control for Foreign consumer electronics or any product is Far better then those of the ones that are used in inland China i guess

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oscar said:


> The J-20 will lose out on stealth if
> 1. Does extreme maneuvers that cause the canards to deflect enough to create e spike in RCS.



But when the F-22's stabilators deflect, there's no spike in RCS right?


----------



## bigzgvr4

Also in a jet engine You have to have the blades balanced after it is assembled just like a turbo of a car you have to have its blades balanced when the hot side and the cold side are assembled, alot of people here buy chinesse made turbo and have them balanced and then they work just like a Top Brand like Turbonetics/Percision/Mitsubishi/ etc. and they balance it on computerized machines that run them at highest rpms Possible becasue jet engine is like a turbo cold air goes in fuel is ignited and hot air Comes out it the Blades are not Balanced it will have premature detonation and knock depending on the side which is most heavy or light when they are rotating and also proper Fuel and air Mixture management


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> But when the F-22's stabilators deflect, there's no spike in RCS right?


Canards, being their locations and smaller size, have a higher deflection angle than stabilators. The deflection angle you posted is on the ground where there are no air data inputs, resulting in the flight control computer (FLCC) thinking it needs a higher deflection to execute a maneuver. The combination contains: air data, gyrosopes, accelerometers, command, and surface displacement feedback. All these factors governs the deflection angle of any flight control surface, including canards.


----------



## bigzgvr4

balancing a fighter jet engine in active service in Canada their are more then 3 part videos please watch all of it for the jet engine enthusiasts and you will know the inner working for the compressor side of things


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Oscar said:


> Depends on the definition of good for the application.
> For eg.. in the Wopen-7 and 13 the materials requirements were not that high.. .
> 
> But for something like the WS-10 or WS-15.. the precision requirements for both composition and dimensions are much higher.
> And China lacks one very very important thing in its work ethos.. in a big way.. Which is quality control.
> 
> Where I used to work.. there were two radio systems in design process.. each of them having a chipset(so to speak)..
> The one from Turkey.. had say.. 1 faulty in every 50...
> The one from China.. 1 in every 5.
> It was not until someone went to the substrate facility in China that the ratio improved to 1 in 30..
> 
> Yes there is a big issue of skilled workers.. but there is also an issue of instilling those ethos..
> However, in the newer generation of Chinese these skills may be coming up faster..



President Hu Jintao has awarded the experts for making the groundbreaking composite meterials for our jet engine in early 2011.








Oscar said:


> Where I used to work.. there were two radio systems in design process.. each of them having a chipset(so to speak)..
> The one from Turkey.. had say.. 1 faulty in every 50...
> The one from China.. 1 in every 5.
> It was not until someone went to the substrate facility in China that the ratio improved to 1 in 30..
> 
> Yes there is a big issue of skilled workers.. but there is also an issue of instilling those ethos..
> However, in the newer generation of Chinese these skills may be coming up faster..



lol, does this mean that Turkey can make the better jet engine?

If the WS-10 engine is unreliable and faulty, do you think we Chinese are retarded for making more than J-11B aircrafts with WS-10A?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> President Hu Jintao has awarded the experts for making the groundbreaking composite meterials for our jet engine in early 2011.
> 
> lol, does this mean that Turkey can make the better jet engine?
> 
> If the WS-10 engine is unreliably and faulty, do you think we Chinese are retarded for making more than J-11B aircrafts with WS-10A?



Calm down tiger. He isn't saying Turkey can make better jets than you  it was just a example. 


If WS-10 is mature as you said then why China is importing Russian engines ??? 
( *No offence intended and expecting a simple and logical answer* )


----------



## bigzgvr4

See after 10 posts or less Troll ing Begins 
again


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Sergi said:


> Calm down tiger. He isn't saying Turkey can make better jets than you  it was just a example.
> 
> 
> If WS-10 is mature as you said then why China is importing Russian engines ???
> ( *No offence intended and expecting a simple and logical answer* )



The WS-10 series is not 100% mature yet, it is getting more mature and better every coming year.

For now, our production can meet the demand for new coming aircrafts, but not all aircrafts in our current air force inventory. That's why older J-10A/J-11A still depends on AL-31 engines.

And Y-20 uses the HBR engine, and our WS-20 is almost ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10 series is not 100% mature yet, it is getting more mature and better every coming year.
> 
> For now, our production can meet the demand for new coming aircrafts, but not all aircrafts in our current air force inventory. That's why older J-10A/J-11A still depends on AL-31 engines.
> 
> And Y-20 uses the HBR engine, and our WS-20 is almost ready.



Can you be more specific on technical terms and status of WS-15 and 20 ??? 

Which of the WS-10 series are good enough for regular flight operations ???

Did you hope to see WS-15 on final induction of J-20 ??? Being a NG engine it will take a considerable time and may not be available on the timeline of induction


----------



## SQ8

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> lol, does this mean that Turkey can make the better jet engine?
> 
> If the WS-10 engine is unreliable and faulty, do you think we Chinese are retarded for making more than J-11B aircrafts with WS-10A?



You are taking a reactionary view instead of a logical one..
The focus is on quality control.. and the example of Turkey vs China is to demonstrate that.. 
If you wish I can comment on the quality of work undertaken in TAI and in Chengdu.

If there was no issue with Chinese engine manufacturing capability.. then there would be no need for aircraft like the J-10B, The J-20 and the J-31 to be equipped with Russian engines. 
The issue lies in making sure that every engine that comes out of the factory meets exact specifications and performs in a cost effective manner.
Breakthroughs in composite engine research do not imply breakthrough's in quality assurance in the manufacture of these engines.. without skilled workers and QC( as YOU have stated) ..China can manufacture variable cycle engines and still not be able to field them on a mass scale.

The WS-10A equips the J-11B for two reasons.. 
1. the WS-10A's production process has been refined enough so that a rate of production is possible.
2. The J-11B fleet has priority on the engines and hence gets them as they come.


These issues lead to the Chinese aviation industry buying Russian engines to meet project deadlines while local engines are being sorted out.. 
Or do you consider your countrymen wasteful that they buy the Russian engines anyway?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## black_jack

J 20 might need russian radar , russian missles ..............


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Sergi said:


> Can you be more specific on technical terms and status of WS-15 and 20 ???
> 
> Which of the WS-10 series are good enough for regular flight operations ???
> 
> Did you hope to see WS-15 on final induction of J-20 ??? Being a NG engine it will take a considerable time and may not be available on the timeline of induction



The WS-15 will pass it first trial on J-20 by the end of 2013, and start the induction by 2015.

For now, our WS-15 can make 170kn of afterburner thrust, but our goal is to make it 190kn.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Oscar said:


> You are taking a reactionary view instead of a logical one..
> The focus is on quality control.. and the example of Turkey vs China is to demonstrate that..
> If you wish I can comment on the quality of work undertaken in TAI and in Chengdu.
> 
> If there was no issue with Chinese engine manufacturing capability.. then there would be no need for aircraft like the J-10B, The J-20 and the J-31 to be equipped with Russian engines.



Our engine production line is not as mature as Russia, no one would deny that.

J-10B is not in service yet, and it will use WS-10X when it is ready.

J-20 uses AL-31FX for its first prototype, see the first J-20 prototype with the black engine nozzle.

J-31 is supposed to equip with WS-13, but the manufacturer who made WS-13 is not ready to introduce, but this has nothing to do with quality of WS-10, since WS-13 and WS-10 are made by two different manufacturers.

Overall, Russia has more different types of engines compared to us, hence they are more mature in this business.

But when it comes to the development of the 5th gen aircraft engine like WS-15, we are a bit ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## indian_foxhound

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Our engine production line is not as mature as Russia, no one would deny that.
> 
> J-10B is not in service yet, and it will use WS-10X when it is ready.
> 
> J-20 uses AL-31FX for its first prototype, see the first J-20 prototype with the black engine nozzle.
> 
> J-31 is supposed to equip with WS-13, but the manufacturer who made WS-13 is not ready to introduce, but this has nothing to do with quality of WS-10, since WS-13 and WS-10 are made by two different manufacturers.
> 
> Overall, Russia has more different types of engines compared to us, hence they are more mature in this business.
> 
> But when it comes to the development of the 5th gen aircraft engine like WS-15, we are a bit ahead.



What is the Maximum thrust with AB and dry thrust of ws-15


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Our engine production line is not as mature as Russia, no one would deny that.
> 
> *But when it comes to the development of the 5th gen aircraft engine like WS-15, we are a bit ahead*.



Why do you think China is ahead in NG engine than Russia when you guies have not yet mastered current generation engine ???
A very few countries in the world have successful in making engines.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Sergi said:


> Why do you think China is ahead in NG engine than Russia when you guies have not yet mastered current generation engine ???
> A very few countries in the world have successful in making engines.



WS-10 is a current gen jet engine, and you say we do not master it?

Then if we have not mastered it, then how come WS-10H/WS-10B/WS-10G/WS-10X all those new variants derived from it?

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, let's see who will be the first testing their true 5th gen jet engine on the 5th gen fighter.

We Chinese people love to prove ourselves by action instead of talking, since action proves more than million words.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speeder 2

Oscar, 

ChineseTiger1986 might be a bit reactionary but basically he's on the ball.

1. the Chinese engine issue, wherever the major problem may lie, is not QC, IMO.

China is World Factory for many reasons. While QC is always an issue for ANY country, it's very hard to comprehend, to the extent of being almost illogical to argue, that THE major issue with China's engine production is about QC. 

The question is if QC is not an obvious problem of most Made-in-China high end consumer products(sure, it is the prob with many low end ones), why it is a problem for top line military production project like engine when China obviously takes the whole issue as the top priority? 

One also can ask reversely that if QC is the major prob in China's top mil production line, then QC must also be the major problem in almost ALL Made-in-China high end consumer production lines. But it that true?

Furthermore, do you know how's the QC with China's Long March rocket engine production lines? They must be very bad as well following the same rationle of yours. Aren't they? And why not?



2. your Turkey example is not a rational comparsion here.

Engine design & production (including QC here) exemplifies the overall industrial sophitication of a nation, agree? Then is Turkey's industrial might across fields in your view a league ahead of China? More precisely, can you name one example of superior QC of indigenous Turkish high-end industrial production, military or civilian, vís-a-vís China?

What happens is that Turkey's F-16 engine production line is the exact line used in the US and imported from the original manufacturer. Turkey is told how to make every step precisely using the exact tools and procedures supplied by the US company and supervised step by step by on-field US engineers. Turkey's QC ratio, therefore, should be exactly the same as that of the US manufacturer in the US, theoritically speaking. Of course its QC is not a major issue, unless the Turks fall into sleep during the working hours.

While China has entirely different major issue from Turkey. It's likely to be true that China still can not mass-produce its engines at the moment. But in my understanding it's mainly due to lack of such experiences as how to get it right by trial & error in order to set the exact engine production line parametres and procedures right and precisely in the first place.

Saying that, I don't mean that QC is not an issue at all, but just not THE major one, for now, particualrly not in comparison to Turkey's F-16 engine that you brought on. 

The right question here is, what do you think China's QC ratio vís-a-vís Turkey's would be if the exact F-16 engine production line, the related knowhow on production procedures and the same machine tools are shifted to China by the US company tomorrow?

Your China vs Turkey engine QC ratio in its nutshell is in fact China vs US on aero engine production and the general top-end industrial sophistication it associates with, nothing to do with Turkey per se.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Speeder 2 said:


> Oscar,
> 
> ChineseTiger1986 might be a bit reactionary but basically he's on the ball.
> 
> 1. the Chinese engine issue, wherever the major problem may lie, is not QC, IMO.
> 
> China is World Factory for many reasons. While QC is always an issue for ANY country, it's very hard to comprehend, to the extent of being almost illogical to argue, that THE major issue with China's engine production is about QC.
> 
> The question is if QC is not an obvious problem of most Made-in-China high end consumer products(sure, it is the prob with many low end ones), why it is a problem for top line military production project like engine when China obviously takes the whole issue as the top priority?
> 
> One also can ask reversely that if QC is the major prob in China's top mil production line, then QC must also be the major problem in almost ALL Made-in-China high end consumer production lines. But it that true?
> 
> Furthermore, do you know how's the QC with China's Long March rocket engine production lines? They must be very bad as well following the same rationle of yours. Aren't they? And why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. your Turkey example is not a rational comparsion here.
> 
> Engine design & production (including QC here) exemplifies the overall industrial sophitication of a nation, agree? Then is Turkey's industrial might across fields in your view a league ahead of China? More precisely, can you name one example of superior QC of indigenous Turkish high-end industrial production, military or civilian, vís-a-vís China?
> 
> What happens is that Turkey's F-16 engine production line is the exact line used in the US and imported from the original manufacturer. Turkey is told how to make every step precisely using the exact tools and procedures supplied by the US company and supervised step by step by on-field US engineers. Turkey's QC ratio, therefore, should be exactly the same as that of the US manufacturer in the US, theoritically speaking. Of course its QC is not a major issue, unless the Turks fall into sleep during the working hours.
> 
> While China has entirely different major issue from Turkey. It's likely to be true that China still can not mass-produce its engines at the moment. But in my understanding it's mainly due to lack of such experiences as how to get it right by trial & error in order to set the exact engine production line parametres and procedures right and precisely in the first place.
> 
> Saying that, I don't mean that QC is not an issue at all, but just not THE major one, for now, particualrly not in comparison to Turkey's F-16 engine that you brought on.
> 
> The right question here is, what do you think China's QC ratio vís-a-vís Turkey's would be if the exact F-16 engine production line, the related knowhow on production procedures and the same machine tools are shifted to China by the US company tomorrow?
> 
> Your China vs Turkey engine QC ratio in its nutshell is in fact China vs US on aero engine production and the general top-end industrial sophistication it associates with, nothing to do with Turkey per se.



The QC of the WS-10A engine is right on the track right now.

However, we still lack the variety of the jet engines, since WS-13 and WS-20 is not ready yet.


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> WS-10 is a current gen jet engine, and you say we do not master it?
> 
> Then if we have not mastered it, then how come WS-10H/WS-10B/WS-10G/WS-10X all those new variants derived from it?
> 
> It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, let's see who will be the first testing their true 5th gen jet engine on the 5th gen fighter.
> 
> We Chinese people love to prove ourselves by action instead of talking, since action proves more than million words.



You said it. And continued use of Russian engine to supplement your need proves it. 
Post#3046 Post#3051

I am not claiming anything. I am host seeking info from you. Did you see anything here that I claim or object ??? I am jaunt asking related and logical questions. 

That's a great thing. Keep up. 

*I just wana know , if you can tell offcourse ,
why you claim you have edge over Russia in NG engine ??? Are there any technical reasons or it was just out of love for your country ??? *
wrt My post 3053


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Sergi said:


> You said it. And continued use of Russian engine to supplement your need proves it.
> Post#3046 Post#3051
> 
> I am not claiming anything. I am host seeking info from you. Did you see anything here that I claim or object ??? I am jaunt asking related and logical questions.
> 
> That's a great thing. Keep up.
> 
> *I just wana know , if you can tell offcourse ,
> why you claim you have edge over Russia in NG engine ??? Are there any technical reasons or it was just out of love for your country ??? *
> wrt My post 3053



As i said before, the WS-10 series is not 100% mature yet, because the production demand is still not enough to cover all our older aircrafts like Su-30MKK and J-10A/J-11A.

The WS-10 series is not fully mature, it does not mean we have mastered its technology. A jet engine normally needs 10 years of maturization.

But the development of the next gen jet engine, we are ahead of Russia.

However, WS-15 is even less mature than WS-10, but it is technologically much more superior.


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> As i said before, the WS-10 series is not 100% mature yet, because the production demand is still not enough to cover all our older aircrafts like Su-30MKK and J-10A/J-11A.
> 
> The WS-10 series is not fully mature, it does not mean we have mastered its technology. A jet engine normally needs 10 years of maturization.
> 
> But the development of the next gen jet engine, we are ahead of Russia.
> 
> However, WS-15 is even less mature than WS-10, but it is technologically much more superior.



Well you said the same things again but you missed my question. 

*I asked you why do you thing your Next Generation Engine development is ahead of Russia ??? * does your claim has any technical reasons or its your Patriotic opinion ???

* I am more interested in technical norms and development. *
May I add some points for comparison 
- Russian have mastered TVC along ago and now said to have developed 3D TVC
- they claimed to develop NG engine exhaust nozzles
- new composite blade material and many other things


----------



## hk299792458

Sergi said:


> Well you said the same things again but you missed my question.
> 
> *I asked you why do you thing your Next Generation Engine development is ahead of Russia ??? * does your claim has any technical reasons or its your Patriotic opinion ???
> 
> * I am more interested in technical norms and development. *
> May I add some points for comparison
> - Russian have mastered TVC along ago and now said to have developed 3D TVC
> - they claimed to develop NG engine exhaust nozzles
> - new composite blade material and many other things



No technical reason shows that China's NG engine development is, or not, ahead of Russian's.

For technical development, some old pictures or newly released documents could give us an idea -










































Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sergi

@hk299792458 *no offence* but I want info from Chinese members so I will wait for the reply of Chinese-Tiger or anyone else.. He seems to be convinced with the facts of NG engine development. Lets hear it from him.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Engine maturation will take time. However J-20 will be a formidable platform even given its current configuration. According to Big-shrimps from CJDBY the AL-31 equipped J-20 has a thrust-to-weight ratio comparable to most 4th gen. fighters. Should something go wrong with WS-15, I believe that WS-10A/B equipped J-20s will still be capable of suppressing most regional 4/4.5 gen fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

siegecrossbow said:


> Engine maturation will take time. However J-20 will be a formidable platform even given its current configuration. According to Big-shrimps from CJDBY the AL-31 equipped J-20 has a thrust-to-weight ratio comparable to most 4th gen. fighters. Should something go wrong with WS-15, I believe that WS-10A/B equipped J-20s will still be capable of suppressing most regional 4/4.5 gen fighters.



2020-2022 is not far away WS-10A/B would be able to drag till WS-15 matures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Sergi said:


> Well you said the same things again but you missed my question.
> 
> *I asked you why do you thing your Next Generation Engine development is ahead of Russia ??? * does your claim has any technical reasons or its your Patriotic opinion ???
> 
> * I am more interested in technical norms and development. *
> May I add some points for comparison
> - Russian have mastered TVC along ago and now said to have developed 3D TVC
> - they claimed to develop NG engine exhaust nozzles
> - new composite blade material and many other things



Look, i am patriotic, and i am always taking the facts over the patriotism.

The design Russia's nuclear sub is still ahead of us for now, Yasen class SSN is more advanced than any nuclear subs in our inventory, and it is the most advanced nuclear sub in the world.

And Russia also has few other space technologies more mature than us, not a shame to admit when it is a fact.

But when it comes to something that we deserved to get more credits, we don't have to show any humility.

Our surface warship is now more advanced than Russia's, albeit the AESA Aegis DDG.

We can admit the fact that our nuclear sub is behind of Russia, while if someone can't admit that China having more advanced Aegis DDG, then he/she is not impartial.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Luftwaffe said:


> 2020-2022 is not far away WS-10A/B would be able to drag till WS-15 matures.



The WS-15 engine will be on J-20 around 2015, and it will become fully mature by 2025.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Look, i am patriotic, and i am always taking the facts over the patriotism.
> 
> The design Russia's nuclear sub is still ahead of us for now, Yasen class SSN is more advanced than any nuclear subs in our inventory, and it is the most advanced nuclear sub in the world.
> 
> And Russia also has few other space technologies more mature than us, not a shame to admit when it is a fact.
> 
> But when it comes to something that we deserved to get more credits, we don't have to show any humility.
> 
> Our surface warship is now more advanced than Russia's, albeit the AESA Aegis DDG.
> 
> We can admit the fact that our nuclear sub is behind of Russia, while if someone can't admit that China having more advanced Aegis DDG, then he/she is not impartial.



*What are you talking comrade ???
Did you see anywhere I question tech development of china ???
*
You made a statement and I simple asked the basis for that. Why are you making issue of that. If you can't answer my question say so I won't ask it again. But why are you mixing other stuff in that ???


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Sergi said:


> *What are you talking comrade ???
> Did you see anywhere I question tech development of china ???
> *
> You made a statement and I simple asked the basis for that. Why are you making issue of that. If you can't answer my question say so I won't ask it again. But why are you mixing other stuff in that ???



Do you mean about the TVC technology?

Yes, Russia is the first mastered this technology, and we do have 3D TVC as well.

But J-31 will definitely use 2D TVC instead, since it is cheaper and stealthier.

And i speculate that J-20 will probably follow the same suit, as the WS-15 engine has to sacrifice 10% of its performance in thrust, but with more stealthier flat nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Do you mean about the TVC technology?
> 
> Yes, Russia is the first mastered this technology, and we do have 3D TVC as well.
> 
> But J-31 will definitely use 2D TVC instead, since it is cheaper and stealthier.
> 
> And i speculate that J-20 will probably follow the same suit, as the WS-15 engine has to sacrifice 10% of its performance in thrust, but with more stealthier flat nozzles.



No I mean that you said China is ahead of Russian NG engine development. I want to know why you claim that ???

China has 3D TVC ??? That's a news to me. Can you provide me any links/pics/videos for that ??? 

If WS-15 is producing the amount of trust you claimed, 10% of it not a big deal. But the amount of stealth it will ACHIVE will make fighter more promising


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Sergi said:


> No I mean that you said China is ahead of Russian NG engine development. I want to know why you claim that ???
> 
> China has 3D TVC ??? That's a news to me. Can you provide me any links/pics/videos for that ???
> 
> If WS-15 is producing the amount of trust you claimed, 10% of it not a big deal. But the amount of stealth it will ACHIVE will make fighter more promising



If you don't believe me about the NG engine, that's fine.

I guess we have only to prove ourselves to see if the WS-15 engine is moving ahead.

It won't be long, can you wait until by the end of this year or the beginning of the next year?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If you don't believe me about the NG engine, that's fine.
> 
> I guess we have only to prove ourselves to see if the WS-15 engine is moving ahead.
> 
> It won't be long, can you wait until by the end of this year or the beginning of the next year?



That's correct !!! you ONLY have to prove it to yourself . 

But you made a statement that - *China has a edge in NG engine over Russia*
To make such statement you need the information on *BOTH; Chinese & Russian engines *
But I am afraid my friend you don't have the decent information even on Chinese engine. So I guess you just randomly made that statement and wasn't serious over it.

I am not really believer kinda person So I think I will wait till your NG engine officially come out. Then you have more correct technical info to compare it with Russian engine. Till then let's put a pin here  

Good luck

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

March 12th...






Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sasquatch

siegecrossbow said:


> *Engine maturation will take time*. However J-20 will be a formidable platform even given its current configuration. According to Big-shrimps from CJDBY the AL-31 equipped J-20 has a thrust-to-weight ratio comparable to most 4th gen. fighters. Should something go wrong with WS-15, I believe that WS-10A/B equipped J-20s will still be capable of suppressing most regional 4/4.5 gen fighters.



The WS-10 was certified in 2006 and there have been problems with the reliability of it. Now we have seen it installed onto the J-10, J-11, and even the J-15, J-16, J-20 it has produced greater, on par or even less in it's performance with the AL-31. I'd would give a couple more years for it to fully mature, and with the rumors of the 117(it could be an option) engines it would put the J-20 years ahead of the time it is expected while the WS-15 is completed.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Hu Songshan said:


> The WS-10 was certified in 2006 and there have been problems with the reliability of it. Now we have seen it installed onto the J-10, J-11, and even the J-15, J-16, J-20 it has produced greater, on par or even less in it's performance with the AL-31. I'd would give a couple more years for it to fully mature, and with the rumors of the 117(it could be an option) engines it would put the J-20 years ahead of the time it is expected while the WS-15 is completed.



For sake of self-reliance I hope China sticks with the WS-10 even if it yields inferior results than Russian engines on the short run.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

March 19th...











Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Lure

Officials from AVIC clearly stated that China will make it's own jet engines for J-10 and J-20 models. Jet engine is a bottleneck in Chinese aviation industry. That's why they have imported the Russian Saturn AL-31 engines and installed it to J-10s. If it wasn't the case than J-10 will probably be around in 2015 which would be very funny and humiliating. 

"During the first phase, which will conclude by the end of 2015 if everything goes well, we will strive to ensure our air force's aircraft be equipped with proper engines and to lift our development capability to that of the developed countries' level in the 1980s. The second phase will witness us substantially narrowing the technological gap between developed countries and us. And by the end of the last phase, our engines will be as advanced as theirs." 

I can't post the source as link since I didn't fill the message quota to post it. But it's a news from chinadaily and if anyone interested I can send it from private. As soon as I post 15 messaged I will edit this post and put the link for the source.

From this official announcement we can understand that in 2015 China will have the engine technology to fly a 4th gen fighter which is J-10. By 2020 they will have the technology to fly a 5th gen. fighter which is J-20 and J-31 and if everything goes as planned they will have the jet engine to fly a 6 gen. fighter by 2030.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Lure said:


> Officials from AVIC clearly stated that China will make it's own jet engines for J-10 and J-20 models. Jet engine is a bottleneck in Chinese aviation industry. That's why they have imported the Russian Saturn AL-31 engines and installed it to J-10s. If it wasn't the case than J-10 will probably be around in 2015 which would be very funny and humiliating.
> 
> "During the first phase, which will conclude by the end of 2015 if everything goes well, we will strive to ensure our air force's aircraft be equipped with proper engines and to lift our development capability to that of the developed countries' level in the 1980s. The second phase will witness us substantially narrowing the technological gap between developed countries and us. And by the end of the last phase, our engines will be as advanced as theirs."
> 
> I can't post the source as link since I didn't fill the message quota to post it. But it's a news from chinadaily and if anyone interested I can send it from private. As soon as I post 15 messaged I will edit this post and put the link for the source.
> 
> From this official announcement we can understand that in 2015 China will have the engine technology to fly a 4th gen fighter which is J-10. By 2020 they will have the technology to fly a 5th gen. fighter which is J-20 and J-31 and if everything goes as planned they will have the jet engine to fly a 6 gen. fighter by 2030.


What about J-11B, J-15, J-15S and J-16. Do you have an idea what engine is running?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> What about J-11B, J-15, J-15S and J-16. Do you have an idea what engine is running?



Recently there are two new J-10B pre-production prototype, one uses the WS-10X engine, while another one still uses the AL-31FN engine.

This is expected, since according to some military insiders, the first batch of J-10B will still use the AL-31FN engine just like the first batch of J-11B back in 2007.


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Recently there are two new J-10B pre-production prototype, one uses the WS-10X engine, while another one still uses the AL-31FN engine.
> 
> This is expected, since according to some military insiders, the first batch of J-10B will still use the AL-31FN engine just like the first batch of J-11B back in 2007.



Can't help but wonder what is taking them so long to field the J-10Bs.


----------



## Lure

Beast said:


> What about J-11B, J-15, J-15S and J-16. Do you have an idea what engine is running?



J-11 B is a solid 4th generation fighter. J-15 is a carrier based 4.5 generation fighter. J-16 is a generation 4.5 fighter. All these fighters needs the 1980's engine technology to fly. It's a standart. By 2015 if everything goes fine with AVIC's plan than you will have all of your 4th / 4.5th generation fighters flying with Chinese engines in the sky.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Cross sectional drawing of how J-20's side bay mechanism works by a Chinese military fan. The design approach is markedly different from that of the F-22 since the guide rail appears to "drop down" after the bay door opens.

¼ß20²àµ¯²Õ·¢Éä¸ñ¶·µ¯µÄ·½Ê½ÓëF22Ã÷ÏÔ²»Í¬£¬ÊÇÐý×ªÊ½µ¯¼Ü£¬µ¯¼ÜÐý³ö²ÕÃÅ¿ÉÒÔ¹Ø±Õ£¬...-¿Õ¾ü°æ-³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³ -

Courtesy of &#38596;&#40560;&#23637;&#32709;.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Now this is miles ahead of what F-22 has for firing side-bay missiles&#12290;

Hey&#65292;we might as well use the mechanism to air-luanch our beloved rockets&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## qwerrty

cirr said:


> Now this is miles ahead of what F-22 has for firing side-bay missiles&#12290;
> 
> Hey&#65292;we might as well use the mechanism to air-luanch our beloved rockets&#12290;





i don't like the boasting crap here in this thread, but this one deserve credit.












--
f22


----------



## hk299792458

Video showing the side-bay pylon of *J-20* during the flight (_more precisely during the landing of the aircraft after a test flight_)






Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sasquatch

cirr said:


> Now this is miles ahead of what F-22 has for firing side-bay missiles&#12290;
> 
> Hey&#65292;we might as well use the mechanism to air-luanch our beloved rockets&#12290;



Nice, here is some images of the side bay from the recent flight, marked off here.











some others

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## alimobin memon

How many Missiles can J20 carry and F22 ? These Internal bays Hardly look they can carry more than a couple.


----------



## Beast

alimobin memon said:


> How many Missiles can J20 carry and F22 ? These Internal bays Hardly look they can carry more than a couple.



J-20 can carry 6 PL-12 and 2 PL-10 internally.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

alimobin memon said:


> How many Missiles can J20 carry and F22 ? These Internal bays Hardly look they can carry more than a couple.



Based on my data (gathered from CJDBY, FYJS, and other Chinese military sites) the J-20 will carry 5-6 medium range AA missiles and 2 IR missiles. The load is enough for its intended purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sasquatch

siegecrossbow said:


> Based on my data (gathered from CJDBY, FYJS, and other Chinese military sites) the J-20 will carry 5-6 medium range AA missiles and 2 IR missiles. The load is enough for its intended purpose.



There was news floating around (Can't remember maybe on sina, cjdby and huitong) about two different engines being tested on the J-20 at the same time, some speculate it was the WS-15 any truth to this ?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Hu Songshan said:


> There was news floating around (Can't remember maybe on sina, cjdby and huitong) about two different engines being tested on the J-20 at the same time, some speculate it was the WS-15 any truth to this ?



Unfortunately they are just that, rumors. They first started during summer 2011 when the J-20 (2001) was spotted with different colored engine nozzles. Eventually the wall climbers determined that one of the nozzles was simply blackened by exhaust and that there was no difference between the two engines. Some of the old photos got dug up recently and the story was subsequently rehashed.

The WS-15 hasn't even started mid-air testing yet. It will be highly usual for the J-20 to use an unproven engine during such a critical stage of test flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

cirr said:


> Now this is miles ahead of what F-22 has for firing side-bay missiles&#12290;
> 
> Hey&#65292;we might as well use the mechanism to air-luanch our beloved rockets&#12290;



gr8 stuff this mechanism solves the problem of weapons bay creating a lot of rcs when opened. ...awsome stuff frm china

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sweetgrape

Just see the pictures!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

S-A-B-E-R-> said:


> gr8 stuff this mechanism solves the problem of weapons bay creating a lot of rcs when opened. ...awsome stuff frm china


An overly complex solution for a problem that is not a problem to start.


----------



## sms

sweetgrape said:


> Just see the pictures!



Solution Looks too complicated, they could have done better!!
Any way kudos to Chinese engineers for doing something unique!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

gambit said:


> An overly complex solution for a problem that is not a problem to start.



mate comon i am not haitng on f22 it is a problem that many pilots and engnears talked abt in the US i think in the documantery abt futur air warfare the same problem is discussed.side weapons bay mostly house IR guided missles that need borsight locking and this method maked the j20 stealthy wile doing that but same canot happen in f22 because until an ir lock is achieved u canot close your bay doors and the radar reflicitivity from the bay makes the f22 visible to some level.


----------



## gambit

S-A-B-E-R-> said:


> mate comon i am not haitng on f22 it is a problem that many pilots and engnears talked abt in the US i think in the documantery abt futur air warfare the same problem is discussed.side weapons bay mostly house IR guided missles that need borsight locking and this method maked the j20 stealthy wile doing that but same canot happen in f22 because until an ir lock is achieved u canot close your bay doors and the radar reflicitivity from the bay makes the f22 visible to some level.


You talk as if this issue was never considered during the design phase of the F-22. It was. And the fear was unfounded.

The difference between an opened weapons bay and an intake is -- *PERSISTENCE*. Meaning a jet engine intake is always there, always opened. But a weapons bay is not persistent. Doors opened and doors closed. In order for the weapons bay to be seen, a radar must look at it and here is where you are wrong. When a radar is looking at an aircraft, it sees only the aircraft side that is facing the radar, so if the weapons bay on the other side opens, it does not know.

This is an imaginary problem.


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

gambit said:


> You talk as if this issue was never considered during the design phase of the F-22. It was. And the fear was unfounded.
> 
> The difference between an opened weapons bay and an intake is -- *PERSISTENCE*. Meaning a jet engine intake is always there, always opened. But a weapons bay is not persistent. Doors opened and doors closed. In order for the weapons bay to be seen, a radar must look at it and here is where you are wrong. When a radar is looking at an aircraft, it sees only the aircraft side that is facing the radar, so if the weapons bay on the other side opens, it does not know.
> 
> This is an imaginary problem.


you r 100% rite but in a war where 10000 variables r in play u cant have a open wound and think that u ll just point it away from the enemy. yes the weapons bay opens and closes bur while it is trying to get a lock on enemy it has to stay open and in that time a second aircraft or a sam can not only detect the ac but also fire at it now i know the possibility of hitting the f22 like that r low but they r there and contengency theory states even the smallest variable can cause a lot of problems.


----------



## sancho

cirr said:


> Now this is miles ahead of what F-22 has for firing side-bay missiles&#12290;
> 
> Hey&#65292;we might as well use the mechanism to air-luanch our beloved rockets&#12290;



It's indeed kind of interesting, but also more complicated than really needed. For example, you could have attached the raillauncher to the baydoor itself, so when it opens up, it directly extracts the missile as well. Like this:







So it opens (1), launches the missile (2) and closes again(3)
While this system in the J20 opens the doors (1), extracts the missile (2), closes the doors (3), launches the missile (4), opens the doors again (5), retracts the raillauncher (6) and close the door again (7). 

Which should make the F35 sytem simpler and faster right?


Can you tell me what these 3 yellow parts are that are build in the airframe and extracts with the missile?


----------



## gambit

sancho said:


> It's indeed kind of interesting, but also more complicated than really needed. For example, you could have attached the raillauncher to the baydoor itself, so when it opens up, it directly extracts the missile as well. Like this:
> 
> So it opens (1), launches the missile (2) and closes again(3)
> While this system in the J20 opens the doors (1), extracts the missile (2), closes the doors (3), launches the missile (4), opens the doors again (5), retracts the raillauncher (6) and close the door again (7).
> 
> Which should make the F35 sytem simpler and faster right?
> 
> 
> Can you tell me what these 3 yellow parts are that are build in the airframe and extracts with the missile?


The mentality is that if it is more complex, it must be more 'advanced', so in order to have the J-20 more 'advanced' than the American fighters, things must be more complex at the expense of engineering common sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> An overly complex solution for a problem that is not a problem to start.



I think the intention was to avoid Aerodynamic drag(and strain) arising from those bay doors opening and still allow the seeker of the missile to pop out and scan away.
Yet, it still does seem a complicated solution to a problem that does not seem to be obvious here.

The F-22 leaves its side bay's open in sidewinder employment(with its pylon pushing(canting) the missile but those bays are a snug fit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> I think the intention was to avoid Aerodynamic drag(and strain) arising from those bay doors opening and still allow the seeker of the missile to pop out and scan away.
> Yet, it still does seem a complicated solution to a problem that does not seem to be obvious here.
> 
> The F-22 leaves its side bay's open in sidewinder employment(with its pylon pushing(canting) the missile but those bays are a snug fit.


The denial of the missile's ability to have its own sensor acquiring the target because of its enclosure is indeed a technical hurdle to overcome but not an insurmountable one. Lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) is not a new technology but its advancement was somewhat ignored because of the current configuration of the weapons' sensors being exposed, but now that is changing because of the need to prevent the weapons from contributing to the fighter's RCS. Aerodynamic drag from weapons bay doors is not a significant issue and even the flight control system of my -111 days was able to compensate for that.


----------



## siegecrossbow

sancho said:


> It's indeed kind of interesting, but also more complicated than really needed. For example, you could have attached the raillauncher to the baydoor itself, so when it opens up, it directly extracts the missile as well. Like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it opens (1), launches the missile (2) and closes again(3)
> While this system in the J20 opens the doors (1), extracts the missile (2), closes the doors (3), launches the missile (4), opens the doors again (5), retracts the raillauncher (6) and close the door again (7).
> 
> Which should make the F35 sytem simpler and faster right?
> 
> 
> Can you tell me what these 3 yellow parts are that are build in the airframe and extracts with the missile?



The yellow parts fill up the "gap", so to speak, when the weapons bay closes. I guess this is done as an RCS reduction measure, but I could be wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> The denial of the missile's ability to have its own sensor acquiring the target because of its enclosure is indeed a technical hurdle to overcome but not an insurmountable one. Lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) is not a new technology but its advancement was somewhat ignored because of the current configuration of the weapons' sensors being exposed, but now that is changing because of the need to prevent the weapons from contributing to the fighter's RCS. Aerodynamic drag from weapons bay doors is not a significant issue and even the flight control system of my -111 days was able to compensate for that.



In my view, the actual complication here is not the trapeze that takes the missile out, its the need to close the doors.
Definitely has ZERO value in RCS reduction. So apart from reasons pertaining to drag I see no other as to why the door would need to be closed. Considering that you have already come that close that you need a WVR weapon, chances are you have exposed yourself and there is no need to try and stave off RCS spikes now.
Moreover, Chinese missiles such as the PL-5E-II already have LoAL slaved to the radar or IRST if need be.
Unless the Chinese want to ensure an uncaged mode as well. 
I dont see the mechanism that complicated if its simply a rotating pylon as a trapeze like the one in the F-22's larger bays is surely more complicated But I do see unnecessary need to close the doors everytime you pop that heat-seeker out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> In my view, the actual complication here is not the trapeze that takes the missile out, its *the need to close the doors.*
> Definitely has ZERO value in RCS reduction. So apart from reasons pertaining to drag I see no other as to why the door would need to be closed. Considering that you have already come that close that you need a WVR weapon, chances are you have exposed yourself and there is no need to try and stave off RCS spikes now.
> Moreover, Chinese missiles such as the PL-5E-II already have LoAL slaved to the radar or IRST if need be.
> Unless the Chinese want to ensure an uncaged mode as well.
> I dont see the mechanism that complicated if its simply a rotating pylon as a trapeze like the one in the F-22's larger bays is surely more complicated But I do see unnecessary need to close the doors everytime you pop that heat-seeker out.


The weapons bay contributorship to RCS and aerodynamics issues are -- imaginary problems.

Incorporating an additional step and mechanism to compensate for them is certainly technically viable, but is it really worth it? To me, what I have seen so far is more about one-upmanship to the Americans than it is to solve a genuine problem.


----------



## hk299792458

gambit said:


> The weapons bay contributorship to RCS and aerodynamics issues are -- imaginary problems.
> 
> Incorporating an additional step and mechanism to compensate for them is certainly technically viable, but is it really worth it? To me, what I have seen so far is more about one-upmanship to the Americans than it is to solve a genuine problem.



Aerodynamics issues are not imaginary, but not "upsetting".

The additional strain applied to the structure, is an another issue to be simulated and solved.

Henri K.


----------



## gambit

hk299792458 said:


> *Aerodynamics issues are not imaginary*, but not "upsetting".
> 
> The additional strain applied to the structure, is an another issue to be simulated and solved.
> 
> Henri K.


In this case -- it is.

The release of a bomb from a wing is structurally and aerodynamically more serious than the opening of a weapons bay. You are looking at a major structure that is present on one side of the aircraft but not on the other -- asymmetric drag or wing loading. You can lose as much as 2g on maneuver limits with such a condition. With external fuel tanks, an empty on one wing and a partial/full on the other wing will produce the same issues as with asymmetric aerodynamics.

When opened and present in the air stream, weapons bay doors present minimal profile and they are usually close to centerline/center-of-gravity. Their effects -- brief duration as it is -- have no noticeable effects on flight handling.


----------



## cnleio

J-20's side weapons bay test photo, the missile looks like new PL-10

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

March 26th...































Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.


----------



## cirr

cnleio said:


> J-20's side weapons bay test photo, the missile looks like new PL-10



Video&#65306;http://player.56.com/v_ODk0MzcyMTA.swf

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sancho

Oscar said:


> I think the intention was to avoid Aerodynamic drag(and strain) arising from those bay doors opening



The question would be, what creates more drag, the bay doors of the F35, that opens only for a few seconds, or the whole process of opening, closing (twice) and the extracted rail launcher that will be out for the whole time. For the SR missile bays this systems might not be optimal, but I wonder if a similar system has advantages for the main weapon bay, since the doors there are bigger and draggier. 



siegecrossbow said:


> The yellow parts fill up the "gap", so to speak, when the weapons bay closes. I guess this is done as an RCS reduction measure, but I could be wrong.



Just wondered, because these "gaps" could have been closed simply by making the doors a bit larger:


----------



## siegecrossbow

sancho said:


> The question would be, what creates more drag, the bay doors of the F35, that opens only for a few seconds, or the whole process of opening, closing (twice) and the extracted rail launcher that will be out for the whole time. For the SR missile bays this systems might not be optimal, but I wonder if a similar system has advantages for the main weapon bay, since the doors there are bigger and draggier.
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondered, because these "gaps" could have been closed simply by making the doors a bit larger:



No it couldn't. The gaps are there so the guid rail could stick out when the bay door is closed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sancho

siegecrossbow said:


> No it couldn't. The gaps are there so the guid rail could stick out when the bay door is closed.



Right, forgot about that.


----------



## Kompromat

Fangs out !


----------



## sweetgrape

Some GIF:













But I have a question, whether it waste the space, only one missile, I think it should have other better solution!!


----------



## Zabaniyah

I guess that partly explains the sheer size of that plane.....


----------



## qwerrty

Loki said:


> I guess that partly explains the sheer size of that plane.....



it's not that big


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

qwerrty said:


> it's not that big



It looks fatter than J-15, so it is a 40 tons aircraft no doubt.


----------



## Kompromat

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It looks fatter than J-15, so it is a 40 tons aircraft no doubt.



Maybe it just has a larger wing area?


----------



## gagaga

Because the opened side weapon bay door bother a full maneuver of the Canard.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Aeronaut said:


> Maybe it just has a larger wing area?



J-15 has larger wing area, but J-20 needs the internal weapons bays, thus its body is fatter than that of J-15 or other flankers.


----------



## Zabaniyah

qwerrty said:


> it's not that big



Hell no! It's big! The J-7 looks like a baby in front of it!  



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> J-15 has larger wing area, but J-20 needs the internal weapons bays, thus its body is fatter than that of J-15 or other flankers.



My point exactly. Especially given that it follows a complex mechanism for the bay doors. 

Big is beautiful as they say

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BlueDot_in_Space

hk299792458 said:


> Henri K.



World is trying to move from conventional to stealth planes. China is doing the opposite, trying to convert an alleged stealth plane to conventional plane.


----------



## j20blackdragon

It's very simple.

Would you rather have this?







Or this?








> Obviously, such method requires the stealth plane to fly with the open bay doors for a certain amount of time, a condition that can limit the aircraft performance, maneuverability, and increases the overall planes RCS, with a temporary exposure of the aircraft to the enemy radars.



The Aviationist » Chinas new stealth fighters missile launch rails prove Beijing can improve U.S. technology

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## razgriz19



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> World is trying to move from conventional to stealth planes. China is doing the opposite, trying to convert an alleged stealth plane to conventional plane.


The Chinese can try it, but it is not going to help. It is an overly complex solution to an imaginary problem to start.



j20blackdragon said:


> It's very simple.
> 
> Would you rather have this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Aviationist » China&#8217;s new stealth fighter&#8217;s missile launch rails prove Beijing can improve U.S. technology


Right...

The article said...



> Obviously, such method requires the stealth plane to fly with the *open bay doors for a certain amount of time*, a condition that can limit the aircraft performance, maneuverability, and increases the overall plane&#8217;s RCS, with a temporary exposure of the aircraft to the enemy radars.


How long is that 'certain amount of time'? And given how much exposed rail/missile combination contribute to RCS, what make you think that this contraption is any better *WHILE IT IS EXPOSED* ?

Critical thinking...???


----------



## shuttler




----------



## Fsjal

j20blackdragon said:


> It's very simple.
> 
> Would you rather have this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Aviationist » China&#8217;s new stealth fighter&#8217;s missile launch rails prove Beijing can improve U.S. technology



The first image


----------



## Beast

gambit said:


> The Chinese can try it, but it is not going to help. It is an overly complex solution to an imaginary problem to start.
> 
> 
> Right...
> 
> The article said...
> 
> 
> How long is that 'certain amount of time'? And given how much exposed rail/missile combination contribute to RCS, what make you think that this contraption is any better *WHILE IT IS EXPOSED* ?
> 
> Critical thinking...???



When you need to open that SRAAM bay for dogfight. Does stealth and RCS matter already? Only drag and performances matter in dogfight. F-22 with its door bay open will create massive drag. While j-20 with only missile dangling will have less drag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BlueDot_in_Space

Beast said:


> When you need to open that SRAAM bay for dogfight. Does stealth and RCS matter already? Only drag and performances matter in dogfight. F-22 with its door bay open will create massive drag. While j-20 with only missile dangling will have less drag.



The amount of time the J20 bay door will be open to pull out the rail system outside will be far more than the time F22 will take to open door and fire a missile.


----------



## Beast

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> The amount of time the J20 bay door will be open to pull out the rail system outside will be far more than the time F22 will take to open door and fire a missile.



China J-20 concept will be to open the bay and get ready the missile before getting into real close for dogfight. It do not last min when about to fire missile then will open the bay. SRAAM need to get visual signature lock before able to fire it at enemy. You can't just open the bay and straight away fired. So F-22 has to bear with the drag of door open with possible degradable performance to carry out its dogfight. While J-20 do not suffer such headache.


----------



## BlueDot_in_Space

Beast said:


> China J-20 concept will be to open the bay and get ready the missile before getting into real close for dogfight. It do not last min when about to fire missile then will open the bay. SRAAM need to get visual signature lock before able to fire it at enemy. You can't just open the bay and straight away fired. So F-22 has to bear with the drag of door open with possible degradable performance to carry out its dogfight. While J-20 do not suffer such headache.



WTH


----------



## Myth_buster_1

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> World is trying to move from conventional to stealth planes. China is doing the opposite, trying to convert an alleged stealth plane to conventional plane.



You make no sense.


----------



## hk299792458

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> The amount of time the J20 bay door will be open to pull out the rail system outside will be far more than the time F22 will take to open door and fire a missile.



I'm interesting by the lead time for both aircrafts to open and to close the bay door, and the duration of target acquisition for AIM-9M/X (_= duration of which the bay door of F-22 is opened, which would not be the case for J-20_).

Thank you,

Henri K.


----------



## Fsjal

Is the J-20 the only fighter jet using this missile rail design. If so, then I'll clap for those designers. This makes the J-20 one of the most stealthiest plane today, if I'm right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Fsjal said:


> Is the J-20 the only fighter jet using this missile rail design. If so, then I'll clap for those designers. This makes the J-20 one of the most stealthiest plane today, if I'm right.



The missile rail is not much on stealth but rather far superior aerodynamic when dogfight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Persian Achaemenid Empire

Tears almost came to my eyes when I first saw this plane.

Not long ago the westerns were treating Chinese in such a bad manner, matter of fact they were treating all easterners like that. treating non western as if easterners are subhumans.
Now look at our Chinese Brothers and sisters, advancing at such a rate that the west doesn't know what to do.

As son long as Iran, china continue to grow, the west will be kicked out of the east.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BlueDot_in_Space

hk299792458 said:


> I'm interesting by the lead time for both aircrafts to open and to close the bay door, and the duration of target acquisition for AIM-9M/X (_= duration of which the bay door of F-22 is opened, which would not be the case for J-20_).
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Henri K.



Most modern missiles like AIM9X block2 have LOAL capability. With such missiles, F22 and F35 only need to open the bay and fire the missile. J20 on the other hand will have to rotate the rail system to get the missile out of the bay that itself will take more time. It will then close the bay and then fire the missile. Check out the video, the flying J20 is carrying the missile on the rail just like a conventional plane carries it on its wing pylons.


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> When you need to open that SRAAM bay for dogfight. Does stealth and RCS matter already? Only drag and performances matter in dogfight. *F-22 with its door bay open will create massive drag.* While j-20 with only missile dangling will have less drag.


I take it you speak from extensive personal experience?


----------



## Beast

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> Most modern missiles like AIM9X block2 have LOAL capability. With such missiles, F22 and F35 only need to open the bay and fire the missile. J20 on the other hand will have to rotate the rail system to get the missile out of the bay that itself will take more time. It will then close the bay and then fire the missile. Check out the video, the flying J20 is carrying the missile on the rail just like a conventional plane carries it on its wing pylons.



I do not see a problem for J-20. J-20 can open its SRAAM bay and standby its missile with its door bay close back when it known its going to near enter a dogfight without the penalty of drag since the design is so clean without its door bay open all the way in process of steep manoevring or dogfight. 

Let me ask back you one question, have you seen F-22 when making a steep climb or steep turn firing its SRAAM? All the video I have seen F-22 when firing SRAAM is when its in stable flight straight line condition.

J-20 with its clever design will just work like a normal pylon weapon hanging fighter without the penalty of extra drag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

BlueDot_in_Space said:


> Most modern missiles like AIM9X block2 have LOAL capability. With such missiles, F22 and F35 only need to open the bay and fire the missile. J20 on the other hand will have to rotate the rail system to get the missile out of the bay that itself will take more time. It will then close the bay and then fire the missile. Check out the video, the flying J20 is carrying the missile on the rail just like a conventional plane carries it on its wing pylons.



LOAL capacity of 4th generation short range AAM mainly comes from the infrared imagery (InSb) seeker, but this remains in most of the case theoretical. In pratice pilots still need to lock on before launching.

That's the reason for why LAU-141/A is designed like this to enable and to facilitate the tracking of IR seeker.

No information concerned the speed of side bay opening and closing of J-20, and I'm interesting on the same information on F-22. Before having these informations, all comparisons are subjectives.

IMO, this are only two different ways to use the side bay, I don't think one is better than the other.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

gambit said:


> The Chinese can try it, but it is not going to help. It is an overly complex solution to an imaginary problem to start.
> 
> 
> Right...
> 
> The article said...
> 
> 
> How long is that 'certain amount of time'? And given how much exposed rail/missile combination contribute to RCS, what make you think that this contraption is any better *WHILE IT IS EXPOSED* ?
> 
> Critical thinking...???



Once again, it is not an imaginary issue but just not unsolvable.

LM has done a lot of tests during the DT&E phase, 70 launching have been carried out with 4002, 4003, 4005 and 4007. Engineers have built up database on static pressure, dynamic pressure, sound pressure, ammunition AoA, ammunition location and geometry...etc while the bay door is opened.

For example, when F-22A opens it's main weapon bay in transonic phase, the shockwave located in the front and at the end of the bay creates 170dB of sound pressure (_equivalent to the sound pressure mesured at 1m away from a F-15 flying with full afterburner_), and this induces a 50-60Hz vibration to the structure, which is closed to the resonance frequence of the aircraft structure, which may damage the structure.

USAF has spent more than 5 years to integrate AIM-120 to F-22's internal weapon bay, more than 100 launch tests done, before being able to establish the correct launch envelope.

I've read in a technical article than RCS or IR signature is not the main issue of internal weapon bay, but all physical impacts on the aircraft and also to the missile itself during the opening of the door are critical.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

hk299792458 said:


> Once again, it is not an imaginary issue but just not unsolvable.
> 
> LM has done a lot of tests during the DT&E phase, 70 launching have been carried out with 4002, 4003, 4005 and 4007. Engineers have built up database on static pressure, dynamic pressure, sound pressure, ammunition AoA, ammunition location and geometry...etc while the bay door is opened.
> 
> For example, when F-22A opens it's main weapon bay in transonic phase, the shockwave located in the front and at the end of the bay creates 170dB of sound pressure (_equivalent to the sound pressure mesured at 1m away from a F-15 flying with full afterburner_), and this induces a 50-60Hz vibration to the structure, which is closed to the resonance frequence of the aircraft structure, which may damage the structure.
> 
> USAF has spent more than 5 years to integrate AIM-120 to F-22's internal weapon bay, more than 100 launch tests done, before being able to establish the correct launch envelope.
> 
> I've read in a technical article than RCS or IR signature is not the main issue of internal weapon bay, but all physical impacts on the aircraft and also to the missile itself during the opening of the door are critical.
> 
> Henri K.


Already met and dealt with...

Evaluation of F-111 Weapon Bay Aero-Acoustic and Weapon Separation Improvement Techniques


> Abstract : Several aero-acoustic suppression devices have been evaluated which were considered feasible for installation on an F-111 aircraft for flight test evaluation. The most promising modification consists of a saw tooth spoiler mounted at the leading edge of the weapon bay. This device would be erected to a 90 degree position during the bay doors opening sequence. The spoiler is folded flush with the fuselage during all other flight conditions. Wind tunnel tests have shown that this spoiler improves the aero-acoustic environment within the open weapon bay and improves the weapon separation characteristics *over the Mach range of .95 to 1.3* investigated during the drop test phase.


And weapons bay delivery on the F-111 was even longer because of its bomb, not missile, load. It was when we decided to make the -111 a full deep strike nuclear delivery platform with greater variety and larger bombs that the weapons bay was not used.


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> I do not see a problem for J-20. J-20 can open its SRAAM bay and standby its missile with its door bay close back when it known its going to near enter a dogfight without the penalty of drag since the design is so clean without its door bay open all the way in process of steep manoevring or dogfight.
> 
> Let me ask back you one question, have you seen F-22 when making a steep climb or steep turn firing its SRAAM? All the video I have seen F-22 when firing SRAAM is when its in stable flight straight line condition.
> 
> J-20 with its clever design will just work like a normal pylon weapon hanging fighter without the penalty of extra drag.


 You make it sound as if once the weapons bay is exposed: *WHAM-O !!!* As if a drag chute is deployed, the pilot got thrown forward, and the aircraft struggled to stay airborne.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Someone explain why this is a good idea. 



> The F-22, a very loose analogue for the J-20 (emphasize very) uses a canted trapeze that pushes the AIM-9&#8242;s seeker out into the air-stream for proper establishment of a lock before launch once the bay doors are swung open. Only once the missile has acquired a target and the pilot receives tone (the AIM-9 series has an audible growl as it hunts for a heat source, once it finds one it goes from an intermittent growling sound to a solid tone, cueing the pilot to fire) the missile can be fired and only then do the launch bay doors close up. This method increases the F-22&#8242;s stealth signature dramatically while also disturbing the airflow around the jet which makes for lower performance and a rougher ride during close in air combat maneuvering, or dogfighting.









CHINESE AIR COMBAT UPDATE: J-20&#8242;S WACKY RAILS & TERMINATOR FLANKERS | aviationintel

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Someone explain why this is a good idea.
> 
> CHINESE AIR COMBAT UPDATE: J-20&#8242;S WACKY RAILS & TERMINATOR FLANKERS | aviationintel


How about this probability (not possibility)...

The J-20's engineers had to come up with such a complex solution because the J-20 is not as 'stealthy' as its technically inexperienced and ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest and biased Internet proponents tried to portrayed it. If radar is the issue, then there will be a flash when the J-20's weapons bay door opened/closed, a sharp rise in RCS while the missile is exposed, and another flash when the same door opened/closed again to retract the rail.

How is that any better than a door that is opened only for a few seconds at max?


----------



## Beast

gambit said:


> How about this probability (not possibility)...
> 
> The J-20's engineers had to come up with such a complex solution because the J-20 is not as 'stealthy' as its technically inexperienced and ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest and biased Internet proponents tried to portrayed it. If radar is the issue, then there will be a flash when the J-20's weapons bay door opened/closed, a sharp rise in RCS while the missile is exposed, and another flash when the same door opened/closed again to retract the rail.
> 
> How is that any better than a door that is opened only for a few seconds at max?



When you go dogfight , does it matter of RCS? The opponent can already see you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

j20blackdragon said:


> Someone explain why this is a good idea.


The launch flames of AIM-9 missile will harm F-22's body and damage microwave absorbing coating.


----------



## hk299792458

March 27th...






Henri K.


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> When you go dogfight , does it matter of RCS? The opponent can already see you.


Still need radar information for missile and gun solutions.


----------



## qwerrty

gambit said:


> Still need radar information for missile and gun solutions.



the IRST would take care of that


----------



## gambit

Persian Achaemenid Empire said:


> Tears almost came to my eyes when I first saw this plane.


Mine came as well...From laughing...From looking at this missile rail contraption...

The foundation of radar detection is reflection and in radar detection, if the goal is about 'stealth', the multiple reflections are bad. Very very bad.







When a radar signal hit something like the above, there will be interference from multiple reflections: Constructive and Destructive.

Regarding 'stealth':

Destructive Interference = Good
Constructive Interference = Bad

Keyword search for you: Wave superposition. Destructive interference cancels colliding signals. Constructive interference amplifies and make coherent stronger signals.

So if we take a look at this...






Any approach angle will inevitably produces multiple reflections between the missile and the fuselage. How is this any better than an opened weapons bay? It is not.


----------



## gambit

qwerrty said:


> the IRST would take care of that?


Best location for IR sensor is directly behind -- looking at exhaust. With radar, you get returns regardless of target aspect angle to you.

There is a weakness in IR detection that most are unaware of. It is called 'diurnal crossover' or 'diurnal equilibrium'. If you think I make up this stuff...

http://www.un.org/Depts/dha/mct/nee.txt


> LIMITATIONS
> 11. As with any sensor system, there are limitations driven by the choice of the sensor. For the EO/IR systems, visual access to the mined areas from the airborne platforms is required. Solar loading is necessary for optimum performance to get temperature differentials that are detectable by the sensors. There will also be two distinct periods during the day when there is no temperature differential for the sensors to detect. These *diurnal crossover* points vary in time of day from one day to the next based on variations in weather conditions. Some sensors have a temporal limitation in that the longer a mine is buried, the less likely it is that you will be able to detect it.



Test Data Gallery


> Low contrast is typically observed during two period of the *diurnal* cycle, typically at *cross-over* points. Those times depend primarily on the ambient temperature and solar loading profiles of a given day, along with parameters such as the thermal capacity and emissivity of the targets and backgrounds. A significant strength of polarimetery for target acquisition is that targets often remain visible during cross-over points.


Diurnal equilibrium is when there is too little contrast for the IR sensor to distinguish out anything. The condition is most noticeable against ground targets when the sun is at a certain angle in the sky twice a day. Low angles.

However, in an air-air engagement, if the fight is sufficiently low altitude and one combatant is looking 'down' at the other, his target may end up briefly in a position and condition that is similar to a low sun position that produces the effect of diurnal equilibrium, thereby throwing off the missile's IR sensor. No matter how briefly it may be.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hurt

gambit said:


> Still need radar information for missile and gun solutions.



Dont forget Infra-red search and track


----------



## zxmint

Persian Achaemenid Empire said:


> Tears almost came to my eyes when I first saw this plane.
> 
> Not long ago the westerns were treating Chinese in such a bad manner, matter of fact they were treating all easterners like that. treating non western as if easterners are subhumans.
> Now look at our Chinese Brothers and sisters, advancing at such a rate that the west doesn't know what to do.
> 
> As son long as Iran, china continue to grow, the west will be kicked out of the east.


There is an old saying in China that no one can stay at the peak forever. In human beings history, Anglo-Saxons have only been advanced for several hundreds of years. Compared to some great civilizations in history, they have nothing to be proud of and they've already been declining now and will be caught up by new rising countries very soon.

China is actually developing in an even faster speed than most people think, since its GDP has actually long been underestimated for the sake of the underestimated change rate of RMB. So the world people should ask WHY? How could a "dictatorship" socialism country be so successful on its development? China has the responsibility to share its successful experience with every country in the world, especially those developing countries and pull them out of the trap of the hypocritical "democracy" given by US.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

zxmint said:


> There is an old saying in China that no one can stay at the peak forever. In human beings history, Anglo-Saxons have only been advanced for several hundreds of years. Compared to some great civilizations in history, they have nothing to be proud of and they've already been declining now and will be caught up by new rising countries very soon.
> 
> China is actually developing in an even faster speed than most people think, since its GDP has actually long been underestimated for the sake of the underestimated change rate of RMB. So the world people should ask WHY? *How could a "dictatorship" socialism country be so successful on its development?* China has the responsibility to share its successful experience with every country in the world, especially those developing countries and pull them out of the trap of the hypocritical "democracy" given by US.


Because it does it with the assistance of others, especially the ones that are supposedly in decline. When China was a Marxist dictatorship, did China go anywhere? Nope. China had to abandon Marxism and its failed economic model, embrace capitalism, and use the consumerism of other capitalist countries to bootstrap China out of the poverty that the idiotic communists got China into. So stop deluding yourself that somehow the economic success in China was because of some social/political breakthrough that no one else could have done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Please come back on the topic of this thread.

Henri K.


----------



## zxmint

gambit said:


> Because it does it with the assistance of others, especially the ones that are supposedly in decline. When China was a Marxist dictatorship, did China go anywhere? Nope. China had to abandon Marxism and its failed economic model, embrace capitalism, and use the consumerism of other capitalist countries to bootstrap China out of the poverty that the idiotic communists got China into. So stop deluding yourself that somehow the economic success in China was because of some social/political breakthrough that no one else could have done.


At least it has nothing to do with western "democracy". Too many examples could prove that compared to "democracy" countries, so called "dictatorship" countries are more effective to develop economics. Look at South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore(which is also an one-party ruled country). So it is time for westerners to stop criticize China's regime which show nothing but your fears and weakness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Lure

gambit said:


> Because it does it with the assistance of others, especially the ones that are supposedly in decline. When China was a Marxist dictatorship, did China go anywhere? Nope. China had to abandon Marxism and its failed economic model, embrace capitalism, and use the consumerism of other capitalist countries to bootstrap China out of the poverty that the idiotic communists got China into. So stop deluding yourself that somehow the economic success in China was because of some social/political breakthrough that no one else could have done.



Gambit, 

I read some of your messages and you seem really confused. On one hand you think that China has the worse system of all times, they don't innovate anything and steal technology of others, and even they can't manage to steal and they simply produce poor quality equipments. Even if China does something new it's impossible to convince you that it's new and even if you believe it's something new than you simply think it is a useless innovation. Therefore either you have strong racist position which you think as a race Chinese people can't do anything good or you simply have a great prejudice about Chinese system. In either case you lose your ability of makin rational judgements. 

However you think their system sucks or they suck and you are pretty sure about it, but you can't stop yourself for coming here and making comments about what they make, which you don't have any concrete data in your hand. People in here just get bits of information from everywhere and their accuracy is highly speculative. Than why you do it, why spend so much time to demonize it if you're sure they won't be able to produce anything that is not even comparable to it's American counterpart?

Besides Gambit, I don't know what your major is or what is your current occupation right now, but you're not the Mcgyver of the science you know. On one hand you make comments about aerodynamics very confidently, on another hand you make very confident remarks about materials science and on another you make comments about radars! I mean what are you? Not even a single human being can have knowledge about everything. In Turkish we have a saying "If anyone talks too much that person is lying", because usually we observed that people who really know something are less eager to talk. They rather think too much before talking.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Luftwaffe

Lure said:


> I don't know what your major is or what is your current occupation right now, but you're not the Mcgyver of the science you know. I mean what are you?



He was a Technician.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

gambit said:


> Because it does it with the assistance of others, especially the ones that are supposedly in decline. When China was a Marxist dictatorship, did China go anywhere? Nope. China had to abandon Marxism and its failed economic model, embrace capitalism, and use the consumerism of other capitalist countries to bootstrap China out of the poverty that the idiotic communists got China into. So stop deluding yourself that somehow the economic success in China was because of some social/political breakthrough that no one else could have done.



Look back into Chinese history if you want, but around the same time of western capitalism started, China was also starting it in Ming dynasty. Around the same time guns were becoming more important, China was using cannons, and guns like the west. 

Then something terrible happened, due to the costly war with Japan in Korean the Ming dynasty's economy completely collapsed and in came the Manchu hordes, they were technologically inferior and pretty much inferior in every way except their unity, but then at that time Guns were important, but not a difference maker and Calvary can still make their impact felt.

China went into decline under the Qing in terms of innovation, technology and amongst other things. 

Check out the weapons used during the Japanese invasion of Toyotomi.

I understand the western skepticism, I don't like it and I hate it but I understand it. When the west started the opium wars, the Chinese still didn't understand the new technology and the power it gave the west. The Chinese disregarded these technology as tricks and thus stupid and shouldn't be copied. The Chinese were hanging on the dream of being the best when that bubble burst long ago. 

They didn't want to look at the truth, much like the West don't like to now. I don't blame them, because who would want to admit their power is slipping away. 

Today China just restarted Capitalism, not started. If you really think about it, the world except for a few moments in history are always capitalist. Communism in it's true form is unnatural. 

BTW Marx is German, you screwed China only fair that you help it back up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## mahatir

Ignore him , China will continue developing and catching up while other burn out of jealousy .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sword1947

what we believe is that right choice lead to right result.


----------



## gambit

Lure said:


> Gambit,
> 
> I read some of your messages and you seem really confused.


I am more clear about this than you are.



Lure said:


> On one hand you think that China has the worse system of all times, they don't innovate anything and steal technology of others,...


When there is an urgent need to advance, you do not reinvent the wheel, as the Chinese members here often said and they have no problems with industrial espionage and emulation of current technology and methods.

For example...

Who is the world's premier naval aviation power? China? Or is it US? So when you look at the new Chinese aircraft carrier, look at how similar their crew are to ours in terms of deck ops and appearance. Why? Because we did all the guesswork, explored the risks, shed blood, lost lives, refined what works, and continue the process all over again. So why should the PLAN look at anyone else? The PLAN may alter some deck ops a bit because of the differences between its carrier and the American versions, but the core of each deck operation remains the same because we proved it worked over the decades.

Ever marshal an aircraft?

Aircraft marshalling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Aircraft marshalling is visual signalling between ground personnel and pilots on an airport, aircraft carrier or helipad. Marshalling is one-on-one visual communication and a part of aircraft ground handling.


Where was the PLAAF when this method of silent but visual communication between pilot and ground crew was developed? More like the PLAAF did not exist. That is not a criticism but a statement of fact. So when the PLAAF came to be, why should it changed what worked across the decades and countries?

Bottom line is this...China *IS* copying and/or stealing technology, adapting methods and accepting foreign ideas in order to advance.



Lure said:


> ...and even they can't manage to steal and they simply produce poor quality equipments.


Simply is too harsh. But there is no denying that in the process of copying from others, one's own products will inevitably suffer Quality Assurance issues.

I work for a major NAND FLASH manufacturer. We buy often from the 'gray market' and disassembled what we bought to investigate who is masquerading as us, as in selling crap under our company name, in order to assure new customers and reassure nervous current ones, that when they buy from us, they are buying the real products. Not crap repackaged by unscrupulous so-called 'manufacturers' from mainland China.






My competitors in South Korea, Japan, and Europe does the same.

I do not have the chance to examine a purely Chinese manufactured aircraft but am wiling to bet renmibi to rice cakes that based on my 10yrs in the USAF I will find plenty that are subpar to our MIL standards. Done it to the Soviet MIGs.



Lure said:


> Even if China does something new it's impossible to convince you that it's new and even if you believe it's something new than you simply think it is a useless innovation.


If you are talking about this contraption for the J-20, then explain what problem(s) is it trying to solve?



Lure said:


> Therefore either you have strong racist position which you think as a race Chinese people can't do anything good or you simply have a great prejudice about Chinese system. In either case you lose your ability of makin rational judgements.


Direct this racist charge at the Chinese members here. They have established themselves a long time ago as to how they really feel about the 'inferior' Asiatics, of which includes me. They do not like to be challenged, no matter how politely and impersonally and even how well supported by credible sources, and when they found out I was a Viet, their insults got even more personal and vile. 

No need to address the rest of your post.


----------



## Sasquatch

Please get back on topic now.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> I am more clear about this than you are.
> 
> 
> When there is an urgent need to advance, you do not reinvent the wheel, as the Chinese members here often said and they have no problems with industrial espionage and emulation of current technology and methods.
> 
> For example...
> 
> Who is the world's premier naval aviation power? China? Or is it US? So when you look at the new Chinese aircraft carrier, look at how similar their crew are to ours in terms of deck ops and appearance. Why? Because we did all the guesswork, explored the risks, shed blood, lost lives, refined what works, and continue the process all over again. So why should the PLAN look at anyone else? The PLAN may alter some deck ops a bit because of the differences between its carrier and the American versions, but the core of each deck operation remains the same because we proved it worked over the decades.
> 
> Ever marshal an aircraft?
> 
> Aircraft marshalling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Where was the PLAAF when this method of silent but visual communication between pilot and ground crew was developed? More like the PLAAF did not exist. That is not a criticism but a statement of fact. So when the PLAAF came to be, why should it changed what worked across the decades and countries?
> 
> Bottom line is this...China *IS* copying and/or stealing technology, adapting methods and accepting foreign ideas in order to advance.
> 
> 
> Simply is too harsh. But there is no denying that in the process of copying from others, *one's own products will inevitably suffer Quality Assurance issues.*
> 
> I work for a major NAND FLASH manufacturer. We buy often from the 'gray market' and disassembled what we bought to investigate who is masquerading as us, as in selling crap under our company name, in order to assure new customers and reassure nervous current ones, that when they buy from us, they are buying the real products. Not crap repackaged by unscrupulous so-called 'manufacturers' from mainland China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My competitors in South Korea, Japan, and Europe does the same.
> 
> I do not have the chance to examine a *purely Chinese manufactured aircraft* but am wiling to bet renmibi to rice cakes that based on my 10yrs in the USAF I will find plenty that are subpar to our MIL standards. Done it to the Soviet MIGs.
> 
> 
> If you are talking about this contraption for the J-20, then explain what problem(s) is it trying to solve?
> 
> 
> *No need to address the rest of your post.*



Having worked with "actual" TI(Texas Instruments Chips) and counterfeit TI (ironically both made in China), I can vouch for those QA issues. 
However, those do get sorted out eventually simply due to the fact that they go through thousands to get it right.
QA still plagues many Chinese products because the skilled worker base is still to develop. After all, you need qualified and experience technicians and engineers to produce something like a substrate. You cant take workers off a screwdriver line and expect them to make ICs just as well. This trend is changing though. 
I worked on Harris,ASELSAN and Chinese hardware at the same time.. and both the Harris and ASELSAN systems were equally comparable in quality(sophistication was up to us, we designed the crypto modules and others). The Chinese system on the other hand, suffered from quality and reliability issues during the initial period. Only after multiple visits by our teams to China and countless returns did the quality improve..and it did considerably so that the later batches were equally well built and reliable as the Harris and ASELSAN products. It's just a cultural thing, and it will take time to cause a cultural change within that manufacturing mindset. 

In Pakistan's case, due to the fact that we've worked with the F-16's and their quality for over 35 years..along with french hardware.. that QA went into the JF-17. A lot of the test systems during manufacture for the aircraft are US made. So that quality gets worked in. The example that went down.. ended up being attributed to the Russian RD-93 engine.


For the last part of your post, I suggest that you do not reply to such posters and concentrate on your technical material and knowledge to post. That ensures a posts validity no matter what slander is taken. Chinese, Viets or otherwise arent the only audience for posts and you do not have to justify everything. Posts Justify themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sanchez

Oscar said:


> Having worked with "actual" TI(Texas Instruments Chips) and counterfeit TI (ironically both made in China), I can vouch for those QA issues.
> However, those do get sorted out eventually simply due to the fact that they go through thousands to get it right.
> QA still plagues many Chinese products because the skilled worker base is still to develop. After all, you need qualified and experience technicians and engineers to produce something like a substrate. You cant take workers off a screwdriver line and expect them to make ICs just as well. This trend is changing though.
> I worked on Harris,ASELSAN and Chinese hardware at the same time.. and both the Harris and ASELSAN systems were equally comparable in quality(sophistication was up to us, we designed the crypto modules and others). The Chinese system on the other hand, suffered from quality and reliability issues during the initial period. Only after multiple visits by our teams to China and countless returns did the quality improve..and it did considerably so that the later batches were equally well built and reliable as the Harris and ASELSAN products. It's just a cultural thing, and it will take time to cause a cultural change within that manufacturing mindset.
> 
> In Pakistan's case, due to the fact that we've worked with the F-16's and their quality for over 35 years..along with french hardware.. that QA went into the JF-17. A lot of the test systems during manufacture for the aircraft are US made. So that quality gets worked in. The example that went down.. ended up being attributed to the Russian RD-93 engine.
> 
> 
> For the last part of your post, I suggest that you do not reply to such posters and concentrate on your technical material and knowledge to post. That ensures a posts validity no matter what slander is taken. Chinese, Viets or otherwise arent the only audience for posts and you do not have to justify everything. Posts Justify themselves.



Oscar, it's a shame on you to be a Senior modurator. You have no say about what China have provided to Pakistan. You have no idea about real QA means in aerospace industry, do you?

You are not in a position to critisize Chinese quality of military aids that pakistan has received or bought from China, do you?

I see how you wish to please this Vietnamesae American, shame on you!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Sanchez said:


> Oscar, it's a shame on you to be a Senior modurator. You have no say about what China have provided to Pakistan. You have no idea about real QA means in aerospace industry, do you?
> 
> You are not in a position to critisize Chinese quality of military aids that pakistan has received or bought from China, do you?
> 
> I see how you wish to please this Vietnamesae American, shame on you!



Shame on you.
How do you know I have no say? Have you worked in the industry as I have?
Do you know people in the industry as I do?
NO.
Shame on you twice more, because in your pointless defence you ignored the underlying causes I have for the problems. 
Shame on you thrice, as you ignored how I stated these improvements were made and are made.

Shame on you as a Chinese for eternity, because you have no idea what China has given and not given. You have no idea how Chinese realize these issues and strive to improve them. You are insulting their efforts by pretending its all ok. 
Shame on you for resorting to a cheap attack for a cheap defense when it is not needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## v9s

Sanchez said:


> Oscar, it's a shame on you to be a Senior modurator. You have no say about what China have provided to Pakistan. You have no idea about real QA means in aerospace industry, do you?
> 
> You are not in a position to critisize Chinese quality of military aids that pakistan has received or bought from China, do you?
> 
> I see how you wish to please this Vietnamesae American, shame on you!








LOL.... buddy, have you ever ventured outside the Chinese Defence section of PDF?

Oscar knows what he's talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> I work for a major NAND FLASH manufacturer.



So the bottom line is that you work in the semiconductor industry, which has nothing to do with aerospace and stealth.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Oscar said:


> Shame on you.
> How do you know I have no say? Have you worked in the industry as I have?
> Do you know people in the industry as I do?
> NO.
> Shame on you twice more, because in your pointless defence you ignored the underlying causes I have for the problems.
> Shame on you thrice, as you ignored how I stated these improvements were made and are made.
> 
> Shame on you as a Chinese for eternity, because you have no idea what China has given and not given. You have no idea how Chinese realize these issues and strive to improve them. You are insulting their efforts by pretending its all ok.
> Shame on you for resorting to a cheap attack for a cheap defense when it is not needed.



You have no idea this gambit come in here with the intention of smearing anything regarding Chinese. Accept criticism is one thing but outright distorting of facts and coming with an agenda is another thing. Check out gambit pass record, he has not even say a single word of positive regarding china. Everybody can see with their eyes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> So the bottom line is that you work in the semiconductor industry, which has nothing to do with aerospace and stealth.


Prior to the current career, there was nearly 19 yrs in aviation, which includes 10 yrs active duty USAF on the F-111 and F-16, then nearly 9 yrs in various radar related work, from system integration to designing field tests, mostly altitude over the waters off Florida. Company shall remain unnamed but since then has been absorbed by a larger defense contractor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Mine came as well...From laughing...From looking at this missile rail contraption...
> 
> The foundation of radar detection is reflection and in radar detection, if the goal is about 'stealth', the multiple reflections are bad. Very very bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a radar signal hit something like the above, there will be interference from multiple reflections: Constructive and Destructive.
> 
> Regarding 'stealth':
> 
> Destructive Interference = Good
> Constructive Interference = Bad
> 
> Keyword search for you: Wave superposition. Destructive interference cancels colliding signals. Constructive interference amplifies and make coherent stronger signals.
> 
> So if we take a look at this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any approach angle will inevitably produces multiple reflections between the missile and the fuselage. How is this any better than an opened weapons bay? It is not.




*The Chinese 5th Generation Fighter Has Some Truly Clever Engineering*
David Cenciotti, The Aviationist

In order to preserve their stealthiness and keep the RCS (Radar Cross Section) as low as possible, radar-evading planes rely on weapons bay: bombs and missiles to be fired are kept inside the bays until it&#8217;s time to use them.

For instance, the F-35 can carry one AIM-120D (AIM-120C8), on a trapeze : when needed, the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missile is lowered into the airstream on the open bomb bay door, and ejected.

F-22 Raptors use canted trapeze to put the AIM-9 Sidewinder seeked into the airstream to achieve a lock on the target as the side bay doors are open. 

Once the missile is fired, the bay doors close up.

Obviously, *such method requires the stealth plane to fly with the open bay doors for a certain amount of time, a condition that can limit the aircraft performance, maneuverability, and increases the overall plane&#8217;s RCS, with a temporary exposure of the aircraft to the enemy radars.*

*Something that can be quite lethal in a Within Visual Range scenario.*

The problem is to be partly solved with the use of missiles featuring the Lock On After Launch capability. With this kind of missile (available on the Raptor when the AIM-9M will be replaced by the AIM-9X Block II) the bay doors remain open just the time it is needed to eject the missile into the airstream.

*However, China might have found a clever solution to the problem, as the latest images of the J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter jet, emerging from the Chinese Internet, seem to suggest.

Indeed, the second prototype of the aircraft features a missile deployment device on the side weapons bay which extracts the selected air-to-air missile and then closes the door to keep the reduced RCS.

Simpler and probably cheaper than the use of LOAL missiles, the J-20&#8242;s deployment device shows that Chinese engineers are not simply copying U.S. tech: if not improving it, they are at least troubleshooting some of the issues already faced by their American counterparts, with some clever ideas.*

The missile launch rail was used to carry the PL-10 IR air-to-air missile during tests

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-j20-fighter-has-clever-upgrades-2013-3

-------------

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Chengdu J-20 revolving weapon bay is superior in stealth to F-22 traditional weapon bay*

At Gambit:

I came back for a few minutes to find my citation on the China-Sudan Friendship Bridge and I find you are still making clearly erroneous claims regarding the Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter. Your claim is clearly wrong, because the physics is straightforward.

An air-to-air missile has a very small RCS (radar cross section) compared to an opened weapon bay door. The Chengdu J-20's ingenious revolving bay door minimizes the time that the J-20 bay door stays open. Hence, the J-20 stays stealthier in launching an air-to-air missile.

Anyone that understands high school physics can clearly see the side profile of an air-to-air missile is much smaller than an opened weapon bay door.





The small red box represents the maximum side RCS for an air-to-air missile. The large red box represents the maximum side RCS of an opened weapon bay door. Obviously, the large red box is much bigger than the small red box. Hence, the Chengdu J-20 rotary weapon bay door reduces the exposure time of the large red box and confines the RCS reflection to the size of the small red box. In simple terms, the innovative Chengdu J-20 rotary weapon bay is superior to the traditional F-22 weapon bay for stealth.

One more thing, in post #3152, you/Gambit claimed interference negated the advantage of having a closed weapon bay door. Your analogy does not apply. You have forgotten that the Chengdu J-20 is a stealth fighter with RAM (radar absorbent material) coating on the outer panel of the weapon bay door. The RAM should absorb about 99.684% of the radar energy on the first bounce. There will be virtually no interference.

[Note: I don't have the time to keep refuting Gambit's crazy claims that contradict physics. I just happened to be in the neighborhood hunting down the China-Sudan Friendship Bridge citation.]

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Sasquatch

Please get back onto the topic now and not get sidetracked.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I came back for a few minutes to find my citation on the China-Sudan Friendship Bridge and I find you are still making clearly erroneous claims regarding the Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter. Your claim is clearly wrong, because the physics is straightforward.
> 
> An air-to-air missile has a very small RCS (radar cross section) compared to an opened weapon bay door. The Chengdu J-20's ingenious revolving bay door minimizes the time that the J-20 bay door stays open. Hence, the J-20 stays stealthier in launching an air-to-air missile.
> 
> Anyone that understands high school physics can clearly see the side profile of an air-to-air missile is much smaller than an opened weapon bay door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The small red box represents the maximum side RCS for an air-to-air missile. The large red box represents the maximum side RCS of an opened weapon bay door. Obviously, the large red box is much bigger than the small red box. Hence, the Chengdu J-20 rotary weapon bay door reduces the exposure time of the large red box and confines the RCS reflection to the size of the small red box. In simple terms, the innovative Chengdu J-20 rotary weapon bay is superior to the traditional F-22 weapon bay for stealth.
> 
> One more thing, in post #3152, you/Gambit claimed interference negated the advantage of having a closed weapon bay door. Your analogy does not apply. You have forgotten that the Chengdu J-20 is a stealth fighter with RAM (radar absorbent material) coating on the outer panel of the weapon bay door. The RAM should absorb about 99.684% of the radar energy on the first bounce. There will be virtually no interference.


And you have the gall to lecture me about physics? 

Is the missile transparent to impinging radar signals? We can safely assume -- *NOT*. Sorry, but we are dealing with real physics here. Not 'Chinese physics'.

The missile will present a smaller RCS profile than an opened weapons bay, but its presence *WILL* rise the J-20 above the clutter rejection threshold, that is assuming we are generous enough to say that the J-20 is 'stealthy' enough to be below that threshold in the first place.



Martian2 said:


> [Note: I don't have the time to keep refuting Gambit's crazy claims that contradict physics. I just happened to be in the neighborhood hunting down the China-Sudan Friendship Bridge citation.]


And what laws of physics have I contradicted? The fact that you ignored that the missile itself have its own RCS and that missiles on wing tips are visible to radars mean it is still *YOU* who are ignorant and contradict real physics...

THz Radar Cross Sections »


> The outline shapeof the airplane can be easily recognized. Also particular scatterers such as fuselage, tail,wings, *end of the wings and even missiles are distinguishable.*


Absorbers or not, an exposed missile will give the J-20 away as assuredly as an opened weapons bay will give the -22 away. Think about it, no matter how much the pain it will give you, if exposed missiles do not matter, then why enclosed them in the first place? 

You think that your PLAAF is going to gain any tactical advantages with this contraption? In your dreams.

Here is how the USAF trains...In escalation of difficulty and lethality...

*1- Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM)* -- Except that this is not about flight school. It is about trained or even combat experienced pilots taking everything they know about air combat and pushed them and their knowledge to the next level.

BFM-Offensive: Put the pilot at a tactical advantage, which is behind an adversary, and trains him on how to maintain that advantage.

BFM-Defensive: Put the pilot at a tactical disadvantage, which is in front of an adversary, and trains him on how to extricate himself from that disadvantage and get into the Offensive.

BFM-Neutral: Pilot and adversary pass each other nose-to-nose at combined speed of over 1,000 kts and trains the pilot on how to achieve the Offensive.

BFM-Dissimilar: Put the pilot in Neutral and against an unknown adversary platform and trains him how to achieve the Offensive.

*2- Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM)* -- Put the pilot and his wingman against a single adversary and rotate all contestants through Offensive, Defensive, Neutral, and Dissimilar. This not only reinforced BFM lessons but also to train the pilot on how to coordinate his flying with his wingman to increase the odds of victory.

*3- Air Combat Tactics (ACT)* -- Put the pilot and his wingman against a pair of adversary. Again, rotate all contestants through Offensive, Defensive, Neutral, and Dissimilar.

ACT-Within Visual Range and ACT-Beyond Visual Range are self explanatory.

The most realistic is ACT-Dissimilar and our pilots went toe-to-toe against Russian line fighters. And no one can cheat with ACMI pods attached to his aircraft.

Your PLAAF have not even 1/10th the training syllabus of the USAF, let alone of the USN's Top Gun. If the J-20 is deployed with this contraption, we may take the -16, tape up its HUD, and disable one AoA probe, just to give the J-20 pilot a chance.

Heck, we may even make it even for the J-20 by going to the retirement homes in Florida, round up a few Vietnam War era geezer pilots, help them out of their walkers/wheelchairs, and put them into their old Phantoms and let them have a go at the J-20. The PLAAF might learn something there.


----------



## gambit

> gpit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Chinese 5th Generation Fighter Has Some Truly Clever Engineering*
> David Cenciotti, The Aviationist
> 
> In order to preserve their stealthiness and keep the RCS (Radar Cross Section) as low as possible, radar-evading planes rely on weapons bay: bombs and missiles to be fired are kept inside the bays until its time to use them.
> 
> For instance, the F-35 can carry one AIM-120D (AIM-120C8), on a trapeze : when needed, the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missile is lowered into the airstream on the open bomb bay door, and ejected.
> 
> F-22 Raptors use canted trapeze to put the AIM-9 Sidewinder seeked into the airstream to achieve a lock on the target as the side bay doors are open.
> 
> Once the missile is fired, the bay doors close up.
> 
> Obviously, *such method requires the stealth plane to fly with the open bay doors for a certain amount of time, a condition that can limit the aircraft performance, maneuverability, and increases the overall planes RCS, with a temporary exposure of the aircraft to the enemy radars.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In simple terms, the innovative Chengdu J-20 rotary weapon bay is superior to the traditional F-22 weapon bay for stealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Let us look at what a few Brazilians did...






Basically, the Brazilians did C-band simulations of a very EM significant area of a missile -- the rear section with its many corner reflectors thanks to the fin assembly. Then they compared it against actual EM anechoic chamber testing and found their simulation and real measurement correlate quite well.

But the experiment is not the point.

The point is that a missile have its own radar cross section (RCS), independent of whatever is attached to it, or whatever it is attached to, like an aircraft. And when physically associated with another structure, the missile's RCS will contribute to the total RCS that contains both aircraft and missile.

A missile is an EM mess when suspended under a wing.

Real physics and conventional logic would reason out that covering up the weapons bay while leaving the missile hanging in the EM wind is -- pointless.

But according to 'Chinese physics' and 'Chinese logic', once a missile is covered up by the weapons bay, *EVERYTHING* that the Brazilians theorized and correlated, ie surface currrents and corner reflections, would not exist or magically disappeared, even if exposed to EM radiation. For the Chinese hombres here, covering up the weapons bay is the end all. Never mind the original argument that the missile is the end all and covering it up until the last minute should be the objective.

Rube Goldberg have many complex mechanical methods to accomplish tasks. Would either one of you care to share with us your Rube Goldberg contraption to open a can? Me and my simple Wal-Mart bought hand turn can opener would be humbled.

At least when the J-20 is shot, the parachuting pilot can have peace of mind that it was not his weapons bay that gave him away.


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> The missile will present a smaller RCS profile than an opened weapons bay, but its presence *WILL* rise the J-20 above the clutter rejection threshold, that is assuming we are generous enough to say that the J-20 is 'stealthy' enough to be below that threshold in the first place.





> Absorbers or not, an exposed missile will give the J-20 away as assuredly as an opened weapons bay will give the -22 away. Think about it, no matter how much the pain it will give you, if exposed missiles do not matter, then why enclosed them in the first place?



Since you've commented on exposed missiles and open weapon bays, what do you think about these gaps around the F-22's inlets?

How do we know the F-22 is 'stealthy' enough to be below your threshold in the first place?


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Since you've commented on exposed missiles and open weapon bays, what do you think about these gaps around the F-22's inlets?
> 
> How do we know the F-22 is 'stealthy' enough to be below your threshold in the first place?


Send the J-20 with its new weapons bay protective contraption against the F-22 and find out...


----------



## DrSomnath999

1st of all I think at WVR warfare RCS / stealth is immaterial no matter how advanced one may built it's weapon bay/ missile launching platform as plane's IR signature is more important than plane RCS whther it is F 22 or J20


2nd thing F22 Exposed weapon bay time is very less in actual combat & it has far less 90 degree corner reflectors compare to the missile itself
as missile fins are aligned in 90 degree angulations making it excelllent surface for 90 degree corner reflections 





so i dont think J 20 revolving missile launching platform holds any superior advantage in WVR warfare


----------



## j20blackdragon

Why is it difficult to understand that a closed weapons bay produces less aerodynamic drag than an opened one? 

This has nothing to do with RCS to begin with because in a dogfight the other guy can already *see you*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sanchez

Oscar said:


> Shame on you.
> How do you know I have no say? Have you worked in the industry as I have?
> Do you know people in the industry as I do?
> NO.
> Shame on you twice more, because in your pointless defence you ignored the underlying causes I have for the problems.
> Shame on you thrice, as you ignored how I stated these improvements were made and are made.
> 
> Shame on you as a Chinese for eternity, because you have no idea what China has given and not given. You have no idea how Chinese realize these issues and strive to improve them. You are insulting their efforts by pretending its all ok.
> Shame on you for resorting to a cheap attack for a cheap defense when it is not needed.



Shame and more shame!
You simply don't know what QA means. You claimed your that experience of many years with F-16 went into JF-17? Bullsh-t!

It's more shame as you claim that you have made contribution to improve Chinese....







v9s said:


> LOL.... buddy, have you ever ventured outside the Chinese Defence section of PDF?
> 
> Oscar knows what he's talking about.


 
I am sure that Oscar knows a lot of things, but he doesn't know what QA he's talking about! And I am pretty sure that you don't know a thing about QA either, do you?


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Why is it difficult to understand that a closed weapons bay produces less aerodynamic drag than an opened one?


Right...

Buddy, asymmetric drag produced by uneven dispense of underwing loaded weapons is greater than an opened weapons bay.

Yours is just another exaggerated issue into a problem in trying to make this contraption on the J-20 palatable.



j20blackdragon said:


> This has nothing to do with RCS to begin with because in a dogfight the other guy can already *see you*.


Still need radar for missile and gun solution.

But never mind...I guess we are talking about 'Chinese physics' here...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> Still need radar for missile and gun solution.
> 
> But never mind...I guess we are talking about 'Chinese physics' here...



So what are these two things for? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track

Helmet-mounted display - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> So what are these two things for?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track
> 
> Helmet-mounted display - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which require the pilot to be in a tactically advantageous position to start. Am willing to be you cannot understand what I just said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gpit

j20blackdragon said:


> Why is it difficult to understand that a closed weapons bay produces less aerodynamic drag than an opened one?
> 
> ...




How could you be able to reason with a high school dropout fanatics? 

Give up!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> This has nothing to do with RCS to begin with because in a dogfight the other guy can already *see you*.



exactly

but some dumb people beleive it that indeed it would have advantage in RCS reduction at WVR warfare


By citing such garbage ideology


> The small red box represents the maximum side RCS for an air-to-air missile. The large red box represents the maximum side RCS of an opened weapon bay door. Obviously, the large red box is much bigger than the small red box. Hence, the Chengdu J-20 rotary weapon bay door reduces the exposure time of the large red box and confines the RCS reflection to the size of the small red box. In simple terms, the innovative Chengdu J-20 rotary weapon bay is superior to the traditional F-22 weapon bay for stealth.



which is absolute B.S


----------



## dbc

DrSomnath999 said:


> exactly
> 
> but some dumb people beleive it that indeed it would have advantage in RCS reduction at WVR warfare



I wouldn't accuse others of being dumb, RCS reduction is important even within visual range.I'd tell you why but I have a feeling I'd be wasting my time.


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> How could you be able to reason with a high school dropout fanatics?
> 
> Give up!


You must be talking about your friends.

One guy said it is about RCS...Another said it is not...Should work on coordinating their propaganda...


----------



## DrSomnath999

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> I wouldn't accuse others of being dumb, RCS reduction is important even within visual range.I'd tell you why but I have a feeling I'd be wasting my time.



Madam

kindly read the entire post which i posted 

"Others" word is not meant for group of people but against that person whose post's i qouted in my post 

Well RCS is important or not that's a different issue but At WVR range most kills have been atrributed to IR guided missiles yes RCS also counts no doubt it 

But one must check the facts that indeed IR guided missiles have been the main killing missile


----------



## j20blackdragon

You can have this.






Or this. 






Your choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Is this the awaited change of *J-20* #2003 ?











Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Broccoli

hk299792458 said:


> Is this the awaited change of *J-20* #2003 ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henri K.



Are you sure that is J-20? It looks a bit different.


----------



## giant panda




----------



## Martian2

China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design | Aviation International News

"*China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design*
AIN Defense Perspective » April 5, 2013
by Brian Hsu





_The second prototype of China&#8217;s J-20 combat aircraft taxiing with its starboard weapons-bay door open and a PL-10 air-to-air missile protruding. (Photo: Chinese Internet)_

China&#8217;s under-development J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but &#8220;more efficient&#8221; design than that of the American F-22.

J-20 number 2002, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as China&#8217;s newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.

This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

Despite the Chinese media&#8217;s acclaim for the J-20&#8217;s missile launch mechanism, Chen Kuo-ming, senior editor with the Taiwan-based Defence International magazine, said what&#8217;s more important is whether the J-20 could fire short-range AAMs from off-boresight angles as acute as those possible from the F-22. For the moment, the PL-10 does not seem to be comparable to the AIM-9X AAM of the F-22 in respect to off-boresight capability.

*The J-20 is expected to begin air-to-air weapons firing tests soon. It carries two short-range PL-10s, one in each air-intake bay, and six to eight medium-range P-12s in the main internal weapons bay below the mid-fuselage.*"


----------



## aamerjamal

i think this design surely give advantage from ground radars. i m not expert but one a bay is open the plane lose all its stealthy to ground radars. so it does gives some if not huge advantage to J20. but it all depends if F22 actually need to remain open his bays in WVR Fights.


----------



## aamerjamal

sorry dubble post...


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> You must be talking about your friends.
> 
> One guy said it is about RCS...Another said it is not...Should work on coordinating their propaganda...



In terms of propaganda, recent democracy propaganda is 100 nastier than communist ones.

In a democracy propaganda, a sh!tty design like leaving the whole weapon bay wide open would appear to be more stealthy than a shut closed one, not to mention more expensive the open-bay design have to be Oh, well, thats 99% taxpayers money. Duh!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> In terms of propaganda, recent democracy propaganda is 100 nastier than communist ones.
> 
> In a democracy propaganda, a sh!tty design like leaving the whole weapon bay wide open would appear to be more stealthy than a shut closed one, not to mention more expensive the open-bay design have to be Oh, well, thats 99% taxpayers money. Duh!


This is from the same crowd that once believed the F-22 is vulnerable in rain, without understanding one whit of how and why...







OMG...!!! Look at all the 'stealthy' stuff being washed away...!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

gambit said:


> This is from the same crowd that once believed the F-22 is vulnerable in rain, without understanding one whit of how and why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG...!!! Look at all the 'stealthy' stuff being washed away...!!!



 Our mr gambit has reaches highest level of nirvana, water splash can be called rain? Those water pump out has zero level of acidic level, while you cant be sure of rain fallen from sky?


----------



## Esc8781

Beast said:


> Our mr gambit has reaches highest level of nirvana, water splash can be called rain? Those water pump out has zero level of acidic level, while you cant be sure of rain fallen from sky?


I've been to Tyndall AFB, and while it was raining at about 40 degrees Fahrenheit, the F-22 was getting its engine maintenance, in the cold weather and in the rain, hell there was a bunch of Raptors in "Raptor Country" in the rain taxiing and in open hangers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Lieutenant Colonel Wade Tolliver, *the squadron commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron commented: "the stealth coatings are not as fragile as they were in earlier stealth aircraft. It isn't damaged by a rain storm and it can stand the wear and tear of combat without degradation." However, rain has caused "shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components" when the Raptors were briefly posted to Guam.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tanlixiang28776

Boeings newest F/A-XX sixth generation designs.






And whats that on its front... oh its a canard placed exactly like the J 20s LOL

In fact the wing geometry looks almost identical.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## qwerrty

funny. what's going on with american physics? 





> Boeing unviels updated F/A-XX 6th gen fighter
> 
> PrintBy: Dave Majumdar Washington DC 1 hours ago Source:
> Boeing is unveiling an updated version of its F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter concept at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Exposition in Washington DC this week.
> 
> The tail-less twin-engine stealth fighter design comes in "manned and unmanned options as possibilities per the US Navy," Boeing says. The design features diverterless supersonic inlets reminiscent of those found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Boeing concept also features canards, which is somewhat of a surprise because the motion of those forward mounted control surfaces is generally assumed to compromise a stealth aircraft's frontal radar cross-section. But the lack of vertical tail surfaces suggests the aircraft would be optimized for all-aspect broadband stealth, which would be needed for operations in the most challenging anti-access/area denial environments.
> 
> Also of note in the manned version of the company's F/A-XX concept is the placement of the cockpit-rearward visibility appears to be restricted without the aid of a sensor apparatus similar to the F-35's distributed aperture system of six infrared cameras.
> 
> The Boeing F/A-XX concept is a response to a USN request for information (RFI) from April 2012 soliciting data for a replacement for the service's Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler fleets in the 2030s. The Super Hornet fleet is expected to start reaching the end of the jet's 9000h useful lifespan during that time period.
> 
> "The intent of this research is to solicit industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] based aircraft to provide air supremacy with a multi-role strike capability in an anti-access/area denied (A2AD) operational environment," the navy RFI stated. "Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS)."
> 
> Navy leaders had said at the time that they expect any new F/A-XX design to have greatly increased range and offer far superior kinematic performance compared to existing tactical aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qwerrty

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Boeings newest F/A-XX sixth generation designs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And whats that on its front... oh its a canard placed exactly like the J 20s LOL
> 
> In fact the wing geometry looks almost identical.



it looks like a tailless j-20. the canted carnads are in same level of the main wings, similar shape, dsi..bla

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

The american copy the Chinese J-20. Shame on the American fanboy who always called Chinese copycat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Beast said:


> The american copy the Chinese J-20. Shame on the American fanboy who always called Chinese copycat.





qwerrty said:


> it looks like a tailless j-20. the canted carnads are in same level of the main wings, similar shape, dsi..bla



We can only say two things -

* This is just a concet-plan

* Same need, same configuration

Once again, we can see that how hard is to compromise the contradictionnal aerodynamic need in both Supersonic and transonic fields. We can also say that maybe Chengdu's guys have made a good choice since 2001 (_Just a reminder of the R&D paper "&#19968;&#31181;&#23567;&#23637;&#24358;&#27604;&#39640;&#21319;&#21147;&#39134;&#26426;&#30340;&#27668;&#21160;&#24067;&#23616;&#30740;&#31350;"_).



> Research on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Small Aspect Ratio&#65292;High Lift Fighter Configuration
> 
> Song Wencong&#65292;Xie Pin&#65292;Zheng Sui&#65292;Li Yupu
> (Chengdu Aircraft Design&Research Institute&#65292;Chengdu 610041&#65292;China)
> 
> [Abstract] Focused on the features of stealth&#65292;super&#8212;maneuverability and supersonic cruise of the future fighter&#65292;the authors identified the main difficulties and gave some practical solutions to lift&#8212;drag characteristics at sub&#19968;&#65295;tran&#8212;sonic speed&#65292;high A&#65294;O&#65294;A&#65294;aerodynamic performances at low speed and supersonic drag characteristics&#65294;
> 
> The authors believed that design goals could only be achieved by studying flow principles deeply&#65292;digging up the potentials of present aerodynamic improving measures&#65292;developing new aerodynamic concepts&#65292;adopting interrelated integration and flight control measures and compromising on the multiple design points&#65294;
> 
> [Key words] aerodynamic configuration&#65307;supersonic cruise&#65307;stealth&#65307;post&#8212;stall maneuvers



However, this is not the reason to laught on the others, whatever they have said before. I knew Chinese friends with a better quality than this.

Sometimes, you know that you're right and that's enough...

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qwerrty

hk299792458 said:


> However, this is not the reason to laught on the others, whatever they have said before. I knew Chinese friends with a better quality than this.
> 
> Sometimes, you know that you're right and that's enough...
> 
> Henri K.






that boeing latest f/x 6th gen concept just made all the so-called experts look like fools. even if you don't want to laugh you just can't help it 



> *
> China's J-20 stealth fighter: 'design is 25 years old'*
> By Praveen Swami
> 7:30AM GMT 06 Jan 2011
> *ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8241968/Chinas-J-20-stealth-fighter-design-is-25-years-old.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Oh no, but the canards will flip and flap around and give this aircraft the RCS of a B-52. 

The trailing edges of the canards will also diffract onto the main wings and fuselage. Isn't that right gambit?

/sarcasm






Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qwerrty

check this out. the koreans are planing to make j-20 clone too. everyone is copying dumb chinese 25 year old design

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> Our mr gambit has reaches highest level of nirvana, water splash can be called rain? Those water pump out has zero level of acidic level, while you cant be sure of rain fallen from sky?


That is just pathetic. 

If rainwater have enough acid to literally ruin any EM absorbant material, which is constructed to withstand Mach to start, then said rainwater would be strong enough to kill anyone on the ground.

But I will give you a bone...

- The argument/criticism that rain affects low radar observability have a kernel of truth in it.
- Have nothing to do with acid. 
- Needs basic understanding of radar detection.

I have explained this before in this forum. Those who read that explanation did their own research and no longer believe that crappy video from Rachel Maddow. Now only gullible Chinese would believe her. You can stand apart from that crowd by searching for that explanation.



j20blackdragon said:


> Oh no, but the canards will flip and flap around and give this aircraft the RCS of a B-52.
> 
> The trailing edges of the canards will also diffract onto the main wings and fuselage. Isn't that right gambit?
> 
> /sarcasm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept


Concept is not the same as final product.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

qwerrty said:


> check this out. the koreans are planing to make j-20 clone too. everyone is copying dumb chinese 25 year old design



If you consider them dumb design, then go design a smart design of yours.

Suggestion- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Paper_Airplane.png


----------



## qwerrty

sarcasm doesn't work on some people


----------



## Pfpilot

gambit said:


> Concept is not the same as final product.



Could you share any observations you may have made looking at the general direction Boeing is taking. The canards are especially confounding to me; I have been under the assumption that they increase the RCS. A problem that should be easily avoidable considering how powerful contemporary American jet engines are. The yf-23 was capable enough without canards, I wonder if this is merely a design released for aesthetics or will some of these design elements define the next era of air combat. What is your opinion?


----------



## gambit

Pfpilot said:


> Could you share any observations you may have made looking at the general direction Boeing is taking. The canards are especially confounding to me; I have been under the assumption that they increase the RCS. A problem that should be easily avoidable considering how powerful contemporary American jet engines are. The yf-23 was capable enough without canards, I wonder if this is merely a design released for aesthetics or will some of these design elements define the next era of air combat. What is your opinion?


I explained some about RCS control here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135557

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135592

I have never said that canards by themselves are good or bad. I have always said they should be taken in relationships with other structures, but canards do give initial suspicions by simple virtue of their locations and because of flight control laws, how much they must deflect in order to execute maneuvers. Not many people know this but major aviation powerhouse General Dynamics was disqualified from the first 'stealth' fighter competition because their design have a single vertical stab, which is a huge no-no, so there is no telling what Boeing have in mind.

Personally, I doubt that canards will be employed, unless there is a major breakthrough in absorber technology that renders structures effectively non-radiating.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

gambit said:


> I explained some about RCS control here...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135557
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135592
> 
> I have never said that canards by themselves are good or bad. I have always said they should be taken in relationships with other structures, but canards do give initial suspicions by simple virtue of their locations and because of flight control laws, how much they must deflect in order to execute maneuvers. Not many people know this but major aviation powerhouse General Dynamics was disqualified from the first 'stealth' fighter competition because their design have a single vertical stab, which is a huge no-no, so there is no telling what Boeing have in mind.
> 
> Personally, I doubt that canards will be employed, unless there is a major breakthrough in absorber technology that renders structures effectively non-radiating.


 @gambit;
In an earlier post you said this:




> - The argument/criticism that rain affects low radar observability have a kernel of truth in it.
> - Have nothing to do with acid.
> - Needs basic understanding of radar detection.


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-215.html#ixzz2Pzevf0Vp

Airborne radar is not my area of expertise, only some exposure to marine radar; so
Will it have something to do with 'clutter' patterns? that could affect the echo?


----------



## gambit

Capt.Popeye said:


> @gambit;
> In an earlier post you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-215.html#ixzz2Pzevf0Vp
> 
> Airborne radar is not my area of expertise, only some exposure to marine radar; so
> Will it have something to do with 'clutter' patterns? that could affect the echo?


You are on the right track. Are you asking about the 'rain' issue?

Basically, water droplets increases surface area and surface discontinuities.






And this increased and diffused radiation pattern could increase a body's RCS. It also depends on the freq employed, of course, because these water droplets are in the centimetric and millimetric sizes.

It is only with ideal combination of:

- Freq employed,
- Concentration of the weather phenomena,
- Duration inside the weather phenomena,
- Altitude because water droplet sizes are not uniform at all altitudes,
- And airspeed...

...That 'stealth' can be sufficiently compromised.

So when Rachel Maddow smirked in her hack job video about how the F-22 can be 'ruined' by rain, she was talking about a one-in-a-million ideal situation. She was clearly ignorant and did not performed due diligence as befit a real journalist. And of course, millions of gullible people swallowed wholesale what she said and believes her to some sort of 'expert'.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Capt.Popeye

gambit said:


> You are on the right track. Are you asking about the 'rain' issue?
> 
> Basically, water droplets increases surface area and surface discontinuities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this increased and diffused radiation pattern could increase a body's RCS. It also depends on the freq employed, of course, because these water droplets are in the centimetric and millimetric sizes.
> 
> It is only with ideal combination of:
> 
> - Freq employed,
> - Concentration of the weather phenomena,
> - Duration inside the weather phenomena,
> - Altitude because water droplet sizes are not uniform at all altitudes,
> - And airspeed...
> 
> ...That 'stealth' can be sufficiently compromised.
> 
> So when Rachel Maddow smirked in her hack job video about how the F-22 can be 'ruined' by rain, she was talking about a one-in-a-million ideal situation. She was clearly ignorant and did not performed due diligence as befit a real journalist. And of course, millions of gullible people swallowed wholesale what she said and believes her to some sort of 'expert'.


 @gambit; Thanks.
If I could, i'd buy you a beer. Not just for this post but also for all the other bit n pieces of information that I've been able to gather from your posts.


----------



## Dongfeng

gambit said:


> You are on the right track. Are you asking about the 'rain' issue?
> 
> Basically, water droplets increases surface area and surface discontinuities.
> 
> 
> And this increased and diffused radiation pattern could increase a body's RCS. It also depends on the freq employed, of course, because these water droplets are in the centimetric and millimetric sizes.
> 
> It is only with ideal combination of:
> 
> - Freq employed,
> - Concentration of the weather phenomena,
> - Duration inside the weather phenomena,
> - Altitude because water droplet sizes are not uniform at all altitudes,
> - And airspeed...
> 
> ...That 'stealth' can be sufficiently compromised.
> 
> So when Rachel Maddow smirked in her hack job video about how the F-22 can be 'ruined' by rain, she was talking about a one-in-a-million ideal situation. She was clearly ignorant and did not performed due diligence as befit a real journalist. And of course, millions of gullible people swallowed wholesale what she said and believes her to some sort of 'expert'.



Rachel Maddow merely exposed the many flaws in the F-22 (and there are many), not sure why that's wrong. Because the F-22 is a flawed fighter, thats why the US capped it at 187 fighters. The USAF realised the flaws but chose to give budgetary excuses to save face, Rachel just came out and straight out exposed the real reason why the F-22 has stopped production at 187. She was doing her job as a journalist.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Dongfeng said:


> Rachel Maddow merely exposed the many flaws in the F-22 (and there are many), not sure why that's wrong. Because the F-22 is a flawed fighter, thats why the US capped it at 187 fighters. The USAF realised the flaws but chose to give budgetary excuses to save face, Rachel just came out and straight out exposed the real reason why the F-22 has stopped production at 187. She was doing her job as a journalist.


When you are ignorant but convinced that you are knowledgeable, there is no possible dispute to the delusional. That is Rachel Maddow and the Chinese members here. The F-22 is 'flawed'? In what ways? Right...In the ways that Rachel Maddow explained. Circular 'logic'.


----------



## selvan33

*China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design*







Chinas under-development J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but more efficient design than that of the American F-22.


J-20 number 2002, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as Chinas newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.

This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

Despite the Chinese medias acclaim for the J-20s missile launch mechanism, Chen Kuo-ming, senior editor with the Taiwan-based Defence International magazine, said whats more important is whether the J-20 could fire short-range AAMs from off-boresight angles as acute as those possible from the F-22. For the moment, the PL-10 does not seem to be comparable to the AIM-9X AAM of the F-22 in respect to off-boresight capability.

The J-20 is expected to begin air-to-air weapons firing tests soon. It carries two short-range PL-10s, one in each air-intake bay, and six to eight medium-range P-12s in the main internal weapons bay below the mid-fuselage.
*China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design | Aviation International News*


----------



## sms

^^ looks too complicated to me! I'm expecting to see major change in design soon. :fingers are crossed:


----------



## IND151

*China&#8217;s under-development J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but &#8220;more efficient&#8221; design than that of the American F-22.
*
*J-20 number 2002*, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a *short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) *aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as China&#8217;s newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.

*This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. *In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

Despite the Chinese media&#8217;s acclaim for the J-20&#8217;s missile launch mechanism, Chen Kuo-ming, senior editor with the Taiwan-based Defence International magazine, said what&#8217;s more important is whether the J-20 could fire short-range AAMs from off-boresight angles as acute as those possible from the F-22. For the moment, thePL-10 does not seem to be comparable to the AIM-9X AAM of the F-22 in respect to off-boresight capability.

The J-20 is expected to begin air-to-air weapons firing tests soon. It carries two short-range PL-10s, one in each air-intake bay, and six to eight medium-range P-12s in the main internal weapons bay below the mid-fuselage.


China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design | idrw.org
@sancho @Safriz @ANTIBODY > kindly take a look at the GIF


----------



## sms

^^^ how will they manage multiple missiles in bay? or they are just planning lo load single missile per side weapon bay?


----------



## SQ8

selvan33 said:


> This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.



Im not sure what innovation is being claimed with regards to the sentence above?

first, the How does a platform that moves the missle outside the bay then closes the doors take less time than a trapeze that brings it out? Unless they are using faster motors.. it's a moot point.

Second, the RCS of the Missile also exists.. hence whether the bay is closed or not there will still be a spike from the RCS of the PL-10. if that is less than that of the missle outside the bay then it's an academic thing. But considering that you are talking about a WVR missle it means you have already closed into range that will allow the enemy to either see you or otherwise.
It would make sense if the launch system allowed for a more rapid firing of the missile that might allow for close in silent attacks using a LOAL(Lock-on After launch) mode but the reporting here claims something entirely pointless.

The only actual innovation I see in this is the simplicity movement in terms of the missile rail as compared to the multiple joints that go into the F-22's design. There is no other actual "innovation" to the design when it comes to RCS or firing mechanism.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> Im not sure what innovation is being claimed with regards to the sentence above?
> 
> first, the How does a platform that moves the missle outside the bay then closes the doors take less time than a trapeze that brings it out? Unless they are using faster motors.. it's a moot point.
> 
> Second, the RCS of the Missile also exists.. hence whether the bay is closed or not there will still be a spike from the RCS of the PL-10. if that is less than that of the missle outside the bay then it's an academic thing. But considering that you are talking about a WVR missle it means you have already closed into range that will allow the enemy to either see you or otherwise.
> It would make sense if the launch system allowed for a more rapid firing of the missile that might allow for close in silent attacks using a LOAL(Lock-on After launch) mode but the reporting here claims something entirely pointless.
> 
> The only actual innovation I see in this is the simplicity movement in terms of the missile rail as compared to the multiple joints that go into the F-22's design. There is no other actual "innovation" to the design when it comes to RCS or firing mechanism.


There are no 'innovations' here. These news sources only repeat what official Chinese media issued to them. Not likely any of them will do their own analysis or even consult with someone in the relevant field before printing a report.

First it was about an opened weapons bay, then after I pointed out that a missile can be just as bad as an opened weapons bay, the goal posts were moved to aerodynamics, as if once a weapons bay opened, the F-22 will just lose a couple hundreds kts airspeed. Then when that could not be credibly argued, the goal posts were moved again to where flames from the missile will destroy 'stealth' coating.

Come on...


----------



## Safriz

Once the missile is out of the weapons bay the irregular shape will reflect radar emissions anyway...door open or not.


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> First it was about an opened weapons bay, then after I pointed out that a missile can be just as bad as an opened weapons bay, *the goal posts were moved to aerodynamics, as if once a weapons bay opened, the F-22 will just lose a couple hundreds kts airspeed.*
> 
> .



correct!!

it can have some manuveurabilty advanatges for J20 
but not stealth advantage , becoz an open weapon bay can increase some drag so it is just a media & alarmist people's hype i think.


----------



## gambit

IND151 said:


> The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.
> 
> *This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. *In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.
> 
> @sancho @Safriz @ANTIBODY > kindly take a look at the GIF


Kindly take a look at one basic principle of radar detection...






The structure call the 'corner reflector', especially the 90 deg type, is a 'stealth killer', opened weapons bay or not.

If an IR missile is *NOT* lock-on-after-launch (LOAL), the pilot must expose the missile until the missile signals the pilot that it has achieved IR source lock. That time is indeterminate, meaning if the target is maneuvering, there is no telling how long it will take the missile to focus on an IR source long enough to achieve lock. That mean those fins that create the dreaded 'corner reflector' will be exposed for any seeking radar.

So there is no credible argument to say that the J-20 will remain 'stealthy' throughout the exposure of the missile as the pilot try to outmaneuver his target.

And if the J-20's supporters insist on dismissing the exposed missile as a threat to the J-20's RCS, then they must do the same for the F-22's opened weapons bay and dismiss it from the F-22's RCS.

But I do not expect the J-20's supporters to be that intellectually honest...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

April 14th and 15th, *J-20* continues it's flight tests with new pilot...






Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Any tidbit about the 3rd PT?


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Missiles or rockets?


----------



## Audio

Aeronaut said:


> Missiles or rockets?




3ds Max and Photoshop....


----------



## hk299792458

April 17th...











Henri K.


----------



## Kompromat

Henri. Any idea about PT:2003?


----------



## Sasquatch

Loki said:


>



It's fake.



Aeronaut said:


> Henri. Any idea about PT:2003?



Maybe in 2 or 3 months from what I have gathered.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat

Hu Songshan said:


> It's fake.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in 2 or 3 months from what I have gathered.



Are there any rumors,about upgrades it may embody? --whats happening with 2001?


----------



## Sasquatch

Aeronaut said:


> Are there any rumors,about upgrades it may embody? --whats happening with 2001?



Some off multiple defense sites and forums.



> Currently the third prototype (2003?) is thought to have been built and is preparing for its maiden flight. There were rumors that the 03 prototype will feature certain "major improvements" and is no longer considered as a "technology demonstrator".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Thrust vector control engine model of J-20 unveiled &#27516;20&#35013;&#30690;&#21943;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#23494;&#22270;










J-20 updates: pictures from the recent test flight

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates: the sunset beauty &#27516;-20&#22805;&#38451;&#19979;&#23613;&#23637;&#26580;&#32654;&#39118;&#38901;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bratva

are there any radar enhancers put on J-20 so it could be tracked during testing?


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

mafiya said:


> are there any radar enhancers put on J-20 so it could be tracked during testing?


Probably does not need any.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

gambit said:


> Probably does not need any.



If that is the case. So as F-22

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> If that is the case. So as F-22


The F-22 does fly with enhancers. And when it flies without...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies


> *"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy,"* said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."


Looky here...The J-20 is certainly an admirable effort by China. But you guys have got to learn to look at things objectively and dispassionately, or even critically if you are willing to be intellectually honest, a level that I have yet seen displayed by the Chinese crowd here when it comes to this aircraft.

Stop making claims that defy the laws of physics and common sense. Realize that it is still too early to make any claims. Accept the reality that there is a standard -- US -- to be met, and that the J-20 have yet to face public scrutiny for anyone to say if it met those standards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> Probably does not need any.


LOLLZ




may be kaapo need it to post such B.S PO algorithm garbage article to simulate exact RCS ,which so the chinese called stealth expert member could howl upon in forums







Windjammer said:


>



it looks a PSed image to me 

& does it hold a ramjet powerd BVRAAM in it's center fuselarge

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 26-K

thats because it is, even says CG on the bottom right of the first pic


----------



## Maxyu

DrSomnath999 said:


> it looks a PSed image to me
> 
> & does it hold a ramjet powerd BVRAAM in it's center fuselarge



Not even real: 'CG' by sb named 'Gaoshan'


----------



## hk299792458

June 22nd...































Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

*It's confirmed. J-20 will enter full operational service and be combat deployed by 2016!*

CCTV News

Time reference 23:45

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

Notice the PAK FA's complete lack of panel edge alignment and rivets everywhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Notice the PAK FA's complete lack of panel edge alignment and rivets everywhere.



Notice the worthless spitwad which is you.


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## damiendehorn

homing28 said:


>



What are they using the J20 for a movie? A camera on a jib? So this might be some gov release, very soon.


----------



## qwerrty

probably making documentary


----------



## Beast

qwerrty said:


> probably making documentary



Maybe we will see it in 3-4 years time once J-20 enter service?


----------



## hk299792458

Amateur video of *J-20* taken on June 22nd...






Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xuxu1457



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## damiendehorn

I think the j20 project is far more advanced then we are led to believe, it may be operational before 2017 maybe towards the end of 2015 or early 2016. They wouldn't be making a official video of the plane if they weren't very confident about the progress of the project.

It's more about how rapidly they can move to mass production and at what rate. I am really impressed, how quick this has moved, compared to the pakfa and the f35. But my interest really is with the j31, if its available for export and at a competitive price then it will have quite a lot of buyers.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## mylovepakistan

Awesome &#9829;





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1391326964414783





http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fighter-Planes/182607461900240?fref=ts

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## air marshal

*China's J-20 fighter completes 2nd test flight*
July 1, 2013

By Chou Hui-ying and Y.L. Kao

Taipei (CNA): A second prototype of China's J-20, China's fifth-generation stealth fighter, has completed a second test flight, according to the People's Daily, China's most-circulated newspaper.

In addition to what was described as a low altitude flight test, the J-20 aircraft No. 2002 also conducted an in-flight fuel-dump test, the report said, without specifying when the tests took place.

Chinese military expert Song Xinzhi said in an interview with a Beijing television station that if the J-20 fighter becomes part of the China's armed forces, its combat radius will cover all of the Spratly Island archipelago in the South China Sea.

Talking about the J-20's role in protecting China's sovereignty claims over the South China Sea, Song said the J-20 fighter has a longer range than other heavy fighters because it has the space to be outfitted with large-volume tanks. The Su-27 and J-11 fighters have a range of about 3,600 kilometers, while the J-20 fighter has a range of more than 4,000 kilometers, Song said.

That would make the combat radius of the J-20 aircraft about 1,500-2,000 kilometers, meaning that if it took off from Hainan Island, it could cover the entire Spratly Island chain, Song said.

The development will only make China's neighbors more nervous about its extension of power into the South China Sea, which has recently stoked disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam. Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and China claim all or part of the South China Sea as their territory.

The J-20 is China's latest generation, stealth twin-engine fighter developed by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group for the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force. The first prototype made its maiden flight in January 2011, and the aircraft is expected to become fully operational between 2017 and 2019.


----------



## StarCraft_ZT



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

July 2rd, J-20 #2002 had performed 2 one-hour test flights, with weapon bay doors opened during the flights.






Some interesting captures from the video...































Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SQ8

There is clearly not much that has been done in terms of adding actual things to carry weapons in that bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## giant panda



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Broccoli

2003?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Broccoli said:


> 2003?


Maybe new 2003 or new J-10B

Don't let u see ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## applesauce

Broccoli said:


> 2003?



incidentally, those are photos from the now operational j-10b production line(supposely 2 lines open now), we had expected this as the j-10a production run has come to a close


----------



## SajeevJino

bad Photoshop work


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

SajeevJino said:


> bad Photoshop work



In your tiny brain everything that China does is photoshopped&#12290;



homing28 said:


>



Three pylons clearly seen in each weapon's bay&#12290;

Two basic configurations&#65306;






with 4 LRAAMs or 6 MRAAMs&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

New MRAAM&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

It seems to be a very big Fox-3 type missile...











Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SajeevJino

hk299792458 said:


> July 2rd, J-20 #2002 had performed 2 one-hour test flights, with weapon bay doors opened during the flights.
> 
> 
> 
> Some interesting captures from the video...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henri K.




@cirr


Before the New Pictures ..This one Shows Clear PS work


----------



## hk299792458

An another one -






Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

Is it SD-10 B?


----------



## itaskol

SajeevJino said:


> @cirr
> 
> 
> Before the New Pictures ..This one Shows Clear PS work



it is a classified missile. photographer was worried to release the clear photo till today.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fsjal

How can a missile without fins work?

Thrust vectoring? And if that is the case, then it would be one of the few, good AAMs using thrust vectoring, like Japanese AAM-5


----------



## huskie

anyone with common sense should know that the original photographer smeared the picture to cover the 'sensitive' missiles. no need to make a fuss about nothing by claiming that as 'bad ps work'.




SajeevJino said:


> @cirr
> 
> 
> Before the New Pictures ..This one Shows Clear PS work

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## qwerrty

i see an attachment point in the middle of each. they could fit 2 more missiles in there with folding fin. this may or may not be final design..


----------



## That Guy

damiendehorn said:


> I think the j20 project is far more advanced then we are led to believe, it may be operational before 2017 maybe towards the end of 2015 or early 2016. They wouldn't be making a official video of the plane if they weren't very confident about the progress of the project.
> 
> It's more about how rapidly they can move to mass production and at what rate. I am really impressed, how quick this has moved, compared to the pakfa and the f35. But my interest really is with the j31, if its available for export and at a competitive price then it will have quite a lot of buyers.



Agree with most of what you said, but I doubt this will roll out before 2017.

The J-31 needs to progress quickly, because it will have a MASSIVE advantage if it rolls out before the F-35. This would make the J-31 the only 5th gen fighter on the market for international buyers. If the J-31 fails to do this, the market for the J-31 will shrink significantly, because as much as I think the F-35 is a potato, international buyers will opt for the F-35 simply because of the brand names (MADE IN USA and LOCKHEED MARTIN).


----------



## That Guy

HongWu said:


> *It's confirmed. J-20 will enter full operational service and be combat deployed by 2016!*
> 
> CCTV News
> 
> Time reference 23:45



Won't play the video for me, maybe it's region locked. Anyways, can you post what it says?


----------



## nomi007

any news about helmet mount display?


----------



## Nefory

Fsjal said:


> How can a missile without fins work?
> 
> Thrust vectoring? And if that is the case, then it would be one of the few, good AAMs using thrust vectoring, like Japanese AAM-5



Thrust vectoring is meaningless to rocket propelled medium/long range AAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

images of j-20 2003

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bamboo Castle

*J-10 shows its bomb bay:*


----------



## jhungary

Bamboo Castle said:


> *J-10 shows its bomb bay:*



ultimate trolling??

by the way that's a F-60 or J-31.


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

Chinese 5th generation J-20 Mighty Dragon Stealth Fighter Jet spotted with incredibly hot Chinese babes in shorts.


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

Chinese fifth generation J-20 Mighty Dragon Stealth Fighter Jet carrying a new Generation mystery Air To Air Missile in man weeapons bay


----------



## bornmoron

I dont know about the plane ,,but the chinese babes definitely do look stealthy ,,,



Major Shaitan Singh said:


> Chinese 5th generation J-20 Mighty Dragon Stealth Fighter Jet spotted with incredibly hot Chinese babes in shorts.


----------



## qwerrty

mockup

.......


----------



## StarCraft_ZT



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## StarCraft_ZT

That Guy said:


> Won't play the video for me, maybe it's region locked. Anyways, can you post what it says?



I watched the video. A military expert just mentioned a few words that J20 will probably be in operation by 2016. The main content of this video is about South China Sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007




----------



## DrSomnath999

mafiya said:


> Is it SD-10 B?









May be or may be not

though if one look at the picture of SD 10-A one can clear point out one thing the Four larger triangular fins are fixed to the midsection of the missile Meanwhile the 4 fins in mid section are not triangular & quite smaller too.

Both the missiles in the weapon bay looks similiar only the fins are removed may be they are comparing how will it fit with foldable fins 












*CHEERS*


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

That Guy said:


> Agree with most of what you said, but I doubt this will roll out before 2017.
> 
> The J-31 needs to progress quickly, because it will have a MASSIVE advantage if it rolls out before the F-35. This would make the J-31 the only 5th gen fighter on the market for international buyers. If the J-31 fails to do this, the market for the J-31 will shrink significantly, because as much as I think the F-35 is a potato, international buyers will opt for the F-35 simply because of the brand names (MADE IN USA and LOCKHEED MARTIN).



UNfeasable as no reliable engine,whim of russia.


----------



## Genesis

AUSTERLITZ said:


> UNfeasable as no reliable engine,whim of russia.



First of all, yes our engine for fifth gen may take us all the way to 2020ish, give or take.

Second, we won't use Russian engines soon. A lot of designs are not getting through because of Russian engines. Like the new bomber variant H6 something is not going to be produced in numbers because it is using non domestic engines.

Another example is the government car fleet of Audi and what not is getting replaced by domestic brands within the decade. As to not use foreign things more and more. In fact the HongQi limo was used by the Xi jinping for visits and stuff recently.

Third and this is to @That Guy

you do realize we recently sold J-7 variants right...... Yea we will have market believe me. There are only three nations capable of independent 5th gen research, three and a half if you count Europe, not sure if they are working on a separate one or going full force with JSF. 

Not including a few others because you guys are not using your own engine.


----------



## That Guy

Genesis said:


> Third and this is to @That Guy
> 
> you do realize we recently sold J-7 variants right...... Yea we will have market believe me. There are only three nations capable of independent 5th gen research, three and a half if you count Europe, not sure if they are working on a separate one or going full force with JSF.
> 
> Not including a few others because you guys are not using your own engine.



Makes sense, can't really argue with that.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> UNfeasable as no reliable engine,whim of russia.



They've already created an engine, the problem is lack of strict quality control. If that's fixed, the reliability of the engines will skyrocket.


----------



## sancho

Are there any official specs available for the size (length, width and depth) of the weaponbay?


----------



## That Guy

Major Shaitan Singh said:


> Chinese 5th generation J-20 Mighty Dragon Stealth Fighter Jet spotted with incredibly hot Chinese babes in shorts.



Man, they're really going all out with the domestic propaganda. Not that I mind...


----------



## cirr

No comment&#65292;no explanation&#65306;


----------



## cirr




----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> UNfeasable as no reliable engine,whim of russia.



They will soon use the domestic 100 kN WS-13B upgrade for the J-31.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

SinoSoldier said:


> They will soon use the domestic 100 kN WS-13B upgrade for the J-31.



100KN is far too less for fifth gen fighter.PAK FA prototype engine has 146 KN thrust,new engine 176KN.F-22 has 160 KN engine.


----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> 100KN is far too less for fifth gen fighter.PAK FA prototype engine has 146 KN thrust,new engine 176KN.F-22 has 160 KN engine.



The J-31's weight is far less than that of the PAK FA, so two 100 kN engines are enough to provide it with a decent thrust to weight ratio. The F-35 only has 193 kN of total thrust.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

SinoSoldier said:


> The J-31's weight is far less than that of the PAK FA, so two 100 kN engines are enough to provide it with a decent thrust to weight ratio. The F-35 only has 193 kN of total thrust.



Decent..sure.but it won't be able to compete in the air with air superiority 5th gen fighters or supercruise.
Wrong, F-35 f135 engine[a derivative of f-22 f119] can produce an enormous 191KN,and has even been tested with 220 KN f136 making it highest thrust fighter aircraft in history.To compare this to j-31 is LOL.


----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Decent..sure.but it won't be able to compete in the air with air superiority 5th gen fighters or supercruise.
> Wrong, F-35 f135 engine[a derivative of f-22 f119] can produce an enormous 191KN,and has even been tested with 220 KN f136 making it highest thrust fighter aircraft in history.To compare this to j-31 is LOL.



Sure it would. It may not have the highest maneuverability but it doesn't need that in order to be a multirole strike fighter it is meant to meet as its role. The F-35's total thrust is 191 kN while the J-31's total thrust would be 200 kN; the F-35 only has one engine while the J-31 makes use of two. The F136 engine is not only estimated to produce 180 kN but is also a stopped project.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

SinoSoldier said:


> Sure it would. It may not have the highest maneuverability but it doesn't need that in order to be a multirole strike fighter it is meant to meet as its role. The F-35's total thrust is 191 kN while the J-31's total thrust would be 200 kN; the F-35 only has one engine while the J-31 makes use of two. The F136 engine is not only estimated to produce 180 kN but is also a stopped project.




Still can't supercruise,but yes as low observable strike aircraft why not. @gambit 
How does thrust work for 2 engines?Just addition of 2 thrusts?I doubt it.


----------



## ice bomb

There is no ws-13A, where is the B coming from. 
Not to mention there is no J-31. There is only 31001.


----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Still can't supercruise,but yes as low observable strike aircraft why not. @gambit
> How does thrust work for 2 engines?Just addition of 2 thrusts?I doubt it.



There is no practical use for supercruise in combat. Supercruise is affected by aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratio, with the emphasis on the former.



ice bomb said:


> There is no ws-13A, where is the B coming from.
> Not to mention there is no J-31. There is only 31001.



WS-13B is being developed.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

SinoSoldier said:


> There is no practical use for supercruise in combat. Supercruise is affected by aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratio, with the emphasis on the former.



Lol,supercruise has no practical use?Now u have shown ur true mettle as a noob.

''Supersonic cruise or supercruise is a term which refers to the ability of a combat aircraft to sustain supersonic flight without using afterburning thrust.

Combat aircraft have had supersonic capability since the 1950s, exploiting afterburners to effectively multiply available thrust and thus overcome the drag rise characteristic of transonic and supersonic flight, as well as improving climb, turn and acceleration performance. The additional thrust advantage of the afterburner comes at a prohibitive price - fuel burn is multiplied severalfold as fuel is injected into the tailpipe and combusted. A byproduct of afterburner use is a dramatic increase in the aircraft's heat signature, the engine plumes becoming effectively an infrared beacon which can be detected and tracked from dozens of miles away.

In practical terms conventional gas turbine engines afford only a transient supersonic capability, one which must be used very carefully as it can expend thousands of pounds of fuel in minutes, and advertise the fighter's presence and energy state from tactically very useful distances.

Having the ability to sustain supersonic speeds without these drawbacks affords numerous advantages in combat. The first of these is that entering an engagement the supersonic fighter has a reserve of kinetic energy which a subsonic opponent does not have. As a result the supersonic fighter can often dictate the terms of the engagement.

More importantly, sustained supersonic speed presents genuine problems in engagement kinematics for an opposing conventional fighter. Even in Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, air to air missiles have kinematic limitations. To effect a kill a fighter must position itself so the target falls into a 'no escape zone' for the missile type being used. Unless this precondition is met, the missile will likely run out of energy and be unable to engage the target.

In classical intercept geometries, fighters are typically vectored into a head to head closing geometry upon which the player with the earliest firing opportunity, whether afforded by longer radar/missile range, or supporting networking capability, has the advantage. Where both fighters have matched conventional kinematic capabilities, the game well and truly revolves around incremental advantages in missile capability, or situational awareness, provided by onboard or offboard sensors.

This delicate balance, and the advantages yielded by incremental imbalances in missile and sensor technology, will collapse once one of the fighters has the capacity to sustain supersonic speeds. As a result, even modest heading changes by the supersonic fighter, when positioning for the engagement, will force the conventional fighter to go into afterburner early, and typically will create enough separation to ruin the conventional fighter's missile shot geometry. In effect, conventional fighters flying against fighters with sustained supersonic capability usually do not get good opportunities for BVR missile shots. Only a very significant advantage in the kinematic performance of the missiles carried by conventional fighters can offset the advantages held by the player with sustained supersonic capability.

The reality is that the situational awareness advantages afforded by modern ISR and networking capabilities only work where the fighters using them have kinematic parity with their opponents. Once the opposing fighter has a significant kinematic advantage, the tables may well be turned. Given that most modern fighter fleet operators have AEW&C capabilities, or are acquiring AEW&C capabilities, the line of argument which presents AEW&C and networking as an air combat panacea is little more than nonsense. driving the capability contest yet again into other areas - and supersonic cruise will be the next arena in the global competition for air superiority.

Achieving genuine supersonic cruise capability hinges on two technological prerequisites. The first is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag. The second is having an airframe design built for low supersonic drag. Unless both conditions are met, supersonic cruise capability is not achievable.

The airframe issues dictate a wing design typically with 45 degrees or more of leading edge sweep, and suitable fuselage area ruling. Moreover, weapons must be carried internally or in a semi-conformal or conformal arrangment, to avoid a supersonic drag penalty. Pylon mounted missiles are not the preferred strategy. To date, airframe aerodynamics have not been the obstacle in the supercruise game. Engine capabilities have remained the principal obstacle.

A turbofan engine designed for supersonic cruise will be characterised by a much higher turbine inlet temperature than contemporary 'conventional' fighter engines. It is this operating cycle which permits the engine to sustain higher dry thrust ratings at high altitudes. This has also proven to be the primary obstacle to date in building supercruise engines, as it requires advanced materials and advanced turbine cooling techniques.

The first service to recognise the importance of supercruise was the US Air Force, which incorporated supercruise into the early requirements definition of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which eventually coalesced into today's F/A-22A Raptor. An extensive and expensive engine technology research and development effort led to the design of the Pratt and Whitney F119-PW-100 engine which powers the F-22A. Delivering around 35,000 lbf of afterburning thrust, the F119-PW-100 is the most powerful fighter engine manufactured in the Western world. The simplest qualitative measure of the F119-PW-100's performance is that this engine has a dry thrust performance envelope matching the afterburning thrust envelope of the F100-PW-100 series engines fitted to the F-15C/E and many F-16 variants.

As a result the F-22A is the only production fighter in existence with a genuine supersonic cruise capability and the enormous kinematic advantages this affords in combat. This analyst had the opportunity to discuss the practical aspects of supercruise capability with one of the F-22A test pilots some years ago. Not only were chase fighters unable to keep up, but in mock intercepts flown by F-16Cs and F-15Cs against development F-22A airframes, even modest 20 degree heading changes caused the teen series fighters to abort their intercepts, having burned their fuel down to bingo levels.''


Supercruise is great advantage for stealth aircraft as it preserves its stealth signature longer without having to switch on afterburner.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Lol,supercruise has no practical use?Now u have shown ur true mettle as a noob.
> 
> ''Supersonic cruise or supercruise is a term which refers to the ability of a combat aircraft to sustain supersonic flight without using afterburning thrust.
> 
> Combat aircraft have had supersonic capability since the 1950s, exploiting afterburners to effectively multiply available thrust and thus overcome the drag rise characteristic of transonic and supersonic flight, as well as improving climb, turn and acceleration performance. The additional thrust advantage of the afterburner comes at a prohibitive price - fuel burn is multiplied severalfold as fuel is injected into the tailpipe and combusted. A byproduct of afterburner use is a dramatic increase in the aircraft's heat signature, the engine plumes becoming effectively an infrared beacon which can be detected and tracked from dozens of miles away.
> 
> In practical terms conventional gas turbine engines afford only a transient supersonic capability, one which must be used very carefully as it can expend thousands of pounds of fuel in minutes, and advertise the fighter's presence and energy state from tactically very useful distances.
> 
> Having the ability to sustain supersonic speeds without these drawbacks affords numerous advantages in combat. The first of these is that entering an engagement the supersonic fighter has a reserve of kinetic energy which a subsonic opponent does not have. As a result the supersonic fighter can often dictate the terms of the engagement.
> 
> More importantly, sustained supersonic speed presents genuine problems in engagement kinematics for an opposing conventional fighter. Even in Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, air to air missiles have kinematic limitations. To effect a kill a fighter must position itself so the target falls into a 'no escape zone' for the missile type being used. Unless this precondition is met, the missile will likely run out of energy and be unable to engage the target.
> 
> In classical intercept geometries, fighters are typically vectored into a head to head closing geometry upon which the player with the earliest firing opportunity, whether afforded by longer radar/missile range, or supporting networking capability, has the advantage. Where both fighters have matched conventional kinematic capabilities, the game well and truly revolves around incremental advantages in missile capability, or situational awareness, provided by onboard or offboard sensors.
> 
> This delicate balance, and the advantages yielded by incremental imbalances in missile and sensor technology, will collapse once one of the fighters has the capacity to sustain supersonic speeds. As a result, even modest heading changes by the supersonic fighter, when positioning for the engagement, will force the conventional fighter to go into afterburner early, and typically will create enough separation to ruin the conventional fighter's missile shot geometry. In effect, conventional fighters flying against fighters with sustained supersonic capability usually do not get good opportunities for BVR missile shots. Only a very significant advantage in the kinematic performance of the missiles carried by conventional fighters can offset the advantages held by the player with sustained supersonic capability.
> 
> The reality is that the situational awareness advantages afforded by modern ISR and networking capabilities only work where the fighters using them have kinematic parity with their opponents. Once the opposing fighter has a significant kinematic advantage, the tables may well be turned. Given that most modern fighter fleet operators have AEW&C capabilities, or are acquiring AEW&C capabilities, the line of argument which presents AEW&C and networking as an air combat panacea is little more than nonsense. driving the capability contest yet again into other areas - and supersonic cruise will be the next arena in the global competition for air superiority.
> 
> Achieving genuine supersonic cruise capability hinges on two technological prerequisites. The first is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag. The second is having an airframe design built for low supersonic drag. Unless both conditions are met, supersonic cruise capability is not achievable.
> 
> The airframe issues dictate a wing design typically with 45 degrees or more of leading edge sweep, and suitable fuselage area ruling. Moreover, weapons must be carried internally or in a semi-conformal or conformal arrangment, to avoid a supersonic drag penalty. Pylon mounted missiles are not the preferred strategy. To date, airframe aerodynamics have not been the obstacle in the supercruise game. Engine capabilities have remained the principal obstacle.
> 
> A turbofan engine designed for supersonic cruise will be characterised by a much higher turbine inlet temperature than contemporary 'conventional' fighter engines. It is this operating cycle which permits the engine to sustain higher dry thrust ratings at high altitudes. This has also proven to be the primary obstacle to date in building supercruise engines, as it requires advanced materials and advanced turbine cooling techniques.
> 
> The first service to recognise the importance of supercruise was the US Air Force, which incorporated supercruise into the early requirements definition of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which eventually coalesced into today's F/A-22A Raptor. An extensive and expensive engine technology research and development effort led to the design of the Pratt and Whitney F119-PW-100 engine which powers the F-22A. Delivering around 35,000 lbf of afterburning thrust, the F119-PW-100 is the most powerful fighter engine manufactured in the Western world. The simplest qualitative measure of the F119-PW-100's performance is that this engine has a dry thrust performance envelope matching the afterburning thrust envelope of the F100-PW-100 series engines fitted to the F-15C/E and many F-16 variants.
> 
> As a result the F-22A is the only production fighter in existence with a genuine supersonic cruise capability and the enormous kinematic advantages this affords in combat. This analyst had the opportunity to discuss the practical aspects of supercruise capability with one of the F-22A test pilots some years ago. Not only were chase fighters unable to keep up, but in mock intercepts flown by F-16Cs and F-15Cs against development F-22A airframes, even modest 20 degree heading changes caused the teen series fighters to abort their intercepts, having burned their fuel down to bingo levels.''
> 
> 
> Supercruise is great advantage for stealth aircraft as it preserves its stealth signature longer without having to switch on afterburner.



Yet F-35 cant supercruise.
Stupid americans must not have read your words.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

Good lord dat Indian math. Its 2 100kn engines to one 191 kn engine. Guess its too hard to figure out which plane produces more thrust.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ice bomb said:


> Yet F-35 cant supercruise.
> Stupid americans must not have read your words.



Indeed it can't as its not meant as air superiority fighter.This j-31 would have no chance vs pak fa or f-22.



tanlixiang28776 said:


> Good lord dat Indian math. Its 2 100kn engines to one 191 kn engine. Guess its too hard to figure out which plane produces more thrust.



Thats what i asked gambit for,i'm not expert at this thrust and if 2 engines thrust is equal to 1 and such.If it is case of simple addition. @gambit


----------



## ice bomb

SinoSoldier said:


> There is no practical use for supercruise in combat. Supercruise is affected by aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratio, with the emphasis on the former.
> 
> 
> 
> WS-13B is being developed.



Right, and the "J31" is gonna wait for that engine in meanwhile? 

Show me the Ws-13
http://www.turbineengine.org/pdf/China Aerospace Propulsion Technology china2.pdf



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Indeed it can't as its not meant as air superiority fighter.This j-31 would have no chance vs pak fa or f-22.



ROFL, j-31 isnt a air superiority fighter either. ROFL.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ice bomb said:


> Right, and the "J31" is gonna wait for that engine in meanwhile?
> 
> Show me the Ws-13
> http://www.turbineengine.org/pdf/China Aerospace Propulsion Technology china2.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL, j-31 isnt a air superiority fighter either. ROFL.



Ur talking as if ur air superiority fighter j-20 will have some epic engine that will enable it to compete with these 2?


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Ur talking as if ur air superiority fighter j-20 will have some epic engine that will enable it to compete with these 2?



You are changing topics like girls changing underwear. Where in my post did I mention J-20 at all? Since when is J-20 mine? Typical 
indian nonsens.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ice bomb said:


> You are changing topics like girls changing underwear. Where in my post did I mention J-20 at all? Since when is J-20 mine? Typical
> indian nonsens.



Read thread title?You brought up 'air superiority fighter' ,j-20 chinese contender.


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Read thread title?You brought up 'air superiority fighter' ,j-20 chinese contender.



No, Mr. Amnesia. It is you. Here, let me help you. 



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Indeed it can't as its not meant as *air superiority fighter*.This j-31 would have no chance vs pak fa or f-22.
> 
> And here is you again who mentioned J-20, not me. here kid:
> 
> 
> AUSTERLITZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ur talking as if ur air superiority fighter j-20 will have some epic engine that will enable it to compete with these 2?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your troll twin brother, or does it say air superiority fighter?
> 
> You will excuse me for asking, but do you have problems reading or remembering your words? Havnt been into a few discussions with you, I cant help notice this....There is no shame in that. I just want to know.
Click to expand...


----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Ur talking as if ur air superiority fighter j-20 will have some epic engine that will enable it to compete with these 2?



It does. It will be equipped with the 180 kN WS-15 engine. The engine core was completed in 2006 and was rumored to be tested in 2009.



ice bomb said:


> Right, and the "J31" is gonna wait for that engine in meanwhile?
> 
> Show me the Ws-13
> http://www.turbineengine.org/pdf/China Aerospace Propulsion Technology china2.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL, j-31 isnt a air superiority fighter either. ROFL.



The J-31 as of now does not need those engines since it is still in flight testing phase. The picture that's in front of you is already from an official release.


----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Lol,supercruise has no practical use?Now u have shown ur true mettle as a noob.
> 
> ''Supersonic cruise or supercruise is a term which refers to the ability of a combat aircraft to sustain supersonic flight without using afterburning thrust.
> 
> Combat aircraft have had supersonic capability since the 1950s, exploiting afterburners to effectively multiply available thrust and thus overcome the drag rise characteristic of transonic and supersonic flight, as well as improving climb, turn and acceleration performance. The additional thrust advantage of the afterburner comes at a prohibitive price - fuel burn is multiplied severalfold as fuel is injected into the tailpipe and combusted. A byproduct of afterburner use is a dramatic increase in the aircraft's heat signature, the engine plumes becoming effectively an infrared beacon which can be detected and tracked from dozens of miles away.
> 
> In practical terms conventional gas turbine engines afford only a transient supersonic capability, one which must be used very carefully as it can expend thousands of pounds of fuel in minutes, and advertise the fighter's presence and energy state from tactically very useful distances.
> 
> Having the ability to sustain supersonic speeds without these drawbacks affords numerous advantages in combat. The first of these is that entering an engagement the supersonic fighter has a reserve of kinetic energy which a subsonic opponent does not have. As a result the supersonic fighter can often dictate the terms of the engagement.
> 
> More importantly, sustained supersonic speed presents genuine problems in engagement kinematics for an opposing conventional fighter. Even in Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, air to air missiles have kinematic limitations. To effect a kill a fighter must position itself so the target falls into a 'no escape zone' for the missile type being used. Unless this precondition is met, the missile will likely run out of energy and be unable to engage the target.
> 
> In classical intercept geometries, fighters are typically vectored into a head to head closing geometry upon which the player with the earliest firing opportunity, whether afforded by longer radar/missile range, or supporting networking capability, has the advantage. Where both fighters have matched conventional kinematic capabilities, the game well and truly revolves around incremental advantages in missile capability, or situational awareness, provided by onboard or offboard sensors.
> 
> This delicate balance, and the advantages yielded by incremental imbalances in missile and sensor technology, will collapse once one of the fighters has the capacity to sustain supersonic speeds. As a result, even modest heading changes by the supersonic fighter, when positioning for the engagement, will force the conventional fighter to go into afterburner early, and typically will create enough separation to ruin the conventional fighter's missile shot geometry. In effect, conventional fighters flying against fighters with sustained supersonic capability usually do not get good opportunities for BVR missile shots. Only a very significant advantage in the kinematic performance of the missiles carried by conventional fighters can offset the advantages held by the player with sustained supersonic capability.
> 
> The reality is that the situational awareness advantages afforded by modern ISR and networking capabilities only work where the fighters using them have kinematic parity with their opponents. Once the opposing fighter has a significant kinematic advantage, the tables may well be turned. Given that most modern fighter fleet operators have AEW&C capabilities, or are acquiring AEW&C capabilities, the line of argument which presents AEW&C and networking as an air combat panacea is little more than nonsense. driving the capability contest yet again into other areas - and supersonic cruise will be the next arena in the global competition for air superiority.
> 
> Achieving genuine supersonic cruise capability hinges on two technological prerequisites. The first is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag. The second is having an airframe design built for low supersonic drag. Unless both conditions are met, supersonic cruise capability is not achievable.
> 
> The airframe issues dictate a wing design typically with 45 degrees or more of leading edge sweep, and suitable fuselage area ruling. Moreover, weapons must be carried internally or in a semi-conformal or conformal arrangment, to avoid a supersonic drag penalty. Pylon mounted missiles are not the preferred strategy. To date, airframe aerodynamics have not been the obstacle in the supercruise game. Engine capabilities have remained the principal obstacle.
> 
> A turbofan engine designed for supersonic cruise will be characterised by a much higher turbine inlet temperature than contemporary 'conventional' fighter engines. It is this operating cycle which permits the engine to sustain higher dry thrust ratings at high altitudes. This has also proven to be the primary obstacle to date in building supercruise engines, as it requires advanced materials and advanced turbine cooling techniques.
> 
> The first service to recognise the importance of supercruise was the US Air Force, which incorporated supercruise into the early requirements definition of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which eventually coalesced into today's F/A-22A Raptor. An extensive and expensive engine technology research and development effort led to the design of the Pratt and Whitney F119-PW-100 engine which powers the F-22A. Delivering around 35,000 lbf of afterburning thrust, the F119-PW-100 is the most powerful fighter engine manufactured in the Western world. The simplest qualitative measure of the F119-PW-100's performance is that this engine has a dry thrust performance envelope matching the afterburning thrust envelope of the F100-PW-100 series engines fitted to the F-15C/E and many F-16 variants.
> 
> As a result the F-22A is the only production fighter in existence with a genuine supersonic cruise capability and the enormous kinematic advantages this affords in combat. This analyst had the opportunity to discuss the practical aspects of supercruise capability with one of the F-22A test pilots some years ago. Not only were chase fighters unable to keep up, but in mock intercepts flown by F-16Cs and F-15Cs against development F-22A airframes, even modest 20 degree heading changes caused the teen series fighters to abort their intercepts, having burned their fuel down to bingo levels.''
> 
> 
> Supercruise is great advantage for stealth aircraft as it preserves its stealth signature longer without having to switch on afterburner.



Supercruise is a testament to the aircraft's aerodynamics and somewhat thrust to weight ratio, but pragmatically speaking such a feat is not useful in actual combat. Supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic flight without engine reheat, which is barely fast enough when compared with modern maximum speeds. Kinetic energy can be maintained by supercruise or by engine reheat, sometimes with the latter being more useful since it can provide rapid variation of thrust in a short time period. In fact there has been no case in history where aircraft maintained their cruise speed during a high intensity dogfight. In such dogfights one can be guaranteed that afterburners will be used to propel the aircraft to its highest speed, at which point preservation of kinetic energy is no longer a concern since the aircrafts' speed in a fight will outstrip that of cruise speed.

It can somewhat "preserve" the IR stealthiness of an aircraft but that is no different if the aircraft simply went in at subsonic speeds. In fact level flight at subsonic speeds tend to save a lot more fuel.

Your talk of two fighters going head on is impractical. It takes two to tango and if one aircraft goes supersonic, then it will too have to face the threat of closing in on the enemy fast; it is the combined relative velocities of the two aircraft that matter, not just one. And none of that has any effect on the early detection and shoot capabilities of the parties.


----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Indeed it can't as its not meant as air superiority fighter.This j-31 would have no chance vs pak fa or f-22.



And how do you know that the J-31 doesn't have a mass low enough to maintain a good thrust to weight ratio? Secondly, we have yet to consider the avionics, relative observability, and a thousand other factors before one can even begin to draw out a potential scenario. Stop jumping to conclusions based on one unproven assumption that the J-31 cannot supercruise (which is completely up to debate).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

rishabh said:


> Hmmm another Chinese product.....no guarantee no warranty........nobody knows how long will it last.....



It'll last longer than people's tolerance of your idiocy, that's for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StarCraft_ZT

rishabh said:


> Hmmm another Chinese product.....no guarantee no warranty........nobody knows how long will it last.....



Stop jumping up and down with other's achievement, that is all you can do? Focus on yourself.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ice bomb said:


> No, Mr. Amnesia. It is you. Here, let me help you.
> 
> 
> 
> AUSTERLITZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it can't as its not meant as *air superiority fighter*.This j-31 would have no chance vs pak fa or f-22.
> 
> And here is you again who mentioned J-20, not me. here kid:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your troll twin brother, or does it say air superiority fighter?
> 
> You will excuse me for asking, but do you have problems reading or remembering your words? Havnt been into a few discussions with you, I cant help notice this....There is no shame in that. I just want to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And bringing up j-20 in a thread titled j-20 is wrong?LOL.
> I also brought up raptor and pak-fa not only j-20.All 5 were brought up as these are the only 5th gen fighters revealed atm.
> I also remember u from the other discussion where u ran away.
Click to expand...


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

SinoSoldier said:


> Supercruise is a testament to the aircraft's aerodynamics and somewhat thrust to weight ratio, but pragmatically speaking such a feat is not useful in actual combat. Supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic flight without engine reheat, which is barely fast enough when compared with modern maximum speeds. Kinetic energy can be maintained by supercruise or by engine reheat, sometimes with the latter being more useful since it can provide rapid variation of thrust in a short time period. In fact there has been no case in history where aircraft maintained their cruise speed during a high intensity dogfight. In such dogfights one can be guaranteed that afterburners will be used to propel the aircraft to its highest speed, at which point preservation of kinetic energy is no longer a concern since the aircrafts' speed in a fight will outstrip that of cruise speed.
> 
> It can somewhat "preserve" the IR stealthiness of an aircraft but that is no different if the aircraft simply went in at subsonic speeds. In fact level flight at subsonic speeds tend to save a lot more fuel.
> 
> Your talk of two fighters going head on is impractical. It takes two to tango and if one aircraft goes supersonic, then it will too have to face the threat of closing in on the enemy fast; it is the combined relative velocities of the two aircraft that matter, not just one. And none of that has any effect on the early detection and shoot capabilities of the parties.



Another noob at work,btw that article was from ausairpower..a favourite destination of chinese forumers.
Without supercruise -
IRST tracker will detect u further and faster.
U enter battle far lower on kinamtic enrgy than ur opponent who is then at an advantage[KE] affects missile performance.
Non supercruising fighters will have severe problems getting BVR lock on supercruising fighters.
Supercruising fighters have advantage in missile no escape zone range.



SinoSoldier said:


> And how do you know that the J-31 doesn't have a mass low enough to maintain a good thrust to weight ratio? Secondly, we have yet to consider the avionics, relative observability, and a thousand other factors before one can even begin to draw out a potential scenario. Stop jumping to conclusions based on one unproven assumption that the J-31 cannot supercruise (which is completely up to debate).



Very well,let's wait for the demo to come to life.


----------



## Akasa

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Another noob at work,btw that article was from ausairpower..a favourite destination of chinese forumers.



Is there anything else you do besides trying to cover your lack of argument with cheap one-liners?



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Without supercruise -
> IRST tracker will detect u further and faster.



Which then begs the question, why is supersonic speed needed in the first place? A subsonic aircraft faces none of the issues.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> U enter battle far lower on kinamtic enrgy than ur opponent who is then at an advantage[KE] affects missile performance.
> Non supercruising fighters will have severe problems getting BVR lock on supercruising fighters.
> Supercruising fighters have advantage in missile no escape zone range.



In a battle, both aircraft will be pushing to their absolute limits. That is far beyond the now-insignificant cruise speed. In a head on fight both aircraft will close each other at the same relative speed. The situation is the same for both pilots no matter how much faster one aircraft is.


----------



## SQ8

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Another noob at work,btw that article was from* ausairpowe*r..a favourite destination of chinese forumers.



Ausairpower is truly one of the most sensationalist websites and relies on dumping of misrepresented information to try and make their point. Which is why .. NO. and NO western air force, or respectable think tank wants to be associated with them. 
The idea by them is to fool laymen by dumping numbers and statistics so that the general populous that is not aware or did not bother to look up the theory is fooled by them. Actual expects will see past these engineering "accountants".

That being said, non supercruisng or otherwise has little to do with obtaining a lock.. It has to do with reducing the IR signature and fuel efficiency. Dogfighting at supersonic speeds is possible but the pilot is the weak factor here.Moreover, the airframe as to have enough low drag and sufficient thrust so that it is able to maintain speed within a turn. 

What supercruising essentially allows is faster Time on Target due to the ability to maintain a higher speed for a longer time AND the ability to use that higher speed to provide greater Kinematic energy to weapons released. If one looks at the shapes of fighters such as the J-20 and PAK-FA.. it comes to pass with the design of the J-20 that it is much more suited to flight in the supersonic regime as compared to other platforms(after all, the long thin delta has been the holder of speed records and offers the lowest drag as such.. but here it may be different). Hence, the J-20(if given the right engines or equal T/W ratio as the PAK-FA or the F-22 might have less difficulty slipping into the supersonic region as compared to the rest.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/j-20-chinas-ultimate-aircraft/

The article states the same.. so in essence the J-20 may be designed for an ENTIRELY different purpose than the F-22 and PAK-FA.. and may be more comparable to the FB-22 concept. Its shaping would allow it to get close enough and at supercruise to American High Value Air Assets like the E-3 or otherwise and attack them in a pass and GET OUT as fast as well. Perhaps , it is purposefully designed to avoid the dogfight and is more like the Mig-31 than a F-15; except that its a very stealthy Mig-31 and that is in itself a very deadly platform. 

Because if you look at it, spotting something like the F-22 will be very very difficult for even something like the J-20. And for it to engage it in A2A combat is also folly. However, if such an aircraft can simply slip past the F-22's and other assets to strike at the main keystone like AWACS or Carriers.. then it sort of solves the problem for the Chinese in a way. 
There were recent reports that US Navy ordered some panic upgrades to their naval ECM systems.. which means that something was developed which they found out about that caused them to panic; could the J-20 be part of that mix?
After all, the Chinese are smart learners and they are learning. Perhaps they figured that instead of fighting the Americans pound for pound.. why not find a way around them? Asymmetric warfare to their approach.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

SinoSoldier said:


> Is there anything else you do besides trying to cover your lack of argument with cheap one-liners?
> 
> 
> 
> Which then begs the question, why is supersonic speed needed in the first place? A subsonic aircraft faces none of the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> In a battle, both aircraft will be pushing to their absolute limits. That is far beyond the now-insignificant cruise speed. In a head on fight both aircraft will close each other at the same relative speed. The situation is the same for both pilots no matter how much faster one aircraft is.



Supercruise increases NEZ of bvr missiles considerably giving it solid advantage in BVR duels,leaving aside advantages in Endurance and detection.
But for a detailed explanation,perhaps a professional @gambit.


----------



## SQ8

> To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting



Perhaps that is what the Chinese are now trying to do. Instead of trying to match the enemy's strengths.. they are trying to look for weaknesses that will exist regardless. A ***** in the Armor so to speak; although for the US that is a very very very difficult thing to find in conventional warfare.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Oscar said:


> Ausairpower is truly one of the most sensationalist websites and relies on dumping of misrepresented information to try and make their point. Which is why .. NO. and NO western air force, or respectable think tank wants to be associated with them.
> The idea by them is to fool laymen by dumping numbers and statistics so that the general populous that is not aware or did not bother to look up the theory is fooled by them. Actual expects will see past these engineering "accountants".
> 
> That being said, non supercruisng or otherwise has little to do with obtaining a lock.. It has to do with reducing the IR signature and fuel efficiency. Dogfighting at supersonic speeds is possible but the pilot is the weak factor here.Moreover, the airframe as to have enough low drag and sufficient thrust so that it is able to maintain speed within a turn.
> 
> What supercruising essentially allows is faster Time on Target due to the ability to maintain a higher speed for a longer time AND the ability to use that higher speed to provide greater Kinematic energy to weapons released. If one looks at the shapes of fighters such as the J-20 and PAK-FA.. it comes to pass with the design of the J-20 that it is much more suited to flight in the supersonic regime as compared to other platforms(after all, the long thin delta has been the holder of speed records and offers the lowest drag as such.. but here it may be different). Hence, the J-20(if given the right engines or equal T/W ratio as the PAK-FA or the F-22 might have less difficulty slipping into the supersonic region as compared to the rest.
> J-20: China's ultimate aircraft carrier-killer? | The DEW Line
> 
> The article states the same.. so in essence the J-20 may be designed for an ENTIRELY different purpose than the F-22 and PAK-FA.. and may be more comparable to the FB-22 concept. Its shaping would allow it to get close enough and at supercruise to American High Value Air Assets like the E-3 or otherwise and attack them in a pass and GET OUT as fast as well. Perhaps , it is purposefully designed to avoid the dogfight and is more like the Mig-31 than a F-15; except that its a very stealthy Mig-31 and that is in itself a very deadly platform.
> 
> Because if you look at it, spotting something like the F-22 will be very very difficult for even something like the J-20. And for it to engage it in A2A combat is also folly. However, if such an aircraft can simply slip past the F-22's and other assets to strike at the main keystone like AWACS or Carriers.. then it sort of solves the problem for the Chinese in a way.
> There were recent reports that US Navy ordered some panic upgrades to their naval ECM systems.. which means that something was developed which they found out about that caused them to panic; could the J-20 be part of that mix?
> After all, the Chinese are smart learners and they are learning. Perhaps they figured that instead of fighting the Americans pound for pound.. why not find a way around them? Asymmetric warfare to their approach.



I agree with much of you,but one thing is AWACS and high value assets always have powerful escorts.
Except that agreed.


----------



## SQ8

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Supercruise increases NEZ of bvr missiles considerably giving it solid advantage in BVR duels,leaving aside advantages in Endurance and detection.
> But for a detailed explanation,perhaps a professional @gambit.



I would not invite gambit here as it gets personal for many members and does not stay professional.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Oscar said:


> Perhaps that is what the Chinese are now trying to do. Instead of trying to match the enemy's strengths.. they are trying to look for weaknesses that will exist regardless. A ***** in the Armor so to speak; although for the US that is a very very very difficult thing to find in conventional warfare.



Some have stated that j-20 may be a low observable strike fighter to be used like tu-22m to attack carriers and as u said command and control assets in conjunction with land based ballistic missiles and naval platforms.



Oscar said:


> I would not invite gambit here as it gets personal for many members and does not stay professional.



Hmm..any other proffesionals?Death by chocolate?


----------



## SQ8

AUSTERLITZ said:


> I agree with much of you,but one thing is AWACS and high value assets always have powerful escorts.
> Except that agreed.



But thats exactly what it is. It does not have to close into the AWACS.. it simply has to get within employment range of weapons that can track and take down the AWACS. Which its low frontal RCS allows it to do.. the J-20 is not all aspect LO especially with those canards and Chinese patents allude to algorithms that compute the lowest RCS with the Canards for the aircraft based on a target or direction(the Eurofighter and Rafale use similar algo's)



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Some have stated that j-20 may be a low observable strike fighter to be used like tu-22m to attack carriers and as u said command and control assets in conjunction with land based ballistic missiles and naval platforms.



Either way, the problem is with people trying to compare oranges and apples. The J-20 is perhaps not even in the category of aircraft that the F-22 and PAK-FA are.. and so trying to compare a interceptor/strike with air dominance fighters is ... Stupid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Anyway we will know for sure in coming 5 yrs or so about both j-31 and j-20.Till then i agree perhaps this comparison is premature.


----------



## RAMPAGE

@Oscar Sir , @AUSTERLITZ how can we say that j-20 is an interceptor rather than an air superiority aircraft ?


----------



## SQ8

RAMPAGE said:


> @Oscar Sir , @AUSTERLITZ how can we say that j-20 is an interceptor rather than an air superiority aircraft ?



Read the article first and then think of the shaping of the aircraft based on what has been written in there and what we were discussing. It is designed to go fast very quickly and stay fast for a long time.. add to that it is stealthy from the front.. and it will add together.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAMPAGE

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Indeed it can't as its not meant as air superiority fighter.This j-31 would have no chance vs pak fa or f-22.@gambit


how did u make that assumption ???


----------



## gambit

SinoSoldier said:


> *Supercruise* is a testament to the aircraft's aerodynamics and somewhat thrust to weight ratio, but pragmatically speaking such a feat *is not useful in actual combat.*


Bullsh1t. If supercruise have no utility in combat, which begins at the moment of adversary detection and not ACM, then why is China trying to achieve supercruise in the new J-20?



SinoSoldier said:


> Supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic flight without engine reheat, which is barely fast enough when compared with modern maximum speeds. Kinetic energy can be maintained by supercruise or by *engine reheat*, sometimes with the latter being more useful since it can *provide rapid variation of thrust in a short time period.* In fact there has been no case in history where aircraft maintained their cruise speed during a high intensity dogfight. In such dogfights one can be guaranteed that afterburners will be used to propel the aircraft to its highest speed, at which point preservation of kinetic energy is no longer a concern since the aircrafts' speed in a fight will outstrip that of cruise speed.


And that is why supercruise is so useful -- fuel quantity available for those rapid throttle movements. You get to the fight with as much maneuvering fuel as you can.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> I would not invite gambit here as it gets personal for many members and does not stay professional.


This is a maturity issue for the Chinese members here. I have yet to conduct -- with a Chinese member -- a rational debate on purely technical grounds where the person have the maturity to concede that he is either mistaken, uninformed, uneducated, or simply flat out misunderstood.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> This is a maturity issue for the Chinese members here. I have yet to conduct -- with a Chinese member -- a rational debate on purely technical grounds where the person have the maturity to concede that he is either mistaken, uninformed, uneducated, or simply flat out misunderstood.



The problem is with all fanboys from anywhere in the world. They are unable to accept the shortcomings and in that fervour do not give the chance for actual praise to arrive. The F-22 has its limitations as does the F-35. so does the PAK-FA and many other fighters. However the approach of all praise and all critique is unrealistic.

Which brings another question into my mind.. What is more important? Shaping or Coatings.. or rather.. how much can you achieve with coatings alone or shaping alone. 
It would be great if you could answer that here
http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/73549-fundamentals-stealth-design-concepts-rcs-reduction-3.html


----------



## gambit

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Still can't supercruise,but yes as low observable strike aircraft why not. @gambit
> *How does thrust work for 2 engines?Just addition of 2 thrusts?*I doubt it.


Essentially -- yes.

Patent US5480107 - 3x multi-engine jet configuration - Google Patents


> 2x Conventional Jet. This represents modeled data based upon a popular entry level business jet in current use, and generally depicted in FIG. 6. *The 2x conventional Jet* uses twin WILLIAMS/ROLLS ROYCE-manufactured engines (32 and 34 with reference to FIG. 6) *of 1,900 pounds thrust each.* The engines are mounted on the left and right rear of the fuselage and will be referred to as 1x (left) and 1x (right). The 2x conventional jet will develop a *total (2x) thrust of 3,800 pounds.*


But there are many factors that affect the attainment of a desired speed.

Two aircrafts comes to mind: SR-71 and F-104. Both have shapes that are optimized for acceleration (which is not the same as speed), speed, then the sustainment of said speed.

For multi-engine aircrafts, asymmetric thrust affects acceleration, speed, and sustainment of achieved speed. This is simple for the fact that the aircraft should present the least drag profile to the airstream. Asymmetric thrust, especially for the SR-71 with its wide engine spacing, will probably prevent Mach, let alone sustain it. The F-104 would not have this potential problem.

Another factor is drag from the engine itself. A ramjet have no moving parts and therefore the least drag loss to affect net thrust. On the other hand, a turbo-whatever have plenty of moving parts, especially the fan stages that must be exposed to incoming airstream in order to have air to create the air-fuel mixture and burn it.

Then add in airframe design which give aerodynamics, and weight and we have plenty of variables that can prevent an aircraft from attaining supercruise despite being multi-engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

SinoSoldier said:


> Supercruise is a testament to the aircraft's aerodynamics and somewhat thrust to weight ratio, but pragmatically speaking such a feat is not useful in actual combat. Supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic flight without engine reheat, which is barely fast enough when compared with modern maximum speeds. Kinetic energy can be maintained by supercruise or by engine reheat, sometimes with the latter being more useful since it can provide rapid variation of thrust in a short time period. In fact there has been no case in history where aircraft maintained their cruise speed during a high intensity dogfight. In such dogfights one can be guaranteed that afterburners will be used to propel the aircraft to its highest speed, at which point preservation of kinetic energy is no longer a concern since the aircrafts' speed in a fight will outstrip that of cruise speed.
> 
> It can somewhat "preserve" the IR stealthiness of an aircraft but that is no different if the aircraft simply went in at subsonic speeds. In fact level flight at subsonic speeds tend to save a lot more fuel.
> 
> Your talk of two fighters going head on is impractical. It takes two to tango and if one aircraft goes supersonic, then it will too have to face the threat of closing in on the enemy fast; it is the combined relative velocities of the two aircraft that matter, not just one. And none of that has any effect on the early detection and shoot capabilities of the parties.



That's where you are wrong.....

In Aerial combat, the most important thing regardless of dogfight or BVR is "Energy" you have to have the energy to perform certain task, dogfight for one, evading a missile is another. 

Super-cruise translate to Aircraft that get more energy without the need to turn on "afterburner" thus saving fuel.

The longer you dogfight, the more fuel you will use, and you will *WANT THE LAST DROP OF IT TO LAST, WITH THE MOST ENERGY AS YOU COULD GET*. Hence super-cruise is important for any aerial engagement.

Unless you claim J-20 can hold "unlimited" amount of fuel so it will never ran out during dogfight, then super cruise is quite important.



Oscar said:


> Ausairpower is truly one of the most sensationalist websites and relies on dumping of misrepresented information to try and make their point. Which is why .. NO. and NO western air force, or respectable think tank wants to be associated with them.
> The idea by them is to fool laymen by dumping numbers and statistics so that the general populous that is not aware or did not bother to look up the theory is fooled by them. Actual expects will see past these engineering "accountants".
> 
> That being said, non supercruisng or otherwise has little to do with obtaining a lock.. It has to do with reducing the IR signature and fuel efficiency. Dogfighting at supersonic speeds is possible but the pilot is the weak factor here.Moreover, the airframe as to have enough low drag and sufficient thrust so that it is able to maintain speed within a turn.
> 
> What supercruising essentially allows is faster Time on Target due to the ability to maintain a higher speed for a longer time AND the ability to use that higher speed to provide greater Kinematic energy to weapons released. If one looks at the shapes of fighters such as the J-20 and PAK-FA.. it comes to pass with the design of the J-20 that it is much more suited to flight in the supersonic regime as compared to other platforms(after all, the long thin delta has been the holder of speed records and offers the lowest drag as such.. but here it may be different). Hence, the J-20(if given the right engines or equal T/W ratio as the PAK-FA or the F-22 might have less difficulty slipping into the supersonic region as compared to the rest.
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/j-20-chinas-ultimate-aircraft/
> 
> The article states the same.. so in essence the J-20 may be designed for an ENTIRELY different purpose than the F-22 and PAK-FA.. and may be more comparable to the FB-22 concept. Its shaping would allow it to get close enough and at supercruise to American High Value Air Assets like the E-3 or otherwise and attack them in a pass and GET OUT as fast as well. Perhaps , it is purposefully designed to avoid the dogfight and is more like the Mig-31 than a F-15; except that its a very stealthy Mig-31 and that is in itself a very deadly platform.
> 
> Because if you look at it, spotting something like the F-22 will be very very difficult for even something like the J-20. And for it to engage it in A2A combat is also folly. However, if such an aircraft can simply slip past the F-22's and other assets to strike at the main keystone like AWACS or Carriers.. then it sort of solves the problem for the Chinese in a way.
> There were recent reports that US Navy ordered some panic upgrades to their naval ECM systems.. which means that something was developed which they found out about that caused them to panic; could the J-20 be part of that mix?
> After all, the Chinese are smart learners and they are learning. Perhaps they figured that instead of fighting the Americans pound for pound.. why not find a way around them? Asymmetric warfare to their approach.



everybody knows Aus Air Power is just a shame media created by Carlo Kopps (Psuedo-Aviation expert) that have a real stain against the RAAF, and Ausairpower was the media to let out those rant. It have 0 value toward any actual aviation science nor technology.

It's just a ranting publication coming out of the mouth of self-proclaime over zealous aviation expert who only have a PhD in Computer Science and been in a simulator 3 times.......

It's a shame of Australia really......


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> Which brings another question into my mind.. *What is more important? Shaping or Coatings*.. or rather.. how much can you achieve with coatings alone or shaping alone.









See those gray-ish areas at the edges? Those are absorbers. For the F-22 and F-35, the dominant method for RCS control is shaping, and much much less than the F-117 in absorbers. The edges are treated with absorbers to control and reduce, not eliminate, the edge diffraction mode of radiation. We have to do this because an aircraft is a finite body and surface traveling waves must exit some time somewhere. For now, shaping is more important, more like 90% of the endeavor.

The 'stealth' community as a whole, and that includes allies and potential adversaries, is still facing serious technical hurdles in active cancellation at the material level. The US is quite ahead of the rest of this community but that does not rule out the chance that someone somewhere may have an accidental discovery in composite formulation that will propel his country into the lead. The SPECTRA method is active cancellation at the signal level and there are far too much lag times in threat signal analyses to make this method a viable 'counter-stealth', especially when the threat is wielding AESA.

Active cancellation at the material level is the Holy Grail of 'stealth'.






The above is passive cancellation and is not useful against what is bandied around as 'long wavelengths'. More accurately should be 'longer' than X-band wavelengths. The thicker the absorber, the greater the weight penalty, so most absorber destined for airborne applications are limited to the high centimetric (X-band) wavelengths. Put the F-22 inside a meters length radar, HF or UHF, and it will lit up like fireworks.

Active cancellation at the material level would render all wavelengths ineffective. The pulse's leading edge would be electrically cancelled the moment it penetrated the material and that cancellation signal would continue to exist until the pulse's trailing edge completed its entry. The threat signal would be the trigger so essentially, these 'smart' absorber would be EM silent, giving nothing away of its nature. With active cancellation at the material level, even the spinning prop of a prop jobber would be undetectable.



Oscar said:


> It would be great if you could answer that here
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/73549-fundamentals-stealth-design-concepts-rcs-reduction-3.html


I contributed a post hinting at the necessary computational power to predict and verify if one's shaping achieved a certain RCS goal.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

gambit said:


> Bullsh1t. If supercruise have no utility in combat, which begins at the moment of adversary detection and not ACM, then why is China trying to achieve supercruise in the new J-20?
> 
> 
> And that is why supercruise is so useful -- fuel quantity available for those rapid throttle movements. You get to the fight with as much maneuvering fuel as you can.



The important factor is fuel quantity, then, not the fact that supercruise itself somehow helps during dogfights.



Oscar said:


> Ausairpower is truly one of the most sensationalist websites and relies on dumping of misrepresented information to try and make their point. Which is why .. NO. and NO western air force, or respectable think tank wants to be associated with them.
> The idea by them is to fool laymen by dumping numbers and statistics so that the general populous that is not aware or did not bother to look up the theory is fooled by them. Actual expects will see past these engineering "accountants".
> 
> That being said, non supercruisng or otherwise has little to do with obtaining a lock.. It has to do with reducing the IR signature and fuel efficiency. Dogfighting at supersonic speeds is possible but the pilot is the weak factor here.Moreover, the airframe as to have enough low drag and sufficient thrust so that it is able to maintain speed within a turn.
> 
> What supercruising essentially allows is faster Time on Target due to the ability to maintain a higher speed for a longer time AND the ability to use that higher speed to provide greater Kinematic energy to weapons released. If one looks at the shapes of fighters such as the J-20 and PAK-FA.. it comes to pass with the design of the J-20 that it is much more suited to flight in the supersonic regime as compared to other platforms(after all, the long thin delta has been the holder of speed records and offers the lowest drag as such.. but here it may be different). Hence, the J-20(if given the right engines or equal T/W ratio as the PAK-FA or the F-22 might have less difficulty slipping into the supersonic region as compared to the rest.
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/j-20-chinas-ultimate-aircraft/
> 
> The article states the same.. so in essence the J-20 may be designed for an ENTIRELY different purpose than the F-22 and PAK-FA.. and may be more comparable to the FB-22 concept. Its shaping would allow it to get close enough and at supercruise to American High Value Air Assets like the E-3 or otherwise and attack them in a pass and GET OUT as fast as well. Perhaps , it is purposefully designed to avoid the dogfight and is more like the Mig-31 than a F-15; except that its a very stealthy Mig-31 and that is in itself a very deadly platform.
> 
> Because if you look at it, spotting something like the F-22 will be very very difficult for even something like the J-20. And for it to engage it in A2A combat is also folly. However, if such an aircraft can simply slip past the F-22's and other assets to strike at the main keystone like AWACS or Carriers.. then it sort of solves the problem for the Chinese in a way.
> There were recent reports that US Navy ordered some panic upgrades to their naval ECM systems.. which means that something was developed which they found out about that caused them to panic; could the J-20 be part of that mix?
> After all, the Chinese are smart learners and they are learning. Perhaps they figured that instead of fighting the Americans pound for pound.. why not find a way around them? Asymmetric warfare to their approach.



Honestly I think the J-20 is specifically designed for close range dogfights, knowing that its stealth probably won't be as great as the F-22. They wouldn't be putting 180 kN engines and a canard delta design if that wasn't the case. High speed was also an emphasis, but much less so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Oscar said:


> But thats exactly what it is. It does not have to close into the AWACS.. it simply has to get within employment range of weapons that can track and take down the AWACS. Which its low frontal RCS allows it to do.. the J-20 is not all aspect LO especially with those canards and Chinese patents allude to algorithms that compute the lowest RCS with the Canards for the aircraft based on a target or direction(the Eurofighter and Rafale use similar algo's)



IMHO canards don't contribute much energy return at all. They are essentially a pair of airfoils that are parallel to the planform during interception missions. Only when they actuate do they generate some RCS, by which time the aircraft would probably be in close range and stealth would not matter much anyways. The F/A-XX proposal had canards in the same style as J-20.





Oscar said:


> Either way, the problem is with people trying to compare oranges and apples. The J-20 is perhaps not even in the category of aircraft that the F-22 and PAK-FA are.. and so trying to compare a interceptor/strike with air dominance fighters is ... Stupid.



The J-20 is not an interceptor. If it was they wouldn't be putting 180 kN engines for thrust to weight ratio as well as the proven canard delta design for high AoA. The Chinese military insiders stated that the J-20 sacrificed some of its VLO for agility.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

SinoSoldier said:


> The important factor is fuel quantity, then, *not the fact that supercruise itself somehow helps during dogfights.
> *




And with supercruise an aircraft consumes less fuel and stays in the fight longer, which also translates to longer range, range that can be exploited to achieve longer strike missions or penetrate further to engage enemy aircraft. Consider that during both interception missions as well as dogfights the afterburner is often used. 

From an enemy stand point an opponent with supercruise will pose enormous challenges to opposing aircraft that try to intercept or engage the aircraft with supercruise. One story that comes to mind was the YF-23 test pilot and his admission that the chase aircraft that was tasked with flying along side the YF-23 was struggling to keep up with the YF-23 so much so that the chase aircraft had to engage afterburners while the YF-23 was casually cruising. The YF-23 pilot was not even aware that the chase plane was struggling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> ice bomb said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Amnesia. It is you. Here, let me help you.
> 
> 
> 
> And bringing up j-20 in a thread titled j-20 is wrong?LOL.
> I also brought up raptor and pak-fa not only j-20.All 5 were brought up as these are the only 5th gen fighters revealed atm.
> I also remember u from the other discussion where u ran away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with that except you were talking about j-31 as an air superiority fighter which is plain wrong.
> Yah, I did run away from you. When you lack basic knowledges like that. Why should I waste my precious time on you?
> 
> 
> 
> SinoSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does. It will be equipped with the 180 kN WS-15 engine. The engine core was completed in 2006 and was rumored to be tested in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> The J-31 as of now does not need those engines since it is still in flight testing phase. The picture that's in front of you is already from an official release.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont need them or dont have them? You tell me they will say no to the engines if there were ready? They are using russian engines just like J-20 for one simple reason. Chinese engines are not yet ready for flight testings. Period.
> 
> Btw there is no more updated official release than the one I presented to you. Read it again. It is from 2013.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice bomb

gambit said:


> I contributed a post hinting at the necessary computational power to predict and verify if one's shaping achieved a certain RCS goal.



I will assume it is more a software issue than raw computerpower. You need to know what to put into the computers. After all both India and China got supercomputers. It cant be just about computerpower.


----------



## Beast

Oscar said:


> But thats exactly what it is. It does not have to close into the AWACS.. it simply has to get within employment range of weapons that can track and take down the AWACS. Which its low frontal RCS allows it to do.. the J-20 is not all aspect LO especially with those canards and Chinese patents allude to algorithms that compute the lowest RCS with the Canards for the aircraft based on a target or direction(the Eurofighter and Rafale use similar algo's)
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, the problem is with people trying to compare oranges and apples. The J-20 is perhaps not even in the category of aircraft that the F-22 and PAK-FA are.. and so trying to compare a interceptor/strike with air dominance fighters is ... Stupid.



It is appalling moderator of PK forum flying a pakistan flag don't even have the slightest knowledge of what J-20 intent to do. Perhap you shall keep your comment straightly on Pakistan military affair. 

J-20 is a interceptor? 
J-20 is not even in the league of PAK FA? 

 is it some kind of joke?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice bomb

Beast said:


> It is appalling moderator of PK forum don't even have the slightest knowledge of what J-20 intent to do. Perhap you shall keep your comment straightly on Pakistan military affair.
> 
> J-20 is a interceptor?
> J-20 is not even in the league of PAK FA?
> 
> is it something of joke?




Apart from the comment that J-20 is an interceptor, he is basically right. 
J-20 as of now with russian engines isnt gonna match PAK FA or even T-50 for that matter.


----------



## Beast

ice bomb said:


> Apart from the comment that J-20 is an interceptor, he is basically right.
> J-20 as of now with russian engines isnt gonna match PAK FA or even T-50 for that matter.



No bro. j-20 shaping is far superior in terms of stealth compare to PAK FA. Even Russian general admit PAF KA stealth is inferior to F-22, of cos Russian will stop short of calling their T-50 inferior to Chinese. If you think just having a superior engine will mean everything then why shall we called those thing 5th generation fighter?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Beast said:


> It is appalling moderator of PK forum flying a pakistan flag don't even have the slightest knowledge of what J-20 intent to do. Perhap you shall keep your comment straightly on Pakistan military affair.
> 
> J-20 is a interceptor?
> J-20 is not even in the league of PAK FA?
> 
> is it some kind of joke?



It is appalling that a citizen of a generally sensible nation has little to show for his posts other than pointless attacks, perhaps it is then best to keep such citizens off their own threads to ensure that they dont insult their own country. 

I stand by my opinion on the J-20's role.. It may be a good dogfighter but in a turning fight it will lose to the PAK-FA or F-22...where it may beat them is within supercruise.


----------



## Argus Panoptes

Oscar said:


> It is appalling that a citizen of a generally sensible nation has little to show for his posts other than pointless attacks, perhaps it is then best to keep such citizens off their own threads to ensure that they dont insult their own country.
> 
> I stand by my opinion on the J-20's role..* It may be a good dogfighter but in a turning fight it will lose to the PAK-FA or F-22*...where it may beat them is within supercruise.



What is the likelihood that an F-22 will be ever drawn into a dogfight against any opponent? Slim to none. BVR technology will win.


----------



## SQ8

Argus Panoptes said:


> What is the likelihood that an F-22 will be ever drawn into a dogfight against any opponent? Slim to none. BVR technology will win.



Which is why the J-20 seems to be focused on avoiding getting seen by or getting into a brawl by the F-22 or PAK-FA.. 
Its a sneaky aircraft designed to slip through and hit the enemy where it hurts the most.


----------



## Argus Panoptes

Oscar said:


> Which is why the J-20 seems to be focused on avoiding getting seen by or getting into a brawl by the F-22 or PAK-FA..
> *Its a sneaky aircraft designed to slip through and hit the enemy where it hurts the most.*



That is the future of nearly all frontline aircraft. The next major step would be networked swarms of smaller drones controlled by sneaky F-22/J-20/PAK-FA developments acting as area nodes, backed up by large AWACS and satellites.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice bomb

Beast said:


> No bro. j-20 shaping is far superior in terms of stealth compare to PAK FA. Even Russian general admit PAF KA stealth is inferior to F-22, of cos Russian will stop short of calling their T-50 inferior to Chinese. If you think just having a superior engine will mean everything then why shall we called those thing 5th generation fighter?



There is no way you can know that. The only way to tell is through a radar. Not through naked eyes. 
I see no reason to underestimate the Russian. I am sure their designers know that there is more to VLO fighters than a superior engines, or you think chinese designers are ahead of russians now? You dont really believe that, do you?


----------



## Lure

ice bomb said:


> I will assume it is more a software issue than raw computerpower. You need to know what to put into the computers. After all both India and China got supercomputers. It cant be just about computerpower.



It's not about the supercomputers on the ground. It's about the amount of computational power that you can put inside a radar. Crunching the data comes from the radar signals is very straightforward. There is no magic algorithm that can solve the issue. If you want to detect a stealth plane you need to be able to distinguish the shape a bug from the shape of the plane. Yeah those planes has the RCS of a bug in the sky you heard it right. What you need is being able to process enormous amount of data. Think of this like taking a photo. If you want to identify very small objects on a photograph you need higher resolution (which means higher amount of data) than you run some bunch of Machine Learning algorithms which distinguishes a plane from another small objects that might be in the air with similar RCS. The implementation of Machine Learning algorithms are pretty straightforward. You can find tons of libraries online.

The main problem is (if you know discrete math) as your input data rises in quantity (remember the resolution analogy) your computational requirements for processing data increases depending on your algorithm. The effective Machine Learning algorithms that has very low probability of false positive or negative rate (i.e very good performance of confusion matrix) has exponential boundries. Which means that as your input increases the amount of computational power needed to process the data rises exponentially. 

That's why you need to be able to put higher amount of processing power to radars. You do achieve it in two ways. You parallelize your system and put high amount of cores in it which has a certain pay off though. You can't exploit that too much. If you put too much cores and parallelize your system a lot you come to an equillibrium point where afterwards your processing capability gets decreased. Because process intercommunication dominates the computational time. 

Second way is waiting for the Moore's law and hope that in the future you will be able to put enough transistors in a certain volume which will make your processors work on higher clock cycle and which means faster data processing. 

Also there are minor architectural changes inside the cores which makes them more efficient but that has a minor effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## conworldus

You stirred up a hornet nests of the Indians trolls, bro. If the Indians, including Mr Austerlitz, understand stealth, they wouldn't be buying T-50 from Russia in the first place. Every time India fails, Indians will blame their "corrupt" politician. Their real problem is the lack of quality human capital in the greater population, and that's reflected by the ignorance of Indian members here.




cirr said:


> J-20 making great strides&#12290;
> 
> Barring any major setback&#65292;state &#8220;A&#8221; induction in 2015 almost a certainty&#12290;
> 
> Watch this space&#12290;
> 
> 
> 
> Even with canards&#65292;J-20's stealth is much better than your Russian junk the induction of which is a distant dream and after many more billions of dollars on top of what are already committed&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

conworldus said:


> You stirred up a hornet nests of the Indians trolls, bro. *If the Indians, including Mr Austerlitz, understand stealth, they wouldn't be buying T-50 from Russia* in the first place. Every time India fails, Indians will blame their "corrupt" politician. Their real problem is the lack of quality human capital in the greater population, and that's reflected by the ignorance of Indian members here.



I wish the designers at Sukhoi and HAL were as smart and knowlagable as the people on this forum. It sure does seem that there is a lot of Chinese aerospace engineers and scientists that specialize in electro magnetic frequencies reduction and they all just seem to be members of pkd forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Side-Winder

T-50 may be good but ofcourse can't be as stealthy as raptor or J-20
somewhat comparable to F-35 -- talking of 'stealth'


----------



## SQ8

ptldM3 said:


> I wish the designers at Sukhoi and HAL were as smart and knowlagable as the people on this forum. It sure does seem that there is a lot of Chinese aerospace engineers and scientists that specialize in electro magnetic frequencies reduction and they all just seem to be members of pkd forum.



The question is not of one nationality but of all. You will go all out in defending Russian equipment even if it borders on the ridiculous as will those from India. Pakistanis will try to paint the JF-17 as the next best thing to happen after the Jet engine and the Chinese will try to defend their attempts to catch up to the world. But for those who actually love aviation.. and I mean aviation and not just loose babbles..they will see beyond these diatribes and focus on the facts.

*Fact:* Neither the T-50 nor the J-20 are ever going to match the F-22 for overall stealth simply because they lag behind in the field. Because of which both designs are looking to build their strengths in certain areas ahead of the F-22. The T-50 for eg is relying on being a better air combat fighter than the F-22 and try to get close enough to engage it. The J-20 is looking to simply scoot past the F-22 to get at the targets which are being defended. 

*Plausible Fact:* There are ONLY 182 F-22s that are going to be out there and they cost a fortune to build, they also will not be used by anybody else other than the USAF. The exact costs of the T-50 and J-20 are still unknown but it is certain that there will be definitely more built of each than the F-22. They will however face a larger number of F-35s which rely on a balance of sensors and stealth; a balance that is superior to whatever the Russians or the Chinese will field. To this end the Chinese are ahead of the Russians in the hi-lo mix of 5th gen fighter programs but the Russians already have a proven platform in the Su-35 series to make life for the F-35 a little less easy.

The current Shaping on the J-20 or rather the stealth efforts are different to the T-50. The T-50 looks more to be a compromise for a low rcs in the front 200 sphere while the J-20 will probably present a lower frontal RCS than the T-50. In air combat, if high boresight missiles are taken out of the mix, both the T-50 and F-22 will eat the J-20 for lunch. However, the J-20 may have a high instantaneous turn rate courtesy of the delta and huge canards which will allow it to take its pot shots at either fighter should they face an encounter. Moreover, the J-20's recent reveal of the WVR aam missile bays seems to suggest a philosophy of relying on the missiles IR seeker knowing that it will not be able to get a radar lock on a stealth system. Which is why I further support the idea that the J-20 is not looking to engage either fighter in WVR unless it really has to. That doesn't mean it cant hold its own against a 4th gen aircraft like the F-16 and perhaps even match the F-35.. but essentially against the two purposefully designed air dominance fighters it will most likely lose if not for high boresight weapons.

Which brings us to sensors and electronics on the J-20 which re an unknown but with its huge nose it is likely it could hold an excellent long range and powerful AESA package(provided the reliability and sophistication of Chinese electronics manufacturing matches it) that would allow it to engage at fairly long ranges and(if the Chinese crack the LPI equation) be able to target and kill High Value assets like AWACS and ELINT assets without their escorts having time to react. 

A lot of this game is about sensor and electronics sophistication; a field where as much as pride and nationalism hurts.. the Americans are far ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Lure

Oscar said:


> The question is not of one nationality but of all. You will go all out in defending Russian equipment even if it borders on the ridiculous as will those from India. Pakistanis will try to paint the JF-17 as the next best thing to happen after the Jet engine and the Chinese will try to defend their attempts to catch up to the world. But for those who actually love aviation.. and I mean aviation and not just loose babbles..they will see beyond these diatribes and focus on the facts.



Nationalism is a disease that makes you distort the facts. 



> *Fact:* Neither the T-50 nor the J-20 are ever going to match the F-22 for overall stealth simply because they lag behind in the field. Because of which both designs are looking to build their strengths in certain areas ahead of the F-22. The T-50 for eg is relying on being a better air combat fighter than the F-22 and try to get close enough to engage it. The J-20 is looking to simply scoot past the F-22 to get at the targets which are being defended.



But prejudice also is..


----------



## SQ8

Lure said:


> Nationalism is a disease that makes you distort the facts.
> 
> But prejudice also is..



Which is why one must be very very objective in making the analysis. And not cheer based on underdog puppy syndrome.


----------



## Lure

Oscar said:


> Which is why one must be very very objective in making the analysis. And not cheer based on underdog puppy syndrome.



And also one needs to be patient enough to see the final work before making a judgement. Speculation is not a data.


----------



## Lure

ptldM3 said:


> I wish the designers at Sukhoi and HAL were as smart and knowlagable as the people on this forum. It sure does seem that there is a lot of Chinese aerospace engineers and scientists that specialize in electro magnetic frequencies reduction and they all just seem to be members of pkd forum.



Don't mind him. He is not mature enough to see who is his nation's real competitor is. I can't understand why some Chinese members doesn't respect their alliance with Russians. China-Russia partnership is very very important in today's international politics. And this partnership should advance, not go backwards because of selfish pride.


----------



## Snowden

Oscar said:


> The question is not of one nationality but of all. You will go all out in defending Russian equipment even if it borders on the ridiculous as will those from India. Pakistanis will try to paint the JF-17 as the next best thing to happen after the Jet engine and the Chinese will try to defend their attempts to catch up to the world. But for those who actually love aviation.. and I mean aviation and not just loose babbles..they will see beyond these diatribes and focus on the facts.
> 
> *Fact:* Neither the T-50 nor the J-20 are ever going to match the F-22 for overall stealth simply because they lag behind in the field. Because of which both designs are looking to build their strengths in certain areas ahead of the F-22. The T-50 for eg is relying on being a better air combat fighter than the F-22 and try to get close enough to engage it. The J-20 is looking to simply scoot past the F-22 to get at the targets which are being defended.
> 
> *Plausible Fact:* There are ONLY 182 F-22s that are going to be out there and they cost a fortune to build, they also will not be used by anybody else other than the USAF. The exact costs of the T-50 and J-20 are still unknown but it is certain that there will be definitely more built of each than the F-22. They will however face a larger number of F-35s which rely on a balance of sensors and stealth; a balance that is superior to whatever the Russians or the Chinese will field. To this end the Chinese are ahead of the Russians in the hi-lo mix of 5th gen fighter programs but the Russians already have a proven platform in the Su-35 series to make life for the F-35 a little less easy.
> 
> The current Shaping on the J-20 or rather the stealth efforts are different to the T-50. The T-50 looks more to be a compromise for a low rcs in the front 200 sphere while the J-20 will probably present a lower frontal RCS than the T-50. In air combat, if high boresight missiles are taken out of the mix, both the T-50 and F-22 will eat the J-20 for lunch. However, the J-20 may have a high instantaneous turn rate courtesy of the delta and huge canards which will allow it to take its pot shots at either fighter should they face an encounter. Moreover, the J-20's recent reveal of the WVR aam missile bays seems to suggest a philosophy of relying on the missiles IR seeker knowing that it will not be able to get a radar lock on a stealth system. Which is why I further support the idea that the J-20 is not looking to engage either fighter in WVR unless it really has to. That doesn't mean it cant hold its own against a 4th gen aircraft like the F-16 and perhaps even match the F-35.. but essentially against the two purposefully designed air dominance fighters it will most likely lose if not for high boresight weapons.
> 
> Which brings us to sensors and electronics on the J-20 which re an unknown but with its huge nose it is likely it could hold an excellent long range and powerful AESA package(provided the reliability and sophistication of Chinese electronics manufacturing matches it) that would allow it to engage at fairly long ranges and(if the Chinese crack the LPI equation) be able to target and kill High Value assets like AWACS and ELINT assets without their escorts having time to react.
> 
> A lot of this game is about sensor and electronics sophistication; a field where as much as pride and nationalism hurts.. the Americans are far ahead.



The F-22 is just as unproven as the J-20. Has it ever seen actual combat against a opposition fighter with a very good pilot? No.
The F-22 is more like an American propaganda campaign than actual capability.

You and the Indians have bought into superb American propaganda about how great the F-22 is. If it is as great as they say it is, prove it. 

I'm skeptical how *YOU* know the difference in capability between US, Russia and China. 
How do you know what the J-20 has?



Oscar said:


> Which is why one must be very very objective in making the analysis. And not cheer based on underdog puppy syndrome.



I agree, the sad thing is you are doing the same thing in reverse.


----------



## SQ8

Snowden said:


> The F-22 is just as unproven as the J-20. Has it ever seen actual combat against a opposition fighter with a very good pilot? No.
> The F-22 is more like an American propaganda campaign than actual capability.
> 
> You and the Indians have bought into superb American propaganda about how great the F-22 is. If it is as great as they say it is, prove it.
> 
> I'm skeptical how *YOU* know the difference in capability between US, Russia and China.
> How do you know what the J-20 has?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the sad thing is you are doing the same thing in reverse.



Reactionaries. You are only shooting tangents without actually putting up relevant questions. 
By your logic, the J-11, the J-10 , the FC-1, the JH-7 are all unproven aircraft that may also be running on propaganda. .. by contrast the Su-27 must be a super fighter since it has at least seen combat in ethopia back in the 90s. 
Learn to debate on logical points instead of shooting tangents on what I know and dont know. Only a fool tries to argue by discrediting the other person because they have NOTHING to argue with. The Americans play their own psychological warfare with the world but reactionary folks like you fall into the worse trap of overconfidence. 
Either focus on the post and rebut that through points, or ill make sure you leave the thread.


----------



## SQ8

Lure said:


> And also one needs to be patient enough to see the* final work *before making a judgement. Speculation is not a data.



Then half of the worlds intelligence agencies would not pass on intelligence at all. After all, the F-15 was built to counter something that wasnt even close to what it was thought to be. Please read my post again and focus on the way it is written. Focus on giving me a counter argument on the "judgement" instead of grammar.


----------



## Obambam

Oscar said:


> Reactionaries. You are only shooting tangents without actually putting up relevant questions.
> By your logic, the J-11, the J-10 , the FC-1, the JH-7 are all unproven aircraft that may also be running on propaganda. .. by contrast the Su-27 must be a super fighter since it has at least seen combat in ethopia back in the 90s.
> Learn to debate on logical points instead of shooting tangents on what I know and dont know. Only a fool tries to argue by discrediting the other person because they have NOTHING to argue with. The Americans play their own psychological warfare with the world but reactionary folks like you fall into the worse trap of overconfidence.
> Either focus on the post and rebut that through points, or ill make sure you leave the thread.



I actually prefer the Northrop's YF-23 over Lockheed's F-22. 

It was 'allegedly' faster and stealthier but the later was chosen because it was more agile. China on the other hand went for canards to give its version of stealth plane added maneuverability.

To me, this suggests that they are not as stealthy as they could have been. Both designs have compromised their stealth for added agility or maneuverability would you not agree?


----------



## Snowden

Oscar said:


> Reactionaries. You are only shooting tangents without actually putting up relevant questions.
> By your logic, the J-11, the J-10 , the FC-1, the JH-7 are all unproven aircraft that may also be running on propaganda. .. by contrast the Su-27 must be a super fighter since it has at least seen combat in ethopia back in the 90s.
> Learn to debate on logical points instead of shooting tangents on what I know and dont know. Only a fool tries to argue by discrediting the other person because they have NOTHING to argue with. The Americans play their own psychological warfare with the world but reactionary folks like you fall into the worse trap of overconfidence.
> Either focus on the post and rebut that through points, or ill make sure you leave the thread.



Provide proof showing what sensors and electronics the J-20 has. You know the J-20 more than anybody in China so I would like to know. Because we Chinese want to learn from experts like yourself about what capability the J-20 has. 

Can you give me a list of what the sensors and electronics the F-22 has that our inferior J-20 don't have?
Just for comparison.

No need to threaten me because I asked a couple of tough questions. I want to learn from anyone that has seen the sensors and electronics of the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SomeGuy

Oscar said:


> *Fact:* Neither the T-50 nor the J-20 are ever going to match the F-22 for overall stealth simply because they lag behind in the field. Because of which both designs are looking to build their strengths in certain areas ahead of the F-22. The T-50 for eg is relying on being a better air combat fighter than the F-22 and try to get close enough to engage it. *The J-20 is looking to simply scoot past the F-22 to get at the targets which are being defended*.



If that were the case then the J-20 shouldn't even have canards since canards can adversely affect stealth and make it a lot harder for the J-20 to 'sneak' by.

I read in an article on this forum a while ago that the reason it has canards is the result of a conscious decision by the designers to enable the J-20 to be highly manoeuvrable even though a high performance engine isn't available at the time.



Oscar said:


> The current Shaping on the J-20 or rather the stealth efforts are different to the T-50. The T-50 looks more to be a compromise for a low rcs in the front 200 sphere while the J-20 will probably present a lower frontal RCS than the T-50. *In air combat, if high boresight missiles are taken out of the mix, both the T-50 and F-22 will eat the J-20 for lunch.*



Where is the data to support this conclusion?
The raptor is the most advanced fighter in service, yet even it is not invincible - recall the exercises between Raptor & Typhoon/Rafale, where the typhoons were able to get the upper hand, and the Rafales were able to hold their own



Oscar said:


> However, the J-20 may have a high instantaneous turn rate courtesy of the *delta and huge canards *which will allow it to take its pot shots at either fighter should they face an encounter.



That, and the two 180kN thrust vectoring WS-15 engines in the production model will make it a highly manoeuvrable fighter.



Oscar said:


> Moreover, the J-20's recent reveal of the WVR aam missile bays seems to suggest a philosophy of relying on the missiles IR seeker *knowing that it will not be able to get a radar lock on a stealth system*. Which is why I further support the idea that the J-20 is not looking to engage either fighter in WVR unless it really has to.



All stealth aircraft are designed to deny the enemy from getting a radar lock, that is the whole point of stealth.
The F-22 & PAK-FA will also have similar difficulty locking the J-20 from distance and vice-versa.
The fact that J-20 has bays for SRAAMs means nothing, F-22 has these bays too and no doubt so will PAK-FA.


----------



## SQ8

Obambam said:


> I actually prefer the Northrop's YF-23 over Lockheed's F-22.
> 
> It was 'allegedly' faster and stealthier but the later was chosen because it was more agile. China on the other hand went for canards to give its version of stealth plane added maneuverability.
> 
> To me, this suggests that they are not as stealthy as they could have been. Both designs have compromised their stealth for added agility or maneuverability would you not agree?



The YF-23 was more stealthier and faster, moreover it matched the YF-22 in terms of aerodynamics performance. 
Why it lost was due to the USAFs then obsession with TVC and more importantly the need to distribute contracts to reliable suppliers. At the time, Boeing and Lockheed were open for contracts and had delivered well on the their previous awarded ones. Northdrop on the other hand was behind schedule and much over budget on the B-2 program.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Snowden said:


> Provide proof showing what sensors and electronics the J-20 has. You know the J-20 more than anybody in China so I would like to know. Because we Chinese want to learn from experts like yourself about what capability the J-20 has.
> 
> *Can you give me a list of what the sensors and electronics the F-22 has that our inferior J-20 don't have?*
> Just for comparison.
> 
> No need to threaten me because* I asked a couple of tough questions*. I want to learn from anyone that has seen the sensors and electronics of the J-20.



You asked no question at all, all you did was continue on the sarcasm line as you are now and have yet to actually ask intelligent questions. Moreover, you did not bother to read the post or are so stuck in your reactionary thought process loop that you fail to see these sentences.


> Which brings us to sensors and electronics on the J-20 which re an unknown but with its huge nose it is likely it could hold an excellent long range and powerful AESA package(provided the reliability and sophistication of Chinese electronics manufacturing matches it) that would allow it to engage at fairly long ranges and(if the Chinese crack the LPI equation) be able to target and kill High Value assets like AWACS and ELINT assets without their escorts having time to react.






SomeGuy said:


> If that were the case then the J-20* shouldn't even have canards since canards can adversely affect stealth and make it a lot harder for the J-20 to 'sneak' by.
> *
> I read in an article on this forum a while ago that the reason it has canards is the result of a conscious decision by the designers to enable the J-20 to be highly manoeuvrable even though a high performance engine isn't available at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the data to support this conclusion?
> The raptor is the most advanced fighter in service, yet even it is not invincible - r*ecall the exercises between Raptor & Typhoon/Rafale, where the typhoons were able to get the upper hand, and the Rafales were able to hold their own
> *
> 
> 
> That, and the two *180kN thrust vectoring WS-15 engines in the production model will make it a highly manoeuvrable fighter*.
> 
> 
> 
> All stealth aircraft are designed to deny the enemy from getting a radar lock, that is the whole point of stealth.
> The F-22 & PAK-FA will also have similar difficulty locking the J-20 from distance and vice-versa.
> *The fact that J-20 has bays for SRAAMs means nothing, F-22 has these bays too and no doubt so will PAK-F*A.



As I said before, please read the post carefully to see what the content suggests. 
The Typhoon and Rafale both use algorithms to minimize the reflectivity of their canards against emitters. By analyzing where the emitter is originating from and using that to position the canards for minimum exposure. There is a publication out by Chinese researchers on exactly that and some searching lead to it. If the Canards are soo poor for stealth then the J-20 isnt a stealth aircraft at all is it? But you state later that it is.. would you please decide what you want to say

Now, the canards do make it maneuverable than most 4th gen fighters but they do not make it better than the F-22 or T-50 in that regard. We have yet to see the TVC engine and considering the pace of Chinese engine development we are unlikely to see it for a while(hopefully sooner). 
Regarding your claims on the Typhoons please have a look at this article before jumping on what you may have read here or there.
F-22 vs Eurofighter BFM in Alaska | The DEW Line



> The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and *slicked off as much as possible* before the encounter with the Raptors, says Grune, who adds that in that configuration, the Typhoon is an &#8220;animal&#8221;.





> A few weeks after I returned from Alaska, I touched base withthe 3rd Wing again. &#8220;*Idid review the HUD footage, a lot of gun shots from the F-22&#8242;s to theEurofighters and not a whole lot coming back*,&#8221; one Raptor pilot told me.



So apparently, it is simply a case of which pilot accounts would you trust? 
Read this one for eg.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-air-force/124858-pafs-exercises-around-world.html#post2024338

As for SRAAM comment, you clearly did not understand the post at all.IR Missiles can be slaved to the radar or can operate uncaged to scan and seek targets. The F-35 for eg will have LOAL(lock on after launch) available or it can lock on via radar and pass that data to the seeker so that once the missile leaves the aircraft it knows where to look. Thus, the aircraft does not spike its RCS due to the weapon bay opening for too long. The J-20's system looks more focused on being able to carry the missile outside of the bay to allow the seeker to acquire the target all on its own without needing the radar cue. Can the F-22's, T-50's, F-35's bays not do so? perhaps.. but the J-20's are the only ones that look designed with this aspect in mind. i.e they are not looking for a stealthy close in fight at all.


----------



## Obambam

Oscar said:


> The YF-23 was more stealthier and faster, moreover it matched the YF-22 in terms of aerodynamics performance.
> Why it lost was due to the USAFs then obsession with TVC and more importantly the need to distribute contracts to reliable suppliers. At the time, Boeing and Lockheed were open for contracts and had delivered well on the their previous awarded ones. Northdrop on the other hand was behind schedule and much over budget on the B-2 program.



It's a shame because YF23 was a great looking bird. But for air superiority with stealth characteristics and from a punctuality perspective, they have chosen the correct plane. They weren't looking for a true stealth bomber afterall. 

I think future aerial warfares will be about stealth drones. Do you agree?


----------



## gambit

SinoSoldier said:


> IMHO canards don't contribute much energy return at all.


Wrong. Based upon what standards to qualify as 'much'?



SinoSoldier said:


> They are essentially a pair of airfoils that are parallel to the planform during interception missions. *Only when they actuate do they generate some RCS,* by which time the aircraft would probably be in close range and stealth would not matter much anyways. The F/A-XX proposal had canards in the same style as J-20.


Wrong. This is one of the biggest misconception about flight controls avionics. You have no credible *TECHNICAL* support for the argument that canards are static at certain flight configs and dynamic at others. Does that mean they cannot be designed to be static at certain flight configs? Yes, they can be, such as weight-on-wheels (WOW) situation...







For the above, the Gripen's canards are fixed to act as speedbrakes during landing. The logic is enabled (not active) when landing gear handle is down, speedbrake switch to 'ON', and weight *IS NOT* on main and nose gear. The logic is un-enabled if the pilot changes his mind and raise the landing gear handle up. But assuming the landing gear handle is down and speedbrake function is 'ON', the logic then becomes active when there is WOW on both main and nose gear. The canards will deflect to a LE down degree as dictated by the brake system engineer to be safest for the aircraft and braking system longevity. By the way, this is a superior method for slowing down a landing aircraft than using drag chute. The drag chute method is simple but maintenance wise it is cumbersome.

But for normal flight, if the canards are designed to be active flight control members, they will be exhibiting movements that will not be visible from afar using cheapo video recording devices such as cell phone cameras. Any pilot who has formation flying experience, which pretty much includes 99.999% of that demographic, will tell you that horizontal stabs and ailerons do move in straight/level flight, especially the horizontal stabs, of which the canards are members of that flight controls avionics sub-group.

As for the argument that the J-20's canards are on the same plane as the main wings...






They are not. Their *ROOTS* may be and indeed they are. But canards themselves are angled like the Rafale's and in RCS controls regarding planforming and alignment, any deviation increases the odds of unpredictable edge diffraction dynamics with nearby structures.

This has been discussed before and conveniently discarded, of course. The argument that the J-20's canards are static in level flight is indicative of ignorance of stability control principles in flight controls avionics, especially in a pitch unstable design with necessary fly-by-wire capability, and presented to deflect the legitimate criticism of the canards in terms of RCS contributorship. That does not mean it cannot be done but until we have the J-20's flight controls avionics engineer lead himself saying so, the default position is that the canards are active flight controls members.


----------



## gambit

ice bomb said:


> *I will assume it is more a software issue than raw computerpower.* You need to know what to put into the computers. After all both India and China got supercomputers. It cant be just about computerpower.


It is both. Can you use a Cray to do: 2+2=4? Yes. It would be grossly overkill, but there is no doubt your hardware will be capable of doing 2+2=4.

I will put it this way to relate to the subject: Software is like wanting X information. Hardware is like having the capability to get X.

Wanting and getting are not the same thing.

The RCS predicting guys says to you: According to our math, if the target maneuvers this way, we would gain 10db in returns but if the target maneuvers the other way, we would lose 30 db in returns and we need you to keep track of both figures.

You, the hardware guy, would need to design and build the necessary equipment for what the RCS guys want. If you are designing a ground radar station, you are not as limited to what you can do in comparison to designing a radar for a missile, which has nosecone dimensions limitations, the missile's body have far less internal volume for your data processing support, and many more limitations.

The same problem applies if you are shaping. If your body maneuvers this way and gain 10 db in returns for the seeking radar and lose 30 db if maneuvers the other way, then you need to re-shape your body so that it will lose 30 db no matter what maneuver.

RCS controls goes this way:

- Prediction
- Modeling
- Measurement

You can reverse the first two items, but measurement remains the final word. If you do not have adequate computational power to support whatever the software want to do, whether you are trying to detect a low radar observable target or trying to shape a body to become a low radar observable target, you will never achieve your goal of creating a 'stealth' aircraft or detecting one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sincity

China already decide to build their stealth fighter with canard configuration. No point to discuss whether canard will reduce the stealthy of J20. All your opinion on the J20 have no impact or added value to the production of J20.


----------



## That Guy

Obambam said:


> It's a shame because YF23 was a great looking bird. But for air superiority with stealth characteristics and from a punctuality perspective, they have chosen the correct plane. They weren't looking for a true stealth bomber afterall.
> 
> I think future aerial warfares will be about stealth drones. Do you agree?



The eventual goal of every army is to remove the human portion of the army. So what if a drone gets shot down? It's not like anyone died, right? And that's exactly what the air force is looking for.


----------



## ice bomb

Snowden said:


> Provide proof showing what sensors and electronics the J-20 has. You know the J-20 more than anybody in China so I would like to know. Because we Chinese want to learn from experts like yourself about what capability the J-20 has.
> 
> Can you give me a list of what the sensors and electronics the F-22 has that our inferior J-20 don't have?
> Just for comparison.
> 
> No need to threaten me because I asked a couple of tough questions. I want to learn from anyone that has seen the sensors and electronics of the J-20.



Hmm, how about the engine for starter? You are still running on russian engines from the 80s.


----------



## hk299792458

Naval version ?


























Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

hk299792458 said:


> Naval version ?



sorry to say this

but how rubbish this pic looks if in reality it really happens it would look like bat wings


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

DrSomnath999 said:


> sorry to say this
> 
> but how rubbish this pic looks if in reality it really happens it would look like bat wings



You never know, Forward swip wing, China don't have yet...can be a variant project on the pipeline: even experimantal fighter is still good achievement as technology demonstrator such as X-29.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## by78

Interesting... It says the J-10B is equipped with Gen 1.5 AESA. I wonder what the Gen 1.0 AESA looks like. It probably never made it to production.


----------



## Akasa

ice bomb said:


> Hmm, how about the engine for starter? You are still running on russian engines from the 80s.



Prototype never uses the same engines for production.


----------



## by78

SinoSoldier said:


> Prototype never uses the same engines for production.



But F-35 prototypes use the same engine for production... Oh wait, F-35 is no longer in prototype stage; it's already in serial production. Silly me.

But what's with all the problems it has with unfinished software, de-lamination of its composite skin, lack of fire suppression systems, neutered performance envelope, problematic helmet, etc.? If F-35 is in production, shouldn't its unit price be stabilized by now and total program cost be coming down?

Maybe ice bomb has some answers.


----------



## siegecrossbow

by78 said:


> Interesting... It says the J-10B is equipped with Gen 1.5 AESA. I wonder what the Gen 1.0 AESA looks like. It probably never made it to production.



I thought that J-10B was supposed to be using PESA but it looks like it was using AESA afterall. Hopefully the AL-31s on the first batch will generate enough power for the gen 1.5 AESA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice bomb

by78 said:


> But F-35 prototypes use the same engine for production... Oh wait, F-35 is no longer in prototype stage; it's already in serial production. Silly me.
> 
> But what's with all the problems it has with unfinished software, de-lamination of its composite skin, lack of fire suppression systems, neutered performance envelope, problematic helmet, etc.? If F-35 is in production, shouldn't its unit price be stabilized by now and total program cost be coming down?
> 
> Maybe ice bomb has some answers.



F-35 Deal Targets Unit Cost Below $100 Million

However, the company says that unit cost of each variant will be reduced by about 4% lot over lot. Based on the pricing targets for LRIP 5, which was inked late last year &#8212; $105 million for the F-35A, $113 million for the F-35B and $125 million for F-35C &#8212; the per-unit targets can be projected for these new LRIP 6 and 7 jets.

The F-35A variant, designed for conventional takeoff and landing (and the version with greatest appeal to international partners) is projected to cost $100.8 million in LRIP 6 and $96.8 million in LRIP 7. This is the first time since the program began production that the projected unit cost will be under $100 million.

The F-35B, optimized for short takeoff and vertical landing, is expected to cost $108.5 million in LRIP 6 and $104.2 million in LRIP 7.

Finally, the F-35C, designed with a larger wing for aircraft carrier operations, is expected to cost $120 million in LRIP 6 and another $115.2 million in LRIP 7.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## by78

ice bomb said:


> However, the company says that unit cost of each variant will be reduced by about 4% lot over lot. Based on the pricing targets for LRIP 5, which was inked late last year &#8212; $105 million for the F-35A, $113 million for the F-35B and $125 million for F-35C &#8212; the per-unit targets can be projected for these new LRIP 6 and 7 jets.
> 
> The F-35A variant, designed for conventional takeoff and landing (and the version with greatest appeal to international partners) is projected to cost $100.8 million in LRIP 6 and $96.8 million in LRIP 7. This is the first time since the program began production that the projected unit cost will be under $100 million.
> 
> The F-35B, optimized for short takeoff and vertical landing, is expected to cost $108.5 million in LRIP 6 and $104.2 million in LRIP 7.
> 
> Finally, the F-35C, designed with a larger wing for aircraft carrier operations, is expected to cost $120 million in LRIP 6 and another $115.2 million in LRIP 7.



Say what? I thought the flyaway cost per unit for F-35A was supposed to be around $65 million at most, according to estimates from around 2001.


----------



## sweetgrape

cirr said:


>



Woo, too huge!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*HIGH CLARITY PICS OF J20' WEAPONS BAY *






F 22 internal's weapon bay 





now on comparing it with F22 internal weapon bay F22 has 3 missile launcher pylon in each weapon bay meanwhile j20 has 2 missile launcher pylon in it's bay.

Well it would be interesting if they built a foldable fin Pl 12 missile to fit a third one 

*CHEERS*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jazzbot

cirr said:


>



That's huge buddy!!


----------



## SQ8

DrSomnath999 said:


> Well it would be interesting if they built a foldable fin Pl 12 missile to fit a third one
> 
> *CHEERS*



It depends on the missile diameter as well. The AIM-120 is 7in in dia.. while the PL-12 is around 8..


----------



## killerx

DrSomnath999 said:


> *HIGH CLARITY PICS OF J20' WEAPONS BAY *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F 22 internal's weapon bay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now on comparing it with F22 internal weapon bay F22 has 3 missile launcher pylon in each weapon bay meanwhile j20 has 2 missile launcher pylon in it's bay.
> 
> Well it would be interesting if they built a foldable fin Pl 12 missile to fit a third one
> 
> *CHEERS*



nope you are wrong here mate look close there a another point between the two missile large space is occupied by the two missile you can see two hole in the middle of the missile for 3rd hard point in the middle.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Oscar said:


> It depends on the missile diameter as well. The AIM-120 is 7in in dia.. while the PL-12 is around 8..



True!!

& that is the reason they have to test it with 2 PL 12 missiles but one can see they have removed deliberately fins of one missile
may be checking about the concept of foldable fins would allow entry of a 3 rd missile in the middle

But like u mentioned diameter of PL 12 is bigger than AIM 120 so there is the problem


----------



## DrSomnath999

killerx said:


> nope you are wrong here mate look close there a another point between the two missile large space is occupied by the two missile you can see two hole in the middle of the missile for 3rd hard point in the middle.



NOPE 

i am not wrong i am stating about pylons right now not about the space in between . though theoritically it can carry 3 missiles in each bay , but the problem lies in size of PL 12 missile 

If they want to have 3 missile loadout in each bay they have designed a thinner missile with smaller fins ,no way this PL 12 missile can have installed in 3 missile loadout in each bay .

Check the pics carefully there is hardly any space left in between these 2 missiles provided they dont build a foldable fins missile


----------



## DrSomnath999

*COMBAT AIRCRAFT MONTHLY SEPTEMBER 2013*

*J20 WEAPONS BAY *







so my guess of foldable fin Pl -12 c may be correct ,

*CHEERS*


----------



## SQ8

jhungary said:


> ultimate trolling??
> 
> by the way that's a F-60 or J-31.



That's actually a J-20.


----------



## SQ8

DrSomnath999 said:


> *COMBAT AIRCRAFT MONTHLY SEPTEMBER 2013*
> 
> *J20 WEAPONS BAY *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so my guess of foldable fin Pl -12 c may be correct ,
> 
> *CHEERS*



A more closer examination of the bay will also show that while the J-20 has a simple spaced layout, the F-22 has an optimized fit for the missiles which means they are very closely spaced as compared to the J-20's bay. But that again may have to do more with the diameter of the missile rather than space optimization.


----------



## xunzi

J-20 should be in service by 2018 and by 2020 to be replaced with WS-15 engine and customized version for Pakistan Air force by 2022.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## damiendehorn

xunzi said:


> J-20 should be in service by 2018 and by 2020 to be replaced with WS-15 engine and customized version for Pakistan Air force by 2022.


 I think a combination of stealthy j17 and j31 would be a better option. Plus this would be of great interest to us in Bangladesh too.

Good development at astonishing speed though by China. The wests arms embargo has had the reverse effect by the look of it..ha ha.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## East Asia United

The USA is going to buy 2,400 of their F-35's. How many of the 5th generation fighters do you guys expect China to produce?


----------



## SQ8

xunzi said:


> J-20 should be in service by 2018 and by 2020 to be replaced with WS-15 engine and customized version for Pakistan Air force by 2022.



Pakistan wants nothing to do with the J-20. The J-31 perhaps, but there is no place or need for the J-20 in Pakistan's future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

Oscar said:


> Pakistan wants nothing to do with the J-20. The J-31 perhaps, but there is no place or need for the J-20 in Pakistan's future.



I won't go so far as to say future, as military needs change day by day. Perhaps one day the PAF may require the services of the J-20 or a similar craft, perhaps not.

J-31 though, that is a fighter the PAF is definitely interested in, no doubt to counter the Indian stealth fighter.


----------



## Genesis

East Asia United said:


> The USA is going to buy 2,400 of their F-35's. How many of the 5th generation fighters do you guys expect China to produce?



In total probably half that if that. 1,000 more or less seems reasonable number, thou it depends on a few factors.

Mostly it depends on how china plans on if planning on to extend power and if we will have the overseas bases. How the states is positioning its assets, the conflicts of the seas, and their strength.

Bt also our production power. We may see a spike in. Production as our engine program reaches maturity, but until then it will not be a productionon the scale of the states even if there is need. Like now with the j-10, j-11

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

New prototype spotted in the hangar&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jguo

Pictures?


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Jguo said:


> Pictures?



Invisible picture


----------



## Jguo

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Invisible picture



 There's been so little development with air force projects this year compared to last, it's all been Navy in 2013. I'm dying to see some new planes.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Jguo said:


> There's been so little development with air force projects this year compared to last, it's all been Navy in 2013. I'm dying to see some new planes.



It's not alway a good new to show off our latest developments to the world...otherwise it will make the spy life too easy.


----------



## imkhasif

Bangladesh must go for J-20 after 2022 .
Bt i ask to china that - will china give their tec to bangladesh???????????


----------



## cirr

6th gen


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 6th gen



Fake as Greenland's green.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

cirr said:


> 6th gen







Reminds me of the plane from the film Stealth


----------



## Jguo

cirr said:


> 6th gen



Visually...acceptable, aesthetically, absolutely terrible plane.


----------



## lcloo

cirr said:


> 6th gen



The illustrator must have got the idea from a sting ray or manta ray. LOL!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## he-man

Can anyone here tell me whether chinese j-20 uses s-ducts along with dsi??

a link to source will be appreciated


----------



## by78

he-man said:


> Can anyone here tell me whether chinese j-20 uses s-ducts along with dsi??
> 
> a link to source will be appreciated



*Here are your answers:*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## That Guy

Keep the pics comings 

Question, how many internal storage compartments does the J-20 have? What about the J-31?



Jguo said:


> Visually...acceptable, aesthetically, absolutely terrible plane.



looks too sci-fi-ish


----------



## HumanRights

lcloo said:


> The illustrator must have got the idea from a sting ray or manta ray. LOL!



what r they? never heard them.



That Guy said:


> Keep the pics comings
> 
> Question, how many internal storage compartments does the J-20 have? What about the J-31?
> 
> 
> 
> looks too sci-fi-ish



how to make it?


----------



## Johnlaw

Looks don't matter as long as it works. The F-35 does not work.


----------



## nomi007

Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon fifth generation stealth fighter jet demonstrates its super maneuverability.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fsjal

Looks like a Kubalt roll. (I think I got the name wrong)


----------



## cnleio

Hehe... 4th J-20 prototype N.o2004, leak pic&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tacticool

How many prototypes been developed and what are major differences between them.
Also list about j-10b's prototypes plz.


----------



## cnleio

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> How many prototypes been developed and what are major differences between them.
> Also list about j-10b's prototypes plz.


Max 4x J-20 prototype testing.
The information from China J-10B has been mass production, J-10B project closed. This year 1st group of J-10B fighters delivering to PLAAF, soon we will see PLAAF's new J-10B fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

The programme is going so well that CAC is said to need one prototype less than originally planned to complete test flights&#65306;











Coming up next&#65306;2005 and 2006.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


> Coming up next&#65306;2005 and 2006.


Where this photo shot, ChengDu or YanLiang &#65311; 
Whether N.o2002 and N.o2004 will fly together in the sky of ChengDu city ?



Just for funny~ below is a PSed pic, but i believe one day more China J-20 will coming

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## xunzi

nomi007 said:


> Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon fifth generation stealth fighter jet demonstrates its super maneuverability.


And this was done probably with the AL-31 engine. The much more powerful engine WS-15 engine will allow much more impressive feats. One of reason for the demonstration of maneuverability even on AL-31 is due to the superior aerodynamic design to reduce air friction and drag.

Video of this capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

J-20 2005 and 2006 are awaiting new engines&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PWFI

A silly question how many J-20 prototype have been made?


----------



## Fsjal

PWFI said:


> A silly question how many J-20 prototype have been made?



I think two only. I heard somewhere that there is a third one, but I think that's false.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

Fsjal said:


> I think two only. I heard somewhere that there is a third one, but I think that's false.


totally agree

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

Fsjal said:


> I think two only. I heard somewhere that there is a third one, but I think that's false.



I'm guessing that there will at least be 10 prototypes within the next 3 years. They need a ton of prototypes to shorten the development period, especially if they want to stick with their timeline.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## itaskol

PWFI said:


> A silly question how many J-20 prototype have been made?



who knows, some said there are 6 prototype till now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sweetgrape

2004 emerge suddenly,  is it PS?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

xunzi said:


> And this was done probably with the AL-31 engine. The much more powerful engine WS-15 engine will allow much more impressive feats. One of reason for the demonstration of maneuverability even on AL-31 is due to the superior aerodynamic design to reduce air friction and drag.
> 
> Video of this capability.



The engine of J-20 remains as a mystery till now, it doesn't look like the AL-31F engine.

However, the features are also not typical for the TH engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

sweetgrape said:


> 2004 emerge suddenly,  is it PS?



Not a P.S. But there are speculations that 2004 is either a carbon copy or a repainted 2002.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

When will WS15 engine ready for J20, this baby looks damn sexy.


----------



## nomi007




----------



## cirr

Another piece in the jigsaw of making large&#12289;modern and high quality aircrafts&#65306;






http://www.chinanews.com/mil/2013/10-17/5393423.shtml


----------



## Superboy

nomi007 said:


>



Production J-10B?


----------



## cirr




----------



## longlong

cirr said:


>


Interesting, 2003+?


----------



## cirr

200X






Waiting for clear pics

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

cirr said:


> 200X
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting for clear pics




Be quick

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20 will be inducted no later than year 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Mass production version of J-20



























=========================================
1. J-20 prototype
2. F-22
3. J-20 mass production

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kompromat

This thing looks real cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuttler

J-20 equipped with WS-15?!?
Found the following vid on utube.

*WS-15发动机重大突破 歼-20将量产成军？ 20131020
Major breakthrough in WS-15 engine - J-20 will be in mass production soon? 20131020






Another link to the above vid:
俄媒称歼-20突破最大试验障碍 将量产成军-20131020长江新闻号-凤凰视频-最具媒体品质的综合视频门户-凤凰网

Next:

视频: 外媒称中国已组装4架歼20 配国产发动机
Foreign media said China has assembled four F-20s with domestic engine

外媒称中国已组装4架歼20 配国产发动机—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看



*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## longlong

Congratulations!

5 years later, China will be the only county in the region has its own 5th gen fighters.

That's the huge advantage over Japan, India.

(5 years later, China GDP will be at least equal to Japan + India + Russia)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cnleio

weapon test ?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## CrazyPaki

cnleio said:


> weapon test ?



looks dope


----------



## longlong




----------



## longlong

New revival,


----------



## cirr

A bit of information over 2 years old concerning the development of FWS-15：

http://www.xyssafety.gov.cn/Show_kszz.asp?id=105


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

The engine nozzle looks huge. Could it be domestic engine installed for testing?


----------



## cirr

J-20 2001 testing new stealth coatings：

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


> J-20 2001 testing new stealth coatings：


F-22


----------



## IND151

*The Chengdu J-20, the PLA Air Force’s first fifth-generation stealth fighter still has three major weaknesses to be overcome before it is ready to enter service*, China’s Global Times reports.

The *first major weakness* is the* engine*; China is currently unable to design and produce engines powerful enough for advanced fighters. The *prototype J-20* currently has the *Russian-built AL-31F engine*. However, Chinese pilots flying J-10 fighters using the AL-31F have experienced several accidents related to its poor reliability.

Furthermore,* if the PLA continues to rely on Russian-built engines, it will never be able to operate its fighter free from the influence of Moscow, Global Times said*. The article suggested therefore that Chinese engineers should design their own engine through studying the Russian technology. This would be far from the first instance of Chinese engineers back-engineering Russian technology.

Second, *the design of the J-20′s fuselage seems unfitting*. While the weapons bay has been designed large enough to carry various types of payload, *the aircraft’s wings appear too small. A lack of proper aerodynamic design configuration compromises the stealth capability and maneuverability of the J-20*, the report said.

Finally, *Global Times *said the *J-20′s two engines are positioned too close with each other and could cause a dangerous vortex* when both are running at high speed.

In sum, the J-20 is some way away from entering service, the report concluded, noting that in Western countries it is common for it to take between five and eight years between the design of a fighter prototype and the aircraft entering service.

J-20 Stealth Fighter Has 3 Major Weaknesses: Global Times | Fortuna's Corner


----------



## rockstarIN

IND151 said:


> the aircraft’s wings appear too small. A lack of proper aerodynamic design configuration compromises the stealth capability and maneuverability of the J-20



Did they come to know about this now? after prototypes are flying? hard to believe..


----------



## KAL-EL

Uh oh! Some of the hyper-nationalists here won't be to happy that you posted this

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xhw1986

rockstarIN said:


> Did they come to know about this now? after prototypes are flying? hard to believe..


Those are prototypes, production versions will be different.


----------



## BigDaddyWatch

Nothing to see here. The article in question is a reprint of a WanChinaTimes article. A Taiwanese newspaper known for its biased views and inaccurate reporting on China matters. The WanChinaTimes article's main source is a Global Times article from China but fails to give a link to the original article of the Global Times. So that the readers can judge for themselves.

J-20 stealth fighter has three major weaknesses: Global Times｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com


----------



## cnleio

Relax, the mass production version of J-20 will more look like this↓, WS-15 not AL-31 jet engines.








Let's waiting for J-20 N.o2003 come out, it will be China's YF-22 ==> F-22 change. Soon J-20 N.o2003 will out at ChengDu SAC, rumors said N.o2003 maybe the production version of China J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xhw1986

*Serial Number 2004 J-20*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JayAtl

KAL-EL said:


> Uh oh! Some of the hyper-nationalists here won't be to happy that you posted this



they will call it lies, false and made up news and move along.


----------



## danger007

Bs story....get ready for war....


----------



## Fahad Khan 2

I don't know much about jets but my analysis on three problems are..
1) yes engine is problem...
2) wings are small I think person who had with article has not even seen pictures of J-20 it has huge wings.
3) engine in raptor are also very close to each other.

It's still prototype not in production...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bolo

IND151 said:


> *The Chengdu J-20, the PLA Air Force’s first fifth-generation stealth fighter still has three major weaknesses to be overcome before it is ready to enter service*, China’s Global Times reports.
> 
> The *first major weakness* is the* engine*; China is currently unable to design and produce engines powerful enough for advanced fighters. The *prototype J-20* currently has the *Russian-built AL-31F engine*. However, Chinese pilots flying J-10 fighters using the AL-31F have experienced several accidents related to its poor reliability.
> 
> Furthermore,* if the PLA continues to rely on Russian-built engines, it will never be able to operate its fighter free from the influence of Moscow, Global Times said*. The article suggested therefore that Chinese engineers should design their own engine through studying the Russian technology. This would be far from the first instance of Chinese engineers back-engineering Russian technology.
> 
> Second, *the design of the J-20′s fuselage seems unfitting*. While the weapons bay has been designed large enough to carry various types of payload, *the aircraft’s wings appear too small. A lack of proper aerodynamic design configuration compromises the stealth capability and maneuverability of the J-20*, the report said.
> 
> Finally, *Global Times *said the *J-20′s two engines are positioned too close with each other and could cause a dangerous vortex* when both are running at high speed.
> 
> In sum, the J-20 is some way away from entering service, the report concluded, noting that in Western countries it is common for it to take between five and eight years between the design of a fighter prototype and the aircraft entering service.
> 
> J-20 Stealth Fighter Has 3 Major Weaknesses: Global Times | Fortuna's Corner



This bs article have been posted multiple times by uninformed Indians.


----------



## eazzy

^^^ Is he serious ?


----------



## aliaselin

A copy from Chinese forum. Why did the creative foriengers copy our post but write their own？
This is the orignial version：国防大学专家自曝歼-20三大缺陷：2台发动机靠得过近|雷达反射|潜艇_凤凰资讯


----------



## sweetgrape

Great, Discussing the weakness of weapon also show self-confidence.

Shortcoming is not fearful, the fearful thing is that can't find and correct it.





KAL-EL said:


> Uh oh! Some of the hyper-nationalists here won't be to happy that you posted this


I am glad that the chinese expert can talk about the weakness of J20 confidently.

I don't know what do the Chinese Hyper-nationalist think, but, I know you are happy the OP posted this, maybe more, happily know that J20 have these weakness, is it?








JayAtl said:


> they will call it lies, false and made up news and move along.


No it is not lie, but, the surprise to me is such your kind of indian again believe the Chinese media and expert, you should stick to that anything from China is Fake, including the article.





SR-91 said:


> If u can't get the prototypes right, how will u get the production variants?


You are so exciting, why? because after more than 30 years, you finally get the prototypes of Second-Generation LCA right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

The engine part is true. The design part not so much. Every plane is optimized for a certain flight envelope, with J-20's being high sub-sonic/supersonic performance. The design reflected that, and of course something had to be sacrificed.


----------



## aliaselin

sweetgrape said:


> Great, Discussing the weakness of weapon also show self-confidence.
> 
> Shortcoming is not fearful, the fearful thing is that can't find and correct it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that the chinese expert can talk about the weakness of J20 confidently.
> 
> I don't know what do the Chinese Hyper-nationalist think, but, I know you are happy the OP posted this, maybe more, happily know that J20 have these weakness, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not lie, but, the surprise to me is such your kind of indian again believe the Chinese media and expert, you should stick to that anything from China is Fake, including the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so exciting, why? because after more than 30 years, you finally get the prototypes of Second-Generation LCA right?



The original article talks about 3 weakness，but also talks about the 5 advantages. I think the translators do not want the Indian guys to see it, so delete it. And finally this trick make the Indians really high and reach climax


----------



## HariPrasad

xhw1986 said:


> Those are prototypes, production versions will be different.




To Change fuselage, change wing, Change weapon bay and change engine and Engine position. What is left not? It will be a totally new plane. We have heard about J 15, J10, J31 and now are hearing same about J 20. China has yet to come out with a reliable quality of plane.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

OrionHunter said:


> Yep! The Hans are going to go berserk over this report. In fact one already has! Defending the indefensible!!
> 
> The J-20 seems to be a lemon!!


 
You Indian talks like you know better how to design a 5th gen fighter, LMAO which still depend on Russian's T-50. and who know when you guys gonna get the 5th gen fighter?. J-20 is Chinese design, we can fine tunned any time the same way as J-10A to J-10B...knowing our weakiness is better than know nothing at all...but I can't say the same about your LCA which you guys know nothing about It  because all the LCA's messy parts are bought from abroad...which you guys don't even have a clue how to make its works and that explain how it got delayed for over two decades...or more.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## OrionHunter

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> You Indian talks like you know better how to design a 5th gen fighter, LMAO which still depend on Russian's T-50. and who know when you guys gonna get the 5th gen fighter?. J-20 is Chinese design, we can fine tunned any time the same way as J-10A to J-10B...knowing our weakiness is better than know nothing at all.


Trolling as usual or are you that ignorant? *The J20 was copied from Russian MIG 1.44*. Did the Russians sell you their design? Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! The front end of J20 is a look-alike of F-22/F35. Did the Americans sell you the design of the F-22/F-35. Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! And* you got it by hook or by crook, which needless to say, you guys are experts at! *

*For example, the Chinese were able to develop the stealth technology from parts of an American F-117 Nighthawk that was shot down over Serbia in 1999. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sweetgrape

HariPrasad said:


> Chinese Idiot found nothing to argue So he is getting consolation by saying Idiot to some one in pure technical discussion.


Technological arguing with indian idiot? I suggest you indian don't talking about industry, especially weapon, you know the reason, or you are too idiotic don't know the reason?!





OrionHunter said:


> Yep! The Hans are going to go berserk over this report. In fact one already has! Defending the indefensible!!
> The J-20 seems to be a lemon!!


Speaking of tolerating weakness, have to say Indian is much better than Chinese, for Chinese, the weakness should be solved, especally weapon, be close to perfect, not like indian, can stand more than 30 years rubbishing project---LCA, Arjun, even tolerate such rubbishes be commissioned by political force.






OrionHunter said:


> Trolling as usual or are you that ignorant? *The J20 was copied from Russian MIG 1.44*. Did the Russians sell you their design? Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! The front end of J20 is a look-alike of F-22/F35. Did the Americans sell you the design of the F-22/F-35. Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! And* you got it by hook or by crook, which needless to say, you guys are experts at!
> For example, the Chinese were able to develop the stealth technology from parts of an American F-117 Nighthawk that was shot down over Serbia in 1999. *


Copy MIG 1.44? I though F22. Tell you, China will copy any advanced weapon(Seems not indian weapon) before we be leader, you don't need angry, you are not leader, also have not advanced weapon or thing, of course, flating USA Russia may let you can buy more advanced weapon from them.

The end, when your indian company copy western medicine, have you pay for it? or western give your permission?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

S10 said:


> Do tell me about world's most advanced fighter plane, the LCA. Wait, I bet we can learn a thing or two from the world's most expensive training tank Arjun before we do that.




Discription is too long but some highlight.

1)It carries double the payload of J 15 (2 engine and more than twice the weight) 
2) It completes vertical loop of 360* in Just 20 second which JF 17 and J 10 can not do.
3) It is lightest and smallest fighter aircraft in the world with very high agility with very low RCS. 
4) it easily takes off with 3.5 ton payload in a critical area like leh in just 10 to 12 second etc. etc.


You can educate yourself further from net. 

By the way come to LCA related forum to discuss anything about LCA

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

It is just the opinion of one person。

What's the big deal？

Everyone knows engine is an issue，issue that will be resolved when WS-15 comes online in a few years。


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

OrionHunter said:


> Trolling as usual or are you that ignorant? *The J20 was copied from Russian MIG 1.44*. Did the Russians sell you their design? Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! The front end of J20 is a look-alike of F-22/F35. Did the Americans sell you the design of the F-22/F-35. Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! And y*ou got it by hook or by crook, which needless to say, you guys are experts at! *


 
You forgot that add that *Chinese copy the wheels as well*. you can call J-20 is a copy of any airplane as you wish, we don't give a rat A$$ because all airplanes nowaday are more less a copy of other, Airbus and Boeing as example...Chinese are not going to invente an alien ship or X-wing or Tie fighter of StarWar movie just to please Indians and to prove ourself.

But Indians know how to copy? that is a big question, maybe after all you want to prove that Indians are honnest citizens of this planet and obeit the IP laws as lame excuse again

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sweetgrape

HariPrasad said:


> Your post is perfectly in line of your education in concentration camp with CCP text book. Keep posting. We are here to enjoy!!!!!


CCP text book? what's that? your post is perfectly in line of idiotic comment, I also enjoy such you kind of indian idiotic comments, you know, can't build simple good builet, have to importing rifle, gun, blow up its submarine in yourself port, can't update submarine after about 20 years operation of submarine, most weapon are imported country, you as one indian from such loser country, come here discussing with Chinese in technology? and seems you are expert, mocking chinese, that's very hilarious.

Your comments is so idiotic, you can't understand it.






HariPrasad said:


> Discription is too long but some highlight.
> 1)It carries double the payload of J 15 (2 engine and more than twice the weight)


LCA can fly from Carrier?



HariPrasad said:


> 2) It completes vertical loop of 360* in Just 20 second which JF 17 and J 10 can not do.


So LCA is better than JF 17 and J10? 1st generation aircraft need less time do this, so LCA is worse than that?




HariPrasad said:


> 3) It is lightest and smallest fighter aircraft in the world with very high agility with very low RCS.


lighter and smaller than 1st generation aircrate? bird have lower RCS than LCA



HariPrasad said:


> 4) it easily takes off with 3.5 ton payload in a critical area like leh in just 10 to 12 second etc.


Really, So What? better than F22?



HariPrasad said:


> etc.


Add this, it spend your impotent scientist more than 30 years, and even be commissioned, also because of political fators.



HariPrasad said:


> You can educate yourself further from net.
> By the way come to LCA related forum to discuss anything about LCA


Is these your fruit of education? suck.

Discuss on LCA? Wasting my time, More than 30 years, most of core sub-system and conponent are imported or with foreign company help, this is so-called indian indigenous aircraft, you don't know it is big joke in aircraft industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

S10 said:


> Do tell us about the India that is technologically superior to China.
> 
> Oh wait, it doesn't exist.



These fanboys are still high on their beloved LCA。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sms

OrionHunter said:


> Trolling as usual or are you that ignorant? *The J20 was copied from Russian MIG 1.44*. Did the Russians sell you their design? Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! The front end of J20 is a look-alike of F-22/F35. Did the Americans sell you the design of the F-22/F-35. Nope! You simply copied it with a few modifications to hide this fact! And* you got it by hook or by crook, which needless to say, you guys are experts at! *
> 
> *For example, the Chinese were able to develop the stealth technology from parts of an American F-117 Nighthawk that was shot down over Serbia in 1999. *



Bro that does not take credit away from them. They are leaping forward on tech tree and their defense industry is bigger and better than us.


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Discription is too long but some highlight.
> 
> 1)It carries double the payload of J 15 (2 engine and more than twice the weight)
> 2) It completes vertical loop of 360* in Just 20 second which JF 17 and J 10 can not do.
> 3) It is lightest and smallest fighter aircraft in the world with very high agility with very low RCS.
> 4) it easily takes off with 3.5 ton payload in a critical area like leh in just 10 to 12 second etc. etc.
> 
> 
> You can educate yourself further from net.
> 
> By the way come to LCA related forum to discuss anything about LCA


Where did you get these "data" from? Do you know the maximum payload of J-15? Do you have a complete flight envelope data for JF-17 and J-10? Since when did you get these info? The Indian intelligence agency should definitely hire you.

Nah just kidding, you should be a comedian.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HariPrasad

S10 said:


> Where did you get these "data" from? Do you know the maximum payload of J-15? Do you have a complete flight envelope data for JF-17 and J-10? Since when did you get these info? The Indian intelligence agency should definitely hire you.
> 
> Nah just kidding, you should be a comedian.




I got J 15 DATA from a quote of Chinese scientist.

Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com
And

Defence News - Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter



I got JF 17 and J10 information from you tube and discussion forum.

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4] | Page 445


How ever you may prove me wrong by posting a video.


To build a premature opinion is a quality of real life Jokers who are worse than a comedian. I see abundance of that quality in you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## OrionHunter

sms said:


> Bro that does not take credit away from them. They are leaping forward on tech tree and their defense industry is bigger and better than us.


Nope! I ain't meant that. Credit goes to them, but they shouldn't be boasting that their technologies are purely indigenous.

Reverse engineering is an art that the Chinese are experts at!


----------



## sweetgrape

OrionHunter said:


> Nope! I ain't meant that. Credit goes to them, but they shouldn't be boasting that their technologies are purely indigenous.
> 
> Reverse engineering is an art that the Chinese are experts at!


Who say J20 is purely indigenous? we just say it is indigenous, not OK? even you indian can say LCA is indigenous, why J20 is not?! more Components of J20 are imported?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> I got J 15 DATA from a quote of Chinese scientist.
> 
> Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com
> And
> 
> Defence News - Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter
> 
> 
> 
> I got JF 17 and J10 information from you tube and discussion forum.
> 
> JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4] | Page 445
> 
> 
> How ever you may prove me wrong by posting a video.
> 
> 
> To build a premature opinion is a quality of real life Jokers who are worse than a comedian. I see abundance of that quality in you.


Right, a media source quoting a "scientist" that had nothing to do with J-15 project and a youtube video. I don't know why I couldn't see the light sooner with these solid scientific data. Prove you wrong by posting a video? HAH! You might as well use a garbage man as a source.

Here is basic logic for you. When you make a claim, such as LCA having greater payload and better turning than J-10, the burden is on you to provide credible sources. You are inferior to China in every possible measure. Acceptance is the first phase of improvement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## OrionHunter

sweetgrape said:


> Who say J20 is purely indigenous? we just say it is indigenous, not OK? even you indian can say LCA is indigenous, why J20 is not?! more Components of J20 are imported?


Agreed! Even some components of the secret F-22 are imported. And needless to say, the F-35 has 32 contractors and sub contractors all over the world, especially Europe who manufacture parts for it!

During the cold war, the Soviet Union even imported air filters for their Tatra trucks from America!!! So there's hardly any weapon system which is fully indigenous.


----------



## HariPrasad

S10 said:


> Right, a media source quoting a "scientist" that had nothing to do with J-15 project and a youtube video. I don't know why I couldn't see the light sooner with these solid scientific data. Prove you wrong by posting a video? HAH! You might as well use a garbage man as a source.
> 
> Here is basic logic for you. When you make a claim, such as LCA having greater payload and better turning than J-10, the burden is on you to provide credible sources. You are inferior to China in every possible measure. Acceptance is the first phase of improvement.




Bug off troll. I provide you with the most authentic source of Chinese aviation scientist involved plane project. You do not want to believe. You can watch video still you do not want to believe. I am not here to convince somebody who has closed his eye from reality.


----------



## sweetgrape

HariPrasad said:


> Bug off troll. I provide you with the most authentic source of Chinese aviation scientist involved plane project. You do not want to believe. You can watch video still you do not want to believe. I am not here to convince somebody who has closed his eye from reality.


Surprised that in your eyes, there are "authentic" Chinese source. closing eye from reality? you know the reality?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

SR-91 said:


> If u can't get the prototypes right, how will u get the production variants?


Some Indian weird logic? If you can't make a decent rifle, how you gonna produce AMCA?



HariPrasad said:


> Bug off troll. I provide you with the most authentic source of Chinese aviation scientist involved plane project. You do not want to believe. You can watch video still you do not want to believe. I am not here to convince somebody who has closed his eye from reality.



The reality is you attack J20 with sourgrape mentality, just because you don't have alike fighter in test. I appreciate talking with you guys when you have 5th generation fighter in test.

The India logic is going like they hope to counter China by wishing its fighter sucks or falls from the sky. They never think about why DRDO and HAl can't produce 5th fighters as of now, they just don't care and waste all their time trolling.



HariPrasad said:


> Bug off troll. I provide you with the most authentic source of Chinese aviation scientist involved plane project. You do not want to believe. You can watch video still you do not want to believe. I am not here to convince somebody who has closed his eye from reality.


A troll thread wanna convince Chinese members that J20 is a crap, oh my Godness! It's really a cheap and naive way to bug others off?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

When they find some clue of negatives news, they just feel happy like digging out a box of precious buried under the sand. They told themself thousands times that J20 is merely a crap, and then sleep tight at night. After several years, AMCA is still a model that DRDO uses to cheat taxpayer money.画饼充饥

Instead of wasting time in Chinese section, spend more time on why DRDO always fail to deliver on time. We are doing well enough, no need to talk it anymore.

Three major weakness of DRDO:
1. no competition from others
2. lame organization structure and lack of staff motivation and call for responsibility
3. always break the delivery dead line and no punishment imposed

You know what is the most funny joke in this world: Indian members mock China's weapon development. Back off, or you troll to death.

This thread shall be closed, or it will lower the IQ of the whole forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

wanglaokan said:


> The reality is you attack J20 with sourgrape mentality, just because you don't have alike fighter in test. I appreciate talking with you guys when you have 5th generation fighter in test.
> The India logic is going like they hope to counter China by wishing its fighter sucks or falls from the sky. They never think about why DRDO and HAl can't produce 5th fighters as of now, they just don't care and waste all their time trolling.




Infact if anybody is a victim of sour grape mentality, it is you and not me. I never bought in tejas. It was your brethren who started compression and ask me about Tejas. You should have checked reference before writing your BS post but how can you do that? how can you be you a Chinese than?

You see, we have a design of our own fifth generation fighter and partnership of other. Both will be much batter than yours. Our planes are not copy cat of anything available to copy. We know very well why DRDO and HAL did not produce 5th gen fighter now. It is because we need a plane of our own and as per our requirement. It will be medium weight class plane, the only one of its kind and not a copy of heavy plane. We do not produce BS. We do not want to spend our resources for something we can not use in war and compare it and say it is batter than F22, PAKA and Su 33 etc.



wanglaokan said:


> A troll thread wanna convince Chinese members that J20 is a crap, oh my Godness! It's really a cheap and naive way to bug others off?




This article has not drop from space. It is the view and finding of Chinese themselves. it has just been discussed like so many other topic. I have not tell him bug off without any reasons. He asked me the references to prove what I say. I provided articles, you tube references and blog discussion which he refuses to accept and said that he is not convince. What else you can say to person like him? I am here to discuss the topic and not to convince the people of ill mentality whose believing and not believing is purely conditioned on his likes and dislike.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Now J20 is just a prototype, far from induction. Many room for improvement.


----------



## HariPrasad

wanglaokan said:


> When they find some clue of negatives news, they just feel happy like digging out a box of precious buried under the sand. They told themself thousands times that J20 is merely a crap, and then sleep tight at night. After several years, AMCA is still a model that DRDO uses to cheat taxpayer money.画饼充饥
> 
> Instead of wasting time in Chinese section, spend more time on why DRDO always fail to deliver on time. We are doing well enough, no need to talk it anymore.
> 
> Three major weakness of DRDO:
> 1. no competition from others
> 2. lame organization structure and lack of staff motivation and call for responsibility
> 3. always break the delivery dead line and no punishment imposed
> 
> You know what is the most funny joke in this world: Indian members mock China's weapon development. Back off, or you troll to death.
> 
> This thread shall be closed, or it will lower the IQ of the whole forum.



Just one post ahead you were advising me not to bring in Tejas in discussion. Now you are discussing about DRDO and its weakness. What happened? That typical country specific trait took over rationality (Fake emerged out of inferiority complex) in just one post.



wanglaokan said:


> Now J20 is just a prototype, far from induction. Many room for improvement.



There is limit to improve something. Basic layout is very difficult to improve. It is not avionics that you can change it any tine. If you change engine, engine layout, Fuselage, wings and weapon bay it will not remain J20. It will become a totally new plane which will be as hard as developing a new plane right from the scratch.

I was arguing same thing with your country man who subsequently started ranting and brought Tejas in.


----------



## xuxu1457

Engine is a problem, but two engine close nothing wrong, F-22 is even closer than J-20, 
passing Wind Tunnel many times, I don't think writer of a blog is more professional than so many group experts.


----------



## sweetgrape

HariPrasad said:


> There is limit to improve something. Basic layout is very difficult to improve. It is not avionics that you can change it any tine. If you change engine, engine layout, Fuselage, wings and weapon bay it will not remain J20. It will become a totally new plane which will be as hard as developing a new plane right from the scratch.
> 
> I was arguing same thing with your country man who subsequently started ranting and brought Tejas in.


Woo, a aviation expert from india! do you believe indian "expert"?

Basic layout can be improved partly, why can't? the article also not say it will change the basic layout completely, why can't change engine? F16 have been equiped with many kind of engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xhw1986

SR-91 said:


> If u can't get the prototypes right, how will u get the production variants?


Sigh,

*In many fields, there is great uncertainty as to whether a new design will actually do what is desired. New designs often have unexpected problems. A prototype is often used as part of the product design process to allow engineers and designers the ability to explore design alternatives, test theories and confirm performance prior to starting production of a new product. 

Engineers use their experience to tailor the prototype according to the specific unknowns still present in the intended design. For example, some prototypes are used to confirm and verify consumer interest in a proposed design whereas other prototypes will attempt to verify the performance or suitability of a specific design approach.

In general, an iterative series of prototypes will be designed, constructed and tested as the final design emerges and is prepared for production. With rare exceptions, multiple iterations of prototypes are used to progressively refine the design. A common strategy is to design, test, evaluate and then modify the design based on analysis of the prototype. 
*


----------



## HariPrasad

sweetgrape said:


> CCP text book? what's that? your post is perfectly in line of idiotic comment, I also enjoy such you kind of indian idiotic comments, you know, can't build simple good builet, have to importing rifle, gun, blow up its submarine in yourself port, can't update submarine after about 20 years operation of submarine, most weapon are imported country, you as one indian from such loser country, come here discussing with Chinese in technology? and seems you are expert, mocking chinese, that's very hilarious.
> Your comments is so idiotic, you can't understand it.




Your way of writing tells us a lot about your education. You are talking about Chinese technology? Which Chinese technology? one which used in J 15 or the one used in J31? I hope you got the point.



sweetgrape said:


> LCA can fly from Carrier?



Oh my dear!!!!!!!!! you innocence made me cry once again. The plane which took off from career are different from the planes used by air force. Naval version of Tejas will fly from career.



sweetgrape said:


> So LCA is better than JF 17 and J10? 1st generation aircraft need less time do this, so LCA is worse than that?




There are lots of videos on net. Forget about completing it before Tejas. Just post a video in which both plane completes 360* vertical loop. remember 360* and not 270-280*.



sweetgrape said:


> lighter and smaller than 1st generation aircrate? bird have lower RCS than LCA




You exposed yourself once again. You proved that you are not fit for technical discussion but good in trolling.



sweetgrape said:


> Really, So What? better than F22?



Your poor knowledge is on exhibition once again. F22 carries much more load than 3.5 tons and take off in much less time.

Sorry I am not a chinese. so I won't say that it is batter than F22. Even I would not say that it is batter than Mirage 2000. Batter than F22 , Su 35 PAKFA etc. is reserved for china. All chinese planes are Batter than the best. Such as 2 tons payload capacity J 15 is batter than Su 33 and 35, J 20 with so much aerodynamic flaws is a F22 killers etc,etc.



sweetgrape said:


> Add this, it spend your impotent scientist more than 30 years, and even be commissioned, also because of political fators.






your writing skills have reached to a level beyond understandable



sweetgrape said:


> Is these your fruit of education? suck.
> Discuss on LCA? Wasting my time, More than 30 years, most of core sub-system and conponent are imported or with foreign company help, this is so-called indian indigenous aircraft, you don't know it is big joke in aircraft industry.



See, you are doing injustice to yourself and me. Just few minutes ago you ask me to educate you on Tejas. Now you say that you do not want to west you time. Why such a big confusion? Here the proper education comes in my dear. Any multinational company (Except Chinese) will fail you in psychometric test.


.



sweetgrape said:


> Basic layout can be improved partly, why can't? the article also not say it will change the basic layout completely, why can't change engine? F16 have been equiped with many kind of engines.




Chinese Expert contradicts Indian expert.


----------



## xhw1986

HariPrasad said:


> Your way of writing tells us a lot about your education. You are talking about Chinese technology? Which Chinese technology? one which used in J 15 or the one used in J31? I hope you got the point. Chinese Expert contradicts Indian expert.


Copy, steal, borrow etc. It doesn't matter as long your technology knowledge of designing and building gets better and more advanced. China is aiming for 100% sufficient in everything. Just like US and Russia, and this will happen within 3 decades.


----------



## HariPrasad

xhw1986 said:


> Copy, steal, borrow etc. It doesn't matter as long your technology knowledge of designing and building gets better and more advanced. China is aiming for 100% sufficient in everything. Just like US and Russia, and this will happen within 3 decades.




It is fine if it works but here copied and steal stuff is not working. It has witnessed some irreparable design flows. Steal, copy and borrow needs to be done smartly.


----------



## cnleio

Next time once ur guys meet the Indian troller @HariPrasad, just ignore his fantasy statement whatever he wrote any wet dream here.

This Indian think himself living in U.S not India, totally trolling. Remember they only develop the LCA for more than 10x years, even weaker & slower than JF-17 project. It's his high-tech , much worse than J-20.


Except "steal" & "copy", China high-tech always more advanced than India's, Chinese always produce more modern weapons than India's. Today the gaps of economy & military between India and China are rapidly increasing ... we can see it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xhw1986

HariPrasad said:


> It is fine if it works but here copied and steal stuff is not working. It has witnessed some irreparable design flows. Steal, copy and borrow needs to be done smartly.


I see, maybe you should check the engines of F-22. They are even closer. 

And look here: *In many fields, there is great uncertainty as to whether a new design will actually do what is desired. New designs often have unexpected problems. A prototype is often used as part of the product design process to allow engineers and designers the ability to explore design alternatives, test theories and confirm performance prior to starting production of a new product. 

Engineers use their experience to tailor the prototype according to the specific unknowns still present in the intended design. For example, some prototypes are used to confirm and verify consumer interest in a proposed design whereas other prototypes will attempt to verify the performance or suitability of a specific design approach.

In general, an iterative series of prototypes will be designed, constructed and tested as the final design emerges and is prepared for production. With rare exceptions, multiple iterations of prototypes are used to progressively refine the design. A common strategy is to design, test, evaluate and then modify the design based on analysis of the prototype. *

Too bad your military knowledge is pretty novice.  You should read and study more in military related before talking rubbish.


----------



## HariPrasad

cnleio said:


> Next time once ur guys meet the Indian troller @HariPrasad, just ignore his fantasy statement whatever he wrote any wet dream here.
> 
> This Indian think himself living in U.S not India, totally trolling. Remember they only has the LCA for more than 10x years ..........................




You see here I am discussing about J 20 which is Chinese. I am not discussing any Indian weapon so word fantasy not correct. You should know where and how to use word fantasy. 

Our making Tejas for 10X years is not going to help you to overcome design flaws of J 20 my dear. Do not bring in something which is not the subject of discussion.


----------



## cnleio

HariPrasad said:


> You see here I am discussing about J 20 which is Chinese. I am not discussing any Indian weapon so word fantasy not correct. You should know where and how to use word fantasy.
> 
> Our making Tejas for 10X years is not going to help you to overcome design flaws of J 20 my dear. Do not bring in something which is not the subject of discussion.


What u discuss here is about J-20 prototype like American YF-22, still not final step F-22 or production version J-20.

Well i can tell u, the production version J-20 is different with current J-20 prootype, there'r some changes. U will see N.o2003 J-20 pics soon.

Can u identify the difference between prototype aircraft and production aircraft ? All for aircraft design and data test. I'm sure J-20's schedule much faster than India LCA, before 2020 Indian can see J-20 mass production in China, and WS-15 on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xhw1986

HariPrasad said:


> You see here I am discussing about J 20 which is Chinese. I am not discussing any Indian weapon so word fantasy not correct. You should know where and how to use word fantasy.
> 
> Our making Tejas for 10X years is not going to help you to overcome design flaws of J 20 my dear. Do not bring in something which is not the subject of discussion.


You are comparing Tejas with J-20. I hope you are kidding. LCA is a old design, just like J-10, F-16, Mig-29. J-20 is a new design and only US and Russia have done this before. So please don't ever compare between those 2.


----------



## HariPrasad

xhw1986 said:


> I see, maybe you should check the engines of F-22. They are even closer.
> 
> And look here: *In many fields, there is great uncertainty as to whether a new design will actually do what is desired. New designs often have unexpected problems. A prototype is often used as part of the product design process to allow engineers and designers the ability to explore design alternatives, test theories and confirm performance prior to starting production of a new product.
> 
> Engineers use their experience to tailor the prototype according to the specific unknowns still present in the intended design. For example, some prototypes are used to confirm and verify consumer interest in a proposed design whereas other prototypes will attempt to verify the performance or suitability of a specific design approach.
> 
> In general, an iterative series of prototypes will be designed, constructed and tested as the final design emerges and is prepared for production. With rare exceptions, multiple iterations of prototypes are used to progressively refine the design. A common strategy is to design, test, evaluate and then modify the design based on analysis of the prototype. *
> 
> Too bad your military knowledge is pretty novice.  You should read and study more in military related before talking rubbish.




You see, some time what is true for small design is not true for complex designs. e.g redesigning of fuselage will require a new design of fuselage, its compatibility with rest of the structure, extensive aerodynamic testing, new construction and extensive flight trials. If it fails, you have to do it again. That is why you have to be extremity careful in designing such complex machine. Extensive aerodynamic testing are required.


----------



## Developereo

KAL-EL said:


> Uh oh! Some of the hyper-nationalists here won't be to happy that you posted this



Actually, it's the other way round.
The anti-China troll brigade will have orgasms over these claims.

Every piece of advanced technology goes through growing pains and China is well on its way along the learning curve. Any issues will be resolved in due time.


----------



## xhw1986

HariPrasad said:


> You see, some time what is true for small design is not true for complex designs. e.g redesigning of fuselage will require a new design of fuselage, its compatibility with rest of the structure, extensive aerodynamic testing, new construction and extensive flight trials. If it fails, you have to do it again. That is why you have to be extremity careful in designing such complex machine. Extensive aerodynamic testing are required.


China will have at least 8 different J-20 Prototypes. And each will have different configurations, designs etc. I hope you realize J-20 existed long before it was made to the public.


----------



## cnleio

xhw1986 said:


> China will have at least 8 different J-20 Prototypes. And each will have different configurations, designs etc.


Tell the truth, Indian lack the aircraft design skills. Even YF-22 or JSF there'r many different prototypes, not only one F-22 or F-35 aircraft. They think others design fighter just like their LCA cost more than 10years, FUNNY~!

YF-22 prototype






F-22 fighter






X-35 prototype






F-35 fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

cnleio said:


> Well i can tell u, the production version J-20 is different with current J-20 prootype, there'r some changes. U will see N.o2003 J-20 pics soon.



Do you even know what is the implication of such expirement? All flight trial done to date is Zero if the design changes are Major.



cnleio said:


> Can u identify the difference between prototype aircraft and production aircraft ? All for aircraft design and data test.



Man, I am tired of explaining you guys. I wish you best of luck for J 20. Have a good day.



xhw1986 said:


> You are comparing Tejas with J-20. I hope you are kidding. LCA is a old design, just like J-10, F-16, Mig-29. J-20 is a new design and only US and Russia have done this before. So please don't ever compare between those 2.




Man , I am explaining word fantasy which means " a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person." . I am an Indian. I am in discussion with Chinese on J20 which is Chinese. How can there be any fantasy in my post? So using word fantasy for my post by *clneio* is wrong. I was simply saying that.


Thanks. This is my last post in response to your post. Have a good day. Enjoy!!!!!!!


----------



## xhw1986

cnleio said:


> Tell the truth, Indian lack the aircraft design skills. Even YF-22 or JSF there'r many different prototypes, not only one F-22 or F-35 aircraft. They think others design fighter just like their LCA cost more than 10years, FUNNY~!


6-8 should be more correct. Pak-fa will have at least 8 prototypes. This was said by a russian guy with great knowledge.


----------



## HariPrasad

xhw1986 said:


> China will have at least 8 different J-20 Prototypes. And each will have different configurations, designs etc. I hope you realize J-20 existed long before it was made to the public.




Sorry.

Still has lots of design flaws. Aviation technology is not easy to master.


----------



## xhw1986

HariPrasad said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Still has lots of design flaws. Aviation technology is not easy to master.


Indeed, its not easy to master. China is new in stealth aircraft design. But they will get there. It only requires knowledge skill, designing skill and most importantly funding. China will get there.


----------



## cnleio

xhw1986 said:


> 6-8 should be more correct. Pak-fa will have at least 8 prototypes. This was said by a russian guy with great knowledge.


I agree with u, close to J-20 prototype numbers.


----------



## antonius123

Such as?

You talk as if you were a master.



HariPrasad said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Still has lots of design flaws. Aviation technology is not easy to master.



Such as?

You talk as if you were a master


----------



## HariPrasad

antonius123 said:


> Such as?
> You talk as if you were a master



That is your inference. I never said that we are master. We are good students who have learn a lot and bridge the GAP of technology with many country who were much ahead of us some time ago.



xhw1986 said:


> Indeed, its not easy to master. China is new in stealth aircraft design. But they will get there. It only requires knowledge skill, designing skill and most importantly funding. China will get there.




My best wishes.



xhw1986 said:


> 6-8 should be more correct. Pak-fa will have at least 8 prototypes. This was said by a russian guy with great knowledge.



It is a standard procedure to gradually develop the plane through prototype. F 35 have Numbers of planes operational before being fully operational.


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Bug off troll. I provide you with the most authentic source of Chinese aviation scientist involved plane project. You do not want to believe. You can watch video still you do not want to believe. I am not here to convince somebody who has closed his eye from reality.


What you provided was garbage. The original article in Chinese was published on Sina network, based off of a Taiwan/Singapore commentator who is not even a scientist, let alone involved in the project. As if giving a trashy "source" wasn't enough, you provided more comedy by referring to a youtube video. I'm beginning to understand while we left your people in the dust in just 20 years. The reality is you cannot back up your own claims, and the reality is you are our inferior in every aspect.


----------



## HariPrasad

S10 said:


> What you provided was garbage. The original article in Chinese was published on Sina network, based off of a Taiwan/Singapore commentator who is not even a scientist, let alone involved in the project. As if giving a trashy "source" wasn't enough, you provided more comedy by referring to a youtube video. I'm beginning to understand while we left your people in the dust in just 20 years. The reality is you cannot back up your own claims, and the reality is you are our inferior in every aspect.




Keep your stories with you. We talk with a solid background of Chinese media quitting Chinese scientist. What you write is a story which Nobody believe without reference. 

You understand something because of subversion of your mind by close system where selective information is allowed to flow down to people. With limited access to reliable source of Information, I am not surprised that you believe that. Your Junk Garbage is no match to Indian weapons. I have challenged many like you to post a video of 360 degree vertical loop. None of them have come out and accepted challenge. So keep your Junk weapon with you and keep calling them batter than Russian and American weapons. We do not mind. they are not combat worthy.


----------



## Beast

If J-20 has many design flaws and lousy. I can tell you PAFKA will be even worst. Wings not align. Fuselage not flush. Too many area of compromising RCS. Then we have Indian members here trying to talk bad about J-20. 

Then PAKFA shall be trashed compare to J-20. Precisely IAF is going to induct these trashed for their future airforce

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Keep your stories with you. We talk with a solid background of Chinese media quitting Chinese scientist. What you write is a story which Nobody believe without reference.
> 
> You understand something because of subversion of your mind by close system where selective information is allowed to flow down to people. With limited access to reliable source of Information, I am not surprised that you believe that. Your Junk Garbage is no match to Indian weapons. I have challenged many like you to post a video of 360 degree vertical loop. None of them have come out and accepted challenge. So keep your Junk weapon with you and keep calling them batter than Russian and American weapons. We do not mind. they are not combat worthy.


What you provided was questionable materials unfitted to use as reasonable proof. Repeating "it's fact" doesn't make them facts. A youtube video and a political commentator from Taiwan who is not involved in J-15 project are quite laughable, but to be expected I guess. After all, you are one of the feeble minded Indians here.

The "junk" weapon you spoke of completely routed you in 1962. Of all the foes we fought, you put up the most pathetic of resistance. The country that produce these "garbage" is better than you in every possible measure. We will gladly keep on producing these "junks" that seems to trump you time and time again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

HariPrasad said:


> Here we differ from You guys. We can some time work without pay also (Say 50 cent etc).


J20 is a fine 5th figher, we will work on it. Nothing is perfect, hope you understand.


----------



## HariPrasad

wanglaokan said:


> J20 is a fine 5th figher, we will work on it. Nothing is perfect, hope you understand.




Fine. I wish you you a best of luck!!!


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> If J-20 has many design flaws and lousy. I can tell you PAFKA will be even worst. Wings not align. Fuselage not flush. Too many area of compromising RCS. Then we have Indian members here trying to talk bad about J-20.
> 
> Then PAKFA shall be trashed compare to J-20. Precisely IAF is going to induct these trashed for their future airforce


PAKFA is not some trash, it kills. You don't have to respond trolling by trolling, it will downgrade your level.

No matter how Hariprasad say, J20 is a fine 5th fighter. It won't change. You have to tolerate Indian buddy trolling when they feel insecured. That's called humanitarian. The right to troll by the weaker.

When he is tired, he will quit automatically.

@HariPrasad:
can you talk about the major flaws of PAKFA if any?


----------



## HariPrasad

wanglaokan said:


> No matter how Hariprasad say, J20 is a fine 5th fighter. It won't change. You have to tolerate Indian buddy trolling when they feel insecured. That's called humanitarian. The right to troll by the weaker.



This is a long discussion in which I do not want to enter into. You should ask your country man who terms their weapons as batter than Su 35 and F22 killer right from the first day. Subsequently some of your scientist come out with some horrible reality exposing the fact that it lacks the capability of the 3 decade old weapon. It is not the question of my believing or not believing. Every decent product has some development time and learning curve. You guys think that you can nullify that by copying. Had you concentrated on R&D and one to 2 plane of your own requirement, Perhaps you could have come out with some decent product. You choose to copy anything available instead. The result is a huge portfolio of unusable products. You guys have move very much ahead in Philosophy of copying that to start with a focus on R & D is very difficult for you guys. It will be very interesting to watch whether R & D brings a nation like us ahead in critical technology or reverse engineering takes you ahead of us.



wanglaokan said:


> @HariPrasad:
> can you talk about the major flaws of PAKFA if any?




So far as I know, PAKFA do not have any Major Flaw (Russia is very much capable of rectifying it if any flaw is there). It is a highly potent machine. Design and capability wise Russian planes are Awesome. The main problem wit Russian system is reliability. e.g We spend a huge amount to upgrade M2k where as we retires Mig 21. We already retired Mig-23,25 and 27. This is the main difference between France and Russian weapons.


----------



## Beast

HariPrasad said:


> This is a long discussion in which I do not want to enter into. You should ask your country man who terms their weapons as batter than Su 35 and F22 killer right from the first day. Subsequently some of your scientist come out with some horrible reality exposing the fact that it lacks the capability of the 3 decade old weapon. It is not the question of my believing or not believing. Every decent product has some development time and learning curve. You guys think that you can nullify that by copying. Had you concentrated on R&D and one to 2 plane of your own requirement, Perhaps you could have come out with some decent product. You choose to copy anything available instead. The result is a huge portfolio of unusable products. You guys have move very much ahead in Philosophy of copying that to start with a focus on R & D is very difficult for you guys. It will be very interesting to watch whether R & D brings a nation like us ahead in critical technology or reverse engineering takes you ahead of US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, PAKFA do not have any Major Flaw (Russia is very much capable of rectifying it if any flaw is there). It is a highly potent machine. Design and capability wise Russian planes are Awesome. The main problem wit Russian system is reliability. e.g We spend a huge amount to upgrade M2k where as we retires Mig 21. We already retired Mig-23,25 and 27. This is the main difference between France and Russian weapons.



Stop trying to act professional. By trying to imply China currently still heavily rely on copy shows Indian igorant and sourgrape mentality.

J-20 is a product as a result of years of result and lightning advance of China technology.
High end technology like super computer helps in designing and optimise the best result of the require product. Together with the latest technology in aviation building of using 3D printing. Weight and wastage reduction plus stronger structure resulted in more superior product. I haven heard PAKFA use 3D printing... Also China has already inducted many AESA destroyer, AWACS and AEW which Russia yet to demonstrated in any of their tri- service.

Chinese supercomputer retains 'world's fastest' title, beating US and Japanese competition - News - Gadgets & Tech - The Independent



> A Chinese supercomputer has retained the crown of world’s fastest supercomputer, beating competitors from both Japan and the US.The Tianhe-2 was built by *China's National University of Defence Technology* in Guangzhou and is capable of operating at 33.86 petaflop/s.
> 
> This is the equivalent of performing 33,863 trillion calculations per second and is almost double the score achieved by the second most powerful machine: the American Titan supercomputer, which clocked in at 17.59 petaflop/s.
> 
> The list of the world’s fastest supercomputer is compiled biannually by the University of Mannheim in Germany, using a test known as the Linpack benchmark.



Noted who is the creator and builder of Tianhe-2.

As for PAFKA flaw. It can be easily goggle. But some ostrich just try to hide from the reality.

Aircraft carrier Liaoning vs Vikramaditya | Page 22


----------



## HariPrasad

Beast said:


> Stop trying to act professional. By trying to imply China currently still heavily rely on copy shows Indian igorant and sourgrape mentality.
> J-20 is a product as a result of years of result and lightning advance of China technology.
> High end technology like super computer helps in designing and optimise the best result of the require product. Together with the latest technology in aviation building of using 3D printing. Weight and wastage reduction plus stronger structure resulted in more superior product. I haven heard PAKFA use 3D printing... Also China has already inducted many AESA destroyer, AWACS and AEW which Russia yet to demonstrated in any of their tri- service.
> Chinese supercomputer retains 'world's fastest' title, beating US and Japanese competition - News - Gadgets & Tech - The Independent





Fine than fight a war with Chinese weaponry with some one having US or Russian Weapon. You will get answer.


----------



## HariPrasad

Beast said:


> Noted who is the creator and builder of Tianhe-2.
> As for PAFKA flaw. It can be easily goggle. But some ostrich just try to hide from the reality.
> Aircraft carrier Liaoning vs Vikramaditya | Page 22




Wow!!!!!!!!


What a reliable source you have posted as the reference?????!!!!!!!!. Own post of some other forum!!!!!!! I Am impressed!!!!!!!!!

It is very funny that Statement of Chinese scientist quoted by Chinese media is not a reliable source for Chinese and Pakistani members but their own post or post of some like them is of a great importance that it becomes a reference.


----------



## 帅的一匹

HariPrasad said:


> Fine than fight a war with Chinese weaponry with some one having US or Russian Weapon. You will get answer.


Inferior complexity. You don't even believe yourself. India is doing well, but you are 15 behind in aviation industry compared with PRC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

wanglaokan said:


> Inferior complexity. You don't even believe yourself. India is doing well, but you are 15 behind in aviation industry compared with PRC.




you are free to interpret anything in your way. If you think that you have moved ahead 15 or 50 years by copying anything available and producing nonusable inventory, enjoy your progress. Who am I to argue against that.

Pl look into the video of our non inducted plane into the link I posted. I urge you to post a video demonstrating same capability of your planes which are 15 years ahead of us. Just one video is enough. Post No 8626.



LCA News & Discussions | Page 432


----------



## Beast

HariPrasad said:


> Wow!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> What a reliable source you have posted as the reference?????!!!!!!!!. Own post of some other forum!!!!!!! I Am impressed!!!!!!!!!
> 
> It is very funny that Statement of Chinese scientist quoted by Chinese media is not a reliable source for Chinese and Pakistani members but their own post or post of some like them is of a great importance that it becomes a reference.



Given your newly join date, we can forgive your igorant and think PAFKA is some light years ago of J-20 and think J-20 is result of only espionage , pure copy and no indigenous input.

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype / A PreliminaryAssessment



> The J-XX/J-20 is a large fighter, similar in size to an F-111. This first-of-type aircraft presents with a large dihedral canard-delta wing configuration; with a pair of outward/rearward canted all moving combined vertical/horizontal tails; and, similarly large, outward canted ventral fins/strakes which, if all moving like the tails and retained on any production version, will make for some quite advanced capability options in the areas of controllability and manoeuvrability. There is little doubt this configuration is intended to provide good sustained supersonic cruise performance with a suitable engine type, and good manoeuvre performance in transonic and supersonic regimes.
> 
> The stealth shaping is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
> 
> The J-XX/J-20 design appears to be largely built around the stealth shaping design rules employed in the F-22A Raptor:
> 
> The chined J-XX/J-20 nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22, yielding similar signature performance in a mature design.
> 
> The J-XX/J-20 trapezoidal edge aligned engine inlets are closest to the F-22, though appear to be larger and employ an F-35 style DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) design, obviously intended to improve on F-22 inlet edge signature.
> 
> *The J-XX/J-20 wing fuselage join, critical for beam and all aspect stealth, is in shaping and angle very similar to the F-22, and clearly superior to both the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.*
> 
> The J-XX/J-20 flat lower fuselage is optimal for all aspect wideband stealth, and emulates the F-22 design closely.
> 
> Planform alignment of the J-XX/J-20 shows exact angular alignment between canard and delta leading edges, and exact crossed (starboard to port, port to starboard) angular edge alignment between canard and delta trailing edges. Leading edge sweep is ~43°, clearly intended for efficient supersonic flight.
> 
> The J-XX/J-20 nose and main undercarriage doors employ X-band optimised edge serration technology, based on F-117A and F-22 design rules.
> 
> The aft fuselage, tailbooms, fins/strakes and axi-symmetric nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop-gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype.
> 
> The airframe configuration and aft fuselage shape would be compatible with an F-22A style 2D TVC nozzle design, or a non-TVC rectangular nozzle designed for controlled infrared emission patterns and radio-frequency stealth.
> 
> The airframe configuration is compatible with ventral and side opening internal weapon bays, and large enough to match or exceed, by some degree, the internal weapons payload of the F-22A Raptor.
> 
> Internal fuel fraction is also likely to be high, given the fuselage configuration and large internal volume of the big delta wing. This indicates an intent to provide a sustained supersonic cruise capability, in the manner of the proposed FB-22.
> 
> The PLA have not disclosed the engine type. There are claims that the Russians supplied supercruise capable 117S series engines, though, subject to the overall efficiency of the aircraft’s aerodynamics, these would likely not be sufficient to extract the full performance potential of this advanced airframe.
> 
> The intended sensor suite remains unknown. China has yet to demonstrate an AESA radar, or an advanced indigenous Emitter Locating System (ELS). However, these could become available by the time this airframe enters production. Suitable Russian hardware is currently in late development and/or test.





HariPrasad said:


> you are free to interpret anything in your way. If you think that you have moved ahead 15 or 50 years by copying anything available and producing nonusable inventory, enjoy your progress. Who am I to argue against that.
> 
> Pl look into the video of our non inducted plane into the link I posted. I urge you to post a video demonstrating same capability of your planes which are 15 years ahead of us. Just one video is enough. Post No 8626.
> 
> 
> 
> LCA News & Discussions | Page 432



What crap is that? Serious? Non inducted plane? Why not bring out star war , future 30 years plane and try to brag about the capabilites? Same like you launch a 30% completed carrier and start to claim superior India shipbuilding capabilities compare to China? 

You sound desperate to prove something?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HariPrasad

Beast said:


> Given your newly join date, we can forgive your igorant and think PAFKA is some light years ago of J-20 and think J-20 is result of only espionage , pure copy and no indigenous input.




What else you can say after being exposed number of time on forum arguing without proper knowledge of the subject. You can say me Kiddo, nonsense etc. but you can not argue on the point because it needs knowledge of the subject. See some video of PAKFA performing super maneuvers. you will get the idea of difference between the two.



Beast said:


> What crap is that? Serious? Non inducted plane? Why not bring out star war , future 30 years plane and try to brag about the capabilites? Same like you launch a 30% completed carrier and start to claim superior India shipbuilding capabilities compare to China?
> You sound desperate to prove something?



SO you are unable to post Video? How can those aerodynamic disasters can climb vertically when they can not perform 360* vertical loop.


We are not among the BS country who induct the plane which can not perform the basic maneuvers.

We did not launch 30% complete career but we celebrate a milestone of completion of basic platform. Your country took 15 years to make some cosmetic changes on old Ukraine career bought in 1998. You inducted it without capability of fighting a war. It can not leave Chinese cost and go to high sea and fight. J15 has 200 KM combat radios with not more than 2 ton payload etc etc...


----------



## j20blackdragon

Tejas: 30 years under development, 40% foreign components, and still not inducted.

AFP: Turbulence ahead for Indian fighter jet: analysts



> Turbulence ahead for Indian fighter jet: analysts
> 
> (AFP) – Jan 20, 2011
> 
> NEW DELHI — India's homegrown fighter jet, the Tejas, has finally been cleared for operations but analysts say any celebration of India's entry into an elite club of military hardware producers is premature.
> 
> Initial operational approval for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) has taken 26 years -- the result of endless developmental delays, technological hiccups and massive cost overruns.
> 
> First conceived as a direct replacement for the Indian Air Force's (IAF) ageing fleet of Russian-made MiG-21s -- tagged "flying coffins" for their abysmal safety record -- the LCA was hyped as a milestone in India's bid to reduce its dependency on military imports.
> 
> Although conceived, designed and assembled in India, its "indigenous" label is somewhat misleading as *40 percent of its components are foreign-made*, including the radar and US-built engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## HariPrasad

Beast said:


> What crap is that? Serious? Non inducted plane? Why not bring out star war , future 30 years plane and try to brag about the capabilites? Same like you launch a 30% completed carrier and start to claim superior India shipbuilding capabilities compare to China?
> You sound desperate to prove something?




We are not among the BS country who induct the plane which can not perform the basic maneuvers.

We did not launch 30% complete career but we celebrate a milestone of completion of basic platform. Your country took 15 years to make some cosmetic changes on old Ukraine career bought in 1998. You inducted it without capability of fighting a war. It can not leave Chinese cost and go to high sea and fight. J-15 has 200 KM combat radios etc etc...


j20blackdragon said:


> Tejas: 30 years under development, 40% foreign components, and still not inducted.
> 
> AFP: Turbulence ahead for Indian fighter jet: analysts




So you are posting 3 years old news to justify something. Whole your post is crap. However what I like a lot in your post is your Avatar.


----------



## Beast

HariPrasad said:


> We are not among the BS country who induct the plane which can not perform the basic maneuvers.
> 
> We did not launch 30% complete career but we celebrate a milestone of completion of basic platform. Your country took 15 years to make some cosmetic changes on old Ukraine career bought in 1998. You inducted it without capability of fighting a war. It can not leave Chinese cost and go to high sea and fight. J-15 has 200 KM combat radios etc etc...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are posting 3 years old news to justify something. Whole your post is crap. However what I like a lot in your post is your Avatar.



Clearly you are emotional. Sprouting nonsense does not make India looks macho but silly. Seriously? Cosmestic changes from an empty hull to fully opertional carrier that able to land fighter jet with arrestor hull.. A 65000tons ship cannot go high sea? Are you trying to kid 3 years old kid?

I know you are upset India lag behind in every area compare to China , be it economy, sport, technology and military. Bragging and talking nonsense will even make you looks silly.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## aliaselin

Why not kick the idiot out and leave him in his delusion？
By the way，J-20 No.2011 will come out tomorrow.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

2011






 Time is tomorrow（？）。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


> 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time is tomorrow（？）。


YF-22 ---> F-22, it means J-20 project develop very well, close to the day of joining PLAAF.

Mixed by F-22 and J-20...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2

cirr said:


> 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time is tomorrow（？）。



WoW

24h? I am counting... 



wanglaokan said:


> Inferior complexity. You don't even believe yourself. India is doing well, but you are 15 behind in aviation industry compared with PRC.



15 years? 

India import parts from all over the world, so the planes of IAF can have much less than 15-year-gap with China, some of them could be quite similar, e.g. Su-30 MKI and J-11b.

However, producing planes reflects the underlying large scale industrial sophistication of a country. If measured from this angle, India-assembled plane (the 1st and the only one and still unfinished: LCA Tejas) , which is the hallmark of Indian industrial capabilities (i.e. assembling imported foreign key parts under guidance of foreign consultants, & final painting of course) by and large, is about 50 years behind China's industrial might and sophistication (today's India can not even match China's industrial depth & width and engineering indepedence of 1960s after the Soviet-split), and the gap is enlarging by the day...

Anyway, it's not my intention to be off-topic. Let's come back to J-20's incoming new version.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HariPrasad

Beast said:


> Clearly you are emotional. Sprouting nonsense does not make India looks macho but silly. Seriously? Cosmestic changes from an empty hull to fully opertional carrier that able to land fighter jet with arrestor hull.. A 65000tons ship cannot go high sea? Are you trying to kid 3 years old kid?
> 
> I know you are upset India lag behind in every area compare to China , be it economy, sport, technology and military. Bragging and talking nonsense will even make you looks silly.




I am not emotional but you are not well conversant with the subject may be because the news would have been banned in your country. 

Pl read what Russian expert says about Chinese aircraft career. Pl read the article and say whether It is fully operational or not and whether it is fit for high sea operation or not?

Russian Expert: Liaoning-Test Platform, Vikramaditya-Fully operable combat capable


----------



## 帅的一匹

Speeder 2 said:


> WoW
> 
> 24h? I am counting...
> 
> 
> 
> 15 years?
> 
> India import parts from all over the world, so the planes of IAF can have much less than 15-year-gap with China, some of them could be quite similar, e.g. Su-30 MKI and J-11b.
> 
> However, producing planes reflects the underlying large scale industrial sophistication of a country. If measured from this angle, India-assembled plane (the 1st and the only one and still unfinished: LCA Tejas) , which is the hallmark of Indian industrial capabilities (i.e. assembling imported foreign key parts under guidance of foreign consultants, & final painting of course) by and large, is about 50 years behind China's industrial might and sophistication (today's India can not even match China's industrial depth & width and engineering indepedence of 1960s after the Soviet-split), and the gap is enlarging by the day...
> 
> Anyway, it's not my intention to be off-topic. Let's come back to J-20's incoming new version.


What if they can't buy from outside during war? Who dare to supply components to India when China engages with India? 15 years is very conservative estimation. India can't produce a decent rifle, China can produce everything from bots to stealthy fighter, that's the difference. When PLAAF and IAF face each other, IAF can't endure long(not including the pressure from PAF). CHina is too strong for India to stand along, the integrated national technical capacity is not on the same level at all.@Astronaut：Please do something before this thread get ruined.

2011's all-movable stabilator area increase 15% comapred with 2001, and the size of The wing cylinder and ventral fin have been decreased sharply.

New stealthy paint has been tested on 2011, more like generation 2 paint on F22.

I think the aviation Scientists must listen the advices from PDF members to improve J20, haha!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

HariPrasad said:


> I am not emotional but you are not well conversant with the subject may be because the news would have been banned in your country.
> 
> Pl read what Russian expert says about Chinese aircraft career. Pl read the article and say whether It is fully operational or not and whether it is fit for high sea operation or not?
> 
> Russian Expert: Liaoning-Test Platform, Vikramaditya-Fully operable combat capable



LOL... Russian expert? Clearly you are getting emotional. Let me show you one fine example of so called garbage Russian expert comment 

China's J-15 Carrier-Based Fighter is Inferior to Russian Su-33 fighter: Russia ~ ASIAN DEFENCE

RIA Novosti is notorious anti-China sourgraped news report which will rubbish anything, even its fake.

A 3 years old year kid with half a brain will also easily comprehend a J-15 produced in year 2013 is definitely more superior than a 1990 build Su-33 due to the advances od microchips, processor , production method and material..

J-15 benefits from 3 D printing which helps to reduce addtional soldering weight material and additional usage of composite helps to further reduce more weight while still enhancing the service airframe of J-15.

China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33 - People's Daily Online



> First, J-15 hasanavionicsmoreadvancedthanSu-33. Su-33 isequippedwithold-fashioned ARINC429 discreteavionicssystemofone-waylow-speeddatabus, whileJ-15 adoptsjointavionicssystemofbidirectionaldatabus.
> 
> TS-100, the Su-33's fire-control computer, has a computing speed of only 170,000 times per second, while the J-15's fire-control computer has an estimatedcomputing speed of over several million times per second.
> 
> The J-15 owns a much more advanced radar system than the Su-33. Due to its backward avionics system, the Su-33 can only serve as interceptors, and is incapableof air-to-ground precision strike.
> 
> The J-15 adopts improved materials and production techniques, and thus has greater strength and lighter weight.
> 
> Finally, the J-15 is powered by home-made Taihang (WS-10) turbofan engine, which is more powerful than the Su-33's engine. Overall, the J-15 is superior to theSu-33, and is comparable to world-class carrier-based aircraft such as the United States' F-18 and France's Rafale.



Let me quote you another fine example of Russian rubbishing which quickly pick up by Kanwa news defense but turn out to be the joke of the butt when they try to claim CV-16 Liaoning has no operational capapbilities due to lack of arrestor hook. 

Russia refuses to sell arresters for Chinese aircraft carrier

This news was pick up from Rusnavy which publish plenty of lies and anti-China propaganda as they are bitter of Chinese advancement and overtaking the Russian.

Let me show you a video and see who is lying.. 






You are emotionally picking up fake news that suit your agenda. We can actually too but we are not as despicable like you.. 

Posting fake news will not make you look smart but stupid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

He try to convince Chinese member J20 sucks, and finally he sucks.


----------



## HariPrasad

Beast said:


> LOL... Russian expert? Clearly you are getting emotional. Let me show you one fine example of so called garbage Russian expert comment
> China's J-15 Carrier-Based Fighter is Inferior to Russian Su-33 fighter: Russia ~ ASIAN DEFENCE
> RIA Novosti is notorious anti-China sourgraped news report which will rubbish anything, even its fake.
> A 3 years old year kid with half a brain will also easily comprehend a J-15 produced in year 2013 is definitely more superior than a 1990 build Su-33 due to the advances od microchips, processor , production method and material..
> J-15 benefits from 3 D printing which helps to reduce addtional soldering weight material and additional usage of composite helps to further reduce more weight while still enhancing the service airframe of J-15.
> China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33 - People's Daily Online




You are getting Imotional and not me.

J 15 is a BS aircraft. I and Russian expert do not say that, Even Chinese scientist say that.

Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter

I think CCP do not allow you to access these news.



wanglaokan said:


> He try to convince Chinese member J20 sucks, and finally he sucks.




There is no need to convince Chinese members (In fact you can not convince them as they are blind and brainwashed) . J15, J31 and J20 are exposed by Chinese scientist themselves. The article says that each part of J20 is ill designed. i.e Wings, Fuselage, Weapon bay, Engine lay out, Engine themselves. Can you pl tell what is left in plane now.


----------



## cirr

J-2011 made low speed taxiing runs this afternoon in CAC airfield。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## boke

希望能早日看到J-20进入量产阶段，而不仅仅是跟其它先进战机在数据上进行对比，不管有多少人对此品头论足，我始终认为事实胜于雄辩。J-20不需要跟某些连自己的战机都无法制造的国家来比较，因为根本没有可比性。有很多人都在说模仿，从婴儿开始，只要是一个身体健康的人，我们就始终在模仿，这是学习的毕竟阶段，但模仿到理解，到自主运用甚至自主创新，这才是我们中国人重视所在，如果某些人总是拿模仿来贬损中国的航空工业，那我只能说，这些人根本是在损人不利己，没有模仿，你怎么是现在的自己，难道不应该是一张白纸吗？

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

J-20 N.o2011, it's the formal prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sasquatch

We are getting off topic, stick to the topic please.


----------



## HRK

cirr said:


> J-2011 made low speed taxiing runs this afternoon in CAC airfield。



is it significant .... explain a bit ....


----------



## xhw1986

*J-20 stealth fighter fit with air refueling probe: eyewitness*






An image drawn by a Chinese internet user who claims to have seen the third prototype of the Chengdu J-20 first hand shows that the nation's first stealth fighter is likely to be designed with an external air refueling probe, according to our sister paper Want Daily.

The aerodynamic configuration of the third prototype is completely different from the first two aircraft, if the drawing proves accurate. Its fuselage is no longer printed in black and white, but in a camouflage similar to the F-22 Raptors of the US Air Force. The fighter's vertical tail is 15% larger than its predecessors as well. The supposed air refueling probe has been placed by the nose of the plane.

There remain four reasons why J-20 is equipped with the probe-and-drogue system — a loose hose that is fit onto the opposite plane's fuel nozzle in mid-flight — versus the direct fuel pump injected through the more modern flying boom system. First, China does not have the technology to design and widely use the flying boom system. The J-20 is designed to have an external refueling probe because its predecessor, the J-10, was designed in this way. It is a safer move for China to stick with a design with which it is competent. Thirdly, the designers of the aircraft will not have to change the refueling system again if J-20 is going to be deployed aboard an aircraft carrier. Lastly, the flying boom system is not very suitable for carrier-based fighters.

Like the two earlier prototypes, the new J-20 will undergo test flights for its potential in the PLA's future aerial operations.

J-20 stealth fighter fit with air refueling probe: eyewitness｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xhw1986

*4th Prototype of J-20 Mighty Dragon 5th Generation Stealth Fighter Takes off*

*

*


----------



## sincity

xhw1986 said:


> *4th Prototype of J-20 Mighty Dragon 5th Generation Stealth Fighter Takes off*
> 
> *
> 
> *





This baby look pretty slick.


----------



## cirr

“striptease” or what？


----------



## qwerrty

cirr said:


> “striptease” or what？



what's the point of doing that? people already know what j-20 looks like, even have seen the internal weapons bay..


----------



## j20blackdragon

qwerrty said:


> what's the point of doing that? people already know what j-20 looks like, even have seen the internal weapons bay..



Because 2011 is rumored to be a pre-production aircraft, i.e. it's no longer a prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

The strip show continues：

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qwerrty

shape of the canards look different or maybe it's just angle..


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuttler

j20blackdragon said:


> Because 2011 is rumored to be a pre-production aircraft, i.e. it's no longer a prototype.



any noticeable modification to the previous prototypes?
or is that equipped with WS-15?


----------



## Dazzler

yapeeee

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> yapeeee


What's this sirjee ???


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> What's this sirjee ???



j-20 new prototype in grey tone,


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> j-20 new prototype in grey tone,


But why celebrate ???

We ain't getting none


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> But why celebrate ???
> 
> We ain't getting none




none so far, i am happy for chinese friends, as they are in ours

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 592257001

RAMPAGE said:


> But why celebrate ???
> 
> We ain't getting none


I do not believe the PAF is in need of such jet, as its mission profile is not designed for Pakistan, neither would be its operating expenditure.

However, that being said, there is no doubt that advanced technology that is being used by J-20 or any of the other PLAAF jets will not be implemented on board existing PAF jets' upgrade packages (downsized AESA, slim-profile PGMs, HMD/glass cockpit, etc) or simply be part of future PAF's fighter (J-10B )

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat

Dazzler said:


> yapeeee




This is 2002 with a new paint. The PT-2003 has cropped tails.


----------



## cirr

Dazzler said:


> yapeeee



This is 2002 with a new generation of stealth coating。


----------



## cirr

J-2011 1st taxing run today：


----------



## everchump

Front J20-2011

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## everchump

J20-2011

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

everchump said:


> Front J20-2011



The inlets have obviously changed.

Also note the new yellow structure under the nose. Chinese EOTS?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio

j20blackdragon said:


> The inlets have obviously changed.
> 
> Also note the new yellow structure under the nose. Chinese EOTS?


Yes, J-20 N.o2011 install China EOTS

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Ignore the J-10. Instead focus on the bottom left.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CrazyPaki

so by 2016 we should see the first j-20 start production


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## qwerrty

those wing flap actuators are much smaller now


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20 is envolving in an incredible speed, wait and see more coming. The current paint job is much better than the previous one.


----------



## Genesis

wanglaokan said:


> J20 is envolving in an incredible speed, wait and see more coming. The current paint job is much better than the previous one.


I'm thinking 2018 would be a good year and 2022 when we have an effective number and tactics.


----------



## 帅的一匹

We shall dedicate ourself to another 10 years development, 2025 will be the show-hand year.

The USA wanna irritate China by disturbing the normal pace we have for development, just ignore those clown countries bootlicking USA's arse. China will continue to grow, no one could stop it.

prototype 2011 has made steady progress toward our goals, said diffrent engines'd been installed on '2011‘？any light could be shed on it?


----------



## Beast

CrazyPaki said:


> so by 2016 we should see the first j-20 start production



By 2016 , the first combat J-20 squadron shall be formed by then.



wanglaokan said:


> We shall dedicate ourself to another 10 years development, 2025 will be the show-hand year.
> 
> The USA wanna irritate China by disturbing the normal pace we have for development, just ignore those clown countries bootlicking USA's arse. China will continue to grow, no one could stop it.
> 
> prototype 2011 has made steady progress toward our goals, said diffrent engines'd been installed on '2011‘？any light could be shed on it?



Definitely non AL-31 engine. It will be WS-10 on steroid or WS-15 engine.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Nose landing gear door has changed.

Yellow EOTS visible under the nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## xhw1986

*Distributed Aperture System*










Notable differences in the new jet are: F-35 style EOTS below the nose, modified air intakes and ventral fins.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CrazyPaki

looks pretty cool


----------



## Superboy

Intakes now resembles those of F-35 rather than F-22. On track to IOC in 2017.


----------



## j20blackdragon

The large number of changes would suggest that the initial rumors of '2011' no longer being a prototype are probably true. We are now looking at the pre-production or low rate initial production (LRIP) version of the J-20. In other words, the J-20 has undergone a YF-22 to F-22 transition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

I'm keen to see the wings and canards.


----------



## sweetgrape

2011&2002


----------



## qinglong-china

sweetgrape said:


> 2011&2002


Very sexy


----------



## qinglong-china

RAMPAGE said:


> But why celebrate ???
> 
> We ain't getting none


I think that this question depends on the needs of your defense.
Maybe in future, China and Pakistan will cooperate stealth fighter with single engine like jf-17.
Who knows


----------



## RAMPAGE

qinglong-china said:


> I think that this question depends on the needs of your defense.
> Maybe in future, China and Pakistan will cooperate stealth fighter with single engine like jf-17.
> Who knows


There are rumors about J-31 for PAF.


----------



## qinglong-china

RAMPAGE said:


> There are rumors about J-31 for PAF.


I don't know that whether j-31 with twin-engine meets the needs of Pakistan defence.


----------



## RAMPAGE

qinglong-china said:


> I don't know that whether j-31 with twin-engine meets the needs of Pakistan defence.


Well, in future we'll definitely be needing a twin-engine aircraft for our navy.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

RAMPAGE said:


> There are rumors about J-31 for PAF.


 
I will be glad if China and Pakistan can come up soon with an 5th aircraft to meed Pakistan airforce requirement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Next big surprise?


----------



## xuxu1457




----------



## Beast

j20blackdragon said:


> Next big surprise?


WS-15 engine


----------



## xhw1986

*China’s Latest Stealth Fighter Prototype Has, Well, Actual Stealth Features*
*Possible new camera and coating on latest J-20*

The third—or maybe fourth—copy of China’s first stealth fighter design has appeared in photos published on the Chinese Internet. The Chengdu J-20 Dragon with the nose number “2011" appears to boast several important improvements and marks Beijing’s continued march towards an operational radar-evading warplane.

In other words, this new J-20 is a big deal—and comes hard on the heels of several other major aerospace advancements in China, including the first public flights of the new J-16 fighter-bomber and a potentially weapons-armed jet drone.





J-20 number 2011. Via Chinese Internet
The J-20 first appeared in photos leaked online—most likely by bloggers on the Chinese Communist Party payroll—in late December 2010. The large, twin-engine fighter prototype with the nose number “2001,” painted a sinister black, first flew in January 2011, commencing a slow but steady test program.

International reaction to China’s first stealth warplane, albeit in prototype form, ranged from panicked to dismissive. “Asian Pacific’s political landscape will be changed,” claimed Arthur Ding, a Taiwanese analyst. But Chinese Air Force Gen. Chen Bingde admitted that there was a “gaping gap” between the J-20 and U.S.-made stealth warplanes including the F-22 and F-35.





J-20 number 2001. Via Chinese Internet
Chengdu added another J-20—nose number “2002” to the test fleet in May 2012. In October, a possible third aircraft numbered “2003” appeared, but some analysts speculated that 2003 was actually just 2002 with modifications to its nose radome in order to accommodate a new, electronically-scanned radar. 2003 also appeared to have a fittings on top of the radome for an infrared sensor.

So far, the J-20s have used Russian-made AL-31F and Chinese WS-10 engines. A new, purpose-built engine for the J-20 is reportedly in development.





J-20 number 2002. Via Chinese Internet
2011 appears to share 2003’s new radome but omits the top fitting for the IR sensor. Instead, 2003 has a housing below its nose for what seems to be an electro-optical sensor—basically, a powerful camera. A key piece of equipment on the U.S. F-35, an EO sensor allows a stealth fighter to detect targets at long range without resorting to radar, which can be picked up by the enemy.

It’s worth noting that EO and IR are not mutually exclusive—the F-35’s camera also includes an infrared function.





J-20 number 2003. Via Chinese Internet
In addition to the camera housing, J-20 2011 appears to feature a metallic stealth coating, giving it the same characteristic sheen as the F-22 and F-35. Stealth paints and coatings, made of materials that can absorb radar and infrared energy, are key aspects of stealth design but are notoriously difficult to formulate, manufacture and maintain.

The coatings can also be wickedly toxic, although it’s unlikely Beijing will worry overmuch about that.

Just because the new J-20 appears to have a stealth coating does not mean the coating works or is economical. Still, the new prototype’s appearance is a triumph for Chengdu and the Chinese Air Force and brings Beijing that much closer to fielding combat-ready stealth fighters, perhaps as early as 2017, according to some projections.

But China still lags far behind the U.S. when it comes to cutting-edge warplanes. The U.S. Air Force already possesses 20 B-2 stealth bombers plus more than 180 F-22s. The Americans also have around 100 F-35s for tests and training and could deploy those new fighters, warts and all, within two years.

Russia and Japan are also developing radar-evading fighters. The Russian Sukhoi T-50 first flew in early 2010. Five T-50 prototypes are in testing and Moscow hopes to purchase 60 front-line examples after 2016. Japan’s _Shinshin _stealth fighter is still in the early design phase and, as Tokyo is also purchasing F-35s, might never enter serial production.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

xhw1986 said:


> But China still lags far behind the U.S. when it comes to cutting-edge warplanes. The U.S. Air Force already possesses 20 B-2 stealth bombers plus more than 180 F-22s. The Americans also have around 100 F-35s for tests and training and could deploy those new fighters, warts and all, within two years.


 

The worst decision Obama made was terminating F-22 production and developing more advanced versions of F-22. After decades of work and billions spent, F-22 would have been ideal for replacing the aging F-15. F-35 is nowhere NEAR being operational due to massive budget cuts in recent years by Obama, and it's too few too late to replace the aging F-16. J-20 has F-35's air intakes and EOTS and obviously AESA. I suspect massive transfer of American technology to China via Israel. I would be cautious as to say China still lags far behind the US when it comes to cutting-edge warplanes. J-10B is superior to any operational American fighter jet sans F-22A, and is at least structurally more advanced than F-22A due to DSI.


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bilal.

Stealthy F-35 style nozzle. Does it also sport ws-15?


----------



## qwerrty

no more al-31 engines. this is probably the biggest changes so far for 2011. ws-10x ?ws-15? or photoshopped?


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

Dazzler said:


> View attachment 13686



Nice view.


----------



## Superboy

qwerrty said:


> no more al-31 engines. this is probably the biggest changes so far for 2011. ws-10x ?ws-15? or photoshopped?


 
Which J-20 prototype has AL-31 engines?


----------



## ice bomb

How about everyone of them?

WS-15 is still years away.


----------



## Superboy

ice bomb said:


> How about everyone of them?
> 
> WS-15 is still years away.




That's WS-10G, not AL-31.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Superboy said:


> That's WS-10G, not AL-31.



No they are still using AL-31 variants on the J-20. As a matter of fact the first batch of J-20s to enter service will probably use Russian engines. There is no logical reason to complicate the testflight process with interim indigenous 4th gen engines. WS-15 will be mature by 2020.


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> No they are still using AL-31 variants on the J-20. As a matter of fact the first batch of J-20s to enter service will probably use Russian engines. There is no logical reason to complicate the testflight process with interim indigenous 4th gen engines. WS-15 will be mature by 2020.


Why would first batch of J-20 enter service uses AL-31 engine? You think J-20 is J-10B? Stop yr naysaying. J-20 is a high priority project. At worst, it will uses a domestic engine. We have seen WS-10 engine uses on J-11B and J-16. J-20 operational batch will definitely uses WS-10 engine.


----------



## j20blackdragon

According to rumors, new engines with F-35 style serrations may have been installed. The fact that we have seen '2011' from several different angles but do not have a single clear picture of the engine nozzles is suspicious in and of itself. Why 'striptease' something as trivial as AL-31?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

And from Chinese forum, the witnesses heard a different engine sound very distinctively from the usual AL-31. All this indicate it will be a new type of engine.

I find it stupid that someone will mention J-20 will enter service with AL-31 engine.PLAAF commander will be idiotic to accept the requirement of using a under power and foreign engine for its top end fighter. Fortunately, that is not the case.


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

N.o2011

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Aeronaut said:


> View attachment 13754



Thats a very obvious PS. Look at the front landing gear... But it will not be far with real full photo reveal.


----------



## HAIDER

2001-2011

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

I doubt it - there still will be more prototypes AND vigorous flight and weapons testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yzd Khalifa

Aeronaut said:


> I doubt it - there still will be more prototypes AND vigorous flight and weapons testing.



It might take sometime but at the end of the tunnel the Chinese will interface it sooner or later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

china work quickly so if we seen production start in 2015 no wonder


----------



## CrazyPaki

@Imran Khan i think 2015 seems kinda early, i see early 2017 as a possible production date.


----------



## HAIDER

This is Number 11 in testing phase. Its almost 11 a year . According to Pentagon , will be operational before 2018

Pentagon now estimates China J20 Stealth Jet will be operational sooner than 2018

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

Have they increased canard span / area like what we saw in a blue print design a few pages back ?


----------



## 帅的一匹

I would say before year 2017.


----------



## h0mer

With what engines?


----------



## Genesis

h0mer said:


> With what engines?



The engines we are building. BTW, we do have powerful engines already, it's just not very reliable, due to a lack of experience and experimentation.

You know, this is the kind of ignorance of people not in the sciences. They think innovation is this magical thing, but it's really just development base on need and previous works. Though there are people that are almost alien, but even they didn't go from nothing to everything.

China will lead in science, you know why? Because riches creates needs, needs creates market, market creates wealth, and everyone wants that.

Just look at Japan, from Meiji to today, look at all of Europe, industrial revolution happened in England, and yet, today England is not the top technology nation, or look at England, she did once lead in science, but remember before that she was also a backwater occupied by farmers and hoarders.

Then there is China, India, Muslim Caliphs, Rome, Greece, technological leaders of their day. What do everyone have in common? Wealth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## h0mer

Genesis said:


> The engines we are building. BTW, we do have powerful engines already, it's just not very reliable, due to a lack of experience and experimentation.
> 
> You know, this is the kind of ignorance of people not in the sciences. They think innovation is this magical thing, but it's really just development base on need and previous works. Though there are people that are almost alien, but even they didn't go from nothing to everything.
> 
> China will lead in science, you know why? Because riches creates needs, needs creates market, market creates wealth, and everyone wants that.
> 
> Just look at Japan, from Meiji to today, look at all of Europe, industrial revolution happened in England, and yet, today England is not the top technology nation, or look at England, she did once lead in science, but remember before that she was also a backwater occupied by farmers and hoarders.
> 
> Then there is China, India, Muslim Caliphs, Rome, Greece, technological leaders of their day. What do everyone have in common? Wealth.



Don't need to get your panties in a bunch and definitely don't need a history lesson bud. I asked a simple question. A simple answer would have sufficed. I only asked because someone said it's in serial production or close to it... with underpowered AL-31's? 

"China will lead in science, you know why? Because riches creates needs, needs creates market, market creates wealth, and everyone wants that."

This is some of the dumbest logic I've ever heard... you went from Riches to Wealth.... that's what we call a cyclic dependency in the engineering industry (yes I'm an aerospace engineer, if anyone's being ignorant, it's you). Might want to proofread your responses next time.


----------



## Genesis

h0mer said:


> Don't need to get your panties in a bunch and definitely don't need a history lesson bud. I asked a simple question. A simple answer would have sufficed. I only asked because someone said it's in serial production or close to it... with underpowered AL-31's?
> 
> "China will lead in science, you know why? Because riches creates needs, needs creates market, market creates wealth, and everyone wants that."
> 
> This is some of the dumbest logic I've ever heard... you went from Riches to Wealth.... that's what we call a cyclic dependency in the engineering industry (yes I'm an aerospace engineer, if anyone's being ignorant, it's you). Might want to proofread your responses next time.



Who could tell, officially Type 52D destroyer don't exist even though it is in sea trials, people have photographs.

The domestic engines used is also keeping very low profile, I'll bet most don't even know there are Chinese engines have entered serial production for quite a while.

J-20 is top secret, nobody knows, we can't even get a 360 view of the plane and you want to know what engine?

Also, this is an internet forum, not my graduation thesis. BTW what i described in the wealth riches thing, it's logical, most of my electives were economics.


----------



## Foo_Fighter

Wow J20 in real success of Chinese defense industry... I can see serial production starting from 2017 itself as Chinese themselves like to make benchmarks for them. This again is an example of Chinese intelligence, hardwork and dedication. All the best China!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rockstar08

good work , but what about flight testing ?? 
isnt J-20 having some issues ? ? 
but if its now in serial production than they must have solved them , when will the production start ?


----------



## ice bomb

Genesis said:


> Who could tell, officially Type 52D destroyer don't exist even though it is in sea trials, people have photographs.
> 
> The domestic engines used is also keeping very low profile, I'll bet most don't even know there are Chinese engines have entered serial production for quite a while.
> 
> J-20 is top secret, nobody knows, we can't even get a 360 view of the plane and you want to know what engine?
> 
> Also, this is an internet forum, not my graduation thesis. BTW what i described in the wealth riches thing, it's logical, most of my electives were economics.



There are enough pictures to determine what engines J-20 are using currently. And it is not ws-10.


----------



## shuttler

ice bomb said:


> There are enough pictures to determine what engines J-20 are using currently. And it is not *ws-10*.



WS-15 for J20


----------



## Khan_patriot

HAIDER said:


> 2001-2011



looks really effing cool


----------



## ice bomb

shuttler said:


> WS-15 for J20


They are still a few years away afaik. The first batch will be russian engines. Same as J11B.


----------



## shuttler

ice bomb said:


> They are still a few years away afaik. The first batch will be russian engines. Same as J11B.



my point was WS15 is for J-20 not WS10 which is for J-10B. J-15 and J-16
WS13 for FC-1 or JF17

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nomi007

no.2011
will be final selection model


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Genesis said:


> The engines we are building. BTW, we do have powerful engines already, it's just not very *reliable*, due to a lack of experience and experimentation.
> 
> You know, this is the kind of ignorance of people not in the sciences. They think innovation is this magical thing, but it's really just development base on need and previous works. Though there are people that are almost alien, but even they didn't go from nothing to everything.
> 
> China will lead in science, you know why? Because riches creates needs, needs creates market, market creates wealth, and everyone wants that.
> 
> Just look at Japan, from Meiji to today, look at all of Europe, industrial revolution happened in England, and yet, today England is not the top technology nation, or look at England, she did once lead in science, but remember before that she was also a backwater occupied by farmers and hoarders.
> 
> Then there is China, India, Muslim Caliphs, Rome, Greece, technological leaders of their day. What do everyone have in common? Wealth.



Not very *mature* is the better word to describe.

If WS-10 is not reliable, then the prototype couldn't pass 1000 hours of overhaul test in 2005.

The engine would not reach its full maturity until with 10 years of deployment. You discover the flaws during the deployment, it is the process to keep improving gradually.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mitro

*The Millionaire 
Question :
Which fifth generation fighter jet you like to buy and why?
Choice
1)F-22
2)F-35
3)J-20
4)J-31
5)T-50

My Answer is J-31 affordable,reliable and perfect for my garage.
because F22 is very expensive and i don't wont to die cause of lack of oxygen,F35 very expensive and low grade,J-20 i cnnot park in my garage,T-50 i don't trust russian.

You won correct answer [Sahi jawab]*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sasquatch

shuttler said:


> my point was WS15 is for J-20 not WS10 which is for J-10B. J-15 and J-16
> WS13 for FC-1 or JF17


Upgraded WS-10 will probably be used until the WS-15 is ready, WS-10 still needs to mature and the WS-13 is still in testing.

The earliest I'd except the WS-15 is by 2016-2017 and fully mature by 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## monitor

Chinese American 5th generation fighter comparison 
my first post after probably 2 years later


----------



## 帅的一匹

It might takes further 5 years to get our engines in world class level. Be patient, we will be better off in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

HAIDER said:


> This is Number 11 in testing phase. Its almost 11 a year . According to Pentagon , will be operational before 2018
> 
> Pentagon now estimates China J20 Stealth Jet will be operational sooner than 2018



Depends on what variant. First variant may actually be ready in 2016 or 2017 (depending on regional pressure and Air Force priority), but second variant may not be ready until well into the 2020s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desertfalcon

It _looks _impressive. I don't know if it is. It is huge.


----------



## HAIDER

siegecrossbow said:


> Depends on what variant. First variant may actually be ready in 2016 or 2017 (depending on regional pressure and Air Force priority), but second variant may not be ready until well into the 2020s.


Chinese has policy to evaluate performance once they produce a good number of planes. Like they produce over 100 J10 and after the collect the data from all teams they start making further progress in dynamics. But first they test fly atleast a squad of j20 for few years they we see further improvement in design and performance.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Inside China: Stealth fighter revealed - Washington Times

By Miles Yu

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Chinese military forums on the Internet were abuzz recently over the posting of the first photo of China’s latest test flight of a prototype jet.

The photo identified the aircraft as the next-generation heavy stealth fighter, the J-20 Dragon — the third J-20 prototype Beijing has revealed to the public since its debut in 2011.

The J-20’s key features resemble those of the top-of-the-line U.S. F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning.

*In fact, the official Communist Party newspaper Global Times bragged about how key technologies used for the F-35 Lightning were “completely obtained” by China and how the J-20 is equipped with these technologies and features.

In a Jan. 20 article titled “Six of F-35’s Crucial Technologies Have All Been Obtained by China; J-20 Epitomizes All the Six Technologies,” the Global Times confirmed that the advanced designs and features include a diverterless supersonic inlet, an electro-optical distributed aperture system, an electro-optical targeting system, an AVEN nozzle, and a fire-control array radar system.*

The article stops short of claiming China directly obtained these technologies from the United States. It stated that “at present, our country has completely obtained the six key technologies [used in the F-35], making us the only country after the U.S. that has completely obtained these advanced technologies.”

The first test flight of the fifth-generation stealth twin-engine fighter jet took place Jan. 11, 2011. That act caused a diplomatic firestorm because it was scheduled during the middle of a high-profile visit to China by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who took the timing of the test flight as an insult.

In his memoir “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War” published recently, Mr. Gates regaled readers with his displeasure over the test. He drew the conclusion that Chinese leader Hu Jintao was unaware of the test flight when Mr. Gates confronted him with a question about the unfriendly act.

Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman said recently that Mr. Gates was so infuriated by the flight test that he considered ending his trip prematurely in protest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

What is the new date for induction of J-20 into PLAAF?


----------



## lcloo

IceCold said:


> What is the new date for induction of J-20 into PLAAF?



No news from China, but according to Pentagon, it should be around 2017.


----------



## Beast

IceCold said:


> What is the new date for induction of J-20 into PLAAF?


During 2012 CCP meeting. It was hint at year 2014.


----------



## CrazyPaki

Beast said:


> During 2012 CCP meeting. It was hint at year 2014.


that is to early, it should be more along the lines of late 2016 to 2017


----------



## Beast

CrazyPaki said:


> that is to early, it should be more along the lines of late 2016 to 2017


2016 to 17 is more for combat maturity of the unit which regiment is build up which means late 2014. Production unit shall have produced the first operations J-20.


----------



## xhw1986

*J-20 could be as famous as the Zero: Japanese magazine*







Although some consider Chinese fighters to be little more than less impressive copies of Russian designs, the J-20, China's first fifth-generation stealth fighter, has the potential to become one of the world's most iconic military aircraft like Japan's Mitsubishi A6M Zero during World War II, according to Aireview, a Japanese magazine covering military aviation news.

Before the Zero first saw action against the Russian-built I-15bis and I-16 fighters operated by the Republic of China Air Force over Chongqing in September 1940, most Western military experts had a similar view of the Japanese fighter as people have towards Chinese fighters today, the magazine said.

Claire Lee Chennault, the legendary leader of the Flying Tigers — a group of American volunteer aviators recruited to help the ROC combat Japanese forces — sent warning to Washington about the threat posed by the Zero at the time, however none of his supervisors believed that Japan was able to effectively design its own plane.

The United States learned first-hand the now legendary capabilities of the Japanese fighter when Zeros wiped out the US defenses at Pearl Harbor and Manila in December 1941. The Zero's performance in the early stages of the Pacific War earned it a formidable reputation. Aireview said China is now developing an advanced fighter which may in time earn a similar reputation.

The J-10B and its successor, the J-20, both have the potential to reach the level of fame as the Zero during World War II, the magazine said, if the Chinese aviation industry is capable of upgrading the aircraft's software. Aireview stated that the J-20, with a large fuselage, is likely to be designed as a long-range multi-role fighter which can also be used as a tactical bomber.

As for the J-31, China's second prototype stealth fighter, its main purpose is to be exported to developing nations which are not able to purchase the US-built F-35, the magazine added.

J-20 could be as famous as the Zero: Japanese magazine｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com


----------



## gambit

The J-20 could be as 'iconic' as the Zero?  That is going too far. Could be?

The only reason why the Zero is so famous and 'iconic' is because of war. The J-20 is still under testing. What are these Japanese editors/writers smoking? If anything, it should be the F-16 that has achieved 'iconic' status.


----------



## Superboy

gambit said:


> The J-20 could be as 'iconic' as the Zero?  That is going too far. Could be?
> 
> The only reason why the Zero is so famous and 'iconic' is because of war. The J-20 is still under testing. What are these Japanese editors/writers smoking? If anything, it should be the F-16 that has achieved 'iconic' status.




J-20 is a big bird, sort of like P-47 or P-51. It is not very maneuverable, but instead relies on speed during dogfights.


----------



## Dem!god

Although some consider Chinese fighters to be little more than less impressive copies of Russian designs, the J-20, China's first fifth-generation stealth fighter, has the potential to become one of the world's most iconic military aircraft like Japan's Mitsubishi A6M Zero during World War II, according to Aireview, a Japanese magazine covering military aviation news.

Before the Zero first saw action against the Russian-built I-15bis and I-16 fighters operated by the Republic of China Air Force over Chongqing in September 1940, most Western military experts had a similar view of the Japanese fighter as people have towards Chinese fighters today, the magazine said.

Claire Lee Chennault, the legendary leader of the Flying Tigers — a group of American volunteer aviators recruited to help the ROC combat Japanese forces — sent warning to Washington about the threat posed by the Zero at the time, however none of his supervisors believed that Japan was able to effectively design its own plane.

The United States learned first-hand the now legendary capabilities of the Japanese fighter when Zeros wiped out the US defenses at Pearl Harbor and Manila in December 1941. The Zero's performance in the early stages of the Pacific War earned it a formidable reputation. Aireview said China is now developing an advanced fighter which may in time earn a similar reputation.

The article also said Chinese fighters are currently only superior in their numbers but not in quality, adding that without active electronically scanned array radar, China's J-10A fighter is unlikely to defeat Japan's American-built F-15J in a dogfight. The J-10B, the upgraded version of the J-10A, is reported to be equipped with active electronically scanned array radar but China does not have enough early warning aircraft compared to the United States and Japan, the magazine said.

Meanwhile, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force has 17 early warning aircraft and China has 11 — among them, only five are the most advanced Chinese KJ-2000 early warning planes. The People's Liberation Army Air Force and Navy Air Force have around 1,500 fighters, five times the number of Japan, however China would at present still not be able to win a decisive air battle against Japan. However, the article maintained that China will be able to fix these problems in the future.

The J-10B and its successor, the J-20, both have the potential to reach the level of fame as the Zero during World War II, the magazine said, if the Chinese aviation industry is capable of upgrading the aircraft's software. Aireview stated that the J-20, with a large fuselage, is likely to be designed as a long-range multi-role fighter which can also be used as a tactical bomber.

As for the J-31, China's second prototype stealth fighter, its main purpose is to be exported to developing nations which are not able to purchase the US-built F-35, the magazine added.
Defence News - J-20 could be as famous as the Zero: Japanese magazine

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Superboy said:


> J-20 is a big bird, sort of like P-47 or P-51. It is not very maneuverable, but instead relies on speed during dogfights.



Not really, J-20 is smaller than Flanker series fighters, and with canard it is actually very maneuverable. Also, you can not depend soly on speed in dog fight, that is why after the US produced the century series fighters ( F-101, F-104, F106 etc which were designed for high speed rather than maneuverity), their Vietnam war experience, they designe their later fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18) with maneuverity as top priority rather than high speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

gambit said:


> The J-20 could be as 'iconic' as the Zero?  That is going too far. Could be?
> 
> The only reason why the Zero is so famous and 'iconic' is because of war. The J-20 is still under testing. What are these Japanese editors/writers smoking? If anything, it should be the F-16 that has achieved 'iconic' status.



Maybe not now, but the way China's military has been building up, war is probably inevitable. If the J-20 is ready by that time, maybe the Japs have a point.


----------



## Superboy

A6M Zero was good in 1940, but by 1943 it was totally outclassed by F6F Hellcat, the latter having an engine almost twice as powerful as Zero's puny engine. Americans had lots of oil, they could afford big planes.  Only A7M Reppu could have taken on US navy fighters toe to toe. J-10 could be compared to A6M while J-20 could be compared to A7M.


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

The article is too optimistic. The only reason the Zero fighter were famous is that it fought in a war. Which I doubt any side will want to start.


----------



## elis

It would be a bad thing, the zero was very lightly armored and easily took fire

The P47 overclassed the zero

Asian culture often priviliege the quickness over the protection


----------



## BoQ77

China show their achievement with stealth, I believe one day China could make their first stealth aircraft better than Russia, then better than USA ...


----------



## 帅的一匹

elis said:


> It would be a bad thing, the zero was very lightly armored and easily took fire
> 
> The P47 overclassed the zero
> 
> Asian culture often priviliege the quickness over the protection


Who tell you that. Japan is a resource limited Country, while China is abundant with Resource. We can design and build any kind of weapon system we think it is necessary .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

elis said:


> It would be a bad thing, the zero was very lightly armored and easily took fire
> 
> The P47 overclassed the zero
> 
> Asian culture often priviliege the quickness over the protection



What has this to do with Asian culture???



Superboy said:


> A6M Zero was good in 1940, but by 1943 it was totally outclassed by F6F Hellcat, the latter having an engine almost twice as powerful as Zero's puny engine. Americans had lots of oil, they could afford big planes.  Only A7M Reppu could have taken on US navy fighters toe to toe. J-10 could be compared to A6M while J-20 could be compared to A7M.


On what technical basis are this comparison made? What similarity is there between A6M and J-20?


----------



## gambit

lcloo said:


> What has this to do with Asian culture???


He just make shit up...



lcloo said:


> On what technical basis are this comparison made? What similarity is there between A6M and J-20?


No technical basis at all.

What the Japanese writers implied was how the J-20 could -- not would -- be as surprising to the Americans of today as how the Zero surprised the Americans of pre and during WW II days. It is a bit straining because it took a war in order for the Zero to become famous. If we go by 'could' alone, then any fighter 'could' be as surprising as the Zero -- but was not because no war was available for said fighter to prove itself. The writers were trying to be objective but methinks they went too far.


----------



## Superboy

elis said:


> It would be a bad thing, the zero was very lightly armored and easily took fire
> 
> The P47 overclassed the zero
> 
> Asian culture often priviliege the quickness over the protection




Uh no, it was due to limitation of engine. Zero had a weak small 1,130 hp engine, compared to 2,000 hp of F6F Hellcat. F4F Wildcat had a 1,200 hp engine. A weak engine would have been insufficient for both performance and protection, due to weight of armor and self sealing fuel tanks.


----------



## elis

The zero was quicker i think especially for climbing


----------



## Khan_patriot

this is one sexy beast....


----------



## Superboy

elis said:


> The zero was quicker i think especially for climbing


 

Zero had superb turning rate due to long wingspan and had superb range due to lack of armor and self sealing fuel tanks. Had Luftwaffe used Zero rather than Me 109, the latter having had very short range, it would have achieved air superiority over the skies of Britain.


----------



## Dem!god

According to a report in the Want China Times, three years after the first test flight of the Chengdu J-20, China’s first stealth fighter, the Canada-based Kanwa Defense Review says aircraft designers around the world are questioning whether the fighter is capable of operating as a front-line stealth fighter.

According to the WCT article, aeronautical engineers in Russia, Poland and the United States have offered a very negative appraisal on the J-20. The chief designer from Russia’s Mikoyan military aircraft bureau said the concept of the Chengdu J-20 does not meet generally accepted stealth aircraft design criteria.




Credit: Wikimedia Commons – Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Art

His counterpart at Sukhoi, designer of Russia’s PAK FA stealth fighter, says that the J-20 cannot be considered a fifth-generation fighter because, in addition to other shortcomings, it does not have supersonic cruise capability. He also criticized the aircraft’s overall design saying that the reliability of the J-20 is not up to standards. This all according to Kanwa – Chinese engineers were not interviewed for this article. Not surprising, as China is very tight-lipped about it’s advanced aircraft designs, the [unverifiable] charge being that many of the concepts built into their stealth fighters were stolen from Western defense contractors.






Credit: *Sukhoi – PAK FA* Stealth Fighter Aircraft [Click to Enlarge]

In addition, the articles states that; “An aviation expert from Poland said the design of the J-20 is extremely odd because its front wing will increase the chance of detection by enemy radar and early warning aircraft. In the view of a designer from Lockheed Martin, the J-20 is way too big for a stealth fighter. The J-20 is very similar in size to the US F-111 tactical fighter, said the American designer, adding that China does not have engines with sufficient thrust to power the fighter”. True, but one must remember that China is in the beginning stages of developing an air-superiority, naval-attack, all-weather-capable modern stealth fighter. The process is very complicated, and by all accounts China continues to improve on its designs.


Designing an effective stealth fighter is an extremely difficult undertaking. Structures must be correctly angled, materials coating the airframe must be radar-absorptive and able to withstand the rigors of flight, and engines must be powerful yet [mostly] undetectable – at least as compared to 4th generation fighters. So the process is not easy, but engineering challenges are not insurmountable. Chinese designs will surely get better. Below, a short video of the Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon” in flight:


China’s J-20 cannot be considered a fifth-generation fighter: Kanwa | idrw.org

Can China’s J-20 “Mighty Dragon” perform as an effective fifth-generation stealth fighter? | global aviation report


----------



## nomi007

pakfa is truely shit
indians pilots told thier govt india is unhappy with russia:usa report

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SrNair

Cant avoid it like that.After all we must appreciate Chinese.Russians and Americans owned aircraft industry for more than 60 years.but China step in to it only after 1990.But they could develop a good aircraft industry.J-20 is a good fighter .But it will take time to become a real 5G fighter.



nomi007 said:


> pakfa is truely shit
> indians pilots told thier govt india is unhappy with russia:usa report



Poor guy it is just a pressure tactics of IAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Aeronautical engineers from Poland!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

UKBengali said:


> Aeronautical engineers from Poland!


Exactly. Why not ask opinion of aeronautical engineers from Somalia will look more interesting, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IND151

Dem!god said:


> According to a report in the Want China Times, three years after the first test flight of the Chengdu J-20, China’s first stealth fighter, the Canada-based Kanwa Defense Review says aircraft designers around the world are questioning whether the fighter is capable of operating as a front-line stealth fighter.
> 
> According to the WCT article, aeronautical engineers in Russia, Poland and the United States have offered a very negative appraisal on the J-20. The chief designer from Russia’s Mikoyan military aircraft bureau said the concept of the Chengdu J-20 does not meet generally accepted stealth aircraft design criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit: Wikimedia Commons – Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Art
> 
> His counterpart at Sukhoi, designer of Russia’s PAK FA stealth fighter, says that the J-20 cannot be considered a fifth-generation fighter because, in addition to other shortcomings, * it does not have supersonic cruise capability*. He also criticized the aircraft’s overall design saying that the reliability of the J-20 is not up to standards. This all according to Kanwa – Chinese engineers were not interviewed for this article. Not surprising, as China is very tight-lipped about it’s advanced aircraft designs, the [unverifiable] charge being that many of the concepts built into their stealth fighters were stolen from Western defense contractors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit: *Sukhoi – PAK FA* Stealth Fighter Aircraft [Click to Enlarge]
> 
> In addition, the articles states that; “An aviation expert from Poland said the design of the J-20 is extremely odd because its front wing will increase the chance of detection by enemy radar and early warning aircraft. *In the view of a designer from Lockheed Martin, the J-20 is way too big for a stealth fighter*. The J-20 is very similar in size to the US F-111 tactical fighter, said the American designer, adding that China does not have engines with sufficient thrust to power the fighter”. True, but one must remember that China is in the beginning stages of developing an air-superiority, naval-attack, all-weather-capable modern stealth fighter. The process is very complicated, and by all accounts China continues to improve on its designs.
> 
> 
> Designing an effective stealth fighter is an extremely difficult undertaking. Structures must be correctly angled, materials coating the airframe must be radar-absorptive and able to withstand the rigors of flight, and engines must be powerful yet [mostly] undetectable – at least as compared to 4th generation fighters. So the process is not easy, but engineering challenges are not insurmountable. Chinese designs will surely get better. Below, a short video of the Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon” in flight:
> 
> 
> China’s J-20 cannot be considered a fifth-generation fighter: Kanwa | idrw.org
> 
> Can China’s J-20 “Mighty Dragon” perform as an effective fifth-generation stealth fighter? | global aviation report





> it does not have supersonic cruise capability



It is under powered as of now. It will take time before it gets more powerful engines.



> In the view of a designer from Lockheed Martin, the J-20 is way too big for a stealth fighter



There are many sources which suggest it is intended to be used as bomber not fighter.



> design of the J-20 is extremely odd because its front wing will increase the chance of detection by enemy radar and early warning aircraft



Agreed, canards are not suitable for stealth fighters.


----------



## Beast

IND151 said:


> It is under powered as of now. It will take time before it gets more powerful engines.


Agree! But it will not be that long.




IND151 said:


> There are many sources which suggest it is intended to be used as bomber not fighter.



May I know your many sources is from where? some bogus bias western source?




IND151 said:


> Agreed, canards are not suitable for stealth fighters.









May I know is that a canard design on propose 6th gen fighter from reputable lockheed martin?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

Beast said:


> Exactly. Why not ask opinion of aeronautical engineers from Somalia will look more interesting, right?




For Indians they will accept anything that discredits anything Chinese/Pakistani etc


----------



## IND151

Beast said:


> Agree! But it will not be that long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May I know your many sources is from where? some bogus bias western source?
> 
> https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http://thediplomat.com/2011/07/stealth-fighter-or-bomber/&ei=oxf2UrjsNoexrgf7poDgCg&usg=AFQjCNEdf1N1C9KbewLBzdyrhkq9IihS_g&bvm=bv.60983673,d.bmk*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I know is that a canard design on propose 6th gen fighter from reputable lockheed martin?



*



May I know your many sources is from where? some bogus bias western source?

Click to expand...


https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http://thediplomat.com/2011/07/stealth-fighter-or-bomber/&ei=oxf2UrjsNoexrgf7poDgCg&usg=AFQjCNEdf1N1C9KbewLBzdyrhkq9IihS_g&bvm=bv.60983673,d.bmk*


*



May I know is that a canard design on propose 6th gen fighter from reputable lockheed martin?

Click to expand...

*
That design is not selected for production as of now.


----------



## SrNair

Donatello said:


> For Indians they will accept anything that discredits anything Chinese/Pakistani etc



No reverse is happen.You check Indians post here.Some may criticize.But none dicredit it unanimously like Pak/China discredit India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khan_patriot

Whether or not it is a 5th generation will be clear when it is actually seen in action.....This analysis shows the unrest the Chinese are causing the west....


----------



## OrionHunter

nomi007 said:


> pakfa is truely shit


Is this thread about the T-50 PAK FA or the Chinese J-20? Am I missing something here? 

Why do kids jump into forums just to write nonsense? 

Bloody disgusting. You just made a gawd-almighty fool of yourself. Now go play outside and stop bothering us with your nonsensical rants.



UKBengali said:


> Aeronautical engineers from Poland!


I know! Pretty dumb, eh? They should have got aeronautical engineers from BD instead. That would have lent more credibility to the report!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PARIKRAMA

*China's J-20 can't cut it as a fifth-generation fighter: Kanwa*



Staff Reporter

2014-02-06

16:46 (GMT+8)






The Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter. (Internet photo)

Three years after the first test flight of the Chengdu J-20, China's first stealth fighter, the Canada-based Kanwa Defense Review operated by military analyst Andrei Chang, also known as Pinkov, says aircraft designers around the world are still questioning whether the fighter is qualified to be called a fifth-generation fighter or not.

Aircraft designers from Russia, Poland and the United States rarely give negative comments on the design of other aircraft, according to the magazine; however, they have offered a very negative verdict on the J-20. The chief designer from Russia's Mikoyan military aircraft design bureau said the concept of Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's J-31 is much easier for him to grasp compared to the j-20 designed by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group.

For the chief designer of Russia's Sukhoi company, the J-20 cannot be considered a fifth-generation fighter as it does not have supersonic cruise capability; a criterion which would also exclude Lockheed Martin's F-35. He also questioned the reliability of the J-20's stealth capability.

An aviation expert from Poland said the design of the J-20 is extremely odd because its front wing will increase the chance of detection by enemy radar and early warning aircraft. In the view of a designer from Lockheed Martin, the J-20 is way too big for a stealth fighter. The J-20 has a very similar size to the US F-111 tactical fighter, said the American designer, adding that China does not have engines with sufficient thrust to power the fighter.

Kanwa said, however, that it is not fair to judge the J-20 by the same standards as aircraft developed in the United States and Russia, as it is the first stealth fighter fully designed by Chinese aviation experts. China has already invested too many resources in the development of the J-20 at this point, according to the magazine, and it is too late to cancel the project now. The magazine added that China can resolve the engine problem by introducing the AL31FM1 from Russia, which should provide it with sufficient thrust.


China's J-20 can't cut it as a fifth-generation fighter: Kanwa｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Excelias

It was never a true fifth gen fighter,just another one in a long list of bluff weapons by PRC albeit a much celebrated one by sino fanboys.The chinese dont have many of the basic and critical components of a fifth gen fighter.Engines,avionics,actual aerodynamic and stealth performance of the aircraft are all suspect in all fifth gen chinese projects and this is even more pronounced and betrayed by the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## egodoc222

WRONG SECTION!!!


----------



## madmusti

BS the J-20 Design is an Mikojan-Gurewitsch MiG 1.44 !







*Only it is Stealth !!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

What's the best consolation pride from this article is that we don't have to beg TOT for Pak/FAkramatiya or built some left over parts for F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

madmusti said:


> BS the J-20 Design is an Mikojan-Gurewitsch MiG 1.44 !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Only it is Stealth !!!*



MiG denies stealth technology transfer to China for J-20 fighter | Defense | RIA Novosti



> Russia has never transferred any stealth technology to China to assist it with its J-20 Black Eagle fifth-generation stealth fighter prototype, Russian plane maker MiG said on Friday.
> 
> "We are not delivering any equipment to China, and never have," MiG spokeswoman Yelena Fyodorova said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## madmusti

@Beast that they have said because the USA is angry about the J-20 !


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Kanwa in 2011: J-20 is a fake mockup that can't fly.

Kanwa in 2012: CV Liaoning has no arresting gear.

LMAO, is this a credible source?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

madmusti said:


> @Beast that they have said because the USA is angry about the J-20 !



Russia is not turkey. They do not bound to USA pressure. Did Russian gives in to US in syria war?
Why would Russia say that just to please US? Mikoyan says that becos its the truth. J-20 is made by Chinese effort.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Kanwa in 2011: J-20 is a fake mockup that can't fly.
> 
> Kanwa in 2012: CV Liaoning has no arresting gear.
> 
> LMAO, is this a credible source?



Kanwa is so stupid to pick up the news about CV-16 liaoning has no arrestor hook only to be given a slap in face when CV-16 successfully recover J-15. Who is going to trust such moron report?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> Russia is not turkey. They do not bound to USA pressure. Did Russian gives in to US in syria war?
> Why would Russia say that just to please US? Mikoyan says that becos its the truth. J-20 is made by Chinese effort.
> 
> 
> 
> Kanwa is so stupid to pick up the news about CV-16 liaoning has no arrestor hook only to be given a slap in face when CV-16 successfully recover J-15. Who is going to trust such moron report?



Kanwa is as credible as Gordon Chang when it comes to report China's military capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

PARIKRAMA said:


> For the chief designer of Russia's Sukhoi company, the J-20 cannot be considered a fifth-generation fighter as it does not have supersonic cruise capability; a criterion which would also exclude Lockheed Martin's F-35. *He also questioned the reliability of the J-20's stealth capability.*



That's rich coming from a company that makes a 'stealth' aircraft with a lower fuselage that looks like this.






No flat lower fuselage.

Inlet/engine contraption hanging out.

Engines completely unpainted and untreated with RAM.

Edge alignment problems all over the place -- with the most obvious problem being the two large vent/grille things underneath the inlets. 

Meanwhile, the J-20 has already made the transition from tech demonstrator to the pre-production (LRIP) stage.






On the other hand, the PAKFA's production line does not exist. Practically everything on the aircraft (as it is now) is handmade.

Various Obstacles Confront Russia’s T-50 Project | Aviation International News



> Russia’s NIIP radar design bureau, the traditional supplier for Sukhoi-design aircraft, has developed prototype models of the N050 active electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set. “The results of the flight-test of the radar installed in one of the four T-50 flight-test aircraft are very impressive,” according to a Russian aerospace analyst familiar with the program. However, the N050 is a hand-assembled product and “currently the industrial base capacity to series produce the N050 does not exist,” said the same analyst. Furthermore, “the PPMs [transmit/receive modules] are produced at the Istok military electronics enterprise on a limited scale, which has made the radar’s cost prohibitive.”
> 
> In the same vein, the T-50’s composite panels are also handmade using the same basic technology as the well known Sukhoi range of all-composite aerobatic sports aircraft.
> 
> The fifth-generation engine that is to power later versions of the T-50 is still mostly on paper, say Russian industry experts. The flight-test aircraft are powered by the same Saturn 117S engine that is installed in the Su-35, and this will also be the engine for the initial production batches of the T-50.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Kanwa in 2011: J-20 is a fake mockup that can't fly.
> 
> Kanwa in 2012: CV Liaoning has no arresting gear.
> 
> LMAO, is this a credible source?



No western source is credible, I watched this interview by BBC, this old bald dude keep trying to get the woman he interviewed to say that Chinese are low quality people and thus some of us behave badly on travels, and the interviewee was clearly uncomfortable and didn't agree.

Western media agenda is way worse than Chinese propaganda. If you search China in goole, 90% of the article are China will collapse, and only like 50% of that is Gordon Chang.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## madmusti

@Beast so can USA too give his Tech everyone who they want like an Enemy of Russia ? Thats the Point !

Syria is different then this !


----------



## j20blackdragon

Moreover, any hopes of the PAK FA doing well in the export market has been trashed by the J-31.

We already know NATO and US allies will be going for the F-35.

Everyone else with a brain will be buying J-31.
















The Indians are openly criticizing the PAK FA at this point, and with the rupee in free-fall mode who is going to fund the PAK FA?

Russian rubbish? India reportedly disappointed with stealth fighters from Moscow | Fox News

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

I stopped reading when it mentioned "Kanwa".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## seven7seven

Who knows how J-20 is going to turn out but Chinese are not like the US and pour more money into a money pit, like the F-35, when it consistently falls short of performance expectation. It's no surprise representatives of Lockheed Martin and Sukhoi talking bad of the J-20, where China's engineers are showing efficient and steady progress of the J-20 and in doing so putting the developers of the F-35 and PAKFA to shame. Trashing the J-20 is trying to justify their own lax and substandard progress of their 5th Gen Fighters and convincing their financial backers to allocate more funds. This kind of backbiting is very common from US and Russian developers and expect more of the same as China's military industrial complex continues to grow.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

Good. Now they can relax and delay F-35 to 2020. J-20 is on track to its 2017 IOC. I wouldn't underestimate Chinese technology. China has a rover on the moon. America does not. JF-17 is the world's first fighter jet equipped with state of the art DSI air intakes, having achieved IOC in 2010 when F-35 was supposed to but did not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sasquatch

A Kanwa article ? They're losing more credibility especially since being refuted on the Y-20.

Article does have some valid points such as the lack of TVC and Supercruise. Both of these features will come when WS-15 is ready 2016-2017, some variants of the WS-10 are testing both features. Officially I'd say we have to wait until 2017 to make the judgement if the J-20 is considered a 5th Generation Aircraft, because as of now it's still in testing phase all that can be made are assumptions and speculation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

Supercruise comes naturally when thrust to weight ratio is high enough. Rafale and Eurofighter could already do it. Gripen NG should be able to do it. J-20 should be able to do it powered by WS-15 engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Hu Songshan said:


> A Kanwa article ? They're losing more credibility especially since being refuted on the Y-20.
> 
> Article does have some valid points such as the lack of TVC and Supercruise. Both of these features will come when WS-15 is ready 2016-2017, some variants of the WS-10 are testing both features. Officially I'd say we have to wait until 2017 to make the judgement if the J-20 is considered a 5th Generation Aircraft, because as of now it's still in testing phase all that can be made are assumptions and speculation.



Really, I was never aware of the fact that Kanwa had any credibility to start with.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Genesis

siegecrossbow said:


> Really, I was never aware of the fact that Kanwa had any credibility to start with.



oh they are very credible, the same people who thinks Gordon Chang is credible also thinks Kanwa is credible, weird coincidence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

siegecrossbow said:


> Really, I was never aware of the fact that Kanwa had any credibility to start with.



This is simply a response written by the author after losing a bet that China won't have a 5th generation fighter by 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-20 2011

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kompromat

I don't get it, why did they jump from 2003-2011?


----------



## lcloo

2001, 2002 and 2003 belonged to batch "zero". 2001 can be interprected as 20 for J-20, next 0 is for batch 0, last digit 1,2,3 etc indicate aircraft number 1, 2, 3 etc.

2011 onwards is for batch 1, with signifiant changes made from batch 0. 2011 is J-20, batch 1, aircraft number 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Genesis said:


> oh they are very credible, the same people who thinks Gordon Chang is credible also thinks Kanwa is credible, weird coincidence.



There is a joke on CJDBY that claims Kanwa is sponsored by a Chinese spy organization to downplay Chinese military capabilities. There are times when that claim makes perfect sense. While Pinkov might be knowledgeable when it comes to Russian equipment, his articles on Chinese equipment are tainted by a virulent (almost cartoonish) hatred of anything Chinese. This is not the attitude you should see in a journalist.



lcloo said:


> 2001, 2002 and 2003 belonged to batch "zero". 2001 can be interprected as 20 for J-20, next 0 is for batch 0, last digit 1,2,3 etc indicate aircraft number 1, 2, 3 etc.
> 
> 2011 onwards is for batch 1, with signifiant changes made from batch 0. 2011 is J-20, batch 1, aircraft number 1.



There is also speculation that 2011 might be the first production model aircraft, if rumours of J-20 entering service between 2016-2017 is to be believed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

YF-22 prototype ===> F-22 production version, N.o200x J-20 prototype ===> N.o201x J-20 production verison.

N.o201x means close to J-20 fighter production. The aircraft structure of J-20 won't be changed, final version before mass production.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

cirr said:


> J-20 2011


Where's the EO-sensor? I don't see it. It could be just another prototype.

[Edit] nevermind, I see it now.


----------



## cirr

J-20 2012






according to a certain eyewitness。


----------



## BoQ77

Can tell me why China still pursue for Su-35 ? ( for Russian new design of Saturn engine ? )

IN below quote the General Director of United Aircraft Corp. Russia, seem to ignore that China is developing their "own advanced fighters" or J20, J31 are still nothing to Russia ?



> Major figures within the People's Liberation Army Air Force have differing opinions about whether purchasing Su-35s from Russia really serves the interests of the Chinese military aviation industry, according to the Taipei-based Central News Agency (CNA) in an interview with Andrei Chang, a Canadian military analyst.
> 
> During a press conference held at the Singapore Air Show of 2014, Mikhail Pogosyan, the general director of United Aircraft Corporation, said that Russia is unlikely to support China copying its advanced fighters again as it did in the 1990s. Copying other nation's fighter will not bring any major improvement to the Chinese aviation industry, especially since the Su-35 is not a new fighter. China should design its own advanced fighter, Pogosyan said.
> 
> The Su-35 does not guarantee air superiority for the PLA Air Force in the next 10 years, a professor from the PLA Air Force Command College said in a commentary for the Party-run PLA Daily. A similar view is being shared by many important figures in the Chinese military, said Pinkov. The current consensus reached between Beijing and Moscow will provide 24 Su-35s along with Saturn AL-41s — also known as 117S engines — to China.
> 
> Still, both sides have not reached any agreement yet regarding the transfer of Su-35's technology to China. Even though Russia is trying to terminate its cooperation with China in designing new fighter, Pogosyan said that it will be more suitable for both nations to help each other in building wide-body commercial aircraft.


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> Can tell me why China still pursue for Su-35 ? ( for Russian new design of Saturn engine ? )
> 
> IN below quote the General Director of United Aircraft Corp. Russia, seem to ignore that China is developing their "own advanced fighters" or J20, J31 are still nothing to Russia ?


 Fake news. China never interested in Su-35. The Russian purposely drag Chinese interest in to try pulling off other sale.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BoQ77

Beast said:


> Fake news. China never interested in Su-35. The Russian purposely drag Chinese interest in to try pulling off other sale.



So Russia lied to the world for their old fighters ? 
What if at last China purchases Su 35 this year ?


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> So Russia lied to the world for their old fighters ?
> What if at last China purchases Su 35 this year ?


When your "if" happen , then you come back and ask us again.

Su-35 purchase will never happen. The sales have been talking since 2011 and everytime the same old reply from Russia is "soon"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> When your "if" happen , then you come back and ask us again.
> 
> Su-35 purchase will never happen. The sales have been talking since 2011 and everytime the same old reply from Russia is "soon"



The rumor actually started since 2006.

Russia's Sukhoi markets new multi-role fighter at Chinese air show

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

J-20 2011







If（a big if）China ever buys Su-35，it would be for political and economic reasons，plus the need to speed-up the process of replacing aging J-7s and J-8s。It is a way of balancing Sino-Russian trade that's heavily tilted in the former's favour。China has money to spend and Russia needs the money。






Now roll out 2012，2013，2014。。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

I guess China would sell J20 to Russia soon.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

BoQ77 said:


> Can tell me why China still pursue for Su-35 ? ( for Russian new design of Saturn engine ? )
> 
> IN below quote the General Director of United Aircraft Corp. Russia, seem to ignore that China is developing their "own advanced fighters" or J20, J31 are still nothing to Russia ?



I think Russian media had reported China purchased for Su-35 at least for 3years ... but u know Su-35 still in Sukhoi.

If we consider the cost of next-gen fighter develop, one J-20 stealth fighter price not cheaper than Su-27/30/35, even American equipped 180x F-22 and also maintain large F-16/15/18 fighter numbers. The next-gen stealth fighter can not replace all 3-gen fighter, speciall they designed for air combat. Anti-ship & Ground-attack mission still depend on other multi-role fighters.


Su-35 is a good fighter made by Russian, if they really wanna sell it to China. I think it's a good idea for PLAAF to purchase some, 1billion $ of Su-35 deal is not a problem for today China military expenditure, it will be a good chance for Chinese to study Russian advanced fighter design.

In one word, whether selling Su-35 is not important for PLAAF now. Next 10 years it's stealth fighter's world. For those countries who have whole aviation industry and indigenously design stealth fighter, the Su-35 is not necessary.

Stealth fighter & Stealth UAV will rule the sky. In the future fewer and fewer countries can produce advanced stealth fighter ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genesis

cirr said:


>



That's a pretty clear picture, has anyone made out what that engine is?


----------



## Akasa

Genesis said:


> That's a pretty clear picture, has anyone made out what that engine is?



Likely another stock Al-31F; the WS-15 prototype won't be ready until 2014.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

SinoSoldier said:


> Likely another stock Al-31F; the WS-15 prototype won't be ready until 2014.



The nozzle looks significantly shorter and broader, it could be the WS-10G.

J-20 previously used the modified AL-31F.

Since China has many AL-31F engine in the inventory since the 1990s, and China can fully replicate it and improve it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The nozzle looks significantly shorter and broader, it could be the WS-10G.
> 
> J-20 previously used the modified AL-31F.
> 
> Since China has many AL-31F engine in the inventory since the 1990s, and China can fully replicate it and improve it.


Yes, very likely domestic engine becos AL-31 engine not offer high thrust of power required for J-20. Even an interim engine needs more power to achieve the criteria. 2014 will be the year where Chinese engine achieved the break thru.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

BoQ77 said:


> Can tell me why China still pursue for Su-35 ? ( for Russian new design of Saturn engine ? )
> 
> IN below quote the General Director of United Aircraft Corp. Russia, seem to ignore that China is developing their "own advanced fighters" or J20, J31 are still nothing to Russia ?


 

China does not need or want Su-35. WS-10 is not developed from AL-31, it's developed from F-16's engine imported in the 1980s. J-20 replaces all Flankers in PLAAF. Su-35 is a dated design. Is it me, or is the pitot tube in 2011 prototype gone?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cyberian

Out of curiosity, does China sell any military hardware to Russia?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

SUPARCO said:


> Out of curiosity, does China sell any military hardware to Russia?



Sell the machine Tools more likely.


----------



## BoQ77

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The nozzle looks significantly shorter and broader, it could be the WS-10G.
> 
> J-20 previously used the modified AL-31F.
> 
> Since China has many AL-31F engine in the inventory since the 1990s, and China can fully replicate it and improve it.



I don't think China could easily replicate Russian turbojet engine design with same quality


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

BoQ77 said:


> I don't think China could easily replicate Russian turbojet engine design with same quality



lol, China has the best 3D printing technology, which can replicate the AL-31F engine at the same quality and much larger quantity.

But the WS-10 engine is better designed, so we don't have to replicate an inferior jet engine.


----------



## Genesis

BoQ77 said:


> I don't think China could easily replicate Russian turbojet engine design with same quality


Last I heard on some forums and Baidu wiki, the quality issue has been solved, in fact it's more durable, longer life span, and better reliability. However, we can't get the thrust, acceleration quite up to that standard after these upgrades. It's not a big difference, but it's enough to keep the engine from being used on everything.

That seems to be the latest and what I been hearing on a lot of forums that are pretty famous for accuracy.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Genesis said:


> Last I heard on some forums and Baidu wiki, the quality issue has been solved, in fact it's more durable, longer life span, and better reliability. However, we can't get the thrust, acceleration quite up to that standard after these upgrades. It's not a big difference, but it's enough to keep the engine from being used on everything.
> 
> That seems to be the latest and what I been hearing on a lot of forums that are pretty famous for accuracy.



WS-10 is more powerful than AL-31.

Meanwhile it is less mature because China started later.

Just like the Gerald Ford class is nowhere as mature as the Nimitz class, but does it mean it is not a good as the Nimitz class?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> WS-10 is more powerful than AL-31.
> 
> Meanwhile it is less mature because China started later.
> 
> Just like the Gerald Ford class is nowhere as mature as the Nimitz class, but does it mean it is not a good as the Nimitz class?



I didn't say it's not as good, I'm saying the less thrust and acceleration is the maturity issue. The material, composite material and other techniques in China are actually quite good, so reliability in terms of flying hours is actually less of an issue.

But that's just what i heard.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Genesis said:


> I didn't say it's not as good, I'm saying the less thrust and acceleration is the maturity issue. The material, composite material and other techniques in China are actually quite good, so reliability in terms of flying hours is actually less of an issue.
> 
> But that's just what i heard.



AL-31 only became mature until the mid of 2000s, but it was developed in the late of 1960s and deployed in the mid of 1980s.

WS-10 was developed in the late of 1980s and deployed in the mid of 2000s, so I expect a ten year of process to reach the maturity.

BTW, the future of the jet engine will be the scramjet, not the obsolete turbofan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

BoQ77 said:


> I don't think China could easily replicate Russian turbojet engine design with same quality



There isn't a need to. Their own WS-10A outperforms their current batch of Saturn engines.


----------



## Genesis

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> AL-31 only became mature until the mid of 2000s, but it was developed in the late of 1960s and deployed in the mid of 1980s.
> 
> WS-10 was developed in the late of 1980s and deployed in the mid of 2000s, so I expect a ten year of process to reach the maturity.
> 
> BTW, the future of the jet engine will be the scramjet, not the obsolete turbofan.



reasonable time, but the WS-10 is not so much a copy, but like most Chinese "copies" they are upgrades. Russian engines have only half the reliability and life span as their American counter parts, so we are trying to catch up.

So I guess that's where the problems for this engine lies, if we just wanted the same thing we could have made on that did the same I guess earlier.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Genesis said:


> reasonable time, but the WS-10 is not so much a copy, but like most Chinese "copies" they are upgrades. *Russian engines have only half the reliability and life span as their American counter parts, so we are trying to catch up.*
> 
> So I guess that's where the problems for this engine lies, if we just wanted the same thing we could have made on that did the same I guess earlier.



To be fair, this is the anti-Russia propaganda, the current AL-31 has pretty much the same lifespan as the F110.

Same for WS-10, it has reached 1000 hours of overhaul lifespan and 3000 hours of overall lifespan since 2005, but it got some quality control problems, since many young unexperienced workers couldn't offer the craftsmanship as those specialists built the prototype in the lab.


----------



## applesauce

Genesis said:


> reasonable time, but the WS-10 is not so much a copy, but like most Chinese "copies" they are upgrades. Russian engines have only half the reliability and life span as their American counter parts, so we are trying to catch up.
> 
> So I guess that's where the problems for this engine lies, if we just wanted the same thing we could have made on that did the same I guess earlier.



Ws-10 is actually based on an american core.

most problems with it are solved, but yea its not fully matured yet, gotta start somewhere though.


----------



## BoQ77

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> lol, China has the best 3D printing technology, which can replicate the AL-31F engine at the same quality and much larger quantity.
> 
> But the WS-10 engine is better designed, so we don't have to replicate an inferior jet engine.



I think 3D Printing tech is not a magic wand !!!


----------



## mrnohnaimers

BoQ77 said:


> Can tell me why China still pursue for Su-35 ? ( for Russian new design of Saturn engine ? )
> 
> IN below quote the General Director of United Aircraft Corp. Russia, seem to ignore that China is developing their "own advanced fighters" or J20, J31 are still nothing to Russia ?



The Russian have been actively trying to sell Su-35 to China for more than 7 years already. The problem is not the Russian's reluctance to sell, it's China's reluctance to buy. 
Also copying Su-35 doesn't even make sense for China, say for example they sign the deal this year. It'll be 2015 or 2016 before Russia can deliver the Su-35s, and it'll take China 2-3 years to reverse engineer Su-35s and by than J-20s are entering into service.


----------



## Genesis

mrnohnaimers said:


> The Russian have been actively trying to sell Su-35 to China for more than 7 years already. The problem is not the Russian's reluctance to sell, it's China's reluctance to buy.
> Also copying Su-35 doesn't even make sense for China, say for example they sign the deal this year. It'll be 2015 or 2016 before Russia can deliver the Su-35s, and it'll take China 2-3 years to reverse engineer Su-35s and by than J-20s are entering into service.



gee, that sounds...reasonable, there's articles on the web by "experts" that actively promote the Idea, Chinese second artillery, one of the richest missile forces in the world, cannot afford helicopters or cars, and thus need horses.

So I would be surprised if there's articles that says Chinese spies are in the White house right now stealing the president's dairy to black mail him.


----------



## applesauce

Genesis said:


> gee, that sounds...reasonable, there's articles on the web by "experts" that actively promote the Idea, Chinese second artillery, one of the richest missile forces in the world, cannot afford helicopters or cars, and thus need horses.
> 
> So I would be surprised if there's articles that says Chinese spies are in the White house right now stealing the president's dairy to black mail him.



lol i read that article about the horses. the author sure had a huge axe to grind lol.
the article acts as though the entire PLA relies on horses(china does has an actual cavalry force for remote areas where wheeled vehicles simply cannot go), which is like saying since the US has the USS constitution the USN must be relying entirely on wooden Frigates lol


----------



## cirr

2011 high-speed taxing runs：







maiden flight imminent。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-20 2011 video：

http://v.ifeng.com/include/exterior.swf?guid=013e5a9a-dea1-4b86-aa7e-673e1527639d&AutoPlay=false

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viper0011.

Ha!! If you tried to Spy on the White House to blackmail the President, you'd be considered a terrorist! The US has a policy ......that it NEVER negotiates with the terrorists. The moral of which is that you will be tracked and found guilty......

Back to the topic, the Chinse second artillery being the richest missile force in the world.....was someone smoking something when they made this statement???? There are very few high quality missile systems out of many versions you guys use. So if after firing 100 crappy missiles, you''ll eventually get to 5 good ones....that's not 'richest missile force in the world'....that's simply a bigger size with low quality hardware!!



Genesis said:


> gee, that sounds...reasonable, there's articles on the web by "experts" that actively promote the Idea, Chinese second artillery, one of the richest missile forces in the world, cannot afford helicopters or cars, and thus need horses.
> 
> So I would be surprised if there's articles that says Chinese spies are in the White house right now stealing the president's dairy to black mail him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

orangzaib said:


> Ha!! If you tried to Spy on the White House to blackmail the President, you'd be considered a terrorist! The US has a policy ......that it NEVER negotiates with the terrorists. The moral of which is that you will be tracked and found guilty......
> 
> Back to the topic, the Chinse second artillery being the richest missile force in the world.....was someone smoking something when they made this statement???? There are very few high quality missile systems out of many versions you guys use. So if after firing 100 crappy missiles, you''ll eventually get to 5 good ones....that's not 'richest missile force in the world'....that's simply a bigger size with low quality hardware!!



So, you have unfettered access to the detailed designs of every single missile used by China? Please enlighten us how you came to know that only "very few high quality missile systems".

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Viper0011.

SinoSoldier said:


> So, you have unfettered access to the detailed designs of every single missile used by China? Please enlighten us how you came to know that only "very few high quality missile systems".



I like the picture of J-20 above this post. It's a pretty jet


----------



## Aegis DDG

cirr said:


>



Great pic. It has few angle edges and looks very stealthy like the F-22. You can even the RAM stealth coating on the fighter as light shines on the top layer of the Aircraft.


----------



## Beast

SinoSoldier said:


> So, you have unfettered access to the detailed designs of every single missile used by China? Please enlighten us how you came to know that only "very few high quality missile systems".



I can bet he knows nothing about Chinese military and using his biased biew to come to conclusion. One must remember despite China military budget is 1/4 of US but soldier wages and material fee in China is far far cheaper. In fact, we are producing large number of RD and military hardware which in a ecale comparable to US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Reviewer21

houshanghai said:


> ---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------




Looks cool! but it looks like exact replica of F-22, Why So?


----------



## Reviewer21

Genesis said:


> gee, that sounds...reasonable, there's articles on the web by "experts" that actively promote the Idea, Chinese second artillery, one of the richest missile forces in the world, cannot afford helicopters or cars, and thus need horses.
> 
> So I would be surprised if there's articles that says Chinese spies are in the White house right now stealing the president's dairy to black mail him.



World's one of the richest missile force in the world, on what basis?


----------



## Beast

Reviewer21 said:


> World's one of the richest missile force in the world, on what basis?


Based on the fact. PLA has the largest military budget after USA and China military cost it much lower compare to Other countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## faithfulguy

Redesigned J-20 stealth fighter revealed on the internet

The J-20, China's first fifth-generation stealth fighter, may have been fitted with an engine completely unlike that of its 2011 prototype, according to a photo recently released on a Chinese military website and a report by the party-run Global Times.

The photo was released to show how the engine of the new J-20 bearing the serial number 2011 was recently tested. From the photo, the thrust of the new engine appears much shorter than the original. The intake has also been redesigned to make the engine more akin to a that of a stealth fighter. The revamped engine comes along with at least 10 changes to the fuselage, according to the report.

The most important new design is its diffraction head-up display, similar to the Eurofighter Typhoon. It is one of the most advanced fighter technologies in the world, according to the report. Unlike prototype aircraft such as models 2001 and 2002, the numbers of which are painted black, the 2011 is painted in silver grey, the color used by many other stealth fighters, including the US F-22.

*A number of Western defense experts have predicted that China will eventually produce the J-20 with AL-31FN engines. Originally, the WS-15 engine was intended for the J-20 but this plan has been delayed due to a lack of technological know-how to design an advanced domestic fighter engine.*

The first group of J-20s will begin testing at a weapons test center in Cangzhou in northern China's Hebei province. The fighters may enter service with the PLA Air Force by 2017.

Redesigned J-20 stealth fighter revealed on the internet｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com


----------



## j20blackdragon

cirr said:


>



We can see the DAS window and EOTS very clearly now. Looks like the F-35 just got trolled.


----------



## neehar

so a 4th gen engine for a 5th gen plane??how effective deterrence can it be to the enemies??


----------



## Beast

The engine is WS-10G. AL-31FN is only for J-10. Wantchinatimes is blabbing rubbish again.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## faithfulguy

Beast said:


> The engine is WS-10G. AL-31FN is only for J-10. Wantchinatimes is blabbing rubbish again.



So is China using WS-10G on J-20 now or is it using AL-31?


----------



## Reviewer21

Beast said:


> Based on the fact. PLA has the largest military budget after USA and China military cost it much lower compare to Other countries.



I didn't get the colored part.


----------



## Aegis DDG

faithfulguy said:


> So is China using WS-10G on J-20 now or is it using AL-31?



Most probably WS-15 or W-10G engines. It's unlikely an engine like AL-31 will be sustainable for an stealth fighter like J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

orangzaib said:


> I like the picture of J-20 above this post. It's a pretty jet



And that pertains to the previous argument in what way?


----------



## Superboy

cirr said:


>




Woohoo, nice color.


----------



## Superboy

neehar said:


> so a 4th gen engine for a 5th gen plane??how effective deterrence can it be to the enemies??




4th generation by Chinese timeline. 5th generation by Russian / western timeline.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## walle990

Reviewer21 said:


> World's one of the richest missile force in the world, on what basis?


Also the US and Russia missile forces are restricted as per the new START treaty.



Reviewer21 said:


> I didn't get the colored part.


purchasing power and market rates, you don't pay a chinese engineer a 7 figure salary


Reviewer21 said:


> I didn't get the colored part.


It costs less to operate in China, the land, power, staff. 
It also matter the way the chinese do things, did you know the US government doesn't actually own some of its sub launched missiles such as the trident? They lease the missiles from companies like Lockheed Martin but own the nuclear material.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuttler

Reviewer21 said:


> Looks cool! but it looks like exact replica of F-22, Why So?



that is the comment from novices



walle990 said:


> purchasing power and market rates, *you don't pay a Chinese engineer a 7 figure salary*.



I dont think you know the development of China much:

企业如何爱员工：格力给员工建房 华为员工是老板（全文）_网易财经

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Obvious significant differences between Chengdu J-20 and Lockheed F-22*

The Chengdu J-20 is nothing like the F-22. If you look carefully, it should be obvious.

1. The Chengdu J-20 is a canard-delta wing fighter. The J-20 has no rear horizontal stabilizers, which is present on the F-22 quad-tail design.

The F-22 has large trapezoidal wings to maximize maneuverability. In contrast, the J-20 is optimized for transonic flight. To compensate, the J-20 has ventral stabilizers and adjustable vertical stabilizers to increase maneuverability.

2. Your eyes should be able to see the DSI (ie. diverterless supersonic inlet) on the Chengdu J-20, which is absent on the F-22.

3. The transparent RAM on the F-22 is much thicker and the gold color is more noticeable. This means the J-20 and F-22 are most likely using different chemical compounds.

4. The EOTS (ie. electro-optical targeting system) on the J-20 is not present on the F-22.

----------

*Differences between Chengdu J-20 and Lockheed F-22 design philosophies*





The Chengdu J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.

The Chengdu J-20 and Lockheed F-22 are optimized for different functions (see citation below).

The Chengdu J-20 is not a larger F-22 with canards. The J-20 has no rear horizontal stabilizers, which is present on the F-22 quad-tail design.

The combination of the canards, delta wing, and rhomboid vertical stabilizers indicate a design strategy to optimize for supersonic flight. Basically, the J-20's main purpose is to stealthily fly long distances in supercruise.

The F-22 has a diamond wing with a large surface area and large trapezoidal vertical stabilizers to provide stability. Additionally, the F-22 has thrust-vectored flat nozzles. It looks like the designers of the F-22 were optimizing for maneuverability in close combat.

The design philosophies behind the J-20 and F-22 are completely different (see reference below).

Also, you will note the J-20 has active vertical stabilizers and the F-22 has static vertical stabilizers. My guess is the J-20 has active vertical stabilizers to increase its maneuverability.

The Chengdu J-20 designers did something very clever. They built canard, delta-wing, and rhomboid vertical stabilizers to optimize for supercruise (which enlarges the combat radius during supersonic combat). However, they designed an active vertical stabilizer to work in concert with the canards and ventral stabilizers to increase maneuverability. Overall, an ingenious J-20 design that maximized supercruise range and combined it with very good maneuverability.

Reference: *Aspects of Wing Design for Transonic and Supersonic Combat*

Citation:

*The Strategic Impact of China's J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter*

"Claims that the Chengdu design is a “Sino-F-22A” make little sense, if the latter were true the aircraft would be considerably smaller. Unlike the FB-22 proposals, the J-XX [J-20] is clearly intended for air combat and using a canard-delta configuration will provide both efficient supersonic cruise, and good supersonic and transonic manoeuvre performance if fitted with engines of sufficient thrust rating[vii]."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

Well, even if J-20 use AL-31FN, it still powerful enough when it uses in battle. Just put a lot of AShM or Air to Land missile in it, then fly it with J-10, J-7, J-11 or drones. The enemies will detect the escorts, but J-20 with it's stealth capability can slip pass the enemy radar (thanks to her escort) and deliver the missiles to the target. 

Stealth Fighter doesn't have to have Super Engine like F-22. What important is that it helps the mission to destroy the enemy. If a single J-20 with her escorts dan sink several Arleigh Burke because of her stealth feature, then this aircraft is powerful and frightening.


----------



## longlong

Martian2 said:


> *Obvious significant differences between Chengdu J-20 and Lockheed F-22*
> 
> The Chengdu J-20 is nothing like the F-22. If you look carefully, it should be obvious.
> 
> 1. The Chengdu J-20 is a canard-delta wing fighter. The J-20 has no rear horizontal stabilizers, which is present on the F-22 quad-tail design.
> 
> The F-22 has large trapezoidal wings to maximize maneuverability. In contrast, the J-20 is optimized for transonic flight. To compensate, the J-20 has ventral stabilizers and adjustable vertical stabilizers to increase maneuverability.
> 
> 2. Your eyes should be able to see the DSI (ie. diverterless supersonic inlet) on the Chengdu J-20, which is absent on the F-22.
> 
> 3. The transparent RAM on the F-22 is much thicker and the gold color is more noticeable. This means the J-20 and F-22 are most likely using different chemical compounds.
> 
> 4. The EOTS (ie. electro-optical targeting system) on the J-20 is not present on the F-22.
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Differences between Chengdu J-20 and Lockheed F-22 design philosophies*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chengdu J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.
> 
> The Chengdu J-20 and Lockheed F-22 are optimized for different functions (see citation below).
> 
> The Chengdu J-20 is not a larger F-22 with canards. The J-20 has no rear horizontal stabilizers, which is present on the F-22 quad-tail design.
> 
> The combination of the canards, delta wing, and rhomboid vertical stabilizers indicate a design strategy to optimize for supersonic flight. Basically, the J-20's main purpose is to stealthily fly long distances in supercruise.
> 
> The F-22 has a diamond wing with a large surface area and large trapezoidal vertical stabilizers to provide stability. Additionally, the F-22 has thrust-vectored flat nozzles. It looks like the designers of the F-22 were optimizing for maneuverability in close combat.
> 
> The design philosophies behind the J-20 and F-22 are completely different (see reference below).
> 
> Also, you will note the J-20 has active vertical stabilizers and the F-22 has static vertical stabilizers. My guess is the J-20 has active vertical stabilizers to increase its maneuverability.
> 
> The Chengdu J-20 designers did something very clever. They built canard, delta-wing, and rhomboid vertical stabilizers to optimize for supercruise (which enlarges the combat radius during supersonic combat). However, they designed an active vertical stabilizer to work in concert with the canards and ventral stabilizers to increase maneuverability. Overall, an ingenious J-20 design that maximized supercruise range and combined it with very good maneuverability.
> 
> Reference: *Aspects of Wing Design for Transonic and Supersonic Combat*
> 
> Citation:
> 
> *The Strategic Impact of China's J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter*
> 
> "Claims that the Chengdu design is a “Sino-F-22A” make little sense, if the latter were true the aircraft would be considerably smaller. Unlike the FB-22 proposals, the J-XX [J-20] is clearly intended for air combat and using a canard-delta configuration will provide both efficient supersonic cruise, and good supersonic and transonic manoeuvre performance if fitted with engines of sufficient thrust rating[vii]."



Project F-22 is failed, it was cancelled after production of 195.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reviewer21

walle990 said:


> purchasing power and market rates, you don't pay a chinese engineer a 7 figure salary
> 
> It costs less to operate in China, the land, power, staff.
> It also matter the way the chinese do things, did you know the US government doesn't actually own some of its sub launched missiles such as the trident? They lease the missiles from companies like Lockheed Martin but own the nuclear material.



Ohk, So the manufacturing cost is less, hence they can manufacture huge amount of weapons at less cost compared to US or any developed country.

And US lease missiles, why so?



walle990 said:


> Also the US and Russia missile forces are restricted as per the new START treaty.



What is this START treaty, and what is restricted?

@Genesis so do you mean one of the richest artillery by the amount of weapons?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Reviewer21 said:


> Looks cool! but it looks like exact replica of F-22, Why So?


only in Indian's eyes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Reviewer21

wanglaokan said:


> only in Indian's eyes.


Where this indian thing come from, i just said what i felt, if i am wrong, then correct me...


----------



## neehar

Superboy said:


> 4th generation by Chinese timeline. 5th generation by Russian / western timeline.


i meant 4th generation by russian time line itself. same class engines are used for su-30mki which in future will be equipped with more advanced AL-41 class engines.


----------



## Genesis

Reviewer21 said:


> Where this indian thing come from, i just said what i felt, if i am wrong, then correct me...



how are we suppose to correct eyes, you are not arguing specs, or parts, just visual aspect of it. If you said blue looks red, what are we suppose to say to convince you otherwise? 




Reviewer21 said:


> @Genesis so do you mean one of the richest artillery by the amount of weapons?



The second artillery's budget is a blank check more or less, it's not on the official budget. The missile programs are the most important of all branches of the PLA, it is what's keeping the others out of our country. They can spend however they want. 

The current array of missiles available is not worse than Americans, in some aspects it is better. Due to necessity of China's strategic goals, some missiles are only needed by China and thus Americans are not even considering it, yet. 

China is the second largest economy, our economy still growing as a top 3 more or less, not sure latest, growth nation.

We are not north korea, where they pump their limited cash into programs, we got unlimited, figure of speech, amount of money, talent, (29 percent of all post secondary grads, by 2020, India is second with 12), and industry.

So you tell me if we are one of the richest or not.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Stealth jet 'set for maiden flight'

Updated: 2014-02-20 02:40

By Zhao Lei (China Daily)

Photos of advanced prototype posted amid speculation over imminent test

China is said to be planning the maiden flight soon of the upgraded version of the J-20 stealth fighter.

A number of photos recently taken by aviation enthusiasts at an unidentified base, and widely circulated on websites that follow the Chinese military, show a prototype of the twin-engine, fifth-generation aircraft with the serial code "2011" painted on both sides of the cockpit.

Active members on cjdby.net and fyjs.cn, the two most-visited sites that cover the Chinese military, said the first test flight of the prototype aircraft is imminent.

The flight is expected to take place in Chengdu, where the aircraft's developer, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, is headquartered.

An employee of the Aviation Industry Corp of China, parent company of the Chengdu industry group, speaking on Wednesday on condition of anonymity, said that he could neither confirm nor deny the rumors.

Recent media reports about China's military hardware testing have confirmed many of the rumors published by Chinese military enthusiasts. Many of the followers claim to have a great deal of knowledge about weapons, and sources with defense contractors.

The newest J-20 is the stealth fighter's third prototype since the aircraft's debut three years ago.

In January 2011, the J-20's first prototype made its maiden flight at an unidentified airfield in Chengdu. The 15- minute flight made China the third nation in the world to "develop and test-fly a full-size stealth combat aircraft prototype", after the United States and Russia, according to Western media outlets.

China launched its stealth fighter programs in the late 1990s. It is also developing a single-engine, radar-evading fifth-generation jet fighter called the J-31. That aircraft has undergone several test flights.

China reportedly conducted test flights of a second J-20 prototype in Chengdu in May 2012. Pictures of a J-20 prototype firing from its side weapons bays surfaced in March 2013. It's unclear which prototype was tested in March.

Chinese aviation enthusiasts said a series of improvements have been made to the stealth fighter. It reportedly has a new air intake design, *shorter engine nozzles and a sensor technology that helps pilots detect and track enemy aircraft or missiles in every direction simultaneously.*

An upcoming test would indicate that its engineers and designers have made remarkable strides to finalize the J-20 project, said Wang Ya'nan, deputy editor-in-chief at Aerospace Knowledge magazine.

"Most of the changes made to the third prototype seem to be about its aerodynamics," he said. "I think the upgraded version will have better avionics, stealth capability and stronger survivability in combat."

But Wang emphasized that it is too early to tell if the aircraft's design has been finalized, pointing out that the United States spent many years on its jet fighters and adopted numerous changes.

"China only has a short history of developing advanced aircraft. There is still a long road for us before our aircraft can compete with others," he said.

Frank Kendall, the US under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, recently told The Wall Street Journal that US defense officials "expect the Chinese to have export versions of the equipment that they have built".

Kendall said China is expected to put the J-20 into active military service in the next few years and added it could export the aircraft to other nations.

Stealth jet 'set for maiden flight'|Politics|chinadaily.com.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

j20blackdragon said:


> Active members on cjdby.net and fyjs.cn, the two most-visited sites that cover the Chinese military, said the first test flight of the prototype aircraft is imminent.



CJDBY and FYJS should thank China Daily for the free publicity.


----------



## siegecrossbow

New photo at CAC.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xhw1986



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CrazyPaki

So the 2011 has begun flight testing. Gratz


----------



## xhw1986



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

J-20 may have better ground attack capability than F-22

Staff Reporter 2014-02-23

The J-20, China's prototype first fifth-generation stealth fighter, may have better ground attack capability than its US counterpart, a report from the Beijing Sina Military Network said after a photo of the newest version of the aircraft was released on the internet.

Judging from the photo of a J-20 with the serial number 2011, Sina Military Network said the electro-optical targeting system seen below the nose indicates that the fighter is designed mainly for ground attack. This is a similar design to American stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35. With stealth capability, the article said that J-20 can be a perfect bomber when used against a ground target.

Most missions carried out by American fighters such as the F-16 Falcon or F-15E Strike Eagle in Afghanistan and Iraq are against ground targets. The F-22 is also designed with the capability to attack ground targets with joint direct attack munitions and small diameter bombs. However, the F-22 may still be detected by enemy radar while tracking a moving ground target as its radar releases electromagnetic radiation.

After all 35 satellites of the second phase of China's Beidou Navigation System are sent into orbit, the J-20 will be able to launch precision attacks against ground targets like the F-22 as well, Sina Military Network said. Noting that the J-20 can carry four air-to-air missiles, the article also indicated that China is developing its own joint direct attack munitions and small diameter bombs for the stealth fighter.

*The J-20 can carry a payload of up to 24 small diameter bombs compared to the F-22, which can carry about eight, Sina Military Network said.* If the electro-optical targeting system can be used by fourth-generation fighters like the Su-30 and J-10, this would enhance the ground attack capability for these fighters from a longer distance, the report said.

J-20 may have better ground attack capability than F-22｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

> Judging from the photo of a J-20 with the serial number 2011, Sina Military Network said the electro-optical targeting system seen below the nose indicates that the fighter is designed mainly for ground attack. This is a similar design to American stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35. With stealth capability, the article said that J-20 can be a perfect bomber when used against a ground target.




F-22 has EOTS?  wantchinatimes is so daft.


----------



## Zane



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

I think one more prototype, 2012, and serial production can begin by 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

Superboy said:


> I think one more prototype, 2012, and serial production can begin by 2015.



That's letting America dictate the pace, we aren't ready before 2018, if then. Out of the two of us the Americans are the ones worried more.

We know we are weaker, but we know the Chinese civilization, and our people supports our country taking a leadership role.

While Americans thinks we don't have guns that work, and the American government fears losing soldiers, especially the amount that would be lost in a Sino American conflict. 

Our people would be able to handle the sacrifice, because we have our eye on the prize, while Americans will not see it in so favorable a light. So while it may seem America holds all the cards, it is us that's in command actually.

We dictate the pace of our modernization plan, that's the way to win wars. They play their game we play ours, see who comes on top.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

Genesis said:


> That's letting America dictate the pace, we aren't ready before 2018, if then. Out of the two of us the Americans are the ones worried more.
> 
> We know we are weaker, but we know the Chinese civilization, and our people supports our country taking a leadership role.
> 
> While Americans thinks we don't have guns that work, and the American government fears losing soldiers, especially the amount that would be lost in a Sino American conflict.
> 
> Our people would be able to handle the sacrifice, because we have our eye on the prize, while Americans will not see it in so favorable a light. So while it may seem America holds all the cards, it is us that's in command actually.
> 
> We dictate the pace of our modernization plan, that's the way to win wars. They play their game we play ours, see who comes on top.


It's not really letting the US dictating the pace as much as it is the natural progression of the program. We'll probably see at least 1 more prototype this year and at least another 2 in 2016. By 2017, you'll probably see a full squad of J-20 prototypes.

You need to do this in order to make sure the program doesn't slow down or stall. The more prototypes you have, the easier it is to develop the system.


----------



## Superboy

J-10 first flight 1998, production by 2002. FC-1 first flight 2003, production by 2007. I think with J-20, first flight January 2011, production by late 2015 is certainly possible.  In a race with F-35A to see which can achieve IOC first.

Initial batch can be powered by WS-10A. Later batches can be powered by WS-10G. Later on all get WS-15.


----------



## Genesis

Superboy said:


> J-10 first flight 1998, production by 2002. FC-1 first flight 2003, production by 2007. I think with J-20, first flight January 2011, production by late 2015 is certainly possible.  In a race with F-35A to see which can achieve IOC first.
> 
> Initial batch can be powered by WS-10A. Later batches can be powered by WS-10G. Later on all get WS-15.



Replacing engine later sounds simple, but in reality it is not, it's very complicated, this isn't just sticking something of the same size in and it'll work, there's a ton of work that goes into it.

Also the WS-10 series are not optimized for Stealth, if we use it in a stealth engine it'll make the fighter vulnerable and useless, well not useless, but it'll be 4++ at best and not 5th gen.


I said 2018, because 2015 is supposed test flight for WS-15, I'm thinking 4-5 years of work should finally put to bed most of the problems and make the engine at least useable for the fighter. 

J-10 is different, engine is foreign, if we didn't have to worry about engines, maybe, but we do so I'm expecting 2020 to be safe. 

Don't worry in the mean time, stock up on J-16, J-15, J-11, J-10, these are still very capable fighters all of these will be able to dominate the skies for at least another 10 years after 2020. 

Don't be too impatient, America put out 4th gen in the 70s, and us in 2003. This time it is only 14 at latest, so we narrow the gap to less than half. So basically we are put at the same level as the Russians. Still a outstanding showing.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## monitor

*Modified J-20 seen being prepared for maiden test flight*
*Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

Images emerged on 20 February of a modified prototype Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-20 fifth-generation fighter undertaking high-speed taxi runs.

These taxi runs are presumably prior to its maiden flight and suggest it may be a pre-production variant slated for formal testing by the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

Photographs of the prototype first appeared on Chinese military web sites in December 2013 and January, although some of these images appeared to have been digitally altered. The prototype carries the bort number '2011' and shows modifications intended to improve engine performance, combat capability and stealth.

Most noticeable are redesigned engine intakes featuring more of a sloped 'caret' design said to improve pressure distributions for the engine. The vertical stabilizers have been clipped in their outer aft corners and the main wheel doors and the internal weapons bay cover feature larger scalloping to aid low observability. The canopy also features a new brace.

A new electronic targeting system is located below the nose and just aft the radar. This and the J-20's distributed infrared sensor system points indicate Chengdu's ambitions to give the J-20 an optical and infrared targeting and warning system similar to that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The new intake shape and electronic targeting system may also suggest multirole ambitions for the J-20, which has a larger internal weapons bay than the F-35.

On 16 February China's Securities Times Online reported that a demonstrator version of the 15-ton thrust WS-15 turbofan, the J-20's expected engine, may be completed in 2014. Other sources note the WS-15 may not be ready for service entry until 2020 and indicate that continued difficulties in its development will lead to the adoption of Russian engines for initial J-20 production.




If this is the case then the J-20 may be first powered by a version of the 13.5-ton thrust Saturn AL-31F-M1, with the 14.3-ton thrust AL-31-M2 or the 14.5-ton thrust Saturn 117S possible later options. In 2010 reports suggested that China was seeking the 117S turbofan for the J-20 but so far Russia has been reluctant to sell China this engine separately from the Sukhoi Su-35 fighter.

Fitted with Russian engines initial production aircraft could emerge as early as 2015 for testing by the PLAAF, with service entry following in 2017 and initial operating capability (IOC) by 2019.

Other sources have suggested that a tandem twin-seat 'J-20S' may also emerge in 2014, raising the possibility of an eventual dedicated fifth-generation strike fighter that could rival the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's twin-seat fourth-generation J-16 attacker, now in testing.

*COMMENT*
Design refinements are an expected result of early aircraft prototype development although it is unclear whether these modifications represent the definitive pre-production standard for the J-20.

If the reported production time-line holds, then CAC is on schedule to fulfill PLAAF General He Weirong's 9 November 2009 prediction that China's fourth-generation (fifth-generation in Western terminlogy) fighter could enter service in "8 to 10 years."




(490 words)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## trident2010

^^^ Looks nice !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Superboy

cirr said:


>




What engines are these?


----------



## cirr




----------



## Beast

Superboy said:


> What engines are these?


WS-10G


----------



## Kompromat

i see a larger wing.

i see a larger wing.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> WS-10G



Here is some information about the WS-10G engine, since it is heavily incorporated with the new 3D TVC technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CN.Black

Superboy said:


> What engines are these?


It is said that 2011 uses AL31F CEP3,the same engine J10B uses.


----------



## Beast

CN.Black said:


> It is said that 2011 uses AL31F CEP3,the same engine J10B uses.


The most powerful one after AL-31 will be 117S. There is no such thing called AL-31F CEP3. Russia has not exported any 117S to China.


----------



## CN.Black

Beast said:


> The most powerful one after AL-31 will be 117S. There is no such thing called AL-31F CEP3. Russia has not exported any 117S to China.


 AL31F CEP3 is the latest updated version of AL31F and China never bought 117S.


----------



## Beast

CN.Black said:


> AL31F CEP3 is the latest updated version of AL31F and China never bought 117S.


No. It some nonsense created by naysayer. As i say , there is no such thing called AL-31F CEP3. 117S Is the real deal but Russian do not allow that deal happen. Why would Russia sell a more powerful engine than basic AL-31 If they want to force China buy Su-35?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CN.Black

Beast said:


> No. It some nonsense created by naysayer. As i say , there is no such thing called AL-31F CEP3. 117S Is the real deal but Russian do not allow that deal happen. Why would Russia sell a more powerful engine than basic AL-31 If they want to force China buy Su-35?


 There is a updated version of AL31F with FADEC system,and its power is 135 kn,compared with 122kn of AL31F.As I know,its name is AL31F CEP3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

CN.Black said:


> There is a updated version of AL31F with FADEC system,and its power is 135 kn,compared with 122kn of AL31F.As I know,its name is AL31F CEP3.



You have to ask yourself this simple question. Why would Russian sells a more powerful engine( better than AL-31)to China when they tag 117S engine sales with Su-35 to China?

You dont just grab any rumour and think it real?


----------



## cirr

J-2011 maiden flight at 12.03 on 01.03.2014.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Beast said:


> You have to ask yourself this simple question. Why would Russian sells a more powerful engine( better than AL-31)to China when they tag 117S engine sales with Su-35 to China?
> 
> You dont just grab any rumour and think it real?



Because the Su35 deal is nonexistent and the Russians like to have money.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

You're looking at undisputed air superiority over Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

They tweaked the LERX on 2011 significantly. First of all, they removed the LEX in front of the canard when they canted the intakes downward. Secondly, they broadened the LERX before the wings and made them almost triangular. This will actually decrease vortex generation and, by extension, lift at high AOA compared with J-20. However, we don't know whether this will be offset by the newly created camber right above the intakes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## itaskol

the colour of 2011 is more like F22.
The old colour looks better.


----------



## siegecrossbow

itaskol said:


> the colour of 2011 is more like F22.
> The old colour looks better.



I think the reason for the change is that they applied RCS reducing RAM on 2011. The black paint on 2001 and 2002 are just paint.

Another photo of the J-20 during take off:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Esc8781

siegecrossbow said:


> I think the reason for the change is that they applied RCS reducing RAM on 2011. The black paint on 2001 and 2002 are just paint.
> 
> Another photo of the J-20 during take off:


Gray is a better color for low observability. Search up the Boeing bird of prey.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Esc8781 said:


> Gray is a better color for low observability. Search up the Boeing bird of prey.


You mean visual low visibility?


----------



## krash

siegecrossbow said:


> They tweaked the LERX on 2011 significantly. First of all, they removed the LEX in front of the canard when they canted the intakes downward. Secondly, they broadened the LERX before the wings and made them almost triangular. This will actually decrease vortex generation and, by extension, lift at high AOA compared with J-20. However, we don't know whether this will be offset by the newly created camber right above the intakes.



2001:






2011:






Think they just decreased both of them.


----------



## siegecrossbow

krash said:


> 2001:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2011:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think they just decreased both of them.



they removed the ones in front of the canards. It is a bit hard to see in the photo.


----------



## krash

siegecrossbow said:


> they removed the ones in front of the canards. It is a bit hard to see in the photo.



Yeah, I meant that they reduced the ones in front of the wings too, made them straight.


----------



## Esc8781

siegecrossbow said:


> You mean visual low visibility?


Yeah. Sorry for the error.


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shuttler

I am wondering if the part behind the rear wheels is too long
It seems scary as if the exhaust nozzles / rear fuselage can be easily scratched or damaged on every landing

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beidou2020

Maybe they need to place the wheels further back?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuttler

Beidou2020 said:


> Maybe they need to place the wheels further back?



yeah that can help only if the mid section will not crack as it is bearing the heaviest load like the fuel tank, the wings, the engine and the weapons or may be the engineers have already reached the optimal level

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

Canards are definitely different. More squary now.


----------



## Stealth

Need to reduce the length of this aircraft...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Now *THIS* is proper panel edge alignment.






Notice that virtually all edges and gaps within the airframe are swept at an angle and not perpendicular to the direction of flight. This is very important. The PAK FA does not have this kind of fit and finish.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nomi007

j20blackdragon said:


> Now *THIS* is proper panel edge alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that virtually all edges and gaps within the airframe are swept at an angle and not perpendicular to the direction of flight. This is very important. The PAK FA does not have this kind of fit and finish.


PAKFA is less than j-20 and j-21


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


>



I want to quickly point out that the two hexagonal 'fine grill meshes' on the J-20 are most likely similar in principle to the F-117's inlets.











As long as the holes on the 'fine grill mesh' are smaller than the wavelength of the enemy radar, it should appear as a flat surface on radar and thus remain stealthy.


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

Any news on HMD development?


----------



## Genesis

Aeronaut said:


> Any news on HMD development?


That depends, how good are your eyes? Can you see the person inside the cockpit?


----------



## Kompromat

Genesis said:


> That depends, how good are your eyes? Can you see the person inside the cockpit?



Those are old TK series. I am talking about a HMDS, to go along with the EOTS and Distributed Aperture sensors on J-20.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> I want to quickly point out that the two hexagonal 'fine grill meshes' on the J-20 are most likely similar in principle to the F-117's inlets.
> 
> As long as the holes on the 'fine grill mesh' are smaller than the wavelength of the enemy radar, it should appear as a flat surface on radar and thus remain stealthy.


Most likely, that came from Kopp and his crowd over at APA.

Let us take a look at the microwave oven and why it cook things inside but not outside...

Microwave Ovens


> Considering the frequency of 2,450 MHz, the wavelength of microwave oven radiation is about 12 cm...
> 
> ...the microwaves are effectively blocked from getting out into the room because the holes in the metal screen on the microwave oven door are about 1 mm in diameter compared to a 120 mm wavelength for the microwaves. *The wavelength of the microwaves is about 120 times the size of the holes*, and can't "see" the holes to get out.


Note the highlighted: That the operating frequency of the microwave oven is 120 times the size of the screen mesh, or grill, on the oven's door. It is technically incorrect to say that no microwaves got out of the oven by passing through the door's mesh.



> By federal regulation, microwave ovens are limited to 5 milliwatts (mW) of microwave radiation per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. This limit is far below the level known to harm people. The microwave radiation would be expected to drop off according to the inverse square law, so at 20 inches it would be down by about a factor of 100.


Microwaves do escape from the oven by going through the door's mesh. This is real physics.

When long wavelengths impact raindrops some of the signal's energy travels on the raindrop's surface and wraps around the body. Some of this energy radiate off into free space and some is reabsorbed by the main part of the signal. The energy that is radiated into free space is so small that it is attenuated in its travels. So for the microwave oven, when some microwaves do get through the door's wire mesh, whatever energy that is left after the federally mandated level of 5 milliwatts will be so weak that it will be attenuated through that short distance of 20 in that they will be harmless.

Now we go to the F-117's intake mesh or grill.

Most targeting radars operate in the famous X-band, which is...

Radio Bands and Radar Bands Frequency Chart


> 2-4 GHz 15-7.5 cm ................S Band
> 
> 8-12 GHz 3.75-2.50 cm......... X Band


Remember, the microwave oven's operating freq is effectively in the S-band: 2.45ghz.

If...

- In the interest of preventing the majority of an X-band radar signal from entering the F-117's intake tunnel...

- We are to keep the same ratio of 120 to 1 like how the microwave oven is designed...

- And if the X-band is the targeted wavelength of 3 cm.

Then: What is 120 times smaller than 3 cm? Will this mesh allows sufficient air for engines to survive? Remember, for the microwave oven, the operating freq is 120 times larger than the openings on the door's mesh/grill.

Three centimeters = about 1.2 inch.

What is 120 times smaller than 1.2 inch?

The fact is this...






The F-117's intake mesh/grill is precisely designed to allow enough air to support the engine and to diffuse any entrant signals by multiple reflections so that each reflection will be attenuated by absorber linings.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Superboy said:


> Canards are definitely different. More squary now.



All they did was trim the sharp corner on the rear-facing tip, presumably for RCS reduction purposes. They also did the same thing on the vertical stabilizer. However, some also speculate that trimming the tails helped reduce vibrations due to interactions of the tail with the vortices generated by the canards and LERX.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

j20blackdragon said:


> Now *THIS* is proper panel edge alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that virtually all edges and gaps within the airframe are swept at an angle and not perpendicular to the direction of flight. This is very important. The PAK FA does not have this kind of fit and finish.


The picture isn't available anymore.


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Kompromat

I am amazed by the quality of this awesome machine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Informant

Why is the glass canopy not like the F-22, without any structural support? Wouldnt it bounce of radar signals/waves. Pardon my lackof knowledge.


----------



## Kompromat

Informant said:


> Why is the glass canopy not like the F-22, without any structural support? Wouldnt it bounce of radar signals/waves. Pardon my lackof knowledge.








Structural support helps in bird strikes.


----------



## j20blackdragon

EOTS and DAS locations.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Informant said:


> Why is the glass canopy not like the F-22, without any structural support? Wouldnt it bounce of radar signals/waves. Pardon my lackof knowledge.



Weight saving/easier ejection. If I recall correctly, the F-35 uses a similar setup so they don't need to lift the whole one-piece canopy during ejection process. I actually liked the older one-piece canopy better, but there are trade-offs.


----------



## trident2010

j20blackdragon said:


> You're looking at undisputed air superiority over Asia.



You meant to say after 8-10 years when hopefully it is fully operational and upto the western standards, that too if US leaves the Asia and other major countries didn't field new airplanes. Looks good as a strike bomber though


----------



## nomi007

Aeronaut said:


> Any news on HMD development?










nomi007 said:


>

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

trident2010 said:


> You meant to say after 8-10 years when hopefully it is fully operational and upto the western standards, that too if US leaves the Asia and other major countries didn't field new airplanes. Looks good as a strike bomber though



You're already looking at the pre-production J-20. It won't be very long now.

At the rate China is advancing, you should probably be expecting something like this in 8-10 years.






The J-20 could be the least of your concerns at that point.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

trident2010 said:


> You meant to say after 8-10 years when hopefully it is fully operational and upto the western standards, that too if US leaves the Asia and other major countries didn't field new airplanes. Looks good as a strike bomber though




J-20 operational by 2017, 3 years from now, not 8 to 10 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Superboy said:


> J-20 operational by 2017, 3 years from now, not 8 to 10 years.



I think there is some typo error in that post, attached pic is showing "Unmanned Combat Air Vichel Concept- Anjian"


----------



## siegecrossbow

trident2010 said:


> You meant to say after 8-10 years when hopefully it is fully operational and upto the western standards, that too if US leaves the Asia and other major countries didn't field new airplanes. Looks good as a strike bomber though



Bombers that have dedicated sidebays for shortrange IR-missiles?


----------



## trident2010

j20blackdragon said:


> You're already looking at the pre-production J-20. It won't be very long now.
> 
> At the rate China is advancing, you should probably be expecting something like this in 8-10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 could be the least of your concerns at that point.



Still too many things to achieve. China still lagging far behind in 5th techs in engines, avionics, radars and weapons. It will take atleast 8-10 years to get what west/Russia has it now, However, good effort nonetheless.



siegecrossbow said:


> Bombers that have dedicated sidebays for shortrange IR-missiles?



Nothing unique, Su-34 also carry both A2G and A2A armaments. It is a strike bomber though


----------



## nomi007

- Clipped corners on canard/v-tails
- Redesign slender intakes with bump larger or protruding more
- Light-grey colour scheme
- Larger weapon bay and smaller wing actuators
- Straightened leading edge
Inner canopy frame
- Redesigned front landing gear door
- New EOTS-like sensor and holographic HUD display
- Redesigned rear fuselage around the engines and nozzles moved further in with longer tail sting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

trident2010 said:


> Still too many things to achieve. China still lagging far behind in 5th techs in engines, avionics, radars and weapons. It will take atleast 8-10 years to get what west/Russia has it now, However, good effort nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unique, Su-34 also carry both A2G and A2A armaments. It is a strike bomber though



It is easier for 4th gen fighter/fighter bombers to do this since they can mount IR missile on external pylons. There is no reason for a 5th gen fighter with internal bay to do this if air-to-air is not considered. Remember, creating side weaponsbays adds weight and complexity.


----------



## Akasa

trident2010 said:


> Still too many things to achieve. China still lagging far behind in 5th techs in engines, avionics, radars and weapons. It will take atleast 8-10 years to get what west/Russia has it now, However, good effort nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unique, Su-34 also carry both A2G and A2A armaments. It is a strike bomber though



That is a very inaccurate assumption and one based on stereotypes. The avionics and the subsystems of the J-20 has already been completed by 2009 and was in incremental improvements program ever since. Unlike Russia, China has the luxury of multiple corporations and the competition between them to generate a high quality supply chain. The Chinese also have far more experience and has produced far more models of fifth generation avionics than Russia has. Note how, for example, China has deployed AESA radars on the KJ-2000, KJ-200, KJ-500, ZDK03, J-15, J-16, J-11B, J-10B, and Z-8AEW, ever since 2003, while Russia has not even had a single AESA radar in successful service. The same goes for weapons. The Chinese have already tested their fifth generation engine in 2009 and rumors claim that another one will be done in 2014.

J-20 is not a bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## trident2010

SinoSoldier said:


> That is a very inaccurate assumption and one based on stereotypes. The avionics and the subsystems of the J-20 has already been completed by 2009 and was in incremental improvements program ever since. Unlike Russia, China has the luxury of multiple corporations and the competition between them to generate a high quality supply chain. The Chinese also have far more experience and has produced far more models of fifth generation avionics than Russia has. Note how, for example, China has deployed AESA radars on the KJ-2000, KJ-200, KJ-500, ZDK03, J-15, J-16, J-11B, J-10B, and Z-8AEW, ever since 2003, while Russia has not even had a single AESA radar in successful service. The same goes for weapons. The Chinese have already tested their fifth generation engine in 2009 and rumors claim that another one will be done in 2014.
> 
> J-20 is not a bomber.



What China needs is something similar to operation desert storm to show the world where its technology stands. Due to its secret nature of its defence developments, whatever information we get is filtered by Chinese officials. Making many models are different thing as Iran always does it but we know how effective they are. China has no access to any state of the art technology and until now we haven't seen any proof which proves otherwise.

When china attacks japan or other country in scs and show what it has in its kitty, only then we will know where all the tall claims lie. Still I think it is heading in the right direction and this is how each developing country should proceed for their defence needs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

trident2010 said:


> What China needs is something similar to operation desert storm to show the world where its technology stands. Due to its secret nature of its defence developments, whatever information we get is filtered by Chinese officials. Making many models are different thing as Iran always does it but we know how effective they are. China has no access to any state of the art technology and until now we haven't seen any proof which proves otherwise.
> 
> When china attacks japan or other country in scs and show what it has in its kitty, only then we will know where all the tall claims lie. Still I think it is heading in the right direction and this is how each developing country should proceed for their defence needs.




Operational Desert Storm proved nothing. The Iraqi military is under 1% as powerful as the Russian military. Plus, America and Britain lost quite a number of aircraft during that operation.

Coalition Fixed-Wing Attrition in Desert Storm

War between China and Japan is impossible. Such a war would plunge the world into an economic depression lasting 100 years.  Since the 1980s, globalization has linked the economies of China, Japan, America etc. into a single unit.

It is incorrect to say China does not have access to state of the art technology. Thousands of Chinese students study in the US and return to China to work in the Chinese defense industry.  Plus, it is Israel's policy to establish balance of power, and it transfers huge amounts of American technology to China. J-20 has all of F-35's technologies. In case of anti Jewish riots in America, China would be the first to be called into action against the American opposition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

Superboy said:


> J-20 operational by 2017, 3 years from now, not 8 to 10 years.


2017 seems skeptical, I'd say about 2018. The engines are still a major problem which I don't expect China to solve before at least 2016.



trident2010 said:


> What China needs is something similar to operation desert storm to show the world where its technology stands. Due to its secret nature of its defence developments, whatever information we get is filtered by Chinese officials. Making many models are different thing as Iran always does it but we know how effective they are. China has no access to any state of the art technology and until now we haven't seen any proof which proves otherwise.
> 
> When china attacks japan or other country in scs and show what it has in its kitty, only then we will know where all the tall claims lie. Still I think it is heading in the right direction and this is how each developing country should proceed for their defence needs.


starting a war just to show off is a stupid idea.


----------



## Akasa

trident2010 said:


> What China needs is something similar to operation desert storm to show the world where its technology stands



Why? Combat experience or the lack thereof has no effect on the performance of weapons.



trident2010 said:


> . Due to its secret nature of its defence developments, whatever information we get is filtered by Chinese officials.



False. So far whatever has been released are through observations made by witnesses or leaks made by insiders. If anything, whatever data the public has would be conservative compared to its actual ones.



trident2010 said:


> Making many models are different thing as Iran always does it but we know how effective they are.



False. Having multiple models show that you have a very advanced and stable supply chain that, through competition, is able to provided the highest quality possible. You can't do that with countries whose weapons components are made by either a monopoly or a limited number of corporations. Having multiple models also increase your experience in development of such systems and also allows the freedom to choose. Very few nations have this luxury and China is one of them.



trident2010 said:


> China has no access to any state of the art technology and until now we haven't seen any proof which proves otherwise.



Why would they need access to it when it can produce it itself? All the years of development and research have helped it achieve just that.



trident2010 said:


> When china attacks japan or other country in scs and show what it has in its kitty, only then we will know where all the tall claims lie. Still I think it is heading in the right direction and this is how each developing country should proceed for their defence needs.



Again, combat records have no effect on a country's capabilities and rarely are indicative of them. The Russians have never had a major conflict and yet that fact is barely an indicator of the country's ability to carry out such tasks.


----------



## trident2010

How to post a reply point by point like done in above mail? Do I need to put quote after each reply?


----------



## Akasa

trident2010 said:


> How to post a reply point by point like done in above mail? Do I need to put quote after each reply?



Put the quotations identifier before the section of the original text and put the end-quote after.


----------



## trident2010

SinoSoldier said:


> Put the quotations identifier before the section of the original text and put the end-quote after.



Could you please give me an example. I seem to be missing something. Thanks


----------



## Akasa

trident2010 said:


> Could you please give me an example. I seem to be missing something. Thanks



If you want to quote this sentence in two parts, then you would put...

[quoote="sinosoldier", post: ..... member: 10683"]
If you want to quote this sentence in two parts,
[/ quoote]

[quoote="sinosoldier", post: ... member:10683"]
then you would put...
[/quoote][/quote][/quote]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

J-20 with complete weapon package




looks really impressive


----------



## cirr

2011 2nd flight：

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 2011 2nd flight：




Amazing photo indeed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingdurgaking

nomi007 said:


> J-20 with complete weapon package
> View attachment 21192
> 
> looks really impressive



I would say the new J-20 looks far better than the earlier version... Definitely everyone will agree with me in that... Keeping the capabilities aside this photo seems to have some issue... do you guys can figure it?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shuttler

Target batch production 2016!



nomi007 said:


> J-20 with complete weapon package
> View attachment 21192
> 
> looks really impressive



enough to scare more sh*t out of haters!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

I like the bubble canopy, but too bad they abandon it due the safety issues for the pilots.

BTW, the J-20 pilot can have a 360 degree of vision relied on the sensor of its helmet instead of looking around the canopy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007

no.2011
with open weapon and side bay

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## thepakistani

america facing difficulties in f35 and even f35 got chinese parts China developing 3-4 5th gen fighter at a time, after few years scenario would be quit different j20 j31 etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Test flight today（21.03.2014）：

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

21.03.2014

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stealth

If the little reduce the size (length) of this aircraft. This aircraft become WOW...

@Aeronaut 

Please E-Mail me on my Email address if you have. Need some info.


----------



## CrazyPaki

Stealth said:


> If the little reduce the size (length) of this aircraft. This aircraft become WOW...
> 
> @Aeronaut
> 
> Please E-Mail me on my Email address if you have. Need some info.


That's what I noticed as well, its a bit long but, it doesn't matter as long as it can compete with the best.


----------



## SQ8

I still find it uncanny that Electronic Arts thought this up as their fictional China Jet back in 2003
Coincidence at its best


----------



## Bilal.

Oscar said:


> I still find it uncanny that Electronic Arts thought this up as their fictional China Jet back in 2003
> Coincidence at its best



They used to use same weapons for China and Russia and that is a Mig 1.44...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Bilal. said:


> They used to use same weapons for China and Russia and that is a Mig 1.44...


If J-20 is based off Mig.144. It will need a massive redesign that bring the air inlet from belly to side. Squeeze in a weapon bay and align all the wing edge which I think will better off going into the starting point of the drawing board.

Chengdu are specialise in canard design since from their J-9 to J-10. Its not hard to think their next generation heavy weight fighter design will based on the proven canard.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal.

Beast said:


> If J-20 is based off Mig.144. It will need a massive redesign that bring the air inlet from belly to side. Squeeze in a weapon bay and align all the wing edge which I think will better off going into the starting point of the drawing board.
> 
> Chengdu are specialise in canard design since from their J-9 to J-10. Its not hard to think their next generation heavy weight fighter design will based on the proven canard.



I was refering to the game's screenshot posted above.


----------



## SQ8

Bilal. said:


> They used to use same weapons for China and Russia and that is a Mig 1.44...


Its the planform I refer to.Who would have thought that the future of Chinese aviation would actually look something like this.


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## BRASSNAUTILUS

Beast said:


> Chengdu are specialise in canard design since from their J-9 to J-10. Its not hard to think their next generation heavy weight fighter design will based on the proven canard.



That's saying they wanted canards, knowing its drawbacks, and the fact that existing successful designs did not have canards.
The Chinese gotta be smarter than that. I think it was a compromise, so the design could achieve certain maneuverability goals without getting the necessary power. In fact they are pretty weak in this whole area, not just missing a 160kn class powerplant. They have issues from tank and ship engines to turboshaft for choppers to missile and artillery propellants. 
Ironic the people who first figured out gunpowder mix is having trouble propelling things 1,000 years later


----------



## Beast

That is misleading. Eurofighter having a superior thrust to weight ratio does not stop from from having canard. If you read song wencong paper, the benefit of canard far outweight the disadvantage which make them decide to go with canard even for stealth.

As for propulsion, China has make significant.progress and days of unpower issue is over. Look at WZ-10 attack helo coming out in number. And how many Type052D is being produce if engine is a problem still plague the warship?


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sancho

Any infos on these sensors?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## hk299792458

J-20 #2011 continues it's test fly today
















Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Stealth

Looking wOW but tooooo much bulky.. length should me 35% reduce...


----------



## lcloo

Stealth said:


> Looking wOW but tooooo much bulky.. length should me 35% reduce...


J-20 is a heavy fighter jet in the same class as Flankers, F-15 and F-14. The perception of its exagrated length is mainly due to the optical illussion caused by the low vertical height of the canted tail fins, if you transplant F-22's tail fin onto J-20, your optical perception of its lenth will be changed to a shorter one. 

Also the internal weapon bay require extra space and 2 to 3 metre length which is not found on Flankers and F-15. Unless you eliminate the internal weapon bay or make the fuel tank smaller you can't make it shorter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stealth

lcloo said:


> J-20 is a heavy fighter jet in the same class as Flankers, F-15 and F-14. The perception of its exagrated length is mainly due to the optical illussion caused by the low vertical height of the canted tail fins, if you transplant F-22's tail fin onto J-20, your optical perception of its lenth will be changed to a shorter one.
> 
> Also the internal weapon bay require extra space and 2 to 3 metre length which is not found on Flankers and F-15. Unless you eliminate the internal weapon bay or make the fuel tank smaller you can't make it shorter.



IMO because of its length ...more easily to target comparatively F22


----------



## lcloo

Stealth said:


> IMO because of its length ...more easily to target comparatively F22


May be, may be not. We don't really know. 

B2 stealth bomber is larger but because of its shape and stealth coating it is pratically undetectable. Even the non-stealth B-1B Lancer bomber has a smaller radar signature (10m sq ) than early generation flankers (14m sq) because of its shape.


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

J-20 #2011











Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

J-20 engine

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CrazyPaki

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> J-20 engine


Which engine is it using?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

CrazyPaki said:


> Which engine is it using?



WS-10G

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pangu

Looking good! Would love to see the J-20 training with the Russian T-50.


----------



## BRASSNAUTILUS

Beast said:


> As for propulsion, China has make significant.progress and days of unpower issue is over. Look at WZ-10 attack helo coming out in number. And how many Type052D is being produce if engine is a problem still plague the warship?



Doesn't take a miracle engine to power a destroyer, it's far from a speedboat race. All Japanese warships built during the war did 35+ knots, didn't help them a bit against F6fs. 
Sure China had made progresses, some in critical fields, but that is far from demonstrating they had "caught up" , which is what had been implied. Like you said, they are fielding WZ-10, not Apache. 

China isn't happy with their powerplants. That gap is everywhere. Sometimes it meant very little, ie. LM2500 vs QC-280. Sometimes it makes a world of difference - 1,000KW turboshaft of Z-10 vs the GE on Apache putting out 50% more. Had they the right turbofan, J-10B would be very close to EFA and there probably wouldn't had been a J-20 program, but reality is J-10B isn't quite as formidable as F-16C/D, yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

BRASSNAUTILUS said:


> Doesn't take a miracle engine to power a destroyer, it's far from a speedboat race. All Japanese warships built during the war did 35+ knots, didn't help them a bit against F6fs.
> Sure China had made progresses, some in critical fields, but that is far from demonstrating they had "caught up" , which is what had been implied. Like you said, they are fielding WZ-10, not Apache.
> 
> China isn't happy with their powerplants. That gap is everywhere. Sometimes it meant very little, ie. LM2500 vs QC-280. Sometimes it makes a world of difference - 1,000KW turboshaft of Z-10 vs the GE on Apache putting out 50% more. Had they the right turbofan, J-10B would be very close to EFA and there probably wouldn't had been a J-20 program, but reality is J-10B isn't quite as formidable as F-16C/D, yet.



Different countries , different needs. Let me ask you how many countries can produced 1000kw turboshaft? Why don't you go and put down the Eurotiger helo which uses also a similar 1000kw turboshaft and since like no one critise western europe lacking in propulsion advancement? WZ-10 is much smaller so that more can be pack and airflow by Y-20 plane for future global rapid development plan. I do not forsee PLA will need a apache attack helo in future.

QC-280 is perfect for our mass production destroyer Type 052D, and the future cruiser 055 will also used QC-280 to power it. This demonstrate the engine propulsion is perfect for our need. Its more of producing what suit us rather than blind follow of what American have.


----------



## cirr




----------



## Bilal.

@cirr, what does it say?


----------



## hk299792458

Bilal. said:


> @cirr, what does it say?



Seems to be 2 poems, the first one written by the CEO of AVIC group, the second one by someone else, both are published in CAN News the official newpaper of aviation in China.

I can't clearly understand everything as I'm not good in chinese, but it should say that the program J-20 is going well, and it might have a naval version of J-20.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## itaskol



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rcrmj

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> J-20 engine


in 2016 J-20 will be equipped with F-22 alike 2 dimensional thrust vectoring engine nozzles, ``

and it will end all speculations on when, how and what engine will be used on J-20````its WS-15 with 2 dimensional TV nozzles

p.s WS-13 will be in mass production in 2016 too``

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Notice the markedly different engine nozzles：

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nomi007

The latest images (April 2014) suggested that a new "stealth" nozzle was fitted on one of the engines

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Haitham

i think this fighter will be better then PAK-FA 
it's design is unique

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

cirr said:


> Notice the markedly different engine nozzles：



It is two different variants of the WS-10X engine.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

*China's J-20 a derivative of Russia's withdrawn 1.44 fighter*

Staff Reporter
2014-05-04
09:00 (GMT+8)





Russia's 1.44 fighter (Internet photo)

The Chengdu J-20, China's first fifth-generation stealth fighter has weak aerodynamic design according to Andrei Chang also known as Pinkov, the chief editor of Kanwa Defense Review based in Canada, as it is based on the Russian-built Mikoyan Project 1.44 fighter.

Although Russia denies it has ever provided China with the blueprint of the 1.44, Pinkov said that the engineers at Chengdu Aerospace Corporation did study the design of the Russian fighter. Originally, Andrei Chang believed that the J-20 was purely a Chinese design, however, sources from Russia told him that there remains the possibility that Mikoyan sold China the blueprint of the fighter.

With the birth of the more advanced Sukhoi PAK FA fighter, the status of the 1.44 remains unknown while most experts believe that it has already been withdrawn. Russian experts told Pinkov that the 1.44 has not been withdrawn because it was a bad design, but rather because it does not fit with the needs of the Russian Air Force. Since it has a huge fuselage, the 1.44 is not as maneuverable as the US Air Force's F-22.

Mikoyan was also out of budget to complete the design of its first stealth fighter, according to rumors. Still, the design of the 1.44 seems to have been valuable for China which has no experience in developing its own stealth fighter. There are still some differences between the 1.44 and the J-20, however. The 1.44 has a large box-like intake that blends into the rear fuselage, for example, while the J-20 has a low jet engine intakes design similar to the F-22.

China has a tradition of using the designs from withdrawn fighter programs of other nations according to Chang. The Chengdu J-10 was designed based on the Israeli Kfir, for example. However, most of the 1.44's weaknesses would have been inherited by the J-20 if the latter was designed according to the blueprint of the former. It may be too large and too heavy for aerial combat, for example, as well as sharing its weak aerodynamic design.


----------



## cirr

Pinkov the Baldy

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## he-man

i see 0 similarity


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

he-man said:


> i see 0 similarity



It has wings, canards, 2 engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Beidou2020

Andrei Chang and WantChinaTimes.
What a combination

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng

does 1.44 has vector fusion technology : combination of areodynamic surfaces and the thrust vectoring control


----------



## Globenim

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> It has wings, canards, 2 engines.



Dont forget the copy cat wheels.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## terranMarine

VIetcongs wants to spread the copy cat thing again of the J-20

MiG denies stealth technology transfer to China for J-20 fighter | Defense | RIA Novosti

*"We are not delivering any equipment to China, and never have," MiG spokeswoman Yelena Fyodorova said.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sasquatch

rcrmj said:


> in 2016 J-20 will be equipped with F-22 alike 2 dimensional thrust vectoring engine nozzles, ``
> 
> and it will end all speculations on when, how and what engine will be used on J-20````its WS-15 with 2 dimensional TV nozzles
> 
> p.s WS-13 will be in mass production in 2016 too``



Looks like all the turbofan issues are set to be overcome by 2016, WS-10 is already reaching full maturity and with the WS-13 going into production WS-17 rumors the SAC project could be chosen by the PLAAF . Great information @rcrmj.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Hu Songshan said:


> Looks like all the turbofan issues are set to be overcome by 2016, WS-10 is already reaching full maturity and with the WS-13 going into production WS-17 rumors the SAC project could be chosen by the PLAAF . Great information @rcrmj.


well``dont take my words for granted, these are my understandings of certain infos``

let me flash back their original words (close)``
regarding 4th gen stealth figher's engine (he didnt specify whether it was for J-20 or for project 310)```*'到16年某个二维喷口会出来' and '还有某中推也要大力推广了'*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007

display screen use for j-20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

this 'stealth too visible. not like f117a


----------



## Luftwaffe

BoQ77 said:


> *China's J-20 a derivative of Russia's withdrawn 1.44 fighter*
> 
> Staff Reporter
> 2014-05-04
> 09:00 (GMT+8)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia's 1.44 fighter (Internet photo)
> 
> The Chengdu J-20, China's first fifth-generation stealth fighter has weak aerodynamic design according to Andrei Chang also known as Pinkov, the chief editor of Kanwa Defense Review based in Canada, as it is based on the Russian-built Mikoyan Project 1.44 fighter.
> 
> Although Russia denies it has ever provided China with the blueprint of the 1.44, Pinkov said that the engineers at Chengdu Aerospace Corporation did study the design of the Russian fighter. Originally, Andrei Chang believed that the J-20 was purely a Chinese design, however, sources from Russia told him that there remains the possibility that Mikoyan sold China the blueprint of the fighter.
> 
> With the birth of the more advanced Sukhoi PAK FA fighter, the status of the 1.44 remains unknown while most experts believe that it has already been withdrawn. Russian experts told Pinkov that the 1.44 has not been withdrawn because it was a bad design, but rather because it does not fit with the needs of the Russian Air Force. Since it has a huge fuselage, the 1.44 is not as maneuverable as the US Air Force's F-22.
> 
> Mikoyan was also out of budget to complete the design of its first stealth fighter, according to rumors. Still, the design of the 1.44 seems to have been valuable for China which has no experience in developing its own stealth fighter. There are still some differences between the 1.44 and the J-20, however. The 1.44 has a large box-like intake that blends into the rear fuselage, for example, while the J-20 has a low jet engine intakes design similar to the F-22.
> 
> China has a tradition of using the designs from withdrawn fighter programs of other nations according to Chang. The Chengdu J-10 was designed based on the Israeli Kfir, for example. However, most of the 1.44's weaknesses would have been inherited by the J-20 if the latter was designed according to the blueprint of the former. It may be too large and too heavy for aerial combat, for example, as well as sharing its weak aerodynamic design.



Poor article, waste of time nothing proven the author has no access to Chinese airspace development corporation nor any credible source, already debunked.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

j20 next gen doesnt mean 5 or 3. you are day dreamer. j31 more real, I think


----------



## peaceful

BoQ77 said:


> j20 next gen doesnt mean 5 or 3. you are day dreamer. j31 more real, I think



kid, when Chinese are building J-20/J-31, you guys are protesting in vietnam. where is your future?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

Looking forward to 2012 and 2013. 

2012 has been seen by some。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

a modified Tu-204C radar testbed

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## That Guy

cirr said:


>


looks like a clay-more cutting through the wind.


----------



## cirr

*Stealth Radar Tests On Passenger Jet*

By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer

Posted 06.09.2014 at 10:15 am







*Tu-204 Tests J-20 Radar* Tu-204 number 769, a Russian origin jetliner belonging to the PLAAF's flight testing regiment, is now testing a radar for the J-20 fighter, as shown in a television clip. _cjdby.net
_
The China Test Flight Establishment's (CTFE) Tu-204 has been modified to carry a stealth fighter radome on its nose. Previously, the Russian origin Tu-204 jetliner had been reported to test Chinese air to air refueling technologies. Given the shape and large size of the radome, it is likely that the radar being carried by the Tu-204 is for the J-20 fifth generation fighter. The projected radar for the J-20 is likely the Type 1475 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which provides improved range, transmission power and frequency compared to 1970s era mechanically scanned radars. The F-22's AN/APG-77 radar was also tested on a Boeing 757 during its development. 







*Chinese Fighters' AESA Radars* Shown here are photos and line drawings of Chinese AESA radars. The top one is for the J-10B fighter and has about 1200 transmit/receiver (T/R) modules, the middle one is for the J-16 strike fighter and has 1760 T/R Modules. The bottom one destined for the J-20 5th generation stealth fighter, and has 1856 T/R modules (generally, the more T/R modules on an AESA radar, the more powerful and flexible it is). _China Defense Forum_

The current J-20 prototypes, numbers 2001, 2002 and 2011, most likely carry AESA radars themselves to test the radar performance and to simulate the characteristics of production J-20s as closely as possible. Even so, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) would want to also test the Type 1475 radar on a jetliner, since the larger aircraft have additional space to provide onsite monitoring and diagnosis by engineers and equipment. Having a dedicated Tu-204 test platform for the J-20's radar would also allow CTFE to schedule flight tests solely on the needs of evaluating the radar; the test flight schedules of the J-20s would also have to factor in questions about engines, stealth and maneuverability. 

Stealth Radar Tests on Passenger Jet | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> *Stealth Radar Tests On Passenger Jet*
> 
> By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer
> 
> Posted 06.09.2014 at 10:15 am
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tu-204 Tests J-20 Radar* Tu-204 number 769, a Russian origin jetliner belonging to the PLAAF's flight testing regiment, is now testing a radar for the J-20 fighter, as shown in a television clip. _cjdby.net
> _
> The China Test Flight Establishment's (CTFE) Tu-204 has been modified to carry a stealth fighter radome on its nose. Previously, the Russian origin Tu-204 jetliner had been reported to test Chinese air to air refueling technologies. Given the shape and large size of the radome, it is likely that the radar being carried by the Tu-204 is for the J-20 fifth generation fighter. The projected radar for the J-20 is likely the Type 1475 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which provides improved range, transmission power and frequency compared to 1970s era mechanically scanned radars. The F-22's AN/APG-77 radar was also tested on a Boeing 757 during its development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chinese Fighters' AESA Radars* Shown here are photos and line drawings of Chinese AESA radars. The top one is for the J-10B fighter and has about 1200 transmit/receiver (T/R) modules, the middle one is for the J-16 strike fighter and has 1760 T/R Modules. The bottom one destined for the J-20 5th generation stealth fighter, and has 1856 T/R modules (generally, the more T/R modules on an AESA radar, the more powerful and flexible it is). _China Defense Forum_
> 
> The current J-20 prototypes, numbers 2001, 2002 and 2011, most likely carry AESA radars themselves to test the radar performance and to simulate the characteristics of production J-20s as closely as possible. Even so, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) would want to also test the Type 1475 radar on a jetliner, since the larger aircraft have additional space to provide onsite monitoring and diagnosis by engineers and equipment. Having a dedicated Tu-204 test platform for the J-20's radar would also allow CTFE to schedule flight tests solely on the needs of evaluating the radar; the test flight schedules of the J-20s would also have to factor in questions about engines, stealth and maneuverability.
> 
> Stealth Radar Tests on Passenger Jet | Popular Science




There is a rumor that the J-15 is also being retrofitted with the J-16's radar. J-11B is also getting this upgrade. Does anybody know when this will materialize?


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> There is a rumor that the J-15 is also being retrofitted with the J-16's radar. J-11B is also getting this upgrade. Does anybody know when this will materialize?


J-15 yes, J-11B not sure


----------



## BoQ77

All under developped, that cause even Liaoning board empty. 
Not much to record.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aliaselin

Interesting


----------



## Indus Falcon

aliaselin said:


> Interesting
> View attachment 35073


What is it?


----------



## aliaselin

Abu Nasar said:


> What is it?


Luneberg lens on F22 to increase RCS for radar tracking. It is said J20 2011 also take this now, but that guy dare not to upload the photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

aliaselin said:


> Luneberg lens on F22 to increase RCS for radar tracking. It is said J20 2011 also take this now, but that guy dare not to upload the photo.


Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it!


----------



## cirr

J-20 2011 left for the flight test centre near Xi'an，marking another milestone in the development of the stealth fighter jet。

J-20 2012（already fully functional）will take over the baton and continue flight testings in Chengdu。

J-20 2013。。。






Goodbye 2011

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## xunzi



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Mao1949

Gorgeous!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

aliaselin said:


> Luneberg lens on F22 to increase RCS for radar tracking. It is said J20 2011 also take this now, but that guy dare not to upload the photo.



HI

I mean no offence 




but i dont think that pic is from J20

*CHEERS*


----------



## OCguy

xunzi said:


>




The link to that photo is a crazy fringe-blog in the USA, which explains why it appears to be fake. Looks at the edges of the plane where it meets the uniformly colored background.


----------



## xunzi

OCguy said:


> The link to that photo is a crazy fringe-blog in the USA, which explains why it appears to be fake. Looks at the edges of the plane where it meets the uniformly colored background.


No the photo is a reverse flip over from cirr picture above me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## OCguy

xunzi said:


> No the photo is a reverse flip over from cirr picture above me.



That is true as well, but it is definitely not a photograph.


----------



## xunzi

OCguy said:


> That is true as well, but it is definitely not a photograph.


Picture is real. Just add more light and coloration for clarity.


----------



## aliaselin

DrSomnath999 said:


> HI
> 
> I mean no offence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but i dont think that pic is from J20
> 
> *CHEERS*


 you can not read english?


----------



## DrSomnath999

aliaselin said:


> you can not read english?



WTH 
does that mean!!

i cant see anything written in english in that pic apart from the website ,plz care to point out if i am missing anything

*CHEERS*


----------



## terranMarine

DrSomnath999 said:


> WTH
> does that mean!!
> 
> i cant see anything written in english in that pic apart from the website ,plz care to point out if i am missing anything
> 
> *CHEERS*



Read post #3949 again


----------



## aliaselin

DrSomnath999 said:


> WTH
> does that mean!!
> 
> i cant see anything written in english in that pic apart from the website ,plz care to point out if i am missing anything
> 
> *CHEERS*


 Just give an explanation what J-20 2011 now has and information is from somebody else.


----------



## atlantis_cn

DrSomnath999 said:


> WTH
> does that mean!!
> 
> i cant see anything written in english in that pic apart from the website ,plz care to point out if i am missing anything
> 
> *CHEERS*



You are right, that pic is not from J20. Calm down.


----------



## cnleio

J-20 N.o2011 left ChengDu to China national flight test centre in ShanXi province















4th J-20 prototype out, N.o2012 will start flight test in ChengDu soon

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## That Guy

cnleio said:


>


Nice CG, it gives a rough idea of the J-20 in action.


----------



## Sasquatch

cnleio said:


> 4th J-20 prototype out, N.o2012 will start flight test in ChengDu soon



Good, the Fifth Prototype (2013) is coming as well, WS-15 could be used as early as next year. J-20 is on schedule for 2016-2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## xunzi

Hu Songshan said:


> Good, the Fifth Prototype (2013) is coming as well, WS-15 could be used as early as next year. J-20 is on schedule for 2016-2017.


If J-20 comes ready in 2018, it is already a major achievement. If it comes out on 2017, I think it will shatter a lot of people belief, especially from the West analysts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## OCguy

xunzi said:


> If J-20 comes ready in 2018, it is already a major achievement. If it comes out on 2017, I think it will shatter a lot of people belief, especially from the West analysts.



The West analysts predicted it would be in service already.


----------



## xunzi

OCguy said:


> The West analysts predicted it would be in service already.


The West analysts predicted the 2020s equipped with WS-15 and some predicted 2016 with Russian engine while our military official gave it 2018 with WS-15. My prediction is 2020s with WS-15 as well. It looks like we are way ahead of schedule and I have to say I am impressed with our development.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Hu Songshan said:


> Good, the Fifth Prototype (2013) is coming as well, WS-15 could be used as early as next year. J-20 is on schedule for 2016-2017.


As far as i knew, it will be 2018 PLAAF equip J-20 stealth fighters. 
I personally like J-31, it's still mysterious for J-31's destiny. I wish China J-31 can export to foreign nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xunzi

cnleio said:


> As far as i knew, it will be 2018 PLAAF equip J-20 stealth fighters.
> I personally like J-31, it's still mysterious for J-31's destiny. I wish China J-31 can export to foreign nations.


J-31 is a baby compare to J-20. J-20 is the real big boy because J-20 has double-engine. There is a reason the US never export two engine F-22 but instead they make the F-35 single engine for export. They claim it is more reliable but we know the truth is the US don't want their allies to match their two engine F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sasquatch

cnleio said:


> As far as i knew, it will be 2018 PLAAF equip J-20 stealth fighters.
> I personally like J-31, it's still mysterious for J-31's destiny. I wish China J-31 can export to foreign nations.



The PLAAF may choose 310 if it does then it would be a high low mix of fifth gen fighters for the PLAAF. Personally I hope the China does not export the 310 project just for revenue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

What are the details on the radar and avionics for J-20?


----------



## UKBengali

xunzi said:


> J-31 is a baby compare to J-20. J-20 is the real big boy because J-20 has double-engine. There is a reason the US never export two engine F-22 but instead they make the F-35 single engine for export. They claim it is more reliable but we know the truth is the US don't want their allies to match their two engine F-22.



J-31 has dual engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

Donatello said:


> What are the details on the radar and avionics for J-20?



Classified...


----------



## Kompromat

xunzi said:


> J-31 is a baby compare to J-20. J-20 is the real big boy because J-20 has double-engine. There is a reason the US never export two engine F-22 but instead they make the F-35 single engine for export. They claim it is more reliable but we know the truth is the US don't want their allies to match their two engine F-22.



Thats not true. The F-22 was designed with air dominance in mind, it has a limited ground attack capability. The F-35 is a mule that was supposed to carry out roles the F-22 cannot. China will use both of its jets in a similar configuration.


----------



## xunzi

Aeronaut said:


> Thats not true. The F-22 was designed with air dominance in mind, it has a limited ground attack capability. The F-35 is a mule that was supposed to carry out roles the F-22 cannot. China will use both of its jets in a similar configuration.


Then why the US resist any attempt to export F-22 but they are willing to export the F-35? Truth is F-22 is better and is exclusive for US military.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

xunzi said:


> Then why the US resist any attempt to export F-22 but they are willing to export the F-35? Truth is F-22 is better and is exclusive for US military.



Because the F-22 is the best air dominance aircraft in the world. F-35 is simply not comparable as it never was designed to be an air dominance air craft. It was designed to become a *Joint Strike Fighter *able to carry weapons the F-22 simply cannot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xunzi

Aeronaut said:


> Because the F-22 is the best air dominance aircraft in the world. F-35 is simply not comparable as it never was designed to be an air dominance air craft. It was designed to become a *Joint Strike Fighter *able to carry weapons the F-22 simply cannot.


What makes an aircraft air dominance?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

xunzi said:


> What makes an aircraft air dominance?



Optimized stealth, A powerful air to air radar, Mid Range AMRAAMs, World's best sensor fusion, 5th generation avionics, super maneuverability and a very high climb rate. 

The Raptor's designed philosophy was to spearhead the attack and establish air dominance over an airspace by knocking enemy aircrafts down with BVRAAMs before they can see it. Then it also carries WVRAAMs which are coupled with super maneuverability and soon HOBS AIM-9X block II + an HMD.

Raptor was not designed to carry air to ground weapons as a primary requirement though it can carry certain types of air to ground weapons if the need be. The F-35 was designed as the 2nd entry aircraft which would bomb targets once the Raptors have cleaned up the skies. JSF is a multirole fighter which can also engage air to air target though that is not its primary role.

China is following a similar path. The J-20 will lead its younger brother the J-31 into battle. It would sweep the skies through similar characteristics as the F-22 while the J-31 would take care of the other targets mainly ground or surface as well as SEAD and DEAD missions. This would open a hole for H-6 to come in and deliver a hammering along with 4th generation aircrafts. 

J-20 may not be an export success even if China offers it for export as there would be only a handful of countries able to afford it and even fewer who actually need an Air Dominance Fighter which inherently is an offensive weapon. J-31 on the other hand if developed along the same lines as the F-35 would become an export success as it can do all of the work that needs to be done for most air forces.

Lets say if PAF is the first customer for the J-31. We would want a true multi role/swing role capability in that air craft as we don't really need an Air Dominance Fighter. We can optimize the J-31 for the same role in a defensive posture as well as use it as a bomb truck and to attack enemy ships and carry out SEAD and DEAD missions along with our cruise missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## waz

Hu Songshan said:


> Good, the Fifth Prototype (2013) is coming as well, WS-15 could be used as early as next year. J-20 is on schedule for 2016-2017.



So at this point in time I take it no Chinese engine powers any of the prototypes at this point in time?


----------



## Viper0011.

xunzi said:


> J-31 is a baby compare to J-20. J-20 is the real big boy because J-20 has double-engine. There is a reason the US never export two engine F-22 but instead they make the F-35 single engine for export. They claim it is more reliable but we know the truth is the US don't want their allies to match their two engine F-22.



There are various reasons. The US doesn't want to share the F-22 tech with anyone as it is way ahead of its time and there is a LOT of sensitive tech that is proprietary of the US and the jet's manufacturer. Plus the funding etc also came from the US entirely as it forms the "High" combat tier of the US jet force. So you don't start to share your most strategic asset.

Also, the JSF is a multi-role platform designed for a Tier II (Medium) aircraft in the US inventory and for NATO / Allies. The investment also came from the US plus its allies Besides the US, there is no one that has such a larger military focus. So there won't be buyers out there wanting something like the -22 for over 200 million per plane. The world wants multi-role and the JSF also uses some advance technologies similar to that of the -22 uses. But the -22 is much superior


----------



## Basel

orangzaib said:


> Besides the US, there is no one that has such a larger military focus. So there won't be buyers out there wanting something like the -22 for over 200 million per plane. The world wants multi-role and the JSF also uses some advance technologies similar to that of the -22 uses. But the -22 is much superior



But Japan was eager to have 22s, but US denied them, this was the reason Japan started their own Stealth fighter project which US wanted to stop by offering them F-35s.

J-20 from its current looks seem to be deep strike fighter jet, which will allow PLAAF to conduct SEAD/DEAD mission even in very highly guarded areas.

J-31/21 design looks more air combat / swing role oriented although its engines are not on par for a stealth jet and it may not carry good amount of weapons too, to me its 5th gen Mig-29.


----------



## Viper0011.

Basel said:


> But Japan was eager to have 22s, but US denied them, this was the reason Japan started their own Stealth fighter project which US wanted to stop by offering them F-35s.
> 
> J-20 from its current looks seem to be deep strike fighter jet, which will allow PLAAF to conduct SEAD/DEAD mission even in very highly guarded areas.
> 
> J-31/21 design looks more air combat / swing role oriented although its engines are not on par for a stealth jet and it may not carry good amount of weapons too, to me its 5th gen Mig-29.



When the US is committed to defending Japan and has presence in and around Japan, the -22's become a "wish list", not a necessity. The Japanese sure can design their stealth jet and that would definitely have American input in it (a LOT). That's no problem as they did that with their F-2 also.
But their Stealth plane won't be anything closer to the -22. That's for sure. The -22 is way above being JUST a Stealthy plane. For Japan's needs and threat assessments, the -35 would be more than enough, backed up by USAF and USN's jets as needed. Plus there are -22's stationed there too. Also, ONE country doesn't change the foreign policy of the US, whether it be on sensitive weapons or anything else. If you see the history, the US has not sold its strategic jets like the -117, B1, B2, -22, etc.

J-20 is stealthy and that's fine. However, its still going through prototypes. I think the assessment is that these will start to be become operational by 2018-2020. May be by then every Radar we produce and sell to our allies, will be able to detect Stealthy planes just like a normal plane .
2018 to 2020 is TOO much time for us to counter it. Not worried about it. This brings up another question. You've got a Stealthy platform, fine, how do you plan on using it for SEAD / DEAD and other roles as a strike plane when you can't establish air dominance? The J-20 can be seen by newer fighters in the US arsenal from LONG distances through IR and AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (*DAS*). So how useful this puppy will be without having credible air dominance and facing -35's and -22's....???. Read up on DAS for a second and use your imagination. It can detect a missile's after-burn and can visualize it from 800 miles. Imagine a stealthy J-20 getting detected even 200 miles out.....
AN/AAQ-37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Basel

orangzaib said:


> When the US is committed to defending Japan and has presence in and around Japan, the -22's become a "wish list", not a necessity. The Japanese sure can design their stealth jet and that would definitely have American input in it (a LOT). That's no problem as they did that with their F-2 also.
> But their Stealth plane won't be anything closer to the -22. That's for sure. The -22 is way above being JUST a Stealthy plane. For Japan's needs and threat assessments, the -35 would be more than enough, backed up by USAF and USN's jets as needed. Plus there are -22's stationed there too. Also, ONE country doesn't change the foreign policy of the US, whether it be on sensitive weapons or anything else. If you see the history, the US has not sold its strategic jets like the -117, B1, B2, -22, etc.
> J-20 is stealthy and that's fine. However, its still going through prototypes. I think the assessment is that these will start to be become operational by 2018-2020. May be by then every Radar we produce and sell to our allies, will be able to detect Stealthy planes just like a normal plane .
> 2018 to 2020 is TOO much time for us to counter it. Not worried about it. This brings up another question. You've got a Stealthy platform, fine, how do you plan on using it for SEAD / DEAD and other roles as a strike plane when you can't establish air dominance? The J-20 can be seen by newer fighters in the US arsenal from LONG distances through IR and AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS). So how useful this puppy will be without having credible air dominance and facing -35's and -22's....???. Read up on DAS for a second and use your imagination. It can detect a missile's after-burn and can visualize it from 800 miles. Imagine a stealthy J-20 getting detected even 200 miles out.....
> AN/AAQ-37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



US is ahead in tech but it does not mean that no one other than them can make tech, I m not fan of Chinese products but when I visited F-22P I really admire the quality of the product they have made, J-20 from its looks will be Chinese mini B-2 and you know how US have used them, so Chinese may use them similarly. Also no anti stealth radar is going to be deployed in numbers "if it has been invented" even in 2020.

As for your claim about F-35 tech, US it self has accepted that China have hacked in and taken its tech from their machines to built their own, if true then Chinese already know what DAS can do and they will be building their own, when they will be building one then definitely they know that enemy has it and their plane will be detected so counter measure will be under development too, that is how Chinese work.


----------



## cirr

2012







It's about time。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nik141991



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Informant

J-20 is one bad mother.


----------



## Sasquatch

cirr said:


> 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time。



As expected the 2012 here, 2013 prototype is also coming. what I'm waiting is for the WS15 installed onto it, some word the WS15 will feature 2D TVC square nozzles like the F-22's F119 engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Hu Songshan said:


> As expected the 2012 here, 2013 prototype is also coming. what I'm waiting is for the WS15 installed onto it, some word the WS15 will feature 2D TVC square nozzles like the F-22's F119 engines.



Any idea when WS-15 would be installed for testing?


----------



## Sasquatch

UKBengali said:


> Any idea when WS-15 would be installed for testing?



2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GeHAC

cirr said:


>


Just wait few more days


----------



## cirr

2012 and ？？？？






What's in the hangar？2013？Or？

（Drawing based on photo）


----------



## sweetgrape

2012

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## teddy

What are those line mean? Is there any difference between 2011 and 2012?


----------



## air marshal

*More prototypes of China's J-20 to emerge before 2015*

More prototypes of China's J-20 to emerge before 2015｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com


----------



## champaign

As high school student I am,I have great interest in military for ages.*I *
*know *_*this forum about 2years ago,but I hadn't Login until yesterday.*_
I am a *chine*
*se live in*
* china.*
Long live the friendship of China and pakistan！_让我们一起奋斗！_*加油!!!*
*^_^*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## champaign

The first time I saw J20,I feel it is a *great success!**★↑*
*science then,I gradually fall in love with military.☞It is **J20 **that **make me grow!*From the 
【2001】 to 〖2011〗,〖2012〗...
I really find the great progress of my homeland.
_N__ow,__three are three country have flown _
_their 5 generation aircraft——US.,Russia,and China.(_*the Japan's F3 is just a joke >_<*
_)_
_The J20 had broken the western countries' military sanctions against China since 1989._
_歼20，空军代号为“威龙”,因为该机将担负我军未来对空，对海的主权维护,北约代号为“Fire Fang”(炎齿）/Fire Tooth(火牙）。该机由中国成都飞机设计研究所设计、中国成都飞机工业公司制造的用于接替歼10、歼11等第三代空中优势/多用途歼击机的未来重型歼击机型号，使用国产10万功率AESA（有源相控阵）雷达，操纵系统并非使用J-10的电传操纵，而是国际上最先进的光传操纵系统。按中国和北约标准，该机为“第四代歼击机/战斗机”(注：俄罗斯和西方国家对战机代数划分标准不统一，以F-22为例，西方国家称之为四代机，俄罗斯则称之为五代机)，其目的是适合中国空军2020年以后的作战环境需要。_
*I hope that the developing countries catch up to the developed countries soon.*And I wish that China and Pakistan can joint develop and equip
5 generation aircraft soon——at least before the Indian get T50...╮(╯ε╰)╭*Good luck ...*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## champaign

★this is the contast of J20s
.
o(∩_∩)o

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

2012 flew today!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

Here are the best pics so far...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mujahid Memon

will PAF consider J20 or J31 for its inventory ?? Any news of joint work/ToT something ???


----------



## Beast

Faizan Memon said:


> will PAF consider J20 or J31 for its inventory ?? Any news of joint work/ToT something ???


J-20 is not for export. J-31, probably.


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## steelseries779



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mujahid Memon

Beast said:


> J-20 is not for export. J-31, probably.


I dont think so, they will sell it (J-20) if they get the best price, BTW this is not F-22


----------



## Beast

Faizan Memon said:


> I dont think so, they will sell it (J-20) if they get the best price, BTW this is not F-22



J-20 is the F-22 of China. Do china sell ZTZ-99 MBT to Pakistan? No, we sell a downgraded MBT-2000 to pakistan. We China are very rich at the moment. We do not need to sell our best to get fund for our armed forces. Most of the armed sales export are more for alliance.


----------



## Kompromat

Beast said:


> J-20 is the F-22 of China. Do china sell ZTZ-99 MBT to Pakistan? No, we sell a downgraded MBT-2000 to pakistan. We China are very rich at the moment. We do not need to sell our best to get fund for our armed forces. Most of the armed sales export are more for alliance.



Actually ZTZ-99 was offered to Pakistan but didn't fulfill desert warfare requirements.

J-20 won't be for export. J-31 will be.


----------



## FunkyGen

Beast said:


> J-20 is the F-22 of China. Do china sell ZTZ-99 MBT to Pakistan? No


Cool that.... you've earned it.....


Beast said:


> No, we sell a downgraded MBT-2000 to pakistan.


No.... you don't sell us MBT 2000.... we partnered in the project. We make a superior version.... Read!



Beast said:


> We China are very rich at the moment. We do not need to sell our best to get fund for our armed forces.


True indeed.....



Beast said:


> Most of the armed sales export are more for alliance.


Never underestimate an alliance..... And btw if you care to read there has also been some significant tech. transfer from this side of the border.... long live China 



Aeronaut said:


> Actually ZTZ-99 was offered to Pakistan but didn't fulfill desert warfare requirements.


Hmmmm..... source?


----------



## Beast

Aeronaut said:


> Actually ZTZ-99 was offered to Pakistan but didn't fulfill desert warfare requirements.
> 
> J-20 won't be for export. J-31 will be.



ZTZ-99 is never meant for export. Show me a reliable source or photo where ZTZ-99 has ever showcase for overseas expo? The answer is no.


----------



## Kompromat

Beast said:


> ZTZ-99 is never meant for export. Show me a reliable source or photo where ZTZ-99 has ever showcase for overseas expo? The answer is no.



Since you are already convinced, there is no need for it.

Cheers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

i don't like J20 its a enlargement of MiG 1.44 and also it has frontal stealth only not full stealth instead i like j-31 it is more agile fighter than J20


----------



## Imran Khan

Beast said:


> J-20 is not for export. J-31, probably.


for few years sir not life time . even if they banned export f-22 world has now stealth fighters . its failed idea

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> i don't like J20 its a enlargement of MiG 1.44 and also it has frontal stealth only not full stealth instead i like j-31 it is more agile fighter than J20



J-20 and mig 1.44 both different air intake. J-20 has an internal bomb bay which mig 1.44 absent. And your final comment is out of emotional without logic. If j-31 is so agile and better. Why would if lost out the competition to J-20? J-31 can be easily eat for lunch by J-20 anytime. Both J-20 an J-31 are designed by China. Of cos, Chinese knows better. If not, who else?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sherlock Holmes

Pakistan will get J-20s

JF-17 Thunder and J-20 Mighty Dragon Fighter Jets | Global Military Review

http://www.flick.pk/jf-17-thunder-j-10b-and-j-20-fighter-jets-for-pakistan-air-force_96ffc348f.html


----------



## Sherlock Holmes

What are they saying in video?
@Beast @cnleio

Pakistan Air Force - JF-17 Thunder Multirole fighter - Pakistan's Pride


----------



## boke

我和我的同胞对巴基斯坦抱有非常好的印象，就我个人而言，我相信巴基斯坦需要的中国有的都可以卖给你们，一定程度上来说，以什么方式完成交易都不重要，重要的是我们中国人很珍视真正的朋友。如果巴基斯坦需要Ｊ－２０，那么最终进入巴基斯坦的会是真正适合巴基斯坦防空需求的巴基斯坦版的Ｊ－２０，而不是说高配置的装备留给自己，给你们落后的东西，发出这种言论的人不管哪个国家的，请不要相信！
　　另外还有个好消息告诉巴基斯坦朋友，综合种种报道可以看出，Ｊ２０离定型量产应该不远了，呵呵！

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Sherlock Holmes said:


> What are they saying in video?
> @Beast @cnleio
> 
> Pakistan Air Force - JF-17 Thunder Multirole fighter - Pakistan's Pride



Cant afford it.


----------



## cnleio

Sherlock Holmes said:


> What are they saying in video?
> @Beast @cnleio
> 
> Pakistan Air Force - JF-17 Thunder Multirole fighter - Pakistan's Pride


Sorry, i can't watch youtube in China.


----------



## terranMarine

cnleio said:


> Sorry, i can't watch youtube in China.



here's the video
http://www.flick.pk/filesreps/03dc551f9/18.mp4


----------



## cnleio

Sherlock Holmes said:


> What are they saying in video?
> @Beast @cnleio
> 
> Pakistan Air Force - JF-17 Thunder Multirole fighter - Pakistan's Pride


CCTV reported the interview with a PLAAF test pilot, just introduce the story of his job. Only useful is a JF-17 prototype ever met flight Shutdown at 12,000m high sky, and the test pilot drived JF-17 safe landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Sherlock Holmes said:


> Pakistan will get J-20s
> 
> JF-17 Thunder and J-20 Mighty Dragon Fighter Jets | Global Military Review
> 
> http://www.flick.pk/jf-17-thunder-j-10b-and-j-20-fighter-jets-for-pakistan-air-force_96ffc348f.html


I think you are confusing test fly as a sight they will be exported. You need more in depth to know what's going on fir the J-20 andbJF-17.



Aeronaut said:


> Cant afford it.


Sorry, even money can't buy you J-20. J-20 are off limited to foreigners that included allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Beast said:


> I think you are confusing test fly as a sight they will be exported. You need more in depth to know what's going on fir the J-20 andb JF-17. Sorry, even money can't buy you J-20. J-20 are off limited to foreigners that included allies.



That may or may not be true. There is no CCP document which states the supposed bar on the J-20 exports. I am sick and tired of our kids coming and wishlisting these jets we can't afford.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

Aeronaut said:


> That may or may not be true. There is no CCP document which states the supposed bar on the J-20 exports. I am sick and tired of our kids coming and wishlisting these jets we can't afford.



I think it's not true, J-20 may very well be for export, J-20 could also make it to a carrier. It's not set in stone. People just assumed because America did two jets and did it, China will follow the same perimeters.

My feeling is J-20 is the primary fighter for everything, J-31 may make it on the carrier, but the far more reasonable option is the J-20 IMO. 

I think China is set on one, and looking at another. Recently some say plans for J-31 are finalized, but how true is it, and finalized to what is questionable. 

A catapult carrier can defiantly launch J-20, America even considered F-22 at one point but opted for F-35. 

J-31 and J-20 could just be two options, like F-18, F-16. 


As to the latter part, well, we are all military enthusiasts, anyone who doesn't want it, wouldn't be on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Genesis said:


> I think it's not true, J-20 may very well be for export, J-20 could also make it to a carrier. It's not set in stone. People just assumed because America did two jets and did it, China will follow the same perimeters.
> 
> My feeling is J-20 is the primary fighter for everything, J-31 may make it on the carrier, but the far more reasonable option is the J-20 IMO.
> 
> I think China is set on one, and looking at another. Recently some say plans for J-31 are finalized, but how true is it, and finalized to what is questionable.
> 
> A catapult carrier can defiantly launch J-20, America even considered F-22 at one point but opted for F-35.
> 
> J-31 and J-20 could just be two options, like F-18, F-16.
> 
> 
> As to the latter part, well, we are all military enthusiasts, anyone who doesn't want it, wouldn't be on this forum.


I think your right on spot but J-20 has frontal stealth only as per today configuration and also high wing loading which reduce agility, it is better for Pakistan to go for J-31 it is more balance design compare to J-20


----------



## Sherlock Holmes

Beast said:


> I think you are confusing test fly as a sight they will be exported. You need more in depth to know what's going on fir the J-20 andbJF-17.




I know, Chinese pilots were testing those jets for testing.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Reliable source said that WS15 engine for J20 has made great breakthrough, which means coming soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> Reliable source said that WS15 engine for J20 has made great breakthrough, which means coming soon.


Which means it has successfully clock the required working hour without breakdown and ready to be certify soon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## C130

I like the Chengdu J-20 because of how long it is compared to the F-22 and even the Pak-FA
my nickname for it is Long Cat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

C130 said:


> I like the Chengdu J-20 because of how long it is compared to the F-22 and even the Pak-FA
> my nickname for it is Long Cat.




J-20 has the biggest length to width ratio. PAK-FA has the biggest width to length ratio. F-22 is somewhere in the middle. J-20 has short main wings due to having canards.


----------



## C130

Superboy said:


> J-20 has the biggest length to width ratio. PAK-FA has the biggest width to length ratio. F-22 is somewhere in the middle. J-20 has short main wings due to having canards.



I see.
so is J-20 multi-role or just air superiority?
I wonder how the canards effect stealth.


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

C130 said:


> I see.
> so is J-20 multi-role or just air superiority?
> I wonder how the canards effect stealth.



Interceptor.


----------



## Genesis

C130 said:


> I see.
> so is J-20 multi-role or just air superiority?
> I wonder how the canards effect stealth.


I' sure one of the requirements for 4th gen is multi role, or was it 4+, either way, what do you think. Even J-10B, J-11, J-15-16 are milti role, are you for real man.


----------



## gambit

C130 said:


> I see.
> so is J-20 multi-role or just air superiority?
> *I wonder how the canards effect stealth.*


You can go here...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction

...And read about the foundation of designing a radar low observable body.

But I will sum it up for you:

- Nothing is invisible in radar detection. Radar sees all.

- Everything on a complex body is a 'radiator' or 'emitter' of radiation, whether that radiation of reflected or powered transmission.

- Therefore, the rules for designing a radar low observable body are:
1) Control the quantity of radiators.
2) Control the array of radiators.
3) Control the modes of radiation.

The J-20's canards made the aircraft immediately suspect under those rules. Nevertheless, to be fair, in the absence of hard measurement data, we should refrain from making definitive judgements. China will never release those measurement data,, just as the US will never release the F-22's version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

gambit said:


> You can go here...
> 
> Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction
> 
> ...And read about the foundation of designing a radar low observable body.
> 
> But I will sum it up for you:
> 
> - Nothing is invisible in radar detection. Radar sees all.
> 
> - Everything on a complex body is a 'radiator' or 'emitter' of radiation, whether that radiation of reflected or powered transmission.
> 
> - Therefore, the rules for designing a radar low observable body are:
> 1) Control the quantity of radiators.
> 2) Control the array of radiators.
> 3) Control the modes of radiation.
> 
> The J-20's canards made the aircraft immediately suspect under those rules. Nevertheless, to be fair, in the absence of hard measurement data, we should refrain from making definitive judgements. China will never release those measurement data,, just as the US will never release the F-22's version.


the question is why put it on there if it's such an obvious flaw? I mean we might not be technically advanced, but we are at least not retarded are we. 

What does a canard do exactly, would a pair justify their existence by its usefulness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> You can go here...
> 
> Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction
> 
> ...And read about the foundation of designing a radar low observable body.
> 
> But I will sum it up for you:
> 
> - Nothing is invisible in radar detection. Radar sees all.
> 
> - Everything on a complex body is a 'radiator' or 'emitter' of radiation, whether that radiation of reflected or powered transmission.
> 
> - Therefore, the rules for designing a radar low observable body are:
> 1) Control the quantity of radiators.
> 2) Control the array of radiators.
> 3) Control the modes of radiation.
> 
> The J-20's canards made the aircraft immediately suspect under those rules. Nevertheless, to be fair, in the absence of hard measurement data, we should refrain from making definitive judgements. China will never release those measurement data,, just as the US will never release the F-22's version.



You rules can only be filtered by J-20 two canards and bypassed by two giant wings of F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

@gambit but Boeing a US company concept of 6th gen have canards, if they are not good for stealth then why a company which have tones of experience in building air crafts put canards in a 6th gen concept where stealth is core ingredient?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

C130 said:


> I see.
> so is J-20 multi-role or just air superiority?
> I wonder how the canards effect stealth.




It is air superiority. Canards do not affect stealth because instead of being at the back they are not at the front.



Basel said:


> @gambit but Boeing a US company concept of 6th gen have canards, if they are not good for stealth then why a company which have tones of experience in building air crafts put canards in a 6th gen concept where stealth is core ingredient?
> 
> View attachment 43301




Dude, does Boeing even have DSI technology? I don't think so.


----------



## Basel

Superboy said:


> Dude, does Boeing even have DSI technology? I don't think so.



Your post just show how much you understand about aviation (although I m not an expert too), dude Boeing is giant in aviation and DSI is not a big deal to have in air craft if required for that kind of company, although they may prefer "S" type inlets which will allow much smoother & faster flights at most altitudes.


----------



## Beast

Song wencong did mention about RCS contribution of canard in his report. But he also mention with careful alignment and ram coating. The RCS contribution will be significantly reduced. 

The canard boast superior agility for J-20 layout which advance far outweigh the disadvantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Beast said:


> Song wencong did mention about RCS contribution of canard in his report. But he also mention with careful alignment and ram coating. The RCS contribution will be significantly reduced.
> 
> The canard boast superior agility for J-20 layout which advance far outweigh the disadvantage.








Henri K.


----------



## Superboy

Basel said:


> Your post just show how much you understand about aviation (although I m not an expert too), dude Boeing is giant in aviation and DSI is not a big deal to have in air craft if required for that kind of company, although they may prefer "S" type inlets which will allow much smoother & faster flights at most altitudes.




Why display a graphics plane that has DSI when Boeing doesn't have DSI technology?


----------



## That Guy

Superboy said:


> Why display a graphics plane that has DSI when Boeing doesn't have DSI technology?


Because US corporations regularly cooperate with each other. Besides, Boeing could very well research such a tech on their own, but they have no need right now, as none of their clients have asked them for such a requirement.


----------



## gambit

Basel said:


> @gambit but Boeing a US company concept of 6th gen have canards, if they are not good for stealth then why a company which have tones of experience in building air crafts put canards in a 6th gen concept where stealth is core ingredient?
> 
> View attachment 43301


If we take that drawing as planned, then what Boeing did still followed the basic rules of control of radiators.

Look at the drawing again. You will see the concept aircrafts have no vertical stabs, which equals to the rule: control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

The location of the canards falls under the rule: control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

For all we know, the Boeing version of the canards may be superior to the J-20. Or equal to. Or inferior to. For now, we just do not know.



Superboy said:


> It is air superiority. Canards do not affect stealth because instead of being at the back they are not at the front.


Dude. Shut up. You do not know what the hell you are talking about.



Superboy said:


> Dude, does Boeing even have DSI technology? I don't think so.


Dude. Shut up. DSI is a well known technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

If I were gambit, I would worry less about the J-20's *planform aligned* canards and worry more about the large gaps around the F-22's inlets.






I would also worry about the F-35's multiple forward facing cavities, circled in red here.






Any comments on gaps and cavities gambit?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> If I were gambit, I would worry less about the J-20's *planform aligned* canards...


Unfortunately for you, the J-20's canards are *NOT* aligned. In the frontal view, they are angled upward. That is not planform aligned.



j20blackdragon said:


> ...and worry more about the large gaps around the F-22's inlets.
> 
> I would also worry about the F-35's multiple forward facing cavities, circled in red here.
> 
> Any comments on gaps and cavities gambit?


And you think the J-20 have no such gaps ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> Unfortunately for you, the J-20's canards are *NOT* aligned. In the frontal view, they are angled upward. That is not planform aligned.
> 
> 
> And you think the J-20 have no such gaps ?


Yep, J-20 does have.


j20blackdragon said:


> If I were gambit, I would worry less about the J-20's *planform aligned* canards and worry more about the large gaps around the F-22's inlets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would also worry about the F-35's multiple forward facing cavities, circled in red here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments on gaps and cavities gambit?


Don't compare the J-20 with F-22 (a failed project) and F-35 (worse than fail).





Look at it, what a joke. Asymmetric face and body.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> Yep, J-20 does have.


And how do those gaps affect the J-20's radar cross section. We want reasonably technical observation, if not hard data.



longlong said:


> Don't compare the J-20 with F-22 (a failed project) and F-35 (worse than fail).


How can you say the F-22 is a 'failed project' ? Because of the quantity produced ? And how can you say the F-35 is also a 'failed project' ? Because of its development problems ? What make you think the J-20 does not have its own development problems ? Going by your simple minded thinking, I can say that by virtue of the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44, which was never mass produced, that mean the J-20 is already a failed project.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Let me just clear up this whole issue about canards.

People need to understand that the entire airframe reflects radar. That means the main wings of every aircraft will reflect radar. The F-22's all-moving stabilators will reflect radar. And the J-20's canards will reflect radar.

So the question here is NOT whether canards are stealthy or unstealthy. The correct question to ask is whether the canards are planform aligned.

This is how planform alignment works:












Notice in the above diagrams that the F-22's stabilator (horizontal stabilizer) is clearly shown to be reflecting radar energy. But because the leading and trailing edges are swept at an angle, the radar energy is reflected at an angle and away from the enemy radar receiver assumed to be in front of the aircraft.

These same principles apply to the J-20's canards.

As for gambit, that guy is either ignorant or trolling. Most of the stuff he says is either incoherent or just plain misinformation. My suggestion is to ignore him.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Let me just clear up this whole issue about canards.
> 
> People need to understand that the entire airframe reflects radar. That means the main wings of every aircraft will reflect radar. The F-22's all-moving stabilators will reflect radar. And the J-20's canards will reflect radar.
> 
> So the question here is NOT whether canards are stealthy or unstealthy. The correct question to ask is whether the canards are planform aligned.
> 
> This is how planform alignment works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice in the above diagrams that the F-22's stabilator (horizontal stabilizer) is clearly shown to be reflecting radar energy. But because the leading and trailing edges are swept at an angle, the radar energy is reflected at an angle and away from the enemy radar receiver assumed to be in front of the aircraft.
> 
> These same principles apply to the J-20's canards.
> 
> As for gambit, that guy is either ignorant or trolling. Most of the stuff he says is either incoherent or just plain misinformation. My suggestion is to ignore him.


Planform alignment is one component among many in how to design a radar low observable body. But here is where you, with your non-experience in aviation, is lacking. Planform alignment is not necessary, or a reduced requirement, if the first rule of radiation control is observed.

Again, the rules are:

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.
- Control of *MODES* of radiation.

The ideal radar low observable body is the sphere, after that it is the ogive. The sphere does not have any protrusions, other than from microscopic surface imperfections, for the first and second rules to take effect.

The ogive...






...With a shape that give sort of an edge will have rule 3 more applicable than rule 2. We cannot control its shape. So if we take all the *OTHER* basic bodies: cube, pyramid, cone, etc., we will see that since we cannot manipulate them, we have to compensate for rules 1 and 2 somehow, such as absorber. But once we introduce protrusions on to any of the basic shapes, including the sphere and ogive, then planform alignment comes into play.

In radar detection, we do not see a wing as a wing but as a radiator. Same for the canards and this is where you guys rooting for the J-20, and none of you have any aviation experience, are looking at the issue the wrong way. The J-20 planform is not as refined as the F-35 that you sneered at.

As for me, I taught *ALL* of you what you know about radar detection and 'stealth' without venturing into the 'classified' region. But despite the foundation that I gave you, it looks like integration of components is still problematic for all of you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> And how do those gaps affect the J-20's radar cross section. We want reasonably technical observation, if not hard data.



So the gaps on J-20 are acceptible by you. I tell why, not because of the bullish*t stealth rules and laws, it because F-22/35 have those gaps.

For your information, J-20 has less gaps than the failed F-22 and worse than failed F-35.



gambit said:


> How can you say the F-22 is a 'failed project' ? Because of the quantity produced ? And how can you say the F-35 is also a 'failed project' ? Because of its development problems ? What make you think the J-20 does not have its own development problems ? Going by your simple minded thinking, I can say that by virtue of the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44, which was never mass produced, that mean the J-20 is already a failed project.


Even you can answer why they are failed.
Copy of not from 1.44, J-20 is always J-20.
All post-Iphone phones looks like iPhone, you oldman from 1960's don't know they're IOSed or androided.



j20blackdragon said:


> Let me just clear up this whole issue about canards.
> 
> People need to understand that the entire airframe reflects radar. That means the main wings of every aircraft will reflect radar. The F-22's all-moving stabilators will reflect radar. And the J-20's canards will reflect radar.
> 
> So the question here is NOT whether canards are stealthy or unstealthy. The correct question to ask is whether the canards are planform aligned.
> 
> This is how planform alignment works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice in the above diagrams that the F-22's stabilator (horizontal stabilizer) is clearly shown to be reflecting radar energy. But because the leading and trailing edges are swept at an angle, the radar energy is reflected at an angle and away from the enemy radar receiver assumed to be in front of the aircraft.
> 
> These same principles apply to the J-20's canards.
> 
> As for gambit, that guy is either ignorant or trolling. Most of the stuff he says is either incoherent or just plain misinformation. My suggestion is to ignore him.


He is well known troller of this forum, you have to live with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> So the gaps on J-20 are acceptible by you. I tell why, not because of the bullish*t stealth rules and laws, it because F-22/35 have those gaps.
> 
> For your information, J-20 has less gaps than the failed F-22 and worse than failed F-35.


You cannot tell me 'why' simply because you do not know a damn thing about these issues. You probably can barely tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver.



longlong said:


> Even you can answer why they are failed.
> Copy of not from 1.44, J-20 is always J-20.
> All post-Iphone phones looks like iPhone, you oldman from 1960's don't know they're IOSed or androided.


How are the F-22 and F-35 are failures ? Based upon what criteria ? You cannot even understand the basics I taught you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> Planform alignment is one component among many in how to design a radar low observable body. But here is where you, with your non-experience in aviation, is lacking. Planform alignment is not necessary, or a reduced requirement, if the first rule of radiation control is observed.
> 
> Again, the rules are:
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation.
> 
> The ideal radar low observable body is the sphere, after that it is the ogive. The sphere does not have any protrusions, other than from microscopic surface imperfections, for the first and second rules to take effect.
> 
> The ogive...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...With a shape that give sort of an edge will have rule 3 more applicable than rule 2. We cannot control its shape. So if we take all the *OTHER* basic bodies: cube, pyramid, cone, etc., we will see that since we cannot manipulate them, we have to compensate for rules 1 and 2 somehow, such as absorber. But once we introduce protrusions on to any of the basic shapes, including the sphere and ogive, then planform alignment comes into play.
> 
> In radar detection, we do not see a wing as a wing but as a radiator. Same for the canards and this is where you guys rooting for the J-20, and none of you have any aviation experience, are looking at the issue the wrong way. The J-20 planform is not as refined as the F-35 that you sneered at.
> 
> As for me, I taught *ALL* of you what you know about radar detection and 'stealth' without venturing into the 'classified' region. But despite the foundation that I gave you, it looks like integration of components is still problematic for all of you.


Since those magic engineer can control the quantity, array, modes of radiation well on two giant wings of F-22/35, why so difficult on two small canards?

Hi, troller, your $%$ rules are jokes to me: yours rules followed F-22/35, not F-22/35 followed the rules.
Anything F-22/35 have, they are okay.
Anything F-22/35 don't have, they are wrong.



gambit said:


> You cannot tell me 'why' simply because you do not know a damn thing about these issues. You probably can barely tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver.
> 
> 
> How are the F-22 and F-35 are failures ? Based upon what criteria ? You cannot even understand the basics I taught you.



Okay, restart the demolished F-22 lines and send F-22 to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, S.Korea, dock them to Europe.
Send F-35 to time machine dated 2000 and fuc* the F-35 one more time.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> *Since those magic engineer can control the quantity, array, modes of radiation well on two giant wings of F-22/35, why so difficult on two small canards?*
> 
> Hi, troller, your $%$ rules are jokes to me: yours rules followed F-22/35, not F-22/35 followed the rules.
> Anything F-22/35 have, they are okay.
> Anything F-22/35 don't have, they are wrong.


This is exactly what I mean when I said the Chinese members here simply do not have the smarts to debate this subject.

The foundational rules for designing a radar low observable body are:

- Control of quantity of radiators.
- Control of array of radiators.
- Control of modes of radiation.

These rules are not meant to be applicable against individual structures, such as a wing or the cockpit, but against the *CONCEPT* of the design. What a dope you are. 

What this mean is that if I want to design an aircraft that is radar low observable, because this is an aircraft, it must have wings, meaning wings are unavoidable. So if my design have two wings, two rear horizontal stabs, and two rear vertical stabs, I should stop adding on similar structures, ergo: Control of quantity of radiators. Same for any external stores such as missiles. If I enclose the missiles, I just followed the same rule: Control of quantity of radiators.

The F-22 and F-35, the two 'failed' aircrafts according to you, an Internet Chinese who have no aviation experience, each have six major flight control structures. The Chinese J-20 have eight major radiators: pairs of wings, horizontal stabs, vertical stabs, and lower fins. It does not mean the J-20 somehow 'violate' the first rule. It simply mean the J-20 did not follow that rule as well as the F-22 and F-35 did. You cannot 'violate' those rules. You can only follow them to varying degrees.



longlong said:


> Okay, restart the demolished F-22 lines and send F-22 to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, S.Korea, dock them to Europe.
> Send F-35 to time machine dated 2000 and fuc* the F-35 one more time.


We are still waiting for that 'high Chinese IQ' to show.


----------



## Genesis

gambit said:


> This is exactly what I mean when I said the Chinese members here simply do not have the smarts to debate this subject.
> 
> The foundational rules for designing a radar low observable body are:
> 
> - Control of quantity of radiators.
> - Control of array of radiators.
> - Control of modes of radiation.
> 
> These rules are not meant to be applicable against individual structures, such as a wing or the cockpit, but against the *CONCEPT* of the design. What a dope you are.
> 
> What this mean is that if I want to design an aircraft that is radar low observable, because this is an aircraft, it must have wings, meaning wings are unavoidable. So if my design have two wings, two rear horizontal stabs, and two rear vertical stabs, I should stop adding on similar structures, ergo: Control of quantity of radiators. Same for any external stores such as missiles. If I enclose the missiles, I just followed the same rule: Control of quantity of radiators.
> 
> The F-22 and F-35, the two 'failed' aircrafts according to you, an Internet Chinese who have no aviation experience, each have six major flight control structures. The Chinese J-20 have eight major radiators: pairs of wings, horizontal stabs, vertical stabs, and lower fins. It does not mean the J-20 somehow 'violate' the first rule. It simply mean the J-20 did not follow that rule as well as the F-22 and F-35 did. You cannot 'violate' those rules. You can only follow them to varying degrees.
> 
> 
> We are still waiting for that 'high Chinese IQ' to show.



What if the intention was to add maneuverability while reducing some stealth. Maybe the thinking is, radars would pick up both aircrafts roughly the sametime, so with more manuverbility, there be more survivability. 

I'm no expert just putting my thoughts out there.

It's just baffling to me to think something so fundamentally wrong could be implemented by Chinese scientists. I mean we are designing a fifth gen, whether we are that good or not we are still doing it, tons of developed nations can't even do it for whatever reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Genesis said:


> What if the intention was to add maneuverability while reducing some stealth. Maybe the thinking is, radars would pick up both aircrafts roughly the sametime, so with more manuverbility, there be more survivability.
> 
> I'm no expert just putting my thoughts out there.
> 
> It's just baffling to me to think something so fundamentally wrong could be implemented by Chinese scientists. I mean we are designing a fifth gen, whether we are that good or not we are still doing it, tons of developed nations can't even do it for whatever reason.



Yup! If someone can make the world fastest super computer. I doubt they will screw up on this thing. Song wencong already mention in his study for adding the canard of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nitin Goyal

which engine will be used in J20 ?


----------



## gambit

Genesis said:


> What if the intention was to add maneuverability while reducing some stealth. Maybe the thinking is, radars would pick up both aircrafts roughly the sametime, so with more manuverbility, there be more survivability.
> 
> I'm no expert just putting my thoughts out there.
> 
> It's just baffling to me to think *something so fundamentally wrong could be implemented by Chinese scientists.* I mean we are designing a fifth gen, whether we are that good or not we are still doing it, tons of developed nations can't even do it for whatever reason.


The canards are not a design flaw. There is nothing 'fundamentally wrong' about them. I have *NEVER* said the canards are either flawed or wrong on the J-20. Never.

The flaw here is in the thought process on your guys' part. I have to say that, no matter how uncomfortable it may be to you.

An aircraft is an exercise in compromises. The designer is not necessarily a master aerodynamicist or a radar expert or a propulsion guru. Rather, a designer is foremost a manager of ideas and compromises. He must have sufficient experience and knowledge in all major components of an aircraft to know when to call in an expert or guru, and when to tell these experts and gurus that they must accept compromises for the sake of the aircraft's mission. Look at the SR-71, for example. We had plans to turn it into a weapons platform when it was originally designed and built as a recon platform. The weapons idea was a terrible one and a good thing that it was scrapped.

Going back to the J-20 and its canards. If the designer's intent was to have exceptional agility and canards are necessary, he will have the aerodynamicist install the canards in spite of what the radar expert say about effects on RCS. If you insist on believing that the canards are a design flaw, then you have effectively placed the radar expert ahead of the aerodynamicist. This is where you guys went wrong in thinking. You might as well say the wings are design flaws since they are such large radiators.

From conception, you must have control of:

- Quantity of radiators.
- Array of radiators.
- Modes of radiation.

All rules are dynamic depending on the specific areas of the aircraft. When you install absorber to a leading edge or to panel edges where they meet and create small gaps, you just applied rule 3, for example. In other areas of the aircraft where radar bombardment is not possible, then you do not need to apply rule 3. Whatever structures and how they array themselves, as long as they are not exposed to radar, then you do not need to apply any rule.

The canards are *NOT* design flaws any more than the cockpit, wings, and engine intakes are. You just have to understand that if you install them, you will be less obedient to rule 1 than the designer who created the F-22. I do not know how I can explain this any more basic. It really is puzzling that none of you guys understand this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> The canards are not a design flaw. There is nothing 'fundamentally wrong' about them. I have *NEVER* said the canards are either flawed or wrong on the J-20. Never.
> 
> The flaw here is in the thought process on your guys' part. I have to say that, no matter how uncomfortable it may be to you.
> 
> An aircraft is an exercise in compromises. The designer is not necessarily a master aerodynamicist or a radar expert or a propulsion guru. Rather, a designer is foremost a manager of ideas and compromises. He must have sufficient experience and knowledge in all major components of an aircraft to know when to call in an expert or guru, and when to tell these experts and gurus that they must accept compromises for the sake of the aircraft's mission. Look at the SR-71, for example. We had plans to turn it into a weapons platform when it was originally designed and built as a recon platform. The weapons idea was a terrible one and a good thing that it was scrapped.
> 
> Going back to the J-20 and its canards. If the designer's intent was to have exceptional agility and canards are necessary, he will have the aerodynamicist install the canards in spite of what the radar expert say about effects on RCS. If you insist on believing that the canards are a design flaw, then you have effectively placed the radar expert ahead of the aerodynamicist. This is where you guys went wrong in thinking. You might as well say the wings are design flaws since they are such large radiators.
> 
> From conception, you must have control of:
> 
> - Quantity of radiators.
> - Array of radiators.
> - Modes of radiation.
> 
> All rules are dynamic depending on the specific areas of the aircraft. When you install absorber to a leading edge or to panel edges where they meet and create small gaps, you just applied rule 3, for example. In other areas of the aircraft where radar bombardment is not possible, then you do not need to apply rule 3. Whatever structures and how they array themselves, as long as they are not exposed to radar, then you do not need to apply any rule.
> 
> The canards are *NOT* design flaws any more than the cockpit, wings, and engine intakes are. You just have to understand that if you install them, you will be less obedient to rule 1 than the designer who created the F-22. I do not know how I can explain this any more basic. It really is puzzling that none of you guys understand this.



Because the issue remains that people do not see RCS as waves on an electromagnetic spectrum and instead think of it as shapes and objects.


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> This is exactly what I mean when I said the Chinese members here simply do not have the smarts to debate this subject.
> 
> The foundational rules for designing a radar low observable body are:
> 
> - Control of quantity of radiators.
> - Control of array of radiators.
> - Control of modes of radiation.


It is your stupid-proud out-of-date aviation maintenance experiences confused you. *That makes you don't know what you're talking about.*

Stealth is nothing to do with manoeuvrability of an aircraft which is born to fly. Anything for stealth is at cost of manoeuvrability, and vice versa. 

How to control the radiation and reflection? In1980's, its basic computer simulation, lab testing, and by bare-eyes plus imagination (Oops, that how F-117, B-2, F-22 had been made, they are too old). Now we have to rely on super-computer to balance between manoeuvrability and stealth.

*0 of bare eyes, 0 of imagination (only thing you old guys are capable of).
Ooh, sorry, Chinese got the fastest and costliest computer right now and future.*



gambit said:


> These rules are not meant to be applicable against individual structures, such as a wing or the cockpit, but against the *CONCEPT* of the design. What a dope you are.


Never pretend you are somebody and talk about the things you don't know----sure you have the right to do so on internet. Internet only, remember it. In real time, please shut up.

Anything is combined or assembled by individual parts. To you, two giant triangles are called "wings" and on F-22's body. To radar waves, they are two objects only. 

How come two giant triangle are stealthy when they are called "wings"?
And two small triangle are non-stealthy when they called "canards"?
Aren't your two giant wings of F-22 are just "canards" in front of two H-stabs?



gambit said:


> We are still waiting for that 'high Chinese IQ' to show.



Above question is too difficult to your minus IQ score.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> Because the issue remains that people do not see RCS as waves on an electromagnetic spectrum and instead think of it as shapes and objects.


Very good observation, sir. I wish I had thought of putting how/what they think of the subject -- that way.

To go a bit further, we all know by now that the corner reflector is a huge no-no in designing a radar low observable body, but as someone who have seen the -22 up close, I can say that there are plenty of corner reflectors on that jet. Minor ones. They are small enough that whenever exposed to radar and reflect, the energy level is not enough to raise the jet above a certain threshold.

On as complex a body as an aircraft, design flaws are inevitable. The issue is whether the flaw contribute to the system enough to adversely affect whatever principle it is that make up the aircraft. Let us take pneudraulics for example. A deficiency is when the pump can deliver 3000 psi for only 5 hr duration when the customer specified 8 hr duration. The jet can still fly, just not as long, and if the customer can live with that, he will take the jet. However, if he plans to incorporate the jet, with this deficiency, into his cargo delivery business, then the jet itself is a business design flaw because now he has to find some ways to make up that 3 hrs difference that he originally planned for. The hydraulic pump is deficient but does not affect the principles of pneudraulic operation, whereas the jet itself is a business design flaw because it cannot fly as long and as far as the business plan would like and will have an adverse effects on profitability.

The -22's many minor corner reflectors combined constitute a design flaw, but their individual effects as contributors to RCS are deemed tolerable based upon a certain radar detection threshold. We have to look at what these structures produce -- EM radiation -- via reflection more than the fact that they are X, Y, or Z type of structures. That is why I consistently uses the word 'radiator' as attempt to denote with greater precision what these structures are under radar bombardment. From a sensor specialist perspective, I do not care if the aerodynamicist call it a 'canard' or 'doohickey' or 'thingamabob'. If the structure produces EM radiation in one way or another, it is a 'radiator' to me and my radars.


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> Very good observation, sir. I wish I had thought of putting how/what they think of the subject -- that way.
> 
> To go a bit further, we all know by now that the corner reflector is a huge no-no in designing a radar low observable body, but as someone who have seen the -22 up close, I can say that there are plenty of corner reflectors on that jet. Minor ones. They are small enough that whenever exposed to radar and reflect, the energy level is not enough to raise the jet above a certain threshold.
> 
> On as complex a body as an aircraft, design flaws are inevitable. The issue is whether the flaw contribute to the system enough to adversely affect whatever principle it is that make up the aircraft. Let us take pneudraulics for example. A deficiency is when the pump can deliver 3000 psi for only 5 hr duration when the customer specified 8 hr duration. The jet can still fly, just not as long, and if the customer can live with that, he will take the jet. However, if he plans to incorporate the jet, with this deficiency, into his cargo delivery business, then the jet itself is a business design flaw because now he has to find some ways to make up that 3 hrs difference that he originally planned for. The hydraulic pump is deficient but does not affect the principles of pneudraulic operation, whereas the jet itself is a business design flaw because it cannot fly as long and as far as the business plan would like and will have an adverse effects on profitability.
> 
> The -22's many minor corner reflectors combined constitute a design flaw, but their individual effects as contributors to RCS are deemed tolerable based upon a certain radar detection threshold. We have to look at what these structures produce -- EM radiation -- via reflection more than the fact that they are X, Y, or Z type of structures. That is why I consistently uses the word 'radiator' as attempt to denote with greater precision what these structures are under radar bombardment. From a sensor specialist perspective, I do not care if the aerodynamicist call it a 'canard' or 'doohickey' or 'thingamabob'. If the structure produces EM radiation in one way or another, it is a 'radiator' to me and my radars.



Your sick IQ thought F-22 is stealthy first, then applied all your the said theories.

Like you shoot first, then coil the hole with a score 10. 

F-117 got wings, v-tails, your rules worked.
B-2 got wings only, your rules continue worked.
F-22 got wings, H-tabs, V-tails, your magic rules worked perfectly without minor flaws.
There should only have one of above 3 can be marked as Stealth to your radar for they are so different from the other two.

J-20 (compared with F-22, it minimised the main wings to canards, enlarged H-tab to wings) got canards, your rules fully kicked it out.

B-2 is real, F-22 is failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## danger007

longlong said:


> Your sick IQ thought F-22 is stealthy first, then applied all your the said theories.
> 
> Like you shoot first, then coil the hole with a score 10.
> 
> F-117 got wings, v-tails, your rules worked.
> B-2 got wings only, your rules continue worked.
> F-22 got wings, H-tabs, V-tails, your magic rules worked perfectly without minor flaws.
> There should only have one of above 3 can be marked as Stealth to your radar for they are so different from the other two.
> 
> J-20 (compared with F-22, it minimised the main wings to canards, enlarged H-tab to wings) got canards, your rules fully kicked it out.
> 
> B-2 is real, F-22 is failed.


what are you trying to say... F - 22 is not stealthy ???? F-22 is inducted long ago.. whereas China working on proto..


----------



## longlong

danger007 said:


> what are you trying to say... F - 22 is not stealthy ???? F-22 is inducted long ago.. whereas China working on proto..



F-22 stealthy or not, I don't know.

It had not been tested in real war or approved by 3rd party other than buyer and maker.

The RCS @ specified band of F-22 is classified, we don't know. They covered it as top secret and bubbles cannot "bang".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

danger007 said:


> what are you trying to say... F - 22 is not stealthy ???? F-22 is inducted long ago.. whereas China working on proto..



J-20 is a later design. Learn mistake from the earlier and improve better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## danger007

longlong said:


> F-22 stealthy or not, I don't know.
> 
> It had not been tested in real war or approved by 3rd party other than buyer and maker.
> 
> The RCS @ specified band of F-22 is classified, we don't know. They covered it as top secret and bubbles cannot "bang".


F-22 is designed for future wars... it's technology is classified. . let me ask you same question. . does China tested it's jet in real combat??? does China have real combat experience like USA.


Beast said:


> J-20 is a later design. Learn mistake from the earlier and improve better.


not better... you are trying to achieve what US achieved already ... learn from mistakes? ??? no China just started working on Stealth ...


----------



## Military fancier

danger007 said:


> F-22 is designed for future wars... it's technology is classified. . let me ask you same question. . does China tested it's jet in real combat??? does China have real combat experience like USA.
> not better... you are trying to achieve what US achieved already ... learn from mistakes? ??? no China just started working on Stealth ...


Hey, you american?



danger007 said:


> F-22 is designed for future wars... it's technology is classified. . let me ask you same question. . does China tested it's jet in real combat??? does China have real combat experience like USA.
> not better... you are trying to achieve what US achieved already ... learn from mistakes? ??? no China just started working on Stealth ...


Indians envy china's economic rise, but console themselves by pointing outthat it is no democracy.



danger007 said:


> F-22 is designed for future wars... it's technology is classified. . let me ask you same question. . does China tested it's jet in real combat??? does China have real combat experience like USA.
> not better... you are trying to achieve what US achieved already ... learn from mistakes? ??? no China just started working on Stealth ...


india children suffering from shortage schools as government has low priority for education and health.



danger007 said:


> F-22 is designed for future wars... it's technology is classified. . let me ask you same question. . does China tested it's jet in real combat??? does China have real combat experience like USA.
> not better... you are trying to achieve what US achieved already ... learn from mistakes? ??? no China just started working on Stealth ...


A country which donot emphasize education will have no future.



danger007 said:


> F-22 is designed for future wars... it's technology is classified. . let me ask you same question. . does China tested it's jet in real combat??? does China have real combat experience like USA.
> not better... you are trying to achieve what US achieved already ... learn from mistakes? ??? no China just started working on Stealth ...


A country which donot emphasize education will have no future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## danger007

Military fancier said:


> Hey, you american?
> 
> 
> Indians envy china's economic rise, but console themselves by pointing outthat it is no democracy.


Why you are after my nationality ... Neither I said China cannot make stealthy jet... I just said US did something which others are dreaming to achieve. .. got it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

danger007 said:


> F-22 is designed for future wars...


No nation should bet on future (something like China south neighbor favorite).
You bet on future means you have no presents.



danger007 said:


> F-22 is designed for future wars... it's technology is classified. . let me ask you same question. . does China tested it's jet in real combat??? does China have real combat experience like USA.



We can not open a war in order to test weapons.
But US has, she has a lot. Why don't release the dog to field for future-proof?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Gijoe

Hey Gambit long time no see you. Still argue about stealthy B2, f117 and f22? Why old Gambit those stealthy air crafts got shot down, and USAF General claim them not stealth. F22 got shot by Syria, and B2 got shot down by Kosovo army with anti aircraft Sam no stealthy detector. F117 got shot down by Serbia with Sam no stealth detector. Those Sam brought down those air crafts have no stealth detector. You should be proud of the stealthy technology USA got for you. Ha ha ha.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Very good observation, sir. I wish I had thought of putting how/what they think of the subject -- that way.
> 
> To go a bit further, we all know by now that the corner reflector is a huge no-no in designing a radar low observable body, but as someone who have seen the -22 up close, I can say that there are plenty of corner reflectors on that jet. Minor ones. They are small enough that whenever exposed to radar and reflect, the energy level is not enough to raise the jet above a certain threshold.
> The -22's many minor corner reflectors combined constitute a design flaw, but their individual effects as contributors to RCS are deemed tolerable based upon a certain radar detection threshold. We have to look at what these structures produce -- EM radiation -- via reflection more than the fact that they are X, Y, or Z type of structures. That is why I consistently uses the word 'radiator' as attempt to denote with greater precision what these structures are under radar bombardment. From a sensor specialist perspective, I do not care if the aerodynamicist call it a 'canard' or 'doohickey' or 'thingamabob'. If the structure produces EM radiation in one way or another, it is a 'radiator' to me and my radars.



Point being ,is that the many nationals of respective nations when promoting their aircraft see it as a shape or a combination of shapes. They then assume that this shape(or the combination of shapes) has a RCS that is done by adding 1+1+1=3. 
When the reality is far from that as you have stated here countless times and discussed. 
There was this whole discussion on turning conventional aircraft stealthy, all sorts of stealth pods, RAM coatings and so on where discussed but at the end no one bothered to think whether the weapons hanging off it will generate their own RCS based on the totality of their surface and the interactions it has with itself and the aircraft wings. 

This is my favourite reference to that. This shot is taken from the National Geographic documentary on the Horten XIII and the team from Northrop Grumman (those that built the B-2 if some did not know) who remade the aircraft for a RCS test. This was the first time I suppose that one was able to see modern RCS modelling techniques. The model was bombarded with VHF,UHF and L Band to simulate those days of Radar, but the principles of EM apply the same. 

The model went up on a pole and the results are below. The two images show how electromagnetic energy radiates across the aircraft as it is rotated against an emitter. Here at a side pose, the energy return is lower due to the position of the surface(s) of the aircraft. 






One the aircraft is taken at full frontal exposure the energy return spikes around the areas that are reflecting the most energy.





Now there is on thing to notice, this sort of method gives us the advantage to see how exactly the energy spikes across a certain area. for e.g. you dont see a red outline of the cockpit instruments with the stick and seat and everything, but a combined red blur that is the combination of electromagnetic energy being reflected back to the receiver. 

What it tells you is that by fixing the seat of the aircraft the designers may reduce the intensity of the red blur by a bit, but perhaps not by that much. If they do the same to the inlet, the reflected energy may dissipate but it wont do so if you just fix one area by applying RAM or otherwise. It has to be a combination of factors(compromises) to get the RCS of the red area down to say orange or dark yellow levels. 

This is what @gambit has been trying to say here, and I have also taken cues from him to say elsewhere. The RCS is not a single shape(s) or design idea but a combination of all these factors. Just putting weapons in a pod will not fix the aircraft nor will adding Canted tails. 

Now lets come back to the J-20, I am sure that the J-20 went through a similar procedure. The designers of the J-20 might have(as we calculate a guess) seen similar red areas for the aircraft with the cockpit, the intakes and the Canards over a full 360 degree sweep. They would then start looking for design ideas(compromises) that reduced those red areas; they could coat the cockpit with RAM, they would change intake shape and coatings, the would design algorithms built into the FLCS that manages the Canards to change position to minimize its energy return and avoid red spikes in favour of yellow or light yellow ones. The same sort of compromises go into aircraft such as the F-22, F-35, PAK-FA .. and are a reference to all those trying to come up with ideas to reduce RCS of conventional aircraft such as the F-15(F-15SE) or the JF-17. 

It is important to always look at something with an open mind and always look for the most technical explanations possible as long as it is not technical loghorroa( Diarrhoea of useless information). 

If you still have your doubts, take a look at this. What if someone someday was able to get something like this to fly without the extra bits on the top.. a Sphere aircraft so to say? What do you think the RCS of this massive thing will be? You would be surprised that it will near the RCS of the B-2(or less if done properly).




@sandy_3126 @Dillinger @Armstrong @Aeronaut @Bilal. @Chak Bamu

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
7


----------



## danger007

Oscar said:


> Point being ,is that the many nationals of respective nations when promoting their aircraft see it as a shape or a combination of shapes. They then assume that this shape(or the combination of shapes) has a RCS that is done by adding 1+1+1=3.
> When the reality is far from that as you have stated here countless times and discussed.
> There was this whole discussion on turning conventional aircraft stealthy, all sorts of stealth pods, RAM coatings and so on where discussed but at the end no one bothered to think whether the weapons hanging off it will generate their own RCS based on the totality of their surface and the interactions it has with itself and the aircraft wings.
> 
> This is my favourite reference to that. This shot is taken from the National Geographic documentary on the Horten XIII and the team from Northrop Grumman (those that built the B-2 if some did not know) who remade the aircraft for a RCS test. This was the first time I suppose that one was able to see modern RCS modelling techniques. The model was bombarded with VHF,UHF and L Band to simulate those days of Radar, but the principles of EM apply the same.
> 
> The model went up on a pole and the results are below. The two images show how electromagnetic energy radiates across the aircraft as it is rotated against an emitter. Here at a side pose, the energy return is lower due to the position of the surface(s) of the aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One the aircraft is taken at full frontal exposure the energy return spikes around the areas that are reflecting the most energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is on thing to notice, this sort of method gives us the advantage to see how exactly the energy spikes across a certain area. for e.g. you dont see a red outline of the cockpit instruments with the stick and seat and everything, but a combined red blur that is the combination of electromagnetic energy being reflected back to the receiver.
> 
> What it tells you is that by fixing the seat of the aircraft the designers may reduce the intensity of the red blur by a bit, but perhaps not by that much. If they do the same to the inlet, the reflected energy may dissipate but it wont do so if you just fix one area by applying RAM or otherwise. It has to be a combination of factors(compromises) to get the RCS of the red area down to say orange or dark yellow levels.
> 
> This is what @gambit has been trying to say here, and I have also taken cues from him to say elsewhere. The RCS is not a single shape(s) or design idea but a combination of all these factors. Just putting weapons in a pod will not fix the aircraft nor will adding Canted tails.
> 
> Now lets come back to the J-20, I am sure that the J-20 went through a similar procedure. The designers of the J-20 might have(as we calculate a guess) seen similar red areas for the aircraft with the cockpit, the intakes and the Canards over a full 360 degree sweep. They would then start looking for design ideas(compromises) that reduced those red areas; they could coat the cockpit with RAM, they would change intake shape and coatings, the would design algorithms built into the FLCS that manages the Canards to change position to minimize its energy return and avoid red spikes in favour of yellow or light yellow ones. The same sort of compromises go into aircraft such as the F-22, F-35, PAK-FA .. and are a reference to all those trying to come up with ideas to reduce RCS of conventional aircraft such as the F-15(F-15SE) or the JF-17.
> 
> It is important to always look at something with an open mind and always look for the most technical explanations possible as long as it is not technical loghorroa( Diarrhoea of useless information).
> 
> If you still have your doubts, take a look at this. What if someone someday was able to get something like this to fly without the extra bits on the top.. a Sphere aircraft so to say? What do you think the RCS of this massive thing will be? You would be surprised that it will near the RCS of the B-2(or less if done properly).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @sandy_3126 @Dillinger @Armstrong @Aeronaut @Bilal. @Chak Bamu


@gambit .... m.phys.org/news/2012-12-quantum-stealth-material-invisible.html#&ui-state=dialog

is it possible to use quantum stealth for fighter jet..


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> The foundational rules for designing a radar low observable body are:
> 
> - Control of quantity of radiators.
> - Control of array of radiators.
> - Control of modes of radiation.





gambit said:


> From a sensor specialist perspective, I do not care if the aerodynamicist call it a 'canard' or 'doohickey' or 'thingamabob'. If the structure produces EM radiation in one way or another, it is a 'radiator' to me and my radars.



The large forward-facing gaps around the F-22's inlets to divert boundary layer air *are radiators*. That's a violation of your first rule. The J-20 has DSI and doesn't have these gaps.






The three forward-facing cavities on the F-35 *are radiators*. First rule violated again. Neither the J-20 nor the F-22 have these cavities.






Inlets are cavities too. However, a properly designed stealth aircraft will have long and deep serpentine inlets to induce multiple radar bounces along the RAM coated inlet walls. But in the shallow cavities shown above radar energy goes in and bounces right back out. Any comments?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bilal.

@Oscar thats quite understandable but having said that we also have a model of RCS reduced aircraft in the form of F-15SE or later blocks of F-16s, to name a few. Even in gen 4.5 we see RCS reduction measures put into the design. Then why is it such an absurd idea when speaking of JFT?


----------



## SQ8

Bilal. said:


> @Oscar thats quite understandable but having said that we also have a model of RCS reduced aircraft in the form of F-15SE or later blocks of F-16s, to name a few. Even in gen 4.5 we see RCS reduction measures put into the design. Then why is it such an absurd idea when speaking of JFT?



Because in the case of the JF-17, the compromise will cost and time. Both of which undermine the very purpose of the aircraft.


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> It is your stupid-proud out-of-date aviation maintenance experiences confused you. *That makes you don't know what you're talking about.*
> 
> Stealth is nothing to do with manoeuvrability of an aircraft which is born to fly. Anything for stealth is at cost of manoeuvrability, and vice versa.
> 
> How to control the radiation and reflection? In1980's, its basic computer simulation, lab testing, and by bare-eyes plus imagination (Oops, that how F-117, B-2, F-22 had been made, they are too old). Now we have to rely on super-computer to balance between manoeuvrability and stealth.
> 
> *0 of bare eyes, 0 of imagination (only thing you old guys are capable of).
> Ooh, sorry, Chinese got the fastest and costliest computer right now and future.*
> 
> 
> Never pretend you are somebody and talk about the things you don't know----sure you have the right to do so on internet. Internet only, remember it. In real time, please shut up.
> 
> Anything is combined or assembled by individual parts. To you, two giant triangles are called "wings" and on F-22's body. To radar waves, they are two objects only.
> 
> How come two giant triangle are stealthy when they are called "wings"?
> And two small triangle are non-stealthy when they called "canards"?
> Aren't your two giant wings of F-22 are just "canards" in front of two H-stabs?
> 
> 
> 
> Above question is too difficult to your minus IQ score.


Your stupidity, and I said that kindly, is worth a one-point lesson...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

I do not expect you to understand it simply because you are a stupid person, and I said that kindly. I made it a one-point lesson so that interested laymen who are smarter than you will learn something about this subject.



j20blackdragon said:


> The large forward-facing gaps around the F-22's inlets to divert boundary layer air *are radiators*. That's a violation of your first rule. The J-20 has DSI and doesn't have these gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The three forward-facing cavities on the F-35 *are radiators*. First rule violated again. Neither the J-20 nor the F-22 have these cavities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inlets are cavities too. However, a properly designed stealth aircraft will have long and deep serpentine inlets to induce multiple radar bounces along the RAM coated inlet walls. But in the shallow cavities shown above radar energy goes in and bounces right back out. Any comments?


Your stupidity, and I said that kindly, is worth a one-point lesson. See here...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

Planes can be stealthy, but they are not immune to radar. To modern high powered radars, they are vulnerable. Just as M1A2 Abrams that has DU armor is still destroyed with 1 shot by an APFSDS round fired by another M1A2 tank.



danger007 said:


> does China have real combat experience like USA




Really? I'd like to see the US fight a real opponent instead of some 3rd world weakling. As a matter of fact, the US lost quite a number of planes in the 1st Gulf War. Coalition Fixed-Wing Attrition in Desert Storm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Superboy said:


> Planes can be stealthy, but they are not immune to radar.


Who said they are ?



Superboy said:


> To modern high powered radars, they are vulnerable. Just as M1A2 Abrams that has DU armor is still destroyed with 1 shot by an APFSDS round fired by another M1A2 tank.


Yeah...And I guess Chinese tanks cannot be killed.



Superboy said:


> Really? I'd like to see the US fight a real opponent instead of some 3rd world weakling.


Some experience is better than none. 



Superboy said:


> As a matter of fact, the US lost quite a number of planes in the 1st Gulf War. Coalition Fixed-Wing Attrition in Desert Storm


As a matter of fact, China lost no planes in Desert Storm. Does that mean the PLAAF is the better air force ? I guess in your childish mind, it is.


----------



## Viper0011.

longlong said:


> F-22 stealthy or not, I don't know.
> The RCS @ specified band of F-22 is classified, we don't know. They covered it as top secret and bubbles cannot "bang".



They say its comparable to the RCS of a DIME. GO figure. Its like a fly, if you can see it with a radar, GREAT!
Ask the Iranians about the RCS of this thing, they tried to attack a UAV in the international waters and it was being escorted by a -22. The -22 went underneath these two jets' belly, flew like that to see their payload (and I am sure some pictures too), pulled back on these two jets side and told them "you ought to go home". Yea, so ask the Iranians on here. I am sure someone might give you feedback. Its VERY visible to human eye within a mile


----------



## Superboy

orangzaib said:


> They say its comparable to the RCS of a DIME. GO figure. Its like a fly, if you can see it with a radar, GREAT!
> Ask the Iranians about the RCS of this thing, they tried to attack a UAV in the international waters and it was being escorted by a -22. The -22 went underneath these two jets' belly, flew like that to see their payload (and I am sure some pictures too), pulled back on these two jets side and told them "you ought to go home". Yea, so ask the Iranians on here. I am sure someone might give you feedback. Its VERY visible to human eye within a mile




I'll believe it when I see it. This is LM's statement. I'll take it with a truckload of salt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Superboy said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. This is LM's statement. I'll take it with a truckload of salt.


Then why should we place any value on the crap that you have been spewing here ? 

The nonsense of a mentally 12 yr old sucking up to the Chinese vs an aviation company that have been the world's leader in aviation for as long as the Chinese trying to make airplanes ?


----------



## Superboy

gambit said:


> Then why should we place any value on the crap that you have been spewing here ?
> 
> The nonsense of a mentally 12 yr old sucking up to the Chinese vs an aviation company that have been the world's leader in aviation for as long as the Chinese trying to make airplanes ?




LM is the leader of aviation? That title is disputed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Viper0011.

Superboy said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. This is LM's statement. I'll take it with a truckload of salt.



Sure. May be when you find one underneath the J-20 that it couldn't detect, you'll have something better to say . Do ask the Iranians. They might have something to contribute.
Also, you stoke our -35's designs.....the primary purpose was to learn the Stealth tech. So not sure why you'd steal something when you don't want to accept its manufacturer's statements


----------



## gambit

danger007 said:


> @gambit .... m.phys.org/news/2012-12-quantum-stealth-material-invisible.html#&ui-state=dialog
> 
> is it possible to use quantum stealth for fighter jet..


What you brought on is in the visible spectrum.

Let me put it this way: If I cannot see the well camo-ed sniper, does that mean my radar cannot see him as well ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Here's a direct quote from Aviation Week regarding the F-22's inlets:



> The “diverterless” supersonic inlet avoids a signature problem caused by a conventional *boundary layer diverter plate*. For example, the F-22 has a conventional inlet, which is likely to require extensive radar absorbent material (RAM) treatment.



China’s Stealth Aircraft Program Will Face Advanced Defenses | AWIN content from Aviation Week

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Here's a direct quote from Aviation Week regarding the F-22's inlets:
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Stealth Aircraft Program Will Face Advanced Defenses | AWIN content from Aviation Week


All you are doing is just rehashing the same debunked argument. If the conventional inlet designs do not raise the aircraft's RCS above a certain threshold, what is the problem ? What is it about the concept of a threshold that you Chinese cannot grasp ?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Gambit, so what happened to your first rule regarding controlling the quantity of radiators? The F-22 has a pair of boundary layer diverter plates (splitter plates). The diverter plates have leading edges. The leading edges are radiators. Next to the diverter plates are rather large forward-facing gaps. The gaps themselves are radiators.

The J-20 avoids all of this by having two DSI bumps, a minor radiator at best.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Gambit, so what happened to your first rule regarding controlling the quantity of radiators? The F-22 has a pair of boundary layer diverter plates (splitter plates). The diverter plates have leading edges. The leading edges are radiators. Next to the diverter plates are rather large forward-facing gaps. The gaps themselves are radiators.
> 
> The J-20 avoids all of this by having two DSI bumps, a minor radiator at best.


You really are dense, are you ? Did you not read post 4063 ?

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft | Updates & Discussions. | Page 271

Am willing to bet that if you examine the J-20, should you ever have a chance, you will find many many many corner reflectors, of which are more serious than leading edges in terms of contributions to final RCS. But again, you already proved yourself incapable of understanding that an aircraft is a complex body to start.

A corner reflector falls under rule 2: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

If you find this structure on the J-20 -- and you *WILL* -- are you willing to leave the F-22's inlets alone ? 

Do not bother to answer that. We already know the answer.


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> Now lets come back to the J-20, I am sure that the J-20 went through a similar procedure. The designers of the J-20 might have(as we calculate a guess) seen similar red areas for the aircraft with the cockpit, the intakes and the Canards over a full 360 degree sweep. They would then start looking for design ideas(compromises) that reduced those red areas; they could coat the cockpit with RAM, they would change intake shape and coatings, the would design algorithms built into the FLCS that manages the Canards to change position to minimize its energy return and avoid red spikes in favour of yellow or light yellow ones. The same sort of compromises go into aircraft such as the F-22, F-35, PAK-FA .. and are a reference to all those trying to come up with ideas to reduce RCS of conventional aircraft such as the F-15(F-15SE) or the JF-17.


Another problem is that people believes that 'stealth' is a definitive line when in reality, radar engineers do not care for that word. In their view, there is only one thing: distance of detection.

We can 'massage' existing aircrafts, re F-15SE, and we will gain some benefits, as in reducing the detection distance, but as far as radar engineers are concerned, a true radar low observable aircraft must be designed from paper.

There is a legitimate tactical reason on why all major aircraft manufacturers are pushing on the 'massaging' method. No, it is less about money and exploiting the 'stealth' aspect, although money is a part of it. Am going to have to tread carefully here.

There are enough sophisticated radar systems that contains signature libraries, that while are not exact representation of all the major combat vehicles, they are well within statistical range of what is an F-15 or F-16 or even a ship as the radar system analyzes the target. Each signature for each aircraft is compiled from intelligence gathering efforts that ranges from scientific analyses of third hand sources to direct EM observations from events such as airshows or visiting air forces. For exported fighters like the F-15 and F-16, the libraries for their signatures contains true physical dimensions.

So assuming a radar system that is sophisticated enough, also meaning costly enough, if an incoming threat have a flight profile and radar return that matches a signature inside the libraries, the defense can better formulate a response if they know that at so-and-so distance, a target or cluster of targets is likely to be a flight of so-and-so fighters, which inevitably leads to reasonably accurate estimates of what kind of weapons the defense can expect to face.

An F-15 or J-17 that is 'massaged' to have a reduced RCS, thereby reducing the detection distance, can (not will) shift the immediate tactical situation to the attacker's favor. Whatever algorithms the radar are using now reduces the statistical probability of whether the incoming threats are F-15 strike fighters or F-15s flying CAP for other strike fighters that are not yet detected. Back in Desert Storm, Allied fighters often spoofed Iraqi air defense radars by flying at altitudes and speeds that are assumed to be common to certain other aircrafts, and yes, the Iraqi air defense was smart enough to differentiate between different aircrafts. This is a combination of technical and human experience and a good air defense commander is worth his weight in gold, even though we usually pay them far less and his job description is not as glamorous. Human experience is difficult to quantify and preserved and that is why we had to go the route of creating these signature libraries.

Here is an example of what we do to create a signature of a complex body with known and fixed physical features...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a461958.pdf


> The high-resolution full-polarimetric Ka-Band turntable signatures of the MBTs were acquired over a two-week period in April of 1999. The signature data was acquired at five elevations spanning 5° to 60° for a T-72M1, T-72B, M1, M60-A3 and one classified vehicle.


To 'massage' an existing aircraft to reduce its RCS is not an easy endeavor, and an endeavor it is, not merely a task. It will cost money and while not as much as designing a radar low observable fighter from paper, it remains out of reach for most companies and countries out there, especially the ones that have to import their defense.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> Am willing to bet that if you examine the J-20, should you ever have a chance, you will find many many many corner reflectors, of which are more serious than leading edges in terms of contributions to final RCS. But again, you already proved yourself incapable of understanding that an aircraft is a complex body to start.
> 
> A corner reflector falls under rule 2: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.
> 
> If you find this structure on the J-20 -- and you *WILL* -- are you willing to leave the F-22's inlets alone ?
> 
> Do not bother to answer that. We already know the answer.



We've already had this discussion a long time ago. The J-20 has no 90 degree corner reflectors. If you're talking about non-90 degree corner reflectors, the F-22 and F-35 has those too.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> Then why should we place any value on the crap that you have been spewing here ?
> 
> The nonsense of a mentally 12 yr old sucking up to the Chinese vs an aviation company that have been the world's leader in aviation for as long as the Chinese trying to make airplanes ?



Aviation is not charged by doctor in hospital, the older the better.

When new generation tech developed, old ones would be thrown into trash bin if they cannot catch up.


j20blackdragon said:


> We've already had this discussion a long time ago. The J-20 has no 90 degree corner reflectors. If you're talking about non-90 degree corner reflectors, the F-22 and F-35 has those too.



It's really a waste to spend time on him. He decreased the quantity, array, modes of this post.

Most of his copy and paste stuffs are highschool-level readings and out-of-date (1970-1990S).

If any of the theory he copied is reasonable, F-117/F-22 would not have been failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> Alarm! Axis of evil start to spin!


Please...The way you guys spin the J-20, you guys can make your own centrifuge trainer.


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> Please...The way you guys spin the J-20, you guys can make your own centrifuge trainer.





gambit said:


> There goes the mindless Chinese 'bots praising each other's ignorance filled and illogical posts.


Mr gambit your all posts are informative and logical, keep going, ignore these chinese fan boys, they do not have knowledge about Aerodynamic and i also agree with you that J-20 is based on MIG 1.44 but with lots improvement and innovation and it has frontal stealth only


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> Mr gambit your all posts are informative and logical, keep going, ignore these chinese fan boys, they do not have knowledge about Aerodynamic and i also agree with you that J-20 is based on MIG 1.44 but with lots improvement and innovation and it has frontal stealth only


You are clearly just a Pakistanis fanboy. I remember you are the one who brag about rejected J-31 is superior to J-20. 

If you clearly think mig 1.44 is just a J-20 with stretched fuselage to accomodate internal weapon bay and redesign air inlet without a major redesign. Surely, you know not much about aerodynamic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> You are clearly just a Pakistanis fanboy. I remember you are the one who brag about rejected J-31 is superior to J-20.
> 
> If you clearly think mig 1.44 is just a J-20 with stretched fuselage to accomodate internal weapon bay and redesign air inlet without a major redesign. Surely, you know not much about aerodynamic.


Give me prove that J-31 is a rejected design but i think is complimentary with J-20 just like F-22/F-35 combo and i insist that J-31 is superior to J-20 in frontal stealth


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> Mr gambit your all posts are informative and logical, keep going, ignore these chinese fan boys, they do not have knowledge about Aerodynamic and i also agree with you that J-20 is based on MIG 1.44 but with lots improvement and innovation and it has frontal stealth only



The smaller is bonding when bigger becomes even bigger.

J-20/31 will be the only real stealth jet fighter right now.

F-117 died already.
F-22 is fully failed and not stealthy at all. *It's cancelled after merely 187 produced; It's banned from real war; US has to make a new one F-35 for replacement @ a $4T budget. It's covered as top secret and not allowed to be exported*.

You have no choice for your beloved uncle Sam is sick now.

*Failed F-117
*Museum show F-22
*Hopeless F-35
*Pending for new loan from China

Go ahead to comfort your Gambit each other for free and do some blowj*b for last few drops.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## That Guy

Guys, stop arguing. Don't make me get the mods involved.


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> Give me prove that J-31 is a rejected design but i think is complimentary with J-20 just like F-22/F-35 combo and i insist that J-31 is superior to J-20 in frontal stealth



Both J-20/31 has less stealth flaw compared with F-35. Far better then 4+ gen F-22.

They are optimized by the fastest super-computer and manufactured by the No.1 industrial nation in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## longlong

Beast said:


> Really? at least we are more experience than vietnamese or fake american
> 
> You know who I am, Flying an american flag and being in america doesn't automatically will make you an american.  A vietnamese will always be vietnamese, you will never blend into america. Ask micheal brown. America is ruled by white man. Even Obama is half white.


He 10000% is living in Asia with the same timezone +/- 1 out of +8GMT.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

longlong said:


> Both J-20/31 has less stealth flaw compared with F-35. Far better then 4+ gen F-22.
> 
> They are optimized by the fastest super-computer and manufactured by the No.1 industrial nation in the world.





longlong said:


> The smaller is bonding when bigger becomes even bigger.
> 
> J-20/31 will be the only real stealth jet fighter right now.
> 
> F-117 died already.
> F-22 is fully failed and not stealthy at all. *It's cancelled after merely 187 produced; It's banned from real war; US has to make a new one F-35 for replacement @ a $4T budget. It's covered as top secret and not allowed to be exported*.
> 
> You have no choice for your beloved uncle Sam is sick now.
> 
> *Failed F-117
> *Museum show F-22
> *Hopeless F-35
> *Pending for new loan from China
> 
> Go ahead to comfort your Gambit each other for free and do some blowj*b for last few drops.


In your wet dream, F-117 is a different class of aircraft, it is a attack aircraft rather than a fighter aircraft and as for F-22 the main cause of declining numbers is breakup of Soviet Union. As for F-35 i do agree with you that F-35 is overdone project and trying to put to many systems in a such a small aircraft.


longlong said:


> Both J-20/31 has less stealth flaw compared with F-35. Far better then 4+ gen F-22.
> 
> They are optimized by the fastest super-computer and manufactured by the No.1 industrial nation in the world.


I asked only one question since the independence of china how many stealth project perused by china and as far as USA had number of stealth project on hand.
1,YB35 bomber project
2,YB49 bomber project
3, one of first and true stealth project is a version of SR-71
4,Tacit blue
5, Have blue
Sorry to burst your bubble, China have relatively new on this field Ok i admit that J-20/31 has less stealth design flaw compared with F-35, does J-20/31 have fiber mat low maintenance stealth technology used in F-35? in numerous internet sources said that J-20/31 will have RAM coating instead fiber mat technology.
What F-22 is 4+ gen so then your J-20/31 is 2+gen fighters, i have some question about J-20/31 to you.
1- Does J-20/31 have LOAN type nozzle like F-22/35?
2- Does J-20/31 have advance radar like AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81?
3- Does J-20/31 have AN/ALR-94 and AN/AAQ-37 type defense systems?
*AND as for fastest super-computer USA have too many of those like Titan (supercomputer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Blue Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Texas Advanced Computing Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Cray XC30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *And industrial development, USA is more develop than china, china is developing those industry right now.
Do some research before you talk, you acting like a 12 year kid


----------



## Ray_of_Hope

Currently there is no aircraft in the world which is better in stealth than F-22.It may have many problems but they can b sorted out.As far is F-35 is concerned,it is a failed project uptill now as it has far more serious problems and i has now been grounded for the 8th time recent crash


----------



## siegecrossbow

J-31 is not a rejected design. The original "Snow-Owl" pushed by SAC uses a "tri-plane" configuration (meaning it uses canards and horizontal stabilizers) and ended up being significantly longer and heavier than the J-20 design. After Chengdu won the competition, Shenyang decided to develop a medium-sized fighter to complement the J-20 (also with export in mind). The J-31 is actually a very good medium-sized stealth fighter. First and foremost, J-31 uses 3D laser-printing for many of its components. The components are stronger and lighter than those manufactured via conventional means, thus contributing to superior performances. Secondly, the main weapon bay on the J-31 has similiar dimensions as the one on the J-20. This implies a good weaponsload for the aircraft as well as interchangeable weapons. 

I always believed that the J-31 will be a better choice for Pakistan than the J-10B since it is A) an actual stealth fighter and B) it uses the same engines as those used for the JF-17, making maintenance easier. 

It is known that PLANAF will employ a modified version of the J-31 since the chief designer of J-15, Sun Cong, confirmed that he is currently working on a stealth carrier-based jet. PLAAF will probably also induct the J-31 in large numbers since it isn't economically feasible for China to solely field J-20s and 4++ fighters -- like the J-10B, J-16, and J-11C -- will like be obsolete when F-35s are fielded in force.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> In your wet dream, F-117 is a different class of aircraft, it is a attack aircraft rather than a fighter aircraft and as for F-22 the main cause of declining numbers is breakup of Soviet Union. As for F-35 i do agree with you that F-35 is overdone project and trying to put to many systems in a such a small aircraft.


F-117 is debut of US stealth. All US stealth technology, theories, rules are given birth by F-117 which labeled as "Stealthy Aircraft".
We knew from F-117, at the very moment, US didn't know the balance between aerodynamic and stealth.

F-117 failed. It was shot down.
You have the wrong DNA of stealth, all your followers are something wrong.



pakistanipower said:


> I asked only one question since the independence of china how many stealth project perused by china and as far as USA had number of stealth project on hand.










Irrelevant question. I'm asking you, how many mobile phone had been made by Apple as far as Nokia had number of ones on hand?

*Where is NOKIA how she connecting people now?*




pakistanipower said:


> 1- Does J-20/31 have LOAN type nozzle like F-22/35?
> 2- Does J-20/31 have advance radar like AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81?
> 3- Does J-20/31 have AN/ALR-94 and AN/AAQ-37 type defense systems?
> *AND as for fastest super-computer USA have too many of those like Titan (supercomputer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Blue Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Texas Advanced Computing Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Cray XC30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *And industrial development, USA is more develop than china, china is developing those industry right now.
> Do some research before you talk, you acting like a 12 year kid



Whatever nozzle else than traditional type, it works at cost of efficiency of the engine.
When you're chasing by someone else, no magic nozzle will save you.





PL-12's favorite. IR kills.

BTW, LOAN refers to F-16 LOAN only. Kid, internet hurts.

Anything about radar, it's electronics only ---- we're at same level expect cheaper and better made in China.
J-20/31 has advantage over F-35: bigger physical radome disk size, more space for more R/T modules.



pakistanipower said:


> *AND as for fastest super-computer USA have too many of those like Titan (supercomputer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Blue Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Texas Advanced Computing Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Cray XC30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *And industrial development, USA is more develop than china, china is developing those industry right now.
> Do some research before you talk, you acting like a 12 year kid



Kid, you made 100000000000000000000000 silver medal also no use: loser to winner only.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

So why you didn't answer my question because you have no answer and you are speechless kid, go to sleep and enjoy your wet dream


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> So why you didn't answer my question because you have no answer and you are speechless kid, go to sleep and enjoy your wet dream



I suspect you are a fake Pakistanis. True Pakistanis will not rubbish China advancement effort. Usually, its indian and American like to fake identity.to creat tension to serve their agenda.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

Chinese humility seems to have fallen quite a few notches here. 
The fcuk is it with all the condescending b.s towards Pakistani friends?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

longlong said:


> F-117 is debut of US stealth. All US stealth technology, theories, rules are given birth by F-117 which labeled as "Stealthy Aircraft".
> We knew from F-117, at the very moment, US didn't know the balance between aerodynamic and stealth.
> 
> F-117 failed. It was shot down.
> You have the wrong DNA of stealth, all your followers are something wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant question. I'm asking you, how many mobile phone had been made by Apple as far as Nokia had number of ones on hand?
> 
> *Where is NOKIA how she connecting people now?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever nozzle else than traditional type, it works at cost of efficiency of the engine.
> When you're chasing by someone else, no magic nozzle will save you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PL-12's favorite. IR kills.
> 
> BTW, LOAN refers to F-16 LOAN only. Kid, internet hurts.
> 
> Anything about radar, it's electronics only ---- we're at same level expect cheaper and better made in China.
> J-20/31 has advantage over F-35: bigger physical radome disk size, more space for more R/T modules.
> 
> 
> 
> Kid, you made 100000000000000000000000 silver medal also no use: loser to winner only.



A lot of things wrong with your post. 

1. The F-117 was shot down after careful planning and baiting the aircraft. Even then only when it opened its bay. 

2. The phones may be made in China, but the designs of ALL phones including Apple, Nokia and other foreign companies come from abroad. It is like someone claiming that since they make LEGO sets like the instructions, they are the master.





Doing this does not mean you have invented or know anything.

3. The LOAN( Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) was a precursor program to the F-35's nozzle. essentially it took the idea of reducing the RCS return of the traditional nozzle along with certain heat reduction. Compared to that, the F-22's nozzle is SUPERIOR in both RCS and IR reduction( Although the YF-23 had better IR reduction than that even). At this point, the J-20 has poor IR suppression from its engines compared to the F-22, yet the J-20 is still a prototype undergoing testing so we cannot say the final form. Additionally, the J-20 is NOT a stealth design comparable to the F-22 in all round terms simply because of its design philosophy/compromises. That does not mean that it is not a capable platform, just the idea behind the J-20 looks different to me than that of the F-22 or PAK-FA.

Also, the PL-12 has not yet entered the testing phase beyond dummy carriage. 

4. The F-35 has gone beyond the single sensor concept and is essentially the first swarm machine. Its designed to capture information much more rapidly, process it the same and present it to the pilot(warrior) in the best fashion possible. Its Radar, its other electronic sensors along with DAS will ensure that anything more than one F-35 will be deadly to any fighter in the air. 

The J-20 by contrast looks much like the F-22 in philosophy. Its designed as a silent sword. The idea is to get close VERY quick to the fight and use information and links from other J-20s to make a quick kill and then run. It is much like the Mig-31 interceptor except it is more stealthy and more manoeuvrable. The J-20 may or may not be the fastest air domination fighter, but it is possibly the one that will accelerate the fastest. Which means it will supercruise faster than the F-22 and PAK-FA, that translate to better range and essentially better kinetic push for all its missiles at the right time.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> I suspect you are a fake Pakistanis. True Pakistanis will not rubbish China advancement effort. Usually, its indian and American like to fake identity.to creat tension to serve their agenda.


I am a true Pakistani and i am from Karachi but i also believe in ground realities that J-20 is slightly inferior I say slightly inferior to F-22, it has frontal stealth only, i have to say that J-31 is better stealth oriented aircraft than J-20, rear aspect of J-20 is totally unstealth, so Mr Beast please answer my above question than i convince


----------



## Ultima Thule

Oscar said:


> A lot of things wrong with your post.
> 
> 1. The F-117 was shot down after careful planning and baiting the aircraft. Even then only when it opened its bay.
> 
> 2. The phones may be made in China, but the designs of ALL phones including Apple, Nokia and other foreign companies come from abroad. It is like someone claiming that since they make LEGO sets like the instructions, they are the master.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing this does not mean you have invented or know anything.
> 
> 3. The LOAN( Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) was a precursor program to the F-35's nozzle. essentially it took the idea of reducing the RCS return of the traditional nozzle along with certain heat reduction. Compared to that, the F-22's nozzle is SUPERIOR in both RCS and IR reduction( Although the YF-23 had better IR reduction than that even). At this point, the J-20 has poor IR suppression from its engines compared to the F-22, yet the J-20 is still a prototype undergoing testing so we cannot say the final form. Additionally, the J-20 is NOT a stealth design comparable to the F-22 in all round terms simply because of its design philosophy/compromises. That does not mean that it is not a capable platform, just the idea behind the J-20 looks different to me than that of the F-22 or PAK-FA.
> 
> Also, the PL-12 has not yet entered the testing phase beyond dummy carriage.
> 
> 4. The F-35 has gone beyond the single sensor concept and is essentially the first swarm machine. Its designed to capture information much more rapidly, process it the same and present it to the pilot(warrior) in the best fashion possible. Its Radar, its other electronic sensors along with DAS will ensure that anything more than one F-35 will be deadly to any fighter in the air.
> 
> The J-20 by contrast looks much like the F-22 in philosophy. Its designed as a silent sword. The idea is to get close VERY quick to the fight and use information and links from other J-20s to make a quick kill and then run. It is much like the Mig-31 interceptor except it is more stealthy and more manoeuvrable. The J-20 may or may not be the fastest air domination fighter, but it is possibly the one that will accelerate the fastest. Which means it will supercruise faster than the F-22 and PAK-FA, that translate to better range and essentially better kinetic push for all its missiles at the right time.


you are on the spot Mr oscar, that i am trying to prove these stupids


----------



## SQ8

pakistanipower said:


> I am a true Pakistani and i am from Karachi but i also believe in ground realities that J-20 is slightly inferior I say slightly inferior to F-22, it has frontal stealth only, i have to say that J-31 is better stealth oriented aircraft than J-20, rear aspect of J-20 is totally unstealth, so Mr Beast please answer my above question than i convince



The Question is of all those powers who are rising and insecure of their own capabilities. Take the JF-17 for instance, it is a cost effective lightweight fighter that has certain good characteristics. But there are a lot of things wrong and delayed with the program along with the aircraft's inherent design limitations. Yet , many(if not most) Pakistanis here think it is the next best thing to the F-35. 

The same goes for the J-20. The more I look at it and its design evolution , I am more and more convinced of its fighting potential and tactics. This aircraft may be the best China has produced so far and its frontal stealth is going to be fairly good with its(I am sure) RCS management via canards. It is also going to be very manoeuvrable. But it is not designed to go toe to toe with the F-22. it is essentially a different step in Air combat. The aircraft will be used to deny access over long distances much like the Mig-31 does for the USSR over the north pole. Additionally, it will also be the premier strike aircraft( and I mean in some scenarios better than the F-35) in the region. Its shape and significant RCS reduction will allow it to penetrate a heavy EW environment that the US(and its allies) traditionally train to fight in and deliver a strike into the core successfully. 
It has enough manoeuvrability to easily take on previous generation jets and the F-35 as well. But this aircraft is not going to be looking for the WVR fight, rather it looks optimized for the slash and dash. With HOBS systems, full AESA coverage and if I can infer from the most recent prototype, a sensor skin along certain areas as well. 

The Fault of the Chinese members here is that they expect the J-20 to be a similar Kung fu fighter(to use the stereotype analogy) like the PAK-FA is.. and the F-22 to quite an extent as well. Instead, in my view the J-20 is more of an aerial assassin. Its designed to run in silently, kill its opponent quickly and leave with the same haste. 

The simple fact is that the while the PAK-FA is the leader in manoeuvrability and the J-20 is better in the usage of stealth for its strength...the F-22 embodies the best of both. But then again, the F-22 costs $140 million a piece... a price I do not think the J-20 will cost. In a future scenario, the J-20 will have the numbers advantage over the F-22.. and being a better aerial killer than the F-35. it will have a massive effect on any confrontation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Thank you sir


----------



## xunzi

pakistanipower said:


> So why you didn't answer my question because you have no answer and you are speechless kid, go to sleep and enjoy your wet dream


He already answer you. Provide plenty of indirect hint. Just because you have plenty of project and model, such example like Nokia phones, it does not mean Nokia will forever remain on top if a revolutionize smartphone enter the picture like the Iphone. China may already surpass the US in stealth or maybe not. Nobody really know because we don't release information. The only one who really know are the designer and director of the project and unfortunately, they are not allow to talk to the public about it.


----------



## Ultima Thule

xunzi said:


> He already answer you. Provide plenty of indirect hint. Just because you have plenty of project and model, such example like Nokia phones, it does not mean Nokia will forever remain on top if a revolutionize smartphone enter the picture like the Iphone. China may already surpass the US in stealth or maybe not. Nobody really know because we don't release information. The only one who really know are the designer and director of the project and unfortunately, they are not allow to talk to the public about it.


Yes that the answer i want, we knows nothing about these jets, but just my thought that J-20's rear portion is more prone to radar and infrared detection.


----------



## xunzi

pakistanipower said:


> Yes that the answer i want, we knows nothing about these jets, but just my thought that J-20's rear portion is more prone to radar and infrared detection.


All talks are just speculation. J-20 is not in its final stage. We are only half way through it. By the time it reaches the final stage, J-20 could be very different from the 4th prototype now. All talks are mute point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

*China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design *






April 5, 2013, 1:00 PM
China’s under-development J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but “more efficient” design than that of the American F-22.

J-20 number 2002, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as China’s newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.

This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design | Aviation International News

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> I am a true Pakistani and i am from Karachi but i also believe in ground realities that J-20 is slightly inferior I say slightly inferior to F-22, it has frontal stealth only, i have to say that J-31 is better stealth oriented aircraft than J-20, rear aspect of J-20 is totally unstealth, so Mr Beast please answer my above question than i convince



You are true pakistanis. Yet you trust an American(gambit) who send drone to kill your tribesmen? How ironic?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

It was only a little over a year ago that the first photos and a video of China’s rumored J-20 stealth fighter surfaced on numerous web sites and blogs. Not too long after, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Chinese president Hu Jintao openly acknowledged to him to that the Chinese military had indeed just completed a 15-minute test flight. At the time, General He Weirong of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force said that serviceable fleet may be ready as early as 2017.
...
But comparing the J-20 capabilities head to head with the F-22 as a way to gauge threat level may be a flawed approach. Lower production costs may enable China to bolster the size of their fleet to the point where outnumbering the opposition is all it would take to win in aerial combat situations. And according to Wired's David Axe:

Mighty Dragon 2002 does appear to be a step towards an early combat capability. It features several apparent improvements over its sister Mighty Dragon 2001, including stockier landing gear and a redesigned nose that could house an ultra-modern electronically scanned radar. If Beijing chooses to build a squadron of J-20s for early front-line use, they could look a lot like jet number 2002.

He also adds that it's likely that China's approach won't involve undergoing a prolonged testing period as is typical with U.S. military defense technologies. Instead, it's possible that they'll just fast-track the process to put sufficiently operable models into service. In the meantime, any necessary improvements will simply be implemented into the second generation.

Simply put, we might be seeing a combat-ready J-20 fighter sooner than anyone would have expected.

China's stealth fighter gets lethal re-design - SmartPlanet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

Oscar said:


> A lot of things wrong with your post.
> 
> 1. The F-117 was shot down after careful planning and baiting the aircraft. Even then only when it opened its bay.


I had to trust you the explaination why F-117 was shot down you believed if your posted in 1999.

Now is 2014, truth is discovered. The fact is F-117 was failure (its detectable by 1980s radar) and retired fully.



Oscar said:


> 2. The phones may be made in China, but the designs of ALL phones including Apple, Nokia and other foreign companies come from abroad. It is like someone claiming that since they make LEGO sets like the instructions, they are the master.
> 
> 
> Doing this does not mean you have invented or know anything.


You misunderstood. Read Xunzi's post.



Oscar said:


> 3. The LOAN( Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) was a precursor program to the F-35's nozzle. essentially it took the idea of reducing the RCS return of the traditional nozzle along with certain heat reduction. Compared to that, the F-22's nozzle is SUPERIOR in both RCS and IR reduction( Although the YF-23 had better IR reduction than that even).


The LOAN exhaust is right now fixed on F-16 and testing haven't completed yet ---- one of thousands such testing on pending for F-35. Will it be completed sooner or later? who knows.

F-22's nozzle is superior?
If it is as good as it claimed, why the superior-2D nozzle cannot be found on T-50, J-20/31, F-35, X-47?



Oscar said:


> Additionally, the J-20 is NOT a stealth design comparable to the F-22 in all round terms simply because of its design philosophy/compromises. That does not mean that it is not a capable platform, just the idea behind the J-20 looks different to me than that of the F-22 or PAK-FA.



Your eyes got problem? Doesn't F-35 have a round nozzle?
*J-20 round nozzle is non-stealthy, F-35's round hole is so lovely to you?*



Oscar said:


> 4. The F-35 has gone beyond the single sensor concept and is essentially the first swarm machine. Its designed to capture information much more rapidly, process it the same and present it to the pilot(warrior) in the best fashion possible. Its Radar, its other electronic sensors along with DAS will ensure that anything more than one F-35 will be deadly to any fighter in the air.
> 
> The J-20 by contrast looks much like the F-22 in philosophy. Its designed as a silent sword. The idea is to get close VERY quick to the fight and use information and links from other J-20s to make a quick kill and then run. It is much like the Mig-31 interceptor except it is more stealthy and more manoeuvrable. The J-20 may or may not be the fastest air domination fighter, but it is possibly the one that will accelerate the fastest. Which means it will supercruise faster than the F-22 and PAK-FA, that translate to better range and essentially better kinetic push for all its missiles at the right time.



No comments. It looks J-20 everything go smoothly, and F-35 is problematic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

The SC said:


> *China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> April 5, 2013, 1:00 PM
> China’s under-development J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but “more efficient” design than that of the American F-22.
> 
> J-20 number 2002, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as China’s newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.
> 
> This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.
> 
> China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design | Aviation International News


That is a dumbass article.

The missile hanging on the outside for how long and its own body does not possibly compromise the aircraft's RCS ?


----------



## SQ8

longlong said:


> I had to trust you the explaination why F-117 was shot down you believed if your posted in 1999.
> 
> Now is 2014, truth is discovered. The fact is F-117 was failure (its detectable by 1980s radar) and retired fully.
> 
> 
> You misunderstood. Read Xunzi's post.
> 
> 
> The LOAN exhaust is right now fixed on F-16 and testing haven't completed yet ---- one of thousands such testing on pending for F-35. Will it be completed sooner or later? who knows.
> 
> F-22's nozzle is superior?
> If it is as good as it claimed, why the superior-2D nozzle cannot be found on T-50, J-20/31, F-35, X-47?
> 
> 
> 
> Your eyes got problem? Doesn't F-35 have a round nozzle?
> *J-20 round nozzle is non-stealthy, F-35's round hole is so lovely to you?*
> 
> 
> 
> No comments. It looks J-20 everything go smoothly, and F-35 is problematic.



I understand english is not your first language but tr to read again slowly. 

1. You have given no proof for that

2. That is all I see in that post. It is a bad analogy he has used to describe China's technological capability

3. Please learn to read slowly and properly. The F-35 uses a developed form of the LOAN nozzle but it is NOT superior to the IR reduction and RCS reduction offered by the F-35's nozzle. Also, the 2D TVC on the F-22 was found sufficient to carry out all manoeuvres that are required by tactical air combat instead of airshow manoeuvres. The F-35 was not required to be as stealthy as the F-22. The issue is not whether the J-20's nozzle is as stealthy as the F-35.. it is NOT as stealthy in terms of IR and RCS as the F-22.

4. Because unlike the F-35, we have ZERO reports from news agencies on the J-20. So if we dont know what is going on, how do we know if everything is going ok with the program?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

Oscar said:


> I understand english is not your first language but tr to read again slowly.



Understood English is your 1st language prior of your mother tongue.
Thanks for your kind understanding.

1) You knew it;
2) You're either too slow or too old.
3) We don't know the real story behind the unique F-22 nozzle, e.g. RCS, IR, maintenance hrs/ fly hrs. Even the cruise speed and max speed are classified, the performance of its nozzle is highly suspected.
4) J-20 will be the game changer at the cross point of rising China and declined US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

longlong said:


> Understood English is your 1st language prior of your mother tongue.
> Thanks for your kind understanding.
> 
> 1) You knew it;
> 2) You're either too slow or too old.
> 3) We don't know the real story behind the unique F-22 nozzle, e.g. RCS, IR, maintenance hrs/ fly hrs. Even the cruise speed and max speed are classified, the performance of its nozzle is highly suspected.
> 4) J-20 will be the game changer at the cross point of rising China and declined US.



1). You are now running away from a proper argument.
2). You have no argument to present and hence have no intellect other than personal attacks(which means I will ban you from this thread forever).
3) Plenty of books/ journal and publications out there on the topic. So yes we do know a lot of the whole story as compared to the J-20. Your argument looks to fail just on your bias and not on actual knowledge

4). Yes it will be a game changer , there is no doubt to it. Just not how you see it.



gambit said:


> That is a dumbass article.
> 
> The missile hanging on the outside for how long and its own body does not possibly compromise the aircraft's RCS ?



I think the system is a simple compromise compared to the complex trapeze system of the Raptor. As such, there are lesser moving parts and easier fabrication. Not to mention potentially greater structural strength to the design. But hanging them outside may also mean that the Missiles may not be able to operate in LOAL mode like the AIM-9M and X potentially can. 

So it is possible that the Chinese missile needs to have its seeker outside to be used in caged or uncaged mode. It cannot be given targeting data within the confined of the bay and then pop out towards a vector to search via its own seeker.

A simpler explanation may also lie with the design itself, perhaps the Chinese are not looking for a silent WVR kill and know that if they are within WVR their radar signature is already there and compromised. Hence its better to have weapons on rails ready to shoot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> You are true pakistanis. Yet you trust an American(gambit) who send drone to kill your tribesmen? How ironic?


Mr beast, i like (gambit) because his knowledge about aerodynamic and RCS measurement links in his post and by the way did gambit send drone to kill my tribesmen you fool


----------



## Beidou2020

Oscar said:


> I understand english is not your first language but tr to read again slowly.
> 
> 1. You have given no proof for that
> 
> 2. That is all I see in that post. It is a bad analogy he has used to describe China's technological capability
> 
> 3. Please learn to read slowly and properly. The F-35 uses a developed form of the LOAN nozzle but it is NOT superior to the IR reduction and RCS reduction offered by the F-35's nozzle. Also, the 2D TVC on the F-22 was found sufficient to carry out all manoeuvres that are required by tactical air combat instead of airshow manoeuvres. The F-35 was not required to be as stealthy as the F-22. The issue is not whether the J-20's nozzle is as stealthy as the F-35.. it is NOT as stealthy in terms of IR and RCS as the F-22.
> 
> 4. Because unlike the F-35, we have ZERO reports from news agencies on the J-20. So if we dont know what is going on, how do we know if everything is going ok with the program?



F-117 was shot down by Serbian anti-aircraft.
End of story.

US stealth is just another myth. Serbia embarrassed the US Airforce by shooting down their stealth plane.

F-22 has never been proven against proper militaries, its just hype. There was hype regarding F-117 too and it got shot down the first real opposition it had.

Same will happen to the F-22. F-35 is beyond a joke even US military admits it.



Oscar said:


> 1). You are now running away from a proper argument.
> 2). You have no argument to present and hence have no intellect other than personal attacks(which means I will ban you from this thread forever).
> 3) Plenty of books/ journal and publications out there on the topic. So yes we do know a lot of the whole story as compared to the J-20. Your argument looks to fail just on your bias and not on actual knowledge
> 
> 4). Yes it will be a game changer , there is no doubt to it. Just not how you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the system is a simple compromise compared to the complex trapeze system of the Raptor. As such, there are lesser moving parts and easier fabrication. Not to mention potentially greater structural strength to the design. But hanging them outside may also mean that the Missiles may not be able to operate in LOAL mode like the AIM-9M and X potentially can.
> 
> So it is possible that the Chinese missile needs to have its seeker outside to be used in caged or uncaged mode. It cannot be given targeting data within the confined of the bay and then pop out towards a vector to search via its own seeker.
> 
> A simpler explanation may also lie with the design itself, perhaps the Chinese are not looking for a silent WVR kill and know that if they are within WVR their radar signature is already there and compromised. Hence its better to have weapons on rails ready to shoot.



Sorry but it is YOU that is running away from an argument by threatening to ban him forever because he put holes in your arguments.

He is just exposing your extreme bias.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> Mr beast, i like (gambit) because his knowledge about aerodynamic and RCS measurement links in his post and by the way did gambit send drone to kill my tribesmen you fool



Yes, his government he supported send the drone to kill your men. And if you are familiar with US mainstream. Their media and people are very hostile to any achievement of China. Be it good or bad, they will not say anything good about China and try to misled the mass.

Gambit is an American Vietnamese. That will even make him more unfit to comment anything about Chinese achievement with regards to tension between Vietnam and China. You seriously believe he will give a partial judgement on J-20? Expert does not mean they are impartial. That is the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Beidou2020 said:


> F-117 was shot down by Serbian anti-aircraft.
> End of story.
> 
> US stealth is just another myth. Serbia embarrassed the US Airforce by shooting down their stealth plane.
> 
> F-22 has never been proven against proper militaries, its just hype. There was hype regarding F-117 too and it got shot down the first real opposition it had.
> 
> Same will happen to the F-22. F-35 is beyond a joke even US military admits it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it is YOU that is running away from an argument by threatening to ban him forever because he put holes in your arguments.
> 
> He is just exposing your extreme bias.



And where is the technical proof in your argument for this?
Your countryman stuck to personal attacks instead of posting actual knowledge, would you like to follow him down the same path?


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> I think the system is a simple compromise compared to the complex trapeze system of the Raptor. As such, there are lesser moving parts and easier fabrication. Not to mention potentially greater structural strength to the design. But hanging them outside may also mean that the Missiles may not be able to operate in LOAL mode like the AIM-9M and X potentially can.
> 
> So it is possible that the Chinese missile needs to have its seeker outside to be used in caged or uncaged mode. It cannot be given targeting data within the confined of the bay and then pop out towards a vector to search via its own seeker.
> 
> A simpler explanation may also lie with the design itself, perhaps the Chinese are not looking for a silent WVR kill and know that if they are within WVR their radar signature is already there and compromised. Hence its better to have weapons on rails ready to shoot.


In order for the weapons bay to be radar visible, the radar would have to be looking at the general area in the first place. So if we are to go by the three rules of designing a low radar observable body, which I stated many times before, then how is a missile hanging outside and against a smooth wall any better than the bay itself ? It does not make logical sense.

But if people are willing to speculate in that direction, I am willing to speculate that for the J-20, the communication between the aircraft's radar and the missile is not as capable as the F-22's. The AMRAAM can receive continuous target updates from the parent aircraft before it is launched and after it is launched. For the J-20, hanging the missile to the outside could indicate the missile must acquire the target on its own so it must be of the older lock before launch type.



Beast said:


> Gambit is an American Vietnamese. That will even make him more unfit to comment anything about Chinese achievement with regards to tension between Vietnam and China. You seriously believe he will give a partial judgement on J-20? Expert does not mean they are impartial. That is the point.


That make no sense, but then most of the stuff you guys say make little sense in the first place.

If my national origin disqualified me from commenting on Chinese military hardware, then what make you Chinese qualified on commenting on US military hardware ? Further, not only does your race disqualified all of you from commenting on US military hardware, not one of you ever served in the military, let alone know anything about military aviation, so why not take your own advice and STFU ?

An expert may be biased, but at least his arguments are based upon his experience. What do you guys have in terms of military aviation experience compares to my nearly 19 yrs worth, in and out of the military ?


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> In order for the weapons bay to be radar visible, the radar would have to be looking at the general area in the first place. So if we are to go by the three rules of designing a low radar observable body, which I stated many times before, then how is a missile hanging outside and against a smooth wall any better than the bay itself ? It does not make logical sense.
> 
> But if people are willing to speculate in that direction, I am willing to speculate that for the J-20, the communication between the aircraft's radar and the missile is not as capable as the F-22's. The AMRAAM can receive continuous target updates from the parent aircraft before it is launched and after it is launched. For the J-20, hanging the missile to the outside could indicate the missile must acquire the target on its own so it must be of the older lock before launch type.



Well, I think you cant compare the AMRAAM's radar guidance with that of an IR missile. The guidance for the SD-10 is similar to that of the AMRAAM( that I can assure with good source authority) . However, I am not too sure about PLA's IR missiles. They do still seem to lack LOAL modes that certain western weapon systems have. Hence the need to hang them out of the bay for the IR seeker to get a lock.


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> Well, I think you cant compare the AMRAAM's radar guidance with that of an IR missile. The guidance for the SD-10 is similar to that of the AMRAAM( that I can assure with good source authority) . However, I am not too sure about PLA's IR missiles. They do still seem to lack LOAL modes that certain western weapon systems have. Hence the need to hang them out of the bay for the IR seeker to get a lock.


The better IR missile can receive target updates from the parent aircraft's radar. The missile's computer essentially have a general direction on where to focus its sensor data processing. Infrared focal plane array (IR-FPA) systems are highly resistant to seduction/distraction flare tactics precisely of the ability to remember emission sources -- plural -- on the array. Now feed the missile target data based upon an educated guess on where the target should be on that field-of-view and the missile will pre-process that area on the array.

http://general-vision.com/pub3rdparty/3P_Labonte_Deck.pdf


> Thus, *a reject sector can be created in the field of view of the missile that reduces the interest of IR sources* in this region about the aircraft. The seeker can also take into account the rate of separation between the flare and the target aircraft.


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> The better IR missile can receive target updates from the parent aircraft's radar. The missile's computer essentially have a general direction on where to focus its sensor data processing. Infrared focal plane array (IR-FPA) systems are highly resistant to seduction/distraction flare tactics precisely of the ability to remember emission sources -- plural -- on the array. Now feed the missile target data based upon an educated guess on where the target should be on that field-of-view and the missile will pre-process that area on the array.
> 
> http://general-vision.com/pub3rdparty/3P_Labonte_Deck.pdf



How would you postulate that be done if the missile is the weapons bay? Say a AIM-9M in the F-22's side bay. The IR sensor is essentially shrouded? I know that the F-22 is able to provide targeting data(in caged mode) to the AIM-9M before it launches so the missile knows where to look for the target right after it comes out of the bay.


----------



## l0ngl0ng

Oscar said:


> 1). You are now running away from a proper argument.
> 2). You have no argument to present and hence have no intellect other than personal attacks(which means I will ban you from this thread forever).
> 3) Plenty of books/ journal and publications out there on the topic. So yes we do know a lot of the whole story as compared to the J-20. Your argument looks to fail just on your bias and not on actual knowledge
> 
> 4). Yes it will be a game changer , there is no doubt to it. Just not how you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the system is a simple compromise compared to the complex trapeze system of the Raptor. As such, there are lesser moving parts and easier fabrication. Not to mention potentially greater structural strength to the design. But hanging them outside may also mean that the Missiles may not be able to operate in LOAL mode like the AIM-9M and X potentially can.
> 
> So it is possible that the Chinese missile needs to have its seeker outside to be used in caged or uncaged mode. It cannot be given targeting data within the confined of the bay and then pop out towards a vector to search via its own seeker.
> 
> A simpler explanation may also lie with the design itself, perhaps the Chinese are not looking for a silent WVR kill and know that if they are within WVR their radar signature is already there and compromised. Hence its better to have weapons on rails ready to shoot.



Very sorry about what happened.
I apologize for my improper manners.

I fully dare not to challenge you, Sir Oscar who always get my respect.
Actually, I mistook you as dear g*m**t since the water was boiling hot......

Hope you can forgive me and allow me back to this post since I respect the news and discussion here.

Best regards,

Thanks.



Oscar said:


> A lot of things wrong with your post.
> 
> Also, the PL-12 has not yet entered the testing phase beyond dummy carriage.



It's not true.






J-11B carrying with PL-12 and PL-8 buzzed P-8.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

WVR combat is the last place a F-22 wants to be at the moment. The current F-22 fleet doesn't have infrared search and track (IRST) or a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS). Lock-on after Launch isn't available until the AIM-9X Block II.

In the meantime, the F-22 has to keep the side bay doors open like this while the AIM-9M attempts to lock.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> That is a dumbass article.
> 
> The missile hanging on the outside for how long and its own body does not possibly compromise the aircraft's RCS ?


Actually they said, it will hang there just prior to lunch, so it is a matter of seconds I gess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

l0ngl0ng said:


> Very sorry about what happened.
> I apologize for my improper manners.
> 
> I fully dare not to challenge you, Sir Oscar who always get my respect.
> Actually, I mistook you as dear g*m**t since the water was boiling hot......
> 
> Hope you can forgive me and allow me back to this post since I respect the news and discussion here.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-11B carrying with PL-12 and PL-8 buzzed P-8.



You( and a lot of Chinese and Pakistanis) need to learn to debate with a cool head and focus on technicality.


I am not alien to Chinese equipment or capabilities. But you also need to look at where you stand. 

I mistakenly said PL-12/SD-10 when I meant the chinese high agility missile that was supposedly in development.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 1ong1ong

j20blackdragon said:


> WVR combat is the last place a F-22 wants to be at the moment. The current F-22 fleet doesn't have infrared search and track (IRST) or a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS). Lock-on after Launch isn't available until the AIM-9X Block II.
> 
> In the meantime, the F-22 has to keep the side bay doors open like this while the AIM-9M attempts to lock.


This OHIS way (Ostrich head in sand) to fire missile is the first and only one found on a jet.

It not only *breaks the stealth*, *burns the stealth coating *(lost the stealth after launch even door closed), but also *damages the aerodynamic* which means it may not be possible to fire the side bay missile at supersonic speed.

Worst is,the door must keep opening when fighting engaged.



Oscar said:


> You( and a lot of Chinese and Pakistanis) need to learn to debate with a cool head and focus on technicality.
> 
> 
> I am not alien to Chinese equipment or capabilities. But you also need to look at where you stand.
> 
> I mistakenly said PL-12/SD-10 when I meant the chinese high agility missile that was supposedly in development.


Thanks, you are great man.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beidou2020

Oscar said:


> And where is the technical proof in your argument for this?
> Your countryman stuck to personal attacks instead of posting actual knowledge, would you like to follow him down the same path?



What technical proof do you need to know that the F-117 was shot down by cheap anti-aircraft weapons?

No amount of excuses or 'technicalities' can change the fact it got shot down.
End of story.

F-22 has never faced combat against any decent military so it's capabilities are highly unproven. 

US military got embarrassed in the Vietnam War when Soviet SAMs made a complete and utter mockery of US air power.

US military and weapons are not as invincible as the propaganda of the Pentagon and Western media make it out to be.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> How would you postulate that be done if the missile is the weapons bay? Say a AIM-9M in the F-22's side bay. The IR sensor is essentially shrouded? I know that the F-22 is able to provide targeting data(in caged mode) to the AIM-9M before it launches so the missile knows where to look for the target right after it comes out of the bay.


We should take a closer look at the different modes' description...

AIM-9 Sidewinder


> One method of cueing the AIM-9X to the target’s IR energy source is referred to as boresight, whereby the missile is physically pointed toward the target via the pilot maneuvering the aircraft. The IR energy gathered by the missile seeker is converted to electronic signals that enable the missile to acquire and track the target up to its seeker gimbal limits.


This is the standard IR equipped missile operation.



> A second method of cueing the AIM-9X to the target’s IR energy is the Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM). SEAM slaves the AIM-9X seeker to the aircraft radar. The aircraft avionics system can slave the missile seeker up to a given number of degrees from the missile/aircraft boresight axis. The *missile seeker is slaved until* an audible signal indicates seeker target acquisition. Upon target acquisition, a seeker interlock in the missile is released (uncaged) and the missile seeker begins tracking the target. The AIM-9X seeker will then continue to track the target.


A 'caged' status mean the sensor is not free to perform its own operations, virtually no difference than if the sensor is physically covered.

When the sensor is uncovered, its slaved/caged status mean even if it is able to detect environmental conditions that it was designed for, *UNTIL* (as highlighted) certain other conditions are met, it will remained slaved/caged to a 'master' sensor, if you will. That 'until' mean the sensor must pick up the target in the area as specified by the master sensor before it is allowed to operate freely.

Active sensor is 99% superior to passive sensor in 99% of environmental conditions, and it is 100% superior when target details are necessary. Does not matter if that active sensor is radar or your own skin. That 1% vulnerability is when the target performs some actions that can deceive the sensor. For example: P-leather, or pleather, manufacturing evolved to the point where 99% of the time, it requires a legal label in order for 99% of consumers to know they are looking at man-made leather. P-leather can be seen as 'countermeasure' to your sense of touch and knowledge of what is genuine leather -- from animal hides.

A passive sensor missile is designed for when we do not want the target to know he is being sought out by active methods and as defense produces countermeasures.

For the radar/IR integration system, the process know the IR sensor's physical limits and logical field-of-view (FOV), whether the IR sensor is physically covered or not. The slaved/caged status for the subordinate sensor (passive) is intended to eliminate, as much as possible, environmental conditions that could be distraction(s) once the passive sensor is released from that slaved/caged status. That guidance comes from the master sensor, which in this case is radar. Because the process integration know the FOVs of both sensors, that process integration can basically tell the radar (master) that even though the target is within the master's FOV, the target is still outside of the slave's FOV. Once the target is within the FOVs of both sensors, or despite outside of the slave's FOV but within some statistical bounds of ability to detect the target, the missile is released from the parent aircraft, and the slave sensor can be unslaved/uncaged from that tie.



> A third method for cueing the AIM-9X to the target’s IR energy is through use of the JHMCS. This method allows the pilot to cue the AIM-9X seeker to high off-boresight targets via helmet movement.


If the FOV is the boresight, then the JHMCS method is spectacular in the sense that the master/slave integration ignores the slave's FOV limitations.

The pilot's head movement is much greater than his radar's mount. So if you look at this at the theoretical level, you can see different degrees of freedom of sensor movements: the IR missile have the least, the radar have more, and the pilot have the greatest. We have in association: passive, active, and passive.

In the JHMCS process integration, we have passive-passive sensors in the master-slave relationship. The pilot is the superior sensor in that the he can identify the target based upon visuals and he also has much greater degrees of freedom of movements. He commands the missile, with its passive sensor, to fly in the direction he wants, while the missile's IR sensor ignores all possible IR inputs, then once the missile's IR sensor is in the general direction of the target and the target's IR emission is within the sensor's FOV, the missile can be released from the master-slave tie.



Oscar said:


> You( and a lot of Chinese and Pakistanis) need to learn to debate with a cool head and focus on technicality.


We can only hope...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Beidou2020 said:


> What technical proof do you need to know that the F-117 was shot down by cheap anti-aircraft weapons?
> 
> No amount of excuses or 'technicalities' can change the fact it got shot down.
> End of story.
> 
> F-22 has never faced combat against any decent military so it's capabilities are highly unproven.
> 
> US military got embarrassed in the Vietnam War when Soviet SAMs made a complete and utter mockery of US air power.
> 
> US military and weapons are not as invincible as the propaganda of the Pentagon and Western media make it out to be.



The issue is not whether it was shot down by a Sa-3, but whether the shoot down was that simple. You still have not gotten to it and are generally just hiding behind the fact that it was shot down.Using your logic one can postulate then that since China has not been publishing accurate data on J-10 crashes, it must be a crappy aircraft that they are embarrassed..when the truth is not so.

The US military got embarrassed by a threat they did not estimate correctly and rules of engagement that tied their hands behind their back. That has little to do with what has occurred in later air combat and in every other monitored and public exersize around the world where the USAF has participated. It is your own foolishness to underestimate the US military, and contrary to your fanboyism.. I can testify through the little interaction I have with visiting Chinese military personell that they are much more respective of the capability of the USAF, IAF and the RoCAF. But then , they are professionals who know their job, and you dont.


----------



## SQ8

1ong1ong said:


> This OHIS way (Ostrich head in sand) to fire missile is the first and only one found on a jet.
> 
> It not only *breaks the stealth*, *burns the stealth coating *(lost the stealth after launch even door closed), but also *damages the aerodynamic* which means it may not be possible to fire the side bay missile at supersonic speed.
> 
> Worst is,the door must keep opening when fighting engaged.



The Method is not unique. Most fighters have used such a system even before stealth. There is little issue with aerodynamics as missile firings have been done at all regimes of flight including supersonic. The only issue I see with the door is complexity.
The J-20's method also has the door opening so the stealth is broken then as well. Additionally, the time the missile hangs outside the aircraft(for both the J-20 and F-22) the stealth is compromised. However, with the current pictures seen there seems to be either a delay in testing the caged mode or otherwise. 

For the J-20 to complete IR missile testing it will have to:

1. Launch missile at target using missile sensor only..which means missile hangs outside and RCS is compromised...both at subsonic and supersonic speed.

2. Launch missile at target using target lock from J-20 radar which is told to sensor of IR missile while it is inside J-20's bay. The missile then comes out of bay launches and the bay closes to save stealth.


----------



## l0ngl0ng

Oscar said:


> The Method is not unique. Most fighters have used such a system even before stealth. There is little issue with aerodynamics as missile firings have been done at all regimes of flight including supersonic. The only issue I see with the door is complexity.


In my memories, F-22 side bay launching is the only one.
I meant the missile protrude its head out of a internal bay.
pros.: simple mechanism
cons: 1) air drag heavily
2) RCS increased alot all around and door has to keep opening all the way
3) Burning the aircraft body for the fire internally





F-22 is burning hardly.






Oscar said:


> The J-20's method also has the door opening so the stealth is broken then as well. Additionally, the time the missile hangs outside the aircraft(for both the J-20 and F-22) the stealth is compromised. However, with the current pictures seen there seems to be either a delay in testing the caged mode or otherwise.
> 
> For the J-20 to complete IR missile testing it will have to:
> 
> 1. Launch missile at target using missile sensor only..which means missile hangs outside and RCS is compromised...both at subsonic and supersonic speed.
> 
> 2. Launch missile at target using target lock from J-20 radar which is told to sensor of IR missile while it is inside J-20's bay. The missile then comes out of bay launches and the bay closes to save stealth.



Most 4th gen jet are capable to launch A2A at supersonic speed.
I'm not sure F-22's side-bay. It like a parachute on body after the missile head out.
It's funny that F-22 has to slow down to fire when it chasing at hyper-cruising.

The A2A working process of J-20 is same as F-22 except without 3 cons mentioned above.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

l0ngl0ng said:


> In my memories, F-22 side bay launching is the only one.
> I meant the missile protrude its head out of a internal bay.
> pros.: simple mechanism
> cons: 1) air drag heavily
> 2) RCS increased alot all around and door has to keep opening all the way
> 3) Burning the aircraft body for the fire internally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 is burning hardly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A2A working process is same as F-22 except without 3 cons mentioned above.



1)Air drag may not be an issue in caged mode, as it is only for a small time. 

2) same issue plagues J-20, F-35 and T-50

3) That may have had led to increase in weight. This may be a tradeoff for ensuring that missile leaves the flightpath of the aircraft 
Again, one has to remember: F-22.. designed in 1980's and 1990s and a VERY expensive program..the first of its kind.... The J-20 is a recent design by comparison and some knowledge available to avoid mistakes made in other programs.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## j20blackdragon

J-20 with Luneburg lens.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

Plus look at the engine nozzle in that pic it is pointing downwards ,does it having tvc or what


CHEERS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hurter

What would be the cost of J-20?


----------



## tomluter

gambit said:


> That is a dumbass article.
> 
> The missile hanging on the outside for how long and its own body does not possibly compromise the aircraft's RCS ?


 
The missile will been not hanged all the time,until into the dogfight stage, and there is not RCS problem in this state.





View attachment 96026e9b2f04fbb206e4f769770e6e1b.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

China's research into its next generation（6th gen）of fighter jets：






Major breakthroughs and changes in aerodynamic shape： 

中国最新一代战机获重大突破 气动外形大变样-搜狐军事频道

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## razgriz19

http://static.youku.com/v1.0.0423/v...5ldAIvcG9zdDJfODMyMjQ3NV8xLmh0bWw=&bc=&type=0


----------



## qwerrty

HQ image

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## qinglong-china



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hurter

Hum kab le rhe hain ye?


----------



## Infra_Man99

I think we all know now that the J-20 has two different types of bulges or wheel wells at the bottom of the LERX. 

What are your intelligent guesses for this asymmetrical design?

Aerodynamics test? Stealth test? Combining the wheel wells with sensors, jammers, communication devices, or other devices?


----------



## nomi007

j20blackdragon said:


> J-20 with Luneburg lens.
> 
> View attachment 83446


what is pipe like object under the belly ?


----------



## terranMarine

nomi007 said:


> what is pipe like object under the belly ?


luneburg lens


----------



## nomi007

terranMarine said:


> luneburg lens


what is luneburg lens


----------



## GeHAC

nomi007 said:


> what is luneburg lens



View attachment 558600d30f97d480752f723ba7b6ba94.jpg

To be brief,it is a device that could focus electromagnetic wave physically to reflect a stronger radar signal.It used to be a radar deception device like corner reflector,but now its used to help the radar on the ground to locate the stealth aircraft during test flights.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

nomi007 said:


> what is luneburg lens


For EM purpose...

A luneburg -- or luneberg -- lens is a device constructed to return to incident direction a focused signal. To put it in plain language, it is a device that will return to the original direction a very focused echo signal. A luneburg lens is a passive device, meaning that if there is no incoming signal, there will be no echo signal.

Because of this behavior, a luneburg lens is often used in situations where radar detection is active for collision avoidance.

Chuck Husick on BoatUScom


> Most *small vessels are difficult to detect with marine radar, in fact the typical fiberglass boat is a virtually stealthy target. A metal mast is a very poor radar reflector.* To have a reasonable likelihood of being seen on another vessel's radar your vessel must provide a reflecting surface capable of returning a significant amount of incident radar energy back in the direction from which it arrived. Various forms of radar reflectors are available, ranging from seemingly simple corner reflectors made of three intersecting sheets of radar reflective material to complex reflector geometry's using *varying forms of corner reflector or a Luneburg lens.*


A small boat can appear many times larger than its physical size under radar detection and this is desirable in marine safety.

So for these 'stealth' fighters, the luneburg lens serves two purposes: to assist air traffic controllers and to disguise the fighter's true radar cross section (RCS) value.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

The pictures of J-2013 soon。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

So long，2012

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

F-35 and J-20 electro-optical distributed aperture system (DAS) locations.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## j20blackdragon

J-20 DAS

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## aziqbal

J-20 is the full 5th generation package from China 

Only thing we need to wait for in the J-20 and the final change will be the WS-15 engine once it's eventually cleared for flight 

Apart from that J-20 in its current form is close what the final production units will look like

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

j20blackdragon said:


> J-20 DAS


 Is this absent from F-22?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Beast said:


> Is this absent from F-22?



Thanks to budgetary constraints the current F-22 fleet doesn't even have basic stuff like HMD and IRST. Integrating something like DAS into the F-22 would require a redesign of the aircraft. The F-22 is no longer in production, so it's not going to happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

j20blackdragon said:


> Thanks to budgetary constraints the current F-22 fleet doesn't even have basic stuff like HMD and IRST. Integrating something like DAS into the F-22 would require a redesign of the aircraft. The F-22 is no longer in production, so it's not going to happen.



That makes F-22 inferior in terms of sensor compare to F-35? What a shock.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## narcon

j20blackdragon said:


> Thanks to budgetary constraints the current F-22 fleet doesn't even have basic stuff like HMD and *IRST*. Integrating something like DAS into the F-22 would require a redesign of the aircraft. The F-22 is no longer in production, so it's not going to happen.




*



Sure, but the risk of coming to close range with an opponent is still high and at distances up to 50 km an aircraft equipped with an IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system, which can detect the IR signature of an enemy fighter (that’s why Aggressors at Red Flag carry IRST pods….), could even be able to find a stealthy plane “especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22″ as a Eurofighter pilot once said.

Click to expand...

**
*


----------



## siegecrossbow

New article by Bill Sweetman:

J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Balances Speed And Agility | Zhuhai 2014 content from Aviation Week



> Chengdu’s J-20 stealth fighter represents the pinnacle of China’s aerospace engineering, but its existence and development have posed mysteries since the unexpected appearance of the first prototype at the end of 2010, followed in May 2012 by the debut of a second, similar aircraft. The past few months, however, have seen the first flights of a pair of significantly different J-20s, identified by the serial Nos. 2011 and 2012.
> The most substantial design change in the new aircraft appears to be that the fuselage aft of the main landing gear is a bit more slender, with a deeper tunnel in the undersurface between the engines. The tailbooms that extend aft of the all-moving vertical tails are longer, and the lower fixed stabilizers are moved aft. The trailing-edge tips of the vertical tails and canards are cropped, and the leading-edge root extensions are straight rather than curved.
> 
> The top line of the outer wall of the diverterless supersonic inlet has been drooped, and the landing gear doors changed: The main doors now close after the gear has extended and the nose landing gear door has been reshaped. The F-22-style one-piece frameless canopy on the early aircraft has given way to a separate windshield and canopy, the latter with detonation cord to shatter the canopy for ejection. What appears to be a housing for an infrared search and track system has been added below the nose, and a missile-warning sensor fairing installed below the aft fuselage.
> 
> The new variant aircraft appeared slightly more than three years after the first flight of No. 2001, so some of the changes may reflect lessons from flight testing. Other changes represent a move toward a production or pre-production design. So far, there have been few indications as to when the J-20 will enter service: The Pentagon, in its latest annual report to Congress, says it is unlikely to be operational before 2018.
> 
> However, the appearance of the new aircraft tends to confirm that the design has proved sound so far; all four prototypes are now reported to be at Yanliang air base in Xian, the Chinese air force’s main test site. The question now is what role the J-20—which is not only the first Chinese stealth fighter but the largest tactical aircraft built in China—will perform in the future force.
> 
> Close examination of the J-20 shows it has no direct analogue in the West or in Russia. The dimensions can be estimated accurately from open-source satellite images, but its characteristics are sometimes mis-assessed through a focus on overall size. Details of avionics and materials remain uncertain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Differences between the newer J-20 configuration (left) and the first of two aircraft (right) include a recontoured lower-aft fuselage and longer tailbooms, with the ventral fins moved slightly aft. The leading-edge root extension of the new aircraft has a straight edge, and the canard and vertical stabilizer tips are clipped. Electro-optical sensor housings are installed under the nose and beneath the right-hand side of the fuselage, aft of the weapon bays. Credit: Photo via Internet
> 
> 
> Credit: Photo via Internet
> The J-20’s wing and control surface layout is very different from that of the Lockheed Martin F-22, but the body layout is quite similar, with twin main weapon bays under the belly and side bays for rail-launched air-to-air missiles (AAMs), all located under and outside the inlet ducts. On both aircraft, the main landing gear is housed in the fuselage behind the weapon bays and the engines are close together. The big difference, however, is that the J-20 is 9.5 ft. (17%) longer than the F-22, from the nose to the engine nozzles. Most of this is in the widest part of the fuselage, and since the weapon bays are similar in size, it is almost all available for fuel. It is a reasonable estimate that the J-20 could have as much as 40% more internal fuel capacity than the F-22. The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag.
> Despite the larger body, the empty weight of the J-20 may be close to that of the F-22, largely because it has less-powerful engines without the heavy two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles of the F-22’s F119s. The J-20 prototypes are believed to be flying with United Engine Corp. (UEC) AL-31F engines. The thrust difference between the two designs is very large: The F-22 has almost as much power in intermediate thrust as the J-20 does in full afterburner, although newer versions of the UEC AL-31/117S/117 could close the gap in later versions of the Chinese aircraft.
> 
> The conventional circular nozzles and the aft-body shape are less conducive to stealth than the F-22, as is the case with the T-50. This is most likely a conscious decision because a fast aircraft can tolerate a higher radar cross-section in the aft quadrant. While some observers have suggested that canards are incompatible with stealth, an engineer who was active in Lockheed Martin’s early Joint Strike Fighter efforts says the final quad-tail configuration was no stealthier than the earlier canard-delta design.
> 
> A detailed Chinese technical paper published in 2001 by Song Wencong, designer of the Chengdu J-10, points to key aerodynamic features of the J-20. The paper addresses the design of a fighter with a delta wing, canards and leading-edge root extensions (Lerxes), and discusses how the three interact. The J-20, unlike the J-10, has a broad body and the canard and wing are not close-coupled. However, according to the paper, the Lerx and canard, used together and in combination with a high degree of instability, can achieve maximum lift coefficients that are as high if not higher than those from a close-coupled canard.
> 
> The paper also discusses the vertical stabilizer design of a stealth configuration with outward-canted surfaces. Fixed, canted tails are exposed to powerful crossflows at high angles of attack, because of the formation of vortices from the wings and canard. The result is that the tails can develop powerful moments, and because the tails are canted, those forces will include pitch-up moments. One way to resolve this, the paper notes, is to use smaller, all-moving surfaces. The J-20 resembles the Sukhoi T-50 in being directionally unstable, and is actively controlled with the all-moving verticals. Song’s paper also says the canard layout provides positive post-stall recovery, without the use of thrust vectoring.
> 
> The paper identifies supersonic cruise as a requirement for a next-generation fighter and often refers to the need to reduce supersonic drag. The J-20’s supercruise performance will nevertheless be strongly affected by engine technology. China may well hope to acquire or emulate the technology being developed by Russia for the Su-35S and T-50. UEC’s 117S engine, developed for the Su-35S, is more powerful than the AL-31F (32,000 lb. maximum versus 27,500 lb. for the basic AL-31F) and has a digital control system. The T-50’s 117 engine is similar to the 117S, but it is further uprated to 33,000 lb. thrust, and according to a UEC engineer, the hot-end temperature limits are increased, to allow the engine to sustain maximum non-afterburning thrust to higher speeds. However, the J-20 will not match the F-22’s thrust-to-weight ratio, even with an engine equivalent to the 117.
> 
> The J-20’s weapon arrangement is similar to the F-22, except that the ventral bays are shorter and narrower, and are apparently capable of accommodating only four weapons the size of the SD-10 AAM. However, they do appear large enough to accommodate bigger folding-wing missiles—and China is reported to be negotiating to buy the Russian Kh-58UShKE, a Mach 4 anti-radar missile that is also intended for internal carriage on the T-50.
> 
> The side missile bays differ from those of the F-22 in that the doors can be closed after the missile rail has been extended, and have been seen with a missile—or test shape—with low-aspect-ratio wings and folding tails. So far, no gun has been seen on J-20s, nor has there been a sign of provision for one.
> 
> The J-20 design, therefore, is an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward-aspect stealth, efficient high-speed aerodynamics and range, with a modest internal payload and more than adequate agility for self-defense. The aircraft has considerable potential for development, because of its currently unsophisticated engines. But it is also large and expensive, and continued development of the J-10B shows that China plans to maintain a high-low mix of fighters for a long time to come.
> 
> This concept fits very well into an anti-access/area-denial strategy given China’s regional geography and the fact that the nation’s military and geopolitical ambitions are focused on the China Sea and its surrounding island chains. The U.S. has committed its armed forces to concentrate much of their funding on tactical fighters with a combat radius of 600 mi., much less than the distance from their bases to targets on the Chinese mainland, and has persuaded its allies to do the same.
> 
> As a result, operations are almost entirely dependent on two groups of aircraft: tankers and large intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft with long endurance. Under the “distributed control” concept favored by U.S. Air Force commanders as a hedge against electronic warfare, including cyberattacks, the ISR aircraft also have a control-and-communications function. However, both tankers and ISR aircraft are vulnerable to attack, and maintaining a defensive combat air patrol (CAP) over them at long range is also difficult.
> 
> The J-20’s primary mission, therefore, may be to use stealth and speed to break through the CAP and threaten vital tankers and ISR platforms. Its range gives it a “long lance” advantage—if the tankers, ISR aircraft and escorts have to stay out of the J-20’s range, the tactical aircraft that they support will not have the airborne radar cover or range needed to reach their targets.
> 
> Also, an anti-radar missile would give the J-20 some capability against shipping, even with internal weapons. China’s new CM-400AKG and YJ-12 high-speed antiship missiles will not fit the J-20’s weapon bays, but could probably be carried under the wings, and future internal weapons will increase its offensive capacity.
> 
> In a very broad sense, the J-20 could turn out to be an analogue to the Soviet-era Tu-22M2/3 Backfire bomber—an efficient and practical blend of low-risk technologies that generates options for its users and difficult problems for its adversaries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

cirr said:


> So long，2012
> 
> View attachment 108325


looks like a true monster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

i have question guys, how many weapon bays in J-20 and F-22, 3 or 4, in one picture F-22 have 4 weapon bays two in the intake and two in the fuselage.


----------



## siegecrossbow

pakistanipower said:


> i have question guys, how many weapon bays in J-20 and F-22, 3 or 4, in one picture F-22 have 4 weapon bays two in the intake and two in the fuselage.



Same as the number on the Raptor. Two side bays and main bay under the fuselage.


----------



## xunzi

Beast said:


> That makes F-22 inferior in terms of sensor compare to F-35? What a shock.


The thing that make F-22 deadly compare to F-35 is twin-engine and that it is the most proven operational 5th. F-35 can surpass F-22 but without that extra engine, it can be tricky in a two ways fight.


----------



## Hurter

I think PAF should buy atleast 50 J-20 in future.


----------



## j20blackdragon

J-20 DAS

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

This is the first known ammunition - *FT-7* precision guided bomb - specifically designed and developed for the J-20：


----------



## cirr

Specs：

130kg
INS+GPS+Beidou guidance
stand-off delivery
90km range

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20 looks awesome, it is top notch 5th gen fighter when WS15 is ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat

Junaid B said:


> I think PAF should buy atleast 50 J-20 in future.



Wake up its 9 am


----------



## Hurter

Horus said:


> Wake up its 9 am



Bhai, Its not a bad thing to be optimist. I know we can hardly produce JF-17 at one time

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-2013






It is coming

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

Yes, the 5th J-20 prototype N.o2013 is coming ... according U.S also Five YF-22 prototypes ==> F-22, I think after more than Three years testing and 5x J-20 prototypes built ... soon will start 1st batch of J-20 mass production for PLAAF, it's possible for China to equip J-20 stealth fighters before 2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> J-2013
> 
> View attachment 154881
> 
> 
> It is coming


Cant wait for 2013 photo to reveal more. It will be the final version before LRP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

proto 2013 should have no more pitot


----------



## kuge

looking forward to the back side..


----------



## 李明皿

mil-avia said:


> Can someone please provide link to the earlier J-20 thread? Thanx


歼20最新超低空展示机动性 （前线版）—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看
maybe can help you


----------



## cirr

The 5th J-20 prototype ”2013“ in test flights：







The 6th prototype ”2014“ readying herself for same。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> The 5th J-20 prototype ”2013“ in test flights：
> 
> The 6th prototype ”2014“ readying herself for same。



I just heard the same reports ! Are these images confirmed from Chengdu and taken today ??
If indeed true then congrats to all involved !

Deino


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> I just heard the same reports ! Are these images confirmed from Chengdu and taken today ??
> If indeed true then congrats to all involved !
> 
> Deino



Affirmative。

And it is highly possible, indeed probable, that we will see prototypes 2015, 2016 and 2017 in 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

It is worth noting that this 13 prototype（2013）flew without the pitot tube。


----------



## Deino

But I assume so far we have no better images ?!!


----------



## Kompromat

Deino said:


> But I assume so far we have no better images ?!!



How many more PTs are expected before it goes operational?


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> But I assume so far we have no better images ?!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Thanks ... + two more !


----------



## Superboy

No more pitot?


----------



## he-man

Superboy said:


> No more pitot?



Yes its like a drone now


----------



## siegecrossbow

he-man said:


> Yes its like a drone now



Pitot, not pilot.

This is a pitot: 

Pitot tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-20 to get IOC in 2016？

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> J-20 to get IOC in 2016？
> 
> View attachment 158815


LRIP in 2015 and 2016 IOC.


----------



## cirr




----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

http://i.imgur.com/u4SK5MA.jpg






http://i.imgur.com/AK3JyJi.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


> View attachment 159700


Good, 5th J-20 prototype flying ... i heard there's another 6th N.o2014 in somewhere, true ?


----------



## black-hawk_101

Will PAF going to buy it or J-31 and cost of both?


----------



## Beast

black-hawk_101 said:


> Will PAF going to buy it or J-31 and cost of both?


J-20 is strictly off limit for other countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> J-20 is strictly off limit for other countries.


yes exactly same as F-22 RAPTOR



Beast said:


> J-20 is strictly off limit for other countries.


yes exactly same as F-22 RAPTOR


----------



## cnleio

2011, 2012, 2013 J-20 prototypes 

N.o2013 removed airspeed head, soon small-scale production. N.o2014 will be the last prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

cnleio said:


> 2011, 2012, 2013 J-20 prototypes
> 
> N.o2013 removed airspeed head, soon small-scale production. N.o2014 will be the last prototype.
> View attachment 161446
> 
> View attachment 161447
> 
> View attachment 161448


The 2013 engine is being hide from public with that censor. There must be something new about it.


----------



## Deino

No ... the same guy puts all the same sign on each and every recent J-10B image covering up the serials






!! 

As such I don't expect them to be different but he MUST know the true numbers of the J-10B serials and given how close he can get to these birds he surely has tons of better images as well.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dalit

cirr said:


> So long，2012
> 
> View attachment 108325



Holy mother of dragons. The J-20 is the dragon of dragons. What a sweet bird. This beast has many sweating if you know what I mean.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> No ... the same guy puts all the same sign on each and every recent J-10B image covering up the serials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!
> 
> As such I don't expect them to be different but he MUST know the true numbers of the J-10B serials and given how close he can get to these birds he surely has tons of better images as well.
> 
> Deino


Why did he choose that spot? Looks like hiding the left engine. Dont tell me serial number is painted on the engine? The watermark spot he chooses is too awkward.


----------



## war is peace

Dalit said:


> Holy mother of dragons. The J-20 is the dragon of dragons. What a sweet bird. This beast has many sweating if you know what I mean.


I don't.


----------



## Place Of Space

Guys, be careful, curiosity may hurt you. Two men has been investigated and charged by police, involving national security due to similar leaks. I am serious, advice for my Chinese nationality fellows.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

This is China 5th-gen stealth fighter: J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

cnleio said:


> This is China 5th-gen stealth fighter: J-20
> 
> View attachment 161714


its mean that it has to carry total number of 6 air to air missiles, 2 less then F-22, am i right or wrong? someone please help me


----------



## cnleio

pakistanipower said:


> its mean that it has to carry total number of 6 air to air missiles, 2 less then F-22, am i right or wrong? someone please help me


6x missiles in bottom weapon-bay, 2x missiles in side weapon-bay ... u forget them.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

cnleio said:


> 6x missiles in bottom weapon-bay, 2x missiles in side weapon-bay ... u forget them.
> 
> View attachment 161734
> View attachment 161735
> View attachment 161736


thanks


----------



## Deino

Sorry, but this image with the 3 PL-X-15 in one bay is PSed ... the original one shows only 2 AAMs !
Even more if You look at the missile pylons in the bay there are only two visible in the empty bay above.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Interceptor

Chinese are building stealth planes wow.


----------



## applesauce

Interceptor said:


> Chinese are building stealth planes wow.



someones behind on the news lol

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## GeHAC

Deino said:


> View attachment 161854
> Sorry, but this image with the 3 PL-X-15 in one bay is PSed ... the original one shows only 2 AAMs !
> Even more if You look at the missile pylons in the bay there are only two visible in the empty bay above.


Maybe they should develop a composite missile pylon


----------



## Interceptor

applesauce said:


> someones behind on the news lol


Yep years behind thats impressive you have done everything principally right missiles are tucked in no extruding points looks very good.


----------



## krash

Deino said:


> View attachment 161854
> Sorry, but this image with the 3 PL-X-15 in one bay is PSed ... the original one shows only 2 AAMs !
> Even more if You look at the missile pylons in the bay there are only two visible in the empty bay above.



Your point about the picture being shopped might well be true but the pylons can be added and removed just like on, say, an F-16. Below you can see one side of the F-22's bay with just one pylon while the other has 3. These pylons can probably also be repositioned inside the bay due to the varying sizes and shapes of the different weapons to be carried.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Yes, ... that's what I hope for.

By the way a new image ....





Even if small or actually verrrrrrry small for all with a sense to details it clearly confirms the J-20's IFR-probe ! (via A.Man SDF) !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> View attachment 159700



... a bit better !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

2014 or 2015？

That's the question。


----------



## Deino

2013 or not 2013 ??? ... regarding the missing pitot I would say it could be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SOHEIL

Good work ...


----------



## GeHAC

It is said that the 2015 prototype would cancel the ventral fin


----------



## Beast

GeHAC said:


> It is said that the 2015 prototype would cancel the ventral fin


ONe of the function of ventral fin is to shield the not so stealth engine nozzle from radar.


----------



## cirr

2015

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Lets keep the finger cross, looks PS.


----------



## cnleio

OH ... CHINA !!! 

 PLAAF will be World N.o2 Airforce to equip 5-gen stealth fighters, 2015 start to produce 1st batch of J-20.

6x J-20 prototypes N.o2001, N.o2002, N.o2011, N.o2012, N.o2013, N.o2015

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Superboy

2015 is the last proto?


----------



## cnleio

Superboy said:


> 2015 is the last proto?


I heard another N.o2016 will out in next year, then small batch of J-20 mass production might in 2015.


J-20 N.o2015 changed jet engines ... but this photo not clear.






Now the only problem, J-20 lack domestic thrust vector jet engines like this.(PSed)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Hmmm ... regardless of how much I would like to take this bird as real, I'm very much skeptical ! First of all - again regardless all progress we've seen in recent years - the timing seems off, it's too soon (says my stomach) and even more this out-of sequence number '2015' !? I do not believe in these superstitious things as discussed - why omitting the number "14" but using "04" even to renumber '2002' ?? It makes no sense IMO.

Therefore this is either a ps-job done my an overambitious fan ... or indeed a mayor surprise and then there's most likely also a '2014' somewhere out there ...

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Hmmm ... regardless of how much I would like to take this bird as real, I'm very much skeptical ! First of all - again regardless all progress we've seen in recent years - the timing seems off, it's too soon (says my stomach) and even more this out-of sequence number '2015' !? I do not believe in these superstitious things as discussed - why omitting the number "14" but using "04" even to renumber '2002' ?? It makes no sense IMO.
> 
> Therefore this is either a ps-job done my an overambitious fan ... or indeed a mayor surprise and then there's most likely also a '2014' somewhere out there ...
> 
> Deino



Looks like a half-assed PS job done by somebody who needs to see an optometrist.


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> Hmmm ... regardless of how much I would like to take this bird as real, I'm very much skeptical ! First of all - again regardless all progress we've seen in recent years - the timing seems off, it's too soon (says my stomach) and even more this out-of sequence number '2015' !? I do not believe in these superstitious things as discussed - why omitting the number "14" but using "04" even to renumber '2002' ?? It makes no sense IMO.
> 
> Therefore this is either a ps-job done my an overambitious fan ... or indeed a mayor surprise and then there's most likely also a '2014' somewhere out there ...
> 
> Deino


Chinese dislike 14 as same as West ppl dislike 13, it's a bad lucky number for us. So N.o2013 ==> N.o2015, all China prototype aircrafts skip N.oXX14, u can't find any 14 on China planes.

In Chinese, "14" called like "To die" or "Go to Hell" so we dislike it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> Chinese dislike 14 as same as West ppl dislike 13, it's a bad lucky number for us. So N.o2013 ==> N.o2015, all China prototype aircrafts skip N.oXX14, u can't find any 14 on China planes.
> 
> In Chinese, "14" called like "To die" or "Go to Hell" so we dislike it.




Really ... I knew that the "4" is disliked, but the "14" too ???


----------



## terranMarine

cnleio said:


> Chinese dislike 14 as same as West ppl dislike 13, it's a bad lucky number for us. So N.o2013 ==> N.o2015, all China prototype aircrafts skip N.oXX14, u can't find any 14 on China planes.
> 
> In Chinese, "14" called like "To die" or "Go to Hell" so we dislike it.



I thought it was only guangdong hua pronunciation was like that, guess pu tong hua is the same


----------



## longlong

terranMarine said:


> I thought it was only guangdong hua pronunciation was like that, guess pu tong hua is the same


Whatever dialect it is, they are one language and based on the same writing.



cnleio said:


> Now the only problem, J-20 lack domestic thrust vector jet engines like this.(PSed)
> View attachment 177161


No need an engine to have a nozzle like this: simple, rude, low efficiency. It's scrapped by any other newer aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> Hmmm ... regardless of how much I would like to take this bird as real, I'm very much skeptical ! First of all - again regardless all progress we've seen in recent years - the timing seems off, it's too soon (says my stomach) and even more this out-of sequence number '2015' !? I do not believe in these superstitious things as discussed - why omitting the number "*14*" but using "04" even to renumber '2002' ?? It makes no sense IMO.
> 
> Therefore this is either a ps-job done my an overambitious fan ... or indeed a mayor surprise and then there's most likely also a '2014' somewhere out there ...
> 
> Deino


It's ominous number in China culture, understand it? Or you didn't see 14 prototype doesnt prove it is not existence.


----------



## arbit

wanglaokan said:


> It's ominous number in China culture, understand it? Or you didn't see 14 prototype doesnt prove it is not existence.



Sorry for this off topic post! But you started a thread on "India and china coming together to work against islamic terrorism." What happened to the thread ?


----------



## 帅的一匹

arbit said:


> Sorry for this off topic post! But you started a thread on "India and china coming together to work against islamic terrorism." What happened to the thread ?


Deleted by Moderator.


----------



## arbit

wanglaokan said:


> Deleted by Moderator.



  You see the insecurity! opinion makers and government in China has a choice to be friends with India and cooperate for the mutual benefit of mankind, but your friends won't allow it. The question is, Can China see through this ?
This is my last off topic post. Please continue on topic as before. Thanks!


----------



## 帅的一匹

arbit said:


> You see the insecurity! opinion makers and government in China has a choice to be friends with India and cooperate for the mutual benefit of mankind, but your friends won't allow it. The question is, Can China see through this ?
> This is my last off topic post. Please continue on topic as before. Thanks!


I think the cooperation between China and India is on economic leve while we have stronger relationship with Pakistan in militray field. We won't stop cooperate with India just because Pakistan ask for it, and the premise is that the cooperation will not hurt Pakistan's core interests. Since this is a Pakistani forum, they have my due respect.

Politics is extrememly complicated, you can't exclude China and India has common ground on some international affairs.

The prototype of J20 is emerging at very fast pace, cheers!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal.

wanglaokan said:


> I think the cooperation between China and India is on economic leve while we have stronger relationship with Pakistan in militray field. We won't stop cooperate with India just because Pakistan ask for it, and the premise is that the cooperation will not hurt Pakistan's core interests. Since this is a Pakistani forum, they have my due respect.



Care to show me where Pakistan has asked you to stop whatever cooperation you have with India? May be you should ask your buddies to let you in SAARC and not to offer their services to certain powers to help encircle you.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Bilal. said:


> Care to show me where Pakistan has asked you to stop whatever cooperation you have with India? May be you should ask your buddies to let you in SAARC and not to offer their services to certain powers to help encircle you.


I'm just saying it, Pakistan never ask China stop economic cooperation with India. I think India will not consider CHina joining the SAARC, while Pakistan advocatey offer CHina to join. I think both Sirianka and BD has no problem of it. I think you misunderstand my statement as i'm not a native english user.


----------



## Bilal.

@wanglaokan

Oh. Ok 

Sorry for the misunderstanding bro!


----------



## 帅的一匹

Bilal. said:


> @wanglaokan
> 
> Oh. Ok
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding bro!


never mind, shit happens.



Bilal. said:


> Care to show me where Pakistan has asked you to stop whatever cooperation you have with India? May be you should ask your buddies to let you in SAARC and not to offer their services to certain powers to help encircle you.


As Pakistan and India is invited for SCO, i see no reason why India refuse CHinain SAARC?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin

2015 makes its maiden flight at 14:04:14


----------



## Bilal.

wanglaokan said:


> As Pakistan and India is invited for SCO, i see no reason why India refuse CHinain SAARC?



Specially when China shares borders with the majority of SAARC countries and is helping the region to become prosperous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Seems indeed as '2015' is already back at CAC ...



> 凑个热闹！
> 战略网前线传回消息，2014年12月19日14时，中国四代机歼20，第6架原型机 编号2015号 开始试飞
> 
> 14:01:21 滑出
> 
> 14:04:14 起飞
> 
> 14:23 刚刚降落
> 
> 没有伴飞的
> 
> 
> 11月29日，国产歼20战机 2013号原型机成功进行了首次试飞。该机与前几架原型机在外形上有明显不同，机首取消了空速管。该机是歼-20的第五架原型机，也是改进批次的第三架原型机。之前，2011和2012号原型机已经于今年3月和7月先后首飞。
> 
> 昨天（12月18日）就有战略网网友向战略网透露， 2015号歼20在西南某机场进行地面测试，今日即传出首飞成功的消息。分析人士认为，2015号歼20的成功首飞，表明中国在第四代隐形战机的研发上已经超越俄罗斯，紧随美国。
> 
> 军事评人士对战略网表示，2015号歼20试飞成功，标志着中国目前已经拥有6架歼20。中国离量产第四代战机又进一步。





> ..
> 14:01:21 slide out
> 
> At 14:04:14
> 
> 14:23justlanded
> 
> Notwithflying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On November 29, the domestically producedj-20fighterprototypeNo. 2013,successfullycarriedoutits firsttest flight.Themachineand the firstfewprototypeshavesignificantlydifferentinshape,firstcancelthepitottubes.Thismachineisthefifthfighterjetprototype,improvedbatchesof the thirdprototype.,2011andprototypeNo. 2012,alreadyfirst flewinMarch andJuly this yearrespectively.
> 
> Yesterday(December 18)with a strategicnetworkusertodisclose to strategynetwork,No. 2015 f20groundtestingataairport in Southwest China,today a successfulmaiden flightnews.Analystsbelieve thatsuccessfulfirst flightof the j-20,No. 2015,suggesting thatChina's fourth-generationstealthaircraftdevelopmenthas gonebeyondRussia,followed by the United States.
> 
> Militarywhoexpressedstrategicnetworkassessment,No. 2015, the j-20test flight OK,indicates that Chinanowhas6aircraftj-20.VolumeproductionfromChina to fourth-generationfighter aircraftfurther.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> Really ... I knew that the "4" is disliked, but the "14" too ???


"14" worse than "4", "4" == "death" and "14" == "to die/go to die" or "go to hell"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Come on ... when will we see fine Images of '2015' ... to admit I'm still a bit skeptical.


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Come on ... when will we see fine Images of '2015' ... to admit I'm still a bit skeptical.



skeptical as your own peril。

The thing already had had its maiden flight this afternoon lasting some 20 minutes。

Time to look forward to “2016” and the “monster” from SAC。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> skeptical as your own peril。
> 
> The thing already had had its maiden flight this afternoon lasting some 20 minutes。
> 
> Time to look forward to “2016”。




Yes, but it is nearly too good to be true ! As such I would like to get a decent image of '2015' flying ... simply to be sure that it is not only a second flight of '2013' !

Deino


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Yes, but it is nearly too good to be true ! As such I would like to get a decent image of '2015' flying ... simply to be sure that it is not only a second flight of '2013' !
> 
> Deino



Your wish will be granted sooner than you think。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

The problem is simply that patience is really not my virtue !


----------



## applesauce

cnleio said:


> "14" worse than "4", "4" == "death" and "14" == "to die/go to die" or "go to hell"



putting "13" infront of it make it better again lol
but really the PRC government does not subscribe to superstition, and since j-20 is a government project im going to say no way they skipped 14 simply because the number is supposedly bad. either 15 is a ps or we dont have a pic of 14 yet or 14 is a static test unit


----------



## Deino

Images ... I want images !!! ... come on !

Anyway to admit I'm still surprised and speechless, even 2011 and 2012 alone would be a great success or progress to this program, but that they managed to fly 4 J-20s this year is something I did not expect.
Therefore if the 201x aircraft are already representing a similar status like the J-10 101x- pre-production models, we could probably even speak of something similar to a LRIP.

2001 - 11. January 2011
2002 - 6. Mai 2012 (now renumbered as 2004)
-----
2011 - 1. March 2014
2012 - 26. July 2014
2013 - 29. November 2014
2015 - 19. December 2014

Deino


----------



## Deino

Is this real ???  Usually that guy is quite a reliable poster ?!!!









and if real then the tail boom looks modified again !?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> Is this real ???  Usually that guy is quite a reliable poster ?!!!
> View attachment 177591


I don't care tail boom, it looks N.o2015 also not any surprise about the jet engines ... disappointed.


----------



## Deino

Not really disappointing *IF* that image is real ! Therefore for me the most important question was: is this image legit ?

Regarding the engines I did not expect anything spectacular ... IMO they will continue using this proven even if slightly weak engine also for the LRIP-models.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Ladies and gentleman ... I would like to introduce "2015" !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Bilal.

Deino said:


> Ladies and gentleman ... I would like to introduce "2015" !!!
> View attachment 177695



It seems that the design has been finalised...


----------



## dexter

Deino said:


> Is this real ???  Usually that guy is quite a reliable poster ?!!!
> View attachment 177591
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if real then the tail boom looks modified again !?
> View attachment 177609



Are you asking about rabbit or J-20 ??


----------



## Deino

dexter said:


> Are you asking about rabbit or J-20 ??



I was asking if this particular image showing the bottom is real !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dexter

Deino said:


> I was asking if this particular image showing the bottom is real !
> 
> View attachment 177711



Thats called a real pic
i hote all those watermarks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> I was asking if this particular image showing the bottom is real !
> 
> View attachment 177711


It looks everything on J-20 is fine, except the jet engine ...  im waiting for the last surprise !

@Deino

J-20 N.o2015 original pic

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

cnleio said:


> It looks everything on J-20 is fine, except the jet engine ...  im waiting for the last surprise !
> 
> @Deino
> 
> J-20 N.o2015 original pic
> View attachment 177725


The engine is originally an up thrust WS-10 series


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Ladies and gentleman ... I would like to introduce "2015" !!!
> View attachment 177695



Told you so...

Now we should all look forward to the arrival of 2016 etc .......


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> The engine is originally an up thrust WS-10 series


Said with 14 tons of wet thrust power.



cirr said:


> Told you so...
> 
> Now we should all look forward to the arrival of 2016 etc .......


Is the J20 start to enter service with small batch production? I just smell it.

Who will expect CHina airforce have this fictional design ten years ago? I would say a mammoth progess and miracle really happens.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> It looks everything on J-20 is fine, except the jet engine ...  im waiting for the last surprise !
> 
> @Deino
> 
> J-20 N.o2015 original pic


 

Thanks a lot, and Yes You were right ... by the way I have some daubts if this is the original image. If You look closely around the tires, they seem to be as much cleaned up (and not as nicely as mine !) ...


----------



## cirr

wanglaokan said:


> Said with 14 tons of wet thrust power.
> 
> 
> Is the J20 start to enter service with small batch production? I just smell it.
> 
> Who will expect CHina airforce have this fictional design ten years ago? I would say a mammoth progess and miracle really happens.



In keeping with what the deputy commander of the PLAAF said in 2010.


----------



## j20blackdragon

2015











2013






2012






2011

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

Look at the top of the canopy. Is that for the ejection seat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hurter

Can we have this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

Junaid B said:


> Can we have this?




nop


----------



## 帅的一匹

Junaid B said:


> Can we have this?


Maybe in the future my friend, I think FC31 is more realistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hurter

wanglaokan said:


> Maybe in the future my friend, I think FC31 is more realistic.



What would be the cost of J-20?


----------



## Deino

Quite interesting, by now we have more and better images of 2015 than of 2013 ! ...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

i


Junaid B said:


> What would be the cost of J-20?


ball park price100 millions USD

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

*6TH J-20 STEALTH FIGHTER ROLLS OUT, MORE TO SOON FOLLOW*

CHINA ON TRACK TO OPERATE ASIA'S FIRST STEALTH FIGHTERS

By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Posted 13 hours ago

6th J-20 Stealth Fighter Rolls Out, More to Soon Follow | Popular Science

_“Coming less than three weeks after the fifth prototype, "2013", first flew on November 29, 2014, the rapid production of J-20 stealth fighters suggests that China's flagship fighter program is entering Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). LRIP is the stage in the development of military platforms where the design is essentially frozen, thus allowing the manufacturing to begin gaining experience by producing small numbers of the finished design (the F-35 is currently on LRIP Batch 8). The rapid production of four similar fighters within a year suggests that China has settled on the final design of the J-20, and it is likely that production of the first squadron could happen in 2015. The first squadron of 20-24 fighters would be produced in 2015 and early 2016, going to the China Flight Test Evaluation Regiment to develop tactics for the J-20's advanced capabilities. Assuming things go to schedule, the first J-20 squadron would be ready for combat in 2017.”

“A 2016-2017 introduction places the J-20's debut in the same window as the Russian PAK-FA fighter, as well as the USMC F-35B and USAF F-35A. More importantly, the J-20 would make the PLAAF the first Asian air force to have a fifth generation fighter, definitively shifting the balance of indigenous Asian air superiority to China for the first time in history. Future iterations of the J-20 would be equipped with the supercruise capable WS-15 Chinese turbofan engine, and possibly advanced systems like directed energy weapons (lasers) and networked UAVs.”_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

I remembered how ugly looking PT-1/2 were but now this bird has shown its true colors yet the length is too long. If they shorten its length a little then it would be the unmatched Miss. Universe of aviation. 
China has shattered Ruskie's dream to fly Asia's first stealth fighter.
Way to go bros

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

*Photo of the day: J-20, drink your milkshake*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

nomi007 said:


> *Photo of the day: J-20, drink your milkshake*



Hmm ... IMO looks photoshoped from the image posted above by simply adding the IFR-image + erasing the legs from that guy standing behind.


----------



## xuxu1457



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nomi007

1st pic of cockpit
The aircraft also features a "pure" *glass cockpit *(three large color LCDs plus a few smaller ones and a wide-angle holographic HUD) and possibly an HMDS

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## xuxu1457



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

A nice one ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kompromat

Only thing missing now is a high thrust engine.


----------



## Beast

maint1234 said:


> Is this of good quality or made in China ?



Its both.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rain

let get a 3 4 J20 and have some fun with it... that is try to learn (develop tactics)how to fight against aircraft and have a hand on experience on stealth so that Pilots are ready when we have money to buy f31 etc. Just 3 or 4


----------



## longlong



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Kompromat

cirr said:


>




Heartfelt congratulations.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


>


Any idea about N.o2015's @ss ? What's situation on this pic ?


----------



## opruh

maint1234 said:


> Is this of good quality or made in China ?


It's not made in Vietnam, Turkey or India so its good quality.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

cirr said:


>



Exhaust nozzle is now completely hidden


----------



## Deino

DANGER-ZONE said:


> Exhaust nozzle is now completely hidden



But that is not new ... also all other aircraft had this feature ...


----------



## Deino

Finally the image we know from the maiden flight ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## nomi007

why still j-20 have no gun pod


----------



## Beast

nomi007 said:


> why still j-20 have no gun pod



I dont think gun is relevant in modern aerial warfare. How many fighter has shot down by fighter guns since 1990?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 55100864

Beast said:


> I dont think gun is relevant in modern aerial warfare. How many fighter has shot down by fighter guns since 1990?


I think gun will still be a must, the future air to air combat between two stealth aircraft would likely to be dog fight since both can't see each other, and stealth fighter suppose to carry few missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

55100864 said:


> I think gun will still be a must, the future air to air combat between two stealth aircraft would likely to be dog fight since both can't see each other, and stealth fighter suppose to carry few missiles.



Nowadays WVR missile are highly advance and agile. The scenario like vietnam war aerial warfare where guns are needed will be irrelevant in 21th century aerial warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

Beast said:


> I dont think gun is relevant in modern aerial warfare. How many fighter has shot down by fighter guns since 1990?



Why do both F-22 and F-35 have guns?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

pay attention to the rear end of the plane

one can visualize that the fin part near the engine nozzle it looks bigger & widened compare to prevoius protypes & also angular pattern too

may be it's for stealth reason

*CHEERS*


----------



## nomi007

Beast said:


> I dont think gun is relevant in modern aerial warfare. How many fighter has shot down by fighter guns since 1990?


yp right
pilots will use sticks and swords in dog fights


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Horus said:


> Why do both F-22 and F-35 have guns?


That doesn't mean others shall have. Let me ask you again , how many fighter shot down by fighter guns since Vietnam war?



nomi007 said:


> yp right
> pilots will use sticks and swards in dog fights


Pilot uses missiles in dogfight. Modern days dogfight is mostly between 2 agile fighter planes and fighter plane are getting more expensive and scarce which the mass deployment like vietnam war or WWII are no more. Hardly you will get into a situation between 2 modern fighter jet in just 1-3 miles close combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rendong



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio

From 2011.January 11 ==> 2014. December 31 ... From N.o2001 ==> N.o2015 J-20 prototypes ... soon PLAAF J-20 out, welcome 2015 ! HAPPY NEW YEAR !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rendong



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

Too bad this beast will never be exported


----------



## jhungary

Beast said:


> I dont think gun is relevant in modern aerial warfare. How many fighter has shot down by fighter guns since 1990?



i will give u a hint

Not because of enemy fighters

@gambit can explain better lol


----------



## Beast

jhungary said:


> i will give u a hint
> 
> Not because of enemy fighters
> 
> @gambit can explain better lol


Or you run out of reason? USAF think with the era of BVRAAM. Close range fighting will be rare. This is clearly demonstrated in their F-4 fighter which absent of gun.

But IFF problem and not so matured BVRAAM hindered the so called BVRAAM combat and many fighting still occur within WVR in the 60s and 70s but since the 90s , IFF problem solved and the great advance of BVRAAM technology may finally render most fighting in BVR. Gun is not neccessary but just a backup.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

Beast said:


> Or you run out of reason? USAF think with the era of BVRAAM. Close range fighting will be rare. This is clearly demonstrated in their F-4 fighter which absent of gun.
> 
> But IFF problem and not so matured BVRAAM hindered the so called BVRAAM combat and many fighting still occur within WVR in the 60s and 70s but since the 90s , IFF problem solved and the great advance of BVRAAM technology may finally render most fighting in BVR. Gun is not neccessary but just a backup.



dude, saying missile will take the lead and gun would be on back up is the same as saying bomb is not needed in modern ground support as most of the tine missile do the job anyway.

you missed one very important aspect, that nothing is less importany and everything is doing their job, thats why stuff works

What you are saying is a world in perfect harmony, where everything work in your favors, but in real world, war never happen tge way you wanted, hence for every system you need to have a failproof back up.

Now imagine you are a J20 pilot, would you trust your 6 or so missile that they wont missed? Or what happened if you face 7 planes alone in the sky?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> I dont think gun is relevant in modern aerial warfare. How many fighter has shot down by fighter guns since 1990?


I hope the PLAAF will be infected my people like you. We learned our lesson with the gunless F-4.

Your question is misleading. The main reason why not so many gun kills recently is because the data is skewed by US, meaning we achieved air supremacy so quickly that no one can challenge US long enough to have gun engagements.

A fighter pilot in EM silent mode coming up behind his target using only his cannon is the scariest thing in the sky. There are many situations where you do not want to use your missiles and being EM silent is one of them. Another is when there is a need for absolute identification and nothing beat eyeballing the target, so when you are this close, going AB and have your gun reticle on target is faster than arming missiles and waiting for it to acquire guidance instructions from your radar.

The gun, or more accurately the cannon if the caliber is or larger than 20 mm, is a weapon of last resort, meaning when there are times when you feel a missile can be spoofed, or when the environment is not cooperating with your sensors that the missile relies upon, or when the target deployed plenty of countermeasures.

The J-20 is allegedly an 'interceptor' and what does an interceptor do after he arrives in the area ? He attempts to make as positive identification of his target(s) as possible. That mean he will would spend some time shadowing his target(s) at different distances. The gun is most appropriate at these times.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

jhungary said:


> dude, saying missile will take the lead and gun would be on back up is the same as saying bomb is not needed in modern ground support as most of the tine missile do the job anyway.
> 
> you missed one very important aspect, that nothing is less importany and everything is doing their job, thats why stuff works
> 
> What you are saying is a world in perfect harmony, where everything work in your favors, but in real world, war never happen tge way you wanted, hence for every system you need to have a failproof back up.
> 
> Now imagine you are a J20 pilot, would you trust your 6 or so missile that they wont missed? Or what happened if you face 7 planes alone in the sky?



If I am a J-20 pilot needing a situation where I need guns to do my engagement. I am as good as dead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Superboy

Missiles miss like 9 times out of 10. Most of air to air kills are gun kills in dog fights. Don't believe in stealth BVR. That's just LM's marketing strategy for F-22.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Beast said:


> If I am a J-20 pilot needing a situation where I need guns to do my engagement. I am as good as dead.



i have been seeing your POV regarding guns in this thread for quite a sometime but tell u what you POV damn ridiculous 

you may be correct about WVR missiles capabilty in comparision to in built Guns 

but the fact still remains GUN would still be required not only for combat purpose but many other functions too

1) missiles can be carried out in limited numbers by plane especially in an extensive or mutiple enemies scenario you might ran out of missilesespecially in WVR range warfare

so gun would be your last resort of offence against those enemies 

2) you have to use sometimes guns to scare off /send some signals to any airplane pilots which may have violated air space so that to force him to land nearby to interrogate him for the reason for air space violation

3) in an era of advanced MAWS & self protection suite sometimes launching an IR guided missile from behind also cant guarantee you a kill during extreme close aerial combat 
so gun shots cant be dodged if few hits do manage to be get hit on the plane it can can cause some serious damage to the plane & may eventually lead to plane's crash

*SO still pilots practise gun kill during basic fighter manuveurs during their training*


*CHEERS*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

DrSomnath999 said:


> you have to use sometimes guns to scare off /send some signals to any airplane pilots which may have violated air space so that to force him to land nearby to interrogate him for the reason for air space violation



I seriously doubt any countries would send a high tech classify 5th gen fighter for air space enforcement..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

I am positive that the production version will have a gun (likely in the dorsal region). I don't think they installed it on the current prototype yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

Beast said:


> I seriously doubt any countries would send a high tech classify 5th gen fighter for air space enforcement..


my post was not exclusively for a specific gen plane it's for all combat airplanes



*CHEERS*



siegecrossbow said:


> I am positive that the production version will have a gun (likely in the dorsal region). I don't think they installed it on the current prototype yet.



Ni hao
bro

good to see you back

& happy new year

This year is year of sheep according to chinese calender:p

*CHEERS*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

@ DrSomnath999

Sorry that I did not reply to Your question on me. Sadly I can't find a way to answer You by a personal message here on this board but You are correct.

Cheers,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Deino said:


> @ DrSomnath999
> 
> Sorry that I did not reply to Your question on me. Sadly I can't find a way to answer You by a personal message here on this board but You are correct.
> 
> Cheers,
> Deino



hello mr andreas

glad you are part of this forum 

Happy new year 





*CHEERS*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

DrSomnath999 said:


> hello mr andreas
> 
> glad you are part of this forum
> 
> Happy new year
> 
> *CHEERS*



Thanks a lot - and sorry for posting off-topic - ... but from where do You know me and even more, is there a way to communicate via PM on this forum, I can't find a way to post a personnel note or message. !??

Happy new year and all the best to You too ...

Deino


----------



## DrSomnath999

Deino said:


> Thanks a lot - and sorry for posting off-topic - ... but from where do You know me and even more, is there a way to communicate via PM on this forum, I can't find a way to post a personnel note or message. !??
> 
> Happy new year and all the best to You too ...
> 
> Deino


thanks sir

es spielt keine Rolle, wie ich weiß, Sie Sir

Sie Ihre Antworten in Ihrem Profil selbst Beiträge verfassen können

*CHEERS*


----------



## Viper0011.

Beast said:


> That doesn't mean others shall have. Let me ask you again , *how many fighter shot down by fighter guns since Vietnam war?* .



In Vietnam war, the US pilots resorted to engage Migs through WVR and from distant due to their strategy but there were still gun kills. But since then, there have been plenty of Gun Kills across the globe.

If you are looking at the US engagements across the globe and trying to determine "gun kills", you are looking at the wrong picture. Our strategy isn't to engage the enemy at close distance one by one. We establish air dominance and practically put in a no fly zone no matter how many fighters the adversary has. So when the other party has little to no chance of flying their sir assets to challenge the US military....how would they ever get to gun kills?

The F-22 is built on a similar concept, yet with a gun as an emergency option in case there is a Dog Fight. But its primary role is to disrupt and destroy enemy formations in bulk, before any US air assets can be exposed to the enemy. If a squadron on intercept is destroyed 60-75% by two -22's, way before the -15's or -18's get closer to the "left over" interceptors....what do you think the interceptors will be doing? More than likely, they'll be low on fuel, with moral destroyed, trying to run away from the invisible ghost that just destroyed 15 out of 20 jets! But if there was no -22 or a BVR doctrine, the regular jets would probably still get into a dog fight, specially if both parties were located in a close proximity.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Note the addition of a 'sawtooth pattern' on the canards.







Also note the sawtooth pattern on the trailing edge of the Rafale's canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## j20blackdragon

Enjoy.
















F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## The SC

orangzaib said:


> In Vietnam war, the US pilots resorted to engage Migs through WVR and from distant due to their strategy but there were still gun kills. But since then, there have been plenty of Gun Kills across the globe.
> 
> If you are looking at the US engagements across the globe and trying to determine "gun kills", you are looking at the wrong picture. Our strategy isn't to engage the enemy at close distance one by one. We establish air dominance and practically put in a no fly zone no matter how many fighters the adversary has. So when the other party has little to no chance of flying their sir assets to challenge the US military....how would they ever get to gun kills?
> 
> The F-22 is built on a similar concept, yet with a gun as an emergency option in case there is a Dog Fight. But its primary role is to disrupt and destroy enemy formations in bulk, before any US air assets can be exposed to the enemy. If a squadron on intercept is destroyed 60-75% by two -22's, way before the -15's or -18's get closer to the "left over" interceptors....what do you think the interceptors will be doing? More than likely, they'll be low on fuel, with moral destroyed, trying to run away from the invisible ghost that just destroyed 15 out of 20 jets! But if there was no -22 or a BVR doctrine, the regular jets would probably still get into a dog fight, specially if both parties were located in a close proximity.


The strategy worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, against weak "enemies", and still for Iraq you needed 30 other air forces to impose a no fly zone. In Vietnam the American losses were tremendous, despite this strategy. And the F-22 has not seen any real combat; it is designed to enforce the US strategy (if the pilots do not shock on their oxygen supply!), but many nations can deny the air superiority to the US let alone the establishment of a no fly zone. American designers must have taken that into account, since they have incorporated guns on the F-22 and F-35 alike, they must know better...


----------



## Beast

The SC said:


> The strategy worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, against weak "enemies", and still for Iraq you needed 30 other air forces to impose a no fly zone. In Vietnam the American losses were tremendous, despite this strategy. And the F-22 has not seen any real combat; it is designed to enforce the US strategy (if the pilots do not shock on their oxygen supply!), but many nations can deny the air superiority to the US let alone the establishment of a no fly zone. American designers must have taken that into account, since they have incorporated guns on the F-22 and F-35 alike, they must know better...


The US think tank still has the vietnam war phobia. The gun in F-22 and F-35 is mostly just a backup, not a neccesity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Beast said:


> The US think tank still has the vietnam war phobia. The gun in F-22 and F-35 is mostly just a backup, not a neccesity.


They have thought the same with the F-4 Phantom!... till they 've foud out it was a necessity. Not taking any chances this time, backup or necessity, a gun must be.


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

DrSomnath999 said:


> that pic look PSed
> 
> just look at the color difference between the canard & saw tooth area
> 
> plus there is small extension from the end of trailing side
> 
> i am sure it's psed
> 
> *CHEERS*



What about this picture .... 
Zoom in and see the canard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

DrSomnath999 said:


> that pic look PSed
> 
> just look at the color difference between the canard & saw tooth area
> 
> plus there is small extension from the end of trailing side
> 
> i am sure it's psed
> 
> *CHEERS*



And I'm sure it is not ! If You look closely on all images showing the underside, there is each time the same detail ...


----------



## DrSomnath999

Deino said:


> And I'm sure it is not ! If You look closely on all images showing the underside, there is each time the same detail ...
> 
> View attachment 180470


ok i missed it post deleted from my side that pic was way too dark uneven in color for me detect that




interesting thing i had mention that thing earliear in this thread

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft | Updates & Discussions. | Page 125

in return i got cheap shots from chinese members at that time but hilariously chinese engineer did listen my pov eventually
China's J-20 stealth fighter is already doing a whole lot more | Page 39


*CHEERS*


----------



## DrSomnath999

From combat aircraft monthly feb 2015






*P.S i wonder do i know the author?? *

*CHEERS*

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

DrSomnath999 said:


> *P.S i wonder do i know the author?? *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

That Canard is always going to remain a RCS control problem. I suppose the RCS management algorithm by Chengdu will have a lot of its work cut out trying to manage with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Oscar said:


> That Canard is always going to remain a RCS control problem. I suppose the RCS management algorithm by Chengdu will have a lot of its work cut out trying to manage with that.








Very deep studies have been carried out to control RCS of canards, at least since 1994

鸭翼电磁散射特性分析与RCS减缩方法研究_百度文库

低RCS无人驾驶飞行器(包括鸭翼)的外形设计与实验研究_百度文库

...etc.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

Oscar said:


> That Canard is always going to remain a RCS control problem. I suppose the RCS management algorithm by Chengdu will have a lot of its work cut out trying to manage with that.


you are right sir but you remember the JAST program one of its design striking similarities to J-20 and also don't forget X-36 it has extremely low RCS with Canard said by the analysts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

... and even more the YF-23 proposal for the Naval version had a Canard configuration as well (and if I'm not completely wrong, the current Boeing proposal for the F/A-18 successor too). So a canard is not necessarily a reason for being non-stealthy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

That's exaclty what an engineer from Dassault Aviation tolde me 2 years ago. When I shown him the first pics of J-20, he said that the fact that the canards are alined on the same plan with the wings, the "bad" impact of canard on RCS is highly reduced.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Canards are not a 'RCS control problem' anymore than main wings and horizontal stabilizers. In fact, all leading and trailing edges on an aircraft reflect radar. The key is planform alignment.











The enemy is assumed to be in front of you, so leading and trailing edges are swept at carefully selected angles to redirect radar energy to these angles and NOT towards the front. It's that simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

pakistanipower said:


> you are right sir but you remember the JAST program one of its design striking similarities to J-20 and also don't forget X-36 it has extremely low RCS with Canard said by the analysts.



Both the JAST and X-36 were abandoned due the fact that the manoeuvrability advantage provided by the canards was offsetted by their contribution to RCS. Which is why aircraft like the Eurofighter(and the J-20 as well) use software to manage canard position throughout flight to provide the optimum balance between control and frontal stealth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

hk299792458 said:


> That's exaclty what an engineer from Dassault Aviation tolde me 2 years ago. When I shown him the first pics of J-20, he said that the fact that *the canards are alined on the same plan with the wings, *the "bad" impact of canard on RCS is highly reduced.
> 
> Henri K.



Hi



can you elaborate this thing a bit if you can

*CHEERS*


----------



## DrSomnath999

the pic claims
the canard with cut away portion showed lesser RCS than canard without cut away portion

thanks henri K

*CHEERS*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Note the addition of a 'sawtooth pattern' on the canards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also note the sawtooth pattern on the trailing edge of the Rafale's canards.
> 
> View attachment 180407


If it is true that the J-20's canards received physical radiation control methods -- those sawtooth structures on the trailing edge -- that should tell you that the J-20's engineers *KNEW* that the canards would be an RCS contributor in ways they did not like.

Why are those sawtooth structures on the trailing edges ? Because that is where surface traveling waves leave the canards and impact the fuselage and the wings. So with those sawtooth structures, the J-20's engineers hope that diffracted signals would be in different directions, minimizing any interactions with the fuselage and the wings. Minimization, not complete elimination.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DrSomnath999

gambit said:


> If it is true that the J-20's canards received physical radiation control methods -- those sawtooth structures on the trailing edge -- that should tell you that the J-20's engineers *KNEW* that the canards would be an RCS contributor in ways they did not like.
> 
> Why are those sawtooth structures on the trailing edges ? Because that is where surface traveling waves leave the canards and impact the fuselage and the wings. So with those sawtooth structures, the J-20's engineers hope that diffracted signals would be in different directions, minimizing any interactions with the fuselage and the wings. Minimization, not complete elimination.



sir it really confirms your prevoius POV 

that J20 designers must have taken rafale's strutural design as referrence while designing the canard/LERX part of J20 so they have incorporated saw tooth design too

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft | Updates & Discussions. | Page 125

*CHEERS*


----------



## aziqbal

Deino said:


> ... and even more the YF-23 proposal for the Naval version had a Canard configuration as well (and if I'm not completely wrong, the current Boeing proposal for the F/A-18 successor too). So a canard is not necessarily a reason for being non-stealthy.



Hi Deino I have been logged out of SDF since the server switch over and can't remember my password, a reset isn't working and facebook log in doesn't work either can you get Webby to have a look

Btw I'm Asif iqbal from SDF thanks


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Canards are not a 'RCS control problem' anymore than main wings and horizontal stabilizers. In fact, all leading and trailing edges on an aircraft reflect radar. The key is planform alignment.


Yes, they are. You are not going to get away with 'Chinese physics' here.

The rules for designing a radar low observable complex body are controls of:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

If there is a minimum necessary quantity of radiators on this complex body, the control of their arrays, or configurations and relationships, to each other comes into play. In this, everything is at least an 'issue of concern' if not outright a problem. If canards are necessary but their quantity ( 2 ) cannot be offset by the elimination of other major contributors, then they breached the line from being a normal 'issue of concern' to being a genuine problem.






The above is a drastic example but a necessary one.

Depending on a radiator A's location and array to other structures/radiators, the elimination of other structrures/radiators may not be sufficient to offset radiator A's contribution to final RCS. For the example above, we can work on shrouding the engines, cockpit treatment, etc., but as long as we cannot do anything to that array of radiators in the rear -- the vertical/horizontal stabs configuration that produces the dreaded 90 deg corner reflectors -- all our other works are essentially worthless. The rest of the aircraft can be below the graph but there will always be a large spike above, giving the aircraft away.

Same thing with the J-20's canards. You can bring on charts showing their -- alleged -- individual RCS measurement data like in post 4346, but for those who know better, those charts are meaningless in the absence of any data regarding rule 2: Control of array of radiators.

In other words, we need measurement data for the entire body in order to make any definitive judgement.

Further, complex bodies are unique in their final RCS values. Yes, these aircrafts have cockpits, pairs of wings and stabilators that are in same locations and configurations and they will produce a common RCS signature, but when there are additional radiators like antennas or panel gaps that are unique from aircraft to aircraft, the final RCS values are going to be as unique as the human fingerprints. That mean the canards' contributorship on one aircraft may not be as significant as on another.

If we are to take public opinions as approximate gauges, then the consensus among radar specialists is that the J-20's canards straddles the line between being an 'issue of concern' and being a genuine problem, and that is being generous in the absence of hard measurement data, which all know the Chinese government will not reveal.


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> Yes, they are. You are not going to get away with 'Chinese physics' here.
> 
> The rules for designing a radar low observable complex body are controls of:
> 
> - Quantity of radiators
> - Array of radiators
> - Modes of radiation



Those rules can only be employed fully by J-20, not F-22, for J-20 is stealth optimized by the fastest super computer in 21s.

F-22 is an aircraft with some stealth features backed to 1980s and the project is *terminated* and will be replaced by problematic F-35 and the promised 6-gen aircraft on imagination.

F-22, a generation faded without f*cking in real.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## applesauce

gambit said:


> So with those sawtooth structures, the J-20's engineers hope that diffracted signals would be in different directions, minimizing any interactions with the fuselage and the wings. Minimization, not complete elimination.



no.

those engineers don't hope. they test and test and test again, digitally and flight tests and verify that it works, thats the whole point of flight testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007

*Suspected Chinese Shen Fei defeated fifth generation aircraft program exposure!* *Or the F -32?*
In January 2011, using the canard of Chengdu J-20 first flight success. Although SAC subsequently introduced in the conventional layout "falcon hawk", but losing four generations of machine program is exactly what has been the focus of everyone's attention. However, the absence of any reference information can, SAC four generations of machines became a fan.




2011, AVIC published his Academy series. Disclose details of the original bid when four generations of machines. However, in this series of illustrations, a wind tunnel model pictures Shenyang four generations of machines were hit mosaic
Despite being obfuscated users based on photographs were analyzed and plotted imagination shape figure, but still can not get "what kind of aerodynamic configuration "message.
In Shenyang had four generations of machine program soon to be forgotten when China Airlines reported a story on December 23 for the first time disclosed without coding processing photos.




Decrypted image is clearly visible in the wind tunnel model: This model uses "canard wing horizontal tail , "the three wing aerodynamic layout, with the previous network spread a black and white picture is more consistent.




Three wing is trying to duck and the general layout of the comprehensive advantages of the new aerodynamic layout, but not as good as canard layout and overall design of conventional indicators and stealth capabilities.
Sukhoi Su-47 is the ultimate representative of three wing technology practical effort, but its maneuverability and canard aircraft was no obvious advantage, but do not have the canard shortened fuselage and reduce structural weight. After this, Shenyang introduced midsize four-generation machine "falcon hawk" with a conventional aerodynamic layout


----------



## hk299792458

*Analysis : End of year surge for Chengdu J-20 fighter programme*



> Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
> 06 January 2015
> 
> In November and December 2014 two additional prototypes of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation's (CAC) J-20 fifth-generation fighter emerged, advancing its development towards a possible initial operational capability (IOC) of 2017-18.
> 
> The J-20 programme currently features six known prototypes. Two are early technology development articles (serial numbers 2001 and 2002) that emerged in 2009 and 2010, while four are modified versions closer to operational prototypes (serial numbers 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015) that all emerged in 2014.
> 
> No prototype numbered 2014 has yet to appear and may not, given the traditional Chinese view that four is an unlucky number.
> 
> Chinese aircraft spotters responsible for early internet photos report that the latest prototypes, 2013 and 2015, made their maiden flights from the CAC airfield on 29 November and 18 December 2014 respectively.
> 
> Both have most of the refinements seen on aircraft 2011, which emerged in February 2014: cropped canards and vertical stabilisers, a modified air intake, modified wing leading-edge extensions, and a new electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) under the nose.
> 
> However, 2013 and 2015 lack the nose-mounted pitot tubes that featured on the earlier prototypes. In addition, number 2015 has longer and sharper-shaped rear-fuselage horizontal strakes. Although this aft surface does not appear to be movable, it may contribute to aircraft stability, as a similar - though movable - surface did for the Grumman X-29 technology demonstrator.
> 
> Early internet-sourced images have also emerged of the J-20's retractable refuelling probe, placed on the upper starboard of the nose. The development status of an indigenous Chinese turbofan for the J-20, often referred to as the WS-15, remains unknown. There is speculation that early J-20 examples may use a version of the Russian Saturn AL-31 turbofan.
> 
> In April 2014 an Asian government source told IHS Jane's that China would have 24 J-20s by 2020, which if realised, could constitute a first operational regiment. This would indicate that IOC may occur in the 2017-18 timeframe.



Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

J-20 open all weapons-bay

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## sancho

Deino said:


> ... and even more the YF-23 proposal for the Naval version had a Canard configuration as well (and if I'm not completely wrong, the current Boeing proposal for the F/A-18 successor too). So a canard is not necessarily a reason for being non-stealthy.



That depends on where the focus is, on the RCS reduction or the navalisation! Both the naval YF23 as well as Boeings latest concepts are meant to be carrier fighters and just as for J15, the canards are mainly added to improve the handling during carrier landings. So these examples might compromise on RCS, in favour for specific operational benefits, contrary to the original YF23 design for example, that was aimed on a very low overall signature.


----------



## Deino

Interesting comparison ...

if the gif-image does not work, here's the original link:

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1111107-1-1.html

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

PS ... even if they're not accounting for potential perspective effects. !


----------



## Deino

From yesterday ...

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Pangu

The J-20 somehow reminds me of the Firefox, but Clint Eastwood will have to think in Chinese this time.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

J-20 with the thrust vectoring nozzles.

This is something that we need to clarify, and just look at the comparison video.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## VelocuR

J-20





F-35





J-20 is amazing but underneath seems very simple flat compared to muscle design on F-35 under belly. Damn huge single engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> J-20 with the thrust vectoring nozzles.
> 
> This is something that we need to clarify, and just look at the comparison video.




Yes exactly .. the MKI has a TVC nozzle that swivels up and down as well as to the sides ... whereas the J-20 "simply" has a convergent/divergent nozzle like so many other fighters.

Exactly my point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Deino said:


> Yes exactly .. the MKI has a TVC nozzle that swivels up and down as well as to the sides ... whereas the J-20 "simply" has a convergent/divergent nozzle like so many other fighters.
> 
> Exactly my point.



Deino

does the J20 engine nozzles are coated with ceramic they are looking white from the very beginning

ceramic can reduce EM signature of those nozzles quite a lot 


i have posted a thread on how russians are planning to use ceramic on their nozzles & after burner
Areas of work on pak-fa low observabilty from paralay.com

*CHEERS*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

To admit I don't know for sure and even more if, to what extent in what areas ... but in regard to the nozzles I agree with You.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Here is looking forward to 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Here is looking forward to 2016.




Do You again already know more than You tell us ... ???


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> View attachment 185921



Are 2013 and 2015 both in Chengdu right now?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Are 2013 and 2015 both in Chengdu right now?




As far as I know yes ! ... will be interesting to see when the will be transferred to the CFTE too.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Yepp ... there was quite a bit confusion and some already assumed this to be '2016' ... but both are "only" '2013 & '2013' !

Anyway ... any info when both will go to the CFTE ??

Deino


----------



## cirr




----------



## DrSomnath999

in chinese forums they are claiming 2016 is also out now 

*CHEERS*


----------



## cirr

DrSomnath999 said:


> in chinese forums they are claiming 2016 is also out now
> 
> *CHEERS*



in，not out。

2016 has been assembled and is undergoing indoor tests。

2017 and 2018 are also on the assembly line。

In short，PLAAF is going to receive J-20s starting in 2016 for training purposes。

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Christopher_ZJ

New comer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Max Pain

Christopher_ZJ said:


> New comer.


Welcome to PDF,
hopefully you'll enjoy your presence here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Simply amazing ....

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Echo_419

Christopher_ZJ said:


> New comer.



Welcome to PDF


----------



## Martian2

*Chengdu J-20 is superior to F-35 in eight important ways*

‘The End of History’: 25 Years On | The Diplomat





----------
My text version in case I want to expand the list in the future.

*Someone needs to inform Gen. Mike Hostage that the Chinese Chengdu J-20 is superior to the F-35.*

*1. Chengdu J-20 can supercruise. Lockheed Martin F-35 cannot.

2. Chengdu J-20 has all-aspect stealth. F-35 does not. F-35 has bulges above the left air intake for the gun turret, along the wing root, and the underside. The bulges are not stealthy and run counter to the flat facets or continuous curvature of stealth aircraft design.

3. Chengdu J-20 is a larger plane with a larger radar, which gives it greater detection range.

4. Chengdu J-20 has a larger weapon payload to carry more air-to-air missiles than F-35.

5. Chengdu J-20 is more maneuverable (about 9G). F-35 can only maneuver around 5G.

6. Chengdu J-20 has a combat radius of about 1,200 miles. F-35 has a short combat radius of about 500 miles.

7. Chengdu J-20 has twin engines. If one fails, the J-20 keeps flying. The F-35 only has one engine. If the F-35 engine fails, the F-35 jet drops into the sea.

8. The expected service ceiling for the Chengdu J-20 is about 66,000 feet. The service ceiling for the F-35 is 60,000 feet. This means the J-20 will use its look-down shoot-down radar on the F-35. Also, the J-20's missiles will travel further as it glides down towards the F-35. Conversely, the F-35 missiles will have shorter range as it climbs against gravity in an attempt to reach the J-20.*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

DrSomnath999 said:


> in chinese forums they are claiming 2016 is also out now
> 
> *CHEERS*



I have yet to seen conclusive proof (photographic evidence) of this, unfortunately.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Chengdu J-20 is superior to F-35 in eight important ways


The J-20 is still more of an R/D project than it is for an actual combat deployable platform.



Martian2 said:


> *Someone needs to inform Gen. Mike Hostage that the Chinese Chengdu J-20 is superior to the F-35.*


General Hostage is a four-star officer.

Civilian terms for military experience - Hands on Banking


> O7 and above (Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral, Admiral)
> 
> Highest positions within a company, such as the President, Senior Director, Chairman of the Board, Managing Director


Air Combat Command, of which he is combatant commander, would be the equivalent of a Fortune 100 company.

Someone like Hostage would begin his/her career as a fighter pilot, which immediately put him far above you in many ways, then as element lead, be some kind of squadron specialist like how Hostage was a squadron's weapons officer, a staff position at the Pentagon, squadron commander as the first major combatant commander slot, base commander which would be like the mayor of a medium Western city, then a wing commander aka 'wing king' which would be the equivalent of a Fortune 500 company, then retired and hired as a CEO of such a large company.

Throughout Hostage's career, he had access to ultra sensitive information, from political to technical, and that he must make serious decisions, gave in-depth opinions, and advised heads of states and high ranking diplomats of different countries.

You have...??? 



Martian2 said:


> *1. Chengdu J-20 can supercruise. Lockheed Martin F-35 cannot.*


Plenty of highly desirable fighters have capabilities that are less, not inferior, than competitors, and yet can still accomplish great things. Take the F-16, for example. China have yet to produce something half as good.



Martian2 said:


> *2. Chengdu J-20 has all-aspect stealth. F-35 does not. F-35 has bulges above the left air intake for the gun turret, along the wing root, and the underside. The bulges are not stealthy and run counter to the flat facets or continuous curvature of stealth aircraft design.*


This is an abuse of technical information, and I have shown you to be wrong before. But if you want to go there, then the J-20's canards is less obedient to rule 1 of low radar observable design: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.



Martian2 said:


> *3. Chengdu J-20 is a larger plane with a larger radar, which gives it greater detection range.*


And give itself away sooner.



Martian2 said:


> *4. Chengdu J-20 has a larger weapon payload to carry more air-to-air missiles than F-35.*


Which does not make the J-20 'superior'.



Martian2 said:


> *5. Chengdu J-20 is more maneuverable (about 9G). F-35 can only maneuver around 5G.*


This is where your ignorance and no experience continues to make people like me laugh. In this day and age of fly-by-wire flight control system, g-limit is *EQUALLY* governed by software as it is by physical design. The F-35's design is fully capable of pulling 9g and test pilot Lt. Col. Hank Griffith have taken an F-35A to that limit. Its current g-limit is due to continuous development. Further, it is well known in military aviation that American air forces routinely understate their weapons' capabilities. As for the J-20, there is nothing outside of baseless speculation and fanboy-ism that the J-20 can pull 9g.

Finally, the J-20's have a larger boattail drag than the F-35 and F-22. Single engine fighter have lower boattail drag factor. The F-22's have a superior twin-engine set up -- no gaps between engines -- compare to the J-20. How about the probability that once the F-35 and J-20 are fully developed, the F-35 will be more maneuverable ?



Martian2 said:


> *6. Chengdu J-20 has a combat radius of about 1,200 miles. F-35 has a short combat radius of about 500 miles.*


Then might as well compare the J-20 to a helo, if that make you happy.

The general rule is combat radius is 1/3 of maximum range. The F-35 is supposed to be a multi-role and multi-mission aircraft and as such, its *SEVERAL* combat radius will be governed by those roles. Its combat radius is similar to the much desirable F-16, of which your China have yet to produce something equal.



Martian2 said:


> *7. Chengdu J-20 has twin engines. If one fails, the J-20 keeps flying. The F-35 only has one engine. If the F-35 engine fails, the F-35 jet drops into the sea.*


This criticism have been debunked decades ago. You really think China designed the J-20 around this ?



Martian2 said:


> *8. The expected service ceiling for the Chengdu J-20 is about 66,000 feet. The service ceiling for the F-35 is 60,000 feet. This means the J-20 will use its look-down shoot-down radar on the F-35. Also, the J-20's missiles will travel further as it glides down towards the F-35. Conversely, the F-35 missiles will have shorter range as it climbs against gravity in an attempt to reach the J-20.*


This is as laughable as the previous criticisms about the F-35.

Time to altitude take time away to distance. Simply put, if I want to reach my opponent ASAP, there is a balance I must have between intercept altitude and intercept distance. It is ridiculous -- in the manner of ignorant fanboys -- to assume that every time the J-20 take off, assuming the jet will be deployable in the first place, that the J-20 pilots will go for maximum altitude.

I hope the PLA is infested with people like you.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*j20 can supercruise meanwhile f35 cant *
what crap!!


current WS 10 engine can supercruise , if it's true then thats a news to me 

if F35 is so inferior why did
J20 copied EOTs of F35

*CHEERS*


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SOHEIL

aimarraul said:


>


----------



## Dalit

aimarraul said:


>



Mean looking dragon!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Strangely the images of 2013 are usually not as clear ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beidou2020

Martian2 said:


> *Chengdu J-20 is superior to F-35 in eight important ways*
> 
> ‘The End of History’: 25 Years On | The Diplomat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> My text version in case I want to expand the list in the future.
> 
> *Someone needs to inform Gen. Mike Hostage that the Chinese Chengdu J-20 is superior to the F-35.*
> 
> *1. Chengdu J-20 can supercruise. Lockheed Martin F-35 cannot.
> 
> 2. Chengdu J-20 has all-aspect stealth. F-35 does not. F-35 has bulges above the left air intake for the gun turret, along the wing root, and the underside. The bulges are not stealthy and run counter to the flat facets or continuous curvature of stealth aircraft design.
> 
> 3. Chengdu J-20 is a larger plane with a larger radar, which gives it greater detection range.
> 
> 4. Chengdu J-20 has a larger weapon payload to carry more air-to-air missiles than F-35.
> 
> 5. Chengdu J-20 is more maneuverable (about 9G). F-35 can only maneuver around 5G.
> 
> 6. Chengdu J-20 has a combat radius of about 1,200 miles. F-35 has a short combat radius of about 500 miles.
> 
> 7. Chengdu J-20 has twin engines. If one fails, the J-20 keeps flying. The F-35 only has one engine. If the F-35 engine fails, the F-35 jet drops into the sea.
> 
> 8. The expected service ceiling for the Chengdu J-20 is about 66,000 feet. The service ceiling for the F-35 is 60,000 feet. This means the J-20 will use its look-down shoot-down radar on the F-35. Also, the J-20's missiles will travel further as it glides down towards the F-35. Conversely, the F-35 missiles will have shorter range as it climbs against gravity in an attempt to reach the J-20.*



F-35 has been rubbished by guys like Richard Fisher, Carlo Kopp and many others for years.

J-20 is vastly superior to the F-35, even the J-31 is better than the F-35.

J-20 only true rival is the F-22. Even the F-22 has major issues which has given doubts as to whether it is as good as people make it out to be.

China has the money to mass produce the J-20 in great numbers and once the J-20 is in service, no one will touch the PLAAF in Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## longlong

aimarraul said:


>


Main weapon bay is wider now.



DrSomnath999 said:


> *j20 can supercruise meanwhile f35 cant *
> what crap!!
> 
> 
> current WS 10 engine can supercruise , if it's true then thats a news to me
> 
> if F35 is so inferior why did
> J20 copied EOTs of F35
> 
> *CHEERS*



Please you troll with education, noisy Indian member.

When we are talking about super-cruise, we are talking about aircraft, not the engine.

*All jet engines are super-cruise capable if the aerodynamic drag is small enough.*

*In theory, any object with any engine can reach to the speed of light if there have no dragging.*

Why F-35 cannot super cruise is because of

1) F-135 engine low performance at supersonic
2) Overweight fatty body generate huge drag

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## tsarbomba

That J-20 in silver/grey looks hot! Nice to see the product of years of experience in aircraft design. Does it have external hardpoints along with internal weapons bay?



Martian2 said:


> *Chengdu J-20 is superior to F-35 in eight important ways*
> 
> ‘The End of History’: 25 Years On | The Diplomat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> My text version in case I want to expand the list in the future.
> 
> *Someone needs to inform Gen. Mike Hostage that the Chinese Chengdu J-20 is superior to the F-35.*
> 
> *1. Chengdu J-20 can supercruise. Lockheed Martin F-35 cannot.
> 
> 2. Chengdu J-20 has all-aspect stealth. F-35 does not. F-35 has bulges above the left air intake for the gun turret, along the wing root, and the underside. The bulges are not stealthy and run counter to the flat facets or continuous curvature of stealth aircraft design.
> 
> 3. Chengdu J-20 is a larger plane with a larger radar, which gives it greater detection range.
> 
> 4. Chengdu J-20 has a larger weapon payload to carry more air-to-air missiles than F-35.
> 
> 5. Chengdu J-20 is more maneuverable (about 9G). F-35 can only maneuver around 5G.
> 
> 6. Chengdu J-20 has a combat radius of about 1,200 miles. F-35 has a short combat radius of about 500 miles.
> 
> 7. Chengdu J-20 has twin engines. If one fails, the J-20 keeps flying. The F-35 only has one engine. If the F-35 engine fails, the F-35 jet drops into the sea.
> 
> 8. The expected service ceiling for the Chengdu J-20 is about 66,000 feet. The service ceiling for the F-35 is 60,000 feet. This means the J-20 will use its look-down shoot-down radar on the F-35. Also, the J-20's missiles will travel further as it glides down towards the F-35. Conversely, the F-35 missiles will have shorter range as it climbs against gravity in an attempt to reach the J-20.*



Is it true that if one engine fails the other can still let the plane fly? Won't it go off balance? I think the correct comparison of J-20 is with F-22. F-35 is designed to be a cheap single engine fighter for sale to US allies and hence is not a match for the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

longlong said:


> Please you troll with education, noisy Indian member.
> 
> When we are talking about super-cruise, we are talking about aircraft, not the engine.
> 
> *All jet engines are super-cruise capable if the aerodynamic drag is small enough.*
> 
> *In theory, any object with any engine can reach to the speed of light if there have no dragging.*
> 
> Why F-35 cannot super cruise is because of
> 
> 1) F-135 engine low performance at supersonic
> 2) Overweight fatty body generate huge drag



my dear genius chinese pal

before lecturing others about aviation properly you need to understand the point how a plane is called supercruise fighter


> When we are talking about super-cruise, we are talking about aircraft, *not the engine.*



& how does a plane achieve supercruise capabilty ???? from moon . !!!!
obviously from it's engine only not from aerodyanamic design

even all eurocanards fighters have supercruise capabilty & it achieves it from what ??
*obviously through it engines only*


Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as J20 is a prototype and it is currently fitted with Ws10 engines which cant supercruise at all so it's meaningless to
claim J20 is a supercruise plane until it is fitted with WS 15 engine/or supercruise capable russian engines



> Why F-35 cannot super cruise is because of
> 
> 1) F-135 engine low performance at supersonic
> *2) Overweight fatty body generate huge drag*



hehee
according to your logic then J20 cant also supercruise as everyone including a blind man can say
who is fatter between the two
J20 or F35 

*CHEERS*


----------



## Deino

Sorry that I only noticed this "bashing" just the moment !

Guys ... calm down, it's not the way to argue ...

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## davidwang

tsarbomba said:


> That J-20 in silver/grey looks hot! Nice to see the product of years of experience in aircraft design. Does it have external hardpoints along with internal weapons bay?
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that if one engine fails the other can still let the plane fly? Won't it go off balance? I think the correct comparison of J-20 is with F-22. F-35 is designed to be a cheap single engine fighter for sale to US allies and hence is not a match for the J-20.


F-22 is an all aspect fighter jet, while F-35 intended to be 'affordable stealth', even though its no longer affordable today. I think J-20 could match the stealthiness of F-22 on frontal lobe, but the lack of advanced engines is going to be a problem


----------



## hk299792458

I can't understand how people can give affirmation of supercruise capability or not of J-20 today ? Any official information ?

Most of the guys say that bad engine means you can't supercruise, because of bad T/W...etc. The fact is, F-15K and F-22, for example, have same T/W ratio, but one can't supercruise, the second one can.

"I think that" is not a physic rule, it never has been....

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> Please you troll with education, noisy Indian member.
> 
> When we are talking about super-cruise, we are talking about aircraft, not the engine.
> 
> *All jet engines are super-cruise capable if the aerodynamic drag is small enough.*
> 
> *In theory, any object with any engine can reach to the speed of light if there have no dragging.*



You are wrong. It is clear you do not know even the basics of a jet engine, let alone on what is 'supercruise'.

Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently which typically precludes the use of highly inefficient afterburners (reheat).


Basically, it means to break Mach *WITHOUT* using the inefficient afterburner.



longlong said:


> Why F-35 cannot super cruise is because of
> 
> 1) F-135 engine low performance at supersonic
> 2) Overweight fatty body generate huge drag


The F-35 can transonic without using afterburner and can do it for over 100 nm.

Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Although the Pratt & Whitney F135F-35 engine was not designed to achieve a supercruise capability, the F-35 is able to maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using afterburners.


If the F-35 cannot supercruise for as long and as far as the F-22 can, it is because of the engine's design and intention, not because the F-35's body drag. For what the F-35 was designed for, supercruise is not needed, and the fact that the F-35 can break Mach for over 100 miles without afterburner is impressive on its own.

Please stop pretending you know what you are talking about. I am not a Propulsion specialist and I know more than you do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## davidwang

hk299792458 said:


> I can't understand how people can give affirmation of supercruise capability or not of J-20 today ? Any official information ?
> 
> Most of the guys say that bad engine means you can't supercruise, because of bad T/W...etc. The fact is, F-15K and F-22, for example, have same T/W ratio, but one can't supercruise, the second one can.
> 
> "I think that" is not a physic rule, it never has been....
> 
> Henri K.


I can't say anything if 'I know', the best thing I can tell is that 'I think', or 'I guess'.

AL-31F is not bad, it's just not ideal for supercruise. I didn't say that the current J-20 cannot supercruise, maybe she can, but the most important thing concerning the engine is not only its supercruise capability, but many other aspects, its thrust, FADEC, fuel consumption...... here is a quote from Wikipedia


> The key challenge in attaining supercruise is not simply attaining a high thrust to weight ratio vis-à-vis the aircraft but a radical redesign of the engine because the air entering a jet engine must always travel at subsonic speeds, regardless of aircraft speed. Otherwise compressibility waves ( or shock waves) will create uncontrollable vibrations among the compressor vanes.



so the bottom line is, even current J-20 can supercruise, she still needs a more powerful engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

davidwang said:


> I can't say anything if 'I know', the best thing I can tell is that 'I think', or 'I guess'.
> 
> AL-31F is not bad, it's just not ideal for supercruise. I didn't say that the current J-20 cannot supercruise, maybe she can, but the most important thing concerning the engine is not only its supercruise capability, but many other aspects, its thrust, FADEC, fuel consumption...... here is a quote from Wikipedia
> 
> 
> so the bottom line is, even current J-20 can supercruise, she still needs a more powerful engine


A jet engine, in principles, is an internal combustion engine, like the one in your car: A controlled explosion translated into mechanical force.

The difference is that in a piston type internal combustion engine, peak temperatures are rhythmic: up/down, whereas with a jet engine, peak temperature is constant. The latter is what make a jet engine unique in difficulty in design and manufacturing.

Afterburn is when we literally take fuel and literally dump it into the hot exhaust and turn that into a barely controlled explosion. It is an inefficient and wasteful feature but eminently necessary if one is to break Mach, and if one is at sea level, it is extremely wasteful.

Supercruise is the ability to break Mach, not at sea level, without using the afterburn feature. Yes, lower and lower body drag can help but ultimately, it is all engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Taygibay

I'd have to disagree with you overall correct correction, Gambit.

Supercruise is the ability to maintain supersonic speeds hence the Super / cruise affix.

At minima this can means achieving Mach 1 + with afterburners and maintaining it without them.
What you describe is the best case scenario; more rare then most people think.

But on the rest you are right and both other posters were wrong.

Have a good day all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> You are wrong. It is clear you do not know even the basics of a jet engine, let alone on what is 'supercruise'.
> 
> Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Basically, it means to break Mach *WITHOUT* using the inefficient afterburner.
> 
> 
> The F-35 can transonic without using afterburner and can do it for over 100 nm.
> 
> Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If the F-35 cannot supercruise for as long and as far as the F-22 can, it is because of the engine's design and intention, not because the F-35's body drag. For what the F-35 was designed for, supercruise is not needed, and the fact that the F-35 can break Mach for over 100 miles without afterburner is impressive on its own.
> 
> Please stop pretending you know what you are talking about. I am not a Propulsion specialist and I know more than you do.


You have no basic knowledge of science and make me look you down.
It's not my duty to educate you and above troller here.

Just remind you: Super-cruise or not depends on drag, not engine. *F-22 will lost its super-cruise ability with external load.*

With WS-10 or AL-31, J-20 may take longer time than F-22 to reach to super-cruise.

Anyway, J-20 supercruise tested already.

ciao

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> You have no basic knowledge of science and make me look you down.
> It's not my duty to educate you and above troller here.
> 
> Just remind you: Super-cruise or not depends on drag, not engine. *F-22 will lost its super-cruise ability with external load.*
> 
> With WS-10 or AL-31, J-20 may take longer time than F-22 to reach to super-cruise.
> 
> Anyway, J-20 supercruise tested already.
> 
> ciao


Drag does have an effect on the ability of any body to reach a certain speed. But this is about engine design, as in efficiency, than it is about body drag. Mach is about breaking the sound barrier. How you do that depends on the propulsive means. You can use a rocket engine or a jet engine, but if you are going to use a jet engine, then to date, the only way a jet engine can make a body break Mach is thru afterburner.

Supercruise is the production of thrust *BEFORE AFTERBURNER* that are enough to help the aircraft break Mach.

Engines: Supercruise - How F/A-22 Raptors Work


> ...fly at supersonic speeds without using the afterburner.
> 
> Combined with the sleek aerodynamic design, the engines allow the Raptor to cruise at supersonic speeds with less fuel consumption than any other aircraft.


If the combination is a clean F-22 with X amount of thrust to supercruise, then the goal is achieved. If the request is a clean F-22 or an F-22 with external load, then the engine must be (re)designed to meet that request. But no matter what, the proper context of 'supercruise' is the ability of an engine designed to match an aircraft to make that aircraft break and sustain Mach without the use of afterburner. For the F-22, it require two F119-PW-100 engines to make the jet supercruise. So it is not simply drag but also mass/weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> Drag does have an effect on the ability of any body to reach a certain speed. But this is about engine design, as in efficiency, than it is about body drag. Mach is about breaking the sound barrier. How you do that depends on the propulsive means. You can use a rocket engine or a jet engine, but if you are going to use a jet engine, then to date, the only way a jet engine can make a body break Mach is thru afterburner.
> 
> Supercruise is the production of thrust *BEFORE AFTERBURNER* that are enough to help the aircraft break Mach.
> 
> Engines: Supercruise - How F/A-22 Raptors Work
> 
> If the combination is a clean F-22 with X amount of thrust to supercruise, then the goal is achieved. If the request is a clean F-22 or an F-22 with external load, then the engine must be (re)designed to meet that request. But no matter what, the proper context of 'supercruise' is the ability of an engine designed to match an aircraft to make that aircraft break and sustain Mach without the use of afterburner. For the F-22, it require two F119-PW-100 engines to make the jet supercruise. So it is not simply drag but also mass/weight.



I'm not surprised at all: you're trying to invent an only-for-non-Chinese science again (and again).

*Supercuise is nothing new and thereof to be proud, there do have many aircraft are capable of it.
*
British achieved supercruise 60 years ago with BAC Lightning, the engine it used is R-R Avon which is a turbojet only.
This engine has other applications as Hawker hunter, Saab 35 Draken without supercruise ability.

Not surprised, your theory is sick.

Anyone with science education will agree:* it's the low aerodynamic drag not engine (though it at least must be a jet engine) supercruise an aircraft.*

F-22 will lose supercuise with external loading, F-15 will not supercruise even with two F-119.
I predict F-22 will maintain supercruise even with F-100.

Do remember any satellite is super-super-super-cruising at no less than M23 in outerspace with or without a toy size engine for there have almost zero drag there.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jhungary

longlong said:


> I'm not surprised at all: you're trying to invent an only-for-non-Chinese science again (and again).
> 
> *Supercuise is nothing new and thereof to be proud, there do have many aircraft are capable of it.
> *
> British achieved supercruise 60 years ago with BAC Lightning, the engine it used is R-R Avon which is a turbojet only.
> This engine has other applications as Hawker hunter, Saab 35 Draken without supercruise ability.
> 
> Not surprised, your theory is sick.
> 
> Anyone with science education will agree:* it's the low aerodynamic drag not engine (though it at least must be a jet engine) supercruise an aircraft.*
> 
> F-22 will lose supercuise with external loading, F-15 will not supercruise even with two F-119.
> I predict F-22 will maintain supercruise even with F-100.
> 
> Do remember any satellite is super-super-super-cruising at no less than M23 in outerspace with or without a toy size engine for there have almost zero drag there.



low drag will affect speed, but the effect is parabolic, which mean regardless of engine put, the speed will decrease due to drag and at a lower altitudes, the speed will drop slower as air is denser.

However , supercruise is the ability to stay above MACH without the use of afterburner. You can go above MACH regardless of w/d ratio as the speed provide (The forward momentum) would always greater than the Drag, thus, will always accelerate

However, the drag of a planes are always constant as the shape of the plane wont change, but if the engine efficiency is high enough to Pull the plane, that plane, regardless of drag would achieve supercruise, given the engine output or the efficiency stayed above the drag

Hence, you are wrong


----------



## longlong

jhungary said:


> low drag will affect speed, but the effect is parabolic, which mean regardless of engine put, the speed will decrease due to drag and at a lower altitudes, the speed will drop slower as air is denser.
> 
> However , supercruise is the ability to stay above MACH without the use of afterburner. You can go above MACH regardless of w/d ratio as the speed provide (The forward momentum) would always greater than the Drag, thus, will always accelerate
> 
> However, the drag of a planes are always constant as the shape of the plane wont change, but if the engine efficiency is high enough to Pull the plane, that plane, regardless of drag would achieve supercruise, given the engine output or the efficiency stayed above the drag
> 
> Hence, you are wrong



You're roughly correct except last sentence.

Plus, drag is not constant, it related to shape, speed, windspeed, humility, temperature, etc.

It's not the efficiency of engine, it's the efficiency of aerodynamic of body to supercruise an aircraft.

We had jet engine before we achieved a supersonic flight only we found the efficiency body design.

I would like to say: *Aircraft with enough low drag will achieve supercruise with any jet engine like British did it 60 years ago.*

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> You're roughly correct except last sentence.
> 
> *Plus, drag is not constant, it related to shape, speed, windspeed, humility, temperature, etc.*
> 
> It's not the efficiency of engine, it's the efficiency of aerodynamic of body to supercruise an aircraft.
> 
> We had jet engine before we achieved a supersonic flight only we found the efficiency body design.
> 
> I would like to say: *Aircraft with enough low drag will achieve supercruise with any jet engine like British did it 60 years ago.*


If that is the crux of your argument, then why not put *ANY* aircraft into thin enough air and say: 'Voila...Supercruise'.

Even wiki pegged you wrong...

Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The key challenge in attaining supercruise is not simply attaining a high thrust to weight ratio vis-à-vis the aircraft but *a radical redesign of the engine* because the air entering a jet engine must always travel at subsonic speeds, regardless of aircraft speed.


Look at your own argument back on post 4410...


> British achieved supercruise 60 years ago with BAC Lightning, the engine it used is R-R Avon which is a turbojet only.


The engine is a *TURBOJET* type, not a turbofan.

The turbojet is much more efficient than a turbofan, which is used in the majority of jet engines, military and civilian, today. Beyond the turbojet would be the ramjet which is the most efficient of all and which is what the SR-71 uses.

The _F119-PW-100 _is technically a low bypass turbofan type but is efficient enough that it is considered to be 'near turbojet' type.

You dispute that engine efficiency is the key to supercruise but then brought on a source that shows *EXACTLY* what you challenged.


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> If that is the crux of your argument, then why not put *ANY* aircraft into thin enough air and say: 'Voila...Supercruise'.


Supercuise is not as important as you thought. It comes at cost of short range, less load.

It is not required by F-35 and future 6th gen aircraft.




gambit said:


> The turbojet is much more efficient than a turbofan, which is used in the majority of jet engines, military and civilian, today. Beyond the turbojet would be the ramjet which is the most efficient of all and which is what the SR-71 uses.
> 
> The _F119-PW-100 _is technically a low bypass turbofan type but is efficient enough that it is considered to be 'near turbojet' type.
> 
> You dispute that engine efficiency is the key to supercruise but then brought on a source that shows *EXACTLY* what you challenged.



ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????

*Do you really know what is turbojet and what is turbofan?*

Or your many years aviation experiences before retirement was doing a vacuum job on commercial aeroplane?

No time to talk to all these keyboard-professionals, check it out yourselves and compare the efficiency of two engines:

Jet engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## j20dragon

gambit said:


> If that is the crux of your argument, then why not put *ANY* aircraft into thin enough air and say: 'Voila...Supercruise'.
> 
> Even wiki pegged you wrong...
> 
> Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Look at your own argument back on post 4410...
> 
> The engine is a *TURBOJET* type, not a turbofan.
> 
> *The turbojet is much more efficient than a turbofan*, which is used in the majority of jet engines, military and civilian, today. Beyond the turbojet would be the ramjet which is the most efficient of all and which is what the SR-71 uses.
> 
> The _F119-PW-100 _is technically a low bypass turbofan type but is efficient enough that it is considered to be 'near turbojet' type.
> 
> You dispute that engine efficiency is the key to supercruise but then brought on a source that shows *EXACTLY* what you challenged.


WHAT? LOLOL

"*Turbofans are generally more efficient than turbojets* at subsonic speeds, but they have a larger frontal area which generates more drag." LOL

Jet engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> Supercuise is not as important as you thought. It comes at cost of short range, less load.
> 
> It is not required by F-35 and future 6th gen aircraft.


And yet you guys uses it to criticize the F-35 and insist the J-20 will have it.



longlong said:


> ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????


No...I am educating you.



longlong said:


> Do you really know what is turbojet and what is turbofan?
> 
> Or your many years aviation experiences before retirement was doing a vacuum job on commercial aeroplane?
> 
> No time to talk to all these keyboard-professionals, check it out yourselves and compare the efficiency of two engines:
> 
> Jet engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I may not be a Propulsion specialist, but I understand the jet engine better *THAN ALL OF YOU CHINESE ON THIS FORUM COMBINED*.







For the above illustration, we see two different sub-types of the turbofan jet engine: high bypass (top) and low bypass (bottom).

The goal of the jet engine is to use *ALL* of intake air, but unfortunately, there are disadvantages to that...

Turbojets


> *Turbojets tend to be inefficient except at high speeds, so modern aircraft use turbofans instead.* Since the basic operation of a turbojet is simpler, we will begin our discussion of jet engines with turbojets.
> 
> Propulsive efficiency of turbojets increases as the aircraft velocity increases, but the aircraft typically must be supersonic before turbojet propulsive efficiencies approach levels that can compete with propellers.


Because we want jet fighters to be as useful as possible at a widest possible range of altitude and airspeed, the turbojet is excluded which lead us to the turbofan design, which is what we see in the illustration above.

Bypass air is the airflow that *DO NOT* enter the combustion chamber...

Bypass ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The bypass ratio (BPR) of a turbofan engine is the ratio between the mass flow rate of air drawn through the fan disk that *bypasses the engine core (un-combusted air)* to the mass flow rate passing through the engine core that is involved in combustion to produce mechanical energy.


A ramjet and turbojet have zero bypass air.


> In a pure (zero-bypass) jet engine, all the air taken in is involved in combustion;...


The percentage of bypass air to combustion (burned) air is that bypass ratio, of which the civilian high bypass design is common and the military low bypass design is common.

If supercruise is no big deal, as you absurdly declared...



longlong said:


> Supercuise is nothing new and thereof to be proud, there do have many aircraft are capable of it.


Then why is the J-20 not capable of it *TODAY* ?

Answer: Because the technical difficulties of supercruise in a *TURBOFAN* design is a big deal.

You want to supercruise ? Fine, then get a turbojet. But like I often said many times on this forum before: That I have a great deal of respect for the Chinese engineers who *ACTUALLY WORKS ON JET FIGHTERS*, a group does not includes the Chinese members here. These professionals know that in order to get a turbofan to supercruise a jet fighter, even as aerodynamically sleek as the F-22 or the J-20 or the smaller F-16, they need something very close to the efficiency of a turbojet -- without being a turbojet.

You are just like the other Chinese members here: Bring on a source but does not understand it.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## The enlightened

longlong said:


> thanks, nothing you contributed.



I helped expand the comprehension skills of you and your comrade and provided a valuable example to readers with similar mental deficiency about the perils of posting sources without reading it themselves first.

Turbofans move more air and have better efficiency at low altitude and low speed giving short take-offs and much better range due to the fact that most jets don't need to go supersonic. However they get increasingly inefficient with increasing speed (not to mention draggier because of the big fan). Hence for super cruising aircraft like the Concorde or Tu-144, you'd take a turbojet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> And yet you guys uses it to criticize the F-35 and insist the J-20 will have it.
> 
> 
> No...I am educating you.
> 
> 
> I may not be a Propulsion specialist, but I understand the jet engine better *THAN ALL OF YOU CHINESE ON THIS FORUM COMBINED*.
> 
> View attachment 195932
> 
> 
> For the above illustration, we see two different sub-types of the turbofan jet engine: high bypass (top) and low bypass (bottom).
> 
> The goal of the jet engine is to use *ALL* of intake air, but unfortunately, there are disadvantages to that...
> 
> Turbojets
> 
> Because we want jet fighters to be as useful as possible at a widest possible range of altitude and airspeed, the turbojet is excluded which lead us to the turbofan design, which is what we see in the illustration above.
> 
> Bypass air is the airflow that *DO NOT* enter the combustion chamber...
> 
> Bypass ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A ramjet and turbojet have zero bypass air.
> 
> The percentage of bypass air to combustion (burned) air is that bypass ratio, of which the civilian high bypass design is common and the military low bypass design is common.
> 
> If supercruise is no big deal, as you absurdly declared...
> 
> 
> Then why is the J-20 not capable of it *TODAY* ?
> 
> Answer: Because the technical difficulties of supercruise in a *TURBOFAN* design is a big deal.
> 
> You want to supercruise ? Fine, then get a turbojet. But like I often said many times on this forum before: That I have a great deal of respect for the Chinese engineers who *ACTUALLY WORKS ON JET FIGHTERS*, a group does not includes the Chinese members here. These professionals know that in order to get a turbofan to supercruise a jet fighter, even as aerodynamically sleek as the F-22 or the J-20 or the smaller F-16, they need something very close to the efficiency of a turbojet -- without being a turbojet.
> 
> You are just like the other Chinese members here: Bring on a source but does not understand it.



Hurry up!

In the previous post, you forgot to read properly the internet stuffs and pasted it too fast.

Now it's the time to google again! It's no use, whatever you do, it's just too late.

======

Check your post, wtf:

_"The turbojet is much more efficient than a turbofan, which is used in the majority of jet engines, military and civilian, today. "
_
You really don't know what is turbofan and turbojet before my last post.

Haha, ciao.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> Hurry up!
> 
> In the previous post, you forgot to read properly the internet stuffs and pasted it too fast.
> 
> Now it's the time to google again!
> 
> Check your post, wtf:
> 
> _"The turbojet is much more efficient than a turbofan, which is used in the majority of jet engines, military and civilian, today. "_


Very good that you can read. Too bad what you posted debunked your own argument: That engine efficiency is less important than body drag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

longlong said:


> You're roughly correct except last sentence.
> 
> Plus, drag is not constant, it related to shape, speed, windspeed, humility, temperature, etc.
> 
> It's not the efficiency of engine, it's the efficiency of aerodynamic of body to supercruise an aircraft.
> 
> We had jet engine before we achieved a supersonic flight only we found the efficiency body design.
> 
> I would like to say: *Aircraft with enough low drag will achieve supercruise with any jet engine like British did it 60 years ago.*



Lets look at it this way, why a perfectly aerodynamic clean low weight Formula One racer have less sustained too speed than a More Heavy, less aerodynamic stable of a bugetti Veyon?

For an object to supercruise, that object have to be able to have a larger forward momentum than the reaction force, and the second requirment is that this object have to be able to sustain the forward monentum, given if the reaction force unchange.

Now, in a 2 dimension plane, the forward momentum is the engine thrust pushing the object forward and the lift that generate from the air pass thru the wing. The reaction force is the weight of the craft as well as the dynamic turbulence that create a downward force and the reaction force that pull the object back to counter the thrust.

Now, for a given object flow thru air , there will be an optimal aerodynamic shape that either the object evolve to or natually come with the object. ThE optimal aerodynamic shape represent the lowest limit of the aerodynamic drag created by an object, and you cannot go any lower than that.

Say for an example, lets say for a J20 to get to optimal aerodynamic shape, it have to be clean , no external disruption, having 60% fuel and wing folded. 

And any change in this configuration will disrupt the air flow to the object and unbalance the aircraft. If the aircraft have more fuel, the weight induce drag, if the aircraft have less fuel, the lift induced drag will be higher, if thecraft have external loading, it would creat drag and so on

Now if in this state you have an Engine it can supercruise at FL300, but it would not mean they can automatically achieve Supercruiser at an lower alt. Even at optimal aerodynamic form. As the air is denser in lower atmosphere, then the engine efficiency is the sole factor on can an object achieve supercruise as the optimal aerodynamic form is constant.

For an aircraft, there are only a few parameter it can be changed during flight, you can change the wing angle of attack and you can change the weight, but the optimal setting for each craft is set during the designing phase and that shape will be constant throughtout. In commercial aviation, the setting is ised to determine the optimal glide speed. Where the only other factor that can significant alter a flight profile is the engine output.

Come back to the question on why an aerodynamically clean F1 racer have a lower sustained too speed than a Veyron. The Engine, the engine on an F1 racer is limited to V6 capacity, at that stage, it cannot have enough efficiency to break a certain speed barrier while the veyron have a W16 engine, at 800bhp, every horsepower produced will only have 1/6 translated to pulling the car forward, the other goes to counter the.drag That is why aerodynamical shape is not as important than Engine in a sense of achieve a higher sustainable top speed


----------



## Taygibay

Gambit, please hear me out and through.

Supercruise the word is a juxtaposition of supersonic and cruise.
Supercruise is then the ability to maintain flight above Mach1, period.

Supercruise the capacity is doing so without using afterburners.
Any jet with enough dry thrust can do that. To be precise, many jets can maintain supercruise today and any of them can get there on dry thrust.

Supercruise hides the following facts however : power, drag, load and fuel fraction.

There are many ways to combine these :
A- a given engine dry thrust used on different aircrafts.
Any engine generating a supersonic exhaust flux can supercruise alone as in a rocket. If applied to a heavy enough or not sufficiently aerodynamic body however, it will not be powerful enough to attain M1 and thus the combination will not supercruise.

B- a drag factor can be changed up or down in many ways.
Have a more aerodynamic shape; reduce friction : either by flying in more rarefied air ( HA ) or by disrupting the air through any method thus cutting down its density, etc.

C- load variation : once the above two are combined, load comes into play and reducing overall weight favors achieving supercruise while heightening it can nullify the ability.

D- fuel availability : once the above three are combined the quantity of fuel available can be enough to supercruise for 1 Nautical Mile or for 1 000 NM.


Many fighters and at least one civilian aircraft ( Concorde ) can supercruise. This however varies in practical use.

Any plane that can fly over M1 on dry thrust can de facto reach that speed without afterburners. Which does not mean however that it can do so usefully. Thus, one must factor in all of the above to find what results can be gotten from this ability.

If you use say 80% of your fuel through dry thrust to reach M1, supercruise means getting airborne, breaking Mach, flying 1 NM, turning around and landing. In such a set-up, it would not matter what military load you carry, tactical application would be zero.

Using afterburners to reach M1 is the solution as it consumes more fuel for a shorter period but less overall and leaves more of the total available to cruise afterwards. Since drag is reduced considerably past the sound barrier and less fuel needs to be consumed, the result would be a greatly improved supercruise distance by that same aircraft. The same as above then provides say 40% instead of 20% remaining fuel and 10NM instead of 1.
Let us suppose for an instant that your M1 able engine-aircraft combination does not have afterburners. You would be left with one choice to augment supercruise distance : diminish load to reduce drag.
Strip the aircraft of all unnecessary weight : take off the weaponry for instance! The combo can now supercruise longer but tactical application is again zero. You can reach the enemy in time but not fight it once there.

Another precision : supercruise capacity varies in distance as we just saw but also in speed. Supercruising for an hour at M1 gets you less distance covered than supercruising at M1.4 for an hour and that in turn less than supercruising at M1.8.

Finally, the law of diminishing returns applies to all of the above so that all supercruise options outlined come at a cost that gets higher and higher as performances increase, again possibly resulting in zero tactical application under varying scenarii.

All of the above means that supercruise itself can be had without any military benefits ensuing and that each context of use is different, i.e. the word itself does not define the qualitative advantages of its implementation.


Is then the F-22 better at it than the rest?
You bet it is : head and shoulders above the rest in fact! The Raptor can supercruise at M1.5 / M1.7 with full air superiority armament ( 6 AIM-120 + 2 AIM-9 ) for over 200NM ( exact number being classified ).
Let us be clear : no other aircraft in use or under development as of today ( Feb_March 2015 ) can or will match this, period.

The best - Rafale / Typhoon / Gripen can supercruise at 1.4, 1.3 and 1.2 Mach in combat configurations respectively for instance, sure but ...
in all three cases, with less than maximum number of missiles and/or less than maximum number of external fuel stores.
Taking the Rafale as an example to avoid offending sensibilities, it goes something like 6 MICA ( out of a possible 10 ) and no fuel tanks or 4 MICA and a supersonic belly tank and so on, all at M1.4. That means the load and fuel fraction factors are well below the full configuration and tactical application below the ideal 100%. Range, for one, would be severely reduced.
To get to M1.5 on dry thrust, Rafale or Typhoon would need to be in clean configuration ( nothing hanging out ) which brings us back to zero tactical application.
Again, the Raptor can achieve its numbers with all fuel and weapons or full configuration if you prefer, thanks to its all internal stealth design.

Even then the cost however is immense : 25% reduction in max. range for 100NM travelled and again, the law of diminishing returns makes anything beyond more and more costly.
Oh! And for all, even the Raptor, this is only possible at high altitude.

What all of this means is that : the Raptor is the only plane that can boast of *routine* use of supercruise vs less than a handful that can make _*possible *( or occasional )_ use of it and a long list of aircrafts that have the ability itself but just can_*no*_*t* extract *any military* use from it.

I hope you were able to last through this long diatribe of an explanation and that it will come in handy.

And, I am sorry to say this as it may sound disrespectful but it is not, merely preventive, without doubting your credentials, my sources for the above include the USAF itself. Here are a couple simple examples

F-22 demonstrates 'supercruise' for first time
" … In the context of the F-22 Raptor, *supercruise* is *defined* as the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration.Jul 21, 1999
"Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor," said Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. … "

F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display
" … The F-22 engines produce more thrust than any current fighter engine. The combination of sleek aerodynamic design and increased thrust allows the F-22 to cruise at supersonic airspeeds (greater than 1.5 Mach) without using afterburner -- a characteristic known as supercruise. Supercruise greatly expands the F-22 's operating envelope in both speed and range over current fighters, which must use fuel-consuming afterburner to operate at supersonic speeds. ...'

and a shorter version of my post for the most impatient of PDF members :
What Is Supercruise? (with pictures) from which :
" … A supercruise aircraft generally utilizes afterburners to accelerate from subsonic to supersonic velocity, although this is because of concerns about fuel efficiency rather than strict necessity, in most cases. …"

And a very good day to you all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## longlong

Quote from Strategypage 17 Feb, all rights reserved.
Warplanes: And Then There Were Five Chinese Stealth Fighters

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> *The turbojet is much more efficient than a turbofan*, which is used in the majority of jet engines, military and civilian, today. Beyond the turbojet would be the ramjet which is the most efficient of all and which is what the SR-71 uses.
> 
> The _F119-PW-100 _is technically a low bypass turbofan type but is efficient enough that it is considered to be 'near turbojet' type.
> 
> You dispute that engine efficiency is the key to supercruise but then brought on a source that shows *EXACTLY* what you challenged.




*Your claim is totally wrong. Everyone knows a turbofan is more efficient than a turbojet.*

----------
Turbofan Engine | NASA

"Most modern airliners use turbofan engines because of their high thrust and good fuel efficiency. ...*Low bypass ratio turbofans are still more fuel efficient than basic turbojets.*"

----------




"TSFC - Thrust specific fuel consumption. Lower number indicates greater efficiency."

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

longlong said:


> Quote from Strategypage 17 Feb, all rights reserved.
> Warplanes: And Then There Were Five Chinese Stealth Fighters



Sorry and You take Strategypage for a reliable source !????  ... even more if right the first sentence is already wrong ? '2015' is not the fifth but already the sixth J-20 to fly. 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

Deino said:


> Sorry and You take Strategypage for a reliable source !????  ... even more if right the first sentence is already wrong ? '2015' is not the fifth but already the sixth J-20 to fly.
> 
> Deino



China stealth fighter a 'masterpiece' of homegrown technology - Telegraph

"Jan 25, 2011 - *A senior Chinese test pilot, Xu Yongling, told the paper that J-20 possessed advanced supersonic cruise ability* and other 'breakthrough' ..."

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Martian2 said:


> China stealth fighter a 'masterpiece' of homegrown technology - Telegraph
> 
> "Jan 25, 2011 - *A senior Chinese test pilot, Xu Yongling, told the paper that J-20 possessed advanced supersonic cruise ability* and other 'breakthrough' ..."




Come on ! A report written in 2011 when that type was just unveiled and quoting a source like this way is simply a statement that the final version powered by WS-15 will have that capability, but not that the prototype already can supercruise.

Don't get me wrong and I even more do not want to underrate the J-20, its capabilities and even more its meaning for the PLAAF, but such reports cannot be taken word-by-word, esp. since we don't know the whole context of Xu's statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Deino said:


> Come on ! A report written in 2011 when that type was just unveiled and quoting a source like this way is simply a statement that the final version powered by WS-15 will have that capability, but not that the prototype already can supercruise.
> 
> Don't get me wrong and I even more do not want to underrate the J-20, its capabilities and even more its meaning for the PLAAF, but such reports cannot be taken word-by-word, esp. since we don't know the whole context of Xu's statement.



Okay. I agree with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Great One

@Deino you banned @gambit and @The enlightened for what reason exactly? For proving your Chinese pals wrong?


----------



## SpArK

@gambit banned.?

Maybe he has to stop arguing and start to agree whatever is said in this thread.


----------



## Beast

The Great One said:


> @Deino you banned @gambit and @The enlightened for what reason exactly? For proving your Chinese pals wrong?


Gambit is a proven troll. Good that he is banned.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Deino

Ähhm No, I did not ban him !???


----------



## Sasquatch

The Great One said:


> @Deino you banned @gambit and @The enlightened for what reason exactly? For proving your Chinese pals wrong?





SpArK said:


> @gambit banned.?
> 
> Maybe he has to stop arguing and start to agree whatever is said in this thread.



Gambit received an infraction for an off topic post, he had infractions from a prior thread which resulted in his ban. Deino did not ban him I did, Enlightened was banned for trolling/off topic posts in another thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## longlong

Deino said:


> Sorry and You take Strategypage for a reliable source !????  ... even more if right the first sentence is already wrong ? '2015' is not the fifth but already the sixth J-20 to fly.
> 
> Deino



Strategypage need go back to primary school to learn how to do finger count.

So far (as till 26 Feb 2015), J-20 with number painting *2001, 2002, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015* are fly tested and sighted.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

longlong said:


> Strategypage need go back to primary school to learn how to do finger count.
> 
> So far (as till 26 Feb 2015), J-20 with number painting *2001, 2002, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015* are fly tested and sighted.



It should be 2001-2002-2011-2012-2013-2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

To date, there have been six Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter prototypes.

1. 2001
2. 2002
3. 2011 - When the numbering system moves into the tenth place, it means a major upgrade or finalized specifications. Both EOTS (ie. eletro-optical targeting system) and DAS (ie. distributed aperture system) first showed up on J-20 2011.
4. 2012
5. 2013
[2014] - Since "14" is a homonym for "I die" in Chinese, the designation is not used.
6. 2015
----------
China Defense Blog: December 2014

*J-20 prototype 2015 conducts its maiden flight*

















*Other J-20 prototypes that are still flying*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Taygibay

@Martian2

Just a small call, mate!
[ … that considering some tensions on fora and specifically between some nationalities, I feel obligated to mention is not an ad patriam attack at all. ]

That composite image with the dual and expanded views of the tail surface is most likely a non-issue.
It does not _conclusively_ show differences in shape between the two images.






If we start with the AC at level and rate that 0 degrees, then tilt it to the left to get the first view it reaches somewhere in the vicinity of 65+ degrees. The one at top right has passed 105 degrees, probably 110+. ( The directional line of progression is also different from one to the other. )
The tail surface we are looking at is made of two plane parts ( both meanings of plane incl. geometry one ). The stabilizer add-on is seen almost face on and the main fuselage extension encircled is a complex trapezoidal shape to boot tapering from a thick facet inside to sharp edge outboard. By comparison, in the above right image, the stabilizer is reduced to a sliver due tot the different angle and the piece seen protruding below the red circle is now the J_20's portside vertical fin.

To show how perspective influences resulting views, ( which I surmise you know but not clearly whomever made that )
just check how this surface seems close to the port/encircled engine and how big a gap shows on the top/starboard engine on the same leftmost pic, which we then find reproduced the other way around on the second image ( the same gap is seen in circle but would not appear if we had a view of the other side that is cut by top picture border ).

The exact same considerations apply to the rear angle the poster interpreted as being differently shaped. Knowing the implications of the above explanations and again specifying that the two images have the planes shown facing in different directions ( top is coming towards our right as observers while left/bottom is moving straight tight if not somewhat away ), I am far from convinced to say the least that the discrepancy even exists.
To verify this doubt, just compare the original uncut view of #215 ( your top most image ) to the one of #213 ( your bottom most one ) which have less of a tilt spread between their PoV angles and you'll find the mirrored angles of that edge to be pretty darn similar.
One could finally add that the shaded areas in the composite are a manipulation : the cut of leftmost being made to fit the wing sweep; the canard and wing of top right extending into the close-up & an unexplained shadow protruding over the wing that does not fit any part of the plane in the close-up as if a botched attempt to show the vertical fin extending but spaced leftward inexplicably.

My conclusion is that the composite image is at best meaningless and at worst made-up, i.e. a lie.
I, for one, am NOT saying this is means anything regarding the program or the number of J-20 produced/flying. It only raises serious questions as to either the understanding or integrity of the person that manipulated these images and does not in any way detracts from the program's worth or China's honesty …
but its value as an informative piece is non-existent.

Thank you BTW for your statement on the decimal meaning to which I agree entirely, the 01-02 being testbeds for the aerodynamic formula and flight qualities of the platform without much or any military electronics and the ones past the ten mark those fitted with war systems, something that I had arrived at on my own ( A.K.A development program jump/increment ).

Ni Hao, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Chengdu J-20 Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)*











What is EOTS? Since we expect the Chengdu J-20 EOTS to have similar capabilities as the F-35 EOTS, let's use the Deagel definition for the F-35 EOTS.

EOTS
"The EOTS comprises a third generation FLIR, a laser, and a CCD-TV camera providing target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges, high resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared search and track IRST, laser designation, laser rangefinder, and laser spot tracking. The EOTS F-35 sub-system functionality could be expanded in the future."










----------

*What is the range of an EOTS? About 40 to 100 km (assuming the Chengdu J-20 EOTS is comparable to a French Rafale EOTS).*

http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf





----------

Criticism that F-35 EOTS is ten-year-old technology.

Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter '10 Years Behind' Older Jets - The Daily Beast
"The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. *The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.*

'EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and *there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth*,' said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. 'I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.'"

Is The F-35's Targeting System Really 10 Years Behind Current Systems?
"First off, yes the F-35's EOTS hardware is now dated as it was based on emerging technology that would be included in the first generation SNIPER targeting pod, which is now more than 10 years old. *Although some of the internal components of the systems can be upgraded, apparently it is not a plug-and-play affair. All the systems on the F-35 are 'fused' and many are related to one another. If something requires more processing power, cooling or power where will that processing power, cooling or power come from?*






There are also limitations as to just how much EOTS can be upgraded even if it were replaced in full by a totally new system. This is due to the tight internal dimensions that the systems is housed in within the F-35's nose, as well as the field-of-view of the faceted sapphire glass window that it looks out of.

Bottom line, the system probably could could be upgraded for higher-resolution and magnification, but it would not be a cheap or easy affair when compared with strapping on a new targeting pod and integrating into an F-16's 'discreet' avionics suite."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Taygibay said:


> @Martian2
> 
> Just a small call, mate!
> [ … that considering some tensions on fora and specifically between some nationalities, I feel obligated to mention is not an ad patriam attack at all. ]
> 
> That composite image with the dual and expanded views of the tail surface is most likely a non-issue.
> It does not _conclusively_ show differences in shape between the two images.
> ...
> My conclusion is that the composite image is at best meaningless and at worst made-up, i.e. a lie.
> I, for one, am NOT saying this is means anything regarding the program or the number of J-20 produced/flying. It only raises serious questions as to either the understanding or integrity of the person that manipulated these images and does not in any way detracts from the program's worth or China's honesty …
> but its value as an informative piece is non-existent.
> ....




Not sure why so much bitterness and hate in such a minor detail ?? ... and simply YOU are wrong. We have so many images of all 201x-aircraft that clearly show that it is not an issue of perspective or angle of view but simply a reshaped tail boom and that alone on 2015. Why only on 2015 I don't know but it is undeniable, simply a fact ... nothing more, nothing special and even more nothing to make a mess about !

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

PS ... probably even better if a bit small !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taygibay

Deino said:


> Not sure why so much bitterness and hate in such a minor detail ?? ... and simply YOU are wrong. … Why only on 2015 I don't know but it is undeniable, simply a fact ... nothing more, nothing special and even more nothing to make a mess about !



Thank you for your pictures & information, Deino! It does prove the tail surface to be different which the one I analyzed did not. You are entirely right on that!
Then again, I only questioned and analyzed that single composite image with many manipulations which is stated clearly in my message.

At the same time however, I wonder about your tone? _Bitterness? Hate? Mess?_ I do not know what in my post could be construed as such.
From top & intro : [ _… that considering some tensions on fora and specifically between some nationalities, I feel obligated to mention is not an ad patriam attack at all._ ]
The next to last paragraph said :
_"I, for one, am NOT saying this means anything regarding the program or the number of J-20 produced/flying … and does not in any way detract from the program's worth or China's honesty …"_
*That* got passed you? OK! Knowing then what eventually happens when management members take a personal view to any poster, I will take the adequate preventive measures to make sure problems do not resurface.

Xiéxie yě zai jiàn mǒurén yí ge yóuhǎo mínzú, Tay.


----------



## SOHEIL

Martian2 said:


> Since "14" is a homonym for "I die"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Chengdu J-20 EODAS*

EODAS is an acronym for electro-optical distributed aperture system. Basically, it's a 360-degree spherical infrared detection system.
----------

*Chengdu J-20 six EODAS sensor locations*

J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Balances Speed And Agility | Zhuhai 2014 content from Aviation Week






----------

*In-depth coverage of F-35 EODAS*

Infrared detectors on American and Chinese missiles, MANPADS, and satellites are similar in technical specifications. Thus, the American and Chinese EODAS should be pretty similar too in technical performance.





----------

*More information about EODAS from Northrop Grumman*

New J-20 Equipped with EODAS Similar to F-35 Surpasses F-22 | Errymath

"*New J-20 Equipped with EODAS Similar to F-35 Surpasses F-22*





_New version of J-20 is equipped with EODAS (Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System)_





_EODAS slot in the belly of the new version of J-20_





_EODAS slots in J-20 number 2001_

J-20 is designed for grabbing air dominance from US F-22 but F-35 is a later fighter than F-22. J-20’s designers want it have as advanced functions and performance as F-35. As a result, it is a better rival to F-22 as it is installed a EODAS similar to F-35 but F-22 does not have such a system.

As for EODAS’ wonderful functions, I am going to give the passages of its inventor Northrop Grumman’s article 'AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35' on it below:

Northrop Grumman has developed the only 360 degree, spherical situational awareness system in the electro-optical distributed aperture system (EODAS). The DAS surrounds the aircraft with a protective sphere of situational awareness. It warns the pilot of incoming aircraft and missile threats as well as providing day/night vision, fire control capability and precision tracking of wingmen/friendly aircraft for tactical maneuvering.

Designated the AN/AAQ-37 and comprising six electro-optical sensors, the full EO DAS will enhance the F-35′s survivability and operational effectiveness by warning the pilot of incoming aircraft and missile threats, providing day/night vision and supporting the navigation function of the F-35 Lightning II’s forward-looking infrared sensor.

The DAS provides:

•Missile detection and tracking
•Launch point detection
•Situational awareness IRST & cueing
•Weapons support
•Day/night navigation

In addition to developing the EO DAS, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems is supplying the F-35′s AN/APG-81 advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) fire-control radar. The AESA radar is designed to enable the pilot to effectively engage air and ground targets at long range, while also providing outstanding situational awareness.

F-35 DAS and APG-81 radar demonstrate ability to detect, track, target ballistic missiles Northrop Grumman Corporation recently demonstrated the ballistic missile detection, tracking and targeting capabilities of the company’s AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system (DAS) and AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, both of which are featured on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft. Northrop Grumman’s DAS and APG-81 autonomously detected, tracked and targeted multiple, simultaneous ballistic rockets. The DAS autonomously detected all five rockets, launched in rapid succession, and tracked them from initial launch well past the second stage burnout. Press release.

F-35 DAS demonstrates hostile fire detection capability

While being flown on Northrop Grumman’s BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area. Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission. This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload. Press release.

China has kept J-20 a mystery so that we have no official source of information about J-20. However Chinese military analysts and fans have great interest in J-20, especially in the question of whether it is a rival to F-22 for air dominance.

I am going to show some photos, based on which analysts believe the new version of J-20 is equipped with EODAS. The slots in red circles in the photos are believed to be the locations of the sensors of the J-20’s EODAS system.

Sources: huanqiu.com 'Super functions of China’s J-20 to kill US F-22: The secret lies in the slots on its nose' and qianzhan.com 'J-20 surpasses US F-22 by using EODAS' (summary by Chan Kai Yee)
Source: Northrop Grumman 'AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35'"

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## cirr

A top secret combat unit for the test operations of J-20s and other soon-to-be-inducted advanced weapons has been formed by the PLAAF， according to Ms Li Hong，a member of the military delegation to the NPC and CPPCC sessions currently being held in Beijing。

军队委员李鸿：空军组建第一支作战试验部队_央广网

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Any ide what unit, where based ... and if indeed reliable ??


----------



## Deino

Nice shot ....

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Even better ....

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

The two J-20 prototypes on the ground. (Internet photo)

Two prototypes of China's J-20 stealth fighter were photographed carrying out test flights in Chengdu recently, reports the Shanghai-based Guancha Syndicate.

The prototypes, 2013, 2015, are said to be installed with new avionics developed by Aviation Industry Corporation of China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. Its chief designer Pu Xiaobo said the system he created has an open framework that builds on an unified optical interconnect module. The system has comprehensive features covering navigation, detection, identification, attack, management and pilots' health management. It also integrates flight management systems, electronics and aviation electronics, which will ensure the fighter jet can carry out a mission safely and the systems are able to share their resources with each other.

Pu and his team built the country's most advanced concept laboratory and a simulation environment to test the design.

The stealth fighter was first officially introduced to the public though a PLA recruitment video called Heroes' Sky released on Feb. 26. Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo of the PLA Navy said the film suggested the J-20 will enter service soon. The video also described the quality of the plane's stealth capabilities, flight control system, avionic electronic system, active phased array radar, supermaneuverability, over-the-horizon radar and attack have been improved as well, he added.

Two J-20 prototypes seen on test flights in Chengdu｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

For the CHINA ! 

(N.o2012 old photo)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## SOHEIL



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr

07.04.2015

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

I have a question about thrust to weight ratio of J-20, if J-20 engine is WS-10X what is the thrust to weight ratio with current engine? and what is the projected thrust to weight ratio with WS-15?, projected thrust of WS-15 are 18000 KGF, can somebody explain me?


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> 07.04.2015


I will take a bet this will be the operational version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Beast said:


> I will take a bet this will be the operational version.



Operational in the sense that this bird will be a member of the 1st test squadron that is to be formed in 2016 or 2017 the latest。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## longlong

cirr said:


> 07.04.2015


Neat, clean, sexy.
Congratulations!


----------



## cnleio

_2011 ~ 2015, Four Years Test of J-20 prototypes (N.o2001 ~ N.o2015)._

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Oracle

translation ?


----------



## xhw1986

cnleio said:


> _2011 ~ 2015, Four Years Test of J-20 prototypes (N.o2001 ~ N.o2015)._
> 
> View attachment 213440


What with jump from 103 to 105? Why?


----------



## cirr

J-20 2015 left CAC for where you know yesterday 14.04.2015.

Say hello to 2016。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-20 2015 left CAC for where you know yesterday 14.04.2015.
> 
> Say hello to 2016。




Exactly the first question that came into my mind: when will we see 2016 ... is it a hint for a soon to be unveiled next aircraft ?

By the way there strong indications that 2015 was not transferred to the CFTE but even more already to the FTTC !

Deino


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Exactly the first question that came into my mind: when will we see 2016 ... is it a hint for a soon to be unveiled next aircraft ?
> 
> By the way there strong indications that 2015 was not transferred to the CFTE but even more already to the FTTC !
> 
> Deino



2015 heading for。。。







2016 has been seen parked inside one of the hangars that line up the CAC airstrip。

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> ...2016 is seen parked inside one of the hangars that line up the CAC airstrip。




Are You sure ar even better can You post these images; Please ???
I thought this aircraft is no. 2013 since this one is still at Chengdu.

Deino


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 2015 heading for。。。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016 has been seen parked inside one of the hangars that line up the CAC airstrip。




Hi cirr, do you happen to know the state of construction of the FC-31's improved prototype?


----------



## monitor

*J-20 to sacrifice attacking power and range for stealth*

Staff Reporter

2015-04-13

15:42 (GMT+8)





A prototype of China's J-20 fifth-generation stealth fighter jet. (Internet photo)

China's J-20 fifth-generation fighter will likely sacrifice its attacking power and range for added stealth capability, reports the website of China's state newswire Xinhua.

PLA Rear Admiral Yin Zhou said the J-20, currently being developed by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, will install its weapons on the inside of the aircraft to increase stealth, much like the US F-22.

The downside of this decision, Yin said, is that the length and diameter of the J-20's weapons could face restrictions, which could affect the range of its missiles.

However, Yin believes this is not a significant concern given that the main purpose of the J-20 is to seize control of airspace and protect other powerful but non-stealth attacking aircraft from the enemy.

Yin also confirmed Russian reports that the J-20 is currently testing its integrated avionics, flight control systems and other electronic devices. The aircraft has not yet commenced weapon systems testing so any reports about what final weapons the J-20 will be equipped with is just speculation, he said.

Military commentator Du Wenlong also said that the J-20, dubbed the "aircraft carrier killer" by some media, will feature an emergency service status that will allow the PLA to deploy a small fleet of J-20s to the scene in a short period of time if the country is under threat or if foreign aircraft have encroached on Chinese territory.





References:

Yin Zhuo　　尹卓

Du Wenlong　　杜文龍

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

xhw1986 said:


> What with jump from 103 to 105? Why?


Rumor said the N.o2014 is a static test aircraft, not a flying prototype.

All new designed aircraft need a special prototype to do static test inside lab







Big Photo, J-20 N.o2015 details

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Interesting view ... esp. with all bay open !!!









... and this one too ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Hey I know now, why '2013' remained at CAC !!! ... it has been modified to the latest '2015' configuration including the darker gray part on the radome and most of all the same modified tail stingers !

So I think we can expect its transfer to the FTTC (or CFTE) soon ... and then let's show us '2016' !

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Hey I know now, why '2013' remained at CAC !!! ... it has been modified to the latest '2015' configuration including the darker gray part on the radome and most of all the same modified tail stingers !
> 
> So I think we can expect its transfer to the FTTC (or CFTE) soon ... and then let's show us '2016' !
> 
> Deino
> 
> View attachment 216770


I have a question about J-20, can J-20 supercruise with current engine


----------



## Indus Falcon

*Clues to J-20 stealth fighter's radar system seen on internet*

2015-04-22






Leaked photos showing the canards installed on the aircraft. (Internet photo)

Huanqiu Net, website of the Chinese nationalist tabloid Global Times, says Beijing is making significant progress on the next version of its J-20 stealth fighter, as photos which have now spread over the internet showed a modified Tupolev Tu-204 passenger plane suggesting clues to the J-20's radar system.

The photos show that canards, or a small set of forewings placed in front of the main wings on a fixed wing craft, were installed on the passenger airplane. It suggests the radar of future J-20 models will be located on the wings like the US F-22 Raptor developed by Lockheed Martin.

Flight tests for the new design will take place after antenna are installed.

Clues to J-20 stealth fighter's radar system seen on internet｜WantChinaTimes.com


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> I have a question about J-20, can J-20 supercruise with current engine


100% no problem. Though it takes longer time (than F-22) to approach supercruising with less powered engine, it will.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Falcon

_An old Article, thought it would interest some members._

*Analysis: End of year surge for Chengdu J-20 fighter programme*
*Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
06 January 2015

In November and December 2014 two additional prototypes of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation's (CAC) J-20 fifth-generation fighter emerged, advancing its development towards a possible initial operational capability (IOC) of 2017-18.

The J-20 programme currently features six known prototypes. Two are early technology development articles (serial numbers 2001 and 2002) that emerged in 2009 and 2010, while four are modified versions closer to operational prototypes (serial numbers 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015) that all emerged in 2014.

No prototype numbered 2014 has yet to appear and may not, given the traditional Chinese view that four is an unlucky number.

Chinese aircraft spotters responsible for early internet photos report that the latest prototypes, 2013 and 2015, made their maiden flights from the CAC airfield on 29 November and 18 December 2014 respectively.

Both have most of the refinements seen on aircraft 2011, which emerged in February 2014: cropped canards and vertical stabilisers, a modified air intake, modified wing leading-edge extensions, and a new electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) under the nose.

However, 2013 and 2015 lack the nose-mounted pitot tubes that featured on the earlier prototypes. In addition, number 2015 has longer and sharper-shaped rear-fuselage horizontal strakes. Although this aft surface does not appear to be movable, it may contribute to aircraft stability, as a similar - though movable - surface did for the Grumman X-29 technology demonstrator.

Early internet-sourced images have also emerged of the J-20's retractable refueling probe, placed on the upper starboard of the nose. The development status of an indigenous Chinese turbofan for the J-20, often referred to as the WS-15, remains unknown. There is speculation that early J-20 examples may use a version of the Russian Saturn AL-31 turbofan.

In April 2014 an Asian government source told _IHS Jane's_ that China would have 24 J-20s by 2020, which if realized, could constitute a first operational regiment. This would indicate that IOC may occur in the 2017-18 time frame.





_Chinese aircraft spotters responsible for early internet photos report that the latest J-20 prototype, 2015, made its maiden flight from the CAC airfield on 18 December. Source: Chinese internet_






_A detail of the strakes on the latest J-20 prototype, 2015. (Chinese internet)_




_A view of the latest J-20 prototype, 2015, which made its maiden flight from the CAC airfield on 18 December. (Chinese internet)_


Analysis: End of year surge for Chengdu J-20 fighter programme - IHS Jane's 360

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Indus Falcon said:


> _An old Article, thought it would interest some members._
> 
> *Analysis: End of year surge for Chengdu J-20 fighter programme*
> *Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
> 06 January 2015
> 
> In November and December 2014 two additional prototypes of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation's (CAC) J-20 fifth-generation fighter emerged, advancing its development towards a possible initial operational capability (IOC) of 2017-18.
> 
> The J-20 programme currently features six known prototypes. Two are early technology development articles (serial numbers 2001 and 2002) that emerged in 2009 and 2010, while four are modified versions closer to operational prototypes (serial numbers 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015) that all emerged in 2014.
> 
> No prototype numbered 2014 has yet to appear and may not, given the traditional Chinese view that four is an unlucky number.
> 
> Chinese aircraft spotters responsible for early internet photos report that the latest prototypes, 2013 and 2015, made their maiden flights from the CAC airfield on 29 November and 18 December 2014 respectively.
> 
> Both have most of the refinements seen on aircraft 2011, which emerged in February 2014: cropped canards and vertical stabilisers, a modified air intake, modified wing leading-edge extensions, and a new electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) under the nose.
> 
> However, 2013 and 2015 lack the nose-mounted pitot tubes that featured on the earlier prototypes. In addition, number 2015 has longer and sharper-shaped rear-fuselage horizontal strakes. Although this aft surface does not appear to be movable, it may contribute to aircraft stability, as a similar - though movable - surface did for the Grumman X-29 technology demonstrator.
> 
> Early internet-sourced images have also emerged of the J-20's retractable refueling probe, placed on the upper starboard of the nose. The development status of an indigenous Chinese turbofan for the J-20, often referred to as the WS-15, remains unknown. There is speculation that early J-20 examples may use a version of the Russian Saturn AL-31 turbofan.
> 
> In April 2014 an Asian government source told _IHS Jane's_ that China would have 24 J-20s by 2020, which if realized, could constitute a first operational regiment. This would indicate that IOC may occur in the 2017-18 time frame.
> 
> View attachment 217388
> 
> _Chinese aircraft spotters responsible for early internet photos report that the latest J-20 prototype, 2015, made its maiden flight from the CAC airfield on 18 December. Source: Chinese internet_
> 
> 
> View attachment 217389
> 
> _A detail of the strakes on the latest J-20 prototype, 2015. (Chinese internet)_
> 
> View attachment 217390
> _A view of the latest J-20 prototype, 2015, which made its maiden flight from the CAC airfield on 18 December. (Chinese internet)_
> 
> 
> Analysis: End of year surge for Chengdu J-20 fighter programme - IHS Jane's 360


The engine can never be AL-31. It simply do not have enough thrust. And just a look of the engine nozzle petal tells you that is not AL-31 engine. IOC meaning, it must attain certain supercruise to qualify it as PLAAF has strict criteria to meet. The best bet is WS-10G is a intermittent engine with higher thrust WS-10A but short lifespan until WS-15 enter service.

Look at J-10B, it has not enter service until now. Due to strict requirement for a powerful domestic engine that can supercruise which result delay and delay.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Upppsss ... seems as if a few post are missing ! Especially my "this can't be a WS-10 comparison and explanation chart !" !!

Anyway ... '2013' is still at CAC (interesting is that darker-grey area around the radome)


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Upppsss ... seems as if a few post are missing ! Especially my "this can't be a WS-10 comparison and explanation chart !" !!
> 
> Anyway ... '2013' is still at CAC (interesting is that darker-grey area around the radome)
> 
> View attachment 217402



2013 left for where you know a couple of days ago。

It is time to open your arms for 2016 and 2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

Any news on NAVAL variant



.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Any news on NAVAL variant
> View attachment 217436
> .



There is no naval variant; the closest thing that the PLANAF might obtain for carriers is the FC-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

SinoSoldier said:


> There is no naval variant; the closest thing that the PLANAF might obtain for carriers is the FC-31.


FC-31 for NAVY could be good. Though thought FC-31 would be only for export like JF-17


----------



## Akasa

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> FC-31 for NAVY could be good. Though thought FC-31 would be only for export like JF-17



As far as I know, whether it will be a solely-export product or not hinges on whether their air force or navy adopts it or not.


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Any news on NAVAL variant
> View attachment 217436
> .



Are these engines Chinese made?


----------



## Akasa

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Are these engines Chinese made?



The production variant might have them, although it's likely that the first few batches will sport the classic RD-93.


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Are these engines Chinese made?


Yes these are Chinese engines Prototypes. Once they are fully developed they would power the J-20's.



SinoSoldier said:


> As far as I know, whether it will be a solely-export product or not hinges on whether their air force or navy adopts it or not.


It would be good to hear if one of them becomes interested. Still Both J-20 and FC-31 would require modification to the engines and stealthier tail section. Some thing like that of F-22 or the B-2


----------



## Deino

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Are these engines Chinese made?



This is a GC ... so there's nothing build today !




SinoSoldier said:


> The production variant might have them, although it's likely that the first few batches will sport the classic RD-93.



For the possible PLA-version of the J-31 maybe, a potential naval J-20 however would surely use AL-31FN or later the WS-15.



cirr said:


> 2013 left for where you know a couple of days ago。
> 
> It is time to open your arms for 2016 and 2017.



Do You have the correct date ??? especially since these images came out only two days ago.

... and regarding 2016 & 2017, any idea WHEN ???

Deino


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Oracle

i believe when this thread will cross 300 , we will see 2016

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Oracle said:


> i believe when this thread will cross 300 , we will see 2016


Hail the oracle!


----------



## longlong

Two more pic from CD

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Stealth

This Aircraft look mooore WOW if the lenght of this aircraft would be little 30% further reduce.... toooo bulky and heavy

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Stealth said:


> This Aircraft look mooore WOW if the lenght of this aircraft would be little 30% further reduce.... toooo bulky and heavy




Something like that ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SOHEIL

Stealth said:


> This Aircraft look mooore WOW if the lenght of this aircraft would be little 30% further reduce.... toooo bulky and heavy


----------



## albert_008

this is in line with PLA 's grand strategy, fly further and fly faster , it is also a reflect of current aviation technology of China

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Ohhhh ... and now without that nasty watermark on it !!

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Stealth

Deino said:


> Something like that ?
> 
> View attachment 218675



Increase the size of tail fin..... like Raptor....


----------



## monitor

* MiG Denies Stealth Technology Transfer To China For J-20 Fighter *










http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aFk3__MZd...%27s+J-20+Black+Eagle+Stealth+Fighter+Jet.jpg
*R*ussia has never transferred any stealth technology to China to assist it with its J-20 Black Eagle fifth-generation stealth fighter prototype, Russian plane maker MiG said.
"We are not delivering any equipment to China, and never have," MiG spokeswoman Yelena Fyodorova said.

MiG's statement follows claims in the Russian and foreign press last week that China's J-20, unveiled over six months ago, is based on technology and components from the Russian Mikoyan Article 1.44, a stealth technology demonstrator aircraft, development of which was suspended. 

Some analysts say the aircraft have close similarities. 
"The back end of the J-20 looks awfully like the 1.44, as does the overall layout with delta canards," said Douglas Barrie, an air warfare specialist at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.

"If it's a coincidence, it's a striking one. Russia may have provided technical support, but there is nothing substantial to prove that. China has however relied on Russia for much of its defense procurement for a decade and a half," he added. 

China's J-20 Black Eagle is thought to be conceptually similar to the U.S. F-22 Raptor and the Russian T-50 jets, but is likely to be just a technology demonstrator or prototype rather than a viable fighter. 








China has been working on a future fighter program since the mid-1990s, but the J-20 is not expected to enter service before 2018-2020. 

Earlier in the month, Mikhail Pogosyan, the head of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation said that China's fifth-generation fighter program is more for effect than substance and branded the maiden flight as a "show-off." 

China relied on the Soviet Union for much of its aviation technology until the Sino-Soviet split after 1961. China then carried on developing copies of Soviet and Russian aircraft. 

Beijing also relies on Russian engines, radars and electronic components for many of its other aircraft, such as the JF-17 fighter it developed jointly with Pakistan. 

"We are not delivering any equipment to China, and never have," MiG spokeswoman Yelena Fyodorova said. 

indrus.in

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

i don't like J-20 it not have true stealth or broadband stealth, it has canard surface which increases its frontal RCS, with rear it has no protection from infrared SAM and AAM with its rear ventral fins which increases side RCS, i think J-31 is much much better in the term of infrared and radar RCS


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> i don't like J-20 it not have true stealth or broadband stealth, it has canard surface which increases its frontal RCS, with rear it has no protection from infrared SAM and AAM with its rear ventral fins which increases side RCS, i think J-31 is much much better in the term of infrared and radar RCS


Theres a reason why PLAAF chooses J-20 over J-31 as next generation fighter jet. Stealth is the number one factor follow by other capabilities.

I will trust the expert judgement and not goes with our layman assessment.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

pakistanipower said:


> i don't like J-20 it not have true stealth or broadband stealth, it has canard surface which increases its frontal RCS, with rear it has no protection from infrared SAM and AAM with its rear ventral fins which increases side RCS, i think J-31 is much much better in the term of infrared and radar RCS



People like you read bits and parts and start considering them to be paragons of knowledge. Beast is right.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Bussard Ramjet said:


> People like you read bits and parts and start considering them to be paragons of knowledge. Beast is right.


Don"t live in denail mode, in technical term J-20 is inferior to F-22 in frontal and rear infrared and radar RCS


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

pakistanipower said:


> Don"t live in denail mode, in technical term J-20 is inferior to F-22 in frontal and rear infrared and radar RCS



I am not staying in any kind of "denial" mode. 

I don't comment on these matters altogether, because it is almost impossible to make decent guesses on these things, unless we have quite a bit of inside knowledge. The people found here making speculations are largely idiots. 

What I am though saying is that a Radar cross section can't be abstracted out to individual parts. It is the grouping of the whole airplane. 
So yes, Radar cross section as I say, can't be thought of as made of abstracted out parts, or one will have to definitlely prove that abstraction with the necessary parameters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> Don"t live in denail mode, in technical term J-20 is inferior to F-22 in frontal and rear infrared and radar RCS



That is not true.
We should think in this way:

Front: F-22 has two huge wings, J-20 has two small wings (canards)
Buttock: F-22 has two horizontal tail and J-20 doesn't have.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

longlong said:


> That is not true.
> *We should think in this way:*
> 
> Front: F-22 has two huge wings, J-20 has two small wings (canards)
> Buttock: F-22 has two horizontal tail and J-20 doesn't have.


Absolutely...I wish more and more of the PLA's leadership think that way.


----------



## Ultima Thule

longlong said:


> That is not true.
> We should think in this way:
> 
> Front: F-22 has two huge wings, J-20 has two small wings (canards)
> Buttock: F-22 has two horizontal tail and J-20 doesn't have.


you idiot does J-20 not have the huge wing?, wing +canard must increases it frontal RCS,look at the pics of F-22 its engine nozzle shielded by some kind of material, its horizontal tail partially shielded its engine flame to the side, and what about J-20 from rear, its defenceless to infrared SAM and AAM from the rear, grow up kid



gambit said:


> Absolutely...I wish more and more of the PLA's leadership think that way.


leave him alone Mr gambit, these chinese fanboys live in their fantasy world that their is superperfect


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> you idiot does J-20 not have the huge wing?, wing +canard must increases it frontal RCS,look at the pics of F-22 its engine nozzle shielded by some kind of material, its horizontal tail partially shielded its engine flame to the side, and what about J-20 from rear, its defenceless to infrared SAM and AAM from the rear, grow up kid
> 
> 
> leave him alone Mr gambit, these chinese fanboys live in their fantasy world that their is superperfect



Oops, you must have forgot to brush your teeth after eating rotted food.
Why wings + h-tail decrease RCS while carnards+wings increase?
Stealth is based on science facts, not your bare eyesight and small volume brain imagination.

Forget your F-22, it's stopped production and waiting for dying in the limited remained flying hours.
It's a whole failure.

And don't bet on others. No one can save the F-22 from ageing and dying.



gambit said:


> Absolutely...I wish more and more of the PLA's leadership think that way.


I wish more and more of DOD think same way as you.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## j20blackdragon

Worry less about the J-20's *planform aligned* canards and worry more about the F-22's forward facing *splitter plates* and gaps.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

j20blackdragon said:


> Worry less about the J-20's *planform aligned* canards and worry more about the F-22's forward facing *splitter plates* and gaps.




Why?

Do you have the RCS measurements of the two planes from the front side? 

Isn't it already well established that RCS can't be abstracted out into individual components?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

you know science behind J-20 grow up kid, just imagine that entring enemy airspace or fight with another 5th gen aircraft canard must increases frontal RCS, it gives extra RCS to the radar, frontal RCS is most important factor of modern aircraft, how sophisticated canard are they give extra surface to radar use the common sense, its basic science fact not my word, if don't believe go live on your fantasy world and wet dream that J-20 is invencible plane


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

It was reported some time back that when US Air Force One flew President George W. Bush jr. to Afghanistan they were able to minimize the RCS of B747 to that of a Learjet and the cover was almost blown when one of the pilots flying a commercial flight could actually see the aircraft.


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> you know science behind J-20 grow up kid, just imagine that entring enemy airspace or fight with another 5th gen aircraft canard must increases frontal RCS, it gives extra RCS to the radar, frontal RCS is most important factor of modern aircraft, how sophisticated canard are they give extra surface to radar use the common sense, its basic science fact not my word, if don't believe go live on your fantasy world and wet dream that J-20 is invencible plane


Aren't h-tails the same?
Extra RCS is from the "must" you imagined or the "must" from your primary school education?





F-22 has two huge H-tails for they are too close to the main wings even overlapped.





J-20 has smaller canards for they are far from main wings.





Their size is decided by the lever to pitch the aircraft. J-20 canards work more effective than F-22 H-tails.

With the help from supercomputer, RCS from J-20 canards will be less from F-22 h-tails which was designed in 1980s by using of 286-like computer and human imagination.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> So if a Chinese use his eyeballs he is correct, but if anyone else uses his eyeballs, that person is wrong.
> 
> Yeah...No wonder you guys are the laughing stock of this forum.



You make the science racialism and it makes your opinion less valuable.



j20blackdragon said:


> Worry less about the J-20's *planform aligned* canards and worry more about the F-22's forward facing *splitter plates* and gaps.


Just imagine what if we exchange the air intake between F-22 and J-20.
We are expected to be flooded by milky way of stuffs to explain why and how the gaps increase tons of RCS.
But it is okay on F-22 raptor. Yummy!

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

longlong said:


> Aren't h-tails the same?
> Extra RCS is from the "must" you imagined or the "must" from your primary school education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 has two huge H-tails for they are too close to the main wings even overlapped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 has smaller canards for they are far from main wings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their size is decided by the lever to pitch the aircraft. J-20 canards work more effective than F-22 H-tails.
> 
> With the help from supercomputer, RCS from J-20 canards will be less from F-22 h-tails which was designed in 1980s by using of 286-like computer and human imagination.


yes what a logic you have ill brain you have, look at you you must go nursery education first then talk about stealth aircraft RCS, go live on your fantasy world,wishful thinking and your wet dreams, every aircraft have own limitations,so does J-20 have its own limitation, go worship your almighty J-20 that can't see from radar and invencible plane to whole planet earth rdars


----------



## j20blackdragon

longlong said:


> Just imagine what if we exchange the air intake between F-22 and J-20.
> We are expected to be flooded by milky way of stuffs to explain why and how the gaps increase tons of RCS.
> But it is okay on F-22 raptor. Yummy!



I'll post some better pictures.

*YF-22*











*F-22*






The splitter plates and gaps around the F-22 inlets essentially create shallow forward facing cavities. There are actually additional forward facing cavities INSIDE each of the gaps if you take a closer look.

Does anyone want to explain what happens to radar energy when it enters a shallow cavity?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Could You all please leave that eyeball-analyzing of stealth aircraft !?? 

I'm sure no-one here can do that or even more compare two different types only by comparing images even more from two aircraft designed several years apart, based on different technologies and most of all design philosophy ...

Deino


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Could You all please leave that eyeball-analyzing of stealth aircraft !??
> 
> I'm sure no-one here can do that or even more compare two different types only by comparing images even more from two aircraft designed several years apart, based on different technologies and most of all design philosophy ...
> 
> Deino


Such 'analysis' are inevitable and in many ways -- instructive.

But it is more instructive of the person expressing himself than it is from any credible technical data comparison, of which we will most likely never have any. So let them go at it. Other than basic principles, which we know the Chinese members here do not know, anyone should be allowed to make a fool out of himself.


----------



## longlong

gambit said:


> Such 'analysis' are inevitable and in many ways -- instructive.
> 
> But it is more instructive of the person expressing himself than it is from any credible technical data comparison, of which we will most likely never have any. So let them go at it. Other than basic principles, which we know the Chinese members here do not know, anyone should be allowed to make a fool out of himself.



It's really laughable and shameful of somebody to act as an aircraft-stealth expert on an internet forum.

In that case, either he/she did not have to sign a CA since he/she works as an barber in the company, or he/she is a retired taxi driver only.

============

*The gaps come form last generation jet fighter. F-22 has it is not because of it's good, it's because it has to be ---- it born in 1990s ---- when the time did not have internet, smartphone, 4K tv, wifi, peta grade supercomputer, and DSI.*

You do not need to beautify the ugly ---- we cannot find any mp3 player from a car manufactured in 1980s whatever the good words you said to it's cassette player, it's obsoleted .

*Accept it, you and F-22 are too old to be proud.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> I'll post some better pictures.
> 
> *YF-22*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *F-22*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The splitter plates and gaps around the F-22 inlets essentially create shallow forward facing cavities. There are actually additional forward facing cavities INSIDE each of the gaps if you take a closer look.
> 
> *Does anyone want to explain what happens to radar energy when it enters a shallow cavity?*



No one wanted to step up to the plate and answer the question, so I'll do it.






So like I said before, if you want to worry about 'frontal RCS' worry about the F-22 instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> No one wanted to step up to the plate and answer the question, so I'll do it.
> 
> View attachment 221031
> 
> 
> So like I said before, if you want to worry about 'frontal RCS' worry about the F-22 instead.


You can 'do it' because you learned that from me. I posted an explanation about cavities and their effects on RCS a long time ago. You are not bringing any new information.

I also explained how it is measurement that will determine if a cavity will raise the average RCS value over a threshold and a threshold is something I know you guys have a difficult time grasping your minds around.


----------



## longlong

pakistanipower said:


> get to school first than talk about stealth, if they are developing 5th gen fighter or they are developing 15th gen fighter basic science behind stealth are same and does not change



To sit down and think why we need to develop 15th gen from 5th if they are same as you thought of?
====
There always have new challenge to hide the aircraft or any other things from radar.
We need to change a lot of things to cheat the new developed radar working in different band, mechanism, thus, we need to find out the new theories to achieve it.





The hide and seek game will never stop. *There has no one theory last forever.
You have to made a new aircraft to win the later developed radar.*
This is one of the reason that's why F-117 retired , F-22 stacked at airbase as well production line demolished, and F-35 must be made at any cost.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

longlong said:


> To sit down and think why we need to develop 15th gen from 5th if they are same as you thought of?
> ====
> There always have new challenge to hide the aircraft or any other things from radar.
> We need to change a lot of things to cheat the new developed radar working in different band, mechanism, thus, we need to find out the new theories to achieve it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hide and seek game will never stop. *There has no one theory last forever.
> You have to made a new aircraft to win the later developed radar.*
> This is one of the reason that's why F-117 retired , F-22 stacked at airbase as well production line demolished, and F-35 must be made at any cost.


that is what i am talking about you may add new material, new avionics and new engine,but laws of physics does'nt changed and BTW US had lots experience for designing and building a stealth aircraft,does china have that experience? no you haven't this is your first project


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> that is what i am talking about you may add new material, new avionics and new engine,but laws of physics does'nt changed and BTW US had lots experience for designing and building a stealth aircraft,does china have that experience? no you haven't this is your first project


From the rapid build up of reduced RCS warship to conducting 2 5th gen fighter program and stealth drone. I don't think China lack expertise when regards to stealth technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> From the rapid build up of reduced RCS warship to conducting 2 5th gen fighter program and stealth drone. I don't think China lack expertise when regards to stealth technology.


Ok but you are extremly new on this field, your first project about stealth i may remember is WZ-9/WZ-2000 in 1999, your reduce RCS ship project is started after 2000, and BTW US had decades of experienceon designing and building stealth aircrafts, drone and ships, do you have that experience?


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> Ok but you are extremly new on this field, your first project about stealth i may remember is WZ-9/WZ-2000 in 1999, your reduce RCS ship project is started after 2000, and BTW US had decades of experienceon designing and building stealth aircrafts, drone and ships, do you have that experience?


China is no novice when comes to aviation. Our country pours huge money into R&D which speeds up many years of catchup. Even US destroyer still uses PESA for their alreigh burke destroyer while our Type052C and D uses AESA. USAF E-3 uses electronic scanned while our KJ-2000 uses fixed AESA.

Our drone technology is young but we are already a mature drone export and developed country. There is a reason why we pursue powerful supercomputer and our tianhe 2A which is fastest in the world helps to process the best possible scenario and structure for all our weapons and stealth.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> China is no novice when comes to aviation. Our country pours huge money into R&D which speeds up many years of catchup. Even US destroyer still uses PESA for their alreigh burke destroyer while our Type052C and D uses AESA. USAF E-3 uses electronic scanned while our KJ-2000 uses fixed AESA.
> 
> Our drone technology is young but we are already a mature drone export and developed country. There is a reason why we pursue powerful supercomputer and our tianhe 2A which is fastest in the world helps to process the best possible scenario and structure for all our weapons and stealth.


but it doesn't mean that US is less advance than china, what is the prove that alreigh burke class uses PESA,in every site stated they uses AESA and as for E-3 they know their capability of their system, they are fit their bill,may be J-20 will have different tactics than F-22, i think it will be shoot and run tactics, not design for dogfight with other aircrafts.


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> but it doesn't mean that US is less advance than china, what is the prove that alreigh burke class uses PESA,in every site stated they uses AESA and as for E-3 they know their capability of their system, they are fit their bill,may be J-20 will have different tactics than F-22, i think it will be shoot and run tactics, not design for dogfight with other aircrafts.


You dont know Alreigh Burke uses PESA?  Why not you comfirmed with your dear gambit? 

AN/SPY-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_ 'The array is a passive electronically scanned system and is a key component of the Aegis Combat System."_

Longlong says very clear, F-22 is designed in the 80s which many supercomputer or aided is still not that updated. F-35 eliminated all the deficiency of F-22 but unfortunately due to the 3 tri service requirement and as non air superior, it is still not perfect. If even a chances for F-22 to redesign, you will see the gap cavity being eliminated.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> You dont know Alreigh Burke uses PESA?  Why not you comfirmed with your dear gambit?
> 
> AN/SPY-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _ 'The array is a passive electronically scanned system and is a key component of the Aegis Combat System."_
> 
> Longlong says very clear, F-22 is designed in the 80s which many supercomputer or aided is still not that updated. F-35 eliminated all the deficiency of F-22 but unfortunately due to the 3 tri service requirement and as non air superior, it is still not perfect. If even a chances for F-22 to redesign, you will see the gap cavity being eliminated.


Please......Your desperation makes you look pathetic.

The _Arleigh Burke_ class ships were designed and built long before *YOU* were borned...

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The first ship of the class was commissioned on 4 July 1991.


China was probably wondering what the heck was a 'radar'. 

The ESA technology was not new but for a ship deployment -- it was new. The passive technology was the best at that time and the next iteration of the _Arleigh Burke_ class will have the active technology.

The Heart of the Navy's Next Destroyer - USNI News


> When the first new Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer enters service with the U.S. Navy in 2019, it will be equipped with a new radar roughly 30 times more powerful than the long-serving Lockheed Martin SPY-1 system found on current Aegis warships.
> 
> Unlike the SPY-1, which is a passive phased-array radar with one large transmit/receive (T/R) element, the AMDR will use many thousands of small T/R modules to form its antenna.


It is only in your childish mind that the US is somehow 'behind' China when smarter people than you guys here know that combined with actual combat experience and the decades of operation of the older passive technology, when the newer _Arleigh Burke_ class ships are deployed the US Navy will continue to be the leader in this area.

Newer technology does not guarantee combat successes, kid, people are equally important and right now, if there is a shooting war between the USN and the PLAN, an older _Arleigh Burke_ class ship can and will run circles around the PLAN's latest.


----------



## Beast

gambit said:


> Please......Your desperation makes you look pathetic.
> 
> The _Arleigh Burke_ class ships were designed and built long before *YOU* were borned...
> 
> Arleigh Burke-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> China was probably wondering what the heck was a 'radar'.
> 
> The ESA technology was not new but for a ship deployment -- it was new. The passive technology was the best at that time and the next iteration of the _Arleigh Burke_ class will have the active technology.
> 
> The Heart of the Navy's Next Destroyer - USNI News
> 
> It is only in your childish mind that the US is somehow 'behind' China when smarter people than you guys here know that combined with actual combat experience and the decades of operation of the older passive technology, when the newer _Arleigh Burke_ class ships are deployed the US Navy will continue to be the leader in this area.
> 
> Newer technology does not guarantee combat successes, kid, people are equally important and right now, if there is a shooting war between the USN and the PLAN, an older _Arleigh Burke_ class ship can and will run circles around the PLAN's latest.



We now uses AESA on our destroyer. AESA on our AWAC. How many countries has that?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

The J-20's Radar testbed spotted again ....


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

I am not sure if Chinese members here are right, but they do sure overestimate their capability. 

They were making fun of Russian systems, and were talking how S400 is obsolete for them, and that China will never buy it, but when official confirmation came in, they completely changed their tune. 

Why was that? 
Don't you think you may do the mistake of overestimating yourself, and underestimating your rival?

You said that you are superior to Russia now in all fields, yet you are buying, with quite some money, S400, at a time when they will be upgrading to S500. And all Chinese newspapers ran this news, that S400 was required and that China is not good at missile defense. 

This would imply that by 2017, you will be a whole generation behind the Russians in missile defense. 

@Beast @AndrewJin


----------



## Akasa

Bussard Ramjet said:


> I am not sure if Chinese members here are right, but they do sure overestimate their capability.
> 
> They were making fun of Russian systems, and were talking how S400 is obsolete for them, and that China will never buy it, but when official confirmation came in, they completely changed their tune.
> 
> Why was that?
> Don't you think you may do the mistake of overestimating yourself, and underestimating your rival?
> 
> You said that you are superior to Russia now in all fields, yet you are buying, with quite some money, S400, at a time when they will be upgrading to S500. And all Chinese newspapers ran this news, that S400 was required and that China is not good at missile defense.
> 
> This would imply that by 2017, you will be a whole generation behind the Russians in missile defense.
> 
> @Beast @AndrewJin



On the contrary, the S-400 deal has not yet been verified by a government source yet; all the reporting has been done either by the media or the Russians.

None of those reports stated that China "wasn't good" at air defense, but there is a niche to be filled.

Do distinguish between air defense and missile defense. While the PLA hasn't unveiled anything equivalent to the S-400, they are testing midcourse and terminal anti-ballistic missiles that are far ahead of anything Moscow has unveiled thus far.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

SinoSoldier said:


> On the contrary, the S-400 deal has not yet been verified by a government source yet; all the reporting has been done either by the media or the Russians.
> 
> None of those reports stated that China "wasn't good" at air defense, but there is a niche to be filled.
> 
> Do distinguish between air defense and missile defense. While the PLA hasn't unveiled anything equivalent to the S-400, they are testing midcourse and terminal anti-ballistic missiles that are far ahead of anything Moscow has unveiled thus far.



It has been confirmed by very senior Russian officials. It has been very widely reported by Chinese media, People's Daily, Xinhua etc. They also wrote commentaries from some military officers about this. 

PLA to buy advanced missiles from Russia - China - Chinadaily.com.cn


----------



## Akasa

Bussard Ramjet said:


> It has been confirmed by very senior Russian officials. It has been very widely reported by Chinese media, People's Daily, Xinhua etc. They also wrote commentaries from some military officers about this.
> 
> PLA to buy advanced missiles from Russia - China - Chinadaily.com.cn



Military officers and Chinese media are not the ones who are in charge of weapons procurement.

Are those the same senior Russian officials who "confirmed" the false Su-35 purchase?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

To quote from the above article

"The S-400 is definitely one of the top anti-aircraft weapons in the world. It will greatly supplement the People's Liberation Army's air defense system, which now has some loopholes in long-range, high-altitude defense of airplanes or ballistic missiles," said Wang Ya'nan, deputy editor-in-chief of Aerospace Knowledge magazine.

"The system has multiple types of missiles with various ranges, enabling it to safeguard a very large area of airspace. Some of its missiles are even specifically designed to intercept ballistic missiles," Wang said. "Moreover, some of its launch tubes can store and launch several different missiles, which makes it very convenient and fast to use."

Russia has a long history of developing anti-aircraft and missile defense weapons, so the S-400 is a concentration of some of the most advanced missile technologies Russia has, such as an active electronically scanned array radar, according to Wang.

"China still lacks experience in the development of long-range air defense systems, especially those that can intercept ballistic missiles. There is no shortcut because the development of such sophisticated weapons requires a great number of experiments and tests. It is a matter of time and resource input," he added.

According to Russian media reports, the S-400 is a new-generation, anti-aircraft weapon system capable of engaging any aerial target, including airplanes, helicopters and drones, as well as cruise and tactical ballistic missiles, with a maximum speed of 4.8 km per second. The system's 40N6 missile can destroy airborne targets at ranges up to 400 km.

Anatoly Isaikin, chief executive of the Russian state-run arms trader Rosoboronexport, confirmed on Monday that China has a contract with his company for the purchase of the S-400 air defense systems.

"I will not disclose the details of the contract, but yes, China has indeed become the first buyer of this sophisticated Russian air defense system. It underlines once again the strategic level of our relations," Isaikin told the Russian newspaper Kommersant.​


SinoSoldier said:


> Military officers and Chinese media are not the ones who are in charge of weapons procurement.
> 
> Are those the same senior Russian officials who "confirmed" the false Su-35 purchase?



No, these are not random Russian officials. I remember, @Beast said at one stage that he will only accept anything when Rosoboronexport releases it. 

Here, it is said by the chief executive of that arm. 

Also, when did Chinese media run false commentary about Su-35? Here, you have all kinds of papers. Also, quite some Chinese military officials are also quoted.

Why are you so adamant in accepting this? I think you are overestimating yourself due to your ego, which will be very wrong. Don't underestimate anyone. 

China was smacked like anything by Imperial Japan, even though it was only a small fraction economically.


----------



## Akasa

Bussard Ramjet said:


> No, these are not random Russian officials. I remember, @Beast said at one stage that he will only accept anything when Rosoboronexport releases it.
> 
> Here, it is said by the chief executive of that arm.



And yet they were the same organizations that put out reports of the PLAAF buying the Su-35, which never materialized.



Bussard Ramjet said:


> Also, when did Chinese media run false commentary about Su-35? Here, you have all kinds of papers. Also, quite some Chinese military officials are also quoted.



That is my point; despite all of this "talk" emanating from these supposedly-authoritative outlets, the deal never happened.



Bussard Ramjet said:


> Why are you so adamant in accepting this? I think you are overestimating yourself due to your ego, which will be very wrong. Don't underestimate anyone.
> 
> China was smacked like anything by Imperial Japan, even though it was only a small fraction economically.



What "acceptance" is being referenced here, and what does the Sino-Japanese war have to with this?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

SinoSoldier said:


> And yet they were the same organizations that put out reports of the PLAAF buying the Su-35, which never materialized.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point; despite all of this "talk" emanating from these supposedly-authoritative outlets, the deal never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> What "acceptance" is being referenced here, and what does the Sino-Japanese war have to with this?




Who speculated on Su 35 sales? Can you tell me? I don't think someone as high confirmed.

The difference between Su 35 and S400 is huge. Very high officials confirming the latter, and Chinese media confirming it.

That arrogance is a recipe of failure. China has the habit of underestimating others due to its Middle Kingdom mindset.


----------



## Akasa

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Who speculated on Su 35 sales? Can you tell me? I don't think someone as high confirmed.
> 
> The difference between Su 35 and S400 is huge. Very high officials confirming the latter, and Chinese media confirming it.
> 
> That arrogance is a recipe of failure. China has the habit of underestimating others due to its Middle Kingdom mindset.



The same pattern is seen: there are various Chinese and Russian "sources" that purport the purchase of these two systems, and yet nothing has been realized thus far.

This has nothing to do with arrogance and everything to do with accurate reporting, or rather the lack thereof.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

SinoSoldier said:


> The same pattern is seen: there are various Chinese and Russian "sources" that purport the purchase of these two systems, and yet nothing has been realized thus far.
> 
> This has nothing to do with arrogance and everything to do with accurate reporting, or rather the lack thereof.



What else would you need more than the chief executive of Rosoboronexport confirming it?


----------



## Akasa

Bussard Ramjet said:


> What else would you need more than the chief executive of Rosoboronexport confirming it?



You mean the same organization that falsely reported the sale of Lada-class submarines and Su-35s? Well, to answer your question, a whole lot more.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

CAC is apparently halfway through the building of a modern complex dedicated to the assembly of the J-20。

Hurray！Hurray！Hurray！

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

thanks ... any idea, when we can expect '2016' and '2017' ???


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> thanks ... any idea, when we can expect '2016' and '2017' ???



Say hello to 2016！

Ready to roll any days now。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rcrmj

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Who speculated on Su 35 sales? Can you tell me? I don't think someone as high confirmed.
> 
> The difference between Su 35 and S400 is huge. Very high officials confirming the latter, and Chinese media confirming it.
> 
> That arrogance is a recipe of failure. China has the habit of underestimating others due to its Middle Kingdom mindset.


kid, the Chinese officials 'confirmed' or 'verified' in the past again and again that "we were not going to build any ACs and fourth planes and etc````"

you are just too young and too brainwashed to the subject you are trying to talk about

underestimation of others is what Western usually do and the wannabe India, not China

the reason you believe that we 'underestimate' Russia is because we know their stuff inside out, and we know we are better than they are now in general, its another fact that Russia and Russia wannabes dont want to accept



Bussard Ramjet said:


> What else would you need more than the chief executive of Rosoboronexport confirming it?


actually seeing the stuff in China?
well, we Chinese military enthusiasts dont believe anything unless we see it or get it from reliable sources```surely none of them are from media or any department of 'officials'

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Preparation for batch production of J-20 under way！！！

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

cirr said:


> Preparation for batch production of J-20 under way！！！



When will the operational mass produced J20 release? And how many will China be able to produce every year?


----------



## cirr

Bussard Ramjet said:


> When will the operational mass produced J20 release? And how many will China be able to produce every year?



You should henceforth forget about China's purchase of Su-35 。It WON'T happen。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

cirr said:


> You should henceforth forget about China's purchase of Su-35 。It WON'T happen。



Fine, forgotten. Now answer my question?


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Preparation for batch production of J-20 under way！！！




But PLEASE .... I want pictures of 2016, 2017, 201x ... so come on ! (Sorry, but patience is really not my best virtue)


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> But PLEASE .... I want pictures of 2016, 2017, 201x ... so come on ! (Sorry, but patience is really not my best virtue)



2016 parked in the hangar。

When available，when available！

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

cirr said:


> 2016 parked in the hangar。
> 
> When available，when available！



How is it different from 2015?


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 2016 parked in the hangar。
> 
> When available，when available！



Any word on the J-31 2nd prototype?


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2016 parked in the hangar。
> 
> When available，when available！




Regarding no. '2016' ... what about 1. June (aka 1.6.) for unveiling ??


----------



## cirr

J-20 is “rumoured” to explore and establish new flight envelope using 14+ ton WS-10G in 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CN.Black

Bussard Ramjet said:


> When will the operational mass produced J20 release? And how many will China be able to produce every year?


The mass production will start in 2016 or 2017 and 24 pieces annual at beginning.I guess.


----------



## Deino

CN.Black said:


> The mass production will start in 2016 or 2017 and 24 pieces annual at beginning.I guess.




Even some might bash me again of being too pessimistic, but I don't think that production will jump immediately from 4 aircraft (like last year) to 24 in 2016 ! Just take a look at how many J-10s are being build each year or maybe more comparable J-11s ...

Just my two cents.
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Even some might bash me again of being too pessimistic, but I don't think that production will jump immediately from 4 aircraft (like last year) to 24 in 2016 ! Just take a look at how many J-10s are being build each year or maybe more comparable J-11s ...
> 
> Just my two cents.
> Deino



I don't think any one will bash you Deino! Way too friendly of a guy to get this kind of treatment.

That said, I am willing to gamble that serial production will commence next year (given the current geopolitical situation, unfortunately).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 55100864

recent footages of J20 2013








J20 striking a car dealership

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

And still no news on '2016' ???


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> And still no news on '2016' ???



No “news” is good news。

Extremely GOOD news.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kuge

silence before a storm.


----------



## cirr

kuge said:


> silence before a storm.



YES。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

cirr said:


> J-20 is “rumoured” to explore and establish new flight envelope using 14+ ton WS-10G in 2016.




Plenty Rumours my friend. ..


----------



## cirr

danger007 said:


> Plenty Rumours my friend. ..



The so-called rumours，especially rumours in quotes，often turn out to be true。

Reactions: Like Like:

5


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> The so-called rumours，especially rumours in quotes，often turn out to be true。



Any "rumors" about improved J-31?


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> No “news” is good news。
> 
> Extremely GOOD news.



Even if overall I agree with You I'm a bit skeptical since no new aircraft spotted at CAC simply means at least no new aircraft in the air ... regardless how many were build and IMO that project now needs most of all flight-hours as many as possible to get it service-reads ASAP.
In this regard it's right now a bit comparable to the Russian T50-project were for an even longer time no new prototype was flown ... and here surely no-one would say "No “news” is good news".

Besides that I'm still too excited - to admit patience is not my virtue - and I simply want so see '2016' .... NOW !

Deino


----------



## shy@SJTU

Wondering why you are still arguing about RCS performance...I thought someone should have posted this:
*A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype *

ausairpower.n*(delete this!)*et*(delete this!)*/APA-2011-03*(delete this!)*.ht*(delete this!)*ml
Dafuq... the site doesn't allow me to insert website links
*
Abstract*
_This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Chengdu J-20 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics simulation algorithm were performed for frequencies of 150 MHz, 600 MHz, 1.2 GHz, 3.0 GHz, 6.0 GHz, 8.0 GHz, 12.0 GHz, 16.0 GHz and 28 GHz without an absorbent coating, and for frequencies of 1.2 GHz, 3.0 GHz, 6.0 GHz, 8.0 GHz, 12.0 GHz, 16.0 GHz with an absorbent coating, covering all angular aspects of the airframe. In addition, the performance of a range of Chinese developed radar absorbers was modelled, based on a reasonable survey of unclassified Chinese research publications in the area. None of the surveyed materials were found to be suitable for use as impedance matched specular radar absorbers. Modelling has determined, that if the production J-20 retains the axisymmetric nozzles and smoothly area ruled sides, the aircraft could at best deliver robust Very Low Observable performance in the nose aspect angular sector. Conversely, if the production J-20 introduces a rectangular faceted nozzle design, and refinements to fuselage side shaping, the design would present very good potential for robust Very Low Observable performance in the S-band and above, for the nose and tail aspect angular sectors, with good performance in the beam aspect angular sector. This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design._

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

shy@SJTU said:


> Wondering why you are still arguing about RCS performance...I thought someone should have posted this:
> *A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype *
> 
> ausairpower.n*(delete this!)*et*(delete this!)*/APA-2011-03*(delete this!)*.ht*(delete this!)*ml
> Dafuq... the site doesn't allow me to insert website links
> *
> Abstract*
> _This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Chengdu J-20 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics simulation algorithm were performed for frequencies of 150 MHz, 600 MHz, 1.2 GHz, 3.0 GHz, 6.0 GHz, 8.0 GHz, 12.0 GHz, 16.0 GHz and 28 GHz without an absorbent coating, and for frequencies of 1.2 GHz, 3.0 GHz, 6.0 GHz, 8.0 GHz, 12.0 GHz, 16.0 GHz with an absorbent coating, covering all angular aspects of the airframe. In addition, the performance of a range of Chinese developed radar absorbers was modelled, based on a reasonable survey of unclassified Chinese research publications in the area. None of the surveyed materials were found to be suitable for use as impedance matched specular radar absorbers. Modelling has determined, that if the production J-20 retains the axisymmetric nozzles and smoothly area ruled sides, the aircraft could at best deliver robust Very Low Observable performance in the nose aspect angular sector. Conversely, if the production J-20 introduces a rectangular faceted nozzle design, and refinements to fuselage side shaping, the design would present very good potential for robust Very Low Observable performance in the S-band and above, for the nose and tail aspect angular sectors, with good performance in the beam aspect angular sector. This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design._


That 'assessment' have been debunked here many times already.


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Beidou2020

cnleio said:


>



Amazing, will be a game changer when this baby enters service. China will dominate Asia with this baby.

The best 5th generation fighter jet in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

rarity of rarities

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tada!






http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2040604-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## masud

siegecrossbow said:


> Tada!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2040604-1-1.html


front looks awsome, but back looks old delta shape like old mirag jet. anyway it,s all new designe no one going to complain chines copy cate, good going PLAF..............

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Usman Khalid Jan 1

I have a question. 
I want to apply in pak navy in operational branch.
The problem is I wear glasses? 
Can I go for it 

Please help 
This is my first question on this platform
Thanks


----------



## j20blackdragon

The DAS apertures can be seen very clearly now.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Meejee

Usman Khalid Jan 1 said:


> I have a question.
> I want to apply in pak navy in operational branch.
> The problem is I wear glasses?
> Can I go for it
> 
> Please help
> This is my first question on this platform
> Thanks


You are asking the question in the wrong place. This is for J20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Still waiting for the next bird ....






by the way I found this image:






It's the avatar of a member at the CJDBJ-Forum (Super-Military Forum)
http://lt.cjdby.net/?928385

Has anyone a full-sized version of this small image ??? At least it is a new image I did not know so far.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

New bird has come off from the production line

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> New bird has come off from the production line




Images ... I want images, NOW !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> New bird has come off from the production line




No news yet ???


----------



## XiaoYaoZi

A new J11B that has the similiar nozzle pedals like J20. @Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

XiaoYaoZi said:


> A new J11B that has the similiar nozzle pedals like J20. @Deino



Not really ... the colour is the same or similar but this is a WS-10A used by a J-11BS operated by the 89. Brigade assigned to Dalian Base. If it would be a larger close-up image however it would reveal the same detail and differences as I explained in a previous post.

Anyway thanks a lot, since that specific bird numbered "70300" is new to my collection.


Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Has anyone any info on this one ?

.... found at the SDF posted by JayBird....



> A short article translation from ifeng. There is a video with the linked post.
> 歼-20曾现翼尖擦地险情 歼-31错失展示机会_凤凰军事
> Chengdu Aircraft Institute flight control system expert Li Jianping revealed for the first time that one of the prototype J-20's wing tip slightly grazed the ground during landing process. (he didn't say when or which J-20 airframe specifically) He says it was a little scary but the jet landed successfully. The cause was due to a relatively rare phenomenon called pilot-induced oscillation or aircraft-pilot coupling, and they've since came up with several new innovative optimization measures to greatly eliminates the risk of future flights.( Is that the reason why we don't see 2016? )
> The article also mention the other Chinese stealth fighter(J-31) had some problem with landing takeoff and resulting in missed opportunities to demonstrate in front of the top leader of the People's Liberation Army. And military experts noted that pilot-induced oscillation is the invisible killer for modern aircraft and the main reason for the landing accidents other than mechanical malfunctions. Both prototype of JAS-39 and F-22 crash were due to pilot-induced oscillation.



Deino


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Nice one ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cirr

J-20 and its development model（derivative、upgrade、extention。。。your guess is as good as mine）。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Just a small info regarding J-20 & WS-10 !! ... and it seems as if there's some progress with the WS-15.



> 中国航空学会的“冯如科技精英奖”是我国航空科技领域的重要奖项之一。近日，该学会网站公示了第三届冯如奖的提名名单以及候选人的重大成就，透露了我国航空科技界在一些前沿性、开拓性领域的新成就。
> 
> 在候选人的资料中，关于中国燃气涡轮研究院总设计师、国家多项重点型号发动机和重大科研项目总设计师及主要技术负责人黄维娜的成就描述中，提到了黄维娜为国家多项重点型号研制、重大基础研究和预先研究、新型航空发动机设计研发、发动机型号批生产，以及军方重大技术保障任务等做出了杰出贡献。
> 
> * 众所周知，目前国产隐形战斗机歼-20使用的是俄罗斯AL-31F发动机的改进型号，这款发动机并不能完全满足歼-20的发展需要，在苏-35使用的117S发动机短期内进入中国无望的情况下，国产涡扇-15发动机才是歼-20的最好选择，而涡扇-15便是由燃气涡轮研究院负责研制的。*此前曾有媒体透露，首台涡扇-15发动机的整机在2013年就已经进行了试车，综合以上消息表明，黄维娜负责的涡扇-15发动机显然已经取得了相当大的进展，否则不可能以其作为评价依据。
> 有军事观察员分析，如果涡扇-15这款全新发动机的研制比较顺利的话，其从台架试车到真正装上歼-20战斗机，中间依然还有很远的路要走。但若是涡扇-15的研发进度在后期没有难以逾越的困难，那么其有望于2020年左右装备在歼-20上进行飞行测试。



官媒曝歼-20国产发动机进展 疑涡扇-15已试车-凤凰新闻


Interesting *part* @ BEAST !



> As everyone knows, the Chinese stealth fighter jet, is used by Russia improved model AL-31F engine, this engine does not completely meet the development needs of the fighter jet, the 117S engines used in the Su-35 entered China in the short term a hopeless case, domestic f- -20 turbofan-engine 15 is the best choice, turbofan gas turbine Institute-15 is responsible for development.



Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## XiaoYaoZi Backup

j20blackdragon said:


> View attachment 243812


Beautiful.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Just a small info regarding J-20 & WS-10 !! ... and it seems as if there's some progress with the WS-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 官媒曝歼-20国产发动机进展 疑涡扇-15已试车-凤凰新闻
> 
> 
> Interesting *part* @ BEAST !
> 
> 
> 
> Deino


This is a report by pheonix news reporter. It just an assessment by himself on J-20 AL-31F engine. How truth is it whether the engine used now on J-20 is AL-31 F. That is a big question.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

New J20 are not single dogs


----------



## cirr

aliaselin said:


> New J20 are not single dogs



Meaning？

They will come out in pairs？


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> New J20 are not single dogs



Yes ... But please with images !


----------



## aliaselin

cirr said:


> Meaning？
> 
> They will come out in pairs？


Well， I quoted the original words


Deino said:


> Yes ... But please with images !


Be patient. There are lots of work to do before rolling out

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> Well， I quoted the original words
> 
> Be patient. There are lots of work to do before rolling out



YES, but first of all I'm not really a patient man ... and second I'm a bit surprised or even worried why after even four aircraft in 2014 since the last aircraft '2015' now more than 8 months.

Is there anything known why this long 'gap' ?? I remember some reports abaout a landing mishap earlier this year related to PIO - similar to the F-22 & Gripen - that may explain the "non-appearance" of new aircraft. Are they waiting for new systems or will the next birds feature additional changes after '2015' ??

Deino


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> YES, but first of all I'm not really a patient man ... and second I'm a bit surprised or even worried why after even four aircraft in 2014 since the last aircraft '2015' now more than 8 months.
> 
> Is there anything known why this long 'gap' ?? I remember some reports abaout a landing mishap earlier this year related to PIO - similar to the F-22 & Gripen - that may explain the "non-appearance" of new aircraft. Are they waiting for new systems or will the next birds feature additional changes after '2015' ??
> 
> Deino



Don't worry.

I have it on authorative sources: "no" news is good news.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Don't worry.
> 
> I have it on authorative sources: "no" news is good news.



Thanks ... however can You explain this "gap" in non-appearing of new prototypes. Even if everything's fine ... there must be a reasonable explanation why they managed to fly 4 aircraft alone in 2014 and until now in 2015 no new aircrfat - at least - appeared ?

Deino


----------



## Peaceful Civilian

I wish with improving economy we get few squardons of j20 and then j31 to counter 7 times big country like India.


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> Thanks ... however can You explain this "gap" in non-appearing of new prototypes. Even if everything's fine ... there must be a reasonable explanation why they managed to fly 4 aircraft alone in 2014 and until now in 2015 no new aircrfat - at least - appeared ?
> 
> Deino


I guess and I hope there would be a small batch come out together


----------



## Kompromat

China won't export them, not even to Pakistan.



Peaceful Civilian said:


> I wish with improving economy we get few squardons of j20 and then j31 to counter 7 times big country like India.


----------



## cirr

J-20 to test-flight with WS-15 in 2016？

As per the latest official report，the WS-15 has completed altitude simulated tests：

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Economic superpower

cirr said:


> J-20 to test-flight with WS-15 in 2016？
> 
> As per the latest official report，the WS-15 has completed altitude simulated tests：



Awesome.

WS-15 is the big daddy we have been hoping to see.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ahtan_china

cirr said:


> J-20 to test-flight with WS-15 in 2016？
> 
> As per the latest official report，the WS-15 has completed altitude simulated tests：


Where is the picture? No picture, You say J8


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-20 to test-flight with WS-15 in 2016？
> 
> As per the latest official report，the WS-15 has completed altitude simulated tests：



Sorry, but I can't see anything ??


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Sorry, but I can't see anything ??



Lin Zuoming，chairman of the Board of Directors of AVIC，presented award-winners with Gold Prize for contribution to China's aviation industry（completing altitude tests of WS-15 in this case）。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Thank You !


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

Where the Duck has this bird gone ?
Just disappeared ... No news anymore at all.


----------



## Martian2

*Chengdu J-20 has look-down shoot-down air dominance*

*The maximum altitude is very important. An air-to-air missile fired from a higher-flying plane can travel a lot further and faster with the help of gravity.*

J-20: 65,620 feet [1]
J-31: 65,000 feet [2]
F-22: 60,000 feet [3] 
F-35: 50,000 feet

Source: F-35 Flight Test Update 10 | Code One Magazine





References (GlobalSecurity).
1. J-20 (Jianjiji-20 Fighter aircraft 20) / F-20 Chinese Stealth Fighter
2. J-31 (Jianjiji-31 Fighter aircraft 21)
3. F-22 Raptor Specifications
----------

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Can anyone confirm that no. '2016' is out !??? 

Please with images NOW since I'm leaving for a trip into the woods only to come back later this evening.


----------



## kuge

Deino said:


> Can anyone confirm that no. '2016' is out !???
> 
> Please with images NOW since I'm leaving for a trip into the woods only to come back later this evening.


u may find it in the woods...


----------



## cirr

2016 has reportedly shown up to great expectation。

2017 is also said to show up shortly。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Development C&P

Just saw on the Internet，
maybe new J-20……

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Development C&P

Just saw on the Internet
maybe new J-20
Photograph time：2015-9-11 afternoon
“tiexue” release time：2015-9-11 Midnight

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## arif hamza

no picture sir


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

This could be the prototype 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Development C&P

arif hamza said:


> no picture sir


change google pictures，now ok？

………………
VPN offline……I can’t see google pic……


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Man i need Binoculars to see the prototype a little tail is visible with engines ......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Development C&P

Muhammad Omar said:


> Man i need Binoculars to see the prototype a little tail is visible with engines ......


Wait for the follow-up reports,
There may be a clear new photos Recently……

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Development C&P

update

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Oracle

prototype 2016 Pictures are out. 
It is rumor that 2016 will be equipped with WS15 enginer

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Oracle said:


> prototype 2016 Pictures are out.
> It is rumor that 2016 will be equipped with WS15 enginer



2016 with WS-15？Don't think so。

But J-20 will test-flight with WS-15 soon enough，probably in 2016.

2016 again。Start and end with 2016

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## My-Analogous

cirr said:


> View attachment 255922



That is my friend JF17 block 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

ghazaliy2k said:


> That is my friend JF17 block 3.



The following is perhaps what JF-17 Block III needs：

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

A new one ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

That DSI-bump looks different !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> That DSI-bump looks different !!!



New secret sensors inside。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> New secret sensors inside。




And the exhaust nozzles too ... with sawtooth !??

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## terranMarine

cirr said:


> New secret sensors inside。


J-20 could use this passive sensors to detect and aim missiles against the B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter, even while its radar is being jammed by EA-18G Growler.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

Engine is different. Not the usual one used on J-20, metal petal looks darker and more prominent sawtooth.

I am surprised at such late stage, it still has some significant structure change with the DSI.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Now that's cool


----------



## S10

It definitely looks like a new engine. My guess is WS-10B with 14 ton thrust and FADEC. I don't think WS-15 development is ready for at least two more years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Oracle said:


> prototype 2016 Pictures are out.
> ...




Just found ! This particular image was already posted on 13. April, just briefly before '2015' flew out to the CFTE or FTTC !







... anyway, here a nice (even if not exactly the same size) comparison of the DSI !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 55100864

what's up with the black trim line on the side weapon bay??


----------



## cnleio

Im tired of watching those *N.o2001, N.o2002, N.o2011, N.o2012, N.o2013, N.o2015, N.o2016 J-20 prototypes* ... come on, pls mass production & bring 100x J-20A stealth fighters to us. The prototype is ENOUGH and time is READY !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

No new images today ???


----------



## nadeemkhan110

Is it catchable on radar?

and which one is better j-20 or J-35?


----------



## Donatello

The Chengdu J-20 is a Stealth, twin-engine fifth-generation fighter aircraft prototype being developed by ChengduAircraft Industry Group for the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). The J-20 has the potential to rival the F-22A Raptor in performance once appropriate engines become available

If J20 tests are successful this year, small numbers of J-20 fighters can go into production for frontline units of the PLA Air Force, a military expert told Duowei. Knowledgeable sources have said the sensors and cyber warfare capability of the J-20 are as good as Lockheed Martin's F-35.

A Pentagon report predicted the J-20 may enter service in 2018 and the PLA could have its first squadron of 24 of the aircraft by 2020.









One of the greatest obstacles China still faces is its inability to build a sufficiently powerful and reliable engine for the fighter. The Russian-built AL-31F engine has been used for the test flights of the prototypes but it is believed that China will need to complete the design of its domestically built WS-15 engine before the J-20 is ready for high volume production.

The WS-15 is a Chinese turbofan engine designed by the Shenyang Aeroengine Research Institute and manufactured by Xi'an Aero-Engine Corporation. It is intended to power the Chengdu J-20 fighter





Source:
Next Big Future: New J20 stealth fighter prototype spotted and successful tests could start China's J20 stealth production and deployment


@MastanKhan 

Seems like they are making rapid progress, 7 prototypes is a lot. They will have it in production by 2020 latest, which would be safe to assume, is the same timeline for J-31

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Dalit

The Chinese are grinding these prototypes to their limit. Just imagine the amount of man-hours that have gone into testing the beast. Every tiny chink is being taken out of the armor. No doubt, once the J-20 surpasses all the final tests and starts rolling from the production assemblies we will witness a near perfect platform. The Chinese are fast learners. They learnt from American mistakes and are in no hurry to show case production numbers. Rather play it safely than be sorry afterwards. All we can do is learn and admire the Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cnleio

Soon into mass production, J-20A will out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 21stCentury

A new bird of prey will soon make the pacific skies it's home sweet home -- very exciting times ahead!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Donatello said:


> Seems like they are making rapid progress, 7 prototypes is a lot. They will have it in production by 2020 latest, which would be safe to assume, is the same timeline for J-31



Make it 8 prototypes, Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft | Updates & Discussions. | Page 308

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chanakyaa

Congratulations. The Homegrown efforts are bearing fruits for PLAAF. Awesome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

terranMarine said:


> Make it 8 prototypes,




Why 8 ??

There are the numbers 2001, 2002 (now 2004), 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and now 2016.

By the way would You guys please just take a look if there's already a tread for a certain topic and do not open so many new ones !?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Deino said:


> Why 8 ??
> 
> There are the numbers 2001, 2002 (now 2004), 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and now 2016.



Since there are new sensors installed on the 2016 prototype, i guess there might be other changes for the 2017 test model. Until then just have to wait and see.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SOHEIL

cnleio said:


> Im tired of watching those *N.o2001, N.o2002, N.o2011, N.o2012, N.o2013, N.o2015, N.o2016 J-20 prototypes* ... come on, pls mass production & bring 100x J-20A stealth fighters to us. The prototype is ENOUGH and time is READY !



There is a reason behind !


----------



## S10

cnleio said:


> Im tired of watching those *N.o2001, N.o2002, N.o2011, N.o2012, N.o2013, N.o2015, N.o2016 J-20 prototypes* ... come on, pls mass production & bring 100x J-20A stealth fighters to us. The prototype is ENOUGH and time is READY !



Absolutely not. I rather they take their time and resolve their issues rather than rushing it into service. We need a reliable plane, not some showpiece used to brag.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Chengdu J-20 Fifth Generation Aircraft Prototype

China will start limited series production of J-20 fifth generation stealth fighter if the tests being carried out on the newest prototype are successful.

China has begun tests on its seventh and newest prototype of the J-20 fighter, Duowei News reported Saturday.

“If these tests have successfully been carried out by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group this year, small numbers of J-20 fighters can go into production for frontline units of the PLA Air Force,” a military source was quoted as saying by Duowei.

The sensors and cyber warfare capability of the J-20 are as good as Lockheed Martin's F-35, the source said.

China To Start Limited Series Production of J-20 Fighters

@Horus @Oscar @Jango @Jungibaaz @Chinese-Dragon @ChineseTiger1986 @Areesh @MastanKhan @Beast @Nair saab

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beethoven

way to go guys......great job indeed

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 21stCentury

It's about time to unleash this beast

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zarvan

@MastanKhan Now I think we can wait


----------



## graphican

So China will have its Stealth Fighter jet in 2016 and analysts were estimating it to be around 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zarvan

graphican said:


> So China will have its Stealth Fighter jet in 2016 and analysts were estimating it to be around 2020.


Can't be fully sure it is still way risky


----------



## 21stCentury

graphican said:


> So China will have its Stealth Fighter jet in 2016 and analysts were estimating it to be around 2020.



2018 will most likely be the date of the finalized complete version. That's still only 3 years away until the J-20 start roaming the skies for its prey.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

2016 rears its ugly rears 












Now hang on a minute，J-20B will test-flight with the WS-15 in the forseeable future。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2016 rears its ugly rears
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now hang on a minute，J-20B will test-flight with the WS-15 in the forseeable future。



Thanks ... so these are still AL-31FN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

image of 6th j20 prototype

China will start limited series production of J-20 fifth generation stealth fighter if the tests being carried out on the newest prototype are successful.

China has begun tests on its seventh and newest prototype of the J-20 fighter, Duowei News reported Saturday.

“If these tests have successfully been carried out by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group this year, small numbers of J-20 fighters can go into production for frontline units of the PLA Air Force,” a military source was quoted as saying by Duowei.

The sensors and cyber warfare capability of the J-20 are as good as Lockheed Martin's F-35, the source said.


Chinese first fifth-generation stealth fighter will be inducted in People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force in 2017.

“It will take another two years for the Chengdu Aircraft group to complete development of the aircraft,” Kanwa Defense Review reported Tuesday.

The company still has to carry out many tests and trials in the next couple of years. China began by developing an active electronically scanned array in 2004. They tested it aboard Tu-204 aircraft before filling it into J-20.

China has so far produced four prototypes of J-20. The shape of the fuselage has remained unaltered. Several modifications have been added on the last three aircraft. The J-20 development has been done at a faster pace than Russian T-50 fifth generation fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Kompromat

It was always expected.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 313baberali

Pakistan must start investing in this program,atleast a little investment on yearly bases particularly in this project,so that after 10 years we were capable of creating more advance weaponry
a stealth technology research and development lab on a large scale we need it.
as there were reports about china,cyber hacking, means china has now almost top technology.i personaly feel its better to buy or invest with china rather than buying su-35.hope PAF never compromise in quality and technology as it never did before.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## !eon

It was already posted 



313baberali said:


> Pakistan must start investing in this program,atleast a little investment on yearly bases particularly in this project,so that after 10 years we were capable of creating more advance weaponry
> a stealth technology research and development lab on a large scale we need it.
> as there were reports about china,cyber hacking, means china has now almost top technology.i personaly feel its better to buy or invest with china rather than buying su-35.hope PAF never compromise in quality and technology as it never did before.


Ni bhai our babas in PAF will be buying ayf sola, even in 2020


----------



## 313baberali

!eon said:


> It was already posted
> 
> 
> Ni bhai our babas in PAF will be buying ayf sola, even in 2020


can not agree with you sir, as it was right decision ,and remember we are not buying we already bought those jets decades before,and you know our money was stuck,and recent delivery from jordan is basis of 2 seat jets for training basis,as a part of deal we have to buy some single seat f16s also,and remember we are upgrading all old f16s so still they are on top class.anyways i respect your opinion .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ind4Ever

High time we place orders for PakFa by this year so 1st batch will join by 2017 . India cant afford to stay back and hoping for fgfa or amca . Well done China first Asian country to produce 5th gen fighter !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 313baberali

Ind4Ever said:


> High time we place orders for PakFa by this year so 1st batch will join by 2017 . India cant afford to stay back and hoping for fgfa or amca . Well done China first Asian country to produce 5th gen fighter !!!


it might be funny,but i always feel this PAKFA a property of Pakistan PAk

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ind4Ever

313baberali said:


> it might be funny,but i always feel this PAKFA a property of Pakistan PAk


True  But don't think you will get it


----------



## 313baberali

Ind4Ever said:


> True  But don't think you will get it


lets c


----------



## Ind4Ever

(Top) J-20 prototype “2001” that first flew in January 2011; (Bottom) The new J-20 prototype “2011”







313baberali said:


> lets c


----------



## 313baberali

q chaiiee garam thia


----------



## Deino

I just tried to find a few similar shots of the other J-20 prototypes ... and quite interesting, '2016' is again more similar to the early birds '2001' & '2002" than to the last four. Biggest change IMO is however that the engine itself seems to be positioned deeper into the airframe ... or that serrated ring is longer !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The old silver nozzled engine used by the prototype 2011.








And the new engine on both 2011 and 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The old silver nozzled engine used by the prototype 2011.
> 
> View attachment 257137
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the new engine on both 2011 and 2016.
> 
> View attachment 257138



Nice ... indeed it seems as if that "new" type of engine - or at least '2016's configuration - was already tested before ...

By the way '2016' was already out at CAC in June !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SOHEIL

؟؟؟

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

SOHEIL said:


> ؟؟؟
> 
> View attachment 257290




These are GJ-1 Wing Loong UAVs manufactured at CAC ! ... but what's that small thing right to the one in the second row ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SOHEIL

@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Beginning this year，practical verification will be carried out on a new thrust-vectoring engine intended for the J-20：

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kuge

Deino said:


> Nice ... indeed it seems as if that "new" type of engine - or at least '2016's configuration - was already tested before ...
> 
> By the way '2016' was already out at CAC in June !
> 
> View attachment 257287


how do u tell that it was 2016 in the pic?



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The old silver nozzled engine used by the prototype 2011.
> 
> View attachment 257137
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the new engine on both 2011 and 2016.
> 
> View attachment 257138


is that take off or landing?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

kuge said:


> how do u tell that it was 2016 in the pic?




Not really a 100%-knowing ... but an assumption based on the fact the all other prototypes have long left Chengdu and at least from what I know, no prototype came back during July.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

kuge said:


> is that take off or landing?



Not sure.


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Beginning this year，practical verification will be carried out on a new thrust-vectoring engine intended for the J-20：



The rumor is the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kuge

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Not sure.


i asked that becoz after-burner was not visible. apparently it was landing


----------



## cirr

Stealthier Stealth? Seventh Upgraded Chinese Stealth Fighter Prototype Aims to take Flight | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

But we want images !!! ... and even more images showing that beast in the air.

Deino


----------



## cirr

Single observer passive locating and tracking (SOPLAT) system deployed on J-20

Three hurrays。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Single observer passive location and tracking (SOPLAT) system deployed on J-20
> 
> Three hurrays。




Honestly, I've never heard of such a system !!! how does it work ??


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Honestly, I've never heard of such a system !!! how does it work ??



It is for the long-range detection of stealth targets。

If my memory still serves，several Chinese research teams，including one from the NUDT，have been hard at work on the technology for years，if not decades。

Do a google search。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

A Luoyang Electro Optic Research Institute (LEOC) PL-10 5th generation air-to-air missile on a Shenyang J-11. Source: Chinese internet
The Luoyang Electro-Optical Research Institute (LEOC) has largely competed development of its fifth-generation PL-10 short-range air-to-air missile (AAM), according to comments by the missile's designer on a Chinese TV show broadcast in late August.

The PL-10 AAM was first seen on Chinese websites in 2013 being carried on a retractable/covered pylon on the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-20 fifth-generation fighter. More recently it has been seen on the wingtip pylon of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation J-11 fighter.

The TV report featured an interview with the PL-10's chief designer, Liang Xiaogeng. According to Mark Stokes of the Project 2049 research institute, Liang also served as the deputy chief designer of LEOC's PL-9C infrared/helmet-sighted AAM and as chief designer of the PL-12 self-guided medium-range AAM.

The report was unusual in that it provided significant historic and performance data about a new weapon before its unveiling at a major arms show or exhibition. For example, the report noted that the PL-10 weighs 89 kg, has a length of 3 m, and a range of 20 km. It has been in development for seven years, a prototype was completed in 2013, and since then has been test-fired 30 times.

The report also noted that the PL-10 has "world class" capabilities that include a "multi-element imaging infrared seeker with anti-jamming capabilities" and indicated that it is capable of high off-boresight attacks and has super manoeuvrability.

Images from 2013 and more recently confirm that the PL-10 uses thrust vectoring vanes in its motor exhaust. These, plus unique large aft fins with a slight forward sweep, likely confer super manoeuvrability.

Like comparable AAMs, the PL-10 probably also uses a new helmet-mounted display (HMD) sighting system.

*Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options **ihs.com/contact*




To read the full article, Client Login
(301 of 356 words)

Chief designer reveals data on China's new Luoyang PL-10 AAM - IHS Jane's 360

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## bdslph

j20 will improve a lot on the way wish to see oneday in PAF and BAF color

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

2016 made its maiden flight at 15:35pm Beijing Time on 18.09.2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2016 made its maiden flight at 15:35pm Beijing Time on 18.09.2015.




*IMAGES PLEASE !!!!!! ... anyway, congrats to CAC. *


----------



## SOHEIL

cirr said:


> 2016 made its maiden flight at 15:35pm Beijing Time on 18.09.2015.



PIX


----------



## cirr

SOHEIL said:


> PIX



The first flight lasted some 20 mins。

Pics when available。



Deino said:


> *IMAGES PLEASE !!!!!! ... anyway, congrats to CAC. *



when available，when available。

A J-10B/C has been seen taking test flights with the 14-ton WS-10G（Taihang Gai）

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Ohh PLEASE give us more ... both the J-20 '2016' as well as the J-10C with WS-10G !!!

Tatatata ...


----------



## SOHEIL

cirr said:


> 14000-ton


----------



## cirr

SOHEIL said:


>



14-ton or 14000kgf。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

old pic。deleted。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

But this is an old image from a series of images taken on 30. July 2011 ... all are J-10B prototype no. 5 serialled '1035' !


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> But this is an old image from a series of images taken on 30. July 2011 ... all are J-10B prototype no. 5 serialled '1035' !
> 
> View attachment 258024
> View attachment 258026
> View attachment 258027
> View attachment 258028

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> old pic。deleted。





cirr said:


>



 Yepp, seems so !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kuge

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Not sure.


i asked that becoz after-burner was not visible. apparently it was landing


Deino said:


> Yepp, seems so !


i dun understand why the initial photo has been blur before getting clear....


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Beast

j20blackdragon said:


> View attachment 258114
> View attachment 258116



Initial batch of operational J-20 squadron will equipped with WS-10B to give it limited super cruise abilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## j20blackdragon

2016

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## aliaselin

kuge said:


> i asked that becoz after-burner was not visible. apparently it was landing
> 
> i dun understand why the initial photo has been blur before getting clear....


It is a good way to protect 卧草党

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blue Marlin

7th prototype j20 takes of

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## kungfugymnast

Stealth aircraft is more suitable for weapons platform than being fighter. I find combat radius and ability to carry more missiles, guided bombs are most important while dogfight is for self defense when stealth being compromised.

F22 and f35 are quite fuel thirsty due to overtuned engines generating really high thrust. f22 could only carry limited 2x aim9x and 4x amraams or JDAMs and SDB. F35 carries only 4x air to air or 2x Amraam & 2x JDAMs or few 250lb SDBs. It's like replacing f117 nighthawk. If America replaced all f15/16/18 with f22/35, these aircraft can't perform ground sorties well and will need a lot of them to do the jobs of fighters they are replacing.

The j20, it needs large internal bay to carry maybe 8x air to air missiles or 4x air to air & 4x air to ground minimum to be effective multi~role fighter. It is larger and longer, should be able to meet such requirements. It has enough room to have cwb like f15se

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

kungfugymnast said:


> Stealth aircraft is more suitable for weapons platform than being fighter. I find combat radius and ability to carry more missiles, guided bombs are most important while dogfight is for self defense when stealth being compromised.
> 
> F22 and f35 are quite fuel thirsty due to overtuned engines generating really high thrust. f22 could only carry limited 2x aim9x and 4x amraams or JDAMs and SDB. F35 carries only 4x air to air or 2x Amraam & 2x JDAMs or few 250lb SDBs. It's like replacing f117 nighthawk. If America replaced all f15/16/18 with f22/35, these aircraft can't perform ground sorties well and will need a lot of them to do the jobs of fighters they are replacing.
> 
> The j20, it needs large internal bay to carry maybe 8x air to air missiles or 4x air to air & 4x air to ground minimum to be effective multi~role fighter. It is larger and longer, should be able to meet such requirements. It has enough room to have cwb like f15se



F-22 are not fuel thirsty. The supercruise abilities allow F-22 to cruise at supersonic speed w/o turning on afterburner. Meaning more fuel efficient and longer range. Where did you get the ideal F22 are fuel thirsty?


----------



## Deino

Like I expected from Adam.Y !
... and now the discussion on what nozzle, what type of engines is on again !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


> F-22 are not fuel thirsty. The supercruise abilities allow F-22 to cruise at supersonic speed w/o turning on afterburner. Meaning more fuel efficient and longer range. Where did you get the ideal F22 are fuel thirsty?



F22 burns more fuel per second than the f15e & su30mk on dry thrust. If you cruise, the f22 could go 900nm with full internal loads. But for combat air patrol, the f22 will go bingo fuel sooner than other aircrafts. The same goes to f35, it's thirsty for fuel. 

The j20, it needs 2 variants, 1 with weaker engine for better fuel efficiency patrol and another with powerful supercuise engine for attack and interceptor role

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

China only access to tvc IR guided missile with off boresight capability would be the r73. Since china favours Western tech, the seeker would be improved version of pl9 derived from python3 added with r73 seeker tech. This Iris equivalent should work better than r73.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Deino said:


> Like I expected from Adam.Y !
> ... and now the discussion on what nozzle, what type of engines is on again !
> 
> View attachment 258438
> View attachment 258439
> View attachment 258440
> View attachment 258441
> View attachment 258442
> View attachment 258443


these pics easily show the side bays. i wonder if they are able to hold bvraam's?


----------



## j20blackdragon

I have a feeling the '2016' engines are not AL-31 to begin with.

Unpainted AL-31 engines look like this. We've seen it before on the original J-20 prototypes.














J-20 2016 engines look like this.










They don't look like the same engines to me.

The length of the nozzles are different.

The color is different.

Moreover, why adjust the shape of the DSI bumps (and alter airflow) for the exact same AL-31 engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> I have a feeling the '2016' engines are not AL-31 to begin with.
> 
> Unpainted AL-31 engines look like this. We've seen it before on the original J-20 prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 2016 engines look like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The funny thing is , I think we both will fight this issue until an official statement is given by either CAC, the PLAAf or the engine manufactor ! 

Anyway IMO they are the same, especially the first image with the last two ... they only got rid of this anti-IR-painting/-coating on the silver engines.

Anyay ... up to our next round ! 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Both shots from a similar angle. They don't look like the same engines to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... plesae take a look, what images are already posted !!!*

*All of them were already posted within the last days more than once ! ... even more not every new image has to be posted by everyone in a new tread ! take a look, what topic fits to Your post and then post it ...*


Thank You,
Deino
















A few more nice images ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> View attachment 258496
> View attachment 258497
> View attachment 258498
> View attachment 258499
> View attachment 258500
> A few more nice images ...


Beautiful ... just the more i see J-20, the more i feel it looks like a frontline bomber ... J-20 body longer than F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Still doesn't look like the unpainted AL-31. Underside shot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Another minor difference ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Oldman1

Deino said:


> Another minor difference ....
> 
> View attachment 258544



You sure? Because I think its just grainy and hard to see the outline compared to the top pic, but I notice the color difference so it may have been there before.


----------



## ultron

Is this the last proto or is there 1 more?


----------



## 313baberali

Ind4Ever said:


> (Top) J-20 prototype “2001” that first flew in January 2011; (Bottom) The new J-20 prototype “2011”
> View attachment 257067


----------



## BoQ77

J20 still under running changes on its appearance, so it's too early to expect its mass production, @cnleio
there need many things to complete before that.


----------



## cirr

The next focal point of interest should be the flight trials of the WS-15 on a J-20。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Ind4Ever said:


> (Top) J-20 prototype “2001” that first flew in January 2011; (Bottom) The new J-20 prototype “2011”
> View attachment 257067


The prototype #2011 was unveiled two years ago. The latest is #2016 with new engine, modified DSI inlet and modified tail.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ind4Ever

S10 said:


> The prototype #2011 was unveiled two years ago. The latest is #2016 with new engine, modified DSI inlet and modified tail.




looks stealthy but i dont feel that "X" factor of F22 or PakFa . Just my personal view


----------



## S10

Ind4Ever said:


> looks stealthy but i dont feel that "X" factor of F22 or PakFa . Just my personal view


Due to its large internal fuel tanks, it looks chubby from side angles unlike the more slender design of F-22 or T-50. If you switch the angle a bit it does look more pleasing.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ind4Ever

S10 said:


> Due to its large internal fuel tanks, it looks chubby from side angles unlike the more slender design of F-22 or T-50. If you switch the angle a bit it does look more pleasing.




cool . I will wait for final product or atleast final specs . I guess it will be for Shoot and scoot role unlike PakFa or F22 which can tail any versatile aircraft


----------



## Xenophon

We should start negotiating about this plane .


----------



## S10

Ind4Ever said:


> cool . I will wait for final product or atleast final specs . I guess it will be for Shoot and scoot role unlike PakFa or F22 which can tail any versatile aircraft


Prototype #2016 is actually quite close to production model. I would say it might actually be the last one or two prototype before limited production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ind4Ever

S10 said:


> Prototype #2016 is actually quite close to production model. I would say it might actually be the last one or two prototype before limited production.



One thing i am proud of this program is its our first 5th gen fighter from Asia . But i like to be careful before studying its capabilities . there are many challenges to get a level of F22 or PakFa . 

J20 on my view : 

Good Range 

moderately good stealth to be called as 5th gen fighter better than EF or Rafale 

High speed 

Medium altitude 

short of Dogfight capabilities .Inferior to 30s , EF rafale F15 j11 but superior in BVR thanks to new missiles(yet to be developed but on its way and thanks to its stealth with reduce range of getting detected and locked by enemy) 

Major changes in airframe is not possible unless completely new fighter will be produced which is likely .



S10 said:


> Prototype #2016 is actually quite close to production model. I would say it might actually be the last one or two prototype before limited production.



Given some official info on its capabilities

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

blue marlin said:


> The sensors and cyber warfare capability of the J-20 are as good as Lockheed Martin's F-35, the source said.
> ..........
> The J-20 development has been done at a faster pace than Russian T-50 fifth generation fighter.


1. How "the source" know "how F-35 perform in sensor and cyber warfare capability" ? to conclude J20 as good as F-35
maybe J20 even better ? but we are not sure.

2. How J-20 at faster *pace* than T-50 ? please declare !!!


----------



## S10

Ind4Ever said:


> One thing i am proud of this program is its our first 5th gen fighter from Asia . But i like to be careful before studying its capabilities . there are many challenges to get a level of F22 or PakFa.


What "level" is F-22 or PAK-FA? Everything is mere speculation.



> J20 on my view :
> 
> Good Range
> 
> moderately good stealth to be called as 5th gen fighter better than EF or Rafale
> 
> High speed
> 
> Medium altitude
> 
> short of Dogfight capabilities .Inferior to 30s , EF rafale F15 j11 but superior in BVR thanks to new missiles(yet to be developed but on its way and thanks to its stealth with reduce range of getting detected and locked by enemy)
> 
> Major changes in airframe is not possible unless completely new fighter will be produced which is likely .


Long range is a given, as the plane has a large internal tank. How did you arrive at the "moderately good stealth" part? First, what is your standard of good? You can't measure RCS with your eyes and it's not dependent on size (i.e. B-2). Second, the delta-canard shaping with leading wing edge and thrust vectoring were designed to have good maneuverability in high subsonic speeds in the first place, so how did you arrive at the conclusion that it can't dogfight?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ind4Ever

S10 said:


> What "level" is F-22 or PAK-FA? Everything is mere speculation.


 Because each of these two projects have dedicated futuristic engine and more than enough experience.




> Long range is a given, as the plane has a large internal tank. How did you arrive at the "moderately good stealth" part? First, what is your standard of good? You can't measure RCS with your eyes and it's not dependent on size (i.e. B-2). Second, the delta-canard shaping with leading wing edge and thrust vectoring were designed to have good maneuverability in high subsonic speeds in the first place, so how did you arrive at the conclusion that it can't dogfight?



You should think about these points below : 

- no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealthâ€ than adding canards to the aircraft.
Thats the reason you wont see Canards in all (ALL) 5th gen fighter . There is a good reason for doing so . 








2)Engine nozzle stealth compromised due to heat generated by high thrust engines to propel over all fat body of larger fighter like J20 will be more !!!


----------



## Beast

Ind4Ever said:


> Because each of these two projects have dedicated futuristic engine and more than enough experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should think about these points below :
> 
> - no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealthâ€ than adding canards to the aircraft.
> Thats the reason you wont see Canards in all (ALL) 5th gen fighter . There is a good reason for doing so .
> 
> View attachment 258652
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Engine nozzle stealth compromised due to heat generated by high thrust engines to propel over all fat body of larger fighter like J20 will be more !!!
> View attachment 258658



Really?






Boeing 6th generation fighter concept

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ind4Ever

Beast said:


> Really?
> 
> View attachment 258680
> 
> 
> Boeing 6th generation fighter concept


good one but epic fail . its 6th gen technology yet to be developed . thats generation leap from 5th gen . please dont compare j20 with 6th gen ,,,


----------



## S10

Ind4Ever said:


> Because each of these two projects have dedicated futuristic engine and more than enough experience.


Where is the supposed "futuristic engine" for PAK-FA? It's an AL-31 derivative. Russia has yet to develop to develop the 117 engine. Don't count your chicken before it hatches, especially when Russia aviation industry suffered from chronic funding shortage and brain drain for the past 20 years.

The 117S engine had grounded 1 prototype and destroyed another already:











> You should think about these points below :
> 
> - no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealthâ€ than adding canards to the aircraft.
> Thats the reason you wont see Canards in all (ALL) 5th gen fighter . There is a good reason for doing so .
> 
> View attachment 258652
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Engine nozzle stealth compromised due to heat generated by high thrust engines to propel over all fat body of larger fighter like J20 will be more !!!
> View attachment 258658


No, you should think about these below. The presence of canard does not automatically mean RCS return will be put above the low observable threshold, nor does having a larger airframe.

Northrop Gruman





SAAB





KF-X





X-36





JAST







Ind4Ever said:


> good one but epic fail . its 6th gen technology yet to be developed . thats generation leap from 5th gen . please dont compare j20 with 6th gen ,,,


No, the fail is on you. Canard designs were proposed for SAAB's next generation fighter, US Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter, South Korean KF-X as well as Boeing's 6th generation concept. All of those have the requirement of being low observable, so obviously the presence of canard does not exclude a design from being considered "stealth".

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

S10 said:


> Where is the supposed "futuristic engine" for PAK-FA? It's an AL-31 derivative. Russia has yet to develop to develop the 117 engine. Don't count your chicken before it hatches, especially when Russia aviation industry suffered from chronic funding shortage and brain drain for the past 20 years.
> 
> The 117S engine had grounded 1 prototype and destroyed another already:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you should think about these below. The presence of canard does not automatically mean RCS return will be put above the low observable threshold, nor does having a larger airframe.
> 
> Northrop Gruman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAAB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KF-X
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> X-36
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the fail is on you. Canard designs were proposed for SAAB's next generation fighter, US Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter, South Korean KF-X as well as Boeing's 6th generation concept. All of those have the requirement of being low observable, so obviously the presence of canard does not exclude a design from being considered "stealth".



THe indian is just spreading lies to ease their ego of not able to compete on the same ground. They are at least 2-3 level lower than the Chinese when comes to aviation fighter development.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Thunder Bolt

*New J-20 Stealth Fighter Prototype Undergoes Flight Tests*





*J-20 Stealth Fighter Aircraft
*
The latest prototype of the Chengdu J-20, China’s fifth-generation stealth fighter, with the temporary tail number “2016” has begun taxiing tests recently, according to Sina’s military news web portal.

There are at present seven prototypes of the aircraft, which had its maiden test flight in early 2011. The main mission of the prototype with the initial tail number “2001” was to undertake a maiden flight and to test the aircraft’s aerodynamic structure and stealth capabilities. The prototype which originally had the tail number “2002” (now been repainted as “2004”) was used mainly to test avionics, as well as the hydraulics and the pneumatics of the weapons bay. Later it was also used to test bomb drops.

Another two prototypes have not conducted test flights, including what is now the “2002” and the “2003,” and have likely been used for static strength tests, ground-based radar cross-section tests, fatigue tests and the “iron bird” test platform. Six prototypes have previously carried out flight tests, the “2001,” the “2002,” (now the “2004”) and the 2011, as well as three newer prototypes with the tail numbers “2012,” “2013” and “2015.”

The next batch of prototypes will halt use of simulated flight systems, fly-by-wire control systems, electronic warfare systems and pneumatics, which will all be actually installed within the craft, to allow for more comprehensive test flights, according to commentators.

The current J-20 prototypes are equipped with an electro-optical distributed aperture system (EODAS) similar to that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. They are also equipped with the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar developed for the J-20 over a number of years by the Nanjing Electronic Technology Research Institute, also known as the No. 14 Institute. The AESA radar is similar in its specs to the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 low probability of intercept radar installed on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and the AN/APG-79 developed for the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Boeing EA-18G Growler.

The next batch of J-20 prototypes will reportedly be equipped with imported Russian AL-31FN series 3 engines. The engine’s specs are similar to the AL-31F M1 and are equipped with a full authority digital electronics control (FADEC) system. As research and development on the domestically built Xian WS-15 engine has fallen well behind, with the engine not even having undergone high-altitude test flights, it is unlikely to be installed in the first production batch of the J-20.

The first batch of J-20s to enter into production will be handed over to the PLA Air Force test flight and training center in Cangzhou and will be handed over to frontline air force units in 2017. It is expected to achieve initial operational capable (IOC) status in 2019. This batch will likely be equipped with Russian-made AL31F-M2 or AL-41F1S engines until around 2020. The domestic WS-15 will likely mature in time to be installed in the second batch of J-20s to be manufactured, which will be called the J-20A.

There has been continuous bad news emerging about the T-50 prototype of the Russian fifth-generation Sukhoi PAK FA fighter. The T-50 is reportedly inferior to the J-20 in terms of its avionics, the material used to make the plane and its stealth capabilities, and it iss uncertain whether it will enter service at all. Production of the US F-22 has halted after 187 planes came off the line and many of the aircraft have been grounded due to a problem with its oxygen supply systems. The F-35 has faced interminable delays and its overall capabilities do not seem to match up to the T-50, never mind the J-20.

If China’s air force were to be equipped with 500 J-20s, it would rank first among the world’s air forces, according to the website. The J-20 does not currently have a carrier-based variant and China is yet to establish an overseas air base, so its primary objective will likely be to protect China’s airspace and air defence capabilities.
New J-20 Stealth Fighter Prototype Undergoes Flight Tests | Air Force & Aerospace News at DefenceTalk

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> No, the fail is on you. Canard designs were proposed for SAAB's next generation fighter, US Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter, South Korean KF-X as well as Boeing's 6th generation concept. All of those have the requirement of being low observable, so obviously the presence of canard does not exclude a design from being considered "stealth".


No, the fail is on *YOU*, for failing to understand what I tried to teach you guys a long time ago.

In designing a low radar observable body, there are three main rules of control:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

*Rule 1*: There is no set quantity of radiators. What this rule mean is that you should minimize the quantity of structures that would be in the radar beam.

*Rule 2*: A single vertical stab for yaw axis control and stability have been the norm for decades. But for a low radar observable design, a single vertical stab would mean a pair corner reflectors created between the vertical stab and the aircraft's body. So in using twin canted vertical stabs to avoid the critical 90 deg corner reflector, you are less obedient to rule 1. You did not violate rule 1. Just less obedient to it.

*Rule 2*: There are many modes of radiation. The surface wave mode is one of them. Absorber to control surface waves would deny the enemy's radar much of this mode of radiation.

You can have a requirement that a body be low radar observable, but if the quantity of radiators elevates your design above a certain threshold, your design failed your requirement. So just because an experimental design have canards and the low radar observable requirement, that does not mean both are natural allies with each other.

For all we know, those experimental aircrafts may have low radar observable requirement, but it was the canards that raised the overall RCS to over that threshold.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Thunder Bolt said:


> The T-50 is reportedly inferior to the J-20 in terms of its avionics, the material used to make the plane and its stealth capabilities, and it iss uncertain whether it will enter service at all. Production of the US F-22 has halted after 187 planes came off the line and many of the aircraft have been grounded due to a problem with its oxygen supply systems. The F-35 has faced interminable delays and its overall capabilities do not seem to match up to the T-50, never mind the J-20.
> 
> If China’s air force were to be equipped with 500 J-20s, it would rank first among the world’s air forces, according to the website. The J-20 does not currently have a carrier-based variant and China is yet to establish an overseas air base, so its primary objective will likely be to protect China’s airspace and air defence capabilities.



US congress has decided not to replace all f15s with f22 upon seeing the high maintenance and limited multi-role capability. F15s would remain in service until new stealth aircraft or probably non-stealth better agility multi-role fighters will be developed instead. Stealth fighter only limited to intercept role or deep interdiction strike taking over role of f117.

The f35 too might not be built in large numbers bt as supplement to fighters they intended to replace due to very limited armaments carried internally. It is more suitable for attacking strategic targets such as enemy command centre, SAM sites, logistics while air support and combat air patrol roles are done by conventional fighters. 

Navalised j20 will only materialize after China managed to build proper catapult launch system allowing it to take off on full fuel & payloads attacking targets deeper inside enemy territories.


----------



## Oldman1

kungfugymnast said:


> US congress has decided not to replace all f15s with f22 upon seeing the high maintenance and limited multi-role capability. F15s would remain in service until new stealth aircraft or probably non-stealth better agility multi-role fighters will be developed instead. Stealth fighter only limited to intercept role or deep interdiction strike taking over role of f117.
> 
> The f35 too might not be built in large numbers bt as supplement to fighters they intended to replace due to very limited armaments carried internally. It is more suitable for attacking strategic targets such as enemy command centre, SAM sites, logistics while air support and combat air patrol roles are done by conventional fighters.
> 
> Navalised j20 will only materialize after China managed to build proper catapult launch system allowing it to take off on full fuel & payloads attacking targets deeper inside enemy territories.



F-15s are being planned to be upgraded. And no doubt the F-35 will be built in large numbers.


----------



## ultron

Oldman1 said:


> F-15s are being planned to be upgraded. And no doubt the F-35 will be built in large numbers.




J-20 compared to F-35 is essentially F-18E compared to F-16.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> No, the fail is on *YOU*, for failing to understand what I tried to teach you guys a long time ago.
> 
> In designing a low radar observable body, there are three main rules of control:
> 
> - Quantity of radiators
> - Array of radiators
> - Modes of radiation
> 
> *Rule 1*: There is no set quantity of radiators. What this rule mean is that you should minimize the quantity of structures that would be in the radar beam.
> 
> *Rule 2*: A single vertical stab for yaw axis control and stability have been the norm for decades. But for a low radar observable design, a single vertical stab would mean a pair corner reflectors created between the vertical stab and the aircraft's body. So in using twin canted vertical stabs to avoid the critical 90 deg corner reflector, you are less obedient to rule 1. You did not violate rule 1. Just less obedient to it.
> 
> *Rule 2*: There are many modes of radiation. The surface wave mode is one of them. Absorber to control surface waves would deny the enemy's radar much of this mode of radiation.
> 
> You can have a requirement that a body be low radar observable, but if the quantity of radiators elevates your design above a certain threshold, your design failed your requirement. So just because an experimental design have canards and the low radar observable requirement, that does not mean both are natural allies with each other.
> 
> For all we know, those experimental aircrafts may have low radar observable requirement, but it was the canards that raised the overall RCS to over that threshold.


How come I never hear you pointing out the Pak Fa's airfoil?
It's basically a canard attached a little further back on the fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Oldman1 said:


> F-15s are being planned to be upgraded. And no doubt the F-35 will be built in large numbers.



Only newer f15s will be upgraded. Older f15s will be scrapped to avoid risk of airframe breaking apart after taking much punishment and old age. USAF can't retain existing old aging f15s forever. Later on, they'll need new conventional multirole fighters with ease of maintenance or purchase new f15se, f16e and super hornets.

F35s might not be built in large numbers after first few batches entered service when they realize the f35 is just not practical with the fuel guzzling and internal bay that could only hold 4x AMRAAM or 2x Amraam & 2x jdam or 4x jdam or 2x Amraam & 8x sdb (250lb each). F15e, F16, f18 could carry 12x agm65g with 4x aam or mixture of harm, paveway, jsow, jdam, zuni, cluster bombs, anti ship missiles, jammier, etc on 8 or more pylons attacking air & multiple ground targets from AAA, Sams, invasion frce of tanks, etc instantly.

Most likely stealth fighters will complement conventional fighters and not entirely replacing them. They all have in mind that stealth technology could 1 day be defeated by new radar systems

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

kungfugymnast said:


> Only newer f15s will be upgraded. Older f15s will be scrapped to avoid risk of airframe breaking apart after taking much punishment and old age. USAF can't retain existing old aging f15s forever. Later on, they'll need new conventional multirole fighters with ease of maintenance or purchase new f15se, f16e and super hornets.
> 
> F35s might not be built in large numbers after first few batches entered service when they realize the f35 is just not practical with the fuel guzzling and internal bay that could only hold 4x AMRAAM or 2x Amraam & 2x jdam or 4x jdam or 2x Amraam & 8x sdb (250lb each). F15e, F16, f18 could carry 12x agm65g with 4x aam or mixture of harm, paveway, jsow, jdam, zuni, cluster bombs, anti ship missiles, jammier, etc on 8 or more pylons attacking air & multiple ground targets from AAA, Sams, invasion frce of tanks, etc instantly.



Only the F-35Bs with shorter range. But remember that the F-35 as a whole can carry external weapons as well.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Oldman1 said:


> Only the F-35Bs with shorter range. But remember that the F-35 as a whole can carry external weapons as well.



If they are willing to compromise stealh to just low RCS fighter, they can do so. But most will not because the f35 is too heartache to take damage or risk shot down compared to lighter more fuel efficient f16e/f fitted with CFTs.


----------



## Oldman1

kungfugymnast said:


> If they are willing to compromise stealh to just low RCS fighter, they can do so. But most will not because the f35 is too heartache to take damage or risk shot down compared to lighter more fuel efficient f16e/f fitted with CFTs.



Sure the F-35 would compromise its stealth, but its sensors can see further than the F-16. Most aircraft are pretty delicate against bullets so I don't think its a heartache when risking it.


----------



## BoQ77

Set the target for J20 to reach F-35 or even F-22 level made its design outdated right at the design phase, and much worse when it come into service much later than scheduled. 
So I always expect the parameters would be better in the paper and shorter development duration.
No one can pursuade others that a design is still advance if it atlast come into service 10 years later than initial schedule.


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> Set the target for J20 to reach F-35 or even F-22 level made its design outdated right at the design phase, and much worse when it come into service much later than scheduled.
> So I always expect the parameters would be better in the paper and shorter development duration.
> No one can pursuade others that a design is still advance if it atlast come into service 10 years later than initial schedule.


Haters will always be haters. May I know does F22 has EOTS? No. May I know F-35 has the flight capabilities of F-22? No.

J-20 being the latter has the combination of both. Super maneuverability while possessing the latest sensor. Of cos haters who cant bear to see the advancement of China will spread lies to ease their pain.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ind4Ever

S10 said:


> Where is the supposed "futuristic engine" for PAK-FA? It's an AL-31 derivative. Russia has yet to develop to develop the 117 engine. Don't count your chicken before it hatches, especially when Russia aviation industry suffered from chronic funding shortage and brain drain for the past 20 years.
> 
> The 117S engine had grounded 1 prototype and destroyed another already:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you should think about these below. The presence of canard does not automatically mean RCS return will be put above the low observable threshold, nor does having a larger airframe.
> 
> Northrop Gruman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAAB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KF-X
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> X-36
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the fail is on you. Canard designs were proposed for SAAB's next generation fighter, US Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter, South Korean KF-X as well as Boeing's 6th generation concept. All of those have the requirement of being low observable, so obviously the presence of canard does not exclude a design from being considered "stealth".



Brother you are comparing Nation which supply engines for many decades or since you bought their aircraft with a nation which still imports engine . And can you explain why canard configuration omitted by all advanced fighter producers ? And saab has their own story to tell. Canard makes design easier than plan configuration . Even though canard will increase its rcs it aids in sharp turning . Still details are not out so let's not claim good or bad as far as SAAB or J20 it's very immature


----------



## 55100864

@Deino @Hu Songshan
can't we just ban these indian and viet troll permanently？？？？

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Ind4Ever said:


> Brother you are comparing Nation which supply engines for many decades or since you bought their aircraft with a nation which still imports engine . And can you explain why canard configuration omitted by all advanced fighter producers ? And saab has their own story to tell. Canard makes design easier than plan configuration . Even though canard will increase its rcs it aids in sharp turning . Still details are not out so let's not claim good or bad as far as SAAB or J20 it's very immature



Really?











THis video show a J-11BS flown during the changsun using domestic Taihang engine performing tight sharp turn. In the video the Chinese pilot is proud to flown in these plane. Mind you, these planes has squadron serial number and they are no demonstration aircraft. They are fully operational ready fighter and rumour is latest J-10B has tested on WS-10B domestic made engine. You can check out Chinese thread. China no longer imports AL-31 engine from Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> No, the fail is on *YOU*, for failing to understand what I tried to teach you guys a long time ago.
> 
> In designing a low radar observable body, there are three main rules of control:
> 
> - Quantity of radiators
> - Array of radiators
> - Modes of radiation
> 
> *Rule 1*: There is no set quantity of radiators. What this rule mean is that you should minimize the quantity of structures that would be in the radar beam.
> 
> *Rule 2*: A single vertical stab for yaw axis control and stability have been the norm for decades. But for a low radar observable design, a single vertical stab would mean a pair corner reflectors created between the vertical stab and the aircraft's body. So in using twin canted vertical stabs to avoid the critical 90 deg corner reflector, you are less obedient to rule 1. You did not violate rule 1. Just less obedient to it.
> 
> *Rule 2*: There are many modes of radiation. The surface wave mode is one of them. Absorber to control surface waves would deny the enemy's radar much of this mode of radiation.
> 
> You can have a requirement that a body be low radar observable, but if the quantity of radiators elevates your design above a certain threshold, your design failed your requirement. So just because an experimental design have canards and the low radar observable requirement, that does not mean both are natural allies with each other.
> 
> For all we know, those experimental aircrafts may have low radar observable requirement, but it was the canards that raised the overall RCS to over that threshold.


Heh, if it isn't the biggest fail himself. First you do not know the requirement or threshold on the RCS return set out by the J-20 program. Second, canards being considered for half a dozen of low observable designs clearly indicate that it is not mutually exclusive, otherwise it would not be considered in the first place.



> While some observers have suggested that canards are incompatible with stealth, *an engineer who was active in Lockheed Martin’s early Joint Strike Fighter efforts says the final quad-tail configuration was no stealthier than the earlier canard-delta design.*


*J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Balances Speed And Agility | Zhuhai 2014 content from Aviation Week*



Ind4Ever said:


> Brother you are comparing Nation which supply engines for many decades or since you bought their aircraft with a nation which still imports engine . And can you explain why canard configuration omitted by all advanced fighter producers ? And saab has their own story to tell. Canard makes design easier than plan configuration . Even though canard will increase its rcs it aids in sharp turning . Still details are not out so let's not claim good or bad as far as SAAB or J20 it's very immature



China has been producing engines for its own J-11 fleet for the past 5 years in the form of WS-10A. The improved version is also being introduced on J-10B and WS-13 is slated to replace RD-93 within the year. In addition, China's R&D budget and manufacturing sector is many times greater than Russia's, so the two are not progressing at the same rate. Canard is or has been considered for at least half a dozen low RCS platforms. You keep saying it's being "omitted" despite only F-35 and F-22 are in service. Immaturity is drawing conclusions from visual examination.
*

*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ind4Ever

Beast said:


> Really?
> 
> View attachment 258826
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THis video show a J-11BS flown during the changsun using domestic Taihang engine performing tight sharp turn. In the video the Chinese pilot is proud to flown in these plane. Mind you, these planes has squadron serial number and they are no demonstration aircraft. They are fully operational ready fighter and rumour is latest J-10B has tested on WS-10B domestic made engine. You can check out Chinese thread. China no longer imports AL-31 engine from Russia.



Brother I don't have time for this . If you think having j11b engine on J20 the next good luck



Beast said:


> Really?
> 
> View attachment 258826
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THis video show a J-11BS flown during the changsun using domestic Taihang engine performing tight sharp turn. In the video the Chinese pilot is proud to flown in these plane. Mind you, these planes has squadron serial number and they are no demonstration aircraft. They are fully operational ready fighter and rumour is latest J-10B has tested on WS-10B domestic made engine. You can check out Chinese thread. China no longer imports AL-31 engine from Russia.



Brother I don't have time for this . If you think having j11b engine on J20 the next good luck with that.


----------



## S10

Ind4Ever said:


> Brother I don't have time for this . If you think having j11b engine on J20 the next good luck.


Why not? WS-10A has more thrust than AL-31F, as well as longer periods between servicing. Remaining issues with the engine has long been resolved several years ago. I love how Indians talk about problems with the WS-10A using present tense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ind4Ever

S10 said:


> Why not? WS-10A has more thrust than AL-31F, as well as longer periods between servicing. Remaining issues with the engine has long been resolved several years ago. I love how Indians talk about problems with the WS-10A using present tense.



OK what is the super cruise you can achieve with this engine? And what is solution you found to reduce oil leakage which happens like tons with these 4gen engines ? There are lots of issues to be sorted out with engine and nozzles to reduce heat thus RCS or else heat seeking missiles will we have free run like they have with 4th Gen fighters. 

Guys let's wait for final configuration let's not jump into the conclusion .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Beast said:


> THe indian is just spreading lies to ease their ego of not able to compete on the same ground. They are at least 2-3 level lower than the Chinese when comes to aviation fighter development.


This I will agree with. His "personal" views are based on their envy and not actual knowledge of aerospace.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Ind4Ever said:


> OK what is the super cruise you can achieve with this engine? And what is solution you found to reduce oil leakage which happens like tons with these 4gen engines ? There are lots of issues to be sorted out with engine and nozzles to reduce heat thus RCS or else heat seeking missiles will we have free run like they have with 4th Gen fighters.
> 
> Guys let's wait for final configuration let's not jump into the conclusion .


Supercruise is a capability that is going to come later with WS-15 engine. WS-10B is the interim solution. Do you have a source for this "oil leakage" or are you speculating again? From what are you basing your "there are lots of issues to be sorted out with engine and nozzles" on?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> Heh, if it isn't the biggest fail himself. First you do not know the requirement or threshold on the RCS return set out by the J-20 program. Second, canards being considered for half a dozen of low observable designs clearly indicate that it is not mutually exclusive, otherwise it would not be considered in the first place.


Heh, if it is not still the fail from your part.

*First* of all, there is a threshold: The clutter rejection threshold.

Every radar system have it. Either reject it, or your system is overwhelmed with returns. From this perspective, every low radar observable design should have the clutter region as target, else it could not call itself low radar observable. As radar processing technology progresses, the lower the clutter rejection threshold, which will make it increasingly difficult for any design to match its RCS to the newer and lower threshold.

*Second*, 

I never said canards must be excluded. Canards are flight control surfaces that are based on design.

The rules for a low radar observable design are control of:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

All low radar observable designs conforms to those rules to varying degrees, so just because newer conceptual designs may have canards, that does not mean current designs conforms to those rules to the same degrees as newer designs. All three rules are equally important and works in concert.

For example...As each flight control surface is a radiator, new conceptual designs may have materials that fully absorb all impinging radar signals, so while the newer design may have more radiators than current designs, the newer materials obeys rule three (modes of radiation) to such a degree that the newer design can be less obedient to rules one and two.

Do you how all of this relate and affects each other ?

I explained all of this a long time ago, as in yrs ago when I first came on this forum. Were you guys asleep in class ?



Martian2 said:


> How come I never hear you pointing out the Pak Fa's airfoil?
> It's basically a canard attached a little further back on the fuselage.


Because you were asleep in class ?

The rules for designing a low radar observable body are control of:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

So just because one design have more radiators than the next, that does not automatically make it less 'stealthy' than its competitors.

We have one design with a single vertical stab: F-16.

Then we have another design with twin vertical stab: F15.

So under the above three rules, both the F-15 and F-16 are less obedient to rule two: Control of array of radiators.

That is because all the vertical stabs create the dreaded 90 deg corner reflectors.

But if the twin vertical stabs are canted, like the F-18 or F-117 or F-22, the corner reflectors are still there, just not 90 deg. So while the F-18, F-117, and F-22 are less obedient than the F-16 for rule one, the twin canted vertical stabs does not create the dreaded 90 deg corner reflectors like the F-16 does -- all the time. That mean the F-18, F-117, and F-22 are more obedient to rule two than the F-16, hence, despite having more radiators in the tail section, the F-18, F-117, and F-22 are more 'stealthy' than the F-16 in that area.

Do you see how the three rules relate and affects each other ?

For the PAK's large and actuating leading edges, their movements throughout flight and maneuvers falls under rule two: Control of array of radiators.

That is because as they move, they changes their orientation to other structures nearby. The word 'array' mean arrangement and alignment in relation. In a complex body like an aircraft, arrays of radiators are constantly in flux to many degrees. A radiator, like a fin, maybe visible to the seeking radar one second but as the aircraft maneuver, the fin disappeared from radar view, therefore its arrangement to other nearby structures momentarily does not exist -- according to radar view.

I explained all of this yrs ago. What happened ? I cannot dumb it down any further.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

Could you provide the real data support ( or source ) for your below statement?



S10 said:


> Why not? WS-10A has more thrust than AL-31F, as well as* longer periods between servicing*. Remaining issues with the engine has long been resolved several years ago. .


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> Could you provide the real data support ( or source ) for your below statement?



专家:中美发动机差距不到10年

This is the interview conversation from lin zuoming, chairman of AVIC who claim taihang engine service interval is 1500hrs. Material use and lifespan is far superior than Russia engine. Only slight behind compare to US engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## BoQ77

Beast said:


> 专家:中美发动机差距不到10年
> 
> This is the interview conversation from lin zuoming, chairman of AVIC who claim taihang engine service interval is 1500hrs. Material use and lifespan is far superior than Russia engine. Only slight behind compare to US engine.



Yeah we should respect the reality in statement of Mr. Lin
Am I wrong that he said ( by your link ) "the life span of WS-10 : 1,500 hours as design requirement " and maintenance interval each 300 hours ? @S10 


> 记者：网上有人质疑中国发动机不行，说太行发动机只有300小时的寿命，这是否属实？
> 
> 老董：这个错大了，我们太行的寿命是1500小时，按照设计要求，300小时是定期维护。




In 2007 a Chinese wrote: ( may China get the lower performance AL-31F engine compare to other customers ? )


> lol, in 6 years, you will need to buy a new AL-31. we got the su-30mkk in 2001 and we are already ordering 180 AL-31s to replace the old engines. They got the 3000 hour lifetime, but it's funny that China never got an AL-31 that lasted close to that.


Compare GE F110 to AL-31

American F100/110 : 2,000 hours maintenance interval and 8,000 hours service life.
Russian AL-31 : 3,000 hours lifetime and 500-750 hours between maintenance time


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Heh, if it is not still the fail from your part.
> 
> *First* of all, there is a threshold: The clutter rejection threshold.
> 
> Every radar system have it. Either reject it, or your system is overwhelmed with returns. From this perspective, every low radar observable design should have the clutter region as target, else it could not call itself low radar observable. As radar processing technology progresses, the lower the clutter rejection threshold, which will make it increasingly difficult for any design to match its RCS to the newer and lower threshold.
> 
> *Second*,
> 
> I never said canards must be excluded. Canards are flight control surfaces that are based on design.
> 
> The rules for a low radar observable design are control of:
> 
> - Quantity of radiators
> - Array of radiators
> - Modes of radiation
> 
> All low radar observable designs conforms to those rules to varying degrees, so just because newer conceptual designs may have canards, that does not mean current designs conforms to those rules to the same degrees as newer designs. All three rules are equally important and works in concert.
> 
> For example...As each flight control surface is a radiator, new conceptual designs may have materials that fully absorb all impinging radar signals, so while the newer design may have more radiators than current designs, the newer materials obeys rule three (modes of radiation) to such a degree that the newer design can be less obedient to rules one and two.
> 
> Do you how all of this relate and affects each other ?
> 
> I explained all of this a long time ago, as in yrs ago when I first came on this forum. Were you guys asleep in class ?
> 
> 
> Because you were asleep in class ?
> 
> The rules for designing a low radar observable body are control of:
> 
> - Quantity of radiators
> - Array of radiators
> - Modes of radiation
> 
> So just because one design have more radiators than the next, that does not automatically make it less 'stealthy' than its competitors.
> 
> We have one design with a single vertical stab: F-16.
> 
> Then we have another design with twin vertical stab: F15.
> 
> So under the above three rules, both the F-15 and F-16 are less obedient to rule two: Control of array of radiators.
> 
> That is because all the vertical stabs create the dreaded 90 deg corner reflectors.
> 
> But if the twin vertical stabs are canted, like the F-18 or F-117 or F-22, the corner reflectors are still there, just not 90 deg. So while the F-18, F-117, and F-22 are less obedient than the F-16 for rule one, the twin canted vertical stabs does not create the dreaded 90 deg corner reflectors like the F-16 does -- all the time. That mean the F-18, F-117, and F-22 are more obedient to rule two than the F-16, hence, despite having more radiators in the tail section, the F-18, F-117, and F-22 are more 'stealthy' than the F-16 in that area.
> 
> Do you see how the three rules relate and affects each other ?
> 
> For the PAK's large and actuating leading edges, their movements throughout flight and maneuvers falls under rule two: Control of array of radiators.
> 
> That is because as they move, they changes their orientation to other structures nearby. The word 'array' mean arrangement and alignment in relation. In a complex body like an aircraft, arrays of radiators are constantly in flux to many degrees. A radiator, like a fin, maybe visible to the seeking radar one second but as the aircraft maneuver, the fin disappeared from radar view, therefore its arrangement to other nearby structures momentarily does not exist -- according to radar view.
> 
> I explained all of this yrs ago. What happened ? I cannot dumb it down any further.


Sorry, you write a lot of garbage words to obfuscate a simple point. You haven't convinced me that the Pak Fa airfoil doesn't have the same defect as a canard.

You claim an airfoil (which is basically a canard attached at the rear) is stealthy, but not a canard. You use bs jargon like stab and radiators. I say you're full of it. The J-20 canard is covered in RAM. It's not radiating much of anything

When you put up a wall of text, it tells me that you don't know what's going on.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Martian2

*Saab builds Gripen jet fighter and has a new stealth fighter design with...CANARDS.*

I say canards are stealthy.
Gambit disagrees and says canards are not stealthy.
Let's consult a real Western fighter manufacturer like Saab. Saab builds the Gripen. They know what they are doing.

What does Saab have to say about canards? They're putting it on their next-generation Saab stealth fighter.

Who are you going to believe? Saab or internet keyboard warrior Gambit? I'm picking Saab.

*Saab claims broadband stealth with CANARDS.*





----------

SAAB new stealth fighter program | aerospace news | robotpig.net





----------

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Sorry, you write a lot of garbage words to obfuscate a simple point. You haven't convinced me that the Pak Fa airfoil doesn't have the same defect as a canard.
> 
> *You claim an airfoil (which is basically a canard attached at the rear) is stealthy, but not a canard.* You use bs jargon like stab and radiators. I say you're full of it.


I said no such things. When you have to resort to twisting my words, it tells everyone that what I said went whooosh over your head. The word 'radiator' is not BS jargon. It is a common descriptor used by professionals in the RF communication business to mean anything that -- what else -- radiate.



> The J-20 canard is covered in RAM. It's not radiating much of anything


Bullshit. This tells me you do not know what you are talking about. As if we do not know that already.

*EVERYTHING* that intercepts an EM stream becomes a radiator. This is real physics, not 'Chinese physics'. No absorber is ever perfect. *ALL* absorbers of any formulation -- to date -- radiate or reflects a minute amount of signal -- the leading edge of the pulse -- before the rest of the signal penetrate the material. This is because an absorber is a composite which mean that in order for this composite to withstand aerodynamic and environmental stresses of flight, the material *WILL* have constituents whose molecular bonds must be robust enough to withstand those stresses and they will reflects a small amount of the radar signal. This is passive absorber. Active absorption is for a different discussion.



> When you put up a wall of text, it tells me that you don't know what's going on.


Whenever I see your posts that contains a lot of pictures, many of us here know you are just putting together things you hope would be confusing enough to distract the gullible -- like your fellow Chinese.



Martian2 said:


> *Saab builds Gripen jet fighter and has a new stealth fighter design with...CANARDS.*
> 
> I say canards are stealthy.
> Gambit disagrees and says canards are not stealthy.
> Let's consult a real Western fighter manufacturer like Saab. Saab builds the Gripen. They know what they are doing.
> 
> What does Saab have to say about canards? They're putting it on their next-generation Saab stealth fighter.
> 
> Who are you going to believe? Saab or internet keyboard warrior Gambit? I'm picking Saab.


Which part of this...

The rules for designing a low radar observable body are control of:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

...Do you not understand ?

Never mind. It was a rhetorical question. I know you understand not one item from it.

Be that as it may, if Saab is successful in rule three on the canards, then there is less of a need to be obedient to rules one and two. Why is that so difficult to understand ?

So what do we know of the Saab concept ? Nothing other than Saab presents a lot of pictures. Do you see those pics of the F-117 before the real thing came out ? How much different are they from the real aircraft ?

I just realized that China have invented a passive EM absorber that have perfect impedance matching of every commonly used radar frequency. Wonder why this perfect material is used only the J-20's canards and nowhere else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Oldman1 said:


> Sure the F-35 would compromise its stealth, but its sensors can see further than the F-16. Most aircraft are pretty delicate against bullets so I don't think its a heartache when risking it.



F35 is basically a large fighter shortened to f/a18c length but more bulky wider fuselage. Its single large engine power is equivalent to twin medium engines of super hornets at extent of burning more fuel per second & heavier. 

F35b STOVL should be redesigned not to have internal bay carrying external armaments all the time since marines would use them for close air support attacking tanks, vehicles, buildings near or within visual range mostly. Just low RCS would do except for few that are reserved for full stealth missions. Same goes to f35a & f35c that should have more lighter low rcs variant without the internal bay.



55100864 said:


> @Deino @Hu Songshan
> can't we just ban these indian and viet troll permanently？？？？



No, don't ban them. Make them to debate with facts instead for healthy discussion, improvement and new ideas. There's always competition which is good for advancement. Like them posting su30mki vs j16, mig29k vs j15, india vs china carrier, ships, tanks, etc are all good what if scenario discussions. Everyone would want to know, predict and debate.



BoQ77 said:


> Yeah we should respect the reality in statement of Mr. Lin
> Am I wrong that he said ( by your link ) "the life span of WS-10 : 1,500 hours as design requirement " and maintenance interval each 300 hours ? @S10
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007 a Chinese wrote: ( may China get the lower performance AL-31F engine compare to other customers ? )
> 
> Compare GE F110 to AL-31
> 
> American F100/110 : 2,000 hours maintenance interval and 8,000 hours service life.
> Russian AL-31 : 3,000 hours lifetime and 500-750 hours between maintenance time



Good comparison, indeed Pratt & Whitney and General Electric made real good reliable & durable engines used in the f18, f16 & f15 . It's mostly on the materials and heat sinks. Flanker engines are far more durable than mig29's engine. 

The Chinese replicated and modified variants of Russian engines could have used better materials extending their durability. Chinese replicated american engines tech from Pakistan f16s and added what they learned into their engines. There are countries that flew flankers been buying parts from China, not just because cheaper but more durable.


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> Yeah we should respect the reality in statement of Mr. Lin
> Am I wrong that he said ( by your link ) "the life span of WS-10 : 1,500 hours as design requirement " and maintenance interval each 300 hours ? @S10
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007 a Chinese wrote: ( may China get the lower performance AL-31F engine compare to other customers ? )
> 
> Compare GE F110 to AL-31
> 
> American F100/110 : 2,000 hours maintenance interval and 8,000 hours service life.
> Russian AL-31 : 3,000 hours lifetime and 500-750 hours between maintenance time



1500hrs service interval, not lifespan. That is better than Russian Al-31F 500-750hrs service interval. He did not mention Taihang lifespan but judging from 1500hrs service interval recommend , it will easily surpass Russian AL-31 engine of 3000hrs. And the fact, Lin mention WS-10A is superior to Russian AL-31 engine.

Fancy you use quote a 2007 Chinese words? WS-10A has not even born. Why not use a 2001 article to rubbish your point?
WS-10A is revised and finalised in 2012 after the failure of WS-10 in 2009. How can a Chinese predicted the future in 2007? Tell me?

As for comparing to US engine. I am not denying and even Lin mention a 10years gap between China and US but after US who is better than China? I doubt UK and France have hardly any lead over China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

Beast said:


> 1500hrs service interval, not lifespan. That is better than Russian Al-31F 500-750hrs service interval. He did not mention Taihang lifespan but judging from 1500hrs service interval recommend , it will easily surpass Russian AL-31 engine of 3000hrs. And the fact, Lin mention WS-10A is superior to Russian AL-31 engine.
> 
> Fancy you use quote a 2007 Chinese words? WS-10A has not even born. Why not use a 2001 article to rubbish your point?
> WS-10A is revised and finalised in 2012 after the failure of WS-10 in 2009. How can a Chinese predicted the future in 2007? Tell me?
> 
> As for comparing to US engine. I am not denying and even Lin mention a 10years gap between China and US but after US who is better than China? I doubt UK and France have hardly any lead over China.




Man! Have you heard about Rolls Royce? 

It has been creating fantastic jet engines for many years. The biggest jet engine is also a rolls royce if I recall correctly. 

Also, the basic thing is that the defense markets and industries of NATO are highly integrated, which means that experts and technologies can easily travel. 

The last thing I must say is that none, not even one of Chinese engines are *mature. *
Which means that no engine has been produced in large production quantities (not including prototypes for testing) which means greater than 300 to 400 engines, and have been in service for many airplanes, for long time. 

Maybe by 2020 it will be. But stay with the facts. If you are cognizant of your current situation, it will lead to faster catching up with the rest of the world.


----------



## Beast

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Man! Have you heard about Rolls Royce?
> 
> It has been creating fantastic jet engines for many years. The biggest jet engine is also a rolls royce if I recall correctly.
> 
> Also, the basic thing is that the defense markets and industries of NATO are highly integrated, which means that experts and technologies can easily travel.
> 
> The last thing I must say is that none, not even one of Chinese engines are *mature. *
> Which means that no engine has been produced in large production quantities (not including prototypes for testing) which means greater than 300 to 400 engines, and have been in service for many airplanes, for long time.
> 
> Maybe by 2020 it will be. But stay with the facts. If you are cognizant of your current situation, it will lead to faster catching up with the rest of the world.



It has happen, WS-10A has produced in more than 300 engines and is stable and mature enough for Chinese to put them on demonstration and operationa units to win the faith of local folksman. Sure you wouldn't want mishap to happen during this airshow to humilitate yourself, right?






The J-11B spotted with WS-10A engine intercepting P-8. Photo taken by USN P-8.





Roll Royce has many years of experience but lack of investment and cutting back of R&D is slowing eroding Roll Royce advantage. Chinese AVIC with ever more and more funds and more top cream talent working for them is just trying to catch up with the US aviation engine makers.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## BoQ77

Beast said:


> 1500hrs service interval, not lifespan. That is better than Russian Al-31F 500-750hrs service interval. He did not mention Taihang lifespan but judging from 1500hrs service interval recommend , it will easily surpass Russian AL-31 engine of 3000hrs. And the fact, Lin mention WS-10A is superior to Russian AL-31 engine..





> 记者：网上有人质疑中国发动机不行，说太行发动机只有300小时的寿命，这是否属实？
> 
> 老董：这个错大了，我们太行的寿命是1500小时，按照设计要求*，300小时是定期维护*。



Make sure you translate correctly, *太行的寿命是1500小时*
and *300小时 是定期维护*
I realized you ignore the number 300

And about 10 years, it's about service life of American engine,

@kungfugymnast : could you help to translate correctly above Chinese text? thanks


----------



## kungfugymnast

Bussard Ramjet said:


> Man! Have you heard about Rolls Royce?
> 
> It has been creating fantastic jet engines for many years. The biggest jet engine is also a rolls royce if I recall correctly.
> 
> Also, the basic thing is that the defense markets and industries of NATO are highly integrated, which means that experts and technologies can easily travel.
> 
> The last thing I must say is that none, not even one of Chinese engines are *mature. *
> Which means that no engine has been produced in large production quantities (not including prototypes for testing) which means greater than 300 to 400 engines, and have been in service for many airplanes, for long time.
> 
> Maybe by 2020 it will be. But stay with the facts. If you are cognizant of your current situation, it will lead to faster catching up with the rest of the world.



I prefer Pratt & Whitney or General Electric over crappy Rolls Royce engines. American engines are far more durable and cost effective. Civilian Airliners mostly use Rolls Royce engines just because of more quiet and classy yet parts costlier. Military wise, most prefer American, Russian and now Chinese engines because they are more rugged and proven under harsh conditions. You don't expect classy and expensive parts operating in warzone, probably under scarce resources. 

Chinese engines have stolen general electric engine durability ingredient in them after china got their hands on Pakistani F16s. That's why china favors own engines over Russian engines nowadays. They bought rd93 engines for j31 is mainly for replication purpose, same goes to su35, it's the AL41 engine they're after.


----------



## cirr

*CHINESE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE HITS TARGETS, SPOOKS USAF GENERAL*

*PL-15 IS CHINA'S BEST AND BADDEST AERIAL WEAPON YET*

By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Posted Yesterday at 10:52pm





*Kills of the future* _lt.cdjby.net via errymath_ This 2014 CGI shows a J-31 stealth fighter launching a long range PL-15 missile. Given USAF concerns about the high performance PL-15, it could indeed feature high performance technologies like range and maneuverability enhancing ramjets, and a jam resistant AESA radar seeker.

Beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAM) are long-range missiles used by fighters to knock out enemy fighters, bombers, tankers, drones and other aircraft from ranges beyond 30km. On September 15, 2015, China successfully test fired its latest iteration, the PL-15, firing from a fighter to destroy a target drone.





*PL-15 Different Angles* _club.mil.news.sina.com.cn_ These set of photos from 2013 show the PL-15 during captive flight testing (carried by fighters like this J-11B). The PL-15 is shown to be about four meters long and 200mm in diameter, about the same size as the older PL-12 BVRAAM. The PL-15 uses improved propulsion, such as advanced rocket motors and possibly ramjet engines, to achieve a greater range.

The PL-15 is developed by the 607 Institute. It is the replacement for China's current BVRAAM, the radar guided, PL-12, which reportedly has a range of approximately 100km. Compared to the PL-12, the PL-15 has an improved active radar seeker and jam-resistant datalinks, along with a dual pulse rocket motor to extend its range.





*The Flanker's New Missile* _Andreas Rupprecht_ The J-11B Flanker, a Chinese modification of the Russian Su-27 heavy fighter, is shown here with a PL-15 on a payload pylon under the left wing. While the J-11B's radar may not have the range to use the PL-15 to its maximum range, it can receive the location of distant enemy fighters from a KJ-2000 airborne early warning control (AEWC) aircraft, fire the PL-15 and let the PL-15's advanced radar guide the missile, with course corrections from the KJ-2000 AEWC, all without turning on the J-11B's radar (and giving away its position).

Even in the prototype stage, the PL-15 is already an international star. Speaking at the 2015 Air Force Association conference the same week as the test, USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM. His reasons for concern is the PL-15's range. By incorporating a ramjet engine, its range could reach 150-200km, was well as its terminal maneuverability. That would out-range existing American air-to-air missiles, making the PL-15 not just a threat to fighters like the F-35, but also to US bombers and aerial tankers critical to American air operations across the vast Pacific. General Carlisle called "out-sticking" the PL-15 a high priority for the USAF.





*PL-15 Future Home* _China Military Review Blogspot_ The early 2002 (now 2004) J-20 stealth fighter prototype flies a test, carrying simulated BVRAAM loadouts (two in its main left weapons bay). Production J-20s are expected to be able to carry three BVRAAMs in each main weapons bay, making for 6 long range missiles, like the PL-15.

As the PL-15 moves to deployment stage, it will equip Chinese stealth fighter jets, such as the J-20 and J-31, as well as the older J-10, J-11, J-15 and J-16 fighters. This makes keeping up with the PL-15 an important part of American efforts to out-do an innovative and improving Chinese military system.

Chinese Air-To-Air Missile Hits Targets, Spooks USAF General | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Zarvan

cirr said:


> *CHINESE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE HITS TARGETS, SPOOKS USAF GENERAL*
> 
> *PL-15 IS CHINA'S BEST AND BADDEST AERIAL WEAPON YET*
> 
> By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Posted Yesterday at 10:52pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kills of the future* _lt.cdjby.net via errymath_ This 2014 CGI shows a J-31 stealth fighter launching a long range PL-15 missile. Given USAF concerns about the high performance PL-15, it could indeed feature high performance technologies like range and maneuverability enhancing ramjets, and a jam resistant AESA radar seeker.
> 
> Beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAM) are long-range missiles used by fighters to knock out enemy fighters, bombers, tankers, drones and other aircraft from ranges beyond 30km. On September 15, 2015, China successfully test fired its latest iteration, the PL-15, firing from a fighter to destroy a target drone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PL-15 Different Angles* _club.mil.news.sina.com.cn_ These set of photos from 2013 show the PL-15 during captive flight testing (carried by fighters like this J-11B). The PL-15 is shown to be about four meters long and 200mm in diameter, about the same size as the older PL-12 BVRAAM. The PL-15 uses improved propulsion, such as advanced rocket motors and possibly ramjet engines, to achieve a greater range.
> 
> The PL-15 is developed by the 607 Institute. It is the replacement for China's current BVRAAM, the radar guided, PL-12, which reportedly has a range of approximately 100km. Compared to the PL-12, the PL-15 has an improved active radar seeker and jam-resistant datalinks, along with a dual pulse rocket motor to extend its range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Flanker's New Missile* _Andreas Rupprecht_ The J-11B Flanker, a Chinese modification of the Russian Su-27 heavy fighter, is shown here with a PL-15 on a payload pylon under the left wing. While the J-11B's radar may not have the range to use the PL-15 to its maximum range, it can receive the location of distant enemy fighters from a KJ-2000 airborne early warning control (AEWC) aircraft, fire the PL-15 and let the PL-15's advanced radar guide the missile, with course corrections from the KJ-2000 AEWC, all without turning on the J-11B's radar (and giving away its position).
> 
> Even in the prototype stage, the PL-15 is already an international star. Speaking at the 2015 Air Force Association conference the same week as the test, USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM. His reasons for concern is the PL-15's range. By incorporating a ramjet engine, its range could reach 150-200km, was well as its terminal maneuverability. That would out-range existing American air-to-air missiles, making the PL-15 not just a threat to fighters like the F-35, but also to US bombers and aerial tankers critical to American air operations across the vast Pacific. General Carlisle called "out-sticking" the PL-15 a high priority for the USAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PL-15 Future Home* _China Military Review Blogspot_ The early 2002 (now 2004) J-20 stealth fighter prototype flies a test, carrying simulated BVRAAM loadouts (two in its main left weapons bay). Production J-20s are expected to be able to carry three BVRAAMs in each main weapons bay, making for 6 long range missiles, like the PL-15.
> 
> As the PL-15 moves to deployment stage, it will equip Chinese stealth fighter jets, such as the J-20 and J-31, as well as the older J-10, J-11, J-15 and J-16 fighters. This makes keeping up with the PL-15 an important part of American efforts to out-do an innovative and improving Chinese military system.
> 
> Chinese Air-To-Air Missile Hits Targets, Spooks USAF General | Popular Science


Well if Pakistan goes for SU-35 and also JF-17 Block III we should go for this BVR.


----------



## MilSpec

The airframe of the PL15 looks awfully similar to the K77M airframe, doesn't it?



cirr said:


> *CHINESE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE HITS TARGETS, SPOOKS USAF GENERAL*
> 
> *PL-15 IS CHINA'S BEST AND BADDEST AERIAL WEAPON YET*
> 
> By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Posted Yesterday at 10:52pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kills of the future* _lt.cdjby.net via errymath_ This 2014 CGI shows a J-31 stealth fighter launching a long range PL-15 missile. Given USAF concerns about the high performance PL-15, it could indeed feature high performance technologies like range and maneuverability enhancing ramjets, and a jam resistant AESA radar seeker.
> 
> Beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAM) are long-range missiles used by fighters to knock out enemy fighters, bombers, tankers, drones and other aircraft from ranges beyond 30km. On September 15, 2015, China successfully test fired its latest iteration, the PL-15, firing from a fighter to destroy a target drone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PL-15 Different Angles* _club.mil.news.sina.com.cn_ These set of photos from 2013 show the PL-15 during captive flight testing (carried by fighters like this J-11B). The PL-15 is shown to be about four meters long and 200mm in diameter, about the same size as the older PL-12 BVRAAM. The PL-15 uses improved propulsion, such as advanced rocket motors and possibly ramjet engines, to achieve a greater range.
> 
> The PL-15 is developed by the 607 Institute. It is the replacement for China's current BVRAAM, the radar guided, PL-12, which reportedly has a range of approximately 100km. Compared to the PL-12, the PL-15 has an improved active radar seeker and jam-resistant datalinks, along with a dual pulse rocket motor to extend its range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Flanker's New Missile* _Andreas Rupprecht_ The J-11B Flanker, a Chinese modification of the Russian Su-27 heavy fighter, is shown here with a PL-15 on a payload pylon under the left wing. While the J-11B's radar may not have the range to use the PL-15 to its maximum range, it can receive the location of distant enemy fighters from a KJ-2000 airborne early warning control (AEWC) aircraft, fire the PL-15 and let the PL-15's advanced radar guide the missile, with course corrections from the KJ-2000 AEWC, all without turning on the J-11B's radar (and giving away its position).
> 
> Even in the prototype stage, the PL-15 is already an international star. Speaking at the 2015 Air Force Association conference the same week as the test, USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM. His reasons for concern is the PL-15's range. By incorporating a ramjet engine, its range could reach 150-200km, was well as its terminal maneuverability. That would out-range existing American air-to-air missiles, making the PL-15 not just a threat to fighters like the F-35, but also to US bombers and aerial tankers critical to American air operations across the vast Pacific. General Carlisle called "out-sticking" the PL-15 a high priority for the USAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PL-15 Future Home* _China Military Review Blogspot_ The early 2002 (now 2004) J-20 stealth fighter prototype flies a test, carrying simulated BVRAAM loadouts (two in its main left weapons bay). Production J-20s are expected to be able to carry three BVRAAMs in each main weapons bay, making for 6 long range missiles, like the PL-15.
> 
> As the PL-15 moves to deployment stage, it will equip Chinese stealth fighter jets, such as the J-20 and J-31, as well as the older J-10, J-11, J-15 and J-16 fighters. This makes keeping up with the PL-15 an important part of American efforts to out-do an innovative and improving Chinese military system.
> 
> Chinese Air-To-Air Missile Hits Targets, Spooks USAF General | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

MilSpec said:


> The airframe of the PL15 looks awfully similar to the K77M airframe, doesn't it?


you really have a vision problem``

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## cirr

rcrmj said:


> you really have a vision problem``



More likely the brains of some of our Indian friends have ceased to function。

Anyway the actual range of the PL-15 is longer than what the report suggests。

And the PL-21，an ultra long-range AAM missile，is only a couple of years from deployment。

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## TaiShang

cirr said:


> More likely the brains of some of our Indian friends have ceased to function。
> 
> Anyway the actual range of the PL-15 is longer than what the report suggests。
> 
> And the PL-21，an ultra long-range AAM missile，is only a couple of years from deployment。



LOL. Well said.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> More likely the brains of some of our Indian friends have ceased to function。
> 
> Anyway the actual range of the PL-15 is longer than what the report suggests。
> 
> And the PL-21，an ultra long-range AAM missile，is only a couple of years from deployment。



It now seems that the PL-15 and the PL-21 are likely to be the same missile.


----------



## 21 Dec 2012

Because USAF have totally never faced an opponent with an Air-to-Air Missiles, or even played Cold War with an opponent with Air-to-Air Missiles. That makes complete sense.


----------



## Imran Khan

seems another long range for JF-17 in future

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Azeri440

21 Dec 2012 said:


> Because USAF have totally never faced an opponent with an Air-to-Air Missiles, or even played Cold War with an opponent with Air-to-Air Missiles. That makes complete sense.



these are just click bait titles , has very little relevance with reality


----------



## Sanchez

SinoSoldier said:


> It now seems that the PL-15 and the PL-21 are likely to be the same missile.


PL-15 is believed to be in the class of US AMRAAM 12D or a bit longer distance. PL-21 may fly 400km...as called AWACS killer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> It now seems that the PL-15 and the PL-21 are likely to be the same missile.



Not to my knowledge。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> It now seems that the PL-15 and the PL-21 are likely to be the same missile.




Just a note I also wanted to add: with a given range of 400km (or even more) the PL-15 can't be that PL-12-look-alike with the shorter wings/fins. As such I think that this former PL-15 seen under the J-11B and within the J-20's bay is in fact "only" a internal-carriage-version of the PL-12 (maybe the final development of the rumoured PL-12C with foldable tailfins).

And that the true PL-15 is most likely some sort of Sino-Meteor featuring a ramjet motor for long range attack similar to PL-21 or even PL-12D.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

BoQ77 said:


> Make sure you translate correctly, *太行的寿命是1500小时*
> and *300小时 是定期维护*
> I realized you ignore the number 300
> 
> And about 10 years, it's about service life of American engine,
> 
> @kungfugymnast : could you help to translate correctly above Chinese text? thanks



Ok, i'll translate to simple English with English grammar. It said the internet stated wrong info that Taihang engine lifespan is just 300hours. Lao Dong explained that Tai Hang engine lifespan is actually 1500 hours. The regular maintenance service is at every 300 hours interval. 

If you're referring to major service, it is usually done moments before reaching 1500 hours. I only know mig29 engines worn out beyond repair when reaching 10 years old. F/A-18c/d engines are very reliable as long as you regularly service at given intervals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Here's another theory of mine.

China has a tendency to test new engines on the starboard side of a test aircraft. For example, here is a J-11(A?) testbed for the WS-10. Notice how the WS-10 is on the starboard side.






Several years back, a unique set of pictures showed up of a J-20 with a very strange looking starboard engine.






This phenomenon showed up again with J-20 2011. Notice the starboard engine.






At the time, I dismissed it as a new type of RAM coating on the starboard nozzle. But think about it, why put a new RAM coating on a single nozzle? Why is this new RAM coating so rarely seen? Now with the arrival of J-20 2016 with what appears to be new engines things are more clear. I believe it is possible that they were already testing these new engines several years ago.










In my opinion, the 2016 engines are unique. It's not just the color but the texture as well. It has a very smooth texture just like the strange silver nozzles that showed up several years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blue Marlin

PL-15 IS CHINA'S BEST AND BADDEST AERIAL WEAPON YET







This 2014 CGI shows a J-31 stealth fighter launching a long range PL-15 missile. Given USAF concerns about the high performance PL-15, it could indeed feature high performance technologies like range and maneuverability enhancing ramjets, and a jam resistant AESA radar seeker.

Beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAM) are long-range missiles used by fighters to knock out enemy fighters, bombers, tankers, drones and other aircraft from ranges beyond 30km. On September 15, 2015, China successfully test fired its latest iteration, the PL-15, firing from a fighter to destroy a target drone.





PL-15 Different Angles

These set of photos from 2013 show the PL-15 during captive flight testing (carried by fighters like this J-11B). The PL-15 is shown to be about four meters long and 200mm in diameter, about the same size as the older PL-12 BVRAAM. The PL-15 uses improved propulsion, such as advanced rocket motors and possibly ramjet engines, to achieve a greater range.

The PL-15 is developed by the 607 Institute. It is the replacement for China's current BVRAAM, the radar guided, PL-12, which reportedly has a range of approximately 100km. Compared to the PL-12, the PL-15 has an improved active radar seeker and jam-resistant datalinks, along with a dual pulse rocket motor to extend its range.





The Flanker's New Missile

Andreas Rupprecht

The J-11B Flanker, a Chinese modification of the Russian Su-27 heavy fighter, is shown here with a PL-15 on a payload pylon under the left wing. While the J-11B's radar may not have the range to use the PL-15 to its maximum range, it can receive the location of distant enemy fighters from a KJ-2000 airborne early warning control (AEWC) aircraft, fire the PL-15 and let the PL-15's advanced radar guide the missile, with course corrections from the KJ-2000 AEWC, all without turning on the J-11B's radar (and giving away its position).

Even in the prototype stage, the PL-15 is already an international star. Speaking at the 2015 Air Force Association conference the same week as the test, USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM. His reasons for concern is the PL-15's range. By incorporating a ramjet engine, its range could reach 150-200km, was well as its terminal maneuverability. That would out-range existing American air-to-air missiles, making the PL-15 not just a threat to fighters like the F-35, but also to US bombers and aerial tankers critical to American air operations across the vast Pacific. General Carlisle called "out-sticking" the PL-15 a high priority for the USAF.





PL-15 Future Home

China Military Review Blogspot

The early 2002 (now 2004) J-20 stealth fighter prototype flies a test, carrying simulated BVRAAM loadouts (two in its main left weapons bay). Production J-20s are expected to be able to carry three BVRAAMs in each main weapons bay, making for 6 long range missiles, like the PL-15.

As the PL-15 moves to deployment stage, it will equip Chinese stealth fighter jets, such as the J-20 and J-31, as well as the older J-10, J-11, J-15 and J-16 fighters. This makes keeping up with the PL-15 an important part of American efforts to out-do an innovative and improving Chinese military system.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

For a moment i thought J-31 as F-22


----------



## C130

how does it compared to Aim-120D and Meteor


----------



## General Observer

Are you sure the J-20 in your '2016' picture isn't a photoshop job? The angle of the camera, as well as the angle the flaps and ailerons deployed seem identical to the angles of the plane in the '2015' picture.

It seems implausible that two pictures taken can capture the jet at the same speed and angle of attack. What do you think?



j20blackdragon said:


> Here's another theory of mine.
> 
> China has a tendency to test new engines on the starboard side of a test aircraft. For example, here is a J-11(A?) testbed for the WS-10. Notice how the WS-10 is on the starboard side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several years back, a unique set of pictures showed up of a J-20 with a very strange looking starboard engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This phenomenon showed up again with J-20 2011. Notice the starboard engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the time, I dismissed it as a new type of RAM coating on the starboard nozzle. But think about it, why put a new RAM coating on a single nozzle? Why is this new RAM coating so rarely seen? Now with the arrival of J-20 2016 with what appears to be new engines things are more clear. I believe it is possible that they were already testing these new engines several years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the 2016 engines are unique. It's not just the color but the texture as well. It has a very smooth texture just like the strange silver nozzles that showed up several years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viper0011.

j20blackdragon said:


> Here's another theory of mine.
> 
> China has a tendency to test new engines on the starboard side of a test aircraft. For example, here is a J-11(A?) testbed for the WS-10. Notice how the WS-10 is on the starboard side.
> 
> 
> Several years back, a unique set of pictures showed up of a J-20 with a very strange looking starboard engine.
> 
> This phenomenon showed up again with J-20 2011. Notice the starboard engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the time, I dismissed it as a new type of RAM coating on the starboard nozzle. But think about it, why put a new RAM coating on a single nozzle? Why is this new RAM coating so rarely seen? Now with the arrival of J-20 2016 with what appears to be new engines things are more clear. I believe it is possible that they were already testing these new engines several years ago..



Its a new engine and the nozzles and petals are designed with special material for Stealth optimization to reduce the RCS. If I was to guess, may be Gold-plated or something like that might have been used in the mix.


----------



## kuge

General Observer said:


> Are you sure the J-20 in your '2016' picture isn't a photoshop job? The angle of the camera, as well as the angle the flaps and ailerons deployed seem identical to the angles of the plane in the '2015' picture.
> 
> It seems implausible that two pictures taken can capture the jet at the same speed and angle of attack. What do you think?


the extremely out-of-this-world hi-tech camera is programmed with parameters to do that incredible job...dont doubt..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sheik

General Observer said:


> Are you sure the J-20 in your '2016' picture isn't a photoshop job? The angle of the camera, as well as the angle the flaps and ailerons deployed seem identical to the angles of the plane in the '2015' picture.
> 
> It seems implausible that two pictures taken can capture the jet at the same speed and angle of attack. What do you think?



check the tail part of the two pictures and you will see apparent differences


----------



## cirr

j20blackdragon said:


> Here's another theory of mine.
> 
> China has a tendency to test new engines on the starboard side of a test aircraft. For example, here is a J-11(A?) testbed for the WS-10. Notice how the WS-10 is on the starboard side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several years back, a unique set of pictures showed up of a J-20 with a very strange looking starboard engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This phenomenon showed up again with J-20 2011. Notice the starboard engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the time, I dismissed it as a new type of RAM coating on the starboard nozzle. But think about it, why put a new RAM coating on a single nozzle? Why is this new RAM coating so rarely seen? Now with the arrival of J-20 2016 with what appears to be new engines things are more clear. I believe it is possible that they were already testing these new engines several years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the 2016 engines are unique. It's not just the color but the texture as well. It has a very smooth texture just like the strange silver nozzles that showed up several years ago.



New engines are NOT tested where the jets are made but where the jets are subject to REAL and vigorous flight tests。

Iran is where Chinese engines get full and thorough tests。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

I think PL-15 is nothing more than a smaller fin PL-12. It is specially tailor for storing internally in the weapon bay of J-20. If you noticed PL-12 fin are simply too big for J-20 to store efficiently internally.

The real breakthru will be the PL-21 ramjet next generation missile.


----------



## Deino

To admit, regardless all progress made in recent years regarding new propulsion and size, given range of 400km (or even more) the PL-15 simply can't be that PL-12-look-alike with the shorter wings/fins. 

As such I think that this former PL-15 seen under the J-11B and within the J-20's bay is in fact "only" a internal-carriage-version of the PL-12 (maybe the final development of the rumoured PL-12C with foldable tailfins).

And that the true PL-15 is most likely some sort of Sino-Meteor featuring a ramjet motor for long range attack similar to PL-21 or even PL-12D.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SOHEIL

cirr said:


> Iran is where Chinese engines get full and thorough tests。



?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## haman10

cirr said:


> New engines are NOT tested where the jets are made but where the jets are subject to REAL and vigorous flight tests。
> 
> Iran is where Chinese engines get full and thorough tests。


Could you please elaborate on that ?

Where did you get that info ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

SOHEIL said:


> ?


It is our Internet 'nickname' for the engine testing facility and place in China, its called 'yanliang' which sounds close to 'Yilang'=Iran in Chinese```only hardcore military fan in China would know this nickname

Other internet slams in China
Iron Pak = Pakistan (means Iron brother)
rice empire = America (America empire)
clitors = UK (sounds close to British empire in Chinese)
perfume = France
foot bucket = Japan (japon)

J-20 = lace pantyhose
J-31 = sticky rice dumpling
F-22 = empress
F-35 = fat thunder
nuclear-sub = big black fish
`
`
one day, *Rice empire* was contemplating to bully *Iron Pak*, and he decided to drag *Clitors*, *Perfume* and *Foot bucket* into the gang, but *Rabbit* (China) found out the plan, threaten to send a fleet of *Lace Pantyhose* and *Sticky Rice Dumpling *to beat the $hit out of the *Empress *and *Fat Thunder*```later on the *Bear* (Russia) heard it, he said, I will send *Big Black Fish* to assist you Rabbit``

other mates like *Monkey, Baboon, Leather Shoes, Football, No.3, Hans, Fire Chicken, Club* and *Maple Leaf* are all sitting around watching how this event will evolve````
`

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## kungfugymnast

BoQ77 said:


> It's you who posted that link ( not me ) said that lifespan is 1,500 hours. You stated 1,500 hours is not lifesplan ( and guess 3,000 hours as lifespan, while ignore 300 hours number ). I requested you to translate carefully, but you restated that fact.
> 
> I get the third party ( kungfugymnast, a Chinese member ) to translate and prove to everybody,* you lied to everybody, you fooled us
> 
> now we do know how you translate a truth on purpose. Actually compare to 8000 hours of lifespan in 10 years, 1500 hours of lifespan serves less than 10 years, exact is 2 years.*



I'm replying to you and him for discussion.
@Beast

Large engine category, ws10 lifespan 1500hours requiring major service aka overhaul is still acceptable for today's standard. F15 PW F100 engine lifespan is 2000 hours if not mistaken while GE f110 used in f14b lifespan at slightly over 1000hours. Just to let you know that all aircraft engines requiring to remove and overhaul at major service interval. The compressor blades and combustion system are to be replaced since they operate at such high temperature, pressure and speed. That's why most countries said owning and operating fighter jets are costliest maintenance.

The 10 years lifespan & higher apply to the stage where the engine can never be overhauled but required entire replacement with totally new engine. Good engines would last far more than 10 years.



Beast said:


> I admit that is a mistake in translation becos my original source of info is not there but whether or not you want to believe 3000 lifespan is your business, not mine. Whether or not you think China now still depends on Russian on aviation engine for its main fighter is too your business
> 
> As for fooling and lying. The number of times you get banned more or less speaks about your character.



The 3000hours lifespan probably belong to the improved ws13 variant medium size engine equivalent of RD33. Earlier variant WS13 lifespan is 2200 hours. Any news on latest ws13 for j31 v2 prototype?


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... STOP !! Immediately stop this bashing, useless forth and back of arguments even more since they are by now completely off-topic !*

*You simply have different opinions and all arguments are mentioned ... but given Your altitude, no-one will ever persuade the other one nor will any-one give in ! *

*Period ... accept that. Tread closed until everybody cools down a bit ... or new images of '2016' appear !*

*I will later clean that tread and delete all off-topic posts.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beidou2020

cirr said:


> More likely the brains of some of our Indian friends have ceased to function。
> 
> Anyway the actual range of the PL-15 is longer than what the report suggests。
> 
> And the PL-21，an ultra long-range AAM missile，is only a couple of years from deployment。



Their minds are scrambled by the rapid development of China. Import kings can never compete with China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PWFI

Is there anything like europeen Meteor long range BVR missile under devlopement in china?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

cirr said:


> More likely the brains of some of our Indian friends have ceased to function。
> 
> Anyway the actual range of the PL-15 is longer than what the report suggests。
> 
> And the PL-21，an ultra long-range AAM missile，is only a couple of years from deployment。



The j20 could carry 6 pl15 in main internal bay is practical. The side bay woupd be better if it could fit 2 missiles at each side or large enough to fit pl~12 allowing full air to ground armaments to be carried in main bay.


----------



## Obambam

rcrmj said:


> you really have a vision problem``



Go easy on him buddy.

I once had the same problem differentiating the brahmos from the yakhont. It sucks to have bad eyesight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beidou2020

PWFI said:


> Is there anything like europeen Meteor long range BVR missile under devlopement in china?



PL-21

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

China’s short-range air-to-air missile, the PL-10, which has been test fired 30 times, is close to deployment abroad fighter jets such as the J-20 and the J-11.

The PL-10 is ‘nearly ready’ according to comments made by Liang Xiaogeng, chief designer of the Luoyang Electro-Optical Research Institute, which designed the missile. The missile has largely competed development and testing on various aerial platforms, the designer added.

This new missile is fitted with a multi-element imaging infrared seeker with anti-jamming capabilities, weighs 89 kg, has a length of 3 m, and a range of 20 km. It has been in development for seven years, a prototype was completed in 2013.

Western and Chinese experts have deduced from photographs that the missile has a thrust vectoring nozzle and aft fins to impart super manoeuvrability to it so as to defeat on board defence systems of fighter aircraft. Chinese media has reported that missile is the most advanced air-to-air missile in the country’s armoury and will likely be placed on fighter aircraft such as the J-20 stealth fighter and the J-11 fourth generation fighter.

Chinese Super Manoeuvrable Air-to-air Missile Closer to Deployment

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Goenitz

Zarvan said:


> thrust vectoring nozzle


any chance to evade these missiles... ECM ?


----------



## kungfugymnast

Goenitz said:


> any chance to evade these missiles... ECM ?



Chaff, ECM, Flare will soon becone useless when all new air to air missiles are becoming more advanced. These new missiles are much harder to fool nowadays. Most have advanced seeker, superior maneuverability and ECCM to counter ecm. 

British made starstreak is mws & laser guided yet capable of reaching mach 4 making it the fastest and deadliest manpads ever. Chaff, flare, ecm has no effect on starstreak. 

New anti~missile that launch multiple debris explosives like trophy, shtora, arena system used in tanks are needed for aircraft. Only that could destroy incoming missile rather than fooling it. New sensors like mini radar need to be fitted at rear.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

Long range missile has very low kill rate.
AIM-54 Phoenix







Will China continue build KJ-2000 ?

How far KJ-2000 could detect F-35 ?

While the F-35 and other stealth aircraft are optimised for the X band, many ground radars use what is known as VHF radar, which has a larger wavelength than X band radar.

What this means, is that the emissions from this radar effectively ignore the shape of objects smaller than it's wavelength, including some of the stealthy shaping on aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. These stealth aircraft do have features designed to reduce it's radar signature against many different frequencies, including VHF radar, but due to the physics involved, are not yet able to achieve signature reductions to the same level as in the X band. While this may appear to be a major threat, VHF radar and radars similar in frequency do have a critical flaw, in that they require significantly larger antennas. This is because in order to transmit or receive a certain frequency, you need to have an antenna sized to a certain multiple of the wavelength. This therefore* requires low frequency radars, which have much larger wavelengths, to be large in size*, limiting or eliminating their mobility and making them easy targets for long range missile strikes.






In addition, whereas an X band radar can have hundreds or thousands of transmitters and receivers, allowing for a high resolution track of a target, *a low frequency radar is much more limited in it's number of T R modules and therefore cannot be used to guide a missile onto a fighter sized target, unless that target is within very close proximity*. When an F-117 was infamously shot down in Serbia, it was shot down not because the low frequency radar detected it at long range, but rather, because the F 1 17 had flown the same route many times, had come within a few tens of kilometers of the radar, had it's bomb bay doors open increasing it's signature, and had no on board equipment to realise that it was being targeted by an enemy. In contrast, an F-35 in the same position would have rapidly detected and triangulated the position of the enemy radar, and then been able to adjust it's route to avoid it, or destroy it.


----------



## Oldman1

Goenitz said:


> any chance to evade these missiles... ECM ?








As you can see the flares were useless against AIM 9x missiles. All they have to do is look at you and shoot. Don't need to get behind the enemy aircraft. And this was many years ago testing it.


----------



## kungfugymnast

BoQ77 said:


> Long range missile has very low kill rate.
> Will China continue build KJ-2000 ?
> 
> How far KJ-2000 could detect F-35 ?
> 
> While the F-35 and other stealth aircraft are optimised for the X band, many ground radars use what is known as VHF radar, which has a larger wavelength than X band radar.
> 
> What this means, is that the emissions from this radar effectively ignore the shape of objects smaller than it's wavelength, including some of the stealthy shaping on aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. These stealth aircraft do have features designed to reduce it's radar signature against many different frequencies, including VHF radar, but due to the physics involved, are not yet able to achieve signature reductions to the same level as in the X band. While this may appear to be a major threat, VHF radar and radars similar in frequency do have a critical flaw, in that they require significantly larger antennas. This is because in order to transmit or receive a certain frequency, you need to have an antenna sized to a certain multiple of the wavelength. This therefore* requires low frequency radars, which have much larger wavelengths, to be large in size*, limiting or eliminating their mobility and making them easy targets for long range missile strikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, whereas an X band radar can have hundreds or thousands of transmitters and receivers, allowing for a high resolution track of a target, *a low frequency radar is much more limited in it's number of T R modules and therefore cannot be used to guide a missile onto a fighter sized target, unless that target is within very close proximity*. When an F-117 was infamously shot down in Serbia, it was shot down not because the low frequency radar detected it at long range, but rather, because the F 1 17 had flown the same route many times, had come within a few tens of kilometers of the radar, had it's bomb bay doors open increasing it's signature, and had no on board equipment to realise that it was being targeted by an enemy. In contrast, an F-35 in the same position would have rapidly detected and triangulated the position of the enemy radar, and then been able to adjust it's route to avoid it, or destroy it.



Long range missiles are meant for intercepting non~stealth aircraft, bombers, cruise missiles and when AESA/PESA managed to detect & track air to air missiles, you could intercept missile with missile. For stealth fighter, you'll need to get into less than 20 or 10 miles in order to engage. My class started, reply you more afterwards


----------



## kungfugymnast

Oldman1 said:


> As you can see the flares were useless against AIM 9x missiles. All they have to do is look at you and shoot. Don't need to get behind the enemy aircraft. And this was many years ago testing it.



Not just aim9x, several new missiles cannot be fooled by decoy and ecm too. Once below 10 miles, the f22/35 already lost stealth advantage allowing enemy fighters to track and launch missiles. The dogfight between rafale & f22 shows that the rafale less advanced radar could detect f22 at 5miles range. Stealth is useless when below 10 miles


----------



## Oldman1

kungfugymnast said:


> Not just aim9x, several new missiles cannot be fooled by decoy and ecm too. Once below 10 miles, the f22/35 already lost stealth advantage allowing enemy fighters to track and launch missiles. The dogfight between rafale & f22 shows that the rafale less advanced radar could detect f22 at 5miles range. Stealth is useless when below 10 miles



The dogfight was pretty much controlled and on purpose where they went within visually. Had it been real combat, the F-22 would have detected and fired its missiles and the Rafale would have been shot down before it even realized it.


----------



## Dungeness

cirr said:


> More likely the brains of some of our Indian friends have ceased to function。
> 
> Anyway the actual range of the PL-15 is longer than what the report suggests。
> 
> And the PL-21，an ultra long-range AAM missile，is only a couple of years from deployment。




Don't you guys know One expression of "*Cheap Chinese Copies*" plus Three exclamation marks always makes an effective pain killer for some?


----------



## rcrmj

Obambam said:


> Go easy on him buddy.
> 
> I once had the same problem differentiating the brahmos from the yakhont. It sucks to have bad eyesight.


welcome back mate``havent seen u in a bit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

Deino said:


> View attachment 261468



What? Isn't this 2013, which has been released far back?


----------



## Deino

Yes, ... but why not ?! That bird is surely still alive.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> View attachment 261468



The j20 top fuselage all the way to back resembles the firefox science fiction stealth fighter from Clint Eastwood movie.


----------



## RAMPAGE

So no TVC engine for J-20?


----------



## Beast

RAMPAGE said:


> So no TVC engine for J-20?


With canard, TVC is not needed. Do you see Rafale, Typhoon needed TVC?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Su-30? 
Eurofighter is also going to get TVC.



Beast said:


> With canard, TVC is not needed. Do you see Rafale, Typhoon needed TVC?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Horus said:


> Su-30?
> Eurofighter is also going to get TVC.


When did Su-30 has canard and TVC? You mean IAF Su-30MKI? Seriously , do you trust latest flanker design Su-35 more or Su-30 MKI more for a successful design? The Russian original Su-35 has canard during the initial prototype phase but they find it redundant and eliminated it. More or less tells you Canard and TVC combo is a failure. Su-34 has canard but not TVC. IAF Su-30MKI with canard is on Indian request since Indian is paying the money for that plane. If they want gold plate on it and paying it, the Russian will do it too since the Russian is making money. The Indian think with Canard and TVC it will be better. Who cares? The Russian inventor of Flanker series never think that way.

As for Euro typhoon, TVC added in is so far just talk and no concrete plan. It just a gimmick trying to scam the defense government more money for useless thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RAMPAGE

Beast said:


> With canard, TVC is not needed. Do you see Rafale, Typhoon needed TVC?


What have they got to do with TVC?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Horus said:


> Su-30?
> Eurofighter is also going to get TVC.


What are advantages of TVC engine ?


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


> When did Su-30 has canard and TVC? You mean IAF Su-30MKI? Seriously , do you trust latest flanker design Su-35 more or Su-30 MKI more for a successful design? The Russian original Su-35 has canard during the initial prototype phase but they find it redundant and eliminated it. More or less tells you Canard and TVC combo is a failure. Su-34 has canard but not TVC. IAF Su-30MKI with canard is on Indian request since Indian is paying the money for that plane. If they want gold plate on it and paying it, the Russian will do it too since the Russian is making money. The Indian think with Canard and TVC it will be better. Who cares? The Russian inventor of Flanker series never think that way.
> 
> As for Euro typhoon, TVC added in is so far just talk and no concrete plan. It just a gimmick trying to scam the defense government more money for useless thing.



Su30mk series comes with TVC and forward canard. Not just Indian su30mki, other variants of su30mk series and newer are fitted with TVC. 

Ef2000 and rafale tvc options are postponed at the meantime. There was dogfight between RAF Ef2000 vs Indian su30mki TVC where Ef2000 without TVC won. Also the Rafale without TVC defeated f22 with TVC in dogfight. Because of these 2 dogfight results, the Europeans are putting TVC on hold until there's new fighter that could challenge EF2000 and rafale in dogfight. 

Having tvc does give you added advantage in turn rate. Not really a bad thing but will need more attention on tvc maintenance.



Zarvan said:


> What are advantages of TVC engine ?



TVC gives you tighter turn radius, added advantage in dogfight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

RAMPAGE said:


> So no TVC engine for J-20?



It's under consideration but not at the moment. China is focusing on development of WS10b and WS15 engines at the moment. Effectiveness of TVC is also on study. The cons of tvc when activated would also expose the fighter in vulnerable position to enemy missile when hovering in the air.


----------



## Beast

kungfugymnast said:


> Su30mk series comes with TVC and forward canard. Not just Indian su30mki, other variants of su30mk series and newer are fitted with TVC.
> 
> Ef2000 and rafale tvc options are postponed at the meantime. There was dogfight between RAF Ef2000 vs Indian su30mki TVC where Ef2000 without TVC won. Also the Rafale without TVC defeated f22 with TVC in dogfight. Because of these 2 dogfight results, the Europeans are putting TVC on hold until there's new fighter that could challenge EF2000 and rafale in dogfight.
> 
> Having tvc does give you added advantage in turn rate. Not really a bad thing but will need more attention on tvc maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> TVC gives you tighter turn radius, added advantage in dogfight.


But what matter is the latest version of Flanker , Su-35 has no TVC. The Russian eliminated the canard based from their finding as unnecessary since it equipped with TVC. Russian as creator of flanker more or less holds more weight on this finding.

If TVC is really that critical for a canard design, I do see it will be added in as neccessity in the first place and not later.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


> But what matter is the latest version of Flanker , Su-35 has no TVC. The Russian eliminated the canard based from their finding as unnecessary since it equipped with TVC. Russian as creator of flanker more or less holds more weight on this finding.
> 
> If TVC is really that critical for a canard design, I do see it will be added in as neccessity in the first place and not later.



The latest Su35 has TVC but with the forward canard removed for better RCS, speed and range having better aerodynamic. Buying either su30mk series or Su35bm, the forward canard and TVC are optional depends on customers preference. 

Chinese are more willing to pay for best materials for their j11. They chose the best lightweight material to get higher thrust to weight. They see the usefulness of lightweight like Ef2000 has high thrust to weight could easily defeat heavier American fighters.


----------



## tore

Google Oversetter





*J-20 BLACK EAGLE*
The latest prototype (2016) J-20, with its powerful canard in tension.
*THE CHINESE SUPER FIGHTER J-20 CAN REVERSE THE BALANCE OF POWER IN THE WORLD*
Developed at a record pace after the Chinese hackers stole all information about the F-22 and F-35.

In 1999, a US stealth bomber of the type F-117 shot down over Yugoslavia. This was the first and only time the plane that was specially designed to fly over enemy territory were shot down.

Parts of the plane ended up eventually at the museum, but where it was the most is that no one knows with certainty. The assumption is that it was collected by the local and resold to the Chinese authorities.




STAFF SGT. SCOTT P. STEWART WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
The shooting of an F-117 aircraft in 1999, according to the rumors have been the start of China's development of stealth. But the breakthrough came later.

This was probably the start of the stealth fighter program for the country, which so far had lagged far behind the other major powers on flyutvikling.

*STOLEN INFORMATION *
*Now we know that Chinese hackers in any case from 2007, maybe earlier, had managed to gain access to secret material to development including combat aircraft programs F-22 Raptor and F-35. This was the great revolution in combat aircraft development.





The pictures that appeared in 2011. 

In 2011 showed the Chinese for the first time present a prototype of the giant stealth fighter J-20 Black Eagle. This is a so-called fifth-generation fighter who has a cruise speed higher than the speed of sound - so-called super cruise - something F-35 can only dream about. 

Also read: This is China's new super weapon

TERRIFYING AND CONFUSING 
The pictures of the plane confused experts worldwide. At first glance it might look like a blueprint of what is considered the world's most advanced fighter, the F-22 Raptor, but it was mostly about Watching the profile. Trained eyes revealed quickly that it had some pretty significant differences.




CARL DE SOUZA AFP
F-22 Raptor in full display. 

Firstly, it was much larger, apparently to make room for more fuel to patrol China's vast land and sea areas.





J-20 photographed during testing. 

The size also creates room for considerably greater internal våpenrom and it can thus put more ammunition - primarily air-to-air and air-to-sea missiles. 




Chengdau J-20 Black Eagle

The plane is not completed and no specifications have been confirmed, but the following information presented by Aviation Week - based on the prototype in 2012.
*

*Length: 20 meters*
*Wingspan: 13 meters*
*Height: 4.45 m*
*Wing area: 78 m2*
*Tom weight: 19.391 kg*
*Net weight: 32.092 kg*
*Maximum takeoff weight: 36.288 kg*
*Fuel capacity: 11.340 kg*
*Engines: 2 x WS-10, AL-31F or Xian WS-15 turbo jet engines with afterburner*
*Range: Unknown*
*Top speed: Unknown*
*Cruise speed: More than 1 Mach *
*Weapons: Short- and long-distance air-to-luftraketer (AAM) - no canon is so far implemented. One also believe the plane can carry missiles powerful enough to take out warships. *
*But even if the front of the plane much like the F-22, was the second part of the fuselage more inspired by the Russians. The motors are Russian-made, and unable to control the jet stream - so-called "thrust vectoring" - and did not appear to have particularly good stealth characteristics.

The prototype also had engines that experts believed were not powerful enough to maintain super cruise. 

In addition, the large, movable canard front. This contributes to a much better maneuvering capabilities, but has been considered relatively inconvenient stealthfly since it creates a radar signature that is harder to hide.

Early there was a rumor that the program had significant technical challenges.
*

*HAS MADE GREAT STRIDES
But since news of the new fighter plane swooped down like a bomb in 2011, the Chinese have launched a number of new updates of the plane - and a new prototype codenamed "2016" was observed in September. This is referred to as the 6-flying prototype. 





The Chinese stole and translated F-35 documentation in detail. 

The advances that have been made since the aircraft was showcased in 2011 has been partly enormous, and experts believe much has come as a result of the Chinese now have had full access to the secrets of F-35.

Among other things, appeared last year a prototype with what looked to be a copy of the F-35s electro-optical targeting system has been highlighted as one of the aircraft's main features.

Some have hinted frempå that the Chinese full insight into F-35s secrets, radar systems and targeting systems also allows the F-35 is more or less outdated before it has come into full production because China, as a potential enemy, has been able to adapt aircraft capabilities .

New versions of the plane also shows signs of the engines have been replaced by more powerful versions, with improved exterior design for reduced radar visibility. Rumors whatever it that plane by 2020 will change engines again, in order to enable "super cruise" over the long haul. 

It has also been made room for rear-facing radar so the aircraft overview in a dogfight will be complete. 




WILL CRUSH F-35 IN DOGFIGHT 
Aviation Experts believe that J-20, with what we know about the plane today, with all probability will have an easy match against the F-35 in a 1-on-1 match. F-35 is a multirollefly, while J-20 is a pure luftherredømmefly. More powerful engines and better maneuverability makes it charged up against the F-22.
*

*ARMED FORCES
F-35 is made to be a multirollefly, including opportunities to ground support. J-20 need not take such considerations. 

Americans are straightforward concerned that the large upper hand they have had in the air against the Chinese shrinks at record pace, and that perhaps it was not a good idea to reduce the number of produced F-22 Raptor to 187. plan was to replace all the country F -15, but US Air Force currently has still over 450 (Eagle and Strike Eagle) of the old trotter operational. 

But it emphasized at the same time that the comparison is quite unfair, and that the effect of the fighters in the future to a greater extent will be about the network effect, where fighters are just one part of a larger battle machine that supports one another.

Currently, China back a little here, but they work simultaneously with a frenzied modernization program for all military - which now also seems to mean an expansion of the aircraft carrier fleet.

There are also those who believe that J-20 might not really have a one luftherredømmefly, but that it really is an airplane for interception and potentially to withdraw maritime targets.

And here is a bit of problem: We do not really know very little about the J-20.
*

*
2015 version of the J-20 in test. 

CAN BE PUT INTO OPERATION ALREADY IN 2017 
What we do know however was that early flight information indicated that the Chinese wanted to put the airplane into operation from 2020, but a variety of media are now reporting that the aircraft can reach so-called Initial Operating Capability (IOC) already towards the end of 2017 or in 2018.

But when all is said about fast stealth aircraft: The question is whether it is going to be relevant in particular for a long time. According to Aviation Week will Lockheed Martin already in 2009 have been tested, with success, radars used in the F-35, which according to them made F-22 aircraft were picked up.
*


*Thus it may be that the Chinese choice of canard was not so stupid after all? 

Sources: Washington Times, Aviation Week,Popular Science, Taringa, The Register,Business Insider, Washington Free Beacon,Wikipedia

Did you enjoy this article? Lik us on Facebook
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tore

I had to delete 4 photographs related to this article to get this published in this forum, because its not alloud to publish a thread more then 8 photoes. To the all phoes open the link here, this is orignally published in a norwegian newspaper, i have translated using translate.gooogle.com

Google Oversetter , Clich this link to open the article Google Oversetter


----------



## Stannis Baratheon

tore said:


> WS-15 turbo jet


Turbofan.


----------



## Beidou2020

Stopped reading after the first paragraph.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

A new one ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Hope you guys clear it for export to Pakistan. Then we can skip 4th Gen twin engine fighter and jump to 5th Gen.


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

RAMPAGE said:


> Hope you guys clear it for export to Pakistan. Then we can skip 4th Gen twin engine fighter and jump to 5th Gen.



It has already been said before that J20 isn't for export.


----------



## Beast

RAMPAGE said:


> Hope you guys clear it for export to Pakistan. Then we can skip 4th Gen twin engine fighter and jump to 5th Gen.


Hope PAF invest in J-31 project. PAF after USA and China to operate a 5th gen fighter will be a massive milestone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S. Martin

Beast said:


> With canard, TVC is not needed. Do you see Rafale, Typhoon needed TVC?



I don't think it's no needed, but just not available due to technology limit or cost limit. You can see TVC work well on SU30-MKI, which has cannard obviously.


----------



## Beast

S. Martin said:


> I don't think it's no needed, but just not available due to technology limit or cost limit. You can see TVC work well on SU30-MKI, which has cannard obviously.


How did you know Su-30MKI really work very well? Is flanker seriously design by Indian or Russian? Dont be misled by India media or western hype of Su-30MKI.

Will you trust Russian designer for their latest Su-35 design compare to Su-30MKI? Su-30MKI is a designed based on Indian request. They have no idea what is the best. If Indian is paying Russian money, the Russian will do it on Indian request. Will Russian bother to tell Indian, this design is not that good?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S. Martin

How about this little bird?


----------



## Beast

S. Martin said:


> How about this little bird?
> View attachment 263793


Does J-20 has thrust vector? My stance is you have canard then you have no thrust vector. You have thrust vector then you have no canard. I never say canard is no good. But if you think having both canard and vector at the same time will make it more invincible then I fully disagreed. It is redundant. I am sure, designer of China , western europe of Typhoon and Rafale will agree with my stance. Rafale, typhoon have canard but not TVC, same as J-20 and J-10. Russian has TVC but not canard as proven on their latest Su-35. They try it and prove it is a massive failure which they eliminated the canrd on their final design of Su-35.


----------



## S. Martin

Beast said:


> How did you know Su-30MKI really work very well? Is flanker seriously design by Indian or Russian? Dont be misled by India media or western hype of Su-30MKI.
> 
> Will you trust Russian designer for their latest Su-35 design compare to Su-30MKI? Su-30MKI is a designed based on Indian request. They have no idea what is the best. If Indian is paying Russian money, the Russian will do it on Indian request. Will Russian bother to tell Indian, this design is not that good?



It may be because they have different pursues of function characters to meet their different needs. Russia choose no cannard version so as to have heavier payload or get longer combat range, while india choose to increase the fight dog capability, not aiming to get too large range. 
Su30-MKI seemed to have shown its good maneuver ability in the allied exercise between Inida air force and UK air force this year.


----------



## Beast

S. Martin said:


> It may be because they have different pursues of function characters to meet their different needs. Russia choose no cannard version so as to have heavier payload or get longer combat range, while india choose to increase the fight dog capability, not aiming to get too large range.
> Su30-MKI seemed to have shown its good maneuver ability in the allied exercise between Inida air force and UK air force this year.


I have never heard about Russian designer of Su-35 ditching canard for the sake of long range and lighter weight. Su-35 designer priority is to maximise its dogfight capabilities and to match against the best. Outstanding Dogfight capabilities is one of the most important requirement of Su-35. If canard and vector combo could give Su-35 such important winning factor in dogfight, i am sure Sukhoi designer will surely choose this route. But the fact is, it ditch the canard for vector engine. Mind you, Su-35 is a conventional design, the vector route will be more relevant than canard compare to canard for delta wing configuration.

If you still trust an Indian design of Su-30MKI over Su-35, I am utterly disappoint in your judgement or maybe you shall change your flags.


----------



## S. Martin

Beast said:


> I have never heard about Russian designer of Su-35 ditching canard for the sake of long range and lighter weight. Su-35 designer priority is to maximise its dogfight capabilities and to match against the best. Outstanding Dogfight capabilities is one of the most important requirement of Su-35. If canard and vector combo could give Su-35 such important winning factor in dogfight, i am sure Sukhoi designer will surely choose this route. But the fact is, it ditch the canard for vector engine. Mind you, Su-35 is a conventional design, the vector route will be more relevant than canard compare to canard for delta wing configuration.
> 
> If you still trust an Indian design of Su-30MKI over Su-35, I am utterly disappoint in your judgement or maybe you shall change your flags.



Definitely I didn't draw a conclusion of Indian design of Su-30MKI over Su-35. And I even don't understand why you say I shall change my flags? Is there any relation with a techincal discussion? My ideas is simple that every design has its gain and loss, just depends on what the designer or user needs/favors.


----------



## Beast

S. Martin said:


> Definitely I didn't draw a conclusion of Indian design of Su-30MKI over Su-35. And I even don't understand why you say I shall change my flags? Is there any relation with a techincal discussion? My ideas is simple that every design has its gain and loss, just depends on what the designer or user needs/favors.


Using MKI as a standard to gauge aviation benchmark compare to a Russian Su-35 is an failure in the first place. Too many Chinese suffer the inferiority complex that they need to seek foreign ideas as the best. The rise of China has happen and its equally important Chinese themselves must believe in it and trust it. The western bashing is always there and they will rubbish whatever they can to shake the Chinese faith. Never trust the usual western media and their hype especially regards to Chinese or anti-west.

The US like to brag how superior their M1A1 tank and bash Russia T-72 or Chinese Type 99A2 as complete failure and claim T-72 as a coffin tank due to the weapon loading compartment cramping together with crew while overhype and praise their blast off and ammunition seperate compartment as perfect to save crew in case of a penetration and claim its the bench mark to follow. I seen too many naive reader easily believe the US hype. The greatest threat to Chinese is not western propangada but when Chinese dont even believe in China and need to seek a foreign source for validation.

Let see if whether the ammo blast off compartment can really protect the crew from this cooking?





Do you still believe US overhype?

@cirr, @SinoSoldier , @cnleio

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S. Martin

Beast said:


> Using MKI as a standard to gauge aviation benchmark compare to a Russian Su-35 is an failure in the first place. Too many Chinese suffer the inferiority complex that they need to seek foreign ideas as the best. The rise of China has happen and its equally important Chinese themselves must believe in it and trust it. The western bashing is always there and they will rubbish whatever they can to shake the Chinese faith. Never trust the usual western media and their hype especially regards to Chinese or anti-west.
> 
> The US like to brag how superior their M1A1 tank and bash Russia T-72 as complete failure and claim T-72 as a coffin tank due to the weapon loading compartment cramping together with crew while overhype and praise their blast off and ammunition seperate compartment as perfect to save crew in case of a penetration and claim its the bench mark to follow. I seen too many naive reader easily believe the US hype. The greatest threat to Chinese is not western propangada but when Chinese dont even believe in China and need to seek a foreign source for validation.
> 
> Let see if whether the ammo blast off compartment can really protect the crew from this cooking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you still believe US overhype?


Buddy, it seems you goes too far and beyond our discussion. Neither did I say any words of looking down to our designs nor dids I say I believe US overhype. Right? So could you please not label me with ideology idea and throughly distort my talking? What I say it's just the choose of design, not related with polictics. I believe you're a patriot, but not to too nervous and not let it destroy our calm thinking and talking.

Do you think is it possible that Russia use a better TVC while the India verison use a inferior version?If so, this may can explain from another view that why SU-35 no need cannard and India version need. I don't exactly have such knowledge of this area, just as a amateur's hobby .


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... stay on topic !!!!!*


----------



## BoQ77

Tell me why they designed J-20 so big like that? while there's no powerful engine support to it.


----------



## Deino

Sorry BoQ77 ! Why again a - honestly stupid - or at least provocative question ??

We all know that the J-20 is actually not that large, it is only a bit longer than a J-15 and not wider ... as such even if we all agree that until the WS-15 is ready it will be underpowered but if a AL-31 is sufficient for a Flanker it is at least fine enough as an interim engine.

You know the facts ... so what and why ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Sorry BoQ77 ! Why again a - honestly stupid - or at least provocative question ??
> 
> We all know that the J-20 is actually not that large, it is only a bit longer than a J-15 and not wider ... as such even if we all agree that until the WS-15 is ready it will be underpowered but if a AL-31 is sufficient for a Flanker it is at least fine enough as an interim engine.
> 
> You know the facts ... so what and why ?


his is a typical viet````this may sound degrading, but for every Chinese thread, they came to troll mindlessly

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Bussard Ramjet said:


> It has already been said before that J20 isn't for export.


 You are right on this one. China did indicated many time that their FGFA project J-20 is NOT for export. The J-31 is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> *Using MKI as a standard to gauge aviation benchmark compare to a Russian Su-35 is an failure in the first place.* Too many Chinese suffer the inferiority complex that they need to seek foreign ideas as the best. The rise of China has happen and its equally important Chinese themselves must believe in it and trust it. The western bashing is always there and they will rubbish whatever they can to shake the Chinese faith. Never trust the usual western media and their hype especially regards to Chinese or anti-west.
> 
> The US like to brag how superior their M1A1 tank and bash Russia T-72 or Chinese Type 99A2 as complete failure and claim T-72 as a coffin tank due to the weapon loading compartment cramping together with crew while overhype and praise their blast off and ammunition seperate compartment as perfect to save crew in case of a penetration and claim its the bench mark to follow. I seen too many naive reader easily believe the US hype. The greatest threat to Chinese is not western propangada but *when Chinese dont even believe in China and need to seek a foreign source for validation.*


Then what other standards can Chinese designers use for validation ? In terms of exploiting technology for military use, what innovations have China produced, even for China's own, let alone serve as a benchmark to convince others to buy from China ?

No, it is not a failure to use foreign products as standards for indigenous designs. You guys boasts that reverse engineering in China is a sign of technological sophistication. In reverse engineering of an existing product, you have no choice but to use *THAT* product's specs as a par for your own copy. What else can you use in learning and advancing your own products ?

Get some real manufacturing experience before you spout off.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

Deino said:


> Sorry BoQ77 ! Why again a - honestly stupid - or at least provocative question ??
> 
> We all know that the J-20 is actually not that large, it is only a bit longer than a J-15 and not wider ... as such even if we all agree that until the WS-15 is ready it will be underpowered but if a AL-31 is sufficient for a Flanker it is at least fine enough as an interim engine.
> 
> You know the facts ... so what and why ?



I have no idea why you don't compare a stealth fighter to other stealth fighters but a non-stealth fighter?
They're different platform, different aerodynamic design.
@kungfugymnast

I do hope to view the complete J-20 at its full performance, but I'm worried about the time, when they didn't give it the easier start. Lighter and Stronger.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

BoQ77 said:


> Tell me why they designed J-20 so big like that? while there's no powerful engine support to it.



As I say before, the above demonstrate to us, you lack the necessary knowhow or knowledge in this discussion. 

So what should correct size be... the size of F35 or what? 

Do you know what is the real role of the J-20 or why both USAAF and JSF considered it as its greatest threat once induced?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

BoQ77 said:


> I have no idea why you don't compare a stealth fighter to other stealth fighters but a non-stealth fighter?
> They're different platform, different aerodynamic design.
> @kungfugymnast
> 
> ...




Simply since You brought once again the J-20's "huge" size into question and simply since both - the Flanker and the J-20 - use the same engine and have about the same size ! You really simply don't want to understand ? Don't You ... not even Your own questions or answers to them ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

BoQ77 said:


> I have no idea why you don't compare a stealth fighter to other stealth fighters but a non-stealth fighter?
> They're different platform, different aerodynamic design.
> @kungfugymnast
> 
> I do hope to view the complete J-20 at its full performance, but I'm worried about the time, when they didn't give it the easier start. Lighter and Stronger.



Looking at the mass and volume, the j20 is just about the size of j11. J20 is more compact with flat and long fuselage designed for cruising and speed like mig31. The mig31 and f111 are actually very heavy but could fly fast with longer range because of long flat fuselage design. J20 had maneuverability because of the forward canard and delta+spade wings. The forward canard had max RAM coatings to reduce RCS while using computer to control its tilt angle. 

As opposed to j11 or flanker design that spread apart for max lift and maneuverabiliy. Despite having higher thrust to weight, it could not fly faster than mach 2.35 despite powered by AL41 engines (35,000lb afterburner thrust each) in su35. 

The f22 was designed to meet US Navy requirements during ATF competition. That's why the f22 was restricted to 62ft in order to save space when operating on carrier. At the end, it didn't meet USN requirements when it got far overweight instead of the planned below 70k max take off. Lesson from this, never ever come up with fighter that could do both. The f35 is expected to fail 1 of it like f22.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

If You like ...








And here: Are these pylons !??

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Sanchez

Deino said:


> If You like ...
> 
> View attachment 267284
> 
> 
> 
> And here: Are these pylons !??
> 
> View attachment 267282
> View attachment 267283



It's believed to be.


----------



## Deino

Until 2017 appears ... here's Bai Wei's latest artwork, the J-10C "Carrier-version" !

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

By the way any news about another flight of '2016', any better new images - maybe + pylons ?? - or even more about '2017' ??


----------



## RAMPAGE

Magnificent best. Pity it hasn't been offered to PAF. I hope that China makes an exception for Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

New J20 has been spotted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kurutoga

RAMPAGE said:


> Magnificent best. Pity it hasn't been offered to PAF. I hope that China makes an exception for Pakistan.



Actually if you think about it, China's strategic use of J-20 is to attack enemy aircraft carriers. For Pakistan and Iran, the highest priority is air superiority in a defense mode, where stealth is not critical. So maybe J-20 is not a good fit considering the cost?


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> New J20 has been spotted




Any confirmation on whether its still '2016' or already '2017" ?

.... by the way: I want IMAGES !!!!!


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> New J20 has been spotted




It was "only" 2016 again ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> It was "only" 2016 again ...
> 
> View attachment 270995
> View attachment 270996


Maybe not. Wait for 2 ~ 3 weeks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> Maybe not. Wait for 2 ~ 3 weeks




But I don't wanna wait ! Patience is not really my best virtue ...


----------



## cnleio

How many J-20 prototypes China already built ???

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> How many J-20 prototypes China already built ???



demonstrators:
2001 & 2002 (= now 2004)

prototypes:
2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016

... altogether 7 flying aircraft + IMO at least two static airframes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> demonstrators:
> 2001 & 2002 (= now 2004)
> 
> prototypes:
> 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016
> 
> ... altogether 7 flying aircraft + IMO at least two static airframes.


American built 2x YF-22, 11x F-22 prototypes ... China J-20 prototypes might less than that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> American built 2x YF-22, 11x F-22 prototypes ... China J-20 prototypes might less than that.




Probably it is better to compare, to look how many aircraft were build at what time ... and even more for the F-22-program, there were also two YF-22 (rather very different birds), which were then followed by so called EMD aircraft(engineering and manufacturing development). As far as I know there were 9 EMDs and aircraft '4010' was regarded the first serial one.

Comparing the timelines:

*Demonstrators: (first date F-22 ... second one J-20)*
01 - Sept. 1990 ...  Jan. 2011
02 - Oct. 1990 ... May 2012

*EMD:*
4001 - April 1997 ... March 2014
4002 - June 1998 ... June 2014 
4003 - March 2000 ... Nov. 2014
4004 - Nov. 2000 ... Dec. 2014
4005 - Jan. 2001 ... Sept. 2015
4006 - ?
4007 - ?
4008 - ?
4009 - ?

*serials:*
4010 - Oct. 2002

Up to the comparable 7 aircraft, the USA needed 11 years + 4 months, CAC now - even if both programs are surely not comparable directly 1:1 - took 4 years + 8 months.

As such it will be interesting, to see what comes next ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SOHEIL




----------



## Akasa

SOHEIL said:


> View attachment 271298
> 
> 
> View attachment 271299



Are you implying that the two protrusions near the rear of the fuselage are EO sensors?


----------



## SOHEIL

SinoSoldier said:


> Are you implying that the two protrusions near the rear of the fuselage are EO sensors?



You can't see the difference bro ?


----------



## Akasa

SOHEIL said:


> You can't see the difference bro ?



Yeah, but the orange arrow points at the EOTS for some reason?


----------



## SOHEIL

SinoSoldier said:


> Yeah, but the orange arrow points at the EOTS for some reason?


----------



## Deino

SOHEIL said:


>



I need help too. Due to the slightly different angle of both images, they look a bit different. IMO the most recent one looks transparent and could be a working-thing, no longer a mock-up, but otherwise I can't see what's so special. And that tiny little thing on the rear-fuselage looks a bit like the luneberg-lenses we've already seen on other images, however usually on the belly.


----------



## SOHEIL

Deino said:


> IMO the most recent one looks transparent and could be a working-thing, no longer a mock-up







Deino said:


> but otherwise I can't see what's so special



Sign of finalization !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

SOHEIL said:


> Sign of finalization !




Here even better visible ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SOHEIL

Serial Production model ... soon !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Daniel808

> *Henri K.:
> - J-20 2017 will fly before the year is out
> - #2017 will be the last pre-production prototype*



Just got this Good News.
J-20 Prototype '2017' will fly before the end of this year.
and J-20 Prototype '2017' will become the last Prototype before enter Production Phase. 

Is that mean J-20 Fighter will enter Production in the beginning of 2016?

@Deino @cirr @SOHEIL

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## BoQ77

Daniel808 said:


> Just got this Good News.
> J-20 Prototype '2017' will fly before the end of this year.
> and J-20 Prototype '2017' will become the last Prototype before enter Production Phase.
> 
> Is that mean J-20 Fighter will enter Production in the beginning of 2016?
> 
> @Deino @cirr @SOHEIL


Who is Henri K. ?


----------



## scherz

Daniel808 said:


> Just got this Good News.
> J-20 Prototype '2017' will fly before the end of this year.
> and J-20 Prototype '2017' will become the last Prototype before enter Production Phase.
> 
> Is that mean J-20 Fighter will enter Production in the beginning of 2016?
> 
> @Deino @cirr @SOHEIL



Em... no?
you forgot the ws-15 engine. Its worthless to enter production if there is no potent engine reliable working. I doubt that ws-15 is ready by 2016. Also it has to be tested then on J-20.


----------



## aliaselin

2017 makes its maiden flight just now

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

aliaselin said:


> 2017 makes its maiden flight just now



What? Where did you hear this?


----------



## aliaselin

SinoSoldier said:


> What? Where did you hear this?


I heard it over my head

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

aliaselin said:


> I heard it over my head



Are you certain it was #2017 and not a different prototype?


----------



## cirr

2017‘s maiden flight this afternoon lasted some 20 mins。













Daniel808 said:


> Just got this Good News.
> J-20 Prototype '2017' will fly before the end of this year.
> and J-20 Prototype '2017' will become the last Prototype before enter Production Phase.
> 
> Is that mean J-20 Fighter will enter Production in the beginning of 2016?
> 
> @Deino @cirr @SOHEIL



See above。

Yes，2017 could be the last prototype before initial batch production begins in 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## hk299792458

BoQ77 said:


> Who is Henri K. ?



Henri K. is me. May I help you ?

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio

N.o2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, now 8x J-20 prototypes ... it's time for J-20A into mass production.
@BoQ77, what i ever told u ? In 2017 China J-20A stealth fighters will appear in PLAAF ... Chinese schedule is the schedule

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## BoQ77

cnleio said:


> N.o2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, now 8x J-20 prototypes ... it's time for J-20A into mass production.
> @BoQ77, what i ever told u ? In 2017 China J-20A stealth fighters will appear in PLAAF ... Chinese schedule is the schedule
> 
> View attachment 274371
> View attachment 274372



We have to wait for that.
Btw what is "it's time for J20A into mass production" ? 
it's your wish or actual schedule ?


----------



## cnleio

BoQ77 said:


> We have to wait for that.
> Btw what is "it's time for J20A into mass production" ?
> it's your wish or actual schedule ?


Before 2017, ChengDu already started preparatory work and build the new assembly lines for J-20A ... U don't think China can fiinsh all works just in 2017, do you ? Before mass production, here many preparatory work for production need to do, new assembly lines/factory for J-20A not J-10A/B.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

Behold gentlemen...

Reactions: Like Like:
22


----------



## 大汉奸柳传志

aliaselin said:


> I heard it over my head


kool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

SinoSoldier said:


> Behold gentlemen...
> View attachment 274384


Wow, What a cool head !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

SinoSoldier said:


> Behold gentlemen...
> View attachment 274384
> 
> View attachment 274374


With banquet of flowers and beauties. Sure this will be the last prototype before production.

Let's hope the engine will be at least WS-10B or better WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Daniel808

cirr said:


> 2017‘s maiden flight this afternoon lasted some 20 mins。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above。
> 
> Yes，2017 could be the last prototype before initial batch production begins in 2016.



Thanks for the Pictures @cirr @cnleio @SinoSoldier 
This is Really Good News  Awesome !

Cannot wait for Mass Production in next couple months ! Congrats

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Nabil365

J-20 is a copy of mig1.44


----------



## Deino

Nabil365 said:


> J-20 is a copy of mig1.44




That's the joke of the day ... I would even say of the month !

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio

Nabil365 said:


> J-20 is a copy of mig1.44


China copy American Wright brothers aircraft design, and copy WWII German jet engine. Do u like the truth ?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> That's the joke of the day ... I would even say of the month !



Or the year。

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## cnleio

More N.o2017 prototype photos

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Silicon0000

Whats new in prototype 2017?


----------



## silverox

looks shorter than before


----------



## Deino

Silicon0000 said:


> Whats new in prototype 2017?




IMO it is identical to '2016' so - as expected - the design can be seen as frozen ... as such the next bird could be "1-01" !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Hypersonicmissiles

terranMarine said:


>



That dragon next to the '2017' looks amazing.

Badass!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Hypersonicmissiles said:


> That dragon next to the '2017' looks amazing.
> 
> Badass!




Indeed ... imagine the Flankers and J-10s or esp. this bird with some sort of tail aits, unit badges ... would be simply incredible !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stealth



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## damiendehorn

Damn, over a year ago I said this bird was coming out to party by 2016.....WOW she looks a beauty. Imagine the first J20 prototype came out after the PAKFA and the production starts a year before....Chinese schedule is really on point, loving it....well done China and Chèngdu.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> IMO it is identical to '2016' so - as expected - the design can be seen as frozen ... as such the next bird could be "1-01" !




I need to correct myself, but it seems as if the canopy is a bit wider / steeps with a higher angle (not sure, how to describe it) ... and the detonation-chord seems different.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## j20blackdragon

(#2017) made its maiden flight on November 24, 2015 before the *initial production starts in 2016*.

Chinese Military Aviation

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Eagle

SinoSoldier said:


> Behold gentlemen...
> View attachment 274384
> 
> View attachment 274374



Man...... beauty isn't it


----------



## Blue Marlin

Deino said:


> I need to correct myself, but it seems as if the canopy is a bit wider / steeps with a higher angle (not sure, how to describe it) ... and the detonation-chord seems different.
> 
> View attachment 274653
> View attachment 274654


also if you look at the dsi the intakes are more curved and defined and and the canopy is different as it has a golden colour similar to that of an f22.

below is an f22 with the canopy colour has a golden appeal to it whilst the j-20-2017 has a similar colour to it too.
also back to the dsi rearrangement it looks as if they moved it further out of the intakes and facing upwards at a high angle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## scherz

If J-20 start its initial production 2016 then where does the WS-15 engines stands right now?
Which engine will it use actually?


----------



## Akasa

scherz said:


> If J-20 start its initial production 2016 then where does the WS-15 engines stands right now?
> Which engine will it use actually?



WS-15 is said to have completed high-altitude trials in 2015; it will eventually make its way onto the J-20 but I wouldn't be surprised to see a J-20 with an interim engine for the first batch or so.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

SinoSoldier said:


> WS-15 is said to have completed high-altitude trials in 2015; it will eventually make its way onto the J-20 but I wouldn't be surprised to see a J-20 with an interim engine for the first batch or so.


If will fit with Taihang WS-10B 140KN thrust engine first before WS-15 with estimate 150KN thrust above commission.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> WS-15 is said to have completed high-altitude trials in 2015; it will eventually make its way onto the J-20 but I wouldn't be surprised to see a J-20 with an interim engine for the first batch or so.



We may possibly see a J-20 test-flighted with WS-15 in H1 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> If will fit with Taihang WS-10B 140KN thrust engine first before WS-15 with estimate 150KN thrust above commission.




Again I would bet against that ! ... at least none of the aircraft so far was using a WS-10 !


----------



## cirr

Three loud noises（sonic booms）heard over the sky of Chengdu this afternoon

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Three loud noises（sonic booms）heard over the sky of Chengdu this afternoon




Very nice image ... and clearly an AL-31 !!


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Very nice image ... and clearly an AL-31 !!


The production version will use WS-10B

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jkroo

cirr said:


> Three loud noises（sonic booms）heard over the sky of Chengdu this afternoon


Super cruise test, oh yeah.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dungeness

damiendehorn said:


> Damn, over a year ago I said this bird was coming out to party by 2016.....WOW she looks a beauty. Imagine the first J20 prototype came out after the PAKFA and the production starts a year before....Chinese schedule is really on point, loving it....well done China and Chèngdu.




In China, a schedule is meant to be kept, not pushed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Serpentine

Will China offer J-20 to other countries too? Looking forward if we can ink a deal to buy some J-31 and J-20s from China and Su-35 or improved Su-30s from Russia, that would be awesome.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Serpentine said:


> Will China offer J-20 to other countries too? Looking forward if we can ink a deal to but some J-31 and J-20s from China and Su-35 or improved Su-30s from Russia, that would be awesome.


Only J-31 will be offered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

Nabil365 said:


> J-20 is a copy of mig1.44



As others pointed out, _no, it's not_ but even if we accept your point of view, China still wins.
The J-20 is most likely nearing production whereas the MiG 1.44 is a long forgotten dream!

Just saying' Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Hey ... it's not only a wider or taller main part of the canopy, but even more the front part ... it is no longer an arch but a straight line ...

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> Hey ... it's not only a wider or taller main part of the canopy, but even more the front part ... it is no longer an arch but a straight line ...
> 
> View attachment 275333


More looks like the F-22 head ...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Daniel808

Serpentine said:


> Will China offer J-20 to other countries too? Looking forward if we can ink a deal to but some J-31 and J-20s from China and Su-35 or improved Su-30s from Russia, that would be awesome.



Latest info, J-20 is not for Export.
Just J-31 for Export.

But, it will be nice to see in the future China and Iran will made somekind of Joint Production, maybe like License production of J-31 in Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company (HESA).
It will boost the Capability of Iran Aerospace Industry.

I must say, Iran Air Force is one of Strongest Air Force in Middle East.
but in the future, Iran will need 5th Stealth Generation Fighter like Shenyang J-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

*J-20 prototype "2017" conducts its maiden flight*

China's eighth J-20 prototype stealth fighter recently conducted its first flight. It's possible that mass production of the J-20 could begin in 2016. By the way, the multi-colored glass cockpit canopy on the J-20 is transparent RAM and probably Indium Tin Oxide (ITO).

J-20's prototypes and maiden flights thus far | China Defense Blog

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Brainsucker

Daniel808 said:


> Latest info, J-20 is not for Export.
> Just J-31 for Export.
> 
> But, it will be nice to see in the future China and Iran will made somekind of Joint Production, maybe like License production of J-31 in Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company (HESA).
> It will boost the Capability of Iran Aerospace Industry.
> 
> I must say, Iran Air Force is one of Strongest Air Force in Middle East.
> but in the future, Iran will need 5th Stealth Generation Fighter like Shenyang J-31.



Yeah, J-31 can get the benefit of J-20 tech too, if it developed further.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

In flight ....

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> In flight ....
> 
> View attachment 276175



And the mystery continues regarding the J-20's engines.

#2017 is using the same mysterious black engines that were never seen before prior to the appearance of #2016. Structurally it looks like the AL-31. But in terms of color, it is a shade of black that I've never seen before.

Moreover, we know what the AL-31FN Series 3 looks like in the J-10C.














So which engine is the J-20 actually using?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> And the mystery continues regarding the J-20's engines.
> 
> #2017 is using the same mysterious black engines that were never seen before prior to the appearance of #2016. Structurally it looks like the AL-31. But in terms of color, it is a shade of black that I've never seen before.
> 
> Moreover, we know what the AL-31FN Series 3 looks like in the J-10C.
> 
> So which engine is the J-20 actually using?




Yes ... but especially since the details are so much the same - even without the colour - and even more so much different to all WS-10 we know I'm sure - I would even bet my membership here - that it is a special customised version of the AL-31FN. Remember how surprised many were when the fist clear images were clearly showing the J-10 using an AL-31 ... and no-one expected a secret deal to develop the special version AL-31FN. As such I would not be surprised if CAC again had a similar contract for another secret version.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

China Is Building The World's Second Stealth Air Force | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*Implications of J-20 entering LRIP (low-rate initial production)*

Next year, China's J-20 is likely to enter LRIP (see Popular Science citation below). The obvious effect is Chinese air superiority over Asia.

The more interesting implication is that the next-generation Chinese stealth superfighter is only eight years away!

The J-10 first flew in 1998. It entered service in 2005.

The J-20 first flew in 2011. It is likely to enter LRIP in 2016.

It took 13 years for China to transition from a fourth-generation to a fifth-generation fighter (Year 2011 - Year 1998 = 13 years).

This means the next-generation Chinese stealth superfighter is getting closer. It's almost 2016. 13 years - 5 years = 8 years left (Year 2016 - Year 2011 = 5 years).

The United States never built a successor to the F-22. Why should we expect China to build one? The answer is simple. China runs a huge merchandise trade surplus of approximately $600 billion per year. The U.S. suffers huge trade deficits. Thus, China can easily fund a next-generation stealth superfighter.

We have seen this phenomenon in supercomputers. China caught up and surpassed the US. Similarly, China is starting to surpass the US in building the world's largest radio telescope. China is also planning to build the world's largest supercollider. China builds its own large fusion test reactor.

In conclusion, the next-generation Chinese stealth superfighter should debut around 2024. *We should expect the Chinese J-30 next-gen stealth superfighter to have the UHF invisibility stealth coating.*

Reference: Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough - Defense One
----------

China Is Building The World's Second Stealth Air Force | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## BoQ77

Well Martian

When talking about Big things, you reminded me a small thing that even after such a long time, J-10 still has no domestic engine. 2015 - 1998 = 17 years.
And J-20 would follow the same old track when it come into LRIP and afterward?



Martian2 said:


> *Implications of J-20 entering LRIP (low-rate initial production)*
> 
> Next year, China's J-20 is likely to enter LRIP (see Popular Science citation below). The obvious effect is Chinese air superiority over Asia.
> The more interesting implication is that the next-generation Chinese stealth superfighter is only eight years away!
> The J-10 first flew in 1998. It entered service in 2005.
> The J-20 first flew in 2011. It is likely to enter LRIP in 2016.
> 
> It took 13 years for China to transition from a fourth-generation to a fifth-generation fighter (Year 2011 - Year 1998 = 13 years).
> 
> This means the next-generation Chinese stealth superfighter is getting closer. It's almost 2016. 13 years - 5 years = 8 years left (Year 2016 - Year 2011 = 5 years).
> 
> The United States never built a successor to the F-22. Why should we expect China to build one? The answer is simple. China runs a huge merchandise trade surplus of approximately $600 billion per year. The U.S. suffers huge trade deficits. Thus, China can easily fund a next-generation stealth superfighter.
> 
> We have seen this phenomenon in supercomputers. China caught up and surpassed the US. Similarly, China is starting to surpass the US in building the world's largest radio telescope. China is also planning to build the world's largest supercollider. China builds its own large fusion test reactor.
> 
> In conclusion, the next-generation Chinese stealth superfighter should debut around 2024. *We should expect the Chinese J-30 next-gen stealth superfighter to have the UHF invisibility stealth coating.*
> 
> Reference: Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough - Defense One
> ----------
> 
> China Is Building The World's Second Stealth Air Force | Popular Science


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

j20blackdragon said:


> And the mystery continues regarding the J-20's engines.
> 
> #2017 is using the same mysterious black engines that were never seen before prior to the appearance of #2016. Structurally it looks like the AL-31. But in terms of color, it is a shade of black that I've never seen before.
> 
> Moreover, we know what the AL-31FN Series 3 looks like in the J-10C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which engine is the J-20 actually using?



It is just the final set variant of the WS-15, no need to think anymore.

The AL-31FM2/117S/117 are only available for the bundled aircraft purchase, so clearly China never received any of these engines.

It has the shiny black nozzle, just like the F135 also got the shiny black nozzle, not the black nozzle with the blue shade like the AL-31 family.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Taygibay

cnleio said:


> More looks like the F-22 head ...


& Looks more like two F-22 heads in that post.
Why two?

Good day, Tay.



cnleio said:


>


----------



## BoQ77

Taygibay said:


> & Looks more like two F-22 heads in that post.
> Why two?
> 
> Good day, Tay.



Look cool, just like F22
I wonder what it got inside.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## scherz

Some one got comparison picture between very first prototype 2001 the the last 2017?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Will Chinese Offer J-20 to other countries? like Export Version or something like that?


----------



## SOHEIL

@Deino


----------



## A.Muqeet khan

Muhammad Omar said:


> Will Chinese Offer J-20 to other countries? like Export Version or something like that?



not yet may be in a decade or two. who knows.


----------



## Deino

SOHEIL said:


> @Deino



YES, I'm here ... what can I help ?



scherz said:


> Some one got comparison picture between very first prototype 2001 the the last 2017?



Just found ...








Muhammad Omar said:


> Will Chinese Offer J-20 to other countries? like Export Version or something like that?



NEVER !

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## SOHEIL

I thought you remember our discussion !


----------



## Deino

SOHEIL said:


> I thought you remember our discussion !




To admit - and I need to apologise - I do not.  Could You please give me a hint ?


----------



## SOHEIL

Deino said:


> To admit - and I need to apologise - I do not.  Could You please give me a hint ?



Finalization !


----------



## Zarvan

Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter

Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter has entered its test-flight completion stage following the launch of two prototypes in quick succession last month.

The latest prototype, the eighth in the series, "proves" that the results of test flights are "satisfactory". These tests which include aerodynamic performance, stealth performance and airborne equipment have met or are close to the index requirements, China Military Online, the official publication of the Chinese Defence Ministry reported today.

The latest China-made fourth-generation J-20 stealth fighter with fuselage number 2017 has successfully completed its first flight on November 24, 2015, only two months after the launch of the prototype with fuselage number 2016. This is the eighth China-made J-20 fighter aircraft and the sixth J-20 prototype used for test flight.

The canopy of the J-20 fighter with fuselage number 2017 comes with metal-film coating which can further improve the fighter’s stealth performance, the report said.

Quoting Fu Qianshao, deputy editor of the PLA Air force's Aviation Magazine the report said that the eight prototype can be classified into three categories; the black color J-20 fighters with fuselage numbers 2001 and 2002 are technical verification models, which are similar to the U.S. YF-22 prototype models; the J-20 fighters with fuselage numbers 2011 and 2012, which have different coatings and appearances from the previous ones, are the engineering prototype models; the ones with fuselage numbers 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are prototype models, which are close to the stereotyped (production) models.

“It is possible that the China-made J-20 fighters will soon be deployed to PLA troops,” Fu claimed.

Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Nearing Test-flight Completion

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> View attachment 276649




Yes, ... on its way to the CFTE at Xi'an-Yanliang.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

2016 in Yanliang.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Muhammad Omar

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> 2016 in Yanliang.
> 
> View attachment 276909



Sexy

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> 2016 in Yanliang.
> 
> View attachment 276909



And now we finally have proof that the #2016 black nozzles are not simply a coating of black paint. There would be no need to paint it black and now silver. The nozzles are black because the material composition is different from the standard AL-31FN. But do we have proof that Russia is providing a special purpose built 'black AL-31FN' in small numbers to China? Do we have proof Russia is involved in the J-20 program at all? The mystery deepens.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

j20blackdragon said:


> And now we finally have proof that the #2016 black nozzles are not simply a coating of black paint. There would be no need to paint it black and now silver. The nozzles are black because the material composition is different from the standard AL-31FN. But do we have proof that Russia is providing a special purpose built 'black AL-31FN' in small numbers to China? Do we have proof Russia is involved in the J-20 program at all? The mystery deepens.



The silver nozzle and black nozzle are just different variants of the WS-15.

The black nozzle of J-20 doesn't have any blue shade, so it is different from that of the AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The silver nozzle and black nozzle are just different variants of the WS-*15*.




100% for sure not a WS-*15* !! NEVER.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> 100% for sure not a WS-*15* !! NEVER.


How can you be 100% it's not WS-15. Have you see a real WS-15 works before? Is your conclusion based on observation but not facts? Lol. I hope you take back ur 100% claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## hk299792458

Beast said:


> How can you be 100% it's not WS-15. Have you see a real WS-15 works before? Is your conclusion based on observation but not facts? Lol. I hope you take back ur 100% claim.


 
In an another way, could you proof that it is WS-15 ?

If I'm not wrong, WS-15 just finished 100h ground test in 2014. Have a look on all other programs in the world, how many they needed on ground tests before being mounted on board a flying testbed, and how many in a flying testbed before mounting on the target aircraft ?

Chinese move fast, we can only approve this, but it doesn't mean that we can ignore physical rules.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

Even the painted nozzles look different.

Here are #2015 nozzles. Notice the dark lines between the silver indicating the gap between the nozzle petals.





#2016 nozzles are a solid silver.





Where have we seen this before? Right here.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> How can you be 100% it's not WS-15. Have you see a real WS-15 works before? Is your conclusion based on observation but not facts? Lol. I hope you take back ur 100% claim.



No, ... I would bet my membership here at this forum on this issue. It can't be a WS-15 ... this engines was not even tested on a Il-76 and You think - IMO pure wishful thinking - that it even powers a J-20 right now. Honestly, but that is IMO simply naïve.

Again I will expand my bet. It is a specialised version of the AL-31FN ... a WS-10 simply can't be ... but I already explained You so often the differences.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

hk299792458 said:


> In an another way, could you proof that it is WS-15 ?
> 
> If I'm not wrong, WS-15 just finished 100h ground test in 2014. Have a look on all other programs in the world, how many they needed on ground tests before being mounted on board a flying testbed, and how many in a flying testbed before mounting on the target aircraft ?
> 
> Chinese move fast, we can only approve this, but it doesn't mean that we can ignore physical rules.
> 
> Henri K.


China military let u see what they want u to see. While things they do not want you to see they have the ways to hide it. They have many secret bases in Inner Mongolia where all many things are out of sight of public. China has even ways to hide a real ASBM on sea, not to mention talking about testing of engine.

China is such a big country. They have plenty places to do varies test in secret.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## phancong

Beast said:


> China military let u see what they want u to see. While things they do not want you to see they have the ways to hide it. They have many secret bases in Inner Mongolia where all many things are out of sight of public. China has even ways to hide a real ASBM on sea, not to mention talking about testing of engine.
> 
> China is such a big country. They have plenty places to do varies test in secret.






Why would China need to hide the development of aircraft engine?

Not like China only nation with the secret to develop and produce jet engine, China jet engine still lag behind the west or Russia.


----------



## Beast

phancong said:


> Why would China need to hide the development of aircraft engine?
> 
> Not like China only nation with the secret to develop and produce jet engine, China jet engine still lag behind the west or Russia.


How would they wouldnt want to hide the test. They want you to believe what you want to believe. Letting you think China aviation propulsion is weak can be a surprise for enemy.

No info of real test of ASBM ever leak, what we we have seen are just few possible tested site but we do know real ASBM has tested before on real sea. They like to keep you in suspend and keep you guessing China real military depth. It will always be part of the deception doctrine borrow heavily from Art of War.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> No, ... I would bet my membership here at this forum on this issue. It can't be a WS-15 ... this engines was not even tested on a Il-76 and You think - IMO pure wishful thinking - that it even powers a J-20 right now. Honestly, but that is IMO simply naïve.
> 
> Again I will expand my bet. It is a specialised version of the AL-31FN ... a WS-10 simply can't be ... but I already explained You so often the differences.
> 
> Deino


I agree with you that it is not WS-15 but you argument is not correct, too. WS-15 is not necessarily tested on a IL-76, eg, WS-13 and minshan(possiblely WS-17) are not tested on IL-76

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Beast said:


> How can you be 100% it's not WS-15. Have you see a real WS-15 works before? Is your conclusion based on observation but not facts? Lol. I hope you take back ur 100% claim.


WS-15 wouldn't get ready this quickly. It's more likely WS-10B with FADEC and increased thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## phancong

Beast said:


> How would they wouldnt want to hide the test. They want you to believe what you want to believe. Letting you think China aviation propulsion is weak can be a surprise for enemy.
> 
> No info of real test of ASBM ever leak, what we we have seen are just few possible tested site but we do know real ASBM has tested before on real sea. They like to keep you in suspend and keep you guessing China real military depth. It will always be part of the deception doctrine borrow heavily from Art of War.






It's a jet engines development not some secret weapons that you want to keep a secret.


----------



## Beast

phancong said:


> It's a jet engines development not some secret weapons that you want to keep a secret.


Jet engine indeed is a secret. The thrust, abilities ,lifespan will let the enemy guess , always part of PLA art of war of deception.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## slng

to keep your enemy guessing is the art of war by itself even your just holding a donkey card

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## phancong

Beast said:


> Jet engine indeed is a secret. The thrust, abilities ,lifespan will let the enemy guess , always part of PLA art of war of deception.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> Ok lol


----------



## scherz

slng said:


> to keep your enemy guessing is the art of war by itself even your just holding a donkey card


As you can see it works...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> I agree with you that it is not WS-15 but you argument is not correct, too. WS-15 is not necessarily tested on a IL-76, eg, WS-13 and minshan(possiblely WS-17) are not tested on IL-76




I agree with You that my conclusion of an AL-31FN is not 100% for sure, but my argument - against any WS-10XYZ or even WS-15 - is based on several assumptions and - honestly - the argument, "silver" or now "dark colour" alone is not conclusive if all other physical details are different to any WS-10 we know but more akin to all AL_31 we know, ... besides the different colour; to admit, that's indeed a mystery.

But IMO it is much more likely that it is a specialised AL-31FN with some sort of modernised nozzle since the number of pedals, the afterburner-/flameholder structure is nearly identical, even more the typical screaming sound and flame are (very) similar, whereas all WS-10 so far have a different number of pedals, the typical inner structure of the WS-10 is even completely missing.

Again I only can say what's IMO the most likely engine based on several different factors ... but "a different coulour" alone so it MUST be a Chinese engine, simply does not makes sense.

Deino


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> I agree with You that my conclusion of an AL-31FN is not 100% for sure, but my argument - against any WS-10XYZ or even WS-15 - is based on several assumptions and - honestly - the argument, "silver" or now "dark colour" alone is not conclusive if all other physical details are different to any WS-10 we know but more akin to all AL_31 we know, ... besides the different colour; to admit, that's indeed a mystery.
> 
> But IMO it is much more likely that it is a specialised AL-31FN with some sort of modernised nozzle since the number of pedals, the afterburner-/flameholder structure is nearly identical, even more the typical screaming sound and flame are (very) similar, whereas all WS-10 so far have a different number of pedals, the typical inner structure of the WS-10 is even completely missing.
> 
> Again I only can say what's IMO the most likely engine based on several different factors ... but "a different coulour" alone so it MUST be a Chinese engine, simply does not makes sense.
> 
> Deino


I think you misunderstood my argument. I do not say it is not AL-31. WS-15 will be more western look-like.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Oh, ... then sorry !


----------



## j20blackdragon

If the Russians were providing special engines for the J-20 program, shouldn't they have blabbed about it by now? They talk about everything else.

Salyut has plenty of news regarding the AL-31FN series-3.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANY «GAS-TURBINE ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION CENTER «SALUT» | NEWS | NEWS | FSUE “Gas-Turbine Engineering RPC “Salut” has successfully completed the first phase of engine longevity and performance bench tests in view of future deliveries of a new version of AL-31FN Series 3.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANY «GAS-TURBINE ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION CENTER «SALUT» | NEWS | NEWS | The FSUE “GTE-RPC “Salut”-produced AL-31FN series-3 engine receives code letter “O1”

Salyut even has a dedicated AL-31FN page with specs and a picture of a J-10A.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANY «GAS-TURBINE ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION CENTER «SALUT» | Production | AEROENGINES | AL-31FN

Why no mention of the J-20 at all?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> If the Russians were providing special engines for the J-20 program, shouldn't they have blabbed about it by now? They talk about everything else.
> 
> ....
> 
> Why no mention of the J-20 at all?




NO, how long did it take until first official reports about Salut's involvement in the J-10A was confirmed ? I'm sure in a few years they will reveal all the background, but not yet.

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

The J-20 is no longer in its early stages of development. If rumors are correct, production begins next year. I find it very hard to believe that Salyut will remain silent about the fact that they are providing next-gen engines for the production J-20 beginning next year. On their website, they announce tests and milestones concerning the AL-31FN Series 3. But no mention for their own participation in China's highest profile aircraft program?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Maybe simply since this was an contractual paragraph !?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> NO, how long did it take until first official reports about Salut's involvement in the J-10A was confirmed ? I'm sure in a few years they will reveal all the background, but not yet.
> 
> Deino



I think the J-10 entered production in mid-2002, perhaps early 2003.

Here's a rather old post dating back to 2001 from the Key Publishing forum regarding the AL-31FN.

J-10A to enter mass production? [Archive] - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums






You posted in the thread btw.

I know Kanwa isn't official news. But they actually got it right. My point is that there were at least rumors regarding the engine being used for the original J-10 before production started. In my opinion, the Russian defense industry has never been known for their discretion. If the Russians were providing the engines for the J-20 program, some insider would have said something by now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

j20blackdragon said:


> I think the J-10 entered production in mid-2002, perhaps early 2003.
> 
> Here's a rather old post dating back to 2001 from the Key Publishing forum regarding the AL-31FN.
> 
> J-10A to enter mass production? [Archive] - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted in the thread btw.
> 
> I know Kanwa isn't official news. But they actually got it right. My point is that there were at least rumors regarding the engine being used for the original J-10 before production started. In my opinion, the Russian defense industry has never been known for their discretion. If the Russians were providing the engines for the J-20 program, some insider would have said something by now.



Absolutely agree! Somebody just living in their fantasy that J-20 a highly important project will have any Russian involvement.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BoQ77

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20 is no longer in its early stages of development. If rumors are correct, production begins next year. I find it very hard to believe that Salyut will remain silent about *the fact that they are providing next-gen engines for the production J-20 *beginning next year. On their website, they announce tests and milestones concerning the AL-31FN Series 3. But no mention for their own participation in China's highest profile aircraft program?



Maybe the engines they provided aren't next-gen engines at all.
It's logical.
Btw, there's no official statement from China about production of J-20 next year. Why Russian could make those for China?

Similar to J-31, Russian claimed that Chinese J-31 with RD-93 engines could defeat F-35



> RD-93 engines made in Russia will power the Chinese J-31 fifth generation fighters, Sergei Kornev an official from the Russian Rosoboronexport said. He mentioned that there is a solution to the problem of China’s reverse engineering of Russian weapons.
> “J-31 with the Russian engine RD-93 is considered to be an export program, able to compete with the American F-35 fifth generation aircraft on the regional markets,” Kornev told RIA Novosti news agency.


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> Maybe the engines they provided aren't next-gen engines at all.
> It's logical.
> Btw, there's no official statement from China about production of J-20 next year. Why Russian could make those for China?
> 
> Similar to J-31, Russian claimed that Chinese J-31 with RD-93 engines could defeat F-35


It so absurd you think PLAAF will release statement about J-20. But obvious evidence could tell us LRIP could be next year becos of unusual grand celebration for prototype 2017 initial flight test at Chengdu test center unseen for other prototype debut.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

Beast said:


> It so absurd you think PLAAF will release statement about J-20. But obvious evidence could tell us LRIP could be next year becos of unusual grand celebration for prototype 2017 initial flight test at Chengdu test center unseen for other prototype debut.



We are talking about why Russian would not make the official statement about their engine in J-20 project.
The presence of their engines in any picture of J-20 prototype is the answer, no need any statement.

The success is relative, and depend on what they made for target achievements, and time frame. The celebration as I guess should be the day J-20 complete the design, because China proceeded the running changes for J-20 design. We should notice less change in J-20 appearance by now.
Similar to J-10 design.

Just like we celebrate the first day at school of our kid which he/she doesn't cry, or when he/she graduated from his/her university. It's time frame


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> We are talking about why Russian would not make the official statement about their engine in J-20 project.
> The presence of their engines in any picture of J-20 prototype is the answer, no need any statement.
> 
> The success is relative, and depend on what they made for target achievements, and time frame. The celebration as I guess should be the day J-20 complete the design, because China proceeded the running changes for J-20 design. We should notice less change in J-20 appearance by now.
> Similar to J-10 design.
> 
> Just like we celebrate the first day at school of our kid which he/she doesn't cry, or when he/she graduated from his/her university. It's time frame


The obvious is the engine on J-20 is not Russian. That is why they could not make any statement nor could have any talks on importing more so called high thrust engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> The obvious is the engine on J-20 is not Russian. That is why they could not make any statement nor could have any talks on importing more so called high thrust engine.




Funny ... obvious is NOTHING and even more to the contrary all physical details give hint to a Russian engine.

I know all Your arguments and I clearly understand them .... but facts are facts and none of them hints a WS-10 or even already WS-15 like some fan boys dream.

IMO the Sino-Russian relationship - esp. in regard to military cooperation - is a much healthier one than some want to accept.

Deino


----------



## BoQ77

Could we accept the scenario that J-20 would be powered with imported engines?
there's still not anything which is "obvious"

Practically, China should try to replace all of J-10 engines ( hundreds ) with domestic ones first. 
It's easier job but delayed too long.


----------



## hk299792458

BoQ77 said:


> Could we accept the scenario that J-20 would be powered with imported engines?
> there's still not anything which is "obvious"
> 
> Practically, China should try to replace all of J-10 engines ( hundreds ) with domestic ones first.
> It's easier job but delayed too long.



WS-15 is planned to be used with J-20, this is the target.

Before that, J-20 might use other engines, this is not excluded.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The 117S got nothing to do with the J-20, the Chinese media has just confirmed it.

And the TVC engine of the J-20 is completely indigenous.

中国矢量发动机获突破 助歼-20格斗秒杀F-22-20151207军迷前线-凤凰视频-最具媒体品质的综合视频门户-凤凰网

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The 117S got nothing to do with the J-20, the Chinese media has just confirmed it.
> 
> And the TVC engine of the J-20 is completely indigenous.
> 
> 中国矢量发动机获突破 助歼-20格斗秒杀F-22-20151207军迷前线-凤凰视频-最具媒体品质的综合视频门户-凤凰网



How reliable is the media report?


----------



## Martian2

Bussard Ramjet said:


> How reliable is the media report?


Why are you surprised?

The J-20 engines have been unknown. This means it can be either Chinese or Russian.

China's WS-10A engine has been around at least since 2005. The original WS-10 engine has been around even longer.

Clearly, China has the capability to build a next-generation turbofan engine.

The WS-10A is based on DD3 nickel-superalloy technology.

The WS-15 is based on DD6 next-generation superalloy technology.

The WS-15 is widely expected to debut around 2018. However, it should not be a surprise if the prototype(s) is available a few years earlier. If things go well, the WS-15 is ready earlier. If there are unexpected delays, the WS-15 would take longer.

Thus, 2018 +/- 3 years is very reasonable. We are three weeks away from 2016. For the WS-15 to appear now is perfectly within the expected time window.
----------

Let's review the known facts.

1. The WS-15 core was first tested in 2005.
2. China has prior experience in building the WS-10A turbofan engine.

Thus, after ten years of work (2005 --> 2015), China could have the WS-15 prototype(s) ready. This is not their first turbofan engine. This means China's experience with the WS-10A turbofan engine should hasten the development of the WS-15. China should know what to expect.

WS15





----------

Here's the probability tree.

Unknown J-20 engine -----> 50% probability Russian
|
|
v
50% probability Chinese -----> 25% probability WS-15 engine
|
|
v
25% probability improved WS-10 variant

On Chinese television, footage was shown of a Chinese WS-10A November 10, 2005 test (see third picture below).

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Bussard Ramjet said:


> How reliable is the media report?




That's indeed the question since so far the J-20 does not use a TVC-engine and the engine shown in this video looks very much like an AL-31FP.

I do not question, that there's is research and testing under way, but the images in the film are questionable...


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The 117S got nothing to do with the J-20, the Chinese media has just confirmed it.
> 
> And the TVC engine of the J-20 is completely indigenous.
> 
> 中国矢量发动机获突破 助歼-20格斗秒杀F-22-20151207军迷前线-凤凰视频-最具媒体品质的综合视频门户-凤凰网



Honestly I don't think so ...

To admit as far as I understand that video from Phoenix Channel – and honestly I would not rate this channel as a reliable, semi-official source ! – reports about a breakthrough in the research of thrust-vectoring engine by Prof Wang. He is a pioneer in 3D printing and his current research is about a novel delayering technique as applied to a certain thrust-vectoring engine flame tubes driven under high-temperature and heavy-load conditions. Reportedly with this new technique there was no apparent abrasion after a cumulative 216 hours of testing, whereas a maximum of 2 mm abrasion depth occurred after about 10+ hours of testing under traditional configurations.

In consequence this video sequence is more explaining to the audience what TVC does and what use it. To demonstrate this they simply use stock footage of any certain TVC nozzles and aircraft using it …. For me not a clear proof that this is a Chinese engine (esp. since it looks like a AL-31FP) but it implies to me even more this is not a Chinese engine.
Even more I think (at about 02:30) they are explicitly claiming that the "engine of Su-35" can be used to power J-20 and J-11; … for me a clear hint that the current engine used on the J-20 is also a Russian engine, since no other type would be so easily interchangeable for the Su-35, J-11 and J-20.

Again I do not question Mr. Wang’s success (see also 中国激光3D打印带路人王华明当选工程院院士 参与运20C919研制 but IMO the images shown in this video, what a few call right away as proof for a Chinese TVC-engine even today on the J-20 is plain wrong.

I hope I am not again bashed as anti-Chinese – since I’m indeed not – but I’m simply interested in facts and not in wishful thinking.
Deino

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

to be honest, I can't see the difference between AL31 and WS10 series. It's so confusing. People said that it is AL31 or WS10, but I can't see the difference. They have even kindly explained to me, but I still can't understand it.


----------



## Deino

O.k. ... another attempt - even if a bit OT !

But IMO it is not that difficult: first image: Top = WS-10A - bottom = AL-31F ... second image: left = AL-31F - right WS-10A.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> O.k. ... another attempt - even if a bit OT !
> 
> But IMO it is not that difficult.
> 
> View attachment 278259
> View attachment 278268



The first J-11 picture use WS10 while the second picture use AL31?


----------



## Deino

Brainsucker said:


> The first J-11 picture use WS10 while the second picture use AL31?




Sorry, first image: Top = WS-10A - bottom = AL-31F ... second image: left = AL-31F - right WS-10A.


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Sorry, first image: Top = WS-10A - bottom = AL-31F ... second image: left = AL-31F - right WS-10A.



So AL31F has longer thruster than WS10?


----------



## Beast

Brainsucker said:


> So AL31F has longer thruster than WS10?


WS-10B has 140KN thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

j20blackdragon said:


> Even the painted nozzles look different.
> 
> Here are #2015 nozzles. Notice the dark lines between the silver indicating the gap between the nozzle petals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #2016 nozzles are a solid silver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have we seen this before? Right here.



Deino, if you look at this J-20 prototype, that thrusters are short, unlike the AL-31F thrusters. Maybe it's indeed WS-10. But maybe I can be wrong. 



Beast said:


> WS-10B has 140KN thrust.



No, I mean the physical thruster area at the engine. Not the thrust power. It is the area of the engine where the fire go out. WS-10 has shorter and bigger hole, while AL-31 is longer and can make a smaller hole. At least, that what I interpreted from the Deino's picture.


----------



## Deino

Brainsucker said:


> Deino, if you look at this J-20 prototype, that thrusters are short, unlike the AL-31F thrusters. Maybe it's indeed WS-10. But maybe I can be wrong.



NO - at least IMO - if You measure the individual parts in length, number of pedals and so on, esp. the inner structure like the flameholder 8and even more since the WS-10-typical inner ring is missing, it is simply a strangely coated AL-31FN.




> No, I mean the physical thruster area at the engine. Not the thrust power. It is the area of the engine where the fire go out. WS-10 has shorter and bigger hole, while AL-31 is longer and can make a smaller hole. At least, that what I interpreted from the Deino's picture.



I don't think so, since both engines are interchangeable, the diameter must be the same ... so IMO it only seems so due to the shorter pedals.


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> NO - at least IMO - if You measure the individual parts in length, number of pedals and so on, esp. the inner structure like the flameholder 8and even more since the WS-10-typical inner ring is missing, it is simply a strangely coated AL-31FN.
> 
> I don't think so, since both engines are interchangeable, the diameter must be the same ... so IMO it only seems so due to the shorter pedals.



Yeah, I mean the pedals. WS-10 has shorter pedal.


----------



## BoQ77

Brainsucker said:


> Yeah, I mean the pedals. WS-10 has shorter pedal.



petals ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

I'll continue to play devil's advocate with regard to the engines.

If the J-20 is using the AL-31FN, why are the nozzles black?

If the black color is simply a coating, why apply the silver coating over it?

If the black color is some sort of 'primer' or undercoat for the silver coating, why is the inside of the nozzles also black?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> I'll continue to play devil's advocate with regard to the engines.
> 
> If the J-20 is using the AL-31FN, why are the nozzles black?


 
... simply doe to a new material being tested as a coating for the nozzle.



> If the black color is simply a coating, why apply the silver coating over it?


 
... since it was a different coating, which is now reoplaced by that black coating.



> If the black color is some sort of 'primer' or undercoat for the silver coating, why is the inside of the nozzles also black?


 
... since we have so far no clear images of this "new" nozzle from the latest birds ...

But in return I do not understand why some still have so high hopes that from a new colour alone they try to conclude this nozzle as proof for the WS-10 or -15 if everythingelse speaks against these engines ?

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

Another mystery surrounding the J-20's engines are the complete lack of new engine deals with Russia.

In 2011, China signed a contract for 123 AL-31FN Series 3 engines.

Reported by Bloomberg here:
China Signs $500 Million Russian Jet Engine Deal, Vedomosti Says - Bloomberg Business

As far as I know, this was the first and last deal for the AL-31FN Series 3. The J-10B started production in 2013 with the delivery of these engines. Early J-10C appear to be using these engines also.

But if the rumors are correct, and the J-20 is entering production in 2016, what engines are expected to be used? Are we expected to believe that the J-20 is going to *share* the limited number of AL-31FN Series 3 with the J-10B/C production line? That would be absolutely ridiculous.

So in my opinion, as long as Salut remains silent regarding any involvement in the J-20 program and Rosoboronexport does not announce any new engine deals with China, the engines for the J-20 are highly likely to be Chinese. J-20 production could not continue otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Pinnacle

I usually have so many queries in my mind about J-20 but today i'll stick with one, for the effective use of DAS and high-off-bore sight, you need to have HMD, which HMD is being used or is in plans to be used on J-20 and what are its specs?
@Deino @cirr @Chinese-Dragon


----------



## BoQ77

j20blackdragon said:


> But *if the rumors are correct, and the J-20 is entering production in 2016*, what engines are expected to be used? Are we expected to believe that the J-20 is going to *share* the limited number of AL-31FN Series 3 with the J-10B/C production line? That would be absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> So in my opinion, as long as Salut remains silent regarding any involvement in the J-20 program and Rosoboronexport does not announce any new engine deals with China, the engines for the J-20 are highly likely to be Chinese. J-20 production could not continue otherwise.


Your argument based on the assume that:
- the rumors are correct
- no any secret small order for new modified engine. This could be translated that "China ordered Russia for a modified engine design ( it's reasonable ) with some target requirements. And Russia is applying some running changes to the design to meet the expectation of China side and limitation for export variant ( mostly study for trimming some features from their AL-41FS design) ". The design will be lower performance than their exported Su-35 engines.
- China reach the great advancement on engine design.

Even in the case 3. the small quantity is expected and need long testing time ( refer the time of flight test for each prototype), because even with demand for some dozens of J-20, we realized the bigger essential demand for replacing obsolete J-6, J-7, J-8 ... by 500-600+ J-10 still depend on Russian engines. If China could manufacture good engine for J-20, we assume that China must be able to make good engines for J-10 easily.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> I'll continue to play devil's advocate with regard to the engines.
> 
> ....]



I'm joining the game with another question:

Just compare this latest J-20 image in full reheat - and we only have few of them - with WS-10B and AL-31F in a similar position ... what engine / afterburner has more similarities ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BoQ77

AL-31FP, of course !!!


----------



## Deino

BoQ77 said:


> AL-31FP, of course !!!



Surely not ! 

THE FP is a special Indian-MKI-taylored version ... can't think the Russians would sell this version to China too. However my point was that all AL-31's share the same or at least very similar internal features ...


----------



## BoQ77

Deino said:


> Surely not !
> 
> THE FP is a special Indian-MKI-taylored version ... can't think the Russians would sell this version to China too. However my point was that all AL-31's share the same or at least very similar internal features ...



You're right. China need more powerful engines with thrust vectoring
That's an improvement from Al-31FP, maybe AL-31F M2 

==========
According to the Salut Gas Turbine Research and Production Centre’s Director General Vladislav Masalov, *the company manufactured about a hundred AL-31F turbofans in several variants in 2011*. Over 75% of them, in the AL-31FN version in the first place, were exported. The rest were made for the Russian Defence Ministry. To fit the aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force, the company has for several years supplied AL-31F Series 42 engines upgraded by the in-house design bureau and known as AL-31F-M1.

The AL-31F-M1 passed its official trials in 2006 and has been ordered by the Defence Ministry since 2007 to equip Sukhoi Su-27SM fighters. Last year, Salut shipped another batch of engines of the type, which were used for fitting the Su-27SM(3) fighters delivered to RusAF under the contract signed in 2009. A decision in principle was taken to fit the RusAF-ordered Sukhoi Su-34 bombers with Salut-built AL-31F Series 42s. Unlike the baseline AL-31F, the upgraded engine has an advanced enlarged-diameter fan (924 mm) and an automatic control system with a digital integrated governor, which has increased the thrust up to 13,500 kgf and extended the service life. 

The next stage of the Salut-conducted upgrade is to become the *AL-31F-M2 engine, which thrust in special mode will increase to 14,500 kgf and the service life to 3,000 h or more*. 

Early this year, Salut hosted a meeting of the scientific and technical board attended by personnel of the Sukhoi design bureau, Lyulka scientific and technical centre (an affiliate of NPO Saturn JSC), United Aircraft Corporation and United Engine Corporation. The board met to consider the results produced by the development work on upgrade the second-stage AL-31F (AL-31F-M2). All work pertinent to the second stage of the engine’s upgrade is on schedule. To date, the engine has completed its special bench tests in Central Institute of Aviation Motors thermal vacuum chamber, which have proven the feasibility of a static thrust of 14,500 kgf and the manufacturer’s performance ratings. The upgraded engine has a 9% increase in thrust in flight modes over the AL-31F-M1.

“The upgrade of the AL-31F engine does not involve modifying its dimensions and is aimed at retaining the feasibility of re-engining the whole of the Su-27 aircraft fleet without extra modifications to the airframe or engine nacelles”, Salut General Designer Gennady Skirdov said. 

Until year-end 2012, the special bench and endurance test programme is to be completed and the special flight test programme is to begin. The flight trials of the AL-31F-M2 are supposed to involve using a Su-27SM the Sukhoi company may provide or Gromov LII’s Su-27 flying testbed used for testing the AL-31F-M1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

The J-20's nozzles are too short to be a thrust vectoring engine.
AL-31F M2 is impossible because the gearbox is in the wrong location.

I'm well aware the black engines 'look' like the AL-31FN.
But looks don't tell the entire story.
The J-11D looks like a Flanker.
The H-6K looks like the Tu-16.
The J-10C looks like the Lavi.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BoQ77

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20's nozzles are too short to be a thrust vectoring engine.
> AL-31F M2 is impossible because the gearbox is in the wrong location.
> 
> I'm well aware the black engines 'look' like the AL-31FN.
> But looks don't tell the entire story.
> The J-11D looks like a Flanker.
> The H-6K looks like the Tu-16.
> The J-10C looks like the Lavi.



Colors don't tell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

The engine mystery continues. Why are the nozzles black and now painted silver?

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Is 2016 still at CAC or again ? I thought it was transferred to the CFTE already ?


----------



## Taygibay

To get back to a prior discussion :





I don't remember who said the J-20 was a MiG 1.44 extrapolation when in fact it resembles most
a stealthy evolution of the 31.









Bigger wing with swept aligned rear edge, corrections to the landing gear positioning,
awesome intake re-design job, twin vertical tails and canards added, etc.

Just like with the J-31, at some point, if your copy improves on everything from the original,
it's just not a copy anymore; is it?

As a long-range bomber interceptor with stealth, this bird has potential ... and it's rather pretty!

Good day all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## neytirilover

Taygibay said:


> To get back to a prior discussion :
> View attachment 279869
> 
> 
> I don't remember who said the J-20 was a MiG 1.44 extrapolation when in fact it resembles most
> a stealthy evolution of the 31.
> View attachment 279870
> 
> View attachment 279871
> 
> 
> Bigger wing with swept aligned rear edge, corrections to the landing gear positioning,
> awesome intake re-design job, twin vertical tails and canards added, etc.
> 
> Just like with the J-31, at some point, if your copy improves on everything from the original,
> it's just not a copy anymore; is it?
> 
> As a long-range bomber interceptor with stealth, this bird has potential ... and it's rather pretty!
> 
> Good day all, Tay.



It is highly unlikely that you can deduce technological origin based on mere eye-balling of such scarce, if not none, similarity between these two aircrafts.

I can judge, by eyeballing, that all fixed-wing aircraft are merely copies and/or evolutions from Chinese Kites--they both had a body and wings, it's great that modern Homo-Sapiens redesigned the system to remove the tethering line.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rational

j20blackdragon said:


> The engine mystery continues. Why are the nozzles black and now painted silver?
> View attachment 279866
> View attachment 279867


Holly s*** damn that look awesome


----------



## Taygibay

neytirilover said:


> It is highly unlikely that you can deduce technological origin based on mere eye-balling of such scarce, if not none, similarity between these two aircrafts.



Actually, one can! Not necessarily anyone as the you in your sentence implies
and of course, applying knowledge of a domain and its tools ( schematics, etc ).

There are such family ties in aircraft design. The Rafale's a clear follow-through
from the Mirage 2000 even if pushed so far that an untrained eye won't register it.
As a fan of both, it always strikes me as evident?

Over 40 years, thousands of images with live access and decent understanding,
one ends up able to shape an informed opinion.

I can't guess the RCS however!  Good evening, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## slng

this beast look solid except too much hidden card.
would like to see the perf


----------



## neytirilover

Taygibay said:


> Actually, one can! Not necessarily anyone as the you in your sentence implies
> and pf course, applying knowledge of a domain and its tools ( schematics, etc ).
> 
> There are such family ties in aircraft design. The Rafale's a clear follow-through
> from the Mirage 2000 even if pushed so far that an untrained eye won't register it.
> Fan of both, it always strikes me as evident?
> 
> Over 40 years, thousands of images with live access and decent understanding,
> one ends up able to shape an informed opinion.
> 
> I can't guess the RCS however!  Good evening, Tay.



With whatever evidence and analysis you have provided, it remains highly dubious of what you are claiming. If you insist on your opinion, you can certainly provide solid evidence and fact-based logic behind your conclusion (aka "applying knowledge of a domain and its tools", are you familiar with aerodynamics, CFD, avionics or any professional subject that even remotely relates to fighter aircraft design??), so as to back up your claim. I'm a PhD in a similar field, I do aerodynamic/hydrodynamic numerical modeling and design optimization, yet NO ONE in my field who is knowledgeable ever dare to claim that they know the performance and technological origin of a specific design by mere eyeballing. Now if you are a well trained PhD, I just might put a little bit of credibility in you.

Unfortunately, what you have claimed is totally wrong, the design of J-20 has nothing to do with a Mig-31. They do not share any similarity in terms of aerodynamics and virtually every other aspect, other than those features that serves a common purpose, such as making sure that the aircraft can fly, and optimization for high speed. Basically, with the highly non-linear and chaotic turbulence features in aerodynamics, outcome of any difference in aerodynamic design is hardly estimated with bare eyes, you need a wind tunnel and advanced compressible N-S equation-solving CFD tools to get an understanding about a specific design, then you move on to work on the FBW controls.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## General Observer

neytirilover said:


> With whatever evidence and analysis you have provided, it remains highly dubious of what you are claiming. If you insist on your opinion, you can certainly provide solid evidence and fact-based logic behind your conclusion (aka "applying knowledge of a domain and its tools", are you familiar with aerodynamics, CFD, avionics or any professional subject that even remotely relates to fighter aircraft design??), so as to back up your claim. I'm a PhD in a similar field, I do aerodynamic/hydrodynamic numerical modeling and design optimization, yet NO ONE in my field who is knowledgeable ever dare to claim that they know the performance and technological origin of a specific design by mere eyeballing. Now if you are a well trained PhD, I just might put a little bit of credibility in you.
> 
> Unfortunately, what you have claimed is totally wrong, the design of J-20 has nothing to do with a Mig-31. They do not share any similarity in terms of aerodynamics and virtually every other aspect, other that those features that serves a common purpose, such as making sure that the aircraft can fly, and optimization for high speed. Basically, with the highly non-linear and chaotic turbulence features in aerodynamics, outcome of any difference in aerodynamic design is hardly estimated with bare eyes, you need a wind tunnel and advanced compressible N-S equation-solving CFD tools to get an understanding about a specific design, then you move on to work on the FBW controls.




Respect! One question, why only compressible. If one wants to test for ranges <M 0.3, I believe an incompressible model would be required also? 

In addition, then there is the transition zone or trans sonic region if you will, where turbulent flow really don't get represented well by the compressible model. What assumptions to the model would you add to this region?


----------



## neytirilover

General Observer said:


> Respect! One question, why only compressible. If one wants to test for ranges <M 0.3, I believe an incompressible model would be required also?
> 
> In addition, then there is the transition zone or trans sonic region if you will, where turbulent flow really don't get represented well by the compressible model. What assumptions to the model would you add to this region?


Even for low Mach numbers, sometimes compressible flow still has to be considered. In fact, in one of my projects, I use compressible models for an air chamber with velocity as low as 10cm/s, because I need to consider the phase difference between the motion of the liquid phase and the air. I use incompressible models for liquid phase only. Sometimes compressible model gets way too time-consuming, that's when I have to use incompressible models for high Reynolds number air flow.

I don't deal with high speed flows in my research, the largest velocity that I deal with is within Mach 0.1. So I'm sorry I cannot answer your second question based on my own experience. But in trans sonic region ppl use shock capturing and shock fitting methods for flow characterization, but this carries inviscid flow assumption. AFAIK, Reynolds Averaging and especially LES based compressible N-S solution is capable in capturing most of the transonic-supersonic turbulence details(tho not very accurately), with the cost of huge computational demand, provided that a proper Sub-grid Scale (SGS) viscosity model, a proper computational domain and a proper numerical scheme is used. Assumptions to such modeling, mainly being the assumptions carried in interpolation and schemes, as well as the assumption of parameterized SGS viscosity. A big issue being the characterization of the turbulence variation at the root of a shock wave, since the turbulence boundary layer is disrupted by the shock wave here. Research is still on-going in this area and they appears to be making progress.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

j20blackdragon said:


> The engine mystery continues. Why are the nozzles black and now painted silver?
> View attachment 279866
> View attachment 279867



2017 will also soon have the silver nozzle.

The silver nozzle and black nozzle all belong to the same type of engine, just different variants imo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neytirilover

General Observer said:


> Respect! One question, why only compressible. If one wants to test for ranges <M 0.3, I believe an incompressible model would be required also?
> 
> In addition, then there is the transition zone or trans sonic region if you will, where turbulent flow really don't get represented well by the compressible model. What assumptions to the model would you add to this region?


Plus that, in almost all cases, compressible models are better than incompressible models, the trick is whether you consider the benefit of taking compressibility into consideration worthwhile since the extra coding effort and CPU time you put into it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

So you have a PhD? GFY ( good for ... )! And I do believe it might be in science because it is obviously not in behavioural psychology, social studies or Internet. Such claims have no place on a forum. Not only are they not required of standard users because of anonymity but they’d also temper with the equalitarian access raison d’être of the Net. Don’t claim you are so good, just show it!

But I’ll take your word for an instant :

I do not have a PhD in science. There are other things I have though. I have piloted airplanes for instance and while not fighters, not on a computer or gaming console, IRL! I can do mechanics work : fix bikes, cars and beyond machinery in general, weapons and heck electronics & computers. I have built a house and a boat for real! Etc. Whatever you think is the sole domain of excellence you practice is more than balanced by real life abilities and experience on my side. When your designs don’t deliver, people like me make them work anyhow.
And while you can counter this by negating its truth quotient, I’ll immediately return the favour as to your PhD.
QED on Internet claims.

Let’s veer to reality :
I’m not certifying anything nor basing my opinion on mere specific resemblances as say between a Mustang P-51 and a Fighting Falcon because of the inlet. . . although ... 





Gotta love the Mustang --» GIFT http://www.warbirdheritagefoundation.org/PA_P51_F_0001_W.jpg

I did not say the J-20 was a copy of the MiG-31, in fact almost the contrary. I said there was a filiation, that the original idea was re-used as a base. IRL, outside the lab, this translates into : both planes’ layouts are similar if not identical ( although layout might be too grubby a term, fitted for lowly mechanics and industrial designers more than for your highness? ).

What changed most is not even the application of stealth that is so evident that some think it hides the rest. The body is similar, a very linear fuselage ideal for high speed by aiding penetration through air, cockpit perched aft of the air intakes. Chinese engineers wisely separated the engines more as found in Sukhois because this creates an air flow top ( and bottom depending ) that cools them and reduces heat signature. The wing is similar but bigger due to the trailing edge sweeping back to induce radar reflection scattering. This meant a new rear end, with again SU-like extensions which are found on most modern designs, prolonging air flow again and somewhat hiding the thrusters. For those reasons, the trailing longitudinal surfaces on the underside are now away from the body which is a normal corollary. They’re located in opposition to the now _dual & canted_ vertical fins, as necessary for maximum all-aspects stealth. The body is wider, thicker and flatter to incorporate bays.
The air intakes that used to be on either side of the fuselage are still just about there but wider apart which makes the S-duct routes better. The rear half of these however is nearly the same which shows on even outside views of the ACs. The addition of canards replaces the rear horizontal surfaces that disappeared in the trailing edge design. They’re long moment arm canards with an added Chinese spice in their upward angulation which can be guessed by the preference of the image sourcing for relatively level flight ( meaning that the horizontal axis is stable on pics not that it is parallel to the ground ) views. If they do play on the lift as I wonder, that is an additional quality of importance. I have studied decomposed flight stills and there is a strong possibility that this is true. // You’ll be glad to know that it’s not evident and could only be correctly estimated through serious analysis of entire flight videos. // The cockpit sits higher and looks to be pushed aft mostly due to the long top edge going off the intakes. If there was one thing to accredit a link to the MiG 1.44, the 3/4 rear view of the J-20’s allure and cockpit positioning in particular would be it.

Difference with the Slavic beasts : the absence of the equipment dorsal ridge ( now a channel as said ) for either but more importantly the air intakes design choice as location goes -31like. The dual under nose option found on the MiG 1.44 and the Typhoon as well is a horrid idea. When each engine intake is separate, the likelihood of accident goes down. In a bad case scenario, a single volatile ingestion could affect both paths and suppress power entirely. It fits the single engine F-16 mentioned at the beginning but not a dual engine fighter. That re-positioning alone would severe a link between the J-20 and the 1.44. The rear stabilizer section is of similar intention but realized differently while the top fuselage curvatures are not unlike but the canards are much better located on the J-20 as relative to the pilot.
The Chengdu star is not a paper airplane nor a simple prototype. It shows in every detail. It was not copied on one either. Inspired? Heck, sure since all designers work from a body of knowledge common to aviation but the 31 is a sounder less risky design as an inspiration for the working Black Eagle.


What you described in the second part of your post is quite reasonable too, it just does not come into play in a discussion such as this. Of course the aerodynamics are infinitely superior. Of course the fly-by-wire programming must be a masterpiece by comparison. Yes, specifics performance metrics and objective targets for the design are only known to the makers ( and computer ) and users and only correctly measured in the lab ( anechoic chamber / wind tunnel et al. ). No, they’re not needed to judge layout and evaluate filiation, a rather summary process to begin with. Because unless you also claim to have been on the J-20 design team, it's all opinion really, even for you. Put a clown wig and a red nose on a donkey, it’s still an a.s to the discerning observer!
Even without a PhD!

About which, since you chose the haughty superiority holier than thou and twice as certain route ( Now if you are a well trained PhD, I just might put a little bit of credibility in you. _thingie_ ), a word of advice for the little it’s worth : Good luck backing that!
Under such pretension, trolls will hunt every mistake you produce before I hear of or spot them. They’ll be greedy for doctor’s meat?
As the Eagles famously sang : Every refuge has its price.  . . . The Black Eagles of course!

And yet, no hard feelings! Here's to hoping you for a smoother conversation later, Tay.


P.S. And good luck with the d...egree measuring contest!


----------



## Blue Marlin

Taygibay said:


> So you have a PhD? GFY ( good for ... )! And I do believe it might be in science because it is obviously not in behavioural psychology, social studies or Internet. Such claims have no place on a forum. Not only are they not required of standard users because of anonymity but they’d also temper with the equalitarian access raison d’être of the Net. Don’t claim you are so good, just show it!
> 
> But I’ll take your word for an instant :
> 
> I do not have a PhD in science. There are other things I have though. I have piloted airplanes for instance and while not fighters, not on a computer or gaming console, IRL! I can do mechanics work : fix bikes, cars and beyond machinery in general, weapons and heck electronics & computers. I have built a house and a boat for real! Etc. Whatever you think is the sole domain of excellence you practice is more than balanced by real life abilities and experience on my side. When your designs don’t deliver, people like me make them work anyhow.
> And while you can counter this by negating its truth quotient, I’ll immediately return the favour as to your PhD.
> QED on Internet claims.
> 
> Let’s veer to reality :
> I’m not certifying anything nor basing my opinion on mere specific resemblances as say between a Mustang P-51 and a Fighting Falcon because of the inlet. . . although ...
> View attachment 280166
> 
> Gotta love the Mustang --» GIFT http://www.warbirdheritagefoundation.org/PA_P51_F_0001_W.jpg
> 
> I did not say the J-20 was a copy of the MiG-31, in fact almost the contrary. I said there was a filiation, that the original idea was re-used as a base. IRL, outside the lab, this translates into : both planes’ layouts are similar if not identical ( although layout might be too grubby a term, fitted for lowly mechanics and industrial designers more than for your highness? ).
> 
> What changed most is not even the application of stealth that is so evident that some think it hides the rest. The body is similar, a very linear fuselage ideal for high speed by aiding penetration through air, cockpit perched aft of the air intakes. Chinese engineers wisely separated the engines more as found in Sukhois because this creates an air flow top ( and bottom depending ) that cools them and reduces heat signature. The wing is similar but bigger due to the trailing edge sweeping back to induce radar reflection scattering. This meant a new rear end, with again SU-like extensions which are found on most modern designs, prolonging air flow again and somewhat hiding the thrusters. For those reasons, the trailing longitudinal surfaces on the underside are now away from the body which is a normal corollary. They’re located in opposition to the now _dual & canted_ vertical fins, as necessary for maximum all-aspects stealth. The body is wider, thicker and flatter to incorporate bays.
> The air intakes that used to be on either side of the fuselage are still just about there but wider apart which makes the S-duct routes better. The rear half of these however is nearly the same which shows on even outside views of the ACs. The addition of canards replaces the rear horizontal surfaces that disappeared in the trailing edge design. They’re long moment arm canards with an added Chinese spice in their upward angulation which can be guessed by the preference of the image sourcing for relatively level flight ( meaning that the horizontal axis is stable on pics not that it is parallel to the ground ) views. If they do play on the lift as I wonder, that is an additional quality of importance. I have studied decomposed flight stills and there is a strong possibility that this is true. // You’ll be glad to know that it’s not evident and could only be correctly estimated through serious analysis of entire flight videos. // The cockpit sits higher and looks to be pushed aft mostly due to the long top edge going off the intakes. If there was one thing to accredit a link to the MiG 1.44, the 3/4 rear view of the J-20’s allure and cockpit positioning in particular would be it.
> 
> Difference with the Slavic beasts : the absence of the equipment dorsal ridge ( now a channel as said ) for either but more importantly the air intakes design choice as location goes -31like. The dual under nose option found on the MiG 1.44 and the Typhoon as well is a horrid idea. When each engine intake is separate, the likelihood of accident goes down. In a bad case scenario, a single volatile ingestion could affect both paths and suppress power entirely. It fits the single engine F-16 mentioned at the beginning but not a dual engine fighter. That re-positioning alone would severe a link between the J-20 and the 1.44. The rear stabilizer section is of similar intention but realized differently while the top fuselage curvatures are not unlike but the canards are much better located on the J-20 as relative to the pilot.
> The Chengdu star is not a paper airplane nor a simple prototype. It shows in every detail. It was not copied on one either. Inspired? Heck, sure since all designers work from a body of knowledge common to aviation but the 31 is a sounder less risky design as an inspiration for the working Black Eagle.
> 
> 
> What you described in the second part of your post is quite reasonable too, it just does not come into play in a discussion such as this. Of course the aerodynamics are infinitely superior. Of course the fly-by-wire programming must be a masterpiece by comparison. Yes, specifics performance metrics and objective targets for the design are only known to the makers ( and computer ) and users and only correctly measured in the lab ( anechoic chamber / wind tunnel et al. ). No, they’re not needed to judge layout and evaluate filiation, a rather summary process to begin with. Because unless you also claim to have been on the J-20 design team, it's all opinion really, even for you. Put a clown wig and a red nose on a donkey, it’s still an a.s to the discerning observer!
> Even without a PhD!
> 
> About which, since you chose the haughty superiority holier than thou and twice as certain route ( Now if you are a well trained PhD, I just might put a little bit of credibility in you. _thingie_ ), a word of advice for the little it’s worth : Good luck backing that!
> Under such pretension, trolls will hunt every mistake you produce before I hear of or spot them. They’ll be greedy for doctor’s meat?
> As the Eagles famously sang : Every refuge has its price.  . . . The Black Eagles of course!
> 
> And yet, no hard feelings! Here's to hoping you for a smoother conversation later, Tay.
> 
> 
> P.S. And good luck with the d...egree measuring contest!


who on earth are you quoting? the j20 does have a few elements of the 1.44 but not enough to say that its an upgraded version of it. shenyang was compeating for the tender too. their plane was bigger than chengdu's and was more suited for strike bombing. but it lost as china needed a more all rounded jet.


----------



## Taygibay

Answering the new guy, @Blue Marlin mate!

All the best back home, Tay.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Taygibay said:


> Answering the new guy, @Blue Marlin mate!
> 
> All the best back home, Tay.


ok, its getting late, night, bm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## General Observer

neytirilover said:


> Even for low Mach numbers, sometimes compressible flow still has to be considered. In fact, in one of my projects, I use compressible models for an air chamber with velocity as low as 10cm/s, because I need to consider the phase difference between the motion of the liquid phase and the air. I use incompressible models for liquid phase only. Sometimes compressible model gets way too time-consuming, that's when I have to use incompressible models for high Reynolds number air flow.
> 
> I don't deal with high speed flows in my research, the largest velocity that I deal with is within Mach 0.1. So I'm sorry I cannot answer your second question based on my own experience. But in trans sonic region ppl use shock capturing and shock fitting methods for flow characterization, but this carries inviscid flow assumption. AFAIK, Reynolds Averaging and especially LES based compressible N-S solution is capable in capturing most of the transonic-supersonic turbulence details(tho not very accurately), with the cost of huge computational demand, provided that a proper Sub-grid Scale (SGS) viscosity model, a proper computational domain and a proper numerical scheme is used. Assumptions to such modeling, mainly being the assumptions carried in interpolation and schemes, as well as the assumption of parameterized SGS viscosity. A big issue being the characterization of the turbulence variation at the root of a shock wave, since the turbulence boundary layer is disrupted by the shock wave here. Research is still on-going in this area and they appears to be making progress.



Really? It's been a while since I've take aerodynamics, but from what I recall, compressible flow revolves around the acoustic mach number, that is a=dP/d(rho), where rho is the change in density in a infinitesimally small boundary. So with an incompressible model which assumes rho to be constant, how would an compressible model fit=> d(rho)=/=0.

Therefore, without the ability to extract an acoustic mach number, one can't use the isentropic flow equations to deduce pressure/temperature changes across a flow, which all depend on acoustic mach number.

Perhaps, I misunderstood your explanation for something else, like Fanno flow or Rayleigh flow? Where the flow characterization work for both models?



neytirilover said:


> Plus that, in almost all cases, compressible models are better than incompressible models, the trick is whether you consider the benefit of taking compressibility into consideration worthwhile since the extra coding effort and CPU time you put into it.



Oh I think I get ya. You mean actually assume compressibility of fluids below Mach .3... I thought you meant earlier assuming constant density but using the compressible model of fluids traveling <.3. Anyhow, definitely agreed. The incompressible model is a good assumption that can be used at a certain range, that is all. You use Ansys for your computations?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kamil_baku

BoQ77 said:


> Well Martian
> 
> When talking about Big things, you reminded me a small thing that even after such a long time, J-10 still has no domestic engine. 2015 - 1998 = 17 years.
> And J-20 would follow the same old track when it come into LRIP and afterward?


mostly, 5th generation jets are built based on their engines... 
It is not as easy as you think, to change the engines in a 5th generation jet..


----------



## neytirilover

General Observer said:


> Really? It's been a while since I've take aerodynamics, but from what I recall, compressible flow revolves around the acoustic mach number, that is a=dP/d(rho), where rho is the change in density in a infinitesimally small boundary. So with an incompressible model which assumes rho to be constant, how would an compressible model fit=> d(rho)=/=0.
> 
> Therefore, without the ability to extract an acoustic mach number, one can't use the isentropic flow equations to deduce pressure/temperature changes across a flow, which all depend on acoustic mach number.
> 
> Perhaps, I misunderstood your explanation for something else, like Fanno flow or Rayleigh flow? Where the flow characterization work for both models?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I think I get ya. You mean actually assume compressibility of fluids below Mach .3... I thought you meant earlier assuming constant density but using the compressible model of fluids traveling <.3. Anyhow, definitely agreed. The incompressible model is a good assumption that can be used at a certain range, that is all. You use Ansys for your computations?


Anyways, a constant density is a good assumption in many cases, but an assumption is an assumption after all, ideally we want to represent physical processes as accurate as possible, which means the fewer assumptions there are, the better.

I don't use Ansys no more, I use OpenFOAM and developed my own solver based on FOAM basic class library.



Taygibay said:


> So you have a PhD? GFY ( good for ... )! And I do believe it might be in science because it is obviously not in behavioural psychology, social studies or Internet. Such claims have no place on a forum. Not only are they not required of standard users because of anonymity but they’d also temper with the equalitarian access raison d’être of the Net. Don’t claim you are so good, just show it!
> 
> But I’ll take your word for an instant :
> 
> I do not have a PhD in science. There are other things I have though. I have piloted airplanes for instance and while not fighters, not on a computer or gaming console, IRL! I can do mechanics work : fix bikes, cars and beyond machinery in general, weapons and heck electronics & computers. I have built a house and a boat for real! Etc. Whatever you think is the sole domain of excellence you practice is more than balanced by real life abilities and experience on my side. When your designs don’t deliver, people like me make them work anyhow.
> And while you can counter this by negating its truth quotient, I’ll immediately return the favour as to your PhD.
> QED on Internet claims.
> 
> Let’s veer to reality :
> I’m not certifying anything nor basing my opinion on mere specific resemblances as say between a Mustang P-51 and a Fighting Falcon because of the inlet. . . although ...
> View attachment 280166
> 
> Gotta love the Mustang --» GIFT http://www.warbirdheritagefoundation.org/PA_P51_F_0001_W.jpg
> 
> I did not say the J-20 was a copy of the MiG-31, in fact almost the contrary. I said there was a filiation, that the original idea was re-used as a base. IRL, outside the lab, this translates into : both planes’ layouts are similar if not identical ( although layout might be too grubby a term, fitted for lowly mechanics and industrial designers more than for your highness? ).
> 
> What changed most is not even the application of stealth that is so evident that some think it hides the rest. The body is similar, a very linear fuselage ideal for high speed by aiding penetration through air, cockpit perched aft of the air intakes. Chinese engineers wisely separated the engines more as found in Sukhois because this creates an air flow top ( and bottom depending ) that cools them and reduces heat signature. The wing is similar but bigger due to the trailing edge sweeping back to induce radar reflection scattering. This meant a new rear end, with again SU-like extensions which are found on most modern designs, prolonging air flow again and somewhat hiding the thrusters. For those reasons, the trailing longitudinal surfaces on the underside are now away from the body which is a normal corollary. They’re located in opposition to the now _dual & canted_ vertical fins, as necessary for maximum all-aspects stealth. The body is wider, thicker and flatter to incorporate bays.
> The air intakes that used to be on either side of the fuselage are still just about there but wider apart which makes the S-duct routes better. The rear half of these however is nearly the same which shows on even outside views of the ACs. The addition of canards replaces the rear horizontal surfaces that disappeared in the trailing edge design. They’re long moment arm canards with an added Chinese spice in their upward angulation which can be guessed by the preference of the image sourcing for relatively level flight ( meaning that the horizontal axis is stable on pics not that it is parallel to the ground ) views. If they do play on the lift as I wonder, that is an additional quality of importance. I have studied decomposed flight stills and there is a strong possibility that this is true. // You’ll be glad to know that it’s not evident and could only be correctly estimated through serious analysis of entire flight videos. // The cockpit sits higher and looks to be pushed aft mostly due to the long top edge going off the intakes. If there was one thing to accredit a link to the MiG 1.44, the 3/4 rear view of the J-20’s allure and cockpit positioning in particular would be it.
> 
> Difference with the Slavic beasts : the absence of the equipment dorsal ridge ( now a channel as said ) for either but more importantly the air intakes design choice as location goes -31like. The dual under nose option found on the MiG 1.44 and the Typhoon as well is a horrid idea. When each engine intake is separate, the likelihood of accident goes down. In a bad case scenario, a single volatile ingestion could affect both paths and suppress power entirely. It fits the single engine F-16 mentioned at the beginning but not a dual engine fighter. That re-positioning alone would severe a link between the J-20 and the 1.44. The rear stabilizer section is of similar intention but realized differently while the top fuselage curvatures are not unlike but the canards are much better located on the J-20 as relative to the pilot.
> The Chengdu star is not a paper airplane nor a simple prototype. It shows in every detail. It was not copied on one either. Inspired? Heck, sure since all designers work from a body of knowledge common to aviation but the 31 is a sounder less risky design as an inspiration for the working Black Eagle.
> 
> 
> What you described in the second part of your post is quite reasonable too, it just does not come into play in a discussion such as this. Of course the aerodynamics are infinitely superior. Of course the fly-by-wire programming must be a masterpiece by comparison. Yes, specifics performance metrics and objective targets for the design are only known to the makers ( and computer ) and users and only correctly measured in the lab ( anechoic chamber / wind tunnel et al. ). No, they’re not needed to judge layout and evaluate filiation, a rather summary process to begin with. Because unless you also claim to have been on the J-20 design team, it's all opinion really, even for you. Put a clown wig and a red nose on a donkey, it’s still an a.s to the discerning observer!
> Even without a PhD!
> 
> About which, since you chose the haughty superiority holier than thou and twice as certain route ( Now if you are a well trained PhD, I just might put a little bit of credibility in you. _thingie_ ), a word of advice for the little it’s worth : Good luck backing that!
> Under such pretension, trolls will hunt every mistake you produce before I hear of or spot them. They’ll be greedy for doctor’s meat?
> As the Eagles famously sang : Every refuge has its price.  . . . The Black Eagles of course!
> 
> And yet, no hard feelings! Here's to hoping you for a smoother conversation later, Tay.
> 
> 
> P.S. And good luck with the d...egree measuring contest!



Thank you for your elaboration, I will find time to read it carefully.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

The J-20 doesn't look like an evolution of the MiG-31 to me.

The overall stealth airframe looks like it comes from Lockheed Martin.
The canopy is from the F-22 with a small brace added.
The DSI is from the F-35.
The all-moving vertical stabilizers look like F-35.
The location and configuration of the weapon bays look like F-22.
The EOTS and DAS look like F-35.
The engines look like they come from Salut.
The overall canard configuration/planform along with the ventral fins look like MiG 1.44.

Although the large size of the aircraft and the large intakes do make it look like an interceptor, like the MiG-31.

In my opinion, the J-20 doesn't look like a 'copy' of any one specific plane. It's more of a mish-mash of different technologies from all over the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

And now a quick summary of the J-20's engine mystery...

The standard AL-31FN looks like this.





Why are the #2016 and #2017 nozzles black, both inside and out?









Why is the silver coating applied over the black?





Why is the new silver nozzle paint scheme different from the old one?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## General Observer

j20blackdragon said:


> And now a quick summary of the J-20's engine mystery...
> 
> The standard AL-31FN looks like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the #2016 and #2017 nozzles black, both inside and out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the silver coating applied over the black?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the new silver nozzle paint scheme different from the old one?



My assumption,

The silver is just special paint to reduce RCS. Wtih that being said, they probably installed a new engine, which works at a higher temperature at the nozzle, so the design team may have had to put in some time to effectively apply the new coating at high operating temperatures.

Here's a useful equation for determining Power of reflective wave:

Pr = Ps · G · σ/(4 · π · R1^2 )

Pr = reflected power [W]
σ = radar cross section [m2]
R1 = range, distance antenna - aim [m]


Assuming the the entire airframe is painted with RAM reducing material, why not paint the nozzles too? Besides, it's the most exposed area of the aircraft to radar signatures anyhow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## General Observer

By the way, isentropic temperature ratio for a nozzle:

T0/Te = 1+(Gamma-1)/2*Me^2

T0 = Stagnation temperature
Te = Nozzle exit static temperature
Gamma = 1.4 for air
Me = Mach no. at nozzle exit

If one assumes that the aircraft has a higher thrust, we can increase the exit Mach number, where M = V/sqrt(Gamma*R*T) is higher.

V = Velocity
R = gas constant which is about 8.31J/(Kmol)
T = Static Temperature

Hence, stagnation temperature of the nozzle must be higher. Note, we consider STAGNATION temperature, because it is essentially the TOTAL temperature of the isentropic FLOW, where if the entire flow were to be brought to rest, the temperature. Static temperature only considers temperatures of random motion or excitement* of particles at a certain point, and not the entire flow, hence the term static*.


So there you go, my assumption of why the nozzles are painted back to silver.

Note: We are considering a non-ideal turbojet cycle. Nozzle flow would still be isentropic.






A typical Temperature-Entropy.
Entropy is obtained by combining the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

@j-20blackdragon answer in 10 hours, gotta sleep, GN Tay.


----------



## Deino

That made my day ...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Taygibay

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20 doesn't look like an evolution of the MiG-31 to me.
> 
> The overall stealth airframe looks like it comes from Lockheed Martin.
> The canopy is from the F-22 with a small brace added.
> The DSI is from the F-35.
> The all-moving vertical stabilizers look like F-35.
> The location and configuration of the weapon bays look like F-22.
> The EOTS and DAS look like F-35.
> The engines look like they come from Salut.
> The overall canard configuration/planform along with the ventral fins look like MiG 1.44.
> 
> Although the large size of the aircraft and the large intakes do make it look like an interceptor, like the MiG-31.
> 
> In my opinion, the J-20 doesn't look like a 'copy' of any one specific plane. It's more of a mish-mash of different technologies from all over the world.



OK, back in some sort of shape so answering you mate!
I'll first agree overall to your last sentence. That's only normal as newer technologies get added to fighters
and in the case of all-aspect stealth, it does produce similar results, not identical though, more so than is
the case for designs with lesser requirements. Add that I said in a previous answer that we are NOT talking
copy here, at least I am not. I used filiation as when genes ( here ideas ) are passed on to a child but remixed.

Then I removed two of your points ( in red OfC ) because neither are integral to each program.
-The shape of the sensors windows mean nothing as to their performance, as rightly pointed out
by neytirilover earlier and what's more, those shapes to fit the stealth imperative will be alike for
most such integrated birds. You know, little pyramid-like affairs giving 360 view but reflecting waves.
Rafale and Typhoon have different shapes for theirs due to lesser demands in RCS reduction again
but most total stealth fighters will have either these or flush mount ones.
-The engines are widely discussed here. Had China been able to make a fully indigenous engine
answering requirements back at the start of the project, I am certain the Black Eagle would have had
a proprietary torch. The same is as we also know the case of its Russian equivalent. Programs that
included such tailor-made units depend on a national maker being able to answer and should give top
results but also cost a little more ( check F-35 alternative engine saga ).
These elements are not essential to assert lineage and mostly circumstantial in our case.

Of those left, the easy one is the last about the planform being close to 1.44. I sort of said so for the top
part earlier and the ventral fin to vert surfaces. However, air intake location and wing choice are different,
both from the 31, and the canard spacing is very Gripen-like on the old Ru machine and much much more
subtle on the J-20 to the point of acting differently on the plane's attitude. I'd be really happy with any info
on these from Chinese posters because they are an impressive achievement. For instance, is there an
active RCS suppressing tool for them as is claimed on the Typhoon or is that taken care of by the minimal
travel they exhibit on most views?


Now, true disagreement : the rest of your list is all US, LM F-22 & F-35 twice but ...
The airframe is anything except LM. Just the canards make it so. American designers have no love for those
and traditional planforms with rear surfaces is their thing. They can make them but are ( too ) conservative!
They look like broadly speaking due to answering same stealth necessity which as we said limits choices.
The canopy will look like that too for same reasons as long as interception is the idea. The PAKFA canopy
is more sunken but older ones F-16, Rafale show a design line that leads to what will be optimal shape in
stealth which the J-20 could not avoid, that's all! And it's the right place for it!
DSI will look alike for same reasons as before but they are not the same at all. The angles on the trapezoid
are inverted with the top going sharply down and out on the 35 and nearly flat/ on the j-20 - to align with the
different body inclinations. The J-20's DSI is much larger and considering China's expertise from the J-10s
I see no reason to find it copied from F-35.
All moving vertical stabilizers? The PAKFA has them too but huh NOT the F-35?!? Again, US plane makers
are as conservative as they are excellent; the vert surfaces of the JSF are almost of the F-18 line for Pete's
sake! Their trailing edge is not even canted in alignment to the front/leading angle as on the F-22.
Bays are where they'll almost always be if full stealth and interceptor size AC are married : in-line central
and fuselage side for AAMs. That's the best place for them ( GC/MC for heavy stuff, ease of LOAL for AA ).

I have to wonder if some of the pushing for relationship with American design is not socio-politically motivated.
I personally and I am not alone find the comparison unfair to China. Sure, I made the copy machine plans
joke a couple time but if it may be true of some of y/our helicopters it is not the case here.
Inspired by MiG-31 according to me yes but not a copy by any means and not one of any single aircraft. As you
said in that sentence, I agree too, the J-20 is clearly an autonomous design of quality that chose elements to fit
its needs resulting in a unique aircraft. IMHoO, it should not be compared to US made Stealth planes nor any
other. It's impressive on its own.

And have a great day, Tay.


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Viper0011.

j20blackdragon said:


> And now a quick summary of the J-20's engine mystery...



Probably Titanium or a mix of some metals that absorb the exiting flame's heat, to leave a smaller heat signature when the hot engine burn exits from these nozzles....


----------



## j20blackdragon

Viper0011. said:


> Probably Titanium or a mix of some metals that absorb the exiting flame's heat, to leave a smaller heat signature when the hot engine burn exits from these nozzles....



Sure, I've considered that possibility.
But where would the heat go after it has been absorbed?

For example, the heatsink inside a laptop is an excellent conductor of heat, and its job is to transfer that heat to the cooling fan to be dispersed.





How would adding a thin coating to the AL-31FN accomplish all that?

As I understand it, true stealth IR reduction requires a system that mixes cool air in with the hot exhaust gases to lower the IR signature of the aircraft. Simply adding a coating accomplishes very little in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

2018 and 2019. Anyone？

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

cirr said:


> 2018 and 2019. Anyone？



2 more prototypes are coming?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> 2018 and 2019. Anyone？


No.. 2017 will be the final. Beautiful Ladies and banquet of flower are proof.






No other launch of J-20 prototype except first prototype received such grand reception.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

slng said:


> to keep your enemy guessing is the art of war by itself even your just holding a donkey card


Sorry it's not donkey card, keep guessing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Eagle

j20blackdragon said:


> View attachment 280602



Indeed it's a beauty


----------



## General Observer

gambit said:


> If you are a Ph.D and more importantly faithful to science then you do not belong in this forum.
> 
> For the yrs I have been here, I have seen the laws of physics repeatedly violated by your fellow Chinese when it comes to 'eyeballing' aircrafts, ships, wheeled vehicles, and down to firearms. We are talking about guys who can barely tell the differences between a bunsen burner and zippo lighter, and yet no problems dismissing Ph.Ds who worked on billion dollars defense projects that involved high powered computers and math so esoteric they bordered on alien languages. They dismissed by making scientifically baseless claims and accuse those who challenge those claims as racists.
> 
> But here is what I think you will do. I believe that peer approval from your fellow Chinese will be more important to you than your fidelity to science. We have seen many times in science when highly educated people, including Ph.Ds, committed scientific frauds, so ignoring obvious scientifically dubious claims will be nothing. I believe that when -- not if -- you see a claim from a fellow Chinese that defies what you know to be theoretically true and verified in the laboratory as true, you will not correct him. You are not the first one to do so and will not be the last.



If you're faithful to the fundamentals and theories of science, I suggest you turn around and look away from these forums, as I am quite positive this is no place for 'intellectuals' like you. 

Besides, I don't think you'll be much missed, apart from Viets and a very few number of Indians who look up to you like a God of science. 

Well, all the power to their ignorance then.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

*Can we come back to the topic, guys !???*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Beast said:


> No.. 2017 will be the final. Beautiful Ladies and banquet of flower are proof.
> 
> View attachment 280694
> 
> 
> No other launch of J-20 prototype except first prototype received such grand reception.



There is THE need to further accelerate the development and batch induction of the J-20。



terranMarine said:


> 2 more prototypes are coming?



Why not if they are coming in pair in a few weeks？

And there is nothing that can stops these 2 prototypes from becoming part of PLAAF's inventory。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> There is THE need to further accelerate the development and batch induction of the J-20。
> 
> 
> 
> Why not if they are coming in pair in a few weeks？
> 
> And there is nothing that can stops these 2 prototypes from becoming part of PLAAF's inventory。


They are not prototype but limited low rate production batches.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## terranMarine

Beast said:


> They are not prototype but limited low rate production batches.


A good start for the year 2016 pumping 2 out from the factory

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Guys ... not too enthusiastic: The question first of all remains:

Is this report about two additional J-20's in early 2016 just arumour and wishfull thinking or based on facts and maybe internal reports ?

Not that I question that there will be more next year and even more I'm also sure that the next birds will more like '10x'-serials or pre-serilas than prototypes ... however where are the reports from that "soon" two more will appear ?

Deino


----------



## hk299792458

Never heard about 2 more prototypes. Only heard that 2017 will be the last prototype.

Maybe that's wrong but this is the only thing I got so far.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taygibay

I really think that there are more than enough prototypes as of now.
We don't get as many echoes as from other mil avia nations on the test results and that may have us
believe it's not progressing which is not verifiably true. I mean, what could be checked with 10 prototypes
that cannot be with 8? Unless, have they planned 9 crash tests? 

No, seriously, an old-school program would see a hiatus in production to obtain test results, decide changes
and prepare the production line for the standard delivery versions.
As things stand, it's a reasonable bet for any half-astute observer that China has instead a logical preference
for concurrency, that was present on the J-10 series so we know the designers and maker can be trusted, and
that the next J-20s are very likely to be LRIP just as Rafale and F-35 programs have done.

BTW, if you make 18 prototypes, would that be called a test squadron or a prototype squadron? 
Rich solution in any case, right?

And just for fun as a Christmas gift for our Chinese crew, the image below is from a French gaming forum.
Well, they're more than that, it's hard to explain and thus to categorize. I thought you'd like it in any case.





BandeDehoufs
The game is Battlefield 4 Legacy Operations Dragon Valley 2015.

Have a great day all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Guys ... not too enthusiastic: The question first of all remains:
> 
> Is this report about two additional J-20's in early 2016 just arumour and wishfull thinking or based on facts and maybe internal reports ?
> 
> Not that I question that there will be more next year and even more I'm also sure that the next birds will more like '10x'-serials or pre-serilas than prototypes ... however where are the reports from that "soon" two more will appear ?
> 
> Deino



2018、2019 already spotted。PLUS 2101.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 2018、2019 already spotted。PLUS 2101.



Are these based on your opinion or that of "big shrimps"?


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> Are these based on your opinion or that of "big shrimps"?



Hope guys who took pics of the birds will release same soon。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

SinoSoldier said:


> Are these based on your opinion or that of "big shrimps"?


This is cirr we are talking about here  he has inside info or at least know where to get the latest ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Hope guys who took pics of the birds will release same soon。



That's odd, because the "big shrimps" claimed that the 2017 was the last prototype.


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Hope guys who took pics of the birds will release same soon。




Me too .... since it simply sounds too good to be true !


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Me too .... since it simply sounds too good to be true !



Having more prototypes suggests that the J-20 program is not as advanced/progressed as had originally thought.


----------



## gambit

SinoSoldier said:


> Having more prototypes suggests that the J-20 program is not as advanced/progressed as had originally thought.


Unless you have personal experience in aviation or even R/D, please stop making silly statements like this.

If you can afford it, multiple test platforms are ideal. Instead of modifying a test platform, you can have concurrent test platforms running different versions of whatever it is that you want to test. You can have real time differential test data to correlate hypotheses instead of waiting for the modded platform, especially in aviation where certain environmental conditions, are not always available, such as ground barometric pressure that can changes from hour to hour. 

Repairing a F-16 Central Air Data Computer (CADC)


> This LRU processes air data (static pressure, total pressure, angle of attack, barometric pressure, and temperature) for use in other aircraft subsystems. These measurements and resulting data are all critical for safe, effective flight.


Two or three different test platforms flying different versions of the Central Air Data Computer (CADC) under the same environmental conditions will allows you fine tune your air data algorithms.


----------



## Akasa

gambit said:


> Unless you have personal experience in aviation or even R/D, please stop making silly statements like this.
> 
> If you can afford it, multiple test platforms are ideal. Instead of modifying a test platform, you can have concurrent test platforms running different versions of whatever it is that you want to test. You can have real time differential test data to correlate hypotheses instead of waiting for the modded platform, especially in aviation where certain environmental conditions, are not always available, such as ground barometric pressure that can changes from hour to hour.
> 
> Repairing a F-16 Central Air Data Computer (CADC)
> 
> Two or three different test platforms flying different versions of the Central Air Data Computer (CADC) under the same environmental conditions will allows you fine tune your air data algorithms.



Fair enough, but the construction of additional prototypes could also signify that problems or deficits have been found with the current iteration and need to be rectified on a redesigned platform.

For comparison's sake, the F-22 had 8 pre-LRIP prototypes and Sukhoi is planning to make do with 5.


----------



## 54ptu

SinoSoldier said:


> Having more prototypes suggests that the J-20 program is not as advanced/progressed as had originally thought.


Not if these prototypes are of the same copy, just to see if some unexpected errors would pop up. Having more flying only speed up the process. 

I think its a good sign!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Hope guys who took pics of the birds will release same soon。




Aure You nreferring to this (and similar) reports ?

背心这话啥意思？还有2018、2019？（16楼大神出没）-第2页-空军版-超级大本营军事论坛-最具影响力军事论坛 -

What I really would love to see is a J-10 factory fresh in its yellow primer similar to the many J-10s we know.



SinoSoldier said:


> Having more prototypes suggests that the J-20 program is not as advanced/progressed as had originally thought.



Not sure ... or at least not necessarily ! If they are low-rate initial serial ones to be assigned to the FTTC it would be fine.

By the way, are there reports about a possible twin-seater ?

Deino


----------



## aliaselin

2019 and 2101

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> 2019 and 2101




What does this post mean ?? So no 2018 ? or You have an image of 2019 + 2101 ??


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> What does this post mean ?? So no 2018 ? or You have an image of 2019 + 2101 ??


Do not know if there is 2018. But 2019 and 2101 have been spotted

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> Do not know if there is 2018. But 2019 and 2101 have been spotted




Oh ... I thought already all three !


----------



## Akasa

aliaselin said:


> Do not know if there is 2018. But 2019 and 2101 have been spotted



As usual, that premise doesn't hold unless...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> As usual, that premise doesn't hold unless...
> View attachment 281903


----------



## SOHEIL

aliaselin said:


> Do not know if there is 2018. But 2019 and 2101 have been spotted



J-21 !?


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> Oh ... I thought already all three !


Not sure until those guys release the picture



SOHEIL said:


> J-21 !?


No!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Somebody said it is 2018. Anyway, no picture no truth

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SOHEIL

2101 means J-21


----------



## cirr

Maiden flight any day now。。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aliaselin

More information revealed: one of the bird was firstly painted with 2019, and after several days, it was repainted - I think what he means - 2101(or 20101?).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

aliaselin said:


> More information revealed: one of the bird was firstly painted with 2019, and after several days, it was repainted - I think what he means - 2101(or 20101?).


I think 2018 and 2019 are just back up in case 2017 didn't achieve the result require. Chinese are very cautious in making big decisions or experiments. So your claim of 2018 and 2019 repainted in Limited serial production number holds some water.

PLAAF will be officially after USAF to field an operational stealth reduced RCS and RAM coating aircraft, AESA radar with internal weapon bay fighter jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Congrats to ChengDu aircraft design institution ! Official news, China J-20 start mass production (Trial production)  

There will be mass production version of J-20A out

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Tiqiu

J-20 Installed Luneberg Lens to Enhance Radar Signature of the Aircraft





F-22





The F-35 has 4 luneburg lenses

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## terranMarine




----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> Congrats to ChengDu aircraft design institution ! Official news, China J-20 start mass production
> 
> There will be mass production version of J-20A out
> View attachment 282219




O.k. ... and now please show us these ladies !


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> O.k. ... and now please show us these ladies !


J-20A will be out in 2016, now lie down on the production line of ChengDu aircraft manufacturing company.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Ohhh ... but just a small tease !? Please ....


----------



## yesboss

This is huge. Earlier than anticipated. Congrats to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

cnleio said:


> Congrats to ChengDu aircraft design institution ! Official news, China J-20 start mass production (Trial production)
> 
> There will be mass production version of J-20A out
> View attachment 282219

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> Ohhh ... but just a small tease !? Please ....


Some looks good ... the ladies ! 











cirr said:


>


before 2018 mass production version of J-20A out, it's the truth ... and in 2017 J-20A stealth fighters can join PLAAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> Some looks good ... the ladies !




I think You misunderstood my wish !


----------



## Deino

OMG ... and so it begins !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> OMG ... and so it begins !
> 
> View attachment 282300


LOL ... i just read it too, a serial number of mass production j-20, the 1st batch.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> OMG ... and so it begins !
> 
> View attachment 282300



As usual，the veil is being unveiled step by step。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nang2

cnleio said:


> LOL ... i just read it too, a serial number of mass production j-20, the 1st batch.


Where did you read it?


----------



## cnleio

nang2 said:


> Where did you read it?


FYJS or CJDBY forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

cnleio said:


> FYJS or CJDBY forum.


Mostly rumors. Also saw a rumor saying Y20 will be in trial production.


----------



## cnleio

nang2 said:


> Mostly rumors. Also saw a rumor saying Y20 will be in trial production.


Truth come from the rumor, it works in China ... lol  Anyways we r waiting for N.o2101 J-20 photo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## applesauce

yay, the strip tease begins again

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

In 2011, China signed a $500 million deal for 123 AL-31FN Series 3 engines.
J-10B production began 2 years later in 2013.
We now have even more evidence that J-20 production will begin in 2016.
If Russian engines were needed, a large engine deal should have been signed in 2014.

Even more ironic, Russia announced a Su-35 deal in late November, but with no mention of any engine sales packaged with that deal.

Furthermore, the J-10B has now officially entered service (yellow serial numbers) with domestic WS-10 engines.

I think if we put all the clues together, we come to the conclusion that China doesn't need Russian engines anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> In 2011, China signed a $500 million deal for 123 AL-31FN Series 3 engines.
> J-10B production began 2 years later in 2013.
> We now have even more evidence that J-20 production will begin in 2016.
> If Russian engines were needed, a large engine deal should have been signed in 2014.
> 
> Even more ironic, Russia announced a Su-35 deal in late November, but with no mention of any engine sales packaged with that deal.
> 
> Furthermore, the J-10B has now officially entered service (yellow serial numbers) with domestic WS-10 engines.
> 
> I think if we put all the clues together, we come to the conclusion that China doesn't need Russian engines anymore.




Not necessarily ... When did we her the First time an Offizial confirmation regarding the j-10's AL-31FN-deal ? ... At a time already several serial aircraft were already flying.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Not necessarily ... When did we her the First time an Offizial confirmation regarding the j-10's AL-31FN-deal ? ... At a time already several serial aircraft were already flying.



The AL-31FN was a brand new engine back then. There were also rumors indicating that a deal was in place for 54 AL-31FN prior to J-10 production.

Since then, AL-31FN orders occurred like clockwork.

2005: 100 engines

2007: 100 engines

2009: 122 engines

2011: 123 engines (Series 3)

But all of a sudden AL-31FN orders stopped after the 2011 deal. It has almost been 5 years without a deal. And now we are getting credible rumors that J-20 production is starting next year. Am I the only one that thinks this is odd?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

... No, but IMO there is a similar Secret deal behind concerning another Brand-New Version of the AL-31FN, maybe Even 117S and we will be informed only in a few years.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> ... No, but IMO there is a similar Secret deal behind concerning another Brand-New Version of the AL-31FN, maybe Even 117S and we will be informed only in a few years.



I think 117S is unlikely for two reasons:

1. The rear fuselage of the J-20 simply does not allow enough room for the thrust vectoring 117S nozzles to deflect.







2. Russia is afraid China will take the 117S and put it on the J-11D. If that happens, they are hurting their own Su-35 sales. Russia has always been hesitant to sell engines that can be used on China's Flanker clones. If the Russians wanted to, they could have supported the J-11B program by selling the AL-31FM1 years ago.

I do believe Russia is fully capable of providing an improved AL-31FN with thrust equal to the AL-31FM2, with gearbox located at the bottom of course. However, it's all speculation until Salut makes the announcement.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The 117S and 117 are also part of the AL-31 family, and they all look similar.

However, the engine of the J-20 looks very different with the completely different pattern of nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

*2101*（J-20，batch 1，#1）

Reactions: Like Like:
23


----------



## SOHEIL

cirr said:


> *2101*（J-20，batch 1，#1）
> 
> View attachment 282474

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

SOHEIL said:


>



Now that the J-20 has entered initial batch production，stealth coatings will be applied before delivery to save on cost。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## terranMarine

Deino said:


> Me too .... since it simply sounds too good to be true !


 yup too good to be true but here you have it 2101

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SOHEIL

cirr said:


> Now that the J-20 has entered initial batch production，stealth coatings will be applied before delivery to save on cost。



You won't believe ...

But i knew it's gonna happen soon ... (as i said before if you remember)

Guess what ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

SOHEIL said:


> You won't believe ...
> 
> But i knew it's gonna happen soon ... (as i said before if you remember)
> 
> Guess what ...



Most people wouldn't believe that the J-20 could enter into the production stage by the end of 2015, and most people still won't believe that the WS-15 right now is fully ready.

Most people are designated to eat more crows anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


> *2101*（J-20，batch 1，#1）
> 
> View attachment 282474


LOL ... 1st one of 1st batch mass production J-20 (possible trial production)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## terranMarine

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Most people wouldn't believe that the J-20 could enter into the production stage by the end of 2015, and most people still won't believe that the WS-15 right now is fully ready.
> 
> Most people are designated to eat more crows anyway.



This is actually a good thing for us. Americans also said China will have her first flying stealth aircraft in 2020 or something like that. Other said we don't have arrestor hooks for the CV-16 and the latest video showed 9 J-15 are on board and conducting training operation. China has many surprises in store for us

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## 54ptu

Something which suppose to happen in early 2017 happened in late 2015...

I call that 2 years ahead of schedule.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

terranMarine said:


> This is actually a good thing for us. Americans also said China will have her first flying stealth aircraft in 2020 or something like that. Other said we don't have arrestor hooks for the CV-16 and the latest video showed 9 J-15 are on board and conducting training operation. China has many surprises in store for us



I have the feeling that the Type 002 will also give us a big surprise.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

Next I want to see J-20s test-flighted with WS-10X and WS-15。

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Most people wouldn't believe that the J-20 could enter into the production stage by the end of 2015, and most people still won't believe that the WS-15 right now is fully ready.
> 
> Most people are designated to eat more crows anyway.


I hope Pinkov can eat back his words.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## mosu

Congratulations brothers

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Most people wouldn't believe that the J-20 could enter into the production stage by the end of 2015, and most people still won't believe that the WS-15 right now is fully ready.
> 
> Most people are designated to eat more crows anyway.


 
Even if such a great momemt is surely not the right one to struggle but what makes You believe taht this one already has the WS-15 installed ?

I think we should stay realistic and this one will most likely use the same engines 2017 uses.

Anyway congrats to CAC ...

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

#_2101_











@ Indian members, would you please provide me names of the most famous military forums in the country ? I would like to enlarge a little bit my direct sourcing for information of LCA program. Thank you in advance.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Akasa

hk299792458 said:


> #_2101_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @ Indian members, would you please provide me names of the most famous military forums in the country ? I would like to enlarge a little bit my direct sourcing for information of LCA program. Thank you in advance.
> 
> Henri K.



Henry, are 2101, 2018, and 2019 all different aircraft? There is a rumor that 2019 = 2101.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Martian2

*China's low-rate initial production (LRIP) of J-20 stealth fighters has begun.*

I magnified Cirr's posted picture. It clearly shows a J-20 "2101" in yellow primer.

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## Dungeness

54ptu said:


> Something which suppose to happen in early 2017 happened in late 2015...
> 
> I call that 2 years ahead of schedule.



Chinese military fans are simply luckier than others! We get pleasant surprises, we don't have to listen to those BS excuses for the countless delays and cancellations.



hk299792458 said:


> #_2101_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @ Indian members, would you please provide me names of the most famous military forums in the country ?* I would like to enlarge a little bit my direct sourcing for information of LCA program. Thank you in advance.*
> 
> Henri K.



What an insult to the injury.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## hk299792458

Dungeness said:


> What an insult to the injury.



Absolutely not, and I'm serious.

I'm really looking for direct sources in which I can learn more about this Indian program. Forums are one of the best places where we learn a lot.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

hk299792458 said:


> Absolutely not, and I'm serious.
> 
> I'm really looking for direct sources in which I can learn more about this Indian program. Forums are one of the best places where we learn a lot.
> 
> Henri K.


I spent a lot of time collecting information on India's LCA (or Tejas) program.

I have included a summary of its parts below and a direct link to AsiaWind, where you can peruse the direct sources from western media on the LCA.

*Indian LCA/Tejas is 90% foreign content | Business Standard (AsiaWind)*
----------

*Adding British air-to-air refueling probe and nose cone to "Indian" LCA/Tejas foreign content*

The foreign content of the LCA/Tejas depends on how you measure it. If you measure by volume, the foreign content is significantly less than 90% because the Indian composite panels (used in the wings), landing gear, and tires take up a lot of room.

If you measure by value, the "Indian" LCA/Tejas is 90% foreign:

1. American GE F414 engine
2. Israeli Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar
3. Israeli Elbit-furnished DASH helmet-mounted display and sight (HMDS)
4. French Sextant multi-function displays (MFDs)
5. British Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seat
6. Israeli Rafael laser Litening Targeting Pods (which is derived from American Northrop Grumman technology)
7. Russian GSh-23 cannon
8. Russian/Israeli missiles
9. French Sagem SIGMA 95N ring-laser gyroscope
10. British BAE Systems ship-sets of actuators (at $2 million each) for LCA/Tejas
11. Canadian canopy sheath
*12. British air-to-air refueling probe (source: The New Indian Express, see below)
13. British nose cone (source: The New Indian Express, see below)*
----------

LCA's Certification to be Slightly Delayed - The New Indian Express

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Deino

So what's the current consensus: 2018 does not exist and 2019 became 2101 ?? ... or are there indeed three seperate birds ?


----------



## cnleio

PLAAF's 'F-22' incoming

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## v9s

hk299792458 said:


> Indian members, would you please provide me names of the most famous military forums in the country ? I would like to enlarge a little bit my direct sourcing for information of LCA program. Thank you in advance.
> 
> Henri K.


 Bharat-rakshak

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Even if such a great momemt is surely not the right one to struggle but what makes You believe taht this one already has the WS-15 installed ?
> 
> I think we should stay realistic and this one will most likely use the same engines 2017 uses.
> 
> Anyway congrats to CAC ...
> 
> Deino



Well, it looks like your belief has been shaken, but I will firmly stand with my belief.

You must be wowed by such amazing speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, it looks like your belief has been shaken, but I will firmly stand with my belief.
> 
> You must be wowed by such amazing speed.



Not really and given the fact that it was always clear to Enter service with an interim engine there is no surprise. However I am indeed sursprised why you still hope it is already powered by the Ws-15 Even if there are simply no, None, nil, Not the slightest hint for this ?

Anyway you can surely believe whatever you want ....


----------



## Sasquatch

Deino said:


> Not really and given the fact that it was always clear to Enter service with an interim engine there is no surprise. However I am indeed sursprised why you still hope it is already powered by the Ws-15 Even if there are simply no, None, nil, Not the slightest hint for this ?
> 
> Anyway you can surely believe whatever you want ....



First batch of J-20's powered by the WS-10 ?


----------



## Beast

Hu Songshan said:


> First batch of J-20's powered by the WS-10 ?


Yes. WS-10B 140KN thrust

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## slng

hater gonna hate and congrats CN in this amazing production. you had the the solid requirement to be next inventor for the world

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Sasquatch

Beast said:


> Yes. WS-10B 140KN thrust



When will the WS-15 be ready ? Some dates say 2018 or past 2020 ? WS-10 development has been a learning experience development of the WS-15 should go smoother.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Hu Songshan said:


> When will the WS-15 be ready ? Some dates say 2018 or past 2020 ? WS-10 development has been a learning experience development of the WS-15 should go smoother.


WS-15 needs at least 165KN thrust of power and far superior metallurgy for longer lifespan and withstand higher temperature. It will not be easy. Developement start in 2006 and next year the design and production method may finalised after 10 years of hardwork.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Yes. WS-10B 140KN thrust


 

No ... surely not ! Just give a single image or true proof that bakes that statement and again not "it is siverish" !

All details say it is an AL-31 of some sort ... but some still want to dream.

Deino


----------



## cnleio

F-22, F-35 prodcution & J-20 production

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Taygibay

I 'll skip the I told you so and go straight to congratulating China for that LRIP.
It shows confidence in the design and I wouldn't even be shocked by a J-10
type development with a remake sooner than at MLU, sooner than later.






Good going and good day all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Damn the Plane is sexy... Love it

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Daniel808

Martian2 said:


> *China's low-rate initial production (LRIP) of J-20 stealth fighters has begun.*
> 
> I magnified Cirr's posted picture. It clearly shows a J-20 "2101" in yellow primer.




The best New Year Present for all over Chinese people and Chinese Military Enthusiast all over the World !! Yeah ! 

This is a Great News ! Congrats for China

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## j20blackdragon

More on the J-20 engine mystery.

I've been scrutinizing over some of my J-20 pictures recently and may have stumbled onto something strange.

First, I want everyone to look at the trailing edge of the blue petals in the AL-31FN nozzle. Notice how there are two layers of blue petals stacked on top of each other in a distinctive pattern.






Take a closer look. Once again, notice that there are two layers of blue petals. There is a top layer and a bottom layer.






Now look at the J-20 nozzles in the same area. Do you see the two layers of petals? I don't.










Regrettably, I don't have many high resolution pictures of the J-20 engines that would allow me to examine the nozzle petal arrangement in greater detail.

Also I do not believe the J-20 is using the thrust vectoring engines designed by Salut that have popped up sporadically in the past. Those engines have never made it into mass production. The petal arrangement is also completely different.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> More on the J-20 engine mystery.
> 
> I've been scrutinizing over some of my J-20 pictures recently and may have stumbled onto something strange.
> 
> First, I want everyone to look at the trailing edge of the blue petals in the AL-31FN nozzle. Notice how there are two layers of blue petals stacked on top of each other in a distinctive pattern.
> 
> Take a closer look. Once again, notice that there are two layers of blue petals. There is a top layer and a bottom layer.
> 
> Now look at the J-20 nozzles in the same area. Do you see the two layers of petals? I don't.
> 
> Regrettably, I don't have many high resolution pictures of the J-20 engines that would allow me to examine the nozzle petal arrangement in greater detail.




Agreed, and indeed this double-layer arrangement seems to be missing. However - and as such thanks for pointing out - they both share the same canted design (= red line) so maybe the J-10's double layer design was replaced by a new single-piece design and even more both exhausts share the same row of characteristic dot-like makings / screws (= yellow dots) and the same characteristic two part design of inner lip of the pedals (= light green detail). Sadly the J-20's engine is closed while the J-10's exhaust is fully open, so You can't see them very clearly.

Anyway IMO three more proofs that it is an AL-31-version and surely not a WS-10.

Deino






PS: by the way thanks for Your always interesting posts, that are welcome additions and arguments to discuss.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Agreed, and indeed this double-layer arrangement seems to be missing. However - and as such thanks for pointing out - they both share the same canted design (= red line) so maybe the J-10's double layer design was replaced by a new single-piece design and even more both exhausts share the same row of characteristic dot-like makings / screws (= yellow dots) and the same characteristic two part design of inner lip of the pedals (= light green detail). Sadly the J-20's engine is closed while the J-10's exhaust is fully open, so You can't see them very clearly.
> 
> Anyway IMO three more proofs that it is an AL-31-version and surely not a WS-10.
> 
> Deino
> 
> View attachment 282840
> 
> 
> PS: by the way thanks for Your always interesting posts, that are welcome additions and arguments to discuss.



Thanks Deino.

As far as I know, most if not all in-service engines in the AL-31 family have the same 'double-layer' petal arrangement. I've been checking plenty of pictures.

The AL-31F on the Su-27 has it.






The 117S has it.






So the petal shape (thanks for mentioning the cant in the petal) and petal arrangement in the J-20 nozzles are very strange indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> Thanks Deino.
> 
> As far as I know, most if not all in-service engines in the AL-31 family have the same 'double-layer' petal arrangement. I've been checking plenty of pictures.
> 
> The AL-31F on the Su-27 has it.
> ...
> The 117S has it.
> ...
> So the petal shape (thanks for mentioning the cant in the petal) and petal arrangement in the J-20 nozzles are very strange indeed.




Yes, But I don't think that this double layer design is a stand-alone feature to identify an AL-31 version and even more if all other details (sans the colour) say it is one and this design feature could also be easily superseded by an updated design, esp. since it has the same general shape.

Anyway ... any news on '2101' ???


----------



## AmirPatriot

Congratulations to our Chinese friends for the J-20 entering the pre-production stage now  The Mighty Dragon looks like a beast 

How's the engine development going?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Eagle

indeed a beauty, isn't it? A great news from China and one of the many surprises as usual. Haters will continue to live in hate world and the one will be enjoying every moment with any thing it has. So congrats China for the achievement. and I think the engine mystery would be solved in the same fashion too. way to go China.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cnleio

Five years of J-20 development, hundred times take off

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## The Eagle

Look at the transformation what inspires me more is getting more beautiful & deadlier day by day. reminds me of Beauty and the Beast. way to go China. i hope such canopy would do wonders in near future.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Sasquatch

> In a Christmas gift for Chinese fighter pilots, December 25th saw the unveiling of a new J-20 fighter in fresh yellow fuselage primer on the runway of the Chengdu Aviation Corporation (CAC) factory. More notable than its paint color, however, was the numbering of the plane: "2101." As opposed to "2018" or "2019" to follow the eighth flying prototype "2017," "2101" suggests the plane is the first of the low rate initial production (LRIP) airframes, which signify the move away from prototype production to building fighters for actual military use.
> 
> LRIP is the stage in the program where CAC will build enough production fighters (about 12-24) for test and evaluation flights by the PLAAF to understand the J-20's capabilities, before further committing to large-scale production. Initial operational capability should come around in the 2018-2019 timeframe, once the Chinese Test Flight Establishment (CTFE) regiment develops the technical proficiency and competence to use the J-20 to the fullest in combat operations.



Chinese Stealth Fighter J-20 Starts Production | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Martian2

Chinese Stealth Fighter J-20 Starts Production | Popular Science

"*'2101' is the ninth J-20 fighter built by the CAC in under five years* (the first J-20 prototype flew in January 2011). In comparison, the first production F-35A (AF-6) flew in February 2011, five years after the first F-35 prototype flew in February 2006. *The F-22 also took about five years to transition from first flight to LRIP (September 1997 and February 2002).*
...
*While the J-20 certainly a formidable foe today, in the next several years of development advances, its capabilities can be expected to grow. Future J-20's will likely have super-cruise capable Chinese WS-15 turbofan engines and improved gallium nitride AESA radars, with further out options including pilot controlled UAVs.* As J-20 testing wraps up, the PLAAF will also have many other new projects to roll out, like the J-31 stealth fighter, H-20 stealth bomber, Sharp Sword stealth UAV and hypersonic weaponry."

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The J-20 can easily break the sound barrier without the afterburner, and many inhabitants from Chengdu have witnessed that.

So no way two AL-31FN can be that powerful.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

IMO it will be difficult for anyone to convince me and maybe some others that the J-20 is powered by the AL-31F engines. 

All I need to do is to close my eyes and listen to the sound of both the engines from the available videos e.g. J-10A or J11A powered by the AL-31 then the J-20 prototype. The J-20 powerplants are definitely more powerful and has a higher bypass. All the AL-31F has a characteristic higher pitch metallic engine sound.

Next an official from AVIC had already comfirmed that the J-20 is powered by China's own WS-10 series engine maybe WS-10G etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Manidabest

Beijing’s stealthy Chengdu J-20 fifth-generation combat aircraft, pictured above in an artist’s rendering, may have entered low rate initial production according to state-owned Chinese media.

Xinhua—Beijing’s official news agency—published photos of the newest J-20 aircraft, which is still coated in primer paint, earlier this week. An editorial accompanying the photos suggests that the new stealth warplane has entered initial production. Xinhua noted that the serial number is an indication of that fact, having changed from the 20XX designation of earlier iterations to 2101. But the news agency is careful not to definitively state the stealthy warplane has entered full production.

The earlier J-20 prototypes were designated as 2001, 2002, 2011 and 2017. Aircraft 2001 and 2002 were used as technology demonstrators while aircraft 2011 and 2017 were production configuration flight-test articles, Xinhua noted. The aircraft’s configuration has remained stable over the past two iterations—which indicates that the design works relatively well.

According to Xinhua, the Chinese believe that the J-20 will be stealthier than its Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA counterpart. The Chinese aircraft might also be ahead of the Russian jet in terms of avionics, but concrete information about the new warplane’s systems is scarce. The J-20 is also likely to become fully operational ahead of Moscow’s offering. However, Beijing seems to be aware of its shortcomings—Xinhua notes that the J-20 is optimized for supersonic cruising speeds but is limited by imported Russian engines.

The news agency notes that the J-20 won’t be able to reach its full potential until China develops engines with a thrust-to-weight ratio of ten-to-one. That means Beijing is aware it needs to develop jet engines that are on par with the Pratt & Whitney F119 and F135, which are installed on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter respectively. China is working on developing its own jet engines, but thus far, its efforts have fallen short.

China recently concluded a deal to purchase two-dozen advanced Sukhoi Su-35SFlanker-E fighters from Russia, which are equipped with a pair of powerful NPO Saturn AL-41F1S afterburning turbofans. China may hope to harvest the technology from the AL-41F1S to further its own engine development, however the new Russian engine—which is an upgraded development of the earlier AL-31F—has proven to be less than satisfactory for Moscow’s own PAK-FA development. The Russians are pursuing a new engine tentatively called _izdeliye_30 for installation on a future PAK-FA production standard aircraft as a solution to the problem. Thus, it is unclear if the AL-41F1S will solve Beijing’s engine woes—but it might mitigate some of its problems.

Even without new engines, the addition of the J-20 should significantly boost the capabilities of China’s air force. It’s not clear that the J-20 is an air superiority fighter—rather it might be specifically designed to eliminate support aircraft like tankers and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft like the AWACS that enable U.S. air operations over the Western Pacific. It might also have a maritime strike role as part of Beijing’s anti-access/area-denial strategy. The lack of supersonic cruise capability might hinder the J-20 in that role, but there is a good chance it still poses a significant threat even as is.

_Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the _National Interest_. You can follow him on Twitter: _@davemajumdar_._

Image_: Wikimedia Commons/Alexandr Chechin._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The 117S got nothing to do with the J-20, since China's state media has already denied it.

BTW, because China is too quiet and in low profile, the western media is always taking this advantage to badmouth about China's weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Zarvan

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The 117S got nothing to do with the J-20, since China's state media has already denied it.
> 
> BTW, because China is too quiet and in low profile, the western media is always taking this advantage to badmouth about China's weapons.


So now How you would you rate latest prototype of J-20 when compared to F-22 and F-35 ?


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The 117S got nothing to do with the J-20, since China's state media has already denied it.
> 
> BTW, because China is too quiet and in low profile, the western media is always taking this advantage to badmouth about China's weapons.




Not sure if indeed already confirmed and regarding "sound" IMO it is even more a hint for the same "screaming" sound of an AL-31 .... anyway, here's an interesting image:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

PS: by the way ... there are so many even contradicting versions on what engine the J-20 uses given via official media - isn't Xinhua.net not an "official" one ? - that I have the feeling that these reporters are simply as clueless as we are here. They don't get their manual from the PLAAF or CAC to "inform" the world what's going on ... they just do their research on their own and some say this while others that.


----------



## slng

since the forum dont support prediction prophecies without concrete evidence, lets just wait for it from official chinese gov

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Not sure if indeed already confirmed and regarding "sound" IMO it is even more a hint for the same "screaming" sound of an AL-31 .... anyway, here's an interesting image:
> 
> View attachment 283614



Everyone can edit those recorded sounds, nothing can be conclusive.

BTW, you don't even know which variant of the AL-31 that Russia has sold to China in the past, so how you are so it is an AL-31?



Zarvan said:


> So now How you would you rate latest prototype of J-20 when compared to F-22 and F-35 ?



I don't want to start another flame war, just leave it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Everyone can edit those recorded sounds, nothing can be conclusive.



Honestly I don't think that any of these videos have a "doctored" sound only to hide the nature of these engines ... esp. if all other - and even more sensitive - items are clearly visible.



> BTW, you don't even know which variant of the AL-31 that Russia has sold to China in the past, so how you are so it is an AL-31?



That's not true. The Russians were quite constantly and reliably reporting on when they delivered what type of AL-31 - either F for the Flanker and FN for the J-10 - ... however maybe due to contractual issues not on the very first contract of the first batch of AL-31FN, since the J-10 was still secret at that time. But later it was revealed how many they delivered and when the contract was signed.

As such I expect something similar for the J-20's engine ... but maybe only after it entered service when CAC or the PLAAF cannot hide any longer the true version.

Deino


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Honestly I don't think that any of these videos have a "doctored" sound only to hide the nature of these engines ... esp. if all other - and even more sensitive - items are clearly visible.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. The Russians were quite constantly and reliably reporting on when they delivered what type of AL-31 - either F for the Flanker and FN for the J-10 - ... however maybe due to contractual issues not on the very first contract of the first batch of AL-31FN, since the J-10 was still secret at that time. But later it was revealed how many they delivered and when the contract was signed.
> 
> As such I expect something similar for the J-20's engine ... but maybe only after it entered service when CAC or the PLAAF cannot hide any longer the true version.
> 
> Deino



Every order of the AL-31F from China is crystal clear and completely transparent.

The latest order for the AL-31FN is only for the J-10, and you cannot prove that Russia has sold their newest AL-31FM2 to China.

Even China got the AL-31FM2, it will still be underpowered for the supercruise ability.

Unless Russia got a real 5th jet engine which is more powerful than the F119. Otherwise, it will be useless for China to order any of those Russian jet engines for the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

I never said they sold the FM2, which in fact would not make sense, since it does not fit the J-10 and regarding being underpowered; the J-20 will remain simply underpowered until the WS-15 is done, regardless the AL-31 version.

My point is that Russia and CAC secretly agreed on a special customised version similar to the once secret FN ... and that will be revealed some day.

Anyway ... back to the RCS-test ....


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> I never said they sold the FM2, which in fact would not make sense, since it does not fit the J-10 and regarding being underpowered; the J-20 will remain simply underpowered until the WS-15 is done, regardless the AL-31 version.
> 
> My point is that Russia and CAC secretly agreed on a special customised version similar to the once secret FN ... and that will be revealed some day.
> 
> Anyway ... back to the RCS-test ....
> 
> View attachment 283765



You wouldn't know that a new type of engine just got delivered from Shaanxi before 2013.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Did anyone notice, that both RCS-test stands are not the same ? ... the first one has a long slim pylon, whereas the second in the new image has more a tower-like arrangement.

Deino


----------



## Deino

Nice ....

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

The smog now constitutes a major hindrance to 2101‘s maiden flight。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> The smog now constitutes a major hindrance to 2101‘s maiden flight。




Grrrr .... I had so high hopes to see it in the air before 2016.

Anyway....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kuge

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You wouldn't know that a new type of engine just got delivered from Shaanxi before 2013.
> 
> View attachment 283770


it didnt state a new engine but simply a silver award for examining & maintenaning a particular engine.


----------



## Deino

Just let it fly ....

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> Just let it fly ....
> 
> View attachment 283994


Give them a break. It is a holiday now for crying out loud.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> Just let it fly ....
> 
> View attachment 283994



Just let if fly and see what it can do...... looks like Dragon wants to be airborn. I love this beast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Anders

J-20: happy New Year 2016!!!! 
2016_2016_2016
Click to see a larger version!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
21


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Boom Boom Boooom dushhhhh..... This plane looks are killer.... 

Happy New Year All....

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## nang2

that little dragon print seems to be PSed on.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

my new cover photo on fb

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AbRaj

Anders said:


> J-20: happy New Year 2016!!!!
> 2016_2016_2016
> Click to see a larger version!!!!!


The plane looks huge


----------



## Anders

Muhammad Omar said:


> my new cover photo on fb


 
Great!!!!!!!!!!! 



AbRaj said:


> The plane looks huge


 
Yes..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## karakoram

love too see this plane in green paint like Jf 17 thunder

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

karakoram said:


> love too see this plane in green paint like Jf 17 thunder



Never gonna happen

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## karakoram

Muhammad Omar said:


> Never gonna happen


air vice marshal sahib ek sheer arz hai
Hum ko maloom hai Jannat ki haqeeqat laikin
dil ke behlane ko karakoram ye khayal acha hai

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mr304_AJ

Bingooo...!!!!...2016.....


----------



## rockstar08

Happy New Year to all our Chinese Brothers 
and beautiful looking Fighter Jet

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## HAIDER

Enlarge the picture and notice sensors

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Muhammad Omar

karakoram said:


> air vice marshal sahib ek sheer arz hai
> Hum ko maloom hai Jannat ki haqeeqat laikin
> dil ke behlane ko karakoram ye khayal acha hai

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sheik

Happy 2016, Dear Friends!

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## AbRaj

Anders said:


> Great!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..


Oproh??



Muhammad Omar said:


> Never gonna happen


Never say never


----------



## cirr

Happy New Year to our iron brothers

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Anders said:


> J-20: happy New Year 2016!!!!
> 2016_2016_2016
> Click to see a larger version!!!!!


 "Let China sleep, when she wakes up the world will cry". It looks like time for China has come since HE rotates power and wealth among the countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Anders said:


> J-20: happy New Year 2016!!!!
> 2016_2016_2016
> Click to see a larger version!!!!!



Does it has AESA radar ?


----------



## Anders

karakoram said:


> love too see this plane in green paint like Jf 17 thunder


 
JF - 17 is very beautiful!



Zarvan said:


> Does it has AESA radar ?


 
I'm sorry, I don't know.. 

Send some pictures

J20_2101














J20_2017




J20_2015

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## The Eagle

Happy New Year to our Chinese friends as well as the gift of J-20 for them and indeed it makes us happy too Pakistan-China. Hopefully this beautiful beast will be flying with full potential and personally I wish to see this bird in PAK colours, if possible though I would suggest the decision makers may have a look at it and will sit to talk about as there is nothing like never. 

Pak-China friendship Zindabad.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Zarvan said:


> Does it has AESA radar ?


Dont ask stupid question. You troll.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> Dont ask stupid question. You troll.


It is not a stupid question.

If you do not know, say so. If you can only guess, say what degree of confidence of that guess. But asking if the J-20 have an AESA radar or not, is not a stupid question.


----------



## Al-Taïr

Beast said:


> Dont ask stupid question. You troll.



Its not a stupid question... As i read somewhere that russians are developing some radio optical phased radar for pakfa .. that can "see" upto 500km. Maybe china is trying something new too


----------



## sheik

Beast said:


> Dont ask stupid question. You troll.



He's a PAF pilot. I don't think he's trolling. I don't think it's a good question though.



Zarvan said:


> Does it has AESA radar ?



There's no reason for China not to put AESA radar on her most advanced (and most expensive) fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

sheik said:


> He's a PAF pilot. I don't think he's trolling. I don't think it's a good question though.



Dont be fool by him. He is a delusion pakistanis who lives most of his time in UAE. He has loss touch with many progress of Pakistan and China. He will think his arab brothers are the most advance and the west is best for Pakistan despite Pakistan many times betray by the West.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Martian2

*IHS Jane's and Popular Science: China's J-10B, J-11D, J-16, and J-20 have AESA radars*

In its March 11, 2015 article, IHS Jane's states that Chinese AESA radars have been developed for the J-10B and J-20. IHS Jane's suggests that an AESA upgrade for older SAC J-11s are possible (see first citation below).

In its May 4, 2015 article, *Popular Science states that Chinese AESA radars have been installed on the J-11D upgrade (that first flew on April 29, 2015)* and the J-16 (see second citation below and read the captions of the first and third photographs).

The J-16 strike fighter AESA radar has 1,760 transmit/receive elements (see caption under third photograph in Popular Science citation).

Images suggest upgrades to China's early series J-11s | IHS Jane's 360





----------

The J-11D Surprise: China Upgrades Russian Flanker Fighters On Its Own | Popular Science

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## RAMPAGE

This marvel is the sweet fruit of Chinese struggle for greatness.

China to the world: Hear Me Roar!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SSGcommandoPAK

j20blackdragon said:


> View attachment 276649


Looks beautiful though

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*Five Chinese aircraft with an indigenous AESA radar: J-10B, J-11D, J-15, J-16, and J-20*

There are five Chinese aircraft with an indigenous AESA radar.

J-10B: about 1,200 transmit/receive elements
J-11D
J-15
J-16: 1,760 transmit/receive elements
J-20: 1,856 transmit/receive elements

References:

Deagel (J-10B): J-10B
IHS Jane's (J-10B, J-20): Images suggest upgrades to China's early series J-11s | IHS Jane's 360
Popular Science (J-11D, J-16): The J-11D Surprise: China Upgrades Russian Flanker Fighters On Its Own | Popular Science
The National Interest (J-15): Dragon on the High Seas: China's 3 Most Lethal Weapons of War on the Water | The National Interest
----------

J-10B





----------

Dragon on the High Seas: China's 3 Most Lethal Weapons of War on the Water | The National Interest

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## sheik

Something interesting I found on Indian Defense Forum's J-20 thread (page 46). "First one will fly within 5 years." Their moderator declared about their AMCA after J-20's maiden flight on January 11, 2011. Now 5 years passed..... 

There were tens of posts about J-20 everyday after it's unveiling the veil and many claiming it's fake until it took the first flight. Five years later, now almost no Indian guys post comments anymore after big news like 2101 showed up.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## nang2

RAMPAGE said:


> This marvel is the sweet fruit of Chinese struggle for greatness.
> 
> China to the world: Hear Me Roar!


Hush, hush....



sheik said:


> Something interesting I found on Indian Defense Forum's J-20 thread (page 46). "First one will fly within 5 years." Their moderator declared about their AMCA after J-20's maiden flight on January 11, 2011. Now 5 years passed.....
> 
> There were tens of posts about J-20 everyday after it's unveiling the veil and many claiming it's fake until it took the first flight. Five years later, now almost no Indian guys post comments anymore after big news like 2101 showed up.


Everyone has pride. No need to rub it in.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

nang2 said:


> Hush, hush....
> 
> 
> Everyone has pride. No need to rub it in.


They need to be rub becos of their extreme naivety and arrogance. How to tame an extreme arrogance person with no substance? To hit his pride hard and make him come down to reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## nang2

Beast said:


> They need to be rub becos of their extreme naivety and arrogance. How to tame an extreme arrogance person with no substance? To hit his pride hard and make him come down to reality.


Bullshit. That kind of word serves nothing except his own ego.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

2016、2017 and 10C-222（10C-23X has reportedly appeared）

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTQzMjM2MDk5Ng==.html?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

nang2 said:


> Bullshit. That kind of word serves nothing except his own ego.


It do, one will not progress when admit its weakness. Ah Q story tells us that.
India progress is so slow and its military indigenous industries is a joke becos of these mentality.
Their pride need to be hurt and bring them down the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## applesauce

Beast said:


> It do, one will not progress when admit its weakness. Ah Q story tells us that.
> India progress is so slow and its military indigenous industries is a joke becos of these mentality.
> Their pride need to be hurt and bring them down the reality.



nah, if they're complacent with their slow progress you shouldn't be encouraging them to change. much better for the potential enemy to be thinking he's god while having the actual capabilities of a 10 year old than him thinking he's 10 year old while having the capabilities of god.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## slng

applesauce said:


> nah, if they're complacent with their slow progress you shouldn't be encouraging them to change. much better for the potential enemy to be thinking he's god while having the actual capabilities of a 10 year old than him thinking he's 10 year old while having the capabilities of god.



this is the best technique.
arrogant is human weakness beside communication

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

Happy New Year, World

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tiqiu

It looks like the gun port is also shoulder mounted on 2013 photo.




F22's gun port

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Has this been posted before ??

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> Has this been posted before ??



i can't see the post MOD saying "The operation timed out." and this happens mostly. Can you help?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Deino said:


> Has this been posted before ??



Simply awesome... and i don't think it was posted before by anyone

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

The Eagle said:


> i can't see the post MOD saying "The operation timed out." and this happens mostly. Can you help?




Hmmm works fine by me !? ... maybe this one, is even the HD-version:






Deino


----------



## Deino

By the way regarding my (or our) hope to see '2101' in the air as soon as possible and the usual Chinese new year holydays ...

Am I correct that until 3. January we "should" expect nothing since these are local holydays ... however more relevant are the longer "holydays" after Spring Festival Eve (7. February) and "Chinese New year" (8. February) and the one week holydays thereafter until 13. February ?

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/china/2016

So hopefully before these days. ... hopefully tomorrow !

Or am I wrong ?

Deino


----------



## sheik

Deino said:


> By the way regarding my (or our) hope to see '2101' in the air as soon as possible and the usual Chinese new year holydays ...
> 
> Am I correct that until 3. January we "should" expect nothing since these are local holydays ... however more relevant are the longer "holydays" after Spring Festival Eve (7. February) and "Chinese New year" (8. February) and the one week holydays thereafter until 13. February ?
> 
> So hopefully before these days. ... hopefully tomorrow !
> 
> Or am I wrong ?
> 
> Deino



You are right. 2101 is just waiting for good weather. It will be in the air very soon I believe. You will see it by Chinese New Year for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

These pictures are more clear about J20's gun port

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Any news from today already ?


----------



## asad71

China Assembles Its Stealth Jet Fleet - The Daily Beast



THE DAILY BEAST






Reuters




David Axe
*DARK SKY*
01.04.1612:02 AM ET
*China Assembles Its Stealth Jet Fleet*
Beijing’s newest supersonic warplane could mark the end of the American monopoly on stealth fighter jets.
China has apparently begun mass production of its new J-20 stealth fighter, making it only the second country in the world to produce radar-evading warplanes on a large scale.

But as with all military developments in China, it’s hard to separate fact from Communist Party-sponsored fiction—and equally difficult to predict just how heavily even large numbers of working J-20s could weigh on the military balance of power in the Pacific region.

The Chinese air forcedebutedthe first prototype of the bulky, twin-engine, twin-tail J-20 in December 2010 at an airfield in southeast China belonging to the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation, a state-owned airplane-maker.

Beijing’s test pilots got to work putting the new supersonic warplane—at 67 feet long, one of the biggest fighters in the world—through its paces, testing out its systems, flight characteristics and engines. (They’re either Russian-made AL-31s or Chinese WS-10s.) Over the next five years another seven copies of the J-20 joined the first example, each sporting small improvements over its predecessor. All J-20s feature the distinctive sharp angles of a plane designed to minimize its detectibility by enemy sensors.

The first eight J-20s were developmental, meant to support the gradual refinement of the new plane’s final design. But the ninth J-20, which government-run news outlet Xinhua revealed in a Dec. 29 story, is different. Signs point to this J-20 being the definitive version of the stealth fighter—and the first in what could be a long production run potentially numbering in the scores or evenhundreds of planes.

To be clear, Xinhua was careful to_imply_, but_not_say outright, that the J-20 has entered full production. “The outside world would interpret it as the first mass-produced aircraft of the type J -20,” the news site stated.

And for good reason. For starters, the ninth J-20 sports all the small improvements of previous copies as well as a different numbering scheme than copies one through eight. The apparent prototypes bear four-digit numbers on their noses beginning with “20.” J-20 number-nine’s nose code begins with “21”—specifically, “2101.”

J-20 2101 also made its photographic debut in yellow primer paint, a kind of undercoat, instead of the black or silverish paint that the eight prototypes wear. Whereas Chengdu apparently picked the color scheme for the developmental planes, painting of the first production model—which could eventually join a frontline air force unit—“would need to be determined by the military,” Xinhua explained.

If indeed the ninth J-20 is the first production model, the next step for the Chinese stealth fighter is pretty clear. Plane number 2101 will join one of the Chinese air force’s regular fighter squadrons so that pilots and maintenance personnel can begin training on the type. More J-20s will roll out of the factory at Chengdu and join 2101 until there are enough production-model J-20s for a full squadron of a dozen planes.





U-2 spy plane pilot makes history at Beale AFB
KCRA - Sacramento, CA




When the squadron has enough planes and trained pilots and maintainers, the air force can declare the first J-20 unit “combat-ready”—a milestone most analysts expect sometime in 2017. At that time, China will join an exclusive club—as only the second country to field a fleet of frontline radar-evading jets. The American F-117, the world’s first stealth warplane, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 1983. The U.S. B-2 stealth bomber followed in 1997, thesupersonic F-22 stealth fighterin 2005 and the F-22’s smaller cousin the F-35 in July 2015.

By the 2030s, the Pentagon could possess as many as 1,700 F-35s plus 180 or so F-22s and 20 B-2s.

No other country has war-ready stealth warplanes, although Russia is working on one—and eight U.S. allies have ordered the F-35, with several more planning on also buying the plane in the near future. But while it’s pretty certain China will soon deploy J-20s, it’s not clear_why_—or_how effectively_—it will do so.

Signs point to this J-20 being the definitive version of the stealth fighter -- and the first in what could be a long production run potentially numbering in the scores or even hundreds of planes.
Beijing has never explained exactly what the J-20 is for. Is it a ground-attack plane like the F-117? A high- and fast-flying dogfighter like the F-22 or amulti-role attack plane_and_dogfighter like the F-35? And how does the J-20 fit into the Chinese government’s strategy for steadily exanding its sphere of influence into the East and South China Seas and the Indian Ocean?

Eying the J-20’s large size and sleek lines, some analysts have claimed that the J-20 is a kind of aerial assassin. Perhaps it’s meant to fly fast over long distances through U.S. and allied air defenses to fire missiles at airborne tankers, radar early warning aircraft, and spy planes. Maybe it will lob bombs and rockets at air bases and aircraft carriers.

And Carlo Kopp, an analyst with the Air Power Australia think tank, wrote that he anticipates the J-20 “growing into the air combat role as more powerful engines become available.” In other words, becoming a close-in air-to-air dogfighteron par with the F-22
Kopp’s qualifier is important. The production-model J-20 will apparently enter service with the same engines that power the prototypes. But the AL-31 or WS-10—it’s not clear which powerplant the J-20 uses—is clearly Beijing’s second choice for the new plane. Chinese engineers are working on the more powerful WS-15, which could give the J-20 more speed and maneuverability… if and when the new motor is ever ready.

Even if the ninth J-20_isn’t_the first production copy, it at least represents another big step toward the production standard—and another impressive feat for the rapidly-improving Chinese air force.

But the most important milestone for China’s evolving stealth air force still lies somewhere in the future—its first time in combat. The U.S. Air Force has deployed radar-evading warplanes in all its major conflicts since the United States’ 1989 invasion of Panama. By contrast, China hasn’t fought a full-scale war since its abortive attack on Vietnam in 1979. Warplane development in a vacuum is one thing. But as Beijing’s own news service noted, “war is another matter.”


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> Any news from today already ?


2nd mass production version might out








J-20 N.o2001 gif ... saved in the disk for years.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## cirr

cnleio said:


> 2nd mass production version might out
> View attachment 284951



It is only a matter of hours or days that the images of this new bird will start flooding all over the places

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


> It is only a matter of hours or days that the images of this new bird will start flooding all over the places


All 5th stealth fighters production will adopt the advanced pulse assembly line ... i said the U.S is a good teacher for China, these photos enough to teach Chinese how to mass produce J-20. I believe the J-20 efficiency faster than J-10. I heard ChengDu built a new factory by using pulse assembly line for J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

By the way, while I'm awaiting, 2101's maiden flight !

But now this ??






... to admit it looks too good to be true. So either a PS-job or indeed a hint that the rumours about a 2018 & 2019 last year have been correct and they were renumbered 2101 & 2102.

What do You think ?

Deino


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> By the way, while I'm awaiting, 2101's maiden flight !
> 
> But now this ??
> 
> View attachment 284981
> 
> 
> ... to admit it looks too good to be true. So either a PS-job or indeed a hint that the rumours about a 2018 & 2019 last year have been correct and they were renumbered 2101 & 2102.
> 
> What do You think ?
> 
> Deino



2102 is true, the following is false.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

To admit, even if this '2103' looks to be different to the '2102' I have the very badd feeling it again is a ps-job done by using the "2" and doctoring a bit around.

Even more - my feeling says so - this all proceeds too fast to be good and maybe there's a secret special operations unit right now at CAC preparing a bunch of these images, posting them to the net and were laughing about our comments ... 

At least by now I would not bet any money on them.
Deino








cirr said:


> 2102 is true, the following is false.


 

Another larger version of the image ... and even if it still looks "doctored" the darker line on the left aircraft is missing ... Strange, very strange !!???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

After a quick check and comparison to the few images of '2101' we know so far, I think at least the left one is the same with some modifications to the building behind. The right one however is not the same !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Where is '2101' ??? I wanna see it fly !!!


----------



## SOHEIL

Deino said:


> Where is '2101' ??? I wanna see it fly !!!



Already in fast forward condition!

Wanna be faster !?


----------



## Deino

Ohhhh Please ... I know, patience is truly not my virtue but ... just let this damn thing fly !


----------



## kuge

perhaps 1/11 ??


----------



## Deino

NO ... I want it now !


----------



## Tiqiu

Mach diamonds of J20 's takeoff. Was afterburner used ?





F16 taking off with afterburner.
*




*

Reactions: Like Like:

6


----------



## BoQ77

Relevant to your payload and take off length available
Fighters used to take off at under 500km/h, and not too fast, because higher speed would damage the landing gear system



Tiqiu said:


> Mach diamonds of J20 's takeoff. Was afterburner used ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F16 taking off with afterburner.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

2101、2102 and 2103？

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2101、2102 and 2103？




I only believe it when I see it ! 

So PLEASE ... do not turtue us any longer....


----------



## cnleio

BoQ77 said:


> Relevant to your payload and take off length available
> Fighters used to take off at under 500km/h, and not too fast, because higher speed would damage the landing gear system


If they like, they can take off afterburner used

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Just a few completely different questions:

- Can anyone explain why we are so sure that the second prototype '2002' was renumbered to '2004' ???
- What's the source of this, since I can't think that CAC reported or even confirmed this?
- Was there ever a similar other situation, when a prototype was completely renumbered? (as far as I know for both the J-7 and J-10 never)
- Could it be that '2004' is probably another prototype ? ... or in return if there is a "habit" to renumber prototypes for the J-20 program, why we are then so sure that all "201x" prototypes are indeed different aircraft ? I

I'm quite sure that they are all true ... but this "renumbering" issue is a story I simply do not understand.

Deino


----------



## Deino

PS: by the way ... FAKE confirmed !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Just a few completely different questions:
> 
> - Can anyone explain why we are so sure that the second prototype '2002' was renumbered to '2004' ???
> - What's the source of this, since I can't think that CAC reported or even confirmed this?
> - Was there ever a similar other situation, when a prototype was completely renumbered? (as far as I know for both the J-7 and J-10 never)
> - Could it be that '2004' is probably another prototype ? ... or in return if there is a "habit" to renumber prototypes for the J-20 program, why we are then so sure that all "201x" prototypes are indeed different aircraft ? I
> 
> I'm quite sure that they are all true ... but this "renumbering" issue is a story I simply do not understand.
> 
> Deino



I don't have my HDD with me today, but I can confirm that 2002 is renumbered to 2004.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

hk299792458 said:


> I don't have my HDD with me today, but I can confirm that 2002 is renumbered to 2004.
> 
> Henri K.




Thanks and even more it would be kind if You could dig out the arguments !


----------



## Deino

I just tried to find out, if there's a pattern for maiden-flight days at CAC:

2001 flew on a Thuesday
2002 flew on a Wednesday
2011 flew on a Saturday
2012 flew on a Saturday
2013 flew on a Saturday
2015 flew on a Friday
2016 flew on a Friday
2017 flew on a Thuesday

... so there is none !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Just found ...

http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2134124

Even if they show '2016' and not '2101'... are these recent images (tread started and images posted today) or older ones ? And what are they talking about a '111' ??

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> Just found ...
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2134124
> 
> Even if they show '2016' and not '2101'... are these recent images (tread started and images posted today) or older ones ? And what are they talking about a '111' ??
> 
> Deino
> 
> View attachment 285947
> View attachment 285948



Less fog, clearer image than earlier (a few days back i mean) pretty much proves to be the fresh. Also on this thread, somewhere weather forecast regarding fog was said to be clear than before so i think it is much of the today with less fog.

Th rest, i can be mistaken


----------



## Zarvan

China is close to batch production stage of its fifth-generation J-20 stealth fighter aircraft.

People’s Daily Online news daily cited Song Xinzhi, a Chinese military expert on air force equipment in a media interview that the J-20 fighter is close to batch production stage and its yellow painting implies that its stealth performance has possibly passed the test.

A picture of a J-20 fighter painted yellow with a fuselage number 2101 instead of 201X (the previous numbering for previous J-20s) was posted on the internet recently.

The Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that the new J-20 fighter looks like the previous prototype models in shape except the fuselage numbering method, indicating that the appearance of the new prototype J-20 fighter is very close to that of the final-version J-20 fighters, and the J-20 fighter with fuselage number 2101 may possibly mean that the J-20 fighter is now in a transition period from test flight stage to batch production stage.

The change of J-20 fighter fuselage’s numbering method means that the development of J-20 fighter has entered a new stage, but it is necessary to wait and see so as to confirm whether the J-20 fighter has entered the batch production stage or not, Song Xinzhi analyzed.

Based on the present situation, the J-20 fighter should be very close to enter the batch production stage, Song Xinzhi estimated.

Song Xinzhi pointed out that the yellow color is the color of fighter’s anti-rust coating, and generally, only fighter models entering batch production stage are painted with the yellow coating.

Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Close To Batch Production

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*@Zarvan !

I beg You honestly ... PLAESE not open for each and every post You like a new tread ! We have a current J-20-tread and that's fine !*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Just found ...
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2134124
> 
> Even if they show '2016' and not '2101'... are these recent images (tread started and images posted today) or older ones ? And what are they talking about a '111' ??
> 
> Deino
> 
> View attachment 285947
> View attachment 285948



The spotter said that these photos are taken shortly before October 1st 2015, and he hopes to see 2101, 2102 and 2103 making their maiden flight at the same day on January 11th.

I will let chinese native speaker to correct.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## zheng2

100 million dollors each for sell!




J-10C?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakEye

any link for details ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zheng2

pakeye said:


> any link for details ???


no....just some pictures,and I do not dare to send all of them to this fourm..









zheng2 said:


> no....just some pictures,and I do not dare to send all of them to this fourm..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tarrar

zheng2 said:


> 100 million dollors each for sell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-10C?



Well I read it too on a different forum that the production of J20 has started but the source was not creditable. I would had love to see China reducing the size of J20 as it is to big as compared to F22 & F35.

And wasn't the air frame of J10C suppose to be different, then to that of J10A & J10B?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

zheng2 said:


> no....just some pictures,and I do not dare to send all of them to this fourm..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 286064


share hd image


----------



## 帅的一匹

tarrar said:


> Well I read it too on a different forum that the production of J20 has started but the source was not creditable. I would had love to see China reducing the size of J20 as it is to big as compared to F22 & F35.
> 
> And wasn't the air frame of J10C suppose to be different, then to that of J10A & J10B?


Bigger size means more range.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## tarrar

wanglaokan said:


> Bigger size means more range.



Ok, but what about maneuverability of the aircraft? So far I have seen simple take off & land of J20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

tarrar said:


> Ok, but what about maneuverability of the aircraft? So far I have seen simple take off & land of J20.


Patience, you will see it later brother.



tarrar said:


> Ok, but what about maneuverability of the aircraft? So far I have seen simple take off & land of J20.


I once saw a manueavor clip of J20, @Beast you have it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAMPAGE

zheng2 said:


> 100 million dollors each for sell!


We'll take it, That is if you decide to sell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi52

For sure .................


----------



## MastanKhan

tarrar said:


> Well I read it too on a different forum that the production of J20 has started but the source was not creditable. I would had love to see China reducing the size of J20 as it is to big as compared to F22 & F35.
> 
> And wasn't the air frame of J10C suppose to be different, then to that of J10A & J10B?



Sir,

The smaller J20 is J31----------. 

And no---the air frame of the J10 A B C would be the same---why would be any different?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

tarrar said:


> Ok, but what about maneuverability of the aircraft? So far I have seen simple take off & land of J20.


Flanker is a huge monster but anybody going to claim Flanker is a lumbering aircraft?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## sheik

tarrar said:


> Ok, but what about maneuverability of the aircraft? So far I have seen simple take off & land of J20.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Hey, what's up ... I'm up since 5:35 h local time ... and now NOTHING !????


----------



## MastanKhan

tarrar said:


> Ok, but what about maneuverability of the aircraft? So far I have seen simple take off & land of J20.



Sir,

It does not work like that-----

This is a 5th gen aircraft--the latest behind the F22----chinese are a bit secretive---they don't want to show off---they don't want to give out their strength beforehand---here and there we see what it can do---and as Gambit stated in his posts----you can learn a great deal about the aircraft just by looking at it-----as long as you know what you are looking at.

When the F22 first came out---there was extreme secrecy about this aircraft's capabilities---till it beat the living daylights of every fighter aircraft during excercizes---and now after around 7 to 8 years in service---we started to see what it could do. 

J20 does not need to do that---. As it is the leading aircraft of a super power and the latest in design----so BY DEFAULT it would meet and exceed all the criteria attached to a fighter aircraft of that class.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

MastanKhan said:


> Sir,
> 
> It does not work like that-----
> 
> This is a 5th gen aircraft--the latest behind the F22----chinese are a bit secretive---they don't want to show off---they don't want to give out their strength beforehand---here and there we see what it can do---and as Gambit stated in his posts----you can learn a great deal about the aircraft just by looking at it-----as long as you know what you are looking at.
> 
> When the F22 first came out---there was extreme secrecy about this aircraft's capabilities---till it beat the living daylights of every fighter aircraft during excercizes---and now after around 7 to 8 years in service---we started to see what it could do.
> 
> J20 does not need to do that---. As it is the leading aircraft of a super power and the latest in design----so BY DEFAULT it would meet and exceed all the criteria attached to a fighter aircraft of that class.


The reason why they enlarge the fuselage of J20 because they reference to the range of F22 is not that enough. They considered almost every expect and derive experience from every previous design. They do this in completely isolation forced upon on by USA.

It looks large but it's mainly composite material means it is not heavy.

Now just wait WS15 engine get mature.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

If if she did not fly ... happy anniversary !

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## j20blackdragon

Technology demonstrator to production in 5 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## nang2

j20blackdragon said:


> Technology demonstrator to production in 5 years.


Clear picture looks so much better.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio

j20blackdragon said:


> Technology demonstrator to production in 5 years.


Nice ! J-20 mass production  ... looks good, hope the jet engines can be replaced soon on later version.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Blue Marlin

Deino said:


> If if she did not fly ... happy anniversary !
> 
> View attachment 286438


why is the prototype a 1 piece cannopy whilst the preproduction model is 2 piece....why?


----------



## cnleio

2001 VS 2015






2001 VS 2101






Im(J-20) growing up, FIVE YEARS









2017 and 2016

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## krash

MastanKhan said:


> Sir,
> 
> The smaller J20 is J31----------.
> 
> And no---*the air frame of the J10 A B C would be the same*---why would be any different?



Differences in the intake, radome, tail and ventral strakes between J10A and B/C.


----------



## MastanKhan

krash said:


> Differences in the intake, radome, tail and ventral strakes between J10A and B/C.



Hi,

That is obvious---now isn't it----!


----------



## Deino

Not sure if from today ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Stealth

damn... loook like Amerikanish quality.... superb work done by China... just 20% reduce the lenght of this aircraft... purple or yellow canopy along with large back tails look wow on this...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cnleio

Amazing ~!

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## siegecrossbow

Blue Marlin said:


> why is the prototype a 1 piece cannopy whilst the preproduction model is 2 piece....why?



It's technically still one-piece, just added reinforcement bar inside ala F-35. Supposedly it made the canopy lighter and ejection easier.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> Amazing ~!




But that's not '2101' but '2001' ! ... look at the long pitot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Deino said:


> But that's not '2101' but '2001' ! ... look at the long pitot.


Yes, a old gif not the latest ... post just for funny, my friend。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

2017 flying over tree top

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## cnleio

N.o2017

Reactions: Like Like:
 17


----------



## S10

Originally they used a poly-carbonate canopy on the technology demonstrators (#2001/2002). It was similar to the one used by F-22, but they decided to change it to a glass canopy which is thinner and weight less. It also allows the pilot to eject through the canopy instead of having to ditch the canopy first, saving some valuable time in case of emergency. It's still a one piece canopy, but it has a thin metal reinforcement frame on the inside like the F-35.

Going by the latest serial number, I'd say 2101 is a pre-production model intended to be equipped in small numbers. It will allow the PLAAF to develop tactics and well as find shortcomings for the production model. It's either equipped with the WS-10B engine with 14 ton thrusts or the 117S engine. From 2020 onwards, the plane will have WS-15 as its standard engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
13


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> ...



There is something strange .... at the SDF Jeff posted this image of '2101 (below), which is exactly the same as the one just posted yesterday of '2102' (top) ... so there's something wrong with at least one of them.  But which one ??


----------



## cnleio

cirr said:


>


Nice, 2nd mass production version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cnleio said:


> Nice, 2nd mass production version.
> ...




However is it legit ??? Just look at my post just above Yours, both images are identical and in mind of this other image of '2101' also posted yesterday, I would say it's more likely that '2102' is the fake !??






Again ????

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

However these are real ....

Reactions: Like Like:
 3


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> However is it legit ??? Just look at my post just above Yours, both images are identical and in mind of this other image of '2101' also posted yesterday, I would say it's more likely that '2102' is the fake !??
> 
> View attachment 287395
> 
> 
> Again ????
> 
> View attachment 287417



Sir, the printing order of number 2101 is not aligned so that could be the fake one instead 2102 is printed with continue sequence. My opinion


----------



## Deino

To admit, I don't know ...

By the way via "jobjed" (SDF) regarding the factory fresh J-10Bs I posted this morning:



> There's also a J-20 on the left in the first picture.



Indeed, but what's strange, it has a yellow primer-coloured front fuselage and an otherwise dark fuselage; the tails however are clearly an old prototype with the non-cropped fins !

Since both demonstrators 2001 & 2002 are said to be at the CFTE ... so what bird is this ? 
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Maiden flight 。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Maiden flight 。。。


... of what?


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Since both demonstrators 2001 & 2002 are said to be at the CFTE ... so what bird is this ?
> Deino
> 
> View attachment 287497



Stress test aircraft ?

Henri K.


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Maiden flight 。。。



Any confirmation ?? ... or even images ?!




hk299792458 said:


> Stress test aircraft ?
> 
> Henri K.




Maybe ! ... so maybe '2003' !


----------



## Deino

Hmmm .... via 2101飞啦！_鹰击长空 飞扬军事-中国军迷原创第一站 中国军迷原创第一站 - Powered by www.fyjs.cn!






However that does not even look very much like a J-20 IMO !


----------



## Tiqiu

Today at 13:39pm


----------



## Deino

I want images !!!!!


----------



## Tiqiu

Some Chinese whispering:
1) a trial war game J20 v J11, results 0 v 124;
2) a full-tank flying test lasted 275 minutes, no mentioning of quantity of residual fuel and cruising speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> I want images !!!!!



2017 and 2101 made their maiden flight with 4 J-10Cs（3 powered by WS-10 and 1 by AF-31）today

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## kuge

cirr said:


> 2017 and 2101 made their maiden flight with 4 J-10Cs（3 powered by WS-10 and 1 by AF-31）today


吊胃口。。salivating..slurp...!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Tiqiu said:


> Some Chinese whispering:
> 1) a trial war game J20 v J11, results 0 v 124;
> 2) a full-tank flying test lasted 275 minutes, no mentioning of quantity of residual fuel and cruising speed.



Would you mind to quote me the source please ? Thx.

Henri K.


----------



## General Observer

Tiqiu said:


> Some Chinese whispering:
> 1) a trial war game J20 v J11, results 0 v 124;
> 2) a full-tank flying test lasted 275 minutes, no mentioning of quantity of residual fuel and cruising speed.



124 to J-11 or J-20?


----------



## Beast

General Observer said:


> 124 to J-11 or J-20?


J-11 loses 124 times(124), J-20 loses none(0).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

Beast said:


> J-11 loses 124 times(124), J-20 loses none(0).



Do you have the source of this information ?

Henri K.


----------



## Beast

hk299792458 said:


> Do you have the source of this information ?
> 
> Henri K.


Forumer rumours, take it with a pinch of salt.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## hk299792458

Beast said:


> Forumer rumours, take it with a pinch of salt.



CD, FY, or WC ?

If you get the link this will help me a lot.

Henri K.


----------



## asia2000

hk299792458 said:


> CD, FY, or WC ?
> If you get the link this will help me a lot.
> Henri K.



It cannot be true, as J20 is not yet delivered to PLAAF. How can PLAAF conduct such an "exercise" of J20 vs J11, with no J20 in hand? Most probably someone played some kind of simulation game and showing of the results.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

So what's in regard to '2101's maiden flight ??? Still no confirmation, still no image ??


----------



## Martian2

asia2000 said:


> It cannot be true, as J20 is not yet delivered to PLAAF. How can PLAAF conduct such an "exercise" of J20 vs J11, with no J20 in hand? Most probably someone played some kind of simulation game and showing of the results.


At least eight different J-20 prototypes have been flying for the last five years.

Pitting one of the eight prototypes against a squadron of J-11s is common sense.

Real world tests are the only way to improve the J-20 before mass manufacture, which is currently underway.

The PLAAF won't wait until FORMAL mass manufacture before evaluating the J-20 against a squadron of J-11s. The PLAAF would want to know the necessary design changes before LRIP (ie. low rate initial production).

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## siegecrossbow

hk299792458 said:


> Would you mind to quote me the source please ? Thx.
> 
> Henri K.



Confirmed to be just a (not even well thought out) rumor. Mods on CJDBY locked the thread down already.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hk299792458

siegecrossbow said:


> Confirmed to be just a (not even well thought out) rumor. Mods on CJDBY locked the thread down already.



Just found it myself, as no one quoted the link :

J20和J11交换比为124:0，三代空优机没有必要生产了。-空军版-超级大本营军事论坛-最具影响力军事论坛 -

For me I agreed on the decision of mod, not reliable.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> I want images !!!!!



The maiden flight of 2101 at 13.30 on 18.01.2016 lasted some 40 mins

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> The maiden flight of 2101 at 13.30 on 18.01.2016 lasted some 40 mins




Thanks a lot, but I can't think that this is the ONLY !!! image shot of this bird during its so much important event.... esp. since this image is clearly shot from inside CAC'c facility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Come on ... don't be so shy !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

A rare angle

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Deino

Ahhh  ... You beat my by a minute !


----------



## siegecrossbow

cirr said:


> A rare angle



At least that confirms that there are still two J-20s in Chengdu. Also, it appears that 2102 is nothing more than a rumor since it isn't available for the line up.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> At least that confirms that there are still two J-20s in Chengdu. Also, it appears that 2102 is nothing more than a rumor since it isn't available for the line up.




And not only this: this image was shot from inside CAC's facility and IMO exactly from this roof !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## asia2000

Deino said:


> And not only this: this image was shot from inside CAC's facility and IMO exactly from this roof !
> 
> View attachment 288457


So we got the whole family here, J20, J10 and even a JF17

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

Wow, PLA army budge ..........

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Nice ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

Deino said:


> Nice ...
> 
> View attachment 288656


does it not have a refueling probe?


----------



## Deino

Blue Marlin said:


> does it not have a refueling probe?




Yes ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

At least '2017' was out today !! ... but where is '2101' ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 21stCentury

Any images of j20 flying in the air with landing gear fully retracted ?


----------



## hk299792458

21stCentury said:


> Any images of j20 flying in the air with landing gear fully retracted ?












































Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Any news of '2101' ???


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Any news of '2101' ???



I'm afraid not.

Henri K.


----------



## Deino

Ähhhmm .... 



> 2102下午飞了



2102下午飞了_鹰击长空 飞扬军事-中国军迷原创第一站 中国军迷原创第一站 - Powered by www.fyjs.cn!


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Ähhhmm ....
> 2102下午飞了_鹰击长空 飞扬军事-中国军迷原创第一站 中国军迷原创第一站 - Powered by www.fyjs.cn!



The original thread only said that a "yellow" one has flown, plus #2017 and a J-10(B), never indicated that it's #2102.

黄丝带刚刚起飞，成飞今天要日天(5：44疑似音爆)-空军版-超级大本营军事论坛-最具影响力军事论坛 -

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

So the tread's title was changed at the FYJS-Forum ?

Anyway, if this flight of a "yellow" J-20 took place today, then it was most likely '2101's second flight.

Thanks,
Deino


----------



## siegecrossbow

A flash of silver!

http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2141914&extra=page=1

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## XiaoYaoZi

@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Any news of '2101' ???

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Eagle

siegecrossbow said:


> A flash of silver!
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2141914&extra=page=1



No wonder this beast will be the reason for nightmares to enemies. Good going.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Thanks guys ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Simply amazing ....

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Simply amazing ....
> 
> View attachment 289653


looks like this are running on black nozzle while 2017 are running in silver nozzle.

I believe the actual operational one will run on silver nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Beast said:


> looks like this are running on black nozzle while 2017 are running in silver nozzle.
> 
> I believe the actual operational one will run on silver nozzle.



I think the silver paint is either for IR or RCS suppression, most probably the former.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

... another one !








Beast said:


> looks like this are running on black nozzle while 2017 are running in silver nozzle.
> 
> I believe the actual operational one will run on silver nozzle.




Nope ... even 2017 has clearly these black ones !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hell hound

does j20 have any type of mid air refueling system.


----------



## The Eagle

Hell hound said:


> does j20 have any type of mid air refueling system.



Yes Dear...






just scroll back two pages it was shared.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hell hound

The Eagle said:


> Yes Dear...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just scroll back two pages it was shared.


sorry i missed it.and thanks for such kind way of answering.


----------



## Deino

ere are more ... esp. a nice rear shot of 2101 !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Eagle

Hell hound said:


> sorry i missed it.and thanks for such kind way of answering.



You are welcome . i just stole the opportunity to answer  otherwise it is always @Deino Sir and other senior members answering the queries and reporting any progress. Very productive indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sheik

Deino said:


> Simply amazing ....
> 
> View attachment 289653



I told you it would go flying by Chinese new year.


----------



## cirr

Bring out 2102 now！


----------



## Deino

Two more ...









I know there are few out there who still hope and even insist that the J-20 is powered by the WS-10 or even a secret WS-1X .... at least for me the issue is long clear and here another proof !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> Two more ...
> 
> View attachment 289848
> View attachment 289849
> 
> 
> I know there are few out there who still hope and even insist that the J-20 is powered by the WS-10 or even a secret WS-1X .... at least for me the issue is long clear and here another proof !
> 
> 
> View attachment 289850



Would love to see this beauty flying in PLAAF colors after production.

However, Sir, the AL-31 FN has both configuration like with and without TVC? or it is just straight without TVC?
Regards,

What about no pink canopy on this one?


----------



## Deino

The Eagle said:


> Would love to see this beauty flying in PLAAF colors after production.
> 
> However, Sir, the AL-31 FN has both configuration like with and without TVC? or it is just straight without TVC?
> Regards,
> 
> What about no pink canopy on this one?




So far the FN is not available - at least operational - with TVC ... as such I don't think the J-20 uses it.

Regarding the canopy I don't know what You mean with "pink" ... IMO it is more "golden" and since 2017 clearly has that one, I'm also sure that 2101 has it too; we only have so far no decent close-ups.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2142849&extra=page=1

A few more clear images of 2101's engine nozzles.


----------



## j20blackdragon

The #2016 black nozzles...










*do not* look like the #2101 nozzles.






In fact, the #2101 nozzles look like AL-31FM1 to me. I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that's what it looks like.






Also we now have a fairly clear shot of the silver #2017 nozzles. These are *NOT* AL-31FN. Just look at the nozzle petal shape and arrangement. They are different.






The mystery deepens.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

No ... that is simply an AL-31FN or a special version and I don not understand why all technical identical details are ignored and the colour alone is the one and only "thing" to say it is not an AL-31 ???

This colour - either black, charcoal or silverfish - is simply a different coating in order to reduce IR- or radar issues.

I would bet my membership here ... I will resign as a mod and even as a poster here !

But anyway ... we are all old enough to believe what we want to believe.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

cirr said:


> Bring out 2102 now！



According to the one who posted all that #2101 HD pictures, he said he didn't see #2102 but he heard other spotters said that there are 2 others yellow birds in the hangar.



> 我现场没有看到过2102.但是据爬墙卧草党说，窝里有另外两架黄皮叫花鸡，说不定哪天就给你来个惊喜。



http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2142584&pid=66852363&fromuid=260475

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Nothing more to say ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BoQ77

FN?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Upon closer inspection of this picture, I now believe #2101 is most likely using AL-31FN Series 3.







A high resolution shot of the J-10B nozzle confirms it. The petal arrangement matches.

Still no explanation as to why #2016 and #2017 nozzles are black, inside and out. But if they paint the #2101 nozzles black later on, we'll have our answer.


----------



## Deino

Like I explained - at least tried to or to guess ! - they were testing different coating or surface treatments for IR- or RCS-reduction ...


----------



## lcloo

I am always curious if they paint the nozzle petals. What kind of paint can withstand the extreme high heat of the jet exhaust? I tend to believe it is the natural color of the metal alloys instead of paint.


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> I am always curious if they paint the nozzle petals. What kind of paint can withstand the extreme high heat of the jet exhaust? I tend to believe it is the natural color of the metal alloys instead of paint.




Good argument and therefore I said "coating" and not "paint". But wasn't there a similar treatment of the surface in order to reduce the IR-signature for one of the later PW F100-versions ?


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Sorry, but what do You want to say ??

That TVC-engine seen in these images is clearly an AL-32FT for the Indian Su-30MKI, we already discussed that video some time ago in the Flanker tread - and these images sowing allegedly a WS-15 show whatever, but surely not an WS-15, since they came out about one week after the J-20 2001's maiden flight in Jan. 2011 ... and that engine is not ready yet - only in component testing - and was surely not in 2011.

Anyway ... it shows, the J-20's engine is indeed simply an AL-31FN or a special version.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

Let's do some engine math.

123 AL-31FN Series 3 engines were purchased in 2011.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...illion-russian-jet-engine-deal-vedomosti-says

53+ engines have been used for J-10B production.
18 engines have been used for the J-20 so far.
A couple of engines have been used for early J-10C.
All numbers above are approximate.

That means we only have enough engines left for a single squadron of production J-20.
Any further J-20 production will have to rely on WS-15.
Salut and Rosoboronexport have not announced any further engine sales to CAC since 2011.
We know the WS-10 has never been tested on the J-20.
This can only be good news for the WS-15 program.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> Let's do some engine math.
> 
> 123 AL-31FN Series 3 engines were purchased in 2011.
> ...
> 
> 53+ engines have been used for J-10B production.
> 18 engines have been used for the J-20 so far.
> A couple of engines have been used for early J-10C.
> All numbers above are approximate.
> 
> .....



Small correction:

we have so far 53 J-10B + 27 (at least) J-10C using the FN = 80
we have indeed 9 J-20 = 18
-------------------------------------------
98 ... so there are indeed 24 engines left from this order.

Since the batch 02 J-10C are surely again also 55 aircraft - aka 28 aircraft still missing - remains the question if all will go to the J-10C or if they will fit them into 12 J-20 ??

The biggest question mark in this calculation however is that we calculate a 1:1 use ... IMO there are surely several as spares.




> That means we only have enough engines left for a single squadron of production J-20.
> Any further J-20 production will have to rely on WS-15.
> Salut and Rosoboronexport have not announced any further engine sales to CAC since 2011.
> We know the WS-10 has never been tested on the J-20.
> This can only be good news for the WS-15 program.



I don't think the next batch of J-20 will already get the WS-15 ... it won't be ready within the next two years without any further testing. So IMO the only - and most likely answer - is a yet secret additional engine deal for the J-20.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## BoQ77

Deino said:


> I don't think the next batch of J-20 will already get the WS-15 ... it won't be ready within the next two years without any further testing. So IMO the only - and most likely answer - is a yet secret additional engine deal for the J-20.



So to you when J-20 would be commissioned as earliest at full performance ? 
or J-20 would be commissioned with AL-31FN ?


----------



## siegecrossbow

BoQ77 said:


> So to you when J-20 would be commissioned as earliest at full performance ?
> or J-20 would be commissioned with AL-31FN ?



J-20A will obviously enter service with some variant of AL-31. The question is which one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Interesting ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> Good argument and therefore I said "coating" and not "paint". But wasn't there a similar treatment of the surface in order to reduce the IR-signature for one of the later PW F100-versions ?


Yes coating a layer of material using some process like electroplating process (example chrome plating) instead of painted over with polymer based paint coating could be it.


----------



## cirr

A milestone achieved yesterday 28.01.2016

A burst of joys and cheers by the J-20 Team...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

For people like us it may never be enough evidence to claim 2011 engine is ws15, but I strongly believe it is not any of the 31F series because it simply doesn't make sense. It is more likely an early vision of the Chinese AVEN (Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle) engine which is under development for decade with an unique Chinese design different to 117s.

Based on the following news reports in the past, ws15 or Chinese AVEN is, if not already ready, not far away from being commissioned.





























*中国研成世界第一款隐身轴对称矢量喷管*
军事要闻中国航空报2014-09-27 09:35

赵春生，男，32岁，中共党员，现为中航工业动力所燃烧设计研究室设计员，主要从事航空发动机喷管及排气装置设计，自参加工作至今的6年时间里，共申请专利65项，其中发明专利33项、国防专利26项、实用新型6项。

推力矢量和隐身能力已经成为未来先进战斗机必备的关键技术。轴对称矢量喷管作为一种具有良好推力矢量功能的先进喷管，其实现隐身修型设计却异常困难，*国内外还没有一种轴对称矢量喷管应用隐身修型设计*。*为 了解决轴对称矢量喷管隐身修型的设计问题，赵春生通过对现有轴对称矢量喷管的结构特点和运动特性进行深入分析和研究，发明了一种新型锯齿形裙边修型结构， 此种结构解决了各状态下对内部构件的有效遮挡与运动干涉相矛盾的问题。目前，此种锯齿形裙边修型结构经过了计算机仿真验证和技术验证，充分验证了其结构可 行性，在很大程度上提高了轴对称矢量喷管的隐身能力，填补了类似轴对称矢量喷管进行锯齿修型的技术空白，此种结构已申请国防专利。*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> A milestone achieved yesterday 28.01.2016
> 
> A burst of joys and cheers by the J-20 Team...



Care to explain, what happened yesterday !??


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Keel

j20blackdragon said:


> Let's do some engine math.
> 
> 123 AL-31FN Series 3 engines were purchased in 2011.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...illion-russian-jet-engine-deal-vedomosti-says
> 
> 53+ engines have been used for J-10B production.
> 18 engines have been used for the J-20 so far.
> A couple of engines have been used for early J-10C.
> All numbers above are approximate.
> 
> That means we only have enough engines left for a single squadron of production J-20.
> Any further J-20 production will have to rely on WS-15.
> Salut and Rosoboronexport have not announced any further engine sales to CAC since 2011.
> We know the WS-10 has never been tested on the J-20.
> This can only be good news for the WS-15 program.





Deino said:


> Small correction:
> 
> we have so far 53 J-10B + 27 (at least) J-10C using the FN = 80
> we have indeed 9 J-20 = 18
> -------------------------------------------
> 98 ... so there are indeed 24 engines left from this order.
> 
> Since the batch 02 J-10C are surely again also 55 aircraft - aka 28 aircraft still missing - remains the question if all will go to the J-10C or if they will fit them into 12 J-20 ??
> 
> The biggest question mark in this calculation however is that we calculate a 1:1 use ... IMO there are surely several as spares.
> 
> I don't think the next batch of J-20 will already get the WS-15 ... it won't be ready within the next two years without any further testing. So IMO the only - and most likely answer - is a yet secret additional engine deal for the J-20.



It is an incorrect estimation as you guys do not know how many of the Russian engines are still in stock when 123 nos of AL-31FN were ordered.

Also how about the status of engines getting major overhauls or scrapped ?

.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

just a curious question, can J-20 to be modified to have forward swept wing such as SU-41, it will be cool to have a stealthy forward swept wing, I'm not aerodynamist but I believe J-20 and Su-41 are both similar size, canard, twin engines, twin vertical tails. it will be a potential candidate for transformation

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> just a curious question, can J-20 to be modified to have forward swept wing such as SU-41, it will be cool to have a stealthy forward swept wing, I'm not aerodynamist but I believe J-20 and Su-41 are both similar size, canard, twin engines, twin vertical tails. it will be a potential candidate for transformation


Without consideration of aerodynamics, I prefer X wings. Haha.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

nang2 said:


> Without consideration of aerodynamics, I prefer X wings. Haha.



you mean Star war X-wing?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nang2

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> you mean Star war X-wing?


Of course. What else?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

nang2 said:


> Of course. What else?



lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Care to explain, what happened yesterday !??




Sorry to ask again, but what happened ??


----------



## Deino

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> just a curious question, can J-20 to be modified to have forward swept wing such as SU-41, it will be cool to have a stealthy forward swept wing, I'm not aerodynamist but I believe J-20 and Su-41 are both similar size, canard, twin engines, twin vertical tails. it will be a potential candidate for transformation




Simply to say so: NO !! NEVER ... it would be a completely new design and all so far flown FSW-aircrafts like the S-37 and X-29 (even if based on the F-5/F-20 design) were one off new designs.

However it surely would be COOOOOOL.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## asia2000

Deino said:


> Sorry to ask again, but what happened ??


I guess 5 year milestone achieved for J20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dungeness

Deino said:


> Sorry to ask again, but what happened ??



I think he was referring to this:







Some people said it is just because J-20 team members do not have to work OT during Chinese New Year Holiday season this year for the first time in five years,. They have been working 11+ hours per day, 7 days a week for too long.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tameem

Among the issues, China’s J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters cannot supercruise, or fly at supersonic speeds like their closest rivals, Lockheed Martin’s F-22 and F-35 stealth planes, without using after-burners, said two industry sources who follow Beijing’s military programs closely.

After-burners remove a warplane’s stealthiness, a capability that allows them to escape radar detection.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...gles-warplane-engine-technology/#.Vq4-jtJ97cs
& in below article too, same is repeated...
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/75952/20160131/chinese-jet-fighter-technology-inferior.htm

Can any body comment on above....Is that ture?
@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Dungeness said:


> I think he was referring to this:




Could You please provide a translation ??


----------



## Dungeness

Deino said:


> Could You please provide a translation ??



"On my WeChat Friends Circle, those guys from CAIC Tech Center went nuts cheering and capering. The keyword here is *5-year*. Just use your imagination for what happened there."


----------



## BoQ77

Tameem said:


> Among the issues, China’s J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters cannot supercruise, or fly at supersonic speeds like their closest rivals, Lockheed Martin’s F-22 and F-35 stealth planes, without using after-burners, said two industry sources who follow Beijing’s military programs closely.
> 
> After-burners remove a warplane’s stealthiness, a capability that allows them to escape radar detection.
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...gles-warplane-engine-technology/#.Vq4-jtJ97cs
> & in below article too, same is repeated...
> http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/75952/20160131/chinese-jet-fighter-technology-inferior.htm
> 
> Can any body comment on above....Is that ture?
> @Deino





siegecrossbow said:


> J-20A will obviously enter service with some variant of AL-31. The question is which one.



What major difference between J-20 with AL-31FN and J-20 with its optimum engines ?


----------



## BoQ77

http://china-pla.blogspot.com/2016/01/j-20-and-geopolitical-implications.html

With the roll out of 2101, what appears to J-20’s first LRIP aircraft, it’s possible that the first batch of J-20s will get delivered to FTTC this year to start the process of expanding flight envelope, testing/evaluating new weapon systems, developing new training procedures and combat tactics for a new aircraft. If FTTC evaluation proceeds well, J-20 may be certified and start entering into service next year. It looks like the project is proceeding a couple of years faster than the original expectations. For this entry, I want to look at how the progress of J-20 vs progress of other fighter jet projects affects regional balance of air power.

To start off, the most obvious threat to PLAAF comes from the vast number of F-35s that will be deployed in the APAC region by America and its allies. Due to defense cutbacks by many Western countries, key American allies in APAC region should not have to wait too long to get their F-35s.  If J-20 enters service in the next 2 years, it will enter service extremely underpowered since WS-15 is not yet ready. As a result, I think the initial J-20s will have to carry limited fuel and payload in order to achieve desired flight performance. Until WS-15 does become certified with J-20 sometimes *next decade*, there are certain missions involving longer range and greater payload that J-20 just cannot perform.


----------



## cirr

Happ Chinese New Year







The Year of the Monkey

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## BoQ77

Like a bee hive


----------



## 帅的一匹

BoQ77 said:


> Like a bee hive


Please please please....never come back.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

My J-20 Girl


----------



## BoQ77

wanglaokan said:


> Please please please....never come back.



Why?


----------



## qwerrty

cirr said:


> Happ Chinese New Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Year of the Monkey

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

BoQ77 said:


> Why?




Since it was then most likely transferred to the FTTC or at least CFTE.

However I expect the LRIP birds at first getting some paint ... and that will be interesting, if they leave CAC with yellow '2101' or even already with a serial for a FTTC-Brigade.

Deino


----------



## nang2

cnleio said:


> My J-20 Girl
> View attachment 291380


I never understand the obsession with big breasts. Drinking too much milk?


----------



## Kompromat

When till J-20 gets its HMS?


----------



## yantong1980

Nice looking birdie, hope she got her true engine soon. Happy Chinese New Year!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tameem said:


> Among the issues, China’s J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters cannot supercruise, or fly at supersonic speeds like their closest rivals, Lockheed Martin’s F-22 and F-35 stealth planes, without using after-burners, said two industry sources who follow Beijing’s military programs closely.



No clue. Got to wait for confirmation from CAC/SAC, which I doubt we'll get in this decade.



> *After-burners remove a warplane’s stealthiness*, a capability that allows them to escape radar detection.
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...gles-warplane-engine-technology/#.Vq4-jtJ97cs
> & in below article too, same is repeated...
> http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/75952/20160131/chinese-jet-fighter-technology-inferior.htm
> 
> Can any body comment on above....Is that ture?



I think somebody confused IR suppression with RCS reduction and somebody else quoted his assertion as true.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Horus said:


> When till J-20 gets its HMS?


Already have, wait for the picture.


----------



## 592257001

Horus said:


> When till J-20 gets its HMS?




Given the clear presence of J-20's electro-optical distributed aperture system which provides the pilot with 360 degrees of battlefield awareness, it would be illogical for any J-20 prototype since 2011, as that's when its EODAS was installed and spotted, to not have HMS. HMS=the only known man-machine interface for tapping into EODAS.

As to why the test pilots @ CAC have not been spotted flying with them is because the majority of weapons and advanced avionics testing, which would involve the EODAS system, are done separately @ CFTE (Chinese Flight Test Establishment), located in PLAAF's Yanliang airbase, Xi'an. Since that installation is located in a very desolate part of China (obviously due to security reason), not many HD pictures of J-20 have been taken by military fans from that installation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dungeness

cnleio said:


> My J-20 Girl
> View attachment 291380



Your read too much Japanese manga.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Flying N.o2101

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tiqiu

Chinese AVEN?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Chinese AVEN?




No !

Simply the usual convergent/divergent nozzle


----------



## Tiqiu

I hope you are wrong.

Meantime the US pilots can keep doing this..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> I hope you are wrong.




To admit, I'm about 99,9998729% for sure, since we have so many images of the same situation both from several other J-10s but also J-10s prior to take-off ... when the pilot tests again the convergent/divergent settings of the engines.


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> To admit, I'm about 99,9998729% for sure, since we have so many images of the same situation both from several other J-10s but also J-10s prior to take-off ... when the pilot tests again the convergent/divergent settings of the engines.


OK, you just made me 0.0001271% not certain they were not AVEN
I can wait....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

o.k. I correct myself; I'm 100% sure !


----------



## cirr

2102、2103 and 2104 

Awaiting 2105、2016、。。。。。。


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2102、2103 and 2104
> 
> Awaiting 2105、2016、。。。。。。




Where is 2102、2103 and 2104 ???


----------



## hk299792458

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tiqiu

Compare these pictures about exhaust nozzle exit, I felt the angle in relation to its body were slightly different.


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Compare these pictures about exhaust nozzle exit, I felt the angle in relation to its body were slightly different.



No !



Deino said:


> Where is 2102、2103 and 2104 ???




Anything ???


----------



## Deino

Any idea, when 2101 will get its paint !?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

According to Hanwuji from CJDBY, the device on the "chin" of the J-20 is actually an IRST instead of EODAS like the one on F-35.

哪位高人来科普：EOTS，还是EOSS/IRST？——40楼韩五记亲自出马科普！-空军版-超级大本营军事论坛-最具影响力军事论坛 -

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

... and 2016 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Happy New Year. May China continue "One Fly Above Sky"

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Interesting ....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## BoQ77

Deino said:


> Interesting ....
> 
> View attachment 292351



What is the interesting point?


----------



## hk299792458

Same kind of HUD, bigger volume for radar, obvious differences in aerodynamic...etc ?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

hk299792458 said:


> Same kind of HUD, bigger volume for radar, obvious differences in aerodynamic...etc ?



If the photos are to scale, then I think it is also obvious that the J-20's fuselage is very slightly flatter and thinner than that of the F-22.


----------



## hk299792458

siegecrossbow said:


> If the photos are to scale, then I think it is also obvious that the J-20's fuselage is very slightly flatter and thinner than that of the F-22.



How do you see it ?

Henri K.


----------



## onebyone

*China should have an operation squadron of J-20 stealth fighters by 2017*
air force, airplane, asia, china, future, geopolitical, military, technology, united states, world
China is flying the first airframe in the inaugural production batch of J-20 stealth fighters.

The first J-20 squadron expected to be fully delivered by year's end, the China Flight Testing Evaluation regiment will being developing operating procedures, tactics and technical proficiency to bring the J-20 to combat readiness. At this pace, it is expected that in 2017-2018, the Chinese Air Force will have its first operational stealth fighter squadron. 





The J-20 currently relies on Russian AL-31 series turbofan engines (the powerful domestic WS-15 engine will enter service in 2019-2021), everything else on the J-20 is Chinese; its stealth coating, infrared sensor, powerful AESA radar, are all domestically made.

Development of the WS-15 began in the 1990s. The thrust target was reported as 180 kilonewtons (40,000 lbf) in 2012. In 2009, it was known that the prototype was able to achieve 160 kilonewtons (36,000 lbf).

China has about a ten year lead on building and using domestically developed stealth fighters versus other Asian rivals (domestic Indian, Japanese and Korean stealth fighters are not expected to enter service until after 2027). In addition to J-20 and the soon to follow in production J-31 stealth fighter, Chinese plans also call for stealthy drones, bombers and advanced cruise missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

hk299792458 said:


> How do you see it ?
> 
> Henri K.



Just eyeballing.


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## AmirPatriot

Tiqiu said:


>



Why so smoky?


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

AmirPatriot said:


> Why so smoky?



it's not smoke but fuel dumping

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## jaiind

China’s muchdebated J20 stealth fighter has now entered the lowrate initial production (LRIP) phase. Following on from two prototype/technology demonstrators and at least six preproduction development aircraft, the first of a new batch of production examples made an appearance outside Chengdu’s works in late December. It reportedly made its first flight on January 18, by which time a second LRIP aircraft had also been spotted at the airfield.

Whereas the earlier aircraft had all been numbered in the 20xx range, and were revealed in a full painted finish, aircraft 2101 was seen undergoing taxi trials in December in a yellow primer finish typical of aircraft fresh from Chengdu’s production lines. A second LRIP machine, 2102, was recorded in January, also in the primer finish. 

Designed by the 611 Institute and built by the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation at the Huangtianba airfield, the J20 is a large multirole fighter with stealthy features similar to those found in the American F22 and F35. Although very little is known about its intended purpose, the aircraft appears to offer capability in a number of roles, including longrange interception and precision attack.

In terms of weapon carriage the J20 has a similar arrangement to that of the Lockheed Martin F22, comprising two lateral bays for small airtoair missiles such as the agile, imaginginfrared PL10, and a large underfuselage bay for accommodating larger missiles and precisionguided surface attack weapons. The 607 Institute’s new PL15 activeradar missile is thought to be the primary longrange airtoair weapon, reportedly having been testfired from a Shenyang J16 platform last year. The PL21, a ramjetpowered weapon in the same class as the MBDA Meteor, is another possibility for the J20. 

The sensor suite includes an electrooptical targeting system (EOTS) and a largearray AESA radar, which was developed by the 14th Institute at Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology (NRIET, 14th Institute), and is possibly designated Type 1475/KLJ5. Diamondshaped windows around the fuselage suggest that a distributed aperture infrared vision system is installed. 

In the cockpit, the J20 sports three large color displays, plus other small screens, and a holographic wideangle headup display. An advanced datalink has been developed, and a retractable refueling probe is located on the starboard side of the forward fuselage. Much of the avionics suite has been tested by the CFTE (China flight test establishment) aboard a modified Tupolev Tu204C, in much the same way as the systems of the F22 were tested in a Boeing 757. 

One area that has dogged the J20 is the powerplant, where Chinese indigenous development has lagged behind that of the airframe and systems. The intended powerplant for the J20 is believed to be the WS15, an afterburning engine in the 44,000poundthrust (197kN) class 2/14/2016 Defence News, China's J20 Enters Production Defence News 3/5 being developed by Xian, and which may ultimately feature thrustvectoring. However, this engine is not expected to be ready until around 2020. In the meantime, the J20s produced so far have been powered by the NPO Saturn AL31FN (as used in the singleengine J10) imported from Russia. The latest J20s have the improved AL31FN Series 3 engine offering 30,800 pounds (137 kN) of thrust, but even this engine may not provide the J20 with “supercruise” capability. 

J20 History:

Spurred on by developments in both indigenous technology and U.S. military capability, China initiated a project for a twinengine stealthy fighter in the early/mid1990s, subsequently reported by U.S. intelligence as the XXJ program. Chengdu/611 Institute’s Project 718 competed with a larger design from Shenyang/601 Institute, and was eventually selected in 2008.

Chengdu is believed to have built an initial batch of four prototype airframes, of which two took to the air. The first, 2001, made its maiden flight on January 11, 2011. It was followed on May 16, 2012 by aircraft 2002, which was subsequently renumbered as 2004. Two other airframes are understood to have been used for ground static and fatigue testing, and additional airframes may have later been produced for radar crosssection tests.

On March 1, 2014 the first of the development batch aircraft (2011) made its first flight. Whereas 2001 and 2002 appeared to be prototypes for evaluating aerodynamics and aircraft systems, as well as limited weapon carriage tests, aircraft 2011 was clearly outfitted for some mission systems.

Quite apart from the new RAM (radarabsorbent material) paint, there were numerous differences between it and its predecessors: the tailfins featured cropped tips; the inlets and DSI (diverterless supersonic intake) bulges had been redesigned; the leadingedge root extensions between wing and foreplanes were reshaped; the canopy had gained a stiffening bow frame; and the cumbersome mainwheel door design of the initial aircraft had been replaced by a much neater installation.

Perhaps the most obvious differences were the new nose design with a dielectric radome for an AESA radar featuring a sawtooth joint with the main fuselage, and the addition of an electrooptical targeting system in a fairing beneath the forward fuselage. 

Three further development aircraft took to the air during 2014;Number 2012 on July 26; Number 2013 on November 29; and Number 2015 less than a month later on December 19. The latter two lacked a nosemounted airdata probe, suggesting that the AESA radar was installed. Aircraft Number 2016 flew on September 8, 2015 with reshaped DSI bulges and lengthened fairings around the nozzles to improve rearaspect radar crosssection. Other changes included enlarged fairings to either side of the engine nozzles. Aircraft 2017 followed on November 24, with a slightly more pronounced hump to the canopy. 

At least four aircraft of the development batch were transferred to the CFTE (China flight test establishment) at XianYanliang for tests. It is expected that the initial LRIP aircraft will be dispatched to the Chinese air force’s test and training center at Cangzhou once initial manufacturer/acceptance trials have been completed, and during 2017 the first frontline regiment could start to receive aircraft. IOC is slated for 2019, but may occur earlier given the priority afforded to the J20 program. Chinese officials have stated that final requirements could be between 500 and 700 aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

*Why again anew tread !!!???*


----------



## cnleio

3x J-20 good photos

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

According to the Chinese forum, one of these BAND-AID(surface mounted) is the plasma stealth device.





And possible Chinese engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

If these two are indeed 2017 & 2101 ... the 2101 has received finally some paint.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

16.02.2015





26.12.2015

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Any news regarding the possible next 210x-airframes ??


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Any news regarding the possible next 210x-airframes ??



Pics in a couple of weeks at most。


----------



## That Guy

Deino said:


> If these two are indeed 2017 & 2101 ... the 2101 has received finally some paint.
> 
> View attachment 294981


You know, this picture really makes me think of two really pissed of cats, facing off...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

We are definitely in short supply of guys who take the trouble to take photos.

We are also short of guys who are willing to share with us photos taken.


----------



## Tiqiu

寒冷的歌声KK


*  81562# *




_发表于 2016-2-23 20:50_ | 只看该作者
718服役
718服役
718服役
军坛旗帜：刀口大侠美言网专刊-刀口谈兵-刀口专栏-中国军事新闻

Let's remember this date...
Project 718 enters service (I hope it is true)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> 寒冷的歌声KK
> 
> 
> *  81562# *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _发表于 2016-2-23 20:50_ | 只看该作者
> 718服役
> 718服役
> 718服役
> 军坛旗帜：刀口大侠美言网专刊-刀口谈兵-刀口专栏-中国军事新闻
> 
> Let's remember this date...
> Project 718 enters service (I hope it is true)...




Is there any information on what he is so sure ?? These images showing both 2013 & 2015 are quite old from last year (dated 17. February *2015*) and the last one came up right after 2001's maiden flight in 2011.

So if 2101 has received a FTTC-serial or the other '201x-types were transferred to the FTTC, then o.k. ... but these images alone are IMO no proof.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Is there any information on what he is so sure ?? These images showing both 2013 & 2015 are quite old from last year (dated 17. February *2015*) and the last one came up right after 2001's maiden flight in 2011.
> 
> So if 2101 has received a FTTC-serial or the other '201x-types were transferred to the FTTC, then o.k. ... but these images alone are IMO no proof.
> 
> Deino


It is like half-glass full/empty situation, I'd rather believe it is true. Let's wait 7 days as more news will come out usually.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> It is like half-glass full/empty situation, I'd rather believe it is true. Let's wait 7 days as more news will come out usually.




Seems as if I'm the sceptical one here !

... and as such I'm not that sure: why do You think the glass is half full ? Who is the source of this report. Image I would have posted it simply in another forum and it finally ended here; that does not make it more reliable.

So far we only have this news, but we have no sign (an image showing a J-20 with a new serial), we hove no reports on a welcome or good-bye celebration, we only have these few words.

Or is there more behind ?

Deino


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Seems as if I'm the sceptical one here !
> 
> ... and as such I'm not that sure: why do You think the glass is half full ? Who is the source of this report. Image I would have posted it simply in another forum and it finally ended here; that does not make it more reliable.
> 
> So far we only have this news, but we have no sign (an image showing a J-20 with a new serial), we hove no reports on a welcome or good-bye celebration, we only have these few words.
> 
> Or is there more behind ?
> 
> Deino


I guess we can only resort in the guesswork to form our judgement about this top-secrete Chinese weapon.

First of all considering what happened around the region these days, it makes sense for China to make such announcement at this high time, as it will act as a best deterrence to potential enemies. 

Second, China Aviation News reported yesterday that Chinese new jet engine WS10B/WS15 has been successful tested(it didn't say when), perhaps this is the signal that J20's engine problem is solved for now. 
铸国防空疆之重器 ——记中航工业发动机研究院、动力所总设计师刘永泉 本报通讯员　李晶雪

Third, according to Chinese aviation expert Fu qianshao's interview at Jan. 17, whose claims also has been reiterated by many others on TV interview, Chinese strategy for J20 in short is to putting it into service first and getting perfected/upgraded for later batch/block if China sees treat is incoming. This is what he was quoted of saying:"
中科院中国空军专家傅前哨17日对记者介绍，歼-20的原型机、技术验证机的机身编号共经历三次变化。最早试飞的 2001号、2002号飞机被认为是技术验证机。而2011号被认为是歼-20进入原型机状态的标志。直到2017号飞机外形基本固定下来，这是一个非常 重要的阶段。飞机已进入工程样机设计冻结状态，如果能够通过评审，就可以进入小批量生产状态。

从目前情况 来看，中国使用的原型机数量不是太多，说明发展进度比较顺利，前期考虑得比较周到。傅前哨强调，这正是中国装备研发中一个很好的策略：为了缩短研发周期， 可以采取有所为、有所不为的方式，也就是分阶段迈进，而不求一步到位，先满足主要性能指标，解决有没有的问题。投入较少的资源，缩短研制周期，让部队尽快 拿到装备，然后再不断升级、改进，实现其他性能指标。发动机也不求一步到位，可以先保证使用，然后再升级换代。"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

In relation to those forum rumor or Chinese whispers, they both can't be fully trusted or fully ruled out. It is just the way the current Chinese govt is doing thing, like it or not.

For instance, one well-known poster at this Chinese forum 老马夜聊论剑(11.7老马更新于4816页)-军事纵横-中国军事新闻 posted the following a message about new Chinese WS15 break through:

中国飓风:WS15已经通过工程验收。一把手亲自督阵。 发表于 2016-1-15 22:15

Now after more than a month, we had the state news paper (China Aviation News) officially confirmed that:"林左鸣董事长正在听取型号研制工作汇报。晚上10时多，动力所总设计师刘永泉满脸兴奋地向大家报告：某型发动机试验成功，“十二五”研制目标顺利实现！会场的气氛一下子热烈起来，林左鸣当即跟现场指挥通话，向全体参研同志们表示感谢"

Even the time 22:15 matches..........

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Thanks ... that's exactly what I asked for: is it a well known often or always reliable poster - a so called "Big-shrimp" - or is it just a post from an so far unknown guy without any background.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kuge

Tiqiu said:


> In relation to those forum rumor or Chinese whispers, they both can't be fully trusted or fully ruled out. It is just the way the current Chinese govt is doing thing, like it or not.
> 
> For instance, one well-known poster at this Chinese forum 老马夜聊论剑(11.7老马更新于4816页)-军事纵横-中国军事新闻 posted the following a message about new Chinese WS15 break through:
> 
> 中国飓风:WS15已经通过工程验收。一把手亲自督阵。 发表于 2016-1-15 22:15
> 
> Now after more than a month, we had the state news paper (China Aviation News) officially confirmed that:"林左鸣董事长正在听取型号研制工作汇报。晚上10时多，动力所总设计师刘永泉满脸兴奋地向大家报告：某型发动机试验成功，“十二五”研制目标顺利实现！会场的气氛一下子热烈起来，林左鸣当即跟现场指挥通话，向全体参研同志们表示感谢"
> 
> Even the time 22:15 matches..........
> http://home.meyet.com/space-uid-107602.html


i think that is about ws10b not ws15


----------



## Tiqiu

kuge said:


> i think that is about ws10b not ws15


Agreed, it is unlikely ws15.

But I don't think It is ws10b given last year the batch-produced J10c was said of using it.

Some big shrimps in the Chinese forum reckon it is ws10g with 15.5t thrust. Let's see how it is going to unfold.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jas

It is WS-10B 14.5 T thrust and there is FADEC on


----------



## 帅的一匹

Can any one give a detailed number of the WS15 Max wet thrust?


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> Can any one give a detailed number of the WS15 Max wet thrust?




I think this is simply too early to tell since no complete WS-15 is raedy yet and even more the data were not published. Reports however hint to about 17-18t.

Anyway ... are there any news about '2102' ???


----------



## hk299792458

新机上号了~2102——无图~！~_鹰击长空 飞扬军事-中国军迷原创第一站 中国军迷原创第一站 - Powered by www.fyjs.cn!

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Anyway ... are there any news about '2102' ???



新机上号了~2102——无图~！~_鹰击长空 飞扬军事-中国军迷原创第一站 中国军迷原创第一站 - Powered by www.fyjs.cn!

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Thanks ... I saw this tread but to admit, it was a bit too confusing at least after page 2 and since no imges were included I stopped further reading.


----------



## hk299792458

Taxiing of #2102 is ongoing

Henri K.


----------



## Akasa

Jas said:


> It is WS-10B 14.5 T thrust and there is FADEC on



Were any further details included?


----------



## Tiqiu

PL-10 on J10B and J20.













hk299792458 said:


> Taxiing of #2102 is ongoing
> 
> Henri K.


Just read someone writing in the Chinese forum that 3.8 is the proudest day for PLA air force, could it be related to this somehow?


----------



## Deino

hk299792458 said:


> Taxiing of #2102 is ongoing
> 
> Henri K.




And still no images ???


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> And still no images ???



People have begun to lose interest in taking pics and having them posted online。

You will see fewer and fewer pics thus taken and posted。


----------



## ghazi52

Fair enough.............


----------



## cirr

CAC/611 is developing a new type of aircraft？







Thanks to the efforts of 。。。。，foundation has been laid for the successful maiden flight of #01 aircraft of this programme。


----------



## v9s

cirr said:


> CAC/611 is developing a new type of aircraft？
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the efforts of 。。。。，foundation has been laid for the successful maiden flight of #01 aircraft of this programme。



Please elaborate.


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> foundation has been laid for the successful maiden flight of #01 aircraft of this programme。



Can you explain what this means? Has a prototype been built?


----------



## kuge

SinoSoldier said:


> Can you explain what this means? Has a prototype been built?


it said 01 type had a maiden flight on 2016/jan.
reported from Hua Nan physic school in Kwangtung aviation's composite material & structural engineering centre.
there is some type of physical impact test on the material with respect to fuel tank..


----------



## BoQ77

kuge said:


> it said 01 type had a maiden flight on 2016/jan.
> reported from Hua Nan physic school in Kwangtung aviation's composite material & structural engineering centre.
> there is some type of physical impact test on the material with respect to fuel tank..



The paper is a nice try to spread rumor while provide no information. 
I could show you guys more details of several tests on the material with respect to cradle and fuel tanks with pictures.


----------



## Deino

kuge said:


> it said 01 type had a maiden flight on 2016/jan.
> reported from Hua Nan physic school in Kwangtung aviation's composite material & structural engineering centre.
> there is some type of physical impact test on the material with respect to fuel tank..




Maiden flight in January 2016 ... this could be the pre-serial J-20 '2101' !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

Deino said:


> Maiden flight in January 2016 ... this could be the pre-serial J-20 '2101' !



or anything else


----------



## Deino

BoQ77 said:


> or anything else




Indeed, ... but what ? Given the fact that CAC is quite closely watched by several spotters and the Date of January 2016 is given, I can't think that any other - especially something very secret - has made its maiden flight in January unnoticed.

Deino


----------



## kuge

Deino said:


> Indeed, ... but what ? Given the fact that CAC is quite closely watched by several spotters and the Date of January 2016 is given, I can't think that any other - especially something very secret - has made its maiden flight in January unnoticed.
> 
> Deino


some people speculate it is a kind of super sonic plane not j20 #01


----------



## Deino

The problem is ... some people want to see in each and every report a new engine, a new supersonic airplane.

But fact the facts are:

- was there any new aircraft spotted at CAC in January ? - NO
- was there any maiden flight at CAC in January ? - YES ... 2101
- so, how likely is that a super-secret new aircraft was rolled out at CAC and had its maiden flight in January without being spotted ? - IMO = ZERO !

Just my two cents,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Following some reports: No. '2017' has left Chengdu already on Monday 11. April .... maybe a hint that '2102' will appear soon ?!!

Deino

PS: image below is older but sooooooooo nice !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blabla

Where does J 20 stand in comparison with F 35 and F 22 ? What about its stealth capability Radar ,avionics, PODS ?


----------



## Beast

Blabla said:


> Where does J 20 stand in comparison with F 35 and F 22 ? What about its stealth capability Radar ,avionics, PODS ?


World class


----------



## Blabla

Beast said:


> World class


Pakistan can get 24 J 20 ? Can you elaborate more ?


----------



## Beast

Blabla said:


> Pakistan can get 24 J 20 ? Can you elaborate more ?


No, PAF will not get it. This J-20 is not approve for export and is only for domestic use just like USAF F-22 is not for export also.


----------



## Blabla

Beast said:


> No, PAF will not get it. This J-20 is not approve for export and is only for domestic use just like USAF F-22 is not for export also.


Come on we are your important allies you should provide it we will not show it to any one . Pakistan can also give you guaranties . J 20 will change the game in the region PAF will have air superiority


----------



## Beast

Blabla said:


> Come on we are your important allies you should provide it we will not show it to any one . Pakistan can also give you guaranties . J 20 will change the game in the region PAF will have air superiority



We have J-31 stealth plane available for export.


----------



## Blabla

Beast said:


> We have J-31 stealth plane available for export.


J 31 is still in development and it lacks many technological thing in comparison to a Stealth jet . J 20 seems promising to me but I dont know much about it .



Blabla said:


> J 31 is still in development and it lacks many technological thing in comparison to a Stealth jet . J 20 seems promising to me but I dont know much about it .


PAF should fly the same type of Jet that PLAAF is using because they are tested are not below standard


----------



## Beast

Blabla said:


> J 31 is still in development and it lacks many technological thing in comparison to a Stealth jet . J 20 seems promising to me but I dont know much about it .


Yes, it is still in development but it will not be far from operation. SAC are working on a exportable prototype and may debut this year. It so, it will not be far from operation.


----------



## Blabla

What about J 28 sixth generation Combat jet ?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Blabla said:


> What about J 28 sixth generation Combat jet ?


there is no j28 kid


Blabla said:


> Come on we are your important allies you should provide it we will not show it to any one . Pakistan can also give you guaranties . J 20 will change the game in the region PAF will have air superiority


did US provide F-22 to its closest ally *"ISRAEL"*, the answer is big *"NO"*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blabla

pakistanipower said:


> there is no j28 kid
> 
> did US provide F-22 to its closest ally *"ISRAEL"*, the answer is big *"NO"*


Man Boeing is already working on the 6 generation jet Boeing F/A-XX. Its concept is already there . America and China both are in Production phase with fifth generation technology . On the other hand 6generation is currently in development you can google and look for J 28 easily 



pakistanipower said:


> there is no j28 kid
> 
> did US provide F-22 to its closest ally *"ISRAEL"*, the answer is big *"NO"*


Israel already have F 35 and many other advance weapons . In order to keep balance in the region Pakistan needs J 20 . India gets 32 Rafales and Pakistan gets 32 J 20 along with J 28 to come in future . PAF will rule the air space along with China for the rest of the century . India will cry for ever ^^

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> there is no j28 kid
> 
> did US provide F-22 to its closest ally *"ISRAEL"*, the answer is big *"NO"*


J20 for PAF will make Indians desperate.



Blabla said:


> J 31 is still in development and it lacks many technological thing in comparison to a Stealth jet . J 20 seems promising to me but I dont know much about it .
> 
> 
> PAF should fly the same type of Jet that PLAAF is using because they are tested are not below standard


Brother China won't sell J20 because it matters national security too much. All other weapon is available for PAF except J20.


----------



## Blabla

wanglaokan said:


> J20 for PAF will make Indians desperate.
> 
> 
> Brother China won't sell J20 because it matters national security too much. All other weapon is available for PAF except J20.


I will say Brother it would be awesome to make them desperate 



Blabla said:


> I will say Brother it would be awesome to make them desperate


How can Pakistan tackle with Rafales ? Now the question is what should be the right combat jet plus strategy ? JF 17 block 2 or 3 are not capable to do that


----------



## 帅的一匹

Blabla said:


> I will say Brother it would be awesome to make them desperate
> 
> 
> How can Pakistan tackle with Rafales ? Now the question is what should be the right combat jet plus strategy ? JF 17 block 2 or 3 are not capable to do that


Don't worry, India won't go rampant as long as China is there. My solution is Pakistan buy HQ9 SAM in large numbers. Pakistan's main defence policy is to build deterrence power against India potential invasion,not to overwhelm India. Pakistan can't afford to go tit for that in a conventional way with India. As Pakistan now is nuke capable, India will consider twice before get their hands on Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blabla

wanglaokan said:


> Don't worry, India won't go rampant as long as China is there. My solution is Pakistan buy HQ9 SAM in large numbers. Pakistan's main defence policy is to build deterrence power against India potential invasion,not to overwhelm India. Pakistan can't afford to go tit for that in a conventional way with India. As Pakistan now is nuke capable, India will consider twice before get their hands on Pakistan.



India is also acquiring S400 than how could we tackle it ?


----------



## Deino

@Blabla

First of all HELLO on board, but second - and sorry if I sound too rude - please ... were are here not in the Kindergarten and as such use a bit more common sense! 

The fact alone that Pakistan & China are close friends does not mean equally the PAF will get all they want ... even more for cheap.

By the way - and here I beg You to trust a bit more the members here, which are a bit longer "on board" - there is no J-28 and even if there's one - in words *ONE* !!! - source mentioning this type, I really won't rate this link a "source". 

By the way ... this is the China section and especially this a tread on the J-20 ... so please stay on topic !

As such I hope You enjoy Your time here and even more I hope You will learn a lot ... but please leave such "stupid" questions or assumptions even more if You don't have any source.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## muhammadali233

Deino said:


> Following some reports: No. '2017' has left Chengdu already on Monday 11. April .... maybe a hint that '2102' will appear soon ?!!
> 
> Deino
> 
> PS: image below is older but sooooooooo nice !
> 
> View attachment 300394


Looks like a stretched limo version of F-22,that means more firepower?



Blabla said:


> Come on we are your important allies you should provide it we will not show it to any one . Pakistan can also give you guaranties . J 20 will change the game in the region PAF will have air superiority


Are you 8?Is this in his hands?


----------



## Deino

Blabla said:


> I just put some general question I dont know why a Pro Indian German is so much concern I didnt asked for German toys and Trash . Please mind your own business and let other people to discuss what they want to and you dont own this forum and you dont have the right to criticize other...



Second attempt ... maybe a kindly reminder but before You decide to continue trashing & trolling this tread just look at Your status and then mine ! Enough said or do I need to become more clearer ?

Deino


----------



## Deino

No in contrast to Your open insult to me as a non-Chinese or non-Pakistani (which is irrelevant by the way), as a German (which is also irrelevant), as being pro-Indian (not sure where You come on this) and as a moderator, this is just a friendly reminder that:

1. indeed "other people can discuss what they want" as long as they obey to the rules and stick to the topic.

2. even if I'm not the owner of this forum, the same one set me in responsibility to take care that the rules are obeyed ... as such I have all rights to criticize other members especially if they act like You.

If You rate this a warning, then it might be one ... otherwise take is as a reminder.

And now; end of off-topic.

Deino


----------



## Blabla

Deino said:


> No in contrast to Your open insult to me as a non-Chinese or non-Pakistani (which is irrelevant by the way), as a German (which is also irrelevant), as being pro-Indian (not sure where You come on this) and as a moderator, this is just a friendly reminder that:
> 
> 1. indeed "other people can discuss what they want" as long as they obey to the rules and stick to the topic.
> 
> 
> 2. even if I'm not the owner of this forum, the same one set me in responsibility to take care that the rules are obeyed ... as such I have all rights to criticize other members especially if they act like You.
> 
> 
> 
> If You rate this a warning, then it might be one ... otherwise take is as a reminder.
> 
> And now; end of off-topic.
> 
> Deino



Remember your the person who targeted me first and I grilled you in response now relax and do your stuff dont stuff your head with things you dont understand


----------



## Ultima Thule

Blabla said:


> Thanks for telling Uncle otherwise I dont know it
> F 22 is already crap America is already not producing it after 200 jets
> Ofcourse there is no point in exporting such a trash to any other nation
> 
> 
> SAM have more edge over subsonic cruise missiles and ballistic ones too . Because they could be anti Missile or anti aircraft


I am just laughing at your childish thought and wishful thinking by you
Its world best air to air fighter and by the way respect your senior members, he is right you must respect him, there is no J-28 it just a fan boys art


Blabla said:


> Man Boeing is already working on the 6 generation jet Boeing F/A-XX. Its concept is already there . America and China both are in Production phase with fifth generation technology . On the other hand 6generation is currently in development you can google and look for J 28 easily
> 
> 
> Israel already have F 35 and many other advance weapons . In order to keep balance in the region Pakistan needs J 20 . India gets 32 Rafales and Pakistan gets 32 J 20 along with J 28 to come in future . PAF will rule the air space along with China for the rest of the century . India will cry for ever ^^



you don't get it F-35 is exportable fighter just like J-31, you acting like a 8 year kid which knows nothing about fighter aircraft calling F-22 crap and trash, go kid play your toys as for Boeing 6th gen jet as you say that it just a concept, it will be completed in post 2030, as for production about 5th gen tech yes to USA but wrong about china production standard J-20 wont bigin for J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blabla

pakistanipower said:


> I am just laughing at your childish thought and wishful thinking by you
> Its world best air to air fighter and by the way respect your senior members, he is right you must respect him, there is no J-28 it just a fan boys art
> 
> 
> you don't get it F-35 is exportable fighter just like J-31, you acting like a 8 year kid which knows nothing about fighter aircraft calling F-22 crap and trash, go kid play your toys as for Boeing 6th gen jet as you say that it just a concept, it will be completed in post 2030, as for production about 5th gen tech yes to USA but wrong about china production standard J-20 wont bigin for J-20


 F 22 has a lot of problem you have to believe it . Usually it kills its pilot there is some thing suspicious about its oxygen tanks its avionics and Radar or Pods could be really advance or stealth features but in the end its a mistake of billion of dollars because its production is stopped the aircraft is still not stable . The best aircraft USA ever made is F 16 or F 18 , F 15 rest of them even F 35 has a problem maybe after producing few hundreds they will stop manufacturing it


----------



## Deino

Sorry ... and You know that ???

May I ask for Your background, Your profession ?? Maybe You could educate us a bit ...


----------



## Ultima Thule

Blabla said:


> F 22 has a lot of problem you have to believe it . Usually it kills its pilot there is some thing suspicious about its oxygen tanks its avionics and Radar or Pods could be really advance or stealth features but in the end its a mistake of billion of dollars because its production is stopped the aircraft is still not stable . The best aircraft USA ever made is F 16 or F 18 , F 15 rest of them even F 35 has a problem maybe after producing few hundreds they will stop manufacturing it


and you know it, they don't what a loser you are and why they induct to their air force? if there is defects in F-22 they can fix it better you go child play your toys this place is not for your

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Back to topic .... come on CAC, show us 2102 !


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Deino said:


> Back to topic .... come on CAC, show us 2102 !
> 
> View attachment 301131



LOL, what will make 2102 model special? I will be impressed if this J-20 model is fit with vectorized nuzzles


----------



## nang2

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> LOL, what will make 2102 midel special? I will be impressed if this J-20 model is fit with vectorized nuzzles


After 2102 debuts, Deino will cry for 2103.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

nang2 said:


> After 2102 debuts, Deino will cry for 2103.



then I will ask for more...a J-20 with cloaking ability


----------



## Deino

nang2 said:


> After 2102 debuts, Deino will cry for 2103.



Would that be bad ??


PS: By the way ... Could that be already the painted 2101 ??
http://www.dingsheng.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=917937&extra=page=1


----------



## Blabla

Whenever some new research is done and technology comes to the market there are always issues and the technology gets better and improved with time one example of it is the Russian MiGs they use to have a lot of problem in 80s . Recent example is Chinese Z-10 helicopter Engine has a problem of running in under powered condition usually it carry up to 16 guided air-to-ground missiles (i.e HJ-10), but it is limited to eight the weight to power ratio also cause performance issue in the field the empty weight of Z-10 is 5000 kg the engine Z 10 is using WZ 9 can support typically a helicopter in the range of 3000 kg can now China is developing a new Engine for a utility helicopter with a french company Safran (WZ-16). WZ-16 is to have a take-off output power of at least 1240 kW, and continuous operation output of over 1100 kW. F 22 Raptor also had a lot of issues the issue of Oxygen tank was solved a few years ago .Yes, it was resolved several years ago. Unlike other aircraft that carry a finite LOX (liquid oxygen) supply, the F-22 has an "On Board Oxygen Generating System" (OBOGS). Previously if OBOGS malfunctioned intermittently, the pilot could not detect if it was imperceptably generating insufficient oxygen, and thereby cause the pilot to develop a slow onset of hypoxia that could lead to blackout before anything could be remedied. The solution was to issue a retrofit contract to add finite LOX units configured with an oxygen sensor to automatically dispense oxygen if it detects OBOGS is not providing enough. The retrofit contract was done two years ago and there's been no hypoxia incidents for over two years.
but still USA is not manufacturing any more F 22 and 187 units built ,production stopped due to high price which is 67 billon $. USA thinks F22 is stealth one but critics says it is never used in full scale war.Maintaince cost of F22 is very high. Time required for maintaince is also more .
next time please do some research and than do argument


----------



## Deino

Blabla said:


> ...
> next time please do some research and than do argument




That all might be fine ... but what's Your argument especially in regard to the J-20 or concerning what anyone stated "without" research ?


----------



## Blabla

Deino said:


> That all might be fine ... but what's Your argument especially in regard to the J-20 or concerning what anyone stated "without" research ?


There is not much information on J 20 I cannot say much one of the main reason to join the website was to know about J 20


----------



## Ultima Thule

Mr @Deino please ban this stupid guy for at least this thread he is off topic thanks


Blabla said:


> Whenever some new research is done and technology comes to the market there are always issues and the technology gets better and improved with time one example of it is the Russian MiGs they use to have a lot of problem in 80s . Recent example is Chinese Z-10 helicopter Engine has a problem of running in under powered condition usually it carry up to 16 guided air-to-ground missiles (i.e HJ-10), but it is limited to eight the weight to power ratio also cause performance issue in the field the empty weight of Z-10 is 5000 kg the engine Z 10 is using WZ 9 can support typically a helicopter in the range of 3000 kg can now China is developing a new Engine for a utility helicopter with a french company Safran (WZ-16). WZ-16 is to have a take-off output power of at least 1240 kW, and continuous operation output of over 1100 kW. F 22 Raptor also had a lot of issues the issue of Oxygen tank was solved a few years ago .Yes, it was resolved several years ago. Unlike other aircraft that carry a finite LOX (liquid oxygen) supply, the F-22 has an "On Board Oxygen Generating System" (OBOGS). Previously if OBOGS malfunctioned intermittently, the pilot could not detect if it was imperceptably generating insufficient oxygen, and thereby cause the pilot to develop a slow onset of hypoxia that could lead to blackout before anything could be remedied. The solution was to issue a retrofit contract to add finite LOX units configured with an oxygen sensor to automatically dispense oxygen if it detects OBOGS is not providing enough. The retrofit contract was done two years ago and there's been no hypoxia incidents for over two years.
> but still USA is not manufacturing any more F 22 and 187 units built ,production stopped due to high price which is 67 billon $. USA thinks F22 is stealth one but critics says it is never used in full scale war.Maintaince cost of F22 is very high. Time required for maintaince is also more .
> next time please do some research and than do argument


shut up and leave from this thread, this thread for J-20 discussion not for your garbage post, you insane and mad kid, i am reporting that you are off topic and stupid


----------



## Ultima Thule

Blabla said:


> There is not much information on J 20 I cannot say much one of the main reason to join the website was to know about J 20


he knows J-20 better than you, you insane, he is senior member and MOD, look at your post and his post, you mad kid


----------



## Blabla

Try to build tolerance in your selves to listen to other ideas and thoughts it will help you too ofcourse I dont know much about J 20 but I want to know it


----------



## Blue Marlin

Blabla said:


> I just put some general question I dont know why a Pro Indian German is so much concern I didnt asked for German toys and Trash . Please mind your own business and let other people to discuss what they want to and you dont own this forum and you dont have the right to criticize other...


reported for being racist.
now the lrip of the j20 should show us the 2102 soon


----------



## Deino

Guys ... - and here I mean both - as long as the discussion is civiliced I have no problem if anyone.
Especially after a rough start I would say Blabla rose an interesting argument:



Blabla said:


> Whenever some new research is done and technology comes to the market there are always issues and the technology gets better and improved with time ...



An argument is that certainly will also apply to the J-20 and it's early career ... anyway he also admitted that: 



Blabla said:


> There is not much information on J 20 I cannot say much one of the main reason to join the website was to know about J 20



And as such it seems we share at least the same interest.

So ... please calm down and concentrate on the J-20.

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

can somebody tells me when J-20 will initialize weapon test launches? thanks in advance



Blabla said:


> Try to build tolerance in your selves to listen to other ideas and thoughts it will help you too ofcourse I dont know much about J 20 but I want to know it


OK man, now your right on track


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> can somebody tells me when J-20 will initialize weapon test launches? thanks in advance
> 
> 
> OK man, now your right on track


Long time ago, I think the weapon test'd been completed, J20 is going to service.


----------



## Blabla

wanglaokan said:


> Long time ago, I think the weapon test'd been completed, J20 is going to service.


what about J20 s ?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Blabla said:


> what about J20 s ?


Will be inducted next year. This is not the complete technichal status, we are waiting for WS15 engine.


----------



## Blabla

wanglaokan said:


> Will be inducted next year. This is not the complete technichal status, we are waiting for WS15 engine.


Where does it stands compare to F 22 and F 35 ?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Blabla said:


> Where does it stands compare to F 22 and F 35 ?


Somewhere between F22 and F35, more close to F22.


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> Long time ago, I think the weapon test'd been completed, J20 is going to service.


Oh I don't think so, can you post pictures and videos for prove? Thanks



Blabla said:


> Where does it stands compare to F 22 and F 35 ?


With current engine it is in the middle of F-22 and F-35 but with a WS-15 will be on the par with F-22 or even better


----------



## RealNapster

Blabla said:


> Where does J 20 *stand* in comparison with F 35 and F 22 ?




On the Left Side.


----------



## Blabla

pakistanipower said:


> Oh I don't think so, can you post pictures and videos for prove? Thanks
> 
> 
> With current engine it is in the middle of F-22 and F-35 but with a WS-15 will be on the par with F-22 or even better


could you elaborate more about its capabilities in comparison to F 22 and F 35 ?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Blabla said:


> could you elaborate more about its capabilities in comparison to F 22 and F 35 ?


In short J-20 intended for air superiority and air defense with a secondary air to ground capabilities just like F-22 and its general performance is almost similar to F-22 with WS-15, F-35 *"JSF"* and J-31 is more intended for strike, air to ground and multi role operations


----------



## C130

does the J-20 internal weapons hold 4 or 6 BVR missiles??

and do you all think China missed it's chance to carry 4 WVR instead of 2 like the F-22 and F-35?? like 2 in each side bay?


----------



## Beast

C130 said:


> does the J-20 internal weapons hold 4 or 6 BVR missiles??
> 
> and do you all think China missed it's chance to carry 4 WVR instead of 2 like the F-22 and F-35?? like 2 in each side bay?


Stealth fighter is meant to avoid dogfight. Carrying more BVRAAM is more important.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

Beast said:


> Stealth fighter is meant to avoid dogfight. Carrying more BVRAAM is more important.



the more missiles the better. so does the J-20 carry 4 or 6 BVR? 

and having more WVR isn't bad either. It's not like stealth aircraft will never get within visual range at least 30KM of a target, especially if it's flanking unsuspecting target.


----------



## S10

C130 said:


> does the J-20 internal weapons hold 4 or 6 BVR missiles??
> 
> and do you all think China missed it's chance to carry 4 WVR instead of 2 like the F-22 and F-35?? like 2 in each side bay?


4 + 2, Chinese missiles are a bit larger in size given the same performance, requiring larger electronic components and fuel compartment. The next BVR missile program after PL-12 will probably allow it to fit 6.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

An interesting observation made by a member ("taxiya") concerning some construction activities at CAC


2015-02-11





2015-05-02




2015-12-26





Not sure if this is indeed related to the LRIP of J-20, but it would fit that these larger hangers are for the new the production J-20s.

Deino

By the way ... I still want to see the next J-20 !!!


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


>




Huuu ?? .. that image does not show and even more "meyet.com" is down via my PC since weeks.

Could You please upload it here?


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Huuu ?? .. that image does not show and even more "meyet.com" is down via my PC since weeks.
> 
> Could You please upload it here?


Just checked, it is working on my end, here is the link http://bbs.meyet.com/thread-239560-4858-1.html
Instruction to upload?


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Just checked, it is working on my end, here is the link http://bbs.meyet.com/thread-239560-4858-1.html
> Instruction to upload?




Again, that link is dead at least from my end, but if You want to upload a file - like an image - just click on this button ... and follow the instructions.

IMO it's an easy way to keep images even if the link is no longer available or the file has been removed from the hot-linked site.


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> View attachment 302974




Thanks ... but '2102' is a fake ... sadly but 100% for sure: Just look ...


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Thanks ... but '2102' is a fake ... sadly but 100% for sure: Just look ...
> View attachment 302975


I agree two planes in your picture are the same plane. But has anyone noticed that there are two differences between the 2 yellow birds on my picture: the first one has two big black dots on the air intake area, the second has three, two big one small; the first one has an vertical black stripe on the tale, but none on the second.


----------



## The Eagle

Tiqiu said:


> I agree two planes in your picture are the same plane. But has anyone noticed that there are two differences between the 2 yellow birds on my picture: the first one has two big black dots on the air intake area, the second has three, two big one small; the first one has an vertical black stripe on the tale, but none on the second.



Strip is visible on both planes though three or two dots (Sensors) could be discussed/said as difference between 2101 & 2102 PICS. 

BTW, thanks for the pic.


----------



## Deino

If I remember correctly, this image of 2101 in this collage is a very early image ... all later ones show clearly these three "dots" also on 2101.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 果壳军事

Information we have:

The fighters were having their coatings painted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

果壳军事 said:


> Information we have:
> 
> The fighters were having their coatings painted




Sorry to ask .. but that means, '2101' has been painted now ... and what about the next aircrafts ??

Is there a reason, why since now more than four months nothing new appeared ? Is this doe to tighter security around CAC or within the internet or simply since the J-20 is no longer that interesting for the spotters ?

But it is for me ... 

Deino


----------



## 果壳军事

Deino said:


> Sorry to ask .. but that means, '2101' has been painted now ... and what about the next aircrafts ??
> 
> Is there a reason, why since now more than four months nothing new appeared ? Is this doe to tighter security around CAC or within the internet or simply since the J-20 is no longer that interesting for the spotters ?
> 
> But it is for me ...
> 
> Deino


 
Information we have:

LRIP J-20s are probably the first fighters to use low visibility PLAAF emblem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Nice ... but any idea, why this complete hiatus in new images, new PRIP-types or even information`?


----------



## saharmohamedali

Martian2 said:


> Terrific video of J-20 Mighty Dragon take-off!
> 
> The trees were in the way, but the launch time was 15 or 16 seconds (according to my stopwatch).


----------



## Deino

果壳军事 said:


> Information we have:
> 
> LRIP J-20s are probably the first fighters to use low visibility PLAAF emblem.




Hopefully similar to this one !?








But why are there no recent images ???


----------



## Deino

Not sure how recent this image is ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Hopefully similar to this one !?
> 
> View attachment 304158
> 
> 
> 
> But why are there no recent images ???


i like this camo but i think its camo like a F-22 camo in production variant of J-20


Deino said:


> Not sure how recent this image is ...
> 
> View attachment 304343


i think its a 2017


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> i think its a 2017




Yes ... as written in the image's title ... but I do not know, when that image was taken ?


----------



## cirr

Hello F-22、F-35 and the likes






*JL3D-91B* 3-D VHF radar possessing special anti-jamming, anti-ARM and anti-stealth ability.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## BoQ77

cirr said:


> Hello F-22、F-35 and the likes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *JL3D-91B* 3-D VHF radar possessing special anti-jamming, anti-ARM and anti-stealth ability.



APY9 resolved the issue of weapon guide quality.


----------



## The Eagle

cirr said:


> Hello F-22、F-35 and the likes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *JL3D-91B* 3-D VHF radar possessing special anti-jamming, anti-ARM and anti-stealth ability.



Translated script please... Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GS Zhou

The Eagle said:


> Translated script please... Thanks in advance.



Translation for you: 
JL3D-91B is used to detect the position, distance and height of the 4th generation (FYI: China calls F22 alike as 4th generation; F16/F18 alike as 3rd generation) or conventional fighters. It owns good capabilities to detect stealth fighters and anti ARM missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

cnleio said:


> View attachment 305667
> View attachment 305668



plz explain little bit about this pic ....


----------



## Deino

A Russian Tu-204C was acquired and converted to act as an avionics flying lab for the J-20 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

HRK said:


> plz explain little bit about this pic ....


Test platform used to evaluate J-20's AESA radar. Look how they modified the nose of the plane to resemble that of J-20's.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

S10 said:


> Test platform used to evaluate J-20's AESA radar. Look how they modified the nose of the plane to resemble that of J-20's.



Any particular reason they added an extra pair of wings just above the cockpit & a bulge just behind the front door ... ??


----------



## Akasa

HRK said:


> Any particular reason they added an extra pair of wings just above the cockpit & a bulge just behind the front door ... ??



The canards are probably used to test those aboard the J-10 or J-20.

The bulge is an array or sensor that was also seen on the wing edge of the J-10C.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

I know again my impatience and as such I admit, right now it's boooooring, so much booooooring ... but also interesting.

The question spinning my head since some tome is *WHY* this hiatus in any news ??

- Is there a new political order given to keep these top projects under a stricter veil of secrecy and these wall climbers obey after some internal warnings?
- Is there simply nothing to report? No new J-10B/Cs or any new LRIP J-20, nothing on the J-16, J-15 batch 02 .... and if yes, why ?
- has something happened? An accident, mishap, maybe even a crash? ... but that would not explain the "nothing" on all projects.
- are they waiting for a certain date? ... maybe the service introduction and roll out of about 4-8 J-20s fully marked in PLAAF-colours ready for delivery .... I don't know.

Any other ideas ?

Deino


----------



## hk299792458

HRK said:


> Any particular reason they added an extra pair of wings just above the cockpit & a bulge just behind the front door ... ??









Henri K.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
12


----------



## cnleio

HRK said:


> plz explain little bit about this pic ....


Test platform for J-20 development including radar and avionics system.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

*Second radar cross-section test range identified in China*
*Sean O'Connor, Indianapolis* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
24 May 2016






*Key Points*

Airbus Defence and Space imagery captured in 2016 shows a new radar cross-section test range in China
A J-20 full-scale test article is present at the new test range, with apparent design changes suggesting either a new powerplant installation or a new aircraft variant under evaluation
_IHS Jane's_ recently identified a radar cross-section (RCS) test complex in China. Airbus Defence and Space imagery captured on 24 April shows a recently completed test range northeast of Dingxin Airbase (AB) - the second new test site to be identified in the East Asian nation. The first one is located southwest of Beijing near Gaobeidian. A third possible site, predating the new complexes, is situated near Luoyang.

The location near Dingxin AB is well suited for a signature evaluation complex, with flat terrain and a lack of man-made or natural obstructions near the facility. Additionally, the configuration of the J-20 full-scale RCS test article present suggests design changes may be forthcoming to China's fifth-generation stealth fighter.

Along with the Gaobeidian RCS complex, the Dingxin RCS complex illustrates China's increasing attention to low-RCS aircraft design. The Dingxin RCS complex was constructed after the Gaobeidian site, which was built in the 2009 timeframe - perhaps in an effort to establish an RCS test range in a more secure location.

http://www.janes.com/article/60583/second-radar-cross-section-test-range-identified-in-china

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

2103

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Eagle

News after a while.... Hope to see some fresh pics and info w.r.t engine as well. Good going China.... Keep up the good work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2103





But again .... I want images, now and full-size, high-resolution !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yantong1980

Deino said:


> But again .... I want images, now and full-size, high-resolution !!



Same here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Not saying anything affirmative. Your guess is as good as mine. No. 13 rolled out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

J-20 appears for the first time taking place in a war game on China Central Television . In Today's CCTV -4 news covering an air combat exercise by China Southern Theater Command Air Force, one J-20 flies aside with a J-10.

Watch from 00.55 from the following footage.
http://tv.cntv.cn/video/C10336/f60b5c7575994e12b0d5ff05d33b2600






Someone said the first batch is 18.

For J-20's development, the most important node is Taiwan's new president election.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tipu7

There are still so many things to be known about J20.....
Till now, its a mystery plane

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> Not saying anything affirmative. Your guess is as good as mine. No. 13 rolled out.
> 
> View attachment 307061




IMO a bit unlikely that after 2103 - and even this one unconfirmed - already 2113 would be spotted ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

Has it been officially inducted and if yes then how many?


----------



## Beast

Tipu7 said:


> There are still so many things to be known about J20.....
> Till now, its a mystery plane


That is Chinese style. We do things differently from Western and Indian. They like to brag and let foes know too many of their things.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mav3rick

Beast said:


> That is Chinese style. We do things differently from Western and Indian. They like to brag and let foes know too many of their things.



That is largely an Indian trait, even the west keep many things under wraps.

By now, the Indians have literally wiped out PAF with IAF Rafael Squadrons and you can take it from there on.


----------



## Beast

Mav3rick said:


> That is largely an Indian trait, even the west keep many things under wraps.



The western are no better.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> J-20 appears for the first time taking place in a war game on China Central Television . In Today's CCTV -4 news covering an air combat exercise by China Southern Theater Command Air Force, one J-20 flies aside with a J-10.
> 
> Watch from 00.55 from the following footage.
> http://tv.cntv.cn/video/C10336/f60b5c7575994e12b0d5ff05d33b2600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone said the first batch is 18.
> 
> For J-20's development, the most important node is Taiwan's new president election.




I do not want again to play the devil's advocate, but as far as I remember these few seconds are showing the J-20 during its maiden flight side by side with that famous J-10AS chase plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dy1022

Deino said:


> I do not want again to play the devil's advocate, but as far as I remember these few seconds are showing the J-20 during its maiden flight side by side with that famous J-10AS chase plane.





yes it is, you are right


----------



## siegecrossbow

There is literally no proof for the OP's claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> IMO a bit unlikely that after 2103 - and even this one unconfirmed - already 2113 would be spotted ...



I will throw a grain of salt on this rumour, but if this is true than I would intepret N0.13 as the 3rd aircraft for PLAAF service, i.e. No. 2103, and not as the 13th aircraft. No.13 is not 13th, as No.2103 is not 2103th, funny way of reading the message. LOL.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> I do not want again to play the devil's advocate, but as far as I remember these few seconds are showing the J-20 during its maiden flight side by side with that famous J-10AS chase plane.


Yes,you are totally right it is the footage of its maiden flight. However, this is the first time that this footage is appeared in that CCTV International Channel (targeting overseas audience) in the news piece about how the most elite air division of China Southern Theater Command, whose main duty is to deal with Taiwan crisis.

If people who spend time to watch the footage and understand what it says, then perhaps you could place your emphasis more on the whole context instead of the image itself. My conclusion was made, not solely on that J-20 footage, but by the fact that its was shown in that news for the following reasons:
1) CCTV is a very strict government organization, any news is subject to tight scrutiny, let alone these types of news about Chinese elite air division exercising breaking the first island chain and new battle capabilities;
2) The editors want to imply that J-20 is already arrived in this division by showing this maiden flight footage because the production vision is still top secret.
3) There were news months ago that China air force completed its polite training facility for the special "seed division";
4) There was a blog news months ago letting people to remember and celebrate a day as the most important day in the China Air force history;
5) J-20 has to be in service before 5.20 (Taiwan election) and 2016 year end (F-35 in Japan). These are the main nodes in its development.

I could be wrong in my reasoning, but that is all what we could do in relation to this top secret project.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xunzi

Deino said:


> I know again my impatience and as such I admit, right now it's boooooring, so much booooooring ... but also interesting.
> 
> The question spinning my head since some tome is *WHY* this hiatus in any news ??
> 
> - Is there a new political order given to keep these top projects under a stricter veil of secrecy and these wall climbers obey after some internal warnings?
> - Is there simply nothing to report? No new J-10B/Cs or any new LRIP J-20, nothing on the J-16, J-15 batch 02 .... and if yes, why ?
> - has something happened? An accident, mishap, maybe even a crash? ... but that would not explain the "nothing" on all projects.
> - are they waiting for a certain date? ... maybe the service introduction and roll out of about 4-8 J-20s fully marked in PLAAF-colours ready for delivery .... I don't know.
> 
> Any other ideas ?
> 
> Deino


Crackdown order. PLA is training more at night. In remote location. Difficult to spot anything new. Plain simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

xunzi said:


> Crackdown order. PLA is training more at night. In remote location. Difficult to spot anything new. Plain simple.




But that could be only half of the explanation: For the regular training this might be indeed the reason, but given how visibly-accessible CAC is for spotters it is - at least IMO - not an explanation for the complete hiatus in new images of any new LRIP-J-20A; or do they also make their maiden flights and test sorties only at night. I don't think so.

Deino


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> But that could be only half of the explanation: For the regular training this might be indeed the reason, but given how visibly-accessible CAC is for spotters it is - at least IMO - not an explanation for the complete hiatus in new images of any new LRIP-J-20A; or do they also make their maiden flights and test sorties only at night. I don't think so.
> 
> Deino



Relax; it took three months for the J-10B prototype photographs to appear and four months for the Sharp Sword pictures to do the same.


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> Relax; it took three months for the J-10B prototype photographs to appear and four months for the Sharp Sword pictures to do the same.



I think You already know my impatience quite well  ... and no, I do not want to wait especially since these are not the first images of a new type or version, but simply new images of new aircraft ...

Sometimes I indeed have that feeling, the PLAAF is secretly waiting or working up for a special event .... and then: Boooom, there is a row of 5 J-20A posted during their hand-over ceremony ...

Maybe on 1. August !???


----------



## Blue Marlin

Deino said:


> I think You already know my impatience quite well  ... and no, I do not want to wait especially since these are not the first images of a new type or version, but simply new images of new aircraft ...
> 
> Sometimes I indeed have that feeling, the PLAAF is secretly waiting or working up for a special event .... and then: Boooom, there is a row of 5 J-20A posted during their hand-over ceremony ...
> 
> Maybe on 1. August !???







time will come i dont think they send out pics justfor you. i am waiting more in particular for the j31-v2


----------



## Tiqiu

Some in Chinese forum think this maybe a navy vision of J-20, or even an enlarged- J31 based on the comparison to the early satellite photo of J-20 RCS test. Some even said it is a new single-engine plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Yesterday China Air Force made an announcement at its official Weibo account: J-20 is not yet in service, but In a foreseeable future (在不久的将来), J-20 and Y-20 will enter China Air Force.
http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2016_06_01_362440.shtml

This will lead to next question: what does it mean by a foreseeable future (在不久的将来)?

Let's look at some timeline about J10 and the government announcement about is deployment.

1998: J10 prototype maiden flight
2002: First production vision of J10 conducted fly test
2004: J10 was equipped to Chinese Air Force Chengdu Division
2006,12,29: CCTV for the first time covered J10 publicly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Eagle

Tiqiu said:


> Some in Chinese forum think this maybe a navy vision of J-20, or even an enlarged- J31 based on the comparison to the early satellite photo of J-20 RCS test. Some even said it is a new single-engine plane.
> 
> View attachment 308169



New single engine, then probably hints about something like J-10D... Isn't it?


----------



## Akasa

The Eagle said:


> New single engine, then probably hints about something like J-10D... Isn't it?



Unlikely; a Janes imagery analyst who has access to higher-resolution photographs claims that the model has two engines. Furthermore, the RCS model measures almost exactly as the J-20 in terms of dimensions, ruling out a J-10 variant.


----------



## mehboobkz

China says first stealth fighter J-20 not yet in service, but coming soon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Some in Chinese forum think this maybe a navy vision of J-20, or even an enlarged- J31 based on the comparison to the early satellite photo of J-20 RCS test. Some even said it is a new single-engine plane.
> 
> View attachment 308169



Nice, I did a similar comparison a few days ago ... but I also don't have a solution to this mystery:






In consequence I only have these "theories" ....


1. a random RCS-experiment on a design loosely resembling the J-20 ... but WHY ?

2. indeed a modified J-20 maybe related to the final engine WS-15, a naval-version or whatever .... but since that type must be designed with the WS-15 in mind, I can't imagine requiring it such extensive modifications on the wing-patform to fit them??

3. what if this is a RCS model hidden under a tarpaulin and assisted by certain structures to make it look different ? ... but this won't explain the shortened tails.

As such, I don't have any idea.




Deino


----------



## Tiqiu

The Eagle said:


> New single engine, then probably hints about something like J-10D... Isn't it?


The trailing edges of the delta wing are forward-swept, so j-10 can be ruled out I think

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Tiqiu said:


> Some in Chinese forum think this maybe a navy vision of J-20, or even an enlarged- J31 based on the comparison to the early satellite photo of J-20 RCS test. Some even said it is a new single-engine plane.
> 
> View attachment 308169



I think it's an RCS model of J-20 with tailbooms and vertical stabilizers removed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Nice, I did a similar comparison a few days ago ... but I also don't have a solution to this mystery:
> 
> View attachment 308185
> 
> 
> In consequence I only have these "theories" ....
> 
> 
> 1. a random RCS-experiment on a design loosely resembling the J-20 ... but WHY ?
> 
> 2. indeed a modified J-20 maybe related to the final engine WS-15, a naval-version or whatever .... but since that type must be designed with the WS-15 in mind, I can't imagine requiring it such extensive modifications on the wing-patform to fit them??
> 
> 3. what if this is a RCS model hidden under a tarpaulin and assisted by certain structures to make it look different ? ... but this won't explain the shortened tails.
> 
> As such, I don't have any idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deino



The below diagram is said to be the modified vision of J-20 appeared on the net 5 years ago. It shows the delta wing on the modified vision is more closer to the canard wing compared to the prototype on the right. Those CRS satellite photos seem to resemble this.


----------



## Tiqiu

@Deino 
Can you combine this thread to the J-20 thread? I should have posted there in the first place. My bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/chin...er-not-yet-in-service-but-coming-soon-1414257

*Beijing: *
Highlights

China says it is still testing the J-20 but it will enter service soon
China expects the warplane to help narrow the military gap with the US
However, experts say China is struggling to develop advanced engines
China is still testing its first stealth fighter, the J-20, but the warplane will soon enter service, the air force said, after pictures circulated in Chinese media suggesting it had already joined the active fleet.

China expects the J-20 to help narrow the military gap with the United States, and its confirmation of the aircraft's first test flight coincided with a visit to Beijing in 2011 by then-U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Some analysts have said J-20 photographs suggest China may be making faster-than-expected progress in developing a rival to Lockheed Martin's radar-evading F-22 Raptor.

In a statement, China's air force described as "unreliable" reports that the J-20 had appeared in training exercises, following a weekend state television broadcast that showed grainy pictures of what some viewers took to be the aircraft.

"At present, the J-20 has yet to be equipped for air force service," the air force said on its official microblog late on Tuesday afternoon.

Both the J-20, and another new aircraft, the Y-20 transporter, are still being test flown as planned, the air force said.

"In the near future, the J-20 and Y-20 will, in succession, be equipped for service, effectively raising the air force's ability to fulfil its mission," it added, without giving a timeframe.

However, experts say China is struggling to develop advanced engines that would allow its warplanes to match Western fighters in combat.

China has rapidly been ramping up research into advanced new military equipment, including submarines, aircraft carriers and anti-satellite missiles, which has rattled nerves regionally and in Washington.

There is nothing unusual about developing new technology, which every country does if it wants a modern military, China's air force said in its statement.

"In recent years, China has mostly been relying on its own strength to develop new armaments, one after another," it added.

"This is a completely reasonable requirement to protect the country's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and protect the nation's security developments. It is a necessary guarantee of effecting peaceful development."

© Thomson Reuters 2016

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

J-20 would have some significant changes in appearance ? in near future ?
then it's too early to talk about "in service" 
you guys burn up some steps.


----------



## Deino

BoQ77 said:


> J-20 would have some significant changes in appearance ? in near future ?
> then it's too early to talk about "in service"
> you guys burn up some steps.



Why ??? ... following all reports we have it will be in service soon. Maybe already this year within a test-regiment assigned to the FTTC. That surely does not mean FOC at a frontline unit - but hey, also the USMC needed some time to bring its F-35 from IAC to that ... - and even if it will be an interim version only not powered by the definitive engine (that was also clear since the beginning) the J-20 will surely have a significant impact.

Not sure why You again want to throw mud ?

Deino


----------



## BoQ77

Deino said:


> Why ??? ... following all reports we have it will be in service soon. Maybe already this year within a test-regiment assigned to the FTTC. That surely does not mean FOC at a frontline unit - but hey, also the USMC needed some time to bring its F-35 from IAC to that ... - and even if it will be an interim version only not powered by the definitive engine (that was also clear since the beginning) the J-20 will surely have a significant impact.
> 
> Not sure why You again want to throw mud ?
> 
> Deino



You are bitter to me, actually I'm expecting the deployable J-20 as early as they can.
to you, IOC for first squadron could be in 2017, 2018, 2019 or later?

Am I wrong to say there'll be significant change in appearance of J-20 afterall ?

What's "in service" meaning ( equal FOC ) ? as we both noticed that there's recently the thread of "J-20 in service" or "in service in near future"


----------



## dingyibvs

I think most people here mean that J-20 has been turned over to the military and will achieve IOC soon. FOC is probably still a couple years away.


----------



## hk299792458

Chinese army doesn't use the notion of IOC and FOC. There is conception certification (设计定型) before produdction certification (生产定型).

For me it is meaningless to use western notion to qualify chinese weapon development process.

You can learn more about this standardized process here (using an example of missile development) :

http://jpkc.nwpu.edu.cn/jp2005/02/wljx/wlkc/ztsj/ztwk/zt01/1-2.htm



> 结合国内有关军标的相关规定,把横向的制造过程重新细分为六个阶段:论证阶段、方案阶段、工程研制、设计定型、生产工艺定型、生产阶段。



If I'm not wrong, for navy weapon the conception certification and production certification are inversed.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

http://www.weibo.com/u/3726727615?refer_flag=0000015012_&from=feed&loc=nickname&is_hot=1#_loginLayer_1465365758470

进击的女武神
我听说也快了，不过不是大批量装备，而是类似于当年F22那样，先小批量试验性装备，边培养人才，边根据试验中发现的问题进行改进。我不懂空军，胡咧咧。【头条 | 外媒：中国空军否认“歼-20已入役” 但表示“快了”】

Baidu translation: I heard that it is fast, but not a lot of equipment, but similar to the year F22, the first small batch test equipment, training personnel, while according to the problems found in the test to improve. I don't know the air force, Hu lielie. Foreign media: Chinese | headlines [air force denied "f -20 has been put into service" but said "soon"]






进击的女武神: China Rockets Force Professor.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Three J-20s side by side ...


----------



## Deino

By the way ... did You notice, how effective the Chinese stealth technology already is ?

There's a fourth J-20 and this one between the two light-grey/silver ones is barely visible: Only a small faded, blurred "bit of nearly nothing" ! 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> By the way ... did You notice, how effective the Chinese stealth technology already is ?
> 
> There's a fourth J-20 and this one between the two light-grey/silver ones is barely visible: Only a small faded, blurred "bit of nearly nothing" !
> 
> Deino


Now I know how stealth plane drills oil.


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> By the way ... did You notice, how effective the Chinese stealth technology already is ?
> 
> There's a fourth J-20 and this one between the two light-grey/silver ones is barely visible: Only a small faded, blurred "bit of nearly nothing" !
> 
> Deino


2113?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

It is much bigger than the J-10.


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is much bigger than the J-10.



Sorry, but was this ever questioned ?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Sorry, but was this ever questioned ?



I didn't intend to answer anybody's question.


----------



## cirr

WS-15 being put through various tests, going extremely well.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Michael Corleone

So when is this jet finally coming out for production?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Mohammed Khaled said:


> So when is this jet finally coming out for production?



Later this year or early next year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

cirr said:


> WS-15 being put through various tests, going extremely well.



Any idea when it will be put into the J-20 for flight testing?


----------



## cirr

UKBengali said:


> Any idea when it will be put into the J-20 for flight testing?



The optimists say this year I being a pessimist will go for next year.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Via "superdog" at the SDF:




superdog said:


> An interesting interview with Xu Yongling, Chief test pilot of the J-10, regarding J-20 and various other questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of the interview:
> 
> J-20 (the model name) is no longer classified so he can publicly discuss it.
> He said he's not in the test flight team of any new models, and he's not going to comment about the specific technologies, but he can provide time-frame analysis on J-20's development using his own methods (he claims that his past estimates were very accurate).
> 
> He believes that J-20 is an airplane for mass deployment (instead of limited deployment), there should be at least 100+
> He expects the J-20 to be delivered to the PLAAF within next year.
> 
> PLAAF will be very wary about the IOC timeframe because this will be a mass deployment
> There won't be any major technical obstacles (delays) for the J-20 towards delivery. China's plane development cycle has been comparable to the US or Russia since the J-10, because they went through full learning cycle from building older generation jets. (Here he used Tejas as a counter example)
> 
> There will still be minor issue (issues that does not affect delivery) to sort out. The most problematic area is probably in information integration. It will take a lot of trial and error to figure out how this can be done effectively.
> 
> Someone asked: it's information integration, but not engine? Xu said the problem of engine is not a "heart disease", it is not fatal, but rather a chronic problem/limiting factor to improve on. He said "diabetes" should be a better metaphor.
> The diabetes can only be cured by next generation engines, based on what's learned from Kunlun and Taihang. He believe all bottlenecks will eventually be overcome.
> He said the most important factor for solving the engine problem is human. China lacked a team that has failed and then succeeded, there are only people who failed and then partially succeeded. They must invest heavily into building a mature R&D team. Hiring outside talents will also help but eventually it is essential to have your own team.
> 
> In talking about Su-35: Su-35 purchase is to satisfy immediate needs. Tech wise China could mainly learn from its flight control, especially its "low-speed all-situation super maneuverability" which is the only example in the world. It also achieved this maneuverability without canards, something that China is unable to achieve today.
> 
> The deal on Su-35 depends on the political situation between China/Russia/US. In addition, China is not going to buy a lot but wants to get it in a hurry, so it has very little bargaining power as a buyer. As a result of these complicating factors, whether the deal can go through is highly uncertain, it could happen next month or it could keep dragging on, or it may never go through.
> He also commented on the restart of F-22 manufacturing. He said the US doesn't have much options because 6th gen fighters are still very far away, people still don't have any concrete ideas about what it should be. In the near future 5th gen fighters will continue to play a major role. The F-35, in his opinion, is too chubby looking and not good enough to compete.
> 
> But it will be very very expensive to restart F-22 manufacturing, it cost a lot to get all the tooling and people back together, not to mention there's a very long supply chain. There will also be political backlash as this would be like a slap to the face for those who shut down F-22 manufacturing back in the days.
> About China's carrier-borne fighters, he said it depends on whether there will be 2 carriers or 4. If there are only 2 then J-15 will be the only answer. It will be too expensive to develop a new model for such small deployment numbers. However if there will be 4 carriers, then it will make sense to have a new model on the next 3 carriers. About 80-100 fighters will justify the cost of development.
> 
> He estimate that even if there will be 4 carriers, they will be moderately enlarged versions of the Liaoning, as it might be too expensive to develop 100k ton carriers with vastly different system of operation. But as long as there will be 4 (or more) carriers, we could expect to see carrier-borne fighters with 4th gen (5th gen) characteristics.
> 
> Can the future carrier borne fighter be based on the J-20 or J- 31? He said the position of carrier in the military is important but not absolutely at the core, so it must balance between combat-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. He believe it is possible to base it on current prototypes, and in his opinion the J-31 is the more likely choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1817313-1-1.html







Is this legit? Keep in mind that the photographer took this at CAIC (or technically the official CAIC model store).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Fold wing J-20? Hmmmm...,


----------



## nang2

siegecrossbow said:


> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1817313-1-1.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this legit? Keep in mind that the photographer took this at CAIC (or technically the official CAIC model store).


Too heavy. Need catapult.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

siegecrossbow said:


> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1817313-1-1.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this legit? Keep in mind that the photographer took this at CAIC (or technically the official CAIC model store).


Of course not

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

nang2 said:


> Too heavy. Need catapult.


Flanker is heavy too but.....


----------



## lcloo

siegecrossbow said:


> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1817313-1-1.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this legit? Keep in mind that the photographer took this at CAIC (or technically the official CAIC model store).



Newspaper cutting!! Not legit. However, this does not rule out navalized J-20 being under evaluation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UniverseWatcher

Chinese web website war.163.com says in Its report on June 16 That recently, a Chinese user posted the above photo of the test of J-20's stealth function in an indescribable test site in Dingxin Desert, Northwest China.

On the other hand IHS posted below two satellite photos of the radar cross section (RCS) test on J-20's stealth function in Jiuquan, China.


----------



## siegecrossbow

DjSmg said:


> View attachment 311490
> View attachment 311491
> 
> 
> Chinese web website war.163.com says in Its report on June 16 That recently, a Chinese user posted the above photo of the test of J-20's stealth function in an indescribable test site in Dingxin Desert, Northwest China.
> 
> On the other hand IHS posted below two satellite photos of the radar cross section (RCS) test on J-20's stealth function in Jiuquan, China.



Pretty sure that this is the "naval J-20" satellite image that made rounds on the forum several weeks back.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Is this a recent photo or an older one ???

via http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1818073-1-1.html


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Is this a recent photo or an older one ???
> 
> via http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1818073-1-1.html
> 
> View attachment 312999


These are 2013 and 2015

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> These are 2013 and 2015




Thanks ... so they fit to the series of images we got between January and February 2015.
What a pity, but I already had that feeling.

Dein


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Is this a recent photo or an older one ???
> 
> via http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1818073-1-1.html
> 
> View attachment 312999



Taken last year, I think.


----------



## Ultima Thule

indno said:


> *How many* Chengdu J-20 does Chinese airforce have


it is in development stages and not inducted by PLAAF


----------



## Deino

indno said:


> When will Chinese air force get FC-31 stealth fighter




First of all HELLO on board, but please do also a bit of research since there are several individual threads for different topics.

Only asking questions that can easily be answered by yourself after a bit reading around especially off-topic is not helpful.

Otherwise enjoy Your time here ...and welcome again,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

indno said:


> When will Chinese air force get FC-31 stealth fighter


IOC will achieve by 2022-23 and remember its Shenyang private project not finance by Chinese govt


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> IOC will achieve by 2022-23 and remember its Shenyang private project not finance by Chinese govt




But that's pure guesswork !

How can You be sure that it *WILL* if it is not even a PLAAF-baked (at least officially) project ? ... but please continue this in the own thread.

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> But that's pure guesswork !
> 
> How can You be sure that it *WILL* if it is not even a PLAAF-baked (at least officially) project ? ... but please continue this in the own thread.
> 
> Deino


Ok sir


----------



## Brainsucker

indno said:


> Why does China want 1000 Y20 large transport planes. Y20 is similar to C-17 of US air force.



Indno, this is a thread to discuss J-20. Not Y20, not FC31, etc. You should search the thread for Y20 or FC31 to the topic that you want to discuss


----------



## UniverseWatcher

*Chinese aircraft carrier catapult delivered to navy in 2020 and J-20 carrier aircraft remains a mystery*




Chinese-made J-20 is a twin-engine stealth heavy fourth-generation fighter, the J-20 aircraft will become one of the main Chinese Air Force combat aircraft. But the current state of the J-20 aircraft clearly does not meet the requirements of carrier aircraft, if you want to develop the J-20 carrier-based aircraft, you also need to make some appropriate changes, from the successful development of some way to go yet.

Chinese Navy J-20 carrier-based demand in number compared with the Chinese Air Force’s needs and does not take advantage of the Chinese Air Force fixed-wing aircraft development has always been a large enterprise customers. Of course, the needs and importance of such national strategies aircraft engineering and general commercial transactions sense there is a big difference, this issue will be the headquarters for coordination.

Now fear is that the J-20 carrier-based development progress, after all, the J-20 carrier-based changes larger, procedures and time required to go will be more able to be developed simultaneously with the aircraft carrier catapult might there are some variables.

When asked for some, the Internet has been the emergence of an alleged F-15 carrier-based aircraft catapult takeoff and to be modified photographs showing front landing gear to accommodate increased catapult hook and down the retraction actuator. As the photo is vague, reflecting the details are not clear, its authenticity is very suspicious. Compared with a typical carrier-based aircraft, the F-15 forward fuselage is too long, but after the front landing gear installation and rely on, together with greater height, to cope with the violent impact when landing, the aircraft nose landing gear structure of pay increase considerable weight, compared to catapult modified pay structure will be less weight gain.

It was calculated that the current J-15 modified to catapult to strengthen the landing gear, you may want to weight 300 kg. This strict control of the empty weight of the J-15, it is not good news. However with a view of the F-15 can be converted into a catapult after further weight loss, because the original order to improve the performance of low-speed flight flying leaps slippery designed lift devices, such as the J-15 canard, etc., it is possible in the catapult take-off mode cancel. Thus comparing calculated by the modified F -15 weight can be controlled at 200 kg. When asked for some, the Internet has been the emergence of an alleged F-15 carrier-based aircraft catapult takeoff and to be modified photos, so some people do have a judgment J-15 loaded catapult take-off “program.” Catapult take-off can be further increased takeoff weight fully loaded F -15, -15 F thereby increasing fuel loads and the ability to mount weapons, which has a very large significance for the F-15 aircraft carrier battle groups to enhance their performance.

From these photos can interpret at least the two, one is the development of China’s own aircraft carrier catapult system development schedule is ideal; the other is the Chinese navy is developing the F-15 carrier aircraft catapult type. It seems that Chinese Navy carrier-based fighter aircraft developed four generations of progress there are some concerns, and the development of the J-15 type aircraft catapult either as a backup means, and will not appear embarrassment catapult-type aircraft carrier aircraft It can also be directly used J-15 type aircraft carrier catapult to the top when you shipborne capacity insufficient number of four generations of machines, formed as a transitional model aircraft carrier battle group’s combat effectiveness.

According to Chinese naval weapons and equipment, “the construction of generation, design generation, pre-research generation” usual practice, the aircraft carrier catapult type should have been in the design, construction started in a few years can be expected in 2020, a later time can be delivered to the Chinese Navy China’s fourth-generation carrier-based fighter development time must be less than this time period in order to reach a harmonious development of aircraft carriers with catapults. In addition, there is a possibility that the Chinese navy is also currently while developing stealth fighter drones, after all, Chinese UAV technology has been at the forefront of the world.

But things are developing, and the process of development there will be variable, just as people did not expect China will build a naval aircraft carrier 001A as the J-20 carrier-based aircraft can be synchronized with the Chinese Navy aircraft carrier catapult development or halfway also there are some variables.


----------



## cirr

At least four J-20s showed up today, with one seen flying midair.

Also hordes of J-10Cs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> At least four J-20s showed up today, with one seen flying midair.
> 
> Also hordes of J-10Cs.



Nice ... Were they spotted at xian cfte or at Chengdu?


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Nice ... Were they spotted at xian cfte or at Chengdu?


Chengdu

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> At least four J-20s showed up today, with one seen flying midair.
> 
> Also hordes of J-10Cs.




... and in mind of the 95th anniversary of the CCP's foundation, this image posted could maybe be the first J-20A handed over to the PLAAF ??!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> ... and in mind of the 95th anniversary of the CCP's foundation, this image posted could maybe be the first J-20A handed over to the PLAAF ??!!
> 
> View attachment 315180


Looks like it. Now, PLAAF has a new toy to play. They will be busy figuring out what to do with it.


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> ... and in mind of the 95th anniversary of the CCP's foundation, this image posted could maybe be the first J-20A handed over to the PLAAF ??!!
> 
> View attachment 315180




No one of our "big Shrimps" with additional info ... or even more images ???

Until then this very nice but IMO older image of 2016 !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Concerning these four LRIP-J-20As .. are there any hints what kind of serials they wear ?


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Concerning these four LRIP-J-20As .. are there any hints what kind of serials they wear ?



03.07.2016 3pm

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 星海军事



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
10


----------



## nang2

星海军事 said:


>


the new low visibility signs look so cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Here in full size ....

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

This certainly is a great year for China, out of the three 20-20-20, J20 and Y20 are entering service this year. This left Z20 to be watched. 

Congratulation to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

Any info on what serials or if any they carry !??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Any info on what serials or if any they carry !??
> 
> View attachment 315526


Notice the engine nozzle....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Any info on what serials or if any they carry !??
> 
> View attachment 315526


The serials have not been painted yet

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Notice the engine nozzle....




Yes ... As expected and like on 2016 & 2017 and all others AL-31FN series 3 with silver nozzle coating !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Is this the first J-20 image we've gotten since February?


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Yes ... As expected and like on 2016 & 2017 and all others AL-31FN series 3 with silver nozzle coating !
> 
> View attachment 315529



Its not AL-31 but WS-10A.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Is this the first J-20 image we've gotten since February?



Yes indeed ... and it would be interesting to know not only what bird this is but also how many more are build since then.




Beast said:


> Its not AL-31 but WS-10A.




I know we can continue our discussion to death similar to the one in the J-10-thread, but surely not. We haven't seen a single J-20 with not even one WS-10 all these years, so it is close to impossible that the first serials birds will surprisingly use them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Yes indeed ... and it would be interesting to know not only what bird this is but also how many more are build since then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know we can continue our discussion to death similar to the one in the J-10-thread, but surely not. We haven't seen a single J-20 with not even one WS-10 all these years, so it is close to impossible that the first serials birds will surprisingly use them.


Now you seen it.






The one on LRIP J-20 matches...

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

no ... the WS-10's pedals are much shorter, but to admit I already tried to explain You these features nearly 10-times even with comparative charts and images.

As such You are free to believe whatever You like but that does not make it correct .... the same as with these non-operational J-10B/Cs that - following Your claims - are all still waiting for their engines.
Even more an argument: why should the WS-10 be ready for operation in the J-20A if the J-10B/C is still waiting for them ?? ... only since it uses two of them ?

But we should leave and end this discussion .. I have my and You have Your opinion.
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

J-20 N.o2016

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Nice ... but already posted yesterday !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 592257001

Blasted PLAAF finally having enough sense to adopt low visibility insignia....

Personally, I'm hoping to see the J-20A LRIP(s) in this year's ZhuRiHe Military exercise as part of the “blue team" OPFOR

If that's the case, REDFORs' gonna be having many bad dreams

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

592257001 said:


> Blasted PLAAF finally having enough sense to adopt low visibility insignia....
> 
> Personally, I'm hoping to see the J-20A LRIP(s) in this year's ZhuRiHe Military exercise as part of the “blue team" OPFOR
> 
> If that's the case, REDFORs' gonna be having many bad dreams



I actually don't think that low visibility insignias matter that much for a fighter aircraft, especially one with low rcs profile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 592257001

siegecrossbow said:


> I actually don't think that low visibility insignias matter that much for a fighter aircraft, especially one with low rcs profile.


Quite the contrary, with low RCS, any potential A2A engagements from bogies are significantly compressed to within visual range. Low visibility insignia can increase ambiguity (and with ambiguity, response time) from the bogies' perspective. Even a 0.5 seconds of indecision from an enemy pilot is 0.5 seconds of extra room to flee. 

Also with low visibility insignia, the overall color contrast of the jet is reduced, theoretically making it harder for visible-spectrum EO devices to acquire and lock on.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## siegecrossbow

grey boy 2 said:


>



The last picture is new, I think.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

If Chinese PLA general Yinzhuo said on CCTV Today's Focus that J-20 has entered the service then for me It did enter the service.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> If Chinese PLA general Yinzhuo said on CCTV Today's Focus that J-20 has entered the service then for me It did enter the service.



Indeed ... a strong hint.

However I would have expected some sort of more publicity, celebration and pomp.

Maybe it was "only" a major event like the first aircraft ready for delivery maiden flight in order to celebrate the CCP's 95th anniversary ... and the fighter itself will be handed over on August 1st. IMO a much more appropriate date for this milestone !?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Indeed ... a strong hint.
> 
> However I would have expected some sort of more publicity, celebration and pomp.
> 
> Maybe it was "only" a major event like the first aircraft ready for delivery maiden flight in order to celebrate the CCP's 95th anniversary ... and the fighter itself will be handed over on August 1st. IMO a much more appropriate date for this milestone !?


That logic will hold in normal circumstances. But since China is facing a challenging time right now, like many PLA experts have said repeatedly on the same program before, in some circumstances China would put J-20 in service even it is yet to reach its maximum and optimum capability. So it is very logical that at this time China has deployed some J-20 to form a so-called the "SEED" troop of J-20 to be equipped ,test and go to battle with J-20 if needed. Yinzhuo's remarks on Today's Focus that "J-20 entering the PLA service does not mean the J-20 project is finalized, it still has room to be further developed " may explain why they didn't do as you suggested.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## hk299792458

Yin Zhuo worked for PLA Navy before, and from time to time he tells silly things also...

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## grey boy 2

中国歼-20正式服役的消息已经得到了正式确认，无论是从中国空军低可视度涂装版的歼-20试飞状况；还是中国著名军事专 家海军少将在电视节目上经过确认的表态，都可以佐证歼-20已经开始服役的信息。从生产和使用情况来看，歼-20的量产03号机可能已经完成了组装并开始 进行试飞了。歼-20量产的01和02号机目前应该是在供给各地空军的地勤人员基础培训使用的种子机，毕竟光有飞行员不能完成战机日常维护，更多的需要依 靠地勤人员来做，现在展开地勤种子人员的培训
也是个必须要尽快完成的任务。
从目前现有的情况来看，中国空军应该会在2017年正式服役大约一个中队的歼-20第五代战斗机，还可能会获得少量的苏 -35战斗机。西方的军事专家们认为，这两款战机的服役将会彻底打破亚洲天空的空中力量的平衡，尤其是针对日本、印度、越南等国，中国空军将会拉大和他们 差距，至少领先半代以上。即使是日本获得了F-35A，仍然无法全面跟歼-20进行抗衡，当然如果中日发生实质冲突，美军的F-22A一定会介入，这点上 是让日本略感安心的方面。但是美国的近200架F-22不可能完全部署日本，最多只会有2到3个F-22中队会部署在日本，并且这些F-22优先要保障美 军基地的自身安全。根据美国的评估，歼-20的服役会彻底打破美国空中的绝对垄断优势地位，作为世界上量产的第三款五代战机，歼-20具备跟美F-22进 行1对1决战的能力。当然哪怕服役两个中队的歼-20也是绝对不可能对美国基地构成威胁的，不过如果歼-20打掉了美军基地周边的反导雷达，随后东风 -26弹道导弹从天而降，这个战术摧毁任何基地都会奏效。歼-20较长的机体空间，可以容纳加长空地反辐射导弹，利用自身的隐身能力，直接突破防空网摧毁 雷达的把握还是有的。不过美国人一直把歼-20和东风导弹割裂起来看，不知道他们是故意忽略中国体系化作战能力已经成型的这个事实呢？还是另有多图呢？









目前西方普遍认为中国的歼-20和苏-35这类机型都属于4.5代战斗机，主要问题是现在这两款战机都没有展示过自己的超 音速巡航能力，并且苏-35从设计上来讲就不是一架全隐身战机。不过除了推力、机动性、矢量推进技术苏-35或许会占优优势以外，论隐身、雷达、航电技术 上，歼-20使用的AESA有源相控阵雷达都领先苏-35的PESA IRSBIS“雪豹-E”雷达，AESA雷达的探测速度比无源雷达要快一倍以上。现代的AESA雷达，针对歼-7这类RCS在1平米左右的目标，空中探测 能力至少可达150千米，并且至少可以同时搜索30个目标、可自动锁定同时打击6个目标。当然苏-35使用的IRBIS“雪豹-E”雷达的功率相当大，理 论上可以探测400千米的距离，不过这只是针对大型轰炸机这类非隐身设计目标。抛开推论出的性能不说，只说歼-20最引人注目的就是其部署情况。从歼 -10服役时率先部署在云南的空军部队可以看出一些端倪。从作战序列上，云南的空军部队一直不算一线部队，不过由于当时歼-10战斗机对中国来说属于最新 的机型，不可能部署在沿海让周边的美、日空中部队摸到训练规律；另外有两点就是当时美、日有截取中国空地对话的习惯，突然有新机部署会引起美、日的全面应 对态势升级，还有就是云南靠近歼-10生产厂，有问题可以随时返回厂家进行维护。歼-20的部署可能会采用同样的部署方式，优先形成战斗力再考虑主战方向 部署。

还有一个重要特征可以判断部署情况，歼-20五代战机需要部署专门的机库，尺寸上比歼-10要大不少，而且必须是封闭式机 库，保持日常恒温22度左右；这是美军F-22的要求，中国歼-20应该会参照。而且歼-20使用的配套弹药体系、地下洞库、保障系统等等都需要重新修 建。鉴于最近新闻报道中展示了西南的歼-10配置了新建专门封闭式地堡机库，从高度上来看歼-20未来应该也可以入驻。






至于另一款五代机俄罗斯研制的T-50五代战机，最近传出消息试飞一切顺利，但是尽管这样工厂的排产安排还是把T-50放 到了2018年。因为现在主要生产线都在生产苏-35和苏-30SM来让俄罗斯空军尽快升级换代，弥补跟周边的差距。至于T-50这样需要重新建立生产线 和更改调配资源的大家伙，俄方工厂暂时没有多余生产线可以用来改产所以排到了2018年。相比之下，中国的飞机制造厂在过去2年内，生产线面积扩展了近乎 3倍，这点让俄方羡慕的不行；但是碍于俄罗斯现有的经济状况，俄方是无法这样大兴土木的。许多俄罗斯专家都曾专门撰文提出过要扩产，但是都是石沉大海了， 经济基础决定产品产能，这就是最好的体现。
Source:http://bbs.meyet.com/thread-472856-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Just in parts a bit enlarged !

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## HRK

grey boy 2 said:


> 中国歼-20正式服役的消息已经得到了正式确认，无论是从中国空军低可视度涂装版的歼-20试飞状况；还是中国著名军事专 家海军少将在电视节目上经过确认的表态，都可以佐证歼-20已经开始服役的信息。从生产和使用情况来看，歼-20的量产03号机可能已经完成了组装并开始 进行试飞了。歼-20量产的01和02号机目前应该是在供给各地空军的地勤人员基础培训使用的种子机，毕竟光有飞行员不能完成战机日常维护，更多的需要依 靠地勤人员来做，现在展开地勤种子人员的培训
> 也是个必须要尽快完成的任务。
> 从目前现有的情况来看，中国空军应该会在2017年正式服役大约一个中队的歼-20第五代战斗机，还可能会获得少量的苏 -35战斗机。西方的军事专家们认为，这两款战机的服役将会彻底打破亚洲天空的空中力量的平衡，尤其是针对日本、印度、越南等国，中国空军将会拉大和他们 差距，至少领先半代以上。即使是日本获得了F-35A，仍然无法全面跟歼-20进行抗衡，当然如果中日发生实质冲突，美军的F-22A一定会介入，这点上 是让日本略感安心的方面。但是美国的近200架F-22不可能完全部署日本，最多只会有2到3个F-22中队会部署在日本，并且这些F-22优先要保障美 军基地的自身安全。根据美国的评估，歼-20的服役会彻底打破美国空中的绝对垄断优势地位，作为世界上量产的第三款五代战机，歼-20具备跟美F-22进 行1对1决战的能力。当然哪怕服役两个中队的歼-20也是绝对不可能对美国基地构成威胁的，不过如果歼-20打掉了美军基地周边的反导雷达，随后东风 -26弹道导弹从天而降，这个战术摧毁任何基地都会奏效。歼-20较长的机体空间，可以容纳加长空地反辐射导弹，利用自身的隐身能力，直接突破防空网摧毁 雷达的把握还是有的。不过美国人一直把歼-20和东风导弹割裂起来看，不知道他们是故意忽略中国体系化作战能力已经成型的这个事实呢？还是另有多图呢？
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 目前西方普遍认为中国的歼-20和苏-35这类机型都属于4.5代战斗机，主要问题是现在这两款战机都没有展示过自己的超 音速巡航能力，并且苏-35从设计上来讲就不是一架全隐身战机。不过除了推力、机动性、矢量推进技术苏-35或许会占优优势以外，论隐身、雷达、航电技术 上，歼-20使用的AESA有源相控阵雷达都领先苏-35的PESA IRSBIS“雪豹-E”雷达，AESA雷达的探测速度比无源雷达要快一倍以上。现代的AESA雷达，针对歼-7这类RCS在1平米左右的目标，空中探测 能力至少可达150千米，并且至少可以同时搜索30个目标、可自动锁定同时打击6个目标。当然苏-35使用的IRBIS“雪豹-E”雷达的功率相当大，理 论上可以探测400千米的距离，不过这只是针对大型轰炸机这类非隐身设计目标。抛开推论出的性能不说，只说歼-20最引人注目的就是其部署情况。从歼 -10服役时率先部署在云南的空军部队可以看出一些端倪。从作战序列上，云南的空军部队一直不算一线部队，不过由于当时歼-10战斗机对中国来说属于最新 的机型，不可能部署在沿海让周边的美、日空中部队摸到训练规律；另外有两点就是当时美、日有截取中国空地对话的习惯，突然有新机部署会引起美、日的全面应 对态势升级，还有就是云南靠近歼-10生产厂，有问题可以随时返回厂家进行维护。歼-20的部署可能会采用同样的部署方式，优先形成战斗力再考虑主战方向 部署。
> 
> 还有一个重要特征可以判断部署情况，歼-20五代战机需要部署专门的机库，尺寸上比歼-10要大不少，而且必须是封闭式机 库，保持日常恒温22度左右；这是美军F-22的要求，中国歼-20应该会参照。而且歼-20使用的配套弹药体系、地下洞库、保障系统等等都需要重新修 建。鉴于最近新闻报道中展示了西南的歼-10配置了新建专门封闭式地堡机库，从高度上来看歼-20未来应该也可以入驻。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 至于另一款五代机俄罗斯研制的T-50五代战机，最近传出消息试飞一切顺利，但是尽管这样工厂的排产安排还是把T-50放 到了2018年。因为现在主要生产线都在生产苏-35和苏-30SM来让俄罗斯空军尽快升级换代，弥补跟周边的差距。至于T-50这样需要重新建立生产线 和更改调配资源的大家伙，俄方工厂暂时没有多余生产线可以用来改产所以排到了2018年。相比之下，中国的飞机制造厂在过去2年内，生产线面积扩展了近乎 3倍，这点让俄方羡慕的不行；但是碍于俄罗斯现有的经济状况，俄方是无法这样大兴土木的。许多俄罗斯专家都曾专门撰文提出过要扩产，但是都是石沉大海了， 经济基础决定产品产能，这就是最好的体现。
> Source:http://bbs.meyet.com/thread-472856-1-1.html



Plz Translate ...


----------



## siegecrossbow

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1822643-1-1.html

J-20 in the rain.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Any pictures with weapon tests?


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## 21stCentury

Any J-20's take part in the recent '100 ships, 3 fleets' drill in SCS?


----------



## Deino

No. 2101 is indeed still yellow ....


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> No. 2101 is indeed still yellow ....
> 
> View attachment 316734


This is indeed an old photo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> This is indeed an old photo



Thanks.
Do You know if 2101 is now also already painted ? There have ben reports about that is might still be yellow.


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Thanks.
> Do You know if 2101 is now also already painted ? There have ben reports about that is might still be yellow.


Both 2101 and 2102 have been painted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> Both 2101 and 2102 have been painted



What is the current status of FC-31 v2? Has it really been seen by witnesses?


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> What is the current status of FC-31 v2? Has it really been seen by witnesses?


2.0 has rolled off but I think that static tester is still 1.0.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> Both 2101 and 2102 have been painted




So reports that LRIP-03 and -04 are painted and 2101 & 2102 still yellow are wrong !?

Any info on how many LRIP J-20As are already produced ?


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> So reports that LRIP-03 and -04 are painted and 2101 & 2102 still yellow are wrong !?


I don't think that is possible




Deino said:


> Any info on how many LRIP J-20As are already produced ?


Nothing


----------



## monitor

* Two Chinese PLAAF J-20s  *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

monitor said:


> * Two Chinese PLAAF J-20s  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope You noticed that this is a Photoshop-image !!!
Just look at the second aircraft's wing geometry ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Most likely older image of no. 2012 ... but I think I haven't seen it before.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

But this one is new ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> So reports that LRIP-03 and -04 are painted and 2101 & 2102 still yellow are wrong !?
> 
> Any info on how many LRIP J-20As are already produced ?



4 < N < 8


----------



## Deino

Look what's behind ...?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Look what's behind ...?
> 
> View attachment 317179


2017 and 2101

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

*http://www.popsci.com/four-in-row-chinas-stealth-fighter-fleet-grows-again*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

I think this is a production model. At this rate, they can start putting some of its capabilities to the test early next year.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## onebyone

*July 14, 2016*
air force, aircraft, asia, china, future, future weapons, geopolitical, military, technology


Facebook

Twitter

linkedin

google

Reddit
In July 2016, the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation rolled out two more low rate initial production (LRIP) J-20 stealth fighters. This brings to a total of four J-20 fighters built for service into the Chinese air force, as opposed to the original eight J-20 prototypes, which are still undergoing a rigorous flight testing regimen. At this rate of production, China may have 12 production J-20 ready to hand off to a PLAAF squadron for operational and flight familiarization, with an initial operating capability (IOC -- meaning those fighters can conduct combat operations) in 2017-2018.

If the J-20 meets its 2017-2018 IOC target date, it will give China a technological edge in air to air combat over all its Asian neighbors, who do not yet have 5th generation planes. As a heavyweight stealth fighter, it is armed with long range missiles, electronic warfare, advanced radar and passive sensors, making it a respectable competitor to even the new US F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters. CAC is already planning a series of future updates to keep the J-20 state of art; domestic WS-15 engines are just one of them.





_The J-20 will be stealthy, fast, heavily armed with long range air to air missiles, and state of the art radar and infrared sensors. Perhaps more than any other weapon, the J-20 represents China's military modernization. via China Defense Forum_


_Lovely Swift at mil.qq.com. The new J-31 prototype (the one in lighter gray paint) is expected to be larger, have a nose mounted infrared search and tracking sensor, and stealthy features (such as clipped horizontal and vertical stabilizers)._

As Chinese defense exports grow, the J-20 and J-31 could start making the rounds at foreign airshows, and possibly even in foreign air forces.

SOURCES- Popular Science, China Defense Forum, mil.qq.com

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/china-on-track-to-12-operation-j-20.html

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

onebyone said:


> *....*




Please not always a new thread if we already have an existing one that fits.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

The first of the new batch is numbered 40541 in white paint

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Tiqiu

From its tactical numbers, the "seed troops" of J-20 maybe the 98th Regiment of the 33th Division of the China Air Force





The 98th Regiment's J11

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

If the first J-20 was assigned to ( ChengDu -- the 98th Regiment of the 33th Division ), then highly probable, it must be assigned to JIANG Jia Ji ( the Best Golden Helmet pilot ~ 3 times Golden Helmet Champions ) at this moment. ~ It is a Super Wise Move by top PLAAF leadership.

This move is an awesome fantastic boost for PLAAF morals within all the PLA ranks and files.
Only the best and the most dedicated, and all the time, the most willing to improve himself -- Golden Helmet pilots get to play with J-20s. ~ This move will entice all PLAAF pilots who have the desire to play with J-20 to at least match JIANG Jia Ji dedication and the obsession to improve himself. ~ In turn, this moral boost will translate to overall performance boost of all PLA combat pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## zheng2

I live in chengdu my house is just 13KM away from that test yard.there are many nights I just fell asleep,the jets or the airlines just woke me up by those noise*VERY LOUD!!!!
I JUST WANT TO SAY,DO IT MORE!
*



HRK said:


> Plz Translate ...


It says the J20 is confirmed on active service,and the usa will be _challenged,and with the su-35 the chinese airforce will fuxk japanese AF up easily.and balabalabala.it is a lot of work._

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## onebyone

*China Expects J-20 Stealth Fighter to Be Combat Ready in 2019*

*http://defense-update.com/20160723_j_20.html*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Djinn

Last December China’s Chengdu Aircraft Company (CAC) inaugurated the production line for China’s J-20 5th Generation, stealth fighter, that has since entered Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). Two LRIP aircraft have already rolled off the line; the first began flight testing in January.

The Chinese People’s Republic Army Air Force (PLAAF) is believed to have received four J-20 jets, which have been tested and completed acceptance tests recently. The first front-line regiment is supposed to activate and receive aircraft by June 2017 and is expected to be combat ready by 2019. That milestone could be pushed forward, given the budget priority. The final requirement could be between 500 to 700.


The configuration of those LRIP planes is similar to the latest prototypes, 2016 and 2017 that were the pre-production and technology demonstrator variants. Nomenclature identifies the aircraft – prototypes and pre-production aircraft are designated 20XX while production versions are designated 21XX.
Chengdu’s No.611 Institute developed the plane. This large interceptor made its first flight in 2011. Two Russian-made Saturn AL-31F power the prototypes and first production aircraft accelerating it to a maximum speed of Mach 1.7.

Two lateral bays accommodate highly maneuverable PL-9/PL-10 IR missile. The main weapon bay can carry longer weapons can accommodate four PL-15 medium-range AAMs or the new PL-21 ramjet powered, long Range Air/Air Missiles, similar to the MBDA Meteor. Additionally, large air/ground weapons can be carried in this bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 艹艹艹

*Recently there has been a J20 has painted the PLA Air Force emblem.






























*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Djinn

The second low-rate initial production aircraft marked 2102 seen during ground checks at Chengdu.






The 2101 aircraft is equipped with unique diamond-shape infra-red distributed aperture and electro-optical targeting sensors (under the fuselage) enabling the pilot to acquire air and surface targets in stealth mode, without using the powerful AESA radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xunzi

The faster the better. We need it asap.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics

War is coming.We need more J-20 to protect Taiwan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

In fact, if needed. J-20 can be thrown into combat in 2017 or late 2016. No need wait until 2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## UKBengali

Indians think that J-20 can be handled by Rafales.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Djinn

TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics said:


> War is coming.We need more J-20 to protect Taiwan.


Taiwan? I think China would need it to protect its interests in SCS and ECS.



UKBengali said:


> Indians think that J-20 can be handled by Rafales.


Lets not ruin the thread by dragging in the trash talk by some ignorant fanboys.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics

Djinn said:


> Taiwan? I think China would need it to protect its interests in SCS and ECS.


Just a joke,my momentary crazy thoughts.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tameem

Beast said:


> In fact, if needed. J-20 can be thrown into combat in 2017 or late 2016. No need wait until 2019.



What are the latest specs of this @Beast ?


----------



## Beast

Tameem said:


> What are the latest specs of this @Beast ?


It will be combat ready for LRIP. The only thing needs to iron out is the doctrine and tactics. Nothing to do with any spec or system of aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Djinn

I remember when its grainy pictures first came out and some cyber experts started claiming that they were fake and photoshopped and then when HR pictures were released again those cyber experts claimed that it may be a "Tech-Demo"  Boy o Boy! How China has done its skeptics wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## UKBengali

Tameem said:


> What are the latest specs of this @Beast ?



Only thing to upgrade is engine with the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## terranMarine

Djinn said:


> I remember when its grainy pictures first came out and some cyber experts started claiming that they were fake and photoshopped and then when HR pictures were released again those cyber experts claimed that it may be a "Tech-Demo"  Boy o Boy! How China has done its skeptics wrong.



Americans were shocked even former Defense Minister Robert Gates said it would take China xx years before we have that capability 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ells-secretary-defense-gates-article-1.151583

Guess what, many China haters in Western world still have no clue that we already have our own railgun project and according to cirr we are at a very advanced stage now.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## AlyxMS

HRK said:


> Plz Translate ...


Some fanboy writing, recycled old news, guess work and bashing on T-50.
Nothing worth reading.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

onebyone said:


> *China Expects J-20 Stealth Fighter to Be Combat Ready in 2019*
> 
> *http://defense-update.com/20160723_j_20.html*


Considering production models are already rolling out of the factory, 2018 is more likely the IOC date. I suspect we'll start seeing an improved version featuring WS-15 engine and updated avionics by 2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

S10 said:


> Considering production models are already rolling out of the factory, 2018 is more likely the IOC date. I suspect we'll start seeing an improved version featuring WS-15 engine and updated avionics by 2019.



Once again, PLAAF doesn't have IOC notion, so it doesn't mean anything when we talk about chinese equipments...

Henri K.


----------



## BoQ77

S10 said:


> Considering production models are already rolling out of the factory, 2018 is more likely the IOC date. I suspect we'll start seeing an improved version featuring WS-15 engine and updated avionics by 2019.



J20 designed to be powered by Russian engines?
No.

Or you means there is a variant with Russian engines, and China would declare something similar IOC of that variant?


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

In 21st century high tech warfare, China is either take part of hi-tech or will be taken apart by hi-tech.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

BoQ77 said:


> J20 designed to be powered by Russian engines?
> No.
> 
> Or you means there is a variant with Russian engines, and China would declare something similar IOC of that variant?


Its powered by WS-10B variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Genesis

UKBengali said:


> Indians think that J-20 can be handled by Rafales.


Even if that were true, they still don't have any.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## S10

BoQ77 said:


> J20 designed to be powered by Russian engines?
> No.
> 
> Or you means there is a variant with Russian engines, and China would declare something similar IOC of that variant?


J-20 is currently flying with either WS-10 or AL-31 depending on the prototype. The initial versions will be flying with WS-1B, but eventually that will be replaced by WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Why again this stupid question on engine? ... It is clear as hell since years that it is an AL-31 ... No WS-10 ... At least not yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

http://www.bilibili.com/mobile/video/av5485506.html?zw

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Why again this stupid question on engine? ... It is clear as hell since years that it is an AL-31 ... No WS-10 ... At least not yet.


sir how do you so sure about it that it is not WS-10?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Djinn

UKBengali said:


> Only thing to upgrade is engine with the WS-15.


It's only a matter of time that China will crack the engine tech and the moment its done there's no stopping China. China could have also asked the Russians to build them an engine powerful enough to suit the needs of J-20, but the reason i think they didn't avail this option was because of the fact that Chinese own indigenous engine tech has matured up and may be ready within a few years time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

Djinn said:


> It's only a matter of time that China will crack the engine tech and the moment its done there's no stopping China. China could have also asked the Russians to build them an engine powerful enough to suit the needs of J-20, but the reason i think they didn't avail this option was because of the fact that Chinese own indigenous engine tech has matured up and may be ready within a few years time.



It isnt easy like that to get the engines from Russia.


----------



## BoQ77

boomslang said:


> Sure. The world knows nothing but YOU do. 'Rail gun' ? China is ALWAYS a step or two behind, chasing the U.S. Monkey see, monkey do. They don't invent anything, they just copy and steal.



so the common term is "expect", not "scheduled"


----------



## 星海军事

pakistanipower said:


> sir how do you so sure about it that it is not WS-10?


100%

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mugwop

boomslang said:


> Sure. The world knows nothing but YOU do. 'Rail gun' ? China is ALWAYS a step or two behind, chasing the U.S. Monkey see, monkey do. They don't invent anything, they just copy and steal.


You can't just look at something and copy it,You need samples of it also
How can the chinese copy something they don't have?


----------



## gambit

Mugwop said:


> You can't just look at something and copy it,You need samples of it also
> How can the chinese copy something they don't have?


This is where you and the Chinese cohort are wrong about the proper context of 'copy'.

It is axiomatic among programmers that everyone literally copy from each other, and I am talking about wholesale sections of codes via the copy/paste utility. In my industry -- semiconductor -- companies routinely buy finished products from their competitors and physically dissect the products to see if there are any components whose final form violated patents. *COMPONENTS*, not the final larger product.

People can deny, until their faces are blue, that the J-20 did not came from the MIG 1.44 project. They will point out the surface physical differences as 'proof' that there were no copying. But they are wrong in the eyes of aviation professionals. China did not have a native aviation industry in the mold of how a truly indigenous industry come about. The aircraft came to China in finished form and that finished form came from efforts like the Wright Flyer and later evolution. In other words, China never had her own version of the Wright Flyer.

That is *NOT* a point to ridicule China. No country invents everything. Every country copied, either cooperatively or non.

The fact that China leaped from importing her combat fighters to the J-20 is immediately suspect, especially when the final form is strikingly familiar. Even the Iranians are not calling their modified F-5s something new. The J-20 took the 1.44's final form and refined it to meet modern day's combat necessities. Instead of a mechanical flight control system, the J-20 have fly-by-wire avionics, a concept that is not native to China. If we can examine the J-20 the way the US examined the MIG-25 back in 1976, there will be a long list of components that are either literally copied in forms or at least in concepts. To copy and adapt are themselves impressive accomplishments.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> This is where you and the Chinese cohort are wrong about the proper context of 'copy'.
> 
> It is axiomatic among programmers that everyone literally copy from each other, and I am talking about wholesale sections of codes via the copy/paste utility. In my industry -- semiconductor -- companies routinely buy finished products from their competitors and physically dissect the products to see if there are any components whose final form violated patents. *COMPONENTS*, not the final larger product.
> 
> People can deny, until their faces are blue, that the J-20 did not came from the MIG 1.44 project. They will point out the surface physical differences as 'proof' that there were no copying. But they are wrong in the eyes of aviation professionals. China did not have a native aviation industry in the mold of how a truly indigenous industry come about. The aircraft came to China in finished form and that finished form came from efforts like the Wright Flyer and later evolution. In other words, China never had her own version of the Wright Flyer.
> 
> That is *NOT* a point to ridicule China. No country invents everything. Every country copied, either cooperatively or non.
> 
> The fact that China leaped from importing her combat fighters to the J-20 is immediately suspect, especially when the final form is strikingly familiar. Even the Iranians are not calling their modified F-5s something new. The J-20 took the 1.44's final form and refined it to meet modern day's combat necessities. Instead of a mechanical flight control system, the J-20 have fly-by-wire avionics, a concept that is not native to China. If we can examine the J-20 the way the US examined the MIG-25 back in 1976, there will be a long list of components that are either literally copied in forms or at least in concepts. To copy and adapt are themselves impressive accomplishments.


So Mig 1.44 must have been copying off of J-9 right? It predates Mig 1.44 for more than a decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> So Mig 1.44 must have been copying off of J-9 right? It predates Mig 1.44 for more than a decade.


You think I care if you want to make the Russians look bad for copying ?

The MIG-25 was a copy from the North American A-5 Vigilante, pal. Even the Soviets admitted it. You guys ignorantly believes that the F-15 was a copy and response to the MIG-25.

When it comes to technical issues, especially aviation, you PDF Chinese got nothing to go by.


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> You think I care if you want to make the Russians look bad for copying ?
> 
> The MIG-25 was a copy from the North American A-5 Vigilante, pal. Even the Soviets admitted it. You guys ignorantly believes that the F-15 was a copy and response to the MIG-25.
> 
> When it comes to technical issues, especially aviation, you PDF Chinese got nothing to go by.


The design lineage of J-20 is clear as day, and yet you insist it's based off of Mig 1.44 despite the J-9VI program predating it by over a decade. Delta canard wing configuration is the staple design from Chengdu Aircraft Corporation since the late 1970's.

So let me ask you again, is Mig 1.44 a copy of J-9? Based on evidence do you suggest J-20 is copying off of Mig 1.44 other than your own mouth?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> The design lineage of J-20 is clear as day, and yet you insist it's based off of Mig 1.44 despite the J-9VI program predating it by over a decade. Delta canard wing configuration is the staple design from Chengdu Aircraft Corporation since the late 1970's.
> 
> So let me ask you again, is Mig 1.44 a copy of J-9? Based on evidence do you suggest J-20 is copying off of Mig 1.44 other than your own mouth?


Call it anything you want, buddy. I am not interested in converting you guys.


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> This is where you and the Chinese cohort are wrong about the proper context of 'copy'.
> 
> It is axiomatic among programmers that everyone literally copy from each other, and I am talking about wholesale sections of codes via the copy/paste utility. In my industry -- semiconductor -- companies routinely buy finished products from their competitors and physically dissect the products to see if there are any components whose final form violated patents. *COMPONENTS*, not the final larger product.
> 
> People can deny, until their faces are blue, that the J-20 did not came from the MIG 1.44 project. They will point out the surface physical differences as 'proof' that there were no copying. But they are wrong in the eyes of aviation professionals. China did not have a native aviation industry in the mold of how a truly indigenous industry come about. The aircraft came to China in finished form and that finished form came from efforts like the Wright Flyer and later evolution. In other words, China never had her own version of the Wright Flyer.
> 
> That is *NOT* a point to ridicule China. No country invents everything. Every country copied, either cooperatively or non.
> 
> The fact that China leaped from importing her combat fighters to the J-20 is immediately suspect, especially when the final form is strikingly familiar. Even the Iranians are not calling their modified F-5s something new. The J-20 took the 1.44's final form and refined it to meet modern day's combat necessities. Instead of a mechanical flight control system, the J-20 have fly-by-wire avionics, a concept that is not native to China. If we can examine the J-20 the way the US examined the MIG-25 back in 1976, there will be a long list of components that are either literally copied in forms or at least in concepts. To copy and adapt are themselves impressive accomplishments.


You forgot the most impressive accomplishment: to innovate..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Place Of Space

gambit said:


> This is where you and the Chinese cohort are wrong about the proper context of 'copy'.
> 
> It is axiomatic among programmers that everyone literally copy from each other, and I am talking about wholesale sections of codes via the copy/paste utility. In my industry -- semiconductor -- companies routinely buy finished products from their competitors and physically dissect the products to see if there are any components whose final form violated patents. *COMPONENTS*, not the final larger product.
> 
> People can deny, until their faces are blue, that the J-20 did not came from the MIG 1.44 project. They will point out the surface physical differences as 'proof' that there were no copying. But they are wrong in the eyes of aviation professionals. China did not have a native aviation industry in the mold of how a truly indigenous industry come about. The aircraft came to China in finished form and that finished form came from efforts like the Wright Flyer and later evolution. In other words, China never had her own version of the Wright Flyer.
> 
> That is *NOT* a point to ridicule China. No country invents everything. Every country copied, either cooperatively or non.
> 
> The fact that China leaped from importing her combat fighters to the J-20 is immediately suspect, especially when the final form is strikingly familiar. Even the Iranians are not calling their modified F-5s something new. The J-20 took the 1.44's final form and refined it to meet modern day's combat necessities. Instead of a mechanical flight control system, the J-20 have fly-by-wire avionics, a concept that is not native to China. If we can examine the J-20 the way the US examined the MIG-25 back in 1976, there will be a long list of components that are either literally copied in forms or at least in concepts. To copy and adapt are themselves impressive accomplishments.



Copy others' weapons and probe enemy's intelligence is always a part of war. The only goal is winning.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> You think I care if you want to make the Russians look bad for copying ?
> 
> The MIG-25 was a copy from the North American A-5 Vigilante, pal. Even the Soviets admitted it. You guys ignorantly believes that the F-15 was a copy and response to the MIG-25.
> 
> When it comes to technical issues, especially aviation, you PDF Chinese got nothing to go by.


What about the Stealth B2, isn't it a copy of the German Horton? and the US missiles not a copy of V1 and V2 of German origin..?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> Call it anything you want, buddy. I am not interested in converting you guys.


So you have nothing to back it up? Good to know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> So you have nothing to back it up? Good to know.


Neither do you. And when it comes to military related issues, having nothing is typical for you guys. You have no relevant technical experience and no military experience. That is good to know.



The SC said:


> What about the Stealth B2, isn't it a copy of the German Horton? and the US missiles not a copy of V1 and V2 of German origin..?


No, the B-2 is not a copy of the Horton.

The flying wing design was well known long before WW II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing


> The flying wing configuration was studied extensively in the 1930s and 1940s, notably by Jack Northrop and Cheston L. Eshelman in the United States, and Alexander Lippisch and the Horten brothers in Germany.


In fact, real facts, not the kind make up by the PDF Chinese crew, the flying wing itself was studied as far back as 1910 by Hugo Junkers.

The flying wing design as a weapon was in parallel development in the US and Nazi Germany.

The flying wing as a low radar observable platform was not seriously considered, not even by the Horton brothers even though they made attempts to make their designs less vulnerable to radars. The Hortons used the flying wing design more for long range than for radar evasion.


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> Neither do you. And when it comes to military related issues, having nothing is typical for you guys. You have no relevant technical experience and no military experience. That is good to know.
> 
> 
> No, the B-2 is not a copy of the Horton.
> 
> The flying wing design was well known long before WW II.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing
> 
> In fact, real facts, not the kind make up by the PDF Chinese crew, the flying wing itself was studied as far back as 1910 by Hugo Junkers.
> 
> The flying wing design as a weapon was in parallel development in the US and Nazi Germany.
> 
> The flying wing as a low radar observable platform was not seriously considered, not even by the Horton brothers even though they made attempts to make their designs less vulnerable to radars. The Hortons used the flying wing design more for long range than for radar evasion.


We all know that scientific research on the same subject(s)_Stealth design in this instance_ goes on in different parts of the world in parallel, That is why this talk of copying makes no sense.. it is more like a race in R&D than anything else..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

Please do not take this as Personal Attack ... ...
IMHO, ... ...

*Gambit, you are Losing Credibility very Quickly by the day*

*@gambit *

I used to have some respect towards you.
I personally think -- on some area, you are quite knowledgeable.
I thought -- You are NOT one of those majority Dumb and Dimwitted americans white Anglo Saxon americans.
Later, I realize that maybe is because -- you are a minority american.

Then, you wrote the *Backwardly Disgraceful Thinking* against the Supercomputer
as *Ultimate Force Multipliers* for any nation STEM prowess and RnD.

Immediately whatever tiny respect that I have about you were *flushed to the sewage*.
My suggestion is please refrain from posting in any sectors that will show you to be as
Dumb and Dimwitted as those majority white Anglo Saxon americans ( *who can NOT do a Simple basic Math* ).



Here are some Required Reading to Update your knowledge if you have the gut to compete with us in posting Cutting Edge discoveries.

Link:
https://defence.pk/threads/asean-br...mbodia-for-support.440959/page-6#post-8504757

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## footmarks

Impressive feat if it is ready even by 2019, i would say. Respect for the scientists who are working on such and other high tech projects, anywhere in the world. While we can fight and troll, those are the one who put in hard work to give us boasting powers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

S10 said:


> You made the accusation, so the onus is on you to prove your case. Claiming "I have experience" doesn't cut it. I admit you have much more experience in being an idiot than I could ever dream of.


It is not just I who made the accusation, son. There are plenty of aviation specialists who made the same. With my experience, I chose to ally myself with them. You are asking for, basically, an impossible task. We all know it is impossible because China is not going to release any information about the J-20. This leave you to demand that we all accept your position as default. That is not going to happen. Just as we do not have any concrete proof that the J-20 came from the MIG, neither do you have any proof to support the contrary. You may say that in the end, it is just opinion, but also in that same end, not all opinions are equal. Some have more weight than others. Yours, for now, just weight as much as a soap bubble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

The SC said:


> We all know that scientific research on the same subject(s)_Stealth design in this instance_ *goes on in different parts of the world in parallel*, That is why this talk of copying makes no sense.. it is more like a race in R&D than anything else..


No, it was not. Parallel R/D means competitors starts with roughly the same information.

The US started it and we are at least one decade ahead of everyone else. With the F-117, we sort of 'gave' our competitors a considerable assist. Not in the sense that we invited them to observe our research, but in the sense that we showed the research paid off in tangible ways and those ways -- combat -- they never had to risk. They knew, at no cost to them...

- That the angled faceting technique worked and worked well,

- That the US dropped that technique in favor of curvatures due to advances in computing power to calculate the much more complex behaviors of waves on curvatures,

- That aerodynamics efficiency does not have to be reduced to work successfully with 'stealth'.

- That the use of absorber composites do not have to be comprehensive on the 'stealth' body,

And

- That there are tactically useful levels of radar returns from the 'stealth' body that require less rigors in design, thereby reducing development cost.

No one, from the Soviets to China to any major power, that have their own in-house aviation program spent a single pound, yuan, ruble, franc, or deutsche mark to find out those things. We did it all and in spectacular ways.

That did not happened with the Horten flying wing design. The 229 never made it into production, let alone combat. It was barely into its flight testing regime. The Hortens may have infused their design with iron oxide compounds, like the ones used on submarine snorkels and periscopes, to try to reduce the 299's vulnerability to radar, but current information does not support the speculation that the 229 was actually subjected to any significant open radar testing. In other words, the world knew nothing of the 299 until the end of WW II.

The flying wing was already common knowledge and exploration as a viable aircraft, not just a scientific study, was truly in parallel. So no one copied from anyone else at that time.

Like it or not, the charge that the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44 is a serious one.


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> No, it was not. Parallel R/D means competitors starts with roughly the same information.
> 
> The US started it and we are at least one decade ahead of everyone else. With the F-117, we sort of 'gave' our competitors a considerable assist. Not in the sense that we invited them to observe our research, but in the sense that we showed the research paid off in tangible ways and those ways -- combat -- they never had to risk. They knew, at no cost to them...
> 
> - That the angled faceting technique worked and worked well,
> 
> - That the US dropped that technique in favor of curvatures due to advances in computing power to calculate the much more complex behaviors of waves on curvatures,
> 
> - That aerodynamics efficiency does not have to be reduced to work successfully with 'stealth'.
> 
> - That the use of absorber composites do not have to be comprehensive on the 'stealth' body,
> 
> And
> 
> - That there are tactically useful levels of radar returns from the 'stealth' body that require less rigors in design, thereby reducing development cost.
> 
> No one, from the Soviets to China to any major power, that have their own in-house aviation program spent a single pound, yuan, ruble, franc, or deutsche mark to find out those things. We did it all and in spectacular ways.
> 
> That did not happened with the Horten flying wing design. The 229 never made it into production, let alone combat. It was barely into its flight testing regime. The Hortens may have infused their design with iron oxide compounds, like the ones used on submarine snorkels and periscopes, to try to reduce the 299's vulnerability to radar, but current information does not support the speculation that the 229 was actually subjected to any significant open radar testing. In other words, the world knew nothing of the 299 until the end of WW II.
> 
> The flying wing was already common knowledge and exploration as a viable aircraft, not just a scientific study, was truly in parallel. So no one copied from anyone else at that time.
> 
> Like it or not, the charge that the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44 is a serious one.


I understand your point, but first of all maybe you are confusing the J-10 with the J-20, since if there is any resemblance in design with the Mig 1.44, one can see in the J-10 ..second all that sigma of tech you are talking about was-or most of it- derived from advances in space, physics, chemistry and aeronautics sciences, thirdly the main body of the Horton 229 was made of Wood, so it did not reflect radar waves, only the engines did, so it was Stealth by all means..The issue of the engines radiation still exists today in the 5th generation fighters..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

The SC said:


> I understand your point, but first of all maybe you are confusing the J-10 with the J-20, since if there is any resemblance in design with the Mig 1.44, one can see in the J-10 ..second all that sigma of tech you are talking about was-or most of it- derived from advances in space, physics, chemistry and aeronautics sciences, thirdly the main body of the Horton 229 was made of Wood, so it did not reflect radar waves, only the engines did, so it was Stealth by all means..The issue of the engines radiation still exists today in the 5th generation fighters..


Yes, I am often confused between my F-16 and the B-52.

As for the Horten 229, they flying wing was naturally lower in EM observability to start, but there was no indicator that the Horten brothers used that in designing the 229. Yours is a failure in logical thought processes.


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> Yes, I am often confused between my F-16 and the B-52.
> 
> As for the Horten 229, they flying wing was naturally lower in EM observability to start, but there was no indicator that the Horten brothers used that in designing the 229. Yours is a failure in logical thought processes.


When you are mad and have no substantial answer, try to keep out of getting personal.. it has always been bad talking to you..Mr failure in every discussion..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

J20, DDG055, AC002/003 and Type 95/96 subs are all moving towards delivery as they were planned in the first place.

J20 must not be seen as a stand alone development. 

That it will be operational sooner than later is also according to plan. 

There is no rushed deployment.

PLAAF has taken deliver of a small batch to understand the bird in operational environment and develop tactics...also develop the supporting infrastructure.

So by 2019 the full rate production will be in full swing and the absorption of J20 will be easier by PLAAF.

Good peace time development really. 

Waiting for WS15A. That would be more exciting. 

J20 has been out in the open for years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

The SC said:


> When you are mad and have no substantial answer, try to keep out of getting personal.. it has always been bad talking to you..Mr failure in every discussion..


Pointing out where you are wrong is not a personal attack.

The logic is clear with the current data.

- There is no indicator that the 229 was designed for low radar observability.

- The Germans had only cursory knowledge of radar and given the status of their war making capability at that time, the Hortens had at best limited access to radars for experimentation. The Allies captured a lot of information and that one prototyp.

- The flying wing design was already well known in the aviation industry, even before WW II. They knew it for its naturally long range capability. The main problem was controllability.

- Hitler placed a higher priority on long range over radar avoidance.

All of this pointed to a logical conclusion that the 229 was more for long range than for radar avoidance. It could not be argued that the B-2 was any copy of the 229 considering the Americans had far more actually flying wing designs than the Hortens had.

I am mad only in your imagination. You wanted to portray me as angry only to boost your own ego that somehow you are able to make me angry. Get a clue. 



xunzi said:


> You got your *** bust and this is the response we got from you? LOL


Please...I busted you guys over and over for your liberal use of 'Chinese physics' for the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xunzi

gambit said:


> Please...I busted you guys over and over for your liberal use of 'Chinese physics' for the J-20.


Not really. Going through the history of you proclaiming the failed J-20 to the accusation mg1.44, you have been busted multiple times.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

xunzi said:


> Not really. Going through the history of you proclaiming the failed J-20 to the accusation mg1.44, you have been busted multiple times.


I never called the J-20 a 'failed' project. In fact, real facts, I praised the project many times over.


----------



## xunzi

gambit said:


> I never called the J-20 a 'failed' project. In fact, real facts, I praised the project many times over.


I'm not going to go back and find your nonsense post. You have been busted many times and that all you need to know.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

xunzi said:


> I'm not going to go back and find your nonsense post. You have been busted many times and that all you need to know.


You are not going to find any. Simple as that. Keep saying that I am 'busted' is not going to help. Bust for what ? What lies have I said about the J-20 ?

Charging that the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44 project is speculation, not a lie.







A lie is when one knows the truth but publicly said something else. No one, not even the PDF Chinese, knows the origin of the J-20. So you guys saying the J-20 did not came from the MIG is equally speculative. Just that your speculations do not weigh as much.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## randomradio

gambit said:


> You are not going to find any. Simple as that. Keep saying that I am 'busted' is not going to help. Bust for what ? What lies have I said about the J-20 ?
> 
> Charging that the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44 project is speculation, not a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lie is when one knows the truth but publicly said something else. No one, not even the PDF Chinese, knows the origin of the J-20. So you guys saying the J-20 did not came from the MIG is equally speculative. Just that your speculations do not weigh as much.



It's a pretty irrelevant discussion, don't you think? The Chinese have their pride and you are trampling all over it even though you are right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

randomradio said:


> It's a pretty irrelevant discussion, don't you think? The Chinese have their pride and you are trampling all over it even though you are right.


It is relevant in many levels.

At the lowest, the interests are technical in scope and confined to domain experts. At the highest, it is strategic because it hints at China's technological capabilities, progress, and future ambitions thanks to those same technological progress.

The PDF Chinese are entitled to their nationalistic pride, but all that we asked is to be honest about it. Unfortunately, they have a history of trampling on the laws of physics in cheering for the J-20. If it was not for my repeated postings from credible sources like universities and IEEE to debunk their claims, they would have gotten away with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

How about a view from another angle, the side then? 

Still think that the J-20 is a copy of the MiG-1.44.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## randomradio

gambit said:


> I do not care what level of education they have. Each of them could be a PhD and it would not matter one whit to me. What they claimed regardless of what they are must be challenged if technically questionable and worst of all -- wrong.



I don't believe you have questioned technical matters. I believe you are only trampling on their pride over something as irrelevant as the J-20 being a copy of the Mig 1.44, something you yourself claim is speculation.

I mean what's the point coming up to someone and telling them half the stuff they have look similar to the stuff the west has developed? All those who know what you mean know that they are reinventing the wheel, all those who understood Post 27 anyway. There is really no point in pointing out the obvious to people who prioritize nationalism over learning. It has only served to derail the thread, my point.

When it comes to Chinese physics, of course you can bash it how much ever you want, Chinese physics should disappear from the face of the earth.



Beidou2020 said:


> So many people on this forum has not only exposed him as a fraud over the years (non-Chinese members too), but he resorts to personal insults whenever his myths and strawman arguments get busted.
> 
> The guy is a first class troll masquerading as an 'expert'.



He may be biased but he is an expert. Most military professionals are biased obviously, but that shouldn't put to doubt their credentials.


----------



## Ultima Thule

星海军事 said:


> 100%


what 100%?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

randomradio said:


> ...the J-20 being a copy of the Mig 1.44, something you yourself claim is speculation.


I am not the only one. From the day the J-20 debut, that have been the contention in the aviation world. All the Chinese have to do is acknowledge that the speculation is valid. Not that the speculation is true, only that is has validity. Such speculations are *NORMAL*. It is amazing that they do not understand that.

People want, or even need, frames of references and that is also normal. If something new comes along, people inevitably compares the new against the old. If the differences are great enough, the comparison will be dismissed. All the Chinese had to do is acknowledge that such behaviors are normal. Instead, they went on a rampage making personal insults against people who wanted nothing but a genuine technically based discussion.



CAPRICORN-88 said:


> *One does need NOT to be a rocket scientist not a PhD holder to note that the two aircrafts are completely different either in design or generation.*


The people who made that observation are pilots and assorted aviation related professionals. Most of them do not have have PhDs or are rocket scientists.


----------



## Deino

Oh come on. We had this discussion already about 100 times ... All physical details hint an AL-31 and none a WS-10. Even more why should these lrip birds use an engine so far not tested on ony prototype?
To pretend thy use a Taihang is maybe nice but simply unlogical ...


----------



## randomradio

gambit said:


> All the Chinese had to do is acknowledge that such behaviors are normal.



The govt itself has no interest in acknowledging that they bought a regiment of Su-35s. We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it. Even today, their official policy is they did not copy the J-11B. So expecting the general public to acknowledge this is practically impossible.


----------



## Place Of Space

randomradio said:


> The govt itself has no interest in acknowledging that they bought a regiment of Su-35s. We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it. Even today, their official policy is they did not copy the J-11B. So expecting the general public to acknowledge this is practically impossible.



I don't need an Indian to introduce what's Chinese govt official policy. J-11 series is origined from Su-27, China paid patent fee to Russia. We know all the process the cooperation of J-11 project. You post make Indian very arrogant, like to blindly judge what you didn't know clearly. And China bought patent from Ukrain about the European Buffalo Landing Ship, the contract is two ships built in Ukrain and the remaining two built in China shipyard. 
"We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it." Provide some of your proof, if you are seriou poster here.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

randomradio said:


> The govt itself has no interest in acknowledging that they bought a regiment of Su-35s. We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it. Even today, their official policy is they did not copy the J-11B. So expecting the general public to acknowledge this is practically impossible.


I am not talking about the government. Am talking about the lay Chinese who are no different than the lay but interested people from other countries that populate this forum. All the Chinese have to do is acknowledge that speculation is normal, and in highly specialized fields like military aviation where domain experts are always on the lookout for new and innovative things, speculations are expected. Granted, some people will make that charge just to mock the Chinese for being a copycat, but that is the price we pay for the freedom to discuss anything.

As for those who post pictures -- post 57 -- of physical differences and declare that no adoption and adaptation took place: they are wrong.

Let us take an extreme example for now. Why are there no delta winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?

Is it technically feasible to design such an aircraft ? Of course it is. But why are these no *MASS PRODUCTION* of such ? Because the delta wing was developed for high speed and the propeller simply cannot provide enough power for the delta wing to its fullest potential. The propeller certain can provide enough power for takeoff and continuous flight. But if there is a need for Mach or rapid cycling of power for maneuvers, the propeller cannot provide.

Let us move on. Are there any swept (not delta) winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?

Again, we are talking about *MASS PRODUCTION*. Of course there is: Tu-95 'Bear' bomber from the Soviets. Like the delta, the swept wings are designed for high speed, but not to the extent of the delta. The propeller, if properly designed, can provide enough power for flight. The Tu-95 served the Soviets and Russians well. Still, the straight wings and propeller driven combination is better.

The point here is that just because the J-20 have some physical differences from the MIG 1.44, that does not mean the J-20 could not came from the MIG. China made low radar observable a non-negotiable requirement, so some shaping was necessary to the original design. The Chinese may have a better engine, so the J-20's wings will be shaped differently to exploit that improved propulsion capability. Aerodynamics and Propulsion works closely in designing any aircraft. They are in a push-pull relationship. One's capability can inhibit the final design of the other.

This is the kind of speculation I am talking about. It is experience and knowledge based.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## randomradio

Place Of Space said:


> I don't need an Indian to introduce what's Chinese govt official policy. J-11 series is origined from Su-27, China paid patent fee to Russia. We know all the process the cooperation of J-11 project. You post make Indian very arrogant, like to blindly judge what you didn't know clearly. And China bought patent from Ukrain about the European Buffalo Landing Ship, the contract is two ships built in Ukrain and the remaining two built in China shipyard.
> "We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it." Provide some of your proof, if you are seriou poster here.



http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian-roots-revealed-chinas-z-10



Deino said:


> Oh come on. We had this discussion already about 100 times ... All physical details hint an AL-31 and none a WS-10. Even more why should these lrip birds use an engine so far not tested on ony prototype?
> To pretend thy use a Taihang is maybe nice but simply unlogical ...



The J-20 seems to be going through the same type of changes PAK FA is. Interim engine and then Stage 2.



gambit said:


> I am not talking about the government. Am talking about the lay Chinese who are no different than the lay but interested people from other countries that populate this forum. All the Chinese have to do is acknowledge that speculation is normal, and in highly specialized fields like military aviation where domain experts are always on the lookout for new and innovative things, speculations are expected. Granted, some people will make that charge just to mock the Chinese for being a copycat, but that is the price we pay for the freedom to discuss anything.
> 
> As for those who post pictures -- post 57 -- of physical differences and declare that no adoption and adaptation took place: they are wrong.
> 
> Let us take an extreme example for now. Why are there no delta winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?
> 
> Is it technically feasible to design such an aircraft ? Of course it is. But why are these no *MASS PRODUCTION* of such ? Because the delta wing was developed for high speed and the propeller simply cannot provide enough power for the delta wing to its fullest potential. The propeller certain can provide enough power for takeoff and continuous flight. But if there is a need for Mach or rapid cycling of power for maneuvers, the propeller cannot provide.
> 
> Let us move on. Are there any swept (not delta) winged and propeller driven aircrafts ?
> 
> Again, we are talking about *MASS PRODUCTION*. Of course there is: Tu-95 'Bear' bomber from the Soviets. Like the delta, the swept wings are designed for high speed, but not to the extent of the delta. The propeller, if properly designed, can provide enough power for flight. The Tu-95 served the Soviets and Russians well. Still, the straight wings and propeller driven combination is better.
> 
> The point here is that just because the J-20 have some physical differences from the MIG 1.44, that does not mean the J-20 could not came from the MIG. China made low radar observable a non-negotiable requirement, so some shaping was necessary to the original design. The Chinese may have a better engine, so the J-20's wings will be shaped differently to exploit that improved propulsion capability. Aerodynamics and Propulsion works closely in designing any aircraft. They are in a push-pull relationship. One's capability can inhibit the final design of the other.
> 
> This is the kind of speculation I am talking about. It is experience and knowledge based.



Personally I think you're trying too hard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

randomradio said:


> Personally I think you're trying too hard.



I don't know about you but I do appreciate his effort. I don't have to agree with him but I do enjoy reasonable arguments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> You think I care if you want to make the Russians look bad for copying ?
> 
> The MIG-25 was a copy from the North American A-5 Vigilante, pal. Even the Soviets admitted it. You guys ignorantly believes that the F-15 was a copy and response to the MIG-25.
> 
> When it comes to technical issues, especially aviation, you PDF Chinese got nothing to go by.


where Russian was accepting that MIG-25 is copy A-5 Vigilante show me?, in your wet dream or fantasy world as usual AMERICAN superiority complex




Deino said:


> Oh come on. We had this discussion already about 100 times ... All physical details hint an AL-31 and none a WS-10. Even more why should these lrip birds use an engine so far not tested on ony prototype?
> To pretend thy use a Taihang is maybe nice but simply unlogical ...


so why are are so sure that it is not WS-10? give me a accurate logic you are just assuming nothing else

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> Pointing out where you are wrong is not a personal attack.
> 
> The logic is clear with the current data.
> 
> - There is no indicator that the 229 was designed for low radar observability.
> 
> - The Germans had only cursory knowledge of radar and given the status of their war making capability at that time, the Hortens had at best limited access to radars for experimentation. The Allies captured a lot of information and that one prototyp.
> 
> - The flying wing design was already well known in the aviation industry, even before WW II. They knew it for its naturally long range capability. The main problem was controllability.
> 
> - Hitler placed a higher priority on long range over radar avoidance.
> 
> All of this pointed to a logical conclusion that the 229 was more for long range than for radar avoidance. It could not be argued that the B-2 was any copy of the 229 considering the Americans had far more actually flying wing designs than the Hortens had.
> 
> I am mad only in your imagination. You wanted to portray me as angry only to boost your own ego that somehow you are able to make me angry. Get a clue.
> 
> 
> Please...I busted you guys over and over for your liberal use of 'Chinese physics' for the J-20.


Sir Mr Gambit, you are a too much of I, I, I thing, I did this to you, I am superior to all of you, I am a God...etc think about it deep inside of you, and you'll find that the only one here with an inflated ego is Mr Gambit..

I am sure you are hurt by the comparison of the design between the B2 and the Horton, and as sure that you know that the only thing (innovation) that had saved England from the German Invasion was the invention of the Radar by the Brits, so how come you can't (or don't want to) understand that the Horton had some form of stealth in it, if stealth is to avoid radar detection..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

randomradio said:


> Personally I think you're trying too hard.


Actually, it has been the PDF Chinese who have been trying too hard. To debunk their claims, am not working at even half capacity. 

The bottom line, and I have said this before, is that the J-20 is a commendable accomplishment for Chinese military aviation. It should not have *EMOTIONALLY* mattered regarding its origin, but it was. Speculations by domain experts should have been welcomed. What reasons and purposes are there to be hateful against a machine that professionals have to varying degrees contributed to its creation ? If you published a paper for all to see, how do you know you have not contributed, even if just a little, to the creation of an aircraft built by Dassault, Boeing, Bombardier, or China's AVIC ? You do not and probably never will. The lack of information simply made these speculations more fun than malicious. You pull up your education and experience and contribute to the debate. You teach and learn at the same time. All in the public eyes. Who here thinks Chinese engineers are not members of IEEE or any other professional organizations ?

A long time ago, I *SPECULATED* on why the noses of the these 'stealth' designs are shaped the way they are. They have a ridge on each side, a structure that would create edge diffraction signals. I explained that in wave behaviors on cylinders, there is the 10 lambda principle. Lambda is the symbol for frequency. The 10 lambda principle states that if the cylinder's diameter is less than 10 times the operating wavelength, the creeping wave behavior will occur. Essentially, the radar's wave behavior will literally wraps around the cylinder and return to source direction. It does not matter what is the operating wavelength (freq). What mattered is the ratio of that wavelength to the cylinder diameter.

On a 'stealthy' body, you do not wan that behavior to occur. The radomes (nose) of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 are not cylinders but cones. That means they have tapers. One part of the radome will be greater than 10 lambda, but as the radome tapers (narrows) there will be a point where the creeping wave behavior will occur. In having those pinches or ridges, the edge diffraction signals would be statistically less significant than the creeping wave behaviors signals. It is not a flaw but a tactical trade-off in design.

The PDF Chinese immediately jumped on and accused me of making this stuff up. It was simply unthinkable that a non-Chinese could make *ANY* technically valid speculation on this Chinese aircraft. They did not use this tool called the Internet to verify what I said. Simply put, they were unreasonably and grossly emotional about it. Immature is another description.

So here it is...







Look at the introduction and see where three Chinese engineers published their paper at a technical conference. What I said about the creeping wave behavior is true, and from that, what I speculated on the shaping of 'stealth' bodies are valid. Whether what I speculated is true or not we may never know, unless the creators of these aircrafts confirm or deny. But for what I speculated, I did not pulled it out of thin air but from personal experience, education, and training.

To this day, not one of the PDF Chinese ever came out and admitted he was wrong. To admit that he is wrong would be unthinkable to national pride. And I would dare say racial pride since I am a member of an 'inferior' Asian stock.

If I sound harsh against the PDF Chinese, it is in response to their historically immature and insulting attitudes whenever any technically valid comment is sent towards the Chinese military.

This is what this forum have to put up with. This is why CDF died, because no one wanted be around the Chinese. And now the PDF Chinese are dragging this forum down.



The SC said:


> I am sure you are hurt by the comparison of the design between the B2 and the Horton,..


Yeah...I am so hurt from the likes of you.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Place Of Space said:


> I don't need an Indian to introduce what's Chinese govt official policy. J-11 series is origined from Su-27, China paid patent fee to Russia. We know all the process the cooperation of J-11 project. You post make Indian very arrogant, like to blindly judge what you didn't know clearly. And China bought patent from Ukrain about the European Buffalo Landing Ship, the contract is two ships built in Ukrain and the remaining two built in China shipyard.
> "We know that the WZ-10 was designed by Kamov because Kamov officially said it." Provide some of your proof, if you are seriou poster here.



You need NOT to be overly defensive or be disturbed by these personal opinions as truly NOT one of them can confirmed any of their allegations e.g. Kamov was employed to produce a conceptual design but had never participating in any R&D or development of the WZ-10. But Western Media will paint to their readers a different story - a dishonest half truth version. Laugh about it, like I do with many in here. 

Let not forget the conceptual drawing of the US Space Shuttle originated from the late Dr. Tsien from China so does that means that USA copied Space Shuttle or Sr Tsien built the Space Shuttle.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Han Patriot

gambit said:


> Actually, it has been the PDF Chinese who have been trying too hard. To debunk their claims, am not working at even half capacity.
> 
> The bottom line, and I have said this before, is that the J-20 is a commendable accomplishment for Chinese military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...I am so hurt from the likes of you.



Personally, I don't give a damn where the technology comes from. The point is whether we can absorb it, develop it and innovate upon it. All I can see now is we are. People were laughing when we said we would build the fastest computer with Chinese chips, Americans thought we can't survive without Intel chips. They aren't laughing now, are they?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Place Of Space

randomradio said:


> http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian-roots-revealed-chinas-z-10
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 seems to be going through the same type of changes PAK FA is. Interim engine and then Stage 2.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think you're trying too hard.



Please don't troll around. Newspaper report is not proof, I am surprised you don't understand what proof means.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Han Patriot said:


> Personally, I don't give a damn where the technology comes from. The point is whether we can absorb it, develop it and innovate upon it. All I can see now is we are. People were laughing when we said we would build the fastest computer with Chinese chips, Americans thought we can't survive without Intel chips. They aren't laughing now, are they?


You could be the first.

Do you think that what I speculated, applicable to any 'stealth' aircraft from any country, is *TECHNICALLY* valid ?

I am not saying that my speculation is true, because unless the creators of these aircraft publicly confirm we will never know. What I am asking from you is if what I speculated came from a solid technical foundation. Remember, I posted proofs of that technical foundation from a Chinese paper. Not US. Not Russian. Not Indian. But *CHINESE*.


----------



## Mugwop

Chengdu Aircraft Company has already tested delta,canard,twin-tail configuration in the 70's

Which role do you think is best for J-20? Strike,Interceptor,Air superiority?


----------



## cirr

J-20 to test-flight with FWS-15 before the end of the year?

J-2021?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事

cirr said:


> J-20 to test-flight with FWS-15 before the end of the year?
> 
> J-2021?


I don't think that's even possible


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

cirr said:


> J-20 to test-flight with FWS-15 before the end of the year?
> 
> J-2021?



The Prototype B will be tested by 2017.


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> where Russian was accepting that MIG-25 is copy A-5 Vigilante show me?, in your wet dream or fantasy world as usual AMERICAN superiority complex
> 
> 
> 
> so why are are so sure that it is not WS-10? give me a accurate logic you are just assuming nothing else



No .. I beg you in return to give us one single evidence. Otherwise go bach thru thrse pages i already posted my conclusions several times. There is simply NO ... Not a single external detail loke nozzle design, pedal length even the sound is so ...

The only ones with wet dreams like you say are fan boys, dreamers ...


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

The purpose of J20 and other Chinese pltaforms is the security of the state and protecting sovereignity of the Chinese people.

What matters is that these platforms do their job. 

Everything else is distraction after that.

Surely domestic engines are coming up fast.

They will be powering the airframes.

Academic arguements are that- academic.

In order to ensure peace and stability whatever can do the job is great.

Everyone has learned from someone else. Which is a good thing.

But most important thing is: Where is J31 2.0?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> No .. I beg you in return to give us one single evidence. Otherwise go bach thru thrse pages i already posted my conclusions several times. There is simply NO ... Not a single external detail loke nozzle design, pedal length even the sound is so ...
> 
> The only ones with wet dreams like you say are fan boys, dreamers ...


just your wishful thinking and wet dreaming, it might be anything their WS-10 or AL-31, you does not have any prove that it is not WS-10, you are ranting against china's engine development


randomradio said:


> What is your definition of proof? Chinese physics or you want a Chinese official to say it?
> 
> The Russians are plenty of proof.


no no 'Indian physics'

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Han Patriot

gambit said:


> You could be the first.
> 
> Do you think that what I speculated, applicable to any 'stealth' aircraft from any country, is *TECHNICALLY* valid ?
> 
> I am not saying that my speculation is true, because unless the creators of these aircraft publicly confirm we will never know. What I am asking from you is if what I speculated came from a solid technical foundation. Remember, I posted proofs of that technical foundation from a Chinese paper. Not US. Not Russian. Not Indian. But *CHINESE*.


Bro, you have a right to question things, no problem, but whether it's stealthy or not, it's up to the Chinese to decide, they have access to current radars, let's fly the thing in front of it and see if it works, if it doesn't, improve it. Personally, I think there are technologies that can detect stealth but that too to a certain degree. Else, why do you think all major power want to develop it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Han Patriot said:


> Bro, you have a right to question things, no problem, but whether it's stealthy or not, it's up to the Chinese to decide, they have access to current radars, let's fly the thing in front of it and see if it works, if it doesn't, improve it. Personally, I think there are technologies that can detect stealth but that too to a certain degree. Else, why do you think all major power want to develop it?


You are avoiding my question, which I fully expect from a PDF Chinese.

I did not asked if the J-20 is 'stealthy' or not. That is not up to the Chinese but to the laws of physics. A clean F-16 is the unofficial crossover threshold for 'stealth'. Its RCS is roughly 1 meter squared at most usable radar freqs. Whether the J-20 is below this threshold or not is up to measurement data, which the Chinese are not going to divulge. It maybe higher, we may never know. To this day, we do not know the true RCS of the retired F-117, let alone the still active duty F-22 and B-2.

But I did not asked about the J-20's RCS. I asked if my speculation regarding the creeping wave behavior and how the radome designs of the J-20, F-22, and F-35 are affected by that behavior. I have provided a paper from 3 Chinese engineers who verified that the creeping wave behaviors exists. The creeping wave behavior is what your fellow Chinese charged that I made up. But oddly enough, three Chinese engineers mentioned it in a conference.

I can see that you are practically *TERRIFIED* to admit that my speculation on the radome design may have solid technical foundation. It is not that I could be wrong. It is only that I *DID NOT* speculate from nothing. If you admit that my speculation regarding the radome is technically feasible, then it is possible that the J-20 did came from the MIG 1.44 project, an idea that you guys loathe to even consider.


----------



## Han Patriot

gambit said:


> You are avoiding my question, which I fully expect from a PDF Chinese.
> 
> I did not asked if the J-20 is 'stealthy' or not. That is not up to the Chinese but to the laws of physics. A clean F-16 is the unofficial crossover threshold for 'stealth'. Its RCS is roughly 1 meter squared at most usable radar freqs. Whether the J-20 is below this threshold or not is up to measurement data, which the Chinese are not going to divulge. It maybe higher, we may never know. To this day, we do not know the true RCS of the retired F-117, let alone the still active duty F-22 and B-2.
> 
> But I did not asked about the J-20's RCS. I asked if my speculation regarding the creeping wave behavior and how the radome designs of the J-20, F-22, and F-35 are affected by that behavior. I have provided a paper from 3 Chinese engineers who verified that the creeping wave behaviors exists. The creeping wave behavior is what your fellow Chinese charged that I made up. But oddly enough, three Chinese engineers mentioned it in a conference.
> 
> I can see that you are practically *TERRIFIED* to admit that my speculation on the radome design may have solid technical foundation. It is not that I could be wrong. It is only that I *DID NOT* speculate from nothing. If you admit that my speculation regarding the radome is technically feasible, then it is possible that the J-20 did came from the MIG 1.44 project, an idea that you guys loathe to even consider.


Dude, whats wrong with you? I didn't even attempt to answer your question, I am no stealth expert, I am just telling you to stop typing so much. It's really annoying, none here are stealth experts, let alone you, we just want to know what are the latest development for J-20.

If you believe it doesn't work, then good for you. Please don't flood this place.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hk299792458

gambit said:


> then it is possible that the J-20 did came from the MIG 1.44 project, an idea that you guys loathe to even consider.



To be honnest my very first thinking when I saw this word was "What a bullshit".

So far absolutely nothing credible brings to this assumption, since I followed the pre-study of the program since 13 years.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sasquatch

To many posts straying away from the topic, stick to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> You are avoiding my question, which I fully expect from a PDF Chinese.
> 
> I did not asked if the J-20 is 'stealthy' or not. That is not up to the Chinese but to the laws of physics. A clean F-16 is the unofficial crossover threshold for 'stealth'. Its RCS is roughly 1 meter squared at most usable radar freqs. Whether the J-20 is below this threshold or not is up to measurement data, which the Chinese are not going to divulge. It maybe higher, we may never know. To this day, we do not know the true RCS of the retired F-117, let alone the still active duty F-22 and B-2.
> 
> But I did not asked about the J-20's RCS. I asked if my speculation regarding the creeping wave behavior and how the radome designs of the J-20, F-22, and F-35 are affected by that behavior. I have provided a paper from 3 Chinese engineers who verified that the creeping wave behaviors exists. The creeping wave behavior is what your fellow Chinese charged that I made up. But oddly enough, three Chinese engineers mentioned it in a conference.
> 
> I can see that you are practically *TERRIFIED* to admit that my speculation on the radome design may have solid technical foundation. It is not that I could be wrong. It is only that I *DID NOT* speculate from nothing. If you admit that my speculation regarding the radome is technically feasible, then it is possible that the J-20 did came from the MIG 1.44 project, an idea that you guys loathe to even consider.


you mean China can't invent, innovate new thing but US can what loser you are you are ranting against China, as usual AMERICAN superiority complex and baseless thinking that J-20 was develop from MIG-1.44

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

gambit said:


> It is not just I who made the accusation, son. There are plenty of aviation specialists who made the same. With my experience, I chose to ally myself with them. You are asking for, basically, an impossible task. We all know it is impossible because China is not going to release any information about the J-20. This leave you to demand that we all accept your position as default. That is not going to happen. Just as we do not have any concrete proof that the J-20 came from the MIG, neither do you have any proof to support the contrary. You may say that in the end, it is just opinion, but also in that same end, not all opinions are equal. Some have more weight than others. Yours, for now, just weight as much as a soap bubble.


If I said you're an idiot, I should have to prove my case (though there are plenty of evidence around). You're making the claim that J-20 is copying off of Mig 1.44, thus the onus is on you. What you're trying to argue is reverse onus, a logical fallacy.

Since you can't provide any real substance other than pulling crap out of your ***, I'll just chalk this down as your usual BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## terranMarine

Basically the Eurofighter came from the Mig 1.44

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## MICA

terranMarine said:


> Basically the Eurofighter came from the Mig 1.44



This is a completely different design not because they have similar squared intakes so it means they copied the Typhoon Design from the Mig 1.44


----------



## terranMarine

MICA said:


> This is a completely different design not because they have similar squared intakes so it means they copied the Typhoon Design from the Mig 1.44


 tell that to professor Gambit

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

terranMarine said:


> tell that to professor Gambit


no sir he don't understand, he always think that China steal, copy and paste, and doesn't have the capability to invent and innovate something new what a loser he is


----------



## terranMarine

pakistanipower said:


> no sir he don't understand, he always think that China steal, copy and paste, and doesn't have the capability to invent and innovate something new what a loser he is


It's still a mystery to me how we managed to steal the fastest super computer from the US and bring it all the way back to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

terranMarine said:


> It's still a mystery to me how we managed to steal the fastest super computer from the US and bring it all the way back to China.


i don't know ask to him


----------



## Brainsucker

terranMarine said:


> Basically the Eurofighter came from the Mig 1.44



Is that Mig 1.44? If so, how could somebody said that J-20 is the copy of this bird?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> Is that Mig 1.44? If so, how could somebody said that J-20 is the copy of this bird?


yes it is MIG1.44


----------



## terranMarine

Brainsucker said:


> Is that Mig 1.44? If so, how could somebody said that J-20 is the copy of this bird?


Well Professor Gambit didn't exactly said it was a copy, he claims that the J-20 derived from the Mig 1.44. Chinese used the Mig 1.44 as the basis and developed into what is known as the J-20.


----------



## Ultima Thule

terranMarine said:


> Well Professor Gambit didn't exactly said it was a copy, he claims that the J-20 derived from the Mig 1.44. Chinese used the Mig 1.44 as the basis and developed into what is known as the J-20.


i don't think it is based on MIG1.44 more likely that it was based of early US JAST concept


----------



## S10

terranMarine said:


> Well Professor Gambit didn't exactly said it was a copy, he claims that the J-20 derived from the Mig 1.44. Chinese used the Mig 1.44 as the basis and developed into what is known as the J-20.


J-20 is an evolution of J-9VII design, which predates Mig 1.44 for at least a decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

S10 said:


> J-20 is an evolution of J-9VII design, which predates Mig 1.44 for at least a decade.



Many people don't understand the notion of the convergent evolution.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kuge

terranMarine said:


> It's still a mystery to me how we managed to steal the fastest super computer from the US and bring it all the way back to China.


looksv like mr Gambit simply cant adapt china's capability to lead...he may need more time to adapt to new reality

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

J20 is the copy of UFO that crashed in Mangolian desert.

J31 is the copy of an orb that was captured by the PLAAF.

China must keep copying these in massive numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## .

^lol


----------



## gambit

terranMarine said:


> Well Professor Gambit didn't exactly said it was a copy, he claims that the J-20 derived from the Mig 1.44. Chinese used the Mig 1.44 as the basis and developed into what is known as the J-20.


There you go...!!! Was that too hard ? I will admit, you guys occasionally do surprise me at understanding things technical.

Now let us try something harder. Is 'pitch' a reference to the horizon or to the aircraft ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Except another commentor already pointed out the J9, which predates the MiG 1.44 for decades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> Except another commentor already pointed out the J9, which predates the MiG 1.44 for decades.


Decades ? All the more reasons the J-20's designer would use the MIG 1.44 as reference.






Do you think AM General used WW II era Willys MB as a reference in designing the HMMWV, aka 'Humvee' ?

When you have a large delta wing, what happens at high AoA ? How about loss of airflow across the vertical stab, which leads to decreased control in the yaw axis ? That is why the small F-16 have such a oversized vertical stab compared to its cropped delta wing, which gave the F-16 its 25.5 deg AoA limit.

Twin vertical stabs placed off center offers the superior solution for high AoA plus yaw axis stability and control. See the American F-14, F-15, F-15, and F-18 fighters. All with twin vertical stabs. The F-16 is the exception due to its already small size. No structural room for twin vertical stabs, hence an oversized single.


----------



## hk299792458

gambit said:


> Decades ? All the more reasons the J-20's designer would use the MIG 1.44 as reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think AM General used WW II era Willys MB as a reference in designing the HMMWV, aka 'Humvee' ?
> 
> When you have a large delta wing, what happens at high AoA ? How about loss of airflow across the vertical stab, which leads to decreased control in the yaw axis ? That is why the small F-16 have such a oversized vertical stab compared to its cropped delta wing, which gave the F-16 its 25.5 deg AoA limit.
> 
> Twin vertical stabs placed off center offers the superior solution for high AoA plus yaw axis stability and control. See the American F-14, F-15, F-15, and F-18 fighters. All with twin vertical stabs. The F-16 is the exception due to its already small size. No structural room for twin vertical stabs, hence an oversized single.



Gambit, you might find the origine of J-20 design in this paper : 
http://xinsheng-image.huawei.com/cn...7216a-24298169-forum-0/一种小展弦比高升力飞机的气动布局研究.pdf

I do remember that a couple of years ago, the director of MiG had already formally denied any technical transfert or consultation to AVIC around next Gen fighter technologies.

J-10 is derivated from J-9 design, this is official and clearly notified. And J-9 (from I to IV) was developed between 1965 and 1976. This is also tracked in AVIC historical archive.

To all, please kindly refer your discussion based on facts, and not "I think that" or just comparison of 2 photos. Otherwise we could also say that SLS is based on CZ-9 design, American is just European from 18th century, or Chinese is copy of Monkey... All ridiculous.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Then simply from the way you speculated, do you say the MIG 1.44 used J9 as reference? Personally, I don't know how an aircraft engineer used another aircraft as reference without having the blueprint at hand. At best you can say the MIG 1.44 was an inspiration to J20, but definitely not a reference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> Then simply from the way you speculated, do you say the MIG 1.44 used J9 as reference? Personally, I don't know how an aircraft engineer used another aircraft as reference without having the blueprint at hand. At best you can say the MIG 1.44 was an inspiration to J20, but definitely not a reference.


This tells me that you have no experience in R/D and manufacturing, and probably watch too many bad movies.

Am going to give you a clue: There is no such thing as a 'blueprint' in aviation.

You want to see a 'blueprint' ? Go look at the bicycle.

People toss the word 'blueprint' around as if they know what they are talking about. An aircraft is a million times more complex than a bicycle. It is not possible to have a single printout of an aircraft that give details to the many subsystems necessary to make that aircraft flyable.


----------



## dingyibvs

Yes, an aircraft is very complex, so how much of the very complex MiG 1.44 do you about, and how much of the even more complex J20 do you know about? How can you say one is derived from the other if all you have are some exterior pictures?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Guys ... To admit I'm a bit surprised and even annoyed to see what was discussed since my two-weeks holydays in France.

I still wonder why there is so much hate between the two sides? On the one side there are the Fan- Boys who Take it as a personell attack if you say the J-20 is Not the best, if there might me some external input in its development and most of all if you only assume that it is using AL-31FNs Even if all evidence say so and nothing hints to a WS-10.
On the other side there are the nay-sayers, who rate the J-20 a plain stupid copy or a Development of another failed design ...

Stupid, indeed.....both sides  since ignoring facts or even accepting certain possibilities since they don't fit the own point of view, will prevent to see the real Story behind.

By the Way...any latest News or especially Images of the LRIP birds.

Deino

PS  ... just found Even if i am Not sure if they are new!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pepsi Cola

gambit said:


> This tells me that you have no experience in R/D and manufacturing, and probably watch too many bad movies.
> 
> Am going to give you a clue: There is no such thing as a 'blueprint' in aviation.
> 
> You want to see a 'blueprint' ? Go look at the bicycle.
> 
> People toss the word 'blueprint' around as if they know what they are talking about. An aircraft is a million times more complex than a bicycle. It is not possible to have a single printout of an aircraft that give details to the many subsystems necessary to make that aircraft flyable.


Have you mistaken? A blueprint doesn't have to fit on one paper. And it really doesn't matter how many papers it is. That's not part of my point, my point is that unless the J20 engineers obtained official Russian document regarding the MIG 1.44 a, there's no way you can say that J20 used the MIG as reference.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

dingyibvs said:


> Yes, an aircraft is very complex, so how much of the very complex MiG 1.44 do you about, and how much of the even more complex J20 do you know about? How can you say one is derived from the other if all you have are some exterior pictures?


*EACH* winged aircraft can trace its lineage back the Wright Flyer. That is no exaggeration. Go back one more step and you will touch the bird, of whom the Wright Brothers studied how birds flexes their wings to maneuver in flight.

Aerodynamics is the study of flow around shapes. So if you are an aerodynamicist, you would have a pretty good guess of an airframe based upon its shapes, from body to wings. It also mean that if you see two *SIMILAR* shapes, meaning not *IDENTICAL*, from the same knowledge, you would also have a pretty good guess as to their performance. You cannot in good professional conscience argue that the behaviors of a canard-ed aircraft is the same as a conventionally tailed aircraft. All of this came from observation.

Since the canard is ahead of the wing, shaping and positioning the canard is even more crucial than for a conventional tailplane assembly. Do it inefficiently and you will negative affect lift over the main wing. Do it wrong and your design will crash.

So when you see this...











It unlikely that you, as an aerodynamicist, will guess that the J-20 came from the older J-9. The shaping of the J-20's canards are too similar to the MIG's. The canards' dihedral (upsweep angle) exists on the MIG and J-20, but not on the J-9. Why do you think there is a canard dihedral on one design but not the other ? What about the quantity of flight control surfaces ? Which has more and why ?

When I transferred from the F-111 to the F-16, I do not need to know the aerodynamics of the F-16 to know that its flight characteristics will be different from the F-111. And I was correct based upon appearance alone. *YOU* would, not merely could, make the same correct guess.

In rotary winged aircrafts, aka 'helicopter', just from noting the number of blades in the main rotor assembly, one can guess the performance of that helo to a high degree of accuracy. The more the number of blades, the more stable the flight but the less maneuverability. Which explains why the Cobra have only two blades because as an attack aircraft, it needs maneuverability to make quick aspect changes to deal with threats to self and to ground forces. On the other hand, the Apache, while also designed as an attack helo, it was also designed to carry more ordnance and other non-weapons related systems for other combat roles, hence four blades.

The point here is that while there are limits to appearances, noting similarities and differences can tell us much, even to origin of design.


----------



## Deino

Finally back to Topic ... This is surely new.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Oka


gambit said:


> *EACH* winged aircraft can trace its lineage back the Wright Flyer. That is no exaggeration. Go back one more step and you will touch the bird, of whom the Wright Brothers studied how birds flexes their wings to maneuver in flight.
> 
> Aerodynamics is the study of flow around shapes. So if you are an aerodynamicist, you would have a pretty good guess of an airframe based upon its shapes, from body to wings. It also mean that if you see two *SIMILAR* shapes, meaning not *IDENTICAL*, from the same knowledge, you would also have a pretty good guess as to their performance. You cannot in good professional conscience argue that the behaviors of a canard-ed aircraft is the same as a conventionally tailed aircraft. All of this came from observation.
> 
> Since the canard is ahead of the wing, shaping and positioning the canard is even more crucial than for a conventional tailplane assembly. Do it inefficiently and you will negative affect lift over the main wing. Do it wrong and your design will crash.
> 
> So when you see this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It unlikely that you, as an aerodynamicist, will guess that the J-20 came from the older J-9. The shaping of the J-20's canards are too similar to the MIG's. The canards' dihedral (upsweep angle) exists on the MIG and J-20, but not on the J-9. Why do you think there is a canard dihedral on one design but not the other ? What about the quantity of flight control surfaces ? Which has more and why ?
> 
> When I transferred from the F-111 to the F-16, I do not need to know the aerodynamics of the F-16 to know that its flight characteristics will be different from the F-111. And I was correct based upon appearance alone. *YOU* would, not merely could, make the same correct guess.
> 
> In rotary winged aircrafts, aka 'helicopter', just from noting the number of blades in the main rotor assembly, one can guess the performance of that helo to a high degree of accuracy. The more the number of blades, the more stable the flight but the less maneuverability. Which explains why the Cobra have only two blades because as an attack aircraft, it needs maneuverability to make quick aspect changes to deal with threats to self and to ground forces. On the other hand, the Apache, while also designed as an attack helo, it was also designed to carry more ordnance and other non-weapons related systems for other combat roles, hence four blades.
> 
> The point here is that while there are limits to appearances, noting similarities and differences can tell us much, even to origin of design.



Okay? So how is your comment relate to my previous one? Your bullshit skill is through the roof buddy.

So what if Chinese engineers look at some photos of MIG 1.44 or whatever other aircrafts, and say oh hey they are doing something different with their canards, Why don't we test it on a model and see how it works? If it's good we put it on our aircraft, if it doesn't suit our aircraft, we'll opt out for something else. And by the way MIG 1.44 isn't the first fighter that has the canards in that fashion, Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale both come before the MIG and both have the same style of canards.

So what if the new Rolls Royce Trent 1000, and General Electric GEnx both have the same looking chevrons on them? Do you say they use each other as reference? Of course not. RR can look at GE's newest engine all they want and be like, hey those chevrons are interesting, I don't know what they do but why don't I carve a model and test it in a wind tunnel and see how it performs? That's not using it as reference, that's using it as inspiration, because to use the GE as reference, RR has to obtain a data or a design sheet from GE and follow them exactly. And any common sense would tell you that designing your fighter aircraft using another fighter's photographs as reference is the dumbest thing you can do.

Drop your argument already, it sucks.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> So what if Chinese engineers look at some photos of MIG 1.44 or whatever other aircrafts, and say oh hey they are doing something different with their canards, Why don't we test it on a model and see how it works? If it's good we put it on our aircraft, if it doesn't suit our aircraft, we'll opt out for something else.


Then we can say that the J-20 did came from the MIG 1.44 project. And there is nothing bullshit about it.



Okarus said:


> And by the way MIG 1.44 isn't the first fighter that has the canards in that fashion, Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale both come before the MIG and both have the same style of canards.


Yeah...So did the Wright Flyer.



Okarus said:


> So what if the new Rolls Royce Trent 1000, and General Electric GEnx both have the same looking chevrons on them? Do you say they use each other as reference?


No idea what the hell you are talking about.


----------



## Pepsi Cola

gambit said:


> Then we can say that the J-20 did came from the MIG 1.44 project. And there is nothing bullshit about it.
> 
> 
> Yeah...So did the Wright Flyer.



How can you say that? Are you the J20 engineer? And to say the J20 "came from" MIG 1.44 is the most ignorant thing. What do you mean came from? Don't give me that vague term.

You've been evading the word "reference" ever since I pointed out your error in my statement earlier. Opting out for something weak and vague like "came from", and still talk like you got your shit sorted.

My point is that MIG 1.44 could be J-20's inspiration, and there's no way it's a reference. That's my point, and that's all I'm here to debate about. Not fucking aerodynamics.

And by the way, I'd have let your Wright Flyer comment slide if you quoted a better section of my comment, but you're really bad at quoting, so I have to point out that the quote talked about the canards. Wright Flyer did not have canards. So no, you can't include the Wright Flyer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> And by the way, I'd have let your Wright Flyer comment slide if you quoted a better section of my comment, but you're really bad at quoting, so I have to point out that the quote talked about the canards. *Wright Flyer did not have canards.* So no, you can't include the Wright Flyer.


You should really take time and do basic research. This American invention called 'The Internet' is a wonder...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer


> The _Flyer_ was a canard biplane configuration.


----------



## Pepsi Cola

I get it buddy, it's okay. Here you go for your "reference"









And sorry mods, I know it's a bit off topic, but I have to point it out for this smart ***.



gambit said:


> You should really take time and do basic research. This American invention called 'The Internet' is a wonder...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer


Okay? Maybe I'm wrong. It did have canards, but definitely not the same type as canards on those fighters. Am I right? Sorry I don't know what the **** is the "Internet", I'm so dumb.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> I get it buddy, it's okay. Here you go for your "reference"
> And sorry mods, I know it's a bit off topic, but I have to point it out for this smart ***.


Ah...Those things are called 'scallops' or 'serrations' and they have *NOTHING* to do with the jet engine : Aeroacoustics.

What you see is the engine pod, or housing, and those features can be installed on any jet engine from any manufacturer. They have no performance effects on the engine itself. They are there to help reduce noise. Without them, the jet engine would perform the same.

For what you tried to dispute me...



> So what if the new Rolls Royce Trent 1000, and General Electric GEnx both have the same looking chevrons on them? Do you say they use each other as reference?
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-388#ixzz4G0bwQ2v0


This is what a jet engine look like.






If GE want to copy, or reference, or inspired by RR, they would definitely need an RR engine. Not the pod/housing.

*YOU ARE WRONG.* Simple as that.

When it comes to aerodynamics, the outside matter because the outside is what comes into physical contact with air molecules. So if the Chinese engineers used the MIG 1.44 as inspiration, might as well call it a reference.



Okarus said:


> Okay? Maybe I'm wrong. It did have canards, but definitely not the same type as canards on those fighters. Am I right?


Then using your own argument, since the MIG 1.44's and the J-20's canards do not look like the canards on the J-9, but more alike to each other, we can say that the J-20 was 'inspired' or 'referenced' from the MIG.



Okarus said:


> Sorry I don't know what the **** is the "Internet", I'm so dumb.


Compare to me, yes you are. You want to play rough ? So can I. I tried to be polite to you, but if you want to rude about a technical debate, I will accommodate you.


----------



## Deino

Guys ... Simply stop This stupid copy-paste discussion. If you like to continue start an own thread on how much a certain design might me influenced by another one .... but no longer here.

End of debate.

Deino


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Guys ... Simply stop This stupid copy-paste discussion. If you like to continue start an own thread on how much a certain design might me influenced by another one .... but no longer here.
> 
> End of debate.
> 
> Deino


As far as I am concerned, the matter is *TECHNICALLY* relevant and related. But you and the PDF Chinese can relax because the Chinese mod, in the interest of protecting his fellow Chinese, are going to delete my posts anyway.


----------



## Pepsi Cola

gambit said:


> Ah...Those things are called 'scallops' or 'serrations' and they have *NOTHING* to do with the jet engine : Aeroacoustics.
> 
> What you see is the engine pod, or housing, and those features can be installed on any jet engine from any manufacturer. They have no performance effects on the engine itself. They are there to help reduce noise. Without them, the jet engine would perform the same.
> 
> For what you tried to dispute me...
> 
> 
> This is what a jet engine look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If GE want to copy, or reference, or inspired by RR, they would definitely need an RR engine. Not the pod/housing.
> 
> *YOU ARE WRONG.* Simple as that.
> 
> When it comes to aerodynamics, the outside matter because the outside is what comes into physical contact with air molecules. So if the Chinese engineers used the MIG 1.44 as inspiration, might as well call it a reference.
> 
> 
> Then using your own argument, since the MIG 1.44's and the J-20's canards do not look like the canards on the J-9, but more alike to each other, we can say that the J-20 was 'inspired' or 'referenced' from the MIG.
> 
> 
> Compare to me, yes you are. You want to play rough ? So can I. I tried to be polite to you, but if you want to rude about a technical debate, I will accommodate you.


 
Sorry that* I AM WRONG. (BOLD AND CAPITAL LETTERS FOR SPECIAL EFFECTS) D*id i say it affects how the engine perform? Gosh you need to really learn how to stay on topic. I'm fascinated by your word plays. Really, I am. The Chevrons (And yes they are called "chevron design " according to NASA and the "scallop" is simply the shape of the design ) Everything about the engine, including the noise it produced is regarded as "performance", part of the engine's marketing point, and is on the engines official spec sheet.

Seriously your latter argument is so bad that I'm honestly at loss of words. I'll let other readers decide who is right or wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> Sorry that* I AM WRONG. (BOLD AND CAPITAL LETTERS FOR SPECIAL EFFECTS) D*id i say it affects how the engine perform? Gosh you need to really learn how to stay on topic. I'm fascinated by your word plays. Really, I am. The Chevrons (And yes they are called "chevron design " according to NASA and the "scallop" is simply the shape of the design ) Everything about the engine, including the noise it produced is regarded as "performance", part of the engine's marketing point, and is on the engines official spec sheet.
> 
> Seriously your latter argument is so bad that I'm honestly at loss of words. I'll let other readers decide who is right or wrong.


In aerodynamics, shaping is visible and its effects are immediate and equally visible. So when I argued that the J-20's shape is inspired or referenced by the MIG 1.44, there are technical legitimacy to that argument.

When you tried to refute that argument by using a feature that have no real effects whatsoever on the object, what else can you be but -- *WRONG* ? When we talk of engine 'performance' we mean core burn efficiency, thrust, fuel consumption rate, all the things that helps an engine move an aircraft. Noise is not a part of that. All airliners have been flying for decades without that aeroacoustics features. Jet engine technology have been progressing without that feature.

So no, GE cannot use the external features of the engine pod/housing on an RR engine as reference or inspiration, but Chengdu certainly can use the external features of the MIG 1.44 to design the J-20.


----------



## Deino

gambit said:


> As far as I am concerned, the matter is *TECHNICALLY* relevant and related. But you and the PDF Chinese can relax because the Chinese mod, in the interest of protecting his fellow Chinese, are going to delete my posts anyway.



Honestly but here you Are wrong - especially since i am the one who gets the most bashing of bring anti-chinese only since i am not a blinded fan- boy ( just read my post a bit further above) - and it is not a matter of protecting chinese feelings. This discussion has long become much too much off- Topic and some arguments from bith sides are even more plain wrong ...

Anyway ... Everything more off-topic will be deleted.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pepsi Cola

gambit said:


> In aerodynamics, shaping is visible and its effects are immediate and equally visible. So when I argued that the J-20's shape is inspired or referenced by the MIG 1.44, there are technical legitimacy to that argument.
> 
> When you tried to refute that argument by using a feature that have no real effects whatsoever on the object, what else can you be but -- *WRONG* ? When we talk of engine 'performance' we mean core burn efficiency, thrust, fuel consumption rate, all the things that helps an engine move an aircraft. Noise is not a part of that. All airliners have been flying for decades without that aeroacoustics features. Jet engine technology have been progressing without that feature.
> 
> So no, GE cannot use the external features of the engine pod/housing on an RR engine as reference or inspiration, but Chengdu certainly can use the external features of the MIG 1.44 to design the J-20.



No real effects? I'm sure those companies won't put those chevrons on if there's really "No real effects". What's your source that people don't consider noise as part of "performance".

"In fixed-wing aircraft driven by one or more jet engines, certain aspects of performance such as thrust relate directly to the safe operation of the aircraft whereas other aspects of the engine operation such as noise and engine emissions affect the environment." (Jet engine performance From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) According to this, noise is simply one of many aspects of performance. Simply because the engine have been progressing without that feature doesn't mean you can exclude it as part of the argument. The last time I checked stealth fighters have also "been progressing without that feature".

And don't give me that "inspire or reference" the two words aren't the same, and they are not interchangeable. Here's definition of reference, "use of a source of information in order to ascertain something." Here's definition of inspire "give rise to." It's a subtle difference, but it shouldn't be too hard for you to understand. Right??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Okarus said:


> No real effects? I'm sure those companies won't put those chevrons on if there's really "No real effects". What's your source that people don't consider noise as part of "performance".
> 
> "In fixed-wing aircraft driven by one or more jet engines, certain aspects of performance such as thrust relate directly to the safe operation of the aircraft whereas other aspects of the engine operation such as noise and engine emissions affect the environment." (Jet engine performance From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) According to this, noise is simply one of many aspects of performance. Simply because the engine have been progressing without that feature doesn't mean you can exclude it as part of the argument. The last time I checked stealth fighters have also "been progressing without that feature".
> 
> And don't give me that "inspire or reference" the two words aren't the same, and they are not interchangeable. Here's definition of reference, "use of a source of information in order to ascertain something." Here's definition of inspire "give rise to." It's a subtle difference, but it shouldn't be too hard for you to understand. Right??


no he is right you are wrong noise is minor "performance" part of jet engine


----------



## RAMPAGE

@gambit

Hello, Sir. Hope everything's well with you. I was wondering if you could answer a small question. How are these new _clipped_ stabilizers of J-20 and J-31 more stealthier than their predecessors? This alteration is unique to Chinese designs. US did something similar with F-22 but limited to wings only, not applied to the vertical stabilizers.


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

RAMPAGE said:


> @gambit
> 
> Hello, Sir. Hope everything's well with you. I was wondering if you could answer a small question. How are these new _clipped_ stabilizers of J-20 and J-31 more stealthier than their predecessors? This alteration is unique to Chinese designs. US did something similar with F-22 but limited to wings only, not applied to the vertical stabilizers.


Let us return to the basic rules in designing with intent to low radar observability.

Control of:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

The question you asked is not small. In fact, it is tactically significant and if done incorrectly, the 'low' part of 'low radar observability' will increase.






In the simple example above, square 1 have four sides and four tips for a total of 8 edge diffraction radiators. Square 2 have five sides and five tips for a total of 10 edge diffraction radiators.

The initial impression would be that S-2 sort of 'violated' rule 1 (control of quantity of radiators ), but if these radiators are positioned in such a way that any edge diffraction signals are redirected away from source direction, where the radar signals came from, then S-2 is in compliance of rule 2 (control of array of radiators) despite having a higher number of radiators. The modes of radiation, edge diffraction, is the same for both squares.

I used the word 'violated' quite loosely here. It is not so much a violation of any rule but rather more or less compliant to them. A sphere have no edge diffraction radiation because it has no edges and tips. A sphere have specular and surface waves modes of radiation. Put absorbers on the sphere to control those modes of radiation and we might just have the ideal 'stealth' body.

So now take a look at the F-117 cockpit region...






We see edge diffraction signals all over that body because of all those sharp ridges. This body seemingly is not very compliant with rule 1: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

But this body is very compliant to rule 2: *ARRAY* of radiators.

That compliance, or obedience, to rule 2 is so good that the F-117's RCS remain secret to this day. Array of radiators is where we see those famous serrated features, large and small, at the edges of the flight control surfaces, fuselage, and engine nozzles.

The rules mean that if we *FIRST* control the quantity of radiators, we would worry less and less about how to array what we have, and less about what kind of radiation that comes from what we have.

The opposite is true that the more quantity of radiators we have, the more complex the problem of how to array (position) them, and what modes of radiation there might be, so less signals will return to the seeking radar.

Why do one J-20 have modified vertical stabs but another does not ? I would dare guess that some tests on these structures indicated that there are 'stealthy' benefits to those modifications without adversely affecting aerodynamics and controllability issues.

The 3 basic rules on designing a 'low radar observability' body must be taken at the same time and when there is a major item like a flight control structure that protrudes into space, therefore fully exposed to incoming radar signals, even cropping a corner requires close study. Whether the American design needs this modification or not is based upon the same three rules.

I know my answer is long but it cannot be otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Most likely an older image of 2101 ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Deino said:


> Most likely an older image of 2101 ....
> 
> View attachment 322316



Do know much about tech...but this bird looks amazing...a transformer!

The best Chinese design so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Another "New" Image of our Old friend 2016 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dingyibvs

gambit said:


> *EACH* winged aircraft can trace its lineage back the Wright Flyer. That is no exaggeration. Go back one more step and you will touch the bird, of whom the Wright Brothers studied how birds flexes their wings to maneuver in flight.
> 
> Aerodynamics is the study of flow around shapes. So if you are an aerodynamicist, you would have a pretty good guess of an airframe based upon its shapes, from body to wings. It also mean that if you see two *SIMILAR* shapes, meaning not *IDENTICAL*, from the same knowledge, you would also have a pretty good guess as to their performance. You cannot in good professional conscience argue that the behaviors of a canard-ed aircraft is the same as a conventionally tailed aircraft. All of this came from observation.
> 
> Since the canard is ahead of the wing, shaping and positioning the canard is even more crucial than for a conventional tailplane assembly. Do it inefficiently and you will negative affect lift over the main wing. Do it wrong and your design will crash.
> 
> So when you see this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It unlikely that you, as an aerodynamicist, will guess that the J-20 came from the older J-9. The shaping of the J-20's canards are too similar to the MIG's. The canards' dihedral (upsweep angle) exists on the MIG and J-20, but not on the J-9. Why do you think there is a canard dihedral on one design but not the other ? What about the quantity of flight control surfaces ? Which has more and why ?
> 
> When I transferred from the F-111 to the F-16, I do not need to know the aerodynamics of the F-16 to know that its flight characteristics will be different from the F-111. And I was correct based upon appearance alone. *YOU* would, not merely could, make the same correct guess.
> 
> In rotary winged aircrafts, aka 'helicopter', just from noting the number of blades in the main rotor assembly, one can guess the performance of that helo to a high degree of accuracy. The more the number of blades, the more stable the flight but the less maneuverability. Which explains why the Cobra have only two blades because as an attack aircraft, it needs maneuverability to make quick aspect changes to deal with threats to self and to ground forces. On the other hand, the Apache, while also designed as an attack helo, it was also designed to carry more ordnance and other non-weapons related systems for other combat roles, hence four blades.
> 
> The point here is that while there are limits to appearances, noting similarities and differences can tell us much, even to origin of design.



A lot of words to state a very simple concept, that form determines function, no? If the J-20 and the Mig 1.44 were designed to serve similar functions, wouldn't it make sense that they would have similar form? Why does the J-20 have to originate from the Mig 1.44 instead of simply convergent evolution? Did the bat come from the bird because they both fly with wings? Did the whale come from the shark because they both swim by flapping their tails?

For clearly a well educated engineer like you, I'd expect more nuanced answer than essentially the two share similar forms and thus one must be evolution of another.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

dingyibvs said:


> A lot of words to state a very simple concept, that form determines function, no? If the J-20 and the Mig 1.44 were designed to serve similar functions, wouldn't it make sense that they would have similar form? Why does the J-20 have to originate from the Mig 1.44 instead of simply convergent evolution? Did the bat come from the bird because they both fly with wings? Did the whale come from the shark because they both swim by flapping their tails?
> 
> For clearly a well educated engineer like you, I'd expect more nuanced answer than essentially the two share similar forms and thus one must be evolution of another.


leave him Mr @dingyibys, he don't understand your words

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

dingyibvs said:


> A lot of words to state a very simple concept, that form determines function, no? If the J-20 and the Mig 1.44 were designed to serve similar functions, wouldn't it make sense that they would have similar form? Why does the J-20 have to originate from the Mig 1.44 instead of simply convergent evolution? Did the bat come from the bird because they both fly with wings? Did the whale come from the shark because they both swim by flapping their tails?
> 
> For clearly a well educated engineer like you, I'd expect more nuanced answer than essentially the two share similar forms and thus one must be evolution of another.


Sorry. I cannot dumb it down any further. But I fully expected that post to go 'Whoooosh' over your head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

New hangars spotted at Dingxin ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng

How can j20 more stealther than f22 ...we need optical stealth...We want to see the plasma stealth...We want completely disappear...
So the research in China started long long long ago..

First of all...Five years ago, the development of smart skin...According to the radar absorb radar frequency automatically adjust itself...Some related technical papers is aboveboard ...

And then...About stealth research is not a single subject...More collaborative research in the field of system ...Wide application is the intention ...SO...Who said the j20 on the stealth technology can't use warships stealth tec. and in fact j 20 has a lot of stealth technique which is derived from Marine scientific research...

And finally...For the controversy about the super long wave and S wave, the problem of l-band stealth......Since dear friends all can think...why the reachers of speical Chinese experts can not?..
The research work...
Plans...Is all started more than 20 years ago...


隐身性能怎么才能和22娘一个档次。。。不行。。。偶们要看光学隐身。。。我们要看等离子隐身。。。我们要看彻底隐身。。。
于是科研兔掀桌中。。。
嗯。。。坑爹的楼楼稍微解毒下。。。
首先。。。*5年前兔子就完成了智能蒙皮的研发*。。。根据*雷达波自动调节自身吸收雷达的频率*。。。*而相关的一些技术论文更是光明正大的溜达粗来了*。。。有兔友会问这会不会让鹰酱也受到启发呀。。。嘛。。。那得5年后的事了。。
接着。。。*关于隐身性研究并不是一个单一的课题。。。多系统全领域的合作研究。。。广泛应用化才是兔子的本意。。。SO。。。谁特么说20姬的隐身技术不能用到战舰上的偶和谁急。。。因为20姬的隐身技术很多来源于船舶科技研究*。。。
最后。。。*对于兔友们广泛争议的关于超长波还有S、L波段隐身的难题*。。。嘛。。。既然亲们都想到了。。。那些成天吃饱撑着没事干开脑洞的科研兔们怎么会没想到呢。。。
研究工作。。。
相关计划。。。是20多年前了。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Eagle

yusheng said:


> View attachment 325617
> 
> 
> 隐身性能怎么才能和22娘一个档次。。。不行。。。偶们要看光学隐身。。。我们要看等离子隐身。。。我们要看彻底隐身。。。
> 于是科研兔掀桌中。。。
> 嗯。。。坑爹的楼楼稍微解毒下。。。
> 首先。。。*5年前兔子就完成了智能蒙皮的研发*。。。根据*雷达波自动调节自身吸收雷达的频率*。。。*而相关的一些技术论文更是光明正大的溜达粗来了*。。。有兔友会问这会不会让鹰酱也受到启发呀。。。嘛。。。那得5年后的事了。。
> 接着。。。*关于隐身性研究并不是一个单一的课题。。。多系统全领域的合作研究。。。广泛应用化才是兔子的本意。。。SO。。。谁特么说20姬的隐身技术不能用到战舰上的偶和谁急。。。因为20姬的隐身技术很多来源于船舶科技研究*。。。
> 最后。。。*对于兔友们广泛争议的关于超长波还有S、L波段隐身的难题*。。。嘛。。。既然亲们都想到了。。。那些成天吃饱撑着没事干开脑洞的科研兔们怎么会没想到呢。。。
> 研究工作。。。
> 相关计划。。。是20多年前了。。。



A detailed or bit of insight would be appreciated, Translation please.


----------



## yusheng

Recently, a Chinese scientists published in the English paper caused the western media speculation.On November 10, the physics of the federation of the journal of applied physics published an article in the 118 issue of the author from the huazhong university of science and technology English papers in China.The paper expounds the "active frequency selective absorbing surface" technology is used to absorb ultra-high-frequency (UHF) band radar technology.This is considered a kind of can be used in the manufacture of stealth fighters of the smart skin technology, it can adjust itself according to enemy radar detection frequency of radar wave absorption rate, thus greatly reduce the radar echo area, may make only absorbs existing fixed band wave stealth coating technology is completely out of date.After observer network query related papers in Chinese, find and associated parts of the paper before and after test as early as in 2011 has been completed, the technology may have been close to practical application, so relevant preparatory academic achievements have been published.


The "art" of science and technology website (Arstechnica) according to the report, Chinese scientists have developed a new material, known as "active frequency selective surface" - that is a very thin layer of material, the surface is a layer of material for printed circuit board, below the semiconductor and copper structure, after electrify the can to a certain frequency range to absorb microwaves, and absorb specific band is adjustable.This material can reduce any it covers the radar cross-section of reflection of the object, such as stealth fighter.Once put into use, it will be able to absorb the radar wave of different frequency.Importantly, the working principle of equipment have been publicly, in the recently published in the journal of applied science.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## gambit

Active absorbers concept. Posted back in '09.

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-j-10-fc-20-multirole-fighter-air-craft.3218/page-100#post-443654


----------



## Deino

Only a CG ... but a very nice one !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Nice ... but these images are all already posted (on 8. July)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

China's 6th generation fighter jet??? 

Avionics - advanced net-centric
Pilot interface - system integration with advanced avionics
Airframe - high strength lightweight composites, full spectrum signature minimization
Weapons - new techs for longer range, hypersonic speeds, higher probability of kill, smarter munitions
Engines- adaptive cycle engines, better power and efficiency

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

cirr said:


> China's 6th generation fighter jet???
> 
> Avionics - advanced net-centric
> Pilot interface - system integration with advanced avionics
> Airframe - high strength lightweight composites, full spectrum signature minimization
> Weapons - new techs for longer range, hypersonic speeds, higher probability of kill, smarter munitions
> Engines- adaptive cycle engines, better power and efficiency



Make sure we add also *cloaking device *such as Klingon Bird of pray  into our 6th gen fighter
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## randomradio

cirr said:


> Engines- adaptive cycle engines, better power and efficiency



That's 5th gen. Or 5.5th gen.

You will need hypersonic speed, and >50Km altitude for a 6th gen.


----------



## Beast

I think the recent combine cycle engine may have implication for next gen fighter engine.


----------



## cirr

randomradio said:


> That's 5th gen. Or 5.5th gen.
> 
> You will need hypersonic speed, and >50Km altitude for a 6th gen.



So that is 6th gen according to our Indian friends? 

For us Chinese, this is 5.5th gen

http://www.popsci.com/chinas-hybrid-spaceplane-could-reset-21st-century-space-race

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## randomradio

cirr said:


> So that is 6th gen according to our Indian friends?
> 
> For us Chinese, this is 5.5th gen
> 
> http://www.popsci.com/chinas-hybrid-spaceplane-could-reset-21st-century-space-race



Your article sounds exactly the same as ISRO's RLV program. 

I think it will be both. An aircraft that doesn't go into space and an aircraft that does. Which means one aircraft will have a turbofan/ramjet/scramjet and another will have the same turbofan/ramjet/scramjet with an additional cryogenic stage to take it into space.

So both aircraft will be necessary.

http://dos.gov.in/sites/default/files/USQ251.pdf


> Feasibility study of project"AVATAR)" has been done by a group of scientists in DRDO. ISRO has no connection with the project.


----------



## Deino

But can we please stay on Topic?


----------



## randomradio

Deino said:


> But can we please stay on Topic?



Sorry, the topic went from J-20 climbing to 5.5th gen to something else.


----------



## Deino

Our friend spotted again ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Another one ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## yantong1980

Deino said:


> Another one ....
> 
> View attachment 328270



What a pretty bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

yantong1980 said:


> What a pretty bird.


no its not bird but like a transformers

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

They claimed to be a new fresh picture 新鲜热辣的黄皮歼20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> They claimed to be a new fresh picture 新鲜热辣的黄皮歼20




If indeed a recent one it would proof that 2101 is still not painted and the one without a number and low-viz. markings must be another bird.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

And here a bit modified.






PS: The J-20 appears on the Zhuhai 2016's airshow-leaflet !?? (page 6)

http://www.airshow.com.cn/cn/Article/UploadFiles/201608/第十一届中国航展情况介绍.pdf



> Thrilling Flying Display by Aerobatics
> from Home and Abroad



A hint for a possible appearance ???

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> If indeed a recent one it would proof that 2101 is still not painted and the one without a number and low-viz. markings must be another bird.
> 
> Deino




As I suggested in thread #5681, that is not possible. It is one of these photos shot in February.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-20 reportedly inducted this afternoon.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-20 reportedly inducted this afternoon.



Fine ... Already any info on what unit? At least with the Y-20 it became public quite soon.


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> As I suggested in thread #5681, that is not possible. It is one of these photos shot in February.



Indeed, I forgot Your post from 11. July; Sorry and thanks for reminding.


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-20 reportedly inducted this afternoon.




Indeed more reports are popping up with the same theme !!



> :"The history has turned a new page!!! The dreamed, anticipated & long-awaited day has arrived."



It is rumored that LRIP J-20s have finally been delivered to PLAAF Flight Test & Training Base today !!! 

Still awaiting confirmation and esp. images ...

via: http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1836564&extra=page=&page=4

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

cirr said:


> J-20 reportedly inducted this afternoon.


*
That's a welcome news! Has mass production begun or is it going to be after incorporating the WS-15?*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## randomradio

cirr said:


> J-20 reportedly inducted this afternoon.





Deino said:


> Indeed more reports are popping up with the same theme !!
> 
> 
> 
> It is rumored that LRIP J-20s have finally been delivered to PLAAF Flight Test & Training Base today !!!
> 
> Still awaiting confirmation and esp. images ...
> 
> via: http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1836564&extra=page=&page=4
> 
> Deino



Any news about the next block with the new engine?


----------



## Deino

T-Rex said:


> *That's a welcome news! Has mass production begun or is it going to be after incorporating the WS-15?*




Seems so, but surely not with the WS-15. These are AL-31FN Series 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

J-10










Here one can see some comparisons in design, apart from twin engine vs single one.. but with the J-20 one has really to strech his imagination a bit too much!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

I want more ....


----------



## The Eagle

A welcome news and finally the wait is over. Happy flying guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

T-Rex said:


> *That's a welcome news! Has mass production begun or is it going to be after incorporating the WS-15?*



I don't think that they will wait for the WS-15. I'm sure that J-20 will receive WS-15, but not now. Not after they start to hatched the 2101, (2102?). As changing the engine now will put the J-20 into the development phase all over again.

I think China will produce the initial batch with AL-31 engine. And only when the WS-15 ready, they'll put it into the future batches.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> I don't think that they will wait for the WS-15. I'm sure that J-20 will receive WS-15, but not now. Not after they start to hatched the 2101, (2102?). As changing the engine now will put the J-20 into the development phase all over again.
> 
> I think China will produce the initial batch with AL-31 engine. And only when the WS-15 ready, they'll put it into the future batches.


But @ChineseTiger1986 said that J-20B flying with WS-15 in 2017?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> But @ChineseTiger1986 said that J-20B flying with WS-15 in 2017?



The first prototype of the J-20B (WS-15 version) will make its maiden flight by 2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> But @ChineseTiger1986 said that J-20B flying with WS-15 in 2017?



And they will test it again and again. Do you think that putting a new engine to the J-20 would mean that they'll mass produced them immediately? There will a lot of tests after that. And that mean, J-20 will back into the development phase, just like what I said in my previous post. aka, a reschedule for the mass producing phase. We won't see a deployment of the first batch of J-20 in near future.

My point is that they will mass produce the current J-20. At least for the first batch. And after they're sure that WS-15 is good enough for this fighter, then they'll mass produce the next generation of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> And they will test it again and again. Do you think that putting a new engine to the J-20 would mean that they'll mass produced them immediately? There will a lot of tests after that. And that mean, J-20 will back into the development phase, just like what I said in my previous post. aka, a reschedule for the mass producing phase.


definitely but not that much, i think its year and a half


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> definitely but not that much, i think its year and a half



I won't be as optimistic as you. WS-15 is a new engine. They need to make sure that this new engine is reliable enough for the new fighters before they can accept it. And this safety test will require a lot of time to accomplished. So If they really want to skip the current version of J-20, we can expect that they will mass produce the J-20 longer than what you're predicted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> I won't be as optimistic as you. WS-15 is a new engine. They need to make sure that this new engine is reliable enough for the new fighters before they can accept it. And this safety test will require a lot of time to accomplished. So If they really want to skip the current version of J-20, we can expect that they will mass produce the J-20 longer than what you're predicted.


So what is your estimation for J-20B to be mass produce?


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> So what is your estimation for J-20B to be mass produce?



I don't know. It depend on the test. If the test is successful, we'll get a WS-15 powered J-20 sooner. But if there are some problem, then it will longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pepsi Cola

@Brainsucker Great insight. Thank you.


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




Still nothing more from this "historic event" ??? Nothing ... no reports, no images ??? NOTHING !??


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Still nothing more from this "historic event" ??? Nothing ... no reports, no images ??? NOTHING !??


J-10 was first delivered in 2003 but made public in 2006.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> J-10 was first delivered in 2003 but made public in 2006.




Again agreed, but in at least constant intervals we got some updates, even a few images showing them with their "then" two-digit pre-serial numbers. I remember when I was collecting them ...

You are surely correct ... all I have is to wait. But I hate waiting.

Deino


----------



## siegecrossbow

pakistanipower said:


> So what is your estimation for J-20B to be mass produce?



My guess is somewhere between 2020 and 2025.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IceCold

Deino said:


> Another one ....
> 
> View attachment 328270


This is a huge bird and a damn impressive one. We need to get our hands on these whenever China agrees.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Again agreed, but in at least constant intervals we got some updates, even a few images showing them with their "then" two-digit pre-serial numbers. I remember when I was collecting them ...
> 
> You are surely correct ... all I have is to wait. But I hate waiting.
> 
> Deino



I think that photo cirr repost is what you need


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> I think that photo cirr repost is what you need




You mean that blurred one in post #5866 ??? ... surely not. That's maybe a teaser at best, but not what I need. 

But You are surely correct: I need to tame my impatience.


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> You mean that blurred one in post #5866 ??? ... surely not. That's maybe a teaser at best, but not what I need.
> 
> But You are surely correct: I need to tame my impatience.



I think it is the first photo of an LRIP J-20 other than 2101 or 2102 on the Internet. If an image has our watermark, then it will not be a teaser.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

OK. maybe I have a different conception of teaser in the meaning of "to show not everything", "to hide the most important things" (like details and especially here the serial-numbers) ... in order to create some bigger interests.

And YES I am interested in a full close up of that bird, in more details and most of all its serials.

But I know again ... my impatience.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


>



What's so special about it?


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Any info on where this image was taken and what (serial) number this one has?


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> Any info on where this image was taken and what (serial) number this one has?


看上去是高原试验啊……稻城亚丁


----------



## Deino

Can You give a translation please?


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> Can You give a translation please?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> 看上去是高原试验啊……稻城亚丁




So they are performing high-altitude tests (4,411 m) at Daocheng, located within Sichuan, it is however under the administration of the Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture.

As far as I remember correctly, the Y-20 did the same there in June 2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daocheng_Yading_Airport



Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 艹艹艹



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Place Of Space

Send this to the "Chinese Defence Forum" about J20, bro, my two cents.
anyway, it's a good news.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nadeemkhan110

Is it combat ready now?



long_ said:


> View attachment 330745
> View attachment 330747


----------



## 艹艹艹

nadeemkhan110 said:


> Is it combat ready now?


*test*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

Just wrote something on this history of J-20 in Daocheng.

http://www.eastpendulum.com/j-20-effectue-essais-vol-tibet

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

For me the most interesting part of that unofficial unveiling is that it is a LRIP-bird and not a prototype !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

Place Of Space said:


> Send this to the "Chinese Defence Forum" about J20, bro, my two cents.
> anyway, it's a good news.



Good suggestion!

@long_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> For me the most interesting part of that unofficial unveiling is that it is a LRIP-bird and not a prototype !



That's also one of the two points I hightlighted in my text.

The second point is, the bird seems don't need air conditionning, daily massage and all that stuff to survive... at least for a short period. 

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Hello Modi

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## siegecrossbow

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1837447-1-1.html

J-20 (recently sighted in Daocheng Yading airport) in flight!

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## yusheng

J20？

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pvpful_pk

Zhuhai Airshow Co officially announced the J20 will join the airshow today, but maybe only a model.There is no more detail about it by now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pvpful_pk said:


> Zhuhai Airshow Co officially announced the J20 will join the airshow today, but maybe only a model.There is no more detail about it by now.




Interesting ... is there a link or source available for this announcement ?

This is all I found (however only after a quick search)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773383663501189120
PS: http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2286192-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Interesting ... is there a link or source available for this announcement ?
> 
> This is all I found (however only after a quick search)
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773383663501189120
> PS: http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2286192-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

yusheng said:


> J20？
> View attachment 332069
> View attachment 332070



I thought/understood that CAC was working on a single engine stealth fighter..might be evolution of J10.

Looking forward to see the prototype in the air!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aliaselin

Hopefully H-20 model will be showed there

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

With 2 J-20 at the background, not sure if it has been posted before though

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

grey boy 2 said:


> With 2 J-20 at the background, not sure if it has been posted before though


Already posted sir by @Deino or some other Chinese senior members


----------



## Place Of Space

pakistanipower said:


> Already posted sir by @Deino or some other Chinese senior members



J20 can't grow as fast as grass, you know. We could be patient to its accomplish, though very exciting inside. @grey boy 2

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Reportedly our J-20 during test flying over Yading ... even if very blurred !

http://www.miaopai.com/show/OylhQtzWckR2F4ig95POtw__.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Maybe 2001 and 2002 will make an appearance?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## teddy

yusheng said:


> J20？
> View attachment 332069
> View attachment 332070


The scale is wrong, it is a j10.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Device on J-20 confirmed to be EOTS.

http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2287335&extra=page=1

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

And our friend again at Daocheng-Yading

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> And our friend again at Daocheng-Yading
> 
> View attachment 333185



Do we know if stealth paint/primer has been applied to this plane? Seems to be holding up pretty well under moist conditions with only a tarp to cover it.


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> And our friend again at Daocheng-Yading
> 
> View attachment 333185



Must be high altitude test, though great going especially in such atmosphere without to much of care proves to be more resistant to weather.


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 in Tibet

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> J-20 in Tibet...




Nice, but as far as I know, Daocheng-Yading is not in Tibet, but in Sichuan.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Nice, but as far as I know, Daocheng-Yading is not in Tibet, but in Sichuan.



Administratively in Sichuan, geographically in Tibet.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

Surprise,Surprise.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事

Tiqiu said:


> Surprise,Surprise.


They are all AL-31


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Surprise,Surprise.





星海军事 said:


> They are all AL-31



These are older images showing #2011 back in July 2014 testing flights with different settings for the convergent7divergent nozzle ... a typical feature for so many engines and the AL-31 too.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Tiqiu said:


> Surprise,Surprise.


it is an old image, this picture prove nothing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

pakistanipower said:


> it is an old image, this picture prove nothing


Bummer. 
Then we just have to wait for the new image leaking out. PLAA will not accept a J-20 without super-cruise speed and super-agility.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Tiqiu said:


> Bummer.
> Then we just have to wait for the new image leaking out. PLAA will not accept a J-20 without super-cruise speed and super-agility.


initial batches with AL-31F3 or WS-10G, But letter batches is equipped with WS-15 as J-20B, ask @ChineseTiger1986

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Bummer.
> Then we just have to wait for the new image leaking out. PLAA will not accept a J-20 without super-cruise speed and super-agility.




Why not ?? They are - even if not with super-cruise capability - alone avionics-related a quantum-leap in comparison to everything else the PLAAF operates by now. As such it would be wise to use it as soon as possible, to work out operational doctrines and tactics ... which then can be fully explored with the final engine.

Just my 2 cents.
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Daniel808

Deino said:


> Why not ?? They are - even if not with super-cruise capability - alone avionics-related a quantum-leap in comparison to everything else the PLAAF operates by now. As such it would be wise to use it as soon as possible, to work out operational doctrines and tactics ... which then can be fully explored with the final engine.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> Deino



This J-20 is my favourite Stealth aircraft, really love it.

But, many people say this J-20 is would become sitting duck when face F-22 or F-35, because J-20 Canard Design doesn't make J-20 "Stealth"

Is what they said true or just bias.
Can you give me little explanation for this J-20?
Thank you Mr @Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Daniel808 said:


> This J-20 is my favourite Stealth aircraft, really love it.
> 
> But, many people say this J-20 is would become sitting duck when face F-22 or F-35, because J-20 Canard Design doesn't make J-20 "Stealth"
> 
> Is what they said true or just bias.
> Can you give me little explanation for this J-20?
> Thank you Mr @Deino




IMO simply bias and surely most simply have no idea on stealth since Northrop Grumman - and they are not unknown in the field of stealth - proposed a delta-canard derivate of the ATF/YF-23 for the NAT program and the latest proposal for Boeing's 6th generation fighter is also a delta-canard design !!! So they are all wrong too ??

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Daniel808

Deino said:


> IMO simply bias and surely most simply have no idea on stealth since Northrop Grumman - and they are not unknown in the field of stealth - proposed a delta-canard derivate of the ATF/YF-23 for the NAT program and the latest proposal for Boeing's 6th generation fighter is also a delta-canard design !!! So they are all wrong too ??



Thanks so much for your explanation Mr. @Deino 
Best regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Why not ?? They are - even if not with super-cruise capability - alone avionics-related a quantum-leap in comparison to everything else the PLAAF operates by now. As such it would be wise to use it as soon as possible, to work out operational doctrines and tactics ... which then can be fully explored with the final engine.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> Deino


Yes it is but latter J-20B with WS-15 can super-cruise started in 2020-2022


----------



## Ultima Thule

Daniel808 said:


> Thanks so much for your explanation Mr. @Deino
> Best regards.





Daniel808 said:


> This J-20 is my favourite Stealth aircraft, really love it.
> 
> But, many people say this J-20 is would become sitting duck when face F-22 or F-35, because J-20 Canard Design doesn't make J-20 "Stealth"
> 
> Is what they said true or just bias.
> Can you give me little explanation for this J-20?
> Thank you Mr @Deino


*McDonnell Douglas X-36* in 90's has similar platform as J-20, NASA says that it was extremely stealthy from all angles
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-36.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ali Zadi

Daniel808 said:


> But, many people say this J-20 is would become sitting duck when face F-22 or F-35, because J-20 Canard Design doesn't make J-20 "Stealth"
> Thank you Mr @Deino



Using software control in conjunction with fly by wire and RAM is shown to improve RCS a lot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Ali Zadi said:


> Using software control in conjunction with fly by wire and RAM is shown to improve RCS a lot.



Can you explain? I didn't get what you write.


----------



## Ali Zadi

Brainsucker said:


> Can you explain? I didn't get what you write.



https://books.google.co.in/books?id=id9kQCuqepQC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> IMO simply bias and surely most simply have no idea on stealth since Northrop Grumman - and they are not unknown in the field of stealth - proposed a delta-canard derivate of the ATF/YF-23 for the NAT program and the latest proposal for Boeing's 6th generation fighter is also a delta-canard design !!! So they are all wrong too ??


The issue here is planform alignment.

The J-20's defenders argued that the aircraft's canards' roots are on the same plane as the wings. That is a misunderstanding of low radar observability planform alignment.







It is not the roots that matters. It is the dihedral (upswept angle) of the canards, as shown above. Diffraction signals off the canards will approach the fuselage and wings differently than if the canards have no dihedral.

So just because there is a conceptual proposal whose design have canards, that does not mean how they are arrayed in relation to other structures do not matter.

In designing a low radar observable body, there are three guidelines to take into consideration:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

Those guidelines are not meant to be 'broken', rather, it is about the degrees of obedience to them. To date, the B-2 is the most obedience to those guidelines. The most obedient body is the sphere.

If we go by visual appearance alone, the J-20 is less obedient to those guidelines than the F-22 and F-35. The Australians' criticisms of the F-35's bumps are off base. The J-20 is less obedient in terms of control of quantity and array of radiators, and we are looking at the major flight control structures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ahojunk

*J-20 Uses Homegrown WS-15, More Powerful, Reliable than Russian AL-31F*
*Posted:* September 19, 2016 | Author: chankaiyee2 |





The above photo of series produced J-20 proves that it uses China’s WS-15 engines as there are no grooves on the nozzles of its engines.


The photo below is the nozzle of Russian AL-31F engine used on J-20 prototypes. There are two groves on the nozzle.







The photo below is the nozzle of China’s homegrown WS-15 engine with no grooves on it.






According to the photo below, WS-15 is much more powerful than AL-31F. The AL-31F’s nozzle has shrunk so that the speed of smoke is much higher than that of the WS-15 with nozzle not shrunk while they produce similar thrust for the J-20.






The article reveals that the temperature before turbine is 1,474 degree Celsius in WS-15, the highest in the world. No wonder WS-15 is much more powerful than AL-31F. Its reliability lies between Western and Russian ones with a life of 900 hours longer than AL-31F.

Since the engine problem has been solved, J-20 can be regarded as a capable modern stealth fighter as it has satisfactory electronics and stealth shape.

Source: mil.news.sina.com.cn “Depth Column: It is certain that homegrown WS-15 engines are installed on J-20: Reliability surpasses Russian engine?” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ahojunk said:


> *J-20 Uses Homegrown WS-15, More Powerful, Reliable than Russian AL-31F*
> *Posted:* September 19, 2016 | Author: chankaiyee2 |
> 
> View attachment 336005
> 
> The above photo of series produced J-20 proves that it uses China’s WS-15 engines as there are no grooves on the nozzles of its engines.
> 
> 
> The photo below is the nozzle of Russian AL-31F engine used on J-20 prototypes. There are two groves on the nozzle.
> View attachment 336006
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo below is the nozzle of China’s homegrown WS-15 engine with no grooves on it.
> View attachment 336007
> 
> 
> 
> According to the photo below, WS-15 is much more powerful than AL-31F. The AL-31F’s nozzle has shrunk so that the speed of smoke is much higher than that of the WS-15 with nozzle not shrunk while they produce similar thrust for the J-20.
> View attachment 336008
> 
> 
> 
> The article reveals that the temperature before turbine is 1,474 degree Celsius in WS-15, the highest in the world. No wonder WS-15 is much more powerful than AL-31F. Its reliability lies between Western and Russian ones with a life of 900 hours longer than AL-31F.
> 
> Since the engine problem has been solved, J-20 can be regarded as a capable modern stealth fighter as it has satisfactory electronics and stealth shape.
> 
> Source: mil.news.sina.com.cn “Depth Column: It is certain that homegrown WS-15 engines are installed on J-20: Reliability surpasses Russian engine?” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese)




Sorry, but what a piece of crappy BS !!!!

Nothing has been proofed, no WS-15 is ready and surely not operational and this is the worst part:



> The photo below is the nozzle of China’s homegrown WS-15 engine with no grooves on it.



Using images of an PW-F100 installed in an F-16C to proof is plain stupid.


The author simply does not see that "grooves" is due to different convergent/divergent settings of the nozzle ... and by the way, how could an image proof that an engine has more thrust?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

New J-20 image.

http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2291355&extra=page=1

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Nice find ... at the CFTE ???


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> New J-20 image.
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2291355&extra=page=1




An interesting side-note ... it's impressive how "small" (aka flat) the J-20 is in comparison to a Flanker !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ali Zadi

Deino said:


> An interesting side-note ... it's impressive how "small" (aka flat) the J-20 is in comparison to a Flanker !
> 
> View attachment 336142



The angled tail give the profile a reduced height but I wonder about the length from what is published I see three different values but it sure has a large presence.


----------



## lcloo

The height of the tails give distorted visual perception on size and length. 

I modified tails of J-20. Now the visual perception is different. Amazing how our brains worked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

lcloo said:


> The height of the tails give distorted visual perception on size and length.
> 
> I modified tails of J-20. Now the visual perception is different. Amazing how our brains worked.
> 
> View attachment 336217



The J-16 also has a "puffier" canopy than does the J-20.


----------



## Deino

Ali Zadi said:


> The angled tail give the profile a reduced height but I wonder about the length from what is published I see three different values but it sure has a large presence.




Why, the most reliable sources state a length of roughly 20m++ ... and as such slightly less than a Flanker. Similar results are for the span of about 13.5m


This one below is an estimation I made some time ago (posted at first at the SDF) based on a satellite image with a J-15 standing side by side to a J-20:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Can anyone confirm ? ... at the CDF someone posted:



yexu said:


> Rumor time, Xi is currently in Chengdu CAC to preside over the inauguration of the J20. First batch of 40 aircrafts, planned to finish in 3 years.




Ohhhhhh ... come on, show us some nice shots similar to the ones during the Y-20's service introduction !! :brow:


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Can anyone confirm ? ... at the CDF someone posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhhh ... come on, show us some nice shots similar to the ones during the Y-20's service introduction !! :brow:



I am wondering why every piece of word from this menber of top81.net is forwarded to all military forums


----------



## ptldM3

https://defence.pk/posts/8716854/ 


Interesting, I was in the Turkish forum and a number of Turkish members seem to think Turkey leads China in aviation 

I mentioned aircraft like the J-20 and the response was interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

ptldM3 said:


> https://defence.pk/posts/8716854/
> 
> 
> Interesting, I was in the Turkish forum and a number of Turkish members seem to think Turkey leads China in aviation
> 
> I mentioned aircraft like the J-20 and the response was interesting.



Please don't compare us with them in aviation or in fact in whatever, i take that as an insult
And just a friendly advice, "stay out of their jungle" my friend, if only you know what i mean

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Eagle

ptldM3 said:


> https://defence.pk/posts/8716854/
> 
> 
> Interesting, I was in the Turkish forum and a number of Turkish members seem to think Turkey leads China in aviation
> 
> I mentioned aircraft like the J-20 and the response was interesting.



No need to refer other sections or nation that too to provoke as all are PDF sections. 

Every nation has her credibility for such developments no matter what keyboard warriors, scientist and aviation experts use to say. J-20 is going to be a beast in air indeed and Turkey has other areas being expert and advancing.


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> I am wondering why every piece of word from this menber of top81.net is forwarded to all military forums




To admit, I can't explain ... but maybe someone knows where at lest this rumour come from ? Was there a VIP-jet spotted at CAC, were there some insider's leaks that president Xi arrived at Chengdu ?? Or is that all pure imagination from that "strange poster" ??

At least Henry . also picked it up at http://www.eastpendulum.com/quelques-rumeurs-sur-le-j-20 .. and here I even more surprised where such numbers on the J-20's cost come from?

Deino


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> To admit, I can't explain ... but maybe someone knows where at lest this rumour come from ? Was there a VIP-jet spotted at CAC, were there some insider's leaks that president Xi arrived at Chengdu ?? Or is that all pure imagination from that "strange poster" ??
> 
> At least Henry . also picked it up at http://www.eastpendulum.com/quelques-rumeurs-sur-le-j-20 .. and here I even more surprised where such numbers on the J-20's cost come from?
> 
> Deino



Origin: https://www.dszh.org/show.php?f=1&t=1718171&m=14219537

Rumors are not worth discussing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> Origin: https://www.dszh.org/show.php?f=1&t=1718171&m=14219537
> 
> Rumors are not worth discussing.




Ok. ... but them I'm interested in how such - supposedly non-sense - rumours appear? 
Are there indeed a few true figures leaked about such a program's cost or are these - like so many other stuff too - only estimations, exaggerations and so on made by some forum-members and then after being reposted the xth time they became a fact?

That's my concern ... simply how reliable are these data and esp. since I'm not a Chinese an even more difficult issue?

Deino


----------



## hk299792458

A yellow J-20 flown twice today in Chengdu, according to local source.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Thanks ... but I really don't wanna wait any longer !! I want some nice clear high-resolution full-size images of an operational bird - at best during its hand-over-ceremony !! - and I want it now.

... ok. ... I need to take my chill-pills.

Deino


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Thanks ... but I really don't wanna wait any longer !! I want some nice clear high-resolution full-size images of an operational bird - at best during its hand-over-ceremony !! - and I want it now.
> 
> ... ok. ... I need to take my chill-pills.
> 
> Deino



I can advice you a cheap flight to Chengdu... 

So everyone can taste the HD photos of J-20 taken by Deino. 

P.S. Kindly share with me your chill pills please...

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

A freshly minted J-20 without side number

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Arrrg .... now not even a c/n anymore !

Anyway nice to see new birds ....

Deino


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

It appears that the strange 'black AL-31' has returned.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## hk299792458

Someone still think that the current J-20s fly with something else than AL-31F series engines ?

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

hk299792458 said:


> Someone still think that the current J-20s fly with something else than AL-31F series engines ?
> 
> Henri K.


Wait for zhuhai 2016 for some nice news

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

updates

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## asia2000

Looks there are 3 J-10 in the picture, beside the J20.



grey boy 2 said:


> updates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Are there any estimation on how many LRIP J-20As are already flying ??



Beast said:


> Wait for zhuhai 2016 for some nice news


 

But You shouldn't be too disappionted if the PLAAF confirms it as an AL-31 ! 

However I would not hold by breath to see a J-20 at Zhuhai this year ...


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Are there any estimation on how many LRIP J-20As are already flying ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But You shouldn't be too disappionted if the PLAAF confirms it as an AL-31 !
> 
> However I would not hold by breath to see a J-20 at Thuhai this year ...


You will be more disappointed to know the reality in coming airshow 

By the way, there is no Thuhai but Zhuhai

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

hk299792458 said:


> I can advice you a cheap flight to Chengdu...
> 
> So everyone can taste the HD photos of J-20 taken by Deino.
> 
> P.S. Kindly share with me your chill pills please...
> 
> Henri K.


*Chinese customs: so andreas, whats the reaons for your visit here to chengdu? and why have you only packed camera gear?

*andreas: errrrrrr take pictures of sensitive chinese military equipment and post them on the internet.

chinese customs sends him back to deutscheland.

just say your there to see the pandas!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> You will be more disappointed to know the reality in coming airshow
> 
> By the way, there is no Thuhai but Zhuhai


 

Shall we bet ??? 

BY the way I'm sorry due to this completely wrong post but with my tiny handy i made only a typo ... in Germany on a keyboard-layout, the "T" is exactly left-next to the "Z" ... so I hope that does not hurt too much.

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Shall we bet ???
> 
> BY the way I'm sorry due to this completely wrong post but with my tiny handy i made only a typo ... in Germany on a keyboard-layout, the "T" is exactly left-next to the "Z" ... so I hope that does not hurt too much.
> 
> Deino


What is the stake?


----------



## Deino

Just make a proposal ?? ... just for fun.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Just make a proposal ?? ... just for fun.


You cease to your account and stop posting here. I bet the J-20 will enter service with PLAAF with donestic engine. If not, I cease mine and stop posting in PDF.


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> You cease to your account and stop posting here. I bet the J-20 will enter service with PLAAF with donestic engine. If not, I cease mine and stop posting in PDF.


 

But then we need to be more precicely ! The point that the J-20 will enter with domestic engines is not a question, that's IMO a fact ... but only a matter of time until the WS-15 will be ready.

The point we don't agree since some time is that You always claim that the aircraft already flying - especially these latest LRIP birds - are powered by a WS-10-derivate; and that's wrong in my opinion.

As such if You agree on our bet in the following terms:

I will resign completely from this forum even as a member and moderator if it is confirmed that the current prototypes and especially LRIP aircraft are using a WS-10-derivate. And You will resign here if it is confirmed an AL-31F or FN derivate.

Agreed ? ... so let the fun begin.

Deino


----------



## Al-Taïr

Viewers lose either way..


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> But then we need to be more precicely ! The point that the J-20 will enter with domestic engines is not a question, that's IMO a fact ... but only a matter of time until the WS-15 will be ready.
> 
> The point we don't agree since some time is that You always claim that the aircraft already flying - especially these latest LRIP birds - are powered by a WS-10-derivate; and that's wrong in my opinion.
> 
> As such if You agree on our bet in the following terms:
> 
> I will resign completely from this forum even as a member and moderator if it is confirmed that the current prototypes and especially LRIP aircraft are using a WS-10-derivate. And You will resign here if it is confirmed an AL-31F or FN derivate.
> 
> Agreed ? ... so let the fun begin.
> 
> Deino



The LRIP will enter service soon. I am sure J-20 will not goes into service with a AL-31 series. Since you are so sure, those AL-31 series engine is still on those LRIP. Why not u take the plug and bet on LRIP will still use a AL-31 series engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast, ... no rowing back from Your own claims !! You said already several times, that these birds are now powered by a WS-10-derivate ... and my bet is against that claim. What will happen in the future is irrelevant to Your claims.

As such, You have my stake/proposal on the table ... this or nothing !

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Beast, ... no rowing back from Your own claims !! You said already several times, that these birds are now powered by a WS-10-derivate ... and my bet is against that claim. What will happen in the future is irrelevant to Your claims.
> 
> As such, You have my stake/proposal on the table ... this or nothing !
> 
> Deino


I never promise u anything so stop putting words into my mouth. This is my proposal for the bet. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> I never promise u anything so stop putting words into my mouth. This is my proposal for the bet. Take it or leave it.


 

So much on Your credibilty, integrity ... either too arrogant or too cowardly to admit even Your own quotes.
But just typical: Big mouth without any substance, then getting personally rude and then in the end without any consequences on retreat.

Anyway, then leave it and other could judge who's right or wrong.

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> So much on Your credibilty, integrity ... either too arrogant or too cowardly to admit even Your own quotes.
> But just typical: Big mouth without any substance, then getting personally rude and then in the end without any consequences on retreat.
> 
> Anyway, then leave it and other could judge who's right or wrong.
> 
> Deino


You are the coward who claim J-20 will enter service with LRIP with AL-31 and now dare not bet with me on this issue. So now you turn the table on me? What a moderator you are.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

IMO, Russia has no incentive to supply engines to the J-20 program and sabotage their own PAK FA sales and market share. Moreover, a China armed with large numbers of J-20 might actually become a national security threat to Russia's Pacific interests in the long run.

I believe the J-20 is NOT using the WS-10 or any derivative of the WS-10.

I believe China has reverse engineered the AL-31FN family and created that black engine.

I can't prove anything.


----------



## asia2000

What is the benefit of reverse engineering AL-31 than using WS10?


----------



## monitor

j20blackdragon said:


> IMO, Russia has no incentive to supply engines to the J-20 program and sabotage their own PAK FA sales and market share. Moreover, a China armed with large numbers of J-20 might actually become a national security threat to Russia's Pacific interests in the long run.
> 
> I believe the J-20 is NOT using the WS-10 or any derivative of the WS-10.
> 
> I believe China has reverse engineered the AL-31FN family and created that black engine.
> 
> I can't prove anything.



J-20 is only for PLAAF not for export . only J-31 is for export .


----------



## j20blackdragon

2101 with standard AL-31FN Series 3






Unmarked LRIP J-20 with mysterious 'black AL-31'





Both photos are low res and taken from a distance.

Use your eyes and decide.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> 2101 with standard AL-31FN Series 3
> View attachment 337988
> 
> 
> Unmarked LRIP J-20 with mysterious 'black AL-31'
> View attachment 337989
> 
> 
> Both photos are low res and taken from a distance.
> 
> Use your eyes and decide.




IMO they are both design and these minor details showing the pedals in one image clearer and in another one not is only depending light and probably flight hours since with each time these engines use the convergent/divergent mechanism the better the intersections become visible.

IMO they look exactly like on the other painted LRIP bird but maybe only less prominent ...









Honestly, why should the just change the type or version of engine right in the middle of LRIP-series ??

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> IMO they are both design and these minor details showing the pedals in one image clearer and in another one not is only depending light and probably flight hours since with each time these engines use the convergent/divergent mechanism the better the intersections become visible.
> 
> IMO they look exactly like on the other painted LRIP bird but maybe only less prominent ...
> 
> Honestly, why should the just change the type or version of engine right in the middle of LRIP-series ??
> 
> Deino



Because the 'black AL-31' is most likely interchangeable with the AL-31FN Series 3.

They already tested it on prototypes 2016 and 2017, remember?









We also have close up photos of the standard AL-31FN Series 3 on 2101.





They are clearly different.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> Because the 'black AL-31' is most likely interchangeable with the AL-31FN Series 3.
> ...
> They are clearly different.




I would even go so far to assume, they are in fact AL-31FN Series 3 or a special version of them !
Remember the silver coated exhausts that after some wear and tear of use got their coatings flaking off ? ... these silver coatings were followed later - after the typical standard exhaust-pedals were used for some time - by these strange black ones and again the longer these engines were used, the more clearly You can see the individual pedals and intersections. Again, my conclusion (maybe call it guesswork !) is that these engines are in fact all the same but for a special coatings on the pedals.

But these are just my 2 cents .... some would surely assume this to be a special version of a still secret WS-34 since I'm only a stupid foreigner ! 

Deino


----------



## Beast

asia2000 said:


> What is the benefit of reverse engineering AL-31 than using WS10?


Deception! 


Deino said:


> I would even go so far to assume, they are in fact AL-31FN Series 3 or a special version of them !
> Remember the silver coated exhausts that after some wear and tear of use got their coatings flaking off ? ... these silver coatings were followed later - after the typical standard exhaust-pedals were used for some time - by these strange black ones and again the longer these engines were used, the more clearly You can see the individual pedals and intersections. Again, my conclusion (maybe call it guesswork !) is that these engines are in fact all the same but for a special coatings on the pedals.
> 
> But these are just my 2 cents .... some would surely assume this to be a special version of a still secret WS-34 since I'm only a stupid foreigner !
> 
> Deino


Indeed


----------



## eldamar

chill guys, WS-15 shall make its appearance on the J-20A and when that happens, we can consider the 6 years Su-35 deal myth officially debunked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> ...
> Indeed




Any proof for Your claim ??

Ähh Sorry, how could I forget, Beast never proofs anything, he simply "knows" ...


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Any proof for Your claim ??
> 
> Ähh Sorry, how could I forget, Beast never proofs anything, he simply "knows" ...


You yourself claim you yourself are stupid foreigner. Now asking me for proof? 

You want me to re quote your previous post to refresh your memory?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> You yourself claim you yourself are stupid foreigner. Now asking me for proof?
> 
> You want me to re quote your previous post to refresh your memory?




Since You are not even able to remember Your own quotes nor interested in the truth, I think the best way is to leave You. May the future decide on who’s right and who’s wrong, but it seems as if You are not really interested in facts.


I’m still waiting for a reasonable answer where are all the now 100 J-10B/C if they are not operational? … where was the Y-20 during the recent Aviadarts exercise ? … why should a WS-10 look like an AL-31 ? and whatever Your chest-bumping fan-boy blabla …

Anyway, at least here we have the freedom of speech and You can post whatever You like without any proof …but that does not change facts.


End at least from my side…

Deino


----------



## Economic superpower

Deino said:


> Since You are not even able to remember Your own quotes nor interested in the truth, I think the best way is to leave You. May the future decide on who’s right and who’s wrong, but it seems as if You are not really interested in facts.
> 
> 
> I’m still waiting for a reasonable answer where are all the now 100 J-10B/C if they are not operational? … where was the Y-20 during the recent Aviadarts exercise ? … why should a WS-10 look like an AL-31 ? and whatever Your chest-bumping fan-boy blabla …
> 
> Anyway, at least here we have the freedom of speech and You can post whatever You like without any proof …but that does not change facts.
> 
> 
> End at least from my side…
> 
> Deino



Guys like Beast, ChineseTiger1986, J20blackdragon, cirr, cnleio, etc know their stuff. 

I wouldn't just dismiss their claims just because it doesn't fit your Western narrative.

It's never wise to reveal sources. But they know their stuff and their information is accurate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## eldamar

Economic superpower said:


> Guys like Beast, ChineseTiger1986, J20blackdragon, cirr, cnleio, etc know their stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't just dismiss their claims just because it doesn't fit your Western narrative.
> 
> It's never wise to reveal sources. But they know their stuff and their information is accurate.



atually guys, if u have read Deino's posts on Sinodefence or even here- u will be able to analyse and conclude that his position is neutral on and has even on occasions- defended Chinese military aviation industries.

Take note im a Chinese myself and this is just my honest observation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Any proof for Your claim ??
> 
> Ähh Sorry, how could I forget, Beast never proofs anything, he simply "knows" ...



Well, please just stop here. You know that Beast is only an ordinary poster. He's no expert. So let him be. Just don't prolong this matter any longer. It will be counter productive to this thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eldamar

any hopes we will see J-20A on sky parade for China's National day?


----------



## Beast

eldarlmari said:


> any hopes we will see J-20A on sky parade for China's National day?


Reserve for 2019 National Day! Maybe Y-20 will do the job.


----------



## Deino

Economic superpower said:


> Guys like Beast, *ChineseTiger1986, J20blackdragon, cirr, cnleio*, etc know their stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't just dismiss their claims just because it doesn't fit your Western narrative.
> 
> It's never wise to reveal sources. But they know their stuff and their information is accurate.



Just one final word on this issue, promised but in order to get the facts straight ...
I agree with You on most of the names above (the ones marked *bold* !) and even if I not always agree on their opinion, in one point they are very much different to the first one: They can argue, they are able and willing to listed to arguments, they kindly correct wrong positions of others and they are even willing to revise their own point of view in face of arguments. By the way I also don't have a problem to hide certain sources, but they admit ad least and argue.
My point - and here is Beast indeed different - is that never gives a source and even an image clearly shows an Orange but he thinks it is an Apple, then it remains an Apple regardless how many arguments You offer.

Again, I have no problem to admit I'm wrong and esp. concerning this engine issue I would be glad he's right and I am wrong.... but that does not make an Orange an Apple.
As such to assume that I have a negative meaning of anything from China and that it does not fit my, aka the typical Western narrative, is simply not correct if You would know and read my posts.

Anyway ... time will tell.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Two new images of our new yellow bird !

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Deino said:


> Two new images of our new yellow bird !
> 
> View attachment 338657
> View attachment 338658



Thank you Teacher-man!!! 

Wish to see the first 30 in PLAF colours... how long we need to wait?

Thanks for sharing!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Me too ... me too, the sooner the better !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Eagle

Beauty isn't it? However thinking the same in PLAAF colours is like a beasty (beast & beauty).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Two new images of our new yellow bird !
> 
> View attachment 338657
> View attachment 338658


can't wait J-20 with WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




Interesting ... as far as I remember this - and the one below - are the first image showing three J-20s together.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Made-in-China "B2 Spirit" exported to Germany 

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" quality="high" height="480" width="480" src="http://video.weibo.com/player/1034:fdfb65844e7666b7a02be8a4e3c76348/v.swf"/>

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Some insider source claiming the noise of the new J-20 (201x) was completely different than the older ones, way more quiet than even the single engine J-10, so it maybe new engine being installed, everyone was so exciting about it

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Some insider source claiming the noise of the new J-20 (201x) was completely different than the older ones, way more quiet than even the single engine J-10, so it maybe new engine being installed, everyone was so exciting about it...




Interesting ... since the typical "screaming" sound of the engines were indeed a hint for the AL-31FN ... even if the images tend to confirm that they are the "old" engines.

By the way, I read reports/rumours about one of the 3 yellow J-10Cs flying the last days was equipped with the Taihang ? Can anyone confirm or even has images of that particular bird, again esp. since 2-45 and -47 were clearly still using the AL.

Deino

PS ... by the way, the so far best image of that "canary" !

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ahojunk



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Interesting ... since the typical "screaming" sound of the engines were indeed a hint for the AL-31FN ... even if the images tend to confirm that they are the "old" engines.
> 
> By the way, I read reports/rumours about one of the 3 yellow J-10Cs flying the last days was equipped with the Taihang ? Can anyone confirm or even has images of that particular bird, again esp. since 2-45 and -47 were clearly still using the AL.
> 
> Deino
> 
> PS ... by the way, the so far best image of that "canary" !
> 
> View attachment 338845


what a beauty sir you broke my heart in Pisces

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## cirr

5, possibly 7, ducklings hatched since LRIP started a few months back

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

That image made my day  ... and now the whole family in real !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

They should use these new planes to figure out training and logistical procedures in the next two years. I suspect we will get a glimpse of them in 2019 military parade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Thanks to @siegecrossbow / SDF:



siegecrossbow said:


> J-20 maneuver videos from the 28th.
> 
> http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0MTM5NjQ3Ng==.html
> 
> http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0MTM5NDI2OA==.html



Interesting ... but concerning the reportedly quiet or even whispering engine nose, this is at least to my eyes the same typical screaming sound of an AL-31.

Deno

Just noticed something curious ...

Comparing with this older image showing 2001 vs 2101 vs the latest 210x there are indeed a few differences and these "boxes" are looking like (IMO) chaff & flare dispensers !

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## lcloo

Chaff flare dispensers = LRIP

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## grey boy 2

An old video of 2011 unveiled, they said that this could be signaling J-20 public appearance pretty soon
PS, 2011 still flying J-20内场的视频都爆出来了，看起来J-20公开的日子越来越近了。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## HAIDER

This one is nice

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Old new picture?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Interesting ... as far as I remember this - and the one below - are the first image showing three J-20s together.
> 
> View attachment 338825
> View attachment 338826

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> View attachment 339280




Nice. I noticed this "shot over the fence" too today but thought it would be an older image showing both the no. 2013 & 2015 (from February 2015), but these LRIP birds have indeed a significant darker colour scheme than the prototypes.

Deino






... a few more such images !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

*Military expert: Chinese J-20 rivals American F-22 in performance*
(People's Daily Online) 13:17, September 29, 2016

_*




Photo of a J-20 stealth fighter.*_​
Based on a photo posted by a netizen, it appears that another J-20 stealth fighter recently conducted a test flight.

According to a military expert, the performance of the Chinese J-20 rivals that of the American F-22, People’s Daily Online reported.

According to media reports, the J-20 stealth fighter, which is currently in the process of research and development in China, is equipped with long-range missiles, an advanced active phase array radar and an electronic warfare system. In fact, many authorities believe the J-20 will become a potential rival for F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters. Some of the equipment for the J-20 may even be more advanced than that of the F-22 fighters, which were put into service in 2005.

A military expert said on the condition of anonymity that the J-20 will undertake air battle tasks once it enters active service. Intelligence and distance capabilities will be crucial to air battles in the future, so the fighters must be equipped with advanced information systems, electronic warfare systems and air-to-air long-range weapons.

Many military fans want to know whether the J-20 will have a “Chinese heart." The military expert said that, as strategic mutual trust between China and Russia deepens, it is hopeful that the two countries will cooperate on the research and development of aircraft engines, which would be good news for combat platforms like the J-20.






*Photo of a J-20 stealth fighter.*​





_*Photo of a J-20 stealth fighter.*_






*Photo of a J-20 stealth fighter.*​

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## nika



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Simply amazing how much different this new colour scheme looks depending light-conditions. At first I thought this was a prototype like 2017 but it is indeed a LRIP bird.

Deino


----------



## nika



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## cirr

101

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## nika



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Immelman at 1:48???

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0MzUxOTUyMA==.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nika



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## siegecrossbow

Check out the moves on this bird!

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0MzA1NDIyNA==.html?from=s1.8-1-1.2

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ali Zadi

Great pics the new colour look very deep, I am very confident that this will exceed what the west thinks of J20.

Does any one actually know exactly what role the J20 is meant for multi-role or air superiority or something else? Those moves made by the J20 makes it possible for it to fall anywhere.


----------



## Deino

nika said:


> View attachment 339382




Interesting and very much off the sequence !
However could it be that this is still the first LRIP bird 2101 simply with the number "2" deleted ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## empirefighter

Very beautiful planes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sanchez

We need hundreds!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... even if these images are simply amazing I beg You all to look at first if they are not already posted !*

*Regardless how amazing they are, there truly no need for all of us to re-post them all again and again.*

*Thank You.*

Deino

But these are new ....

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## kuge

siegecrossbow said:


> Check out the moves on this bird!
> 
> http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0MzA1NDIyNA==.html?from=s1.8-1-1.2


great flight!!! but the music is annoying...


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> Interesting and very much off the sequence !
> However could it be that this is still the first LRIP bird 2101 simply with the number "2" deleted ?
> 
> View attachment 339403



I cannot find photo of 2101 ät this angle. I think 101 was psed on a real LRIP bird specially for October 1st, an attribute to China 's national day.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> I cannot find photo of 2101 ät this angle. I think 101 was psed on a real LRIP bird specially for October 1st, an attribute to China 's national day.



Exactly my point. not that this image is psed, but it is simply our old well known #2101 with now the "2" deleted in order to celebrate National Day. Similar to this J-10C even if here the number is new.







By the way, this image is also new to me ....






PS: by the way back to our typical engine issue ! This image should answer all questions.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> Exactly my point. not that this image is psed, but it is simply our old well known #2101 with now the "2" deleted in order to celebrate National Day. Similar to this J-10C even if here the number is new.



It's the case. The original author has confirmed this point.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

........ I'm speechless

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## siegecrossbow

kuge said:


> great flight!!! but the music is annoying...



Just turn the sound off!


----------



## eldamar

soany chance we will see the J-20A on sky parade? any1 knwos where can i see the broadcast for China's national day parade?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## abbasniazi

Looks ugly with frontal canards and yellow colour...will look awesome without frontal canards and grey colour...my personal liking disliking w.r.t look only...otherwise its a wonderfull project and i wish it huge success and wish to see it in pakistani colours soon...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## asia2000

What is that in the red circle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

That's a Luneberg-lense in order to increase the RCS ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Eagle

Beauty.... An achievement that speaks for itself. Hope to see this beauty in airshow soon with an outstanding aerial display. This beast is going to give sleepless nights to many out there. Keep it up team China.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

grey boy 2 said:


>



You can see how the four vortices interact in the last photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

grey boy 2 said:


>


What is the hole in the back of the cockpit bro, *boom receptacles*?



abbasniazi said:


> Looks ugly with frontal canards and yellow colour...will look awesome without frontal canards and grey colour...my personal liking disliking w.r.t look only...otherwise its a wonderfull project and i wish it huge success and wish to see it in pakistani colours soon...


Bro jet is not designed for personal liking or disliking, they designed for around their intended missions and scenario, yellow color is premier for new aircraft


----------



## wuriwuyue



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> What is the hole in the back of the cockpit bro, *boom receptacles*?



Surely not, we have already seen the J-20's IFR-probe. but these openings - similar to the ones on the belly and under the nose are part of the EODAS.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## abbasniazi

pakistanipower said:


> What is the hole in the back of the cockpit bro, *boom receptacles*?
> 
> 
> Bro jet is not designed for personal liking or disliking, they designed for around their intended missions and scenario, yellow color is premier for new aircraft



i know brother...my comment reffered purely towards design aesthetics...


----------



## Deino

wuriwuyue said:


>


To admit such comparisons are most likely off since it's more than difficult to find a certain detail that enables to compare the sizes. For example the FC-31 with very much smaller engines "seems" to have nozzles of the same size ... and as such is much too big. ... and concerning the F-22 vs. J-20: the sizes are based on what ?

Deino


----------



## monitor



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

abbasniazi said:


> i know brother...my comment reffered purely towards design aesthetics...


you look for aesthetics for what? Canard is for maneuverability and agility, is not for aesthetics bro


----------



## grey boy 2

*歼20貌似的确是侧杆操纵的 *
拿了张最新的歼20猛图做了局部截图和细微亮度、对比度调整，试飞员右侧手臂的轮廓还是挺清晰的
（原图来自微博@白龙_龙腾四海，是其特意赶制的无水印、可以做手机桌面的j-20图片，分辨率1080p。转载时请注明原作者）
(credit to 坐井观天的猫)

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## grey boy 2

The cannon position of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2

new image

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> The cannon position of J-20




*Guys ... why again do You post images that have already been posted here ???*

These two are new ...

EDIT ... just posted above.


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> *Guys ... why again do You post images that have already been posted here ???*
> 
> These two are new ...
> 
> View attachment 339864
> View attachment 339865



look carefully, its not the same

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> new image




You just beat me by a moment !!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

grey boy 2 said:


> The cannon position of J-20


*Where is the Cannon? is it under the belly of J-20 like J-10 and JF-17 or in the upper body i didn't see a cannon from your pictures*


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> *Where is the Cannon? is it under the belly of J-20 like J-10 and JF-17 or in the upper body i didn't see a cannon from your pictures*




I would say most likely hidden here ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> I would say most likely hidden here ...
> 
> View attachment 339868



Some say its on the right side like 2nd pictures of post# 6066

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Some say its on the right side like 2nd pictures of post# 6066




Yes, but since there's this small feature on the left I think it's more likely there ...

Anyway ...






http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0NTExODg0MA==.html?from=s1.8-1-1.2#paction

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> I would say most likely hidden here ...
> 
> View attachment 339868



Hi my friend, there is a mechanisme for canard rotation in that location, so forget about your canon.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

Deino said:


> I would say most likely hidden here ...
> 
> View attachment 339868


no its more likely that its an air depression flap. as it s just in the begining of the intake


----------



## Deino

hk299792458 said:


> Hi my friend, there is a mechanisme for canard rotation in that location, so forget about your canon.
> 
> Henri K.




Good - even to say so a "solid" - argument. However where is it then and why this difference to the right side ?

But I'm sure we will know some day ...

Deino


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Good - even to say so a "solid" - argument. However where is it then and why this difference to the right side ?
> 
> But I'm sure we will know some day ...
> 
> Deino


I agree with Monsieur hk, that the hydraulic actuator for the canard is in the vicinity, so to put the cannon there would be problematic in terms of volume space and stress.

But if you and others are wondering about the small and oddly shaped panel next to the larger and squared one, and that it does not exist on the other side of the jet, I suspect that small and oddly shaped panel is a frequently access maintenance door.


----------



## S10

Gun here?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Brainsucker

Why do they put the gun far to left from the center?


----------



## grey boy 2

A nice video of J-20 taken before our national day 国庆前夕，歼-20试飞视频、高清照片震撼曝光
http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2016_10_01_376026.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

This one is clearly WS-10X, since the external flaps are unsealed, unlike those of the AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 LRIP with (4 external hardpoint) 新曝光的J-20量产型显示其机翼下有四个外挂点

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This one is clearly WS-10X, since the external flaps are unsealed, unlike those of the AL-31F.
> 
> View attachment 340367
> 
> 
> View attachment 340368




Nope ... just look at the ratio of the individual pedals but I know we will never agree as it seems.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Nope ... just look at the ratio of the individual pedals but I know we will never agree as it seems.



Nope, we believe what we saw this time.

@Beast

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Nope, we believe what we saw this time.
> 
> @Beast


J-20 will go into service with domestic engine. That is for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

To admit I saw these images yesterday but did not think that t was something special ...

Can anyone confirm that yesterday two J-20s were delivered to PLAAF Cangzhou test and training base ??


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783307352799780864

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事

Let’s make a bet on this.

I bet all J-20s we saw so far (2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and several LRIP ones) are now using non-domestic engines and J-20 will enter service with non-domestic engines. I will cease this account If I lose.

Deadline: A credible direct participant or an official documentary of Project 718 confirms the suggestion of either side.

Who's in?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

I already offered the same a few post before, but esp. Beast refused.


----------



## mkiyani

looks good.. so which engine will it use for now.. is it in final testing stage or still long way to go.. hope china finishes it soon as indians want to see it flying over south china seas and may be in indian ocean  ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> J-20 will go into service with domestic engine. That is for sure.



This one should be the 155KN WS-10G, and we are now waiting for the 180KN WS-15.

One picture speaks more than million words.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AlyxMS

There is no evidence for a 155kN WS-10.
Some are still skeptical about the 140kN one.

And we know nothing about the thrust of WS-15.
My estimations are 155-165kN.

Some think it will have a thrust of 180kN but keep in mind that even if the WS-15 have drastically improved TWR(9 if being optimistic) compared to WS-10(7.5). With the addition of TVC nozzle it will be much heavier with might require a major redesign of the J-20.

Also the engines in that picture are AL-31s.
No known J-20 is equipped with any other engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
 2


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This one should be the 155KN WS-10G, and we are now waiting for the 180KN WS-15.
> 
> One picture speaks more than million words.



Indeed it "should" be ... but it is not and even more this image exactly confirms the engine as an AL-31FN-version... really no doubt, at least for me.
Just look at everything and even more all other high-resolution images published during the last few days.

As such - and again I would be glad if I would be wrong ! - don't let Your hope blind Yourself.

But - also again - we had this discussion so often already and I know You wont persuade me as long a true WS-10XYZ-powered J-20 appears - and I know how to identify a Taihang ! - and at the same time I won't You; and that's fine ... time will tell.

By the way I keep it with @星海军事



星海军事 said:


> Let’s make a bet on this.
> 
> I bet all J-20s we saw so far (2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and several LRIP ones) are now using non-domestic engines and J-20 will enter service with non-domestic engines. I will cease this account If I lose.
> 
> Deadline: A credible direct participant or an official documentary of Project 718 confirms the suggestion of either side.
> 
> Who's in?



Deino


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AlyxMS said:


> There is no evidence for a 155kN WS-10.
> Some are still skeptical about the 140kN one.
> 
> And we know nothing about the thrust of WS-15.
> My estimations are 155-165kN.
> 
> Some think it will have a thrust of 180kN but keep in mind that even if the WS-15 have drastically improved TWR(9 if being optimistic) compared to WS-10(7.5). With the addition of TVC nozzle it will be much heavier with might require a major redesign of the J-20.
> 
> Also the engines in that picture are AL-31s.
> No known J-20 is equipped with any other engine.



If you click on that picture, you can see all the external flaps are unsealed unlike those of the AL-31F.

My post got more thanks than Deino and 星海军事 combined, it seems that most Chinese members seem to be more agreed with me than with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If you click on that picture, you can see all the external flaps are unsealed unlike those of the AL-31F.
> 
> My post got more thanks than Deino and 星海军事 combined, it seems that most Chinese members seem to be more agreed with me than with them.




Again I don't agree and honestly ... wishful-thinking surely gets more "like" but that does not say it is a fact.

Anyway... You have Your opinion and I have mine even if lesser "likes" but time will tell.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Again I don't agree and honestly ... wishful-thinking surely gets more "like" but that does not say it is a fact.
> 
> Anyway... You have Your opinion and I have mine even if lesser "likes" but time will tell.
> 
> Deino



You can maybe convince me that other J-20 engines were AL-31F, since it did really look like the AL-31F, but you cannot convince me the engine on that specific J-20 is AL-31F.

No way any AL-31F can look like that, the shape of the external flaps and length of the nozzle of the AL-31F aren't like that. It does look dramatically different.

I only believe what I saw, and if the engine does look like AL-31, then fine, I'd take it.

But this one is clearly not, you cannot convince me to betray my own rational judgement, nobody else can.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You can maybe convince me that other J-20 engines were AL-31F, since it did really look like the AL-31F, but you cannot convince me the engine on that specific J-20 is AL-31F.
> 
> No way any AL-31F can look like that, the shape of the external flaps and length of the nozzle of the AL-31F aren't like that. It does look dramatically different.
> 
> I only believe what I saw, and if the engine does look like AL-31, then fine, I'd take it.
> 
> But this one is clearly not, you cannot convince me to betray my own rational judgement, nobody else can.




The same for me but only the opposite ! As such let the time decide and we both simply agree to disagree.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Initial thrust to weight ratio of WS-15 should be 10:1, and eventually they might even improve it to 12:1. I think they are also exploring a new variable bypass engine with minimum 15:1 thrust ratio, but that will be at least 10 to 15 years down the road..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eldamar

lets all just wait until there are photos


----------



## Sanchez

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0NjEyMTU4MA==.html

Watch the clip only between 4’45“ - 4‘50”.

Never seen such a super maneuver with other planes before. Su-35 or F-22 could do similar moves but would have a speed drop. Cann't imagine that this were done with AL-31FN engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## خره مينه لګته وي

Sanchez said:


> http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0NjEyMTU4MA==.html
> 
> Watch the clip only between 4’45“ - 4‘50”.
> 
> Never seen such a super maneuver with other planes before. Su-35 or F-22 could do similar moves but would have a speed drop. Cann't imagine that this were done with AL-31FN engines.


Tbh,in that Video it looks like RC Plane  or i'm wrong ?
Watch this video from 1:3 to 1:10  turn rate is far better than i was expecting

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sanchez

Fawad Masīd said:


> Tbh,in that Video it looks like RC Plane  or i'm wrong ?



I believe, that it is a real J-20 maneuver! Maybe it's the same flight that can be seen from the video clip of post #6081 starting from 1'05".

Sorry I can't open the link because youtube is barred in China. But J-20 has a turn rate of 3-4 per sec, quicker than F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

Sanchez said:


> http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0NjEyMTU4MA==.html
> 
> Watch the clip only between 4’45“ - 4‘50”.
> 
> Never seen such a super maneuver with other planes before. Su-35 or F-22 could do similar moves but would have a speed drop. Cann't imagine that this were done with AL-31FN engines.


Becos the engine is not AL-31F. No way with AL-31F , this move can be achieved.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Becos the engine is not AL-31F. No way with AL-31F , this move can be achieved.




You have never seen a Flanker doing such manoeuvres ???


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> You have never seen a Flanker doing such manoeuvres ???



Not with such high speed on that turn.

Why for higher thrust engine needed if such move can be execute by AL-31F?






The turn execute by J-11BS is slower compare to J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Not with such high speed on that turn.
> 
> Why for higher thrust engine needed if such move can be execute by AL-31F?
> 
> The turn execute by J-11BS is slower compare to J-20.



Your comparison is way off: First this particular J-11BS is exactly flying the type of engine You are erroneously claiming to power the J-20. So if the J-20 should be powered by the WS-10, then the Flanker which is for sure using a WS-10 should do this as well.
Second, we know manoeuvres from the Flankers using exactly the same type of engine You hate so much, namely the AL-31F which is IMO used by the J-20, that make all spectators hold their breaths ... as such, there is no need to use a higher thrust engine.
Third, therefore - and that's why such airshow demonstration videos are simply not suitable: they show aircraft in not the same conditions, You don't know the intention ... We don't know the particular weight of both aircraft. Were they fully fuelled or only loaded for a demo?

In consequence, You are claiming this particular J-11BS is using a weaker engine and therefore the J-20 has to have a higher thrust one ... the funny thing is only that exactly Your example Flanker is using exactly the engine You claim to power the J-20. 

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Your comparison is way off: First this particular J-11BS is exactly flying the type of engine You are erroneously claiming to power the J-20. So if the J-20 should be powered by the WS-10, then the Flanker which is for sure using a WS-10 should do this as well.
> Second, we know manoeuvres from the Flankers using exactly the same type of engine You hate so much, namely the AL-31F which is IMO used by the J-20, that make all spectators hold their breaths ... as such, there is no need to use a higher thrust engine.
> Third, therefore - and that's why such airshow demonstration videos are simply not suitable: they show aircraft in not the same conditions, You don't know the intention ... We don't know the particular weight of both aircraft. Were they fully fuelled or only loaded for a demo?
> 
> In consequence, You are claiming this particular J-11BS is using a weaker engine and therefore the J-20 has to have a higher thrust one ... the funny thing is only that exactly Your example Flanker is using exactly the engine You claim to power the J-20.
> 
> Deino


J-20 is using WS-10B not WS-10A. Did you forget? WS-10B is 14000kg thrust, reported by AVIC Lin Zuoming. WS-10A is 12700kg thrust. Deino, I think I do not need to remind you of this? 

Maybe you want to claim 1300kg thrust is not significant? 

http://www.china-arms.com/2016/02/china-may-succeed-in-developing-taihang-fws-10b-aircraft-engine/

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> J-20 is using WS-10B not WS-10A. Did you forget? WS-10B is 14000kg thrust, reported by AVIC Lin Zuoming. WS-10A is 12700kg thrust. Deino, I think I do not need to remind you of this?
> 
> Maybe you want to claim 1300kg thrust is not significant?
> 
> http://www.china-arms.com/2016/02/china-may-succeed-in-developing-taihang-fws-10b-aircraft-engine/




Wrong again ... but I'm repeating myself - the WS-10B is the J-10B/C-tailored version with the gearbox on the bottom - and even more this report itself does not confirm this new engine



> China *may succeed* in developing “Taihang” FWS-10B aircraft engine ...



IMO far from confirmed.

BY the way, these 13kN of extra thrust is indeed not bad but with a thrust of 140kN it is "only" 3 kN more than the official 137 kN the AL-31FN Series 3 delivers. And these 3 kN are not that much.

Anyway, we both will never agree on this issue as it seems... but I'm sure, time will tell.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Wrong again ... but I'm repeating myself - the WS-10B is the J-10B/C-tailored version with the gearbox on the bottom - and even more this report itself does not confirm this new engine
> 
> 
> 
> IMO far from confirmed.
> 
> BY the way, these 130kN of extra thrust is indeed not bad but with a thrust of 140kN it is "only" 3 kN more than the official 137 kN the AL-31FN Series 3 delivers. And these 3 kN are not that much.
> 
> Anyway, we both will never agree on this issue as it seems... but I'm sure, time will tell.
> 
> Deino


That is nonsense. WS-10B is a designation also know as Ws-10G of 14000kg thrust. 14000kg max thrust is comfirm by AVIC president Lin zuoming during a interview. And by Feb 2016, they reported the breakthrough of domestic upgraded engine though they didn't specific exactly what type. The timing fits well of the engine ready for production which means fitting in those LRIP J-20 near year end perfectly makes sense. As for 14000kg is max thrust, we couldn't really know the dry thrust upgraded. One thing for sure, it's a significant upgrade.

And for the AL-31F series 3, you are the one talking about skceptical of such engines exported to China or even exist and now you claim such engine is fitted on J-20 or J-15?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Wrong again ... but I'm repeating myself - the WS-10B is the J-10B/C-tailored version with the gearbox on the bottom - and even more this report itself does not confirm this new engine
> 
> 
> 
> IMO far from confirmed.
> 
> BY the way, these 130kN of extra thrust is indeed not bad but with a thrust of 140kN it is "only" 3 kN more than the official 137 kN the AL-31FN Series 3 delivers. And these 3 kN are not that much.
> 
> Anyway, we both will never agree on this issue as it seems... but I'm sure, time will tell.
> 
> Deino


with out prove 



Beast said:


> That is nonsense. WS-10B is a designation also know as Ws-10G of 14000kg thrust. 14000kg max thrust is comfirm by AVIC president Lin zuoming during a interview. And by Feb 2016, they reported the breakthrough of domestic upgraded engine though they didn't specific exactly what type. The timing fits well of the engine ready for production which means fitting in those LRIP J-20 near year end perfectly makes sense. As for 14000kg is max thrust, we couldn't really know the dry thrust upgraded. One thing for sure, it's a significant upgrade.
> 
> And for the AL-31F series 3, you are the one talking about skceptical of such engines exported to China or even exist and now you claim such engine is fitted on J-20 or J-15?


leave him @Beast he is living in his fantasy land

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> with out prove
> 
> 
> leave him @Beast he is living in his fantasy land



You can check my previous posts, I made a fair comparison, but some people still want to ignore it on purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You can check my previous posts, I made a fair comparison, but some people still want to ignore it on purpose.


because he knows better than you what china building or not

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 星海军事

星海军事 said:


> Let’s make a bet on this.
> 
> I bet all J-20s we saw so far (2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and several LRIP ones) are now using non-domestic engines and J-20 will enter service with non-domestic engines. I will cease this account If I lose.
> 
> Deadline: A credible direct participant or an official documentary of Project 718 confirms the suggestion of either side.
> 
> Who's in?



No one dares to bet against me?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> No one dares to bet against me?



I'll bet you that the FC-31 v2.0 will never make an appearance.


----------



## Asoka

Anybody want to venture a reason why there is no official picture of the WS-15 or a model of the WS-15. I don't why know such secrecy is needed, since we already have pictures of WS-10 many years..


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You can check my previous posts, I made a fair comparison, but some people still want to ignore it on purpose.





pakistanipower said:


> because he knows better than you what china building or not



Besides our no-agreement You not even notice the flaws in his argumentation ??




星海军事 said:


> No one dares to bet against me?



That's indeed a funny issue. If You listen to my ongoing "discussion with @Beast, @pakistanipower and @ChineseTiger1986 they at least seem to have some final doubts. But anyway I'm sure time will tell even if I'm living in phantasy-word.

Deino



Asok said:


> Anybody want to venture a reason why there is no official picture of the WS-15 or a model of the WS-15. I don't why know such secrecy is needed, since we already have pictures of WS-10 many years..




Maybe simply since there is no engine yet assembled and tested as a full engine ? Maybe since it is deemed too much top-secret to show ???


----------



## Sanchez

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0NTExODg0MA==.html?firsttime=1

Remarkable S-maneuver！

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Besides our no-agreement You not even notice the flaws in his argumentation ??
> 
> I doubt the WS-15 hasn't been tested yet. The project was started in late 1990's. The new metal alloy was ready a long time ago. China has accumulated vast experience in the WS-10 project. This was a hard earned experienced since many aspects was started from scratch. If it's true that the engine hasn't been extensively tested yet, its progress is grossly behind J-20. Somebody would be shoot for that. You can't tell much by just looking at an engine, the importance is in the details. So, I am wondering why so stingy with the picture?
> 
> 
> That's indeed a funny issue. If You listen to my ongoing "discussion with @Beast, @pakistanipower and @ChineseTiger1986 they at least seem to have some final doubts. But anyway I'm sure time will tell even if I'm living in phantasy-word.
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe simply since there is no engine yet assembled and tested as a full engine ? Maybe since it is deemed too much top-secret to show ???


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Besides our no-agreement You not even notice the flaws in his argumentation ??


With due all respect sir, their is 400+ WS-10A and B engine is operational so it is possible that they put high thrust variant on J-20 what flaw care to explain? *you saying that China can't innovate its WS-10 series because your German ego can't accept that fact china put WS-10X in J-20, i think in future when J-20 will come out with WS-15 you will say that this is not a WS-15 but a AL31FN3*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> With due all respect sir, their is 400+ WS-10A and B engine is operational so it is possible that they put high thrust variant on J-20 what flaw care to explain? *you saying that China can't innovate its WS-10 series because your German ego can't accept that fact china put WS-10X in J-20, i think in future when J-20 will come out with WS-15 you will say that this is not a WS-15 but a AL31FN3*



The US can still brag in front of China in some areas, but nobody else can.

Germany is good of making the diesel engine, but the turbofan/cryogenic/turbine technology, they are just a toddler in front of China.

Just like it would be ridiculous for the Chinese football to laugh at the German football because they just got one world cup champion less than Brazil.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

First of all - also with all due respect - there's no need to get bold and purple ! Even more with all Your blaba-gifs Your post don't become more serious.

Second; his faulty arguments and my pretending on the AL-31FN-theory has nothing to do with a German ego.

Even wit a slightest bit of logic You must admit, that Beast's arguments are stupid:

Again, another try: 

1. flaw: He claims that this J-20 has to use a WS-10 since a Flanker cannot do such a manoeuvre even if exactly the Flanker in his post uses a WS-10.
2. flaw: He also claims that it cannot be an AL-31 of any version even we have seen Flankers flying manoeuvres purely powered by AL-31 we so far have not seen doing a J-20.

To be precise I do not negate that a J-20 cannot fly such manoeuvres too ... but we still haven't seen a Cobra yet and that's a fact.

I do not understand why You are so much blinded in Your ate against my supposed ego that You are following plain wrong arguments.

Again; I would love to see a J-20A with a W-10, even more so with the WS-15, but to think each and every type shown in any image (similar to the J-10B/C and Z-10 ) has to use a NEW and hyper powerful Chinese engine is ridiculous.
Also; I don't negate that these engine exist, I only deny that they are already operational ... even more if they are *in my honest* opinion clearly an AL-31FN.

So please be at least so fair not to add any country-bashings in this, You should at least - even if we won't agree in the engine issue - agree that his line of arguments is stupid and has surely nothing to do with my nationality or personnel ego. Strangely I sometimes get the feeling that some certain guys here - be they Chinese, Pakistani or whatever from - have such a huge ego, that they are so much blinded not even to consider that another option might be wrong, purely since a certain statement don't fit Your ego.

Sad, indeed sad.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> First of all - also with all due respect - there's no need to get bold and purple ! Even more with all Your blaba-gifs Your post don't become more serious.
> 
> Second; his faulty arguments and my pretending on the AL-31FN-theory has nothing to do with a German ego.
> 
> Even wit a slightest bit of logic You must admit, that Beast's arguments are stupid:
> 
> Again, another try:
> 
> 1. flaw: He claims that this J-20 has to use a WS-10 since a Flanker cannot do such a manoeuvre even if exactly the Flanker in his post uses a WS-10.
> 2. flaw: He also claims that it cannot be an AL-31 of any version even we have seen Flankers flying manoeuvres purely powered by AL-31 we so far have not seen doing a J-20.
> 
> To be precise I do not negate that a J-20 cannot fly such manoeuvres too ... but we still haven't seen a Cobra yet and that's a fact.
> 
> I do not understand why You are so much blinded in Your ate against my supposed ego that You are following plain wrong arguments.
> 
> Again; I would love to see a J-20A with a W-10, even more so with the WS-15, but to think each and every type shown in any image (similar to the J-10B/C and Z-10 ) has to use a NEW and hyper powerful Chinese engine is ridiculous.
> Also; I don't negate that these engine exist, I only deny that they are already operational ... even more if they are *in my honest* opinion clearly an AL-31FN.
> 
> So please be at least so fair not to add any country-bashings in this, You should at least - even if we won't agree in the engine issue - agree that his line of arguments is stupid and has surely nothing to do with my nationality or personnel ego. Strangely I sometimes get the feeling that some certain guys here - be they Chinese, Pakistani or whatever from - have such a huge ego, that they are so much blinded not even to consider that another option might be wrong, purely since a certain statement don't fit Your ego.
> 
> Sad, indeed sad.
> 
> Deino


so you are saying China can't innovate its WS-10 to higher thrust versions and put them in J-20 what loser you are

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AlyxMS

pakistanipower said:


> so you are saying China can't innovate its WS-10 to higher thrust versions and put them in J-20 what loser you are


In which line did he say that?
Stop putting words into his mouth.

He simply stated that in every single picture we saw there hasn't been a J-20 with non-AL-31 engine. Therefore there is no evidence for a J-20 with non-AL-31 engine to exist although it might, but we have yet to see it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

AlyxMS said:


> In which line did he say that?
> Stop putting words into his mouth.
> 
> He simply stated that in every single picture we saw there hasn't been a J-20 with non-AL-31 engine. Therefore there is no evidence for a J-20 with non-AL-31 engine to exist although it might, but we have yet to see it.


ok bro you go live in your fairytales

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> so you are saying China can't innovate its WS-10 to higher thrust versions and put them in J-20 what loser you are





pakistanipower said:


> ok bro you go live in your fairytales




This is exactly what makes me sad and angry. You lay words in my moth I did not say, You twist my words and even more where I exactly admitted there MIGHT be these engines You don't seem to read or You deliberately ignore this part.

So either we have a language issue (might be since English is most likely not our first language I assume?) or even more a will to read, listen and understand ... but then it is not my fault.

So why this resistance to even consider my words ?
Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> This is exactly what makes me sad and angry. You lay words in my moth I did not say, You twist my words and even more where I exactly admitted there MIGHT be these engines You don't seem to read or You deliberately ignore this part.
> 
> So either we have a language issue (might be since English is most likely not our first language I assume?) or even more a will to read, listen and understand ... but then it is not my fault.
> 
> So why this resistance to even consider my words ?
> Deino


Again your German ego is speaking lie to you lets wait and see

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> Again your German ego is speaking lie to you lets wait and see



Where is there an ego ? With not a single word You even mentioned my concerns, complains to Beasts arguments.

Is he god-like in all what he says to You so that his word cannot be wrong ? Or is there something else, why You ignore at least to read my post and finally argue?
You really don't want to argue? Don't You or can't You ??

But agreed ... let's put it to a rest; time will tell.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Where is there an ego ? With not a single word You even mentioned my concerns, complains to Beasts arguments.
> 
> Is he god-like in all what he says to You so that his word cannot be wrong ? Or is there something else, why You ignore at least to read my post and finally argue?
> You really don't want to argue? Don't You or can't You ??
> 
> But agreed ... let's put it to a rest; time will tell.


Because you said that China can't innovate its WS-10 series engine

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

@Beast @pakistanipower

From 5:02 to 5:05, PLA's Senior Colonel Du Wenlong claims that J-20 uses a powerful engine with the TVC nozzle, but Deino previously claimed that J-20 never had any TVC technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AlyxMS

pakistanipower said:


> ok bro you go live in your fairytales


I'm not living in a fairytale or a fantasy.

I am strictly sticking to this thread and asking you to quote the lines Deino said or implied that "China can't innovate with its WS-10 engine".

Since you are country bashing I believe there is no point to continue this arguement as the common ground of civility is lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nang2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> @Beast @pakistanipower
> 
> From 5:02 to 5:05, PLA's Senior Colonel Du Wenlong claims that J-20 uses a powerful engine with the TVC nozzle, but Deino previously claimed that J-20 never had any TVC technology.


He is not with air force. He probably knows much less about fighter jets than Deino.


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> Because you said that China can't innovate its WS-10 series engine



No, I said they can - Why on earth You do not want to read !!!!??? - I only said from what I see, they are not operational.

Please be fair enough and go back and read my post or show me in any of my latest post, where I stated they cannot.

I really don't get it in all due respect.
Deino


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

nang2 said:


> He is not with air force. He probably knows much less about fighter jets than Deino.



LMAO, Deino cannot even speak Chinese, so he does know more inside information than a high ranked PLA official?

Du Wenlong is from the PLAN which is also interested to acquire the navalized J-20.

He doesn't know the specs of the J-20? You must be joking.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## asia2000

Never trust him. He is there for entertainment purpose only.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> @Beast @pakistanipower
> 
> From 5:02 to 5:05, PLA's Senior Colonel Du Wenlong claims that J-20 uses a powerful engine with the TVC nozzle, but Deino previously claimed that J-20 never had any TVC technology.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

asia2000 said:


> Never trust him. He is there for entertainment purpose only.



Yeah, never trust him, but neither should I trust a random German guy from the cyberspace.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## asia2000

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> LMAO, Deino cannot even speak Chinese, so he does know more inside information than a high ranked PLA official?
> 
> Du Wenlong is from the PLAN which is also interested to acquire the navalized J-20.
> 
> He doesn't know the specs of the J-20? You must be joking.



There is no way Mr Du knows about the specs of J-20. He is just a TV host.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

asia2000 said:


> There is no way Mr Du knows about the specs of J-20. He is just a TV host.



At least he does know more stuffs than you.

If you cannot bring anything on the table, then it is better to keep quiet.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## asia2000

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yeah, never trust him, but neither should I trust a random German guy from the cyberspace.





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> At least he does know more stuffs than you.
> 
> If you cannot bring anything on the table, then it is better to keep quiet.



Regarding J-20, Mr. Du can only depend on the public information just like all the fans. If you have watched all his programs, it basically has no substantial content at all.


----------



## nang2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> At least he does know more stuffs than you.
> 
> If you cannot bring anything on the table, then it is better to keep quiet.


Of course he did. What he brought on the table is the questionable credibility of Mr Du on this issue.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> No, I said they can - Why on earth You do not want to read !!!!??? - I only said from what I see, they are not operational.
> 
> Please be fair enough and go back and read my post or show me in any of my latest post, where I stated they cannot.
> 
> I really don't get it in all due respect.
> Deino


There are 400+ WS-10A,B operational with J11B , BH and J-15 and started tested with J-10B what talking about and @cirr @ChineseTiger1986 ,@Beast is most reliable informer than your bashing against Chinese military, you are not speaking this is your German ego is speaking

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Another speculation of the J-20 gun location

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> There are 400+ WS-10A,B operational with J11B , BH and J-15 and started tested with J-10B what talking about and @cirr @ChineseTiger1986 ,@Beast is most reliable informer than your bashing against Chinese military, you are not speaking this is your German ego is speaking



China has almost built 500 turbofan engines from the WS-10 family back in 2015.

https://defence.pk/threads/china-has-built-490-taihang-engines-so-far.389536/

BTW, these brainwashed folks (probably with many false flaggers) cannot be reasoned with, and I am going to put them in my ignored list.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Sanchez

There are only two facts in the recent arguements：
1，The production model of J-20 has engines with nozzles that resemble those of AL-31FN！
2，In the test flights of last week J-20 demonstrated a few super maneuvers，indicating a possibility of J-20 equipped with thrust vectoring engines.

Don‘t tell us that you know more than those “factual observations”！

There have been pictures showing different nozzles of engines that J-20 flew with. We don’t know a jack what those engines were，not even the present ones！

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## hk299792458

杜文龙近几年有向张菊方向发展的意思...


----------



## Ultima Thule

Sanchez said:


> 1，The production model of J-20 has engines with nozzles that resemble those of AL-31FN！


sir may be its WS-10X or may be its AL-31F that *may be have* its "all secret" but @Deino insisting the is must be an AL-31F

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> sir may be its WS-10X or may be its AL-31F that *may be have* its "all secret" but @Deino insisting the is must be an AL-31F




So a final word: You simply don't like what I'm saying even if I present my reasons and arguments ? As such since I'm not a Chinese or Pakistani You even refuse to read, think and at least consider my arguments?

A simply YES or NO is all I want ... and not again twisted words, lies and things I never said.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> So a final word: You simply don't like what I'm saying even if I present my reasons and arguments ? As such since I'm not a Chinese or Pakistani You even refuse to read, think and at least consider my arguments?
> 
> A simply YES or NO is all I want ... and not again twisted words, lies and things I never said.
> 
> Deino


But their is possibility that J-20 is equipped with WS-10X not all but LRIP ones

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> But their is possibility that J-20 is equipped with WS-10X not all but LRIP ones



Yes, I don't exclude or even deny this. Remember all the years of J-10-testing all with AL-31FN when last year nearly out of the blue an old image showing prototype 1004 flying with a WS-10B popped up.
YES, I don't exclude this but IMO I think it is not very likely.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

grey boy 2 said:


> Another speculation of the J-20 gun location


I doubt it. That looks like it would take up limited space in the main weapons bay


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> I doubt it. That looks like it would take up limited space in the main weapons bay



Completely impossible !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

guys.. like calm down..If indeed J-20 is heading to an airshow, then we would know all about it's specs very soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

hk299792458 said:


> 杜文龙近几年有向张菊方向发展的意思...



Dude, stop acting like those CDers in the air force section. All they can do is to resort the name calling, yet failed to deliver anything substantial.

You once said that nobody can be fully trusted that even includes a fully validated big shrimp like POP3, yet the air force section of the CD forum has plenty of self-proclaimed "big shrimps" with a big mouth. Do you wanna trust these guys' words?

I haven't seen they delivered anything substantial in the past 5 years, except with name calling, rambling, self-contradicting, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> ...
> 
> I haven't seen they delivered anything substantial in the past 5 years, except with name calling, rambling, self-contradicting, etc.




Seems to be quite a typical behaviour in forums if You can't persuade with arguments ?


----------



## asia2000

Since WS10 has powered J11, I donot see why it cannot be used on J20, which all military fans would like to see it happen. However, if looking from Chengdu's perspective, there is not much incentive for them to use WS10, as it will only add more risks. Their priority is to finish the J20 project on time. Using AL31 wont discount their achievements by much. Also, I remember read it somewhere, the cost of WS10 is not cheaper than AL31.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Completely impossible !
> 
> View attachment 341387


You're not going to be able to fit a 30mm cannon with so little space. It the gun was placed there, the firing mechanism would extend into the weapon bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

asia2000 said:


> Since WS10 has powered J11, I donot see why it cannot be used on J20, which all military fans would like to see it happen. However, if looking from Chengdu's perspective, there is not much incentive for them to use WS10, as it will only add more risks. Their priority is to finish the J20 project on time. Using AL31 wont discount their achievements by much. Also, I remember read it somewhere, the cost of WS10 is not cheaper than AL31.


That is not the point. The point is AL-31 do not fit the requirement for J-20 and PLAAF will never fit AL-31F engine on a operation J-20. A higher thrust engine is needed and has demonstrated on J-20 LRIP.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> That is not the point. The point is AL-31 do not fit the requirement for J-20 and PLAAF will never fit AL-31F engine on a operation J-20. A higher thrust engine is needed and has demonstrated on J-20 LRIP.




We are talking about a + of 3kn, since You claim the 140kn WS-10B and I say the 137kN AL-31FN Series 3 !!!
And You can see the difference only based on a grainy a-few-seconds-long video clip taken by a handy !! Incredible. 

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> We are talking about a + of 3kn, since You claim the 140kn WS-10B and I say the 137kN AL-31FN Series 3 !!!
> And You can see the difference only based on a grainy a-few-seconds-long video clip taken by a handy !! Incredible.
> 
> Deino


You flip flopping your words/claim of claiming China never import AL-31F M series engine but comes to J-20, you claim M series engines are imported for it. Want me to post back what you wrote?

More or less shows your credibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> You flip flopping your words/claim of claiming China never import AL-31F M series engine but comes to J-20, you claim M series engines are imported for it. Want me to post back what you wrote?
> 
> More or less shows your credibility.


But Mr Beast at the time of initial versions of J-20 WS-10 is not reliable enough to put in J-20 what is your opinion about it?


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> But Mr Beast at the time of initial versions of J-20 WS-10 is not reliable enough to put in J-20 what is your opinion about it?


Its not about not reliable enough but more of expending the AL-31F engines imported. Since they are using on prototype and testing models. Even the J-15 currently use on CV-16 Liaoning are merely to train up qualify carrier pilots. Virtually the engines are using everyday and their lifespan will deplete quickly. And PLAAF and PLAN are expecting more powerful engine. WS-10A are good for J-16, J-11B/BS but not enough to satisfy for J-15 and J-20. They are waiting for WS-10G or B. We will soon see these higher thrust WS-10G equipped the fleet soon.

The real operation J-15A that will be serving the real operation Type001a carrier, is equpped with domestic engine. Very likely the WS-10G/B.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

There is a good chance we might see J20 flyby during the coming Zhuhai Airshow. Though there is a possibility this "classifieds aircraft" may turn up to be FC-31. Just keep your fingers crossed.

Wait..... the provider unit is PLA air force , so this "classifieds aircraft" is definitely not FC-31.









Try again, guys. Guess where is the gun port.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## asia2000

lcloo said:


> There is a good chance we might see J20 flyby during the coming Zhuhai Airshow. Though there is a possibility this "classifieds aircraft" may turn up to be FC-31. Just keep your fingers crossed.



Only ten minutes? Is that enough for a flight show? Take off and landing will probably already use all the time.


----------



## Beast

asia2000 said:


> Only ten minutes? Is that enough for a flight show? Take off and landing will probably already use all the time.


I can say its J-31 v2. The WS-13E engine is still quite new and not fully mature or too long duration. But it need to showcase itself to win foreign funds for this project to stay on


----------



## lcloo

asia2000 said:


> Only ten minutes? Is that enough for a flight show? Take off and landing will probably already use all the time.



Acrobatic teams get 40 to 60 minutes, everyone else get 10 minutes, including "classified aircraft".

By the way, last airshow in 2014 got 2 "classified aircraft", which turned up to be Y20 and J31/FC31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali Zadi

I hope its the J20 and not the J31.


----------



## asia2000

Beast said:


> I can say its J-31 v2. The WS-13E engine is still quite new and not fully mature or too long duration. But it need to showcase itself to win foreign funds for this project to stay on



Last year, J31 was given 15 minutes.


----------



## Beast

asia2000 said:


> Last year, J31 was given 15 minutes.


If J-31 managed to do a high G flip plus non smoky exhaust thrust. I am sure this year 10mins is even more significant than last year 15mins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

The provider of the classified fighter is PLA, so it is apparently not FC-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> The provider of the classified fighter is PLA, so it is apparently not FC-31.



What's the deal with FC-31 v2.0?


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> What's the deal with FC-31 v2.0?



2.0 is likely to have its maiden flight soon.


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> 2.0 is likely to have its maiden flight soon.



Well, it has been "soon" since April of this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Well, it has been "soon" since April of this year.


Well, I think this is the first time I say "soon"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> Well, I think this is the first time I say "soon"



Well, I heard that it would fly by the end of October. Do you know if the PLAN is still interested or has it officially rejected the platform?


----------



## Beast

SinoSoldier said:


> Well, I heard that it would fly by the end of October. Do you know if the PLAN is still interested or has it officially rejected the platform?


PLAN reject it but the developer of J-31 says it has some firm commitment from others(foreign countries)


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Well, I heard that it would fly by the end of October. Do you know if the PLAN is still interested or has it officially rejected the platform?


Why not having a look before you decide?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clibra

星海军事 said:


> Why not having a look before you decide?


----------



## The Eagle

Please avoid off-topic discussion. The thread is for J-20 not the FC-31. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Preparing for Zhuhai ??

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## asia2000

Deino said:


> View attachment 342477


Looks like AL31

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Note the PLAAF insignia in the 2nd pic.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 星海军事

cirr said:


> Note the PLAAF insignia in the 2nd pic.


What is so special about that?


----------



## Ultima Thule

cirr said:


> Note the PLAAF insignia in the 2nd pic.


where? i didn't see anything


----------



## Deino

They are grey .


----------



## Akasa

pakistanipower said:


> where? i didn't see anything



"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."


----------



## grey boy 2

低可视度涂装早几个月前就曝光了
歼20服役直接证据来了（低可视八一军标已经涂上，正式证明歼20已经服役。）世界第二
proof of J-20 already in service

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Why ... We have seen these grey low-markings since some time?


----------



## teddy

cirr said:


> Note the PLAAF insignia in the 2nd pic.


Stall experiments

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

What is this, any idea?


----------



## 592257001

grey boy 2 said:


> What is this, any idea?


My best guess is APU exhaust vent

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

(credits to blong_sh)

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

First time on a serial bird ... The open bay !

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## grey boy 2

The rumor picture claimed "ONE WS-15" has been installed on the J-20 for testing purpose?

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Akasa

grey boy 2 said:


> The rumor picture claimed "ONE WS-15" has been installed on the J-20 for testing purpose?



No; judging from those photographs, the engine has not changed from what the prototypes have been using already: Al-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## asia2000

Is this rumor true?

杨伟被免职的消息传出后，中国互联网上已是骂声一片，众网友纷纷发声为杨伟叫屈。
此前，杨伟一直被中国官方冠以中国新一代歼击机电传飞控系统的组织者和开拓者。在
其支持下，填补了数字式电传飞行控制关键技术的中国国内空白。杨伟领衔确定了飞控
系统总体方案。中国大陆媒体曾报道称：“在某次飞控系统工程研制中，杨伟首次试飞
就直接采用静不安定技术，这在国际新机试飞史上是没有先例的。为确保万无一失，杨
伟在系统综合过程中深入一线，夜以继日，查找问题，分析原因，研究解决方案，进行
了3,000多飞行小时的地面系统综合试验和机上综合测试，保证了某重点型号飞机的首
飞安全。”


----------



## Beast

asia2000 said:


> Is this rumor true?
> 
> 杨伟被免职的消息传出后，中国互联网上已是骂声一片，众网友纷纷发声为杨伟叫屈。
> 此前，杨伟一直被中国官方冠以中国新一代歼击机电传飞控系统的组织者和开拓者。在
> 其支持下，填补了数字式电传飞行控制关键技术的中国国内空白。杨伟领衔确定了飞控
> 系统总体方案。中国大陆媒体曾报道称：“在某次飞控系统工程研制中，杨伟首次试飞
> 就直接采用静不安定技术，这在国际新机试飞史上是没有先例的。为确保万无一失，杨
> 伟在系统综合过程中深入一线，夜以继日，查找问题，分析原因，研究解决方案，进行
> 了3,000多飞行小时的地面系统综合试验和机上综合测试，保证了某重点型号飞机的首
> 飞安全。”


He is too important to be fired.


----------



## 星海军事

asia2000 said:


> Is this rumor true?
> 
> 杨伟被免职的消息传出后，中国互联网上已是骂声一片，众网友纷纷发声为杨伟叫屈。
> 此前，杨伟一直被中国官方冠以中国新一代歼击机电传飞控系统的组织者和开拓者。在
> 其支持下，填补了数字式电传飞行控制关键技术的中国国内空白。杨伟领衔确定了飞控
> 系统总体方案。中国大陆媒体曾报道称：“在某次飞控系统工程研制中，杨伟首次试飞
> 就直接采用静不安定技术，这在国际新机试飞史上是没有先例的。为确保万无一失，杨
> 伟在系统综合过程中深入一线，夜以继日，查找问题，分析原因，研究解决方案，进行
> 了3,000多飞行小时的地面系统综合试验和机上综合测试，保证了某重点型号飞机的首
> 飞安全。”


中航工业副总工程师_→_中航工业科技委副主任

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sheik

星海军事 said:


> 中航工业副总工程师_→_中航工业科技委副主任



官可以升，干活还是由他带头好啊


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## The Eagle

星海军事 said:


> 中航工业副总工程师_→_中航工业科技委副主任





sheik said:


> 官可以升，干活还是由他带头好啊



Can you translate so the rest can understand it.


----------



## 艹艹艹

The Eagle said:


> Can you translate so the rest can understand it.


Learning Chinese is very easy.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Eagle

long_ said:


> Learning Chinese is very easy.



Yes but relying on Google Translator in such matters would result in disaster hence asked so I can understand better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

The Eagle said:


> Can you translate so the rest can understand it.


Seems like a promotion? But don't know why they claimed 免职.


----------



## The Eagle

Beast said:


> Seems like a promotion? But don't know why they claimed 免职.



That is why I was confused after translating it through Google after all the guy seems to be the pioneer.


----------



## WarFariX

@skybolt


----------



## WarFariX

@Deino please bro dont mind their thoughts and words...they r more of a fanboy type while this is forum sote and everyone has their own opinions and so u have too but they wont understand the fact that this is a forum

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nang2

The Eagle said:


> That is why I was confused after translating it through Google after all the guy seems to be the pioneer.


Chinese government uses two different terms describing the removal of someone from his position. One is punitive and the other is not. The one used in the news is the non-punitive one.


----------



## The Eagle

nang2 said:


> Chinese government uses two different terms describing the removal of someone from his position. One is punitive and the other is not. The one used in the news is the non-punitive one.



So it must be productive and something to do with betterment. Thanks.


----------



## lcloo

Beast said:


> Seems like a promotion? But don't know why they claimed 免职.


I believe this is more likely a job transfer to a less stressful position after completion of the J20 project. There is a precedent for the project chief engineer after completion on Y20 transport jet project.

It is incomprehensible why he was sacked after successfully completed the J20 project.

Personally, I think it is good to let the chief engineer to have a recuperation period after working endless days and nights. They need to re-charge battery.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

There is something called 明升暗降 in Chinese, which means on the surface it seems like a promotion, but in reality results in loss of power. They use it quite a bit to officials that they deemed to be out of line. For example, if you are the chief engineer of the project, they might "promote" you to chief advisor of the company. In essence, you have lost control over your research team and the project, while being relegated to a desk job.

I'm not saying that it's the case here, but I'm just informing the non-Chinese members here a phenomenon that's quite common in Chinese political history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

lcloo said:


> I believe this is more likely a job transfer to a less stressful position after completion of the J20 project. There is a precedent for the project chief engineer after completion on Y20 transport jet project.
> 
> It is incomprehensible why he was sacked after successfully completed the J20 project.
> 
> Personally, I think it is good to let the chief engineer to have a recuperation period after working endless days and nights. They need to re-charge battery.




That was an internal adjustment of AVIC. All vice-chief engineers in AVIC were dismissed from their *titular posts*.

In the case of Tang, he *resigned* from *AVIC Aircraft*, simply because he has to deal with onerous tasks as a chief disigner in 603 Institute.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## STEVEN囧

*VIDEO:*

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0MzA1NDIyNA==.html?from=s1.8-1-1.2&spm=a2h0k.8191407.0.0

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## STEVEN囧



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*We have a dedicated J-20-thread ! 

Please do not start a new one for each new post ... and also take a look if certain images were already posted !*

Deino


----------



## Deino

I want to go to Zhuhai ....

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 52051

There is quite some of internal struggle within AVIC.

In Yang Wei's case, he break the un-written rules in AVIC: In J-20 project, he use open-bidding approach to determine the suppliers of J-20's subsystems, instead of simply give contracts to suppliers within AVIC. This has pissed alot of AVIC's people off.

And due to his open-bidding approach, J-20's flyaway cost is believed to be just 75 million USD per unit, comparing to SAC's latest J-16's ~55million USD.

So the PLA is very happy with J-20, and is likely order a large amount of it whilst reduce the order size of J-11 series, so there is little gain in AVIC's revene.

Thats why alot of AVIC's people complain Yang Wei lacks 'vision', e.g. he dont care about the whole of AVIC group, just care about how good J-20 project is.

So Yang Wei has many enemies within AVIC but many frens within PLA and state commission of defence tech, so whilst some people in AVIC may want have him sacked, they cannot (AVIC is in theory, under the supervisior of state commission of defence teh), instead they give him a promotation to a position where he has to supervise almost all AVIC's projects at the expense of less involved in J-20's project.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> I want to go to Zhuhai ....
> 
> View attachment 343816


what is stopping you?


----------



## Deino

nang2 said:


> what is stopping you?




My wife !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> My wife !



Qiguanyan？


----------



## grey boy 2

NICE

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## 艹艹艹

52051 said:


> There is quite some of internal struggle within AVIC.
> 
> In Yang Wei's case, he break the un-written rules in AVIC: In J-20 project, he use open-bidding approach to determine the suppliers of J-20's subsystems, instead of simply give contracts to suppliers within AVIC. This has pissed alot of AVIC's people off.
> 
> And due to his open-bidding approach, J-20's flyaway cost is believed to be just 75 million USD per unit, comparing to SAC's latest J-16's ~55million USD.
> 
> So the PLA is very happy with J-20, and is likely order a large amount of it whilst reduce the order size of J-11 series, so there is little gain in AVIC's revene.
> 
> Thats why alot of AVIC's people complain Yang Wei lacks 'vision', e.g. he dont care about the whole of AVIC group, just care about how good J-20 project is.
> 
> So Yang Wei has many enemies within AVIC but many frens within PLA and state commission of defence tech, so whilst some people in AVIC may want have him sacked, they cannot (AVIC is in theory, under the supervisior of state commission of defence teh), instead they give him a promotation to a position where he has to supervise almost all AVIC's projects at the expense of less involved in J-20's project.


别胡扯了 人家去搞新机型了 ，，还在说这事 你是圈内人吗 无聊


----------



## Beast

long_ said:


> 别胡扯了 人家去搞新机型了 ，，还在说这事 你是圈内人吗 无聊


SAC and Chengdu are always arch rivals.


----------



## 艹艹艹



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Qiguanyan？




Care to explain in English please ?!


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Care to explain in English please ?!



I don't know what Qiguanyan is. But... maybe "a man who afraid to his wife?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Care to explain in English please ?!



Hen-pecked husband

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Hen-pecked husband




Probably !!! ... are these J-20s leaving for Zhuhai ??? ... they are carrying drop-tanks !!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eldamar

qiguanyan = 妻管严 aka a henpecked husband

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Probably !!! ... are these J-20s leaving for Zhuhai ??? ... they are carrying drop-tanks !!


No.


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> No.



So it is only a test for this certain configuration ?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> So it is only a test for this certain configuration ?


I think it is conducting external weapon testing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> I think it is conducting external weapon testing



Indeed ... interesting or even funny, that so far we have not seen any clear images with external stores - IMO only two ! - and that the first were posted about one year ago.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

@Beast 

According to the leader of 毛发党, the WS-15 has just finished the ground testing, and it is ready to pass the test on the IL-76 platform. While the current J-20A uses the AL-31FM2, a special customized edition of the AL-31, also a joint development between China and Salut, just like the GT25000.

While many people in the CD would purposely discard the news about the WS-15, they would only select the information that suits their own agenda. The guy's words were gold when he claimed that J-20 "undoubtedly" used the AL-31F, but those anti-Taihang trolls suddenly thrash him now because he has revealed the good news about the WS-15.

BTW, the revealing specs of the WS-15 seems to be surprising, it looks that China is aiming for a 180KN and TWR 11 high specs fifth gen turbofan jet engine.












The WS-15 seems to pass the ground testing by August 9th 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> @Beast
> 
> According to the leader of 毛发党, the WS-15 has just finished the ground testing, and it is ready to pass the test on the IL-76 platform. *While the current J-20A uses the AL-31FM2*, a special customized edition of the AL-31, also a joint development between China and Salut, just like the GT25000.
> 
> While many people in the CD would purposely discard the news about the WS-15, they would only select the information that suits their own agenda. The guy's words were gold when he claimed that J-20 "undoubtedly" used the AL-31F, but those anti-Taihang trolls suddenly thrash him now because he has revealed the good news about the WS-15.
> 
> BTW, the revealing specs of the WS-15 seems to be surprising, it looks that China is aiming for a 180KN and TWR 11 high specs fifth gen turbofan jet engine.
> 
> 
> View attachment 344114
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WS-15 seems to pass the ground testing by August 9th 2015.



Indeed no offence ... but first the tanks on the J-20 and now Your confirmation concerning an AL-31FN-version, that really made my day !

Like I said since so long: similar to the once and long still secret original AL-31FN for the J-10 the CAC chose a similar approach for the J-20. And since these are not exact AL-31FN Series 3, they were never mentioned or included in the number of engines reserved for the J-10B and J-10C. 

Would be interesting to know the specific thrust of this engine. If it follows the regular FM2 about 145kN should be assumed.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Indeed no offence ... but first the tanks on the J-20 and now Your confirmation concerning an AL-31FN-version, that really made my day !
> 
> Like I said since so long: similar to the once and long still secret original AL-31FN for the J-10 the CAC chose a similar approach for the J-20. And since these are not exact AL-31FN Series 3, they were never mentioned or included in the number of engines reserved for the J-10B and J-10C.
> 
> Would be interesting to know the specific thrust of this engine. If it follows the regular FM2 about 145kN should be assumed.
> 
> Deino



He claims that the specs of the AL-31FM2 are similar to the 117S, that's why China doesn't need the 117S for the J-20 anymore.

However, I still insist that few other J-20 units use the WS-10G, since those different engines are clearly close to the WS-10 family. Just like few units of the J-10B/C also use the WS-10A/B engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

The openly circulated images of 2011 show it has already tested 2 different types of engines at least. Note the right engine at the second photo appears very different to those AL-31. When taking off, its divergent nozzle provides same trust as the left one.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> The openly circulated images of 2011 show it has already tested 2 different types of engines at least. Note the right engine at the second photo appears very different to those AL-31. When taking off, its divergent nozzle provides same trust as the left one.
> 
> View attachment 344140
> 
> 
> View attachment 344139



No, not again ... why again trying to assume that a WS-15 is already flying when just reported that the WS-15 is ready to enter tests onboard the Il-76LL-testbed and the same can simply be explained with different nozzle-opening-settings?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## krash

long_ said:


> Learning Chinese is very easy.



And typing in english even more so.



The Eagle said:


> Yes but relying on Google Translator in such matters would result in disaster hence asked so I can understand better.



And the fact that it's against the rules.


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> ...
> BTW, the revealing specs of the WS-15 seems to be surprising, it looks that China is aiming for a 180KN and TWR 11 high specs fifth gen turbofan jet engine.




Could You please provide a source or the original Chinese language post he is citing especially where it mentions 180kN and 11 TWR ?

Thanks in advance,
Deino


----------



## cirr

Heading for Zhuhai??

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Heading for Zhuhai??



Maybe only preparing ... isn't it a bit too early to already go now ?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

short video ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788015331520356352

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事

It seems that the third LRIP J-20 has a new splinter patterned painting

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>








星海军事 said:


> It seems that the third LRIP J-20 has a new splinter patterned painting




Indeed ... and now in full-size & high-resolution !!

Here we go ...

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## j20blackdragon

AL-31FN Series 3 engine count. I'll do it with photographic evidence.

*53 engines* used up for J-10B production.






*49 engines* used up for J-10C production.






*16 engines* used for J-20 prototypes.

2 x 2001
2 x 2002
2 x 2011
2 x 2012
2 x 2013
2 x 2015
2 x 2016
2 x 2017

And lastly, we have this picture of three LRIP J-20s together. *6 engines.*






*124 engines used up.*

This surpasses the 123 AL-31FN Series 3 engines purchased in 2011 for $500 million. There should be no engines left. But where is the Russian/Chinese announcement of additional engine orders?

Moreover, I would like to point out that we had news regarding the J-10A engine many months prior to initial production in 2002. I'll provide two examples below. Note the dates of these reports.

-----------------------------

China to buy Russian engines for F-10 fighters June 15, 2001 PARIS, *Jun 14, 2001* (Itar-Tass via COMTEX) - - The command of the Chinese army decided to equip its F-10 fighter planes with the Russian AL-31FN engines, a member of the Chinese delegation at the international airshow in Le Bourget told Tass on Thursday. He said the Chinese army is to receive over 300 such planes in the coming ten years. The serial production of the fighters is to begin in 2003. However Russia will supply several dozen of the engines in the coming two years.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-3820.html

-----------------------------

<Kanwa News *Sept 10th 2001*> Kanwa learned that Chinese J10A (F10A) fighters would be mass-produced starting from next year. J10A will be installed with AL31FN turbofan engine developed by Russia's SALUT. The source revealed that under the Russia-China mutual agreement, in Phase One, 54 AL31FN engines would be turned over to China by the end of this year. Consequently, there will be 300 same type of engines turned over to China. This plan is in effect till after 2003. The movement indicates that the first batch of mass produced J10A will be numbered around 50. The production will start from next year.

The above news has been confirmed by Chengdu No.132 factory, source from this factory said that they are working hard for the "Type" plane (Xing Hao Ji) in the final phase.....! <Kanwa digest news>

http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-4563.html

-----------------------------

J-10A production began in 2002. And we got the news above before the days of social media and widespread news on the internet.

On the other hand, J-20 LRIP already began when 2101 appeared in December 2015. It is now October 2016 -- at least 10 months later. Where are the reports of an engine deal with Russia? According to rumors, J-20 is likely to enter service with the PLAAF at the end of 2016. We are also getting reports that J-20 will be showing up at Zhuhai Airshow next month. The plane is now being publicly unveiled. How can there be no news regarding a Russian engine deal at such a late stage in the J-20's development if the J-20 is indeed using the AL-31FN Series 3? There is nothing top secret about the AL-31FN Series 3 at this point. Why keep something as mundane as an engine deal secret?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> ...
> *124 engines used up.*
> 
> ....



Exactly and like I already explained yesterday following @ChineseTiger1986 's post from yesterday, that reported about the J-20A using NOT the AL-31FN but a specialised version based on the AL-31FM2 !

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-416#post-8819350

Therefore and like I said since so long: similar to the once and long still secret original AL-31FN-contract for the J-10 CAC chose a similar approach for the J-20. And since these are not exact AL-31FN Series 3, they were never mentioned or included in the number of engines reserved for the J-10B and J-10C. 

Would be interesting to know the specific thrust of this engine. If it follows the regular FM2 about 142kN should be assumed.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## asia2000

j20blackdragon said:


> We are also getting reports that J-20 will be showing up at Zhuhai Airshow next month. The plane is now being publicly unveiled. How can there be no news regarding a Russian engine deal at such a late stage in the J-20's development if the J-20 is indeed using the AL-31FN Series 3?



If J20 is indeed using WS10, those WS10 guys would have bragged about it and some awards would have been given. So, no news means J20 is still using AL31. I agree with Mr. Xi Yazhou's analysis, Chengdu does not like WS10 due to performance or reliability problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

A few more I haven't seen so far ...

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Exactly and like I already explained yesterday following @ChineseTiger1986 's post from yesterday, that reported about the J-20A using NOT the AL-31FN but a specialised version based on the AL-31FM2 !
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-416#post-8819350
> 
> Therefore and like I said since so long: similar to the once and long still secret original AL-31FN-contract for the J-10 CAC chose a similar approach for the J-20. And since these are not exact AL-31FN Series 3, they were never mentioned or included in the number of engines reserved for the J-10B and J-10C.
> 
> Would be interesting to know the specific thrust of this engine. If it follows the regular FM2 about 142kN should be assumed.
> 
> Deino



The AL-31FM2 (14,500 kgf thrust) was designed for re-engining of the entire Russian Air Force Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fleet without any additional airframe and engine nacelle modifications. That means all the Chinese Flankers can use this engine too, including probably the Flanker clones like the J-11D. Why hasn't China ordered a massive number of these engines for the entire PLAAF? When and where was the contract signed? How many engines were ordered? What was the total contract value?

If Russia is actually selling the AL-31FM2, they are essentially shooting their own future Su-35 sales in the foot. I love it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Could You please provide a source or the original Chinese language post he is citing especially where it mentions 180kN and 11 TWR ?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Deino



Here it was revealed by a famous Chinese aerospace expert that the benchmark for the WS-15 was set for TWR 10 back in 2003.

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2306554-1-1.html

But according to Xi Yazhou, the frontrunner Internet pundit who claims that the J-20A uses the AL-31FM2 and the WS-15 being ready for the flight on the IL-76, the WS-15 has many improved variants also passing its test on the ground as well.

As for the information I just showed in the previous post, the WS-15 has used the new material that could withstand up to 2200 degree Celsius in its maximum inlet turbine temperature, and in comparison, the F119 could only withstand for around 1600 degree Celsius.

I guess this new super WS-15 should be the improved variant that mentioned by Xi Yazhou, which is now passing its test on the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Final one for tonight ?!






By the way ... how many truly identified different LRIP birds do we have by now:

Besides reports on 7 or even 9 aircraft, fully confirmed are at least two grey ones (one in plain grey the other in this new splinter camo) + two currently still yellow birds.

What's on the reports two weeks ago concerning two grey J-20As having left CAC ?? ... did they come back ?


Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## grey boy 2

Some new HD pictures with weapons bay completely opened

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## cirr

grey boy 2 said:


> Some new HD pictures with weapons bay completely opened



I am gonna save this one for posterity.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2

Some more

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Looks modified in comparison to the original demonstrator's bays ... and so the question remains: will now fit 3 PL-15 per bay ?

... IMO more likely than before !

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Looks modified in comparison to the original demonstrator's bays ... and so the question remains: will now fit 3 PL-15 per bay ?
> 
> ... IMO more likely than before !
> 
> View attachment 344439




However I think I need to correct myself; I'm not sure anymore:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

I love the paint job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Pepsi Cola

grey boy 2 said:


>


uh... that's not good then?


----------



## Deino

Okarus said:


> uh... that's not good then?




I had a similar thought, however that image seems "enhanced" (light, contrast, brightness, ..) by some sort, so that the exhaust may be more visible.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Another video. Please excuse the poor camerawork.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc2NDg3OTI1Mg==.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Hmmmmmm ....

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## Deino

Guys ... that's not fair ! Really 

I'm sitting here on my desk while I need to prepare the Chemistry-exams for my pupils that will be written in January. I have to sign in my exams exactly on next Monday 8 o'clock ....

I really cannot work this way.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Exactly and like I already explained yesterday following @ChineseTiger1986 's post from yesterday, that reported about the J-20A using NOT the AL-31FN but a specialised version based on the AL-31FM2 !





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> But according to Xi Yazhou, the frontrunner Internet pundit who claims that the J-20A uses the AL-31FM2



The AL-31FM2 appears to be a phantom engine program.

Do we have evidence that the engine was successfully bench-tested, flight-tested, and certified?

In 2012, Aviation Week reported that the AL-31FM2 had completed the climatic bench tests.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/some-tests-complete-sukhoi-engine-upgrade

This news was also confirmed on Salut's website.
http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1459

Unfortunately, there appears to be an absence of information past this point.

Here is the Salut news archive. I don't see anything concerning the AL-31FM2 past 2012.
http://www.salut.ru/NewsArchive.php

When did the engine complete flight testing?

When did the engine complete the State Validation Tests?

Salut's website prominently displays the year when the previous AL-31FM1 completed State Validation Tests.




http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=149

I even found news that the AL-31FN Series 3 was approved for full-scale engine production in 2014.
http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=2325

But where exactly is the news concerning the AL-31FM2? And what evidence do we have that this is even an ongoing program?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## asia2000

What are those bumps?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AmirPatriot

Splinter cell camo looks awesome guys. This program is progressing everyday it seems.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DCS

asia2000 said:


> What are those bumps?
> View attachment 344571



Some of those are flight control surface actuators. The bump under the LERX was speculated by some in the past to be some sort radar or EW module, but from what I saw with the landing gear doors opened, it seems to just be space for the landing gear to be stowed, but the frontal part of the bump could be something else. I don't know what the bump on the tail sting is for.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## asia2000

DCS said:


> Some of those are flight control surface actuators. The bump under the LERX was speculated by some in the past to be some sort radar or EW module, but from what I saw with the landing gear doors opened, it seems to just be space for the landing gear to be stowed, but the frontal part of the bump could be something else. I don't know what the bump on the tail sting is for.



Thanks. Wouldn't those bumps affect RCS? BTW, J10 also has those bumps at the rear edges of the wings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

asia2000 said:


> Thanks. Wouldn't those bumps affect RCS? BTW, J10 also has those bumps at the rear edges of the wings.
> View attachment 344623



You can shape these bumps into stealth just as you shape the fuselage. No problem.

Below you can see the bumps of F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## xunzi

The level of detail on the new design of J-20 can be seen through year of iteration. I must say the design team did a well done job maximizing its stealthiness. Just a beautiful aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

The People's Daily 

*China’s latest developed J-20 fighter launches test flight*

http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/1019/c90000-9129189.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

asia2000 said:


> What are those bumps?
> View attachment 344571



Landing gear fairings and actuators for flight control surfaces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> ...




Besides being simply fascinated by this bird in general I find it most amazing how much different the colour looks depending the lightning-situation. If You look at the plain grey bird, it sometimes looks like a dark grey, nearly charcoal like and sometimes it's a light-grey with a typical metallic shining ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DCS

The LRIP birds seem to be darker, and the splinter camo birds seem to even be matte in finish. I personally prefer the matte finish.


----------



## cirr

Yang Wei is now officially a deputy director of Chinese Aeronautical Establishment(CAE), an argumented entity created out of the namesake China Aviation Academy(CAA), Chinese Academy of Aviation Fundamental Science(AVIC Tech) and AVIC Economics and Technology Research Establishment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hephaestus

grey boy 2 said:


>


Bird looks great. What are the timelines?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Deino said:


> Besides being simply fascinated by this bird in general I find it most amazing how much different the colour looks depending the lightning-situation. If You look at the plain grey bird, it sometimes looks like a dark grey, nearly charcoal like and sometimes it's a light-grey with a typical metallic shining ...



You be facinated by that. I am facinated that westwood studios (electronic arts) saw this back in 2003

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dingyibvs

MiG going down!


----------



## Deino

I know, some might not like it, but maybe a few are interested:



> *J-20-engine-mystery solved !?*
> Following the latest information, the J-20 uses a special-tailored version of the Salut AL-31 based on the AL-31FM2 ...



https://www.facebook.com/permalink....908984705&id=611223845748378&substory_index=0

Deino


----------



## PurpleButcher

Oscar said:


> You be facinated by that. I am facinated that westwood studios (electronic arts) saw this back in 2003
> View attachment 345041


Red Alert 3?


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

PurpleButcher said:


> Red Alert 3?



Command and conquer generals from back in 2003.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ultima Thule

cnleio said:


> View attachment 345329
> View attachment 345330
> View attachment 345331
> View attachment 345332
> View attachment 345333


is second pics is real sir?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Two J20 were reported moved to Foshan佛山, a city very closed to Zhuhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Clearly the IRF-probe is visible ... but where is the gun ??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Clearly the IRF-probe is visible ... but where is the gun ??
> 
> View attachment 345600



How could you expect a gun to be installed on an aircraft built by a left-wing nation?


----------



## terranMarine

Deino said:


> Clearly the IRF-probe is visible ... but where is the gun ??


 The pilot is carrying it inside the cockpit.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

Some more new HD pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## siegecrossbow

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2309795-1-1.html

J-20 sighted in Zhuhai!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beyonder

What a Beast...........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

The fact that they do need a Luneberg Lens reflector should tell you how stealthy the aircraft is.


----------



## Akasa

Oscar said:


> The fact that they do need a Luneberg Lens reflector should tell you how stealthy the aircraft is.



That tells us nothing about the aircraft; any airframe operating in the LO-VLO regime would require this.


----------



## SQ8

SinoSoldier said:


> That tells us nothing about the aircraft; any airframe operating in the LO-VLO regime would require this.


Actually it settles the issue regarding the canards being considered unstealthy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Oscar said:


> Actually it settles the issue regarding the canards being considered unstealthy.


No, it does not 'settles' anything.

The J-20 maybe 'too stealthy' for civilian radars, hence the need for enhancers. But for military radars, especially the increasingly sophisticated AESA systems with matching data processing capabilities, the canards maybe just enough to raise the jet up to the detection threshold that is not available for public consumption.

I do not care what APA says. They are a joke among professionals -- retired and active -- in the field. The people that I know -- Old Crows -- do not take APA seriously. And these gents go all the way back to WW II.

I know that people seeks definitive answer. Closure, in a manner of speaking. But they are not going to get it. I was in that business long enough to know better. I may have teased our Chinese friends some, but ultimately, throughout the yrs on this forum, my position have never changed: That unless we have the hard measurement data, we will never know.

Here is marine safety using radar enhancers...

http://www.defender.com/category.jsp?path=-1|135|2290117&id=2290118

Fishing dinghies are indeed 'stealthy' and need enhancers, but no one is threatened by them.

Right now, at best, the J-20's canards are highly suspect. But we should go no further either way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 艹艹艹

壁纸，
*wallpaper



*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@gambit Where do you place this jet compared to American/Russian 5th gen aircraft?


----------



## 艹艹艹

Deino said:


> Clearly the IRF-probe is visible ... but where is the gun ??
> 
> View attachment 345600


*In your pants.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

long_ said:


> *In your pants.*


*no sir he has a valid question don't laugh at him and respect others *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AmirPatriot

Kaptaan said:


> @gambit Where do you place this jet compared to American/Russian 5th gen aircraft?


Oh God... here we go. He's already sparred with Chinese members here on a numerous basis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Kaptaan said:


> @gambit Where do you place this jet compared to American/Russian 5th gen aircraft?


To be 'conservative' about this, and speaking as a sensor specialist, I would place the J-20 as not yet comparable to the US 'stealth' fighters. That is *NOT* to say or even imply any kind of negativity to the jet because it is Chinese. When you have an established standard that came from a leader in a field, any contender should be assessed from that 'conservative' perspective.

Did the F-117 went thru the same 'conservative' assessment ? Of course it did. Ben Rich, in his memoir _Skunk Works_, told plenty of skepticism and even outright doubts of what he and his team claimed they could do. The doubts continued even after he presented to everyone hard measurement data from the desert tests. Being 'conservative' is a natural human reaction to meeting something new. There is no malice here.

But to answer your question, a brief review is necessary.

In designing a 'low radar observable' body, there are three rules, but more like guidelines, to follow:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

Anything can become a radiator, either as a conduit or being able to generate its own EM radiation. So from this perspective, a reflecting surface is a radiator.

A sphere is *THE* body for calibration of any radar system design. The sphere is the most obedient body to the above rules.

As usual, just in case anyone thinks I make this stuff up...

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1


> It is technically the oldest operational spacecraft, but it has no power supply or fuel; it is merely *a metal sphere. It has been used for radar calibration* since its launch.
> 
> Mission duration
> 50 yrs, 10 months, 28 days (as of 28 January 2016)
> 
> Four other spheres were also manufactured and measured for comparison to the one in orbit.


Everyone, including the Russians and Chinese, uses the LCS.

So under rule 1 ( control of quantity of radiators ), the J-20 is seemingly less obedient with its 8 major flight controls structures, whereas the F-22 have 6.

But then how do we explain the F-117 with its many surface angular structures and yet its RCS is still secret to this day ?






Now we have to look at rule 2: Control of array of radiators.

Array means alignment of structures in relations to other structures, and when you have a medium, electromagnetic radiation, that reflects upon encountering a surface, array of radiators is of equal importance as how many radiators there are. The F-117's RCS is low, despite it being less obedient to rule 1, because of it being more obedient to rule 2.

From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.

Modes of radiation means how do the EM signals leave the body. Reflection is the most common and is the foundation of radar detection in general. Other less known modes are surface waves and edge radiation. Curvatures offers better control of modes of radiation than the angular faceting techniques on the F-117, so every 'stealth' design uses curvatures. Finally, curvatures are better for aerodynamics considerations.

The three rules are effective at every level of design, from large structures like a wing and down to the small details like the arrangement of screw heads on access panels.

This is why when the J-20 came out, its canards quickly took center stage because of rules 1 and 2. No one doubts the J-20 as an equal to the US fighters because of it being Chinese.

So just from a sensor perspective, the J-20 is already suspect as being comparable to the US 'stealth' fighters. Nevertheless, I have consistently been fair and advised everyone from making definitive statements simply because the measurement data for all these aircrafts are not public information. We have not touched other issues like overall avionics, weapons, maneuverability, and propulsion.



AmirPatriot said:


> Oh God... here we go. He's already sparred with Chinese members here on a numerous basis.


The problem lies with the PDF Chinese, not with me. As you can read above, what I posted was completely technical in scope and I can and have backed up my arguments with credible sources like from NASA or from IEEE, not from blogs.

The PDF Chinese claque cannot hold any rational discussion over this issue. They do not have the background and emotionally, they are man-childs. Worse, they hold the view that any negative or even reasonable doubts can only come from one source: racism.

You cannot have a rational discussion with such people.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
4 | Like Like:
1


----------



## 艹艹艹

pakistanipower said:


> *no sir he has a valid question don't laugh at him and respect others *


Not to laugh at, I'm kidding.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

gambit said:


> I would place the J-20 as not yet comparable to the US 'stealth' fighters.


That would make sense. Chinese technology is leaping forward but still not 'mature' like the US which of course has had decades of experiance of being in the vanguard.

This would suggest that decade or so Chinese will be knocking at the apex.


----------



## Beast

Kaptaan said:


> That would make sense. Chinese technology is leaping forward but still not 'mature' like the US which of course has had decades of experiance of being in the vanguard.
> 
> This would suggest that decade or so Chinese will be knocking at the apex.


You really take his words seriously? This guy is famous for trolling anything on Chinese. He is very bitter on rise of China.

His explanation has too many flaws.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Beast said:


> His explanation has too many flaws.



Such as...?


----------



## Beast

SinoSoldier said:


> Such as...?



"the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35"

Really, are you serious?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> "the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35"
> 
> Really, are you serious?


Yes, I am serious. Do show us what you know.


----------



## Akasa

Beast said:


> "the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35"
> 
> Really, are you serious?



Well, do you have any comparisons that imply otherwise? I thought it is generally agreed upon, even crudely, that the J-20 won't achieve the level of VLO of the F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## eldamar

> From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.





do show us how you drew up that conclusive statement when ironically, you have already acknowledged yourself that:



> Nevertheless, I have consistently been fair and advised everyone from making definitive statements simply because *the measurement data for all these aircrafts are not public information*. {/QUOTE]



Very fair judgement indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

SinoSoldier said:


> Well, do you have any comparisons that imply otherwise? I thought it is generally agreed upon, even crudely, that the J-20 won't achieve the level of VLO of the F-22.


Did you forget to add F-35? Dont try to avoid my question and his mistake!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 艹艹艹

I think the world's most advanced fighter is “Superman” and only the United States has

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

eldarlmari said:


> do show us how you drew up that conclusive statement when ironically, you have already acknowledged yourself that:


As you wish...







From the front aspect, we can the J-20's canards with its dihedral (upsweep). Radar signals coming off this finite body will interact differently than if the canards have no dihedral at all. The fact that the canards' roots are on the same plane as the fuselage is irrelevant. The canards' dihedral that set them visually apart from the wings is an example of planform alignment, in this case, less obedient to rule 2: Control of array of radiators.

You cannot deny what you can visually see.



eldarlmari said:


> Very fair judgement indeed.


It is a fair judgement. The fact that I have always advocated withholding definitive judgement unless we see measurement data means I am willing to consider the possibility that the interference signals from the canards and other structures may not be statistically significant to frontal RCS.


----------



## Asoka

"This is why when the J-20 came out, its canards quickly took center stage because of rules 1 and 2. No one doubts the J-20 as an equal to the US fighters because of it being Chinese."

It boogles the mind that *gambit *keep claiming canards on J-20 makes it unstealthy, or canards are inherently unstealthy no matter what you do. If you look at the history of stealth design, no one really thought a huge plane like FA-117 can be make into so stealthy. Now, even a bigger plane like B2 can be make into extremely stealthy. It simply staggers my mind when someone keep suggesting that the Chinese engineers can not make that little canards also stealthy by utilizing all the know hows of stealth designs.

As we all know, airplanes are designed first advanced software, and then validated in wind tunnel, and with stealthy aircraft, its also tested RCS/radar chamber. China has all those to help rapid design and iterations. It's simply impossible that the Chinese engineers don't know how to make those little canards stealthy, if they know how to make the rest of the plane stealthy. Just use those well known rules Gambit had suggested and then design, test and iterate until an acceptable solution is reached.

So Gambit, stop making a fool of yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> "This is why when the J-20 came out, its canards quickly took center stage because of rules 1 and 2. No one doubts the J-20 as an equal to the US fighters because of it being Chinese."
> 
> It boogles the mind that *gambit *keep claiming canards on J-20 makes it unstealthy, or canards are inherently unstealthy no matter what you do. If you look at the history of stealth design, no one really thought a huge plane like FA-117 can be make into so stealthy. Now, even a bigger plane like B2 can be make into extremely stealthy. It simply staggers my mind to suggest that the Chinese engineers can not make that little canards also stealthy by utilizing all the know hows of stealth designs.
> 
> As we all know, airplanes are designed first advanced software, and then validated in wind tunnel, and with stealthy aircraft, its also tested RCS/radar chamber. China has all those to help rapid design and iterations. It's simply impossible that the Chinese engineers don't know how to make those little canards stealthy, if they know how to make the rest of the plane stealthy. Just use those well known rules Gambit had suggested and then design, test and iterate until an acceptable solution is reached.
> 
> So Gambit, stop making a fool of yourself.


Actually, *YOU* should stop posting because you are making a fool of yourself.

On this forum, I have show the basics of radar detection and cleared up much confusion about 'stealth' since '09. It is clear that what I posted went over your head, else you would not have twisted my words so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

"On this forum, I have show the basics of radar detection and cleared up much confusion about 'stealth' since '09. It is clear that what I posted went over your head, else you would not have twisted my words so."

You simply have not put the J-20 in a RCS/Radar chamber to validate your claim that planes with Canards are not stealthy. That's a fact. No one in the world believe you have access to J-20 and a RCS/Radar chamber. You are not a professional aviation engineer. You probably never got close to a fighter plane.

All your conclusions about J-20's unstealthiness are simply B.S. I would put my faith in the Chinese engineers that they know what they are doing and capable of render those little canards stealthy with the rest of the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Ohhhh Please not that discussion again ! 

... by the way a nice photoshopped image showing the PL-10 AAMs attached (extended) from the side-bays.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 55100864

Different countries have different priorities in mind when designing their fighters, The US is becoming too religious about stealth, IMO the stealthness of J20 is sufficient in its role.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## eldamar

gambit said:


> Actually, *YOU* should stop posting because you are making a fool of yourself.
> 
> On this forum, I have show the basics of radar detection and cleared up much confusion about 'stealth' since '09. It is clear that what I posted went over your head, else you would not have twisted my words so.



ya i guess Chengdu AC should had selected you to be their chief designer for the J-20 instead of yangwei, since u 'obviously' know about what makes and what not makes a plane stealthy than him.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

55100864 said:


> Different countries have different priorities in mind when designing their fighters, The US is becoming too religious about stealth, IMO the stealthness of J20 is sufficient in its role.




Yes, the MIC and the MSM simply put a bag over people's head so they have never heard of anti-stealth radars. The western MSM are suspiciously silent over passive radar and the fact the AESA radars CAN detect stealth planes far away, over 100KM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> "On this forum, I have show the basics of radar detection and cleared up much confusion about 'stealth' since '09. It is clear that what I posted went over your head, else you would not have twisted my words so."
> 
> You simply have not put the J-20 in a RCS/Radar chamber to validate your claim that planes with Canards are not stealthy. That's a fact. No one in the world believe you have access to J-20 and a RCS/Radar chamber. You are not a professional aviation engineer. You probably never got close to a fighter plane.
> 
> All your conclusions about J-20's unstealthiness are simply B.S. I would put my faith in the Chinese engineers that they know what they are doing and capable of render those little canards stealthy with the rest of the J-20.


I do not need to put the F-15 into a measurement chamber to know that the corner reflectors created by the vertical and horizontal stabs made that section of the jet 'unstealthy'. Likewise, I do not need to jump off a tall building to test the law of gravity, either. Based upon what I showed the regular readers of this forum since '09, no one talks about making a 'stealthy' F-16 or J-17 any more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 艹艹艹



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

eldarlmari said:


> ya i guess Chengdu AC should had selected you to be their chief designer for the J-20 instead of yangwei, since u 'obviously' know about what makes and what not makes a plane stealthy than him.


Then why the dihedral on the canards ? The laws of physics must be obeyed, even by Chinese. The dihedral on the canards are necessary for aerodynamics and flight controls, as they are, they rendered the J-20 less obedient to planform alignment than desired. If they are treated in some ways to minimize their contributions to RCS, that is a different issue than planform alignment.


----------



## Deino

Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.

Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.

Deino


----------



## eldamar

Deino said:


> Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.
> 
> Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.
> 
> Deino



The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> I do not need to put the F-15 into a measurement chamber to know that the corner reflectors created by the vertical and horizontal stabs made that section of the jet 'unstealthy'. Likewise, I do not need to jump off a tall building to test the law of gravity, either. Based upon what I showed the regular readers of this forum since '09, no one talks about making a 'stealthy' F-16 or J-17 any more.



What you are doing by keep posting about canards are unstealthy is making a fool of yourself. It may be so by putting a canards on the plane makes it LESS stealthy, initially. But anyone who is suggesting that the Chinese engineers are incapable of making those little canards stealthy is seriously foolish. China is putting huge amount of money, and talents into this project. Anyone who is suggesting China cannot overcome the problem of the canards being unstealthy (if it is true) is deluded.



Deino said:


> Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.
> 
> Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.
> 
> Deino



By suggesting the Chinese engineers can not solve the problem of making the canard stealthy is insulting to all the Chinese. He is making us sound "ignorant, arrogant or stupid". So bashing people is what he is doing.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4Nyrs7wdB

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dingyibvs

eldarlmari said:


> The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.



That may be, and I've argued with him plenty, but it doesn't automatically make his statements false. While his opinions may be taken in the context of his overall world view as reflected by his post history, his statements re: planeform alignment are based on science and should be examined for its merits sentence-by-sentence. I for one don't see any obvious contradictions in his statements re: the J-20's alignment issues, but then again I've only had an undergrad EE education and never worked in the industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

eldarlmari said:


> The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.




Exactly like some accuse me too. My point is that most of the members who don't agree with him - or me too sometimes - use only the argument "he is a basher", "he is a foreigner", ... but they bring no arguments !

I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.

As such the J-20 again is a stealth fighter IMO, but surely the Chinese way is different to the US ... and that's worth to be discussed.

Some of them - like the canards - can be refuted, since also the NATF-contender had canards and the latest 6th generation from Boeing too, but others at least worth to be discussed. Simply telling to You are a China-basher without understanding while in return avoiding all arguments and not even given a reason why his concerns are no-ones in Your opinion is IMO the best sign of a "fan-boy".

As such all I beg is a civilised discussion with arguing ...

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Then why the dihedral on the canards ? The laws of physics must be obeyed, even by Chinese. The dihedral on the canards are necessary for aerodynamics and flight controls, as they are, they rendered the J-20 less obedient to planform alignment than desired. If they are treated in some ways to minimize their contributions to RCS, that is a different issue than planform alignment.



You simply have no definite proof that the canards or the J-20 is not very stealthy. Since you have no access to it for testing or validation of your claim. So stop presenting your opinions are facts. It's simply laughable to suggest Chinese engineers cannot solve this problem, if there is one. 

Do you really think this is a difficult or unsolvable problem? or you just think the Chinese cannot solve it by themselves?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The WS-15 just completed its ground test by August 9th 2015, and its thrust is 12% higher than the original core design which was TWR 10 according to the 2003 document. And the official TWR 11+ WS-15 prototype is ready to start its flight test on the IL-76 platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## eldamar

Deino said:


> Exactly like some accuse me too. My point is that most of the members who don't agree with him - or me too sometimes - use only the argument "he is a basher", "he is a foreigner", ... but they bring no arguments !
> 
> I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.
> 
> As such the J-20 again is a stealth fighter IMO, but surely the Chinese way is different to the US ... and that's worth to be discussed.
> 
> ome of them - like the canards - can be refuted, since also the NATF-contender had canards and the latest 6th generation from Boeing too, but others at least worth to be discussed. Simply telling to You are a China-basher without understanding while in return avoiding all arguments and not even given a reason why his concerns are no-ones in Your opinion is IMO the best sign of a "fan-boy".
> 
> As such all I beg is a civilised discussion with arguing ...
> 
> Deino





> From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.



Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO



I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:



> Nevertheless, I have consistently been fair and advised everyone from making definitive statements simply because *the measurement data for all these aircrafts are not public information*.



and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :



> From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.



He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.
> 
> Deino



I agreed with your calls to be civilized in this discussion and no one is suggesting China is ahead of US or Russia in aircraft design. 

What is shown in J-20 is mostly derived from US experiences in F-20 and F-35. I bet even a near blind man can tell the astounding similarities between these three aircrafts in stealth features. Western medias and US government have keep suggesting that China stole the technical data. I don't know that is true. But I do agree that China liberally "borrow" the US experiences, and it clearly shows. And then some fanboy suggests J-20 is based on the Russian Mig-1.44 is simply mind boggling. I don't know what make them LIKE to say that. Perhaps it makes them feels good that Mig-1.44 was a canceled project.

Folks, get that into your head, the stealth features of J-20 are based on F-20 and F-35, not Mig-1.44. And the EODAS really followed the F-35's lead. I am saying the technical data were stolen from F-35.



eldarlmari said:


> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO
> 
> I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:
> 
> and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :
> 
> He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)



That's right, Gambit absolutely have no definite proof of J-20's stealthiness, other than what came out of his mouth. If someone can make the B2 bomber stealthy, I will not hold my breath that no one can make the little canards stealthy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

eldarlmari said:


> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:
> 
> 
> 
> and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :
> 
> 
> 
> He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)




But do You have in return any technical valid argument to counter his claim?? Why should it be with all the issues he - and I added a few more - reach the same level of stealth?? What about the nozzles, what about the non-alignment, what about the clearly visible chaff&flare-boxes ?? I know there are maybe methods to make them stealthy but as long as they are visible the way now, it need to be discussed.
Only to say the Chinese must know their business or he is stupid - honestly to say so - is not an argument. Otherwise the Russian T50 must be already a 6.5th generation fighter if one follows all that hype in some Russian forums...

Again: I can understand all Your feelings and the J-20 is not only a giant leap in Chinese aeronautic achievements; it's more ... but is not a magical bird. It has to obey the laws of Physics in the same way as all other aircrafts and if there are certain "points of concern" ... then let's argue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> You simply have no definite proof that the canards or the J-20 is not very stealthy.


I have the laws of physics. See post 6311.

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-421#post-8842985

Show me where I am wrong on the basics.



Asok said:


> Since you have no access to it for testing or validation of your claim. So stop presenting your opinions are facts. It's simply laughable to suggest Chinese engineers cannot solve this problem, if there is one.
> 
> Do you really think this is a difficult or unsolvable problem? or you just think the Chinese cannot solve it by themselves?


The PDF Chinese and their supporters have no problems citing the Air Power Australia (APA) group, even though those ya-hoos have no access to the J-20. All they did were rudimentary simulations and everyone took it as gospel.

You think Lockheed can do more than just computer simulations ? How much do you want to bet that Lockheed did not built a full scale model of the J-20 and tested it ? I would not want to take that bet.






Here is the SR-71 under open field radar testing decades ago.

Why upside down and where are the vertical stabs ?

But here is a bet I am willing to take: That if Lockheed reveals the radar measurement of its own J-20 model, they would reveal their proprietary measurement techniques by way of the details of the data.

It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> That's right, Gambit absolutely have no definite proof of J-20's stealthiness, other than what came out of his mouth. If someone can make the B2 bomber stealthy, I will not hold my breath that no one can make the little canards stealthy.




Sorry, but that's an invalid point, since shape is the predominant issue, not size alone.
Anyway again: Canards are not un-stealthy per se ... but they need a certain treatment or coating and at least are an issue worth to be discussed. Ignoring them does not make them stealthy.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> I have the laws of physics. See post 6311.
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-421#post-8842985
> 
> Show me where I am wrong on the basics.
> 
> 
> The PDF Chinese and their supporters have no problems citing the Air Power Australia (APA) group, even though those ya-hoos have no access to the J-20. All they did were rudimentary simulations and everyone took it as gospel.
> 
> You think Lockheed can do more than just computer simulations ? How much do you want to bet that Lockheed built a full scale model of the J-20 and tested it ? I would not want to take that bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the SR-71 under open field radar testing decades ago.
> 
> Why upside down and where are the vertical stabs ?
> 
> But here is a bet I am willing to take: That if Lockheed reveals the radar measurement of its own J-20 model, they would reveal their proprietary measurement techniques by way of the details of the data.
> 
> It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional.



I don't doubt that LM has the resource to built a full mockup of J-20 to see how stealthy of the design. But you certainly don't have resources and you certainly have not done any testing on J-20 or even go near it. So stop insulting the Chinese by suggesting we can't solve the problem of making the canard stealthy. You have no proof that J-20 is not stealthy as it is now. You are only making a fool of yourself or making yourself feel good, foolishly.



Deino said:


> Sorry, but that's an invalid point, since shape is the predominant issue, not size alone.
> Anyway again: Canards are not un-stealthy per se ... but they need a certain treatment or coating and at least are an issue worth to be discussed. Ignoring them does not make them stealthy.
> 
> Deino


I agreed. I just want to hammer in the point that even if the canards are not stealthy to begin with, engineers CAN make them stealthy. China has all the resources it need to make this happen. And the laws of Physics don't prevent this from happening. I doubt that this problem is even difficult to begin with. It's just some fanboy got stuck with this idea that canards are stealthy and hold on to it.

"It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional."

Sure, I agreed. One can be suspicious about the canard. But it's also easy to see that with all the resources the Chinese has, and engineering skills demonstrated, it's not a difficult problem to fix. Get that into you head. It's not a big problem to fix, if someone can make B2 bomber stealthy. What's a little canard compared to the huge B2 bomber? Let's not fixated on it and keep making a fool out of yourself, Gambit.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## eldamar

Deino said:


> But do You have in return any technical valid argument to counter his claim?? Why should it be with all the issues he - and I added a few more - reach the same level of stealth?? What about the nozzles, what about the non-alignment, what about the clearly visible chaff&flare-boxes ?? I know there are maybe methods to make them stealthy but as long as they are visible the way now, it need to be discussed.
> Only to say the Chinese must know their business or he is stupid - honestly to say so - is not an argument. Otherwise the Russian T50 must be already a 6.5th generation fighter if one follows all that hype in some Russian forums...
> 
> Again: I can understand all Your feelings and the J-20 is not only a giant leap in Chinese aeronautic achievements; it's more ... but is not a magical bird. It has to obey the laws of Physics in the same way as all other aircrafts and if there are certain "points of concern" ... then let's argue.



*Why do I have to counter his claim?* if u backtrack my replies to his claims, i merely requested:



> do show us how you drew up that conclusive statement when ironically, you have already acknowledged yourself that:





> Nevertheless, I have consistently been fair and advised everyone from making definitive statements simply because *the measurement data for all these aircrafts are not public information*.



Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4Nyzxb8xr

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyzpeVfc

in order to let me understand why he he claimed what he claimed.

Yet all i can see in his replies are 'because this design doesnt fit with my opinion of how XXX should be designed' . 

I dont need a PHD in aircraft engineering to see the gap in his arguement. I think even my grandma could tell that he has no sustantial proof to his claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I agreed. I just want to hammer in the point that even if the canards are not stealthy to begin with, engineers CAN make them stealthy. China has all the resources it need to make this happen. And the laws of Physics don't prevent this from happening. I doubt that this problem is even difficult to begin with. It's just some fanboy got stuck with this idea that canards are stealthy and hold on to it.




YES they can, but by simply looking at the images, some points of concern mentioned above are simply not solved in a stealthy way !! So PLAESE argue with an argument how they could solve the issues mentioned. Only by telling "they are solved" and hammering him as ignorant or arrogant they are not solved in any way.

Explain, why do You think "this problem is even difficult to begin with" ?? Believe is no technical valid point.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> YES they can, but by simply looking at the images, some points of concern mentioned above are simply not solved in a stealthy way !! So PLAESE argue with an argument how they could solve the issues mentioned. Only by telling "they are solved" and hammering him as ignorant or arrogant they are not solved in any way.
> 
> Explain, why do You think "this problem is even difficult to begin with" ?? Believe is no technical valid point.



The Chinese engineers don't need to "simply looking at the images" , they have all the advanced modeling software and RCS/Radar chamber to test their designs. I have confidence that they know how to solve this problem and it's already solved, since it's not insurmountable to begin with.

"Explain, why do You think "this problem is even difficult to begin with" ?

It is no more difficult to solve than the RCS problem of other parts of the plane, I am contending. There are no suggestions from anyone that this is a difficult problem. Not even from Gambit. He was just keep arguing that having canards is unfavorable to stealthy. Not even he has suggested that it is not possible to reduced the resulting RCS!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

O.k. ... then let's at least agree we do not agree in all issues ! o.k ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I don't doubt that LM has the resource to built a full mockup of J-20 to see how stealthy of the design. But you certainly don't have resources and you certainly have not done any testing on J-20 or even go near it. So stop insulting the Chinese by suggesting we can't solve the problem of making the canard stealthy. You have no proof that J-20 is not stealthy as it is now. You are only making a fool of yourself or making yourself feel good, foolishly.


Here is something for you to chew on...







What we have are four radomes: F-15, F-22, F-35, and J-20.

Why do the radomes of the newer jets, meaning not the F-15, shaped that way ? Why do those three radomes have ridges ?

I do not have measurement data for all four jets. But based on my personal experience in aviation, in and out of the military, I am %99.999 confident of my guess as to why.

I will give you a hint: It has to do with radar signals behavior on a conic.

The laws of physics are non-negotiable, not even Chinese scientists can try. What I gave you my trainees from more than ten yrs ago can guess in less than one minute with the same high confidence.

See if any of you can figure out why.


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Here is something for you to chew on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we have are four radomes: F-15, F-22, F-35, and J-20.
> 
> Why do the radomes of the newer jets, meaning not the F-15, shaped that way ? Why do those three radomes have ridges ?
> 
> I do not have measurement data for all four jets. But based on my personal experience in aviation, in and out of the military, I am %99.999 confident of my guess as to why.
> 
> I will give you a hint: It has to do with radar signals behavior on a conic.
> 
> The laws of physics are non-negotiable, not even Chinese scientists can try. What I gave you my trainees from more than ten yrs ago can guess in less than one minute with the same high confidence.
> 
> See if any of you can figure out why.



The horizontal ridge along the middle of the nose is used to create uplifting surface to create more lift.

Why do the newer radomes have sawtooth edges? The radome itself is transparent to radar signal, but the part attached to the radome itself is not. So edge could bounce back signals. The sawtooth edges are made at an angle to reduce the signal bouncing back to the enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> YES they can, but by simply looking at the images,...


You are correct. See post 6350 with the different radomes.

I am willing to guess that when the J-20's engineers were looking for solutions on how to design the jet, they took one look at the F-22's radome and said: 'A-ha...!!!' Or the Chinese equivalent expression.

They would not need to know the F-22's measurement data to know that such a design would solve one of their problems.

But they would also know that such a radome design would increase the problem of 'radome aberration'...

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.21438

So in solving one problem, they created or increased the complexity of another.

These guys just do not know how much can be inferred, and accurately, just from looking at images.



Asok said:


> The horizontal ridge along the middle of the nose is used to create uplifting surface to create more lift.


Wrong. This is not about aerodynamics. I did said 'radar signals behavior on a conic', did I not ?

I will give you a second hint: Ten lambda behavior.

That is two more hints than I would give my trainees.


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I don't doubt that LM has the resource to built a full mockup of J-20 to see how stealthy of the design. But you certainly don't have resources and you certainly have not done any testing on J-20 or even go near it. So stop insulting the Chinese by suggesting we can't solve the problem of making the canard stealthy. You have no proof that J-20 is not stealthy as it is now. You are only making a fool of yourself or making yourself feel good, foolishly.
> 
> "It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional."
> 
> Sure, I agreed. One can be suspicious about the canard. But it's also easy to see that with all the resources the Chinese has, and engineering skills demonstrated, it's not a difficult problem to fix. Get that into you head. It's not a big problem to fix, if someone can make B2 bomber stealthy. What's a little canard compared to the huge B2 bomber? Let's not fixated on it and keep making a fool out of yourself, Gambit.


So basically, you are saying you have only faith that the J-20's engineers did 'something' to minimize or even render the canards statistically insignificant.

I have the laws of physics on my side to put the canards under professional suspicions. Not just me but so do many outside of this forum. You have only faith that the problem is fixed.


----------



## cnleio

pakistanipower said:


> is second pics is real sir?


2nd is a CG.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

long_ said:


>




Wrong thread ?????


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> You are correct. See post 6350 with the different radomes.
> 
> I am willing to guess that when the J-20's engineers were looking for solutions on how to design the jet, they took one look at the F-22's radome and said: 'A-ha...!!!' Or the Chinese equivalent expression.
> 
> 
> 
> They would not need to know the F-22's measurement data to know that such a design would solve one of their problems.
> 
> But they would also know that such a radome design would increase the problem of 'radome aberration'...
> So in solving one problem, they created or increased the complexity of another.
> 
> These guys just do not know how much can be inferred, and accurately, just from looking at images.
> 
> 
> Wrong. This is not about aerodynamics. I did said 'radar signals behavior on a conic', did I not ?
> 
> I will give you a second hint: Ten lambda behavior.
> 
> That is two more hints than I would give my trainees.



"Wrong. This is not about aerodynamics. I did said 'radar signals behavior on a conic', did I not ?


Professional Chinese aviation engineers have said those horizontal edges along the nose is used to create vortexes to maximize lift and maneuverability. I will take their words over a fanboy's.



gambit said:


> So basically, you are saying you have only faith that the J-20's engineers did 'something' to minimize or even render the canards statistically insignificant.
> 
> I have the laws of physics on my side to put the canards under professional suspicions. Not just me but so do many outside of this forum. You have only faith that the problem is fixed.



You don't have the laws of physics on your side. Your understanding may be flawed. You are not a professional aviation engineer. You have no working experiences or even superficial knowledges in this field. You don't have extensive measurements and test results to back up and verify your claims. Chinese engineers have vast amount of resources and experiences to minimizes the effect of canard on RCS. This is my point and I stick with it.

Not even you or anyone has claimed that the canard's RCS can not be minimized or reduced drastically. So stop making a fool of your self with your little bit of 'knowledge' or misunderstanding.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Professional Chinese aviation engineers have said those horizontal edges along the nose is used to create vortexes to maximize lift and maneuverability. I will take their words over a fanboy's.
> 
> You don't have the laws of physics on your side.
> Your understanding may be flawed.
> You are not a professional aviation engineer.
> You have no working experiences or even superficial knowledges in this field.
> You don't have extensive measurements and test results to back up and verify your claims.
> 
> Chinese engineers have vast amount of resources and experiences to minimizes the effect of canard on RCS. This is my point and I stick with it.
> 
> ....



Asok ... again especially since You are new here. PLESAE argue instead of pure accusations.
Do You know gambit's background? Are You sure that he is none of the things You claim he's not ... ??

And in return do You have a degree in aeronautical engineering ?? 

By the way I still miss YOUR explanation, why the J-20's nozzle should be as stealthy as the F-35 ones, why are fully open chaff-and-flare dispensers are as stealthy as enclosed systems

Again; give an argument and a contra-argument and then it's fine so everyone can make his own mind or otherwise You are in exactly the same position: So stop making a fool of your self with your little bit of 'knowledge' or misunderstanding !

.. and aren't most of us fan-boys in the one or the other way?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> Professional Chinese aviation engineers have said those horizontal edges along the nose is used to create vortexes to maximize lift and maneuverability. I will take their words over a fanboy's.


I bet you spent a few hrs on the Internet going thru various forums looking for what you want but found none so you just simply made up that answer.

Those ridges are called 'chines'. When I told you 'wrong', it was not because the chines have no influence on aerodynamics. They do. But aerodynamics is not the only factor. You were wrong in relation to radar detection, specifically, a contribution to making the aircraft low radar observable. The most visible example is the SR-71 where the jet's design demands the most 'extreme' of chines possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chine_(aeronautics)


> Blending the chines into both the fuselage and the main wing avoids presenting corner reflectors or vertical sides to radars.


Wikipedia is too general. Not wrong, just too general. Avoidance of corner reflectors, specifically the 90 deg type, is a must anyway. The F-22, F-35, and J-20 do have corner reflectors.

But I will give a more specific explanation.

I gave you and your Chinese friends two clues regarding radar signals behavior:

- Ten lambda
- Conic

Clues I know my trainees a long time ago, before the F-35 and J-20, would not need to understand why.

*First...* clue is the 10 lambda ( *λ ) *rule: This rule states that the creeping wave behavior *WOULD NOT* exist if the physical diameter of the circle is *10 TIMES* the operating wavelength ( freq ) of the impinging radar signal.







Lambda ( *λ ) *is the symbol used to represent wavelength or frequency.

Curvature produces surface wave behavior. As the signal travels on the surface, there are minute amount of radiation call 'leaky waves'.

Just in case you think I made this stuff up...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165212595000139


> The coupling coefficient _Gl_ is approximated for the description of the launching and detachment of *leaky guided waves on spheres and circular cylinders.*


So in designing a low radar observable structure, we *DO NOT* want the creeping wave behavior. The leaky waves can be minimized, not completely eliminated, with absorbers, so if they are low amplitude enough, they can be lost in background clutter. But the creeping wave behavior must be dealt with and the best way is to enlarge the diameter to ten times the physical wavelength.

Again...Just in case you think I made this stuff up...






Please note the 'INTRODUCTION' paragraph...


> When the geometric dimension is large enough (>10*λ*), the quantity of creeping wave on the backward direction can be neglected.


Note the authors' names. They are not Westerners. Finally, the paper's date: 1997.

*Second...* clue is the conic or conical shape: The cone is cylindrical but it also has a taper, or a gradual slope towards a smallest point.

In trying to convey the many ideas in radar detection, most visual depictions of the radar signal is an arrow.

But in reality, this is what a radar signal actually looks like...






The radar signal is actually a long cone with many 'petals'. The central structure is called the 'main beam' or 'main lobe', and the many petals are called 'side lobes'. The main lobe is where the bulk of radar detection occurs. The side lobes are weaker in amplitude, more incoherent, and more prone to produce erroneous information, hence, side lobes data are usually discarded.

When we add the two clues together, what else does the chines do besides providing some aerodynamics effects ?






To date, all radomes are roughly conical in shape, which means they have a taper towards a small point, which also means that eventually, the creeping wave behavior will occurs on the radome and the radar signal will return to source direction. For a 'stealth' aircraft, this is undesirable.

But we do not want the radome to be angular as well. A flat surface is an excellent reflecting surface. We want some curvatures. Remember rule 3:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
*- Control of modes of radiation*

What the chines do is create an edge to break up the creeping wave behavior. The radar signals essentially traverses the curve and finally radiate into space on the other side. The weakest signals that may return to source direction would be at the radome's tip and should be lost in background clutter.



Asok said:


> You don't have the laws of physics on your side. Your understanding may be flawed. You are not a professional aviation engineer. You have no working experiences or even superficial knowledges in this field. You don't have extensive measurements and test results to back up and verify your claims. Chinese engineers have vast amount of resources and experiences to minimizes the effect of canard on RCS. This is my point and I stick with it.
> 
> Not even you or anyone has claimed that the canard's RCS can not be minimized or reduced drastically. So stop making a fool of your self with your little bit of 'knowledge' or misunderstanding.


Am I a 'fanboy' ? You bet. I have no problems with the label. I am a fanboy of US airpower in specific, and of the US in general. But none of you PDF Chinese fanboys of the Chinese military can produce a credible technical post like this one or like post 6311.

I am a USAF veteran on two jets, F-111 ( Cold War ) and F-16 ( Desert Storm ). After the military, I worked as a field engineer for a company that shall remain unnamed in designing open environment radar detection testing for 'unmanned autonomous flight vehicles', aka 'drones'. I changed industry for family related reasons and am currently in semiconductor, specifically in Probe engineering.

When I said I am %99.999 confident that I am correct about the radomes based upon looks alone, that does not mean I am truly correct. It just mean I am that confident of my guess. I can say that I am %100 confident that Marvin the Martian will be the next UN Secretary General and I will be wrong. But regarding the radomes ? I doubt I am wrong as to why they are shaped that way.

Which leads up to the canards. My point is that in the *INITIAL* assessment specifically to being a low radar observable design, based upon the three rules that I have repeated posted on this forum over the yrs, the canards are immediately suspect. I do have the laws of physics on my side on this. Whether or not they are treated in some ways to minimize their contribution to RCS, we do not know. At best, we can guess with %99.999 confidence that their leading and trailing edges are treated with absorbers to control edge diffraction. We can see this treatment from various photos.

But that does not eliminate all signals that will come off the canards. I do not care how many times you cry 'vast resources' for the Chinese engineers. Nothing is perfect, not even the Chinese, no matter how much you want to believe of yourselves. Some radiated signals will come off the canards and interacts with signals from nearby structures. This is where I said we should be generous and do not make definitive statements in the absence of hard measurement data.

You PDF Chinese do not like it and would make the definitive statement that the canards do not matter. How can you make that statement in the absence of measurement data, the same demand that you made of me ? Faith is what you have. When I said I am %99.999 confidence of my opinion, it came from knowledge, experience, and logical thinking processes. Faith is that tiny %.001. In your case, faith is %100.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Asok ... again especially since You are new here. PLESAE argue instead of pure accusations.
> Do You know gambit's background? Are You sure that he is none of the things You claim he's not ... ??
> 
> And in return do You have a degree in aeronautical engineering ??
> 
> By the way I still miss YOUR explanation, why the J-20's nozzle should be as stealthy as the F-35 ones, why are fully open chaff-and-flare dispensers are as stealthy as enclosed systems
> 
> Again; give an argument and a contra-argument and then it's fine so everyone can make his own mind or otherwise You are in exactly the same position: So stop making a fool of your self with your little bit of 'knowledge' or misunderstanding !
> 
> .. and aren't most of us fan-boys in the one or the other way?
> 
> Deino



Deino, I respect your role as a unbiased moderator here. And I am new here.

"why the J-20's nozzle should be as stealthy as the F-35 ones"

Here is what I came across.


gambit said:


> So basically, you are saying you have only faith that the J-20's engineers did 'something' to minimize or even render the canards statistically insignificant.
> 
> I have the laws of physics on my side to put the canards under professional suspicions. Not just me but so do many outside of this forum. You have only faith that the problem is fixed.



Yes, absolutely, that Chinese engineers have the resources and know how to render the RCS contribution of the canards statistically insignificant. They had known the canards adds RCS but they had done studies on how to render them statistically insignificant. The top Chinese engineer said that.

I really don't get where your belief that Chinese engineers can't do it or no one can do it. That's beyond silly to me. You have absolutely no conclusive measurements that the canards still contribute significantly to the RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> Yes, absolutely, that Chinese engineers have the resources and know how to render the RCS contribution of the canards statistically insignificant. They had known the canards adds RCS but they had done studies on how to render them statistically insignificant. *The top Chinese engineer said that.*


What else do you expect him to say ? That: "Despite our best efforts, the J-20's canards continues to be problematic and all our tests revealed they are large contributors to RCS." ?

You expect him to say something like that ?



Asok said:


> I really don't get where your belief that Chinese engineers can't do it or no one can do it. That's beyond silly to me. You have absolutely no conclusive measurements that the canards still contribute significantly to the RCS.


Sorry, there are plenty things that 'no one can do'. If we have no conclusive measurement data that says one way, we should not place any faith on the other way.


----------



## Asoka

I have read everything from page 250 onward on this J-20 thread. Based on what I have read on your posts on PDF, I takes extreme amount of salt of your claims "I am a USAF veteran on two jets, F-111 ( Cold War ) and F-16 ( Desert Storm ). After the military, I worked as a field engineer for a company that shall remain unnamed in designing open environment radar detection testing for 'unmanned autonomous flight vehicles', aka 'drones'. I changed industry for family related reasons and am currently in semiconductor, specifically in Probe engineering."

I really doubt you have any aviation experience or field engineer experience on radar testing. Your poor judgments exhibited on J-20 and lack of solid engineering knowledge really casted serious doubt on my mind. I don't think I am the one on PDF who has this doubt.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I really doubt you have any aviation experience or field engineer experience on radar testing. Your poor judgments exhibited on J-20 and lack of solid engineering knowledge really casted serious doubt on my mind. *I don't think I am the one on PDF who has this doubt.*


If it make you happy: I was a janitor and everything I posted here I took out of the engineers' garbage cans from work.

I do not care if no one believe my account of my life. I am not here to please you or anyone else. Least of all to make friends. Your respect is shit to me. To date, no one have ever used the keywords I provided and returned to this forum and proved beyond any reasonable doubt that I gave wrong information. That is more than we have seen for the PDF Chinese.


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> What else do you expect him to say ? That: "Despite our best efforts, the J-20's canards continues to be problematic and all our tests revealed they are large contributors to RCS." ?
> 
> Sorry, there are plenty things that 'no one can do'. If we have no conclusive measurement data that says one way, we should not place any faith on the other way.



If the chief Chinese engineer can not solve the canard RCS problem, there is no way he can lie about it or hide it. Since it will show up on radars and in the RCS/Radar chamber. His head will roll, if he let J-20 out of the door with this problem.

Your attitude regarding this canard RCS issue is not just bashing the ability of the Chinese, but bordering outright racist.

Several papers you have quoted are written by Chinese engineers in China, so Chinese ability is not lacking the funds required for the project is lacking. So I don't understand your claim that the RCS of the canard is still a problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> Your attitude regarding this canard RCS issue is not just bashing the ability of the Chinese, but bordering *outright racist.*


Once again, another PDF Chinese proved to be consistent: That criticisms, even technically legitimate ones, are racist in origin.

No need to continue the debate with you.

Readers should take caution.


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Once again, another PDF Chinese proved to be consistent: That criticisms, not even technically legitimate ones, are racist in origin.
> 
> No need to continue the debate with you.
> 
> Readers should take caution.



You claim that China, which has designed and engineered a 5th generation fighter plane like J-20, cannot solve the canard's RCS problem.

The J-20 started in 1996, and first flew on 2011, you claim that after 20 years the Chinese still haven't solved the canard's RCS problem, and probably never will.

If this is not racist motivated, then I don't know what is.

Since the RCS of J-20 or F-22 will probably be never revealed in our life time. The readers on PDF will either have to believe Gambit's claim that J-20's canard still contribute significant RCS and will probably be never be reduced by the Chinese, or the readers can choose to believe it's not difficult to reduce canard's RCS and it is already done so, and J-20 has achieved LO status, at least the frontal aspect.

Take your pick, PDF members.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## S10

Asok said:


> You claim that China, which has designed and engineered a 5th generation fighter plane like J-20, cannot solve the canard's RCS problem.
> 
> The J-20 started in 1996, and first flew on 2011, you claim that after 20 years the Chinese still haven't solved the canard's RCS problem, and probably never will.
> 
> If this is not racist motivated, then I don't know what is.
> 
> Since the RCS of J-20 or F-22 will probably be never revealed in our life time. The readers on PDF will either have to believe Gambit's claim that J-20's canard still contribute significant RCS and will probably be never be reduced by the Chinese, or the readers can choose to believe it's not difficult to reduce canard's RCS and it is already done so, and J-20 has achieved LO status, at least the frontal aspect.
> 
> Take your pick, PDF members.


I don't think you got gambit's meaning. He's not saying canard delta designs can't be low observable, but the canards contribute to a higher RCS return than non canard designs.

Being "stealthy" doesn't mean being invisible to radar, but rather of matter of detection range. The presence of canard may push past the detection threshold a bit sooner. No one is disputing J-20 is a low observable design. There are measures that can be taken to negate some of the increased RCS from the canards, but you can't eliminate their influence completely. Regardless of whether J-20 is on par with F-22/F-35 in terms of signal management, it's already miles ahead of any legacy 4th generation fighters.

Canard designs have been proposed in the past, so they can be compatible with a low observable profile. However, none have materialized into service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

S10 said:


> I don't think you got gambit's meaning. He's not saying canard delta designs can't be low observable, but the canards contribute to a higher RCS return than non canard designs.
> 
> Being "stealthy" doesn't mean being invisible to radar, but rather of matter of detection range. The presence of canard may push past the detection threshold a bit sooner. No one is disputing J-20 is a low observable design. There are measures that can be taken to negate some of the increased RCS from the canards, but you can't eliminate their influence completely. Regardless of whether J-20 is on par with F-22/F-35 in terms of signal management, it's already miles ahead of any legacy 4th generation fighters.
> 
> Canard designs have been proposed in the past, so they can be compatible with a low observable profile. However, none have materialized into service.



It seems you are the one who doesn't get Gambit's drift. He is saying precisely 'canards contribute to a higher RCS return than non canard designs' and that can not be changed because his physics laws and the J-20 is not LO because of that.

"There are measures that can be taken to negate some of the increased RCS from the canards," Gambit is denying there are measures the Chinese can take to reduce them, and has done so.

"but you can't eliminate their influence completely. " Of course not, but they can be reduced significantly into the level of negligible. 

"Canard designs have been proposed in the past, so they can be compatible with a low observable profile. However, none have materialized into service." The J-20 can be the first plane with LO into service. Nothing wrong with that. The reason F-22 did not used canards is probably because it has vector thrust already, so it doesn't need the canards to complicate the controls.

"The presence of canard may push past the detection threshold a bit sooner." How soon? I don't know but I bet the Chinese has minimized the effect that it hardly makes a difference.

"Regardless of whether J-20 is on par with F-22/F-35 in terms of signal management" That agreed. Because China is a late comer it could liberally borrow from F-35 and F-22 and B-2's stealthy features and refined them with their supercomputer and RCS chamber. China has the time, money, and talents.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Has this video already shown?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790854350977458176

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Has this video already shown?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790854350977458176


I made the post-production today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

*Readers,*

In post 6368, Mr. Asok said this...



> If this is not racist motivated, then I don't know what is.



Let us take examine the absurdity of that argument.

In designing a low radar observable, aka 'stealth', body, three rules are in play...

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

In designing a low radar observable body, the corner reflector is definitely *UNDESIRABLE*.

The corner reflector as a complex structure falls under rule 2: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

In the event that the corner reflector is unavoidable, such as the array between the vertical and horizontal stabs, another rule says to avoid the 90 deg type. This is why 'stealth' fighters have twin canted vertical stabs. The corner reflectors created are not 90 deg, reducing, but not completely eliminating, the dreaded 'double bounce' signal behavior. These are the laws of physics.

Regarding the J-20's canards, Mr. Asok asserted that since the J-20's chief designer said the signal contribution from the canards have been minimized to be statistically insignificant. Unfortunately, there are no measurement data to back up that claim.

What if the Chinese claimed they solved the corner reflector problem and still provide no measurement data or even a paper in professional organization like IEEE ? According to Mr. Asok, we *MUST* take the Chinese at their words because the Chinese have 'vast resources' and plenty of time to work on the problem. If we challenge the Chinese claim based upon the laws of physics, we are racists in doing so. We are saying that despite talents, money, and time, the Chinese people are too stupid to solve problems.

It is telling that for the Americans on this forum, we do not toss out the charge of racism every time someone challenge US claims about our hardware. If we are able, we will seek out credible technical sources to back up the claims. If not possible, we will admit we do not have supporting documentation, but we do not call the skeptics racists. Some believe US and many do not, but we do not call the doubters racists.

But the charge of racism is typical of the PDF Chinese whenever they are unable to support their arguments. Racism is an odious idea, so charging someone as a racist immediately make you a victim and put you in a morally superior position. You can also safely avoid any more questions, even if the questions are technically legitimate.


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Lol this guy. For all honesty, I couldn't care less of your argument of whether it is more stealthy or not when compared to F22 or F35. Every country has its own requirement for its jet. Just because a fighter is allegedly less stealthy doesn't mean it's inferior in any way. Judging by how the PLAF doesn't even want the FC31, even though its design language is very similar to the F35 (Supposed wet dream of a jet), means that China has the resources to "do it like Americans" but they simply see the J20 as a better choice.

Gambit, I don't know if you're racist or not, but you sure like to target Chinese products and love to talk down on them. If you have also brought up some good points about them just to be fair, no one would have accused you of anything. Accusing other for being PDF Chinese is nothing better than them calling you a racist American. You accuse them for being factless, but you do realize that you are also factless when it comes to J20. Maybe the Chinese engineers really did make the J20 stealthy enough to be "statistically insignificant", maybe not. The fact is no one knows. Another fact is that China chose J20's design over other proposed designs, and there was a reason for it.​

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> Gambit, I don't know if you're racist or not, but you sure like to target Chinese products and love to talk down on them.​


Chinese products ? Broad statement that covers a lot. But if you want to go there, I will accommodate you. You should to over the threads where your fellow Chinese posted reams of stories on Chinese cell phones, bridges, high speed trains, etc, and see how many derogatory posts I made there. Let me know if you find a few.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

gambit said:


> Chinese products ? Broad statement that covers a lot. But if you want to go there, I will accommodate you. You should to over the threads where your fellow Chinese posted reams of stories on Chinese cell phones, bridges, high speed trains, etc, and see how many derogatory posts I made there. Let me know if you find a few.


If you're as smart, or experienced as you claim yourself to be. Don't act dumb. You know exactly what I meant.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

@Okarus 

Honestly I can understand but I think by now each of You made perfectly clear that You have different opinion.
However from You so far other than accusations I did not get any argument ... so far You even ignored my points of concern ... why I don't know but either You argue from Your next post on or simply leave that discussion where it is: At a point were both of You can only agree to not agree.

Period.

Everything else and especially insinuations, accusations without reasons for the contrary other than "I'm sure, Chinese technicians have found a solution" will lead to nothing.

As such: STOP !!!

Deino


----------



## Pepsi Cola

@Deino Well, you ought to read my comment again then.



> Maybe the Chinese engineers really did make the J20 stealthy enough to be "statistically insignificant", *maybe not*. The fact is no one knows. Another fact is that China chose J20's design over other proposed designs, and there was a reason for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Okarus said:


> @Deino Well, you ought to read my comment again then.




I read but that it is not an explanation for the points I mentioned, why it should be AS stealthy as the F-22 or F-35 like You claim - while in return insisting on gambit's sentence "canards are unstealthy" !

As such I simply beg You ... leave it, this discussion will led to nothing, all arguments are said and now let's wait for more facts and nice images.

The only issue however I want to add: why do take some You instantly each and everything that is not a hyper positive mentioning or applause a China-bashing in general ?? I don't understand this attitude ...

Most Chinese I met so far a very honest people who indeed are able to differ between black and white - aka between bashing of their products like done from most Russians and tragically most Western peoples and a nationalistic hyping of all Chinese products as if the are already not only equal but superior to everything !!!

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Deino said:


> I read but that it is not an explanation for the points I mentioned, why it should be AS stealthy as the F-22 or F-35 like You claim - while in return insisting on gambit's sentence "canards are unstealthy" !
> 
> As such I simply beg You ... leave it, this discussion will led to nothing, all arguments are said and now let's wait for more facts and nice images.
> 
> The only issue however I want to add: why do take some You instantly each and everything that is not a hyper positive mentioning or applause a China-bashing in general ?? I don't understand this attitude ...
> 
> Most Chinese I met so far a very honest people who indeed are able to differ between black and white - aka between bashing of their products like done from most Russians and tragically most Western peoples and a nationalistic hyping of all Chinese products as if the are already not only equal but superior to everything !!!
> 
> Deino



I didn't claim anything about the J20's stealthiness Deino. This is my first comment on this argument, so I hope you're not confusing with me with other previous commenters. I'm also not accusing him of "China bashing", but I've seen him around here a lot, and never have seen him given any positive comment regarding Chinese military equipments. I'm simply pointing that fact out, take what you will from it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Okarus said:


> I didn't claim anything about the J20's stealthiness Deino. This is my first comment on this argument, so I hope you're not confusing with me with other previous commenters. I'm also not accusing him of "China bashing", but I've seen him around here a lot, and never have seen him given any positive comment regarding Chinese military equipments. I'm simply pointing that fact out, take what you will from it.




Dear @Okarus ... I owe You an apology and I indeed deeply regret my last post, I ws indeed confusing You with someone else ... 

Sorry for that. 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Well, let me add two more cents on Gambit's long running ranting about the canards being unstealthy and CANNOT be make into stealthy because of his physics laws. If we compare J-20 version 2001 and J-20 version 2017, there is hardly anything noticeably different about the canard's shape, size, and alignment, other than the clipped corner. This suggest the RCS issue has been solved in version 2001, or it's no big problem at all toward a LO solution.

With all the resources and talents China has put into this project, it is inconceivable that canards still contribute a huge RCS. To keep ranting like Gambit is simply IRRATIONAL, if not racist or jealous of China's aviation achievement.

Let's call Gambit's behavior for what it is -- IRRATIONAL OBSESSION. It is not a rational discussion.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Well, let me add two more cents on Gambit's long running ranting about the canards being unstealthy and CANNOT be make into stealthy because of his physics laws. If we compare J-20 version 2001 and J-20 version 2017, there is hardly anything noticeably different about the canard's shape, size, and alignment, other than the clipped corner. This suggest the RCS issue has been solved in version 2001, or it's no big problem at all toward a LO solution.
> 
> With all the resources and talents China has put into this project, it is inconceivable that canards still contribute a huge RCS. To keep ranting like Gambit is simply IRRATIONAL, if not racist or jealous of China's aviation achievement.
> 
> Let's call Gambit's behavior for what it is -- IRRATIONAL OBSESSION. It is not a rational discussion.


In front its ok but on turning or in sideways it has a particularly increaseed RCS because Canards will give to extra reflecting surface to the radar


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Well, let me add two more cents on Gambit's long running ranting about the canards being unstealthy and CANNOT be make into stealthy because of his physics laws. If we compare J-20 version 2001 and J-20 version 2017, there is hardly anything noticeably different about the canard's shape, size, and alignment, other than the clipped corner. This suggest the RCS issue has been solved in version 2001, or it's no big problem at all toward a LO solution.
> 
> With all the resources and talents China has put into this project, it is inconceivable that canards still contribute a huge RCS. To keep ranting like Gambit is simply IRRATIONAL, if not racist or jealous of China's aviation achievement.
> 
> Let's call Gambit's behavior for what it is -- IRRATIONAL OBSESSION. It is not a rational discussion.



@Asok

A few hours ago a made a grave mistake but now it's up again and this time on You: Gambit is not ranting and he has no obsession.
You are in return avoiding even after several requests and You constant false quoting that they are "un-stealthy" which is different to "not as stealthy as an aircraft without canards" is an obsession by YOU.

As such I simply beg You ... in order to keep that threadclean and civilised: None of Your replies is an explanation for the points I mentioned, why it should be AS stealthy as the F-22 or F-35 like You claim - while in return insisting on gambit's sentence "canards are unstealthy" !

Therefore now a direct order from me as a moderator: Either You argue from now on and leave all insults or You leave it. This discussion will led to nothing, all arguments are said and now let's wait for more facts and nice images.


The only issue however I want to add: why do take some of You instantly each and everything that is not a hyper positive mentioning or applause a China-bashing in general ?? I don't understand this attitude ...

Most Chinese I met so far a very honest people who indeed are able to differ between black and white - aka between bashing of their products like done from most Russians and tragically most Western peoples and a nationalistic hyping of all Chinese products as if the are already not only equal but superior to everything !!!

Deino


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> In front its ok but on turning or in sideways it has a particularly increaseed RCS because Canards will give to extra reflecting surface to the radar



When the canards are activated, its activated at angle, like the surfaces of the FA-117, so most of the radar signal do not reflect back to the enemy radar. Even if some signal do most manage to reflect back to the enemy, the signal will be flickering, since the plane is turning. Don't forget the canards also has a radar absorbing coating like rest of the body.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> When the canards are activated, its activated at angle, like the surfaces of the FA-117, so the radar signal do not reflect back to the enemy radar.


bro do some research than talk and respect @gambit he is professional he knows better than you about RCS of fighter jets

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asok
> 
> A few hours ago a made a grave mistake but now it's up again and this time on You: Gambit is not ranting and he has no obsession.
> You are in return avoiding even after several requests and You constant false quoting that they are "un-stealthy" which is different to "not as stealthy as an aircraft without canards" is an obsession by YOU.
> 
> As such I simply beg You ... in order to keep that threadclean and civilised: None of Your replies is an explanation for the points I mentioned, why it should be AS stealthy as the F-22 or F-35 like You claim - while in return insisting on gambit's sentence "canards are unstealthy" !
> 
> Therefore now a direct order from me as a moderator: Either You argue from now on and leave all insults or You leave it. This discussion will led to nothing, all arguments are said and now let's wait for more facts and nice images.
> 
> 
> The only issue however I want to add: why do take some of You instantly each and everything that is not a hyper positive mentioning or applause a China-bashing in general ?? I don't understand this attitude ...
> 
> Most Chinese I met so far a very honest people who indeed are able to differ between black and white - aka between bashing of their products like done from most Russians and tragically most Western peoples and a nationalistic hyping of all Chinese products as if the are already not only equal but superior to everything !!!
> 
> Deino



"why it should be AS stealthy as the F-22 or F-35 like You claim - while in return insisting on gambit's sentence "canards are unstealthy" !

Well, I conceive that having a canard do add 'some' more RCS. But when the canards are not activated, it's level, and only its edges are reflecting signal, and since the edges are slanted away from the enemy radar, it will not go back to the enemy. 

When the canards are activated, its activated at angle, like the surfaces of the FA-117, so most of the radar signal do not reflect back to the enemy radar. Even if some signal do most manage to reflect back to the enemy, the signal will be flickering, since the plane is turning. Don't forget the canards also has a radar absorbing coating like rest of the body.

As for the signal might be bouncing between the canards and main wings and the rest of the body, I cannot comment on it, since I have not see the simulation.

This is where my confidence that having the canards do not affect the RCS of the J-20 much came from.

"why it should be AS stealthy as the F-22 or F-35"

What it takes to make a stealth fighter is deep understanding of the radar principles, simulation software and supercomputer to model the reflection, RCS chamber to test and refine the design, and advanced coating to absorb the signals. China has demonstrated that it has all those elements. Time will tell whether J-20 is on par with F-22 and F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

a lot of folks here are saying canards increase the rcs and therefore it contributes to the fighter not being stealthy. it is true canards to increase the rcs, thats and fact, and they increase drag too. 

people must understand one thing, purpose. what is it designed to do? now my opinion is that its a high endurance front line fighter/interceptor. this makes it perfect for use on the scs.

looking at the image below it is evident that its size would suggest its role in a high endurance interceptor/fighter





now since this is their first fifth gen fighter. this can also be seen as it being a test platform. developing something thats not critical as there are other platform that can do the job like the h-6. where as something like a full on air superiority fighter like the f22 and pak-fa is something that would be in the early stages of development. which i would assume would be fully Chinese including the engines. i suspect they have the ability to manufacture most of the engine components such as the main fan and the lp and hp compressors but the hp and lp turbines would be the problem and running them at cooler temperatures would increase their life but reduce their power. this being a fighter jet they need to be powerful so must run at much hotter temperatures but this greatly reduces the life of the turbines/engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Blue Marlin said:


> a lot of folks here are saying canards increase the rcs and therefore it contributes to the fighter not being stealthy. it is true canards to increase the rcs, thats and fact, and they increase drag too.
> 
> people must understand one thing, purpose. what is it designed to do? now my opinion is that its a high endurance front line fighter/interceptor. this makes it perfect for use on the scs.
> 
> looking at the image below it is evident that its size would suggest its role in a high endurance interceptor/fighter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now since this is their first fifth gen fighter. this can also be seen as it being a test platform. developing something thats not critical as there are other platform that can do the job like the h-6. where as something like a full on air superiority fighter like the f22 and pak-fa is something that would be in the early stages of development. which i would assume would be fully Chinese including the engines. i suspect they have the ability to manufacture most of the engine components such as the main fan and the lp and hp compressors but the hp and lp turbines would be the problem and running them at cooler temperatures would increase their life but reduce their power. this being a fighter jet they need to be powerful so must run at much hotter temperatures but this greatly reduces the life of the turbines/engine.



The canards at the front are used 1.) to create vortexes to increase the lift, 2.) to balance the airplane to make it level, 3.) and to increase maneuverability when turning.

When placed close to the main wings, the canards do wonder to increase goals #1 and #2, but it also drastically increase drag during transonic and supersonic phase, so it's not good for supersonic flight. And it's also not so good at goal #2, to balance the plane because of the shorter moment arm.

When the canards are placed far away from the main wings, the drag effect is dramatically reduced, but the goal #1 and #3 of having a canard is also greatly weaken, but goal #2 is increased.

Aircraft designers have been bedeviled by this conflicting goals of incorporating the canards for some times. They know about advantages and short coming since the 60's.

Chinese designers solve this dilemma by using Leading Edge Extension between the canards and wings to create vortexes and use the far away placement of the canard to balance the plane.

Thus, it has predicted that J-20 will have excellent supersonic maneuverability because of its far away placed canards, and low speed maneuverability because of its leading edge extension like those of the F-18.

So far, the low speed, post stall maneuvers, made famous by the Flankers and Raptors, have not been demonstrated publicly by J-20.

One of the member of the design team has written a book which revealed one of the requirement of J-20 is that it must have the range to reach the islands of Japan or the first island chain without refueling, and able to reach Tokyo with just one refueling. So long range is a built-in feature like the Mig-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> This is where my confidence that having the canards do not affect the RCS of the J-20 much came from.
> 
> "why it should be AS stealthy as the F-22 or F-35"
> What it takes to make a stealth fighter is deep understanding of the radar principles, simulation software and supercomputer to model the reflection, RCS chamber to test and refine the design, and advanced coating to absorb the signals. China has demonstrated that it has all those elements. Time will tell whether J-20 is on par with F-22 and F-35.
> 
> ....




Sorry to say so, but that finally disqualifies Yourself from any further discussion in that regard: "I believe, my confidence ... I'm sure Chinese technicians" ... forget it simply.

Chou believe that all but so many evidence simply speak against that and IMO all what has been proved thru the last posts is that You have indeed NO understanding in stealth nor in the stuff You post. It's pure fan-boy posting.

Even more since You are so much focused purely on the canard-issue: Still no word on the round exhausts without any zig-zag edges, still no valid point, why chaff and flare dispensers are fully open visible ???

You surely will tell us know again "I believe, my confidence ... I'm sure Chinese technicians" ... but again simply forget it.

As such back to my advice: stop all Your accusations ... read, learn and argue before You post.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Asok said:


> 1. The canards at the front are used to create vortexes to increase the lift, to balance the airplane to make it level, and to increase maneuverability when turning.
> 
> 2. One of the member of the design has written a book which revealed one of the requirement of J-20 is that it must have the range to reach the islands of Japan or the first island chain without refueling, and able to reach Tokyo with just one refueling. So long range is a built-in feature like the Mig-31.


vortexes dont create lift
educate yourself




2.you have the idea but i wont go to the extreme of saying it has to reach mainland japan and back. it can do that but i doubt it would be used for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Okarus said:


> If you're as smart, or experienced as you claim yourself to be. Don't act dumb. You know exactly what I meant.


I do not care if you believe what I said about myself or do not believe. I am not here to make friends, receive praise, or earn respect. On an anonymous Internet forum, only the *CONTENTS* of your posts that matters, specifically, contents that are *DIRECTLY* related to the target subject.

So here we go, again...

When you design a car, you *NEED* wheels. Not want, but need. How else can your car move, correct ?

Likewise in aviation, if you design an aircraft where you want improved re-orientation, or improved aspect angle change, then you have several options.

- Large stabilators
- Increased stabilator response speed and rate of change
- Engine thrust redirection aka 'vectoring'
- Canards

While each is an option, as in not required for your jet to fly, the moment you specified a performance want, any of those became a need. Or to put it another way, remove the want so you do not have a need. Ultimately, if you remove the want to fly, then you have removed the need for an airplane. Am not trying to be facetious, just trying to illustrate an idea.

Each of those options have its own needs, advantages, disadvantages, and limitations.

For example...

If you chose to install larger sized horizontal stabilators to put higher aerodynamic forces upon them, you need a higher capacity and stronger hydraulic actuator.

If you want to keep the original size of the horizontal stabilators, but increase their range of motion and rate of response so you can reorient faster, then you need to alter the flight control programming, specifically, the algorithms that uses gyroscopes and accelerometers responses, and the air data inputs.

If you chose thrust vectoring, of course you must have an engine that can do that. Then you must somehow incorporate that ability into commands, whether those commands are automated or from pilot inputs.

If you chose canards, then you have select an additional flight control surface feature, which mean its physical features will be dictated by aerodynamics, not by what you want. Everything about the canard, from size to shape to location, will be dictated by aerodynamic considerations, not by what you want.

So when you look at the J-20's canards, note the shape, dimensions, location, and dihedral ( upsweep ). Changes to any of those elements will affect the jet's ability to reorient. A change too much in one element may render the canard dangerous to stable flight, forcing you to return that element to wherever it was prior to change. You will find the ranges of possible changes in your testing. Then once you are satisfied of the canard's design that it does what you want and do it safely, you lock in the canard's design. No more alteration allowed. The jet will fly with the canards as designed.

Now comes the controversial issue of RCS contribution.

The laws of physics says that the canards' contribution to RCS is inevitable. Those laws also says that if you change any of the canard's elements, such as size, that change will affect the level of its contribution. You want a lower level of contribution. But if you reduce the size you will end up affecting the canard's ability to reorient the aircraft, perhaps negatively affecting.

So in trying to satisfy one customer demand, low radar observability, you may end up negatively another customer demand, rapid reorientation. When it comes to flight controls and its parts, aerodynamic considerations take center stage and is primacy over everything else. Look at the canards as they are on the jet, you can be absolutely confident: That is the final determination by the Aerodynamics Section and it is non-negotiable in terms of stable and safe flight.

This is the argument: " After all these yrs and all the money spent the canards' higher contribution to RCS must have been fixed "

That argument does not fly, pardon the pun. That is an argument of assumption, of hope, and of faith. In a discussion that is supposed to have at least the basics of technical information, the readers have nothing as to how the canards' contribution have been reduced.

Are the canards treated with absorbers ? We can see from various public photos that they are, at least on the leading and trailing edges. But that does not mean their contributions have been rendered statistically insignificant. For all we know, treating the edges reduced some, but not enough.

My point was, and still is, is that in the absence of measurement data, which most likely will never be public, in the interest of intellectual honesty, we have to at least keep the canards under suspicions. It is a fair argument.

Then came the cheap tactic of accusation of racism if Chinese claims are disputed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Blue Marlin said:


> vortexes dont create lift
> educate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.you have the idea but i wont go to the extreme of saying it has to reach mainland japan and back. it can do that but i doubt it would be used for that.



Well google this, Blue Marlin, "Lift Enhancement Using Close-Coupled Canard/Wing Vortex Interaction" I am not allow to post a link on PDF yet.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Asok said:


> Well google this, Blue Marlin, "Lift Enhancement Using Close-Coupled Canard/Wing Vortex Interaction" I am not allow to post a link on PDF yet.


im not gonna attempt to read a journal, not to prove a point.
canard's aka wing do provide lift and i would suggest its to the limit of being classed as a close coupled canard layout. any further out and your under the cockpit.

@gambit what do you think is the j20 a close coupled or long armed in respects to canard configuration ?


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Sorry to say so, but that finally disqualifies Yourself from any further discussion in that regard: "I believe, my confidence ... I'm sure Chinese technicians" ... forget it simply.
> 
> Chou believe that all but so many evidence simply speak against that and IMO all what has been proved thru the last posts is that You have indeed NO understanding in stealth nor in the stuff You post. It's pure fan-boy posting.
> 
> Even more since You are so much focused purely on the canard-issue: Still no word on the round exhausts without any zig-zag edges, still no valid point, why chaff and flare dispensers are fully open visible ???
> 
> You surely will tell us know again "I believe, my confidence ... I'm sure Chinese technicians" ... but again simply forget it.
> 
> As such back to my advice: stop all Your accusations ... read, learn and argue before You post.
> 
> Deino



"Sorry to say so, but that finally disqualifies Yourself from any further discussion in that regard: "I believe, my confidence ... I'm sure Chinese technicians" ... forget it simply."

Well, gee, since I am not an aviation expert, I can only tell only what I have read, not on what I have experienced. My confidence that the Chinese have solved the canard RCS issue is based on this paper written by a Chinese engineer back in 2010. Google these Chinese words for the paper. I can't post a link yet.

*"鸭翼电磁散射特性分析与RCS减缩方法研究"*

In this paper he examined the characteristics of the canard RCS and determined that a coating the canard with a radar absorption material could drastically reduce the RCS. He also created a mathematical model to minimize the RCS when turning the canards. I am in no position to translate this technical paper. Hope someone else in this forum could do it.

Another paper published in 1994 also shows China has done extensive researches on Canard RCS before J-20 was designed and know measures to reduce the RCS. This paper is about canard RCS on drones.

*"低RCS无人驾驶飞行器(包括鸭翼)的外形设计与实验研究"*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## aliaselin

Asok said:


> "Sorry to say so, but that finally disqualifies Yourself from any further discussion in that regard: "I believe, my confidence ... I'm sure Chinese technicians" ... forget it simply."
> 
> Well, gee, since I am not an aviation expert, I can only tell only what I have read, not on what I have experienced. My confidence that the Chinese have solved the canard RCS issue is based on this paper written by a Chinese engineer back in 2010. Google these Chinese words for the paper. I can't post a link yet.
> 
> *"鸭翼电磁散射特性分析与RCS减缩方法研究"*
> 
> In this paper he examined the characteristics of the canard RCS and determined that a coating the canard with a radar absorption material could drastically reduce the RCS. He also created a mathematical model to minimize the RCS when turning the canards. I am in no position to translate this technical paper. Hope someone else in this forum could do it.
> 
> Another paper published in 1994 also shows China has done extensive researches on Canard RCS before J-20 was designed and know measures to reduce the RCS. This paper is about canard RCS on drones.
> 
> *"低RCS无人驾驶飞行器(包括鸭翼)的外形设计与实验研究"*


I think these have been posted here for several times, but you know here is a forum and little people have enough scientific logic training. So just calm down and no need to waste your time

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

aliaselin said:


> I think these have been posted here for several times, but you know here is a forum and little people have enough scientific logic training. So just calm down and no need to waste your time



Thanks! I should calm down. I am new here.

Deino said: "Still no word on the round exhausts without any zig-zag edges, still no valid point, why chaff and flare dispensers are fully open visible ???"

From the exhause nozzles, there could be three sources of RCS, 1.) the external petals, 2.) inside of the nozzle. 3.) from the round edge the nozzle.

The F-35 already employed the saw tooth edge method to take care of the round edge. I expect the J-20 and other stealth plane will do the same in the future.

A Chinese engineer has invented a panel to attach to the external petals to absorb the radar signal. I couldn't find the paper. I highly suspect that white shiny petals on some J-20 nozzles could be this radar signal panel. Some people have suggested these white petals are for thermal shielding to reduce IR signature. But I doubt it, since the outside of the nozzle is shielded by the internal petals, the outside is actually cool enough to be touch by human hands, so there is no need for additional shielding.

As for internal RCS from the nozzle, when the enemy is right behind you ready to shoot, you better violently maneuver to get out of the way, so internal of nozzle will not be constantly exposed to return radar signal. Plus, if he already close to you, it is better to use heat seeking missile and his gun.

"why chaff and flare dispensers are fully open visible ???"

I am not sure those are flare dispensers. They could be mesh openings for Plasma stealth. Several hexagonal meshes are found on the left and right side of the body, which has no equivalent on the F-22, F-35, and T-50.

Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia has shown in his simulation that the long and slender side of the J-20 has the strongest signal return. Having plasma stealth for the laterals could be a nifty solution. 

"Plasma stealth is a proposed process to use ionized gas (plasma) to reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) of an aircraft. Interactions between electromagnetic radiation and ionized gas have been extensively studied for many purposes, including concealing aircraft from radar as stealth technology. Various methods might plausibly be able to form a layer or cloud of plasma around a vehicle to deflect or absorb radar, from simpler electrostatic or radio frequency (RF) discharges to more complex laser discharges.[1] It is theoretically possible to reduce RCS in this way, but it may be very difficult to do so in practice." --Wikipedia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Blue Marlin said:


> vortexes dont create lift
> educate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.you have the idea but i wont go to the extreme of saying it has to reach mainland japan and back. it can do that but i doubt it would be used for that.



Many parts of Japan is actually quite close to the Asian mainland, well within the combat range of the Flankers. It's actually the idea of using airplanes to attack foreign country that is shockingly radical to the Chinese. Until recently Chinese military planes do not venture outside the first island chain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yusheng

the canard RCS problems have been discussed before, don't understand why they put it again and agian with the outdated theories.

one main reason that these canard are not made up by matel but ceramic and carbon fiber reinforced plastics, its RCS has totally different nature, but no one discuss these features.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

yusheng said:


> the canard RCS problems have been discussed before, don't understand why they put it again and agian with the outdated theories.
> 
> one main reason that these canard are not made up by matel but ceramic and carbon fiber reinforced plastics, its RCS has totally different nature, but no one discuss these features.
> View attachment 346417
> View attachment 346418
> View attachment 346419
> View attachment 346420
> View attachment 346421
> View attachment 346422



"the canard RCS problems have been discussed before, don't understand why they put it again and agian with the outdated theories.

Good post. I bet Gambit's inviolable physics laws do not take into account that airplane structures and surfaces could be made of radar absorbent materials.

Because most of the fanboys can't read the original technical papers written in Chinese so they must rely on the B.S. written by journalists and think tankers who also spur out B.S.

Chinese researches on stealth are astonishingly open, many technical paper are not classified and freely available on the internet. Probably the Chinese authority think the Chinese are late comers to Stealth and the Westerners have no need to learn from them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## eldamar

Okarus said:


> If you're as smart, or experienced as you claim yourself to be. Don't act dumb. You know exactly what I meant.



The psyche behind Gambit's postings could be read like an open book with 1 look

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## l0ngl0ng

Gamb*t-desired RCS

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> "why chaff and flare dispensers are fully open visible ???"
> 
> I am not sure those are flare dispensers. They could be mesh openings for Plasma stealth. Several hexagonal meshes are found on the left and right side of the body, which has no equivalent on the F-22, F-35, and T-50.....



Again "could be" "I think" I believe" ... they are chaff and flare dispensers, just look ... or are they vents from the warp-drive or a cloaking device ??



> Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia has shown in his simulation that the long and slender side of the J-20 has the strongest signal return. Having plasma stealth for the laterals could be a nifty solution.
> ....




Come on !
Especially since he has RCS facilities available and a full-scale model of a J-20 to test it !??
Dr Karlo Kopp is an idiot with only one desire: To persuade the Australian military to purchase the F-22 (which is impossible) and additionally to spread the fear in the face of "incoming hordes of Chinese" !

He is a joke.

Deino


----------



## gambit

Blue Marlin said:


> @gambit what do you think is the j20 a close coupled or long armed in respects to canard configuration ?


At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.

There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.



Deino said:


> Come on !
> Especially since he has RCS facilities available and a full-scale model of a J-20 to test it !??
> Dr Karlo Kopp is an idiot with only one desire: To persuade the Australian military to purchase the F-22 (which is impossible) and additionally to spread the fear in the face of "incoming hordes of Chinese" !
> 
> He is a joke.
> 
> Deino


When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Again "could be" "I think" I believe" ... they are chaff and flare dispensers, just look ... or are they vents from the warp-drive or a cloaking device ??
> 
> Come on !
> Especially since he has RCS facilities available and a full-scale model of a J-20 to test it !??
> Dr Karlo Kopp is an idiot with only one desire: To persuade the Australian military to purchase the F-22 (which is impossible) and additionally to spread the fear in the face of "incoming hordes of Chinese" !
> 
> He is a joke.
> 
> Deino



"Again "could be" "I think" I believe"" . . . . Yes, I couch my speculations with those phrase, since I am no aviation expert nor do I have any inside informations.

You are not different from me. Neither of us have any solid informations or experiences about J-20 that is not gleaned from the Internet. And I don't claim to be an aviation expert, unlike someone else.

"Dr Karlo Kopp is an idiot" That I really disagreed totally. 

His criticisms of F-35 regarding that its no match for the current Flankers and future Russian and Chinese fighters like T-50 and J-20 are solid and on the spot.

Now, I ask you, what is your speculation of those Hexgonal mesh opening on the side of the plane?



gambit said:


> At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.
> 
> There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.
> 
> When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.



No need to be falsely modest here. One quick look and comparison, I would say J-20 and Typhoon has a long coupled canard, and Rafael and Gripen has a closely coupled canard.



gambit said:


> At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.
> 
> There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.
> 
> 
> When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.



"When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss... "

Dr. Kopp is hated in the western defense circle and press because he is telling the truth that F-35 is a flying pig. I have read all his article in his website. I don't find him questionable. His opinions are solid.



l0ngl0ng said:


> Gamb*t-desired RCS



Good one! The main wing of F-22 is enormous compared to J-20 canard and closely coupled to the stabliser. How come you don't want to comment on that wing's RCS, Gambit?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new. 

For the interested readers...Try 'plasma antenna'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_antenna

The idea of 'plasma stealth' have been discussed on this forum before and since the yrs passed, nothing came out of it. The 'plasma stealth' that everyone talked about was on producing a plasma cloud enveloping the aircraft while flying at Mach.

If we are to take the current technology level, any exploitation of plasma as a component for low radar observability have better odds with the plasma antenna.

Theoretically, an array of plasma antennas on the aircraft's surface should absorb enough of the impinging radar signals to, again theoretically, render the aircraft low radar observable in the same manner as shaping could. And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance.


----------



## yusheng

Asok said:


> "Again "could be" "I think" I believe"" . . . . Yes, I couch my speculations with those phrase, since I am no aviation expert nor do I have any inside informations.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> Dr. Kopp is hated in the western defense circle and press because he is telling the truth that F-35 is a flying pig. I have read all his article in his website. I don't find him questionable. His opinions are solid.


Of course, you do. That is funny since you admitted that you have no aviation experience to start, so how can you tell if Kopp is more credible than those who have actually *FLOWN* the F-35 ?

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/f-35s-critics-repeat-history-of-trashing-the-next-military-aircraft/


> Virtually every modern military aircraft, particularly fighters, have been subject to nearly identical criticisms. In fact, each of the airplanes that the critics say should be preferred over the F-35, the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 E/F and the A-10 were in their day the targets of similar critiques, sometimes by the very same individuals who today are excoriating the Joint Strike Fighter. Many of these debates were catalogued in a terrificarticle by Peter Grier in _Air Force Magazine_.



http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August 2010/0810failures.aspx


> The F-15, AWACS, and C-17 were derided as boondoggles early on. Things changed.
> 
> The F-15 Eagle, E-3 AWACS, and the C-17 Globemaster III, to pick three, all had significant teething problems, and all developed into aircraft the Pentagon can’t do without today.


Your China have *YET* to produce anything even 1/10th as notable as the three aircrafts cited as 'boondoggles'.

What do you know of the F-16's kapton issue, eh ?

When I transferred to the F-16, the Air Force's entire F-16 fleet was in scheduled repairs for the flawed kapton wiring harnesses. Many predicted that the kapton wire flaw would mean the end of the F-16. And yet the jet continues to fly today and gotten even better.

So if you admitted that you are have no aviation experience, maybe the wise thing to do is to keep quiet about subjects you know nothing about, and be intellectually honest enough to consider all sides, even the government's side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new.
> 
> For the interested readers...Try 'plasma antenna'.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_antenna
> 
> The idea of 'plasma stealth' have been discussed on this forum before and since the yrs passed, nothing came out of it. The 'plasma stealth' that everyone talked about was on producing a plasma cloud enveloping the aircraft while flying at Mach.
> 
> If we are to take the current technology level, any exploitation of plasma as a component for low radar observability have better odds with the plasma antenna.
> 
> Theoretically, an array of plasma antennas on the aircraft's surface should absorb enough of the impinging radar signals to, again theoretically, render the aircraft low radar observable in the same manner as shaping could. And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance.



"The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new. " That's funny!

I think I am the first person to mention that J-20 might be using plasma stealth. Never heard of anyone suggesting that before. I heard of T-50 might going to use it.

"And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance." True. I agreed.

Some people think plasma stealth means evelope the whole plane with plasma. That's difficult to do, since the Radar needs to see through the plasma and various communication equipments need to work too. Partial plasma stealth might be more practical.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blue Marlin

gambit said:


> At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.
> 
> There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.
> 
> 
> When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.


who cares what they think, what are they gonna do about it? 
it depends on the chinese user in regards to the bias.
anyway i respect your move to abstain.


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Of course, you do. That is funny since you admitted that you have no aviation experience to start, so how can you tell if Kopp is more credible than those who have actually *FLOWN* the F-35 ?
> 
> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/f-35s-critics-repeat-history-of-trashing-the-next-military-aircraft/
> 
> 
> http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August 2010/0810failures.aspx
> 
> Your China have *YET* to produce anything even 1/10th as notable as the three aircrafts cited as 'boondoggles'.
> 
> What do you know of the F-16's kapton issue, eh ?
> 
> When I transferred to the F-16, the Air Force's entire F-16 fleet was in scheduled repairs for the flawed kapton wiring harnesses. Many predicted that the kapton wire flaw would mean the end of the F-16. And yet the jet continues to fly today and gotten even better.
> 
> So if you admitted that you are have no aviation experience, maybe the wise thing to do is to keep quiet about subjects you know nothing about, and be intellectually honest enough to consider all sides, even the government's side.



"Virtually every modern military aircraft, particularly fighters, have been subject to nearly identical criticisms. In fact, each of the airplanes that the critics say should be preferred over the F-35, the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 E/F and the A-10 were in their day the targets of similar critiques, sometimes by the very same individuals who today are excoriating the Joint Strike Fighter. "

I take your point. Many aircrafts had a difficult development history, but eventually overcame the difficulties. I am not old enough to remember all those histories. But it is also true that many poorly designed aircrafts got cancelled before they went into production or produced only a few copies.

Let's face it, the F-35 is an exceptionally poorly conceived aircraft. It will failed in all the roles its design to fulfill. The reason it cannot be cancel is because there is no replacement in sight for it. 

Defend it all you want. China and Russia will be much safer because of it. We are laughing and rolling on the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I take your point. *Many aircrafts had a difficult development history, but eventually overcame the difficulties.* I am not old enough to remember all those histories. But it is also true that many poorly designed aircrafts got cancelled before they went into production or produced only a few copies.
> 
> Let's face it, the F-35 is an exceptionally poorly conceived aircraft. It will failed in all the roles its design to fulfill. The reason it cannot be cancel is because there is no replacement in sight for it.


This is why I do not take you seriously: You cannot see how you contradict yourself.

For an aircraft to overcome development problems, it takes time. Not only that, it takes *FLYING*. Not only that, it takes *FLYING IN ACTUAL MISSIONS*. The F-35 is new. Barely deployed.

Your China have yet to produce an indigenous fighter like the F-35. No, the J-20 does not even compare. *EVERYTHING* that are in the J-20 have been done before, while what is in the F-35, our potential adversaries are nervous about what it can do. My first assignment was the F-111 and it was considered a failure, and yet the Soviets became terrified of it. Every arms reduction talks, the Soviets wanted the F-111 out of England. The F-111 was the world's best strategic penetration fighter-bomber. How do we know ? Because Soviet avionics engineer Adolf Tolkachev, who became our agent, confirmed it. The Soviets had no air defense system capable of going against the F-111.

You think Tolkachev came from my imagination ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Tolkachev

You are in a subject that is over your head. On the one hand, you were willing to give credit to aircrafts that had problems, but then insisted that the new F-35 is a failure. Just like the rest of the PDF Chinese, intellectual consistency is not your strong suit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> "The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new. " That's funny!
> 
> I think I am the first person to mention that J-20 might be using plasma stealth. Never heard of anyone suggesting that before. I heard of T-50 might going to use it.
> 
> "And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance." True. I agreed.
> 
> Some people think plasma stealth means evelope the whole plane with plasma. That's difficult to do, since the Radar needs to see through the plasma and various communication equipments need to work too. Partial plasma stealth might be more practical.


bro you are acting like 10 year old kid who knows nothing about jet's RCS and insisting he is right and senior members of PDF are wrong *J-20 with plasma stealth,plasma absorb all kind of radio waves, if plasma generator in J-20 created plasma cloud around J-20, so how can J-20 detect enemy jets? so kid their is no Sh!t plasma stealth understand  kid  go kid this place is not for yours, go play your toys*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yusheng

silly comments, i am not saying J20 has or does not has plasma coat, but

plasma still is a choice when under some situations, such as when attacking fixed targets on land, water surface, J20 just fly to the near position and let the missile to do the left.

the other is to stop plasma coat when collecting the data from the system, and then continue plasma coat.

and also, you don't need to be stealth all the way, just in time is ok.

todays' war does not need the plane to find the target by itself all the time. anyway, when dog fighting, no radar needed any more, just your eyes and feeling.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> bro you are acting like 10 year old kid who knows nothing about jet's RCS and insisting he is right and senior members of PDF are wrong *J-20 with plasma stealth,plasma absorb all kind of radio waves, if plasma generator in J-20 created plasma cloud around J-20, so how can J-20 detect enemy jets? so kid their is no Sh!t plasma stealth understand  kid  go kid this place is not for yours, go play your toys*


I was suggesting J-20 might have PARTIAL plasma stealth coating on the SIDE that will not block its radar and other communication antennas. The joke is on you.

A quick search on China's Baidu search engine on the term "Plasma and RCS" returns over a 100 technical papers on the subject. For some reason, China is very open with its researches on RCS or stealth technology. A similar search on "*Free Scientific Publications", *the goto place for world's scientists for technical papers returns almost none.

It seems China is already very active in this field. It's time for me to read up on this plasma and stealth subject.



gambit said:


> This is why I do not take you seriously: You cannot see how you contradict yourself.
> 
> For an aircraft to overcome development problems, it takes time. Not only that, it takes *FLYING*. Not only that, it takes *FLYING IN ACTUAL MISSIONS*. The F-35 is new. Barely deployed.
> 
> Your China have yet to produce an indigenous fighter like the F-35. No, the J-20 does not even compare. *EVERYTHING* that are in the J-20 have been done before, while what is in the F-35, our potential adversaries are nervous about what it can do. My first assignment was the F-111 and it was considered a failure, and yet the Soviets became terrified of it. Every arms reduction talks, the Soviets wanted the F-111 out of England. The F-111 was the world's best strategic penetration fighter-bomber. How do we know ? Because Soviet avionics engineer Adolf Tolkachev, who became our agent, confirmed it. The Soviets had no air defense system capable of going against the F-111.
> 
> You think Tolkachev came from my imagination ?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Tolkachev
> 
> You are in a subject that is over your head. On the one hand, you were willing to give credit to aircrafts that had problems, but then insisted that the new F-35 is a failure. Just like the rest of the PDF Chinese, intellectual consistency is not your strong suit.



I did not contradict myself. I had admitted many aircrafts had overcame initial difficulties and became successful. I also said "But it is also true that many poorly designed aircrafts got cancelled before they went into production or produced only a few copies."

There are many aircrafts designs that are so bad, the only sensible solution is to get rid of them. F-35 is one prime example.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Back to the topic ....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kompromat

So the EOTS is yet to be installed.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I was suggesting J-20 might have PARTIAL plasma stealth coating on the SIDE that will not block its radar and other communication antennas. The joke is on you.
> 
> A quick search on China's Baidu search engine on the term "Plasma and RCS" returns over a 100 technical papers on the subject. For some reason, China is very open with its researches on RCS or stealth technology. A similar search on "*Free Scientific Publications", *the goto place for world's scientists for technical papers returns almost none.
> 
> It seems China is already very active in this field. It's time for me to read up on this plasma and stealth subject.


kid dont fool yourself*this prove nothing that they use SH!t plasma stealth technology on J-20 and how control plasma clouds to get rid from those sensor which are everywhere in the body of J-20*


----------



## Akasa

Horus said:


> So the EOTS is yet to be installed.



It has been installed on earlier LRIP airframes but not the new ones for some reason. Or it could simply be a covering shroud.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> It has been installed on earlier LRIP airframes but not the new ones for some reason. Or it could simply be a covering shroud.




IMO since these two birds will be shown at Zhuhai the PLAAF probably decided to leave this sensitive item uninstalled during the show.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> IMO since these two birds will be shown at Zhuhai the PLAAF probably decided to leave this sensitive item uninstalled during the show.



Upon closer inspection, it seems that it has merely been covered with a plastic cap.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Upon closer inspection, it seems that it has merely been covered with a plastic cap.



Bingo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Production serial numbers of J-20, XX0011 shown on the upper and lower arrows, maybe indicated this J-20 is the 11th one being produced of the 00 batch 
The 3rd arrow with a sign "do not touch" maybe the EODAS's optical window
@jetfight2000
上传于 今天 11:50
来自 微博 weibo.com
J-20生产序列号曝光。照片上勉强看到空中加油管舱盖和前起落架舱盖上的生产序列号。该号极其不明显但仍可以分辨出XX0011的字样,显示该机很可能为00批第11架。另外雷达罩后方有禁止手摸的标志,证明旁边的菱形窗口很可能是EODAS的光学窗口。可惜这次#珠海航展# J-20不会地面展示,否则就真相大白了[偷笑]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lonelyman

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2016-10-28/doc-ifxxfuff7038069.shtml
J20 coming to zhuhai air show this year

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sheik

Beyonder said:


> What a Beast...........



What a beauty!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

The 1st official released picture of J-20 from the air force before the appearance at the air show
今天，中国空军确认了歼20参加珠海航展的消息，并首次公布了歼20战机的高清图

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

lonelyman said:


> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2016-10-28/doc-ifxxfuff7038069.shtml
> J20 coming to zhuhai air show this year




Indeed, and here even officially on the "Ministry of Defense's" HP. Here's the link:

http://www.mod.gov.cn/topnews/2016-10/28/content_4754653.htm 

So far I wasn't able to find it on their English but if I'm not mistaken, it's the first time MOD confirms the existence of this type.

By the way, this number-mystery mentioned above fits nicely to the usual CAC construction number. IMO it could be a hint for batch 00 (= LRIP) aircraft no. 11 ! ... and even if unusual; XX = 20 ???

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

grey boy 2 said:


> Production serial numbers of J-20, XX0011 shown on the upper and lower arrows, maybe indicated this J-20 is the 11th one being produced of the 00 batch
> The 3rd arrow with a sign "do not touch" maybe the EODAS's optical window
> @jetfight2000
> 上传于 今天 11:50
> 来自 微博 weibo.com
> J-20生产序列号曝光。照片上勉强看到空中加油管舱盖和前起落架舱盖上的生产序列号。该号极其不明显但仍可以分辨出XX0011的字样,显示该机很可能为00批第11架。另外雷达罩后方有禁止手摸的标志,证明旁边的菱形窗口很可能是EODAS的光学窗口。可惜这次#珠海航展# J-20不会地面展示,否则就真相大白了[偷笑]


What the purpose of design on above the canopy can somebody explain?


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> What the purpose of design on above the canopy can somebody explain?



IMO these are detonation-chords to crash/chatter the canopy in case of an ejection. Such a system is quite common esp. in British jets.

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12821/what-are-these-wavy-lines-on-fighters-canopy

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

pakistanipower said:


> What the purpose of design on above the canopy can somebody explain?


As Dino explained, that is canopy explosive cord, aka canopy severance cord. Below extract from wiki

_On many high-performance __military aircraft__, the canopy is an integral part of the __ejection seat__ system. The pilot cannot be ejected from the __aircraft__ until the canopy is no longer in the path of the ejection seat. In most ejection seat equipped aircraft, the canopy is blown upwards and rearwards by __explosive__ charges. The __relative wind__ then blows the canopy away from the ejection path. However, on some aircraft, such as the __McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II__, the pilot may be forced to eject when in a hover, or when going too slow for the relative wind to move the canopy out of the path of the ejection seat. In that situation, the pilot could possibly impact the canopy when ejecting. To overcome that possibility, some aircraft have a thin cord of __plastic explosive__ zig-zagging across the canopy over the pilot's head. In the event of an ejection, the explosive cord is activated first, shattering the canopy. Then the ejection seat (and pilot) are launched through the shattered canopy_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JSCh

Friday, October 28, 2016, 11:25
*Stealth fighter confirmed for China air show*
By Zhao Lei




*File photo of J-20 stealth fighter jet. (Photo / chinadaily.com.cn)*

The People's Liberation Army Air Force will demonstrate its latest *J-20 stealth fighter jet* at an arms show next week, Senior Colonel Shen Jinke, PLA Air Force spokesman, said at a news conference on Friday morning.

"The J-20 was designed by our aircraft researchers for future aerial combat. Test pilots from the Air Force will use it to perform at the 11th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition," Shen said.

The six-day event, commonly known as the *Zhuhai Air Show*, will start on Tuesday and is set to feature some of the best equipment that the *People's Liberation Army* and State-owned defense giants have to offer.

China conducted the maiden flight of the J-20 in January 2011 and *has produced 10 prototypes*. It is believed to be *the third stealth fighter jet to enter service* following the United States' F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth warplanes.

This is *the first time the Chinese military has confirmed the existence of the J-20*, which was developed and made by Aviation Industry Corp of China.

Products on show at the biennial event, which is the largest arms exhibition in China, will include the latest offerings in the space, aviation, electronics and land armament industries. Fighter jets, transport planes, *drones*, missiles, tanks and artillery guns are all set to be on display, according to Zhuhai Airshow Co.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> IMO these are detonation-chords to crash/chatter the canopy in case of an ejection. Such a system is quite common esp. in British jets.
> 
> http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12821/what-are-these-wavy-lines-on-fighters-canopy



There is also the associated benefit of weight reduction.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

pakistanipower said:


> What the purpose of design on above the canopy can somebody explain?


Explosive wires to shatter the canopy before ejection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

But that is only a computer graphic !! Not any of our special fan-boys will get heart palpitations. 
... a nice one but IMO the tanks are too small in contrast to the ones we've seen last week.

Deino


----------



## Hindustani78

An aircraft that is reported to be a Chinese stealth fighter is seen in Chengdu, Sichuan province, in this picture taken January 7, 2011, and released by Kyodo news agency on January 8, 2011.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...r-to-shed-cloak-of-secrecy/article9288222.ece

*Its newest warplane — the J-20 — will make its first public flight at the Zhuhai Air Show.*
China’s newest warplane — the J-20 stealth fighter — will make its first public flight at the Zhuhai Air Show, its manufacturer announced on Monday, as Beijing flexes its long-range military muscles.

The J-20, “which military enthusiasts at home and abroad have watched closely,” will make its first public flight demonstration, said Tan Ruisong, the president of China’s state aerospace company AVIC.

*Once it trailed, now it leads*

China trailed the world in aerospace technology 20 years ago, he told a press conference, but was now at the leading edge.

Swift, stealthy, and armed with long-range missiles, the new J-20s represent a leap forward in China’s ability to project power in Asia and compete in capabilities with the United States.

Beijing is seeking to modernise and upgrade its military both to protect its borders and project power in regions such as the South China Sea, a resource-rich waterway where it has disputes with several neighbours.

China’s only international aerospace exhibition, held biennially in the southern city of Zhuhai, this year boasts its largest-ever display of military hardware and aircraft, with 11 exhibition halls, 4,30,000 square metres of indoor and outdoor viewing area, and 151 aircraft from 700 exhibitors from 42 countries and regions.

*Unveiling the Y-20 transport planes*

The show will also see the debut of the Y-20 transport aircraft, which can move heavy loads and carry out airlifts to assist military activities.

Chinese-made military assault vehicles, anti-aircraft missile systems, drones and fighter jets stood on display outside the exhibition centre.

AVIC chief Tan said his company had business in 80 countries and territories, with annual overseas sales exceeding 80 billion yuan ($11.8 billion).

The firm will firmly remember its “sacred mission” to serve China, he said. It would carry out the strategic plan of the Communist party, the government and the People’s Liberation Army and “closely unite around the core leadership of comrade Xi Jinping.”

*For a great air force, strong military*

*AVIC, which earlier this year acquired British cabin interior supplier AIM Altitude*, would “persistently struggle” to realise the dream of a great Chinese air force and a strong military, he added.

China is aggressively moving to develop its domestic weapons industry, from drones and anti-aircraft systems to homegrown jet engines.

In the past, it has been *accused of copying designs from Russian fighters*, and some analysts say its next-generation J-31 stealth fighter bears a close resemblance to the U.S.-developed F-35.

Another exhibitor, China South Industries Group Corporation, showed off 70 products focused on anti-terror operations, fast response forces and aircraft munitions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Hindustani78 said:


> China is *aggressively* moving to develop its domestic weapons industry, from drones and anti-aircraft systems to homegrown jet engines.



I like the choice of word in this one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

2016 中国珠海航展 : 歼20隐形战机首秀 | Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter First Demo Flight in 2016 China Air Show. The demonstration seems very effortless and stable at low speed.










Two J20 prepare for Zhuhai Airshow (歼20双机 20161017)






2016-10-02期 歼-20国庆前夕试飞视频曝光 《军情奇报》






Stunning low level J-20 testing flight. 歼20: 让人震撼的穿天猴 (20161013)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## IblinI

Asok said:


> 2016 中国珠海航展 : 歼20隐形战机首秀 | Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter First Demo Flight in 2016 China Air Show. The demonstration seems very effortless and stable at low speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 348082
> 
> 
> Two J20 prepare for Zhuhai Airshow (歼20双机 20161017)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-10-02期 歼-20国庆前夕试飞视频曝光 《军情奇报》
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stunning low level J-20 testing flight. 歼20: 让人震撼的穿天猴 (20161013)


Love this one, the most HD seen so far!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

YuChen said:


> Love this one, the most HD seen so far!



Yes, its done with a real camera, not a handheld cell phone. The low speed stability of J-20 points to excellent aerodynamic design. This paves the way for outstanding subsonic and supersonic maneuverability.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## IblinI

cirr said:


> J-20
> 
> View attachment 348101


Beautiful machine,excellent craftsmanship.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## eldamar

deals are always concluded on the last day of exhibition? no?


----------



## grey boy 2

New on J-20?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> New on J-20?



No .. was always there already !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Just another observation: If I'm not completely wrong, then the two J-20s at Zhuhai are both in a plain grey colour scheme ... and not that new splinter-scheme. Or am I wrong?

So we have at least thre3 grey LRIP-birds ?!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

eldarlmari said:


> deals are always concluded on the last day of exhibition? no?


No one makes deals on air show day.

An exhibition is to demonstrate what you have is *FUNCTIONAL* in the least. In other words, if you say your aircraft can fly, it better fly on show day. An exhibition is where observers becomes *POTENTIAL* clients. Not yet clients. Then once you have convinced observers that your stuff can fly, more private demonstrations at the home country can be arranged.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

The best one?





Some more goodies

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GeHAC

Deino said:


> Just another observation: If I'm not completely wrong, then the two J-20s at Zhuhai are both in a plain grey colour scheme ... and not that new splinter-scheme. Or am I wrong?
> 
> So we have at least thre3 grey LRIP-birds ?!


One in grey,another in the new splinter-scheme


----------



## Deino

GeHAC said:


> One in grey,another in the new splinter-scheme




Are You sure ??? None of the images from Zhuhai show the splinter scheme.


----------



## grey boy 2

This maybe the picture of "2004" showing up for the 1st time 据说是2004




A few classic pictures of J-20 for nice memory sake

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Years of hard work has finally take shape. The scientists and engineers involved in J-20 must be very proud of themselves, because I and many Chinese are sure to be proud of them!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asukarain

Look, there was a '土' flying!



Asukarain said:


> Look, there was a '土' flying!


----------



## Deino

Maybe someone is interrested:

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/11/01/j-20-debuts-at-zhuhai/



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793493425593221121

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

cirr said:


> J-20
> 
> View attachment 348101


Holy cow, this is the most HD picture of J-20 I have seen yet. Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Any idea when this video was taken?


----------



## AsianLion

siegecrossbow said:


> Any idea when this video was taken?




J-20 Doesn't even look on par with SU-35, F-16 Block 52 in agility forget about F-35s & F-22s


----------



## nang2

AsianUnion said:


> J-20 Doesn't even look on par with SU-35, F-16 Block 52 in agility forget about F-35s & F-22s


sure. but it is still a keeper and I like it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

AsianUnion said:


> J-20 Doesn't even look on par with SU-35, F-16 Block 52 in agility forget about F-35s & F-22s



To be fair, there are a few reasons as to why that may be:
(1) The pilot rarely engaged afterburners throughout the performance
(2) It's very unlikely that the pilot pushed the J-20 to its limits during the airshow
(3) The J-20 is using interim powerplants (as is the T-50)

The performance probably doesn't reflect what its final kinematic capabilities would be.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## nang2

SinoSoldier said:


> To be fair, there are a few reasons as to why that may be:
> (1) The pilot rarely engaged afterburners throughout the performance
> (2) It's very unlikely that the pilot pushed the J-20 to its limits during the airshow
> (3) The J-20 is using interim powerplants (as is the T-50)
> 
> The performance probably doesn't reflect what its final kinematic capabilities would be.


you are so patient. I wouldn't explain at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

siegecrossbow said:


> Any idea when this video was taken?


about two weeks ago.



SinoSoldier said:


> To be fair, there are a few reasons as to why that may be:
> (1) The pilot rarely engaged afterburners throughout the performance
> (2) It's very unlikely that the pilot pushed the J-20 to its limits during the airshow
> (3) The J-20 is using interim powerplants (as is the T-50)
> 
> The performance probably doesn't reflect what its final kinematic capabilities would be.



It's just a prelude, more shows will come in this 6 days event.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Nice pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lonelyman

AsianUnion said:


> J-20 Doesn't even look on par with SU-35, F-16 Block 52 in agility forget about F-35s & F-22s


Give it time


----------



## The Sandman

grey boy 2 said:


> Nice pictures


That is some good wallpaper stuff. Nice pics

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Interview with the chief designer Yang Wei.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc4MzQyNTAwOA==.html?from=s1.8-1-1.2&spm=a2h0k.8191407.0.0

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

The Sandman said:


> That is some good wallpaper stuff. Nice pics



Even at low speed, we can still see J-20 able to generate considerable vortexes to help with more lifting power. This points to excellent aerodynamic design.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

siegecrossbow said:


> Interview with the chief designer Yang Wei.
> 
> http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc4MzQyNTAwOA==.html?from=s1.8-1-1.2&spm=a2h0k.8191407.0.0



歼20设计总师杨伟:

“工程设计需要不断地去挖掘产品的内在本质，还要考虑怎样把各专业综合在一起体现出整个产品的思想。某种程度上，工程比纯理论研究更具有挑战。”

---

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

A nice set of HD pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

Beautiful pictures keep coming

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## siegecrossbow

Don't think these have been posted yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nang2

@Deino
Hey, mod, have you been following the recent discussion about J-20 debut? The word on the street now is that J-20 is using domestic engine with vector thrust (despite only slightly). One video clearly shows the engine nozzle was bent down and then bent up right before the jet went vertical.

Add a gif

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kristisipe

starting at 1:05, I think the retired general said the 2 J-20 in the show were using Chinese made engines. The current Chinese engines for J-20s are good enough but WS-15s would provide greater power for J-20s. Can anyone confirm?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Hassan Guy

Looks nice, we should build some too.


----------



## kuge

kristisipe said:


> starting at 1:05, I think the retired general said the 2 J-20 in the show were using Chinese made engines. The current Chinese engines for J-20s are good enough but WS-15s would provide greater power for J-20s. Can anyone confirm?


yes, he said they are using home-made engines ....hmnnnn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

11月1日，中国空军在第11届珠海航展上，出动两架歼-20战机进行了二分半种的短暂空中表演。歼-20的珠海首秀是一个里程碑性重大事件，这是继美国F22和F35，世界上第三种进入现役的四代机，说明中国空军从此进入四代机时代。这对于整天以老子天下第一的美国空军和美国航空工业，对于傻大憨粗但基础雄厚的俄罗斯空军和俄罗斯航空工业，以及贵族式的老欧洲航空工业，都给以巨大震撼，他们对力量一无所知，至今还摸不清中国航空工业的发展脉络，*对中国战斗机技术的进步感到惊诧。

Although the J-20 has been flying for over 5 years, this bold public display at the China Air Show still sends shockwave throughout the world. This signals Chinese Military Aviation is no longer one full generation behind USA, Russia and Europe. The Chinese Dragon has arrived at the world stage with a thunderous roar .



*



kuge said:


> yes, he said they are using home-made engines ....hmnnnn



The sound made by J-20 engines are much louder and distinctively different than Su-27 and Su-30. This points to different unknown engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Could this be the cockpit of the J-20? I hope not. It looks the cheap and half finished F-35 cockpit. It does not look well made. It doesn't seems much thought and effort was put into it. It's probably the cockpit of the cheap and junky J-31.







nang2 said:


> @Deino
> Hey, mod, have you been following the recent discussion about J-20 debut? The word on the street now is that J-20 is using domestic engine with vector thrust (despite only slightly). One video clearly shows the engine nozzle was bent down and then bent up right before the jet went vertical.
> 
> It doesn't look conclusive the nozzles have moved to me.
> 
> Add a gif


----------



## S10

Asok said:


> Could this be the cockpit of the J-20? I hope not. It looks the cheap and half finished F-35 cockpit. It does not look well made. It doesn't seems much thought and effort was put into it. It's probably the cockpit of the cheap and junky J-31.
> View attachment 348671


It's a mock-up model, which means it's for demonstration purpose only.


----------



## siegecrossbow

nang2 said:


> @Deino
> Hey, mod, have you been following the recent discussion about J-20 debut? The word on the street now is that J-20 is using domestic engine with vector thrust (despite only slightly). One video clearly shows the engine nozzle was bent down and then bent up right before the jet went vertical.
> 
> Add a gif



I highly doubt that thrust-vectoring nozzles are used since we've never observed the mechanisms for thrust vectoring. Most likely it's just a trick of the light caused by heated exhaust.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

@InPak 

*STOP and STOP immediately.

Your posts are clearly insulting and aggressive or at least provocative.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ultima Thule

Hassan Guy said:


> Looks nice, we should build some too.


ban for export 



nang2 said:


> @Deino
> Hey, mod, have you been following the recent discussion about J-20 debut? The word on the street now is that J-20 is using domestic engine with vector thrust (despite only slightly). One video clearly shows the engine nozzle was bent down and then bent up right before the jet went vertical.
> 
> Add a gif


May be its a domestic engine but not thrust vectoring, i didn't see any TVC in your gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

nang2 said:


> @Deino
> Hey, mod, have you been following the recent discussion about J-20 debut? The word on the street now is that J-20 is using domestic engine with vector thrust (despite only slightly). One video clearly shows the engine nozzle was bent down and then bent up right before the jet went vertical.



IMO there is nothing special even more if You compare the exhaust to the nearly hundreds of high-resolution images otherwise available; they are exactly the same as before.

I can fully understand that on the street the hype and expectations are high and even the slightest bit of "could be" will be eagerly picked up, but again: Just compare the detailed images ... there's nothing special.

IMO that gif. is simply too blurred.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Some more goodies of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Ultima Thule

grey boy 2 said:


> Some more goodies of J-20


Where is the *splinter camouflage* bird?


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Martian2

Watch J-20’s first outing at Zhuhai in 4K quality | Alert 5

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## eldamar

kristisipe said:


> starting at 1:05, I think the retired general said the 2 J-20 in the show were using Chinese made engines. The current Chinese engines for J-20s are good enough but WS-15s would provide greater power for J-20s. Can anyone confirm?



It's stated @1:03 that the J-20s in the video were *using domestic engines*

@Deino @Beast 

1)2001 and 2002 were technology demonstrators @2:09
2)2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 were prototypes @02:29
3)2101 and 2102 were 'golden-armored' varaints
4)The person in the video admitted that for now, the engines are 3 or 3.5(4 or 4.5 in western context) generation engines(WS-10x?) and is thus, lacking behind the F-22 in regards to supercruising.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

pakistanipower said:


> Where is the *splinter camouflage* bird?



Waiting for demonstration between November 4th and 6th.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

eldarlmari said:


> It's stated @1:03 that the J-20s in the video were *using domestic engines*
> 
> @Deino @Beast
> 
> 1)2001 and 2002 were technology demonstrators @2:09
> 2)2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 were prototypes @02:29
> 3)2101 and 2102 were 'golden-armored' varaints
> 4)The person in the video admitted that for now, the engines are 3 or 3.5(4 or 4.5 in western context) generation engines(WS-10x?) and is thus, lacking behind the F-22 in regards to supercruising.



Interesting, since it confirms what we know since some time: 200x = demonstrators, 201x = prototypes ,,, but concerning the engine I'm sure he is wrong !

Anyway I would love to see some official data and may it be only on dimensions.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eldamar

Deino said:


> Interesting, since it confirms what we know since some time: 200x = demonstrators, 201x = prototypes ,,, but concerning the engine I'm sure he is wrong !
> 
> Anyway I would love to see some official data and may it be only on dimensions.
> 
> Deino



I tried to be fair by thinking that the J-20s are still using the Al-31 series engines. But this time round, i think i will go with Beast's opinion.



Beast said:


> You stubbornly still refuse to accept WS-10B/G? Or you want to argue the petal is still the same short as WS-10A? I gues the fact you are too afraid to lose to me clouds your judgement? From the photo, the petal is clearly much longer and not the short petal. Why are you avoiding this point?
> 
> Welcome WS-10G





Deino said:


> I don't deny the WS-10B and also don't argue that it is maybe different; I simply note, that these inner pedals are still there ... but Your stubbornness is based on Your wish to assume it now surely looks like an AL-31 so the engines on the J-20 are these new WS-10. And that's still off.
> 
> Again may I remind You on the latest fact-check concerning Your claims ??
> 
> Deino





Beast said:


> J-20 will go into service with domestic engine. That is for sure.





Deino said:


> Are there any estimation on how many LRIP J-20As are already flying ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But You shouldn't be too disappionted if the PLAAF confirms it as an AL-31 !
> 
> However I would not hold by breath to see a J-20 at Zhuhai this year ...





Deino said:


> Are there any estimation on how many LRIP J-20As are already flying ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But You shouldn't be too disappionted if the PLAAF confirms it as an AL-31 !
> 
> However I would not hold by breath to see a J-20 at Zhuhai this year ...





Deino said:


> Any proof for Your claim ??
> 
> Ähh Sorry, how could I forget, Beast never proofs anything, he simply "knows" ...





Deino said:


> Are there any estimation on how many LRIP J-20As are already flying ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But You shouldn't be too disappionted if the PLAAF confirms it as an AL-31 !
> 
> However I would not hold by breath to see a J-20 at Zhuhai this year ...





Deino said:


> Shall we bet ???
> 
> BY the way I'm sorry due to this completely wrong post but with my tiny handy i made only a typo ... in Germany on a keyboard-layout, the "T" is exactly left-next to the "Z" ... so I hope that does not hurt too much.
> 
> Deino





Beast said:


> What is the stake?





Deino said:


> Just make a proposal ?? ... just for fun.





Beast said:


> You cease to your account and stop posting here. I bet the J-20 will enter service with PLAAF with donestic engine. If not, I cease mine and stop posting in PDF.





Deino said:


> But then we need to be more precicely ! The point that the J-20 will enter with domestic engines is not a question, that's IMO a fact ... but only a matter of time until the WS-15 will be ready.
> 
> The point we don't agree since some time is that You always claim that the aircraft already flying - especially these latest LRIP birds - are powered by a WS-10-derivate; and that's wrong in my opinion.
> 
> As such if You agree on our bet in the following terms:
> 
> I will resign completely from this forum even as a member and moderator if it is confirmed that the current prototypes and especially LRIP aircraft are using a WS-10-derivate. And You will resign here if it is confirmed an AL-31F or FN derivate.
> 
> Agreed ? ... so let the fun begin.
> 
> 
> 
> Beast said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LRIP will enter service soon. I am sure J-20 will not goes into service with a AL-31 series. Since you are so sure, those AL-31 series engine is still on those LRIP. Why not u take the plug and bet on LRIP will still use a AL-31 series engine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deino
Click to expand...




Deino said:


> Beast, ... no rowing back from Your own claims !! You said already several times, that these birds are now powered by a WS-10-derivate ... and my bet is against that claim. What will happen in the future is irrelevant to Your claims.
> 
> As such, You have my stake/proposal on the table ... this or nothing !
> 
> Deino





Beast said:


> I never promise u anything so stop putting words into my mouth. This is my proposal for the bet. Take it or leave it.






Deino said:


> So much on Your credibilty, integrity ... either too arrogant or too cowardly to admit even Your own quotes.
> But just typical: Big mouth without any substance, then getting personally rude and then in the end without any consequences on retreat.
> 
> Anyway, then leave it and other could judge who's right or wrong.
> 
> Deino





Beast said:


> You are the coward who claim J-20 will enter service with LRIP with AL-31 and now dare not bet with me on this issue. So now you turn the table on me? What a moderator you are.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Again, everyone's free for his own opinion, but so far NO, not a single detail visible on the demonstration seen these days changed my opinion: The nozzles are exactly the same, the sound too, all external details ... and that small grainy blurred gif. is simply no reason to think different.

By the way sometimes I have the feeling that some Chinese media reporters are not better informed than anyone who's lurking in such forums like we do ...

But I'm sure time will confirm.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali Zadi

Can the reports of super louder engines have a environmental or situational part to it. Maybe they were closer to the ground or some thing else if they use the same old engines that is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Good point especially since at Zhuhai most likely the spotters were as close to the J-20 as they were never before !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eldamar

Deino said:


> By the way sometimes I have the feeling that some Chinese media reporters are not better informed than anyone who's lurking in such forums like we do ...
> 
> But I'm sure time will confirm.
> 
> Deino



This is the profile of the 'Chinese media reporter' in the video who stated that the J-20s are flying with domestic engines now(not WS-15)






*尹卓*
江西省泰和县人，开国少将尹明亮之子，央视军情连连看等节目嘉宾主持，著名军事专家，1945年9月生，中共党员，海军信息化专家委员会主任，中国人民解放军海军装备论证研究中心综合论证研究所高级研究员，少将军衔；长期从事军事学术研究工作，曾任海军战略研究所所长，研究方向为：海军战略、海军战役、海军发展战略等。尹卓:一些地方科技评奖成产业链 企业赞助再获奖。[1]


= Yin Zhuo. Born in Jiangsu province, Qinhe County and is the son of Rear admiral Yin Ming.Guest of Honor at CCTV's 军情连连看 TV program. (He)Is a famous Military expert. (He is)Born in 1945, 09 Sep and is a CPC member. He is the Chairman of the PLAN's Information Technology Committee and is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Armament Research Center of the Institute of General '论证'_(sorry i cant think of an appropriate entity to translate this 2 words into)_. His rank is Rear Admiral in the PLAN.

He is actively engaged in military academic research and is serving as the director of Naval Strategic Research Institute. Under his leadership, the Institute is heavily focused on devising naval affair, naval campaigning and naval development strategies.





I listened to the part where he stated the J-20s are flying with domestic engines multiple time to make sure im not hearing anything wrong.

@1:03 in the video, he said:

_'It's demonstrated that the domestic engines; yes it's(J-20) using domestic engines- could basically fullfill its own combat requirements. But then again, if the WS-15 comes into service(thereby implying that the engines on the planes now are not the WS-15), they will significantly improve the plane's capabilities. it should be noted that the WS-15 is under development now._

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Trying to use a few external petal and few internal appearance to judge a product as comfirmed AL-31F engine is absurd.

For example HQ-2J and SA-7 SAM basically share same appearance but when u open both missile and take a look inside. One is oldies analog and another is fully digital components. The performance is apart.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ali Zadi

eldarlmari said:


> _'It's demonstrated that the domestic engines; yes it's(J-20) using domestic engines- could basically fullfill its own combat requirements. But then again, if the WS-15 comes into service(thereby implying that the engines on the planes now are not the WS-15), they will significantly improve the plane's capabilities. it should be noted that the WS-15 is under development now._




Maybe new variant of Shenyang WS-10 that took flight in 2015.


----------



## Deino

Ali Zadi said:


> Maybe new variant of Shenyang WS-10 that took flight in 2015.




Guys ... I know this issue is most important for You since a few simply can't imagine that the PLAAF's latest toy will fly NOT with indigenous engines (the same like the J-10 years ago !) so that they even prefer to believe that Chinese engineers developed an AL-31-look-alike nozzle fitting on a WS-10 !!

Come on guys ... and why are all Flankers then flying with the "old" style nozzle ??? ... since it is a super-duper high-thrust version, that required a new AL-31-look-alike nozzle.
Just compare the development of the General Electric F110 and Pratt & Whitney F100 ... in all their numerous versions with surely many internal changes one thing never changed at least not dramatically: the afterburner's nozzle since this is an integral part of the powerplant optimised for a certain specific engine. You cannot simply rip off a AL-31-nozzle and put it on a WS-10. Fact.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Guys ... I know this issue is most important for You since a few simply can't imagine that the PLAAF's latest toy will fly NOT with indigenous engines (the same like the J-10 years ago !) so that they even prefer to believe that Chinese engineers developed an AL-31-look-alike nozzle fitting on a WS-10 !!
> 
> Come on guys ... and why are all Flankers then flying with the "old" style nozzle ??? ... since it is a super-duper high-thrust version, that required a new AL-31-look-alike nozzle.
> Just compare the development of the General Electric F110 and Pratt & Whitney F100 ... in all their numerous versions with surely many internal changes one thing never changed at least not dramatically: the afterburner's nozzle since this is an integral part of the powerplant optimised for a certain specific engine. You cannot simply rip off a AL-31-nozzle and put it on a WS-10. Fact.
> 
> Deino



I personally think that there is a higher chance of the engines being modified AL-31s than any WS-10 variants. A while back a female engineer was commended for increasing AL-31 thrust output by a significant percentage. Unfortunately I no longer have the link to the original article, so I can't ascertain whether it's B.S. news.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

In this infographic, I have covered the stealth features present on the top-side of the Chinese Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter. Also, I have covered some of the stealth features present on the side of the Chengdu J-20. Later, I will create an infographic to cover the stealth features present on the underside of the Chengdu J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2

Some awesome HD pictures of J-20 from the air show

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## j20blackdragon

"The J-20 is a locally made fifth-generation stealth fighter jet *which uses a Chinese engine*," military expert Yin Zhuo confirmed in a telephone conversation with CCTV on Nov 1.

"The WS-15 turbofan engine is now under development, which will improve the performance of the J-20 after becoming operational," Yin said.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1015727.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

j20blackdragon said:


> "The J-20 is a locally made fifth-generation stealth fighter jet *which uses a Chinese engine*," military expert Yin Zhuo confirmed in a telephone conversation with CCTV on Nov 1.
> 
> "The WS-15 turbofan engine is now under development, which will improve the performance of the J-20 after becoming operational," Yin said.
> 
> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1015727.shtml



You can't take TV personalities like Ying Zhuo and Zhang Zhaozhong seriously. They don't have first hand info.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## thinkbyu

siegecrossbow said:


> You can't take TV personalities like Ying Zhuo and Zhang Zhaozhong seriously. They don't have first hand info.


plz use your brain. go to chinese website and find some informations about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

I don't find this analysis particularly intelligent or illuminating, but here is for the sake for posting something new. --Asok
 
*Analysis: Chengdu J-20, The Chinese Raptor?*

BY SOFREP 09.27.2016#EXPERT ANALYSISEMAIL SHARE TWEET

*Nate “Buster” Jaros says China will have a fifth generation fighter, and its development of the J-20 (amongst other fifth gen platforms) is significant.*
If you haven’t been paying much attention to the jet fighter news lately, you may have missed something big. In fact, it doesn’t get a lot of press and over the past couple of years this new emerging threat really hasn’t been on anyone’s, ahem…radar, much at all.

We’re talking about the Chinese Chengdu J-20. What some are calling “the Chinese F-22 Raptor.” Also known in some circles as the “Black Eagle.”

The J-20 is still shrouded in secrecy, and the political closed doors of modern China are not saying much either. I don’t blame them. They are catching up in technology, and in this case fighter technology, and are committed to not being left behind. China _will_ have a fifth generation fighter, and its development of the J-20 (amongst other fifth gen platforms) is significant.



Let’s take a closer look at the J-20, based on what little information is out there today.

At first glance the J-20 looks kind of like an F-22 Raptor. Why wouldn’t it? The Chinese have been copying Russian and American technology for decades. In some cases they have even improved on the designs. In the case of the J-20, you may have forgotten that a few years ago, terabytes of classified US documents were lost or stolen by the Chinese. These documents were essentially the “blueprints” for the F-35, and U.S. stealth technology. From that breach, it is surmised that China has been able to piece together the basic tenets of stealth technology and apply them to its modern aircraft designs.

*Basics*
What we currently know about the J-20 is that it is a single seat, twin-engine, canard/delta design, stealthy fighter platform. There are just four copies being tested right now, with fully operational fighters predicted to be ready by 2018.

The Black Eagle has two Saturn AL-31 engines producing about 30,000 lbs of thrust each. With the possibility of more powerful Xian WS-15 engines currently in development, those are speculated to produce 44,000 lbs of thrust each. For reference, the F-22 has roughly 35,000 lbs of thrust per engine.

The Black Eagle is big. It weighs an _estimated_ 43,000 lbs empty / 80,000 lbs MTOW (Max Takeoff Weight). The Raptor weighs in at 43,000 lbs empty / 83,000 lbs MTOW. Personally, I believe that the J-20 will be a bit heavier than this, just based on size alone. These internet procured weight estimates seem a bit light to my best guesses. Here’s why.





Another interesting fighter size comparison chart. Credit: img.gawkerassets.com
Recall that the Chinese Chengdu J-10, which looks very much like a Eurofighter Typhoon, is actually more comparable in all aspects to the F-16 Viper. The J-10 is within inches of the F-16’s dimensions, yet the J-10 weighs over 3,000 lbs more when empty. The old Russian SU-24 Fencer was almost identical to the F-111 ‘Vark, yet it weighed nearly double the average ‘Vark’s weight. Despite their best efforts, foreign airplane makers just don’t focus on weight savings as much as US manufacturers do.

The J-20 is 67 feet long and has a 44 wingspan. The Raptor, is 62 feet long and sports an identical 44 foot wingspan. Based on size alone, there is no way a J-20 weighs the same as an F-22. The weight estimates above must be light.

Consider that, plus historical facts and now add an additional five feet of airplane in the J-20 Black Eagle over a Raptor, and you’ve got one large turkey. Remember that for later.





J-20 and F-22 length comparison. Credit: pprune.org
It is predicted that the J-20 will carry four to six long range missiles and possibly two short range heat-seeking missiles as well, all inside internal bays. Very ‘Raptor-like.’ The F-22 carries six long range missiles and two heat-seeking missiles, and air-to-ground options too. The Raptor also has a gun, the J-20 does not…we think.





The J-20 shows off it’s weapons bay. Credit: Sinodefense.com
Additionally, the Raptor carries 18,000 lbs of fuel (internal). The J-20 is touted as being able to carry 25,000 lbs of fuel internally, and that’s a lot of dinosaurs. Remember the size differences we talked about? You’ve got to be able to put that fuel somewhere on board.

Stealth

The J-20 is a LO (Low Observable) design. Using outside assessments and making a few of my own predictions from what little is out there on the J-20, most agree that the J-20 is “medium” stealthy in the mid to higher frequencies (acquisition and fire control radars mostly) and from front aspects only.

Most of an object’s “stealthy-ness” comes from shaping alone. No amount of RAM (Radar Absorbent Material) can undo a poorly shaped object, it must be designed and built from the ground up with stealth in mind. RAM comes later when designers want to clean up hot spots around various nacelles, apertures, and openings on the aircraft.





Chinese J-20. Note the Raptor like appearance and intake designs. Credit: thaimilitaryandasianregion.com
From what I can see (and read) the J-20 is shaped about as well as can be expected for a fighter aircraft (go figure, it looks like a Raptor, which was heavily tested and tweaked for LO considerations). Front hemisphere designs appear to be in accordance with standard radar laws, with parallel lines, and minimum rough or flat edges. The J-20 uses angled chines along the sides of the aircraft (like the F-22), and a hidden engine intake design both to help lower side-section and front aspect RCS (Radar Cross Section).

Of course, a close-up examination of the J-20 will decide if the Chinese LO craftsmanship is up to par with Western standards. However, no one has been permitted to get up close to one yet. Simple things like blemishes, roughly fit skin panels, screw heads, and the like will destroy the stealth capabilities of any well-shaped stealthy design.

Visually, the J-20 does have some stealth faux pas. The tail section and engine nozzles appear to have little to no LO treatments or shaping. From a tail aspect, it almost appears that the Chinese have just given up on stealth altogether. Keep that in mind for later in our analysis too.





The J-20. Note the tail section and engine nozzles. Credit: Chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com Mission
*Mission*
The Chinese are rapidly working toward a future A2/AD (Anti Access / Aerial Denial) concept of force. A2/AD is the future of defensive systems and includes fourth and fifth generation fixed-wing, as well as a Cyber network, and a robust IADS (Integrated Air Defense System). The Chinese currently have all but one part of their A2/AD protective net built…that missing puzzle piece is (you guessed it) a stealthy frontline fighter.

That’s about to change.

Some researchers speculate that the J-20 will have similar performance and agility as a Raptor, some think it will be a fighter/bomber only. I believe it will be more of a “night one” strike asset, with the ability to quickly penetrate enemy defenses, deliver weapons, and safely retreat. It’s not going to be an overly capable dogfighter.

Why do I think this?

From the J-20’s size to wing area alone, one can see that it simply will not be a highly maneuverable fighter. Especially with the weaker Saturn engines. Now add in the weight she will have. Sure, it will be fast, and stealthy by some measure, but looking at the design and numbers we have on the J-20, I just don’t see it performing like a Raptor on most fronts.

Remember those figures from above that I asked you to remember? The J-20 is a large and heavy bird, with primarily front hemisphere LO, can possibly carry a lot of fuel, and it has smallish wings and lower thrust as compared to similar “fighters.”

Based on that, what would you have it do?

Chinese J-20 in full burner. Note lack of LO treatments and designs around engine and tail. Credit: Chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com
The Black Eagle will certainly be the sharpest and most agile sword in the Chinese inventory, and it will be able to sneak in and deliver some crippling blows to any nearby adversary. Something to keep you up at night if you’re parking C2ISR (Command/Control Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) or Carrier Groups somewhere offshore. Armed with capable air-to-air missiles, and pilots trained in LO tactics, it’s enough the outclass any US fourth generation fighter while BVR (Beyond Visual Range) or provide highly capable strike and standoff to China’s leaders.

We don’t know much about the J-20 Black Eagle yet, but as more are built and tested details will emerge. We have yet to see if the larger WS-15 engines will be fitted, and personally, I’m interested in seeing what kind of LO capabilities the Chinese will be able to incorporate into this large beast. Don’t forget those canards! Traditional canard-carrying aircraft are quite ‘dirty’ and easily spotted on radar.

Modern _effective_ LO is much more than just shaping and angular panels. Time will tell if the Chinese can figure that out as well. I’m also watching for some flight test numbers. Speed, altitudes, and maneuverability (don’t forget those canards here too) might be abysmal, but it could also be off the charts.

Either way you look at it, the Chinese are not far behind us in 5th generation fighter technology. The technology gap continues to narrow.

This article was originally published on Fighter Sweep and written by Nate Jaros


----------



## Deino

Since some fan-boys still don't understand ... here's an official statement concerning the export-availability of the J-20:




> ...
> *Ma told the broadcaster the J-20 would not be exported, a sign the aircraft is the most advanced fighter under development by the nation’s military.*
> 
> *“We are not considering putting [the J-20] on the global market,” he said.*
> ...



via: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...r-force-chief-satisfied-j-20-stealth-fighters



> *China to speed up stealth fighter production, air force chief says*
> Comments by Ma Xiaotian appear aimed at dispelling concern J-20 is behind schedule
> 
> PUBLISHED : Friday, 04 November, 2016, 4:53pm
> UPDATED : Friday, 04 November, 2016, 11:24pm
> 
> Viola Zhou
> 
> The PLA Air Force chief said development of the J-20 fighter jet would be sped up, in an apparent bid to quell speculation the domestic aircraft was falling behind its production schedule.
> 
> “Of course I’m satisfied,” General Ma Xiaotian said when asked about the performance of the J-20 after its brief public debut at the opening of Airshow China in Zhuhai in Guangdong on Tuesday.
> 
> “It’s a very good thing that our J-20 made an appearance here. We’re speeding up development,” Ma told Shenzhen Satellite Television.
> 
> Zhuhai air show opens with J-20 stealth fighter’s public debut likely to steal the limelight
> 
> A brief fly-past by the aircraft disappointed spectators and sparked concern among military analysts over the progress of the jet’s development. The pilots did not open the weapon bay doors as they did during a rehearsal a few days earlier.
> 
> *Ma told the broadcaster the J-20 would not be exported, a sign the aircraft is the most advanced fighter under development by the nation’s military.*
> 
> *“We are not considering putting [the J-20] on the global market,” he said.*
> 
> A military insider said Ma’s comments could be a way to pressure the manufacturer, Chengdu Aerospace Corporation, to deliver sooner. Japan already has F-35s built by Lockheed Martin, while South Korea expects to deploy its first batch of F-35s in 2018.
> 
> “There is a generation gap between the stealth fighters owned by China and its neighbours,” the insider said. “It creates strategic and psychological problems.”
> 
> He said the military was reluctant to provide details of the J-20 because some of its key components might not be finished or entirely originate from China.
> 
> The J-20 fly-past was to demonstrate Beijing’s confidence in its military capacity and boost national pride, Xinhua reported.
> 
> But other than the minute-long display, the public has not had another opportunity to see the aircraft.
> “We learned very little. We learned it is very loud. But we can’t tell what type of engine it has, or very much about the mobility,” Greg Waldron, the Asia managing editor of FlightGlobal, told Reuters earlier.
> 
> China finishes hull of first domestically built aircraft carrier
> 
> Military officials have said that the J-20’s design is a military secret as it involves many of China’s top technologies.
> 
> At the previous Zhuhai air show in 2014, Beijing unveiled the Shenyang J-31, another stealth fighter under development, but with the intention of attracting foreign buyers.
> 
> State-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China released the J-31’s specifications last year, hoping to compete with the F-35 in the global weapons market.
> 
> The J-20 and J-31 belong to China’s “fourth generation” of aircraft and should meet at least four requirements – including stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, highly integrated avionics, and electronic fire-control systems.




So maybe we can stop here and end these endless purely academic discussions on "PAF will get the J-20" !

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Just came across some interesting comparisons of the engine J-20, just for discussions sake please
credits to wertoop

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Concerning the so often reappearing engine issue on the J-20 I found this interesting thread:

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2315042-1-1.html

It sums up quite nicely all the typical external and internal differences between an AL-31F/FN and a WS-10 like inner structure / flameholder, the number of pedals on the nozzle .... and so on.

So let's decide everyone for Your own:




















grey boy 2 said:


> Just came across some interesting comparisons of the engine J-20, just for discussions sake please
> credits to wertoop




*So it seems as if we two are both sitting nearly half the earth away from each other and do nearly the same and in nearly the same moment !?? Simply amazing. *

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

And your points is? since the link you provide was where i got the pictures from
HaHaHa, forget it lol

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> And your points is? since the link you provide was where i got the pictures from




I think I made my decision on what type of engines the J-20 uses perfectly clear already since I joined this forum. I'm so much sure that it is a version of the AL-31FN that I would even bet my membership here.

For me this is clear as the earth is not the centre of our solar-system, like I am sure that I love my wife and our three kids and that an Orange is not an Apple.

Again, I can perfectly understand that desperate desire of some here to see their latest pride being powered by a WS-10 or WS-1X and I won't exclude that some day this will happen... but for the moment is simply is not so, not yet, not at Zhuhai and IMO also not in any of the birds flown and spotted so far.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

huitong's site now has AL-31F-M2 listed as J-20's engine.

He also has the thrust at 14.7t.

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/

My mind is boggled.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

@Deino

In your opinion ... ...

#1) Have you seen any AL-31F variant engines using 18 external Flaps nozzle ?

#1.1) What are the significances of having 18 External Flaps as shown by WS-10B ?

#2) Have you seen any AL-31F variant engines using ( Bulging / Protruding Seals on
*some* external Flaps as shown by picture below ) ?


*J-20 * s/n 2001 * engine in year 2011*






_*J-20 * s/n 2001 * engine testing in year 2011*_
_*left = AL-31F 
right = Unknown Engine * Flaps with Bulging Seals ??*_







#3) Why is the above External Flaps Seals bulging / protruding ?

#4) Do you own any J-20 engines nozzles pictures ( collection from yr 2014 --- 2016 ),
where one can easily count the number of External Flaps ??

If you do, could you please share and upload them ?


Many thanks before hand for all your detail explanation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Banglar Bir

*Indian Air Force Derides Alleged ‘Stealth’ Capabilities of China’s J-20 Jet*
*By* Arthur Dominic Villasanta | Nov 05, 2016 10:11 AM EDT
Facebook 

IAF realizes full well the importance of acquiring a fighter aircraft with stealth features and that's why the Rafale, which has "special stealth features," was acquired from France, said Air Marshal SB Deo, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command (WAC).

WAC is the largest and most important Air Command of the IAF. It consists of 16 Air Force Bases (AFBs), and is responsible for aerial defense of North India. It controls 21 squadrons, of which 13 are jet fighter squadrons.

The Air Marshal believes the J-20, which was had its first public reveal at the Zhuhai Air Show last Nov. 1, is no cause for concern since Rafael also has stealth features.

"The radial cross section of the aircraft (Rafale) is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size," he said.

"There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage."

Air Marshal Deo pointed out the J-20 has stealth features only at the front and not in the rear. This means the J-20 is not a true stealth fighter in the same class as the F-35.

"It is important to maintain stealth while using your radar equipment, while opening your bomb bay doors to fire and ensuring how a weapon can quickly come out of the rails and go out. I do not know how far this aircraft is stealth," he said.

He also said it will be some time before the J-20 is operationally fielded but the IAF is prepared for its arrival.

Indian Defence News Facebook

 Twitter

 Google+

 Linked in
Sunday, November 06, 2016
By: China Topix 

Source Link: CLICK HERE




The Indian Air Force (IAF) is unimpressed by China's Chengdu J-20 "stealth" fighter jet, echoing a growing opinion the J-20 isn't a true stealth jet in the same mold as the Northrop Grumman F-35 Lightning II.

It also points out its new Dassault Rafale multi-role fighters also have stealth capabilities that remain secret but are present in this French-made jet. India has ordered 36 Rafales from the plane's maker, Dassault Aviation.

IAF realizes full well the importance of acquiring a fighter aircraft with stealth features and that's why the Rafale, which has "special stealth features," was acquired from France, said Air Marshal SB Deo, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command (WAC).

WAC is the largest and most important Air Command of the IAF. It consists of 16 Air Force Bases (AFBs), and is responsible for aerial defense of North India. It controls 21 squadrons, of which 13 are jet fighter squadrons.

The Air Marshal believes the J-20, which was had its first public reveal at the Zhuhai Air Show last Nov. 1, is no cause for concern since Rafael also has stealth features.

"The radial cross section of the aircraft (Rafale) is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size," he said.

"There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage."

Air Marshal Deo pointed out the J-20 has stealth features only at the front and not in the rear. This means the J-20 is not a true stealth fighter in the same class as the F-35.

"It is important to maintain stealth while using your radar equipment, while opening your bomb bay doors to fire and ensuring how a weapon can quickly come out of the rails and go out. I do not know how far this aircraft is stealth," he said.

He also said it will be some time before the J-20 is operationally fielded but the IAF is prepared for its arrival.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

maroofz2000 said:


> *Indian Air Force Derides Alleged ‘Stealth’ Capabilities of China’s J-20 Jet*
> *By* Arthur Dominic Villasanta | Nov 05, 2016 10:11 AM EDT
> Facebook
> 
> IAF realizes full well the importance of acquiring a fighter aircraft with stealth features and that's why the Rafale, which has "special stealth features," was acquired from France, said Air Marshal SB Deo, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command (WAC).
> 
> WAC is the largest and most important Air Command of the IAF. It consists of 16 Air Force Bases (AFBs), and is responsible for aerial defense of North India. It controls 21 squadrons, of which 13 are jet fighter squadrons.
> 
> The Air Marshal believes the J-20, which was had its first public reveal at the Zhuhai Air Show last Nov. 1, is no cause for concern since Rafael also has stealth features.
> 
> "The radial cross section of the aircraft (Rafale) is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size," he said.
> 
> "There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage."
> 
> Air Marshal Deo pointed out the J-20 has stealth features only at the front and not in the rear. This means the J-20 is not a true stealth fighter in the same class as the F-35.
> 
> "It is important to maintain stealth while using your radar equipment, while opening your bomb bay doors to fire and ensuring how a weapon can quickly come out of the rails and go out. I do not know how far this aircraft is stealth," he said.
> 
> He also said it will be some time before the J-20 is operationally fielded but the IAF is prepared for its arrival.
> 
> Indian Defence News Facebook
> 
> Twitter
> 
> Google+
> 
> Linked in
> Sunday, November 06, 2016
> By: China Topix
> 
> Source Link: CLICK HERE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Indian Air Force (IAF) is unimpressed by China's Chengdu J-20 "stealth" fighter jet, echoing a growing opinion the J-20 isn't a true stealth jet in the same mold as the Northrop Grumman F-35 Lightning II.
> 
> It also points out its new Dassault Rafale multi-role fighters also have stealth capabilities that remain secret but are present in this French-made jet. India has ordered 36 Rafales from the plane's maker, Dassault Aviation.
> 
> IAF realizes full well the importance of acquiring a fighter aircraft with stealth features and that's why the Rafale, which has "special stealth features," was acquired from France, said Air Marshal SB Deo, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command (WAC).
> 
> WAC is the largest and most important Air Command of the IAF. It consists of 16 Air Force Bases (AFBs), and is responsible for aerial defense of North India. It controls 21 squadrons, of which 13 are jet fighter squadrons.
> 
> The Air Marshal believes the J-20, which was had its first public reveal at the Zhuhai Air Show last Nov. 1, is no cause for concern since Rafael also has stealth features.
> 
> "The radial cross section of the aircraft (Rafale) is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size," he said.
> 
> "There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage."
> 
> Air Marshal Deo pointed out the J-20 has stealth features only at the front and not in the rear. This means the J-20 is not a true stealth fighter in the same class as the F-35.
> 
> "It is important to maintain stealth while using your radar equipment, while opening your bomb bay doors to fire and ensuring how a weapon can quickly come out of the rails and go out. I do not know how far this aircraft is stealth," he said.
> 
> He also said it will be some time before the J-20 is operationally fielded but the IAF is prepared for its arrival.



By the same token, then, the J-10C could match the capabilities of the FGFA since both have reductions to their RCS. And, of course, I could eyeball the FGFA and claim that it "has no bottom- or rear-aspect stealth".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

j20blackdragon said:


> huitong's site now has AL-31F-M2 listed as J-20's engine.
> 
> He also has the thrust at 14.7t.
> 
> http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/
> 
> My mind is boggled.


Isn't is funny, Russian 117S has problem on their PAF-KA and now they have no problem selling an up-rated version of AL-31F engines which has the same thrust as 117S to China?

I believe the engine used on J-20 is a hybrid of WS-10 core and AL-31 design.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

_Note: 
Sorry mod, I can not hold this down any longer ... ...
This will be my last post on the other side inferiority complex issue_.

Let's not talk about the producing whole complete 5th gen. Stealth fighter craft.
or 1 generation down ... ... let's not even talk about the producing whole complete
4th gen. dual engines Indian fighter craft.
It is not fair to the Indians.

I wonder how long will it take ...for the Indian fighter craft industry to master -- just this one tech ( DSI ) ?
Yes, DSI tech only.

===

Many Joe Blow people OVERLOOK the *huge benefits *offered by* DSI tech*, they are:

#1) DSI structure significantly reduce fighter craft total weight
= Longer Range + Higher Missiles Payload
#2) DSI structure significantly reduce fighter craft RCS.
#3) DSI air flow significantly boost the final fighter craft T/W ratio.

Using the *Fastest Super Computer on Earth by far ( at least 5x ) *and* 3D printing tech* with
( *Huge Dimensional Build Size* ) -- ChengDu is designing and producing seamless
DSI dynamical intake structure with an Ultra Complex and Ultra Precise inner surface.

_For illustration only ... ... not an aircraft component_
*unseen Ultra Complex inner surface*






===

Even Indian master, usa does not even DARE to compare their ( non existence DSI tech on f-22 )
with ( J_20A * 3rd Gen. DSI tech ). -- Fact is, usa is struggling to install DSI tech on the latest F-16 iterations.
usa must be wondering -- how does ChengDu manage to develop and install DSI tech on J-10B and J-10C ??
Quietly, usa must think -- ChengDu aerodynamics prowess must be out of this world.

Sorry, Indian new comer France Rafale is also behind. Rafale does not have DSI tech too.
Thus, the present * *PAF JF-17 Block 2 and 3 * DSI tech will be way ahead compared to the
Indian new comer France Rafale obsolete air intake structure*.

Just in case -- for those who are wondering.
F-35 is using usa 1st generation DSI. -- usa does not even have 2nd or 3rd gen. DSI tech.
Loosely speaking ... ...

J_10B * is using PRC * 1st generation DSI.
J_10C * is using PRC * 2nd generation DSI.
J_20A * is using PRC * 3rd generation DSI.

Let's wait for some time ... ...
5 yr ? ... ... 10 yr ? ... ... 15 yr ? ... ... 30 yr ?
I will be kind to them -- I will give Indian 10 years to produce their 1st generation DSI.
Let's see what happen.


*F-22 does not have DSI and mainly uses ( Conventional Subtractive Manufacturing ) 
and only use very limited, obsolete, and small scale 3D printing tech. 
thus, much heavier air intake structure and create inferior RCS. *

*1)*






*2)*







_Back to the J-20 development ... ... _

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Isn't is funny, Russian 117S has problem on their PAF-KA and now they have no problem selling an up-rated version of AL-31F engines which has the same thrust as 117S to China?.



Since when do the Russians have issues with their 117S, which is in fact not the engine on the T-50 but on the Su-35?
You again mix both engines (T-50 uses 117, Su-35 uses 117S).



Beast said:


> I believe the engine used on J-20 is a hybrid of WS-10 core and AL-31 design.



That simply does not make any sense. Following Your own claims China has a matured WS-10 design with all specifications reaching or even surpassing the AL-31's specifications. So if that alleged WS-10B or G as You call it so often is a design - including the nozzle - superior to the Russian engine, why should then an AL-31FN-nozzle be mated to a WS-10 core? It simply does not make sense, since an engine is always a complete and integrated system. You cannot simply take a RD-33 nozzle and put it on a F404 or vice versa, You don't mate a French M88 nozzle with an EJ-200 core. that does not work.

Only to make some fun with us, who are still discussing that matter ?


@Zhu Rong Zheng Yang 

Sorry, but this post is pure nonsense --- there is no 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation Chinese DSI especially since the J-10B and C use exactly the same one and the USA does not have problems to install the DSI onto a F-16, they simply decided to use that system not operationally since the F-35 was already on the horizon !

By the way, there's NO need to bring again that topic against India on the agenda ...

Deino


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

@Deino

Inner not outer. Sorry, ... ...
How do you know if ChengDu DSI < inner surface structure > on J-10B and J-10C are similar ?

DSI structure is not something that one can plug in and plug out.

With all due respect, as an expert ... ...
You do realize that installing DSI structure means one has to recalculate and
redesign overall fighter craft Aerodynamic ??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> @Deino
> 
> Inner not outer. Sorry, ... ...
> How do you know if ChengDu DSI < inner surface structure > on J-10B and J-10C are similar ?



There's no need to change an inner structure especially since both use the same engine. In return I could ask, what makes You believe they are different?


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Since when do the Russians have issues with their 117S, which is in fact not the engine on the T-50 but on the Su-35?
> You again mix both engines (T-50 uses 117, Su-35 uses 117S).
> 
> 
> 
> That simply does not make any sense. Following Your own claims China has a matured WS-10 design with all specifications reaching or even surpassing the AL-31's specifications. So if that alleged WS-10B or G as You call it so often is a design - including the nozzle - superior to the Russian engine, why should then an AL-31FN-nozzle be mated to a WS-10 core? It simply does not make sense, since an engine is always a complete and integrated system. You cannot simply take a RD-33 nozzle and put it on a F404 or vice versa, You don't mate a French M88 nozzle with an EJ-200 core. that does not work.
> 
> Only to make some fun with us, who are still discussing that matter ?
> 
> Deino



You claim its from me? Since you do not agree me, that means WS-10 is not matured and PLAAF has the incentives to make a domestic engine suits their need which works better that included modding the design of WS-10 into WS-10X with influence of AL-31F. It doesn't matter its not pure WS-10 or whatever. End of the day, its not imported Russian AL-31F engines but 100% domestic made engines.

If there is such a powerful so called AL-31 F3 series, why bother try to import 117S and by the way, there seems to be no news of 117S engine imported. And how the hell J-20 has install such powerful engine and so much effort and nonsense discuss between China and Russia trying to import 117S engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> You claim its from me? Since you do not agree me, that means WS-10 is not matured and PLAAF has the incentives to make a domestic engine suits their need which works better that included modding the design of WS-10 into WS-10X with influence of AL-31F. It doesn't matter its not pure WS-10 or whatever. End of the day, its not imported Russian AL-31F engines but 100% domestic made engines.




Don't twist words again. I never - *NEVER* - said the WS-10 is not a matured design. The fact that there are more than 400 in several Flankers are operational speaks proof for that alone. Fact however is, it is not installed in the J-20 and so any of Your desperate attempts to explain why the engine of the J-20, that features exactly the same details as an AL-31 has to be a WS-10-version is nothing more than desperate wishful-thinking or ignoring the reality.

End of day - regardless what You say, whish, dare or think - its an imported Russian AL-31F engines but *NOT* 100% domestic made engine. Period.


[/QUOTE]If there is such a powerful so called AL-31 F3 series, why bother try to import 117S and by the way, there seems to be no news of 117S engine imported. And how the hell J-20 has install such powerful engine and so much effort and nonsense discuss between China and Russia trying to import 117S engine?[/QUOTE]

The fact is simply that the F3 does not features an operational TVC-system. Plain and simple.
You are correct however that there's no need on any new 117S-imports, since there is non. However there are reliable reports about 100 additional AL-31F or FN.
The 117S will IMO - here I'm to admit not sure - only delivered when the Su-35 will be delivered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

@Deino

Based on this truth / concept ... ... < *There is no such thing is the ULTIMATE best on everything* >.
< *One can always continuously improve everything* >.

Thus, even using the same AL-31FN or WS-10B engines, it does not means that
there is only one and one only ... ... Air Intake Structure Design that is the Best for that particular engine.

Now, with the world Fastest Super Computers on Earth by far and the world Leading Edge
and Highest Precision 3DP tech, plus ( Biggest Dimensional Build Size )
-- ChengDu can cheaply experimenting and designing and improving and producing seamless
DSI dynamical intake structures after structures -- with an Ultra Complex and Ultra Precision inner surface.

ChengDu does NOT have to settle on 1 or 2 Air Intake Structure Designs.
As in the *conventional Subtractive* manufacturing, where Prototyping process and Toolings are Ultra expensive.
If Moldings and Toolings are fast, easy and cheap, usa will have *already restart* f-22 ( *conventional subtractive manufacturing* ) production lines.

===

It is only logical to expect and it has been proven on so many times in so many areas,
that ChengDu is always improving and iterating their designs.

If it is so EASY to *install DSI and changing the aircraft nose to maximize* the AESA radar performance,
F-16, Rafale, EuroFighter, and Japan Shinshin and other manufacturers *will have already
produce similar improvements* on their designs using DSI structure and special AESA nose on their aircrafts.

If you disagree ...that is fine, but one must use logical reasonings.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Don't twist words again. I never - NEVER - said the WS-10 is not a matured design. The fact that there are more than 400 in several Flankers are operational speaks proof for that alone. Fact however is, it is not installed in the J-20 and so any of Your desperate attempts to explain why the engine of the J-20, that features exactly the same details as an AL-31 has to be a WS-10-version is nothing more than desperate wishful-thinking or ignoring the reality.



It is a 100% domestic made hybrid engine install on J-20. Your evidence is just basic purely on few external look. That is not evidence but pure speculation only. Period.






Yin Zhuo air marshal despite retired still maintain a close r/s with PLAAF and has often representing PLAAF on numerous occasion on CCTV interview regarding PLAAF development. 

He told the reporter the domestic engine install currently on the two J-20 doing demo at Zhuhai 2016 has uprated engine(WS-10X) and power ensure the sharp turn and difficult moves demonstrated. Despite the impressive movement. J-20 are still waiting for WS-15 which will be entering service soon. The engine gap between China and USA is still there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> It is a 100% domestic made hybrid engine install on J-20. Your evidence is just basic purely on few external look. That is not evidence but pure speculation only. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yin Zhuo air marshal despite retired still maintain a close r/s with PLAAF and has often representing PLAAF on numerous occasion on CCTV interview regarding PLAAF development.
> 
> He told the reporter the domestic engine install currently on the two J-20 doing demo at Zhuhai 2016 has uprated engine(WS-10X) and power ensure the sharp turn and difficult moves demonstrated. Despite the impressive movement. J-20 are still waiting for WS-15 which will be entering service soon. The engine gap between China and USA is still there.




Honestly again, and I don't want to be dishonest to Mr. Yin Zhuo, I'm still convinced he's wrong in this regard. His statement is more some sort of political statement that a fact. It simply does not make any sense .... and even more You say:



> ... the two J-20 doing demo at Zhuhai 2016 ... ensure the sharp turn and difficult moves demonstrated



Not sure, what You have seen, but the J-20's flight demonstration at Zhuhai was impressive since it was there, but in terms of manoeuvres it was lame at best.

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Honestly again, and I don't want to be dishonest to Mr. Yin Zhuo, I'm still convinced he's wrong in this regard. His statement is more some sort of political statement that a fact. It simply does not make any sense .... and even more You say:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, what You have seen, but the J-20's flight demonstration at Zhuhai was impressive since it was there, but in terms of manoeuvres it was lame at best.
> 
> Deino


Yes.. You know more than Yin Zhuo? 

May I know what ties you have compare to him regards to PLAAF? Zero! 

Yin Zhuo is one of the official spokesmen chosen by PLAAF to give interview on CCTV when comes to PLAAF development. I bet the current PLAAF Air Marshal told him many things which we commoner wouldnt know when regards to PLAAF development. I trust his words more than a "foreigner"

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Again and even if I admit I am no-one in comparison to him, You must admit, that in his position it is also his task to tell the peoples only what the PLAAF wants them to know and what the PLAAF want them to not to know ... and that does not necessarily has the be the truth!

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Again and even if I admit I am no-one in comparison to him, You must admit, that in his position it is also his task to tell the peoples only what the PLAAF wants them to know and what the PLAAF want them to not to know ... and that does not necessarily has the be the truth!
> 
> Deino


Is that an assumption from you? If you claim wants to be claim as truth. Please back your sentence. If not , I assume you are just speculating by claiming PLAAF always give rubbish news and claim.

We must trust Deino as PLAAF development official spokesmen,right?

Even Current PLAAF chief Ma Xiangtian must kowtow to Deino, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Is that an assumption from you? If you claim wants to be claim as truth. Please back your sentence. If not , I assume you are just speculating.




I only now came down to Your level of arguments: Give never a source, don't proof Your ideas ... I only leave the personnel attacks and accusations !


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> I only now came down to Your level of arguments: Give never a source, don't proof Your ideas ... I only leave the personnel attacks and accusations !


I give a video of Yin zhuo(one of the PLAAF choosen spokesmen for many CCTV military interview)personal conversation with CCTV spokeman interview who comfirmed my speculation of WS-10X install on current J-20. 

You? Nothing....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> I give a video of Yin zhuo(one of the PLAAF choosen spokesmen for many CCTV military interview)personal conversation with CCTV spokeman interview who comfirmed my speculation of WS-10X install on current J-20.
> 
> You? Nothing....




Agreed and I need to apologise ! But for all Your other claims (J-10B, Y-20, WS-10, WS-18, Z-10 ....) You never gave a source. As such thanks a lot ... however I still don't agree with him IMO his job is especially as a retired insider to deliberately inform and misinform the public.

Similar to the many reports in other countries too ... the military lies if it fits their agenda; that's a fact; everywhere and for us it's a hobby to find the truth.

Anyway ... time will tell.

Deino


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

_Note: This is a repost of post # 6532_.

@Deino --- @星海军事

_To both of you, please feel free to answer. 
I sincerely would like to hear your opinions._

===

#1) Have you seen any AL-31F variant engines using 18 external Flaps nozzle ?

#2) Have you seen any AL-31F variant engines using ( Bulging / Protruding Seals on
*some* external Flaps as shown by picture below ) ?


*J-20 * s/n 2001 * engine in year 2011*








_*J-20 * s/n 2001 * engine testing in year 2011
left = AL-31F 
right = Unknown Engine * Flaps with Bulging Seals ??*_







#3) Why is the above External Flaps Seals bulging / protruding ?

#4) Do you own any J-20 engines nozzles * pictures ( collection from yr 2014 --- 2016 ),
where one can easily count the number of External Flaps ??

If you do, could you please share and upload them ?
Maybe by counting the External FLaps, we can settle the J-20-A present engine. 

Many thanks before hand for all your detail explanation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AlyxMS

This conversation is painful to watch.

Side 1: Here's the evidence why the J-20's engine is likely AL-31F series and there's not a single piece of evident to suggest they are WS-10.

Side 2: Your evidence is just observation, I don't count that as evidence. What evidence do you have that proves WS-10 is NOT used on J-20? Btw there's this guy on TV said the engines are indigenous, I'm going to trust him.

Do you know what burden of proof is?
For you to make a extraordinary claim (J-20 uses a variant of WS-10 engine that looks exactly like AL-31F series despite no information supports the existence of such engine), you need to provide proof, not the side opposing you. I can argue that J-20 uses stolen F-119 and uses AL-31F nozzles to disguise it as AL-31, do you have proof that it is not?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

AlyxMS said:


> This conversation is painful to watch.
> 
> Side 1: Here's the evidence why the J-20's engine is likely AL-31F series and there's not a single piece of evident to suggest they are WS-10.
> 
> Side 2: Your evidence is just observation, I don't count that as evidence. What evidence do you have that proves WS-10 is NOT used on J-20? Btw there's this guy on TV said the engines are indigenous, I'm going to trust him.
> 
> Do you know what burden of proof is?
> For you to make a extraordinary claim (J-20 uses a variant of WS-10 engine that looks exactly like AL-31F series despite no information supports the existence of such engine), you need to provide proof, not the side opposing you. I can argue that J-20 uses stolen F-119 and uses AL-31F nozzles to disguise it as AL-31, do you have proof that it is not?


solution is simple: agree to disagree.


----------



## j20blackdragon

We know J-10C and J-20 production continues. Where are the Russian engine sales if both aircraft are indeed using Russian engines?

Rosoboronexport was at Zhuhai 2016.






The Russian defense industry even brought the AL-31FN.

















Did the Russians announce any engine sales?

If the J-20 is using Russian engines, why didn't they say anything at the airshow?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> We know J-10C and J-20 production continues. Where are the Russian engine sales if both aircraft are indeed using Russian engines?
> ....
> Did the Russians announce any engine sales?
> If the J-20 is using Russian engines, why didn't they say anything at the airshow?



There were indeed some reports about an additional contract about 100 additional AL-31F or FN during the show. The Russian media reported that briefly but - You are correct - not in the usual way.

Concerning the "no word" ... I think most likely the same contractual obligations similar to once the original AL-31FN was not admitted even if clear for years.

Deino


----------



## siegecrossbow

November 6th came and went but no J-20...


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> November 6th came and went but no J-20...




Hu !?? I just wanted to ask ... and so, the show is now over with only one brief "hello" on Day one of the show.

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> There were indeed some reports about an additional contract about 100 additional AL-31F or FN during the show. The Russian media reported that briefly but - You are correct - not in the usual way.
> 
> Concerning the "no word" ... I think most likely the same contractual obligations similar to once the original AL-31FN was not admitted even if clear for years.
> 
> Deino



The fact that you don't even know if it is the F or FN version is enough proof that the "report" is unreliable. A large engine order would be all over the news. There would be multiple articles.

There is nothing top secret about the AL-31FN Series 3. Assuming J-10C production will continue, where are the engine sales?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## thinkbyu

Beast said:


> Is that an assumption from you? If you claim wants to be claim as truth. Please back your sentence. If not , I assume you are just speculating by claiming PLAAF always give rubbish news and claim.
> 
> We must trust Deino as PLAAF development official spokesmen,right?
> 
> Even Current PLAAF chief Ma Xiangtian must kowtow to Deino, right?



Donot try wake up people who are pretending to sleep. they just want to believe what they want to believe. weast your time and mood. let them free to think what its must to be.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## eldamar

Deino said:


> Agreed and I need to apologise ! But for all Your other claims (J-10B, Y-20, WS-10, WS-18, Z-10 ....) You never gave a source. As such thanks a lot ... however I still don't agree with him IMO his job is especially as a retired insider to deliberately inform and misinform the public.
> 
> Similar to the many reports in other countries too ... the military lies if it fits their agenda; that's a fact; everywhere and for us it's a hobby to find the truth.
> 
> Anyway ... time will tell.
> 
> Deino



sorry to interrupt. Deino but can you explain why do you think Yin Zhuo would have an incentive to misinform the Chinese people- especially on a formal, non-tabloid media platform like CCTV(think about the overly-nationalistic Global times on the opposite end of the spectrum).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> I'll bet you that the FC-31 v2.0 will never make an appearance.


I almost forgot this




星海军事 said:


> Let’s make a bet on this.
> 
> I bet all J-20s we saw so far (2001, 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and several LRIP ones) are now using non-domestic engines and J-20 will enter service with non-domestic engines. I will cease this account If I lose.
> 
> Deadline: A credible direct participant or an official documentary of Project 718 confirms the suggestion of either side.
> 
> Who's in?


Still works today

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> I almost forgot this



Don't get your hopes up; the FC-31 is still going nowhere without a buyer. Not to mention that a prototype is technically still not finished.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

*Airshow China 2016: J-20 cameo generates more questions than answers*





A pair of Chinese J-20 'fifth-generation' fighters overflying this year's Airshow China exhibition in Zhuhai on 1 November. Source: AP/PA
The first public showing of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-20 'fifth-generation' fighter was one of the most anticipated moments of the Airshow China 2016 exhibition, which took place from 1-6 November in Zhuhai, southern Guangdong Province.

However, those hoping to see a demonstration of the capabilities for which the aircraft has become famous through various Chinese online blogs and other open sources came away disappointed.

While two J-20s actually flew at the show during the opening ceremony, neither performed a complete flight routine. The two aircraft, which flew in from an aerodrome in the nearby city of Foshan, initially made a high-speed flyover that looked like the beginning of a two-aircraft demonstration flight.

However, after flying in front of the show's reviewing stand, one of the two aircraft pulled into a short vertical climb for an abbreviated set of manoeuvres and then turned away on to a flight track exiting the aerodrome's airspace.

This J-20 then pulled in behind the second aircraft, which had simply continued on a straight and level course away from the show site after conducting only one fly-by.

The sense of deflated enthusiasm was palpable among the crowd of onlookers as they waited for the aircraft to return, but they did not.

There are believed to be 10 J-20 prototypes, all of which seem to carry out different functions for the J-20 programme. Most recently one of the aircraft was seen conducting a series of tests at a site in Tibet to validate its performance in high and hot climatic conditions.

This has generated a number of questions as to why the aircraft made a rather timid cameo appearance at China's one and only national air show.

"Lack of experience with the aircraft and therefore concern about a mishap cannot be considered a valid reason," said a Russian aerospace executive at the show.

*Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　**ihs.com/contact*




To read the full article, Client Login
(331 of 776 words)

http://www.janes.com/article/65276/...0-cameo-generates-more-questions-than-answers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Bir

Indian Defence News Facebook

 Twitter

 Google+

 Linked in
Monday, November 07, 2016
By: National Interest 

Source Link: CLICK HERE




Even as China is publicly showing off its new Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter at the Zhuhai air show for the first time, Beijing is continuing its efforts to acquire advanced Russian fighters.

Indeed, while a pair of J-20s garnered the attention of the world’s media, the Russian government quietly announced that it has started work on building 24 Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E fighters for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). China signed a contract for the delivery of two-dozen Su-35s in November 2015 worth at least $2 billion.

“Delivery of these aircraft to China will be carried out under the terms defined by the relevant contract,” Vladimir Drozhzhov, deputy director of Russia’s Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, told the Moscow-based TASS news agency. “We are now carrying out the execution of the first phase of our contractual obligations.”

As such, Russia is expected to deliver four Su-35s to the PLAAF before the end of the year. The remaining Su-35s are expected to be delivered within the next three years. But given the Kremlin’s previous experiences with selling China advanced technology, Moscow has insisted on agreements to secure Russian intellectual property onboard the Su-35. In previous years, the Chinese reverse engineered older versions of the Flanker into the Shenyang J-11, J-15 and J-16 series of aircraft.

“We established a Russian-Chinese working group for the purposes of practical implementation of this agreement, which held a regular meeting in September this year,” Drozhzhov said.

Despite whatever agreement Beijing might have signed with Moscow, the Chinese are almost certainly interested in the Su-35 to harvest its technology. While the current configuration of the J-20 externally resembles a genuine fifth-generation fighter in several respects, China remains woefully lacking in engine and mission systems avionics technology. The Su-35’s Saturn AL-41F1S afterburning turbofans, Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis-E phased array radar and electronic warfare suite are likely of high interest to Beijing.

Indeed, China has not perfected its indigenous WS-10 for its Flanker clones, let alone come close to finishing development of the next-generation WS-15 it would need for the J-20. The WS-15 is currently thought to be in a ground-testing phase with flight trials set to begin on an Ilyushin Il-76 some time in the future.

In fact, China has not demonstrated it can build any reliable jet engine—and that’s including designs that it basically stole from Russia. Indeed, the J-20 currently appears to be powered by twin Russian-built Saturn AL-31F engines found on the Sukhoi Su-27 and its many Chinese knockoffs. The addition of the Russian-built AL-41F1S series engines might provide a solution to Beijing’s engine woes.

There are indications that the J-20 carries an active electronically scanned array radar (AESA). Allegedly, the J-20 would be fitted with a Type 1475 (also referred to as the KLJ-5 radar), which is supposedly being tested on a China Test Flight Establishment owned Tupolev Tu-204. However, there is no way to confirm that information because the PLAAF isn’t all that forthcoming about sharing information concerning its developmental projects. However, Russian radar technology is generally believed to be ahead of China’s and it is certainly possible Beijing could glean valuable technical insights from the Irbis-E.

The one advantage the Chinese have over the Russians is in the realm of electro-optical/infrared targeting systems—where Moscow has lagged behind in the wake of the post-Soviet economic meltdown of the 1990s. Indeed, the J-20 does appear to have an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) mounted under the nose—which could be the Beijing A-Star Science and Technology EOTS-89. But there is no publicly (and reliable) data available about the performance of that sensor. It is very likely it does not match the performance of American or Israeli systems.

Certainly, the J-20 does represent a leap forward for the Chinese defense-aerospace industry. One day, China will be able to develop and build its own jet engines as well as create world-class mission systems avionics—especially given the investment Beijing continues to make into the defense-aerospace sector. However, that day is not today. If the J-20 was really as capable as some would have you believe, Beijing wouldn’t bother with buying a token fleet of Su-35s—there would simply be no point in doing so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dave Majumdar is the Defense Editor for The National Interest. You can follow him You on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

maroofz2000 said:


> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dave Majumdar is the Defense Editor for The National Interest. You can follow him You on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




The name alone says everything concerning the content ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

Zarvan said:


> *Airshow China 2016: J-20 cameo generates more questions than answers*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pair of Chinese J-20 'fifth-generation' fighters overflying this year's Airshow China exhibition in Zhuhai on 1 November. Source: AP/PA
> The first public showing of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-20 'fifth-generation' fighter was one of the most anticipated moments of the Airshow China 2016 exhibition, which took place from 1-6 November in Zhuhai, southern Guangdong Province.
> 
> However, those hoping to see a demonstration of the capabilities for which the aircraft has become famous through various Chinese online blogs and other open sources came away disappointed.
> 
> While two J-20s actually flew at the show during the opening ceremony, neither performed a complete flight routine. The two aircraft, which flew in from an aerodrome in the nearby city of Foshan, initially made a high-speed flyover that looked like the beginning of a two-aircraft demonstration flight.
> 
> However, after flying in front of the show's reviewing stand, one of the two aircraft pulled into a short vertical climb for an abbreviated set of manoeuvres and then turned away on to a flight track exiting the aerodrome's airspace.
> 
> This J-20 then pulled in behind the second aircraft, which had simply continued on a straight and level course away from the show site after conducting only one fly-by.
> 
> The sense of deflated enthusiasm was palpable among the crowd of onlookers as they waited for the aircraft to return, but they did not.
> 
> There are believed to be 10 J-20 prototypes, all of which seem to carry out different functions for the J-20 programme. Most recently one of the aircraft was seen conducting a series of tests at a site in Tibet to validate its performance in high and hot climatic conditions.
> 
> This has generated a number of questions as to why the aircraft made a rather timid cameo appearance at China's one and only national air show.
> 
> "Lack of experience with the aircraft and therefore concern about a mishap cannot be considered a valid reason," said a Russian aerospace executive at the show.
> 
> *Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　**ihs.com/contact*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To read the full article, Client Login
> (331 of 776 words)
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/65276/...0-cameo-generates-more-questions-than-answers



The limited flight routine was enough to show me several things:

1. The aircraft has a decent turn radius.

2. The J-20 demonstrated a turn while climbing at the same time (a chandelle), meaning energy was not lost during the turn. In fact, it was the opposite. When an aircraft turns, speed (and energy) is lost. If too much speed is lost, your aircraft will soon be unable to turn at all. The easiest way to regain speed is to dive. This is one of the reasons why you always want an altitude advantage in a dogfight. You can always dive to increase speed to regain maneuverability of your aircraft. The J-20 showed the opposite.






3. The J-20 did a 90 degree vertical climb. You need a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1.0 to achieve that, which is rather impressive for such a large aircraft with supposedly underpowered engines. The internal fuel supply determines the total weight of the aircraft and we don't know how much fuel the J-20 had at the moment, but we do know the J-20 never landed at Zhuhai Airport. That means it had enough fuel to fly to the airport, perform, and depart the airport to an undisclosed air base. I highly doubt it was flying on near empty fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> 2. The J-20 demonstrated a turn while climbing at the same time (a chandelle), meaning energy was not lost during the turn. In fact, it was the opposite. When an aircraft turns, speed (and energy) is lost. If too much speed is lost, your aircraft will soon be unable to turn at all. The easiest way to regain speed is to dive. This is one of the reasons why you always want an altitude advantage in a dogfight. You can always dive to increase speed to regain maneuverability of your aircraft. The J-20 showed the opposite.


Sorry, but there is nothing spectacular about the chandelle maneuver. In fact, in the US, the FAA requires the execution as part of pilot certification.

http://www.defineaviation.info/commercial-certificate/chandelle/

The maneuver begins at *LESS THAN MAXIMUM THROTTLE SETTING*. As the aircraft begins to lose speed, throttle reserve are available to regain what was loss. Most student pilots can perform the maneuver without any noticeable loss of speed and altitude.


----------



## Asoka

矢量噴管 Folks, does these pictures look like J-20 has thrust vectoring to you.

















The last picture clearly shows the nozzles are pointing downward to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*NO !*


----------



## AlyxMS

People who aruges that J-20 used TVC nozzles always posts pictures that might make you think the nozzles aren't pointing straight if you squint your eyes real hard.

While any proper TVC nozzle will vector over 20 degrees which are easily recognizable beyond dispute.

Think about it:
If J-20 does have TVC, where are the images with the nozzles that are obviously vectoring? (<10deg.)
If J-20 does have TVC but it's disabled to hide this ability, why do we have images that looked like the nozzle is slightly (>5deg.) off center? Is CAC that incompetent that shutting down TVC is not possible?
Why woud CAC give J-20 a TVC at the cost of extra weight just to allow a maximum of >5 degree of vectoring?

There's only one logical conclusion:
There's no evidence to suggest J-20 is equipped with TVC nozzles. The pictures people use to argue that there is are likely illusions caused by lighting, camera lenses or two nozzles at different closed/open state.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> *NO !*


Do you see now -- why debating these guys are so entertaining ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

http://www.bilibili.com/video/av6935520/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

cirr said:


> http://www.bilibili.com/video/av6935520/



This was an early video posted on October 2nd.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

The top two pictures show former Chinese President *Jiang Zemin v*isiting the engine testing facility and trying out the control of the vector thrusting nozzle with a joy stick. The information about the VT nozzle was displayed at the Chinese Air show in 2000 and 2004.







*
*






Here these pictures clearly show the nozzles are turned to the left. If it is merely an optical illusion, what or how caused this illusion?

This pictures shows the Chinese aviation experts approved the design of the engine with the thrust to weight ratio of 10 (WS-15). The date is Feb, 27, 2006.






It seems before the final design of the WS-15 was approved the core of the engine was already tested successful in April, 22, 2005. And the reports say the designers worked 15 years for that result. The Chinese were learning from the West that design and test of the core engine should be done separately before the design of the overall engine, not as one big step.






These reports indicated the WS-15 project was started in 1990, and the core was successfully tested in 2005, the design was approved in 2006, and the maturity of the overall engine is probably reaching acceptable level after 10 years of development.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Globenim

Asok said:


> 矢量噴管 Folks, does these pictures look like J-20 has thrust vectoring to you.
> 
> The last picture clearly shows the nozzles are pointing downward to me.



No looks closer. Its just looks tilted because of the reflection on top of the nozzle and the shadow at the bottom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Globenim said:


> No looks closer. Its just looks tilted because of the reflection on top of the nozzle and the shadow at the bottom.



What about another picture with several green, red and yellow reference lines drawn?


----------



## Globenim

Asok said:


> What about another picture with several green, red and yellow reference lines drawn?


Unequally expanded nozzles, right (in picture left) iris is simply bigger, and the iris center is generaly not on same level as the bottom red line so at this angle of the photoshot it will appear perpendicular shifted to the left because of perspective and well just generally perspective and possibly some lens distortion too

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

The original yellow reference line seems skewed to me, so I drawn a white line straight down vertically along the middle of the two engines. The left engine appears even more tilted toward the left. I do not believe lens distortion has anything to do with it. I am still not sure whether this is due to the perspective effect.





We have seen many times that the J-20 nozzle's iris expansion can be controlled individually. May be the vector thrust nozzles can also be controlled or altered individually. What kind of flying can be achieved with kind of fine controls, I am not sure.

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## Asoka

cirr said:


> http://www.bilibili.com/video/av6935520/



The 180 degree turn demonstrated by J-20 is extraordinarily tight with no visible loss of significant speed. It is doubtful any other aircraft can do it without the use of vector thrust.



AlyxMS said:


> People who aruges that J-20 used TVC nozzles always posts pictures that might make you think the nozzles aren't pointing straight if you squint your eyes real hard.
> 
> While any proper TVC nozzle will vector over 20 degrees which are easily recognizable beyond dispute.
> 
> Think about it:
> If J-20 does have TVC, where are the images with the nozzles that are obviously vectoring? (<10deg.)
> If J-20 does have TVC but it's disabled to hide this ability, why do we have images that looked like the nozzle is slightly (>5deg.) off center? Is CAC that incompetent that shutting down TVC is not possible?
> Why woud CAC give J-20 a TVC at the cost of extra weight just to allow a maximum of >5 degree of vectoring?
> 
> There's only one logical conclusion:
> There's no evidence to suggest J-20 is equipped with TVC nozzles. The pictures people use to argue that there is are likely illusions caused by lighting, camera lenses or two nozzles at different closed/open state.



The extraordinary tight 180 degrees turn demonstrated by J-20 in the recent video posted in this page is strong evidence of vector thrust. In fact one of the commentator, a former Chinese General said that.


----------



## AlyxMS

Asok said:


> The extraordinary tight 180 degrees turn demonstrated by J-20 in the recent video posted in this page is strong evidence of vector thrust. In fact one of the commentator, a former Chinese General said that.


Arguing a good turn radius = TVC is like good score in olympics = PED. It could've been executed without TVC. (Also that turn is not that spectacular, a J-10 could've easily done it)
Besides, that turn is 100% documented via HD video, not in a single frame did we see the nozzles turning. (Or if the nozzles did turn, they turned so slight that it's completely unnoticeable) Therefore J-20 did that turn without using TVC, didn't this fact just defeated your point?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

AlyxMS said:


> Arguing a good turn radius = TVC is like good score in olympics = PED. It could've been executed without TVC. (Also that turn is not that spectacular, a J-10 could've easily done it)
> Besides, that turn is 100% documented via HD video, not in a single frame did we see the nozzles turning. (Or if the nozzles did turn, they turned so slight that it's completely unnoticeable) Therefore J-20 did that turn without using TVC, didn't this fact just defeated your point?



I have never seen a fighter with TVC could turn like that in high speed. Show me some videos.

One major reason that I don't believe all J-20 are using AL-31 engines is that its engine sound is completely different to Su-27 and Su-30. And its much louder too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Asok said:


> I have never seen a fighter with TVC could turn like that in high speed. Show me some videos.
> 
> One major reason that I don't believe all J-20 are using AL-31 engines is that its engine sound is completely different to Su-27 and Su-30. And its much louder too.







From 3:08 on wards





TVC only effect post stall manoeuvrability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AlyxMS

Asok said:


> I have never seen a fighter with TVC could turn like that in high speed. Show me some videos.
> 
> One major reason that I don't believe all J-20 are using AL-31 engines is that its engine sound is completely different to Su-27 and Su-30. And its much louder too.


I assumed you meant "without TVC".
Here goes:





The same engine can make different sound depending on a lot of variables. A few as examples: Throttle setting, after burner, altitude, speed(doppler effect) even the tail structure of a plane.

Whether it's louder or quiter: same thing, with the added factor of "your speaker's volume settings".

Also you gotta have insanely good ears to conclude "this is not AL-31" just by hearing it(which were recorded in a open space with loads of ambient noises by the built in mic of a handheld camera).

Please address my second point regarding my previous post if you'd like to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Via http://www.forcesdz.com/forum/viewt...cd9c7e3dcd2db1c2edc9bd25eb&start=6735#p196378 ... Thank You Henry K.











however I think the second one is already a bit older.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

This is for all the geniuses that think the J-20 copied the MiG 1.44.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## terranMarine

Is this gonna be our J-30?


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Surya 1

*Chinese J-20 stealth fighter not cause for concern, Rafale too has stealth features: Air Marshal*
*Indian government is also seized of the importance of acquiring fighter aircraft with stealth features and this is why the Rafale aircraft being acquired from France has some special stealth features, said Air Marshal SB Deo.*
633
SHARES
Man Aman Singh Chhina | Ambala | Updated: November 4, 2016 8:10 pm



(Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Reacting to the the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter being unveiled earlier his week, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command, Air Marshal SB Deo, said that it was not a cause for concern and that Rafael aircraft being inducted by India also had stealth features. On a visit to the Ambala air base, Air Marshal Deo said that the Indian government is also seized of the importance of acquiring fighter aircraft with stealth features and this is why the Rafale aircraft being acquired from France has some special stealth features. “The radial cross section of the aircraft is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size. There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage,” he said.

Commenting on the Chinese J-20, which bears a strong resemblance to the UA Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, the AOC-in-C said that the aircraft seemed to posses front portal stealth features and not in the rear. “It is important to maintain stealth while using your radar equipment, while opening your bomb bay doors to fire and ensuring how a weapon can quickly come out of the rails and go out. I do not know how far this aircraft is stealth,” he said.

He added that the Fifth generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) which is being jointly developed by India with Russia focuses on stealth technology. Older technologies and old radars are very effective against stealth fighters, he said adding that it will be some time before the aircraft like J-20 are operationally fielded but the IAF was prepared.

Commenting on the haphazard construction around air force station perimeters at several places in the country, Air Marshal Deo said these were a potential security risk. “The security officers of the respective stations where such construction is observed, like in Ambala and Pathankot, go to the localities and educate the residents on the precautionary measures that they ought to take,” he said. He added that with advent of time and growth of cities the localities have crept closer to air force stations but due to enhanced security risk these days like the terror attack that took place in Pathankot, extra precautions must be taken by all.

He also said that the localities abutting air force stations were also at risk in case an air accident took place. He said there had been instances even in Ambala where an aircraft has had to abort take off or drop the bombs that it was carrying on the run way itself due to less engine thrust. “This could be very dangerous if not controlled in time,” he added. Giving information about the latest Jaguar crash which took place in Ambala in September this year, he said that this happened due to a bird getting ingested into the engine of the aircraft.

Defending the accident rate of the IAF, he said that the number of aircraft which met with accidents each year has been steadily going down as systematic issues concerning accidents have been addressed. “In 1980s we were losing around one squadron of aircraft each year due to accidents. When we push the envelope we face risks but now our numbers are very good,” he said.

Air Marshal defends himself in suicide case

Air Marshal SB Deo refuted the allegations being levelled on him in social media that he had manhandled or severely rebuked a Wing Commander in Air Force Station Sirsa following which the officer committed suicide. Wing Commander RK Tiwari had shot himself after an inspection had been carried out by the AOC-in-C in which his poor shooting skills were noticed. Air Marshal Deo said there seemed to be an orchestrated campaign against him and that he had not said anything to the deceased officer nor his family members had said anything to him when he met them. He said a Court of Inquiry will ascertain the real cause behind the incident.

© The Indian Express Online Media Pvt Ltd


----------



## 艹艹艹

*Chinese J-20 stealth fighter not cause for concern, LCA too has stealth features: Air Marshal




**© The Indian Express Online Media Pvt Ltd*

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Surya 1

What I was saying is now been seconded by Indian air marshal. this sort of low tech plane can hardly cause any concern for a country like india. Plane like rafle or eurofighter can take them out in any sort of Aerial combat. There is only one plane in Chines arsenal which will cause concern for india and that is Su 35.


----------



## Deino

Sorry, but to compare the LCA with the J-20 is indeed a joke ...

Anyway, I think these two images were already posted some time ago, but only in low-resolution and parts.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Surya 1 said:


> J 20 is Joke 20. J stands for Joke.




@Surya 1 ... I would be careful with my words ... very much careful !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... keep calm and civilised !!!*

Deino


----------



## GS Zhou

Surya 1 said:


> l. this sort of low tech plane can hardly cause any concern for a country like india. Plane like rafle or eurofighter can take them out in any sort of Aerial combat.


I like your post. Truly. Hope all Indian people, incl. your airforce men, could believe what you said. 

Good Friday

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Surya 1

GS Zhou said:


> I like your post. Truly. Hope all Indian people, incl. your airforce men, could believe what you said.
> 
> Good Friday



They really believe this and that is what our air marshal has said in the article I posted. When any new plane is launche in neighborhood, a threat assessment is made. Assessing J 20, Air marshal has said that J 20 is not a cause of concern.


----------



## WarFariX

Surya 1 said:


> They really believe this and that is what our air marshal has said in the article I posted. When any new plane is launche in neighborhood, a threat assessment is made. Assessing J 20, Air marshal has said that J 20 is not a cause of concern.


air marshall must be admited immediately in hospital...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... STOP and exactly right that moment: NO further provocation or insult, no more troll-posts as replies ... and the Tejas is completely irrelevant ! Esp. here in this thread.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WarFariX

Deino said:


> *Guys ... STOP and exactly right that moment: NO further provocation or insult, no more troll-posts as replies ... and the Tejas is completely irrelevant ! Esp. here in this thread.*
> 
> Deino


ok sir

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jkroo

The troll quality is extremely low, that's awesome. Another awesome thing is that the patience from mod for troll and impatience for no fresh new photos.

Guys, could you please don't argue with troll for B.S. Don't try to drag your IQ down and waste your time.

J20 program is successful in any means.

LMAO

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

My impatience admitted, but concerning "patience from mod for troll" just one note: Some peoples have to work for their livings and since I'm not in the position to do this as a full-time job, I think the deletion of these posts was quite quick enough.... but maybe not in mind of Your impatience !?

Please consider this.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jkroo

Lol, I am not the supervisor or to criticize you, so pls take your patience as you wish. I just stressed the phenomenon. Don't be too sensitive.

For the people make a living, it's also OK to me.  I also don't believe you can be used by troll so easily

So just look forward and move on without low level posts. Thanks for your contributions.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

Bigger version of " cirr's pictures"

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## yusheng

guys, do you still remember the pictures of 10 years ago,

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## AlyxMS

yusheng said:


> guys, do you still remember the pictures of 10 years ago,
> 
> View attachment 351286
> View attachment 351287
> View attachment 351288


God, I thought I'm the only few person who remembers this thing under the name of "J-14".

That was a seriously well made CG back in time.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## yusheng

maybe j20 variation, maybe j10 double engine variation, maybe new one

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dungeness

yusheng said:


> maybe j20 variation, maybe j10 double engine variation, maybe new one
> View attachment 351330
> View attachment 351331




What do you mean? CF has a new 5th gen jet in process?


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

AlyxMS said:


> God, I thought I'm the only few person who remembers this thing under the name of "J-14".
> 
> That was a seriously well made CG back in time.



Back in the day It was jxx that everyone was speculating about. I first learned of it browsing the Asia times forum before it turned to shit back in around 2004.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kuge

yusheng said:


> guys, do you still remember the pictures of 10 years ago,
> 
> View attachment 351286
> View attachment 351287
> View attachment 351288


yes i have seen that...10 years now??wow..but i cant remember where i saw that...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

2 squadron of J-20 will be deployed, 1 for South China Sea, 1 for East Sea at the end of next year?
From a reputable guy 空军厂

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nang2

grey boy 2 said:


> 2 squadron of J-20 will be deployed, 1 for South China Sea, 1 for East Sea at the end of next year?
> From a reputable guy 空军厂


Good placement. Serve well as stealth interceptors.


----------



## english_man

I normally just follow the Chinese Navy developments....so i'am not quite upto date as you people regarding the Chinese air force and army.....But does anyone know when the J-20 is expected to go into production?.........and what is the likely total build of this aircraft expected to be? Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

english_man said:


> I normally just follow the Chinese Navy developments....so i'am not quite upto date as you people regarding the Chinese air force and army.....But does anyone know when the J-20 is expected to go into production?.........and what is the likely total build of this aircraft expected to be? Thanks


Allow me to put on a poker face and say this: that's classified.


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

AlyxMS said:


> God, I thought I'm the only few person who remembers this thing under the name of "J-14".
> 
> That was a seriously well made CG back in time.



_NOTE: 
Just in case, some readers still do not know this abbreviations. 
PRC = CHINA
PS = photoshopped picture
PRC enemy nations = mainly ( USA, Japan, UK, France, Australia, and India )_

===

 Seriously, this must be said ... ...

1*) Whenever there is a new picture about some 5th Gen fighter aircrafts and any other Military advancements from PRC, -- 99.8% of western Military Observers ( *from PRC enemy nations* ) will rush out and hurriedly and explicitly and loudly express their opinions and dismissed those picture again and again as tampered and photoshopped picture ( or PS picture ).

2*) When those so called ( PS pictures ) are appearing more and more until these same western Military Observers ( *from PRC enemy nations* ) -- no longer be able to dismiss those pictures as simply a brilliantly tampered PS pictures, -- these same western Military Observers ( *from PRC enemy nations* ) will loudly declare that we PRC and Chinese is a nation -- who only know how to copy and clone, -- while laughing at our faces and repeatedly ridiculing us.

  

3*) Why do these western Military Observers ( *from PRC enemy nations* ) acting and behaving this way ??
Answer:
These western Military Observers ( *from PRC enemy nations* ) can not handle a *shocking truth that is exploding* in front of their faces. -- They are *awed and overwhelmed by the Brainpower and Performances* of PRC Chinese Engineers and Scientists.

===

*** I can easily understand -- those actions and behaviors by those
western Military Observers ( *from PRC enemy nations* ) for *feeling numb and powerless* when they can not compete with PRC.



4*) When the same actions and behaviors ( _expressing their opinions and dismissing those picture again and again as PS picture_ ) were done by Chinese Military Observers, because these same Chinese Military Observers want to boost their standings in the military forums.
Why ?
Perhaps to please and to looks good in front of those western Military Observers ( *from PRC enemy nations* ).
These same Chinese Military Observers want to LOUDLY show the world that they are smart and intellectual.

***
To me personally, these behaviors ( #1, #2, and #4 ) above are very *embarrassing and shameful*.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

Many thanks to @yusheng for posting all these pictures.

@Deino ,, 

1.) What exact date did you first see these 3 pictures below ?

2.) Is that Su-30MKK in the background ?

3.) Let me clarify, -- Could this be ... a carrier based version of J_xx from SAC ShenFei ?



1) *2 guards wearing thick army green winter jackets* *@ ShenFei factory hangar ?*






2) *@ ShenFei factory hangar ?*






3)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> Many thanks to @yusheng for posting all these pictures.
> 
> @Deino ,,
> 
> 1.) What exact date did you first see these 3 pictures below ?
> 
> 2.) Is that Su-30MKK in the background ?
> 
> 3.) Could this be J_31 version 2 ?
> 
> 
> 1) *2 guards wearing thick army green winter jackets* *@ ShenFei factory hangar ?*
> View attachment 351516
> 
> 
> 
> 2) *@ ShenFei factory hangar ?*
> View attachment 351517
> 
> 
> 
> 3)
> View attachment 351518


erm.. they're all just fan arts


----------



## WarFariX

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> Many thanks to @yusheng for posting all these pictures.
> 
> @Deino ,,
> 
> 1.) What exact date did you first see these 3 pictures below ?
> 
> 2.) Is that Su-30MKK in the background ?
> 
> 3.) Could this be J_31 version 2 ?
> 
> 
> 1) *2 guards wearing thick army green winter jackets* *@ ShenFei factory hangar ?*
> View attachment 351516
> 
> 
> 
> 2) *@ ShenFei factory hangar ?*
> View attachment 351517
> 
> 
> 
> 3)
> View attachment 351518


this is not j31 brooo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

Okarus said:


> erm.. they're all just fan arts



Thanks. Really ?
Do you remember when did you see them first ... ... ?

1.) What exact date did you first see these 3 pictures below ?

2.) I am sorry -- let me clarify. Yes, pict #3 is a CG fan arts. 
Based on picture #1 and #2 only ...

Could you please show it by color arrows
-- which parts are indicating these pictures ( 1 & 2 ) as CG fan arts ?




MarvellousThunder@PDC said:


> this is not j31 brooo



Thanks.
Assuming it is not CG fan arts ... ...

I am aware -- it is not a J_31 version 1.
Let me clarify, -- what I meant is ... is it possible -- a carrier based version of J_xx from SAC ShenFei ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AlyxMS

Erhhhh
Why do you have to make a thread about a fighter political.

"enemy nations" seriously?

"awed the overwhelmed" can you stop making assumptions of how people think?

Just CALM DOWN and stop this political & anti-western observer BS.

Just because some one happens to be born in a different nation doesn't mean they have to think a certain way. So stop making assumptions based on people's nationality or skin colour. Both of which isn't their choice. They can choose to be a naysayer of Chinese military, but they cannot choose to not be from a so called "enemy nation" or "western".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> Thanks. Really ?
> Do you remember when did you see them first ... ... ?
> 
> 1.) What exact date did you first see these 3 pictures below ?
> 
> 2.) I am sorry -- let me clarify. Yes, pict #3 is a CG fan arts.
> Based on picture #1 and #2 only ...
> 
> Could you please show it by color arrows
> -- which parts are indicating these pictures ( 1 & 2 ) as CG fan arts ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> Assuming it is not CG fan arts ... ...
> 
> I am aware -- it is not a J_31 version 1.
> Let me clarify, -- what I meant is ... is it possible -- a carrier based version of J_xx from SAC ShenFei ?


This is all CG way back in 2003 and 2004

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

AlyxMS said:


> Erhhhh
> They can choose to be a naysayer of Chinese military, but they can not *choose to not be from* a so called "enemy nation" or "western".



Yes, I totally agree.
Thanks for your comment.



pakistanipower said:


> This is all CG way back in 2003 and 2004



Many thanks brother

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 52051

grey boy 2 said:


> 2 squadron of J-20 will be deployed, 1 for South China Sea, 1 for East Sea at the end of next year?



The post you quoted mentioning two regiments of J-20A by next year, not two squad, big difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ahojunk

*It is ridiculous to say J-20 copied U.S. fighter jet: Chinese media*
2016-11-10 08:38 | People's Daily Online | _Editor: Li Yan_

To say that the J-20 jet, China's new-generation stealth fighter, copied the technologies of U.S. F-117A fighter, which the U.S. Air Force first flew in the 1980s, is simply ludicrous, People's Frontline said in a commentary. The newspaper argued that such voices reflect the jealousy of the U.S.

The original remarks were made by U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein in August. People's Frontline refuted Goldfein's claim, remarking that if the two models do share similarities, it is only that they both have wheels and wings.

The article exposed the truth behind the dismantled F-117. The aircraft sacrificed aerodynamic design for stealth, rendering it unable to fly at supersonic speeds. In addition, the F-117 could only cover a range of 1,000 kilometers with two land-attack missiles. Its performance is not even compatible with the J-5 and J-6.

Though the F-117 was a point of pride for U.S. military experts, it was shot down by Yugoslavia's SAM missile. Therefore, the U.S. decided to dismantle the aircraft and started development of the F-22, the paper added.

If, as Goldfein stated, China really had copied the technology of the F-117, then that would indicate that the J-20 is not competitive. But if that were the case, the U.S. government would not continually speak about a "China threat," People's Frontline mused.

It's not reasonable to compare the J-20 to the F-22 and F-35 either, the article said, adding that the latter has been frequently challenged by technical defects. In addition, the expensive F-22 fails to provide sufficient oxygen for the pilot. CNN commented that the F-20 would pose a threat to the U.S. in certain operational scenarios, such as a confrontation over Taiwan or the Diaoyu Islands.

As China makes progress on manned space flight, navigation satellites, early-warning satellites, remote-sensing satellites, aircraft carriers, major stealth destroyers, stealth aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and large aircraft, the U.S., as a major military power, has exposed its fear through its remarks about China's achievement.

China hopes to safeguard world peace through the development of cutting-edge weapons. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the U.S. hegemony says, the paper stated.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> The post you quoted mentioning two regiments of J-20A by next year, not two squad, big difference.



And even more complete impossible !

Even if the production rate is already higher than expected that would mean 2x 24 or at least 20 J-20 in one year. That's more than J-10s in one year. So forget it.


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

Deino said:


> And even more complete impossible !
> 
> Even if the production rate is already higher than expected that would mean 2x 24 or at least 20 J-20 in one year. That's more than J-10s in one year. So forget it.



Many old observations on J-10 production rate are no longer valid.

The recently adopted ( *IoT M2M Optimized Robotics* tech ) and ( *3rd Gen. Additive Manufacturing* tech )
and ( *IoT M2M sensors networks* ) are drastically revolutionizing the PRC high tech Manufacturing.

_3 Keywords: much Faster, much Stronger, much Lighter_

Those parts that can not be made in one piece before, they can be quite easily produced now.
These one piece parts can be produced much *Stronger* and much* Lighter*.
Many times, their weight can be shockingly *trimmed down to by 80+* %,
while at the same time boosting their Mechanical Strength by 200+ %.

For example:
_*Complex Infill Structure below *-- there is no way this can be made 
with old style Subtractive Manufacturing. _

1)






2) See, why this part below is much *Stronger* and much *Lighter*.







The old conventional method of Subtractive Manufacturing process is no longer applicable.
Also, the old conventional method of Subtractive Manufacturing process has got the biggest boost.
Because Casting, Moulding and Tooling -- can all be done much *Faster*, Way *Cheaper*,
and *Way More Precise*, use much *less materials*, and much less *Energy Consumption* than ever before.

That is why -- don't be so Shocked and so Awed -- if one day in future ZhuHai show
that PLAAF revealed J-20A * T/W ratio is greater than 12
even with the present temporary unknown down rated engine.

***
Don't be so quick in dismissing ChengDu CAC ability to manufacture J-20A around 30 units per year.

I guess you must be aware that 3 PLAN DDG 055 are being *manufactured in parallel* in ShangHai at this moment. -- Let me stress 3 = three in parallel.

@Bussard Ramjet ,, @gambit

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> And even more complete impossible !
> 
> Even if the production rate is already higher than expected that would mean 2x 24 or at least 20 J-20 in one year. That's more than J-10s in one year. So forget it.



Considering China is at an accerelating phase of development, using past growth to forecast future growth may not be very reliable.

J-20 has two production line and a new factory even before IOC, and this is already more than J-10 now.

And J-10's production rate is a regiment per year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> Considering China is at an accerelating phase of development, using past growth to forecast future growth may not be very reliable.
> 
> J-20 has two production line and a new factory even before IOC, and this is already more than J-10 now.
> 
> And J-10's production rate is a regiment per year.




Since when do CAC has two production lines for the J-20 ?? There's no proof for that, not even a hint and YES, it's one J-10 regiment per year ... so how could then CAC "skyrise" the production to 2 regiments of J-20 within one year??

That's simply impossible .. pure fan-boy posting.

Deino


----------



## gambit

ahojunk said:


> Though the F-117 was a point of pride for U.S. military experts, it was shot down by Yugoslavia's SAM missile. Therefore, the U.S. decided to dismantle the aircraft and started development of the F-22, the paper added.


There is no 'therefore' about this.

Not only this is grossly simplistic reasoning, it is also wrong. The F-22's first flight was in 1997, which mean it must have been in development for at least a decade, the usual time span for most aircraft. The single F-117 Yugoslavia shot down was in 1999. These are *PUBLIC* information. So how in the name of logic could anyone come up with this argument ?


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> Since when do CAC has two production lines for the J-20 ?? There's no proof for that, not even a hint and YES, it's one J-10 regiment per year ... so how could then CAC "skyrise" the production to 2 regiments of J-20 within one year??
> 
> That's simply impossible .. pure fan-boy posting.
> 
> Deino



Well, for such sensitive information you should not expect any official source, it is some rumors leaked by some relatively reputatable source on China's military themed BBS.

But judging by the order scale of PLAN, you should not be surprised that the order scale of J-20 could execeeds your expection.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

52051 said:


> Well, for such sensitive information you should not expect any official source, it is some rumors leaked by some relatively reputatable source on China's military themed BBS.
> 
> But judging by the order scale of PLAN, you should not be surprised that the order scale of J-20 could execeeds your expection.


This foreigner can't even differential genuine and bogus credible leaker. He dont even know a single word of Chinese. The Most absurd is he expect PLA to make an official statement for such highly sensitive thing. What a joke!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> This foreigner can't even differential genuine and bogus credible leaker. He dont even know a single word of Chinese. The Most absurd is he expect PLA to make an official statement for such highly sensitive thing. What a joke!


While Chinese military usually keeps things under wraps but u can't blame him to ask for proof or some kind of confirmation. Anything without some sort of proof is pure belief. For example China didn't officially show the J20 until recently at the Zuhai event but ppl were convinced that it exists due to proof(pictures/videos) from numerous sources. I think it is best for ppl here to agree to disagree. Only time will tell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AlyxMS

Cookie Monster said:


> While Chinese military usually keeps things under wraps but u can't blame him to ask for proof or some kind of confirmation. Anything without some sort of proof is pure belief. For example China didn't officially show the J20 until recently at the Zuhai event but ppl were convinced that it exists due to proof(pictures/videos) from numerous sources. I think it is best for ppl here to agree to disagree. Only time will tell.


Or we can use past records to predict the future.
This is how science works.
This too can be applied to people making the claims.

If one had previously made several radical claims without evidence and were later proven to be false, the chances of his/her next claim is true would be quite low.

Personally I would not take the words from a person who claims J-20 uses WS-10 engines and later changes it to "a mysterious engine that combines WS-10 core and AL-31" too seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

AlyxMS said:


> Or we can use past records to predict the future.
> This is how science works.
> This too can be applied to people making the claims.
> 
> If one had previously made several radical claims without evidence and were later proven to be false, the chances of his/her next claim is true would be quite low.
> 
> *Personally I would not take the words from a person who claims J-20 uses WS-10 engines and later changes it to "a mysterious engine that combines WS-10 core and AL-31" too seriously.*


That is fine if u don't want to take him too seriously. This is why I said lets just agree to disagree bcuz at this point no one side can prove the other side wrong by showing some proof. Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Let's not derail the thread

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

AlyxMS said:


> Or we can use past records to predict the future.
> This is how science works.
> This too can be applied to people making the claims.
> 
> If one had previously made several radical claims without evidence and were later proven to be false, the chances of his/her next claim is true would be quite low.
> 
> Personally I would not take the words from a person who claims J-20 uses WS-10 engines and later changes it to "a mysterious engine that combines WS-10 core and AL-31" too seriously.








Looks like someone is headburt?  Only someone who understand Chinese can appreciate it. Do you understand a single word of Chinese? I doubt so!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> Looks like someone is headburt?  Only someone who understand Chinese can appreciate it. Do you understand a single word of Chinese? I doubt so!


Is this aimed at me? I don't know what headburt means. Also yes u r right I do not understand Chinese so I don't exactly know what is being discussed in the video. I'm not saying that u r wrong or right. All I was saying is there is no point in derailing the thread by insulting ppl and going off topic.


----------



## Beast

Cookie Monster said:


> Is this aimed at me? I don't know what headburt means. Also yes u r right I do not understand Chinese so I don't exactly know what is being discussed in the video. I'm not saying that u r wrong or right. All I was saying is there is no point in derailing the thread by insulting ppl and going off topic.


Did I quote you?


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> Did I quote you?


Apologies then.


----------



## Beast

Cookie Monster said:


> Apologies then.


Dont worry! 

There are some fake slayer bound to take down China achievement just like those sourgrape western loser commenter about Chinese copy this and that. Living in self delusion is bad for their mental.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> Well, for such sensitive information you should not expect any official source, it is some rumors leaked by some relatively reputatable source on China's military themed BBS.
> 
> But judging by the order scale of PLAN, you should not be surprised that the order scale of J-20 could execeeds your expection.



Yes and NO: Yes for sure there is no official leak on that sensitive info, but since nothing hints to this - esp. not the number of J-20s spotted - the absence of a proof for one theory is not a proof the contrary. 

... and No, simpyl NOT. There is surely a lot of chatter but also on green men on mars but there is o far not a single hint that there are two production lines already running. Even if You think the comparison to the J-10 production rate might be mute, that type is already needed since years and the rate hasn't been increased dramatically over the years. So why - esp. since we don't see that many J-20's like You predict - should it be such an inredible increase right now?




Beast said:


> This foreigner can't even differential genuine and bogus credible leaker. He dont even know a single word of Chinese. The Most absurd is he expect PLA to make an official statement for such highly sensitive thing. What a joke!





Beast said:


> Looks like someone is headburt?  Only someone who understand Chinese can appreciate it. Do you understand a single word of Chinese? I doubt so!




Like I said leave these personnal attacks; they will all led to consequences.

The main issue as descied quite perfectly is plain and simple the term "reading comprehension" ! You might be correct that I - like several others here cannot read Chinese - but that what we get on information is more than fine especially with the kind help of other members here to UNDERSTAND and deduct what's going on or might be the most reasonable.

If I therefore again compare Your list of claims You boatsed all over this forum this year and measure this on what became true ... I would say there's a simplye lack of understanding regardless Your ability to read Chinese.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

> Yes and NO: Yes for sure there is no official leak on that sensitive info, but since nothing hints to this - esp. not the number of J-20s spotted - the absence of a proof for one theory is not a proof the contrary.
> 
> ... and No, simpyl NOT. There is surely a lot of chatter but also on green men on mars but there is o far not a single hint that there are two production lines already running. Even if You think the comparison to the J-10 production rate might be mute, that type is already needed since years and the rate hasn't been increased dramatically over the years. So why - esp. since we don't see that many J-20's like You predict - should it be such an inredible increase right now?



There are plent of rumors about CAC build new factory to setup 2 or even more production line of J-20, and it even going to big news site like sohu, 163 and xilu, with pictures of the factory ( I cannot paste link in this fucked up BBS).

If you can read Chinese, you can know alot of more information there, simply do a baidu search with "两条生产线 J-20" as the keywords ("two production line J-20), will return such results.

And even the joker pinkov (who is a famous China naysayer) suspect that there are at least two production line of J-20 is under construction and thats last year's news in his last year's issues, based on satellite photos he got.

China now build weapons at an accerelating rate, not just because China have invest more and more in defence, but also because, the rate of production years before are actually the abnormal one:

In Chinese, it called "小步快跑", because at that time the best Chinese military industry could offer were somehow out-dated by the US standard, so what the PLA should do with them? they place very small order for each iteration of the weapons and ask the industry to keep improving them iteration by iteration.

But when PLA consider the military industry can offer weapons on peer with the US, they will place large order.

Thats why they only order 2-4 052B and 052C destoryers but could order 40+ 052D destoryers and 20+ 055 destoryers and 6+ air carriers and super carriers, the same can be said about J-20.

So dont jump to your conclusion too quick.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

@52051 

Baidu search engine is intentionally inferior in showing any good pictures.
Google do not have any good one either.
And, I am travelling outside PRC. It is very difficult ( slow to a halt ) to browse PRC military forums.

In order to compare and detecting the recent CAC factory expansion ... ...

Could you please post all the adequately clear satellites based pictures of
( ChengDu CAC Factory Roof complex ) that U can find on PRC Military forums ?

Thanks so much beforehand brother.
Such as this one below ... ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

52051 said:


> There are plent of rumors about CAC build new factory to setup 2 or even more production line of J-20, and it even going to big news site like sohu, 163 and xilu, with pictures of the factory ( I cannot paste link in this fucked up BBS).
> 
> If you can read Chinese, you can know alot of more information there, simply do a baidu search with "两条生产线 J-20" as the keywords ("two production line J-20), will return such results.
> 
> And even the joker pinkov (who is a famous China naysayer) suspect that there are at least two production line of J-20 is under construction and thats last year's news in his last year's issues, based on satellite photos he got.
> 
> China now build weapons at an accerelating rate, not just because China have invest more and more in defence, but also because, the rate of production years before are actually the abnormal one:
> 
> In Chinese, it called "小步快跑", because at that time the best Chinese military industry could offer were somehow out-dated by the US standard, so what the PLA should do with them? they place very small order for each iteration of the weapons and ask the industry to keep improving them iteration by iteration.
> 
> But when PLA consider the military industry can offer weapons on peer with the US, they will place large order.
> 
> Thats why they only order 2-4 052B and 052C destoryers but could order 40+ 052D destoryers and 20+ 055 destoryers and 6+ air carriers and super carriers, the same can be said about J-20.
> 
> So dont jump to your conclusion too quick.



A Chinese Air Force General recently said the J-20 program will be accelerated. This can be referring two production lines will be open. China is not lacking funds these days. And the J-20 is in great needs to counter the US pressure in East and South Sea. After the great haste in the development phase, I doubted the initial production phase will proceed in a leisurely pace.

The Chinese Production Capacity in producing 24+ planes per year should not be in doubt, after all F-35 is being producing at the rate of 100+ planes per year.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

Dragon Emperor said:


> In 2 years many J-20s would have undergone hundreds of hours worth of flight time, matching F-35. I predict the J-20 will enter service the latest by 2016, with a minimum of 60 in service.



You are right about entering service by 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> @52051
> 
> Baidu search engine is intentionally inferior in showing any good pictures.
> Google do not have any good one either.
> And, I am travelling outside PRC. It is very difficult ( slow to a halt ) to browse PRC military forums.
> 
> In order to compare and detecting the recent CAC factory expansion ... ...
> 
> Could you please post all the adequately clear satellites based pictures of
> ( ChengDu CAC Factory Roof complex ) that U can find on PRC Military forums ?
> 
> Thanks so much beforehand brother.
> Such as this one below ... ...
> 
> View attachment 352007



I want, but I cannot post links, so you have to do the search yourself.

Its pretty easy actually, baidu the keywords I posted you get the links.

And 飞扬/鼎盛/超级大本营 are three popular military-themed BBS in China, these BBS have many cool mind memebers and in general fanboyism are well rejected there. And there are some memebers there who have a creditable track records on military informations of PLA too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ....
> 
> The Chinese Production Capacity in producing 24+ planes per year should not be in doubt, after all F-35 is being producing at the rate of 100+ planes per year.




This is pure speculation and even more an unfounded one. Just compare how many J-11s/J-15 and now J-16 are manufactured each year, how many J-10s were assembled per yera ... and now You think within less than one year the production rate of a much more complex type will be higher than the rate on any other type before.

Come on guys! ... and that has nothing to be with "anti-CHina" but simply with reasonable logic.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> This is pure speculation and even more an unfounded one. Just compare how many J-11s/J-15 and now J-16 are manufactured each year, how many J-10s were assembled per yera ... and now You think within less than one year the production rate of a much more complex type will be higher than the rate on any other type before.
> 
> Come on guys! ... and that has nothing to be with "anti-CHina" but simply with reasonable logic.
> 
> Deino


I support Asok and 52051 theory. It absolutely possible

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Yes, it is alos possible that some secret CHinese space mission traveled already to the Mars and since there's no public denial it has to be a fcat. 

Ahh and since I'm questioning this secret mars-base I'm again a stupd German, who's constanly bashing China ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jkroo

Deino said:


> Yes, it is alos possible that some secret CHinese space mission traveled already to the Mars and since there's no public denial it has to be a fcat.
> 
> Ahh and since I'm questioning this secret mars-base I'm again a stupd German, who's constanly bashing China ???


Do you need such kind of tone? To be frank, It's disgusting from a mod to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nang2

jkroo said:


> Do you need such kind of tone? To be frank, It's disgusting from a mod to me.


Let mod be allowed to rant from time to time. After all, many of claims made by some of our fellow countrymen aren't supported by substantial evidence, partially due to the secrecy practised by Chinese military, which is for a good reason. This place is just for people to have fun. Let people claim whatever they like and let others refute whatever they dislike.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jkroo

nang2 said:


> Let mod be allowed to rant from time to time. After all, many of claims made by some of our fellow countrymen aren't supported by substantial evidence, partially due to the secrecy practised by Chinese military, which is for a good reason. This place is just for people to have fun. Let people claim whatever they like and let others refute whatever they dislike.


Yes for fun. But also no for even sometimes BS can be prevailed especially from some delusional and twisted mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

nang2 said:


> Let mod be allowed to rant from time to time. After all, many of claims made by some of our fellow countrymen aren't supported by substantial evidence, partially due to the secrecy practised by Chinese military, which is for a good reason. This place is just for people to have fun. Let people claim whatever they like and let others refute whatever they dislike.



Looks like you are leaning on one side. Same as the moderator who claim of his proof based on eyeball and some superficial appearance as his facts.

Like it or leave it there are many leakers(POP3) who prove their creditibilites with 055 cruiser or Type093B VLS SSN. PLA is not going to be open about its military. We are using these highly credible with proven track record source from those leakers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jkroo

Beast said:


> Looks like you are leaning on one side. Same as the moderator who claim of his proof based on eyeball and some superficial appearance as his facts.
> 
> Like it or leave it there are many leakers(POP3) who prove their creditibilites with 055 cruiser or Type093B VLS SSN. PLA is not going to be open about its military. We are using these highly credible with proven track record source from those leakers.


Yeah, this kind of information leaking style can lead to mind blow. 
No sensitive info can be leak out or the person can be done. So we are here bla, bla photos months ago/years ago even some wall climbers release their works some time later. 
I just like the style and sometimes lead to profession to delusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## nang2

Beast said:


> Looks like you are leaning on one side. Same as the moderator who claim of his proof based on eyeball and some superficial appearance as his facts.
> 
> Like it or leave it there are many leakers(POP3) who prove their creditibilites with 055 cruiser or Type093B VLS SSN. PLA is not going to be open about its military. We are using these highly credible with proven track record source from those leakers.


It isn't about side picking. 

If leakers have proven track record, then they aren't leakers. They are spokespersons. I am following Chinese military sites, too. I know very well many busted stories from leakers. Therefore, speculations won't convince me though they certainly entertain me. As a Chinese descendant, why would I not want my country to be great again? (Sorry, Trump, I cannot resist.)

I don't buy into Deino and Gambit's arguments, either, since I don't have relevant knowledge to judge. Their arguments look formidable and sophisticated. But I admire their effort, regardless what their intentions are.

In short, I want to be entertained. Let's not spoil the party.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

@nang2 
Me too but the issue is simply that some are so much obsessed by their feeling of being superior that they even ignore the slightest bit of an argument. 60 operational J-20s by years end, that's not possible and instead of counter-arguing why it should be possible You always get the same reply: You don't know China, not Chinese, You are only a stupid foreigner who does not - who never will - understand ! As if logic works different in China ....??

Anyway ... back to the J-20:
























....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

"You don't know China, not Chinese, You are only a stupid foreigner who does not - who never will - understand ! As if logic works different in China ....??"

This is a very valid argument, although it could be over used. There are simply way more informations available about J-20 in Chinese than there is in English, which are usually written by know nothing journalists, and by a few trade journals which are usually not much better or less biased. There are many freely available Chinese technical papers about J-20 that journalists will never going to read or understand.

I don't mean to accuse non-Chinese speakers on PDF are dumb or less intelligent, just ask them to be mindful of this fact -- English informations about J-20 and other Chinese weapons are very limited.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> "You don't know China, not Chinese, You are only a stupid foreigner who does not - who never will - understand ! As if logic works different in China ....??"
> 
> This is a very valid argument, although it could be over used. There are simply way more informations available about J-20 in Chinese than there is in English, which are usually written by know nothing journalists, and by a few trade journals which are usually not much better or less biased. There are many freely available Chinese technical papers about J-20 that journalists will never going to read or understand.
> 
> I don't mean to accuse non-Chinese speakers on PDF are dumb or less intelligent, just ask them to be mindful of this fact -- English informations about J-20 and other Chinese weapons are very limited.




I don't deny that there are many reports I - or anyone without knowing Chinese - simply omit, but the point is, only a few "certain" members here do jump on that bandwagon, while many others here in forum, who can also read and understand Chinese don't take these reports for granted. Even more since there might be reports but not a single hint like aircraft spotted, aircraft delivered and so on.

Therefore if You and Your followers would present these reports as what they are - namely reports and rumours - and not in stone-fixed facts, which no-one is allowed to question, or if there would be reasonable arguments, images, numbers of aircraft confirmed by spotters it would not be a problem, but only telling "I know, since I know Chinese" is for me not a proof especially if the reliability of this certain poster is otherwise well known as nearly non-existent.

Deino


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Seems like production rate is going up.

@ChineseTiger1986 any thoughts on current monthly numbers?

Regardless, great development... show that fabrication capacity is gearing up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

2 per months or 24 per year (2 squadrons) for low rate initial serial production is not bad at all. I doubt the initial number will be higher than this. I suspect the final total for all versions of J-20 will around 500 units, that is, if there is no war break out between China and you know who.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Asok said:


> 2 per months or 24 per year (2 squadrons) for low rate initial serial production is not bad at all. I doubt the initial number will be higher than this. I suspect the final total for all versions of J-20 will around 500 units, that is, if there is no war break out between China and you know who.


.


The purpose of J20 and its future variants/siblings it make sure that no war happens. Paradox. 

The Chinese strategy is to make sure that no war/conflict happens at all. War is stupid. 

So, J20, Type 055 and the newer SSN/SSBN are actually to deter agression/foolishness and not as offensive weapons.

Regarding the numbers. It is too early to tell...personally, I think in current scenario PLAAF will not go beyond a 200 of these beautiful machines. But of course, I can be totally wrong. 

500 number will only happen if/when JP has a 100+ JSFs excluding the US depolyment.

.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rcrmj

there are more than *20 J-20s already in service*, and conducting routine exercises in *Yellow Sea region*```````
next year they are going to have around *40 additions for the PLAAF, inside infos``!!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## terranMarine

@Deino , how about > 20 J-20s in service right now you believe this ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> @nang2
> Me too but the issue is simply that some are so much obsessed by their feeling of being superior that they even ignore the slightest bit of an argument. 60 operational J-20s by years end, that's not possible and instead of counter-arguing why it should be possible You always get the same reply: You don't know China, not Chinese, You are only a stupid foreigner who does not - who never will - understand ! As if logic works different in China ....??
> 
> Anyway ... back to the J-20:
> 
> View attachment 352131
> View attachment 352132
> View attachment 352133
> View attachment 352134
> View attachment 352135
> View attachment 352136
> View attachment 352137
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> View attachment 352139


Indeed. 

Ther are many Chinese article and video you no clue. Acting as you know a lot?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Han Patriot

There was a time, Chinese were humble. I don't see this now. You are degrading yourselves to Indy level.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Indeed.
> 
> There are many Chinese article and video you no clue. Acting as you know a lot?



So true, you don't know what you don't know. You can not even guess or speculate with absence of information. Remember Rumsfield's "Unknown Unknown"? 

Remember this fan arts by “潜龙, Hidden Dragon, before J-20 was known to the world?
当初 歼-20 的真容还未透露时，有很多航空爱好者推测 歼-20 的可能外形。其中有一位推测了“潜龙”歼-20，就使用了这种基于复杂外压缩面的 DSI，请看下面的两张图























"500 number will only happen if/when JP has a 100+ JSFs excluding the US deployment."

That's pretty silly. F-35 is a flying pig. Don't need J-20 to deal with it. 200 units of J-20 is only if money is tight, and China is not short of money anytime soon. 500 units will ensure you-know-who don't even dare to come near the Asian continent and stay away east of Hawaii.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Han Warrior said:


> There was a time, Chinese were humble. I don't see this now. You are degrading yourselves to Indy level.



There was a time when China is so backward that inferiority complex is deep root. The term, 造,到不如买，is widely used during deng xiaoping era.

It's time, all Chinese stand up and believe in themselves to rebuke all the fake lies planted by the west and sourgrape Indian about the inferiority of Chinese and made in China.

There is nothing wrong to rebuke fake lies and mock at those slander.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Zarvan said:


>




Seems as if You have found my twitter account since it is exactly my header and all three images were exactly from this post (esp. the yellow one which I slightly modified)



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/798595802016915456
But why again anew thread !????? It was already posted and we have a J-20-thread.


PLEASE ....

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... STOP !! 

No political rants, no historical accusations and even more no Rafale, F-35, Indian AF and so on ...

Otherwise this thread will be closed and the newxt reply will get a warning.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kuge

Beast said:


> There was a time when China is so backward that inferiority complex is deep root. The term, 造,到不如买，is widely used during deng xiaoping era.
> 
> It's time, all Chinese stand up and believe in themselves to rebuke all the fake lies planted by the west and sourgrape Indian about the inferiority of Chinese and made in China.
> 
> There is nothing wrong to rebuke fake lies and mock at those slander.


不卑不亢 decent atttude is the right way...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> *Guys ... STOP !!
> 
> No political rants, no historical accusations and even more no Rafale, F-35, Indian AF and so on ...
> 
> Otherwise this thread will be closed and the newxt reply will get a warning.*
> 
> Deino


Nice firm actions from the Mod. I whole heartedly agreed with the actions taken and warning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## cirr

http://www.bilibili.com/video/av7113144/

The PLAAF will induct two regiments of J-20s(44-48 aircrafts) by the end of 2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ali Zadi

Gents so what do we think of J20's primary role?

Stealth bomber 
Penetrate and Persist
or something else 
??


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> http://www.bilibili.com/video/av7113144/
> 
> The PLAAF will induct two regiments of J-20s(44-48 aircrafts) by the end of 2017.




But how reliable is this post? Who is the poster and what's his credibility?

End of 2017 sounds at least much more realistic that the just discussed "end of 2016" where soime fan boys were again jumping on the bandwagon ...

Anyway even 48 aircraft is IMO much too high given the current number of aircraft spotted.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> But how reliable is this post? Who is the poster and what's his credibility?
> 
> End of 2017 sounds at least much more realistic that the just discussed "end of 2016" where soime fan boys were again jumping on the bandwagon ...
> 
> Anyway even 48 aircraft is IMO much too high given the current number of aircraft spotted.
> 
> Deino



You are of the opinion that every bird that has been produced had been spotted, taken pic of and posted online?

The short answer is no.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> You are of the opinion that every bird that has been produced had been spotted, taken pic of and posted online?
> 
> The short answer is no.





Surely not, but I think that there's still a gap between maybe 12-14 so far produced and about a full regiment of 24 by late 2016, and even this would be high since so far we have never seen more than 4 (maybe at best 5) J-20 together. By the way I'm sure some spotters would have noticed if several J-20s left already CAC.

I simply don't think that CAC can produce already more J-20s than J-10s per year.

What's the latest number estimation so far ??

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> There was a time when China is so backward that inferiority complex is deep root. The term, 造,到不如买，is widely used during deng xiaoping era.
> 
> It's time, all Chinese stand up and believe in themselves to rebuke all the fake lies planted by the west and sourgrape Indian about the inferiority of Chinese and made in China.
> 
> There is nothing wrong to rebuke fake lies and mock at those slander.



No need to rebuke anyone bro. The world can see itself. One can close his eyes and pretend the sun isn't shining but that doesn't change the truth. Being humble is a good quality, it doesn't mean that it makes u look weak. In the words of Theodore Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". China is doing just that. In my opinion Chinese are still humble(in general) despite achieving so much specially compared to Indians. Indians have barely taken off for about a decade at most and they are constantly getting cocky about this and that. It's good that most Chinese don't do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ali Zadi said:


> Gents so what do we think of J20's primary role?
> 
> Stealth bomber
> Penetrate and Persist
> or something else
> ??


*Air superiority*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Ali Zadi said:


> Gents so what do we think of J20's primary role?
> 
> Stealth bomber
> Penetrate and Persist
> or something else
> ??


Air Assassin!

Most of the planes which got shoot down in WWI and WWII, the pilots never knew who shot them. With the advent of radars and sensor fusion, that's becoming harder to do, but with Stealth, Supercruise, and six long range missiles, J-20 can serve the role of Air Assassin against Oil Tanker, AWACS, and other supporting aircrafts well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Cookie Monster said:


> No need to rebuke anyone bro. The world can see itself. One can close his eyes and pretend the sun isn't shining but that doesn't change the truth. Being humble is a good quality, it doesn't mean that it makes u look weak. In the words of Theodore Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". China is doing just that. In my opinion Chinese are still humble(in general) despite achieving so much specially compared to Indians. Indians have barely taken off for about a decade at most and they are constantly getting cocky about this and that. It's good that most Chinese don't do that.


If we goes by your theory. SCS and diaoyutai would have long lost by now. Do you think by ignoring slander or grateful to slayer. They will be grateful to u and stop their act? It will only encourage them. Look at the smearing of China UN troops in South Sudan. If not Ministry of defence China to come out and rebuke it. More crap news will come out and sensation it.

You only be nice to people who are nice to you. Deng XP say bid your time but never say don't flex yr muscle if needed when the time is ripe.
Fortunately Xi Jiping do not think like you. It's time to exert ourselves if needed. People need to realize between defend itself and acting arrogant.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

Six hard points.





Old vs new

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> *....*


Your post is blunt but holds some water. I like it

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Han Patriot

Beast said:


> If we goes by your theory. SCS and diaoyutai would have long lost by now. Do you think by ignoring slander or grateful to slayer. They will be grateful to u and stop their act? It will only encourage them. Look at the smearing of China UN troops in South Sudan. If not Ministry of defence China to come out and rebuke it. More crap news will come out and sensation it.
> 
> You only be nice to people who are nice to you. Deng XP say bid your time but never say don't flex yr muscle if needed when the time is ripe.
> Fortunately Xi Jiping do not think like you. It's time to exert ourselves if needed. People need to realize between defend itself and acting arrogant.


You can be humble and still slay ppl, that's what I admire about China, quiet not boastful and then suddenly...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> If we goes by your theory. SCS and diaoyutai would have long lost by now. Do you think by ignoring slander or grateful to slayer. They will be grateful to u and stop their act? It will only encourage them. Look at the smearing of China UN troops in South Sudan. If not Ministry of defence China to come out and rebuke it. More crap news will come out and sensation it.
> 
> You only be nice to people who are nice to you. Deng XP say bid your time but never say don't flex yr muscle if needed when the time is ripe.
> Fortunately Xi Jiping do not think like you. It's time to exert ourselves if needed. People need to realize between defend itself and acting arrogant.


U misunderstood my point...anyways I don't wanna have lengthy off topic discussions and derail this thread. In short here is an example of what I meant.
Kim Jong Un issues threats to US on constant basis(cocky)
Xi Jinping lets China show its military muscle and economic prowess instead of issuing threatening statements to other countries(speaking softly and carrying a big stick)

Just like @Han Warrior described in the post above.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WAJsal

General Observer said:


> @Horus @WAJsal
> 
> Deino is a bully behind a keyboard, and should be banned for mis-use and abuse of Mod powers.
> 
> Also, why do all the sub-forums have a mod represented by their own nationality, but people here allow this German nut to run a Chinese sub-section? I think this is a racial discrimination against all the Chinese members here.
> 
> AT THE LEAST, MOVE THIS GERMAN TO THE EUROPEAN SECTION AND HAVE HIM MOD THERE. Mods SHOULD NOT allow racial discrimination to continue to take place on these forums.
> 
> I am acting as a occasional guest, and even I picked up on this behavior on this forum.


Don't insult mods by calling them 'nut jobs', it's a tough job. The reason why Chinese section is probably one of the best section(if not the best) is because of these guys, @Deino and company. I have deleted your posts as they are off-topic you can complain in GHQ section where your complains will be heard. 
regards


Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> @Deino
> 
> _NOTE:
> For some unknown reason, I can not PM you. Did you disable your PM function ?_
> 
> ===
> 
> With All Due Respect Mr. Deino,
> 
> Frankly, I do not intend to publicly embarrass you at all.
> Please *be fair and equal to both side*.
> Next time, before you are pulling your International Mod Trigger by banning me.
> Please *check all the true facts first*. -- Before you do delete my posts and ban me,
> just because you do not like it.
> 
> 1*) You can not accuse me of trolling -- simply, because you are trying to defend F-22 and
> For example:
> you do not like my post on PRC * DSI Aerodynamic tech on J-20A that are potentially 3 generation ahead
> when it is compared to american DSI tech on F-35.
> 
> 2*) If you do not like my post, then you are *free to attack my post with your basic Logic*.
> 
> 3*) Please be reasonable, ... ...
> 
> If any well known public personnels ( Air Force Chief or other pretentious experts ) *openly and publicly* and *SLANDEROUSLY* claimed that J-20A is a copy of F-22 or any other fighter, ... ...
> when they OPENLY and PUBLICLY put out their claims, then ... ..
> *it becomes a fair game to attack* their Basic Logic and *downgrade their Intelligences* of
> these same public personnels ( Air Force Chief or other pretentious experts ).
> 
> For example: ( _American usaf chief David Goldfein ,,
> Indian Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Air Marshal SB Deo ,, Richard Aboulafia ,, _
> 
> 
> 4*) *About my location*, ... ... Have you checked my Profile -- INFo Tab ?
> I had repeatedly explain to so many Mod that ( I am crisscrossing and working in South East Asian nations ) -- Let's be reasonable -- Do you think it is making sense to change the nation flag, every time I change my location in SEA nation ??
> 
> ===
> 
> Their public Slanders against PRC are listed below:
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> Hence, please *be fair and equal to both side*.
> 
> These 4 persons put out their SLANDEROUSLY claimed that J-20A is a copy of F-22
> on the PUBLIC domain.
> *It becomes a fair game for anyone to attack* their Basic Logic and *downgrade their Intelligences, *
> regardless if they are ( Air Force Chief or other pretentious experts ).
> 
> *** *** Where was my trollings on these 4 public personnels opinions ??
> 
> If you do not agree, then you are free to attack my Logic with your basic Logic.
> 
> ==
> _Thanks for considering my opinion.
> Zhu Rong Zheng Yang_
> 
> @WebMaster ,, @Horus ,, @WAJsal

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Found a set of pictures of J-20 from the air show, don't think it has been posted before

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

_*J-20A -- INNER Engines Nozzles structures ??
*
NOTE:
As you all know, I am working outside PRC.
For some unknown reason, I can NEVER FULLY open any PRC websites. _

@grey boy 2 ,, @yusheng ,, @cirr ,, @cnleio ,, @Asok ,, @Beast ,, and others please

*Warmest Greeting to you All Brothers*,

I am trying to sink those arguments coming from some quarters that insistently claimed that
J-20A are using modified AL-31F engines, and by extension PRC Turbofan engine tech
is still behind americese tech by 25 years.



We all can totally shut down those Nay Sayers arguments that J-20A engines are AL-31F
derivative, if we can show them that J-20A -- *INNER Engines Nozzles structures* are
distinctly different than AL-31F -- INNER Engines Nozzles structure.



When you have time, -- could you *please find and upload* those J-20A ( LRIP // s/n 2101 and beyond )
pictures that specifically show their *INNER Engines Nozzles structures* from
the *REAR views* and the *CLOSE--Up views* ??

Such as these old pictures belong to ( J-20 * s/n 2001 prototype ) below ... ...


_*Left side = REAR views and the CLOSE--Up views of J-20 s/n 2001 * prototype
INNER Engines Nozzles structures*_






I truly hope that with the *appointment of Superstar Engineers and Scientist YANG Wei* as
*head of AVIC* -- *Central R&D department* overseeing all R&D activities inside AVIC,
he will soon provide fruitful and quicker Breakthrough in term of Turbofan Engine Performances.

===
Thanks so much for your help beforehand.
ZRZY

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## AlyxMS

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> _*J-20A -- INNER Engines Nozzles structures ??*_
> 
> I am trying to sink those arguments coming from some quarters that insistently claimed that
> J-20A are using modified AL-31F engines, and by extension PRC Turbofan engine tech
> is still behind americese tech by 25 years.
> 
> When you have time, -- could you *please find and upload* those J-20A ( LRIP // s/n 2101 and beyond )
> pictures that specifically show their *INNER Engines Nozzles structures* from
> the *REAR views* and the *CLOSE--Up views* ??
> 
> _*Left side = REAR views and the CLOSE--Up views of J-20 s/n 2001 * prototype
> INNER Engines Nozzles structures*_
> View attachment 353462
> 
> in term of Turbofan Engine Performances.



You only needed to go a few pages back.
This is from Page 444.




Now count the "links" between the inner ring and the circle that is mostly dark.
The image is blurred due to exhaust heat.
But it's either 10 or 11.

Now the image you posted shows the J-20 prototype with an image of AL-31 on the right.
You can count 11 "links" from that.





This is a WS-10.
It is clear that there are only 8 "links".

Now if you claim it is not AL-31, and clearly it isn't WS-10, what engine is it?

Also, and I quote:
J-20A are using modified AL-31F engines, and by extension PRC Turbofan engine tech
is still behind americese tech by 25 years.

Where did the "extension" part come from?
Many are here just to argue J-20 currently uses AL-31, thats it, end of the story. No one is trying to start a flame war by bringing "behind by XX years" arguement.

I don't know why you are presenting the "J-20 does not use AL-31" case as if it's a battle you have to win.
There is no battle.
No one is trying to defeat you.
It is just that all the evidences points to AL-31. Just accept it, it is as easy as that.
Using AL-31 has nothing to do with "naysaying" or China's engine technology.
It only means J-20 is currently using AL-31. That's it, full stop, no "extensions", nothing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

@AlyxMS

Thanks so much.
Your explanation on 11 Flaming links is Fantastic and very Logical.

 

I can see that WS-10B-2 display on ZhuHai 2016 -- only has 8 Flaming links.

*** In your opinion, the J-20 engine gearbox is at the Top or Bottom ??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AlyxMS

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> @AlyxMS
> 
> Thanks so much.
> Your explanation on 11 Flaming links is Fantastic and very Logical.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that WS-10B-2 display on ZhuHai 2016 -- only has 8 Flaming links.
> 
> *** In your opinion, the J-20 engine gearbox is at the Top or Bottom ??


I really don't know.
I have no idea about how to tell where it is from observation.
If I have to make a guess, I would say bottom since J-10 had bottom gearbox and they are both from CAC.

But I assume the engine only need a slight redesign to change the location of the gearbox?
AL-31FN was essentially a AL-31F with the gearbox at the bottom to fit on the J-10.
Also IIRC early WS-10's gearbox location was different compared to later WS-10.
I assume if an engine was required for a fighter, the location of gearbox was really an non-issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

AlyxMS said:


> You only needed to go a few pages back.
> This is from Page 444.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now count the "links" between the inner ring and the circle that is mostly dark.
> The image is blurred due to exhaust heat.
> But it's either 10 or 11.
> 
> Now the image you posted shows the J-20 prototype with an image of AL-31 on the right.
> You can count 11 "links" from that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a WS-10.
> It is clear that there are only 8 "links".
> 
> Now if you claim it is not AL-31, and clearly it isn't WS-10, what engine is it?
> 
> Also, and I quote:
> J-20A are using modified AL-31F engines, and by extension PRC Turbofan engine tech
> is still behind americese tech by 25 years.
> 
> Where did the "extension" part come from?
> Many are here just to argue J-20 currently uses AL-31, thats it, end of the story. No one is trying to start a flame war by bringing "behind by XX years" arguement.
> 
> I don't know why you are presenting the "J-20 does not use AL-31" case as if it's a battle you have to win.
> There is no battle.
> No one is trying to defeat you.
> It is just that all the evidences points to AL-31. Just accept it, it is as easy as that.
> Using AL-31 has nothing to do with "naysaying" or China's engine technology.
> It only means J-20 is currently using AL-31. That's it, full stop, no "extensions", nothing more.


External appearance can be deceiving. Unless you open up the whole engine to do a full inspection to verify as AL-31F or simply someone authority from PLAAF to confirm AL-31F engine is certainly use on current J-20.
I give an example of HQ-2L missile produced by China that equally looks like a 60s SA-75 missile externally but when you open up the HQ-2L missile. Inside is fully digital and no analog component. The rocket boaster is also replace with a more powerful domestic version. The missile immediately upgrade to a 2nd generation of SAM compare to SA-75.

The problem is we have seen the ability and turning of J-20 which is nothing we have seen with Su-27 or J-11b. Something more powerful is install compare AL-31F engine. As for the someone claimed of AL-31F upgrade export to China. If it is as powerful as 147kn thrust claimed, there is no reason of so much saga for Su-35 deal as China trying to get 117S.

During interview with deputy of PLAAF. He specifically claim the requirement of 5S must attain before J-20 can enter service and form capabilities. That include the crucial super cruise which can only attain by new type of engine better than just AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

AlyxMS said:


> You only needed to go a few pages back.
> This is from Page 444.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now count the "links" between the inner ring and the circle that is mostly dark.
> The image is blurred due to exhaust heat.
> But it's either 10 or 11.
> 
> Now the image you posted shows the J-20 prototype with an image of AL-31 on the right.
> You can count 11 "links" from that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a WS-10.
> It is clear that there are only 8 "links".
> 
> Now if you claim it is not AL-31, and clearly it isn't WS-10, what engine is it?
> 
> Also, and I quote:
> J-20A are using modified AL-31F engines, and by extension PRC Turbofan engine tech
> is still behind americese tech by 25 years.
> 
> Where did the "extension" part come from?
> Many are here just to argue J-20 currently uses AL-31, thats it, end of the story. No one is trying to start a flame war by bringing "behind by XX years" arguement.
> 
> I don't know why you are presenting the "J-20 does not use AL-31" case as if it's a battle you have to win.
> There is no battle.
> No one is trying to defeat you.
> It is just that all the evidences points to AL-31. Just accept it, it is as easy as that.
> Using AL-31 has nothing to do with "naysaying" or China's engine technology.
> It only means J-20 is currently using AL-31. That's it, full stop, no "extensions", nothing more.




I can only say AMEN to this post ! I really don't understand why some here always take a simple "fact" as an insult or offence. Like I said since so many years: all evidence, all external and internal details hint an AL-31FN ... that's does not say China's engine technology is back or others in front. It's only the pointing out on a fact; a fact like water is wet, the sky is blue, I love my kids and my wife !

So nothing more, no need to get offensive ..

Thanks You so much for Your post.

Deino

By the way ... simply a beauty !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> External appearance can be deceiving. Unless you open up the whole engine to do a full inspection to verify as AL-31F or simply someone authority from PLAAF to confirm AL-31F engine is certainly use on current J-20.
> I give an example of HQ-2L missile produced by China that equally looks like a 60s SA-75 missile externally but when you open up the HQ-2L missile. Inside is fully digital and no analog component. The rocket boaster is also replace with a more powerful domestic version. The missile immediately upgrade to a 2nd generation of SAM compare to SA-75.
> 
> The problem is we have seen the ability and turning of J-20 which is nothing we have seen with Su-27 or J-11b. Something more powerful is install compare AL-31F engine. As for the someone claimed of AL-31F upgrade export to China. If it is as powerful as 147kn thrust claimed, there is no reason of so much saga for Su-35 deal as China trying to get 117S.
> 
> During interview with deputy of PLAAF. He specifically claim the requirement of 5S must attain before J-20 can enter service and form capabilities. That include the crucial super cruise which can only attain by new type of engine better than just AL-31F.




The sound of J-20 is nothing like that of the Su-27, Su-30, J-11 family and J-10 which uses the AF-31 engine. That's why I am convinced J-20 is not using the AF-31. It's a very different engine. And I not sure China would use an improved version of WS-10 either on J-20. So its truly a mystery.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Consider the engine numbers. China purchased a total of 499 AL-31FN (all variants) from Russia. The final sale occurred in 2011 for the Series 3. If anyone can prove that China purchased more engines, please prove it. The notion that such a small number of engines can support 430+ J-10 and an undisclosed number of J-20 is highly improbable.

India ordered 920 AL-31FP to support 200+ Su-30MKI. The order occurred in 2012. The Su-30MKI entered service in 2002. Look at the large number of engines needed to support the fleet of Su-30MKI.

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/3/15/1578/

Also note that India is still having engine problems for the AL-31FP even in 2015.

https://warisboring.com/india-s-new-russian-fighters-have-serious-engine-failures-41fd7edbe94c

Russian engines are not reliable nor do they have infinite flight hours for the life of the engine. Engine failures do happen from time to time and a reserve of spare engines are needed.

My question is, where are the Chinese AL-31FN orders? Both J-10C and J-20 production are ongoing. How can there be no engine orders?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> Consider the engine numbers. China purchased a total of 499 AL-31FN (all variants) from Russia. The final sale occurred in 2011 for the Series 3. If anyone can prove that China purchased more engines, please prove it. The notion that such a small number of engines can support 430+ J-10 and an undisclosed number of J-20 is highly improbable.
> 
> India ordered 920 AL-31FP to support 200+ Su-30MKI. The order occurred in 2012. The Su-30MKI entered service in 2002. Look at the large number of engines needed to support the fleet of Su-30MKI.
> 
> http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/3/15/1578/
> 
> Also note that India is still having engine problems for the AL-31FP even in 2015.
> 
> https://warisboring.com/india-s-new-russian-fighters-have-serious-engine-failures-41fd7edbe94c
> 
> Russian engines are not reliable nor do they have infinite flight hours for the life of the engine. Engine failures do happen from time to time and a reserve of spare engines are needed.
> 
> My question is, where are the Chinese AL-31FN orders? Both J-10C and J-20 production are ongoing. How can there be no engine orders?




just two comments ... sorry, but my family is just waiting !

1. ignore "WarIsBoring" ...esp. in regard to Chinese stuff. By the way even if Thomas Newdick is quite a very reliable guy, his report is on the FP-version, not the standard F or FN !

2. There was just another order for additional 100 AL-31 engines. Sadly it was not mentioned what specific version it covers, but I'm sure that the J-20-related engines are all covered by a so far still secret contract similar to the original FN-contract for the J-10.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dil Pakistan

Has anyone got a picture of J20 with canards not open...!!!!!!!!


----------



## j20blackdragon

I want to reiterate again that there is something strange about the J-20's engines. I have better pictures this time.

First, look at the AL-31FN.






Now we zoom in. The AL-31FN has a 'double layer' arrangement in the blue petal area. All Russian engines in the AL-31 family have this characteristic.






I highlight the top layer and bottom layer clearly in the picture below.






Now look at the J-20 engine. Do you see the same petal arrangement? I don't. The nozzles are open in the picture below.






Nozzles are closed in this picture.






I know the nozzles look very similar at a cursory glance. But look at the pictures closely and study the petal arrangement carefully and you will see the difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> I want to reiterate again that there is something strange about the J-20's engines. I have better pictures this time.
> 
> First, look at the AL-31FN.
> ...
> Now we zoom in. The AL-31FN has a 'double layer' arrangement in the blue petal area. All Russian engines in the AL-31 family have this characteristic.
> ....
> I highlight the top layer and bottom layer clearly in the picture below.
> ....
> Now look at the J-20 engine. Do you see the same petal arrangement? I don't. The nozzles are open in the picture below.
> ...
> 
> 
> I know the nozzles look very similar at a cursory glance. But look at the pictures closely and study the petal arrangement carefully and you will see the difference.



NO they are not, and YES they have exactly the same double layer arrangement as on all AL-31-family members ... You only cannot see the second layer as clear as in the image above, since it is a bit more blurred, but again all details are the same. The only missing characteristic detail is that typical row of 2 screws, which bare hidden under that serrated outer skin. Therefore I really don't understand what You want to show ?? Do You really think a minor difference will proof a WS-1X-type of engine ??

Sorry to disappoint You again, but all images You delivers - and esp. as long as they are not as clear and close-up as the J-10B ones - are only proving more and more that we see the same type of engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SQ8

Asok said:


> That's funny! I thought even a man with poor eyesights would be able to tell these are two different engines by just look at the positions of the screws. Yet, Deino use them to show they are the same engine.
> 
> On the J-10 both rows of screws are located on the FIRST set of petals that CAN expand, but on J-20, there are no screws on the FIRST row of petals and no strange triangular dots. The one row of screws are on the SECOND set of the petals that don't expand.
> View attachment 354170


You can have the same engine, but different exhaust petal arrangement. Take a look at the PW-100 on both the F-15 and F-16.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Oscar said:


> You can have the same engine, but different exhaust petal arrangement. Take a look at the PW-100 on both the F-15 and F-16.



It is possible, but it does not mean it is probable or it is the truth.


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> I want to reiterate again that there is something strange about the J-20's engines. I have better pictures this time.
> 
> First, look at the AL-31FN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we zoom in. The AL-31FN has a 'double layer' arrangement in the blue petal area. All Russian engines in the AL-31 family have this characteristic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I highlight the top layer and bottom layer clearly in the picture below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the J-20 engine. Do you see the same petal arrangement? I don't. The nozzles are open in the picture below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nozzles are closed in this picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the nozzles look very similar at a cursory glance. But look at the pictures closely and study the petal arrangement carefully and you will see the difference.



Notice the gaps and spacing between the petals in the AL-31FN illustration below.






Completely nonexistent in the J-20 nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

I'm sorry, but where exactly is the top layer and bottom layer? The top layer should be *HIGHER* than the bottom layer, and the edges of the overlap should be visible. I see a single layer.






AL-31FN

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Asok said:


> It is possible, but it does not mean it is probable or it is the truth.



It is extremely likely and is closer to the truth than any other claims. The current J-20 is underpowered for what its requirements are until the WS-15 arrives a few years later.


----------



## Naif al Hilali

Oscar said:


> It is extremely likely and is closer to the truth than any other claims. The current J-20 is underpowered for what its requirements are until the WS-15 arrives a few years later.


Bismillah irr Rahman ar Raheem

Five more years to get their metallurgic and manufacturing processes down?

I assume they have good mastery of FADEC (Full-Authority Digital Engine Control) by now?

What was the main issue with the Chinese engines' perennial problems with slow spool-up times (going from idle to afterburner)?

Thanks if you have any information.

Hifz u kum Allah

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

The F-16's Pratt & Whitney Engine Nozzle:





The P&W-engined F-15's nozzle petals kept falling off and were just removed altogether and a 2% drag penalty accepted (until the GE engines came around:





The F-16's GE engine nozzle petals:





Hifz u kum Allah


----------



## Asoka

From https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/涡扇-15
"渦扇15目前已知資料，僅確定該發動機研發計畫始於1990年代[1]；西方國家認為該發動機可能向俄羅斯進口Yak-141戰鬥機使用的R-79V-300相關資料，但該方面情資目前未有可信根據支持。渦扇15的首次試車成功目前有兩種說法，一種說法為中國網路所傳出為2005年4月、西方國家則推定為2006年[2]；在2009年12月，網路論壇中開始出現渦扇15的實機裝載測試，2011年，黎明厂实现该发动机验证机提前交付，在2012年之後進入長時期的測試狀態[3][4]。實際服役時程將會在2020年配備在殲20戰鬥機上[5]。

渦扇15的性能目前仍以臆測值為主，西方國家認為在2009年測試版本已經可達成後燃推力輸出160仟牛頓[6]，在2012年的測試可能已達成180仟牛頓（40,000磅）的輸出表現[7]，西方觀察家估計渦扇15的推重比具有1:9之能力[6]

除了在戰鬥機上使用的版本，目前還有一款稱為*SF-A*之研發計畫，該計畫在2009年公布[8][9]；SF-A將渦扇15提高旁通比、取消後燃器，作為C919客機與運20運輸機之動力來源。SF-A輸出動力約為13噸級，原定計畫將在2016年完成原型機[10]；除此之外，尚有代號*SF-B*之研發計畫，但該計畫細節目前不明。"

Let's review the timeline of the WS-15 development program.

1.) Early 1990's, WS-15 is initiated, possibly using the Yak-141's R-79V-300 engine as reference.

2.) On 2005, the core engine of WS-15 was tested.

3.) On 2006, the overall design of WS-15 was approved.

4.) On December of 2009, ground test of WS-15 began.

5.) On 2011, a prototype was provided for initial testing

6.) On 2012, long endurance test began.

7.) Mysterious unidentified engine spotted on J-20 version 2013.

8.) 2020 is the latest date to equip the production version of J-20 with WS-15.

Right now, it's late 2016. Looks like China is on target. It would have taken China 30 years to develop the WS-15 engine. The timeline is similar to US and Russia's effort to develop the same class of Turbofan engine

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dingyibvs

Asok said:


> The sound of J-20 is nothing like that of the Su-27, Su-30, J-11 family and J-10 which uses the AF-31 engine. That's why I am convinced J-20 is not using the AF-31. It's a very different engine. And I not sure China would use an improved version of WS-10 either on J-20. So its truly a mystery.



You can't compare the two's sound, they're very different airframes, and the airframe can change the sound of an engine quite a bit. It's like speakers, if you put the same 8-inch woofer in different enclosures, they can sound very different.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

HD pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

dingyibvs said:


> You can't compare the two's sound, they're very different airframes, and the airframe can change the sound of an engine quite a bit. It's like speakers, if you put the same 8-inch woofer in different enclosures, they can sound very different.



That doesn't sound like a convincing argument.



Asok said:


> I am sorry that doesn't sound like a convincing argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yusheng

Dil Pakistan said:


> Has anyone got a picture of J20 with canards not open...!!!!!!!!



"not open"?????

no hd photo, just picked out from the very old video:
http://v.pptv.com/show/nkXkYsowoN5Bv0M.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## dingyibvs

Asok said:


> That doesn't sound like a convincing argument.



It's simple physics. The engine, like the diaphragm of a speaker, vibrates, which rhythmically push on air molecules thereby generating sound. Those air molecules' movements get altered by the structures it must pass through to reach your ears, thus altering the sound you hear in pitch, tone, and amplitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> I'm sorry, but where exactly is the top layer and bottom layer? The top layer should be *HIGHER* than the bottom layer, and the edges of the overlap should be visible. I see a single layer.....




Don't get me wrong, but what do You want to show??? That both engines are different in certain very minor details ? This in fact I won't deny, but it still proofs that the J-20's engine is an AL-31.

Or Do You want to show that these minor differences are a hint that it is a WS-10 or WS-1X ???

Why all these comparisons ??


----------



## Asoka

J-20 undergoes outdoor RCS testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Dil Pakistan said:


> Has anyone got a picture of J20 with* canards not open*...!!!!!!!!


What do you mean *canard not open bro?*


----------



## Dil Pakistan

pakistanipower said:


> What do you mean *canard not open bro?*



Sir! ....I may not have expressed myself properly.

All the photos of J20 I have seen have their "front wings" OPEN (like wings of a bird are open when flying).

I wanted to see the photos (if possible) that front wings are closed (like the rear ones) for cruising. I may be totally wrong here.


----------



## Asoka

Dil Pakistan said:


> Sir! ....I may not have expressed myself properly.
> 
> All the photos of J20 I have seen have their "front wings" OPEN (like wings of a bird are open when flying).
> 
> I wanted to see the photos (if possible) that front wings are closed (like the rear ones) for cruising. I may be totally wrong here.




You gotta be kidding.[

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dungeness

Dil Pakistan said:


> All the photos of J20 I have seen have their "front wings" OPEN (like wings of a bird are open when flying).
> 
> I wanted to see the photos (if possible) that front wings are closed (like the rear ones) for cruising. I may be totally wrong here.



Canard wings are not retrievable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Dil Pakistan said:


> Sir! ....I may not have expressed myself properly.
> 
> All the photos of J20 I have seen have their "front wings" OPEN (like wings of a bird are open when flying).
> 
> I wanted to see the photos (if possible) that front wings are closed (like the rear ones) for cruising. I may be totally wrong here.


Aircraft with variable sweep wings = F-111, F-14, Tornado etc. were designs of 1970 and 1980 era.

J20 does not have such wing or canard mechanism. Thus it cannot sweep forward (opened) or sweep back (closed) its wings or canards (front wings).

None of current stealth fighters in service or under development have variable sweep wings.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Dil Pakistan said:


> Sir! ....I may not have expressed myself properly.
> 
> All the photos of J20 I have seen have their "front wings" OPEN (like wings of a bird are open when flying).
> 
> I wanted to see the photos (if possible) that front wings are closed (like the rear ones) for cruising. I may be totally wrong here.


bro what are you talking about *when you see J-20 rear wings closed Please post those pics* they're all fixed surfaces and* how can J-20 fly without main/rear wing, and J-20 is a canard delta wing plan-form like J-10,EF-2000, RAFALE and GRIPPEN,* *are you referring to variable swept wing fighter jet like F-14, F-111, Su-24,and Mig-23/27**?*, planes are not birds *sorry to say bro you doesn't have the basic knowledge about fighter jets*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## damiendehorn

Dungeness said:


> Canard wings are not retrievable.



retractable...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## v9s

dingyibvs said:


> It's simple physics. The engine, like the diaphragm of a speaker, vibrates, which rhythmically push on air molecules thereby generating sound. Those air molecules' movements get altered by the structures it must pass through to reach your ears, thus altering the sound you hear in pitch, tone, and amplitude.



Yes. and Simple physics understanding will also tell you that sounds can also be altered by air conditions, weather, etc.

If China was indeed using a domestic engine for its top of the line fighter, you can bet your *** that they'll plaster that info all over the media.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

Dil Pakistan said:


> Has anyone got a picture of J20 with canards not open...!!!!!!!!



There are plenty available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

v9s said:


> Yes. and Simple physics understanding will also tell you that sounds can also be altered by air conditions, weather, etc.
> 
> If China was indeed using a domestic engine for its top of the line fighter, you can bet your *** that they'll plaster that info all over the media.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It could be your eyes are closed, and your ears are shut. And maybe you should keep your month shut too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

2017 show up again (歼20战机在珠海航展上一展风采，而在歼20战机的生产厂中航工业成飞的试飞场上，编号2017的歼20时隔许久再次亮相)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

What is the J-20?

To put it simply, J-20 is a very long range fighter/striker/intercepter with a unique and creative combination of world's first 5th generation fighter, F-22's Stealth, Supercruise, Supermaneuverability and Situational awareness (4S), plus F-35's Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS), Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), Adjustable Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (ADSI), 360 degrees Integrated Helmet and Display SightingSystem (360IHADSS) Combined with High Off-Boresight Missiles(HOBS), plus All Moving Vertical Tails (AMVT) of FA-117, and Adjustable Canards (AC) of Typhoon, Rafael, Gripen, and J-10, and a powerful Active Electronically Scanned Array (ASEA) radar with 2000 T/R modules.

All combined into a technological marvel of an unrivaled, agile, lethal and long range Air Dominance Machine (ADM).

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> What is the J-20?
> 
> To put it simply, J-20 is a very long range fighter/striker/intercepter with a unique and creative combination of world's first 5th generation fighter, F-22's Stealth, Supercruise, Supermaneuverability and Situational awareness (4S), plus F-35's Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS), Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), Adjustable Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (ADSI), 360 degrees Integrated Helmet and Display SightingSystem (360IHADSS) Combined with High Off-Boresight Missiles(HOBS), plus All Moving Vertical Tails (AMVT) of FA-117, and Adjustable Canards (AC) of Typhoon, Rafael, Gripen, and J-10, and a powerful Active Electronically Scanned Array (ASEA) radar with 2000 T/R modules.
> 
> All combined into a technological marvel of an unrivaled, agile, lethal and long range Air Dominance Machine (ADM).
> 
> View attachment 354987
> View attachment 354988


Why you repeated same annoted images again & again

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Why you repeated same annoted images again & again



Really, someone has already posted them? I don't know that. I am new to PDF. I just summarized the main features of J-20 in the caption and used the two pictures as illustrations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Asok said:


> Really, someone has already posted them? I don't know that. I am new to PDF. I just summarized the main features of J-20 in the caption and used the two pictures as illustrations.



Bro, ignore those back seat drivers, they're good in picking bones out of a cream cake, perhaps if they're the ones spending time and efforts surfing around to look for NEW, INTERESTING pictures, they will think otherwise LOL
Nobody is responsible for the satisfaction of these so-called readers, like it or not, 
I DON'T GIVE A SH@T period

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 and J-10B

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

> xxxxxxx





v9s said:


> And you guys have any concrete evidence of using a domestic engine on the J-20, other than fanboy pics?
> 
> No need to get defensive.



Absence of evidence doesn't mean WS-15 does not exist, or haven't been tested on one of the J-20 yet. It simply mean China has choosen not to reveal its status at this moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> All combined into a technological marvel of an unrivaled, agile, lethal and long range Air Dominance Machine (ADM).


An accomplishment for China that is enviable -- yes.

A technological marvel ? Not even hardly, but simply -- no.

Am not saying that to be mean to China as I have always praised the J-20, but there is nothing on the jet that is groundbreaking or new. Not even DSI.



Dil Pakistan said:


> Has anyone got a picture of J20 with canards not open...!!!!!!!!


Looks like a few days gone by and you have not gotten the appropriate help.

The correct word you are looking for is 'deflection'. Not 'open'.

The canard is a flight controls structure or element. It helps the jet uses aerodynamic forces to maneuver.

The definition of 'deflection' is away from a base or neutral condition. What you are looking for is the J-20's canards in a neutral position. In post 6720 you can see that.

So to use the proper aviation related terms and phrasings, it is 'deflection'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Gambit said "but there is nothing on the jet that is groundbreaking or new."

There are things we can't see underneath the skin, since you or we have no access to the plane. For example, new coating materials, new structural materials, new design process, new manufacturing process, new testing procedure, new avionics or software, new self-defense measures or counter-measures.

Aerodynamically, the combination of a distantly coupled canard, and small edges between the canard and the main wings is a definitely a new innovation. It solved the problem that has long bedeviled designers, namely, how to achieve both subsonic and supersonic supermaneuverability using canards. Using this aerodynamic combination, J-20 will have both fearsome capability in both subsonic and supersonic speed.

I don't think most observers have realized the profound implication of this innovation yet.

The combination of 4S is ground breaking for F-22, although individually it may have accomplished in other planes first.

I say it is a "technological marvel " because it still got ample room for further development like the F-15, and Su-27 family so we don't know how it will end up in 20-30 years. Whereas F-22 has already stopped production, and F-35 has no more room for further development because it's already grossly overweight.

The biggest innovation is probably tactic, with very long range and stealth, J-20 could attack enemy's vital support planes such oil tankers, AWACS. This is really a game changer like the ability of FA-117 to penetrate enemy air-defense at will during the Gulf war.

This tactic is truly revolutionary. With every oil tanker down, several enemy fighters will dive into the sea, and if an AWACS is down, the enemy strength for the mission will be down by 50%. No oil tanker or AWACS have been lost in combat yet, but the prospect is truly scary for mission planners. This is even more effective than attacking the enemy's runways, because they can be repaired in matter of hours.

And China and Russia already have long range (300-400Km) missiles for just such purpose of attacking AWACS plane.

Remember, it was the Israel Air Force's excellent trainings and outstanding tactical innovations that destroyed the Arab air forces in previous wars. They claimed even if they switched planes with the Arabs, the results would still be the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Really, someone has already posted them? I don't know that. I am new to PDF. I just summarized the main features of J-20 in the caption and used the two pictures as illustrations.


Yes couple of pages back

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dil Pakistan

gambit said:


> An accomplishment for China that is enviable -- yes.
> 
> Looks like a few days gone by and you have not gotten the appropriate help.
> 
> The correct word you are looking for is 'deflection'. Not 'open'.
> 
> The canard is a flight controls structure or element. It helps the jet uses aerodynamic forces to maneuver.
> 
> The definition of 'deflection' is away from a base or neutral condition. What you are looking for is the J-20's canards in a neutral position. In post 6720 you can see that.
> 
> So to use the proper aviation related terms and phrasings, it is 'deflection'.



Thank you Sir.....!!!

Appreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

2017

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> 2017




But isn't this an old image from about one year ago ???


----------



## Asoka

Interview of Yang Wei, chief designer of J-20, and flight control architect of J-10.

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1846826-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Dil Pakistan said:


> Thank you Sir.....!!!
> 
> Appreciated.




When you said "closed", do you mean like the vertical canards of this F-16/CCV?






*History*
The first YF-16 (#72-1567) was rebuilt in December 1975 to become the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory's Control Configured Vehicle (CCV). CCV aircraft have independent or "decoupled" flight control surfaces, which make it possible to maneuver in one plane without movement in another -- for example, turning without having to bank.

The CCV YF-16 was fitted with twin vertical canards added underneath the air intake, and flight controls were modified to permit use of wing trailing edge flaperons acting in combination with the all moving stabilator. The fuel system was adapted, so that by transferring fuel from one tank to another, the position of the aircraft center of gravity could be adjusted.

The YF-16/CCV flew for the first time on March 16, 1976, piloted by David J. Thigpen. On June 24, 1976, it was seriously damaged in a crash landing. While still more than half a mile out, the engine suffered from a loss of power and in the resulting crash landing the landing gear collapsed. Repairs took over 6 months, and its flight test program was resumed in the spring of 1977. The last flight of the YF-16/CCV was on June 31st, 1977, after 87 sorties and 125 air hours had been logged.

A few years later, the F-16/AFTI program would capitalize on the experience gained from this CCV program.


----------



## S10

Asok said:


> All combined into a technological marvel of an unrivaled, agile, lethal and long range Air Dominance Machine (ADM).
> 
> View attachment 354987
> View attachment 354988



I don't know about that claim. It has a larger air frame than the F-22 while having much less powerful engines. In addition, the USAF has operated stealth jets for at least 3 decades (4 if you count the SR-71). Even as far back as Vietnam War, the American pilots were aware of the need to present minimal radar return to the enemies when flying strike missions. J-20 represents a major leap forward for China, but certainly calling it an unrivaled air dominance machine is far fetched.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

S10 said:


> I don't know about that claim. It has a larger air frame than the F-22 while having much less powerful engines. In addition, the USAF has operated stealth jets for at least 3 decades (4 if you count the SR-71). Even as far back as Vietnam War, the American pilots were aware of the need to present minimal radar return to the enemies when flying strike missions. J-20 represents a major leap forward for China, but certainly calling it an unrivaled air dominance machine is far fetched.



"It has a larger air frame than the F-22"
This is intentional. J-20 will have a much greater range, able to supercruise much longer.

"while having much less powerful engines."
This is temporary. By 2020, J-20 will be equipped with the WS-15 engine which can produce 18 Ton of power, whereas, F-22's engine can produce 16 ton each.

"the USAF has operated stealth jets for at least 3 decades"
That is true. US is the pioneer in stealth technology. But don't forget there is 4S in 5th generation fighters. Stealth is probably the least important factors, if both dueling planes are also stealth.

"but certainly calling it an unrivaled air dominance machine is far fetched."
J-20 is unrivaled because it combined F-22's amazing 4S capability with F-35's advanced and highly integrated avionics, and super long range.

Remember, F-22's central computer is based on PC 486, early 1990's era technology. It has 660MB of memory. My cheap $300 laptop in 2005 has a Pentium 4 processor and 1GB of memory. And F-22 is no longer in production, and no longer being developed further.

And F-35 is grossly overweight, It “Can't Turn, Can't Climb, Can't Run”. It will be clubbed like baby seals in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801682041074958337

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Asok said:


> Remember, F-22's central computer is based on PC 486, early 1990's era technology. It has 660MB of memory. My cheap $300 laptop in 2005 has a Pentium 4 processor and 1GB of memory. And F-22 is no longer in production, and no longer being developed further.




Though initially conceived as state-of-the-art technology in the *early 1990s, some of the Raptor’s antiquated processors run at 25Mhz*. That’s about 56 times slower than the multi-core chips in the iPhone 6.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...advanced-stealth-jet-flies-on-1990s-tech.html

It took the Air Force *more than a decade* to equip the Raptor with the AIM-9X because of the* F-22’s obtuse avionics architecture—which is exceptionally difficult to upgrade*. Even this recent addition of the AIM-9X is a jury-rigged interim measure called Update 5, which also includes an automatic ground collision avoidance system.

While the new software upgrade allows Raptor pilots to take advantage of the performance of the new missile, the jet’s targeting display *will not show the correct symbology for the AIM-9X*. Instead, the weapon will have the same displays as the current AIM-9M and pilots will have to compensate for the difference.

The situation will not be rectified until a new enhanced stores management system (ESMS) is added to the frontline Block 30 and Block 35 Raptors in 2018 with the Increment 3.2B hardware upgrade. With Inc. 3.2B, the F-22 will display the proper symbology for the AIM-9X. But even then,* the F-22 will not have a helmet-mounted cueing system—which was deleted during the jet’s problematic development program in the late 1990s.*

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...e-f-22-stealth-fighter-more-lethal-ever-15434

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> Though initially conceived as state-of-the-art technology in the *early 1990s, some of the Raptor’s antiquated processors run at 25Mhz*. That’s about 56 times slower than the multi-core chips in the iPhone 6.
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...advanced-stealth-jet-flies-on-1990s-tech.html
> 
> It took the Air Force *more than a decade* to equip the Raptor with the AIM-9X because of the* F-22’s obtuse avionics architecture—which is exceptionally difficult to upgrade*. Even this recent addition of the AIM-9X is a jury-rigged interim measure called Update 5, which also includes an automatic ground collision avoidance system.
> 
> While the new software upgrade allows Raptor pilots to take advantage of the performance of the new missile, the jet’s targeting display *will not show the correct symbology for the AIM-9X*. Instead, the weapon will have the same displays as the current AIM-9M and pilots will have to compensate for the difference.
> 
> The situation will not be rectified until a new enhanced stores management system (ESMS) is added to the frontline Block 30 and Block 35 Raptors in 2018 with the Increment 3.2B hardware upgrade. With Inc. 3.2B, the F-22 will display the proper symbology for the AIM-9X. But even then,* the F-22 will not have a helmet-mounted cueing system—which was deleted during the jet’s problematic development program in the late 1990s.*
> 
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...e-f-22-stealth-fighter-more-lethal-ever-15434



"*the F-22 will not have a helmet-mounted cueing system—which was deleted during the jet’s problematic development program in the late 1990s."
*
This is a significant deficiency for the F-22. All major new fighters since 2000's have helmet-mounted cueing system - F-35, J-10, J-20, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Typhoon, Rafael, etc . . .

Helmet-mounted cueing system allow the aiming of the missile much easier, simply look at the target to acquire. It allows the missile to shoot forward and turn around and fly over the pilot's shoulder. A truly effective combat technique. Many pilots were "shoot down" during exercises while completely unaware they were locked on. This is were the F-35's designer's confidence of "let the missile do the turning" came from.

If the F-22 were allowed to continue develop, it's electronic capability would have look like F-35 and have the long range of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

*China successfully fires radical 300+ mile range hypersonic missile that would put key parts of US air operations at risk*







http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/china-successfully-fires-radical-300.html

*VLRAAM Putting US refueling and electronic warfare planes at risks messes with ALL US Air operation strategies*

The gains in range and speed of the VLRAAM pose another significant risk to the concepts of the U.S. military's "Third Offset." U.S. operations are highly dependent on assets like aerial tankers, dedicated electronic warfare aircraft, and AEW&C. For example, without aerial tankers, the relatively short range of the F-35s would become even more of a liability in long range operations in the South China Seas and Taiwan Straits. Similarly, without AEW&C aircraft, F-22s would have to use onboard radars more, raising their risk of detection. Even for stealthy tanker platforms like the planned MQ-25 Stingray drone and proposed KC-Z tanker will be vulnerable to VLRAAMs if detected by emerging dedicated anti-stealth systems such as the Divine Eagle drone and Yuanmeng airship

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

J-20 has been using WS-15 all along, in my opinion.

Folks, I know this sounds crazy and against the majority opinion here at PDF, but I dare to say J-20 has been using WS-15 all along since version 2001. I have been suspected that this is true since J-20 was first tested back in 2011. I don't have definite proof as I don't have an affirmative or confirmed picture of the complete WS-15.

The major reason against J-20 is using WS-15 right now is ASSUMED that WS-15 is not sufficiently mature yet, and so it is very risky to test it on a new aircraft. This seems to be a valid and sound assumption. But we don't know the status of WS-15. This was never officially revealed. And it can not be assumed that WS-15 has not been tested extensively on other aircraft and found satisfactory. So to assume that it is risky for J-20 to use WS-15 or WS-15 immature is just an assumption.

It could be already extensively tested on other aircrafts and found satisfactory, and then, in late 2010, it was installed on the J-20 version 2001 for the first flight.

No evidence or reports says WS-15 immature. I don't have direct evidence that WS-15 is mature or acceptable either, other than the time line of its development.

1.) 1990, WS-15 program initiated.
2.) 2005, the engine core tested.
3.) 2006, WS-15 design approved.
4.) 2009, Ground testing began.

By 2010 when it was being installed on J-20, 20 years have passed. This timeline is similar to the amount of time taken by US to develop F119 for F-22, and F-22 did not start testing with a substitute engine to be on the safe side, neither is T-50.

The major reason people think J-20 is using the AL-31 is because the nozzle petals look similar, but there is no reason that WS-15 nozzle petals can not look similar to AL-31's or any other engine of similar class. The core engine is what is important.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> J-10 has been using WS-15 all along.
> 
> Folks, I know this sounds crazy and against the majority opinion here at PDF, but I dare to say J-10 has been using WS-15 all along since version 2001. I have been suspected that this is true since J-20 was first tested back in 2011. I don't have definite proof as I don't have an affirmative or confirmed picture of the complete WS-15.
> 
> The major reason against J-20 is using WS-15 right now is assumed that WS-15 is not sufficient mature yet, and so it is very risky to test it on a new aircraft. This seems to be a valid and sound assumption. But we don't know the status of WS-15. This was never officially revealed. And it can not be assumed that WS-15 has not been tested extensively on other aircraft and found satisfactory. So to assume that it is risky for J-20 to use WS-15 or WS-15 immature is just an assumption.
> 
> It could be already extensively tested on other aircrafts and found satisfactory, and then, in late 2010, it was installed on the J-20 version 2001 for the first flight.
> 
> No evidence or reports says WS-15 immature. I don't have direct evidence that WS-15 is mature or acceptable either, other than the time line of its development.
> 
> The major reason people think J-20 is using the AL-31 is because the nozzle petals look similar, but there is no reason that WS-15 nozzle petals can not look similar to AL-31's.




@Asok, do us a favour !

If You postulate such claims, You need at least some logic behind. I really know and fully understand Your dare, maybe crusade to persuade us here that each and every Chinese military aircraft is using the most modern hyper secret jet engine that are plain and simple faked to look like a WS-15.

Come on ....

We all know from the latest reports given my some big shrimps that the WS-15 was bench-tested in August last years (quite successfully) and following these reports these test would be transferred to the flying lab (soon) ... even more we know the numbers of AL-31FN S. 3 purchased in Russia and they fit more than nicely to the numbers of J-10B & C spotted so far.

There's absolutely no, really not a single logic reason to think the J-10C is using the WS-15.
And Your argument "No evidence or reports says WS-15 immature. I don't have direct evidence that WS-15 is mature or acceptable either, other than the time line of its development." is simply wrong. There is indeed NO reports that says it is immature, but that does not mean in return it is mature already.

Please, do not derail this forum to some sort of fan-boys-kindergarden as the Key-Forum already became ... and if You post such claims, then post them as Your opinion like "I think" ... but not as a fact like "J-10 has been using WS-15 all along".

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asok, do us a favour !
> 
> If You postulate such claims, You need at least some logic behind. I really know and fully understand Your dare, maybe crusade to persuade us here that each and every Chinese military aircraft is using the most modern hyper secret jet engine that are plain and simple faked to look like a WS-15.
> 
> Come on ....
> 
> We all know from the latest reports given my some big shrimps that the WS-15 was bench-tested in August last years (quite successfully) and following these reports these test would be transferred to the flying lab (soon) ... even more we know the numbers of AL-31FN S. 3 purchased in Russia and they fit more than nicely to the numbers of J-10B & C spotted so far.
> 
> There's absolutely no, really not a single logic reason to think the J-10C is using the WS-15.
> And Your argument "No evidence or reports says WS-15 immature. I don't have direct evidence that WS-15 is mature or acceptable either, other than the time line of its development." is simply wrong. There is indeed NO reports that says it is immature, but that does not mean in return it is mature already.
> 
> Please, do not derail this forum to some sort of fan-boys-kindergarden as the Key-Forum already became ... and if You post such claims, then post them as Your opinion like "I think" ... but not as a fact like "J-10 has been using WS-15 all along".
> 
> Deino



More evidences will be coming. Time to sleep now. It is in Chinese if you or anyone can read it. I will attempt to summarize it in English, tomorrow.

https://kknews.cc/society/oqk3zm.html
https://kknews.cc/military/v43z3l.html
https://kknews.cc/entertainment/nopmq8.html
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5f54ff2b0102vw3z.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Then good night and thanks for Your efforts !


----------



## grey boy 2

Awesome HD pictures of J-20 (credits to cnpl2014)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Asoka

QUOTE="Asok, post: 8955061, member: 34841"]More evidences will be coming. Time to sleep now. It is in Chinese if you or anyone can read it. I will attempt to summarize it in English, tomorrow.

https://kknews.cc/society/oqk3zm.html
https://kknews.cc/military/v43z3l.html
https://kknews.cc/entertainment/nopmq8.html
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5f54ff2b0102vw3z.html[/QUOTE]

As I promised last night, more evidences are coming that shows WS-15 was testing on J-20 since the beginning of the testing program.

In this page, https://kknews.cc/society/oqk3zm.html, an amazing photo was shown.





Some one was standing beside what looks like J-20's engine. The picture was taken on an entrance of a Highway, the article said. Very odd. Let's assume this is not some homemade full size model of J-20, on the way to a park for display.

On the lower bottom right picture, it shows the inside of the engine. It has 10 flaming links, while the AL-FN has 11. The three rinks of the AL-FN are equidistant to each other, while on this engine, the middle rink appears much closer to the inner rink than to the outer rink.

Both engines are remarkably similar. It can be easily see that WS-10 is very different to the other two.

There are reports indicating J-20 was flying with variant of AL-31FN-M2. This unknown engine is not the AL-31FN-M1 variant, which has also 11 flaming links. I can not find a picture of AL-31FN-M2. So I can not rule out the possibility that it is not the AL-31FN-M2. Below is the AL-31FN-M1.






There are some reports indicating WS-15 was based on YAK-141's Soyuz R-79V-300 engine, which China purchased it in the early 1990's.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/5056435.htm?fromtitle=WS15&fromid=2907215&type=syn

In this report, China purchased the 20 kilo newtons R79-300 design blueprints and was able to created the YWH一30—27 core, and based on this core, the CJ-2000 core was developed. WS-15 is the code name for this project.

It is well know that in the 1980's, China has developed a new Titanium alloy which could stand heat up 2000 degree celsius, good enough to develop an engine capable of 180 Kilo Newtons.

It is also known that the WS-15 core was tested on 2005, and it was able to develop 160 Kilo Newtons .

If WS-15 is based on Russian technology, it would explain the remarkable similarity that fooled many observers into thinking J-20 was flying with a variant of AL-31FN.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> As I promised last night, more evidences are coming that shows WS-15 was testing on J-20 since the beginning of the testing program.
> 
> In this page, https://kknews.cc/society/oqk3zm.html, an amazing photo was shown.
> View attachment 356276
> 
> 
> Some one was standing beside what looks like J-20's engine. The picture was taken on an entrance of a Highway, the article said. Very odd. Let's assume this is not some homemade full size model of J-20, on the way to a park for display.
> 
> On the lower bottom right picture, it shows the inside of the engine. It has 10 flaming links, while the AL-FN has 11. The three rinks of the AL-FN are equidistant to each other, while on this engine, the middle rink appears much closer to the inner rink than to the outer rink.
> 
> Both engines are remarkably similar.
> 
> There are reports indicate J-20 was flying with variant of AL-31FN-M2. This unknown engine is not the AL-31FN-M1 variant, which has also 11 flaming links. I can not find a picture of AL-31FN-M2. I can not rule out the possibility that it is the AL-31FN-M2.
> 
> Let's investigate other possibilities like it is WS-15 and it is based on AL-31. As far as I know, no one has suggested this possibility yet. There are some reports indicating WS-15 was based on YAK-141's Soyuz R-79V-300 engine, which China purchased it in the early 1990's. I have not seen any confirmation about it. But it is true F-35's STOVL technology was purchased from Russia. So the engine technology was for sale in those desperate times for Russia.
> 
> It is pretty certain that WS-15 was started in early 1990's. But what technology was its core engine based on?
> 
> I don't believe it is based on CFM-56II. The WS-10 may have been based on the core of the CFM-56II (itself based on the General Electric F101); China purchased two CFM-56IIs in the 1980s.
> 
> The WS-10 program was initiated in 1986. China spent two decades struggling to make it work.
> 
> China purchased the Su-27 fighters in the early1990's. It is possible that China immediately began copying its core with the thousands of experts it hired from the former Soviet Union. What is already known is that China has developed a new Titanium alloy which could stand heat up 2000 degree celsius, good enough to develop an engine capable of 180 Kilo Newtons
> 
> It is also known that the WS-15 core was tested on 2005, and it was able to develop 160 Kilo Newtons .
> 
> If WS-15 is based on the core of AL-31, it would explain the remarkable similarity that fooled many observers into thinking J-20 was flying with a variant of AL-31FN.



Lin Zuming(AVIC chairman) mention during an interview when he just takeover AVIC, Taihang has a very serious problem(not lifespan and quality), he hint more of a design problem. The team suggest to reverse engineer certain engine(possible AL-31F?) but he says China cannot keep reverse engine if China wants to keep in pace with the best. He explain very briefly how he led his team overcome the problem to keep Taihang engine alive and advance.

There must be some reason behind the scene for WS-10 fitted for Shenyang J-11 series plane while the mysterious engine keep for J-10 and J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Lin Zuming(AVIC chairman) mention during an interview when he just takeover AVIC, Taihang has a very serious problem(not lifespan and quality), he hint more of a design problem. The team suggest to reverse engineer certain engine(possible AL-31F?) but he says China cannot keep reverse engine if China wants to keep in pace with the best. He explain very briefly how he led his team overcome the problem to keep Taihang engine alive and advance.
> 
> There must be some reason behind the scene for WS-10 fitted for Shenyang J-11 series plane while the mysterious engine keep for J-10 and J-20.



Where is the report or interview, Beast?

I am leaning toward WS-15 is based on Russian technology of either AL-31F, or R79-v300.

I don't like the word copy when it comes to complex technology. It is no shame to start on some high ground and based on previous work someone has already done.

Godly, I just found an inside picture of R79-v300. It has 16 flaming links and two rinks. Not even close to AL-31 and WS-15. Not sure this is right. There is no article accompany the picture.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nozzle_of_R79V-300_engine.jpg






One possibility that seems no one has examined is that WS-15 could be based on the AL-31F of the SU-27SK fighters that China brought from Russia in the early 1990's. China could have immediately try to copy this engine and improve upon it with the help of thousands of experts it hired from the former Soviet Union.

This would have explained why WS-15 is so similar to AL-31FN, thus fooled many observers into thinking WS-15 was testing with a variant of AL-31FN until WS-15 is ready.

However, this would make the strange case that J-20 is testing with a variant of AL-31, but this variant is not developed in Russia, but developed in China and is called WS-15.

And both sides of the argument are right.

Strange isn't it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> Where is the report or interview, Beast?
> 
> I am leaning toward WS-15 is based on Russian technology of either AL-31F, or R79-v300.
> 
> I don't like the word copy when it comes to complex technology. It is no shame to start on some high ground and based on previous work someone has already done.
> 
> Godly, I just found an inside picture of R79-v300. It has 16 flaming links and two rinks. Not even close to AL-31 and WS-15. Not sure this is right. There is no article accompany the picture.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nozzle_of_R79V-300_engine.jpg
> 
> View attachment 356283
> 
> 
> One possibility that seems no one has examined is that WS-15 could be based on the AL-31F of the SU-27SK fighters that China brought from Russia in the early 1990's. China could have immediately try to copy this engine and improve upon it with the help of thousands of experts it hired from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> This would have explained why WS-15 is so similar to AL-31FN, thus fooled many observers into thinking WS-15 was testing with a variant of AL-31FN until WS-15 is ready.
> 
> This would make the strange case that J-20 is testing with a variant of AL-31, but this variant is not developed in Russia, but developed in China and is called WS-15.
> 
> And both sides of the argument are right.
> 
> Strange isn't it?







30mins onward. Direct from horsemouth of AVIC chairman. I know some slayer who cant read Chinese will claim as not credible! @Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

WS-15 is still at testing, J-20s are not equipped with it` please end this assumption````!

BUT, the engines used on J-20 (btw, already having 24+ in services and conducting exercises) are of domestic variants, not imported Russian ones! (dont ask me for the proves```I cant give it to u lot`` and its up to you to believe it or not)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

rcrmj said:


> WS-15 is still at testing, J-20s are not equipped with it` please end this assumption````!
> 
> BUT, the engines used on J-20 (btw, already having 24+ in services and conducting exercises) are of domestic variants, not imported Russian ones! (dont ask me for the proves```I cant give it to u lot`` and its up to you to believe it or not)



"WS-15 is still at testing" 
Bench testing or testing on some other airplane?

"the engines used on J-20 are of domestic variants of what?" WS-10 or AL-31?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

rcrmj said:


> WS-15 is still at testing, J-20s are not equipped with it` please end this assumption````!
> 
> BUT, the engines used on J-20 (btw, already having 24+ in services and conducting exercises) are of domestic variants, not imported Russian ones! (dont ask me for the proves```I cant give it to u lot`` and its up to you to believe it or not)


I think i need to agree with you on this one. WS-15 shall be still testing.. The one on J-20 is a mysterious engine which has more thrust than AL-31F. Its a higher thrust than WS-10 but lower than the expected WS-15. It shall be something specific tailor for J-20 for the time being.






Yin Zhuo , a CPC board member and a former rear admiral. He was also chosen by PLA to represent PLA view for CCTV talkshow. His security clearance is much higher and able to assess more state secret. He echo exactly what you stated.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rcrmj

Beast said:


> I think i need to agree with you on this one. WS-15 shall be still testing.. The one on J-20 is a mysterious engine which has more thrust than AL-31F. Its a higher thrust than WS-10 but lower than the expected WS-15. It shall be something specific tailor for J-20 for the time being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yin Zhuo* , a CPC board member and a former rear admiral. He was also chosen by PLA to represent PLA view for CCTV talkshow. His security clearance is much higher and able to assess more state secret. He echo exactly what you stated.


just an entertainer, I never take their statements too seriously`````you'd know what I'm talking about when you have friends who are really working for institutions on key projects```they know much better than the armies...



Asok said:


> "WS-15 is still at testing"
> Bench testing or testing on some other airplane?
> 
> "the engines used on J-20 are of domestic variants of what?" WS-10 or AL-31?


WS-15 is on the air now``thats all I can say, 
regarding what engines that are used on J-20, I cant tell you exactly ```` as I cant confirm from my source```it can be WS-variants or something else

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## eldamar

Beast said:


> I think i need to agree with you on this one. WS-15 shall be still testing.. The one on J-20 is a mysterious engine which has more thrust than AL-31F. Its a higher thrust than WS-10 but lower than the expected WS-15. It shall be something specific tailor for J-20 for the time being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yin Zhuo , a CPC board member and a former rear admiral. He was also chosen by PLA to represent PLA view for CCTV talkshow. His security clearance is much higher and able to assess more state secret. He echo exactly what you stated.



Likely a WS-10X

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> just an entertainer, I never take their statements too seriously`````you'd know what I'm talking about when you have friends who are really working for institutions on key projects```they know much better than the armies...
> 
> 
> WS-15 is on the air now``thats all I can say,
> regarding what engines that are used on J-20, I cant tell you exactly ```` as I cant confirm from my source```it can be WS-variants or something else


I guess WS10b on J20, bigger thrust power less life span. If AVIC let a foreign power plant installed on a fifth gem fighter, they can go to hell. 航空发动机如果没有钱学森级别的大拿回国相助是不会有大的突破的，闭门造车纯属浪费时间。

Rhenium is very important for producing engine, China don't have many. Fighter turbo fans engine is the gem on the crown, only three countries on this planet can build high thrust turbo fan engine. We are waiting for a more reasonable and innovative organizational structure and a genius coming.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Tiqiu

A quick sum up of the talks/whispers which i believe quite credible and making sense. Keep in mind that no one in the know can provide prove as this will land them jail time. In China, revealing anything prior to the government release is the act of espionage. So i guess people either take it leave it, or let time to prove.

1) FWS10B is the engine that powers J20 at present. FWS15, which is manufactured by Plant 460, is said has just passed the technology appraisal, batch production will start from 2018 under its original plan.

2)Due to the fact that FWS10B has just finished tens of hours test at the end of 2010, when it was selected to power the #2001 J20 in its maiden flight, there was another J20 using AL31FN as a back up.

3) FWS10B is developed based on the FWS10A adopting many new designs/materials of FWS15 by Plant 410. The engineers at Plant 410 responsible for the development of FWS10B's vectoring nozzle including A9 vector control component for FWS10B are the same people who studied and mapped every components of 99M1. So it is no surprise if its' nozzle has some similarity to that of AL31FN's .

4) FWS10B produces a thrust of 155 KN with afterburning. It enables J20 to conduct supersonic cruise at low level of mach 1.3, a bit lower than the F22. That is why PLA general Yinzhuo commented on TV that until the FWS15 was used,J20 was a bit behind the F22 'supersonic cruise speed (mach 1.8).

5) Plant 410 designated FWS10C to a new medium thrust engine to power J31. Probably it will adopt part of FWS15 designs/materials to FWS13 like did on FWS10B.

6) FWS15 uses carbon based nanocomposites for its nozzle. Since this material will show different color in photos depending on direct light or back light, it can be used as a clue to ascertain which engine is which.

7) It is said that both engines of #2016 are FWS15.

8) The full stealth of the canard wing of the J20 is achieved by the hexagon plasma devices.

9) J20's asea has more than 2100 GaN semiconductors modules.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> A quick sum up of the talks/whispers which i believe quite credible and making sense. Keep in mind that no one in the know can provide prove as this will land them jail time. In China, revealing anything prior to the government release is the act of espionage. So i guess people either take it leave it, or let time to prove.
> 
> 1) FWS10B is the engine that powers J20 at present. FWS15, which is manufactured by Plant 460, is said has just passed the technology appraisal, batch production will start from 2018 under its original plan.
> 
> 2)Due to the fact that FWS10B has just finished tens of hours test at the end of 2010, when it was selected to power the #2001 J20 in its maiden flight, there was another J20 using AL31FN as a back up.
> 
> 3) FWS10B is developed based on the FWS10A adopting many new designs/materials of FWS15 by Plant 410. The engineers at Plant 410 responsible for the development of FWS10B's vectoring nozzle including A9 vector control component for FWS10B are the same people who studied and mapped every components of 99M1. So it is no surprise if its' nozzle has some similarity to that of AL31FN's .
> 
> 4) FWS10B produces a thrust of 155 KN with afterburning. It enables J20 to conduct supersonic cruise at low level of mach 1.3, a bit lower than the F22. That is why PLA general Yinzhuo commented on TV that until the FWS15 was used,J20 was a bit behind the F22 'supersonic cruise speed (mach 1.8).
> 
> 5) Plant 410 designated FWS10C to a new medium thrust engine to power J31. Probably it will adopt part of FWS15 designs/materials to FWS13 like did on FWS10B.
> 
> 6) FWS15 uses carbon based nanocomposites for its nozzle. Since this material will show different color in photos depending on direct light or back light, it can be used as a clue to ascertain which engine is which.
> 
> 7) It is said that both engines of #2016 are FWS15.
> 
> 8) The full stealth of the canard wing of the J20 is achieved by the hexagon plasma devices.
> 
> 9) J20's asea has more than 2100 GaN semiconductors modules.
> 
> View attachment 356475



"FWS15, which is manufactured by Plant 460, is said has just passed the technology appraisal, batch production will start from 2018 under its original plan."

When did you think the airborne testing of FWS-15 on an aircraft started? And on which aircraft?, other than the J-20 version 2016. It is inconceivable that the "batch production will start from 2018" if J-20 (2016) was the first and only test plane. Normally, this phase will take 5-10 years to stabilize a new engine through intensive airborne testing.

Good summary. I have never believed that FWS-15 is still on the bench testing phase and it was never tested on J-20 yet, like some ignorant persons have suggested.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 星海军事

I am curious about your reactions when FWS-15 makes its true debut.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Asok said:


> "FWS15, which is manufactured by Plant 460, is said has just passed the technology appraisal, batch production will start from 2018 under its original plan."
> 
> When did you think the airborne testing of FWS-15 on an aircraft started? And on which aircraft?, other than the J-20 version 2016. It is inconceivable that the "batch production will start from 2018" if J-20 (2016) was the first and only test plane. Normally, this phase will take 5-10 years to stabilize a new engine through intensive airborne testing.
> 
> Good summary. I have never believed that FWS-15 is still on the bench testing phase and it was never tested on J-20 yet, like some ignorant persons have suggested.


2014 April, #2011 tested the so-called "single engine takeoff/landing". The engine on the right of the #2011 was said to be the FWS15. It remained divergent cause it had bigger thrust than the other engine.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2014-04/29/c_126445311.htm
2011号新版歼20疑用新型发动机挑战单发起降

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> 2014 April, #2011 tested the so-called "single engine takeoff/landing". The engine on the right of the #2011 was said to be the FWS15. It remained divergent cause it had bigger thrust than the other engine.
> 
> http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2014-04/29/c_126445311.htm
> 2011号新版歼20疑用新型发动机挑战单发起降
> View attachment 356526



Last night, I had the revelation that J-20 version 2001 was already testing with WS-15 from the very beginning. Today, I came across this article written in 2011-02-25, just after the first test flight of J-20. 

http://bbs.81tech.com/thread-274296-1-1.html. 

It has a detailed timeline of WS-15's development starting from the preliminary investigation in 1984 for a engine with TWR of 10. It also described, extensively, the internal constructions and new technologies used in this engine. I am not sure about this since I am an aviation engineer.

"2009年5月原形机首次台架运转试车成功。

预计，2011年6月“峨眉”发动机的原型机将完成FRET(飞行前鉴定试验阶段)，将于2011年底在J-20上首飞成功.预计2014年7月发动机完成设计定型试验. 2016年生产型发动机定型, 装“峨眉”航空发动机的J-20战斗机将于2018年初具备初步作战能力"

Here it mentioned, that on May of 2009, WS-15's first bench test was successfully conducted. And it is predicted that all pre-flight testings will be completed by June of 2011; by the end of 2011, WS-15 will be tested on J-20; by June of 2014 the WS-15's design will be fully tested; by 2016, the design will be finalized, and by 2018, the J-20 and WS-15 will achieve initial operation capability.

I find this article highly credible and the stated timeline highly plausible.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Last night, I had the revelation that J-20 version 2001 was already testing with WS-15 from the very beginning. Today, I came across this article written in 2011-02-25, just after the first test flight of J-20.
> 
> http://bbs.81tech.com/thread-274296-1-1.html.
> 
> It has a detailed timeline of WS-15's development starting from the preliminary investigation in 1984 for a engine with TWR of 10. It also described, extensively, the internal constructions and new technologies used in this engine. I am not sure about this since I am an aviation engineer.
> 
> "2009年5月原形机首次台架运转试车成功。
> 
> 预计，2011年6月“峨眉”发动机的原型机将完成FRET(飞行前鉴定试验阶段)，将于2011年底在J-20上首飞成功.预计2014年7月发动机完成设计定型试验. 2016年生产型发动机定型, 装“峨眉”航空发动机的J-20战斗机将于2018年初具备初步作战能力"
> 
> Here it mentioned, that on May of 2009, WS-15's first bench test was successfully conducted. And it is predicted that all pre-flight testings will be completed by June of 2011; by the end of 2011, WS-15 will be tested on J-20; by June of 2014 the WS-15's design will be fully tested; by 2016, the design will be finalized, and by 2018, the J-20 and WS-15 will achieve initial operation capability.
> 
> I find this article highly credible and the stated timeline highly plausible.


Bro @cirr, @ChineseTiger1986 was telling couple of Pages back that WS-15 completed its ground testing and started air testing on IL-76 engine test-bed, so how can it be installed on 2001?, just in your wishful thinking and assumptions i think it is WS-10X not WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> I am curious about your reactions when FWS-15 makes its true debut.




Most likely crying that then back in 2011 it was a testbed or prototype version only that due to dramatic new materials and scitific breakthrues only look now very much different ... and only Chinese native speaker can fully see and understand that.

I think the day will come when the whole truth will be revealed and it will be a very sad day for all the fan-boys ... but anyway.

Deino


----------



## eldamar

pakistanipower said:


> Bro @cirr, @ChineseTiger1986 was telling couple of Pages back that WS-15 completed its ground testing and started air testing on IL-76 engine test-bed, so how can it be installed on 2001?, just in your wishful thinking and assumptions i think it is WS-10X not WS-15



But there are people saying that it's not even ws-10x that's on the j-20s


----------



## Tiqiu

The very fact that we are here at PDF says all; the so-called fanboys and professionals are all sharing one commonality. We are pot and kettle.

On topic which engine J20 uses, I am very surprised since the debut of J20 at Zhuhai show, not many western professionals/experts cared on commenting the performance of the J20s and its engine. Normally those people alike would seize any opportunity to belittle Chinese achievements. Why tight- lipped this time?

I am not professional, nor do i pretend to be one.But isn't it a more professional way to judge which engine J20 uses by its flight performance in med-air rather than the appearance of the engine nozzle? Wrong claims can be made on fighter jets" rate of climb or thrust/weight ratio on paper, but the jet cant lie while flying in mid air. For those who don't agree, then at least you need to provide HD images showing every aspects of the nozzle of various type of engines in question to begin with.

I have spent some time to compare the video footages of J20's flight in mid with those of Su27s in order to make my own conclusion whether both jet are using the same or similar Russian engine that some professionals here want me to believe. During the J20 debut flight on Zhuhai Airshow, J20 performed vertical climb at low altitude without acceleration speed and no AFTERBURNER. Some spectator even suggested the speed was actually decelerating.But when I watched Su27 doing the same type of climb maneuver on footage, they all used afterburner, be it after taking-off or flying in mid air. Su27's empty weight is 16380 kg, around 3t lighter than J20, if they all use the AL31F/FN with 75KN dry thrust, how comes the heavier J20 can do the climbing without afterburner that Su27 can't? 

Thus I think it is quite credible that J20 uses FWS10B, not a early model of FWS15s, but a 3.5 generation engine derived from J10A and part of FWS15 technology , which has 100 KN (dry)/155 KN(afterburner) thrust. 

no afterburner when J20 doing vertical climb at 0:06, 0:52, 1:26 and 2:11





afterburner for Su27 doing the similar maneuver at 0:25 and 1:36

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Ultima Thule

eldarlmari said:


> But there are people saying that it's not even ws-10x that's on the j-20s


Yes may be it uses WS-10X or AL-31FN3 so confusing *,but i am answering to @Asok that he was assuming that J-20 uses WS-15 from its first prototype 2001 *


----------



## Beast

Tiqiu said:


> The very fact that we are here at PDF says all; the so-called fanboys and professionals are all sharing one commonality. We are pot and kettle.
> 
> On topic which engine J20 uses, I am very surprised since the debut of J20 at Zhuhai show, not many western professionals/experts cared on commenting the performance of the J20s and its engine. Normally those people alike would seize any opportunity to belittle Chinese achievements. Why tight- lipped this time?
> 
> I am not professional, nor do i pretend to be one.But isn't it a more professional way to judge which engine J20 uses by its flight performance in med-air rather than the appearance of the engine nozzle? Wrong claims can be made on fighter jets" rate of climb or thrust/weight ratio on paper, but the jet cant lie while flying in mid air. For those who don't agree, then at least you need to provide HD images showing every aspects of the nozzle of various type of engines in question to begin with.
> 
> I have spent some time to compare the video footages of J20's flight in mid with those of Su27s in order to make my own conclusion whether both jet are using the same or similar Russian engine that some professionals here want me to believe. During the J20 debut flight on Zhuhai Airshow, J20 performed vertical climb at low altitude without acceleration speed and no AFTERBURNER. Some spectator even suggested the speed was actually decelerating.But when I watched Su27 doing the same type of climb maneuver on footage, they all used afterburner, be it after taking-off or flying in mid air. Su27's empty weight is 16380 kg, around 3t lighter than J20, if they all use the AL31F/FN with 75KN dry thrust, how comes the heavier J20 can do the climbing without afterburner that Su27 can't?
> 
> Thus I think it is quite credible that J20 uses FWS10B, not a early model of FWS15s, but a 3.5 generation engine derived from J10A and part of FWS15 technology , which has 100 KN (dry)/155 KN(afterburner) thrust.
> 
> no afterburner when J20 doing vertical climb at 0:06, 0:52, 1:26 and 2:11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afterburner for Su27 doing the similar maneuver at 0:25 and 1:36



Good observation! I suspect one of the requirement for PLAAF for J-20 to enter service is to have high dry thrust to ensure minimal usage of afterburner to reduce IR signature.

Remember this interview by Yang wei, chief designer of J-20 during Zhuhai 2016






He talk about the movement by J-20 is outstanding as demonstrated by J-20. He also claimed J-20 demonstrated , something not visible to others. So what does this sentence means? If he is talking about radar, its not possible. Those flight move is not possible to reveal the capabilities of its AESA. Not to mention stealthiness unless we have radar install there. Even with radar the ling berg lens will hide J-20 real stealthiness.

The only thing conclude can be the flight demonstrated something outstanding yet its hinting all this is possible due to a powerful engine that enable all this. It cannot be AL-31F engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tiqiu

Beast said:


> Good observation! I suspect one of the requirement for PLAAF for J-20 to enter service is to have high dry thrust to ensure minimal usage of afterburner to reduce IR signature.
> 
> Remember this interview by Yang wei, chief designer of J-20 during Zhuhai 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He talk about the movement by J-20 is outstanding as demonstrated by J-20. He also claimed J-20 demonstrated , something not visible to others. So what does this sentence means? If he is talking about radar, its not possible. Those flight move is not possible to reveal the capabilities of its AESA. Not to mention stealthiness unless we have radar install there. Even with radar the ling berg lens will hide J-20 real stealthiness.
> 
> The only thing conclude can be the flight demonstrated something outstanding yet its hinting all this is possible due to a powerful engine that enable all this. It cannot be AL-31F engine.


Exactly. This short but informative flying of J20 at a international show for the first time was meant to officially demonstrate some capabilities for the professionals of the world by China's authorities. For fanboys those images/footages leaked by the tree top party already do the job. The mere observation at close vicinity by those pilots of the British Red Arrow and the Russian Knights&Swifts aerobatic flight team would suffice for making sound and palpable conclusion about the engine. The Pak Army' s pilots were also there, who even uploaded the J20 flight video to youtube. If they were still using the under-powered Russian engine, the western commentators wouldn't be sitting still and keep their mouth shut, and certainly not so especially after the claims made by the Chinese professionals,chief engineer and even Air chief himself.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> The very fact that we are here at PDF says all; the so-called fanboys and professionals are all sharing one commonality. We are pot and kettle.
> 
> On topic which engine J20 uses, I am very surprised since the debut of J20 at Zhuhai show, not many western professionals/experts cared on commenting the performance of the J20s and its engine. Normally those people alike would seize any opportunity to belittle Chinese achievements. Why tight- lipped this time?
> 
> I am not professional, nor do i pretend to be one.But isn't it a more professional way to judge which engine J20 uses by its flight performance in med-air rather than the appearance of the engine nozzle? Wrong claims can be made on fighter jets" rate of climb or thrust/weight ratio on paper, but the jet cant lie while flying in mid air. For those who don't agree, then at least you need to provide HD images showing every aspects of the nozzle of various type of engines in question to begin with.
> 
> I have spent some time to compare the video footages of J20's flight in mid with those of Su27s in order to make my own conclusion whether both jet are using the same or similar Russian engine that some professionals here want me to believe. During the J20 debut flight on Zhuhai Airshow, J20 performed vertical climb at low altitude without acceleration speed and no AFTERBURNER. Some spectator even suggested the speed was actually decelerating.But when I watched Su27 doing the same type of climb maneuver on footage, they all used afterburner, be it after taking-off or flying in mid air. Su27's empty weight is 16380 kg, around 3t lighter than J20, if they all use the AL31F/FN with 75KN dry thrust, how comes the heavier J20 can do the climbing without afterburner that Su27 can't?
> 
> Thus I think it is quite credible that J20 uses FWS10B, not a early model of FWS15s, but a 3.5 generation engine derived from J10A and part of FWS15 technology , which has 100 KN (dry)/155 KN(afterburner) thrust.
> 
> no afterburner when J20 doing vertical climb at 0:06, 0:52, 1:26 and 2:11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afterburner for Su27 doing the similar maneuver at 0:25 and 1:36



Good observation. J-20 did not use afterburner for the whole performance, yet it's flight characteric is at least equal even better that the Flanker which used afterburner.

In my opinion, J-20 is unlikely using WS-10B or AL-31FN because WS-10B has 8 flaming link, AL-31-FN has 11, while J-20 has 8 flaming links as shown in the following pictures.







The bottom picture is the WS-10B with 8 flaming links in it afterburner.





Starting at 1:55, this TV show video claims at least one J-20 has equipped WS-15.










This video was first shown in 2013. It claims WS-15 has made major breakthroughs and paved the way for mass production. And the reason why WS-15's development is proceeding smoothly is because China purchased the design blueprint of the Russian Yak-141's engine and VTOL technology, the R-179-300, which has a maximum thrust of somewhere between 196 and 206 kN and a Thrust to Weight Ration of 11-12. Unreal! Amazing!


We know the Yak-141 engine was for sale because the American purchased the VTOL technology and used it on the F-35.

http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Good observation. J-20 did not use afterburner for the whole performance, yet it's flight characteric is at least equal even better that the Flanker which used afterburner.
> 
> In my opinion, J-20 is unlikely using WS-10B or AL-31FN because WS-10B has 8 flaming link, AL-31-FN has 11, while J-20 has 8 flaming links as shown in the following pictures.
> 
> View attachment 356983




@Asok,

Your assumption is wrong, since Your image on the bottom shows clearly not a WS-15 but anything else. This image was posted even prior to the J-20's (2001) maiden flight in January and then rumoured to be a WS-10G ... (what would bit by the number of links), but a WS-15 is impossible.

Even more all images showing a J-20 in afterburner we know - and You posted most of them Yourself for comparison - all show the typical 11 links, not 8.

As such it seems Your are a bit flip-flopping the images, arguments only to prove what long has been a fact.

Anyway... time will tell.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

While, I am not absolutely certain the bottom two pictures are authentic. But it seems to be J-20 and its engine. It has 10 flaming links, not 11 as of the AL-31FN of the top right picture. The inside of the WS-15 is very similar to AL-31FN, but very different to WS-10B. In fact, honestly, I don't know any engine has 10 flaming rinks. I had look at a lot picture of inside the engine nozzles.

AL-31FN has three rinks that are evenly spaced, while WS-15's middle rink is much closer to the inner rink than to the outer rink.






"Even more all images showing a J-20 in afterburner we know"
Those images don't show the inside of the nozzle, with the engine NOT running to get a clear picture, so they are inconclusive.

While, I can see people may have a hard time believing WS-15 is already mature, stable and ready for mass production, but I just can't see anyone would have a hard time accepting WS-15 may have been installed on J-20 for testing, a while back.

Aircraft engine takes a long time to mature, and there is no better way to find out the potential problems than test it on an aircraft, after extensive ground testing, of course.

If WS-15's core engine is based on the Yak-141's r-179-300 engine, it may have the potential to reach 196-206kN as the Russians have claimed. This is absolutely astonishing.

I urge everyone to read this page.

http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en






The leaked maximal thrust of WS-15 is 180kN. This is very high already compared to F-22's 160kN, but lower than's F-35's 190kN. However, F-35 has only one engine and is already overweight. Big Mistake!

If WS-15 does able to develop 206kN like the R-79-300 and go even higher in future models, it will bust anybody's behind, no problemo. China already developed a Titanium alloy that could withstand 2200K high temperature, which is crucial for this class of engine. So the road is open for this kind of new development.

This is so shocking. If the Americans has known this, they would certainly keep the production of F-22 going instead of stop at 187 units. They had always hoped the Chinese Engine Technology is not as good. True, the Americans had developed the F-22's P&W F119 engine and F-35 P&W F135, decades ago. But it is still shocking to see someone has caught up so quickly. Not so long ago, China had a great deal of troubles developing the WS-10.

Perhaps, this is why China has keep the development of WS-15 so secretive. Aircraft engine technology used to be our major weakness, now, it's suddenly our Trump card.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> While, I am not absolutely certain the bottom two pictures are authentic. But it seems to be J-20 and its engine. It has 10 flaming links, not 11 as of the AL-31FN of the top right picture. The inside of the WS-15 is very similar to AL-31FN, but very different to WS-10B. In fact, honestly, I don't know any engine has 10 flaming rinks. I had look at a lot picture of inside the engine nozzles.
> 
> AL-31FN has three rinks that are evenly spaced, while WS-15's middle rink is much closer to the inner rink than to the outer rink.
> 
> View attachment 356993
> 
> 
> "Even more all images showing a J-20 in afterburner we know"
> Those images don't show the inside of the nozzle, with the engine NOT running to get a clear picture, so they are inconclusive.
> 
> While, I can see people may have a hard time believing WS-15 is already mature, stable and ready for mass production, but I just can't see anyone would have a hard time accepting WS-15 may have been installed on J-20 for testing, a while back.
> 
> Aircraft engine takes a long time to mature, and there is no better way to find out the potential problems than test it on an aircraft, after extensive ground testing, of course.
> 
> If WS-15's core engine is based on the Yak-141's r-179-300 engine, it may have the potential to reach 196-206kN as the Russians have claimed. This is absolutely astonishing.
> 
> I urge everyone to read this page.
> 
> http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en


their is no confirmed images of WS-15 on net but in your assumptions



Asok said:


>


*What is the prove that lower images is WS-15?*


----------



## Deino

Simply, this image was posted well before the J-20's maiden flight ... IMO it is a mock-up only, nothing more. So to compare the number of detail in the inner flameholder as a fact but ignore all images we have showing a J-20 in afterburner is pure blindness only since it does not fit Your desire.

Again ... the WS-15 will show up some day and I'm sure we will be certain if it appears in the same way we can differ a WS-10 from an AL-31FN. There's really no need to create such fakes of a WS-10 mated with an AL-nozzle.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Simply, this image was posted well before the J-20's maiden flight ... IMO it is a mock-up only, nothing more. So to compare the number of detail in the inner flameholder as a fact but ignore all images we have showing a J-20 in afterburner is pure blindness only since it does not fit Your desire.
> 
> Again ... the WS-15 will show up some day and I'm sure we will be certain if it appears in the same way we can differ a WS-10 from an AL-31FN. There's really no need to create such fakes of a WS-10 mated with an AL-nozzle.
> 
> Deino



"Simply, this image was posted well before the J-20's maiden flight ... "
I don't know this true. Hope you can provide a link to verify. The earliest post I could find with this picture is the link by our member Tiqiu on Jan 28, 2016. There was the same post and on the same day:
on http://site.6park.com/military/index.php?app=forum&act=threadview&tid=14602087

Remember, the "maiden" flight of Jan. 11, 2011 was accompanied with absolutely no fanfare, no flowers for the pilot, no jubilant celebration on the ground. It was flown very casually. It was a non even for the manufacture. In fact many people has speculated that there was two J-20 with the same version number of 2001, but the nozzle colors was different. The other one has long flown before this one.

"There's really no need to create such fakes of a WS-10 mated with an AL-nozzle."
One casual look at the "fake" picture, we can tell the inside of WS-10 (8 flaming links) is completely different than the WS-15 (10 flaming links) and AL-31 (11 flaming links).

IMO, J-20 is going into LRIP equipped with WS-15 and it has TVC nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> "Simply, this image was posted well before the J-20's maiden flight ... "
> I don't know this true. Hope you can provide a link to verify. The earliest post I could find with this picture is the link by our member Tiqiu on Jan 28, 2016. There was the same post and on the same day:
> on http://site.6park.com/military/index.php?app=forum&act=threadview&tid=14602087



I have both images - even in the original colour version - dated 15. June 2011 and 5. September 2011. As such I need to correct myself - SORRY - it was not before, but anyway soon after the maiden flight. But both images are strange ... isn't it strange that a girl is standing in front of a super-secret new engine, a photographer can take an image of it and post it in a forum ?? How likely is this?

Here from my PC:







> Remember, the "maiden" flight of Jan. 11, 2011 was accompanied with absolutely no fanfare, no flowers for the pilot, no jubilant celebration on the ground. It was flown very casually. It was a non even for the manufacture. In fact many people has speculated that there was two J-20 with the same version number of 2001, but the nozzle colors was different. The other one has long flown before this one.



But why should this be a hint for a WS-15 ?? The maiden flight itself was not much official even if there was indeed a celebration afterwards, we know images from the celebration and banquet showing the pilot, the design team and even its official PLAAF-project number was mentioned. I really did never expect the mentioning of the engine type., since this was not even mentioned on the J-10's maiden flight too.



> "There's really no need to create such fakes of a WS-10 mated with an AL-nozzle."
> One casual look at the "fake" picture, we can tell the inside of WS-10 (8 flaming links) is completely different than the WS-15 (10 flaming links) and AL-31 (11 flaming links).



Yes it is different, but at what we are looking at???
Again !!! WE have no image of the real WS-15 since by all reliable accounts this engine is only available in a test-specimen since last year's summer. So to be sure the WS-15 has 10 links is IMO a bit far fetched ??

All we can say it is something that looks like the J-20's engine, it appeared well within the early test-phase and has be seen with suspicious, due to that girl ??
There's no proof that this IS a WS-15 ... and IMO by all accounts it is more than unlikely.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> I have both images - even in the original colour version - dated 15. June 2011 and 5. September 2011. As such I need to correct myself - SORRY - it was not before, but anyway soon after the maiden flight. But both images are strange ... isn't it strange that a girl is standing in front of a super-secret new engine, a photographer can take an image of it and post it in a forum ?? How likely is this?
> 
> Here from my PC:
> View attachment 357097
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why should this be a hint for a WS-15 ?? The maiden flight itself was not much official even if there was indeed a celebration afterwards, we know images from the celebration and banquet showing the pilot, the design team and even its official PLAAF-project number was mentioned. I really did never expect the mentioning of the engine type., since this was not even mentioned on the J-10's maiden flight too.
> 
> Yes it is different, but at what we are looking at???
> Again !!! WE have no image of the real WS-15 since by all reliable accounts this engine is only available in a test-specimen since last year's summer. So to be sure the WS-15 has 10 links is IMO a bit far fetched ??
> 
> All we can say it is something that looks like the J-20's engine, it appeared well within the early test-phase and has be seen with suspicious, due to that girl ??
> There's no proof that this IS a WS-15 ... and IMO by all accounts it is more than unlikely.
> 
> Deino



Thanks for your images. That's a great help. Now I know where it was first appeared. http://www.fyjs.cn/ or





"So to be sure the WS-15 has 10 links is IMO a bit far fetched ??"
This simply helps rule out that engine is WS-10 or AL-31FN.

We have three choices for J-20's engine. WS-10B, AL-31FN. The WS-10B is not much more powerful than AL-31FN. As we have seen on the China Airshow, the J-20 can do the entire flight, including vertical climbings, without the use of afterburner, whereas, the Flanker used afterburner for its entire flight. This kind of power demonstration is hard to fake. Pretty firm evidence, IMO.

That left just the WS-15 as the only choice left thats fits the bill.

As for those diehard doubters, a wiseman said: "It is not hard to wake up those who are willing to be awake, but it is damn near impossible to wake up those who are pretending to be sleep or unwilling to wake up, when the Sun has risen."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

You are welcome !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> You are welcome !


 I have learned that we are here to play armchair detectives to entertain each other. No need to be too serious and offensive. Thanks Deino!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

Asok said:


> I have learned that we are here to play armchair detectives to entertain each other. No need to be too serious and offensive. Thanks Deino!


Agree
Classified info is classified for a reason. So we can all speculate here,no one,but time is entitled to give verdict.
By law of physics, I know those two J-20 jets in the debut demo flight at the Zhuhai air show must not be powered by any AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tiqiu said:


> Agree
> Classified info is classified for a reason. So we call all speculate here,no one,but time is entitled to give verdict.
> By law of physics, I know those two J-20 jets in the debut demo flight at the Zhuhai air show must not be powered by any AL-31F.



The AL-31FM2 is already out, since it hasn't passed any flight test, so let alone being installed on the J-20.

Now the real contest is between the WS-10X and the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

That's right. For J-20 with a weight of 19t plus fuel to make that kind of vertical climb maneuver without afterburner, those mysterious engines have to have a lot higher thrust than the Russian ones.

If graphic analysis is the only means for our outsiders to speculate, then at least people need to analyze the color characteristic of the exhaust nozzles of various engines in question here in addition to their shapes, structures etc, as the petals and flops are made of different materials and different materials have different properties, thus they will show different color under light. I heard the nozzle of FWS10B uses ceramic-based composite materials and FWS15 uses carbon-based nanomaterials to tolerant high temperature, so i think we should pay some attention to this aspect when viewing and comparing those engines.

F-35 's nozzle uses ceramic matrix composites

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

11 LRIPs，of which 6 have been painted with "tactical numbers".

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 11 LRIPs，of which 6 have been painted with "tactical numbers".




IMAGES PLEASE ... oh man, where are my chill-pills !??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> IMAGES PLEASE ... oh man, where are my chill-pills !??



Well, in his weibo, the mod of fyjs (one of the two most popular China military BBS) claimed there are 11 J-20 production version in CAC factory, and 6 of the 11 has printed numbers.

Note the many of first bunch of J-20's pictures we saw in 2010/2011 were taken by this exact mod, he also post the first few J-10B/C pictures.

He sure has some credit here.

There are many threads in mulitple Chinese defence related BBS discuss this, for example:
http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2325242&extra=page=1

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Thanks a lot ... did he mention any numbers ? Are they already a 5-digit serial or similar to the first FTTC-unit the J-10A were allocated to, only 2-digit numbers ?

Thanks again,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

52051 said:


> Well, in his weibo, the mod of fyjs (one of the two most popular China military BBS) claimed there are 11 J-20 production version in CAC factory, and 6 of the 11 has printed numbers.
> 
> Note the many of first bunch of J-20's pictures we saw in 2010/2011 were taken by this exact mod, he also post the first few J-10B/C pictures.
> 
> He sure has some credit here.
> 
> There are many threads in mulitple Chinese defence related BBS discuss this, for example:
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2325242&extra=page=1


For this, the national security will invite him for tea.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> For this, the national security will invite him for tea.


Some are intentional leak with blessing from PLAAF. I am sure this is a response after JMSDF bragging about being the first foreigner countries to takeover F-35A.

It might not long before we can even know more about what type of engines used on J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Beast said:


> Some are intentional leak with blessing from PLAAF. I am sure this is a response after _JMSDF bragging about being the first foreigner countries to takeover F-35A_.
> 
> It might not long before we can even know more about what type of engines used on J-20.


Talking about "JMSDF bragging about being the first foreigner countries to takeover F-35A" in a nice photo show (credit to the National Interest publication), CCTV 4 in its Focus Today just moment ago (02 Dec, evening program) just aired that segment and showed the nice photo along with Japan's new anti-ship ground missile, arguably to defend the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Island. It's said that Japan pays around JPY750 bn (or about USD6.6 bn) a year for protection fee to USFJ.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Some are intentional leak with blessing from PLAAF. I am sure this is a response after JMSDF bragging about being the first foreigner countries to takeover F-35A.
> 
> It might not long before we can even know more about what type of engines used on J-20.




Indeed an argument ... by the way: Do You remember once ???

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> Thanks a lot ... did he mention any numbers ? Are they already a 5-digit serial or similar to the first FTTC-unit the J-10A were allocated to, only 2-digit numbers ?
> 
> Thanks again,
> Deino



He didnt, all he claimed are: 11 J-20 IOC version so far, and 6 have number printed, and he claimed that there will be 700+ J-20 planned.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> He didnt, all he claimed are: 11 J-20 IOC version so far, and 6 have number printed, and he claimed that there will be 700+ J-20 planned.




Ok ... then I must have misinterpret the first part (even if 11 LRIP birds was already assumed by late October), the 6 with the numbers however are new.

Concerning the 700+ I think that's more a bit of an overestimation ... just think about how many Flankers China has so far.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> Ok ... then I must have misinterpret the first part (even if 11 LRIP birds was already assumed by late October), the 6 with the numbers however are new.
> 
> Concerning the 700+ I think that's more a bit of an overestimation ... just think about how many Flankers China has so far.
> 
> Deino



Well, with all respect, like I explained before, the past experience is not a very good indication of future when it come to military production in China now, like if we use past production of 052C to forecast, then we may reach a conclusion, that China will order no more than 4-6 052d DDG, yet we get 13 052d DDG now and new orders are still coming.

The production of China's military hardware is on an accerlating phase now, I explained the reasons before.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Ok ... then I must have misinterpret the first part (even if 11 LRIP birds was already assumed by late October), the 6 with the numbers however are new.
> 
> Concerning the 700+ I think that's more a bit of an overestimation ... just think about how many Flankers China has so far.
> 
> Deino



J-20 is going to be a force multiplier. Other than being a long range striker to take out the oil tankers, AWACS and EW planes, it could act as a commander to drones and 3rd and 4th generation fighters. When you see a cloud of j-10 J-11 and J-15, and J-16 in the sky on your radar screen coming at you, you know you are not going to defeat them with just your F-16, F-35, F-15, knowing lurking in them could be many J-20. Without enough F-22s to escort your other fighters, your battle plan is out of the window.

And if you just going to send F-22 to meet them, the J-1X fighters could act as a swarm of weapon platforms for the J-20, which provide them with targeting information. The J-20 will enable the J-1X fight better, so China might need less of them.

So in my opinion, 500 J-20 is minimum and even 800 of them is not too many. Remember, the USAF's original plan was to have 800 F-22s.

I might even say 1200, even 2000 J-20's is possible. I hear you doubters laughing and rolling on the floor and saying "NO, ITS IMPOSSIBLE! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? WHERE IS THE PROOF?"

But who is planning to build 2400 F-35 at a cost of $230 millions per plane, and has accumulated $20 Trillions national debt ($4 Trillions By George W. Bush, and $10 Trillions by Barry O'Bomber) and owes China $1.3 Trillion dollars.

And you think it is possible for China to build 1200-2000, or even just 500, J-20 at $120 millions per plane?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

_Lockheed Martin should feel great gratitude to Japan for its huge contribution to the funding of this masterpiece.

非常に多くの日本をありがとうございます Hijō ni ōku no Nihon o arigatōgozaimasu Thank you very much, Japan!_
*
~~~~~~~~

Japan Finally Acquires First Beleaguered F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Sputniknews (2016-12-03)*

*The Japan Air Self-Defence Force received the first of its Lockheed Martin F-35s this week at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona according to IHS Jane’s.*

Since 2006, the F-35 has been plagued by a series of issues involving logistics systems, avionics processors, landing gear, and fuel tank design. In October, a Marine Corps F-35B fighter jet caught on fire during a training simulation.

_*"Every time they test it they find another failure," Pierre Sprey, one of the designers of the F-16, told Sputnik Radio. "Another failure means an expensive fix that has to be put into the production line," Sprey added.*_

One of the chief features of the F-35s, its stealth capability, "was an advertising hook when it was first developed as a multibillion dollar program in the early 80s," he said. "Stealth itself dated all the way back to World War II, but was a relatively cheap and low-level operation," he noted. And while stealth may have been an effective marketing tactic, "every Battle of Britain radar would be able to see every stealth airplane today, loud and clear," he said.

Still, the F-35s are a significant upgrade from Japan’s 1970s-era Mitsubishi-McDonnell Douglas F-4J Kai aircraft. "This is such an important time in our wing’s history" Colonel Kurt Gallegos, the 944th Fighter Wing commander, said of the deal, according to Update Philippines.

*The entire deal, including initial purchase, future maintenance and repairs, is worth an estimated $14 billion, IHS Jane’s notes. Japan has agreed to procure 28 of the F-35s over the next five years, the security intelligence news agency adds.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Asoka

Air force Monthly magazine has a 100 pages "Stealth" special featuring all stealth planes of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Air force Monthly magazine has a 100 pages "Stealth" special featuring all stealth planes of the world.
> 
> View attachment 357561




*AND TO ADMIT IT IS THE WORST PIECE OF CRAP* ... esp. for the J-20 since in no way it is up to date. In general it is a mix-max of my very first report published in the Combat Aircraft right after '2001's' maiden flight and when I was still thinking that this very first prototype used WS-10-engines (at least for the ground-runs). Even more it begins with exactly my introduction for my book "Modern Chinese Warplanes" ... nearly a copy&paste report.

I'm really surprised that the editorial team at Key-Publishing when doing a plain a stupid copy&paste report, they did not include the other corrected, updated and most recent ones ?

Overall not worth a penny.

Deino



cnleio said:


> View attachment 357523




Nice, since it shows this image posted on 22. October finally without the watermark.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> *AND TO ADMIT IT IS THE WORST PIECE OF CRAP* ... esp. for the J-20 since in no way it is up to date. In general it is a mix-max of my very first report published in the Combat Aircraft right after '2001's' maiden flight and when I was still thinking that this very first prototype used WS-10-engines (at least for the ground-runs). Even more it begins with exactly my introduction for my book "Modern Chinese Warplanes" ... nearly a copy&paste report.
> 
> I'm really surprised that the editorial team at Key-Publishing when doing a plain a stupid copy&paste report, they did not include the other corrected, updated and most recent ones ?
> 
> Overall not worth a penny.
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, since it shows this image posted on 22. October finally without the watermark.
> 
> View attachment 357574



You could take them to the courts for copyright infringement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Another evidence of VT Nozzle? Notice the gap between the saw tooth edge and the engine ring is noticeably narrowed in second picture and the nozzles bended upward.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

Asok said:


> Another evidence of VT Nozzle? Notice the gap between the saw tooth edge and the engine ring is noticeably narrowed in second picture and the nozzles bended upward.
> View attachment 357573
> 
> View attachment 357569



That's not how TVC nozzle pedals actuate. The effect is probably either due to the camera or simply metal expansion under heat.


----------



## Asoka

A great commentary on why J-20 MUST be using WS-15 and has TVC nozzles. For those diehard doubters, let me ask:

1.) When was the WS-15 Engine Core (核心机) project initiated? When did it passed acceptance test?
2.) After the WS-15 Engine Core is passed, when was the whole WS-15 Engine project initiated?
3.) How many years have that already passed?
4.) Where did you got the information that WS-15 engine is still undergo ground bench test.

请问WS-15的核心机何时立项？核心机又是何时通过考核通过？
核心机通过考核后，WS-15的整机何时启动的？到现在已经多少年？WS-15还在台上的消息从何而来？

For those who like to say, there is no evidence that J-20 is using WS-15 and it has no VTC,

5.) I would like to ask you what is the purpose of censorship or deliberately withholding vital information, and releasing conflicting/incomplete/ambiguous/dubious informations through various official/unofficial channels?

6.) Why is that disinformation is practiced by almost every country to keep an important secret, secret?

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1840451-1-29.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xunzi

cnleio said:


> View attachment 357523


The craftsmanship on the J-20 looks amazing up close. WOW!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> IMAGES PLEASE ... oh man, where are my chill-pills !??



Formal induction/handover within a couple of weeks.

All 6 of them.

Fingers and toes crossed for early availability of






though I know it is highly unlikely

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Formal induction/handover within a couple of weeks.
> 
> All 6 of them.
> 
> Fingers and toes crossed for early availability of
> 
> View attachment 357732
> 
> 
> though I know it is highly unlikely




Thanks ... exactly like I hoped for a few posts ago :

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-454#post-8971340

Are there any more recent images concerning the numbers ? Are these plain 2-digit serials similar to the J-10s then or something like the first operational J-10B with 78x1x assigned to the 170. Brigade at the FTTC?

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

cirr said:


> View attachment 357732



cirr's picture perfectly shows what the 'old' AL-31FN (not Series 3) looks like.

All the 'old' pictures of the J-10A have this standard look with the blue petals.





Now the AL-31FN has suddenly become this. Look carefully at the nozzle of a J-10A/S from the August 1st aerobatic team from recent Zhuhai 2016 pictures.









Look at the multi-colors of the petals.
Look at the shape of the petals.
Look at the gaps and spacing between the petals.
Look at the obvious brand new white markings on the petals.

Why would the 'old' AL-31FN have such a sudden change in looks? The final purchase of the 'old' AL-31FN occurred in 2009.

Finally, compare with the uncoated J-20 nozzle.





What is going on here? Why is the J-20 using the same engine as the J-10A/S?


----------



## SQ8

Good lord, is there still analysis of the exhaust petals going on? 

I thought it was concluded based on the simple variability of exhaust arrangement for engines in different platforms?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Some simply never give up ... in a certain way also admirable !

The colour simply changes due to the heat during use ad the older an exhaust is, the much more different the colour is:







What however remains the same, is their overall shape of the pedals. In the J-20 the engine is simple a bit more buried within the fuselage.






But some still do not want to accept it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

To all people who don't believe J-20 is using WS-15:

Are you saying J-20 version 2101 is using AL-31FN? 

Do you really think the PLA Air Force would going LRIP with two unreliable and underpowered Russian AL-31FN engines on J-20?

Some believe WS-15 is just entered bench testing in 2015.

Don't you think when WS-15 is ready in 5-7 years, testing on J-20 would need to be done all over again for another 5 years? 

That would put J-20's fully combat ready service date in meaningful numbers, 10-12 years from now, that is 2026-2028. 

If PLAAF roll out J-20 with unreliable and underpowered AL-31FN, 24 planes per years, in ten years, there will be 240 planes.

Don't you think they all need to go back into the factory for major rework and heavy modifications in order to install the WS-15 on them? 

Do you really think putting a new and entirely different and much more powerful engine onto a 5th generation fighter is like loosen a few screws and pop in the new engines? 

Do you really think the PLAAF is really going to happy with 240 of their premier 5th generation fighters equipped with AL-31FN for next 10 years?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Look at the multi-colors of the petals.


The blue color is indicative of continuing use. These 'petals' are often designed to be interchangeable from engine design to engine design, not just from engine to engine of the same design.

The operating temperature, even at the highest throttle setting, are well below the melting point of the metal, assuming this is a composite material. Over time and usage, the metal will change its steady state color to that blue-ish tint. This characteristic should not be used to speculate what kind of engine is in what airplane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> The blue color is indicative of continuing use. These 'petals' are often designed to be interchangeable from engine design to engine design, not just from engine to engine of the same design.
> 
> The operating temperature, even at the highest throttle setting, are well below the melting point of the metal, assuming this is a composite material. Over time and usage, the metal will change its steady state color to that blue-ish tint. This characteristic should not be used to speculate what kind of engine is in what airplane.



"These 'petals' are often designed to be interchangeable from engine design to engine design, not just from engine to engine of the same design."

I agreed. No need to reinvent everything just because you want a new engine. It's the Engine Core that counts.



Asok said:


> "These 'petals' are often designed to be interchangeable from engine design to engine design, not just from engine to engine of the same design."
> 
> I agreed. No need to reinvent everything just because you want a new engine. It's the Engine Core that counts.



"This characteristic should not be used to speculate what kind of engine is in what airplane."
Agreed. I find compare the engine petals are a wasting of time. It's not conclusive.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 has a really good chance to have a formal induction ceremony around 10 days

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

grey boy 2 said:


> J-20 has a really good chance to have a formal induction ceremony around 10 days


We got to show it to the Japanese, China is the first Asian countries to have induct fifth gen fighter, not Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

Asok said:


> "This characteristic should not be used to speculate what kind of engine is in what airplane."
> Agreed. I find compare the engine petals are a wasting of time. It's not conclusive.


Totally agreed. But some still do not want to accept it.


Deino said:


> But some still do not want to accept it.


If you meant to say that some of us will not want to accept your final verdict that J-20 is powered by AL-31FN based on your digital graphic analyst skills on the images of the engines used by J-20 sourced only from the Chinese internet sites, then surly you can count me as some of them.

It seemed you don't see the flaws in your methods, your analysis is solely based on the images and translations supplied by the Chinese internet posters, which can be misleading and inconclusive, since all images are on the net because they are approved by the authorities to be there, and many times the time of publishing on the net does not necessarily mean the time of taken of those images. Plus you have a weak point of not mastering the Chinese language. Without the ability to read all publishing,news coverage etc about a subject matter, how can you be so confident in forming your final conclusion? Other factors such as those accounts made in relation to its vertical climb and loud sounds bear no relevance/significance in your methods?




Two of the J-20 jets flew over dignitaries, industry executives and spectators and gathered at the show's opening ceremony during a 60-second flypast. Source: dailymail





In this image made from video, the J-20 stealth fighter pulls a sharp incline to a a crowd of spectators and dignitaries at the Zhuhai airshow. Source: dailymail


After the J-20 debut demo flight, no western analyst dare to claim that J-20 is fully relied on the Russian engines any more as they usually did before. Now instead of emphasizing that engine is the wake point for the Chinese jets, the changed to other lines such as espionage, lack of stealth, lack of sensor&network integration capabilities and so on. Why weren't they using your simple a-picture-is-worth-than-a-thusand-word methods in their analyzing? Were they too ignorant? 

I think you need to consider to brief these guys who commented about J-20 on main western publishing in wake of the recent J-20 demo flight. For instance, guys like Greg Waldron, Asia Managing Editor of FlightGlobal, who claimed:"
'I think we learned very little. We learned it is very loud. But we can't tell what type of engine it has, or very much about the mobility". Or this guy Justin Bronk, a Research Fellow specializing in combat airpower at the Royal United Services Institute, who pointed out that the aircraft most likely flew with underpowered engines, and not the engines that would fly on the final version. “Engine performance is a key function of any aircraft. China and Russia continue to lag behind because of the really top end manufacturing processes you need” to create and tune high quality aircraft engines".



Deino said:


> Some simply never give up ... in a certain way also admirable !
> 
> The colour simply changes due to the heat during use ad the older an exhaust is, the much more different the colour is:
> 
> View attachment 357797
> 
> 
> 
> What however remains the same, is their overall shape of the pedals. In the J-20 the engine is simple a bit more buried within the fuselage.
> 
> View attachment 357796
> 
> 
> But some still do not want to accept it.


The image you used under J-10C is wrong, it is still a J-10B. Any J-10C will be powered by this type of FWS10s (the engines at bottom picture). Any planes powered by other type (above picture) are all J-10B, regardless the difference in their antenna/RAW profiles.
So yes I ll say it again that the bottom image is J-10C. Let's put it on record to see who is right.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## randomradio

Tiqiu said:


> Totally agreed. But some still do not want to accept it.
> 
> If you meant to say that some of us will not want to accept your final verdict that J-20 is powered by AL-31FN based on your digital graphic analyst skills on the images of the engines used by J-20 sourced only from the Chinese internet sites, then surly you can count me as some of them.
> 
> It seemed you don't see the flaws in your methods, your analysis is solely based on the images and translations supplied by the Chinese internet posters, which can be misleading and inconclusive, since all images are on the net because they are approved by the authorities to be there, and many times the time of publishing on the net does not necessarily mean the time of taken of those images. Plus you have a weak point of not mastering the Chinese language. Without the ability to read all publishing,news coverage etc about a subject matter, how can you be so confident in forming your final conclusion? Other factors such as those accounts made in relation to its vertical climb and loud sounds bear no relevance/significance in your methods?
> View attachment 357844
> 
> Two of the J-20 jets flew over dignitaries, industry executives and spectators and gathered at the show's opening ceremony during a 60-second flypast. Source: dailymail
> 
> View attachment 357843
> 
> In this image made from video, the J-20 stealth fighter pulls a sharp incline to a a crowd of spectators and dignitaries at the Zhuhai airshow. Source: dailymail
> 
> 
> After the J-20 debut demo flight, no western analyst dare to claim that J-20 is fully relied on the Russian engines any more as they usually did before. Now instead of emphasizing that engine is the wake point for the Chinese jets, the changed to other lines such as espionage, lack of stealth, lack of sensor&network integration capabilities and so on. Why weren't they using your simple a-picture-is-worth-than-a-thusand-word methods in their analyzing? Were they too ignorant?
> 
> I think you need to consider to brief these guys who commented about J-20 on main western publishing in wake of the recent J-20 demo flight. For instance, guys like Greg Waldron, Asia Managing Editor of FlightGlobal, who claimed:"
> 'I think we learned very little. We learned it is very loud. But we can't tell what type of engine it has, or very much about the mobility". Or this guy Justin Bronk, a Research Fellow specializing in combat airpower at the Royal United Services Institute, who pointed out that the aircraft most likely flew with underpowered engines, and not the engines that would fly on the final version. “Engine performance is a key function of any aircraft. China and Russia continue to lag behind because of the really top end manufacturing processes you need” to create and tune high quality aircraft engines".
> 
> 
> The image you used under J-10C is wrong, it is still a J-10B. Any J-10C will be powered by this type of FWS10s (the engines at bottom picture). Any planes powered by other type (above picture) are all J-10B, regardless the difference in their antenna/RAW profiles.
> So yes I ll say it again that the bottom image is J-10C. Let's put it on record to see who is right.
> View attachment 357845



So which engine does the J-20 have? WS-10X or WS-15? And which one is the definitive engine?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

randomradio said:


> So which engine does the J-20 have? WS-10X or WS-15? And which one is the definitive engine?



More evidence points toward the WS-15, but China still wants to keep eating more humble pies, so the official media claims it to be the WS-10X. And the AF-31FM2 is definitely out, since no military pundit willing to accept it.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> Totally agreed. But some still do not want to accept it.
> 
> If you meant to say that some of us will not want to accept your final verdict that J-20 is powered by AL-31FN based on your digital graphic analyst skills on the images of the engines used by J-20 sourced only from the Chinese internet sites, then surly you can count me as some of them.
> 
> It seemed you don't see the flaws in your methods, your analysis is solely based on the images and translations supplied by the Chinese internet posters, which can be misleading and inconclusive, since all images are on the net because they are approved by the authorities to be there, and many times the time of publishing on the net does not necessarily mean the time of taken of those images. Plus you have a weak point of not mastering the Chinese language. Without the ability to read all publishing,news coverage etc about a subject matter, how can you be so confident in forming your final conclusion? Other factors such as those accounts made in relation to its vertical climb and loud sounds bear no relevance/significance in your methods?
> View attachment 357844
> 
> Two of the J-20 jets flew over dignitaries, industry executives and spectators and gathered at the show's opening ceremony during a 60-second flypast. Source: dailymail
> 
> View attachment 357843
> 
> In this image made from video, the J-20 stealth fighter pulls a sharp incline to a a crowd of spectators and dignitaries at the Zhuhai airshow. Source: dailymail
> 
> 
> After the J-20 debut demo flight, no western analyst dare to claim that J-20 is fully relied on the Russian engines any more as they usually did before. Now instead of emphasizing that engine is the wake point for the Chinese jets, the changed to other lines such as espionage, lack of stealth, lack of sensor&network integration capabilities and so on. Why weren't they using your simple a-picture-is-worth-than-a-thusand-word methods in their analyzing? Were they too ignorant?
> 
> I think you need to consider to brief these guys who commented about J-20 on main western publishing in wake of the recent J-20 demo flight. For instance, guys like Greg Waldron, Asia Managing Editor of FlightGlobal, who claimed:"
> 'I think we learned very little. We learned it is very loud. But we can't tell what type of engine it has, or very much about the mobility". Or this guy Justin Bronk, a Research Fellow specializing in combat airpower at the Royal United Services Institute, who pointed out that the aircraft most likely flew with underpowered engines, and not the engines that would fly on the final version. “Engine performance is a key function of any aircraft. China and Russia continue to lag behind because of the really top end manufacturing processes you need” to create and tune high quality aircraft engines".
> 
> 
> The image you used under J-10C is wrong, it is still a J-10B. Any J-10C will be powered by this type of FWS10s (the engines at bottom picture). Any planes powered by other type (above picture) are all J-10B, regardless the difference in their antenna/RAW profiles.
> So yes I ll say it again that the bottom image is J-10C. Let's put it on record to see who is right.
> View attachment 357845




"who pointed out that the aircraft most likely flew with underpowered engines, and not the engines that would fly on the final version"

This is a common comments from many westerners. But do tell us which video show the plane is underpowered from its first appearance in 2011.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> More evidence points toward the WS-15, but China still wants to keep eating more humble pies, so the official media claims it to be the WS-10X. And the AF-31FM2 is definitely out, since no military pundit willing to accept it.



China wants to keep WS-15 highly classified, because, it wants to hide one vital performance parameter (it's maximum military power and maximum afterburner power). From these parameters and weight, foreign experts can calculate many other parameters like range, rate of climb, maximum speed, cruising speeds. . . .I expect WS-15's true performance to be keep secret for many years to come.

This WS-15's Core Engine is derived from the YAK-141's engine, the amazing R179-300, which could develop an absolutely astounding _maximum thrust of between196 and 206 kN and a thrust to weight ratio of 11-12, the highest in any fighter aircraft engine. _This engine was developed in the 1990's.

Imagine what China could do now with this design 30 years later with new materials, new processes, and new manufacturing techniques.

This is why China don't want to disclose the true performance of WS-15 to scare US into re-open the F-22 production line. US has made a big mistake by closing down the production and bet on the fat flying pig, F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

randomradio said:


> So which engine does the J-20 have? WS-10X or WS-15? And which one is the definitive engine?


According to those seemed knowing a thing or two, some J-20 use FWS10B( a hybrid engine derived from FWS10A and FWS15 technology by Plant 410) and some use an early/interim model of FWS15 ( a pure blood FWS15 core technology engine developed by another Plant 460). Accordingly FWS10B can twist its vectoring nozzle as much as 10 degrees and unknown about FWS15.


Asok said:


> "who pointed out that the aircraft most likely flew with underpowered engines, and not the engines that would fly on the final version"
> 
> This is a common comments from many westerners. But do tell us which video show the plane is underpowered from its first appearance in 2011.


I got your point and have the same feelings as yours.
However, you may have misread me. All I was trying to say is that people can't judge a book by its cover, unless many images of these are available.........

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> According to those seemed knowing a thing or two, some J-20 use FWS10B( a hybrid engine derived from FWS10A and FWS15 technology by Plant 410) and some use an early/interim model of FWS15 ( a pure blood FWS15 core technology engine developed by another Plant 460). Accordingly FWS10B can twist its vectoring nozzle as much as 10 degrees and unknown about FWS15.
> 
> I got your point and have the same feelings as yours.
> However, you may have misread me. All I was trying to say is that people can't judge a book by its cover, unless many images of these are available.........
> View attachment 357876



Where are the rest of these ultra high resolution pictures? Amazing clarity.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> This is why China don't want to disclose the true performance of WS-15 to scare US into re-open the F-22 production line. US has made a big mistake by closing down the production and bet on the fat flying pig, F-35.



It is not that easy to re-open the production line of the F-22.

The US is already intending to re-open it, but all supply chains have been disbanded for over 4 years, it needs time to restore everything.



Asok said:


> To all people who don't believe J-20 is using WS-15:
> 
> Are you saying J-20 version 2101 is using AL-31FN?
> 
> Do you really think the PLA Air Force would going LRIP with two unreliable and underpowered Russian AL-31FN engines on J-20?
> 
> Some believe WS-15 is just entered bench testing in 2015.
> 
> Don't you think when WS-15 is ready in 5-7 years, testing on J-20 would need to be done all over again for another 5 years?
> 
> That would put J-20's fully combat ready service date in meaningful numbers, 10-12 years from now, that is 2026-2028.
> 
> If PLAAF roll out J-20 with unreliable and underpowered AL-31FN, 24 planes per years, in ten years, there will be 240 planes.
> 
> Don't you think they all need to go back into the factory for major rework and heavy modifications in order to install the WS-15 on them?
> 
> Do you really think putting a new and entirely different and much more powerful engine onto a 5th generation fighter is like loosen a few screws and pop in the new engines?
> 
> Do you really think the PLAAF is really going to happy with 240 of their premier 5th generation fighters equipped with AL-31FN for next 10 years?



Do you know those AL-31F-like engines on the yellow J-20?

These engines look clearly different from the engines spotted on the J-20 in the Zhuhai show 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is not that easy to re-open the production line of the F-22.
> 
> The US is already intending to re-open it, but all supply chains have been disbanded for over 4 years, it needs time to restore everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know those AL-31F-like engines on the yellow J-20?
> 
> These engines look clearly different from the engines spotted on the J-20 in the Zhuhai show 2016.



China has fooled US into closing the F-22 production line by keeping them in the dark about the progress of J-20, so when it debuted in 2011 it was shocking to the world. But the production was already closed.

If they want to re-open the production line, it will take 5+ years and billions that they don't have. They have bet the future on F-35. If they start produce F-22, they will need to update the Avionics to the class of F-35. That may not possible except REDO the whole system, since the F-22's electronic is designed in the 1990's.

With every year passing, it will be harder and harder to re-open the production line. So it is wise for China not to show the true capability of WS-15 and J-20 so they will not be alarmed into taking action.

The more half-truths and disinformations for WS-15 and J-20 to keep the opponent confused, is the better for China. With more F-35 built, the safer is for the world and China. It will give them this useless plane and soak up their budget.

赤卫QianBaiHua 11月29日 
［谁说不是矢量？］航展后杜局直言歼20使用国发，有消息称使用了改装的太行WS10B；看了不少写真，发现了喷口有明显的矢量特征：喷口明显偏转，收敛片与机体外壳的间隙不均匀，收敛片之间的调节间隙也不均匀；偏角虽不如117S大，但是否说明太行B改使用的是轴对称小角度矢量呢？

Do you still believe J-20 uses AL-31FN?
Look at the gap between nozzle and the saw tooth skin, they are clearly narrowed and the nozzles was turned up.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

I believe the engine used on J-20 currently is hybrid of WS-10 tech and AL-31F with much superior metallurgy. The reason for not disclosing the engine and data might be due to IP right of AL-31F or antagonised the Russian again with IP issue again since there is a Sino Russo alliance going on.

Remember the video I posted abt AVIC chairman talking about WS-10 Taihang engine has a massive issue which the engineer that time believe 下马. Is the only solution for Taihang engine. Surely only design problem will warrant a cease production call.

Lin Zuoming did not disclose much how he overcome the taihang problem. I believe his solution is not fully RE AL-31F but by borrowing some of the proven design of it and implement on Taihang engine to make it work or success. That is why China don't want to talk too much about this new hybrid engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> According to those seemed knowing a thing or two, some J-20 use FWS10B( a hybrid engine derived from FWS10A and FWS15 technology by Plant 410) and some use an early/interim model of FWS15 ( a pure blood FWS15 core technology engine developed by another Plant 460). Accordingly FWS10B can twist its vectoring nozzle as much as 10 degrees and unknown about FWS15.
> 
> I got your point and have the same feelings as yours.
> However, you may have misread me. All I was trying to say is that people can't judge a book by its cover, unless many images of these are available.........
> View attachment 357876



I agreed with your assesment. The early engine of J-20 is hybrid of FWS-15 engine core and FWS-10B outer parts for quick prototyping. I think it was deliberately leaked that its a WS-10X, instead of calling it WS-15, to confuse foreign intelligences. In aircraft engine, it is the core that develops the power and takes the longest time to produce and perfect.

The WS-15 engine core project was initiated in 1990, and the engine core started running in 2000, and it finally passed acceptance test in 2005.

A total of 15 years. The complete WS-15 engine project was initiated in 2006, and this early model was delivered to install on J-20 on early 2010. A total of 4 years.

It took another 4-5 years of flying and testing before the engine was matured and fully integrated into J-20.

From 1990 to 2016, it took 26 years to develop WS-15 and J-20. 

China had learned the lessons in the hard way when developing J-10 and WS-10. We know the engine takes a lot longer to develop and mature than the airframe, so it must start early to get a head start. 

WS-15 was started at least full 10 years ahead of J-20. And better management paid off.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> China has fooled US into closing the F-22 production line by keeping them in the dark about the progress of J-20, so when it debuted in 2011 it was shocking to the world. But the production was already closed.
> 
> If they want to re-open the production line, it will take 5+ years and billions that they don't have. They have bet the future on F-35. If they start produce F-22, they will need to update the Avionics to the class of F-35. That may not possible except REDO the whole system, since the F-22's electronic is designed in the 1990's.
> 
> With every year passing, it will be harder and harder to re-open the production line. So it is wise for China not to show the true capability of WS-15 and J-20 so they will not be alarmed into taking action.
> 
> The more half-truths and disinformations for WS-15 and J-20 to keep the opponent confused, is the better for China. With more F-35 built, the safer is for the world and China. It will give them this useless plane and soak up their budget.
> 
> 赤卫QianBaiHua 11月29日
> ［谁说不是矢量？］航展后杜局直言歼20使用国发，有消息称使用了改装的太行WS10B；看了不少写真，发现了喷口有明显的矢量特征：喷口明显偏转，收敛片与机体外壳的间隙不均匀，收敛片之间的调节间隙也不均匀；偏角虽不如117S大，但是否说明太行B改使用的是轴对称小角度矢量呢？
> 
> Do you still believe J-20 uses AL-31FN?
> Look at the gap between nozzle and the saw tooth skin, they are clearly narrowed and the nozzles was turned up.
> 
> View attachment 357950
> View attachment 357951
> View attachment 357952
> View attachment 357953
> View attachment 357954



This J-20 engine is clearly Chinese, I was talking the earlier one on the yellow skinned J-20, not the current one we have now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> I believe the engine used on J-20 currently is hybrid of WS-10 tech and AL-31F with much superior metallurgy. The reason for not disclosing the engine and data might be due to IP right of AL-31F or antagonised the Russian again with IP issue again since there is a Sino Russo alliance going on.
> 
> Remember the video I posted abt AVIC chairman talking about WS-10 Taihang engine has a massive issue which the engineer that time believe 下马. Is the only solution for Taihang engine. Surely only design problem will warrant a cease production call.
> 
> Lin Zuoming did not disclose much how he overcome the taihang problem. I believe his solution is not fully RE AL-31F but by borrowing some of the proven design of it and implement on Taihang engine to make it work or success. That is why China don't want to talk too much about this new hybrid engine.



"I believe the engine used on J-20 currently is hybrid of WS-10 tech and AL-31F with much superior metallurgy. "
I agreed. The J-20 engine has WS-10 and AL-31FN technology, but the engine core is WS-15. This is an important point to be emphasized.

When the maximum power (>200kN, IMO) of WS-15 is finally revealed, it will be very shocking. F-22's 160kN engine will be completely outclassed by WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> "I believe the engine used on J-20 currently is hybrid of WS-10 tech and AL-31F with much superior metallurgy. "
> I agreed. The J-20 engine has WS-10 and AL-31FN technology, but the engine core is WS-15. This is an important point to be emphasized.
> 
> When the maximum power (>200kN, IMO) of WS-15 is finally revealed, it will be very shocking. F-22's 160kN engine will be completely outclassed by WS-15.



Then this does explain why some J-20 engine does look like the AL-31F, but it is much more powerful.

And the current J-20 engine doesn't show any outer characteristics of the AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Tiqiu said:


> Totally agreed. But some still do not want to accept it.
> 
> If you meant to say that some of us will not want to accept your final verdict that J-20 is powered by AL-31FN based on your digital graphic analyst skills on the images of the engines used by J-20 sourced only from the Chinese internet sites, then surly you can count me as some of them.
> 
> It seemed you don't see the flaws in your methods, your analysis is solely based on the images and translations supplied by the Chinese internet posters, which can be misleading and inconclusive, since all images are on the net because they are approved by the authorities to be there, and many times the time of publishing on the net does not necessarily mean the time of taken of those images. Plus you have a weak point of not mastering the Chinese language. Without the ability to read all publishing,news coverage etc about a subject matter, how can you be so confident in forming your final conclusion?
> View attachment 357845


Fully agree with your logic. They are simply too many goodies from Chinese articles and video that can let you understand more of Chinese military development than mere photo and pictures. And no Chinese translator will bother to do full translation for you or the whole article of the video. You cannot fully understand the real in depth of what's happening in those projects. Especially those article and video are from chief designers and high position personnel like AVIC Vice President or chairman. Don't tell me those people are not credible or they don't know what are they talking. And then start to tell me you know better than chief designer that kind of BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kuge

Tiqiu said:


> Totally agreed. But some still do not want to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> After the J-20 debut demo flight, no western analyst dare to claim that J-20 is fully relied on the Russian engines any more as they usually did before. Now instead of emphasizing that engine is the wake point for the Chinese jets, the changed to other lines such as espionage, lack of stealth, lack of sensor&network integration capabilities and so on. Why weren't they using your simple a-picture-is-worth-than-a-thusand-word methods in their analyzing? Were they too ignorant?
> 
> I think you need to consider to brief these guys who commented about J-20 on main western publishing in wake of the recent J-20 demo flight. For instance, guys like Greg Waldron, Asia Managing Editor of FlightGlobal, who claimed:"
> 'I think we learned very little. We learned it is very loud. But we can't tell what type of engine it has, or very much about the mobility". Or this guy Justin Bronk, a Research Fellow specializing in combat airpower at the Royal United Services Institute, who pointed out that the aircraft most likely flew with underpowered engines, and not the engines that would fly on the final version. “Engine performance is a key function of any aircraft. China and Russia continue to lag behind because of the really top end manufacturing processes you need” to create and tune high quality aircraft engines".
> 
> 
> View attachment 357845


how come western analysts know those are not russian engines in the absence of public info on j-20 engines?


----------



## samsara

kuge said:


> how come western analysts know those are not russian engines in the absence of public info on j-20 engines?


IF readers here do agree that the precise engine to be used is indeed treated as *a tightly guarded CLASSIFIED matter*, in the *absence of the public/official disclosure* of what kind of engine used, then don't all think better to stop speculating which engine is being used *since there won't be any official info to prop whatsoever speculation*? I mean it will remain a guess or speculation at best. And since China won't export J-20 they have no need to reveal anything they intend to keep in close door 

Or, does anyone here instead expect a _genuine leak_ slipping out regarding this engine matter? 

_~~~~~_
_"Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership." - Deng Xiaoping (1904 - 1997)_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

samsara said:


> If readers here do agree that the precise engine to be used is indeed treated as *a tightly guarded CLASSIFIED matter*, in the *absence of the public/official disclosure* of what kind of engine used, then don't all think better to stop speculating which machine is being used *since there won't be any official info to prop whatsoever speculation*?
> 
> Or, does anyone here instead expect a _genuine leak_ slipping out regarding this engine matter?


I expected they will make an announcement when WS-15 is officially install on it but it will not be soon. They are simply too many fact to deduct the engine used on J-20 during demo at zhuhai 2016 is not
AL-31F. From chief designer speech to the whole flight performance without using a single afterburners.

I guess after the WS-10 saga during the 2009 when they are forced to retract their statement of domestic engine install on J-11b fighter. They will be more caution of such announcement until the engine is fully stable and proven over a long usage of hours.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> IF readers here do agree that the precise engine to be used is indeed treated as *a tightly guarded CLASSIFIED matter*, in the *absence of the public/official disclosure* of what kind of engine used, then don't all think better to stop speculating which engine is being used *since there won't be any official info to prop whatsoever speculation*? I mean it will remain a guess or speculation at best. And since China won't export J-20 they have no need to reveal anything they intend to keep in close door
> 
> Or, does anyone here instead expect a _genuine leak_ slipping out regarding this engine matter?
> 
> _~~~~~_
> _"Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership." - Deng Xiaoping (1904 - 1997)_



China is running a masterful deception campaign regarding J-20 and WS-10. Deception is primarily used to deceive or mislead enemies into taking the wrong action AND delay them from taking the right action or corrective action. US is already mislead into cancel F-22 and made a massive bet on F-35.

The current phase of the campaign is keeping US and its allies from taking the right action -- that is cancel F-35 and restart F-22 production or update F-22. The longer the delay, the more costly is the corrective action, or the most costly is the mistake.

There are many official/public announcements, but they are deliberately ambiguous/unclear. They don't tell the whole truths. There are also many genuine leaks. AND many fake leaks design to confuse and mislead foreign intelligences.

There were 100,000 persons worked with F-22 and over 200,000 persons working with F-35. So there will similar number of people working on J-20. There are bound to be genuine leaks. The way to cancel the effect of those leaks is to use massive amount of fake leaks and disinformations deliberately encouraged by some websites and TV shows.

There are genuine informations to based on your speculations. You just need to read all the available informations in Chinese, and determine the source's creditability by looks at its track record and use your own logic.

China is a Master of Deception. So I am not surprised that the westerners are thoroughly confused and paralyzed. They are repeating many lies to themselves.

China will not have a stealth fighter before 2020. . . China copied this . . . stolen that. . . China can't innovate. . . China can only copy US technologies. . .Chinese hacker stolen 4 Terabytes of F-35 data. . . China's technology is junk. . . J-20 is underpowered. . .J-20 is using Russian engine AL-31. . . J-20 is using WS-10X . . .J-20 is not a dog fighter because it's huge. . .China can't produce high Thrust and high TWR engine . . . Canard is not stealthy . . . J-20 is a interceptor/striker. . . J-20's stealth is not as good as F-22. . . F-22's avionics is better than J-20 (LOL). . .J-20 don't have full networking/sensor fusion capability. . . J-20 is based on F-117. . . J-20 is based on Mig1.44. . .and absolutely no mention of the many anti-stealth radars that both China and Russia possess.

If you go to MSM websites and look at the comments, and you will know what I mean. They had dumb themselves down by repeating their own lies and propaganda to themselves.

The result is the end of the Western Air-Superiority/Dominance in 10-20 years.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This J-20 engine is clearly Chinese, I was talking the earlier one on the yellow skinned J-20, not the current one we have now.



The current ones with grey camouflage WAS the yellow skin ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Guys .. it's indeed only funny ! Not sure how much one can be obsessed (maybe in the same way like in me in the opposite) ... but anyway I will surely again receive my bashings as being anti-China in a few minutes!

One point however I beg to consider ...
In general I agree with You and I always admire all who can read and understand Chinese and I know that for me it's probably my biggest weak-point. However that does not mean that our/my conclusions are wrong per se or must be wrong since they lack a general understanding.
If You just look here at the PDF where a few guys repeatedly bash others - including myself - for this lack of language understanding get deeply stuck in these mish-mash of rumours, reports, theories and contra-theories.

Again, I admit that I lack certain information and esp. what might be written between the lines, however the true important facts will surface one day or another and if they are really major news, they won't hide that long. Just look at the new PL-XX, the latest J-20 images or FC-31.V2; even if I don't get them as early as others, they don't get lost.

So we probably don't get all information at once, but we also do not have to sort out the worst BS, since this does not remain on topic for long. Just remember how many fakes or psed images are sometimes floating all over certain forums ... so I do not even take care of them. And with the reminder of information I'm sure a reasonable conclusion is sometimes not that more far off that some strange theories that were otherwise discussed ... esp. like here.

The point is simply: If the J-20 is indeed using such a super-secret already operational WS-15 "that only looks like a AL-31 or WS-10" or "it uses a WS-10-AL-31-hybrid developed by Chinese made by the WS-10's core mated with the AL-31FN's nozzle to hide it's real identity", and they are a well-known and accepted FACT in the Chinese community, why are these theories only discussed here ?? I'm sure at least a few honourable Chinese members, who are also lurking around at English-speaking forums will teach, explain and in the end persuade all others from this fact. In reality, these strange theories remain here and will never ever be discussed elsewhere ... or is this another a masterful deception campaign and a secret agreement to keep this secret only discussed here !??

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> Guys .. it's indeed only funny ! Not sure how much one can be obsessed (maybe in the same way like in me in the opposite) ... but anyway I will surely again receive my bashings as being anti-China in a few minutes!
> 
> One point however I beg to consider ...
> In general I agree with You and I always admire all who can read and understand Chinese and I know that for me it's probably my biggest weak-point. However that does not mean that our/my conclusions are wrong per se or must be wrong since they lack a general understanding.
> If You just look here at the PDF where a few guys repeatedly bash others - including myself - for this lack of language understanding get deeply stuck in these mish-mash of rumours, reports, theories and contra-theories.
> 
> Again, I admit that I lack certain information and esp. what might be written between the lines, however the true important facts will surface one day or another and if they are really major news, they won't hide that long. Just look at the new PL-XX, the latest J-20 images or FC-31.V2; even if I don't get them as early as others, they don't get lost.
> 
> So we probably don't get all information at once, but we also do not have to sort out the worst BS, since this does not remain on topic for long. Just remember how many fakes or psed images are sometimes floating all over certain forums ... so I do not even take care of them. And with the reminder of information I'm sure a reasonable conclusion is sometimes not that more far off that some strange theories that were otherwise discussed ... esp. like here.
> 
> The point is simply: If the J-20 is indeed using such a super-secret already operational WS-15 "that only looks like a AL-31 or WS-10" or "it uses a WS-10-AL-31-hybrid developed by Chinese made by the WS-10's core mated with the AL-31FN's nozzle to hide it's real identity", and they are a well-known and accepted FACT in the Chinese community, why are these theories only discussed here ?? I'm sure at least a few honourable Chinese members, who are also lurking around at English-speaking forums will teach, explain and in the end persuade all others from this fact. In reality, these strange theories remain here and will never ever be discussed elsewhere ... or is this another a masterful deception campaign and a secret agreement to keep this secret only discussed here !??
> 
> Deino


Don't beat yourself too much. I can read and understand Chinese. I couldn't get to the same conclusion about the mysterious new engine, either. Among many other Chinese, especially those in China and active in Chinese defense forums in China, it is still a speculation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Then this does explain why some J-20 engine does look like the AL-31F, but it is much more powerful.
> 
> And the current J-20 engine doesn't show any outer characteristics of the AL-31F.



My opinion is that the J-20 is either using a WS-10X, which delivers significantly more thrust than the WS-10A(at the expense of shorter engine life), or is already using an early model WS-15.

As pointed out by another poster, there is no way that ANY current Russian engine will have allowed the J-20 to do the kind of maneuvers at Zhuai 2016 without using afterburners.

Those that keep repeating AL-31 is being used on the J-20 are not being logical at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> If You just look here at the PDF where a few guys repeatedly bash others - including myself - for this lack of language understanding get deeply stuck in these mish-mash of rumours, reports, theories and contra-theories.


Please don't feel that way, personally I think you did a good job in many things.


Deino said:


> I'm sure at least a few honourable Chinese members, who are also lurking around at English-speaking forums will teach, explain and in the end persuade all others from this fact.


That is not gonna happen because of the PLA Secrecy Regulations 





保密守则
1、不该说的秘密不说。
2、不该问的秘密不问。
3、不该看的秘密不看。
4、不该带的秘密不带。
5、不该传的秘密不传。
6、不该记的秘密不记。
7、不该存的秘密不存。
8、不在非保密场所阅办、谈论秘密。
9、不私自复制、保存和销毁秘密。
10、不带秘密载体探亲、访友、旅游。

The Secrecy Protocol 
1, do not say the secret that should not be said.
2, do not ask the secret that should not be asked.
3, do not look at the secret that should not be looked at.
4, do not take the secret that should not be taken.
5, do not pass the secret that should not passed.
6, do not remember the secret should not be remembered.
7, do not keep the secret that should not be kept.
8, do not read,talk and process the secret in non-secured places.
9, do not copy, save and destroy the secret without permissions.
10,do no carry secret carriers when traveling and visiting relatives and friends.



Beast said:


> Fully agree with your logic. They are simply too many goodies from Chinese articles and video that can let you understand more of Chinese military development than mere photo and pictures. And no Chinese translator will bother to do full translation for you or the whole article of the video. You cannot fully understand the real in depth of what's happening in those projects. Especially those article and video are from chief designers and high position personnel like AVIC Vice President or chairman. Don't tell me those people are not credible or they don't know what are they talking. And then start to tell me you know better than chief designer that kind of BS.
























 
以事实粉碎抹黑中国发动机的谣言 太行改进型发动机 
2016-11-28 · 兵工科技 
http://dy.163.com/v2/article/detail/C6V08H2H051598RQ.html

或将采用矢量发动机技术

　　除了“太行”样机展品，在“太行”展台展板上还以特写照片的形式展示了工作状态下的尾喷口的细节。虽然从照片上无法直接看出该发动机是否工作在矢量推力的状态。但是我们可以从发动机控制系统模型展台上的一些小的部件看出一定的端倪，并根据这些变化推断，展板上出现的尾喷口的局部照片，实际是非常低调的展示了装配了矢量喷口的发动机在矢量模式下工作的情况。*从背后的展板上的图中可以看出，该型发动机的全向矢量喷口的转动角度为10度，应该属于小角度矢量发动机。*

　　大家不要小看小角度矢量发动机技术，它是更高水平矢量发动机技术的基础，相信，随着未来的小角度矢量发动机的逐步列装和使用，会逐步积累数据，放开限制。基本达到类似117S那样的大角度偏转的矢量发动机的技术水平也是指日可待的。

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

New helmet used on J-20 during flight test (J20试飞员戴的新的轻型头盔编号是TK-31)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Guys .. it's indeed only funny ! Not sure how much one can be obsessed (maybe in the same way like in me in the opposite) ... but anyway I will surely again receive my bashings as being anti-China in a few minutes!
> 
> One point however I beg to consider ...
> In general I agree with You and I always admire all who can read and understand Chinese and I know that for me it's probably my biggest weak-point. However that does not mean that our/my conclusions are wrong per se or must be wrong since they lack a general understanding.
> If You just look here at the PDF where a few guys repeatedly bash others - including myself - for this lack of language understanding get deeply stuck in these mish-mash of rumours, reports, theories and contra-theories.
> 
> Again, I admit that I lack certain information and esp. what might be written between the lines, however the true important facts will surface one day or another and if they are really major news, they won't hide that long. Just look at the new PL-XX, the latest J-20 images or FC-31.V2; even if I don't get them as early as others, they don't get lost.
> 
> So we probably don't get all information at once, but we also do not have to sort out the worst BS, since this does not remain on topic for long. Just remember how many fakes or psed images are sometimes floating all over certain forums ... so I do not even take care of them. And with the reminder of information I'm sure a reasonable conclusion is sometimes not that more far off that some strange theories that were otherwise discussed ... esp. like here.
> 
> The point is simply: If the J-20 is indeed using such a super-secret already operational WS-15 "that only looks like a AL-31 or WS-10" or "it uses a WS-10-AL-31-hybrid developed by Chinese made by the WS-10's core mated with the AL-31FN's nozzle to hide it's real identity", and they are a well-known and accepted FACT in the Chinese community, why are these theories only discussed here ?? I'm sure at least a few honourable Chinese members, who are also lurking around at English-speaking forums will teach, explain and in the end persuade all others from this fact. In reality, these strange theories remain here and will never ever be discussed elsewhere ... or is this another a masterful deception campaign and a secret agreement to keep this secret only discussed here !??
> 
> Deino



"WS-10-AL-31-hybrid developed by Chinese made by the WS-10's core mated with the AL-31FN's nozzle to hide it's real identity"
I got this from a Chinese forum. It is common engineering practice to wrap new technology with proven mature technology for rapid prototyping and testing. So to believe existing WS-10 and AF-31 technology is used to wrap around WS-15 core engine to deliver an early prototype for testing makes sense to me. That way J-20 could have an engine that meet most of the performance requirements and begin testing. And the Engine Engineering have more time to perfect the production model of the WS-15. This explains the WS-15 have similar petals but much more powerful Thrust. And call it WS-10X informally, to confuse the foreigners is even better idea. An unintended PLUS, probably. Win-Win-Win situation here.

Can China produce an engine that is much more powerful than the F119-PW-100 (Max Thrust 160kN) used by F-22?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> My opinion is that the J-20 is either using a WS-10X, which delivers significantly more thrust than the WS-10A(at the expense of shorter engine life), or is already using an early model WS-15.
> 
> As pointed out by another poster, there is no way that ANY current Russian engine will have allowed the J-20 to do the kind of maneuvers at Zhuai 2016 without using afterburners.
> 
> Those that keep repeating AL-31 is being used on the J-20 are not being logical at all.



The current J-20 engine could likely be a hybrid between the WS-15 and WS-10, and it can already produce a thrust much higher than the F119.

The "pure blood" WS-15 could likely exceed 200kN in the afterburner thrust as China can currently produce the titanium alloy that withstands against 2.2K Celsius as the engine blade.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tiqiu

It is confirmed: The new Chinese PL15 long-range air-to -air missile with marh6 speed and 500km range will be fitted onto the J-20.

On the CCTV4 《中国舆论场》20161204 program, when asked by the pilots from the PLA Aviation School whether the PL15 will be fitted on to the J-20, the PLA General Yinzhuo replied yes repeatedly. He said the PL-15 is aimed to take out high value targets like surveillance/aerial refueling/bomber.

Watch from 46:50





Also from 20:08, the air force personal Mr. Du Wenlong said: the numbers of the J-20 to be deployed by the PLA will be much more than the numbers of 42 of F-35 for Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tiqiu said:


> It is confirmed: The new Chinese PL15 long-range air-to -air missile with marh6 speed and 500km range will be fitted onto the J-20.
> 
> On the CCTV4 《中国舆论场》20161204 program, when asked by the pilots from the PLA Aviation School whether the PL15 will be fitted on to the J-20, the PLA General Yinzhuo replied yes repeatedly. He said the PL-15 is aimed to take out high value targets like surveillance/aerial refueling/bomber.
> 
> Watch from 46:50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also from 20:08, the air force personal Mr. Du Wenlong said: the numbers of the J-20 to be deployed by the PLA will be much more than the numbers of 42 of F-35 for Japan.



Some PDF members claimed that these two military pundits are less knowledgeable than Deino when it comes to the PLAAF, and they are just some rambling entertainers.

Get real, these guys look possessed like many zealous cultists from the CD forum by keep repeating that "J-20 must use AL-31, otherwise you are just a delusional fanboy!".

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tiqiu

Really? That is too stupid.
Even those students pilots at the PLA Aviation School asking questions in that video know much much more than anyone here. They have the PLA intranet and own publishing(内参).

Most at the CD are jokers to me;don't bother my time there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Some PDF members claimed that these two military pundits are less knowledgeable than Deino when it comes to the PLAAF, and they are just some rambling entertainers.
> 
> Get real, these guys look possessed like many zealous cultists from the CD forum by keep repeating that "J-20 must use AL-31, otherwise you are just a delusional fanboy!".



Deino is Andreas Rupprecht. He has written several books on Chinese military. You can find out how much he knows by buying a copy of his book.

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Chine...0991855&sr=8-1&keywords=china+aircraft+combat

https://www.amazon.com/Flashpoint-C...1480991956&sr=8-2&keywords=+Andreas+Rupprecht

https://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Wing...1480991956&sr=8-3&keywords=+Andreas+Rupprecht

https://www.amazon.com/Andreas-Rupp...=1480991956&sr=8-5&keywords=Andreas+Rupprecht

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tiqiu said:


> Really? That is too stupid.
> Even those students pilots at the PLA Aviation School asking questions in that video know much much more than anyone here. They have the PLA intranet and own publishing(内参).
> 
> Most at the CD are jokers to me;don't bother my time there.



The CD forum is now going down hill because of these jokers.



Asok said:


> Deino is Andreas Rupprecht. He has written several books on Chinese military. You can find out how much he knows by buying a copy of his book.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Chine...0991855&sr=8-1&keywords=china+aircraft+combat
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Flashpoint-C...1480991956&sr=8-2&keywords=+Andreas+Rupprecht
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Wing...1480991956&sr=8-3&keywords=+Andreas+Rupprecht
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Andreas-Rupprecht-Dragons-Wings-Development/dp/B00SB3RYYI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1480991956&sr=8-5&keywords=Andreas+Rupprecht



Deino knows more than other western experts, but it is from the perspective from a westerner.

BTW, his book doesn't even include Aksai Chin as a legal integral part of China? BTW, if India holds South Tibet, then Aksai Chin should be included in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The CD forum is now going down hill because of these jokers.
> 
> 
> 
> Deino knows more than other western experts, but it is from the perspective from a westerner.
> 
> BTW, his book doesn't even include Aksai Chin as a legal integral part of China? BTW, if India holds South Tibet, then Aksai Chin should be included in China.



What is the CD Forum? Give you give a link please?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> What is the CD Forum? Give you give a link please?



The CD Forum = 超级大本营

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The CD Forum = 超级大本营


There are a lot of hanjian there.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> There are a lot of hanjian there.



Meyet is a much better place, although they don't have many leaked pics like CD and Haohan, but their analysis is much better and more detailed.

And many prophecies from Meyet have turned out to be true; like the supercruise engine of the J-20, and EMALS defeating steam catapult in a final contest for the Type 002.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

lcloo said:


> View attachment 358120



The 1st of hundreds to come  

@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

星海军事 said:


> No one dares to bet against me?



A foolish bet. 



pakistanipower said:


> With due all respect sir, their is 400+ WS-10A and B engine is operational so it is possible that they put high thrust variant on J-20 what flaw care to explain? *you saying that China can't innovate its WS-10 series because your German ego can't accept that fact china put WS-10X in J-20, i think in future when J-20 will come out with WS-15 you will say that this is not a WS-15 but a AL31FN3*


 Good one!



Beast said:


> There are a lot of hanjian there.



Traitors?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dungeness

lcloo said:


> View attachment 358120




Is this authentic, or just another PS'ed work?


----------



## 星海军事

Some of us just don't dare to look at those most simple facts.

The truth might be late, but it will always arrive.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

星海军事 said:


> Some of us just don't dare to look at those most simple facts.
> 
> The truth might be late, but it will always arrive.



Don't beat about the bush, come straight to the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> View attachment 358120




It's already Christmas today !!! J-20A 78271 means 176. Brigade ... within the CFTE (like the 175. Brigade) or assigned to the FTTC ? Any info or guess ?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pangu

Asok said:


> A foolish bet.
> 
> 
> Good one!
> 
> 
> 
> Traitors?



Some traitors are actually foreigners living in China, speaks & understand Chinese lingo well enough to mixed in.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Pangu said:


> Some traitors are actually foreigners living in China, speaks & understand Chinese lingo well enough to mixed in.



Most of them are anti-PRC Taiwanese and Japanese who found their way to lurk around the CD Forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pangu

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Most of them are anti-PRC Taiwanese and Japanese who found their way to lurk around the CD Forum.



Yah, they cause alot of confusion & arguments, getting sick of it. unfortunately, we cannot really identify & ban them...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Most of them are anti-PRC Taiwanese and Japanese who found their way to lurk around the CD Forum.


Not to mention those falungong Chinese members in Canada and US. They are willing to sell their soul just to malign mainland Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Pangu said:


> Yah, they cause alot of confusion & arguments, getting sick of it. unfortunately, we cannot really identify & ban them...



We know a lot about their behavior and style, only anti-PRC Taiwanese and Japanese will do this kind of stuff.

Although most Chinese netizens don't like the Singaporean government and the South Korean government, but we are pretty sure they won't send a bunch of Internet trolls like these.

Most HK military fans in the CD Forum mostly self-identified themselves and are enthusiasts about PLA's military advancement.

Most Americans aren't familiar with China's culture, so very unlikely it was done by them.

Only those anti-PRC Taiwanese and Japanese will do this kind of creepy and sleazy stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... can we leave that other forums or country-man bashing !?*

*There are a few new finally serial-numbered J-20As out there which need to be spotted.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> Not to mention those falungong Chinese members in Canada and US. They are willing to sell their soul just to malign mainland Chinese.



Yep, a lot of FLG members and 64-Minyun members are also involved.



Deino said:


> *Guys ... can we leave that other forums or country-man bashing !?*
> 
> *There are a few new finally serial-numbered J-20As out there which need to be spotted.*
> 
> Deino



We are finding a way to purge those false information, so it is really necessary for our future discussion in this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

5th Generation Stealth Fighters could carries 6 long range missiles for BVR battles, but they typically carry only two short range missiles for dog fights. That's not a lot compared to 4th generation fighters which have many mount points, and could carry up to 12-16 short range missiles. Normally, if you ran out of missiles, you could run away. But if you are a stealth fighter guarding an important asset like a AWAC or oil tanker, that is not a very good option.

So having a dedicated 5th generation dog fighter which could carry huge number of short range missiles for dog fighting might be a good idea. This is a artist's conception of J-20 carry 16 missiles. Pretty crazy.







What do you think, folks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Asok said:


> View attachment 358146


too much dimensions for stealth i feel

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Stealth fighter itself is high value. I doubt it will be task with escort or guarding task?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The current J-20 engine could likely be a hybrid between the WS-15 and WS-10, and it can already produce a thrust much higher than the F119.
> 
> The "pure blood" WS-15 could likely exceed 200kN in the afterburner thrust as China can currently produce the titanium alloy that withstands against 2.2K Celsius as the engine blade.



I am now convinced that J-20 will come into service in 2018 with an engine that allows it to supercruise.

It will be a much better plane than F-35 and more suited to the Asia-Pacific theatre as it has longer-range than F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Stealth fighter itself is high value. I doubt it will be task with escort or guarding task?



True, Stealth fighter itself is high value, but AWACs and Oil Tankers are of even higher values in a mission. You better guard them very well.



UKBengali said:


> I am now convinced that J-20 will come into service in 2018 with an engine that allows it to supercruise.
> 
> It will be a much better plane than F-35 and more suited to the Asia-Pacific theatre as it has longer-range than F-22.



The F-22 engine has160kN and it was developed in the 1980's. F-35's engine has 190 kN Thrust, and it was developed in the 1990's.

Now, it's 25 years later, China has developed super Titanium alloy for aviation and many new processes and manufacturing techniques. It's entirely possible that WS-15 will have >200kN thrust. That may not be a lot more compared to F-35's 190kN, but it will be 25% greater than F-22's 160kN. This is a huge advantage in thrust, and with J-20 bigger range. It can chase down anybody who wants to run in a aerial battle.

I am not saying China is now leading in engine technology. Not at all. US has developed the WS-15 class engine 25 years ago.



Okarus said:


> too much dimensions for stealth i feel



It will be for dog fighting, not BVR. When you can see your enemy with your eye balls, stealth is not so important. 

Modern short range missile use Infrared Imaging sensing to track its target, not radar. It's virtually unescapable once it's fired toward you. Flare decoys won't work on them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> I am now convinced that J-20 will come into service in 2018 with an engine that allows it to supercruise.
> 
> It will be a much better plane than F-35 and more suited to the Asia-Pacific theatre as it has longer-range than F-22.



The recent serial number shows that the J-20A is already entering into the service.

And according to China's expert, the finalized version of the WS-15 hasn't been deployed yet, and it looks like it will be reserved for the coming J-20B in 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The recent serial number shows that the J-20A is already entering into the service.
> 
> And according to China's expert, the finalized version of the WS-15 hasn't been deployed yet, and it looks like it will be reserved for the coming J-20B in 2020.



That sounds right. The current early model of WS-15 or WS-10X was delivered to J-20 for testing in early 2010. It took five years of intense flying testing to verify it. If the latest version of WS-15 was started bench testing in late 2015, it will take another 5 years to test it on J-20. So 2020 service date sounds right.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

The State media - <观察者网> also reported this news, saying if the image can be confirmed, the five-digit series means it has deployed in one of the PLAAF Units.
http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2016_12_06_383070.shtml

 Based on the PLAAF coding system, the first digit 7 normally means the PLAAF Flight Test Training Center in Hebei Cangzhou, so I guess these J-20s will be used in the Chinese Red Flag exercise. In 2003, the very first batch of J-10 was deployed to this PLAAF unit for test and training. 







ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The recent serial number shows that the J-20A is already entering into the service.
> 
> And according to China's expert, the finalized version of the WS-15 hasn't been deployed yet, and it looks like it will be reserved for the coming J-20B in 2020.


Maybe 2018

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tiqiu said:


> The State media - <观察者网> also reported this news, saying if the image can be confirmed, the five-digit series means it has deployed in one of the PLAAF Units.
> http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2016_12_06_383070.shtml
> 
> Based on the PLAAF coding system, the first digit 7 normally means the PLAAF Flight Test Training Center in Hebei Cangzhou, so I guess these J-20s will be used in the Chinese Red Flag exercise. In 2003, the very first batch of J-10 was deployed to this PLAAF unit for test and training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe 2018



It will be fantastic if the J-20B can be deployed by 2018.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## hk299792458

Please guys, if you can avoid to invent new "reference" it will be nice.

You know, there is only 26 letters, in this way we won't have enough letter in 3 years time...

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Remember this official news report.
"http://www.globaltimes.cn/www/englis...11/483864.html
He Weirong, deputy commander of the PLAAF told China Central Television that military pilots could expect to jump into the most advanced fighter jets in 8 to 10 years that will have stealth capability.
He said that the planes are in development and will match or exceed the capability of similar jets in existence today.

He also said the first flight *COULD BE VERY SOON*. "

Now, that was 11th November 2009. If anybody believed General He Weirong's words back in 2009, please let me know. I didn't quite believe him, either, to be honest.

Do you still believe his words that J-20 will "match or exceed the capability of similar jets (F-22, F-35, T50) in existence today" or you think that's total B.S?

He also said the first flight *COULD BE VERY SOON*. That's why I believed the first flight happen in 2010, not Jan. 11, 2011, that was the second jet.

Many observers were surprised by the total casualness of the flight Jan. 11, 2011. While that event was closeness watched and followed by fans around the world, it was a total non-event for the Chengdu Factory workers, not one VIP or audience was on the ground to watch the flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 52051

Asok said:


> 5th Generation Stealth Fighters could carries 6 long range missiles for BVR battles, but they typically carry only two short range missiles for dog fights. That's not a lot compared to 4th generation fighters which have many mount points, and could carry up to 12-16 short range missiles. Normally, if you ran out of missiles, you could run away. But if you are a stealth fighter guarding an important asset like a AWAC or oil tanker, that is not a very good option.
> 
> So having a dedicated 5th generation dog fighter which could carry huge number of short range missiles for dog fighting might be a good idea. This is a artist's conception of J-20 carry 16 missiles. Pretty crazy.
> 
> View attachment 358142
> 
> 
> What do you think, folks?
> 
> View attachment 358146



Look like crap.


----------



## Tiqiu

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It will be fantastic if the J-20B can be deployed by 2018.


Given the only difference between the interim and final version of FWS15 is the materials used in the engine parts, and taking into account of the latest Chinese breakthrough in new material and process technique,it is not too optimistic to expect the J-20 powered by the final version of FWS15 coming out around 2018. Now the 78271 has deployed to the Brigade170/172 at FTTC, it will take around one year for J-20 to become IOC or 形成战斗力 in Chinese terms like J-10 did back in 2003. So everything seems to point to that direction.

I have the feeling the authorities has decided to declassify some info about J-20 as there are more these materials are being made public. For instance I found this <<Research on the development strategy of Chinese fighter aircraft>> on the net ,which outlines the whole process of the J-20's development. Viewing at hindsight, It clearly clear out many of the questions about J-20 from the outsiders like us. It makes me more confident about my belief that J-20 is powered by the Chinese engines based on one simple reason:J-20 must have turned out as planned in terms of its engine,radar,stealth,weapons, etc;otherwise the authorities would not publish its original plan to embarrass themselves.

Note under the <<Research on the development strategy of Chinese fighter aircraft>>, J-20 would use Taihang engine from day one.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

*Shenyang XXJ - J-14 5th Generation Fighter
*
It's time to take a walk down the memory lane. Remember those fan arts post 10 years ago, on Sept 2006? It looks very close to the real thing we have today, except the tail is not all moving.

*










*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tiqiu said:


> Given the only difference between the interim and final version of FWS15 is the materials used in the engine parts, and taking into account of the latest Chinese breakthrough in new material and process technique,it is not too optimistic to expect the J-20 powered by the final version of FWS15 coming out around 2018. Now the 78271 has deployed to the Brigade170/172 at FTTC, it will take around one year for J-20 to become IOC or 形成战斗力 in Chinese terms like J-10 did back in 2003. So everything seems to point to that direction.
> 
> I have the feeling the authorities has decided to declassify some info about J-20 as there are more these materials are being made public. For instance I found this <<Research on the development strategy of Chinese fighter aircraft>> on the net ,which outlines the whole process of the J-20's development. Viewing at hindsight, It clearly clear out many of the questions about J-20 from the outsiders like us. It makes me more confident about my belief that J-20 is powered by the Chinese engines based on one simple reason:J-20 must have turned out as planned in terms of its engine,radar,stealth,weapons, etc;otherwise the authorities would not publish its original plan to embarrass themselves.
> 
> Note under the <<Research on the development strategy of Chinese fighter aircraft>>, J-20 would use Taihang engine from day one.
> View attachment 358253
> 
> View attachment 358254
> 
> 
> View attachment 358255
> 
> 
> View attachment 358256
> 
> View attachment 358261
> 
> View attachment 358258



Many big shrimps also said that the POTUS after Obama will be a hardcore fascist one since many years ago, so China has definitely foreseen a guy like Trump will come to power decade ago.

The year 2020 will be an extremely critical year, China needs overwhelming leverage to maintain the stability.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> Given the only difference between the interim and final version of FWS15 is the materials used in the engine parts, and taking into account of the latest Chinese breakthrough in new material and process technique,it is not too optimistic to expect the J-20 powered by the final version of FWS15 coming out around 2018. Now the 78271 has deployed to the Brigade170/172 at FTTC, it will take around one year for J-20 to become IOC or 形成战斗力 in Chinese terms like J-10 did back in 2003. So everything seems to point to that direction.
> 
> I have the feeling the authorities has decided to declassify some info about J-20 as there are more these materials are being made public. For instance I found this <<Research on the development strategy of Chinese fighter aircraft>> on the net ,which outlines the whole process of the J-20's development. Viewing at hindsight, It clearly clear out many of the questions about J-20 from the outsiders like us. It makes me more confident about my belief that J-20 is powered by the Chinese engines based on one simple reason:J-20 must have turned out as planned in terms of its engine,radar,stealth,weapons, etc;otherwise the authorities would not publish its original plan to embarrass themselves.
> 
> Note under the <<Research on the development strategy of Chinese fighter aircraft>>, J-20 would use Taihang engine from day one.
> View attachment 358253
> 
> View attachment 358254
> 
> 
> View attachment 358255
> 
> 
> View attachment 358256
> 
> View attachment 358261
> 
> View attachment 358258



Can you post the Chinese name of this document and where you found it? Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> True, Stealth fighter itself is high value, but AWACs and Oil Tankers are of even higher values in a mission. You better guard them very well.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 engine has160kN and it was developed in the 1980's. F-35's engine has 190 kN Thrust, and it was developed in the 1990's.
> 
> Now, it's 25 years later, China has developed super Titanium alloy for aviation and many new processes and manufacturing techniques. It's entirely possible that WS-15 will have >200kN thrust. That may not be a lot more compared to F-35's 190kN, but it will be 25% greater than F-22's 160kN. This is a huge advantage in thrust, and with J-20 bigger range. It can chase down anybody who wants to run in a aerial battle.
> 
> I am not saying China is now leading in engine technology. Not at all. US has developed the WS-15 class engine 25 years ago.



F-35 has only 1 engine.

Anyway J-20s will eat F-35s for breakfast. Only the F-22 has any chance against J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Many big shrimps also said that the POTUS after Obama will be a hardcore fascist one since many years ago, so China has definitely foreseen a guy like Trump will come to power decade ago.
> 
> The year 2020 will be an extremely critical year, China needs overwhelming leverage to maintain the stability.


People don't understand us can't under this. This is what China has been doing - racing with time; and this is why we are seeing FWS10B, FWS15 interim and FWS15.


Asok said:


> Can you post the Chinese name of this document and where you found it? Thanks!


*《我国战斗机发展战略研究》*
http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1841753&fromuid=66

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> F-35 has only 1 engine.
> 
> Anyway J-20s will eat F-35s for breakfast. Only the F-22 has any chance against J-20.



Yep, even the J-20A is already a beast, and the J-20B will be the juggernaut, a true 5++ aircraft with many features of the 6th gen aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yep, even the J-20A is already a beast, and the J-20B will be the juggernaut, a true 5++ aircraft with many features of the 6th gen aircraft.



I do not even think the current F-22 can take on J-20 as it will have much more modern electronics and will be equipped with the 500km AAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> I do not even think the current F-22 can take on J-20 as it will have much more modern electronics and will be equipped with the 500km AAM.



The J-20A's late avionics/radar and long range AAM is definitely a huge bonus against the earlier developed F-22.

That's why the US is now desperate to re-open the production line of the F-22 and to upgrade it, but they made a huge strategic blunder by vastly underestimating China and its potential. Now, they are paying a heavy price for their ego.



Tiqiu said:


> People don't understand us can't under this. This is what China has been doing - racing with time; and this is why we are seeing FWS10B, FWS15 interim and FWS15.
> 
> *《我国战斗机发展战略研究》*
> http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1841753&fromuid=66



Only the netizens from Meyet has grasped China's pattern of the development, while other military forumers are still beating around the bush and not having confidence on their Motherland.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20A's late avionics/radar and long range AAM is definitely a huge bonus against the earlier developed F-22.
> 
> That's why the US is now desperate to re-open the production line of the F-22 and to upgrade it, but they made a huge strategic blunder by vastly underestimating China and its potential. Now, they are paying a heavy price for their ego.




Problem with the F-22 is that it was never developed with the East Pacific in mind but to face the Russians in central Europe.

It will never be truly equal to the J-20 along the East Pacific where J-20 will operate since it lacks range to fly the long distances over the water.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Problem with the F-22 is that it was never developed with the East Pacific in mind but to face the Russians in central Europe.
> 
> It will never be truly equal to the J-20 along the East Pacific where J-20 will operate since it lacks range to fly the long distances over the water.



The strategic inconsistency of the US is definitely a good opportunity for China to catch up.

As soon the J-20B will come into service, China will speed up the development of the 6th gen aircraft while mass producing the J-20A/B.

China has a good chance to become the leader in the 6th gen race.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tiqiu

UKBengali said:


> I do not even think the current F-22 can take on J-20 as it will have much more modern electronics and will be equipped with the 500km AAM.


The PL-15 is also Mach 6 speed.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...r-air-air-missile-could-make-the-us-air-18536

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The strategic inconsistency of the US is definitely a good opportunity for China to catch up.
> 
> As soon the J-20B will come into service, China will speed up the development of the 6th gen aircraft while mass producing the J-20A/B.
> 
> China has a good chance to become the leader in the 6th gen race.



J-20 will give China air supremacy in it's neighbourhood. Once China has this the US can be pushed out of East Asia for good.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> J-20 will give China air supremacy in it's neighbourhood. Once China has this the US can be pushed out of East Asia for good.



China is developing the space superiority with the futuristic high-tech weapons like DF-ZF and DN-3, while having the J-20 and H-20 as the air superiority.

China's space-air-naval-land-cyberspace five dimensional modern warfare are complementary to each others.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Tiqiu

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Only the netizens from Meyet has grasped China's pattern of the development, while other military forumers are still beating around the bush and not having confidence on their Motherland.


Agree. This is the analysis written by some big shrimps on meyet in wake of the J-20's debut flight. Put aside whether they are correct or not in the findings, their efforts and approaches are more convincing.

 

*歼-20具备超一流的空战能力（上） *
原创 _2016-11-19_ _92军迷_ 刀口谈兵

*军迷朋友们请点击⬆️⬆️"*刀口谈兵*"的蓝色字关注我们，并欢迎大家转发朋友圈，传播正能量！*

*商务、投稿专用微信号：dktbmsz 欢迎投稿及合作！*

作者：刀口团队 \ 92军迷


歼-20虽然只在珠海飞行表演了短短的一分钟，但它依然是本届航展上最耀眼的明星，所以本期我们继续聊歼-20。在航展期间，空军司令马晓天告诉记者，他对歼-20的性能*非常满意*。几天后，央视在军事新闻里明白无误地向世人宣布：我国自主研制的四代机歼-20的各项指标*均居世界领先水平*。

是什么样的性能让马司令给出“非常满意”的评语，当然是国家的权威媒体所说的“各项指标均居世界领先水平”。在此“*领先*”一词尤为关键，这个结论不是轻易能下的。如果主要指标只是达到先进行列而没有明显超越，就只能定义为“先进水平”；如果有某项指标是排第一，就可以加上“某项指标居于世界领先水平”；只有整体达到一流水平，并在多项关键指标上达到第一，才能称作是“*各项指标均居世界领先水平*”。

歼-20作为四代战斗机，首先要求在空战性能上是超一流的，否则就谈不上是“领先”。衡量四代机的性能有许多专业的指标，但通俗的讲不外乎是指*4S*（*5S*）的水平高低，即隐形、超音速巡航、超机动（含超音速机动、超常规机动）、超级信息优势。在军方还未解密之前，我们只能将一些碎片化的资讯拼接，来探讨歼20的*4S*（5S）的水平。本文先谈前两个*S*-----隐身和超巡，下期再谈超机动性和超级信息优势。

对于歼-20的隐身性能，介绍的文章有很多，这里不再重复、只提几点。以前小白喜欢喷歼-20的鸭翼破坏隐身性能，有意思的是波音竞标美国六代概念机的最新方案，不是也加了鸭翼吗？难道是美国倒退了，或是歼-20在十年前就穿越时空，抄袭了现在美国六代机的方案呢？ 

先看下图的*F-22*，进气道口与机身所形成的间隙，就是个雷达信号强反射区。更不用说*F-35*那一身的沟沟坎坎，看似“肌肉男”，其实都是破坏隐身的地方。奇怪的是喷鸭翼的小白们，集体选择视而不见了。






再对照下图歼-20简洁流畅的机体外形，可以说隐身性能丝毫不比F-22差。我们再来看一份资料，它是去年底西安飞机设计研究所申请的专利。图片太小，这里将摘要中关键一句抄下来：*在飞机进气道安装等离子发射器组件，等离子发射器组件所喷出的等离子云团，喷射至进气口上，等离子云团可以阻挡电磁波进入进气道，从而达到隐身效果。*






上述的专利技术显然是西安所为*轰-20*研制的，那么它跟成飞的歼20有何关系呢？别急继续看*下图左上*，这是歼-20预研的一篇论文图，文章建议在歼20的一些关键部位，采用高压电弧空气离子化技术加强隐身性能，鸭翼附近区域就是其中一处。所以我们看到歼20的进气道壁上有*两个六角形的装置*，镜头分别从飞机的侧前、侧后拍摄时，前后六角形的颜色深浅是相反的，说明其表面栅栏隔的朝向前后是相反的，前面是进空气、后面是喷等离子云团（图右上）。

如果检索等离子发射器，会有很多研究论文，其中就有提及六角形的发射器组件，厚度有5、10、15cm不同规格。2014年中航工业科技大会上表彰的名单中，就有中航沈阳所的“等离子技术研究”；作为空军头号的杀手锏，歼20的研制是全中航工业大协作，即使成飞所没有这项技术，西安所和沈阳所也会提供支援，所以合乎逻辑的推理是，*歼20安装了等离子发射器，隐身性能世界一流*。






下图是中航空空导弹研究院为四代机研制的机翼导弹挂架论文，不仅要求挂架的外形要雷达隐身，还在*挂架大梁壳体的前端安装等离子发射器*，以增强雷达波的干扰作用。四代机的外挂架都有等离子发射器，歼-20的机体会不安装吗？所以我们有理由相信，在隐身性能方面，歼-20比F-22技高一筹。












别看老美一提四代机就强调隐身，好像一隐身就包打天下。如果是那样F-117干嘛要那么快退役？其实隐身性能只是四代机的必备条件，它不是真正比三代机技高一筹的关键。在强大的防空雷达网面前，去年F-22不也同样在东海裸奔嘛。

那最关键的是什么呢？是超音速巡航和超机动性能，而这两点又都与发动机的水平息息相关。美军故意强调F-22的隐身和F-35的超级信息优势，就是想把对手引向歧途，不重视高推重比发动机的研制。反之三代机弄个隐身外壳，配上先进航电，是否就可以抗衡F-22呢？保证被打得满地找牙。

前面说的是电磁信号的隐身性能，歼-20还有视觉的变色功能。看下面几幅歼-20在航展上表演的图，右下图是先飞走的那架，另三图是做了几个小半径机动后，垂直爬升的那架。图右上的发动机喷口未见火舌证明，即使是垂直爬升歼-20也没开加力。虽然两架飞机的颜色不同，但每架的机身和机翼都是相同颜色。歼-20在不同姿态下，由于太阳---->飞机各翼面--—>镜头三者所处的角度不同，翼面的颜色有显著差异，说明涂料有一定消除漫射的功能。在近距空战中并不完全是靠雷达发现目标，还要目视搜寻。当敌我两机距离较远时，就有可能是忽隐忽现，造成敌方飞行员发现困难，使其无法先占据攻击位置。






要具备超音速巡航，首先高升阻比的气动平台是基础。小白喜欢说“只要动力好，板砖也能飞”。其实那是老美在忽悠，谁信谁是傻子。真是那样还要风洞做什么，再说动力也不是想多大就有多大，如果不是提高推重比，仅增大推力，那么发动机又重又耗油，肯定飞不了超巡。同样重量的飞机要达到相同的速度，升阻比高就意味着需要克服的阻力小，拿个二代机的壳子装上F-119也无法超音速巡航。

关于歼-20优异的气动特性，在2001机首飞后就有很多文章解读，如果再深入一些，可以找宋文骢老先生那篇著名的论文，看后就有大致的了解。这里找了几幅近期公开的歼-20试飞图片，这些图多半不是卧草党拍的低空试飞图，而是在伴飞机的后座拍的，属于另类官泄，也可以认为是珠海展示的前奏，可以让外国的情报部门对歼-20的优异性能有个认识。航展的飞行表演是次要，威慑才是主要目的。从下图可以清晰看到歼-20在机动时，各翼面拉出的强劲涡流（弯弯说它是机翼漏气）。






涡流的自旋加上气流的速度，比流经机体下方的气流速度快，这就额外增加了升力。涡流的应用在三代机的增升设计中较为普遍，四代机更是做到极致，歼-20从机头菱角，进气道口前沿、鸭翼，小边条，到主翼前缘都能产生强涡流。而且设计巧妙，像接力一样，保证涡流能延续到机背而不过早破裂。如下图的2016号机的进气道外壁拱起，以及主翼前的小边条都起到这样的作用。加上升力体的机身设计（侧看像船体），所以歼-20机体设计的增升效果显著。高的升阻比为超音速巡航奠定了良好的基础。






有高升阻比的平台还得有强劲的推力才能超巡，推比十的发动机才是关键因素。同样是以升力体设计的苏27，机动时也常见到瀑布涡，没有人会说苏-27能超巡。歼-20如果没有装推比十的发动机，就无法超巡，更做不到超音速机动。试想4个*S*少了俩关键的*S*，空军的马司令能对一架隐形的三代机说满意？还如何能居世界领先水平？先进行列都排不进！

在尹卓将军定调歼-20装的是国发之后，毛发党又忽悠出“国产毛发”。它们也不想想，毛子要是有这样的发动机，或者说三姨夫、99m1能满足四代机的要求，俄罗斯何苦到现在T-50还在等推比十的发动机，而迟迟无法无法定型生产呢？如果弄个隐身的三代机就可以抗衡F-22，那还不赶紧生产跟三哥换钱？连三代机都不会造的印度都不受忽悠，我们国内竟有人信毛发党的鬼话。

本公众号之前已经不止一篇讲WS-15的文章，这里从另一个角度来谈。看下图，下方的发动机喷口与早期的歼-20是一样的，而它的加力后燃室的*火焰稳定器*，与左边是太行、右边的三姨夫*都不相同*。所以说，定型量产的歼20不可能是装太行。很多人以为WS-15一定是要在太行定型后才开始研制，于是掐指一算至少还有十年二十年。事实真的如此吗？

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

附本号关于歼20其他文章：

《歼-20航展震撼亮相 为我们展示了什么秘密》

《珠海航展惊动全球间谍纷纷潜入中国其实就是为了一件事》






真相是我国的三代发动机和四代发动机，是不同的研究团队并行研制的。推比十发动机的研制始于八十年代末，88年4月的论证会建议国家上马四代发动机，90年12月核心机研制正式立项。前段时间的一篇八股在介绍某型发动机研制团队时提到，2005年初推比十核心机点火成功时，“在场的研制人员为*十五年*来的艰辛付出，终于有了成果而欢呼”。90年底到05年初刚好是15年，正是核心机研制成功，才有2006年2月的“推重比10发动机立项综合论证报告评审会 ”（上图）。

核心机是发动机中技术最难的，因为这段的温度和转速最高，所需的材料和制造工艺也最难。有了先进的四代核心机，推比十的发动机研制征程就算是走过大半，后面是配上相应的低压压气机、风扇和低压涡轮，进行地面和空中试验。2011年WS-15整机提前交付（下图右），所以美国的航空周刊才会说，中国的航空发动机是“*跳跃式发展*”（下图左）。美国的三代发动机改进了20年才提升了10%，中国的发动机技术为什么能快速发展？






因为中国在单晶的研制领域几乎是跟西方同步。航材院88年研制出第一代单晶（*DD3*），97年研制出第二代单晶（*DD6*）（上图），大约在04年研制出三代单晶（*DD9*）并用在WS-15核心机上，美国的F-119用的正是第三代单晶。下图是第三代单晶制造的高压涡轮导向叶片（左）、第二代粉末高温合金涡轮盘（右）。能在航展上展出实物，就是向外表明我们*不仅研制成功，而且可以批量生产*。如果成品率不高，成本就没优势，就无法承接为客户代工的订单。






我们从验证机（2001）与原型机（2015）的不同，也能证实定型量产的歼-20已经装上四代发动机。央视在2011年底宣布歼20首飞用的是WS-10B发动机，下图2001机与2015机的对比图。由于预研扎实，歼-20的验证机机体与原型机只有细节的不同。曾有一幅图是2001和2011的侧视图对比，两机各个关键点的长度不变。假设腹部弹箱后缘到腹鳍基部前端的距离不变，下图经过换算，*78/75=1.04，1. 04 X 39 =40.6*。如果没有换发动机，2015机的黄线长本应该是*40.6*，而实际只有*32.0。*虽然两机拍摄的角度稍有差异，但也不应该差异如此之大，显然2015原型机的发动机长度变短了。由于太行发动机的高压压气机是9级，WS-15的是6级，少了三级自然长度就缩小。






上面我们通过公开的资料和图片，论证了歼-20优异的气动性能和安装了推比十的发动机，可以预测*歼-20的超巡性能一点不比F-22弱*。尹卓将军在央视的节目里说的关键是两句，*一是歼-20装的是国发，二是歼-20如果装WS-15就可以超巡*。虽然在主持人追问下，他又补充说目前还不是WS-15，那是因为以他的特殊身份如果说“是”，那等于在军方未公布之前提前泄密，正如他说中国可以跨越直接上电弹，而不会说下一艘航母是装电弹，是一个道理。

试想，如果歼-20进入小批量生产了还没有超巡能力，那就无法对抗F-22，马晓天司令也不可能说很满意。为什么超巡对于空战如此重要呢？一是可以快速迎敌，以1.3—1.5音速飞行，则比三代机快三分之一的时间接敌。二是可以给空空弹更高的初速，这样空空弹的有效射程就更远。因为无论是中距弹还是近距弹，燃烧完燃料之后速度就逐步降低，尤其是做机动动作，速度更是迅速下降，机动性能也大大减低。如果能赋予空空弹更高的初速，相同飞行距离的存速才会更高，敌机的不可逃逸距离就更大。否则F-22跟你在这个距离之外玩，你是被挨打而打不了它。

三是在与三代机空战中，由于具备更大的整机推重比，可以利用更快的速度追击敌机，或比敌机更快占据有利于攻击的位置。航展上歼20最后的垂直爬升，不但没开加力、爬升的速度也没有明显的下降，如果歼-20开加力，三代机在近距空战中将处处挨打，更不用说中距拦截，还没进入发射距离就要逃跑。

至于歼-20在空战中的超机动性和超级信息的优势，留待下篇再聊。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Tiqiu said:


> Agree. This is the analysis written by some big shrimps on meyet in wake of the J-20's debut flight. Put aside whether they are correct or not in the findings, their efforts and approaches are more convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> *歼-20具备超一流的空战能力（上） *
> 原创 _2016-11-19_ _92军迷_ 刀口谈兵
> 
> *军迷朋友们请点击⬆️⬆️"*刀口谈兵*"的蓝色字关注我们，并欢迎大家转发朋友圈，传播正能量！*
> 
> *商务、投稿专用微信号：dktbmsz 欢迎投稿及合作！*
> 
> 作者：刀口团队 \ 92军迷
> 
> 
> 歼-20虽然只在珠海飞行表演了短短的一分钟，但它依然是本届航展上最耀眼的明星，所以本期我们继续聊歼-20。在航展期间，空军司令马晓天告诉记者，他对歼-20的性能*非常满意*。几天后，央视在军事新闻里明白无误地向世人宣布：我国自主研制的四代机歼-20的各项指标*均居世界领先水平*。
> 
> 是什么样的性能让马司令给出“非常满意”的评语，当然是国家的权威媒体所说的“各项指标均居世界领先水平”。在此“*领先*”一词尤为关键，这个结论不是轻易能下的。如果主要指标只是达到先进行列而没有明显超越，就只能定义为“先进水平”；如果有某项指标是排第一，就可以加上“某项指标居于世界领先水平”；只有整体达到一流水平，并在多项关键指标上达到第一，才能称作是“*各项指标均居世界领先水平*”。
> 
> 歼-20作为四代战斗机，首先要求在空战性能上是超一流的，否则就谈不上是“领先”。衡量四代机的性能有许多专业的指标，但通俗的讲不外乎是指*4S*（*5S*）的水平高低，即隐形、超音速巡航、超机动（含超音速机动、超常规机动）、超级信息优势。在军方还未解密之前，我们只能将一些碎片化的资讯拼接，来探讨歼20的*4S*（5S）的水平。本文先谈前两个*S*-----隐身和超巡，下期再谈超机动性和超级信息优势。
> 
> 对于歼-20的隐身性能，介绍的文章有很多，这里不再重复、只提几点。以前小白喜欢喷歼-20的鸭翼破坏隐身性能，有意思的是波音竞标美国六代概念机的最新方案，不是也加了鸭翼吗？难道是美国倒退了，或是歼-20在十年前就穿越时空，抄袭了现在美国六代机的方案呢？
> 
> 先看下图的*F-22*，进气道口与机身所形成的间隙，就是个雷达信号强反射区。更不用说*F-35*那一身的沟沟坎坎，看似“肌肉男”，其实都是破坏隐身的地方。奇怪的是喷鸭翼的小白们，集体选择视而不见了。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 再对照下图歼-20简洁流畅的机体外形，可以说隐身性能丝毫不比F-22差。我们再来看一份资料，它是去年底西安飞机设计研究所申请的专利。图片太小，这里将摘要中关键一句抄下来：*在飞机进气道安装等离子发射器组件，等离子发射器组件所喷出的等离子云团，喷射至进气口上，等离子云团可以阻挡电磁波进入进气道，从而达到隐身效果。*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 上述的专利技术显然是西安所为*轰-20*研制的，那么它跟成飞的歼20有何关系呢？别急继续看*下图左上*，这是歼-20预研的一篇论文图，文章建议在歼20的一些关键部位，采用高压电弧空气离子化技术加强隐身性能，鸭翼附近区域就是其中一处。所以我们看到歼20的进气道壁上有*两个六角形的装置*，镜头分别从飞机的侧前、侧后拍摄时，前后六角形的颜色深浅是相反的，说明其表面栅栏隔的朝向前后是相反的，前面是进空气、后面是喷等离子云团（图右上）。
> 
> 如果检索等离子发射器，会有很多研究论文，其中就有提及六角形的发射器组件，厚度有5、10、15cm不同规格。2014年中航工业科技大会上表彰的名单中，就有中航沈阳所的“等离子技术研究”；作为空军头号的杀手锏，歼20的研制是全中航工业大协作，即使成飞所没有这项技术，西安所和沈阳所也会提供支援，所以合乎逻辑的推理是，*歼20安装了等离子发射器，隐身性能世界一流*。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 下图是中航空空导弹研究院为四代机研制的机翼导弹挂架论文，不仅要求挂架的外形要雷达隐身，还在*挂架大梁壳体的前端安装等离子发射器*，以增强雷达波的干扰作用。四代机的外挂架都有等离子发射器，歼-20的机体会不安装吗？所以我们有理由相信，在隐身性能方面，歼-20比F-22技高一筹。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 别看老美一提四代机就强调隐身，好像一隐身就包打天下。如果是那样F-117干嘛要那么快退役？其实隐身性能只是四代机的必备条件，它不是真正比三代机技高一筹的关键。在强大的防空雷达网面前，去年F-22不也同样在东海裸奔嘛。
> 
> 那最关键的是什么呢？是超音速巡航和超机动性能，而这两点又都与发动机的水平息息相关。美军故意强调F-22的隐身和F-35的超级信息优势，就是想把对手引向歧途，不重视高推重比发动机的研制。反之三代机弄个隐身外壳，配上先进航电，是否就可以抗衡F-22呢？保证被打得满地找牙。
> 
> 前面说的是电磁信号的隐身性能，歼-20还有视觉的变色功能。看下面几幅歼-20在航展上表演的图，右下图是先飞走的那架，另三图是做了几个小半径机动后，垂直爬升的那架。图右上的发动机喷口未见火舌证明，即使是垂直爬升歼-20也没开加力。虽然两架飞机的颜色不同，但每架的机身和机翼都是相同颜色。歼-20在不同姿态下，由于太阳---->飞机各翼面--—>镜头三者所处的角度不同，翼面的颜色有显著差异，说明涂料有一定消除漫射的功能。在近距空战中并不完全是靠雷达发现目标，还要目视搜寻。当敌我两机距离较远时，就有可能是忽隐忽现，造成敌方飞行员发现困难，使其无法先占据攻击位置。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 要具备超音速巡航，首先高升阻比的气动平台是基础。小白喜欢说“只要动力好，板砖也能飞”。其实那是老美在忽悠，谁信谁是傻子。真是那样还要风洞做什么，再说动力也不是想多大就有多大，如果不是提高推重比，仅增大推力，那么发动机又重又耗油，肯定飞不了超巡。同样重量的飞机要达到相同的速度，升阻比高就意味着需要克服的阻力小，拿个二代机的壳子装上F-119也无法超音速巡航。
> 
> 关于歼-20优异的气动特性，在2001机首飞后就有很多文章解读，如果再深入一些，可以找宋文骢老先生那篇著名的论文，看后就有大致的了解。这里找了几幅近期公开的歼-20试飞图片，这些图多半不是卧草党拍的低空试飞图，而是在伴飞机的后座拍的，属于另类官泄，也可以认为是珠海展示的前奏，可以让外国的情报部门对歼-20的优异性能有个认识。航展的飞行表演是次要，威慑才是主要目的。从下图可以清晰看到歼-20在机动时，各翼面拉出的强劲涡流（弯弯说它是机翼漏气）。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 涡流的自旋加上气流的速度，比流经机体下方的气流速度快，这就额外增加了升力。涡流的应用在三代机的增升设计中较为普遍，四代机更是做到极致，歼-20从机头菱角，进气道口前沿、鸭翼，小边条，到主翼前缘都能产生强涡流。而且设计巧妙，像接力一样，保证涡流能延续到机背而不过早破裂。如下图的2016号机的进气道外壁拱起，以及主翼前的小边条都起到这样的作用。加上升力体的机身设计（侧看像船体），所以歼-20机体设计的增升效果显著。高的升阻比为超音速巡航奠定了良好的基础。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 有高升阻比的平台还得有强劲的推力才能超巡，推比十的发动机才是关键因素。同样是以升力体设计的苏27，机动时也常见到瀑布涡，没有人会说苏-27能超巡。歼-20如果没有装推比十的发动机，就无法超巡，更做不到超音速机动。试想4个*S*少了俩关键的*S*，空军的马司令能对一架隐形的三代机说满意？还如何能居世界领先水平？先进行列都排不进！
> 
> 在尹卓将军定调歼-20装的是国发之后，毛发党又忽悠出“国产毛发”。它们也不想想，毛子要是有这样的发动机，或者说三姨夫、99m1能满足四代机的要求，俄罗斯何苦到现在T-50还在等推比十的发动机，而迟迟无法无法定型生产呢？如果弄个隐身的三代机就可以抗衡F-22，那还不赶紧生产跟三哥换钱？连三代机都不会造的印度都不受忽悠，我们国内竟有人信毛发党的鬼话。
> 
> 本公众号之前已经不止一篇讲WS-15的文章，这里从另一个角度来谈。看下图，下方的发动机喷口与早期的歼-20是一样的，而它的加力后燃室的*火焰稳定器*，与左边是太行、右边的三姨夫*都不相同*。所以说，定型量产的歼20不可能是装太行。很多人以为WS-15一定是要在太行定型后才开始研制，于是掐指一算至少还有十年二十年。事实真的如此吗？



Indeed, I am a big fan of Meyet, but unfortunately I don't have a registered ID in that forum, but only in the CD Forum.

I am getting sick to see those CDer trolls constantly bashing and discrediting the professionals from Meyet.

General Daokou is a legend, and his prophecy is almost beating POP3, even General Yin Zhuo got the consensus with him of using the EMALS instead of the steam catapult. They represent the voice of the PLAN who will spontaneously choose the EMALS over the steam catapult.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20A's late avionics/radar and long range AAM is definitely a huge bonus against the earlier developed F-22.
> 
> That's why the US is now desperate to re-open the production line of the F-22 and to upgrade it, but they made a huge strategic blunder by vastly underestimating China and its potential. Now, they are paying a heavy price for their ego.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the netizens from Meyet has grasped China's pattern of the development, while other military forumers are still beating around the bush and not having confidence on their Motherland.



"but they made a huge strategic blunder by vastly underestimating China and its potential. Now, they are paying a heavy price for their ego."

China got them fooled by not exposing our potentials too early. Good part of that is also western self-delusion based on a sense of racial superiority. They first convinced of themselves of China's inferiority and then China just didn't wake them up.

Now the world is safer, because America and its allies are going to produce 2400+ fat flying pigs, a.k.a F-35.



UKBengali said:


> J-20 will give China air supremacy in it's neighbourhood. Once China has this the US can be pushed out of East Asia for good.



Yes, I really doubt whether the US aircraft carriers will dare to show their faces near the Chinese coast again. Not even the dumbest US admirals could convince themselves that China could not sink them easily.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Yes, I really doubt whether the US aircraft carriers will dare to show their faces near the Chinese coast again.



Not sure if Trump will understand this.

BTW, the bolder they become, the easier for China to defeat them.

Reactions: Like Like:

4


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> View attachment 358308




Nice ... and exactly like I predicted already in summer after the new hangars were spotted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Nice ... and exactly like I predicted already in summer after the new hangars were spotted.


This Cangzhou Yaogao airfield - 026 unit is also referred as the Chinese Edwards Air Force Base, it used to host some foreign visitors and pilots from friendly nations ( maybe Pak Army too?). Who knows maybe one day the Americans will pay a visit too for the sake of avoiding misjudgement.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> 附本号关于歼20其他文章：
> 
> 《歼-20航展震撼亮相 为我们展示了什么秘密》
> 
> 《珠海航展惊动全球间谍纷纷潜入中国其实就是为了一件事》
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 真相是我国的三代发动机和四代发动机，是不同的研究团队并行研制的。推比十发动机的研制始于八十年代末，88年4月的论证会建议国家上马四代发动机，90年12月核心机研制正式立项。前段时间的一篇八股在介绍某型发动机研制团队时提到，2005年初推比十核心机点火成功时，“在场的研制人员为*十五年*来的艰辛付出，终于有了成果而欢呼”。90年底到05年初刚好是15年，正是核心机研制成功，才有2006年2月的“推重比10发动机立项综合论证报告评审会 ”（上图）。
> 
> 核心机是发动机中技术最难的，因为这段的温度和转速最高，所需的材料和制造工艺也最难。有了先进的四代核心机，推比十的发动机研制征程就算是走过大半，后面是配上相应的低压压气机、风扇和低压涡轮，进行地面和空中试验。2011年WS-15整机提前交付（下图右），所以美国的航空周刊才会说，中国的航空发动机是“*跳跃式发展*”（下图左）。美国的三代发动机改进了20年才提升了10%，中国的发动机技术为什么能快速发展？
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 因为中国在单晶的研制领域几乎是跟西方同步。航材院88年研制出第一代单晶（*DD3*），97年研制出第二代单晶（*DD6*）（上图），大约在04年研制出三代单晶（*DD9*）并用在WS-15核心机上，美国的F-119用的正是第三代单晶。下图是第三代单晶制造的高压涡轮导向叶片（左）、第二代粉末高温合金涡轮盘（右）。能在航展上展出实物，就是向外表明我们*不仅研制成功，而且可以批量生产*。如果成品率不高，成本就没优势，就无法承接为客户代工的订单。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 我们从验证机（2001）与原型机（2015）的不同，也能证实定型量产的歼-20已经装上四代发动机。央视在2011年底宣布歼20首飞用的是WS-10B发动机，下图2001机与2015机的对比图。由于预研扎实，歼-20的验证机机体与原型机只有细节的不同。曾有一幅图是2001和2011的侧视图对比，两机各个关键点的长度不变。假设腹部弹箱后缘到腹鳍基部前端的距离不变，下图经过换算，*78/75=1.04，1. 04 X 39 =40.6*。如果没有换发动机，2015机的黄线长本应该是*40.6*，而实际只有*32.0。*虽然两机拍摄的角度稍有差异，但也不应该差异如此之大，显然2015原型机的发动机长度变短了。由于太行发动机的高压压气机是9级，WS-15的是6级，少了三级自然长度就缩小。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 上面我们通过公开的资料和图片，论证了歼-20优异的气动性能和安装了推比十的发动机，可以预测*歼-20的超巡性能一点不比F-22弱*。尹卓将军在央视的节目里说的关键是两句，*一是歼-20装的是国发，二是歼-20如果装WS-15就可以超巡*。虽然在主持人追问下，他又补充说目前还不是WS-15，那是因为以他的特殊身份如果说“是”，那等于在军方未公布之前提前泄密，正如他说中国可以跨越直接上电弹，而不会说下一艘航母是装电弹，是一个道理。
> 
> 试想，如果歼-20进入小批量生产了还没有超巡能力，那就无法对抗F-22，马晓天司令也不可能说很满意。为什么超巡对于空战如此重要呢？一是可以快速迎敌，以1.3—1.5音速飞行，则比三代机快三分之一的时间接敌。二是可以给空空弹更高的初速，这样空空弹的有效射程就更远。因为无论是中距弹还是近距弹，燃烧完燃料之后速度就逐步降低，尤其是做机动动作，速度更是迅速下降，机动性能也大大减低。如果能赋予空空弹更高的初速，相同飞行距离的存速才会更高，敌机的不可逃逸距离就更大。否则F-22跟你在这个距离之外玩，你是被挨打而打不了它。
> 
> 三是在与三代机空战中，由于具备更大的整机推重比，可以利用更快的速度追击敌机，或比敌机更快占据有利于攻击的位置。航展上歼20最后的垂直爬升，不但没开加力、爬升的速度也没有明显的下降，如果歼-20开加力，三代机在近距空战中将处处挨打，更不用说中距拦截，还没进入发射距离就要逃跑。
> 
> 至于歼-20在空战中的超机动性和超级信息的优势，留待下篇再聊。



Here is the key point that will defeat all arguments that J-20 is/were using a variant of WS-10 or AL-31F.

"无论是毛发党、还是它的变种“国产毛发”党、以及“太行党”，都认为可以用三代发动机给歼-20定型，以后再换上WS-15。可是它们没有一个能回答这样一个问题，那就是用三代发动机如何能飞出超音速机动？飞不出又如何知道所定型的气动控制和机体的结构强度，是否能够满足更换WS-15之后超音速机动的要求呢？"

Two of the 4S in 5th generation fighters is Super-cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability. Both WS-10A/B and AL-31FN cannot enable 4th generation fighters (J-10, and Flankers) to do either Super-cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability. Being bigger, there is no way either engines can enable J-20 to do Super-cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability.

Yet, both abilities must be thoroughly tested before PLAAF can be sure J-20 had reached those vital capabilities. IMO, there is no way PLAAF Commander will give it a thumb up and allow it to enter services if he is not satisfied.

During Supersonic Maneuverability, the structures of J-20 undergoes a great deal of stress and the flight control system must be handle those maneuvers well . There is no way to tell for sure if J-20 can handle them, if J-20 can't do sustain Supersonic Maneuvers.

Simply put, No TWR 10 engines means J-20 can't test Super-cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability. There is no way the PLAAF commander could claim on TV "各项指标均居世界领先水平”, "All performance parameters are leading in the world.

"只有整体达到一流水平，并在多项关键指标上达到第一，才能称作是“各项指标均居世界领先水平”。"
"Only if all performance parameters are actually number ONE, could anyone claim parameters are world leading."

There you go, folks, J-20's current engine, WS-15, is much more powerful than we could imagine,

IMO. I had suggested its maximum thrust is greater >200kN. If WS-15 is just same as F-22's 160kN. I don't think the PLAAF commander will be that confidence and happy. After all, F-22's F119 engine was built in the 1980's. US had roll out the 190kN engine for F-35 in the 1990's.

A even more powerful engine with VCE (Variable Cycle Engine) is already on the horizon for the 6th generation fighter.

We can safely conclude: No WS-15 for J-20 means there were no Super-cruise, and no Supersonic Maneuverability testings, during the last 5 years.

Can anyone say there is no problem, because PLAAF can always do them later, after several hundreds of J-20 were produced and inducted into service?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> This Cangzhou Yaogao airfield - 026 unit is also referred as the Chinese Edwards Air Force Base, it used to host some foreign visitors and pilots from friendly nations ( maybe Pak Army too?). Who knows maybe one day the Americans will pay a visit too for the sake of avoiding misjudgement.



No, 100% for sure it's not Cangzhou Yaogao (FTTC), which indeed houses the 171. and 172. Brigades (as shown by the Su-30MKK above) but it is clearly the CFTE base Dingxin ...









lf You look at photos this older image of Dingxin from GE (2013 being the last update), the two J-20s are parked next to those three same buildings as marked in the red box. The tarmac also seems to have been expanded there.

By the way, the J-10A is an old image, when that unit still had 60xxx-serials, by now these planes are assigned to the 170. Brigade and based at Jiugucheng; the same unit that also received the very first serial J-10B and now also J-10C.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Another set of pictures that clearly shows J-20's 3D TVC nozzles can do differential turnings, that is, the only one nozzle is turning, or turning at a different rate or angle.

TVC nozzles has the advantages of allowing the plane not to use the controls surfaces as much, during sustained Supersonic Maneuverings. Using the controls surfaces necessarily produce more drags and slow down the plane.






J-20 has a WS-15 engine that possibly has >200kN thrust, 3D TVC nozzles, and 8 control surfaces, including all moving vertical tails, and large canards. They all could do differential activations. 

In addition, J-20 has huge long range, *Integrated Helmet and Display Sight System (IHADSS)*, *Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)*, Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS), which allows 360 degree, spherical situational awareness system. All these systems, F-22 don't have.

If that still don't enable J-20 to dominate F-22 in air battle, I don't know what could.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> No, 100% for sure it's not Cangzhou Yaogao (FTTC), which indeed houses the 171. and 172. Brigades (as shown by the Su-30MKK above) but it is clearly the CFTE base Dingxin ...
> 
> View attachment 358358
> View attachment 358359
> 
> lf You look at photos this older image of Dingxin from GE (2013 being the last update), the two J-20s are parked next to those three same buildings as marked in the red box. The tarmac also seems to have been expanded there.
> 
> By the way, the J-10A is an old image, when that unit still had 60xxx-serials, by now these planes are assigned to the 170. Brigade and based at Jiugucheng; the same unit that also received the very first serial J-10B and now also J-10C.
> 
> Deino


Indeed it is Dingxin. But maybe its an old image, or maybe it meant to get people confused. For CFTE is not PLAAF unit, the FTTC is. But again 78271 maybe a fictitious serial too. I don't think that many of J-20 can be produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Indeed it is Dingxin. But maybe its an old image, or maybe it meant to get people confused. For CFTE is not PLAAF unit, the FTTC is. But again 78271 maybe a fictitious serial too. I don't think that many of J-20 can be produced.




Not sure, why the 176. and 170. Brigade CFTE should not be an operational PLAAF trials-unit, but the serial - also on the J-10A and B are clearly not faked. Concerning the serial 78271 it simply means 787 - 611 = 176. Brigade and the 3. and 5. number aka '21' mens the individula number of that J-20A within that unit. It has nothing to do with the number produced so far.



Asok said:


> Another set of pictures that clearly shows J-20's 3D TVC nozzles can do differential turnings, that is, the only one nozzle is turning, or turning at a different rate or angle.
> 
> TVC nozzles has the advantages of allowing the plane not to use the controls surfaces as much, during sustained Supersonic Maneuverings. Using the controls surfaces necessarily produce more drags and slow down the plane.
> 
> View attachment 358363




@Asok, can You please stop posting the same images over and over again ! They are not TVC-nozzles regardless how many images You try to show. If it would be TVC the angle would be much larger and clearly visible.


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> Not sure, why the 176. and 170. Brigade CFTE should not be an operational PLAAF trials-unit, but the serial - also on the J-10A and B are clearly not faked. Concerning the serial 78271 it simply means 787 - 611 = 176. Brigade and the 3. and 5. number aka '21' mens the individula number of that J-20A within that unit. It has nothing to do with the number produced so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Asok, can You please stop posting the same images over and over again ! They are not TVC-nozzles regardless how many images You try to show. If it would be TVC the angle would be much larger and clearly visible.


That's way I said there shouldn't be as many as 21 birds. Very unlikely.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Not sure, why the 176. and 170. Brigade CFTE should not be an operational PLAAF trials-unit, but the serial - also on the J-10A and B are clearly not faked. Concerning the serial 78271 it simply means 787 - 611 = 176. Brigade and the 3. and 5. number aka '21' mens the individula number of that J-20A within that unit. It has nothing to do with the number produced so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Asok, can You please stop posting the same images over and over again ! They are not TVC-nozzles regardless how many images You try to show. If it would be TVC the angle would be much larger and clearly visible.



They are not the same pictures I had posted before. The TVC need to turn enough to do the job. J-20 has the canards too. No need to turn like the SU-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

Could be 176 a unit at 026.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Could be 176 a unit at 026.




No You must teach me !!! What does "unit at 026" mean ?


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> No You must teach me !!! What does "unit at 026" mean ?


Troops 026 is the name used by people living near Cangzhou airbase to call it, as 14 is used for Dingxin.

It seems Dingxin is one of the two FTTC of the base PLAAF, not CFTE, so Yinzhuo was right in claiming few months ago that J-20 would form a special seed unit in PLAAF, which maybe that newly - created 176 Brigade. ( check my post about J-20 entered service few months ago in this thread)

I think J-20 at Dingxin,a stone's throw away from the Shuangchengzi missile test range, means it will undergo weapons integration testing, or has been undergoing already. After all, in the remote desert area, it's more controlled,safe and secret.

Maybe that is the message designed to pass on by the leaked image.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

UKBengali said:


> I do not even think the current F-22 can take on J-20 as it will have much more modern electronics and will be equipped with the 500km AAM.


What? 500km AAM name it for us you live in your fairytale and fantasyworld

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Troops 026 is the name used by people living near Cangzhou airbase to call it, as 14 is used for Dingxin.
> 
> It seems Dingxin is one of the two FTTC of the base PLAAF, not CFTE, so Yinzhuo was right in claiming few months ago that J-20 would form a special seed unit in PLAAF, which maybe that newly - created 176 Brigade. ( check my post about J-20 entered service few months ago in this thread)
> 
> I think J-20 at Dingxin,a stone's throw away from the Shuangchengzi missile test range, means it will undergo weapons integration testing, or has been undergoing already. After all, in the remote desert area, it's more controlled,safe and secret.
> 
> Maybe that is the message designed to pass on by the leaked image.



I completely agree with You and if You check my previous post from 5. August:

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-389#post-8538266

... I was always expecting Dingxin. However with the CFTE or FTTC I am still nor sure.
FTTC would make more sense, but for example Scramble.nl lists this unit under the FTTC but Dingxin also houses a CFTE AEW-detachment.

Can anyone explain or solve that mystery ???

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Tiqiu said:


> The PL-15 is also Mach 6 speed.
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...r-air-air-missile-could-make-the-us-air-18536
> 
> View attachment 358265


No 4.5 mach



Asok said:


> They are not the same pictures I had posted before. The TVC need to turn enough to do the job. J-20 has the canards too. No need to turn like the SU-35.


Just in the camera angles nothing but in your wishful thinking and false assumptions

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

See the gap I highlighted in red below?






Find the gap in this picture.






Find the gap in this picture.






Nozzles are open in all 3 pictures above.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> See the gap I highlighted in red below?
> 
> View attachment 358541
> 
> 
> Find the gap in this picture.
> 
> View attachment 358542
> 
> 
> Find the gap in this picture.
> 
> View attachment 358543
> 
> 
> Nozzles are open in all 3 pictures above.




If You would post a full-size close-up image of the second and third nozzle in exactly the same size as the first You would see it. IMO You are showing us a high resolution image of the Orange's skin with all their unevenness and in comparison You show us a distant image of an Orange side by side to an orange-coloured Apple and tell us since the skin is plain flat without any unevenness it has to be an Apple too.

Honestly, both engines are exactly the same, even all screws and bolts are exactly on the same place ... even more they are completely different to any WS-10. The only difference are indeed a bit the colours and the J-20's engine is embedded a bit more within the fuselage.

So please why do You guys still to prefer to believe in a mystical hybrid super-WS-10X mated with an AL-31FN's nozzle instead of simply accepting the facts. In nature science when You have several optional possibilities to explain an so far unclear issue, most often - and IMO nearly usually - the most likely option is the real explanation.
A special custom-tailored version of the AL-31 is IMO still the most like explanation, but if You still want to believe in orange coloured Apples it's up to You.

Again ... some day we will know it for sure, we will know why the J-20 can fly the maneuverers at Zhuhai (that were not really special or exciting !), why that unique sound ... 

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> If You would post a full-size close-up image of the second and third nozzle in exactly the same size as the first You would see it. IMO You are showing us a high resolution image of the Orange's skin with all their unevenness and in comparison You show us a distant image of an Orange side by side to an orange-coloured Apple and tell us since the skin is plain flat without any unevenness it has to be an Apple too.
> 
> Honestly, both engines are exactly the same, even all screws and bolts are exactly on the same place ... even more they are completely different to any WS-10. The only difference are indeed a bit the colours and the J-20's engine is embedded a bit more within the fuselage.
> 
> So please why do You guys still to prefer to believe in a mystical hybrid super-WS-10X mated with an AL-31FN's nozzle instead of simply accepting the facts. In nature science when You have several optional possibilities to explain an so far unclear issue, most often - and IMO nearly usually - the most likely option is the real explanation.
> A special custom-tailored version of the AL-31 is IMO still the most like explanation, but if You still want to believe in orange coloured Apples it's up to You.
> 
> Again ... some day we will know it for sure, we will know why the J-20 can fly the maneuverers at Zhuhai (that were not really special or exciting !), why that unique sound ...
> 
> Deino


What facts can you present other than artificial external vision identity? Is there any confirmation of so called super AL-31F engine that can ramp up 140kn thrust which is other than make up by you. If there is such a magical AL-31F engine. I guess 117S engine is just extra and PAFKA will not have so much problem.

The whole demo by J-20 at zhuhai do not even engage a single usage of afterburner. This is a fact I think some just cherry pick to avoid to suit their agenda.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> What facts can you present other than artificial external vision identity? Is there any confirmation of so called super AL-31F engine that can ramp up 140kn thrust which is other than make up by you. If there is such a magical AL-31F engine. I guess 117S engine is just extra and PAFKA will not have so much problem.
> 
> The whole demo by J-20 at zhuhai do not even engage a single usage of afterburner. This is a fact I think some just cherry pick to avoid to suit their agenda.



Xi Yazhou is probably under probation, since the Chinese government doesn't like the make up story to mislead the netizens.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> What facts can you present other than artificial external vision identity? Is there any confirmation of so called super AL-31F engine that can ramp up 140kn thrust which is other than make up by you. If there is such a magical AL-31F engine. I guess 117S engine is just extra and PAFKA will not have so much problem.
> 
> The whole demo by J-20 at zhuhai do not even engage a single usage of afterburner. This is a fact I think some just cherry pick to avoid to suit their agenda.



Some people just don't have great logical deduction skills, not even intuition. One telltale sign is ignore some pieces of critical evidence, even after they have been pointed out and emphasized repeatedly. It's one thing, those evidences were not noticed before, it's entirely different when they are ignored. I find liberal minded people tends to have this tendency.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Some people just don't great logical deduction skills, not even intuition. One telltale sign is ignore some pieces of critical evidence, even after they have been pointed out and emphasized repeatedly. It's one thing, those evidences were not noticed before, it's entirely different when they are ignored. I find liberal minded people tends to have this tendency.



China's third generation superalloy DD9 for the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tiqiu

pakistanipower said:


> What? 500km AAM name it for us you live in your fairytale and fantasyworld


PL-15 (see post 6856#)
Also the Russian RVV-BD and KS-172 were said to have 150 km (direct shot) and 400 km (under cruise gliding profile) reach.


pakistanipower said:


> No 4.5 mach


Your source?


Beast said:


> What facts can you present other than artificial external vision identity? Is there any confirmation of so called super AL-31F engine that can ramp up 140kn thrust which is other than make up by you. If there is such a magical AL-31F engine. I guess 117S engine is just extra and PAFKA will not have so much problem.
> 
> The whole demo by J-20 at zhuhai do not even engage a single usage of afterburner. This is a fact I think some just cherry pick to avoid to suit their agenda.


I think until the time we can all agree on this, we have to live on how to disagree.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## randomradio

Beast said:


> What facts can you present other than artificial external vision identity? Is there any confirmation of so called super AL-31F engine that can ramp up 140kn thrust which is other than make up by you. If there is such a magical AL-31F engine. I guess 117S engine is just extra and PAFKA will not have so much problem.
> 
> The whole demo by J-20 at zhuhai do not even engage a single usage of afterburner. This is a fact I think some just cherry pick to avoid to suit their agenda.



Salyut's AL-31FMx series produce 14-15 tons of thrust.


----------



## samsara

pakistanipower said:


> What? 500km AAM name it for us you live in your fairytale and fantasyworld





Tiqiu said:


> PL-15 (see post 6856#)
> Also the Russian RVV-BD and KS-172 were said to have 150 km (direct shot) and 400 km (under cruise gliding profile) reach.


pakistanipower, I did you a service... the above-mentioned post #6856

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

randomradio said:


> Salyut's AL-31FMx series produce 14-15 tons of thrust.


No, if that is so, they will not have problem for PAFKA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

* 歼-20具备超一流的空战能力（中） *
原创 _2016-11-23_ _92军迷_ 刀口谈兵


*军迷朋友们请点击⬆️⬆️"*刀口谈兵*"的蓝色字关注我们，并欢迎大家转发朋友圈，传播正能量！*

*商务、投稿专用微信号：dktbmsz 欢迎投稿及合作！*

作者：刀口团队 \ 92军迷


附上期：

《歼-20具备超一流的空战能力（上）》

上一篇我们谈了四代机特性里的前两个*S*，隐身 和 超音速巡航。具备超音速巡航能力在空战中的意义，需要我们细心琢磨与体会。“在巡航段飞得快”仅仅是其中的一小部分。空空弹虽然标着最大速度4M.，过载35--40G，射程几十公里，而战机最大只能飞9G，但并不是被导弹瞄上就必死无疑？如果是这样运输机装上大雷达，配上远程空空弹，岂不是可以猎杀战斗机？

其实空空弹的最大速度是在动力段的后程，近距弹的动力段只有十几秒，之后就是无动力飞行。最大过载是导弹第一次机动时鸭翼或燃气舵，使导弹产生的瞬间转弯的加速度，但是随着机动过程，导弹的速度和能产生的过载都急剧下降，有效射程也就大大缩短。相比之下四代机有强劲的动力，无论是在中距拦截，还是近距格斗的空战中，超巡带给空空导弹初速度的增加，不仅扩大了不可逃逸的距离，还使得空空导弹可高机动的次数增加。

有资料显示，当目标机做4G过载机动时，导弹需要三倍加10G，即*3X4+10=22G*才可能击中目标，所以*0.9M.*的三代机发射的导弹，实际上只有一次较大过载修正航行的机会。用中距弹拦截四代机除非是迎头攻击，22Km内有可能击中；如果是侧向或尾追攻击，四代机自身可以在1.5M.的超音速状态下完成6G的机动动作，从而确保甩掉对方的导弹追加。这是四代机绝杀三代机的关键性能，也是超音速机动的基础之一。

这期我们接着聊*第3个S：超机动性能*。先看下图，无论是在跨音速区，还是在超音速区，5G机动下F-22都完胜F-15和F-35。






能超巡说明飞机的升阻比和推重比等关键性能达到优秀，同时，这两者也是影响超音速机动的关键。没有高的升阻比和推重比，一机动就掉速度还如何做到超音速机动？所谓的超音速机动性能，是指某个机动动作的全过程是在超音速的状态下完成的。高速机动时不仅仅是可动翼面增加阻力，由于飞机在高速改变姿态，机身和大面积的主翼所带来的阻力增加也大大增加。只有高推重比的发动机才能抵消超音速状态下机动所带来的巨大阻力，

能保持超音速机动就可以在缠斗中，比三代机*更快地抢占有利位置*，就像赛车和小货车在复杂的*S*形赛道里追逐，显然是赛车轻易地把小货车甩在后面。同时，在空战中超音速平台发射的空空弹能做更多的机动，让三代机无法逃逸，而己方却可以利用超音速机动摆脱三代机发射的空空弹。

所以说超音速机动的关键还是发动机和气动控制，歼-20如果没有推比十的四代发动机，就不仅仅是无法超巡，超音速机动性能也同样不具备，一做大幅度机动就掉速度。*既无法超巡又不能超音速机动的歼-20，能让空军的马司令给出“非常满意”的评语吗？*如果是那样，歼-20肯定不会到珠海表演，也不会小批量入列，而是继续试飞、直到达标才能够通过技术定型。

无论是毛发党、还是它的变种“国产毛发”党、以及“太行党”，都认为可以用三代发动机给歼-20定型，以后再换上WS-15。可是它们没有一个能回答这样一个问题，那就是*用三代发动机如何能飞出超音速机动？*飞不出又如何知道所定型的气动控制和机体的结构强度，是能够满足更换WS-15之后超音速机动的要求呢？






要想拥有一流的超音速机动性能，除了有四代发动机的强劲推力，以及相应的机体结构强度做基础，还至少要有两个因素：*超常规的可控翼面*和*矢量喷管*。先看下图，歼-20有一对世界上最大面积的鸭翼和一对全动尾翼，而且可偏转的角度惊人，还都是*差动*的哦，即两对翼面的偏转角度和方向是不同步的。歼-10A的鸭翼就已经是可差动的，而欧洲双风的鸭翼却是无法差动。

歼-20的鸭翼离气动重心远、其力臂要比F-22采用的平尾长得多，全动尾翼的面积更不是F-22长条形的尾舵可比。即使是偏转相同的角度，对飞机产生的力矩显然歼-20要大得多。主翼的前后襟翼歼-20和F-22都是可以差动的，2001号机起飞前经常要做一套复杂的“广播体操”，在空中这八个翼面组合出的复杂动作，能让歼-20飞出梦幻般的机动性能。






为什么歼-20要采用这样一套非常规的布局，不是611所的设计人员喜欢鸭翼，或像张局说的是双发歼-10，而是*被空军给逼的。空军的招标书要求*：即使是在矢量喷管失灵的情况下，歼-20的机动性也要达到F-22的水平。*601*所即使是修改后的三翼面方案也无法达到这一要求，更何况它当时还不能保证能在规定的时间内完成复杂的飞控设计。*611*所不但选择非常规布局，而且对鸭翼和升力体的预研扎实，而且总师杨伟更是国内顶尖的飞控大师，当场表示可以立军令状，所以成飞夺标是顺理成章的。











摄影技术不高、或者是在这之前、之后按下快门，那怕是相隔一点时间都捕捉不到，为什么*？*既然平飞又为什么要有一边喷管是偏转的呢*？*秘密就在下图，这是司马兄在上面那幅图之后，*继续连拍的三个瞬间*。显然在喷管偏转之后，这架歼-20的机身开始先右侧倾斜，接着尾翼稍稍向右偏转（使飞机右转弯），同时鸭翼也是稍稍向上偏转（爬升），于是歼-20做了个向右的小半径上升盘旋动作。

民航机在空中做小半径转弯也会这样倾斜，战斗机更是如此，因为侧身后可以通过襟翼偏转帮助转弯。不会是机身保持水平来转弯，那样就只能全靠尾舵的力矩，无法小半径转弯。无矢量推力的战机是靠左右襟翼差动来带动飞机侧身，在慢速通场的情况下显然没有矢量推力来得敏捷，而且徒增阻力。由于歼-20做这个动作机身只需倾斜不大的角度，所以矢量喷管的偏转也只是维持很短的时间。在前往珠海之前，刀大就嘱咐要盯着歼-20的屁股多拍几幅照片，司马兄出色地完成了任务，这幅图被多个网站转载，*在此为我们的军迷摄影大师点赞、鼓掌*。






如果觉得上述的图片解说是脑补，那接着看下图。在这次航展上中航发集团的展馆里，有个“发动机全权限数字电子控制系统仿真试验”的展台，在展台右侧有三个液压作动筒（下图右），而且它们是用过的。它就是拼图（下）矢量喷管装置中用来调节“转向控制环”的*A9作动筒*（红色箭头所示）。问现场的工作人员：我们的矢量喷管装置成熟了吗？回答：“早已成熟、*已经有型号在用*”。 追问是什么型号，回答：这个不能说。其实不说也知道，对吧。






下图（上）是2101号机的机尾清晰图，仔细看就能发现：图中*2101*号机的*右边*发动机喷管是向右偏转的，其指向（*绿线*）与飞机的中轴线有夹角。拼图（下）是2015号机和2101号机拍摄角度相近的图，对比一下可以发现红框里的喷管是偏转的。如果认真细看以上的三组证据之后，还坚信歼-20不具备矢量推力能力，那我也无语了。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tiqiu

原本歼-20为珠海航展准备了五六分钟的表演，可是来的间谍太多，最后遗憾地只飞了一分钟，稍稍地展示了一下歼-20水平小半径转弯和一个*S*形机动，以及无加力的垂直爬升。“炮楼”上就有来自日本的空军退役军官，他拍摄的歼-20飞行视频要比央视播放的那段更精彩。

下图是之前网上一段视频里歼-20的飞行轨迹示意图，当时歼-20垂直爬升后做了一个高速的小半径后空翻（称作“猫鼬”）。图中的*绿色菱形*代表歼20，*黑色圆圈*代表逼近的空空导弹。歼-20通过高过载的“超级猫鼬”不仅能甩掉尾追的导弹，还迅速地将机头指向敌机，进入攻击战位。






上周网上流出一段航展前歼-20在成都的飞行视频，其中同样是做了“超级猫鼬”动作，最后还做了个急速横滚三周，而且还不是我们平日里看到的绕纵轴横滚，有点漂浮不定的感觉。可惜我们无缘在珠海现场看到这套原本要表演的精彩动作，这些动作仅仅靠可动翼面是无法完成的。由于有八个可差动的翼面和可差动的矢量喷管，决定了歼-20优异的机动性能，当然还要有极其复杂的飞控做“大脑”。

*F-22*当年就是因为担心飞控技术难以达到要求，才选择较为保守的布局，反正对付三代机有绝对的优势。这里面既有当时美国人信心满满的主观因素，也有20年前飞控技术限制的客观原因，总之美国在分析了歼-20的各种飞行图片和视频之后，估计情报人员的后背在冒冷汗。

由于有高速机动的飞行性能要求，四代机就需要采用侧杆操作，下图显示头戴四代多功能头盔的飞行员，右手正握着侧杆，座椅后面的两个液压作动筒也清晰可见。因为四代机能达到6G的超音速机动，此时座椅的靠背必须可自动向后仰，只能把操作杆设计在右侧才能操纵自如。所以采用侧杆设计是四代机高机动性的要求。但是不能倒过来说，采用侧杆的就一定具备超机动性，如F-16是侧杆却没有超机动性。






这么清晰的图片绝不是卧草、爬树党所能拍











通常说的“超机动”可以分成两大类，*超音速机动 *和 *超常规机动*，所以又有*5S*之说。超音速机动前面已经说了是在超音速的状态下完成的机动动作；超常规机动则是指飞行的轨迹很怪异，飞机的姿态超出了常规的飞行状态，而且通常是在非超音速下完成的，其中按照机动时飞机的飞行速度是*高速 *还是* 慢速，*又分成两类。比如苏35能做出超级眼镜蛇、落叶飘、磨盘、弗罗洛夫法轮、吊钟等一般战机无法做到的动作，就把它说成是苏35具备超机动能力，进而误解为是四代机里的一个*S。*其实它仅仅是超常规机动中的一类，是属于速度较慢的，表演起来很带劲、实战意义却不大。严谨的表述应该是苏35具备“过失速的超常规机动”。

另一类超常规机动是在维持高速飞行的状态、或速度改变很小的情况下完成的动作。这类动作不会拿来表演、也不吸引眼球。举个例子，它能做到战机的指向与此时战机的飞行轨迹有个夹角，相对于飞机的中轴线来说，此时飞机不是向“前”飞，有点像在泥泞的路上急刹车时，车子向侧滑的状态。开车出现侧滑很危险，战机在空中能这样飞则很有实战价值，相当于把三代机里的高瞬盘和高稳盘给统一了，三代机两者是无法兼顾的。

多篇论文表明歼20不仅有*60°*迎角飞行可控、并可支持空战机头指向能力的要求，并且在引入矢量之后，最大可以进行*80°*迎角的可控飞行。通过分析，歼20凭借较大后掠角、小展弦比的机翼，大长细比的机身、以及较大放宽静稳定度的鸭式布局，获得了优秀的超音速能量机动特性。凭借鸭式边条翼的多涡系耦合诱导出极大的升力系数，获得了极高的亚、跨音速机头指向能力，在超视距拦截和近距离格斗中都可以获得极大的优势。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## randomradio

Beast said:


> No, if that is so, they will not have problem for PAFKA.



Salyut lost to Saturn for the PAK FA's engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> 原本歼-20为珠海航展准备了五六分钟的表演，可是来的间谍太多，最后遗憾地只飞了一分钟，稍稍地展示了一下歼-20水平小半径转弯和一个*S*形机动，以及无加力的垂直爬升。“炮楼”上就有来自日本的空军退役军官，他拍摄的歼-20飞行视频要比央视播放的那段更精彩。
> 
> 下图是之前网上一段视频里歼-20的飞行轨迹示意图，当时歼-20垂直爬升后做了一个高速的小半径后空翻（称作“猫鼬”）。图中的*绿色菱形*代表歼20，*黑色圆圈*代表逼近的空空导弹。歼-20通过高过载的“超级猫鼬”不仅能甩掉尾追的导弹，还迅速地将机头指向敌机，进入攻击战位。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 上周网上流出一段航展前歼-20在成都的飞行视频，其中同样是做了“超级猫鼬”动作，最后还做了个急速横滚三周，而且还不是我们平日里看到的绕纵轴横滚，有点漂浮不定的感觉。可惜我们无缘在珠海现场看到这套原本要表演的精彩动作，这些动作仅仅靠可动翼面是无法完成的。由于有八个可差动的翼面和可差动的矢量喷管，决定了歼-20优异的机动性能，当然还要有极其复杂的飞控做“大脑”。
> 
> *F-22*当年就是因为担心飞控技术难以达到要求，才选择较为保守的布局，反正对付三代机有绝对的优势。这里面既有当时美国人信心满满的主观因素，也有20年前飞控技术限制的客观原因，总之美国在分析了歼-20的各种飞行图片和视频之后，估计情报人员的后背在冒冷汗。
> 
> 由于有高速机动的飞行性能要求，四代机就需要采用侧杆操作，下图显示头戴四代多功能头盔的飞行员，右手正握着侧杆，座椅后面的两个液压作动筒也清晰可见。因为四代机能达到6G的超音速机动，此时座椅的靠背必须可自动向后仰，只能把操作杆设计在右侧才能操纵自如。所以采用侧杆设计是四代机高机动性的要求。但是不能倒过来说，采用侧杆的就一定具备超机动性，如F-16是侧杆却没有超机动性。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 这么清晰的图片绝不是卧草、爬树党所能拍
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 通常说的“超机动”可以分成两大类，*超音速机动 *和 *超常规机动*，所以又有*5S*之说。超音速机动前面已经说了是在超音速的状态下完成的机动动作；超常规机动则是指飞行的轨迹很怪异，飞机的姿态超出了常规的飞行状态，而且通常是在非超音速下完成的，其中按照机动时飞机的飞行速度是*高速 *还是* 慢速，*又分成两类。比如苏35能做出超级眼镜蛇、落叶飘、磨盘、弗罗洛夫法轮、吊钟等一般战机无法做到的动作，就把它说成是苏35具备超机动能力，进而误解为是四代机里的一个*S。*其实它仅仅是超常规机动中的一类，是属于速度较慢的，表演起来很带劲、实战意义却不大。严谨的表述应该是苏35具备“过失速的超常规机动”。
> 
> 另一类超常规机动是在维持高速飞行的状态、或速度改变很小的情况下完成的动作。这类动作不会拿来表演、也不吸引眼球。举个例子，它能做到战机的指向与此时战机的飞行轨迹有个夹角，相对于飞机的中轴线来说，此时飞机不是向“前”飞，有点像在泥泞的路上急刹车时，车子向侧滑的状态。开车出现侧滑很危险，战机在空中能这样飞则很有实战价值，相当于把三代机里的高瞬盘和高稳盘给统一了，三代机两者是无法兼顾的。
> 
> 多篇论文表明歼20不仅有*60°*迎角飞行可控、并可支持空战机头指向能力的要求，并且在引入矢量之后，最大可以进行*80°*迎角的可控飞行。通过分析，歼20凭借较大后掠角、小展弦比的机翼，大长细比的机身、以及较大放宽静稳定度的鸭式布局，获得了优秀的超音速能量机动特性。凭借鸭式边条翼的多涡系耦合诱导出极大的升力系数，获得了极高的亚、跨音速机头指向能力，在超视距拦截和近距离格斗中都可以获得极大的优势。




*Guys ... could You please at least add a reasonable English translation or summary ?? The forum rules say clearly the main language is English, so please !!!*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> *Guys ... could You please at least add a reasonable English translation or summary ?? The forum rules say clearly the main language is English, so please !!!*
> 
> Deino



This article is about the performance of J-20.

The author believe, even without the WS-15 engines, J-20 can still do dog-fight very well.

The reason is because during the J-XX bidding phase the airforce set a very high performance bar:

PLAF's requirement is: the J-XX must satisify the requirement that even if the fighter is not installed with vector-thrusting engine or if the vector nozzle fail to function, J-XX must still have comparable maneuverability to that of F-22 with vector-thrusting engines.

Due to this very high requirement, SAC's J-XX proposal use 3-wing (Su-30MKI-like) design but even with 3-wing design, SAC is not sure it can deliver the required performance on time, and nor it is sure that it can develop the highly sophosticate flight contorl system properly.

Yet due to extensive research in canard layout, CAC's proposal can satisify the requirement through means of adopting the biggest front wings among all canard designs in the world, and allow de-coupling front wing control(European canards cannot do that), and a pair of very large and fully-movable tail wings to further increase the control moment.

And Chief designer of CAC, Yang Wei, is an expert in flight-control system, he is confident that he can develop the highly sophosticate flight control system in time,and thats why airforce pick CAC's proposal.

So with CAC's extensive research in canard design and Yang Wei's expertise in flight control system, the J-XX bidding become an easy victory for CAC, and they do deliever their promise on time despite the doubts from SAC.

And Airforce chief Ma is now very satisified with J-20's progress and performance, J-20 with today's underpower engine can still do very well in dog-fighting and the only thing lack is super-crusing, however J-20 today has very huge space to store internal fuel and has a very long combat radius, much longer than F-22, thats why the PLAF decided to deploy J-20 now, even without the targetting engine.

The author of this article is a very famous Chinese military insider, his online name is Daokou (means: edge of a blade), he is the first one who claimed that China was developing an anti-ship ballastic missile, and this happened in 1990s.

He is the son of a senior PLAN general.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> *Guys ... could You please at least add a reasonable English translation or summary ?? The forum rules say clearly the main language is English, so please !!!*
> 
> Deino








Could @Asok be the white knight once more?

Actually my point is people advocating for the use of the Chinese engines would not be so unwise to put every thing they have got on the line. And even they were, they certainly would not have chosen the bet on the J-20 with which the secret could not kept for long. There is no needs in this, it is not the end of the World for the PLAAF even the Russian engines are still used for J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

randomradio said:


> Salyut lost to Saturn for the PAK FA's engines.


They could have ask Salyut to provide the engine but what we know from the process of PAFKA. The whole project looks stall.

There is no evidence Salyut provide or sell the so called powerful 147kn thrust to China. As I say if there is, there will not so much noise of Su-35 sales to China for the engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

52051 said:


> This article is about the performance of J-20.
> 
> The author believe, even without the WS-15 engines, J-20 can still do dog-fight very well.
> 
> The reason is because during the J-XX bidding phase the airforce set a very high performance bar:
> 
> PLAF's requirement is: the J-XX must satisify the requirement that even if the fighter is not installed with vector-thrusting engine or if the vector nozzle fail to function, J-XX must still have comparable maneuverability to that of F-22 with vector-thrusting engines.
> 
> Due to this very high requirement, SAC's J-XX proposal use 3-wing (Su-30MKI-like) design but even with 3-wing design, SAC is not sure it can deliver the required performance on time, and nor it is sure that it can develop the highly sophosticate flight contorl system properly.
> 
> Yet due to extensive research in canard layout, CAC's proposal can satisify the requirement through means of adopting the biggest front wings among all canard designs in the world, and allow de-coupling front wing control(European canards cannot do that), and a pair of very large and fully-movable tail wings to further increase the control moment.
> 
> And Chief designer of CAC, Yang Wei, is an expert in flight-control system, he is confident that he can develop the highly sophosticate flight control system in time,and thats why airforce pick CAC's proposal.
> 
> So with CAC's extensive research in canard design and Yang Wei's expertise in flight control system, the J-XX bidding become an easy victory for CAC, and they do deliever their promise on time despite the doubts from SAC.
> 
> And Airforce chief Ma is now very satisified with J-20's progress and performance, J-20 with today's underpower engine can still do very well in dog-fighting and the only thing lack is super-crusing, however J-20 today has very huge space to store internal fuel and has a very long combat radius, much longer than F-22, thats why the PLAF decided to deploy J-20 now, even without the targetting engine.
> 
> The author of this article is a very famous Chinese military insider, his online name is Daokou (means: edge of a blade), he is the first one who claimed that China was developing an anti-ship ballastic missile, and this happened in 1990s.
> 
> He is the son of a senior PLAN general.


How do you know he is the son of a senior general?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Keep cheat the NATO. We are weak, our engine sucks, some BS like that. As long as the west got arrogance, they will make themself to believe what they are told. f22 stopped production is the best news.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

This maybe where J-20 will be station at=(空军鼎新试训基地)

 






_发表于 2016-12-8 13:20_ | 只看该作者 |只看大图





* 




*

*空军鼎新试训基地。空军鼎新试训基地位于甘肃内蒙古交界的巴丹吉林沙漠附近，地(空)域辽阔，区内分布有戈壁沙漠丘陵等复杂地形，人烟稀少，保密性较强。鼎新基地主要担负空对空，空对地导弹及空军新型武器装备的试验打靶，试飞及新战法的研练和考核等任务，是空军集科研训练为一体的多功能试训中心，被誉为“中国的51区”。基地拥有亚洲最大的军用机场，并配有模拟台湾清泉岗空军基地的机场靶标和用于进行武器试验和攻击演练的大型靶场。这些靶场除了用于部队训练任务外，也是新型作战飞机进行武器系统测试的重要场地。鼎新基地曾多次举办空军金头盔金飞镖自由空战体系对抗等大型演习，其地位已有超越沧州试训基地的势头。目前该基地装备有从现役到领先服役的各型战斗机和战斗轰炸机(78X6X，78X7X)，包括J-8F，JH-7A，J-10S，J-11B，J-10B/C，J-16和最新曝光的J-20等，在历次演习中常扮演蓝军的角色，用于检验各种新战法新装备的实战效果。*
*









*
*



*
*J8F 7806X，J11B 7816X，JH7A 7826X，J10S 7836X，J10C 7807X， J16 7817X，J20 7827X*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dungeness

不该说的不说，不该问的不问，不该看的不看，不该听的不听。

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

grey boy 2 said:


> This maybe where J-20 will be station at=(空军鼎新试训基地)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _发表于 2016-12-8 13:20_ | 只看该作者 |只看大图
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *空军鼎新试训基地。空军鼎新试训基地位于甘肃内蒙古交界的巴丹吉林沙漠附近，地(空)域辽阔，区内分布有戈壁沙漠丘陵等复杂地形，人烟稀少，保密性较强。鼎新基地主要担负空对空，空对地导弹及空军新型武器装备的试验打靶，试飞及新战法的研练和考核等任务，是空军集科研训练为一体的多功能试训中心，被誉为“中国的51区”。基地拥有亚洲最大的军用机场，并配有模拟台湾清泉岗空军基地的机场靶标和用于进行武器试验和攻击演练的大型靶场。这些靶场除了用于部队训练任务外，也是新型作战飞机进行武器系统测试的重要场地。鼎新基地曾多次举办空军金头盔金飞镖自由空战体系对抗等大型演习，其地位已有超越沧州试训基地的势头。目前该基地装备有从现役到领先服役的各型战斗机和战斗轰炸机(78X6X，78X7X)，包括J-8F，JH-7A，J-10S，J-11B，J-10B/C，J-16和最新曝光的J-20等，在历次演习中常扮演蓝军的角色，用于检验各种新战法新装备的实战效果。*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *J8F 7806X，J11B 7816X，JH7A 7826X，J10S 7836X，J10C 7807X， J16 7817X，J20 7827X*



Probably using the J-20 to emulate Western fifth gen like the F-22 and F-35 in BVR engagements.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

Found a nice HD pic

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> This maybe where J-20 will be station at=(空军鼎新试训基地)
> 
> 
> _发表于 2016-12-8 13:20_ | 只看该作者 |只看大图
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



That's Dingxin as expected ... and the new hangars are also finished since July this year.
However all other aircraft mentioned in this report are not based there but at Cangzhou-Cangxian.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

Beast said:


> They could have ask Salyut to provide the engine but what we know from the process of PAFKA. The whole project looks stall.



PAK FA's not stalled. New prototypes have already finished first flights. There is no news about the program.



> There is no evidence Salyut provide or sell the so called powerful 147kn thrust to China. As I say if there is, there will not so much noise of Su-35 sales to China for the engine.



No, Salyut has multiple engines, not just the ones that lost the PAK FA. They have created engines for the Su-35, Su-34 and PAK FA, lost competition for Su-35 and PAK FA. Su-34's Salyut engines have uprated thrust as well. All these engines are 14+T.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Tiqiu said:


> PL-15 (see post 6856#)
> Also the Russian RVV-BD and KS-172 were said to have 150 km (direct shot) and 400 km (under cruise gliding profile) reach.
> 
> Your source?
> 
> I think until the time we can all agree on this, we have to live on how to disagree.


PL-15 has a range of 160 Km not 500 Km both Russian projects are dead not even in mass produced


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> View attachment 358634
> 
> 
> Could @Asok be the white knight once more?
> 
> Actually my point is people advocating for the use of the Chinese engines would not be so unwise to put every thing they have got on the line. And even they were, they certainly would not have chosen the bet on the J-20 with which the secret could not kept for long. There is no needs in this, it is not the end of the World for the PLAAF even the Russian engines are still used for J-20.



The problem of we fanboys is that we know so little or none in the field of aeronautical engineering and we don't have inside sources of knowledge to based our judgements. In any field, there are certain common things that if we were professionals, we would completely rule them out, while outsiders are clueless about them.

So if we found someone who have a track record of non B.S. knowledge, luck for us. I would go to him directly.

"刀口" or Daokou is such a person. He is obviously a long time military fan and has accumulated certain amount of technical knowledge, although still may be superficial.

What clued me in that J-20 CANNOT have used non-WS-15 engine for testing for the last 5 years is that only it could allow J-20 to test Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers. This is the two of the four 4S. Superior Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers are two of the main reasons that F-22 is hard to defeat even in close range combat.

If PLAAF can't test Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers, there is no way they will accept them into the production or even pre-production phase. Supersonic Maneuvers test the structure strength and flight control systems to the Max. J-20 has 8 differential control surfaces, Canards, and TVC nozzles. A very complex, sophisticated and advanced control system is required. They probably take the longest time to develop and most dangerous, since it is software control, you can't determine the outcome by pure logical deduction or visual inspection. It must be thoroughly tested in ALL combinations of scenarios and situations.

I am a software engineer. I know "ALL combinations" means. It means a *humongous* number of scenarios. Every time, you had made a change. You have to test All the combinations again.

For example, if you have Speed (stall, post-install, low subsonic speed, high subsonic speed, supersonic speed, maximum speed), Attitude (Sea level, low attitude, medium attitude, high attitude, maximum attitude), Weight (empty weight, combat weight, maximum weight), you would need to test various combinations of these (17) factors.

_*"Combinatorial explosion*_ is a fundamental problem in computing. It is the problem that the number of _*combinations*_ that one has to examine grows _*exponentially"*_

So testing the flight control of J-20 is a huge task, and you can't even begin to test it, much less test it thoroughly, if you don't have the engines to enable J-20 to do sustained Supersonic Maneuvers.

This is one major reason Yang Wei, China's foremost Flight Control Expert, is the Chief Designer of J-20. Only he could understand how to fully test the Flight Control and Structural Integrity of J-20 to the Max. The Complexity of the Flight Control System has came to dominate the complexity of the 5th generation plane. Movable Canards and TVC nozzles have seriously complicated the flight control. This is reason why only in the 1980's was the Engineers able to used them successfully, because before that time, there was no computers powerful enough to control them.

Software, massive amount of code, is the Genie and Devil lurking in modern airplanes.

To test the Flight Control System means to find out the extreme limits of the Structural Integrity and Aerodynamics configurations and how the system will response to it.

This is very ticklish. It means you want to push the plane and pilot to the limit without falling down from the sky. Many planes were lost when they cross this boundary.

So when I was reminded by "刀口" or Daokou, who likely was informed by a professional engineer or insider about this problem, this settle the Engine issue for me.

There is no way could J-20 use a different engines (because they can't do Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers) other that WS-15 for testing. While the superficial similarity of the engine petals could be explain away as engineering choices, like all cars have 4 wheels and one steering wheel, but no cars have one wheel and 4 steering wheels.

There is no reason why WS-10, AL-31 and WS-15's petals MUST be totally different, and CANNOT be similar.

None could I see.

Those people who are stuck in this thinking must supply the reasons as evidences as to WHY they can not be similar, not merely keep pointing J-20's petals are similar to WS-10 or AL-31.

They can be similar, got it? Unless you could come up with strong reasons, why they can not.

The explanation that J-20 used an early model of WS-15 with petals superficially similar to WS-10 and AL-31 is the most plausible explanation to me.

No one has come up with a reason that COMPLETELY-EXCLUDE this possibility.

People have demanded that we come up with evidences or reason for being Pro-WS-15, I now demand reasons, why J-20 COULD-NOT-HAVE-POSSIBLY used WS-15 already.

The excuse that it is possible J-20 have used WS-15, but not probable is seriously lame.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

*J-20 stealth fighter tops the Xinhua's list of China's Scientific And Technological Achievements In 2016*
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2016-12/08/c_135889958.htm






A more thorough info along with the pics was put in its designated thread:
https://defence.pk/threads/china-science-technology-forum.249386/page-82#post-8991516

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Remember this picture, which shows a mysterious J-20 like engine near the entrance of a highway on top of a truck? While I can not be sure of the authenticity of the picture, but it do clearly shows there are 10 flaming links inside the engine. (WS-10A/B has 8, and AL-31FN has 11.)






Here is the a picture that no doubt it's a J-20. It also shows it has 10 afterburner flaming links.

There are 6 flaming links (2-8) that are clearly shown, while the the rest are blurry. The other positions are deduced from the clear ones. While we can argue it might has 11 not 10 flamings links, but it clearly has more than 8. 

So the possibility the engine is WS-10A/B can be ruled out.






Similarly, here in this J-20 picture below, 5 afterburner flaming links are clearly shown and they occupy HALF of the Nozzle. 5 times 2 you got 10, not 8. Again, this doesn't rule out it's a AL-31FN, but it does RULE OUT it's a WS-10A/B.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nang2

What is all this engine talk, especially from Chinese? Are you some overworking, volunteering spies for foreign agencies? As if those paid foreign spies ain't working hard enough in combing through all these pictures to find every single clue, you just have to help them out, don't you?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

nang2 said:


> What is all this engine talk, especially from Chinese? Are you some overworking, volunteering spies for foreign agencies? As if those paid foreign spies ain't working enough in combing all these pictures to find very single clue, you just have to help them out, don't you?



Yes, we do need to help them understand, those Western Imperialists are not very bright. They need some help from us. 

They are quite convinced that although China might be catching fast, we are still decades behind them in military technology, so if they want to start a war with China, they better do it now or soon rather than later.

Hence, all the belligerent war talks B.S. about China in the MSM.

The Truth is we had already caught up and even surpassed them in some areas.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

PLEASE !!! Really Please stop this nonsense !

You are using images of unconfirmed status (aka that strange engine or whatever on a lorry), You use blurred images and put lines on whatever You like ! - a few pixels to the side would be as reasonable - and even more Your logic is plain unscientific: Since we cannot proof the contrary it must be true !!

Come on, by that logic, since I cannot prove that there no tiny green men on Mars, You assume there must be some !

Really ... maybe we can at least agree that we don't know for sure, what engine the J-20 uses. Confirmed is simply nothing !

As such, You and a few others here have Your opinion and I + also a few others have mine ... time will tell.

But to over and over again post the same blurred images, or images of what we don't know what it is as facts is simply not correct ... at least for me as a nature scientist !

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

randomradio said:


> PAK FA's not stalled. New prototypes have already finished first flights. There is no news about the program.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Salyut has multiple engines, not just the ones that lost the PAK FA. They have created engines for the Su-35, Su-34 and PAK FA, lost competition for Su-35 and PAK FA. Su-34's Salyut engines have uprated thrust as well. All these engines are 14+T.


PAFKA has no news ever since the last flame out of 117S Engine. The Russi has a big problem with engine.

Russia has stated they will send only sell uprated engine tie to the so called so called Su-35 deal. Then now seems to have China no problem buying uprated engine? Then why so much of Su-35 deal?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Finally warning! If there are Chinese members in this forum keep leaking J20 info, I will report to national security to ban links from this site. @Denio if you keep instigate Chinese members to provide key info about J20 engine, you shall bear the severe consequence! @Horus @WebMaster @ all Chinese members 不要上了激将法的当，不能泄露国家机密！不要充当国外情报机构的信息来源！

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> Finally warning! If there are Chinese members in this forum keep leaking J20 info, I will report to national security to ban links from this site. @Denio if you keep instigate Chinese members to provide key info about J20 engine, you shall bear the severe consequence! @Horus @WebMaster @ all Chinese members 不要上了激将法的当，不能泄露国家机密！不要充当国外情报机构的信息来源！


 
Message taken.



nang2 said:


> What is all this engine talk, especially from Chinese? Are you some overworking, volunteering spies for foreign agencies? As if those paid foreign spies ain't working enough in combing all these pictures to find very single clue, you just have to help them out, don't you?



Message taken. No more help for the imperialists. If they want to be dumb, let them be.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

Dungeness said:


> 不该说的不说，不该问的不问，不该看的不看，不该听的不听。





nang2 said:


> What is all this engine talk, especially from Chinese? Are you some overworking, volunteering spies for foreign agencies? As if those paid foreign spies ain't working enough in combing all these pictures to find very single clue, you just have to help them out, don't you?





wanglaokan said:


> Finally warning! If there are Chinese members in this forum keep leaking J20 info, I will report to national security to ban links from this site. @Denio if you keep instigate Chinese members to provide key info about J20 engine, you shall bear the severe consequence! @Horus @WebMaster @ all Chinese members 不要上了激将法的当，不能泄露国家机密！不要充当国外情报机构的信息来源！


Very valid point. 
I think It is not leaking as long as the materials used are from the open sources, and people making the comments are not within the establishment. Many documents and analysis like 刀口's recent piece about the J-20 must have passed the official scrutiny.


pakistanipower said:


> PL-15 has a range of 160 Km not 500 Km both Russian projects are dead not even in mass produced


OK,OK, I finally agree that you know more than about the said missile then the PLA personals.


Asok said:


> Yes, we do need to help them understand, those Western Imperialists are not very bright. They need some help from us.
> 
> They are quite convinced that although China might be catching fast, we are still decades behind them in military technology, so if they want to start a war with China, they better do it now or soon rather than later.
> 
> Hence, all the belligerent war talks B.S. about China in the MSM.


I share the same feelings as yours. I am not anti-West; In many's eyes we are apart of it - we live amongst them,have families and study and work here. However, like most of my friends I am anti Western MSM's BS talking about China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> Very valid point.
> I think It is not leaking as long as the materials used are from the open sources, and people making the comments are not within the establishment. Many documents and analysis like 刀口's recent piece about the J-20 must have passed the official scrutiny.
> 
> OK,OK, I finally agree that you know more than about the said missile then the PLA personals.
> 
> I share the same feelings as yours. I am not anti-West; In many's eyes we are apart of it - we live amongst them,have families and study and work here. However, like most of my friends I am anti Western MSM's BS talking about China.


 I got your message.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

grey boy 2 said:


> 。鼎新基地曾多次举办空军金头盔金飞镖自由空战体系对抗等大型演习，其地位已有超越沧州试训基地的势头


So the socalled seed unit of J-20 by Yinzhuo months ago is 176.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> I got your message.


The more you prove PLA is capable, the more westerners hate us. They are not hating communist, they hate a Strong China.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> PLEASE !!! Really Please stop this nonsense !
> 
> You are using images of unconfirmed status (aka that strange engine or whatever on a lorry), You use blurred images and put lines on whatever You like ! - a few pixels to the side would be as reasonable - and even more Your logic is plain unscientific: Since we cannot proof the contrary it must be true !!
> 
> Come on, by that logic, since I cannot prove that there no tiny green men on Mars, You assume there must be some !
> 
> Really ... maybe we can at least agree that we don't know for sure, what engine the J-20 uses. Confirmed is simply nothing !
> 
> As such, You and a few others here have Your opinion and I + also a few others have mine ... time will tell.
> 
> But to over and over again post the same blurred images, or images of what we don't know what it is as facts is simply not correct ... at least for me as a nature scientist !
> 
> Deino



The most recent (and authoritative) rumor regarding the WS-15 is from 2015, which states that the engine prototype was (at that time) wrapping up high-altitude ground tests. That rumor is the most optimistic we've seen thus far, and even if we are to follow that timeline, there is *no* possibility that the WS-15 could be installed on any J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

Beast said:


> PAFKA has no news ever since the last flame out of 117S Engine. The Russi has a big problem with engine.



The PAK FA program is going full throttle. We will be seeing LSPs in a few months. The Stage-2 program is a secret, even pics haven't been released. All we have are news and pics from Stage-1.

The flameout was for the Stage-1 program, and the engine is 117. 117 and 117S are different engines.



> Russia has stated they will send only sell uprated engine tie to the so called so called Su-35 deal. Then now seems to have China no problem buying uprated engine? Then why so much of Su-35 deal?



I don't know which engine J-20 has, all I said is even Salyut has uprated engines. I was only replying to your post which said the Russians have only 117S as an uprated engine.

The fact that Salyut lost would mean their technology is exportable, without as many strings attached as Saturn's engines.

Whether the J-20 has a functional Chinese engine or an uprated Russian engine is anybody's guess.


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> The more you prove PLA is capable, the more westerners hate us. They are not hating communist, they hate a Strong China.



That is so true. They are in a DENIAL mode. The more you prove China is more capable than they think, the more they are afraid and resentful The Brutishers have went down this path a long time ago, and now the German and Americans are traveling along this path too.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> That is so true. They are in a DENIAL mode. The more you prove China is more capable than they think, the more they are afraid and resentful The Brutishers have went down this path a long time ago, and now the German and Americans are traveling along this path too.


Although they might hate China, we are still on the way to prosperity. I don't care what they think of us.

The reason go for Su35 is to looking for a backup power plant like F117s from Russia. Need few years to have WS15 on J20 with TVC. No matter there is AL31 or WS10x on J20 it doesn't matter. What matters is J20 will be fully operational within a year.前途是光明的，黑丝是牛逼的！和老毛子搞好关系还是有必要的，如果发生战争我们需要老毛子的产能。要从战略眼光看待问题，不是说买了毛子的东西就自我贬低。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WebMaster

Please refrain from sharing things which are secret on open forum. If it is on open forum, it is not a secret.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

我们现在不缺钱，我们缺的是时间和产能。we are not short money，we short on time and production capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> So the socalled seed unit of J-20 by Yinzhuo months ago is 176.
> View attachment 358846




NO, the first image shows a J-11B assigned to the 175. Brigade and the image below shows several MKK from the 18. Division .. completely different units.



wanglaokan said:


> Finally warning! If there are Chinese members in this forum keep leaking J20 info, I will report to national security to ban links from this site. @Denio if you keep instigate Chinese members to provide key info about J20 engine, you shall bear the severe consequence! @Horus @WebMaster @ all Chinese members 不要上了激将法的当，不能泄露国家机密！不要充当国外情报机构的信息来源！



@wanglaokan , not really sure why so offensive and even more ...

1. if You really think I'm a Western spy and I try to gather secret information here from the PDF, You have indeed a problem.
2. Concerning these secrets about the J-20's engines: I'm sure these guys watching this conversation are simply laughing about that much of fantasy some are here producing !
3. what kind of warning ?? What kind of severe consequence ??? You cannot do anything and the Chinese secret service or whatever too... not even in this forum You can do anything.
4. like WebMaster said, all are open sources and as such not classified.

So keep cool and enjoy the discussion.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> NO, the first image shows a J-11B assigned to the 175. Brigade and the image below shows several MKK from the 18. Division .. completely different units.
> 
> 
> 
> @wanglaokan , not really sure why so offensive and even more ...
> 
> 1. if You really think I'm a Western spy and I try to gather secret information here from the PDF, You have indeed a problem.
> 2. Concerning these secrets about the J-20's engines: I'm sure these guys watching this conversation are simply laughing about that much of fantasy some are here producing !
> 3. what kind of warning ?? What kind of severe consequence ??? You cannot do anything and the Chinese secret service or whatever too... not even in this forum You can do anything.
> 4. like WebMaster said, all are open sources and as such not classified.
> 
> So keep cool and enjoy the discussion.
> 
> Deino


If you keep seducing Chinese member to ask key info about J20 engine and configurations I thought will be classified, I will report to national security to shield this site forever. You have my Words. Then you can't get any Info from them then. i'm not saying you are a spy somethings like that, but the way you being a moderator are weird. The severe consequence you might have to bear is that Chinese members can't get access to his forum anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

You really have a problem, don't You !!

You threaten to close this forum down only since a few chaps are posting their fantasy and You make me responsible as if I'm seducing them to reveal national security data??? Not sure how much the paranoia already spread out in this forum, but this is plain ridiculous.

Like I said, the guys from CAC,AVIC, the PLAAF and esp. the national security are only laughing of what kind of BS is posted here.

Deino


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> @wanglaokan , not really sure why so offensive and even more ...
> 
> 1. if You really think I'm a Western spy and I try to gather secret information here from the PDF, You have indeed a problem.
> 2. Concerning these secrets about the J-20's engines: I'm sure these guys watching this conversation are simply laughing about that much of fantasy some are here producing !
> 3. what kind of warning ?? What kind of severe consequence ??? You cannot do anything and the Chinese secret service or whatever too... not even in this forum You can do anything.
> 4. like WebMaster said, all are open sources and as such not classified.
> 
> So keep cool and enjoy the discussion.
> 
> Deino


He is only trying to make himself feel important, as if he is doing something vital for China's national security. Let Walter Mitty be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WebMaster

@wanglaokan This discussion stops here. Refrain from further off topic posts in this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> If you keep seducing Chinese member to ask key info about J20 engine and configurations I thought will be classified, I will report to national security to shield this site forever. You have my Words. Then you can't get any Info from them then. i'm not saying you are a spy somethings like that, but the way you being a moderator are weird. The severe consequence you might have to bear is that Chinese members can't get access to his forum anymore.



Good one. I do find Deino's behavior inexplicable.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Tiqiu said:


> Very valid point.
> I think It is not leaking as long as the materials used are from the open sources, and people making the comments are not within the establishment. Many documents and analysis like 刀口's recent piece about the J-20 must have passed the official scrutiny.
> 
> OK,OK, I finally agree that you know more than about the said missile then the PLA personals.
> 
> I share the same feelings as yours. I am not anti-West; In many's eyes we are apart of it - we live amongst them,have families and study and work here. However, like most of my friends I am anti Western MSM's BS talking about China.


You are speechless and answerless for me, give me the sources that so called your PLA personal claim that PL-15 has a range of 500 KM to back your claim
O

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

pakistanipower said:


> You are speechless and answerless for me, give me the sources that so called your PLA personal claim that PL-15 has a range of 500 KM to back your claim
> O



I think there has been a bit of a naming mix-up (understandable given the secrecy of the programs).

1. The original PL-15 is thought to be a BVRAAM comparable to later variants of the AIM-120. The range (according to US sources) should be approximately 200 km. 






2. A *new type of missile* (which users have named "PL-15" for some reason) has been recently spotted on a J-16, which closely correlates to a *quasi-ballistic air-to-air missile* that was recently published in a feasibility study. Theoretically speaking, a 500 km range is not too far-fetched for a missile that makes use of a ballistic trajectory. 





A lot of people are confusing the "original PL-15" (which is more or less a variant of the PL-12) with the new "PL-XX" ballistic air-to-air missile. The two missiles are *unrelated*. Hope this clears things up.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> since a few chaps are posting their fantasy


Respect and Be Respected.


Deino said:


> NO, the first image shows a J-11B assigned to the 175. Brigade and the image below shows several MKK from the 18. Division .. completely different units.


If you knew the meaning of "金飞镖自由空战体系对抗等大型演习" that two of these my posted images were related to, then you should know what they mean.


pakistanipower said:


> ou are speechless and answerless for me, give me the sources that so called your PLA personal claim that PL-15 has a range of 500 KM to back your claim
> O


Good, now i think you are clueless. First I put down my reasoning in that my original post concerning the said missile and J-20, then I pointed out that post number for you to look at subsequently, one other member even gave your the link for it. If CCTV, Yinzhuo and the pilots from the PLA Aviation School all mean nothing for you, then I can't see why I need talk to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

SinoSoldier said:


> I think there has been a bit of a naming mix-up (understandable given the secrecy of the programs).
> 
> 1. The original PL-15 is thought to be a BVRAAM comparable to later variants of the AIM-120. The range (according to US sources) should be approximately 200 km.
> View attachment 358871
> 
> 
> 2. A *new type of missile* (which users have named "PL-15" for some reason) has been recently spotted on a J-16, which closely correlates to a *quasi-ballistic air-to-air missile* that was recently published in a feasibility study. Theoretically speaking, a 500 km range is not too far-fetched for a missile that makes use of a ballistic trajectory.
> View attachment 358872
> 
> 
> A lot of people are confusing the "original PL-15" (which is more or less a variant of the PL-12) with the new "PL-XX" ballistic air-to-air missile. The two missiles are *unrelated*. Hope this clears things up.



A modified version of DF-21D to target AWAC or oil tankers is possible if "someone" could continuously update the approximate position of the target plane to the missile, which then could adjust its course to intercept the target. The final course adjustment is made by the missile's onboard sensors. That would give the enemy AWACs and oil tankers no where to hide. It could even take out all other airborne assets, including fighters. Now, that's scary. Basically, the concept of an Air Force as we know it, is obsolete.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> A modified version of DF-21D to target AWAC or oil tankers is possible if "someone" could continuously update the approximate position of the target plane to the missile, which then could adjust its course to intercept the target. The final course adjustment is made by the missile's onboard sensors. That would give the enemy AWACs and oil tankers no where to hide. It could even take out all other airborne assets, including fighters. Now, that's scary. Basically, the concept of an Air Force as we know it, is obsolete.



The air force and navy in the future are just complementary to the space weapon and hypersonic missile.

That's why China basically has no open information about the DN-3 and DF-ZF, because their rank and confidentiality level are far beyond to that of the J-20, aircraft carrier, or even the nuclear sub.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

Asok said:


> A modified version of DF-21D to target AWAC or oil tankers is possible if "someone" could continuously update the approximate position of the target plane to the missile, which then could adjust its course to intercept the target. The final course adjustment is made by the missile's onboard sensors. That would give the enemy AWACs and oil tankers no where to hide. It could even take out all other airborne assets, including fighters. Now, that's scary. Basically, the concept of an Air Force as we know it, is obsolete.



Midcourse guidance is provided by satellite while terminal homing is aided by a combination of an AESA seeker and ImIR (in the case of low-observability targets). Of course, there are certain measures to undermine these sort of weapons, but the increased range and speed certainly brings the BVR game to a new realm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Respect and Be Respected.



Yes indeed, but I beg to differ between respect to a person and respect to an opinion. If a pupil at school tells me water is a metal and he would know better, since he/she has read something about in the internet, he/she repeatedly sticks to this false information regardless any arguments, experiments and other obvious facts, then I still respect - I need to - him or her as a person, I maybe even respect his or her persistence, but I clearly can dismiss his/her claims. So I do not need to respect this BS.

The same is here with some of these phantasies and there are indeed a few out: Trying to persuade us by blurred images that the WS-15 is operational since years is plain stupid, even more such hybrid-theories. Trying to tell us a certain engine has to be some sort of super-WS-XY only since a metal part is a bit different or the colour is more bluish, even if all nuts and bolts, the number of pedals and structure is the same is also an example.
There is NO, no way You can mate a functional nozzle of - say an AL-31 - on another engine's core - say WS-10 - to create a new secret super-engine. The nozzle is an integral part of an engine and not a plug&play-item. Why on all earth are all engines different ? Simply since they are optimised to a certain specific performance regime, a specific dynamic pressure, fuel consumption, thrust-performance, .... and so. If there would be some sort of ideal nozzle, that is even more scalable as some say, why then has the General Electric F404 a different nozzle to the GE F110? Why is the Pratt Whitney F100 different to an EJ-200 or a French M.88?? ... and for the same reason a WS-10 has a different nozzle to an AL-31 and You never can mix them. FACT.

BY the way, concerning RESPECT !! It's funny that You mention this to me while in the same way some special well known members here are openly racists, openly advocating disrespect to foreigners only since they are foreigners and even more they think they have the right to do so !! I just remember a certain thread were You were also taking part in this ...



> If you knew the meaning of "金飞镖自由空战体系对抗等大型演习" that two of these my posted images were related to, then you should know what they mean.



Then You should clearly say what You mean: Indeed, the base or the exercise is correct, but why do You then say the "seed unit" ?? This is clearly wrong, since the Flankers are from an operational Division; the 18th FD. Sometimes I really have that arrogant feeling, that I know the PLAAF, its units and structure much better than some Chinese members here, which usually post any random image to prove anything completely out of context, only since the image is nice.

By the way, sometimes I really have the feeling - and the more I think about it, the more confident I am - that some here are only here to spread deliberately misinformation. Their constant re-postings of completely irrelevant, sometimes faked information is only to divert the Chinese public from the true facts.
That's exactly what I meant: if someone tries to tell us You can take an AL-31-nozzle and mate it on a WS-10's core, then it is exactly the same level of stupidity like calling water a metal.

Deino


----------



## Tiqiu

SinoSoldier said:


> Midcourse guidance is provided by satellite while terminal homing is aided by a combination of an AESA seeker and ImIR (in the case of low-observability targets). Of course, there are certain measures to undermine these sort of weapons, but the increased range and speed certainly brings the BVR game to a new realm.


The focal -plane array of the PL-15 maybe similar to the one used by the PL-10 with 256*256 light sensing pixels at the focal plane.






@Deino 
My bad if you felt that way. I remembered I only raised the point/fact that you didn't know our language and your analysis was fully based on the materials in Chinese(or translation) which were mostly sourced from the Chinese language website, and yet you were so assertive about your finding and called others fanboys. Please do give me the link of the insulting discussion you said i was part of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Tiqiu said:


> Respect and Be Respected.
> 
> If you knew the meaning of "金飞镖自由空战体系对抗等大型演习" that two of these my posted images were related to, then you should know what they mean.
> 
> Good, now i think you are clueless. First I put down my reasoning in that my original post concerning the said missile and J-20, then I pointed out that post number for you to look at subsequently, one other member even gave your the link for it. If CCTV, Yinzhuo and the pilots from the PLA Aviation School all mean nothing for you, then I can't see why I need talk to you.


I think @SinoSoldier clear thing up PL-15 is comparable to late version of AMRAAM with a range of 180 to 200 Km but PL-XX was tested on J-16 last month, thread is already running on PDF, that is confusing you, you are mixing PL-15 with new Chinese new missile that had been tested on J-16, pardon me if i hurts you brother


----------



## Deino

@Tiqiu 

This thread has been not only closed but deleted. as such I cannot show it anymore.

If I am wrong in my accusation, I need to apologise - and I really do so - but these constant bashings from other certain members is IMO indeed open disrespect, racist and as such not tolerable.

Again, if I made a wrong accusation, I apologise.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Yes indeed, but I beg to differ between respect to a person and respect to an opinion. If a pupil at school tells me water is a metal and he would know better, since he/she has read something about in the internet, he/she repeatedly sticks to this false information regardless any arguments, experiments and other obvious facts, then I still respect - I need to - him or her as a person, I maybe even respect his or her persistence, but I clearly can dismiss his/her claims. So I do not need to respect this BS.
> 
> The same is here with some of these phantasies and there are indeed a few out: Trying to persuade us by blurred images that the WS-15 is operational since years is plain stupid, even more such hybrid-theories. Trying to tell us a certain engine has to be some sort of super-WS-XY only since a metal part is a bit different or the colour is more bluish, even if all nuts and bolts, the number of pedals and structure is the same is also an example.
> There is NO, no way You can mate a functional nozzle of - say an AL-31 - on another engine's core - say WS-10 - to create a new secret super-engine. The nozzle is an integral part of an engine and not a plug&play-item. Why on all earth are all engines different ? Simply since they are optimised to a certain specific performance regime, a specific dynamic pressure, fuel consumption, thrust-performance, .... and so. If there would be some sort of ideal nozzle, that is even more scalable as some say, why then has the General Electric F404 a different nozzle to the GE F110? Why is the Pratt Whitney F100 different to an EJ-200 or a French M.88?? ... and for the same reason a WS-10 has a different nozzle to an AL-31 and You never can mix them. FACT.
> 
> BY the way, concerning RESPECT !! It's funny that You mention this to me while in the same way some special well known members here are openly racists, openly advocating disrespect to foreigners only since they are foreigners and even more they think they have the right to do so !! I just remember a certain thread were You were also taking part in this ...
> 
> 
> 
> Then You should clearly say what You mean: Indeed, the base or the exercise is correct, but why do You then say the "seed unit" ?? This is clearly wrong, since the Flankers are from an operational Division; the 18th FD. Sometimes I really have that arrogant feeling, that I know the PLAAF, its units and structure much better than some Chinese members here, which usually post any random image to prove anything completely out of context, only since the image is nice.
> 
> By the way, sometimes I really have the feeling - and the more I think about it, the more confident I am - that some here are only here to spread deliberately misinformation. Their constant re-postings of completely irrelevant, sometimes faked information is only to divert the Chinese public from the true facts.
> That's exactly what I meant: if someone tries to tell us You can take an AL-31-nozzle and mate it on a WS-10's core, then it is exactly the same level of stupidity like calling water a metal.
> 
> Deino



Now, you sound really silly, Deino. I was asking why the nozzle of WS-15 can't be looking SIMILAR EXTERNALLY to either WS-10A/B or AL-31FN, while internal mechanism is completely different, for example, like having TVC actuators inside.

Like car or any machine, outside may look similar, but inside could be completely different according to the requirements.

There is no natural laws that says NO two engines may have similar looking nozzles.



SinoSoldier said:


> Midcourse guidance is provided by satellite while terminal homing is aided by a combination of an AESA seeker and ImIR (in the case of low-observability targets). Of course, there are certain measures to undermine these sort of weapons, but the increased range and speed certainly brings the BVR game to a new realm.



Now, we are talking about BV engagements of thousands of Km. You won't be able to see Ballistic missile coming on your AESA radar, since it flies way above your head, coming down almost vertically.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Tiqiu said:


> Now, we are talking about BV engagements of thousands of Km. You won't be able to see Ballistic missile coming on your AESA radar, since it flies way above your head, coming down almost vertically.



You would. The missile, however fast, would still have a finite speed and it would be picked up by both IRST and radar as soon as it "reenters" the lower portion of the atmosphere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

The Terraserver statellite images taken on the 16th Nov show two J-20 parked on the airfield of Dingxin, which were not seen before.The satellite images taken on the same date also showed a variety of aircrafts such as J-10B/C，J-16，JH-7A，J-8F，H-6，H-6U，KJ-200，KJ-2000 and Y-8 series were also there.





















Deino said:


> @Tiqiu
> 
> This thread has been not only closed but deleted. as such I cannot show it anymore.
> 
> If I am wrong in my accusation, I need to apologise - and I really do so - but these constant bashings from other certain members is IMO indeed open disrespect, racist and as such not tolerable.
> 
> Again, if I made a wrong accusation, I apologise.
> 
> Deino


let's move on mate. We all need to learn how to disagree until we can agree

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

78272

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 78272
> 
> View attachment 358942




So it begins as usually ! ... at first a few reports, then a part of an aircraft and then some blurred images - quite interesting revealing another serialled J-20A ... and then in a few days the final ones in all their beauty.

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

cirr said:


> 78272
> 
> View attachment 358942



The J-20 is now in service. But still no AL-31FN sale from Russia since 2011.

The J-10 has been in service for over a decade with over 430+ aircraft produced. But still no AL-31FN sale from Russia since 2011.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20 is now in service. But still no AL-31FN sale from Russia since 2011.
> 
> The J-10 has been in service for over a decade with over 430+ aircraft produced. But still no AL-31FN sale from Russia since 2011.




There was a report on 100 additional AL-31 of unspecific sort during Zhuhai ... quite interesting, it was only mentioned briefly and kept very low. Concerning the AL-31FN for the J-10B/C, the number of aircraft fits quite nicely to the number of FN series 3 delivered. It will however be interesting to notice, what happens to batch 03 ... and concerning the engines for the J-20; I'm sure that these are covered - similar to once the very first FN-contract - under a separate , still secret deal. But that's just my opinion.

Deino


----------



## The SC

The first batch of J-20 stealth fighter is entering the service with PLAAF by the end of 2016. 

* J-20 in service with PLAAF Dingxin Flight Test & Training Base
_--Last Updated 12/9/2016

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.ca/p/gallery-i.html?m=1#J-20_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20 is now in service. But still no AL-31FN sale from Russia since 2011.
> 
> The J-10 has been in service for over a decade with over 430+ aircraft produced. But still no AL-31FN sale from Russia since 2011.


Maybe the purchase is not disclosed to keep it low down. Without Russian production capacity, we can't build fighter in a monster speed.

I hope Putin will be president for the next 10 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> Maybe the purchase is not disclosed to keep it low down. Without Russian production capacity, we can't build fighter in a monster speed.
> 
> I hope Putin will be president for the next 10 years.



Those are replacement engines for Su-27, Su-30, J-11 and J-10. All newer models mof the J-16, J-15 and J-10B Made by China uses WS-10.

Early WS-10 did have problems and they got fixed now. There are no known reports that WS-10 engine caused any crash, but AL-31 is blamed at least 6 fatal crashes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

The SC said:


> The first batch of J-20 stealth fighter is entering the service with PLAAF by the end of 2016.
> 
> * J-20 in service with PLAAF Dingxin Flight Test & Training Base
> _--Last Updated 12/9/2016
> 
> http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.ca/p/gallery-i.html?m=1#J-20_


So those two J-20 were deployed to Dingxin base with registered serials not later than 12/9/2016.
It is one more evidence proving what Yinzhuo has said back in July 5 that J-20 had been deployed/registered into the PLAAF (post #5561). Now with these new images of J-20 serial numbers, we now know term he referred to "the seed troops" is the Brigade 176 if we assume the serials are genuine.


Deino said:


> Then You should clearly say what You mean: Indeed, the base or the exercise is correct, but why do You then say the "seed unit" ?? This is clearly wrong, since the Flankers are from an operational Division; the 18th FD. Sometimes I really have that arrogant feeling, that I know the PLAAF, its units and structure much better than some Chinese members here, which usually post any random image to prove anything completely out of context, only since the image is nice.


According to news, at the second half of the year, the PlAAF conducts 金头盔( Golden Helmet) and 金飞镖
(Golden Dart) military competition at several FTTCs. The Golden Helmet is designated for the pilots flying the same type of fighter jet to compete with each other within a group. For instance J11A is in one group and J11B is a different group. Whereas the Golden Dart is the offense and assault competition between different types of fighter jet. There are dozens of aviation brigades and regiments from the air forces under the five PLA Theater Commands taking part in this annual event. So it was no surprised to see so many different types of military aircraft from different brigade on those Tarraserver satellite images

There were some sayings the scores of the J-20 vs a combination of other fighter jets and supporting aircraft exercise were 8:0 and 10:0, and it was still on going.



pakistanipower said:


> I think @SinoSoldier clear thing up PL-15 is comparable to late version of AMRAAM with a range of 180 to 200 Km but PL-XX was tested on J-16 last month, thread is already running on PDF, that is confusing you, you are mixing PL-15 with new Chinese new missile that had been tested on J-16, pardon me if i hurts you brother


It's OK bro. 
I agree its a bit confusing.However, I still stick to what I said. If i have time I will translate it word to word for you and non-Chinese members. Mean times I hope other Chinese members can clear it out for you.



Asok said:


> Those are replacement engines for Su-27, Su-30 and J-10


Also keep in mind that on average each fighter jet will have one new engine for replacement in its life span.



Asok said:


> J-10B uses WS-10


It is not clear how may J-10B are still using AL-31 out of the total number of 108.(54 of batch1 and 54 of batch2)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Those are replacement engines for Su-27, Su-30, J-11 and J-10. All newer models mof the J-16, J-15 and J-10B Made by China uses WS-10.
> 
> Early WS-10 did have problems and they got fixed now. There are no known reports that WS-10 engine caused any crash, but AL-31 is blamed at least 6 fatal crashes.




Sorry, but that's off again: To compare a single engine type with a twin engine one is simply off.
That's difficult do conclude since so far only four J-10 were equipped with the WS-10 for test, so there's no comparison possible with the twin engined Flankers unsing the WS-10. If You want a decent comparison, You need to compare crashes of AL-31-equipped Flankers with WS-10-equipped Flankers and not AL-31-equipped J-10s with WS-10-equipped Flankers.




Tiqiu said:


> ...
> It is not clear how may J-10B are still using AL-31 out of the total number of 108.(54 of batch1 and 54 of batch2)




We are perfectly aware of how many J-10B/C are using the AL-31: exactly all but the two final batch 01 aircraft (aka 1-54 & 1-55).


Deino


----------



## randomradio

Deino said:


> We are perfectly aware of how many J-10B/C are using the AL-31: exactly all but the two final batch 01 aircraft (aka 1-54 & 1-55).
> 
> Deino



Do we know the latest numbers for J-10, J-11 etc?


----------



## Deino

The final J-10C spotted was 2-49 however already in September, the last J-11B I know was 6-18 but that already in 2014.


----------



## randomradio

Deino said:


> The final J-10C spotted was 2-49 however already in September, the last J-11B I know was 6-18 but that already in 2014.



Sorry, I meant number of jets produced.

And does China manufacture in batches of 50?


----------



## Deino

randomradio said:


> Sorry, I meant number of jets produced.
> 
> And does China manufacture in batches of 50?




Sorry ... the size of a batch is very different. For example the early J-10A batches were smaller, the J-10B has a size of 55. Concerning the number of ac in a batch at SAC I don't know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Do Indian boys want to know how the J-20 are built ? I will give you a hint... 











Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

hk299792458 said:


> Do Indian boys want to know how the J-20 are built ? I will give you a hint...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henri K.




Funny  ... but isn't this a FC-31 mock-up ?


----------



## cirr

J-20 cockpit display(9x24inch) touch screen voice controlled

http://cn-jxnc-dx-v-03.acgvideo.com...007809&nfa=fEJR5SwTufBq6SzosbG8Uw==&dynamic=1

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-20 cockpit display(9x24inch) touch screen voice controlled
> 
> http://cn-jxnc-dx-v-03.acgvideo.com/vg3/c/67/12203377-1.mp4?expires=1481395800&ssig=46Fi10mkUd_Vq39IWgxikA&oi=3060007809&nfa=fEJR5SwTufBq6SzosbG8Uw==&dynamic=1



But given the weapons configuration, isn't this more likely a J-16 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## eldamar

Deino said:


> But given the weapons configuration, isn't this more likely a J-16 ?
> 
> View attachment 359185



the wordings in the video already stated it's J-20's cockpit- and no, i dont think the reporter has an incentive to misreport the cockpit in the video as J-20's when it's not.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Sorry, but that's off again: To compare a single engine type with a twin engine one is simply off.
> That's difficult do conclude since so far only four J-10 were equipped with the WS-10 for test, so there's no comparison possible with the twin engined Flankers unsing the WS-10. If You want a decent comparison, You need to compare crashes of AL-31-equipped Flankers with WS-10-equipped Flankers and not AL-31-equipped J-10s with WS-10-equipped Flankers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are perfectly aware of how many J-10B/C are using the AL-31: exactly all but the two final batch 01 aircraft (aka 1-54 & 1-55).
> 
> 
> Deino



The issue is, there is a fatal flaw in the design of AL-31's central axel lubrication system. There is a tendency for BOTH engines to seize under certain conditions. It's not fixable. That's why China wants to step away from it.



Deino said:


> But given the weapons configuration, isn't this more likely a J-16 ?
> 
> View attachment 359185



http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1848857-1-1.html

I am sorry to say, this voice control asking for confirmation is really lame. It takes way too long. Aerial combat is not like you are leisurely cruising on a scenic highway, and you calmly ask the computer to change the radio channel for you.

It should be you speak a command, and an icon or the target flashes, and you simply say "Confirm" or "Fire".

And for God's sake, don't copy F-35's display system. It's really lame. Grow some brains and and do some serious thinking, and then come up something vastly better like the J-20. I hated when the Chinese simply copy. It give us all a bad name.

Fictional or not, I still find the Firefox has the best and most intelligent layout.





Also the display should not be vertical but inclined at a certain angle for easier viewing. Have many button, so you can get to a command easily and quickly, instead of having navigate through a series of menus.

An inclined display.






An highly intelligent and easy to use interface is probably the hardest thing for a nerdy engineer to get it right. The kind of designer who can get it right probably needs to have an artistic touch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

If J20 can be totally controlled by voice control, we still need a super computer. @Asok in BVR scenario, the delay in voice control confirmation won't matter lots. It help pilotes stick with HOTAS.. Don't forget we have also have HMS. J20 is of course world class. That's why the Jane defence listed it as second best fighter on this planet.



hk299792458 said:


> Do Indian boys want to know how the J-20 are built ? I will give you a hint...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henri K.


haha, it makes my day.

The test pilotes will help the engineer to decide how they put the display in a user oriented way. What China lacks is the user experience in real combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> If J20 can be totally controlled by voice control, we still need a super computer. @Asok in BVR scenario, the delay in voice control confirmation won't matter lots. It help pilotes stick with HOTAS.. Don't forget we have also have HMS. J20 is of course world class. That's why the Jane defence listed it as second best fighter on this planet.
> 
> 
> haha, it makes my day.
> 
> The test pilotes will help the engineer to decide how they put the display in a user oriented way. What China lacks is the user experience in real combat.



Long delay means instant death in actual combat. Push a button on the Joy stick is still probably the fast way to fire, when the target is locked on, and the missile is ready to go. No need to speak a command, the Computer ask for confirmation, and then confirm. It should not end up like Voice Activated Helpline, or a stupid self check out machine at the supermarket that asks a million questions and requires a million confirmation.
.
When I saw the video, I know the Chinese engineers don't have much clues on what they are doing. It's a straight copy of F-35's lame display.



Deino said:


> But given the weapons configuration, isn't this more likely a J-16 ?
> 
> View attachment 359185



It looks really lame and thoughtless, just like the F-35's display. The same kind of thoughtless thinking that went into FC-31. I bet and hope no one will buy this junk. It gives a bad name to Chinese manufacturing.



eldarlmari said:


> the wordings in the video already stated it's J-20's cockpit- and no, i dont think the reporter has an incentive to misreport the cockpit in the video as J-20's when it's not.



Chinese TV's reporters are really lame about military technology. I won't be surprise they were wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> But given the weapons configuration, isn't this more likely a J-16 ?
> 
> View attachment 359185



The J-20's one is not from that company.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

hk299792458 said:


> The J-20's one is not from that company.
> 
> Henri K.



It's probably for the lame J-31, not J-16 nor J-20.


----------



## hk299792458

Asok said:


> It's probably for the lame J-31, not J-16 nor J-20.



J-31 doesn't exist.

Henri K.


----------



## Asoka

hk299792458 said:


> J-31 doesn't exist.
> 
> Henri K.


 J-31, aka, FC-31 makes the case that Chinese products are cheap and junky. I am glad Chinese Air force and Navy are not interested in it.


----------



## cirr

Handover ceremony was held yesterday.

So J-20s have formally joined the PLAAF as of *11.12.2016*.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

And no images ????


----------



## grey boy 2

cirr said:


> Handover ceremony was held yesterday.
> 
> So J-20s have formally joined the PLAAF as of *11.12.2016*.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

hk299792458 said:


> Do Indian boys want to know how the J-20 are built ? I will give you a hint...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henri K.


That is no good. H.K. The indian boys will take it as real and spread it like fire. And they claim its your website as proof. 
They will claim J-20 is such standard.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Touch screen and voice control display system of J-20 (日前，苏州电视台节目在报道中疑似曝光了中国歼20战斗机的屏幕显示器，并展示其相关性能。视频中显示，这块屏显可以进行触摸操作和声音控制，非常先进。不过令人疑惑的是，在激烈的空战中飞行员是否有空进行操作，而且飞机巨大的噪音是否会影响声控系统……（来源：苏州网络电视）

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Touch screen and voice control display system of J-20 (日前，苏州电视台节目在报道中疑似曝光了中国歼20战斗机的屏幕显示器，并展示其相关性能。视频中显示，这块屏显可以进行触摸操作和声音控制，非常先进。不过令人疑惑的是，在激烈的空战中飞行员是否有空进行操作，而且飞机巨大的噪音是否会影响声控系统……（来源：苏州网络电视）




But IMO - just look at the weapon's loadout more likely a J-11D or J-16.

Anyway ... still no images ??? And have these here been posted?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> But IMO - just look at the weapon's loadout more likely a J-11D or J-16.
> 
> Anyway ... still no images ??? And have these here been posted?
> 
> View attachment 359774
> View attachment 359775



But thats the words from the top Military research and development chief, i respect your opinion however i still believed his words holds much more credibility than us

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> But thats the words from the top Military research and development chief, i respect your opinion however i still believed his words holds much more credibility than us




But do You guys take every word for granted even if it does not make any sense !???

The weapon's loadout is clearly - more than clearly - a Flanker's configuration, so either he means that panel is "also" used in the J-20 or that loadout does not make any sense.

To admit I prefer still to think a bit before I take everything for grated, regardless who tells me whatever.

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> But do You guys take every word for granted even if it does not make any sense !???
> 
> The weapon's loadout is clearly - more than clearly - a Flanker's configuration, so either he means that panel is "also" used in the J-20 or that loadout does not make any sense.
> 
> To admit I prefer still to think a bit before I take everything for grated, regardless who tells me whatever.
> 
> Deino


Does the weapon load out display J-16 weapon configuration means that panel is for J-16? Until now, the actual weapon loadout for J-20 is still a secret. Only FC-31 has already demonstrated the weapon with the video demo at Zhuhai 2016.

You expect the Chief designer to put out the real weapon loadout of J-20 and reveal the weapon configuration of J-20?
Looks like indeed you are not suitable for Chinese defense section. Are you trying to tell us you know more than the chief designer? Chinese chief designer dont know anything about their hardware. Song wenchong and Yang wei are fake engineer and stupid idiots. Deino know better than them.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Touch screen and voice control display system of J-20 (日前，苏州电视台节目在报道中疑似曝光了中国歼20战斗机的屏幕显示器，并展示其相关性能。视频中显示，这块屏显可以进行触摸操作和声音控制，非常先进。不过令人疑惑的是，在激烈的空战中飞行员是否有空进行操作，而且飞机巨大的噪音是否会影响声控系统……（来源：苏州网络电视）



"不过令人疑惑的是，在激烈的空战中飞行员是否有空进行操作，而且飞机巨大的噪音是否会影响声控系统"
This system is super lame. It's just drawing some lines on a blank screen. There is no differentiation by color, lines, shape, context or background whatsoever. The pilot's eyes will have a hard time acquiring accurately relevance/meaning of the display quickly by just a glance. The designer obviously have no clue about graphic design.

This is a cheap copy of the the already crappy F-35 design.



grey boy 2 said:


> But thats the words from the top Military research and development chief, i respect your opinion however i still believed his words holds much more credibility than us



I hope not. The display looks so lame. It's a cheap straight mindless copy of the already crappy F-35 design.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

homing28 said:


> View attachment 359830




Is this a recent image ???


----------



## Asoka

Asok said:


> "不过令人疑惑的是，在激烈的空战中飞行员是否有空进行操作，而且飞机巨大的噪音是否会影响声控系统"
> This system is super lame. It's just drawing some lines on a blank screen. There is no differentiation by color, lines, shape, context or background whatsoever. The pilot's eyes will have a hard time acquiring accurately relevance/meaning of the display quickly by just a glance. The designer obviously have no clue about graphic design.
> 
> This is a cheap copy of the the already crappy F-35 design.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not. The display looks so lame. It's a cheap straight mindless copy of the already crappy F-35 design.



After all the hard works put into the J-20 by tens of thousands of talented people, and they put in this cheap copy of the F-35's junky display. I hope not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> That is no good. H.K. The indian boys will take it as real and spread it like fire. And they claim its your website as proof.
> They will claim J-20 is such standard.



If they choose to believe it then let them live in their delusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pangu

grey boy 2 said:


> Touch screen and voice Tcontrol display system of J-20 (日前，苏州电视台节目在报道中疑似曝光了中国歼20战斗机的屏幕显示器，并展示其相关性能。视频中显示，这块屏显可以进行触摸操作和声音控制，非常先进。不过令人疑惑的是，在激烈的空战中飞行员是否有空进行操作，而且飞机巨大的噪音是否会影响声控系统……（来源：苏州网络电视）



The display may well be for both J16 & J20, however, it is highly unlikely they will show us the J20 config on screen due to confidentiality. Most tv viewers won't notice anyway, so "pointing at the deer & say its a horse" is not uncommon.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Pangu said:


> The display may well be for both J16 & J20, however, it is highly unlikely they will show us the J20 config on screen due to confidentiality. Most tv viewers won't notice anyway, so "pointing at the deer & say its a horse" is not uncommon.



I can believe this crap belong on the junky FC-31. No way should it be allowed put on J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Cookie Monster said:


> If they choose to believe it then let them live in their delusion.


Its not that they choose they believe. Something human being are really naive to think that can be real. If things is as simple as you claim. How can so many stupid join ISIS? Human being sometimes can be easily misled. The lies will only get bigger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pangu

Asok said:


> I can believe this crap belong on the junky FC-31. No way should it be allowed put on J-20.



Well, one way to look at this is, how much time it takes for voice activation, compared to manual activation (pressing buttons?). If the voice act. is equal to, or less than the time it takes compare to manual, then its well worth it. Voice act. allows one to keep his eyes on the target, less distracted I guess?

I'm more concern is if the pilot voice changes under stress, like pulling high Gs, can the bloody things still work...maybe then he'll do manual control....

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> Its not that they choose they believe. Something human being are really naive to think that can be real. If things is as simple as you claim. How can so many stupid join ISIS? Human being sometimes can be easily misled. The lies will only get bigger.


Yes it is precisely bcuz they are stupid that they will believe such things and live in their delusions...I'm saying that don't bother trying to correct those who are stupid. Such ppl learn their lesson the hard way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

homing28 said:


> View attachment 359830



It seems 3 new J-20 are shown here.



Pangu said:


> Well, one way to look at this is, how much time it takes for voice activation, compared to manual activation (pressing buttons?). If the voice act. is equal to, or less than the time it takes compare to manual, then its well worth it. Voice act. allows one to keep his eyes on the target, less distracted I guess?
> 
> I'm more concern is if the pilot voice changes under stress, like pulling high Gs, can the bloody things still work...maybe then he'll do manual control....



Voice control could be done stupidly or intelligently. Intelligently, we could simply say select Target 3, when the targets are high lighted, then the selected target blinks and then the Pilot can immediately press the Fire button on the joy.

Or the computer could automatically select the most threatening target, and set it blinking, and allow the Pilot to press Fire button on the Joy stick immediately.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UniverseWatcher

Asok said:


> I can believe this crap belong on the junky FC-31. No way should it be allowed put on J-20.


hey would you mind if you explain more why the FC-31 is "junk" aircraft on FC-31 thread and explain why any of the country shouldn't buy this "Junk" that you mentioned


----------



## grey boy 2

(credits to JacKsonbobo)

Reactions: Like Like:
 10


----------



## Deino

*Tatatata .....*

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## luciferdd

78274

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## 52051

Some rumors about the on-going military exerise in Dingxin:

2 J-20 vs J-10/11 backed by AWACS, J-20 shot down the AWACS first, then dominate the J-10/11 in combat, it is said J-10/11's radar cannot detect J-20 even within visual range, several J-10/11 are shot down within visual combat range.

Next few days, PLA may try anti-stealth radar array to develop tactics to defeat J-20.

Not sure about the radar installed on J-10/11 since it is depend on block/version of the fighters, however since all China's AWACS are equiped with AESA radar, so its safe to say J-20's LO is robust to AESA radar's detection.

http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2329857&extra=page=1

So far I think China should stop all other fighter's prodcution and pull full speed on J-20's production.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Cookie Monster

52051 said:


> Some rumors about the on-going military exerise in Dingxin:
> 
> 2 J-20 vs J-10/11 backed by AWACS, J-20 shot down the AWACS first, then dominate the J-10/11 in combat, it is said J-10/11's radar cannot detect J-20 even within visual range, several J-10/11 are shot down within visual combat range.
> 
> Next few days, PLA may try anti-stealth radar array to develop tactics to defeat J-20.
> 
> Not sure about the radar installed on J-10/11 since it is depend on block/version of the fighters, however since all China's AWACS are equiped with AESA radar, so its safe to say J-20's LO is robust to AESA radar's detection.
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2329857&extra=page=1
> 
> *So far I think China should stop all other fighter's prodcution and pull full speed on J-20's production.*


I don't think stopping other fighters' production would boost J20 production. J20 involves different manufacturing processes. Also J20 maybe in LRIP phase on purpose. China is probably waiting for its WS15 engines to be fully ready and then J20 production would be accelerated.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DCS

52051 said:


> Some rumors about the on-going military exerise in Dingxin:
> 
> 2 J-20 vs J-10/11 backed by AWACS, J-20 shot down the AWACS first, then dominate the J-10/11 in combat, it is said J-10/11's radar cannot detect J-20 even within visual range, several J-10/11 are shot down within visual combat range.
> 
> Next few days, PLA may try anti-stealth radar array to develop tactics to defeat J-20.
> 
> Not sure about the radar installed on J-10/11 since it is depend on block/version of the fighters, however since all China's AWACS are equiped with AESA radar, so its safe to say J-20's LO is robust to AESA radar's detection.
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2329857&extra=page=1
> 
> So far I think China should stop all other fighter's prodcution and pull full speed on J-20's production.



I had expected the J-20 to slaughter the competition in DACT exercises. Good news.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Akasa

52051 said:


> Some rumors about the on-going military exerise in Dingxin:
> 
> 2 J-20 vs J-10/11 backed by AWACS, J-20 shot down the AWACS first, then dominate the J-10/11 in combat, it is said J-10/11's radar cannot detect J-20 even within visual range, several J-10/11 are shot down within visual combat range.
> 
> Next few days, PLA may try anti-stealth radar array to develop tactics to defeat J-20.
> 
> Not sure about the radar installed on J-10/11 since it is depend on block/version of the fighters, however since all China's AWACS are equiped with AESA radar, so its safe to say J-20's LO is robust to AESA radar's detection.
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2329857&extra=page=1
> 
> So far I think China should stop all other fighter's prodcution and pull full speed on J-20's production.



The J-10/J-11 involved were the J-10B/C & J-16 variants, all of which have AESA (PESA for J-10B) radars. Satellite images confirmed this.

A few documents detailing the J-16's radar (from a couple of years ago) suggest that they can detect a 1m^2 target from 450 km away (or 0.1 m^2 target from 250 km away).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

luciferdd said:


> 78274
> View attachment 359999
> View attachment 360000
> View attachment 360001



275 and 276 will soon depart for their new home

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

DjSmg said:


> hey would you mind if you explain more why the FC-31 is "junk" aircraft on FC-31 thread and explain why any of the country shouldn't buy this "Junk" that you mentioned



Other than being cheap, there is no clear goal on what JC-31 should achieve. Without a clear goal, you can't hit the target. There are already many cheap and lame plane out there. Don't let that "stealth" marketing trick fool you. Without maneuverability, it don't mean anything. If I were the Pakistan Air Force, I won't even take a glance of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Not sure if anyone here can judge the quality of such a display or its functionality correctly. ... and concerning the FC-31 could it be that You are a bit biased ????

I would prefer to wait and see how V2 evolves ... and then again, time will tell.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Not sure if anyone here can judge the quality of such a display or its functionality correctly. ... and concerning the FC-31 could it be that You are a bit biased ????
> 
> I would prefer to wait and see how V2 evolves ... and then again, time will tell.
> 
> Deino



"Not sure if anyone here can judge the quality of such a display or its functionality correctly"
Other people might have a hard time to tell,but I could. My technical field is software is engineering, specialized in Interface Design. The reason that highway signs are mostly graphics with different shape and color is because our eyes can pick them out easily. There is a lot of differentiations and contexts to let our brain quickly judge the message. When there is a bunch of words on the same background. Our eyes have to read them in a hurry, and our minds must interpret them. Similarly, with this supposed JC-31 display, there is a bunch of white lines of the same width and color on a dark background. There is no differentiation at all. So our eyes have to squint hard to read them, and our mind have to work hard to interpret their meaning. Most HUD displays are like that, I really doubt how useful they are actually to the pilot who are fighting with their lives. Yes they save the pilot the trouble of look down on the instrument panel, but presentation of the informations have much to desire. IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> "Not sure if anyone here can judge the quality of such a display or its functionality correctly"
> Other people might have a hard time to tell,but I could. My technical field is software is engineering, specialized in Interface Design. The reason that highway signs are mostly graphics with different shape and color is because our eyes can pick them out easily. There is a lot of differentiations and contexts to let our brain quickly judge the message. When there is a bunch of words on the same background. Our eyes have to read them in a hurry, and our minds must interpret them. Similarly, with this supposed JC-31 display, there is a bunch of white lines of the same width and color on a dark background. There is no differentiation at all. So our eyes have to squint hard to read them, and our mind have to work hard to interpret their meaning. Most HUD displays are like that, I really doubt how useful they are actually to the pilot who are fighting with their lives. Yes they save the pilot the trouble of look down on the instrument panel, but presentation of the informations have much to desire. IMO.


I can tell that you have never been under stress in a cockpit. There are many things in your criticism that while correct in principles, are wrong in practice. I will let this subject go for a little longer. But for now, I suggest you look up the science of HUD symbology and its companion subject of semiotics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

52051 said:


> Some rumors about the on-going military exerise in Dingxin:
> 
> 2 J-20 vs J-10/11 backed by AWACS, J-20 shot down the AWACS first, then dominate the J-10/11 in combat, it is said J-10/11's radar cannot detect J-20 even within visual range, several J-10/11 are shot down within visual combat range.
> 
> Next few days, PLA may try anti-stealth radar array to develop tactics to defeat J-20.
> 
> Not sure about the radar installed on J-10/11 since it is depend on block/version of the fighters, however since all China's AWACS are equiped with AESA radar, so its safe to say J-20's LO is robust to AESA radar's detection.
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2329857&extra=page=1
> 
> So far I think China should stop all other fighter's prodcution and pull full speed on J-20's production.


If J10c/J11bs is that chicken even with AESA, it's a problem.

Maybe we didn't realize the power of stealthy fighter in a right way.

@gambit Do you think it's true?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> If J10c/J11bs is that chicken even with AESA, it's a problem.
> 
> Maybe we didn't realize the power of stealthy fighter in a right way.
> 
> @gambit Do you think it's true?



The problem is probably you don't know which direction the enemy is coming from, so you don't know which direction to turn the nose of your plane.



gambit said:


> I can tell that you have never been under stress in a cockpit. There are many things in your criticism that while correct in principles, are wrong in practice. I will let this subject go for a little longer. But for now, I suggest you look up the science of HUD symbology and its companion subject of semiotics.



I do think HUD is a huge improvement from looking down at the instrument panel. I just think the HUD looks very busy with all the numbers display in one color and in small font would make them very hard to read under high stress. That's all.

Just like those tightly packed numbers and symbols in cameras, they are hard to read unless you're a real pro. working with the camera everyday.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> The problem is probably you don't know which direction the enemy is coming from, so you don't know which direction to turn the nose of your plane.


Yankee can slaughter our airforce if we don't develop J20, God bless China.

If two stealthy fighter go nose to nose, highly likely there will be a dog fighter, cause both of them hard to lock each other at BVR. That's why I always emphasize the importance of maneuver ability of the stealthy fighter and the super cruise ability.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> Yankee can slaughter our airforce if we don't develop J20, God bless China.



Not so simple. Remember we got rockets that can obliterate the airfields around China? and we got anti-stealth radars. I think stealth is overrated if that plane don't also have strong supersonic maneuverability.



wanglaokan said:


> Yankee can slaughter our airforce if we don't develop J20, God bless China.
> 
> If two stealthy fighter go nose to nose, highly likely there will be a dog fighter, cause both of them hard to lock each other at BVR. That's why I always emphasize the importance of maneuver ability of the stealthy fighter and the super cruise ability.



When dog fights happen, a good missile with flares-proof infrared imaging that can fire with Helmet mounted sighting is super important.

I think the advantage of able to not using your afterburner in a dogfighting is underestimated. Afterburner runs at a super hot temperature, your chance of dodging a very sensitive and agile missile is zero, if you have a very hot jet stream.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

When it comes to your Flight Control Computer having a voice, I think its more important that all warnings should be Voiced instead of simply having a blinking light. It's easy to miss a blinking light or a loud beeping sound. At least one Eurofighter was lost, when the pilot didn't noticed his landing gear malfunction during landing. He missed the flashing light warning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

High commands(CMC and HQ PLAAF) are said to be extremely satisfied with J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LJQC

Months before I was told by some AF guy that the subsonic sustained turn rate of the previous J-20 prototype is pretty much equivalent to that of a F-16A or 16C blk32, even with such a low thrust-to-weight ratio. That's pretty much out of my expectation.


----------



## Asoka

cirr said:


> High commands(CMC and HQ PLAAF) are said to be extremely satisfied with J-20.



They should be. They didn't cut any corners and aim to be cheap and simply copy. They did serious amount of deep thinking on how to beat F-22 in aerial combat. That was their aim. I think China has achieved it.



LJQC said:


> Months before I was told by some AF guy that the subsonic sustained turn rate of the previous J-20 prototype is pretty much equivalent to that of a F-16A or 16C blk32, even with such a low thrust-to-weight ratio. That's pretty much out of my expectation.



"even with such a low thrust-to-weight ratio" LOL. Very funny. . After seeing the flight videos of J-20, only a fool could still believe J-20 is "underpowered".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LJQC

Asok said:


> "even with such a low thrust-to-weight ratio" LOL. Very funny. . After seeing the flight videos of J-20, only a fool could still believe J-20 is "underpowered".



The guy also told me the clean weight to be around 19~20 tons, funny or not. If he's right about the sustained turn rate, I think it's safe to assume that the thrust-to-weight ratio is lower than the F-16, which in parallel means higher Lift-Drag ratio.


----------



## Asoka

LJQC said:


> The guy also told me the clean weight to be around 19~20 tons, funny or not. If he's right about the sustained turn rate, I think it's safe to assume that the thrust-to-weight ratio is lower than the F-16, which in parallel means higher Lift-Drag ratio.



F-16's empty weight is 20, 300lb or 10.15 ton, Engine Max. Trust, 29,500lb or 14.75 ton, Internal fuel, 7000lb or 3.5 ton, external fuel tank is 3000lb or 1.5 ton. 

Total weight not including weapons is 15.15 ton. Trust to weight ratio = 14.75/15.15 = 0.97

J-10 empty weight is 20 ton, internal fuel appr. 12 ton, Engine Max. Trust >18ton, times two is 36 tons. 

Total weight, not including weapons = 32 tons. Trust to weight ratio = 32/36 = 1.15

Don't believe the nonsense that J-20 is using WS-10A,B, or AL-31FN. IMO, J-20's WS-15 engine's maximum trust is >20 ton. 

That's why it is able to fly those tight turns that is similar to F-16 without using the afterburner. This is very significant. During dog-fighting, fighters usually launch their heat seeking infrared imaging missiles. If you use afterburner, your plane will have a super hot jet stream, that is very easy to track. In visual range combat, infrared stealth is even more important than radar stealth. 

In all the video clips, I have seen, J-20 rarely have to use it's afterburner to do those amazing maneuvers. This indicates it has two very powerful engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I do think HUD is a huge improvement from looking down at the instrument panel. I just think the HUD looks very busy with all the numbers display in one color and in small font would make them very hard to read under high stress. That's all.
> 
> Just like those tightly packed numbers and symbols in cameras, they are hard to read unless you're a real pro. working with the camera everyday.


I can tell from this response that you have not done what I suggested.

So let us begin your education...



Asok said:


> "Not sure if anyone here can judge the quality of such a display or its functionality correctly"
> 
> Other people might have a hard time to tell,but I could.


No, you cannot, because...



Asok said:


> My technical field is software is engineering, specialized in Interface Design.


...Unless you are an end-user, like a pilot that uses a HUD, even a civilian HUD, and *THEN* you uses different HUD designs for different missions, you are in no position to judge the quality of displays and functionalities.



Asok said:


> The reason that highway signs are mostly graphics with different shape and color is because our eyes can pick them out easily. There is a lot of differentiations and contexts to let our brain quickly judge the message. When there is a bunch of words on the same background. Our eyes have to read them in a hurry, and our minds must interpret them.


I understand that you are on a zealot's mission to denigrate the F-35 as much as possible, but here is where you have gone beyond your expertise of software engineering and you made yourself look foolish.

*Do you wonder why the HUD real estate*, despite decades of use and continuous development, remains relatively the same, meaning the glass dimensions ?






In the above illustration, there are four fields of views (FOV)...

- Left monocular
- Right monocular
- Combined binocular
- Intersect binocular

Left and right monocular are obvious enough.

Combined binocular is the total of both monocular views, from extreme left all the way to extreme right.

Intersect binocular is that overlapping area and *THAT* is the reason why HUD real estate have remained the same all these decades.

Basic research have determined that while there are variations among pilots regarding how capable is a pilot in processing data in their eyes' FOVs, there is a commonality that in all humans, we can only process FOV data in very limited quantity restricted by biology -- the iris. HUD real estates have varied from design to design, but no real changes have been made.

Inside the Int-FOV are two more factors that limits HUD real estate: Design Eye Reference Point (DERP) and Alert Eye Reference Point (AERP).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Eye_Position

For most people, not just pilots, the AERP is physically higher than the DERP, meaning we focused on a region that is higher in the HUD than what the HUD's designer's intended because he/they wanted to accommodate the variations of end-users.

*Do you wonder why HUD symbology* is that green, some call it 'alien', color ?

Because research consistently found that this 'alien green' color contrasts well against background colors, from blue sky to Earth.

When we put the two questions together, we get the high level answer on why the HUD is the way it is all these decades.

If we put different colors into the HUD, as you wanted with your street signs argument, there is a high risk of having vital information get masked by background colors, leading to something that every pilot will experienced to some degrees in their flying careers -- HUD induced spatial disorientation (SOD).

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040065771.pdf


> The concerns about conformality of the HUD were not the only issues discovered during the early development of HUD technology. The AFIFC found evidence for inadequate symbol dynamics, lack of standardization with symbology and operational use, inadequate field-of- view (FOV), intensity/contrast problems, night visibility issues, and an increase in *HUD-induced spatial disorientation* (Newman, 1980; 1995).


Another issue with your street signs argument is that as the driver changes direction or just move straight ahead, those visual information cues eventually disappears from his FOV.

For the HUD, vital flight and target information must remain inside that Int-FOV at all times, creating the necessity that HUD symbols must be as simple as possible. This simplicity need is so important that symbol sizes are measured in *MILLIRADIANS*. Every pixel that a symbol demands must be justified, in both information necessity and size to convey that critical information, or the symbol is not designed in at all.

Another issue is symbol clutter that says all symbols must be as simple as possible. In contrast to popular belief, HUD symbol clutter does not mean the quantity of symbols, but *SYMBOL CONFLICTS*, in other words, even if there are only two symbols in view, if they collide and overlap, vital information could be lost. That constitutes clutter.

In the event that symbols cannot help but overlap, we have to determine which symbol representing which information should be suppressed. We have to create a table listing information priority which further demands that symbols be as simple as possible to minimize memory allocation. A symbol is suppressed then re-init in a few milliseconds. It should be as simple as possible for that re-initialization.

Another issue that demands HUD symbols to be as simple as possible is called the 'accommodation trap' or 'attention trap'.

http://www.mvs.net/pdf/Human_Factors_of_HUDs.pdf


> In effect, *the HUD acts as an attentional ‘trap’* that draws information processing resources to the HUD and slows/degrades processing of external events.
> 
> The implication is that the edges of the HUD combiner will tend to draw accommodation (termed *“convergence-accommodation traps“* by Weintraub and Ensing, 1992, p. 98).


What happens when a viewer, car driver or aircraft pilot, switches from non-HUD to HUD focus, it is found that the viewer processes information best at very close distance despite the HUD symbol being collimated to optical infinity. This switching action occurs constantly so to minimize the odds of HUD-induced SOD, all the more reasons why HUD symbols should be simple to the point of being little more than short lines.



Asok said:


> ...I really doubt how useful they are actually to the pilot who are fighting with their lives. Yes they save the pilot the trouble of look down on the instrument panel, but presentation of the informations have much to desire. IMO.


Sorry, but your opinion is worthless, and I say that kindly.

From my time on the F-16, I know what 9-g feels like and as my vision narrows due to blood losses under g, I do not want complex symbols representing target information, and if I am under 9-g, that target is definitely hostile.

Support China all you want, but stay out of areas you know nothing about.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> I can tell from this response that you have not done what I suggested.
> 
> So let us begin your education...
> 
> 
> No, you cannot, because...
> 
> 
> ...Unless you are an end-user, like a pilot that uses a HUD, even a civilian HUD, and *THEN* you uses different HUD designs for different missions, you are in no position to judge the quality of displays and functionalities.
> 
> 
> I understand that you are on a zealot's mission to denigrate the F-35 as much as possible, but here is where you have gone beyond your expertise of software engineering and you made yourself look foolish.
> 
> *Do you wonder why the HUD real estate*, despite decades of use and continuous development, remains relatively the same, meaning the glass dimensions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the above illustration, there are four fields of views (FOV)...
> 
> - Left monocular
> - Right monocular
> - Combined binocular
> - Intersect binocular
> 
> Left and right monocular are obvious enough.
> 
> Combined binocular is the total of both monocular views, from extreme left all the way to extreme right.
> 
> Intersect binocular is that overlapping area and *THAT* is the reason why HUD real estate have remained the same all these decades.
> 
> Basic research have determined that while there are variations among pilots regarding how capable is a pilot in processing data in their eyes' FOVs, there is a commonality that in all humans, we can only process FOV data in very limited quantity restricted by biology -- the iris. HUD real estates have varied from design to design, but no real changes have been made.
> 
> Inside the Int-FOV are two more factors that limits HUD real estate: Design Eye Reference Point (DERP) and Alert Eye Reference Point (AERP).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Eye_Position
> 
> For most people, not just pilots, the AERP is physically higher than the DERP, meaning we focused on a region that is higher in the HUD than what the HUD's designer's intended because he/they wanted to accommodate the variations of end-users.
> 
> *Do you wonder why HUD symbology* is that green, some call it 'alien', color ?
> 
> Because research consistently found that this 'alien green' color contrasts well against background colors, from blue sky to Earth.
> 
> When we put the two questions together, we get the high level answer on why the HUD is the way it is all these decades.
> 
> If we put different colors into the HUD, as you wanted with your street signs argument, there is a high risk of having vital information get masked by background colors, leading to something that every pilot will experienced to some degrees in their flying careers -- HUD induced spatial disorientation (SOD).
> 
> https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040065771.pdf
> 
> Another issue with your street signs argument is that as the driver changes direction or just move straight ahead, those visual information cues eventually disappears from his FOV.
> 
> For the HUD, vital flight and target information must remain inside that Int-FOV at all times, creating the necessity that HUD symbols must be as simple as possible. This simplicity need is so important that symbol sizes are measured in *MILLIRADIANS*. Every pixel that a symbol demands must be justified, in both information necessity and size to convey that critical information, or the symbol is not designed in at all.
> 
> Another issue is symbol clutter that says all symbols must be as simple as possible. In contrast to popular belief, HUD symbol clutter does not mean the quantity of symbols, but *SYMBOL CONFLICTS*, in other words, even if there are only two symbols in view, if they collide and overlap, vital information could be lost. That constitutes clutter.
> 
> In the event that symbols cannot help but overlap, we have to determine which symbol representing which information should be suppressed. We have to create a table listing information priority which further demands that symbols be as simple as possible to minimize memory allocation. A symbol is suppressed then re-init in a few milliseconds. It should be as simple as possible for that re-initialization.
> 
> Another issue that demands HUD symbols to be as simple as possible is called the 'accommodation trap' or 'attention trap'.
> 
> http://www.mvs.net/pdf/Human_Factors_of_HUDs.pdf
> 
> What happens when a viewer, car driver or aircraft pilot, switches from non-HUD to HUD focus, it is found that the viewer processes information best at very close distance despite the HUD symbol being collimated to optical infinity. This switching action occurs constantly so to minimize the odds of HUD-induced SOD, all the more reasons why HUD symbols should be simple to the point of being little more than short lines.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your opinion is worthless, and I say that kindly.
> 
> From my time on the F-16, I know what 9-g feels like and as my vision narrows due to blood losses under g, I do not want complex symbols representing target information, and if I am under 9-g, that target is definitely hostile.
> 
> Support China all you want, but stay out of areas you know nothing about.



May be you are right, when taking into account of how our eyes and brains works when under strain. I have no experience with HUD design, no I don't know what is the optimum design. Just my belief that way the informations presented in the HUD is extremely "packed". I can't believe the format can't be further improved after 4 decades of development.

Anyway, we were talking about the Chinese version of the F-35 like display. Hope the J-20's display is nowhere looking like it. Thanks for your education on HUD.


----------



## rcrmj

during the exercises few days ago (you all saw the sat pictures with 2 J-20s)
2 J-20s were participated alone with few dozens J-10A, J-11A, JH-7, J-7,Su-30······ few AWACs and other supporting aeroplanes

here is the event
participants
blue: 2 J-20s
red: J-10s, J-11s, Su-30s, AWACs

*results: 
scenario 1: (blue) 8:0 (red)
scenario 2: (blue) 10:0 (red)

pilots from the red side complained the early loss of AWAC and lack of info update from ground radar units, but the ground units complained back by saying 'how can we give you tracks and guides without knowing where those J-20 actually were?

no matter whether its BVR or VRAC, red army pilots were head bombed or 'anal f*cked' without knowing where the 2 fat gooses were```*

the event left red army leaders furious, the blue team were smiling```` and the general were quite happy

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

rcrmj said:


> during the exercises few days ago (you all saw the sat pictures with 2 J-20s)
> 2 J-20s were participated alone with few dozens J-10A, J-11A, JH-7, J-7,Su-30······ few AWACs and other supporting aeroplanes
> 
> here is the event
> participants
> blue: 2 J-20s
> red: J-10s, J-11s, Su-30s, AWACs
> 
> *results:
> scenario 1: (blue) 8:0 (red)
> scenario 2: (blue) 10:0 (red)
> 
> pilots from the red side complained the early loss of AWAC and lack of info update from ground radar units, but the ground units complained back by saying 'how can we give you tracks and guides without knowing where those J-20 actually were?
> 
> no matter whether its BVR or VRAC, red army pilots were head bombed or 'anal f*cked' without knowing where the 2 fat gooses were```*
> 
> the event left red army leaders furious, the blue team were smiling```` and the general were quite happy


Why J-20 grouped under blue? Are they simulating USAF F-22?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

TalkingtoBenDe, it is all about radar:

http://weibo.com/tv/v/Embcy0dcg? ... 6eaa4340a65efda7cdf

According to the old chap(affectionately known as DeYe), J-20 has the best AESA radar there is.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rcrmj

Beast said:


> Why J-20 grouped under blue? Are they simulating USAF F-22?


maybe```````they have purpose of their own, I dont know

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

rcrmj said:


> during the exercises few days ago (you all saw the sat pictures with 2 J-20s)
> 2 J-20s were participated alone with few dozens J-10A, J-11A, JH-7, J-7,Su-30······ few AWACs and other supporting aeroplanes
> 
> here is the event
> participants
> blue: 2 J-20s
> red: J-10s, J-11s, Su-30s, AWACs
> 
> *results:
> scenario 1: (blue) 8:0 (red)
> scenario 2: (blue) 10:0 (red)
> 
> pilots from the red side complained the early loss of AWAC and lack of info update from ground radar units, but the ground units complained back by saying 'how can we give you tracks and guides without knowing where those J-20 actually were?
> 
> no matter whether its BVR or VRAC, red army pilots were head bombed or 'anal f*cked' without knowing where the 2 fat gooses were```*
> 
> the event left red army leaders furious, the blue team were smiling```` and the general were quite happy



The AWACs may be gone, but the ground radars should still be able to see J-20 because they have AESA and anti-stealth radars too.

On a second thought, able too see the J-20 is probably still be useless, because they can't do Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers like J-20. Those are the real killer capabilities.



rcrmj said:


> maybe```````they have purpose of their own, I dont know



It's all about getting familiarized with the capabilities of J-20 and develop tactical doctrines to integrate J-20 with other planes into a power punch. The fact that the Chinese AF can't wait to begin this phase of operation means they have sensed the dangers are very near.



cirr said:


> TalkingtoBenDe, it is all about radar:
> 
> http://weibo.com/tv/v/Embcy0dcg? ... 6eaa4340a65efda7cdf
> 
> According to the old chap(affectionately known as DeYe), J-20 has the best AESA radar there is.



I don't doubt it. Electronics have advanced by leaps and bounds since the 1990's when the F-22's *AN/APG-77 *AESA radar was developed. AN/APG-77 has 22KW peak power and has 1956 T/R modules. Each T/R module could output 11.24 Watt.

Whereas, J-20's AESA radar is rumored to have > 2100, 3rd Generation GaAs, T/R modules and each module could output 15W, making it has a peak power of 31.5kw. That is 43% more power.

Here is a picture that compares the power of different radars by showing how far it can cook a piece of meat.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DCS

Beast said:


> Why J-20 grouped under blue? Are they simulating USAF F-22?



Blue force has always played the aggressor role in exercises to simulate a highly advanced adversary. Blue has traditionally dominated red in exercises due to the gulf in experience between aggressor pilots and regulars. Assuming the rumor holds water, this likely took place at Dingxin with top FTTC pilots on both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

DCS said:


> Blue force has always played the aggressor role in exercises to simulate a highly advanced adversary. Blue has traditionally dominated red in exercises due to the gulf in experience between aggressor pilots and regulars. Assuming the rumor holds water, this likely took place at Dingxin with top FTTC pilots on both sides.


I know blue forces is the aggressor but when initial forming squadron unit. I thought they shall play the red forces to test against western 4th gen or 4.5th gen fighter blue forces to test out the capabilities of J-20?.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> May be you are right, when taking into account of how our eyes and brains works when under strain. I have no experience with HUD design, no I don't know what is the optimum design. Just my belief that way the informations presented in the HUD is extremely "packed". I can't believe the format can't be further improved after 4 decades of development.
> 
> Anyway, we were talking about the Chinese version of the F-35 like display. Hope the J-20's display is nowhere looking like it. Thanks for your education on HUD.


There is no 'may be' about it. I am correct. Not only are you wrong about how a HUD works, you are wrong on just about everything else you commented on.


----------



## 52051

Beast said:


> Why J-20 grouped under blue? Are they simulating USAF F-22?



Well, dont complain, in the US, their red army equip F-22 to simulate J-20 instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DCS

Beast said:


> I know blue forces is the aggressor but when initial forming squadron unit. I thought they shall play the *red forces to test against western 4th gen or 4.5th gen fighter blue forces to test out the capabilities of J-20?.*


The PLAAF never allows the red force to go seal clubbing on exercises. The adversary is always assumed to have superiority. If you want to know how a 4th gen mix with conventional force multipliers would fare against a 5th gen force, it's very self evident in the results (they get clubbed).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pepsi Cola

This exercise also points out that the regular PLAAF forces are still not effective at handling against stealth adversaries. Good, they can learn from this exercise, and figure out how to deal with them in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> There is no 'may be' about it. I am correct. Not only are you wrong about how a HUD works, you are wrong on just about everything else you commented on.



Now, that's sore person speaking. Someone whose "canard is not stealthy" nonsense got confronted and got a red face.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

*Can You guys hold on with these personnel quarrels and instead better go out and find some more images of 7827x-birds !???*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

DCS said:


> The PLAAF never allows the red force to go seal clubbing on exercises. The adversary is always assumed to have superiority. If you want to know how a 4th gen mix with conventional force multipliers would fare against a 5th gen force, it's very self evident in the results (they get clubbed).



That's nice to hear. In the old days, the exercises always follow a pre-written script, everybody knows what will happen, and the red always win.



52051 said:


> Well, dont complain, in the US, their red army equip F-22 to simulate J-20 instead.



The Americanos can not smile anymore, even if J-20 is only half as effective as F-22, the results will still be like 50-0 against the F-16, F-15, F-18's and even F-35s, if their ridiculous result of 144-0 is true.

If the AWAC is taken out first, the strength of their attacking force is immediately drop by half. And if their oil tankers, are also gone, they will dive into the sea. They can't even go home. From Guam to China and back, F-22 needs it takes 6 aerial-refuels. 3 of them will be near China. That is assuming the Guam is still operational after the Ballistic missiles attacks.

J-20 is not just a game changer.

It's a GAME OVER for the aggressors.

Can the blue force still want to attack China's coast, given those odds? We are not even talking about the Ballistic missiles and S-300, S-400 SAMs yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Is that really 78278? Look at that watermark. It might be a P.S. job.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Is that really 78278? Look at that watermark. It might be a P.S. job.




100% for sure ... again an idiot with too much time !


----------



## Tiqiu

As no official news yet to confirm about how the production of the J-20 is carried out by CAC, so we can only expect that the Pulse Assembly Lines has also been set up for production at that freshly-completed plant building of CAC.

So far by confirmed news sources China has 3 Pulse Assembly Lines for the production of the J-10, JH-7 and L15. Wouldn't be surprised to see J-20, H-20 and Z-20 are also adopting it to save costs and boost production.

Boeing Apache Pulse Assembly Lines





Boeing F35 Pulse Assembly Lines

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Produce some J16 and the rest source all goes to J20. No need to produce J11d/bs,J10c any more, waste of resource. We need at least 500 Plus J20.

I finally understand why Yankees stop F22 production at a number of 178 only, cause the kill ratio is too high! Lucky that we have J20 at hands. We shall absorb the lesson of USAAF, which means never stop the J20 production line before its obsolete.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

... oh come one !

Even the PLAAF cannot afford a full J-16/J-20 fleet since there are more than enough J-7, J-8 and Q-5 to replace by something more affordable and better suited for tactical missions that these two heavy birds.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> ... oh come one !
> 
> Even the PLAAF cannot afford a full J-16/J-20 fleet since there are more than enough J-7, J-8 and Q-5 to replace by something more affordable and better suited for tactical missions that these two heavy birds.


But you know 4 gen fighter has nearly zero chance against 5th, unless something like F18 Growler. For those fighter like J7/J8/Q5, let them retire in due time even the whole member will shrink.


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> ... oh come one !
> 
> Even the PLAAF cannot afford a full J-16/J-20 fleet since there are more than enough J-7, J-8 and Q-5 to replace by something more affordable and better suited for tactical missions that these two heavy birds.



I still think that the FC-31 might have a shot at the PLAAF/PLAN following its maiden flight.


----------



## Deino

Yes ... and I'm a bit surprised since the twin-engine FC-31-concept is IMO a perfect solution to all mistakes made by the over-complex JSF-program. But at least by now it seems as if the PLA is not interested ....


----------



## rcrmj

Asok said:


> The AWACs may be gone, but the ground radars should still be able to see J-20 because they have AESA and anti-stealth radars too.
> 
> On a second thought, able too see the J-20 is probably still be useless, because they can't do Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers like J-20. Those are the real killer capabilities.



based on the 'original small talkings' ````` the 2 fat gooses approached red's AWACs, to the point where there were no chances for AWAC to escape 2 fat gooses' long range missiles' killing zone```so the theater referees called death to the AWAC```hence it left the theater`````

from the ground unit, they only seeing blinks on their screen once in a while (RCS changes when J-20 maneuvers)```even they could give a rough location to the air units, without AWAC power radar, those fighter jets' radars cant see &hit, let alone giving a stable track or lock````

btw, according to my 'hearings' (not accurate decimal digital figures, they are state secrete ) J-20's RCS is *VERY VERY VERY small *! (but dont automatically to assume its better than F-22 or F-35), and its new missiles can shoot* VERY VERY VERY long*`````!

and back to your assumption of they cant supersonic maneuver like j-20, so they lost````well actually thats not the case,`````once you dont know jack of where the 'enemy' is, to what degree you want 'super maneuver' to? 

well, anyway, there are more than 20 J-20s already in service *(this I can tell)*, and these J-20 against 'all' exercises carried out many times  you just dont know yet :p``````at the end day, those 'normal' units all ended up the same````'being slaughtered like headless chicken



wanglaokan said:


> *But you know 4 gen fighter has nearly zero chance against 5th,* unless something like F18 Growler. For those fighter like J7/J8/Q5, let them retire in due time even the whole member will shrink.


not entirely true, not entirely true，stealth units are not stealth under some circumstances````modern combat especially air combat cant fight without a system

do you remember the Rafele against F-22 exercises few years back, that brought up a huge debate?
with good tactics 4th gen can shot down 5th gen````



Deino said:


> Yes ... and I'm a bit surprised since the twin-engine FC-31-concept is IMO a perfect solution to all mistakes made by the over-complex JSF-program. But at least by now it seems as if the PLA is not interested ....


there is a medium size stealth fighter program undertaken`````be patient ``` info from top brass indicates PLAN is going to have 6 ACs in near future (so far one is under construction, and the other one is *design locked, and parts were ordered*)```and just having J-15 alone is bit 'boring'

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> ...
> there is a medium size stealth fighter program undertaken`````be patient ``` info from top brass indicates PLAN is going to have 6 ACs in near future (so far one is under construction, and the other one is *design locked, and parts were ordered*)```and just having J-15 alone is bit 'boring'




YES I know, but I also know my impatience !


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> YES I know, but I also know my impatience !


China's defense development info outflow is like a never ending stripping show````I have been a fan for more than 20 years```I get used to it

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## onebyone

*China inducting J20 stealth fighters into air force as active service planes*

*At least six J-20s stealth fighters are in active service, with four tail numbers 78271，78272，78273 and 78274 identified. And another six are ready to be delivered by end of Dec 2016

According to the Chinese aviation expert Dafeng Cao who posts under the Twitter handle @xinfengcao, six J-20 stealth fighters will be inducted into the Chinese air force at a formal ceremony later this month.


Recent speculations refer to the J-20 as an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward stealth, high-speed aerodynamics, range, and adequate agility. The J-20 could threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range. However one of these targets, the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, is reported to be optimized for spotting fighter sized stealth aircraft such as the J-20

View image on Twitter





Follow

dafeng cao @xinfengcao


Another one by eaglephoto,note the luneburg lens radar reflector on the belly.

8:55 PM - 30 Sep 2016

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=781854922786484225


6363 Retweets


6666 likes















*
*http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/china-inducting-j20-stealth-fighters.html*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> based on the 'original small talkings' ````` the 2 fat gooses approached red's AWACs, to the point where there were no chances for AWAC to escape 2 fat gooses' long range missiles' killing zone```so the theater referees called death to the AWAC```hence it left the theater`````
> 
> from the ground unit, they only seeing blinks on their screen once in a while (RCS changes when J-20 maneuvers)```even they could give a rough location to the air units, without AWAC power radar, those fighter jets' radars cant see &hit, let alone giving a stable track or lock````
> 
> btw, according to my 'hearings' (not accurate decimal digital figures, they are state secrete ) J-20's RCS is *VERY VERY VERY small *! (but dont automatically to assume its better than F-22 or F-35), and its new missiles can shoot* VERY VERY VERY long*`````!
> 
> and back to your assumption of they cant supersonic maneuver like j-20, so they lost````well actually thats not the case,`````once you dont know jack of where the 'enemy' is, to what degree you want 'super maneuver' to?
> 
> well, anyway, there are more than 20 J-20s already in service *(this I can tell)*, and these J-20 against 'all' exercises carried out many times  you just dont know yet :p``````at the end day, those 'normal' units all ended up the same````'being slaughtered like headless chicken
> 
> 
> not entirely true, not entirely true，stealth units are not stealth under some circumstances````modern combat especially air combat cant fight without a system
> 
> do you remember the Rafele against F-22 exercises few years back, that brought up a huge debate?
> with good tactics 4th gen can shot down 5th gen````
> 
> 
> there is a medium size stealth fighter program undertaken`````be patient ``` info from top brass indicates PLAN is going to have 6 ACs in near future (so far one is under construction, and the other one is *design locked, and parts were ordered*)```and just having J-15 alone is bit 'boring'


Maybe CAC can make J20 shorter and lighter, then it will be a perfect fit for the new AC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

onebyone said:


> *China inducting J20 stealth fighters into air force as active service planes*
> 
> *At least six J-20s stealth fighters are in active service, with four tail numbers 78271，78272，78273 and 78274 identified. And another six are ready to be delivered by end of Dec 2016*
> 
> *According to the Chinese aviation expert Dafeng Cao who posts under the Twitter handle @xinfengcao, six J-20 stealth fighters will be inducted into the Chinese air force at a formal ceremony later this month.*



IMO a typical hyped report, that is not that entirely correct: YES, 6 J-20s were reportedly handed over and no. 21 - 24 identified, which were already or will be transferred to Dingxin until the end of December 2016, but there were no reports about 6 already delivered and 6 more to folly by year's end.

Deino


----------



## hk299792458

Deino said:


> IMO a typical hyped report, that is not that entirely correct: YES, 6 J-20s were reportedly handed over and no. 21 - 24 identified, which were already or will be transferred to Dingxin until the end of December 2016, but there were no reports about 6 already delivered and 6 more to folly by year's end.
> 
> Deino



According to my analysis (http://www.eastpendulum.com/quelques-rumeurs-sur-le-j-20), the FAL of J-20 can at least afford the production of 7 aircrafts in once.

If we saw 6 J-20 coming out now, which had been manufactured in 2016 (1 year time ??), it means that probably another 6 or 7 are currently in the line, so for me quite not possible to have 6 more before the end of 2016, but most likely after the Q1 next year.

The admin of FY forum had said a few days ago (??) that next year there will have between 6 to 12 J-20 going out from the FAL, and for me this is closer to the supposed reality, if I base on my experience in aircraft production.

Ramp up is not an easy thing, remember the ramp up rate of J-10. This is a very good example of a fully controlled and intelligent production ramp up.

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

onebyone said:


> *China inducting J20 stealth fighters into air force as active service planes*
> 
> *At least six J-20s stealth fighters are in active service, with four tail numbers 78271，78272，78273 and 78274 identified. And another six are ready to be delivered by end of Dec 2016*
> 
> *According to the Chinese aviation expert Dafeng Cao who posts under the Twitter handle @xinfengcao, six J-20 stealth fighters will be inducted into the Chinese air force at a formal ceremony later this month.*
> 
> 
> *Recent speculations refer to the J-20 as an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward stealth, high-speed aerodynamics, range, and adequate agility. The J-20 could threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range. However one of these targets, the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, is reported to be optimized for spotting fighter sized stealth aircraft such as the J-20*
> 
> *View image on Twitter*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> * Follow*
> *
> 
> dafeng cao @xinfengcao*
> 
> 
> *Another one by eaglephoto,note the luneburg lens radar reflector on the belly.*
> 
> *8:55 PM - 30 Sep 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6363 Retweets
> 
> 
> 
> 6666 likes
> *
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/china-inducting-j20-stealth-fighters.html*



"J-20 as an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward stealth, high-speed aerodynamics, range, and adequate agility."

LOL. Saying J-20 has "adequate agility" is like saying F-22 has "adequate agility". or Bill Gates has "adequate wealth". 

Some foolish people still think J-20 is "underpowered" and only has "adequate agility" and has not so good stealth, no networking capability, and poor sensory, it's canards are not stealth, it is based on the Mig1.44, and will stop production at 200 units.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> "J-20 as an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward stealth, high-speed aerodynamics, range, and adequate agility."
> 
> LOL. Like F-22 has "adequate agility". or like Bill Gates has "adequate wealth". Some foolish people still think J-20 is "underpowered" and only has "adequate agility" and no so good stealth and no networking capability, and poor sensory and will stop production at 200 units.


they live in there fantasy world bro

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1849692&extra=page=1&_dsign=0ccab1bf

This report has indicated China now has two pulse production lines for J-20.

In August 19, two Chinese J-20 pulse production lines commenced operation, The production line has five stations, each station will take 8-9 days to finish its share of works. From start to finish, it will take 45 days to finish a plane, making it's annual capacity of 36 planes per year, or 72 planes for both production lines.

"8月19日，中航工业成飞总装厂举行“飞机总装站位式生产启动仪式”，标志着成飞总体装配进入了一个新模式。"

"每一个站位的装配节点8到9天，用45天左右的时间完成一架军机的装配，达到交付状态。'

Once the factory start production in full speed, every 4-5 days, there will be a new J-20 rolling off the production lines. In contrast, the F-35 factory could produce one plane per day.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Another report from << China Aviation >> has indicated China has increased the J-20 production lines from 2 to 3. This enables 3 planes to roll off the assembly lines at the same time.

《中國航空報》的報道做進一步推測，殲-20生產線很可能已由原來的2條增加到3條，一批次的產量隨之提高到3架。"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Asok said:


> http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1849692&extra=page=1&_dsign=0ccab1bf
> 
> This report has indicated China now has two pulse production lines for J-20.
> 
> In August 19, two Chinese J-20 pulse production lines commenced operation, The production line has five stations, each station will take 8-9 days to finish its share of works. From start to finish, it will take 45 days to finish a plane, making it's annual capacity of 36 planes per year, or 72 planes for both production lines.
> 
> "8月19日，中航工业成飞总装厂举行“飞机总装站位式生产启动仪式”，标志着成飞总体装配进入了一个新模式。"
> 
> "每一个站位的装配节点8到9天，用45天左右的时间完成一架军机的装配，达到交付状态。'
> 
> Once the factory start production in full speed, every 4-5 days, there will be a new J-20 rolling off the production lines. In contrast, the F-35 factory could produce one plane per day.



The poster mentioned something about the FC-31. Could you summarize what was it that he/she wrote?

Thanks. (Text regarding FC-31 is at bottom of the post.)


----------



## Asoka

SinoSoldier said:


> The poster mentioned something about the FC-31. Could you summarize what was it that he/she wrote?
> 
> Thanks. (Text regarding FC-31 is at bottom of the post.)



"如果再加2条，5 6天出一架改进型歼20。画面不敢看。。。
看来FC31只能外卖了。"

It simply says if every 5 or 6 days there will be a new J-20, FC-31 can only be exported. FC-31 is a joke in the minds of Chinese fans. Only God knows what was Shengyan Aviation thinking when it produced this junk. I predict no one will buy it. Total garbage. Worse than F-35. At least F-35 has a very powerful engine and world class avionics and AESA radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Asok said:


> "如果再加2条，5 6天出一架改进型歼20。画面不敢看。。。
> 看来FC31只能外卖了。"
> 
> It simply says if every 5 or 6 days there will be a new J-20, FC-31 can only be exported. FC-31 is a joke in the minds of Chinese fans. Only God knows what was Shengyan Aviation thinking when it produced this junk. I predict no one will buy it. Total garbage. Worse than F-35. At least F-35 has a very powerful engine and world class avionics and AESA radar.



Before anyone brushes the FC-31 off, I'd imagine that PLAAF/PLANAF would at least take a look at the V2 prototype or give it a few test flights. Given the information released so far, it seems like a potent low-cost alternative to the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

SinoSoldier said:


> Before anyone brushes the FC-31 off, I'd imagine that PLAAF/PLANAF would at least take a look at the V2 prototype or give it a few test flights. Given the information released so far, it seems like a potent low-cost alternative to the F-35.



"a potent low-cost alternative " LOL. It's a junky little plane like the Japanese Shinshen. There is not one distinguished feature about it. It's at the same level of technology as the LCA. The "Stealth" is completely a marketing trip without the other 3S. Those idiots at Shengyan are wasting Taxpayers' money.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Asok said:


> "a potent low-cost alternative " LOL. It's a junky little plane like the Japanese Shinshen. There is not one distinguished feature about it. It's at the same level of technology as the LCA. The "Stealth" is completely a marketing trip without the other 3S. Those idiots at Shengyan are wasting Taxpayers' money.



Not sure where you are pulling those comparisons from.

The Shinshin is a technology demonstrator, not a fully-fledged prototype (or even a precursor like the X-35/YF-22). Its mission is to validate Mitsubishi's grasp of VLO airframe design, RAM, and perhaps TVC technologies with its engine. What really takes the cake would be the F-3, the follow-on Japanese aircraft that would have roots in the Shinshin.

As for comparing the FC-31 to the LCA... I'll simply assume that you were being hyperbolic and leave it at that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

SinoSoldier said:


> Not sure where you are pulling those comparisons from.
> 
> The Shinshin is a technology demonstrator, not a fully-fledged prototype (or even a precursor like the X-35/YF-22). Its mission is to validate Mitsubishi's grasp of VLO airframe design, RAM, and perhaps TVC technologies with its engine. What really takes the cake would be the F-3, the follow-on Japanese aircraft that would have roots in the Shinshin.
> 
> As for comparing the FC-31 to the LCA... I'll simply assume that you were being hyperbolic and leave it at that.



Well, that's true "Shinshin is a technology demonstrator", and FC-31 is not even demonstrator of any new technology. It's fishing plane, 钓鱼机. Hoping to wheel in a sucker with big money. Hope Pakistanis don't fall for it. They are our loyal friends. They don't deserve this trash.

Any way, we are off topic on this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Asok said:


> Well, that's true "Shinshin is a technology demonstrator", and FC-31 is not even demonstrator of any new technology. It's fishing plane, 钓鱼机. Hoping to wheel in a sucker with big money. Hope Pakistanis don't fall for it. They are our loyal friends.
> 
> Any way, we are off topic on this thread.



And on what technical basis are you claiming the above?


----------



## Asoka

SinoSoldier said:


> And on what technical basis are you claiming the above?



Well, what new technology or great selling point does FC-31 has?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Asok said:


> Well, what new technology or great selling point does FC-31 has?



It doesn't need novel gadgets to be a good export or PLA(N)AF candidate. If it can more or less come close to the F-35 in terms of performance, or offer a lower price, its prospects would be decent. If the rumors regarding its AESA radar, airframe enhancements, sensors, and engine upgrades are true, the chances of that happening is quite high.

Countries in the ME would be particularly interested given Israel's induction of the F-35 _Adir_. RSAF and PAF officers were allegedly quite interested in the program during the 2016 Zhuhai Airshow recently.


----------



## randomradio

I'm actually looking forward to the J-10 replacement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

randomradio said:


> I'm actually looking forward to the J-10 replacement.



There probably won't be one. The J-10 has outstanding maneuverability. It's probably the best it can be in 3rd generation fighter. After that, it's probably just 5th and 6th generation fighters controlling their drones, which could act as throw away armory carrying extra missiles..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Is this a J-20 thread anymore, looks like i'm on a wrong thread, thanks to our usual suspect "sinosoldier" 
I request our Chinese bro not to fall for the faker's trap, thankyou

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## randomradio

Asok said:


> There probably won't be one. The J-10 has outstanding maneuverability. It's probably the best it can be in 3rd generation fighter. After that, it's probably just 5th and 6th generation fighters controlling their drones, which could act as throw away armory carrying extra missiles..



I was referring to a 5th gen replacement for the J-10.

Anyway, if you use a Chinese generation term in one sentence, don't use a Western gen term in another, it's confusing. Preferably on western forums, maybe you can stick to using western gen terms.


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> I was referring to a 5th gen replacement for the J-10.
> 
> Anyway, if you use a Chinese generation term in one sentence, don't use a Western gen term in another, it's confusing. Preferably on western forums, maybe you can stick to using western gen terms.



Current trends sort of suggest that the J-20 would replace both the J-10 + J-11 as an air-superiority aircraft with added air-to-surface capability. Of course, that doesn't rule out the military purchasing FC-31s a few years down the line.


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## randomradio

SinoSoldier said:


> Current trends sort of suggest that the J-20 would replace both the J-10 + J-11 as an air-superiority aircraft with added air-to-surface capability. Of course, that doesn't rule out the military purchasing FC-31s a few years down the line.



That doesn't make much sense. You want a smaller aircraft complementing your larger aircraft. There are quite a few reasons for that. If a J-20 crashes, you will be grounding your fleet for a while. It won't be good if that grounds your entire 5th gen fleet.

And you don't need to follow the US policy of high and low end. You can have a large high end and a smaller high end jet also, similar to IAF with the MKI/Rafale, FGFA/AMCA. The smaller jet can be made more advanced as well, while developing it within a much shorter time frame by using J-20's tech.

As for the FC-31, from what I've read, it was developed without PLAAF input. So I don't think it has relevance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> That doesn't make much sense. You want a smaller aircraft complementing your larger aircraft. There are quite a few reasons for that. If a J-20 crashes, you will be grounding your fleet for a while. It won't be good if that grounds your entire 5th gen fleet.
> 
> And you don't need to follow the US policy of high and low end. You can have a large high end and a smaller high end jet also, similar to IAF with the MKI/Rafale, FGFA/AMCA. The smaller jet can be made more advanced as well, while developing it within a much shorter time frame by using J-20's tech.
> 
> As for the FC-31, from what I've read, it was developed without PLAAF input. So I don't think it has relevance.



Which is why I said that the FC-31 could potentially be a complement (despite not having received any military funding) to the J-20.

The J-10 would one day have to be replaced. If you were talking about a 4.5/5th gen hi-lo mix, then the J-10C already serves as the "low" end of the fighter spectrum.


----------



## randomradio

SinoSoldier said:


> Which is why I said that the FC-31 could potentially be a complement (despite not having received any military funding) to the J-20.
> 
> The J-10 would one day have to be replaced. If you were talking about a 4.5/5th gen hi-lo mix, then the J-10C already serves as the "low" end of the fighter spectrum.



A previous gen aircraft will form the low end.

But I'm looking forward to a smaller high end 5th gen aircraft that's designed to be superior to the current J-20. Maybe a first flight over the next 2 or 3 years and induction after 2023.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> A previous gen aircraft will form the low end.
> 
> But I'm looking forward to a smaller high end 5th gen aircraft that's designed to be superior to the current J-20. Maybe a first flight over the next 2 or 3 years and induction after 2023.



You mean, a 6th generation aircraft?


----------



## Asoka

randomradio said:


> A previous gen aircraft will form the low end.
> 
> But I'm looking forward to a smaller high end 5th gen aircraft that's designed to be superior to the current J-20. Maybe a first flight over the next 2 or 3 years and induction after 2023.



A swarm of stealthy, cheap, expendable, unmanned drones, carrying extra missiles, commanded by J-20 will form the low end of the spectrum. They could be sent ahead of the J-20s to clear the path. Anyone trying to shoot them down will expose their presence and position to the J-20s. The stealthy oil tanker drones could also refuel other drones and J-20. Drones could also speed ahead and spread out to act as advance spotters, supplying targeting informations and other intelligences, for the J-20s, using IRST and other passive sensors.

With the help of the drones, a single J-20 could command a vast area with a high degree of battlefield persistence and situational awareness.

It takes years to train a good pilot, so to lose one is a heavy blow. 150-200 hrs of training a year is very expensive. The advantage of unmanned drones is that no training for the "pilot" is required. That is a huge saving. Plus no need to worry about sacrificing a pilot, so you could use them more daringly. The potent combination of Supercomputer, AI, Big Data and Deep Learning is just around the corner.

It might be able to make better decisions than human soon.

The J-10s, and J-11s could still be very useful to bomb the hell out of the enemy positions, but for aerial combats, leave that to the J-20s and their drones.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## randomradio

SinoSoldier said:


> You mean, a 6th generation aircraft?



No. A 5.5th gen jet if you want to call it that. Nobody has yet defined a 6th gen jet.


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> No. A 5.5th gen jet if you want to call it that. Nobody has yet defined a 6th gen jet.



Nobody knows what the Chinese have planned as a successor.


----------



## randomradio

SinoSoldier said:


> Nobody knows what the Chinese have planned as a successor.



Yes. That's why...


randomradio said:


> I'm actually looking forward to the J-10 replacement.



This will give interesting ideas on how design has progressed over the last 10 years in China.


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> Yes. That's why...
> 
> 
> This will give interesting ideas on how design has progressed over the last 10 years in China.



And I gave you the answer in the second post: the J-20 will eventually overtake the role of the J-10 once its successor comes into service.


----------



## randomradio

SinoSoldier said:


> And I gave you the answer in the second post: the J-20 will eventually overtake the role of the J-10 once its successor comes into service.



I don't think you got my point. What you are talking about is at least 20-25 years away. I'm talking about the next 5-10 years.

Anyway, China has been emulating the American concept of war. So there's a pretty good chance there is a J-XX in the works that will directly replace the J-10.


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> I don't think you got my point. What you are talking about is at least 20-25 years away. I'm talking about the next 5-10 years.
> 
> Anyway, China has been emulating the American concept of war. So there's a pretty good chance there is a J-XX in the works that will directly replace the J-10.



I don't think so. In the same way that you don't see another US 5th-gen fighter replacing the F-16/18/ (besides the F-35), it would be redundant for the Chinese to develop another analogue of the FC-31.


----------



## DCS

I have seen a CAC proposal, a smaller fifth generation single engine fighter based around the WS-15. It will have engine commonality with the J-20, while enjoying lower costs per flying hour. The J-10 has thrived alongside the J-11/15/16 series for much the same reasons.

FC-31 is a smaller twin engine fighter with analogous costs of operation to the J-20. It is using a different class of engines than the rest of the fleet. The only argument for it was service in the PLANAF, where its form factor could potentially be an asset. It makes more sense for the PAF and its fleet of JF-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

SinoSoldier said:


> I don't think so. In the same way that you don't see another US 5th-gen fighter replacing the F-16/18/ (besides the F-35), it would be redundant for the Chinese to develop another analogue of the FC-31.



FC-31? Please be serious. It's not a PLAAF project. At best SAC can only offer it to PLAAF.



DCS said:


> I have seen a CAC proposal, a smaller fifth generation single engine fighter based around the WS-15. It will have engine commonality with the J-20, while enjoying lower costs per flying hour. The J-10 has thrived alongside the J-11/15/16 series for much the same reasons.



Yes. I want to see how this jet will be designed, a single engine aircraft. Particularly if it will be designed with VSTOL/VTOL in mind.


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> FC-31? Please be serious. It's not a PLAAF project. A*t best SAC can only offer it to PLAAF.*



Seems like you've answered your own question. If the PLAAF saw a need to replace the J-10 with something other than the J-20 (as you propose), they could readily purchase the FC-31.


----------



## randomradio

SinoSoldier said:


> Seems like you've answered your own question. If the PLAAF saw a need to replace the J-10 with something other than the J-20 (as you propose), they could readily purchase the FC-31.



The FC-31 isn't a unique aircraft, it is simply a smaller and less capable J-20. It won't make sense to replace the J-10 with that. If such an aircraft was necessary, you can have a much cheaper single engine jet similar to what DCS recommended.

My view is to develop an aircraft that's smaller than the J-20, but superior in many ways. The FC-31 doesn't offer anything of the sort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

randomradio said:


> The FC-31 isn't a unique aircraft, it is simply a smaller and less capable J-20. It won't make sense to replace the J-10 with that. If such an aircraft was necessary, you can have a much cheaper single engine jet similar to what DCS recommended.
> 
> My view is to develop an aircraft that's smaller than the J-20, but superior in many ways. The FC-31 doesn't offer anything of the sort.



Why are you adamant that the current J-20 doesn't suffice as a J-10 replacement? If it's a size issue, I've already explained the option of purchasing the FC-31.


----------



## slng

randomradio said:


> Yes. That's why...
> 
> 
> This will give interesting ideas on how design has progressed over the last 10 years in China.


you contained yourself in US superiority master concept.
if US didnt intro or use it, nobody else would.

you think ALL invention can only conceptalize in that holy land?
is that how Indian progress all these while?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## randomradio

slng said:


> you contained yourself in US superiority master concept.
> if US didnt intro or use it, nobody else would.
> 
> you think ALL invention can only conceptalize in that holy land?
> is that how Indian progress all these while?



Dunno what your post has to do with what I said.


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... can we leave the FC-31 out of this discussion ?? ... and even more anything concerning India?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> *Guys ... can we leave the FC-31 out of this discussion ?? ... and even more anything concerning India?*


No more mention of the idiotic thing, FC-31, please. It hurts my brain every time some one praise it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> No more mention of the idiotic thing, FC-31, please. It hurts my brain every time some one praise it.




But that's another request: The FC-31 is NOT stupid and that it hurts Your brain is probably an issue You alone have to solve. So again, please be not that biased, since Your hate on that type is IMO completely unjustified.

But anyway it is wrong here in the J-20-thread.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Asok said:


> http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1849692&extra=page=1&_dsign=0ccab1bf
> 
> This report has indicated China now has two pulse production lines for J-20.
> 
> In August 19, two Chinese J-20 pulse production lines commenced operation, The production line has five stations, each station will take 8-9 days to finish its share of works. From start to finish, it will take 45 days to finish a plane, making it's annual capacity of 36 planes per year, or 72 planes for both production lines.
> 
> "8月19日，中航工业成飞总装厂举行“飞机总装站位式生产启动仪式”，标志着成飞总体装配进入了一个新模式。"
> 
> "每一个站位的装配节点8到9天，用45天左右的时间完成一架军机的装配，达到交付状态。'
> 
> Once the factory start production in full speed, every 4-5 days, there will be a new J-20 rolling off the production lines. In contrast, the F-35 factory could produce one plane per day.



Three J-20 every month. Each production line 36 a year. Two lines. 72 a year. Three regiments a year.

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1849698-1-1.html

Can anyone debunk any of this?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

I would be quite careful with such claims. If all reports are correct, then we have seen about a dozen J-20s this year and that's already a huge achievement. To triple this to a rate of 36 is close to the production rate of J-10s ... and this has been quite constant since years.

As such ... I would prefer to wait and see.

Deino


----------



## Ahmer Rana

Big development for China...china inducting j-20 stealth fighters into airforce as active service planes
Atleast six j-20 are in active service with four tail numbers 78271,78272,78273 and 78274 identified and another six are ready to be inducted.According to Chinese aviation expert Dafang Cal who posts under the Twitter handle@xinfengcao, six j20 fighters will be inducted into the Chinese airforce at a formal ceremony later this month.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ahmer Rana

_http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/china-inducting-j20-stealth-fighters.html_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well Six is a start , congradulation from China however I think the plane needs 3-4 more years to properly mature and develop further (In term of marketing and outreach and impact)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Here is another picture of WS-10, on a J-11BS, for people who like to believe J-20 is using a variant of WS-10.

Does it look like what you saw on any pictures of J-20?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

j20blackdragon said:


> Three J-20 every month. Each production line 36 a year. Two lines. 72 a year. Three regiments a year.
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1849698-1-1.html
> 
> Can anyone debunk any of this?



After more than 10 years of production, all J-10 serial production lines conbined produce 3 to 4 aircrafts per month.

And now someone claims that since the 2nd year of (pre)serial production, the J-20 could reach 6 per month ?

Sorry, but I think in chinese you call it 打了鸡血, isn't it ?

More seriously, today no any official information confirm this production rate, and in an another hand, pilots transformation couldn't follow. Unless you want to see a lot of planes grounded but without any pilot trained for.

My current (personal) estimation is maximum 7 aircrafts every 9 months. More reasonable the rate could be 1 coming from FAL per month, and each produced aircraft stays 6 months in 132 for factory test flight before delivery.

http://www.eastpendulum.com/quelques-rumeurs-sur-le-j-20

An another factor to be taken into account is the number of engines available.

Even in the case that J-20 uses any WS-10 variant (today I don't believe a word on it), it means you need at least 90 engines per year if you produce 72 aircraft. If today it is already not the case with all Shenyang produced aircrafts, what make us believe that on top of that they can produce 72 to 90 additional engines ?

In the case that J-20 uses AL-31FN like engine, that I still suppose today, one needs to have information on how many engines have been orderd, and how many left today.

Maybe you can based on a similar estimation I made for Y-20 production for further estimation.

http://www.eastpendulum.com/chine-achete-224-moteurs-d-30kp-2

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

hk299792458 said:


> After more than 10 years of production, all J-10 serial production lines conbined produce 3 to 4 aircrafts per month.
> 
> And now someone claims that since the 2nd year of (pre)serial production, the J-20 could reach 6 per month ?
> 
> Sorry, but I think in chinese you call it 打了鸡血, isn't it ?
> 
> More seriously, today no any official information confirm this production rate, and in an another hand, pilots transformation couldn't follow. Unless you want to see a lot of planes grounded but without any pilot trained for.
> 
> My current (personal) estimation is maximum 7 aircrafts every 9 months. More reasonable the rate could be 1 coming from FAL per month, and each produced aircraft stays 6 months in 132 for factory test flight before delivery.
> 
> http://www.eastpendulum.com/quelques-rumeurs-sur-le-j-20
> 
> An another factor to be taken into account is the number of engines available.
> 
> Even in the case that J-20 uses any WS-10 variant (today I don't believe a word on it), it means you need at least 90 engines per year if you produce 72 aircraft. If today it is already not the case with all Shenyang produced aircrafts, what make us believe that on top of that they can produce 72 to 90 additional engines ?
> 
> In the case that J-20 uses AL-31FN like engine, that I still suppose today, one needs to have information on how many engines have been orderd, and how many left today.
> 
> Maybe you can based on a similar estimation I made for Y-20 production for further estimation.
> 
> http://www.eastpendulum.com/chine-achete-224-moteurs-d-30kp-2
> 
> Henri K.



Your reasoning is flawed because J-10 was never an urgent high priority project that was much needed. All indications points to J-20 is very urgently needed, and has very very high priority in ordered to counter US aggression against China. 

Can't you hear the war drums have been beating against China in the last 5 years?

With Trump not even in power yet, the Neocons and Neolibs are already trying to steer Trump onto a war path against China. You will hear even more war drums beating in the coming months and years. 

50-100 J-20s is urgently needed right now to train "seed" pilots and develop new tactics and doctrines to integrate J-20 into the existing infrastructures.

If I were China, I would open 3-4 production lines and keep them going full blast until we have 100-200 planes.



Asok said:


> Your reasoning is flawed because J-10 was never an urgent high priority project that was much needed. All indications points to J-20 is very urgently needed, and has very very high priority in ordered to counter US aggression against China.
> 
> Can't you hear the war drums have been beating against China in the last 5 years?
> 
> With Trump not even in power yet, the Neocons and Neolibs are already trying to steer Trump onto a war path against China. You will hear even more war drums beating in the coming months and years.
> 
> 50-100 J-20s is urgently needed right now to train "seed" pilots and develop new tactics and doctrines to integrate J-20 into the existing infrastructures.
> 
> If I were China, I would open 3-4 production lines and keep them going full blast until we have 100-200 planes.



Similarly, the Chinese Navy's ship building activities is in full blast, 3 Yuan class AIP submarines were commissioned at the same time, numerous destroyers and frigates were also commissioned in the last 3 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Maxpane

Guys i heard that engine of j 20 not strong enough is it true? Is china going to repace it anyother engine to give this bird a proper power .


----------



## cirr

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Well Six is a start , congradulation from China however I think the plane needs 3-4 more years to properly mature and develop further (In term of marketing and outreach and impact)



J-20A1->A2 ongoing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Maxpane said:


> Guys i heard that engine of j 20 not strong enough is it true? Is china going to repace it anyother engine to give this bird a proper power .


Define "strong enough". It's the same engine that powers J-10 and Su-27.


----------



## Maxpane

S10 said:


> Define "strong enough". It's the same engine that powers J-10 and Su-27.


Bro i heard that jet's engine does not provide it superspeed. I just want to know that . No offence


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> I would be quite careful with such claims. If all reports are correct, then we have seen about a dozen J-20s this year and that's already a huge achievement. To triple this to a rate of 36 is close to the production rate of J-10s ... and this has been quite constant since years.
> 
> As such ... I would prefer to wait and see.
> 
> Deino





Maxpane said:


> Guys i heard that engine of j 20 not strong enough is it true? Is china going to repace it anyother engine to give this bird a proper power .


Currently J-20 uses AL-31FN3 or WS-10X but within a year WS-15 will ready, WS-15 completed its ground tests this year and started testing air testing on IL-78 engine testbed



Maxpane said:


> Bro i heard that jet's engine does not provide it superspeed. I just want to know that . No offence


WS-15


----------



## Maxpane

pakistanipower said:


> Currently J-20 uses AL-31FN3 or WS-10X but within a year WS-15 will ready, WS-15 completed its ground tests this year and started testing air testing on IL-78 engin
> 
> WS-15


 so ws 15 will provide this speed


----------



## Ultima Thule

Maxpane said:


> so ws 15 will provide this speed


Yes,it is in the same class as P&W F119, P&W F135 and AL-41


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

cirr said:


> J-20A1->A2 ongoing.


will china give the best with all technologies to Pakistan?


----------



## Asoka

Maxpane said:


> Bro i heard that jet's engine does not provide it superspeed. I just want to know that . No offence



Not true, brother Maxpane. If J-20 is "underpowered", it will not be able to Supercruise, and test the Supersonic maneuverability. China have tested those 4S parameters thoroughly and the Commander of PLAAF found the performance "very satisfactory."

China has not disclosed much about the J-20 Engine, because, we wants to hide some astounding secrets. We don't want to show all our cards yet.



naveedullahkhankhattak said:


> will china give the best with all technologies to Pakistan?



China might teach Pakistan how to design and manufacture a J-10 like fighter to succeed FC-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Maxpane

Asok said:


> Not true, brother Maxpane. If J-20 is "underpowered", it will not be able to Supercruise, and test the Supersonic maneuverability. China have tested those 4S parameters thoroughly and the Commander of PLAAF found the performance "very satisfactory."
> 
> China has not disclosed much about the J-20 Engine, because, we wants to hide some astounding secrets. We don't want to show all our cards yet.
> 
> 
> 
> China might teach Pakistan how to design and manufacture a J-10 like fighter to succeed FC-17.


Okay bro thanks for explaining

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Here is another picture of WS-10, on a J-11BS, for people who like to believe J-20 is using a variant of WS-10.
> 
> Does it look like what you saw on any pictures of J-20?


But @Asok bro it might be possible that J-20 is using specialized version of WS-10 or Al-31FN3 but not WS-15, couple of pages pages back @ChineseTiger1986 stated that WS-15 completed ground testing and start air testing on IL-76 engine test-bed, *so how it can be possible that J-20 is using WS-15 currently?*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Some really nice HD pictures from the Air Show China (some may have been posted before, but not as HD as these ones)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Maxpane

grey boy 2 said:


> Some really nice HD pictures from the Air Show China (some may have been posted before, but not as HD as these ones)


Wooooow beast :-*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> But @Asok bro it might be possible that J-20 is using specialized version of WS-10 or Al-31FN3 but not WS-15, couple of pages pages back @ChineseTiger1986 stated that WS-15 completed ground testing and start air testing on IL-76 engine test-bed, *so how it can be possible that J-20 is using WS-15 currently?*



I have read that report. It's a typical mis/disinformation Chinese official report, designed to mislead western intelligence. It does not state which engine is undergoing test and carefully hide all other vital informations, so the report is vague and intentionally misleading. It says little and then let the West's ignorant/arrogant to do the work of mislead themselves. China have more than one engine with high TWR under development for various aircrafts. The fact is no videos have shown J-20 is "underpowered". All shows J-20 could do those amazing maneuvers without the using of afterburners, an astounding fact. I have seen that F-22, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, T-50, F-16, Typhoon, all need to engage the afterburners for those agile moves.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maxpane

Maneuver without afterburne =-O


----------



## Deino

@Asok I would really appreciate to calm down !

Even if the J-20 appearance at Zhuhai was indeed an amazing even t - as well as the display practicing at CAC before - it was nothing any other modern fighter could do without the use of afterburner.

In fact the nearly 60 second-display was - in comparison to other aerial displays we know from other types - even lame.

So please calm down and don't tell us You could conclude from this few seconds that it uses a WS-15, that's plain impossible. As such can we cam back to reality ?


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asok I would really appreciate to calm down !
> 
> Even if the J-20 appearance at Zhuhai was indeed an amazing even t - as well as the display practicing at CAC before - it was nothing any other modern fighter could do without the use of afterburner.
> 
> In fact the nearly 60 second-display was - in comparison to other aerial displays we know from other types - even lame.
> 
> So please calm down and don't tell us You could conclude from this few seconds that it uses a WS-15, that's plain impossible. As such can we cam back to reality ?



Review all other videos on youtube, and all the pictures you got of J-20, and tell me when was afterburner used.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

Asok said:


> Review all other videos on youtube, and all the pictures you got of J-20, and tell me when was afterburner used.


apparently, you didn't read the "even if" part.


----------



## Asoka

nang2 said:


> apparently, you didn't read the "even if" part.



An "underpowered" plane able to amazing moves, while not using the afterburners. And the most powerful planes like F-22 and Su-35 and T50 have to use afterburners doing similar moves. 

Apparently, this significance doesn't mean anything to some people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Review all other videos on youtube, and all the pictures you got of J-20, and tell me when was afterburner used.




No it was not, but the point is that You are hyping these - and I don't want to use the term lame - but "at least unimpressive climbs and turns as being hyper-manoeuvrable !! Come on. Did You ever see the T50 or F-22 ... and what the J-20 did can any other fighter do without AB too.

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I have seen that F-22, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, T-50, F-16, Typhoon, all need to engage the afterburners for those agile moves.


What are you talking about bro, all those fighter are capable to do same maneuver without afterburner,* F-22 can't do that manueuver without afterburner are live in denial mode*



Asok said:


> An "underpowered" plane able to amazing moves, while not using the afterburners. And the most powerful planes like F-22 and Su-35 and T50 have to use afterburners doing similar moves.
> 
> Apparently, this significance doesn't mean anything to some people.


*where show us*? *that doesn't mean J-20 is using WS-15, may be it uses higher thrust versions WS-10X or AL-31FN3 but surely not WS-15*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> No it was not, but the point is that You are hyping these - and I don't want to use the term lame - but "at least unimpressive climbs and turns as being hyper-manoeuvrable !! Come on. Did You ever see the T50 or F-22 ... and what the J-20 did can any other fighter do without AB too.
> 
> Deino




Now, here you are confused, like a car going up a steep hill, it can going over a hill by just using its own momentum if its FAST enough. If it starts the hill slowly, the driver must step on the gas pedal hard.

So if a plane starts those "at least unimpressive climbs and turns" slowly, it will not able to use just its own momentum to do a vertical climb, and it must use extra power. If it can do without turning on its afterburner, its shows its military power is very high and its TWR is > 1.

I think those " hyper-manoeuvrable" moves by F-22 and T-50 you are referring to those post-install, twists and turns moves that wow the audiences at various airshow. I have been wondering why we don't see that with J-20.

In aerial combats, those moves quickly bleeds your energy and move your plane into post-install speed, those are "death-inducing" moves. Your opponents can quickly shoot you down with its gun while you are moving slowly.

So those "hyper-manoeuvrable" are very impressive with the audience, but they are laughed at by experienced pilots. You don't live very long if you pull those stunts in front of an enemy.



pakistanipower said:


> What are you talking about bro, all those fighter are capable to do same maneuver without afterburner,* F-22 can't do that manueuver without afterburner are live in denial mode*
> 
> 
> *where show us*? *that doesn't mean J-20 is using WS-15, may be it uses higher thrust versions WS-10X or AL-31FN3 but surely not WS-15*



Yes, I have seen F-22 able to do that without afterburners, and F-22 is called the most powerful fighter in the world. While J-20 can also do that, and it's called "underpowered". 

Show me a plane with WS-10X or Al-31FN3 that can do Slow Vertical Climb, Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers without afterburner.

If you can, I shut up for good.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

I give up ... I simply give up !!


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Show me a plane with WS-10X or Al-31FN3 that can do Slow Vertical Climb, Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers without afterburner.


bro you live in your fantasy world, too much imaginations and false assumptions *@ChineseTiger1986, @cirr, @Beast and other respected Chinese military insiders clearly stated that WS-15 is in air testing mode, **so how can it be it on the J-20?** so i believe on them* *not in you, you're newbie on this forum,you have too much false assumptions under your belt * , *why you insisting that J-20 is using WS-15 just in your wishful thinking as for your information typhoon, RAFALE and Su-35 can super-cruise without afterburner with limited air to air loadout  *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> bro you live in your fantasy world, too much imaginations and false assumptions *@ChineseTiger1986, @cirr, @Beast and other respected Chinese military insiders clearly stated that WS-15 is in air testing mode, **so how can it be it on the J-20?** so i believe on them* *not in you, you're newbie on this forum,you have too much false assumptions under your belt * , *why you insisting that J-20 is using WS-15 just in your wishful thinking as for your information typhoon, RAFALE and Su-35 can super-cruise without afterburner with limited air to air loadout  *



I asked for an example of a plane with an WS-10x or AL-31FN engine that could Slow Vertical Climb, Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers without afterburner. Is "typhoon, RAFALE and Su-35" all using WS-10x or AL-31FN engine?

I didn't know that.

Are they also labeled as "underpowered" like J-20? 

If not, why is J-20, the only one called "underpowered"?

What is your evidences that J-20 is ever "underpowered", other than you presumption?

Show me the evidence that J-20 is "underpowered" or it is not using WS-15 already. Your presumption need proofs to establish too. You can't state your assumption without any proof and then ask proof of other people with different conclusion.

Here in Wikipedia, it says Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen NG could also Supercruise:






But they are not stealth fighters, they must carry extra fuel tanks and weapons externally. That increases a lot of drag. So unless they are carrying combat loading while Supercruise without afterburner, its meaningless. 

Just marketing hype.

And can they perform sustained Supersonic maneuvers under combat loading?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I ask an example of a plane with an WS-10x or AL-31FN engine that could Slow Vertical Climb, Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers without afterburner. Is typhoon, RAFALE and Su-35" all using WS-10x or AL-31FN engine? I didn't know that.


are you insane or something it clearly believe on @ChineseTiger1986 ,@cirr ,@Beast and other respected, senior Chinese stated that *"J-20 is not with the WS-15 currently" *and i am answering to your this quote 
*I have seen that F-22, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, T-50, F-16, Typhoon, all need to engage the afterburners for those agile moves.for your post# 7157 you are an idiot*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I asked for an example of a plane with an WS-10x or AL-31FN engine that could Slow Vertical Climb, Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuvers without afterburner. ...



We have no images seen but we also have not seen any video - and especially not at Zhuhai - that the J-20 did anything super-manoeuvrable, super-sonic ... nothing was super but it's appearance.

Simply take it as a fact that display was a show of confidence, nothing more. There was nothing special and as such nothing to deduct anything in regard to a hyper-super WS-15. Period.

As such I beg You simply to end this here right now. ... or to take away whatever You are smoking.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> are you insane or something it clearly believe on @ChineseTiger1986 ,@cirr ,@Beast and other respected, senior Chinese stated that *"J-20 is not with the WS-15 currently" *and i am answering to your this quote
> *I have seen that F-22, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, T-50, F-16, Typhoon, all need to engage the afterburners for those agile moves.for your post# 7157 you are an idiot*



The current engine that the J-20 uses isn't the "full blooded " WS-15, but it has many aspects of the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> We have no images seen but we also have not seen any video - and especially not at Zhuhai - that the J-20 did anything super-manoeuvrable, super-sonic ... nothing was super but it's appearance.
> 
> Simply take it as a fact that display was a show of confidence, nothing more. There was nothing special and as such nothing to deduct anything in regard to a hyper-super WS-15. Period.
> 
> As such I beg You simply to end this here right now. ... or to take away whatever You are smoking.
> 
> Deino


sir he lives in to much false assumptions and wishful thinking, it clearly stated by @ChineseTiger1986 , @cirr ,@Beast and other repected, senior members that *"WS-15 is in the air testing mode"* Thank you



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The current engine that the J-20 uses isn't the "full blooded " WS-15, but it has many aspects of the WS-15.


But sir it is not final and true version of WS-15, *AM I RIGHT OR WRONG?*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> sir he lives in to much false assumptions and wishful thinking, it clearly stated by @ChineseTiger1986 , @cirr ,@Beast and other repected, senior members that *"WS-15 is in the air testing mode"* Thank you



I would be very careful with this statement; concerning cirr You might be correct, but for the others - esp. beast - I would be carefully ! He was claiming so much false things over this year that I would surely rate him NOT as a reliable and even less a respected member to be a reliable source on Chinese matters.

I agree that it is highly likely that the WS-15 is tested on the Il-76LL but surely not on any of the J-20 prototypes, pre-serials and even less on the operational ones.

Again ... there surely a lot still hidden and secret, ... and time tell.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> But sir it is not final and true version of WS-15, *AM I RIGHT OR WRONG?*



You are right, it is not the finalized version of the WS-15, but a WS-15/WS-10 hybrid.

And we have discussed that before.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> What is your evidences that J-20 is ever "underpowered", other than you presumption?
> 
> Show me the evidence that J-20 is "underpowered" or it is not using WS-15 already. Your presumption need proofs to establish too. You can't state your assumption without any proof and then ask proof of other people with different conclusion.


*and what is the prove that J-20 is using WS-15 just in your fake annotated images, there are no confirmed images of WS-15 on net*


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> *and what is the prove that J-20 is using WS-15 just in your fake annotated images, there are no confirmed images of WS-15 on net*



Actually, what proof you have that J-20 is underpowered and NOT using WS-15 already, other than your presumptions? Presumptions need proofs too.

I have mentioned again and again that J-20 could do those amazing maneuvers without the use of afterburners. In fact, there is no videos, I know, that J-20 need to use afterburners.

J-20 could not have used a variant of WS-10X or AL-31FN, because those engines could not enable planes like J-10, Su-27, Su-30, J-11 to do those maneuvers w/o afterburners, and no Super cruise, sustained Supersonic maneuverability.

So if J-20 could do them, J-20 must be not using either WS-10X or AL-31FN. The only other choice left is WS-15.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The current engine that the J-20 uses isn't the "full blooded " WS-15, but it has many aspects of the WS-15.



That's what I have said before. An early prototype of WS-15 with its own engine core, combined with proven and matured technology from WS-10X and AL-31FN, was delivery to J-20, in early 2010, for testing.

Remember, the engine core is what delivers the power and determines its operating characteristics, and it is the hardest part to develop. If you got a new powerful engine core, you got a new powerful engine.

J-20's first flight was conducted in early 2010. A second J-20's, with the same serial number 2001, conducted its first flight, on Jan. 11, 2011, under the publics views of fans around the airport, during Robert Gates' visit to China.

Hence, that was the reason, there was absolutely no excitement, no fanfare, no participation of VIP for this flight. The workers of ChengDu Aviation Corporation did not even bother to come out to watch it. The Company seems dead sure that J-20 will fly and come back safely.

It was totally a non-event for them.



pakistanipower said:


> *and what is the prove that J-20 is using WS-15 just in your fake annotated images, there are no confirmed images of WS-15 on net*



True, there is no confirmed images of WS-15. 

And there are no official, semi-official announcement that J-20 is using WS-10X or AL-31FN, either. NONE, whatsoever. All those speculations that it is, were purely fanboys' imaginations.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> sir he lives in to much false assumptions and wishful thinking, it clearly stated by @ChineseTiger1986 , @cirr ,@Beast and other repected, senior members that *"WS-15 is in the air testing mode"* Thank you
> 
> 
> But sir it is not final and true version of WS-15, *AM I RIGHT OR WRONG?*



Yes, you could say that it is not the final version of WS-15. You are not WRONG.

The fact that J-20 is using the WS-15 engine core is what is most important. The engine core, like the engine of a car, develops the power for the engine and for the plane. The engine core of WS-15 took 15 years to develop, 1990-2005, with the help of the Russian experts and all the design documents of YAK-144's powerful engine.

Many engine variants could be developed from this engine core for different types of planes, like the WS-20 for the Y-20 transport plane, and even for commercial airliners.

The Americans sold the the Boeing 737 engine to the Chinese, in the 1980's. It uses the same engine core as the F-14 and F-15.

The Chinese spent 20 years to reverse engineered the engine core, and developed the WS-10X engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## slng

Asok said:


> Yes, you could say that it is not the final version of WS-15. You are not WRONG.
> 
> The fact that J-20 is using the WS-15 engine core is what is most important. The engine core, like the engine of a car, develops the power for the engine and for the plane. The engine core of WS-15 took 15 years to develop, 1990-2005, with the help of the Russian experts and all the design documents of YAK-144's powerful engine.
> 
> Many engine variants could be developed from this engine core for different types of planes, like the WS-20 for the Y-20 transport plane, and even for commercial airliners.
> 
> The Americans sold the the Boeing 737 engine to the Chinese, in the 1980's. It uses the same engine core as the F-14 and F-15.
> 
> The Chinese spent 20 years to reverse engineered the engine core, and developed the WS-10X engine.



I beg to differ. Probably Chinese spent the many years dismantling the product just to study the mats and work out theory work. They then work out a new theory based on test trial etc. They then re-design it to enhance existing capabilities. Realiability is one key issue and big question in their re-invented product. That is why when it first emerge @ 2010, they just stay low profile.

You dont just reverse engineer something just to duplicate it. It's a wasteful effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

slng said:


> I beg to differ. Probably Chinese spent the many years dismantling the product just to study the mats and work out theory work. They then work out a new theory based on test trial etc. They then re-design it to enhance existing capabilities. Realiability is one key issue and big question in their re-invented product. That is why when it first emerge @ 2010, they just stay low profile.
> 
> You dont just reverse engineer something just to duplicate it. It's a wasteful effort.



Yes, they did this time. 

But to take it apart and copy the parts to make an aircraft engine is not so simple. If you take apart a BMW engine, and put them back together again, they won't run the way before. I can guaranteed that.

You need to know all the material science that went into produce the materials, and manufacturing techniques that created the parts to copy the engine. And China didn't have that in the 1980's. 

That's why it took 20 years. A lot of pain and agony to produce the WS-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> Yes, you could say that it is not the final version of WS-15. You are not WRONG.
> The fact that J-20 is using the WS-15 engine core is what is most important. The engine core, like the engine of a car, develops the power for the engine and for the plane. The engine core of WS-15 took 15 years to develop, 1990-2005, with the help of the Russian experts and all the design documents of YAK-144's powerful engine.
> Many engine variants could be developed from this engine core for different types of planes, like the WS-20 for the Y-20 transport plane, and even for commercial airliners.
> The Americans sold the the Boeing 737 engine to the Chinese, in the 1980's. It uses the same engine core as the F-14 and F-15.
> The Chinese spent 20 years to reverse engineered the engine core, and developed the WS-10X engine.


 In fact I am also among those enthusiasts who do not believe that the J-20 flew using an AL-31F engines. I guess the demonstration flight by the pair of J-20 proved us right.

Both the core technology of the F35 GE F135 engine as well as the WS-15 is based on the Russia YAK-141 R79-300 engine.

Insider sources reported that way back in 1996, Russia sold and delivered a prototype of the Yak-141 engine to China. It was also reported then that the cash scrapped Russia sold and transferred technology related to the engine nozzle.
So if the J-20 nozzles resembled those of the AL-31F, so what is so so strange?






*YAK-141 R79-300 engine noozles.*

JUst listen to the sound of both the engine 1. J20 FGFA and 2. SU-27 or SU-30 and you will immediately notice the dissimilarity between them both.



slng said:


> I beg to differ. Probably Chinese spent the many years dismantling the product just to study the mats and work out theory work. They then work out a new theory based on test trial etc. They then re-design it to enhance existing capabilities. Realiability is one key issue and big question in their re-invented product. That is why when it first emerge @ 2010, they just stay low profile.
> 
> You dont just reverse engineer something just to duplicate it. It's a wasteful effort.


  Agree. But the fact revealed that J-10A-B-C are using old and refurbished AL-31FN engines with extended lifespan from the original 900 hours to 1500 hours. 
The truth is Russian Military Industries are obsolescent and are not quite as advanced as those of China. 
But Russia has a huge pool of brilliants aeronautical scientists, engineers and technicians.

The very fact China has successfully mass manufactured WS-10 series engines as reported recently shown that China own aero-engine manufacturing industries has already fully matured.

I am predicting that not so long from today, Russia may started importing aero-engines manufactured from China to power their aircraft maybe under license. Today Russia has started importing aircraft from China e.g. Harbin Y-12, etc

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> In fact I am also among those enthusiasts who do not believe that the J-20 flew using an AL-31F engines. I guess the demonstration flight by the pair of J-20 proved us right.
> 
> Both the core technology of the F35 GE F135 engine as well as the WS-15 is based on the Russia YAK-141 R79-300 engine.
> 
> Insider sources reported that way back in 1996, Russia sold and delivered a prototype of the Yak-141 engine to China. It was also reported then that the cash scrapped Russia sold and transferred technology related to the engine nozzle.
> So if the J-20 nozzles resembled those of the AL-31F, so what is so so strange?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YAK-141 R79-300 engine noozles.*
> 
> JUst listen to the sound of both the engine 1. J20 FGFA and 2. SU-27 or SU-30 and you will immediately notice the dissimilarity between them both.
> 
> 
> Agree. But the fact revealed that J-10A-B-C are using old and refurbished AL-31FN engines with extended lifespan from the original 900 hours to 1500 hours.
> The truth is Russian Military Industries are obsolescent and are not quite as advanced as those of China.
> But Russia has a huge pool of brilliants aeronautical scientists, engineers and technicians.
> 
> The very fact China has successfully mass manufactured WS-10 series engines as reported recently shown that China own aero-engine manufacturing industries has already fully matured.
> 
> I am predicting that not so long from today, Russia may started importing aero-engines manufactured from China to power their aircraft maybe under license. Today Russia has started importing aircraft from China e.g. Harbin Y-12, etc



I agreed with you, brother. Thank God that there is some one here at PDF that is not so dense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## slng

I do believe J20 not powered by obselete and error prone engine as it will 'kill' more training trial 'time' effort.

It has to be re-invented but locally produced version of engine but most probably 'not label yet'. But we are just speculating as intended motive is to keep it as trumph card against enemies

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> ....
> Both the core technology of the F35 GE F135 engine as well as the WS-15 is based on the Russia YAK-141 R79-300 engine.
> ...




That is plain wrong !!! At best its tree-part swivelling nozzle was studied, but the core is well beyond anything Russia developed so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Asok said:


> Actually, what proof you have that J-20 is underpowered and NOT using WS-15 already, other than your presumptions? Presumptions need proofs too.
> 
> I have mentioned again and again that J-20 could do those amazing maneuvers without the use of afterburners. In fact, there is no videos, I know, that J-20 need to use afterburners.
> 
> J-20 could not have used a variant of WS-10X or AL-31FN, because those engines could not enable planes like J-10, Su-27, Su-30, J-11 to do those maneuvers w/o afterburners, and no Super cruise, sustained Supersonic maneuverability.
> 
> So if J-20 could do them, J-20 must be not using either WS-10X or AL-31FN. The only other choice left is WS-15.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I have said before. An early prototype of WS-15 with its own engine core, combined with proven and matured technology from WS-10X and AL-31FN, was delivery to J-20, in early 2010, for testing.
> 
> Remember, the engine core is what delivers the power and determines its operating characteristics, and it is the hardest part to develop. If you got a new powerful engine core, you got a new powerful engine.
> 
> J-20's first flight was conducted in early 2010. A second J-20's, with the same serial number 2001, conducted its first flight, on Jan. 11, 2011, under the publics views of fans around the airport, during Robert Gates' visit to China.
> 
> Hence, that was the reason, there was absolutely no excitement, no fanfare, no participation of VIP for this flight. The workers of ChengDu Aviation Corporation did not even bother to come out to watch it. The Company seems dead sure that J-20 will fly and come back safely.
> 
> It was totally a non-event for them.
> 
> 
> 
> True, there is no confirmed images of WS-15.
> 
> And there are no official, semi-official announcement that J-20 is using WS-10X or AL-31FN, either. NONE, whatsoever. All those speculations that it is, were purely fanboys' imaginations.


come on mate``!! there is no WS-15 on J-20 or any in service PLAF planes``end it!
it is still at testing phase, on air (I can only say this much)!

Chinese+Russian Hybrid stuff``not in WS-10 family```the end!


----------



## Ultima Thule

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Both the core technology of the F35 GE F135 engine as well as the WS-15 is based on the Russia YAK-141 R79-300 engine.


*how can you compare WS-15 which has no confirmed and reliable images on net, with R-79-300 just in your fake annotated images, and for your correction F-135 is not based on R-79-300 but rather than F-119, and F-135 is not build by GE but P&W built it you have too false assumptions and wishful thinking** you and @Asok have too much daydreamers*


----------



## 帅的一匹

So what the hell of that engine used on J20 now? @rcmj

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> So what the hell of that engine used on J20 now? @rcmj




I think this is probably the most widely asked question here in this thread and I think at least officially we can agree that we don't know for sure since nothing is confirmed.

There are however three parties here involved claiming quite different solutions ... and most of them are nearyl religious an praying their believes ...

In Summary these are the three main theories:

1. a special custom made modernised AL-31FN or a development of it; maybe a AL-31FM-2-based design (I am a member of this group)

2. an uprated WS-10B or XYZ of soime kind, some say even a hybrid WS-10B core mated with an AL-31FN-nozzle (beast's claim) or a WS-10 uprated and modified by certain technologies derived from WS-15 prototypes.

3. already the WS-15 that only looks like a WS-10/AL-31 to hide its true identity (Asok's theory)


Anyway, I'm sure that this question will be asked even more before one day the PLAAf or CAC/AVIC will reveal the true. ... As such, time will tell.

Can we all agree on this??


Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## slng

yes, just need trumph to tweet few more sarcastic sentences im sure we can see the light


----------



## samsara

Good summary by Deino.

Since it's *unanimously agreed here that the engine thing is highly classified* by the maker and state, there won't be any official and unambiguous information confirming what's the exact engine to be used, so all left are just guesses, guesstimates, speculations even the wild ones.

So? Why not just leave behind the engine things... and just wait patiently until the day the authority reveals it.



slng said:


> yes, just need trumph to tweet few more sarcastic sentences im sure we can see the light



Ha ha ha... that will be much _unpresidented_!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> That is plain wrong !!! At best its tree-part swiveling nozzle was studied, but the core is well beyond anything Russia developed so far.



The American brought the YAK-144 swiveling nozzle technology and the accompany VTOL technology, not the engine core technology.

"*Yak-141 “Freestyle”- The F-35B Was Born In Moscow"*
http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Yakovlev-Yak-141-pic.jpg







China brought the whole thing PLUS all the engineering blueprints and documents PLUS the service of thousands of military technology experts in the 1990's, when the former USSR was collapsed. This was well documented in Chinese medias. Many scientists also went to the West in search of employment, I have worked with many of them.

The explosion of Chinese military hardwares we are seeing today is the direct result of that huge technology transfer and China's massive investment in Science and Technology.



Deino said:


> I think this is probably the most widely asked question here in this thread and I think at least officially we can agree that we don't know for sure since nothing is confirmed.
> 
> There are however three parties here involved claiming quite different solutions ... and most of them are nearyl religious an praying their believes ...
> 
> In Summary these are the three main theories:
> 
> 1. a special custom made modernised AL-31FN or a development of it; maybe a AL-31FM-2-based design (I am a member of this group)
> 
> 2. an uprated WS-10B or XYZ of soime kind, some say even a hybrid WS-10B core mated with an AL-31FN-nozzle (beast's claim) or a WS-10 uprated and modified by certain technologies derived from WS-15 prototypes.
> 
> 3. already the WS-15 that only looks like a WS-10/AL-31 to hide its true identity (Asok's theory)
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure that this question will be asked even more before one day the PLAAf or CAC/AVIC will reveal the true. ... As such, time will tell.
> 
> Can we all agree on this??
> 
> 
> Deino




Good summary. The problem I have with theory of 1 and 2, is that the WS-10 and AL-31FN core don't develop the military power for J-20 to test Supersonic Cruise and sustained Supersonic Maneuvers. And there is no need to be so secretive about that. The 4S specifications developed for F-22 program by US is the core requirements of J-20.

I think the WS-15 core was mated with WS-10X or AL-31FN look-alike nozzles for rapid engineering prototype. The hiding of identity was probably just a plus. They didn't try that hard to conceal the identity. The habitual prejudice and under-estimation of the West mislead themselves. China just need to say nothing officially about the engine. (Remember CIA Director Robert Gates said in 2009 that China won't have a Stealth fighter before 2020?) one of the early J-20 has white nozzle, a clear signal that it is NOT a bona fide WS-10X or AL-31FN engine.

One J-20, 2001, has a black nozzle and two yellow patches near the cockpit. A second one has a white nozzle with the same version number 2001, has no yellow patches.





The one with white nozzles tested it's first flight on Jan. 11, 2011.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Good summary. The problem I have with theory of 1 and 2, is that the WS-10 and AL-31FN core don't develop the military power for J-20 to test Supersonic Cruise and sustained Supersonic Maneuvers. And there is no need to be so secretive about that. The 4S specifications developed for F-22 program by US is the core requirements of J-20.
> 
> I think the WS-15 core was mated with WS-10X or AL-31FN look-alike nozzles for rapid engineering prototype. The hiding of identity was probably just a plus. They didn't try that hard to conceal the identity. The habitual prejudice and under-estimation of the West mislead themselves. China just need to say nothing officially about the engine. (Remember CIA Director Robert Gates said in 2009 that China won't have a Stealth fighter before 2020?) one of the early J-20 has white nozzle, a clear signal that it is NOT a bona fide WS-10X or AL-31FN engine.


Why you insisting with this crapy theory with no prove, its maybe higher thrust and Shorter lifespan version of W-10X or Al-31FN3, WS-15's stated thrust is 180 Kn or 40,000+ lbs, J-20 can also be easily does Supersonic Cruise and sustained Supersonic Maneuvers with specialized variants of WS-10X or Al-31FN3 with a thrust of 35000, 36000 lbs
*but that for sure J-20 is not using WS-15 currently *


----------



## Tiqiu

It is said we will see square nozzles on the J-20 in 2017; also the type of the J-20 engines will be officially revealed in 2017.
So let's keep calm until the lifting of the veil.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> It is said we will see square nozzles on the J-20 in 2017; also the type of the J-20 engines will be officially revealed in 2017.
> So let's keep calm until the lifting of the veil.



Right, lets keep calm until the lifting of the veil. When the truth is revealed, those keep wishing J-20 is going into full scale production with the "underpowered" WS-10X or AL-31FN will be in for a shock. Then, they will keeping hoping J-20 will stop production at 200 units.

It is my belief that WS-15 is vastly more powerful than the speculated 160-180kN Max thrust range. Simply because USA has already produced the F119 engine with Max thrust 160kN in the 1980's, and F-135 engine with Max thrust 190kn in the 1990's.

In the last two decades, China has invented the necessary Titanium alloy which could stand the max temp 2200K, and process to create hollowed fan blades with single crystal, 3D additive laser manufacturing process, and new coating to coat the engine to prevent damages and lengthen life.

So the technologies are there to produce an engine with >200kN thrust. Remember, when the governments usually under-report the performances of their engines and aircrafts, such max. thrust, max. range, max. speed, and max. detection range of their radars so as not to help foreign intelligences too much.

When US government says the F-35's engine, F-135, max. thrust is 190kN, you can be sure is greater than that. The Chinese government has "leaked" the max. thrust of WS-15 is 160-180kN, I think the real figure is a good deal higher.

So even if WS-15's max Thrust is 200kN, it is still 25-30 years behind US in Turbofan engine technology. But it will give J-20 25% (80kN) more Thrust than F-22, a TWR of >11-12 for the WS-15 engine. In aerial combat, that will translate into much higher speed, greater acceleration, greater climb rate, greater combat loading, higher Supersonic Cruising speed, much greater Supersonic Maneuverability, and less need to turn on the afterburner. 

Anyone who could still think J-20 is "underpowered" with such a powerful engine of 200kN engine is delusional. And no wonder the Chinese military is quite comfortable J-20 being much bigger than F-22. Because it has a way more powerful engine.

With winning performances like that, no wonder the Chinese government wants to keep WS-15 under wrap as long as possible.

You have never heard of a Chinese Turbofan engine for airliners, because there is none. That's how behind and backward China is airline engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

@Asok !

STOP ... Your claims on an engine in the range on 180 - 200kn are well beyond anything reported so far. I beg You to stop this - at least to stop claiming "it will be" ! There's actually NO, not a single reason to believe anything like this.

Even more You are hyping the R-79 engine as an F135 equivalent what it surly wasn't and even more again these reports that the WS-15 are a R-79-based design are also more than vague. IMO there are much more more reliable reports stating that the WS-15 is a new clean sheet design ...

As such, please do not derail this thread with posts as if they were facts, they are pure speculation based on Your assumption ... nothing more.

Deino


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> Yes, you could say that it is not the final version of WS-15. You are not WRONG.
> 
> The fact that J-20 is using the WS-15 engine core is what is most important. The engine core, like the engine of a car, develops the power for the engine and for the plane. The engine core of WS-15 took 15 years to develop, 1990-2005, with the help of the Russian experts and all the design documents of YAK-144's powerful engine.
> 
> Many engine variants could be developed from this engine core for different types of planes, like the WS-20 for the Y-20 transport plane, and even for commercial airliners.
> 
> The Americans sold the the Boeing 737 engine to the Chinese, in the 1980's. It uses the same engine core as the F-14 and F-15.
> 
> The Chinese spent 20 years to reverse engineered the engine core, and developed the WS-10X engine.


 Yes. This is a plausible version. The J-20 is definitely being tested using a variant of WS series engine. But definitely NOT the Russian AL-31F series. Look even the J-11B-D is now in production with the WS-10 series as its main powerplant as the WS-10 series have proven itself to be more reliable and powerful. Of course, the WS-10 is based on the CFM-56 core technology. So we would asked ourselves, why not the Russian AL-31F instead? 

The WS-15 has been in development since 1990's and insider sources say a prototype R79-300 engine was delivered to China sometimes in 1996~8. Since then a working WS-15 prototype was tested in 2005. China announced a breakthrough in aero-engine development in 2009 and billions of RMB was pumped into these project.

* Anyone who has the slightest COMMONSENSE instead of emotion will tell you something is cooking. 

After 2005 and nothing to show, that is very unCHINA. Even Richard Fisher, way back in 2009 claimed that the secretive WS-15 has already achieved 16 tons thrust vs the 18 tons target then. 7 years has since passed and are you saying that the Chinese WS-15 has stalled with NO PROGRESS. 

In fact with the Chinese mastering and the introduction of DD9 and Nob-Ti-Alum superalloy into their aero-engines project, IMO the thrust to weight ratio of the Chinese designed engine will be quite impressive. It is also observed that China has acquired quite a substantial amount of rhenium, a very important chemical element in aero-engine construction. *So I believe that the Chinese designed and built engines have achieved very high temperature, something that is still plaquing the Russia engine project today.

Yes. You are right. In the past, we have the Western Media projecting that China will only be able to test its first FGFA ever NOT earlier than 2020 onward and most probably by 2025. Today is only 2016 and what have they got. 
4 J-20 have already entered the service with PLAAF and probably more before the year ends. Rumor that they are adding another pulse production line with a production capacity of 36 aircraft per year. 
We will wait and see as TIME is always our best witness. 








Deino said:


> That is plain wrong !!! At best its tree-part swivelling nozzle was studied, but the core is well beyond anything Russia developed so far.



Well. That is your expressed opinion and I respect that. 

But as to your "That is plain wrong", I would not be in a hurry to jump to that conclusion as there are many missing pieces in this puzzle and as I have often cited, *"China military program is shrouded in secrecy"*. 

Russia may not have the state-of-art technological military manufacturing industries but they do have great and brilliant aerospace scientists and aeronautical engineers. So China may still have a trick or two to pick from them e.g. their venture and collaboration into wide-body airliners manufacturing. Observed that Russia will be designing the engine which I understand will be built in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Yes. This is a plausible version. The J-20 is definitely being tested using a variant of WS series engine. But definitely NOT the Russian AL-31F series. Look even the J-11B-D is now in production with the WS-10 series as its main powerplant as the WS-10 series have proven itself to be more reliable and powerful. Of course, the WS-10 is based on the CFM-56 core technology. So we would asked ourselves, why not the Russian AL-31F instead?
> 
> The WS-15 has been in development since 1990's and insider sources say a prototype R79-300 engine was delivered to China sometimes in 1996~8. Since then a working WS-15 prototype was tested in 2005. China announced a breakthrough in aero-engine development in 2009 and billions of RMB was pumped into these project.
> 
> * Anyone who has the slightest COMMONSENSE instead of emotion will tell you something is cooking.
> 
> After 2005 and nothing to show, that is very unCHINA. Even Richard Fisher, way back in 2009 claimed that the secretive WS-15 has already achieved 16 tons thrust vs the 18 tons target then. 7 years has since passed and are you saying that the Chinese WS-15 has stalled with NO PROGRESS.
> 
> In fact with the Chinese mastering and the introduction of DD9 and Nob-Ti-Alum superalloy into their aero-engines project, IMO the thrust to weight ratio of the Chinese designed engine will be quite impressive. It is also observed that China has acquired quite a substantial amount of rhenium, a very important chemical element in aero-engine construction. *So I believe that the Chinese designed and built engines have achieved very high temperature, something that is still plaquing the Russia engine project today.
> 
> Yes. You are right. In the past, we have the Western Media projecting that China will only be able to test its first FGFA ever NOT earlier than 2020 onward and most probably by 2025. Today is only 2016 and what have they got.
> 4 J-20 have already entered the service with PLAAF and probably more before the year ends. Rumor that they are adding another pulse production line with a production capacity of 36 aircraft per year.
> We will wait and see as TIME is always our best witness.



The western medias is certainly biased against China and love to knock china down like many fanboys here at PDF.

Two days before Jan 11, 2011, the western medias reported: "Tai Ming Cheung, an expert on Chinese defence technology at the University of California, San Diego “Judging from the development cycle of their earlier fighter, the J-10, it will be another eight to ten years until this aircraft can fly.”

LOL. 

I wonder where did Mr. Tai Ming Cheung, got that idea from? He probably works for the Chinese Bureau of Strategic Deception. haha.

*"Anyone who has the slightest COMMONSENSE instead of emotion will tell you something is cooking. 

After 2005 and nothing to show, that is very unCHINA. Even Richard Fisher, way back in 2009 claimed that the secretive WS-15 has already achieved 16 tons thrust vs the 18 tons target then. 7 years has since passed and are you saying that the Chinese WS-15 has stalled with NO PROGRESS. "*

In 2005, Chinese medias have reported that the WS-15 engine core has fully meet all performance specification during ground bench testing. And the WS-15 project was officially commenced in 2006. Anyone with the slightest understanding of engine design would expect a full WS-15 engine could be ready for testing in 5 years, that is 2010; not 10 years later, as in 2015.

Anyone who keep claiming that WS-15 engine core has just began testing on 2015 don't have my respect. They have earned by scorns, but that's not really their fault. China has ran a masterful deception campaign that has fooled even many Western Intelligence Agency into believing WS-15 is still years away from being ready.

US has thrown away it's 6 decades of Air Dominance by stopping F-22's production at 187 units, and made a massive bet on the flying pig, F-35. They will not recover easily from this strategic blunder. Their air forces must fear China's air superiority from now on.

The westerners have laughed and scorned at China's technological capability long enough. We will have the last laugh. 

Sun Tzi has said: War is the Art of Deception. China has simply performed brilliantly in this game of deception. The West will be kicking their pants once the real power of WS-15 is revealed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Deino said:


> I think this is probably the most widely asked question here in this thread and I think at least officially we can agree that we don't know for sure since nothing is confirmed.
> There are however three parties here involved claiming quite different solutions ... and most of them are nearyl religious an praying their believes ...
> In Summary these are the three main theories:
> 1. a special custom made modernised AL-31FN or a development of it; maybe a AL-31FM-2-based design (I am a member of this group)
> 2. an uprated WS-10B or XYZ of soime kind, some say even a hybrid WS-10B core mated with an AL-31FN-nozzle (beast's claim) or a WS-10 uprated and modified by certain technologies derived from WS-15 prototypes.
> 3. already the WS-15 that only looks like a WS-10/AL-31 to hide its true identity (Asok's theory)
> Anyway, I'm sure that this question will be asked even more before one day the PLAAf or CAC/AVIC will reveal the true. ... As such, time will tell.
> Can we all agree on this??
> Deino



 Again it is all rumor as I do not know whether or not the *THRUST-VECTORING 14 tons AL-31FM2 version is ever exported to China in the first place* or what is its specification. 
Yes. IMO It is definitely a WS variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asok !
> 
> STOP ... Your claims on an engine in the range on 180 - 200kn are well beyond anything reported so far. I beg You to stop this - at least to stop claiming "it will be" ! There's actually NO, not a single reason to believe anything like this.
> 
> Even more You are hyping the R-79 engine as an F135 equivalent what it surly wasn't and even more again these reports that the WS-15 are a R-79-based design are also more than vague. IMO there are much more more reliable reports stating that the WS-15 is a new clean sheet design ...
> 
> As such, please do not derail this thread with posts as if they were facts, they are pure speculation based on Your assumption ... nothing more.
> 
> Deino



*"As such, please do not derail this thread with posts as if they were facts, they are pure speculation based on Your assumption ... nothing more."*

With respect, Deino, you are getting desperate and hysterical. I do not wish to derail this thread. I have listed my reasons. They are all sourced from Chinese languages, and I provided the links and summaries. I am not alone who could read Chinese here. There are members who have read those early reports dating before 2005 that WS-15 is based on R-79, and r-79-300 turbofan engine has a max thrust of 206kN, which is reported here:

http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en

I did not initiated those claims, simply reporting them here. So your claim "they are pure speculation based on Your assumption ... nothing more." is groundless and slanderous.

STOP smear my name, please, STOP. Act as an unbiased moderator, please. Your behavior is inexplicable.

F-135's core is not based on r-79-300's core. And they are not equivalent. There are other measures like engine life, oil consumptions, other than max. thrust, that are also very important. No one has claimed that. LockeedMartin only purchased the nozzle technology and the accompany VSTOL technology.

*"IMO there are much more more reliable reports stating that the WS-15 is a new clean sheet design ..." *LOL, Deino.

You have fully lost my respect in this ridiculous claim. No aircraft engines starts on a clean sheet, they are all based on previous technologies and designs that was proven and matured.

*"Your claims on an engine in the range on 180 - 200kn are well beyond anything reported so far. "
*
Yes, that may be true. That is not reported here at PDF or anywhere else, before. But I am based my claim on the fact that F-135 has 190kN thrust, and it was developed in the 1990s, *nearly 30 years ago*. Even WS-15 did caught up with F-135's max thrust, China would still 30 years behind the American in engine technology. 

Other performance parameters like reliability, engine life, average hours before first major overhaul, are also very important. No one has claimed China or Russia is even half as good as the Americans.

Surely, you could believe China is 30 years behind the Americans, right, Deino?

And the fact that China has made huge technological advances on material science (High Temperature, Single Crystal, Titanium Alloy), engine design and manufacturing process with the help of the Russians.

I am sorry that my reports on WS-15 has aroused so much fear and emotions in you and other fanboys, but I am not the one who needs to grow up, and let go.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> *Sun Tzi has said: War is the Art of Deception. China has simply performed brilliantly in this game of deception. *The West will be kicking their pants once the real power of WS-15 is revealed.



I agree and love this one above.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Right, lets keep calm until the lifting of the veil. When the truth is revealed, those keep wishing J-20 is going into full scale production with the "underpowered" WS-10X or AL-31FN will be in for a shock. Then, they will keeping hoping J-20 will stop production at 200 units.
> 
> It is my belief that WS-15 is vastly more powerful than the speculated 160-180kN Max thrust range. Simply because USA has already produced the F119 engine with Max thrust 160kN in the 1980's, and F-135 engine with Max thrust 190kn in the 1990's.
> 
> In the last two decades, China has invented the necessary Titanium alloy which could stand the max temp 2200K, and process to create hollowed fan blades with single crystal, 3D additive laser manufacturing process, and new coating to coat the engine to prevent damages and lengthen life.
> 
> So the technologies are there to produce an engine with >200kN thrust. Remember, when the governments usually under-report the performances of their engines and aircrafts, such max. thrust, max. range, max. speed, and max. detection range of their radars so as not to help foreign intelligences too much.
> 
> When US government says the F-35's engine, F-135, max. thrust is 190kN, you can be sure is greater than that. The Chinese government has "leaked" the max. thrust of WS-15 is 160-180kN, I think the real figure is a good deal higher.
> 
> So even if WS-15's max Thrust is 200kN, it is still 25-30 years behind US in Turbofan engine technology. But it will give J-20 25% (80kN) more Thrust than F-22, a TWR of >11-12 for the WS-15 engine. In aerial combat, that will translate into much higher speed, greater acceleration, greater climb rate, greater combat loading, higher Supersonic Cruising speed, much greater Supersonic Maneuverability, and less need to turn on the afterburner.
> 
> Anyone who could still think J-20 is "underpowered" with such a powerful engine of 200kN engine is delusional. And no wonder the Chinese military is quite comfortable J-20 being much bigger than F-22. Because it has a way more powerful engine.
> 
> With winning performances like that, no wonder the Chinese government wants to keep WS-15 under wrap as long as possible.
> 
> You have never heard of a Chinese Turbofan engine for airliners, because there is none. That's how behind and backward China is airline engine.


Just leave ...... [edited] .... this nonsense


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> I agree and love this one above.



Someone who is running China's Bureau of Strategic Deception is simply brilliant. Instead of just keeping a watertight wall around J-20. China has chosen to reveal the program in a piece meal, ambiguous manners, using the Internet as the pipeline, carefully dishing out information/disinformations on the various Internet forums. Achieving strategic deterrence, and strategic confusion/uncertainty in the enemies' minds at the same time.

The end effect is the US's premature termination of the F-22 production and a massive investment into the F-35, and the END of West's decades long Air Dominance.

And there is no simple way out, since there is no alternative to F-35, so it cannot be canceled. But China can't claim credit on this one. It was self-inflicted wounded by the utter stupidity US Military-Industrial-Congresional-Medias-Intelligence-Complex (MICMIC).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> The western medias is certainly biased against China and love to knock china down like many fanboys here at PDF.
> 
> Two days before Jan 11, 2011, the western medias reported: "Tai Ming Cheung, an expert on Chinese defence technology at the University of California, San Diego “Judging from the development cycle of their earlier fighter, the J-10, it will be another eight to ten years until this aircraft can fly.”
> 
> LOL.
> 
> I wonder where did Mr. Tai Ming Cheung, got that idea from? He probably works for the Chinese Bureau of Strategic Deception. haha.
> 
> *"Anyone who has the slightest COMMONSENSE instead of emotion will tell you something is cooking.
> 
> After 2005 and nothing to show, that is very unCHINA. Even Richard Fisher, way back in 2009 claimed that the secretive WS-15 has already achieved 16 tons thrust vs the 18 tons target then. 7 years has since passed and are you saying that the Chinese WS-15 has stalled with NO PROGRESS. "*
> 
> In 2005, Chinese medias have reported that the WS-15 engine core has fully meet all performance specification during ground bench testing. And the WS-15 project was officially commenced in 2006. Anyone with the slightest understanding of engine design would expect a full WS-15 engine could be ready for testing in 5 years, that is 2010; not 10 years later, as in 2015.
> 
> Anyone who keep claiming that WS-15 engine core has just began testing on 2015 don't have my respect. They have earned by scorns, but that's not really their fault. China has ran a masterful deception campaign that has fooled even many Western Intelligence Agency into believing WS-15 is still years away from being ready.
> 
> US has thrown away it's 6 decades of Air Dominance by stopping F-22's production at 187 units, and made a massive bet on the flying pig, F-35. They will not recover easily from this strategic blunder. Their air forces must fear China's air superiority from now on.
> 
> The westerners have laughed and scorned at China's technological capability long enough. We will have the last laugh.
> 
> Sun Tzi has said: War is the Art of Deception. China has simply performed brilliantly in this game of deception. The West will be kicking their pants once the real power of WS-15 is revealed.


Just stop those idiotic nonsense



Asok said:


> *"As such, please do not derail this thread with posts as if they were facts, they are pure speculation based on Your assumption ... nothing more."*
> 
> With respect, Deino, you are getting desperate and hysterical. I do not wish to derail this thread. I have listed my reasons. They are all sourced from Chinese languages, and I provided the links and summaries. I am not alone who could read Chinese here. There are members who have read those early reports dating before 2005 that WS-15 is based on R-79, and r-79-300 turbofan engine has a max thrust of 206kN, which is reported here:
> 
> http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en
> 
> I did not initiated those claims, simply reporting them here. So your claim "they are pure speculation based on Your assumption ... nothing more." is groundless and slanderous.
> 
> STOP smear my name, please, STOP. Act as an unbiased moderator, please. Your behavior is inexplicable.
> 
> F-135's core is not based on r-79-300's core. And they are not equivalent. There are other measures like engine life, oil consumptions, other than max. thrust, that are also very important. No one has claimed that. LockeedMartin only purchased the nozzle technology and the accompany VSTOL technology.
> 
> *"IMO there are much more more reliable reports stating that the WS-15 is a new clean sheet design ..." *LOL, Deino.
> 
> You have fully lost my respect in this ridiculous claim. No aircraft engines starts on a clean sheet, they are all based on previous technologies and designs that was proven and matured.
> 
> *"Your claims on an engine in the range on 180 - 200kn are well beyond anything reported so far. "
> *
> Yes, that may be true. That is not reported here at PDF or anywhere else, before. But I am based my claim on the fact that F-135 has 190kN thrust, and it was developed in the 1990s, *nearly 30 years ago*. Even WS-15 did caught up with F-135's max thrust, China would still 30 years behind the American in engine technology.
> 
> Other performance parameters like reliability, engine life, average hours before first major overhaul, are also very important. No one has claimed China or Russia is even half as good as the Americans.
> 
> Surely, you could believe China is 30 years behind the Americans, right, Deino?
> 
> And the fact that China has made huge technological advances on material science (High Temperature, Single Crystal, Titanium Alloy), engine design and manufacturing process with the help of the Russians.
> 
> I am sorry that my reports on WS-15 has aroused so much fear and emotions in you and other fanboys, but I am not the one who needs to grow up, and let go.


Just leave ...... [edited] .... nonsense



Asok said:


> Someone who is running China's Bureau of Strategic Deception is simply brilliant. Instead of just keeping a watertight wall around J-20. China has chosen to reveal the program in a piece meal, ambiguous manners, using the Internet as the pipeline, carefully dishing out information/disinformations on the various Internet forums. Achieving strategic deterrence, and strategic confusion/uncertainty in the enemies' minds at the same time.
> 
> The end effect is the US's premature termination of the F-22 production and a massive investment into the F-35, and the END of West's decades long Air Dominance.


Than you underestimate your enemy and overestimate yourself and leave ...... [edited] .... this nonsense


----------



## 帅的一匹

@pakistanipower no bad mouth please

im not sure its Ws15, its sure domestic one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

A few nice pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

I have said again and again the not using the afterburner is an important indicator that a plane is using military power only. And if it's not using it during demanding manuevers, it means its engine its suffificently powerful enough to get by with only military power.

Of the five years since its first flight, I have seen only this picture of J-20 with the blue flame shooting out of its nozzle.

I am not sure which color of the nozzle this J-20 has. Remember J-20 has two versions of 2001, one has black nozzle and one with distinctive white nozzle.

When a plane takes off with its maximum weight, it will have to use its afterburner to get maximum thrust. And only with its WS-15 as intended for it, can J-20 have a engine powerful to test its structural integrity to the maximum to see what it is the maximuum load J-20 can handle. And this maximum loading should be find out early in the testing program so the engineers can reinforce the structures of the plane if necessary.

And the J-11 when equiped with WS-10 or AL-31FN is never known able to do Supersonic Cruise or Supersonic Manevers. So if J-20 is equiped with WS-10 or AL-31FN, it will not be doing them either, so there is no way to test if J-20 can test the 4S and verify it structural strength and flight control system can handle the loading.

So there is no way to find out J-20's actual full flight evelope with a weaker engine. I am in serious doubt the Commander of PLAAF will find J-20's satisfied the performance requirements completely and let J-20 enter serial production with a incomplete testing programme.

The 4S is a very firm requirement for J-20. There is no freaking way that PLAAF will allow J-20 go into even LRIP without the two most important 2S, namely, Supersonic Cruise or sustained Supersonic Maneverability.

Get that into your heads, boys.




J-20's blue flame

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

Tiqiu said:


> As no official news yet to confirm about how the production of the J-20 is carried out by CAC, so we can only expect that the Pulse Assembly Lines has also been set up for production at that freshly-completed plant building of CAC.
> 
> So far by confirmed news sources China has 3 Pulse Assembly Lines for the production of the J-10, JH-7 and L15. Wouldn't be surprised to see J-20, H-20 and Z-20 are also adopting it to save costs and boost production.
> 
> Boeing Apache Pulse Assembly Lines
> View attachment 360675
> 
> 
> Boeing F35 Pulse Assembly Lines
> View attachment 360676


L15's Pulse Assembly Lines.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

F-22 demonstrating which requires the use of the afterburner, and is called the most powerful fighter in the world.

Notice the long blue flame shooting out of F-22.





J-20 demonstrating without the need to use its afterburner and is called "underpowered". And many fanboys are damn sured its using the WS-10X or AL-31FN, not the much more powerful WS-15.






No long blue flame shooting out of J-20






It made a lot of sense to me, when I did not think about it. Now, it doesn't anymore, since I have been thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Much ink have been spilled on the state of WS-15. Lets review the current state of WS-10X engine and China's fighter engine technology. Don't ask about China's civilian airliners engine. China don't have one.
*
Highlight:* *--The newest WS-10 series engine has reached 140 KN thrust*.
--*WS-10 engine is now fully operational and matured. 
--WS-10 Engine life span is 1500 hours, period between service is 300 hours.
--China/US engine gap is less than 10 years
--China is slightly inferior to US in engine life, while we have a larger room for progress. *

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2014/11/zhuhai-air-show-2014-ws-10-engine-is.html#.WFi8EKIrIUE





*Interview with Mr. Dong, a exhibitor of China aviation research 606 institute on production of WS-10 engine :*

Taihang engine really capable? Standing next to Taihang turbojet engine WS-10 Mr. Dong said that *WS-10 engine is now fully operational and matured.*

WS-10 engine is Chinese Aviation Research Institute 606's product, Mr.Dong is exhibitor of China aviation research 606 institute, these days every day he stood in the hall, elaborate WS-10 engine story to professional and non professional vistors. Mr.Dong said, he graduated from Nanjing University majoring in Aeronautics & Astronautics and started to participate in the development of WS-10 engine since his graduation.

WS10 pre-study started from year 1978, project set up in year 1987. Mr.Dong said, *WS10 had been massively mounted on the J-10 B and J-11B fighters*.

Online some articles reveal, Taihang engine outer culvert box, using the composite, which greatly reduce the weight, also improves the strength and the ability of resistance to high temperature. Mr. Dong with a reporter standing besides Taihang engine, pointing to the black pitch appearance of the engine that said: ‘this is our unique characteristics,previously used here is steel or titanium alloy. Now with this newly developed composite material, which is much lighter/higher temperature resistance/higher strength’.

Mr.Dong said *WS-10 thrust to weight ratio at about 8* (the ratio of thrust to weight refers to the Trust power per unitary weight). The fourth generation engines, are all around 8 TW ratio. He also revealed, several China aviation research insitutes now are jointly developing the 5th generation fighter turbojet engine with TW ratio 10. The Chinese military fans called it the WS-15 峨眉 ,which fugures stealthy layout.

The J-10B as a lightweight fighter capable of carrying nearly 8 tons of weapons and excellent mobility performance, all credit to having a strong China 'heart' of WS-10 series.

Following is the Dialogue details about WS-10 indigenous engine with Mr.Dong:

*Sino US engine gap less than 10 years*

Reporter: 120kn-140kn what is the meaning?

Mr. Dong: Taihang developed many kinds of DERIVATIVES, t*he newest WS-10 series engine has reached 140 KN thrust*. (Su-35 engine thrust of 145 KN)

Reporter: Achieve this thrust, that is to say the Taihang engine and Su-35's 117s engine thrust being roughly equivalent?

Mr. Dong: Yes, and we are still moving forward, the past few years has been to improve and develop. This is the new WS-10 engine, which have shaped up.

Reporter: It has started MASS production?

Mr. Dong: Mass service on the J-10B, J 11B.

Reporter: why the J-10, such as PLAAF eight one aerobatic team still with Russian engines?

Mr.Dong: China had bought so many Russian engine, We still utilize those engine until the life span expired.

Reporter: Can you please shed some light on the life sapn of WS10 compared with Russian and United States fouth generation engine?

Mr. Dong: We are slightly inferior in that part,while we have a larger room for progress. Such as some of the material shows good performance data in scientific research test, but in practical application, is still not satisfactory. It is the difficult part of aero engine development, It takes decades to improve its stability and even so with USA, not including the conceptual phase of the engine.

Reporter: Online question said that WS10 ENGINE has less than 300 hours life hours, whether this is true?

Mr.Dong: This is wrong, WS10's life* is over 1500 hours*, completely in accordance with the design requirements. 300 hours is the span between each regualr maintenance .

Reporter: Our engine gap with the US is there for 10 years?

Mr.Dong: *Less than 10 years.*



*The engine problem had been solved, WS-10 is matured : *

涡扇10研发人员：中美发动机差距不到10年|中国|发动机|珠海航展_新浪军事

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Ok. @Asok, if You don't get it the polite way, then now take it as a strict order: 

*Do not derail this thread any more, these are not facts, these are Your theories, period.*

As such it is a derail to post over and over the same BS, over and over the same arguments that this truly lame flight display without afterburner was something spectacular, any comparison with blue F-222-BA and old R-79 images. END !!

My duty - and here we have an agreement within the mods - is to keep PDF clean for too much of this fan-boy speculations.

As such if You tell it You think so, it's fine ... otherwise I will delete all following and older posts to clean the thread from Your most ridiculous theories.

There is no one is desperate to see China small or to diminish its achievements, but it seems as if You are in panic mode to interpret anything in this regard. Stick to the facts. 

If You rate this as a biased, then it's Your problem but that's fine.

In only one point I agree with You: There seems to be an effort going on from the PLA/AVIC or anyone else to hide the true identity of this engine, so that esp. the Chinese public will not know what it is and it seems as if You and Your friends are part of this campaign since You turn away from facts, since You derail normal discussions with trash ... 

End ! my final word on this issue.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## atan651

@Asok - I support your continual writing on this issue. You may be on something.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

TANAHH said:


> @Asok - I support your continual writing on this issue. You may be on something.



Thanks TANAHH! Someone is getting desperate to stop me from getting the truth out. Your support really help, TANAHH. 

I seek truth, only truth. Others can B.S all they want.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Much ink have been spilled on the state of WS-15. Lets review the current state of WS-10X engine and China's fighter engine technology. Don't ask about China's civilian airliners engine. China don't have one.
> *
> Highlight:* *--The newest WS-10 series engine has reached 140 KN thrust*.
> --*WS-10 engine is now fully operational and matured.
> --WS-10 Engine life span is 1500 hours, period between service is 300 hours.
> --China/US engine gap is less than 10 years
> --China is slightly inferior to US in engine life, while we have a larger room for progress. *
> 
> http://errymath.blogspot.com/2014/11/zhuhai-air-show-2014-ws-10-engine-is.html#.WFi8EKIrIUE
> 
> View attachment 361746
> 
> *Interview with Mr. Dong, a exhibitor of China aviation research 606 institute on production of WS-10 engine :*
> 
> Taihang engine really capable? Standing next to Taihang turbojet engine WS-10 Mr. Dong said that *WS-10 engine is now fully operational and matured.*
> 
> WS-10 engine is Chinese Aviation Research Institute 606's product, Mr.Dong is exhibitor of China aviation research 606 institute, these days every day he stood in the hall, elaborate WS-10 engine story to professional and non professional vistors. Mr.Dong said, he graduated from Nanjing University majoring in Aeronautics & Astronautics and started to participate in the development of WS-10 engine since his graduation.
> 
> WS10 pre-study started from year 1978, project set up in year 1987. Mr.Dong said, *WS10 had been massively mounted on the J-10 B and J-11B fighters*.
> 
> Online some articles reveal, Taihang engine outer culvert box, using the composite, which greatly reduce the weight, also improves the strength and the ability of resistance to high temperature. Mr. Dong with a reporter standing besides Taihang engine, pointing to the black pitch appearance of the engine that said: ‘this is our unique characteristics,previously used here is steel or titanium alloy. Now with this newly developed composite material, which is much lighter/higher temperature resistance/higher strength’.
> 
> Mr.Dong said *WS-10 thrust to weight ratio at about 8* (the ratio of thrust to weight refers to the Trust power per unitary weight). The fourth generation engines, are all around 8 TW ratio. He also revealed, several China aviation research insitutes now are jointly developing the 5th generation fighter turbojet engine with TW ratio 10. The Chinese military fans called it the WS-15 峨眉 ,which fugures stealthy layout.
> 
> The J-10B as a lightweight fighter capable of carrying nearly 8 tons of weapons and excellent mobility performance, all credit to having a strong China 'heart' of WS-10 series.
> 
> Following is the Dialogue details about WS-10 indigenous engine with Mr.Dong:
> 
> *Sino US engine gap less than 10 years*
> 
> Reporter: 120kn-140kn what is the meaning?
> 
> Mr. Dong: Taihang developed many kinds of DERIVATIVES, t*he newest WS-10 series engine has reached 140 KN thrust*. (Su-35 engine thrust of 145 KN)
> 
> Reporter: Achieve this thrust, that is to say the Taihang engine and Su-35's 117s engine thrust being roughly equivalent?
> 
> Mr. Dong: Yes, and we are still moving forward, the past few years has been to improve and develop. This is the new WS-10 engine, which have shaped up.
> 
> Reporter: It has started MASS production?
> 
> Mr. Dong: Mass service on the J-10B, J 11B.
> 
> Reporter: why the J-10, such as PLAAF eight one aerobatic team still with Russian engines?
> 
> Mr.Dong: China had bought so many Russian engine, We still utilize those engine until the life span expired.
> 
> Reporter: Can you please shed some light on the life sapn of WS10 compared with Russian and United States fouth generation engine?
> 
> Mr. Dong: We are slightly inferior in that part,while we have a larger room for progress. Such as some of the material shows good performance data in scientific research test, but in practical application, is still not satisfactory. It is the difficult part of aero engine development, It takes decades to improve its stability and even so with USA, not including the conceptual phase of the engine.
> 
> Reporter: Online question said that WS10 ENGINE has less than 300 hours life hours, whether this is true?
> 
> Mr.Dong: This is wrong, WS10's life* is over 1500 hours*, completely in accordance with the design requirements. 300 hours is the span between each regualr maintenance .
> 
> Reporter: Our engine gap with the US is there for 10 years?
> 
> Mr.Dong: *Less than 10 years.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The engine problem had been solved, WS-10 is matured : *
> 
> 涡扇10研发人员：中美发动机差距不到10年|中国|发动机|珠海航展_新浪军事



I do remember that China's new titanium alloy for the engine blade is about 3 times the lifespan of that on the F119, but I just forgot the link.

Could someone help me to find the link of that article?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pepsi Cola

@Deino I personally like to keep these threads as factual as possible too, but I also feel like these comments and arguments between the members (not that I agree or disagree with them) are also beneficial for the topic as a whole and for other readers to form their own opinions. I think it would be very helpful to have another thread purely for debates and theories.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I do remember that China's new titanium alloy for the engine blade is about 3 times the lifespan of that on the F119, but I just forgot the link.
> 
> Could someone help me to find the link of that article?



Could this article be it?

"中國發動機材料突破 壽命優於美國1-2個數量級"

"陳光教授團隊的研究成果在材料性能上實現了新的大幅度跨越，所製備的PST TiAl單晶室溫拉伸塑性和屈服強度分別高達6.9%和708MPa，抗拉強度高達978MPa，實現了高強高塑的優異結合。更為重要的是，該合金在900℃時的拉伸屈服強度為637MPa，並具有優異的抗蠕變性能，其最小蠕變速率和持久壽命均優於已經成功應用於GEnx發動機的4822合金1~2個數量級，有望將目前TiAl合金的使用溫度從650~750℃提高到900℃以上。"

原文網址：https://kknews.cc/tech/gv3ej8.html

"It said Prof. Chen's team produced a new "PST TiAl" Titanium alloy with a life expectancy that is 1-2 order of magnitude higher than than the Ti-48Al-2Cr-2Nb alloy, used by GE's GEnx engine, and the operating temperature is raised from 650-750 C to above 900C."

This paper is published in the prestigious journal Nature.
*http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v15/n8/full/nmat4677.html*

Abstract

"TiAl alloys are lightweight, show decent corrosion resistance and have good mechanical properties at elevated temperatures, making them appealing for high-temperature applications. However, polysynthetic twinned TiAl single crystals fabricated by crystal-seeding methods face substantial challenges, and their service temperatures cannot be raised further. Here we report that Ti–45Al–8Nb single crystals with controlled lamellar orientations can be fabricated by directional solidification without the use of complex seeding methods. Samples with 0° lamellar orientation exhibit an average room temperature tensile ductility of 6.9% and a yield strength of 708 MPa, with a failure strength of 978 MPa due to the formation of extensive nanotwins during plastic deformation. At 900 °C yield strength remains high at 637 MPa, with 8.1% ductility and superior creep resistance. Thus, this TiAl single-crystal alloy could provide expanded opportunities for higher-temperature applications, such as in aeronautics and aerospace."

The state of Chinese aircraft engine research and material science in high temperature titanium alloy is critical in our attempt to determine the state of the WS-15's progress.

If we understand the advances made in China in those fields, then the claims about WS-15's potential performances will not appear as B.S.



Okarus said:


> @Deino I personally like to keep these threads as factual as possible too, but I also feel like these comments and arguments between the members (not that I agree or disagree with them) are also beneficial for the topic as a whole and for other readers to form their own opinions. I think it would be very helpful to have another thread purely for debates and theories.



Thanks Okarus! I appreciate your support to keep the debates and theories going, perhaps in a different thread, like a WS-15 engine thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> @pakistanipower no bad mouth please
> 
> im not sure its Ws15, its sure domestic one.


pardon me sir i seal my lips now, but @Asok has a too much baseless arguments wishful thinking and crap



Deino said:


> Ok. @Asok, if You don't get it the polite way, then now take it as a strict order:
> 
> *Do not derail this thread any more, these are not facts, these are Your theories, period.*
> 
> As such it is a derail to post over and over the same BS, over and over the same arguments that this truly lame flight display without afterburner was something spectacular, any comparison with blue F-222-BA and old R-79 images. END !!
> 
> My duty - and here we have an agreement within the mods - is to keep PDF clean for too much of this fan-boy speculations.
> 
> As such if You tell it You think so, it's fine ... otherwise I will delete all following and older posts to clean the thread from Your most ridiculous theories.
> 
> There is no one is desperate to see China small or to diminish its achievements, but it seems as if You are in panic mode to interpret anything in this regard. Stick to the facts.
> 
> If You rate this as a biased, then it's Your problem but that's fine.
> 
> In only one point I agree with You: There seems to be an effort going on from the PLA/AVIC or anyone else to hide the true identity of this engine, so that esp. the Chinese public will not know what it is and it seems as if You and Your friends are part of this campaign since You turn away from facts, since You derail normal discussions with trash ...
> 
> End ! my final word on this issue.
> 
> Deino


please Mr deino please delete all @Asok baseless rants or please ban him for J-20 thread, thank you


----------



## atan651

Pakistanipower, why are you so upset with Asok? If you think his comments are rubbish then don't read them. Everyone is entiled to his/her opinions. Afterall this is a discussion forum!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

TANAHH said:


> Pakistanipower, why are you so upset with Asok? If you think his comments are rubbish then don't read them. Everyone is entiled to his/her opinions. Afterall this is a discussion forum!



Thanks Again TANAHH! I really appreciate it. When someone has nothing left to argue, they resort to those tactic or desperation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

TANAHH said:


> Pakistanipower, why are you so upset with Asok? If you think his comments are rubbish then don't read them. Everyone is entiled to his/her opinions. Afterall this is a discussion forum!


*All Chinese senior and respected members like @Chinese Tiger 1986,@cirr and others stated this** WS-15 is in air testing mode on IL-76 engine testbed* *so i beleive on them not basseless rants from @Asok that stated "WS-15 is used by J-20" he is no prove that J-20 is using WS-15 but just in his baseless arguments and wishful thinking*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asad71

HongWu said:


> Anybody read this excellent review of stealth fighters?
> 
> ????-----?20????????????????_????_?????--??????--????????



Is this available in English please?


----------



## grey boy 2

CHINA83NEWS said:


> 中国人刚注册大家好。


welcome bro

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

grey boy 2 said:


> welcome bro


I am China shenyang is J6 aircraft manufacturing city

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

2 beautiful HD pictures of J-20 (old and new)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

grey boy 2 said:


> 2 beautiful HD pictures of J-20 (old and new)


chinese?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

CHINA83NEWS said:


> chinese?


Yes bro, i'm Chinese

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

CHINA83NEWS said:


> 那就中文吧。可累死我了。看你头像我就该反应过来。
> 
> 
> 这个论坛注册多久能发帖呢？


兄弟，這是一個英語論壇，不能常常用中文，請見諒我的香港中文、小弟長期在外國生活，中文不太好啦

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

grey boy 2 said:


> 兄弟，這是一個英語論壇，不能常常用中文，請見諒我的香港中文、小弟長期在外國生活，中文不太好啦


ok

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Ok guys ... I don''t mind if from time time some comments are given in Chinese, but if You can't discuss in English, You should go and search another forum !*

Deino


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

Deino said:


> *Ok guys ... I don''t mind if from time time some comments are given in Chinese, but if You can't discuss in English, You should go and search another forum !*
> 
> Deino


I see!



gambit said:


> Braking chute.


chinese?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> *All Chinese senior and respected members like @Chinese Tiger 1986,@cirr and others stated this** WS-15 is in air testing mode on IL-76 engine testbed* *so i beleive on them not basseless rants from @Asok that stated "WS-15 is used by J-20" he is no prove that J-20 is using WS-15 but just in his baseless arguments and wishful thinking*



Well, the pure WS-15 is under testing, but the current J-20 engine is good enough to match the F119.

@Asok wasn't entirely wrong either.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, the pure WS-15 is under testing, but the current J-20 engine is good enough to match the F119.
> 
> @Asok wasn't entirely wrong either.


you said its a hybird b/w WS-10X WS-15 but @Asok insisting its a final and pure version of WS15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> you said its a hybird b/w WS-10X WS-15 but @Asok insisting its a final and pure version of WS15



Saying the current J-20 engine is the final version of WS-15 might be too much.

Many reliable info pointed out that the final version of the WS-15 got the engine blade that can withstand 2.2K Celsius and being more than twice as durable as the F119.

Although the current J-20 engine is a beast, but not an unstoppable juggernaut like the finalized WS-15.

Most Chinese military pundits believe the current J-20 engine is outstanding, but it is not the finalized WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I do remember that China's new titanium alloy for the engine blade is about 3 times the lifespan of that on the F119, but I just forgot the link.
> 
> Could someone help me to find the link of that article?





ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Saying the current J-20 engine is the final version of WS-15 might be too much.
> 
> Many reliable info pointed out that the final version of the WS-15 got the engine blade that can withstand 2.2K Celsius and being more than twice as durable as the F119.
> 
> Although the current J-20 engine is a beast, but not an unstoppable juggernaut like the finalized WS-15.
> 
> Most Chinese military pundits believe the current J-20 engine is outstanding, but it is not the finalized WS-15.



I have never insisted the current engine on J-20 is a final/finished/complete/done version. There is no such thing. All engines are continuous improvement of previous engine. Sometimes they just given a new alphabet(A,B,C. . . .), some times a new number(10,15, 20, , , ) I have insisted that the engine core is WS-15's core mated with mature WS-10X and AL-31Fn technology. China has 20-30 years working experiences with these two engines. It's hard to imagine that there is nothing engineers don't find useful to be incorporated in the new WS-15. 

I don't believe WS-15 was started from a clean sheet as Deino has suggested. No need to, and way too much risk. Remember engineers have very tight deadlines to meet tough performance requirements.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, the pure WS-15 is under testing, but the current J-20 engine is good enough to match the F119.
> 
> @Asok wasn't entirely wrong either.




To say J-20's engine matched F119 instantly ruled out WS-10X and AL-Fn, because both's max. thrust is around 120-145kN, while F199 max thrust is rated as 156kN. The actual figure is classified, probably 10-15% higher.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ....
> I don't believe WS-15 was started from a clean sheet as Deino has suggested. No need to, and way too much risk. Remember engineers have very tight deadlines to meet tough performance requirements.
> ...



And therefore they are so stupid to take the core of an engine even more than 30 years old !!! Do You even know what You are claiming ????

http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Saying the current J-20 engine is the final version of WS-15 might be too much.
> 
> Many reliable info pointed out that the final version of the WS-15 got the engine blade that can withstand 2.2K Celsius and being more than twice as durable as the F119.
> 
> Although the current J-20 engine is a beast, but not an unstoppable juggernaut like the finalized WS-15.
> 
> Most Chinese military pundits believe the current J-20 engine is outstanding, but it is not the finalized WS-15.



I agreed the current J-20 engine is far more powerful than people are willing to give credit for. And it can not be that outstanding if its WS-10X and AL-31FN. We all know what they can do, since they are in service for 20-30 years. No Supersonic Cruise capability on any of the planes: J-10, J-11, J-15, J-16, Su-27, Su-30.

"but it is not the finalized WS-15" Of course not, as soon as a new higher temperature alloy or manufacturing is discovered, WS-15 will be given an extension or boost of life. 

I have been saying WS-10X and AL-31FN are not powerful enough to give J-20 Supersonic Cruise capability, because those planes already used them can't do it.

If no Supersonic Cruise capability, J-20 is not yet a 5th generation fighter with the 4S capability. Just a big 4th Gen. plane with Stealth and good sensors.

Under such circumstances, can anyone imagine the PLAAF Commander find its performance entirely satisfactory and induct it into service, and start mass production?



Deino said:


> And therefore they are so stupid to take the core of an engine even more than 30 years old !!! Do You even know what You are claiming ????
> 
> http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en



The design might be 30 years old, there is no natural laws preventing Chinese and Russian engineers improve it with new Titanium alloy and manufacturing processes that was developed in the last 30 years.

The SR-71's engine was already more than 50 years. Does any other plane come close to its performance?

The F135 engine was developed in the 1990's, already 25 years old. Is there any other production engine that match its performance?

There was a story by the chief designer of WS-10. He said "before I start engine design, I didn't know how hard is to design an engine. After I find out how hard the designing part was, I didn't know how hard is to manufacture it. After I find out how hard is to manufacture it, I find out how hard is to achieve stable quality control. After I find out how to make a quality and reliable engine, I am now an old man with grey hair and fallen teeth, and all my children have grown up."

Take it from the man who has worked 30 years on WS-10. It's not easy to come up with a stable high TWR engine. And China didn't start with a clean sheet with this engine. It has two sample core, purchased from US, to take it apart and study.

There are 8 countries who possessed nuclear weapons, but only the five UN Permanent Security Council members can produce an engine with TWR > 8. 

Not even Japan, not even Germany can do it.



Asok said:


> I agreed the current J-20 engine is far more powerful than people are willing to give credit for. And it can not be that outstanding if its WS-10X and AL-31FN. We all know what they can do, since they are in service for 20-30 years. No Supersonic Cruise capability on any of the planes: J-10, J-11, J-15, J-16, Su-27, Su-30.
> 
> "but it is not the finalized WS-15" Of course not, as soon as a new higher temperature alloy or manufacturing is discovered, WS-15 will be given an extension or boost of life.
> 
> I have been saying WS-10X and AL-31FN are not powerful enough to give J-20 Supersonic Cruise capability, because those planes already used them can't do it.
> 
> If no Supersonic Cruise capability, J-20 is not yet a 5th generation fighter with the 4S capability. Just a big 4th Gen. plane with Stealth and good sensors.
> 
> Under such circumstances, can anyone imagine the PLAAF Commander find its performance entirely satisfactory and induct it into service, and start mass production?
> 
> 
> 
> The design might be 30 years old, there is no natural laws preventing Chinese and Russian engineers improve it with new Titanium alloy and manufacturing processes that was developed in the last 30 years.
> 
> The SR-71's engine was already more than 50 years. Does any other plane come close to its performance?
> 
> The F135 engine was developed in the 1990's, already 25 years old. Is there any other production engine that match its performance?
> 
> There was a story by the chief designer of WS-10. He said "before I start engine design, I didn't know how hard is to design an engine. After I find out how hard the designing part was, I didn't know how hard is to manufacture it. After I find out how hard is to manufacture it, I find out how hard is to achieve stable quality control. After I find out how to make a quality and reliable engine, I am now an old man with grey hair and fallen teeth, and all my children have grown up."
> 
> Take it from the man who has worked 30 years on WS-10. It's not easy to come up with a stable high TWR engine. And China didn't start with a clean sheet with this engine. It has two sample core, purchased from US, to take it apart and study.
> 
> There are 8 countries who possessed nuclear weapons, but only the five UN Permanent Security Council members can produce an engine with TWR > 8.
> 
> Not even Japan, not even Germany can do it.



Deino, I do apologize for my argumentative manners. I have not given you enough credit for running this thread in a manner that is actually pretty good. I actually appreciate your hard work and time put into this thread and PDF forum. Please accept my apology. --Asok.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> I agreed the current J-20 engine is far more powerful than people are willing to give credit for. And it can not be that outstanding if its WS-10X and AL-31FN. We all know what they can do, since they are in service for 20-30 years. No Supersonic Cruise capability on any of the planes: J-10, J-11, J-15, J-16, Su-27, Su-30.
> 
> "but it is not the finalized WS-15" Of course not, as soon as a new higher temperature alloy or manufacturing is discovered, WS-15 will be given an extension or boost of life.
> 
> I have been saying WS-10X and AL-31FN are not powerful enough to give J-20 Supersonic Cruise capability, because those planes already used them can't do it.
> 
> If no Supersonic Cruise capability, J-20 is not yet a 5th generation fighter with the 4S capability. Just a big 4th Gen. plane with Stealth and good sensors.
> 
> Under such circumstances, can anyone imagine the PLAAF Commander find its performance entirely satisfactory and induct it into service, and start mass production?



China's turbofan engine is like its supercomputing domain, it got no superstar leading scientists like Professor Ma or Professor Pan, but it can still blow out of people's expectation.

Just look at the achievement of Taihulight, then the turbofan engine is going to do the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China's turbofan engine is like its supercomputing domain, it got no superstar leading scientists like Professor Ma or Professor Pan, but it can still blow out of people's expectation.
> 
> Just look at the achievement of Taihulight, then the turbofan engine is going to do the same.



Interesting observation. There are no superstar aircraft engine designers in history, unlike airframe designers like Kelly Johnson, Yan Wei, Mikoyan-and-Gurevich, , , , Probably engine design and manufacturing is very accumulative, unlike airframe which sometimes a stroke of genius can transform the entire plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Interesting observation. There are no superstar aircraft engine designers in history, unlike airframe designers like Kelly Johnson, Yan Wei, Mikoyan-and-Gurevich, , , , Probably engine design and manufacturing is very accumulative, unlike airframe which sometimes a stroke of genius can transform the entire plane.



Yep, these types of domain are accumulative rather than brainstorming.

Since the US still holds these accumulative domains because decades of legacy after the cold war, but lacking those brainstorming geniuses. When you invest in the brand new technology, you need those brainstorming types of scientists.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yep, these types of domain are accumulative rather than brainstorming.
> 
> Since the US still holds these accumulative domains because decades of legacy after the cold war, but lacking those brainstorming geniuses. When you invest in the brand new technology, you need those brainstorming types of scientists.


High-temperature shuttle broke through the early China.But now WS15 development is not very clear.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> The design might be 30 years old, there is no natural laws preventing Chinese and Russian engineers improve it with new Titanium alloy and manufacturing processes that was developed in the last 30 years.
> The SR-71's engine was already more than 50 years. Does any other plane come close to its performance?
> The F135 engine was developed in the 1990's, already 25 years old. Is there any other production engine that match its performance?



 There is absolutely NOTHING wrong in adopting the core technology of a product which was based on very sound engineering and design e.g. German Dr Felix Wankel designed the rotary engine but it was the Japanese Mazda that perfected it.

Whether it is in the PW F119 or its evolved F135 or the WS-15 variants, there are no doubt that they are all heavily influenced by Russian R79-300 engine and the core technologies are drawn from it.

As for the so-called Technology Transfer from Russia to China, this was probably what happened? 
We all know that both AMNTK Soyuz of Sukhoi, they are all Russia SOE and they were all cash-scrapped and needed to survive the crisis. They did not have any new fund for further development, so they were forced to and reluctantly sold off these design to both China and USA in exchange for cash.

So they probably told the Chinese: *"Here are the blueprints and a finish prototype model. Take it and sort it out yourself."*

So R79-300 ended up in USA as the evolved F119 and F135 and in China as the evolved WS-15 emei. Certainly NOT a bolt to nut copy as some may like to imagine.

In histories, *NO developed countries have ever really transfer their technologies to other nation.

*



Asok said:


> There was a story by the chief designer of WS-10. He said "before I start engine design, I didn't know how hard is to design an engine. After I find out how hard the designing part was, I didn't know how hard is to manufacture it. After I find out how hard is to manufacture it, I find out how hard is to achieve stable quality control. After I find out how to make a quality and reliable engine, I am now an old man with grey hair and fallen teeth, and all my children have grown up."
> Take it from the man who has worked 30 years on WS-10. It's not easy to come up with a stable high TWR engine. And China didn't start with a clean sheet with this engine. It has two sample core, purchased from US, to take it apart and study.
> There are 8 countries who possessed nuclear weapons, but only the five UN Permanent Security Council members can produce an engine with TWR > 8.
> Not even Japan, not even Germany can do it.



 Yes. The story by the Chief designer sums it all. Yes. Designing and building aero-engine is NO easy task. 
For China it has been tedious and heartbreaking learning process. Although China has been involved in constructing aero-engine since the 1950's and it was only quite recent that they achieved breakthrough and success e.g. China is now the second nation in the world apart from USA that has successfully designed and manufactured hollow section crystal blades.

In fact the construction of aero-engine involving many related, strategic and critical technologies apart from good design and a pool of experienced aeronautical engineers, scientists, machinists, technicians, etc. example metallurgy, powder intrusion machine, high capacity forging press, etc. Mind you. No advanced nations will ever sell them to them.







The 10 storey tall 80,000-ton press forge in Deyang, Sichuan. How can any nation hope to be an aerospace nation e.g. Indonesia, etc without the related technology to build one of these very expensive machine?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> There is absolutely NOTHING wrong in adopting the core technology of a product which was based on very sound engineering and design e.g. German Dr Felix Wankel designed the rotary engine but it was the Japanese Mazda that perfected it.
> 
> Whether it is in the PW F119 or its evolved F135 or the WS-15 variants, there are no doubt that they are all heavily influenced by Russian R79-300 engine and the core technologies are drawn from it.
> 
> As for the so-called Technology Transfer from Russia to China, this was probably what happened?
> We all know that both AMNTK Soyuz of Sukhoi, they are all Russia SOE and they were all cash-scrapped and needed to survive the crisis. They did not have any new fund for further development, so they were forced to and reluctantly sold off these design to both China and USA in exchange for cash.
> 
> So they probably told the Chinese: *"Here are the blueprints and a finish prototype model. Take it and sort it out yourself."*
> 
> So R79-300 ended up in USA as the evolved F119 and F135 and in China as the evolved WS-15 emei. Certainly NOT a bolt to nut copy as some may like to imagine.
> 
> In histories, *NO developed countries have ever really transfer their technologies to other nation.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The story by the Chief designer sums it all. Yes. Designing and building aero-engine is NO easy task.
> For China it has been tedious and heartbreaking learning process. Although China has been involved in constructing aero-engine since the 1950's and it was only quite recent that they achieved breakthrough and success e.g. China is now the second nation in the world apart from USA that has successfully designed and manufactured hollow section crystal blades.
> 
> In fact the construction of aero-engine involving many related, strategic and critical technologies apart from good design and a pool of experienced aeronautical engineers, scientists, machinists, technicians, etc. example metallurgy, powder intrusion machine, high capacity forging press, etc. Mind you. No advanced nations will ever sell them to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10 storey tall 80,000-ton press forge in Deyang, Sichuan. How can any nation hope to be an aerospace nation e.g. Indonesia, etc without the related technology to build one of these very expensive machine?


Picture is a little old


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

CHINA83NEWS said:


> Picture is a little old


It that relevant and have they performed any improvement on it?

In fact this machine is the world's biggest. The next biggest forgecan be found in Russia, France. Alcoa from Ohio, USA operates a 50,000 tons model and has been producing component for Boeing and Airbus for decades. Alcoa supplies forged wheel and brake components for almost all U.S. military aircraft and helicopters, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the U.S. military’s newest fighter jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

Asok said:


> *Deino, I do apologize for my argumentative manners. I have not given you enough credit for running this thread in a manner that is actually pretty good. I actually appreciate your hard work and time put into this thread and PDF forum.* Please accept my apology. --Asok.


Indeed it's true! If any member here compares the mod's works by Deino with, let say, the other Eng defence forum so-called the SDF, a Tampa, FL-hosted site, see how the single-handedly managed iron-fist is applied there by one mod  I think that's why PDF is more vibrant and is a more active site.... hence, my choice of stay.

And let it be that way. Thank you for every one who helps make it an enjoyable stay here.

Btw, Asok, thanks for your many interesting posts, though some truths may not be known until long in the future or may simply be never known, some of your persistent & lengthy expositions still provide the reading interests  (though I ain't agree with your rants against the FC-31).
Cheers, have a nice day!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Alcoa 50,000 tons press-forge in Ohio.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> It that relevant and have they performed any improvement on it?
> 
> In fact this machine is the world's biggest. The next biggest forgecan be found in Russia, France. Alcoa from Ohio, USA operates a 50,000 tons model and has been producing component for Boeing and Airbus for decades. Alcoa supplies forged wheel and brake components for almost all U.S. military aircraft and helicopters, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the U.S. military’s newest fighter jet.


China's domestic equipment upgrades is very fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> Deino, I do apologize for my argumentative manners. I have not given you enough credit for running this thread in a manner that is actually pretty good. I actually appreciate your hard work and time put into this thread and PDF forum. Please accept my apology. --Asok.



That is a great gesture! 

To me, a forum is a venue where members share, exchange information, idea and most of all minus the trolls. 

So a moderator  should judiciously filtered out the unwanted elements without the perception of being biased.

Well.  It is easier said than done.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> Indeed it's true! If any member here compares the mod's works by Deino with, let say, the other Eng defence forum so-called the SDF, a Tampa, FL-hosted site, see how the single-handedly managed iron-fist is applied there by one mod  I think that's why PDF is more vibrant and is a more active site.... hence, my choice of stay.
> 
> And let it be that way. Thank you for every one who helps make it an enjoyable stay here.
> 
> Btw, Asok, thanks for your many interesting posts, though some truths may not be known until long in the future or may simply be never known, some of your persistent & lengthy expositions still provide the reading interests  (though I ain't agree with your rants against the FC-31).
> Cheers, have a nice day!



Thanks samsara, I find your comment is well balanced and much appreciated. We are here to entertain each other and further our interests in military affairs. Despite our disagreements over WS-15, I do think Deino is doing a decent service for us. 

*"(though I ain't agree with your rants against the FC-31)."
*
I don't like this plane one bit. But I have always been wondering why it exist at all. If PLAAF is not interested in it, the chance of being a successful export product is next to zero. There is no fighter plane that were exported, but not used by its own country. 

Now that I appreciate the Art of Deception more, I advance this outrageous theory/speculation that this plane is a distraction or decoy. It's been more than 4 years now, but it has flew only a few times.

It might have the purpose of creating the impression/perception that China is going to produce two thousands of them as High/Low mix with J-20, and J-20 will stop production at 200 units, just like F-22.

There are many Chinese fanboys at various Forum who are vigorously pushing this High/Low mix "setup". At first, I totally dismiss them as ignorant. Now, I am thinking may be they are working, unknowingly, for China's Bureau of Strategic Deception.

Now that J-20 is going into LRIP and mass production soon. China needs to hide its true production target number with more lies/deception/misinformation/disinformation, so it won't prompt US to restart F-22 production soon. 

I just thought of it. Don't take me too seriously. If it turned out to be true, it's diabolically genius. I don't think the Chinese are this deviously clever.



CAPRICORN-88 said:


> That is a great gesture!
> 
> To me, a forum is a venue where members share, exchange information, idea and most of all minus the trolls.
> 
> So a moderator  should judiciously filtered out the unwanted elements without the perception of being biased.
> 
> Well.  It is easier said than done.


Thanks CAPRICORN-88! We could disagree and stay civilized. After all, this is a internet military affair forum for popular entertainment, not some cut throat arena. 



CAPRICORN-88 said:


> There is absolutely NOTHING wrong in adopting the core technology of a product which was based on very sound engineering and design e.g. German Dr Felix Wankel designed the rotary engine but it was the Japanese Mazda that perfected it.
> 
> Whether it is in the PW F119 or its evolved F135 or the WS-15 variants, there are no doubt that they are all heavily influenced by Russian R79-300 engine and the core technologies are drawn from it.
> 
> As for the so-called Technology Transfer from Russia to China, this was probably what happened?
> We all know that both AMNTK Soyuz of Sukhoi, they are all Russia SOE and they were all cash-scrapped and needed to survive the crisis. They did not have any new fund for further development, so they were forced to and reluctantly sold off these design to both China and USA in exchange for cash.
> 
> So they probably told the Chinese: *"Here are the blueprints and a finish prototype model. Take it and sort it out yourself."*
> 
> So R79-300 ended up in USA as the evolved F119 and F135 and in China as the evolved WS-15 emei. Certainly NOT a bolt to nut copy as some may like to imagine.
> 
> In histories, *NO developed countries have ever really transfer their technologies to other nation.*
> 
> Yes. The story by the Chief designer sums it all. Yes. Designing and building aero-engine is NO easy task.
> For China it has been tedious and heartbreaking learning process. Although China has been involved in constructing aero-engine since the 1950's and it was only quite recent that they achieved breakthrough and success e.g. China is now the second nation in the world apart from USA that has successfully designed and manufactured hollow section crystal blades.
> 
> In fact the construction of aero-engine involving many related, strategic and critical technologies apart from good design and a pool of experienced aeronautical engineers, scientists, machinists, technicians, etc. example metallurgy, powder intrusion machine, high capacity forging press, etc. Mind you. No advanced nations will ever sell them to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 10 storey tall 80,000-ton press forge in Deyang, Sichuan. How can any nation hope to be an aerospace nation e.g. Indonesia, etc without the related technology to build one of these very expensive machine?



Remember, in the 1990's, China was struggling with WS-10 (TWR 8), with absolutely no help from US, in fact the military embargo stopped all military cooperation. The chance of successfully complete WS-10 was bleak.

And here we have this, powerful (>200kN thrust) Russian R79-300 engine , available for sale, with complete blueprints, and documentations, and even the designers were for available for hiring.

Would China jump on this God sent gift and develop its own TWR 10 engine? 

You bet!



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yep, these types of domain are accumulative rather than brainstorming.
> 
> Since the US still holds these accumulative domains because decades of legacy after the cold war, but lacking those brainstorming geniuses. When you invest in the brand new technology, you need those brainstorming types of scientists.



Yup, you can take a leap of imagination and design a TWR 15 engine in a computer, but if you don't have the material, process, and manufacturing techniques to go with it, you are not going to make it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

Asok said:


> Deino, I do apologize for my argumentative manners. I have not given you enough credit for running this thread in a manner that is actually pretty good. I actually appreciate your hard work and time put into this thread and PDF forum. Please accept my apology. --Asok.


Well done, Aosk. As I said a while ago Deino did a good job, it requires lots of patience,effort and time(even sleep time) to manage this forum.


Tiqiu said:


> Please don't feel that way, personally I think you did a good job in many things.




And some words to @Deino if you could please allow me:
The worst assumption is assumption itself.
I understand sometimes you might feel some Chinese members were attacking your lacking of the Chinese language skills rather than your arguments. And I understand that some Chinese members were regarding you as one more Gorden Chang type of China-basher. Of course I maybe wrong since I am relatively a new member here. I think this misperception from both sides may caused by the simple fact that English is second language for all of us, we are all not very comfortable to do a thorough and skillful writing to cover all we wanted to cover.

Allow me to give your one example to illustrate what it means:
Not long ago I upload this image tying to show that J-20 were deployed to Dingxin base.





Here is what you replied


Deino said:


> NO, the first image shows a J-11B assigned to the 175. Brigade and the image below shows several MKK from the 18. Division .. completely different units.



Actually I am aware of 20796 is D18's; I assumed People would understand "金头盔大赛" (Golden Helmet Competition- jets of different military units fly in to compete),I merely wanted to point out that the J-20 would do some war game at Dingxin base.

As you can see in this case,the sparklers for potential conflict was just laziness or a lack of effort to explain more. Thus I think to make lives easy for all of us in the future, we all ought to try to give others the benefit of doubts before blowing off. We should all remember " Animosity builds upon error"

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Well done, Aosk. As I said a while ago Deino did a good job, it requires lots of patience,effort and time(even sleep time) to manage this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> And some words to @Deino if you could please allow me:
> The worst assumption is assumption itself.
> I understand sometimes you might feel some Chinese members were attacking your lacking of the Chinese language skills rather than your arguments. And I understand that some Chinese members were regarding you as one more Gorden Chang type of China-basher. Of course I maybe wrong since I am relatively a new member here. I think this misperception from both sides may caused by the simple fact that English is second language for all of us, we are all not very comfortable to do a thorough and skillful writing to cover all we wanted to cover.
> 
> Allow me to give your one example to illustrate what it means:
> Not long ago I upload this image tying to show that J-20 were deployed to Dingxin base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what you replied
> 
> 
> Actually I am aware of 20796 is D18's; I assumed People would understand "金头盔大赛" (Golden Helmet Competition- jets of different military units fly in to compete),I merely wanted to point out that the J-20 would do some war game at Dingxin base.
> 
> As you can see in this case,the sparklers for potential conflict was just laziness or a lack of effort to explain more. Thus I think to make lives easy for all of us in the future, we all ought to try to give others the benefit of doubts before blowing off. We should all remember " Animosity builds upon error"




Thanks for this comment and it's exactly what I meant; I can only concur. Thanks again !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China's turbofan engine is like its supercomputing domain, it got no superstar leading scientists like Professor Ma or Professor Pan, but it can still blow out of people's expectation.
> 
> Just look at the achievement of Taihulight, then the turbofan engine is going to do the same.





Tiqiu said:


> Well done, Aosk. As I said a while ago Deino did a good job, it requires lots of patience,effort and time(even sleep time) to manage this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> And some words to @Deino if you could please allow me:
> The worst assumption is assumption itself.
> I understand sometimes you might feel some Chinese members were attacking your lacking of the Chinese language skills rather than your arguments. And I understand that some Chinese members were regarding you as one more Gorden Chang type of China-basher. Of course I maybe wrong since I am relatively a new member here. I think this misperception from both sides may caused by the simple fact that English is second language for all of us, we are all not very comfortable to do a thorough and skillful writing to cover all we wanted to cover.
> 
> Allow me to give your one example to illustrate what it means:
> Not long ago I upload this image tying to show that J-20 were deployed to Dingxin base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what you replied
> 
> 
> Actually I am aware of 20796 is D18's; I assumed People would understand "金头盔大赛" (Golden Helmet Competition- jets of different military units fly in to compete),I merely wanted to point out that the J-20 would do some war game at Dingxin base.
> 
> As you can see in this case,the sparklers for potential conflict was just laziness or a lack of effort to explain more. Thus I think to make lives easy for all of us in the future, we all ought to try to give others the benefit of doubts before blowing off. We should all remember " Animosity builds upon error"



Yup, I am guilty of laziness in quoting my sources. I am not writing a scholarly paper that requires vigorous listing of all sources of information. I often, I just write my comments, and assuming others have the same background informations as I am. So I don't bother to show where I got them.

For example, it is well known to many Chinese that China hired thousands of experts from former USSR to help with the military technology, and China also brought many hardwares from USSR. I assumed people here at PDF are also aware that. So I didn't list any sources that China got a lot of technical help from Russia for the WS-15 project.

In fact, both the West and China hired many Russian and Ukraine scientists after the fall of USSR.

I worked in a US Defense Contractor Company, which makes command control coordination and communication equipment (C4) for Pentagon. I was surprised to see so many Russian PH.Ds there. The fact that they could obtain Top Secret Clearance testify their skills were in demand even in US.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> The 10 storey tall 80,000-ton press forge in Deyang, Sichuan. How can any nation hope to be an aerospace nation e.g. Indonesia, etc without the related technology to build one of these very expensive machine?


_Curious about what can be *the possible applications of such giant press forging machine*, I searched around and found this old yet still relevant article._

---------

*Under Pressure: The 10-Story Machine China Hopes Will Boost Its Aviation Industry.*

*By Dinny McMahon - China Real Time Report - The Wall Street Journal (2014-12-03)*

*In April last year (2013), Erzhong Group published a photo of its new, 80,000 ton hydraulic press forge, the biggest of its kind in the world.*

DEYANG, China – The engineers started closing the rollerdoor the moment they saw a foreigner walking toward them.

Standing around laughing in blue overalls and yellow hard hats, they went quiet the moment I started walking up the drive. I asked if I could take a peek behind the door. They said it was a secret.

Still, I managed to catch a glimpse of two floors’ worth of the 10-story-tall machine Beijing hopes will play a major role in driving China’s aviation and aerospace industries: an 80,000-ton closed-die hydraulic press forge.

Repeated requests for a tour of the forge were declined. Both Zhang Jian, the head of propaganda at Erzhong Group, the company that built and operates the forge, and Wang Yu, the secretary of the board of directors of Erzhong’s Shanghai-listed unit, said that the forge is “confidential.”

It’s not immediately clear what about the machine – which is painted green with Erzhong Group printed across it in red Chinese characters – is so secret.

*The machine is the biggest of its kind in the world. The biggest forge in the U.S. can exert only 50,000 tons of pressure, and is operated by Alcoa in Ohio. France has a 65,000-ton machine, and Russia has a machine capable of exerting 75,000 tons of pressure.*

But the technology China is using is nothing new. It is based on modifications of Russian designs from the 80s, according to a person involved in the development process.

More sensitive is what China can potentially do with it.

Press forging involves shaping a piece of metal under high pressure by squeezing it into a mold. That alters the flow of the metal’s grain – its internal structure – allowing engineers to create stronger and lighter components than would be possible by just beating them into shape or welding them together. Greater pressure results in stronger components.

The Erzhong forge can exert up to 80,000 tons of downward pressure using five columns. Flipped upside down, it could lift China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier, with room to spare for a handful of submarines. Airbus is using the Russian forge to make landing gear components for the A380, the world’s biggest passenger plane. Having the world’s biggest forge should allow China to produce large components of higher strength than possible elsewhere.

*The technology was pioneered during WWII by Germany*, which didn’t have a sufficient supply of steel and so had to mold its air force out of more brittle, but lighter metals, according to Tim Heffernan, a writer who has researched the U.S. forge program. The end of the war brought the start of the jet age, and the U.S. government provided support for the building of forges around the country, so that the country was able to produce light planes that were sufficiently strong to withstand supersonic speeds.

Alcoa’s forge has been producing parts for Boeing and Airbus for decades. The company says it supplies forged wheel and brake components for almost all U.S. military aircraft and helicopters, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the U.S. military’s newest fighter jet.

Erzhong hasn’t explicitly said what the forge will be used for, but academics involved in its development process said there are potential military applications.

The first component produced by the forge at its official launch in April last year was the landing gear for the C919, China’s long-awaited and much behind schedule narrow-bodied passenger aircraft being built by the Commercial Aircraft Company of China.

Since then, though, the forge hasn’t gotten much use. People at the company say that there haven’t been many orders.

_Note: A previous version of this post said that Alcoa makes almost all wheel and brake components for U.S. military aircraft and helicopters. It has since been corrected._

~~~~~~~~~~~

I really doubt that in recent years that giant press forging machine has been sitting in any lackluster fashion, lacks of orders... ha ha ha... the author had too early the verdict!

=======================

Here's another article by FRANCE-METALLURGIE; however, this article seems to be a machine-translated one into English thus its readability is rather challenging yet it contains some interesting info.

*China’s 80,000-ton press forge almost ready for use (US) – FRANCE-METALLURGIE*

By Metallurgist (2013-03-18)

_*"In Dec 2007, China started the building of an 80,000-ton press forge (800MN heavy die forging press) in Deyang, the southwestern Sichuan Province. The press will be ready by Jan 2013."*_

"China in fact, has long been determined to produce large press. In 1975, some proposal was submitted to the then State Planning Commission on the construction of large forging hydraulic press base, and has been approved. However, due to the limited conditions, only completed the design and prototype manufacturing, the ultimate goal has not been achieved. After 30 years, the absence of large presses, had severely constrained the development of China’s aerospace industry."

"Deputy chief engineer Chen Xiaoci to reporters cited other important uses of the press: the gas turbine with a large wheel forgings, flue gas turbine with a large wheel forgings, all kinds of engine blades, large marine die forgings, power stations, large die forgings, pressure vessel forgings, as well as other types of civilian goods production die forgings are inseparable press. In the past, China has no large press, the production of large forgings by casting or free forging method. Due to high material consumption, and the lack of precision, resulting in some forgings have to be imported. Construction of the press, will make the production of a number of artifacts by casting into forging by free forging into forging, so that product quality would be enhanced. Chen Xiaoci said 80,000 tons the press wholly owned independent intellectual property rights. After the unremitting efforts of several generations, Chinese manufacturing enterprises and research institutes in the overall structure and technical aspects of the press to achieve a breakthrough, he said. Technically there is no big obstacle, simply modern control techniques applied to large presses. However, the construction of 80,000 ton press, after all, is a large and complex system engineering, there are still some key technologies needed to overcome."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> Well done, Aosk. As I said a while ago Deino did a good job, it requires lots of patience,effort and time(even sleep time) to manage this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> And some words to @Deino if you could please allow me:
> The worst assumption is assumption itself.
> I understand sometimes you might feel some Chinese members were attacking your lacking of the Chinese language skills rather than your arguments. And I understand that some Chinese members were regarding you as one more Gorden Chang type of China-basher. Of course I maybe wrong since I am relatively a new member here. I think this misperception from both sides may caused by the simple fact that English is second language for all of us, we are all not very comfortable to do a thorough and skillful writing to cover all we wanted to cover.
> 
> Allow me to give your one example to illustrate what it means:
> Not long ago I upload this image tying to show that J-20 were deployed to Dingxin base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what you replied
> 
> 
> Actually I am aware of 20796 is D18's; I assumed People would understand "金头盔大赛" (Golden Helmet Competition- jets of different military units fly in to compete),I merely wanted to point out that the J-20 would do some war game at Dingxin base.
> 
> As you can see in this case,the sparklers for potential conflict was just laziness or a lack of effort to explain more. Thus I think to make lives easy for all of us in the future, we all ought to try to give others the benefit of doubts before blowing off. We should all remember " Animosity builds upon error"



"Well done, Aosk. As I said a while ago Deino did a good job, it requires lots of patience,effort and time(even sleep time) to manage this forum." 

I do think Deino was prompt in stopping irrelevent comments and postings to this thread.



samsara said:


> _Curious about what can be *the possible applications of such giant press forging machine*, I search around and found this old yet still relevant article._
> 
> ---------
> 
> *Under Pressure: The 10-Story Machine China Hopes Will Boost Its Aviation Industry.*
> 
> *By Dinny McMahon - China Real Time Report - The Wall Street Journal (2014-12-03)*
> 
> *In April last year (2013), Erzhong Group published a photo of its new, 80,000 ton hydraulic press forge, the biggest of its kind in the world.*
> 
> DEYANG, China – The engineers started closing the rollerdoor the moment they saw a foreigner walking toward them.
> 
> Standing around laughing in blue overalls and yellow hard hats, they went quiet the moment I started walking up the drive. I asked if I could take a peek behind the door. They said it was a secret.
> 
> Still, I managed to catch a glimpse of two floors’ worth of the 10-story-tall machine Beijing hopes will play a major role in driving China’s aviation and aerospace industries: an 80,000-ton closed-die hydraulic press forge.
> 
> Repeated requests for a tour of the forge were declined. Both Zhang Jian, the head of propaganda at Erzhong Group, the company that built and operates the forge, and Wang Yu, the secretary of the board of directors of Erzhong’s Shanghai-listed unit, said that the forge is “confidential.”
> 
> It’s not immediately clear what about the machine – which is painted green with Erzhong Group printed across it in red Chinese characters – is so secret.
> 
> The machine is the biggest of its kind in the world. The biggest forge in the U.S. can exert only 50,000 tons of pressure, and is operated by Alcoa in Ohio. France has a 65,000-ton machine, and Russia has a machine capable of exerting 75,000 tons of pressure.
> 
> But the technology China is using is nothing new. It is based on modifications of Russian designs from the 80s, according to a person involved in the development process.
> 
> More sensitive is what China can potentially do with it.
> 
> Press forging involves shaping a piece of metal under high pressure by squeezing it into a mold. That alters the flow of the metal’s grain – its internal structure – allowing engineers to create stronger and lighter components than would be possible by just beating them into shape or welding them together. Greater pressure results in stronger components.
> 
> The Erzhong forge can exert up to 80,000 tons of downward pressure using five columns. Flipped upside down, it could lift China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier, with room to spare for a handful of submarines. Airbus is using the Russian forge to make landing gear components for the A380, the world’s biggest passenger plane. Having the world’s biggest forge should allow China to produce large components of higher strength than possible elsewhere.
> 
> *The technology was pioneered during WWII by Germany*, which didn’t have a sufficient supply of steel and so had to mold its air force out of more brittle, but lighter metals, according to Tim Heffernan, a writer who has researched the U.S. forge program. The end of the war brought the start of the jet age, and the U.S. government provided support for the building of forges around the country, so that the country was able to produce light planes that were sufficiently strong to withstand supersonic speeds.
> 
> Alcoa’s forge has been producing parts for Boeing and Airbus for decades. The company says it supplies forged wheel and brake components for almost all U.S. military aircraft and helicopters, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the U.S. military’s newest fighter jet.
> 
> Erzhong hasn’t explicitly said what the forge will be used for, but academics involved in its development process said there are potential military applications.
> 
> The first component produced by the forge at its official launch in April last year was the landing gear for the C919, China’s long-awaited and much behind schedule narrow-bodied passenger aircraft being built by the Commercial Aircraft Company of China.
> 
> Since then, though, the forge hasn’t gotten much use. People at the company say that there haven’t been many orders.
> 
> _Note: A previous version of this post said that Alcoa makes almost all wheel and brake components for U.S. military aircraft and helicopters. It has since been corrected._
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> I really doubt that in recent years that giant press forging machine has been sitting in any lackluster fashion, lacks of orders... ha ha ha... the author had too early the verdict!



Typical reporters who don't know much. I often wonder what courses do they need to study to get their Journalist degree.

Those *giant press forging machine *are required for making components which required very high tensile strength, like marine engine axle, airplane bulkheads, and landing gears.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

Asok said:


> Yup, I am guilty of laziness in quoting my sources. I am not writing a scholarly paper that requires vigorous listing of all sources of information. I often, I just write my comments, and assuming others have the same background informations as I am. So I don't bother to show where I got them.
> 
> For example, it is well known to many Chinese that China hired thousands of experts from former USSR to help with the military technology, and China also brought many hardwares from USSR. I assumed people here at PDF are also aware that. So I didn't list any sources that China got a lot of technical help from Russia for the WS-15 project.
> 
> In fact, both the West and China hired many Russian and Ukraine scientists after the fall of USSR.
> 
> I worked in a US Defense Contractor Company, which makes command control coordination and communication equipment (C4) for Pentagon. I was surprised to see so many Russian PH.Ds there. The fact that they could obtain Top Secret Clearance testify their skills were in demand even in US.


It is so true. Many are among the first to receive the Chinese green card. Actually, it was said the start of the green card in China is because of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

By the way - and maybe we can try not to divert too much into indudstry high-lights - but are there any new images of these 78027x-birds ??

I know only a handfull and several of them only showng parts or the serials are psed .... so come on, there MUST be better images !!!

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> By the way - and maybe we can try not to divert too much into indudstry high-lights - but are there any new images of these 78027x-birds ??
> 
> I know only a handfull and several of them only showng parts or the serials are psed .... so come on, there MUST be better images !!!
> 
> Deino


Considering the bellicosity from the brass on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, we can expect to see more images very soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Considering the bellicosity from the brass on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, we can expect to see more images very soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I have been saying WS-10X and AL-31FN are not powerful enough to give J-20 Supersonic Cruise capability, because those planes already used them can't do it.


*Mr @Asok J-20 may be using higher thrust versions WS-10X or AL-31FN3, Just like GE F-110 GE 129 with a thrust of 29,400 lbs upgraded to F-110 GE 132 with a thrust of 32,500 lbs, with a thrust of 35,000, 36,000 lbs from highly upgraded and higher thrust versions of WS-10X or AL-31FN3 J-20 can easily super-cruise without afterburner *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHINA83NEWS

pakistanipower said:


> *Mr @Asok J-20 may be using higher thrust versions WS-10X or AL-31FN3, Just like GE F-110 GE 129 with a thrust of 29,400 lbs upgraded to F-110 GE 132 with a thrust of 32,500 lbs, with a thrust of 35,000, 36,000 lbs from highly upgraded and higher thrust versions of WS-10X or AL-31FN3 J-20 can easily super-cruise without afterburner *


Suggest you look at Chinese BBS.Says now that the engine is qualified and reliable solutions.After the success of the WS15 could see a whole new j-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Doesn't this look familiar ???? ... even more familiar that any WS-10 ?












via that video: http://www.bilibili.com/video/av4336546/index_4.html 

via: http://bbs.meyet.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=321328&pid=3760143

... at around 21:40+++

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseLuver

@Deino 
Is that a Chinese plant and what engines are those,Taihang's?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ChineseLuver said:


> @Deino
> Is that a Chinese plant and what engines are those, Taihang's?




No, these are clearly not WS-10; IMO these are even more clearly AL-31FN of some sort, even if I don't know how old are these images. But what puzzles me , it does not look like the factory in Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> No, these are clearly not WS-10; IMO these are even more clearly AL-31FN of some sort, even if I don't know how old are these images. But what puzzles me , it does not look like the factory in Russia.



Because these are a group of Chinese assembly workers working on the Chinese turbofan engines for the J-20.

This is the real AL-31F engine, clearly a different engine from the J-20 engine.








@UKBengali @pakistanipower 

The Russian engines, no matter it is the ordinary AL-31 or the bulk up 117S, its nozzle is always bending down when being uninstalled from the aircraft.

While the J-20 engine is clearly not, and its nozzle only shows a slight similarity with the nozzle of the AL-31, that's all.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pepsi Cola

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Because these are a group of Chinese assembly workers working on the Chinese turbofan engines for the J-20.
> 
> This is the real AL-31F engine, clearly a different engine from the J-20 engine.
> 
> View attachment 362181
> 
> 
> 
> @UKBengali @pakistanipower
> 
> The Russian engines, no matter it is the ordinary AL-31 or the bulk up 117S, its nozzle is always bending down when being uninstalled from the aircraft.
> 
> While the J-20 engine is clearly not, and its nozzle only shows a slight similarity with the nozzle of the AL-31, that's all.
> 
> View attachment 362187
> 
> 
> View attachment 362188


Now that you mentioned it, the ones behind are bent down, but the J-20 engine is clearly idling in a different manner. This is big.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Okarus said:


> Now that you mentioned it, the ones behind are bent down, but the J-20 engine is clearly idling in a different manner. This is big.



Just look at the PAK FA's engines, when it is turning off, its nozzle is also bending down.







While the J-20 engine's nozzle has never been bending down when it is turning off.

Only the early J-20 engines show more similarities with the AL-31, only most likely that China has implemented some technological input from the AL-31 on the earlier J-20 engines, but the later J-20 engines have showed less similarities with the AL-31.

The later J-20 engines is showing more similarities with the WS-10, because more input is from there. And I guess the final version of the WS-15 will barely show any resemblance from either AL-31 or WS-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> *Mr @Asok J-20 may be using higher thrust versions WS-10X or AL-31FN3, Just like GE F-110 GE 129 with a thrust of 29,400 lbs upgraded to F-110 GE 132 with a thrust of 32,500 lbs, with a thrust of 35,000, 36,000 lbs from highly upgraded and higher thrust versions of WS-10X or AL-31FN3 J-20 can easily super-cruise without afterburner *



Here is the latest information about the Thrust:






The rule of evidence apply to you too. Show me a combat loaded plane (J-11, J-15,J-16, Su-27, Su-30) which installed WS-10X or AL-31FN (with Max Thrust 120-140kN) can "easily" do Supersonic Cruise, then I can believe J-20 can also "easily" do supersonic Cruise with these older engines. Otherwise, the charge of writing *"groundless"* speculation will be leveled at you.

I am talking a combat loaded plane with a full tank of gas, not an empty plane with half tank of gas. We are not talking about just going to supersonic speed here. We are talking about a fully loaded plane cruising at Supersonic Speed near 1.5M for extended period of time, like 30 minutes or more. There are plenty of planes equiped with WS-10X or AL-31FN, but I have never heard of any Chinese plane can do supersonic cruise, except J-20.

"*Supercruise* is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently, which typically precludes the use of highly inefficient afterburners (reheat)." --Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> ....
> The Russian engines, no matter it is the ordinary AL-31 or the bulk up 117S, its nozzle is always bending down when being uninstalled from the aircraft.
> ...




No, the J-10's engine is not "bending" down simply since it is not a TVC-nozzle which is naturally "bending" down" when the oil-pressure is gone.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> No, the J-10's engine is not "bending" down simply since it is not a TVC-nozzle which is naturally "bending" down" when the oil-pressure is gone.



Again, the chance of the J-20 being powered by those ordinary AL-31 is practically null.

While the J-20 engine doesn't resemble any of those super members of the AL-31 family.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

It's AL-31FN.










This is probably a maintenance, repair and overhaul facility for various engines. I see more than one type of engine in the picture.

Even India has the ability to overhaul the AL-31FP, producing the majority of the components locally.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...-hal-s-growing-capability-114102300636_1.html

HAL has also partially indigenised the Su-30MKI's giant AL-31FP engines, which are built in Koraput, Odisha. Fifty-three per cent of the engine by cost has been indigenised, with the remaining 47 per cent consisting of high-tech composites and special alloys - proprietary secrets that Russia will not part with. Even so, HAL builds 87.7 per cent of the engine's components in India.

China has been overhauling AL-31 for a long time. News report from 2010.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/07/plaaf-factory-5719.html

WS-10 is in mass production and widely deployed.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0707/c90000-9082920.html

If China wanted to, it can copy the AL-31FN easily. Mixing and matching various locally made components to increase engine life and thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

@Deino @ChineseTiger1986 

Friends,

Isn't the engine 'discussion' purely academic excercise now?

What is most fasicnating is the FACT that with J20 Chinese engineers and scientists have made a giant leap forward.

Truly amazing feat of engineering, planning and fabrication this J20.

The reality that the entire infrastructure of fabrication and supply chain went through nothing less than a revolution should be the point of dicussion.

China would have never shown the bird at the airshow had China not been 200% confident of about this bird. And now low rate production is kicking in and soon will move up a notch.

This is great news for Chinese aviation industry evolution. Think about it?

Making a J20 is totally different cattle of fish than producing other Chinese jets... state-of-the-art almost clinical production methods and techniques have been applied here.

So apart from every now and then passionate discussion on the engine theme... should we not be focusing on the theme of J20 and what it means to PLAAF and the Chinese military aviation industry?


Our @Deino is facts-and-verification man..it is _Duits Gründlichkeit_ ....difficult for others to understand...but there is absolutely no harm or ill intention in it. It is just built in factual/rational DNA. Can appear difficult...but intention is truly positive.


Our @ChineseTiger1986 is great source of information and pictures...his passion and pride is very distinctly Chinese sense of Filial Peity (孝順)...which a Western will never be able to understand.


I admire and understand both side/worlds...wish that there be more constructive discussion on my Transformer..i.e J20.

All the best to all..keep bringing good stuff here.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

Sinopakfriend said:


> @Deino @ChineseTiger1986
> 
> Friends,
> 
> Isn't the engine 'discussion' purely academic excercise now?
> 
> What is most fasicnating is the FACT that with J20 Chinese engineers and scientists have made a giant leap forward.
> 
> Truly amazing feat of engineering, planning and fabrication this J20.
> 
> The reality that the entire infrastructure of fabrication and supply chain went through nothing less than a revolution should be the point of dicussion.
> 
> China would have never shown the bird at the airshow had China not been 200% confident of about this bird. And now low rate production is kicking in and soon will move up a notch.
> 
> This is great news for Chinese aviation industry evolution. Think about it?
> 
> Making a J20 is totally different cattle of fish than producing other Chinese jets... state-of-the-art almost clinical production methods and techniques have been applied here.
> 
> So apart from every now and then passionate discussion on the engine theme... should we not be focusing on the theme of J20 and what it means to PLAAF and the Chinese military aviation industry?
> 
> 
> Our @Deino is facts-and-verification man..it is _Duits Gründlichkeit_ ....difficult for others to understand...but there is absolutely no harm or ill intention in it. It is just built in factual/rational DNA. Can appear difficult...but intention is truly positive.
> 
> 
> Our @ChineseTiger1986 is great source of information and pictures...his passion and pride is very distinctly Chinese sense of Filial Peity (孝順)...which a Western will never be able to understand.
> 
> 
> I admire and understand both side/worlds...wish that there be more constructive discussion on my Transformer..i.e J20.
> 
> All the best to all..keep bringing good stuff here.



"So apart from every now and then passionate discussion on the engine theme... should we not be focusing on the theme of J20 and what it means to PLAAF and the Chinese military aviation industry?"

While J-20's first flight is nearly 20 years later than F-22, and one year later than T-50, the historical, political, diplomatic, stragetic and military implications is hard to over estimated. It marks the first time, in several hundred years, that China has fielded a conventional weapon that is on par with the best in the world.

The fact that there is nothing to stop China from producing 500+ J-20 in the next few years, boggles the minds of western imperialists. It's a dagger to the heart of their sense of deeply ingrained racial superiority.

No wonder instead of using J-20 to hype up the CHINA THREAT as they have done since 1990's and justify their military spending. They choose to knock it down, whenever they open their mouths, or even just ignored it like a big elephant in the room.

When 200+ J-20 is fully operational, the political/diplomatic attitude toward China will be very different.

Any Neocons/Neolibs talk of winning a conventional war with China at its door step or backward will be viewed with ridicules.

And when 800+ J-20 took to the sky, any western/japanese imperialists still want a war with China will be lock up in the mental asylum.

If Donald Trump or anybody else think US can win a war with China, he has missed his chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> via that video: http://www.bilibili.com/video/av4336546/index_4.html
> 
> via: http://bbs.meyet.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=321328&pid=3760143
> 
> ... at around 21:40+++



Here is the youtube clips of the same documentary.









This documentary made in 2009 contains lots of archives and the first accounts of the Chinese jet planes and engines designers, so it is credible source.

At 9:54 on the first video, It was confirmed that China's jet engine development would follow the same "copying" path as did by the US and USSR, after the talks of 张健 (head of AVIC Shenyang Engine Design Institute 606) and 刘永泉(chief designer of WS10 at 606).

At 1:58 on the second video, the footage of an arguably AL-31F used while the narratives were talking about the Chinese WS-6 my suggest that WS-6 adopted lots of AL-31F component, which is not unacceptable practice in reverse engineering or copying. At early 2000, 刘大响(the head chief designer of WS-15 at 624) was reportedly stating that he will consider and combine the best parts of other engines into his design. 

The WS-6, cancelled after 20 years development staring from 1964 due to the cancelled project of J-9, hes led the development of WS-10 immediately. So it will be no big surprise to see both WS-6 and WS-10 have a black nozzle similar to AL-31F's.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Han Patriot

j20blackdragon said:


> It's AL-31FN.
> 
> View attachment 362234
> 
> View attachment 362235
> 
> 
> This is probably a maintenance, repair and overhaul facility for various engines. I see more than one type of engine in the picture.
> 
> Even India has the ability to overhaul the AL-31FP, producing the majority of the components locally.
> 
> http://www.business-standard.com/ar...-hal-s-growing-capability-114102300636_1.html
> 
> HAL has also partially indigenised the Su-30MKI's giant AL-31FP engines, which are built in Koraput, Odisha. Fifty-three per cent of the engine by cost has been indigenised, with the remaining 47 per cent consisting of high-tech composites and special alloys - proprietary secrets that Russia will not part with. Even so, HAL builds 87.7 per cent of the engine's components in India.
> 
> China has been overhauling AL-31 for a long time. News report from 2010.
> http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/07/plaaf-factory-5719.html
> 
> WS-10 is in mass production and widely deployed.
> http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0707/c90000-9082920.html
> 
> If China wanted to, it can copy the AL-31FN easily. Mixing and matching various locally made components to increase engine life and thrust.


Well, can we leave the Indies out, they claim to be indigenous all the time. I guess they can make the casing and some simple components, but the blades? the HP compressor?

Btw, stop speculating what engine J-20 is using, let's assume we are behind and wait for the official news to come out.

You and I know we Chinese are stubborn people. The more you despise us and say we can't do it, the more we will prove you wrong. We have the money, experience and manpower now, only time is the constraint.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

*The Astonishing Supersonic Maneuverability Difference Between 4th and 5th Generation Fighters.*

I have again and again emphasized the importance of Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability to 5th Gen. fighter. Without ability to do Supersonic Cruise, there could be no Supersonic Maneuverability.

Here is the picture that illustrate the astonishing difference between Supersonic Maneuverability of F-15, F-35 and F-22. Supersonic Maneuverability is a measure of how agile of a plane is in Supersonic Speed at various height. Because the air density at different height, the Maneuverability will be greatly affected.

Here is the 5G Maneuver Envelope. The Maximum Speed of a plane able to maneuver at 5G at various height.

As we can see, F-15, one of the most agile 4th gen. fighter in the world, could only pull a 5G Maneuver at Mach 0.8 at sea level, and at 32,000 ft, only Mach 0.7. No Supersonic Maneuverability at 5G over Mach 0.8. Basically, it could only fly pretty much in a straight line with a huge turn radius at higher speed.

Whereas, F-22 could pull 5G at nearly Mach 2 at the Maximum altitude of 65,000ft. At sea level, it could still able to reach Mach 1.3 while pulling a 5G turn.

Basically, sustained Supersonic Maneuverability is determined by Aerodynamics of the airframe, Power of the engine and structural strength of the airframe.

If you don't have outstanding Aerodynamics design, your air speed will quickly drop below supersonic during high G maneuvers. If you don't have a powerful engine in the first place, you can't do Supersonic Cruise without afterburner. If you turn on your afterburner in order to go supersonic, you will quickly run out of fuel. If your airframe isn't strong enough, your plane will fall apart at high G during Supersonic Maneuvering. If you have a very tough airframe, but a weak engine, you will be overweighted. And if you have a very powerful engine, but overweighted and have a lousy aerodynamics design, you will end up being clubbed like baby seals like F-35.

As if we can see, even the mightily powerful F-15 don't have much Supersonic Maneuverability, it is useless to talk about that for 4th Generation fighters, instead they concentrate on subsonic maneuverability. But Supersonic Maneuverability is such an awesome ability. F-15 and F-16 pilots said whenever F-22 goes into Supersonic, the fight is over. They can't follow it into those Supersonic speed without turning on the afterburner, and if they did, they would run out of fuel in minutes.

The result: The F-15 and F-16 can't out run and can't fight the F-22. They always lost.

So without Supersonic Cruise, there is no way for J-20 to determine its vitally important Supersonic Maneuverability flight envelope at various height and speed.

And you said that's no problem, that could always be determined, later, after WS-15 is ready, and in the mean time, lets put J-20 into LRIP and even mass production?

Lockeed Martin started the production of F-35 way before all tests were done. Ask them how they are doing with F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

this is gonna be fun

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I am talking a combat loaded plane with a full tank of gas, not an empty plane with half tank of gas. We are not talking about just going to supersonic speed here. We are talking about a fully loaded plane cruising at Supersonic Speed near 1.5M for extended period of time, like 30 minutes or more. There are plenty of planes equiped with WS-10X or AL-31FN, but I have never heard of any Chinese plane can do supersonic cruise, except J-20.


In realty Mr Asok no fighter jets can fly with a full tank of gas and with a full combat load, thrust to weight ratio of that particular jet is too low to fly but it can run on the tarmac, at best in war situation fighter jets fuels 3/4th of there gas tanks
and as for fully combat load there not such thing fully combat loaded jet, they armed for specific mission, for example F-15 and Su-27 might carry 10 air to air missiles but restricted to carry 8 air to air missiles for aerodynamic and thrust to weight restrictions
From your above post J-20 can easily super-cruise with your stated *35,000 lbs WS-10G*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Asok said:


> *The Astonishing Supersonic Maneuverability Difference Between 4th and 5th Generation Fighters.*
> 
> I have again and again emphasized the importance of Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability to 5th Gen. fighter. Without ability to do Supersonic Cruise, there could be no Supersonic Maneuverability.
> 
> Here is the picture that illustrate the astonishing difference between Supersonic Maneuverability of F-15, F-35 and F-22. Supersonic Maneuverability is a measure of how agile of a plane is in Supersonic Speed at various height. Because the air density at different height, the Maneuverability will be greatly affected.
> 
> Here is the 5G Maneuver Envelope. The Maximum Speed of a plane able to maneuver at 5G at various height.
> 
> As we can see, F-15, one of the most agile 4th gen. fighter in the world, could only pull a 5G Maneuver at Mach 0.8 at sea level, and at 32,000 ft, only Mach 0.7. No Supersonic Maneuverability at 5G over Mach 0.8. Basically, it could only fly pretty much in a straight line with a huge turn radius at higher speed.
> 
> Whereas, F-22 could pull 5G at nearly Mach 2 at the Maximum altitude of 65,000ft. At sea level, it could still able to reach Mach 1.3 while pulling a 5G turn.
> 
> Basically, sustained Supersonic Maneuverability is determined by Aerodynamics of the airframe, Power of the engine and structural strength of the airframe.
> 
> If you don't have outstanding Aerodynamics design, your air speed will quickly drop below supersonic during high G maneuvers. If you don't have a powerful engine in the first place, you can't do Supersonic Cruise without afterburner. If you turn on your afterburner in order to go supersonic, you will quickly run out of fuel. If your airframe isn't strong enough, your plane will fall apart at high G during Supersonic Maneuvering. If you have a very tough airframe, but a weak engine, you will be overweighted. And if you have a very powerful engine, but overweighted and have a lousy aerodynamics design, you will end up being clubbed like baby seals like F-35.
> 
> As if we can see, even the mightily powerful F-15 don't have much Supersonic Maneuverability, it is useless to talk about that for 4th Generation fighters, instead they concentrate on subsonic maneuverability. But Supersonic Maneuverability is such an awesome ability. F-15 and F-16 pilots said whenever F-22 goes into Supersonic, the fight is over. They can't follow it into those Supersonic speed without turning on the afterburner, and if they did, they would run out of fuel in minutes.
> 
> The result: The F-15 and F-16 can't out run and can't fight the F-22. They always lost.
> 
> So without Supersonic Cruise, there is no way for J-20 to determine its vitally important Supersonic Maneuverability flight envelope at various height and speed.
> 
> And you said that's no problem, that could always be determined, later, after WS-15 is ready, and in the mean time, lets put J-20 into LRIP and even mass production?
> 
> Lockeed Martin started the production of F-35 way before all tests were done. Ask them how they are doing with F-35.


Well said.

I want to add one more point to the benefit of the 4th generation jets' supercruise ability . When air-to-air missile is launched from the 4th generation jets at supercruise speed, it will have a initial supercrusise speed as well, which makes the non-4th generation targets impossible to escape.

In relation to registering all flight maneuver envelope of the J-20, the use of WS-10B/G at prototype testing stage first and changing to WS-15 at LRIP later on may not cause too much problem as along as the thrust gap is not too large. I think the incremental maneuver envelope resulting from the use of more powerful engine can be added to the envelope of the former's without the need of going it over again from scratch. In fact F22 first used YF119-PW-100L/N Prototype engine rated for 30,000 lbf thrust and later changed to F119-PW-100 Production engine with larger fan and increased bypass ratio (BPR) rated for 35,000 lbf thrust.

Compared to the F-35's more than 7 millions lines of flight control codes in C++, it is said J-20 has 5 millions mainy in Ada plus some C++. Any clues about the pros and cons of the two?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Tiqiu said:


> Well said.
> 
> I want to add one more point to the benefit of the 4th generation jets' supercruise ability . When air-to-air missile is launched from the 4th generation jets at supercruise speed, it will have a initial supercrusise speed as well, which makes the non-4th generation targets impossible to escape.
> 
> In relation to registering all flight maneuver envelope of the J-20, the use of WS-10B/G at prototype testing stage first and changing to WS-15 at LRIP later on may not cause too much problem as along as the thrust gap is not too large. I think the incremental maneuver envelope resulting from the use of more powerful engine can be added to the envelope of the former's without the need of going it over again from scratch. In fact F22 first used YF119-PW-100L/N Prototype engine rated for 30,000 lbf thrust and later changed to F119-PW-100 Production engine with larger fan and increased bypass ratio (BPR) rated for 35,000 lbf thrust.
> 
> Compared to the F-35's more than 7 millions lines of flight control codes in C++, it is said J-20 has 5 millions mainy in Ada plus some C++. Any clues about the pros and cons of the two?



I think Ada is language developed by Pentagon for military use. I have no experienced with it. The problem of Ada is that it is not use outside of the military so you don't have a large pool of experienced programmers to rely on. Schools are not going to teach it, if its too specialized. And if your new grads don't know it, they won't have the skills to be hired. That is a huge problem for the employers. No wonder Software development and testing in F-35 lacks so far behind the whole program.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> In realty Mr Asok no fighter jets can fly with a full tank of gas and with a full combat load, thrust to weight ratio of that particular jet is too low to fly but it can run on the tarmac, at best in war situation fighter jets fuels 3/4th of there gas tanks
> and as for fully combat load there not such thing fully combat loaded jet, they armed for specific mission, for example F-15 and Su-27 might carry 10 air to air missiles but restricted to carry 8 air to air missiles for aerodynamic and thrust to weight restrictions
> From your above post J-20 can easily super-cruise with your stated *35,000 lbs WS-10G*



5th Gen. Fighters (F-22, T50, J-20) can take off with a full tank of gas and full combat load and do Supersonic Cruise, without burner, as well, because their weapons are stored internally. At Supersonic Speed, the externally loaded weapons and gas tanks create a great deal of drag, hence older jet CAN"T stay supersonic very long even with the use of afterburner.

If jets can't take off with full tank of gas and full combat load, they can refuel aerially to fill up the tank. You are right that you don't see older jets going to combat with full loaded because that would too low of Thrust to Weight Ratio, and Trust to Drag ratio. That is the difference between 5th Gen. and older jets. 5th Gen. has a vastly more powerful engine and much and much superior aerodynamic design.

If you are suggest J-20 is using *WS-10G*, you are contradicting people like Deino, who has insisted J-20 don't have TVC nozzles. *WS-10G* has Thrust Vectoring and stealthy nozzles that have jagged edges and tiles.

Let's see if J-20 could use *WS-10G *for Supercruising as you have suggested.
WS-10G has a maximum thrust of 155kN, which is similar to F-22. And that is 15.8 Tons. Dry thrust or military thrust is usually 60% of that, so it is around 9.48 Ton for each engine, or 18.96 Tons for both.

F-22's empty weight is 19,700 kg or 19.7 ton, plus a tank of gas (9 ton) is 28.7 Tons. It is widely accepted that J-20 is longer than F-22, so J-20's weight is probably near 20 Ton, plus a tank of gas (12 ton) is 32 ton. The long range missiles
AIM-120 AMRAAM weights 152 Kg each, so 6 is 912 kg, nearly a ton. Plus 2 short range missiles, and the full weapon load is over 1 ton.

So combat weight for F-22 is 30 Ton, and for J-20 is 33 Tons. Not much difference. Since F-22 could easily do Supersonic Cruise with its combat weight, it's possible that J-20 could also do it, since at Supersonic speed, it is the total DRAG that mostly determine its performance. Unlike older jets, both J-20 and F-22 are optimized for Supersonic Cruise by storing their weapons internally.

So I do agreed that J-20 could do Supersonic Cruise with WS-10G. The question of is J-20 actually using it? That depends on WS-10G's state of development. I haven't heard much about it. Does it even exist at all?

Remember, WS-10A passed the acceptance test only on 2005, but has run into a lot of trouble since then. In 2009, the whole J-11 that uses WS-10A was grounded due to quality control problem of WS-10A and PLAAF returned the engines to the Factory.

So in conclusion, it is possible for J-20 to use WS-10G (if it actually exists) to do Supersonic Cruise, simply because F-22 could do that too with similar weight and similar thrust engine. This actually makes more sense because I have noticed the nozzles of J-20 could Vector not very obviously. Others have disagreed it got TVC.

That, however, do not EXCLUDE the possibility that J-20's engine uses WS-15 core mated with the WS-10G vector nozzle. That 3D TVC nozzle was demonstrated on CCTV on 2004. There is no reason to believe it could not be installed on any other engines, other than WS-10G (if it exists at all). Also, WS-10G is only internet rumored to have existed. There is no confirmed/unconfirmed picture of any kind, nor any official/semi-official announcements.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Do You have an image of this TVC-equipped WS-10G ??? As far as I know it is also only a rumour...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Do You have an image of this TVC-equipped WS-10G ??? As far as I know it is also only a rumour...



No confirmed image of TVC-equipped WS-10G that I know of. Only picture of this TVC nozzle demonstrated to President Jiang in 2004.

Not even confirmed/unconfirmed image of WS-10G without TVC. This engine is even more mysterious than WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

It is premature to assume WS-10G even exists. There is absolutely no official/semi-official announcement at all. There only news report is this Russian Magazine's report, which I think started this "rumour". It quoted no sources, mentioned no origin of this report." It simply said China is developing a WS-10G engine with 150kN.

"据*俄罗斯*《外国军事评论》杂志，中国军事政治领导层十分重视加强航空工业研发和生产作战飞机的能力；得益于正在推行的目标明确而平衡的军事技术政策，北京在近期将可能完全摆脱对进口或仿制国外全功能装备（武器）系统的依赖。中国已研制成功歼-10B和歼-10S双座型飞机，前者采用国产WS-10(太行)加力双路涡喷发动机和独特的进气道形状，布局改动不大。目前正在研制新改型——推力达150千牛的WS-10G发动机，它将装备先进的数字控制系统，具有出色的单位工作参数和更低的可探测性；未来推力可达180千牛的WS-15发动机开始试验可能不会早于2015年。"

This brief comment on a Chinese Forum said WS-10 has three version WS-10A, WS-10B, WS-10G. J-20 uses the WS-10G, which is a special high power version used to satisfy the basic flight envelope.

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2273397-1-1.html
"太行3个路线： WS10--WS10A; WS10A--WS10B; WS10-WS10G(特制高功版本）， J20用的就是WS10G特制高功版本，尽可能提高推力，满足基本的包线飞行需求。"

"WS-10G is developed at the same time as WS-15, the later version of WS-10G will use some of the technology of WS-5."
"WS15是全新第四代大推发动机，研制时间上几乎并进， WS10G后期改进型应该会有WS15技术反馈"

J-20's white nozzle engine is the WS-10G engine.
*殲-20的白菊發動機是WS-10G發動機*

"J-20's engine is WS-10G, with 150,000kg thrust, near TWR of 10. The engine has 7 stages and has TVC nozzle."
*殲-20的動力裝置是WS-10G發動機，最大推力為15000公斤，推比接近10（注意，只是說接近，沒說就是10），發動機的級數為7級，並具有軸對稱矢量噴管。*
http://stock.hexun.com/2014-06-12/165633071.html
2014-06-12 11:58:24

I, sure, believe China got a 3D TVC nozzle that is different from the Russians. It's demonstrated on TV with a joy stick, when President Jiang visited the Institute in 2004.

So there you go, folks. Very very little, skimpy "information" is available that is about WS-10G.

So I put it down as Rumor-ware.



Tiqiu said:


> Well said.
> 
> I want to add one more point to the benefit of the 4th generation jets' supercruise ability . When air-to-air missile is launched from the 4th generation jets at supercruise speed, it will have a initial supercrusise speed as well, which makes the non-4th generation targets impossible to escape.
> 
> In relation to registering all flight maneuver envelope of the J-20, the use of WS-10B/G at prototype testing stage first and changing to WS-15 at LRIP later on may not cause too much problem as along as the thrust gap is not too large. I think the incremental maneuver envelope resulting from the use of more powerful engine can be added to the envelope of the former's without the need of going it over again from scratch. In fact F22 first used YF119-PW-100L/N Prototype engine rated for 30,000 lbf thrust and later changed to F119-PW-100 Production engine with larger fan and increased bypass ratio (BPR) rated for 35,000 lbf thrust.
> 
> Compared to the F-35's more than 7 millions lines of flight control codes in C++, it is said J-20 has 5 millions mainy in Ada plus some C++. Any clues about the pros and cons of the two?



The problem of WS-10G, with supposed thrust of 155kN and TVC nozzle, is that we don't even know it exists at all. There is no official/semi-official announcements of any kind. Even rumor is very very few. Frankly, I just heard of it, when you guys mentioned it yesterday.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

Asok said:


> I think Ada is language developed by Pentagon for military use. I have no experienced with it. The problem of Ada is that it is not use outside of the military so you don't have a large pool of experienced programmers to rely on. Schools are not going to teach it, if its too specialized. And if your new grads don't know it, they won't have the skills to be hired. That is a huge problem for the employers. No wonder Software development and testing in F-35 lacks so far behind the whole program.


@Asok, you took it inversely... based on Tiqiu's info, it's said that J-20 uses Ada language in its programming (plus some C++) while F-35 is solely in C++.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> @Asok, you took it inversely... based on Tiqiu's info, it's said that J-20 uses Ada language in its programming (plus some C++) while F-35 is solely in C++.



OK, those guys working with F-35 have learned the hard lesson. I would expect LM and the rest, keep using ADA till the end of time, because the investment already put into it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

China is no joking, we buckle down hard.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I think Ada is language developed by Pentagon for military use. I have no experienced with it. The problem of Ada is that it is not use outside of the military so you don't have a large pool of experienced programmers to rely on. Schools are not going to teach it, if its too specialized. And if your new grads don't know it, they won't have the skills to be hired. That is a huge problem for the employers. No wonder Software development and testing in F-35 lacks so far behind the whole program.


Say what...??? 

http://www.adacore.com/training
http://www.adacore.com/customers

No wonder I do not take you PDF Chinese seriously when it comes to military related subjects.


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Say what...???
> 
> http://www.adacore.com/training
> http://www.adacore.com/customers
> 
> No wonder I do not take you PDF Chinese seriously when it comes to military related subjects.



I mean not many Universities offer ADA classes for their curriculum requirements, I do not mean there is no places that offer ADA training course at all. The customer list show mostly military/aerospace related, where you can't get a job without secret clearance.

And why do you think F-35 use purely C++, instead of ADA, a language developed by Pentagon for the military?

So relax. Take a deep breath. And stop pretending to be a Vietnamese to deflect racism charges. No one believes you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I mean not many Universities offer ADA classes for their curriculum requirements, I do not mean there is no places that offer ADA training course at all. The customer list show mostly military related.


Do any of you PDF Chinese even done basic research on why ADA was selected to be the preferred programming language for avionics ?

No, of course not. That would be too much intellectual work.

*First*...We have to look at the nature of the industry in the first place.

Where does aviation operate ? In the air, of course.

In aviation, if there is something wrong, assuming a flying aircraft, the odds of that 'something wrong' to become *GLOBALLY* catastrophic is not abstract but very real.

The word 'globally' does not mean the planet or the world at large. If you have an aircraft, your world is that aircraft. From this context, the word 'globally' mean the whole aircraft. The word 'global' actually mean 'total' and it is the totality of an object, whether that object is a ship, a house, or an aircraft.

*Second*...Because of such an extreme risk of a catastrophic (global) failure, avionics require a programming language that must be with high verifiability.

_Verificationism (also known as the *Verifiability Criterion of Meaning* or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e.*verifiable* or falsifiable)._

ADA has proven itself to be the programming language with the highest 'verifiability' factor when used in avionics components.

Who else uses ADA ? How about high finance where billions -- probably includes your pension -- are moved every second ?

https://www.ansi.org/news_publicati...rticleid=4eb194f6-7e31-4b30-b524-fa692f247163


> The Ada programming language is widely used in the aviation, railway, satellite, financial services, and healthcare sectors,...



Universities do not offer ADA ?

http://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html

ADA is not widely known simply because there are money making programming languages out there, but that does not mean one cannot get formal instructions in the language. Plus, programmers are usually self taught besides their first paycheck earning programming language, so many avionics engineers learn the ADA skills on-the-job.

https://gcn.com/articles/2008/04/11/the-return-of-ada.aspx


> Ada can offer assistance to programmers with many of these tasks, even if it does require more work on the part of the programmer.
> 
> 'The thing people have always said about Ada is that it is hard to get a program by the compiler, but once you did, it would always work,' Dewar said. 'The compiler is checking a lot of stuff. Unlike a C program, where the C compiler will accept pretty much anything and then you have to fight off the bugs in the debugger, many of the problems in Ada are found by the compiler.'
> 
> That stringency causes more work for programmers, but it will also make the code more secure, Ada enthusiasts say.



https://hackbrightacademy.com/blog/ada-language-links/


> In civilian airspace, Boeing’s 777 airplane, which revolutionized airliner avionics, was software largely built on Ada. The newer 787 Dreamliner, and Airbus’ A380 and A350, are also programmed largely with Ada. Aircraft makers choose Ada both for safety and for scalability of the project itself — some 10,000 people worked on the 777 project.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> Say what...???
> 
> http://www.adacore.com/training
> http://www.adacore.com/customers
> 
> No wonder I do not take you PDF Chinese seriously when it comes to military related subjects.


No one cares whether you take whoever seriously or not. Our engineers will take it seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Do any of you PDF Chinese even done basic research on why ADA was selected to be the preferred programming language for avionics ?
> 
> No, of course not. That would be too much intellectual work.
> 
> *First*...We have to look at the nature of the industry in the first place.
> 
> Where does aviation operate ? In the air, of course.
> 
> In aviation, if there is something wrong, assuming a flying aircraft, the odds of that 'something wrong' to become *GLOBALLY* catastrophic is not abstract but very real.
> 
> The word 'globally' does not mean the planet or the world at large. If you have an aircraft, your world is that aircraft. From this context, the word 'globally' mean the whole aircraft. The word 'global' actually mean 'total' and it is the totality of an object, whether that object is a ship, a house, or an aircraft.
> 
> *Second*...Because of such an extreme risk of a catastrophic (global) failure, avionics require a programming language that must be with high verifiability.
> 
> _Verificationism (also known as the *Verifiability Criterion of Meaning* or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e.*verifiable* or falsifiable)._
> 
> ADA has proven itself to be the programming language with the highest 'verifiability' factor when used in avionics components.
> 
> Who else uses ADA ? How about high finance where billions -- probably includes your pension -- are moved every second ?
> 
> https://www.ansi.org/news_publicati...rticleid=4eb194f6-7e31-4b30-b524-fa692f247163
> 
> 
> Universities do not offer ADA ?
> 
> http://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html
> 
> ADA is not widely known simply because there are money making programming languages out there, but that does not mean one cannot get formal instructions in the language. Plus, programmers are usually self taught besides their first paycheck earning programming language, so many avionics engineers learn the ADA skills on-the-job.
> 
> https://gcn.com/articles/2008/04/11/the-return-of-ada.aspx
> 
> 
> https://hackbrightacademy.com/blog/ada-language-links/



I am not saying ADA is no good. I was just saying not many new grads learned ADA at University. So its hard for employers to find qualified programmers.

This post discusses why F-35 software "Seems like most of it is written in C++, while some parts reused from F22 is in Ada 83. This was done "due to programmer availability".

"The F-35’s Software Is So Buggy It Might Ground the Whole Fleet"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11582616

That's all. Relax and pop a pill.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

... and show us some more images of operational J-20As !!!!


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> That's all. Relax and pop a pill.


It is *YOU* who needs to relax. Just like your ignorance about the HUD issue, now you showed your ignorance about avionics programming. Your China have yet to produce anything even halfway like the F-35 and here you are making pronouncements about its components. Just like your fellow PDF Chinese, I doubt if you can tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver.



wanglaokan said:


> No one cares whether you take whoever seriously or not. *Our engineers will take it seriously.*


And if any of them reads the PDF Chinese, they would probably weep in embarrassment for their countrymen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> It is *YOU* who needs to relax. Just like your ignorance about the HUD issue, now you showed your ignorance about avionics programming. Your China have yet to produce anything even halfway like the F-35 and here you are making pronouncements about its components. Just like your fellow PDF Chinese, I doubt if you can tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver.
> 
> And if any of them reads the PDF Chinese, they would probably weep in embarrassment for their countrymen.



*"Your China have yet to produce anything even halfway like the F-35 and here you are making pronouncements about its components."*

Thank you for reminding us, Gambit. If some fools in China produced anything close to that flying pig and bottomless money pit, called JSF or F-35 or Lightning II, they would be line up against a wall and shoot with machine gun. Thank God and thank you too, Gambit, that its not going to happen.

BTW, what's a hammer or screwdriver? 

Have a Merry Christmas to everyone at PDF!

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> *"Your China have yet to produce anything even halfway like the F-35 and here you are making pronouncements about its components."*
> 
> Thank you for reminding us, Gambit. If some fools in China produced anything close to that flying pig and bottomless money pit, called JSF or F-35 or Lightning II, they would be line up against a wall and shoot with machine gun. Thank God and thank you too, Gambit, that its not going to happen.


Of which the J-20 is not even halfway close to that pig.


----------



## GiantPanda

Asok said:


> So relax. Take a deep breath. And stop pretending to be a Vietnamese to deflect racism charges. No one believes you.




Nope, Gambit is Vietnamese. You can tell from his writing that he is not white but is very desperate to claim the virtues of white superiority because Vietnam produces nothing in the world of aircraft.

There are many Vietnamese who hates Chinese and he is one of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## onebyone

Asok said:


> *"Your China have yet to produce anything even halfway like the F-35 and here you are making pronouncements about its components."*
> 
> Thank you for reminding us. If some fools in China produced anything close to that flying pig and bottomless money pit, called JSF or F-35 or Lightning II, they would be line up against a wall and shoot with machine gun. Thank God and thank you too, Gambit.
> 
> BTW, what's a hammer or screwdriver?
> 
> Have a Merry Christmas to everyone at PDF!





GiantPanda said:


> Nope, Gambit is Vietnamese. You can tell from his writing that he is not white but is very desperate to claim the virtues of white superiority because Vietnam produces nothing in the world of aircraft.
> 
> There are many Vietnamese who hates Chinese and he is one of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Of which the J-20 is not even halfway close to that pig.



I am glad that J-20 is keeping a lot of distance from that flying pig. Hope China will stay away from that pig. Don't try to copy it. 



GiantPanda said:


> Nope, Gambit is Vietnamese. You can tell from his writing that he is not white but is very desperate to claim the virtues of white superiority because Vietnam produces nothing in the world of aircraft.
> 
> There are many Vietnamese who hates Chinese and he is one of them.



He said he is. No evidence what so ever. A Vietnamese usually mention how China invaded Vietnam and brutalized them in seconds.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## UKBengali

gambit said:


> Of which the J-20 is not even halfway close to that pig.



J-20s will drop F-35s like flies.

I am now even doubting whether F-22 will be able to take on this beast that has 500km missile, massive
AESA radar and huge range.

US air superiority around China is about to come to an end soon.

@Asok : gambit is a Vietnamese who worships whites.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## GiantPanda

Asok said:


> He said he is. No evidence what so ever. A Vietnamese usually mention how China invaded Vietnam and brutalized them in seconds.



Nope, he is Viet. You can tell from his desperate clinging of white achievements. 

Whites in general don't troll Chinese forums, the ones who are here tend to have interest in Chinese equipment and are by and large respectful. The ones that troll are mainly Asians like Indians and Viets and some Japanese with a lot of jealousy and hate.

Gambit is a Viet. If he is fake then he is more likely to be Indian than white.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## TruthHurtz

No disrespect to American engineering, but I don't think the F-35 will even measure up to a prototyping J-31 let alone a full fledged J-20, it's a failed project. The J-20 will reign supreme in the skies alongside the F-22 and the upcoming Russian Pak-Fa.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

UKBengali said:


> I am now even doubting whether F-22 will be able to take on this beast that has 500km missile, massive
> AESA radar and huge range.


there is no 500 Km missile in Chinese arsenal, its is in the testing mode and remember sir it is a huge missile, wont fit in the internal weapon bays of J-20 and it is for intercepting AWACS, ECM and EW aircrafts not for fighter jet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

pakistanipower said:


> there is no 500 Km missile in Chinese arsenal, its is in the testing mode and remember sir it is a huge missile, wont fit in the internal weapon bays of J-20 and it is for intercepting AWACS, ECM and EW aircrafts not for fighter jet



J-20 can guide the 500km missile deployed on J-11 against AWACS, ECM, EW and refuelling aircraft that will
make F-22 an almost sitting duck.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

Looks like "2011 or 2012" are still used for some kind of tests. flying with 4 drop tanks (可是为啥是2012号？ps:上传者是蒲城的，百度了陕西那边，估计在伊朗那边吧，应该是2011 2012交付的那批原型机还在试飞，视频应该是昨天刚拍摄的，上传者估计不懂把副油箱当成导弹了)
HD video here http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTg4MDcwMDI0MA==.html

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Looks like "2011 or 2012" are still used for some kind of tests. flying with 4 drop tanks (可是为啥是2012号？ps:上传者是蒲城的，百度了陕西那边，估计在伊朗那边吧，应该是2011 2012交付的那批原型机还在试飞，视频应该是昨天刚拍摄的，上传者估计不懂把副油箱当成导弹了)
> HD video here http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTg4MDcwMDI0MA==.html



Wow, very nice. 4 fuel tanks! here is the same video on Youtube.







UKBengali said:


> J-20 can guide the 500km missile deployed on J-11 against AWACS, ECM, EW and refuelling aircraft that will
> make F-22 an almost sitting duck.




Attack the AWACS, EW, and Oil Tankers first, no need to tangle with the F-22. When those aircrafts dropped out of the sky, the F-22 can only go home. Actually, they can not even go home. From Guam to China and back takes 6 air refuelings, 3 of them near will be near China.



TruthHurtz said:


> No disrespect to American engineering, but I don't think the F-35 will even measure up to a prototyping J-31 let alone a full fledged J-20, it's a failed project. The J-20 will reign supreme in the skies alongside the F-22 and the upcoming Russian Pak-Fa.



F-35 is not the fault of the hard working American engineers. F-35 is a hideous product of design by hundreds of committee, not the least is the various Congressional committees. They imposed three different planes, with wildly different requirements, into 1 plane. They squandered the most powerful Turbofan engine, F135, that is ever built in the history of aviation, and created this flying pig. The worst part is that it's purposely designed to be UNCANCELLABLE. There are no alternatives to replace it.

Reactions: Like Like:
 8


----------



## Deino

Hmm ...

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I am glad that J-20 is keeping a lot of distance from that flying pig. Hope China will stay away from that pig. Don't try to copy it.


Do you really think that whatever slurs you throw at the F-35 is anything new ? In fact, all it does is make you look like another sheep in a large flock who do not know what they are talking about but continues to bleat the same thing over and over.

I will not call you a 'fanboy' as in insult because there is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. I am a fanboy of all things US military in general and of the USAF in particular. But the difference between me and you is that I am a fanboy with direct experience in some things and indirect experience with other things discussed in this forum. When I read your comments about the HUD, I knew right off that I am dealing with the worst type of fanboy, the kind that is ignorant but does not care about his ignorance, which pretty much describe the PDF Chinese in general.

My first assignment was on the F-111 and it was called a 'pig'. It turned out the Soviets were terrified of it and China was glad none were in Asia. My second assignment was the F-16 and it was also called a 'pig' while in development. Not many wanted to try the new technology called 'fly by wire'. What is that ? What pilot is going to be foolish enough to trust his life to a bunch of 'black boxes' ? Both jets turned out to be combat 'game changers' in both the tactical and strategic realms. Your China done shit in neither. Our 'pigs' usually turned out to be wild boars, often considered more dangerous than bears.

Yeah...China's J-20 will be flying a lot of distance away from the F-35, as in running away.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## eldamar

gambit said:


> Do you really think that whatever slurs you throw at the F-35 is anything new ? In fact, all it does is make you look like another sheep in a large flock who do not know what they are talking about but continues to bleat the same thing over and over.
> 
> I will not call you a 'fanboy' as in insult because there is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. I am a fanboy of all things US military in general and of the USAF in particular. But the difference between me and you is that I am a fanboy with direct experience in some things and indirect experience with other things discussed in this forum. When I read your comments about the HUD, I knew right off that I am dealing with the worst type of fanboy, the kind that is ignorant but does not care about his ignorance, which pretty much describe the PDF Chinese in general.
> 
> My first assignment was on the F-111 and it was called a 'pig'. It turned out the Soviets were terrified of it and China was glad none were in Asia. My second assignment was the F-16 and it was also called a 'pig' while in development. Not many wanted to try the new technology called 'fly by wire'. What is that ? What pilot is going to be foolish enough to trust his life to a bunch of 'black boxes' ? Both jets turned out to be combat 'game changers' in both the tactical and strategic realms. Your China done shit in neither. Our 'pigs' usually turned out to be wild boars, often considered more dangerous than bears.
> 
> Yeah...China's J-20 will be flying a lot of distance away from the F-35, as in running away.


Nice wall-text of nationalistic rants on america in a j-20 thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> F-35 is not the fault of the hard working American engineers. F-35 is a hideous product of design by hundreds of committee, not the least is the various Congressional committees. They imposed three different planes, with wildly different requirements, into 1 plane. They squandered the most powerful Turbofan engine, F135, that is ever built in the history of aviation, and created this flying pig. The worst part is that it's purposely designed to be UNCANCELLABLE. There are no alternatives to replace it.


The F-35 proved the exceptionalism of American engineers. They took diverse requirements, not just of the US military, but also of international partner, and created a working combat aircraft. Just like how American engineers did it with the F-16 which to date is *STILL* the standard to match, let alone surpass.

The F-16 was a jack-of-all-trades that raised the bars on those trades. The F-35 will raise those bars even higher.



eldarlmari said:


> Nice wall-text of nationalistic rants on america in a j-20 thread.


Then leave American planes out of it. You guys wanted to make comparisons and insults. Am just returning the favor. 

Debating the PDF Chinese and their supporters always ends up with racist insults. Says a lot on how they were raised.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TruthHurtz

lol at F-35 cope, it sucks /fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GiantPanda

eldarlmari said:


> Nice wall-text of nationalistic rants on america in a j-20 thread.



Funnier still is that it is a wall of nationalistic rant from a Viet ejaculating over white American achievements.

I guess he can't brag about his own people being capable of building anything that could fly must less something like the J-20 so he froths over the F-35 like it has anything to do with him.

Never reply to a Viet in a Chinese thread. You'll get nothing but jealous insults and barely contain racial animosity towards PDF Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

eldarlmari said:


> Nice wall-text of nationalistic rants on america in a j-20 thread.



Defending this F-35, invalidates all his claims of aviation experiences. In future combat, scores of Americans pilots will be killed in this flying pig. And his silly claims that canards are not stealthy and can not be made stealthy because of his inviolable physics laws just made me laugh my pants off.

And claiming to be a Vietnamese to deflect racism charges is so lame and pathetic.



TruthHurtz said:


> lol at F-35 cope, it sucks /fact.



It sucks big time. The more F-35s is out there, the safer will China feel. It will be a turkey shoot, when they takes to the air and face the J-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> It sucks big time. The more F-35s is out there, the safer will China feel. It will be a turkey shoot, when they takes to the air and face the J-20s.



Funny thing is that the F-35 was deliberately made less stealthy than F-22 so that US could export it.

J-20 pilots will shoot these F-35 Turkeys out of the sky with ease.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TruthHurtz

UKBengali said:


> Funny thing is that the F-35 was deliberately made less stealthy than F-22 so that US could export it.
> 
> J-20 pilots will shoot these F-35 Turkeys out of the sky with ease.



The F-22's stealth and other features are compromised anyway so US efforts are in vain. Trillions of dollars of investment poured down the drain because one 15 year old Chinese computer prodigy was bored. Shame but hilarious nonetheless.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

UKBengali said:


> Funny thing is that the F-35 was deliberately made less stealthy than F-22 so that US could export it.
> 
> J-20 pilots will shoot these F-35 Turkeys out of the sky with ease.



And F-22 was deliberately cancelled and not allowed to export to protect F-35's market share.



TruthHurtz said:


> The F-22's stealth and other features are compromised anyway so US efforts are in vain. Trillions of dollars of investment poured down the drain because one 15 year old Chinese computer prodigy was bored. Shame but hilarious nonetheless.



"one 15 year old Chinese computer prodigy was bored" what do you mean? You mean you believe China hacked the F-35 project and stole terabytes of data nonsense?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TruthHurtz

@Asok Why not? It's free.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

@gambit You're the one who came here and started off using PDF Chinese as an insult right away, and now you're calling other racist? I'd say 90% of your posts here contain the word "PDF Chinese". Jokes.



gambit said:


> Say what...???
> 
> http://www.adacore.com/training
> http://www.adacore.com/customers
> 
> No wonder I do not take you PDF Chinese seriously when it comes to military related subjects.



Remember this post two pages ago? There was nothing about race before that, but you seems eager to add that in.

What do you think @Deino ? Does it seems he's contributing positively to the discussion? No disrespect to you, but you seems to like every single one of his comment no matter how unconstructive they are.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Gambit just simply doesn't like Chinese, but he has to see our progress in this forum every day. What a pity! The most suffering thing is to see who you hate is getting stronger every day.

@Denio you are good moderator, working very hard. You have my respect. I don't care Gambit trolling, because we don't have fun without him.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

Okarus said:


> @gambit You're the one who came here and started off using PDF Chinese as an insult right away, and now you're calling other racist? I'd say 90% of your posts here contain the word "PDF Chinese". Jokes.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this post two pages ago? There was nothing about race before that, but you seems eager to add that in.
> 
> What do you think @Deino ? Does it seems he's contributing positively to the discussion? No disrespect to you, but you seems to like every single one of his comment no matter how unconstructive they are.



The J-20 is a threat to the white racist everywhere. It's a dagger to their racial superiority. That's why instead of hyping up the threat, they knock it down, so they won't be afraid so much.

Their F-35 is hopeless, it's no saviour to their white egos.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TruthHurtz

Silly Americans, when will they ever learn!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> The J-20 is a threat to the white racist everywhere. It's a dagger to their racial superiority. That's why instead of hyping up the threat, they knock it down, so they won't be afraid so much.
> 
> Their F-35 is hopeless, it's no saviour to their white egos.



Even the F-22 is really not capable of taking on the J-20 in the large distances of the Western Pacific around China.
F-22 was designed to fight the Russians in central Europe where it's relatively short-range would not be a handicap.
Without tankers and AWACS support, it will be mercilessly hunted by J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

TruthHurtz said:


> Silly Americans, when will they ever learn!



Come on, most of the tech stuff americans "own" are developed and researched by Chinese americans and funded by China's money as proved by trillion dollar US worthless national bonds China own.

Thats why China can access whatever "american" tech so easily.

Just looking at all the education indictars you know the americans are usually dumb and suck at scholaring thing so they are not stupid at all here, they "pretending" to "invent" these techs developed by Chinese with China's money, and co-owned these tech with China yet take all the credits.

So instead of blaming them being stupid, they are actually quite "smart" at this type of crooking things.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

UKBengali said:


> Even the F-22 is really not capable of taking on the J-20 in the large distances of the Western Pacific around China.
> F-22 was designed to fight the Russians in central Europe where it'says relatively short-range would not be a handicap.
> Without tankers and AWACS support, it will be mercilessly hunted by J-20.


J20 is designed to hunt F22. Nothing surprise!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

UKBengali said:


> Even the F-22 is really not capable of taking on the J-20 in the large distances of the Western Pacific around China.
> F-22 was designed to fight the Russians in central Europe where it's relatively short-range would not be a handicap.
> Without tankers and AWACS support, it will be mercilessly hunted by J-20.



Short range is the unfixable shortcoming of F-22, without the support of oil tankers, there is no way it could make it from Guam to China and back. And if they are stationed in Okinawa, they are well within the range of hundreds of DF-16 missiles and cruise missiles. Even Guam is not safe from DF-26 which has a 3000km range.

There is no reason that China can't put its ballistic missiles onboard a large ship and thus increase their range greatly. All you need to is put those missile launchers onto the deck of a large ship. You don't need the trucks.



wanglaokan said:


> J20 is designed to hunt F22. Nothing surprise!



J-20 is designed to beat F-22 in every way. J-20's Range, Power, Subsonic and Supersonic Maneuverability, Modern Sensors, and AESA radar are all superior.



TruthHurtz said:


> @Asok Why not? It's free.



Those hacking accusation are nonsense. US defense company's Intra networks are not linked to the public internet. US military networks are restricted. They can't be reached from China. As simple as that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20 will be a nightmare for F35.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 艹艹艹

grey boy 2 said:


> Looks like "2011 or 2012" are still used for some kind of tests. flying with 4 drop tanks (可是为啥是2012号？ps:上传者是蒲城的，百度了陕西那边，估计在伊朗那边吧，应该是2011 2012交付的那批原型机还在试飞，视频应该是昨天刚拍摄的，上传者估计不懂把副油箱当成导弹了)
> HD video here http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTg4MDcwMDI0MA==.html


* long-range bombers*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

long_ said:


> * long-range bombers*


战斗机中航程最接近轰炸机的，轰炸机中机动性最好的！世界上第一款跨界战斗机。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

grey boy 2 said:


> Looks like "2011 or 2012" are still used for some kind of tests. flying with 4 drop tanks (可是为啥是2012号？ps:上传者是蒲城的，百度了陕西那边，估计在伊朗那边吧，应该是2011 2012交付的那批原型机还在试飞，视频应该是昨天刚拍摄的，上传者估计不懂把副油箱当成导弹了)
> HD video here http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTg4MDcwMDI0MA==.html



4X2400L

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

cirr said:


> 4X2400L



At 1177 L per Ton, that's an additional 8 Ton of fuels. 12 Ton internal fuel + 8 tons of external fuel = 20 tons. That's insane.

Those fuel tanks could be shape into having aerodynamic lifting force, helping out the main wings in flight.

They could also make into obscenely big, only half filled up during take off, and then fill them up completely in the air. This will lessen the maximum take off weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 艹艹艹

Asok said:


> At 1177 L per Ton, that's an additional 8 Ton of fuels. 12 Ton internal fuel + 8 tons of external fuel = 20 tons. That's insane.
> 
> Those fuel tanks could be shape into having aerodynamic lifting force, helping out the main wings in flight.


*How far can it fly?*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

long_ said:


> *How far can it fly?*



A Su-30 with 10 ton of fuel has a range of 3000km. That's one ton per 300km. J-20 could carry a maximum of 20 ton (12 Ton, internally, and 8 ton, externally). That's like 5500-6000km for J-20. 

J-20 is bigger and heavier than SU-30, but aerodynamically more efficient.

F-22 could carry 8 ton internally, plus, 3.6 Ton externally, for a total of 12.6 ton.

The F-15E, Strike Eagle, could carry a total of 15 ton, still short of J-20's insane 20 tons.





By comparison, here is F-22. It could carry four oil tanks.

And they are enormous.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> 战斗机中航程最接近轰炸机的，轰炸机中机动性最好的！世界上第一款跨界战斗机。



Long range helps a lot when crossing the vast distance. In the future PLAAF will not just fight over the sky of China, but bring the fight to the enemy's bases in vast span of the pacific ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Long range helps a lot when crossing the vast distance. In the future PLAAF will not just fight over the sky of China, but bring the fight to the enemy's bases in vast span of the pacific ocean.




I hope that China will not fight any time soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Deino said:


> I hope that China will not fight any time soon.


I hope so too. It's cool to see all the new military advancements and capabilities, but the thought of a war is simply unpleasant to anyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 艹艹艹

Deino said:


> I hope that China will not fight any time soon.


*We love peace
but....................you konow..........*

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> J20 will be a nightmare for F35.



And a headache for F-22. F-22 will have no game, if it can't defend the AWACs and Oil Tankers from J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> And a headache for F-22. F-22 will have no game, if it can't defend the AWACs and Oil Tankers from J-20.




Can we stick to reality ???

You are only picking up individual parts: Size, fuel, missile .... but we know next to nothing how far the avionics are integrated, how much there's an interoperational information sharing possible between different assets and even more we know nearly nothing how much mature the J-20 and all its systems are.

Yes it is a fine fighter, Yes it has a huge fuel capacity ... but You guys are hyping this type as is it IS a Raptor-killer, as if the F-35 is a lame duck, as if You are only eager to go to war ...

I think none of You is old enough to ever realise how worse war is for everyone on each side.

Deino


----------



## randomradio

UKBengali said:


> Funny thing is that the F-35 was deliberately made less stealthy than F-22 so that US could export it.
> 
> J-20 pilots will shoot these F-35 Turkeys out of the sky with ease.



The F-35 is stealthier than the F-22.



Asok said:


> Short range is the unfixable shortcoming of F-22



The F-22 has enough range.


----------



## Pepsi Cola

randomradio said:


> The F-35 is stealthier than the F-22.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 has enough range.



The distance from Guam to China mainland's coast is around 1,600 Nautical Miles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## randomradio

Okarus said:


> The distance from Guam to China mainland's coast is around 1,600 Nautical Miles.



That means you won't be able to hit Guam either. And you forget that the US has other bases closer to China than Guam.


----------



## 帅的一匹

randomradio said:


> That means you won't be able to hit Guam either. And you forget that the US has other bases closer to China than Guam.


It just say J20 can reach Guam, doesn't mean China will use J20 to attack Guam. It's a tactical problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UKBengali

randomradio said:


> The F-35 is stealthier than the F-22.



Where did you pull that gem from?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## randomradio

UKBengali said:


> Where did you pull that gem from?





wanglaokan said:


> In his dream



http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
_But stealth is not invisibility, especially for fighters that must have tails for maneuverability (rather than the B-2 stealth bomber’s tailless “flying wing” design). Both F-22s and F-35s will be spotted at range by low frequency radar. *The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s,* but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], *but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”* But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.
_
It's very important to research and read rather than smashing your heads on your keyboards the minute you're on a forum.



wanglaokan said:


> It just say J20 can reach Guam, doesn't mean China will use J20 to attack Guam. It's a tactical problem.



The F-22 can't attack from Guam and the Chinese cannot attack Guam with the J-20. That means both aircraft are tactically irrelevant in this scenario. So bringing up the F-22's range 'deficiency' was pointless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

最近流出的满挂副油箱照片很赞啊。
四个副油箱的意思估计就是肚皮装满导弹，还有很多的载重富裕。可以实现从内地机场起飞，出海岸线（国境线）后丢副油箱，爬升进入隐身状态，长途外科手术，专打高价值目标。
当然，四个副油箱换成隐身外挂，饱和攻击，4外+4内=8弹，或者8外+4内=12弹，一次齐射灭掉一架预警机，还是很划得来。

福利如下，有外挂虽然影响隐身，但是比三代机霸气太多

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

grey boy 2 said:


> 最近流出的满挂副油箱照片很赞啊。
> 四个副油箱的意思估计就是肚皮装满导弹，还有很多的载重富裕。可以实现从内地机场起飞，出海岸线（国境线）后丢副油箱，爬升进入隐身状态，长途外科手术，专打高价值目标。
> 当然，四个副油箱换成隐身外挂，饱和攻击，4外+4内=8弹，或者8外+4内=12弹，一次齐射灭掉一架预警机，还是很划得来。
> 
> 福利如下，有外挂虽然影响隐身，但是比三代机霸气太多


长途奔袭可以保证不受敌方地对地战术导弹对边境机场的打击。



Deino said:


> Can we stick to reality ???
> 
> You are only picking up individual parts: Size, fuel, missile .... but we know next to nothing how far the avionics are integrated, how much there's an interoperational information sharing possible between different assets and even more we know nearly nothing how much mature the J-20 and all its systems are.
> 
> Yes it is a fine fighter, Yes it has a huge fuel capacity ... but You guys are hyping this type as is it IS a Raptor-killer, as if the F-35 is a lame duck, as if You are only eager to go to war ...
> 
> I think none of You is old enough to ever realise how worse war is for everyone on each side.
> 
> Deino


Raptor comes first, then we develop J20. The purpose of developing J20 is for deterrence against F22. No one wants a war, I still enjoy my happy day in Shanghai. If a war is imposed upon on us, we have to face it. China had been very tolerated with USA's provocation. But everything has a limit, it has to be noticed.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kuge

*歼20A短期部署百架 形势催人强*
(博讯北京时间2016年12月26日 转载) 
梁国梁


中国第五代隐形战机歼20已悄无声息成军，目前正密锣紧鼓进行战役和战术演练，不久将进入实战部署。这一事实即使最乐观的预言者也始料不及。

自从坐上「世界第二把交椅」後，中国的安全环境并非一味乐观反而更险恶，战争威胁不断积累，代表美国军工和石油利益集团的候任总统特朗普上台，只不过将「整死中国」的幕後对白搬上台前。中国早已洞察入微，形势催人强，加快歼20部署是中国既定战略方针。据透露中国将在短期内部署大约100架歼20战机，这一重磅消息如惊天炸雷。但是它靠谱吗？

歼20飞行员培训进入收官阶段

中国空军现役飞机一般是5个字编号，小部分用4个字编号。近日网络曝光了「78271」至「78274」顺序编号4架歼20战机，机身涂上五代隐形战机特有的「低可视度迷彩」，说明这是一批已服役战机。根据中国空军编号原则，得知这是中国空军沧州飞行训练中心的飞机编号。

沧州飞行训练中心是全军性的飞行训练中心，位於中部战区境内河北省沧州市，但不属於战区管辖而是直属空军司令部。

沧州飞行训练中心主要任务是训练新型战机飞行员，例如当年苏27、苏30战机飞行员便由该基地培训。沧州飞行训练中心还配备新型战机仿真训练设备，例如歼20仿真驾驶训练舱，这是飞向蓝天之前必经的训练阶段。飞行员在该基地进行驾驶技术和基本战术训练，随後便回到所属战区，再由该批核心飞行员「传、帮、带」培训所属战区新型战机飞行员。

目前该基地已培训多批歼20飞行员，进入「收官阶段」（围棋术语：收尾巩固），因为中国的惯例是：给你看到的已是过去了的东西。

战绩辉煌 预示即将实战部署

下面两则消息进一步证实歼20即将进行实战部署。

一、来自俄方消息称中国购自俄罗斯首批4架苏35将於本月25日圣诞日交付中方，接着进行苏35飞行员的紧张培训。目前沧州飞行训练中心的4个航空旅至少要腾出2个旅培训苏35飞行员，另2个旅继续培训新型歼20A飞行员。

二、美国商业卫星公司TerraServer今年11月17日拍摄的卫星图片，显示甘肃省酒泉市鼎新中国空军基地停泊两架歼20战机，停机坪上同时停泊歼10B/C、歼11B、歼轰7A、歼16、歼8F、轰6U、空警200、空警2000、运8高新机和运8运输机等，构成一个完整作战体系。

鼎新基地位於大名鼎鼎的中国航天城附近，是中国空军的战术合成训练基地，中国空军每年11月均在此地进行大规模「红剑」联合演习，与美国空军「红旗军演」类似，是目前世界上实战程度最高规模最大的空军联合演习之一。据了解，歼20出现在鼎新空军基地表明该型战机已进入战役战术训练阶段，离实战部署已不远。

歼20参加鼎新基地的中国空军「红剑」联合军演，一是探索五代隐身战机与预警机指挥下四代战机相互间的攻防演练；二是演练歼20在无线电静默情况下，仅靠数据资讯隐蔽接敌的空战模式；三是探索被喻为「国产版苏35」的新型四代机歼16，在空中预警机远端指挥下对抗歼20的能力；四是演练歼20「踹门」即撕开对方防御网能力；五是摸索歼20突袭预警机、空中加油机及电子战机战术。

据透露歼20战绩辉煌，坚定了中国大量部署的决心。

装备基本型、A型4个团部署沿海

歼20究竟要部署多少架？中国空军首席试飞员徐勇凌判断「中国未来主力歼20战机在2017年将正式列装，数量接近100架」。作为一线飞行员所独有的敏感，徐勇凌的判断与最近透露「中国将在短期内部署4个航空团的歼20战机」消息一致。4个团为96架，根据推算不到3年便可完成这一目标。部署重点依顺序将是南部战区、东部战区和北部战区。

众所周知，歼20战机是由成都飞机工业集团研制和生产。该公司位於成都青羊区，拥有研发机构、生产机构以及自己的机场跑道，研发、生产、试飞、验收一条龙进行。

目前，「成飞」两条歼20生产线，一条是生产歼20的基本型，装备俄制AL-31发动机，另一条是生产歼20A型，装备国产WS-10B太行发动机。最近加开第三条生产线加快生产速度，同样是生产歼20A型战机。3条生产线各以每月一架的速度，年产量合共36架。扣除已生产12架早期量产型机，余下84架的生产目标2年多便可完成。

「成飞」生产歼10A/B/C时，曾同时开动4条生产线。据分析「成飞」生产五代隐形战机的第四条生产线将於3年後即2019年末开始运作，试产歼20B以测试新型国产WS-15峨眉发动机。

4000亿催谷发动机 3年後生产歼20B

中国上世纪90年代起至今共购入俄罗斯礼炮公司AL-31飞机发动机1300台，用在国产歼11系列和歼10系列，以及部分歼20。

WS-10太行发动机和AL-31发动机有共通之处，随後俄方在AL-31F基础上开发出99M1至99M4暴风猎人发动机，中国也在WS-10上开发出WS-10A和WS-10B，但中国比俄罗斯做得更好，将推重比由8提升到9。

中航集团董事长林左鸣介绍WS-10B时说：「国产第三代单晶叶片极端环境下耐高温达到2000度，目前是全球耐高温最好的叶片，这个指标连美国都做不到。」太行发动机的寿命由此从800小时增加到1500小时，大修间隔达到西方水平。

今年8月28日直属国务院的中国航空发动机集团成立，注册资本500亿人民币，职工9.6万人，拥有中国科学院和工程院院士6名，是中国初始注册资本最大的公司，中国计划投入600亿美元（4000多亿人民币）给该公司发展航空发动机，这一数字相当於中国全部黄金储备的价值。

WS-15峨眉发动机在2006年已经研发并试车成功，但至今仍未量产。中国政府投入巨资目的非常明确，就是2020年前一定攻克WS-15峨眉发动机这个大关，并开始大规模生产。

WS-15峨眉发动机是专为五代隐形战机设计，动力巨大，推重比达到和超过10。歼20B装备WS-15後巡航速度可达1.8马赫，最高速度超过2.2马赫，与美军F-22隐身五代机已不相上下。作为中国空军主力的歼20B未来产量将高达500架，超过美国及其盟友在亚洲部署隐形五代机的总和。

李济深「机不可失」的玄机

上世纪二三十年代，蒋介石进驻南京统治中国，李济深不服，策动广东广西与蒋对抗，双方军队互有输赢，但广东有一支空军，令蒋处於劣势。蒋要建立空军，时间金钱都有问题，结果蒋用最低成本的手法——巨款贿赂李的空军司令，整支空军便飞往南京，李济深马上下野流亡。李济深此时才明白，战前算命先生给他的4个字「机不可失」非指战胜蒋的机会而是指飞机不可失！

现代战争从空中开始也从空中结束，空军是成败的关键，中国全力发展歼20的战略意义不言自明。

作者是香港军事评论员

来源：香港 明报

Some key points (not all of above)

early basic j20 are powered by al31f.
j20a powered by ws10b whose 3rd gen blades can withstand 2000degC & thus lifespan increases from 800hrs to 1500hrs.

Chengdu currently has 2 production lines - one for basic j20 & another for j20a.
Recently added one more line also for j20a making annual production 36 units.

It says WS-15 passed the test in 2006 & plan mass production in 2020 .
It will power j20b in quantity of 500.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## alwaysfair

randomradio said:


> That means you won't be able to hit Guam either. And you forget that the US has other bases closer to China than Guam.


Any chance of mid air refueling ? I know the refueling tanker might be detected so chances are less.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Is it only me? why my images ain't showing?


----------



## Deino

terranMarine said:


> Becareful grey, posting Chinese will cause @Deino to burst into tears and complaining that Chinese should not be posting in PDF anymore


 

You simple should not complain with my kind remindings but talk to the owner of this forum if You don't like this rule !


----------



## grey boy 2

A few nice pictures of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## randomradio

alwaysfair said:


> Any chance of mid air refueling ? I know the refueling tanker might be detected so chances are less.



New stealth tankers.

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/cno-new-stingray-drone-will-be-a-tanker

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

terranMarine said:


> It is not me who is complaining now am i? Was it not you who said those who are not posting in English should not post in PDF at all?


 

Yes, but plain and simple as I would remind anyone since these are the rules ... not MY rules, but simpyl the forum's rules !

I would even more be interested if these are the same tanks the J-10 uses ... or are they larger ?


----------



## Silicon0000

I am not expert but curious to know that is there any ram coatings on j20 displayed in recent Chinese air show?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> It just say J20 can reach Guam, doesn't mean China will use J20 to attack Guam. It's a tactical problem.




The DF-26 missiles can reach Guam, no problemeno. We are not looking to attack anybody, just making sure no one can attack us with immunity.



Silicon0000 said:


> I am not expert but curious to know that is there any ram coatings on j20 displayed in recent Chinese air show?



Yes, fore sure. The structural materials could also be radar absorbing, not just the coating.



UKBengali said:


> Where did you pull that gem from?



Just a plain silly claim.



randomradio said:


> http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
> _But stealth is not invisibility, especially for fighters that must have tails for maneuverability (rather than the B-2 stealth bomber’s tailless “flying wing” design). Both F-22s and F-35s will be spotted at range by low frequency radar. *The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s,* but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.
> 
> “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], *but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”* But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.
> _
> It's very important to research and read rather than smashing your heads on your keyboards the minute you're on a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 can't attack from Guam and the Chinese cannot attack Guam with the J-20. That means both aircraft are tactically irrelevant in this scenario. So bringing up the F-22's range 'deficiency' was pointless.



China is not threatening to attack US everyday. US has bombed more than 10 countries and killed over 2 millions people around the world in O'Bomber's terms.



alwaysfair said:


> Any chance of mid air refueling ? I know the refueling tanker might be detected so chances are less.



This is a must for modern fighters and bombers. An oil tanker can be built from a stealth drone or stealth bomber, so they can accompany the strike force closer to the combat zone.



terranMarine said:


> Dude your constant cries for English won't change a thing, get used to it man. You are at the mercy whether Chinese will take the time to translate Chinese articles or pieces of it into English so you have things to write for your books. Mr so called Chinese military expert






randomradio said:


> New stealth tankers.
> 
> https://www.navytimes.com/articles/cno-new-stingray-drone-will-be-a-tanker



In addition to its own fuel, that drone could probably carry another 8-10 tons of fuel, enough to refill one plane's full tank. Not a bad idea for a oil tanker. But stealth will not work for AWAC. The AWAC need to turn on its powerful AESA radar to direct other planes, and that will give away its presence instantly.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ahojunk

Friendly reminder to all:-

If you post a long article in Chinese, can you also put in a summary in English.

(Thanks to @kuge for doing that, very much appreciated).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

This maybe the drop tanks that J-20 has been using, the same for FC-31 V2 (2400L extra L one)
根据中航工业鹘鹰2.0的2400L油箱宣传视频CG图 那个2400L油箱与歼20的油箱一模一样 
另外歼20作为重型机其外挂油箱不会比中型机的鹘鹰低
所以保守估计这4个是2400L超大油箱。

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> This maybe the drop tanks that J-20 has been using, the same for FC-31 V2 (2400L extra L one)
> 根据中航工业鹘鹰2.0的2400L油箱宣传视频CG图 那个2400L油箱与歼20的油箱一模一样
> 另外歼20作为重型机其外挂油箱不会比中型机的鹘鹰低
> 所以保守估计这4个是2400L超大油箱。



It's about the same size of F-22's drop tanks, which weights 4000lb each, or around 2400L.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

A comparison of J-20 with Rafael with drop tanks.











And with F-22's drop tanks. They are about the same size. J-20's tank seems slightly larger.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

The substantial length difference between J-20 and F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Of course, the J-20 has significantly greater maximum takeoff weight than the F-22.

Wikipedia's figures are simply unreliable as anyone could edit it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

The J-20 is enormous when compared to J-10, which is not really a small plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Another comparison of J-20 and F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

@Asok .. please these badly made copy&paste imges are off !

They simply look like a random found collection of "two aircrafts are mating" ... but their size comparison is based on what ?? The size of the weapons bay, the size of the canopy, pure guesswork.

IMO it is well known that the F-22 is smaller, but in this way these are not very helpful esp. since they contradict: in one the span is the same, in another the canopy, in the third the bays ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

Close up pictures of J-20, even the cockpit was visible 
比美军更帅气！独家曝光歼20战机座舱高清细节

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

A J-20A spotted over Hailar in northeastern Inner Mongolia, China. ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> A J-20A spotted over Hailar in northeastern Inner Mongolia, China. ...
> 
> View attachment 363841

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

By the way concerning these HD-cockpit-section images, do we know what type of EJ-seat the J-20 uses ?


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/814099216934936576

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> @Asok .. please these badly made copy&paste imges are off !
> 
> They simply look like a random found collection of "two aircrafts are mating" ... but their size comparison is based on what ?? The size of the weapons bay, the size of the canopy, pure guesswork.
> 
> IMO it is well known that the F-22 is smaller, but in this way these are not very helpful esp. since they contradict: in one the span is the same, in another the canopy, in the third the bays ...


And completely inappropriate since we do not know if the jets' images are in correct proportion to each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asok .. please these badly made copy&paste imges are off !
> 
> They simply look like a random found collection of "two aircrafts are mating" ... but their size comparison is based on what ?? The size of the weapons bay, the size of the canopy, pure guesswork.
> 
> IMO it is well known that the F-22 is smaller, but in this way these are not very helpful esp. since they contradict: in one the span is the same, in another the canopy, in the third the bays ...



I resize the pictures until their wingspans are about the same. F-22's wingspan is known to be 44 feet, and J-20's 42-44 feet. Of course, they are approximate comparison. Just want to show how much J-20 is longer than F-22.



gambit said:


> And completely inappropriate since we do not know if the jets' images are in correct proportion to each other.



We know their wingspans are around 42-44ft, If I resize their pictures to have the same wingspan and keep the proportions, then we can have a fair comparison. They are appropriate and live with that. Don't be a sour grape.



Deino said:


> A J-20A spotted over Hailar in northeastern Inner Mongolia, China. ...
> 
> View attachment 363841


 There are no J-20A or J-20B, stop use those alphabets, please.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Ultra close up HD picture

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Ultra close up HD picture



Since the body of J-20 is so much longer than F-22's, I find the estimate that J-20's internal fuel capacity of 12 tons, vs F-22's 9 tons, completely creditable. That gives J-20 33% more internal fuel capacity than F-22.

The length of F-22 is stated as 62ft, but several feet of the tail stick out pass the nozzles. Measurement based on nose to exhaust nozzle is a more realistic measurement of the actual body length.

The first part of the leading edge extension seems movable. What do you think, folks?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Here is a comparison of Su-30MKK and J-20. J-20' wingspan is estimated to be 44ft. Su-30MKK's wingspan is listed as 48ft, and length is 72 ft. But note several feet of the tail stick past the nozzle. So again a nose to nozzle comparison is a more realistic comparison of internal volume. Here it shows the wingspan of Su-3MKK is longer than J-20, but from nose to nozzle, its slightly shorter. I kept the proportion when I resized the Su-30MKK.






If I move the nose of Su-30MKK to align with J-20, we can see the whole length, from nose to tail, is about the same. So the whole length of J-20 is slightly less than 72ft long. In comparison, the length of F-111 is 73ft and spread wingspan is 63ft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

We know the size of the J-20 in relationship with the Flanker.





We also know the J-20 has a significantly larger airframe than the F-22, especially if measured from nose to nozzles.





Another way to measure the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

This is a much more accurate comparison. Thanks! Since the wingspan of the J-20 and F-22 is about the same, I simply line them up, without resize the pictures.

F-22 and J-20 are about the same length and size, without the canard section of J-20's body.

The F-35 is a single engine, medium size, plane, but it were forced to carry 9 ton of fuel (same as the F-22) internally to meet the stealth and combat range requirement of ~1000km. This makes the F-35, which has the most powerful production engine in the world (>190kn thrust), look incredibly fat and overweight. It completely squeezed out every bit of internal volume and any chance of further upgrade, because it has no more spare space.

It simply shows having a stealth plane that is not large as F-22 and J-20 doesn't make much sense. Even the F-22 doesn't have a lot of internal fuel for the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean.

China's designers have made a wise decision to make J-20 even bigger than F-22. They have understood J-20 will be fighting over the vast expanse of Pacific Ocean in the future. And that means huge size and huge range, perhaps, banking on the knowledge, that they will have a powerful engine in the future.






j20blackdragon said:


> We know the size of the J-20 in relationship with the Flanker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also know the J-20 has a significantly larger airframe than the F-22, especially if measured from nose to nozzles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to measure the J-20.
> View attachment 363986

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> There are no J-20A or J-20B, stop use those alphabets, please.




As long as You pretend to state that the J-20 already uses a WS-15 !!! 

Jokes aside ... WHY !?? As far as I know, the first iteration of an aircraft uses no additional letter ... so was the J-7, J-10 and surely also the J-20. But if You look how the first serial or operational birds were designated - aka J-10A - it is IMO not that far off to assume that the operational J-20s are in fact J-20s since the step from the 200x demonstrators to the 201x prototypes alone would justify a new letter.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> As long as You pretend to state that the J-20 already uses a WS-15 !!!
> 
> Jokes aside ... WHY !?? As far as I know, the first iteration of an aircraft uses no additional letter ... so was the J-7, J-10 and surely also the J-20. But if You look how the first serial or operational birds were designated - aka J-10A - it is IMO not that far off to assume that the operational J-20s are in fact J-20s since the step from the 200x demonstrators to the 201x prototypes alone would justify a new letter.
> 
> Deino



There is actually no evidence that J-20 is NOT using WS-15 already. There are no official/semi-official announcements. An official has stated its using Chinese made engine. That's about it. The idea of J-20 is using WS-10X or AL-31Fn came from the fanboy. They got it from comparing exhaust nozzles. So it is pure speculation.

To be honest, I don't have firm and absolutely convincing evidence, either. Just my own speculation based on reasonings provided by other Chinese fanboys.

The Chinese government has played a masterful game of deception to conceal the identity of the engine. As to why? We can only speculate. To me, the truth will be shocking to a lot people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> As long as You pretend to state that the J-20 already uses a WS-15 !!!
> 
> Jokes aside ... WHY !?? As far as I know, the first iteration of an aircraft uses no additional letter ... so was the J-7, J-10 and surely also the J-20. But if You look how the first serial or operational birds were designated - aka J-10A - it is IMO not that far off to assume that the operational J-20s are in fact J-20s since the step from the 200x demonstrators to the 201x prototypes alone would justify a new letter.
> 
> Deino


No sir he right their is no J-20A or J-20B

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TruthHurtz

We all know whether or not the J-20 uses the WS-15 is a matter of life or death for some posters in this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

TruthHurtz said:


> We all know whether or not the J-20 uses the WS-15 is a matter of life or death for the posters in this thread.


 right, Truth hurtz!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

At the risk of the Mod saying enough of the superimposed pictures size comparison, here is the three generations of China's fighters (J-20, J-10, and J-7) length compared side by side.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> At the risk of the Mod saying enough of the superimposed pictures size comparison, here is the three generations of China's fighters length compared side by side.




No, this is at least a decent comparison, since You have a reference, all were taken from the same position. But to compare a fighter not in the exact same position without really any reference or the known exact dimensions will ever fail to be an exact comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TruthHurtz

Asok said:


> At the risk of the Mod saying enough of the superimposed pictures size comparison, here is the three generations of China's fighters (J-20, J-10, and J-7) length compared side by side.
> 
> View attachment 364008



In such a short space of time as well, very impressive progress.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

TruthHurtz said:


> In such a short space of time as well, very impressive progress.



It was only in 1997, that J-10 took its first flight. That was seemingly an incredible achievement. J-10 was China's first domestic modern fighter. And now, we have the State of the Art 5th generation fighter, J-20. With this fighter, China, has caught up with the best of the world, might have even surpassed F-22 and T-50 in some measures.

1997 was a memorable year for me. I left home and start my IT career in Nortel, Ottawa in the autumn of 1997.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

Oscar said:


> From 3:08 on wards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TVC only effect post stall manoeuvrability.



I have heard above 400km/h, TVC nozzles are not effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I have heard above 400km/h, TVC nozzles are not effective.


this is not true i think, if this is true all TVC are useless, b/t what is source of your information

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Here you can see the comparison of the 90 degree vertical climbing between the J-20 (without afterburner starts at 1:02) and the F-22 (with afterburner starts at 1:27).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> this is not true i think, if this is true all TVC are useless, b/t what is source of your information



From F-22 pilots who participated in the Red Flag exercises. Let me find the source for you.
*https://theaviationist.com/2013/02/21/raptor-vs-typhoon-us/*

Basically, when you use the Thrust Vectoring, you quickly turn or point your nose to the enemy, but that quick turning also turn your plane's body against the wind and you lose energy quickly. Several moves of that, you go into post stall speed. If somebody is waiting for you to make that move, he is going to quickly kill you.

TVC is great if you happen in a low energy state already, you can dance around a ballet dancer using your TVC. At that low speed, planes using only the control surfaces can't do that, the wing don't have enough energy to work the control surface's effectiveness. That's why planes at low speed are sluggish and lose control easily.

It's awesome to watch those acrobatic moves in an airshow, but they are death inducing for anyone who make them in front of an enemy fighter. Remember, even though the enemy might also in a low energy state with you, his wingman might not, he might be watching you in high speed, while you dancing with his friend with those crazy acrobatic moves, he will be waiting for a split second opportunity to shoot you down.

So never go into a low energy state or post stall speed, its going to be your last move. Speed coupled with high manuervability is still the king in air combat.

This is an excellent articles explaining what happens when you use TVC and air combat in general.
*https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/13/usefulness-of-thrust-vectoring/*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Concerning the whole "J-20-did-not-use-AB-at-Zhuhai-discussion" may I refer to this post:



j20blackdragon said:


> ...
> The J-20 was using afterburners at Zhuhai 2016.
> View attachment 364262



https://defence.pk/threads/chinese-engine-information-thread.300409/page-34#post-9058148


----------



## SQ8

Asok said:


> I have heard above 400km/h, TVC nozzles are not effective.





pakistanipower said:


> this is not true i think, if this is true all TVC are useless, b/t what is source of your information


Not so much the effectiveness as much as the practicality. You could theoretically use TVC to generate a 13G turn at 900kmh. But whether the airframe or pilot will survive it is another matter. In reality, massive energy loss due to airframe aerodynamic potential being exceeded along with any potential wingman of the enemy finding you an easy meal especially with modern missiles makes TVC an outdated feature.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Oscar said:


> Not so much the effectiveness as much as the practicality. You could theoretically use TVC to generate a 13G turn at 900kmh. But whether the airframe or pilot will survive it is another matter. In reality, massive energy loss due to airframe aerodynamic potential being exceeded along with any potential wingman of the enemy finding you an easy meal especially with modern missiles makes TVC an outdated feature.




Thanks Oscar! that's what the Eurocanards pilots find. TVC may not be useful at high speed, and you would not want to find yourself in low speed so you can use your TVC effectively.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> From F-22 pilots who participated in the Red Flag exercises. Let me find the source for you.
> *https://theaviationist.com/2013/02/21/raptor-vs-typhoon-us/*
> 
> Basically, when you use the Thrust Vectoring, you quickly turn or point your nose to the enemy, but that quick turning also turn your plane's body against the wind and you lose energy quickly. Several moves of that, you go into post stall speed. If somebody is waiting for you to make that move, he is going to quickly kill you.
> 
> TVC is great if you happen in a low energy state already, you can dance around a ballet dancer using your TVC. At that low speed, planes using only the control surfaces can't do that, the wing don't have enough energy to work the control surface's effectiveness. That's why planes at low speed are sluggish and lose control easily.
> 
> It's awesome to watch those acrobatic moves in an airshow, but they are death inducing for anyone who make them in front of an enemy fighter. Remember, even though the enemy might also in a low energy state with you, his wingman might not, he might be watching you in high speed, while you dancing with his friend with those crazy acrobatic moves, he will be waiting for a split second opportunity to shoot you down.
> 
> So never go into a low energy state or post stall speed, its going to be your last move. Speed coupled with high manuervability is still the king in air combat.
> 
> This is an excellent articles explaining what happens when you use TVC and air combat in general.
> *https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/13/usefulness-of-thrust-vectoring/*


thank you very much bro

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> thank you very much bro


----------



## Asoka

Here is a size comparison between Mig-25 and J-20. Mig-25 was a 1960's era Soviet high speed, high altitude interceptor, capable of reaching the speed of Mach 3.2 and the incredible atitude of 35,000 metres (115,000 ft).










It's enormous speed and size was very impressive to anyone who saw it. It's length was 19.75M or 67ft, and wingspan of 14.01m or 45ft.

The dimensions are almost identical to J-20, with J-20 being slightly longer, 72ft or 21.9m in length, and smaller wingspan, 44ft or 14m.

No wonder many people were convinced that J-20 was built as a interceptor. This was no mere coincident. J-20 was based on the cancelled, 1970's era, J-9 interceptor designed to the achieve Mach 3, and altitude of 30,000m, the same as Mig-25.

J-9 designers must have studied the Mig-25 carefully, in the 1970's, for inspirations to reach those lofty goals.






J-20 and the iconic Mig-25 have the near same length and wingspan.






The long and slender shape of J-20 is optimized for Supersonic speed and the canards are for maneuverability. It is interesting to see if J-20 can match the Mig-25's incredible top speed of Mach 3.2.

Mig-25's engine max thrust is "only" 100kN, while J-20's thrust is reportedly greater than 180kN, possibly > 210kN as I have speculated.

*Powerplant:* 2 × Tumansky R-15B-300 afterburning turbojets
*Dry thrust:* 73.5 kN (16,524 lbf) each
*Thrust with afterburner:* 100.1 kN (22,494 lbf) each

The mighty F-15 could reach Mach 2.5 with two max thrust 105kN engines.

*Powerplant:* 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans

*Dry thrust:* 14,590 lbf[124] (64.9 kN) each
*Thrust with afterburner:* 23,770 lbf for −220[124] (105.7 kN for −220) each

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

2001 an old new picture?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> 2001 an old new picture?




I think yes, but a bit artificially altered ... and this one ??

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## BoQ77

Asok, two aircrafts are totally different.
J-20 designed to be stealth, Mig-25 designed to reach the Mach 2.8 at altitude.












Asok said:


> Here is a size comparison between Mig-25 and J-20. Mig-25 was a 1960's era Soviet high speed, high altitude interceptor, capable of reaching the speed of Mach 3.2 and the incredible atitude of 35,000 metres (115,000 ft).
> 
> View attachment 364417
> View attachment 364420
> 
> 
> It's enormous speed and size was very impressive to anyone who saw it. It's length was 19.75M or 67ft, and wingspan of 14.01m or 45ft.
> 
> The dimensions are almost identical to J-20, with J-20 being slightly longer, 72ft or 21.9m in length, and smaller wingspan, 44ft or 14m.
> 
> No wonder many people were convinced that J-20 was built as a interceptor. This was no mere coincident. J-20 was based on the cancelled, 1970's era, J-9 interceptor designed to the achieve Mach 3, and altitude of 30,000m, the same as Mig-25.
> 
> J-9 designers must have studied the Mig-25 carefully, in the 1970's, for inspirations to reach those lofty goals.
> 
> View attachment 364416
> 
> 
> J-20 and the iconic Mig-25 have the near same length and wingspan.
> 
> View attachment 364424
> 
> 
> The long and slender shape of J-20 is optimized for Supersonic speed and the canards are for maneuverability. It is interesting to see if J-20 can match the Mig-25's incredible top speed of Mach 3.2.
> 
> Mig-25's engine max thrust is "only" 100kN, while J-20's thrust is reportedly greater than 180kN, possibly > 210kN as I have speculated.
> 
> *Powerplant:* 2 × Tumansky R-15B-300 afterburning turbojets
> *Dry thrust:* 73.5 kN (16,524 lbf) each
> *Thrust with afterburner:* 100.1 kN (22,494 lbf) each
> 
> The mighty F-15 could reach Mach 2.5 with two max thrust 105kN engines.
> 
> *Powerplant:* 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans
> 
> *Dry thrust:* 14,590 lbf[124] (64.9 kN) each
> *Thrust with afterburner:* 23,770 lbf for −220[124] (105.7 kN for −220) each

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

BoQ77 said:


> Asok, two aircrafts are totally different.
> J-20 designed to be stealth, Mig-25 designed to reach the Mach 2.8 at altitude.




I know that. Mig-25 was designed to be fast and furious (Mach 3), able to reach very high attitude (30,000m) to intercept the supersonic bomber the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which got cancelled.









The Mig-25 was awe inspiring for its huge size and speed. The amazing thing about J-20, is that it is even slightly larger the Mig-25, but far more agile. It is designed, with two active canards, to out maneuvers the supreme F-22.

It would be interesting to see how fast and how high could J-20 go. I suspect many world records will fall when J-20 push those monstrous >200kN engines to the max.

Interestingly, when Mig-25, F-15 and Su-27 debuted, they broke many world speed and altitude records. Some of them still stands.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Asok said:


> I know that. Mig-25 was designed to be fast and furious (Mach 3), able to reach very high attitude (30,000m) to intercept the supersonic bomber the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which got cancelled.
> 
> View attachment 364626
> View attachment 364626


Bro, will you please stop response to the random troll who's on a mission to troll, provoke and degrade, derail the thread

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Bro, will you please stop response to the random troll who's on a mission to troll, provoke and degrade, derail the thread



OK, Bro. I haven't seen this poster before, until yesterday.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> OK, Bro. I haven't seen this poster before, until yesterday.


Asok bro @BoQ77 is a anti Chinese troller

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Asok bro @BoQ77 is a anti Chinese troller



OK, it's good to know. Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> Mig-25 was designed to be fast and furious (Mach 3), able to reach very high attitude (30,000m) to intercept the supersonic bomber the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which got cancelled.


If you are even implying that the XB-70 was cancelled because of the fear of the MIG-25 -- Stop.

The XB-70 was cancelled because the jet -- believe it or not -- could not live up to its conceptual expectations. In other words, it was too technically demanding of a project and the USAF needed the funds elsewhere.

The XB-70 was designed around the idea of 'compression lift'...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_lift
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/design.shtml
http://xb70.interceptor.com/


> North American engineers pored through every aerodynamic study they could find, looking for anything that could be applied to a large, triplesonic bomber. They came across a forgotten NACA (now NASA) research paper about "*Compression Lift*." This paper described how a conical body underneath the center of a wing would push the air to the side, increasing pressure under the wing section (thereby increasing lift!) with far less drag than simply increasing the size of the wing itself.


Essentially, the jet would be 'surfing' on its own supersonic shock waves. The XB-70 was approaching that goal when program technical difficulties and mishaps forced the project's cancellation. In many ways, the XB-70's goals were more technically challenging than the F-35's.

The MIG-25's speed was achieved thru sheer propulsive brute strength. No subtlety or finesse about it.

The SR-71's speed was achieved thru minimal aerodynamic drag via extraordinary shaping.

The XB-70 combined both.

If finances allowed, the XB-70 would -- not could or might -- end up as the world's fastest and highest altitude cruising bomber. Not even the MIG-25 could chase.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> If you are even implying that the XB-70 was cancelled because of the fear of the MIG-25 -- Stop.
> 
> The XB-70 was cancelled because the jet -- believe it or not -- could not live up to its conceptual expectations. In other words, it was too technically demanding of a project and the USAF needed the funds elsewhere.
> 
> The XB-70 was designed around the idea of 'compression lift'...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_lift
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/design.shtml
> http://xb70.interceptor.com/
> 
> Essentially, the jet would be 'surfing' on its own supersonic shock waves. The XB-70 was approaching that goal when program technical difficulties and mishaps forced the project's cancellation. In many ways, the XB-70's goals were more technically challenging than the F-35's.
> 
> The MIG-25's speed was achieved thru sheer propulsive brute strength. No subtlety or finesse about it.
> 
> The SR-71's speed was achieved thru minimal aerodynamic drag via extraordinary shaping.
> 
> The XB-70 combined both.
> 
> If finances allowed, the XB-70 would -- not could or might -- end up as the world's fastest and highest altitude cruising bomber. Not even the MIG-25 could chase.



I simply stated "North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which got cancelled." Mig-25's first flight was on 1964. The west did not learn of its existence years later. And USAF cancelled the B-70 program on 1961. How could Mig-25 influenced the decision?

Nice post on the XB-70 background, though.

Relax, Bro, and pop a pill, before you burst a blood vessel in your brain.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... no need to add MiG-25, Valkyrie or other large fighters to that tread otherwise some Western specialists like Carlo Kopp will again jump on that bandwagon "it is long, it is large, .. it is a F-111-like fighter bomber" !*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

yusheng said:


> View attachment 364641
> View attachment 364642



Goodbye 2016, hello 2017 

http://share.acg.tv/flash.swf?aid=7113144&page=1

May 2017 be promised to be a very interesting and exciting year for you all.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Oh You are turturing me again ! 

At least a hint what will happen in May??

Anyway I wish all of You all the best for 2017.
Deino


----------



## Naif al Hilali

gambit said:


> The MIG-25's speed was achieved thru sheer propulsive brute strength. No subtlety or finesse about it.
> 
> The SR-71's speed was achieved thru minimal aerodynamic drag via extraordinary shaping.
> 
> The XB-70 combined both.
> 
> If finances allowed, the XB-70 would -- not could or might -- end up as the world's fastest and highest altitude cruising bomber. Not even the MIG-25 could chase.


Thanks gambit.

If I may add, 

1. The MiG-25 would actually start eating its engine beyond Mach 2.5, so not really at par with the other two in any respect, though we did not know that until after the defection to Japan by Victor Belenko.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/...a-secretive-mig-25-foxbat-40-years-ago-today/

https://theaviationist.com/2013/07/19/foxbat-defection/

2. The wing form of the SR-71 was necessary for the high speeds but most of the rest of the shaping had to do with signature reduction. 

The reason behind the SR-71's sustained speeds of Mach 3.0-3.2 were the shock inlets of the Pratt & Whitney J58s that acted as 'ramjets' and produced 80% of the thrust above Mach 2.5 by compression alone, as well as the special (toxic) JP-7 fuel that leaked through the wing's 'pores' on the ground but super-cooled (relatively speaking) the airframe in flight.

See Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" on the topic, specially the part on his design of the inlets.






3. Interesting that two shock-riders in history (see BAC TSR.2 below, though designed for a different but equally demanding flight regime) were both canceled during development. My own feeling is that they would probably have run into controllability issues and suffered from lack of sufficient agility if developed further, even though the designers felt otherwise.


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... this was a clear order !

Other BIG like Valkyrie. MiG-25, SR-71 and now even TSR-2 aircraft are irrelevant in this thread.

Stay on topic please.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

BoQ77 said:


> If you knew that many aircrafts have enough power to reach Mach 2.5 and more. They didn't do it because some reasons.
> 
> J-20 wouldn't long fly at above Mach 2 speed, because it would ruin its engines and its RAM and some more consequences because of aerodynamic heating and others, even if it has the more powerful engines.
> 
> That's why I said "it would fly at Mach 3 if it was designed to do so, and it wouldn't if it wasn't designed for that speed"
> 
> We should satisfy if J-20 could supercruise at Mach 1.2


*how do you know that it could cruise at MACH 1.2?*,all information are classified about J-20, just in you wet dream and wishful thinking

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jkroo

cirr said:


> Goodbye 2016, hello 2017
> 
> http://share.acg.tv/flash.swf?aid=7113144&page=1
> 
> May 2017 be promised to be a very interesting and exciting year for you all.


One word to comment the video 屌！！

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WarFariX

happy new year leak...guess what message does this pic give?

@grey boy 2 any idea bro???
apart from hmd

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

MarvellousThunder@PDC said:


> happy new year leak...guess what message does this pic give?
> 
> @grey boy 2 any idea bro???
> apart from hmd


Not really pal, could be many depend on how one think


----------



## WarFariX

grey boy 2 said:


> Not really pal, could be many depend on how one think


side grips

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

MarvellousThunder@PDC said:


> happy new year leak...guess what message does this pic give?
> 
> @grey boy 2 any idea bro???
> apart from hmd



It clearly shows the pilot's right hand is on his right side. That means the Joy is not located on the Center but on the side like the F-16. It also clearly show the Seat has a white actuator to seat up or down as G force increases during high G moves.






I am not saying J-20 is designed to fly at Mach 3 regularly. I simply said it got enough power to set some records. When Su-27 set a number of world records, all unnecessary equipments (like radar, gun) were removed and use only minimum fuel needed, even the paint was striped to save a couple hundred pounds.

J-20 has long and slender shape, so it is far more aerodynamic than F-22 and T50 to fly at Supersonic Speed, and has a lot more power, 35% more than F-22, IMO.

So, I think it could do at least Mach1.6-1.8 Supersonic Cruise for more than 30 minutes.



cirr said:


> Goodbye 2016, hello 2017
> 
> http://share.acg.tv/flash.swf?aid=7113144&page=1
> 
> May 2017 be promised to be a very interesting and exciting year for you all.







Effortless and rapid vertical climbing again, and no tell-tale sign of a long long bright flame of the Afterburner turned on. This signifies only Dry Thrust was used to do that. And it means the Dry Thrust alone is greater than the Weight of J-20, which is > 20 tons, IMO.

"Underpowered", it is not. WS-10x, or AL-31FN, it is not. IMO.

Another Yellow Bird takes to the sky on New Year.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> "Underpowered", it is not. WS-10x, or AL-31FN, it is not. IMO.


But bro not WS-15 either, but a interim Engine not WS-15


----------



## WarFariX

for god sake dont start the engine topic again

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

pakistanipower said:


> But bro not WS-15 either, but a interim Engine not WS-15


 Hi Happy Year 2017 Greeting to you and others

 Back to your comment. 
Yes. And why NOT *a variant of WS-15? *You meant to tell me, China has NOTHING to show after the first WS-15 prototype was unveiled and tested in 2005. That is very unChina. 
Perhaps NOT quite the final target 18 ton version yet. But I am convinced it is WS and most likely WS-15 variant. Nobody has ever seen a WS-10G.

*When China bought the D30KP2 to re-engine its H-6 bomber fleet, the new engine does not fit and hence a new plane H6K is borned. The fuselage naxella has to be completely redesigned to house the bigger engine.









*

In the case of J-20 FGFA, the diameter of its fuselage is designed for bigger diameter WS-15. The engine diameter of both the AL-31F or WS-10 series is smaller. In all the picture posted, I could see that the engine fits quite perfectly into the J-20.

Yes. It is true China is the master in the Art of Deception when it comes to its Military Secret and the nozzle can be easily manipulated to misled many of us but the ability to perform a 90 degree vertical climb without the use of the AB gave it away and IMO is very impressive and convincing as Asok shown to us in his argument. At least I am among those who buys his argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Hi Happy Year 2017 Greeting to you and others
> 
> Back to your comment.
> Yes. And why NOT *a variant of WS-15? *You meant to tell me, China has NOTHING to show after the first WS-15 prototype was unveiled and tested in 2005. That is very unChina.
> Perhaps NOT quite the final target 18 ton version yet. But I am convinced it is WS and most likely WS-15 variant. Nobody has ever seen a WS-10G.
> 
> *When China bought the D30KP2 to re-engine its H-6 bomber fleet, the new engine does not fit and hence a new plane H6K is borned. The fuselage naxella has to be completely redesigned to house the bigger engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> In the case of J-20 FGFA, the diameter of its fuselage is designed for bigger diameter WS-15. The engine diameter of both the AL-31F or WS-10 series is smaller. In all the picture posted, I could see that the engine fits quite perfectly into the J-20.
> 
> Yes. It is true China is the master in the Art of Deception when it comes to its Military Secret and the nozzle can be easily manipulated to misled many of us but the ability to perform a 90 degree vertical climb without the use of the AB gave it away and IMO is very impressive and convincing as Asok shown to us in his argument. At least I am among those who buys his argument.


yes you are right it is a interim version of WS-15 but not a final version as @ChineseTiger1986 said

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Hi Happy Year 2017 Greeting to you and others
> 
> Back to your comment.
> Yes. And why NOT *a variant of WS-15? *You meant to tell me, China has NOTHING to show after the first WS-15 prototype was unveiled and tested in 2005. That is very unChina.
> Perhaps NOT quite the final target 18 ton version yet. But I am convinced it is WS and most likely WS-15 variant. Nobody has ever seen a WS-10G.
> 
> *When China bought the D30KP2 to re-engine its H-6 bomber fleet, the new engine does not fit and hence a new plane H6K is borned. The fuselage naxella has to be completely redesigned to house the bigger engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> In the case of J-20 FGFA, the diameter of its fuselage is designed for bigger diameter WS-15. The engine diameter of both the AL-31F or WS-10 series is smaller. In all the picture posted, I could see that the engine fits quite perfectly into the J-20.
> 
> Yes. It is true China is the master in the Art of Deception when it comes to its Military Secret and the nozzle can be easily manipulated to misled many of us but the ability to perform a 90 degree vertical climb without the use of the AB gave it away and IMO is very impressive and convincing as Asok shown to us in his argument. At least I am among those who buys his argument.



Thank you, my Bro. Your support amidst the strenuous or hysterical objections of Butt Gang boys (菊花党) really helps.

According to my calculations, if J-20's empty weight is of 22 tons (2 more than F-22, because its body, nose to nozzle, is 10ft or 3m longer), and carries 3 tons of fuel for the testing or demo (25 tons total), assuming dry thrust is 60% of max thrust, it will requires the engine to have > 212kN of maximum thrust, to left the J-20 in an effortless 90 degrees, vertical climb, without the use of afterburner,

WS-15 has already passed 180kN, IMO, and may have already hit 212kN. This is shockingly more powerful than even the most patriotic Chinese, has predicted. But it's really not that surprising, because WS-15 is rumored to be based on the YAK-141's powerful R79-v300 engine, which was rated as 206kN. That was developed in the 1980's by the Soviets.

It is not beyond belief, because F-35's F135 engine is rated as 196kN, probably under-reported by 10-15% to protect the maximum performance secret. And it's been in production for 10 years already.

I think we have underestimated the WS-15, because the idea that China can't do aircraft engine has burned into our heads.

China's strict secrecy regarding WS-15, and intentional deceptions through the Internet Forums, doesn't help either. China has really got everybody fooled this time. China lived up to its reputation as Master of Deception.

PLAAF knows very well, the engine makes a plane. One must guard the true performance of the engine jealously, because, the performance envelope of the whole plane could be easily approximated using wind tunnel testing and software simulation, once its engine performance is determined.


.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IblinI

Happy new year to everyone, and i hope 2017 is a great year for our J20!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> yes you are right it is a interim version of WS-15 but not a final version as @ChineseTiger1986 said



Like aircraft, there is no final version of engine development, every 5-6 years, a newer model will be developed because of advances in design, materials, and manufacturing process.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Like aircraft, there is no final version of engine development, every 5-6 years, a newer model will be developed because of advances in design, materials, and manufacturing process.


yes bro you are right, but this is not true for engine development it most complex part of the jet, look at the F-22 engine its remain same from beginning

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> Thank you, my Bro. Your support amidst the strenuous or hysterical objections of Butt Gang boys (菊花党) really helps.
> 
> According to my calculations, if J-20's empty weight is of 22 tons (2 more than F-22, because its body, nose to nozzle, is 10ft or 3m longer), and carries 3 tons of fuel for the testing or demo (25 tons total), assuming dry thrust is 60% of max thrust, it will requires the engine to have > 212kN of maximum thrust, to left the J-20 in an effortless 90 degrees, vertical climb, without the use of afterburner,
> 
> WS-15 has already passed 180kN, IMO, and may have already hit 212kN. This is shockingly more powerful than even the most patriotic Chinese, has predicted. But it's really not that surprising, because WS-15 is rumored to be based on the YAK-141's powerful R79-v300 engine, which was rated as 206kN. That was developed in the 1980's by the Soviets.
> 
> It is not beyond belief, because F-35's F135 engine is rated as 196kN, probably under-reported by 10-15% to protect the maximum performance secret. And it's been in production for 10 years already.
> 
> I think we have underestimated the WS-15, because the idea that China can't do aircraft engine has burned into our heads.
> 
> China's strict secrecy regarding WS-15, and intentional deceptions through the Internet Forums, doesn't help either. China has really got everybody fooled this time. China lived up to its reputation as Master of Deception.
> 
> PLAAF knows very well, the engine makes a plane. One must guard the true performance of the engine jealously, because, the performance envelope of the whole plane could be easily approximated using wind tunnel testing and software simulation, once its engine performance is determined.
> 
> 
> .


You are most welcome, bro. Happy New 2017! 

 Yes. All experienced and seasoned China Military enthusiasts will tell us that *China Military Products will continue to evolve*. We can says that the JF-17 Thunder is in fact an evolution of the J-7. The crack-wing J-7 was itself an evolution of the original MiG-21F. 

Yes. *There is NO such thing as a FINAL version of the WS-15 when it comes to China*. The reason why I find it hard to believe that the WS-10G exists is because it is by NO means an easy task *to tweak a 13.2 tons into a >15.5 tons monster. *

It will be much more easier to accept an idea that a prototype version of WS-15 is already ready or in limited production as Russia has indeed sold and shipped a working model of the R79-300 engine to China along with its data & blueprints. Along with many of her former aeronautical experts who are either employed or migrated to China. I have seen picture evidences of them in China media. They migrated to China together with their families.

So now with the *availability of a working model as well its blueprint, it will make the task easier whether it is come to either reverse-engineering or improvision to the original design. 

With its advanced State-of-the-Art manufacturing military complexes, China could have easily advanced this design beyond its original capacity hence the possibility of a more powerful version is completely plausible. *

Shared with you something, in the absence of clear cut evidence, *I always revert to the basic* and that is sound. China can concealed the true state of the J-20 but NOT its engine noise. When I compared the engine noise generated by the AL-31F and those of the J-20 I discovered that they are different.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> You are most welcome, bro. Happy New 2017!
> 
> Yes. All experienced and seasoned China Military enthusiasts will tell us that *China Military Products will continue to evolve*. We can says that the JF-17 Thunder is in fact an evolution of the J-7. The crack-wing J-7 was itself an evolution of the original MiG-21F.
> 
> Yes. *There is NO such thing as a FINAL version of the WS-15 when it comes to China*. The reason why I find it hard to believe that the WS-10G exists is because it is by NO means an easy task *to tweak a 13.2 tons into a >15.5 tons monster. *
> 
> It will be much more easier to accept an idea that a prototype version of WS-15 is already ready or in limited production as Russia has indeed sold and shipped a working model of the R79-300 engine to China along with its data & blueprints. Along with many of her former aeronautical experts who are either employed or migrated to China. I have seen picture evidences of them in China media. They migrated to China together with their families.
> 
> So now with the *availability of a working model as well its blueprint, it will make the task easier whether it is come to either reverse-engineering or improvision to the original design.
> 
> With its advanced State-of-the-Art manufacturing military complexes, China could have easily advanced this design beyond its original capacity hence the possibility of a more powerful version is completely plausible. *
> 
> Shared with you something, in the absence of clear cut evidence, *I always revert to the basic* and that is sound. China can concealed the true state of the J-20 but NOT its engine noise. When I compared the engine noise generated by the AL-31F and those of the J-20 I discovered that they are different.


Happy New 2017! 

I totally agreed with you, Bro. China could easily evolved R79-v300 into something much more powerful, given the advances in CFD, engine design, materials, and manufacturing process in the last 20 years with the massive help from the Russian experts. The help to various Chinese industries from China's supercomputers is probably can not be estimated. Many tasks simply can not be performed without Supercomputer. And with Supercomputers, Computational Fluid Dynamic simulation is a breeze. What used to take weeks or months could now be done in hours.

I am also inclined to believe that the early version of WS-15 was on the white nozzle version 2001 of the J-20, because the engine noise is very different from WS-10 and AL-31F. Someone has analyzed the engine sounds using Sound Analyzer and arrived at the conclusion back in 2011. Even a person with normal ears could tell the very distinctive differences.



pakistanipower said:


> yes bro you are right, but this is not true for engine development it most complex part of the jet, look at the F-22 engine its remain same from beginning


Happy New 2017! 

The F-22's engine F119 HAS evolved to become the F135, which is F-35's engine. If F-22 wasn't cancelled in 2009 and keep developing, it would be using the F135 engine years ago. A newer version of F135 is already developed, called the Variable Cycle Engine (VCE) or Adaptive Engine (AE). It will be used to power the sixth generation fighters.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/ge-details-sixth-generation-adaptive-fighter-engine-plan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

Cooperative Engagement Capacity(CEC)

Is it the 1st manifestation of the so-called network centric war theory?

Cool? Marvalous??

So what?

Consider it done!

And consider it China's new year gift to the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

First of all a Happy new Year 2017 to all ...

but then @Asok, earth to @Asok ????!!! Are You still here ... Contact ??? Come on back to reality ...



Asok said:


> ....
> According to my calculations, if J-20's empty weight is of 22 tons (2 more than F-22, because its body, nose to nozzle, is 10ft or 3m longer), and carries 3 tons of fuel for the testing or demo (25 tons total), assuming dry thrust is 60% of max thrust, it will requires the engine to have > 212kN of maximum thrust, to left the J-20 in an effortless 90 degrees, vertical climb, without the use of afterburner,
> 
> WS-15 has already passed 180kN, IMO, and may have already hit 212kN. This is shockingly more powerful than even the most patriotic Chinese, has predicted. But it's really not that surprising, because WS-15 is rumored to be based on the YAK-141's powerful R79-v300 engine, which was rated as 206kN. That was developed in the 1980's by the Soviets.
> ...




I know we both do not agree with the engine, but it is one thing to assume a Chinese engine is used, another to state a prototype version of the WS-15 is used ... but now to claim this prototype delivers already about 30 kN more thrust than the planned serial version of the WS-15 is so much off that it is beyond any sense of reality.

Therefore again I admire Your persistence to find out the truth even if I'm still sure that all Your calculations based on these small, grainy and much too short video clips are baseless any rational analysis; I would also accept that we still not know what's going on and we must wait .... but please do not tell us this as a "*FACT*".

Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ...

So please come back to us...

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> First of all a Happy new Year 2017 to all ...
> 
> but then @Asok, earth to @Asok ????!!! Are You still here ... Contact ??? Come on back to reality ...
> 
> I know we both do not agree with the engine, but it is one thing to assume a Chinese engine is used, another to state a prototype version of the WS-15 is used ... but now to claim this prototype delivers already about 30 kN more thrust than the planned serial version of the WS-15 is so much off that it is beyond any sense of reality.
> 
> Therefore again I admire Your persistence to find out the truth even if I'm still sure that all Your calculations based on these small, grainy and much too short video clips are baseless any rational analysis; I would also accept that we still not know what's going on and we must wait .... but please do not tell us this as a "*FACT*".
> 
> Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ...
> 
> So please come back to us...
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> View attachment 365008
> View attachment 365009



Happy new year too.
Btw, now you know why fantasy and scifi movies sell a lot these day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> First of all a Happy new Year 2017 to all ...
> 
> but then @Asok, earth to @Asok ????!!! Are You still here ... Contact ??? Come on back to reality ...
> 
> 
> I know we both do not agree with the engine, but it is one thing to assume a Chinese engine is used, another to state a prototype version of the WS-15 is used ... but now to claim this prototype delivers already about 30 kN more thrust than the planned serial version of the WS-15 is so much off that it is beyond any sense of reality.
> 
> Therefore again I admire Your persistence to find out the truth even if I'm still sure that all Your calculations based on these small, grainy and much too short video clips are baseless any rational analysis; I would also accept that we still not know what's going on and we must wait .... but please do not tell us this as a "*FACT*".
> 
> Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ...
> 
> So please come back to us...
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> View attachment 365008
> View attachment 365009



Bro, Happy New Year! Best wishes to you and your family.

My calculations are based rudimentary physics. Show me where did i got it wrong, will be most appreciated. We know F-22's empty weight is listed as 19.6 ton, and I used that as reference and added two tons, because J-20's body length, is 3m longer than F-22. I also added 3 tons (or 1/4 of a full tank) of fuel for the demo. That gives us J-20's weight as25 tons.

The goal is find the Dry Thrust to lift that 25 tons of weight vertically, without the lifting forces from the wings, so we could also find the Maximum thrust. Dry thrust is usually 60% of maximum thrust.

In fact, to lift the 20 tons, empty weight of F-22, without fuel, vertically, W/O Afterburner, using Dry Trust only, requires minimum of 99.96 kN of Dry Thrust per engine. And the maximum Thrust of each engine must be at least 166.5kN.

Here is my calculations:
20 tons is 199.28kN. 199.28 / 2 = 99.96 kN of Dry Thrust per engine. And if we take Dry Thrust as 60% of Max Thrust , then we got 166.5kN X 0.60 = 99.9 kN

One way my assumption could be wrong is that, J-20 is actually LIGHTER or SAME weight as F-22, despite its body length is 3m longer.

Can anybody see that possibility? Honestly, I can't.

3 tons of fuel is not a lot for a demo or testing. So I will keep adding this number to the empty weight to get the flying weight.

So if we use F-22's empty weight of 20 tons, plus 3 tons of fuels, 20 + 3 = 23 tons flying weight for J-20, we will still arrive at the max thrust of 190kN. The same rating as F135.

Here is my calculations:

23 tons is 229kN. 229 / 2 = 114 kN of Dry Thrust per engine. And if we again take the Dry Thrust as 60% of Max Thrust , then we got 190kN X 0.60 = 114 tons.

I, honestly, can't believe J-20 is the same weight as F-22. F-22 is already lean, mean and muscular, not fat and overweight as the F-35. And J-20 is the same weight as F-22 despite its body length is 3m longer?

Two tons heavier is far more likely.

Why don't you do the calculations, yourself, if my is way off. @Deino.

"Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ..."

Yes, +200kN was beyond all predictions, but not beyond present technical possibilities. I was shocked too. But please do show us, where it went wrong with my simple, elementary, assumptions and calculations.

News Flash: The *F135-PW-100 *engine is rated as "43,000 lbf (190 kN) max", not bad for an engine developed in the 1990's.

200kN is high, but its only 5% higher than 190kN, and even 210kN is only 10% higher than F135's max thrust of 190kN. To improve 10%, in 20 years of engine development, is not an impossibility. IMHO.   

Fact talks, B.S. walks. I will let the "facts" do the talking.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Happy New 2017!
> 
> The F-22's engine F119 HAS evolved to become the F135, which is F-35's engine. If F-22 wasn't cancelled in 2009 and keep developing, it would be using the F135 engine years ago. A newer version of F135 is already developed, called the Variable Cycle Engine (VCE) or Adaptive Engine (AE). It will be used to power the sixth generation fighters.


Yes you are right F-119 is evolved into F-135 but remember bro it is totaly different engine from F-119, if F-22 using F-135 it cant have super-cruise capability because F-135 is a high bypass turbofan, whereas F-119 is low bypass turbofan here is the difference between low bypass and high bypass turbofan:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0033.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Yes you are right F-119 is evolved into F-135 but remember bro it is totaly different engine from F-119, if F-22 using F-135 it cant have super-cruise capability because F-135 is a high bypass turbofan, whereas F-119 is low bypass turbofan here is the difference between low bypass and high bypass turbofan:
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0033.shtml



Well, that might be true. The VCE or Adaptive Engine is just around the corner. It is widely expected to power the US 6th generation fighter. There is no reason why F119 can't borrow some of those technology to improve the engine, if F-22 wasn't cancelled in 2009, just 3 years into service.

Thanks for the link. Happy New Year!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Well, that might be true. The VCE or Adaptive Engine is just around the corner. It is widely expected to power the US 6th generation fighter. There is no reason why F119 can't borrow some of those technology to improve the engine, if F-22 wasn't cancelled in 2009, just 3 years into service.
> 
> Thanks for the link. Happy New Year!


*Might not it is true *yes broF-135 heavily based on F-119 but F-119 is basically a turbojet at high altitude at low altitude its a turbofan, i think WS-15 will be a low bypass engine like F-119.
you too brother

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> *Might not it is true *yes broF-135 heavily based on F-119 but F-119 is basically a turbojet at high altitude at low altitude its a turbofan, i think WS-15 will be a low bypass engine like F-119.
> you too brother




What we know from the long slender shape of J-20 is that it is optimized for Supersonic Speed so it could do Supersonic Cruise for a long time, without the use of Afterburner. J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 and the cancelled Chinese J-9 interceptor. Both were designed to fly at Mach 3.0 and 30,000m max. altitude. As we know, F-35 is optimized for ground attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> What we know from the long slender shape of J-20 is that it is optimized for Supersonic Speed so it could do Supersonic Cruise for a long time, without the use of Afterburner. J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 and the cancelled Chinese J-9 interceptor. Both were designed to fly at Mach 3.0 and 30,000m max. altitude. As we know, F-35 is optimized for ground attack.


Delta wings jets are built for speed but less agile, if you put Canard in the front Delta wings its CALLED DELTA CANARD PLATFORM has a extreme agility, Delta Canard platform Examples are:
J-20






EF-2000




J-10




RAFALE





GRIPEN





What is talking about that *J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 J-20 is more resembles MIG-1.44 than MIG-25 take a look*
*J-20 and MIG1.44 comparison*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SW187

beautiful


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 and the cancelled Chinese J-9 interceptor.


Do you even know the meaning/context of the word 'strikingly' ?

To us 'strikingly' is to say something is extraordinary. If you are going to use the word in a visual comparison between objects, you are saying these objects looks extraordinarily close to each other. Not quite twins, but extraordinarily close to being identical.

The J-20's shape is not close to the MIG-25's.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Delta wings jets are built for speed but less agile, if you put Canard in the front Delta wings its CALLED DELTA CANARD PLATFORM has a extreme agility, Delta Canard platform Examples are:
> J-20
> View attachment 365199
> View attachment 365200
> EF-2000
> View attachment 365202
> 
> J-10
> View attachment 365203
> 
> RAFALE
> View attachment 365212
> 
> 
> Wow, those
> 
> GRIPEN
> View attachment 365204
> 
> 
> What is talking about that *J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 J-20 is more resembles MIG-1.44 than MIG-25 take a look*
> *J-20 and MIG1.44 comparison*
> *
> View attachment 365211
> *



Wow, those drawings and pictures are brutally beautiful. Thanks for the new year eye candies treat.

"extreme agility" is the right description for the DELTA CANARD PLATFORM.





gambit said:


> Do you even know the meaning/context of the word 'strikingly' ?
> 
> To us 'strikingly' is to say something is extraordinary. If you are going to use the word in a visual comparison between objects, you are saying these objects looks extraordinarily close to each other. Not quite twins, but extraordinarily close to being identical.
> 
> The J-20's shape is not close to the MIG-25's.



I say they are. The length, wingspan, and wing angle sweep. J-9, J-20 and Mig-25 are optimized for Supersonic high speed. Just look at the post, I made one or two pages back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> *I say they are.* The length, wingspan, and wing angle sweep. J-9, J-20 and Mig-25 are optimized for Supersonic high speed. Just look at the post, I made one or two pages back.


And you are wrong. Simple as that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I say they are. The length, wingspan, and wing angle sweep. J-9, J-20 and Mig-25 are optimized for Supersonic high speed. Just look at the post, I made one or two pages back.


no bro they are not, there no confirmed specification of J-20, Just based on images of J-20 which might be wrong biggest difference is J-9 and MIG-25 not a stealth jets

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> no bro they are not, there no confirmed specification of J-20, Just based on images of J-20 which might be wrong biggest difference is J-9 and MIG-25 not a stealth jets



I know the details of the aircrafts are very different. I just want to emphasize that they are optimized for high speed. So I expect the top speed of J-20 to approach Mach 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I know the details of the aircrafts are very different. I just want to emphasize that they are optimized for high speed. So I expect the top speed of J-20 to approach Mach 3.




Oh no !!! Please .... 

Even if I can't give my own calculation - simply since I can't do that - there is no reason to believe neither a +200 kN engine nor to reach Mach 3.

No modern fighter is able to reach this, it is not even a requirement to do so and if You look, what China has achieved so far, then is this step simply beyond any capabilities.

I really don't know what's You background, but in nature science - I studied Chemistry - and You notice something You don't understand or cannot explain at once and You possible have several different explanations it is most often the most rational one and surely never - at least in my experience - the most extreme unlikely option.

Therefore again: We are not sure what engine the J-20 uses and we do not know its capabilities, but a +200 kN engine or to reach Mach 3 is so much beyond that it even kills all Your credibility. 
So IMO there must be another much more simple explanation ... and that is plain and simple You massively overestimate the climb-rate and manoeuvrability.

Just my two cents.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Oh no !!! Please ....
> 
> Even if I can't give my own calculation - simply since I can't do that - there is no reason to believe neither a +200 kN engine nor to reach Mach 3.
> 
> No modern fighter is able to reach this, it is not even a requirement to do so and if You look, what China has achieved so far, then is this step simply beyond any capabilities.
> 
> I really don't know what's You background, but in nature science - I studied Chemistry - and You notice something You don't understand or cannot explain at once and You possible have several different explanations it is most often the most rational one and surely never - at least in my experience - the most extreme unlikely option.
> 
> Therefore again: We are not sure what engine the J-20 uses and we do not know its capabilities, but a +200 kN engine or to reach Mach 3 is so much beyond that it even kills all Your credibility.
> So IMO there must be another much more simple explanation ... and that is plain and simple You massively overestimate the climb-rate and manoeuvrability.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Deino




Well Deino, you are a chemistry teacher, so elementary math should be well within your ability. Let me lay it down to you again as simply as I can, humanly.

To suspend a *20 tons* plane (included fuel) in mid air, requires 20 tons of force to push it up. To make it climb vertically, it requires 20+ tons of forces. Faster it climbs or accelerate, greater the force is required.

*Force = Mass x Acceleration*

Now, if a plane has two engines, that means each engine must supplies *10 tons* of force each.

Still following me, so far? 20 divided by 2 = 10. I hope everybody got it. If not use a calculator.

Now, a turbofan jet generates thrust by burning fuel and compressed air in the combustion chamber, this thrust is called *Dry Thrust* or military power. The pilot could also activate the afterburner and greatly increase the engine's thrust or power.







"Afterburning is achieved by injecting additional fuel into the jet pipe downstream of (i.e. *after*) the turbine. The advantage of afterburning is *significantly increased thrust*; the disadvantage is its *very high fuel consumption and inefficiency*, though this is often regarded as acceptable for the short periods during which it is usually used.

Pilots can activate and deactivate afterburners in-flight, and jet engines are referred to as operating *WET* when afterburning is being used, and *DRY* when not.

An engine producing maximum thrust *WET* is at *Maximum Power*, while an engine producing maximum thrust *DRY* is at *Military Power*". --Wikipedia

So DRY or Military Power is less than WET or *Maximum Power*. Dry thrust or military power is usually 50-60% of Wet or Maximum Power.

Now, if an airplane is able to climb vertically, without the use of the Afterburner, or seeing a long long blue flame from the exhaust, then it is using Dry or Military Power only.

That means 10 tons of thrust generated by each engine is solely Dry thrust. Now, we have said Dry thrust is usually 50-60% of Maximum Thrust. Supposed, its *50%,* instead of 60%, I usually used. The F135's dry thrust is 67% of maximum Thrust. Very high.

That means Maximum Thrust is *double* of Dry Thrust,

Max. Power = Dry Thrust / 0.5,

20 = 10 / 0.5 , so the Maximum Thrust of *each* engine is *20 tons.*

1 ton is 9.8 kilonewtons. So 20 tons is 20 x 9.8 = *196kN.*

So this engine Maximum Power is at least *+196kN*, if Dry is 50% of Max. Power.

Now, we are assuming a plane to be weighting 20 tons including fuel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F-22 is weighting 19.6 tons *empty*. And J-20 is much bigger than F-22, in fact, it's body is at least 3m longer. So we need to add 2 tons of weight to make it more realistic and add 3 tons of fuels for the demo or testing.

So, now the weight of J-20 is 20 + 2 + 3 = *25 tons*. It's two engines need to generate a total of 25 tons of Dry Thrust to lift it vertically, without afterburner.

Using the above calculation, I have arrived the figure of 25/2 = *12.5 tons* of Dry Thrust for each engine. If the engine efficiency is 50%, we can find the Maximum Thrust by double the Dry Thrust, 12.5 x 2 = *25 tons*. or *245kN.
*
Now, if the engine efficiency is higher than *50%*, say, *60%.* Then we can use the formula,

Max Thrust = Dry Thrust/0.60.

*20.8* = 12.5/0.6

So, the Maximum Thrust of the engine required is 20.8 ton or *203.8kN,* for a plane like J-20, weighting 22 tons *plus* 3 tons of fuel.

It all depends on how much J-20 actually weights, how much fuel it was carrying when it was doing the vertical climb, and its engine's efficiency.

I am guessing those numbers, by using F-22's weight (20 tons + 2 tons) as reference, and using a low fuel weight of 3 tons, and an engine efficiency of 50-60%.

Sounds clear?

Do you got it this time?

Show the math to someone, if you still have doubts. 

This is the third or fourth time that I done the calculation. I don't think I can do it better.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AlyxMS

All predictions made from insufficient data are going to be inaccurate.

We know nearly nothing about WS-15 or J-20's actual specs and aerodynamic properties. How can you make so much assumptions and claim you are right?

It's like guessing a car's engine power by staring at its tail light, there's simply no logical pathway.

Also, the "efficiency" thing.
It's not efficiency, simply the dry to wet thrust ratio.
Afterburning thrust is not usually double the dry thrust, (in other words, the ratio being 0.5)
I did the calculation for D-30(for Mig-31) and AL-31F, both are higher than 60%.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

AlyxMS said:


> All predictions made from insufficient data are going to be inaccurate.
> 
> We know nearly nothing about WS-15 or J-20's actual specs and aerodynamic properties. How can you make so much assumptions and claim you are right?
> 
> It's like guessing a car's engine power by staring at its tail light, there's simply no logical pathway.
> 
> Also, the "efficiency" thing.
> It's not efficiency, simply the dry to wet thrust ratio.
> Afterburning thrust is not usually double the dry thrust, (in other words, the ratio being 0.5)
> I did the calculation for D-30(for Mig-31) and AL-31F, both are higher than 60%.



Show me your calculations please. I love to see them.   

I used 50% to make the calculation easy to see. I usually use 60%. F-35, F135 engine is rated at 67%. Outstanding, IMO.

As I have calculated, a plane weighting 20 tons including fuel, with 60% efficiency, will requires *165kN* Maximum power to lift it vertically. 

If we take J-20's empty weight as 22 tons (2 more than F-22) and 3 tons of fuel, and 60% efficiency, we will find the Maximum thrust to be *203kN*. At 50% is *245kN*. 

Personally, I would prefer the engine to be more efficient at Dry thrust than having higher maximum power rating or Wet Thrust, since the afterburners burns several times more fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AlyxMS

I do no have any calculations because there aren't any numbers to work with. Where did you get the specs of J-20? Calculations based on guess work is pointless.

By to lift vertically I assume it means thrust to weight ratio = 1. You also said it must be done with just dry thrust?

Why?
TWR >= 1 is standard for modern jet fighters, sure. But not with dry thrust, afterburning thrust is always used to calculate TWR.

Why would one need TWR>=1 with only dry thrust?
That's a absurd amount of excess thrust!

If Tdry = Twet * 0.6, the TWR when afterburning would be 1.67! One can build a much bigger plane, with much higher capabilities with such engines.


----------



## Nadhem Of Ibelin

via jobjed from sinodefence​

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Well Deino, you are a chemistry teacher, so elementary math should be well within your ability. Let me lay it down to you again as simply as I can, humanly.
> .....
> Sounds clear?
> 
> Do you got it this time?
> 
> Show the math to someone, if you still have doubts.
> 
> This is the third or fourth time that I done the calculation. I don't think I can do it better.




YES, and Your analysis & calculation might be correct if it is a sustained climb to say somewhat 30,000 meters like the Streak Eagle or the P-42 Flanker did, but like I explained before and will do again: Your whole argumentation falls together like a house of cards simply the J-20 does not perform a sustain climb.

Yes, each and every type can climb vertically since this only depends on the velocity an aircraft has before climbing. Even when You do a simple loop, an aerobatics aeroplane climbs vertically for a brief time. The point is however how long can it climb and in all videos so far we've seen the J-20 is doing a split + a moderate climb but then the video stops or it accelerates in straight level and then climbs ... but again not comparable what You deem necessary for such a thrust requirement.

Therefore - like @AlyxMS already explained - any assumption or calculation made from insufficient data is going to be inaccurate.

So I would better leave all these guesswork since they are bare any rational foundation.

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I know the details of the aircrafts are very different. I just want to emphasize that they are optimized for high speed. So I expect the top speed of J-20 to approach Mach 3.


No bro with DSI it can barely reach Mach 2, there are one more problem if it increases speed its become least agile and maneuverable and J-20 is air superiority fighter not interceptor like MIG-25, 31 they rely on their top speed not maneuverability and agility, their tactics were shoot and run,if J-20 want to become agile and maneuverable its Mach numbers should have been under or equal Mach 2.5



Asok said:


> Well Deino, you are a chemistry teacher, so elementary math should be well within your ability. Let me lay it down to you again as simply as I can, humanly.
> 
> To suspend a *20 tons* plane (included fuel) in mid air, requires 20 tons of force to push it up. To make it climb vertically, it requires 20+ tons of forces. Faster it climbs or accelerate, greater the force is required.
> 
> *Force = Mass x Acceleration*
> 
> Now, if a plane has two engines, that means each engine must supplies *10 tons* of force each.
> 
> Still following me, so far? 20 divided by 2 = 10. I hope everybody got it. If not use a calculator.
> 
> Now, a turbofan jet generates thrust by burning fuel and compressed air in the combustion chamber, this thrust is called *Dry Thrust* or military power. The pilot could also activate the afterburner and greatly increase the engine's thrust or power.
> 
> View attachment 365263
> 
> 
> "Afterburning is achieved by injecting additional fuel into the jet pipe downstream of (i.e. *after*) the turbine. The advantage of afterburning is *significantly increased thrust*; the disadvantage is its *very high fuel consumption and inefficiency*, though this is often regarded as acceptable for the short periods during which it is usually used.
> 
> Pilots can activate and deactivate afterburners in-flight, and jet engines are referred to as operating *WET* when afterburning is being used, and *DRY* when not.
> 
> An engine producing maximum thrust *WET* is at *Maximum Power*, while an engine producing maximum thrust *DRY* is at *Military Power*". --Wikipedia
> 
> So DRY or Military Power is less than WET or *Maximum Power*. Dry thrust or military power is usually 50-60% of Wet or Maximum Power.
> 
> Now, if an airplane is able to climb vertically, without the use of the Afterburner, or seeing a long long blue flame from the exhaust, then it is using Dry or Military Power only.
> 
> That means 10 tons of thrust generated by each engine is solely Dry thrust. Now, we have said Dry thrust is usually 50-60% of Maximum Thrust. Supposed, its *50%,* instead of 60%, I usually used. The F135's dry thrust is 67% of maximum Thrust. Very high.
> 
> That means Maximum Thrust is *double* of Dry Thrust,
> 
> Max. Power = Dry Thrust / 0.5,
> 
> 20 = 10 / 0.5 , so the Maximum Thrust of *each* engine is *20 tons.*
> 
> 1 ton is 9.8 kilonewtons. So 20 tons is 20 x 9.8 = *196kN.*
> 
> So this engine Maximum Power is at least *+196kN*, if Dry is 50% of Max. Power.
> 
> Now, we are assuming a plane to be weighting 20 tons including fuel.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The F-22 is weighting 19.6 tons *empty*. And J-20 is much bigger than F-22, in fact, it's body is at least 3m longer. So we need to add 2 tons of weight to make it more realistic and add 3 tons of fuels for the demo or testing.
> 
> So, now the weight of J-20 is 20 + 2 + 3 = *25 tons*. It's two engines need to generate a total of 25 tons of Dry Thrust to lift it vertically, without afterburner.
> 
> Using the above calculation, I have arrived the figure of 25/2 = *12.5 tons* of Dry Thrust for each engine. If the engine efficiency is 50%, we can find the Maximum Thrust by double the Dry Thrust, 12.5 x 2 = *25 tons*. or *245kN.
> *
> Now, if the engine efficiency is higher than *50%*, say, *60%.* Then we can use the formula,
> 
> Max Thrust = Dry Thrust/0.60.
> 
> *20.8* = 12.5/0.6
> 
> So, the Maximum Thrust of the engine required is 20.8 ton or *203.8kN,* for a plane like J-20, weighting 22 tons *plus* 3 tons of fuel.
> 
> It all depends on how much J-20 actually weights, how much fuel it was carrying when it was doing the vertical climb, and its engine's efficiency.
> 
> I am guessing those numbers, by using F-22's weight (20 tons + 2 tons) as reference, and using a low fuel weight of 3 tons, and an engine efficiency of 50-60%.
> 
> Sounds clear?
> 
> Do you got it this time?
> 
> Show the math to someone, if you still have doubts.
> 
> This is the third or fourth time that I done the calculation. I don't think I can do it better.


Too much none-sense we knows nothing about J-20 and WS-15



Asok said:


> Show me your calculations please. I love to see them.
> 
> I used 50% to make the calculation easy to see. I usually use 60%. F-35, F135 engine is rated at 67%. Outstanding, IMO.
> 
> As I have calculated, a plane weighting 20 tons including fuel, with 60% efficiency, will requires *165kN* Maximum power to lift it vertically.
> 
> If we take J-20's empty weight as 22 tons (2 more than F-22) and 3 tons of fuel, and 60% efficiency, we will find the Maximum thrust to be *203kN*. At 50% is *245kN*.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer the engine to be more efficient at Dry thrust than having higher maximum power rating or Wet Thrust, since the afterburners burns several times more fuel.


too much nonsense

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

AlyxMS said:


> I do no have any calculations because there aren't any numbers to work with. Where did you get the specs of J-20? Calculations based on guess work is pointless.
> 
> By to lift vertically I assume it means thrust to weight ratio = 1. You also said it must be done with just dry thrust?
> 
> Why?
> TWR >= 1 is standard for modern jet fighters, sure. But not with dry thrust, afterburning thrust is always used to calculate TWR.
> 
> *Why would one need TWR>=1 with only dry thrust?*
> That's a absurd amount of excess thrust!
> 
> If Tdry = Twet * 0.6, the TWR when afterburning would be 1.67! One can build a much bigger plane, with much higher capabilities with such engines.



*"Where did you get the specs of J-20? "*

I get the estimate of J-20's weight by comparing J-20 to F-22, and found its body length (nose to nozzle) to be at least 3m longer. So I added 2 tons to F-22's weight of 20 tons, to get 22 tons for J-20. It's a reasonable guess. IMO. I need to make another guess, that is how much fuel J-20 was carrying when it did he demo. I guess is a low ball figure of 3 tons or 1/4 of a full tank. It could be more like 4 or 5 tons. So I guess it's flying weight is a total of 25 tons.

Another guess, I need to make is engine efficiency. Dry thrust is generally 50-60% of wet thrust for fighter engine. The AL-31F's Dry thrust (84kN) is 60% of Wet thrust (122kN). The F35's F135 is 67% -- very High.

I said J-20 must be climbing vertically with Dry Thrust at the China Air Show, because there was no long long blue flame shoot out of its nozzles.

*"By to lift vertically I assume it means thrust to weight ratio = 1."* yes, that's correct.

Many modern jet could climb vertically, but with their afterburner turned on. We can see the intense long blue flame when that happen.

*"Why would one need TWR>=1 with only dry thrust?
That's a absurd amount of excess thrust!"*

Yes, it's absurd amount of excess thrust, if one could climb vertically with only Dry Thrust. Not that absurd, if one consider the F-35's F135 engine is rated 190kN. And 200kN, is only *5%* greater.

*"If Tdry = Twet * 0.6, the TWR when afterburning would be 1.67! One can build a much bigger plane, with much higher capabilities with such engines."*

Yes, that's true. A TWR of 1.67 with afterburning is huge. You can build a large, Supersonic Cruise, bomber with several powerful +200kN engines. I think that's what China is doing with its top secret H10 stealth bomber project.



pakistanipower said:


> No bro with DSI it can barely reach Mach 2, there are one more problem if it increases speed its become least agile and maneuverable and J-20 is air superiority fighter not interceptor like MIG-25, 31 they rely on their top speed not maneuverability and agility, their tactics were shoot and run,if J-20 want to become agile and maneuverable its Mach numbers should have been under or equal Mach 2.5
> 
> 
> Too much none-sense we knows nothing about J-20 and WS-15
> 
> 
> too much nonsense



*"DSI it can barely reach Mach 2"*
Not true. The DSI on J-20 is adjustable. It can go way beyond Mach 2.

*"if it increases speed its become least agile and maneuverable"*
That's definitely true with older generation of fighters. THE F-104 Starfighter can only fly basically in a straight line at Mach 2. With manual mechanical control of the plane, the plane needs to be aerodynamically stable so it won't be too difficulty to fly.

But with the invention of digital electro flight control system run by the computer, the stability can be relaxed. The plane can basically fly itself, making all the fly control decisions to maintain stability.

The fighter plane can be made highly agile and maneuverable with active canards, TVC, and all moving vertical tails, and leading edge extensions.

The F-22 can do 5G moves at Mach 1.6 at 30,000ft.

*"too much nonsense"*
It's nonsense to you because the idea that J-20 is running with WS-10 or AL-31FN *got burned into your head*. You can't get it out of your brain.

If I say, F-35 has a 190kN engine. No one would ever doubted me. But when I say J-20's has a 200kN engine (only 5% > than 190kN), all hell broke loose. You have to cry and cry and whine. 

You have problem with the conclusion, not with the calculations I had made.

It's all because you and many fanboys and foreign intelligence agencies got successfully deceived by a brilliant campaign of deception by *China's Bureau of Strategic Deception*.

Anyone who enthusiastically supported the idea that J-20 was underpowered or using WS-10/AL-31FN, is, unwittingly, a part of China's brilliant *DECEPTION* campaign.

*"we knows nothing about J-20 and WS-15"*
Yes, you will stay that way, "know nothing", if you don't get your head out of the sand. You helped it. You got duped. Live with it. Get your head out of the sand. 

The *China's Strategic Deception* has served its purpose, and ran its course. It has convinced US to cancelled its Supreme Air Dominant Machine, F-22, at 187 units, after entered service for 3 years, and made a massive poor bet on the underperforming F-35, with a production goal of 2400 planes. 

There is no easy way out of this strategic quagmire, and gigantic mistake. US and its allies must live with this mistake for the next 30-50 years. Cancellation of F-35 is not an option anymore, perhaps never was one. Never had a Plan B, anyway. That was intentionally built into Plan A. Making sure, there was no other options.  

Now, China has unmistakably demonstrated the true power of J-20, with an effortless vertical climb without afterburners, by flying over thousands of foreign spectators, who are mostly aviation professionals and spies.

If you still don't believe me, ask an aviation professional.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"DSI it can barely reach Mach 2"*
> Not true. The DSI on J-20 is adjustable. It can go way beyond Mach 2.
> 
> *"if it increases speed its become least agile and maneuverable"*
> That's definitely true with older generation of fighters. THE F-104 Starfighter can only fly basically in a straight line at Mach 2. With manual mechanical control of the plane, the plane needs to be aerodynamically stable so it won't be too difficulty to fly.


The phyics don't changed whether jets have relax static stability like F-16 and F-22 without static stability like MIG-25, 31 and SR-71 you increases top speed you must lose agility and maneuverability its a natural phenomenon not man made @gambit, @Khafee, @Bilal Khan 777 please correct this guy


Asok said:


> The F-22 can do 5G moves at Mach 1.6 at 30,000ft.


So what  under 900 MPH


Asok said:


> It's nonsense to you because the idea that J-20 is running with WS-10 or AL-31FN *got burned into your head*. You can't get it out of your brain.


No ones know that what engine is used by J-20 its maybe WS-10X, AL-31FN3, early versions of WS-15 or just other clean sheet interim design


Asok said:


> If I say, F-35 has a 190kN engine. No one would ever doubted me. But when I say J-20's has a 200kN engine (only 5% > than 190kN), all hell broke loose. You have to cry and cry and whine.


This just your assumption and wishful thinking, no ones knows actual thrust of WS-15, are you in the team of WS-15 development project too much fanboy-ism is bad for your health best stated that WS-15 thiust is in between 18 to 19 tons on various sites including Chinese ones this is slightly inferior same thrust that F-135 have and i am not underestimating WS-15 or J-20


Asok said:


> You have problem with the conclusion, not with the calculations I had made.


*Too much FANBOY-ISM is bad for your health*


Asok said:


> It's all because you and many fanboys and foreign intelligence agencies got successfully deceived by a brilliant campaign of deception by China's Bureau of Strategic Deception.





Asok said:


> Anyone who enthusiastically supported the idea that J-20 was underpowered or using WS-10/AL-31FN, is, unwittingly, a part of China's brilliant DECEPTION campaign.
> 
> "we knows nothing about J-20 and WS-15"
> Yes, you will stay that way, "know nothing", if you don't get your head out of the sand. You helped it. You got duped. Live with it. Get your head out of the sand.
> 
> The China's Strategic Deception has served its purpose



*And you are in this decption campaign*
*Too much FANBOY-ISM is bad for your health*

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> Not true. The DSI on J-20 is adjustable.


Source ?

*


Asok said:



"if it increases speed its become least agile and maneuverable"

Click to expand...

*


Asok said:


> That's definitely true with older generation of fighters. THE F-104 Starfighter can only fly basically in a straight line at Mach 2. With manual mechanical control of the plane, the plane needs to be aerodynamically stable so it won't be too difficulty to fly.
> 
> But with the invention of digital electro flight control system run by the computer, the stability can be relaxed. The plane can basically fly itself, making all the fly control decisions to maintain stability.
> 
> The fighter plane can be made highly agile and maneuverable with active canards, TVC, and all moving vertical tails, and leading edge extensions.
> 
> The F-22 can do 5G moves at Mach 1.6 at 30,000ft.


You are partially true here.

On any aircraft body, there is a neutral point where the body is physically balanced. This neutral point is not the same, it varies from design to design. In order to create a relaxed stability body, center of gravity (CG) is moved aft of that neutral point. However, there is a point where too far aft and the aircraft becomes absolutely uncontrollable, computer assisted flight or not, and just like the variability of that neutral point, this 'too far aft' CG position also varies from design to design.

The laws of physics are absolute. So absolute that not even the PDF Chinese can change them, no matter how much they want.

The laws of physics states that as speed increases, aerodynamic 'clamping' forces on the aircraft reduces its maneuverability and agility. It does not matter if the aircraft was designed with relaxed stability. As the aircraft crosses the supersonic threshold, increasing aerodynamic forces will eventually reach a point where the aircraft cannot maneuver at all.

*Q:* What about air-air missile that can maneuver at double digits g at Mach ?

*A:* The air-air missile is an aircraft. But being a missile does not excuse it from the laws of physics. In fact, the tubular design of the missile reinforces those laws of physics. As the missile *IS* an aircraft, its body design allows a greater *RANGE* of neutral-to-aft CG re-position. The operative word here is *RANGE* or *LATITUDE* or *FREEDOM* on a sliding scale from that neutral point to that 'too-far-aft' CG position. The missile's tubular body allows that much greater range than on an aircraft. The behaviors of aerodynamic forces differs on a tubular body than it would on any planar-like body and that is for a completely different discussion.

What this mean is that if we are to re-design the F-104 today with keeping its original tubular body as foundation, moving the CG aft will create that range of controlled maneuverability. The new design may not have the agility and maneuverability of the F-16, but it would give some greater agility and maneuverability than the old design in the supersonic region.



Asok said:


> It's all because you and many fanboys and foreign intelligence agencies got successfully deceived by a brilliant campaign of deception by *China's Bureau of Strategic Deception*.
> 
> The *China's Strategic Deception* has served its purpose, and ran its course. It has convinced US to cancelled its Supreme Air Dominant Machine, F-22, at 187 units, after entered service for 3 years, and made a massive poor bet on the underperforming F-35, with a production goal of 2400 planes.


Yeah...Sure...This is why you PDF Chinese are usually laughed at.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Source ?
> 
> 
> You are partially true here.
> 
> On any aircraft body, there is a neutral point where the body is physically balanced. This neutral point is not the same, it varies from design to design. In order to create a relaxed stability body, center of gravity (CG) is moved aft of that neutral point. However, there is a point where too far aft and the aircraft becomes absolutely uncontrollable, computer assisted flight or not, and just like the variability of that neutral point, this 'too far aft' CG position also varies from design to design.
> 
> The laws of physics are absolute. So absolute that not even the PDF Chinese can change them, no matter how much they want.
> 
> The laws of physics states that as speed increases, aerodynamic 'clamping' forces on the aircraft reduces its maneuverability and agility. It does not matter if the aircraft was designed with relaxed stability. As the aircraft crosses the supersonic threshold, increasing aerodynamic forces will eventually reach a point where the aircraft cannot maneuver at all.
> 
> *Q:* What about air-air missile that can maneuver at double digits g at Mach ?
> 
> *A:* The air-air missile is an aircraft. But being a missile does not excuse it from the laws of physics. In fact, the tubular design of the missile reinforces those laws of physics. As the missile *IS* an aircraft, its body design allows a greater *RANGE* of neutral-to-aft CG re-position. The operative word here is *RANGE* or *LATITUDE* or *FREEDOM* on a sliding scale from that neutral point to that 'too-far-aft' CG position. The missile's tubular body allows that much greater range than on an aircraft. The behaviors of aerodynamic forces differs on a tubular body than it would on any planar-like body and that is for a completely different discussion.
> 
> What this mean is that if we are to re-design the F-104 today with keeping its original tubular body as foundation, moving the CG aft will create that range of controlled maneuverability. The new design may not have the agility and maneuverability of the F-16, but it would give some greater agility and maneuverability than the old design in the supersonic region.
> 
> 
> Yeah...Sure...This is why you PDF Chinese are usually laughed at.



I said: "Not true. The DSI on J-20 is adjustable."

Here is the source:
*http://cqtimes.cn/?g=home&c=newsdetail&a=index&id=136029&inside=&uid=&deviceid=*

"歼-20独创的“可调DSI进气道”，做出了新的创新，解决了DSI高速性能不佳的难题。歼-20进气口鼓包固定，但是进气道侧面有可调挡板，可有效随速度变化改变进气量，从而达到从低到高各个主要速度段的优秀的进气控制能力，令发动机更为澎湃地工作，也将意味着更好的加速性、爬升率和超巡能力。"

Here is my rough translation:

"J-20 has a unique feature called "adjustable DSI air intake". It solved the problem that DSI is not efficient at high speed. The "bump" is fixed, but inside the air intake, there is an adjustable surface that could effectively change the amount of air enter the intake according to the speed, thereby able to provide outstanding air intake control ability from from low to high speed. Thus enable the engine to have better acceleration, higher climb rate and superior supersonic cruise."

No details of how this adjustable control surface was accomplished.

*How do I know J-20 could reach Mach 3.0? I just found this picture from a video clip recently.*

The caption below says "Our company has successfully completed the mission given by PLAAF to produce China's first Large Caliber Supersonic Wind Tunnel *Pressure Control Valve*. Thereby broke the American and Russia technology blockade, provided our country the equipments to test rocket, large aircraft, spaceship, and especially enabled the J-20 stealth fighter to *completed* its *Mach 3.0* wind tunnel testing.






I guess this video sneaked past the Chinese censors.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I said: "Not true. The DSI on J-20 is adjustable."
> 
> Here is the source:
> *http://cqtimes.cn/?g=home&c=newsdetail&a=index&id=136029&inside=&uid=&deviceid=*
> 
> Here is my rough translation:
> 
> "J-20 has a unique feature called "adjustable DSI air intake". It solved the problem that DSI is not efficient at high speed. The "bump" is fixed, but inside the air intake, there is an adjustable surface that could effectively change the amount of air enter the intake according to the speed, thereby able to provide outstanding air intake control ability from from low to high speed. Thus enable the engine to have better acceleration, higher climb rate and superior supersonic cruise."
> 
> No details of how this adjustable control surface was accomplished.


Then you are wrong.

The DSI feature is the bump. Simple as that. Whatever mechanisms inside the inlet make the intake system no different than any other inlet air flow control system prior to the J-20.

*


Asok said:



How do I know J-20 could reach Mach 3.0? I just found this picture from a video clip recently.

Click to expand...

*


Asok said:


> The caption below says "Our company has successfully completed the mission given by PLAAF to produce the first large caliber supersonic wind tunnel pressure control door. Thereby enable the J-20 stealth fighter to complete *Mach 3.0* wind tunnel testing.
> 
> I guess this video sneaked past the Chinese censors.


No, it does not mean the J-20 can reach Mach 3. It means the wind tunnel used was a supersonic wind tunnel...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_wind_tunnel

...And the J-20, as a complete airframe, withstood that level of airspeed stress.

Have you ever been in a wind tunnel ? I have. It was a portable wind tunnel traveling around the country showing people what a hurricane can produce. My body withstood nearly nearly 100 mph before I waved off.

Here you go...






In no way does that mean I can, on my own power, reach speed of 100 mph.

This is why on PDF, it is *ALWAYS* entertaining to debate you Chinese on military related technical issues. None of you ever served. None of you ever been even second degree away involvement in the technical issues discussed. The results are that you guys consistently make declarations that are outright wrong. Worse, to date none of you ever admitted that he was wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Then you are wrong.
> 
> The DSI feature is the bump. Simple as that. Whatever mechanisms inside the inlet make the intake system no different than any other inlet air flow control system prior to the J-20.
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean the J-20 can reach Mach 3. It means the wind tunnel used was a supersonic wind tunnel...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_wind_tunnel
> 
> ...And the J-20, as a complete airframe, withstood that level of airspeed stress.
> 
> Have you ever been in a wind tunnel ? I have. It was a portable wind tunnel traveling around the country showing people what a hurricane can produce. My body withstood nearly nearly 100 mph before I waved off.
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In no way does that mean I can, on my own power, reach speed of 100 mph.
> 
> This is why on PDF, it is *ALWAYS* entertaining to debate you Chinese on military related technical issues. None of you ever served. None of you ever been even second degree away involvement in the technical issues discussed. The results are that you guys consistently make declarations that are outright wrong. Worse, to date none of you ever admitted that he was wrong.



*"The DSI feature is the bump. Simple as that."*
To you it is, who knows nothing about it. Tell that to the LockeedMartin engineers who invented and patented DSI. They will puke in your face.

Yes, sure, you are right, Gambit, in fact you are brilliant. China would go to all the trouble and expense to test J-20's airframe for MACH 3.0, that it will never able to reach. Makes a lot of senses to me.  

In fact, why don't you tell Boeing and Airbus to test their planes for supersonic speed they will never reach like *MACH 3, MACH 5 or even MACH 10? *They might even give you a job, because you are so brilliant like the fanboys here PDF think you are. 

Thank you for cracking me up.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> In fact, why don't you tell Boeing and Airbus to test their planes for supersonic speed they will never reach like *MACH 3, MACH 5 or even MACH 10? *They might even give you a job, because you are so brilliant like the fanboys here PDF think you are.



The F-16's airframe was over engineered to handle double digits g, even though the FLCS restricts maneuvers to 9gs.



Asok said:


> Thank you for cracking me up.


No...Thank *YOU* for cracking up the readers over and over again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cybernetics

"超巡能力" Super-cruise confirmed? 

Yah, the screenshot explicitly said Mach 3 testing for J-20. I'm quite impressed if this is real.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> The F-16's airframe was over engineered to handle double digits g, even though the FLCS restricts maneuvers to 9gs.
> 
> 
> No...Thank *YOU* for cracking up the readers over and over again.



*"even though the FLCS restricts maneuvers to 9gs" *
That means the F-16 *CAN* reach beyond 9G's and the airframe *IS* engineered to handle double digits g's, otherwise, the FLCS won't bother to restrict to within 9Gs, if the F-16 could reach only 3G, no matter how hard the pilot tries.

Boeing and Airbus are not going to wind tunnel test their airliners at *MACH 3* and beyond, because their planes are not going to reach *MACH 3*, no matter how hard the pilot tries.

On a second thought, I actually don't know about this.

So, Gambit, why don't you call them up and offer your expertise to test their full scale plane for them at *MACH 3* and beyond, say like at the hypersonic speed, *MACH 15*.

Just tell them, they don't need to, but its good to do it anyway, because the Chinese do it, even though their plane (J-20) could reach only MACH 2.   



Cybernetics said:


> "超巡能力" Super-cruise confirmed?
> 
> Yah, the screenshot explicitly said Mach 3 testing for J-20. I'm quite impressed if this is real.



if you go to my profile and read all the posts I have made on this topic, you will get the answer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> *"even though the FLCS restricts maneuvers to 9gs" *
> That means the F-16 *CAN* reach beyond 9G's and the airframe *IS* engineered to handle double digits g's, otherwise, the FLCS won't bother to restrict to within 9Gs, if the F-16 could reach only 3G, no matter how hard the pilot tries.


Nine gs have been established to be the maximum limit that a *TRAINED* pilot can handle and *STILL* able to function in the cockpit. An untrained person, even if equipped with a g-suit, will either go into g-loc (loss of consciousness) or even if he/she is conscious, he/she will be too disoriented to function. The operative word here is 'trained'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC

The 9g limit is for humans, not airframe. All airframes have rated maximum stress and sustained limits. Some are lower than others. High performance fighters like the F-16 have the highest human limit of 9g.

We can be sure that this is news to you.



Asok said:


> Boeing and Airbus are not going to wind tunnel test their airliners at *MACH 3* and beyond, because their planes are not going to reach *MACH 3*, no matter how hard the pilot tries.


Over engineering is common and it happens even in software engineering.

Over engineering is what enabled some airliners to go vertical and other 'fighter-like' maneuvers, even though %99.999 of the time these aircrafts will not perform these maneuvers.













Asok said:


> On a second thought, I actually don't know about this.


There are a lot of shit you do not know, as *YOU* have amply demonstrated with your ignorance.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. I am ignorant about brain surgery. But unlike you, I do not go around talking about brain surgery the way you guys talk about military issues, particularly technical ones.

You were wrong about the HUD.

You were wrong about the J-20's engines capabilities. All you did was guessed and they were not even educated guesses.

You were wrong on interpreting what your own source really mean about wind tunnel testing.

What is to lose in terms of self image if all you have to do is ask ? Nothing.

I was invited to this forum back in '09. Since then, the behaviors of the Chinese members here have been consistent in that you guys think you know it all, and even when impeccable *TECHNICAL* sources proved you wrong, you guys still insisted on being right. You are no different.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DJ_Viper

Asok said:


> *"even though the FLCS restricts maneuvers to 9gs" *
> That means the F-16 *CAN* reach beyond 9G's and the airframe *IS* engineered to handle double digits g's, otherwise, the FLCS won't bother to restrict to within 9Gs, if the F-16 could reach only 3G, no matter how hard the pilot tries.
> 
> Boeing and Airbus are not going to wind tunnel test their airliners at *MACH 3* and beyond, because their planes are not going to reach *MACH 3*, no matter how hard the pilot tries.



F-16 has been tested to 10 and close to 11G's (some say 11G for sure). But the issue is, after 10.5 G's, the impact on the air-frame and the human body is tremendous. Remember, you can design jets that can go beyond 11G's, etc, they'd just have to be unmanned jets so that there isn't significant impact on the pilot. Human limitations and careful flying have resulted in FLCS recommendations and restrictions.

Well, you could take Boeing's 737 or Airbus to supersonic too (not Mach 2 or 3, just slightly over Mach 1). Someone will need to rebuild / strengthen parts of the air-frame post flights, to keep the structural integrity intact. Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

The above is 611's 1960s J-9-VI-2 project.

From the picture, one can say J-20 do borrow some design concepts from 611's previous project J-9VI-2 (a double-3 fighters, with mach-3 speed and 30,000 m flight height).

So it is reasonable to believe J-20 may have good top speed, but nowhere near mach-3, could be somewhere between mach2.5 or so (anything beyond that the air drag and related heat will increase siginficantly to the degree the stealth coating maybe burnt).

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

*News flash: *

Mig-25 is a 1960's Soviet era interceptor that has a stainless steel body and two massive engines that could output *100kN* wet thrust each.

It first flew in 1964, 53 three years ago.

It has a top speed of *MACH 3.2*, cruising speed of *MACH 2.8*, and established an absolute altitude record of 37,000m.

And Gambit, a self-proclaimed F-16 pilot and radar expert, is telling everybody here, that 53 years later, China's J-20, a 5th generation stealth fighter, cannot possibly repeat that kind of performances with two *+200kN* engines, and a state of the art airframe design with Titanium and composite body.   

*"If all they have are the choices of me and you PDF Chinese, I would get the job. "
*
Please do write to us how your new job of testing planes at *MACH 3* or *MACH 15* at Boeing or Airbus goes. Love to hear from you. 





52051 said:


> The above is 611's 1960s J-9-VI-2 project.
> 
> From the picture, one can say J-20 do borrow some design concepts from 611's previous project J-9VI-2 (a double-3 fighters, with mach-3 speed and 30,000 m flight height).
> 
> So it is reasonable to believe J-20 may have good top speed, but nowhere near mach-3, could be somewhere between mach2.5 or so (anything beyond that the air drag and related heat will increase siginficantly to the degree the stealth coating maybe burnt).



You sounds pretty sure J-20 could reach *MACH 2.5*. Tell that to Gambit. He don't think J-20 could even reach *MACH 2.0*.

*"the stealth coating maybe burnt"*

really, you tested the coating under those speed?

Are you sure RAM coating cannot be heat resistant? Why is that so? Where is your sources or researches on this subject?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> The above is 611's 1960s J-9-VI-2 project.
> 
> From the picture, one can say J-20 do borrow some design concepts from 611's previous project J-9VI-2 (a double-3 fighters, with mach-3 speed and 30,000 m flight height).
> 
> So it is reasonable to believe J-20 may have good top speed, but nowhere near mach-3, could be somewhere between mach2.5 or so (anything beyond that the air drag and related heat will increase siginficantly to the degree the stealth coating maybe burnt).



This is plain wrong, the J-9-VI-2 was only planned for a double-26 requirement. Mach 3 was NEVER an issue !

*Even more @Asok ! this is a direct call to stop this nonsense. Your claims do not contain a single point of logic nor academic deduction. They are based on false foundations, Your imagination, fantasy and Your wish-full thinking.

No more additional posts on any of Your J-20 & Mach-3 claims. This completely derails a thread that on the last I would say 10 pages contains much more BS, unfounded hypothesis and wet-dreams. 

You are probably correct in only one point: "The China's Strategic Deception has served its purpose... " indeed, since such strange fan-boys are here which only over-trash such informative threads with complete BS only with the intention to hide and hide the facts.*

*This is a moderator's order. No further response to this issue. Otherwise I delete all that BS. close and later clean that thread. Period.*


Deino


----------



## ahojunk

@Asok
You already have your say on J-20 AB and Mach-3.
So move on.

*Note:* *Going forward, all posts mentioning J-20 AB and Mach-3 will be deleted.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## masud



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Hey ... a very nice what-if !

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## teddy

I remember the chief engineer had already told the media the top speed of j20 is Mach 1.7


----------



## 帅的一匹

teddy said:


> I remember the chief engineer had already told the media the top speed of j20 is Mach 1.7


By 1.7 Mach I guess you mean the super cruise speed

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Dear Friends,

I apologize for my insistent and even obsessive since I became active at PDF in the last two. I have posted many things that are actually purely speculative, groundless, without a shred of evidence to support my beliefs or conclusions.

@Deino, @gambit, @pakistanipower, your criticisms are actually valid. I thought about what you have said. I can say without malice or anger that I accept what you said.

Do I (anyone) have evidence that J-20 can even break the sound barrier? *I don't*.
Do I have evidence that J-20 can fly past Mach 2.0. *I don't.*
Do I have evidence that J-20 can fly past Mach 2.0 and beyond. *I don't.*
Do I have evidence that J-20 is flying with a version of WS-15? *I don't.*
Do I have evidence that J-20 can do Supersonic Cruise? *I don't.*
Do I have evidence that WS-15 is 150kN, 180kN, +200kN.* I don't.*
Do I have evidence that WS-15, pasted all the tests, is operational, and in production?* I don't*. 
Do I have even know what stage of development is WS-15 in? *I don't.*
Do I know what empty weight of J-20? *I don't.*
Do I know how much fuel does J-20 carries for demo or testing?* I don't.*
Do I know the efficiency of WS-15 in terms of dry and wet thrust? *I don't.*
Do I know what engine is J-20 using? *I don't*.

In fact, my answers to all the above is as good as anyone's, and just as bad as anyone's.

I normally react with extreme anger when someone disagree with my beliefs or conclusion. And I am actually tired of it. That don't lead me anywhere. But I have been thinking about gratitude and appreciation about people around me. And how could I think differently that I would appreciate people more.

People disagree not because that I might be wrong. They disagreed because I don't have the evidence to support to my hunch/beliefs/opinion/conclusions.

And if I have it, show them. If I don't have it, learn more, dig in more. Don't blame it on another guys for don't belief in you.

I certainly do my own huge share of don't believe in other guys. I don't believe Gambit that F-35's problem could be fixed, for example.

In the beginning, I viewed Deino's disbelief or disagreement with anger, but come to think of it, there are huge amount of B.S, pure speculation, groundless beliefs in the world. His job is like an editor to keep them out of the Forum. People won't know or believe or change their minds, unless there is AMPLE, not just a little, evidence.

This is a good things. I do that too. In fact, plenty of it. That's why I have the reputation of being stubborn or obstinate or stiff necked. I don't change my mind, unless there is strong overwhelming evidence.

Why should I expect other behave not the way I do?

This is my mistake. I humbly accept your criticisms and will try not to be obsessive/compulsive.

Sincerely,
Asok.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

@Asok !

No need to be sorry and in return I hope You are not angry about my call to "STOP" ! So Your post is really appreciated.

We are all here to spin around our theories, we all have our own perceptions and that is sometimes a bit off - including myself ! - so if it all stays polite and we are not too much blinded by our own ideas to notice the facts, then everything's fine.

So ... let's up to many exciting J-20-related news in 2017 ... and to start with "Cadder" has done these three artworks.
Hopefully there are more. 
















grey boy 2 said:


> Close up pictures of J-20, even the cockpit was visible
> 比美军更帅气！独家曝光歼20战机座舱高清细节




And even in better quality !

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asok !
> 
> No need to be sorry and in return I hope You are not angry about my call to "STOP" ! So Your post is really appreciated.
> 
> We are all here to spin around our theories, we all have our own perceptions and that is sometimes a bit off - including myself ! - so if it all stays polite and we are not too much blinded by our own ideas to notice the facts, then everything's fine.
> 
> So ... let's up to many exciting J-20-related news in 2017 ... and to start with "Cadder" has done these three artworks.
> Hopefully there are more.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 365707
> View attachment 365708
> View attachment 365709
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even in better quality !
> 
> View attachment 365710



Thanks, Deino, for accepting my apology, graciously. Your excellent/stringent moderation is actually much appreciated.    No B.S. is much better than full of B.S.

I have always hate it when a website or newspaper is full of B.S or lies.

I like the idea of maintain an atmosphere of friendly brotherhood to discuss ideas and current affairs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

@ChineseTiger1986 is J-20's DSI are adjustable?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

AVIC 2017

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> @ChineseTiger1986 is J-20's DSI are adjustable?



Yep, many have speculated it uses the adjustable DSI.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> AVIC 2017




This one is really most impressive !!

PLAESE in full-size.


----------



## Deino

Remember this image from December 11 ??? ... now in better quality, however with deleted serials !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahojunk

Asok said:


> Dear Friends,
> 
> I apologize for my insistent and even obsessive since I became active at PDF in the last two. I have posted many things that are actually purely speculative, groundless, without a shred of evidence to support my beliefs or conclusions.
> 
> @Deino, @gambit, @pakistanipower, your criticisms are actually valid. I thought about what you have said. I can say without malice or anger that I accept what you said.
> 
> Do I (anyone) have evidence that J-20 can even break the sound barrier? *I don't*.
> Do I have evidence that J-20 can fly past Mach 2.0. *I don't.*
> Do I have evidence that J-20 can fly past Mach 2.0 and beyond. *I don't.*
> Do I have evidence that J-20 is flying with a version of WS-15? *I don't.*
> Do I have evidence that J-20 can do Supersonic Cruise? *I don't.*
> Do I have evidence that WS-15 is 150kN, 180kN, +200kN.* I don't.*
> Do I have evidence that WS-15, pasted all the tests, is operational, and in production?* I don't*.
> Do I have even know what stage of development is WS-15 in? *I don't.*
> Do I know what empty weight of J-20? *I don't.*
> Do I know how much fuel does J-20 carries for demo or testing?* I don't.*
> Do I know the efficiency of WS-15 in terms of dry and wet thrust? *I don't.*
> Do I know what engine is J-20 using? *I don't*.
> 
> In fact, my answers to all the above is as good as anyone's, and just as bad as anyone's.
> 
> I normally react with extreme anger when someone disagree with my beliefs or conclusion. And I am actually tired of it. That don't lead me anywhere. But I have been thinking about gratitude and appreciation about people around me. And how could I think differently that I would appreciate people more.
> 
> People disagree not because that I might be wrong. They disagreed because I don't have the evidence to support to my hunch/beliefs/opinion/conclusions.
> 
> And if I have it, show them. If I don't have it, learn more, dig in more. Don't blame it on another guys for don't belief in you.
> 
> I certainly do my own huge share of don't believe in other guys. I don't believe Gambit that F-35's problem could be fixed, for example.
> 
> In the beginning, I viewed Deino's disbelief or disagreement with anger, but come to think of it, there are huge amount of B.S, pure speculation, groundless beliefs in the world. His job is like an editor to keep them out of the Forum. People won't know or believe or change their minds, unless there is AMPLE, not just a little, evidence.
> 
> This is a good things. I do that too. In fact, plenty of it. That's why I have the reputation of being stubborn or obstinate or stiff necked. I don't change my mind, unless there is strong overwhelming evidence.
> 
> Why should I expect other behave not the way I do?
> 
> This is my mistake. I humbly accept your criticisms and will try not to be obsessive/compulsive.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Asok.


@Asok,
You are a real man and I admire your courage to admit that you were wrong.
Very few PDF members have the courage to do what you just did.
It is all good. Let's move on.
We win some and we lose some.

Remember: When you get upset and angry, your blood pressure goes up, you feel stressed, *you are physically hurting yourself* (not the other PDF members). It is incredibly bad for health.




Deino said:


> @Asok !
> 
> No need to be sorry and in return I hope You are not angry about my call to "STOP" ! So Your post is really appreciated.
> 
> We are all here to spin around our theories, we all have our own perceptions and that is sometimes a bit off - including myself ! - so if it all stays polite and we are not too much blinded by our own ideas to notice the facts, then everything's fine.
> 
> So ... let's up to many exciting J-20-related news in 2017 ... and to start with "Cadder" has done these three artworks.
> Hopefully there are more.


+1.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

Closest encounter of J-20, speculated from the picture that stealth coating has been used since "2001" prototype 
歼20战机最近距照片曝光：或早已应用隐身涂料
近日，网络上出现一张歼二十照片，照片拍摄于2011年5月歼二十首飞后不久，虽然过去了很久，但却是迄今为止公开的距离歼二十最近的一张照片。而照片上的歼二十机首的一个小细节透露出一个重要信息：歼二十隐身涂料早已应用。

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 3jiL

-Chengdu j-20 Use the Side-joystick like F-16?!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

3jiL said:


> -Chengdu j-20 Use the Side-joystick like F-16?!


 yes, when the seat lean backward, better with a side joystick.


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Closest encounter of J-20, speculated from the picture that stealth coating has been used since "2001" prototype
> 歼20战机最近距照片曝光：或早已应用隐身涂料
> 近日，网络上出现一张歼二十照片，照片拍摄于2011年5月歼二十首飞后不久，虽然过去了很久，但却是迄今为止公开的距离歼二十最近的一张照片。而照片上的歼二十机首的一个小细节透露出一个重要信息：歼二十隐身涂料早已应用。



High Temperature Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing materials.
*高温吸波材料基体的研究*
http://mmwqz.com/960261163/

This new class of Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing Materials is High Temperature heat resistance, anti-oxidation, high strength and fracture resistant. In contrast to polymer based materials, this class of materials must be baked in high temperature oven. This is different from the applied (涂覆型 ) absorbing polymer rubbery materials, which could be easily damaged by rain, heat, sands, or even just by stepping on it.

This over come the heat problem that prevents radar absorbing materials to be use on missiles, inside the jet engine nozzle, and high speed aircrafts.

This class highly heat resistant materials could also forms a barrier to prevent high heat from entering the skin of the aircraft and damage the internal structure or delicate electronics equipments inside it.

The pilot could still be baked by high heat, since I can't see it could be applied to the transparent glass of the cockpit.

It is said that when an aircraft is flying, at sea level in the Middle East, during the Summer, at Mach 0.8, the pilot will experience the heat of a 30kW furnace inside the cockpit. The temperature could easily reach 50C.

If a 5th generation plane is Supercruising at Mach 1.6, and the cooling requirements for internal and external generated heat is underestimated, it could create a huge problem, perhaps causing the electronic equipments to fail.

I used to run a small server cluster with just 30 machines. The heat from them is like turning on 30 heaters. We need to install a AC unit that is the size of a large car on the rooftop to cool the server room. The AC unit keep failing because it has to run 24x7, nonstop.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

ahojunk said:


> @Asok,
> You are a real man and I admire your courage to admit that you were wrong.
> Very few PDF members have the courage to do what you just did.
> It is all good. Let's move on.
> We win some and we lose some.
> 
> Remember: When you get upset and angry, your blood pressure goes up, you feel stressed, *you are physically hurting yourself* (not the other PDF members). It is incredibly bad for health.
> 
> 
> 
> +1.



Thanks, Bro! Yes, getting upset for someone won't accept my conclusion is bad for my health. Better to just present the evidence and let them make their own conclusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Thanks, Bro! Yes, getting upset for someone won't accept my conclusion is bad for my health. Better to just present the evidence and let them make their own conclusion.


with due respect bro that is not your conclusion but your assumptions you stated on your various posts that J-20 is 3 meter or 10 feet long from F-22 but various sites states that J-20 is only 4 feet longer than F-22, F-22 total length is 62 feet whereas J-20 total length is 66 feet, so lets wait and see when the J-20 true specification becomes official, if i insult or hurts you please pardon me bro

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

First of all, I have compared J-20 to Su-27 by using their satellite pictures, and found their BODY length to be almost the same length, *21.2m*, or *70ft*. I know Su-27's whole length is listed as 72 ft. So I have confidence that the J-20's body length of 70ft is close.






I am comparing nose to nozzle, excluding the tail section that past the nozzle. Using the scale provided in the picture. I found the body length of J-20 to be more than *3m* longer than F-22. The body length (nose to nozzle) of J-20 is 21m and the F-22 is 17m. The difference measured from the noses is actually *4.5m, *from the air intakes is* 3.5m*. But I am using *3m*, just to be conservative.

So I stand with my assumption/conclusion/opinion that J-20's BODY is more than 3m longer than the F-22.

Now, if J-20 is actually the same weight as F-22, *19.7 tons*, that means China's engineers had done an amazing feat of engineering to keep J-20 weight down, despite its 3m longer. That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.

I am a patriotic Chinese, *but I just can't believe this is true. *F-22 is the world leading, state of the art aircraft design. It's body is composed of titanium (42 % by weight) and composite materials (24 % by weight). It's not made of stainless steel like Mig-25, which you can easily reduce the weight by using Titanium and Composite materials.

So, it's far more reasonable for me to assume J-20 is 2 tons or more heavier than F-22. I don't know the fact, since I have not weighted either one aircraft.

To reduce the weight of an aircraft substantially while retains sufficient strength is hard work. Aviation engineers everywhere are whacking their brains to try to save just one kg of weight.

One place Chinese could have saved several hundreds kilos is by using the DSI air intake, and the glass cockpit made lighter by using an reinforce bar. The US is world leader in Airframe and engine design. So I don't expect the Chinese could do a lot better.

Reducing one ton of body weight is the same as increasing one ton of thrust in aircraft performance, probably even better, less demand on fuel, and engine performance.

We are all guessing here. The Chinese and US governments are not going to release any numbers that is close to the actual figures. These are highest state secrets. Both planes are forbidden to be exported to keep the data secret.

If we know the actual weight, and engine performance, radar detection range, foreign intelligences will able to easily figure out the whole flight envelope using wind tunnel models testing and computer simulation.

The external dimensions like length and wingspans are harder to keep secret. Anyone with some good pictures of the plane alongside a known object, will be able to deduce the dimensions.

So I don't expect any released figures (*Engine thrust, Maximum speed, Supercruise speed, weight, fuel consumption rate, AESA detection range, RCS*, etc . . . ) will be very accurate.

We will have to keep guessing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> First of all, I have compared J-20 to Su-27 by using their satellite pictures, and found their BODY length to be almost the same length, 21.2m, or 70ft. I know Su-27's whole length is listed as 72 ft. So I have confidence that the J-20's body length of 70ft is close.
> 
> View attachment 366027
> 
> 
> Next I compared J-20 against F-22 and found the BODY (nose to nozzle) to be 3m or 10ft longer. There is a large part of the tail that sticks past F-22's body, so 62ft is not the length of nose to nozzle. I found F-22's body length nose to nozzle to be 17m or 55.8ft.
> 
> The body length difference, I found, is actually 3.5m, but I want to be conservative. I don't want to expose to much myself for ridicules.
> 
> 
> View attachment 366028
> 
> I am comparing nose to nozzle, excluding the tail section that past the nozzle. So I stand with my assumption/conclusion/opinion that J-20's BODY is more than 3m longer.
> 
> Now, if J-20 is actually the same weight as F-22, 19.7 tons, that means China's engineers had done an amazing feat of engineering to keep J-20 weight down, despite its 3m longer. That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.
> 
> I am a patriotic Chinese, but I just can't believe this is true. F-22 is the world leading, state of the art aircraft design. It's body is composed of titanium (42 % by weight) and composite materials (24 % by weight). It's not made of stainless steel like Mig-25, which you can easily reduce the weight by using Titanium and Composite materials.
> 
> So, it's far more reasonable for me to assume J-20 is 2 tons or more heavier than F-22. I don't know the fact, since I have not weighted either one aircraft.
> 
> To reduce the weight of an aircraft substantially while retains sufficient strength is hard work.
> 
> Reducing one ton of body weight is the same as increasing one ton of thrust in aircraft performance, probably even better, less demand on fuel, and engine performance.
> 
> We are all guessing here. The Chinese and US governments are not going to release any numbers that is close to the actual figures. These are highest state secrets. Both planes are forbidden to be exported to keep the data secret.
> 
> If we know the actual weight, and engine performance, radar detection range, foreign intelligences will able to easily figure out the whole flight envelope using wind tunnel models testing and computer simulation.
> 
> So I don't expect any release figures (Engine thrust, Maximum speed, Supercruise speed, weight, fuel consumption rate, AESA detection range, RCS, etc . . . ) will be true.
> 
> We will have to keep guessing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


>



Strangely, I don't take your insults. Perhaps, its because, I have several Indians and Pakistanis friends, school mates and roomates, and worked with many. I know how they think. I have one Indian rommate, Gaurav, we talks and talks, argues and argues for hours. Sometimes, we won't talk to each other, for days. But several days later, we always acts as if nothing has happen. That's how friends should behave. [

We are here to entertain each others and hoping to find some truths that governments won't tell us.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> So I stand with my assumption/conclusion/opinion that J-20's BODY is more than 3m longer.
> 
> Now, if J-20 is actually the same weight as F-22, *19.7 tons*, that means China's engineers had done an amazing feat of engineering to keep J-20 weight down, despite its 3m longer. *That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.*


It means no such thing.

There are so many things you have not considered. What if the J-20's engines are smaller and/or less complex ? The visual size is not indicative of its true nature. I can build a model car out of cardboard and painted it so it looks like the real version. Does that make mine the better 'car' ?

Most of an aircraft -- any aircraft -- is empty space. The J-20's fuselage section may had to be built longer due to aerodynamics demands.

Do you really want to know much -- or little -- is between you and the environment that could kill you ?







The J-20 is supposed to be larger to carry more fuel for longer range because of the lack of air refueling. Designing such an airframe does not mean any leap in architecture and materials.


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> It means no such thing.
> 
> There are so many things you have not considered. What if the J-20's engines are smaller and/or less complex ? The visual size is not indicative of its true nature. I can build a model car out of cardboard and painted it so it looks like the real version. Does that make mine the better 'car' ?
> 
> Most of an aircraft -- any aircraft -- is empty space. The J-20's fuselage section may had to be built longer due to aerodynamics demands.
> 
> Do you really want to know much -- or little -- is between you and the environment that could kill you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 is supposed to be larger to carry more fuel for longer range because of the lack of air refueling. Designing such an airframe does not mean any leap in architecture and materials.



You quoted me: "*That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.*"

Actually the whole passage is:

_"Now, if J-20 is actually the same weight as F-22, *19.7 tons*, that means China's engineers had done an amazing feat of engineering to keep J-20 weight down, despite its 3m longer. *That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.*

I am a patriotic Chinese, but *I just can't believe this is true*. F-22 is the world leading, state of the art aircraft design. . . . ._"

I don't know why you deliberately misquoted me. To receive respect, one must first respect others. You have said Chinese members at PDF don't respect you. Have you shown respect to anyone of us?

I am sorry that I insulted you and don't respect you. Mostly because what you have said about the J-20 canards being unstealthy and can't possibly made to be stealthy.

In my opinion, you are actually a more informed and more knowledgeable PDF member. I should have checked my temper and responded calmly and politely.

ahojunk said "It takes a man to say sorry", but I think it takes a bigger man to accept the apology. It moved me a great deal that both ahojunk and Deino have accepted my apology graciously. I am actually quite surprised by their gracious responses. 

I have apologized to @gambit here and hope to get rid of the hard feelings and restore the harmony.

@Deino, @ahojunk and others can be my witnesses.

*"Designing such an airframe does not mean any leap in architecture and materials."*
Who has said such thing?

I have said US is the world leader in Airframe design. One can't expect the Chinese to create an airframe that is 3m longer and stays the same weight as F-22. That's why I added 2 tons to J-20's weight, using F-22 as a baseline.

For a passenger plane, the fuselage is mostly empty space, that is true, @gambit. For a fighter plane, it is not. I really don't know what are you trying to say here.

Do you think J-20 is weight less, the same or more than F-22?

The nose to nozzle body length of F-22 is 17m longer, and the plane weights 19.7 tons, that a little more than 1 ton per meter, on average. If J-20 is more than 3m longer, and I assume it added only 2 tons more weight.

That's a very conservative estimate that J-20 is only two tons heavier.

I would honestly expect more, given China's airframe design is not as advanced as US. Other people might have said its 5 tons heavier.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> For a passenger plane, the fuselage is mostly empty space, that is true, @gambit. *For a fighter plane, it is not.*


Yes, it is.

I was on two jets: F-111E (Upper Heyford) and F-16A/B/C/D (MacDill).

As in every engineering endeavor, there is always an overhead, a 'margin of error', some 'wiggle room', some 'flex'. Call it whatever you want.

But in aviation, mass and weight matters more than most engineering endeavors. In flight, weight is a penalty. That amount of 'overhead' or 'margin' is even more scrutinized at the conceptual level, meaning even before the jet's design was put on paper.

A jet fighter, a cargo, a bomber, is no different than an airliner. In fact, in the military, aesthetics is irrelevant.

This is what the interior of C-5 looks like...






Look at the 'ceiling' over the troops. You can see exposed aircraft components. Electrical conduits and even exposed wiring cablings, ducts, and insulation. Nothing covering them.

A jet fighter is no different. In fact, a jet fighter is even structurally more austere than any other aircraft design.

An aircraft is mostly empty space.



Asok said:


> I really don't know what are you trying to say here.
> 
> Do you think J-20 is weight less, the same or more than F-22?
> 
> The nose to nozzle body length of F-22 is 17m longer, and the plane weights 19.7 tons, that a little more than 1 ton per meter. If J-20 is more than 3m longer, and I assume it added only 2 tons more weight.
> 
> That's a very conservative estimate that J-20 is only two tons heavier.
> 
> I would honestly expect more.


I am not going to get into a pointless debate on which jet is heavier. I am only pointing out the flaw in your argument that just because the J-20's empty weight *MAYBE* less than the F-22, somehow that translated into a more 'advanced' airframe design.

You want to be patriotic ? Fine. I have no problems with that. But do not strain logic in cheerleading for China.


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> I was on two jets: F-111E (Upper Heyford) and F-16A/B/C/D (MacDill).
> 
> As in every engineering endeavor, there is always an overhead, a 'margin of error', some 'wiggle room', some 'flex'. Call it whatever you want.
> 
> But in aviation, mass and weight matters more than most engineering endeavors. In flight, weight is a penalty. That amount of 'overhead' or 'margin' is even more scrutinized at the conceptual level, meaning even before the jet's design was put on paper.
> 
> A jet fighter, a cargo, a bomber, is no different than an airliner. In fact, in the military, aesthetics is irrelevant.
> 
> This is what the interior of C-5 looks like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the 'ceiling' over the troops. You can see exposed aircraft components. Electrical conduits and even exposed wiring cablings, ducts, and insulation. Nothing covering them.
> 
> A jet fighter is no different. In fact, a jet fighter is even structurally more austere than any other aircraft design.
> 
> An aircraft is mostly empty space.
> 
> 
> I am not going to get into a pointless debate on which jet is heavier. I am only pointing out the flaw in your argument that just because the J-20's empty weight *MAYBE* less than the F-22, somehow that translated into a more 'advanced' airframe design.
> 
> You want to be patriotic ? Fine. I have no problems with that. But do not strain logic in cheerleading for China.



"*I am only pointing out the flaw in your argument that just because the J-20's empty weight MAYBE less than the F-22, somehow that translated into a more 'advanced' airframe design."*

You got it in reverse.

My whole point is China's airframe design is not as advance as US, so it doesn't make sense to assume J-20 weights LESS than F-22.


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> My whole point is China's airframe design is not as advance as US, so it doesn't make sense to assume J-20 weights LESS than F-22.


Really...??? Try to keep up with your own arguments...



> That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ews-discussions.111471/page-499#ixzz4Urut3M00



We can take a look at the entire comment...



> Now, *if* J-20 is actually the same weight as F-22, *19.7 tons*, that means China's engineers had done an amazing feat of engineering to keep J-20 weight down, despite its 3m longer. That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ews-discussions.111471/page-499#ixzz4UrvvzLhb


Note the highlighted 'if'.

Even as speculation, the idea that the J-20's airframe design is more advanced than the F-22 is absurd by virtue of lower weight despite longer length is absurd. There are so many things that are not airframe related that could produce a lower weight without making said airframe more 'advanced'.


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Really...??? Try to keep up with your own arguments...



Yes, really.

Here is really what I said:

"That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.
I am a patriotic Chinese, *but I just can't believe this is true."*

You can read that whole section again. I don't think China has surpassed US airframe design, not by a long, long, long shoot.

*"It really is amazing how much efforts the Internet Chinese will go in straining logic and the laws of physics in trying to make the J-20 the superior."*

How is claiming J-20 is 2 tons heavier makes it more superior? 

What is your logic here?


----------



## Deino

gambit said:


> ...
> The J-20 is supposed to be larger to carry more fuel for longer range because of the lack of air refueling. ....




Ähhhhm ... No airrefueling ?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Ähhhhm ... No airrefueling ?
> 
> View attachment 366066



Even J-10 has a refueling prod.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Even J-10 has a refueling prod.
> 
> View attachment 366067




Yes I know, but I was surorised about Gambit's reply that the J-20 should lack that capability. It is known since years ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## randomradio

Deino said:


> Yes I know, but I was surorised about Gambit's reply that the J-20 should lack that capability. It is known since years ...



Gambit overestimates the US and underestimates others.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

randomradio said:


> Gambit overestimates the US and underestimates others.



*"Overestimates the US, and underestimates others."*
It's now an American patent. They have copy-righted it. Hubris is not a sin, anymore. It's quite fashionable both among the Left and Right.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## randomradio

Asok said:


> *"Overestimates the US, and underestimates others."*
> It's now an American patent. They have copy-righted it. Hubris is not a sin, anymore. It's quite fashionable both among the Left and Right.



Now, Gambit, you, me etc are irrelevant when we consider the big picture. But it's a huge problem if the US establishment has the same line of thinking.

Only a few months ago, I pointed out to him that quantum based technologies have matured a lot, to the point they are making prototypes, and that will render shaping based stealth wholly obsolete. He claimed it was all nonsense, that it is still decades away, and then just a few weeks later the Chinese reveal a quantum satellite and a radar.

From what I've heard, the J-20 is expected to carry a Digital AESA radar with GaN. If it's true, then it's a massive upgrade, difficult for anybody else to counter, definitely not something the F-22 can handle. As it stands today, only the Rafale likely has a digital radar, although based on GaAs for now. I just hope the F-35 has a digital radar that can compete with the J-20's radar or the US is going to be fighting the Chinese with outdated technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Ähhhhm ... No airrefueling ?


My bad. I will rephrase my original thoughts. The original intent for the J-20 was to have less dependency on air refueling than Western fighters primarily because the PLAAF is not as capable as the US in terms of mastery of the skills involved.

Air refueling is not easy like everyone thinks it is.

The PLAAF's air refueling fleet is drogue equipped. This method has serious limitations in terms of refueling rates which affects how many aircrafts, even though they maybe small fighters, per event. Drogue delivers a lower rate of fuel flow than probe. Even though the receiver aircraft is a small fighter, it still consumes its own fuel while it is taking on fuel.

The US uses two methods: probe and drogue.

The probe method delivers a higher rate of fuel flow which is necessary for large receivers like the bombers and cargo jets.

The US Navy is an expeditionary force that must be as self reliant as possible uses the drogue method. Its lower fuel flow rate is adequate for its fleet of small aircrafts which came from aircraft carriers.

Using the US as example. The probe method can transfer up to 6,000 lbs/min. The drogue method is up to 2,000 lbs/min.

The J-20's size is no accident. The PLAAF realized its shortcomings in the air refueling area, but the need to have a 5th gen platform outweighs the need to have a comprehensive air refueling capability.

Note...

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Tanker-Programs.html


> With a total fuel uplift at MTOW about one half of a KC-135E/R, each Badger in practical terms can adequately support only two fighters.


That is not two fighters at a time. But simply -- two fighters. Based upon its MTOW, as a modified platform, the air refueler Badger can carry only enough fuel to service only two fighters.

Remember, the client is burning fuel at the same time he is taking on fuel. If fuel flow rate in equals to fuel flow rate consume, you will *NOT* be refueling him. Your delivery must be higher than his consumption. If it is not high enough, the refueling time will take longer, but at the same time, you cannot cram fuel down his receptacle.

Assuming the J-20 is in full service. What this mean is that for every J-20 sortie, and we are looking at a typical four-ship sortie, if there is a need to air refuel this sortie, the PLAAF will have to assign its largest air refueler in inventory for that day.

Most people do not know it, but if you cannot provide that air refueling, that strike mission will be cancelled. That happened many times in Desert Storm when planners conflicted each other in terms of scheduling air refuelers.

At the current time, the US have 50 KC-10s, the largest of the air refuelers, and for the smaller KC-135s...

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104524/kc-135-stratotanker.aspx


> *Inventory: *Active duty, 167; Air National Guard, 180; Air Force Reserve, 67



How many air refueler modified IL-78s does the PLAAF have in order to support a typical four-ship sortie to patrol the SCS, for example ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Those 3 IL-78s were bought simply to be studied. The future PLAF refueling capability would be on the Y-20 tanker variant.

"PLAAF is not as capable as the US in terms of mastery of the skills involved." 
and what is your support for that claim? I can understand if you claim PLAF is technologically inferior, but mastery of the skills? How do you even measure that?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

So J-20's AESA radar is GaN-based.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## randomradio

gambit said:


> My bad. I will rephrase my original thoughts. The original intent for the J-20 was to have less dependency on air refueling than Western fighters primarily because the PLAAF is not as capable as the US in terms of mastery of the skills involved.
> 
> Air refueling is not easy like everyone thinks it is.
> 
> The PLAAF's air refueling fleet is drogue equipped. This method has serious limitations in terms of refueling rates which affects how many aircrafts, even though they maybe small fighters, per event. Drogue delivers a lower rate of fuel flow than probe. Even though the receiver aircraft is a small fighter, it still consumes its own fuel while it is taking on fuel.
> 
> The US uses two methods: probe and drogue.
> 
> The probe method delivers a higher rate of fuel flow which is necessary for large receivers like the bombers and cargo jets.
> 
> The US Navy is an expeditionary force that must be as self reliant as possible uses the drogue method. Its lower fuel flow rate is adequate for its fleet of small aircrafts which came from aircraft carriers.
> 
> Using the US as example. The probe method can transfer up to 6,000 lbs/min. The drogue method is up to 2,000 lbs/min.



You are using incorrect terms.

What the USAF uses is called Flying Boom. Probe-and-drogue is the term that's used as shown in the below pictures.

You forget that 3 aircraft can be refueled at a time using probe-and-drogue.







And to make up for the potential lack of refuelers, the USN also uses buddy refueling, that the USAF can't.





Similar to Flankers.





So drogue offers more flexibility. A J-11 can easily be modified to refuel a J-20. This makes your assertion wrong.



> The J-20's size is no accident. The PLAAF realized its shortcomings in the air refueling area, but the need to have a 5th gen platform outweighs the need to have a comprehensive air refueling capability.



As usual, you underestimate your adversary.



> How many air refueler modified IL-78s does the PLAAF have in order to support a typical four-ship sortie to patrol the SCS, for example ?



You don't need any. In case it is necessary, a buddy refueler can be used.

A Su-30MKI can conduct surveillance around the A&N Islands for 30 minutes operating from an airbase on the mainland 1700-1800Km away, without requiring support from tankers or from the island infrastructure. But it can do that while carrying a surveillance pod alone. The J-20 has more fuel in comparison, along with possibly more efficient engines, while carrying weapons internally.

Even a J-11 should be able to comfortably stay over the Spratlys for an hour taking off from Hainan.

And now that they are building military infrastructure on disputed islands, the distance has reduced considerably.

You are talking about possessing an advantage that's irrelevant for your adversary. In fact, your reliance on refueling may be your biggest disadvantage. Why don't you look up basic open source information about the new PCA and why the USAF wants the aircraft to have very long range range.



cirr said:


> So J-20's AESA radar is GaN-based.



Most definitely. GaN has achieved production status in many countries. The French are already in the process of operationalizing them on Rafales. They are ready to deliver it on the radar as well. The British are selling them to the US for the F-15's EW suite and developing another for the Typhoon's radar. The Russians are testing new missile seekers based on GaN, along with the PAK FA radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xunzi

What else is new in here again? Uncle gambit getting owned does not count. LOL he always talking some nonsense about airefueling even though J20 intention to operate long range but with capability to refuel with Y-20 variant. Why else we build those for? The guy lack logic and use some information he found on the net and speculate false information.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

xunzi said:


> What else is new in here again? Uncle gambit getting owned does not count. LOL he always talking some nonsense about airefueling even though J20 intention to operate long range but with capability to refuel with Y-20 variant. Why else we build those for? The guy lack logic and use some information he found on the net and speculate false information.




However I would be careful, to see it only black and white since some of his concerns are correct and some of Your assumptions are plain wrong or not valid; at least not yet.

Fact is, there are only three Il-78 available and only these are able to refuel the Su-30MKK and as such - given its immense load of fuel - the J-20 too. A HU-6 has simply not enough fuel to transfer; that's a fact.

And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong.

Deino


----------



## randomradio

Deino said:


> However I would be careful, to see it only black and white since some of his concerns are correct and some of Your assumptions are plain wrong or not valid; at least not yet.
> 
> Fact is, there are only three Il-78 available and only these are able to refuel the Su-30MKK and as such - given its immense load of fuel - the J-20 too. A HU-6 has simply not enough fuel to transfer; that's a fact.
> 
> And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong.
> 
> Deino



Refueling is very important for the US, not for the PLAAF.

Anyway, the J-20 is still many years away from being fielded in large enough numbers and that gives Xian enough time to develop the refueler version.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> My bad. I will rephrase my original thoughts. The original intent for the J-20 was to have less dependency on air refueling than Western fighters primarily because the PLAAF is not as capable as the US in terms of mastery of the skills involved.
> 
> Air refueling is not easy like everyone thinks it is.
> 
> The PLAAF's air refueling fleet is drogue equipped. This method has serious limitations in terms of refueling rates which affects how many aircrafts, even though they maybe small fighters, per event. Drogue delivers a lower rate of fuel flow than probe. Even though the receiver aircraft is a small fighter, it still consumes its own fuel while it is taking on fuel.
> 
> The US uses two methods: probe and drogue.
> 
> The probe method delivers a higher rate of fuel flow which is necessary for large receivers like the bombers and cargo jets.
> 
> The US Navy is an expeditionary force that must be as self reliant as possible uses the drogue method. Its lower fuel flow rate is adequate for its fleet of small aircrafts which came from aircraft carriers.
> 
> Using the US as example. The probe method can transfer up to 6,000 lbs/min. The drogue method is up to 2,000 lbs/min.
> 
> The J-20's size is no accident. The PLAAF realized its shortcomings in the air refueling area, but the need to have a 5th gen platform outweighs the need to have a comprehensive air refueling capability.
> 
> Note...
> 
> http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Tanker-Programs.html
> 
> That is not two fighters at a time. But simply -- two fighters. Based upon its MTOW, as a modified platform, the air refueler Badger can carry only enough fuel to service only two fighters.
> 
> Remember, the client is burning fuel at the same time he is taking on fuel. If fuel flow rate in equals to fuel flow rate consume, you will *NOT* be refueling him. Your delivery must be higher than his consumption. If it is not high enough, the refueling time will take longer, but at the same time, you cannot cram fuel down his receptacle.
> 
> Assuming the J-20 is in full service. What this mean is that for every J-20 sortie, and we are looking at a typical four-ship sortie, if there is a need to air refuel this sortie, the PLAAF will have to assign its largest air refueler in inventory for that day.
> 
> Most people do not know it, but if you cannot provide that air refueling, that strike mission will be cancelled. That happened many times in Desert Storm when planners conflicted each other in terms of scheduling air refuelers.
> 
> At the current time, the US have 50 KC-10s, the largest of the air refuelers, and for the smaller KC-135s...
> 
> http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104524/kc-135-stratotanker.aspx
> 
> 
> How many air refueler modified IL-78s does the PLAAF have in order to support a typical four-ship sortie to patrol the SCS, for example ?



*News Flash:* "The first Xian Y-20 *military transport aircraft* was delivered to the People's Liberation *Army* Air Force (PLAAF) on June 15. Developed by Xian *Aircraft *Corporation, the Y-20 has an empty weight of 110 short tons, making it the largest *military aircraft *currently in production—*larger* than Russia's Ilyushin Il-76.Jun 20, 2016"

*http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a21418/chinas-air-force-largest-military-aircraft-y-20/*






No evidence, that Y-20 has been modified for Air-refueling. But there is no barrier for that role, and for a AWAC platform.

H-6 is an ancient aircraft and China can't get enough IL-78s from Russia, because of production capacity problem. So I don't expect them to service J-20 as oil tankers in the future.

Probe refueling, while, is faster, but it can only refuel one aircraft at a time.

*""PLAAF is not as capable as the US in terms of mastery of the skills involved." *
I think Gambit means China is less experienced with air refueling and has a much smaller refueling fleet.

I would say the need for Long Range matched, nicely, the need for High Supersonic Speed and Supersonic Cruise (which calls for a long slender body for lower Supersonic Drag). As we can see in the comparison picture, J-20 has almost the same body length as F-22, without the 4m long canard section.

Normally, a large and heavier aircraft will conflict with Superior Maneuverability, but that has been solved with Delta-Wing Canards, Leading Edge Extension, Whole Body Lift, Vortex-lift Generators, All Moving Tails, Differential Moving TVC nozzles. All these help created extreme Maneuverability, along with extensive use of Titanium alloy and composite materials.

A new powerful engine definitely also helps.

All these aerodynamic innovations would be a nightmare for Flight Control System Designer, before 1980's. But that has been solved in the 1990's with the use of a full digital and electro FCS. Hence, we are seeing the Eurocanards, J-10, J-20, Su-35, Su-37, Su-47, T50, F-22, Gripen. . . with extreme Maneuverability. That would not have happen if there was no fully computer controlled, digital and electro FCS.

The Israel taught the Chinese about modern aircraft design and digital FCS, when they sold the Lavi fighter design to China. They explicitly told the Chinese not to expect other country to sell you their FCS. You must master the technology by yourself.

It is no coincidence that Yang Wei, the chief Flight Control System Designer of J-10 is the Chief Designer of J-20. Only he can fully appreciate the challenges involved in designing J-20 with such leap of extreme Maneuverability.

There was no crash when testing J-10 and J-20, unlike other countries testing a plane with a new digital FCS. In fact, the J-10 test pilots said they were most confident with the FCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

cirr said:


> So J-20's AESA radar is GaN-based.



In the future, if not already happen, AESA radars will have a distributed and networked architecture. There will be *M *number of transmitters, and* N* number of receivers installed in different locations on ground, sea and air platforms, all networked together. The radar beams, instead of just a dump beam, each radar beam or packed will encoded and encrypted with the position and time of the transmitter, just like a WIFI packet. Each packet will be unique and spoof resistant. They can join and leave the network like a WIFI network.

Stealth aircrafts works by deflecting most of the radar signal away from the Transmitter, which happen to be also the Receiver, in the current AESA technology. In the networked AESA system, the deflected radar signal will be picked up by different receivers in different locations.

The stealth aircraft will have no where to hide. Even, if the aircraft can absorb 100% of the radar signal, the distributed system will still works, because it will show a moving region in the sky where the radar signal was disturbed or absorbed completely--no reflection and no transmission through that region.











Freaking large and powerful AESA transmitters could be installed on ships and on the ground. Making airborne AESA transmitters less relevant, which are limited by the size of the AESA antenna the plane could carry. The airplanes then just need to receive the composite picture created by the Central Processor to receive full situational awareness.

There could be dedicated AESA ships, which carries only several gigantic, enormous AESA transmitters facing the four directions. The array of networked Receivers could also be arrayed in such a way that emulates how Radio Telescope Array works.

Note: In this kind of distributed AESA, the Transmitter and Receivers are located in widely separated locations.
Passive Anti-stealth radars are already using this principle, but they are using ordinary radio waves, instead of encoded and encrypted AESA packets like WIFI packets.


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> The US uses two methods: probe and drogue.


you are wrong sir first method used by USAF is not a* probe* method but* flying boom *method
*Flying boom*




A USAF C-5 approaches a KC-135R.
The flying boom is a rigid, telescoping tube with movable flight control surfaces that an operator on the tanker aircraft extends and inserts into a receptacle on the receiving aircraft. All boom-equipped tankers (e.g. KC-135 Stratotanker, KC-10 Extender) have a single boom, and can refuel one aircraft at a time with this mechanism.

*History*
In the late 1940s, General Curtis LeMay, commander of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), asked Boeing to develop a refueling system that could transfer fuel at a higher rate than had been possible with earlier systems using flexible hoses, resulting in the flying boom system. The B-29 was the first to employ the boom, and between 1950 and 1951, 116 original B-29s, designated KB-29Ps, were converted at the Boeing plant at Renton, Washington. Boeing went on to develop the world’s first production aerial tanker, the KC-97 Stratofreighter, a piston-engined Boeing Stratocruiser (USAF designation C-97 Stratofreighter) with a Boeing-developed flying boom and extra kerosene (jet fuel) tanks feeding the boom. The Stratocruiser airliner itself was developed from the B-29 bomber after World War II. In the KC-97, the mixed gasoline/kerosene fuel system was clearly not desirable and it was obvious that a jet-powered tanker aircraft would be the next development, having a single type of fuel for both its own engines and for passing to receiver aircraft. The 230 mph (370 km/h) cruise speed of the slower, piston-engined KC-97 was also a serious issue, as using it as an aerial tanker forced the newer jet-powered military aircraft to slow down to mate with the tanker's boom, a highly serious issue with the newer supersonic aircraft coming into service at that time, which could force such receiving aircraft in some situations to slow down enough to approach their stall speed during the approach to the tanker. It was no surprise that, after the KC-97, Boeing began receiving contracts from the USAF to build jet tankers based on the Boeing 367-80 (Dash-80) airframe. The result was the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, of which 732 were built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI




----------



## Asoka

Comparison between J-20, 2001 and 2012.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

randomradio said:


> You are using incorrect terms.


You are correct. It was late evening and I was in a hurry.



randomradio said:


> And to make up for the potential lack of refuelers, the USN also uses buddy refueling, that the USAF can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So drogue offers more flexibility. A J-11 can easily be modified to refuel a J-20. This makes your assertion wrong.


Regarding the image above. How many fighters can another fighter serviced ?

Answer: It depends on the situation at hand.

The F-18 Super Hornet external load is 17k lbs. An F-18 Super Hornet internal fuel load is 14k lbs.

In other words, an F-18 air refueler can refuel only one F-18 to full load. It can refuel two F-18s to half load. Or it can refuel more than two F-18s at various loads. Are you going to tell me that based on your own image, a fighter can refuel more than two fighters to their full internal fuel loads ? Are we talking about 'Indian physics' here ?

Strike tankers, like the F-18 Super Hornet version, accompanies the strike package and refuel the other fighters, not to top them off, but to extend their flight time so they can make the trip back to the carrier. That mean the amount of fuel each client receives must be carefully calculated so that no one in the strike package is unrefueled.

Regarding the J-20. This jet supposedly have an internal fuel load of over 20k lbs, up to 25k lbs. Show me which buddy air refueler can refuel a near empty J-20.



randomradio said:


> As usual, you underestimate your adversary.










Okarus said:


> Those 3 IL-78s were bought simply to be studied. The future PLAF refueling capability would be on the Y-20 tanker variant.
> 
> "PLAAF is not as capable as the US in terms of mastery of the skills involved."
> and what is your support for that claim? I can understand if you claim PLAF is technologically inferior, but mastery of the skills? How do you even measure that?


Try this article...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-usaf-kc-135-flying-gas-station-boom-op-1578048155

Particularly the section titled _Every Receiver Is A Little Different_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> In the future, if not already happen, AESA radars will have a distributed and networked architecture. There will be *M *number of transmitters, and* N* number of receivers installed in different locations on ground, sea and air platforms, all networked together. The radar beams, instead of just a dump beam, each radar beam or packed will encoded and encrypted with the position and time of the transmitter, just like a WIFI packet. Each packet will be unique and spoof resistant. They can join and leave the network like a WIFI network.


Sure...






First...We find the active transmitters.






Then...We destroy them.

Even if each station is dual purpose, meaning it can be both transmitter and receiver when convenient, the disruption in the radar net will be enough for our 'stealth' fighters to slip thru.



Asok said:


> Freaking large and powerful AESA transmitters could be installed on ships...


Subs can take care of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

gambit said:


> Try this article...
> 
> http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-usaf-kc-135-flying-gas-station-boom-op-1578048155
> 
> Particularly the section titled _Every Receiver Is A Little Different_.



I mean.. the section basically said that refueling is hard. I do think that experience is very important, so I'll give you that.

Also upon further reasearch I also found article that said

"According to research by the U.S. air force and its aerial refueling troops, China's way of typical grouping would be two H-6U aircraft with twelve J-8D fighters."

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-09/08/content_6671974.htm

That means the US air force determined that the H-6U is capable of at least supporting *6 fighters* each in a typical mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Okarus said:


> ...
> 
> That means the US air force determined that the H-6U is capable of at least supporting *6 fighters* each in a typical mission.




But You have to consider these are 6 J-8s ... I think the fuel volume for a J-20 is at least comparable to a MKK and the HU-6 is simply too small to support even one MKK.

Deino


----------



## xunzi

Deino said:


> However I would be careful, to see it only black and white since some of his concerns are correct and some of Your assumptions are plain wrong or not valid; at least not yet.
> 
> Fact is, there are only three Il-78 available and only these are able to refuel the Su-30MKK and as such - given its immense load of fuel - the J-20 too. A HU-6 has simply not enough fuel to transfer; that's a fact.
> 
> And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong.
> 
> Deino


You don't enlarge the size of your aircraft design due to a current lack of sufficient air-fueling tanker. That is a strategic mistake that could prove fatal if those said lack of capability becomes more available. Why can't the simple assumption be our PLAAF want a longer range stealth and so the designer is force to enlarge the plane? It is that simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Deino said:


> But You have to consider these are 6 J-8s ... I think the fuel volume for a J-20 is at least comparable to a MKK and the HU-6 is simply too small to support even one MKK.
> 
> Deino



Well good, because that means when they designed the J-20 they already had in mind another new air tanker that will be capable of fueling the J-20. J-20 was designed from the ground up to not be fueled by HU-6 . This also means HU-6 is only supposed to be used with older aircraft models, such as the J-8s. Six J-8s have considerable destructive power and certain advantages in their own rights. So the USAF's conclusion that typically the HU-6s are to fuel J-8s is pretty relevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## randomradio

gambit said:


> Regarding the image above. How many fighters can another fighter serviced ?
> 
> Answer: It depends on the situation at hand.
> 
> The F-18 Super Hornet external load is 17k lbs. An F-18 Super Hornet internal fuel load is 14k lbs.
> 
> In other words, an F-18 air refueler can refuel only one F-18 to full load. It can refuel two F-18s to half load. Or it can refuel more than two F-18s at various loads. Are you going to tell me that based on your own image, a fighter can refuel more than two fighters to their full internal fuel loads ? Are we talking about 'Indian physics' here ?



As you have mentioned, it depends on the situation at hand. The Flankers, and obviously its replacements, have been designed to fight at lower fuel loads as well. For example, due to the proximity of the border, MKIs need to be refueled only up to 50% of their fuel load after take off.

Another point is, a fighter can refuel another fighter very close to the front line. A tanker is hundreds of kilometers away from the front line. So you can have a flight of 4 Flankers refueling a flight of 4 J-20s over the East China Sea. But your jets are going to have to do the same all the way behind the First Island Chain. And most of your pilots are going to spend most of their flying time shuttling to and from tankers. If necessary, the buddy refuelers can also join the fight if they are Flankers.

The Chinese are going to have over 500 J-20s, and they are going to have more than 500 J-11+cousins. All these J-11s can be used for refueling and all these aircraft can refuel J-20s in tactically advantageous conditions. Let's not forget that these J-11s are going to be useless in most other roles once the F-35 comes in.

It's funny how you categorize anything you don't agree with as 'Indian' or 'Chinese' physics. When you speak to naval aviators, do you also mention 'American' physics when they bring up the advantages they have with the probe and drogue system?



> Strike tankers, like the F-18 Super Hornet version, accompanies the strike package and refuel the other fighters, not to top them off, but to extend their flight time so they can make the trip back to the carrier. That mean the amount of fuel each client receives must be carefully calculated so that no one in the strike package is unrefueled.



When buddy refueling, the J-20 doesn't need a top up. It is very rare situation that they need one.

A Su-35's loaded weight is with 70% fuel. That gives it far more range than the F-15 with full load of fuel while giving it a significant increase in T/W ratio. So buddy refueling is designed to give an aircraft a fuel to performance advantage when it enters the fight. When it returns, it can be refueled again if necessary.

Your tankers are so far away that by the time the fighter comes back to join the battle, it would have finished a considerably large amount of fuel during transit. That means, you will need a larger fuel load transferred, so you don't become useless the minute you enter the battle.

More importantly, the J-20 or the Flankers don't need refueling, only the USAF and USN do. The Chinese need refueling only for particular missions, but your jets need refueling for practically every mission. That's not an advantage for you. Switch the jets of both sides, still nothing will change.



> Regarding the J-20. This jet supposedly have an internal fuel load of over 20k lbs, up to 25k lbs. Show me which buddy air refueler can refuel a near empty J-20.



Can you imagine a Flanker with external tanks?

Stick these drop tanks on a Flanker, and you have your fuel.








>



Ah, yes. This is exactly how the British Generals looked at Churchill when he asked them about the possibility of war after Hitler entered Sudetenland.

Experts go wrong too, especially when they have to speculate, like you are doing right now. How dumb your entire aviation community must have looked when they speculated incorrectly about the Mig-25.



Deino said:


> the HU-6 is simply too small to support even one MKK.
> 
> Deino



That doesn't sound right. The HU-6 carries about 40 tons of fuel IIRC. It can easily top up two MKKs with a significantly long on station time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

randomradio said:


> ....
> That doesn't sound right. The HU-6 carries about 40 tons of fuel IIRC. It can easily top up two MKKs with a significantly long on station time.




Ähhhm, the problem is that:



> Its maximum fuel capacity is 34t, out of which 18.5t is available for refueling, but that number drops down to 10t at the maximum 2,200km radius, which is only enough to refuel two J-8Ds.



http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/transport-tanker.html

Deino


----------



## randomradio

Deino said:


> Ähhhm, the problem is that:
> 
> 
> 
> http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/transport-tanker.html
> 
> Deino



That's okay, considering its size at that range. Even the IL-78's refueling capacity is much lower at max radius. At 2500Km, it is 30 tons. Notice they don't mention the on station time.

Stick two 2k L tanks on a Flanker and you add 800Km. The Chinese don't need anymore than that. The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption.

Let the Americans worry about refueling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clibra

Asok said:


> That's mean China's airframe design has surpassed US.



That's for sure, the cutting-edge 3D-print titanium alloy main frame technology, better than F35, not to mention F22, which is a product of 20 years ago. 



grey boy 2 said:


>



Chinese military fans call F35 "肥电", which means "fat lightning", from these pics, we can see J20 is also very fat. someone said that the max range of J20 can reach 4000~5000km, ferry range with drop tanks can exceed 6000 km.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

gambit said:


> Sure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First...We find the active transmitters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then...We destroy them.
> 
> Even if each station is dual purpose, meaning it can be both transmitter and receiver when convenient, the disruption in the radar net will be enough for our 'stealth' fighters to slip thru.
> 
> 
> Subs can take care of them.



You forget that in a distributed AESA system, there will be many transmitter and receivers working as one, with graceful degradation capability, like the T/R transmitters in the current AESA.

So your tactic of destroy them one by one, doesn't work. Your stealth plane will be seen as they are not stealthy at all.

Plus, there are anti-stealth radars that are completely passive, using only the radio waves that are already out there. Why there is a complete blackout on such anti-stealth radars in western MSM?

Because it is frightening to the Military-Industrial Complex.

If they hype up these anti-stealth radar threat, they can't seriously claim radar stealth works as they advertised. No one will buy their B.S. anymore.

Plus, there are Quantum Radar, just reveal by the Chinese, which Locked Martin actually are already researched. It went black, probably DARPA think they will work, so they are just working on it quietly.

*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/06/usa.science*
*US defence contractor looks for quantum leap in radar research*

And patented by the European.

*European patent number EP1750145* describes "radar systems and methods using entangled quantum particles". 

It says such a device could "visualise useful target details through background and/or camouflaging clutter, through plasma shrouds around hypersonic air vehicles, through the layers of concealment hiding underground facilities, [and find] IEDs [improvised explosive devices], mines and other threats - all while operating from an airborne platform". It could also be mounted on a satellite.

*"First...We find the active transmitters."*

How do you get close to the many transmitters, without being seen by the distributed AESA?
What make you think none of the transmitters and receivers will not be protected by SAMs and fighters anyway?

Your tactic might work against Saddam Hussein, but not against a capable peer competitor.

Your typical American arrogance has lead to a massive investments into F-35, after an easy victory over Iraqi's air-defense system, a third rated power, at best.

Thank you very much for this Trillion dollars mistake, Pentagon.

Keep digging deeper into this bottomless money pit, please.



randomradio said:


> That's okay, considering its size at that range. Even the IL-78's refueling capacity is much lower at max radius. At 2500Km, it is 30 tons. Notice they don't mention the on station time.
> 
> Stick two 2k L tanks on a Flanker and you add 800Km. The Chinese don't need anymore than that. The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption.
> 
> Let the Americans worry about refueling.



In the event of a war over Taiwan, all the Japanese air bases will receive blanket coverage from China's Rocket Force. There is no reason to assume Guam will not receive the same treatment either. There is no reason to assume, those American bases will still operational after receiving multiple barrages of assaults.

So, where could the US airplanes fly from?

*Alaska and Hawaii.
*
How far are they from China?

How many times of refueling will be required?

Several of those refueling will be close to China.

How could the Americans protect their fleet of slow moving, big and obvious, fat and juice, oil tankers from the menacing J-20.

*"The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption."*

Any talk of air-refueling near China's coast is lunatic, when the J-20s is lurking around, defending China's airspace.

The J-20 is not a Game Changer for the American Hubris.

It's *Game Over*.



Deino said:


> However I would be careful, to see it only black and white since some of his concerns are correct and some of Your assumptions are plain wrong or not valid; at least not yet.
> 
> Fact is, there are only three Il-78 available and only these are able to refuel the Su-30MKK and as such - given its immense load of fuel - the J-20 too. A HU-6 has simply not enough fuel to transfer; that's a fact.
> 
> And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong.
> 
> Deino



*"And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong."*

The first Y-20 just delivered to PLAAF in June, 2016, after just 3 years of testing. Do you really think it will take at least "a few years" to produce a dedicated Y-20 oil tankers?

Amazing!



xunzi said:


> You don't enlarge the size of your aircraft design due to a current lack of sufficient air-fueling tanker. That is a strategic mistake that could prove fatal if those said lack of capability becomes more available. Why can't the simple assumption be our PLAAF want a longer range stealth and so the designer is force to enlarge the plane? It is that simple.



Gambit's thinking is typical American Hubris's (Lack of) Logic.

May be the American haven't realized that relying on air-refueling, near hostile territory, when facing capable peer enemy, is dangerous and foolish.



clibra said:


> That's for sure, the cutting-edge 3D-print titanium alloy main frame technology, better than F35, not to mention F22, which is a product of 20 years ago.
> 
> Chinese military fans call F35 "肥电", which means "fat lightning", from these pics, we can see J20 is also very fat. someone said that the max range of J20 can reach 4000~5000km, ferry range with drop tanks can exceed 6000 km.



It is true that 3D printed Titanium parts could save a lot of weight, by creating an internal honeycomb structure, inside the part, thus save a lot of weight.

This is not possible using the traditional molding and machining techniques.

Would this techniques and other techniques enable J-20 to have the same weight as F-22 , despite its body is at least 3m longer (I measured 4m)?

I don't know. We will have to wait and see. I am not that optimistic.



randomradio said:


> As you have mentioned, it depends on the situation at hand. The Flankers, and obviously its replacements, have been designed to fight at lower fuel loads as well. For example, due to the proximity of the border, MKIs need to be refueled only up to 50% of their fuel load after take off.
> 
> Another point is, a fighter can refuel another fighter very close to the front line. A tanker is hundreds of kilometers away from the front line. So you can have a flight of 4 Flankers refueling a flight of 4 J-20s over the East China Sea. But your jets are going to have to do the same all the way behind the First Island Chain. And most of your pilots are going to spend most of their flying time shuttling to and from tankers. If necessary, the buddy refuelers can also join the fight if they are Flankers.
> 
> The Chinese are going to have over 500 J-20s, and they are going to have more than 500 J-11+cousins. All these J-11s can be used for refueling and all these aircraft can refuel J-20s in tactically advantageous conditions. Let's not forget that these J-11s are going to be useless in most other roles once the F-35 comes in.
> 
> It's funny how you categorize anything you don't agree with as 'Indian' or 'Chinese' physics. When you speak to naval aviators, do you also mention 'American' physics when they bring up the advantages they have with the probe and drogue system?
> 
> 
> 
> When buddy refueling, the J-20 doesn't need a top up. It is very rare situation that they need one.
> 
> A Su-35's loaded weight is with 70% fuel. That gives it far more range than the F-15 with full load of fuel while giving it a significant increase in T/W ratio. So buddy refueling is designed to give an aircraft a fuel to performance advantage when it enters the fight. When it returns, it can be refueled again if necessary.
> 
> Your tankers are so far away that by the time the fighter comes back to join the battle, it would have finished a considerably large amount of fuel during transit. That means, you will need a larger fuel load transferred, so you don't become useless the minute you enter the battle.
> 
> More importantly, the J-20 or the Flankers don't need refueling, only the USAF and USN do. The Chinese need refueling only for particular missions, but your jets need refueling for practically every mission. That's not an advantage for you. Switch the jets of both sides, still nothing will change.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a Flanker with external tanks?
> 
> Stick these drop tanks on a Flanker, and you have your fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. This is exactly how the British Generals looked at Churchill when he asked them about the possibility of war after Hitler entered Sudetenland.
> 
> Experts go wrong too, especially when they have to speculate, like you are doing right now. How dumb your entire aviation community must have looked when they speculated incorrectly about the Mig-25.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound right. The HU-6 carries about 40 tons of fuel IIRC. It can easily top up two MKKs with a significantly long on station time.



Thanks for letting him (Gambit) have it. .. . .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## antonius123

I read somewhere analysis that from the design (sleek and relatively smaller wing area compared to F22 and PAKFA), probably J-20 more optimized for penetration and striking fighter with very robust WVR capabiity.

If this is true then the question is why China doesnt build the air superiority fighter competing with Pakfa or F-22? or Does she has third 5th fighter intended for true air dominance fighter which is not revealed yet? I heard J23 and J25 rumour and was thinking that it may be the 5th gen air dominance fighter.?


----------



## Ultima Thule

antonius123 said:


> I read somewhere analysis that from the design (sleek and relatively smaller wing area compared to F22 and PAKFA), probably J-20 more optimized for penetration and striking fighter with very robust WVR capabiity.
> 
> If this is true then the question is why China doesnt build the air superiority fighter competing with Pakfa or F-22? or Does she has third 5th fighter intended for true air dominance fighter which is not revealed yet? I heard J23 and J25 rumour and was thinking that it may be the 5th gen air dominance fighter.?


*J-20 is a air superiority fighter* don't believe in false analysis, *J-23 *and* J-25?* their no J-23 and J-25 except in a few fanboys minds

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> I read somewhere analysis that from the design (sleek and relatively smaller wing area compared to F22 and PAKFA), probably J-20 more optimized for penetration and striking fighter with very robust WVR capabiity.
> 
> If this is true then the question is why China doesnt build the air superiority fighter competing with Pakfa or F-22? or Does she has third 5th fighter intended for true air dominance fighter which is not revealed yet? I heard J23 and J25 rumour and was thinking that it may be the 5th gen air dominance fighter.?




Since when did smaller wings equate to better penatration and striking capabilities? Smaller wings generally means less maneuverability, less fuel, less range. That is the opposite of a good strike platform.




The J-20 will probably have good range because of its size and fuel capacity. It's striking ability is dependent on weapons and avionics...wings, not so much.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

pakistanipower said:


> *J-20 is a air superiority fighter* don't believe in false analysis,




I hope so.

Anyway this is where the analysis come from; it still sound plausible for me.


Dave Majumdar

September 16, 2016

The most direct Chinese analogue to the Raptor is the Chengdu J-20. How would such a jet fair against America’s best?

Not much is known about the Chinese jet—it might not even be a fighter in the traditional sense of the word. It could be a specialized aircraft that is specifically designed to attack the sinews of U.S. power projection capabilities in the Western Pacific as part of an overall Chinese anti-access/area denial strategy (A2/AD). Basically, the jet might be optimized to hit support assets like tankers, AWACS, JSTARS or even carry long-range cruise missiles to attack scattered U.S. bases and aircraft carriers in the region.

Here is what we do know about the J-20. It appears to have a stealth airframe and it liberally borrows design cues from both the Raptor and its Lockheed stable-mate, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. That’s not an accident; the Chinese very likely stole a large amount of classified F-35 data.

*There are some indications that the J-20 is a primarily a strike aircraft but with a robust air-to-air capability. Like the American F-35, the newest J-20 prototypes appear to have an electro-optical targeting system mounted under the nose. That sensor could be Beijing A-Star Science and Technology’s EOTS-89 electro-optical targeting system (EOTS). A dedicated air superiority fighter wouldn’t need that kind of sensor.*

There are also indications that the Chinese jet carries an active electronically scanned array radar (AESA). Allegedly, the J-20 would be fitted with a Type 1475 radar, which is supposedly being tested on a China Test Flight Establishment owned Tupolev Tu-204. However, there is no way to confirm that information because the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) isn’t really all that forthcoming about sharing information about its developmental projects. That being said, given Beijing’s interest in the Su-35—which is mostly likely driven by a desire to harvest that Flanker variant’s radar and engine technology, I have my doubts about how far along the Chinese have gotten on developing an operational AESA.

*Perhaps the most compelling evidence that would point to the J-20 being optimized for the strike role is the fact that the airframe is enormous but has relatively small wings*. *It’s also seems to have huge weapons bays. While such a configuration works well for a fast supersonic strike aircraft, it’s not ideal for an air superiority fighter that needs be able to sustain high rates of turn.*

Moreover, China hasn’t demonstrated that it has the requisite engine technology necessary to power an air superiority fighter of that size. The People’s Republic hasn’t perfected its indigenous WS-10, let alone come close to finishing development of the next-generation WS-15. In fact, China hasn’t demonstrated it can build any reliable jet engine—and that’s including designs that it stole from Russia. But a strike aircraft doesn’t need to have a spectacular thrust to weight ratio—thus the jet’s current twin Russian-built Saturn AL-31F engines might be adequate for China’s purposes.

Further, there is a strong argument to be made that short-range tactical fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are ill-suited for operations in the Western Pacific where distances are vast and bases are scarce. The same geographic constraints also apply to the Chinese. That means that jets like the F-22 and F-35 need tankers to operate over those vast distances. The most logical way for the Chinese to tackle American and allied airpower is not to confront those forces head-on but rather by removing their ability to fight. That means going after U.S. bases, tankers and communications nodes. Thus in that sense, the J-20 could be China’s means to establish air superiority if viewed through that lens. In that sense it might have the upper hand against the F-22.

Of course, this is all conjecture. Only the PLAAF knows where the J-20 fits into their order of battle, but it could prove to be a formidable foe.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...er-vs-russias-pak-fa-chinas-j-20-17730?page=2





> *J-23 *and* J-25?* their no J-23 and J-25 except in a few fanboys minds




Nobody knows what China is designing for the future fighter right? 
All major power has already made concept or even design 6th gen airfighter (USA, Rusia, Europe, not excluding China).



ptldM3 said:


> Since when did smaller wings equate to better penatration and striking capabilities? Smaller wings generally means less maneuverability, less fuel, less range. That is the opposite of a good strike platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 will probably have good range because of its size and fuel capacity. It's striking ability is dependent on weapons and avionics...wings, not so much.




Why striking need so much maneuverability? The maneuverability is highly needed and required for air superiority. As you can see F111 doesnt need very high maneuverability

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Oh come on ... right after reading tis name:



antonius123 said:


> ....
> Dave Majumdar



... You can stop reading. It's biased BS of the worst.



> Nobody knows what China is designing for the future fighter right?
> All major power has already made concept or even design 6th gen airfighter (USA, Rusia, Europe, not excluding China).



Yes, but a J-23 & J-25 is only a fan-boys imagination, we are - and esp. You in Your post - were not discussing any future fighter but an on-going project and so far none of them exist yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

Deino said:


> Oh come on ... right after reading tis name:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You can stop reading. It's biased BS of the worst.



Well thanks. But I myself is more interested with the content of the analysis rather than who he is 



> Yes, but a J-23 & J-25 is only a fan-boys imagination, we are - and esp. You in Your post - were not discussing any future fighter but an on-going project and so far none of them exist yet.




What I mean is : if there is no evidence about existence (of J-23/J-25 or any other "J=" of Chinese black project) doesn't mean it is non existence. Except the officials have said so (that china is not doing any other stealth fighter development other than J-20 and J-31). 

Without evidence, both who claim existence or non existence are same speculating.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dingyibvs

antonius123 said:


> Well thanks. But I myself is more interested with the content of the analysis rather than who he is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is : if there is no evidence about existence (of J-23/J-25 or any other "J=" of Chinese black project) doesn't mean it is non existence. Except the officials have said so (that china is not doing any other stealth fighter development other than J-20 and J-31).
> 
> Without evidence, both who claim existence or non existence are same speculating.



Who he is is rather important here, as he's a liberal arts major with zero experience in either military or engineering. His observation of "enormous airframe and small wings" and "huge weapons bay" are incorrect, and any analyses drawn upon shaky foundations is of course pure crap, like all his articles are.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

dingyibvs said:


> Who he is is rather important here, as he's a liberal arts major with zero experience in either military or engineering. His observation of "enormous airframe and small wings" and "huge weapons bay" are incorrect, and any analyses drawn upon shaky foundations is of course pure crap, like all his articles are.



@antonius123 Let your eyes be the witnesses. Watch a few youtube videos and see how much maneuverability J-20 has.

The impression that long and slender strike fighter or interceptor are good at high speed, but poor in maneuverability was gained in the 1960's. They were built to intercept high speed bombers. They need but to fly straight toward the bombers and launch their missiles.

Modern 5th generation fighters have combined extreme maneuverability with high speed, including Supersonic Cruise. F-22 has extreme maneuverability at low and post-stall speed, but it is also built for high speed. It could cruise at Mach 1.6 for over 30 min. It could pull 5G maneuvers at Mach 1.6, at 30,000.

We don't know the J-20's flight envelope yet. But judging from the fact that J-20 has Differential Movable Canards, Delta-wings, Lifting Body, 8 sets of vortex generators, Leading Edge Extensions, All-moving tails, possibly TVC nozzles, J-20 will also extreme maneuverability as well.

The Movable Canards alone will give extreme maneuverability that is far better than anything in the 1960's. Look at the Typhoon, Rafael, J-10, and Gripen.

Long and slender shape means high speed. But that doesn't necessarily exclude extreme maneuverability. Modern AA missiles are long and slender. They could fly at Mach 3-4, and do 60G. That's because they have the wings called canards at the front, and vector thrust nozzle at the back. And a powerful rocket engine.

How would you like to dog fight an AA missile?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

[



antonius123 said:


> *There are some indications that the J-20 is a primarily a strike aircraft but with a robust air-to-air capability. Like the American F-35, the newest J-20 prototypes appear to have an electro-optical targeting system mounted under the nose. That sensor could be Beijing A-Star Science and Technology’s EOTS-89 electro-optical targeting system (EOTS). A dedicated air superiority fighter wouldn’t need that kind of sensor.*


its a stealth version of IRST


antonius123 said:


> *Perhaps the most compelling evidence that would point to the J-20 being optimized for the strike role is the fact that the airframe is enormous but has relatively small wings*. *It’s also seems to have huge weapons bays. While such a configuration works well for a fast supersonic strike aircraft, it’s not ideal for an air superiority fighter that needs be able to sustain high rates of turn.*



CANARD DELTA is unstable relax negative stability which its have extreme agility and maneuverability

*Simply put (for the designs you mention) - high speed maneuverability. *


*The US don't seem to like canards from the outside, but looking closer, they didn't design a new fighter for high speed maneuvering before TVC became a serious option. *

*This allowed them to prioritise radar shape on the F-22 (avoid the canard fuselage junction in the forward quadrant radar 'wetted' area) while using TVC to trim the aircraft for supersonic flight (giving them back good maneuvering capabilities). *



*There are a number of factors to consider over which is better, some of these are: *

*1. A canard generates upthrust when pitching nose up, while a traditional elevator generates a downthrust - thus a canard should allow for better sustained turning performance. *

*2. A canard can generate a little upthrust in steady level flight, allowing for a smaller wing - meaning less inertia & damping, thus better dynamic response rates (in pitch and roll). *

*3. A canard when pitching nose up will induce a downwash over the main wing, reducing its effectiveness, which conflicts with (1) and (2). Increasing the distance from canard to wing can help offset this (Eurofighter). *

*4. A canard can be used as a replacement for a LERX for high AoA flight, and its normally more efficient in cruise. Close coupling of canard and wing helps achieve this (Rafale). *

*5. With a canard, the main wing can be placed further back, hence the c.g of the aircraft is further back, hence the gear is further back, hence more aggressive rotation angles can be used for take-off. The canard also is better at inducing rotation than a tailplane. *

*6. A canard requires a junction between wing and fuselage - this junction is harder to hide on radar. Its preferred to hide this behind the main wing on an elevator (like the F-22).*

*Before addressing the pros and cons of the canard delta with any other configuration, you must understand the reason for the canard in the first place. *

*A tailless delta wing, when increasing angle of attack (in manoeuvring flight - ie:- turning) must generate a downward force aft of the CG. To do this the elevons must be deflected upwards (which in the case of slow speed flight is the opposite of lowering flaps), and this results in an overall loss of lift from the wing (meaning that to remain level in a turn even more AoA is required). Therefore the tailless delta is at a disadvantage in manoeuvring flight with regard to other configurations. In the slow speed regime, you can see that if a tailless delta were to deploy flaps, they would act is exactly the opposite way to the elevons which would be deflected upward - and this would look exactly like a split trailing edge speedbrake! Hence the lack of flaps on tailless deltas, and a resulting high landing speed (Do you see why there have been no delta shipboard aircraft?) *

*By adding a conventional tailplane (and elevators) ala MiG-21, the tail can produce the downward force to increase the angle of attack while the wing produces more lift and can also be fitted with flaps to increase the lift of the wing in slow speed flight. *

*The use of a canard instead of a conventional tail (on both a delta and any other wing configuration) is to provide the pitching moment by an upward force (lift) ahead of the CG rather than a downward force aft of the CG resulting in an overall increase in lift greater than provided by the conventional tail (downward force at the tail=loss of lift which must be subtracted from the increase in lift generated by the wing due to its increased angle of attack). The greater the increase in lift with change of angle of attack vs the increased drag that results, then the better the aircraft will be able to maintain energy in a turn. *

*The 'downside' of placing the pitch control forward of the wing, is that the airflow over the canard which can disturb the airflow over the wing. Careful design has minimised the harmful effects (which obviously change throughout the flight envelope) and in certain parts of the envelope (especially very high angles of attack) the airflow and vortices off the canard and how they affect the wing have been used to advantage to maintain lift from the wing at angles of attack that would normally result in a stall. *

*That the US has not gone down that road, has really been that the US never embraced the delta in the first place - with the exception of the F-102 / F-106 tailless delta interceptors. However, of late, the US has become interested in the subject (at least from a research perspective) with the X-31, which then continued into the realm of all axis control by thrust vectoring. *

*The US did test canard surfaces (retaining a conventional tail as well) on the F-4 Phantom and the F-15 Eagle.*
*http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread312810/pg1*
*so you see J-20 is basically a air superiority fighter  *




antonius123 said:


> What I mean is : if there is no evidence about existence (of J-23/J-25 or any other "J=" of Chinese black project) doesn't mean it is non existence. Except the officials have said so (that china is not doing any other stealth fighter development other than J-20 and J-31).


*no one knows 6th gen jets are in initial phase of development they are nameless how do you know there names that they are J-23/J-25 just in your baseless imaginations and assumptionsand as for your information those are if they exist are above top-secret *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> [
> 
> 
> its a stealth version of IRST
> 
> 
> CANARD DELTA is unstable relax negative stability which its have extreme agility and maneuverability
> 
> *Simply put (for the designs you mention) - high speed maneuverability. *
> 
> 
> *The US don't seem to like canards from the outside, but looking closer, they didn't design a new fighter for high speed maneuvering before TVC became a serious option. *
> 
> *This allowed them to prioritise radar shape on the F-22 (avoid the canard fuselage junction in the forward quadrant radar 'wetted' area) while using TVC to trim the aircraft for supersonic flight (giving them back good maneuvering capabilities). *
> 
> 
> 
> *There are a number of factors to consider over which is better, some of these are: *
> 
> *1. A canard generates upthrust when pitching nose up, while a traditional elevator generates a downthrust - thus a canard should allow for better sustained turning performance. *
> 
> *2. A canard can generate a little upthrust in steady level flight, allowing for a smaller wing - meaning less inertia & damping, thus better dynamic response rates (in pitch and roll). *
> 
> *3. A canard when pitching nose up will induce a downwash over the main wing, reducing its effectiveness, which conflicts with (1) and (2). Increasing the distance from canard to wing can help offset this (Eurofighter). *
> 
> *4. A canard can be used as a replacement for a LERX for high AoA flight, and its normally more efficient in cruise. Close coupling of canard and wing helps achieve this (Rafale). *
> 
> *5. With a canard, the main wing can be placed further back, hence the c.g of the aircraft is further back, hence the gear is further back, hence more aggressive rotation angles can be used for take-off. The canard also is better at inducing rotation than a tailplane. *
> 
> *6. A canard requires a junction between wing and fuselage - this junction is harder to hide on radar. Its preferred to hide this behind the main wing on an elevator (like the F-22).*
> 
> *Before addressing the pros and cons of the canard delta with any other configuration, you must understand the reason for the canard in the first place. *
> 
> *A tailless delta wing, when increasing angle of attack (in manoeuvring flight - ie:- turning) must generate a downward force aft of the CG. To do this the elevons must be deflected upwards (which in the case of slow speed flight is the opposite of lowering flaps), and this results in an overall loss of lift from the wing (meaning that to remain level in a turn even more AoA is required). Therefore the tailless delta is at a disadvantage in manoeuvring flight with regard to other configurations. In the slow speed regime, you can see that if a tailless delta were to deploy flaps, they would act is exactly the opposite way to the elevons which would be deflected upward - and this would look exactly like a split trailing edge speedbrake! Hence the lack of flaps on tailless deltas, and a resulting high landing speed (Do you see why there have been no delta shipboard aircraft?) *
> 
> *By adding a conventional tailplane (and elevators) ala MiG-21, the tail can produce the downward force to increase the angle of attack while the wing produces more lift and can also be fitted with flaps to increase the lift of the wing in slow speed flight. *
> 
> *The use of a canard instead of a conventional tail (on both a delta and any other wing configuration) is to provide the pitching moment by an upward force (lift) ahead of the CG rather than a downward force aft of the CG resulting in an overall increase in lift greater than provided by the conventional tail (downward force at the tail=loss of lift which must be subtracted from the increase in lift generated by the wing due to its increased angle of attack). The greater the increase in lift with change of angle of attack vs the increased drag that results, then the better the aircraft will be able to maintain energy in a turn. *
> 
> *The 'downside' of placing the pitch control forward of the wing, is that the airflow over the canard which can disturb the airflow over the wing. Careful design has minimised the harmful effects (which obviously change throughout the flight envelope) and in certain parts of the envelope (especially very high angles of attack) the airflow and vortices off the canard and how they affect the wing have been used to advantage to maintain lift from the wing at angles of attack that would normally result in a stall. *
> 
> *That the US has not gone down that road, has really been that the US never embraced the delta in the first place - with the exception of the F-102 / F-106 tailless delta interceptors. However, of late, the US has become interested in the subject (at least from a research perspective) with the X-31, which then continued into the realm of all axis control by thrust vectoring. *
> 
> *The US did test canard surfaces (retaining a conventional tail as well) on the F-4 Phantom and the F-15 Eagle.*
> *http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread312810/pg1*
> *so you see J-20 is basically a air superiority fighter  *
> 
> 
> 
> *no one knows 6th gen jets are in initial phase of development they are nameless how do you know there names that they are J-23/J-25 just in your baseless imaginations and assumptionsand as for your information those are if they exist are above top-secret *



Nice explanation. But please be easy with the colors and font size.

Too many fanboys, influenced by know nothing and highly biased journalists and think tankers, think China put a canards on J-20 just for the sake of INCREASE the RCS. They don't know what canards are for, and they claim J-20 has no maneuverability, because its only a large striker/interceptor.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

antonius123 said:


> Well thanks. But I myself is more interested with the content of the analysis rather than who he is
> 
> What I mean is : if there is no evidence about existence (of J-23/J-25 or any other "J=" of Chinese black project) doesn't mean it is non existence. Except the officials have said so (that china is not doing any other stealth fighter development other than J-20 and J-31).
> 
> Without evidence, both who claim existence or non existence are same speculating.



Oh come on ! that's the same stupid argument we have to read here much too often: Since I cannot prove the J-20 uses NO WS-15, it surely has one; since I cannot prove it cannot fly Mach 3 it surely can ... since I have no evidence that there are green men on Mars there must be some. Come on; is this the level You want to argue?

My point is simply the there are a few guys out there in the Western media like Nationalinterest, like Kanwa, like WarIs Boring represented by such guys like Dave Majumdar, who are - to say it politely - not very much interested in facts but more in feelings. But if You want to believe him it's up to You ...

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Oh come on ! that's the same stupid argument we have to read here much too often: Since I cannot prove the J-20 uses NO WS-15, it surely has one; since I cannot prove it cannot fly Mach 3 it surely can ... since I have no evidence that there are green men on Mars there must be some. Come on; is this the level You want to argue?
> 
> My point is simply the there are a few guys out there in the Western media like Nationalinterest, like Kanwa, like WarIs Boring represented by such guys like Dave Majumdar, who are - to say it politely - not very much interested in facts but more in feelings. But if You want to believe him it's up to You ...
> 
> Deino



*"Since I cannot prove the J-20 uses NO WS-15, it surely has one; "*

You have twisted my argument, Deino. There is no evidence that *excludes* the possibility that WS-15 is on J-20 already.

But there is evidence that could *exclude* the possibility J-20 is using WS-10 or AL-31F, because these two engines do not provide enough Dry Thrust for J-20 to do vertical climbing and Supersonic Cruising.

So we must leave that possibility that WS-15 is on J-20, open.


----------



## Deino

I still disagree with You, but that's not the point.

My point was simply that in science You cannot prove anything by the absence of a prof for the contrary ! That's plain wrong, ridiculous ... in fact even stupid.

*But I would beg to come back to the topic, this discussion - and also size and colour of the post - has become a bit too much off !*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Found a couple of HD pictures, not sure it has been posted before

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> You have twisted my argument, Deino. There is no evidence that *excludes* the possibility that WS-15 is on J-20 already.


but not final version, lots of parts in this interim version of WS-15 is using from WS-10 series of engines as @ChineseTiger1986 says


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> I still disagree with You, but that's not the point.
> 
> My point was simply that in science You cannot prove anything by the absence of a prof for the contrary ! That's plain wrong, ridiculous ... in fact even stupid.
> 
> *But I would beg to come back to the topic, this discussion - and also size and colour of the post - has become a bit too much off !*
> 
> Deino


haha, absence of evidence vs evidence of absence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> I still disagree with You, but that's not the point.
> 
> My point was simply that in science You cannot prove anything by the absence of a prof for the contrary ! That's plain wrong, ridiculous ... in fact even stupid.
> 
> *But I would beg to come back to the topic, this discussion - and also size and colour of the post - has become a bit too much off !*
> 
> Deino



There is Absence of Proof (or no proof) that something is Impossible, and then there is Proof that something is plainly Impossible.

1.) It is *plainly impossible* for WS-10X or AL-31FN to lift J-20 vertically, using Dry Thrust alone.
(Their Dry Thrust is only around 8.6 tons (60% of 140kN or 14.29 tons). 2 x 8.6 = 17.2 tons, less than the empty weight of Su-30MKI, 18.4 tons).

2.) And there is *no proof that it is Impossible* for WS-15 to be already installed on J-20. So we can speculate that the engine _*could be*_ WS-15.

3.) I have to admit that I have no direct proof that J-20's engine is WS-15. I have no confirmed picture, no official announcements for that effect. Other than we know WS-15 exists and it is intended for J-20.

4.) Since WS-10x and AL-31FN got ruled out (by the vertical climb demonstration), I simply *assume* J-20's engine must be the mysterious WS-15, because there is no other engines available.

*"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." *-- Sherlock Holmes. 



pakistanipower said:


> but not final version, lots of parts in this interim version of WS-15 is using from WS-10 series of engines as @ChineseTiger1986 says



Yes, there is still room to speculate which version of WS-15 is on J-20 right now, the prototype (with parts from WS-10) or production type.

But there is no possibility that WS-10X or AL-31FN could lift J-20 vertically with Dry Thrust only.

NO POSSIBILITY. ZERO. NONE. ZIP. 



nang2 said:


> haha, absence of evidence vs evidence of absence.



or *Absence of Evidence of Impossibility* vs* Evidence of Impossibility*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Yes, there is still room to speculate which version of WS-15 is on J-20 right now, the prototype (with parts from WS-10) or production type.
> 
> But there is no possibility that WS-10X or AL-31FN could lift J-20 vertically with Dry Thrust only.
> 
> NO POSSIBILITY. ZERO. NONE. ZIP.


But J-20 using interim version of WS-15* not final version *with a parts from WS-10 series of engine as @ChineseTiger1986 said


----------



## Asoka

There is some people noticed that starting prototype 2012, the J-20 looks different around the engine area.






The gap between the engines is now deeper and the engine compartment is shorter. They speculate that it is because the production version of WS-15 is shorter and smaller, than the interim version. The WS-15's compressor has only 3 stages, vs 5 stages for the WS-10.

I don't know this is true. It is simply speculation.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Well, I assume the engine core is the WS-15, with some parts from WS-10. The engine core determines the thrust performance. If you got a more powerful core, you have got a new engine.


What about higher thrust and special variant of WS-10 with thrust 155 Kn-160 Kn for J-20



Asok said:


> The gap between the engines is now deeper and the engine compartment is shorter. They speculate that it is because the production version of WS-15 is shorter and smaller, than the interim version. The WS-15's compressor has only 3 stages, vs 5 stages for the WS-10.


if it had WS-15 it is not a final and production version of WS-15


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> What about higher thrust and special variant of WS-10 with thrust 155 Kn-160 Kn for J-20
> 
> 
> if it had WS-15 it is not a final and production version of WS-15



*"155 kN-160 kN"* is still not high enough. And there is no variant of WS-10 with thrust > 140kN.

If we assume J-20 is two tons heavier than F-22 (19.7 tons) and it carries 3 tons of fuels for demonstration (total 25 tons), then the minimum thrust required is > 200kN.

*"if it had WS-15 it is not a final and production version of WS-15"*
I am not worry about this. The engineers still have time to get WS-15 right, before mass production. It is still LRIP.

I assume, the production version of WS-15 is in the advance stage of testing already. Otherwise, it is behind the J-20's entering service date of 2017-2019, as planned.

The J-20 prototypes that are numbered 2001-2017 are all testing planes. It is not too much a leap of faith to believe that they could be used to test WS-15, interim version or production version.

This is the main difference I have with other PDF members. They have categorically rejected the possibility that at least the interim version of WS-15 is already tested on J-20.

They still believe only the WS-10x or AL-31FN could be running on J-20.

I fully understand that the lack of official announcements on the status of WS-15 has a lot to do with our feverish speculations.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> If we assume J-20 is two tons heavier than F-22 (19.7 tons) and it carries 3 tons of fuels for demonstration (total 25 tons), then the minimum thrust required is > 200kN.


oh that is over capability for J-20 various site state that WS-15 have a thrust of 18 to 19 tons which it will slightly inferior or same thrust as F-135



Asok said:


> If we assume J-20 is two tons heavier than F-22 (19.7 tons) and it carries 3 tons of fuels for demonstration (total 25 tons), then the minimum thrust required is > 200kN.


oh that is over capability for J-20 various site state that WS-15 have a thrust of 18 to 19 tons which it will slightly inferior or same thrust as F-135

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> oh that is over capability for J-20 various site state that WS-15 have a thrust of 18 to 19 tons which it will slightly inferior or same thrust as F-135
> 
> 
> oh that is over capability for J-20 various site state that WS-15 have a thrust of 18 to 19 tons which it will slightly inferior or same thrust as F-135



Various sites say that. But those are not official figures. Even if they are official figures, I would suspect they are not very accurate. The performances of J-20 and F-22 and T50 are of the highest state secrets. They have no need or obligations to tell anyone accurately. They are not intend for export. So they don't need to disclose them to anybody.

Even if they do export them, they would make the customers sign a *non-disclosure agreement* to keep those data secret.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Various sites say that. But those are not official figures. Even if they are official figures, I would suspect they are not very accurate. The performances of J-20 and F-22 and T50 are of the highest state secrets. They have no need or obligations to tell anyone accurately. They are not intend for export. So they don't need to disclose them to anybody.
> 
> Even if they do export them, they would make the customers sign a *non-disclosure agreement* to keep those data secret.


you know the thrust of WS-15 and no ones knows nothing, you are also guessing and assuming nothing more


----------



## grey boy 2

A little friendly comparison between J-20 and T-50

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> you know the thrust of WS-15 and no ones knows nothing, you are also guessing and assuming nothing more



I am guessing the thrust of the WS-15. That I admit. By guessing, we could establish the lower bound and upper bound values of many things. Engineers and scientists routinely do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> I am guessing the thrust of the WS-15. That I admit. By guessing, we could establish the lower bound and upper bound values of many things. Engineers and scientists routinely do that.



 Tell me, who else is not guessing in here? 

But there are ways to decipher the mystery. The slimest tell tale indications that China deliberately gave away as a clue.

1. Sound of the engine (Which they cannot hide anyway)

2. The vertical thrust without utilizing AB. (This is done deliberately)

However if one stick to an argument for a credible source as a form of verification then it will probably not happened until China offer the J-20 for export. 

Right now, it remains TOP SECRET. 

And for those F35 fanboys who believe that the single engine F35 is all it takes to counter the J-20, think again.

Even the experts can the Pentagon is in a state of trepidation as this point as they expects the J-20 to be in service only after 2020 and more like 2015. The F-35 fanboys will be in for a big surprise but I won't be. 

That is why I find Asok postings very interesting. 

Thanks bro. Asok. 

Why is the Pentagon planning to revive the production of the F-22 Raptor if the F35 Lightning is such a superior stealth fighter?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> But you are not Engineer or scientists your upper bounds too much, which shows you that you lives too much in your wishful thinking and fairy tales, the reasonable guess thrust of WS-15 as same as F-135



I studied Electrical Engineering in University. I worked as a software engineer with US Defense Company in all my working life in US. We make Communication, Control, Intelligence, and Command equipments for Pentagon. While I don't have a Ph.D, all my colleagues have at least a Master and Ph.D in various fields.

Well, if my upper bound is too high, please use method of estimation I have shown to come up with your own estimates.

I would love to see you and Deino and others to do the same and see what values you would come up. 

Not very hard at all. You can use a calculator to do the simple math.


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Tell me, who else is not guessing in here?
> 
> But there are ways to decipher the mystery. The slimest tell tale indications that China deliberately gave away as a clue.
> 
> 1. Sound of the engine (Which they cannot hide anyway)
> 
> 2. The vertical thrust without utilizing AB. (This is done deliberately)
> 
> However if one stick to an argument for a credible source as a form of verification then it will probably not happened until China offer the J-20 for export.
> 
> Right now, it remains TOP SECRET.
> 
> And for those F35 fanboys who believe that the single engine F35 is all it takes to counter the J-20, think again.
> 
> Even the experts can the Pentagon is in a state of trepidation as this point as they expects the J-20 to be in service only after 2020 and more like 2015. The F-35 fanboys will be in for a big surprise but I won't be.
> 
> That is why I find Asok postings very interesting.
> 
> Thanks bro. Asok.
> 
> Why is the Pentagon planning to revive the production of the F-22 Raptor if the F35 Lightning is such a superior stealth fighter?




Thanks Bro, @CAPRICORN-88.  Truth sometimes stare in our face. But we are so ingrained in our out dated thinking, that we can not change. Someone has said that "Science advances by one death at a time". Because the old timers simply have trouble accepting the new theory, despite mounting evidences.

China will never release the true performance figures of J-20 to the public. It's TOP SECRET.

We can only guess. Nothing wrong with that. I am just having fun. My life is not depend on whether I am right on the number or not.

1.) The sound of the engine was a big indicator that J-20, version 2001 has a new engine that is neither WS-10 nor Al-31FN. That was obvious to a lot of people.

2.) The white nozzles J-20, version 2001 was another indicator, but was ignored by most people.

3.) I didn't catch on the fact that J-20 could climb vertically with Dry Thrust alone, until someone pointed out at the China Air show. If we look at the old videos, J-20 has done that before.

4.) I also didn't catch on to the fact, until recently, that neither WS-10X nor AL-31FN could enable J-20 to do Supersonic Cruise and thus has Supersonic Maneuverability. That these two requirements are part of the 4S requirements of a 5th generation fighter that J-20 is aim for.

Without a engine that is sufficiently powerful enough to enable Supersonic Cruise, a big part of J-20 flight envelope is missing. It's structural strength will not be able to be sufficiently tested to the maximum, and its highly complex digital Flight Control System will not be able to test the Supersonic Maneuverability at all.


5.) If you think that is no problem, one could always test that later, when WS-15 is available, by loosen a few screws and pop in the new engine. And in the meantime, lets produce several hundreds of J-20. Then, I really think you have no idea what you are talking about.

6.) All of the above could be easily missed by outsiders, who are not informed about aeronautical engineering. This is not an indication of having low IQ, just an indication that we don't have the experiences.

7.) The vertical climb, without AB, at the China Airshow is an unmistakable sign that the engine CANNOT be WS-10X nor AL-31FN.

8.) There is only three candidates that China could use to power J-20, namely, WS-10X, AL-31FN, and WS-15.

9.) Now, that WS-10X, AL-31FN has been eliminated by the vertical climb demo, we have only the WS-15 left.

10.) There is no evidence that this engine could not be WS-15. Evidence or reports like it's canceled, its delayed, it's unreliable, its performances failed to meet the requirements, etc . . . are entirely absence.

11.) Now, if there are such strong and persistent reports that those negatives are true. Then, we have to also left out WS-15. But there isn't any.

12.) So, now, that we have eliminated the other two possibilities, we have got the only choice left, that J-20 is running WS-15.

*"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."* - Sherlock Holmes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... can we stop this ???*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

grey boy 2 said:


> A little friendly comparison between J-20 and T-50




What are you trying to compare exactly? One of the first pak-fa prototypes with no paint to one of the latest J-20 prototypes with pain?

If you want to passive aggressive insult the pak-fa atleast compare the latest painted prototype.







As for @Asok, you don't need afterburners in an underpowered aircraft with a thrust to weigh ratio under 1:1 to go vertically. The kenetic energy alone will be enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ptldM3 said:


> What are you trying to compare exactly? One of the first pak-fa prototypes with no paint to one of the latest J-20 prototypes with pain?
> 
> If you want to passive aggressive insult the pak-fa atleast compare the latest painted prototype.
> 
> View attachment 367061
> 
> 
> 
> As for @Asok, you don't need afterburners in an underpowered aircraft with a thrust to weigh ratio under 1:1 to go vertically. The kenetic energy alone will be enough.



*"you don't need afterburners in an underpowered aircraft with a thrust to weigh ratio under 1:1 to go vertically. The kenetic energy alone will be enough."*

Really? Show me an example, with a video clip, please.


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> *"you don't need afterburners in an underpowered aircraft with a thrust to weigh ratio under 1:1 to go vertically. The kenetic energy alone will be enough."*
> 
> Really? Show me an example, with a video clip, please.




Here are gliders with zero thrust.








Here is a 757

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ptldM3 said:


> Here are gliders with zero thrust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a 757



Thanks for the beautiful videos!
Let me give my opinions of them.

The glider is impressive. It is using its own kinetic energy for the loop. But its not like a sustained vertical climb demonstrated by J-20.

The 757 is climbing at an impressive 70 degree angle, but not vertical. It is using its kinetic energy and lifting force from the wings to do the climb, not just the raw engine thrust.

When you are vertical, the wings don't contribute upward lifting force. And when you are vertical for even just *for a few seconds*, the plane's entire body acts as a giant wind brake, dropping your horizontal speed quickly to below stall speed.

So you would have to rely on your engine's raw power to lift you up vertically, like a rocket, after a few seconds. That means your *Thrust to Weight Ratio must be > 1* in an extended vertical climb.

This sudden pointing the nose vertically is known as the Super-cobra maneuver, made famous by the Flankers. Notice how fast its horizontal speed drops.

Notice too, this Flanker is not climbing up much, its just hanging there in mid air. Probably, the pilot did not push the throttle to make thrust greater than the weight.


----------



## Deino

ptldM3 said:


> ...
> As for @Asok, you don't need afterburners in an underpowered aircraft with a thrust to weigh ratio under 1:1 to go vertically. The kenetic energy alone will be enough.




Exactly what I try to say since pages !!!

Again: that brief blurred video shows simply nothing, not a sustained climb nor anything impressive. Simply nothing at least to assume such calculations.
I'm sure these guys at CAC are still laughing ... 

As such this whole assumption on vertically climbings, thrust to weight ratio and that calculation up to +210 kN is simply wrong since the basic statement on which all this calculation is based on is wrong.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> The glider is impressive. It is using its own kinetic energy for the loop.





Yes, it never went vertically for long but nevertheless, it was going vertically with zero thrust.






Asok said:


> But its not like a sustained vertical climb demonstrated by J-20.






By those standards the J-20 never had a sustained vertical climb either, a true sustained vertical climb would be until the aircraft could not climb anymore and every aircraft has its altitude limit. The point is any aircraft can go virtually even if it has horrible thrust to weight ratios, granted it has enough airspeed when attempting a vertical climb.







Asok said:


> The 757 is climbing at an impressive 70 degree angle, *but not vertical.*






At the very end of the video it went full virtical.






Asok said:


> It is using its kinetic energy and lifting force from the wings to do the climb, not just the raw engine thrust.





Yes, that's what I said in the very beginning. Forward moment can make any aircraft go virticall.







Asok said:


> When you are vertical, the wings don't contribute upward lifting force. And when you are vertical for even just *for a few seconds*, the plane's entire body acts as a giant wind brake, dropping your horizontal speed quickly to below stall speed.
> 
> This move is known as the Super-cobra manuever, made famous by the Flankers.






Going virtically does not act as "giant wind break". A Cobra and virtical flight are two different things. The Cobra is due to a high angle of attack and a quick jerk of the centre stick. A 757 obviously can not do a Cobra, so it gradually goes virtically, just as a Flanker can also choose to gradually go virtical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

ptldM3 said:


> Yes, it never went virtually for long but nevertheless, it was going vertically with zero thrust.
> 
> By those standards the J-20 never had a sustained vertical climb either, a true sustained vertical climb would be until the aircraft could not climb anymore and every aircraft has its altitude limit. The point is any aircraft can go virtually even if it has horrible thrust to weight ratios, granted it has enough airspeed when attempting a vertical climb.
> 
> At the very end of the video it went full virtical.
> 
> Yes, that's what I said in the very beginning. Forward moment can make any aircraft go virticall.
> 
> Going virtically does not act as "giant wind break". A Cobra and virtical flight are two different things. The Cobra is due to a high angle of attack and a quick jerk of the centre stick. A 757 obviously can not do a Cobra, so it gradually goes virtically, just as a Flanker can also choose to gradually go virtical.



*"The Cobra is due to a high angle of attack and a quick jerk of the centre stick"*

That's what the J-20 did, a cobra by going suddenly vertical and then push the throttle to do a sustain climb. When you are vertical, your body will slow you down quickly like a brake. That's the purpose of a Super Cobra. It's actually not very useful in air combat, because it bleeds your energy too fast and too much.

If your enemy catch you doing that, he could loop over you like that glider and get behind you, without losing too much energy.

*"a true sustained vertical climb would be until the aircraft could not climb anymore and every aircraft has its altitude limit." *

This I disagreed. A sustain vertical climb could be done, long enough to demonstrate its Trust to Weight Ratio is > 1. No need to climb to maximum altitude.

In fact, if your maximum altitude is 60,000ft, you could climb vertically *far lower* than that, because you are not using lifting force from the wings, your accumulated kinetic energy, to help with the climb, just your raw engine power.

You will go up like a rocket, not like an airplane, and use up a lot of fuel and reach lower altitude.



Deino said:


> Exactly what I try to say since pages !!!
> 
> Again: that brief blurred video shows simply nothing, not a sustained climb nor anything impressive. Simply nothing at least to assume such calculations.
> I'm sure these guys at CAC are still laughing ...
> 
> As such this whole assumption on vertically climbings, thrust to weight ratio and that calculation up to +210 kN is simply wrong since the basic statement on which all this calculation is based on is wrong.
> 
> Deino



Starting at 1:03, It climbed vertically for at least 7 seconds and then disappeared into the cloud. We don't know its still climbing, since it disappeared into the clouds. The speed before the climb was very slow.






In this video, the vertical climb starts at 0:40, it also quickly disappear into the cloud after 5-6 seconds.

http://www.bilibili.com/video/av6668356/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> *That's what the J-20 did, a cobra *by going suddenly vertical and then push the throttle to do a sustain climb. When you are vertical, your body will slow you down quickly like a brake. That's the purpose of a Super Cobra. It's actually not very useful in air combat, because it bleeds your energy too fast and too much.






I have never seen a J-20 do a Cobra and let me reiterate what I said before, going into a vertical climb will not "slow you down quickly like a break" unless the aircraft does a Cobra maneuver which is something different altogether.
Its gravity and atmospheric conditions that will slow an aircraft down. 






Asok said:


> If your enemy catch you doing that, he could loop over you like that glider and get behind you, without losing too much energy.







The Cobra has actually been used in combat and it worked. In training exercises it also worked. The Cobra maneuver you see in air shows is not how pilots in combat would perform the Cobra. In airshows it is exaggerating and meant to awww, the crowed.







Asok said:


> This I disagreed. A sustain vertical climb could be done, long enough to demonstrate its Trust to Weight Ratio is > 1. No need to climb to maximum altitude.
> 
> In fact, if your maximum altitude is 60,000ft, you could climb vertically *far lower* than that, because you are not using lifting force from the wings, your accumulated kinetic energy, to help with the climb, just your raw engine power.
> 
> 
> You will go up like a rocket, not like an airplane, and use up a lot of fuel and reach lower altitude.





The point is that we don't know how long a J-20 can sustain a virtcall climb. Just as you were quick to point out the glider only briefly went virtically before it did a loop. We don't know how long that glider could have maintained virticall flight. What's important is that aircraft with horrible thrust to weight ratios can go into virticall climbs, even gliders with no thrust or engines can do it so people debating the thrust of the J-20 based off a brief virticall climb is pointless.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ptldM3 said:


> I have never seen a J-20 do a Cobra and let me reiterate what I said before, going into a vertical climb will not "slow you down quickly like a break" unless the aircraft does a Cobra maneuver which is something different altogether.
> Its gravity and atmospheric conditions that will slow an aircraft down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cobra has actually been used in combat and it worked. In training exercises it also worked. The Cobra maneuver you see in air shows is not how pilots in combat would perform the Cobra. In airshows it is exaggerating and meant to awww, the crowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that we don't know how long a J-20 can sustain a virtcall climb. Just as you were quick to point out the glider only briefly went virtically before it did a loop. We don't know how long that glider could have maintained virticall flight. What's important is that aircraft with horrible thrust to weight ratios can go into virticall climbs, even gliders with no thrust or engines can do it so people debating the thrust of the J-20 based off a brief virticall climb is pointless.




That glider is not doing a vertical climb, its doing a loop around using its own kinetic energy.

*"vertical climb will not "slow you down quickly like a brake" *

Turn your plane's body vertically will act as if its a giant air brake. It will bleed your horizontal speed. If you don't push the throttle, you will slow down, and then hang in the air momentarily, and then drop.

If you push the throttle, your horizontal speed will still quickly goes to zero, but then you will start climbing vertically entirely by your engine's raw power.

If you open your car doors fully, while driving on the road, and you don't step on the gas pedal, your car will slow down quickly, so why not an airplane?

The difference between a cobra and a sustain vertical climb is that in a Cobra, the pilot is not pushing the throttle to climb. He is just using the vertical body to slow down and let the other guy fly past him.

The J-20 did a sustain vertical climb into the cloud, how long it continue to climb after we can't see it anymore, we don't know.

I want to point out that it's horizontal speed was very slow, when it started the climb, so it was not converting its horizontal speed into the vertical climb, much.

My conclusion is that it requires TWR > 1, to do a vertical climb. I can accept the demo in the airshow is not sufficiently long enough for us to conclude beyond a shadow of doubt. 

But I am convinced that it doesn't need to climb all the way to maximum altitude to demonstrate its TWR is > 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

just got an update from my source, J-20 is using WS10B variants````````and the they plan to built 600+ j-20s```

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clibra

Asok said:


> I studied Electrical Engineering in University. I worked as a software engineer with US Defense Company in all my working life in US. We make Communication, Control, Intelligence, and Command equipments for Pentagon. While I don't have a Ph.D, all my colleagues have at least a Master and Ph.D in various fields.
> 
> Well, if my upper bound is too high, please use method of estimation I have shown to come up with your own estimates.
> 
> I would love to see you and Deino and others to do the same and see what values you would come up.
> 
> Not very hard at all. You can use a calculator to do the simple math.



Asok, are you an ABC or a new immigrant from China?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kuge

rcrmj said:


> just got an update from my source, J-20 is using WS10B variants````````and the they plan to built 600+ j-20s```


any source?
will those supposed 600+ be converted to ws-15 if it were readied? will that be cost effective than new j20 with ws-15?


----------



## Beast

kuge said:


> any source?
> will those supposed 600+ be converted to ws-15 if it were readied? will that be cost effective than new j20 with ws-15?


The WS-10B i believe can be transfer to J-10C once WS-15 is available.


----------



## rcrmj

kuge said:


> any source?
> will those supposed 600+ be converted to ws-15 if it were readied? will that be cost effective than new j20 with ws-15?


no source, `````600+ is the planned total number, doesnt have to be all WS-10 varants````he said ‘10B 很多' thats it````

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

clibra said:


> Asok, are you an ABC or a new immigrant from China?



Born in China, moved to Canada with my family when I was 11, and now living in US. I am bilingual. I can read and write Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

The J-20 was never designed to be a dogfighter and doesn't even have a gun.

Here's the location of the gun port on the F-22. You can see the outline very clearly.







Where is the gun port on the J-20? We have high resolution photos now. There is no excuse for not being able to identify the gun port at this point.










Short-range air-to-air missiles have a minimum range. You need a gun in a dogfight. The F-4 Phantom already made the mistake of not having a gun.






Is CAC incapable of designing a gun? Does PLAAF not have a gun requirement for fighters? Of course not. J-10 has a gun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dingyibvs

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20 was never designed to be a dogfighter and doesn't even have a gun.
> 
> Here's the location of the gun port on the F-22. You can see the outline very clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the gun port on the J-20? We have high resolution photos now. There is no excuse for not being able to identify the gun port at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short-range air-to-air missiles have a minimum range. You need a gun in a dogfight. The F-4 Phantom already made the mistake of not having a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is CAC incapable of designing a gun? Does PLAAF not have a gun requirement for fighters? Of course not. J-10 has a gun.



There are two possible locations, and you can see both of them on the 2nd J-20 pic. One is at the same location as the F-22, you can see a panel of different color there. Another is right in front of the root of the left wing, you can also see a different set of panels there.


----------



## ahojunk

_Can you guys tell if this is legit?_

========
*China to Make 500 J-20Bs with Homegrown Powerful WS-15 Vector Engines*
*Posted:* December 26, 2016 | Author: chankaiyee2 |


Taiwan’s official Central News Agency says in its report on December 24 that China will build 500 J-20B, more than the future total number of other fifth-generation fighter jets in Asian Pacific.

In its report, the agency quotes Hong Kong military commentator Leung Kwok-leung’s December-24 article on Mingpao that speeding up the deployment of J-20s is China’s set strategic goal.

J-20B is an improved version of J-20 installed with China’s new homegrown powerful WS-15 Emei turbofans. China has already developed WS-15 all-direction vector turbofan with thrust-weight ratio of 10. The turbofan is now undergoing intensive tests and will be ready to be installed in J-20B by 2019, an improved version of J-20.

Leung’s article quotes Xu Yongling, China’s chief test pilot, as saying in the past, “China’s future principal fighter jet J-20 will be formally commissioned in 2017. The number deployed will be close to 100.”

There has recently been information from external sources that China will deploy 4 air regiments of J-20 fighter jets within a short period of time. There are 96 fighter jets in 4 regiments, close to the 100 disclosed by Xu. According to China’s production capacity, it takes less than 3 years for China to build so many J-20s.

The article says that China now has two J-20 production lines, one producing J-20 with Russian AL-31 engines and the other producing J-20A installed with China’s WS-10B Taihang engines.

Russia has developed 99M1 to 99M4 improved versions of AL-31F, but China has also developed improved versions of WS-10 WS-10A and WS-10B better than Russian ones with thrust-weight ratio of 9 than Russia’s 8 and longer life of 1,500 hours than 800 hours of the old version.

It is said that a third production line has recently gone into operation to produce J-20A. As each line makes one J-20 a month, their combined production capacity will be 36 a year.

The article discloses that by the end of 2019, there will be a fourth J-20 production line for trial production of J-20B using China’s homegrown WS-15 Emei turbofans.

Due to the use of WS-15, J-20B’s cruise speed will be Mach 1.8 and maximum speed exceeds Mach 2.2, equal to those of US F-22. China will produce 500 J-20B, more than the future total number of other fifth-generation fighter jets in Asia-Pacific.

The article points out that recently the appearance of 4 J-20s with serial numbers from 78271 to 78274 have been disclosed on the Internet. Such serial numbers are PLA air force’s numbers. All those J-20s have low visibility coating.

In addition TerraServer took a satellite photo on November 17 of two J-20s at Dingxin Air Force Base in Jiuquan City, Gansu Province. The J-20s were obviously taking part in the annual large-scale “Red Sword” combined drill in November. The drill is the largest-scale real war air force combined drill so far in the world. The photo proves that J-20 will soon be deployed for real war.

Source: taiwan.huanqiu.com “Taiwan media: Mainland will build 500 J-20Bs exceeding the total number of fifth-generation fighter jets in Asia-Pacific” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese)


----------



## Beast

This Chan kai yee article is not very reliable. Usually Taiwanese source has lots of BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ahojunk

ahojunk said:


> _Can you guys tell if this is legit?_
> 
> ========
> *China to Make 500 J-20Bs with Homegrown Powerful WS-15 Vector Engines*
> *Posted:* December 26, 2016 | Author: chankaiyee2 |
> 
> 
> Taiwan’s official Central News Agency says in its report on December 24 that China will build 500 J-20B, more than the future total number of other fifth-generation fighter jets in Asian Pacific.
> 
> In its report, the agency quotes Hong Kong military commentator Leung Kwok-leung’s December-24 article on Mingpao that speeding up the deployment of J-20s is China’s set strategic goal.
> 
> J-20B is an improved version of J-20 installed with China’s new homegrown powerful WS-15 Emei turbofans. China has already developed WS-15 all-direction vector turbofan with thrust-weight ratio of 10. The turbofan is now undergoing intensive tests and will be ready to be installed in J-20B by 2019, an improved version of J-20.
> 
> Leung’s article quotes Xu Yongling, China’s chief test pilot, as saying in the past, “China’s future principal fighter jet J-20 will be formally commissioned in 2017. The number deployed will be close to 100.”
> 
> There has recently been information from external sources that China will deploy 4 air regiments of J-20 fighter jets within a short period of time. There are 96 fighter jets in 4 regiments, close to the 100 disclosed by Xu. According to China’s production capacity, it takes less than 3 years for China to build so many J-20s.
> 
> The article says that China now has two J-20 production lines, one producing J-20 with Russian AL-31 engines and the other producing J-20A installed with China’s WS-10B Taihang engines.
> 
> Russia has developed 99M1 to 99M4 improved versions of AL-31F, but China has also developed improved versions of WS-10 WS-10A and WS-10B better than Russian ones with thrust-weight ratio of 9 than Russia’s 8 and longer life of 1,500 hours than 800 hours of the old version.
> 
> It is said that a third production line has recently gone into operation to produce J-20A. As each line makes one J-20 a month, their combined production capacity will be 36 a year.
> 
> The article discloses that by the end of 2019, there will be a fourth J-20 production line for trial production of J-20B using China’s homegrown WS-15 Emei turbofans.
> 
> Due to the use of WS-15, J-20B’s cruise speed will be Mach 1.8 and maximum speed exceeds Mach 2.2, equal to those of US F-22. China will produce 500 J-20B, more than the future total number of other fifth-generation fighter jets in Asia-Pacific.
> 
> The article points out that recently the appearance of 4 J-20s with serial numbers from 78271 to 78274 have been disclosed on the Internet. Such serial numbers are PLA air force’s numbers. All those J-20s have low visibility coating.
> 
> In addition TerraServer took a satellite photo on November 17 of two J-20s at Dingxin Air Force Base in Jiuquan City, Gansu Province. The J-20s were obviously taking part in the annual large-scale “Red Sword” combined drill in November. The drill is the largest-scale real war air force combined drill so far in the world. The photo proves that J-20 will soon be deployed for real war.
> 
> Source: taiwan.huanqiu.com “Taiwan media: Mainland will build 500 J-20Bs exceeding the total number of fifth-generation fighter jets in Asia-Pacific” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese)


.
When first read it, it didn't sound legit. Just too good to be true!



Beast said:


> This Chan kai yee article is not very reliable. Usually Taiwanese source has lots of BS.


Thanks for your confirmation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-20A1

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## pzkilo

cirr said:


> J-20A1
> 
> View attachment 367347


WS10B？？ source？


----------



## Deino

pzkilo said:


> WS10B？？ source？


No ... that's one of these yellow LRIP birds we know since some time.


----------



## The Eagle

dingyibvs said:


> Another is right in front of the root of the left wing, you can also see a different set of panels there.



Those door panels, under the both wings are side bays for WVRAAM or SRAAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

For one PL-10 SRAAM each.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## dingyibvs

The Eagle said:


> Those door panels, under the both wings are side bays for WVRAAM or SRAAM.



I was talking about the top side.


----------



## Deino

dingyibvs said:


> I was talking about the top side.




Sorry, but then I don't know what kind of doors You mean on top-side ?!!

The only doors exactly under the wings are the main-gear doors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Eagle

dingyibvs said:


> I was talking about the top side.



Actually, I can't see any door on topside or may be you should share a picture with a pointing to as such, so could be determined. You may be looking at a body patch on right fuselage but that's too back-warded place. Also, on right side near conopy, it is already carrying refueling prob. So these are total panels. however, if I assume a gun then it must be on left side near somewhere front part of fuselage/ frame. Just my opinion so can be wrong.


----------



## dingyibvs

The Eagle said:


> Actually, I can't see any door on topside or may be you should share a picture with a pointing to as such, so could be determined. You may be looking at a body patch on right fuselage but that's too back-warded place. Also, on right side near conopy, it is already carrying refueling prob. So these are total panels. however, if I assume a gun then it must be on left side near somewhere front part of fuselage/ frame. Just my opinion so can be wrong.



Here:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> No ... that's one of these yellow LRIP birds we know since some time.


WS10B WS10B WS10B, and loads of them````you can dig at this direction now```

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

Today is the sixth year anniversary of J20's maiden flight
2011




2016-2017

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

We're lucky enough to witness the J-20 6th anniversary (首飞六周年！见证歼20如何一步步成为亚洲最强)

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## grey boy 2

New pictures?

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> New pictures?




Indeed ! Esp. the one on top is new !


----------



## Dungeness

YuChen said:


> Today is the sixth year anniversary of J20's maiden flight
> 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-2017




I remember that day when I glued to my computer and hit "F5" all night long. I called home to tell my mom about the news that she didn't have any idea about, the moment 2001 landed, and let go all tears. I did not know who else I could share the news with. Silly me.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> We're lucky enough to witness the J-20 6th anniversary (首飞六周年！见证歼20如何一步步成为亚洲最强)



no. 2102 is a photoshop fake !



rcrmj said:


> WS10B WS10B WS10B, and loads of them````you can dig at this direction now```




ähhhhm, care to explain why You think so ?


----------



## grey boy 2

带机号！大器已成！疑曝歼20量产服役型高清图

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> no. 2102 is a photoshop fake !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ähhhhm, care to explain why You think so ?


Doesn't matter what I think or what it may 'look' like until the day before yesterday, I wasn't sure whether it's a modified Russian AL variants or WS10 variants, but now I'm sure it's WS10B variants, 'because they said it out clearly' 

btw, you can dig out how many ALs we imported since 2002 and how many required for 10A/B/C 11A/B,15s build-ups, as far as I know, the number does come very close to the number of 3 and 3.5 gen fighters we build that need AL series engines.. and in terms of J-20, it is not in testing phase now, as there are nearly 20+ already in service, and 20+ more on production, and rigid exercises have been taking places, therefore a large number of reliable engine supply is vital ```

there will be loads and loads J-20 rolling out of production line`` so as hundreds of 10C, 16, 15 and 11D within 5 years````its a serious business mate, he said, it is like preparing for a full scale war````they said this much, and I conveyed this much here, please don't ask me for prove```

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Eagle

dingyibvs said:


> Here:




In such case, gun will be installed, most probably on left side, as this particular picture with red highlighted area tells that these are sealed/permanent pieces and no opening panels.


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## grey boy 2

New HD pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Asoka

Here is my version of the modified poster for the 6th Anniversary of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## jkroo

grey boy 2 said:


> New HD pictures


Ah, what an elegant baby.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

3 J-20 production line operating at the same time, Fragment Camouflage will stay as well
珠海航展上碎片迷彩版的歼20惊鸿一瞥让人好不过瘾，最近迷彩歼20又有大图流出，机尾处似乎被作者抹去了编号，可能也交付了试训部队。有消息称，目前成飞已有两条歼20战机生产线，第三条也将开工，届时中国或可年产36架歼20战机。（图片来源：@jacksonbobo）

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Amazing! J-20 can turn without first banking. Click on the link.






Normal turning with sharp banking first.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> J-20 can turn without first banking. Click on the link.
> 
> View attachment 367917
> 
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/data/attachment/album/201406/23/110516ts59s9y294glzr52.gif
> 
> Normal turning with banking first.
> 
> http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjE3MjAzMDE2.html





It's called a rudder, every aircraft can basically do that just like every aircraft can go into a verticall climb without afterburners.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Rumors that the DSI of J-20 is adjustable? (20这图是可调Bump？)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Rumors that the DSI of J-20 is adjustable? (20这图是可调Bump？)



It shows the DSI Bump is flexible. The lighter color of the DSI probably signify its made of different material than the surrounding area.


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Very interesting, hopefully this is not photoshopped.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> It shows the DSI Bump is flexible. The lighter color of the DSI probably signify its made of different material than the surrounding area.




Sorry again to calm down Your enthusiasm, but this images could be a hint; surely not a proof and even more such a dent - as if a mechanic had used a hammer on that part - makes simply no sense.

IMO it more an issue of lightning/shadow.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Sorry again to calm down Your enthusiasm, but this images could be a hint; surely not a proof and even more such a dent - as if a mechanic had used a hammer on that part - makes simply no sense.
> 
> IMO it more an issue of lightning/shadow.
> 
> Deino




It is not a proof. But to make a flexible surface that is adjustable is not beyond anybody's ability. The value of adjustable DSI is to allow optimum airflow to the engine at various speed from low subsonic speed, to transonic speed and supersonic speed.

The engineer must first find out the optimum shape of the DSI Bump at various speeds, and then program the FCS computer to adjust the shape at that speed.

This kind of innovation that is not hard to copy once someone has demonstragted it and proved that it works. I expect more plane will use it in the future. This kind of adjustable DSI saves several hundred kilograms of weight and save the internal space for the machinery to adjust airflow and get rid of the troublesome boundary layer.

DSI is a major innovation invented and patented by Lockeed Martin. It is an example of Think-Outside-of-the-Box invention.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> The engineer must first find out the optimum shape of the DSI Bump at various speeds, and then program the FCS computer to adjust the shape at that speed.




Indeed and I did not deny that possibility. However exactly that perfect or optimum shape is surely not that dent.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Indeed and I did not deny that possibility. However exactly that perfect or optimum shape is surely not that dent.



"However exactly that perfect or optimum shape is *surely* not that dent."

I won't say "*surely*" regarding that "dent", unless I am an aeronautical engineer and did the computer simulation and modeling on DSI.

DSI is a new technology only demonstrated on US and Chinese planes, not even the Russian or European, or Japanese have demonstrated it yet. It requires a lot of Fluid Dynamic Modeling and Simulation on Supercomputer. 

It is not something our eyes or mind could easily simulate through intuition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> I won't say "*surely*" regarding that "dent", unless I am an aeronautical engineer and did the computer simulation and modeling on DSI.
> *
> DSI is a new technology only demonstrated on US and Chinese planes, not even the Russian* or European, or Japanese have demonstrated it yet. It requires a lot of Fluid Dynamic Modeling and Simulation on Supercomputer.
> 
> It is not something our eyes or mind could easily simulate through intuition.




You are really hyping things up, everything from the J-20 using its rudder to going vertical without afterburners is basic to all aircraft, for instance a Cesnna can turn without banking, it's called a rudder, an airliner can go ful verticall with no afterburners and horrible T/W ratio. There is no need to act like any of these things are some magnificent breakthroughs that are new to the J-20.

As for the DSI, the concept is old and highly overrated. All a DSI does is divert boundary layer airflow. The 1950s Mig-21 did the same thing except it used an adjustable nose cone. Intake ramps do the same thing. A DSI is much more simple than an adjustable nose cone or intake ramps because it is fixed and you don't need any fancy supercomputers for DSI, aircraft in the 1950s and 1960s did not use any fancy supercomputers despite having more complex air intake systems. The boundary layers and vortexes on an entire aircraft is much more complex that a single fixed DSI.

As for the J-20s DSI, I am curious as to the latest picture with what looks like a dent. If the Chinese actually pulled off something that regulates airflow without an intake ramp or external moving parts than its an innovative design approach to regulating aircraft more efficiently with less consequences (theoretically) to moving intake ramps.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

The Cone shape DSI Bump on the grey picture seems noticeably fuller than the yellow bird. Notice the yellow bird's landing gear bay door is open. It is at the lowest speed preparing for landing. We can't tell what speed the grey bird is at.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

We have been wondering how many J-20 will China able to produce each year. Producing J-20 is not just opening more production lines. The problem of producing enough critical components like airframe bulkheads and engine parts like high quality fan blades must be solved first.

China have invented the technique *3D Printing *that combines with *Intelligent Micro-Forging*. Conventional 3D printing use Laser to melt layers and layers of deposited metal powders to shape a component. This have the inherent problem of having unmelted powder and tiny air bubbles in the component, creating potential softness and weakness that is unacceptable for high strength parts.

The *Intelligent Micro-Forging* technique solved most of those problems, and greatly increase the strength, stiffness, and fatigue resistance of the product.

It also greatly reduced the time from 90 days to 10 days to produce a large component. And reduced the amount of metal powder required by 90%, and instead of using the expensive laser, it enable the use of the inexpensive conventional electrical arc for melting, which is only 1/10 of the cost of the laser.

Those are big savings.

The largest component produced using this technique is 2.2 meters long and weight 260 kg. The company is developing facility to producing component of *5.5m x 4.2m × 1.5m* in the future.

"该技术不仅适合于加工复杂的部件，且速度提高了许多，如制造一个*2吨重*的大型金属部件，工期从过去的90天，减为*10天*左右，同时，以金属丝材为原料，其成本为目前普遍使用的激光扑粉粉材的*1/10*左右，或者说，材料成本*降9成*，利用率则增加到8成以上。热源方面使用高效廉价的电弧为热源，成本为目前普遍使用的大多需要进口的激光器的*1/10*。

　　这一技术为张海鸥团队经过十多年潜心攻关才取得有成果，目前也刚刚突破，具体实用等尚继续需要进一步的研究，其实就是要造更大的设备，但是已应用的效果已相当喜人。报道时，打印出的高性能金属锻件，已达到2.2米长，重约260公斤，具备打印1800×1400×50毫米尺寸超大型零件的能力。现有设备已打印飞机用钛合金、海洋深潜器、核电用钢等八种金属材料。

报道中称，正在建设的微铸锻铣复合制造设备能制造5.5×4.2×1.5的金属锻件，这个单位自然为“米”，"

*http://www.cjfh.org/news/zhongguojunshi/220690.html*

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

New picture  (黄师傅，十三姨来了)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Looks like the DSI bump of J-20 does changed in different situations

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Looks like the DSI bump of J-20 does changed in different situations



In addition to the dent, the Bump looks flatter. I wonder what speed is the plane flying at.

Looking closer, its clearly a large dent, not just a optical illusion.






This picture shows a smaller and less deep dent.






Air flow into the intake changes according to various speed, Altitude, Angle of Attack, and tightness of the turn. Changing the shape of the Bump could deliver smooth air flow into the engine at wide ranging, various conditions, without the use of cumbersome machinery and diverters.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

grey boy 2 said:


> New picture  (黄师傅，十三姨来了)



The13th LRIP?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

An old new picture

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## psr540

Asok said:


> The Cone shape DSI Bump on the grey picture seems noticeably fuller than the yellow bird. Notice the yellow bird's landing gear bay door is open. It is at the lowest speed preparing for landing. We can't tell what speed the grey bird is at.
> 
> View attachment 368109


None sense too much. It's an illusion, the DSI bump is bottom aligned with that hexagon patch, further down from there is just painting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> It is not a proof. But to make a flexible surface that is adjustable is not beyond anybody's ability. The value of adjustable DSI is to allow optimum airflow to the engine at various speed from low subsonic speed, to transonic speed and supersonic speed.
> 
> The engineer must first find out the optimum shape of the DSI Bump at various speeds, and then program the FCS computer to adjust the shape at that speed.
> 
> This kind of innovation that is not hard to copy once someone has demonstragted it and proved that it works. I expect more plane will use it in the future. This kind of adjustable DSI saves several hundred kilograms of weight and save the internal space for the machinery to adjust airflow and get rid of the troublesome boundary layer.
> 
> DSI is a major innovation invented and patented by Lockeed Martin. It is an example of Think-Outside-of-the-Box invention.


Yeah...What you are talking about as something 'new' from China is actually decades old from the US. It is called the 'spike' on the F-111. 

http://f-111.net/models/inlets/index.htm

The main purpose of any inlet airflow control mechanism, no matter how complex or simple, is to slow down supersonic air to subsonic *PRIOR* to contact with the engine. This is solved.

But the next problem is on how to control this process at as much flight environments as possible.

In order to understand the complexities of inlet air control, especially for the interested laymen, Lockheed produced this document...

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2013/HowInletsWork8-19-13.pdf

The SR-71 is an extreme but that is precisely why we should understand the SR-71's engines.

While the SR-71 is an 'extreme' aircraft, it operates at altitudes borderline suborbital and cruises at speed too high for most materials, it cannot reach those extremes in an instant. In other words, before it cruises at Mach 3+ at 85,000 ft, it must starts from 0 kts/hr at 0 ft altitude and travels gradually thru several atmospheric layers of diverse air density that affects airflow, going from most dense at sea level to least dense at 85,000 ft. Every engineer, even the software kind, knows that the wider the range of the operating environment, the more robust and complex the mechanism must be to compensate for the greater amount of variables. This make the SR-71's engines ideal for understanding how other inlets works.

The relevant section in the above source is section 3.7 on subsonic inlets. Basically, it means you cannot simply slow down supersonic air abruptly. It must be done gradually.



> Therefore the inlet must be designed to treat the air very carefully, which means very gentle turns and slow diffusion, to prevent the airflow from separating from the inlet walls and forming eddies and vortices. If this is done properly, the available total pressure will be converted efficiently to static pressure.


To put it another way...*EVERYTHING* must be done at subsonic velocities. Therefore, before going to supersonic environment, we must understand how to best create controlling mechanisms for the subsonic regime.

The reason why the F-111, F-14, F-15 and other aircrafts that have complex inlet supersonic air control mechanisms is because we want to have greater control of airflow in the subsonic regime. Less complex mechanism, like the DSI 'bump', means lesser control. Or less fine grained control.

Most people perceive 'sea level' to mean literally sea surface altitude -- 0. But in practice, like how aviation views it, sea level do have a range where air density is relatively uniform enough where aerodynamics and engine performance do not have enough variations to affect flight. That range is from 0 to approximately 1000 ft, or roughly 300 meters.

On the F-111 where the jet's mission is to fly at Mach in that 'sea level' altitude range, where air density is greatest, if supersonic airflow is not slowed down to subsonic speed in a controlled manner, the TF30 engine can literally explode from violent unstarts. Just because you have sea level dense air for aerodynamics and jet engine operations, that does not mean you are safer than in lower density air. This is why some aircraft designs are best at a certain altitude range, while some designs are best at other altitude range.

For the DSI, the moment you want that 'bump' to be variable in any dimension, you deviate from the original philosophy of the DSI, which is about physical simplicity and weight saving.

Understanding basic inlet philosophy and experience is why your claim that the J-20 have a variable DSI system is at best suspect. That does not mean it cannot be done. It was done on the F-111.


----------



## cirr

Looks like 2 regiments of J-20s end of 2017 are on 






Let's have 200 J-20A1-Ns for starters and at least 600 J-20B/C/Ds... to follow

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

cirr said:


> Looks like 2 regiments of J-20s end of 2017 are on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's have 200 J-20A1-Ns for starters and at least 600 J-20B/C/Ds... to follow



Let's have a minimum of 1000 J-20 by 2030. That's adding ~100 planes per year. If ShenYang don't have enough J-11, J-15, J-16 orders, they can have one or two J-20 production lines. Spread the production capacity around the country. So we can have another 1000-2000 J-20 easily, if we want to, or need to.

No one can compete with the Giant Panda, when it comes to producing things.

..............................

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

They claimed thats for letting the radar stations to track J-20 during test flight, without that, no trace no track on the radar screen? 图片中，黄色的J-20腹部，挂有龙伯透镜，因此据论坛定理，没有刷隐身涂料的J-20就挂上龙伯透镜试飞，是为了避免地面雷达找不到。J-20隐身性能远超外界想象！

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> They claimed thats for letting the radar stations to track J-20 during test flight, without that, no trace no track on the radar screen? 图片中，黄色的J-20腹部，挂有龙伯透镜，因此据论坛定理，没有刷隐身涂料的J-20就挂上龙伯透镜试飞，是为了避免地面雷达找不到。J-20隐身性能远超外界想象！



Good eyes! The tough, heat resistant, ceramic based RAM coating is probably already done before the yellow primer is put on. The ceramic based RAM coating is not a sprayed on polymer paint, but must be baked in a high temperature oven. The yellow primer, in addition to other purposes, is to allow the outer camouflage paint adhere to the body.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

No. 23

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

A bit bigger ...











grey boy 2 said:


> They claimed thats for letting the radar stations to track J-20 during test flight, without that, no trace no track on the radar screen? 图片中，黄色的J-20腹部，挂有龙伯透镜，因此据论坛定理，没有刷隐身涂料的J-20就挂上龙伯透镜试飞，是为了避免地面雷达找不到。J-20隐身性能远超外界想象！




But that is well known since some years and is called a Luneburg lens; the Raptor uses this too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luneburg_lens

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事

The splinter camouflage was retained. 

Nothing else is worth discussing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Daniel808

Deino said:


> No. 23
> 
> View attachment 368493



No.23?
What you mean about "No.23" ?

can you give little insight about that, sir @Deino 
Thanks in advance


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> The splinter camouflage was retained.
> 
> Nothing else is worth discussing.




So - just to be sure - these two splinter camouflaged J-20s 78273 & 78274 are the two LRIP ones we already know in the splinter-scheme ?? ... and the two plain grey ones 78271 & 78272 are therefore the two LRIP ones we already know in the plain grey. So reports about that yellow one from 13. January being actually the 5th LRIP bird and 13th J-20 altogether are correct ?





Daniel808 said:


> No.23?
> What you mean about "No.23" ?
> 
> can you give little insight about that, sir @Deino
> Thanks in advance



Sorry for the confusion, but given the standard serial-numbers these are 78x7x with 787-611 = 176 Brigade and the xx reserved for the individual aircraft numbers in that unit. Sorry if You thought, these are already number 23 and 24.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Sorry for Topic but the Thought of PAF pilots Training with PLAAF and their J-20's is such a Vital Experience we will be having with Stealth Platform .. that will enhance our Training to TOP notch  
I am impatiently waiting for our JF block-3 , J-31 and PLAAF's J-20 to fly together

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

HD picture

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## slng

If we have Details of this pic, it will be great... very nice bird indeed~!


cirr said:


>

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

A closer look at the EODAS of J-20
jetfight2000
1月15日 11:33 来自 微博 weibo.com
J-20 EODAS细节曝光。近日有大师发布了J-20量产型的高清大图，暴露了机头侧面EODAS光学传感器窗口的若干细节。该图片显示光学传感器镜头实际上位于菱形窗口的底部而非中央，所占的面积不超过窗口面积的1/5，这样的布局实在是令人费解。研判该镜头有可能在扫描时可以上下移动或转动，从而扩大了EODAS对飞机侧面空间监视的范围。在此感谢图片原作者@goneless 。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> So - just to be sure - these two splinter camouflaged J-20s 78273 & 78274 are the two LRIP ones we already know in the splinter-scheme ?? ... and the two plain grey ones 78271 & 78272 are therefore the two LRIP ones we already know in the plain grey. So reports about that yellow one from 13. January being actually the 5th LRIP bird and 13th J-20 altogether are correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion, but given the standard serial-numbers these are 78x7x with 787-611 = 176 Brigade and the xx reserved for the individual aircraft numbers in that unit. Sorry if You thought, these are already number 23 and 24.
> 
> Deino



78271 is the first J-20 to be splinter camouflaged.


----------



## Asoka

China solved the problem of allowing J-20, and other planes, to form a inflight Stealthy Network using Laser Communication only. 

This* Laser Communication Network* allow a direct path communication distance of 144km and 2.5Gbps capacity. The distance could be extended using drones as relay stations or upload to satellites.

"就在上周，中国的两架运-12小型运输机之间，完成了一次具有里程碑意义的航空通讯技术实验。在*144公里*的距离上，两机进行了带宽可达*2.5Gbps*的机载激光通讯。这是什么概念呢？意味着两架飞机之间如果要传输一部1080P的高清电影，仅仅需要1分钟。要说这项技术的意义到底有多大？想象下，一架歼-20或者多架隐身轰炸机在激光通讯卫星和无人机的数据中继下，可以不打开雷达和接受任何电磁信号保持电磁静默的前体下，实现实时更新和跟踪目标动态，还可以在敌方没有任何察觉前，在防区外发射精确制导武器或者远程空空导弹，摧毁敌方的关键节点，这种能力也可以称作”*全电子静默隐身攻击*“。而激光通讯就是完成这样任务的最理想手段。"

"显然随着中国在量子通讯技术的蓬勃发展，会反向助力中国在激光通讯领域获得更多更新的突破，未来激光通讯不仅仅会装备歼-20、轰炸机，还可以装备到任何想要通讯的平台上，一个全新的*激光通讯网络*正在展开中。"

"早在2000年左右，解放军就装备了大气层内激光通讯系统。随着近些年代来量子通讯技术的热络，激光通讯和量子通讯的结合更是获得了突飞猛进的发展。在2012年，中国就完成了卫星和地面的激光通讯测试网的组建，这项由哈工大组织的通讯工程，当年就实现了500Mbps的通讯带宽。要知道欧洲可是到了2016年才成功发射自己的激光通讯卫星实验平台，在2016年的1月，欧洲数据中继卫星系统(EDRS)的第一颗卫星才升空，对比中国已经落后了4年！"












*144公里内全靠激光联络 未来歼20能用它实现全静默隐身攻击*
*http://club.china.com/data/thread/272425572/2788/34/51/2_1.html*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> China solved the problem of allowing J-20, and other planes, to form a inflight Stealthy Network using Laser Communication only.
> 
> This* Laser Communication Network* allow a direct path communication distance of 144km and 2.5Gbps capacity. The distance could be extended using drones as relay stations or upload to satellites.
> 
> "就在上周，中国的两架运-12小型运输机之间，完成了一次具有里程碑意义的航空通讯技术实验。在*144公里*的距离上，两机进行了带宽可达*2.5Gbps*的机载激光通讯。这是什么概念呢？意味着两架飞机之间如果要传输一部1080P的高清电影，仅仅需要1分钟。要说这项技术的意义到底有多大？想象下，一架歼-20或者多架隐身轰炸机在激光通讯卫星和无人机的数据中继下，可以不打开雷达和接受任何电磁信号保持电磁静默的前体下，实现实时更新和跟踪目标动态，还可以在敌方没有任何察觉前，在防区外发射精确制导武器或者远程空空导弹，摧毁敌方的关键节点，这种能力也可以称作”*全电子静默隐身攻击*“。而激光通讯就是完成这样任务的最理想手段。"
> 
> "显然随着中国在量子通讯技术的蓬勃发展，会反向助力中国在激光通讯领域获得更多更新的突破，未来激光通讯不仅仅会装备歼-20、轰炸机，还可以装备到任何想要通讯的平台上，一个全新的*激光通讯网络*正在展开中。"
> 
> "早在2000年左右，解放军就装备了大气层内激光通讯系统。随着近些年代来量子通讯技术的热络，激光通讯和量子通讯的结合更是获得了突飞猛进的发展。在2012年，中国就完成了卫星和地面的激光通讯测试网的组建，这项由哈工大组织的通讯工程，当年就实现了500Mbps的通讯带宽。要知道欧洲可是到了2016年才成功发射自己的激光通讯卫星实验平台，在2016年的1月，欧洲数据中继卫星系统(EDRS)的第一颗卫星才升空，对比中国已经落后了4年！"
> 
> 
> View attachment 369207
> 
> 
> View attachment 369208
> 
> 
> *144公里内全靠激光联络 未来歼20能用它实现全静默隐身攻击*
> *http://club.china.com/data/thread/272425572/2788/34/51/2_1.html*



*China Game-Changing J-20 FGFA and the related technologies e.g. quantum telecommunication, etc will totally alter East Asian geopolitical landscapes *

and sadly for the USA, there is nothing she can do about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> *China Game-Changing J-20 FGFA and the related technologies e.g. quantum telecommunication, etc will totally alter East Asian geopolitical landscapes *
> 
> and sadly for the USA, there is nothing she can do about it.



And *Quantum Radar* and other *Anti-Stealth Radars* shows what a Trillion dollars big mistake/scam F-35 really is. Stealth, it (F-35) will not be in the future, no one will be, in fact. So air combat will go back to the time before "Stealth". Anyone who* Can't run, Can't fight, Can't turn, or Can't climb* will be clubbed like baby seals.

"In quantum radars, a photon is split by a crystal into two entangled photons, a process known as "parametric down-conversion." The radar splits multiple photons into entangled pairs—and A and a B, so to speak. The radar systems sends one half of the pairs—the As—via microwave beam into the air. The other set, the Bs, remains at the radar base. By studying the photons retained at the radar base, the radar operators can tell what happens to the photons broadcast outward. Did they run into an object? How large was it? How fast was it traveling and in what direction? What does it look like?

Quantum radars defeat stealth by using subatomic particles, not radio waves. Subatomic particles don't care if an object's shape was designed to reduce a traditional, radio wave-based radar signature. Quantum radar would also ignore traditional radar jamming and spoofing methods such as radio-wave radar jammers and chaff.

China isn't the only country working on quantum radar: Lockheed Martin was granted a patent on a theoretical design 2008. Lockheed's plans were more far-reaching, including the ability to "visualize useful target details through background and/or camouflaging clutter, through plasma shrouds around hypersonic air vehicles, through the layers of concealment hiding underground facilities, IEDs, mines, and other threats." In many ways, Lockheed's concept of quantum radar resembles the spaceship and handheld sensors on "Star Trek."

Since the 2008 patent, Lockheed's been silent on the subject of quantum radars. Given what a technological leap such a system would be, it's quite possible the research has gone "black"—highly classified and subject to a high level of secrecy."

*China Claims It Developed "Quantum" Radar To See Stealth Planes*
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a22996/china-quantum-stealth-radar/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

IMO the F-35 is much overrated 4.88 generation fighter. I read somewhere there are more than 300 defects discovered in the plane and counting based on reports by the Pentagon e.g. structural issues. 

Unresolved these fighter are hurriedly put into service. They are not fully combat ready and even when they are so, I do not think they are a match for China J-20 which continues to evolve.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> IMO the F-35 is much overrated 4.88 generation fighter. I read somewhere there are more than 300 defects discovered in the plane and counting based on reports by the Pentagon e.g. structural issues.
> 
> Unresolved these fighter are hurriedly put into service. They are not fully combat ready and even when they are so, I do not think they are a match for China J-20 which continues to evolve.



I don't know where you got this F-35 is a "4.88 generation fighter" from. It's grossly overweighted. It can't Super cruise. It's maneuverability is poorer than the F-15, F-16, and F-18, its supposed to replace. This thing is made for Cancellation, but instead its going to make 3000 copies, for the next 20-30 years.

The J-20 will have this *flying fat pig (F-35) *for breakfast, lunch, snack and dinner, at any time, at any day.

There is no budget problem or industrial capacity barrier to prevent China from producing 500-3000, different variants of J-20, in the next 20-40 years, if anyone threatens China with wars.

J-20 will continue to develop and evolve, to include networked and distributed AESA, Quantum Radar, Laser Canon, Laser Communication Networking, Optical Stealth; while F-22 and F-35, will not. I think that's the biggest difference. F-22 is canceled, and F-35 is totally maxed out in internal space, and grossly overweight already.

This lack of internal space is a severe limitation for a stealthy plane. For other planes, if they want to include a new capability, they could use an external Pod.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## slng

There should be another study for F-35 proceeding failure to delivers the goal. Those *** should be prosecuted having billions of money put into waste/someone pocket

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## psr540

Asok said:


> China solved the problem of allowing J-20, and other planes, to form a inflight Stealthy Network using Laser Communication only.
> 
> This* Laser Communication Network* allow a direct path communication distance of 144km and 2.5Gbps capacity. The distance could be extended using drones as relay stations or upload to satellites.



Damn it's just very primitive technology test, it might be years or even decades when we could have a mature application out of this. Let me ask you a question Asok, how do you solve stable point to point laser connection between two fast moving objects? Laser communication has its limitation, don't hype things up. It really silly to see a self claimed tech guy like you to constantly post things with no ground base, you are LIKE many many amateurs on China military forums, one thing and you guys blow it up to 100 things, so silly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

gambit said:


> Not only fast, but there is always the probability of maneuvers.
> 
> Word of caution: If you do not support Chinese opinions on this forum, you will be labelled an Indian.



What I don't understand is this "F-35 is a fat pig" comment and stuff like that, as if these people have actually see and touch and pilot one of them before...........

I have TS/SCI (Stand for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information) I clearence in 2000s, even I cannot access to the actual data for F-35, how would these "supposed" expert know about this. I don't suppose every Tom, Jane and Dick in China can have access to data/detail on Microwave Communication, Quantum Communication to begin with, let alone the true capability of F-35.

In all, even J-20 and J-31 is still in prototype......So, to summarize, these Chinese member here can have top level clearence in both China and the US, and can see into the future............lol

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

psr540 said:


> Damn it's just very primitive technology test, it might be years or even decades when we could have a mature application out of this. Let me ask you a question Asok, how do you solve stable point to point laser connection between two fast moving objects? Laser communication has its limitation, don't hype things up. It really silly to see a self claimed tech guy like you to constantly post things with no ground base, you are LIKE many many amateurs on China military forums, one thing and you guys blow it up to 100 things, so silly.



*"how do you solve stable point to point laser connection between two fast moving objects?"*

The same way USAF shoot down a missile moving at Mach 5-10 with an airborne laser. That's a lot harder than two planes pointing the communication lasers at each other at 144km, apart. IMO.

If you are really a Chinese, you would able to read the article and figure out. It mentioned how it is done.

The Chinese aren't the first to do this. The USAF are already doing this years ago. So don't doubt this is possible, you Chinese doubters. I have purposely left out, the informations that, other countries are already doing laser communications, so you doubters have a chance to work up a sweat to express your habitual, ingrained doubts about China. 

*http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....ommunicationsReadyForFielding,VendorsSay.aspx
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/air-force-moves-aggressively-on-lasers/*

*"Laser communication has its limitation, don't hype things up. It really silly to see a self claimed tech guy like you to constantly post things with no ground base."*

Tell that to NASA, and the Europeans, they are planning a Satellite network with Laser Communications.

"In the early morning hours of Oct. 18, NASA’s Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration (LLCD) made history, transmitting data from lunar orbit to Earth at a rate of 622 Megabits-per-second (Mbps). That download rate is more than six times faster than previous state-of-the-art radio systems flown to the moon.

“It was amazing how quickly we were able to acquire the first signals, especially from such a distance,” said Don Cornwell, LLCD manager. “I attribute this success to the great work accomplished over the years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (MIT/LL) and their partnership with NASA.”

*Historic Demonstration Proves Laser Communication Possible*
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/historic-demonstration-proves-laser-communication-possible

*http://aviationweek.com/space/big-gains-horizon-laser-communications-suppliers*

“It started with Teledesic, but the German Aerospace Center DLR and Tesat have stuck with it, and now it’s the policy of Germany that laser comm is a core capability in space,” says Matthias Motzigemba, head of laser products at Tesat. “We have been taking the different intermediate steps over 25 years to develop the product we have today.”

Through EDRS, Tesat has been demonstrating optical links with LEO-to-GEO laser transmissions using an experimental LCT aboard Inmarsat’s Alphasat commercial communications satellite and an operational terminal on the European Sentinel-1A synthetic aperture radar spacecraft launched last year. Alphasat then relays the data in Ka-band to the ground."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... even if surely interesting, there is no word that this is operational or even related to the J-20. So please stay on topic.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

It's highly related to J-20, because this will enable *stealthy*, non-radio-frequency-communications networks between J-20 and support planes. Not only, stealthy-radio-silent, and high bandwidth, the straight line/direct path of Laser Communications makes interception by the enemies highly unlikely. And detection of interception, in such unlikely scenarios, is immediate.

And I expect 2-5 years, from now, to be fully operational, on J-20 and other planes. It's part of the package for J-20, from the beginning, IMO. The many unidentified windows on J-20 is probably for such purpose, since the Laser windows needs to be on all directions.

The older planes need to carry the laser communication equipment in a Pod. Not really a problem, if you weren't design to be stealth. But if you are F-22 and F-35, that needs to retrofit into the airframe or carry it in a Pod, which might increase the RCS.

This is a huge advantage for anybody, who have this kind of Laser Communication Networks. They can communicate via a High-Bandwidth direct link, for all they want, without the fear of interception, detection, and *jamming*, which is one of the top method of screw up your enemy's communications.

It's the way of the future. If your enemy have Laser Communication, you can leave all your radio jamming equipments at home, in the future. While he can happily turn on his A*ll-frequencies Jammer* on you, without worrying that he will also jam his own radio communications.

Don't believe the Chinese? Ask the USAF, they are the Experts on Jamming.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

But ... it's the future and surely NOT an operational system already installed in the current J-20s ... as such it is not yet related.

Please don't get me wrong, but if we discuss each and every major scientific breakthrough with at best a loose relation to the J-20, this thread derails completely off topic.

If You want start a new thread with "latest scientific breakthrough" or "future communications" but please not here.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

The Airframe design of J-20, is probably frozen by now, as it goes into LRIP; but, like the F-35, the major avionics subsystems, still need a lot of works to be fully implemented and integrated with the Flight Control System. This is one of the major reason why F-22 is so awesome against older planes. It's FCS and avionics subsystems are fully integrated.

This kind of high level systems integration *(**飞控和火控交联) *is the holy grail for J-20 designers. Only with this kind of integration could J-20 hope to achieve F-22's level of effectiveness. It will take several more years before J-20 is combat ready. IMO.

We have not seen confirmed pictures of the AESA, the F-35 like Helmet, the Helmet Cueing System, the Cockpit LCD display, the Engine, and many other major subsystems. They are probably not matured yet. 

In the future, I would expect more news and pictures of the various subsystems. In the usual Chinese way, they will probably shown, without mention explicitly, that they are for J-20. It's up to us to put together the whole picture.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Confirmed that J20 adopt smart aircraft skin technology on its DSI(by implant memory alloy), which means it can change shape of its DSI bump per situation. This is a innovation in the world range, only China has. bravo!

And more surprisingly is that the skin of J20 can directly absorb radar wave of different bands. That's why they also carry luneberg len to fly when it doesn't get the paint done yet. J20 is a masterpiece , it shall have due respect.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> Confirmed that J20 adopt smart aircraft skin technology on its DSI(by implant memory alloy), which means it can change shape of its DSI bump per situation. This is a innovation in the world range, only China has. bravo!
> 
> And more surprisingly is that the skin of J20 can directly absorb radar wave of different bands. That's why they also carry luneberg len to fly when it doesn't get the paint done yet. J20 is a masterpiece , it shall have due respect.



A Chinese patent for the shape changing skin has been filed on 2010, and granted in 2013. Inside the skin, there are sensors and actuators inserted inside the skin to monitor and control the shape. This patent described its uses in aircraft wings. But it could be easily used on the J-20's DSI bump.

The shape of the skin is described as having a *Trapezoidal Wave Like Structure* (*腰梯形波纹结构)* with fillers on the outside to maintain smooth shape.

*https://www.google.com/patents/CN102060101B?cl=zh*
"本发明涉及飞行器的蒙皮，尤其涉及一种用于变体机翼的蒙皮，属于飞行器设计技术领域。

"进一步地，可以在上述上述等*腰梯形波纹结构*的变体机翼蒙皮内，*嵌入驱动器和传感器*，从而实现对蒙皮结构监测和控制，从而获得最佳的气动性能。

本发明通过采用等腰梯形波纹结构，解决了变体机翼蒙皮弦向要求大变形而展向需要承载能力强之间存在的矛盾，并通过蒙皮内嵌的传感器和驱动器，实现对蒙皮结构的健康监测和形状控制，获得最佳的气动性能，还通过在蒙皮外表面填充弹性材料，保证了机翼表面的光滑。"

Here is a technical paper on smart shape changing skin. it seems there are many technical papers on this subject (*机翼结构的蒙皮的大变形*). The international research in the field is very active. Many companies are researching on how to change the shape of the aircraft wings, in response to changing conditions.

*可变后缘弯度机翼柔性蒙皮的刚度需求分析
http://www.scichina.com:8082/sciE/fileup/PDF/10ze1090.pdf*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

@Denio either we improve our English or you shall study Chinese, translation for technical term is too hard a job for fellow Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Don't get me wrong and it is not a personel obsesson by myself: This is per will of the owner an English-language forum.

In a Chinese topic to avoid CHinese is impossible, but at least for all who can speak chinese it should be possible to give a summary, a brief note, on what this topic is at least. 
Sometimres I have the feeling a few CHinese members simply don't want to do this since it gives them a feeling of being superior ...

Again, this is not my obsession, but in mind of the many others members here without any ability to read Chinese at least some sort of good will to translate ... otherwise these guys can simply stick in CHinese forum and post in chinese only and keep all their knowing for their own. Then no need to post here.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

I would love to translate those technical papers or give an adequate english summary. But I am simply not in those fields. It's very hard to translate those technical terms from Chinese to english. There are plenty of online English to Chinese dictionary. The reverse is not true. There are simply no Chinese to English translation tools for those technical terms.

Even translation of ordinary Chinese to English is difficulty, in many cases.

I am tired of being accused of making groundless speculations. I quote those paper and give the links to just to show I am not B.S. people here.

So you can either believe me, when I present a new findings, in a brief Chinese descriptions, or learn some Chinese and read the technical papers, yourself.

J-20 is a Chinese plane, so the vast majority of informations and technical papers are in Chinese.There are a vast number of technical papers on every subjects related to J-20 and other military technology, that is openly available on the Internet. I am simply amazed. They don't mention "J-20" or "WS-15", but only use vague terms like "advance fighter', "fourth generation fighter", "high TWR engine", "High Thrust Engine". If you search on "J-20" or "WS-15", you find very little in those Database. They were probably written before even the J-20 or WS-15 projects was officially established. 

The Chinese censors are very careful in deleting any references to the name "J-20" or "WS-15" in any official/semi official announcements or in technical reports.

The idea that Chinese Military is not transparent or secretive is *a bad joke* on the CIA and Pentagon. They simply don't have analysts, who can read those openly available Chinese technical papers. , I would say those "analysts" don't even able to read ordinary Chinese newspapers or books. 

*What you read in English websites and newspapers about China are written by highly biased and ignorant reporters.* It is my interest to help westerners to understand new Chinese developments, so they don't get B.S and brain washed.

So please excuse me, if I can't do an adequate job in a English summary or translation. It has nothing to do with altitude of feeling superior.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> Don't get me wrong and it is not a personel obsesson by myself: This is per will of the owner an English-language forum.
> 
> In a Chinese topic to avoid CHinese is impossible, but at least for all who can speak chinese it should be possible to give a summary, a brief note, on what this topic is at least.
> Sometimres I have the feeling a few CHinese members simply don't want to do this since it gives them a feeling of being superior ...
> 
> Again, this is not my obsession, but in mind of the many others members here without any ability to read Chinese at least some sort of good will to translate ... otherwise these guys can simply stick in CHinese forum and post in chinese only and keep all their knowing for their own. Then no need to post here.
> 
> Deino


I'm never those of 'Insider'. In my perspective, they are more afraid of translation(lazy)than being superior. Chinese don't like English.......

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> I'm never those of 'Insider'. In my perspective, they are more afraid of translation(lazy)than being superior. Chinese don't like English.......



That's right. If one is in those fields, he is probably have no difficulty in translations from English to Chinese, and from Chinese to English. But to "outsider", its very difficulty. I know many of those technical terms in Chinese, but have no ideas what they are in English. Similarly, in English, I know many english technical terms, but have no ideas of what they are in Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> That's right. If one is in those fields, he is probably have no difficulty in translations from English to Chinese, and from Chinese to English. But to "outsider", its very difficulty. I know many of those technical terms in Chinese, but have no ideas what they are in English. Similarly, in English, I know many english technical terms, but have no ideas of what they are in Chinese.


Maybe PDF can hire a part time Chinese-American hybrid to do the translation job. If we have translation need, we can @ him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> Maybe PDF can hire a part time Chinese-American hybrid to do the translation job. If we have translation need, we can @ him.



But at least to tell if they were discussing a certain material, avioncs system, deployment of whatever should be possible.

If You look in the CV-002 thread, an image is shown with CHinese text, so it should be that difficult to say at least if the new carrier is spotted for the first time, if one assumes this as the shipyard where construction starts or whatever. I do not demand a full technical translation, but at least a few words to what it fits. That should not be too much esp. for technically interested peoples?

Deino


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> But at least to tell if they were discussing a certain material, avioncs system, deployment of whatever should be possible.
> 
> If You look in the CV-002 thread, an image is shown with CHinese text, so it should be that difficult to say at least if the new carrier is spotted for the first time, if one assumes this as the shipyard where construction starts or whatever. I do not demand a full technical translation, but at least a few words to what it fits. That should not be too much esp. for technically interested peoples?
> 
> Deino


Sometimes the info is very sensitive! I think they don't wanna being invited a cup of tea by national security ?有些事只能意会，不能言传. means something can only be sensed, can't be told by words.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Oh come on !!! What's in these nets is out anyway. Just look in the J-10-thread; regradless what You are discussing with Beast it can't be that severe that You will get an invitation if You only say we are discussing if a certain weapon/missile can be carried or not.

Deino


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> Oh come on !!! What's in these nets is out anyway. Just look in the J-10-thread; regradless what You are discussing with Beast it can't be that severe that You will get an invitation if You only say we are discussing if a certain weapon/missile can be carried or not.
> 
> Deino


----------



## Brainsucker

I think we should agree to the middle ground.
So I propose that you (who put Chinese material here) can give a short summary about what you post in English. So everyone else (including your ally Pakistan Forumer) can understand what you post. This is a Pakistan forum, after all. you should respect them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> But at least to tell if they were discussing a certain material, avioncs system, deployment of whatever should be possible.
> *
> If You look in the CV-002 thread, an image is shown with CHinese text, so it should be that difficult to say at least if the new carrier is spotted for the first time,* if one assumes this as the shipyard where construction starts or whatever. I do not demand a full technical translation, but at least a few words to what it fits. That should not be too much esp. for technically interested peoples?
> 
> Deino



I believe over 90% of my posts were with both English and Chinese
By cherry picking one post of mine that in the 002 Chinese aircraft carrier which i was in a hurry as "example" to your accusation is simply misleading and untrue, please do understand i've a life outside PDF
No offense, however your high demand on the pictures, sources to be updated and never been posted before is discouraging members to share what they thought is interesting, not everyone has the time to go over a few pages of every threads, thank you

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> I believe over 90% of my posts were with both English and Chinese
> By cherry picking one post of mine that in the 002 Chinese aircraft carrier which i was in a hurry as "example" to your accusation is simply misleading and untrue, please do understand i've a life outside PDF
> No offense, however your high demand on the pictures, sources to be updated and never been posted before is discouraging members to share what they thought is interesting, not everyone has the time to go over a few pages of every threads, thank you




Strange that You feel immediately offended even if I did not accuse You in general; I only took Your post as an example that he is not the only one posting in Chinese only sometimes.

And I fully understand Your argument, even if at least a word in English, what it shows should not be a problem at all ... nothing more.

Deino


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## The Eagle

grey boy 2 said:


>



That canopy colour of 2017 is not common.... or mere light reflection...


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


>




Any info if this is a recent iamge ??

At first sight I thought it is an older one, but in my collection I could not find it ... otherwise it would mean 2017 & 2016 are back at CAC.


----------



## خره مينه لګته وي

http://photo.sina.cn/album_8_193_48119.htm?ch=8&vt=4&pos=108

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Fawad Masīd said:


> http://photo.sina.cn/album_8_193_48119.htm?ch=8&vt=4&pos=108


Already posted but thank you


----------



## Asoka

Amazing, this video shows J-20 could do a 180 degree turn in 4-5 seconds.






Another video showing a tight 180 turn in 4-5 seconds.






In contrast, here is the turn rate of the top ten fighters.
*The top ten dog-fighters of 2015 (WVR fighter assessment) UPDATED*
https://hushkit.net/2014/01/09/the-top-ten-dog-fighters-of-2013-wvr-fighter-assessment/

F-15
*Sustained turn rates*: Good (16 degree/sec)
*Instantaneous turn rates*: Good (21 deg/sec)

F-16
*Sustained turn rates*: Good
*Instantaneous turn rates*: Very good (26deg/sec)

Mig-29
*Sustained turn rates*: Good
*Instantaneous turn rates*: Excellent (28deg/sec)

F-22
*Sustained turn rates*: Excellent (28 deg/sec at 20K ft)
*Instantaneous turn rates*: Excellent

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

J10A/B/C had been equipped with PL10E. I'm very surprising why J20 doesn't have rank in the dog fighter list?


----------



## teddy

Man....that is fast forward video....


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> J10A/B/C had been equipped with PL10E. I'm very surprising why J20 doesn't have rank in the dog fighter list?




Why ?? we already have seen the PL-10 on the J-20 so I have no doubts that it can carry this missile.



Asok said:


> Amazing, this video shows J-20 could do a 180 degree turn in 4-5 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another video showing a tight 180 turn in 4-5 seconds.




Oh no ... not again ! AVideo without any reference point, and by eyeballing You come again to the conclusion that the J-20 can turn bet´ween 36-45 deg/sec ???  ... even more that It uses a +210 kN thrust engine ???

Come on ....

Deino


----------



## Asoka

psr540 said:


> Can't reply with links. Sorry for the inconvenience. Those interested should check Asok's orginal reply.
> 
> "The same way USAF shoot down a missile moving at Mach 5-10 with an airborne laser. That's a lot harder than two planes pointing the communication lasers at each other at 144km, apart. IMO."
> 
> This is a *very difference scenario,* Asok I suspect you have any real technical training background? I feel time wasting arguing with you.
> 
> *Yes I am Chinese,* but not those kind of big mouth gun type. Historically, those biggest mouth guns are the first ones to be defeated in a real conflict, they simply can't accept the reality, their illusions, wild dreams will all be gone with their egos. Those real backbones are those *who know EXACTLY their and their enemy's REAL (not PAPER) strengths and weaknesses*. I do hope one day you can become a true patriot.
> 
> Back to your references
> *nationaldefensemagazine...*
> this is between an earth station and a spacecraft
> *
> breakingdefense...
> *
> this is about laser defense and offensive weapons mounted on an aircraft
> *
> nasa...*
> this is between a ground station and a satellite
> *
> aviationweek...*
> this is about communications between satellites
> 
> *
> So again let me ask you "HOW DO YOU SOLVE STABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN TWO FAST MOVING OBJECTS" ?
> *
> Here are some hints:
> hint 1: a very small 1 degree change will cause 1744m distance change across an 100km distance
> hint 2: how about ground air laser communications? To maintain 1 channel you need on laser beam, to maintain 20 channels with 20 aircrafts you will need 20 laser beams and to maintain 100 communication channels you will need ????
> *
> 
> *



My friend, I don't have any technical background on laser communication systems. You would have to ask the Chinese or US Air force, yourself, for the answer how they solved this tricky problem of how to establish connection and maintain the connection long enough to send and receive the data information between two moving planes.

I very much doubt you are a Chinese, otherwise, you would be able to read Chinese.

*"To maintain 1 channel you need on laser beam, to maintain 20 channels with 20 aircrafts you will need 20 laser beams and to maintain 100 communication channels you will need ????"*

This just shows how clueless you are. Trying to talk technical stuffs without even knowing the ABC. I maintain communications with hundreds of my friends via the internet. I never have more than one DSL channel or link with the cable company. Neither is your smart phone needs more than one WiFi link, at a time, to communicate with hundreds of people and websites.

* 'In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.' *--Donny Miller



Deino said:


> Why ?? we already have seen the PL-10 on the J-20 so I have no doubts that it can carry this missile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no ... not again ! AVideo without any reference point, and by eyeballing You come again to the conclusion that the J-20 can turn bet´ween 36-45 deg/sec ???  ... even more that It uses a +210 kN thrust engine ???
> 
> Come on ....
> 
> Deino



Eyeball the videos yourself, and tell us how long J-20 takes do a 180 degree turn. Do you own calculations or estimate, if you don't like the +200kN figure as I reported; otherwise, it's just called whining.



wanglaokan said:


> J10A/B/C had been equipped with PL10E. I'm very surprising why J20 doesn't have rank in the dog fighter list?



J-20 is not yet operational in 2015. This list is made in 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ....
> Eyeball the videos yourself, and tell us how long J-20 takes do a 180 degree turn. Do you own calculations or estimate, if you don't like the +210kN figure, I reported; otherwise, it's just called whining.
> ....




Why do You simply don't get it, that eyeballing from a blurred video when You do not have any true reference (aka, was is a true 180 ° turn or not ??), without knowing if the photographer is itself moving - which he surely does - and as such speeding up that movement makes any calculation impossible.

Really it has nothing to do with whining; why should I ?
It's more a wondering and now being annoyed about the constantly recurring unsachly arguments just to portray an alleged mega-superiority of the J-20 that is far from any reality.

But as I said, everyone can believe whatever he wants

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Why do You simply don't get it, that eyeballing from a blurred video when You do not have any true reference (aka, was is a true 180 ° turn or not ??), without knowing if the photographer is itself moving - which he surely does - and as such speeding up that movement makes any calculation impossible.
> 
> Really it has nothing to do with whining; why should I ?
> It's more a wondering and now being annoyed about the constantly recurring unsachly arguments just to portray an alleged mega-superiority of the J-20 that is far from any reality.
> 
> But as I said, everyone can believe whatever he wants
> 
> Deino


Ignore @Asok sir, no ones knows true capabilities of J-20 except PLAAF, he is just a mega-hyper and mega-fanboy for J-20, in his posts he trying to convince others that J-20 is not a 5th gen jet but 1000 gen jet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

In the second video, I used the frame at time 0:44, as beginning of the turn. The bottom of the plane seems fully facing the camera, with the nose pointing to the left of the camera.





And I choose frame at 0:49 as the end of the U-Turn. The top of the plane is now seems fully facing the camera, the nose pointing at the opposite direction of frame 0:44, thus completing the turn, in my opinion.





The elapsed time is 5 seconds.

Anybody could feel free to choose a different start and stop frame or time for the turn. I suspect the difference in elapsed time, won't be more than 1-2 seconds.

Even the elapsed time is 6 seconds, it's still 30 degrees/second. It's better than other advanced fighters', already very impressive, 28 Degree/second.

The person holding the camera isn't moving. He is stationary as we can see from the foreground. His hands is just shaking.

*"It's more a wondering and now being annoyed about the constantly recurring unsachly arguments just to portray an alleged mega-superiority of the J-20 that is far from any reality."*

You are right that "*everyone can believe whatever he wants*".

But It's called *burying one's head in the sand like an ostrich*, when one can't face the facts/findings, brought up by other people.

This video, clearly shows that the turn rate of J-20, could match, even better than, the best of the best current dog-fighters, in the world.






Aerodynamically, J-20 has everything F-22 has, plus, a long and slender body, a much more powerful engine, 30% more internal fuel, the moving Canards, and all moving vertical Tails and Leading Edge Extension. With the synergy of those elements, Yes, I think J-20 could out maneuver, *in all speeds and altitudes*, the F-22, which is the current Gold Standard of the 5th Generation Fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> In the second video, I used the frame at time 0:44, as beginning of the turn. The bottom of the plane seems fully facing the camera.
> View attachment 371647
> 
> 
> And I choose frame at 0:49 as the end of the U-Turn. The top of the plane is now seems fully facing the camera, thus completing the turn, in my opinion.
> View attachment 371646
> 
> 
> The elapsed time is 5 seconds.
> 
> Anybody could feel free to choose a different start and stop frame or time for the turn. I suspect the difference in elapsed time, won't be more than 1-2 seconds.
> 
> Even the elapsed time is 6 seconds, it's still 30 degrees/second. It's better than other advanced fighters', already very impressive, 28 Degree/second.
> 
> The person holding the camera isn't moving. He is stationary as we can see from the foreground. His hands is just shaking.
> 
> *"portray an alleged mega-superiority of the J-20 that is far from any reality."*
> 
> It's called *bury one's head in the sand like an ostrich*, when one can't face the facts/findings, brought up by other people.
> 
> View attachment 371657
> 
> 
> 
> Aerodynamically, J-20 has everything F-22 has, plus the long and slender body, the moving Canards, and all moving vertical Tails and Leading Edge Extension. With the synergy of those elements, Yes, I think J-20 could out maneuver, *in all speeds and altitudes*, the F-22, which is the current Gold Standard of the 5th Generation Fighters.


yeah yeah whatever you think kid *J-20 is out of this universe 1000000000000000000000 gen fighter jet* you know nothing information about the true capabilities of J-20 except PLAAF
, you are just eye balling nothing else

, you just too overestimate the capabilities of J-20, are you in the development project of J-20

, you are acting just like insane Indian for their Tejas

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Asok said:


> Amazing, this video shows J-20 could do a 180 degree turn in 4-5 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another video showing a tight 180 turn in 4-5 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast, here is the turn rate of the top ten fighters.
> *The top ten dog-fighters of 2015 (WVR fighter assessment) UPDATED*
> https://hushkit.net/2014/01/09/the-top-ten-dog-fighters-of-2013-wvr-fighter-assessment/
> 
> F-15
> *Sustained turn rates*: Good (16 degree/sec)
> *Instantaneous turn rates*: Good (21 deg/sec)
> 
> F-16
> *Sustained turn rates*: Good
> *Instantaneous turn rates*: Very good (26deg/sec)
> 
> Mig-29
> *Sustained turn rates*: Good
> *Instantaneous turn rates*: Excellent (28deg/sec)
> 
> F-22
> *Sustained turn rates*: Excellent (28 deg/sec at 20K ft)
> *Instantaneous turn rates*: Excellent



 Thanks bro. Those are great observations. I am enjoying them.

Yes, that is AMAZING. Now I am now even more convince that J-20 cannot be using the AL-31F or an equivalent powerplants.

As I have always say, all the revealing signs are there, it is just that some of us are either to busy or still living in a state of denial. 

They call you a fanboy because many of them hate the comparisons you provided but IMO numbers are numbers and facts are facts. That is why they called us, *enthusiasts* and while most of us cannot provide the absolute proof, how about them?

Even the real experts from the Pentagon are doing something, some of us are all doing today in their evaluation of the competitors' products. 

Carry on with your post. Your findings and observations are all very interesting to many of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## l0ngl0ng

Is the tech from transformer?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

l0ngl0ng said:


> Is the tech from transformer?



The J-20 DSI BUMP has flexible/adjustable skin that could be adjusted according to the speed and attack angle. It has been pointed out several pages, back.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Even the real experts from the Pentagon are doing something, some of us are all doing today in their evaluation of the competitors' products.
> 
> Carry on with your post. Your findings and observations are all very interesting to many of us.


This...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003991/

...Is only a small sample of what the experts at the Pentagon uses to estimate aircraft performance using sensors data, whether the sensor is video, radar, or infrared. Of course, the more, the better the accuracy of their assessments.

Your friend uses only his eyeballs and bad math. Very interesting, indeed.


----------



## l0ngl0ng

Asok said:


> The J-20 DSI BUMP has flexible/adjustable skin that could be adjusted according to the speed and attack angle. It has been pointed out several pages, back.


Thanks.
That's really amazing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> The J-20 DSI BUMP has flexible/adjustable skin that could be adjusted according to the speed and attack angle. It has been pointed out several pages, back.


This is the patent application form of NUAA( Nanjing university of Aeronautics and Astronautics) for DSI intake smart skin technology. Back in year 2013.








gambit said:


> This...
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003991/
> 
> ...Is only a small sample of what the experts at the Pentagon uses to estimate aircraft performance using sensors data, whether the sensor is video, radar, or infrared. Of course, the more, the better the accuracy of their assessments.
> 
> Your friend uses only his eyeballs and bad math. Very interesting, indeed.


Laugh the best as you can, that all you got left. Asok said J20 has smart skin on its DSI, you guys laughed at him. Asok said J20 will have domestic WS10b engine, you guys laugh at him. By the way , General Yingzhuo had proved on CCTV J20/ FC31 blk2 uses domestics turbo fan engine. When Asok said WS15 will have 200 KN max wet thrust, you guys also make fun of him. What a respect this forum shows to a reliable source!@gambit, every time you laugh at Asok proves how arrogant you are, and the denial you hold to Chinese steady progress. Then keep laughing, all speculation will turn to truth in the end.

It's your stereotype of ' Chinese can't do what the west can't do', shall have a rest.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 帅的一匹

Translation for the red rectangle part: This Samrt DSI is made of super elastic material and inside the DSI it installs a actuator system make it transform.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> This is the patent application form of NUAA( Nanjing university of Aeronautics and Astronautics) for DSI intake smart skin technology. Back in year 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laugh the best as you can, that all you got left. Asok said J20 has smart skin on its DSI, you guys laughed at him. Asok said J20 will have domestic WS10b engine, you guys laugh at him. By the way , General Yingzhuo had proved on CCTV J20/ FC31 blk2 uses domestics turbo fan engine. When Asok said WS15 will have 200 KN max wet thrust, you guys also make fun of him. What a respect this forum shows to a reliable source!@gambit, every time you laugh at Asok proves how arrogant you are, and the denial you hold to Chinese steady progress. Then keep laughing, all speculation will turn to truth in the end.
> 
> It's your stereotype of ' Chinese can't do what the west can't do', shall have a rest.



Amen! Thanks Bro. for your support! 

Sometimes, I think, being a one-eyed man, living among the blinds, is not really a blessing, but a burden. They will laugh at you, whatever, you told them.

They can deny and laugh all they can. We will have the last laugh. China's amazing progress in all scientific areas, undeniable, and unstoppable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> Laugh the best as you can, that all you got left. Asok said J20 has smart skin on its DSI, you guys laughed at him.


Regarding the variable DSI...

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-508#post-9108882


> For the DSI, the moment you want that 'bump' to be variable in any dimension, you deviate from the original philosophy of the DSI, which is about physical simplicity and weight saving.


Clear enough ?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> Amen! Thanks Bro. for your support!
> 
> Sometimes, I think, being a one-eyed man, living among the blinds, is not really a blessing, but a burden. They will laugh at you, whatever, you told them.
> 
> They can deny and laugh all they can. We will have the last laugh. China's amazing progress in all scientific areas, undeniable, and unstoppable.


Bro, China was an empire and great nation for thousands years. We produced one thirds of world GDP back in Song Dynasty. Make our nation great again, same as Donald Trump slogan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Thanks bro. Those are great observations. I am enjoying them.
> 
> Yes, that is AMAZING. Now I am now even more convince that J-20 cannot be using the AL-31F or an equivalent powerplants.
> 
> As I have always say, all the revealing signs are there, it is just that some of us are either to busy or still living in a state of denial.
> 
> They call you a fanboy because many of them hate the comparisons you provided but IMO numbers are numbers and facts are facts. That is why they called us, *enthusiasts* and while most of us cannot provide the absolute proof, how about them?
> 
> Even the real experts from the Pentagon are doing something, some of us are all doing today in their evaluation of the competitors' products.
> 
> Carry on with your post. Your findings and observations are all very interesting to many of us.




Thanks Bro.! Your support is heart warming and very encouraging..

It all makes sense now, that China wants to hide the details and progress of WS-15 since 2005, after the engine core was ground tested. WS-15 is startlingly powerful.

If Pentagon's analysts or experts, can't figure out the ball park figure of J-20's Dry and Wet Thrust, after watching the airshow demonstration, they don't worth a dime.

The 200kN estimate, I have for WS-15, is not all that amazing, considering, the F-35's F135 engine is classified as a 190kN engine, which could be a lot higher, once we considered, that figure is under-reported by P&W to keep the Max. Thrust performance, a secret.

And F135 was developed in the early 1990's, more than 20 years ago.

Those guys, here at PDF are living in denial, because the idea that China can't produce advanced jet engines or Chinese engines are unreliable, got baked into their head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> Regarding the variable DSI...
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-508#post-9108882
> 
> Clear enough ?


That's your philosophy of DSI, definitely not ours this time.



Asok said:


> Thanks Bro.! Your support is heart warming and very encouraging..
> 
> It all makes sense now, that China wants to hide the details and progress of WS-15 since 2005, after the engine core was ground tested. WS-15 is startlingly powerful.
> 
> If Pentagon's analysts or experts, can't figure out the ball park figure of J-20's Dry and Wet Thrust, after watching the airshow demonstration, they don't worth a dime.
> 
> The 200kN estimate for WS-15, is not all that amazing, considering, the F-35's F135 engine is classified as a 190kN engine, which could be a lot higher, once we considered, that figured is under-reported by P&W to keep the Max. Thrust performance, a secret.
> 
> And F135 was developed in the early 1990's, 25 years ago.


Either it be WS10b or WS15, it has enough power to make J20 maneuver agilely.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> That's your philosophy of DSI, definitely not ours this time.


That is neither ours nor yours.

The purpose of the DSI is manage air flow and do it with minimum mechanical engineering. Best is none at all. So the moment you install mechanisms to alter its dimensions you deviated from the original intention of minimum mechanical engineering. It does not matter if with modern technology, the mechanisms are less intensive than in the past. You still deviated from the original philosophy.


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> That's your philosophy of DSI, definitely not ours this time.
> 
> 
> Either it be WS10b or WS15, it has enough power to make J20 maneuver agilely.



WS10b or WS15, names really doesn't matter, its the engine core that develops the power. If you got a new engine core, you got a new engine. Period.

I am not going to bother with arguing with that guy, who claims to be a pilot and a vietnamese, anymore.

The arrogance and ignorance he displayed is breathtaking.


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> That is neither ours nor yours.
> 
> The purpose of the DSI is manage air flow and do it with minimum mechanical engineering. Best is none at all. So the moment you install mechanisms to alter its dimensions you deviated from the original intention of minimum mechanical engineering. It does not matter if with modern technology, the mechanisms are less intensive than in the past. You still deviated from the original philosophy.


You forget another goodness of DSI, it enhance the stealthy feature of an aircraft by shield the turbofan blade form direct radar waves! The effectiveness of DSI compressing air reduce dramatically at the speed of 1.6Mach. Now it's very clear why China will increase the weight of DSI and make it transform at speed beyond certain threshhold.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> You forget another goodness of DSI, it enhance the stealthy feature of an aircraft by shield the turbofan blade form direct radar waves! The effectiveness of DSI compressing air reduce dramatically at the speed of 1.6Mach. Now it's very clear why China will increase the weight of DSI and make it transform at speed beyond certain threshhold.


The DSI was never designed for that purpose. If there is such a benefit, it is *INCIDENTAL*, never intentional.

But the real issue is somehow you can make the DSI variable in dimensions and yet gain no weight and complexity. Absurd.


----------



## 帅的一匹

That's why F35 uses DSI and F22 doesn't, cause F22 was designed fourty years ago. But USA will never imagine China will apply a smart DSI on J20. People only believe what they want to believe.



gambit said:


> The DSI was never designed for that purpose. If there is such a benefit, it is *INCIDENTAL*, never intentional.
> 
> But the real issue is somehow you can make the DSI variable in dimensions and yet gain no weight and complexity. Absurd.


Yes, it adds weight and complexity when you apply a smart DSI. But the it will perform extremely efficient when J20 make super cruise. You have to balance the gain and loss. DSI is a big plus in stealthy feature no matter it is intentional or incidental.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> The arrogance and ignorance he displayed is breathtaking.


The real breathtaking arrogance and ignorance is yours.

I do not need to prove myself to you, or anyone on this forum, for that matter. If letting the *CONTENTS* of one's posts determine one's credibility, I have more credibility as to what I said about myself than all of the Chinese members here combined. Unlike you, I explained the foundational principles many elements of aviation and provides *ENGLISH* sources. To date, no one have ever returned and proved conclusively that I either lied or misled the forum. That is far more than we can say for you with your bad sourcing, bad math, and common sense defying claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> Har...More like the pace and validity of my challenges to Chinese claims in military issues in general, and aviation in particular, is not good for *YOUR* health.


Maybe we can call it a end of today, and Chinese New Year is coming! I know you get quite some knowledge, but you have to admit smart DSI is not a bad idea at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> Maybe we can call it a end of today, and Chinese New Year is coming! I know you get quite some knowledge, but you have to admit smart DSI is not a bad idea at all.


Explain to me this statement by your friend...



> Changing the shape of the Bump could deliver smooth air flow into the engine at wide ranging, various conditions, without the use of cumbersome machinery and diverters.
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ews-discussions.111471/page-508#ixzz4WkGmVvxh


How can you alter something's shape and dimensions *WITHOUT* machinery ? Whether the machinery is 'cumbersome' or not is a matter of opinion.

Let us take what I posted back earlier...

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-508#post-9108882

Here is an excellent technical and *ENGLISH* source I provided...

http://f-111.net/models/inlets/index.htm

In order for the F-111's inlets to alter the shape of the inlet spike, local air data conditions must be determined, hence the local Mach probes that are positioned in front of the inlets.

Does the J-20, with its claims of a variable DSI system, have local air data sources for such control ?

Getting a little bit deeper, does it *NEED* local air data at all ?

Why separate local air data sources ? Maybe disparate air flow due to maneuvering situations ?

Every aircraft have a Central Air Data Computer (CADC) that performs complex pitot/static air data calculations to display raw and refined air data information such as airspeed and altitude. Does this necessitate separate air data computers for each variable DSI bumps ?

These *FOUNDATIONAL* issues/questions never comes from you guys. Note that none of them challenges the idea that there can be a variable DSI bump, only that it challenges the argument that somehow a variable DSI bump can be done without 'cumbersome machinery'.

It is questions like these that pisses you guys off because it exposes you guys' ignorance at the core technical issues and that it induces doubts into Chinese claims.

I can tell you this right now...That I have looked at the images of the J-20 and can give a technically credible opinion on whether or not there is a variable DSI bump system.


----------



## gambit

Just in case the F-111 source is insufficient about the need for local air data information in order to have local air flow inlet control, here is a credible source about the F-15 which have inlet air ramp to have that local air flow control.

https://archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19980218785/19980218785_djvu.txt


> A description of the airdata system is worthwhile, considering its importance to the DES algorithm. The aircraft is equipped with an airdata computer to execute computations and furnish parameters required to aircraft systems and cockpit displays. The ADC receives inputs from a pitot- static system, AOA probes, and a total temperature probe. The ADC corrects these inputs for sensor error as required. *The pitot-static system employs multiple pitot and static sources for redundancy, including left- and right-side of the forward fuselage and in each inlet duct.* AOA probes are located on each side of the forward fuselage and measure local AOA. A single probe located on the left forward fuselage provides total temperature to the ADC.


Note the highlighted sentence that contains: *'in each inlet duct'*

Nothing is made up. The F-15's overall engine control and performance throughout flight improves with local air data information, as in discrete air data *PER INLET*.

So if the J-20 is claimed to have a variable DSI system, the challenge for the Chinese claimants is to show the necessary components, not doctored up images that have no credible sourcing.

Finally, you guys can take what I posted, translate them to Chinese, then post on Chinese forums to make yourselves look smart.


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> That is a dumbass article.
> 
> The missile hanging on the outside for how long and its own body does not possibly compromise the aircraft's RCS ?


Yes it does, but for a much shorter time than when the doors are kept open to fire the missile


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... calm down !! All of You.

If anyone argues in a kind manner even in critical tone, everyone is welcome to discuss. To take the nationality or "race" as some say here - as a sole reason to be allowed to discuss here is a very problematic point of view and will not be tolerated.*


Deino


----------



## Tiger Awan

gambit said:


> So if the J-20 is claimed to have a variable DSI system, the challenge for the Chinese claimants is to show the necessary components, not doctored up images that have no credible sourcing.
> 
> Finally, you guys can take what I posted, translate them to Chinese, then post on Chinese forums to make yourselves look smart.



China is never going to give such details. If they have a trick up their sleeve chances are they will try to withold it's information

Now some Chinese claim J20 has a variable DSI. Their claim is based on pictures. Lets just agree that their claim is not verfiable. Doesn't mean they are wrong but also doesn't mean they are credible .Lets agree to disagree


----------



## gambit

Tiger Awan said:


> China is never going to give such details. If they have a trick up their sleeve chances are they will try to withold it's information
> 
> Now some Chinese claim J20 has a variable DSI. Their claim is based on pictures. Lets just agree that their claim is not verfiable. Doesn't mean they are wrong but also doesn't mean they are credible .*Lets agree to disagree*


We can do that. But that does not mean I am going to let the Chinese off the technical hook. We will let the silent readers decide who is the more credible.

*Mr. Asok said* that the J-20 have a variable DSI system. Nowhere have I said there are technical barriers to that. In fact, I provided my first jet, the F-111, as proof of that system.

*Mr. Asok said* that the variable DSI system would 'optimize' airflow into the engines. Never mind that the word 'optimize' have been abused to death by those who do not know what they are talking about but tries to portray themselves as knowledgeable.

Air is not uniform in density. Everyone who took basic science in high school know that. As altitude increases, air density decreases. This means airflow in aerodynamics forces and in jet engine operations will be negative affected. Negative as in decrease in efficiency and performance output. This is why rockets carries their own oxidizers -- oxygen -- in the fuel mixture.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm


> Liquid *oxygen* and liquid hydrogen are used as the propellant in the high efficiency main engines of the Space Shuttle.


As the rocket gains altitude, its flight will not be affected by the lack of oxygen to burn.

Going back to the J-20 and its claim to have a variable DSI system...

Q: As the jet fighter changes in altitudes, often unplanned, how would this variable DSI system know the available air density ?

A: Air data probes, specifically pitot and static.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/pitot.html

Air data is needed for the flight control computer (FLCC) to calculate flight control surface displacement.

But the problem now is that because an aircraft is a complex body, airflow over its complex surfaces will be different in both velocity and pressure. Further, the physical structures themselves will create a variety of airflow behaviors. A jet engine inlet is a tunnel or tube, essentially trapping airflow, whereas the wing will simply let airflow travels over its surface.

So if this variable DSI bump is supposed to change its shape and dimension to optimize airflow into the engine, the system *MUST* have localize pitot/static air sensors. That pitot/static probe in front or on the size of the radome is for airflow that is in first contact with the aircraft. This is for raw airspeed and altitude information. As airflow travels the fuselage, its velocity and pressure changes. This means the inlet cannot use air data information from the nose where airflow velocity and pressure are different.

Sure...This variable DSI system can use *CALCULATED* air data information from the nose air data, but this is a high risk proposition because of the need for maneuvers where airflow will be different in diverse areas of the aircraft.

Therefore, the best, safest, and most accurate air data information for this variable DSI system must be independent of what the main pitot/static probe in the forward fuselage area have. Each engine inlet must have its own independent pitot/static sensor as close to the inlet entrance as possible, and each inlet must have its own independent air data computer to alter the DSI bump. The F-111 have it. The F-15 have the same layout.

Assuming the J-20 do have this variable DSI bump system, I doubt that the J-20 engineers are that much of risk takers to use calculated air data from a different part of the jet.

So where are the components for this variable DSI bump system ?

What I wrote above is clear evidence that I do know what I am talking about. You will *NEVER* find comparable technical information on basic system configuration from the Chinese members here. They have neither the aviation experience nor even basic education in the aviation fields to inform the readers this way.

The Chinese claimants maybe correct, but that would be from luck, not from experience and/or education.


----------



## Tiger Awan

gambit said:


> We can do that. But that does not mean I am going to let the Chinese off the technical hook. We will let the silent readers decide who is the more credible.
> 
> *Mr. Asok said* that the J-20 have a variable DSI system. Nowhere have I said there are technical barriers to that. In fact, I provided my first jet, the F-111, as proof of that system.
> 
> *Mr. Asok said* that the variable DSI system would 'optimize' airflow into the engines. Never mind that the word 'optimize' have been abused to death by those who do not know what they are talking about but tries to portray themselves as knowledgeable.
> 
> Air is not uniform in density. Everyone who took basic science in high school know that. As altitude increases, air density decreases. This means airflow in aerodynamics forces and in jet engine operations will be negative affected. Negative as in decrease in efficiency and performance output. This is why rockets carries their own oxidizers -- oxygen -- in the fuel mixture.
> 
> http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm
> 
> As the rocket gains altitude, its flight will not be affected by the lack of oxygen to burn.
> 
> Going back to the J-20 and its claim to have a variable DSI system...
> 
> Q: As the jet fighter changes in altitudes, often unplanned, how would this variable DSI system know the available air density ?
> 
> A: Air data probes, specifically pitot and static.
> 
> https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/pitot.html
> 
> Air data is needed for the flight control computer (FLCC) to calculate flight control surface displacement.
> 
> But the problem now is that because an aircraft is a complex body, airflow over its complex surfaces will be different in both velocity and pressure. Further, the physical structures themselves will create a variety of airflow behaviors. A jet engine inlet is a tunnel or tube, essentially trapping airflow, whereas the wing will simply let airflow travels over its surface.
> 
> So if this variable DSI bump is supposed to change its shape and dimension to optimize airflow into the engine, the system *MUST* have localize pitot/static air sensors. That pitot/static probe in front or on the size of the radome is for airflow that is in first contact with the aircraft. This is for raw airspeed and altitude information. As airflow travels the fuselage, its velocity and pressure changes. This means the inlet cannot use air data information from the nose where airflow velocity and pressure are different.
> 
> Sure...This variable DSI system can use *CALCULATED* air data information from the nose air data, but this is a high risk proposition because of the need for maneuvers where airflow will be different in diverse areas of the aircraft.
> 
> Therefore, the best, safest, and most accurate air data information for this variable DSI system must be independent of what the main pitot/static probe in the forward fuselage area have. Each engine inlet must have its own independent pitot/static sensor as close to the inlet entrance as possible, and each inlet must have its own independent air data computer to alter the DSI bump. The F-111 have it. The F-15 have the same layout.
> 
> Assuming the J-20 do have this variable DSI bump system, I doubt that the J-20 engineers are that much of risk takers to use calculated air data from a different part of the jet.
> 
> So where are the components for this variable DSI bump system ?
> 
> What I wrote above is clear evidence that I do know what I am talking about. You will *NEVER* find comparable technical information on basic system configuration from the Chinese members here. They have neither the aviation experience nor even basic education in the aviation fields to inform the readers this way.
> 
> The Chinese claimants maybe correct, but that would be from luck, not from experience and/or education.



As a Mechanical engineer and a lifelong Formula 1 fan I do have many questions regarding changing area of an Inlet of an engine (let alone a DSI one on a stealth aircraft where you require a very good engine efficiency to keep IR signature low too) and I enjoy your posts on these things too as they are very informative. Just saying we are never going to get the answers of all these questions

One thing more about variable DSI. What happens to RCS of J-20 as its DSI changes shape. I mean we talk all the time how RCS suddenly increases when the weapon bay is opened and Serbs even claim the change in RCS was just what they needed to bring F-111 down. Can similar thing happens with a variable DSI ??


----------



## jkroo

Asok said:


> Thanks for let him have it, Giant Panda. Although, I have doubt he is a Vietnamese, at all.
> 
> View attachment 371700


Hey, bro. I agree with your many points though not every points. Keep your fact based arguments and calculations pls. It's more rational than any other talking.

I support you and also I hope you keep your stay at PDF and you must slap faces one by one when the official information releases out OK?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

A fan art depicting a J-20 carrying a full load of missiles. This might be useful in a situation when you are defending a high value target, like an AWAC, where run away, after you shoot your internally stored 8 missiles is not a very good option.









jkroo said:


> Hey, bro. I agree with your many points though not every points. Keep your fact based arguments and calculations pls. It's more rational than any other talking.
> 
> I support you and also I hope you keep your stay at PDF and you must slap faces one by one when the official information releases out OK?



Good idea, slap those doubters' face one by one, when official informations finally came out. I got a feeling, sometimes later this year, the WS-15 will be officially confirmed operational, after one or two regiments of J-20 are inducted into PLAAF.

The idea that PLAAF Commander, will allow J-20 go into production, without the Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability, first being tested thoroughly, with its WS-15 engine, is too outlandish.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> The DSI was never designed for that purpose. If there is such a benefit, it is *INCIDENTAL*, never intentional.
> 
> But the real issue is somehow you can make the DSI variable in dimensions and yet gain no weight and complexity. Absurd.



Yes it is.

DSI is intended to move away complexity of heavy moving parts that is used in conventional inlets.

Long time ago the intention of DSI is to reduce a/c weight, and lowering maintenance cost. But of course another advantage of moving away the complexity of moving parts at inlet is reduce RCS.



gambit said:


> We can do that. But that does not mean I am going to let the Chinese off the technical hook. We will let the silent readers decide who is the more credible.
> 
> *Mr. Asok said* that the J-20 have a variable DSI system. Nowhere have I said there are technical barriers to that. In fact, I provided my first jet, the F-111, as proof of that system.
> 
> *Mr. Asok said* that the variable DSI system would 'optimize' airflow into the engines. Never mind that the word 'optimize' have been abused to death by those who do not know what they are talking about but tries to portray themselves as knowledgeable.
> 
> Air is not uniform in density. Everyone who took basic science in high school know that. As altitude increases, air density decreases. This means airflow in aerodynamics forces and in jet engine operations will be negative affected. Negative as in decrease in efficiency and performance output. This is why rockets carries their own oxidizers -- oxygen -- in the fuel mixture.
> 
> http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm
> 
> As the rocket gains altitude, its flight will not be affected by the lack of oxygen to burn.
> 
> Going back to the J-20 and its claim to have a variable DSI system...
> 
> Q: As the jet fighter changes in altitudes, often unplanned, how would this variable DSI system know the available air density ?
> 
> A: Air data probes, specifically pitot and static.
> 
> https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/pitot.html
> 
> Air data is needed for the flight control computer (FLCC) to calculate flight control surface displacement.
> 
> But the problem now is that because an aircraft is a complex body, airflow over its complex surfaces will be different in both velocity and pressure. Further, the physical structures themselves will create a variety of airflow behaviors. A jet engine inlet is a tunnel or tube, essentially trapping airflow, whereas the wing will simply let airflow travels over its surface.
> 
> So if this variable DSI bump is supposed to change its shape and dimension to optimize airflow into the engine, the system *MUST* have localize pitot/static air sensors. That pitot/static probe in front or on the size of the radome is for airflow that is in first contact with the aircraft. This is for raw airspeed and altitude information. As airflow travels the fuselage, its velocity and pressure changes. This means the inlet cannot use air data information from the nose where airflow velocity and pressure are different.
> 
> Sure...This variable DSI system can use *CALCULATED* air data information from the nose air data, but this is a high risk proposition because of the need for maneuvers where airflow will be different in diverse areas of the aircraft.
> 
> Therefore, the best, safest, and most accurate air data information for this variable DSI system must be independent of what the main pitot/static probe in the forward fuselage area have. Each engine inlet must have its own independent pitot/static sensor as close to the inlet entrance as possible, and each inlet must have its own independent air data computer to alter the DSI bump. The F-111 have it. The F-15 have the same layout.
> 
> Assuming the J-20 do have this variable DSI bump system, I doubt that the J-20 engineers are that much of risk takers to use calculated air data from a different part of the jet.
> 
> So where are the components for this variable DSI bump system ?
> 
> What I wrote above is clear evidence that I do know what I am talking about. You will *NEVER* find comparable technical information on basic system configuration from the Chinese members here. They have neither the aviation experience nor even basic education in the aviation fields to inform the readers this way.
> 
> The Chinese claimants maybe correct, but that would be from luck, not from experience and/or education.




OK please help us to understand the way you think..

Please explain why variable DSI (if any) need pitot/static sensor while moveable cone or ramp does not?

Why variable DSI (if any) need such a complexed calculated air data while movable cone or ramp does not?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jkroo

Asok said:


> The idea that PLAAF Commander, will allow J-20 go into production, without the Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability, first being tested thoroughly, with its WS-15 engine, is too outlandish.


The logic is ok especially when you hear the sound generated by J20 in the Chengdu's sky.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

jkroo said:


> The logic is ok especially when you hear the sound generated by J20 in the Chengdu's sky.



The distinctive sound of J-20's engine is very noticeable, the first time, I watched the maiden test flight video. I turned on my surround sounds speakers to just hear it. It's nothing like the WS-10 or AL-31FN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

Asok said:


> The distinctive sound of J-20's engine is very noticeable, the first time, I watched the maiden test flight video. I turned on my surround sounds speakers to just hear it. It's nothing like the WS-10 or AL-31FN.



I think that you don't have to forcefully make Gambit and others believe that J-20 use a new mysterious engine. Let him believe what he believes. There is nothing that you can gain from your effort. Even if the J-20 is actually use WS-15, and has an advantage that unknown to everybody, let it be. I prefer that Gambit and others think that J-20 is inferior, with Russian engine AL-31FN, and less stealthy. Those believe will keep J-20 capability stay in the dark, and cause miss calculation on their part.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LowPost

Never knew that being confident about the J-20's capabilities and backing up that standpoint with reasonable arguments makes you an inbred fanboy, mind. I also love it that attacking people using said insult when you disagree with them will likely earn you a free pass.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## conworldus

Isn't it fun to see that, after years of China trashing from the likes of Gambit, the J-20 has evolved into such a powerful, advanced war machine?

I have been on the forum for a long time and Gambit has been copying and paste for almost as long.



Arryn said:


> Never knew that being confident about the J-20's capabilities and backing up that standpoint with reasonable arguments makes you an inbred fanboy, mind. I also love it that attacking people using said insult when you disagree with them will likely earn you a free pass.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2

"Rumors" they claimed this is the chief engine designer of the present J-20 (engine model at the background+
歼20的发动机 (credit to 鹰翼下的大地)

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> "Rumors" they claimed this is the chief engine designer of the present J-20 (engine model at the background+
> 歼20的发动机 (credit to 鹰翼下的大地)



I have been saying that J-20, version 2001, was already flying with WS-15, from the very beginning. And WS-15 has TVC nozzles, and it is very powerful with Wet Thrust or Maximum Thrust +200kN. 

This mysterious engine with silver nozzle is the WS-15.


----------



## 帅的一匹

grey boy 2 said:


> "Rumors" they claimed this is the chief engine designer of the present J-20 (engine model at the background+
> 歼20的发动机 (credit to 鹰翼下的大地)


The engine in the picture is WS15?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I have been saying that J-20, version 2001, was already flying with WS-15, from the very beginning. And WS-15 has TVC nozzles, and it is much more powerful than people could have imagined. This mysterious engine with silver nozzle is the WS-15.
> 
> View attachment 371928
> View attachment 371929




And following by that logic the current J-20 has no longer a TVC nozzle ??? ... and even more why then we have never seen the nozzle twisted especially on the ground when the hydraulics pressure is down ??

Come on guys ....


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> The engine in the picture is WS15?



This picture seems like the engine model in the previous picture.






It's a model of the WS-10, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> This picture seems like the engine model in the previous picture.
> 
> View attachment 371938


Same one

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> Same one



I am leaning toward that the model is WS-10.

Not tilted nozzles.





Obviously tilted TVC nozzles.





I know some people will say this is just an optical illusion, the nozzles are not really tilted. I would rather trust my own eyes than theirs.

The TVC nozzles are not a very complicated mechanism, CCTV already showed a demonstration of the TVC nozzles, in 2005, with President Chiang.

Developing the TVC nozzles is not exactly a rocket science. Even it is rocket science, China is a major league rocket power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> I am leaning toward that the model is WS-10.
> 
> Not tilted nozzles.
> View attachment 371957
> 
> 
> Obviously tilted TVC nozzles.
> View attachment 371953
> 
> 
> I know some people will say this is just an optical illusion, the nozzles are not really tilted. I would rather trust my own eyes than theirs.
> 
> The TVC nozzles are not a very complicated mechanism, CCTV already showed a demonstration of the TVC nozzles, in 2005, with President Chiang.
> 
> Developing the TVC nozzles is not exactly a rocket science. Even it is rocket science, China is a major league rocket power.


I think it's not TVC. It's nozzle is too short for a 3D TVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> I think it's not TVC. It's nozzle is too short for a 3D TVC.



The movement of the Russian TVC is much more obvious, because both of the last two sections of the nozzles could tilt, while the Chinese nozzle, only the last section could tilt. According to a report, the Chinese mechanism is simpler and lighter than the Russian one, and lasts a lot longer.


----------



## My-Analogous

Asok said:


> It clearly shows the pilot's right hand is on his right side. That means the Joy is not located on the Center but on the side like the F-16. It also clearly show the Seat has a white actuator to seat up or down as G force increases during high G moves.
> 
> View attachment 364857
> 
> 
> I am not saying J-20 is designed to fly at Mach 3 regularly. I simply said it got enough power to set some records. When Su-27 set a number of world records, all unnecessary equipments (like radar, gun) were removed and use only minimum fuel needed, even the paint was striped to save a couple hundred pounds.
> 
> J-20 has long and slender shape, so it is far more aerodynamic than F-22 and T50 to fly at Supersonic Speed, and has a lot more power, 35% more than F-22, IMO.
> 
> So, I think it could do at least Mach1.6-1.8 Supersonic Cruise for more than 30 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 364867
> 
> Effortless and rapid vertical climbing again, and no tell-tale sign of a long long bright flame of the Afterburner turned on. This signifies only Dry Thrust was used to do that. And it means the Dry Thrust alone is greater than the Weight of J-20, which is > 20 tons, IMO.
> 
> "Underpowered", it is not. WS-10x, or AL-31FN, it is not. IMO.
> 
> Another Yellow Bird takes to the sky on New Year.
> 
> View attachment 364873



Alhumdullah we have great start in 2017 beginning and may Allah give us 100 more years like that. Another good news for Pakistan. Now three progress report of Pakistan we actually seen and only we can have these birds also other then our Chinese brother.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> The movement of the Russian TVC is much more obvious, because both of the last two sections of the nozzles could tilt, while the Chinese nozzle, only the last section could tilt. According to a report, the Chinese mechanism is simpler and lighter than the Russian one, and lasts a lot longer.


Everything is possible!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

You really never looked to a true TVC-nouule, didn't You ??

Just compare it with any other TVC-nozzle out there and even if You surely will again reply CHinese scientist have mastered a so far secret way to do that You are wrong; plain wrong.

That is not a TVC-nozzle and all You wishfull-thinkings won't help ... please come back to reality !!!

Deino


----------



## 帅的一匹

Happy Chinese New Years to all PDF members!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Brainsucker

This is TVC nozzle CMIIW

This is flanker, and I don't know who has the beast in the photo. I just want to give a photo of what kind of beast is engine with TVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Tiger Awan said:


> As a Mechanical engineer and a lifelong Formula 1 fan I do have many questions regarding changing area of an Inlet of an engine (let alone a DSI one on a stealth aircraft where you require a very good engine efficiency to keep IR signature low too) and I enjoy your posts on these things too as they are very informative. Just saying we are never going to get the answers of all these questions


If you like F1 racing, then you have at least a cursory understanding of the aerodynamics involved in those cars. Me ? Bikes. Motorcycles are aerodynamic disasters.



Tiger Awan said:


> One thing more about variable DSI. What happens to RCS of J-20 as its DSI changes shape. I mean we talk all the time how RCS suddenly increases when the weapon bay is opened and Serbs even claim the change in RCS was just what they needed to bring F-111 down. Can similar thing happens with a variable DSI ??


Let us assume that the claim of a variable DSI bump is real and installed in the jet.

If you alter the physical characteristics of a structure, the behaviors of the signal waves changes. This have been mathematically formalized by Petr Ufimtsev whose textbook I have on my shelf. I doubt that the changes produces by the shapeshifting DSI bump is as dramatic as the opening of a weapons bay, but signals leaving the DSI bump as it changes its shape and dimension would produce different behaviors when interacts with nearby structures, which would affect final RCS.

It is not " Can similar thing happens with a variable DSI ?? " But similar things *WILL* happen with a variable DSI bump system. These are the laws of physics that not even China can violate.

Will final RCS increase ? Yes, it will. How much to raise the J-20 above the minimum threshold ? This is where EM anechoic chamber testing is needed and just like the US with our 'stealth' platforms, China is not going release any EM anechoic chamber testing data of the J-20. But shapeshifting the DSI bump will influence final RCS.

This is why it is so entertaining debating the J-20's supporters on this forum. They are clueless on how their claims for the J-20 is consistently -- inconsistent. They consistently do not perform even basic research.

They claim that the J-20's all moving rudders -- vertical stabilators -- are superior to the F-22's rudders. Never mind that the US have the SR-71 with all moving vertical stabs, which should at least hint that the F-22 do not *NEED* all moving vertical stabs. All moving vertical stabs affects final RCS because you essentially have giant moving reflecting plates. The J-20's engineers are not stupid. They know. But the J-20 needs all moving vertical stabs. So the J-20 supporters essentially changed the laws of physics to say that giant moving plates do not affect Ufimtsev's maths.

Now the J-20's supporters claims that while the F-22's conventional inlet diverter plates are negative to RCS, the J-20's shapeshifting DSI bumps have no effects at all. This conclusion is done with merely using one's eyeballs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Eagle

wanglaokan said:


> Happy Chinese New Years to all PDF members!



Same to you and all the Chinese Friends.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> If you like F1 racing, then you have at least a cursory understanding of the aerodynamics involved in those cars. Me ? Bikes. Motorcycles are aerodynamic disasters.
> 
> 
> Let us assume that the claim of a variable DSI bump is real and installed in the jet.
> 
> If you alter the physical characteristics of a structure, the behaviors of the signal waves changes. This have been mathematically formalized by Petr Ufimtsev whose textbook I have on my shelf. I doubt that the changes produces by the shapeshifting DSI bump is as dramatic as the opening of a weapons bay, but signals leaving the DSI bump as it changes its shape and dimension would produce different behaviors when interacts with nearby structures, which would affect final RCS.
> 
> It is not " Can similar thing happens with a variable DSI ?? " But similar things *WILL* happen with a variable DSI bump system. These are the laws of physics that not even China can violate.
> 
> Will final RCS increase ? Yes, it will. How much to raise the J-20 above the minimum threshold ? This is where EM anechoic chamber testing is needed and just like the US with our 'stealth' platforms, China is not going release any EM anechoic chamber testing data of the J-20. But shapeshifting the DSI bump will influence final RCS.
> 
> This is why it is so entertaining debating the J-20's supporters on this forum. They are clueless on how their claims for the J-20 is consistently -- inconsistent. They consistently do not perform even basic research.
> 
> They claim that the J-20's all moving rudders -- vertical stabilators -- are superior to the F-22's rudders. Never mind that the US have the SR-71 with all moving vertical stabs, which should at least hint that the F-22 do not *NEED* all moving vertical stabs. All moving vertical stabs affects final RCS because you essentially have giant moving reflecting plates. The J-20's engineers are not stupid. They know. But the J-20 needs all moving vertical stabs. So the J-20 supporters essentially changed the laws of physics to say that giant moving plates do not affect Ufimtsev's maths.
> 
> Now the J-20's supporters claims that while the F-22's conventional inlet diverter plates are negative to RCS, the J-20's shapeshifting DSI bumps have no effects at all. This conclusion is done with merely using one's eyeballs.


When J20 move its stabilizer, it must have entered into dogfight! If it enters into a dogfight, who cares about RCS? As to the RCS of the shapeshifting DSI, our scientist must have calculate it. If you are Smarter than our engineer, I invite you to be the chief of AVIC.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Somebody insists that J-20's TVC nozzle tilt like or look like that of the Flanker's, when not activated. Let me remind everybody that TVC nozzles could look very different, depending on the maturity of the technology and its intended usages.


This is the British Harrier's TVC Nozzle. It got four, two on each side.






This is the USSR's Yak-38 Nozzle. It got two lifting fans at the front, one TVC nozzle at the back.






This is the Russian Yak-141 TVC Nozzle. In the 1990's, LockeedMartin brought the TVC technology and used it on F-35. And China brought it's R79-v300 engine technology and used it on WS-15.






The X-31 technology demonstrator. With this simple paddle like TVC, X-31 beat F/A-18 64 times out of 66 in dogfights.






This is Su-27's enormous 2D-TVC Nozzle demonstrator. No wonder, it was not successful. It must weight over a ton.






This is the F-15S/MTD. it's much better than the Su-27's.






This is F-22's 2D TVC Nozzle. It's matured, but still pretty heavy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Ohh come on ... but all have in common You see that tilt or at least in the 2D nozzles, You see moving parts !

But You surely will us, that this mystical super-duper hyper-powerful engine surely needs only a much smaller angle to achieve the same effect and we are only too blind or unwilling to notice?

Deino


----------



## Asoka

This is Russian Su-37's TVC Nozzle. Someone has insisted that unless the Chinese TVC must look like that, it's no TVC. Notice, *the last two sections could tilt*. As a result, it's tilting section is much longer and has a much greater tilting angle than the next several TVC, which tilts only the last section.







This is the F-16/MATV. Notice *only the last section* of the Nozzle could tilt.







This is the F-15 Active TVC Nozzle. Notice only the last section could tilt.






This is the Eurofighter Typhoon's TVC Nozzle. Notice also *only the last section* could move.






And finally this is the Chinese TVC Nozzle, demonstrated in 2005. Like the previous several nozzles, *only the last section could tilt*.






As we can see, *only the Russian's TVC nozzles use the two sections tilting technology*. The Chinese, Europeans and American used one section tilting technology.







This is NOT a TVC Nozzle. It's a ostrich burying his head in the sand. It's a metaphor for someone, who insist Reality to fits his imagination, or insist that the Chinese TVC nozzle must look like the Russian's TVC, otherwise, its not TVC, at all . .

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

@Asok, to admit I slowly feel insulted !

It is not, not the slightest way that I am blind, not that my major intention is to downplay Chinese achievements, but You constant overhyping is annoying, far from being realistic and even if You don't want to hear that:

Some day a few fan-boys will cry out loud and huge tears when all the facts are on the table !

But back to the TVC nozzle: no-one said it has to look like a Russian nozzle and all Your comparisons to 4 nozzles on the Harrier, 2 on the Yak-38, that huge boxy one on the Su-27 (which was in fact a testbed for a future bomber !) and the paddles on the X-31 are all off. Only valid are 3D-nozzles like You showed in Your last posts but if You look closely in all images there is an angle noticeable, which is clearly visible ... and in all images on the J-20 never. Not in the air, not on the ground, simply never.

So please don't tell us again as stupid ...

Deino


----------



## Asoka

*No intend to insult*, just in a light hearted way to remind my PDF friends, that Russian's 3D-TVC *is different* from other countries' 3D TVC Nozzle, including China's.
*
No insult is intended. I am sorry*. You are not the only one who disagreed with me, in fact, I don't notice anyone else, has agreed with me, that J-20 has TVC nozzle.

This has nothing to do with stupidity.

*"You showed in Your last posts but if You look closely in all images there is an angle noticeable, which is clearly visible ... and in all images on the J-20 never. Not in the air, not on the ground, simply never."*











I do agreed that the J-20 TVC nozzle *moves very slightly* compared to Su-37's, and it is never moved on the ground. It's probably locked, when not using. But, as I have shown, *only the last section* of the Nozzle tilts, so it has a *much less range of motion*. This is similar to the TVC nozzle of the F-16/MATV, F-15 Active and Typhoon.

The reason that when people think about 3D nozzle, the Su-37's nozzle comes immediately to mind, is because it's much more demonstrated around the world, while the F-16/MATV, F-15 Active TVC nozzle *has faded into memory*, and Chinese TVC and Typhoon TVC, *is not yet operational,* or has *not publicly demonstrated*, much at all.



Deino said:


> Ohh come on ... but all have in common You see that tilt or at least in the 2D nozzles, You see moving parts !
> 
> But You surely will us, that this mystical super-duper hyper-powerful engine surely needs only a much smaller angle to achieve the same effect and we are only too blind or unwilling to notice?
> 
> Deino



Yes, it is a mystery that the Russian TVC *has two sections and moves so much*, while other country's TVC moves only the last section, thus moves much less.

What is the reason here?

I think moving two sections *needs more actuators, more moving parts, less service life, and more frequently maintenance and its much more heavier.*

It is reported that the Indian's SU-30MKI's TVC has only 26 hours of activation life before maintenance, while China's could last well over 126 hrs of activation, before maintenance is needed.

Notice, I mean TVC activation hrs here. When its not activated or tilted, during flight, its not activated.

*"that this mystical super-duper hyper-powerful engine surely needs only a much smaller angle to achieve the same effect and we are only too blind or unwilling to notice?
*
I think the Russian 3D TVC is *over done*, as other 3D TVC nozzles have shown, it don't need that long and complicated to move the plane effectively.

The *rudder of a ship* is much much smaller than the ship itself and it don't move all that much, yet its able to change the direction of an enormous ship, easily. This is because the rudder, like the TVC Nozzle, is placed at the back of the ship, hence it has a *great moment arm* to effect the change of direction.

The J-20 TVC is integrated fully into the Fly-By-Wire flight control system. J-20 has many controls surfaces like the Canards, vertical tails, flaps, LEXes, and the TVC nozzle *needs only move enough* to accomplish the maneuvers.

The J-20 has a 20m long slender body, so the TVC at the tail, *creates a huge Moment Arm*, to control the plane, when activated.

These simple little paddles-like TVC of X-31, creates enough control or Moment Arm, to beat the F/A-18, 64 out of 66 times, in mock combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

*"You constant overhyping is annoying, far from being realistic and even if You don't want to hear that:
Some day a few fan-boys will cry out loud and huge tears when all the facts are on the table !"*

It's all in your head.

While the Chinese Military Aviation progress in the last 20 years is commendable, *but* *it's not all that amazing*, compared to other countries.

Considering, the F-22 first flew in the 1991 (J-20, first flew in 2010 or 2011), and is operational by 2006, F-35's F135 engine has over 190kN of power, and its developed in the 1990's (WS-15, +200kN, developed around 2006-2015). US and Russia has demonstrated 3D TVC nozzles in the 1990s (China demonstrated in 2004).

China is still playing catching up in many fields, not the leader yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## shadows888

Asok said:


> *"You constant overhyping is annoying, far from being realistic and even if You don't want to hear that:
> Some day a few fan-boys will cry out loud and huge tears when all the facts are on the table !"*
> 
> It's all in your head.
> 
> While the Chinese Military Aviation progress in the last 20 years is commendable, *but* *it's not all that amazing*, compared to other countries.
> 
> Considering, the F-22 first flew in the 1991 (J-20, first flew in 2010 or 2011), and is operational by 2006, F-35's F135 engine has over 190kN of power, and its developed in the 1990's (WS-15, +200kN, developed around 2006-2015). US and Russia has demonstrated 3D TVC nozzles in the 1990s (China demonstrated in 2004).
> 
> China is still playing catching up in many fields, not the leader yet.



who says china is the leader??? there's only two countries that can build operational stealth fighters right now..USA and China.. russia don't count cause the PAK-FA is like 5-10 years from being ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Asok said:


> *"You constant overhyping is annoying, far from being realistic and even if You don't want to hear that:
> Some day a few fan-boys will cry out loud and huge tears when all the facts are on the table !"*
> 
> It's all in your head.
> 
> While the Chinese Military Aviation progress in the last 20 years is commendable, *but* *it's not all that amazing*, compared to other countries.
> 
> Considering, the F-22 first flew in the 1991 (J-20, first flew in 2010 or 2011), and is operational by 2006, F-35's F135 engine has over 190kN of power, and its developed in the 1990's (WS-15, +200kN, developed around 2006-2015). US and Russia has demonstrated 3D TVC nozzles in the 1990s (China demonstrated in 2004).
> 
> China is still playing catching up in many fields, not the leader yet.



Asok brother, i'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle against all odds, below is the reasons

When calling us fan-boys is no insults at all since none of us has a so-called military professional title bro, NO matter whatever the said professional throw at us on a mission to belittle Chinese military or China along with insults like "Chinese Physics" and the like of "Have you ever been with any military experience" whenever he's running out of arguments is also perfectly "OK"
Naming us as "PDF Chinese" is fine while saying he's a "Vietnamese" which is a fact even he himself has admitted is a "sin" according to dieno
Have you ever saw dieno challenge him or them for constantly trolling us the way he responding the Chinese members here? is degrading any accomplishments regarding Chinese military is perfectly alright as well? WHY? 
OR perhaps gambit is the authority thats always right?
Correct me if i was wrong, hopefully i'm not going to get a"negative rating" like last time to voice my opinion against biased moderation, however if thats the case, so be it, let other members to be the judge then
Please continue your "good work" Asok bro, you've all our support

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## kuge

perhaps huge trees attract wind?树大招风？ i think it is fine to a healthy debate

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kristisipe

grey boy 2 said:


> Asok brother, i'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle against all odds, below is the reasons
> 
> When calling us fan-boys is no insults at all since none of us has a so-called military professional title bro, NO matter whatever the said professional throw at us on a mission to belittle Chinese military or China along with insults like "Chinese Physics" and the like of "Have you ever been with any military experience" whenever he's running out of arguments is also perfectly "OK"
> Naming us as "PDF Chinese" is fine while saying he's a "Vietnamese" which is a fact even he himself has admitted is a "sin" according to dieno
> Have you ever saw dieno challenge him or them for constantly trolling us the way he responding the Chinese members here? is degrading any accomplishments regarding Chinese military is perfectly alright as well? WHY?
> OR perhaps gambit is the authority thats always right?
> Correct me if i was wrong, hopefully i'm not going to get a"negative rating" like last time to voice my opinion against biased moderation, however if thats the case, so be it, let other members to be the judge then
> Please continue your "good work" Asok bro, you've all our support


You are exactly right.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> *No intend to insult*, just in a light hearted way to remind my PDF friends, that Russian's 3D-TVC *is different* from other countries' 3D TVC Nozzle, including China's.
> *
> No insult is intended. I am sorry*. You are not the only one who disagreed with me, in fact, I don't notice anyone else, has agreed with me, that J-20 has TVC nozzle.
> 
> This has nothing to do with stupidity.
> 
> *"You showed in Your last posts but if You look closely in all images there is an angle noticeable, which is clearly visible ... and in all images on the J-20 never. Not in the air, not on the ground, simply never."*
> 
> View attachment 372135
> 
> 
> View attachment 372136
> 
> 
> I do agreed that the J-20 TVC nozzle *moves very slightly* compared to Su-37's, and it is never moved on the ground. It's probably locked, when not using. But, as I have shown, *only the last section* of the Nozzle tilts, so it has a *much less range of motion*. This is similar to the TVC nozzle of the F-16/MATV, F-15 Active and Typhoon.
> 
> The reason that when people think about 3D nozzle, the Su-37's nozzle comes immediately to mind, is because it's much more demonstrated around the world, while the F-16/MATV, F-15 Active TVC nozzle *has faded into memory*, and Chinese TVC and Typhoon TVC, *is not yet operational,* or has *not publicly demonstrated*, much at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a mystery that the Russian TVC *has two sections and moves so much*, while other country's TVC moves only the last section, thus moves much less.
> 
> What is the reason here?
> 
> I think moving two sections *needs more actuators, more moving parts, less service life, and more frequently maintenance and its much more heavier.*
> 
> It is reported that the Indian's SU-30MKI's TVC has only 26 hours of activation life before maintenance, while China's could last well over 126 hrs of activation, before maintenance is needed.
> 
> Notice, I mean TVC activation hrs here. When its not activated or tilted, during flight, its not activated.
> 
> *"that this mystical super-duper hyper-powerful engine surely needs only a much smaller angle to achieve the same effect and we are only too blind or unwilling to notice?
> *
> I think the Russian 3D TVC is *over done*, as other 3D TVC nozzles have shown, it don't need that long and complicated to move the plane effectively.
> 
> The *rudder of a ship* is much much smaller than the ship itself and it don't move all that much, yet its able to change the direction of an enormous ship, easily. This is because the rudder, like the TVC Nozzle, is placed at the back of the ship, hence it has a *great moment arm* to effect the change of direction.
> 
> The J-20 TVC is integrated fully into the Fly-By-Wire flight control system. J-20 has many controls surfaces like the Canards, vertical tails, flaps, LEXes, and the TVC nozzle *needs only move enough* to accomplish the maneuvers.
> 
> The J-20 has a 20m long slender body, so the TVC at the tail, *creates a huge Moment Arm*, to control the plane, when activated.
> 
> These simple little paddles-like TVC of X-31, creates enough control or Moment Arm, to beat the F/A-18, 64 out of 66 times, in mock combat.
> View attachment 372188


Hi Asok, there is no need to be apologetic for your well research and documented post. Even your description of somebody so called behaving like an ostrich is highly justify. I see little flaw in your research. I think we are getting very close to solved this mysterious engine install on operational J-20 soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Hi Asok, there is no need to be apologetic for your well research and documented post. Even your description of somebody so called behaving like an ostrich is highly justify. I see little flaw in your research. I think we are getting very close to solved this mysterious engine install on operational J-20 soon.



Thanks for your support, Beast. It's very heart warming.

Give some respect to my "opponents" reflects upon my character, not theirs. Be nice to other people ,while still being argumentative, is my new year resolution, and my promise to my wife.

I think China will officially roll out the J-20, along with a announcement what engine J-20 is using, once a regiment or two is in the service.



grey boy 2 said:


> Asok brother, i'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle against all odds, below is the reasons
> 
> When calling us fan-boys is no insults at all since none of us has a so-called military professional title bro, NO matter whatever the said professional throw at us on a mission to belittle Chinese military or China along with insults like "Chinese Physics" and the like of "Have you ever been with any military experience" whenever he's running out of arguments is also perfectly "OK"
> Naming us as "PDF Chinese" is fine while saying he's a "Vietnamese" which is a fact even he himself has admitted is a "sin" according to dieno
> Have you ever saw dieno challenge him or them for constantly trolling us the way he responding the Chinese members here? is degrading any accomplishments regarding Chinese military is perfectly alright as well? WHY?
> OR perhaps gambit is the authority thats always right?
> Correct me if i was wrong, hopefully i'm not going to get a"negative rating" like last time to voice my opinion against biased moderation, however if thats the case, so be it, let other members to be the judge then
> Please continue your "good work" Asok bro, you've all our support




I have been threatened with ban and deletion of all my posts in the last several months, *three times*, now. 

Yet, this Gambit guy, received a clean pass for his outrageous trolling activities. My patience is up with him. His is on my Ignore list.

Your support is very heart warming and very encouraging.

I won't say, we are fighting a 'losing' battle. I would say we are fighting against a strong head wind of entrenched doubts and skepticism, but when did China never faced doubts/laughters/ridicules from the Westerners?.

The challenges and doubts only make me dig deeper and research harder. It doesn't discourage me, a bit.

We are getting fierce resistance is only because we are getting close to the Truth. We are winning. China's engineers and scientists already did their hard works.

*China played a brilliant Game of Deception regarding J-20*.

US and its allies is stuck with the fat pig, F-35, hopefully 3000 of them, and they foolishly tricked into cancelling their fierce-some F-22.

If China produced at least +500 of the excellent J-20, in the next few years, we will see Peace in our times. We have the DUTY to defend World Peace against the warmongering US Neocons and Neolibs.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> *
> *
> 
> *"You showed in Your last posts but if You look closely in all images there is an angle noticeable, which is clearly visible ... and in all images on the J-20 never. Not in the air, not on the gro Ground und, simply never."*
> 
> View attachment 372135
> 
> 
> View attachment 372136






Your fanboyizm is causing you to see something out of nothing. The J-20 has variable nozzles, meaning the diameter of the nozzles changes. So those lines you drew claiming to show thrust vectoring is just one nozzle with a different diameter from the other.








Asok said:


> Yes, it is a mystery that the Russian TVC *has two sections and moves so much*, while other country's TVC moves only the last section, thus moves much less.





There is no mystery. The Russian TVCs do not have two moving sections. That would not even make sense.







Asok said:


> It is reported that the Indian's SU-30MKI's TVC has only 26 hours of activation life before maintenance, while China's could last well over 126 hrs of activation, before maintenance is needed.





China does not even have TVC nozzles in any flying aircraft so how do they know that it requires 126 hours before maintenance?





As for Indian media and complaints from Indian officials. No one takes either seriously. I don't know if that 26 hour figure is true but Indian Air Force officials have habits of complaining about everything, case in point MRCA and Rafael. Maintenance figures are also subjective. I can go 10,000 miles without changing my oil even though it is recommended I do so every 3,000 miles. Similar if maintenance is recommended every 26 hours it does not mean you can't push it well past that. Manufacturers give recommendations as to when maintenance should be done, their numbers are always conservative for liability reasons. It would be irresponsible for a manufacturer to recommend an oil change at 15 or 20 thousand miles even although the engine may still be working at those maintenance intervals, the problem is that it may have damage at those maintenance intervals.

China, Russia, the US or anyone can slap any recommendations for maintenance they want. Just because China may recommended maintenance be done at x amount of hours doesn't not mean that Russia or the US would recommend the same maintenance schedule on the same equipment.








Asok said:


> I think the Russian 3D TVC is *over done*, as other 3D TVC nozzles have shown, it don't need that long and complicated to move the plane effectively.





I think aeronautical engineers, scientists and designers know more about designing jet nozzles then someone on PDF that did not know what a vertical stabilizer was.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

*"No, ... I would bet my membership here at this forum on this issue. It can't be a WS-15 ... this engines was not even tested on a Il-76 and You think - IMO pure wishful thinking - that it even powers a J-20 right now. Honestly, but that is IMO simply naïve."*

Somebody made a foolish bet, a while back. Ho ho ho.

No wonder all the hysterical objections, denials and doubts.

Who could that be? I wonder. humm.



Beast said:


> How would they wouldnt want to hide the test. They want you to believe what you want to believe. Letting you think China aviation propulsion is weak can be a surprise for enemy.
> 
> No info of real test of ASBM ever leak, what we we have seen are just few possible tested site but we do know real ASBM has tested before on real sea. They like to keep you in suspend and keep you guessing China real military depth. It will always be part of the deception doctrine borrow heavily from Art of War.



*"They like to keep you in suspend and keep you guessing China real military depth. It will always be part of the deception doctrine borrow heavily from Art of War."*

Amen. The Art of Deception, goes hand in hand, with the Art of War. In fact, they are the same, according to Master Sun Tzu.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> *When J20 move its stabilizer, it must have entered into dogfight!* If it enters into a dogfight, who cares about RCS? As to the RCS of the shapeshifting DSI, our scientist must have calculate it. If you are Smarter than our engineer, I invite you to be the chief of AVIC.


Wrong...!!!

Even with a stable design, if the flight control system is a closed loop stability augmented, *ALL* flight control elements are in constant motion, even in level flight. Just because your human eyes cannot make out those motions, it does not mean they do not move. In fact, they must move in order to keep the aircraft stable even while maneuvering.

Do not confuse stable flight with level flight.

Just in case you think I make this shit up...

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7322579/?reload=true


> ...concerned with stability augmentation system...


There are pitch stabaug, roll stabaug, and yaw stabaug.

You do not know what you are talking about.



grey boy 2 said:


> OR perhaps gambit is the authority thats always right?


When it comes to the technical issues of aviation, odds are better than excellent that I am right...


----------



## Taygibay

Asok said:


> It's all in your head.
> 
> While the Chinese Military Aviation progress in the last 20 years is commendable, *but* *it's not all that amazing*, compared to other countries.
> 
> Considering, the F-22 first flew in the 1991 (J-20, first flew in 2010 or 2011), and is operational by 2006, F-35's F135 engine has over 190kN of power, and its developed in the 1990's (WS-15, +200kN, developed around 2006-2015). US and Russia has demonstrated 3D TVC nozzles in the 1990s (China demonstrated in 2004).
> 
> China is still playing catching up in many fields, not the leader yet.



Hello Asok mate! Let me start by saying that I disagree with you for now on
the trust vectoring nozzles. Many of the ones you showed are only top of
the art adaptative nozzles that control airflow / pressure output, not directional.
That config is needed to deal with phenomenons behind the plane and studied
a lot as of today as you'll find here and here. But that's not really important.

China is doing fine in aviation research and development and the only reason
why it is still playing catch-up is historical but will be borne out relatively soon.
That lack is prototyping. In the last 110 years, some nations and companies
have made prototype after prototype for decades.
I remember Dassault building G-4/G-8 with variable geometry wings à la F-14
a few years after the ill-fated VTOL Balzac but a few years before the Super Mirage 4000



which led to the Rafale demonstrator


( click us *^^* ).​All while producing Mirages III/5, F1 & 2000.

Prototypes from France overall are even more varied ( check this tidbit list ).
Having tried all these, including the failures, is a deeper pool of knowledge the
acquisition of which has long reaching consequences in design bureau efficiency.
It just can't be duplicated.
Even today, the US have 2 demonstrators built for every program ... because they
have the cash and know the advantages of exploring design avenues in real life.

This said, aviation design is not an isolated field and progress also comes from
computers that allow simulation of high quality. So that exp. lack of China is getting
compensated as we speak with every new attempt because you can learn more
with better analytic tools of the 21st century. Besides, most nations do less of it.
In short, the gap is closing and will.

Last but not least, I'll also take exception with your characterization of the moderation.
First, Deino is really not bad and he provides and livens up this thread and others.
Second, I have had differences with other title holders and once moderation and found
that pulling back from discussions solves most instances. [ It's easy to do when you're right  ]
And third, I don't mind that PDF has a different way of doing things even if it sometimes
seems biased. I'm here for Pakistan's point of view and I don't expect it to be formatted as
that of America or Canada, Sweden or France. I'll adapt to the local conventions as I would
on a physical trip in order to correctly experience that point of view.
Otherwise, what's the use of exchanging with people thousands of kliks away, when one
has millions of clowns of their own persuasion to join in auto-celebration of national greatness?

I guess what I'm saying and suggesting is :
Keep the vivacious curious guy alive and lose the unproductive alacrity.

As for loudmouths, forget the personality & just answer claims and go.
You better learn to sweep them off as they won't learn to speak better?

Have a great day buddy, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

Nice HD pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> OK please help us to understand the way you think..
> 
> Please explain why variable DSI (if any) need pitot/static sensor while moveable cone or ramp does not?


You claimed to have 'aviation studies'. If so, then you should have been able to deduce the answer to your questions based upon these posts of mine...

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-508#post-9108882

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-514#post-9139345

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-514#post-9139406

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-514#post-9140260



antonius123 said:


> Why variable DSI (if any) need such a complexed calculated air data while movable cone or ramp does not?


It looks like you, just like your Chinese friends, have not done proper research, when you asked about movable cone.

The SR-71's inlet spikes are controlled by the Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System (AFICS), from analog to digital.

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-102.php


> The Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System (DAFICS) comprises five major subsystems: stability augmentation system, autopilot/Mach trim system, automatic pitch warning and high angle of attack system, automatic/manual inlet control system, and *air data system*.


Note the highlighted.

Further...

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-39.php


> In automatic control, DAFICS schedules the spike and forward bypass position *as a function of Mach*...


Note the highlighted.

You cannot calculate Mach without pitot/static air.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/pssi.htm

There is no way a high performance aircraft like the SR-71, which operates at the edge of suborbital altitude, could run its engines without transmitting air data information to the inlet spike control system. One way or another, pitot/static air information should be available for any type of inlet air control system.

Now...Is/are there any aircraft out there that have inlet air control system that does not use pitot/static air data ? Mmmmmmmmaybe...

So the bottom line is this...

For a claimed high performance jet fighter like the J-20, we have claims of a variable DSI bump system.

Where are the components for this system ?

Do not tell me that they are secret. No, the architecture is known, and so are the components when they are installed on an aircraft. My posting about the F-111, F-15, and the SR-71 have not violated any US 'Top Secret' firewall.


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

After You round of chest bumping is over, can we again return to the topic !??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

This news is not directly related to J-20, but if J-20 has any hope of take off from a Chinese Aircraft Carrier in the future, there must a Catapult system onboard.

This news article say China solved the Electro-Magnetic Catapult problem. It will probably installed on the *third domestic Chinese build Aircraft Carrier CV003*, probably will be nuclear powered, is currently under design. The US Ford Class Aircraft carrier is the first ship that uses Electro-Magnetic Catapult.

"1月25日，在中央电视台CCTV10频道播出的“2016年度科技盛典”节目中，中国工程院院士、海军工程大学教授、船舶动力与电气领域著名专家马伟明获评为2016年度最具影响力的十大“科技创新人物”。马伟明团队“承包”了中国海军舰艇电力系统技术，使中国在军事科技领域跻身世界一流水平，被誉为世界电气领域的“中国骄傲”。

在节目中，马伟明院士透露了我国电磁弹射技术的最新研究进展情况。他表示，电磁发射技术，将在10年左右取代传统的化学能技术。马伟明介绍，这是由电磁能发射的原理和特点决定的，更快更强更远更高（效率）以及更加安全。"

*马伟明称电磁发射10年取代化学能 003航母用电弹成定局*
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2017-01-28/doc-ifxzyxmu8209640.shtml

Here are some fan arts.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> This news is not directly related to J-20, but if J-20 has any hope of take off from a Chinese Aircraft Carrier in the future, there must a Catapult system onboard.
> 
> This news article say China solved the Electro-Magnetic Catapult problem. It will probably installed on the *third domestic Chinese build Aircraft Carrier CV003*, probably will be nuclear powered, is currently under design. The US Ford Class Aircraft carrier is the first ship that uses Electro-Magnetic Catapult.
> 
> "1月25日，在中央电视台CCTV10频道播出的“2016年度科技盛典”节目中，中国工程院院士、海军工程大学教授、船舶动力与电气领域著名专家马伟明获评为2016年度最具影响力的十大“科技创新人物”。马伟明团队“承包”了中国海军舰艇电力系统技术，使中国在军事科技领域跻身世界一流水平，被誉为世界电气领域的“中国骄傲”。
> 
> 在节目中，马伟明院士透露了我国电磁弹射技术的最新研究进展情况。他表示，电磁发射技术，将在10年左右取代传统的化学能技术。马伟明介绍，这是由电磁能发射的原理和特点决定的，更快更强更远更高（效率）以及更加安全。"
> 
> *马伟明称电磁发射10年取代化学能 003航母用电弹成定局*
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2017-01-28/doc-ifxzyxmu8209640.shtml
> 
> Here are some fan arts.
> 
> View attachment 372544
> 
> 
> View attachment 372545
> 
> 
> View attachment 372546


Possible but least chance because is too heavy for an aircraft carrier, i think single engine version of J-20 will be fine for an aircraft carrieror J-31 class medium weight jet will be fine


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> Possible but least chance because is too heavy for an aircraft carrier, i think single engine version of J-20 will be fine for an aircraft carrieror J-31 class medium weight jet will be fine


Most probably FC31

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

pakistanipower said:


> Possible but least chance because is too heavy for an aircraft carrier, i think single engine version of J-20 will be fine for an aircraft carrieror J-31 class medium weight jet will be fine



What makes you say that?

F-14 Tomcat flew off aircraft carriers.


----------



## monitor

J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

A new bird or one of the older ones with a new MLG-door ?


----------



## Taygibay

*^^^*​No serial number unless I missed it; should point to new though not necessarily.

Good day to you, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

UKBengali said:


> What makes you say that?
> 
> F-14 Tomcat flew off aircraft carriers.


F-14 tomcat maximum weight is
*Max. takeoff weight:* 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)

Projected J-20 Max. takeoff weight is
*Max takeoff weight:* 36,288 kg (80,001 lb) upper estimate

China currently have not Nimitz size aircraft carrier, not possible on current Chinese AC


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> F-14 tomcat maximum weight is
> *Max. takeoff weight:* 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
> 
> Projected J-20 Max. takeoff weight is
> *Max takeoff weight:* 36,288 kg (80,001 lb) upper estimate
> 
> China currently have not Nimitz size aircraft carrier, not possible on current Chinese AC




Hey come on, that could be rated as an insult to any Chinese technology achievements !! If I had posted this ... not to think about?? 

With the proclaimed +210 kN WS-15 with super-stealthy TVC-technology a J-20 can surely even jump out of my parking lot; and whoever does not believe this is a China-basher and Western ignorant. 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

An older image of J-20 2001 repainted grey ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> A new bird or one of the older ones with a new MLG-door ?



The 4th LRIP J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> The 4th LRIP J-20.




O.k. ??? Thanks.
But what are then the numbers 78271 to 78274 ?? Which LRIP birds are these ??
Especially if this is the fourth LRIP aircraft and the fifth had just its maiden flight in yellow, so both are still at CAC ?


Deino


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> O.k. ??? Thanks.
> But what are then the numbers 78271 to 78274 ?? Which LRIP birds are these ??
> Especially if this is the fourth LRIP aircraft and the fifth had just its maiden flight in yellow, so both are still at CAC ?
> 
> 
> Deino


As the author mentioned, it is a series of old photos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> As the author mentioned, it is a series of old photos.




Thanks and pardon; I only saw them in post #7753 ... and there nothing was added.

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-517#post-9150695

And also here in this one nothing more is added:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825351035048730624


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Thanks and pardon; I only saw them in post #7753 ... and there nothing was added.
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-517#post-9150695
> 
> And also here in this one nothing more is added:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825351035048730624



The original post said:



> 一组老图，庆贺鸡年春节！！本组图片均为超大原创，转载请注明。



http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2356468-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> The original post said:
> 
> http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2356468-1-1.html




Thanks ... and that's for sure another proof that I indeed lack certain information. Anyway it is also proof for what I always say to other members: Please give a link so that anyone can check what's behind !

Thanks a lot.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

pakistanipower said:


> F-14 tomcat maximum weight is
> *Max. takeoff weight:* 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
> 
> Projected J-20 Max. takeoff weight is
> *Max takeoff weight:* 36,288 kg (80,001 lb) upper estimate
> 
> China currently have not Nimitz size aircraft carrier, not possible on current Chinese AC



J-20 will have far more powerful engines to enable it to launch from aircraft carrier - assume 180kN each from J-20 as opposed to 130kN each from F-14 Tomcat. Also,we are talking about future carriers that will be larger than the current one.

@Deino: Your reply was childish and not suitable for that of a mod.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

UKBengali said:


> J-20 will have far more powerful engines to enable it to launch from aircraft carrier - assume 180kN each from J-20 as opposed to 130kN each from F-14 Tomcat. Also,we are talking about future carriers that will be larger than the current one.
> 
> @Deino: Your reply was childish and not suitable for that of a mod.


yes but in lesser numbers medium weight class jets is on more favorable than heavies on AC


----------



## Asoka

All large US Carriers have Steam Powered Catapult, and the Ford class carrier have ElectroMagnetic Catapult* to assist aircrafts to take off*.

Some people don't seems understand what does the Catapult do, and what my post is talking about. Please don't call yourself a fanboy, if you don't even know these basic stuffs. It is insulting to the rest of us.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> All large US Carriers have Steam Powered Catapult, and the Ford class carrier have ElectroMagnetic Catapult* to assist aircrafts to take off*.
> 
> Some people don't seems understand what does the Catapult do, and what my post is talking about. Please don't call yourself a fanboy, if you don't even know these basic stuffs. It is insulting to the rest of us.
> 
> 
> View attachment 372912


bro with due respect you are hyping too much about the capabilities of J-20 true capability of J-20 know only and only PLAAF no ones knows other than PLAAF and you know all the basic of military aviation you are the real fanboy for J-20


----------



## AmirPatriot

Was someone talking about the F-14?


----------



## Brainsucker

I don't know, but does J-20 really-really was prepared to be equipped with a 3D TVC engine? Because 3D TVC engine is way different to AL31 series and WS-10. 3D TVC engine has more weight, means that it will change everything. including the center of weight to the aircraft. If you replace the current engine (which supposedly to be WS-10 or AL-31) then you have modify everything, to correct the center of weight of the aircraft. That mean, J-20 will have to change her everything. Wing placement, fuselage model, etc

So I think there are two possible reality about J-20 here. Either it is not designed to have a 3D TVC engine from the beginning, or it has already has 3D TVC Engine

But I think even if J-20 is not designed to has a 3D TVC engine, it is not inferior aircraft. Look at F-22. Even with TVC Engine, it didn't give a guarantee win against an aircraft without TVC. Look at her record against European Typhoon and other older aircraft from the Europe. To defense F-22 loses, they said that it supposed to fight in BVR area, as it is the F-22 strong point. But then, what is the purpose of 3D TVC engine, if it's not to help the aircraft win a dog fight scenario?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> bro with due respect you are hyping too much about the capabilities of J-20 true capability of J-20 know only and only PLAAF no ones knows other than PLAAF and you know all the basic of military aviation you are the real fanboy for J-20


He is an enthusiastic supporter of J20, while I'm a big fan of FC31.



Brainsucker said:


> I don't know, but does J-20 really-really was prepared to be equipped with a 3D TVC engine? Because 3D TVC engine is way different to AL31 series and WS-10. 3D TVC engine has more weight, means that it will change everything. including the center of weight to the aircraft. If you replace the current engine (which supposedly to be WS-10 or AL-31) then you have modify everything, to correct the center of weight of the aircraft. That mean, J-20 will have to change her everything. Wing placement, fuselage model, etc
> 
> So I think there are two possible reality about J-20 here. Either it is not designed to have a 3D TVC engine from the beginning, or it has already has 3D TVC Engine
> 
> But I think even if J-20 is not designed to has a 3D TVC engine, it is not inferior aircraft. Look at F-22. Even with TVC Engine, it didn't give a guarantee win against an aircraft without TVC. Look at her record against European Typhoon and other older aircraft from the Europe. To defense F-22 loses, they said that it supposed to fight in BVR area, as it is the F-22 strong point. But then, what is the purpose of 3D TVC engine, if it's not to help the aircraft win a dog fight scenario?


J20 is designed to be compatible with WS15. If WS15 has 3D TVC.


----------



## Brainsucker

wanglaokan said:


> He is an enthusiastic supporter of J20, while I'm a big fan of FC31.
> 
> J20 is designed to be compatible with WS15. If WS15 has 3D TVC.



But why WS15 needs to be a 3D TVC? What J-20 needs is speed and range, not more maneuverable ability. It has already has delta wing structure. Too much maneuver will generate more G, which endanger the pilot.

And once agains, different weight of engine will disturb the center of gravity of the aircraft. You have to redesigned the fuselage and the wing placement. So unless WS-15 has the same weight to the AL31 or WS10 then J-20 will be looked very different in the future.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> F-14 tomcat maximum weight is
> *Max. takeoff weight:* 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
> 
> Projected J-20 Max. takeoff weight is
> *Max takeoff weight:* 36,288 kg (80,001 lb) upper estimate
> 
> China currently have not Nimitz size aircraft carrier, not possible on current Chinese AC



The figure for J-20 is not correct, since J-20 has undoubtedly greater maximum takeoff than F-22 which got 38 tons.

J-20 can carry four external fuel tanks, while F-22 can only carry two.

BTW, the aircraft carrier to have J-20 will be the 100,000+ tonnes Type 003.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Brainsucker said:


> But why WS15 needs to be a 3D TVC? What J-20 needs is speed and range, not more maneuverable ability. It has already has delta wing structure. Too much maneuver will generate more G, which endanger the pilot.
> 
> And once agains, different weight of engine will disturb the center of gravity of the aircraft. You have to redesigned the fuselage and the wing placement. So unless WS-15 has the same weight to the AL31 or WS10 then J-20 will be looked very different in the future.



The short answer is: J-20, version 2001, is already equipped with WS-15 right from the beginning, back in year 2011. And WS-15 is also equipped with 3D-TVC right from the beginning. IMO. So now, after 5 years of testing with WS-15 and 3D-TVC, the design of J-20 is frozen and going into LRIP.

TVC is especially useful in two situations: slow, post-stall speed, where your control surfaces are no longer effective. In High-altitude, where the air is so thin, your control surfaces are much less effective.


----------



## gambit

Brainsucker said:


> But I think even if J-20 is not designed to has a 3D TVC engine, it is not inferior aircraft.


Remember this the next time anyone criticizes the F-31 for not being able to supercruise -- as in 'inferior' to the J-20.

To date, there are no credible evidences that the J-20 have TVC engines. Every images presented so far have been of asymmetric nozzle openings, which are common with twin engines fighters, which gives the illusion of having TVC engines.

The real proof is on ground operations.

Prior to every takeoff, twice the pilot will do what is called 'cycling' all the major flight components, which includes the engines. The first cycling of these components is when the jet is in what we who have actual military aviation experience call 'in the chocks'. This is before taxiing to the runway. This is after the pilot is in cockpit, engine started, INS spooling up, standby compass system orienting itself, and flight control system are going thru their programmed self tests.

If the jet is equipped with TVC engines, in the chocks is where and when the pilot will cycle the TVC nozzles.

The nozzles will have their asymmetric positions *THIS* obvious...







https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...news-discussions.111471/page-515#post-9143633

This is unambiguous. No visual illusions. No aspect aberrations. Your own post showed it.

In the chocks, prior to taxi, the pilot will be assisted by at least three ground crews: the crew chief and two assistants, the crew chief will station himself in front of the jet in clear visual sight of the pilot, the assistants will one per side of the jet.

The pilot will be in wired communication with the crew chief. The crew chief will be in hand signals communication with the assistants.

Once the flight control system completed its self tests, the pilot will begin cycling the flight control surfaces to their fullest extent. Ailerons, rear horizontal stabs, and vertical stab(s). All surfaces must deflects to their *FULL* mechanical stops, meaning the hydraulic actuators must travels to their maximum extension and withdraw to their shortest position, taking the flight control surfaces with them. All this time, if the crew chief notices any surface that does not travel to match the other surface, troubleshooting begins. If maintenance is required, in maintenance lingo, it is called a 'red ball'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_ball


> Term used by the US Air Force, typically on the flight line, to identify supply or service requests that are needed urgently to avoid mission failure, and thus given highest priority.


We do it this way and have no doubt the PLAAF does the same. The actual translated words maybe different, but whatever they are in Chinese, the intent is still the same: Get the maintenance truck with its parts bin to the jet immediately.

If the Launch truck cannot effect repair on a 'red ball' call, then it is a mission failure and the pilot is moved to the back up jet. If there is no back up jet, then the day's sortie count will be minus one.

Assume that the flight control system passed all checks. Now, if the jet is equipped with TVC engines, the pilot will first cycle the nozzles' openings, the crew chief's assistants will hand signal if there is anything wrong, then the pilot will manually cycle the nozzles' TVC movements. Just like the flight control system, the TVC nozzles must move to their *FULL* mechanical limits.

Assume the jet passed all checks in the chocks. Now the pilot will call to remove the wheel chocks. The crew chief will signal that removal thus: both hands into fists, thumbs up, then flip the thumbs to the sides, pointing outward.

The assistants will move in, kick the chocks out, and once both are cleared of the wing tips, the crew chief will marshal the jet out of its parking space.

The pilot will taxi to 'end of runway' (EOR) and here is the second cycling process begins. At EOR, there is no need to have the flight control system go thru its self tests again. The ground crew will perform a final inspect of the jet's outer condition. All panels must be visually flushed with the body. All pins, such as landing gears and weapons safes, must be removed. Tires must be in good operating condition such as no fibers visible. No running drips of any fluid, unless it came from the weather. Someone will hover his hand over the brakes to make sure they not overheated because that would indicate dragging brakes from the chocks to EOR, which would abort the mission for that day. Dragging brake is not possible to fix on a red ball call.

If the jet is equipped with TVC engines, EOR is where there *MUST* be a final check of the nozzles operations the same way as when the jet was in the chocks.

The ground operations I described above are common to all air forces that are serious about preserving their jets. The steps came from WW I and they tried and trued, from peace to war times. Much of what an aircraft can do, we can infer from ground operations.

So far, of the many ground photos of the J-20, there is not a single photo of a drooping nozzle when hydraulic pressure is off, or when the jet is in the chocks going thru its preflight checks, or when the jet is in EOR readied for takeoff.

@Deino @ptldM3 @pakistanipower @Taygibay @Tiger Awan

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

UKBengali said:


> J-20 will have far more powerful engines to enable it to launch from aircraft carrier - assume 180kN each from J-20 as opposed to 130kN each from F-14 Tomcat. Also,we are talking about future carriers that will be larger than the current one.
> 
> @Deino: Your reply was childish and not suitable for that of a mod.




Yes but it was probably as childish like these stupid claims the J-20 uses a WS-15 since day one !
... take it simply as some fun.



Asok said:


> The short answer is: J-20, version 2001, is already equipped with WS-15 right from the beginning, back in year 2011. And WS-15 is also equipped with 3D-TVC right from the beginning. IMO. So now, after 5 years of testing with WS-15 and 3D-TVC, the design of J-20 is frozen and going into LRIP.
> 
> TVC is especially useful in two situations: slow, post-stall speed, where your control surfaces are no longer effective. In High-altitude, where the air is so thin, your control surfaces are much less effective.




Dear @Asok .... PLAESE !!

No, it is YOUR phantasy, Your conclusion based on some observations very few here agree with ... as such tell it not as a fact - and please not again this long post of what You already posted so often ! - ... tell it as You opinion and that's fine, but not as facts.

When CAC/AVIC or the PLAAF has announced what engine it uses, then it is a fact ... until then it's an opinion and IMO a stupid one.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

I said "*. . . right from the beginning. IMO.*"

And who was so sure and definite that he bet: If J-20 has WS-15, or TVC already,

*"I would bet my membership here ... I will resign as a mod and even as a poster here !"
*
That explains the reason for all the vehement hysterical and irrational denials, oppositions, doubts and objections to J-20 already has WS-15 and TVC.

Can a mod take that kind of obsolute position and still be fair and objective and reasonable in his moderations?  

For fairness's sake, someone owes us an explanation to his behaviors.

As I have already said China played brilliant *Game of Deception* regarding J-20's capability. It got CIA, Pentagon, and other Western Intelligence Agencies fooled, big time. They got way more resources and brain powers and professional spies than a fanboy could ever hope to muster. Yet, they got fooled, just like us (fanboys). 

The West will lose their Air Dominance, they have enjoyed since the end of WWII, because of this. The political and strategic implications of J-20 is well beyond that of a fighter airplane. It will change the international dynamics for the next several decades. 

For the first time in the last several hundred years, China has a conventional weapon platform that is, at least, on par with the best of the world.

So it is absolutely not a question of "stupidity" that we (*I mean me too*) got fooled for so long. I have followed J-20, like everybody here, since the debut in 2011, and even earlier following all the rumors of J-XX, and I am not ashamed to say, I didn't know anything, definite, about J-20's engine. I was kept in a state of suspension.

While I never believed J-20 is using WS-10X or AL-31FN, but I have no idea/belief/opinion that it is using WS-15, until I became active in PDF since November, 2016. 

It is through active discussions and digging that I came to my conclusion. I don't claim any superior knowledge or ability. Like everyone else, I learned everything about J-20, through the Internet. 

*So if anyone admits that he/she was wrong about J-20, he/she don't lost my respect, but gain my respect.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Here...






...Is an F-22 performing its typical ground checks while in the chocks.

Right from the beginning, the TVC nozzles are in motion to their fullest limits.

The PLAAF is no different. Where are the images of the J-20 performing its TVC nozzle checks on the ground ?



Asok said:


> I said "*. . . right from the beginning. IMO.*"
> 
> That explains the reason for all the vehement hysterical and irrational denials, oppositions, doubts and objections to J-20 already has WS-15 and TVC.


Objections to concrete facts are irrational. To opinions -- not.


----------



## GiantPanda

Asok said:


> I was born in China, grown up in Canada, now living in US with my family.
> 
> I agreed, though, I am practically, the only person, here, believes J-20 is going into LRIP with WS-15.



The timelines for China's engine projects simply rule out the WS-15 as an engine for the J-20. Any half-way serious PLA watcher would know that. WS-10xx is a possibility but not the WS-15.

At any rate, right or wrong your opinion doesn't bother me as much as the racist reaction against all "PDF Chinese."

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

GiantPanda said:


> The timelines for China's engine projects simply rule out the WS-15 as an engine for the J-20. Any half-way serious PLA watcher would know that. WS-10xx is a possibility but not the WS-15.
> 
> At any rate, right or wrong your opinion doesn't bother me as much as the racist reaction against all "PDF Chinese."


Timeline of WS15 in year 2019?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I said "*. . . right from the beginning. IMO.*"
> 
> And who was so sure and definite that he bet: If J-20 has WS-15, or TVC already,
> 
> *"I would bet my membership here ... I will resign as a mod and even as a poster here !"
> *
> That explains the reason for all the vehement hysterical and irrational denials, oppositions, doubts and objections to J-20 already has WS-15 and TVC.
> 
> Can a mod take that kind of obsolute position and still be fair and objective and reasonable in his moderations?
> 
> For fairness's sake, someone owes us an explanation to his behaviors.
> 
> As I have already said China played brilliant *Game of Deception* regarding J-20's capability. It got CIA, Pentagon, and other Western Intelligence Agencies fooled, big time. They got way more resources and brain powers and professional spies than a fanboy could ever hope to muster. Yet, they got fooled, just like us (fanboys).
> 
> The West will lose their Air Dominance, they have enjoyed since the end of WWII, because of this. The political and strategic implications of J-20 is well beyond that of a fighter airplane. It will change the international dynamics for the next several decades.
> 
> For the first time in the last several hundred years, China has a conventional weapon platform that is, at least, on par with the best of the world.
> 
> So it is absolutely not a question of "stupidity" that we (*I mean me too*) got fooled for so long. I have followed J-20, like everybody here, since the debut in 2011, and even earlier following all the rumors of J-XX, and I am not ashamed to say, I didn't know anything, definite, about J-20's engine. I was kept in a state of suspension.
> 
> While I never believed J-20 is using WS-10X or AL-31FN, but I have no idea/belief/opinion that it is using WS-15, until I became active in PDF since November, 2016.
> 
> It is through active discussions and digging that I came to my conclusion. I don't claim any superior knowledge or ability. Like everyone else, I learned everything about J-20, through the Internet.


 

Agreed ! And I will hold my promise: I will resign as a moderator and my lay down membership too if the J-20 as we know them now, already uses a WS-15. FACT.


But I beg You to accept that so far none of Your arguments is confirmed a fact; IMO even more they are all baseless claims which otherwise can be explained much simpler and even if some mysteries remain, I again see no reason to try to explain them with these overrated expectations. This is far from any “vehement hysterical and irrational denials, oppositions, doubts and objections”, its plain simple another conclusion.

Consequently there indeed some sort of deception, but not that brilliant *Game of Deception*. Neither CIA, Pentagon, and other Western Intelligence Agencies are fooled and the only ones who are fooled are the fanboys like You. 


Anyway – just to make it clear – I'm a great fan and enthusiast of the J-20, all I really never want is to play down its capabilities and I would be glad if I am wrong, I apologise and I will stick to my promise, but so long all I see confirms my point of view and nothing confirms these hyper-optimistic claims. In return I admire Your enthusiasm … but Your lack of rational is a bit “disturbing”. Therefore – and again don’t take it as an offence – I’m sure the day will come the PLAAF or CAC will tell the truth and it will be a sad day for all fan-boys.

Again, my point to begin with is being based on analytics, logic and evidence ... and not based on dreams, hopes and wishful-thinking and why on earth is every concern someone raises right away an insult to anything China did ??
Why do some think raising a concern, noting something critical is an attack ?




> *So if anyone admits that he/she was wrong about J-20, he/she don't lost my respect, but gain my respect.*



Mine too ... but as long as it is not confirmed, there's no need to admit anything.

In return and quite ironic I can nearly quote Your post as reply but with one important difference:

So it is absolutely not a question of "stupidity" that we (*I mean me too*) got fooled for so long. I have followed J-20, like everybody here, since the debut in 2011, and even earlier following all the rumors of J-XX, and I am not ashamed to say, I didn't know anything, definite, about J-20's engine. I was kept in a state of suspension. 

*While I still believe the J-20 is using a special version of the AL-31FN, the idea/belief/opinion that it is using WS-15, is only commonly accepted by a minority of very active members in PDF since November, 2016. But it will not change the conclusion which I rate as facts.*

As such let us in the end agree to disagree until the PLAF, CAC or AVIC will reveal the truth … and then I hold my promise or accept Your apology.

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Dear @Asok .... PLAESE !!
> 
> No, it is YOUR phantasy, Your conclusion based on some observations very few here agree with ... as such tell it not as a fact - and please not again this long post of what You already posted so often ! - ... tell it as You opinion and that's fine, but not as facts.
> 
> When CAC/AVIC or the PLAAF has announced what engine it uses, then it is a fact ... until then it's an opinion and IMO a stupid one.
> 
> Deino


he don't understand you sir, he knows everything about J-20 from start till now he is completely blind he lives in too much in fairy tales and wishful thinking



gambit said:


> Objections to concrete facts are irrational. To opinions -- not.


he don't understand you sir, he knows everything about J-20 from start till now he is completely blind he lives in too much in fairy tales and wishful thinking

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

wanglaokan said:


> Timeline of WS15 in year 2019?



Timelines of what we know of the past not predict for the future. The WS-15 was first reported reaching a target 160kn during development experiments in 2009. It's ground testing was reported to have ended and that it was ready for an aerial testbed in 2016. So far, no rumors of a test on the Il-76 had actually happened. First flight of J-20 was in 2011. There is no chance of a WS-15 on any of the J-20s. They would never risk a new aircraft design with such a new engine.

2019? Maybe if we hear about the Il-76 test flight of the Emei this year. Then maybe in 2019 we see a conversion of one of the J-20 prototypes to a test system like the J-11 test of the WS-10 -- where one engine was the proven Al-31 and the other being the new engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
 3


----------



## Asoka

*"Mine too ... but as long as it is not confirmed, there's no need to admit anything."*

I agreed. I would like to say, I am pretty sure that I am right, but until it is officially confirmed. I won't say I am 100% correct or bet my life on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

GiantPanda said:


> Timelines of what we know of the past not predict for the future. The WS-15 was first reported reaching a target 160kn during development experiments in 2009. It's ground testing was reported to have ended and that it was ready for an aerial testbed in 2016. So far, no rumors of a test on the Il-76 had actually happened. First flight of J-20 was in 2011. There is no chance of a WS-15 on any of the J-20s. They would never risk a new aircraft design with such a new engine.
> 
> 2019? Maybe if we hear about the Il-76 test flight of the Emei this year. Then maybe in 2019 we see a conversion of one of the J-20 prototypes to a test system like the J-11 test of the WS-10 -- where one engine was the proven Al-31 and the other being the new engine.


Try to educate Mr @Asok he blindly believe WS-15 is in the J-20 currently, @ChineseTiger1986 clearly stated that currently J-20 is using hybrid version WS-10X and WS-15


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> ...., @ChineseTiger1986 clearly stated that currently J-20 is using hybrid version WS-10X and WS-15




But that too can be questioned !


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> But that too can be questioned !


But this argument more probable than @Asok baseless argument that J-20 is using final version of WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Of course. Especially, performance details like Thrust. No need to help your opponents by being totally honest.


----------



## Asoka

*"Neither CIA, Pentagon, and other Western Intelligence Agencies are fooled and the only ones who are fooled are the fanboys like You. "*

*http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-20.htm*

"In a speech delivered by *Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates* (Economic Club of Chicago, 16 July 2009), he stated "by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. *China, by contrast, is projected to have NO fifth generation aircraft by 2020.* And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese..."

In 2009, General He Weirong, Deputy Commander of the PLAFF said J-20 will fly shortly and estimated that the J-20 would be operational in* 2017-2019*."

CIA or Pentagon were not fooled by China, hey? Then, they must have fooled themselves and canceled F-22 for some other reasons.

Isn't China, had J-20 by 2010, and is expect to be operational this year, 2017, as General He had predicted in 2009?

I guess expecting someone to pull his head out of the sand, and admit his was mistaken, is too much to ask for.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Come on ... since when is GlobalSecurity a relaible source even more if You quote a report from 2009 !!!


----------



## Asoka

*http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-s-j-20-stealth-fighter-begins-taxi-tests*

"Its timing, Chengdu’s development record and official statements cast doubt on *U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s* 2009 prediction (in support of his decision to stop production of the Lockheed Martin F-22) *that China would not have an operational stealth aircraft before 2020*."

Do keep your head in the sand. It probably feel better that way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

So a report from 2011 is better !?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> *http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-s-j-20-stealth-fighter-begins-taxi-tests*
> 
> "Its timing, Chengdu’s development record and official statements cast doubt on *U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s* 2009 prediction (in support of his decision to stop production of the Lockheed Martin F-22) *that China would not have an operational stealth aircraft before 2020*."
> 
> Do keep your head in the sand. It probably feel better that way.


It's Sun Tze Bing Fa.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Both reported Robert Gates that Pentagon *do not expect* China to have a 5th Generational Fighter by 2020, and will have only a handful of them by 2025 whereas US will have 1,700 of them.

Clearly, back in 2009, Gates and the CIA think 187 fiercesome F-22 Raptors + 1500 F-35 flying pigs will be more than enough for the +500 J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jkroo

Actually, they are our men including the collapse and threat guys who make a living for this. 
So, take it easy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

jkroo said:


> Actually, they are our men including the collapse and threat guys who make a living for this.
> So, take it easy.



That's right, a fool in the enemy's camp, is better than a hundred allies, in the field.

What a big help are those guys in CIA and Pentagon.

They help 'shoot down' +600 Fiercesome Raptors, without us ever firing a shoot, by feeding their government B.S. "intelligences", they got from the various* Chinese Internet Forums* .   

After this fiasco, they may have a better appreciation of, who is the real master of B.S., a.k.a, Deception.   

Master Sun Tzu said: " The Art of Deception consists of: When you can, convince them, that you can't'; when you can not, mislead them, that you can."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

@Asok ... please again calm down. I admit that this reports from 2009 & 2011 are plain wrong and as I can understand Your fun, but their fault does not make Your assumptions more likely.

By the way, here's something interesting:
A rare image posted by @OedoSoldier at Twitter shows both J-XX concepts at the China Aerospace Science & Technology-expo in 2000: The CAC concept - aka later J-20 - in grey and the SAC concept in black.










https://www.facebook.com/611223845748378/photos/pcb.663681000502662/663679797169449/?type=3

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> By the way, here's something interesting:
> A rare image posted by @OedoSoldier at Twitter shows both J-XX concepts at the China Aerospace Science & Technology-expo in 2000: The CAC concept - aka later J-20 - in grey and the SAC concept in black.
> 
> View attachment 373900

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Interesting ! ... and this was the "famous" model of the mysterious JH-XX/JH-7B !?


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Finally a clear image of the J-20's radar testbed ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Finally a clear image of the J-20's radar testbed ...
> 
> View attachment 374070



For info look here:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827519872640892929
or even directly here for Update 32:

https://www.facebook.com/Modern-Chinese-Warplanes-611223845748378/posts/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

There's been some changes.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> There's been some changes.
> View attachment 374136
> View attachment 374137




And not to forget the wing-like structure on top. IMO the first image from around May 2014 is only an aerodynamic representative fairing ... whereas the later, current configuration since May (?)2015 is the real deal !


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> And not to forget the wing-like structure on top.



Sensor Wing Installed on F-22 Flying Test Bed

Boeing has installed a unique sensor wing, designed to help test F-22 avionics, on its 757 Flying Test Bed.

The sensor wing gives Boeing the capability to test and integrate U. S. Air Force F-22 avionics in parallel with airframe testing currently under way at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and long before avionics testing occurs onboard an F-22 aircraft.

Installed on the crown of the modified 757 jet, the sensor wing was designed and built to simulate the same wing sweep and orientation as an F-22 wing. Additionally, communication, navigation and identification (CNI) sensors will be mounted directly on the wing to simulate sensor positioning on the F-22's wings.

Bob Barnes, Boeing F-22 program manager and vice president, said the sensor wing, together with the test bed, will play a crucial role in flight-testing the highly advanced integrated avionics system developed for the F-22 fighter.

"Our test bed will help reduce avionics development costs by enabling extensive in-flight testing, evaluation and troubleshooting before much of the avionics are ever installed on the F-22," Barnes said.

The test avionics will be operated from a simulated F-22 cockpit, which has been installed in the test bed cabin. The cockpit has primary and secondary F-22 displays, as well as the throttle and stick. Software engineers and technicians will be onboard to evaluate the avionics during testing. Avionics flight tests will begin in early 1999.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-12-07-Sensor-Wing-Installed-on-F-22-Flying-Test-Bed






The RWR is a passive radar detector with more than *30 antennas blended into the wings* and fuselage for all-round coverage. Tom Burbage, former F-22 program head at Lockheed Martin, described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft." The range of the RWR (250+ nmi) exceeds the radar's, and can cue radar emissions to be confined to a narrow beam (down to 2° by 2° in azimuth and elevation) to increase stealth. Depending on the detected threat, the defensive systems can prompt the pilot to release countermeasures such as flares or chaff. According to Bill Sweetman, experts had said the ALR-94 can be used as a passive detection system capable of searching targets and providing enough information for a radar lock on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Avionics

(Hence why ALR-94’s antenna are the *entire leading edge of the F-22’s wings* and other areas) ALR-94 is what makes the F-22 deadly…not the APG-77.

https://defenseissues.net/technology/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

j20blackdragon said:


> Sensor Wing Installed on F-22 Flying Test Bed
> 
> Boeing has installed a unique sensor wing, designed to help test F-22 avionics, on its 757 Flying Test Bed.
> 
> The sensor wing gives Boeing the capability to test and integrate U. S. Air Force F-22 avionics in parallel with airframe testing currently under way at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and long before avionics testing occurs onboard an F-22 aircraft.
> 
> Installed on the crown of the modified 757 jet, the sensor wing was designed and built to simulate the same wing sweep and orientation as an F-22 wing. Additionally, communication, navigation and identification (CNI) sensors will be mounted directly on the wing to simulate sensor positioning on the F-22's wings.
> 
> Bob Barnes, Boeing F-22 program manager and vice president, said the sensor wing, together with the test bed, will play a crucial role in flight-testing the highly advanced integrated avionics system developed for the F-22 fighter.
> 
> "Our test bed will help reduce avionics development costs by enabling extensive in-flight testing, evaluation and troubleshooting before much of the avionics are ever installed on the F-22," Barnes said.
> 
> The test avionics will be operated from a simulated F-22 cockpit, which has been installed in the test bed cabin. The cockpit has primary and secondary F-22 displays, as well as the throttle and stick. Software engineers and technicians will be onboard to evaluate the avionics during testing. Avionics flight tests will begin in early 1999.
> 
> http://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-12-07-Sensor-Wing-Installed-on-F-22-Flying-Test-Bed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RWR is a passive radar detector with more than *30 antennas blended into the wings* and fuselage for all-round coverage. Tom Burbage, former F-22 program head at Lockheed Martin, described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft." The range of the RWR (250+ nmi) exceeds the radar's, and can cue radar emissions to be confined to a narrow beam (down to 2° by 2° in azimuth and elevation) to increase stealth. Depending on the detected threat, the defensive systems can prompt the pilot to release countermeasures such as flares or chaff. According to Bill Sweetman, experts had said the ALR-94 can be used as a passive detection system capable of searching targets and providing enough information for a radar lock on.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Avionics
> 
> (Hence why ALR-94’s antenna are the *entire leading edge of the F-22’s wings* and other areas) ALR-94 is what makes the F-22 deadly…not the APG-77.
> 
> https://defenseissues.net/technology/
> 
> View attachment 374162

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Asoka



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Impressive CG, however I'm still sure that the main bay can only hold two of these larger PL-15 each.

Just a quick question for a modeller, who contacted me: which of the so far delivered operational J-20s has the splinter camouflage ??

From the few images available I would say 78273 & 78174 ?

For 78273 I'm almost sure with the rear fuselage...







And for 78274 also on the tails...





prior to getting its number:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

cnleio said:


> View attachment 374239
> 
> View attachment 374240
> 
> View attachment 374236
> 
> View attachment 374238
> View attachment 374237










Deino said:


> Impressive CG, however I'm still sure that the main bay can only hold two of these larger PL-15 each.
> 
> Just a quick question for a modeller, who contacted me: which of the so far delivered operational J-20s has the splinter camouflage ??
> 
> From the few images available I would say 78273 & 78174 ?
> 
> For 78273 I'm almost sure with the rear fuselage...
> 
> View attachment 374612
> 
> 
> 
> And for 78274 also on the tails...
> View attachment 374613
> 
> 
> prior to getting its number:
> 
> View attachment 374614





星海军事 said:


> It seems that the third LRIP J-20 has a new splinter patterned painting

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> ....



Thanks ... I knew that it was You, who mentioned this already but doe to the chatter on other things I wasn't able to find it anymore.

And with no. 78174 I'm also correct ?


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## clibra

Asok said:


> 1500 F-35 flying pigs


who invent this nickname？ it's better than "fat lightening", so cute!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

clibra said:


> who invent this nickname？ it's better than "fat lightening", so cute!



The name "Lighting II" is not used very frequently. It's simply a dumb name. "fat lightening" may sounds good in Chinese, but will be lost to English audience.

I invented nickname "Flying Pig" for F-35. This Flying Pig will get roasted, since it Can't Climb, Can't Turn, Can't Fight and Can't Run.


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> The name "Lighting II" is not used very frequently. It's simply a dumb name. "fat lightening" may sounds good in Chinese, but will be lost to English audience.
> 
> I invented nickname "Flying Pig" for F-35. This Flying Pig will get roasted, since it Can't Climb, Can't Turn, Can't Fight and Can't Run.


Inventing nicknames is just about the most you can do for this forum.

For the silent readers out there, I offer you a more technically revealing response to these childish name callings by the Chinese members of this forum...

https://defence.pk/threads/f-22-f-3...-news-discussions.179287/page-39#post-9179585

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clibra

Asok said:


> The name "Lighting II" is not used very frequently. It's simply a dumb name. "fat lightening" may sounds good in Chinese, but will be lost to English audience.
> 
> I invented nickname "Flying Pig" for F-35. This Flying Pig will get roasted, since it Can't Climb, Can't Turn, Can't Fight and Can't Run.



The fat body of F35 may reduce the score of maneuverability, but the powerful F135 engine can make it up. I guess F35 should have decent flying performance.



gambit said:


> Inventing nicknames is just about the most you can do for this forum.
> 
> For the silent readers out there, I offer you a more technically revealing response to these childish name callings by the Chinese members of this forum...
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/f-22-f-3...-news-discussions.179287/page-39#post-9179585



just relax, some Chinese mumber make nicknames just for fun, they also do this to our owe plane or other weapons, some nicknames are also looks 'ugly'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

clibra said:


> The fat body of F35 may reduce the score of maneuverability, but the powerful F135 engine can make it up. I guess F35 should have decent flying performance.


A cylinder is 'fat' compares to other shapes, and yet we have missiles that can turn at double digits g, eh ?

Calling the F-35 a 'fat pig' is nothing more than revealing of the person's ignorance in the technical realm and his overall immaturity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*What will be J-20's Ace in WVR with the fiercesome F-22?*

The objective of the J-20 project is to create a fifth generation fighter that will be F-22. It follows almost word to word the *5S* requirements developed for the Advanced Tactical Fighter, ie. the F-22. Whether J-20 will able to achieve this lofty goal of beating F-22 remains to be see. It's simply too early to tell.

One thing for sure, that J-20 will have an Ace against F-22 ,when it comes to WVR combat with F-22. This Ace turns out to be the helmet mounted cueing system. It is certain that J-20 will have a Helmet Mounted Sight Cueing System to give target information to the missile, since J-10, Sukoi Flankers, Mig-29, Mig-35, F-16, F-15, F-18, F-35, Rafael, Typhoon, and Gripen all have it.

F-22, notably, does not have it.

There is a significant chance that two 5th generation fighters will face each other in a close range dog fight, simply because their radar's detection range will be greatly reduced.

Today's short range missile like AIM-9x, and PL-10 have IR Imaging System, that is hard to fool, and capable of 60g, that is hard to out maneuver, making it almost impossible for the targeted plane to escape.

When that happens, *whoever shoots first, will kill first*.

With the 360-degree Spherical Situational Awareness, given by the Distributed Aperture System (DAS), J-20 will be even able to shoot over the shoulder or backward, with its deadly PL-10e, High-Off-Bore Sight missile.

Will J-20 have a "First to Shoot", "First to Kill" advantage over F-22, in WVR combat?

Looks like it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yan Yan

WS-15 for J-20...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Eagle

Yan Yan said:


> WS-15 for J-20...



Any link to the video? as seems like very neat & clean design... looks impressive if it is WS-15


----------



## Deino

The Eagle said:


> Any link to the video? as seems like very neat & clean design... looks impressive if it is WS-15




Indeed and what surprises me - since this version of the same image is much clearer than the one I knew before - are these exhaust pedals, which are again unique ! Like I said before so often; each type of engine has its own design of nozzle...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> Indeed and what surprises me - since this version of the same image is much clearer than the one I knew before - are these exhaust pedals, which are again unique ! Like I said before so often; each type of engine has its own design of nozzle...
> 
> View attachment 375567



Above/previous picture seems to be high quality image and engine is neat & clean but from that angle, cannot confirm the nozzle however, each type of engine with unique design may hint about two or more engines in testing form/installed on birds but same engine cannot be built with different petals until & unless in testing phase to finalize through behavior of different petals on same engine. That is why, requested for video link that we may have a chance to look at engine petals.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Here is the link for this amazing WS-15. How come it looks like the engine of the B-1 Lancer?  

https://frontlinevideos.com/blogs/v...ingle-b-1-engine-going-full-blast-sounds-like

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Here is the link for this amazing WS-15. How come it looks like the engine of the B-1 Lancer?
> 
> https://frontlinevideos.com/blogs/v...ingle-b-1-engine-going-full-blast-sounds-like
> 
> 
> View attachment 375575




You are funny ... but indeed I had a similar idea, these structures on the pedals look like the B-One's nozzles on the prototypes.

So what a fail !!!! ... it is indeed a B-1's engine.


----------



## Asoka

Do an Image Search on Google, next time, there is an unidentified image, with no link. Otherwise, the saying, "There is a Fool born in every minute", might turn out to be true.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Agreed, but it wasn't me who posted the original image !


----------



## Asoka

Since it's an obvious fail with no value for discussion. I say, delete this picture and all follow up responses, so it won't pollute this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Since it's an obvious fail with no value for discussion. I say, delete this picture and all follow up responses, so it won't pollute this thread.



Indeed ... what a fail !!! 

However strange enough that this image is around as a WS-15 since October 2016 and no one noticed !

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

@Deino any idea when J-20 will serial start ?


----------



## Deino

Starlord said:


> @Deino any idea when J-20 will serial start ?



IMO it already started. Even LRIP is serial production, albeit limited. The question is, when will full serial production begin?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Deino said:


> IMO it already started. Even LRIP is serial production, albeit limited. The question is, when will full serial production begin?



Correct ..When ? and how many J-20 PLAAF plans to make ?


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## HRK

cirr said:


>



plz translate what are the arrows pointing ... IFR probe ... ??


----------



## Deino

HRK said:


> plz translate what are the arrows pointing ... IFR probe ... ??




Yes for sure ... but that is known since some years !


----------



## HRK

Deino said:


> Yes for sure ... but that is known since some years !



Yes thats what I was also inquiring ... its a known thing + I don't see any change ...


----------



## MultaniGuy

J-20 is a cool fighter.
However it is not for export.

Pakistan should get the J-31.


----------



## Asoka

Iqbal Ali said:


> J-20 is a cool fighter.
> However it is not for export.
> 
> Pakistan should get the J-31.



The thinking should be "Pakistan must develop its own technology to produce its own J-10, J-31, J-20, . . . . etc. " 

The hurdles might be seem insurmountable at first, but remember, China is willing to teach and transfer its technology, to a trustworthy friend.

The JF-17 is a good example.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

HRK said:


> Yes thats what I was also inquiring ... its a known thing + I don't see any change ...


The arrows are pointing at the serial numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> A cylinder is 'fat' compares to other shapes, and yet we have missiles that can turn at double digits g, eh ?
> 
> Calling the F-35 a 'fat pig' is nothing more than revealing of the person's ignorance in the technical realm and his overall immaturity.


your glassy heart is becoming hysterical``` anyway, stubborn, stereotyped and cultureless people wont know the funs of using nick names```
F-35: chubby thunder 肥电
F-22: imperial concubine 娘娘
J-10: bully 恶棍
J-11: chopsticks 筷子
J-20: black pantihose 黑丝
China: rabbit 兔子
U.S: egale source 鹰酱
Russia: fluffy Bear 毛熊

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## MultaniGuy

Asok said:


> The thinking should be "Pakistan must develop its own technology to produce its own J-10, J-31, J-20, . . . . etc. "
> 
> The hurdles might be seem insurmountable at first, but remember, China is willing to teach and transfer its technology, to a trustworthy friend.
> 
> The JF-17 is a good example.


True agreed.
self-reliance is key.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

611 has got a busy year ahead 

*中航工业成都所召开2017年度全所科研计划会部署动员 *

2017-02-16 23:03:00

本报讯（通讯员　和杰艳　姬彬艳）　日前，中航工业成都所召开2017年度全所科研计划会，分析新一年科研生产形势，解读科研任务目标，并就各项科研工作进行了部署动员。

成都所从型号研制、研保条件、产品批产、科研保障、预先研究等方面对全年科研生产项目进行解析。2017年，成都所科研生产的特点为：*鉴定/定型进度紧张、服务保障压力剧增、设计研发任务依然繁重、后续任务拓展迫在眉睫*。研讨中，大家对各项任务目标、计划安排以及各任务存在的问题及风险评估进行了认真研讨，提出了解决措施和建议。

所长季晓光和党委书记李松结合中国航空工业年度工作会、军品工作会和质量工作会的要求，针对新一年任务形势进行了部署和动员，要求大家以问题为导向，对集团提出的战略观、业绩观、客户观、质量观进行深入理解和贯彻落实，加强资源管理和流程管理，强化责任落实，不忘初心，拼搏奋斗，振奋精神，为全面完成2017年的工作而努力。

中国航空工业科技委副主任/型号总设计师杨伟指出，要加强战略管理，来牵引发展方向；要加强目标管理，以国家的需求来定位努力的方向，进一步提升核心能力；要迸发激情，大家一起拼，追求把任务完成。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

J-20s make appearance with new camouflage again...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Eagle

Its been a while to see fresh pictures.... do share. .. Seems to quiet


----------



## Slav Defence

cirr said:


> 611 has got a busy year ahead
> 
> *中航工业成都所召开2017年度全所科研计划会部署动员 *
> 
> 2017-02-16 23:03:00
> 
> 本报讯（通讯员　和杰艳　姬彬艳）　日前，中航工业成都所召开2017年度全所科研计划会，分析新一年科研生产形势，解读科研任务目标，并就各项科研工作进行了部署动员。
> 
> 成都所从型号研制、研保条件、产品批产、科研保障、预先研究等方面对全年科研生产项目进行解析。2017年，成都所科研生产的特点为：*鉴定/定型进度紧张、服务保障压力剧增、设计研发任务依然繁重、后续任务拓展迫在眉睫*。研讨中，大家对各项任务目标、计划安排以及各任务存在的问题及风险评估进行了认真研讨，提出了解决措施和建议。
> 
> 所长季晓光和党委书记李松结合中国航空工业年度工作会、军品工作会和质量工作会的要求，针对新一年任务形势进行了部署和动员，要求大家以问题为导向，对集团提出的战略观、业绩观、客户观、质量观进行深入理解和贯彻落实，加强资源管理和流程管理，强化责任落实，不忘初心，拼搏奋斗，振奋精神，为全面完成2017年的工作而努力。
> 
> 中国航空工业科技委副主任/型号总设计师杨伟指出，要加强战略管理，来牵引发展方向；要加强目标管理，以国家的需求来定位努力的方向，进一步提升核心能力；要迸发激情，大家一起拼，追求把任务完成。



Kindly try to post translation along with the content in Chinese, helps international audience alot to understand 
*Please, avoid calling names to each other.*I am highly expecting you that you both are gonna respect one another.

regards

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Iqbal Ali said:


> Pakistan should get the J-31s.


This is J-20 thread bro go post in the J-31 thread


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> J-20s make appearance with new camouflage again...




Ohhhh ... just a hint !?? PLEASE.

Another kind of splinter scheme, some sort of toned-down scheme ??? Can't wait to see the images.

Deino


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Ohhhh ... just a hint !?? PLEASE.
> 
> Another kind of splinter scheme, some sort of toned-down scheme ??? Can't wait to see the images.
> 
> Deino


A camo called Raptor Camo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Well Kudos to China.

But I do not think Pakistan will get J-20s, because J-20s are not for export.
Pakistan will get J-31s.


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> A camo called Raptor Camo




Ok. ... sounds interesting !!
Could this be the 5th LRIP-bird now painted in that scheme?


----------



## Asoka

OMG! A freakishly bad taste, PLAAF-Flying-Demonstration-Team, 八一飞行表演队, paint scheme for the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

At the November 2016, China Airshow, J-20's demonstrated an impressive vertical climb.

This close up picture shows, it was not using the afterburner. No long hot burning flame was shooting out of its nozzles.






J-20 is underpowered, you said? I don't think so.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> View attachment 378328​
> At the November 2016, China Airshow, J-20's demonstrated an impressive vertical climb.
> 
> This close up picture shows, it was not using the afterburner. No long hot burning flame was shooting out of its nozzles.
> 
> View attachment 378336
> 
> 
> J-20 is underpowered, you said? I don't think so.



Hey well ... we are back again at the PDF-_Groundhog Day _post _!_
But You are a bit late, that certain day in Punxsutawney is on February 2. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Denial is your only option left. Mr. Deino.
> 
> View attachment 378359
> View attachment 378360




Yes for sure, but on the other side the longer and the more often You repeat Yourself, the more likely it is that in the end at least Yourself are convinced ! 

Anyway ...  ... let us again agree to disagree until the engine is confirmed and in the meantime find out how that new camo looks like.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833220874220154881


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Asok said:


> OMG! A freakishly bad taste, PLAAF-Flying-Demonstration-Team, 八一飞行表演队, paint scheme for the J-20.
> 
> View attachment 378305
> 
> 
> View attachment 378306
> 
> 
> View attachment 378307



OH DAMN Ruined it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Muhammad Omar said:


> OH DAMN Ruined it


The most ugly paint I ever see.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

wanglaokan said:


> The most ugly paint I ever see.



True..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Muhammad Omar said:


> True..


It's hellishly ugly.


----------



## Asoka

This got to be the most outrageously tight turn by J-20, I have seen yet. It did a 180 degree U-turn in about 3-4 seconds. It literally just flip around at the bend of the U shape, which lasted about 1 second.

I made the gif files from the original video. The time of the turns is deduced from the original videos. A 3-4 seconds, 180 degrees U-turn is a stunning performance for any aircraft.


*This one is done with the usual deep banking like other airplanes.*





*This one is done without the deep banking.*





Watch the segments from 1:01 to 1:04, and 1:20 to 1:26 on this original video.





*Why is doing a tight turn without deep banking useful in a dogfight?*

When the pilot doing a tight turn with *deep banking*, his head is point to the center of the turn, and the blood is pulled by the *centripetal force* toward his legs. At sustained high G, the pilot is prone to blackout (lost of consciousness), or greyout (lost his vision), because of lack of blood flow to his head. Also he will be having a hard time to keep his opponent in his sight. His head will be very heavy and turning of his head will be very difficult. He will have a hard time to follow his opponent, around the turn, long enough to get a good lock, to fire his weapon, with his Helmet Mounted Sight.

When you turn *without* the need of *deep banking*, you don't have those problems as much. You will be sitting horizontal, with your head up, like driving a car, around a turn. You will be pushed toward the window, instead of toward the floor by the G-force. Your blood will not be pull toward the floor or legs as much, so your tolerance to high-G force will be much greater. And your head will be much easier to turn, and able to watch your opponent over your shoulder, and aim your weapon using your HMS.

You could fire your missile, even your opponent is at 60 degrees or more from you.






If both planes have High-Off BoreSight missiles and HMS, the pilot who could turn his head more easily, to track his opponent, will achieve a firing solution first, and fire his missile first, and therefore kill first.


"Being able to look outside the cockpit and ‘see’ all the contacts around them highlighted by glowing symbology would be a huge situational awareness boost, and *the ability to target enemy aircraft at short range, without having to point the jet’s nose at them, could mean the difference between winning and losing in a dogfight.*"
*http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-its-sad-that-the-f-22-just-fired-its-first-guided-a-1704889474*


----------



## Deino

You want to deduct the maneuverability from a gif. ???? 

And You want to be taken seriously ???? 
That would be as if You try to deduct the RCS from a toy, engine thrust from a still ... Sorry my friend; I know that we disagree and You are my most prominent "basher" of pedals-analysis, but that's really on top.


Anyway ....


----------



## Asoka

I made the gif files from the original video. The time of the turns is deduced from the original videos. A 3-4 seconds, 180 degrees U-turn is a stunning performance for any aircraft.

I prefer to look and see with my own eyes, while some people prefers to put their head in the sand and deny everything that don't agree with their preconceived notions.


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> You want to deduct the maneuverability from a gif. ???? And You want to be taken seriously ????


It was astounding and amusing. The man obviously have not done proper research on the basics of a banked turn. The camera angle revealed no such capability and misleads at best.

A non-banking turn is possible but incredibly inefficient -- as in energy management. Basically, you kick the rudder over to the new heading you want, in doing so, you present a new drag area which requires you to increase throttle to overcome drag to maintain speed. The F-16AFTI had additional yaw axis flight control surfaces below the intake lip, essentially downward pointing rudders. The aircraft was exceptionally maneuverable but for the given F-16 design, fuel expenditure would render it a far less capable combat platform.

This is a consistent pattern with the J-20's supporters when they make declarations that defy the laws of physics and common sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I made the gif files from the original video. The time of the turns is deduced from the original videos. A 3-4 seconds, 180 degrees U-turn is a stunning performance.
> 
> I prefer to look and see with my own eyes, while some people prefers to put their head in the sand and deny everything that don't agree with their preconceived notions.
> 
> View attachment 378606



Then keep on dreaming ...


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> I made the gif files from the original video. The time of the turns is deduced from the original videos. A 3-4 seconds, 180 degrees U-turn is a stunning performance.


All the more reasons why what you claimed should be suspect. We have no idea on whether there were any kind of manipulations done to fit your notions of what the J-20 can do or hope to do.



Asok said:


> I prefer to look and see with my own eyes, while some people prefers to put their head in the sand and deny everything that don't agree with their preconceived notions.


In other words, simply blindly agree with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> This got to be the most outrageously tight turn by J-20, I have seen yet. It did a 180 degree U-turn in about 3-4 seconds. It literally just flip around at the bend of the U shape, which lasted about 1 second.
> 
> *This one is done with the usual deep banking like other airplanes.*



What really happens if an aircraft tries to change heading via rudder only, aka the non banking method.

http://www.empire-aviation.com/flight-instructors/john-e-mclain/understanding-the-use-of-rudder.html


> The right wing is now advancing into the relative wind, and the left wing retreating.
> 
> This means the right wing is generating more lift than the left wing, which results is a roll to the left, even though the ailerons are neutral.


This kind of asymmetric lift is found on one type of aircraft -- the helicopter. One blade travels forward while its opposite travels aft. This is why piloting a helo requires different sets of instructions and the helo pilot develops completely different sets of skills.

The J-20 is a delta winged aircraft. So what really happens to the delta wings if such an asymmetric airflow and lift exists on them ?

https://www3.nd.edu/~rnelson/Unsteady Vortex Flows.pdf


> The unsteady motion of the delta wing results in a modification of the flow field. Delays in flow separation, vortex formation, vortex position and the onset of vortex breakdown are all affected by the model motion. These flow changes cause a corresponding modification in the aerodynamic loads.
> 
> *If the flow separates asymmetrically on one wing, as shown in Fig. 3, then a rolling moment is created.*


For the highlighted, it means the delta winged aircraft will spin out of control.

Is there another method to execute a non-banking turn ?

Yes, the B-2's wing tip split ailerons method.







In the above photo, the B-2's wing tip split ailerons are clearly visible. Essentially, they are airbrakes, which creates drag.

The wing tip drag method does not rotate the aircraft on its vertical (yaw) axis. It is not that difficult to envision the differences by way of a straight ruler. Spin the ruler on its center. Then hold one end while moving the other end.

Even so, the only time the B-2 would use split ailerons as the *SOLE* turning method is when its 'stealthy' flight is paramount, as in penetrating enemy airspace. Otherwise, the B-2 would use the banking method to change heading. Adverse yaw kills.

For what Mr. Asok is trying to peddle, the J-20 must have extraordinary flight control surface range of movements and coordination software beyond anything available, commercial and military. For a delta wing-ed platform, this probably defies a few laws of aerodynamics.



Asok said:


> *Why is doing a tight turn without deep banking useful in a dogfight?*
> 
> When the pilot doing a tight turn with *deep banking*, his head is point to the center of the turn, and the blood is pulled by the *centripetal force* toward his legs. At sustained high G, the pilot is prone to blackout (lost of consciousness), or greyout (lost his vision), because of lack of blood flow to his head. Also he will be having a hard time to keep his opponent in his sight. His head will be very heavy and turning of his head will be very difficult. He will have a hard time to follow his opponent, around the turn, long enough to get a good lock, to fire his weapon, with his Helmet Mounted Sight.
> 
> When you turn *without* the need of *deep banking*, you don't have those problems as much. You will be sitting horizontal, with your head up, like driving a car, around a turn. You will be pushed toward the window, instead of toward the floor by the G-force. Your blood will not be pull toward the floor or legs as much, so your tolerance to high-G force will be much greater. And your head will be much easier to turn, and able to watch your opponent over your shoulder, and aim your weapon using your HMS.


Sure. 

Except for the uncomfortable fact that in racing, drivers secures their helmets with chains because the g-forces generated under *2-D* maneuvers can be enough to break necks. That is adverse yaw working. Pilots do not need to chain their helmets is because of the direction of the generated g-force when executing banking turns.

What Mr. Asok is peddling is -- once again -- the J-20 defies the laws of physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## monitor

J-20 with four fuel tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Another impressive image ....






PS: is this this new camouflaged bird ??

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## HannibalBarca



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

monitor said:


> J-20 with four fuel tanks




And here the second bird ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

The huge canards of the J-20 could induce some very strong vortexes to help create more lift on the wings. You can see clearly those turbulences have a strong effects on the handling of the plane. The shaking was pretty obvious in the first several seconds of this clip.

Without a digital fly-by-wire flight control system, the pilot would not able to fly this plane. Similar strong shaking was observed on the French Rafael.


----------



## yantong1980

Deino said:


> And here the second bird ...
> 
> View attachment 379142



That's 4 huge fuel tank.....is this range test? Indicate that purpose of this bird to 'kill' something at long range mission. I'm sorry if this mean J-20 will not have aerial refueling system or this just temporary? Sorry if I miss something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

yantong1980 said:


> That's 4 huge fuel tank.....is this range test? Indicate that purpose of this bird to 'kill' something at long range mission. I'm sorry if this mean J-20 will not have aerial refueling system or this just temporary? Sorry if I miss something.




Yes You missed that. The J-20 surely has an IFR-probe.


----------



## 帅的一匹

yantong1980 said:


> That's 4 huge fuel tank.....is this range test? Indicate that purpose of this bird to 'kill' something at long range mission. I'm sorry if this mean J-20 will not have aerial refueling system or this just temporary? Sorry if I miss something.


You are absolutely right. J20 is designed to hunt F22 in the outset.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> You are absolutely right. J20 is designed to hunt F22 in the outset.



Yes, J-20 was created to beat F-22 in air combat.

However, I would say the best way to use J-20 is to hunt high value targets like AWACs, Oil Tankers, EW planes. The only way US could stop J-2 from putting those high value target assets out of business is F-22, but there are only 187 of them.

The US commanders need to calculate what is the chance of China able to locate those assets in the air. And what is the chance of J-20 able to penetrate the Air Patrol Radius setup by F-22s, when J-20 make 1.5M dash towards them.

The threat of J-20, alone, would force the US commanders to put those valuable air assets very very far away from China. *Like 3000km away.
*
And how would F-22 and F-15, and F-35 and F-16, fight *hundreds of J-20*, near the coast of China, without their supporting AWACS, Oil tankers and EW planes?

Just fly to China from Guam is nearly impossible without air-refueling.

And Guam, like Japan, Taiwan, and S. Korea airbases will also be saturated by Chinese rockets within hours of breakout of hostility.
*
*

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## Mugwop

Deino said:


> Then keep on dreaming ...


Hi how are you? Will J-20 be a night fighter?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Mugwop said:


> Hi how are you? Will J-20 be a night fighter?


Yes it will, every radar equipped jet is night fighter in the world


----------



## Asoka

Mugwop said:


> Hi how are you? Will J-20 be a night fighter?



No, Chinese plane can't fly at night. Only during the day time and in perfect weather.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ideasexchange

2 doubts ..
When is j20 becoming operational ?
Why chinese are buying russian fighters when j20 is such a potent beast ?


----------



## xxqa_ds

ideasexchange said:


> Why chinese are buying russian fighters when j20 is such a potent beast ?


I think, in the initial stage of J20 low yield, it is normal to buy su35. After all, J20 high prices, small output, SU35 is spot, a useful supplement. In addition, in politics, we can maintain the friendship with Russia, increase exchanges between the two countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Here it is the new camouflage 







PS: Like I suspected, it's #5 !

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Asoka

*China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Photographed Toting Massive External Fuel Tanks *
 BY TYLER ROGOWAY
FEBRUARY 22, 2017

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...otographed-toting-massive-external-fuel-tanks

China's stealthy J-20 fighter-interceptor program continues to gain steam, with deep avionics integration work underway and even reports the jet is already deployed in a semi-operational state. Now the aircraft has appeared in a totally new configuration, toting a quartet of massive auxiliary fuel tanks (aka, drop tanks or "bags") under its usually clean wings. 

The J-20 is designed to capitalize on glaring holes in American air combat capabilities. This primarily includes US tactical air power's lack of range and its dependence on force-multiplying assets like tanking, airborne early warning and control, data-fusion and other lumbering and potentially vulnerable aircraft. China building a stealthy fighter-interceptor that can range far from the mainland and work to pick off these enabling support aircraft, as well as other fighters, is tactically sound. On a larger level, the J-20 works as an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapon, pushing out the PLAAF's anti-air reach while also bringing a whole new level of capabilities to the flying force's tactical aircraft inventory. 

All this fits into China's overall A2/AD strategy, which aims to deny an opposing force the ability to operate within hundreds, or even thousands or miles of the Chinese mainland—far enough that many of said enemy's offensive military capabilities are automatically neutered. But executing long-range combat air patrols or stalking an enemy's vulnerable force multiplier assets are not the only ways such an aircraft could be put to use. Outside of possible secondary air-to-ground, air-to-surface and suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses roles, the J-20's advanced avionics can be leveraged to benefit lesser platforms within the air-to-air realm. 

If the photos are legitimate, and they appear to be, by adding auxiliary fuel tanks, the J-20 will be able to fly even further than it does today, not just for ferrying operations, but also for air sovereignty missions, just like F-22s do in Alaska. Additionally, the ability to haul thousands of pounds of fuel externally will allow the J-20 to loiter for long periods of time, during which time the aircraft can act as a sensor node and "quarterback" for other aircraft Chinese tactical aircraft. Once again, this is a tactic the F-22 pioneered to some degree, as even after its magazine runs dry, Raptors are often kept on the scene to direct other coalition aircraft not just towards the enemy to assist in kills, but away from them as well.

Although cumbersome external fuel tanks sap the J-20's low observable (stealth) qualities and maneuvering performance, it is likely that they can be jettisoned along with their pylons in a similar manner as the F-22. This allows the aircraft to recapture a large degree of its low observability, and is clearly useful if increased kinematic performance is needed. The tanks will also allow J-20s to reach stations hundreds of miles beyond what they are capable on external fuel alone. They will make the J-20 more independent of aerial tankers for certain missions, and even with four tanks, the J-20's baseline internal weapon carriage capability is not disturbed.

It is also becoming increasingly evident that for some missions the J-20, or a least a portion of them, are likely to carry weapons under their wings. In particular, China's new and nearly telephone pole sized very long-range air-to-air missile that is in development. You can read all about this missile here, but it certainly will not fit in a J-20's weapons bay. That does not mean the J-20 won't have great use for it, quite the contrary. 

J-20s working cooperatively are the perfect team to put such a weapon to use. For instance, a devision (flight of four) J-20s could work in two sections, one section of two jets in stealth configuration, and the other two carrying four long-range air-to-air missiles. The stealthy pair can venture forward to quietly (electronic emissions silent) obtain targeting information while the J-20s carrying the long-range missiles can act as weapons magazines, leveraging the targeting data obtained from their stealthy wingmen. These are similar to tactics being developed by the USAF for the F-15 and F-22 air dominance team. For instance, the stealthy J-20s can use their passive sensors (electronic support measures and infrared search and track) to silently stalk targets far in front of the non-stealthy configured J-20s. Meanwhile the other non-stealthy J-20s operating many dozens of miles to the rear can use their radars freely, providing enhanced situational awareness to the stealthy J-20s ahead by sharing their radar "picture" via data-link. In doing so these non-stealthy configured J-20s also act as bait, drawing in enemy fighter aircraft, and leaving them vulnerable to ambush by their stealthy and silent counterparts. You can read more about these types of tactics here.

Although similar tactics can be realized via the interoperation between China's Su-27 derivatives and J-20s, the J-20's sensor suite and level of sensor fusion is supposedly a leap ahead anything else in the PLAAF. Most importantly the J-20 is built to work among its own kind above all else. Training is also simplified by keeping these tactics "in house" at least until the aircraft has many more years to develop and synergies with other PLAAF platforms are identified, tested and regularly trained for. Even then, a Flanker does not have the ability to blow off its external stores and instantly become much harder to detect, all the while still be armed with internal short and medium-range weaponry. 

Basically, seeing the J-20 tanked up gives us evidence of a potentially more flexible combat aircraft than we have known in the past, and it will be interesting to see other stores begin to appear under its wings. It is also another reminder that the J-20 is rapidly maturing and will soon become a front-line reality within the PLAAF. And this is just part of China's stealth aircraft revolution. With a medium weight fighter also in the works—flying in its second and much more refined form no less—as well as a stealthy bomber program underway, the PLAAF of today is likely to be unrecognizable from what it will become a decade from now.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## samsara

ideasexchange said:


> 2 doubts ..
> When is j20 becoming operational ?
> Why chinese are buying russian fighters when j20 is such a potent beast ?


I guess the Chinese govt may be holding too much usd at the moment after selling out the T-Bills while its regular trade surpluses keep on accumulating... that's why it ditched some to the Russian, which is under economic sanctions by the Western block. Just consider it a returning favor from China to Russia, a friend in need is a friend indeed. Of course this thinking may just explain thing partially.



Asok said:


> *China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Photographed Toting Massive External Fuel Tanks*
> BY TYLER ROGOWAY
> FEBRUARY 22, 2017
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...otographed-toting-massive-external-fuel-tanks
> 
> China's stealthy J-20 fighter-interceptor program continues to gain steam, with deep avionics integration work underway and even reports the jet is already deployed in a semi-operational state. Now the aircraft has appeared in a totally new configuration, toting a quartet of massive auxiliary fuel tanks (aka, drop tanks or "bags") under its usually clean wings.
> 
> The J-20 is designed to capitalize on glaring holes in American air combat capabilities. This primarily includes US tactical air power's lack of range and its dependence on force-multiplying assets like tanking, airborne early warning and control, data-fusion and other lumbering and potentially vulnerable aircraft. China building a stealthy fighter-interceptor that can range far from the mainland and work to pick off these enabling support aircraft, as well as other fighters, is tactically sound. On a larger level, the J-20 works as an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapon, pushing out the PLAAF's anti-air reach while also bringing a whole new level of capabilities to the flying force's tactical aircraft inventory.
> 
> All this fits into China's overall A2/AD strategy, which aims to deny an opposing force the ability to operate within hundreds, or even thousands or miles of the Chinese mainland—far enough that many of said enemy's offensive military capabilities are automatically neutered. But executing long-range combat air patrols or stalking an enemy's vulnerable force multiplier assets are not the only ways such an aircraft could be put to use. Outside of possible secondary air-to-ground, air-to-surface and suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses roles, the J-20's advanced avionics can be leveraged to benefit lesser platforms within the air-to-air realm.
> 
> If the photos are legitimate, and they appear to be, by adding auxiliary fuel tanks, the J-20 will be able to fly even further than it does today, not just for ferrying operations, but also for air sovereignty missions, just like F-22s do in Alaska. Additionally, the ability to haul thousands of pounds of fuel externally will allow the J-20 to loiter for long periods of time, during which time the aircraft can act as a sensor node and "quarterback" for other aircraft Chinese tactical aircraft. Once again, this is a tactic the F-22 pioneered to some degree, as even after its magazine runs dry, Raptors are often kept on the scene to direct other coalition aircraft not just towards the enemy to assist in kills, but away from them as well.
> 
> Although cumbersome external fuel tanks sap the J-20's low observable (stealth) qualities and maneuvering performance, it is likely that they can be jettisoned along with their pylons in a similar manner as the F-22. This allows the aircraft to recapture a large degree of its low observability, and is clearly useful if increased kinematic performance is needed. The tanks will also allow J-20s to reach stations hundreds of miles beyond what they are capable on external fuel alone. They will make the J-20 more independent of aerial tankers for certain missions, and even with four tanks, the J-20's baseline internal weapon carriage capability is not disturbed.
> 
> It is also becoming increasingly evident that for some missions the J-20, or a least a portion of them, are likely to carry weapons under their wings. In particular, China's new and nearly telephone pole sized very long-range air-to-air missile that is in development. You can read all about this missile here, but it certainly will not fit in a J-20's weapons bay. That does not mean the J-20 won't have great use for it, quite the contrary.
> 
> J-20s working cooperatively are the perfect team to put such a weapon to use. For instance, a devision (flight of four) J-20s could work in two sections, one section of two jets in stealth configuration, and the other two carrying four long-range air-to-air missiles. The stealthy pair can venture forward to quietly (electronic emissions silent) obtain targeting information while the J-20s carrying the long-range missiles can act as weapons magazines, leveraging the targeting data obtained from their stealthy wingmen. These are similar to tactics being developed by the USAF for the F-15 and F-22 air dominance team. For instance, the stealthy J-20s can use their passive sensors (electronic support measures and infrared search and track) to silently stalk targets far in front of the non-stealthy configured J-20s. Meanwhile the other non-stealthy J-20s operating many dozens of miles to the rear can use their radars freely, providing enhanced situational awareness to the stealthy J-20s ahead by sharing their radar "picture" via data-link. In doing so these non-stealthy configured J-20s also act as bait, drawing in enemy fighter aircraft, and leaving them vulnerable to ambush by their stealthy and silent counterparts. You can read more about these types of tactics here.
> 
> Although similar tactics can be realized via the interoperation between China's Su-27 derivatives and J-20s, the J-20's sensor suite and level of sensor fusion is supposedly a leap ahead anything else in the PLAAF. Most importantly the J-20 is built to work among its own kind above all else. Training is also simplified by keeping these tactics "in house" at least until the aircraft has many more years to develop and synergies with other PLAAF platforms are identified, tested and regularly trained for. Even then, a Flanker does not have the ability to blow off its external stores and instantly become much harder to detect, all the while still be armed with internal short and medium-range weaponry.
> 
> Basically, seeing the J-20 tanked up gives us evidence of a potentially more flexible combat aircraft than we have known in the past, and it will be interesting to see other stores begin to appear under its wings. It is also another reminder that the J-20 is rapidly maturing and will soon become a front-line reality within the PLAAF. And this is just part of China's stealth aircraft revolution. With a medium weight fighter also in the works—flying in its second and much more refined form no less—as well as a stealthy bomber program underway, the PLAAF of today is likely to be unrecognizable from what it will become a decade from now.


*@Asok, it looks like the author of this article is you in real... many similar thoughts inside  A good read!*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Deino said:


> Here it is the new camouflage
> 
> View attachment 379581
> 
> 
> PS: Like I suspected, it's #5 !
> 
> View attachment 379582



Now this is what you call SEXY 

unlike this Shit just hideous Ewwwwww

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Hey well ... we are back again at the PDF-_Groundhog Day _post _!_
> But You are a bit late, that certain day in Punxsutawney is on February 2.


Here is the real deal...

There are two ways you can get vertical altitude...

1- Speed
2- Power

To change speed to altitude via speed, best is to dive, apply throttle, then pull back on the stick. When I was on the F-111, that was pretty much the only way we could go vertical for a short period.

To change speed to altitude via power, you need something like the F-15. You have to demonstrate such power from immediately after take off where you have no altitude below you to dive to gain momentum. Even so, the demonstration F-15 is usually of a clean configuration where there is minimal drag and mass.

Say aircraft A have 1000 lbs of fuel.

Now say aircraft B have 500 lbs of fuel.

Regardless of the total mass/weight of fuel, a fixed qty of fuel in both aircrafts burns at the same rate. In other words, one lb of fuel burns at the same rate and produces the same amount of energy in both aircrafts.

What this mean is that B will have a better vertical altitude performance than A simply because of the lower qty of total fuel. This is why airshow performers are strict about takeoff and performance fuel.

From the vids provided, there is no way to know the fuel status of the demonstrator.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Another impressive image ....
> 
> View attachment 378988
> 
> 
> PS: is this this new camouflaged bird ??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

I would call this scheme a Milka-camo !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Ohhhhhhhh

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> Ohhhhhhhh
> 
> View attachment 381501


Beautiful,i like this camo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stealth

In same quality, Same abstract features and same camo but in J31 would be bombastic... this aircraft is tooo bulky, tooo big and less attractive as compare to J31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yantong1980

Stealth said:


> In same quality, Same abstract features and same camo but in J31 would be bombastic... this aircraft is tooo bulky, tooo big and less attractive as compare to J31.



What? J-20 and J-31 was design for different purpose. How that you can compared each other? It depend how the user gonna need and use it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jkroo

yantong1980 said:


> What? J-20 and J-31 was design for different purpose. How that you can compared each other? It depend how the user gonna need and use it.


Oh, come on. No need to reply those questions. Just ignore it. It's good to you.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Stealth said:


> In same quality, Same abstract features and same camo but in J31 would be bombastic... this aircraft is tooo bulky, tooo big and less attractive as compare to J31.


Sir main mission of J-20 is to attack ISR, AWACS, tankers and enemy main strategic air superiority jets like F-22, F-15 and PAK-FA, Su-27 series of jets, whereas J-31 for tactical missions facing F-35,F-16,F-18 and future LMFS, MIG-29 series of jets

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> Sir main mission of J-20 is to attack ISR, AWACS, tankers and enemy main strategic air superiority jets like F-22, F-15 and PAK-FA, Su-27 series of jets, whereas J-31 for tactical missions facing F-35,F-16,F-18 and future LMFS, MIG-29 series of jets


To be honest, J31 is more handsome than J20. Stealth is no wrong about it, from a rookie perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## chengdusudise

wanglaokan said:


> To be honest, J31 is more handsome than J20. Stealth is no wrong about it, from a rookie perspective.


but J20 looks more ferocious than J31

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Stealth said:


> In same quality, Same abstract features and same camo but in J31 would be bombastic... this aircraft is tooo bulky, tooo big and less attractive as compare to J31.




Funny, I have a completely different feeling. 

In my eyes, the J-20 is pure grace, elegance and a perfectly balanced design that represents agility and power.

But as said so often: Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Ohhhhhhhh
> 
> View attachment 381501

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




Nice ... but sadly only the same image mirrored to the other side !


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Deino said:


> Nice ... but sadly only the same image mirrored to the other side !



Deino, @cnleio gents, do you think that with different camo schemes they are trying new materials?

This is very 'un-Chinese' to come up with so many different variations in paint schemes.

Thoughts, please.

Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Sinopakfriend said:


> Deino, @cnleio gents, do you think that with different camo schemes they are trying new materials?
> 
> This is very 'un-Chinese' to come up with so many different variations in paint schemes.
> 
> Thoughts, please.
> 
> Thanks!


Dear @Sinopakfriend, as a Chinese here i need tell the truth ... in China many Chinese r pro-U.S, Chinese folks like West-style and U.S-style things it means advanced & good-quality ... so as u see China trying to build everything which the West or the U.S ever built and learning good experiences from West world, even PLA new-designed weapons including MBT/IFV/Aircraft/Warship/Missiles r closer to U.S style like a F-22 camo.

China want to become more powerful, Chinese r learning latest techs and good experiences from the West. They try to build new "Made in China" weapons as good as "Made in U.S".

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

cnleio said:


> Dear @Sinopakfriend, as a Chinese here i need tell the truth ... in China many Chinese r pro-U.S, Chinese folks like West-style and U.S-style things it means advanced & good-quality ... so as u see China trying to build everything which the West or the U.S ever built and learning good experiences from West world, even PLA new-designed weapons including MBT/IFV/Aircraft/Warship/Missiles r closer to U.S style like a F-22 camo.
> 
> China want to become more powerful, Chinese r learning latest techs and good experiences from the West. They try to build new "Made in China" weapons as good as "Made in U.S".



@cnleio my dear Friend, 

Many thanks for your frank and honest thoughts. It helps me to understand things better.

J20 remains a beautiful bird regardless of camo-schemes!

Have a great day!

Regards,

SPF

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Get Ya Wig Split

*China stealth jet enters service, navy building 'first class' fleet*






China has put into service its new generation J-20 stealth fighter, a warplane it hopes will narrow the military gap with the United States, as senior naval officers said the country was building a "first class" navy and developing a marine corps.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is overseeing a sweeping modernization of the country's armed forces, the largest in the world, including anti-satellite missiles and advanced submarines, seeking to project power far from its shores.

In a report late on Thursday, state television's military channel confirmed that the J-20 had now entered service, though it gave no other details.

The aircraft was shown in public for the first time in November at the Zhuhai airshow and was first glimpsed by Chinese planespotters in 2010.

However questions remain whether the new Chinese fighter can match the radar-evading properties of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air-to-air combat jet, or the latest strike jet in the U.S. arsenal, Lockheed's F-35. The F-22, developed for the U.S. Air Force, is the J-20's closest lookalike.

China showed off another stealth fighter it's developing, the J-31, at the last Zhuhai airshow in 2014, a show of muscle that coincided with a visit by U.S. President Barack Obama for an Asia-Pacific summit.

China hopes the J-31, still in development, will compete with the U.S.-made F-35 stealth aircraft in the international market, according to state media reports.

The navy is another key focus for China.

China's navy has been taking an increasingly prominent role in recent months, with a rising star admiral taking command, its first aircraft carrier sailing around self-ruled Taiwan and new Chinese warships popping up in far-flung places.

With President Donald Trump promising a U.S. shipbuilding spree and unnerving Beijing with his unpredictable approach on hot button issues including Taiwan and the South and East China Seas, China is pushing to narrow the gap with the U.S. Navy.

Wang Weiming, deputy chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army Navy, told Xinhua on the sidelines of the annual meeting of parliament that China is speeding up the development of a marine corps, adding destroyers and frigates and will step up air and sea patrols.

"We will intercept any intruding aircraft and follow every military vessel in areas under our responsibility," Wang said. "Our sailors should stay vigilant and be able to deal with emergencies at all times."

China's second, domestically-developed aircraft carrier is in "good shape" and now awaiting fitting, he added, in comments reported late Thursday.

Experts expect it will enter service around 2020, joining China's existing, Soviet-built carrier the Liaoning.

Another senior officer, Li Yanming, political commissar of the Navy's armaments department, said a "first-class navy should be equipped with first-class armaments", the report added.

Navy arms manufacturing would have "better quantity, quality, scope, and functionality", Li said, without elaborating.

China's military ambitions, including taking a more assertive stance in the disputed South China Sea, including building artificial islands and ramping up defense spending, have long rattled its neighbors.

China this year initially failed to publicly release its defense budget on the opening day of parliament as it has done in previous years, finally saying a day later on Monday that it would rise by 7 percent to 1.044 trillion yuan ($151.12 billion).

China's defense spending amounts to only about a quarter of the U.S. defense budget, though many experts believe its actual spending on the military to be higher than the official figure.

China denies it is a military threat to anyone.

Wang Huayong, deputy political commissar of the Eastern Theatre Command, told Xinhua that Chinese forces are for defensive purposes only.

"The aircraft carrier is still in training and trial stage. The marines remain weak, and the number and quality of long-distance vessels do not meet expectations."

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Michael Perry)

Reuters

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GS Zhou

China's CCTV-7 Military Report just confirmed "*J20 enters service in PLA Airforce*". This is the first time China's official military media confirms this.

Original quote from the CCTV-7 Military Report: Y20, H6K, J20 have entered service in PLA Airforce. 

Check the video at: 
https://v.qq.com/x/cover/oafsgyr7phvuz1s/w0382i0flab.html

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## cirr

*China stealth jet enters service, navy building 'first class' fleet*

Reuters March 10, 2017





China's Liaoning aircraft carrier with accompanying fleet conducts a drill in an area of South China Sea in this undated photo taken December, 2016. REUTERS/Stringer

By Ben Blanchard

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has put into service its new generation J-20 stealth fighter, a warplane it hopes will narrow the military gap with the United States, as senior naval officers said the country was building a "first class" navy and developing a marine corps.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is overseeing a sweeping modernization of the country's armed forces, the largest in the world, including anti-satellite missiles and advanced submarines, seeking to project power far from its shores.

In a report late on Thursday, state television's military channel confirmed that the J-20 had now entered service, though it gave no other details.

The aircraft was shown in public for the first time in November at the Zhuhai airshow and was first glimpsed by Chinese planespotters in 2010.

However questions remain whether the new Chinese fighter can match the radar-evading properties of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air-to-air combat jet, or the latest strike jet in the U.S. arsenal, Lockheed's F-35. The F-22, developed for the U.S. Air Force, is the J-20's closest lookalike.

China showed off another stealth fighter it's developing, the J-31, at the last Zhuhai airshow in 2014, a show of muscle that coincided with a visit by U.S. President Barack Obama for an Asia-Pacific summit.

China hopes the J-31, still in development, will compete with the U.S.-made F-35 stealth aircraft in the international market, according to state media reports.

The navy is another key focus for China.

China's navy has been taking an increasingly prominent role in recent months, with a rising star admiral taking command, its first aircraft carrier sailing around self-ruled Taiwan and new Chinese warships popping up in far-flung places.

With President Donald Trump promising a U.S. shipbuilding spree and unnerving Beijing with his unpredictable approach on hot button issues including Taiwan and the South and East China Seas, China is pushing to narrow the gap with the U.S. Navy.

Wang Weiming, deputy chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army Navy, told Xinhua on the sidelines of the annual meeting of parliament that China is speeding up the development of a marine corps, adding destroyers and frigates and will step up air and sea patrols.

"We will intercept any intruding aircraft and follow every military vessel in areas under our responsibility," Wang said. "Our sailors should stay vigilant and be able to deal with emergencies at all times."

China's second, domestically-developed aircraft carrier is in "good shape" and now awaiting fitting, he added, in comments reported late Thursday.

Experts expect it will enter service around 2020, joining China's existing, Soviet-built carrier the Liaoning.

Another senior officer, Li Yanming, political commissar of the Navy's armaments department, said a "first-class navy should be equipped with first-class armaments", the report added.

Navy arms manufacturing would have "better quantity, quality, scope, and functionality", Li said, without elaborating.

China's military ambitions, including taking a more assertive stance in the disputed South China Sea, including building artificial islands and ramping up defense spending, have long rattled its neighbors.

China this year initially failed to publicly release its defense budget on the opening day of parliament as it has done in previous years, finally saying a day later on Monday that it would rise by 7 percent to 1.044 trillion yuan ($151.12 billion).

China's defense spending amounts to only about a quarter of the U.S. defense budget, though many experts believe its actual spending on the military to be higher than the official figure.

China denies it is a military threat to anyone.

Wang Huayong, deputy political commissar of the Eastern Theatre Command, told Xinhua that Chinese forces are for defensive purposes only.

"The aircraft carrier is still in training and trial stage. The marines remain weak, and the number and quality of long-distance vessels do not meet expectations."

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Michael Perry)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-step-patrols-create-first-class-navy-011210689.html

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## rcrmj

a month ago I said J-20 has already entered serivce```now the CCTV has officially announced````
@cnleio @Deino
https://v.qq.com/x/cover/oafsgyr7phvuz1s/w0382i0flab.html
http://www.bilibili.com/video/av9064273/

as far as I know there are more than 20 units are already in service, conducting training and they are practising and writing new combat regulations and nanuscripts for 5th gen fighters`````

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Are You sure with that high number? From what I know there are only 5 LRIP birds.


----------



## Fawadqasim1

congrats bros


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Are You sure with that high number? From what I know there are only 5 LRIP birds.


yes, thats what 'we chatted' ``and he said bunch of other stuffs about this black pantihose (J-20 黑丝), but I dont know those terminologies in English, so````anyway apart from the 'domestically modified' engine, the rests are state-of-art, and this project is the milestone of PLAAF to becoming a 'leader' in this field from as a 'follower'

due to the nature of their job, I can only get those 'big' words

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> yes, thats what 'we chatted' ``and he said bunch of other stuffs about this black pantihose (J-20 黑丝), but I dont know those terminologies in English, so````anyway apart from the 'domestically modified' engine, the rests are state-of-art, and this project is the milestone of PLAAF to becoming a 'leader' in this field from as a 'follower'
> 
> due to the nature of their job, I can only get those 'big' words




Hmmm .... but what does "pantyhose" mean ??


----------



## lcloo

Black pantihose (correct translation is Black Silk) sounded similar to *Black 4th*, referring to J20 as the aircraft's first appearance was in *black* paint and it is a *4th* generation Chinese fighter jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Hmmm .... but what does "pantyhose" mean ??


```ok. let me give it a try
J-20 is a fourth gen stealth fighter (Chinese standard, 5th in Western standard), and it is a black bird```so when the very first blurry pic of J-20 rendered at Internet, people here started referring it as 'a black fourth gen fighter'```in short 'a black fourth gen' but in Chinese we even shorted it to only two Chinese letters '黑（black）四（four）‘```and we Chinese netizens like to using cute or funny or even licentious nick name over official or 'authentic' namings, so '黑四' became '黑丝' ···as '丝'(pantihose) sounds very close to '四'(four)```and due to most members of military fans are male```and we all like weapons and women``so here we use this 'lewd' way of calling J-20

here are more examples of others nick name
F-35: chubby thunder 肥电
F-22: imperial concubine 娘娘
J-10: bully 恶棍
J-11: chopsticks 筷子
J-20: black pantihose 黑丝
China: rabbit 兔子
U.S: egale source 鹰酱
Russia: fluffy Bear 毛熊

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Place Of Space

rcrmj said:


> ```ok. let me give it a try
> J-20 is a fourth gen stealth fighter (Chinese standard, 5th in Western standard), and it is a black bird```so when the very first blurry pic of J-20 rendered at Internet, people here started referring it as 'a black fourth gen fighter'```in short 'a black fourth gen' but in Chinese we even shorted it to only two Chinese letters '黑（black）四（four）‘```and we Chinese netizens like to using cute or funny or even licentious nick name over official or 'authentic' namings, so '黑四' became '黑丝' ···as '丝'(pantihose) sounds very close to '四'(four)```and due to most members of military fans are male```and we all like weapons and women``so here we use this 'lewd' way of calling J-20
> 
> here are more examples of others nick name
> F-35: chubby thunder 肥电
> F-22: imperial concubine 娘娘
> J-10: bully 恶棍
> J-11: chopsticks 筷子
> J-20: black pantihose 黑丝
> China: rabbit 兔子
> U.S: egale source 鹰酱
> Russia: fluffy Bear 毛熊



Your translations are really disasters!!!!!!!!! It's called Black Ribbon not black Pantihose, bitch!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Place Of Space

Now, what we should do is copying them time and time again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Place Of Space said:


> Your translations are really disasters!!!!!!!!! It's called Black Ribbon not black Pantihose, bitch!


黑丝带，黑丝带叫着叫着就变成黑丝，而且每一军迷的理解和想象都不同，网上有很多军迷都喜欢理解成 ‘蕾丝袜’，没有什么不妥

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Place Of Space

rcrmj said:


> 黑丝带，黑丝带叫着叫着就变成黑丝，而且每一军迷的理解和想象都不同，网上有很多军迷都喜欢理解成 ‘蕾丝袜’，没有什么不妥



You convince me, 叼!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Thanks guys !

The term Black Ribbon is already well known, but even after - to admit only brief search - the term Pantihose told me nothing.


----------



## BHarwana

Congrats China

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

So China is now Officially the second Country to Field 5th Generation Stealth Fighters ... Brilliant

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## H!TchHiker

Good and congrats to China....Stronger China is a necessity for regional and world peace..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## MystryMan

Congratulations to our Chinese friends.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Starlord said:


> So China is now Officially the second Country to Field 5th Generation Stealth Fighters ... Brilliant



Maybe what's more important is the WS-15 engine that powers this thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## YeBeWarned

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Maybe what's more important is the WS-15 engine that powers this thing.



I am very Happy that China Finally get their stealth Jet  
and Engine is a Cherry on top of this Good News 
Jeeway Jeeway China , Jeeway Jeeway Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

Get Ya Wig Split said:


> *China stealth jet enters service*



In 2009, the PLA made this completely unsubstantiated claim:

_In a November 8, 2009 Chinese television show, Deputy PLAAF Commander General He Weirong stated that the China’s 5th generation fighter would fly “soon” and would “equip troops” in “about eight to ten years,” or by 2017-2019._
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.219/pub_detail.asp

The passage of time has now revealed the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Maybe what's more important is the WS-15 engine that powers this thing.



... in a few years.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Deino said:


> ... in a few years.



Hmm? From the sources I've read, it's powering it right now:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/arti...ighter-flies-fighting-forces-says-state-media

China’s latest stealth fighter, the J-20, is serving in the People’s Liberation Army air force, according to state media.

The report said the new aircraft had joined joint drills with troops, rocket forces and the navy.

A source close to the PLA said the J-20s were all equipped with home-made WS-15 engines, but because the engine had not entered mass production, only a few J-20s were available for service.

“There are still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled [on the J-20], including the reliability of its WS-15 engines, [and the plane’s] control system, stealth coat and hull materials and infrared sensor,” said the source, who requested anonymity.

--------------

Still needs work before it can enter mass production, but the J-20's that have been inducted so far are equipped with the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## faithfulguy

Deino said:


> ... in a few years.



I heard that WS-15 is having issues. How true is that?


----------



## Sheikh Rauf

World is heading towards multiple powers and China is definatily one of them. There sud be surprise element in it and it can't happen if there is no research and indigenous development.
I congratulate our best buddy China..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Still needs work before it can enter mass production, but the J-20's that have been inducted so far are equipped with the WS-15.



Surely not. Latest reports say the WS-15 has just entered the next stage of testing, not even flight testing ... so how could it be already used in the current J-20s? ... and even more, I won't rate Minni Chan a reliable first hand source.



faithfulguy said:


> I heard that WS-15 is having issues. How true is that?



Honestly I don't know ... that have others to decide.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Deino said:


> Surely not. Latest reports say the WS-15 has just entered the next stage of testing, not even flight testing ... so how could it be already used in the current J-20s? ... and even more, I won't rate Minni Chan a reliable first hand source.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly I don't know ... that have others to decide.



The SCMP is quoting PLA sources, do you have any sources that contradict it?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

I haven't seen any weapons test yet and it's ready? .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> I haven't seen any weapons test yet and it's ready? .


How many weapons can it carry in the internal bays. In thee images there are four internal bays


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

BHarwana said:


> How many weapons can it carry in the internal bays. In thee images there are four internal bays



I don't know how many it can carry but sound fishy to me, unless China didn't want to reveal the weapon launched test.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BHarwana

One of the most difficult thing in designing the 5th gen is weapons launch system.







Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> I don't know how many it can carry but sound fishy to me, unless China didn't want to reveal the weapon launched test.


But weapons have been tested

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eldamar

so j-20 is now equipped with ws-15 or that russian engine? wasnt there ppl(inlcuding several notable western members in this thread) who insisted that j-20 is using the al-31fn? hahahaha

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

cirr said:


> *China stealth jet enters service, navy building 'first class' fleet*
> 
> Reuters March 10, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China's Liaoning aircraft carrier with accompanying fleet conducts a drill in an area of South China Sea in this undated photo taken December, 2016. REUTERS/Stringer
> 
> By Ben Blanchard
> 
> BEIJING (Reuters) - China has put into service its new generation J-20 stealth fighter, a warplane it hopes will narrow the military gap with the United States, as senior naval officers said the country was building a "first class" navy and developing a marine corps.
> 
> Chinese President Xi Jinping is overseeing a sweeping modernization of the country's armed forces, the largest in the world, including anti-satellite missiles and advanced submarines, seeking to project power far from its shores.
> 
> In a report late on Thursday, state television's military channel confirmed that the J-20 had now entered service, though it gave no other details.
> 
> The aircraft was shown in public for the first time in November at the Zhuhai airshow and was first glimpsed by Chinese planespotters in 2010.
> 
> However questions remain whether the new Chinese fighter can match the radar-evading properties of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air-to-air combat jet, or the latest strike jet in the U.S. arsenal, Lockheed's F-35. The F-22, developed for the U.S. Air Force, is the J-20's closest lookalike.
> 
> China showed off another stealth fighter it's developing, the J-31, at the last Zhuhai airshow in 2014, a show of muscle that coincided with a visit by U.S. President Barack Obama for an Asia-Pacific summit.
> 
> China hopes the J-31, still in development, will compete with the U.S.-made F-35 stealth aircraft in the international market, according to state media reports.
> 
> The navy is another key focus for China.
> 
> China's navy has been taking an increasingly prominent role in recent months, with a rising star admiral taking command, its first aircraft carrier sailing around self-ruled Taiwan and new Chinese warships popping up in far-flung places.
> 
> With President Donald Trump promising a U.S. shipbuilding spree and unnerving Beijing with his unpredictable approach on hot button issues including Taiwan and the South and East China Seas, China is pushing to narrow the gap with the U.S. Navy.
> 
> Wang Weiming, deputy chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army Navy, told Xinhua on the sidelines of the annual meeting of parliament that China is speeding up the development of a marine corps, adding destroyers and frigates and will step up air and sea patrols.
> 
> "We will intercept any intruding aircraft and follow every military vessel in areas under our responsibility," Wang said. "Our sailors should stay vigilant and be able to deal with emergencies at all times."
> 
> China's second, domestically-developed aircraft carrier is in "good shape" and now awaiting fitting, he added, in comments reported late Thursday.
> 
> Experts expect it will enter service around 2020, joining China's existing, Soviet-built carrier the Liaoning.
> 
> Another senior officer, Li Yanming, political commissar of the Navy's armaments department, said a "first-class navy should be equipped with first-class armaments", the report added.
> 
> Navy arms manufacturing would have "better quantity, quality, scope, and functionality", Li said, without elaborating.
> 
> China's military ambitions, including taking a more assertive stance in the disputed South China Sea, including building artificial islands and ramping up defense spending, have long rattled its neighbors.
> 
> China this year initially failed to publicly release its defense budget on the opening day of parliament as it has done in previous years, finally saying a day later on Monday that it would rise by 7 percent to 1.044 trillion yuan ($151.12 billion).
> 
> China's defense spending amounts to only about a quarter of the U.S. defense budget, though many experts believe its actual spending on the military to be higher than the official figure.
> 
> China denies it is a military threat to anyone.
> 
> Wang Huayong, deputy political commissar of the Eastern Theatre Command, told Xinhua that Chinese forces are for defensive purposes only.
> 
> "The aircraft carrier is still in training and trial stage. The marines remain weak, and the number and quality of long-distance vessels do not meet expectations."
> 
> (Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Michael Perry)
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-step-patrols-create-first-class-navy-011210689.html


Typical Yankee news. Most Chinese feel PLA is not spending enough on military. US MILITARY spending us 600 billion. China doesn't cry like little bitch US .

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## samsara

eldarlmari said:


> so j-20 is now equipped with ws-15 or that russian engine? wasnt there ppl(inlcuding several notable western members in this thread) who insisted that j-20 is using the al-31fn? hahahaha


So can we safely assume now that finally *@Asok* is right, at least partially, in his many persistent lengthy postings about the J-20 is using the domestic type engine? 

If indeed 20 units of J-20 has been in service, instead of the meager number of 5 units, it shows the production goes on smoothly! So how many can we expect by the end of 2017?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

samsara said:


> So can we safely assume now that finally *@Asok* is right, at least partially, in his many persistent lengthy postings about the J-20 is using the domestic type engine?
> 
> If indeed 20 units of J-20 has been in service, instead of the meager number of 5 units, it shows the production goes on smoothly! So how many can we expect by the end of 2017?


Bro J-20 is using hybrid version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15 as @ChineseTiger1986 says, he also say last year that ground testing of WS-15 was done and starting air testing on IL-76 engine test-bed


eldarlmari said:


> so j-20 is now equipped with ws-15 or that russian engine? wasnt there ppl(inlcuding several notable western members in this thread) who insisted that j-20 is using the al-31fn? hahahaha


Bro J-20 is using hybrid version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15 as @ChineseTiger1986 says, he also says that last year that ground testing of WS-15 was done and starting air testing on IL-76 engine test-bed


----------



## samsara

j20blackdragon said:


> In 2009, the PLA made this completely unsubstantiated claim:
> 
> _*In a November 8, 2009* Chinese television show, Deputy PLAAF Commander General He Weirong stated that the China’s 5th generation fighter would fly “soon” and would “equip troops” in “about eight to ten years,” or by 2017-2019._
> http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.219/pub_detail.asp
> 
> The passage of time has now revealed the truth.



*For a prediction made in 7-8 years in advance, its timeliness is quite remarkable.*

It shows how methodical all the related works on this J-20 project are. And the Chinese authority seems not favoring bluffing mode about its capability, esp. when a high officer talks to the media, his words carry lots of weight. Talk down own self is more likely

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

eldarlmari said:


> so j-20 is now equipped with ws-15 or that russian engine? wasnt there ppl(inlcuding several notable western members in this thread) who insisted that j-20 is using the al-31fn? hahahaha





samsara said:


> So can we safely assume now that finally *@Asok* is right, at least partially, in his many persistent lengthy postings about the J-20 is using the domestic type engine?
> 
> If indeed 20 units of J-20 has been in service, instead of the meager number of 5 units, it shows the production goes on smoothly! So how many can we expect by the end of 2017?




No; and if You want You can make even more fun of it. ... all these reports only say "a domestic engine" and IMO this could therefore also be an engine designed specificly for or contracted by China. A WS-15 given the latest reports from Big Shrimps and even more like Asoks dream-claims of +210 kN for reaching Mach 3 is plain impossible.

Anyway ... time will tell.


----------



## samsara

Jlaw said:


> Typical Yankee news. Most Chinese feel PLA is not spending enough on military. US MILITARY spending us 600 billion. China doesn't cry like little bitch US .


TYPICAL "YANKEE-TYPED" MEDIA but not necessarily it must be owned and controlled by USA for the media belongs to UK/GER/FRA/AUS and so on also exhibit the same patterns [BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, Der Spiegel, DW, France24, Euronews, ABC, SMH, News Corp. etc]... they can hardly write anything positive about the non-ally countries -- even for something quite positive, for instance an aerospace project-- without putting in some "sour grapes", twists, spin-offs inside. This treatment does not only happen on China but also Russia, and it's even worse, practically any nation that is not within their orbit will undergo the bad treatments!

I have been observing for years these kind of "journalistic" patterns and be quite familiar with them  lol ... no surprise, no wonder. They all learnt from the same controllers, the same references and textbooks, the same root!!

*In particular applied to the Corporate Media!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> I haven't seen any weapons test yet and it's ready? .




The main issue is that entering "active service" doesn't mean it's entered IOC or anything; just look at the Y-20.

Entering service means it's accepted by PLAAF and is PLAAF property, being maintained and flown by PLAAF personnel. It has nothing to do with IOC, also the term "some sort of combat capabilities" is a very broad term.

The main issue is that what the PLAAF calls "in active service or in service" doesn't correspond to what in the West or the Western military forces understand under the same term. So we need to be careful about what the literal word of "in service" means across different military forces around the world, since the degree of "in service" can also differ depending on the program structure itself.

So in summary it's not wrong to say that the J-20 has entered service so long as we know this. IMO it has reached the stage of IOT&E and therefore the FTTC as its first operational base fits nicely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> No; and if You want You can make even more fun of it. ... all these reports only say "a domestic engine" and IMO this could therefore also be an engine designed specificly for or contracted by China. A WS-15 given the latest reports from Big Shrimps and even more like Asoks dream-claims of +210 kN for reaching Mach 3 is plain impossible.
> 
> Anyway ... time will tell.


210KN is an over-hype, I think it will be 180+KN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> 210KN is an over-hype, I think it will be 180+KN.




In the end for the final WS-15, YES ... but not already now.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Maybe the WS15 engine progress is another example of great strategy cheat. I'm proud to be a Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> No; and if You want You can make even more fun of it. ... all these reports only say "a domestic engine" and IMO this could therefore also be an engine designed specificly for or contracted by China. A WS-15 given the latest reports from Big Shrimps and even more like Asoks dream-claims of +210 kN for reaching Mach 3 is plain impossible.
> 
> Anyway ... time will tell.


How can a contracted engine be called domestic engine? Or you want to make the claim Chinese military like to bluffing or exaggerate? I think one poster just proves Chinese high ranking military leadership just proves his timeline for J- 20 to enter service year is not any exaggerate. Instead of blaming shabby journalist or try to twist your way out of it.

Just be a man and admit the engine onboard operation J-20 is 100% domestic and eats your humble pie that all the while your artificial observation of just looking at external and see the flame is nothing but disaster in predicting Chinese military development. 

Knowing accurately how Chinese military future evolve is not just mere looking at regiment number and predict how aircraft and where they are deploy that simple.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> The main issue is that entering "active service" doesn't mean it's entered IOC or anything; just look at the Y-20.
> 
> Entering service means it's accepted by PLAAF and is PLAAF property, being maintained and flown by PLAAF personnel. It has nothing to do with IOC, also the term "some sort of combat capabilities" is a very broad term.
> 
> The main issue is that what the PLAAF calls "in active service or in service" doesn't correspond to what in the West or the Western military forces understand under the same term. So we need to be careful about what the literal word of "in service" means across different military forces around the world, since the degree of "in service" can also differ depending on the program structure itself.
> 
> So in summary it's not wrong to say that the J-20 has entered service so long as we know this. IMO it has reached the stage of IOT&E and therefore the FTTC as its first operational base fits nicely.


Are you implying entering service version is very far from the combat operation version or simply trying to hint PLA has no standard and its acceptance varies alot unlike super professional western counterpart? Please back your statement if not, its simply your lack of contempt assessment of Chinese and PLA and just your very personal verdict.



wanglaokan said:


> Maybe the WS15 engine progress is another example of great strategy cheat. I'm proud to be a Chinese.



Sun Tzu always say 'All Warfare is based upon deception'

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eldamar

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/arti...ighter-flies-fighting-forces-says-state-media

*China’s J-20 stealth fighter joins the People’s Liberation Army air force*

State media highlights nation’s most advanced stealth fighter coming into operation


PUBLISHED : Friday, 10 March, 2017, 11:48am
UPDATED : Saturday, 11 March, 2017, 12:38am

China’s latest stealth fighter, the J-20, is serving in the People’s Liberation Army air force, according to state media.

Military insiders said the appearance of J-20s in the air force was meant as a warning to Japan and South Korea, which are expected to buy US F-35 stealth fighters now that China has equally advanced warplanes.

Video footage aired by CCTV yesterday showed J-20 fighters alongside PLA Y-20 transport planes and H-6K bombers. The broadcast did not say how many J-20s were operational.

America’s F-35 fighter jet vs China’s J-20: which is better, cheaper, stealthier?

The report said the new aircraft had joined joint drills with troops, rocket forces and the navy.

*A source close to the PLA said the J-20s were all equipped with home-made WS-15 engines*_(<==hahahahha)_*, but because the engine had not entered mass production, only a few J-20s were available for service.*

*“There are still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled [on the J-20], including the reliability of its WS-15 engines, [and the plane’s] control system, stealth coat and hull materials and infrared sensor,” said the source, who requested anonymity. *

But with the US deploying a batch of F-35s in Japan in January, and South Korea planning to have 40 F-35s in 2018, “it’s urgent for China to show off its achievements as soon as possible”, the source said, adding that more J-20s would join the PLA this year.

Chinese military websites showed pictures last December of J-20s with serial numbers indicating that at least three types of the stealth jets had joined the air force since last year.

The J-20 made a two-minute public debut at the opening of Airshow China in Zhuhai in Guangdong province on November 1, flying over the show each day after taking off from an airfield in nearby Foshan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eldamar

i love these stubborn Western _'expert China military watchers'_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

eldarlmari said:


> http://www.scmp.com/news/china/arti...ighter-flies-fighting-forces-says-state-media
> 
> *China’s J-20 stealth fighter joins the People’s Liberation Army air force*
> 
> State media highlights nation’s most advanced stealth fighter coming into operation
> 
> 
> PUBLISHED : Friday, 10 March, 2017, 11:48am
> UPDATED : Saturday, 11 March, 2017, 12:38am
> 
> China’s latest stealth fighter, the J-20, is serving in the People’s Liberation Army air force, according to state media.
> 
> Military insiders said the appearance of J-20s in the air force was meant as a warning to Japan and South Korea, which are expected to buy US F-35 stealth fighters now that China has equally advanced warplanes.
> 
> Video footage aired by CCTV yesterday showed J-20 fighters alongside PLA Y-20 transport planes and H-6K bombers. The broadcast did not say how many J-20s were operational.
> 
> America’s F-35 fighter jet vs China’s J-20: which is better, cheaper, stealthier?
> 
> The report said the new aircraft had joined joint drills with troops, rocket forces and the navy.
> 
> *A source close to the PLA said the J-20s were all equipped with home-made WS-15 engines*_(<==hahahahha)_*, but because the engine had not entered mass production, only a few J-20s were available for service.*
> 
> *“There are still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled [on the J-20], including the reliability of its WS-15 engines, [and the plane’s] control system, stealth coat and hull materials and infrared sensor,” said the source, who requested anonymity. *
> 
> But with the US deploying a batch of F-35s in Japan in January, and South Korea planning to have 40 F-35s in 2018, “it’s urgent for China to show off its achievements as soon as possible”, the source said, adding that more J-20s would join the PLA this year.
> 
> Chinese military websites showed pictures last December of J-20s with serial numbers indicating that at least three types of the stealth jets had joined the air force since last year.
> 
> The J-20 made a two-minute public debut at the opening of Airshow China in Zhuhai in Guangdong province on November 1, flying over the show each day after taking off from an airfield in nearby Foshan.


Reading over and over this SCMP article, eventually I can't help my self of the laughters  LOL

"_*Military insiders said* the appearance of J-20s in the air force was *meant as a warning* to Japan and South Korea, which are expected to buy US F-35 stealth fighters now that China has equally advanced warplanes._"

"_*A source close to the PLA* said the J-20s were all equipped with home-made WS-15 engines, but because the engine had not entered mass production, *only a few J-20s were available for service*."_

“_There are *still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled* [on the J-20], *including the reliability* of its WS-15 engines, [and the plane’s] *control system, stealth coat and hull materials and infrared sensor*_,” said the source, who requested anonymity. ===> well, so many lingering problems; in that case it is not a serious asset, yet  and pose no deterrence value!

Ha ha ha... above paragraphs are just contradictory each other  lol

Those who read this article will hardly understand the underlying message... and if SCMP is a yellow publication then I may understand, but it is not.

So what's the real message? It's everyone's guess.

I let everyone to interpret it  ha ha ha

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Deino said:


> The main issue is that entering "active service" doesn't mean it's entered IOC or anything; just look at the Y-20.
> 
> Entering service means it's accepted by PLAAF and is PLAAF property, being maintained and flown by PLAAF personnel. It has nothing to do with IOC, also the term "some sort of combat capabilities" is a very broad term.
> 
> The main issue is that what the PLAAF calls "in active service or in service" doesn't correspond to what in the West or the Western military forces understand under the same term. So we need to be careful about what the literal word of "in service" means across different military forces around the world, since the degree of "in service" can also differ depending on the program structure itself.
> 
> So in summary it's not wrong to say that the J-20 has entered service so long as we know this. IMO it has reached the stage of IOT&E and therefore the FTTC as its first operational base fits nicely.



Regardless if it enter service or not, I'm not over-excited about, it's better that the J-20 is done properly according th the design process and not 偷工减料 just to speed up the release.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Are you implying entering service version is very far from the combat operation version or simply trying to hint PLA has no standard and its acceptance varies alot unlike super professional western counterpart? Please back your statement if not, its simply your lack of contempt assessment of Chinese and PLA and just your very personal verdict.




Simply *YES* for the first question on if they are "very far from the combat operation version" since no aircraft anywhere on earth just enters service with all capabilities as projected; not the F-22, the F-35, the €F, Rafale, T-50, .... so simply logic dictates that !

And *NO and YES* for Your second question on if the "PLA has no standard and its acceptance varies alot unlike super professional western counterpart?": Yes, since they surely have a different standard but surely NOT NO; it is only different to the Western one. If the Western AF are that "super professional" is yet another question and I would not agree in this.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> Are you implying entering service version is very far from the combat operation version or simply trying to hint PLA has no standard and its acceptance varies alot unlike super professional western counterpart? Please back your statement if not, its simply your lack of contempt assessment of Chinese and PLA and just your very personal verdict.


Yes. I am not implying. I am *SAYING*.

When the military accepts a new piece of hardware, it means the military is prepared to alter its ways of waging war to accommodate the new capabilities this new piece of hardware will bring.

I will use my beloved F-16 as example...

When the USAF accepted the F-16, the service chiefs, meaning the USAF Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force, were readied to accept the new fighter with its weapons load, fuel range, maneuverability, and maintenance requirements. Since the new fighter is supposed to be inexpensive, it means more can be bought, therefore, support personnel must be factored in, maybe recruit more ? While the service works on altering its support infrastructures, the manufacturer continues to study and make the hardware better. Why do you think the F-16 have 'blocks' ? Each block of upgrades is an improvement from the immediate version. Some blocks seen war, most do not. Even the Army's M1 Abrams worked the same way. We have the A1 and A2.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fawad alam

Please send 1 or 2 to showcase your power in our 23rd March Parade

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> I haven't seen any weapons test yet and it's ready? .



Just like you haven't seen any footage of J-15 and drone takeoff from the EMALS, but in fact it has already been tested for more than thousand times.

This is China's style. When you see something being described in a document of CCTV, it was already deployed in many years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Fawad alam said:


> Please send 1 or 2 to showcase your power in our 23rd March Parade


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Just like you haven't seen any footage of J-15 and drone takeoff from the EMALS, but in fact it has already been tested for more than thousand times.
> 
> This is China's style. When you see something being described in a document of CCTV, it was already deployed in many years ago.



And do we feel the need to get attention when our government style to keep all these in low profile: Can we not wait until the EMALS catapult is ready with clear pictures as evident before going to long exhausting debate? and same with the WS-15 engine...why do need to make drama out of this, if it takes another decade or so to mass produce, so be it it...I'm not sensitive at all if Viets or Indians said that we still operate Russian engines with our J-20 if that can comfort them  and I don't feel the need to prove them anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> And do we feel the need to get attention when our government style to keep all these in low profile: Can we not wait until the EMALS catapult is ready with clear pictures as evident before going to long exhausting debate? and same with the WS-15 engine...why do need to make drama out of this, if it takes another decade or so to mass produce, so be it it...I'm not sensitive at all if Viets or Indians said that we still operate Russian engines with our J-20 if that can comfort them  and I don't feel the need to prove them anything.



For now, the J-20 is using the domestic engine, but not the WS-15.

General Yin Zhuo has already confirmed that, since he is an insider and knows the chief designer personally.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> For now, the J-20 is using the domestic engine, but not the WS-15.
> 
> General Yin Zhuo has already confirmed that, since he is an insider and knows the chief designer personally.



Good to know that we use our engine, it's step forward to our defense industries

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Good to know that we use our engine, it's step forward to our defense industries



For now, the J-20A is fully ready.

By 2018-2020, the J-20B will be fully ready, and it will have a lot of potential than the J-20A.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Nadhem Of Ibelin

Old but i think this the best picture of the j-20 yet

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## eldamar

According to the serial number of the plane- it would be deployed somewhere in the northwest of the country.


----------



## hirobo2

Hi guys,

Very good news about J-20 entering service. Feeling in *celebration mode?* Take some time to check out my _dedicated J-20 thread_ (on a different site than defence.pk) where I have attempted to organize the pics posted by various users here in a semi-coherent manner:

http://www.spcnet.tv/forums/showthread.php/40083-AVATAR-Anthology-(Avatar-1-2-3-4-5-etc-)?p=1132548&viewfull=1#post1132548

Enjoy!

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## hirobo2

Very interesting development J-20 + WS-15 engine. Anyone feeling in *celebration mode* by the J-20 entering service? Then check out my _dedicated J-20 thread_ (on a different site than defence.pk), where I have attempted to re-organize the pretty pictures posted by various users here in a semi-coherent manner:

http://www.spcnet.tv/forums/showthr...-3-4-5-etc-)?p=1132548&viewfull=1#post1132548

Enjoy!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shadows888

hirobo2 said:


> Very interesting development J-20 + WS-15 engine. Anyone feeling in *celebration mode* by the J-20 entering service? Then check out my _dedicated J-20 thread_ (on a different site than defence.pk), where I have attempted to re-organize the pretty pictures posted by various users here in a semi-coherent manner:
> 
> http://www.spcnet.tv/forums/showthread.php/40083-AVATAR-Anthology-(Avatar-1-2-3-4-5-etc-)?p=1132548&viewfull=1#post1132548
> 
> Enjoy!



whats the official name? i thought it was "mighty dragon"


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> Reading over and over this SCMP article, eventually I can't help my self of the laughters  LOL
> 
> "_*Military insiders said* the appearance of J-20s in the air force was *meant as a warning* to Japan and South Korea, which are expected to buy US F-35 stealth fighters now that China has equally advanced warplanes._"
> 
> "_*A source close to the PLA* said the J-20s were all equipped with home-made WS-15 engines, but because the engine had not entered mass production, *only a few J-20s were available for service*."_
> 
> “_There are *still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled* [on the J-20], *including the reliability* of its WS-15 engines, [and the plane’s] *control system, stealth coat and hull materials and infrared sensor*_,” said the source, who requested anonymity. ===> well, so many lingering problems; in that case it is not a serious asset, yet  and pose no deterrence value!
> 
> Ha ha ha... above paragraphs are just contradictory each other  lol
> 
> Those who read this article will hardly understand the underlying message... and if SCMP is a yellow publication then I may understand, but it is not.
> 
> So what's the real message? It's everyone's guess.
> 
> I let everyone to interpret it  ha ha ha



It's written by your typical know-nothing journalist.



samsara said:


> *For a prediction made in 7-8 years in advance, its timeliness is quite remarkable.*
> 
> It shows how methodical all the related works on this J-20 project are. And the Chinese authority seems not favoring bluffing mode about its capability, esp. when a high officer talks to the media, his words carry lots of weight. Talk down own self is more likely




The work is carrying out smoothly and speedily because most of the design work was carried out in the Supercomputer using Advance CAD/CAM, Fluid Dynamic Computational Software, developed by China.

As we can see, the overall shape, and dimension of J-20 changed remarkably little over the years. Yes, there are continuously fine tuning, but no major redesigns. That means they got it mostly right, the first time.

I bet not one traditional blueprint, printed in paper, was needed. It went straight from the 3-D CAD/CAM design software to manufacturing. All the design was done within the Supercomputers, which China has plenty now.

I bet one day of work with the Computerized Design Software, is probably equivalent of, two months of pencil and drawings, on the drafting table.

Traditional design, takes literally ,a mountain of blueprints, for all the parts. Just to draw them correctly and interpret them correctly, takes a lot of time and effort.

The same tremendous saving in time and effort happens with Engine design as in Airframe design. That's why, I was confident that J-20, was already running with WS-15, from day one, back in 2010.

All the fools, who believes otherwise, have no idea about the power and efficiency of modern CAD/CAM and CFD software, combined with the ever increasing incredible speed of Supercomputers.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> It's written by your typical know-nothing journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The work is carrying out smoothly and speedily because most of the design work was carried out in the Supercomputer using Advance CAD/CAM, Fluid Dynamic Computational Software, developed by China.
> 
> As we can see, the overall shape, and dimension of J-20 changed remarkably little over the years. Yes, there are continuously fine tuning, but no major redesigns. That means they got the it mostly right, the first time.
> 
> I bet not one traditional blueprint was needed. It went straight from the CAD/CAM software design to manufacturing. All the design was done within the Supercomputers, which China has plenty now.
> 
> I bet one day of work with the Computerized Design Software, is probably equivalent of two months of pencil and drawings on the drafting table.
> 
> Traditional design takes literally a mountain of blueprints, for all the parts. Just to draw them and interpret them correctly takes a lot of effort.
> 
> This is same with Engine design as in Airframe design. That's why I was confident that J-20 was running with WS-15 from day one, back in 2010.
> 
> All the fools, who believes otherwise, have no idea about the power and efficiency of modern CAD/CAM and CFD software.


That is why supercomputer is a major national project and its contribution is tremendous in all scientific area, not some chest thumping number breaking only.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Are you implying entering service version is very far from the combat operation version or simply trying to hint PLA has no standard and its acceptance varies alot unlike super professional western counterpart? Please back your statement if not, its simply your lack of contempt assessment of Chinese and PLA and just your very personal verdict.



Just fitting nicely to this discussion is a comparison to the service introduction of the J-10:

The initial J-10As "entered service" with the PLAAF officialyl at the end of 2003 but they were also officially only really considered to be "IOC" by 2006. A comprehensive summary on the typical PLAAF procedures can be found in a post by "kongjun49" at the CDF:



> Based on my understanding of the PLAAF/Naval Aviation, IOC is not an actual term for about two years after a unit receives the first new type of airframe. The term IOC actually is used the first day that an aircraft sits strip alert and can scramble to intercept an foreign aircraft or fly over territory that includes an attack scenario.
> 
> The way it normally works is that a unit that receives the first airframe of a new type aircraft receives enough aircraft from the production line, which may take up to a year after the first one comes off the production line. For example, the first batch of fighter/attack aircraft would include 10 airframes. They are assigned as a group to a flight group (battalion leader-level organization). Of the 10 airframes, two of them rotate to the maintenance facility at a time, while the other 8 make up two company-level flight squadrons.
> 
> The pilots of the new aircraft have to do multiple things, including developing tactics/combat methods for the new airframe, adhering to the Outline of Military Training and Evaluation (OMTE), building a corps of pilots who move up their career ladder from 3rd to 2nd to 1st to special grade pilots, which includes serving as a wingman, flight lead, training pilot, and flight controller in the tower, as well as flying in 4 weather conditions (e.g., day and night IFR and VFR, not "weather" related, such as snow, sleet, rain, clouds). etc.
> 
> The whole process before they sit strip alert takes about 2 years.
> 
> The next unit to receive the same airframe may take less time, because they send pilots to the first unit to observe. They don't have to develop tactics/combat methods, because they only have to implement ones that have already been created and incorporated into the OMTE. This doesn't mean, however, that it only takes a few months. It probably takes at least a year for the unit to become IOC.
> 
> http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php?topic=7379.msg294834#msg294834





eldarlmari said:


> i love these stubborn Western _'expert China military watchers'_



As long as they are closer to the facts that the dreamers ... 

Anyway, I'm sure that with all these over-interpretations like "indigenous engine = fully operational WS-15", "entered service = ready for all combat missions aka FOC" the final word has long not spoken. So time will tell.

BY the way, since this thread is almost a J-20-related discussion I merge it with the regular J-20-thread.

All the best,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

eldarlmari said:


> According to the serial number of the plane- it would be deployed somewhere in the northwest of the country.




Most likely a the FTTC at Dingxin ...


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> That is why supercomputer is a major national project and its contribution is tremendous in all scientific area, not some chest thumping number breaking only.



You are right.

A massive Supercomputer Farm or center is a National Strategic Asset or Force multiplier in all Scientific Researches. The US and the West has long dominated this field, since the invention of Computers, back in the early 1940's.

Now China has caught up and taken the lead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> You are right.
> 
> A massive Supercomputer Farm or center is a National Strategic Asset or Force multiplier in all Scientific Researches. The US and the West has long dominated this field, since the invention of Computers, back in the early 1940's.
> 
> Now China has caught up and taken the lead.




Yes for sure ... esp. since a Supercomputer can replace everything, decades of experience, material research?? ... everything just "CLICK" and the supercomputer builds a ready-made +210 kN strong mega-engine - at best 3D-printed - that otherwise no one else can build in the world.

Do you really believe what you write there?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Everyone better be patient, unless the related *authority decides to divulge* the relevant info, the ROW can only *keep on guessing*... _one's words against the other's ones_... at the end one's faith comes into play... until the authority decides to remove the veils. The conclusive info will just be elusive. One should also ask, what are the *pros and cons, incentives and disincentives* of revealing certain kind of sensitive information... from *their* POV! Good luck guessing

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> Everyone better be patient, unless the related *authority decides to divulge* the relevant info, the ROW can only *keep on guessing*... _one's words against the other's ones_... at the end one's faith comes into play... until the authority decides to remove the veils. The conclusive info will just be elusive. One should also ask, what are the *pros and cons, incentives and disincentives* of revealing certain kind of sensitive information... from *their* POV! Good luck guessing




Supercomputer can't replace decades of any experiences, with the click of the mouse, but it does can speed up the acquisition of that "decades of experience" in matter of years, through massive simulations and calculations, inside those magic boxes. And with a lot less pain and effort.

Computer power doubles every 18 months.

The fastest Supercomputer in year 2000, was US Laurence Laboratory's ASCI White, with Rpeak of 12,288.0 Gflops.

Now, 16 years later, it's China's Sunway TaihuLight with Rpeak of 93.01 PFLOPS, or 93,000,000 Gflops.

It's an exponential total increase of *7568 times, in 16 years*.

In the coming months, China will roll out world's first Exabyte scale Supercomputer, the *Tianhe-3* ,capable of 1000 Petabytes, or 10 times faster than the current of the Current world champion the *Sunway TaihuLight*, or *75,680 times* faster the 2000 champion, the *ASCI White*.

The fools can keep their heads in the sands. In the end, no one can make them see, unless they decide to pull their heads out and look.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> Supercomputer can't replace decades of any experiences, with the click of the mouse, but it does can speed up the acquisition of that "decades of experience" in matter of years, through massive simulations and calculations, inside those magic boxes. And with a lot less pain and effort.
> 
> Computer power doubles every 18 months.
> 
> The fastest Supercomputer in year 2000, was US Laurence Laboratory's ASCI White, with Rpeak of 12,288.0 Gflops.
> 
> Now, 16 years later, it's China's Sunway TaihuLight with Rpeak of 93.01 PFLOPS, or 93,000,000 Gflops.
> 
> It's an exponential total increase of *7568 times, in 16 years*.
> 
> In the coming months, China will roll out world's first Exabyte scale Supercomputer, the *Tianhe-3* ,capable of 1000 Petabytes, or 10 times faster than the current of the Current world champion the *Sunway TaihuLight*, or *75,680 times* faster the 2000 champion, the *ASCI White*.
> 
> The fools can keep their heads in the sands. In the end, no one can make them see, unless they decide to pull their heads out and look.



Precisely, the fools can keep twist the fact and keep on denying. Modern Supercomputer allows quite accurate depiction of a aircraft design and feasible of working specification based on its simulation so that designer most likely will have a 80-90% working aircraft design long before even its make into a prototype and fly. The more powerful the supercomputer, the more complicated and demanding of the simulation of the design can be carry out.

Past the olden days where aircraft designer will know certain aircraft design deficiency only when prototype flies.
Y-20 is a fantastic example where China previous do not have such experience in designing such big plane but able to accomplish a working and big operational plane in such short time. We have not seen any structural changes of Y- throughout its testing phase to operation. More or less show the design is very successful in the very first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Precisely, the fools can keep twist the fact and keep on denying. Modern Supercomputer allows quite accurate depiction of a aircraft design and feasible of working specification based on its simulation so that designer most likely will have a 80-90% working aircraft design long before even its make into a prototype and fly. The more powerful the supercomputer, the more complicated and demanding of the simulation of the design can be carry out.
> 
> Past the olden days where aircraft designer will know certain aircraft design deficiency only when prototype flies.
> Y-20 is a fantastic example where China previous do not have such experience in designing such big plane but able to accomplish a working and big operational plane in such short time. We have not seen any structural changes of Y- throughout its testing phase to operation. More or less show the design is very successful in the very first place.




The Boeing 767 Dreamliner was one of the first large aircraft entirely, design inside a Supercomputer, not one paper blueprint was used. Everything was designed, visualized and simulated inside the Computer. The Designer, Engineers, Machinists, and Mechanics, can see precisely, what every parts was look like, and how they work together, before any parts was built.

The saving of labors and time was enormous.

In fact, the simulation was so precise, the final weight of the simulated plane differs with the real plane by only *8 lbs.
*
The only "argument", left with those fools, is to deny everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JSCh

*Stealth fighter soon powered by local engines*
By ZHAO LEI | China Daily | Updated: 2017-03-13 03:51

A domestically developed engine will soon power the nation's latest stealth fighter jet, according to a senior scientist working for Aero Engine Corp of China.

"It will not take a long time for our fifth-generation combat plane to have China-made engines," said Chen Xiangbao, vice-president of the AECC Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials. Chen, also a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, was referring to the J-20 stealth fighter.

"The engine's development is proceeding well. We also have begun to design a next-generation aviation engine with a thrust-to-weight ratio that is much higher than that of current types," he said. Thrust-to-weight ratio is considered the top indicator of an aviation engine's capability.

Chen, who is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference National Committee, spoke to China Daily on the sidelines of the political advisory body's annual session.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force recently confirmed, without elaborating, that the J-20 has been put into active service. Aviation industry observers said the plane is still equipped with Russian-made engines due to the lack of a suitable domestically developed engine.

Chen said Chinese scientists and engineers are striving to catch up to the world's top players in terms of research and development into cutting-edge aviation engines, but the country still has a long way to go before it can develop and produce world-class engines, Chen said.

"For instance, we are able to develop the two most important components in an advanced engine — the single crystal superalloy turbine blades and powder metallurgy superalloy turbine disks — but in mass production, the products' quality is not very satisfactory," he said. It is a matter of time and persistence to make reliable engines, he said.

"The road to success is filled with setbacks and failures. Each of the world's engine powers has walked this road," Chen added.

Yin Zeyong, head of AECC's science and technology commission, previously said that a good engine is the result of not only good design but also time-consuming experiments and tests.

Despite China's tremendous achievements in science, technology and manufacturing industries over the past several decades, aircraft engine-making remains one of the few fields in which the country still lags behind top players like the United States and Russia. Because of the sophistication of advanced aircraft engines, such as the afterburning turbofan engine, which drives the US Lockheed Martin F-22 and Russia's Sukhoi Su-35, only the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have the technical wherewithal to develop and produce them.

Tang Changhong, chief designer of China's Y-20 strategic transport plane and a member of the CPPCC National Committee, told West China City Daily that the Y-20 will be equipped with indigenously developed engines around 2018 or 2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Beast

JSCh said:


> *Stealth fighter soon powered by local engines*
> By ZHAO LEI | China Daily | Updated: 2017-03-13 03:51
> 
> A domestically developed engine will soon power the nation's latest stealth fighter jet, according to a senior scientist working for Aero Engine Corp of China.
> 
> "It will not take a long time for our fifth-generation combat plane to have China-made engines," said Chen Xiangbao, vice-president of the AECC Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials. Chen, also a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, was referring to the J-20 stealth fighter.
> 
> "The engine's development is proceeding well. We also have begun to design a next-generation aviation engine with a thrust-to-weight ratio that is much higher than that of current types," he said. Thrust-to-weight ratio is considered the top indicator of an aviation engine's capability.
> 
> Chen, who is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference National Committee, spoke to China Daily on the sidelines of the political advisory body's annual session.
> 
> The People's Liberation Army Air Force recently confirmed, without elaborating, that the J-20 has been put into active service. Aviation industry observers said the plane is still equipped with Russian-made engines due to the lack of a suitable domestically developed engine.
> 
> Chen said Chinese scientists and engineers are striving to catch up to the world's top players in terms of research and development into cutting-edge aviation engines, but the country still has a long way to go before it can develop and produce world-class engines, Chen said.
> 
> "For instance, we are able to develop the two most important components in an advanced engine — the single crystal superalloy turbine blades and powder metallurgy superalloy turbine disks — but in mass production, the products' quality is not very satisfactory," he said. It is a matter of time and persistence to make reliable engines, he said.
> 
> "The road to success is filled with setbacks and failures. Each of the world's engine powers has walked this road," Chen added.
> 
> Yin Zeyong, head of AECC's science and technology commission, previously said that a good engine is the result of not only good design but also time-consuming experiments and tests.
> 
> Despite China's tremendous achievements in science, technology and manufacturing industries over the past several decades, aircraft engine-making remains one of the few fields in which the country still lags behind top players like the United States and Russia. Because of the sophistication of advanced aircraft engines, such as the afterburning turbofan engine, which drives the US Lockheed Martin F-22 and Russia's Sukhoi Su-35, only the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have the technical wherewithal to develop and produce them.
> 
> Tang Changhong, chief designer of China's Y-20 strategic transport plane and a member of the CPPCC National Committee, told West China City Daily that the Y-20 will be equipped with indigenously developed engines around 2018 or 2019.



Once again. This news more or less cement my view that J-20 ,J-10B and J-15 uses a hybrid of WS-10 and AL-31F domestic made engines with much higher thrust to power our fighter jets. Do not expect an official statement telling the whole world China is RE Russian AL-31F by xinhui news or other official Chinese news agency.

This way it could fasten the process of putting critical plane into operation while not depending on unreliable Russian to power our fleet. Depending on Russian to upthrust AL-31F cannot be happen as Russian lack of resources to undertake some project with limted funds, facilities and scientist. Just like how they failed us on Mars Mission, the delivery of 36 IL-76 transport plane which forces us to undergo domestic Y-20 project.

Most importantly, the production is 100% controlled by the Chinese which we can produced as many engines and planes according to our need. It will speed up our induction before more powerful design like WS-20 and WS-15 are commissioned to fulfill more demanding need of our future fighter jet.

There is a reason why Yin zhuo a politburo member and former rear admiral of PLAN slipped his tongue and mention the domestic engine currently used on J-20 during the Zhuhai airshow 2016.

Its something like the WS-18 project which is for our H-6K and Y-20 needs. A Russian design but with uprated thrust of 8% and long turbine blade lifespan. Most importantly, its 100 percent made in China with no restriction in production.

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2015/01/ws-18-new-type-of-aircraft-engine.html#.WMYqPm-GPIU

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

@Asok, pardon, but will this finally lead You back to reality !?



JSCh said:


> *Stealth fighter soon powered by local engines*
> By ZHAO LEI | China Daily | Updated: 2017-03-13 03:51
> 
> A domestically developed engine will soon power the nation's latest stealth fighter jet, according to a senior scientist working for Aero Engine Corp of China.
> 
> "It will not take a long time for our fifth-generation combat plane to have China-made engines," said Chen Xiangbao, vice-president of the AECC Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials. Chen, also a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, was referring to the J-20 stealth fighter.
> ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> ...
> Its something like the WS-18 project which is for our H-6K and Y-20 needs. A Russian design but with uprated thrust of 8% and long turbine blade lifespan. Most importantly, its 100 percent made in China with no restriction in production.
> 
> http://errymath.blogspot.com/2015/01/ws-18-new-type-of-aircraft-engine.html#.WMYqPm-GPIU




The issue is simply again similar to the WS-15 ... the WS-18 too is still not operational and all Y-20s so far are using Russian engines, that has been confirmed by official statements more than once.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> The issue is simply again similar to the WS-15 ... the WS-18 too is still not operational and all Y-20s so far are using Russian engines, that has been confirmed by official statements more than once.


Which official statement? You make up yourself? WS-18 is considered a RE of D30K engine. The fact that even the project members did not written WS-18 on the banner in the photo more or less comfirm its a hush hush, matter.

You expect Xinhua news or official Chinese new agency to splash over the news about RE of D30K engines of WS-18. Or official news about Y-20 using WS-18?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Which official statement? You make up yourself? WS-18 is considered a RE of D30K engine. The fact that even the project members did not written WS-18 on the banner in the photo more or less comfirm its a hush hush, matter.
> 
> You expect Xinhua news or official Chinese new agency to splash over the news about RE of D30K engines of WS-18. Or official news about Y-20 using WS-18?




Official news during the service introduction - and also now this latest report above - stating that now they are still using imported engines and those will be replaced in the future.

Otherwise I think it's up to You to prove that the current Y-20s are already using the WS-18.


----------



## Asoka

*"Asok, pardon, but will this finally lead You back to reality !?"*


Very funny. LOL. He is referring to a mass produced domestic built engine, will soon power the mass produced version of J-20.

As we all know, the extensive testings of J-20 is mostly completed, and J-20 is already in LRIP, and soon it will be in full production, as the various production issues are ironed out.

If an engine is not already extensive tested on J-20, how could it be soon equipped on the mass production version of J-20?

And if WS-15 was never even tested on J-20 yet, which engine will power, the hundreds of J-20, rolling off the pulse production lines, in the coming years?

*"AL-31FN, of course!"*, you said?

Hundreds of J-20A, powered by, the Russian AL-31FN engines?    And when the WS-15 is finally ready 10-20 years from now, the Chinese could simply just loosen a few screws, and pop in the brand new WS-15 engines. Nothing else needs to be done. It is that simple.

You got to be kidding me. Who can really believe this B.S.? Some people's brain are incredibly lame.

Use your brain a little bit. Stop the denial. Pull your head out of the sand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Hundreds of J-20A, powered by, the Russian AL-31FN engines?    And when the WS-15 is finally ready 10-20 years from now, the Chinese could simply just loosen a few screws, and pop in the brand new WS-15 engines. Nothing else needs to be done. It is that simple.
> 
> You got to be kidding me. Who can really believe this B.S.? Some people's brain are incredibly lame.
> 
> Use your brain a little bit. Stop the denial. Pull your head out of the sand.


But not using final and standard version of WS-15 as per @ChineseTiger1986, @Beast, it is using special version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> But not using final and standard version of WS-15 as per @ChineseTiger1986, @Beast, it is using special version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15




Do You really think it is that easy to plug & play the core of one engine with the fan of another and not to forget the nozzle of an AL-31 ???


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Do You really think it is that easy to plug & play the core of one engine with the fan of another and not to forget the nozzle of an AL-31 ???


Yes sir it is quite possible, examples in the past is already their


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> Yes sir it is quite possible, examples in the past is already their




Pardon, but when was the core of engine Type A was mated with the fan of Type B added by the nozzle of Type C. I'm indeed eager to learn but I don't know and from what I know it is simply impossible.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Pardon, but when was the core of engine Type A was mated with the fan of Type B added by the nozzle of Type C. I'm indeed eager to learn but I don't know and from what I know it is simply impossible.


 i am saying that core and fan of the different engine mating is quite possible and i am not saying that the respected senior Chinese members like @Beast, @ChineseTiger1986, @cirr, @wanglaokan and others saying


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> i am saying that core and fan of the different engine mating is quite possible and i am not saying that the respected senior Chinese members like @Beast, @ChineseTiger1986, @cirr, @wanglaokan and others saying




I know what they are saying but as far as I know it is impossible and with all due respect; I think they are wrong.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> I know what they are saying but as far as I know it is impossible and with all due respect; I think they are wrong.


No its quite possible, in the past few examples had been there with some US engine


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> No its quite possible, in the past few examples had been there with some US engine



Care to mention one ?? Like I said - I'm eager to learn and even to admit I'm wrong - but only since it is the simplest explanation that fits a certain opinion - namely a WS-15 of some sort is already operational - does not mean it is possible.


----------



## Asoka

*"Do You really think it is that easy to plug & play the core of one engine with the fan of another and not to forget the nozzle of an AL-31 ???"*

If the current WS-15, as seen on J-20, uses AL-31F and WS-10's already mature and proven technologies, it is not a simple plug and play, by pulling certain parts and directly mated with the new core.

It is taking the design of that part, and adapt it to the new Core. As we can see, the nozzles of the current engines on J-20, which I assume it is WS-15, are highly similar to AL-31F, but not totally identical. That is why the outsiders are keep arguing back and forth, because it is highly similar in external appearance, but not identical. 

For example, the early J-20's nozzles are silver, but not on AF-31F. And several pictures, have shown J-20's nozzles can tilt, moderately, like a TVC, but not on AF-31F.

So, it is simply not the case as you have said. The technical power of China has passed the stage of simple identical copying of foreign technology.

*"Pardon, but when was the core of engine Type A was mated with the fan of Type B added by the nozzle of Type C. I'm indeed eager to learn but I don't know and from what I know it is simply impossible."*

J-20 and the J-11, J-15, J-16 series, have shown China can quickly take the best technologies, out there, and quickly adapt them to its need, and even shown innovation in the process. 

For example, the DSI was invented by Lockeed Martin in the 1990's, and now China has come up with an Adjustable DSI, that could go beyond Mach2.

4S requirements, Stealth Shaping, AESA, Moving Canards, All Moving Vertical Tails, . . . all were invented in the West, but China has quickly adapted them and improved upon.


----------



## Deino

@Asok !

To admit I already gave up long, long ago in arguing with You: YES, the J-20 uses a type WS-15 Mark 12IVB hyper-warpdrive, it can travel Sol-3 even in reverse flight, since Chinese engineers were able - via their super mega hyper computer and the ability to 3D-print - to develop a new the core just for the LRIP planes, mate it with a Russian-looking nozzle (albeit sometimes in silver) - just to fool a certain German fan - and a WS-10 fan.

That all is plain and simple possible due to this super-PC and the final WS-15 will be even better ... !! Since it is that easy - due to this super-PC - to simply develop a new core, mate it to other parts and voila the MEGA-WS-15 Mark 28C is done.
I know, I know: I should wake up, come out of denial-modus and see !!! 


O.k. and now for all others with a sense of reality:



> *A domestically developed engine will soon power the nation's latest stealth fighter jet, according to a senior scientist working for Aero Engine Corp of China.*
> 
> "It will not take a long time for our fifth-generation combat plane to have China-made engines," said Chen Xiangbao, vice-president of the AECC Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials. Chen, also a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, was referring to the J-20 stealth fighter.
> 
> "The engine's development is proceeding well. We also have begun to design a next-generation aviation engine with a thrust-to-weight ratio that is much higher than that of current types," he said. Thrust-to-weight ratio is considered the top indicator of an aviation engine's capability.
> ....



http://china.org.cn/china/NPC_CPPCC_2017/2017-03/13/content_40448149.htm

IMO this finally, simply is a formal and official - but soft - admittance that a Chinese indigenous engine is NOT ready yet. Plain and simple without any interpretation.



> ....
> The People's Liberation Army Air Force recently confirmed, without elaborating, that the J-20 has been put into active service. *Aviation industry observers said the plane is still equipped with Russian-made engines due to the lack of a suitable domestically developed engine.*



This report even admitted - via "Aviation industry observers" that it uses a Russian interim engine.

So IMO my theory is not that far off, especially if that Russian engine-theory would be wrong, this report would clearly mentioned it.

But like I said so often ... time will tell and then we know the whole true.
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"But not using final and standard version of WS-15 as per @ChineseTiger1986, @Beast, it is using special version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15"*

The final production version of WS-15 has been installed on No. 2011 of J-20, when they made major changes to the tail section airframe.

The front sections of WS-15 is shorter than the WS-10, and AL-31F engine. So the new WS-15 is shorter, and the weapon got elongated as a result.

Despite being a lot more powerful, the WS-15 is also smaller, being a TWR of 11-12 class engine, instead of the 8-9 class engine of the WS-10, and AL-31F. 

So we can see, the gulf or separation between the engine is deeper.

From this article:
*https://news.usni.org/2014/03/19/china-unveils-capable-stealth-fighter-prototype*






*Notice the slightly longer weapon bay, and the deeper separation between the engines. This indicate the new engine is smaller and shorter than the previous engine.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

@Asok ... can You please to not trash this thread full of BS !???

To conclude by the extension of the weapons bay is a prof for a WS-15 is so much off .... I think we should start a Kindergarten-section here in this forum, where certain members can play around with their theories, but that's not up to the standard of this forum.

To admit; I also have another forum since esp. You are always insisting in that hyper-secret force of deception: You are part of a special deception task-force. Whenever a report is posted that does not fit the bill, You take action and derail a certain discussion, post hyper-super theories about mature WS-15 with #210kN already from 2001, or then later 2011 ... anyway; it simply does not matter in Your universe of "alternative facts" as long as it turns away from the truth and real facts.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

*"You are part of a special deception task-force."*

That's funny. I take pride in myself, in not believing, and actively busting, official B.S., whether they came from Chinese government or Western governments, or not.

And now, I got accused by "official B.S." lover, who loves to believe "formal and official - but soft - admittance" as epitome of truth, for spreading and promoting B.S.

This is very ironic.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"You are part of a special deception task-force."*
> 
> That's funny. I take pride in myself, in not believing, and actively busting, official B.S., whether they came from Chinese government or Western governments, or not.
> 
> And now, I got accused by "official B.S." lover, who loves to believe "formal and official - but soft - admittance" as epitome of truth, for spreading and promoting B.S.
> 
> This is very ironic.




Indeed; live is sometimes funny and ironic  but at least this report leaves no option for Your hyper-magical mega-WS-15. It clearly says *A domestically developed engine will soon power the nation's latest stealth fighter jet *which is equal to: So far it uses not *A domestically developed engine.

End of the debate. *Or do You have again a special explanation ???


----------



## Asoka

"*A domestically developed engine, will soon power, the nation's latest stealth fighter jet "
*
The J-20 has entering LRIP, and soon will go into full production. A domestically developed engine, will soon power, the mass produced J-20. 

This does not mean WS-15, has never been tested on J-20, and that it will soon be tested on J-20.

It simply mean, China has finally ironed out, the production issues of WS-15, and the engine will soon be mass produced and equip production version of J-20.

Do you need a reading comprehension lesson?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Do You really think it is that easy to plug & play the core of one engine with the fan of another and not to forget the nozzle of an AL-31 ???





Deino said:


> Pardon, but when was the core of engine Type A was mated with the fan of Type B added by the nozzle of Type C. I'm indeed eager to learn but I don't know and from what I know it is simply impossible.



The F135 is a derivative of the F119 engine and uses a common core.
http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20091123-0200/All/Military Engines






The X-35 engine used a unique nozzle that never showed up again in later versions of the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> The F135 is a derivative of the F119 engine and uses a common core.
> http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20091123-0200/All/Military Engines
> View attachment 383954
> 
> 
> The X-35 engine used a unique nozzle that never showed up again in later versions of the F-35.
> View attachment 383955



Great digging! This is gem!


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> The F135 is a derivative of the F119 engine and uses a common core.
> ...
> The X-35 engine used a unique nozzle that never showed up again in later versions of the F-35.



Thank You so much for exactly proving my point  ... and even more ironic, that @Asok once again failed to understand it.

Exactly what I said, it is impossible to mate from engine Type A the core with the bypass/fan-section from Type B + the nozzle from Type C like what some here describing:

Type A = WS-15 core
Type B = WS-10 bypass section
Type C = AL-31FN nozzle !

This would be as if You take a F414's core, mate it with the M.88's fan and use an EJ-200's nozzle since The AL-31 is a Russian engine, the WS-10 is build by Shenyang and the WS-15 at least planned from Xian.
Or in the same way take a French M.53 core, mate it with a GE F110's fan and add a P&W F100's nozzle ! Plain ridiculous, simply impossible since each part has to be carefully designed for a complete working system aka engine ... to plug and play does not fit !

In You example - and thanks again for it - You have a development path even mentioned in the first line from the same manufactor, aka *Pratt & Whitney*: So it is more than rationale that the F-119 evolved into the F135 and that unique nozzle You mentioned on the X-35 was only a one-off design prior to the F135's final nozzle design for the demonstrator X-35.

As such, to assume the "unique" silverish nozzle on the J-20 prototypes - which strangely disappeared then again on the LRIP-birds - should be already a WS-15 is so much off ... 

Deino


----------



## Asoka

*"Thank You so much for exactly proving my point  ... and even more ironic, that @Asok once again failed to understand it."*

What!!!

What happen to your assertion that J-20A is still using AL-31FN M2, as right now, and no version of WS-15 has not even been tested on J-20?

And if it's not true, you will resign your Moderator position and your PDF membership?

Now, you are an aerospace engineer, who tells the Chinese engineers that it is impossible to creates a new engine that uses a new Core, such as WS-15, and "*adapts" *existing technologies (Al-31FN, and WS-10) to be its front sections, and nozzle section?

You are not a Chemistry teacher during the day, and an Internet journalist, during the night and likes to write on Chinese Combat Planes?

Pardon me, please excuse my ignorance that you are a German Aviation/Aerospace Engineer. I offer my sincere apology. No wonder that you are damn sure that the Chinese can't produce a +210kN engine. You know, while I don't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"Thank You so much for exactly proving my point  ... and even more ironic, that @Asok once again failed to understand it."*
> 
> What!!!
> 
> What happen to your assertion that J-20A is still using AL-31FN M2, as right now, and no version of WS-15 has not even been tested on J-20?
> 
> And if it's not true, you will resign your Moderator position and your PDF membership?




Indeed; as it seems reading comprehension is not Your part: First You don't notice that j20blackdragon's argument is in fact a contra-argument against Your own claims and now - instead of answering - You are pointing to my promise. Core to explain especially since with that latest reports my theory is more likely than Yours ??

So far we have NO, nada, KEINE, Nichts, NOT the slightest hint to a WS-15. All reports concerning the WS-15 say it is not ready . Several highly respected members repeatedly noted that ... and You are still claiming as if You are on a holy crusade to defend Your own fantasy this strange - in fact plain stupid - WS-15-theory.

Again: the day any official source like AVIC, CAC or the manufactor of the WS-15 says that the WS-15 is fully operational from day one J-20 no. '2001' flew - or even '2011' - I will resign officially my moderator status.
But as long as this hasn't happened, nothing changes ... and following the last statements Your position is getting slimmer and slimmer.

have a nice evening and keep on dreaming. 
Deino


----------



## Asoka

*"the day any official source like AVIC, CAC or the manufactor of the WS-15 says that the WS-15 is fully operational from day one J-20 no. '2001' flew - or even '2011' - I will resign officially my moderator status."*

Nice try! "Fully operational" could mean different thing to different people.

Isn't your assertion is: J-20 #78275, and all previous versions, is still flying the bonafide Russian made, AL-31FN engine. And you call this AL-31FN equipped J-20, which is entering LRIP, the J-20A. And the WS-15 core or complete engine, has never even been tested on any versions of J-20, as of Mar 14, 2017?

Is that the essence of your assertion?


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"the day any official source like AVIC, CAC or the manufactor of the WS-15 says that the WS-15 is fully operational from day one J-20 no. '2001' flew - or even '2011' - I will resign officially my moderator status."*
> 
> Nice try!
> 
> Isn't your assertion is: J-20 #78275, and all previous versions, is still flying the bonafide Russian made, AL-31FN engine. And the WS-15 core or complete engine, has never been tested on any version of J-20, as of Mar 14, 2017?
> 
> Is that true?




Not sure if You either so much desperate that You always try to mix two different things or if You plain xxxx so that You cannot understand.

*You are the one who is claiming all J-20 - including the demonstrator 2001 from day one - is using a super-secret special WS-15; You are the one who claims that this beast of an engine delivers already now +210 kN and that the J-20 can easily reach Mach 3. So much on Your fantasy.*

Finally again to Your accusations and my claims:

*1. J-20 #78275, and all previous versions, is still flying the bonafide Russian made, AL-31FN engine:*

YES; so far all five LRIP J-20As and the prototypes 2011-2017 are using IMO a dedicated, custom-made - maybe co-developed and co-manufactured - uprated, specialised or whatever version of the AL-31FN-family. IMO - even if here I admit it is only a unproven theory - it is most likely a variant based on the AL-31FM2.
*
2. And the WS-15 core or complete engine, has never been tested on any version of J-20, as of Mar 14, 2017:*

YES again, so far not a single WS-15 was ready for aerial testing in flight, not even in a Il-76LL and even less likely in any of the J-20, be these the two demonstrators, the prototypes or the few LRIP birds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore - and this is the final time I say this - *"the day any official source like AVIC, CAC or the manufactor of the WS-15 says that the WS-15 is fully operational from day one (and that's important, since this is Your claim) J-20 no. '2001' flew (and not in about 4-5 years when finally a WS-15-prototype will be testflown for the first time) I will resign officially my moderator status."*


In Germany one would say I have at least some eggs in my basket I'm willing to bet; You in return however are constantly looking for an excuse, searching for maybe this, maybe that and are spinning even more abstract theories. Even worse You are not reading properly - maybe You are simply not willing or able to do so - and are twisting words.

Again: this above is my statement, my bet and when someday any official source says so I will go; but please not after any random internet-page reports anything, a certain reporter (including Minnie Chan from the SCMP) tells anything.
And if You would be a man, You would try at least to stick to the facts.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Thank you, very much for very honest, and straightforward answer. Deino. You are acting like a true German, ready to stand by his word. I might differ, vehemently, with you on the engine issue, but you got my respect, on this regard. No hostility or animosity is intended, from my part.


----------



## 帅的一匹

@Deino WS15 is coming soon. An insider of NPC representative had confirmed it to the Media that WS15 will fly with J20 soon. The cheif designer of J20 Mr. Yang Wei said on the NPC session that his fighter is the proud of our nation.

many people had sacrificed their life for this gloried moment.



Asok said:


> Thank you, very much for very honest, and straightforward answer. Deino. You are acting like a true German, ready to stand by his word. I might differ, vehemently, with you on the engine issue, but you got my respect, on this regard. No hostility or animosity is intended, from my part.


That's why I always favor Germany than many other European country, I think Germany has very good characteristic. USA currently intentionally suppress their ambition to rise, finally the Bismarck gene in their blood and bones will awaken. German was never a second rate nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

wanglaokan said:


> @Deino WS15 is coming soon. An insider of NPC representative had confirmed it to the Media that WS15 will fly with J20 soon. The cheif designer of J20 Mr. Yang Wei said on the NPC session that his fighter is the proud of our nation.
> 
> many people had sacrificed their life for this gloried moment.
> 
> 
> That's why I always favor Germany than many other European country, I think Germany has very good characteristic. USA currently intentionally suppress their ambition to rise, finally the Bismarck gene in their blood and bones will awaken. German was never a second rate nation.



I'm waiting for the rise of the Fourth Reich


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20 is gonna fly with 142KN thrust WS10b, still need 5 or six years to wait WS15. I heard they reinvent some parts of WS15 engine (due to unsatisfaction some of the previous design performance), which means delay. Maybe they increase the original design specification, the thrust maybe much higher than 180KN. Maybe they want the new engine live up to F135 performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20170314A0ASNS00

https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20170314A09D6300

The article says the current engine installed on J20 is Russian Al-31F-m1 with Max 13.2KN wet thrust. Even compatible with WS10b with 14.2 KN, J20 still hardly can make supercruise. F119 has 156KN thrust, we still have to work harder to achieve it. We are waiting for WS15, a engine which is better than F119.

We have to face the reality and avoid unnecessary claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseToTheBone

terranMarine said:


> I'm waiting for the rise of the Fourth Reich


You mean the European Union?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

In real war, there is no rank of second. Being second means you are dead! If J20 empty its missile and can't make super cruise, it dies when F22 hunt after him. The concept of hit and run is the key of 5th generation fighter!

Our engine development is at least 15 years behind United States of America. We shall not loose confidence, we need to work 10 times harder to compensate the difference.

Russia is very unhappy we develop new fighter based on Su27 series. They make different obstacles when we place orders of Russian engine for J11b series. We had to overhaul the old Al3F engine back in 2007-2009 to power our own J11 series. J16 will install WS10b in the coming years too. As an IEP version of WS10 engine, it has 200 hours life span less than the basic version of WS10A. All he problem will be solved until WS15 put in to place. We still have to wait 5 or 6 years to get the threshhold.

China has came very close to the second best stealthy fighter developer in the world. But being second means you are still not good enough(the most fatal one is that the first guy is not our ally but damn potential rival)! To be or not to be, that's a question depending on the thrust of engine!

Time to wake up and start to work guys!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

The development of a turbo fan engine has faced a bottleneck, we are looking Foward to a new concept of engine in the future.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

the incoming domestic engine for the J-20 -> WS-15

another brand new high TWR engine under the development -> WS-XX with the TWR about 15

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20170314A0ASNS00
> 
> https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20170314A09D6300
> 
> The article says the current engine installed on J20 is Russian Al-31F-m1 with Max 13.2KN wet thrust. Even compatible with WS10b with 14.2 KN, J20 still hardly can make supercruise. F119 has 156KN thrust, we still have to work harder to achieve it. We are waiting for WS15, a engine which is better than F119.
> 
> We have to face the reality and avoid unnecessary claim.


These are BS source. Just some random posting with no credbilities. There is no such magical engine called AL-31F M1-3. If Russian is good in selling these updated AL-31F engine. Why is there so much saga regards to Chinese trying to access 117S engine. The thrust for this so called magical M1-3 series compare to 117S is not too much. It will not make much different for J-20. J-20 during demonstrations produced tremendous amount of dry thrust for picking and acceleration. M1-3 are not going to satisfy those criteria

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> @Deino WS15 is coming soon. An insider of NPC representative had confirmed it to the Media that WS15 will fly with J20 soon. The cheif designer of J20 Mr. Yang Wei said on the NPC session that his fighter is the proud of our nation.
> ....


Yes for sure, but my point - and here I'm in very harsh contrast to Asok's opinion - until NOW the WS-15 is not ready and was NOT tested on any of the J-20s so far.
Again, that it will be and also with these parameters is IMO without doubt, however his claims are for NOW.



terranMarine said:


> I'm waiting for the rise of the Fourth Reich



Hopefully never. Like I already said, Germany has done terrible things and should never rise - at least in military terms - ...

PS: @Asok !

Would You don't mind to NOT re-edit Your posts after they were quoted ?? I again completely differs sometimes from Your original post and that gives a wrong perception again; TAHNKS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> These are BS source. Just some random posting with no credbilities. There is no such magical engine called AL-31F M1-3. If Russian is good in selling these updated AL-31F engine. Why is there so much saga regards to Chinese trying to access 117S engine. The thrust for this so called magical M1-3 series compare to 117S is not too much. It will not make much different for J-20. J-20 during demonstrations produced tremendous amount of dry thrust for picking and acceleration. M1-3 are not going to satisfy those criteria


Simply because 117S has higher thrust and TVC. WS15 is not operational yet, it just finished the ground test. WS10b is just fine. Let us agree to disagree.

I don't mind wait another 5 years until WS15 get operational.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> Simply because 117S has higher thrust and TVC. WS15 is not operational yet, it just finished the ground test. WS10b is just fine. Let us agree to disagree.
> 
> I don't mind wait another 5 years until WS15 get operational.


117s do not have much thrust compare to the so called M3 version(if there is in the first place). The Russian would never selling such engine individually to Chinese for their J-20 project without tie to other deal. Then you have to take into consideration of the dry thrust that can push J-20 acceleration and turn without turning on the afterburner. Doesn't not looks like AL-31F M3 can do it.

Then you have to ask yourself this simple question. If shenyang liming can push a non important PLA project like WS-13X to put into FC-31 V2 while can't even fulfil a basic WS-10B for J-10B and J-20. Don't you find it ridiculous? WS-13X is not a simple RE engine. The very fact it is smokeless compare to RD-93 more or less tells you something.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> 117s do not have much thrust compare to the so called M3 version(if there is in the first place). The Russian would never selling such engine individually to Chinese for their J-20 project without tie to other deal. Then you have to take into consideration of the dry thrust that can push J-20 acceleration and turn without turning on the afterburner. Doesn't not looks like AL-31F M3 can do it.
> 
> Then you have to ask yourself this simple question. If shenyang liming can push a non important PLA project like WS-13X to put into FC-31 V2 while can't even fulfil a basic WS-10B for J-10B and J-20. Don't you find it ridiculous? WS-13X is not a simple RE engine. The very fact it is smokeless compare to RD-93 more or less tells you something.


WS10b will power J20 until WS15 comes into play. Do you agree with me?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Thank You so much for exactly proving my point  ... and even more ironic, that @Asok once again failed to understand it.
> 
> Exactly what I said, it is impossible to mate from engine Type A the core with the bypass/fan-section from Type B + the nozzle from Type C like what some here describing:
> 
> Type A = WS-15 core
> Type B = WS-10 bypass section
> Type C = AL-31FN nozzle !
> 
> This would be as if You take a F414's core, mate it with the M.88's fan and use an EJ-200's nozzle since The AL-31 is a Russian engine, the WS-10 is build by Shenyang and the WS-15 at least planned from Xian.
> Or in the same way take a French M.53 core, mate it with a GE F110's fan and add a P&W F100's nozzle ! Plain ridiculous, simply impossible since each part has to be carefully designed for a complete working system aka engine ... to plug and play does not fit !
> 
> In You example - and thanks again for it - You have a development path even mentioned in the first line from the same manufactor, aka *Pratt & Whitney*: So it is more than rationale that the F-119 evolved into the F135 and that unique nozzle You mentioned on the X-35 was only a one-off design prior to the F135's final nozzle design for the demonstrator X-35.
> 
> As such, to assume the "unique" silverish nozzle on the J-20 prototypes - which strangely disappeared then again on the LRIP-birds - should be already a WS-15 is so much off ...
> 
> Deino


Why you are denying this fact that *Specialized* interim version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15, oh i forget that your German *ego* deny that
and as for you question about core, fan, nozzle mating is that *F-118 (engine of B-2) using the core of GE-F-110 with a new fan and nozzle design, also CMF-56 series of civil jet engine is also based upon F-110*, and why you think that China can't innovate new things beucase of your German *ego* deny this

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> Why you are denying this fact that *Specialized* interim version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15, oh i forget that your German *ego* deny that
> and as for you question about core, fan, nozzle mating is that *F-118 (engine of B-2) using the core of GE-F-110 with a new fan and nozzle design, also CMF-56 series of civil jet engine is also based upon F-110*, and why you think that China can't innovate new things beucase of your German *ego* deny this



Can You please be rationale and instead of mocking my ego which is a plain stupid insult simply try to think.

Again all engines You mention are from the same manufactor and design team namely General Electric. As such it is more than normal to use certain trusted components and develop them further. 
This might be the case if all three engines You try to mix were from the same company but they are not: As such Shenyang does not know all details which are required to plug&play-add an AL-31-component to a WS-10 core and even more still the WS-15 is not ready.

Sometimes I have the feeling You already noticed Yourself that You have no arguments and instead You are getting rude and offensive ... Again leave out my as a person and esp. my so called German ego, which simply is not relevant. I in return do not bash Your opinion as a typical Pakistani/US stupidity since this would be unfair un unrelated to this discussion.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Can You please be rationale and instead of mocking my ego which is a plain stupid insult simply try to think.
> 
> Again all engines You mention are from the same manufactor and design team namely General Electric. As such it is more than normal to use certain trusted components and develop them further.
> This might be the case if all three engines You try to mix were from the same company but they are not: As such Shenyang does not know all details which are required to plug&play-add an AL-31-component to a WS-10 core and even more still the WS-15 is not ready.
> 
> Sometimes I have the feeling You already noticed Yourself that You have no arguments and instead You are getting rude and offensive ... Again leave out my as a person and esp. my so called German ego, which simply is not relevant. I in return do not bash Your opinion as a typical Pakistani/US stupidity since this would be unfair un unrelated to this discussion.


Ok sir why you think that J-20 using AL-31M3


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> Ok sir why you think that J-20 using AL-31M3




Thanks ... and in fact I don't think it is the M3 but an uprated development based on the M2:

This is a report where I explained my theory ... https://www.facebook.com/permalink....908984705&id=611223845748378&substory_index=0

To add: I admit it is only a theory but IMO a well founded one given the similarities to the J-10, the historical connections to Salut and the IMO not only external similarities of the engine.
However - and that too I already said more than often - I would be glad if the J-20 would fly on indigenous WS-1X-engines. I love, admire and adore this type and as such I'm really offended by such claims I would only wish them a failure or back setbacks.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Thanks ... and in fact I don't think it is the M3 but an uprated development based on the M2:
> 
> This is a report where I explained my theory ... https://www.facebook.com/permalink....908984705&id=611223845748378&substory_index=0
> 
> Deino


I open minded person if you hurts please pardon me just in my thought China have both western (mid 80's) engine technology and (old and modern) Russian engine technology, if you suggest that that J-20 using *specialized and uprated* version of M-2, why you don't think that its quite possible that J-20 could be using* specialized and uprated *version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15 *specially* built for J-20 and not to forget WS-10 is matured and deployed in numbers at-least in excess 450 as i read on Chinese engine development thread, i read somewhere on the internet that WS-10 is based on CMF-56 with add-on of afterburner, later in mid 90's they introduced AL-31F equipped Su-27 so i think they upgraded their WS-10 with Russian technology and nozzles are quite similar to AL-31FM3 that's their you're confusing i think, just my thought nothing offensive to you sir Just my 2 Cents

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> I open minded person if you hurts please pardon me just in my thought China have both western (mid 80's) engine technology and (old and modern) Russian engine technology, if you suggest that that J-20 using *specialized and uprated* version of M-2, why you don't think that its quite possible that J-20 could be using* specialized and uprated *version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15 *specially* built for J-20 and not to forget WS-10 is matured and deployed in numbers at-least in excess 450 as i read on Chinese engine development thread, i read somewhere on the internet that WS-10 is based on CMF-56 with add-on of afterburner, later in mid 90's they introduced AL-31F equipped Su-27 so i think they upgraded their WS-10 with Russian technology and nozzles are quite similar to AL-31FM3 that's their you're confusing i think, just my thought nothing offensive to you sir Just my 2 Cents




Thanks for Your kind reply and even if I'm indeed not an aero-engines engineer - but how many of us here are one ?? - from all I know, read and got explained it is not that easy. Aero-engine's design is the masterpiece of aeronautical engineering and You truly cannot simply plug and play one item from one engine to another one since each part is a special-designed item, all well-balanced to each other.

As such even if the WS-15's core is done what I highly question it is build for a certain requirement of thrust, fuel consumption all that based on materials, temperature, stress, load and so on. And each and every other part is designed to meet a certain criteria of that engine. As such even if the WS-10 is said to be based on the AFM-56's technology I'm almost sure it's only its technology. I don't think they simple took it, redesigned and copied it and mated it with a smaller fan .. making voila the WS-10.

As such even if they now materials, specifications and so on of the AL-31 - what they surely do - You cannot simply take part A from engine A and mate it on part B from engine B. ... the fact that they use the knowledge of certain engines to develop a new one is surely possible, but not via a plug and play enginering.


----------



## Asoka

*"The thrust for this so called magical M1-3 series compare to 117S is not too much. It will not make much different for J-20. J-20 during demonstrations produced tremendous amount of dry thrust for picking and acceleration. M1-3 are not going to satisfy those criteria"

"Then you have to take into consideration of the dry thrust that can push J-20 acceleration and turn without turning on the afterburner. Doesn't not looks like AL-31F M3 can do it."*

Yes, very good point. Thank you Beast.

Despite the fact, that I pointed out at least 10 times now, that J-20 can do substain vertical climbing, without turning on the afterburner. And it was demonstrated, in front of thousands of spectaculars, who are mostly aviation professionals, from around the world. And viewed on youtube by millions of viewers, yet the significance of this fact, has not sunk in, with many PDF members, they keep deny it, ignore it, and put their heads in the sand.

*"WS10b will power J20 until WS15 comes into play. Do you agree with me?"
"I don't mind wait another 5 years until WS15 get operational."*


Actually, J-20 don't need a powerful engine, if Supersonic Cruise and Supersonic Maneuverability, are not that Super important, therefore not needed at all.

Forget about the 4S requirements, J-20 can just have Stealth and Superior Sensor fusion like F-35, and fly just like that flying pig (can't climb, can't turn, can't run, and can't fight). And call it a Fifth generation Fighter like F-22 and T-50.

No one will notice the difference, except perhaps, the enemy pilots. Unfortunately, this might produce some kind of tragic results.



pakistanipower said:


> I open minded person if you hurts please pardon me just in my thought China have both western (mid 80's) engine technology and (old and modern) Russian engine technology, if you suggest that that J-20 using *specialized and uprated* version of M-2, why you don't think that its quite possible that J-20 could be using* specialized and uprated *version of WS-10 with a core of WS-15 *specially* built for J-20 and not to forget WS-10 is matured and deployed in numbers at-least in excess 450 as i read on Chinese engine development thread, i read somewhere on the internet that WS-10 is based on CMF-56 with add-on of afterburner, later in mid 90's they introduced AL-31F equipped Su-27 so i think they upgraded their WS-10 with Russian technology and nozzles are quite similar to AL-31FM3 that's their you're confusing i think, just my thought nothing offensive to you sir Just my 2 Cents



Thankyou, my Pakistani friend!

It's simply absurd, to think Russia, needs China's help, to develop a more powerful version of AL-31FN, while it already has 117S. It's simply evidence-free, irresponsible, speculation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

The problem with the Russian engine theory is the complete lack of news coming from the Russian side.

We had credible reports regarding the original AL-31FN deal TWO YEARS prior to the J-10 entering service. Both the engine variant and number of engines purchased were known by 2001.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-4563.html






We had announcements from both Salut (the manufacturer) and Rosoboronexport concerning the AL-31FN Series 3 deal in 2011.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/676406.shtml

*"The contract will involve 140 to 150 engines, but it has not been confirmed by authorities in Beijing," Alexander A. Drozhzhin, the head of press for SALUT, told the Global Times at the Aviation Expo in Beijing on Wednesday.

The Russian state arms exporter, Rosoboronexport (ROE), announced in July a sale of 123 SALUT-made AL-31FN turbofan engines to China for $500 million, the Washington Times reported late August.*


There have been NO REPORTS concerning the Al-31FM2 since the bench tests in 2012.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/some-tests-complete-sukhoi-engine-upgrade

Even the recent Su-35 deal was widely reported by the media. So why the sudden silence regarding the J-20 engine? The J-20 made its maiden flight in 2011 and has now entered service in 2017. Where was the engine announcement from Russia throughout this span of six years? Even a license produced engine should be announced. India produces plenty of things under license from Russia. It is all announced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> The problem with the Russian engine theory is the complete lack of news coming from the Russian side.
> 
> We had credible reports regarding the original AL-31FN deal TWO YEARS prior to the J-10 entering service. Both the engine variant and number of engines purchased were known by 2001.
> 
> http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-4563.html
> View attachment 384144
> 
> 
> We had announcements from both Salut (the manufacturer) and Rosoboronexport concerning the AL-31FN Series 3 deal in 2011.
> 
> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/676406.shtml
> 
> *"The contract will involve 140 to 150 engines, but it has not been confirmed by authorities in Beijing," Alexander A. Drozhzhin, the head of press for SALUT, told the Global Times at the Aviation Expo in Beijing on Wednesday.
> 
> The Russian state arms exporter, Rosoboronexport (ROE), announced in July a sale of 123 SALUT-made AL-31FN turbofan engines to China for $500 million, the Washington Times reported late August.*
> 
> 
> There have been NO REPORTS concerning the Al-31FM2 since the bench tests in 2012.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/awin/some-tests-complete-sukhoi-engine-upgrade
> 
> Even the recent Su-35 deal was widely reported by the media. So why the sudden silence regarding the J-20 engine? The J-20 made its maiden flight in 2011 and has now entered service in 2017. Where was the engine announcement from Russia throughout this span of six years? Even a license produced engine should be announced. India produces plenty of things under license from Russia. It is all announced.




Yes, J-20 first publicly flown on 2011, perhaps, even earlier than that. And AL-31FN M2 was announced on 2012. Just announced, not developed, not tested, not produced, not delivered, and not installed on J-20.

The so call theory(actually, wild speculation) that J-20 is running on a specialized version of AL-31FN, M2, co-developed with China is, irresponsible and ridiculous, to the extreme.

It is completely evidence-free, fact-free, and filled with hot-air, only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> The problem with the Russian engine theory is the complete lack of news coming from the Russian side.
> 
> We had credible reports regarding the original AL-31FN deal TWO YEARS prior to the J-10 entering service. Both the engine variant and number of engines purchased were known by 2001.
> ....




Not necessarily ! How long did it take until the first official statements concerning the first AL-31FN for the J-10s were leaked and reported ? We long knew the J-10 quite well, everyone with the slightest sense of logic knew it was an AL-31-variant even if not the exact one. As such I think it is not that far fetched that there is a secret clause of the contract to keep calm on this specialised engine.



Asok said:


> Yes, J-20 first publicly flown on 2011, perhaps, even earlier than that. And AL-31FN M2 was announced on 2012. Just announced, not developed, not tested, not produced, not delivered, and not installed on J-20.
> 
> The so call theory(actually, wild speculation) that J-20 is running on a specialized version of AL-31FN, M2, co-developed with China is, irresponsible and ridiculous, to the extreme.
> 
> It is completely evidence-free, fact-free, and filled with hot-air, only.



Exactly .. and therefore that AL-31FNM2 based design entered testing on the J-20 only with the true prototypes '2011' and later ones.


----------



## Asoka

*"Exactly .. and therefore that AL-31FNM2 based design entered testing on the J-20 only with the true prototypes '2011' and later ones."*

AL-31FNM2 was simply an announcement by the Manufacture that it intend this develop this variant of the engine. It was not an announcement, that it was finished and ready for delivery.
*
How the hell, does the Russian managed, to announce the intended development of a new variant, of the AL-31FNM2 engine, on 2012, and able to, immediately, deliver to China to install on J-20. 

Actually, to be installed on J-20, in 2010, even before its intended development was announced, on 2012.*

Can this Russian Engine really do Time Travelling?

Excuse me, where are the official/semi official announcements or news to support your utterly rubbish claims?

And does it means, this mystical AL-31FNM2, has the Dry thrust (TWR > 1, that is greater than the flying weight of j-20) to allow J-20, to do Sustain Vertical Climbing, without turning on the Afterburner, as witnessed by thousands of speculators, and watched by millions of youtube viewers?

And if you say AL-31FN-M2, is powerful enough, to have Dry Thrust, TWR > 1, where is your support/link/source for this claim?


----------



## Deino

Once again ... no fighter needs a thrust of +210kN for a climb and there was NOT that astonishing sustained vertical climbing. It was a brief climb after a high-speed pass and then banking out ... but I know I'm still sticking in the sand !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Many fighters can do a Vertical Climb with their AB turned on, but name a few, that can, without the use of AB, to sustain your silly claim that is "not all that impressive".

*"no fighter needs a thrust of +210kN for a climb"*

It must have Dry Thrust > 210kN, if it's empty weight + 3-4 tons of fuel is > 24 tons, to do a sustain vertical climb, without the use of Afterburner.

May be this fact, is too difficult, for you to digest.

How could the Chinese, began to design, produced, and fly the J-20, years before even, the Russian had announced the development of *AL-31FN-M2*?

OMG! I can't even, wrap my head, on this simply ridiculous claim! My head just want to explode, to think about, how could someone seriously entertain, this Russian Engine Theory for J-20.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> OMG! I can't even, wrap my head, on this simply ridiculous claim! My head just want to explode, to think about, how could someone seriously entertain, this Russian Engine Theory for J-20.




Like I said before ... if You only take the sources You like and ignore the facts You probably end up with that feeling; I'm really sorry for You.

But again: Life is sometimes funny and ironic.


----------



## Asoka

*"But again: Life is sometimes funny and ironic. "*

 my head exploded, by the irony, folks.


----------



## nang2

Asok said:


> my head exploded, folks.


Did you take a selfie?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Let's continue looking at the facts. We've had two statements concerning the J-20 engines within the past few months. It's important to look at the direct quotes from the professionals. Other comments citing unnamed sources are a waste of time.

Statement 1:

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1015727.shtml

*"The J-20 is a locally made fifth-generation stealth fighter jet which uses a Chinese engine," military expert Yin Zhuo confirmed in a telephone conversation with CCTV on Nov 1.

"The WS-15 turbofan engine is now under development, which will improve the performance of the J-20 after becoming operational," Yin said.*

Statement 2:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-03/13/content_28526581.htm

*"It will not take a long time for our fifth-generation combat plane to have China-made engines," said Chen Xiangbao, vice-president of the AECC Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials. Chen, also a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, was referring to the J-20 stealth fighter.

"The engine's development is proceeding well. We also have begun to design a next-generation aviation engine with a thrust-to-weight ratio that is much higher than that of current types," he said.*

Yin Zhuo is a Rear Admiral.

Chen Xiangbao is a scientist in materials science working at BIAM.

Both sets of statements are open to interpretation. Both men seem to agree that the WS-15 is under development. However, the statements concerning the J-20's CURRENT ENGINES appear to be contradictory.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

nang2 said:


> Did you take a selfie?


Yes, that was me. My brain is dead now.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Exactly .. and therefore that AL-31FNM2 based design entered testing on the J-20 only with the true prototypes '2011' and later ones.



All reports regarding the AL-31FM2 are from 2012.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1459

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615

The engine was bench tested in 2012. There are no further reports of flight tests or state certification by Russia. There are no reports of this engine being inducted by the Russian Air Force, or sold to China.

What evidence do we have that this phantom engine is currently powering the J-20? It's important for both sides of the debate to provide supporting evidence to back up claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> All reports regarding the AL-31FM2 are from 2012.
> 
> http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1459
> 
> http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615
> 
> The engine was bench tested in 2012. There are no further reports of flight tests or state certification by Russia. There are no reports of this engine being inducted by the Russian Air Force, or sold to China.
> 
> What evidence do we have that this phantom engine is currently powering the J-20? It's important for both sides of the debate to provide supporting evidence to back up claims.


*
Absolutely agreed.*

If ordinary PDF members are not allowed to make evidence-free, fact-free, logic-free claims or speculations, neither should the thread Moderator, allow himself to do that, nor should he allow any other members to make such claims, simply because they support the Moderator's position.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Forget about the 4S requirements, J-20 can just have Stealth and Superior Sensor fusion like F-35, and fly just like that flying pig (can't climb, can't turn, can't run, and can't fight). And call it a Fifth generation Fighter like F-22 and T-50.


Bro F-35 is massively overweight and also its can't supercrusie because of its engine which is high bypass engine, whereas F-22 and T50 uses low bypass engine which is supercrusie capable here it is the difference between low bypass and high bypass engines
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0033.shtml



Deino said:


> Once again ... no fighter needs a thrust of +210kN for a climb and there was NOT that astonishing sustained vertical climbing. It was a brief climb after a high-speed pass and then banking out ... but I know I'm still sticking in the sand !


You are speechless and answer less @Asok is right Asok brother please carry on


Asok said:


> It must have Dry Thrust > 210kN


But this is absolutely wrong bro at that point, do you know what is dry thrust?  even world most powerful military can't reach goal 210KN dry thrust here it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-32
And here is a definition of dry thrust
*"Dry thrust usually means the non-augumented thrust i.e. thrust without the use of afterburners or liquid injection. The maximum thrust produced by jet engines w/o afterburner is sometimes called military thrust."*


----------



## ChineseToTheBone

So just what is the possibility that it has been flying with the Shenyang WS-10G turbofan engine? I read that in particular is a TVC variant for the J-20.


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Bro F-35 is massively overweight and also its can't supercrusie because of its engine which is high bypass engine, whereas F-22 and T50 uses low bypass engine which is supercrusie capable here it is the difference between low bypass and high bypass engines
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0033.shtml
> 
> 
> You are speechless and answer less @Asok is right Asok brother please carry on
> 
> But this is absolutely wrong bro at that point, do you know what is dry thrust?  even world most powerful military can't reach goal 210KN dry thrust here it is
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-32
> And here is a definition of dry thrust
> *"Dry thrust usually means the non-augumented thrust i.e. thrust without the use of afterburners or liquid injection. The maximum thrust produced by jet engines w/o afterburner is sometimes called military thrust."*



"Bro F-35 is massively overweight and also its can't supercrusie because of its engine which is high bypass engine, whereas F-22 and T50 uses low bypass engine which is supercrusie capable here it is the difference between low bypass and high bypass engines"

I was being sarcastic, when I said Supersonic Cruise is not important. Please Read between my lines. 

Ops, That was a typo, , I mean total thrust or wet thrust of +210kN. Thanks for catching it.

*"@Asok is right Asok brother please carry on"*

Thanks Bro. I really appreciate your moral support.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> Once again ... no fighter needs a thrust of +210kN for a climb and there was NOT that astonishing sustained vertical climbing. It was a brief climb after a high-speed pass and then banking out ... but I know I'm still sticking in the sand !


WS15 is not operational, that's for sure. I think WS10b also can make J20 do the sustained vertical climb. No one knows whether J20 open its afterburner in the show or not. You can't see it clear in the video. Exaggeration is not necessary. And some fancy story of WS10 with AL31FN NOZZLE , I'm done with it. China has made huge progress, and I can feel the complacent and arrogant some members start to show. It's all BS.

If you can't accept the Fact, you can't make further progress.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

First of all thanks a lot for this post and I really appreciate that as a starting point: 



j20blackdragon said:


> Let's continue looking at the facts. We've had two statements concerning the J-20 engines within the past few months. It's important to look at the direct quotes from the professionals. Other comments citing unnamed sources are a waste of time.
> ...
> Both sets of statements are open to interpretation. Both men seem to agree that the WS-15 is under development. However, the statements concerning the J-20's CURRENT ENGINES appear to be contradictory.




Therefore I would suggest Mr @Asok to explain *HIS* own theory, probably in the same way I explained mine instead of calling it again and again as



Asok said:


> …completely evidence-free, fact-free, and filled with hot-air, only.


 
*PLEASE*; What’s plain and simple Your theory? Sometimes You say already ‘2001’ was using the WS-15 engine, later it was only from ‘2011’ on .. then an interim hybrid-WS-10/WS-15-type … then again already now a +210 kN engine. Do Your at least have a consistent theory ??

*IMO this would be most important since it would ease any further discussion … mine is on the table and as long as Yours is not, I think it is irresponsible and ridiculous, to the extreme to continue any further discussion.*

Therefore I would again take this post as a starting point:



j20blackdragon said:


> ...What evidence do we have that this phantom engine is currently powering the J-20? It's important for both sides of the debate to provide supporting evidence to back up claims.



I would suggest – as typical in a scientific approach if You want to explain something and don’t know the real true – You need to weight probabilities and usually or often the most likely, most reasonable version to explain this mysterious issue is the closest to the truth until it is confirmed. So let us collect the pros and cons so that anyone can make up his own decision and let’s start with:

*1. Deino’s uprated-AL-31FM2-based version-theory:*

We all know that CAC was and is still closely working with Salut. The first then still secret AL-31FN for the J-10 is a prime example. The J-10B/C are still using that engine and there are striking external similarities to both engines/exhaust.
We know the M2 was a concurring project to power the T50 but lost against the 117 from Saturn. This engine was bench-test, but it is a true project, a development of an already established engine.

The latest source from a respected Chinese authority clearly stated “*It will not take a long time for our fifth-generation combat plane to have China-made engines," *… IMO a clear confirmation, that until now it is powered NOT by a Chinese engine. That’s plain and simple logic.

We also know from other reliable sources, that the WS-15 is still not ready, just as @wanglaokan repeatedly noted. It will probably enter flight testing “soon” but to think it is already operational even in prototype form on LRIP-J-20s is impossible.

So the 2012-date (reports on the M2) might indeed be a weak point in my theory – esp. time-line-wise – but IMO this fits nicely to reports that the prototypes were using regular AL-31FN, later switched to uprated series 2 and finally the LRIP-birds are using this new variant. Also the other issue that we lack reports from Russia can be IMO much more easily explained – maybe by a certain contractual clause similar to then then secret AL-31FN. It is a weak-pint, but anyway explainable.

*2.* *And now on to that mysterious mega-Monster+210kN-WS-15-theory:*

IMO this theory contradicts to all we know on technical possibilities (it is not possible to plug&play certain items like core, fan and afterburner from three different engines from three different manufactors and mate them to a working engine.

It contradicts to all we know on the WS-15’s development: How can this Frankenstein-monster-engine be already deliver more thrust than the final projected output the definitive WS-15 (180kN) should deliver?

Timeline-wise it is impossible: We are hearing about a 14t WS-15B/IPE or whatever that is not operational yet (albeit close to) and the so far strongest engine delivers maybe +130kN, so a jump to +210kN is simply illogical. Why then continue development of the WS-10B/IPE or even WS-15 if such a beast is already operational?

As such I deeply beg @Asok to not only bash my theory as “irresponsible and ridiculous” but finally at first to explain *HIS* own theory and to explain why his theory should be more likely than mine.

If I missed anything I would be glad to be corrected or if arguments will be added…

So let the analysis begin …

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"What’s plain and simple Your theory? Sometimes You say already ‘2001’ was using the WS-15 engine, later it was only from ‘2011’ on .. then an interim hybrid-WS-10/WS-15-type … then again already now a +210 kN engine. Do Your at least have a consistent theory ??"*

I say this:

1.) I believe, from the day one, since testing began,J-20 was using an engine with the WS-15 core, and various technologies from WS-10 and AL-31Fn, to create a quick prototype, so it could be flight tested, as early as possible, to flush out the potential problems, so the engineers have time to work on them. We could call it with various names WS-10X, WS-15 Prototype or Hybrid, since, engine model on J-20 was never officially disclosed.

What's important is that, it uses a WS-15 engine core, that has passed all performance evaluation criteria, during ground testing in 2005-2006.

2.) And later, starting No. 2011, it seems J-20's tail section has received noticable modifications, to accomodate a new engine, that is shorter and smaller. This lead me and other observer to suspect that a mature model of WS-15, with its own components, such as* TVC nozzles*, has installed for testing. Indeed, we have seen several pictures that clearly shown the nozzles could tilt slightly or moderately, in both sideway, and vertical directions.

3.) From the China Airshow video, J-20 has clearly demonstrated a sustain Vertical Climb, in front of thousands of spectators. It clearly shows there is no long flame shooting out of its nozzles. This leads to me to conclude that Afterburner was not used, and only Dry Thrust was used.

4.) I have shown that J-20's body, is at least 3-4 meters longer than F-22. And F-22's empty weight is listed as 19.7 tons. So, it is reasonable to assume J-20, is at least 2 tons heavier, than F-22, or weighting 22 tons. And if we assume it's fuel tank, is at least 1/3 full (which is reasonable and minimum amount), or carrying 4 tons of fuel, during the demonstration, then it must have at least +210kN of Dry Thrust to lift itself (26 tons) vertically, without AB.

As to Mr. Deino's Russian Engine "Theory".

1.) He has listed not one bit of evidence that any of the J-20 "*are using IMO a dedicated, custom-made - maybe co-developed and co-manufactured - uprated, specialised or whatever version of the AL-31FN-family*"

2. He has listed no evidence, whatsoever, that China has purchased such engine, and that Russia has delivered such engine for J-20 between 2011 and 2017. There was absolutely, no evidence, that China and Russia co-developed, and co-manufactured such engine. Indeed, why would Russia need China's help to develop a new variant of AL-31FN engine?

3.) What's even more damning to his "theory" was that J-20 was public flown on 2011, and *AL-31FN-M2, was announced (not delivered) in 2012.* And it was not reported that this version was ever tested, and completed and delivered to China. So how the hell, the CHinese managed fly J-20, with a not yet, exist engine.

4.) Mr. Deino has taken a strong and irrational position on this J-20 engine issue, while he is the Moderator of this J-20 thread. He has consistently accused me of groundless speculations and attempt to sabotage or derail this thread.

5.) While at the same time, he has not advanced one bit of evidence to "support" his theory. He arguments are completely evidence-free, fact-free, and logic-free that J-20 is using a Russian made AL-31FN engine. His "strongest evidence" is actually, the superficial similarity, between the nozzles of J-20 and AL-31FN. And from this he has drawn his unwavering conclusion.

This is the worst kind "groundless speculation" I have seen anywhere. And the fact, that it is coming from the Moderator of the thread, is simply mind-boggling.

5.) On three separate occasions, Mr. Deino, has threaten to delete all my posted, and ban me from PDF, because he don't agreed with my conclusion. I have swallowed this "insult" and apologized, because I feel I was too worked up with my arguments, and need to calm down.

6.) I simply trying to find the facts, here at PDF. I have learned a lot from all of you. Counter arguments made me dig deeper to find the hidden truth. I am quite often is very emotional with my arguments. But I don't get insulted, easily.

7.) And NO intend is to insult to Mr. Deino. I do find him an able and dedicated Moderator, quick to restore order, when the discussions got off topic, make sure no foul language was used. This forum is actually, a million times, more civil than other forums, I have visited. In no small parts, thanks to Moderators like Mr. Deino.

7.) So apologize again, if I have hurt anybody's feeling.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

First of all THANKs for Your reply even if You again avoided to answer the specific questions and second PLEASE leave out any insults on my role as moderator since they are completely irrelevant to my theory:

Anyway, You still missed to answer these points see below; instead You really think:

1.) it is possible to create a quick prototype based on the WS-15 core, and various technologies from WS-10 and AL-31Fn, as early as possible ??

2.) ... to later accommodate yet another shorter and smaller engine, that is IYO a mature model of WS-15??


So we are again at my questions You ignored to answer:



Deino said:


> *2.* *And now on to that mysterious mega-Monster+210kN-WS-15-theory:*
> 
> IMO this theory contradicts to all we know on technical possibilities (it is not possible to plug&play certain items like core, fan and afterburner from three different engines from three different manufactors and mate them to a working engine.
> 
> It contradicts to all we know on the WS-15’s development: How can this Frankenstein-monster-engine be already deliver more thrust than the final projected output the definitive WS-15 (180kN) should deliver?
> 
> Timeline-wise it is impossible: We are hearing about a 14t WS-15B/IPE or whatever that is not operational yet (albeit close to) and the so far strongest engine delivers maybe +130kN, so a jump to +210kN is simply illogical. Why then continue development of the WS-10B/IPE or even WS-15 if such a beast is already operational?




To admit.... You call my arguments "completely evidence-free, fact-free, and logic-free" but Yourself are avoiding all questions, suggesting a technology leap that is plain impossible and contradicts everything we know otherwise So I'm out; let the others decide ... but if You once again question my ability to moderate this forum only since You don't like my theory, then it's enough.

Deino

Deino


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> ...plug&play-add an AL-31-component to a WS-10 core and even more still the WS-15 is not ready.


I am watching this engine debate -- smiling...

There are three levels of maintenance: Organizational, Intermediate, and Depot.

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14292/css/Maintenance-Levels-And-Types-Of-Maintenance-12.htm

Each military may have slightly different labels, but essentially they are the same.

*Organizational* is at the unit level, aka 'front line'. At this level, there are severe limits on what mechanics are allowed to do to a jet engine. Usually, that means non-core components are LRUs. They are those items that are attached to the outside of the engine casing.

*Intermediate* is when the engine is shipped off the base and sent to a 'back shop' where the engine can be taken apart under conditions that are safe for reassembly. The core where all the inner compressor blades and their stages are repairable at this level.

*Depot* is where the engine is literally taken apart down the nuts and bolts. Everything is reconditioned if possible, or discarded.

So just because the F-111 and the F-14 initially shared the same engine -- TF30 -- that does not mean the Intermediate guys can swap out the cores between the engines that came from each aircraft. The base performance of the TF30 maybe identical, but once a particular TF30 engine is assigned to the F-111 or the F-14, that version of the TF30 will be tuned to match the flight capabilities of the appropriate aircraft. This engine will go from the F-111 base, to the back shop to be overhauled, then back to an F-111 base again. Does not have to be same F-111 base, just any F-111 base. But never to the Navy. The core maybe common, but if the core must be changed, as in taking the core from a Navy TF30 and install it into a USAF TF30, only the Depot level is authorized to make that change. They have all the information originating from the design stages. The Intermediate guys can do the job but only if they are authorized to do so by Depot and under strict instructions. The Organizational mechanics will never be allowed to go this deep.

What this means is that taking an engine from one design to use in another design is not a casual endeavor. A common core maybe common only in design and not in materiel and associated components that are unique to a jet. The F135 came from the F119 but that does not mean Organizational and Intermediate can, on their own, swap parts between the two. FADEC parameters are different between the F-22 and F-35. So just because the engine can make fighter design A go vertical without AB, that does not mean it can do the same for fighter design B. If it was that easy, we would not have so much jet engine designs in our inventory.

But hey...Do not expect the Chinese guys to take what I said seriously...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Exactly what I - at least meant and - tried to explain: You cannot use via plug&play certain components and et voila develop just for the quick use for the prototypes a new engine, redesign it within a few years and again voila it is more powerful than the anything already in use and future projected ones.

But YES, it's me who is disillusioned, illogic, plain irrational ...


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> First of all thanks a lot for this post and I really appreciate that as a starting point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore I would suggest Mr @Asok to explain *HIS* own theory, probably in the same way I explained mine instead of calling it again and again as
> 
> 
> 
> *PLEASE*; What’s plain and simple Your theory? Sometimes You say already ‘2001’ was using the WS-15 engine, later it was only from ‘2011’ on .. then an interim hybrid-WS-10/WS-15-type … then again already now a +210 kN engine. Do Your at least have a consistent theory ??
> 
> *IMO this would be most important since it would ease any further discussion … mine is on the table and as long as Yours is not, I think it is irresponsible and ridiculous, to the extreme to continue any further discussion.*
> 
> Therefore I would again take this post as a starting point:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest – as typical in a scientific approach if You want to explain something and don’t know the real true – You need to weight probabilities and usually or often the most likely, most reasonable version to explain this mysterious issue is the closest to the truth until it is confirmed. So let us collect the pros and cons so that anyone can make up his own decision and let’s start with:
> 
> *1. Deino’s uprated-AL-31FM2-based version-theory:*
> 
> We all know that CAC was and is still closely working with Salut. The first then still secret AL-31FN for the J-10 is a prime example. The J-10B/C are still using that engine and there are striking external similarities to both engines/exhaust.
> We know the M2 was a concurring project to power the T50 but lost against the 117 from Saturn. This engine was bench-test, but it is a true project, a development of an already established engine.
> 
> The latest source from a respected Chinese authority clearly stated “*It will not take a long time for our fifth-generation combat plane to have China-made engines," *… IMO a clear confirmation, that until now it is powered NOT by a Chinese engine. That’s plain and simple logic.
> 
> We also know from other reliable sources, that the WS-15 is still not ready, just as @wanglaokan repeatedly noted. It will probably enter flight testing “soon” but to think it is already operational even in prototype form on LRIP-J-20s is impossible.
> 
> So the 2012-date (reports on the M2) might indeed be a weak point in my theory – esp. time-line-wise – but IMO this fits nicely to reports that the prototypes were using regular AL-31FN, later switched to uprated series 2 and finally the LRIP-birds are using this new variant. Also the other issue that we lack reports from Russia can be IMO much more easily explained – maybe by a certain contractual clause similar to then then secret AL-31FN. It is a weak-pint, but anyway explainable.
> *2.* *And now on to that mysterious mega-Monster+210kN-WS-15-theory:*
> 
> IMO this theory contradicts to all we know on technical possibilities (it is not possible to plug&play certain items like core, fan and afterburner from three different engines from three different manufactors and mate them to a working engine.
> 
> It contradicts to all we know on the WS-15’s development: How can this Frankenstein-monster-engine be already deliver more thrust than the final projected output the definitive WS-15 (180kN) should deliver?
> 
> Timeline-wise it is impossible: We are hearing about a 14t WS-15B/IPE or whatever that is not operational yet (albeit close to) and the so far strongest engine delivers maybe +130kN, so a jump to +210kN is simply illogical. Why then continue development of the WS-10B/IPE or even WS-15 if such a beast is already operational?
> As such I deeply beg @Asok to not only bash my theory as “irresponsible and ridiculous” but finally at first to explain *HIS* own theory and to explain why his theory should be more likely than mine.
> 
> If I missed anything I would be glad to be corrected or if arguments will be added…
> 
> So let the analysis begin …
> 
> Deino


you are so assuming sir there is a possibility J-20 is using specialized and interim version of WS-10/ core of WS-15 for the development of J-20 but i would agree with you on that point that "Ws-10/core of WS-15 was not install from beginning installing WS-10/WS-15 combination in the later stages, specially on the LIRP Birds, i believe Chinese senior members like @cirr, @ChineseTiger1986, @wanglaokan and @Beast rather than you, its not plug and play thing sir they specially develop interim and specialized version WS-10 for the development of J-20 because they know main power-plant is in development, you are just speculating sir



Deino said:


> Exactly what I - at least meant and - tried to explain: You cannot use via plug&play certain components and et voila develop just for the quick use for the prototypes a new engine, redesign it within a few years and again voila it is more powerful than the anything already in use and future projected ones.
> 
> But YES, it's me who is disillusioned, illogic, plain irrational ...


No plug and play sir specially develop for a development for J-20 not for mass production, its possible as @gambit said sir look yourself

*"The core maybe common, but if the core must be changed, as in taking the core from a Navy TF30 and install it into a USAF TF30, only the Depot level is authorized to make that change. They have all the information originating from the design stages."*


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> you are so assuming sir there is a possibility J-20 is using specialized and interim version of WS-10/ core of WS-15 for the development of J-20 but i would agree with you on that point that "Ws-10/core of WS-15 was not install from beginning installing WS-10/WS-15 combination in the later stages, specially on the LIRP Birds, i believe Chinese senior members like @cirr, @ChineseTiger1986, @wanglaokan and @Beast rather than you, its not plug and play thing sir they specially develop interim and specialized version WS-10 for the development of J-20 because they know main power-plant is in development, you are just speculating sir
> 
> 
> No plug and play sir specially develop for a development for J-20 not for mass production, its possible as @gambit said sir look yourself
> 
> *"The core maybe common, but if the core must be changed, as in taking the core from a Navy TF30 and install it into a USAF TF30, only the Depot level is authorized to make that change. They have all the information originating from the design stages."*


They will use the experience they gain from developing WS15 to improve WS10 engine. There is no WS10 engine with WS15 core, it's a absurd cliam without solid prove. Same as WS10 engine with Al31F nozzle. Even though, only three countries on this planet can produce turbo fan engine with thrust beyond 140KN, China is one of them.



pakistanipower said:


> you are so assuming sir there is a possibility J-20 is using specialized and interim version of WS-10/ core of WS-15 for the development of J-20 but i would agree with you on that point that "Ws-10/core of WS-15 was not install from beginning installing WS-10/WS-15 combination in the later stages, specially on the LIRP Birds, i believe Chinese senior members like @cirr, @ChineseTiger1986, @wanglaokan and @Beast rather than you, its not plug and play thing sir they specially develop interim and specialized version WS-10 for the development of J-20 because they know main power-plant is in development, you are just speculating sir
> 
> 
> No plug and play sir specially develop for a development for J-20 not for mass production, its possible as @gambit said sir look yourself
> 
> *"The core maybe common, but if the core must be changed, as in taking the core from a Navy TF30 and install it into a USAF TF30, only the Depot level is authorized to make that change. They have all the information originating from the design stages."*


They will use the experience they gain from developing WS15 to improve WS10 engine. There is no WS10 engine with WS15 core, it's a absurd cliam without solid prove. Same as WS10 engine with Al31F nozzle. Even though, only three countries on this planet can produce turbo fan engine with thrust beyond 140KN, China is one of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> They will use the experience they gain from developing WS15 to improve WS10 engine. There is no WS10 engine with WS15 core, it's a absurd cliam without solid prove. Same as WS10 engine with Al31F nozzle. Even though, only three countries on this planet can produce turbo fan engine with thrust beyond 140KN, China is one of them.
> 
> 
> They will use the experience they gain from developing WS15 to improve WS10 engine. There is no WS10 engine with WS15 core, it's a absurd cliam without solid prove. Same as WS10 engine with Al31F nozzle. Even though, only three countries on this planet can produce turbo fan engine with thrust beyond 140KN, China is one of them.


thank you sir for your correction sir, one more question sir is J-20 using a version of WS-10 or it is using Al-31FM2 as @Deino sir suggesting


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> thank you sir for your correction sir, one more question sir is J-20 using a version of WS-10 or it is using Al-31FM2 as @Deino sir suggesting


I'm not sure the one in the fly test stage, I only know they are replacing it with WS10b. WS15 faced some technical glitch a while ago, but it is solved.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

pakistanipower said:


> No plug and play sir specially develop for a development for J-20 not for mass production, its possible as @gambit said sir look yourself


It maybe possible, and given the current technology, it may even be workable all around. But my point is that the combination between airframe and propulsion is an intricate one to the point that a common engine core between engine designs is quite irrelevant.

Yes, if you can use the core from one engine of one aircraft to design the propulsion system of a newer platform, that would be great. But in no way does that equals to identical performance once the new aircraft is flight tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

I don't know what engine J20 is using, but Wanglaokan's suggestion has much more weight in it because J20 and J16 are in similar weight class. One can assumed that both would be using engines of similar thrusts.

Thus if J16 is powered by WS10(A or B?), then the *interim engines* for J20 are WS10B is a safe bet, because you won't want to put a new engine which is not yet matured (or fully tested) on your most advance jet fighter.

Finally verdict will be official statement from AVIC or PLAAF, that time is yet to come.


----------



## Asoka

OK, I admit, I didn't answer the following questions of yours with detailed answers. It was 2AM in the morning here, when I read your post. Let me try here.

*"IMO this theory contradicts to all we know on technical possibilities (it is not possible to plug&play certain items like core, fan and afterburner from three different engines from three different manufactors and mate them to a working engine."*

I didn't say, China was used certain "*plug&play" *components to mated to the WS-15 core. I said, it used various mature and proven technologies "adapted" from WS-10 and AL-31FN. There is a difference here. China could manufacture all components of these two engines. So it is entire possible that Chinese Engineers could "adapt" their technologies to a new engine.

It was not a straight "plug & play". I don't know this is even possible. The different sizes and specifications of the components from three different engine, would be a big problem.

So I agree with you that such "plug & play" strategy is highly dubious. You got a point here, so your objection got some validity. But it was not a straight "plug & play". It can't be done, of course.

Between 2006 and 20011, there is enough time for China to "adapt" those proven technology to mate it with the new core.

*"It contradicts to all we know on the WS-15’s development: How can this Frankenstein-monster-engine be already deliver more thrust than the final projected output the definitive WS-15 (180kN) should deliver?"
*
Yes, the "facts" or "truths" uncovered by us "*contradicts to all we know on the WS-15’s development". *That's because all we know was not firm or confirmed information in the first place. The first appearance of J-20 surprised everybody, including the CIA and Pentagon, which has a combined budget greater than $600 billions per year. They were surprised, big time. And the rate of progress of J-20 astonished the world too. It went from prototype, or technology demonstration to LRIP, in 6 years, far faster than F-22 and F-35, and T-50.

"*How can this Frankenstein-monster-engine be already deliver more thrust than the final projected output the definitive WS-15 (180kN) should deliver?""*

This final projected figure of 160-180kN is not an official figure. It's source of origin is dubious at best. I have searched all over the Internet to track this number down, and failed. It appeared suddenly, out of no where, and people stick with it, because it seems reasonable.

When I did my calculations, the final figure of 210kN surprised, the hell out of me, too. I never expected it. I was expecting a figure of 180kN. While, my assumption on J-20's empty weight of 22 tons, and carrying 4 tons of fuel, was not firm, but I don't see anything wrong, with my reasonings.

*"Timeline-wise it is impossible: We are hearing about a 14t WS-15B/IPE or whatever that is not operational yet (albeit close to) and the so far strongest engine delivers maybe +130kN, so a jump to +210kN is simply illogical. Why then continue development of the WS-10B/IPE or even WS-15 if such a beast is already operational?"

"Timeline-wise it is impossible" *So it is the timeline of J-20 itself. CIA expects China to have J-20, no sooner than 2020. And China beat it's estimates, by a full 10 years.
*
"We are hearing about a 14t WS-15B/IPE or whatever that is not operational yet (albeit close to) and the so far strongest engine delivers maybe +130kN, so a jump to +210kN is simply illogical. "*

The core design of WS-15, is not related to WS-10's core, which was from the 1970's, Ge F110 engine. When the study for WS-15 core was initiated in early 1990's, WS-10 was not even bench tested.

Indeed, WS-10's design did not finalized till, 2005, and still many problem plagued it, many years afterward.

WS-15 core design, is entirely new, probably based on the Russian Yak-141's engine, the Soyuz R-79V-300, and developed with extensive assistances from former USSR's scientists, in the 1990s.

This WS-15 core passed all acceptance tests in 2005, after 15 years of intensive development. And the WS-15 project to produced a TWR engine of 10, for J-20 was officially launched, in 2006.

This practice of doing preliminary studies or research, then produce a engine core, then a final engine, and then an airplane to equipped it, was entirely new practice in China.

The previous practice was, decided to produce a new plane, and decide to produce a new engine to go with it, and decide to produce a new engine core to go with the new engine. The engine and engine core was treated just like another component in the aircraft.

This lack of understanding of *engine development cycle*, that it tends to take far longer time, to produce the Airframe, did not sink in, till the late 1980's. And it plagued Chinese Aviation, resulting in numerous delays, and several cancellations.

So, the new practice, became, produce a new engine first, before the airplane. And produce the engine core first, before other engine components. They have understood, that if you produced a new and powerful engine core, you have got a new engine. And if you have got a new powerful engine, you have got a new airplane.

J-10 and WS-10 was a hard lesson. Both projects started at the same time, resulting in numerous delays. If there was no AL-31FN, and China have to wait for WS-10, J-10 is probably just finished testing, and not yet operational.

"*so far strongest engine delivers maybe +130kN, so a jump to +210kN is simply illogical. "
*
It's simply astonishing and unbelievable, but not *"simply illogical"*, like China's progress in other areas.

In year 2000, or 2005,

Who could believe China would have 30,000km of High Speed Railroad, by 2017?
Who could believe China would have world's fastest Supercomputer, by 2012, and world's first Exabyte Scale supercomputer, before the end of 2017?
Who could have believe China could produce a 5th generation fighter, by 2011 and operational by 2017?

Anyone say such ridiculous things, back in 2000 or 2005, would get lock up in a mental hospital.

So I can understand your astonishment and disbelief, that China produced an operational +210kN engine, by 2017.

You are not alone.

It is also jaw-dropping and unbelievable for CIA and Pentagon, and the rest of the world.

My estimate of a +210kN engine, is based heavily on the assumption, that it is at least 2 tons heavier than F-22, and carry, at least, 4 tons of fuel, with a flying weight of (19.7 + 2 + 4) of 26 tons. No one, is going to, allow me, to go near the plane, to find out, the actual weight, so my weight assumption, is a big *"if"*.

And no one, except, the pilot and ground crews, knows how much fuel, the plane was carrying, during the demonstration. So I made the low ball estimate of 4 tons or 1/3 of a full tank. Standard practice is carrying a minimum of 40%-50% fuel, in an airshow.

Carrying a full tank, would lower the plane's performance, and lesson the "wow factor" on the spectators.

But, if the total flying weight, happens to be 22 tons (Empty weight + fuel), then the required thrust will still be 180kN, which is still a lot higher than 130-140kN range of WS-10b and AL-31FN variants.

This flying weight of 22 tons, is highly unlikely, because that would mean with fuel, J-20 is only 2 tons heavier than F-22's empty weight of 19.7 tons. And J-20 is a much longer and bigger plane than F-22. It's body length is at least 3-4 meters (9-12 ft) longer!!!

And this lower thrust value of 180kN would still disqualified WS-10b and AL-31FN to be J-20's engine.

*This is my main point of the argument, not WS-15's total thrust is +210kN. *

My main point is that, even the total thrust is just 180kN, it would still discount the possibility that WS-10 and AL-31FN could be J-20's engine.

*"but if You once again question my ability to moderate this forum only since You don't like my theory, then it's enough."*

BTW, I don't question your ability to moderate this forum, just thinking you are highly biased on this engine issue. I have expressed my appreciation and gratitude for your moderation, on several occasions. I understand this position is unpaid, and takes a lot of hard work and dedications.

So again, thanks for your hard work, to maintain order, here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Thanks at least for a few answers ... however one important part is still missing:

If there is already such a hyper-engine, that delivers IYO much more thrust than the still unfinished WS-10B/IPE or whatever and more than the projected WS-15 ?? So why still all that fuss and not just manufacturing as many as possible of these engines and re-equip all Flankers and J-10s ?
Why is CAC still waiting for a reliable high-thrust version of the WS-10 is such a mega-engine is already available for thei J-20 ??

It all makes no sense; Your thrust calculation makes no sense, the timeline does not fit for a regular engine esp. if other engines of lower thrust still have issues and most of all it's technically impossible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Thanks at least for a few answers ... however one important part is still missing:
> 
> If there is already such a hyper-engine, that delivers IYO much more thrust than the still unfinished WS-10B/IPE or whatever and more than the projected WS-15 ?? So why still all that fuss and not just manufacturing as many as possible of these engines and re-equip all Flankers and J-10s ?
> Why is CAC still waiting for a reliable high-thrust version of the WS-10 is such a mega-engine is already available for thei J-20 ??
> 
> It all makes no sense; Your thrust calculation makes no sense, the timeline does not fit for a regular engine esp. if other engines of lower thrust still have issues and most of all it's technically impossible.



Thanks for your quick reply and more questions. Questions help me dig deeper and clarify my thoughts.

*Why is China still making WS-10B/IPE engines to equip the J-20 and Flankers, if they got a more powerful WS-15? *

Here is what I think:

1.) WS-15 is a new engine, which will still have its own issues and problems, years down the lines. WS-10 is already in service and matured.

2.) Being J-20's intended engine, equipping J-20 will be WS-15 highest priority. All other planes who want it, will have to wait after the orders for J-20 was satisfied.

3.) Because WS-15 is using new materials and new manufacturing process to boost it's Thrust. It will have production issue, to produces enough acceptable blades and other components, for a long time to come. Because the Compressor and Turbine, must be near perfect, the rejection rate for WS-10 blades are as high as 70%. That is for every 100 blades produced, only 30 will be accepted, or for every bladed installed, 3.33 blades will be rejected or wasted.

So, this production rate for WS-15 will be limited by this engine blade production rate. It will not be produced hundreds of copies per year, in the beginning.

And production rate of J-20, will be limited, by its engine production rate. The low production rate, (in the dozens, instead of hundreds, per year), of J-20, in coming years, will be a strong signal, that China has not totally mastered, the reliable production of WS-15.

4.) So, there will be no excessive WS-15 engine production capacity, for other airplanes, in the forceable future.

5.) Finally, because, WS-15, is a much more powerful engine, the airframes of J-10 and Flankers, must be redesigned and greatly strengthen, to handle this extra power, and the Digital Flight control system must be reprogrammed to incorporated this new engine.

And the planes, must be re-tested, all over again, like a brand new plane.

So, it is unlikely, that CAC will stop production of WS-10, and wait for WS-15 to equip the new J-10 and Flankers, coming down the production lines.

It will not be as simple as poop the new WS-15, into the new J-10 and Flankers, and tighten a few screws.

*"It all makes no sense; Your thrust calculation makes no sense, the timeline does not fit for a regular engine esp. if other engines of lower thrust still have issues and most of all it's technically impossible."*

So do your own very simple calculations, based on the method, I have shown, and see what numbers, you will come up with.

You don't have to post the result, if you think, it will embarrass you, and ruin your professional Journalist reputation. You can just do it, for your own benefit.

Look at the bright side.

If J-20, is using WS-15 ,and its thrust range is *180kN-210kN*, not 160kN-180kn, as we previously believe, whoever report, this finding, first, on the mass medias outlets or website or newspaper or journal, will astonish the world.

He will be widely quoted and interviewed, for this military/aviation intelligence of the decade. And he will get a shot of world-wide-fame.

He will be laugh at, and disbelieved, at first, of course, but he will carefully present his simple, but solid calculations, to back him up.

I read a report that J-20 will be publicly display, on the ground in China, later this year. People will have a chance to take a close look at its engine.

So, potentially, journalists, have a six months window, to break this story, first, and astonish the world.

I agreed that +210kN upper range estimate is *"iff"*, but the lower range of 180kN, is likely to be exceeded.

Because, to get a total thrust of 180kN, J-20 needs to have a flying weight of 22 tons (20 tons, empty weight + 2 tons of fuel, or some combinations like that)

It is incredible for J-20's empty weight, to be the same as F-22, despite its a much larger plane, with body length 3-4 meters longer.

And its also incredible, that any general will allow, his brand new 20 tons plane, to take off, with only 2 tons of fuel. I wouldn't allow a 10 tons plane, like F-16 to take off, with just 2 tons of fuel.

If it crashed, because of running out of fuel, its career ending, court martial, offense.

So, I stand with my estimate of *180kN - 210kN+* max. thrust range for WS-15.

It's likely to be higher than 210kN, because flying weight (26 tons) for this estimate, based the empty weight estimate of 22 tons and fuel of 4 tons, is still on the conservative side, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I didn't say, China was used certain "*plug&play" *components to mated to the WS-15 core. I said, it used various mature and proven technologies "adapted" from WS-10 and AL-31FN. There is a difference here. China could manufacture all components of these two engines. So it is entire possible that Chinese Engineers could "adapt" their technologies to a new engine.
> 
> It was not a straight "plug & play". I don't know this is even possible. The different sizes and specifications of the components from three different engine, would be a big problem.
> 
> So I agree with you that such "plug & play" strategy is highly dubious. You got a point here, so your objection got some validity. But it was not a straight "plug & play". It can't be done, of course.
> 
> Between 2006 and 20011, there is enough time for China to "adapt" those proven technology to mate it with the new core.


You stole my word bro i am trying the same thing to @Deino sir well done brother

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

Even a Newsmax article dating back to October 2002 can confirm the delivery of engines for J-10:

*At the end of 2001, China received a party of 54 AL-31FN engines, suggesting an initial production run of around 50 J-10 fighters.*

http://www.newsmax.com/Pre-2008/Chinese-Airshow-Hit-With/2002/10/03/id/668123/

J-10 entered service in 2003.

J-20 entered service at the end of 2016.

Still no news of Russian engines. No news the AL-31FM2 progressed beyond bench testing in 2012. No news of any contract signed with China. These are the facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Credit to the very advanced simulated altitude tests facility, WS15 will not fly with IL76 testbed but straightly go test on J20!!! WS15 is coming! Maybe still 3 to 5 years always from mass production! As an interim, Russian Al31F-M1 and WS10b will power J20 in LIRP.

There is no Al31F-M2, never.

The cockpit comparison between T50 and J20, then you will know why India is not willing to buy it in quantity:
https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20170315A07U5Q00

I'm very disappointed with the T50 cockpit, it didn't get rid off the old S27 design frame.



Asok said:


> Thanks for your quick reply and more questions. Questions help me dig deeper and clarify my thoughts.
> 
> *Why is China still making WS-10B/IPE engines to equip the J-20 and Flankers, if they got a more powerful WS-15? *
> 
> Here is what I think:
> 
> 1.) WS-15 is a new engine, which will still have its own issues and problems, years down the lines. WS-10 is already in service and matured.
> 
> 2.) Being J-20's intended engine, equipping J-20 will be WS-15 highest priority. All other planes who want it, will have to wait after the orders for J-20 was satisfied.
> 
> 3.) Because WS-15 is using new materials and new manufacturing process to boost it's Thrust. It will have production issue, to produces enough acceptable blades and other components, for a long time to come. Because the Compressor and Turbine, must be near perfect, the rejection rate for WS-10 blades are as high as 70%. That is for every 100 blades produced, only 30 will be accepted, or for every bladed installed, 3.33 blades will be rejected or wasted.
> 
> So, this production rate for WS-15 will be limited by this engine blade production rate. It will not be produced hundreds of copies per year, in the beginning.
> 
> And production rate of J-20, will be limited, by its engine production rate. The low production rate, (in the dozens, instead of hundreds, per year), of J-20, in coming years, will be a strong signal, that China has not totally mastered, the reliable production of WS-15.
> 
> 4.) So, there will be no excessive WS-15 engine production capacity, for other airplanes, in the forceable future.
> 
> 5.) Finally, because, WS-15, is a much more powerful engine, the airframes of J-10 and Flankers, must be redesigned and greatly strengthen, to handle this extra power, and the Digital Flight control system must be reprogrammed to incorporated this new engine.
> 
> And the planes, must be re-tested, all over again, like a brand new plane.
> 
> So, it is unlikely, that CAC will stop production of WS-10, and wait for WS-15 to equip the new J-10 and Flankers, coming down the production lines.
> 
> It will not be as simple as poop the new WS-15, into the new J-10 and Flankers, and tighten a few screws.
> 
> *"It all makes no sense; Your thrust calculation makes no sense, the timeline does not fit for a regular engine esp. if other engines of lower thrust still have issues and most of all it's technically impossible."*
> 
> So do your own very simple calculations, based on the method, I have shown, and see what numbers, you will come up with.
> 
> You don't have to post the result, if you think, it will embarrass you, and ruin your professional Journalist reputation. You can just do it, for your own benefit.
> 
> Look at the bright side.
> 
> If J-20, is using WS-15 ,and its thrust range is *180kN-210kN*, not 160kN-180kn, as we previously believe, whoever report, this finding, first, on the mass medias outlets or website or newspaper or journal, will astonish the world.
> 
> He will be widely quoted and interviewed, for this military/aviation intelligence of the decade. And he will get a shot of world-wide-fame.
> 
> He will be laugh at, and disbelieved, at first, of course, but he will carefully present his simple, but solid calculations, to back him up.
> 
> I read a report that J-20 will be publicly display, on the ground in China, later this year. People will have a chance to take a close look at its engine.
> 
> So, potentially, journalists, have a six months window, to break this story, first, and astonish the world.
> 
> I agreed that +210kN upper range estimate is *"iff"*, but the lower range of 180kN, is likely to be exceeded.
> 
> Because, to get a total thrust of 180kN, J-20 needs to have a flying weight of 22 tons (20 tons, empty weight + 2 tons of fuel, or some combinations like that)
> 
> It is incredible for J-20's empty weight, to be the same as F-22, despite its a much larger plane, with body length 3-4 meters longer.
> 
> And its also incredible, that any general will allow, his brand new 20 tons plane, to take off, with only 2 tons of fuel. I wouldn't allow a 10 tons plane, like F-16 to take off, with just 2 tons of fuel.
> 
> If it crashed, because of running out of fuel, its career ending, court martial, offense.
> 
> So, I stand with my estimate of *180kN - 210kN+* max. thrust range for WS-15.
> 
> It's likely to be higher than 210kN, because flying weight (26 tons) for this estimate, based the empty weight estimate of 22 tons and fuel of 4 tons, is still on the conservative side, IMO.


If he thrust go beyond 180KN, you need to increase the bypass rate, which means lame acceleration and maneuver like F35.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> Even a Newsmax article dating back to October 2002 can confirm the delivery of engines for J-10:
> 
> *At the end of 2001, China received a party of 54 AL-31FN engines, suggesting an initial production run of around 50 J-10 fighters.*
> 
> http://www.newsmax.com/Pre-2008/Chinese-Airshow-Hit-With/2002/10/03/id/668123/
> 
> J-10 entered service in 2003.
> 
> J-20 entered service at the end of 2016.
> 
> Still no news of Russian engines. No news the AL-31FM2 progressed beyond bench testing in 2012. No news of any contract signed with China. These are the facts.



"No news the AL-31FM2 progressed beyond bench testing in 2012. No news of any contract signed with China. These are the facts".

That's right. No news of AL-31FM2 delivery to China, whatsoever, neither before 2011, nor after.

Simply put, there is no case that military sales between Russia and China keep in secret. All were announced openly, and registered with the STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

I want to ask some engine related smoke questions.

Look at the smoke produced by the FC-31. When have you seen the JF-17 (RD-93 engines) produce this much smoke? I've always noticed a little bit of smoke from the JF-17, but never this much. The older MiG-29s produced this much smoke, but when did Russia sell RD-33 to China?














Same question for J-20. When have you seen AL-31 (any variant) produce this much smoke? Can anyone show me Su-27/Su-34/J-10 producing this much smoke?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

Another characteristic you don't see very often from Chinese Flankers and J-10: the *J-20's yellow smoke.*

"Yellow smoke is from high levels of nitrogen oxides in the exhaust; these are formed by high-temperature combustion. Lots of modern military engines will produce yellow smoke at high-dry/low-afterburner settings."

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> You stole my word bro i am trying the same thing to @Deino sir well done brother



A big thanks for your appreciation, Bro!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Asok said:


> Thanks for your quick reply and more questions. Questions help me dig deeper and clarify my thoughts.
> 
> *Why is China still making WS-10B/IPE engines to equip the J-20 and Flankers, if they got a more powerful WS-15? *
> 
> Here is what I think:
> 
> 1.) WS-15 is a new engine, which will still have its own issues and problems, years down the lines. WS-10 is already in service and matured.
> 
> 2.) Being J-20's intended engine, equipping J-20 will be WS-15 highest priority. All other planes who want it, will have to wait after the orders for J-20 was satisfied.
> 
> 3.) Because WS-15 is using new materials and new manufacturing process to boost it's Thrust. It will have production issue, to produces enough acceptable blades and other components, for a long time to come. Because the Compressor and Turbine, must be near perfect, the rejection rate for WS-10 blades are as high as 70%. That is for every 100 blades produced, only 30 will be accepted, or for every bladed installed, 3.33 blades will be rejected or wasted.
> 
> So, this production rate for WS-15 will be limited by this engine blade production rate. It will not be produced hundreds of copies per year, in the beginning.
> 
> And production rate of J-20, will be limited, by its engine production rate. The low production rate, (in the dozens, instead of hundreds, per year), of J-20, in coming years, will be a strong signal, that China has not totally mastered, the reliable production of WS-15.
> 
> 4.) So, there will be no excessive WS-15 engine production capacity, for other airplanes, in the forceable future.
> 
> 5.) Finally, because, WS-15, is a much more powerful engine, the airframes of J-10 and Flankers, must be redesigned and greatly strengthen, to handle this extra power, and the Digital Flight control system must be reprogrammed to incorporated this new engine.
> 
> And the planes, must be re-tested, all over again, like a brand new plane.
> 
> So, it is unlikely, that CAC will stop production of WS-10, and wait for WS-15 to equip the new J-10 and Flankers, coming down the production lines.
> 
> It will not be as simple as poop the new WS-15, into the new J-10 and Flankers, and tighten a few screws.
> 
> *"It all makes no sense; Your thrust calculation makes no sense, the timeline does not fit for a regular engine esp. if other engines of lower thrust still have issues and most of all it's technically impossible."*
> 
> So do your own very simple calculations, based on the method, I have shown, and see what numbers, you will come up with.
> 
> You don't have to post the result, if you think, it will embarrass you, and ruin your professional Journalist reputation. You can just do it, for your own benefit.
> 
> Look at the bright side.
> 
> If J-20, is using WS-15 ,and its thrust range is *180kN-210kN*, not 160kN-180kn, as we previously believe, whoever report, this finding, first, on the mass medias outlets or website or newspaper or journal, will astonish the world.
> 
> He will be widely quoted and interviewed, for this military/aviation intelligence of the decade. And he will get a shot of world-wide-fame.
> 
> He will be laugh at, and disbelieved, at first, of course, but he will carefully present his simple, but solid calculations, to back him up.
> 
> I read a report that J-20 will be publicly display, on the ground in China, later this year. People will have a chance to take a close look at its engine.
> 
> So, potentially, journalists, have a six months window, to break this story, first, and astonish the world.
> 
> I agreed that +210kN upper range estimate is *"iff"*, but the lower range of 180kN, is likely to be exceeded.
> 
> Because, to get a total thrust of 180kN, J-20 needs to have a flying weight of 22 tons (20 tons, empty weight + 2 tons of fuel, or some combinations like that)
> 
> It is incredible for J-20's empty weight, to be the same as F-22, despite its a much larger plane, with body length 3-4 meters longer.
> 
> And its also incredible, that any general will allow, his brand new 20 tons plane, to take off, with only 2 tons of fuel. I wouldn't allow a 10 tons plane, like F-16 to take off, with just 2 tons of fuel.
> 
> If it crashed, because of running out of fuel, its career ending, court martial, offense.
> 
> So, I stand with my estimate of *180kN - 210kN+* max. thrust range for WS-15.
> 
> It's likely to be higher than 210kN, because flying weight (26 tons) for this estimate, based the empty weight estimate of 22 tons and fuel of 4 tons, is still on the conservative side, IMO.


Thank you every one, in particular @Asok for the good, informative and civilized exchanges of thoughts, I am learning by reading in this aspect. 

Btw SCMP reported that China "may" hold a massive parade to celebrate *the 90th Anniversary of the People's Liberation Army on August 1st, 2017*.
Who knows what will China display at such grand event, only time may reveal with certainty.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jkroo

Very well arguments here. There are three facts here.
1. J20's target engine is Ws15.
2. What engines are used on current J20 is still unknown. No official confirmation yet. So everything is guess. 
3. Time will tell us the fact, pls be patient.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> Another characteristic you don't see very often from Chinese Flankers and J-10: the *J-20's yellow smoke.*
> 
> "Yellow smoke is from high levels of nitrogen oxides in the exhaust; these are formed by high-temperature combustion. Lots of modern military engines will produce yellow smoke at high-dry/low-afterburner settings."



A couple more pictures.

T-50 with yellow smoke.





Tu-160 with yellow smoke.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

Asok said:


> 5.) Finally, because, WS-15, is a much more powerful engine, the airframes of J-10 and Flankers, must be redesigned and greatly strengthen, to handle this extra power, and the Digital Flight control system must be reprogrammed to incorporated this new engine.
> 
> And the planes, must be re-tested, all over again, like a brand new plane.
> 
> So, it is unlikely, that CAC will stop production of WS-10, and wait for WS-15 to equip the new J-10 and Flankers, coming down the production lines.
> 
> It will not be as simple as poop the new WS-15, into the new J-10 and Flankers, and tighten a few screws.



An aircraft engine is like a tailored suit for a man. The engine is custom built for the airframe and vice versa.

When the J-10's indigenous engine suffered serious difficulties in the mid 90s and had to be replaced by the Russian AL-31FN, the fuselage and engine intake were forced to be redesigned. The J-10 fuselage had to accommodate the heavier Russian AL-31FN engine, which also required a larger intake as it needed X percent more airflow. 

Another example, the F135 is much larger than the F100/F110 engines. It is also larger in diameter than the F119. The airflow requirements for the F135 are much larger too.

Similarly, since the WS-15 is likely to be larger, heavier and needs more airflow to operate than the AL-31, the aircraft would need to have its intakes fundamentally redesigned. Internal bulkheads would need to be redesigned in the airframe midsection to accommodate the increased diameter of the larger engine. The airframe may need to be lengthened. Other components in the engine bay like actuators, fuel control, harnesses, tubing, gearbox, FADEC would need to be redesigned. Total weight of the aircraft would increase. Theses would not be cheap modifications. The entire aircraft would need to be retested and re-certified. Therefore, any theoretical upgrade from AL-31 to WS-15 would not be a simple "plug & play" either. Ideally, you either design an aircraft for AL-31 or WS-15. You don't do both. If you do both, you would almost be building a new aircraft.

When General He Weirong made the prediction in 2009 that a 5th generation fighter would enter service in "about eight to ten years," he was right on the money. You can't possibly make a prediction like that if you don't even know what engines you will use for your aircraft. The AL-31FM2 was still in bench testing in 2012. And yet General He Weirong made his amazing prediction in 2009. The J-20 flew in 2011. Something to think about.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> An aircraft engine is like a tailored suit for a man. The engine is custom built for the airframe and vice versa.
> 
> When the J-10's indigenous engine suffered serious difficulties in the mid 90s and had to be replaced by the Russian AL-31FN, the fuselage and engine intake were forced to be redesigned. The J-10 fuselage had to accommodate the heavier Russian AL-31FN engine, which also required a larger intake as it needed X percent more airflow.
> 
> Another example, the F135 is much larger than the F100/F110 engines. It is also larger in diameter than the F119. The airflow requirements for the F135 are much larger too.
> 
> Similarly, since the WS-15 is likely to be larger, heavier and needs more airflow to operate than the AL-31, the aircraft would need to have its intakes fundamentally redesigned. Internal bulkheads would need to be redesigned in the airframe midsection to accommodate the increased diameter of the larger engine. The airframe may need to be lengthened. Other components in the engine bay like actuators, fuel control, harnesses, tubing, gearbox, FADEC would need to be redesigned. Total weight of the aircraft would increase. Theses would not be cheap modifications. The entire aircraft would need to be retested and re-certified. Therefore, any theoretical upgrade from AL-31 to WS-15 would not be a simple "plug & play" either. Ideally, you either design an aircraft for AL-31 or WS-15. You don't do both. If you do both, you would almost be building a new aircraft.
> 
> When General He Weirong made the prediction in 2009 that a 5th generation fighter would enter service in "about eight to ten years," he was right on the money. You can't possibly make a prediction like that if you don't even know what engines you will use for your aircraft. The AL-31FM2 was still in bench testing in 2012. And yet General He Weirong made his amazing prediction in 2009. The J-20 flew in 2011. Something to think about.



*"Ideally, you either design an aircraft for AL-31 or WS-15. You don't do both. If you do both, you would almost be building a new aircraft."*

That's right. You can't design an aircraft with one engine, then loose a few screws, and poop in a different engine, a few years, with a entirely different design, specifications, weight, and power.

If you want to do, you need to start all over again, like a new aircraft, with all the design and testing process.

That' why I have a hard time, believing this nonsense, that J-20 is using either WS-10b or AL-31FN-M2 for the time being, waiting for WS-15 to get its act together. And after WS-15 is ready, simply just pop it in, and here you go.

*"When General He Weirong made the prediction in 2009 that a 5th generation fighter would enter service in "about eight to ten years," he was right on the money. You can't possibly make a prediction like that if you don't even know what engines you will use for your aircraft. The AL-31FM2 was still in bench testing in 2012. And yet General He Weirong made his amazing prediction in 2009. The J-20 flew in 2011. Something to think about."*

Yes, absolutely, correct. 

Everything about the J-20 project went like clockwork, like a fine Swiss Timepiece. There was absolutely, no reports, no rumors, no hints, that any parts of the project encountered any serious difficulties or delays.

None whatsoever.

The preparations for the project was superb; execution, flawless; and the result, astonishing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

@Asok & @j20blackdragon 

You can swap to WS-15 if it was on purpose designed with the same spacial dimensions as the one that it would be replacing. There is no logical reason the WS-15 cannot be externally an exact replica of either the AL-3L or WS-10X engine.


----------



## Asoka

UKBengali said:


> @Asok & @j20blackdragon
> 
> You can swap to WS-15 if it was on purpose designed with the same spacial dimensions as the one that it would be replacing. There is no logical reason the WS-15 cannot be externally an exact replica of either the AL-3L or WS-10X engine.



*"You can swap to WS-15 if it was on purpose designed with the same spacial dimensions as the one that it would be replacing. There is no logical reason the WS-15 cannot be externally an exact replica of either the AL-3L or WS-10X engine."*

Name an instance, in the world history of modern aircraft development, that was successfully done, as you just have said, that an new engine and new aircraft was "*as on purpose designed, with the same spacial dimensions",* to replace "*externally an exact replica"* of an older, much less powerful engine.

Otherwise, the Mod. will level, the charge of, *groundless speculation, *at you.

Even, that's possible and desirable, *it still won't explain,* why a 130kN-140kn engine, like WS-10b or AL-31FN could lift, a plane weighting +20 tons plus fuel, in a sustained vertical climb, without the use of AB, in front of thousands of international spectators.

I got a feeling, that this crucial point, still don't mean anything to you, and to many other readers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

According to a very trustful military insider, Pupu, J-20A will soon to be equpipped with WS-10B engine, with a thrust of 142kn.

This is consistent with the senior fellower of China academy of engineering's comments on how China will soon fit J-20 with home-made engines during the recent congress meeting.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Asok said:


> *"You can swap to WS-15 if it was on purpose designed with the same spacial dimensions as the one that it would be replacing. There is no logical reason the WS-15 cannot be externally an exact replica of either the AL-3L or WS-10X engine."*
> 
> Name an instance, in the world history of modern aircraft development, that was successfully done, as you just have said, that an new engine and new aircraft was "*as on purpose designed, with the same spacial dimensions",* to replace "*externally an exact replica"* of an older, much less powerful engine.
> 
> Otherwise, the Mod. will level, the charge of, *groundless speculation, *at you.
> 
> Even, that's possible and desirable, *it still won't explain,* why a 130kN-140kn engine, like WS-10b or AL-31FN could lift, a plane weighting +20 tons plus fuel, in a sustained vertical climb, without the use of AB, in front of thousands of international spectators.
> 
> *I got a feeling, that this crucial point, still don't mean anything to you, and to many other readers.*


Mr. @Asok , it's so true that NOT every one who reads this thread does really understand the aircraft engine power (Dry Thrust etc). You may ask, how many do understand the calculation between the required "engine power" and the "total weight of the aircraft"? You may wish to create a quiz poll with multiple choice answer: A, B, C, D, E... see if many know the right answer.  I see PDF has the polling facility, we usually apply it at sports forums.

I guess just a few do really know the "engine things". Inevitably you may see strange questions or remarks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"You can swap to WS-15 if it was on purpose designed with the same spacial dimensions as the one that it would be replacing. There is no logical reason the WS-15 cannot be externally an exact replica of either the AL-3L or WS-10X engine."*
> 
> Name an instance, in the world history of modern aircraft development, that was successfully done, as you just have said, that an new engine and new aircraft was "*as on purpose designed, with the same spacial dimensions",* to replace "*externally an exact replica"* of an older, much less powerful engine.
> 
> Otherwise, the Mod. will level, the charge of, *groundless speculation, *at you.
> 
> ....




It does not have to have be "*externally an exact replica"*. and it also does not require a complete redesign.



j20blackdragon said:


> An aircraft engine is like a tailored suit for a man. The engine is custom built for the airframe and vice versa.
> 
> Similarly, since the WS-15 is likely to be larger, heavier and needs more airflow to operate than the AL-31, the aircraft would need to have its intakes fundamentally redesigned. Internal bulkheads would need to be redesigned in the airframe midsection to accommodate the increased diameter of the larger engine. The airframe may need to be lengthened. Other components in the engine bay like actuators, fuel control, harnesses, tubing, gearbox, FADEC would need to be redesigned. Total weight of the aircraft would increase. Theses would not be cheap modifications. The entire aircraft would need to be retested and re-certified. Therefore, any theoretical upgrade from AL-31 to WS-15 would not be a simple "plug & play" either. Ideally, you either design an aircraft for AL-31 or WS-15. You don't do both. If you do both, you would almost be building a new aircraft.
> 
> ....




The Russians make the same with the current 117 engine, which will be replaced by the izd. 30. Similar the F-14 flew with TF-30 and later F110´, similar the later F-15/-16 blocks were able to handle both the F100/110 engines. And another example is the AL-31F/FN and WS-10 for the J-11-series.

As such You do not need to completely redesign an aircraft to fit a new engine as long as the new type is designed and build to fit that aircraft. Surely additional changes are necessary to adjust this new engine to the different weight, airflow and so on specifications, but it's not that an issue.

Impossible however is it to "Frankenstein" an engine from different parts aka core, fan and AB.
Consequently I indeed expect certain modifications when the WS-15 will be flight test for the first time and later adopted for operational use, however if the WS-15 is designed to fit the same external dimensions - what I expect - it is not an issue. Your example that a F-135 is larger than a F100 or F110 is moot since it was designed and build for different aircrafts. The A.320's engine is also different to a B777's engine since both are completely unrelated.

Deino 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> *"You can swap to WS-15 if it was on purpose designed with the same spacial dimensions as the one that it would be replacing. There is no logical reason the WS-15 cannot be externally an exact replica of either the AL-3L or WS-10X engine."*
> 
> Name an instance, in the world history of modern aircraft development, that was successfully done, as you just have said, that an new engine and new aircraft was "*as on purpose designed, with the same spacial dimensions",* to replace "*externally an exact replica"* of an older, much less powerful engine.
> 
> Otherwise, the Mod. will level, the charge of, *groundless speculation, *at you.
> 
> Even, that's possible and desirable, *it still won't explain,* why a 130kN-140kn engine, like WS-10b or AL-31FN could lift, a plane weighting +20 tons plus fuel, in a sustained vertical climb, without the use of AB, in front of thousands of international spectators.
> 
> I got a feeling, that this crucial point, still don't mean anything to you, and to many other readers.



I am not trying to say that the J-20 is equipped with the AL-3L currently at all - my point is that it is simple to swap out one engine to another if this was the intention all along.

Actually it is not even a requirement for the external dimensions of the engine to be exactly equal to have an almost "plug and play" scenario.

Consider the Euro-fighter flight timeline:

1994 27 March - maiden flight of first development aircraft, DA1 from DASA at Manching with RB199 engines.
19946 April - maiden flight of second development aircraft, DA2 from BAe Warton. DA2 also flew with RB199s.
1995 4 June - maiden flight of Italian DA3, the first with EJ200 engines.

Dimensions of the two engines:

EJ200 -
Length: 4 m (160 in)
Diameter: 737 mm (29.0 in)

RB199 -
Length: 3,600 millimetres (142 in)
Diameter: 720 millimetres (28.3 in)

So the engines need to be similar in dimension but do not have to be exactly equal - the diameter is really the most important as that affects the fuselage much more than it's length.

FYI, I believe that the current J-20 operates on a special WS-10X that gives enough power to allow 1:1 T/W ratio at dry thrust - it will be swapped out before end of decade by the WS-15.

@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

@Deino, @UKBengali, @52051

Engineering, a new engine and new plane, to be compatible, with an old engine, seems backward to me. Even that's possible. I wouldn't go through that kind of trouble and complicate my life.

I would just make, a quick prototype, with the new engine core, by "adapting" proven existing technology. This way I would have time, to test the design, of the new engine core, thoroughly, while I wait for the actual new engine to be ready, for flight testing. This way, I could have the best of both world.

This way,
1.) will reduce risk by using as much existing technology as possible in initial flight testings.
2.) will, actually test the new engine core, to flush out the potential problems, as early as possible, so the engineers have time to solve them.
3.) will give the engineers, additional time to finish, the complete design of the new engine, and have more time to do ground testings, before it is put on the new plane, for flight testing.
4.) This is by far, the best and safest way, to keep the testing and development schedule. IMO.

Remember, the engineers and management and test pilots, wants to play it safe too, they don't want their new planes crashed, regularly, but they have a very tight schedule to keep too, otherwise, they lose their jobs.

The idea that J-20, is still using an old engine, after 6 years of testing (and the new engine, never made it, to flight testing on J-20, yet), while going to LRIP, seems crazily stupid to me.

But that's just me.

By insisting J-20 was flying with (and still is flying with) WS-10 or AL-31FN, you guys, seems proving my suspicion, that some people, don't care (or don't understand) about the fact ,that total engine thrust, must be greater than plane's flying weight, for it to fly in a sustained vertical climb.

And if Afterburner was not used, in the sustained vertical climb, it's Dry Thrust, must be greater than, it's flying weight.

I guess not everyone took a basic Physics course in his life, or remember what he has learned in that class.

If it were not for, the sustained vertical climb demonstration, back in November 1, 2016, I wouldn't have a firm opinion, that J-20 is already using WS-15, perhaps, as early as the first day of the testing, in 2011.

This is a sticking/stinking point, isn't it?     

Anyone, who is ignoring, this amazing demonstration, is putting his head, in the sand, like an ostrich.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Honestly ... Your Quick-Prototype theory is BS.

Name any case in aviation histoty for such a case. You either use a proven older type for the first prototypes and replace it in later serial aicrafts or you use already the new engine from tge beginning. But never, never your theoretical approach was used - simply since it is not possible - to quickly frankenstein a prototype engine and later use the definitive powerplant.


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> I guess not everyone took a basic Physics course in his life, or remember what he has learned in that class.



I am a physics graduate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Honestly ... Your Quick-Prototype theory is BS.
> 
> Name any case in aviation histoty for such a case. You either use a proven older type for the first prototypes and replace it in later serial aicrafts or you use already the new engine from tge beginning. But never, never your theoretical approach was used - simply since it is not possible - to quickly frankenstein a prototype engine and later use the definitive powerplant.


FC-31 V2 do you agree is using a new engine? It is smokeless so more or than proves its not RD-93 engine. Or you want to claim V2 is flying with RD-33MKB engine which has never reported to be export to China?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> FC-31 V2 do you agree is using a new engine? It is smokeless so more or than proves its not RD-93 engine. Or you want to claim V2 is flying with RD-33MKB engine which has never reported to be export to China?


 

Yes, but Pardon how is the FC-31V2 related to the point above ? We are discussing the J-20 ...

Anyway Even if V2 uses a WS-13 it is still a RD-93 based design that at least Dimension-Wise matches the original engine. As such it is neither Asok's proposed quick-prototype Frankenstein-design nor a completely new powerplant.

Even more the Ws-13 was surely always the planned engine.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Yes, but Pardon how is the FC-31V2 related to the point above ? We are discussing the J-20 ...
> 
> Anyway Even if V2 uses a WS-13 it is still a RD-93 based design that at least Dimension-Wise matches the original engine. As such it is neither Asok's proposed quick-prototype Frankenstein-design nor a completely new powerplant.
> 
> Even more the Ws-13 was surely always the planned engine.


Why would franken not possible? It has less new design and therefore easier implementation than a new design with less failure and less testing require.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> It does not have to have be "*externally an exact replica"*. and it also does not require a complete redesign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians make the same with the current 117 engine, which will be replaced by the izd. 30. Similar the F-14 flew with TF-30 and later F110´, similar the later F-15/-16 blocks were able to handle both the F100/110 engines. And another example is the AL-31F/FN and WS-10 for the J-11-series.
> 
> As such You do not need to completely redesign an aircraft to fit a new engine as long as the new type is designed and build to fit that aircraft. Surely additional changes are necessary to adjust this new engine to the different weight, airflow and so on specifications, but it's not that an issue.
> 
> Impossible however is it to "Frankenstein" an engine from different parts aka core, fan and AB.
> Consequently I indeed expect certain modifications when the WS-15 will be flight test for the first time and later adopted for operational use, however if the WS-15 is designed to fit the same external dimensions - what I expect - it is not an issue. Your example that a F-135 is larger than a F100 or F110 is moot since it was designed and build for different aircrafts. The A.320's engine is also different to a B777's engine since both are completely unrelated.
> 
> Deino
> 
> Deino



Bad examples.

The current PAK FA T-50 is a technology demonstrator using an interim engine, the 117. The final version of that aircraft using izdeliye 30 is something we haven't seen yet. The izdeliye 30 is a clean-sheet design and we don't know the dimensions of that engine. F100/F110 are both engines from the same generation, with similar dimensions, similar thrust, designed to be interchangeable with each other. Same for AL-31 and WS-10.

Look at the dimensions of the F100 and compare it to the F135. This is the difference between 4th and 5th generation engines.

F100

Length: 191 in 
Inlet Diameter: 34.8 in 
Maximum Diameter: 46.5 in

http://www.pw.utc.com/F100_Engine

F135

Length 220 in (5.59 m)
Inlet Diameter 43 in (1.09 m)
Maximum Diameter 46 in (1.17 m)

https://www.pw.utc.com/Content/F135_Engine/pdf/B-2-4_F135_SpecsChart.pdf

The F-135 is also heavier. The F-135 also requires significantly more airflow to generate that extra thrust. You won't be fitting the F135 into the F-15 or F-16 without major redesign of the aircraft. I don't know the dimensions of the WS-15, but I assume the same laws of physics apply for the AL-31 and WS-15. I assume China is facing the same technological constraints as Pratt & Whitney when designing a next generation engine.

The F-35 was suffering from bulkhead and engine mount cracks not too long ago, and the aircraft was designed from the beginning to accept the F135. Can you imagine the problems you will have when you take an aircraft designed and tested for AL-31 and try to make the jump to WS-15?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

huitong latest rumors:

*It has been speculated that either all prototypes are powered by AL-31F-M1, or 200x technology demonstrators are powered by AL-31F-M1, then 201x prototypes and LRIP J-20s are powered by AL-31F-M2 (A Configuration?).

The latest rumor (March 2017) suggested that J-20 is preparing for the integration of the new WS-15 turbofan engine.*

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> huitong latest rumors:
> 
> *It has been speculated that either all prototypes are powered by AL-31F-M1, or 200x technology demonstrators are powered by AL-31F-M1, then 201x prototypes and LRIP J-20s are powered by AL-31F-M2 (A Configuration?).
> 
> The latest rumor (March 2017) suggested that J-20 is preparing for the integration of the new WS-15 turbofan engine.*
> 
> http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/




Uppps ... so it seems that strange German is maybe correct !!! 
How could that be with his head still in the sand ?

Even more I was discussing my theory with OedoSoldier at Twitter and he too thinks I'm correct.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Uppps ... so it seems that strange German is maybe correct !!!
> How could that be with his head still in the sand ?
> 
> Even more I was discussing my theory with OedoSoldier at





Deino said:


> Uppps ... so it seems that strange German is maybe correct !!!
> How could that be with his head still in the sand ?
> 
> Even more I was discussing my theory with OedoSoldier at Twitter and he too thinks I'm correct.





Deino said:


> Yes ... but first of all even if Huitong is IMO a remarkable source of information, he's not free of faults (just look at the WS-15 he posted too), as such I beg to wait until we call it confirmed.



Even you yourself claim Huitong is not error free. Huitong just like you , is based on eyeball observation and rumour only. Take this info of J-20 engine with a pinch of salt. There is no comfirmation from official regarding the engine used on J-20 currently.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Uppps ... so it seems that strange German is maybe correct !!!
> How could that be with his head still in the sand ?
> 
> Even more I was discussing my theory with OedoSoldier at Twitter and he too thinks I'm correct.



Hmm...I have to disagree, Deino, but there is no way the WS-15 could be integrated this early. 2025 at the earliest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jkroo

52051 said:


> According to a very trustful military insider, Pupu, J-20A will soon to be equpipped with WS-10B engine, with a thrust of 142kn.
> 
> This is consistent with the senior fellower of China academy of engineering's comments on how China will soon fit J-20 with home-made engines during the recent congress meeting.


I noticed that too.


----------



## Asoka

*


Deino said:



Uppps ... so it seems that strange German is maybe correct !!! 
How could that be with his head still in the sand ?

Even more I was discussing my theory with OedoSoldier at Twitter and he too thinks I'm correct.

Click to expand...


*
This is a strange reaction from our german friend. j20blackdragon has clearly labeled his post as *"huitong latest rumors:" *That is* ==> RUMORS <==*
*
"It has been speculated that either all prototypes are powered by AL-31F-M1, or 200x technology demonstrators are powered by AL-31F-M1, then 201x prototypes and LRIP J-20s are powered by AL-31F-M2 (A Configuration?)."

It stated clearly that "It has been speculated . . . . all prototypes are powered by AL-31F-M1, . . . then then 201x prototypes and LRIP J-20s are powered by AL-31F-M2"*

No where, it is there even mention any official or semi-official source for this rumor. Yet, our german friend is jumping up and down, celebrating his vindication already.

I can easily find several dozen of such Chinese/English rumors on the internet, all without any substantiating evidences, saying that J-20 is using either AL-31F-M1, or AL-31F-M2. 

Equally groundless, without any evidence, whatsoever, to back him, our german friend has stated that:

*J-20 "are using IMO a dedicated, custom-made - maybe co-developed and co-manufactured - uprated, specialised or whatever version of the AL-31FN-family", *specifically, the M2 version.

No where, has this announcement mentioned anything about making engine for China "dedicated, custom-made - maybe co-developed and co-manufactured - uprated, specialised"

That was 2012. It said "AL-31F M2 engine contemplated by OKB Sukhogo (Sukhoi Design Bureau)" 

The keyword is "*contemplated*", not designed, tested, completed, or delivered.

Now, its 2017, still no one and nowhere, has provided any evidences that this M2 engine has been completed, tested, ordered and delivered to China.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1459

*12.03.2012*

AL-31F M2 engine contemplated by OKB Sukhogo (Sukhoi Design Bureau)

*"28 February 2012, Moscow* – Technical experts gathered at FSUE “Gas-Turbine Engineering RPC “Salut” for a conference to review the results of Salut's R&D efforts towards implementing the 2nd Phase of the AL-31F engine modernization (known as AL-31F M2). OKB Sukhogo is showing interest in the engine upgrade to pursue the repowering program of Su-27SM and Su-34 aircraft of the Russian Air Force. 

The R&D appraisal meeting – the first one after a five years' pause – saw the participation of all the parties concerned: “OKB “Sukhogo”, “Lyulka NTTs”, “United Aircraft Corporation” and “United Engine-Building Corporation”. The project status report was presented by Sergey Rodyuk, who noted that all the activities for the second phase of the engine upgrade had been in close adherence to the specified timeframes. The special program of the 2nd phase engine bench tests in the climatic test facility at TsIAM has by now been completed with the results demonstrating the engine's capability of attaining 14 500 kgf of static thrust and proving its design performance parameters in flight conditions. Compared with the first-phase AL-31FM, the latest iteration has a 9% higher thrust during flight operation. 

“The overall engine size will be subject to no trade-offs so as to keep the AL-31F upgrade conveniently suited for re-engining of the whole inventory of Su-27 aircraft without any additional airframe and engine nacelle modifications.” - said Gennady Skirdov, Salut's acting General Designer. 

*It is planned* to have the program of special test-bench and endurance tests accomplished before the end of 2012 and go ahead with the special flight tests, which precede the state certification tests. 

Vladislav Masalov, Director General of Salut, said that the full-scale deliveries of upgraded engines could be started *as early as 2013*. “The AL-31F M2 engine can be a not so expensive solution for re-engining of Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fleet now operated by the Russian military and is likewise deliverable to foreign customers,” noted Director General. The technical specifications and requirements of Su-27SM and Su-34 aircraft call for the engines with increased thrust and improved fuel consumption with the AL-31F M2 fulfilling these requisites. The installation can be performed without any rework of the aircraft and take place in field conditions. 

Relevant tips: 

AL-31F M2 engine is a by-pass turbojet derived from the AL-31F propulsion system. The engine thrust at special power setting is 14 500 kgf. The specified life of the upgraded engine exceeds 3 000 hours. The engine features minimal differences with Series 3, 20 and 23 while offering enhanced propulsion performance characteristics with reduced specific fuel consumption, including at unaugmented power settings. Does not require airframe rework if installed on Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 aircraft to replace the older engine Series. The upgrading can take place when overhauling the earlier versions of engines. The re-engining makes for improved flight and operational performance of aircraft through enhancement of parameters and abolishing the oxygen-charging system. A better control accuracy and diagnosing efficiency are to provide additional benefits."



The joke is on our german friend, who likes to ignore facts, and lives dangerously on evidence-free, fact-free, logic-free, groundless, baseless rumors and speculations.

How can this rumor explain, how is the AL-31FN family, has enough thrust ,to lift J-20 vertically, in a sustain climb, *without the use of AB*, is beyond me.

If anyone ignored, this crucial fact, so powerfully demonstrated by J-20, it can only mean, facts do not mean anything to him.

Don't be surprised, that the charge of, *peddling groundless speculations, *will be mercilessly, leveled at him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

SinoSoldier said:


> Hmm...I have to disagree, Deino, but *there is no way the WS-15 could be integrated this early. 2025 at the earliest.*


@SinoSoldier, I will set my eyes to the timing that you proposed though I still think that you made it rather optimistic, more likely it will see the light in 2030 or so... the engine things are so enigmatic to the Chinese, they have not been getting used to solve the century old puzzles in commendable ways, they still lack of sophistication / traditions / culture etc to deal with the beasts...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> @SinoSoldier, I will set my eyes to the timing that you proposed though I still think that you made it rather optimistic, more likely it will see the light in 2030 or so... the engine things are so enigmatic to the Chinese, they have not been getting used to solve the century old puzzles in commendable ways, they still lack of sophistication / traditions / culture etc to deal with the beasts...



I agreed with you Samsara, "more likely it will see the light in 2030"

With rate of progress, that some people suggesting WS-15 is making, that it has finally made to *ground bench testing* on October, 2015, * 25 years* after the project was started in 1990; and *10 years afte*r the engine core was completed and passed all tests, on 2005.

I think it will take at least another 10 years for WS-15, to make it to flight testing on J-20, another 10-15 years to finish all flight testings, and finally enter serial production (after *40-50 years* of development).

So it will take another 20-25 years (that is, year *2035-2040*) for J-20 to go from J-20A to J-20B, with WS-15 installed.

Can anybody really believe China's aviation industry is this incompetent and takes* 40-50 years* to develop an engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *
> *
> This is a strange reaction from our german friend. j20blackdragon has clearly labeled his post as *"huitong latest rumors:" *That is* ==> RUMORS <==*
> 
> ...




@Asok, calm down. No need to go into Red Alert, Wild Boar Modus or DEFCON 2 !!

I'm well aware that it is only a rumour - or do I need to paint it red and enlarge it to size 27 ? - but again Huitong is a well respected "source, not official, but anyway reliable site. So just for the record.

Even more OedoSoldier seems to agree with me and in contrast to Your phantasy-Frankenstein-Theory it is at least a solid theory simply since the M2 is or was a true project based on a proved design in contrast to Your Frankenstein-WS-15, which is plain impossible.

I know You will once again write pages of words containing "full sustained climb" and "no afterburner", spiced up by weight calculations and so on, but again You are plain wrong: There was no "full sustained climb" ! It climbed a few hundreds of meters and turned away ...


Anyway... some day, I know You will be very, very sad ..

Deino


----------



## Asoka

*"Anyway... some day, I know You will be very, very sad .."*

Just as I suspected, facts don't mean anything to you. You like groundless rumors better.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"Anyway... some day, I know You will be very, very sad .."*
> 
> Just as I suspected, facts don't mean anything to you. You like groundless rumors better.




FACTS !!! What the hell of Your claims are FACTS !???
You are spinning together a technical impossible theory (Monster-hybrid-Frankenstein engine as a "quick-developed" prototype), spice it up by claims that do not exist (a WS-10 with 140kN is not ready, but a +210kN prototype indeed !), You are proposing a timeline that looks like a rift in the spacetime continuum, ignores all other possibilities that do not fit Your opinion and worst of all You see things that are simply not there (rocket-like sustained climb).

Anyway, like @Beast noted correctly:



Beast said:


> There is no confirmation from official regarding the engine used on J-20 currently.



As such we all have to wait ...


----------



## 52051

At the moment, J-20 prototype's engine is definitely from Russia, the nozzle has some stealth-featured shell covered, such shells may confuse someone, but thats it.

WS-15 is not ready yet, you wont see it fitting on J-20 for another 3-5 years, just be realistic.

Judging by the recent airforce exerise, J-20, even with WS-10B, will be more than enough to dominate any 4-4.5 gen fighters backed by AWACS, so just be happy with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *
> *
> This is a strange reaction from our german friend. j20blackdragon has clearly labeled his post as *"huitong latest rumors:" *That is* ==> RUMORS <==*
> *
> "It has been speculated that either all prototypes are powered by AL-31F-M1, or 200x technology demonstrators are powered by AL-31F-M1, then 201x prototypes and LRIP J-20s are powered by AL-31F-M2 (A Configuration?)."
> 
> It stated clearly that "It has been speculated . . . . all prototypes are powered by AL-31F-M1, . . . then then 201x prototypes and LRIP J-20s are powered by AL-31F-M2"*
> 
> No where, it is there even mention any official or semi-official source for this rumor. Yet, our german friend is jumping up and down, celebrating his vindication already.
> 
> I can easily find several dozen of such Chinese/English rumors on the internet, all without any substantiating evidences, saying that J-20 is using either AL-31F-M1, or AL-31F-M2.
> 
> Equally groundless, without any evidence, whatsoever, to back him, our german friend has stated that:
> 
> *J-20 "are using IMO a dedicated, custom-made - maybe co-developed and co-manufactured - uprated, specialised or whatever version of the AL-31FN-family", *specifically, the M2 version.
> 
> No where, has this announcement mentioned anything about making engine for China "dedicated, custom-made - maybe co-developed and co-manufactured - uprated, specialised"
> 
> That was 2012. It said "AL-31F M2 engine contemplated by OKB Sukhogo (Sukhoi Design Bureau)"
> 
> The keyword is "*contemplated*", not designed, tested, completed, or delivered.
> 
> Now, its 2017, still no one and nowhere, has provided any evidences that this M2 engine has been completed, tested, ordered and delivered to China.
> 
> http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1459
> 
> *12.03.2012*
> 
> AL-31F M2 engine contemplated by OKB Sukhogo (Sukhoi Design Bureau)
> 
> *"28 February 2012, Moscow* – Technical experts gathered at FSUE “Gas-Turbine Engineering RPC “Salut” for a conference to review the results of Salut's R&D efforts towards implementing the 2nd Phase of the AL-31F engine modernization (known as AL-31F M2). OKB Sukhogo is showing interest in the engine upgrade to pursue the repowering program of Su-27SM and Su-34 aircraft of the Russian Air Force.
> 
> The R&D appraisal meeting – the first one after a five years' pause – saw the participation of all the parties concerned: “OKB “Sukhogo”, “Lyulka NTTs”, “United Aircraft Corporation” and “United Engine-Building Corporation”. The project status report was presented by Sergey Rodyuk, who noted that all the activities for the second phase of the engine upgrade had been in close adherence to the specified timeframes. The special program of the 2nd phase engine bench tests in the climatic test facility at TsIAM has by now been completed with the results demonstrating the engine's capability of attaining 14 500 kgf of static thrust and proving its design performance parameters in flight conditions. Compared with the first-phase AL-31FM, the latest iteration has a 9% higher thrust during flight operation.
> 
> “The overall engine size will be subject to no trade-offs so as to keep the AL-31F upgrade conveniently suited for re-engining of the whole inventory of Su-27 aircraft without any additional airframe and engine nacelle modifications.” - said Gennady Skirdov, Salut's acting General Designer.
> 
> *It is planned* to have the program of special test-bench and endurance tests accomplished before the end of 2012 and go ahead with the special flight tests, which precede the state certification tests.
> 
> Vladislav Masalov, Director General of Salut, said that the full-scale deliveries of upgraded engines could be started *as early as 2013*. “The AL-31F M2 engine can be a not so expensive solution for re-engining of Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fleet now operated by the Russian military and is likewise deliverable to foreign customers,” noted Director General. The technical specifications and requirements of Su-27SM and Su-34 aircraft call for the engines with increased thrust and improved fuel consumption with the AL-31F M2 fulfilling these requisites. The installation can be performed without any rework of the aircraft and take place in field conditions.
> 
> Relevant tips:
> 
> AL-31F M2 engine is a by-pass turbojet derived from the AL-31F propulsion system. The engine thrust at special power setting is 14 500 kgf. The specified life of the upgraded engine exceeds 3 000 hours. The engine features minimal differences with Series 3, 20 and 23 while offering enhanced propulsion performance characteristics with reduced specific fuel consumption, including at unaugmented power settings. Does not require airframe rework if installed on Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 aircraft to replace the older engine Series. The upgrading can take place when overhauling the earlier versions of engines. The re-engining makes for improved flight and operational performance of aircraft through enhancement of parameters and abolishing the oxygen-charging system. A better control accuracy and diagnosing efficiency are to provide additional benefits."
> 
> 
> 
> The joke is on our german friend, who likes to ignore facts, and lives dangerously on evidence-free, fact-free, logic-free, groundless, baseless rumors and speculations.
> 
> How can this rumor explain, how is the AL-31FN family, has enough thrust ,to lift J-20 vertically, in a sustain climb, *without the use of AB*, is beyond me.
> 
> If anyone ignored, this crucial fact, so powerfully demonstrated by J-20, it can only mean, facts do not mean anything to him.
> 
> Don't be surprised, that the charge of, *peddling groundless speculations, *will be mercilessly, leveled at him.


He don't understand you brother, if J-20 equipped with WS-15 in near future than @Deino says that J-20 still using AL-31FM1-2 engines

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

52051 said:


> At the moment, J-20 prototype's engine is definitely from Russia, the nozzle has some stealth-featured shell covered, such shells may confuse someone, but thats it.
> 
> WS-15 is not ready yet, you wont see it fitting on J-20 for another 3-5 years, just be realistic.
> 
> Judging by the recent airforce exerise, J-20, even with WS-10B, will be more than enough to dominate any 4-4.5 gen fighters backed by AWACS, so just be happy with it.



To be honest, I will never believe anything from that right-wing pig pupu. That guy is hardcore anti-CPC, yet so many military fans from China still take his words worth as gold. This is beyond understanding.

You don't believe our PLA General, and rather take that anonymous online troll seriously?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 52051

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> To be honest, I will never believe anything from that right-wing pig pupu. That guy is hardcore anti-CPC, yet so many military fans from China still take his words worth as gold. This is beyond understanding.
> 
> You don't believe our PLA General, and rather take that anonymous online troll seriously?



Well, I have other source, not to mention the congress meetings, it is unrealistic to expect J-20 to fit WS-15 within such short timeframe.

Btw, I dont think pupu is anywhere near right wing/anti CCP or whatever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

52051 said:


> Well, I have other source, not to mention the congress meetings, it is unrealistic to expect J-20 to fit WS-15 within such short timeframe.
> 
> Btw, I dont think pupu is anywhere near right wing/anti CCP or whatever.


I suspect WS-10B may have a longer lifespan and longer service interve than the AL-31/WS-10 hybrid but in terms of thrust, I do not believe in too much different. That is why they will still put the WS-10B into J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

*"Beast said: ↑
There is no confirmation from official regarding the engine used on J-20 currently."*

No official confirmation that J-20 is using either WS-10, AL-31FN or WS-15. This I don't deny. I am willing to wait before I bet my life on it. But it has not stop someone, from already betting their reputation, that J-20 is using AL-31FN-M1 or M2, for sure.

*"FACTS !!! What the hell of Your claims are FACTS !???"*

"Facts, . . . what facts?" I mean this, my german friend.







Facts speak louder than groundless speculations.

Show me some video clips of a large +20 tons plane, which could do sustain vertical climb, without the use of AfterBurner, and the Dry Thrust is still could be *less* than the empty weight + fuel of that plane.

And I will shut up for good. Until, then, I will keep mention this inconvenient fact, to all those doubters, and deniers of facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Words of Pupu, up to you to believe or not. 信不信由你们了。


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> *Show me some video clips of a large +20 tons plane, which could do sustain vertical climb, without the use of AfterBurner*, and the Dry Thrust is still could be *less* than the empty weight + fuel.
> 
> *And I will shut up for good*.




Here you go, here is a 20+ ton aircraft with zero fuel. Fully fueled it can hold 25,000+ fuel, which is 12.5 tons fuel, so fully fueled the SU-35 weighs 32.5+ tons. The engines produce 19,400lbs dry thrust each, x2 that equals 38,800lbs which is 19.4 tons thrust.

will you honor your words now on that last sentence of yours?


----------



## Asoka

lcloo said:


> Words of Pupu, up to you to believe or not. 信不信由你们了。
> 
> View attachment 385322
> View attachment 385323



Just googled "Pupu-2012". This guy runs a Weipo, a Chinese twitter-like, rumors-mill.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *...*
> "Facts, . . . what facts?" I mean this, my german friend.
> 
> View attachment 385311
> 
> 
> Facts speak louder than groundless speculations.
> 
> Show me some video clips of a large +20 tons plane, which could do sustain vertical climb, without the use of AfterBurner, and the Dry Thrust is still could be *less* than the empty weight + fuel of that plane.
> 
> And I will shut up for good. Until, then, I will keep mention this inconvenient fact, to all those doubters, and deniers of facts.




Fact is - even if You wont like it - that this is a brief sequence showing indeed a climb of a few hundred meters before turning/rolling to the side. Even a Cessna or any other sports-plane could have done this.
You are wrong... a sustained climb is if You really climb.
Like I already said: Your base of arguments is plain wrong, You are dreaming and Your calculation by which this fighter needs at least 420kN of thrust is so much off. I'm sure the guys at AVIC/CAC and the PLAAF are laughing to death.

Anyway ... we will see.
Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Fact is - even if You wont like it - that this is a brief sequence showing indeed a climb of a few hundred meters before turning/rolling to the side. Even a Cessna or any other sports-plane could have done this.
> You are wrong... a sustained climb is if You really climb.
> Like I already said: Your base of arguments is plain wrong, You are dreaming and Your calculation by which this fighter needs at least 420kN of thrust is so much off. I'm sure the guys at AVIC/CAC and the PLAAF are laughing to death.
> 
> Anyway ... we will see.
> Deino



Show me a video of a Cessna or any other plane, who could do a sustain vertical climb, *with **less** thrust than its flying weight. *This does not conform to the known laws of Physics.

I don't ever doubt, a plane could climb vertically, in an sustained manner (not a loop), *if it's trust is greater than or exceeded it's flying weight. *This conforms to the known laws of Physics.

*"Your base of arguments is plain wrong, You are dreaming and Your calculation by which this fighter needs at least 420kN of thrust is so much off.*"

Show me your calculations, on how you arrived at this number: *420kN* of thrust, or it is another "groundless speculation".

You have amply demonstrated that you are technically illiterate, ignorant of basic Physics, despite being a chemistry teacher, and you try to talk about and wrote books about Combat Airplane, which is a very technical subject.

Sorry to be so harsh on you, but this is an unpleasant truth.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

52051 said:


> Well, I have other source, not to mention the congress meetings, it is unrealistic to expect J-20 to fit WS-15 within such short timeframe.
> 
> Btw, I dont think pupu is anywhere near right wing/anti CCP or whatever.



You are a newbie, while I've seen pupu's derogatory comments many years ago.

That guy isn't trustworthy at all, even worse than Xi Yazhou.



Beast said:


> I suspect WS-10B may have a longer lifespan and longer service interve than the AL-31/WS-10 hybrid but in terms of thrust, I do not believe in too much different. That is why they will still put the WS-10B into J-20.



Professor Chen Xiangbao never said that the incoming domestic engine is WS-15 or WS-10B.

These professional trolls from CD were simply shoving their own words into his mouth.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> Show me a video of a Cessna or any other plane, who could do a sustain vertical climb, *with **less** thrust than its flying weight. *This does not conform to the known laws of Physics.
> 
> I don't ever doubt, a plane could climb vertically, in an sustained manner (not a loop), *if it's trust is greater than or exceeded it's flying weight. *This conforms to the known laws of Physics.


So far, you have not shown anything other than momentum that carries the J-20 into a vertical climb. I have done that in a Cessna 152 when I was taking flight lesson in high school. It was not a loop. A student pilot well into his hours could gauge the moment just right before the aircraft loses its vertical speed and kick rudder to turn aircraft into a controlled dive.






Time stamp 45 sec is when the F-15 began its powered vertical climb. No momentum other than from the take off roll. That is the true powered vertical ascent.



Asok said:


> You have amply demonstrated that you are technically illiterate, ignorant of basic Physics, despite being a chemistry teacher, and you try to talk about and wrote books about Combat Airplane, which is a very technical subject.


You have not shown us any genuinely technical argument to prove that the J-20 have performed a sustained vertical climb.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Show me a video of a Cessna or any other plane, who could do a sustain vertical climb, *with **less** thrust than its flying weight. *This does not conform to the known laws of Physics.
> 
> I don't ever doubt, a plane could climb vertically, in an sustained manner (not a loop), *if it's trust is greater than or exceeded it's flying weight. *This conforms to the known laws of Physics.
> 
> *"Your base of arguments is plain wrong, You are dreaming and Your calculation by which this fighter needs at least 420kN of thrust is so much off.*"
> 
> Show me your calculations, on how you arrived at this number: *420kN* of thrust, or it is another "groundless speculation".
> 
> You have amply demonstrated that you are technically illiterate, ignorant of basic Physics, despite being a chemistry teacher, and you try to talk about and wrote books about Combat Airplane, which is a very technical subject.
> 
> Sorry to be so harsh on you, but this is an unpleasant truth.



Honestly ... I give up !

You are boasting that lame climb a few hundreds of meters as if the J-20 is able to catch the current climb-to-height record. It is plain and simple a straight high speed low altitude pass with a climb ending in a turn. Not sure what You have smoked, drunk or otherwise consumed and just as a final word - seems as if You are the one who needs help in Mathematics !? - since it was simply Your claim: Your claimed repeatedly that the J-20's current engine is a +210kN thrust monster engine, able to accelerate the J-20 to even Mach 3.  

So at least by the Math I know: 2x +210kN = 420kN ??? Or am I wrong? Maybe it's You who is are "technically illiterate, ignorant of basic Physics and even Mathematics too"?? 


Anyway, I'm out of this discussion but I'm sure some day Your bubble of phantasy will make .

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

The J-20 is supposed to be able to supercruise.

*Xu Yongling, one of China's top test pilots, told the Global Times that the J-20 possesses an advanced supersonic cruise ability and powerful air mobility that are technological breakthroughs for the country.*

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/616283.shtml

The other well-known stealth supercruiser is the F-22. The F119 delivers 35,000 lbf of afterburning thrust, and probably has a dry thrust performance envelope at least matching the afterburning thrust envelope of the F100 series engines (probably around 23,770 lbf). It is the high dry thrust performance of the F119 that allows for supercruise. The most important technological prerequisite for supercruise is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag.

The J-20 is heavier than the F-22. The J-20 is also larger/draggier and probably has a higher energy bleed rate. Therefore, the intended engines for the J-20 should at least match or exceed the performance of the F119. This is another reason why I don't believe the AL-31FM2 is a suitable engine for the J-20. Nor would the WS-10B.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Honestly ... I give up !
> 
> You are boasting that lame climb a few hundreds of meters as if the J-20 is able to catch the current climb-to-height record. It is plain and simple a straight high speed low altitude pass with a climb ending in a turn. Not sure what You have smoked, drunk or otherwise consumed and just as a final word - seems as if You are the one who needs help in Mathematics !? - since it was simply Your claim: Your claimed repeatedly that the J-20's current engine is a +210kN thrust monster engine, able to accelerate the J-20 to even Mach 3.
> 
> So at least by the Math I know: 2x +210kN = 420kN ??? Or am I wrong? Maybe it's You who is are "technically illiterate, ignorant of basic Physics and even Mathematics too"??
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm out of this discussion but I'm sure some day Your bubble of phantasy will make .
> 
> Deino


The man mentioned physics, as if somehow he is the sole person in this forum who have any education in physics.

Assuming that he has any kind of scientific education, what he has done so far proved that he is dishonest. I am not saying that Chinese scientists and engineers cannot produce an engine that can make the J-20 perform like an F-15, but he cannot prove that with home cooked up math and animated GIFs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Note the predictions in this old article from 2009.


_ASIA PACIFIC 
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2009 

Jane's Defence Weekly 

China's fifth-generation fighter to fly 'soon'

Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent - Washington, DC

The Deputy Commander General of the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), He Weirong, announced that China's 'fourth-generation fighter' - considered fifth-generation in the West - would fly "soon" and that it would enter service in "eight to 10 years". 

The 8 November announcement, broadcast on Chinese state television, is the second official Chinese statement on the country's next-generation fighter programme. 

Just before the PLA Navy's 60th anniversary this April, PLA Navy Commander Admiral Wu Shengli gave a speech in which he outlined future requirements as including a fighter capable of *"supersonic cruise"*._

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinas-fifth-generation-fighter-to-fly-soon.38853/

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Star Expedition

To the USA and its allies : 
j-20 is just a bigger j-10. Nothing more.
Don't waste your time here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> I don't ever doubt, a plane could climb vertically, in an sustained manner (not a loop), *if it's trust is greater than or exceeded it's flying weight. *This conforms to the known laws of Physics.






Did you miss my last post or are you still stubbornly in denial after this many months? 

You challenged someone to show an aircrafts that is 20 tons that has less dry thrust then the aircrafts total weight that can do a vertical climb. I clearly showed an aircraft that was 20+ tons empty (no fuel). That went into a vertical climb on takeoff without afterburners that had a total thrust lower then the aircraft weight. 

You have been proven wrong many times. You have gotten into arguments with people that have backgrounds in aviation. You are out of your league, your arguments are silly and it's clear to everyone you don't know anything about aviation. I don't say that to be rude or disrespectful but rather that you need to educate yourself before posting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20 is supposed to be able to supercruise.
> 
> *Xu Yongling, one of China's top test pilots, told the Global Times that the J-20 possesses an advanced supersonic cruise ability and powerful air mobility that are technological breakthroughs for the country.*
> 
> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/616283.shtml
> 
> The other well-known stealth supercruiser is the F-22. The F119 delivers 35,000 lbf of afterburning thrust, and probably has a dry thrust performance envelope at least matching the afterburning thrust envelope of the F100 series engines (probably around 23,770 lbf). It is the high dry thrust performance of the F119 that allows for supercruise. The most important technological prerequisite for supercruise is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag.
> 
> The J-20 is heavier than the F-22. The J-20 is also larger/draggier and probably has a higher energy bleed rate. Therefore, the intended engines for the J-20 should at least match or exceed the performance of the F119. This is another reason why I don't believe the AL-31FM2 is a suitable engine for the J-20. Nor would the WS-10B.


Bro i read somewhere that J-20 can't supercrusie with interim engine



j20blackdragon said:


> Note the predictions in this old article from 2009.
> 
> 
> _ASIA PACIFIC
> Date Posted: 12-Nov-2009
> 
> Jane's Defence Weekly
> 
> China's fifth-generation fighter to fly 'soon'
> 
> Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent - Washington, DC
> 
> The Deputy Commander General of the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), He Weirong, announced that China's 'fourth-generation fighter' - considered fifth-generation in the West - would fly "soon" and that it would enter service in "eight to 10 years".
> 
> The 8 November announcement, broadcast on Chinese state television, is the second official Chinese statement on the country's next-generation fighter programme.
> 
> Just before the PLA Navy's 60th anniversary this April, PLA Navy Commander Admiral Wu Shengli gave a speech in which he outlined future requirements as including a fighter capable of *"supersonic cruise"*._
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinas-fifth-generation-fighter-to-fly-soon.38853/


So what? he means in future with WS-15 not with the interim engine like WS-10B


----------



## lcloo

Asok said:


> Just googled "Pupu-2012". This guy runs a Weipo, a Chinese twitter-like, rumors-mill.


Oops ! I got mixed up Pupu with Pop3 . I admit my mistake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

lcloo said:


> Oops ! I got mixed up Pupu with Pop3 . I admit my mistake.



POP3 is a real insider, while PUPU is a fraud.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

*"So at least by the Math I know: 2x +210kN = 420kN ??? Or am I wrong?"*

No, you are right, this time. yeah, bravo! You got it.


ChineseTiger1986 said:


> POP3 is a real insider, while PUPU is a fraud.



It's obvious from his posts. There is no evidence or logical explanations of any of his rumors.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

The size and shape of the intake is directly related to the airflow requirements of the engine. When the General Electric F110 engine was first fitted on Block 30 F-16 models, it was soon realized that the engine required more airflow than the Pratt & Whitney F100. The intake was enlarged to increase the airflow. The F-16 has two different intakes. 







Now we look at the F-16 from the back with the engine removed. The engine bay has very specific dimensions. The inlet diameter has very specific dimensions.






Let's pretend for a moment that the J-20 was designed and tested for the last 6 years only on the AL-31. Does anyone actually believe the next generation WS-15 can simply be popped into the engine bay and everything will be fine? If you say yes, you must believe the WS-15 has the same dimensions, inlet diameter, and airflow requirements as the AL-31. You would also have to believe that such a small engine will be able to provide enough dry thrust for the large J-20 to supercruise.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## j20blackdragon

The J-20 has been designed from the very beginning to have very large intakes because the engines (whatever they are) have large airflow requirements. Am I wrong about the size of the J-20 intakes? Does the AL-31 require intakes this large? I have no idea because I'm not a supercomputer. But I can tell you the F135 requires much more airflow than previous engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> The size and shape of the intake is directly related to the airflow requirements of the engine. When the General Electric F110 engine was first fitted on Block 30 F-16 models, it was soon realized that the engine required more airflow than the Pratt & Whitney F100. The intake was enlarged to increase the airflow. The F-16 has two different intakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we look at the F-16 from the back with the engine removed. The engine bay has very specific dimensions. The inlet diameter has very specific dimensions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's pretend for a moment that the J-20 was designed and tested for the last 6 years only on the AL-31. Does anyone actually believe the next generation WS-15 can simply be popped into the engine bay and everything will be fine? If you say yes, you must believe the WS-15 has the same dimensions, inlet diameter, and airflow requirements as the AL-31. You would also have to believe that such a small engine will be able to provide enough dry thrust for the large J-20 to supercruise.



*"You would also have to believe that such a small engine will be able to provide enough dry thrust for the large J-20 to supercruise."*

And capable of lifting a 20+ tons plane vertically, in a sustained manner, without the use of the afterburner.


----------



## ptldM3

Asok said:


> *"You would also have to believe that such a small engine will be able to provide enough dry thrust for the large J-20 to supercruise."*
> 
> And capable of lifting a 20+ tons plane vertically, in a sustained manner, without the use of the afterburner.




Yes just like the 20+ SU-35 can sustain a vertical climb without afterburners but again continue the fanboy delusionals that the J-20 must have 420kn thrust because it can pull up and go vertical which literally any aircraft on this earth can do, even airlines or cargo aircraft can pull up vertical, something I have demonstrated to you already, and mind you, they have no afterburners and horrible T/W ration.


@Deino @gambit perhaps this guy put me on his ignor list because he continues to push the same narrative after being rubuked multiple times. He challenged someone that if they prove that a 20+ ton aircraft can go into a vertical climb without afterburners that he would "shut up" I gave him proof and he still continues his conspiracies

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

*China: New Combat Aircraft J-20 Officially On Duty*

By Editors, Special Forces - 2017-03-16






_China's revolutionary fifth-generation combat aircraft takes off!

Is the J-20 superior to F-22 and F-35?

Is the USA's lead increasingly fading?

Does China now own the full-fledged stealth technology?_

*J-20 is officially serving the Chinese Air Force*

China's new 5th generation J-20 combat aircraft has officially started its service.

The Chinese military confirmed this commissioning of the modern fighter jet last week.

The J-20 Fighter is supposed to bring China on par with America's F-22 and F-35.

Most experts doubt, however, that this will really be the case.

If there is really an open conflict with Taiwan or the USA, the new J-20 class can certainly claim against classic F-16 in certain circumstances (weather / radar).

The fact that the J-20 can actually be against the F-22 or even F-35, is hitherto rather doubted.

*How strong is the Chinese J-20 really?*

The American F-22 and F-35 are a *complete system*, integrated into radar capacities, synchronized networks, artificial intelligence, and stealth capabilities.

The question as to whether the Chinese new combat aircraft *can actually stand up* to the advanced systems of the USAF is therefore somewhat more complex than simply a "_faster, stronger, wider_".

The J-20 is certainly a significant step for the Chinese Air Force. Globally, the aircraft is regarded as a capable model of the 5th generation.

The Chinese government, however, is *very much concerned* about the actual performance of its new development.

Apart from some flight demonstrations, basic details of the aircraft class and euphoric press releases, there is *little objective information* on the actual capabilities of the fighter jet.

The stealth skills, for example, make the consensus of the Western experts more critical.

The J-20 certainly has *basic* stealth technology, *but not* at the level of American models.

The radar of the Chinese is *not yet as developed* as the US.

Therefore, the model has very secure "stealth" characteristics, but *should not be a pure* stealth fighter.

*Is the USA's lead waning more and more?*

Moreover, quite a few experts are surprised at the extreme development of the J-20 in a very short time.

Theoretically it is quite possible that China catches up so quickly.

However, whether it is *really realistic* that a system of such complexity, similar to the F-22 and F-35, is *completed in a short period of time* and that the official statements on the J-20 actually correspond to *fully technical reality* is another question.

So far there are 5 first models of the J-20, which are relatively "operational".

Production is slow and laborious for Chinese manufacturers.

*Accordingly, it will take some time to know more about the aircraft and its actual abilities will be objectively better assessed.*

*In the US, however, the dwindling distance between the US military and the Chinese is seen with growing concern.*

T*he fast commissioning of the J-20 will not improve these concerns.

*
_From the Special Forces, a German language publication owned by the Black Harp Media, specializing in the world strategy military "Special Forces News".

~~~~~~~~

An "interesting mixing" of some faith or perceptive matters with some degrees of objectivity (just peruse the article to read the implied message between the lines)... however, as long as China has not decided to divulge in totality or expose anything spectacular I am afraid that the thick cloud of doubt will linger around for many years to come.

The other question remains, will China "care" to clear all these "clouds of doubt" in particular within the circles of the Western experts and skeptics or how far it agrees to reveal, or does such clearance really serves its objective? For there's no export urgency to come into this equation.

It's of anyone's guess I think and once again, the unfolding time is the most accurate analyst! _

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pepsi Cola

samsara said:


> *China: New Combat Aircraft J-20 Officially On Duty*
> 
> By Editors, Special Forces - 2017-03-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _China's revolutionary fifth-generation combat aircraft takes off!
> 
> Is the J-20 superior to F-22 and F-35?
> 
> Is the USA's lead increasingly fading?
> 
> Does China now own the full-fledged stealth technology?_
> 
> *J-20 is officially serving the Chinese Air Force*
> 
> China's new 5th generation J-20 combat aircraft has officially started its service.
> 
> The Chinese military confirmed this commissioning of the modern fighter jet last week.
> 
> The J-20 Fighter is supposed to bring China on par with America's F-22 and F-35.
> 
> Most experts doubt, however, that this will really be the case.
> 
> If there is really an open conflict with Taiwan or the USA, the new J-20 class can certainly claim against classic F-16 in certain circumstances (weather / radar).
> 
> The fact that the J-20 can actually be against the F-22 or even F-35, is hitherto rather doubted.
> 
> *How strong is the Chinese J-20 really?*
> 
> The American F-22 and F-35 are a *complete system*, integrated into radar capacities, synchronized networks, artificial intelligence, and stealth capabilities.
> 
> The question as to whether the Chinese new combat aircraft *can actually stand up* to the advanced systems of the USAF is therefore somewhat more complex than simply a "_faster, stronger, wider_".
> 
> The J-20 is certainly a significant step for the Chinese Air Force. Globally, the aircraft is regarded as a capable model of the 5th generation.
> 
> The Chinese government, however, is *very much concerned* about the actual performance of its new development.
> 
> Apart from some flight demonstrations, basic details of the aircraft class and euphoric press releases, there is *little objective information* on the actual capabilities of the fighter jet.
> 
> The stealth skills, for example, make the consensus of the Western experts more critical.
> 
> The J-20 certainly has *basic* stealth technology, *but not* at the level of American models.
> 
> The radar of the Chinese is *not yet as developed* as the US.
> 
> Therefore, the model has very secure "stealth" characteristics, but *should not be a pure* stealth fighter.
> 
> *Is the USA's lead waning more and more?*
> 
> Moreover, quite a few experts are surprised at the extreme development of the J-20 in a very short time.
> 
> Theoretically it is quite possible that China catches up so quickly.
> 
> However, whether it is *really realistic* that a system of such complexity, similar to the F-22 and F-35, is *completed in a short period of time* and that the official statements on the J-20 actually correspond to *fully technical reality* is another question.
> 
> So far there are 5 first models of the J-20, which are relatively "operational".
> 
> Production is slow and laborious for Chinese manufacturers.
> 
> *Accordingly, it will take some time to know more about the aircraft and its actual abilities will be objectively better assessed.*
> 
> *In the US, however, the dwindling distance between the US military and the Chinese is seen with growing concern.*
> 
> T*he fast commissioning of the J-20 will not improve these concerns.
> 
> *
> _From the Special Forces, a German language publication owned by the Black Harp Media, specializing in the world strategy military "Special Forces News".
> 
> ~~~~~~~~
> 
> An "interesting mixing" of some faith or perceptive matters with some degrees of objectivity (just peruse the article to read the implied message between the lines)... however, as long as China has not decided to divulge in totality or expose anything spectacular I am afraid that the thick cloud of doubt will linger around for many years to come.
> 
> The other question remains, will China "care" to clear all these "clouds of doubt" in particular within the Western skeptics or how far it agrees to reveal, or does such clearance really serves its objective? For there's no export urgency to come into this equation.
> 
> It's of anyone's guess I think and once again, the unfolding time is the most accurate analyst! _



What the hell does "basic stealth technology" even mean?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Okarus said:


> What the hell does "basic stealth technology" even mean?


I think he is referring to engine which is not stealth oriented

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

The American fake new journalists are just a bunch of sad wankers.

I have confirmed information that J-20, at least from front area are way more stealthy than F-22/35, and J-20 use active plasma stealth on critical parts (note the distinctive white band area on the fighters? China solved the energy/weight/heat-problem of plasma stealth through means of utilization of highly active ionized gas tube covering the critical area of the fighter).

The brainwashed americans will have a rude awakening against China in the near future.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> The American fake new journalists are just a bunch of sad wankers.
> 
> I have confirmed information that J-20, at least from front area are way more stealthy than F-22/35, and J-20 use active plasma stealth on critical parts (note the distinctive white band area on the fighters? China solved the energy/weight/heat-problem of plasma stealth through means of utilization of highly active ionized gas tube covering the critical area of the fighter).
> 
> The brainwashed americans will have a rude awakening against China in the near future.


There is no way outside of official channels that uses official measurement data of *ALL* aircrafts to definitively say which is 'stealthier'. I have explained the foundation of radar detection and RCS control methods yrs ago. Nobody, I guess except the Chinese, believes the J-20 is better than the F-22 or F-35 in the RCS realm.

We are crossing into science fiction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pts_m_h_2016

gambit said:


> There is no way outside of official channels that uses official measurement data of *ALL* aircrafts to definitively say which is 'stealthier'. I have explained the foundation of radar detection and RCS control methods yrs ago. Nobody, I guess except the Chinese, believes the J-20 is better than the F-22 or F-35 in the RCS realm.
> 
> We are crossing into science fiction.




Let it be. 

This sad corner is the only avenue they can find to express their joy about some imaginary accomplishment. 

Outside it, the misery of the real life awaits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> The J-20 has been designed from the very beginning to have very large intakes because the engines (whatever they are) have large airflow requirements. Am I wrong about the size of the J-20 intakes? Does the AL-31 require intakes this large? I have no idea because I'm not a supercomputer. But I can tell you the F135 requires much more airflow than previous engines.




IMO a conclusion to say what is "very large" or "larger than ..." and especially in comparison "larger to what" can only be done by an exact measurment of the specific intakes. As such to say the J-20 has a "huge" intake and to conclude it therefore must be an engine in the thrust-class of the F135 is similar impossible to Asok's claim it is a "prolonged, sustained climb and therefore it must have a +210kN thrust engine"!


----------



## 52051

gambit said:


> There is no way outside of official channels that uses official measurement data of *ALL* aircrafts to definitively say which is 'stealthier'. I have explained the foundation of radar detection and RCS control methods yrs ago. Nobody, I guess except the Chinese, believes the J-20 is better than the F-22 or F-35 in the RCS realm.
> 
> We are crossing into science fiction.



First all, I just speak out about my opinions based on the information I got about China's J-20 has controlled plasma stealth installed, coupled with all other convential means of stealth.

Secondly, it seems that your fake news reporters love to make countless such assements despite of no knowledge in any of the area.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> First all, I just speak out about my opinions based on the information I got about China's J-20 has controlled plasma stealth installed, coupled with all other convential means of stealth.


You have your opinion of the idea of 'plasma stealth', which I think you took from others.

But here is mine...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_antenna

The plasma antenna is a much more technically plausible solution for 'active stealth' than the idea of creating a plasma cloud that would envelope the aircraft while flying at several hundred kts, which is amusing to say the least.

I also hinted a looooong time ago that the US would jump over the plasma antenna method and go with the semiconductor path -- that of creating active electronics circuits at the substrate level.



52051 said:


> Secondly, it seems that your fake news reporters love to make countless such assements despite of no knowledge in any of the area.


Like you ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> First all, I just speak out about my opinions based on the information I got about China's J-20 has controlled plasma stealth installed, coupled with all other convential means of stealth.
> 
> Secondly, it seems that your fake news reporters love to make countless such assements despite of no knowledge in any of the area.




Funny that You call Western report as FAKE news and condemn them, but so far we have NOT a single conclusive sign that Plasma-stealth even exists for the J-20!?? And You surely will not be allowed or able to prove it ?


----------



## Ultima Thule

52051 said:


> The American fake new journalists are just a bunch of sad wankers.
> 
> I have confirmed information that J-20, at least from front area are way more stealthy than F-22/35, and J-20 use active plasma stealth on critical parts (note the distinctive white band area on the fighters? China solved the energy/weight/heat-problem of plasma stealth through means of utilization of highly active ionized gas tube covering the critical area of the fighter).
> 
> The brainwashed americans will have a rude awakening against China in the near future.


How can J-20 detect enemy target in presence of plasma generators because plasma absorb all electromagnetic waves, tell me please how can J-20 find its targets in the presence of plasma generator specially with EOTS,so J-20 is not equipped with *PLASMA SH!T*, you live in your fairy world, wet dream and wishful thinking *, go kid go play your toys this place is not for yours*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> The size and shape of the intake is directly related to the airflow requirements of the engine. When the General Electric F110 engine was first fitted on Block 30 F-16 models, it was soon realized that the engine required more airflow than the Pratt & Whitney F100. The intake was enlarged to increase the airflow. The F-16 has two different intakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we look at the F-16 from the back with the engine removed. The engine bay has very specific dimensions. The inlet diameter has very specific dimensions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's pretend for a moment that the J-20 was designed and tested for the last 6 years only on the AL-31. Does anyone actually believe the next generation WS-15 can simply be popped into the engine bay and everything will be fine? If you say yes, you must believe the WS-15 has the same dimensions, inlet diameter, and airflow requirements as the AL-31. You would also have to believe that such a small engine will be able to provide enough dry thrust for the large J-20 to supercruise.



Once again, the size and shape of the intakes are directly related to the airflow requirements of the engine. If you design oversized intakes, you add unnecessary weight to the airframe and drastically increase drag. If you design undersized intakes, you will lose thrust due to insufficient airflow. These are the laws of physics.

The J-20 has been designed with massive intakes since day one.










I don't know the airflow requirements of the AL-31, nor do I know the airflow requirements for the WS-15. But I know a large intake when I see one. And I can also tell you that the F135 has much greater airflow requirements than previous engines. Without airflow, the F135's thrust would drop dramatically. This I can guarantee.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

samsara said:


> *China: New Combat Aircraft J-20 Officially On Duty*
> 
> By Editors, Special Forces - 2017-03-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _China's revolutionary fifth-generation combat aircraft takes off!
> 
> Is the J-20 superior to F-22 and F-35?
> 
> Is the USA's lead increasingly fading?
> 
> Does China now own the full-fledged stealth technology?_
> 
> *J-20 is officially serving the Chinese Air Force*
> 
> China's new 5th generation J-20 combat aircraft has officially started its service.
> 
> The Chinese military confirmed this commissioning of the modern fighter jet last week.
> 
> The J-20 Fighter is supposed to bring China on par with America's F-22 and F-35.
> 
> Most experts doubt, however, that this will really be the case.
> 
> If there is really an open conflict with Taiwan or the USA, the new J-20 class can certainly claim against classic F-16 in certain circumstances (weather / radar).
> 
> The fact that the J-20 can actually be against the F-22 or even F-35, is hitherto rather doubted.
> 
> *How strong is the Chinese J-20 really?*
> 
> The American F-22 and F-35 are a *complete system*, integrated into radar capacities, synchronized networks, artificial intelligence, and stealth capabilities.
> 
> The question as to whether the Chinese new combat aircraft *can actually stand up* to the advanced systems of the USAF is therefore somewhat more complex than simply a "_faster, stronger, wider_".
> 
> The J-20 is certainly a significant step for the Chinese Air Force. Globally, the aircraft is regarded as a capable model of the 5th generation.
> 
> The Chinese government, however, is *very much concerned* about the actual performance of its new development.
> 
> Apart from some flight demonstrations, basic details of the aircraft class and euphoric press releases, there is *little objective information* on the actual capabilities of the fighter jet.
> 
> The stealth skills, for example, make the consensus of the Western experts more critical.
> 
> The J-20 certainly has *basic* stealth technology, *but not* at the level of American models.
> 
> The radar of the Chinese is *not yet as developed* as the US.
> 
> Therefore, the model has very secure "stealth" characteristics, but *should not be a pure* stealth fighter.
> 
> *Is the USA's lead waning more and more?*
> 
> Moreover, quite a few experts are surprised at the extreme development of the J-20 in a very short time.
> 
> Theoretically it is quite possible that China catches up so quickly.
> 
> However, whether it is *really realistic* that a system of such complexity, similar to the F-22 and F-35, is *completed in a short period of time* and that the official statements on the J-20 actually correspond to *fully technical reality* is another question.
> 
> So far there are 5 first models of the J-20, which are relatively "operational".
> 
> Production is slow and laborious for Chinese manufacturers.
> 
> *Accordingly, it will take some time to know more about the aircraft and its actual abilities will be objectively better assessed.*
> 
> *In the US, however, the dwindling distance between the US military and the Chinese is seen with growing concern.*
> 
> T*he fast commissioning of the J-20 will not improve these concerns.
> 
> *
> _From the Special Forces, a German language publication owned by the Black Harp Media, specializing in the world strategy military "Special Forces News".
> 
> ~~~~~~~~
> 
> An "interesting mixing" of some faith or perceptive matters with some degrees of objectivity (just peruse the article to read the implied message between the lines)... however, as long as China has not decided to divulge in totality or expose anything spectacular I am afraid that the thick cloud of doubt will linger around for many years to come.
> 
> The other question remains, will China "care" to clear all these "clouds of doubt" in particular within the circles of the Western experts and skeptics or how far it agrees to reveal, or does such clearance really serves its objective? For there's no export urgency to come into this equation.
> 
> It's of anyone's guess I think and once again, the unfolding time is the most accurate analyst! _



Dont worry, the western always like to write article to do self comforting to escape from reality. 

But FC-31 v2 need to reveal its spec becos it is an export product. From the level of FC-31, we can know at least the basic level of where J-20 stands. But keep in mind, FC-31 is an export product. So J-20 might be 20-30percent more capable than it.



pakistanipower said:


> I think he is referring to engine which is not stealth oriented


No, maybe you are trying to be sarcastic.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> IMO a conclusion to say what is "very large" or "larger than ..." and especially in comparison "larger to what" can only be done by an exact measurment of the specific intakes. As such to say the J-20 has a "huge" intake and to conclude it therefore must be an engine in the thrust-class of the F135 is similar impossible to Asok's claim it is a "prolonged, sustained climb and therefore it must have a +210kN thrust engine"!



I don't need to be a supercomputer or have exact measurements to tell the difference between big intake and small intake.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> I don't need to be a supercomputer or have exact measurements to tell the difference between big intake and small intake.




Come on ... and the Su-27/J-11 has a small intake while the Su-35 has a larger one ... and what's about that bump !??

I really don't understand this "I have the feeling" point of view. Unless we don't have the true area and the specific data on airflow/volume all these estimations are pure guesswork. 
It would be as ridiculous as estimating engine thrust from a composed gif or 10seconds video clip, estimating RCS by eyeballing and so on.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> IMO a conclusion to say what is "very large" or "larger than ..." and especially in comparison "larger to what" can only be done by an exact measurment of the specific intakes. As such to say the J-20 has a "huge" intake and to conclude it therefore must be an engine in the thrust-class of the F135 is similar impossible to Asok's claim it is a "prolonged, sustained climb and therefore it must have a +210kN thrust engine"!



*
"Asok's claim it is a "prolonged, sustained climb and therefore it must have a +210kN thrust engine"!*

Please quote me more accurately, Mr. Deino, or I might think you are trying to deliberately misquote me to discredit me.

I have said repeatedly that J-20 has demonstrated the ability to perform a prolonged, sustained vertical climb, *without the use of the afterburner*, therefore it's Dry Thrust alone, must be greater than it's flying weight. From there, I have estimated its total thrust to be +210kn (Total Thrust = Dry Thrust/0.6), based on a guess of its flying weight to be 26 tons (22 tons + 4 tons fuel)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jkroo

Deino said:


> Come on ... and the Su-27/J-11 has a small intake while the Su-35 has a larger one ... and what's about that bump !??
> 
> I really don't understand this "I have the feeling" point of view. Unless we don't have the true area and the specific data on airflow/volume all these estimations are pure guesswork.
> It would be as ridiculous as estimating engine thrust from a composed gif or 10seconds video clip, estimating RCS by eyeballing and so on.
> 
> Deino


To admit, you became so illogical by posting such kind of words.
Aren't your point views guesswork too? 
Don't you know your words also fit your claim perfectly? LOL
Don't be that rude. No one here can provide exact data. Please answer Asok's question directly with your logical guesswork.



> I have said repeatedly that J-20 has demonstrated the ability to perform a prolonged, sustained vertical climb, without the use of the afterburner, therefore it's Dry Thrust alone, must be greater than it's flying weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Come on ... and the Su-27/J-11 has a small intake while the Su-35 has a larger one ... and what's about that bump !??
> 
> I really don't understand this "I have the feeling" point of view. Unless we don't have the true area and the specific data on airflow/volume all these estimations are pure guesswork.
> It would be as ridiculous as estimating engine thrust from a composed gif or 10seconds video clip, estimating RCS by eyeballing and so on.
> 
> Deino



Post a picture of the Su-27 and Su-35 with someone standing next to the intakes so I can establish scale.

No one is asking you to estimate thrust and RCS from pictures. I'm asking you to be able to tell the difference between a big hole and a small hole.

I think everyone can agree that the J-10A is using the AL-31FN and that the intake is optimized to deliver sufficient airflow for the engine.









But how is it possible that the much larger intakes on the J-20 are also optimized for the same AL-31?





I already posted intake pictures of the F-22 and F-16 above. Take a look at the size difference between 5th gen and 4th gen intakes. It's obvious.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"Asok's claim it is a "prolonged, sustained climb and therefore it must have a +210kN thrust engine"!*
> 
> Please quote me more accurately, Mr. Deino, or I might think you are deliberately misquote me.
> 
> I have said repeatedly that J-20 has demonstrated the ability to perform a prolonged, sustained vertical climb, without the use of the afterburner, therefore it's Dry Thrust alone, must be greater than it's flying weight. From there, I have estimated its total thrust to be +210kn, based on a guess of its flying weight to be 26 tons (22 tons + 4 tons fuel)




Pardon, if I indeed misquoted You but then it would be even more strange since You are claiming a lower overall thrust than me. To admit I'm confused now.

Total thrust of +210kn divided to 2 engines, would correspond to +105kN ... but what's then so special of this engine ?? The F135 delivers about 125 kN in intermediate thrust, the 117S delivers already about 86.3 kN dry and the T-50's 117 delivers 93.1 kN (21,000 lbf) of dry thrust.

IMO Your +105 is still a bit on the high side, but at least it is much more realistically than what I misread ... I really thought You were suggesting a maximum thrust of 210 kN right now for each engine; SORRY for that. 

Deino



j20blackdragon said:


> Post a picture of the Su-27 and Su-35 with someone standing next to the intakes so I can establish scale.
> No one is asking you to estimate thrust and RCS from pictures. I'm asking you to be able to tell the difference between a big hole and a small hole.
> I think everyone can agree that the J-10A is using the AL-31FN and that the intake is optimized to deliver sufficient airflow for the engine.
> But how is it possible that the much larger intakes on the J-20 are also optimized for the same AL-31?
> I already posted intake pictures of the F-22 and F-16 above. Take a look at the size difference between 5th gen and 4th gen intakes. It's obvious.




In general I agree with You and it is surely a good starting point, but the overall from section/area of the J-20's intake is not valid since You need to subtract the frontal-area of the bump too, which in the end results in a much smaller - and here I admit I cannot provide a calculation - overall area than it might look like.

My point is simply that here are a few posters - not You ! - that are indeed claim to know the RSC and engine thrust by eyeballing.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Pardon, if I indeed misquoted You but then it would be even more strange since You are claiming a lower overall thrust than me. To admit I'm confused now.
> 
> Total thrust of +210kn divided to 2 engines, would correspond to +105kN ... but what's then so special of this engine ?? The F135 delivers about 125 kN in intermediate thrust, the 117S delivers already about 86.3 kN dry and the T-50's 117 delivers 93.1 kN (21,000 lbf) of dry thrust.
> 
> IMO Your +105 is still a bit on the high side, but at least it is much more realistically than what I misread ... I really thought You were suggesting a maximum thrust of 210 kN right now for each engine; SORRY for that.
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with You and it is surely a good starting point, but the overall from section/area of the J-20's intake is not valid since You need to subtract the frontal-area of the bump too, which in the end results in a much smaller - and here I admit I cannot provide a calculation - overall area than it might look like.
> 
> My point is simply that here are a few posters - not You ! - that are indeed claim to know the RSC and engine thrust by eyeballing.



It's +210kN total thrust or wet thrust per engine. Sorry, that wasn't clear. I am glad that you are doing some simple calculations. It's not too hard, isn't it?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> In general I agree with You and it is surely a good starting point, but the overall from section/area of the J-20's intake is not valid since You need to subtract the frontal-area of the bump too, which in the end results in a much smaller - and here I admit I cannot provide a calculation - overall area than it might look like.



You don't need exact measurements. Just form a mental image of an average size man crawling through one of the intakes of the J-20. I posted plenty of pictures above of people standing next to intakes for a reason. Stop feigning ignorance. It's not that hard to tell the difference between a big hole and a small hole.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

To All, dont waste my time on this:

Chinese have invented smart ways for plasma stealth generator:

(1)First of all, J-20 dont need a fully covered ionized surface, since it is self a stealth design already, they only need plasma generator to cover critical parts.

(2)Secondly, as far back as in 2005, China's Dalian Martime University's state key lab of plasma tech have already make minized plasma generator through means of specially designed plasma generator with easily ionized very high pressure gas in a small container.

They have actually made blade-size plasma generator/container for aircrafts, offer three types with various dimensions:
*(1) 0.15cm*4cm*5cm
(2) 0.15cm*4cm*10cm
(3) 0.15cm*4cm*20cm*
Such devices are designed to be used as front attachment to aircraft's critical area, and for a 0.15cm*4cm*20cm plasma generating blade, in 2005, they can make it consume only *100W *energy to power 10L high pressure easily-to-be ionized gas, and within *4GHz-14GHz radar wave*, it can reduce its radar response signal* by 30dB*.

And the aircraft can use fine-grain level control to control various parts of such plasma containers's power states.*

Above is directly from the 2005 research paper of this state key lab:*



> 大连海事大学环境工程研究所下属的高气压强电离放电辽宁省重点实验室，如今研制的等离子体产生器件是一种薄片式器件．外型尺寸为：厚0.15cm．宽 4cm，长K5cm，10cm，20cm三种规格，根据要求选取．它可贴附在电磁波强散射部位或进气壁上。它具有如下特点：
> 
> (1)折合电场强度高，电子浓度高(在1015/cm3～10l6/cm3之间，而用于隐身技术的临界电子浓度在1012/cm3个量级)；
> 
> (2)外型尺寸为0.15cm×4cm×20cm的器件放电消耗能量仅为100W，能产生10L等离子体，而其自身质量仅为0.1kg。在4GHZ～14GHz，频率范围可使飞机的RCS值衰减30dB．减少
> 
> 到原来的0.1%：
> 
> (3)强电离放电等离子体产生器件外表面自身也具有隐身性能。



The paper: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-XDFJ200503006.htm

There are also countless papers in Chinese, describe such ideas, for instance:
This paper describe use small plasma generating blade-like attachment to reduce stealth fighter's RCS:

http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HKXB200401011.htm

This article, also from Dalian Martine University's plasm tech lab, desribe how they get this high pressure ionized gas to make minimized plasma stealth attachment that is capable of installed on combat aircrafts:

http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HJBY200503011.htm

This is this lab's official describation from their university website:

http://www.dlmu.edu.cn/html/2013/sbjzdsys_0702/187.html

Note that this merely represent China's plasma stealth tech level at a *disclassified level in 2005 (actually that level of tech is considered as disclassified even in 2005, thats why they are allowed to publish a research paper to give tech details about their minimized plasma generator device)*.




pakistanipower said:


> How can J-20 detect enemy target in presence of plasma generators because plasma absorb all electromagnetic waves, tell me please how can J-20 find its targets in the presence of plasma generator specially with EOTS,so J-20 is not equipped with *PLASMA SH!T*, you live in your fairy world, wet dream and wishful thinking *, go kid go play your toys this place is not for yours*
> 
> 
> He is acting like he is in the development team of J-20



Have you even read?

If you know nothing and cannot read, its better for you to keep silence instead of open your mouth to remove all doubts.

I just dont know why people here considered China's 2005 era plasma stealth tech as sci-fi, then god-forbidden if they manage to know what my classmates/friends and their colleages are doing now

In terms of engine tech China sure lag behind the west in general, actually the US in particular, but thats because this special area of industry involves tens of years experiences and the west have a head start for about decades if not centuries.

For any new tech, the US dont have such head start, China can surpass then leave them in the dust easily.

So yes, truth hurts

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> Dont worry, the western always like to write article to do self comforting to escape from reality.
> 
> But FC-31 v2 need to reveal its spec becos it is an export product. From the level of FC-31, we can know at least the basic level of where J-20 stands. But keep in mind, FC-31 is an export product. So J-20 might be 20-30percent more capable than it.
> 
> 
> No, maybe you are trying to be sarcastic.


No sir, i am not trying to be sarcastic or something, currently J-20* interim engine* is non stealthy, i don't know about WS-15 that it will have stealth nozzle or not, get real sir



52051 said:


> Have you even read?
> 
> If you know nothing and cannot read, its better for you to keep silence instead of open your mouth to remove all doubts.
> 
> I just dont know why people here considered China's 2005 era plasma stealth tech as sci-fi, then I what my classmates/friends are doing must make them crazy


Please explain this to me kid *"How can J-20 detect enemy target in presence of plasma generators because plasma absorb all electromagnetic waves, tell me please how can J-20 find its targets in the presence of plasma generator specially with EOTS" you silly boy US and Russia did research on this subject for almost two decades with no avail and you started plasma research in 2005 and in 2017 you are successful and you show us just a research paper where its tell those plasma generator is or will be on the J-20 just in your wet dream* *and wishful thinking get real kid*



52051 said:


> For any new tech, the US dont have such head start, China can surpass then leave them in the dust easily.
> 
> So yes, truth hurts


And US will stuck its technology for China in future, what a logic you have keep carrying your wishful thinking and wet dream lol


----------



## 52051

> Please explain this to me kid "How can J-20 detect enemy target in presence of plasma generators because plasma absorb all electromagnetic waves, tell me please how can J-20 find its targets in the presence of plasma generator specially with EOTS" you silly boy US and Russia did research on this subject for almost two decades with no avail and you started plasma research in 2005 and in 2017 you are successful and you show us just a research paper where its tell those plasma generator is or will be on the J-20 just in your wet dream and wishful thinking get real kid



Dont waste my time by repeating very stupid questions, ok, I make it even simpler that hopeful even a XXX like you can understand:
*
China's minimized plasma generator dont need to generate a full cover for J-20 since J-20 itself is stealth design they only need to generate plasma which cover speical area of the J-20, in J-20's case, around their white-band covered area.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

pakistanipower said:


> *Show you source kid you have nothing to prove you live in your wishful thinking and wet dream kid do research before you post too much wishful thinking and wet dreaming is bad for your health kid*



I showed, but since you may have a simpler mind so you just simply cannot understand that or connect the dots, so again, I do it for simple-minded such as you :

On J-20's plasma stealth:

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2014-04-17/0824774434.html

So again, throw baseless accusation towards me truly show what a simple mind you are.

And it is you who are wet-dreaming too much, now I give you a intelligent challenge: try stop wasting my time with repetitive dumb questions, can you? 

Btw, the next generation US stealth tech is made in China
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_12377354_1.html

It just show us the pathetic state of the US stealth tech now comparing to that of China

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> It's +210kN total thrust or wet thrust per engine. Sorry, that wasn't clear. I am glad that you are doing some simple calculations. It's not too hard, isn't it?




Sorry, but that's exactly what I said You were claiming ... so why did You then say I misquoted You ???

Care to tell again what's Your calculation: 210kN for both engines in dry thrust or 210kN for each engine in wet (aka maximum AB) thrust ???

The first one would be realistic, the second is pure phantasy ! ... what You are suggesting would be an engine close to the Russian NK-25 or NK-32.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Sorry, but that's exactly what I said You were claiming ... so why did You then say I misquoted You ???
> 
> Care to tell again what's Your calculation: 210kN for both engines in dry thrust or 210kN for each engine in wet (aka maximum AB) thrust ???
> 
> The first one would be realistic, the second is pure phantasy ! ... what You are suggesting would be an engine close to the Russian NK-25 or NK-32.



I had shown in my calculations, many times, how I came to the conclusion, that each WS-15 engine, must has a maximum thrust or wet thrust, with afterburner > 210kN.

How is that a fantasy?

The F-35's F135 engine is rated as a 190kN (probably a bit more) class engine, which is just 10% less than 210kN, and it was already developed in the 1990's and fully operational for over 10 years.

One F135 engine wad enough to push the F-35C, which has an empty weight of 15.8 tons.

How come I don't hear you claiming that "frankenstein" F135 engine is "impossible", "pure fantasy"?

Your mind got blown away, when I suggested WS-15 has maximum thrust > 210kN. I am sorry to say, it's probably because you have little imagination and no technical ability.


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> No sir, i am not trying to be sarcastic or something, currently J-20* interim engine* is non stealthy, i don't know about WS-15 that it will have stealth nozzle or not, get real sir



May I know how stealthy is F-35 nozzle? And yet J-20 is consider just basic stealth. While western considered F-35 supapupa stealthy? The western article claimed J-20 is the most slightly better than F-16 which means it's still inferior to even 4.5th gen fighter like Rafale and typhoon which hardly is stealthy and not to mention no internal weapon bay which significantly increase RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> May I know how stealthy is F-135 nozzle? And yet J-20 is consider just basic stealth. While western considered F-35 supapupa stealthy? The western article claimed J-20 is the most slightly better than F-16 which means it's still inferior to even 4.5th gen fighter like Rafael and typhoon which hardly is stealthy and not to mention no internal weapon bay which significantly increase RCS.



Another B.S. article written by know nothing Journalist, to cover their apprehension for J-20, by deny it's technical merits.

Yea, sure, denial will work.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I had shown in my calculations, many times, how I came to the conclusion, that each WS-15 engine, must has a maximum thrust or wet thrust, with afterburner > 210kN.
> 
> ....




But why then complaining I misquoted You when You are Yourself requiting again what I quoted???


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> May I know how stealthy is F-35 nozzle? And yet J-20 is consider just basic stealth. While western considered F-35 supapupa stealthy? The western article claimed J-20 is the most slightly better than F-16 which means it's still inferior to even 4.5th gen fighter like Rafale and typhoon which hardly is stealthy and not to mention no internal weapon bay which significantly increase RCS.


No sir i am not comparing F-35 nozzle with J-20 interim engine, i am comparing it to F-22's F-119 engine, yes sir you are right F-35 has not a broad band stealth like F-22 have its has narrow band stealth for specific radars and its not stealth jet in CAS, strike role at all and the peoples who are saying that J-20 slightly better than F-16 and inferior to RAFALE and EF-2000, you knows those people better than me sir, those people are Indian, Taiwanese and US, an i think J-20 in the same class as F-22 and PAK-FA


52051 said:


> I showed, but since you may have a simpler mind so you just simply cannot understand that or connect the dots, so again, I do it for simple-mindeds such as you:
> 
> On J-20's plasma stealth:
> 
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2014-04-17/0824774434.html
> 
> So again, throw baseless accusation towards me truly show what a simple mind you are.
> 
> And it is you who are wet-dreaming too much, now I give you a intelligent challenge: try stop wasting my time with repeative dumb questtions, can you?
> 
> Btw, the next generation US stealth tech is made in China
> http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_12377354_1.html
> 
> It just show us the pathetic state of the US stealth tech now comparing to that of China


This your source good for your mental health kid keep living in your fantasy world and wet dream go check your mental health from your doctortake a nap bro you need a good sleep kid


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> To All, dont waste my time on this:
> 
> Chinese have invented smart ways for plasma stealth generator:
> 
> < snipped >
> 
> For any new tech, the US dont have such head start, China can surpass then leave them in the dust easily.
> 
> So yes, truth hurts


The truth hurts, but it is your China that is hurting.

Truth is, your China is still behind.

Plasma ? Pffftt...

The US passed that. Old tech.

Am in the semiconductor manufacturing sector. We are going to use semicon manufacturing techniques to create conducting circuits at the composite material's substrate level, just like how we build capacitors and transistors in the various semicon products. This will be passive until there is a radar signal on contact, then the circuits will conduct and negate those signals.

Note: That Chinese quantum radar you guys been boasting about ? Useless.


----------



## Leclan

no plasma stealth. 
dont waste ur time to prove a false information.


----------



## terranMarine

gambit said:


> Note: That Chinese quantum radar you guys been boasting about ? Useless.



Old man China is working on Klingon/Romulan stealth be afraid

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## j20blackdragon

There is a direct relationship between the size of the intake, amount of airflow, and maximum thrust of the engine. Increasingly powerful engines will generally require more airflow. The entire history of aviation design backs this up.

Lockheed Martin designed both the F-16 and F-22. Lockheed Martin knows the airflow requirements for the F100/F110 versus the F119. Look at the size difference of the intakes between the F-16 and F-22. I am going to post pictures of people directly inside the intake so you can establish scale.

An airman performing an intake inspection on the F-16. Note the size of the intake.






Now look at the size of the intake for the F-22. The intake is significantly larger because the F119 has significantly greater airflow requirements to generate the extra thrust. It's that simple.





Likewise, CAC designed both the J-10 and J-20. CAC knows the airflow requirements for the AL-31 and both aircraft. CAC purposely designed the J-20 to have larger intakes than the J-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## j20blackdragon

Want the perfect contrast to the J-20's large intakes? Take a look at the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin. It's like a little trainer aircraft. I don't even need to check the thrust of the engines to know it is weak. Small intakes mean small airflow for weak engines. The scale is completely off in the picture below, the size of the X-2 is overrepresented, and the J-20's intakes are still bigger.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

52051 said:


> I showed, but since you may have a simpler mind so you just simply cannot understand that or connect the dots, so again, I do it for simple-mindeds such as you:
> 
> On J-20's plasma stealth:
> 
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2014-04-17/0824774434.html
> 
> So again, throw baseless accusation towards me truly show what a simple mind you are.
> 
> And it is you who are wet-dreaming too much, now I give you a intelligent challenge: try stop wasting my time with repeative dumb questtions, can you?
> 
> Btw, the next generation US stealth tech is made in China
> http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_12377354_1.html
> 
> It just show us the pathetic state of the US stealth tech now comparing to that of China


you believe this chinese blog's rumors its your Choice, show me that PLAAF or CCTV or some semi official source that says J-20 is or will be using *PLASMA STEALTH*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

j20blackdragon said:


> Want the perfect contrast to the J-20's large intakes? Take a look at the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin. It's like a little trainer aircraft. I don't even need to check the thrust of the engines to know it is weak. Small intakes mean small airflow for weak engines. The scale is completely off in the picture below, the size of the X-2 is overrepresented, and the J-20's intakes are still bigger.
> View attachment 386134



That is just a technology demonstrator and not going to be the plane Japan will use. However there are concepts where their future gen plane will be a bit bigger.


----------



## Beast

Oldman1 said:


> That is just a technology demonstrator and not going to be the plane Japan will use. However there are concepts where their future gen plane will be a bit bigger.


Concept? Still on paper? You mean 2099 then it will be declared operation?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Oldman1 said:


> That is just a technology demonstrator and not going to be the plane Japan will use. However there are concepts where their future gen plane will be a bit bigger.


Wet dream

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

wanglaokan said:


> Wet dream


Not really, Japan will revive its mighty Godzilla through the Fukushima power along with the Robotechnology-inspired aircraft based on its discovery of an alien starship in the South Pacific island.

Just watch out: Japan just resurrected from WWII ashes its largest battleship Izumo-class Kaga helicopter carrier!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Can we leave out Japan from this discussion !


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> There is a direct relationship between the size of the intake, amount of airflow, and maximum thrust of the engine. Increasingly powerful engines will generally require more airflow. The entire history of aviation design backs this up.
> 
> Lockheed Martin designed both the F-16 and F-22. Lockheed Martin knows the airflow requirements for the F100/F110 versus the F119. Look at the size difference of the intakes between the F-16 and F-22. I am going to post pictures of people directly inside the intake so you can establish scale.
> 
> An airman performing an intake inspection on the F-16. Note the size of the intake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the size of the intake for the F-22. The intake is significantly larger because the F119 has significantly greater airflow requirements to generate the extra thrust. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, CAC designed both the J-10 and J-20. CAC knows the airflow requirements for the AL-31 and both aircraft. CAC purposely designed the J-20 to have larger intakes than the J-10.



I'm still looking for more pictures to determine the size of the J-20 intakes. A person standing somewhere in the vicinity of the intakes helps shape your sense of scale. 

Here are a couple of good ones.










I still think the J-20 intakes are massive. A full grown man can easily fit in there.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> I'm still looking for more pictures to determine the size of the J-20 intakes. A person standing somewhere in the vicinity of the intakes helps shape your sense of scale.
> 
> Here are a couple of good ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the J-20 intakes are massive. A full grown man can easily fit in there.



Compare the intake size of the Su-34 to the J-20 above. Don't forget that the Su-34 was designed for AL-31FM1. I'm sure the Russians know the airflow requirements for their own engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

j20blackdragon said:


> Compare the intake size of the Su-34 to the J-20 above. Don't forget that the Su-34 was designed for AL-31FM1. I'm sure the Russians know the airflow requirements for their own engine.


So what your point bro? are you saying that J-20 is using WS-15 from the beginning? another possibilty is that those huge intakes of J-20 is definitely for WS-15 but as a stop gap measures they initially intall AL-31FM1 later WS-10B with some kind of airflow diverter that divert excess airflow away from the interim engine just my 2cent

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Can anyone translate ??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## terranMarine

@Deino only if you use the correct map for your next book

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

terranMarine said:


> @Deino only if you use the correct map for your next book




Good one !  But like I already noted, maybe You should give such a correct map I can use as a basis in order to avoid any more mistakes ? Just a link to such a map would be fine enough.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Su-30MKM with a bunch of people standing around it. We even have guys sitting on the aircraft tow tractor in front of the aircraft. Note the intake size.





J-20





The intake size difference could not be more obvious.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> Su-30MKM with a bunch of people standing around it. We even have guys sitting on the aircraft tow tractor in front of the aircraft. Note the intake size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intake size difference could not be more obvious.



I think the point, you are trying to make, is that even the new plane is designed with the new and more powerful engine in mind, but also allow an older and weaker engine to fit, in order to get it to fly first. Suppose that actually works.

The old engine with weaker power and less air intake requirement, will not adequately test the plane to its limit, therefore, when the new and much more powerful engine is ready, all the tests must be performed again.

So it is not simply loose several screws and poop in the new engine, and there you go and everything will be fine.

The new and more powerful engine and plane, must be tested all over again, like in a new plane.

I think this is point that non-technical people don't get.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Asok said:


> I think the point, you are trying to make, is that even the new plane is designed with the new and more powerful engine in mind, but also allow an older and weaker engine to fit, in order to get it to fly first. Suppose that actually works.
> 
> The old engine with weaker power and less air intake requirement, will not adequately test the plane to its limit, therefore, when the new and much more powerful engine is ready, all the tests must be performed again.
> 
> So it is not simply loose several screws and poop in the new engine, and there you go and everything will be fine.
> 
> The new and more powerful engine and plane, must be tested all over again, like in a new plane.
> 
> I think this is point that non-technical people don't get.



Yes.

Let me just give an analogy.

J-20 with AL-31 is like the picture below.






The shoe is the airframe.

The kid's foot is the engine.

The inside of the shoe is the engine bay.

Forcing this kid to run around with these oversized shoes is a pointless test.

No engineer in his right mind would conduct a test like this.

The PLA would not accept this kid into the army.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

j20blackdragon said:


> Yes.
> 
> Let me just give an analogy.
> 
> J-20 with AL-31 is like the picture below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shoe is the airframe.
> 
> The kid's foot is the engine.
> 
> The inside of the shoe is the engine bay.
> 
> Forcing this kid to run around with these oversized shoes is a pointless test.
> 
> No engineer in his right mind would conduct a test like this.
> 
> The PLA would not accept this kid into the army.


I must say that your analogy furnished with the matched illustration is thought provoking (as well as your many posts above)... and the picture itself is amusing

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

The Mig-25 produced only 22,400 lbs thrust in afterburners and it has the biggest intakes of any single seat aircraft.

Intake size and the intake channel are two different things. The intake channels in serpentine designs is not as large as the intake suggests.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

And don't forget the air bleeding vanes on the air intake which varies volume of air flow into engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> The Mig-25 produced only 22,400 lbs thrust in afterburners and it has the biggest intakes of any single seat aircraft.
> 
> Intake size and the intake channel are two different things. The intake channels in serpentine designs is not as large as the intake suggests.
> 
> View attachment 386849



I would like to compare apples to apples.

The MiG-25 is an interceptor, powered by turbojet engines, designed in the 1960s. It had variable geometry intakes with adjustable intake ramps to regulate the speed and volume of airflow, and shock wave formation.

The Tumansky R-15 engines are massive.

Type: Afterburning turbojet
Length: 6,264 mm (246.6 in)
Diameter: 1,512 mm (59.5 in)
Dry weight: 2,454 kg (5,410 lb)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumansky_R-15

The MiG-25 was big all the way through, from intakes to nozzles.





The turbojet engine had very high fuel consumption, which requires large amounts of air.

I would like to compare the J-20 to 4th or 5th generation fighter jets, with turbofan engines, with fixed intakes.

My 'intake size' rule is really just a rule of thumb, but still a very good rule. In most instances, the engine with higher thrust will have a larger intake. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

j20blackdragon said:


> I would like to compare the J-20 to 4th or 5th generation fighter jets, with turbofan engines, with fixed intakes.


 J-20 have variable or adjustable DSI intakes as per @wanglaokan, @ChineseTiger1986, and @Beast bro


j20blackdragon said:


> Yes.
> 
> Let me just give an analogy.
> 
> J-20 with AL-31 is like the picture below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shoe is the airframe.
> 
> The kid's foot is the engine.
> 
> The inside of the shoe is the engine bay.
> 
> Forcing this kid to run around with these oversized shoes is a pointless test.
> 
> No engineer in his right mind would conduct a test like this.
> 
> The PLA would not accept this kid into the army.


So what your point bro? are you saying that J-20 is using WS-15 from the beginning? another possibility is that those huge intakes of J-20 is definitely for WS-15 but as a stop gap measures they initially install AL-31FM1 later WS-10B with some kind of airflow diverter that divert excess airflow away from the interim engine just my 2cent


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> I must say that your analogy furnished with the matched illustration is thought provoking (as well as your many posts above)... and the picture itself is amusing



It's like using a Toyota Sedan's engine to test a Formula One's racing frame, suspension and tires. Yes, it will drive it. But will it test them to the limit? 

I doubt it. 

It's very foolish and ignorant to think that it could.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> It's like using a Toyota Sedan's engine to test a Formula One's racing frame, suspension and tires. Yes, it will drive it. But will it test them to the limit?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> It's very foolish and ignorant to think that it could.


Its not impossible bro same thing on PAK-FA bro interim engine is 117 but in future main engine for PAK-FA will be *izdeliye 30*


----------



## samsara

*J-20‘s testbed: a modified Tu-204*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846607156296110080

















Photo by APFSDS

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Very impressive ... only sad that the front part of this image-series is missing.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Look at the changes made for the F-16/79 fitted for General Electric J79 engine. Shape of air intake was altered. Rear fuselage was extended by 18 inches. But somehow people believe that AL-31 and WS-15 are interchangeable? Give me a break.

_Since the J79 engine required a lower airflow than did the F100 turbofan used on all production F-16A/B's, the shape of the air intake was altered. Only external difference between the original, modular designed (and thus easily replaceable) intake section and the new one is the lengthened upper surface of the intake, which extends much further forward, making it an obvious recognition feature. As the J79 engine was also 18 inches (46 cm) longer than the F100, the rear fuselage had to be extended.

In order to limit the required changes to a minimum, the front face of the engine compressor was located at almost the exact same position as with the F100 resulting in a lengthening of the fuselage by 18 inches aft of the stabilator pivot point._

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article12.html






_F-16/79 Demonstrator, YF-16B #75-0752 fitted with the GE J79 engine. *Note the extended tailpipe.* (LMTAS photo)_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> Look at the changes made for the F-16/79 fitted for General Electric J79 engine. Shape of air intake was altered. Rear fuselage was extended by 18 inches. But somehow people believe that AL-31 and WS-15 are interchangeable? Give me a break.




Funny ... IMO it's exactly an argument that there is NO problem to see the WS-15 with only minor changes mounted into/onto a J-20. Like Your own source stated: what was changed??? The engine itself is longer - therefore the lengthened exhaust - and has a different airflow requirement - therefore a modified intake. Otherwise and especially airframe-wise the F-16-79 is exactly an F-16A and consequently I'm almost sure the current J-20 does not differ much to the final J-10B with the definitive WS-15: Most likely the exhaust will be different and probably the intake too but similar to the F-16 it could easily be a modular design.

That does not mean the WS-15 is interchangeable with the AL-31FN - that was also never with the F100 and the J-79 - but airframe-wise it's not a big issue.

Another example si the F-14 A vs. F-14D. The changes from the original TF30 to the final F110 were also not that huge even if they were not interchangeable; but that also no-one claimed for the final WS-15-equipped J-20.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Funny ... IMO it's exactly an argument that there is NO problem to see the WS-15 with only minor changes mounted into/onto a J-20. Like Your own source stated: what was changed??? The engine itself is longer - therefore the lengthened exhaust - and has a different airflow requirement - therefore a modified intake. Otherwise and especially airframe-wise the F-16-79 is exactly an F-16A and consequently I'm almost sure the current J-20 does not differ much to the final J-10B with the definitive WS-15: Most likely the exhaust will be different and probably the intake too but similar to the F-16 it could easily be a modular design.
> 
> That does not mean the WS-15 is interchangeable with the AL-31FN - that was also never with the F100 and the J-79 - but airframe-wise it's not a big issue.
> 
> Another example si the F-14 A vs. F-14D. The changes from the original TF30 to the final F110 were also not that huge even if they were not interchangeable; but that also no-one claimed for the final WS-15-equipped J-20.
> 
> Deino



My example was meant to illustrate the changes to the intake and engine bay when fitting a new engine. But for you to compare the F-16/79 to the J-20 is absurd.

1. The J79 engine was a thrust downgrade for the F-16, while the WS-15 will be a massive thrust upgrade for the J-20. More thrust means more stress on the airframe throughout a variety of different flight envelopes. More thrust means more heat from the engine. The WS-15 also needs to produce enough dry thrust for the J-20 airframe to supercruise. The F-16 didn't need to supercruise with the J79 engine (or any engine).

2. The F-16 is a conventional aircraft. The J-20 is a STEALTH aircraft. Changes to the airframe (however small in your opinion) will change the radar cross section of the J-20. The intake, for example, is a major radar reflector. Airflow is not the only concern when designing an intake for a stealth aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

j20blackdragon said:


> My example was meant to illustrate the changes to the intake and engine bay when fitting a new engine. But for you to compare the F-16/79 to the J-20 is absurd.
> 
> 1. The J79 engine was a thrust downgrade for the F-16, while the WS-15 will be a massive thrust upgrade for the J-20. More thrust means more stress on the airframe throughout a variety of different flight envelopes. More thrust means more heat from the engine. The WS-15 also needs to produce enough dry thrust for the J-20 airframe to supercruise. The F-16 didn't need to supercruise with the J79 engine (or any engine).
> 
> 2. The F-16 is a conventional aircraft. The J-20 is a STEALTH aircraft. Changes to the airframe (however small in your opinion) will change the radar cross section of the J-20. The intake, for example, is a major radar reflector. Airflow is not the only concern when designing an intake for a stealth aircraft.


Its not impossible bro,look the PAK-FA currently its using 117 engine, intended or main powerplant for PAK-FA will IDEALIZE-30 or ADZ-30, same will goes to J-20 as well bro, no bro your intake theory is wrong, their is some kind of airflow diverter system inside the J-20 to take away excess airflow from the engine let's ask from the expert @gambit, @Oscar , @Rashid Mahmood , @Horus, @Bilal Khan (Quwa) , @Bilal Khan 777 am I right or wrong sir?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> My example was meant to illustrate the changes to the intake and engine bay when fitting a new engine. But for you to compare the F-16/79 to the J-20 is absurd.
> 
> 1. The J79 engine was a thrust downgrade for the F-16, while the WS-15 will be a massive thrust upgrade for the J-20. More thrust means more stress on the airframe throughout a variety of different flight envelopes. More thrust means more heat from the engine. The WS-15 also needs to produce enough dry thrust for the J-20 airframe to supercruise. The F-16 didn't need to supercruise with the J79 engine (or any engine).
> 
> 2. The F-16 is a conventional aircraft. The J-20 is a STEALTH aircraft. Changes to the airframe (however small in your opinion) will change the radar cross section of the J-20. The intake, for example, is a major radar reflector. Airflow is not the only concern when designing an intake for a stealth aircraft.


*"More thrust means more stress on the airframe throughout a variety of different flight envelopes. "*

I think this very important point, don't mean anything, to a lot of people here at PDF. That's why they keep thinking AL-31FN and WS-15, are interchangeable with J-20. All you need to do, is loose a few screws and pop in the other one, and everything will work just fine, they believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> I think this very important point, don't mean anything, to a lot of people here at PDF. That's why they keep thinking AL-31FN and WS-15, are interchangeable with J-20. All you need to do, is loose a few screws and pop in the other one, and everything will work just fine, they believe.



Sorry to disappoint You in Your believe that there is anyone who thinks that "AL-31FN and WS-15, are interchangeable with J-20" and even more by onlyto "loose a few screws and pop in the other one". No-one - at least I don't know anyone here claiming such a stupid thing - ever said that.

But in fact - and You again simply did not read properly - it is not that difficult to develop another version using the WS-15 say in a J-20B, while the current A-models uses - uups; You don't wanna hear it - an AL-31FNMXYZ or whatever.
It will surely be a new version but if the new WS-15 has at least not extremely different dimension, what I don't expect it could be a quite similar development as projected with the T-50 which now uses the Type 117 engine and later will use the izd. 30 and long, long ago the development from the F-14A using TF-30 progressed to the F110-euqipped F-14B and D.

You are correct, both engines were very much different, esp. the later one much more powerful with different specifications and airflow and both are surely not interchangeable but the airframe changes were only minimal; and the same I expect for the WS-15-powered J-20XYZ.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

I would like to change the subject slightly.

The only piece of circumstantial evidence that supports the AL-31 theory for the J-20 is the appearance of the nozzle. Nobody has actually seen a J-20 engine removal or installation with AL-31. Nobody can verify an AL-31FM2 contract with Russia.

Some people have also claimed that the so-called "Frankenstein" engine theory is impossible. Is it?

I want to put some facts out there and let people decide.

The F100 engine has five major modules that can be removed from the engine for repair or overhaul, serviced separately, and then reassembled to produce a whole engine:

(1) inlet/fan
(2) core (compressor, combustor, and compressor-drive turbine)
(3) fan-drive turbine
(4) augmentor and exhaust nozzle
(5) gearbox










Each module is completely interchangeable from engine-to-engine at the intermediate maintenance level.

The modular concept allows for minor engine problems to be fixed directly on the flightline. For example, let's say the F100 has suffered slight damage from a minor birdstrike. You change the fan module, test, and return the engine to service within a short time period without the need for a long shipment and wait time for another location to address your issue. A supply of modules are kept on base. In more serious cases, the engines go to an Air Force depot.

The photo below is the F-15 engine shop at RAF Lakenheath airbase (48th Fighter Wing). All the F100 augmentor/exhaust nozzle modules are separated before your very eyes.





My point is that the augmentor/exhaust nozzle is not some sort of inseparable element of the engine. Some engines don't even have augmentors. Other engines (like in the X-35 prototype) combined the F119 core with an interim nozzle. The F135 continues to share a common core with the F119.

So the "Frankenstein" engine theory is impossible? Why is it impossible? China could have easily created a lookalike AL-31 augmentor/nozzle module to expedite testing of the WS-15 core and other more critical components. As long as the module is tailor-made to fit the engine, everything should be fine. Perhaps the final stealthy, thrust vectoring augmentor/nozzle is still in development. It is far easier to create different modules that are interchangeable than different whole engines that are interchangeable. When the final stealth augmentor/nozzle module is ready, they remove the interim AL-31 module, and pop in the new one. Some additional testing will be required, but the intakes and engine bays can stay the same. The WS-15 core was being tested inside the engine bay the whole time.

What have we seen so far from the J-20? Sometimes the nozzles look like AL-31. Sometimes they are black. Sometimes they are silver. Are they applying different coatings to the nozzles, or are they rapidly changing augmentor/nozzle modules? I have no idea.

But I will be watching closely at several things. The size of the intakes do not lie because they are directly tied to the airflow requirements of the engine. The rear fuselage will change if they change the dimensions of the engine bays. Lastly, look at the nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

*"But in fact - and You again simply did not read properly - it is not that difficult to develop another version using the WS-15 say in a J-20B, while the current A-models uses - uups; You don't wanna hear it - an AL-31FNMXYZ or whatever."*

Whatever this version J-20B, with the new WS-15 engine is, when it fly, it must be tested like a new plane, from the ground up.

This is the point of my contention.

If it took J-20A, 5-6 years to get into LRIP, it will also take J20-B, similar amount of time (5-6 years of intensive testing), after WS-15 is ready to be tested on J-20B, which could be 10-20 years from now.

Also, J-20A with a WS-10 or AL-31FN engine is *NOT* a 5th generation plane, meeting the 4S requirements. It can not do Supersonic Cruise, nor possess Supersonic Maneuverability.

It's a 4th Generation plane, with Stealth characteristics.

So until J-20B with WS-15 is ready (another 10-20 years from now) , China do not possessed a 5th Generational Fighter.

So the CIA is more than right, in its estimate, that China will not possessed such plane before 2020. In fact, China might not have such plane before 2030, at the rate of WS-15 is progressing as you and others believed.

But the China's PLAAF Commander, has predicted back in 2009, China's 5th Generation Fighter will be flying shortly, and will be operational by *2017-2019*.

Who is going to be right, here, the CIA or the PLAAF Commander?

Your ludicrous claim that J20A is flying with a non WS-15 engine, simply do not make any sense, nor anyone has provided any evidence, that it is flying with, a WS-10 or AL-31FN engine.

No evidence, whatsoever.

Your theory is groundless, baseless, and completely evidence-free.

Your emperor has no clothes, Mr. Deino.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"But in fact - and You again simply did not read properly - it is not that difficult to develop another version using the WS-15 say in a J-20B, while the current A-models uses - uups; You don't wanna hear it - an AL-31FNMXYZ or whatever."*
> 
> Whatever this version J-20B, with the new WS-15 engine is, when it fly, it must be tested like a new plane, from the ground up.
> 
> This is the point of my contention.
> 
> If it took J-20A, 5-6 years to get into LRIP, it will also take J20-B, similar amount of time (5-6 years of intensive testing), after WS-15 is ready to be tested on J-20B, which could be 10-20 years from now.
> 
> Also, J-20A with a WS-10 or AL-31FN engine is *NOT* a 5th generation plane, meeting the 4S requirements. It can not do Supersonic Cruise, nor possess Supersonic Maneuverability.
> 
> It's a 4th Generation plane, with Stealth characteristics.
> 
> So until J-20B with WS-15 is ready (another 10-20 years from now) , China do not possessed a 5th Generational Fighter.
> 
> So the CIA is more than right, in its estimate, that China will not possessed such plane before 2020. In fact, China might not have such plane before 2030, at the rate of WS-15 is progressing as you and others believed.
> 
> But the China's PLAAF Commander, has predicted back in 2009, China's 5th Generation Fighter will be flying shortly, and will be operational by *2017-2019*.
> 
> Who is going to be right, here, the CIA or the PLAAF Commander?
> 
> Your ludicrous claim that J20A is flying with a non WS-15 engine, simply do not make any sense, nor anyone has provided any evidence, that it is flying with, a WS-10 or AL-31FN engine.
> 
> No evidence, whatsoever.
> 
> Your theory is groundless, baseless, and completely evidence-free.
> 
> Your emperor has no clothes, Mr. Deino.


What is the prove? You are assuming too much bro, as per chinese senior members on PDF like @wanglaokan, @cirr, @ChineseTiger1986, @Beast and others saying that either J-20 using WS-10B or hybrid version of WS-10 you are too much bashing in the favor of China, get real bro, you are relatively new in the engine development field as copmare US, Russia, Germany, UK, and France

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> Whatever this version J-20B, with the new WS-15 engine is, when it fly, it must be tested like a new plane, from the ground up.
> 
> This is the point of my contention.
> 
> If it took J-20A, 5-6 years to get into LRIP, it will also take J20-B, similar amount of time (5-6 years of intensive testing), after WS-15 is ready to be tested on J-20B, which could be 10-20 years from now.



This is not true.

All the elements of the flight characteristics apart from super-cruise and supersonic manoeuvrability can be tested on a non-WS-15 engine. Avionics and weapons(minus super-cruise firings) can also be tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

UKBengali said:


> This is not true.
> 
> All then elements of the flight characteristics apart from super-cruise and supersonic manoeuvrability can be tested on a non-WS-15 engine. Avionics and weaponns(mius super-cruise firings) can also be tested.



You are right that the electronics equipments need not to be re-tested all over again.

What I am saying is that at the rate of WS-15 is progressing as some people have suggested. China will not have a true 5th generation fighter in operation before 2030, proving CIA's estimate, to be right, and the PLAAF Commander's prediction, very wrong.

I, doubt, very much that the PLAAF Commander, don't know, what he was saying, and the CIA was right about China's J-20' progress.

I highly doubt, when the PLAAF Commander said "the J-20 will be operational by 2017-2019", he meant it will be flying with a WS-10 or AL-31FN.

The PLAAF Commander also said, he is very satisfied with J-20's performances.

I highly doubt PLAAF will be very satisfied with J-20's performances, if it was flying with WS-10 or AL-31FN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseToTheBone

I thought supercruise was not in fact a requisite for a fifth-generation stealth jet.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> You are right that the electronics equipments need not to be re-tested all over again.
> 
> What I am saying is that at the rate of WS-15 is progressing as some people have suggested. China will not have a true 5th generation fighter in operation before 2030, proving CIA's estimate, to be right, and the PLAAF Commander's prediction, very wrong.
> 
> I, doubt, very much that the PLAAF Commander, don't know, what he was saying, and the CIA was right about China's J-20' progress.
> 
> I highly doubt, when the PLAAF Commander said "the J-20 will be operational by 2017-2019", he meant it will be flying with a WS-10 or AL-31FN.
> 
> The PLAAF Commander also said, he is very satisfied with J-20's performances.
> 
> I highly doubt PLAAF will be very satisfied with J-20's performances, if it was flying with WS-10 or AL-31FN.


Give us source that PLAAF commander is saying that J-20 using WS-15, without prove no one believe you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

ChineseToTheBone said:


> I thought supercruise was not in fact a requisite for a fifth-generation stealth jet.


Supercruise is not, and has never been, a criteria for being 'fifth gen'. In fact, there is no official standards on what constitute 'fifth gen' in the first place. But that does not mean there are no agreed upon features that *SHOULD* exists in order for a fighter to be called 'fifth gen'. Supercruise is one of those features. The reality is that being 'fifth gen' means having features that is either cannot make possible on older platforms or possible on older platforms but financially prohibitive.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

A complete video of J-20 twins in Chengdu 歼-20成都双飞完整视频
http://www.bilibili.com/video/av7113144/

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Dungeness

grey boy 2 said:


> A complete video of J-20 twins in Chengdu 歼-20成都双飞完整视频
> http://www.bilibili.com/video/av7113144/




The video seems to be edited. At 1:00, it made a 180 turnaround in a matter of 2 seconds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

Very nice nonetheless, thnx Greyboy!

With all the LRIP units and no delivery
to the forces on top of the prototypes,
Chengdu should be summer vacation 
nirvana for spotters from everywhere.

Expect hotel room prices to go up, Tay.
​

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

Next generation GaN-based AESA radar for J-20B? 







"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of superior power performance of high-linearity GaN FinFETs, indicating significant advantages of *tri-gate configuration* over *planar* HEMTs for microwave power applications."

中国电科（CETC）第五十五研究所（NEDI）微信公众号4月12日报道，该所重点实验室张凯博士发表在国际半导体器件权威期刊《IEEE Electron DeviceLetters》上的论文《High-Linearity AlGaN/GaN FinFETs for Microwave Power Applications》即《三维鳍式GaN高线性微波功率器件》被国际半导体行业著名杂志《Semiconductor Today》进行专栏报道，受到国内外业界关注。






《Semiconductor Today》报道截图

张凯博士的论文聚焦重点实验室近期在GaN高线性技术方面获得的多个重要突破，创新提出三维GaN FinFET微波功率器件,克服了GaN平面器件瓶颈，极大改善了跨导平整度，大幅提升GaN器件线性度,同时维持高的输出功率和效率，为下一代移动通信高性能元器件奠定基础。本成果也是首次展示GaN三维器件相对于二维器件在微波功率应用的优势与潜力，有力推动了GaN三维器件的实用化进程。该成果研制过程中得到国家自然科学基金、预研基金等课题的支持。







NEDI提出的高线性GaN FinFET器件以及跨导特性


SemiconductorToday是总部位于英国具有独立性和非盈利性的国际半导体行业著名杂志和网站，专注于报道化合物半导体和先进硅半导体的重要研究进展和最新行业动态，具有很强的行业影响力。

而CETC第五十五研究所是我国大型电子器件研究、开发及应用研究所之一，拥有砷化镓微波毫米波单片和模块电路国家重点实验室、国家平板显示工程技术研究中心, 主要从事微电子、光电子、真空电子和MEMS等领域的各种器件、电路、部件和整机系统的开发和生产。对于我国国防工业来说，该所最大的贡献莫过于研发的T/R组件，即无线电收发模块，主要应用于各种相控阵雷达上，包括战斗机火控雷达，预警机，“中华神盾”和防空用雷达等。

影响相控阵雷达的除了雷达基础结构设计之外，作为最前端负责无线电收发的T/R组件性能对雷达整体性能的影响也是非常大的。目前国际主流的T/R组件类型有砷化镓和氮化镓两种，其中氮化镓是近几年才出现的新兴事物，不光应用于雷达射频等设备，无线电通信也非常需要高性能的氮化镓半导体组件。






同为中电集团下属14所生产的KLJ-7A相控阵雷达，安装有多达1000多个T/R组件

作为专门负责T/R组件研发的单位，五十五所在突破了砷化镓T/R组建之后就马不停蹄的继续为中国国防工业研发了氮化镓T/R组件。然而由于材料特性等原因，作为新生事物氮化镓T/R组件会出现一些原先所没有遇到过的问题。除了采用金刚石作为衬底材料来改善热传导性能，降低组件功耗之外，三维GaN FinFET的应用可以说是另辟蹊径。

在当前半导体行业开始推进各种三维结构芯片的潮流下，引入三维结构，将GaN二维器件改进成三维结构，可以说是一大创新。简单的说，一样的功耗，体积的T/R组件，将能提供出更精确的雷达波形和更高的射频功率，在不增加外部能耗需求的情况下，进一步提高雷达基本性能。

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Muhammad Omar

cirr said:


> Next generation GaN-based AESA radar for J-20B?
> 
> View attachment 390851
> 
> 
> "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of superior power performance of high-linearity GaN FinFETs, indicating significant advantages of *tri-gate configuration* over *planar* HEMTs for microwave power applications."
> 
> 中国电科（CETC）第五十五研究所（NEDI）微信公众号4月12日报道，该所重点实验室张凯博士发表在国际半导体器件权威期刊《IEEE Electron DeviceLetters》上的论文《High-Linearity AlGaN/GaN FinFETs for Microwave Power Applications》即《三维鳍式GaN高线性微波功率器件》被国际半导体行业著名杂志《Semiconductor Today》进行专栏报道，受到国内外业界关注。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 《Semiconductor Today》报道截图
> 
> 张凯博士的论文聚焦重点实验室近期在GaN高线性技术方面获得的多个重要突破，创新提出三维GaN FinFET微波功率器件,克服了GaN平面器件瓶颈，极大改善了跨导平整度，大幅提升GaN器件线性度,同时维持高的输出功率和效率，为下一代移动通信高性能元器件奠定基础。本成果也是首次展示GaN三维器件相对于二维器件在微波功率应用的优势与潜力，有力推动了GaN三维器件的实用化进程。该成果研制过程中得到国家自然科学基金、预研基金等课题的支持。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEDI提出的高线性GaN FinFET器件以及跨导特性
> 
> 
> SemiconductorToday是总部位于英国具有独立性和非盈利性的国际半导体行业著名杂志和网站，专注于报道化合物半导体和先进硅半导体的重要研究进展和最新行业动态，具有很强的行业影响力。
> 
> 而CETC第五十五研究所是我国大型电子器件研究、开发及应用研究所之一，拥有砷化镓微波毫米波单片和模块电路国家重点实验室、国家平板显示工程技术研究中心, 主要从事微电子、光电子、真空电子和MEMS等领域的各种器件、电路、部件和整机系统的开发和生产。对于我国国防工业来说，该所最大的贡献莫过于研发的T/R组件，即无线电收发模块，主要应用于各种相控阵雷达上，包括战斗机火控雷达，预警机，“中华神盾”和防空用雷达等。
> 
> 影响相控阵雷达的除了雷达基础结构设计之外，作为最前端负责无线电收发的T/R组件性能对雷达整体性能的影响也是非常大的。目前国际主流的T/R组件类型有砷化镓和氮化镓两种，其中氮化镓是近几年才出现的新兴事物，不光应用于雷达射频等设备，无线电通信也非常需要高性能的氮化镓半导体组件。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 同为中电集团下属14所生产的KLJ-7A相控阵雷达，安装有多达1000多个T/R组件
> 
> 作为专门负责T/R组件研发的单位，五十五所在突破了砷化镓T/R组建之后就马不停蹄的继续为中国国防工业研发了氮化镓T/R组件。然而由于材料特性等原因，作为新生事物氮化镓T/R组件会出现一些原先所没有遇到过的问题。除了采用金刚石作为衬底材料来改善热传导性能，降低组件功耗之外，三维GaN FinFET的应用可以说是另辟蹊径。
> 
> 在当前半导体行业开始推进各种三维结构芯片的潮流下，引入三维结构，将GaN二维器件改进成三维结构，可以说是一大创新。简单的说，一样的功耗，体积的T/R组件，将能提供出更精确的雷达波形和更高的射频功率，在不增加外部能耗需求的情况下，进一步提高雷达基本性能。



KLJ-7A will be installed in J-20 :O


----------



## Ultima Thule

cirr said:


> Next generation GaN-based AESA radar for J-20B?
> 
> View attachment 390851
> 
> 
> "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of superior power performance of high-linearity GaN FinFETs, indicating significant advantages of *tri-gate configuration* over *planar* HEMTs for microwave power applications."
> 
> 中国电科（CETC）第五十五研究所（NEDI）微信公众号4月12日报道，该所重点实验室张凯博士发表在国际半导体器件权威期刊《IEEE Electron DeviceLetters》上的论文《High-Linearity AlGaN/GaN FinFETs for Microwave Power Applications》即《三维鳍式GaN高线性微波功率器件》被国际半导体行业著名杂志《Semiconductor Today》进行专栏报道，受到国内外业界关注。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 《Semiconductor Today》报道截图
> 
> 张凯博士的论文聚焦重点实验室近期在GaN高线性技术方面获得的多个重要突破，创新提出三维GaN FinFET微波功率器件,克服了GaN平面器件瓶颈，极大改善了跨导平整度，大幅提升GaN器件线性度,同时维持高的输出功率和效率，为下一代移动通信高性能元器件奠定基础。本成果也是首次展示GaN三维器件相对于二维器件在微波功率应用的优势与潜力，有力推动了GaN三维器件的实用化进程。该成果研制过程中得到国家自然科学基金、预研基金等课题的支持。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEDI提出的高线性GaN FinFET器件以及跨导特性
> 
> 
> SemiconductorToday是总部位于英国具有独立性和非盈利性的国际半导体行业著名杂志和网站，专注于报道化合物半导体和先进硅半导体的重要研究进展和最新行业动态，具有很强的行业影响力。
> 
> 而CETC第五十五研究所是我国大型电子器件研究、开发及应用研究所之一，拥有砷化镓微波毫米波单片和模块电路国家重点实验室、国家平板显示工程技术研究中心, 主要从事微电子、光电子、真空电子和MEMS等领域的各种器件、电路、部件和整机系统的开发和生产。对于我国国防工业来说，该所最大的贡献莫过于研发的T/R组件，即无线电收发模块，主要应用于各种相控阵雷达上，包括战斗机火控雷达，预警机，“中华神盾”和防空用雷达等。
> 
> 影响相控阵雷达的除了雷达基础结构设计之外，作为最前端负责无线电收发的T/R组件性能对雷达整体性能的影响也是非常大的。目前国际主流的T/R组件类型有砷化镓和氮化镓两种，其中氮化镓是近几年才出现的新兴事物，不光应用于雷达射频等设备，无线电通信也非常需要高性能的氮化镓半导体组件。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 同为中电集团下属14所生产的KLJ-7A相控阵雷达，安装有多达1000多个T/R组件
> 
> 作为专门负责T/R组件研发的单位，五十五所在突破了砷化镓T/R组建之后就马不停蹄的继续为中国国防工业研发了氮化镓T/R组件。然而由于材料特性等原因，作为新生事物氮化镓T/R组件会出现一些原先所没有遇到过的问题。除了采用金刚石作为衬底材料来改善热传导性能，降低组件功耗之外，三维GaN FinFET的应用可以说是另辟蹊径。
> 
> 在当前半导体行业开始推进各种三维结构芯片的潮流下，引入三维结构，将GaN二维器件改进成三维结构，可以说是一大创新。简单的说，一样的功耗，体积的T/R组件，将能提供出更精确的雷达波形和更高的射频功率，在不增加外部能耗需求的情况下，进一步提高雷达基本性能。


But sir in this article there is no reference that this type of radar will used by J-20B or this is your assumptions/opinions



Muhammad Omar said:


> KLJ-7A will be installed in J-20 :O


Just for reference sir


----------



## Beast

Muhammad Omar said:


> KLJ-7A will be installed in J-20 :O


J-20 will have a more powerful radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

grey boy 2 said:


> A complete video of J-20 twins in Chengdu 歼-20成都双飞完整视频
> http://www.bilibili.com/video/av7113144/


A fighter in the fairytale come true, amazing!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Muhammad Omar said:


> KLJ-7A will be installed in J-20 :O


KLJ-7A is meant to be an upgrade option for JF-17 Block III, not J-20. J-20's radar will be much more capable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

S10 said:


> KLJ-7A is meant to be an upgrade option for JF-17 Block III, not J-20. J-20's radar will be much more capable.



Thanks


----------



## Deino

Finally a new image of our old friend ....

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## shadows888

Deino said:


> Finally a new image of our old friend ....
> 
> View attachment 391626



that coating, beautiful.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Deino said:


> Finally a new image of our old friend ....
> 
> View attachment 391626



During 90s, when I saw American's artistic concept of ATF, I said to myself there is no chance for China to make something like that due to the fact that China only got j-7 and J-8-I and under international embargo. And time has been passed so fast, I'm very please to see China progress as we're now.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## monitor

2 J-20s fly in formation. Photo by jacksonbobo





Photo by 机外停车

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Are these recent images or older ones just posted now?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

1 Word... SEXY

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

A set of nice HD CG of J-20 (一组歼20用虚幻引擎4渲染的高清CG图)

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## grey boy 2

Not sure if it has been posted before, seems nice though

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

grey boy 2 said:


> Not sure if it has been posted before, seems nice though


For sure, the one post earlier, the big-size close-up dragon version is unmatched  very appealing!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

A J-20 at the background of FC-1 twin seat? (图二是2017年枭龙双座首飞，节目再播时，多了一个歼20路过镜头。当年歼20还没公开，镜头被删，今天终于可以播了。)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

I just came across this picture, don't think i've seen it before? a PS one?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> I just came across this picture, don't think i've seen it before? a PS one?




No, why do You think so ?? By the way, I think it's an older one, even if I'm no longer able to find each and every image I have saved over the years.


----------



## Deino

By the way, what's the current number of J-20A's build ??

The so far final bird delivered is 78275 in mid March.


----------



## Han Patriot

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> During 90s, when I saw American's artistic concept of ATF, I said to myself there is no chance for China to make something like that due to the fact that China only got j-7 and J-8-I and under international embargo. And time has been passed so fast, I'm very please to see China progress as we're now.


Bro, times have changed. I was watching a few CCTV documentaries on how they build the JH-7A, DF-5, T-99, etc. Those guys had it so tough, no proper computers, it was their first time seeing a CAD program. They had to start from scratch. They worked really hard. I am confident that China can cut short alot of R&D time because we work harder, we have some of the best talent, and now we have proper funding and facilities. That's why these past 10 years, all of a sudden, the fruits of our hardship start to pop-up . Would you have imagined a Y-20 5 years ago. I believe by end of the year, China will officially unveil a domestic engine for Y-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Han Patriot said:


> Bro, times have changed. I was watching a few CCTV documentaries on how they build the JH-7A, DF-5, T-99, etc. Those guys had it so tough, no proper computers, it was their first time seeing a CAD program. They had to start from scratch. They worked really hard. I am confident that China can cut short alot of R&D time because we work harder, we have some of the best talent, and now we have proper funding and facilities. That's why these past 10 years, all of a sudden, the fruits of our hardship start to pop-up . Would you have imagined a Y-20 5 years ago. I believe by end of the year, China will officially unveil a domestic engine for Y-20.


WS-20 engine is not that critical for Y-20. Its vary will be more critical for C919 to be fully indigenous. The WS-18 is currently more than enough for PLAAF strategic need.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

Beast said:


> WS-20 engine is not that critical for Y-20. Its vary will be more critical for C919 to be fully indigenous. The WS-18 is currently more than enough for PLAAF strategic need.


But please keep in mind that *commercial, passenger *jet like COMAC C919 needs the FAA & EASA certifications to cater the respective markets as clearly explained by *@52051* in succinct paragraphs here and his subsequent post, something irrelevant to the military ones!


----------



## Deino

*Even more keep in mind, this is the J-20-thread !*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WarFariX

Deino said:


> By the way, what's the current number of J-20A's build ??
> 
> The so far final bird delivered is 78275 in mid March.


How do we elaborate chinese jets serials? Lets say in PAF , a thunder is labelled as 16-230 , 16 is 2016 , 2 is block 2 and 30 is 30th unit ....how about J20 , j10 , and chinese flankers...tell me specially for j10 and 20


----------



## Deino

MarvellousThunder@PDC said:


> How do we elaborate chinese jets serials? Lets say in PAF , a thunder is labelled as 16-230 , 16 is 2016 , 2 is block 2 and 30 is 30th unit ....how about J20 , j10 , and chinese flankers...tell me specially for j10 and 20



Usually - for Divisions and Regiments - these numbers consist of 5 numbers in a XabXc-pattern. The first and fourth number = XX minus 11 denotes the Division a type is assigned to. For example: the J-11BS numbered "10326" has XX = 12, so 12 - 11 = 1. Fighter Division.

The numbers abc - aka the second, third and fifth number - are for 3 blocks of 50 each and are denoting the Regiment: abc = 001 to 049 = first Regiment within a Division, abc = 051 to 099 = second Regiment within a Division and finally abc = 101 to 150 = third Regiment within a Division.

The newer system for the Bases and their subordinated Brigades is a bit different. Here the pattern is of a XXaXb system, where XXX minus 611 denotes the Brigade and the numbers 'ab' represent the individual aircraft-number within that Brigade.
For example: the J-20A numbered "78275" has XXX = 787, so 787 - 611 = 176. Brigade and the "ab" = 25 means aircraft no. 25 within Brigade, however not the 25th J-20A.


Hope that helps.

Deino

By the way, I'm away for one week from tomorrow morning; a school-trip with my class into the deepest forest without any internet-access ... I'm sure during these days, FC-31V2 will fly again, the J-15A or B will be unveiled and a lot more ... as usual when I'm off-line.

All the best.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## WarFariX

Deino said:


> Usually - for Divisions and Regiments - these numbers consist of 5 numbers in a XabXc-pattern. The first and fourth number = XX minus 11 denotes the Division a type is assigned to. For example: the J-11BS numbered "10326" has XX = 12, so 12 - 11 = 1. Fighter Division.
> 
> The numbers abc - aka the second, third and fifth number - are for 3 blocks of 50 each and are denoting the Regiment: abc = 001 to 049 = first Regiment within a Division, abc = 051 to 099 = second Regiment within a Division and finally abc = 101 to 150 = third Regiment within a Division.
> 
> The newer system for the Bases and their subordinated Brigades is a bit different. Here the pattern is of a XXaXb system, where XXX minus 611 denotes the Brigade and the numbers 'ab' represent the individual aircraft-number within that Brigade.
> For example: the J-20A numbered "78275" has XXX = 787, so 787 - 611 = 176. Brigade and the "ab" = 25 means aircraft no. 25 within Brigade, however not the 25th J-20A.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Deino
> 
> By the way, I'm away for one week from tomorrow morning; a school-trip with my class into the deepest forest without any internet-access ... I'm sure during these days, FC-31V2 will fly again, the J-15A or B will be unveiled and a lot more ... as usual when I'm off-line.
> 
> All the best.


haha the moment your eyes go off from chinese section , the very next moment something big happens ..BTW thnx very very much sir for this detailed info

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Since there is hardly New pictures coming up, how about a real nice HD old picture from the Airshow China last year? if being posted before, please ignore

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Since there is hardly New pictures coming up, how about a real nice HD old picture from the Airshow China last year? if being posted before, please ignore



Thanks a lot for posting  and You are correct ... we are again in a time, where we barely get any News, no new images, no news reports on additional LRIP-birds ... nearly nothing. 

But I'm sure some day we get the news ...

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Hey guys, does anyone has access to "现代兵器" magazine? 
"201706" J-20 has been unveiled


----------



## Deino

For what does 201706 stand? The 6th LRIP altogether, first spotted in 2017?


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> For what does 201706 stand? The 6th LRIP altogether, first spotted in 2017?


I think it is the magazine's June edition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> For what does 201706 stand? The 6th LRIP altogether, first spotted in 2017?


201706 stands for 2017 June issue of "现代兵器"(Modern Weapons) magazine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> For what does 201706 stand? The 6th LRIP altogether, first spotted in 2017?


Sorry guys, i've the same thought as you Deino, guess i was wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino




----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sinait

lcloo said:


> 201706 stands for 2017 June issue of "现代兵器"(Modern Weapons) magazine.


For Weapons they would likely just use "武器", meaning weapons like guns and bombs.
I think they use "兵器" to mean Armed Forces Equipment/Devices, to include warships and jetfighters.
How about "Modern Arms" ?


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


>




Uiii ... that must be an old image. One of the 200x-demonstrators (2002 I think) and a F-7BG. Probably from around 2012.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 "2001" reappeared lately 
2001号歼20原型机近日再次现身，让人回想起当年她首次试飞时国人的激动和振奋。如今，歼20已经进入部队服役，让中国成为第二个自主研发并服役五代机的国家。再看2001，感慨万千！（来源：JacKsonbobo）

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## lcloo

Two different engine? Or just different heat shroud.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

Oh yes, good observation bro, looks quite different

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

grey boy 2 said:


> J-20 "2001" reappeared lately
> 2001号歼20原型机近日再次现身，让人回想起当年她首次试飞时国人的激动和振奋。如今，歼20已经进入部队服役，让中国成为第二个自主研发并服役五代机的国家。再看2001，感慨万千！（来源：JacKsonbobo）



Old photo again...

Think twice before repost something from 新浪军事

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Please ignore if its old pictures, i really don't have the time to verify each and every pictures before i post, thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 帅的一匹

Tonight CCTV4 "Discover China" program paid a visit to SAC Shenyang Liyang aviation engine limited company for covering stories of two top notch technicians , during which the CCTV4 proved the J20 is using domestic engine(WS10b as interim solution). And it also mention The successful development of WS15 Er Mei engine by Shenyang Liyang company . I now very much convinced that WS15 is flying with J20 now!! So many 爆料today!

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## 帅的一匹

Feel excited.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Both WS10b( interim solution) and WS15( target engine) are produced by Shenyang Liyang aviation engine limited company.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

wanglaokan said:


> Tonight CCTV4 "Discover China" program paid a visit to SAC Shenyang Liyang aviation engine limited company for covering stories of two top notch technicians , during which the CCTV4 proved the J20 is using domestic engine(WS10b as interim solution). And it also mention The successful development of WS15 Er Mei engine by Shenyang Liyang company . I now very much convinced that WS15 is flying with J20 now!! So many 爆料today!



I watched the same. Interesting piece of "news/info", very interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 帅的一匹

cirr said:


> I watched the same. Interesting piece of "news/info", very interesting.



The gratuitous claim of Chinese 5th gen fly with Russian engines shall call it an end today.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## kuge

wanglaokan said:


> The gratuitous claim of Chinese 5th gen fly with Russian engines shall call it an end today.


any link?


----------



## Asoka

CHINA CENTRAL TV CHANNEL 4 claims the J-20 engines are made and assembled in this Chinese Engine Factory -- Liming Company.

中央四套走遍中国节目证实歼20发动机由中航发黎明厂制造，就现在22点的央视四套正在播出！介绍黎明技术工人孙家沧的精密加工技术的专题报道，直接采访绝对的奉旨泄密。
这不是配图报道或者记者专家讨论节目，是直接采访黎明厂的官方节目，算是一种奉旨官泄了！我看了很多采访都直接在工厂军用航发车间进行没有官方许可能进去吗？没有官方的授权谁敢那么直接肯定的说出有关歼二十如此肯定直接的信息，就是告诉周边国家歼二十已经完全具备不受任何限制的批产能力了！

“歼20隐身战机发动机零部件的加工和最终装配都是在中国航发黎明公司工装制造厂进行的”

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## samsara

cirr said:


> I watched the same. Interesting piece of "news/info", very interesting.


Would you mind to provide the link of the said segment of CCTV? 

*HELLO @Asok * ... long time no see!
yet the moment the actual engine of J-20 is ever mentioned you just show up your trace immediately

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## nang2

Asok said:


> CHINA CENTRAL TV CHANNEL 4 claims the J-20 engines are made and assembled in this Chinese Engine Factory -- Liming Company.
> 
> 中央四套走遍中国节目证实歼20发动机由中航发黎明厂制造，就现在22点的央视四套正在播出！介绍黎明技术工人孙家沧的精密加工技术的专题报道，直接采访绝对的奉旨泄密。
> 这不是配图报道或者记者专家讨论节目，是直接采访黎明厂的官方节目，算是一种奉旨官泄了！我看了很多采访都直接在工厂军用航发车间进行没有官方许可能进去吗？没有官方的授权谁敢那么直接肯定的说出有关歼二十如此肯定直接的信息，就是告诉周边国家歼二十已经完全具备不受任何限制的批产能力了！
> 
> “歼20隐身战机发动机零部件的加工和最终装配都是在中国航发黎明公司工装制造厂进行的”
> 
> View attachment 399185
> 
> 
> View attachment 399186
> 
> 
> View attachment 399187
> 
> 
> View attachment 399188


Folks in Chinese military forums are all high now.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> Would you mind to provide the link of the said segment of CCTV?
> 
> *HELLO @Asok * ... long time no see!
> yet the moment the actual engine of J-20 is ever mentioned you just show up your trace immediately



I have been trying to unravel how UFO or Flying Saucers engines work in the past two months. But I am still paying attention to the J-20 engines. 



Asok said:


> I have been trying to unravel how UFO or Flying Saucers engines work, in the past two months. But I am still paying attention to the J-20 engines.



This program on CCTV is making a special presentation on the Liming Factory, with special regard to J-20's WS-15 engine. It is not reporting some passing rumors. CCTV's Censors has strict protocols on what is allowed to report, and what must be censored.

"专题报道，直接采访绝对的奉旨泄密。"

So, I believe more official disclosure regarding WS-15 will soon follows, perhaps a picture of the whole engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

nang2 said:


> Folks in Chinese military forums are all high now.


And soon the Wikipedia page and many Think Tank related media and articles by many Experts will have to change their narrations on the Chinese engine things... and more importantly some may even cry out aloud for more budget to cope with this Chinese engine things... I am eager to see the day it sees the light and subsequent narration by The Media

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

Great news guys some said video will be available soon








Asok said:


> I have been trying to unravel how UFO or Flying Saucers engines work in the past two months. But I am still paying attention to the J-20 engines.
> 
> 
> 
> This program on CCTV is making a special presentation on the Liming Factory, with special regard to J-20's WS-15 engine. It is not reporting some passing rumors. CCTV's Censors has strict protocols on what is allowed to report, and what must be censored.
> 
> "专题报道，直接采访绝对的奉旨泄密。"
> 
> So, I believe more official disclosure regarding WS-15 will soon follows, perhaps a picture of the whole engine.


"Asok redemption regarding J-20 engine" after all those dog days afternoon LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> Great news guys some said video will be available soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Asok redemption regarding J-20 engine" after all those dog days afternoon LOL



You mean "vindication" regarding the J-20 engines, right? Thanks for your support, as always.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Asok said:


> You mean "vindication" regarding the J-20 engines, right? Thanks for your support, as always.


I'm started to worried about deino's betting LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

grey boy 2 said:


> I'm started to worried about deino's betting LOL


, Yes, I would be very worry too, if I were Mr. Deino.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

典型的中国式奉旨官泄typical Chinese government way of disclosure

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

The CCTV program mentioned this technician 孙家沧 at Liming Factory.

I am not sure this is him, since I have not watched the show.





This article published in, 2015-07-28, it mentioned that he won a company skills competition three years in a row, and won a car as his prize.

This article was published in 2015-07-28. This date seems significant for some reason, because otherwise this article to praise Sun brothers, 孙家宇 孙家沧兄弟 would not have been published.

中航工业黎明孙家宇 孙家沧兄弟敬业故事
2015-07-28 11:22 中国航空报 李成忠　刘丹 我要评论0 字号：
核心提示： 皑皑白雪掩盖不了中航工业黎明文化宫里升腾的喜庆，这里正在进行公司职工职业技能运动会颁奖。

皑皑白雪掩盖不了中航工业黎明文化宫里升腾的喜庆，这里正在进行公司职工职业技能运动会颁奖。连续三届状元，孙家宇获得了一辆轿车的重奖。舞台上，孙家宇高举着轿车钥匙，眼含热泪，“爸，我们赢了！”身披绶带受奖的弟弟孙家沧同样泣不成声。

（一）

在儿时的记忆中，父亲工作在黎明，一个生产战斗机动力的大企业。父亲总是早出晚归，能陪伴兄弟俩的时间少之又少。兄弟俩经常看到父亲回来后，还要在一个红色的小本上记着什么。好奇心的驱使，一天兄弟俩趁父亲还没回来，就去找他藏在抽屉里的小红本，刚要打开，被难得正点下班的父亲撞见了。父亲一把夺过小红本，吓得弟弟大哭，父亲摸了摸兄弟俩的头，“你们还小，等长大了这个小红本会给你们的。”

（二）

毕业后，兄弟俩子承父业进到了黎明，哥哥是工装制造厂的钳工，在工装制造方面练就一手绝活，弟弟是机匣加工厂的维修电工，管着三个厂房的所有设备维修。他们继承了父亲的一双巧手，在各自的岗位上勤勉敬业，每当拿回荣誉证书，父亲都会乐呵呵地戴上老花镜，仔仔细细地看上半天。

（三）

一天，兄弟俩兴冲冲地报名参加了沈阳市的“千百万人才竞赛”，看着哥俩的兴奋劲儿，父亲鼓励他们积极备战。

话犹在耳，一场突如其来的大病，父亲住进了医院。兄弟俩私下商量着要放弃比赛，好好照顾病重的父亲。得知此事，躺在病床上的父亲，坚决不肯再让兄弟俩往医院跑，为这，他们在病房里争吵起来，父亲甚至放出狠话，“你们要是放弃比赛，就不是老孙家的儿子！”看到父亲如此坚决，兄弟俩只好调整心情，紧张备赛。可惜，全市第二名的荣誉也没能留住父亲的生命。父亲溘然长逝，兄弟俩悲痛欲绝，与父亲的那场争执，成为兄弟俩心中永久的痛。

（四）

父亲去世后，兄弟俩在整理父亲遗物的时候，终于再一次看到了那个红色的小本。打开小本，扉页上的一行字映入眼帘，“手艺即生命，工作即人生”。小红本里密密地记下了父亲40年来抛光工作的技巧和心得，还有兄弟俩工作中取得的点点滴滴成绩。看着这个已经翻旧了的小红本，兄弟俩的泪水夺眶而出。

此时此刻，他们终于明白，在父亲的生命字典里，“手艺”、“工作”的深刻内涵，他们更懂得了父亲对自己的冀望和期待。

（五）

兄弟俩暗自在心中飙上了劲儿，一定要用出色的业绩来告慰父亲。父亲去世后不久，在黎明两年一届的职工职业技能运动会上，兄弟俩全力出击，终于在激烈的比赛中脱颖而出，于是出现了开篇的动人一幕。然而，这仅仅是开始。

（六）

近两年，黎明军品任务陡增，兄弟俩承担的工作任务更加繁重了。然而，父亲的冀望和工作的责任成为兄弟俩的无穷动力。他们互相鼓励，又暗自较劲，一起在航空事业的道路上发力奔跑。

哪儿有难活往哪儿上，兄弟俩都有一股专啃硬骨头的傲劲儿。

叶片型面综合摇摆测具的修研是专属于哥哥孙家宇的难活儿，因为只能用锉刀和油石进行手工修研。而这次重点型号叶片测具的修研加工难度非常大，型面精度工差仅有头发丝的四分之一。为了尽快完成任务，孙家宇细心研究工装图纸，寻找着合适的修研方法。早已过了下班时间，弟弟孙家沧打来电话，“哥，下班了吗？”“没呢，正抢个急活，你呢？”“也在加班。”“家沧，注意点儿身体！”此时的孙家沧正在狭窄的设备间隙里穿行，“没事儿，我一会儿就回去。你也注意身体。”放下电话，兄弟俩谁也没有回家，孙家宇继续琢磨攻关方法，孙家沧则在研究重要数控设备电器的维修难题。已连续大干数日的孙家宇身体有些透支，深夜回到家里，刚躺下，灵感迸现，他急忙跑到阁楼的钳工操作台上继续尝试，这个操作台是他为练手艺，专门在自己新买的房子里安放的。经过一个通宵的努力，终于找到了测具的修研方法，第二天顺利完成了加工任务。而孙家沧大量查找资料，经过一宿的攻关也成功突破了负责重点型号加工任务的关重设备的维修关隘。

（七）

这天凌晨，天还黑着，下了一夜的雨终于渐小。孙家宇翻了个身，下巴紧紧贴着枕头，使劲儿往前拉伸。由于长期低头工作，孙家宇患上严重的颈椎病，每天半个小时的颈部拉伸，多少能缓解一点儿疼痛。女儿还在熟睡，已经十二岁了，却从来没有享受过一次爸爸上下学的接送。天微亮，孙家宇驱车赶往单位，这已经是连续四天只睡五个小时了，厂里的大干任务还等着他去攻克。

同一时刻，孙家沧正拖着疲惫的身躯往家赶，又是一宿没回家！这场大雨导致厂房主要供电线路受损，孙家沧下班后没敢离开单位，一直在现场值守，等到雨停已是清晨。妻子术后刚刚出院，还没有完全康复，不知道昨天的晚饭是怎么解决的。孙家沧匆忙赶回家中，推开门时，妻子正捧着泡面吃着，看到这一幕，孙家沧的眼泪止不住地淌了下来。

（八）

钻研技术，攻坚克难，兄弟俩在航空报国的道路上驰而不息、不倦奔跑，命运则给予了兄弟俩最温情的眷顾。哥哥被评为沈阳市“首席工人”时，弟弟成为沈阳市“技术标兵”；哥哥夺得辽宁省职工职业技能竞赛模具钳工第二名时，弟弟又在同一个赛事中夺得维修电工第二名；哥哥是中航工业发动机首席技能专家，弟弟则是中航工业集团首席技能专家；哥哥是沈阳市钳工技协秘书长，弟弟则是沈阳市维修电工技协会长。兄弟俩用自己的行动将父亲的冀望画圆。

（九）

2015年春节，兄弟俩像往年一样，全家聚在一起，共同陪老妈度过一个温馨的大年夜。吃年夜饭前，兄弟俩总要先给父亲上柱香，跟父亲说说自己的成绩。

热气腾腾的饺子上桌了，全家的欢笑声和饺子的香气，渐渐地弥漫开来……

（本文为一等奖作品）

版权声明：凡本网文章下标注有版权声明的均为本网站合法拥有版权或有权使用的作品，
未经本网授权不得使用，如需获取授权，请点击



wanglaokan said:


> 典型的中国式奉旨官泄typical Chinese government way of disclosure



That's right. I can't wait to watch this show.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

I will proud that the engine of the 5th gen fighter is produced by our self. When we finally have WS15 at hand, it means we successfully break the isolation USA imposed on us. China is a great nation, one of its kind.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

I like the way they are disclosing things, it's kind of low-key luxury and strength display.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Here is the link for the CCTV-4 Show






*《走遍中国》 20170525 4集系列片《匠心》（4）工匠之家*

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## grey boy 2

Asok said:


> Here is the link for the CCTV-4 Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *《走遍中国》 20170525 4集系列片《匠心》（4）工匠之家*


Nice one, thanks for sharing, "success through extremely hard work" has became a rare commodity in our generation, we need much more of such brother's inspiring stories

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Asoka

Some fools at Sina.com still think J-20 is using Russian engines, and they will be replaced by WS-15, in the future. You can not cure someone's stupidity.

"近日央视的节目走近中国航发集团沈阳黎明公司，再次爆料正在研制的国产第五代发动机涡扇15峨眉，这款发动机专门为歼20研制，未来将替代现有的俄制发动机。"

No matter what, those who believe J-20 is flying with Russian engines, will not change their minds.

"媒体怎样泄露，毛发党的坚定信念是不会变得"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> Some fools at Sina.com still think J-20 is using Russian engines, and they will be replaced by WS-15, in the future. You can not cure someone's stupidity.
> 
> "近日央视的节目走近中国航发集团沈阳黎明公司，再次爆料正在研制的国产第五代发动机涡扇15峨眉，这款发动机专门为歼20研制，未来将替代现有的俄制发动机。"
> 
> No matter what, those who believe J-20 is flying with Russian engines, will not change their minds.
> 
> "媒体怎样泄露，毛发党的坚定信念是不会变得"



I think J20 now is flying with WS10b, and I highly believe we will see WS15 flying with J20 next year! Rocking& roll !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Future there will only three nations produces turbo fan engine with Max thrust exceeding 16 tons! We are one of them!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Asok said:


> Some fools at Sina.com still think J-20 is using Russian engines, and they will be replaced by WS-15, in the future. You can not cure someone's stupidity.
> 
> "近日央视的节目走近中国航发集团沈阳黎明公司，再次爆料正在研制的国产第五代发动机涡扇15峨眉，这款发动机专门为歼20研制，未来将替代现有的俄制发动机。"
> 
> No matter what, those who believe J-20 is flying with Russian engines, will not change their minds.
> 
> "媒体怎样泄露，毛发党的坚定信念是不会变得"


Personally, i don't really care which domestic engines that J-20 is using, be it WS-10B or WS-15, as long as its home made ones, i'm all fine with it

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

我估计早期原型机用的是毛发。进入210x序列号后改用的WS10b. 现在LRIP阶段也是WS10b, 进入批产后第二批次该用WS15.


----------



## 帅的一匹

土共早已不是当年的吴下阿蒙了

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

我觉得涡扇15应该已经成熟了。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

kuge said:


> any link?



http://video.sina.com.cn/view/251250591.html

with English subtitles

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## yusheng

for the time being now, J20 use wp14,kunlun, the report says














http://tv.cctv.com/2017/05/26/VIDEFd5CBH1WPaqBd9dyTR4A170526.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

WP14 is for J7 and J8

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kuge

it the news were true it looks like the engine sector has caught up to plane sector.
next should be the other way around.


----------



## 帅的一匹

kuge said:


> it the news were true it looks like the engine sector has caught up to plane sector.
> next should be the other way around.



New generation engine fit for Sixth gen fighter must have been under development long time ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Han Patriot

Damn, China likes to do striptease shows, they give off a lil tiny peek and makes you yearn for more. This is crazy, the show already says the engine for J-20 is domestic.

Realise they said from 'WS-10 TO EMEI', they didn't dare to mention EMEI code WS-15.



yusheng said:


> for the time being now, J20 use wp14,kunlun, the report says
> View attachment 399288
> 
> 
> View attachment 399289
> View attachment 399290
> 
> 
> http://tv.cctv.com/2017/05/26/VIDEFd5CBH1WPaqBd9dyTR4A170526.shtml


LOL, they just show the lowest grade indigenous engine WP-14 to describe the technicians work but if you see the initial part, it was mentioned these guys are working on J-20 engines, WP stands for turbojet btw. They will never show WS-10A onwards engine in any television show, you can only see mock-ups, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

土共实在是小心谨慎

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

grey boy 2 said:


> Great news guys some said video will be available soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Asok redemption regarding J-20 engine" after all those dog days afternoon LOL


Where is deino? We need his expert explanantion on AL-31 engine in J-20.



Asok said:


> Some fools at Sina.com still think J-20 is using Russian engines, and they will be replaced by WS-15, in the future. You can not cure someone's stupidity.
> 
> "近日央视的节目走近中国航发集团沈阳黎明公司，再次爆料正在研制的国产第五代发动机涡扇15峨眉，这款发动机专门为歼20研制，未来将替代现有的俄制发动机。"
> 
> No matter what, those who believe J-20 is flying with Russian engines, will not change their minds.
> 
> "媒体怎样泄露，毛发党的坚定信念是不会变得"




I have long indicated of domestic engines used on J-20 in 2014 not becos I am nationalist or biased but based in simple facts like

-no Russian media indicating any cooperation in installing Russian engines for J-20 project unlike the J-10 project.

-PLAAF deputy chief indicate super cruise is a must for J-20 to be inducted for combat operation. PLA has display great professionalism in their announcement for any news and operation requirement( they never brag or make willful dateline and claim)

-high ranking CPC members like Yingzhuo mention about domestic engines used on J-20

But yet some foreigners has just too much ego to accept the fact Chinese 5th gen fighter used a domestic engine while make unsubstantial claim that appearance of just a few engine petal is the best proof of j-20 using Russian engines. Then they even claim they are aviation expert?

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Where is deino? We need his expert explanantion on AL-31 engine in J-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have long indicated of domestic engines used on J-20 in 2014 not becos I am nationalist or biased but based in simple facts like
> 
> -no Russian media indicating any cooperation in installing Russian engines for J-20 project unlike the J-10 project.
> 
> -PLAAF deputy chief indicate super cruise is a must for J-20 to be inducted for combat operation. PLA has display great professionalism in their announcement for any news and operation requirement( they never brag or make willful dateline and claim)
> 
> -high ranking CPC members like Yingzhuo mention about domestic engines used on J-20
> 
> But yet some foreigners has just too much ego to accept the fact Chinese 5th gen fighter used a domestic engine while make unsubstantial claim that appearance of just a few engine petal is the best proof of j-20 using Russian engines. Then they even claim they are aviation expert?



*"Where is deino? We need his expert explanantion on AL-31 engine in J-20."*

He is probably hiding, somewhere, in the black forest of Germany, until the smoke is clear, and people had moved on to something else.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## dy1022

Slapping on some foreigners' stupid face

We know that long time ago J20 with Ws-10/15

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> *"Where is deino? We need his expert explanantion on AL-31 engine in J-20."*
> 
> He is probably hiding, somewhere, in the black forest of Germany, until the smoke is clear, and people move on to something else.


You are correct. Typical foreigner who claim expert in Chinese military

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> Where is deino? We need his expert explanantion on AL-31 engine in J-20.
> Even
> 
> 
> 
> I have long indicated of domestic engines used on J-20 in 2014 not becos I am nationalist or biased but based in simple facts like
> 
> -no Russian media indicating any cooperation in installing Russian engines for J-20 project unlike the J-10 project.
> 
> -PLAAF deputy chief indicate super cruise is a must for J-20 to be inducted for combat operation. PLA has display great professionalism in their announcement for any news and operation requirement( they never brag or make willful dateline and claim)
> 
> -high ranking CPC members like Yingzhuo mention about domestic engines used on J-20
> 
> But yet some foreigners has just too much ego to accept the fact Chinese 5th gen fighter used a domestic engine while make unsubstantial claim that appearance of just a few engine petal is the best proof of j-20 using Russian engines. Then they even claim they are aviation expert?


The domestic engine means both WS10b( as interim solution) and the target engine WS15. I think WS15 engine now is testing on the J20, we will see mass production within few years. That's a great achievement in PRC history.



dy1022 said:


> Slapping on some foreigners' stupid face
> 
> We know that long time ago J20 with Ws-10/15


高育良书记说过：这个世界最难的是叫醒一个装睡的人。

没有一个老外希望中国好的。

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## dy1022

wanglaokan said:


> The domestic engine means both WS10b( as interim solution) and the target engine WS15. I think WS15 engine now is testing on the J20, we will see mass production within few years. That's a great achievement in PRC history.
> 
> 
> 高育良书记说过：这个世界最难的是叫醒一个装睡的人。
> 
> 没有一个老外希望中国好的。




Not 老外 but 洋屌丝 洋垃圾

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Let's roll out and hunt F22.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

I dare to even make a bold claim that the so called Lookalike AL-31F engines on J-15 maybe domestic made hydrid of WS-10B with high thrust power to ensure high payload when take off from ski jump bow onboard CV-16 Liaoning. 

Do not like appearance fool you into cloudy judgement. Like basic facts and common sense to guide you.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

dy1022 said:


> Slapping on some foreigners' stupid face
> 
> We know that long time ago J20 with Ws-10/15


No need to be so harsh.

Such foreign skepticism will serve good even great to China in helping to whip and shape the Dragon constantly to ever work harder steadily to achieve the top excellence in all fields, not only engine things.

OTOH praises may cause some complacency, which is not good at this stage, still lots of works to attain the cream of the crop! There is no one else to show off or to prove but only to own self!!

JIA YOU!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Han Patriot

Can you guys be less racist. Deino is a nice chap, everybody has the right to have his own opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## terranMarine

Lets just say Deino had serious doubts and it looks like time proved him wrong in the end. It was nice knowing you Deino   but seriously there's no need for him to disappear even though he lost the bet.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Beast

Han Patriot said:


> Can you guys be less racist. Deino is a nice chap, everybody has the right to have his own opinion.


He is not nice , don't be fool by him. When he loses his arguement by hard facts. He will ban you. His opinion of Chinese is very low although he try to act diplomatic. You are not here long enough to see his true face.

By the way, lets recall done article.

By influential global times with close tie to CPC.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1015727.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Han Patriot said:


> Can you guys be less racist. Deino is a nice chap, everybody has the right to have his own opinion.



Thanks guy and I am not hiding but in the forrest is correct. Here is simply no internet access.

Anyway can anyone put a summary together on what type of engine this locally manufactured engine is? As far as I see it no word mentions a WS-10X or even WS-15 by name.

So like I always said, a locally manufactured AL-31-based design is not off the table.

I am right now in Vienna and only back on Sunday evening.

And then you we can either discuss what engine it is, what consequences this has (also on my bet as promised), but only after Sunday.

All the best.
Deino


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> Thanks guy and I am not hiding but in the forrest is correct. Here is simply no internet access.
> 
> Anyway can anyone put a summary together on what type of engine this locally manufactured engine is? As far as I see it no word mentions a WS-10X or even WS-15 by name.
> 
> So like I always said, a locally manufactured AL-31-based design is not off the table.
> 
> I am right now in Vienna and only back on Sunday evening.
> 
> And then you we can either discuss what engine it is, what consequences this has (also on my bet as promised), but only after Sunday.
> 
> All the best.
> Deino


Deino, 

WS-10 is already based on CFM-56, AL-31 and indigenous improvements. There is no need to have a AL-31 based design, it is already indirectly based on knowledge gained from AL-31 and CFM-56.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> Thanks guy and I am not hiding but in the forrest is correct. Here is simply no internet access.
> 
> Anyway can anyone put a summary together on what type of engine this locally manufactured engine is? As far as I see it no word mentions a WS-10X or even WS-15 by name.
> 
> So like I always said, a locally manufactured AL-31-based design is not off the table.
> 
> I am right now in Vienna and only back on Sunday evening.
> 
> And then you we can either discuss what engine it is, what consequences this has (also on my bet as promised), but only after Sunday.
> 
> All the best.
> Deino


Russia won't TOT AL31 to China.



Han Patriot said:


> Deino,
> 
> WS-10 is already based on CFM-56, AL-31 and indigenous improvements. There is no need to have a AL-31 based design, it is already indirectly based on knowledge gained from AL-31 and CFM-56.


It's core based on CMF56 and some configuration of AL31. It's like a hybrid of USA/Russia/China design.

WS15 is a pure Chinese blood.

We all know China knows everything of AL31f engine except for its core, we have overhaul facility in China. We even can produce many parts in China(recycle the blades).

The core is the determined factor of the engine! The fatal design problem of WS10 is that its have higher bypass ratio than AL31F, which means lower acceleration. The problem will be totally addressed in WS15, which had new core and low bypass ratio than WS10.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Thanks guy and I am not hiding but in the forrest is correct. Here is simply no internet access.
> 
> Anyway can anyone put a summary together on what type of engine this locally manufactured engine is? As far as I see it no word mentions a WS-10X or even WS-15 by name.
> 
> So like I always said, a locally manufactured AL-31-based design is not off the table.
> 
> I am right now in Vienna and only back on Sunday evening.
> 
> And then you we can either discuss what engine it is, what consequences this has (also on my bet as promised), but only after Sunday.
> 
> All the best.
> Deino


That is not the core of our arguement. You and other slayer insist the engine on J-20 is imported Russian made AL-31FM 3 increases thrust engine and not domestic made engine. You claim China still need to depend on foreigner or Russian for core engine. For J-10B too. But fact is the engine on j-20 is not Russian made or whatever AL-31F series.

I can dare to bet with you even the engine on J-10B is not even Russian imported AL-31 FN series. But fully domestic made Chinese high thrust hybrid engines. AVIC chairman Lin zuoming , few years ago had already indicated domestic engines will install onboard J-10B series.

We have not heard of any import of engines from Salyut. The so called high thrust AL-31FN series engine is only heardsay and never materialize. Given the very poor state of Russian weapon manufacturers, I seriously doubt they can afford R&D to carry out upgrade for AL-31FN engines.

PLAAF will never inducted a J-10b into service without increase of thrust or limited supercruise. It can only be domestic uprated thrust engines. Don't be fooled by the appearance of a few flame and external engine petal.

Basic common sense tells you the number of reported Russian engines do not tally with number of Chinese made plane in service for J-10A and J-10B. Where do the short fall come from?

China aviation technology is as good as western counterparts. Have trust in Chinese and do not listen to foreigners words on Chinese technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Thanks guy and I am not hiding but in the forrest is correct. Here is simply no internet access.
> 
> Anyway can anyone put a summary together on what type of engine this locally manufactured engine is? As far as I see it no word mentions a WS-10X or even WS-15 by name.
> 
> So like I always said, a locally manufactured AL-31-based design is not off the table.
> 
> I am right now in Vienna and only back on Sunday evening.
> 
> And then you we can either discuss what engine it is, what consequences this has (also on my bet as promised), but only after Sunday.
> 
> All the best.
> Deino


Russian didn't give AL-31 F technology to China, as the @ChineseTiger1986 says that China uses indenginous hybrid engine for J-20, so why you can't accept that J-20 is using indenginous hybrid engine, oh I forget that your German ego can't accept it, when news will come from Chinese media that J-20 is equipped with WS-15, than you will still be saying that J-20 is still using AL-31FN

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> That is not the core of our arguement. You and other slayer insist the engine on J-20 is imported Russian made AL-31FM 3 increases thrust engine and not domestic made engine. You claim China still need to depend on foreigner or Russian for core engine. For J-10B too. But fact is the engine on j-20 is not Russian made or whatever AL-31F series.
> 
> I can dare to bet with you even the engine on J-10B is not even Russian imported AL-31 FN series. But fully domestic made Chinese high thrust hybrid engines. AVIC chairman Lin zuoming , few years ago had already indicated domestic engines will install onboard J-10B series.
> 
> We have not heard of any import of engines from Salyut. The so called high thrust AL-31FN series engine is only heardsay and never materialize. Given the very poor state of Russian weapon manufacturers, I seriously doubt they can afford R&D to carry out upgrade for AL-31FN engines.
> 
> PLAAF will never inducted a J-10b into service without increase of thrust or limited supercruise. It can only be domestic uprated thrust engines. Don't be fooled by the appearance of a few flame and external engine petal.
> 
> Basic common sense tells you the number of reported Russian engines do not tally with number of Chinese made plane in service for J-10A and J-10B. Where do the short fall come from?
> 
> China aviation technology is as good as western counterparts. Have trust in Chinese and do not listen to foreigners words on Chinese technology.


I have reservation on J10b's engine is domestic. But I 200% believe the engine power the LRIP J20 is WS10b, and WS15 is under test nearly reaching IOC.

General Ying Zhuo had said on CCTV last year that J20 is using domestic engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> Russian didn't give AL-31 F technology to China, as the @ChineseTiger1986 says that China uses indenginous hybrid engine for J-20, so why you can't accept that J-20 is using indenginous hybrid engine, oh I forget that your German ego can't accept it, when news will come from Chinese media that J-20 is equipped with WS-15, than you will still be saying that J-20 is still using AL-31FN


There shall be a clear line between discreet and stubborn.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

The documentary claim China from 3th gen engines to 5th gen engines... So where is the 4th gen?

I suspect the 4th gen engines(Hybrid of WS-10 and AL-31F tech combine) are now install onboard J-10b ,J-15 and J-20. Ermei 5th gen just certify and going to be install onboard J-20 to give it a more powerful supercruise.

China 4th gen engines shall be comparable to EJ-200 thrust to weight ratio.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> The documentary claim China from 3th gen engines to 5th gen engines... So where is the 4th gen?
> 
> I suspect the 4th gen engines(Hybrid of WS-10 and AL-31F tech combine) are now install onboard J-10b ,J-15 and J-20. Ermei 5th gen just certify and going to be install onboard J-20 to give it a more powerful supercruise.
> 
> China 4th gen engines shall be comparable to EJ-200 thrust to weight ratio.


5th gen engine means thrust to weight ratio more than 10. WS10b belongs to 4th gen, same as 117S and F119.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## kristisipe

wanglaokan said:


> The domestic engine means both WS10b( as interim solution) and the target engine WS15. I think WS15 engine now is testing on the J20, we will see mass production within few years. That's a great achievement in PRC history.
> 
> 
> 高育良书记说过：这个世界最难的是叫醒一个装睡的人。
> 
> 没有一个老外希望中国好的。


I totally agree with your statements.



Beast said:


> That is not the core of our arguement. You and other slayer insist the engine on J-20 is imported Russian made AL-31FM 3 increases thrust engine and not domestic made engine. You claim China still need to depend on foreigner or Russian for core engine. For J-10B too. But fact is the engine on j-20 is not Russian made or whatever AL-31F series.
> 
> I can dare to bet with you even the engine on J-10B is not even Russian imported AL-31 FN series. But fully domestic made Chinese high thrust hybrid engines. AVIC chairman Lin zuoming , few years ago had already indicated domestic engines will install onboard J-10B series.
> 
> We have not heard of any import of engines from Salyut. The so called high thrust AL-31FN series engine is only heardsay and never materialize. Given the very poor state of Russian weapon manufacturers, I seriously doubt they can afford R&D to carry out upgrade for AL-31FN engines.
> 
> PLAAF will never inducted a J-10b into service without increase of thrust or limited supercruise. It can only be domestic uprated thrust engines. Don't be fooled by the appearance of a few flame and external engine petal.
> 
> Basic common sense tells you the number of reported Russian engines do not tally with number of Chinese made plane in service for J-10A and J-10B. Where do the short fall come from?
> 
> China aviation technology is as good as western counterparts. Have trust in Chinese and do not listen to foreigners words on Chinese technology.


Yes, we absolutely ought to have total faith in our own people.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## maximuswarrior

grey boy 2 said:


> Great news guys some said video will be available soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Asok redemption regarding J-20 engine" after all those dog days afternoon LOL



Freakin' awesome news! This will make many sweat. The J-20 was already a beast, but this puts it in a whole different league.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

maximuswarrior said:


> Freakin' awesome news! This will make many sweat. The J-20 was already a beast, but this puts it in a whole different league.



J-20 has been flying with a prototype of the WS-15 engine, since DAY ONE, that's why its performance appears so super relative. It can literally fly circles around the F-22.

The risk taking has pay off, big time, with the on schedule of the induction of the operational J-20 into PLAAF between 2017-2019, as predicted by the PLAAF Commander back in 2009.

As compared to years of behind schedule and numerous problems of the F-35, and delay of the Russian T-50, the performance of the Chinese engineers in producing J-20, on schedule, is nothing short of astounding.

This engineering/industrial efficiency or power, demonstrated, is no less significant the the awe-inspiring performance of J-20.

And what is more significant is that this engineering/manufactory/industrial capacity has been demonstrated across the board in Supercomputer, High Speed Railroad, Aircraft Carrier, Automative, Cell Phone, Ship Building, , , etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> J-20 has been flying with a prototype of the WS-15 engine, since DAY ONE, that's why its performance appears so super relative. It can literally fly circles around the F-22.
> 
> The risk taking has pay off, big time, with the on schedule of the induction of the operational J-20 into PLAAF between 2017-2019, as predicted by the PLAAF Commander back in 2009.
> 
> As compared to years of behind schedule and numerous problems of the F-35, and delay of the Russian T-50, the performance of the Chinese engineers in producing J-20, on schedule, is nothing short of astounding.
> 
> This engineering/industrial efficiency or power, demonstrated, is no less significant the the awe-inspiring performance of J-20.
> 
> And what is more significant is that this engineering/manufactory/industrial capacity has been demonstrated across the board in Supercomputer, High Speed Railroad, Aircraft Carrier, Automative, Cell Phone, Ship Building, , , etc.



You really have little evidence that J-20 has been flying with a WS-15 prototype engine since day one. We dont even know for sure that it is using WS-15 even now.
All we know for sure is that it is currently using a Chinese engine - maybe WS-10B or some other WS-10X variant.

As for the F-35, the reason there have been so many delays is that the US did not need it that quickly as it was already operating the F-22 and they messed up by making a jack-of-all trades fighter - the F-35 will be destroyed by both J-20 and J-31. US will have to put another fighter on their carriers as an US carrier equipped with F-35s will have no chance against a Chinese carrier with J-31s.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

UKBengali said:


> You really have little evidence that J-20 has been flying with a WS-15 prototype engine since day one. We dont even know for sure that it is using WS-15 even now.
> All we know for sure is that it is currently using a Chinese engine - maybe WS-10B or some other WS-10X variant.
> 
> As for the F-35, the reason there have been so many delays is that the US did not need it that quickly as it was already operating the F-22 and they messed up by making a jack-of-all trades fighter - the F-35 will be destroyed by both J-20 and J-31. US will have to put another fighter on their carriers as an US carrier equipped with F-35s will have no chance against a Chinese carrier with J-31s.


Can J10 fit WS15 in the future if the customer ask for it? The length and the diameter maybe not the same. Can J10's fuselage sustain a supercruise March 1.4?

I think probably not. J10c/d with WS10b of max 14.5 tons thrust will be super cool already I think?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## UKBengali

wanglaokan said:


> Can J10 fit WS15 in the future if the customer ask for it? The length and the diameter maybe not the same. Can J10's fuselage can sustain a supercruise March 1.4?
> 
> I think probably not. J10c/d with WS10b of max 14.5 tons thrust will be super cool already I think?



Who knows.

But WS-10b on J-10 will be enough to fight
Rafale.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

I think J20 is flying with Al31F at day one, cause they can't risk the first debut with a new engine.

I don't care what it fly with at day 1, all I care is with which engine J20 will fly in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

wanglaokan said:


> I think J20 is flying with Al31F at day one, cause they can't risk the first debut with a new engine.
> 
> I don't care what it fly with at day 1, all I care is with which engine J20 will fly in the future.



Also it is important that J-20 is now flying with a Chinese engine. Current J-20 is fully Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> J-20 has been flying with a prototype of the WS-15 engine, since DAY ONE, that's why its performance appears so super relative. It can literally fly circles around the F-22.
> 
> The risk taking has pay off, big time, with the on schedule of the induction of the operational J-20 into PLAAF between 2017-2019, as predicted by the PLAAF Commander back in 2009.
> 
> As compared to years of behind schedule and numerous problems of the F-35, and delay of the Russian T-50, the performance of the Chinese engineers in producing J-20, on schedule, is nothing short of astounding.
> 
> This engineering/industrial efficiency or power, demonstrated, is no less significant the the awe-inspiring performance of J-20.
> 
> And what is more significant is that this engineering/manufactory/industrial capacity has been demonstrated across the board in Supercomputer, High Speed Railroad, Aircraft Carrier, Automative, Cell Phone, Ship Building, , , etc.


I don't agree with you on this, I think it was using AL-31 for reducing risk on the program for first 2-3 prototypes of J-20 than next 4-5 prototypes of J-20 is using WS-10B and LRIP versions are equipped with hybrid versions of WS-10B with a core of WS-15, just my too cent


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> I don't agree with you on this, I think it was using AL-31 for reducing risk on the program for first 2-3 prototypes of J-20 than next 4-5 prototypes of J-20 is using WS-10B and LRIP versions are equipped with hybrid versions of WS-10B with a core of WS-15, just my too cent



If WS10 uses WS15's core, it won't be named as WS10b. Actually WS10b is a reduced life span IEP version of WS10 to power J20, just serve as a stopgap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

I don't like to be less confident, and don't wanna push it too hard either. As WS15 is coming, I see no reason to discuss the previous things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Han Patriot

Well, who would've known that China would discreetly reveal that J-20 is powered by a Chinese engine. We had bore the humiliation of using Russian engines for far too long and now WS-15 is 'ready'.

Let's just wait for that WS-15 announcement and see some wetted dhottis

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

Han Patriot said:


> Well, who would've known that China would discreetly reveal that J-20 is powered by a Chinese engine. We had bore the humiliation of using Russian engines for far too long and now WS-15 is 'ready'.
> 
> Let's just wait for that WS-15 announcement and see some wetted dhottis


Its the mass that has poison by China slayer of using Russian engines for too long. There are already too many signs of J-20 and many domestic Chinese warplanes using domestic engines. But many are too blind to see it even some Chinese themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## UKBengali

F-22Raptor said:


> In the latest Red Flag, the F-35 achieved 145 air-air kills to only 7 losses. They also destroyed 49 advanced SAMS (S-300's, S-400's, Buks etc) while operating in a IADS. The F-35's faced dozens of advanced 4th gen aircraft that were employing electronic countermeasures. These aircraft were actually respawning after being killed. An this was happening while the F-35 was operating only with the block 3i software, and not its full block 3f software capability.
> 
> In other words, the F-35 is dominating its competition. Red Flag is arguably the most realistic exercise in air combat, just short of actual war. The F-35 has even deployed to East Asia and Europe already, and will deploy on its first amphib assault vessel at the end of the year. An what have the J-20 and J-31 proven?
> 
> So the F-35 will be destroyed and have no chance? Thanks for the laugh.



Ok, any real F-22 versus F-35 exercises out there?
Not fake ones designed to sell this piece of crap overseas.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## UKBengali

F-22Raptor said:


> This Red Flag was designed to simulate the most realistic threat environment the F-35 would face today against its near peer competitors. China and Russia are nowhere near ready to deploy 5th gen fighters against the US in any significant way. What the F-35 faced, significant numbers of advanced 4th gen fighters along with advanced IADS's, is exactly the threat the F-35 would fight today. An the F-35 overwhelmingly succeeded.
> 
> Given the F-35's sensor fusion, networking, and advanced electronic attack/cyber capabilities, it is well positioned to fight and win against any potential foe.



How good is it against F-22 is the question?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

UKBengali said:


> How good is it against F-22 is the question?


J20 is designed to hunt F22.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> J20 is designed to hunt F22.


Not only F-22 but F-35 also

Reactions: Like Like:
 5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> The documentary claim China from 3th gen engines to 5th gen engines... So where is the 4th gen?
> 
> I suspect the 4th gen engines(Hybrid of WS-10 and AL-31F tech combine) are now install onboard J-10b ,J-15 and J-20. Ermei 5th gen just certify and going to be install onboard J-20 to give it a more powerful supercruise.
> 
> China 4th gen engines shall be comparable to EJ-200 thrust to weight ratio.


4th gen is WS10b

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> Thanks guy and I am not hiding but in the forrest is correct. Here is simply no internet access.
> 
> Anyway can anyone put a summary together on what type of engine this locally manufactured engine is? As far as I see it no word mentions a WS-10X or even WS-15 by name.
> 
> So like I always said, a locally manufactured AL-31-based design is not off the table.
> 
> I am right now in Vienna and only back on Sunday evening.
> 
> And then you we can either discuss what engine it is, what consequences this has (also on my bet as promised), but only after Sunday.
> 
> All the best.
> Deino



Can we all stop this nonsense talk about J-20's engine.

First, Deino, no, China dont have Al-31 production line, liscensed or not.

And I checked the CCTV video, to be fair, the video has not claimed that the engines currently used by J-20 are WS-10(highly unlikely)/WS-15(which is impossible), they merely mentioned Liming factory, an AVIC factory, build components for J-20's engine.

China will use WS-10 for J-20 initial production version, and replace them with WS-15 in later block, but during the flight test stage, there is no doubt that J-20 used a slightly modified Russian engine, which is modified with zig-zag/metal-ceramic nozzle for LO considerations, and I believe thats the component Liming factory produced for J-20's russian engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

52051 said:


> Can we all stop this nonsense talk about J-20's engine.
> 
> First, Deino, no, China dont have Al-31 production line, liscensed or not.
> 
> And I checked the CCTV video, to be fair, the video has not claimed that the engines currently used by J-20 are WS-10(highly unlikely)/WS-15(which is impossible), they merely mentioned Liming factory, an AVIC factory, build components for J-20's engine.
> 
> China will use WS-10 for J-20 initial production version, and replace them with WS-15 in later block, but during the flight test stage, there is no doubt that J-20 used a slightly modified Russian engine, which is modified with zig-zag/metal-ceramic nozzle for LO considerations, and I believe thats the component Liming factory produced for J-20's russian engine.


If you claimed that way, that is no more Russian engine but domestic made. And you can clearly see from the documentary they talk about fan blade which is the most critical and most difficult to make due to the extreme high temp it needs to work with. If China is able to produce the most critical part for the hybrid WS-10/AL_31 core interim engine for current J-20. What prevent them from making all other less critical part of the engine?

My theory for J-20 and J-10b current engine is ,it is a design of WS-10 and AL-31F engine mixed together called WS-10x which can pushed its thrust level comparable to 117s and F119 engines while still having decent engine lifespan. It is 100percent made in China engine with all parts produced by China. Due to illegal borrow of some AL-31F design, this engine is secretive and not much is reveal. It may appear to look like AL-31F with inner parts of exhaust and end petal looks almost similar but in fact is not any of the so called AL-31F engine. The sales of CHina report of imported AL-31F engines are far too little to support the growing number of J-15, J-10b and J-20.

J20blackdragon has previously do a very good assessment of J-10B current engine used compare to standard AL-31F engines. The details are small but what warrant such changes for a sensitive and complicated component like aero engines which require 0percent fault to work properly? The only answer is it is not the Russian imported AL-31F engine we suppose to believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> Can we all stop this nonsense talk about J-20's engine..




To admit I need to contradict. Even if I fully understand that some don't like my questions since they are fully happy with the plain report or information that the "J-20 uses a locally manufactured engine" or maybe fear the facts. But as long as we don't know its true designation nor any specific data, I see this discussion in no way as "nonsense talk" nor a finally closed case. Hope You don't mind too much.




> First, Deino, no, China dont have Al-31 production line, liscensed or not..



Thanks for that info, however it partially IMO contradicts to other reports that at least say there is a maintenance facility available with certain parts being manufactured for the overhaul-process in China. So, even if not a true licence production line, certain parts can be made in China. r am I wrong? 




> And I checked the CCTV video, to be fair, the video has not claimed that the engines currently used by J-20 are WS-10(highly unlikely)/WS-15(which is impossible), they merely mentioned Liming factory, an AVIC factory, build components for J-20's engine..



Thanks a lot for this and I hope others - esp. those who wish me being banned from this forum - agree with that. In essence: No single word mentions the specific engine type used on the J-20, no single word mentions WS-10B or even WS-15 ?? All this report says quite mysteriously, the "J-20 uses a locally manufactured engine" and it merely mentioned Liming factory.




> China will use WS-10 for J-20 initial production version, and replace them with WS-15 in later block, but during the flight test stage, there is no doubt that J-20 used a slightly modified Russian engine, which is modified with zig-zag/metal-ceramic nozzle for LO considerations, and I believe thats the component Liming factory produced for J-20's russian engine.



That's an interesting theory, that at least in my understanding is more or less (without that WS-10-part) exactly what I proposed and bet: there is no doubt that J-20 used a slightly modified Russian engine (aka an AL-31FN-based design, most likely uprated and modified), which is modified with zig-zag/metal-ceramic nozzle for LO considerations, and I believe thats the component Liming factory produced for J-20's russian engine, which in fact is a Chinese financed, budgeted and finally manufactured highly modified engine based on the AL-31FN-X (IMO M2). I have to admit, that I still have strong reservations on a Frankerstein or hybrid engine based on WS-10 + AL-31FN, but I could accept that this special engine uses WS-10-based technologies. A WS-10B IMO is also not possible, since the WS-10B as shown at Zhuhai is completely different to the J-20's current engine.
And even more I still cannot accept - and here I'm glad the report does not say a single word - are these claims of +210 kN WS-15-pre-production models from day one. These are plain stupid.

So ... let's wait for more information what this "locally manufactured engine" really is.

Deino


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## 帅的一匹

It looks more and more kicking ***.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> What the prove that J-20 is using AL-31FN, just in your eye catching fcuk, which might be wrong, its clearly said Chinese media that J-20 using indenginous engine, no more your crap AL-31FN, I will sure this from you that in future when J-20 equipped with WS-15 you will still insisted that J-20 using AL-31FN, fcuk you are reported for your baseless troll




I think You don't get it; maybe since reading comprehension is not Your issue or understanding, maybe simply You are too much nationalistic blinded and not willing ... or both.

Anyway: YES I said the AL-31FN *was* the engine for the J-20 in the prototypes but I also always said and I'm still sure that in the current LRIP-birds it is a modernised, uprated - and maybe even indigenous, china-manufactured - version of this engine IMO based on the M2. I cannot prove it but any of Your fan-boy friend can even less prove these WS-15 = 21 or even 24t monster, they don't even care about a designation. All they need is the report in CCTV - that by the way has been deleted already - it is China made. Hey, a BMW or Mercedes "build" in the USA is surely an indigenous USA-made engine. 

Anyway, You report my post only since You don't like it and even more since You cannot prove Your claims while in the same way You insult me ! What a joke.

So let a moderator decide, who's the troll.

Have a nice day.
Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> I think You don't get it; maybe since reading comprehension is not Your issue or understanding, maybe simply You are too much nationalistic blinded and not willing ... or both.
> 
> Anyway: YES I said the AL-31FN *was* the engine for the J-20 in the prototypes but I also always said and I'm still sure that in the current LRIP-birds it is a modernised, uprated - and maybe even indigenous, china-manufactured - version of this engine IMO based on the M2. I cannot prove it but any of Your fan-boy friend can even less prove these WS-15 = 21 or even 24t monster, they don't even care about a designation. All they need is the report in CCTV - that by the way has been deleted already - it is China made. Hey, a BMW or Mercedes "build" in the USA is surely an indigenous USA-made engine.
> 
> Anyway, You report my post only since You don't like it and even more since You cannot prove Your claims while in the same way You insult me ! What a joke.
> 
> So let a moderator decide, who's the troll.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> Deino


what is the prove this indigenous engine based on M2 if they build any engine based on M2 they didn't called it* reverse engineering* not *indigenous engine* but you are always ranting agaisnt Chinese engine technology you always troll aginst chinese engine, oh i forget it your source is better than all those senior Chinese members like @cirr, @Beast, @ChineseTiger1986, and others *what is the prove that this indigenous engine is based on M2?*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

I already explained my reasons and my theory so often but since in Your universe there is only BLACK (= Deino's theory, since he proposes something I don't like even if I don't even want to read his explanations) or WHITE (= ooohhh, aaahhh, YES, even if there is a TV-report that only says "locally build" and mentions no name or designation, but it must be a 24t mega-monster-hyper engine) and there's no option in between, I will no longer discuss with You.

But I give Your a promise: Any further personnel rant and insult, any further post without an argument and any additional reporting onyl since You have no argument will lead to consequences.

End of the debate.

Deino



Beast said:


> He is not nice , don't be fool by him. When he loses his arguement by hard facts. He will ban you. His opinion of Chinese is very low although he try to act diplomatic. You are not here long enough to see his true face.
> 
> By the way, lets recall done article.
> 
> By influential global times with close tie to CPC.
> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1015727.shtml



You are so much funny and a prime example for these fan-boys: All You guys read is "uses a Chinese engine" and so You conclude it *MUST *be the WS-15. This engine *MUST *be a mega-super-hyper engine since some other obscure posters claim it to deliver 24t of thrust and Deino is stupid, so he *MUST *leave.

Did You even bother to read that crappy report You posted as a "source"??? 
Let me help You by marking the important pars in *RED*:



> *A J-20 stealth fighter of China's Bayi Aerobatic Team* *(1)* performs at the 11th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province, Nov. 1, 2016. China's domestic-built J-20 stealth fighter made its public debut during the exhibition on Tuesday. Photo: Cui Meng/GT
> 
> "The J-20 is a locally made fifth-generation stealth fighter jet which *uses a Chinese engine*, *(2)*" military expert Yin Zhuo confirmed in a telephone conversation with CCTV on Nov 1.
> 
> "*The WS-15 turbofan engine is now under development*, *(3)* which will improve the performance of the J-20 after becoming operational," Yin said.



*1.* Even a blind one knows, that the PLAAF's aerobatic team flies J-10AY and SY and that these two J-20s are definitely NOT from the Ba Yi.

*2. *Even more this report only says "Chinese engine" ... nothing more 

3. And finally it even mentions by the this WS-15-engine and clearly says "WILL



In consequence and by all logic: this reports contains a major error (IMO questioning its reliability as a whole report), it gives no confirmation on that certain type of engine and even more it clearly say the WS-15 is in development. 

So what !?? Bashing Deino again since he raises critical questions that do not fit in a fan-boy's universe or can we come back to a rational discussion.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Let's review what Mr. Deino has said to us, earlier:

*"1. J-20 #78275, and all previous versions, is still flying the bonafide Russian made, AL-31FN engine:*

YES; so far all five LRIP J-20As and the prototypes 2011-2017 are using IMO a dedicated, custom-made - maybe co-developed and co-manufactured - uprated, specialised or whatever version of the AL-31FN-family. IMO - even if here I admit it is only a unproven theory - it is most likely a variant based on the AL-31FM2."


Now he is saying:

"Anyway: YES I said the AL-31FN *was* the engine for the J-20 in the prototypes but I also always said and I'm still sure that in the current LRIP-birds it is a modernised, uprated - and maybe even indigenous, china-manufactured - version of this engine IMO based on the M2."

Before, he was saying the J-20 engines was an engine "co-developed and co-manufacture" with Russia, now CCTV-4 program, he is saying it is "china-manufactured" based on the AL-31FM2.

Russia announced AL-31FM2, in 2012, a full year, *after* J-20 was flown in 2011. 

There was never any news or announcement that Russia is "co-developed and co-manufacture" any engine with China. And Mr. Deino has supplied no proof to this effect either. He was purely speculating groundlessly.

How did J-20 flown with a Russian engine in 2011, that is not even announced till 2012, much less, designed, developed, and tested?

Mr. Deino has said he will resign as Moderator, if it is officially confirmed that he was wrong.

Now, I granted that it is not explicitly confirmed that J-20 is flying with WS-15, but it is clear as daylight, that J-20 is not flying with an Russian engine, definitely not a AL-31FM2 (it did not even existed yet in 2011), as Mr. Deino has consistently claimed.

It's time for Mr. Deino to honor his promise, and resign as Moderator.

It's time for Mr. Deino to go.

Bye, Farewell, Audios, Mr. Deino. 

We will miss you dearly.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> 
> Mr. Deino has said he will resign as Moderator, if it is officially confirmed that J-20 is flying with a Chinese engine.
> 
> ...




Simply not. Again, reading comprehension is not Your topic; isn't it ??

I said I will resign - and if You try to be objective by researching when this bet was first mentioned in any post (aka on 15. September 2015 (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinese-aero-engine-information-thread.300409/page-11#post-7649950), when I said I would bet my membership if it uses a "version of the WS-10 Taihang".

This bet was again raised on 1. December (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-330#post-7946853) when I added "that it is a special customised version of the AL-31FN."

In September 2016 I even especially mentioned (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-399#post-8728524) that "the J-20 will enter with domestic engines is not a question, that's IMO a fact ... but only a matter of time until the WS-15 will be ready."

To be precicely, my bet was: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-399#post-8728524



> As such if You agree on our bet in the following terms:
> 
> I will resign completely from this forum even as a member and moderator if it is confirmed that the current prototypes and especially LRIP aircraft are using a WS-10-derivate. And You will resign here if it is confirmed an AL-31F or FN derivate.




So I beg You to be fair and as long as any report only says "an engine build in China" there's nothing decided.

By the way, none of You fan-boys ever wanted to join and bet to resign if it is not a WS-15 from day-one, if it is not that hyper-mega-monster 24t-engine ! So who is coward ?

Remember this post just "recently" in March 2017?:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-534#post-9293753

Deino


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino,

Russia wouldn't sell AL-31 in parts, the documentary clearly states the core components and full assembly for J-20 engines were done in Liming. Then it went on to say there are 10 000+ components for an aircraft engine and it is complex. This is not just a case of a special engine nozzle attached to AL-31. Then it started showing the manufacturing machines which are clearly for full engine fabrication. Then it went to WP-14 Kunlun to mellow down and camouflage the report. This is so obvious a sneak peek strip tease revelation, very typical of Chinese official media, they want to tell you something but they are not authorized to tell you the full story. I don't know how to explain this to you, but if you are Chinese, listening to those wording and context, it is very obvious they are telling you the goddamn engine is Chinese.

OK can we redefine the bet,

What if this engine is not AL-31 and also not WS-15, but an intermediate domestic engine, WS-XX? Will you still resign?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Simply not. Again, reading comprehension is not Your topic; isn't it ??
> 
> I said I will resign - and if You try to be objective by researching when this bet was first mentioned in any post (aka on 15. September 2015 (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinese-aero-engine-information-thread.300409/page-11#post-7649950), when I said I would bet my membership if it uses a "version of the WS-10 Taihang".
> 
> This bet was again raised on 1. December (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-330#post-7946853) when I added "that it is a special customised version of the AL-31FN."
> 
> In September 2016 I even especially mentioned (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-399#post-8728524) that "the J-20 will enter with domestic engines is not a question, that's IMO a fact ... but only a matter of time until the WS-15 will be ready."
> 
> To be precicely, my bet was: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-399#post-8728524
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I beg You to be fair and as long as any report only says "an engine build in China" there's nothing decided.
> 
> By the way, none of You fan-boys ever wanted to join and bet to resign if it is not a WS-15 from day-one, if it is not that hyper-mega-monster 24t-engine ! So who is coward ?
> 
> Remember this post just "recently" in March 2017?:
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-534#post-9293753
> 
> Deino


Can you prove that this indenginous engine is version of AL-31M2? And why China can't install domestic engine on J-20? You have no logic I an sorry to says sir



Han Patriot said:


> Deino,
> 
> Russia wouldn't sell AL-31 in parts, the documentary clearly states the core components and full assembly for J-20 engines were done in Liming. Then it went on to say there are 10 000+ components for an aircraft engine and it is complex. This is not just a case of a special engine nozzle attached to AL-31. Then it started showing the manufacturing machines which are clearly for full engine fabrication. Then it went to WP-14 Kunlun to mellow down and camouflage the report. This is so obvious a sneak peek strip tease revelation, very typical of Chinese official media, they want to tell you something but they are not authorized to tell you the full story. I don't know how to explain this to you, but if you are Chinese, listening to those wording and context, it is very obvious they are telling you the goddamn engine is Chinese.
> 
> OK can we redefine the bet,
> 
> What if this engine is not AL-31 and also not WS-15, but an intermediate domestic engine, WS-XX? Will you still resign?


He don't understand you bro, he wearing a blindfold on his eyes

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> Can you prove that this indenginous engine is version of AL-31M2? And why China can't install domestic engine on J-20? You have no logic I an sorry to says sir



Again, I cannot prove it with a written confirmation by either CAC, the PLAAF or Salut, but here no-one can prove this mystery WS-15 theory, no-one has a prove for a hybrid engine and even more no-one can prove this ridiculous claim of delivering 24t of thrust. So in essence as long as the parties involved and the details revealed no-one of these concurring parties can prove anything.

But in contrast to Your theory which is technically unlikely, impossible or has at least no precedent, my theory if correct has certain arguments that bake them: there is and was a close cooperation between CAC and Salut, it fits technically and is more likely and feasible than any other theory and it fits externally too.

I know You don't like it but so far You always avoided answering any question, why You think this obscure report of 24t is correct, why a TV-report that only mentions "manufactured in CHina" and nothing more has to be the WS-15?

I agree and I'm fully aware - thanks to @Han Patriot - that there is much more reading and telling between the lines and the way of making something public is totally different to the West, but that does not mean automatically that everything "not said" is a prove for the wildest speculation.

Anyway, let us return to the J-20 and its powerplant until true facts are presented, since all we got during the last days is a more than vague confirmation of "being build in China"; nothing more.

Deino


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> Again, I cannot prove it with a written confirmation by either CAC, the PLAAF or Salut, but here no-one can prove this mystery WS-15 theory, no-one has a prove for a hybrid engine and even more no-one can prove this ridiculous claim of delivering 24t of thrust. So in essence as long as the parties involved and the details revealed no-one of these concurring parties can prove anything.
> 
> But in contrast to Your theory which is technically unlikely, impossible or has at least no precedent, my theory if correct has certain arguments that bake them: there is and was a close cooperation between CAC and Salut, it fits technically and is more likely and feasible than any other theory and it fits externally too.
> 
> I know You don't like it but so far You always avoided answering any question, why You think this obscure report of 24t is correct, why a TV-report that only mentions "manufactured in CHina" and nothing more has to be the WS-15?
> 
> I agree and I'm fully aware - thanks to @Han Patriot - that there is much more reading and telling between the lines and the way of making something public is totally different to the West, but that does not mean automatically that everything "not said" is a prove for the wildest speculation.
> 
> Anyway, let us return to the J-20 and its powerplant until true facts are presented, since all we got during the last days is a more than vague confirmation of "being build in China"; nothing more.
> 
> Deino


At least you shall admit WS10b fit on J20 now, how difficult is that?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Again, I cannot prove it with a written confirmation by either CAC, the PLAAF or Salut, but here no-one can prove this mystery WS-15 theory, no-one has a prove for a hybrid engine and even more no-one can prove this ridiculous claim of delivering 24t of thrust. So in essence as long as the parties involved and the details revealed no-one of these concurring parties can prove anything.
> 
> But in contrast to Your theory which is technically unlikely, impossible or has at least no precedent, my theory if correct has certain arguments that bake them: there is and was a close cooperation between CAC and Salut, it fits technically and is more likely and feasible than any other theory and it fits externally too.
> 
> I know You don't like it but so far You always avoided answering any question, why You think this obscure report of 24t is correct, why a TV-report that only mentions "manufactured in CHina" and nothing more has to be the WS-15?
> 
> I agree and I'm fully aware - thanks to @Han Patriot - that there is much more reading and telling between the lines and the way of making something public is totally different to the West, but that does not mean automatically that everything "not said" is a prove for the wildest speculation.
> 
> Anyway, let us return to the J-20 and its powerplant until true facts are presented, since all we got during the last days is a more than vague confirmation of "being build in China"; nothing more.
> 
> Deino


If they Install upgraded and homemade version of AL-31MA they didn't called it indenginous engine but reverse engineered engine, there are 500+ mature WS-10 in J-11 and J-10 series, give me the reason that China can't install WS-10 version on J-20 let me explain an example to,, you if Germany started a strategic project like J-20 project of China but without engine technology than you choose foreign engine to reduce a risk initially like French or British engine than works on new and interim engine is already begun, there is a one example of your part of the world sir its a RAFALE project Sir which uses F-404, then initial M-88 and than matured M-88

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> Again, I cannot prove it with a written confirmation by either CAC, the PLAAF or Salut, but here no-one can prove this mystery WS-15 theory, no-one has a prove for a hybrid engine and even more no-one can prove this ridiculous claim of delivering 24t of thrust. So in essence as long as the parties involved and the details revealed no-one of these concurring parties can prove anything.
> 
> But in contrast to Your theory which is technically unlikely, impossible or has at least no precedent, my theory if correct has certain arguments that bake them: there is and was a close cooperation between CAC and Salut, it fits technically and is more likely and feasible than any other theory and it fits externally too.
> 
> I know You don't like it but so far You always avoided answering any question, why You think this obscure report of 24t is correct, why a TV-report that only mentions "manufactured in CHina" and nothing more has to be the WS-15?
> 
> I agree and I'm fully aware - thanks to @Han Patriot - that there is much more reading and telling between the lines and the way of making something public is totally different to the West, but that does not mean automatically that everything "not said" is a prove for the wildest speculation.
> 
> Anyway, let us return to the J-20 and its powerplant until true facts are presented, since all we got during the last days is a more than vague confirmation of "being build in China"; nothing more.
> 
> Deino


 
See 0:12





Newly revealed footage of thrust vectored engine. Can someone print screen that image and post it here. I don't know how to do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## samsara

Han Patriot said:


> See 0:12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newly revealed footage of thrust vectored engine. Can someone print screen that image and post it here. I don't know how to do it.


On your service call, Sir! For text, please add as deemed necessary, I ain't versed on that

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Han Patriot

samsara said:


> On your service call, Sir!


No print screen 0:12 to 0:17...it shows the thrust vectored petals. One of the engine flaps is pointing upwards

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Han Patriot said:


> No print screen 0:12 to 0:17...it shows the thrust vectored petals. One of the engine flaps is pointing upwards



Screenshots between 00:00:12 ~ 00:00:17

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Han Patriot

samsara said:


> Screenshots between 00:00:12 ~ 00:00:17


Nice. Deino, what say you? It's pretty obvious the flaps are vectored..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kuge

samsara said:


> Screenshots between 00:00:12 ~ 00:00:17


guys that's simply a model.
also the video is a fan boys' art. Take it with a tea spoon of salt...


----------



## Beast

kuge said:


> guys that's simply a model.
> also the video is a fan boys' art. Take it with a tea spoon of salt...


Its PLAAF model build for an exhibit. Not a fan art model.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> At least you shall admit WS10b fit on J20 now, how difficult is that?




It is not difficult and indeed the WS-10B "shall" fit, but from all info and details I know it is not a WS-10-derivate. At least the WS-10B shown at the most recent Zhuhai AirShow was very much different (esp. the nozzle). So let me ask in return: is it so difficult to admit, that the J-20's nozzle is very much different to this alleged WS-10B !








also via http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...ina-air-show-shows-latest-fighter-jet-engines



Beast said:


> Its PLAAF model build for an exhibit. Not a fan art model.




Any proof for that ?? It is so lousily build. I cannot believe that the PLAAF would show such a model. Even more even if it is a true model, the current pedals on any demonstrator, prototype and LRIP J-20 is completely different. So even if such a nozzle exists and was already tested, it is by far not operational yet.

Deino


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> It is not difficult and indeed the WS-10B "shall" fit, but from all info and details I know it is not a WS-10-derivate. At least the WS-10B shown at the most recent Zhuhai AirShow was very much different (esp. the nozzle). So let me ask in return: is it so difficult to admit, that the J-20's nozzle is very much different to this alleged WS-10B !
> 
> View attachment 399929
> View attachment 399930
> 
> also via http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...ina-air-show-shows-latest-fighter-jet-engines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any proof for that ?? It is so lousily build. I cannot believe that the PLAAF would show such a model. Even more even if it is a true model, the current pedals on any demonstrator, prototype and LRIP J-20 is completely different. So even if such a nozzle exists and was already tested, it is by far not operational yet.
> 
> Deino


Maybe it's WS15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Simply not. Again, reading comprehension is not Your topic; isn't it ??
> 
> I said I will resign - and if You try to be objective by researching when this bet was first mentioned in any post (aka on 15. September 2015 (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinese-aero-engine-information-thread.300409/page-11#post-7649950), when I said I would bet my membership if it uses a "version of the WS-10 Taihang".
> 
> This bet was again raised on 1. December (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-330#post-7946853) when I added "that it is a special customised version of the AL-31FN."
> 
> In September 2016 I even especially mentioned (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-399#post-8728524) that "the J-20 will enter with domestic engines is not a question, that's IMO a fact ... but only a matter of time until the WS-15 will be ready."
> 
> To be precicely, my bet was: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-399#post-8728524
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I beg You to be fair and as long as any report only says "an engine build in China" there's nothing decided.
> 
> By the way, none of You fan-boys ever wanted to join and bet to resign if it is not a WS-15 from day-one, if it is not that hyper-mega-monster 24t-engine ! So who is coward ?
> 
> Remember this post just "recently" in March 2017?:
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-534#post-9293753
> 
> Deino



Every time I read this post, I receive a deeper understanding of the following quote,

„Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, aber bei dem Universum bin ich mir noch nicht ganz sicher.“

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> Every time I read this post, I receive a deeper understanding of the following quote,
> 
> „Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, aber bei dem Universum bin ich mir noch nicht ganz sicher.“




Good one ! ... and honestly since I truly respect You as an authority in Chinese military matters. Maybe You could explain - aka help to loose my stupidity !? - the issues I mention, the questions or the concerns I raise. Or do You think it's plain stupid to dare a bet of this kind with fan-boys? 

Deino


----------



## 星海军事

In 5, or maybe 6 years, you will see J-20 flying with real FWS-15. All doubts will cease to exist. Wait and see.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> In 5, or maybe 6 years, you will see J-20 flying with real FWS-15. All doubts will cease to exist. Wait and see.




Thanks a lot even if I know my impatience will kill me until then. Anyway I was never questioning this FACT.

But can You explain or even name the current type of engine or at least on what type it is based, since it would probably settle this issue for a longer time; at least from my side.

Since all I deny is that the WS-15 is ready since day one, that it can deliver about 24t of thrust and so on.

In consequence, claims like these are IMO the best proof for the following quote made by Albert Einstein for those who don't know:

„Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, aber bei dem Universum bin ich mir noch nicht ganz sicher.“


----------



## Beast

星海军事 said:


> In 5, or maybe 6 years, you will see J-20 flying with real FWS-15. All doubts will cease to exist. Wait and see.


Really? If J-20 flies with WS-15 in end of this year or next year. What are you going to do? I think you better stop posting here. None of your prediction is true and your mission here only misleading others.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Really? If J-20 flies with WS-15 in end of this year or next year. What are you going to do? I think you better stop posting here. None of your prediction is true and your mission here only misleading others.




 ... says the big prophet with a reliability rate of about 0.000134 % 

Just to remind: How many of Your predictions went wrong so far? Y-20 operational with WS-18 and taking part on international exercises in Russia in 2016? J-10B is not in PLAAF use and will never be?? ... PLAAF already used more than 100 JL-10 (in September 2016)?? Your claim I never wrote an article for a Chinese magazine???

I would love to see You making this promise to stop posting here if any of Your claims went wrong.



But anyway, back to the topic: Any recent news on the topic's type ?? The most recent LRIP J-20 we've seen was no. 78275 in March, even if I don't know if this is a new shot of the same bird.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> ... says the big prophet with a reliability rate of about 0.000134 %
> 
> Just to remind: How many of Your predictions went wrong so far? Y-20 operational with WS-18 and taking part on international exercises in Russia in 2016? J-10B is not in PLAAF use and will never be?? ... PLAAF already used more than 100 JL-10 (in September 2016)?? Your claim I never wrote an article for a Chinese magazine???
> 
> I would love to see You making this promise to stop posting here if any of Your claims went wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> But anyway, back to the topic: Any recent news on the topic's type ?? The most recent LRIP J-20 we've seen was no. 78275 in March, even if I don't know if this is a new shot of the same bird.
> 
> View attachment 399934


Deino, talking about prediction?  What a joke.

You claimed J-10b flies with Ruskie imported AL-31F engines when operation which has not proven by any facts , it just happen the engine petal looks like AL-31F and if a few look can prove its the same thing. Then a woman and man are the same, just they happen to have eyes and ears? The new J-10B in fact is actually C version which I predict correctly it will not go operation with a crapped underpowered imported Ruskie engine. All the while I maintain, new J-10C will go operation with domestic build engines.

You claim J-20 including many prototypes flies with Ruskie imported engine from Salyut with bragging of easily increase its thrust the same level of 117S which is nothing but just your delusion. You can claim LRIP of J-20 will still fly with Ruskies imported engines which is totally proven wrong by new documentary and Yin Zhuo relevation. And yet you still have the cheek to turnaround and accuse of others? I know what you will do, you will abuse your level and just ban me to save yourself of more relevation of your fail view, fail prediction and low opinion of Chinese technology.

You want to flip back your past quote to prove my points? You are nothing but despicable.

I am the first person in J-20 thread to talk about domestic AL-31/WS-10 hybrid concept. Which you failed in your prediction of J-20 prototypes and LRIP still using Russian imported AL-31F engines and then you start to lie by switching your tone and borrow my concept of AL-31/WS-10 lines to save yourself from further humilitation.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

Beast said:


> Deino, talking about prediction?  What a joke.
> 
> You claimed J-10b flies with Ruskie imported AL-31F engines when operation which has not proven by any facts , it just happen the engine petal looks like AL-31F and if a few look can prove its the same thing. Then a woman and man are the same, just they happen to have eyes and ears? The new J-10B in fact is actually C version which I predict correctly it will not go operation with a crapped underpowered imported Ruskie engine. All the while I maintain, new J-10C will go operation with domestic build engines.
> 
> You claim J-20 including many prototypes flies with Ruskie imported engine from Salyut with bragging of easily increase its thrust the same level of 117S which is nothing but just your delusion. You can claim LRIP of J-20 will still fly with Ruskies imported engines which is totally proven wrong by new documentary and Yin Zhuo relevation. And yet you still have the cheek to turnaround and accuse of others? I know what you will do, you will abuse your level and just ban me to save yourself of more relevation of your fail view, fail prediction and low opinion of Chinese technology.
> 
> You want to flip back your past quote to prove my points? You are nothing but despicable.
> 
> I am the first person in J-20 thread to talk about domestic AL-31/WS-10 hybrid concept. Which you failed in your prediction of J-20 prototypes and LRIP still using Russian imported AL-31F engines *and then you start to lie by switching your tone and borrow my concept of AL-31/WS-10 lines to save yourself from further humilitation.*



Because thats whats he's been told in sinodefense "J-20" thread by the super moderator there, he listen and no question ask, however when you first mentioned about this so-called hybrid engine possibility, he laugh at you and threatening you to stop spreading nonsense
Guys, just leave him regarding his resignation promise/bet, he could simply denial it with some twisted wording game, its all well since we all witnessed what he's made of
BTW, we as Chinese military sites regulars, the reputation of his "Chinese supporter" as what deino praised as well respected Chinese military specialist is untrue and laughable at best

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## j20blackdragon

I said it before and I'll say it again...the size of a fixed intake is directly related to the airflow requirements of a specific engine. Different engines will have different airflow requirements, and different intake sizes.

There is no such thing as 'one size fits all' when it comes to a fixed intake.

CAC has 20+ years of experience designing the J-10 and the aircraft designers know the airflow requirements of the AL-31FN.





CAC also knows the airflow requirements of the AL-31FN Series 3 along with a fixed DSI intake.





The J-20 intakes (also fixed DSI) are noticeably larger than all previous planes designed by CAC.





For the sake of argument, let's assume the WS-15 isn't ready at the moment. Why would CAC purposely design oversized intakes for a plane that will initially enter service with AL-31? Oversized intakes add weight and drag to an already gargantuan J-20 airframe. Why would the CAC engineers design such a stupid plane? Why would the PLAAF accept such a plane?

If the WS-15 shows up later, CAC has the option of redesigning a new intake for the new engine.

The F-16 (fixed intake) is the best example. When the General Electric F110 was adopted, the intake was redesigned and enlarged to accommodate the increased airflow requirements of the new engine. The F-16 currently has two different intakes! 





I'm aware that the F-14A's TF30 engine was replaced with the F110 engine with no apparent intake redesign. But that is because the F-14 has a variable geometry intake with moving ramps that can control the speed and volume of airflow reaching the engine.









The J-20 has a fixed DSI intake and the DSI bump doesn't move. I assume there are no internal ramps hidden behind the DSI bump. The J-20 has no mechanical means to control the volume of airflow reaching the engine. Therefore, the size of the J-20 intakes must be the correct size from the very beginning. 

This is perfectly normal because both the F-22 and F-35 have fixed intakes too. There is a reason why all stealth fighters have fixed intakes.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> It is not difficult and indeed the WS-10B "shall" fit, but from all info and details I know it is not a WS-10-derivate. At least the WS-10B shown at the most recent Zhuhai AirShow was very much different (esp. the nozzle). So let me ask in return: is it so difficult to admit, that the J-20's nozzle is very much different to this alleged WS-10B !
> 
> View attachment 399929
> View attachment 399930
> 
> also via http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...ina-air-show-shows-latest-fighter-jet-engines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any proof for that ?? It is so lousily build. I cannot believe that the PLAAF would show such a model. Even more even if it is a true model, the current pedals on any demonstrator, prototype and LRIP J-20 is completely different. So even if such a nozzle exists and was already tested, it is by far not operational yet.
> 
> Deino



"*I also always said and I'm still sure that in the current LRIP-birds it is a modernised, uprated - and maybe even indigenous, china-manufactured - version of this engine IMO based on the M2." --Mr. Deino*


Now, that you have been proved completely wrong by CCTV-4 and that your speculation of J-20 using AL-31FN-M2 is completely groundless, and now that you are distancing yourself (but still won't admit defeat) from this ridiculous claim by saying "maybe even indigenous, china-manufactured ", you have said something that is obviously true regarding J-20 is not using WS-10b.

Anyone who just take a good look at the picture of WS-10b, would be able to conclude J-20's engine is completely different.

I didn't bother to refute such obvious fallacy for wasting my time.

I have to say Mr. Deino is right this time.

*Mr. Deino: "At least the WS-10B shown at the most recent Zhuhai AirShow was very much different (esp. the nozzle). So let me ask in return: is it so difficult to admit, that the J-20's nozzle is very much different to this alleged WS-10B !"*

I don't blame a lot of people, like Mr.Deino, for mistaken J-20's engines for AL-31-FN, because their exhaust petals, does bear striking similarity, and we have not seen a complete picture of J-20's whole engine for comparison, yet.

But for people who claim J-20's engines is WS-10b, it is just to childish or infantile, for me to bother, to reply.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tiqiu

grey boy 2 said:


> BTW, we as Chinese military sites regulars, the reputation of his "Chinese supporter" as what deino praised as well respected Chinese military specialist is untrue and laughable at best


The very same exact feeling from me.


Deino said:


> So let me ask in return: is it so difficult to admit, that the J-20's nozzle is very much different to this alleged WS-10B !


I believe This is FWS-15( or to be precise, the 18 tons thrust of FWS-15), not the alleged FWS-10B.


星海军事 said:


> you will see J-20 flying with real FWS-15


I agree with you on this account, that the real FWS-15, of 18 tons thrust, with the configurations of 2-5-1-1 is not used to the first batch of J-20. But I don't think we need to wait that long to see it as per your prediction. Next year is the latest is my judgement based on all relevant information made publicly.


Asok said:


> But for people who claim J-20's engines is WS-10b, it is just to childish or infantile, for me to bother, to reply.


Sorry Asok, I have to differ with you on this one.
Based on what i read, I believe initially the J-20 is powered by this so-alleged FWS-10B, of 15.5 tons trust. Some people called it "FWS-15 interim version", some called it "status A". According to those in the know, this FWS-10B is the original design of FWS-15 with 3-6-1-1 configurations to power the J-20 and J-10C. The FWS-15 of 18 tons thrust we know of now is the result of adopting the new breakthrough in "the magnitude blade technology of the aviation engine compressor" -"大小叶片压气机" to the original 3-6-1-1 core design, reducing one stage of low-pressure and one stage of high-pressure compressor to become 2-5-1-1.The 24 tons version people started talking about recently maybe the ultimate goal for FWS-15 when the numbers of LP and HP compressor stages are further reduced, or maybe even reduced to single stage.















This is the news in 2013 about how this technology was first used on Chinese WZ-6 engine:
陈懋章院士长期从事叶轮机气动力学和粘性流体动力学研究的教学与研究工作，在航空发动机领域卓有建树。在他指导并参加的某型发动机跨音压气机改型设计中，敢于闯入科学研究的“禁区”，提出了一种新型压气机处理机匣，保证了发动机在整个飞行包线内稳定可靠工作，排除了空中熄火故障。它为解决高负荷高通流压气机获得高效率、高喘振裕度的难题，提供了实用而有效的方法，对促进我国发动机设计研制具有重要意义和实用价值。该项研究成果1999年获国家技术发明二等奖。作为项目负责人之一，他主持完成的“低速大尺寸压气机实验装置及转子流场动态测量技术”，是研制航空核心压气机和研究其流场精细结构的重要设备，技术含量很高，对提高我国压气机设计水平有重要作用。该项成果1993年获国家科技进步一等奖。另外，陈懋章院士在叶轮机三维流理论与应用以及粘流理论研究也取得多项成果，特别是在压气机大小叶片先进气动布局、边界层转捩过程中三维不稳定波发展的理论描述和旋转物体的边界层　流动研究等方面处于国内领先水平。2000年获何良何利基金科学与技术进步奖。

直8直升机是我国目前现役最大吨位的国产直升机，在我国陆海空三军和民用领域有着广泛的应用。常州兰翔机械总厂作为直8直升机国产涡轴6发动机的承制单位、国内大功率直升机发动机主要制造企业，在我国航空发动机和直升机产业发展史上占有一席之地。

WZ6增大功率改型，将在大小叶片技术验证机的基础上，全面改进压气机，燃烧室以及涡轮，将WZ6的功率提高到2000马力以上，同时将发动机的首翻期提高到1500小时以上。

Mind you I heard there is also another FWS-15 for J-31.All these engines can be referred as FWS-15, this is so Chinese that only a Chinese can understand why.

One of the reason I can think of is that because the benefit of reduced weight,size and component parts resulting from the reduced stage of compressor can only be maximized by other changes also need to be made on combustion, HP turbine, LP turbine and FADEC, thus very time consuming, therefore J-20 can't wait but use FWS-10B.

Hope i am right and hope it can solve your puzzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Ultima Thule

Tiqiu said:


> The very same exact feeling from me.
> 
> I believe This is FWS-15( or to be precise, the 18 tons thrust of FWS-15), not the alleged FWS-10B.
> 
> I agree with you on this account, that the real FWS-15, of 18 tons thrust, with the configurations of 2-5-1-1 is not used to the first batch of J-20. But I don't think we need to wait that long to see it as per your prediction. Next year is the latest is my judgement based on all relevant information made publicly.
> 
> Sorry Asok, I have to differ with you on this one.
> Based on what i read, I believe initially the J-20 is powered by this so-alleged FWS-10B, of 15.5 tons trust. Some people called it "FWS-15 interim version", some called it "status A". According to those in the know, this FWS-10B is the original design of FWS-15 with 3-6-1-1 configurations to power the J-20 and J-10C. The FWS-15 of 18 tons thrust we know of now is the result of adopting the new breakthrough in "the magnitude blade technology of the aviation engine compressor" -"大小叶片压气机" to the original 3-6-1-1 core design, reducing one stage of low-pressure and one stage of high-pressure compressor to become 2-5-1-1.The 24 tons version people started talking about recently maybe the ultimate goal for FWS-15 when the numbers of LP and HP compressor stages are further reduced, or maybe even reduced to single stage.
> View attachment 400001
> 
> 
> View attachment 400002
> 
> 
> View attachment 400003
> 
> 
> This is the news in 2013 about how this technology was first used on Chinese WZ-6 engine:
> 陈懋章院士长期从事叶轮机气动力学和粘性流体动力学研究的教学与研究工作，在航空发动机领域卓有建树。在他指导并参加的某型发动机跨音压气机改型设计中，敢于闯入科学研究的“禁区”，提出了一种新型压气机处理机匣，保证了发动机在整个飞行包线内稳定可靠工作，排除了空中熄火故障。它为解决高负荷高通流压气机获得高效率、高喘振裕度的难题，提供了实用而有效的方法，对促进我国发动机设计研制具有重要意义和实用价值。该项研究成果1999年获国家技术发明二等奖。作为项目负责人之一，他主持完成的“低速大尺寸压气机实验装置及转子流场动态测量技术”，是研制航空核心压气机和研究其流场精细结构的重要设备，技术含量很高，对提高我国压气机设计水平有重要作用。该项成果1993年获国家科技进步一等奖。另外，陈懋章院士在叶轮机三维流理论与应用以及粘流理论研究也取得多项成果，特别是在压气机大小叶片先进气动布局、边界层转捩过程中三维不稳定波发展的理论描述和旋转物体的边界层　流动研究等方面处于国内领先水平。2000年获何良何利基金科学与技术进步奖。
> 
> 直8直升机是我国目前现役最大吨位的国产直升机，在我国陆海空三军和民用领域有着广泛的应用。常州兰翔机械总厂作为直8直升机国产涡轴6发动机的承制单位、国内大功率直升机发动机主要制造企业，在我国航空发动机和直升机产业发展史上占有一席之地。
> 
> WZ6增大功率改型，将在大小叶片技术验证机的基础上，全面改进压气机，燃烧室以及涡轮，将WZ6的功率提高到2000马力以上，同时将发动机的首翻期提高到1500小时以上。
> 
> Mind you I heard there is also another FWS-15 for J-31.All these engines can be referred as FWS-15, this is so Chinese that only a Chinese can understand why.
> 
> One of the reason I can think of is that because the benefit of reduced weight,size and component parts resulting from the reduced stage of compressor can only be maximized by other changes also need to be made on combustion, HP turbine, LP turbine and FADEC, thus very time consuming, therefore J-20 can't wait but use FWS-10B.
> 
> Hope i am right and hope it can solve your puzzle.


But bro @Asok is partially wrong about WS-15, But @Deino is totally wrong about his baseless eye catching assessment

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Tiqiu said:


> The very same exact feeling from me.
> 
> I believe This is FWS-15( or to be precise, the 18 tons thrust of FWS-15), not the alleged FWS-10B.
> 
> I agree with you on this account, that the real FWS-15, of 18 tons thrust, with the configurations of 2-5-1-1 is not used to the first batch of J-20. But I don't think we need to wait that long to see it as per your prediction. Next year is the latest is my judgement based on all relevant information made publicly.
> 
> Sorry Asok, I have to differ with you on this one.
> Based on what i read, I believe initially the J-20 is powered by this so-alleged FWS-10B, of 15.5 tons trust. Some people called it "FWS-15 interim version", some called it "status A". According to those in the know, this FWS-10B is the original design of FWS-15 with 3-6-1-1 configurations to power the J-20 and J-10C. The FWS-15 of 18 tons thrust we know of now is the result of adopting the new breakthrough in "the magnitude blade technology of the aviation engine compressor" -"大小叶片压气机" to the original 3-6-1-1 core design, reducing one stage of low-pressure and one stage of high-pressure compressor to become 2-5-1-1.The 24 tons version people started talking about recently maybe the ultimate goal for FWS-15 when the numbers of LP and HP compressor stages are further reduced, or maybe even reduced to single stage.
> View attachment 400001
> 
> 
> View attachment 400002
> 
> 
> View attachment 400003
> 
> 
> This is the news in 2013 about how this technology was first used on Chinese WZ-6 engine:
> 陈懋章院士长期从事叶轮机气动力学和粘性流体动力学研究的教学与研究工作，在航空发动机领域卓有建树。在他指导并参加的某型发动机跨音压气机改型设计中，敢于闯入科学研究的“禁区”，提出了一种新型压气机处理机匣，保证了发动机在整个飞行包线内稳定可靠工作，排除了空中熄火故障。它为解决高负荷高通流压气机获得高效率、高喘振裕度的难题，提供了实用而有效的方法，对促进我国发动机设计研制具有重要意义和实用价值。该项研究成果1999年获国家技术发明二等奖。作为项目负责人之一，他主持完成的“低速大尺寸压气机实验装置及转子流场动态测量技术”，是研制航空核心压气机和研究其流场精细结构的重要设备，技术含量很高，对提高我国压气机设计水平有重要作用。该项成果1993年获国家科技进步一等奖。另外，陈懋章院士在叶轮机三维流理论与应用以及粘流理论研究也取得多项成果，特别是在压气机大小叶片先进气动布局、边界层转捩过程中三维不稳定波发展的理论描述和旋转物体的边界层　流动研究等方面处于国内领先水平。2000年获何良何利基金科学与技术进步奖。
> 
> 直8直升机是我国目前现役最大吨位的国产直升机，在我国陆海空三军和民用领域有着广泛的应用。常州兰翔机械总厂作为直8直升机国产涡轴6发动机的承制单位、国内大功率直升机发动机主要制造企业，在我国航空发动机和直升机产业发展史上占有一席之地。
> 
> WZ6增大功率改型，将在大小叶片技术验证机的基础上，全面改进压气机，燃烧室以及涡轮，将WZ6的功率提高到2000马力以上，同时将发动机的首翻期提高到1500小时以上。
> 
> Mind you I heard there is also another FWS-15 for J-31.All these engines can be referred as FWS-15, this is so Chinese that only a Chinese can understand why.
> 
> One of the reason I can think of is that because the benefit of reduced weight,size and component parts resulting from the reduced stage of compressor can only be maximized by other changes also need to be made on combustion, HP turbine, LP turbine and FADEC, thus very time consuming, therefore J-20 can't wait but use FWS-10B.
> 
> Hope i am right and hope it can solve your puzzle.


What is the detail of magnitude blade technology? Seems a very good one!

The WS10b is actually the WS15 stage 1, and J20 will be in complete status after for WS15 stage 2. I'm. Quite interested in the tailored down sized version of WS15 for FC31!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

wanglaokan said:


> What is the detail of magnitude blade technology? Seems a very good one!
> 
> The WS10b is actually the WS15 stage 1, and J20 will be in complete status after for WS15 stage 2. I'm. Quite interested in the tailored down sized version of WS15 for FC31!


According to the US IHPTET 10-year development outlook, this magnitude blade one-stage compressor has the same efficiency to the normal blade 3-stage of F100-PW-220. According to the Chinese study, ultimately this tech can reduce the engine weight by 30%-40%, axle length by 30%-40%, component parts by 20%-30%. I guess the reduced weight and size make adding more blades possible withing the weight limit of the engine, thus lifting its trust to 24 tons ultimately.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

WS-10 = 3rd generation
WS-10B = 4th generation
WS-15 = 5th generation

pretty much like

Type 091 = 1st generation
Type 093 = 2nd generation
Type 093B = 3rd generation
Type 095 = 4th generation

The WS-10B is pretty much like the Type 093B, an intermediate generation between the previous and next generation. It is pretty much a test bed for the next generation technology.

I guess now to discuss the J-20 using the Russian engine is pretty much out of question, but it is arguable if the WS-10B did contain any help or input from Salut, since they lost their favor to Saturn in Russia and pretty much needed the cooperation with China.

It is quite likely that China hasn't installed the 180kN version of the WS-15. The current version with 150-160kN of afterburner thrust is still underpowered for a larger than F-22 aircraft like the J-20. The ultimate goal for the WS-15 in the future should be 200+kN.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> But bro @Asok is partially wrong about WS-15, But @Deino is totally wrong about his baseless eye catching assessment




I have always said, from day one, J-20 was using a prototype version that uses WS-15's core mated with WS-10 and AL-31FN technologies that the Chinese are familiar with.

You can call this version whatever you want, like WS-10x. If you said it has a WS-15 core, then I am satisfied.

Then, starting Version 2011, J-20 upgraded to the latest WS-15 engine, which was actually shorter than the prototype. The weapon bay of J-20 is now longer, because of a shorter engine. Now, Tiqiu's latest post has explained why. Thanks Bro! 

And it is this version WS-15 has Thrust Vector Control Nozzles (TVC), and has maximum thrust greater than 21 tons, or 210kN.

And it is entering LRIP with J-20 on schedule as PLAAF Commander predicted in 2009.

Where is my proofs?

I have posted a lot about the WS-15, you can go read my previous posts.

Not only should the idea that a Russian made engine is entering LRIP with J-20, out of the question, the idea that J-20 has not flown with WS-15 yet, (and it will take another 5-6 years for that to happen) should also be ridiculed.

WS-15 is entering service with J-20, as per schedule, and it is amazingly powerful and has TVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I have always said, from day one, J-20 was using a prototype version that uses WS-15's core mated with WS-10 and AL-31FN technologies that the Chinese are familiar with.
> 
> You can call this version whatever you want, like WS-10x. If you said it has a WS-15 core, then I am satisfied.
> 
> Then, starting Version 2011, J-20 upgraded to the latest WS-15 engine, which was actually shorter than the prototype. The weapon bay of J-20 is now longer, because of a shorter engine. Now, Tiqiu's latest post has explained why.
> 
> And it is this version WS-15 has Thrust Vector Control Nozzles (TVC), and has maximum thrust greater than 21 tons, or 210kN.
> 
> And it is entering LRIP with J-20 on schedule as PLAAF Commander predicted in 2009.
> 
> Where is my proofs?
> 
> I have posted a lot about the WS-15, you can go read my posts.


bro i am agree partially with this post of your from the beginning J-20 first flight WS-10 don't mature enough to WS-15 core on that time, to reduce risk CAC put AL-31 to first 2 or 3 prototype than they put WS-10X when they matures and than they will convert WS-10X with a core of WS-15 late on the project, your thrust estimation about just too much or you have concrete source i would say at-least equal to F-135 or slightly higher no hard feeling bro

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> bro i am agree partially with this post of your from the beginning J-20 first flight WS-10 don't mature enough to WS-15 core on that time, to reduce risk CAC put AL-31 to first 2 or 3 prototype than they put WS-10X when they matures and than they will convert WS-10X with a core of WS-15 late on the project, your thrust estimation about just too much or you have concrete source i would say at-least equal to F-135 or slightly higher no hard feeling bro



Bro, the F-135 is listed as a 190kN class engine, the exact figure is not released, as it is still classified. The word on the street, is that it is very likely to be higher than 190kN.

The F-135 engine was developed in the early 1990's and became operational in the early 2000's.

Now, more than 20 years later, China has developed an engine that is of the same class, perhaps just a bit more powerful.

I find that credible, based on China's progress in various fields, in the last 30 years.

i don't have hard data like J-20's empty weight to back me. I just estimated that J-20 is at least 2 tons heavier than's F-22's 19.7 tons empty. I find this estimate conservative, since J-20 is at least 3.5 meter longer than F-22, from nose to nozzle.

And I, conservatively, estimated that J-20 was carrying 1/3 of a full tank, or 4 tons of fuel (not a whole lot for a 20+ tons plane) during the sustained vertical climb at the air show, while not using afterburner.

So, I arrived at the flying weight of 22 + 4 = 26 tons for J-20 during that day.

26/2 = 13 tons per engine, it must lift vertically. And since it was not using Afterburner, that means it was using only dry thrust for the vertical climb.

Dry thrust is usually 60% of the maximal thrust.

That is:

Max. Thrust = Dry Thrust / 0.60

So we got,

Max. Thrust = 13 tons / 0.60
Max. Thrust = 21.6 tons, per engine

Is the current Max. Thrust of WS-15 18 tons or 21 tons?

I am not sure. Since my flying weight for J-20, during the air show, was purely a guess.

However, if the Max. Thrust is 18 tons, then J-20 needs to be the same empty weight as F-22's 19.7 tons and carry only 2 tons of fuel for the demo, or something like that.

For a total of 22 tons of flying weight. That would put J-20's max. thrust at 18 tons per engine.

Here is the calculation:

22/2 = 11 tons, dry thrust, each engine must have to lift J-20 vertically, without afterburner.

Max. thrust = 11 tons / 0.6 = 18.3 tons

I find this highly unlikely. That J-20 is the same weight as F-22, despite its at least 3.5 meters longer, nose to nozzle, and carries only 2 tons of fuel during the demo.

So I am comfortable that WS-15 has a max. thrust > 21 tons.

The fact that J-20 did a 5-6 seconds of sustained vertical climb, without the use of Afterburner, is an eye opener for me.

But this earth shattering significance has not caught up to other observers, yet.

All this means J-20 has one hell of aerodynamic airframe, one hell of powerful engine, one hell of state of the art avionics suite, one hell of AESA radar, and one hell of combat range.

And China has the money to produces, several hundreds of those mighty beasts, in the next 20 years, unlike F-22, which is already cancelled.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Han Patriot

Well at least we all agree J-20 had been using Chinese engines all along. I don't care if it incorporates Russian, American or whatever countries technology, the point is it is Chinese made and designed. AL-31 is out of the picture, now we need to find out which engine was used.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Bro, the F-135 is listed as a 190kN class engine, the exact figure is not released, as it is still classified. The word on the street, is that it is very likely to be higher than 190kN.
> 
> The F-135 engine was developed in the early 1990's and became operational in the early 2000's.
> 
> Now, more than 20 years later, China has developed an engine that is of the same class, perhaps just a bit more powerful.
> 
> I find that credible, based on China's progress in various fields, in the last 30 years.
> 
> i don't have hard data like J-20's empty weight to back me. I just estimated that J-20 is at least 2 tons heavier than's F-22's 19.7 tons empty. I find this estimate conservative, since J-20 is at least 3.5 meter longer than F-22, from nose to nozzle.
> 
> And I estimated that J-20 was carrying 1/4 of a full tank, or 4 tons of fuel during the susbtained vertical climb at the air show, while not using afterburner.
> 
> So, I arrived at the flying weight of 22 + 4 = 26 tons for J-20 during that day.
> 
> 26/2 = 13 tons per engine, it must lift vertically. And since it was not using Afterburner, that means it was using only dry thrust for the vertical climb.
> 
> Dry thrust is usually 60% of the maximal thrust.
> 
> That is:
> 
> Max. Thrust = Dry Thrust / 0.60
> 
> So we got,
> 
> Max. Thrust = 13 tons / 0.60
> Max. Thrust = 21.6 tons.
> 
> Is the current Max. Thrust of WS-15 18 tons or 21 tons?
> 
> I am not sure. Since my flying weight for J-20 during the air show, was a guess.
> 
> However, if the Max. Thrust is 18 tons, then J-20 needs to be the same empty weight of F-22's 19.7 tons and carry only 2 tons of fuel for the demo, or something like that.
> 
> For a total of 22 tons of flying weight. That would put J-20's max. thrust at 18 tons per engine.
> 
> Here is the calculation:
> 
> 22/2 = 11 tons, dry thrust, each engine must have to lift J-20 vertically, without afterburner.
> 
> Max. thrust = 11 tons / 0.6 = 18.3 tons
> 
> I find this highly unlikely. That J-20 is the same weight as F-22, despite its at least 3.5 meters longer, nose to nozzle, and carries only 2 tons of fuel during the demo.
> 
> So I am comfortable that WS-15 has a max. thrust > 21 tons.
> 
> The fact that J-20 did a 5-6 seconds of sustained vertical climb without the use of Afterburner is an eye opener for me.
> 
> But this earth shattering significance has not caught up to other observers, yet.
> 
> All this means J-20 has one hell of aerodynamic airframe, one hell of powerful engine, one hell of state of the art avionics suite, one hell of AESA radar, and one hell of combat range.
> 
> And China has the money to produces, several hundreds of those mighty beasts, in the next 20 years, unlike F-22, which is already cancelled.


Brother vertical climbing is not without afterburner of J-20 nothing unusual I can show you lots fighter jets doing that for example PAK-FA doing your vertical climbs without using afterburner with interim engine so what is new for J-20 for vertical climb And not to forget that J-20 using low by pass aka turbojet engine to achieve super cruise High by pass engine has limited super cruise capabilities


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> Bro, the F-135 is listed as a 190kN class engine, the exact figure is not released, as it is still classified. The word on the street, is that it is very likely to be higher than 190kN.
> 
> The F-135 engine was developed in the early 1990's and became operational in the early 2000's.
> 
> Now, more than 20 years later, China has developed an engine that is of the same class, perhaps just a bit more powerful.
> 
> I find that credible, based on China's progress in various fields, in the last 30 years.
> 
> i don't have hard data like J-20's empty weight to back me. I just estimated that J-20 is at least 2 tons heavier than's F-22's 19.7 tons empty. I find this estimate conservative, since J-20 is at least 3.5 meter longer than F-22, from nose to nozzle.
> 
> And I estimated that J-20 was carrying 1/4 of a full tank, or 4 tons of fuel during the susbtained vertical climb at the air show, while not using afterburner.
> 
> So, I arrived at the flying weight of 22 + 4 = 26 tons for J-20 during that day.
> 
> 26/2 = 13 tons per engine, it must lift vertically. And since it was not using Afterburner, that means it was using only dry thrust for the vertical climb.
> 
> Dry thrust is usually 60% of the maximal thrust.
> 
> That is:
> 
> Max. Thrust = Dry Thrust / 0.60
> 
> So we got,
> 
> Max. Thrust = 13 tons / 0.60
> Max. Thrust = 21.6 tons.
> 
> Is the current Max. Thrust of WS-15 18 tons or 21 tons?
> 
> I am not sure. Since my flying weight for J-20 during the air show, was a guess.
> 
> However, if the Max. Thrust is 18 tons, then J-20 needs to be the same empty weight of F-22's 19.7 tons and carry only 2 tons of fuel for the demo, or something like that.
> 
> For a total of 22 tons of flying weight. That would put J-20's max. thrust at 18 tons per engine.
> 
> Here is the calculation:
> 
> 22/2 = 11 tons, dry thrust, each engine must have to lift J-20 vertically, without afterburner.
> 
> Max. thrust = 11 tons / 0.6 = 18.3 tons
> 
> I find this highly unlikely. That J-20 is the same weight as F-22, despite its at least 3.5 meters longer, nose to nozzle, and carries only 2 tons of fuel during the demo.
> 
> So I am comfortable that WS-15 has a max. thrust > 21 tons.
> 
> The fact that J-20 did a 5-6 seconds of sustained vertical climb without the use of Afterburner is an eye opener for me.
> 
> But this earth shattering significance has not caught up to other observers, yet.
> 
> All this means J-20 has one hell of aerodynamic airframe, one hell of powerful engine, one hell of state of the art avionics suite, one hell of AESA radar, and one hell of combat range.
> 
> And China has the money to produces, several hundreds of those mighty beasts, in the next 20 years, unlike F-22, which is already cancelled.


Don't forget the building technology of J20 is much more advanced than F22, such as more composite material and 3D printing. If one day what you said proved to be true, I will apologize to you first. I hope what you said is true.



Asok said:


> Bro, the F-135 is listed as a 190kN class engine, the exact figure is not released, as it is still classified. The word on the street, is that it is very likely to be higher than 190kN.
> 
> The F-135 engine was developed in the early 1990's and became operational in the early 2000's.
> 
> Now, more than 20 years later, China has developed an engine that is of the same class, perhaps just a bit more powerful.
> 
> I find that credible, based on China's progress in various fields, in the last 30 years.
> 
> i don't have hard data like J-20's empty weight to back me. I just estimated that J-20 is at least 2 tons heavier than's F-22's 19.7 tons empty. I find this estimate conservative, since J-20 is at least 3.5 meter longer than F-22, from nose to nozzle.
> 
> And I estimated that J-20 was carrying 1/4 of a full tank, or 4 tons of fuel during the susbtained vertical climb at the air show, while not using afterburner.
> 
> So, I arrived at the flying weight of 22 + 4 = 26 tons for J-20 during that day.
> 
> 26/2 = 13 tons per engine, it must lift vertically. And since it was not using Afterburner, that means it was using only dry thrust for the vertical climb.
> 
> Dry thrust is usually 60% of the maximal thrust.
> 
> That is:
> 
> Max. Thrust = Dry Thrust / 0.60
> 
> So we got,
> 
> Max. Thrust = 13 tons / 0.60
> Max. Thrust = 21.6 tons.
> 
> Is the current Max. Thrust of WS-15 18 tons or 21 tons?
> 
> I am not sure. Since my flying weight for J-20 during the air show, was a guess.
> 
> However, if the Max. Thrust is 18 tons, then J-20 needs to be the same empty weight of F-22's 19.7 tons and carry only 2 tons of fuel for the demo, or something like that.
> 
> For a total of 22 tons of flying weight. That would put J-20's max. thrust at 18 tons per engine.
> 
> Here is the calculation:
> 
> 22/2 = 11 tons, dry thrust, each engine must have to lift J-20 vertically, without afterburner.
> 
> Max. thrust = 11 tons / 0.6 = 18.3 tons
> 
> I find this highly unlikely. That J-20 is the same weight as F-22, despite its at least 3.5 meters longer, nose to nozzle, and carries only 2 tons of fuel during the demo.
> 
> So I am comfortable that WS-15 has a max. thrust > 21 tons.
> 
> The fact that J-20 did a 5-6 seconds of sustained vertical climb without the use of Afterburner is an eye opener for me.
> 
> But this earth shattering significance has not caught up to other observers, yet.
> 
> All this means J-20 has one hell of aerodynamic airframe, one hell of powerful engine, one hell of state of the art avionics suite, one hell of AESA radar, and one hell of combat range.
> 
> And China has the money to produces, several hundreds of those mighty beasts, in the next 20 years, unlike F-22, which is already cancelled.


Don't forget the building technology of J20 is much more advanced than F22, such as more composite material and 3D printing. If one day what you said proved to be true, I will apologize to you first. I hope what you said is true.

We even adopt smart skin technology in J20.

The RAM coating of J20 is a generation ahead of F22, its doomed to be a F22 killer.

We shall concentrate all resource to churn out J20 for airforce. Leave the J31 for navy.



Han Patriot said:


> Well at least we all agree J-20 had been using Chinese engines all along. I don't care if it incorporates Russian, American or whatever countries technology, the point is it is Chinese made and designed. AL-31 is out of the picture, now we need to find out which engine was used.


Say good bye to AL31.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> I said it before and I'll say it again...the size of a fixed intake is directly related to the airflow requirements of a specific engine. Different engines will have different airflow requirements, and different intake sizes.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'one size fits all' when it comes to a fixed intake.
> 
> CAC has 20+ years of experience designing the J-10 and the aircraft designers know the airflow requirements of the AL-31FN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAC also knows the airflow requirements of the AL-31FN Series 3 along with a fixed DSI intake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 intakes (also fixed DSI) are noticeably larger than all previous planes designed by CAC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's assume the WS-15 isn't ready at the moment. Why would CAC purposely design oversized intakes for a plane that will initially enter service with AL-31? Oversized intakes add weight and drag to an already gargantuan J-20 airframe. Why would the CAC engineers design such a stupid plane? Why would the PLAAF accept such a plane?
> 
> If the WS-15 shows up later, CAC has the option of redesigning a new intake for the new engine.
> 
> The F-16 (fixed intake) is the best example. When the General Electric F110 was adopted, the intake was redesigned and enlarged to accommodate the increased airflow requirements of the new engine. The F-16 currently has two different intakes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware that the F-14A's TF30 engine was replaced with the F110 engine with no apparent intake redesign. But that is because the F-14 has a variable geometry intake with moving ramps that can control the speed and volume of airflow reaching the engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 has a fixed DSI intake and the DSI bump doesn't move. I assume there are no internal ramps hidden behind the DSI bump. The J-20 has no mechanical means to control the volume of airflow reaching the engine. Therefore, the size of the J-20 intakes must be the correct size from the very beginning.
> 
> This is perfectly normal because both the F-22 and F-35 have fixed intakes too. There is a reason why all stealth fighters have fixed intakes.



CAC is fully capable of redesigning the intake of an aircraft.

Look what the J-10 intake used to look like in 1991.





However, when the domestic engine didn't pan out, the intake was enlarged to accommodate the increased airflow requirements of the Russian AL-31FN. An engine change leads to an intake change.




DSI intake and AL-31FN Series 3 adopted for J-10B.





Also note in the above two pictures that the overall size of the intake remained approximately the same when the J-10 upgraded from AL-31FN to the increased thrust AL-31FN Series 3. In other words, the adoption of DSI did not drastically increase the size of the intake, even with the slightly increased thrust AL-31FN Series 3.

But suddenly the J-20 (DSI same as J-10B) intakes are very noticeably larger than all previous J-10 intakes.





Those that believe the J-20 is using AL-31 need to explain why the J-20 intakes are oversized. Don't skirt around this question.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Brother vertical climbing is not without afterburner of J-20 nothing unusual I can show you lots fighter jets doing that for example PAK-FA doing your vertical climbs without using afterburner with interim engine so what is new for J-20 for vertical climb And not to forget that J-20 using low by pass aka turbojet engine to achieve super cruise High by pass engine has limited super cruise capabilities







I don't see a telltale sign of a long, hot, and bright exhaust coming out of the nozzles, so I just assume it's not using the Afterburner. The keyword is "sustained" vertical climbing, not just a loop or near vertical climbing.

If other planes can do a "sustained" vertical climbing, without Afterburner, it means its TWR in dry thrust is > 1. That's great.

J-20 is probably not the first one to do it. Some smaller and lighter planes like F-16, Rafael, probably did it a lot time ago.

I just used this fact to calculate J-20 engine's max. thrust. It's very significant that a large and heavy plane like J-20 to have a TWR > 1, with just dry thrust alone.

It means a very significant advantages in dog fighting. It means it has enough thrust, so that it does not need to use, the fuel intensive AB, to keep up with its opponents, and does not leave a long hot and very visible exhaust stream for your opponent's heat seeking missiles to go after.

This is a very very important advantage.

If your opponent can't see you, or lock onto you, that means he can't shoot you down.

Remember, the internal fuel capacity for F-22 and F-35 is around 8-9 tons, and for J-20 is near 12 tons.

If J-20 has a much larger internal fuel capacity, and don't need to use AB during combat, but you do, because it has a much higher dry thrust, the chance that you can out last this beast in fuel consumption, and out fight it, to tell a tale, is ZERO.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

OMG ... not again ! 

That climb is for a few 100-feet ... if the horizontal Speed is fast enough, every aircraft do such a decent climb.

Did You ever try to post this BS in a forum with serious experts in propulsion, aerodynamics and aerospace technology?

*But - UPPPS  - Sorry I'm wrong: 

From now on I admit, the J-20 can reach Mach 3 in level flight, it has a super-duper-hyper mega-powerful engine based on technology no other nation on earth has mastered in the thrust class exceeding the PW2000 even if much smaller ... So stronk, all others are total loosers!*

... oh Lord I'm stupid !! Please forgive me, I'm stupid indeed and will never tell any contrary to the last paragraph; never ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Mr. Deino can't even grasp basic concepts such as Thrust to Weight Ratio (TWR), Afterburner, sustained vertical climb, and *he can't even read or write a single Chinese word*, yet he has written several books on "Chinese Combat Aircrafts", and contributes to several aircraft magazines.   

This is mind-boggling to me.

Mr. Deino is a typical know nothing "journalist". I almost want to order a copy of his book on Amazon, just to see, what he writes.

Mr. Deino has lost his bet that J-20 is using a Russian made AF-31-FN-M2 engine, yet he is still refuse to honor his promise to resign the position of Moderator.

I must say my opinion of the German people has dropped a notch because of Mr. Deino's shamelessness.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nang2

Asok said:


> Mr. Deino is a typical know nothing "journalist". I almost want to order a copy of his book on Amazon, just to see, what he writes.
> 
> Mr. Deino has lost his bet that J-20 is using a Russian made AF-31-FN-M2 engine, yet he is still refuse to honor his promise to resign the position of Moderator.
> 
> I must say my opinion of the German people has dropped a notch because of Mr. Deino's shamelessness.


I think Deino is a fine mod. It isn't hard to estimate it wrong, especially about Chinese weaponry, thanks to Chinese elusive way of information sharing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shotgunner51

@wanglaokan @Asok @j20blackdragon @grey boy 2 @pakistanipower @Tiqiu @ChineseTiger1986

I have had great experience working together with fellow mod - Deino - he is a fair man, critical to details, dedicated to his work, and just as emotional as any normal man like all of us. Let us all have a friendly and peaceful coexistence aka all sides stop with their name-calling, personal attacks against nationality or profession (and these include certain smileys that's sometimes perceived as provocation, use some manner please). I suggest everyone only argue on technical matters, if anything is not confirmed it is admitted as such (until the true facts are confirmed, with data from credible sources). Personal opinions are allowed, personal analysis/investigations are encouraged (putting bits and pieces together, and reach one's own conclusion or assumption), so feel free to express, and do respect others' rights to do the same. Thanks and best regards, Shotgunner51

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Shotgunner51 said:


> @wanglaokan @Asok @j20blackdragon @grey boy 2 @pakistanipower @Tiqiu @ChineseTiger1986
> 
> I have had great experience working together with fellow mod - Deino - he is a fair man, critical to details, dedicated to his work, and just as emotional as any normal man like all of us. Let us all have a friendly and peaceful coexistence aka all sides stop with their name-calling, personal attacks against nationality or profession (and these include certain smileys that's sometimes perceived as provocation, use some manner please). I suggest everyone only argue on technical matters, if anything is not confirmed it is admitted as such (until the true facts are confirmed, with data from credible sources). Personal opinions or views are encouraged, so feel free to express, and do respect others' rights to do the same. Thanks and best regards, Shotgunner51



Thanks a lot for these words and I admit that I'm surely emotional, indeed no longer impartial, maybe even biased.
But I think in the same way others can admit the same ... only from their own side of perception and understanding.

I promise to stick to these suggested rules so that the discussion can return to be rational and objective until the facts are actually openly confirmed and there is no room for further interpretation.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

Shotgunner51 said:


> @wanglaokan @Asok @j20blackdragon @grey boy 2 @pakistanipower @Tiqiu @ChineseTiger1986
> 
> I have had great experience working together with fellow mod - Deino - he is a fair man, critical to details, dedicated to his work, and just as emotional as any normal man like all of us. Let us all have a friendly and peaceful coexistence aka all sides stop with their name-calling, personal attacks against nationality or profession (and these include certain smileys that's sometimes perceived as provocation, use some manner please). I suggest everyone only argue on technical matters, if anything is not confirmed it is admitted as such (until the true facts are confirmed, with data from credible sources). Personal opinions are allowed, personal analysis/investigations are encouraged (putting bits and pieces together, and reach one's own conclusion or assumption), so feel free to express, and do respect others' rights to do the same. Thanks and best regards, Shotgunner51


But why deino said that China can't install WS series of engine and insisting this indeginous engine is AL-31 M2

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## That Guy

pakistanipower said:


> But why deino said that China can't install WS series of engine and insisting this indeginous engine is AL-31 M2


Why are you offended by that? He's making a technical call, based upon his own knowledge. Disagree? Explain why.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> Why are you offended by that? He's making a technical call, based upon his own knowledge. Disagree? Explain why.


Based on knowledge for what? he has a eye catching assessment with no base, he is no technical background, the biggest reason is that all Chinese senior members telling indigenous engine is install on J-20 @Deino can't agree with other Chinese senior members and Call* its a home made AL-31M2 with no Prove* if China make AL-31M2 it call *reverse engineered* not *indigenous engine *thats why i can't agree with him



That Guy said:


> Why are you offended by that? He's making a technical call, based upon his own knowledge. Disagree? Explain why.


Based on knowledge for what? he has a eye catching assessment with no base, he is no technical background, the biggest reason is that all Chinese senior members telling indigenous engine is install on J-20 @Deino can't agree with other Chinese senior members and Call* its a home made AL-31M2 with no Prove* if China make AL-31M2 it call *reverse engineered* not *indigenous engine *thats why i can't agree with him

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## That Guy

pakistanipower said:


> Based on knowledge for what? he has a eye catching assessment *with no base, he is no technical background*, the biggest reason is that all Chinese senior members telling indigenous engine is install on J-20 @Deino can't agree with other Chinese senior members and Call* its a home made AL-31M2 with no Prove* if China make AL-31M2 it call *reverse engineered* not *indigenous engine *thats why i can't agree with him


And you do? How do we know those Chinese senior members have a technical background?

We're all military enthusiasts, nothing more. Some of us just happen to be professionals, or more knowledgeable than others.

Disagreement is a part of discussion, and considering that every single member on here is basing their opinions on guess work, there is no reason to start insulting other people's intelligence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Based on knowledge for what? he has a eye catching assessment with no base, he is no technical background, the biggest reason is that all Chinese senior members telling indigenous engine is install on J-20 @Deino can't agree with other Chinese senior members and Call* its a home made AL-31M2 with no Prove* if China make AL-31M2 it call *reverse engineered* not *indigenous engine *thats why i can't agree with him
> 
> 
> Based on knowledge for what? he has a eye catching assessment with no base, he is no technical background, the biggest reason is that all Chinese senior members telling indigenous engine is install on J-20 @Deino can't agree with other Chinese senior members and Call* its a home made AL-31M2 with no Prove* if China make AL-31M2 it call *reverse engineered* not *indigenous engine *thats why i can't agree with him



Thanks for telling the obvious truth, bro. Mr. Deino don't have the decency to admit he was wrong, and don't have the sense of honor to keep his promise and resign as Moderator.

Mr. Deino is just playing with words, right now. He got nothing else to say. He got no technical background. In fact, he is technically illiterate. He can't read or write one word of Chinese, yet acts as he is a "Chinese Combat Aircrafts" expert.

So pathetic.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

Shotgunner51 said:


> @wanglaokan @Asok @j20blackdragon @grey boy 2 @pakistanipower @Tiqiu @ChineseTiger1986
> 
> I have had great experience working together with fellow mod - Deino - he is a fair man, critical to details, dedicated to his work, and just as emotional as any normal man like all of us. Let us all have a friendly and peaceful coexistence aka all sides stop with their name-calling, personal attacks against nationality or profession (and these include certain smileys that's sometimes perceived as provocation, use some manner please). I suggest everyone only argue on technical matters, if anything is not confirmed it is admitted as such (until the true facts are confirmed, with data from credible sources). Personal opinions are allowed, personal analysis/investigations are encouraged (putting bits and pieces together, and reach one's own conclusion or assumption), so feel free to express, and do respect others' rights to do the same. Thanks and best regards, Shotgunner51


I pretty much said the similar words half a year ago about Deino on this very thread and wonder why i am on your tagging now? You made me feel i am part of something against Deino, which i am not to be official. Anyway it is nice to talk you again.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> And you do? How do we know those Chinese senior members have a technical background?
> 
> We're all military enthusiasts, nothing more. Some of us just happen to be professionals, or more knowledgeable than others.
> 
> Disagreement is a part of discussion, and considering that every single member on here is basing their opinions on guess work, there is no reason to start insulting other people's intelligence.


But is @Deino has a better sources than our Chinese friends, and I am not insulting deino but just asking him to clear his opinion

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## That Guy

pakistanipower said:


> But is @Deino has a better sources than our Chinese friends, and I am not insulting deino but just asking him to clear his opinion


How do you know those chinese members have contacts at all?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

That Guy said:


> How do you know those chinese members have contacts at all?


Becos we speak Chinese, all important documentary interview with chief designer, vice or president of AVIC, give interview in Chinese. If you want the best source of Chinese military news. These documentary, report and interview are the best source to know the latest upcoming of Chinese development. Far more better than and English military expert who know nothing about Chinese. You don't know Chinese, you don't know what PLA try to disclose to the world. That is Chinese way and no other way unless you change CPC. Don't tell me those chief designer and engineer know nothing, only western one is authentic. I am sick of this kind of stereotypes BS.

Do not use western method to gauge China. If so, it will be same like saying western democracy government system is equal to communist socialist system of China. You method of looking at China military using western view will never work.

Bear in mind, many of those Chinese chief designer in fact are very humble. They will not claim their product is world class or leading without substantial proof. They will not make tall claim which can never materialize. Because they need to be answerable to their superior if tall claim
Is not achievable. Unlike many fabricated are lies by the western media about Chinese making unsubstantial claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Asoka

That Guy said:


> And you do? How do we know those Chinese senior members have a technical background?
> 
> We're all military enthusiasts, nothing more. Some of us just happen to be professionals, or more knowledgeable than others.
> 
> Disagreement is a part of discussion, and considering that every single member on here is basing their opinions on guess work, there is no reason to start insulting other people's intelligence.




*"considering that every single member on here is basing their opinions on guess work"*

Really, every one is here basing their opinions on guess work?

Is the opinion of CCTV-4, which claims "“歼20隐身战机发动机零部件的加工和最终装配都是在中国航发黎明公司工装制造厂进行的”

"The J-20 stealth fighter's engine part, tooling and final assembly were all completed in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd."

also based on guess work, not authoritative insider knowledge?

Thanks for this spacious and vacuous claim to white wash Mr. Deino's groundless and insistent trolling that J-20 is flying with a Russian made AL-31-FN-M2 engine, not indigenous Chinese made engine.

He has offered not one thread of evidence to back up his claims other than pictures of the exhaust nozzles.



Beast said:


> Becos we speak Chinese, all important documentary interview with chief designer, vice or president of AVIC, give interview in Chinese. If you want the best source of Chinese military news. These documentary, report and interview are the best source to know the latest upcoming of Chinese development. Far more better than and English military expert who know nothing about Chinese. You don't know Chinese, you don't know what PLA try to disclose to the world. That is Chinese way and no other way unless you change CPC. Don't tell me those chief designer and engineer know nothing, only western one is authentic. I am sick of this kind of stereotypes BS.
> 
> Do not use western method to gauge China. If so, it will be same like saying western democracy government system is equal to communist socialist system of China. You method of looking at China military using western view will never work.
> 
> Bear in mind, many of those Chinese chief designer in fact are very humble. They will not claim their product is world class or leading without substantial proof. They will not make tall claim which can never materialize. Because they need to be answerable to their superior if tall claim
> Is not achievable. Unlike many fabricated are lies by the western media about Chinese making unsubstantial claim.



Bro, thanks for the writing out the simple and obvious truth. I am very tired of those western MSM B.S., myself.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

Beast said:


> Becos we speak Chinese, all important documentary interview with chief designer, vice or president of AVIC, give interview in Chinese. If you want the best source of Chinese military news. These documentary, report and interview are the best source to know the latest upcoming of Chinese development. Far more better than and English military expert who know nothing about Chinese. You don't know Chinese, you don't know *what PLA try to disclose to the world*. That is Chinese way and no other way unless you change CPC. Don't tell me those chief designer and engineer know nothing, only western one is authentic. I am sick of this kind of stereotypes BS.
> 
> Do not use western method to gauge China. If so, it will be same like saying western democracy government system is equal to communist socialist system of China. You method of looking at China military using western view will never work.
> 
> Bear in mind, many of those Chinese chief designer in fact are very humble. They will not claim their product is world class or leading without substantial proof. They will not make tall claim which can never materialize. Because they need to be answerable to their superior if tall claim
> Is not achievable. Unlike many fabricated are lies by the western media about Chinese making unsubstantial claim.


But Prof. ANDREW, Prof. LYLE at the *Naval War College* do understand "_what PLA try to disclose to the world_"  they hire a bunch of Chinese language specialists in their team to decipher the PLA development, piece by piece!!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Shotgunner51

pakistanipower said:


> But why deino said that China can't install WS series of engine and insisting this indeginous engine is AL-31 M2


I have no idea bro, I have little info about WS or AL-31, no comment on the subject. Just relax, debate on technical, you're a senior member let's not do name-calling.


Asok said:


> Mr. Deino is just playing with words, right now.


No more name-calling, let's talk about the subject, not the poster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> How do you know those chinese members have contacts at all?


what is you talking about? their country, their languages, they have better sources than@Deino, and Even @Deino can't read, speak and understand simple Chinese and you called it Chinese Militarty Expert, what a double standard you have

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> what is you talking about? their country, their languages, they have better sources than@Deino, and Even @Deino can't read, speak and understand simple Chinese and you called it Chinese Militarty Expert, what a double standard you have


I have no doubt Deino will beat us hands down on what type of Chinese combat aircraft and estimate how many aircraft station at which Chinese airbases. Which serial number of the Chinese aircraft represent which zone regiment.

But don't be fool thinking such knowledge equal to know the future development or latest development of Chinese aviation. They are very likely unrelated.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Ultima Thule

Shotgunner51 said:


> I have no idea bro, I have little info about WS or AL-31, no comment on the subject. Just relax, debate on technical, you're a senior member let's not do name-calling.


If most of Chinese senior members on PDF saying that indigenous engine install on J-20 doesn't mean that home made AL-31M2 is called *"indigenous engine"* its called *"reversed engineered"* engine because he believe his eye cathcing assessment

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> But Prof. ANDREW, Prof. LYLE at the *Naval War College* do understand "_what PLA try to disclose to the world_"  they hire a bunch of Chinese language specialists in their team to decipher the PLA development, piece by piece!!



The Requirements for a good competent intelligence specialists are three fold.

1.) He must have good language skills of that target country.
2.) He must be educated in the field that he is trying to decipher.
3.) He must willing to work for the "modest" salary of being an intelligence analyst, instead of the field he was educated, which often pays a lot more than a government intelligence agency salary.

So, for US to get good intelligence on Chinese aeronautical development, those analysts must able to read and write Chinese, must have a degree or substantial background in aeronautical, and willing to get pay $60k-80k a year.

Unfortunately, the first part of hiring a Chinese speaker to work in CIA is a big problem. This candidate must pass a through security ground check. That he has no family connections in China, that he has no regular contacts with Chinese nationals, that he can not make undeclared private trips to China. . .etc.

This is practically eliminated a native Chinese speaker.

And what you got is someone who is born in the US, with no family in China and probably barely know any Chinese language.

As for a aeronautical engineer, $60-$80k per year is the starting salary for a new grad.

So who with a aeronautical degree and can speaks and write Chinese, wants to work in CIA, for $60-80k per year?

*What's that mean?*

It means CIA is getting B.S. from "journalists" who don't know Chinese, who don't know aeronautics as intelligences.

Those "journalists/analysts" can't read Chinese, and they can't read technical papers, even in English.

The secret is there are vast amount of aeronautics technical papers, in Chinese language, on the Internet, for anyone to read.

The Chinese state/military secrets, are open to anyone, who wants to learn them.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Shotgunner51

pakistanipower said:


> If most of Chinese senior members on PDF saying that indigenous engine install on J-20 doesn't mean that home made AL-31M2 is called *"indigenous engine"* its called *"reversed engineered"* engine because he believe his eye cathcing assessment


Well bro let's agree to disagree and move on, let's continue to post on technical matters, I have zero knowledge on this subject so I would like to know more. Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> But why deino said that China can't install WS series of engine and insisting this indeginous engine is AL-31 M2



You missed the point: *I never said* "China can't install WS". *All I said is* "based on my information and the assessment of other arguments I still come to the conclusion, that IMO the most likely option is still an AL-31FN (M2) based design". 

That's a difference and I don't see why this is trolling as You reported exactly such posts ?? It's my opinion based on my considerations in the same way You and @Asok come to other conclusions. The difference is however the way You present them and personally insult another opinion. If You feel offended or even insulted by the fact alone that I have a different opinion You should at least never become a teacher. If I would take every mistake made by any pupil an insult like You guys deem my "opinion" ... uuiuiuiuiui, it won't be good.

@Asok @pakistanipower 

Just a kind reminder to both of You !

@Shotgunner51's call was not only a beg but an open moderator's call to calm down. It was kindly said but in no way open for any further discussion, his words are quite clear for anyone who can read and is willing and able to understand:

*"... stop with their name-calling, personal attacks against nationality or profession (and these include certain smileys that's sometimes perceived as provocation, use some manner please). I suggest everyone only argue on technical matters, if anything is not confirmed it is admitted as such (until the true facts are confirmed, with data from credible sources). Personal opinions are allowed, personal analysis/investigations are encouraged (putting bits and pieces together, and reach one's own conclusion or assumption)."*

Not sure what You both did not understand? As such this is the last warning - now from me in the role as a moderator - *STOP *exactly these things mentioned above or face the consequences. 





pakistanipower said:


> But is @Deino has a better sources than our Chinese friends, and I am not insulting deino but just asking him to clear his opinion



Thanks for raising this point, which is true - but for all here. The point is and here I'm not sure what's Your or Mr. Asok's academic background not only the availability of "sources" but also their weighting against each other if they are contradicting is important. It's the assessment of what source is more reliable than another and drawing conclusions. To admit after two academic diplomas in Chemistry and Education I think to tell I'm illiterate while at the same time posting calculations a true aeronautical engineer is laughing an *** is pathetic and arrogant. One can come to other conclusions due to the points I mentioned above (aka the weighting of different sources) 

I can only say that I have "sources" in China, in Russia and not only in other foreign-language forums. I'm in discussion with native Chinese, with guys who have a close relationship to the Aerospace Industry and even the military. All these guys are helpful, honest, respectful and patient. They listen to my concerns and explain. I'm very thankful. Anyway, Yes I make mistakes, the language barrier is huge - but not surmountable if You have the correct contacts and assistance in translation and "reading between the lines" - and surely the cultural differences is another issue. But that does not mean automatically each and every conclusion is wrong. Even more in return picking only the arguments You like without being even willing to look at a certain contra-argument is in no way academic, literate or logical ... but that has anyone to decide for his own.


----------



## Shotgunner51

Hi posters, I don't participate in technical discussion here, I will just mod.
Stay on topic, discuss on the subject and post freely as you wish, but not on any poster's personal background.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

I don't know what my Chinese brothers will do, as for me, since they're not interesting in a fair game, as they're also the authority in Chinese military matters, from now on, if i will ever post again, it will be pictures with exactly the Chinese content along with it, feel free to delete it or ban me see if i care
I'm sure @Deino and @Shotgunner51 could made a perfect team to further enhance Chinese defense section with their expertise without interference from us ignorant fanboys

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> If most of Chinese senior members on PDF saying that indigenous engine install on J-20 doesn't mean that home made AL-31M2 is called *"indigenous engine"* its called *"reversed engineered"* engine because he believe his eye cathcing assessment




Good point for starting a discussion: In general I agree with You, but scientific "facts" are in no way dependent on a democratic vote or "the majority of supporters". Just think about Galileo Galilei and his critics heliocentrism. That does not mean I'm correct, but the number of supporters of a certain opinion barely means it has to be correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shotgunner51

grey boy 2 said:


> I don't know what my Chinese brothers will do, as for me, since they're not interesting in a fair game, as they're also the authority in Chinese military matters, from now on, if i will ever post again, it will be pictures with exactly the Chinese content along with it, feel free to delete it or ban me see if i care
> I'm sure @Deino and @Shotgunner51 could made a perfect team to further enhance Chinese defense section with their expertise without interference from us ignorant fanboys


Relax bro, just post any opinion on the subject of J20 or WS or the likes. Let's not post about fellow poster or mod. Not a single technical post will be deleted no matter it's for or against WS-15, no one will be banned for doing so.

Posting against an opposing opinion, not the poster himself, is a career skill that I find critical to survival in workplace too. Use PDF as a practice room!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> I don't know what my Chinese brothers will do, as for me, since they're not interesting in a fair game, as they're also the authority in Chinese military matters, from now on, if i will ever post again, it will be pictures with exactly the Chinese content along with it, feel free to delete it or ban me see if i care
> I'm sure @Deino and @Shotgunner51 could made a perfect team to further enhance Chinese defense section with their expertise without interference from us ignorant fanboys




No fear, I will never ban anyone for a different opinion nor will I delete any post. By the way I deem You not ignorant. You simply have a different opinion based on Your assessment and that's fine as long as it is presented in a civilised manner.
But You mention one important point: being an "authority in Chinese military matters" does not give You any right to be "not interesting in a fair game".


----------



## grey boy 2

Shotgunner51 said:


> Relax bro, just post any opinion on the subject of J20 or WS or the likes. Let's not post about fellow poster or mod.


Please don;t turn a blind eyes on how many times this rude Deino had insulted us for posting things he thought is stupid just because he doesn't believed in it, example will be the hybrid engine Beast was suggesting, he threatening to ban him, he's just playing his fake Mr nice card which we all know how phony he can get
Never mind @Shotgunner51 , i speak nothing but the truth, whatever happen i don't care period



Deino said:


> No fear, I will never ban anyone for a different opinion nor will I delete any post. By the way I deem You not ignorant. You simply have a different opinion based on Your assessment and that's fine as long as it is presented in a civilised manner.
> But You mention one important point: being an "authority in Chinese military matters" does not give You any right to be "not interesting in a fair game".


I fear of you banning me? i'm rude to you or its the other way around ha? you must be out of your mind

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> You missed the point: *I never said* "China can't install WS". *All I said is* "based on my information and the assessment of other arguments I still come to the conclusion, that IMO the most likely option is still an AL-31FN (M2) based design".


What information and assessment you have on this subject kindly share us, if they make AL-31M2 they can't call it *"indigenous engine" *but *"reversed engine"* or called it a copy of AL-31M2


Deino said:


> Thanks for raising this point, which is true - but for all here. The point is and here I'm not sure what's Your or Mr. Asok's academic background not only the availability of "sources" but also their weighting against each other if they are contradicting is important. It's the assessment of what source is more reliable than another and drawing conclusions. To admit after two academic diplomas in Chemistry and Education I think to tell I'm illiterate while at the same time posting calculations a true aeronautical engineer is laughing an *** is pathetic and arrogant. One can come to other conclusions due to the points I mentioned above (aka the weighting of different sources)
> 
> I can only say that I have "sources" in China, in Russia and not only in other foreign-language forums. I'm in discussion with native Chinese, with guys who have a close relationship to the Aerospace Industry and even the military. All these guys are helpful, honest, respectful and patient. They listen to my concerns and explain. I'm very thankful. Anyway, Yes I make mistakes, the language barrier is huge - but not surmountable if You have the correct contacts and assistance in translation and "reading between the lines" - and surely the cultural differences is another issue. But that does not mean automatically each and every conclusion is wrong. Even more in return picking only the arguments You like without being even willing to look at a certain contra-argument is in no way academic, literate or logical ... but that has anyone to decide for his own.


 i am not calling @Asok or me as a expert on Chinese Military but almost every other Chinese senior members on PDF like @cirr, @ChineseTiger1986, @Beast, @wanglaokan , others can clearly stated that this engine is not related to AL-31M2 and maybe its a imporved version of WS-10 can i ask you to on what reason do you think its a AL-31M2 please kindly share us

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Han Patriot

Shotgunner51 said:


> Relax bro, just post any opinion on the subject of J20 or WS or the likes. Let's not post about fellow poster or mod. Not a single technical post will be deleted no matter it's for or against WS-15, no one will be banned for doing so.
> 
> Posting against an opposing opinion, not the poster himself, is a career skill that I find critical to survival in workplace too. Use PDF as a practice room!


This I gotta agree. Chinese posters need to learn this skill, don't be emotional, go against the subject matter not the person. Even in work place, emails can kill, you can shoot a person without getting angry. It depends on you English skills, and some soft sarcasm.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## samsara

Asok said:


> The Requirements for a good competent intelligence specialists are three fold.
> 
> 1.) He must have good language skills of that target country.
> 2.) He must be educated in the field that he is trying to decipher.
> 3.) He must willing to work for the "modest" salary of being an intelligence analyst, instead of the field he was educated, which often pays a lot more than a government intelligence agency salary.
> 
> So, for US to get good intelligence on Chinese aeronautical development, those analysts must able to read and write Chinese, must have a degree or substantial background in aeronautical, and willing to get pay $60k-80k a year.
> 
> Unfortunately, the first part of hiring a Chinese speaker to work in CIA is a big problem. This candidate must pass a through security ground check. That he has no family connections in China, that he has no regular contacts with Chinese nationals, that he can not make undeclared private trips to China. . .etc.
> 
> This is practically eliminated a native Chinese speaker.
> 
> And what you got is someone who is born in the US, with no family in China and probably barely know any Chinese language.
> 
> As for a aeronautical engineer, $60-$80k per year is the starting salary for a new grad.
> 
> So who with a aeronautical degree and can speaks and write Chinese, wants to work in CIA, for $60-80k per year?
> 
> *What's that mean?*
> 
> It means CIA is getting B.S. from "journalists" who don't know Chinese, who don't know aeronautics as intelligences.
> 
> Those "journalists/analysts" can't read Chinese, and they can't read technical papers, even in English.
> 
> The secret is there are vast amount of aeronautics technical papers, in Chinese language, on the Internet, for anyone to read.
> 
> The Chinese state/military secrets, are open to anyone, who wants to learn them.


Asok, with all respects it's just your assumption. Increase the pays to 150k-200k pa then thing will be quite different. Some names immediately come into my mind, Gordon Chang; Dean Cheng and of course many others behind the veils.

Those in the West (the alphabet agencies, Pentagon, Naval War College, myriad of Think tanks etc) that are concerning with these matters may grasp, only what they tell publicly are quite different. They have their own story line agendas to convey to the public, power image to preserve, interests to push forward, etc etc... I don't want to underestimate their financial resources.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> You missed the point: *I never said* "China can't install WS". *All I said is* "based on my information and the assessment of other arguments I still come to the conclusion, that IMO the most likely option is still an AL-31FN (M2) based design".
> 
> That's a difference and I don't see why this is trolling as You reported exactly such posts ?? It's my opinion based on my considerations in the same way You and @Asok come to other conclusions. The difference is however the way You present them and personally insult another opinion. If You feel offended or even insulted by the fact alone that I have a different opinion You should at least never become a teacher. If I would take every mistake made by any pupil an insult like You guys deem my "opinion" ... uuiuiuiuiui, it won't be good.
> 
> @Asok @pakistanipower
> 
> Just a kind reminder to both of You !
> 
> @Shotgunner51's call was not only a beg but an open moderator's call to calm down. It was kindly said but in no way open for any further discussion, his words are quite clear for anyone who can read and is willing and able to understand:
> 
> *"... stop with their name-calling, personal attacks against nationality or profession (and these include certain smileys that's sometimes perceived as provocation, use some manner please). I suggest everyone only argue on technical matters, if anything is not confirmed it is admitted as such (until the true facts are confirmed, with data from credible sources). Personal opinions are allowed, personal analysis/investigations are encouraged (putting bits and pieces together, and reach one's own conclusion or assumption)."*
> 
> Not sure what You both did not understand? As such this is the last warning - now from me in the role as a moderator - *STOP *exactly these things mentioned above or face the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for raising this point, which is true - but for all here. The point is and here I'm not sure what's Your or Mr. Asok's academic background not only the availability of "sources" but also their weighting against each other if they are contradicting is important. It's the assessment of what source is more reliable than another and drawing conclusions. To admit after two academic diplomas in Chemistry and Education I think to tell I'm illiterate while at the same time posting calculations a true aeronautical engineer is laughing an *** is pathetic and arrogant. One can come to other conclusions due to the points I mentioned above (aka the weighting of different sources)
> 
> I can only say that I have "sources" in China, in Russia and not only in other foreign-language forums. I'm in discussion with native Chinese, with guys who have a close relationship to the Aerospace Industry and even the military. All these guys are helpful, honest, respectful and patient. They listen to my concerns and explain. I'm very thankful. Anyway, Yes I make mistakes, the language barrier is huge - but not surmountable if You have the correct contacts and assistance in translation and "reading between the lines" - and surely the cultural differences is another issue. But that does not mean automatically each and every conclusion is wrong. Even more in return picking only the arguments You like without being even willing to look at a certain contra-argument is in no way academic, literate or logical ... but that has anyone to decide for his own.


Your so called Chinese friend is not going to translate every single Chinese words for you. They just trying to give you a rough idea but maybe missing some small detail part which can result in failing to fully understand the story. Chinese language is a highly complex language. A single words of minor content can change the whole message it trying to convey.

They do not have the same analysis as you do when trying to convey the translated message. For example, they may try to convey what they want you to know and not exactly what the sentence or text stated.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## l0ngl0ng

grey boy 2 said:


> Please don;t turn a blind eyes on how many times this rude Deino had insulted us for posting things he thought is stupid just because he doesn't believed in it, example will be the hybrid engine Beast was suggesting, he threatening to ban him, he's just playing his fake Mr nice card which we all know how phony he can get
> Never mind @Shotgunner51 , i speak nothing but the truth, whatever happen i don't care period
> 
> I fear of you banning me? i'm rude to you or its the other way around ha? you must be out of your mind



Making you angry are fishing baits, good and free.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sinait

grey boy 2 said:


> Please don;t turn a blind eyes on how many times this rude Deino had insulted us for posting things he thought is stupid just because he doesn't believed in it, example will be the hybrid engine Beast was suggesting, he threatening to ban him, he's just playing his fake Mr nice card which we all know how phony he can get
> Never mind @Shotgunner51 , i speak nothing but the truth, whatever happen i don't care period
> I fear of you banning me? i'm rude to you or its the other way around ha? you must be out of your mind


What to do. He decided as a mod that he is not rude. There is a reason why judges must recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest, and referees only officiate and don't play in a soccer match. 
No fun engaging someone who keeps threatening to ban anyone who, in his not necessarily unbiased opinion, is rude to him. Or else why its such a big issue on who gets to select the US Supreme Court judge if all judges are able to be fair and not biased. 

Regards Chinese translation, there is not a direct correlation between the languages and nuances may get lost in the translation. Many times it is just not possible to express what the original Chinese article intents. 
Expressing ourselves clearly and concisely, is not easy, and more so when we have to do that on a language that is not easy to translate from.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Your so called Chinese friend is not going to translate every single Chinese words for you. They just trying to give you a rough idea but maybe missing some small detail part which can result in failing to fully understand the story. Chinese language is a highly complex language. A single words of minor content can change the whole message it trying to convey.
> 
> They do not have the same analysis as you do when trying to convey the translated message. For example, they may try to convey what they want you to know and not exactly what the sentence or text stated.




Mr. Deino is a nice guy?

That's not how I see it or remember how he treats other people.

He has threaten to ban me and delete all my posts in three separate occasions, in the past year, when I post findings that is contrary to his groundless speculation that J-20 is flying with the Russian made the phantom AL-31-FN-M2 engine.

And he has done the same thing to other members, who contradicted him.

His has bet his position as Moderator, on the J-20 engine identity. This has made it clear that he is not neutral on this issue, but has a strong bias toward his groundless opinion.

He is not fit to be a Moderator in this forum, at least not in this J-20 thread.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> Asok, with all respects it's just your assumption. Increase the pays to 150k-200k pa then thing will be quite different. Some names immediately come into my mind, Gordon Chang; Dean Cheng and of course many others behind the veils.
> 
> Those in the West (the alphabet agencies, Pentagon, Naval War College, myriad of Think tanks etc) that are concerning with these matters may grasp, only what they tell publicly are quite different. They have their own story line agendas to convey to the public, power image to preserve, interests to push forward, etc etc... I don't want to underestimate their financial resources.




*"Asok, with all respects it's just your assumption. Increase the pays to 150k-200k pa then thing will be quite different. Some names immediately come into my mind, Gordon Chang; Dean Cheng and of course many others behind the veils."*

You really don't know what you are talking about here. I have lived and worked in Washington DC, since 1999. I have worked in a Defense Contractor firm, which makes Command Control Center, and others equipments for Pentagon.

I have a good idea of how candidates are screened for a Top Secret Clearance. It's hellish for a foreign born individual, especially for a China born person.

The only growth industry in Washington DC is the Homeland Security/CIA/NSA, which added the equivalent of 3 Pentagon size of office space and hired tens of thousands of employees and contractors since 2011.

If you increase the Intelligence Analyst's salary from $60k-$80k to $150k-$200k, you must do the same for the rest of the hundreds of thousands of other employees and contractors.

And that still won't get you the native Chinese Speakers with specialized domain knowledge to work for Pentagon/CIA/NSA, unless you lower the ridiculously strict security clearance background checks, which takes 2-5 years for an individual to past. He must fill in a mountain of paper works, disclose all his personal informations, history, all his family connections in China, where he lived since he was born, and past an annual lie detector test.

Who wants to do that, if he can work somewhere, for the same money?


----------



## That Guy

pakistanipower said:


> what is you talking about? their country, their languages, they have better sources than@Deino, and Even @Deino can't read, speak and understand simple Chinese and you called it Chinese Militarty Expert, what a double standard you have


When did I say that anyone here is a military expert? Do you seriously not read anything that others say?

Your reasoning is dumb! You speak urdu, do you know what secret projects that Pakistan Army are conducting? Do you have contacts within the army? No, you don't.

@Deino @Shotgunner51 I seriously recommend banning this dude, his insulting manner is disgusting.



Asok said:


> *"considering that every single member on here is basing their opinions on guess work"*
> 
> Really, every one is here basing their opinions on guess work?
> 
> Is the opinion of CCTV-4, which claims "“歼20隐身战机发动机零部件的加工和最终装配都是在中国航发黎明公司工装制造厂进行的”
> 
> "The J-20 stealth fighter's engine part, tooling and final assembly were all completed in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd."
> 
> also based on guess work, not authoritative insider knowledge?
> 
> Thanks for this spacious and vacuous claim to white wash Mr. Deino's groundless and insistent trolling that J-20 is flying with a Russian made AL-31-FN-M2 engine, not indigenous Chinese made engine.
> 
> He has offered not one thread of evidence to back up his claims other than pictures of the exhaust nozzles.


That doesn't mean you have insider knowledge, that just means you either read a fucking article, or watched news. YOU do not have insider knowledge.

Also, just because the J-20 has indigenous engines being developed, it does not mean that the J-20 is currently using indigenous engines.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Way to jump the shark.



Beast said:


> Becos we speak Chinese, all important documentary interview with chief designer, vice or president of AVIC, give interview in Chinese. If you want the best source of Chinese military news. These documentary, report and interview are the best source to know the latest upcoming of Chinese development. Far more better than and English military expert who know nothing about Chinese. You don't know Chinese, you don't know what PLA try to disclose to the world. That is Chinese way and no other way unless you change CPC. Don't tell me those chief designer and engineer know nothing, only western one is authentic. I am sick of this kind of stereotypes BS.
> 
> Do not use western method to gauge China. If so, it will be same like saying western democracy government system is equal to communist socialist system of China. You method of looking at China military using western view will never work.
> 
> Bear in mind, many of those Chinese chief designer in fact are very humble. They will not claim their product is world class or leading without substantial proof. They will not make tall claim which can never materialize. Because they need to be answerable to their superior if tall claim
> Is not achievable. Unlike many fabricated are lies by the western media about Chinese making unsubstantial claim.



While I appreciate your detailed reply, I would ask that you not assume things about my views.

Anyway, in the end, my comments stand.

We do not know how accurate the information we get is, because so much info is classified, and numbers given tend to never be truly accurate (this is true for every military in the world, including China). It is NOT because the Chinese engineers and designers are lying, but rather requirements change and issue crop up that end up changing the initial plan.

Until the fighter is fully operational and deployed, and not still in development, take everything with a grain of salt.

As for @Deino my issue isn't if he's right or wrong, but rather my message to @pakistanipower was not to simply insult him, just because he happened to disagree.

Just like you and @Asok are sick and tired of foreigners dismissing China's achievements, I'm sick of some Chinese and Pakistani members dismissing foreign opinions because they're "western" or "bias".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

That Guy said:


> When did I say that anyone here is a military expert? Do you seriously not read anything that others say?
> 
> Your reasoning is dumb! You speak urdu, do you know what secret projects that Pakistan Army are conducting? Do you have contacts within the army? No, you don't.
> 
> @Deino @Shotgunner51 I seriously recommend banning this dude, his insulting manner is disgusting.
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean you have insider knowledge, that just means you either read a fucking article, or watched news. YOU do not have insider knowledge.
> 
> Also, just because the J-20 has indigenous engines being developed, it does not mean that the J-20 is currently using indigenous engines.
> 
> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
> 
> Way to jump the shark.
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate your detailed reply, I would ask that you not assume things about my views.
> 
> Anyway, in the end, my comments stand.
> 
> We do not know how accurate the information we get is, because so much info is classified, and numbers given tend to never be truly accurate (this is true for every military in the world, including China). It is NOT because the Chinese engineers and designers are lying, but rather requirements change and issue crop up that end up changing the initial plan.
> 
> Until the fighter is fully operational and deployed, and not still in development, take everything with a grain of salt.
> 
> As for @Deino my issue isn't if he's right or wrong, but rather my message to @pakistanipower was not to simply insult him, just because he happened to disagree.
> 
> Just like you and @Asok are sick and tired of foreigners dismissing China's achievements, I'm sick of some Chinese and Pakistani members dismissing foreign opinions because they're "western" or "bias".



*Since You cannot stick to a moderator's friendly call (@Shotgunner51), since You cannot keep calm even after two warnings and keep continuing insulting other members I give You a two-week "time-out" in this topic. Either calm down and tame Your tone or go to the next level.*

*Arguments are allowed, but no longer any personnel insults.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

@Deino, see, you've shown everyone right as you've started to oppress those who doesn't agreed with your "my way or highway" acts, nothing surprising but as predicted what a narrow minded person you actually are
People are not blind here to witness how you've been pin pointed 1st target @Beast and now 2nd @Asok that has refused to give up their believe and despised you for denying your lost with the bet regarding the engine argument, you're a man with no honor with your promise
The worst of all is that you're using @Shotgunner51 as excuses to taking your revenge with those that has been embarrassing you for eating your own promise after losing your "bet" 
You may win with your revenge by abusing your moderation power however you've lost all your respect from most of the Chinese members here
Now please negative rating and ban me for calling you out, thankyou

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## UKBengali

I agree that the current J-20 engine is TOTALLY Chinese.

This theory of a Chinese-built AL-31FN is simply ridiculous and laughable.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
21


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> I agree that the current J-20 engine is TOTALLY Chinese.
> 
> This theory of a Chinese-built AL-31FN is simply ridiculous and laughable.



The WS-10B now looks like a code name for the most primitive version of the WS-15, it is by far superior to any other WS-10 variants, although not as perfect as the definitive version of the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> Whowhazwswen did I say that anyone here is a military expert? Do you seriously not read anything that others say?
> 
> Your reasoning is dumb! You speak urdu, do you know what secret projects that Pakistan Army are conducting? Do you have contacts within the army? No, you don't.
> 
> @Deino @Shotgunner51 I seriously recommend banning this dude, his insulting manner is disgusting.
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean you have insider knowledge, that just means you either read a fucking article, or watched news. YOU do not have insider knowledge.
> 
> Also, just because the J-20 has indigenous engines being developed, it does not mean that the J-20 is currently using indigenous engines.
> 
> Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
> 
> Way to jump the shark.
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate your detailed reply, I would ask that you not assume things about my views.
> 
> Anyway, in the end, my comments stand.
> 
> We do not know how accurate the information we get is, because so much info is classified, and numbers given tend to never be truly accurate (this is true for every military in the world, including China). It is NOT because the Chinese engineers and designers are lying, but rather requirements change and issue crop up that end up changing the initial plan.
> 
> Until the fighter is fully operational and deployed, and not still in development, take everything with a grain of salt.
> 
> As for @Deino my issue isn't if he's right or wrong, but rather my message to @pakistanipower was not to simply insult him, just because he happened to disagree.
> 
> Just like you and @Asok are sick and tired of foreigners dismissing China's achievements, I'm sick of some Chinese and Pakistani members dismissing foreign opinions because they're "western" or "bias".


If your theory applied then @Deino like peoples doesn't know inside news on chinese military except news channel and internet we are just asking that on what basis he thinks that "this indeginous engine" is based on AL--31M2 and thats all but he didn't anwer our questions and why you think that i insulted @Deino there other members in the thread behaving same manner like @Asok, @Beast , @Chinese Tiger 1986

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tiqiu

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10B now looks like a code name for the most primitive version of the WS-15, it is by far superior to any other WS-10 variants, although not as perfect as the definitive version of the WS-15.


Haha, what about WS-15? It becomes the code name for Chinese 5th generation engine for spaceplane also.

A WS-15 or derivative is also going to be tested in first free jet test of the China-developed prototype combined-cycle hypersonic engine later this year. If sucessful, it will lead to the first demonstration flight of a full-scale propulsion system by 2025.

On the 21st AIAA Inaternatiohnal Spaceplane and Hypersonics Systems and Technologies Conference in Xiamen
in March this year, China, in a manner descibed as "a shot fired across the bow of the West" by the AviatonWeek, revealed for the first time on public this "the turbo-aided rocket-augmented ram/scramjet engine" (TRRE) is to be closest to becoming the first practical combined-cycle propulsion system to power horizontal-takeoff-and-landing hypersonic “near-space reconnaissance-and-strike” vehicles, two-stage-to-orbit and even the single-stage-to-orbit vehicles.

The Chinese reserchers also claimed the Chinese TRRE is one generation ahead of the current early combined-cycle concepts/models of the US, including the Trijet of SR72 proposed by Aerojet Rocketdyne in 2008.
晨枫：中美高超音速飞行器 谁离星辰大海更近
http://www.guancha.cn/ChenFeng3/2017_05_29_410651.shtml


Chinese TRRE
(Credit to Beijing Power Machinery Research Institute)

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Tiqiu

grey boy 2 said:


>


Judging by its coulour, IMO the J-20 nozzle flap and seal in the picutres is made of ceranmic matrix composite materials not the metal alloy used on all known russian engines nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## yusheng

pakistanipower said:


> If your theory applied then @Deino like peoples doesn't know inside news on chinese military except news channel and internet we are just asking that on what basis he thinks that "this indeginous engine" is based on AL--31M2 and thats all but he didn't anwer our questions and why you think that i insulted @Deino there other members in the thread behaving same manner like @Asok, @Beast , @Chinese Tiger 1986



in fact, i have never ever seen any information, that Deino offered, deeper than Chinese PDF member offered here.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Han Patriot

grey boy 2 said:


>


I get goosebumps just by looking at these pics. If these were Indian J-20s, our bharatis would have ejaculated in their pants. LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 帅的一匹

Tiqiu said:


> Judging by its coulour, IMO the J-20 nozzle flap and seal in the picutres is made of ceranmic matrix composite materials not the metal alloy used on all known russian engines nozzles.


I think the nozzle is made of ceramic matrix composite material.



Han Patriot said:


> I get goosebumps just by looking at these pics. If these were Indian J-20s, our bharatis would have ejaculated in their pants. LOL


They ejacuate too much so that their brain got empty.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## That Guy

pakistanipower said:


> If your theory applied then @Deino like peoples doesn't know inside news on chinese military except news channel and internet we are just asking that on what basis he thinks that "this indeginous engine" is based on AL--31M2 and thats all but he didn't anwer our questions and why you think that i insulted @Deino there other members in the thread behaving same manner like @Asok, @Beast , @Chinese Tiger 1986


Your insulting his intelligence, by saying he knows nothing, while presenting nothing yourself.

The others have been warned, and atleast @Beast has tried to explain his position in detail, even if I disagree. You've done nothing but cheer lead, and boo.



grey boy 2 said:


> @Deino, see, you've shown everyone right as you've started to oppress those who doesn't agreed with your "my way or highway" acts, nothing surprising but as predicted what a narrow minded person you actually are
> People are not blind here to witness how you've been pin pointed 1st target @Beast and now 2nd @Asok that has refused to give up their believe and despised you for denying your lost with the bet regarding the engine argument, you're a man with no honor with your promise
> The worst of all is that you're using @Shotgunner51 as excuses to taking your revenge with those that has been embarrassing you for eating your own promise after losing your "bet"
> You may win with your revenge by abusing your moderation power however you've lost all your respect from most of the Chinese members here
> Now please negative rating and ban me for calling you out, thankyou


@Asok was rude towards me, that's why he got a time out. @Deino has surprisingly been tolerant towards people targeting him. Stop playing the victim card here.

This is an internet forum, what does honor matter in an internet argument? Stop being over dramatic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> Your insulting his intelligence, by saying he knows nothing, while presenting nothing yourself.
> 
> The others have been warned, and atleast @Beast has tried to explain his position in detail, even if I disagree. You've done nothing but cheer lead, and boo.


give me my any previous posts that i am saying that @Deino knows nothing btw he is not trying to understand others opinions insisted his opinion and not to give appropriate reasons for his opinion and i am also warned by @Deino sir


----------



## samsara

That Guy said:


> Your insulting his intelligence, by saying he knows nothing, while presenting nothing yourself.
> 
> The others have been warned, and atleast @Beast has tried to explain his position in detail, even if I disagree. You've done nothing but cheer lead, and boo.
> 
> 
> @Asok was rude towards me, that's why he got a time out. @Deino has surprisingly been tolerant towards people targeting him. Stop playing the victim card here.
> 
> *This is an internet forum, what does honor matter in an internet argument? Stop being over dramatic.*



*"...This is an internet forum, what does HONOR matter in an internet argument? Stop being over dramatic."*

BUT IF one does seriously take your last statement (I put it in RED BOLD), this very forum, PDF, a moderated forum with some particular topic of interests, mainly military related, WON'T EVEN EXIST.... or this forum will just function like the YAHOO BOARD  LOL

and you just belittle this very forum, PDF... for IF it behaves or is operated like the wild wild west forum, or acts like the fake news den such as Yahoo board, I for sure won't ever waste my time here... from the very beginning!!

Honestly, I don't find any of your contribution in this very thread about J-20, so why play so harsh with your words, and what do you think that gives you so much authority to "speak" or write *so boldly* here, in this very thread of J-20??? At least I still read the many lengthy, detailed, *time-consuming posts* to construct by the knowledgeable members like @Asok and many others, even though readers, mods, may not agree with his ideas/opinions etc, but that's just fine.

Mind you members like Asok and many others in this particular thread are NOT those one-liner, two-liner or those short, substance-empty diligent, cheerleading posters chasing the post-count contribute nothing or just a little at PDF!! A frequent member here should be able to differentiate those kinds of insignificant posters from the serious contributors! 

It's weird you know, just like having some passer-by to drop by in some corner then act as if the big-guy-in-power scolding many others on how to behave themselves in that locality! 


--------------

Well, it's *for all to have some self reflections and self-refrain*, last things to see here, a messy state here in a MAIN THREAD about one of the most advanced jet fighter in the world, the J-20!!

I wish all *to put the focuses back on things regarding the J-20 itself* instead all other things, esp. the messy personal things.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## That Guy

samsara said:


> *"...This is an internet forum, what does HONOR matter in an internet argument? Stop being over dramatic."*
> 
> BUT IF one does seriously take your last statement (I put it in RED BOLD), this very forum, PDF, a moderated forum with some particular topic of interests, mainly military related, WON'T EVEN EXIST.... or this forum will just function like the YAHOO BOARD  LOL
> 
> and you just belittle this very forum, PDF... for IF it behaves or is operated like the wild wild west forum, or acts like the fake news den such as Yahoo board, I for sure won't ever waste my time here... from the very beginning!!


Not really, PDF is a specific type of forum, and it's rules are meant to create discussion, which is why you hardly see Mods ban people who insult them, and only act when people insult each other; the fear being that the mods will be accused to abusing their privilege.

I'm not so much belittling PDF, as much as I am saying that trying to accuse others of dishonor is nothing more than an attempt to gain needless sympathy and hinder discussion....thus, stop being over dramatic.



> Honestly, I don't find any of your contribution in this very thread about J-20, so why play so harsh with your words, and what do you think that gives you so much authority to "speak" or write *so boldly* here, in this very thread of J-20??? At least I still read the many lengthy, detailed, *time-consuming posts* to construct by the knowledgeable members like @Asok and many others, even though readers, mods, may not agree with his ideas/opinions etc, but that's just fine. It's weird you know, just like having some passer-by to drop by in some corner then act as if the big-guy-in-power scolding many others on how to behave themselves in that locality!


To tell you the truth, I haven't contributed since maybe between pages 150 to 250, somewhere. That doesn't mean I'm not around, I still occasionally do post here and there. I hardly log in anymore, and tend to choose to remain a lurker, reading other people's opinions.

You can find me usually in political threads, now a days, but even than i tend to not get involved, unless I feel I can contribute.

I chose to comment this time, because I constantly see members here acting in quite a hostile fashion towards people such as @Deino and @gambit , completely dismissing their arguments, because they're "foreign". I have literally argued once with a chinese member, who suggested that physics was different in China...seriously.



> Well, it's for all to have some self reflections and self-refrain, last things to see here, a messy state here in a MAIN THREAD about one of the most advanced jet fighter in the world, the J-20!!
> 
> I wish all to put the focuses back on things regarding the J-20 itself instead all other things, esp. the messy personal things.


Amen, but won't happen if people keep dismissing each other's arguments, without at least a legitimate reason.



pakistanipower said:


> give me my any previous posts that i am saying that @Deino knows nothing btw he is not trying to understand others opinions insisted his opinion and not to give appropriate reasons for his opinion and i am also warned by @Deino sir


Just because you didn't outright say it, doesn't mean you didn't imply it. Again, all you've done is mostly cheerlead and boo.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> I chose to comment this time, because I constantly see members here acting in quite a hostile fashion towards people such as @Deino and @gambit , completely dismissing their arguments, because they're "foreign". I have literally argued once with a chinese member, who suggested that physics was different in China...seriously.


because they often shows that hostilities against china you are reported now Than why @Deino don't the reason for his opinions


----------



## yusheng

samsara said:


> *"...This is an internet forum, what does HONOR matter in an internet argument? Stop being over dramatic."*



maybe some "ngo"'s tentacles have reached here;
maybe time for another class to graduate has come;
i have seen many, byebye, i go to my vocation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> Not really, PDF is a specific type of forum, and it's rules are meant to create discussion, which is why you hardly see Mods ban people who insult them, and only act when people insult each other; the fear being that the mods will be accused to abusing their privilege.
> 
> I'm not so much belittling PDF, as much as I am saying that trying to accuse others of dishonor is nothing more than an attempt to gain needless sympathy and hinder discussion....thus, stop being over dramatic.
> 
> 
> To tell you the truth, I haven't contributed since maybe between pages 150 to 250, somewhere. That doesn't mean I'm not around, I still occasionally do post here and there. I hardly log in anymore, and tend to choose to remain a lurker, reading other people's opinions.
> 
> You can find me usually in political threads, now a days, but even than i tend to not get involved, unless I feel I can contribute.
> 
> I chose to comment this time, because I constantly see members here acting in quite a hostile fashion towards people such as @Deino and @gambit , completely dismissing their arguments, because they're "foreign". I have literally argued once with a chinese member, who suggested that physics was different in China...seriously.
> 
> 
> Amen, but won't happen if people keep dismissing each other's arguments, without at least a legitimate reason.
> 
> 
> Just because you didn't outright say it, doesn't mean you didn't imply it. Again, all you've done is mostly cheerlead and boo.


so it is our right to take them in a rude manner and again you are reported for insulting me

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
2


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> --------------
> Well, it's *for all to have some self reflections and self-refrain*, last things to see here, a messy state here in a MAIN THREAD about one of the most advanced jet fighter in the world, the J-20!!
> I wish all *to put the focuses back on things regarding the J-20 itself* instead all other things, esp. the messy personal things.



Thanks a lot and IMO it's time to stop each and every off-topic discussion. All arguments are said and as i noted a few pages before right after @Shotgunner51's post to calm down. We all need to *have some self reflections and self-refrain* *to put the focuses back on things regarding the J-20 itself. 
*
Just remind: an argument is an argument, nothing more and as such an opinion regardless how stupid You think it is. As such I will refrain from any headbanging or blablabala-Smiliesy in the same way I expect this from others. 

These are the rules. No name, calling, no insult, no personnel bashing. Arguments is what counts.
And if I stick to my opinion that engine is (I won't refrain again), it is an opinion in the same way others think it is already a 24t of thrust delivering WS-15. Period! No need to be offended, no need to report such posts and even less no need for any insults. No-one gets a"time-out" or a warning for a different opinion but for name-calling You get.

If we all apply to these friendly coexistence this topic can indeed *put the focuses back on things regarding the J-20 itself.

Deino*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shotgunner51

Tiqiu said:


> Chinese *TRRE*


Another piece of info about China progress in scramjet, TRRE and world's largest wind tunnel FD-21. Here about TRRE:






_*TRRE*
The turbo-aided rocket-augmented ram/scramjet engine (TRRE), which uses rocket augmentation in order to aid in the transition into the supersonic and hypersonic flight regimes, could be the world's first combined cycle engine to fly in 2025, paving the way for hypersonic near space planes and single-stage space launchers. (Beijing Power Machinery Research Institute)_

A hypersonic plane can fly in the "near-space" altitude of 12 miles to 60 miles, allowing it to shoot into orbit with integrated rockets, or fly civilian and military missions in near space. Such a hypersonic plane could circumnavigate the world in a couple hours, out of the reach of conventional air defenses. China has several programs researching *hypersonic combined cycle engines*, which consist of a turbofan stage for subsonic/low supersonic flight, and a ramjet stage for the transition from supersonic to hypersonic flight.

The most promising program is Beijing Power Machinery Research Institute's turbo-aided rocket-augmented ram/scramjet combined cycle (a mouthful often abbreviated to *TRRE*; *Turbo-aided Rocket-augmented Ram/Scramjet Engine*), which uses integrated liquid-fueled rockets to boost the performance of the turbine and ramjet stages, thus making a safer and smoother transition from supersonic to hypersonic flight of Mach 10. With *key components like the engine inlet, cooling, and combustion already developed*, ground tests of the system are beginning later this year. The reported plan is for a full-scale TRRE testbed to begin flights by 2025, with a 2030 test flight.

Quotes from https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/china-to-test-next-generation-hypersonic-engine.489947/#post-9449855

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Haha, what about WS-15? It becomes the code name for Chinese 5th generation engine for spaceplane also.
> 
> A WS-15 or derivative is also going to be tested in first free jet test of the China-developed prototype combined-cycle hypersonic engine later this year. If sucessful, it will lead to the first demonstration flight of a full-scale propulsion system by 2025.
> 
> ...




But then WS-15 would not be a single powerplant as the WS-10 or the EJ-200, M.88 or F119, but a "project" to develop certain propulsion technologies with the higher aim to develop a high-thrust powerplant for fighters and a miniaturized version for medium weight types, a high-bypass turbofans for civil airliner, this exotic combined-cycle hypersonic engine and maybe even a STOVL-version. But shouldn't this then have a project-designation similar to the Project 718 (aka J-20), Project 998 (for the KJ-2000) than a simple "WoShan" = Turbofan-number ??

Deino


----------



## shjliu

Deino said:


> Thanks a lot and IMO it's time to stop each and every off-topic discussion. All arguments are said and as i noted a few pages before right after @Shotgunner51's post to calm down. We all need to *have some self reflections and self-refrain* *to put the focuses back on things regarding the J-20 itself.
> *
> Just remind: an argument is an argument, nothing more and as such an opinion regardless how stupid You think it is. As such I will refrain from any headbanging or blablabala-Smiliesy in the same way I expect this from others.
> 
> These are the rules. No name, calling, no insult, no personnel bashing. Arguments is what counts.
> And if I stick to my opinion that engine is (I won't refrain again), it is an opinion in the same way others think it is already a 24t of thrust delivering WS-15. Period! No need to be offended, no need to report such posts and even less no need for any insults. No-one gets a"time-out" or a warning for a different opinion but for name-calling You get.
> 
> If we all apply to these friendly coexistence this topic can indeed *put the focuses back on things regarding the J-20 itself.
> 
> Deino*


I think members here are asking you, how did you reach your "opinion" about the J-20's engine? did you have insider news? or you have read some paper saying so? if you do, please share the link! 

As for other member mentioned J-20 already equipped with WS-15, here is some prove of that, please open the link below.

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2017-05-26/doc-ifyfqqyh8509588.shtml

oh, I forgot, you may need some translation to understand the Chinese article.


----------



## Deino

Thanks for the link but again since this piece of report about a report was already quoted so often. This link You potsed surely mocks against the "Russian-engine-theory fans" and hints to the WS-15, but as far as I understand this text and as far as all the friends in China translate this report:

*No single word in that TV-report mentions the specific engine type used on the J-20: 

- All this report says quite mysteriously, the "J-20 uses a locally manufactured engine" and it merely mentioned Liming factory.
- no single word mentions WS-10B or even WS-15 in clear fashion?? *

I know You and others will claim again that's the way things get leaked in China, more by telling and reading between the lines than in clear words, but as long no official strictly confirms "the WS-15 is operational on all current J-20s" so long will I wait.

Concerning Your other question: If You look and search out in the last 562 pages You will find the answer I explained already so often. If this is not enough for You then it's fine ... for me the other proves in return are not quite clear enough.

So let's agree to disagree !

Deino


----------



## 帅的一匹

This is a open forum, everyone is welcomed to deliver their opinions. No one is held responsibility for what he give, this is a virtual world. I believe that China is able to make WS15 a very successful engine. @gambit some members miss you....since the info about WS15 is highly classified, we can't make clear analysis about it.

@Deino I think China is using WS10X on J20 now. We shall believe vice Marhsal Yingzhuo, he is the insider of PLA navy. If I was wrong, I will buy you a cup of beer in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> This is a open forum, everyone is welcomed to deliver their opinions. No one is held responsibility for what he give, this is a virtual world. I believe that China is able to make WS15 a very successful engine. @gambit some members miss you....since the info about WS15 is highly classified, we can't make clear analysis about it.
> 
> @Deino I think China is using WS10X on J20 now. We shall believe vice Marhsal Yingzhuo, he is the insider of PLA navy. If I was wrong, I will buy you a cup of beer in the future.



To admit I would do the same for You regardless who's right or wrong and it would be an honor to meet You same day. Thanks my friend.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Deino said:


> To admit I would do the same for You regardless who's right or wrong and it would be an honor to meet You same day. Thanks my friend.
> 
> Deino


I've been dealing with Germen since the start of my business career, I know Germen very well. Earnest and discreet! Unless someone provide you a direct evidence that J20 is using WS15. You won't believe it, same consistent with my German colleague.

Let's agree to disagree, it makes more fun.

To be honest, I don't believe J20 fit WS15 right now either.

It's a long way to go before WS15 get mass production approval.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

A true and honest word.  ... but now I need to go back to work !


----------



## 帅的一匹

Three to five years, or we won't induct Su35.

J20 now is testing by the airforce to enact operational manual, at least 3 years to five years before its fully mature. I don't feel surprise if some of the prototype is testing with WS15 now, for example it can fit one WS10x and another WS15 at simultaneously for test. Everything is possible.

Both WS10 variants and J10 series are the hero for China aviation industry, will be remembered forever.




Look, two different engine.

I believe the left one is a modified AL31F and the right one is WS10X.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Deino said:


> But then WS-15 would not be a single powerplant as the WS-10 or the EJ-200, M.88 or F119, but a "project" to develop certain propulsion technologies with the higher aim to develop a high-thrust powerplant for fighters and a miniaturized version for medium weight types, a high-bypass turbofans for civil airliner, this exotic combined-cycle hypersonic engine and maybe even a STOVL-version. But shouldn't this then have a project-designation similar to the Project 718 (aka J-20), Project 998 (for the KJ-2000) than a simple "WoShan" = Turbofan-number ??
> 
> Deino


Maybe there will be a unified code name from now on under the Aero Engine Corporation of China (AECC) which was formed last year. Before, there were more than 20 engine companies, many instituetes and aeroengine-repairing factories competing with each other for their own interest. As they were used to be answering to different authorities structually, to survive they had to compete to get aero engine projects and became less cooperative to each other. Perhaps that is why we see many engines all can be called/related to "WS-15" from different companies.














That Guy said:


> I chose to comment this time, because I constantly see members here acting in quite a hostile fashion towards people such as @Deino and @gambit


But is it OK to you for this "American" constantly calling "your internet chinese"?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Dear Chinese brethren,

We, who are friends and well wishers of China and Chinese Civlisation, take great delight in the progress that the Chinese People have made in the last 30 years. 

It is nothing short of a miracle...but then if the Chinese could build the Great Wall way back...we should never be suprised of any advancement. It is in the Chinese DNA and part of the Confucian Ethics.

Thinking about Confucian Ethecis...isn't it expected of a Chinese gentleman to excercise restraint, be subtle and have nuance in words and deeds? In my view President Xi is that gentleman... he does emody the highest Chinese Values.

Talking about the Chinese Values and upholding of Virtue... let us show to the PDF world the Chinese High Culture and Value System.. I know my friends, brothers, you shall not disappoint this poster.

This spat with @Deino has gone too far now. I can fully understand your feelings of unjust or dishonouring of China by our very good Deino...hence your Filial Peity forces you to challenge him... a bit too much really. 

In my view China has nothing to prove to the world but only to itself and to the Chinese People.

Even if the whole world says great things about you, it means nothing. What matters how you esteem yourself.

Only indians do engage in personal attacks or constant harressing.. Ask @rott 

So let us call it a day. 

J20 is a marvel of Chinese Aero-engineering. And WS15 is the fruit of decades of tireless hard work and typcial Chinese Patience!

What I find most interesting is neither J20 or WS15 mass production... 

What is most exciting is the legions of engineers, scientists and highly skilled technical workforce... this means to me that the maturity level that other countries achieved in more than 70 years... the Chinese did that in 3 decades!

I hope to see courtesy and typical Chinese Morality towards @Deino ... who is a well wisher of China as well. Yes, he can be pain in the backside for his obssession with FACTS and Pictures.. but hey...he can't help it..he is German!


@Shotgunner51 , ah my brother, if our Filial Peity gets too much of ourselves...time to close the thread for a few days..until feelings cool down a bit. PDF is a great place and moderators must be highly esteemed!

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
19


----------



## Shotgunner51

Sinopakfriend said:


> @Shotgunner51 , ah my brother, if our Filial Peity gets too much of ourselves...time to close the thread for a few days..until feelings cool down a bit. PDF is a great place and moderators must be highly esteemed!


Good to see less personal emotion here, so this thread can be kept open for J-20 news, images and discussions. For engine contents not specific to J-20, members please post at https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinese-aero-engine-information-thread.300409/page-40, thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Sinopakfriend said:


> Dear Chinese brethren,
> 
> We, who are friends and well wishers of China and Chinese Civlisation, take great delight in the progress that the Chinese People have made in the last 30 years.
> 
> It is nothing short of a miracle...but then if the Chinese could build the Great Wall way back...we should never be suprised of any advancement. It is in the Chinese DNA and part of the Confucian Ethics.
> 
> Thinking about Confucian Ethecis...isn't it expected of a Chinese gentleman to excercise restraint, be subtle and have nuance in words and deeds? In my view President Xi is that gentleman... he does emody the highest Chinese Values.
> 
> Talking about the Chinese Values and upholding of Virtue... let us show to the PDF world the Chinese High Culture and Value System.. I know my friends, brothers, you shall not disappoint this poster.
> 
> This spat with @Deino has gone too far now. I can fully understand your feelings of unjust or dishonouring of China by our very good Deino...hence your Filial Peity forces you to challenge him... a bit too much really.
> 
> In my view China has nothing to prove to the world but only to itself and to the Chinese People.
> 
> Even if the whole world says great things about you, it means nothing. What matters how you esteem yourself.
> 
> Only indians do engage in personal attacks or constant harressing.. Ask @rott
> 
> So let us call it a day.
> 
> J20 is a marvel of Chinese Aero-engineering. And WS15 is the fruit of decades of tireless hard work and typcial Chinese Patience!
> 
> What I find most interesting is neither J20 or WS15 mass production...
> 
> What is most exciting is the legions of engineers, scientists and highly skilled technical workforce... this means to me that the maturity level that other countries achieved in more than 70 years... the Chinese did that in 3 decades!
> 
> I hope to see courtesy and typical Chinese Morality towards @Deino ... who is a well wisher of China as well. Yes, he can be pain in the backside for his obssession with FACTS and Pictures.. but hey...he can't help it..he is German!
> 
> 
> @Shotgunner51 , ah my brother, if our Filial Peity gets too much of ourselves...time to close the thread for a few days..until feelings cool down a bit. PDF is a great place and moderators must be highly esteemed!


They are still young, and stand a chance. New generation of Chins is more agreesive than the older generations, still they are patriotic. But I think our young fellows still need to learn how to face critics . This is just a defence forum, don't ever take anything personal.

For example if Deino don't believe WS15 is ready yet, it doesn't prevent WS15 flying with J20. We don't have to prove anything to everybody, stay cool. Agree to disagree.

CHILLAX

STAY cool and respond cool!

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## rott

Sinopakfriend said:


> Dear Chinese brethren,
> 
> We, who are friends and well wishers of China and Chinese Civlisation, take great delight in the progress that the Chinese People have made in the last 30 years.
> 
> It is nothing short of a miracle...but then if the Chinese could build the Great Wall way back...we should never be suprised of any advancement. It is in the Chinese DNA and part of the Confucian Ethics.
> 
> Thinking about Confucian Ethecis...isn't it expected of a Chinese gentleman to excercise restraint, be subtle and have nuance in words and deeds? In my view President Xi is that gentleman... he does emody the highest Chinese Values.
> 
> Talking about the Chinese Values and upholding of Virtue... let us show to the PDF world the Chinese High Culture and Value System.. I know my friends, brothers, you shall not disappoint this poster.
> 
> This spat with @Deino has gone too far now. I can fully understand your feelings of unjust or dishonouring of China by our very good Deino...hence your Filial Peity forces you to challenge him... a bit too much really.
> 
> In my view China has nothing to prove to the world but only to itself and to the Chinese People.
> 
> Even if the whole world says great things about you, it means nothing. What matters how you esteem yourself.
> 
> Only indians do engage in personal attacks or constant harressing.. Ask @rott
> 
> So let us call it a day.
> 
> J20 is a marvel of Chinese Aero-engineering. And WS15 is the fruit of decades of tireless hard work and typcial Chinese Patience!
> 
> What I find most interesting is neither J20 or WS15 mass production...
> 
> What is most exciting is the legions of engineers, scientists and highly skilled technical workforce... this means to me that the maturity level that other countries achieved in more than 70 years... the Chinese did that in 3 decades!
> 
> I hope to see courtesy and typical Chinese Morality towards @Deino ... who is a well wisher of China as well. Yes, he can be pain in the backside for his obssession with FACTS and Pictures.. but hey...he can't help it..he is German!
> 
> 
> @Shotgunner51 , ah my brother, if our Filial Peity gets too much of ourselves...time to close the thread for a few days..until feelings cool down a bit. PDF is a great place and moderators must be highly esteemed!


Yesterday I was high with alcohol and having my fun with them Indian members.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Cybernetics

*China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design*



T_he second prototype of China’s J-20 combat aircraft taxiing with its starboard weapons-bay door open and a PL-10 air-to-air missile protruding. (Photo: Chinese Internet)
J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but “more efficient” design than that of the American F-22.

J-20 number 2002, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as China’s newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.

This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

Despite the Chinese media’s acclaim for the J-20’s missile launch mechanism, Chen Kuo-ming, senior editor with the Taiwan-based Defence International magazine, said what’s more important is whether the J-20 could fire short-range AAMs from off-boresight angles as acute as those possible from the F-22. For the moment, the PL-10 does not seem to be comparable to the AIM-9X AAM of the F-22 in respect to off-boresight capability.

The J-20 is expected to begin air-to-air weapons firing tests soon. It carries two short-range PL-10s, one in each air-intake bay, and six to eight medium-range P-12s in the main internal weapons bay below the mid-fuselage._






Note how the air-to-air missile in the side bay is sticking out but the bay door is closed. This enables the J-20 to have much lower radar signature when engaging and disengaging a potential air target. The arms attached to the missile can retract back within the bay after engaging a target without re-opening the bay doors and small panels will plug back the hole from the arm.





Compared to the F-22 side weapon bay that must open during engagement, greatly increasing its radar signature.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ina-claims-innovation-j-20-weapons-bay-design

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Cybernetics said:


> *China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design*



SAorry to ask, but what's Your Point !??? This is known since about 2012/13 and even this Report is from 2013 ??? So why this re-post?

Deino


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870586000111673345

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2

They said these pictures are from the delivering ceremony of J-20 to PLAAF (歼20战机交付仪式现场)




A little clearer one of @wanglaokan bro's picture

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## l0ngl0ng

grey boy 2 said:


> They said these pictures are from the delivering ceremony of J-20 to PLAAF (歼20战机交付仪式现场)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little clearer one of @wanglaokan bro's picture







Smokin' hot

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

@Asok bro, found this one for you, the so-called clearest J-20 "TVC " 
有史以来最清楚的J20矢量发动机偏转图 (credits to scorpio of fyjs)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## monitor

We're talking about the participation of six J - 20 in the parade of August 1st in China this year, but nothing has yet been confirmed officially.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Thanks for the link but again since this piece of report about a report was already quoted so often. This link You potsed surely mocks against the "Russian-engine-theory fans" and hints to the WS-15, but as far as I understand this text and as far as all the friends in China translate this report:
> 
> *No single word in that TV-report mentions the specific engine type used on the J-20:
> 
> - All this report says quite mysteriously, the "J-20 uses a locally manufactured engine" and it merely mentioned Liming factory.
> - no single word mentions WS-10B or even WS-15 in clear fashion?? *
> 
> I know You and others will claim again that's the way things get leaked in China, more by telling and reading between the lines than in clear words, but as long no official strictly confirms "the WS-15 is operational on all current J-20s" so long will I wait.
> 
> Concerning Your other question: If You look and search out in the last 562 pages You will find the answer I explained already so often. If this is not enough for You then it's fine ... for me the other proves in return are not quite clear enough.
> 
> So let's agree to disagree !
> 
> Deino



First of all the engine on J-20 is definitely a fully domestic made Chinese engine with zero percent cooperation with Ruskie. Russian in the past has already outright denied any TOT for AL-31F or AL-31FN engines. Russian denied 117S engine to China and even imposed a Su-35 deal tie with limited engines sale which only materialize in late 2016. So Russian uprated engines or tech cooperation/share to China is definitely ruled out for J-20.

If you want to imagine suddenly Russian made a U-turn and allow cooperation and even uprated the AL-31F engines to Chinese require thrust. That is almost impossible. Russian know engine is the last thing they possibly can blackmail the Chinese while Chinese also know engine is also the last piece of critical jigsaw puzzle to complete their picture. They would not allow a foreigner to hold their destiny on their hands. With humble pie experience over Russian tall claim of delivered 38 IL-76 that never materialized. Y-20 is born.

I will firmly believe it will be the same for an A class critical component of engine for J-20. With J-20 inducted for service. Very likely a interim, high thrust domestic ,fully made Chinese,developed and uprated engine is used.

Yang wei(Chief designer) has mentioned of the demonstration of the powerful engine of J-20 during the fly over at Zhuhai 2016 airshow although he never outright say it. Yin Zhuo, a highl level CPC member and ex-admiral(high access to state secret)admit domestic engine is used for J-20 and is powerful.

J-20 demonstrated steep vertical climb without using afterburner which none of the flanker able to achieved with ordinary AL-31F engines. CCTV documentary confirm domestic engine component for J-20 are manufactured and assemble in Shenyang Liming factory. There is no way such cooperation with Ruskie can carry out. The uprated engine project and manufacture is fully carry out alone by Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## maximuswarrior

monitor said:


> We're talking about the participation of six J - 20 in the parade of August 1st in China this year, but nothing has yet been confirmed officially.



What a beauty! The J-20 has come a very long way. What an unbelievably sophisticated aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

This has been posted before but this one is probably with the highest resolution quality

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## grey boy 2

Since no new pictures lately, found an interesting picture from the Chinese New Year, looks real nice

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

At least this went unnoticed !


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/871165357138096128
Strange, and so far no images and not the usual news discussion in the forums? Seems as if the J-20 has now become boring for the spotters.


----------



## Deino

PS: One reason is surely that nasty newly erected wall at CAC to prevent spotters from talking pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Another better HD picture that has been posted before

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Han Patriot

grey boy 2 said:


> Another better HD picture that has been posted before


Those engines are no way AL-31, it's so beautiful. Look at the quality of the build, piece of art

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kuge

sorry if already posted before. is the right engine looking similar to the picture posted above?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

grey boy 2 said:


> Another better HD picture that has been posted before


Could those 4 rectangular objects on the tail be the duct outlets of an advanced cooling system designed to reduce the IR siganature of its hot exhuast?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

According to the PLA tradation and some open-publications,I believe the first operational J-20 will be equiped to the 98 Brigade.

官媒披露空军改革信息：三获“金头盔”的蒋佳冀已升任旅长- 3-time-golden-helmat-winner Brigade Comandor 蒋佳冀
http://news.qq.com/a/20170509/032697.htm

Here is the PLA video of the golden helmat fighter pilot compitation(maily covering him)





Comandor 蒋佳冀 and his jet





Comandor 蒋佳冀 flied this jet to intersect the Japanese fighter planes in the East China Seas in 2014





"2014年3月，该团队奉命执行东海防空识别区管控行动，蒋佳冀带头天天研、天天练，把打仗的细节、应对的招术一一摸透、练熟，该团队成功抵近查证某国军机行动，受到了军委和总部表扬。2015年3月，蒋佳冀带队紧急执行某空中突发情况应对行动，飞机一落地，就充填加挂，随时升空，执行上百次边境警巡，安抚了边民、展示了国威"
http://baike.baidu.com/item/蒋佳冀/492718?fr=aladdin

Maybe this old photo is trying to tell a thing or two..





It shall be no supprise if we see some J-20s are painted like this very soon

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Tiqiu said:


> Could those 4 rectangular objects on the tail be the duct outlets of an advanced cooling system designed to reduce the IR siganature of its hot exhuast?




No, these are chaff&flare-dispensers.



Tiqiu said:


> According to the PLA tradation and some open-publications,I believe the first operational J-20 will be equiped to the 98 Brigade.
> 
> 官媒披露空军改革信息：三获“金头盔”的蒋佳冀已升任旅长- 3-time-golden-helmat-winner Brigade Comandor 蒋佳冀
> http://news.qq.com/a/20170509/032697.htm
> 
> Here is the PLA video of the golden helmat fighter pilot compitation(maily covering him)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comandor 蒋佳冀 and his jet
> View attachment 401610
> 
> 
> Comandor 蒋佳冀 flied this jet to intersect the Japanese fighter planes in the East China Seas in 2014
> View attachment 401609
> 
> 
> "2014年3月，该团队奉命执行东海防空识别区管控行动，蒋佳冀带头天天研、天天练，把打仗的细节、应对的招术一一摸透、练熟，该团队成功抵近查证某国军机行动，受到了军委和总部表扬。2015年3月，蒋佳冀带队紧急执行某空中突发情况应对行动，飞机一落地，就充填加挂，随时升空，执行上百次边境警巡，安抚了边民、展示了国威"
> http://baike.baidu.com/item/蒋佳冀/492718?fr=aladdin
> 
> Maybe this old photo is trying to tell a thing or two..
> View attachment 401611
> 
> 
> It shall be no supprise if we see some J-20s are painted like this very soon
> View attachment 401612




Would fit. Weren't there already rumours from last Summer that the 33rd Division will get the first operational J-20s ?

... however that the 33rd Division and its Regiments were converted to Brigades is a news to me !
Can anyone confirm?

Deino

PS: but where is in that report any mentioning of J-20s????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

*China’s new ramjet engine to enhance firing range of missiles, combat ability of J20*
By Deng Xiaoci Source:Global Times Published: 2017/6/5 20:48:39

China has successfully tested its solid-fuel variable flow ramjet engine in two recent airspace experiments, a breakthrough in the engine research fields which could enhance real combat ability of China's stealth aircraft including the J20 jet fighters, according to military experts. 

A research team from No. 4 research institute affiliated with the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation revealed on May 31 that the team has successfully conducted two flight tests with the solid-fuel variable flow ramjet engine. The team said the new ramjet engine is ready for further engineering application, paving the way for China's next generations of hypersonic missiles, the Science and Technology Daily reported on Thursday.

According to the report, the solid-fuel ramjet engine is a member of the ramjet engine family, which has the advantage of low cost, high power, and high controllability with compact size. And it is hardly accessible in the world as it demands sophisticated and highly difficult research on technology. 

The new engine, can remarkably increase the firing range and mobility for air-to-air missiles and antiship missiles equipped with China's stealth aircraft including the J20 jet fighters, Song Zhongping, a military expert who used to serve in the PLA Rocket Force, told the Global Times. 

The engine will enable the J20 fighters to fire from greater range and the missiles to fly faster at a hypersonic speed, which will increase their combat ability, Song said. 

The research institute has established a special research team to work on the project since 2000, and in recent years, the research institute has conducted eight flight tests with the new ramjet engines. 

It is a milestone in the field of engine research, which has been a bottleneck for China for quite a while, Li Jie, a Beijing-based military expert, told the Global Times on Monday. 

Once the engine achieves miniaturization, it will very likely enable China's air-to-air missiles to strike targets up to 300 kilometers at a speed faster than Mach 5, Song estimated, adding that the engine can be applied to China's latest missiles including PL12 missiles. 

A lot of research needs to be done in the future to achieve that. For example, China should also conduct research on building up a super range detection network to support such a long-range strike, and the precision guiding system should be capable of processing information at super high speeds, Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of the Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times.

At present, such an engine will be mainly used on missiles, as for the manned aircraft, there is still a long way to go, since the thrust of such engines are still not enough for that, Song said. 

Cruise missiles and experimental aircraft including drones can also adopt such technology to realize high-speed travel within the atmosphere, Wang added.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1050098.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Deino

via EastPendulum:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872458145926455301

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Nice old pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

Nice old pictures continue 




2017 高飞远航_






















_

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> No single word in that TV-report mentions the specific engine type used on the J-20:
> 
> *- All this report says quite mysteriously, the "J-20 uses a locally manufactured engine" and it merely mentioned Liming factory.*
> - no single word mentions WS-10B or even WS-15 in clear fashion??


neither its mention AL-31FN or M2

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> neither its mention AL-31FN or M2


Local manufacture engine effectively outs Russian AL-31F engine out of questions..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> Local manufacture engine effectively outs Russian AL-31F engine out of questions..


 i am fully agree with you sir but deino and others si *[we already had discussion concerning personal notes and certain smileys, which are a strict order by @Shotgunner51 ... no not try to do that again; argue or keep Your opinion to Yourself]*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Deino

Hey look ... what at first sight is simply an ordinary yellow LRIP J-20A + a B-767 (or 777) in the background ...






... has clearly a RED 15 written on its main-landing gear doors !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Daniel808

Deino said:


> Hey look ... what at first sight is simply an ordinary yellow LRIP J-20A + a B-767 (or 777) in the background ...
> 
> View attachment 403005
> 
> 
> ... has clearly a RED 15 written on its main-landing gear doors !!!
> 
> View attachment 403006



So, that's mean already 15 Chengdu J-20A produced so far?

Damn, Congrats Chengdu

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Daniel808 said:


> So, that's mean already 15 Chengdu J-20A produced so far?
> 
> Damn, Congrats Chengdu




A good question and actually I don't know. I already had a few good discussions with others but in the end I have no true clue.

The question now is:
- Is this now the 15th J-20 altogether (following the alleged 13th J-20A spotted in January, including all demonstrators, prototypes and LRIP)
- or is indeed the 15th LRIP aircraft ?? (IMO a bit on the high side, since otherwise CAC must have secretly produced 8 more new J-20 without any notice within the last 4 months)
- or could "15" already mean 1st serial batch, aircraft no. 5?

Questions over questions ....

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Modern-Chinese-Warplanes-611223845748378/posts/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> A good question and actually I don't know. I already had a few good discussions with others but in the end I have no true clue.
> 
> The question now is:
> - Is this now the 15th J-20 altogether (following the alleged 13th J-20A spotted in January, including all demonstrators, prototypes and LRIP)
> - or is indeed the 15th LRIP aircraft ?? (IMO a bit on the high side, since otherwise CAC must have secretly produced 8 more new J-20 without any notice within the last 4 months)
> - or could "15" already mean 1st serial batch, aircraft no. 5?
> 
> Questions over questions ....
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pg/Modern-Chinese-Warplanes-611223845748378/posts/


My guess is that it is 15th LRIP because it is possible PLAAF is in a rush of devising tactics. It may need a decent fleet size to cover all intended tactics.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Daniel808

Deino said:


> A good question and actually I don't know. I already had a few good discussions with others but in the end I have no true clue.
> 
> The question now is:
> - Is this now the 15th J-20 altogether (following the alleged 13th J-20A spotted in January, including all demonstrators, prototypes and LRIP)
> - or is indeed the 15th LRIP aircraft ?? (IMO a bit on the high side, since otherwise CAC must have secretly produced 8 more new J-20 without any notice within the last 4 months)
> - or could "15" already mean 1st serial batch, aircraft no. 5?
> 
> Questions over questions ....
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pg/Modern-Chinese-Warplanes-611223845748378/posts/



Thanks for conclusion sir, even we don't have any clue at all.

But, I will place my bet to 15th LRIP Aircraft (Chengdu J-20A).
If it's true, that's mean 1 unit J-20A for every month. Still make sense for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Daniel808 said:


> Thanks for conclusion sir, even we don't have any clue at all.
> 
> But, I will place my bet to 15th LRIP Aircraft (Chengdu J-20A).
> If it's true, that's mean 1 unit J-20A for every month. Still make sense for me.




Agreed, why painting a no. 15 if it is not for the same batch ? ... so 15 LRIP would make sense IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

*Microwave-photonic radar 

中国第一台微波光子雷达诞生 图像分辨率比国际高一个数量级 *

2017-06-13 10:09:45

关键字:中科院微波光子雷达电子所

科技日报6月12日报道，*中科院电子学研究所网站12日披露，该所成功研制出我国第一台微波光子雷达样机，并通过外场非合作目标成像测试，获得国内第一幅微波光子雷达成像图样，在图像分辨率上比国际水平高出一个数量级。*

微波光子雷达作为前沿科技项目，是结合了微波光子技术和雷达技术的多学科交叉领域，微波光子雷达作为雷达发展的新形态，能有效克服传统电子器件的技术瓶颈，改善和提高传统雷达多项技术性能，为雷达等电子装备技术与形态带来变革。






微波光子技术在电子系统中的发展历程

微波光子学最早的应用起源于70年代，应用于对太空的通讯。而微波光子雷达最早的研究开始于1995年。






世界上第一部真正算得上微波光子雷达样机的是2009年启动的意大利PHODIR项目，2013年实现对非合作民航客机的跟踪和测量






到2016年5月，世界首部双波段微波光子雷达实现了对空中和海上非合作目标的ISAR成像。






图为：（A）波音737-800飞机，（B）和（C）是利用S波段和X波段对该飞机的ISAR成像结果；（D）目标油轮，（E）和（F）是S波段和X波段对油轮的ISAR成像结果

而此次中科院电子所成功研制了国内首部微波光子雷达样机。样机并进行了外场非合作目标的逆合成孔径成像测试，获得了国内第一幅微波光子雷达成像图样，推动了新技术新体制雷达研究的发展。






中国首部微波光子雷达采用双站雷达体制和光子架构，在发射机和接收机的射频前端分别引入雷达信号微波光子产生和去调频接收技术，能够支持宽带工作，具有提升距离向分辨率的潜力。外场获得的图像分辨率比已知报道的国际同类微波光子雷达提高一个数量级，图像清晰度也有明显提升。






对比发表在《自然》杂志上的国外微波光子雷达系统所进行的外场成像结果，如图2所示，电子所的微波光子雷达系统成像结果具有明显的改善

采访过程中，微波光子雷达样机的研制负责人李王哲研究员告诉科技日报记者，研究团队对雷达总体光子架构设计、雷达信号光子产生和光子压缩处理，以及成像算法等关键技术进行了攻关；在经过实验平台原理验证、微波暗室转台实验、系统集成联调和外场试验等一系列测试后，成功实现了对空中随机目标——波音737飞机的快速成像。

在此次外场测试中，对包含波音737飞机在内的不同机型、不同距离、不同视角下进行了成像测试。得益于微波光子雷达架构，以及光子技术在宽带信号产生、处理以及系统杂散抑制等方面的独特优势，微波光子雷达成像快，分辨率高，能够清晰的识别目标的结构细节，比如飞机发动机、尾翼以及襟翼导轨等结构。测试过程充分展示了微波光子雷达对目标结构特征的辨识能力优势。

作为中国科学院电子所一室的重点研究项目，微波光子雷达的研究得到了中科院科技创新重点部署项目、中科院率先行动计划、微波光子成像雷达技术验证测试平台修购项目的支持。电子所微波光子及雷达成像技术研究团队，引进了两位海外青年千人，李王哲研究员和李若明博士入所开展工作。整个研究团队以李王哲研究员牵头，结合一室在雷达技术方面的专业力量和研究经验，通过不同学科间的碰撞融合、不同专业技术人员间的交流协作，有力推动了微波光子雷达研究在一室的发展。

从2015年下半年开始，相关专业团队团结一致，克服困难，协同创新，先后完成了微波光子成像雷达系统设计论证，宽带雷达信号的光子产生和光子去调频接收等关键技术攻关，以及相关成像算法研发。在经过实验室原理验证、暗室点目标成像实验和系统集成联调后，最终实现了在外场对非合作目标的成像测试，成功验证了该部微波光子雷达的可行性。研究成果已经被国际期刊《Optics Express》（《光学快讯》）接收，即将发表。






李王哲研究员教育背景：

2000-09--2004-06 西安交通大学 本科学士

2004-09--2007-06 清华大学 硕士学位

2007-11--2013-04 渥太华大学 博士学位

*研究领域*

*1. 基于光子技术的合成孔径雷达（SAR）*

未来各类先进电子雷达，包括SAR，在带宽、处理速度、体积功耗等各方面因受到传统电子技术的限制而存在发展瓶颈；而利用在借助光通信领域发展而日渐成熟的光子技术，可以突破上述瓶颈，实现更高性能的SAR系统，甚至可以发展为除了成像外，融合其他诸如侦查、通信、干扰等多种功能于一体的先进雷达系统。研究内容主要包括：可调谐宽带光电振荡器；高线性、高动态、宽带微波光子射频前端；基于光子色散的傅里叶变换\反变换系统；光子辅助模数转换系统；微波信号的光子处理技术；基于光载超宽带的分布式雷达等。

*2. 基于微波成像的微波光子传感器*

借鉴微波成像技术的优良环境适应性，结合微波光子在硬件系统能力上的提升和处理办法上的优化，利用传统微波成像技术和理论，构建微波光子传感器，实现对特定空间域、特定目标的高精度、快速识别。研究内容主要包括：二维\三维微波成像理论；分布式成像；高精度、快速、区域成像算法等。

*3. 微波光子模块芯片集成*

将传统的基于光纤的微波光子系统，通过成熟的硅基、三五族集成光学技术，小型化、芯片化、低功耗化；是支撑未来先进电子系统的重要支柱。研究主要内容包括：芯片设计；集成微波光子单一功能处理芯片；微波光子接收通道芯片等。






中科院电子所“海外人才走进科学院”活动暨2016年度青年人才会议，李王哲博士作报告

第一部国内微波光子雷达样机的研制成功填补了国内在该研究领域的空白，推动了光子技术同传统的微波系统尤其是雷达系统的融合，标志着未来的雷达技术和系统的新的发展阶段，为未来新体制雷达系统的诞生奠定基础。接下来该方向的研究工作将进一步提升微波光子雷达成像性能，并继续探索微波光子技术在不同体制雷达中的应用价值。

http://www.guancha.cn/industry-science/2017_06_13_412977.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

Rumors that the production rate of J-20 under the 3 new production line could exceed 30 enough for one regiment in 2017




The 15th LRIP J-20 could be another support for the above rumors since source stated there were only 7 being produced at the year end of 2016 (第15架量产型歼20战机曝光 产量已达半个飞行团(图)




近日有网友拍摄到试飞中的量产型黄皮歼20的照片，与远处的波音客机正好同框。机身细节显示，该量产机编号为15，或是第15架量产型，反映了歼20的量产工作正有序稳步进行中。（来源：浩汉防务）

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 production rate is going to surpass Japan's F-35A

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

I don't think i saw this picture before, anyone?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pepsi Cola

grey boy 2 said:


> I don't think i saw this picture before, anyone?



It was posted here some times ago.


----------



## grey boy 2

Okarus said:


> It was posted here some times ago.


with the landing gear opened?


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> I don't think i saw this picture before, anyone?




I don't have my harddrive at hind but I think i remember it esp. since a few were noting the yellow smoke-trails.
As far as i remember it was from the time, the first two LRIP aircraft were leaving CAC ... but I could be wrong.

By the way ... considering the issue 15th J-20 at all or 15th LRIP, I'm slowly changing my mind: 
To admit it makes not only sense but fits even better to other reports we know. I remember from October last year that very fine close-up-iamge showing a J-20 with it's - alleged - cn. under the canopy. Already then we discussed if this is not already the 11. LRIP bird and soon thereafter I remember images from CAC showing clearly two grey painted and at least 2 (maybe even up to 3 or 4) yellow unpainted birds. So reports about the 13th in January are not impossible ... and this one being the 15th then would also fit nicely.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Old nice pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

I believed this is the most solid proof of the "15th LRIP J-20" a model with description from "空军招飞局的模型"







*中国人民解放军空军招飞局*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> I believed this is the most solid proof of the "15th LRIP J-20" a model with description from "空军招飞局的模型"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *中国人民解放军空军招飞局*



Why should this be a confirmation for the 15th LRIP bird ???

By the way, Huitong (at the SDF)/jetflight2000 (at Weibo) noted that:



> The claim that this is the 15th LRIP J-20 is false, according to the photographer (TNT).



Deino


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> View attachment 403518


 Waiting for first of August.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

... ne too !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

a little bigger image 5 J-20 formation and the ignorant refugee insisted not believed not even 5 J-20 has been produced
太激动，五架歼20编队通场

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Any info, where these images were taken ?


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> Any info, where these images were taken ?


Chengdu

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Chengdu




Thanks ... so now let's specualte again !!

Then there are actually 5 J-20As at CAC right now ... either these are the 5 78x2x-serialled LRIP-aircraft or additional ones or these are the prototypes !??

Let's wait for more close-up images, but I think for them we have to wait until August !?


----------



## grey boy 2

Now i'm all confused, some say its in Beijing 肯定不在成都，这是去年年底交付了部队的，也就是说去年年底首批交付6架得到验证,"传说在帝都"

Latest news: 5 J-20A, 7 J-15, 7 J-16, 9 J-11B, #1781# indigenous heavy planes? what does this referred to?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

http://slide.ipad.sina.com.cn/play.php?sid=193&id=52668&ch=8#p=2

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

wanglaokan said:


> http://slide.ipad.sina.com.cn/play.php?sid=193&id=52668&ch=8#p=2


Super, brother, hope you don't mind i posted from your link

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Thanks ... so now let's specualte again !!
> 
> Then there are actually 5 J-20As at CAC right now ... either these are the 5 78x2x-serialled LRIP-aircraft or additional ones or these are the prototypes !??
> 
> Let's wait for more close-up images, but I think for them we have to wait until August !?



Definitely NOT Chengdu。

7 J-16s in formation flight - "1781" is on!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Definitely NOT Chengdu。
> 
> 7 J-16s in formation flight - "1781" is on!
> 
> View attachment 403532




That is then even more interesting and also the question, if these are indeed J-16s ??

If correct J-20 and J-16 together then the most likely location might be something close to Dingxin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

cirr said:


> Definitely NOT Chengdu。
> 
> 7 J-16s in formation flight - "1781" is on!
> 
> View attachment 403532


Brother, yeah, i'm all confused as well, some said its in Beijing? Whats "1781" means?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Glory moment!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kuge

grey boy 2 said:


> Brother, yeah, i'm all confused as well, some said its in Beijing? Whats "1781" means?


dude, that is2017/08/01

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Brother, yeah, i'm all confused as well, some said its in Beijing? Whats "1781" means?




Me too !!! The confusion it great in my head at this moment. 

Anyway ... "1781' could only mean this year's 2017 August 1. parade.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

grey boy 2 said:


> Brother, yeah, i'm all confused as well, some said its in Beijing? Whats "1781" means?



Day on which Military Parade will be held to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the founding of the PLA.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

Hey check this out guys, a spare J-20 as back up?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> *WHERE* ???



via 


> OedoSoldier‏@OedoSoldier 14 min
> 今年の建軍80周年軍事パレードは中部戦区朱日和合同戦術訓練基地で行われるらしい
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/パレード1781?src=hash
> 
> This year's military parade of the military 80th anniversary seems to be done at Zhuhiwa joint tactics training base in *Chubu War zone*



?
Chubu War Zone ??????? Never heard 

PS after a translation help from a friend (jobjed at SDF):

This must be the _Zhuhiwa training base in the Central Theatre Command_.
With this post, Odeo told us something we already knew (parade is going to be at Zhurihe this year), but he doesn't tell us where today's pictures were taken.


----------



## Deino

Hmm ?? reportedly at Zhurihe at 42°16'5"N 112°44'2"E


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874908174247235584


----------



## pvpful

https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2392396-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pvpful said:


> https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2392396-1-1.html




Come on, show us the real birds and not only CGs !


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## grey boy 2

Someone sent me this picture, a PS one? Nah, just got my answer from other source, a PS one

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

But these are real ! 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/876666823709605888

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## grey boy 2

Not sure is this a new picture

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Not sure is this a new picture




Interesting ! At least I don't know it, however since both look very much close together ... could it be a photoshop?


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Deino

Today only 4x J-20A ??

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

Some more of the 4 J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## grey boy 2

The newest LRIP J-20 spotted so far (5月19日成飞机场最新的卫星图片，显示机库外面停放的一架刚刚生产下线的J-20黄皮机)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Cyberian

Can someone confirm how many J-20s have been built to date and what is LRIP?
Thanks


----------



## grey boy 2

SUPARCO said:


> Can someone confirm how many J-20s have been built to date and what is LRIP?
> Thanks


The best bet should be 15, see the below pictures







LRIP-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_rate_initial_production

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Shotgunner51 said:


> Interesting! I wonder where is the line that separates these three forces:
> 
> PLAAF, them going strategic is a must, aka possessing capabilities in strategic airlift, strategic strike, but not so sure what their space capabilities ("历史性地接近空天领域前沿") mean.
> 
> PLARF (PLA Rocket Force), perhaps they are the one who will operate nuke-armed DF-ZF?
> 
> PLASSF (PLS Strategic Support Force). Sources said other than three info & cyberwarfare corps, they also have seven space warfare corps (军事航天部队), wonder what kind of offensive weaponry will they operate?





There are no more lines. Unified Command and operations.... although each service will remain fundamentally responsible for its area of responsibility i.e. equipement, personnel and trainings...etc. However, the emerging doctorine is Unfied Command... obviously strategic in nature.

Time is the revealer of mysteries.... first is consolidation, innovations, idations, excercises and then SOPs.

Goes without saying..that it is the need of the hour to seek maturity what already is developing faster than anyone could have imagined.

Peace in current geopolitical, geoeconomic environment can only be achieved through Devastating Strength.

Patience.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Gansu Jiuquan Dingxin Air Base (两架歼20现身酒泉鼎新基地)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Gansu Jiuquan Dingxin Air Base (两架歼20现身酒泉鼎新基地)



Any info when this image was taken ?


----------



## grey boy 2

5 J-20 formation fly again 
















Deino said:


> Any info when this image was taken ?


5/22/2017

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> 5 J-20 formation fly again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5/22/2017



More please ..... ! 

PS: However in the first image, these are J-16s.


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> More please ..... !
> 
> PS: However in the first image, these are J-16s.


Sorry, just kinda hard for me to tell sometimes

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Han Patriot

grey boy 2 said:


> Sorry, just kinda hard for me to tell sometimes


What a beauty! This angle looks perfect.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

At Dingxin + a J-16

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maximuswarrior

Han Patriot said:


> What a beauty! This angle looks perfect.



Perfection bro.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

IMO a not yet posted image ...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Mitho1980

Any info how stealthy is this compared to western planes


----------



## 帅的一匹

Source reveal that in Ding Xing J20 scores 64:0 overwhelming victory until now when field against all types of Chinese Airforce 4th/4.5th platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Han Patriot

wanglaokan said:


> Source reveal that in Ding Xing J20 scores 64:0 overwhelming victory until now when field against all types of Chinese Airforce 4th/4.5th platform.


Basically means we can decimate the SU-30MKI, not sure if we can go against F-22 and F-35 head on though. But if it's 4/4.5 gen aircraft, they are pretty much toast bread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Han Patriot said:


> Basically means we can decimate the SU-30MKI, not sure if we can go against F-22 and F-35 head on though. But if it's 4/4.5 gen aircraft, they are pretty much toast bread.


We shall concentrate on J20 production.


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> We shall concentrate on J20 production.


I am sure they are doing that now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> I am sure they are doing that now.


We need at least 1000 units J20A/B.

And another 1500 units FC31.


----------



## Deino

And who should pay for them?

The PLAAF did not field 1000 J-10 or -11 ... So why now 2500 fifth geration fighters? Only to feel good?


----------



## UKBengali

Deino said:


> And who should pay for them?
> 
> The PLAAF did not field 1000 J-10 or -11 ... So why now 2500 fifth geration fighters? Only to feel good?



China's economy is getting larger and larger
every year.
I think 500 J-20 and 1500(500 on aircraft carriers) J-31 will be the final numbers.


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> And who should pay for them?
> 
> The PLAAF did not field 1000 J-10 or -11 ... So why now 2500 fifth geration fighters? Only to feel good?


I think 200-300 would be reasonable, and that would only cost 20-30 billion$. Don't forget the MIC's stimulation for the economy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stuttgart001

Han Patriot said:


> I think 200-300 would be reasonable, and that would only cost 20-30 billion$. Don't forget the MIC's stimulation for the economy.


I think the J20 would not be less than 500 serving in PLA , and meanwhile J31 would just 300 serving as naval fighters like F35C.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Han Patriot said:


> I think 200-300 would be reasonable, and that would only cost 20-30 billion$. Don't forget the MIC's stimulation for the economy.


300 is far from enough. If USA can afford 2500 units F35, we can afford it as well.

500 units J20 is a minimum need, and still need 1000 plus J31.

My goal is clear: run arms race with USA and kick them out of Asia. To restore the order in Asia.

Everyone in China donate 15 USD, we can produce 1300 units J20. Don't forget the wartime communism policy.

I urge Our government shall double the budget in defence sector, prepare actively for war.

Being the best or nothing.

There won't be two male tigers in one mountain.

一定要在日本拥核之前灭了它。我不知道习近平有没有报仇雪恨的志向！

什么是中国梦？我的中国梦就是灭了日本。

大仇未报何以言快！

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Stuttgart001

Y


wanglaokan said:


> 300 is far from enough. If USA can afford 2500 units F35, we can afford it as well.
> 
> 500 units J20 is a minimum need, and still need 1000 plus J31.
> 
> My goal is clear: run arms race with USA and kick them out of Asia. To restore the order in Asia.
> 
> Everyone in China donate 15 USD, we can produce 1300 units J20. Don't forget the wartime communism policy.
> 
> I urge Our government shall double the budget in defence sector, prepare actively for war.
> 
> Being the best or nothing.
> 
> There won't be two male tigers in one mountain.
> 
> 一定要在日本拥核之前灭了它。我不知道习近平有没有报仇雪恨的志向！
> 
> 什么是中国梦？我的中国梦就是灭了日本。


You are insane.
The maintance of stealthy fighter jets is extremely expensive.
We need to catch up with US in the aspect of Naval combatant capacity and and nuclear second strike. The top priority is SSBN and SSK then anti-ballistic missile system, that is cornerstone of national security. The following is CBG and strategic bomber.
The advantage of the 5th gen fighter is mainly stealth compared to 4th gen fighter. So there is a lot of jobs which could be done by the 4th gen fighter when air superiority has been taken.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Stuttgart001 said:


> Y
> 
> You are insane.
> The maintance of stealthy fighter jets is extremely expensive.
> We need to catch up with US in Naval combatant and nuclear second attack. The top priority is SSBN and SSK then ASBM, that is basestone of national security. The following is CBG and strategic bomber.
> The advantage of the 5th gen fighter is mainly stealth compared to 4th gen fighter. So there is a lot of jobs which could be done by the 4th gen fighter when air superiority has been taken.


If you want to beat down USA, you need to be zealous.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stuttgart001

wanglaokan said:


> If you want to beat down USA, you need to be zealous.


If you want to defeat a much stronger rival, you must be smart and sensible and brave and never make any mistake.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

Stuttgart001 said:


> Y
> 
> You are insane.
> The maintance of stealthy fighter jets is extremely expensive.
> We need to catch up with US in Naval combatant and nuclear second attack. The top priority is SSBN and SSK then ASBM, that is basestone of national security. The following is CBG and strategic bomber.
> The advantage of the 5th gen fighter is mainly stealth compared to 4th gen fighter. So there is a lot of jobs which could be done by the 4th gen fighter when air superiority has been taken.


I think ICBM,ASBM, strategic bomber,SSBM, stealthy fighter are the priority.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Stuttgart001

wanglaokan said:


> I think ICBM,ASBM, strategic bomber,SSBN,and stealthy fighter are the priority.


Firstly,we must assure the stragic capability of destroying any nation in any condition, so the SSBN and SSK rank top 1.
Secondly, we should learn from US to weaken the potentialnuclear threaten from relatively small nuclear power like India, Korea, so the anti ballistic missile system and anti satellite system rank 2 .
Thirdly, we should enhance the capability of the tactic weaponry to the level of US's so that we could sustain a superiority at battlefield in east asia and india ocean at least. Then the CBG, bomber with long range , steath fighter.
But the role of steath figher in morden air combat is more of a airspace cleaner and door
-knocker, and these following jobs could be more suitable for the 4th gen figher-bomber like Su-30 with large payload and long range. Hence, i think 500 j20 is rational for PLA. As of J31 , i do not think it fit the demand of PLA. Our airforce does not need two steath jets like US for now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

.


Stuttgart001 said:


> If you want to defeat a much stronger rival, you must be smart and sensible and brave and never make any mistake.



... And don't be as arrogant as the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JSCh

From 星海军事 weibo,

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

First of all I'm surprised what kind of standing Germany seems to have here within that forum ... anyway it's off topic and I think still a politically sensitive topic, therefore I cleaned that thread.




JSCh said:


> From 星海军事 weibo,
> View attachment 406267




YES, ... more ..... !!! Give us more !!!


----------



## grey boy 2

A little bigger picture of the 3 new J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## eldamar

Stuttgart001 said:


> I think the J20 would not be less than 500 serving in PLA , and meanwhile J31 would just 300 serving as naval fighters like F35C.



I do not know the appropriate numbers, but there's no reason to build less then 300 J20s; anything lesser than that would be a loss on the investment made to develop the plane.



eldarlmari said:


> I do not know the appropriate numbers, but there's no reason to build less then 300 J20s; anything lesser than that would be a loss on the investment made to develop the plane.


 You dont need to have a PhD in Economics to understand that it is not economically feasible to build only limited amounts of a product after dumping massive amounts of resources into it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rcrmj

Stuttgart001 said:


> Y
> 
> You are insane.
> The maintance of stealthy fighter jets is extremely expensive.
> We need to catch up with US in the aspect of Naval combatant capacity and and nuclear second strike. The top priority is SSBN and SSK then anti-ballistic missile system, that is cornerstone of national security. The following is CBG and strategic bomber.
> The advantage of the 5th gen fighter is mainly stealth compared to 4th gen fighter. So there is a lot of jobs which could be done by the 4th gen fighter when air superiority has been taken.


well, the number of J-20 they want to order is quite a number ````in China high tech stuff doesnt have to be expensive``economical scale, industrial completeness and solid demand is the key to reduce cost at huge margin! besides most of the suppliers are SOEs, they wont tag market profit on their products`````

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

rcrmj said:


> well, the number of J-20 they want to order is quite a number ````in China high tech stuff doesnt have to be expensive``economical scale, industrial completeness and solid demand is the key to reduce cost at huge margin! besides most of the suppliers are SOEs, they wont tag market profit on their products`````



5% net for SOEs

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

grey boy 2 said:


> A little bigger picture of the 3 new J-20


A nice picture of the J-20 hanger

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> First of all I'm surprised what kind of standing Germany seems to have here within that forum ... anyway it's off topic and I think still a politically sensitive topic, therefore I cleaned that thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES, ... more ..... !!! Give us more !!!



"a yellow bird with number 16 painted has been spotted"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

小奶鸭活了？

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> 小奶鸭活了？




An old image actually taken 26. January 2016.


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> An old image actually taken 26. January 2016.


I guess he meant the no 16 LRIP, picture was for reference only 小奶鸭活了？

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> I guess he meant the no 16 LRIP, picture was for reference only 小奶鸭活了？




Ok. ... I thought some-one suggested this would be no. 16 !

So PLEASE ... where is no. 16 ???


----------



## grey boy 2

If everything goes according to plan that the 4 J-20 production lines will be operating at full force, which means more than 6 J-20 monthly in 2018, it may even get to 10-12/month, we could match F-22 numbers by or before 2020since looks like USA ain't going to reopen the F-22 production line 




http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-06-28/doc-ifyhmtek7871930.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

grey boy 2 said:


> If everything goes according to plan that the 4 J-20 production lines will be operating at full force, which means more than 6 J-20 monthly in 2018, it may even get to 10-12/month, we could match F-22 numbers by or before 2020since looks like USA ain't going to reopen the F-22 production line
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-06-28/doc-ifyhmtek7871930.shtml



At such rate, J-10 may retired.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> "a yellow bird with number 16 painted has been spotted"



Images please !!!!



Beast said:


> At such rate, J-10 may retired.




Good joke ... and while the J-10s are being retired the PLAAF will still use their hundreds of J-7/-8 and original early Flankers until 2037 ??


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Good joke ... and while the J-10s are being retired the PLAAF will still use their hundreds of J-7/-8 and original early Flankers until 2037 ??


While retiring the J-10 is an exaggeration at this point, it's not completely far fetched. J-7/J-8 will not be replaced at 1:1 ratio. In the future PLAAF may only have around 1,000 combat jets, transforming into a smaller but modernized force. The first Flankers bought from Russia in the 1990's are already being retired. The early J-11A batches will follow the same path in 5 years or so. Production model J-10 started rolling off the assembly line in 2004, and they will reach the end of their service life in less than 10 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> While retiring the J-10 is an exaggeration at this point, it's not completely far fetched. J-7/J-8 will not be replaced at 1:1 ratio. In the future PLAAF may only have around 1,000 combat jets, transforming into a smaller but modernized force. The first Flankers bought from Russia in the 1990's are already being retired. The early J-11A batches will follow the same path in 5 years or so. Production model J-10 started rolling off the assembly line in 2004, and they will reach the end of their service life in less than 10 years.




Agreed, but before any J-10A will be retired surely all J-7/-8s will be gone and even if the PLAAF will end of with a dramatically reduced (by numbers) but multi-role-capable force of around 1000-1200 combat jets, these surely won't be 1000 J-20s as some here hope.


----------



## 52051

S10 said:


> While retiring the J-10 is an exaggeration at this point, it's not completely far fetched. J-7/J-8 will not be replaced at 1:1 ratio. In the future PLAAF may only have around 1,000 combat jets, transforming into a smaller but modernized force. The first Flankers bought from Russia in the 1990's are already being retired. The early J-11A batches will follow the same path in 5 years or so. Production model J-10 started rolling off the assembly line in 2004, and they will reach the end of their service life in less than 10 years.



At this production rate, the PLAAF could be run out of pilots before they run out of planes, just joke.

They dont need to shrink any of their fleet, they just need to keep the pilots around by flying these old school fighters before the new ones arrives.

And China is aiming to be globally military superpower, so yes, they do need a more modern and larger size of military force, just navy along could need 1500 combat aircrafts in the future considering how many CVs China plan to build, and considering their current fleet size (600+).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Agreed, but before any J-10A will be retired surely all J-7/-8s will be gone and even if the PLAAF will end of with a dramatically reduced (by numbers) but multi-role-capable force of around 1000-1200 combat jets, these surely won't be 1000 J-20s as some here hope.


I believe the last J-7 produced for PLAAF entered service around 2010, 4 years after the first J-10A. I would not be surprised if some J-7 ended up retiring after the first production model J-10. While there won't be 1000 J-20s, around 400 is not unreasonable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> I believe the last J-7 produced for PLAAF entered service around 2010, 4 years after the first J-10A. I would not be surprised if some J-7 ended up retiring after the first production model J-10. While there won't be 1000 J-20s, around 400 is not unreasonable.




Yes, but it is surely not only a matter of age but also of capability and even a 2010-delivered J-7G is surely not the same league as a 2004-delivered J-10A esp. if that one can be refitted with new avionics.

Anyway ... back to the J-20; and let's show some new images.

Deino


----------



## cirr

This is what I would call "REAL" stealth technology 

http://www.iqiyi.com/v_19rr7t5j18.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Just found at the SDF:

Possible J20 flyby over Hong Kong

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...-j-20-stealth-fighter-being-readied-hong-kong



> Sources suggest advanced jet could take part in the city’s celebrations, with visit likely to coincide with the arrival of Liaoning, China’s aircraft carrier

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> This is what I would call "REAL" stealth technology
> 
> http://www.iqiyi.com/v_19rr7t5j18.html
> 
> View attachment 407384


H-8 Hypersonic strategic bomber?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

兵器杂志2017年第8期 New release from Weapon Magazine.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## cirr

“*Emei*”（WS-15）

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> “*Emei*”（WS-15）
> 
> View attachment 408216




Sorry, but that is only a well-known old image of J-20A no. 78275, a cut-out of the alleged WS-15 core we now since years and on top a part from that already removed video that - we had this discussion already - mentions only engine but is barely any confirmation.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Sorry, but that is only a well-known old image of J-20A no. 78275, a cut-out of the alleged WS-15 core we now since years and on top a part from that already removed video that - we had this discussion already - mentions only engine but is barely any confirmation.


Hi Deino,

Don't be so quick to jump into conclusion. Do you even know what are the few Chinese words on the poster say? That is why I say you are not suitable to be moderator here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

And can You simply shut up on tings You don't understand even if You speak and read Chinese ??

You already got Your warning and I remind You to leave all personal attacks, insults and trolling. I know You don't like me - the same in return - and I know You deem me not suitable being a moderator - but that does not count, since You are not in the position to decide - and so either You shut up or leave.

Even if I think we both shall some day sit together face to face during a fine Chinese meal, drink some beer and talk together about these marvellous achievements China managed in recent years instead of these nasty replies. 

Ohhh, I know we surely will cry out "foul" for another moderator for help - so I already called him - but if You simply would leave all personnel notes in Your post and leave it, it would be fine. You will not change anything.

Deino

@Shotgunner51


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> You are so quick to jump on poster and article you don't even know what is talking about in a Chinese section.



Why I am I quick if I note to a poster without any conclusive wordings !?? You are the one who jumps again on this waggon only since it fits Your agenda and again You forget all arguments already given, You forget to think and use Your brain ... You are just acting my instinct, nothing more and in the same way Your instinct tells You everything from Deino must be wrong since he cannot read Chinese ... and that's an epic fail esp. in mind of all Your wrong assumptions and wrong predictions. Just let it and shut up.

You are only mentioning You opinion and the fact that I cannot speak Chinese, but that's well known and only You are still upset ... so it's off-topic and like @Shotgunner51 more than once noted to You as a warning: it is NO longer accepted.

You are as stubborn as Cato the elder, who also ended each and every speech with the following statement:
"_*Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam*_" or "_*Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam*_" (English: "Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed").

So leave it !


----------



## SOHEIL

lcloo said:


> 兵器杂志2017年第8期 New release from Weapon Magazine.
> 
> View attachment 408180
> View attachment 408181



Scanned photo appreciated...


----------



## cnleio

lcloo said:


> 兵器杂志2017年第8期 New release from Weapon Magazine.
> 
> View attachment 408180
> View attachment 408181

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

Pic taken today

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## scherz

cirr said:


> Pic taken today
> 
> View attachment 409081
> 
> 
> View attachment 409080



LOOK! WS-15 confirmed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

scherz said:


> LOOK! WS-15 confirmed!




Be carefully with such statements otherwise certain members will immediately get a heart attack ! 



cirr said:


> Pic taken today



Fine ... another yellow LRIP-bird; maybe #15 or that alleged #16 ??

Any news on the ones that prepare for the 81-parade ?? I've read they flew today but no images were taken.

Deino


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aliaselin

J20 will change for engine with sawtooth nozzle


----------



## Ultima Thule

aliaselin said:


> J20 will change for engine with sawtooth nozzle


Post a picture if you have


----------



## Akasa

aliaselin said:


> J20 will change for engine with sawtooth nozzle



Source?


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> Source?



Look out for the next batch of LRIP J-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Look out for the next batch of LRIP J-20s.




Any info on how many aircraft are planned for LRIP batch 01 ?


----------



## S. Martin

Deino said:


> View attachment 409734
> View attachment 409735


 
Only four?


----------



## lmjiao

Deino said:


> Any info on how many aircraft are planned for LRIP batch 01 ?


Latest rumour(today) says that the 9th brigade of PLAAF in Eastern Threat Command has been desided to be equiped with J-20.

Please check the following link for source(in chinese)
https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2397787&extra=page=1

Personally, I think they need at least one squadron.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

the images are getting better.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884981190977101824

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
26


----------



## BanglarBagh

grey boy 2 said:


>



She's beautiful!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Avicenna

grey boy 2 said:


>



Like a predator swooping in for prey!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

A new old HD close up picture of J-20 "2016"

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

All you can say is, "Wow!"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Han Patriot

grey boy 2 said:


> A new old HD close up picture of J-20 "2016"


The epitome of Chinese industrial technology and manufacturing. Can we call her BLACK ANGEL? Some one should suggest this to PLAAF. 黑天使

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

Yersterday's PLA website revealed a) J20 in service, b) 10:0 scored against G3 fighters.

http://www.81.cn/kj/2017-07/24/content_7687375_2.htm

"歼-20是服役中国军队的第一种多用途隐形战机。它仅用了6年零两个月的时间就实现了从首飞到服役，超越了美国F-22和F-35隐形战机的服役速度，而俄罗斯的第五代隐形战机T-50虽然早于歼-20一年首飞，却仍然没有完成试验定型。

歼-20采用了单座、双发、全动双垂尾、鼓包式DSI进气道、上反鸭翼带尖拱边条的鸭式气动布局。机头、机身呈菱形，垂直尾翼向外倾斜，起落架舱门为锯齿边设计,侧弹舱采用创新结构，可将导弹发射挂架预先封闭于外侧。据称，在大规模“红剑”联合演习中，歼-20在空军模拟对抗现役所有三代机中大获全胜，以10: 0的绝对优势完胜歼-10、歼-11以及苏30。"

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## 星海军事

Tiqiu said:


> Yersterday's PLA website revealed a) J20 in service, b) 10:0 scored against G3 fighters.
> 
> http://www.81.cn/kj/2017-07/24/content_7687375_2.htm
> 
> "歼-20是服役中国军队的第一种多用途隐形战机。它仅用了6年零两个月的时间就实现了从首飞到服役，超越了美国F-22和F-35隐形战机的服役速度，而俄罗斯的第五代隐形战机T-50虽然早于歼-20一年首飞，却仍然没有完成试验定型。
> 
> 歼-20采用了单座、双发、全动双垂尾、鼓包式DSI进气道、上反鸭翼带尖拱边条的鸭式气动布局。机头、机身呈菱形，垂直尾翼向外倾斜，起落架舱门为锯齿边设计,侧弹舱采用创新结构，可将导弹发射挂架预先封闭于外侧。据称，在大规模“红剑”联合演习中，歼-20在空军模拟对抗现役所有三代机中大获全胜，以10: 0的绝对优势完胜歼-10、歼-11以及苏30。"
> 
> View attachment 413805



中国军网综合 means this is a patched-together article.



Tiqiu said:


> 据称，在大规模“红剑”联合演习中，歼-20在空军模拟对抗现役所有三代机中大获全胜，以10: 0的绝对优势完胜歼-10、歼-11以及苏30。





> 歼20近期参加空军模拟对抗，结果吊打现役所有三代机，10:0的绝对优势完胜歼-10、歼-11以及苏-30等一代名机。



Origin: http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_12363845_1.html (2016-12-11)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891318946854453249

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio

PLAAF J-20 stealth fighter fleet join 7.30 military parade to mark 90th anniversary of PLA

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## kurutoga

radar dome is blurred?


----------



## Ultima Thule

cnleio said:


> PLAAF J-20 stealth fighter fleet join 7.30 military parade to mark 90th anniversary of PLA
> 
> View attachment 414894
> View attachment 414897
> View attachment 414898
> View attachment 414899
> View attachment 414901
> View attachment 414902
> View attachment 414903
> View attachment 414904


Why radomes is blurred anny reason sir?


----------



## cnleio

pakistanipower said:


> Why radomes is blurred anny reason sir?


Maybe there has PLAAF fighter serial number or some label ... or mass-production J-20 radar radome different with J-20 prototype, just now they don't want open to public.

J-20 cockpit and fleet

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## nika



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## 帅的一匹

J16 cockpit

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast

kurutoga said:


> radar dome is blurred?


On close up, it will show the AESA inside.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

According to its pilots, the J-20 is a beast in the supercruise mode.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to its pilots, the J-20 is a beast in the supercruise mode.


Some still believe J-20 fits with AL-31 engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20's pilotes helmet

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Beast

According to the pilot of J-20, the maneuverable of it is very good. In sub sonic is great but the pilot is extremely please with its super cruise. This confirm J-20 currently has super cruise ability. It is also in line with the interview in 2009 of deputy commander of PLAAF who mention in order for China 4th(western 5th) to enter service. It must fulfil all 5S.

Not as some who mention, J-20 are currently fitted with Ruskie AL-31 interim engine and waiting for WS-15 to fit to achieve the 5S. The criteria of China stealth fighter to enter service has repeated mention but some slayer keep insisting their own version.

Remember this few things I mention are not made up but reported by pilot of J-20 and Deputy commander of PLAAF. If somebody claim they know more than the pilot of J-20 , chief designer or deputy commander of PLAAF.
They are definitely a troll. 

Those who can understand Chinese, can know from the video link I share. Those who dont know Chinese, better shut up and stop thinking they can interpret better than me or those who speak Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> According to the pilot of J-20, the maneuverable of it is very good. In sub sonic is great but the pilot is extremely please with its super cruise. This confirm J-20 currently has super cruise ability. It is also in line with the interview in 2009 of deputy commander of PLAAF who mention in order for China 4th(western 5th) to enter service. It must fulfil all 5S.
> 
> Not as some who mention, J-20 are currently fitted with AL-31 interim engine and waiting for WS-15 to fit to archive the 5S. The criteria of China stealth fighter to enter service has repeated mention but some slayer keep insisting their own version.
> 
> Remember this few things I mention are not made up but reported by pilot of J-20 and Deputy commander of PLAAF. If somebody claim they know more than the pilot of J-20 , chief designer or deputy commander of PLAAF.
> They are definitely a troll.
> 
> Those who can understand Chinese, can know from the video link I share. Those who dont know Chinese, better shut up and stop thinking they can interpret better than me or those who speak Chinese.


Good to know J20 can make super cruise, so it's a 5S fighter jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The J-20B is going to be 5++.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> Good to know J20 can make super cruise, so it's a 5S fighter jet.


There are some slayer who believe PLAAF are sub standard. Who will accept non criteria product for the sake of inducting them faster. Chinese seldom boast. Chief designer and Commander words are golden words. What they speaks represent what you(public) will see in near future. Some brag about being an expert in Chinese military still cant grasped this basic facts and only humiliate himself in front of real Chinese military expert.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

The leader of the J-20 squadron said "The maneuverability of our J-20 fighter is especially good. At subsonic speed, its very good already, but once it entered supersonic speed, the world belongs to him."

Imagine a pilot flying Su-27 or Su-30 with AL-31F engines making a bold claim that his plane has excellent supersonic maneuverability.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20 has both Canopy jettison ejection and through canopy ejection, Chief designer Yang Wei call it as double insurance. Wow!!!!!



Beast said:


> There are some slayer who believe PLAAF are sub standard. Who will accept non criteria product for the sake of inducting them faster. Chinese seldom boast. Chief designer and Commander words are golden words. What they speaks represent what you(public) will see in near future. Some brag about being an expert in Chinese military still cant grasped this basic facts and only humiliate himself in front of real Chinese military expert.


On par with USA when it comes to 5th gen fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> View attachment 414969
> View attachment 414968
> View attachment 414966


Asok, looks like your WS-15 theory is getting more and more credible.

How can AL-31 engine give J-20 supercruise? Maybe some will claim J-20 pilot know nothing. He knows more than J-20 pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

@Deino will it be a carry-on date today?



Beast said:


> Asok, looks like your WS-15 theory is getting more and more credible.
> 
> How can AL-31 engine give J-20 supercruise? Maybe some will claim J-20 pilot know nothing. He knows more than J-20 pilot.


Highly likely WS15 is already in service

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> Asok, looks like your WS-15 theory is getting more and more credible.
> 
> How can AL-31 engine give J-20 supercruise? Maybe some will claim J-20 pilot know nothing. He knows more than J-20 pilot.



It's obvious that the Commander of PLAAF knows what's he was doing. When he said China wants a fifth generation fighter with 4S capabilities to match and beat F-22, he meant it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> It's obvious that the Commander of PLAAF knows what's he was doing. When he said we want a fifth generation fighter with 4S to match and beat F-22, he meant it.


We are not Indians

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

wanglaokan said:


> We are not Indians



The PLAAF Commander also predicted, in 2009, that J-20 will be flying shortly, and will enter service by 2017-2019.

I don't think even his mother would have believed him, if there was no steady release pictures and videos of the test flights, during the last 6-7 years.

Robert Gates predicted that China would not have a 5th generation fighter before 2020. He was off by a full decade. Thank you Mr. Gates for cancelling F-22 based on your ridiculous intel.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20B is going to be 5++.



It's supercomputer and avionics are vastly superior to F-22, which are using Intel 486 chips, and don't even has an IRST, and Helmet mounted targeting system. I don't think anyone, who is under 30, has even seen a 486 PC computer.



Beast said:


> There are some slayer who believe PLAAF are sub standard. Who will accept non criteria product for the sake of inducting them faster. Chinese seldom boast. Chief designer and Commander words are golden words. What they speaks represent what you(public) will see in near future. Some brag about being an expert in Chinese military still cant grasped this basic facts and only humiliate himself in front of real Chinese military expert.



*"Chinese seldom boast."*

That's right, we are not indians.

*"Some brag about being an expert in Chinese military still cant grasped this basic facts and only humiliate himself in front of real Chinese military expert."*

He can't even read a single word of Chinese, and can't even grasp the basic aeronautical concepts of Thrust to Weight Ratio, and what it takes to perform a sustained vertical climb.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

Asok said:


> View attachment 414969
> View attachment 414968
> View attachment 414966
> 
> 
> The leader of the J-20 squadron said "The maneuverability of our J-20 fighter is especially good. At subsonic speed, its very good already, but once it entered supersonic speed, the world belongs to him."
> 
> Imagine a pilot flying Su-27 or Su-30 with AL-31F engines making a bold claim like that.



https://www.bilibili.com/video/av12744208/

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Han Patriot

wanglaokan said:


> @Deino will it be a carry-on date today?
> 
> 
> Highly likely WS15 is already in service


Yah Deino, how do you explain supercruise? I don't think AL-31 can supercruise right? Russians are still trying to get supercruise on AL-41.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## terranMarine

EXCELLENT NEWS, directly from the mouth of the pilot

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Blitzo

Beast said:


> According to the pilot of J-20, the maneuverable of it is very good. In sub sonic is great but the pilot is extremely please with its super cruise. This confirm J-20 currently has super cruise ability. It is also in line with the interview in 2009 of deputy commander of PLAAF who mention in order for China 4th(western 5th) to enter service. It must fulfil all 5S.
> 
> Not as some who mention, J-20 are currently fitted with Ruskie AL-31 interim engine and waiting for WS-15 to fit to achieve the 5S. The criteria of China stealth fighter to enter service has repeated mention but some slayer keep insisting their own version.
> 
> Remember this few things I mention are not made up but reported by pilot of J-20 and Deputy commander of PLAAF. If somebody claim they know more than the pilot of J-20 , chief designer or deputy commander of PLAAF.
> They are definitely a troll.
> 
> Those who can understand Chinese, can know from the video link I share. Those who dont know Chinese, better shut up and stop thinking they can interpret better than me or those who speak Chinese.



I usually don't come onto PDF because I usually spend my time at SDF and CDF, however I think your interpretation of the pilot's words are a bit too confident.

The pilot does indeed say that subsonic maneuverability is good, and supersonic maneuverability is excellent.

However, the pilot never mentions anything about supercruise, only that the aircraft's supersonic maneuverability is very good. Whether it achieves that supersonic speed through dry thrust (supercruise) or wet thrust/afterburner is unknown.


I personally think it is reasonable to interpret the pilot's words to mean the J-20 as it currently is may be able to supercruise, but the pilot's words definitely do not mean we can confidently proclaim J-20 is able to supercruise. It merely means we are able to speculate as to whether it can.



As to how J-20 can currently supercruise, I think it is even more incorrect to assume that it means J-20 is currently using WS-15. Deino has been complaining over on SDF before about how overzealous many people here are about WS-15, and frankly he's right.

If J-20 can supercruise, there are many explanations for it, beyond the unlikely prospect of WS-15 already being ready. For example, if J-20 can supercruise, first of all, at what speed? F-22 is said to be able to supercruise at mach 1.7-1.8. For J-20, if the pilot's words does mean J-20 can supercruise, does it mean J-20 can also supercruise at mach 1.7-1.8?

For all we know J-20 may only be able to supercruise at mach 1.0 or mach 1.1! Given that rather important qualification, if we are assuming J-20 can currently supercruise, and considering that WS-15 definitely are not on production J-20s (or even being tested on a J-20 to our knowledge), a logical conclusion is that J-20s may be able to supercruise using the uprated Al-31 variants that J-20 has been rumoured to use, like Al-31F-M2 which has a wet thrust of 145 kN. Compare that to F-22's F119 engine at 156 kN wet thrust, and consider that J-20 is a stealth fighter with internal weapon bays and more importantly J-20 fields a much more elongated delta airframe compared to F-22, and it becomes very plausible that J-20 may be able to supercruise at in the low Mach 1 regime using Al-31F-M2s as its powerplant.

Also consider that PAK FA using 117 (with a similar wet thrust of 147 kN) has also been claimed to be able to supercruise given Su-35 is able to supercruise using those same engines, and the idea that J-20 may be able to achieve supercruise using uprated Al-31F-M2 variant is quite plausible.


So, to conclude, there are two overarching speculative points we can derive:

1: the pilot's words in the videos do not confirm J-20 is able to supercruise, however his words do leave the possibility that J-20 may achieve supersonic speeds routinely, and this may be via supercruise.
2: if J-20 is able to supercruise, it is likely only in the low Mach 1 domain, because J-20 is not using WS-15 engines, however it may be able to supercruise in that domain using the uprated Al-31F-M2 engines that production aircraft are most likely using.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

terranMarine said:


> EXCELLENT NEWS, directly from the mouth of the pilot


No, Chinese pilot are bragger and liar. You cannot take their words seriously. If western pilot speaks or western chief designer speaks, they are the golden standard and cannot be doubt. If they say earth is cube, it must be cube. Ask Deino 



Blitzo said:


> I usually don't come onto PDF because I usually spend my time at SDF and CDF, however I think your interpretation of the pilot's words are a bit too confident.
> 
> The pilot does indeed say that subsonic maneuverability is good, and supersonic maneuverability is excellent.
> 
> However, the pilot never mentions anything about supercruise, only that the aircraft's supersonic maneuverability is very good. Whether it achieves that supersonic speed through dry thrust (supercruise) or wet thrust/afterburner is unknown.
> 
> 
> I personally think it is reasonable to interpret the pilot's words to mean the J-20 as it currently is may be able to supercruise, but the pilot's words definitely do not mean we can confidently proclaim J-20 is able to supercruise. It merely means we are able to speculate as to whether it can.
> 
> 
> 
> As to how J-20 can currently supercruise, I think it is even more incorrect to assume that it means J-20 is currently using WS-15. Deino has been complaining over on SDF before about how overzealous many people here are about WS-15, and frankly he's right.
> 
> If J-20 can supercruise, there are many explanations for it, beyond the unlikely prospect of WS-15 already being ready. For example, if J-20 can supercruise, first of all, at what speed? F-22 is said to be able to supercruise at mach 1.7-1.8. For J-20, if the pilot's words does mean J-20 can supercruise, does it mean J-20 can also supercruise at mach 1.7-1.8?
> 
> For all we know J-20 may only be able to supercruise at mach 1.0 or mach 1.1! Given that rather important qualification, if we are assuming J-20 can currently supercruise, and considering that WS-15 definitely are not on production J-20s (or even being tested on a J-20 to our knowledge), a logical conclusion is that J-20s may be able to supercruise using the uprated Al-31 variants that J-20 has been rumoured to use, like Al-31F-M2 which has a wet thrust of 145 kN. Compare that to F-22's F119 engine at 156 kN wet thrust, and consider that J-20 is a stealth fighter with internal weapon bays and more importantly J-20 fields a much more elongated delta airframe compared to F-22, and it becomes very plausible that J-20 may be able to supercruise at in the low Mach 1 regime using Al-31F-M2s as its powerplant.
> 
> Also consider that PAK FA using 117 (with a similar wet thrust of 147 kN) has also been claimed to be able to supercruise given Su-35 is able to supercruise using those same engines, and the idea that J-20 may be able to achieve supercruise using uprated Al-31F-M2 variant is quite plausible.
> 
> 
> So, to conclude, there are two overarching speculative points we can derive:
> 
> 1: the pilot's words in the videos do not confirm J-20 is able to supercruise, however his words do leave the possibility that J-20 may achieve supersonic speeds routinely, and this may be via supercruise.
> 2: if J-20 is able to supercruise, it is likely only in the low Mach 1 domain, because J-20 is not using WS-15 engines, however it may be able to supercruise in that domain using the uprated Al-31F-M2 engines that production aircraft are most likely using.



Another nonsense.. Now somebody try to twist with the word supercruise? Supercruise is excellent mention by the Chinese pilot does not mean J-20 can supercruise. Maybe you want to claim the J-20 pilot has low IQ? Hi, please dont insult the Chinese pilot by trying to suit you weak Chinese agenda. Its another weak low hand method by suggesting Chinese has a sub standard way to gauge international things compare to West? What you suggest is your personal opinion. What I mention about supercruise for J-20 is mention by the Chinese pilot and PLAAF deputy commander. Get your facts,right.

Your BS theory about AL-31 FM2 engine is never proven. If Russian can come up with a 145kn engine and why would their 117S engine having so much problem? You are just trying to fit your weak China theory to suit your personal agenda. We all know Russian are having big problem uprated their engines to 5th gen standard. They are no comfirmed reports of the so called uprated 145kn engine series. The engine for Su-35 are tied towards sales of the whole plane. The Russian has repeated stated they will never just sale only the engine to China and we know the engine deal concluded in late dec 2016 which proves to late for J-20 when LRIP already started. 

You mean suddenly in dec 2016, PLAAF suddenly shove the Su-35 engine into J-20 which already going to be inducted and magically, everything can be done in few months time? 

How low can you get?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blitzo

Beast said:


> Another nonsense.. Now somebody try to twist with the word supercruise? Supercruise is excellent mention by the Chinese pilot does not mean J-20 can supercruise. Maybe you want to claim the J-20 pilot has low IQ? Hi, please dont insult the Chinese pilot by trying to suit you weak Chinese agenda.



The pilot never used the word "supercruise".

The pilot said 一进了超音速(就是它的天下了), which translates to "once it enters supersonic speed"...

Supersonic speed and supercruise are very different.

If the pilot wanted to say that the J-20 could supercruise, the pilot would've used a different term, something like "超音速巡航".


Given what the pilot said, the best we can speculate is that J-20 can possibly supercruise, and given J-20 is not using WS-15 and is likely using Al-31F-M2, it is likely that J-20's supercruise is currently in the low Mach 1 regime at best.

edit: in other words, the pilot is not a liar, and everything he said is true. The problem is that you are not translating his words properly.



As for my motivations, I think you should have a look over at the history of my posts on SDF and CDF and take a look at my website as well. I think it's been posted on this forum a few times before.


edit:


Beast said:


> Your BS theory about AL-31 FM2 engine is never proven. If Russian can come up with a 145kn engine and why would their 117S engine having so much problem? You are just trying to fit your weak China theory to suit your personal agenda. We all know Russian are having big problem uprated their engines to 5th gen standard. They are no comfirmed reports of the so called uprated 145kn engine series. The engine for Su-35 are tied towards sales of the whole plane. The Russian has repeated stated they will never just sale only the engine to China and we know the engine deal concluded in late dec 2016 which proves to late for J-20 when LRIP already started.
> 
> You mean suddenly in dec 2016, PLAAF suddenly shove the Su-35 engine into J-20 which already going to be inducted and magically, everything can be done in few months time?
> 
> How low can you get?



Al-31F-M2 and 117S engines are different. Al-31FM2 is from Salut, 117S is from Saturn.

I'm not saying J-20 is using 117S, I'm saying J-20 is using Al-31F-M2.
Obviously J-20 didn't suddenly use Al-31F-M2 in December 2016, they would've used that engine since at least the s/n 2011 prototype which flew in 2014 if not earlier since the original prototype/demonstrator s/n 2001.


The Russians are having challenges developing izd 30, but China's also having troubles developing WS-15, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying Al-31FM2 is not real -- salut.ru/ ViewTopic.php?Id= 1459 (fill in the blanks for the link)


Of course, we've never had confirmation of what kind of engine J-20 uses, however the most plausible explanation we have is that it uses an Al-31 variant. If J-20 is able to supercruise, then it is likely using an uprated Al-31 version like the Al-31FM2 which has been put forward for quite a while, and is also one of the primary powerplants that has been considered by Huitong and Deino as well
Certainly, the idea that J-20 is currently using WS-15 is absolutely ridiculous.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Blitzo said:


> The pilot never used the word "supercruise".
> 
> The pilot said 一进了超音速(就是它的天下了), which translates to "once it enters supersonic speed"...
> 
> Supersonic speed and supercruise are very different.
> 
> If the pilot wanted to say that the J-20 could supercruise, the pilot would've used a different term, something like "超音速巡航".
> 
> 
> Given what the pilot said, the best we can speculate is that J-20 can possibly supercruise, and given J-20 is not using WS-15 and is likely using Al-31F-M2, it is likely that J-20's supercruise is currently in the low Mach 1 regime at best.
> 
> 
> 
> As for my motivations, I think you should have a look over at the history of my posts on SDF and CDF and take a look at my website as well. I think it's been posted on this forum a few times before.
> 
> 
> 
> Al-31F-M2 and 117S engines are different. Al-31FM2 is from Salut, 117S is from Saturn.
> 
> I'm not saying J-20 is using 117S, I'm saying J-20 is using Al-31F-M2.
> Obviously J-20 didn't suddenly use Al-31F-M2 in December 2016, they would've used that engine since at least the s/n 2011 prototype which flew in 2014 if not earlier since the original prototype/demonstrator s/n 2001.
> 
> 
> The Russians are having challenges developing izd 30, but China's also having troubles developing WS-15, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by saying Al-31FM2 is not real -- http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1459
> 
> 
> Of course, we've never had confirmation of what kind of engine J-20 uses, however the most plausible explanation we have is that it uses an Al-31 variant. If J-20 is able to supercruise, then it is likely using an uprated Al-31 version like the Al-31FM2 which has been put forward for quite a while, and is also one of the primary powerplants that has been considered by Huitong and Deino as well
> Certainly, the idea that J-20 is currently using WS-15 is absolutely ridiculous.



What you provide is only a link about Russian plan for an uprated engine called. AL-31 FM2. Russian has many great plans and we know Russian has many stuff never materialized. Can you provide me a proof of this magical AL-31 FM2 engine project has completed and used by Russian AF or exported to foreign customers?

It might not be WS-15 engine but it can never be AL-31 engine and not to mention of your FM2 series. Remember about the documentary of shenyang liming engine talking about fabricating parts for J-20 engines. If its your so called AL-31FM2 engine. Why would Shenyang Liming need to fabricated parts for it? It shall be a whole piece imported from salyut and with proper check and install on J-20. Care to explain?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DragonHunter

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20B is going to be 5++.


maybe 5+++

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blitzo

Beast said:


> What you provide is only a link about Russian plan for an uprated engine called. AL-31 FM2. Russian has many great plans and we know Russian has many stuff never materialized. Can you provide me a proof of this magical AL-31 FM2 engine project has completed and used by Russian AF or exported to foreign customers?



actually the link I showed was about Sukhoi considering the Al-31FM2 for their aircraft, and that Salut had already demonstrated Al-31FM2 at 14,500 kgf in their test facility.


The existence of this engine and its performance should not be in any doubt, the question is whether J-20 is using it or not.


And let's be honest -- it is far more likely that J-20 is using an engine like Al-31FM2 (considering CAC's good relationship with their Russian engine suppliers for powering J-10A/B/C), than the idea that J-20 is using WS-15!





Beast said:


> It might not be WS-15 engine but it can never be AL-31 engine and not to mention of your FM2 series. Remember about the documentary of shenyang liming engine talking about fabricating parts for J-20 engines. If its your so called AL-31FM2 engine. Why would Shenyang Liming need to fabricated parts for it? It shall be a whole piece imported from salyut and with proper check and install on J-20. Care to explain?



Who knows, maybe the documentary was wrong, maybe Shenyang Liming is involved in fabricating parts for Al-31FM2 (perhaps replacement parts), or the least possible reason is that J-20 may be using a WS-10 variant.


But J-20 definitely is not using WS-15 right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Blitzo said:


> actually the link I showed was about Sukhoi considering the Al-31FM2 for their aircraft, and that Salut had already demonstrated Al-31FM2 at 14,500 kgf in their test facility.
> 
> 
> The existence of this engine and its performance should not be in any doubt, the question is whether J-20 is using it or not.
> 
> 
> And let's be honest -- it is far more likely that J-20 is using an engine like Al-31FM2 (considering CAC's good relationship with their Russian engine suppliers for powering J-10A/B/C), than the idea that J-20 is using WS-15!


I ask for a proof and you give me your personal opinion? Is this what you can do? Please provide solid proof of the so called magical AL-31 FM2 engine materialized or even exported. I dont know to hear your agenda. I need proof.

If such magical engine exist for export to PLAAF, there wouldn't even be a big roar about exporting Su-35 plane to PLAAF with Russian declare no separated engine sales.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Blitzo said:


> I usually don't come onto PDF because I usually spend my time at SDF and CDF, however I think your interpretation of the pilot's words are a bit too confident.
> 
> The pilot does indeed say that subsonic maneuverability is good, and supersonic maneuverability is excellent.
> 
> However, the pilot never mentions anything about supercruise, only that the aircraft's supersonic maneuverability is very good. Whether it achieves that supersonic speed through dry thrust (supercruise) or wet thrust/afterburner is unknown.
> 
> 
> I personally think it is reasonable to interpret the pilot's words to mean the J-20 as it currently is may be able to supercruise, but the pilot's words definitely do not mean we can confidently proclaim J-20 is able to supercruise. It merely means we are able to speculate as to whether it can.
> 
> 
> 
> As to how J-20 can currently supercruise, I think it is even more incorrect to assume that it means J-20 is currently using WS-15. Deino has been complaining over on SDF before about how overzealous many people here are about WS-15, and frankly he's right.
> 
> If J-20 can supercruise, there are many explanations for it, beyond the unlikely prospect of WS-15 already being ready. For example, if J-20 can supercruise, first of all, at what speed? F-22 is said to be able to supercruise at mach 1.7-1.8. For J-20, if the pilot's words does mean J-20 can supercruise, does it mean J-20 can also supercruise at mach 1.7-1.8?
> 
> For all we know J-20 may only be able to supercruise at mach 1.0 or mach 1.1! Given that rather important qualification, if we are assuming J-20 can currently supercruise, and considering that WS-15 definitely are not on production J-20s (or even being tested on a J-20 to our knowledge), a logical conclusion is that J-20s may be able to supercruise using the uprated Al-31 variants that J-20 has been rumoured to use, like Al-31F-M2 which has a wet thrust of 145 kN. Compare that to F-22's F119 engine at 156 kN wet thrust, and consider that J-20 is a stealth fighter with internal weapon bays and more importantly J-20 fields a much more elongated delta airframe compared to F-22, and it becomes very plausible that J-20 may be able to supercruise at in the low Mach 1 regime using Al-31F-M2s as its powerplant.
> 
> Also consider that PAK FA using 117 (with a similar wet thrust of 147 kN) has also been claimed to be able to supercruise given Su-35 is able to supercruise using those same engines, and the idea that J-20 may be able to achieve supercruise using uprated Al-31F-M2 variant is quite plausible.
> 
> 
> So, to conclude, there are two overarching speculative points we can derive:
> 
> 1: the pilot's words in the videos do not confirm J-20 is able to supercruise, however his words do leave the possibility that J-20 may achieve supersonic speeds routinely, and this may be via supercruise.
> 2: if J-20 is able to supercruise, it is likely only in the low Mach 1 domain, because J-20 is not using WS-15 engines, however it may be able to supercruise in that domain using the uprated Al-31F-M2 engines that production aircraft are most likely using.








1.) Supersonic Cruise is commonly described as the ability to cruise at Mach 1.4 for at least 30 min, without the use of Afterburner.

Why not define just Supersonic Cruise as cruising just above Mach 1.0?

Because, due to shock wave, the drag in the transonic region, rises dramatically near Mach 0.8, and peaked at Mach 1.0, then drop gradually as speed goes up, and then rise again near Mach 2.

So, it's actually requires less power to fly, if you stay out of this transonic region.

*"For all we know J-20 may only be able to supercruise at mach 1.0 or mach 1.1!"*

So to tell a pilot to supercruise at Mach 1.0 or Mach 1.1 is simply ridiculous. You don't know what are you talking about.

2. *"the pilot never mentions anything about supercruise, only that the aircraft's supersonic maneuverability is very good."*

Yes, he didn't mention anything about supersonic cruise. He only unmistakably confirmed that J-20's supersonic maneuverability is outstanding.

However, what's maneuver at supersonic speed like, while you have to turn on the Afterburner?

It means you have to burn several times more fuel, while you are making violent maneuvers, which bleeds off your speed or energy quickly, and you must push the throttle to quickly replenish it.

While at subsonic speed, this is already bad enough. Most fighters have only several minutes of extra fuel to burn, when the Afterburner is engaged. (Remember, they have go to home. You can't burn all your fuel, while fighting)

At supersonic speed, the fuel burn rate is so much worse, if you do violent maneuvers, while engaging the afterburner. You can imagine travel at in car at 50km/h, and open all four car doors or slam on the brakes, suddenly, your car will decelerate quickly. And you have to step on the gas pedal to get back to 50km/h.

Now, you do the same at 100km/h, and also slowed way down, and you have to get back to 100km/h. This time, you have to spend so much energy to get back to 100km/h, because E = 1/2mv(2). That is kinetic energy goes up by the square of the velocity.

So, supersonic maneuverability requires so much more power from the engine, to push the plane to stay above the transonic region. That's why supersonic maneuverability requires a so much more powerful engine, than subsonic maneuverability. Supersonic maneuverability is meaningless if you can't stay above supersonic speed for a few minutes, because you have to engage AB constantly.

It's safe to say, if you have outstanding/world beating supersonic maneuverability, you have a powerful engine to replenish your lost energy quickly, to stay above supersonic for a long while, without AB. If you have to turn on AB, your fuel gauge hits BINGO, very quickly.

And its also safe to say, if have superior supersonic maneuverability, without use of AB, you can do supersonic cruise, without AB, because violent maneuvers requires so much more power than just cruising at constant speed.

If you think you can excellent supersonic maneuverability without the ability of supersonic cruise, you have no idea of what are you talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Blitzo

Beast said:


> I ask for a proof and you give me your personal opinion? Is this what you can do? Please provide solid proof of the so called magical AL-31 FM2 engine materialized or even exported. I dont know to hear your agenda. I need proof.



Whoa, let's slow down here with the holier than thou.

I've given you a much better argument and proof that you have for your belief that J-20 is using WS-15.


Let me repeat my position:

1: J-20 might be able to supercruise, however it might not be able to supercruise, based on the pilot's interview because he only talks about achieving "supersonic speed" and not "supercruise"
2: if J-20 is able to supercruise, it is most likely using an Al-31 variant, possibly Al-31FM2
3: J-20 most definitely is not using WS-15
therefore...
4: if you think Al-31FM2 is unlikely, then the simple answer you can reach is just that J-20 is unable to supercruise, and that J-20 is currently using vanilla Al-31 engines and is even more underpowered than it would be if it were using Al-31FM2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> 1.) Supersonic Cruise is commonly described as the ability to cruise at Mach 1.4 for at least 30 min, without the use of Afterburner.
> 
> Why not define just Supersonic Cruise as cruising just above Mach 1.0?
> 
> Because, due to shock wave, the drag in the transonic region, rises dramatically near Mach 0.8, and peaked at Mach 1.0, then drop gradually as speed goes up, and then rise again near Mach 2.
> 
> View attachment 415007
> 
> 
> So, it's actually requires less power to fly, if you stay out of this transonic region.
> 
> *"For all we know J-20 may only be able to supercruise at mach 1.0 or mach 1.1!"*
> 
> So to tell a pilot to supercruise at Mach 1.0 or Mach 1.1 is simply ridiculous.
> 
> 2. *"the pilot never mentions anything about supercruise, only that the aircraft's supersonic maneuverability is very good."*
> 
> Yes, he didn't mention anything about supersonic cruise. He only unmistakably confirmed that J-20's supersonic maneuverability is outstanding.
> 
> However, what's maneuver at supersonic speed like, while you have to turn on the Afterburner?
> 
> It means you have to burn several times more fuel, while you are making violent maneuvers, which bleeds off your speed or energy quickly, and you must push the throttle to quickly replenish it.
> 
> While at subsonic speed, this is already bad enough. Most fighters have only several minutes of extra fuel to burn, when the Afterburner is engaged. (Remember, they have go to home. You can't burn all your fuel, while fighting)
> 
> At supersonic speed, the fuel burn rate is so much worse, if you do violent maneuvers, while engaging the afterburner. You can imagine travel at in car at 50km/h, and open all four car doors or slam on the brakes, suddenly, your car will decelerate quickly. And you have to step on the gas pedal to get back to 50km/h.
> 
> Now, you do the same at 100km/h, and also slowed way down, and you have to get back to 100km/h. This time, you have to spend so much energy to get back to 100km/h, because E = 1/2mv(2). That is kinetic energy goes up by the square of the velocity.
> 
> So, supersonic maneuverability requires so much more power from the engine, to push the plane to stay above the transonic region. That's why supersonic maneuverability requires a so much more powerful engine, than subsonic maneuverability. Supersonic maneuverability is meaningless if you can't stay above supersonic speed for a few minutes, because you have to engage AB constantly.
> 
> It's safe to say, if you have outstanding/world beating supersonic maneuverability, you have a powerful engine to replenish your lost energy to stay above supersonic for a long while, without AB.
> 
> And its also safe to say, if have superior supersonic maneuverability without AB, you can do supersonic cruise, without AB, because violent maneuvers requires so much more power than just cruising.



Precisely.

It so absurd and insulting some trying to say the Chinese pilot are talking things without using their head by talking excellent supersonic maneuvrability about a plane that has limited or no supercruise at all.



Blitzo said:


> Whoa, let's slow down here with the holier than thou.
> 
> I've given you a much better argument and proof that you have for your belief that J-20 is using WS-15.
> 
> 
> Let me repeat my position:
> 
> 1: J-20 might be able to supercruise, however it might not be able to supercruise, based on the pilot's interview because he only talks about achieving "supersonic speed" and not "supercruise"
> 2: if J-20 is able to supercruise, it is most likely using an Al-31 variant, possibly Al-31FM2
> 3: J-20 most definitely is not using WS-15
> therefore...
> 4: if you think Al-31FM2 is unlikely, then the simple answer you can reach is just that J-20 is unable to supercruise, and that J-20 is currently using vanilla Al-31 engines and is even more underpowered than it would be if it were using Al-31FM2



How about the engine is not WS-15 but a WS-10x high thrust engine at 150Kn powered.
First you cant prove your magical AL-31FM2 engine really exist.
Secondly, Shenyang Liming has proved they are fabricating parts for J-20 engines. So how can it be an imported engines for J-20?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blitzo

Asok said:


> 1.) Supersonic Cruise is commonly described as the ability to cruise at Mach 1.4 for at least 30 min, without the use of Afterburner.
> 
> Why not define just Supersonic Cruise as cruising just above Mach 1.0?
> 
> Because, due to shock wave, the drag in the transonic region, rises dramatically near Mach 0.8, and peaked at Mach 1.0, then drop gradually as speed goes up, and then rise again near Mach 2.
> 
> View attachment 415007
> 
> 
> So, it's actually requires less power to fly, if you stay out of this transonic region.
> 
> *"For all we know J-20 may only be able to supercruise at mach 1.0 or mach 1.1!"*
> 
> So to tell a pilot to supercruise at Mach 1.0 or Mach 1.1 is simply ridiculous.
> 
> 2. *"the pilot never mentions anything about supercruise, only that the aircraft's supersonic maneuverability is very good."*
> 
> Yes, he didn't mention anything about supersonic cruise. He only unmistakably confirmed that J-20's supersonic maneuverability is outstanding.
> 
> However, what's maneuver at supersonic speed like, while you have to turn on the Afterburner?
> 
> It means you have to burn several times more fuel, while you are making violent maneuvers, which bleeds off your speed or energy quickly, and you must push the throttle to quickly replenish it.
> 
> While at subsonic speed, this is already bad enough. Most fighters have only several minutes of extra fuel to burn, when the Afterburner is engaged. (Remember, they have go to home. You can't burn all your fuel, while fighting)
> 
> At supersonic speed, the fuel burn rate is so much worse, if you do violent maneuvers, while engaging the afterburner. You can imagine travel at in car at 50km/h, and open all four car doors or slam on the brakes, suddenly, your car will decelerate quickly. And you have to step on the gas pedal to get back to 50km/h.
> 
> Now, you do the same at 100km/h, and also slowed way down, and you have to get back to 100km/h. This time, you have to spend so much energy to get back to 100km/h, because E = 1/2mv(2). That is kinetic energy goes up by the square of the velocity.
> 
> So, supersonic maneuverability requires so much more power from the engine, to push the plane to stay above the transonic region. That's why supersonic maneuverability requires a so much more powerful engine, than subsonic maneuverability. Supersonic maneuverability is meaningless if you can't stay above supersonic speed for a few minutes, because you have to engage AB constantly.
> 
> It's safe to say, if you have outstanding/world beating supersonic maneuverability, you have a powerful engine to replenish your lost energy to stay above supersonic for a long while, without AB.
> 
> And its also safe to say, if have superior supersonic maneuverability without AB, you can do supersonic cruise, without AB, because violent maneuvers requires so much more power than just cruising.




.... the problem is that the pilot only said "一进了超音速" which means "once entering supersonic speed". The pilot did not say "超音速巡航" which is supersonic cruise.


In other words, there is no precondition for us to suspect that J-20 must be able to achieve the definition of supercruise being Mach 1.4 for at least 30 min without afterburner based on the pilot's words (even assuming your definition of supercruise is any sort of universally accepted definition).


In fact, based on the pilot's interview there is no reason to suspect that the J-20 is even able to achieve mach 1 on dry thrust/without afterburner -- for all we know he may be saying that the J-20's supersonic maneuverability is achieved with afterburner! 

We are being very generous if we want to even assume that J-20 is able to achieve mach 1 on dry thrust based on the pilot's interview in the first place.



And yes, you're right, supersonic maneuverability does not mean as much tactically if you have to use afterburner to achieve supersonic speed in the first place. However, at the end of the day the ability for us to interpret the pilot's words must be dependent on his words. 

He made no statement about the combat effectiveness of J-20's supersonic maneuverability, only that its supersonic maneuverability was excellent. In other words, based on his words, we cannot exclude the possibility that he's simply saying J-20's supersonic maneuverability is when it acheives supersonic speeds via AB.


As for supercruising at mach 1 or 1.1 -- that was just an example. The point is that if J-20 were able to supercruise right now using its current non-WS-15 engines, it would likely be on the lower end of the mach 1 regime, lower than F-22's mach 1.7-1.8.


----------



## Asoka

Blitzo said:


> Whoa, let's slow down here with the holier than thou.
> 
> I've given you a much better argument and proof that you have for your belief that J-20 is using WS-15.
> 
> 
> Let me repeat my position:
> 
> 1: J-20 might be able to supercruise, however it might not be able to supercruise, based on the pilot's interview because he only talks about achieving "supersonic speed" and not "supercruise"
> 2: if J-20 is able to supercruise, it is most likely using an Al-31 variant, possibly Al-31FM2
> 3: J-20 most definitely is not using WS-15
> therefore...
> 4: if you think Al-31FM2 is unlikely, then the simple answer you can reach is just that J-20 is unable to supercruise, and that J-20 is currently using vanilla Al-31 engines and is even more underpowered than it would be if it were using Al-31FM2



You are simply presume that WS-15 is not ready, not installed on J-20 right now, and might not even tested on J-20 yet, so you presume that J-20 can't do supersonic cruise like F-22, even though the pilot clearly said J-20's supersonic maneuverability is world beating.

All you are trying to do is to deny J-20 is using WS-15.

There is absolutely no reports indicating Su-27 and Su-30 can do supersonic cruise on AL-31 variants. Not even Mach 1.1.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> @Deino will it be a carry-on date today?




Actually no. Right now I enjoy my familiy-holydays in Liguria, Italy and this discussion with the fan-boys is actually nothing but boring and stupid. So if they want to boast their own feelings, so its fine ... I am actually glad with what I see.

Greetings and all the best,
Deino






@Blitzo ... Thanks for Your arguments but they will not chance anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The AL-31F has already been disproved by China's official media.

Why is someone still arguing on this? Even the most staunch AL-31F supporters in the CD forum have conceded their defeat.

At this moment, still arguing the J-20 using any AL-31F variant is just as ridiculous as saying the Type 002 will keep using the steam catapult.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Blitzo

Beast said:


> How about the engine is not WS-15 but a WS-10x high thrust engine at 150Kn powered.
> First you cant prove your magical AL-31FM2 engine really exist.
> Secondly, Shenyang Liming has proved they are fabricating parts for J-20 engines. So how can it be an imported engines for J-20?



Okay, so what do you think is more likely?

A: the documentary's specific words in that scene were real and J-20 is using a new super WS-10 variant (like WS-10IPE, whose development progress we have not heard of for a while), for a few years, at least since prototype s/n 2011?
B: the documentary's specific words in that scene were wrong, and J-20 is using a known, Russian engine that was in late stages of development by the year 2012 (remember s/n 2011 first flew in 2014)? (also with the possibility that Shenyang Liming may be able to build replacement parts for an imported Russian engine)

I consider the latter to be more likely, because for A to be true then it means the super WS-10 variant must have finished testing and was ready for J-20 s/n 2011 in the year 2014, which we know is very unlikely.



Furthermore, I think we can at least settle that J-20 definitely is not using WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The AL-31F has already been disproved by China's official media.
> 
> Why is someone still arguing on this? Even the most staunch AL-31F supporters in the CD forum have conceded their defeat.
> 
> At this moment, still arguing the J-20 using any AL-31F variant is just as ridiculous as saying the Type 002 will keep using the steam catapult.


You see somebody trying to play around with the word supercruise or even suggest a plane underpowered can have excellent supersonic maneurability.

Then they will come up with fantasy uprated Ruskie engine at 145kn suddenly exported to China after so much saga for Su-35 sales to PLAAF with regards to engine sales.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

*" is far more likely that J-20 is using an engine like Al-31FM2"*

Find me a link that says the Russian has shipped Al-31FM2 to China. This engine is an phantom. The russian has announced it on 2012, but has no more news since then. Mostly likely, it was never developed, because there is no customers for it. Why not simply use the AL-41, or 117S?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blitzo

Asok said:


> You are simply presume that WS-15 is not ready, not installed on J-20 right now, and might not even tested on J-20 yet, so you presume that J-20 can't do supersonic cruise like F-22, even though the pilot clearly said J-20's supersonic maneuverability is world beating.
> 
> All you are trying to do is to deny J-20 is using WS-15.



Logically speaking, for us to believe J-20 is using WS-15 we must first have strong rumours that WS-15 has completed development and is ready for J-20.

We do not have any strong rumours suggesting WS-15 has completed development.

I want J-20 to use WS-15 as much as the next person, but I also don't want to lie to myself. We cannot put the cart before the horse, and we must accept that for us to suspect J-20 may be using WS-15 must first be preceded by strong rumours, indications, or proof that WS-15 has reached a state of development where it is ready for that.

For example, photos of WS-15 being tested on the Il-76 engine test bed, or rumours of WS-15 reaching a certain test or development milestone from a well regarded big shrimp.




> There is absolutely no reports indicating Su-27 and Su-30 can do supersonic cruise on AL-31 variants. Not even Mach 1.1.



Su-35BM was claimed to be able to supercruise (back when it was still called that) lenta.ru/articles/2008/07/04/su35/

Certainly, it is far more likely that Su-35 or PAK FA or J-20 are able to supercruise on high rated Al-31 variants, than J-20 using WS-15 right now.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> You see somebody trying to play around with the word supercruise or even suggest a plane underpowered can have excellent supersonic maneurability.
> 
> Then they will come up with fantasy uprated Ruskie engine at 145kn suddenly exported to China after so much saga for Su-35 sales to PLAAF with regards to engine sales.



At this moment, the AL-31F is already out, the only worthy debate is between the WS-10X vs WS-15, but with the surprising gradually unveiling performance of the J-20, the chance is starting to lean toward the WS-15.

I am analyzing with my rationality, not fanboyism. If someone tells me that the Type 002 will be nuclear powered, I will also disagree with him/her. Although I personally want the Type 002 to be nuclear powered, but there is no sign that showing the coming Type 002 will be nuclear powered.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> You see somebody trying to play around with the word supercruise or even suggest a plane underpowered can have excellent supersonic maneurability.
> 
> Then they will come up with fantasy uprated Ruskie engine at 145kn suddenly exported to China after so much saga for Su-35 sales to PLAAF with regards to engine sales.




This guy is arguing that J-20 can have outstanding supersonic maneuverability, but no supersonic cruise ability, because its still using the supposed Russian Al-31FM2 engine.

The word "silly" can't even begun to describe his argument.

*"WS-15 must first be preceded by strong rumours, indications, or proof that WS-15 has reached a state of development where it is ready for that."*


The Chinese has keep identity of engine on J-20 tightly underwrapped despite the testing of J-20 is openly done over Chengdu for the last 6 years.

Why is that?

If it's WS-10 or AL-31, there is absolutely no need for it, because the performance of these two engines are well known around the world. There is no secrets in them that will surprise anybody.

Simply, this current J-20 engine must be something new. But why so secretive about it?

Because it's performance is outstanding, even world beating.

It has demonstrated at the China Airshow that it can perform a sustained vertical climb without the use of the Afterburner.

That is, by the thrust of the military power alone, it could lift J-20 vertically up. That's mean its military power alone is greater than the flying weight of J-20.

Astounding performance, not even the F-22 could do it.

This alone could prove J-20 is not using a AL-31 variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blitzo

Asok said:


> *" is far more likely that J-20 is using an engine like Al-31FM2"*
> 
> Find me a link that says the Russian has shipped Al-31FM2 to China. This engine is an phantom. The russian has announced it on 2012, but has no more news since then. Mostly likely, it was never developed, because there is no customers for it. Why not simply use the AL-41, or 117S?



I don't need to prove that J-20 is using Al-31FM2.

I am saying that if J-20 is able to supercruise, then it is likely using an engine like Al-31FM2.


If you believe J-20 is not using Al-31FM2, then the most likely conclusion is that J-20 simply is unable to supercruise, and that the pilot's talk about exceptional supersonic maneuverability of the J-20 is achieved via use of afterburner.


----------



## Beast

Blitzo said:


> Su-35BM was claimed to be able to supercruise (back when it was still called that) lenta.ru/articles/2008/07/04/su35/
> 
> Certainly, it is far more likely that Su-35 or PAK FA or J-20 are able to supercruise on high rated Al-31 variants, than J-20 using WS-15 right now.



Su-35 is able to super cruise with engine being denied by sales to China by Russian. I think I do not need to tell you that. Russian say they will not sell the engine separately that is also another fact. That is why 24 Su-35 are bought and the deal is concluded only in late 2016.

Why are you repeatedly avoid answering our enquiries?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blitzo

Asok said:


> This guy is arguing that J-20 can have outstanding supersonic maneuverability, but no supersonic cruise ability, because its still using the supposed Russian Al-31FM2 engine.
> 
> The word "silly" can't even begun to describe his argument.



? I think you have no idea what I wrote.

Outstanding supersonic maneuverability means the aircraft has outstanding maneuverability while at supersonic speed.
Supersonic speed can be achieved via wet thrust or dry thrust; aka via supercruise or via afterburner.

I'm saying if J-20 is able to supercruise, then it is most likely using the Al-31FM2 given what we know.

If J-20 is not using Al-31FM2, then the next most likely scenario is that J-20 simply is unable to supercruise, and that its oustanding maneuverability at supersonic speed is achieved via afterburner.



Beast said:


> Su-35 is able to super cruise with engine being denied by sales to China by Russian. I think I do not need to tell you that. Russian say they will not sell the engine separately that is also another fact. That is why 24 Su-35 are bought and the deal is concluded only in late 2016.
> 
> Why are you repeatedly avoid answering our enquiries?



I'm not avoiding any enquiry. Su-35 is able to supercruise with an engine that has a thrust that is a couple of kN away from AL-31FM2.

Asok asked me for a Flanker that could supercruise using an Al-31 variant, which Su-35BM's engine was. He did not say that he wanted a Flanker which could supercruise with Al-31FM2. Obviously that is impossible because no Flanker has yet to use the Al-31FM2 to our knowledge.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> This guy is arguing that J-20 can have outstanding supersonic maneuverability, but no supersonic cruise ability, because its still using the supposed Russian Al-31FM2 engine.
> 
> The word "silly" can't even begun to describe his argument.



Everyone knows that the maximum supersonic speed between a fourth gen and a fifth gen is no great difference, both can achieve Mach 2+, but the only difference is that the fifth gen can sustain the supersonic speed for quite a while, the fourth gen can only sustain for a very short moment.

When the pilot saying the J-20 got outstanding supersonic performance compared to other fourth gen aircrafts, he was obviously referring the supercruise capability. So playing the words and twisting his meaning here are rather silly, it is a sign showing that he/she is running out of idea to disprove that the J-20 is not using any AL-31F family member.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

Blitzo said:


> I don't need to prove that J-20 is using Al-31FM2.
> 
> I am saying that if J-20 is able to supercruise, then it is likely using an engine like Al-31FM2.
> 
> 
> If you believe J-20 is not using Al-31FM2, then the most likely conclusion is that J-20 simply is unable to supercruise, and that the pilot's talk about exceptional supersonic maneuverability of the J-20 is achieved via use of afterburner.



*"I don't need to prove that J-20 is using Al-31FM2."*

You need to prove Al-31FM2 actually exists and has sold and delivered to China. I am saying there is no proof that this engine exists beyond the announcement made by the Russian in 2012.

*"its oustanding maneuverability at supersonic speed is achieved via afterburner.'*

This is so silly. I have explained that outstanding maneuverability at supersonic speed, requires a powerful engine to replenish lost energy, to stay above the transonic region, which is very draggy, and requires much time and fuel, to pass beyond it. And if this engine, requires AB constantly, it will burn up its fuel rapidly, and have to go home, early.

This is no "outstanding maneuverability at supersonic speed".

It's just lame.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Blitzo

Asok said:


> *"I don't need to prove that J-20 is using Al-31FM2."*
> 
> You need to prove Al-31FM2 actually exists and has sold and delivered to China. I am saying there is no proof that this engine exists beyond the announcement made by the Russian in 2012.



Al-31FM2 exists. The announcement in 2012 was when the engine was already in late stages of testing, for consideration of installation onto Sukhoi fighters. There are Russian language reports on this that can be found on a thread, by people who follow the Russian military as closely as we follow the Chinese military -- I can't post links, so if you search for "TR1's great russian aviation thread 7" and go to page 20, starting at reply #577 and a few posts down you'll see what I'm referring to.

Obviously we have no proof that China has ordered this engine, but that isn't exactly a prerequisite that I think we need to assume.


Furthermore, if you truly are not convinced J-20 is using Al-31FM2, then that's fine, then the next logical conclusion is that J-20 currently cannot supercruise, even at low Mach 1 regime, because we sure as hell know J-20 isn't using WS-15, and the super WS-10 variant (often called WS-10IPE) definitely was not ready three years ago and isn't even ready now.





Asok said:


> This is so silly. I have explained that outstanding maneuverability at supersonic speed, requires a powerful engine to replenish lost energy. And if this engine requires AB constantly, it will burn up its fuel rapidly and have to go home, early.
> 
> This is no "outstanding maneuverability at supersonic speed".



This is not silly.

The pilot did not say that the aircraft was able to achieve supersonic maneuverability with fuel efficiency or prolonged combat endurance.

The pilot only said the aircraft is able to achieve exceptional maneuverability in supersonic speeds. The pilot says nothing about how long the aircraft is able to maintain its exceptional maneuverability at supersonic speed for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Blitzo said:


> Al-31FM2 exists. The announcement in 2012 was when the engine was already in late stages of testing, for consideration of installation onto Sukhoi fighters. There are Russian language reports on this that can be found on a thread, by people who follow the Russian military as closely as we follow the Chinese military -- I can't post links, so if you search for "TR1's great russian aviation thread 7" and go to page 20, starting at reply #577 and a few posts down you'll see what I'm referring to.
> 
> Obviously we have no proof that China has ordered this engine, but that isn't exactly a prerequisite that I think we need to assume.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, if you truly are not convinced J-20 is using Al-31FM2, then that's fine, then the next logical conclusion is that J-20 currently cannot supercruise, even at low Mach 1 regime, because we sure as hell know J-20 isn't using WS-15, and the super WS-10 variant (often called WS-10IPE) definitely was not ready three years ago and isn't even ready now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not silly.
> 
> The pilot did not say that the aircraft was able to achieve supersonic maneuverability with fuel efficiency or prolonged combat endurance.
> 
> The pilot only said the aircraft is able to achieve exceptional maneuverability in supersonic speeds. The pilot says nothing about how long the aircraft is able to maintain its exceptional maneuverability at supersonic speed for.



*"Furthermore, if you truly are not convinced J-20 is using Al-31FM2, then that's fine, then the next logical conclusion is that J-20 currently cannot supercruise, even at low Mach 1 regime, because we sure as hell know J-20 isn't using WS-15"*

This makes me laugh. I can't believe some people is still this ignorant.

This guy basically claim "exceptional maneuverability in supersonic speeds" do not require the engine sufficiently powerful to do supersonic cruise, without AB.

How the hell, one can have "exceptional maneuverability in supersonic speeds" if he don't have an engine powerful enough, to keep him stay above the transonic region?

Maneuver at supersonic speed, is a lot harder for the engine, than just cruising straight.

This guy has no idea of what he is talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blitzo

Asok said:


> *"Furthermore, if you truly are not convinced J-20 is using Al-31FM2, then that's fine, then the next logical conclusion is that J-20 currently cannot supercruise, even at low Mach 1 regime, because we sure as hell know J-20 isn't using WS-15"*
> 
> This makes me laugh. I can't believe some people is still this ignorant.



Come on you can do better than that.

If you think J-20 can supercruise and isn't using Al-31FM2 or a similar Russian engine then show us some credible rumours or better yet some photos which demonstrate that WS-15 or WS-10IPE was ready years ago.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> *"Furthermore, if you truly are not convinced J-20 is using Al-31FM2, then that's fine, then the next logical conclusion is that J-20 currently cannot supercruise, even at low Mach 1 regime, because we sure as hell know J-20 isn't using WS-15"*
> 
> This makes me laugh. I can't believe some people is still this ignorant.



If someone still wants to say that the J-20 is using the AL-31FM2, then just let him be. It is just like insisting the Type 002 will still use the steam catapult, but it makes no difference to the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If someone still wants to say that the J-20 is using the AL-31FM2, then just let him be. It is just like insisting the Type 002 will still use the steam catapult, but it makes no difference to the reality.




So true, I have wasted enough time on this guy. Let him be. He probably think one can be an excellent prostitute while remain a virgin, or becoming an Olympic swimmer without knowing how to swim.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Blitzo

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If someone still wants to say that the J-20 is using the AL-31FM2, then just let him be. It is just like insisting the Type 002 will still use the steam catapult, but it makes no difference to the reality.



Oh give me a break.

I'm not saying J-20 is definitely using Al-31FM2.

I'm saying if J-20 can supercruise it's probably using Al-31FM2. If it can't supercruise then it isn't probably isn't using Al-31FM2.


It's all of you who insist J-20 must be using WS-15 or a WS-10 variant and refuse to believe the idea of China's best stealth fighter is using imported (gasp!) engines who give Chinese military watchers the bad name of "fanboys".


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Blitzo said:


> Oh give me a break.
> 
> I'm not saying J-20 is definitely using Al-31FM2.
> 
> I'm saying if J-20 can supercruise it's probably using Al-31FM2. If it can't supercruise then it isn't probably isn't using Al-31FM2.
> 
> 
> It's all of you who insist J-20 must be using WS-15 or a WS-10 variant and refuse to believe the idea of China's best stealth fighter is using imported (gasp!) engines who give Chinese military watchers the bad name of "fanboys".



You are free to believe what you want to believe, but why you have to force others to accept your own belief? It won't change the actual outcome at all.



Asok said:


> So true, I have wasted enough time on this guy. Let him be. He probably think one can be an excellent prostitute while remain a virgin, or becoming an Olympic swimmer without knowing how to swim.



When he is running out of idea, he is immediately showing the aggressive tone.

Most staunch AL-31F supporters in the CD forum are notorious anti-China bashers, even they have now conceded their defeat. And this guy self-proclaims to be a China lover, yet he is even more stubborn than those China haters in front of the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Even With WS10b J20 can make limited supercruise, the possibility of Russian engine on J20 had been ruled out long time ago.

And we can't exclude the possibility WS15 had entered into service. Who damn knows?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> *"I don't need to prove that J-20 is using Al-31FM2."*
> 
> You need to prove Al-31FM2 actually exists and has sold and delivered to China. I am saying there is no proof that this engine exists beyond the announcement made by the Russian in 2012.
> 
> *"its oustanding maneuverability at supersonic speed is achieved via afterburner.'*
> 
> This is so silly. I have explained that outstanding maneuverability at supersonic speed, requires a powerful engine to replenish lost energy, to stay above the transonic region, which is very draggy, and requires much time and fuel, to pass beyond it. And if this engine, requires AB constantly, it will burn up its fuel rapidly, and have to go home, early.
> 
> This is no "outstanding maneuverability at supersonic speed".
> 
> It's just lame.



I have to have to say that insisting the AL-31F is even more nonsense than the steam catapult for the Type 002.

At least the steam catapult was the original design for the Type 002, but later got abandoned for the EMALS.

Meanwhile, the AL-31FM2 was never intended for the J-20. The engine of some earlier prototype bearing some resemblance to the AL-31F family members doesn't mean anything. Even the WS-13E bears a lot of resemblance to the RD-93, yet these are two completely diffrent engines.



wanglaokan said:


> Even With WS10b J20 can make limited supercruise, the possibility of Russian engine on J20 had been ruled out long time ago.
> 
> And we can't exclude the possibility WS15 had entered into service. Who damn knows?



This is what I thought, but when the J-20 pilot referred that the J-20 can super cruise like a beast, the WS-15 is also quite likely, since China always loves to keep in low profile.

Even if this engine is still not the definitive version of the WS-15, then this temporary substitute has also to be at least on par with the F119.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I have to have to say that insisting the AL-31F is even more nonsense than the steam catapult for the Type 002.
> 
> At least the steam catapult was the original design for the Type 002, but later got abandoned for the EMALS.
> 
> Meanwhile, the AL-31FM2 was never intended for the J-20. The engine of some earlier prototype bearing some resemblance to the AL-31F family members doesn't anything. Even the WS-13E bears a lot of resemblance to the RD-93, yet these are two completely diffrent engines.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I thought, but when the J-20 pilot referred that the J-20 can super cruise like a beast, the WS-15 is also quite likely, since China always loves to keep in low profile.
> 
> Even if this engine is still not the definitive version of the WS-15, then this temporary substitute has also to be at least on par with the F119.



J-20's engine is much more powerful than F119. J-20 can perform sustained vertical climb w/o AB. Not even F-22 can do that, and J-20 is obviously much larger (3.5m longer) and heavier than F-22.

*"Meanwhile, the AL-31FM2 was never intended for the J-20. The engine of some earlier prototype bearing some resemblance to the AL-31F family members doesn't anything."*

There was never any reports of negotiations, sales and delivery of AL-31FM2 to China. If there was such sales, it is wholly unlike the previous arms sale between Russia and China, which are all registered with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI.

And superficial resemblance nozzle doesn't mean anything. No one has seen the whole picture of J-20's engine. So to conclude J-20 is using AL-31FM2 based on the superficial resemblance nozzle is groundless.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> J-20's engine is much more powerful than F119. J-20 can perform sustained vertical climb w/o AB. Not even F-22 can do that, and J-20 is obviously much larger (3.5m longer) and heavier than F-22.



According to Deino, you cannot see the J-20 is using the AB or not while performing the 90 degree vertical climbing.

According to Gambit, the F-22 doesn't use the AB at all but pretending to use the AB. This is the comedy gold of the year.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I have to have to say that insisting the AL-31F is even more nonsense than the steam catapult for the Type 002.
> 
> At least the steam catapult was the original design for the Type 002, but later got abandoned for the EMALS.
> 
> Meanwhile, the AL-31FM2 was never intended for the J-20. The engine of some earlier prototype bearing some resemblance to the AL-31F family members doesn't anything. Even the WS-13E bears a lot of resemblance to the RD-93, yet these are two completely diffrent engines.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I thought, but when the J-20 pilot referred that the J-20 can super cruise like a beast, the WS-15 is also quite likely, since China always loves to keep in low profile.
> 
> Even if this engine is still not the definitive version of the WS-15, then this temporary substitute has also to be at least on par with the F119.


This is not mental masturbation, it's reasonable deduction. WS15 might have been in place, still remember how shocked the entire world was when J20 prototype made its debut in year 2011?

But I still think it's highly likely still WS10x, and IEP version customized for J20.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

wanglaokan said:


> This is not mental mastication, it's reasonable deduction. WS15 might have been in place, still remember how shocked the entire world was when J20 prototype made its debut in year 2011?



In fact, most of us are rationally conservative guys when it comes to China's capability, yet we have been labelled as "fanboys" just for pointing out the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to Deino, you cannot see the J-20 is using the AB or not while performing the 90 degree vertical climbing.
> 
> According to Gambit, the F-22 doesn't use the AB at all but pretending to use the AB. This is the comedy gold of the year.



*"According to Deino, you cannot see the J-20 is using the AB or not while performing the 90 degree vertical climbing."*

He can't tell, huhh? It seems I can.
















I will believe my own eyes (and Mr. Dieno can believe his). If I see the telltale sign of the red hot flame shooting out of the nozzles, I say it is using the AB.

*"According to Gambit, the F-22 doesn't use the AB at all but pretending to use the AB. This is the comedy gold of the year."*

This is very funny. It's golden. F-22 is just pretending to use AB, but its not using it at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> In fact, most of us are rational conservative guys when it comes to China's capability, yet we have been labelled as "fanboys" just for pointing out the reality.


I don't mind other calling me fan boy , it only makes me feel even more proud.



Asok said:


> *"According to Deino, you cannot see the J-20 is using the AB or not while performing the 90 degree vertical climbing."*
> 
> He can't tell, huhh? It seems I can.
> 
> View attachment 415048
> View attachment 415049
> 
> 
> View attachment 415050
> 
> 
> 
> I will believe my own eyes (and Mr. Dieno can believe his). If I see the telltale sign of the red hot flame shooting out of the nozzles, I say it is using the AB.
> 
> *"According to Gambit, the F-22 doesn't use the AB at all but pretending to use the AB. This is the comedy gold of the year."*
> 
> This is very funny. It's golden. F-22 is just pretending to use AB, but its not using it at all.


Pretend to use AB?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to Gambit, the F-22 doesn't use the AB at all but pretending to use the AB. This is the comedy gold of the year.


I said nothing of the kind. This is just one out of many technical issues that escaped you no matter how many attempts.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> I said nothing of the kind. This is just one out of many technical issues that escaped you no matter how many attempts.



You can say whatever you want, it doesn't bother me at all.

Just like those anti-China trolls keep babbling about how the J-20 is still using the AL-31F, and I won't even bother to reply them anymore.

Because for them, a lie repeating in thousand times can become the truth, while for me, a lie repeating in thousand times is still a lie.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

Guys, J-20 is using either WS-10X( more likely) or
WS-15(less likely).
These Russian AL-31 derivative speculation is totally silly.

What an absolute beast the J-20 is it seems. After the report from the pilots, I am convinced J-20 is
on par with F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Guys, J-20 is using either WX-10X( more likely) or
> WS-15(less likely).
> These Russian AL-31 derivative speculation is totally silly.
> 
> What an absolute beast the J-20 is it seems. After the report from the pilots, I am convinced J-20 is
> on par with F-22.



Totally agree, even the J-20 is still currently using an inferior temporary substitute of the WS-15, but this particular engine is still extremely powerful, and it does look on par with the F119.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

UKBengali said:


> Guys, J-20 is using either WX-10X( more likely) or
> WS-15(less likely).
> These Russian AL-31 derivative speculation is totally silly.
> 
> What an absolute beast the J-20 is it seems. After the report from the pilots, I am convinced J-20 is
> on par with F-22.



Well it's not. It could be close, but that's it.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Totally agree, even the J-20 is still using an inferior temporary substitute of the WS-15, but this particular engine is still extremely powerful, and it does look on par with the F119.



I think Chinese stealth fighters are going to be popular exports for countries who want a cheaper 5th gen fighter or just don't like the US. 

China has a good opportunity to make some big bucks.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

dsr478 said:


> I think Chinese stealth fighters are going to be popular exports for countries who want a cheaper 5th gen fighter or just don't like the US.
> 
> China has a good opportunity to make some big bucks.



China is planning to export the J-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

dsr478 said:


> Well it's not. It could be close, but that's it.



I said I am convinced, not that I know for sure.
You are using the phrase "it is not" when you do not really know.J-20 could be better than F-22 for all we know.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

UKBengali said:


> I said I am convinced, not that I know for sure.
> You are using the phrase "it is not" when you do not really know.J-20 could be better than F-22 for all we know.


Confidence is all we need to have when you want to become stronger.

The HMD of J20 is quite impressive.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## UKBengali

wanglaokan said:


> Confidence is all we need to have when you want to become stronger.
> 
> The HMD of J20 is quite impressive.



Sorry to say but too many of us have inferiority complex against whites, but not Chinese and that is why Western world is terrified of China.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You can say whatever you want, it doesn't bother me at all.


It does not bother you because the technical details went whooosh over your head. Distortion of what people say is stock in trade for you PDF Chinese.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Just like those anti-China trolls keep babbling about how the J-20 is still using the AL-31F, and I won't even bother to reply them anymore.
> 
> Because for them, a lie repeating in thousand times can become the truth, while for me, a lie repeating in thousand times is still a lie.


News for you, son. I never said anything about which engine the J-20 uses. Because I do not keep track of the jet. So you can accuse me of 'lying' all you want and all it does is reinforce people's perception that you are a dishonest person.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China is planning to export the J-31.


I know, but I thought it's worth mentioning since this is a thread about another Chinese 5th gen fighter.


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You can say whatever you want, it doesn't bother me at all.
> 
> Just like those anti-China trolls keep babbling about how the J-20 is still using the AL-31F, and I won't even bother to reply them anymore.
> 
> Because for them, a lie repeating in thousand times can become the truth, while for me, a lie repeating in thousand times is still a lie.


*
"Because for them, a lie repeating in thousand times can become the truth, while for me, a lie repeating in thousand times is still a lie."*

That's right. No one has any proofs or reports of sales and delivery of this mystical Russian "AL-31FN-M2" engine to China, in the last 6 years.

Yet that don't prevents them from repeating this lies, a thousand times and more.

J-20 has already entered LRIP.

Where and how will China get this steady supply of "AL-31FN-M2" engines, to equip J-20, if there is no contract placed with the Russians, years ago?

And "AL-31FN-M2" was announced by Russian on 2012, which is more than a full year, *AFTER*, J-20 was flown on Jan 2011.

How could J-20 had flown, more a year, before this mystical "AL-31FN-M2" engine, was even existed/announced?



Beast said:


> I ask for a proof and you give me your personal opinion? Is this what you can do? Please provide solid proof of the so called magical AL-31 FM2 engine materialized or even exported. I dont know to hear your agenda. I need proof.
> 
> If such magical engine exist for export to PLAAF, there wouldn't even be a big roar about exporting Su-35 plane to PLAAF with Russian declare no separated engine sales.



*"I ask for a proof and you give me your personal opinion? Is this what you can do? Please provide solid proof of the so called magical AL-31 FM2 engine materialized or even exported. I dont know to hear your agenda. I need proof."*


The basic fact is there isn't any proofs that this *AL-31 FM2 engine, * has sold and delivery to China. Even Mr. Deino has used this outlandish argument that J-20 is using a *Chinese made* Russian *AL-31 FM2 engine*, to cover his track, that there was absolutely no report of sales and delivery..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

@Asok I simply beg You to shut up.

We had thus discussion so often and we came to the conclusion that no one exactly knows what type of engine it is. You have your hyper ws-15 theory - with imo not a single proof - and others including me have the AL-31-based theory - that you and others to not accept. None of us can proove or disprove anything we can only exchange arguments and pending the stronger believe of one or the other argument the result is diffefent.

But I will no longer accept than anyone with a different opinion to yours is called a liar, stupid, a chinese-hater or troll. Such posts will be deleted and the poster warned.

As such either you accept then some have other conclusions or face the consequences.

I for myself will no longer debate with any of these IMO fan-boys until new evidence is given.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asok I simply beg You to shut up.
> 
> We had thus discussion so often and we came to the conclusion that no one exactly knows what type of engine it is. You have your hyper ws-15 theory - with imo not a single proof - and others including me have the AL-31-based theory - that you and others to not accept. None of us can proove or disprove anything we can only exchange arguments and pending the stronger believe of one or the other argument the result is diffefent.
> 
> But I will no longer accept than anyone with a different opinion to yours is called a liar, stupid, a chinese-hater or troll. Such posts will be deleted and the poster warned.
> 
> As such either you accept then some have other conclusions or face the consequences.
> 
> I for myself will no longer debate with any of these IMO fan-boys until new evidence is given.
> 
> Deino



*"You have your hyper ws-15 theory - with imo not a single proof "*

What???!!!

Not a single proof?

1.) The pilot confirmed that J-20 has outstanding supersonic maneuverability. Not a proof, you said.
2.) The Liming engine factory confirmed J-20's WS-15 engine is made there. Not a proof, you said.
3.) J-20 could do sustained vertical climb, w/o AB, in front of thousands of airshow spectators. Not a proof, you said.
4.) J-20's TVC engines could tilt differentially. Not a proof, you said.
5.) Absolutely, no report of sales and delivery of Russian made AL-31FN-M2 to China. But this is not a problem to your theory.

*"@Asok I simply beg You to shut up."*

I don't want you to shut up, Mr. Deino. I want you to show us some proof that AL-31FN-M2 was ever materialized, and ordered and delivered to China.

I beg you, not to shut up, and give us some proofs, Mr. Deino.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

The engine for J20 is domestic, this is 30000000% for sure.

No Al-31FN-M2 for China.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kurutoga

There is no point arguing the details, because we simply do not know the classified data. On to the performance of J-20, nobody really knows. The pilot interviewed can't give an objective evaluation, just like when you interview F-22 pilots they will all say the jet is great. A true objective evaluation is only done once these 5th gen jets are compared side by side, and against each other many many times. Too early for that. In a way, these news contain a percentage of propaganda (from China, US, and all countries), you can read it many different ways, but not a true objective evaluation.

What do you think F-22 flyover during July 4th parades are? Propaganda. So the audience can yell "USA! USA!" and have a high. The same is happening here. Is it a great achievement? YES OF COURSE. Is it a great airplane? I sure think so. Enjoy the show and celebration but no need to argue on the engine types or vs

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lmjiao

Beast said:


> According to the pilot of J-20, the maneuverable of it is very good. In sub sonic is great but the pilot is extremely please with its super cruise. This confirm J-20 currently has super cruise ability. It is also in line with the interview in 2009 of deputy commander of PLAAF who mention in order for China 4th(western 5th) to enter service. It must fulfil all 5S.
> 
> Not as some who mention, J-20 are currently fitted with Ruskie AL-31 interim engine and waiting for WS-15 to fit to achieve the 5S. The criteria of China stealth fighter to enter service has repeated mention but some slayer keep insisting their own version.
> 
> Remember this few things I mention are not made up but reported by pilot of J-20 and Deputy commander of PLAAF. If somebody claim they know more than the pilot of J-20 , chief designer or deputy commander of PLAAF.
> They are definitely a troll.
> 
> Those who can understand Chinese, can know from the video link I share. Those who dont know Chinese, better shut up and stop thinking they can interpret better than me or those who speak Chinese.



Thanks for translation, but shut up is not polite to our friends who don't speak Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

lmjiao said:


> Thanks for translation, but shut up is not polite to our friends who don't speak Chinese.


How abt people who don't speak Chinese but acted they know more than the pilot and chief designer words? I am not the one who started the fire if you know the history. Some are simply to thick skinned to accept the truth. Asok ask very reasonable proof. And one rule apply to others while not applying to oneself. 

You can see it for yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> How abt people who don't speak Chinese but acted they know more than the pilot and chief designer words? I am not the one who started the fire if you know the history. Some are simply to thick skinned to accept the truth. Asok ask very reasonable proof. And one rule apply to others while not applying to oneself.
> 
> You can see it for yourself.




Yes, Mr. Deino claimed that I have not one single proof that J-20 is using WS-15. Yet, he, nor anyone else, has absolutely has any proofs, whatsoever, that AL-31-FN-M2 has even materialized, much less, that it has been ordered and delivered to China, in the past 6 years.

At least, the Liming Engine Factory has publicly confirmed on CCTV-4, that it made all the parts for J-20's WS-15 engine, so this engine actually exists, beyond a shadow of doubt.

The Rules of Evidences should be applied equally to everyone, including the Moderator, especially.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

Asok said:


> *"You have your hyper ws-15 theory - with imo not a single proof "*
> 
> What???!!!
> 
> Not a single proof?
> 
> 1.) The pilot confirmed that J-20 has outstanding supersonic maneuverability. Not a proof, you said.
> 2.) The Liming engine factory confirmed J-20's WS-15 engine is made there. Not a proof, you said.
> 3.) J-20 could do sustained vertical climb, w/o AB, in front of thousands of airshow spectators. Not a proof, you said.
> 4.) J-20's TVC engines could tilt differentially. Not a proof, you said.
> 5.) Absolutely, no report of sales and delivery of Russian made AL-31FN-M2 to China. But this is not a problem to your theory.
> 
> *"@Asok I simply beg You to shut up."*
> 
> I don't want you to shut up, Mr. Deino. I want you to show us some proof that AL-31FN-M2 was ever materialized, and ordered and delivered to China.
> 
> I beg you, not to shut up, and give us some proofs, Mr. Deino.




On point number 2), they did not say that the WS-15 is made there but the engine for the J-20 is made there.
Either WS-10X or WS-15. Either way it blows this ridiculous AL-31FN theory right out of the water.

I am not sure why otherwise intelligent posters keep going on about the AL-31FN being used on the J-20. Maybe this is feasible for the prototypes but now that the J-20 is in production, then news from Russia and/or China would have confirmed this by now.

After this year, in 2018 many dozens of J-20 are likely to be produced. It would be a miracle if China managed to use nearly 100 of this supposed AL-31FN to power these fighters.

J-20 production machines use either WS-10X(more likely) or WS-15(less likely) and so we should all be able to agree on this as anything else is simply nigh-on impossible.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

why is China still buying Flankers?? either Chinese jet engines and radars are still way way behind Russia or J-20 costs 3 to 4 times as much as Su-35 is J-20 really a $150 to $200 million fighter 

China should off to buy 2,000 AL-41 that's enough engines equip 250 J-20 and replace both engines 4 times through out the J-20 life span.

then China can start mass producing AL-41 for another 250 J-20


----------



## UKBengali

C130 said:


> why is China still buying Flankers?? either Chinese jet engines and radars are still way way behind Russia or J-20 costs 3 to 4 times as much as Su-35 is J-20 really a $150 to $200 million fighter
> 
> China should off to buy 2,000 AL-41 that's enough engines equip 250 J-20 and replace both engines 4 times through out the J-20 life span.
> 
> then China can start mass producing AL-41 for another 250 J-20



It is China wanting to test their technology against the best that Russia has. It is only 24 at the end of the day.
Personally I think it is a waste of money and only gives ammunition to China-bashers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

UKBengali said:


> It is China wanting to test their technology against the best that Russia has. It is only 24 at the end of the day.
> Personally I think it is a waste of money and only gives ammunition to China-bashers.



if China buys more Su-35 then that will debunk your claim they just wanna test it against J-20. 

J-20 by default is a better aircraft than Su-35, but it's the engine and radar is what get's China blushing with envy.

Pak-FA once it's ready will blow J-20 out if China hasn't fixed WS-15.


----------



## UKBengali

C130 said:


> if China buys more Su-35 then that will debunk your claim they just wanna test it against J-20.
> 
> J-20 by default is a better aircraft than Su-35, but it's the engine and radar is what get's China blushing with envy.
> 
> Pak-FA once it's ready will blow J-20 out if China hasn't fixed WS-15.



Are you stupid or just pretending?
China has far, far more experience in AESA radars than Russia has. They are ahead of the Russians in radar technology now if you bother to even look at what they have compared to Russia

Like I say, the Chinese have made a bizarre decision in my opinion to obtain the best that Russia has to see how it matches against their fighters.

PAK-FA is rubbish according to the Indians, and so no need to compare it against a true 5th generation fighter like
J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

UKBengali said:


> On point number 2), they did not say that the WS-15 is made there but the engine for the J-20 is made there.
> Either WS-10X or WS-15. Either way it blows this ridiculous AL-31FN theory right out of the water.
> 
> I am not sure why otherwise intelligent posters keep going on about the AL-31FN being used on the J-20. Maybe this is feasible for the prototypes but now that the J-20 is in production, then news from Russia and/or China would have confirmed this by now.
> 
> After this year, in 2018 many dozens of J-20 are likely to be produced. It would be a miracle if China managed to use nearly 100 of this supposed AL-31FN to power these fighters.
> 
> J-20 production machines use either WS-10X(more likely) or WS-15(less likely) and so we should all be able to agree on this as anything else is simply nigh-on impossible.



*"On point number 2), they did not say that the WS-15 is made there but the engine for the J-20 is made there."*

Please read this page again, for the original pictures from the TV show.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chengdu-j-20-5th-generation-aircraft-news-discussions.111471/page-550
and this webpage https://kknews.cc/zh-hk/military/682paam.html

The English translation of the Chinese caption said “. . . From the third generation "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] *fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15)* aircraft engine, . . . The *J-20 stealth fighter*’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry has achieved a historic leap, which has astounded the entire world.”

The Chinese code name for WS-15, 「峨眉」is "Emei", a famous mountain in China.

Some people have interpreted this program's caption as "yes, it did confirmed WS-15 is J-20'e engine, but it didn't say the J-20's current engine is WS-15. J-20 is still using either WS-10 or AL-31FN-M2. "

I don't know what else to say to those people. The whole Chinese and English caption of the sentences are in the present tense, not the future tense.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## C130

UKBengali said:


> Are you stupid or just pretending?
> China has far, far more experience in AESA radars than Russia has. They are ahead of the Russians in radar technology now if you bother to even look at what they have compared to Russia
> 
> Like I say, the Chinese have made a bizarre decision in my opinion to obtain the best that Russia to see how it matches against their fighters.
> 
> PAK-FA is rubbish according to the Indians, and so no need to compare it against a true 5th generation fighter like
> J-20



China is nowhere near Russia in the field of radar and EW.

this is why China is buying Su-35 and S-400. let me guess China is buying S-400 to test against HQ-9, lol

China will buy S-500 in the next 10 years as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

C130 said:


> China is nowhere near Russia in the field of radar and EW.
> 
> this is why China is buying Su-35 and S-400. let me guess China is buying S-400 to test against HQ-9, lol



S-400 is not the same as buying 24 SU-35.

Russia is world-renowned as the leader in SAM technology and retains it to this day.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kurutoga

C130 said:


> why is China still buying Flankers?? either Chinese jet engines and radars are still way way behind Russia or J-20 costs 3 to 4 times as much as Su-35 is J-20 really a $150 to $200 million fighter



I am sure everyone has different opinions. My take is J-20 and J16/Su35/J11 are serving different roles, they are complements not replacements. Maybe some geopolitical forces are in play too.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

C130 said:


> if China buys more Su-35 then that will debunk your claim they just wanna test it against J-20.
> 
> J-20 by default is a better aircraft than Su-35, but it's the engine and radar is what get's China blushing with envy.
> 
> Pak-FA once it's ready will blow J-20 out if China hasn't fixed WS-15.



If the PAK FA is going to blow out the J-20 out of water, then it is also going to blow the F-22 out of water.

Because the inlet of the current J-20 engine can withstand a temperature around 1600-1700 degree celsius according to the Chinese official media, while the F119 is 1647 degree celsius. So the F119 has no advantage at all. If the PAK FA can overwhelm the J-20, then it can also overwhelm the F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## C130

UKBengali said:


> S-400 is not the same as buying 24 SU-35.
> 
> Russia is world-renowned as the leader in SAM technology and retains it to this day.



my point is Russia is far ahead in radar technology 



kurutoga said:


> I am sure everyone has different opinions. My take is J-20 and J16/Su35/J11 are serving different roles, they are complements not replacements. Maybe some geopolitical forces are in play too.



J-20 is meant to replace Flanker in air-superiority role
J-8II is a interceptor 
J-10 is a low cost multi-role

China doesn't need Russia planes unless J-20 is insanely expensive to build or China wants the AL-41 engine and Irbis-E radar



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If the PAK FA is going to blow out the J-20 out of water, then it is also going to blow the F-22 out of water.
> 
> Because the inlet of the current J-20 engine can withstand a temperature around 1600-1700 degree celsius according to the Chinese official media, while the F119 is 1647 degree celsius. So the F119 has no advantage at all. If the PAK FA can overwhelm the J-20, then it can also overwhelm the F-22.


F-22 is superior than both in regards of stealth and radar. Pak FA is probably more aerodynamic.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

C130 said:


> my point is Russia is far ahead in radar technology
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 is meant to replace Flanker in air-superiority role
> J-8II is a interceptor
> J-10 is a low cost multi-role
> 
> China doesn't need Russia planes unless J-20 is insanely expensive to build or China wants the AL-41 engine and Irbis-E radar
> 
> 
> F-22 is superior than both in regards of stealth and radar. Pak FA is probably more aerodynamic.



You are taking about the engine, the F119 got no advantage, if you wanna bash the J-20 engine, then you are also bashing the F119.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## C130

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> You are taking about the engine, the F119 got no advantage, if you wanna bash the J-20 engine, then you are also bashing the F119.


are you implying AL-31 is equal to F-119??


----------



## Asoka

The whole decision to by Su-35 is a mystery to a lot of people.

From what I have heard, the negotiation for Su-35 started many years ago, and keep dragging on, for many years.

The purpose for getting Su-35 was to fill the urgent need to counter F-22, when J-20 was still on the drawing board.

Then J-20's made rapid progress, and China was reluctant to go through with the purchase. But the Russian threatens to withholds future arms sales, particularly, the S-400 missiles and the engines for the SU-27 and Su-30, if China drops out of the negotiation.

So China reluctantly buy just 24, a low number, instead of 100-200, of Su-35.

I am not sure of this explanation. Just some rumor I have read somewhere.



C130 said:


> my point is Russia is far ahead in radar technology
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 is meant to replace Flanker in air-superiority role
> J-8II is a interceptor
> J-10 is a low cost multi-role
> 
> China doesn't need Russia planes unless J-20 is insanely expensive to build or China wants the AL-41 engine and Irbis-E radar
> 
> 
> F-22 is superior than both in regards of stealth and radar. Pak FA is probably more aerodynamic.



*1.) "my point is Russia is far ahead in radar technology ", "China is nowhere near Russia in the field of radar and EW."
2.) "F-22 is superior than both in regards of stealth and radar. "
3.) "Pak FA is probably more aerodynamic.", 
4.) "J-20 is insanely expensive to build"*

Show us some proofs, and let your evidences to do the talking.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## C130

Asok said:


> The whole decision to by Su-35 is a mystery to a lot of people.
> 
> From what I have heard, the negotiation for Su-35 started many years ago, and keep dragging on, for many years.
> 
> The purpose for getting Su-35 was to fill the urgent need to counter F-22, when J-20 was still on the drawing board.
> 
> Then J-20's made rapid progress, and China was reluctant to go through with the purchase. But the Russian threatens to withholds future arms sales, particularly, the S-400 missiles and the engines for the SU-27 and Su-30, if China drops out of the negotiation.
> 
> So China reluctantly buy just 24, a low number, instead of 100-200, of Su-35.
> 
> I am not sure of this explanation. Just some rumor I have read somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.) "my point is Russia is far ahead in radar technology ",
> 2.) "F-22 is superior than both in regards of stealth and radar. "
> 3.) "Pak FA is probably more aerodynamic.",
> 4.) "J-20 is insanely expensive to build"*
> 
> Show us some proofs, and let your evidences to do the talking.


1) is a fact. til China actually goes to war with against India or Vietnam. most of Chinese equipment is untested in a real war
2) is a fact.
3)is speculation, but Russia tends to go all in for super maneuverability
4) is an assumption, but stealth aircraft isn't cheap.


----------



## Asoka

C130 said:


> 1) is a fact. til China actually goes to war with against India or Vietnam. most of Chinese equipment is untested in a real war
> 2) is a fact.
> 3)is speculation, but Russia tends to go all in for super maneuverability
> 4) is an assumption, but stealth aircraft isn't cheap.




Those are no evidences at all. Just purely your personal opinions.
Are you saying you don't have any evidences to back up your claims? 
Show us, plz.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## azesus

The purchase of Su-35 is a purely political one and that is to keep Shenyang Aircraft Corporation alive by having something to do. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation is politically connected to the Founding Elders of the Communist Party of China, too bad they are not as good as Chengdu Aircraft Corporation on merits of ability alone.
J-20 > F-22 > PAK-FA > J-31 > F-35 > Su-35 > Rest of 4th Gen

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kurutoga

C130 said:


> J-20 is meant to replace Flanker in air-superiority role
> J-8II is a interceptor
> J-10 is a low cost multi-role



After the parade the new structure is J-20 + J16/Su35 My guess is Su35 is not used as a air superiority fighter by PLAAF


----------



## Cell_DbZ

kurutoga said:


> After the parade the new structure is J-20 + J16/Su35 My guess is Su35 is not used as a air superiority fighter by PLAAF


I thought China bought the su-35s as a stopgap air superiority fighter before the j-20 would come out, I suppose after China has the j-20 in active service, the su-35s will be used like the j-11/16.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kurutoga

Cell_DbZ said:


> I thought China bought the su-35s as a stopgap air superiority fighter before the j-20 would come out, I suppose after China has the j-20 in active service, the su-35s will be use like the j-11/16.



Yes. Another popular assumption is the engine. The parade and the subsequent interview showed J-20 is quickly maturing; based on that I think Su35 may not be a big factor. Again I have no internal info just pure speculation.


----------



## 帅的一匹

C130 said:


> China is nowhere near Russia in the field of radar and EW.
> 
> this is why China is buying Su-35 and S-400. let me guess China is buying S-400 to test against HQ-9, lol
> 
> China will buy S-500 in the next 10 years as well.






azesus said:


> The purchase of Su-35 is a purely political one and that is to keep Shenyang Aircraft Corporation alive by having something to do. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation is politically connected to the Founding Elders of the Communist Party of China, too bad they are not as good as Chengdu Aircraft Corporation on merits of ability alone.
> J-20 > F-22 > PAK-FA > J-31 > F-35 > Su-35 > Rest of 4th Gen


I think It's like this:
J20>= F22>F35, PAKFA is not a complete stealthy fighter in my eyes.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

C130 said:


> are you implying AL-31 is equal to F-119??



The J-20 engine is not related to any AL-31 family member at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

azesus said:


> The purchase of Su-35 is a purely political one and that is to keep Shenyang Aircraft Corporation alive by having something to do. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation is politically connected to the Founding Elders of the Communist Party of China, too bad they are not as good as Chengdu Aircraft Corporation on merits of ability alone.
> J-20 > F-22 > PAK-FA > J-31 > F-35 > Su-35 > Rest of 4th Gen



There are two most probable reasons; maybe Shenyang needs to become a Chinese Sukhoi clone, or maybe Russia is demanding China to buy more manufacturing goods to make a trade balance, not just the oil and gas.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lmjiao

C130 said:


> China is nowhere near Russia in the field of radar and EW.
> 
> this is why China is buying Su-35 and S-400. let me guess China is buying S-400 to test against HQ-9, lol
> 
> China will buy S-500 in the next 10 years as well.



You are US citizen. There is no need to convince you.

I really hope that your Generals have the same judgement as yours.

So, please tell every one in US how bad Chinese radar/fighter is. This will help us a lot.



Cell_DbZ said:


> I thought China bought the su-35s as a stopgap air superiority fighter before the j-20 would come out, I suppose after China has the j-20 in active service, the su-35s will be used like the j-11/16.



Yes. PLAAF need J-20 as well as flankers. PLAAF is not only buying J-20, but also producing J-11/16, even though the flankers got 0:10 against J-20 in excercises.



kurutoga said:


> Yes. Another popular assumption is the engine. The parade and the subsequent interview showed J-20 is quickly maturing; based on that I think Su35 may not be a big factor. Again I have no internal info just pure speculation.


It is still a mistery. What we got right now from state TV channels is home made engin, and people even doubt that.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> There are two most probable reasons; maybe Shenyang needs to become a Chinese Sukhoi clone, or maybe Russia is demanding China to buy more manufacturing goods to make a trade balance, not just the oil and gas.


I think the reason is simple, we need Su-35. Only J-20 is not enough, we also need low cost 4-th generation fighters(Russian standard), and Su-35 is the best choice.

Here, low cost does not mean that Su-35 is cheep. It is just that China has too much US dollars and have no where to spend. By paying those US dollars to Russia, this acturally help solve the economic problem for China. Also, our Russian allais need dollars hungarily.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

lmjiao said:


> You are US citizen. There is no need to convince you.
> 
> I really hope that your Generals have the same judgement as yours.
> 
> So, please tell every one in US how bad Chinese radar/fighter is. This will help us a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. PLAAF need J-20 as well as flankers. PLAAF is not only buying J-20, but also producing J-11/16, even though the flankers got 0:10 against J-20 in excercises.
> 
> 
> It is still a mistery. What we got right now from state TV channels is home made engin, and people even doubt that.
> 
> 
> I think the reason is simple, we need Su-35. Only J-20 is not enough, we also need low cost 4-th generation fighters(Russian standard), and Su-35 is the best choice.
> 
> Here, low cost does not mean that Su-35 is cheep. It is just that China has too much US dollars and have no where to spend. By paying those US dollars to Russia, this acturally help solve the economic problem for China. Also, our Russian allais need dollars hungarily.



The negotiation for Su-35 started years ago, probably before 2010, before J-20 was flown, so there was anxiety whether China could hold the F-22 back with just the Su-27, Su-30 and J-10s.

But as J-20 matured rapidly, there was much less need for it. But the Russians still wants to sell it, and bundled other arms sales with condition that China must buy Su-35, and in huge quantity. It is not China don't have the cash, but the Russians needed the money and the publicity and credibility it goes with a successful sales to China.

Remember, whatever China buys from the Russia or have, the Indians like to follow up with their own orders. For example, Su-27, Su-30, Kilo Submarines, Aircraft carrier, S-300, and S-400 missiles. . .

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

lmjiao said:


> I think the reason is simple, we need Su-35. Only J-20 is not enough, we also need low cost 4-th generation fighters(Russian standard), and Su-35 is the best choice.
> 
> Here, low cost does not mean that Su-35 is cheep. It is just that China has too much US dollars and have no where to spend. By paying those US dollars to Russia, this acturally help solve the economic problem for China. Also, our Russian allais need dollars hungarily.



I was joking, I do respect the SAC as much as I did for the CAC.

Without the SAC, there would be no engine for the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

lmjiao said:


> So, please tell every one in US how bad Chinese radar/fighter is. This will help us a lot.


We have been -- for yrs -- telling this forum how badass US fighters are. And I have explained the basics of radar theories, operations, and debunked *ALL* Chinese physics defying claims about the J-20. Stay within the boundaries of the laws of nature, and you will be fine with me.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Asok said:


> The negotiation for Su-35 started years ago, probably before 2010, before J-20 was flown, so there was anxiety whether China could hold the F-22 back with just the Su-27, Su-30 and J-10s.
> 
> But as J-20 matured rapidly, there was much less need for it. But the Russians still wants to sell it, and bundled other arms sales with condition that China must buy Su-35, and in huge quantity. It is not China don't have the cash, but the Russians needed the money and the publicity and credibility it goes with a successful sales to China.
> 
> Remember, whatever China buys from the Russia or have, the Indians like to follow up with their own orders. For example, Su-27, Su-30, Kilo Submarines, S-300, and S-400 missiles. . .


Su35 is a back up plan for J20 from the first begning. As the J20 development went more and more smoothly in the past years, China was becoming tougher and tougher in the negotiation with Russia in Su35 deal. It's very obvious!

No more Su35 from Russia unless there is a imminent war with USA.

One more thing, China had some interets in Su35's TVC engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If the PAK FA is going to blow out the J-20 out of water, then it is also going to blow the F-22 out of water.


Yeah...When the F-22 is retired.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Because the inlet of the current J-20 engine can withstand a temperature around 1600-1700 degree celsius according to the Chinese official media, while the F119 is 1647 degree celsius. So the F119 has no advantage at all. If the PAK FA can overwhelm the J-20, then it can also overwhelm the F-22.


You who cannot understand the technical differences between a turbofan and a turbojet is now lecturing US about turbine inlet temperature ? 

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/jet-airplanes/how.html


> The desire to produce a high engine efficiency demands a high turbine inlet temperature, but this causes problems as the turbine blades would be required to perform and survive long operating periods at temperatures above their melting point. These blades, while glowing red-hot, must be strong enough to carry the centrifugal loads due to rotation at high speed.


The ability of a jet engine to withstand a high TIT is a contributing factor to the overall estimation of the efficiency of the engine and how it performs in the aircraft. The F119 was designed then optimized for the F-22. The aircraft's performance do not require the engine to withstand any higher TIT. If the engine is scheduled for another aircraft with different performance parameters, PW will make the next iteration of the F119 to withstand that required higher TIT.

Do you understand ? But never mind that, it was a rhetorical question anyway. We know you do not understand. You have neither the military experience nor technical education to grasp the meaning of the word 'optimization'.

Right now, all available public information have China struggling with Materials Science to create a *COMPONENT* of a jet engine that would be the equal of the F119. Without this achievement, the J-20 will most likely not be the equal of the F-35, let alone challenge the F-22. You took a general spec and made an absurd extrapolation. This is why no American on this forum -- least of all me -- take you seriously when it comes to technical issues.


----------



## Asoka

cirr said:


> View attachment 415156


Wow, awesome looking picture. What a beast! it sure looks a like a world beater.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The turbine inlet of the F119 = 1647 degrees Celsius

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2017/07/development-status-of-five-generation.html#.WX6vB-TXvIU

The turbine inlet of the J-20 engine = 1600 to 1700 degrees Celsius

Just look at the 3:20

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

lmjiao said:


> As Ph.D in physics, I respect the law of nature.
> 
> I don't agree with all the Chinese posts here. *But I found the US voices here more rediculous.*


How ? In what ways ?

If I say 'The J-20 is a piece of junk', how is that defying the laws of physics ?



lmjiao said:


> You have no route to all the public information, especially regarding Chinese turbofans. I am sorry they are not in English.


Then you should have no problems translating for the forum. What are you afraid of ?


----------



## lmjiao

gambit said:


> How ? In what ways ?
> 
> If I say 'The J-20 is a piece of junk', how is that defying the laws of physics ?
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problems translating for the forum. What are you afraid of ?


I am afraid of typing, checking refrences, they are really consuming. Our Chinese friends are showing conclusions. We shall wait for detailed proof. From them or from reports made by the Pentagon.

Sooner or later, all J-20s end up in junks except a few in museums. I don't judge on these meaningless words.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kurutoga

The possibility of F-22 vs J-20 is very slim. Maybe an all out war between China/Japan in the next 20 years? That is the only scenario I think these two can meet in mid air. Even that is close to impossible considering J20's main purpose is to kill fuel tanker aircrafts. So these discussions are pretty much meaningless. It is entirely possible the two jets never meet during the entire life cycle of F-22.

After 20 years we shall see next gen jets, drones, or new types of weapons, the combat situation will be different.

While I am not against dick measuring contests, I think the more meaningful scenario is J20 (and future upgrades) vs F35. Considering the numbers of these jets will be deployed in East Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

kurutoga said:


> The possibility of F-22 vs J-20 is very slim.


If you are talking about the political environment that could lead to war, then there is no disagreement here.

But assume that there is an air war between the US and China and that the J-20 is deployed, then the possibility is nowhere near 'slim' but probable.

The F-22 was designed to be an airborne killer, just like its F-15 predecessor. The US will send the F-22 to hunt down any opposition air and if intel has the J-20 in the vicinity, we will hunt it and we will clear the sky of it.


----------



## lmjiao

gambit said:


> If you are talking about the political environment that could lead to war, then there is no disagreement here.
> 
> But assume that there is an air war between the US and China and that the J-20 is deployed, then the possibility is nowhere near 'slim' but probable.
> 
> The F-22 was designed to be an airborne killer, just like its F-15 predecessor. The US will send the F-22 to hunt down any opposition air and if intel has the J-20 in the vicinity, we will hunt it and we will clear the sky of it.


We all know what F-22 is designed for. So is for J-20. 

Now there is evil sky above east Asia. Come, and try to clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kurutoga

gambit said:


> But assume that there is an air war between the US and China and that the J-20 is deployed, then the possibility is nowhere near 'slim' but probable.



Of course it is all talk. But let's just assume the two countries agree there won't be nuclear weapons involved (impossible since it is US' advantage). We know J-20 is not leaving Chinese territorial air space (other than a random walk into SCS space from time to time) Let's just say F-22 is deployed in Okinawa, the nearest PLAAF base is about 700km away. So it is like 50 F22 vs 200 J-20 that is with ground support? If the war is declared I think the first thing China would do is missile attacks on US bases.

Not something US want to risk. If you study the post WW2 history, USAF never gets into a war without overwhelming superiority in weaponry. While the Chinese jets are still inferior in 2017, they are being improved while F-22 is stagnant.


----------



## gambit

lmjiao said:


> We all know what F-22 is designed for. So is for J-20.
> 
> Now there is evil sky above east Asia. Come, and try to clear.


Who has the most -- not merely more -- experience at air superiority ? Between the US and China, it is certainly not China and even the most nationalistic Chinese on this forum will have to agree.

So here is what I have been saying on this forum for yrs...

- *Air Dominance*. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves, usually into inferior postures.

- *Air Superiority*. The ability of an air force to achieve operational control of contested airspace, to do it repeatedly, and if there are any losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

- *Air Supremacy*. He flies, he dies.

In Desert Storm, of which I am a USAF veteran, we went from dominance to supremacy in less than 48 hrs. The Iraqi Air Force at that time was the most formidable in the region in terms of both numbers and combat experience.

China have not contribute to the art and science of aerial warfare since the dawn of aviation. That is not an insult but an incontestable fact. And currently, the PLA is struggling to reform itself -- in the mold of the US military. While the PLA is struggling to learn new things, we have been well on the way of refining or even discarding some things that the PLA is trying to learn.

So put away the science for now, what make you think the PLA air forces have any chance against the USAF and USN ?


----------



## lmjiao

gambit said:


> Who has the most -- not merely more -- experience at air superiority ? Between the US and China, it is certainly not China and even the most nationalistic Chinese on this forum will have to agree.
> 
> So here is what I have been saying on this forum for yrs...
> 
> - *Air Dominance*. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves, usually into inferior postures.
> 
> - *Air Superiority*. The ability of an air force to achieve operational control of contested airspace, to do it repeatedly, and if there are any losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.
> 
> - *Air Supremacy*. He flies, he dies.
> 
> In Desert Storm, of which I am a USAF veteran, we went from dominance to supremacy in less than 48 hrs. The Iraqi Air Force at that time was the most formidable in the region in terms of both numbers and combat experience.
> 
> China have not contribute to the art and science of aerial warfare since the dawn of aviation. That is not an insult but an incontestable fact. And currently, the PLA is struggling to reform itself -- in the mold of the US military. While the PLA is struggling to learn new things, we have been well on the way of refining or even discarding some things that the PLA is trying to learn.
> 
> So put away the science for now, what make you think the PLA air forces have any chance against the USAF and USN ?


Because we did have chance against USAF and usn.

Since the first day PLAAF was born.It is fighting with USAF and usn. Hint, in korea.

In that time, you cannot become general of PLAAF, if you didn't shot own a dozen of US pilots.

So, remember we did fight you at the most inexperienced time.



gambit said:


> Who has the most -- not merely more -- experience at air superiority ? Between the US and China, it is certainly not China and even the most nationalistic Chinese on this forum will have to agree.
> 
> So here is what I have been saying on this forum for yrs...
> 
> - *Air Dominance*. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves, usually into inferior postures.
> 
> - *Air Superiority*. The ability of an air force to achieve operational control of contested airspace, to do it repeatedly, and if there are any losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.
> 
> - *Air Supremacy*. He flies, he dies.
> 
> In Desert Storm, of which I am a USAF veteran, we went from dominance to supremacy in less than 48 hrs. The Iraqi Air Force at that time was the most formidable in the region in terms of both numbers and combat experience.
> 
> China have not contribute to the art and science of aerial warfare since the dawn of aviation. That is not an insult but an incontestable fact. And currently, the PLA is struggling to reform itself -- in the mold of the US military. While the PLA is struggling to learn new things, we have been well on the way of refining or even discarding some things that the PLA is trying to learn.
> 
> So put away the science for now, what make you think the PLA air forces have any chance against the USAF and USN ?


For the chinese science of air force, check text books of USAF, that will change your mind. USAF learned lessons from PLAF, with BLOOD.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

lmjiao said:


> Because we did have chance against USAF and usn.
> 
> Since the first day PLAAF was born.It is fighting with USAF and usn. Hint, in korea.
> 
> In that time, you cannot become general of PLAAF, if you didn't shot own a dozen of US pilots.
> 
> So, remember we did fight you at the most inexperienced time.
> 
> For the chinese science of air force, check text books of USAF, that will change your mind. USAF learned lessons from PLAF, with BLOOD.


Korea again ? 

The issue is whether China *CONTRIBUTED* to the science and art of aerial warfare, not merely participated in it. What innovative ideas, from science to art, did China discovered/invented ? None. But since then, technology has moved on.

This is why I do not take claims of education seriously.


----------



## 帅的一匹

All he want is China going to hell, why borther to debate with him....he didn't even spend a second on studying relevant papers of J20 development.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lmjiao

wanglaokan said:


> All he want is China going to hell, why borther to debate with him....he didn't even spend a second on studying relevant papers of J20 development.


One of the advantage of Chinese is open mind. We absorb any thing new from the world, while many in US simply satisfied with self-sensored information.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

lmjiao said:


> One of the advantage of Chinese is open mind. We absorb any thing new from the world, while many in US simply satisfied with self-sensored information.


How can a country of only 200 years history to compete with a a country of 5000 years civilized history in long term? We shall have confidence in ourself. Let them trolling and we doing our work.

It's not making sense to compare F22 with J20, cause the production line of F22 had been closed 7years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

That's why USA closed the F22 production line cause China hided the existence of J20 project.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> If you are talking about the political environment that could lead to war, then there is no disagreement here.
> 
> But assume that there is an air war between the US and China and that the J-20 is deployed, then the possibility is nowhere near 'slim' but probable.
> 
> The F-22 was designed to be an airborne killer, just like its F-15 predecessor. The US will send the F-22 to hunt down any opposition air and if intel has the J-20 in the vicinity, we will hunt it and we will clear the sky of it.


You only has 183 units F22, the number keeps decreasing when time passing. Unless you re-open the F22 production line and updates its avionics to F35 level?!



gambit said:


> That is hilarious considering the US is an immigrant country. It was China who was arrogant in believing foreigners are uncivilized, leading to her subjugation by the Europeans. Unlike China, the Japanese wised up, leading her to become a global power by the early of the 20th century.


And wised-up Japanese murdered thousands Yankees relentlessly in Pearl Habour. The only reason we say no to immigrants is that we don't want someone like you.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lmjiao

wanglaokan said:


> don't let them pollute this thread.


Our mod will take care about this.

back to topic. Front comparison between Su-57 and J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

lmjiao said:


> If something you want to study, such as the Chinese science for fighters, have only Chinese sources. You should study ChInese. This is why I study English.
> 
> More importantly, you don't even search. So, lesson one, when you encounter something new, you google.
> 
> Feel free to judge me, I don't care.
> But if you want to judge Chinese science, read papers first.


Science is neutral. The laws of nature transcends borders. At least with real science. But apparently, with you, we now have a claimed Ph.D that says the laws of nature are different for China and if we want to understand Chinese military weaponry, the only path is to learn Chinese.

Note to the admin staff: From now on, do not construe the phrase 'Chinese physics' as anything racially derogatory because this forum now have a Ph.D that says the laws of physics are different for China.



wanglaokan said:


> You only has 183 units F22, the number keeps decreasing when time passing. Unless you re-open the F22 production line and updates its avionics to F35 level?!


A squadron of F-22 is the equivalent of 1/2 of the PLAAF in terms of technology, training, and combat experience.



lmjiao said:


> Say anything as you like. I am in Japan now, and I know details.


You do not know anything about the J-20 any more than the average forum member.



lmjiao said:


> Now US is just like China hundreds years ago. And I hope you don't wake up.


Not possible because the US is an immigrant country. We *CONTINUOUSLY* consider new ideas and assimilate them when appropriate.


----------



## lmjiao

gambit said:


> Science is neutral. The laws of nature transcends borders. At least with real science. But apparently, with you, we now have a claimed Ph.D that says the laws of nature are different for China and if we want to understand Chinese military weaponry, the only path is to learn Chinese.
> 
> Note to the admin staff: From now on, do not construe the phrase 'Chinese physics' as anything racially derogatory because this forum now have a Ph.D that says the laws of physics are different for China.
> 
> 
> A squadron of F-22 is the equivalent of 1/2 of the PLAAF in terms of technology, training, and combat experience.
> 
> 
> You do not know anything about the J-20 any more than the average forum member.
> 
> 
> Not possible because the US is an immigrant country. We *CONTINUOUSLY* consider new ideas and assimilate them when appropriate.



Science is not related to countries. But scientific papers is written in languages. Read the paper before you say anything about chinese science development. 

I do believe that I know more about J-20 than you. Because appearently you refused to learn anything.

Thank God I am living in the decade that US is becoming both lazy and arogant. Weak, just weak.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## gambit

lmjiao said:


> Science is not related to countries. But scientific papers is written in languages. Read the paper before you say anything about chinese science development.


Languages are also translatable.

The reason why you are scared shitless -- practically terrified -- of providing that translation is because this American may correct you on certain scientific principles when applied to military affairs.

Am a USAF veteran of two jets: F-111 ( Cold War ) and F-16 ( Desert Storm ). And I learned to fly in high school before the Air Force. That means when I entered the Air Force, I already have a solid background in flight theories and basic flying. That is far more than any of you Chinese on this forum, for starter. On the F-111, I know what it is like flying terrain following ( TF ) at hill top altitudes. On the F-16, I know what 9gs does to the body. After the Air Force, I worked for a company, which shall remain unnamed, as a sensor specialist. I designed radar field tests for drones. I engineered and built the test equipment if necessary.

Here are a few examples of my technical contribution to this forum that so far *NONE* of you have matched...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/fund...ts-of-rcs-reduction.73549/page-5#post-7108323

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/fund...ts-of-rcs-reduction.73549/page-4#post-6409899

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/fund...ts-of-rcs-reduction.73549/page-4#post-6412178

What your fellow Chinese on this forum learned about 'stealth' came from *ME*. And I have no problems saying that. 



lmjiao said:


> I do believe that I know more about J-20 than you.


See above. What I said about 'stealth' is applicable to the J-20 as well.

Here is the kicker: For what we are capable of data processing and radar technology, the J-20 is Dead-On-Arrival ( DOA ).



lmjiao said:


> Thank God I am living in the decade that US is becoming both lazy and arogant. Weak, just weak.


Have you looked at the news lately ? We are anything but weak and lazy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> Science is neutral. The laws of nature transcends borders. At least with real science. But apparently, with you, we now have a claimed Ph.D that says the laws of nature are different for China and if we want to understand Chinese military weaponry, the only path is to learn Chinese.
> 
> Note to the admin staff: From now on, do not construe the phrase 'Chinese physics' as anything racially derogatory because this forum now have a Ph.D that says the laws of physics are different for China.
> 
> 
> A squadron of F-22 is the equivalent of 1/2 of the PLAAF in terms of technology, training, and combat experience.
> 
> 
> You do not know anything about the J-20 any more than the average forum member.
> 
> 
> Not possible because the US is an immigrant country. We *CONTINUOUSLY* consider new ideas and assimilate them when appropriate.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Guys, You all should calm down and relax - in the same way I'm just enjoying my Cappuccino here in Italy - since no obe will persuade anyone in that engine and technical specification issue since we are with fishing in the same muddy water without internal data available.

As such enjoy this magnificent aircraft and keep the discussion civilised. I will not tolerate any personal insults and name-callings.

By the way, do we know the serials of the J-20s flown yesterday?

... Oh... and my next Cappuccino has arrived. 

Take care and greetings from Italy,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Glass

j20 looks better then su 57

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

An Interview with the Pilots of the J-20. Here are some excerpts:

*1.) “静如处子，动如脱兔。”*

"Still as a virgin, move like a jack rabbit."

*2.) “加减速性能优越，中性速度稳定，正向速度稳定。无论是超音速还是亚音速，歼—２０的飞行品质都可以说做到了完美。”*

"Acceleration and deceleration is outstanding, medium speed is stable, forward directional speed is stable. Regardless whether it is subsonic speed or supersonic speed, it can be said, the flight quality of J-20 is perfect."

*3.) "起飞不用压杆，靠“意念”, “新手如果按过去的习惯压杆，极其敏感灵活的战机会以难以置信的角度猛升上昂。”*

"When take off, don't pull back the control stick too hard, just use your "mind". If a newbie, pull back the control, like the old way, the extremely sensitive and agile fighter will rise up, with unbelievable quickness."







“静如处子，动如脱兔。”空军某部部队长张昊，用这８个字来形容歼—２０战机的驾驶体验。在３０日举行的庆祝中国人民解放军建军９０周年沙场阅兵中，他与战友驾驶的３架歼—２０战机，成为阅兵场上空的亮点。

作为这款第四代超音速隐身战斗机的首支接装部队，张昊与战友们对歼—２０的飞行品质赞不绝口。

“加减速性能优越，中性速度稳定，正向速度稳定。无论是超音速还是亚音速，歼—２０的飞行品质都可以说做到了完美。”张昊说。

技术研究会上，他总会提醒新来的飞行员们：起飞不用压杆，靠“意念”就可以了。

“新手如果按过去的习惯压杆，极其敏感灵活的战机会以难以置信的角度猛升上昂。”张昊说。

而平台的操纵性只是最基本的。作为第四代全候中远程重型战斗机，它更大的亮点在于其强大的任务系统——

第四代战机的隐身性能优异。充满高科技的机身涂层和“诡异”的气动外形，能最大限度地吸收及散射电磁波，从而极大压缩对手雷达的发现距离，在对手雷达屏幕上实现“隐身”。

第四代战机还具有强大的信息采纳和集成能力。雷达、光雷、数据链、机械链、电子对抗……歼—２０“浑身都是鼻子眼睛”，能综合接收各种信息，再以优越的信息集成能力，用简洁、高效、友好的人机界面反馈给飞行员。

“信息在眼前，操纵在指尖。”该部某站站长汤海宁说，所有的信息、电抗、武器控制全在手上，飞行员要熟练掌握每一个按钮的操控逻辑，“玩转装备”。

这样一款战机，已经突破了传统飞机的概念，它是一部集信息交汇、信息传输、信息处理于一体的智能化平台——更要由信息化的头脑来驾驭。

２８岁的白龙是这支部队里最年轻的飞行员。“刚来这里时，见每个人桌上都是山一样高的书籍资料，感觉不像飞行员，倒像老学究。”他说。

对于已经能够熟练驾驭三代机的白龙，“能飞”歼—２０并不困难，“能打”才是关键。

“要学的东西太多了，雷达系统、电抗系统、武器系统，还有数据链中其他结点的工作逻辑……”白龙说。

作为整个作战体系中强大的信息结点，歼—２０要求飞行员不但是单架飞机的驾驭者，还要是一名具备全局掌控能力、处置决策能力的指挥员与战术家。

“因此，我们挑选飞行员，最看重他的学习能力。”张昊说。这支飞行员队伍中，有“软件通”，有“编程高手”，有“金头盔”获得者，有“电子战专家”……

他们的部队地处大西北戈壁滩，一批批“最优秀的空战精英”义无反顾来到这里，为的就是让国家最先进的武器装备在自己手中发挥最彻底的作战效能。

当初决定来这里，白龙“没有一秒钟的犹豫”——从他穿上“空军蓝”的那天起，“飞最好的飞机，当最棒的飞行员”就是他一直以来的梦想。

如今，他的梦想“实现了一半”。“另一半，要靠今后的努力。”他说，“这里不光有最先进的飞机，还有最先进的理念、平台和流程。未来，我们不仅要‘飞出去’，更要把先进的理念‘撒出去’。”

“梦想还是要有的，万一实现了呢？”白龙笑着说。

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## gambit

imran rashid said:


> From your language, it doesn't look that you are either educated or professional. You behavior is just like childish and bragging.


Then I suggest you look up my postings here, young man. But ultimately, your opinion of me is meaningless to me.



sinait said:


> What *have you contributed* to the science and art of aerial warfare?
> Or did you merely participated in it.
> Many Chinese or of Chinese descent did contribute..


The issue is not individual efforts, although that is commendable, but rather of the country.

The argument from the PDF Chinese is that the J-20 can challenge the F-22, which is laughable to start, and that the PLAAF is the equal of the American air forces, which composes of the USAF, USN, and USMC.

So my question is how have China contributed to the science and art of aerial warfare ?

Did the ejection seat came from China ?

WW II era fighters have multiple machine guns with over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. The P-51 flew with 1,840 rounds. But why do modern fighters have a single cannon with only a few hundreds rounds ? Did China contribute to that evolution ?

Did airborne radar came from China ?

Did aerial refueling came from China ?

Did *ANYTHING* that flies within the last couple hundred yrs came from China ?

The argument that the J-20 can achieve air superiority against the F-22 or even F-35 evokes polite doubts or impolite derisive laughter from those who actually had to fly and conduct such operations.


----------



## UKBengali

gambit said:


> The argument from the PDF Chinese is that the J-20 can challenge the F-22, which is laughable to start,
> 
> The argument that the J-20 can achieve air superiority against the F-22 or even F-35 evokes polite doubts or impolite derisive laughter from those who actually had to fly and conduct such operations.



Why should this be?
Has anyone inspected and flown both F-22 and J-20?
Please leave the useless F-35 out of this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> Why should this be?
> *Has anyone inspected and flown both F-22 and J-20?*
> Please leave the useless F-35 out of this.


I have no problems with that argument.

But the issue is not about flying the jets, but about achieving air superiority with them.

The PLAAF have never been in a situation where its fighters had to fight for real estates. The US had.

Do *YOU* know what is involved in the planning and execution of such a mission ?


----------



## Olli Ranta

gambit said:


> The argument from the PDF Chinese is that the J-20 can challenge the F-22, which is laughable to start, and that the PLAAF is the equal of the American air forces, which composes of the USAF, USN, and USMC.



This is a public forum on sensitive military matters and there are interested hostile parties around. Some discussants know more than they are allowed to tell. There are approaches to encourage them to slip out things:
* Negative provocation: Tell that their stuff is valueless rubbish and wait for an angry rebuttal with details.
* Positive provocation:Tell that their stuff is superb and wait for an eager confirmation with details.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## sinait

gambit said:


> The issue is not individual efforts, although that is commendable, but rather of the country.


Which part of your country's efforts came from you?
If the answer is none, then you can be proud or celebrate your country's achievements but not for you to boast about it since you took no part in it.

If you want, you can boast and brag about how you can fly your plane upside down or inside out into the sea for all I care but don't put down others on *the science and art of aerial warfare* where you did not contribute or achieved anything of significance. 
Not that I am saying you do not have knowledge, but that knowledge came from others who may have been foreigners in the US and you merely read and learned from it.

As is evident from the example I gave earlier, many unknowns from many other nations have also contributed the the technology advancement in the US, who being rich and able to have the facilities to conduct such research and properly remunerate such talents.

I am not trying to put you down, like I said you are knowlegable, but your post is boastful and repulsive.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Olli Ranta said:


> This is a public forum on sensitive military matters and there are interested hostile parties around. Some discussants know more than they are allowed to tell. There are approaches to encourage them to slip out things:
> * Negative provocation: Tell that their stuff is valueless rubbish and wait for an angry rebuttal with details.
> * Positive provocation:Tell that their stuff is superb and wait for an eager confirmation with details.


In order for you to be 'allowed' to tell stuff, you must be involved in that stuff in the first place. I doubt that any of the PDF Chinese are involved in top secret stuff.



sinait said:


> Which part of your country's efforts came from you?
> If the answer is none, then you can be proud or celebrate your country's achievements but not for you to boast about it since you took no part in it.


Actually, at the personal level, I contributed to the current US lead in UAVs. Did you missed what I said about my post USAF experience ?



sinait said:


> I am not trying to put you down, like I said you are knowlegable, but your post is boastful and repulsive..


Of course you are trying to put me down. Who are you trying to fool ? And Chinese postings are not boastful and repulsive ? Of course not. You are in their camp, right ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sinait

gambit said:


> Actually, at the personal level, I contributed to the current US lead in UAVs. Did you missed what I said about my post USAF experience ?
> Of course you are trying to put me down. Who are you trying to fool ? And Chinese postings are not boastful and repulsive ? Of course not. You are in their camp, right ?


We are all unknown to each other and we have no means to verify what you claim. I am glad for you that you have some achievements to be proud of. But we are not into UAVs in this thread. Interesting.

And no, I did not try hard to embarrass you when I found you lacking in certain aspects which may not have been your forte as even a genius cannot be numero uno in everything.You may not have noticed but I let you have the last word.

Singapore can also have differences with China, and try to be friendly with US and China, but I do support China generally.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

sinait said:


> We are all unknown to each other and we have no means to verify what you claim. I am glad for you that you have some achievements to be proud of. But we are not into UAVs in this thread. Interesting.
> 
> And no, I did not try hard to embarrass you when I found you lacking in certain aspects which may not have been your forte as even a genius cannot be numero uno in everything.
> 
> Singapore can also have differences with China, and try to be friendly with US and China, but I do support China generally.
> .


The question remains that in order to support the Chinese claim that the PLAAF is the equivalent of the American air forces, what have China contributed to military aviation in all perspectives: technology, doctrines, tactics, training, etc.

Making this issue about me is nothing but a distraction. We all contribute one way or another. The electronics industry contributed to the avionics industry. The chemical engineer contributed to the use of hydrazine as an emergency fuel for the F-16. And so on.

So at the national level, what have China contributed to military aviation ? Nothing. The PLA is struggling to reform itself using the US as *THE* model. Not 'a' model. But *THE* model. And all of a sudden, China is ready to be a peer in the sky with US ?


----------



## Deino

J-20 s/n 78274, 78275, 78276 

By the way guys ... Please stay on topic

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## C130

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20 engine is not related to any AL-31 family member at all.


what engine are you talking about then


----------



## Beast

C130 said:


> what engine are you talking about then


Chinese made engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

Beast said:


> Chinese made engine.


is J-20 using Chinese made engines?? or is it still using Russian engines


----------



## Asoka

sheik said:


> The ignorant China hater can believe whatever he wants to believe, just like MacArthur believed 60 years ago
> 
> 
> 
> China just invented gunpowder, so you don't have to drive your F-22 or Star Destroyer like a Kamikaze
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Chinese engines made by Liming. We are just not sure if it's WS-15 or WS-10X.
> If you believe it's a Russian engine, just show your proof.



*"Of course Chinese engines made by Liming. We are just not sure if it's WS-15 or WS-10X."*

To answer that question, let me repose my answer, I have posted earlier.

*"On point number 2), they did not say that the WS-15 is made there but the engine for the J-20 is made there."*

Please read this page again, for the original pictures from the TV show.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chengdu-j-20-5th-generation-aircraft-news-discussions.111471/page-550
and this webpage https://kknews.cc/zh-hk/military/682paam.html

The English translation of the Chinese caption said 

“. . . From the third generation "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] *fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15)* aircraft engine, . . . The *J-20 stealth fighter*’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, *has achieved a historic leap*, which has astounded the entire world.”

The Chinese code name for WS-15, 「峨眉」is "Emei", a famous mountain in China.

Some people have interpreted this program's caption as "yes, it did confirmed WS-15 is J-20'e engine, but it didn't say the J-20's current engine is WS-15. J-20 is still using either WS-10 or AL-31FN-M2. "

I don't know what else to say to those people. The whole Chinese and English caption of the sentences are in the present tense, not the future tense.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

surya kiran said:


> Have you heard of the latest in Chinese Physics? Its called natural frequency emitter to move the tectonic plate in the Himalayas. There is actually a thread where it is being discussed.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Guys... Final attempt: Either you come back to the topic and leave out all politics, physic-ethnic and off-topics out or I close this thread until all are relaxed again.


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> Guys... Final attempt: Either you come back to the topic and leave out all politics, physic-ethnic and off-topics out or I close this thread until all are relaxed again.


Deino,

Can you just ban those trolls? This thread is only for J-20 news and discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Han Warrior said:


> Deino,
> 
> Can you just ban those trolls? This thread is only for J-20 news and discussion.



I second this motion. Ban the trolls, who has added nothing, into the discussions, which increases our knowledge of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Agreed ... My problem is only that I have only very unstable and internet access right now. Therefore only my constant applys for peace.

Maybe you can call another mod for help. 

Sorry guys.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"You have your hyper ws-15 theory - with imo not a single proof "*
> 
> What???!!!
> 
> Not a single proof?
> 
> 1.) The pilot confirmed that J-20 has outstanding supersonic maneuverability. Not a proof, you said.
> 2.) The Liming engine factory confirmed J-20's WS-15 engine is made there. Not a proof, you said.
> 3.) J-20 could do sustained vertical climb, w/o AB, in front of thousands of airshow spectators. Not a proof, you said.
> 4.) J-20's TVC engines could tilt differentially. Not a proof, you said.
> 5.) Absolutely, no report of sales and delivery of Russian made AL-31FN-M2 to China. But this is not a problem to your theory.


These are not prove that J-20 using WS-15
*1.) The pilot confirmed that J-20 has outstanding supersonic maneuverability. Not a proof, you said.*
pilot didn't specify the engine, may be its a hybrid version of WS-10X
*
2.) The Liming engine factory confirmed J-20's WS-15 engine is made there. Not a proof, you said.*
yes but they not telling when the development of WS-15 will be completed
*3.) J-20 could do sustained vertical climb, w/o AB, in front of thousands of airshow spectators. Not a proof, you said.*
 this not a prove even our F-16 can do vertical climb without afterburner *
4.) J-20's TVC engines could tilt differentially. Not a proof, you said.*
currently J-20 is not using TVC engine but its like in the photos

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> These are not prove that J-20 using WS-15
> *1.) The pilot confirmed that J-20 has outstanding supersonic maneuverability. Not a proof, you said.*
> pilot didn't specify the engine, may be its a hybrid version of WS-10X
> *
> 2.) The Liming engine factory confirmed J-20's WS-15 engine is made there. Not a proof, you said.*
> yes but they not telling when the development of WS-15 will be completed
> *3.) J-20 could do sustained vertical climb, w/o AB, in front of thousands of airshow spectators. Not a proof, you said.*
> this not a prove even our F-16 can do vertical climb without afterburner
> *4.) J-20's TVC engines could tilt differentially. Not a proof, you said.*
> currently J-20 is not using TVC engine but its like in the photos




1.) J-10 and J-11D have used both WS-10 and AL-31-FN-M1 engines, none of these planes has much of Supersonic Maneuverability to talk about. At least their pilots haven't bragged about it. Fighter pilots are not known to be shy to brag about their planes. 

The j-10 and Flankers, like F-15, F-16, and F-18 do have excellent *subsonic* Maneuverability, but not known to have superior Supersonic Maneuverability .

In fact, i don't know any pilot or designer has boost that their fighter has excellent Supersonic Maneuverability, before F-22 came along.

When F-22 was conceived, Supersonic Maneuverability was a relatively new concept. That's why F-22's 4S performance requirements was so revolutionary, that China and Russia were eager to follow up with their own 5th generation fighter.

One big reason that F-22 able to achieve Supersonic Cruise w/o AB, and superior Supersonic Maneuverability is its powerful *Pratt & Whitney F119* engine. It's published maximum thrust is listed as 35,000lbf or 175kN. Some people believe its actually as high as 39,000 lbf or 19.5 tons.

So the claim that J-20 is able to achieve outstanding Supersonic Maneuverability with just WS-10X or AL-31-FN-M1, is not convincing to me.

2.) "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] *fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15)* aircraft engine, . . . The *J-20 stealth fighter*’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, *has achieved a historic leap*, which has astounded the entire world.”

If this caption of the video, doesn't convinced anyone, I have nothing more to say.

*3.) "this not a prove even our F-16 can do vertical climb without afterburner"*

I don't know this is true. Please show me a video clip. If that's is true, that F-16 could do a "sustained" vertical climb without AB, that mean the dry thrust of F-16, alone, is greater than its flying weight.

This is my point.

However, I don't claim if J-20 or F-16 could do that, that doesn't mean no one else could do that.

And I have shown repeatedly, that to lift J-20 vertically, w/o AB, it's maximum thrust, must be greater than 210kN, for an estimated empty weight of 22 tons plus 4 tons of fuel.

(I admitted this is 26 tons flying weight is just my estimate. I have no proof, whatsoever, that is true. I think this is most reasonable estimate, that's all. Feel free to offer your estimate. Then we can discuss from there.)

This estimated maximum thrust of 210kN, is completely out of the known reported range (125kN-145kN) of the WS-10x and AL-31-FN-M1. 

That's why I am convinced that J-20 is not flying with either one of them.

*4.) "Currently J-20 is not using TVC engine but its like in the photos."*

I don't know *how do you know* or *why you are* *so sure* that "Currently J-20 is not using TVC engine". Please share your thought on how you arrived at your conclusion.

I have drawn my conclusions from several published pictures.
















4.) If someone said those pictures means nothing or they doesn't prove anything. It could be an optical illusions due to the angle of the plane in the picture. Then he need to prove to me, that the same optical illusions could be happen to other plane nozzles. There are dozen of fighter planes with expandable nozzles, and thousands of their pictures on the Internet.

You need to shown me a several example of those illusions, and you have proved your case.

5.) Thrust Vector Nozzles have demonstrated that they are highly effective in controlling the directions of the plane at both low altitude and post-stall low speed, where the control surface has lost their effectiveness. And at high altitude, and high speed, where the air is thin, and the controls surfaces are much less effective.

Both US and Russia have developed and successfully used TVC nozzles on their fighters such as F-22, Su-30-MKI, Su-35 and T-50, since the 1980's and 1990's.

I can not see one single reason, why China would not use such amazingly effective technology, on their premier, 5th generation fighter to increase its subsonic maneuverability and supersonic maneuverability. Especially, China's CCTV has shown that it has such 3-D TVC nozzles in 2003.

Can you give me one reason *why not?*

I believe TVC nozzles is one of the key to achieve subsonic, post-install maneuverability and supersonic maneuverability. It is one of the major reason why F-22, T-50, and Su-35 are so marvelous.

I believe, not only J-20's 3-D TVC nozzle is better than F-22's 2-D, it could also turn *differentially* left and right, up and down. This will make a big difference in turning, and rolling.

It's also lower in weight and complexity, I believe. The stealth aspect of the round nozzle could be fixed with non-radar reflecting ceramic-based nozzle and radar absorbing coating, or with saw-tooth edges on the rim, like the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> 1.) J-10 and J-11D have used both WS-10 and AL-31-FN-M1 engines, none of these planes has much of Supersonic Maneuverability to talk about. At least their pilots haven't bragged about it. Fighter pilots are not known to be shy to brag about their planes.
> 
> The j-10 and Flankers, like F-15, F-16, and F-18 do have excellent *subsonic* Maneuverability, but not known to have superior Supersonic Maneuverability .
> 
> In fact, i don't know any pilot or designer has boost that their fighter has excellent Supersonic Maneuverability, before F-22 came along.
> 
> When F-22 was conceived, Supersonic Maneuverability was a relatively new concept. That's why F-22's 4S performance requirements was so revolutionary, that China and Russia were eager to follow up with their own 5th generation fighter.
> 
> One big reason that F-22 able to achieve Supersonic Cruise w/o AB, and superior Supersonic Maneuverability is its powerful *Pratt & Whitney F119* engine. It's published maximum thrust is listed as 35,000lbf or 175kN. Some people believe its actually as high as 39,000 lbf or 19.5 tons.
> 
> So the claim that J-20 is able to achieve outstanding Supersonic Maneuverability with just WS-10X or AL-31-FN-M1, is not convincing to me.
> 
> 2.) "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] *fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15)* aircraft engine, . . . The *J-20 stealth fighter*’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, *has achieved a historic leap*, which has astounded the entire world.”
> 
> If this caption of the video, doesn't convinced anyone, I have nothing more to say.
> 
> *3.) "this not a prove even our F-16 can do vertical climb without afterburner"*
> 
> I don't know this is true. Please show me a video clip. If that's is true, that F-16 could do a "sustained" vertical climb without AB, that mean the dry thrust of F-16, alone, is greater than its flying weight.
> 
> This is my point.
> 
> However, I don't claim if J-20 or F-16 could do that, that doesn't mean no one else could do that.
> 
> And I have shown repeatedly, that to lift J-20 vertically, w/o AB, it's maximum thrust, must be greater than 210kN, for an estimated empty weight of 22 tons plus 4 tons of fuel.
> 
> (I admitted this is 26 tons flying weight is just my estimate. I have no proof, whatsoever, that is true. I think this is most reasonable estimate, that's all. Feel free to offer your estimate. Then we can discuss from there.)
> 
> This estimated maximum thrust of 210kN, is completely out of the known reported range (125kN-145kN) of the WS-10x and AL-31-FN-M1.
> 
> That's why I am convinced that J-20 is not flying with either one of them.
> 
> *4.) "Currently J-20 is not using TVC engine but its like in the photos."*
> 
> I don't know *how do you know* or *why you are* *so sure* that "Currently J-20 is not using TVC engine". Please share your thought on how you arrived at your conclusion.
> 
> I have drawn my conclusions from several published pictures.
> View attachment 415557
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 415555
> 
> 
> View attachment 415556
> 
> 
> 4.) If someone said those pictures means nothing or they doesn't prove anything. It could be an optical illusions due to the angle of the plane in the picture. Then he need to prove to me, that the same optical illusions could be happen to other plane nozzles. There are dozen of fighter planes with expandable nozzles, and thousands of their pictures on the Internet.
> 
> You need to shown me a several example of those illusions, and you have proved your case.
> 
> 5.) Thrust Vector Nozzles have demonstrated that they are highly effective in controlling the directions of the plane at both low altitude and post-stall low speed, where the control surface has lost their effectiveness. And at high altitude, and high speed, where the air is thin, and the controls surfaces are much less effective.
> 
> Both US and Russia have developed and successfully used TVC nozzles on their fighters such as F-22, Su-30-MKI, Su-35 and T-50, since the 1980's and 1990's.
> 
> I can not see one single reason, why China would not use such amazingly effective technology, on their premier, 5th generation fighter to increase its subsonic maneuverability and supersonic maneuverability. Especially, China's CCTV has shown that it has such 3-D TVC nozzles in 2003.
> 
> Can you give me one reason *why not?*
> 
> I believe TVC nozzles is one of the key to achieve subsonic, post-install maneuverability and supersonic maneuverability. It is one of the major reason why F-22, T-50, and Su-35 are so marvelous.
> 
> I believe, not only J-20's 3-D TVC nozzle is better than F-22's 2-D, it could also turn *differentially* left and right, up and down. This will make a big difference in turning, and rolling.
> 
> It's also lower in weight and complexity, I believe. The stealth aspect of the round nozzle could be fixed with non-radar reflecting ceramic-based nozzle and radar absorbing coating, or with saw-tooth edges on the rim, like the F-35.



The F119 was listed as over 156KN in the afterburner, but some people speculate the actual figure is around 175KN.

The J-20 is a larger and heavier aircraft than the F-22, so it needs to use a jet engine with higher thrust than the F119. Otherwise, it will still be considered underpowered, not enough to meet the benchmark. And if its pilots have implied that the J-20 is outstanding in the supercruise capability, then the chance with the WS-15 could be quite likely.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> 1.) J-10 and J-11D have used both WS-10 and AL-31-FN-M1 engines, none of these planes has much of Supersonic Maneuverability to talk about. At least their pilots haven't bragged about it. Fighter pilots are not known to be shy to brag about their planes.
> 
> The j-10 and Flankers, like F-15, F-16, and F-18 do have excellent *subsonic* Maneuverability, but not known to have superior Supersonic Maneuverability .
> 
> In fact, i don't know any pilot or designer has boost that their fighter has excellent Supersonic Maneuverability, before F-22 came along.
> 
> When F-22 was conceived, Supersonic Maneuverability was a relatively new concept. That's why F-22's 4S performance requirements was so revolutionary, that China and Russia were eager to follow up with their own 5th generation fighter.
> 
> One big reason that F-22 able to achieve Supersonic Cruise w/o AB, and superior Supersonic Maneuverability is its powerful *Pratt & Whitney F119* engine. It's published maximum thrust is listed as 35,000lbf or 175kN. Some people believe its actually as high as 39,000 lbf or 19.5 tons.
> 
> So the claim that J-20 is able to achieve outstanding Supersonic Maneuverability with just WS-10X or AL-31-FN-M1, is not convincing to me.
> 
> 2.) "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] *fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15)* aircraft engine, . . . The *J-20 stealth fighter*’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, *has achieved a historic leap*, which has astounded the entire world.”
> 
> If this caption of the video, doesn't convinced anyone, I have nothing more to say.
> 
> *3.) "this not a prove even our F-16 can do vertical climb without afterburner"*
> 
> I don't know this is true. Please show me a video clip. If that's is true, that F-16 could do a "sustained" vertical climb without AB, that mean the dry thrust of F-16, alone, is greater than its flying weight.
> 
> This is my point.
> 
> However, I don't claim if J-20 or F-16 could do that, that doesn't mean no one else could do that.
> 
> And I have shown repeatedly, that to lift J-20 vertically, w/o AB, it's maximum thrust, must be greater than 210kN, for an estimated empty weight of 22 tons plus 4 tons of fuel.
> 
> (I admitted this is 26 tons flying weight is just my estimate. I have no proof, whatsoever, that is true. I think this is most reasonable estimate, that's all. Feel free to offer your estimate. Then we can discuss from there.)
> 
> This estimated maximum thrust of 210kN, is completely out of the known reported range (125kN-145kN) of the WS-10x and AL-31-FN-M1.
> 
> That's why I am convinced that J-20 is not flying with either one of them.
> 
> *4.) "Currently J-20 is not using TVC engine but its like in the photos."*
> 
> I don't know *how do you know* or *why you are* *so sure* that "Currently J-20 is not using TVC engine". Please share your thought on how you arrived at your conclusion.
> 
> I have drawn my conclusions from several published pictures.
> View attachment 415557
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 415555
> 
> 
> View attachment 415556
> 
> 
> 4.) If someone said those pictures means nothing or they doesn't prove anything. It could be an optical illusions due to the angle of the plane in the picture. Then he need to prove to me, that the same optical illusions could be happen to other plane nozzles. There are dozen of fighter planes with expandable nozzles, and thousands of their pictures on the Internet.
> 
> You need to shown me a several example of those illusions, and you have proved your case.
> 
> 5.) Thrust Vector Nozzles have demonstrated that they are highly effective in controlling the directions of the plane at both low altitude and post-stall low speed, where the control surface has lost their effectiveness. And at high altitude, and high speed, where the air is thin, and the controls surfaces are much less effective.
> 
> Both US and Russia have developed and successfully used TVC nozzles on their fighters such as F-22, Su-30-MKI, Su-35 and T-50, since the 1980's and 1990's.
> 
> I can not see one single reason, why China would not use such amazingly effective technology, on their premier, 5th generation fighter to increase its subsonic maneuverability and supersonic maneuverability. Especially, China's CCTV has shown that it has such 3-D TVC nozzles in 2003.
> 
> Can you give me one reason *why not?*
> 
> I believe TVC nozzles is one of the key to achieve subsonic, post-install maneuverability and supersonic maneuverability. It is one of the major reason why F-22, T-50, and Su-35 are so marvelous.
> 
> I believe, not only J-20's 3-D TVC nozzle is better than F-22's 2-D, it could also turn *differentially* left and right, up and down. This will make a big difference in turning, and rolling.
> 
> It's also lower in weight and complexity, I believe. The stealth aspect of the round nozzle could be fixed with non-radar reflecting ceramic-based nozzle and radar absorbing coating, or with saw-tooth edges on the rim, like the F-35.


first you need to what is relax stability for jet fighter F-22, F-35, and F-16 have tail cropped delta wing platform which inherently stable at supersonic state but because of TVC engine on F-22 and F-35 they have extreme maneuverability, agility, whereas J-20 inherently unstable at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime at subsonic J-20 shows slightly positive static stability
Here it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/03/31/f-16/
*So the claim that J-20 is able to achieve outstanding Supersonic Maneuverability with just WS-10X or AL-31-FN-M1, is not convincing to me.*
you're talking about T/W ratios  lots early fighter jets is less T/W ratios is less than
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio
lots of early and modern jets and bombers have a less thrust compare to their weights

*2.) "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15) aircraft engine, . . . The J-20 stealth fighter’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, has achieved a historic leap, which has astounded the entire world.”*

If this caption of the video, doesn't convinced anyone, I have nothing more to say.
this says that WS-15 *has achieved** a historic leap* didn't saying that WS-15 had been installed on J-20
*3.) "this not a prove even our F-16 can do vertical climb without afterburner"*

* I don't know this is true. Please show me a video clip. If that's is true, that F-16 could do a "sustained" vertical climb without AB, that mean the dry thrust of F-16, alone, is greater than its flying weight.*
*
here it is its clearly shows that F-16 can climb vertical without use of A/B at will 





*



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The F119 was listed as over 156KN in the afterburner, but some people speculate the actual figure is around 175KN.
> 
> The J-20 is a larger and heavier aircraft than the F-22, so it needs to use a jet engine with higher thrust than the F119. Otherwise, it will still be considered underpowered, not enough to meet the benchmark. And if its pilots have implied that the J-20 is outstanding in the supercruise capability, then the chance with the WS-15 could be quite likely.


yes you're absolutely sir i think WS-15 has a thrust of 43000 lbs like F-135 or slightly higher

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> first you need to what is relax stability for jet fighter F-22, F-35, and F-16 have tail cropped delta wing platform which inherently stable at supersonic state but because of TVC engine on F-22 and F-35 they have extreme maneuverability, agility, whereas J-20 inherently unstable at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime at subsonic J-20 shows slightly positive static stability
> Here it is
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability
> http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/03/31/f-16/
> *So the claim that J-20 is able to achieve outstanding Supersonic Maneuverability with just WS-10X or AL-31-FN-M1, is not convincing to me.*
> you're talking about T/W ratios  lots early fighter jets is less T/W ratios is less than
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio
> lots of early and modern jets and bombers have a less thrust compare to their weights
> 
> *2.) "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15) aircraft engine, . . . The J-20 stealth fighter’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, has achieved a historic leap, which has astounded the entire world.”*
> 
> If this caption of the video, doesn't convinced anyone, I have nothing more to say.
> this says that WS-15 *has achieved** a historic leap* didn't saying that WS-15 had been installed on J-20
> *3.) "this not a prove even our F-16 can do vertical climb without afterburner"*
> 
> * I don't know this is true. Please show me a video clip. If that's is true, that F-16 could do a "sustained" vertical climb without AB, that mean the dry thrust of F-16, alone, is greater than its flying weight.*
> *
> here it is its clearly shows that F-16 can climb vertical without use of A/B at will
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> yes you're absolutely sir i think WS-15 has a thrust of 43000 lbs like F-135 or slightly higher




The Afterburner of the F-16, indicated by its red glowing butt, was ON throughout the video, and I see no sustained vertical climbing at all.

I got a feeling you don't know what is afterburner and what is sustained vertical climbing.

Thanks for this video! Show me another video, please.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The F119 was listed as over 156KN in the afterburner, but some people speculate the actual figure is around 175KN.
> 
> The J-20 is a larger and heavier aircraft than the F-22, so it needs to use a jet engine with higher thrust than the F119. Otherwise, it will still be considered underpowered, not enough to meet the benchmark. And if its pilots have implied that the J-20 is outstanding in the supercruise capability, then the chance with the WS-15 could be quite likely.



I agreed with your analysis.

If a plane has Superior supersonic maneuverability, it strongly indicates that, it could so do supersonic cruising, without AB. 

And the reverse is true, without a powerful engine to do supersonic cruising, it's unlikely a plane could have superior supersonic maneuverability.

Because it is so much more demanding, on the engine to quickly, replenish the energy and speed lost, during violent supersonic maneuvers, so the plane don't fall back down to subsonic speed, than just cruising in a straight line.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> The Afterburner of the F-16, indicated by its red glowing butt, was ON throughout the video, and I see no sustained vertical climbing at all.
> 
> I got a feeling you don't know what is afterburner and what is sustained vertical climbing.
> 
> Thanks for this video! Show me another video, please.


I am afraid bro you don't know what is afterburner bro it is on a wet or dry thrust can show me clip that fighter jet flying without hot butts its normal engine running not afterburner is applied every 4th can do vertical climbing without use of afterburner including your J series of jets its nothing new



Asok said:


> The Afterburner of the F-16, indicated by its red glowing butt, was ON throughout the video, and I see no sustained vertical climbing at all.
> 
> I got a feeling you don't know what is afterburner and what is sustained vertical climbing.
> 
> Thanks for this video! Show me another video, please.
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with your analysis.
> 
> If a plane has Superior supersonic maneuverability, it strongly indicates that, it could so do supersonic cruising, without AB.
> 
> And the reverse is true, without a powerful engine to do supersonic cruising, it's unlikely a plane could have superior supersonic maneuverability.
> 
> Because it is so much more demanding, on the engine to quickly, replenish the energy and speed lost, during violent supersonic maneuvers, so the plane don't fall back down to subsonic speed, than just cruising in a straight line.


I already state you in my above post its not for engine but relaxed static stability of the fighter jets, first fighter jet shows a capability to super cruise was the British lightning of 60 with relatively weaker engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> I am afraid bro you don't know what is afterburner bro it is on a wet or dry thrust can show me clip that fighter jet flying without hot butts its normal engine running not afterburner is applied every 4th can do vertical climbing without use of afterburner including your J series of jets its nothing new
> 
> 
> I already state you in my above post its not for engine but relaxed static stability of the fighter jets, first fighter jet shows a capability to super cruise was the British lightning of 60 with relatively weaker engine




*1.) "show me clip that fighter jet flying without hot butts"*

Here is you go, J-20 is doing a sustained vertical climbing, without a glowing red butt or red hot flame shooting of its nozzle, which a strong indicator whether the Afterburner is ON or not.






I have posted it on this page already.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-504#post-9090880

The vertical climbing started around 1:00.

*2.) "its normal engine running, not afterburner is applied"*

Not true. Watch this video of F-22. 




You can see the afterburner is being *turned ON* and *OFF* at 18:12.







The Afterburn is *ON*, indicated by the red hot butt.






Moments later, the Afterburner is *turned Off*, no more red hot butt. Clearly, the engine is still running normally.

*3.) "every 4th, can do vertical climbing, without use of afterburner, including your J series of jets. its nothing new.*"

That's news to me. I am astounded by my ignorance. Show me some videos, and then we could discuss them.

4.) *"F-22, F-35, and F-16 have tail cropped delta wing platform, which inherently stable at supersonic state, but because of TVC engine on F-22 and F-35, they have extreme maneuverability, agility. Whereas, J-20 [is] inherently unstable, at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime. At subsonic J-20 shows slightly positive static stability."*

I think you are saying:

All you need is being *unstable* or have *TVC*, at supersonic state, to have superior supersonic maneuverability.

And because F-22 and F-35 is *stable* at supersonic state, but they have* TVC*, and that TVC, alone, give them the extreme maneuverability, agility, at supersonic state.

And since *"J-20 inherently unstable, at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime"*, this *unstability*, alone, will give J-20 the superior supersonic maneuverability, as claimed by the pilot.

Is this what you are saying?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The F119 was listed as over 156KN in the afterburner, but some people speculate the actual figure is around 175KN.
> 
> The J-20 is a larger and heavier aircraft than the F-22, so it needs to use a jet engine with higher thrust than the F119. Otherwise, it will still be considered underpowered, not enough to meet the benchmark. And if its pilots have implied that the J-20 is outstanding in the supercruise capability, then the chance with the WS-15 could be quite likely.



Watch the Vertical climb at *25:00*.






This video showing F-22 doing a slow vertical climb, w/o Afterburner at* 25:00*. It makes me agreed that its maximum trust, is near 175kN, rather than 160kN.

175kN x 2 = 350kN, is the total Thrust. And if Dry Thrust is 60% of that, we have 210kN. F-22's empty weight is listed as 19.7 tons. That means F-22's fuel is only around one to two tons, at the end of this video.

This is not too unreasonable, as it's demonstrating on the airport, and already near the end of its demo.

J-20 is 3.5m longer than F-22, so it is larger and heavier. I think it is reasonable that J-20's empty weight is around 22 tons. And J-20 took off from a different airport to demo at the airshow, and it disappeared from view. It is reasonable to assume, it has returned to its base. So it is reasonable to assume, it has more than 2 tons of fuel left.

I have assumed earlier that F-22 can't do a vertical climb, w/o AB, because it's maximum thrust is only listed as 160kN, while its empty weight is 19.7 tons.

*"The F119 was listed as over 156KN in the afterburner, but some people speculate the actual figure is around 175KN."*

This video clearly shows *it CAN.* So I don't think it's 160kN. It's more like, at least, *175kN* as some people have speculated.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> *1.) "show me clip that fighter jet flying without hot butts"*
> 
> Here is you go, J-20 is doing a sustained vertical climbing, without a glowing red butt or red hot flame shooting of its nozzle, which a strong indicator whether the Afterburner is ON or not.


That video *DID NOT* showed any sustained vertical flight.

When a pilot command a pitch change, forward momentum will impart some assistance to that change. Increase throttle will add to the perception that the aircraft is flying and gaining altitude. The time period of 1:07 to 1:12 is too short to serve as definitive proof that the J-20 can sustain a vertical flight using only engine thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> That video *DID NOT* showed any sustained vertical flight.
> 
> When a pilot command a pitch change, forward momentum will impart some assistance to that change. Increase throttle will add to the perception that the aircraft is flying and gaining altitude. The time period of 1:07 to 1:12 is too short to serve as definitive proof that the J-20 can sustain a vertical flight using only engine thrust.


Two seals fighting over a grape. None of the AB on or AB off has anything to with either altitude or pitch but simple airspeed and energy. If the J-20 built up enough energy in its run in, it can keep basic mil thrust and actually accelerate for a while before forces acting on it take its toll.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

People,

Read this and remember...

There are three types of programs in an airshow: high, medium, and flat.

http://wfpl.org/expect-a-lower-faster-thunder-air-show-thanks-to-clouds/


> “For any air show, they have a *high show, a low show, or a flat show, depending on the cloud ceiling,”* Boyd says.
> 
> Saturday’s ceiling is not looking high, but that doesn’t mean the show will be less entertaining.
> 
> “With a flat show you actually get a little bit closer to the aircraft,” she says. “They’re gonna be flying through the venue a little bit lower, so it’ll be lower and faster.”


A 'high show' is when there is virtually clear sky which allows the flying demo to its maximum, including any vertical maneuver.

But even so, there is *NO* practical way for a ground observer to conclude definitively that a high performance combat jet fighter entered a vertical climb, sustain the same velocity, and even gain velocity. Forward momentum and throttle to afterburner will give the impression that such a maneuver is being executed, but in reality, if a jet is capable, by the time the jet is fully in that vertical flight like a rocket, it would be out of human sight.

So how did we come to the conclusion that the F-15 can perform such a maneuver ?

Radar confirmation of pilot testimony.

So until there is independent radar confirmation of the J-20 going vertical like a rocket, any Internet comment to that alleged capability is pure speculation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Oscar said:


> Two seals fighting over a grape. None of the AB on or AB off has anything to with either altitude or pitch but simple airspeed and energy. If the J-20 built up enough energy in its run in, it can keep basic mil thrust and actually accelerate for a while before forces acting on it take its toll.



Not true, if are climbing *vertically*, in a sustained climb, more than a few seconds.

If you turn your plane, *vertically*, like in a Cobra Manouvre, the plane's body and wings, acts as a giant air brake, quickly bleeds off your horizontally momentum. Your airspeed quickly drops to near 0, without gaining any height.

Watch the Cobra maneuver in this video.






If you want to climb with the help of momentum, you climb at the most optimum angle your wings allows, without stalling. You don't want to climb* VERTICALLY, if you to use the built up momentum*.

When you are VERTICAL, your wings do not contribute, to any upward lifting force, your whole lift comes from the engine's thrust.

If your engine's thrust is > than the plane's weight, you keep climb up, vertically. If not, you fall back down like a leaf.

At vertical, your plane behaves more like a rocket, not like an airplane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *1.) "show me clip that fighter jet flying without hot butts"*
> 
> Here is you go, J-20 is doing a sustained vertical climbing, without a glowing red butt or red hot flame shooting of its nozzle, which a strong indicator whether the Afterburner is ON or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted it on this page already.
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-504#post-9090880
> 
> The vertical climbing started around 1:00.
> 
> *2.) "its normal engine running, not afterburner is applied"*
> 
> Not true. Watch this video of F-22.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see the afterburner is being *turned ON* and *OFF* at 18:12.
> 
> View attachment 415583
> 
> 
> The Afterburn is *ON*, indicated by the red hot butt.
> 
> View attachment 415582
> 
> 
> Moments later, the Afterburner is *turned Off*, no more red hot butt. Clearly, the engine is still running normally.
> 
> *3.) "every 4th, can do vertical climbing, without use of afterburner, including your J series of jets. its nothing new.*"
> 
> That's news to me. I am astounded by my ignorance. Show me some videos, and then we could discuss them.
> 
> 4.) *"F-22, F-35, and F-16 have tail cropped delta wing platform, which inherently stable at supersonic state, but because of TVC engine on F-22 and F-35, they have extreme maneuverability, agility. Whereas, J-20 [is] inherently unstable, at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime. At subsonic J-20 shows slightly positive static stability."*
> 
> I think you are saying:
> 
> All you need is being *unstable* or have *TVC*, at supersonic state, to have superior supersonic maneuverability.
> 
> And because F-22 and F-35 is *stable* at supersonic state, but they have* TVC*, and that TVC, alone, give them the extreme maneuverability, agility, at supersonic state.
> 
> And since *"J-20 inherently unstable, at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime"*, this *unstability*, alone, will give J-20 the superior supersonic maneuverability, as claimed by the pilot.
> 
> Is this what you are saying?


This is your prove i am sorry to say you have no basic knowledge about fighter jets and their engines in this cilp not even single shot interior of J-20 engine so I can assure you if in this clip its definitely shows hot butts
I can show lots of clip J-20 with hot butts but no afterburner is applied
Its relaxed static stability energy maneuverbilty theory from lockheed martin fighter mafia group" before the 4 the gen jets pilot trying to maneuver the jet but jets trying remains same attitude because of central of gravity that is positive static stability, F-16 is the first jet that show negative static stability which means that its fuselage remains uncontrolled because of central of gravity and pilot trying to level flight mechanical flight control system is useless for relaxed static stability jets that why they were developed fly by wire tech specially for relaxed static stability jets and please Google yourself relaxed static stability and energy maneuverability theory bro


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> This is your prove i am sorry to say you have no basic knowledge about fighter jets and their engines in this cilp not even single shot interior of J-20 engine so I can assure you if in this clip its definitely shows hot butts
> I can show lots of clip J-20 with hot butts but no afterburner is applied
> Its relaxed static stability energy maneuverbilty theory from lockheed martin fighter mafia group" before the 4 the gen jets pilot trying to maneuver the jet but jets trying remains same attitude because of central of gravity that is positive static stability, F-16 is the first jet that show negative static stability which means that its fuselage remains uncontrolled because of central of gravity and pilot trying to level flight mechanical flight control system is useless for relaxed static stability jets that why they were developed fly by wire tech specially for relaxed static stability jets and please Google yourself relaxed static stability and energy maneuverability theory bro



Bro, I am trying to ask you a question, to confirm what I think of your post. And you write back with this rambling, confused nonsense. I have read about relaxed stability in third generation jets, because of improved digital flight control. Thank you.

I was asking:

I think you are saying:

All you need is being *unstable* or have *TVC*, at supersonic state, to have superior supersonic maneuverability.

And because F-22 and F-35 is *stable* at supersonic state, but they have* TVC*, and that TVC, alone, give them the extreme maneuverability, agility, at supersonic state.

And since *"J-20 inherently unstable, at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime"*, this *unstability*, alone, will give J-20 the superior supersonic maneuverability, as claimed by the pilot.

Is this what you are saying?

*Please answer my question, first. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Not true, if are climbing *vertically*, in a sustained climb, more than a few seconds.
> 
> If you turn your plane, *vertically*, like in a Cobra Manouvre, the plane's body and wings, acts as a giant air brake, quickly bleeds off your horizontally momentum. Your airspeed quickly drops to near 0, without gaining any height.
> 
> Watch the Cobra maneuver in this video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to climb with the help of momentum, if you climb at the most optimum angle your wings allows, without stalling, *not VERTICALLY*.
> 
> When you are VERTICAL, your wings do not contribute, to any upward lifting force, your whole lift comes from the engine's thrust.
> 
> If your engine's thrust is > than the plane's weight, you keep climb up, vertically. If not, you fall back down like a leaf.
> 
> At vertical, your plane behaves more like a rocket, not like an airplane.


Their 2 T/W ratio engine and jets which one is you talking about, T/W ratios above 1 is not a new thing which excess thrust available for jets compared to their weight eg f-16 , f-14 ,f-15, su series of jets mig-29 all have thrust to weight ratios is above 1



Asok said:


> Bro, I am trying to ask you a question, to confirm what I think of your post. And you write back with this rambling, confused nonsense. I have read about relaxed stability in third generation jets, because of improved digital flight control. Thank you.
> 
> I was asking:
> 
> I think you are saying:
> 
> All you need is being *unstable* or have *TVC*, at supersonic state, to have superior supersonic maneuverability.
> 
> And because F-22 and F-35 is *stable* at supersonic state, but they have* TVC*, and that TVC, alone, give them the extreme maneuverability, agility, at supersonic state.
> 
> And since *"J-20 inherently unstable, at supersonic and trans-sonic flight regime"*, this *unstability*, alone, will give J-20 the superior supersonic maneuverability, as claimed by the pilot.
> 
> Is this what you are saying?
> 
> *Please answer my question, first. *


Yes bro you're right on that part because Delta canard wing shows extreme agility and maneuverability without use of TVC engines, like tail cropped Delta wing jet like f-22, f-35 required TVC to achieve similar agility and maneuverability with Delta canard platform doing without using TVC engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Their 2 T/W ratio engine and jets which one is you talking about, T/W ratios above 1 is not a new thing which excess thrust available for jets compared to their weight eg f-16 , f-14 ,f-15, su series of jets mig-29 all have thrust to weight ratios is above 1



I was always talking about the TWR of the whole plane, itself, not just the engine.
*
"T/W ratios above 1 is not a new thing which excess thrust available for jets compared to their weight eg f-16 , f-14 ,f-15, su series of jets mig-29 all have thrust to weight ratios is above 1"*


I know the TWR > 1 started with F-15, in the 70's, and most 3rd generations fighter jets have TWR > 1. *This is I totally agreed*. I have never stated, or implied, otherwise.

Notice, that's the *Maximum Thrust or Wet Thrust* (not military thrust or dry thrust) that is greater their body weight.

But it is the 4th or 5th generation jet of F-22, J-20 and T-50, (with their TWR > 10 engines, such as F119, WS-15, 117S) *that the **Dry thrust** begins to exceed their body weight.
*
This is new for 4th or 5th generation jet. This is why I have seen F-22 and J-20 (probably T-50 also) could climb vertically with their Dry Thrust, alone.

Many 3rd generations jet could climb, vertically, *with their Afterburners*. This I have no doubt. I have seen many videos. Nothing special about it.

I am not contending only J-20 could climb vertically, with or w/o afterburner. I just seen F-22 could do that too.

That makes me believe the Maximum Thrust of F119 engine, is higher than listed 160kN, and closer to 175kN, as some people have speculated.

I am only contending that J-20 could do a vertical climb w/o AB, with the intended WS-15 engines, not the WS-10 or AL-31-FN-M1 engine, which has Max thrust around 125-145kN.

And since the J-20 could do a vertical climb w/o AB, I have calculated that would take at least a dry thrust of 126kN or maximum thrust of 210kN, based on my an estimated empty weight and fuel load of (22 tons and 4 tons). Of course, I could be wrong on this. I don't know the exact empty weight, and its fuel load, during the demo. Only the pilots know.

*"Yes, bro you're right on that part because Delta canard wing shows extreme agility and maneuverability without use of TVC engines, like tail cropped Delta wing jet like f-22, f-35 required TVC to achieve similar agility and maneuverability with Delta canard platform doing without using TVC engine."*

Yes, Bro. I agreed. The movable *"Delta canard wing" *of J-10, Rafael, Typhoon, and J-20 are extremely unstable. Until, the designers have mastered Digital Fly-by-wire Flight Control systems in the 1990's, with fast flight computers and supercomputer modeling.

US designers have experimented with movable *"Delta canard wing" *on F-16 and F-15, in the 1980's. The flight control software and hardware wasn't ready to handle the extreme instability.

So they gave up.

That's why you don't see it on F-22. They make it up with TVC, and a powerful engine, and advanced frame design, that incorporated vortex generation, superbly.

However, the relaxed stability of *"Delta canard wing" design i*s only one of the key ingredient for J-20, to achieve superior supersonic maneuverability.

Otherwise, J-10, Rafael, and Typhoon, could also claim this flight quality. But I have never heard anyone of their pilots claimed this.

They only claimed superior *subsonic* maneuverability, which are true.

Why is that?

Because superior supersonic maneuverability, requires *several more factors, *other than relaxed stability at supersonic state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## juj06750

↑
plz ban this guy 
keep discussing irrelevant things in thread


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I was always talking about the TWR of the whole plane, itself, not just the engine.
> *
> "T/W ratios above 1 is not a new thing which excess thrust available for jets compared to their weight eg f-16 , f-14 ,f-15, su series of jets mig-29 all have thrust to weight ratios is above 1"*
> 
> 
> I know the TWR > 1 started with F-15, in the 70's, and most 3rd generations fighter jets have TWR > 1. *This is I totally agreed*. I have never stated, or implied, otherwise.
> 
> Notice, that's the *Maximum Thrust or Wet Thrust* (not military thrust or dry thrust) that is greater their body weight.
> 
> But it is the 4th or 5th generation jet of F-22, J-20 and T-50, (with their TWR > 10 engines, such as F119, WS-15, 117S) *that the **Dry thrust** begins to exceed their body weight.
> *
> This is new for 4th or 5th generation jet. This is why I have seen F-22 and J-20 (probably T-50 also) could climb vertically with their Dry Thrust, alone.
> 
> Many 3rd generations jet could climb, vertically, *with their Afterburners*. This I have no doubt. I have seen many videos. Nothing special about it.
> 
> I am not contending only J-20 could climb vertically, with or w/o afterburner. I just seen F-22 could do that too.
> 
> That makes me believe the Maximum Thrust of F119 engine, is higher than listed 160kN, and closer to 175kN, as some people have speculated.
> 
> I am only contending that J-20 could do a vertical climb w/o AB, with the intended WS-15 engines, not the WS-10 or AL-31-FN-M1 engine, which has Max thrust around 125-145kN.
> 
> And since the J-20 could do a vertical climb w/o AB, I have calculated that would take at least a dry thrust of 126kN or maximum thrust of 210kN, based on my an estimated empty weight and fuel load of (22 tons and 4 tons). Of course, I could be wrong on this. I don't know the exact empty weight, and its fuel load, during the demo. Only the pilots know.
> 
> *"Yes, bro you're right on that part because Delta canard wing shows extreme agility and maneuverability without use of TVC engines, like tail cropped Delta wing jet like f-22, f-35 required TVC to achieve similar agility and maneuverability with Delta canard platform doing without using TVC engine."*
> 
> Yes, Bro. I agreed. The movable *"Delta canard wing" *of J-10, Rafael, Typhoon, and J-20 are extremely unstable. Until, the designers have mastered Digital Fly-by-wire Flight Control systems in the 1990's, with fast flight computers and supercomputer modeling.
> 
> US designers have experimented with movable *"Delta canard wing" *on F-16 and F-15, in the 1980's. The flight control software and hardware wasn't ready to handle the extreme instability.
> 
> So they gave up.
> 
> That's why you don't see it on F-22. They make it up with TVC, and a powerful engine, and advanced frame design, that incorporated vortex generation, superbly.
> 
> However, the relaxed stability of *"Delta canard wing" design i*s only one of the key ingredient for J-20, to achieve superior supersonic maneuverability.
> 
> Otherwise, J-10, Rafael, and Typhoon, could also claim this flight quality. But I have never heard anyone of their pilots claimed this.
> 
> They only claimed superior *subsonic* maneuverability, which are true.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Because superior supersonic maneuverability, requires *several more factors, *other than relaxed stability at supersonic state.


You will not trying to understand and insisting your crap opinions you have no logic you lives in wrong assumptions and wishful thinking, rafale, ef-2000, grippen, and j-10 all have great maneuverability and agility at supersonic and trans- sonic flight regime because of Delta canard design


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> You will not trying to understand and insisting your crap opinions you have no logic you lives in wrong assumptions and wishful thinking, rafale, ef-2000, grippen, and j-10 all have great maneuverability and agility at supersonic and trans- sonic flight regime because of Delta canard design


*
"You will not trying to understand and insisting your crap opinions you have no logic you lives in wrong assumptions and wishful thinking"
*
I guess you are running out of good things to say, and is just ranting your frustrations. I can't help you with that.
*
"rafale, ef-2000, grippen, and j-10 all have great maneuverability and agility at supersonic trans- sonic flight regime"*

Back up your assertions with some proof about their *Supersonic* maneuverability. Give me some quotes or reports from the pilots or test pilots. I don't need proof for subsonic maneuverability. I know its true.

No one want to stay at the high drag, transonic region. Talk about maneuverability at trans-sonic flight regime, is crazy.

If you think relaxed stability, with delta canard wings, at supersonic state, will give you superior maneuverability and agility, *comparable to that of F-22*, at that supersonic region.

You are wrong.

It takes a lot more than that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"rafale, ef-2000, grippen, and j-10 all have great maneuverability and agility at supersonic trans- sonic flight regime"*
> 
> Back up your assertions with some proof about their *Supersonic* maneuverability. Give me some quotes or reports from the pilots or test pilots. I don't need proof for subsonic maneuverability. I know its true.
> 
> No one want to stay at the high drag, transonic region. Talk about maneuverability at trans-sonic flight regime, is crazy.
> 
> If you think relaxed stability, with delta canard wings, at supersonic state, will give you superior maneuverability at that region. You are wrong.
> 
> It takes more than that.


You first prove that J-20 is using WS-15 from day one, you first prove that WS-15 has thrust of 210 KN and WS-15 has a TVC nozzles, they lighter because of composite materials their engines relatively powerful compare to their weight they have TWR above 1 its world fact about those jets not my personal opinon, your j-20 has extremely maneuverable and agile with Delta canard design those European is not maneuverable and agile with a same layout what a bogus logic you have you ..... (edited by moderator)


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> You first prove that J-20 is using WS-15 from day one, you first prove that WS-15 has thrust of 210 KN and WS-15 has a TVC nozzles, they lighter because of composite materials their engines relatively powerful compare to their weight they have TWR above 1 its world fact about those jets not my personal opinon, your j-20 has extremely maneuverable and agile with Delta canard design those European is not maneuverable and agile with a same layout what a bogus logic you have you sh!t head, you have brain of 8 year old kid you insane



*"You first prove that . . . "*

I already listed my reasons or proofs for my assertions in my numerous previous posts.

*"Your j-20 has extremely maneuverable and agile, with Delta canard design. Those European is not maneuverable and agile, with a same layout. What a bogus logic, you have. You sh!t head. You have brain of 8 year old kid. You insane"*

I am fine, thank you. I am not insane.

Looks like you don't have any proofs that *"rafale, ef-2000, grippen, and j-10 all have great maneuverability and agility at supersonic trans- sonic flight regime". *and just want to vent your frustration.

I said it takes a lot more than "*Delta canard design" *for superior supersonic maneuverability, comparable to that of F-22. That's why I don't believe J-10, Rafael and Typhoon has that.

I believe the current J-20 has superior supersonic maneuverability, comparable to that of F-22, because,

1.) it has the agile, differentially moving, "Delta canard design", *PLUS,*

2.) two powerful WS-15 engine, that has at least 210kN of thrust each, *PLUS,*

3.) a huge internal fuel storage of 12 tons, to support long Supersonic Cruise, *PLUS,*

4.) 3-D differential turning TVC nozzles, *PLUS, *

5.) all moving, differentially activated, tails,* PLUS*,

6.) a long slender body for superior supersonic state, *PLUS,*

7.) internal weapon storage for minimize drag, *PLUS*, 

8.) adjustable DSI air intake, that could be optimized for subsonic, as well as supersonic speed.

If that doesn't do it for J-20. I don't know what will.
*
*


----------



## Ultima Thule

@ Asok didn' t find my answers you kid



Asok said:


> I already listed my reasons or proofs for my assertions in my numerous previous posts.
> 
> *"Your j-20 has extremely maneuverable and agile, with Delta canard design. Those European is not maneuverable and agile, with a same layout. What a bogus logic, you have. You sh!t head. You have brain of 8 year old kid. You insane"*
> 
> I am fine, thank you. I am not insane.
> 
> Looks like you don't have any proofs that *"rafale, ef-2000, grippen, and j-10 all have great maneuverability and agility at supersonic trans- sonic flight regime". *and just want to vent your frustration.
> 
> I said it takes a lot more than "*Delta canard design" *for superior supersonic maneuverability, comparable to that of F-22. That's why I don't believe J-10, Rafael and Typhoon has that.
> 
> I believe the current J-20 has superior supersonic maneuverability, comparable to that of F-22, because,
> 
> 1.) it has the agile, differentially moving, "Delta canard design", *PLUS,*
> 
> 2.) two powerful WS-15 engine, that has at least 210kN of thrust each, *PLUS,*
> 
> 3.) a huge internal fuel storage of 12 tons, to support long Supersonic Cruise, *PLUS,*
> 
> 4.) 3-D differential turning TVC nozzles, *PLUS, *
> 
> 5.) all moving, differentially activated, tails,* PLUS*,
> 
> 6.) a long slender body for superior supersonic state, *PLUS,*
> 
> 7.) adjustable DSI air intake that could be optimized for subsonic, as well as supersonic speed.
> 
> If that doesn't do it for J-20. I don't know what will.


First you prove me J-20 is using WS-15 
Then Ws-15 has thrust of 210 Kn
And then WS-15 has a TVC nozzles
Differential tail surface is not a new tech first used in yf-23 and pak-fa
Please answer my above questions but you have no answer for me kid you insane kid you have no knowledge of fighter jets and its aerodynamic go kid this place is not for yours go play your toys


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> @ Asok didn' t find my answers you kid




Since you won't do the work. I am trying to find some reports that J-10, Rafael, and Typhoon have superior supersonic maneuverability comparable to that of the F-22.

I can find only one report. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37047

*"The UK pilot declared, that EF-2000, can make 5G turn, at the height of 45,000 fts, and speed of Mach 1.6 without losing speed, and the F/A-22 can perform the 5G maneuver, at even higher speed ,and altitude, without losing speed. 

The previous generation fighter like F-15 and F-16 can only perform 2~3G maneuver at the speed of above Mach 1 and height of above 30,000 fts."*

If that is true, the EF-2000 would have to turn on their on AB, full blast, at Mach 1.6, since they are not know to have Supercruise at that speed, while F-22 with their powerful F119 engines, could still cruising w/o their AB on.

Supposed, the EF-2000 is carrying only 5 tons of maximum internal fuel capacity, with no drop tanks. He would have *run out of fuel, within minutes*, while their AB is running at full blast, trying to keep up with the F-22, at Mach 1.6. Fuel burn rate with AB full blasting, is *3-4 times*, more than non-AB.

This is same situation that F-15, F-16, and other fourth generations fighter find themselves in, during the Red Flag exercises. They run out of fuel as soon as they entered the supersonic range, with their AB full blasting, trying to keep up with the F-22, who don't need their AB, turned on.

And F-22 has a 8 tons internal fuel capacity.

Because of this, those 4th generation fighters, have absolutely no chance, to keep up with the F-22 at Supersonic range. No wonder, the F-22 claimed a 144-0 kill ratio, in the Red Flag exercises.

When you *can't stay* in the supersonic range, to keep up, with your opponent who could, *you have no supersonic maneuverability*, by definition.

If you want to stay supersonic, by turning on your AB full blast, you will be running out fuel within minutes, your game and your life, is over.

Notice, when I said run out of fuel, I don't mean you used up the last drop of fuel, I mean you have only enough fuel, left, to go home.

Remember, someone could be chasing you, and you will have to use the fuel hungry AB, to get away. So the amount of fuel you used, to run away, is probably much more than the fuel you used, to get there.

This is the 5th generation fighter's huge unbeatable advantage, over 4th generation fighters, by having a huge internal fuel capacity, internal weapon storage, Supercruise capability. Having stealth and a powerful ASEA radar, doesn't hurt, either.



pakistanipower said:


> @ Asok didn' t find my answers you kid
> 
> 
> First you prove me J-20 is using WS-15
> Then Ws-15 has thrust of 210 Kn
> And then WS-15 has a TVC nozzles
> Differential tail surface is not a new tech first used in yf-23 and pak-fa
> Please answer my above questions but you have no answer for me kid you insane kid you have no knowledge of fighter jets and its aerodynamic go kid this place is not for yours go play your toys




I have already listed all my reasons, in my previous posts.

If that doesn't satisfy you, I can't help it.

Sorry.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

@Asok kid can you give an answer for my questions
What is the prove that J-20 is using WS-15 from day one ( just in your wet dream)
What is the prove that WS-15 has thrust of 210 Kn ( another wet dream of yours)
What is the prove that WS-15 using TVC nozzles ( another crap dreams of your) j-20 flatter than f-22 and pak-fa not slender body cross sections no one believes you without prove and your wrong assumptions and wishful thinking


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> @Asok kid can you give an answer for my questions
> What is the prove that J-20 is using WS-15 from day one ( just in your wet dream)
> What is the prove that WS-15 has thrust of 210 Kn ( another wet dream of yours)
> What is the prove that WS-15 using TVC nozzles ( another crap dreams of your) j-20 flatter than f-22 and pak-fa not slender body cross sections no one believes you without prove and your wrong assumptions and wishful thinking



I said, I have already listed, all my reasons, in my numerous previous posts.

*"j-20 flatter than f-22 and pak-fa, not slender, body cross sections "*

J-20 does has, a longer and slender body, than F-22 and Pak-fa. A long and slender body, like a pencil, is better for supersonic speed.

You need some glasses, if you can't see that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I said, I have already listed, all my reasons, in my numerous previous posts.
> 
> *"j-20 flatter than f-22 and pak-fa, not slender, body cross sections "*
> 
> J-20 does has, a longer and slender body, than F-22 and Pak-fa. A long and slender body, like a pencil, is better for supersonic speed.
> 
> You need some glasses, if you can't see that.


Its all classified information about engine and the J-20, your personal assertions worth nothing the example of PAK-FA is front of you with a weaker engine 117S it can be super cruise and does vertical climb without using afterburner and new engine is online for PAK-FA I am going to sleep now because my job in the morning good bye

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Its all classified information about engine and the J-20, your personal assertions worth nothing the example of PAK-FA is front of you with a weaker engine 117S it can be super cruise and does vertical climb without using afterburner and new engine is online for PAK-FA I am going to sleep now because my job in the morning good bye



*'Its all classified information about engine and the J-20"*

J-20's engine is so highly classified, because China wants to hide its secret.

If it's WS-10 or AL-31-FN-M1, there is no need to hide the engine's identity and performances, because their performances are widely known, for many years, already.

Nothing worthy to hide for these two engines. This is one of the strongest doubt, I have, that J-20 is using either one of them. They don't need to guard *its identity* so closely, if the current engine is WS-10 or AL-31-FN-M1.

The PAK-FA probably, could do vertical climbing w/o AB, just like the F-22 and J-20, with the new 117S "_izdeliye _30 engines, the powerplant is expected to deliver 24,054lbs dry thrust and 39,566lbs (*19.8 tons)* of afterburning thrust." from http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-new-engine-t-50-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-18155.

I think the listed empty weight 18 tons, for PAK-Fa, is a bit low. But I don't have any other information.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *'Its all classified information about engine and the J-20"*
> 
> J-20's engine is so highly classified, because China wants to hide its secret.
> 
> If it's WS-10 or AL-31-FN-M1, there is no need to hide the engine's identity and performances, because their performances are widely known, for many years, already.
> 
> Nothing worthy to hide for these two engines. This is one of the strongest doubt, that J-20 is using either one of them. They don't need to guard *its identity* so closely, if its WS-10 or AL-31-FN-M1.
> 
> The PAK-FA probably, could do vertical climbing w/o AB, like the F-22 and J-20, with the new 117S "_izdeliye _30 engines, the powerplant is expected to deliver 24,054lbs dry thrust and 39,566lbs (*19.8 tons)* of afterburning thrust."
> from http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-new-engine-t-50-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-18155.
> 
> I think the listed empty weight 18 tons, for PAK-Fa, is a bit low. But I don't have any other information.


117S not a new engine on pak-fa its hybrid version of al-41f (mig1.42) and al-31f( su-27) all new engine from scratch is online for pak-fa with a thrust of 39000 lbs that is I'm saying


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> 117S not a new engine on pak-fa its hybrid version of al-41f (mig1.42) and al-31f( su-27) all new engine from scratch is online for pak-fa with a thrust of 39000 lbs that is I'm saying



The older version of 117S is listed as having 145kN maximum thrust and this 117S "_izdeliye _30 engines" is reported as having 19.8 tons.

I don't know where the truth lies. I don't follow Russian engines much. In fact, I don't even follow PAK-FA much.

145kN is really low for a 5th generation fighter engine. If PAK-Fa engine don't have at least 180kN, each, it will be outclassed by F-22 and J-20, for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

@Deino sir please ban permanently @Asok for its baseless and clueless posts thank you sir



Asok said:


> The older version of 117S is listed as having 145kN maximum thrust and this 117S "_izdeliye _30 engines" is reported as having 19.8 tons.
> 
> I don't know where the truth lies. I don't follow Russian engines much. In fact, I don't even follow PAK-FA much.
> 
> 145kN is really low for a 5th generation fighter engine. If PAK-Fa engine don't have at least 180kN, each, it will be outclassed by F-22 and J-20, for sure.


You are mixing 2 different category of engine 117 is a temporary engine for pak-fa " izdeliye-30" will projected new engine for pak-fa with thrust of 39000 lbs whereas 117 has thrust of 147 in or 33000 lbs
Just go to Wikipedia and search al-31 and go to variants


----------



## 帅的一匹

J20's show-up in the PLA's 90th anniversary parade had successful pushed India to invest another 6 billions USD in PAKFA project. That's the power J20 has.

As Whether J20 has WS15 or WS10x now, I don't really care. All I know is it can supercruise at the speed of March 1.4 for a while.

With WS15, it will hunt down F22 as it is supposed to.

PLAAF always give us big surprise, let's just wait.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

wanglaokan said:


> J20's show-up in the PLA's 90th anniversary parade had successful pushed India to invest another 6 billions USD in PAKFA project. That's the power J20 has.
> 
> As Whether J20 has WS15 or WS10x now, I don't really care. All I know is it can supercruise at the speed of March 1.4 for a while.
> 
> With WS15, it will hunt down F22 as it is supposed to.
> 
> PLAAF always give us big surprise, let's just wait.



You really think that the plan to spend as much as 6 billion dollars will suddenly be made by one show? When J 20's existence is known for long? 

I am sure J 20 will have some influence in India's strategic calculations, but its showing up in one military parade won't matter. 

These projects take a long time to negotiate and work out. It takes months to have secret negotiations. The draft bill needed close talks with the Russians.


----------



## 52051

wanglaokan said:


> J20's show-up in the PLA's 90th anniversary parade had successful pushed India to invest another 6 billions USD in PAKFA project. That's the power J20 has.
> 
> As Whether J20 has WS15 or WS10x now, I don't really care. All I know is it can supercruise at the speed of March 1.4 for a while.
> 
> With WS15, it will hunt down F22 as it is supposed to.
> 
> PLAAF always give us big surprise, let's just wait.



Russians should pay us money for this

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Han Patriot

wanglaokan said:


> J20's show-up in the PLA's 90th anniversary parade had successful pushed India to invest another 6 billions USD in PAKFA project. That's the power J20 has.
> 
> As Whether J20 has WS15 or WS10x now, I don't really care. All I know is it can supercruise at the speed of March 1.4 for a while.
> 
> With WS15, it will hunt down F22 as it is supposed to.
> 
> PLAAF always give us big surprise, let's just wait.


That's just a milking fee for the Russians. After which they will sell the Indians at off the shelf price. . Sometimes I pity these people, they are run by a bunch of idiots. Decades of independence and yet they still can't store and distribute grain properly.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UKBengali

Han Warrior said:


> That's just a milking fee for the Russians. After which they will sell the Indians at off the shelf price. . Sometimes I pity these people, they are run by a bunch of idiots. Decades of independence and yet they still can't store and distribute grain properly.



What exactly does India get out of spending 6 billion dollars? Nothing they could not have got
as any other buyer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Han Patriot

UKBengali said:


> What exactly does India get out of spending 6 billion dollars? Nothing they could not have got
> as any other buyer.


They get to buy it first. I think the Russians might even sell it to China for benchmarking.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

*"@Deino sir please ban permanently @Asok for its baseless and clueless posts thank you sir"*

Very funny! Haha.

I have been patiently listed all my reasons and given proof for my assertions that J-20 is using WS-15 engines.

You don't have to accept my conclusion, but there is only two other choices of engine for J-20, AL-31-F-M2 and WS-10.

Let's take a look at them.

1.) WS-10. There has been numerous comparisons between AL-31-F and J-20's engine nozzles, but there is no comparison with WS-10.

Because, one glance is enough to conclude, there is no similarity, with the J-20's engine at all. There is no need of expand the nozzle pictures and compare them, back and forth.

On this point, alone, WS-10 failed the comparison test.

And this is fatal to the WS-10 theory.

Here is WS-10 on display. Could you see any similarity between WS-10 and J-20's mysterious engine?







2.) AL-31-F does have a high similarity with the nozzle of J-20. And the picture comparisons with J-20 is done with the pictures of the AL-31-F engine. China has ordered plenty of AL-31-F for spares.

But most people claim J-20 is using the *M2* version of the engine, which supposedly has a higher trust.

The problem with this theory is that there is absolutely proof or reports that this engine was completed. And it was ordered and delivered to China in the last 6 years.

And also, this AL-31-F-M2 engine's development, was announced by the Russia, on September 2012, at least 18 months, after J-20's first flight. So it is impossible to have been powering J-20, since day one, of the testing.

I have asked repeatedly for proof, and searched the Internet myself, but absolutely found nothing, to substantiated, that AL-31-F-M2 has been materialized, ordered and delivered to China.

None whatsoever. This alone should be fatal to the AL-31-F-M2 theory.

As for the ridiculous theory that China, somehow, manufactured the AL-31-F-M2, itself, with the transfer of Russian technologies.

Where is your proof? If you have no proof, how do you know?

You don't have to like my proof for WS-15, but you can not ignore these two points, I have made about the two alternative engines WS-10 and AL-31-F-M2, and just go after me, with personal attacks.

The AL-31-F-M2 supporters, could offer nozzle comparisons as proof, but there is not even *"baseless and clueless"* proof from the WS-10 supporters. None whatsoever. Not even the nozzle pictures comparison.

If you think it's not WS-15 that J-20 it is using, and you think it's either WS-10 or AL-31-F-M2.

*Where is your proof? Show me your proof!*





The same *rules of evidence* should be applied to everyone.

If you don't like other person's claim, *you have to come with evidences for your own claim*, too.

Attacking other person, is not enough to prove your theory.

So I ask, where is your evidences to support your WS-10 or AL-31-F-M2 theory?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

By the way ... Wouldn't it be great to have that dragon painted on the tails?






To all ... As long as the discussion is civilused I will ban no-one even if I don't like a theory.

Also, @Asok a nice summary even if I still don't agree in conclusion.
My point for my AL-vased theory is that regardless not a single Russian confirmation for the M2, we had the same situation with the first FN and the J-10. Everyobe knew and accepted it as an AL-31 regardless no info from Russia and even more deniaks from China.

So IMO not impossible that here the situatiin is comparable.

Cheers & greetings from Italy,
Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"@Deino sir please ban permanently @Asok for its baseless and clueless posts thank you sir"*
> 
> Very funny! Haha.
> 
> I have been patiently listed all my reasons and given proof for my assertions that J-20 is using WS-15 engines.
> 
> You don't have to accept my conclusion, but there is only two other choices of engine for J-20, AL-31-F-M2 and WS-10.
> 
> Let's take a look at them.
> 
> 1.) WS-10. There has been numerous comparisons between AL-31-F and J-20's engine nozzles, but there is no comparison with WS-10.
> 
> Because, one glance is enough to conclude, there is no similarity, with the J-20's engine at all. There is no need of expand the nozzle pictures and compare them, back and forth.
> 
> On this point, alone, WS-10 failed the comparison test.
> 
> And this is fatal to the WS-10 theory.
> 
> Here is WS-10 on display. Could you see any similarity between WS-10 and J-20's mysterious engine?
> 
> View attachment 415687
> 
> 
> 2.) AL-31-F does have a high similarity with the nozzle of J-20. And the picture comparisons with J-20 is done with the pictures of the AL-31-F engine. China has ordered plenty of AL-31-F for spares.
> 
> But most people claim J-20 is using the *M2* version of the engine, which supposedly has a higher trust.
> 
> The problem with this theory is that there is absolutely proof or reports that this engine was completed. And it was ordered and delivered to China in the last 6 years.
> 
> And also, this AL-31-F-M2 engine's development, was announced by the Russia, on September 2012, at least 18 months, after J-20's first flight. So it is impossible to have been powering J-20, since day one, of the testing.
> 
> I have asked repeatedly for proof, and searched the Internet myself, but absolutely found nothing, to substantiated, that AL-31-F-M2 has been materialized, ordered and delivered to China.
> 
> None whatsoever. This alone should be fatal to the AL-31-F-M2 theory.
> 
> As for the ridiculous theory that China, somehow, manufactured the AL-31-F-M2, itself, with the transfer of Russian technologies.
> 
> Where is your proof? If you have no proof, how do you know?
> 
> You don't have to like my proof for WS-15, but you can not ignore these two points, I have made about the two alternative engines WS-10 and AL-31-F-M2, and just go after me, with personal attacks.
> 
> The AL-31-F-M2 supporters, could offer nozzle comparisons as proof, but there is not even *"baseless and clueless"* proof from the WS-10 supporters. None whatsoever. Not even the nozzle pictures comparison.
> 
> If you think it's not WS-15 that J-20 it is using, and you think it's either WS-10 or AL-31-F-M2.
> 
> *Where is your proof? Show me your proof!*
> 
> View attachment 415719
> 
> The same *rules of evidence* should be applied to everyone.
> 
> If you don't like other person's claim, *you have to come with evidences for your own claim*, too.
> 
> Attacking other person, is not enough to prove your theory.
> 
> So I ask, where is your evidences to support your WS-10 or AL-31-F-M2 theory?


Your personal assertions worth nothing, except some solid prove in front of us, how about special version of WS-10 specially developed for J-20 with short life span increase thrust 34000 -35000 lbs, there are rumours on numerous site and forums that J-20 is using special version of WS-10 called WS-10G last hear I was listening to that news ground testing of WS-15 was completed and started air to testing on IL-76 engine testbed from the all senior Chinese members like @cirr, @ Chinese Tiger 1986 , @Beast, @wangklon, @clnieo and others here on PDF and you're talking about J-20 was using WS-15 from day by one  you think that making of 5th generation jet engine for the 5th gen jet is that easy as you think, China is a newbie in the jet engine development as compare to 3 giants USA, Russia and Europe, use common sense bro WS-10 is a major turbofan of China and its already matured, whereas WS-15 new technology you can't put directly on J-20 without knowing its behavior in the year, to reduce the risk put your matured engine with improvement not the untested one think those points that i raised


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> Your personal assertions worth nothing, except some solid prove in front of us, how about special version of WS-10 specially developed for J-20 with short life span increase thrust 34000 -35000 lbs, there are rumours on numerous site and forums that J-20 is using special version of WS-10 called WS-10G last hear I was listening to that news ground testing of WS-15 was completed and started air to testing on IL-76 engine testbed from the all senior Chinese members like @cirr, @ Chinese Tiger 1986 , @Beast, @wangklon, @clnieo and others here on PDF and you're talking about J-20 was using WS-15 from day by one  you think that making of 5th generation jet engine for the 5th gen jet is that easy as you think, China is a newbie in the jet engine development as compare to 3 giants USA, Russia and Europe, use common sense bro WS-10 is a major turbofan of China and its already matured, whereas WS-15 new technology you can't put directly on J-20 without knowing its behavior in the year, to reduce the risk put your matured engine with improvement not the untested one think those points that i raised



The current J-20 engine is still a monster by judging its performance, and the WS-15 is just a code name.

And it doesn't matter if China is still a newbie or whatever, but China is the second country who deploys the 5th gen stealth fighter. The PAK FA has been postponed again, and the indigenous 5th gen stealth fighter for Europe is still a pipe dream.



Deino said:


> By the way ... Wouldn't it be great to have that dragon painted on the tails?
> 
> View attachment 415721
> 
> 
> To all ... As long as the discussion is civilused I will ban no-one even if I don't like a theory.
> 
> Also, @Asok a nice summary even if I still don't agree in conclusion.
> My point for my AL-vased theory is that regardless not a single Russian confirmation for the M2, we had the same situation with the first FN and the J-10. Everyobe knew and accepted it as an AL-31 regardless no info from Russia and even more deniaks from China.
> 
> So IMO not impossible that here the situatiin is comparable.
> 
> Cheers & greetings from Italy,
> Deino



China's official media has confirmed multiple times that the J-20 engine is Chinese, and it is produced by the Liming factory in Shenyang. However, China's official media has never said that the J-10 uses the indigenous engines.

The same official media from China has also stated that the J-20 was deployed on March 9th 2017, and do you think they were just babbling around?



wanglaokan said:


> J20's show-up in the PLA's 90th anniversary parade had successful pushed India to invest another 6 billions USD in PAKFA project. That's the power J20 has.
> 
> As Whether J20 has WS15 or WS10x now, I don't really care. All I know is it can supercruise at the speed of March 1.4 for a while.
> 
> With WS15, it will hunt down F22 as it is supposed to.
> 
> PLAAF always give us big surprise, let's just wait.



The current J-20 engine is being manufactured by the Liming factory, and even if this engine is not the WS-15, then the future WS-15 will also be manufactured by the Liming factory.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Your personal assertions worth nothing, except some solid prove in front of us, how about special version of WS-10 specially developed for J-20 with short life span increase thrust 34000 -35000 lbs, there are rumours on numerous site and forums that J-20 is using special version of WS-10 called WS-10G last hear I was listening to that news ground testing of WS-15 was completed and started air to testing on IL-76 engine testbed from the all senior Chinese members like @cirr, @ Chinese Tiger 1986 , @Beast, @wangklon, @clnieo and others here on PDF and you're talking about J-20 was using WS-15 from day by one  you think that making of 5th generation jet engine for the 5th gen jet is that easy as you think, China is a newbie in the jet engine development as compare to 3 giants USA, Russia and Europe, use common sense bro WS-10 is a major turbofan of China and its already matured, whereas WS-15 new technology you can't put directly on J-20 without knowing its behavior in the year, to reduce the risk put your matured engine with improvement not the untested one think those points that i raised



*"how about special version of WS-10 specially developed for J-20 with short life span increase thrust 34000 -35000 lbs, there are rumours on numerous site and forums that J-20 is using special version of WS-10 called WS-10G"*

Internet rumors mean nothing.

Show me official reports or pictures, that there is a *WS-10G*, that looks like the current J-20 engine, then we talk.

This is the WS-10B, with reported 14 tons thrust, on this display. There is nothing similar to the current J-20 engine.

NOTHING.

*Show me, where is the similarity.*






*"use common sense, bro. WS-10 is a major turbofan of China, and its already matured"*

The *WS-10* was completed in *2006* and started production, then numerous problems was discovered, around 2009, when installed in J-10 and J-11, and the whole fleet was grounded. And all the engines, have to be returned, to the factory, for repairs.

That can't be evidences that WS-10 is a mature product. In fact, this is the episode that makes people doubt, whether China has the technology and experiences, to produce WS-15 for J-20, or any turbofan engine, at all.

This Chinese report says the *WS-10B* was completed in* 2015* and started production. That's 4 years, after J-20 first flown.

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2016-04-15/doc-ifxriqqv5774726.shtml

The project to produce a TWR>10 engine was initiated in the 1980's, around the same time as WS-10. The WS-15 engine core, passed all tests on* 2005*, and the WS-15 was officially started on *2006*. Development of the whole WS-10 engine, with TWR >8, was completed on *2006*. This is not too far apart.

"*last hear I was listening to that news ground testing of WS-15 was completed and started air to testing on IL-76 engine testbed from the **all senior **Chinese members like @cirr, @ Chinese Tiger 1986 , @Beast, @wangklon, @clnieo and others here on PDF "*

"senior" PDF member, or not, it means nothing.

This is an internet forum, not the Liming Engine Factory of China, that produces the WS-10 and WS-15 engine.

Mr. Deino is a Moderator here. He has written several books on Chinese Combat Aircraft. He is a noted international authority on this subject. He has contributed numerous articles to various international aviation magazines. I have read some of them. He is a senior member of several internet defense forums. I don't think anybody else has put this much time and effort into study Chinese Combat Aircrafts than him, in this forum.

Mr. Deino has insisted, that J-20 is currently using, a version of the *AL-31-F* engine, not the WS-10 or WS-15.

Do you think he is right?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> *"how about special version of WS-10 specially developed for J-20 with short life span increase thrust 34000 -35000 lbs, there are rumours on numerous site and forums that J-20 is using special version of WS-10 called WS-10G"*
> 
> Internet rumors mean nothing.
> 
> Show me official reports or pictures, that there is a *WS-10G*, that looks like the current J-20 engine, then we talk.
> 
> This is the WS-10B, with reported 14 tons thrust, on this display. There is nothing similar to the current J-20 engine.
> 
> NOTHING.
> 
> *Show me, where is the similarity.*
> 
> View attachment 415733
> 
> 
> *"use common sense bro WS-10 is a major turbofan of China and its already matured"*
> 
> The *WS-10* was completed in *2006* and started production, then numerous problems was discovered around 2009, when installed in J-10 and J-11, and the whole fleet was grounded. And all the engines have to be returned to the factory, for repairs.
> 
> That can't be evidences that WS-10 is a mature product. In fact, this is the episode that makes people doubt, whether China has the technology and experiences, to produce WS-15 for J-20, at all.
> 
> This Chinese report says the *WS-10B* was completed in* 2015* and started production. That's 4 years, after J-20 first flown.
> 
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2016-04-15/doc-ifxriqqv5774726.shtml
> 
> The project to produce a TWR>10 engine was initiated in the 1980's, around the same time as WS-10. The WS-15 engine core, passed all tests on* 2005*, and the WS-15 was officially started on *2006*. Development of the whole WS-10 engine, with TWR >8, was completed on *2006*. This is not too far apart.
> 
> "*last hear I was listening to that news ground testing of WS-15 was completed and started air to testing on IL-76 engine testbed from the **all senior **Chinese members like @cirr, @ Chinese Tiger 1986 , @Beast, @wangklon, @clnieo and others here on PDF "*
> 
> "senior" PDF member, or not, it means nothing.
> 
> This is an internet forum, not the Liming Engine Factory of China, that produces the WS-10 and WS-15 engine.
> 
> Mr. Deino is a Moderator here. He has written several books on Chinese Combat Aircraft. He has contributed numerous articles to various aviation magazines. I have read some of them. He is a senior member of several internet defense forums.
> 
> Mr. Deino has insisted that J-20 is currently using a version of the *AL-31-F* engine, not the WS-10 or WS-15.
> 
> Do you think he is right?



The WS-10 and WS-15 are parallel, and China doesn't need to start to work on the WS-15 after finishing the WS-10.

The two engine families are based on the completely different design concept.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10 and WS-15 are parallel, and China doesn't need to start to work on the WS-15 after finishing the WS-10.
> 
> The two engine families are based on the completely different design concept.



Exactly! Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> *"how about special version of WS-10 specially developed for J-20 with short life span increase thrust 34000 -35000 lbs, there are rumours on numerous site and forums that J-20 is using special version of WS-10 called WS-10G"*
> 
> Internet rumors mean nothing.
> 
> Show me official reports or pictures, that there is a *WS-10G*, that looks like the current J-20 engine, then we talk.
> 
> This is the WS-10B, with reported 14 tons thrust, on this display. There is nothing similar to the current J-20 engine.
> 
> NOTHING.
> 
> *Show me, where is the similarity.*
> 
> View attachment 415733
> 
> 
> *"use common sense, bro. WS-10 is a major turbofan of China, and its already matured"*
> 
> The *WS-10* was completed in *2006* and started production, then numerous problems was discovered, around 2009, when installed in J-10 and J-11, and the whole fleet was grounded. And all the engines, have to be returned, to the factory, for repairs.
> 
> That can't be evidences that WS-10 is a mature product. In fact, this is the episode that makes people doubt, whether China has the technology and experiences, to produce WS-15 for J-20, or any turbofan engine, at all.
> 
> This Chinese report says the *WS-10B* was completed in* 2015* and started production. That's 4 years, after J-20 first flown.
> 
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2016-04-15/doc-ifxriqqv5774726.shtml
> 
> The project to produce a TWR>10 engine was initiated in the 1980's, around the same time as WS-10. The WS-15 engine core, passed all tests on* 2005*, and the WS-15 was officially started on *2006*. Development of the whole WS-10 engine, with TWR >8, was completed on *2006*. This is not too far apart.
> 
> "*last hear I was listening to that news ground testing of WS-15 was completed and started air to testing on IL-76 engine testbed from the **all senior **Chinese members like @cirr, @ Chinese Tiger 1986 , @Beast, @wangklon, @clnieo and others here on PDF "*
> 
> "senior" PDF member, or not, it means nothing.
> 
> This is an internet forum, not the Liming Engine Factory of China, that produces the WS-10 and WS-15 engine.
> 
> Mr. Deino is a Moderator here. He has written several books on Chinese Combat Aircraft. He has contributed numerous articles to various aviation magazines. I have read some of them. He is a senior member of several internet defense forums.
> 
> Mr. Deino has insisted that J-20 is currently using a version of the *AL-31-F* engine, not the WS-10 or WS-15.
> 
> Do you think he is right?


Al-31F engine is extremely underpowered for J-20. Definitely rule out. I dare to say the engine in J-20 is the same for J-10C. Same as AL-31FN is extreme underpowered for J-10C.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Exactly! Thank you.



The H-20 will also be powered with four non-afterburner version of the WS-15.

Consider that the H-20 is also around the corner, then the WS-15 needs to be ready and mature as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

China will only be opened abt the engine once it's exported. If China can conquered destroyer gas turbine like QC280 and MBT automated transmission engine of VT-4 export tank. There is no reason why high performance combat engine will be too lagging behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> Al-31F engine is extremely underpowered for J-20. Definitely rule out. I dare to say the engine in J-20 is the same for J-10C. Same as AL-31FN is extreme underpowered for J-10C.



Unless the AL-31FM2 is being manufactured by the Liming engine factory.

The AL-31FM2 just finished its ground test in Russia back in 2012, and 5 years later it is being produced by a Chinese engine factory. So the chance of the J-20 powered by the AL-31FM2 is slimmer than the chance of the Earth getting invaded by the Martians right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 52051

Previously I am a believer of J-20 now use AL-31F exclusively, but now I am incline to believe it is quite possible China have now manufactering J-20 with both Al-31F and WS-10B, it is still too early to fit WS-15 on it through, lets be rational.

The logic reason why there are J-20 likley to fit WS-10B are: 

(1) multiple official channel, including some very well known academican claimed so, we simply cannot ignore that;

(2) the current AL-31F reverses/order in China are simply not sufficient to support the producation rate of both J-10 and the very large producation lines J-20 fleet (J-10 only get one producation line for the most of their time, but J-20 have four, so in CAC along J-20's expected production rate will be around 100/year) as well as the maintainance of the existing of J-10 fleet in China, so there have to be other source of engine input.

J-20 with WS-10B are not necessary all around inferior to J-20 with WS-15, the former will most likely have higher range than the latter due to the much higher by-pass ratio of WS-10B.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Unless the AL-31FM2 is being manufactured by the Liming engine factory.
> 
> The AL-31FM2 just finished its ground test in Russia back in 2012, and 5 years later it is being produced by a Chinese engine factory. So the chance of the J-20 powered by the AL-31FM2 is slimmer than the chance of the Earth getting invaded by the Martians right now.


If Russian has rejected AL-31F engine TOT, there is zero chances of TOT for even a more powerful version of AL-31FM2. Plus Russian is extreme underfund. They are not able to carry out multiple project for aero engine at the same time and finished the project. They have many pipe dream and drawboards design of destroyer, battlecruiser and aircraft carrier and none of them materialize. This is a well known fact. They make many big call on project but many remained a distant dream.

Same as the bragging upgrade of AL-31F engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

52051 said:


> Previously I am a believer of J-20 now use AL-31F exclusively, but now I am incline to believe it is quite possible China have now manufactering J-20 with both Al-31F and WS-10B, it is still too early to fit WS-15 on it through, lets be rational.
> 
> The logic reason why there are J-20 likley to fit WS-10B are:
> 
> (1) multiple official channel, including some very well known academican claimed so, we simply cannot ignore that;
> 
> (2) the current AL-31F reverses/order in China are simply not sufficient to support the producation rate of both J-10 and the very large producation lines J-20 fleet (J-10 only get one producation line for the most of their time, but J-20 have four, so in CAC along J-20's expected production rate will be around 100/year) as well as the maintainance of the existing of J-10 fleet in China, so there have to be other source of engine input.
> 
> J-20 with WS-10B are not necessary all around inferior to J-20 with WS-15, the former will most likely have higher range than the latter due to the much higher by-pass ratio of WS-10B.



China has never reverse engineered the AL-31F.

The WS-18 was produced under the licence with the agreement from Russia, so China will never unilaterally produce the AL-31F without Russia's agreement. Consider that China has never agreed to export the J-11 family, so you can see that China cannot produce the AL-31F without Russia's agreement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

52051 said:


> Previously I am a believer of J-20 now use AL-31F exclusively, but now I am incline to believe it is quite possible China have now manufactering J-20 with both Al-31F and WS-10B, it is still too early to fit WS-15 on it through, lets be rational.
> 
> The logic reason why there are J-20 likley to fit WS-10B are:
> 
> (1) multiple official channel, including some very well known academican claimed so, we simply cannot ignore that;
> 
> (2) the current AL-31F reverses/order in China are simply not sufficient to support the producation rate of both J-10 and the very large producation lines J-20 fleet (J-10 only get one producation line for the most of their time, but J-20 have four, so in CAC along J-20's expected production rate will be around 100/year) as well as the maintainance of the existing of J-10 fleet in China, so there have to be other source of engine input.
> 
> J-20 with WS-10B are not necessary all around inferior to J-20 with WS-15, the former will most likely have higher range than the latter due to the much higher by-pass ratio of WS-10B.








Where is the similarity, between WS-10B and J-20's current engine. This is what I want to know. Please enlighten me.

This WS-10B theory, couldn't even pass the similarity test, like the AL-31F. At least numerous nozzle comparisons, between AF-31F and J-20's engine, was done by the fanboys. 

No comparison with WS-10 was need, because anyone could see, they are not similar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> If Russian has rejected AL-31F engine TOT, there is zero chances of TOT for even a more powerful version of AL-31FM2. Plus Russian is extreme underfund. They are not able to carry out multiple project for aero engine at the same time and finished the project. They have many pipe dream and drawboards design of destroyer, battlecruiser and aircraft carrier and none of them materialize. This is a well known fact. They make many big call on project but many remained a distant dream.
> 
> Same as the bragging upgrade of AL-31F engine.



From the technological perspective, the 117 family is the successor of the AL-31 family, but the AL-31FM branch will probably become extinct in the near future, since Russia doesn't have enough fund to sustain multiple jet engine projects.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Unless the AL-31FM2 is being manufactured by the Liming engine factory.
> 
> The AL-31FM2 just finished its ground test in Russia back in 2012, and 5 years later it is being produced by a Chinese engine factory. So the chance of the J-20 powered by the AL-31FM2 is slimmer than the chance of the Earth getting invaded by the Martians right now.


*
"The AL-31FM2 just finished its ground test in Russia back in 2012"*

Don't forget J-20 started testing flight in *2011*, at least 18 months before the AL-31FM2 announcement, in *2012*. 

If J-20 was using the AL-31FM2, in 2011.

The Chinese probably *time traveled* into the future to get it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Asok said:


> View attachment 415737
> 
> 
> Where is the similarity, between WS-10B and J-20's current engine. This is what I want to know. Please enlighten me.
> 
> This WS-10B theory, couldn't even pass the similarity test, like the AL-31F.


WS-10B is just a designation. The most likely is China master the whole core of AL-31F engine. Russian are known to be weak in metallurgy and China improve on a sound basic design of AL-31F engine with much superior fan blade that significantly increase the thrust of basic AL-31F engine.

100percent made in China engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> WS-10B is just a designation. The most likely is China master the whole core of AL-31F engine. Russian are known to be weak in metallurgy and China improve on a sound basic design of AL-31F engine with much superior fan blade that significantly increase the thrust of basic AL-31F engine.
> 
> 100percent made in China engine.



The AL-31FM will soon become a dead branch of the AL-31 family, and the 117 is in fact also a subfamily that belongs to the greater AL-31 family.

China's WS-15 is based on more advanced design concept than both WS-10 and AL-31, so I doubt it will get anything from the AL-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Beast said:


> WS-10B is just a designation. The most likely is China master the whole core of AL-31F engine. Russian are known to be weak in metallurgy and China improve on a sound basic design of AL-31F engine with much superior fan blade that significantly increase the thrust of basic AL-31F engine.
> 
> 100percent made in China engine.



*"The most likely is China master the whole core of AL-31F engine"*

That I don't doubt, the Chinese has studied AL-31F, intensely, for its technologies. China has over 25 years to dissect it, and extract the know-hows. That's why I suggested the WS-15 prototype used some technologies from both WS-10 and AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> *"The most likely is China master the whole core of AL-31F engine"*
> 
> That I don't doubt, the Chinese has studied AL-31F, intensely, for its technologies. That's why I suggested the WS-15 prototype used some technologies from both WS-10 and AL-31F.



China has indeed studied on some design concept of the AL-31 in the past, but the design concept for the WS-15 needs to be completely innovated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China has indeed studied on some design concept of the AL-31 in the past, but the design concept for the WS-15 needs to be completely innovated.



No one has suggested that WS-15's core was based on AL-31F or WS-10. I have read some reported indicated that China brought the engine technology of YAK-141, after it was cancelled in the early 1990's.











1 × Soyuz R-79V-300 (ru) lift/cruise turbofan

*Dry thrust:* 108 kN (24,300 lbf)
*Thrust with afterburner:* 152 kN (34,170 lbf)
This Soyuz R-79V-300 engine has a listed Max. Thrust of *152kN*.

*"Another engine based on R-79V-300 is the, R-179-300, thrust class 200 kN, developed in mid 90s."*

http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en

"Another engine based on R-79V-300 is the R-179-300, thrust class 200 kN, developed in mid 90s. Engine characteristics class it to generation 4+, self control system pushes it near the 5th generation. Expected application was on varions types of military planes - from light combat planes to high performance fighter planes, probably mainly made by Sukhoi design bureau. R-179-300 with flat vectorized nozzle is a rival to Lyulka's (Saturn's) AL-41F."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> No one has suggested that WS-15's core was based on AL-31F or WS-10. I have read some reported indicated that China brought the engine technology of YAK-141, after it was cancelled in the early 1990's.
> View attachment 415739
> 
> 
> View attachment 415738
> 
> 
> 1 × Soyuz R-79V-300 (ru) lift/cruise turbofan
> 
> *Dry thrust:* 108 kN (24,300 lbf)
> *Thrust with afterburner:* 152 kN (34,170 lbf)
> This Soyuz R-79V-300 engine has a listed Max. Thrust of *152kN*.
> 
> *"Another engine based on R-79V-300 is the, R-179-300, thrust class 200 kN, developed in mid 90s."*
> 
> http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/r-79/index.php?en
> 
> "Another engine based on R-79V-300 is the R-179-300, thrust class 200 kN, developed in mid 90s. Engine characteristics class it to generation 4+, self control system pushes it near the 5th generation. Expected application was on varions types of military planes - from light combat planes to high performance fighter planes, probably mainly made by Sukhoi design bureau. R-179-300 with flat vectorized nozzle is a rival to Lyulka's (Saturn's) AL-41F."



The R-79 got higher bypass ratio than both WS-15 and F119. Thus, I doubt the WS-15 is actually related to this extinct jet engine family.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The R-79 got higher bypass ratio than both WS-15 and F119. Thus, I doubt the WS-15 is actually related to this extinct jet engine family.




Show us their bypass ratio, and where you got them, plz.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Show us their bypass ratio, and where you got them, plz.



The statement about the WS-15 being derived from the R-79 was first coming from the Russian newspaper Kommersant.

But you have to know that the YAK-141 was VTOL aircraft like the F-35B, so its engine indeed is more higher in the bypass ratio like the F-135, not the lower ones like the WS-15 and F119.

Many military fans in China have simply questioned the credibility of the Kommersant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The statement about the WS-15 being derived from the R-79 was first coming from the Russian newspaper Kommersant.
> 
> But you have to know that the YAK-141 was VTOL aircraft like the F-35B, so its engine indeed is more higher in the bypass ratio like the F-135, not the lower ones like the WS-15 and F119.
> 
> Many military fans in China have simply questioned the credibility of the Kommersant.



Bro, I am asking the bypass ratio numbers and where you got them, so I can read them myself.

PLAAF promotion video showing 6 J-20 formation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"how about special version of WS-10 specially developed for J-20 with short life span increase thrust 34000 -35000 lbs, there are rumours on numerous site and forums that J-20 is using special version of WS-10 called WS-10G"*
> 
> Internet rumors mean nothing.
> 
> Show me official reports or pictures, that there is a *WS-10G*, that looks like the current J-20 engine, then we talk.
> 
> This is the WS-10B, with reported 14 tons thrust, on this display. There is nothing similar to the current J-20 engine.
> 
> NOTHING.
> 
> *Show me, where is the similarity.*
> 
> View attachment 415733
> 
> 
> *"use common sense, bro. WS-10 is a major turbofan of China, and its already matured"*
> 
> The *WS-10* was completed in *2006* and started production, then numerous problems was discovered, around 2009, when installed in J-10 and J-11, and the whole fleet was grounded. And all the engines, have to be returned, to the factory, for repairs.
> 
> That can't be evidences that WS-10 is a mature product. In fact, this is the episode that makes people doubt, whether China has the technology and experiences, to produce WS-15 for J-20, or any turbofan engine, at all.
> 
> This Chinese report says the *WS-10B* was completed in* 2015* and started production. That's 4 years, after J-20 first flown.
> 
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2016-04-15/doc-ifxriqqv5774726.shtml
> 
> The project to produce a TWR>10 engine was initiated in the 1980's, around the same time as WS-10. The WS-15 engine core, passed all tests on* 2005*, and the WS-15 was officially started on *2006*. Development of the whole WS-10 engine, with TWR >8, was completed on *2006*. This is not too far apart.
> 
> "*last hear I was listening to that news ground testing of WS-15 was completed and started air to testing on IL-76 engine testbed from the **all senior **Chinese members like @cirr, @ Chinese Tiger 1986 , @Beast, @wangklon, @clnieo and others here on PDF "*
> 
> "senior" PDF member, or not, it means nothing.
> 
> This is an internet forum, not the Liming Engine Factory of China, that produces the WS-10 and WS-15 engine.
> 
> Mr. Deino is a Moderator here. He has written several books on Chinese Combat Aircraft. He is a noted international authority on this subject. He has contributed numerous articles to various international aviation magazines. I have read some of them. He is a senior member of several internet defense forums. I don't think anybody else has put this much time and effort into study Chinese Combat Aircrafts than him, in this forum.
> 
> Mr. Deino has insisted, that J-20 is currently using, a version of the *AL-31-F* engine, not the WS-10 or WS-15.
> 
> Do you think he is right?


And your personal baseless clueless assertion is always rightand all rmembers are wrong, you are always right for your crap assertion with no prove, are you project manager or something like that of WS-15 from Liming Engine Factory I'm sorry to say kid you have brain of 2 year kid


----------



## kurutoga

Beast said:


> WS-10B is just a designation. The most likely is China master the whole core of AL-31F engine. Russian are known to be weak in metallurgy and China improve on a sound basic design of AL-31F engine with much superior fan blade that significantly increase the thrust of basic AL-31F engine.
> 
> 100percent made in China engine.



I remembered they said WS-10 and variants were based on a US engine (non-military) design many years ago.


----------



## 帅的一匹

kurutoga said:


> I remembered they said WS-10 and variants were based on a US engine (non-military) design many years ago.


High by-pass ratio, a deterimental design flaw of WS10. That's why it's not suitable for single engine fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kurutoga

wanglaokan said:


> High by-pass ratio, a deterimental design flaw of WS10. That's why it's not suitable for single engine fighter.



Is that true that most turbofan projects have multiple engines: same core, different bypass ratio? If so, I imagine changing the bypass ratio is not fundamental?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Bro, I am asking the bypass ratio numbers and where you got them, so I can read them myself.
> 
> PLAAF promotion video showing 6 J-20 formation.
> 
> View attachment 415743


But with high bypasss ratio WS-10 engine J-20 can't have supercrusie capability, if J-20 want to super cruise J-20 needs low bypass engine


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> But with high bypasss ratio WS-10 engine J-20 can't have supercrusie capability, if J-20 want to super cruise J-20 needs low bypass engine


Not sure, maybe they had made some modification in the later variant of WS10.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

#06

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> Not sure, maybe they had made some modification in the later variant of WS10.


Sorry Sir I'm talking about WS-15


----------



## 52051

Supercrusie is good, but even without of it, according to TV interview of pilots of J-20, J-20 with current engine configure is still extremely agile and very easy to control, and the fighter simply dominate at supersonic speed range and dominate any 3rd gen fighters.

Of cause, without WS-15, many characters of fighter will be comprised, but according to chief designer Yang Wei, the most important feature of this fighter is data-fusion and stealth, and it will be rather stupid to engage in dog-fight with a 4th gen fighter, so the problem will not be that serious, its like without WS-15 J-20 will be a african lion but with it could be a Serbia tiger with it, but since most of your opponents are at dog level, so tiger or lion, it may not make much a difference at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

kurutoga said:


> I remembered they said WS-10 and variants were based on a US engine (non-military) design many years ago.


WS-10 core is based on CFM-56 which is a US design. But as I say, WS-10 is just a designation. If AVIC decide to used this designation on this upgrade AL-31F clone. So be it, I don't think AVIC will be so open by a clone. That is reason why so little info abt it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> #06
> 
> View attachment 415766


I die a little inside each time I see those ratty, ghetto nozzles. Where's the WS-15!? *Argh*!!

Just serrate them or something, if only for aesthetics!


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Bro, I am asking the bypass ratio numbers and where you got them, so I can read them myself.
> 
> PLAAF promotion video showing 6 J-20 formation.
> 
> View attachment 415743



It is based on the speculation, but the WS-15 should have much lower bypass ratio than the WS-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is based on the speculation, but the WS-15 should have much lower bypass ratio than the WS-10.



Some people would have disagreed with you.

"从歼20首飞, 发动机声音判断，绝对是新型的, *大涵道比*发动机，它的涵道比, 超过歼10、SU27和F22三种战机" http://m.huanqiumil.com/news/60838_2.html

"一核多用，WS15是小涵道比歼20用的，WS20是大涵道比运20用的，"

The idea that WS15 has a low bypass ratio, is in comparison, with the huge transporter and airline engines, I believe.

In my opinion, the reason airline jet engines has a bigger thrust is because they have a gigantic fan, and most of the air, bypassed, the core of the engine, and sent to the back of the engine by the huge fan, and so they have a huge bypass ratio. The bypass ratio of the GE9x is *10:1*. Most of the power come from the huge Fan. But a huge Fan like that of the GE9x is not suitable for a fighter plane's narrow fuselage, and therefore, not suitable for supersonic speed.

Notice the Huge Gigantic Fan, and the narrow core of the GE9x. A gigantic fan is great for fuel efficiency at subsonic speed, but of course, it stinks at supersonic speed. GE9X has a huge thrust of *450 to 470 kN*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Some people would have disagreed with you.
> 
> "从歼20首飞, 发动机声音判断，绝对是新型的, *大涵道比*发动机，它的涵道比, 超过歼10、SU27和F22三种战机" http://m.huanqiumil.com/news/60838_2.html
> 
> "一核多用，WS15是小涵道比歼20用的，WS20是大涵道比运20用的，"
> 
> The idea that WS15 has a low bypass ratio, is in comparison, with the huge transporter and airline engines, I believe.
> 
> In my opinion, the reason airline jet engines has a bigger thrust is because they have a gigantic fan, and most of the air, bypassed, the core of the engine, and sent to the back of the engine by the huge fan, and so they have a huge bypass ratio. The bypass ratio of the GE9x is *10:1*. Most of the power come from the huge Fan. But a huge Fan like that of the GE9x is not suitable for a fighter plane's narrow fuselage, and therefore, not suitable for supersonic speed.
> 
> Notice the Huge Gigantic Fan, and the narrow core of the GE9x. A gigantic fan is great for fuel efficiency at subsonic speed, but of course, it stinks at supersonic speed. GE9X has a huge thrust of *450 to 470 kN*.
> 
> View attachment 415871



That was the earliest engine for the J-20 prototype, and we didn't know anything about the bypass ratio for the engine of the current production model.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> That was the earliest engine for the J-20 prototype, and we didn't know anything about the bypass ratio for the engine of the current production model.



Some eyewitness, in Chengdu reported the J-20's engine, has became very quiet, after the engine was changed around 2015. This would indicated, a larger bypass ratio, like that of the airline engines, which are very quiet compared to the roaring fighter jet engines.

GE9X is reported to be very quiet, so quiet that you can talk on your cellphone, while stand near it.

The huge air intakes of J-20 has room to supports, a large Fan, for its Turbofan engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Some eyewitness, in Chengdu reported the J-20's engine, has became very quiet, after the engine was changed around 2015. This would indicated, a larger bypass ratio, like that of the airline engines, which are very quiet compared to the roaring fighter jet engines.
> 
> GE9X is reported to be very quiet, so quiet that you can talk on your cellphone, while stand near it.
> 
> The huge air intakes of J-20 has room to supports, a large Fan, for its Turbofan engine.


but if J-20 has a high bypass ratio turbofan of WS-15 with high bypass ratio WS-15 J-20 can't super cruise


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> but if J-20 has a high bypass ratio turbofan of WS-15 with high bypass ratio WS-15 J-20 can't super cruise



I am not saying WS-15 has a freaking high bypass ratio like that of GE9X. I am saying WS-15 has a *higher* bypass ratio than WS-10 and AL-31F. Don't confuse the two ideas.

I don't know, where is your idea of having *higher* bypass ratio, and you can't supercruise comes from. 

Show me some links.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taygibay

OK! Let's make things simple :

- The total mass of the airflow times the difference between exhaust speed and flight speed equals thrust.

- The high bypass of a turbofan allows better fuel economy at cruising speed and those engines are less noisy.

- The response time of a low bypass is better because it moves less air : "_it shifts faster_" ( combat essential ).

- Since no big fan to move slow air, less cross-section, vital for drag reduction to go faster easier ( & stealthier ).

- Lower bypass ratio produce less total thrust but more of it per kg of engine A.K.A better thrust to weight ratio.

- Lower bypass ratios perform best at higher speeds; high bypass ratios are optimized for high subsonic cruise.

- To hike thrust, fighters use afterburners ( higher nozzle speed ) and airliners maximize flow with high bypass.


Cores are, as some mates mentioned, often similar since as we showed the difference lies elsewhere.
I.E. GE F-110 to CFM-56 . . . 
​





Have a great day all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> I am not saying WS-15 has a freaking high bypass ratio like that of GE9X. I am saying WS-15 has a *higher* bypass ratio than WS-10 and AL-31F. Don't confuse the two ideas.
> 
> I don't know, where is your idea of having *higher* bypass ratio, and you can't supercruise comes from.
> 
> Show me some links.


https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...itary-turbofan-engines-use-a-low-bypass-ratio
http://www.sailax.co.nz/wx/201501/a_Why_do_fighter_planes_use_low_bypass_turbofan_.html
https://defenseissues.net/2014/07/05/supercruise/


----------



## Asoka

Taygibay said:


> OK! Let's make things simple :
> 
> - The total mass of the airflow times the difference between exhaust speed and flight speed equals thrust.
> 
> - The high bypass of a turbofan allows better fuel economy at cruising speed and those engines are less noisy.
> 
> - The response time of a low bypass is better because it moves less air : "_it shifts faster_" ( combat essential ).
> 
> - Since no big fan to move slow air, less cross-section, vital for drag reduction to go faster easier ( & stealthier ).
> 
> - Lower bypass ratio produce less total thrust but more of it per kg of engine A.K.A better thrust to weight ratio.
> 
> - Lower bypass ratios perform best at higher speeds; high bypass ratios are optimized for high subsonic cruise.
> 
> - To hike thrust, fighters use afterburners ( higher nozzle speed ) and airliners maximize flow with high bypass.
> 
> 
> Cores are, as some mates mentioned, often similar since as we showed the difference lies elsewhere.
> I.E. GE F-110 to CFM-56 . . .
> ​
> View attachment 415912
> 
> 
> Have a great day all, Tay.



*"- To hike thrust, fighters use afterburners ( higher nozzle speed ) and airliners maximize flow with high bypass."*

Good summary!

While it is true having a large cross section is not good for speed, it is also true that at high altitude, when the air is much thinner, this problem is not as severe. With much less air resistance at high altitude, this is much better for high speed cruising.

Most planes achieve their maximum speed at high altitude > 30,000ft, rather than at sea level.

However, at high altitude, you need a bigger air intake to scoop up the thin air. The Mig-25 is famous for having a huge air intake, for this high speed, high altitude cruising.












While we don't know for sure, I got a feeling J-20 that, with its large air instakes and adjustable DSI inlets, it could also cruise at very high altitude and very high speed for a very long time, because of its advanced aeroframe and powerful engines.

It is notable that although F-22's top speed is listed as Mach 2.2, its Max. Speed is actually classified. Some people speculated it is, at least, Mach 2.5+, which is F-15's top speed.

F-22 is much more aerodynamic than F-15, and has 40% more thrust.

Think about it, F-22 is a speed demon.

When J-20 first appeared, a lot of people believe its a high speed interceptor like the Mig-25, and/or long range striker like the F-111, because of its size.

Now, we know J-20 has excellent subsonic and supersonic maneuverability, but will it has high altitude, high speed capability, as well?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cnleio

5x J-20 fleet flight video: http://weibo.com/tv/v/FfmsMFBrM

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## gambit

Asok said:


> *"- To hike thrust, fighters use afterburners ( higher nozzle speed ) and airliners maximize flow with high bypass."*
> 
> Good summary!
> 
> While it is true having a large cross section is not good for speed, it is also true that at high altitude, when the air is much thinner, this problem is not as severe. With much less air resistance at high altitude, this is much better for high speed cruising.
> 
> Most planes achieve their maximum speed at high altitude > 30,000ft, rather than at sea level.
> 
> However, at high altitude, you need a bigger air intake to scoop up the thin air. The Mig-25 is famous for having a huge air intake, for this high speed, high altitude cruising.


It is about the fuel/air ratio. The thinner the atmosphere, the greater the fuel to maintain the specific ratio that was designed for the jet. Then there comes a point where the engine design cannot cross because that would mean turning into a rocket, which is mostly fuel. This is why boasting about max altitude is worthless. It is very rare that any aircraft will fly to its maximum capable altitude. It is time and fuel consuming.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## onebyone

Watch J-20 of the PLAAF fly in formations during recent military drills.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Silicon0000

Taygibay said:


> OK! Let's make things simple :
> 
> - The total mass of the airflow times the difference between exhaust speed and flight speed equals thrust.
> 
> - The high bypass of a turbofan allows better fuel economy at cruising speed and those engines are less noisy.
> 
> - The response time of a low bypass is better because it moves less air : "_it shifts faster_" ( combat essential ).
> 
> - Since no big fan to move slow air, less cross-section, vital for drag reduction to go faster easier ( & stealthier ).
> 
> - Lower bypass ratio produce less total thrust but more of it per kg of engine A.K.A better thrust to weight ratio.
> 
> - Lower bypass ratios perform best at higher speeds; high bypass ratios are optimized for high subsonic cruise.
> 
> - To hike thrust, fighters use afterburners ( higher nozzle speed ) and airliners maximize flow with high bypass.
> 
> 
> Cores are, as some mates mentioned, often similar since as we showed the difference lies elsewhere.
> I.E. GE F-110 to CFM-56 . . .
> ​
> View attachment 415912
> 
> 
> Have a great day all, Tay.




I am not an expert so pardon me if i got things wrong, what i understand from your post is that efficency and speed depends on airflow in engine. So by that logic same engine if provided higher airflow will become efficient and when required same engine will provide speed required in a combat only by reducing airflow to engine. Am i got it right?


----------



## Taygibay

*^ ^ ^*​If you don't need high speeds, you maximize airflow and save on fuel.
If you need higher speeds, you maximize exhaust speed, save on size.

Just for fighter engines, you can have high / low specific thrust by design.
With high comes better SFC ( fuel consumption ) in reheat/ bad in dry thrust.
With low comes better SFC dry in cruising mode and in afterburners . . .
however, the reheat boost is modest with high and better with low. The first
( H ) would have a short transit range but more time in combat with ABs
while the other ( L ) would be short on dogfight time but very long ranged.

The idea with variable cycles engines researched for next year's fighters
is to eventually allow both to exist within one engine. We're still waiting!!!

Have a great evening, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mitho1980

Can anyone clarify that which jet is more suitable for PAF needs. J31 or j20?


----------



## Cookie Monster

Mitho1980 said:


> Can anyone clarify that which jet is more suitable for PAF needs. J31 or j20?


Only PAF can comment on that officially. Others here on this forum can only speculate.

In my opinion J20 would be a better choice. It is built for long range and possibly to use against assets such as AWACS and refueling aircrafts to cripple the enemy's Air Force. If PAF can somehow acquire J20 in decent numbers along with China's wild weasel kind of jets then together with stealth, EW capabilities of the "Wild weasel" jets, and anti-radiation missiles it can suppress and destroy Indian air defense assets. It would give PAF potent ability to strike deep in India in the event of a war.

However China has said that J20 is not for sale. So this leaves PAF the option of only J31 or some other joint project with China or Turkey.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Taygibay said:


> *^ ^ ^*​If you don't need high speeds, you maximize airflow and save on fuel.
> If you need higher speeds, you maximize exhaust speed, save on size.
> 
> Just for fighter engines, you can have high / low specific thrust by design.
> With high comes better SFC ( fuel consumption ) in reheat/ bad in dry thrust.
> With low comes better SFC dry in cruising mode and in afterburners . . .
> however, the reheat boost is modest with high and better with low. The first
> ( H ) would have a short transit range but more time in combat with ABs
> while the other ( L ) would be short on dogfight time but very long ranged.
> 
> The idea with variable cycles engines researched for next year's fighters
> is to eventually allow both to exist within one engine. We're still waiting!!!
> 
> Have a great evening, Tay.


you forget to mention YF-120 and AL-41 (MIG 1.42) engines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_YF120
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-41

Same thing will do J-31 with PL-15 or may be with PL-X on external hard points



Cookie Monster said:


> Only PAF can comment on that officially. Others here on this forum can only speculate.
> 
> In my opinion J20 would be a better choice. It is built for long range and possibly to use against assets such as AWACS and refueling aircrafts to cripple the enemy's Air Force. If PAF can somehow acquire J20 in decent numbers along with China's wild weasel kind of jets then together with stealth, EW capabilities of the "Wild weasel" jets, and anti-radiation missiles it can suppress and destroy Indian air defense assets. It would give PAF potent ability to strike deep in India in the event of a war.
> 
> However China has said that J20 is not for sale. So this leaves PAF the option of only J31 or some other joint project with China or Turkey.


Same thing will do J-31 with PL-15 or may be with PL-X on external hard points


----------



## Mitho1980

Is j 31 project still active?


----------



## Taygibay

pakistanipower said:


> ... you forget to mention YF-120 and AL-41 (MIG 1.42) engines



I forgot nothing mate, check : 


Taygibay said:


> We're still waiting!!!


The 120 stayed a *Y*F as it lost to the F119 and the
41 stopped at pre-production stage so both are say
attempts.
Sure, the technologies are still being pursued for each
under a different guise, programs or names ( JTDE to
ADVENT / some tech & name to articles 117 ) but, if 
we are getting better at it, a true VCE doesn't fly today.

I was alive and adult in 1982 ... when these programs
began, I entered service then.  We're still waiting!

Have a great day, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Daniel808

*One of the 3D Vector Nozzles under Development for an Engine Dedicated to the J-20 Stealth Fighter (WS-15 Engine?)
*

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

Daniel808 said:


> *One of the 3D Vector Nozzles under Development for an Engine Dedicated to the J-20 Stealth Fighter (WS-15 Engine?)
> *
> View attachment 416425
> 
> View attachment 416426
> 
> View attachment 416427



Invented by the Americans, Europeans, and Russians in the 1980s and 90's, the 3-D TVC, sure, is a wonderful development in the history of jet engine. It ranks in the same place as afterburner, and turbo fan in jet engine design, in my opinion.

However, the fact that the Chinese has freely disclosed its own design, shows they don't regard it as a particularly hi-tech or difficult technology to master.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

gambit said:


> It is about the fuel/air ratio. The thinner the atmosphere, the greater the fuel to maintain the specific ratio that was designed for the jet. Then there comes a point where the engine design cannot cross because that would mean turning into a rocket, which is mostly fuel. This is why boasting about max altitude is worthless. It is very rare that any aircraft will fly to its maximum capable altitude. It is time and fuel consuming.


U 'avin a laff, m8? The thinner the air, the lower the quantity of oxygen in a given volume, the *less* the fuel needed to maintain stoichiometric balance in the combustion chamber of the engine. And rockets are not "mostly fuel," they have as much fuel and oxidizer as they need to maintain -- once again -- stoichiometric balance.

Perhaps you ought to get such basic engineering facts right before you joke about "Chinese physics," or presume to teach anyone here about . . . well . . . anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Invented by the Americans, Europeans, and Russians in the 1980s and 90's, the 3-D TVC, sure, is a wonderful development in the history of jet engine. It ranks in the same place as afterburner, and turbo fan in jet engine design, in my opinion.
> 
> However, the fact that the Chinese has freely disclosed its own design, shows they don't regard it as a particularly hi-tech or difficult technology to master.


But 3D TVC tech is also very very maintenance prone technology



Mitho1980 said:


> Is j 31 project still active?



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/sac-...news-discussions.207796/page-217#post-9739019


----------



## gambit

ZeEa5KPul said:


> U 'avin a laff, m8? The thinner the air, the lower the quantity of oxygen in a given volume, the *less* the fuel needed to maintain stoichiometric balance in the combustion chamber of the engine. And rockets are not "mostly fuel," they have as much fuel and oxidizer as they need to maintain -- once again -- stoichiometric balance.
> 
> Perhaps you ought to get such basic engineering facts right before you joke about "Chinese physics," or presume to teach anyone here about . . . well . . . anything.


Right...And I guess Lockheed designed the J58 engines for the SR-71 on *YOUR* engineering advice ?

Rocket fuel, liquid or solid, contains their own oxidizer -- yes. But I was speaking in general principles when I used the word 'fuel'.

For something like a turbine or internal combustion engine, the word 'fuel' does not contain oxygen or any oxidizing agent. These engines requires atmospheric oxygen. To maintain a certain level of performance, less oxygen means higher fuel. For the J58, based on the requested performance level, a new type of fuel was needed. JP4/8 are essentially kerosene.

The J58 engine used JP7 fuel, which contains an oxidizing agent, just like rocket fuel...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7


> ...an oxidizing agent to make it burn more efficiently,...


JP7's physical consistency is so thick that it is almost gelatinous.

Am I 'avin a laff, m8 ? Soitenly...m8...at *YOU*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> PLAAF promotion video showing 6 J-20 formation.
> View attachment 415743



These are FC-31s and not J-20s ... just look at their tails ! 

By the way ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/894536681633845248

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> These are FC-31s and not J-20s ... just look at their tails !
> 
> By the way ...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/894536681633845248


-20





You are right! Those are CGI FC-31s not the real J-20s. I thought it was a typical lame PLAAF promotional video. The video editing was terrible, so I didn't watch the whole thing. Even the title of the video is sh*tly. "This is not a movie. It's the PLAAF." Just lame.

Good eyes, Mr. Deino!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

yusheng said:


> View attachment 416810



These are the half dozen delivered last year.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

cirr said:


> These are the half dozen delivered last year.


Its even faster than Tejas.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cnleio

wanglaokan said:


> Its even faster than Tejas.


Tejas ... pls not 

Our Indian friends will flood into this thread and tell ur guys one Tejas can kill 10x J-20 stealth fighters, coz Chins is "Paper-Dragon" J-20 weaker than Tejas too.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

cnleio said:


> Tejas ... pls not
> 
> Our Indian friends will flood into this thread and tell ur guys one Tejas can kill 10x J-20 stealth fighters, coz Chins is "Paper-Dragon" J-20 weaker than Tejas too.
> 
> View attachment 416849


Wow. All of the ugliness of the F-35, with none of the (purported) functionality.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

yusheng said:


> View attachment 416810



Thanks for reposting my collage !


----------



## Asoka

CCTV confirmed again that J-20 is using a domestically produced engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cnleio

cnleio said:


> Tejas ... pls not
> 
> Our Indian friends will flood into this thread and tell ur guys one Tejas can kill 10x J-20 stealth fighters, coz Chins is "Paper-Dragon" J-20 weaker than Tejas too.
> 
> View attachment 416849



Leave J-20 alone, just compare Tejas vs J-10B/C ... BETTER ?

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## cirr

wanglaokan said:


> Its even faster than Tejas.



Except the one without serial number. 






78271-6 + 1

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Han Patriot

B


Asok said:


> CCTV confirmed again that J-20 is using a domestically produced engine.
> 
> View attachment 416853
> 
> 
> View attachment 416854
> 
> 
> View attachment 416855
> 
> 
> View attachment 416856


Bro, any link to the video, I need to hear the full narration. 

Deino,

If I can confirm this linguistically, I think it's a fact, they are confirming it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Han Warrior said:


> B
> 
> Bro, any link to the video, I need to hear the full narration.
> 
> Deino,
> 
> If I can confirm this linguistically, I think it's a fact, they are confirming it.



Sorry, I don't have the video link.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> CCTV confirmed again that J-20 is using a domestically produced engine.
> 
> View attachment 416853
> 
> 
> View attachment 416854
> 
> 
> View attachment 416855
> 
> 
> View attachment 416856


Maybe WS-10X but not WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

In this article by the famous blogger "刀口 ", the author explores the possibility that J-20 is using the Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality technologies for displaying informations in the pilot's helmet.

He also explores the possibility that J-20 is able to read the pilot's mind to carry out his commands, in addition, with inputs from his hands.

Using Voice Control is another possibility, but the cockpit is a noisy environment.

Mind reading is first mentioned in the fictional aircraft Firefox, a 1980's movie stared by Clint Eastwood. This is still one of the most amazing and realistic fighter ever created in movies. 







Now, many scientists are exploring mind reading technology to control artificial limbs. They have already achieved some success.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...lled_prosthetic_arm_moves_individual_fingers_

*隐身战斗机的巅峰 歼20飞行员张日天谈“灵境”技术*
原创 2017-08-08 刀口

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/4_PsOTEmzmPg3nkTEzbhzg

首先纠正标题的一个错误，中国空军歼20飞行员里没有叫张日天的，这位霸气侧漏的飞行员叫张昊，笔者写上一篇介绍朱日和大阅兵的拙文提到张昊，网友留言回复时给张昊起了个张日天的外号。






昊是一个汉字，读音为hào（注音：ㄏㄠˋ），常用于人名。形容广阔无限（指天）的意思。总笔画数为8，部首为曰，上下结构。

汉字首尾分解：曰天

汉字部件分解：曰天

分解念起来就是“日天”，虽然汉语不是这样念的。真要这么念就成了“弓长日天”了，具体到张昊这么念也出彩儿（笑）

汉字释义基本字义

1、大（指天）：～天（a、广大的天；b、喻父母的恩情深重）。～穹。～苍。

2、姓。

详细字义

〈名〉少昊、太昊

1、会意。从日，从天。本义：广大无边。指天。同本义 [be expansive and limitless]。

投畀有昊。——《诗·小雅·巷伯》

昊天不平。——《诗·小雅·节南山》

2、又如：昊空（天空）；昊穹（昊苍。苍天）；昊天（苍天；上帝）；昊天罔极（如苍天之无穷无尽）。

乃命羲、和，敬顺昊天，数法日月星辰，敬授民时。——《史记·五帝本纪》






具体到张昊

张昊的来历可不一般，张昊是中共中央军事委员会委员，中华人民共和国中央军事委员会委员，中国人民解放军空军司令员马晓天的儿子，正所谓“老子英雄儿好汉”，马晓天司令将儿子送进中国空军，张昊凭借着父亲身上的飞行基因，愣是将自己飞进了中国空军最棒最先进机型的歼20团队。

*父子俩长得像不像自己看*






传张昊之所以不姓马晓天的马姓，是随了他妈妈的姓。马晓天是个彻底的唯物主义者，儿子姓什么在他来讲都没有什么太大的关系，再说自己总是在部队里不回家，都是孩子母亲照顾，有时候还是岳父岳母一起照顾，姓岳父家的姓也是个报答。

还有一种说法是为了避嫌，同时不给张昊特殊照顾，所以隐姓埋名。笔者接触的老一代军人里孩子姓母亲的姓不少，感觉没有传统社会的约束意识。战争年代更是如此，孩子改姓主要是为了躲避敌人的迫害，都是从安全的角度出发的，解放前革命队伍里这是普遍现象。

还有一个说不出口的原因是，一旦自己牺牲了不给孩子造成幼小的心灵冲击，等孩子大了慢慢明白其中的道理，可见改姓有为孩子健康成长特别是安全的考虑，总之是一种高尚的情操吧，细思泪目。






*飞共和国第一代战斗机歼五的青年时代的马晓天（舱内飞行员）*

父子都是飞行员在飞行队伍里是一种很常见的现象，我军有不少（将军里还有就不一一介绍了），外军也不少。比如布什家族，老布什是飞行员，小布什也是，老布什在太平洋战争中被日军击落，差一点被日军吃掉，幸亏有美军潜艇在附近给救了回来，不然也没有现在这个小布什了。

*歼20飞行员无畏和勇敢借助的是一种双重的勇气*

飞行是一种充满了英雄主义的行为，我军王牌飞行员就说过“我一起飞，空中就没有王牌”，有点像杨子荣对小炉匠说的“有我没他，有他没我”，满满的对对手的蔑视。

在N多年前笔者读过一本杂志，里面的一篇文章是介绍我军飞行员的。一架飞歼六的飞行员不服气总是被先进机型的战斗机（进口的苏27SK，就是现在说的歼十一）在演习中打败，一次激烈的演习对抗中违反规定，生生的将歼六拉出了超9个G的高G动作咬住了对手，返回基地机场后地勤人员一看这架歼六战斗机，机翼和尾翼都让这位飞行员拉歪了好几度，就在大家惊诧的瞪大眼睛看飞机时，这位飞行员一脸不屑的走掉了，连头都不回，真是豪气冲天。






9个G的机动是什么意思？其实就是瞬间变向的加速度，我们看弹射型舰载机起飞，从0到3秒钟被弹射加速到300公里时速左右升空，这个加速度才不到5个G，那9个G你就知道有多大的负载了！形象的说就是一秒之内压上飞行员身上9个飞行员自身身体的重量。比如飞行员体重70公斤，就是瞬间压上了630公斤的重量，半吨还多130公斤！据说世界拳王一拳的冲击力是300公斤，还不到9个G的一半。

另外，战斗机机身的应力结构一般设计高限就是9个G,再高飞机就会散架了，早年的F16就发生过很多次，主要是手动控制系统出现了问题，不是飞行员自身的意愿，算是设计失误，这个一会儿说到。

为了飞出高G的机动动作，现在的高机动型战斗机都是侧杆驾驶，就是在做高G动作时分析座椅的椅背自动向后倾斜，飞行员跟着座椅几乎平躺，这时候我们常见的飞行员手握的“中杆”手就够不着了，所以特别设置了“侧杆”，即便躺平了也能摸着驾驶杆。

侧杆和自动椅背后仰以及飞行员穿戴抗荷服的驾驶模式是真正的超机动型战斗机的标配，这种侧杆、座椅、抗荷服主要是为了保护飞行员在超机动性飞行中的安全，使飞行员心脏的血流通场，避免“黑视”和“灰视”，当然也是保持战斗力的手段。

目前采用侧杆驾驶的战斗机大概只有几种，最早是F16，后来是F22和法国的阵风。咱们的歼20和歼31也是侧杆，但是其他包括苏35和T50（刚刚正式定为苏57了）都还是中杆。
















侧杆驾驶可以让飞行员在做高机动性动作时保持“体能”和“智能”，当然也就保持了战斗力，这是设计侧杆的出发点。早期的侧杆因为是简单的力信号回馈驾驶杆设计，不具备当代电传操作系统的智能化的管理协助，没有所谓的“无顾虑操控”的边界，F16曾经因此出过不少机毁人亡的事故。

后来法国的阵风在侧杆的研发上取得了突破性的进展，甚至有了语音提示，驾驶战机开始向“半智能化驾驶”演进。

这回我们惊喜的看到，歼20不但实现了先进电传系统的侧杆“无顾虑操控”，还具备了令人难以执行的“意念操控”。

记者采访中张昊有这样一段话：

作为这款第四代超音速隐身战斗机的首支接装部队，张昊与战友们对歼—20的飞行品质赞不绝口，特别强调了歼20的与众不同。

张昊对采访的记者说“飞行品质都可以说做到了完美”

*“加减速性能优越，中性速度稳定，正向速度稳定。无论是超音速还是亚音速，歼—20的飞行品质都可以说做到了完美。*”空军某部部队长张昊说。

在技术研究会上，他总会提醒新来的飞行员们：*起飞不用压杆，靠“意念”就可以了。*

“*新手如果按过去的习惯压杆，极其敏感灵活的战机会以难以置信的角度猛升上昂。”*张昊说。

看完了这段采访，可以这样说歼20飞行员的无畏和勇敢借助的是一种双重的勇气”，就是对自己战斗技艺高度的自信和对飞机先进性能高度的信赖，这就是双重勇气的来源。






*歼20神奇的“灵境”技术*

什么是“灵境”技术，就是我们所说的虚拟现实VR。这就可以理解张昊说的用“意念”驾驶飞机了，没有虚拟现实VR就不可能与脑电波产生的意念结合起来，这简直是一种现实生活中梦幻般的奇景。

笔者与一位专家有过一段讨论。

笔者：靠“意念”，这个厉害了。

专家：对，虚拟现实技术，也叫灵境技术。

笔者：VR升级版？

专家：是的，只要意念确认下就执行了，头盔里有脑电波传感器，这速度比手操快多了。过去欧洲台风用声控，我们还羡慕呢，现在远超他们。

笔者：我估计是软件做的是“正能量确认”，假如意念是错误的，是飞行的错误，估计要手动确认。正确的动作计算机智能确认按照编好的程序自动执行，速度极快，远超手动，软件肯定这么做的。但是错误意念就自动否定，而且要飞行员二次确认，比如一紧张“意念”想到弹射，那就惨了。

专家：对，是的，它会自动介入的，所以有个意念确认过程，否则错误指令肯定要出问题。

笔者：正确的就自动执行，错误的手动确认？

专家：对，二次确认，所有包线都在程序里，想飞，电脑智能执行。

歼20的这项技术太神奇了，太神奇了，太神奇了，重要的话说三遍。

虚拟现实VR技术粗浅的解释是一种体验技术，所谓身临其境，其实这样的说法对歼20的头显显示的虚拟现实VR技术是一种十分粗浅的解析。

简单说，这项技术不但是身临其境的感觉，更主要的是一种对智能的再开发和推动，使用者变的更聪明，正确判断率更高、更快，这在战斗机的操控上就会有比对手更大的优势。






*歼20飞行员用“意念”操控飞机*

VR头显，虚拟现实头戴式显示设备。由于早期没有头显这个概念，所以根据外观产生了VR眼镜、VR眼罩、VR头盔等不专业叫法。VR头显是利用头戴式显示设备将人的对外界的视觉、听觉封闭，引导用户产生一种身在虚拟环境中的感觉。其显示原理是左右眼屏幕分别显示左右眼的图像，人眼获取这种带有差异的信息后在脑海中产生立体感。

AR（AugmentedReality）即增强现实，也被称为混合现实。它通过电脑技术，将虚拟的信息应用到真实世界，真实的环境和虚拟的物体实时地叠加到了同一个画面或空间同时存在。

VR(VirtualReality）即虚拟现实，简称VR，其具体内涵是综合利用计算机图形系统和各种现实及控制等接口设备，在计算机上生成的、可交互的三维环境中提供沉浸感觉的技术。

1992年美国国家科学基金资助的交互式系统项目工作组的报告中对VR提出了较系统的论述，并确定和建议了未来虚拟现实环境领域的研究方向。可以认为，虚拟现实技术综合了计算机图形技术、计算机仿真技术、传感器技术、显示技术等多种科学技术，它在多维信息空间上创建一个虚拟信息环境，能使用户具有身临其境的沉浸感，具有与环境完善的交互作用能力，并有助于启发构思。

所以说，沉浸-交互-构想是VR环境系统的三个基本特性。虚拟技术的核心是建模与仿真。

这样的场景我们一般人是体验不到的，除非你去玩现在大家还懵懵懂懂的VR游戏，但是与此类似的场景出现在最近的几部科幻大片中，比如《钢铁侠》中钢铁侠的头盔就是虚拟现实VR，片中不少桥段就可以解释为利用了“灵境”技术，也就是VR技术。






*所谓的钢铁侠还要用语音操控，影片里没有用意念操控的桥段，说明即便是科幻片，还没有“科幻”到用“意念”操控。*






用“意念”操控战斗机在全世界都还是一种尝试的时候，中国率先正式列装歼20隐身战斗机并正式使用，显示了我们科技力量的先进和强大，如果说这项技术我们领先了绝对是无可辩驳和怀疑的事实。

马伟明将军说“领先就领先美国”，这样的斩钉截铁都是站在事实上的。

张昊这段话和采访的镜头以及时长在朱日和大阅兵会后的采访中占据了重要的位置和时间段，突出了歼20在本次大阅兵中诸多装备中占据的重量。

这次阅兵，有个歼20座舱往后看的镜头，后面的歼20像贴在这架歼20的机翼上，非常稳定，其实这里面也大有文章。






采访歼十六飞行员时，歼十六的飞行员有点抱怨的说，歼十六不好稳住，老是要稳杆，就是歼十六上下跳动。

歼20飞的特别稳，没有纵向和上下的挑动。如果飞的线型抖动，就会产生多普勒现象，那还隐身什么呢？不抖不晃，这才是隐身机。

这就是控制增稳和阵风缓和功能。

而且还是低空飞，那叫一个稳，就像是动画片里的镜头。就是三机俯视镜头，懂行的应该看出端倪了，说明歼20的这两项功能边际更宽，包线范围更大。

张昊所说的“意念”控制技术其实是建立在两种先进的基本技术基础上的。






歼20配备的光电分布式孔径系统EODAS和电光瞄准系统EOTS。

有了这两个系统，歼20的飞行员可以在满足隐身要求，不开有源相控阵雷达的状态下实现全方位态势感知，这一组6个传感器的准球形覆盖，实现了歼20的全方位态势感知和全空间敏感。EODAS可以同时输出多个波段的高帧频图像,并通过后续图像和数据融合，将全向信息提供给头盔显示器或全景多功能显示器，呈现在飞行员面前，建立了“透明座舱”

穿透地板，比如向前方下面看，正常的视线其实都被座舱仪表板和机头挡住了，但是有了头盔显示器的话，光电分布式孔径系统EODAS在面罩上显示出来机头下方光电设备拍摄的图像，等于实现了三百六十度的无死角视野，极大的提高了飞行中的态势感知能力和任务灵活性。而且还可以配合控制设备，实现虚拟现实VR的效果。

歼20的飞行员用“意念”感知上述两项技术呈现的视觉信息，再用“意念”操控战斗机，实现了更加高效、快速、智能、便捷、灵活的操控，极大的提高了战斗力，可以说这几项技术是歼20战斗机战斗力的倍增器。

当然，以上这些极为先进的功能介绍起来确实有点复杂，特别是“意念操控”。简单说，过去我们形容一个人动作快往往用“心到手到”来形容，“意念操控”就是“心到动作就到了”的意思，比心到手到还要快的多，你心到手到，手还要动作这都需要时间。

比如我们的飞行员在战斗中想知道周围敌机的情况，脑海里刚刚有这个确定的表示，头显就已经将‘画面’推到你面前了，你说快不快？过去飞行员必须伸手去按前面显示屏上的键（有点像手机上的APP），你做这个动作就是耗费时间，现在一想头显上就有了，当然要快的不止10倍。






再比如歼20攻击空中、地面或者海面目标，飞行员在“灵境”条件下，通过脑电波操控对目标的确认，放大、确定攻击条件、发射准备、导弹加电、导弹导引头锁定目标、确定、发射，甚至在返航中确认目标是否被击毁都能不用手动靠脑电波操控一一实现。

“灵境”技术最大程度的显示了飞机卓越的各型传感器传达的最大的信息量，再用心动“意念”操控，真正做到第一时间做出正确的决策，这样科幻般的技术再过几十年也不会落后。

本文最后再说两件事。

一是歼20已经配装了涡扇十五高推比发动机，张昊说的“两超”，即“超音速巡航”和“超音速机动”都需要涡扇十五发动机的支持，这些在张昊的访谈中都有不言自明的解析，可以说没有涡扇十五的支持*“一进入了超音速那就是它的天下了！机动能力特别强，”*就不可能实现。






第二件事是访谈中镜头有意给歼20的机首打上了“马赛克”所谓“虚化”了。据专家介绍，这不是因为这架歼20的编号保密，机首也没有编号。主要是这件歼20机首的细部与爬墙党们拍摄到的以前的歼20的机首又有了新的变化，至于是什么变化，很可能是量产型与验证机的不同，打马赛克就是为了保密。

天下武功=唯快不破！

灵境和意念控制突出的就是一个快字，正所谓“灵境间，樯橹灰飞烟灭。”

可以肯定的说，量产型的歼20绝对碾压F22和F35，一位不愿意透露姓名的专家说，一架歼20打两三架F22没有一点问题，相当的肯定和豪迈。

为我们的祖国自豪吧！这样的战斗机的确可以做到天下无敌！

太厉害了，我的国！


*若喜欢本文*

*欢迎长按二维码识别，打赏作者！*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

pakistanipower said:


> Maybe WS-10X but not WS-15




Think it is a special version of WS-10X that has higher thrust like 150kN+ but sacrifices life expectancy.
It is not too costly as China will not have that many J-20s coming off the production line till the WS-15 gets installed by 2020.

@ChineseTiger1986

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> In this article by the famous blogger "刀口 ", the author explores the possibility that J-20 is using the Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality technologies for displaying informations in the pilot's helmet.
> 
> He also explores the possibility that J-20 is able to read the pilot's mind to carry out his commands, in addition, with inputs from his hands.
> 
> Using Voice Control is another possibility, but the cockpit is a noisy environment.
> 
> Mind reading is first mentioned in the fictional aircraft Firefox, a 1980's movie stared by Clint Eastwood. This is still one of the most amazing and realistic fighter ever created in movies.
> 
> View attachment 416972
> 
> 
> Now, many scientists are exploring mind reading technology to control artificial limbs. They have already achieved some success.
> 
> http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...lled_prosthetic_arm_moves_individual_fingers_
> 
> *隐身战斗机的巅峰 歼20飞行员张日天谈“灵境”技术*
> 原创 2017-08-08 刀口
> 
> http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/4_PsOTEmzmPg3nkTEzbhzg
> 
> 首先纠正标题的一个错误，中国空军歼20飞行员里没有叫张日天的，这位霸气侧漏的飞行员叫张昊，笔者写上一篇介绍朱日和大阅兵的拙文提到张昊，网友留言回复时给张昊起了个张日天的外号。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 昊是一个汉字，读音为hào（注音：ㄏㄠˋ），常用于人名。形容广阔无限（指天）的意思。总笔画数为8，部首为曰，上下结构。
> 
> 汉字首尾分解：曰天
> 
> 汉字部件分解：曰天
> 
> 分解念起来就是“日天”，虽然汉语不是这样念的。真要这么念就成了“弓长日天”了，具体到张昊这么念也出彩儿（笑）
> 
> 汉字释义基本字义
> 
> 1、大（指天）：～天（a、广大的天；b、喻父母的恩情深重）。～穹。～苍。
> 
> 2、姓。
> 
> 详细字义
> 
> 〈名〉少昊、太昊
> 
> 1、会意。从日，从天。本义：广大无边。指天。同本义 [be expansive and limitless]。
> 
> 投畀有昊。——《诗·小雅·巷伯》
> 
> 昊天不平。——《诗·小雅·节南山》
> 
> 2、又如：昊空（天空）；昊穹（昊苍。苍天）；昊天（苍天；上帝）；昊天罔极（如苍天之无穷无尽）。
> 
> 乃命羲、和，敬顺昊天，数法日月星辰，敬授民时。——《史记·五帝本纪》
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 具体到张昊
> 
> 张昊的来历可不一般，张昊是中共中央军事委员会委员，中华人民共和国中央军事委员会委员，中国人民解放军空军司令员马晓天的儿子，正所谓“老子英雄儿好汉”，马晓天司令将儿子送进中国空军，张昊凭借着父亲身上的飞行基因，愣是将自己飞进了中国空军最棒最先进机型的歼20团队。
> 
> *父子俩长得像不像自己看*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 传张昊之所以不姓马晓天的马姓，是随了他妈妈的姓。马晓天是个彻底的唯物主义者，儿子姓什么在他来讲都没有什么太大的关系，再说自己总是在部队里不回家，都是孩子母亲照顾，有时候还是岳父岳母一起照顾，姓岳父家的姓也是个报答。
> 
> 还有一种说法是为了避嫌，同时不给张昊特殊照顾，所以隐姓埋名。笔者接触的老一代军人里孩子姓母亲的姓不少，感觉没有传统社会的约束意识。战争年代更是如此，孩子改姓主要是为了躲避敌人的迫害，都是从安全的角度出发的，解放前革命队伍里这是普遍现象。
> 
> 还有一个说不出口的原因是，一旦自己牺牲了不给孩子造成幼小的心灵冲击，等孩子大了慢慢明白其中的道理，可见改姓有为孩子健康成长特别是安全的考虑，总之是一种高尚的情操吧，细思泪目。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *飞共和国第一代战斗机歼五的青年时代的马晓天（舱内飞行员）*
> 
> 父子都是飞行员在飞行队伍里是一种很常见的现象，我军有不少（将军里还有就不一一介绍了），外军也不少。比如布什家族，老布什是飞行员，小布什也是，老布什在太平洋战争中被日军击落，差一点被日军吃掉，幸亏有美军潜艇在附近给救了回来，不然也没有现在这个小布什了。
> 
> *歼20飞行员无畏和勇敢借助的是一种双重的勇气*
> 
> 飞行是一种充满了英雄主义的行为，我军王牌飞行员就说过“我一起飞，空中就没有王牌”，有点像杨子荣对小炉匠说的“有我没他，有他没我”，满满的对对手的蔑视。
> 
> 在N多年前笔者读过一本杂志，里面的一篇文章是介绍我军飞行员的。一架飞歼六的飞行员不服气总是被先进机型的战斗机（进口的苏27SK，就是现在说的歼十一）在演习中打败，一次激烈的演习对抗中违反规定，生生的将歼六拉出了超9个G的高G动作咬住了对手，返回基地机场后地勤人员一看这架歼六战斗机，机翼和尾翼都让这位飞行员拉歪了好几度，就在大家惊诧的瞪大眼睛看飞机时，这位飞行员一脸不屑的走掉了，连头都不回，真是豪气冲天。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9个G的机动是什么意思？其实就是瞬间变向的加速度，我们看弹射型舰载机起飞，从0到3秒钟被弹射加速到300公里时速左右升空，这个加速度才不到5个G，那9个G你就知道有多大的负载了！形象的说就是一秒之内压上飞行员身上9个飞行员自身身体的重量。比如飞行员体重70公斤，就是瞬间压上了630公斤的重量，半吨还多130公斤！据说世界拳王一拳的冲击力是300公斤，还不到9个G的一半。
> 
> 另外，战斗机机身的应力结构一般设计高限就是9个G,再高飞机就会散架了，早年的F16就发生过很多次，主要是手动控制系统出现了问题，不是飞行员自身的意愿，算是设计失误，这个一会儿说到。
> 
> 为了飞出高G的机动动作，现在的高机动型战斗机都是侧杆驾驶，就是在做高G动作时分析座椅的椅背自动向后倾斜，飞行员跟着座椅几乎平躺，这时候我们常见的飞行员手握的“中杆”手就够不着了，所以特别设置了“侧杆”，即便躺平了也能摸着驾驶杆。
> 
> 侧杆和自动椅背后仰以及飞行员穿戴抗荷服的驾驶模式是真正的超机动型战斗机的标配，这种侧杆、座椅、抗荷服主要是为了保护飞行员在超机动性飞行中的安全，使飞行员心脏的血流通场，避免“黑视”和“灰视”，当然也是保持战斗力的手段。
> 
> 目前采用侧杆驾驶的战斗机大概只有几种，最早是F16，后来是F22和法国的阵风。咱们的歼20和歼31也是侧杆，但是其他包括苏35和T50（刚刚正式定为苏57了）都还是中杆。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 侧杆驾驶可以让飞行员在做高机动性动作时保持“体能”和“智能”，当然也就保持了战斗力，这是设计侧杆的出发点。早期的侧杆因为是简单的力信号回馈驾驶杆设计，不具备当代电传操作系统的智能化的管理协助，没有所谓的“无顾虑操控”的边界，F16曾经因此出过不少机毁人亡的事故。
> 
> 后来法国的阵风在侧杆的研发上取得了突破性的进展，甚至有了语音提示，驾驶战机开始向“半智能化驾驶”演进。
> 
> 这回我们惊喜的看到，歼20不但实现了先进电传系统的侧杆“无顾虑操控”，还具备了令人难以执行的“意念操控”。
> 
> 记者采访中张昊有这样一段话：
> 
> 作为这款第四代超音速隐身战斗机的首支接装部队，张昊与战友们对歼—20的飞行品质赞不绝口，特别强调了歼20的与众不同。
> 
> 张昊对采访的记者说“飞行品质都可以说做到了完美”
> 
> *“加减速性能优越，中性速度稳定，正向速度稳定。无论是超音速还是亚音速，歼—20的飞行品质都可以说做到了完美。*”空军某部部队长张昊说。
> 
> 在技术研究会上，他总会提醒新来的飞行员们：*起飞不用压杆，靠“意念”就可以了。*
> 
> “*新手如果按过去的习惯压杆，极其敏感灵活的战机会以难以置信的角度猛升上昂。”*张昊说。
> 
> 看完了这段采访，可以这样说歼20飞行员的无畏和勇敢借助的是一种双重的勇气”，就是对自己战斗技艺高度的自信和对飞机先进性能高度的信赖，这就是双重勇气的来源。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *歼20神奇的“灵境”技术*
> 
> 什么是“灵境”技术，就是我们所说的虚拟现实VR。这就可以理解张昊说的用“意念”驾驶飞机了，没有虚拟现实VR就不可能与脑电波产生的意念结合起来，这简直是一种现实生活中梦幻般的奇景。
> 
> 笔者与一位专家有过一段讨论。
> 
> 笔者：靠“意念”，这个厉害了。
> 
> 专家：对，虚拟现实技术，也叫灵境技术。
> 
> 笔者：VR升级版？
> 
> 专家：是的，只要意念确认下就执行了，头盔里有脑电波传感器，这速度比手操快多了。过去欧洲台风用声控，我们还羡慕呢，现在远超他们。
> 
> 笔者：我估计是软件做的是“正能量确认”，假如意念是错误的，是飞行的错误，估计要手动确认。正确的动作计算机智能确认按照编好的程序自动执行，速度极快，远超手动，软件肯定这么做的。但是错误意念就自动否定，而且要飞行员二次确认，比如一紧张“意念”想到弹射，那就惨了。
> 
> 专家：对，是的，它会自动介入的，所以有个意念确认过程，否则错误指令肯定要出问题。
> 
> 笔者：正确的就自动执行，错误的手动确认？
> 
> 专家：对，二次确认，所有包线都在程序里，想飞，电脑智能执行。
> 
> 歼20的这项技术太神奇了，太神奇了，太神奇了，重要的话说三遍。
> 
> 虚拟现实VR技术粗浅的解释是一种体验技术，所谓身临其境，其实这样的说法对歼20的头显显示的虚拟现实VR技术是一种十分粗浅的解析。
> 
> 简单说，这项技术不但是身临其境的感觉，更主要的是一种对智能的再开发和推动，使用者变的更聪明，正确判断率更高、更快，这在战斗机的操控上就会有比对手更大的优势。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *歼20飞行员用“意念”操控飞机*
> 
> VR头显，虚拟现实头戴式显示设备。由于早期没有头显这个概念，所以根据外观产生了VR眼镜、VR眼罩、VR头盔等不专业叫法。VR头显是利用头戴式显示设备将人的对外界的视觉、听觉封闭，引导用户产生一种身在虚拟环境中的感觉。其显示原理是左右眼屏幕分别显示左右眼的图像，人眼获取这种带有差异的信息后在脑海中产生立体感。
> 
> AR（AugmentedReality）即增强现实，也被称为混合现实。它通过电脑技术，将虚拟的信息应用到真实世界，真实的环境和虚拟的物体实时地叠加到了同一个画面或空间同时存在。
> 
> VR(VirtualReality）即虚拟现实，简称VR，其具体内涵是综合利用计算机图形系统和各种现实及控制等接口设备，在计算机上生成的、可交互的三维环境中提供沉浸感觉的技术。
> 
> 1992年美国国家科学基金资助的交互式系统项目工作组的报告中对VR提出了较系统的论述，并确定和建议了未来虚拟现实环境领域的研究方向。可以认为，虚拟现实技术综合了计算机图形技术、计算机仿真技术、传感器技术、显示技术等多种科学技术，它在多维信息空间上创建一个虚拟信息环境，能使用户具有身临其境的沉浸感，具有与环境完善的交互作用能力，并有助于启发构思。
> 
> 所以说，沉浸-交互-构想是VR环境系统的三个基本特性。虚拟技术的核心是建模与仿真。
> 
> 这样的场景我们一般人是体验不到的，除非你去玩现在大家还懵懵懂懂的VR游戏，但是与此类似的场景出现在最近的几部科幻大片中，比如《钢铁侠》中钢铁侠的头盔就是虚拟现实VR，片中不少桥段就可以解释为利用了“灵境”技术，也就是VR技术。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *所谓的钢铁侠还要用语音操控，影片里没有用意念操控的桥段，说明即便是科幻片，还没有“科幻”到用“意念”操控。*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 用“意念”操控战斗机在全世界都还是一种尝试的时候，中国率先正式列装歼20隐身战斗机并正式使用，显示了我们科技力量的先进和强大，如果说这项技术我们领先了绝对是无可辩驳和怀疑的事实。
> 
> 马伟明将军说“领先就领先美国”，这样的斩钉截铁都是站在事实上的。
> 
> 张昊这段话和采访的镜头以及时长在朱日和大阅兵会后的采访中占据了重要的位置和时间段，突出了歼20在本次大阅兵中诸多装备中占据的重量。
> 
> 这次阅兵，有个歼20座舱往后看的镜头，后面的歼20像贴在这架歼20的机翼上，非常稳定，其实这里面也大有文章。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 采访歼十六飞行员时，歼十六的飞行员有点抱怨的说，歼十六不好稳住，老是要稳杆，就是歼十六上下跳动。
> 
> 歼20飞的特别稳，没有纵向和上下的挑动。如果飞的线型抖动，就会产生多普勒现象，那还隐身什么呢？不抖不晃，这才是隐身机。
> 
> 这就是控制增稳和阵风缓和功能。
> 
> 而且还是低空飞，那叫一个稳，就像是动画片里的镜头。就是三机俯视镜头，懂行的应该看出端倪了，说明歼20的这两项功能边际更宽，包线范围更大。
> 
> 张昊所说的“意念”控制技术其实是建立在两种先进的基本技术基础上的。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 歼20配备的光电分布式孔径系统EODAS和电光瞄准系统EOTS。
> 
> 有了这两个系统，歼20的飞行员可以在满足隐身要求，不开有源相控阵雷达的状态下实现全方位态势感知，这一组6个传感器的准球形覆盖，实现了歼20的全方位态势感知和全空间敏感。EODAS可以同时输出多个波段的高帧频图像,并通过后续图像和数据融合，将全向信息提供给头盔显示器或全景多功能显示器，呈现在飞行员面前，建立了“透明座舱”
> 
> 穿透地板，比如向前方下面看，正常的视线其实都被座舱仪表板和机头挡住了，但是有了头盔显示器的话，光电分布式孔径系统EODAS在面罩上显示出来机头下方光电设备拍摄的图像，等于实现了三百六十度的无死角视野，极大的提高了飞行中的态势感知能力和任务灵活性。而且还可以配合控制设备，实现虚拟现实VR的效果。
> 
> 歼20的飞行员用“意念”感知上述两项技术呈现的视觉信息，再用“意念”操控战斗机，实现了更加高效、快速、智能、便捷、灵活的操控，极大的提高了战斗力，可以说这几项技术是歼20战斗机战斗力的倍增器。
> 
> 当然，以上这些极为先进的功能介绍起来确实有点复杂，特别是“意念操控”。简单说，过去我们形容一个人动作快往往用“心到手到”来形容，“意念操控”就是“心到动作就到了”的意思，比心到手到还要快的多，你心到手到，手还要动作这都需要时间。
> 
> 比如我们的飞行员在战斗中想知道周围敌机的情况，脑海里刚刚有这个确定的表示，头显就已经将‘画面’推到你面前了，你说快不快？过去飞行员必须伸手去按前面显示屏上的键（有点像手机上的APP），你做这个动作就是耗费时间，现在一想头显上就有了，当然要快的不止10倍。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 再比如歼20攻击空中、地面或者海面目标，飞行员在“灵境”条件下，通过脑电波操控对目标的确认，放大、确定攻击条件、发射准备、导弹加电、导弹导引头锁定目标、确定、发射，甚至在返航中确认目标是否被击毁都能不用手动靠脑电波操控一一实现。
> 
> “灵境”技术最大程度的显示了飞机卓越的各型传感器传达的最大的信息量，再用心动“意念”操控，真正做到第一时间做出正确的决策，这样科幻般的技术再过几十年也不会落后。
> 
> 本文最后再说两件事。
> 
> 一是歼20已经配装了涡扇十五高推比发动机，张昊说的“两超”，即“超音速巡航”和“超音速机动”都需要涡扇十五发动机的支持，这些在张昊的访谈中都有不言自明的解析，可以说没有涡扇十五的支持*“一进入了超音速那就是它的天下了！机动能力特别强，”*就不可能实现。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 第二件事是访谈中镜头有意给歼20的机首打上了“马赛克”所谓“虚化”了。据专家介绍，这不是因为这架歼20的编号保密，机首也没有编号。主要是这件歼20机首的细部与爬墙党们拍摄到的以前的歼20的机首又有了新的变化，至于是什么变化，很可能是量产型与验证机的不同，打马赛克就是为了保密。
> 
> 天下武功=唯快不破！
> 
> 灵境和意念控制突出的就是一个快字，正所谓“灵境间，樯橹灰飞烟灭。”
> 
> 可以肯定的说，量产型的歼20绝对碾压F22和F35，一位不愿意透露姓名的专家说，一架歼20打两三架F22没有一点问题，相当的肯定和豪迈。
> 
> 为我们的祖国自豪吧！这样的战斗机的确可以做到天下无敌！
> 
> 太厉害了，我的国！
> 
> 
> *若喜欢本文*
> 
> *欢迎长按二维码识别，打赏作者！*


just assumptions , brain reading tech in its developmental stages, impossible to use by J-20


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> In this article by the famous blogger "刀口 ", the author explores the possibility that J-20 is using the Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality technologies for displaying informations in the pilot's helmet.
> 
> He also explores the possibility that J-20 is able to read the pilot's mind to carry out his commands, in addition, with inputs from his hands.
> ...




Dear Asok .... please calm down !! This even more way off that Your +210 kN thrust engine-theory!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Think it is a special version of WS-10X that has higher thrust like 150kN+ but sacrifices life expectancy.
> It is not too costly as China will not have that many J-20s coming off the production line till the WS-15 gets installed by 2020.
> 
> @ChineseTiger1986



What I heard is a WS-10X with the core of the WS-15 or simply a definitive version of the WS-15.

Since the 5th gen needs supercruise, thus the lifespan of the engine is also crucial.



Asok said:


> In this article by the famous blogger "刀口 ", the author explores the possibility that J-20 is using the Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality technologies for displaying informations in the pilot's helmet.
> 
> He also explores the possibility that J-20 is able to read the pilot's mind to carry out his commands, in addition, with inputs from his hands.
> 
> Using Voice Control is another possibility, but the cockpit is a noisy environment.
> 
> Mind reading is first mentioned in the fictional aircraft Firefox, a 1980's movie stared by Clint Eastwood. This is still one of the most amazing and realistic fighter ever created in movies.
> 
> View attachment 416972
> 
> 
> Now, many scientists are exploring mind reading technology to control artificial limbs. They have already achieved some success.
> 
> http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...lled_prosthetic_arm_moves_individual_fingers_
> 
> *隐身战斗机的巅峰 歼20飞行员张日天谈“灵境”技术*
> 原创 2017-08-08 刀口
> 
> http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/4_PsOTEmzmPg3nkTEzbhzg
> 
> 首先纠正标题的一个错误，中国空军歼20飞行员里没有叫张日天的，这位霸气侧漏的飞行员叫张昊，笔者写上一篇介绍朱日和大阅兵的拙文提到张昊，网友留言回复时给张昊起了个张日天的外号。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 昊是一个汉字，读音为hào（注音：ㄏㄠˋ），常用于人名。形容广阔无限（指天）的意思。总笔画数为8，部首为曰，上下结构。
> 
> 汉字首尾分解：曰天
> 
> 汉字部件分解：曰天
> 
> 分解念起来就是“日天”，虽然汉语不是这样念的。真要这么念就成了“弓长日天”了，具体到张昊这么念也出彩儿（笑）
> 
> 汉字释义基本字义
> 
> 1、大（指天）：～天（a、广大的天；b、喻父母的恩情深重）。～穹。～苍。
> 
> 2、姓。
> 
> 详细字义
> 
> 〈名〉少昊、太昊
> 
> 1、会意。从日，从天。本义：广大无边。指天。同本义 [be expansive and limitless]。
> 
> 投畀有昊。——《诗·小雅·巷伯》
> 
> 昊天不平。——《诗·小雅·节南山》
> 
> 2、又如：昊空（天空）；昊穹（昊苍。苍天）；昊天（苍天；上帝）；昊天罔极（如苍天之无穷无尽）。
> 
> 乃命羲、和，敬顺昊天，数法日月星辰，敬授民时。——《史记·五帝本纪》
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 具体到张昊
> 
> 张昊的来历可不一般，张昊是中共中央军事委员会委员，中华人民共和国中央军事委员会委员，中国人民解放军空军司令员马晓天的儿子，正所谓“老子英雄儿好汉”，马晓天司令将儿子送进中国空军，张昊凭借着父亲身上的飞行基因，愣是将自己飞进了中国空军最棒最先进机型的歼20团队。
> 
> *父子俩长得像不像自己看*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 传张昊之所以不姓马晓天的马姓，是随了他妈妈的姓。马晓天是个彻底的唯物主义者，儿子姓什么在他来讲都没有什么太大的关系，再说自己总是在部队里不回家，都是孩子母亲照顾，有时候还是岳父岳母一起照顾，姓岳父家的姓也是个报答。
> 
> 还有一种说法是为了避嫌，同时不给张昊特殊照顾，所以隐姓埋名。笔者接触的老一代军人里孩子姓母亲的姓不少，感觉没有传统社会的约束意识。战争年代更是如此，孩子改姓主要是为了躲避敌人的迫害，都是从安全的角度出发的，解放前革命队伍里这是普遍现象。
> 
> 还有一个说不出口的原因是，一旦自己牺牲了不给孩子造成幼小的心灵冲击，等孩子大了慢慢明白其中的道理，可见改姓有为孩子健康成长特别是安全的考虑，总之是一种高尚的情操吧，细思泪目。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *飞共和国第一代战斗机歼五的青年时代的马晓天（舱内飞行员）*
> 
> 父子都是飞行员在飞行队伍里是一种很常见的现象，我军有不少（将军里还有就不一一介绍了），外军也不少。比如布什家族，老布什是飞行员，小布什也是，老布什在太平洋战争中被日军击落，差一点被日军吃掉，幸亏有美军潜艇在附近给救了回来，不然也没有现在这个小布什了。
> 
> *歼20飞行员无畏和勇敢借助的是一种双重的勇气*
> 
> 飞行是一种充满了英雄主义的行为，我军王牌飞行员就说过“我一起飞，空中就没有王牌”，有点像杨子荣对小炉匠说的“有我没他，有他没我”，满满的对对手的蔑视。
> 
> 在N多年前笔者读过一本杂志，里面的一篇文章是介绍我军飞行员的。一架飞歼六的飞行员不服气总是被先进机型的战斗机（进口的苏27SK，就是现在说的歼十一）在演习中打败，一次激烈的演习对抗中违反规定，生生的将歼六拉出了超9个G的高G动作咬住了对手，返回基地机场后地勤人员一看这架歼六战斗机，机翼和尾翼都让这位飞行员拉歪了好几度，就在大家惊诧的瞪大眼睛看飞机时，这位飞行员一脸不屑的走掉了，连头都不回，真是豪气冲天。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9个G的机动是什么意思？其实就是瞬间变向的加速度，我们看弹射型舰载机起飞，从0到3秒钟被弹射加速到300公里时速左右升空，这个加速度才不到5个G，那9个G你就知道有多大的负载了！形象的说就是一秒之内压上飞行员身上9个飞行员自身身体的重量。比如飞行员体重70公斤，就是瞬间压上了630公斤的重量，半吨还多130公斤！据说世界拳王一拳的冲击力是300公斤，还不到9个G的一半。
> 
> 另外，战斗机机身的应力结构一般设计高限就是9个G,再高飞机就会散架了，早年的F16就发生过很多次，主要是手动控制系统出现了问题，不是飞行员自身的意愿，算是设计失误，这个一会儿说到。
> 
> 为了飞出高G的机动动作，现在的高机动型战斗机都是侧杆驾驶，就是在做高G动作时分析座椅的椅背自动向后倾斜，飞行员跟着座椅几乎平躺，这时候我们常见的飞行员手握的“中杆”手就够不着了，所以特别设置了“侧杆”，即便躺平了也能摸着驾驶杆。
> 
> 侧杆和自动椅背后仰以及飞行员穿戴抗荷服的驾驶模式是真正的超机动型战斗机的标配，这种侧杆、座椅、抗荷服主要是为了保护飞行员在超机动性飞行中的安全，使飞行员心脏的血流通场，避免“黑视”和“灰视”，当然也是保持战斗力的手段。
> 
> 目前采用侧杆驾驶的战斗机大概只有几种，最早是F16，后来是F22和法国的阵风。咱们的歼20和歼31也是侧杆，但是其他包括苏35和T50（刚刚正式定为苏57了）都还是中杆。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 侧杆驾驶可以让飞行员在做高机动性动作时保持“体能”和“智能”，当然也就保持了战斗力，这是设计侧杆的出发点。早期的侧杆因为是简单的力信号回馈驾驶杆设计，不具备当代电传操作系统的智能化的管理协助，没有所谓的“无顾虑操控”的边界，F16曾经因此出过不少机毁人亡的事故。
> 
> 后来法国的阵风在侧杆的研发上取得了突破性的进展，甚至有了语音提示，驾驶战机开始向“半智能化驾驶”演进。
> 
> 这回我们惊喜的看到，歼20不但实现了先进电传系统的侧杆“无顾虑操控”，还具备了令人难以执行的“意念操控”。
> 
> 记者采访中张昊有这样一段话：
> 
> 作为这款第四代超音速隐身战斗机的首支接装部队，张昊与战友们对歼—20的飞行品质赞不绝口，特别强调了歼20的与众不同。
> 
> 张昊对采访的记者说“飞行品质都可以说做到了完美”
> 
> *“加减速性能优越，中性速度稳定，正向速度稳定。无论是超音速还是亚音速，歼—20的飞行品质都可以说做到了完美。*”空军某部部队长张昊说。
> 
> 在技术研究会上，他总会提醒新来的飞行员们：*起飞不用压杆，靠“意念”就可以了。*
> 
> “*新手如果按过去的习惯压杆，极其敏感灵活的战机会以难以置信的角度猛升上昂。”*张昊说。
> 
> 看完了这段采访，可以这样说歼20飞行员的无畏和勇敢借助的是一种双重的勇气”，就是对自己战斗技艺高度的自信和对飞机先进性能高度的信赖，这就是双重勇气的来源。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *歼20神奇的“灵境”技术*
> 
> 什么是“灵境”技术，就是我们所说的虚拟现实VR。这就可以理解张昊说的用“意念”驾驶飞机了，没有虚拟现实VR就不可能与脑电波产生的意念结合起来，这简直是一种现实生活中梦幻般的奇景。
> 
> 笔者与一位专家有过一段讨论。
> 
> 笔者：靠“意念”，这个厉害了。
> 
> 专家：对，虚拟现实技术，也叫灵境技术。
> 
> 笔者：VR升级版？
> 
> 专家：是的，只要意念确认下就执行了，头盔里有脑电波传感器，这速度比手操快多了。过去欧洲台风用声控，我们还羡慕呢，现在远超他们。
> 
> 笔者：我估计是软件做的是“正能量确认”，假如意念是错误的，是飞行的错误，估计要手动确认。正确的动作计算机智能确认按照编好的程序自动执行，速度极快，远超手动，软件肯定这么做的。但是错误意念就自动否定，而且要飞行员二次确认，比如一紧张“意念”想到弹射，那就惨了。
> 
> 专家：对，是的，它会自动介入的，所以有个意念确认过程，否则错误指令肯定要出问题。
> 
> 笔者：正确的就自动执行，错误的手动确认？
> 
> 专家：对，二次确认，所有包线都在程序里，想飞，电脑智能执行。
> 
> 歼20的这项技术太神奇了，太神奇了，太神奇了，重要的话说三遍。
> 
> 虚拟现实VR技术粗浅的解释是一种体验技术，所谓身临其境，其实这样的说法对歼20的头显显示的虚拟现实VR技术是一种十分粗浅的解析。
> 
> 简单说，这项技术不但是身临其境的感觉，更主要的是一种对智能的再开发和推动，使用者变的更聪明，正确判断率更高、更快，这在战斗机的操控上就会有比对手更大的优势。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *歼20飞行员用“意念”操控飞机*
> 
> VR头显，虚拟现实头戴式显示设备。由于早期没有头显这个概念，所以根据外观产生了VR眼镜、VR眼罩、VR头盔等不专业叫法。VR头显是利用头戴式显示设备将人的对外界的视觉、听觉封闭，引导用户产生一种身在虚拟环境中的感觉。其显示原理是左右眼屏幕分别显示左右眼的图像，人眼获取这种带有差异的信息后在脑海中产生立体感。
> 
> AR（AugmentedReality）即增强现实，也被称为混合现实。它通过电脑技术，将虚拟的信息应用到真实世界，真实的环境和虚拟的物体实时地叠加到了同一个画面或空间同时存在。
> 
> VR(VirtualReality）即虚拟现实，简称VR，其具体内涵是综合利用计算机图形系统和各种现实及控制等接口设备，在计算机上生成的、可交互的三维环境中提供沉浸感觉的技术。
> 
> 1992年美国国家科学基金资助的交互式系统项目工作组的报告中对VR提出了较系统的论述，并确定和建议了未来虚拟现实环境领域的研究方向。可以认为，虚拟现实技术综合了计算机图形技术、计算机仿真技术、传感器技术、显示技术等多种科学技术，它在多维信息空间上创建一个虚拟信息环境，能使用户具有身临其境的沉浸感，具有与环境完善的交互作用能力，并有助于启发构思。
> 
> 所以说，沉浸-交互-构想是VR环境系统的三个基本特性。虚拟技术的核心是建模与仿真。
> 
> 这样的场景我们一般人是体验不到的，除非你去玩现在大家还懵懵懂懂的VR游戏，但是与此类似的场景出现在最近的几部科幻大片中，比如《钢铁侠》中钢铁侠的头盔就是虚拟现实VR，片中不少桥段就可以解释为利用了“灵境”技术，也就是VR技术。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *所谓的钢铁侠还要用语音操控，影片里没有用意念操控的桥段，说明即便是科幻片，还没有“科幻”到用“意念”操控。*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 用“意念”操控战斗机在全世界都还是一种尝试的时候，中国率先正式列装歼20隐身战斗机并正式使用，显示了我们科技力量的先进和强大，如果说这项技术我们领先了绝对是无可辩驳和怀疑的事实。
> 
> 马伟明将军说“领先就领先美国”，这样的斩钉截铁都是站在事实上的。
> 
> 张昊这段话和采访的镜头以及时长在朱日和大阅兵会后的采访中占据了重要的位置和时间段，突出了歼20在本次大阅兵中诸多装备中占据的重量。
> 
> 这次阅兵，有个歼20座舱往后看的镜头，后面的歼20像贴在这架歼20的机翼上，非常稳定，其实这里面也大有文章。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 采访歼十六飞行员时，歼十六的飞行员有点抱怨的说，歼十六不好稳住，老是要稳杆，就是歼十六上下跳动。
> 
> 歼20飞的特别稳，没有纵向和上下的挑动。如果飞的线型抖动，就会产生多普勒现象，那还隐身什么呢？不抖不晃，这才是隐身机。
> 
> 这就是控制增稳和阵风缓和功能。
> 
> 而且还是低空飞，那叫一个稳，就像是动画片里的镜头。就是三机俯视镜头，懂行的应该看出端倪了，说明歼20的这两项功能边际更宽，包线范围更大。
> 
> 张昊所说的“意念”控制技术其实是建立在两种先进的基本技术基础上的。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 歼20配备的光电分布式孔径系统EODAS和电光瞄准系统EOTS。
> 
> 有了这两个系统，歼20的飞行员可以在满足隐身要求，不开有源相控阵雷达的状态下实现全方位态势感知，这一组6个传感器的准球形覆盖，实现了歼20的全方位态势感知和全空间敏感。EODAS可以同时输出多个波段的高帧频图像,并通过后续图像和数据融合，将全向信息提供给头盔显示器或全景多功能显示器，呈现在飞行员面前，建立了“透明座舱”
> 
> 穿透地板，比如向前方下面看，正常的视线其实都被座舱仪表板和机头挡住了，但是有了头盔显示器的话，光电分布式孔径系统EODAS在面罩上显示出来机头下方光电设备拍摄的图像，等于实现了三百六十度的无死角视野，极大的提高了飞行中的态势感知能力和任务灵活性。而且还可以配合控制设备，实现虚拟现实VR的效果。
> 
> 歼20的飞行员用“意念”感知上述两项技术呈现的视觉信息，再用“意念”操控战斗机，实现了更加高效、快速、智能、便捷、灵活的操控，极大的提高了战斗力，可以说这几项技术是歼20战斗机战斗力的倍增器。
> 
> 当然，以上这些极为先进的功能介绍起来确实有点复杂，特别是“意念操控”。简单说，过去我们形容一个人动作快往往用“心到手到”来形容，“意念操控”就是“心到动作就到了”的意思，比心到手到还要快的多，你心到手到，手还要动作这都需要时间。
> 
> 比如我们的飞行员在战斗中想知道周围敌机的情况，脑海里刚刚有这个确定的表示，头显就已经将‘画面’推到你面前了，你说快不快？过去飞行员必须伸手去按前面显示屏上的键（有点像手机上的APP），你做这个动作就是耗费时间，现在一想头显上就有了，当然要快的不止10倍。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 再比如歼20攻击空中、地面或者海面目标，飞行员在“灵境”条件下，通过脑电波操控对目标的确认，放大、确定攻击条件、发射准备、导弹加电、导弹导引头锁定目标、确定、发射，甚至在返航中确认目标是否被击毁都能不用手动靠脑电波操控一一实现。
> 
> “灵境”技术最大程度的显示了飞机卓越的各型传感器传达的最大的信息量，再用心动“意念”操控，真正做到第一时间做出正确的决策，这样科幻般的技术再过几十年也不会落后。
> 
> 本文最后再说两件事。
> 
> 一是歼20已经配装了涡扇十五高推比发动机，张昊说的“两超”，即“超音速巡航”和“超音速机动”都需要涡扇十五发动机的支持，这些在张昊的访谈中都有不言自明的解析，可以说没有涡扇十五的支持*“一进入了超音速那就是它的天下了！机动能力特别强，”*就不可能实现。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 第二件事是访谈中镜头有意给歼20的机首打上了“马赛克”所谓“虚化”了。据专家介绍，这不是因为这架歼20的编号保密，机首也没有编号。主要是这件歼20机首的细部与爬墙党们拍摄到的以前的歼20的机首又有了新的变化，至于是什么变化，很可能是量产型与验证机的不同，打马赛克就是为了保密。
> 
> 天下武功=唯快不破！
> 
> 灵境和意念控制突出的就是一个快字，正所谓“灵境间，樯橹灰飞烟灭。”
> 
> 可以肯定的说，量产型的歼20绝对碾压F22和F35，一位不愿意透露姓名的专家说，一架歼20打两三架F22没有一点问题，相当的肯定和豪迈。
> 
> 为我们的祖国自豪吧！这样的战斗机的确可以做到天下无敌！
> 
> 太厉害了，我的国！
> 
> 
> *若喜欢本文*
> 
> *欢迎长按二维码识别，打赏作者！*




Yeah, Mr. Daokou is also a big shrimp with a lot of credibility and proven records.

He is a staunch EMALS supporter and WS-15 supporter since beginning.

Now he has already defeated POP3 for the EMALS bet, and let's see if he can defeat the other big shrimps for the WS-15 vs WS-10X bet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Dear Asok .... please calm down !! This even more way off that Your +210 kN thrust engine-theory!



Yes, its too much to digest.

Especially for people like Mr. Robert Gates, the former CIA director, and Pentagon Chief, who predicted in 2009, that China won't have J-20, till 2020. And happily cancelled the formidable F-22 and bet on the lousy F-35.

And for people who wouldn't believe J-20 is already installed with WS-15, despite multiple official confirmations.

And for people, who believe Delta Wing Canards are not stealthy, and can not be made stealthy by the Chinese engineers.

Its really mind blowing for them.

I feel sorry for their little minds, which got constantly blown away.

Whether J-20 can read the minds of its pilots, right now, that I can not say for sure. But its a good direction to go. Even with a menu controlled interface, it sometimes takes many steps to do a simple tasks.

Just take a look your car's menus driven interface, or microwave oven, or smartphone.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Yes, its too much to digest.
> 
> Especially for people like Mr. Robert Gates, the former CIA director, and Pentagon Chief, who predicted in 2009, that China won't have J-20, till 2020. And happily cancelled the formidable F-22 and bet on the lousy F-35.
> 
> And for people who wouldn't believe J-20 is already installed with WS-15, despite multiple official confirmations.
> 
> And for people, who believe Delta Wing Canards are not stealthy, and can not be made stealthy by the Chinese engineers.
> 
> Its really mind blowing for them.
> 
> I feel sorry for their little minds, which got constantly blown away.



Daokou even reveals that the captain of the J-20 formation during the parade is the son of the PLAAF's commander Ma Xiaotian.

He is obviously an insider with a lot of information.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Daokou even reveals that the captain of the J-20 formation during the parade is the son of the PLAAF's commander Ma Xiaotian.
> 
> He is obviously an insider with a lot of information.
> 
> 
> View attachment 416982
> 
> 
> View attachment 416983



Yes, this author has a very good track record. I got a lot of informations from him, including the TVC, WS-15, vertical climb, and maximum thrust. He is not running a B.S. rumor mill.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Yes, this author has a very good track record. I got a lot of informations from him, including the TVC, WS-15, vertical climb, and maximum thrust. He doesn't run a B.S. rumor mill.



One more thing to clarify for other Chinese members.

The J-20 captain didn't use his father's surname, but his mother's surname.

Since he does share the same surname with Ma Xiaotian's father in law.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/张少华_(中将)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Yes, its too much to digest.
> 
> Especially for people like Mr. Robert Gates, the former CIA director, and Pentagon Chief, who predicted in 2009, that China won't have J-20, till 2020. And happily cancelled the formidable F-22 and bet on the lousy F-35.
> 
> And for people who wouldn't believe J-20 is already installed with WS-15, despite multiple official confirmations.
> 
> And for people, who believe Delta Wing Canards are not stealthy, and can not be made stealthy by the Chinese engineers.
> 
> Its really mind blowing for them.
> 
> I feel sorry for their little minds, which got constantly blown away.
> 
> Whether J-20 can read the minds of its pilots, right now, that I can not say for sure. But its a good direction to go. Even with a menu controlled interface, it sometimes takes many steps to do a simple tasks.
> 
> Just take a look your car's menus driven interface, or microwave oven, or smartphone.


to much *superstition* is bad for your health kid canards gives extra surface to radars which increase its Frontal RCS and same from ventral fin on the rear of J-20 which increases its rear RCS


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

pakistanipower said:


> to much *superstition* is bad for your health kid canards gives extra surface to radars which increase its Frontal RCS and same from ventral fin on the rear of J-20 which increases its rear RCS


And too much superstition is bad for yours. I smell the stink of a certain wannabe aeronautical engineer on you. What you (and he) missed was that counting surfaces is not how RCS is determined. You (rather he) have also failed to show that *if *there is an increase in the RCS as a result of the canards and the strakes relative to a configuration with horizontal stabilizers, that this increase is tactically significant.

Less silly emoticons and calling people "kid", more critical thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

ZeEa5KPul said:


> And too much superstition is bad for yours. I smell the stink of a certain wannabe aeronautical engineer on you. What you (and he) missed was that counting surfaces is not how RCS is determined. You (rather he) have also failed to show that *if *there is an increase in the RCS as a result of the canards and the strakes relative to a configuration with horizontal stabilizers, that this increase is tactically significant.
> 
> Less silly emoticons and calling people "kid", more critical thinking.


J-20 will be tracked and detected with multiple radars on different angles not with single radar in future wars kid which increases it RCS from front and rear understand kid


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

pakistanipower said:


> J-20 will be tracked and detected with multiple radars on different angles not with single radar in future wars kid which increases it RCS from front and rear understand kid


I see . . . sorry for wasting your time and mine. Carry on.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## graphican

Is J-20 actually broken in this image?







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882945695979720705


----------



## Deino

graphican said:


> Is J-20 actually broken in this image?




Yes, since it is a scan from a two-page report in "Weapons magazine"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Yes, since it is a scan from a two-page report in "Weapons magazine"



It's not a crack because of two page becoming one picture, but indeed a crack to the fuselage. Maybe it's intentional, to raise the RCS, or J-20 still have a flaw that we don't know?


----------



## Deino

Brainsucker said:


> It's not a crack because of two page becoming one picture, but indeed a crack to the fuselage. Maybe it's intentional, to raise the RCS, or J-20 still have a flaw that we don't know?



Here's a modified version ... and NO, that crack is only due to the not yet completely closed or just opening main landing gear door.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

ZeEa5KPul said:


> And too much superstition is bad for yours. I smell the stink of a certain wannabe aeronautical engineer on you. What you (and he) missed was that *counting surfaces is not how RCS is determined.* You (rather he) have also failed to show that *if *there is an increase in the RCS as a result of the canards and the strakes relative to a configuration with horizontal stabilizers, that this increase is tactically significant.


Actually, regarding the highlighted -- *IT IS*.

There are three rules, or guidelines, on designing a low radar observable body.

Control of:

- Quantity of radiators.
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

The sphere is the ideal 'stealth' body because it is the most obedient to those three rules. In fact, the sphere is the ideal radar calibration body.

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1

In radar detection, everything is a radiator. If a structure can reflect a radar signal, it is a radiator.

The sphere has only one radiator -- its body.

Whereas, with something like this...






You can see multiple protrusions from the main body -- the fuselage.

So regarding rule 1, the higher the count of structures that protrudes from the body, the greater the contribution to total RCS. The problem then become how to minimize that contribution. You can apply radar absorbent materials ( RAM ) but that does not take away from the fact that the structure is a contributor.

Rule 2 -- Array of radiators -- is how the canards are in relation to nearby structures. Whether their relationship is tactically significant or not, we do not know unless the jet is under independent RCS measurement testing and the data is available for all to see. But the problem remains in that the higher the quantity of radiators ( Rule 1 ), the greater the difficulty in applying Rule 2. Not impossible, but greater difficulty.

Rule 3 -- Modes of radiation -- is how radar signals leave a finite structure. In learning about radar principles, students are taught using theoretical infinite surfaces. But that is not real life where everything is finite. A radar signal make contact with a structure. Sooner or later, it has to leave that structure. The higher the count of finite structures, the greater the relationships of these structures in Rule 2, which could lead to higher total RCS.

The point here is that no rule is more important than the other. All three have equal significance.

So if you think that the J-20's eight major protrusions/structures have no bearing on final RCS, we are indeed talking about 'Chinese physics'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## graphican

@Deino;

EDIT, 

Found another image and there is indeed a opening panel on the side. So it is not a crack as it appeared.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

graphican said:


> @Deino;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two page ad or scan has nothing to do with the crack. This is not a scanning artefact. Th crack doesn't have a pattern and it is ending at an awkward position.* From the look of it, it really feels like a crack. *




No ... I'm really surprised no-one sees it too: it looks only like a crack it is due to the not yet completely closed or just opening main landing gear door.

On the older prototypes the front part of the door was always open, when the gear was down, however on the revised ones and LRIP-birds it always closes again soon after the gear is down or only opens just a moment before the gear is taken in again.

So it is not a crack. The front door is just not fully closed.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Stealth

graphican said:


> Is J-20 actually broken in this image?
> View attachment 417133
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882945695979720705



Metal istarhan crack nahe hota  paper scan lag raha hey magazine ka


----------



## The Eagle

Stealth said:


> Metal istarhan crack nahe hota  paper scan lag raha hey magazine ka



Translation for international readers: Metal does not cracks like this and the line indicates paper scan from magazine. 

@Stealth kindly use English so that readers see it appropriate. 

Regards,


----------



## KRAIT

What's the induction timeline for PLAAF?


----------



## Deino

KRAIT said:


> What's the induction timeline for PLAAF?



It is already ! ... at least six confirmed assigned to the 176. Brigade.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Is this a new camouflage scheme?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bananarepublic

Asok said:


> View attachment 417976
> 
> 
> Is this a new camouflage scheme?



this seems edited ...


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Asok said:


> View attachment 417976
> 
> 
> Is this a new camouflage scheme?


It's a bad shop of this picture:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> View attachment 417976
> 
> 
> Is this a new camouflage scheme?




Asok ... is that a question asked in earnest ???


----------



## ozranger

Asok said:


> View attachment 417976
> 
> 
> Is this a new camouflage scheme?



Someone did photo editing on an original J-20 photo to joke about the coating on the oldest batch of J-8 fighters, which includes a green radar dome and a silver fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Asok ... is that a question asked in earnest ???



Yes, I don't remember seeing this pic or camouflage scheme before. It's not bad, consider every other Chinese planes, looks like that. This is the color of Chinese sky.


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> Yes, I don't remember seeing this pic or camouflage scheme before. It's not bad, consider every other Chinese planes, looks like that. This is the color of Chinese sky.




Come on !!  Making an error is no problem, but You deduct thrust levels out of videos, identify the slightest - for most of us impossible to notice - changes in nozzle settings in order to recognise a secret TVC-mechanism, You find reports in the internet about alien-like technologies but..

1. first You did not notice a badly manipulated image

2. tell us that this is the "color of Chinese sky" and ""every other Chinese planes, looks like that !??? None type has such a scheme. Show me one image of a contemporary active in-service fighter with that old-fashioned colour scheme. Not even the oldest J-8s or J-7s have this scheme and so far not a single J-20 was spotted with a green nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Come on !!  Making an error is no problem, but You deduct thrust levels out of videos, identify the slightest - for most of us impossible to notice - changes in nozzle settings in order to recognise a secret TVC-mechanism, You find reports in the internet about alien-like technologies but..
> 
> 1. first You did not notice a badly manipulated image
> 
> 2. tell us that this is the "color of Chinese sky" and ""every other Chinese planes, looks like that !??? None type has such a scheme. Show me one image of a contemporary active in-service fighter with that old-fashioned colour scheme. Not even the oldest J-8s or J-7s have this scheme and so far not a single J-20 was spotted with a green nose.



This is the standard color of the Chinese fighters. I thought J-20 is going to be different from all other fighers, because its stealth. So, I was a little bit surprise to see a picture with color like the older fighter. I don't know what else to tell you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> This is the standard color of the Chinese fighters. I thought J-20 is going to be different from all other fighers, because its stealth. So, I was a little bit surprise to see a picture with color like the older fighter. I don't know what else to tell you.




Oh well indeed ! I admit I was wrong and I will surely never question any of Your claims since I'm simply blind ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Oh well indeed ! I admit I was wrong and I will surely never question any of Your claims since I'm simply blind ...
> 
> View attachment 418194



You are not blind. I have the habit of adjusting the color of the pictures, i downloaded. This is the original picture, I downloaded from https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2405892-1-3.html




One observer has speculated, that the reason J-20's previous color is different from the usual PLAAF color scheme is because its new paint is capable of optical distortion. It changes when viewing at different angle, thus, making it difficulty for other pilots to visually locate and track it, during intense dogfights maneuvers.

So, I am surprised to see that J-20 has gone back to the old PLAAF color scheme or paint.

There is a saying among fighter pilots that if you visually lost track of your opponent, during a dogfight, you will die.

So able to locate and track your opponent, visually, is very important, since the early days of dogfights in WWI.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ...
> One observer speculated, that the reason J-20's previous color is different from the usual PLAAF color scheme is because its new paint is capable of optical distortion. It changes when viewing at different angle, thus, making it difficulty for other pilots to visually locate and track it, during intense dogfights maneuvers.
> 
> So, I am surprised to see that J-20 has gone back to the old PLAAF color scheme or paint.



Thanks for Your reply and to admit that "original" image is indeed much more likely real ... but it is not.
Anyway the J-20's colour is indeed a very unique issue I also noted: pending the lightning-conditions even exactly the same J-20 looks very different. I'm sure it is even more a mess for modellers to get the colours right than for the F-22 and F-35.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Thanks for Your reply and to admit that "original" image is indeed much more likely real ... but it is not.
> Anyway the J-20's colour is indeed a very unique issue I also noted: pending the lightning-conditions even exactly the same J-20 looks very different. I'm sure it is even more a mess for modellers to get the colours right than for the F-22 and F-35.
> 
> Deino




Since dogfights happen at visual range, visual stealth or optical distortion, is an important direction for fighter development.

Before, we can get an invisible cloak, like in Harry Potter, a new type of paint, that will mess with our eyes, is entirely possible.

https://wfberge1336.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/invisible-clothing/

*Invisible Clothing*
*by wfber*





For new technology of fashion, I would like to know more about “invisible clothing” in real life. As the cover up cloak which Harry Potter used in the film. It will hide the body of inside and show as invisible. It is high protection and useful. So I imagined if it is possible technology in real life without magic will be a cool thing. In Mission Impossible –Ghost Protocol (2011), the characters used a screen and a camera to make an invisible cover up, it is a good concept showing in the film that is the camera recording the image of behind, then it shows on the screen. When people in front of the screen, they will see the image of behind of the screen, just as invisible screen. There are two designs about invisible clothing I found on the Internet.


*JAPANESE INVISIBLE TECHNOLOGY: OPTICAL CAMOUFLAGE*
Is he “The Invisible Man” by H.G. Wells? It looks like as if three men walking behind are seen through the body of graduate student Kazutoshi Obana during a demonstration of optical camouflage technology at the Tokyo University in Tokyo Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2003. The demonstration conducted by Faculty of Engineering Prof. Susumu Tachi is an early stage of his research that will eventually enable camouflaged objects virtually transparent by wearing an optical device. This photo was taken through a viewfinder that provides with a combined image of moving images taken behind Obana and him wearing a luminous jacket that makes a transparent effect. The technology can be useful for various professions such as surgeons who wish their own fingers and surgical tools won’t block the view of affected parts and pilots who wish cockpit floors were transparent for landings. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

It is designed by TACHI laboratory of the University of Tokyo in 2003. It calls “invisible cloak”.It shows the projection of behind of the cloak. The concept as the example of Mission impossible I talked about before. There is the concept diagram I found.












The technology named Optical camouflage, it is a type of active camouflage. For the result of design, I think the reflection too weak, not invisible as much as Harry Potter or Mission Impossible one. It is about the texture of the cloak.

The following clip is the demo of the invisible cloak.






* 2.HYPER STEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGY : “QUANTUM STEALTH” TECHNOLOGY*






It is designed by a Canadian camouflage-design company. It is different with the Japanese one, specially the texture. It is something as “Quantum Stealth” technology, which let human eyes be tricked by the material with the blending light around the object inside of the cloak. The result of the reflection I think it is better than the Japanese invisible cloak. It is not easy to know the cloak here.

But in my mind, I will think about does it not work in the dark night? it is because it is blending light. By the way, there are the mockups of the design concept only. I hope it will success in not much years later.










*REFERENCE LINK::*

Real-Life Invisibility Cloak Claims to Make Soldiers Virtually Undetectable

http://www.ecouterre.com/real-life-...aims-to-make-soldiers-virtually-undetectable/

What is Optical Camouflage?

http://www.innovateus.net/science/w...hat+is+the+Japanese+Optical+Camouflage+cloak?

Optical Camouflage

http://www.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html

How Invisibility Cloaks Work

http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm

Invisible Cloak Illusion

http://www.moillusions.com/invisible-cloak-illusion/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Asok said:


> You are not blind. I have the habit of adjusting the color of the pictures, i downloaded. This is the original picture, I downloaded from https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2405892-1-3.html
> View attachment 418200
> 
> One observer has speculated, that the reason J-20's previous color is different from the usual PLAAF color scheme is because its new paint is capable of optical distortion. It changes when viewing at different angle, thus, making it difficulty for other pilots to visually locate and track it, during intense dogfights maneuvers.
> 
> So, I am surprised to see that J-20 has gone back to the old PLAAF color scheme or paint.
> 
> There is a saying among fighter pilots that if you visually lost track of your opponent, during a dogfight, you will die.
> 
> So able to locate and track your opponent, visually, is very important, since the early days of dogfights in WWI.



This is very obviously a photoshop mocking the J-8 paintjob.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maximuswarrior

graphican said:


> @Deino;
> 
> EDIT,
> 
> Found another image and there is indeed a opening panel on the side. So it is not a crack as it appeared.



Just look at that beauty!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

According to CCTV's disclosed information, the current J-20 engine is the WS-10B with 145KN afterburner, while it will be soon upgraded with the 165KN WS-15 which is slightly better than the 156KN F119.

@UKBengali

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

According to China's official media, the current J-20 engine is only roughly 90% of the afterburner thrust of the F119, but the J-20 got the special aerodynamic design, so it does help the J-20 to offset the disadvantage of the underpowered engine.

Let's validate that figure, 145/156 = 0.92948717948

With the WS-15, the J-20 can tie the F-22 in the weight/thrust ratio.

Considered that 165 / 156 * 38 = 40.1923076923

The maximum takeoff for the F-22 is 38 tonnes, while 40 tonnes for the J-20. And with the special aerodynamic design and 3D TVC nozzle, the J-20 will have an edge in the super maneuverability against the F-22 raptor.

So let's conclude the J-20 with the WS-15 vs the F-22 raptor

avionics/radar/sensor: edge for the J-20
super maneuverability: edge for the J-20
stealth technology: tie
share of data link: absolutely J-20, since the F-22 raptor doesn't share any data link with other 4th gen aircrafts

So overall the J-20 does beat 3 critical categories of the 4S over the F-22 raptor, and tie in one category.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to CCTV's disclosed information, the current J-20 engine is the WS-10B with 145KN afterburner, while it will be soon upgraded with the 165KN WS-15 which is slightly better than the 156KN F119.
> 
> @UKBengali



Plenty of power to allow the J-20 to supercruise close to Mach 2.
It already supercruises with WS-10b but lower than Mach 1.5 IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Plenty of power to allow the J-20 to supercruise close to Mach 2.
> It already supercruises with WS-10b but lower than Mach 1.5 IMO.



Yep, with the WS-15, it can certainly beat the 1.8 Mach supercruise of the F-22 Raptor.

When you see the J-20 is starting to fly with an engine whose nozzle got those saw tooth edges like the F135, then it is certainly the legendary WS-15.

BTW, China will annually produce 70-80 J-20 in four assembly hubs according to the official media, and the current J-20 will also be upgraded with the coming WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yep, with the WS-15, it can certainly beat the 1.8 Mach supercruise of the F-22 Raptor.
> 
> When you see the J-20 is starting to fly with an engine whose nozzle got those saw tooth edge like the F135, then it is certainly the legendary WS-15.
> 
> BTW, China will annually produce 70-80 J-20 in four assembly hubs according to the official media, and the current J-20 will also be upgraded with the coming WS-15.



US will restart F-22 production for sure soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> US will restart F-22 production for sure soon.



The F-22 along with its F119 will also receive an upgrade, so the J-20 and its WS-15 will also keep upgrading.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

UKBengali said:


> US will restart F-22 production for sure soon.




Never !

At best they will accelerate the sixth-generation fighter program.


----------



## UKBengali

Deino said:


> Never !
> 
> At best they will accelerate the sixth-generation fighter program.



That wont be ready till 2030 at the earliest.
How will US face 500+ J-20s?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> That wont be ready till 2030 at the earliest.
> How will US face 500+ J-20s?



The coming J-20B with the WS-15 will also integrate some 6th gen aircraft technologies, since China has already been working on it.

The J-20B will be an excellent test platform, just like the Type 052D for the Type 055.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

UKBengali said:


> That wont be ready till 2030 at the earliest.
> How will US face 500+ J-20s?




Come on ... and how long will it take until the PLAAF has fielded 500+ J-20s??


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Never !
> 
> At best they will accelerate the sixth-generation fighter program.



How can you be sure for it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## seesonic

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The coming J-20B with the WS-15 will also integrate some 6th gen aircraft technologies, since China has already been working on it.
> 
> The J-20B will be an excellent test platform, just like the Type 052D for the Type 055.



6th gen? Please


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to CCTV's disclosed information, the current J-20 engine is the WS-10B with 145KN afterburner, while it will be soon upgraded with the 165KN WS-15 which is slightly better than the 156KN F119.
> 
> @UKBengali



Do you have a link for this? Also, CCTV information regarding the military isn't reliable unless it comes from Channel 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Deino said:


> Come on ... and how long will it take until the PLAAF has fielded 500+ J-20s??



Before 2030 that is for sure.

Once China has the WS-15 production matured,
J-20s will be manufactured in the many dozens per year. I will not hesitate to say that nearly 
100 should roll out each year by the middle of next decade.

For China, J-20 is all they are focusing on for 5th gen, whereas the US stupidly stopped F-22 production many years ago and now only has
F-35 in production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> Do you have a link for this? Also, CCTV information regarding the military isn't reliable unless it comes from Channel 1.



lol, it was from ifeng, not CCTV itself.

Since CCTV's original report did not mention the indigenous engine is WS-15 or WS-10B.

BTW, this report has already driven the AL-31F supporters from the CD forum crazy. And keep in mind that ifeng was initially "AL-31F supporter" as well, now they have turned into "WS-10B supporter".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

UKBengali said:


> Before 2030 that is for sure.
> 
> Once China has the WS-15 production matured,
> J-20s will be manufactured in the many dozens per year. I will not hesitate to say that nearly
> 100 should roll out each year by the middle of next decade.
> 
> For China, J-20 is all they are focusing on for 5th gen, whereas the US stupidly stopped F-22 production many years ago and now only has
> F-35 in production.



Never ever !... and even then it will take years.

Neither SAC or CAC was able to manufacture more than 40 planes per year, CAC with the smaller J-10 probably a few more but not even close to Your number and both the J-10 and J-11 are much less sophisticated ones.

For the J-20 they are right now at what rate ?? ... maybe 2 per months and given the confirmed birds even less.
So close to 100 per year is impossible and most likely not even desirable.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> ...
> BTW, this report has already driven the AL-31F supporters from the CD forum crazy. And keep in mind that ifeng was initially "AL-31F supporter" as well, now they have turned into "WS-10B supporter".



Pardon, CD = ??? But at least surely not "China Defense Forum" or the "Sino Defence Forum".
As far as I know there is none who supports this WS-10B-theory and even less who think it is already the WS-15.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> lol, it was from ifeng, not CCTV itself.
> 
> Since CCTV's original report did not mention the indigenous engine is WS-15 or WS-10B.
> ....



But again, that's the issue: since the "CCTV's original report did not mention the indigenous engine is WS-15 or WS-10B" no-one knows for sure. Anyway there are still a few that are so much sure with the exact designation ...

Deino


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Never ever !... and even then it will take years.
> 
> Neither SAC or CAC was able to manufacture more than 40 planes per year, CAC with the smaller J-10 probably a few more but not even close to Your number and both the J-10 and J-11 are much less sophisticated ones.
> 
> For the J-20 they are right now at what rate ?? ... maybe 2 per months and given the confirmed birds even less.
> So close to 100 per year is impossible and most likely not even desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon, CD = ??? But at least surely not "China Defense Forum" or the "Sino Defence Forum".
> As far as I know there is none who supports this WS-10B-theory and even less who think it is already the WS-15.
> 
> 
> 
> But again, that's the issue: since the "CCTV's original report did not mention the indigenous engine is WS-15 or WS-10B" no-one knows for sure. Anyway there are still a few that are so much sure with the exact designation ...
> 
> Deino



The CD forum stands for the Chinese speaking forum CJDBY, not the English speaking Sinodefense.

BTW, the original CCTV report did reveal that the WS-15 was also being manufactured in the Liming factory from Shenyang. So it is unlikely that the WS-15 is still under development.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The CD forum stands for the Chinese speaking forum CJDBY, not the English speaking Sinodefense.
> 
> BTW, the original CCTV report did reveal that the WS-15 was also being manufactured in the Liming factory from Shenyang. So it is unlikely that the WS-15 is still under development.




Thanks !

But concerning this strange TV-report - IMO the most suspicious issue is that it was soon removed or deleted - as far as I got via the translation from others, the common consensus was that it did not mention "is or even was manufactured" but "will be", therefore leaving ample of interpretations possible.

I know, we are now again back at the language issue, but given that there are several Chinese and Chinese speaking members at both the English speaking CDF and SDF, why do they come to a completely other understanding and conclusion - aka no WS-10-version and no WS-15 by now - than here?

For me in conclusion it remains interesting and exciting.
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Thanks !
> 
> But concerning this strange TV-report - IMO the most suspicious issue is that it was soon removed or deleted - as far as I got via the translation from others, the common consensus was that it did not mention "is or even was manufactured" but "will be", therefore leaving ample of interpretations possible.
> 
> I know, we are now again back at the language issue, but given that there are several Chinese and Chinese speaking members at both the English speaking CDF and SDF, why do they come to a completely other understanding and conclusion - aka no WS-10-version and no WS-15 by now - than here?
> 
> For me in conclusion it remains interesting and exciting.
> Deino



The WS-15 is still being considered as the classified info for China, so it is unlikely they will reveal the actual footage of its manufacturing procedure right now.

Considered that a sizable number of the Type 093B has been commissioned, yet China has not revealed a single footage of it, but only from the earlier Type 093.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Thanks !
> 
> But concerning this strange TV-report - IMO the most suspicious issue is that it was soon removed or deleted - as far as I got via the translation from others, the common consensus was that it did not mention "is or even was manufactured" but "will be", therefore leaving ample of interpretations possible.
> 
> I know, we are now again back at the language issue, but given that there are several Chinese and Chinese speaking members at both the English speaking CDF and SDF, why do they come to a completely other understanding and conclusion - aka no WS-10-version and no WS-15 by now - than here?
> 
> For me in conclusion it remains interesting and exciting.
> Deino


It is so funny Deino. Does Sino defence or CDF is the bench mark when comes to gauging Chinese real military in depth? They don't accept is their problem. Does test pilot or chief designer words more inferior than those forumer comments?

You still believe operational J-20 with normal AL-31F engine will have great supersonic maneuverability? Unless you tell me you know more than those pilot?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beast said:


> It is so funny Deino. Does Sino defence or CDF is the bench mark when comes to gauging Chinese real military in depth? They don't accept is their problem. Does test pilot or chief designer words more inferior than those forumer comments?
> 
> You still believe operational J-20 with normal AL-31F engine will have great supersonic maneuverability? Unless you tell me you know more than those pilot?



Check the true color of those staunch AL-31F supporters from the CD forum, and it does look like they are on the CIA's payroll rather than being the normal military fans from China.

Those guys have literally turned the CD forum into a cesspool.

https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2407934-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Check the true color of those staunch AL-31F supporters from the CD forum, and it does look like they are on the CIA's payroll rather than being the normal military fans from China.
> 
> Those guys have literally turned the CD forum into a cesspool.
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2407934-1-1.html


They are just like Gordan Chang. I have long know CD forum has full of Chinese traitors. Many are overseas Canadian or US Chinese. Some can be even fake Chinese who is white but happen to know Chinese only.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UKBengali

Deino said:


> Never ever !... and even then it will take years.
> 
> Neither SAC or CAC was able to manufacture more than 40 planes per year, CAC with the smaller J-10 probably a few more but not even close to Your number and both the J-10 and J-11 are much less sophisticated ones.
> 
> For the J-20 they are right now at what rate ?? ... maybe 2 per months and given the confirmed birds even less.
> So close to 100 per year is impossible and most likely not even desirable.



I did say that the year would be around 2025. China will have an economy maybe twice as large by then and so will have so much more money to spend. Yes the J-20 will come in more expensive than J-10, J-11 etc but I am considering that only 1 5th generation fighter is in production then. If there are more then no need to build 100 or so J-20s a year.

We need to remember that once China finally designs a product it likes it builds them in quantity. Look at the examples of the Type-054A frigate, Type-052D destroyer and the new Type-55 cruiser..

We cannot take examples from the past of J-10s/J-11s as China was and is much poorer now than it will be by the mid 2020s. It also made little sense for China to build thousands of 4th generation fighters knowing that they will become obsolette in only a decade after being put into service.

Unless there is another 5th generation fighter in production by the mid-2020s then 100 or so J-20s will be rolling off the production lines every year. Whatever happens, unless the US restarts F-22 production China will have the most powerful air-force in the world by 2030.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Avicenna

UKBengali said:


> I did say that the year would be around 2025. China will have an economy maybe twice as large by then and so will have so much more money to spend. Yes the J-20 will come in more expensive than J-10, J-11 etc but I am considering that only 1 5th generation fighter is in production then. If there are more then no need to build 100 or so J-20s a year.
> 
> We need to remember that once China finally designs a product it likes it builds them in quantity. Look at the examples of the Type-054A frigate, Type-052D destroyer and the new Type-55 cruiser..
> 
> We cannot take examples from the past of J-10s/J-11s as China was and is much poorer now than it will be by the mid 2020s. It also made little sense for China to build thousands of 4th generation fighters knowing that they will become obsolette in only a decade after being put into service.
> 
> Unless there is another 5th generation fighter in production by the mid-2020s then 100 or so J-20s will be rolling off the production lines every year. Whatever happens, unless the US restarts F-22 production China will have the most powerful air-force in the world by 2030.



Your on crack son.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Avicenna said:


> Your on crack son.



Ok. if you say so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Avicenna

Avicenna said:


> Your on crack son.



I will address just two points.

No way does China roll out 100 J-20s in a year.

Secondly, no way does the USAF stop being the most capable Air Force in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Avicenna said:


> I will address just two points.
> 
> No way does China roll out 100 J-20s in a year.
> 
> Secondly, no way does the USAF stop being the most capable Air Force in the world.




OK. prove that you have some analytical ability.

Those statements are meaningless by themselves.

To help you, China will be by far the richest country in the world in 2030. It already is the richest in PPP and it's economy is growing many times quicker than the US. Now think very carefully before you reply. If this is beyond you then simply do not say anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Avicenna

I have a job buddy.

If I get time I will respond in detail.

But your analytical skills are deficient in that you really don't have the data
To make the assertions that you do.


----------



## MultaniGuy

Pakistan will most likely get the J-31, not the J-20.


----------



## UKBengali

Avicenna said:


> I have a job buddy.
> 
> If I get time I will respond in detail.
> 
> But your analytical skills are deficient in that you really don't have the data
> To make the assertions that you do.



Even if you have a job, you will have some time to respond say after work. It takes just 10-15 minutes to reply.

Like I say if this is beyond you then don't bother to reply. We all jump in and say things in haste.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

UKBengali said:


> Even if you have a job, you will have some time to respond say after work. It takes just 10-15 minutes to reply.
> 
> Like I say if this is beyond you then don't bother to reply. We all jump in and say things in haste.



Maybe what he doesn't has is the time to research for the data, not to reply in here.

Btw, let not compare China capability in aircraft making to another country. It will create unnecessary debate in here. Avicenna reaction is normal, because he's an American, and your comment spark his nationalism to argue. If it continue, it will derail this thread further.



Beast said:


> They are just like Gordan Chang. I have long know CD forum has full of Chinese traitors. Many are overseas Canadian or US Chinese. Some can be even fake Chinese who is white but happen to know Chinese only.



Your language of accusing other people as traitor remind me of the Red Army from the cultural revolution era. You must aware that cultural revolution has ended long time ago. To have different thought about what engine that placed inside J-20 is normal, as everyone don't know about the truth.

So I guess if the reality is that J-20 use AL-31F, then people in CAC are traitors too?


----------



## randomradio

Deino said:


> Come on ... and how long will it take until the PLAAF has fielded 500+ J-20s??



It's only 50 a year. Easily achieved.

The Russians already have the capacity to produce 70-75 Sukhois a year, that we know of.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Brainsucker said:


> Maybe what he doesn't has is the time to research for the data, not to reply in here.
> 
> Btw, let not compare China capability in aircraft making to another country. It will create unnecessary debate in here. Avicenna reaction is normal, because he's an American, and your comment spark his nationalism to argue. If it continue, it will derail this thread further.
> 
> 
> 
> Your language of accusing other people as traitor remind me of the Red Army from the cultural revolution era. You must aware that cultural revolution has ended long time ago. To have different thought about what engine that placed inside J-20 is normal, as everyone don't know about the truth.
> 
> So I guess if the reality is that J-20 use AL-31F, then people in CAC are traitors too?



Well, if you read their comments, you will notice that many of them were simply the trolls in the payroll who cannot be reasonated.

When people who are not familiar with the J-20 and hold some skepticism, we don't blame those people, but not those trolls who deliberately smear China's achievement and want to destroy the morale of the Chinese people.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## F-22Raptor

UKBengali said:


> OK. prove that you have some analytical ability.
> 
> Those statements are meaningless by themselves.
> 
> To help you, China will be by far the richest country in the world in 2030. It already is the richest in PPP and it's economy is growing many times quicker than the US. Now think very carefully before you reply. If this is beyond you then simply do not say anything.



For China to become the richest country, China actually has to close the gap in GDP, something that China hasn't done the last three years and may not again this year. The US economy is already at $19.2 trillion after the 2nd quarter. US total wealth also sits near $85 trillion, while China is under $25 trillion. China is nowhere close to being the richest country in the world.

As for Air Force comparisons, by 2030, the US will have over 2,000 fifth generation fighters, 6th gen prototypes, and B-21 bombers rolling off the production line. The US Air Force can project power anywhere in the world. Can the Chinese Air Force sustain operations on the other side of the world for years at a time? 

As usual, your a load of hot air Bengali.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

F-22Raptor said:


> For China to become the richest country, China actually has to close the gap in GDP, something that China hasn't done the last three years and may not again this year. The US economy is already at $19.2 trillion after the 2nd quarter. US total wealth also sits near $85 trillion, while China is under $25 trillion. China is nowhere close to being the richest country in the world.
> 
> As for Air Force comparisons, by 2030, the US will have over 2,000 fifth generation fighters, 6th gen prototypes, and B-21 bombers rolling off the production line. The US Air Force can project power anywhere in the world. Can the Chinese Air Force sustain operations on the other side of the world for years at a time?
> 
> As usual, your a load of hot air Bengali.



China might not catch US any soon in term of GDP but as military spending, but our 150 billions military budget has equivalent effectiveness as US 650 billions defense budge, take example a 70000$ US salary of American ship welder, researcher, scientist doesn't necessary mean they will do 7 time better or faster than the 10000$ US salary Chinese counterparts, if our military procurement is 7x cheaper than US, you will expect that we can fill up with close to 2000 5th gen fighters and bomber as well, of course you can claim that you guys are more advanced technologically than us. for that I will give you credit until 2030 realistically.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## azesus

80% USA GDP is in bullshit ponzi scheme like stocks and real estate or healthcare, China's manufacturing capacity already surpass USA

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

F-22Raptor said:


> For China to become the richest country, China actually has to close the gap in GDP, something that China hasn't done the last three years and may not again this year. The US economy is already at $19.2 trillion after the 2nd quarter. US total wealth also sits near $85 trillion, while China is under $25 trillion. China is nowhere close to being the richest country in the world.
> 
> As for Air Force comparisons, by 2030, the US will have over 2,000 fifth generation fighters, 6th gen prototypes, and B-21 bombers rolling off the production line. The US Air Force can project power anywhere in the world. Can the Chinese Air Force sustain operations on the other side of the world for years at a time?
> 
> As usual, your a load of hot air Bengali.



Dude you have next to nil knowledge of basic economies or geopolitics.
F-35 is a turkey in air to air, so take out those numbers from US 5th gen total.

Unless the US restarts F-22 production, China will have the most powerful airforce in the world by 2030.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> China might not catch US any soon in term of GDP but as military spending, but our 150 billions military budget has equivalent effectiveness as US 650 billions defense budge, take example a 70000$ US salary of American ship welder, researcher, scientist doesn't necessary mean they will do 7 time better or faster than the 10000$ US salary Chinese counterparts, if our military procurement is 7x cheaper than US, you will expect that we can fill up with close to 2000 5th gen fighters and bomber as well, of course you can claim that you guys are more advanced technologically than us. for that I will give you credit until 2030 realistically.



Bro, these people commenting here about US superiority do not want China to progress and frankly have no clue about economics or geopolitics.

China is already the largest economy in the world in PPP and since it makes nearly everything itself, it's PPP is more a reflection of it's wealth than actual nominal GDP which is rigged in favour of the US economy due to dollar being the world reserve currency.

Will the dollar still be the world reserve currency in 2030? Chances are very slim as Chinese GDP in PPP will be at least twice as much as US by then and the Chinese will have caught up in virtually all areas of civilian and military technology. The current nominal size of GDP as far as China is concerned will be completely irrelevant by then.

The Chinese consumer market will be by far the largest as China will then have 4 times the amount of consumers that will have enough spending power to buy nearly whatever US consumers can buy. Will China not use this massive import market to shape world political allegiances to it's favour? You bet it will.

I can write a whole essay on this but have better things to do with my life. Best to ignore these detractors who come from a position of being anti-China and/or are simply ignorant in the topic they are commenting on.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

*Can we come back to the topic please ! 

Your discussion is already so far off in the middle of politics, economics and ideology ...*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, if you read their comments, you will notice that many of them were simply the trolls in the payroll who cannot be reasonated.
> 
> When people who are not familiar with the J-20 and hold some skepticism, we don't blame those people, but not those trolls who deliberately smear China's achievement and want to destroy the morale of the Chinese people.



Ah, so they're troll? Well, I hate trolls too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Brainsucker said:


> Maybe what he doesn't has is the time to research for the data, not to reply in here.
> 
> Btw, let not compare China capability in aircraft making to another country. It will create unnecessary debate in here. Avicenna reaction is normal, because he's an American, and your comment spark his nationalism to argue. If it continue, it will derail this thread further.
> 
> 
> 
> Your language of accusing other people as traitor remind me of the Red Army from the cultural revolution era. You must aware that cultural revolution has ended long time ago. To have different thought about what engine that placed inside J-20 is normal, as everyone don't know about the truth.
> 
> So I guess if the reality is that J-20 use AL-31F, then people in CAC are traitors too?


Hi, it's not about opinion of differences. It's like about still arguing whether China has the ability to send man to space in 2017. Are you going to claim voicing opinion of China not able to conduct a manned mission to space is a freedom of opinion?

I guess you do not understand a single word of Chinese and not aware what's going on for J-20. Ask Chinesetiger1986 and asok what has pilot of J-20 talk regards to flying a J-20. If you think AL-31F of Russian import engine can bring magic to performance of J-20. Clearly these people are living in denial mode. I am not saying the engine cannot be Russian import but given the lack of news over any upgrade of AL-31F engine exported to China, not to mention the very poor financial state of Russian to conduct such expensive project. Such chances are very very low. China will not be stupid to finance Russian for such project given that they eaten the humble pie when regards to 38 IL-76 transport plane deal that you can hardly depend or held ransom by Russian promise.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Brainsucker

Beast said:


> Hi, it's not about opinion of differences. It's like about still arguing whether China has the ability to send man to space in 2017. Are you going to claim voicing opinion of China not able to conduct a manned mission to space is a freedom of opinion?
> 
> I guess you do not understand a single word of Chinese and not aware what's going on for J-20. Ask Chinesetiger1986 and asok what has pilot of J-20 talk regards to flying a J-20. If you think AL-31F of Russian import engine can bring magic to performance of J-20. Clearly these people are living in denial mode. I am not saying the engine cannot be Russian import but given the lack of news over any upgrade of AL-31F engine exported to China, not to mention the very poor financial state of Russian to conduct such expensive project. Such chances are very very low. China will not be stupid to finance Russian for such project given that they eaten the humble pie when regards to 38 IL-76 transport plane deal that you can hardly depend or held ransom by Russian promise.



Well, I don't have any opinion about the J-20 engine. For me, either Al-31F or WS-10B are ok. If it's already use WS-10B, then, it's great. But if it still use AL-31F, then, I just have to wait for some time until they put a better engine in J-20. I'm open an minded person. I listen both sides and never take side on this matter (although sometime I have skepticism too) The things that I don't like is that people accuse other as traitor or CIA. Well, unless the CIA that you mean is Chinese Intelligence Agency (not Central Intelligence Agency), then I have no comment on it. But, like ChineseTiger1986, I don't like troll either.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> China might not catch US any soon in term of GDP but as military spending, but our 150 billions military budget has equivalent effectiveness as US 650 billions defense budge, take example a 70000$ US salary of American ship welder, researcher, scientist doesn't necessary mean they will do 7 time better or faster than the 10000$ US salary Chinese counterparts, if our military procurement is 7x cheaper than US, you will expect that we can fill up with close to 2000 5th gen fighters and bomber as well, of course you can claim that you guys are more advanced technologically than us. for that I will give you credit until 2030 realistically.



That's not true. Recently it has been revealed that each J-15 costs around 400 million yuan, and the cost will only increase as AESA and 5th gen avionics are included with block 2 models. I can't imagine that the J-20, J-16, and J-10B/C are less expensive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

siegecrossbow said:


> That's not true. Recently it has been revealed that each J-15 costs around 400 million yuan, and the cost will only increase as AESA and 5th gen avionics are included with block 2 models. I can't imagine that the J-20, J-16, and J-10B/C are less expensive.



I just give an example to illustrate that the defense budged ratio doesn't mean that US will 7x better than China, Chinese military professional, soldiers are less paid than US counterpart including military procurement, we have already make a lot of saving for defense budget with just labor salary so for China to catch up US will not be an issue if China allocate the same GDP % on defense as US.

Sure J-20 is not cheap but ask US company Boeing and Chengdu to compete, surely we can built more with the same amount of money...maybe not as 7x times as I claimed initially.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> That's not true. Recently it has been revealed that each J-15 costs around 400 million yuan, and the cost will only increase as AESA and 5th gen avionics are included with block 2 models. I can't imagine that the J-20, J-16, and J-10B/C are less expensive.


What cost is that? Because if it's incremental unit cost rather than total cost (unit + program amortization), then it seems outlandish. 400M Yuan is 60M USD nominal and 115M USD at PPP (the more accurate figure). In contrast, an F-22 costs 140M USD marginal unit / 340M USD unit + amortization.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Can we please leave that OT-F-35-discussion out !*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Leave the cost of J-20 out of the discussions, folks. It is quite meaningless. If J-20 cost twice of a J-15 or J-11, you still need a well trained pilot for each plane. A good pilot is not cheap to train.

So you are better off with a smaller number of a very good plane, versus a large number of not so good planes.

China is still a very poor country, for sure. But money is not what is lacking, or a limiting factor in producing massive number of J-20. The limiting factor is the ability of China to produce reliable engine components for the WS-15 engines.

50 J-20 per year, means 100 WS-15 per year. Can Liming Engine Factory produce 100 WS-15 right now? I will continue keep doubting it, until I see some definite proofs.

The good news is China has already invested a lot of money into this.

It will take time to iron out all the production problems. As some wisemen said, the devil is lurking in the details.

The only proof, that this problem is finally solved, is having hundreds of WS-15, in service, for several years, accumulating tens of thousands of flying hours.

And then we will know, fore sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Asok said:


> Leave the cost of J-20 out of the discussions, folks. It is quite meaningless. If J-20 cost twice of a J-15 or J-11, you still need a well trained pilot for each plane. A good pilot is not cheap to train.
> 
> So you are better off with a smaller number of a very good plane, versus a large number of not so good planes.
> 
> China is still a very poor country, for sure. But money is not what is lacking, or a limiting factor in producing massive number of J-20. The limiting factor is the ability of China to produce reliable engine components for the WS-15 engines.
> 
> 50 J-20 per year, means 100 WS-15 per year. Can Liming Engine Factory produce 100 WS-15 right now? I will continue keep doubting it, until I see some definite proofs.
> 
> The good news is China has already invested a lot of money into this.
> 
> It will take time to iron out all the production problems. As some wisemen said, the devil is lurking in the details.
> 
> The only proof, that this problem is finally solved, is having hundreds of WS-15, in service, for several years, accumulating tens of thousands of flying hours.
> 
> And then we will know, fore sure.



The WS-15 is under mass production since 2016.

https://www.sohu.com/a/165963734_421184

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-15 is under mass production since 2016.
> 
> https://www.sohu.com/a/165963734_421184



I am sure Liming could produce a considerable number of WS-15, right now, but could it produce 100 engines per year, right now. I will have to wait for evidences.

If I see a massive number of J-20 in the next few years, then I will believe it.

The problem is rejection rate. To produce a engine blade, it takes around 3 months. Each blade must be near perfect. 

And if you have a rejection rate of 30%, right now, that means one third of the effort and parts will be wasted, if you start mass production. So one should wait, until the manufacturing process is hammered out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## name

wanglaokan said:


> How can a country of only 200 years history to compete with a a country of 5000 years civilized history in long term? We shall have confidence in ourself. Let them trolling and we doing our work.
> 
> It's not making sense to compare F22 with J20, cause the production line of F22 had been closed 7years ago.


exactly.
yes.
great.


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-15 is under mass production since 2016.
> 
> https://www.sohu.com/a/165963734_421184




Pardon to re-ask again, but isn't this report not one again based on that TV-report that

1. did not specificly say the J-20 *IS *powered by the WS-15, but only by a "Chinese engine" ?
2. was soon removed ??

And 3. "Sohu" is IMO far from an official source: So its again and again the re-post of that old report?

Deino


----------



## rcrmj

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-15 is under mass production since 2016.
> 
> https://www.sohu.com/a/165963734_421184


the test hasnt been finalized yet, how come it has started mass production???



Deino said:


> Pardon to reastk again, but isn't this report not one again based on that TV-report that
> 
> 1. did not specificly say the J-20 *IS *powered by the WS-15, but only by a "Chinese engine" ?
> 2. was soon removed ??
> 
> And 3. "Sohu" is IMO far from an official source: So its again and again the re-post of that old report?
> 
> Deino


for projects like H-20, SSBNs, WS-15 and 5th gen fighters, "official" reports are only becoming "reliable" when the thing is actually out with clear pictures, and doing all the "physicall maneuvers" infront of naked eyes or "amature camera lenses"```until then, just treat them as bedtime stories```````

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

rcrmj said:


> the test hasnt been finalized yet, how come it has started mass production???
> 
> 
> for projects like H-20, SSBNs, WS-15 and 5th gen fighters, "official" reports are only becoming "reliable" when the thing is actually out with clear pictures, and doing all the "physicall maneuvers" infront of naked eyes or "amature camera lenses"```until then, just treat them as bedtime stories```````




For the WS-15 and 5th gen fighters project . . ., "official" reports are *NOT* "reliable", because for the last 6 years,

1.) the thing is *NOT* actually out with hundreds of clear pictures,
2.) *NOT* doing all the "physicall maneuvers", infront of naked eyes, or "amature camera lenses"
3.) So they are just "*bedtime stories*".

Ok, I got it. So let's just ignore the official Chinese documentary reports. They are not a reliable source.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> For the WS-15 and 5th gen fighters project . . ., "official" reports are *NOT* "reliable", because for the last 6 years,
> 
> 1.) the thing is *NOT* actually out with hundreds of clear pictures,
> 2.) *NOT* doing all the "physicall maneuvers", infront of naked eyes, or "amature camera lenses"
> 3.) So they are just "*bedtime stories*".
> 
> Ok, I got it. So let's just ignore the official Chinese documentary reports. They are not a reliable source.




Point is simply that none of these three points is clear as hell as we all would like to:

Just take point 1:

IMO none and in fact not a single one of the hundreds of images available gives for me the final proof for a WS-15. In fact it is quite to the contrary and I take ALL of them for granted proof that it si an AL-31FN-derivate.
I do not want to start that discussion again, but You see that images You take for proof for a WS-15 do others interpret for exactly the contrary and not since they are blind, stupid ot ignorant, but simply since they are not conclusive.

Also point 2:

You interpret this IMO lame display at Zhuhai with a gentle pass and a soft climb a rocket-like, the best-seen ever and proof for a +210kN thrust engine.
Again here too I don't want to open the can of worms again, but none of this points is as conclusive as we like.

And in the same You interpret this video, which does not mention the WS-15 nor a WS-10XYZ by name and which was soon removed as a proof for the WS-15 is already in production and so on.

That's what is called having the same evidence on the table and coming to complete conclusions ... .

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Point is simply that none of these three points is clear as hell as we all would like to:
> 
> Just take point 1:
> 
> IMO none and in fact not a single one of the hundreds of images available gives for me the final proof for a WS-15. In fact it is quite to the contrary and I take ALL of them for granted proof that it si an AL-31FN-derivate.
> I do not want to start that discussion again, but You see that images You take for proof for a WS-15 do others interpret for exactly the contrary and not since they are blind, stupid ot ignorant, but simply since they are not conclusive.
> 
> Also point 2:
> 
> You interpret this IMO lame display at Zhuhai with a gentle pass and a soft climb a rocket-like, the best-seen ever and proof for a +210kN thrust engine.
> Again here too I don't want to open the can of worms again, but none of this points is as conclusive as we like.
> 
> And in the same You interpret this video, which does not mention the WS-15 nor a WS-10XYZ by name and which was soon removed as a proof for the WS-15 is already in production and so on.
> 
> That's what is called having the same evidence on the table and coming to complete conclusions ... .
> 
> Deino



That's what I am saying, official Chinese reports are *NOT* a reliable source.

Let's rely on our trusty CIA and Pentagon intelligence estimates, which informed Honorable Mr. Robert Gates, that China will not have a 5-generation fighter, till 2020, and only a few by 2025.

Let us keep ignore, what the vice PLAAF Commander, predicted in 2009, that the Chinese 5-generation fighter will be flying shortly, and will be *in service* around 2017-2019. He is clearly delusional and not informed on the state of Chinese military aviation.

In summary, those reports, pictures, videos, and eye-witness sightings of J-20, of the last 6 years, are just "bedtime stories", made up for kids.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> That's what I am saying, official Chinese reports are *NOT* a reliable source.
> 
> Let's rely on our trusty CIA and Pentagon intelligence estimates, which informed Honorable Mr. Robert Gates, that China will not have a 5-generation fighter, till 2020, and only a few by 2025.
> 
> Let us keep ignore, what the vice PLAAF Commander, predicted in 2009, that the Chinese 5-generation fighter will be flying shortly, and will be *in service* around 2017-2019. He is clearly delusional and not informed on the state of Chinese military aviation.
> 
> In summary, those reports, pictures, videos, and eye-witness sightings of J-20, of the last 6 years, are just "bedtime stories", made up for kids.



Come on, be a man and not a stubborn five-year old boy and admit at least that none of these images clearly shows the afterburner of the LRIP J-20A so close and clear that without any doubt it can be said which engine it is or is not.
Admit that there is - esp. not in this obscure CCTV-report - not expressively mentioned the current LRIP J-20A are powered by WS-15 engines.

All images so far, be these the nozzle or flying images are in the final conclusion not clear enough to say without any doubt this is the conclusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

*"in this obscure CCTV-report - [it is] not expressively mentioned the current LROP J-20A are powered by WS-15 engines."
*
1.) Sure, official Chinese CCTV documentary is *"obscure"*. Perhaps, Mr. Deino could find us a more official and authoritative source of information, like the CIA or NATO Intelligence reports on China. I am sure Mr. Deino can get us a report from those venerable intelligence agencies, who are better informed about PLAAF, than its own Commander.

2.) Sure, *[it is] not* expressively mentioned the current LROP J-20A are powered by WS-15 engines.", in this report:

"Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15) aircraft engine, . . . The J-20 stealth fighter’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, *has achieved* a historic leap, which has astounded the entire world.”

3.) Sure, the Chinese would have audacity or stupidity to claim that they "*has achieved a historic leap, which has astounded the entire world.*", even though the WS-15 has not even flown, yet, but it's still doing ground tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Oh again Mr. Asok cannot accept that none of his claims is conclusive and instead of accepting or admitting is trying again to make the others look blind, stupid or foolish.

No, I cannot prove my point but I at least admit it ... but the failing to prove my point does not in return makes Your claims confirmed.
If we both are discussion about the certain colour of a fruit and I say green and You say yellow and I cannot prove my claim green is this in return a prove for yellow??

Man; I really don't know what You are doing in profession but it surely has nothing to do with science, nature science and technology.

Again: show a single high-resolution image so we can decide what engine it is ... but IMO You tend to hang on a lousily researched and probably wrong TV-report without an prove ... just claims


By the way ... and I know it would ruin one if not Your only alleged prove: Do You have an answer why this video was soon deleted and is in no way repeated again? Maybe simply since they claimed wrong things ?? Could at least be an option.
But You surely will tell us that it was deleted since it unveiled too much of the highest secret engine technologies.... since "War is The Art of Deception".



Anyway ... I'm out again.
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Oh again Mr. Asok cannot accept that none of his claims is conclusive and instead of accepting or admitting is trying again to make the others look blind, stupid or foolish.
> 
> No, I cannot prove my point but I at least admit it ... but the failing to prove my point does not in return makes Your claims confirmed.
> If we both are discussion about the certain colour of a fruit and I say green and You say yellow and I cannot prove my claim green is this in return a prove for yellow??
> 
> Man; I really don't know what You are doing in profession but it surely has nothing to do with science, nature science and technology.
> 
> Again: show a single high-resolution image so we can decide what engine it is ... but IMO You tend to hang on a lousily researched and probably wrong TV-report without an prove ... just claims
> 
> 
> By the way ... and I know it would ruin one if not Your only alleged prove: Do You have an answer why this video was soon deleted and is in no way repeated again? Maybe simply since they claimed wrong things ?? Could at least be an option.
> But You surely will tell us that it was deleted since it unveiled too much of the highest secret engine technologies.... since "War is The Art of Deception".
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway ... I'm out again.
> Deino



*"Anyway ... I'm out again."*

Sure, those sneaky, devilishly clever Chinese, somehow, has designed, tested, and completed an greatly improved Russian AL-31-FN-M2 engine, and installed it on the new 5-gen fighter, J-20 for flight testing, *back in 2010, a full two and half years, before*, it's development plan was announced by the Russian in Sept. 2012.

Sure, that could happen. We are talking about China, after all. But somehow, it still haven't managed to test fly, it's supposed "Frankenstein" engine, WS-15, after at least 25 years of development.

That is really puzzling to me. But I am just a dumb fan-boy. That I have to admit.

And sure, Mr. Deino has the proofs that those damn Chinese, really has did the "impossible", but he has choose not give us any evidences.

May be, the Chinese just time travelled into the *FUTURE*, and stole several copies of the AL-31-FN-M2 engines, from the Russian, for its LRIP J-20.

Anything could happen, I admit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Hmm ... ok. I was wrong, now I see it ... how could I've been so blind, so stupid? 

YES for sure, the J-20 is already a close to 6th generation type, has a Mach 3.5 capability, can fly further and faster than any active military fighter. It will reach any opponent - maybe even the moon in half the time Apollo 11 reached - and that all alone only due to its mystical mega-hyper- +210 kN engine.
It has a system that can feel the pilot's input, that can kill by a thought and even will be invisible due to a Romulan cloaking device in batch 4 aka J-20C (C for cloaking!). 

The USAF will abandon all future fighter projects and will bow down to China - pardon, to You Asok the Great; the man who can deduct such mysteries only from 5sec video clips and grainy 5kB images. Mysteries the PLAAF HQs desperately wants to hide esp. from such ignorant, stupid Germans - and surrender ....

Upps. I woke up ... what a nice, funny dream I had. 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Hmm ... ok. I was wrong, now I see it ... how could I've been so blind, so stupid?
> 
> YES for sure, the J-20 is already a close to 6th generation type, has a Mach 3.5 capability, can fly further and faster than any active military fighter. It will reach any opponent - maybe even the moon in half the time Apollo 11 reached - and that all alone only due to its mystical mega-hyper- +210 kN engine.
> It has a system that can feel the pilot's input, that can kill by a thought and even will be invisible due to a Romulan cloaking device in batch 4 aka J-20C (C for cloaking!).
> 
> The USAF will abandon all future fighter projects and will bow down to China - pardon, to You Asok the Great; the man who can deduct such mysteries only from 5sec video clips and grainy 5kB images. Mysteries the PLAAF HQs desperately wants to hide esp. from such ignorant, stupid Germans - and surrender ....
> 
> Upps. I woke up ... what a nice, funny dream I had.
> 
> Deino



*"Hmm ... ok. I was wrong, now I see it ... how could I've been so blind, so stupid?"*

Thank you, Mr. Deino. I feel my mission is finally accomplished.   

You are not "so blind" or "so stupid", just stubborn, some times. But hey, who isn't?

Auf Wiedersehen, Herr Deino!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

I think some day when the truth is finally out ... surely several years from now and when we are already a bit (at least) grey, we should sit together and remember these good old days when we were fighting for and against each argument, stubborn like teenagers and have a good meal together.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Deino said:


> Hmm ... ok. I was wrong, now I see it ... how could I've been so blind, so stupid?
> 
> YES for sure, the J-20 is already a close to 6th generation type, has a Mach 3.5 capability, can fly further and faster than any active military fighter. It will reach any opponent - maybe even the moon in half the time Apollo 11 reached - and that all alone only due to its mystical mega-hyper- +210 kN engine.
> It has a system that can feel the pilot's input, that can kill by a thought and even will be invisible due to a Romulan cloaking device in batch 4 aka J-20C (C for cloaking!).
> 
> The USAF will abandon all future fighter projects and will bow down to China - pardon, to You Asok the Great; the man who can deduct such mysteries only from 5sec video clips and grainy 5kB images. Mysteries the PLAAF HQs desperately wants to hide esp. from such ignorant, stupid Germans - and surrender ....
> 
> Upps. I woke up ... what a nice, funny dream I had.
> 
> Deino


i taste the sarcasm suttle yet so effective


----------



## Asoka

Some years from now, I will remember Oct 2016 to Now, was one of my intellectually most active and interesting period.

To solve the mystery of J-20's engine, I was intensely pulled into understand how Jet Engine and how aircraft fly.

Sometimes, I spend more than 10 hrs a day on it. I must have downloaded and read over 100 technical papers and articles, on these subjects. Not very amusing for my wife and daughter to see me, constantly, glued to the monitor, reading those papers.

Before, I didn't even know how a jet engine works, how the airplane controls works, not even know how the wings of generates lift, despite a life long interest in airplane. I was just looking at pretty aircraft pictures. I am ashamed to admit.

Thank you for being my worthy debate "opponent"! 

It takes another stubborn person, to get the best and worst, out of another stubborn man.

I have insisted that there is a *War of Deception* going on, being waged by the Chinese over J-20.

There is a chance, that the continuous public disclosures of J-20 is diversionary tactic, designed to divert attention, away from the even more secretive H-20, strategic stealth bomber project.

To admit being fooled is not easy. The Chinese have fooled the fanboys, the CIA and Pentagon, *big time*, over the J-20 project.

They have fooled Mr. Robert Gates into cancel the formidable F-22, and put their money on the lesser F-35, thus forfeited their Air Superiority and air dominance, that the US has enjoyed since WWII.

I really doubted US would have cancelled F-22 at 187 units, if they knew, what they knew now.

Now, they can either reopen the F-22 production line, which takes 5 years even with no major upgrades, or bet their money on the sixth-generation fighter, which may take another 15 years, like F-22 and F-35.

There is no guaranteed, that China won't beat US and Russia to it, and produce a better sixth-generation, at an earlier date.

Either case, US have forfeited its Air Superiority over China. There will be no more *generation gap* between US and China air forces.

Their air powers' quality and quantity will be at PARITY, in the near future.

If the US has kept their production goal of 800+ F-22, China will not have 800 J-20 for another 10-15 years, and US would still have their Air Superiority.

And since the F-22's production line is still open, if it weren't canceled, US could keep increase the production F-22, past 800 units, and keep making continuous upgrades, like the F-15 and F-16, at the expense of F-35, in order, to keep up with J-20's production.

There would be no danger of losing the Air Superiority to China.

Now, US faces the prospect of 184 F-22 against 500-1000 J-20, in the next 10-20 years.

And J-20 will keep improving, at a rapid rate, while F-22 will not.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

*Beauty of J 20 * 






*J20 with External Fuel Tank*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lmjiao

Asok said:


> *"in this obscure CCTV-report - [it is] not expressively mentioned the current LROP J-20A are powered by WS-15 engines."
> *
> 1.) Sure, official Chinese CCTV documentary is *"obscure"*. Perhaps, Mr. Deino could find us a more official and authoritative source of information, like the CIA or NATO Intelligence reports on China. I am sure Mr. Deino can get us a report from those venerable intelligence agencies, who are better informed about PLAAF, than its own Commander.
> 
> 2.) Sure, *[it is] not* expressively mentioned the current LROP J-20A are powered by WS-15 engines.", in this report:
> 
> "Taihang" aircraft engine, to the [domestically produced] fifth generation "Emei" (WS-15) aircraft engine, . . . The J-20 stealth fighter’s engine's part, tooling and final assembly, were all completed, in the assembly factory of AECC Shenyang Liming Group Co. Ltd. China's aircraft engine industry, *has achieved* a historic leap, which has astounded the entire world.”
> 
> 3.) Sure, the Chinese would have audacity or stupidity to claim that they "*has achieved a historic leap, which has astounded the entire world.*", even though the WS-15 has not even flown, yet, but it's still doing ground tests.


I believe that what CCTV reported is official.

However, I can not make sure that it is 100% percent describing the J-20 equipped with WS-15.
The key point is, the Chinese language used in that report can have different meanings.
I have studied frame by frame for that report. But right now, I think we need to wait for more proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Asok said:


> For the WS-15 and 5th gen fighters project . . ., "official" reports are *NOT* "reliable", because for the last 6 years,
> 
> 1.) the thing is *NOT* actually out with hundreds of clear pictures,
> 2.) *NOT* doing all the "physicall maneuvers", infront of naked eyes, or "amature camera lenses"
> 3.) So they are just "*bedtime stories*".
> 
> Ok, I got it. So let's just ignore the official Chinese documentary reports. They are not a reliable source.


name one stuff that was 'revealed' by official news report which was prior to “翻墙党"'s clear pics and insiders' "side-talks" since 90s, just name one please``j-20? type 052C? J-10B/C/D? Y-20? J-31? Z-20? 055? or 039? or new SSBNs?

you have no idea the rigidness of the security works in that circle```and official news outlet is in line with the system, relying on official news regarding our military progress is as solid as relying on Jackpot to get rich```as matter of the discussion, WS-15 is nowhere near "mass production", and there is not one picture of WS-15 out yet (not the core, but the whole set)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

rcrmj said:


> name one stuff that was 'revealed' by official news report which was prior to “翻墙党"'s clear pics and insiders' "side-talks" since 90s, just name one please``j-20? type 052C? J-10B/C/D? Y-20? J-31? Z-20? 055? or 039? or new SSBNs?
> 
> you have no idea the rigidness of the security works in that circle```and official news outlet is in line with the system, relying on official news regarding our military progress is as solid as relying on Jackpot to get rich```as matter of the discussion, WS-15 is nowhere near "mass production", and there is not one picture of WS-15 out yet (not the core, but the whole set)



Dude, note my sarcastic tone in this post.

*"WS-15 is nowhere near "mass production". *

That is my point, Bro.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> Leave the cost of J-20 out of the discussions, folks. It is quite meaningless. If J-20 cost twice of a J-15 or J-11, you still need a well trained pilot for each plane. A good pilot is not cheap to train.
> 
> So you are better off with a smaller number of a very good plane, versus a large number of not so good planes.
> 
> China is still a very poor country, for sure. But money is not what is lacking, or a limiting factor in producing massive number of J-20. The limiting factor is the ability of China to produce reliable engine components for the WS-15 engines.
> 
> 50 J-20 per year, means 100 WS-15 per year. Can Liming Engine Factory produce 100 WS-15 right now? I will continue keep doubting it, until I see some definite proofs.
> 
> The good news is China has already invested a lot of money into this.
> 
> It will take time to iron out all the production problems. As some wisemen said, the devil is lurking in the details.
> 
> The only proof, that this problem is finally solved, is having hundreds of WS-15, in service, for several years, accumulating tens of thousands of flying hours.
> 
> And then we will know, fore sure.



Mr. Asok, your statements are very contradicting here. You call China a "very poor country" and yet you say money "is not what is lacking". How many "very poor" countries are capable of producing high thrust turbofans at 100 a year? Please google your statements ... China's GDP/capita is 16,700 



Deino said:


> I think some day when the truth is finally out ... surely several years from now and when we are already a bit (at least) grey, we should sit together and remember these good old days when we were fighting for and against each argument, stubborn like teenagers and have a good meal together.



Agreed. I cannot believe Mr. Asok did not recognize a blatantly obvious photo distortion. It wasn't even really a PS; it was just changing the filter of the photo. And since when did PLAAF planes come with green noses?!?


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Mr. Asok, your statements are very contradicting here. You call China a "very poor country" and yet you say money "is not what is lacking". How many "very poor" countries are capable of producing high thrust turbofans at 100 a year? Please google your statements ... China's GDP/capita is 16,700
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I cannot believe Mr. Asok did not recognize a blatantly obvious photo distortion. It wasn't even really a PS; it was just changing the filter of the photo. And since when did PLAAF planes come with green noses?!?



*" Please google your statements ... China's GDP/capita is 16,700 "*

Where did you got that number? Check your math.







China is still very poor per capita, because its lower than Mexico, Brazil and other middle income countries, and the income gap between rich and poor is far greater than US. There are still hundred of millions still struggling with less than $2 income, per day.





China is not lacking money to produce 100 turbofan engine per year because it has nearly $3,000,000,000,000 dollars of foreign exchange reserves to pay for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *" Please google your statements ... China's GDP/capita is 16,700 "*
> 
> Where did you got that number? Check your math.
> 
> View attachment 420177



I am not using the nominal GDP/capita rigged in favor of the USD. I'm using the standard PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) which is a much more accurate indication of total economic transactions. Just type China in wikipedia and you'll see its GDP/capital PPP is at 16,676. You might as well retake Economics 101.


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> I am not using the nominal GDP/capita rigged in favor of the USD. I'm using the standard PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) which is a much more accurate indication of total economic transactions. Just type China in wikipedia and you'll see its GDP/capital PPP is at 16,676. You might as well retake Economics 101.



GDP/capital PPP is non sense. It is purely make up numbers. I guess you took Economics 101, and that's why you are mislead into believing they mean something.

Let me guess, you know Mr. @Deino from other Forums, and he invited you to come here PDF, to argue for him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> GDP/capital PPP is non sense. It is purely make up numbers.


Given your overt Chinese nationalism and chest-thumping, you believe that the GDP nominal rigged in favor of the United States' reserve currency should be taken over PPP? This is why your statements are so contradictory! If you believe China is the power it currently is, then why are you using biased sources to evaluate your approach. I have taken intro2economics in college and I can tell you that PPP is a much better reference to one's economy. Look up the Big-Mac-Index.

P.S. Are you the guy who claims that China deliberately made deceiving nozzles to conceal the 210 kN WS-15 engine? And you claim that the WS-15 has thrust-vectoring for videos?


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Given your overt Chinese nationalism and chest-thumping, you believe that the GDP nominal rigged in favor of the United States' reserve currency should be taken over PPP? This is why your statements are so contradictory! If you believe China is the power it currently is, then why are you using biased sources to evaluate your approach. I have taken intro2economics in college and I can tell you that PPP is a much better reference to one's economy. Look up the Big-Mac-Index.
> 
> P.S. Are you the guy who claims that China deliberately made deceiving nozzles to conceal the 210 kN WS-15 engine? And you claim that the WS-15 has thrust-vectoring for videos?



*"you believe that the GDP nominal rigged in favor of the United States' reserve currency should be taken over PPP?"*

I believe PPP GDP per capita is pure nonsense, for no other reason that it is pure nonsense.

Those numbers mean nothing for national strength. National strength are determined by a combination of international competitiveness in various industries and services.

Not by some numbers conjured up some economists from thin air.

*"I have taken intro2economics in college"*

No wonder, you believe those nonsense. I pity you. I really do.

*"Are you the guy who claims that China deliberately made deceiving nozzles to conceal the 210 kN WS-15 engine?"*

No one I know has claim WS-15 nozzles was deliberately made to deceive anyone. I do believe similarity of the external appearance of its nozzles to AL-31, are incidental, and has confused many observers.

But J-20's nozzles have no similarity to WS-10, in anyway, and that has not stop many people from claiming its flying WS-10.
*
"And you claim that the WS-15 has thrust-vectoring for videos?"*

I do claim WS-15 has 3D TVC, from looking at some pictures, not videos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"you believe that the GDP nominal rigged in favor of the United States' reserve currency should be taken over PPP?"*
> 
> I believe PPP GDP per capita is pure non sense, for no other reason that is pure non sense.
> 
> Those numbers mean nothing for national strength. National strength are determined by a combination of international competitiveness in various industries and services.
> 
> Not by some numbers conjured up some economists from thin air.



How is it pure nonsense? Does your Chinese pizza cost more than your American one? Are Chinese consumer-goods much cheaper than American ones? That's what PPP takes into account for. GDP nominal is heavily manipulated by currency fluctuations. For example, Russia's GDP nominal declined by almost 50% in 2 years because of the Ruble's plunge. Your last part is a classic red-herring bait; it has nothing to do with GDP nominal or PPP. And no, I did not join PDF to "support" Deino in attacking you. I'm merely here to learn a thing or two; I could care less about the friction between you two.


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> How is it pure nonsense? Does your Chinese pizza cost more than your American one? Are Chinese consumer-goods much cheaper than American ones? That's what PPP takes into account for. GDP nominal is heavily manipulated by currency fluctuations. For example, Russia's GDP nominal declined by almost 50% in 2 years because of the Ruble's plunge. Your last part is a classic red-herring bait; it has nothing to do with GDP nominal or PPP. And no, I did not join PDF to "support" Deino in attacking you. I'm merely here to learn a thing or two; I could care less about the friction between you two.



If its so much better, name some countries that publish their GDP in PPP.

I, honestly, have never heard the Chinese government or any Chinese publications or individuals used this GDP in PPP number, to publish the economic figure.

*"And no, I did not join PDF to "support" Deino in attacking you. I'm merely here to learn a thing or two; I could care less about the friction between you two."*

You are not being honest, here. I really doubt that you don't know Mr. Deino from some other Forums. And that you were not here, because of his invitation or urge.

*"I'm merely here to learn a thing or two;"*

Really? I am surprised to know that. My apology to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ..
> You are not being honest, here. I really doubt that you don't know Mr. Deino from some other Forums. And that you were not here, because of his invitation or urge.
> 
> *....*
> 
> Really? I am surprised to know that.



@Asok shut up, leave these stupid accusations and don't make an idiot out of Your own. 

YES, I surely go around in other forums and look for supporters of my ideas. Then I invite them to argue for me ... how ridiculous can that be.
You got his reply and if we know each other from wherever does not count: He has each right to discuss here like anyone else ... if like his opinion or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"And no, I did not join PDF to "support" Deino in attacking you. I'm merely here to learn a thing or two; I could care less about the friction between you two."*
> 
> You are not being honest, here. I really doubt that you don't know Mr. Deino from some other Forums. And that you were not here, because of his invitation or urge.
> 
> *"I'm merely here to learn a thing or two;"*
> 
> Really? I am surprised to know that.


Deino is a very nice man and quite authorative when it comes to the PLAAF. I did come to know Deino through his various publications and SDF but that is not important right now. I did not come to PDF to gang up on you: Deino has not told me to join PDF. I read some of your ridiculous comments and pointed them out. 

PS : You do have a reputation on other forums of claiming the WS-15 Is 210 kn, 3d vectoring, and has AL-31 nozzles however


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Deino is a very nice man and quite authorative when it comes to the PLAAF. I did come to know Deino through his various publications and SDF but that is not important right now. I did not come to PDF to gang up on you: Deino has not told me to join PDF. I read some of your ridiculous comments and pointed them out.
> 
> PS : You do have a reputation on other forums of claiming the WS-15 Is 210 kn, 3d vectoring, and has AL-31 nozzles however



*"PS : You do have a reputation on other forums of claiming the WS-15 Is 210 kn, 3d vectoring, and has AL-31 nozzles however"*

I do? I must thank Mr. Deino for letting the truth out in other forums.

Thank You Mr. Deino. And I apologize for being rude to you, sometimes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"PS : You do have a reputation on other forums of claiming the WS-15 Is 210 kn, 3d vectoring, and has AL-31 nozzles however"*
> 
> I do? I must thank Mr. Deino for letting the truth out in other forums.
> 
> Thank You Mr. Deino. And I apologize for being rude to you, sometimes.


This was not just his concensus; many SDF members already knew about it and decided to not get involved. They share Deino opinion. But he or no one else called you out specifically by name. But I already k who this individual was from reading ur posts


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ... I must thank Mr. Deino for letting the truth out in other forums.
> ...



You are wellcome ! 
Like I said, You are almost famous in the "outer world" of non-PDF-supporters and indeed I re-posted Your claims (always without mentioning You by name) not to make You famous but to get a deeper understanding and an insight into Your claims .. However I must admit, none in any of these forums - You would say Western-infected forums - gave me a reason to follow Your claims. Even more none of them supports Your opinion. 

But anyway IMO it is the way we can indeed come closer to the truth: Stay open minded also against "unique" opinions and claims in order to sort out, argue and come to an own conclusion. 


By the way one question: You are always telling us how proud You are that the Chinese authorities at AVIC, CAC, the PLAAF and so on were able "fool" us all.  Deception is the art of war and You are proud that they deceived us all: all these stupid, arrogant Westerns like me, the CIA, the USAF, the Pentagon, Gates and so on ... You are proud to be a Chinese and You surely can be. 

But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor?  Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ??

Do we need to be worried ? Take care of You my most-favourite "opponent". 
Deino


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> You are wellcome ! Like I said, You are almost famous in the "outer world" of non-PDF-supportes and indeed I re-posted Your claims (always without mentioning You by name) - not to make You famous - but to get a deeper understanding and an insight into Your claims .. However I must admit, none in any of these - You would say Western-infected - forums gave me a reason to follow Your claims. Even more none of them supports this opinion.
> 
> But anyway IMO it is the way we can indeed come closer to the truth: Stay open minded also against "unique" opinions and claims in order to sort out, argue and come to an own conclusion.
> 
> 
> By the way one question: You are always telling us how proud You are that the Chinese authorities at AVIC, CAC, the PLAAF and so on were able "fool" us all. Art of war is deception and You are proud that they deceived us all: all these stupid, arrogant Westerns like me, the CIA, the USAF, the Pentagon, Gates and so on ... You are proud to be a Chinese and You surely can be.
> 
> But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor? Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ??
> 
> Do we need to be worried ?
> Deino


Asok has never read the art of war... period. It specifically states not to overestimate your own capabilities while underestimating those of everyone else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Asok has never read the art of war... period. It specifically states not to overestimate your own capabilities while underestimating those of everyone else.



I beg to disagreed. I have read both the Chinese version of Art of War, many times, and the English translations by by Thomas Cleary, and Lionel Giles.

The Art of Deception is first mislead your enemies into making mistakes, and then delay the correction of his mistakes as long as possible by spreading conflicting informations.

That was put to practiced brilliantly by the Allies in the Invasion of Normandy.

And also put to practice brilliantly by the Chinese, regarding the J-20 project. The US has been mislead, into cancelling the formidable F-22 in 2009, by the chinese deliberate concealment on J-20's true performance, and by the CIA estimate that China will not have J-20 before 2020.

And then the correction of this mistake by re-opening the F-22 production line, was delayed to this day, by spreading disinformations about the development status of WS-15 engine and its true performance, through various internet forums.

*"It specifically states not to overestimate your own capabilities while underestimating those of everyone else."*

This is what the American and its Western allies has been doing regarding China. They have patented and copy-righted this arrogance and ignorance. They have been grossly underestimated China, in all other areas, especially in scientific researches and innovation.

And now, I am telling the truth about the current Chinese capabilities in military aviation, and I am being laughed at and ridiculed.

The joke is on you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

Hello folks, please set aside the engine things of J-20... for nobody can confirm or support proof to anything... unless the related authority in China decides to do so by some other means...  or perhaps wait until the MIC-related think tanks in the USA tell us so... 

I do care more to see a dozen, two dozens, three dozens (dozens as in the layman's term... i/o brigades etc) and so forth... it's easier to count the numbers instead of guessing what's inside the belly. Do you agree? Let's focus other aspects of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> I beg to disagreed. I have read both the Chinese version of Art of War, many times, and the English translations by by Thomas Cleary, and Lionel Giles.
> 
> The Art of Deception is first mislead your enemies into making mistakes, and then delay the correction of his mistakes as long as possible by spreading conflicting informations.
> 
> That was put to practiced brilliantly by the Allies in the Invasion of Normandy.
> 
> And also put to practice brilliantly by the Chinese, regarding the J-20 project. The US has been mislead, into cancelling the formidable F-22 in 2009, by the chinese deliberate concealment on J-20's true performance, and by the CIA estimate that China will not have J-20 before 2020.
> 
> And then the correction of this mistake by re-opening the F-22 production line, was delayed to this day, by spreading disinformations about the development status of WS-15 engine and its true performance, through various internet forums.
> 
> *"It specifically states not to overestimate your own capabilities while underestimating those of everyone else."*
> 
> This is what the American and its Western allies has been doing regarding China. They have patented and copy-righted this arrogance and ignorance. They have been grossly underestimated China, in all other areas, especially in scientific researches and innovation.
> 
> And now, I am telling the truth about the current Chinese capabilities in military aviation, and I am being laughed at and ridiculed.
> 
> The joke is on you.


Explain how you're telling the "truth" on Chinese military aviation? Have any of your prophecies come true? Your comparison to deception vis-a-vis Art of War is also inaccurate; the PLA has already been very open about the jets capabilities and even showed a LRIP in zhuhai. Hence, the PLAAF is not the secretive monolith u claim like the ussr.


----------



## Asoka

*


Figaro said:



Explain how you're telling the "truth" on Chinese military aviation? Have any of your prophecies come true? Your comparison to deception vis-a-vis Art of War is also inaccurate; the PLA has already been very open about the jets capabilities and even showed a LRIP in zhuhai. Hence, the PLAAF is not the secretive monolith u claim like the ussr.

Click to expand...

*
Vast amount of scientific research papers exist on the internet, including the Chinese language ones that are published only in China journals, but not in English international journals.

Those papers are not accessible to foreigners, because the language barrier. This included military related papers and aeronautical and aerospace papers. And they are especially not accessible to foreign journalists, and even foreign intelligence analysts, because of their highly technical nature, and the the language barrier. You need to know the Chinese technical terms to search, and the Chinese language ability and technical ability to read and understand them.

Our Mr. Deino, despite being a diligent researcher, is lacking in both.

The Chinese aviation research is quite open, but once classified, they are strictly off limit, just like any other state or military secrets. Chinese Internet censors are rigorous active. Any reports or leaks that they don't like are quickly deleted and the individual or website is severely punished.

Now, they have even learned the technique of spreading disinformations, so that the real and false informations are so conflicting, foreign intelligence agencies couldn't trust the real one they get from human intelligence, because they couldn't tell the real one from the false.

China has not been very open about its military. They only tell, what they want the world to know. China is still very secretive, but not like the former USSR, because of the Internet.

Instead of clam down on the Internet, or cut off connection from outside, China has cleverly used the Internet to its advantages, by building a National Chinese Internet Firewall at the early days of the Internet. It could monitor and block any outside websites, it didn't like. For example, Facebook, Google, Youtube . . . No other country has done that (probably except N. Korea). It is reported that even the use of VPN is now blocked.

I actually spent a lot of time reading aviation papers in Chinese language, and I known that the state of chinese aeronautical has advanced rapidly, because of ample scientific funding, and the huge number of new engineers and scientists that entered the fields, each year.

This is why I am confident that J-20 has been using a *prototype* of WS-15 from day one, has *3D TVC*, and has at least *210kN* of trust. And it is now using a production version of WS-15 on the LRIP J-20.

I am not confident that China has solved the mass production issues regarding WS-15, yet, because I know the long verification process, that could be completed only, after hundreds were built, and tens of thousands of flying hours were accumulated.

This has not happen yet.

Also from reading the Chinese technical papers, I know China is working on an engine, with a very high Thrust to Weight Ratio of 15-20, (WS-10 is 8, and WS-15 is 10-12), and various of other very high tech, state of the art, aeronautical projects.

Again, foreign journalists don't know them, unless they were first reported by Chinese journalists, which are generally not very technical in their reports. This usually happens only, because they have achieve some initial success, so they could celebrate.

"*the PLA has already been very open about the jets capabilities and even showed a LRIP in zhuhai. "*

This is quite true regarding J-20, compared to J-10, which not even a picture were leaked, until 2 regiments were in service.

Why such openness regarding J-20? I can only guess. One reason that recently came to my mind is that, openness about J-20 could be a diversionary tactic.

Design to divert attention away from another even more important H-20 project, the strategic stealth bomber.

Several engines with the core of WS-15, will be built, including one, with a large turbofan, that will be installed on H-20. This is why extreme secrecy on the performance and state of development of WS-15. I think.

China's Rocket force will deliver the initial blows. J-20 will be aerial assassins to clear the enemy AWACs and Oil tankers and Fighters. H-20 will deliver the knock out punch, to the enemy airports, ports and other military infrastructures. J-20 will be its long range, stealthy body guards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> ....
> 
> This is why I am confident that J-20 has been using a *prototype* of WS-15 from day one, has *3D TVC*, and has at least *210kN* of trust. And it is now using a production version of WS-15 on the LRIP J-20.
> 
> ....



So You are at best *CONFIDENT*, which is not the same as it is proven !

Then please admit as I offered You as a compromise to accept and admit You have no prove, not a full-sized image, not a high-resolution video, not even an official document where is written in clear words ! Nothing but academic papers, internet reports, small and grainy stills and few second long video clips ... but not a single proof.

BY the way care to answer my last question on the last page?

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-599#post-9789817

You surely missed it.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> So You are at best *CONFIDENT*, which is not the same as it is proven !
> 
> Then please admit as I offered You as a compromise to accept and admit You have no prove, not a full-sized image, not a high-resolution video, not even an official document where is written in clear words ! Nothing but academic papers, internet reports, small and grainy stills and few second long video clips ... but not a single proof.
> 
> BY the way care to answer my last question on the last page?
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-599#post-9789817
> 
> You surely missed it.
> 
> Deino


*
"So You are at best CONFIDENT, which is not the same as it is proven !"*

Exactly, I am not an insider, with insider information. I could only make educated guess.

I will get to answer your previous post. I just got up, not even had coffee yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"So You are at best CONFIDENT, which is not the same as it is proven !"*
> 
> Exactly, I am not an insider, with insider information. I could only make educated guess.
> 
> I will get to answer your previous post. I just got up, not even had coffee yet.
> 
> View attachment 420273




Thanks a lot for that open confession ! ... and take Your time. I hope You don't get my question wrong as an offence or sarcasm ...


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> Vast amount of scientific research papers exist on the internet, including the Chinese language ones that are published only in China journals, but not in English international journals.
> 
> Those papers are not accessible to foreigners, because the language barrier. This included military related papers and aeronautical and aerospace papers. And they are especially not accessible to foreign journalists, and even foreign intelligence analysts, because of their highly technical nature, and the the language barrier. You need to know the Chinese technical terms to search, and the Chinese language ability and technical ability to read and understand them.
> 
> Our Mr. Deino, despite being a diligent researcher, is lacking in both.
> 
> The Chinese aviation research is quite open, but once classified, they are strictly off limit, just like any other state or military secrets. Chinese Internet censors are rigorous active. Any reports or leaks that they don't like are quickly deleted and the individual or website is severely punished.
> 
> Now, they have even learned the technique of spreading disinformations, so that the real and false informations are so conflicting, foreign intelligence agencies couldn't trust the real one they get from human intelligence, because they couldn't tell the real one from the false.
> 
> China has not been very open about its military. They only tell, what they want the world to know. China is still very secretive, but not like the former USSR, because of the Internet.
> 
> Instead of clam down on the Internet, or cut off connection from outside, China has cleverly used the Internet to its advantages, by building a National Chinese Internet Firewall at the early days of the Internet. It could monitor and block any outside websites, it didn't like. For example, Facebook, Google, Youtube . . . No other country has done that (probably except N. Korea). It is reported that even the use of VPN is now blocked.
> 
> I actually spent a lot of time reading aviation papers in Chinese language, and I known that the state of chinese aeronautical has advanced rapidly, because of ample scientific funding, and the huge number of new engineers and scientists that entered the fields, each year.
> 
> This is why I am confident that J-20 has been using a *prototype* of WS-15 from day one, has *3D TVC*, and has at least *210kN* of trust. And it is now using a production version of WS-15 on the LRIP J-20.
> 
> I am not confident that China has solved the mass production issues regarding WS-15, yet, because I know the long verification process, that could be completed only, after hundreds were built, and tens of thousands of flying hours were accumulated.
> 
> This has not happen yet.
> 
> Also from reading the Chinese technical papers, I know China is working on an engine, with a very high Thrust to Weight Ratio of 15-20, (WS-10 is 8, and WS-15 is 10-12), and various of other very high tech, state of the art, aeronautical projects.
> 
> Again, foreign journalists don't know them, unless they were first reported by Chinese journalists, which are generally not very technical in their reports. This usually happens only, because they have achieve some initial success, so they could celebrate.
> 
> "*the PLA has already been very open about the jets capabilities and even showed a LRIP in zhuhai. "*
> 
> This is quite true regarding J-20, compared to J-10, which not even a picture were leaked, until 2 regiments were in service.
> 
> Why such openness regarding J-20? I can only guess. One reason that recently came to my mind is that, openness about J-20 could be a diversionary tactic.
> 
> Design to divert attention away from another even more important H-20 project, the strategic stealth bomber.
> 
> Several engines with the core of WS-15, will be built, including one, with a large turbofan, that will be installed on H-20. This is why extreme secrecy on the performance and state of development of WS-15. I think.
> 
> China's Rocket force will deliver the initial blows. J-20 will be aerial assassins to clear the enemy AWACs and Oil tankers and Fighters. H-20 will deliver the knock out punch, to the enemy airports, ports and other military infrastructures. J-20 will be its long range, stealthy body guards.


Please stop your ridiculous straw man attacks on Deino. I cannot read Chinese either and have to rely on Bing translate to assist mean. As far as I know, Deino's sources are all Chinese and he spends extensive time translating for us. Regarding openness, China's transparency has come a long ways; the J-10 was only shown in Zhuhai 10 years later while a J-20 LRIP performed aerial maneuvers in front of a world audience. As for the WS-15, I've found nobody to back up your absurd claims on either Chinese or Western forums. Most agree that it has completed ground testing and is beginning high altitude tests with a thrust of over 165 kN. And please show me documentation on the alleged 3D thrust vectoring of the J-20. And given your so-called expertise on the J-20, you still believe that it is an interceptor/striker meant to take out AWACS and tankers.  The J-20 is a heavy air-superiority platform designed for WVR and BVR combat; not interception or strikes. You would glean quite a bit of info if you looked on SDF or read Deino's articles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

everyone has a point, and Asok's accessment on China's defense info outlet landscape is quite on the spot`meanwhile Deino's doubts and queries are quite rational with integrity, not like some of the members like gambit and the self-claimed Chinese and Mexican mix "j" ```

indeed there are loads of professional papers only in Chinese on internet, to native speakers like myself that still finding those papers are hard to crack``` therefore it is very limited to foreign enthusiasts to understand the real depth of our technological capabilities. I even had an ambition that to translate few, but ````````well

anyway, regarding J-20, there are few things that we dont have to discuss:
1: its a air-superiority fighter, without a well structured and written fly-control sftware, the plane would kill its own pilot
2: the engine is not WS-15``(there is not one country in the world will use testing engines on prototyps or testing planes, so does China)
3: the number of J-20 will be well over 300````

and the rests are all open for speculation

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> everyone has a point, and Asok's accessment on China's defense info outlet landscape is quite on the spot`meanwhile Deino's doubts and queries are quite rational with integrity, not like some of the members like gambit and the self-claimed Chinese and Mexican mix "j" ```
> 
> indeed there are loads of professional papers only in Chinese on internet, to native speakers like myself that still finding those papers are hard to crack``` therefore it is very limited to foreign enthusiasts to understand the real depth of our technological capabilities. I even had an ambition that to translate few, but ````````well
> 
> anyway, regarding J-20, there are few things that we dont have to discuss:
> 1: its a air-superiority fighter, without a well structured and written fly-control sftware, the plane would kill its own pilot
> 2: the engine is not WS-15``(there is not one country in the world will use testing engines on prototyps or testing planes, so does China)
> 3: the number of J-20 will be well over 300````
> 
> and the rests are all open for speculation


Well said. Some Chinese fanbois still claim that the J-20 can be used to hit high-value targets (AWEC, Tankers), strike ground targets, carry anti-ship missile and still be able to have outstanding maneuverability. Unfortunately, if one cannot even assess its proper role, their analysis of the J-20 is unlikely to be credible.

IMHO, the number of J-20A's will probably not exceed 50-60 if the current engines are Russian (AL-31FM2). I doubt that China will likely order more Russian engines as its WS-10 program matures. As for the J-20B's, I feel that the PLA is going to order at least 400 in the medium term given the rising F-35 production.


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> Well said. Some Chinese fanbois still claim that the J-20 can be used to *hit high-value targets (AWEC, Tankers), strike ground targets, carry anti-ship missile and still be able to have outstanding maneuverability*. Unfortunately, if one cannot even assess its proper role, their analysis of the J-20 is unlikely to be credible.
> 
> IMHO, the number of J-20A's will probably not exceed 50-60 if the current engines are Russian (AL-31FM2). I doubt that China will likely order more Russian engines as its WS-10 program matures. As for the J-20B's, I feel that the PLA is going to order at least 400 in the medium term given the rising F-35 production.


all open for speculation ```all open for speculation ``


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> all open for speculation ```all open for speculation ``


If it is a "heavy air superiority fighter" -- in your own words -- then it probably cannot perform those functions very well. Those secondary functions have their own dedicated platforms.


----------



## sinait

rcrmj said:


> everyone has a point, and Asok's accessment on China's defense info outlet landscape is quite on the spot`meanwhile Deino's doubts and queries are quite rational with integrity, not like some of the members like gambit and the self-claimed Chinese and Mexican mix "j" ```
> 
> indeed there are loads of professional papers only in Chinese on internet, to native speakers like myself that still finding those papers are hard to crack``` therefore it is very limited to foreign enthusiasts to understand the real depth of our technological capabilities. I even had an ambition that to translate few, but ````````well
> 
> anyway, regarding J-20, there are few things that we dont have to discuss:
> 1: its a air-superiority fighter, without a well structured and written fly-control sftware, the plane would kill its own pilot
> 2: the engine is not WS-15``(there is not one country in the world will use testing engines on prototyps or testing planes, so does China)
> 3: the number of J-20 will be well over 300````
> 
> and the rests are all open for speculation


Agree Chinese technical papers are hard to understand and harder still to translate or express in English.
This debate over engines for the J-20 has gone on for too long.
Time to wait for more concrete information before continuing further discourse on just this part of J-20.
Hope everybody can take a rest on this subject.
Wonder why no more fabulous pictures from @grey boy 2
.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

sinait said:


> Agree Chinese technical papers are hard to understand and harder still to translate or express in English.
> This debate over engines for the J-20 has gone on for too long.
> Time to wait for more concrete information before continuing further discourse on just this part of J-20.
> Hope everybody can take a rest on this subject.
> .


But we all know that the WS-15 is progressing very smoothly and will be incorporated into the J-20 within the next year or two.


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> But we all know that the WS-15 is progressing very smoothly and will be incorporated into the J-20 within the next year or two.



Production date is 2023 at the very earliest. Even the WS-20, which is far less complex than the WS-15, won't go into platform integration until 2018.


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> Production date is 2023 at the very earliest. Even the WS-20, which is far less complex than the WS-15, won't go into platform integration until 2018.


No. The maturity is by 2022-23. It will probably first be incorporated into the J-20 (similar to the WS-10A to J-11B) in 2018-2019.


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> No. The maturity is by 2022-23. It will probably first be incorporated into the J-20 (similar to the WS-10A to J-11B) in 2018-2019.



Maturity takes additional years, if not decades, to bestow upon the WS-15. Even the WS-10 is not fully "mature", as implied by the lack of its use aboard the J-15 and J-10B/C.

It is possible that an early prototype might make an appearance on a flying Il-76 testbed in the next few years, but certainly not on a high-stakes platform like the J-20.


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> Maturity takes additional years, if not decades, to bestow upon the WS-15. Even the WS-10 is not fully "mature", as implied by the lack of its use aboard the J-15 and J-10B/C.
> 
> It is possible that an early prototype might make an appearance on a flying Il-76 testbed in the next few years, but certainly not on a high-stakes platform like the J-20.


The fact that the WS-15 has completed ground tests and is being transferred to a Il-76 testbed is a good indication that the program is progressing well. We will probably see a J-20 with a WS-15 by 2019 (2020 at the latest). By 2023, the WS-15 will already be mostly "mature".


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> The fact that the WS-15 has completed ground tests and is being transferred to a Il-76 testbed is a good indication that the program is progressing well. We will probably see a J-20 with a WS-15 by 2019 (2020 at the latest). By 2023, the WS-15 will already be mostly "mature".



Very unlikely; the WS-20 has been under flight tests for years now and it has yet to make an appearance on its intended platform: Y-20. We also don't know if the WS-15 has indeed wrapped up ground tests or if the prototype has achieved its thrust goals.


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> Very unlikely; the WS-20 has been under flight tests for years now and it has yet to make an appearance on its intended platform: Y-20. We also don't know if the WS-15 has indeed wrapped up ground tests or if the prototype has achieved its thrust goals.


And the WS-15 has been under development for 20 years. Just look at the WS-10 history and you'll get a glimpse of how the WS-15 will shape out. It has only been 2 years since it went on an IL-76 testbed and it was China's first attempt at making a *powerful* high-bypass turbofan for a 66 ton strategic lifter.


----------



## Deino

J-20A 78272 - 126. Brigade

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Disappointed that it isn't a new J-20 LRIP, but a picture is better than no picture!


----------



## Deino




----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> And the WS-15 has been under development for 20 years. Just look at the WS-10 history and you'll get a glimpse of how the WS-15 will shape out. It has only been 2 years since it went on an IL-76 testbed and it was China's first attempt at making a *powerful* high-bypass turbofan for a 66 ton strategic lifter.



Development of the WS-15 has been nowhere as smooth as the WS-10 even if we are to take into account the much higher performance required of the WS-15. To go from ground testing to integration on a fighter platform in the time span of two years is essentially impossible, as it would take years for the engine to get clearance following testing aboard a specifically-designated testbed platform (in this case, the Il-76).


----------



## Asoka

*"Like I said, You are almost famous in the "outer world" of non-PDF-supporters and indeed I re-posted Your claims (always without mentioning You by name) not to make You famous but to get a deeper understanding and an insight into Your claims .. "
*
Thanks for your considerations. I appreciate your efforts.
*
"However I must admit, none in any of these forums - You would say Western-infected forums - gave me a reason to follow Your claims. Even more none of them supports Your opinion. "
*
That is absolutely true, I am afraid. I can totally believe it. When a lie is told a thousands, it has became the "truth". When someone actually tell truth, he will not be believed.

People who believe J-20 is using the WS-15, is actually a very small minority, even in Chinese language Forums, except in one, where I got most my insights, http://bbs.meyet.com/forum-133-1.html. This blogger is definitely connected and authorized for leaks, otherwise, his website would have shutdown a long time ago.
*
But anyway IMO it is the way we can indeed come closer to the truth: Stay open minded also against "unique" opinions and claims in order to sort out, argue and come to an own conclusion. 
*
When something is important, there will definitely many conflicting opinions, because people have different backgrounds and perspectives. Stay open minded is definitely a good idea.
Why am I doing this?

I am a proud Chinese, who lived in US since 1999, married to an American, and we have a 3 years old daughter, and expecting our second child, in any days now. My father-in-law is a German descendant, who is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have choose to settle in US. I love American Revolutionary period History. I greatly admire the High Moral Ideals of the American Founding Father's generation, which was part of the European Enlightenment period, of course.

I lived with a Austrian for several years, and learned a lot about friendship from him. So I have a favorable impression of German. We, Chinese, believe the straight German can't tell a lie, despite what the Minister Goebbels had said.

Beside Aviation, I am also into Geopolitics. I believe a group of foreign and domestic evil forces has seized control of the US political process and both the Republican and Democratic party. This evil force is bending on starting WWIII, which will end in a Global Thermonuclear War.

I see the *war clouds* have been gathering between US and China and Russia, for several years now. There has been a *lie *that is spreading among ordinary people by the US mass medias, and thinktanks, (which are controlled by that evil force), that US military superiority over China and Russia is *unassailable*, a war against these two countries will be *short and swift*, and it will not go nuclear.

And there is a also *lie* spreading among US generals and admirals, that Chinese and Russia ICBMs are useless against US, because US have anti-ballistics missiles defense, and US could nuke China and Russia, without the fear they would get nuked also. And US would win the war.

China and Russia is doing its part to stop this lie by developing hypersonic glide missile, that could change it flight path, in mid air, rendering missiles defense, useless.

As for conventional weapons, we know, air superiority is the tip of the spear. And air superiority is achieved by winning the sky, with massive number of air superiority fighters like F-15, F-22, Su-27 Su-35, Su-57, and J-20. As the WWWII, and the Iraqi wars have demonstrated, wars are first won by winning air superiority.

And this supposed air superiority over China and Russia is what gives the US generals, the false confidence, that they could win a conventional war against those nuclear powers, easily and quickly. And that's why they have been eager to go along with the WWIII war plan.

*But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor?  Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ??*

*Do we need to be worried ? Take care of You my most-favourite "opponent". 

*
The prospect of 1000 J-20, with engine that has +210kN thrust, against, 185 F-22 with engine that has 160-180kN thrust, will certainly shatter the claim of US air superiority over China, and the presumption of a quick and easy victory.

If you ask me why am I doing this?

I am doing it for World Peace and Harmony. I am doing it for myself and for my family. I don't want to see a war between US and China (War for what reason, for God sake?)


*But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor? *

No, of course not, I don't think I am hurting China.

*The campaign of deception has ran its course. It was highly successful. *The US is unlikely to re-open the F-22 production line, even if J-20 is using WS-15 with 210kN turns out to be true. But this would have *great deterrence value, to let the truth out*.

If WS-15 is already in service right now, but has only 160-180kN, this will *not* have great deterrence value. This would make J-20, only on par, with F-22. Not really earth shattering. 

People have been expecting this number of 160-180kN for WS-15, we are just debating on the status of WS-15. Nothing to write home about, if this is true.

A powerful and already successful in service, WS-15 with +210kN and 3D TVC, will be *shocking to the world*, and force US *revaluate its lies, and war plans.*

China will not reveal the true Max. thrust of WS-15, of course, even if the service status was confirmed.

Remember, my estimate of 210kN is actually, the *low end* of my estimate. I am actually afraid to reveal, what's really in my mind. It is shocking even to me. China definitely has an ACE in its sleeve.

This truth that I am so insistent about, will be noticed by military intelligences and taken seriously, if some Journalist break the story, because the reasoning and analysis behind it, are solid. Any aviation professional will able to see the truth that is revealed in it.

*Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ?*

This is doing my patriotic duty, my German friend. I am doing this for China an US, and World Peace and Harmony.
*
Do we need to be worried ? Take care of You my most-favourite "opponent". *

I live in US. I have more fear for US government, than Chinese government, for upsetting their war plans with China and Russia. But I am not revealing US secrets. They can't charge me for revealing Chinese secrets. 

Thank you for you concern, my friend.I can see you have a warm heart. You wife must be a luck lady. We may meet some day, and have a beer , if the world haven't blown up by nuclear bombs, by then.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> Development of the WS-15 has been nowhere as smooth as the WS-10 even if we are to take into account the much higher performance required of the WS-15. To go from ground testing to integration on a fighter platform in the time span of two years is essentially impossible, as it would take years for the engine to get clearance following testing aboard a specifically-designated testbed platform (in this case, the Il-76).


I believe that there haven't been many problems with the WS-15 (the alleged core problem was solved). The Chinese had a very difficult time with the WS-10 because it was their first high performance turbofan that could rival other developed countries (at a time when the tech base of China was very primitive). Their WS-10 experience should factor in very nicely to the WS-15, especially considering the latter has been in development for 2 decades. Regarding testing, I meant from the IL-76 platform (which is to occur very soon) to the J-20 would take 2 to 3 years. Remember, technology is not a linear line but an exponential curve 

I dug deeper into Asok's posts and found that he was indeed correct on one specific argument : how the J-20 did not engage afterburners during its performance at Zhuhai. If you look at multiple videos and angles of their debut, you'll notice that the J-20 did not need to turn on afterburners to perform the vertical climb and in particular its Chandelle maneuver, both of which were overlooked. This is not to say that Asok's WS-15 claims are true, but that the J-20's are indeed using powerful engines of most likely Russian origin (Deino's AL-31FM-2 theory). Unfortunately, this is where Asok's logical posts end, as he begins rambling on how the J-20 incorporates 3D vectoring.



Asok said:


> *"Like I said, You are almost famous in the "outer world" of non-PDF-supporters and indeed I re-posted Your claims (always without mentioning You by name) not to make You famous but to get a deeper understanding and an insight into Your claims .. "
> *
> Thanks for your considerations. I appreciate your efforts.
> *
> "However I must admit, none in any of these forums - You would say Western-infected forums - gave me a reason to follow Your claims. Even more none of them supports Your opinion. "
> *
> That is absolutely true, I am afraid. I can totally believe it. When a lie is told a thousands, it has became the "truth". When someone actually tell truth, he will not be believed.
> 
> People who believe J-20 is using the WS-15, is actually a very small minority, even in Chinese language Forums, except in one, where I got most my insights, http://bbs.meyet.com/forum-133-1.html. This blogger is definitely connected and authorized for leaks, otherwise, his website would have shutdown a long time ago.
> *
> But anyway IMO it is the way we can indeed come closer to the truth: Stay open minded also against "unique" opinions and claims in order to sort out, argue and come to an own conclusion.
> *
> When something is important, there will definitely many conflicting opinions, because people have different backgrounds and perspectives. Stay open minded is definitely a good idea.
> Why am I doing this?
> 
> I am a proud Chinese, who lived in US since 1999, married to an American, and we have a 3 years old daughter, and expecting our second child, in any days now. My father-in-law is a German descendant, who is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have choose to settle in US. I love American Revolutionary period History. I greatly admire the High Moral Ideals of the American Founding Father's generation, which was part of the European Enlightenment period, of course.
> 
> I lived with a Austrian for several years, and learned a lot about friendship from him. So I have a favorable impression of German. We, Chinese, believe the straight German can't tell a lie, despite what the Minister Goebbels had said.
> 
> Beside Aviation, I am also into Geopolitics. I believe a group of foreign and domestic evil forces has seized control of the US political process and both the Republican and Democratic party. This evil force is bending on starting WWIII, which will end in a Global Thermonuclear War.
> 
> I see the *war clouds* have been gathering between US and China and Russia, for several years now. There has been a *lie *that is spreading among ordinary people by the US mass medias, and thinktanks, (which are controlled by that evil force), that US military superiority over China and Russia is *unassailable*, a war against these two countries will be *short and swift*, and it will not go nuclear.
> 
> And there is a also *lie* spreading among US generals and admirals, that Chinese and Russia ICBMs are useless against US, because US have anti-ballistics missiles defense, and US could nuke China and Russia, without the fear they would get nuked also. And US would win the war.
> 
> China and Russia is doing its part to stop this lie by developing hypersonic glide missile, that could change it flight path, in mid air, rendering missiles defense, useless.
> 
> As for conventional weapons, we know, air superiority is the tip of the spear. And air superiority is achieved by winning the sky, with massive number of air superiority fighters like F-15, F-22, Su-27 Su-35, Su-57, and J-20. As the WWWII, and the Iraqi wars have demonstrated, wars are first won by winning air superiority.
> 
> And this supposed air superiority over China and Russia is what gives the US generals, the false confidence, that they could win a conventional war against those nuclear powers, easily and quickly. And that's why they have been eager to go along with the WWIII war plan.
> 
> *But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor?  Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ??*
> 
> *Do we need to be worried ? Take care of You my most-favourite "opponent".
> 
> *
> The prospect of 1000 J-20, with engine that has +210kN thrust, against, 185 F-22 with engine that has 160-180kN thrust, will certainly shatter the claim of US air superiority over China, and the presumption of a quick and easy victory.
> 
> If you ask me why am I doing this?
> 
> I am doing it for World Peace and Harmony. I am doing it for myself and for my family. I don't want to see a war between US and China (War for what reason, for God sake?)
> 
> 
> *But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor? *
> 
> No, of course not, I don't think I am hurting China.
> 
> *The campaign of deception has ran its course. It was highly successful. *The US is unlikely to re-open the F-22 production line, even if J-20 is using WS-15 with 210kN turns out to be true. But this would have *great deterrence value, to let the truth out*.
> 
> If WS-15 is already in service right now, but has only 160-180kN, this will *not* have great deterrence value. This would make J-20, only on par, with F-22. Not really earth shattering.
> 
> People have been expecting this number of 160-180kN for WS-15, we are just debating on the status of WS-15. Nothing to write home about, if this is true.
> 
> A powerful and already successful in service, WS-15 with +210kN and 3D TVC, will be *shocking to the world*, and force US *revaluate its lies, and war plans.*
> 
> China will not reveal the true Max. thrust of WS-15, of course, even if the service status was confirmed.
> 
> Remember, my estimate of 210kN is actually, the *low end* of my estimate. I am actually afraid to reveal, what's really in my mind. It is shocking even to me. China definitely has an ACE in its sleeve.
> 
> This truth that I am so insistent about, will be noticed by military intelligences and taken seriously, if some Journalist break the story, because the reasoning and analysis behind it, are solid. Any aviation professional will able to see the truth that is revealed in it.
> 
> *Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ?*
> 
> This is doing my patriotic duty, my German friend. I am doing this for China an US, and World Peace and Harmony.
> *
> Do we need to be worried ? Take care of You my most-favourite "opponent". *
> 
> I live in US. I have more fear for US government, than Chinese government, for upsetting their war plans with China and Russia. But I am not revealing US secrets. They can't charge me for revealing Chinese secrets.
> 
> Thank you for you concern, my friend.I can see you have a warm heart. You wife must be a luck lady. We may meet some day, and have a beer , if the world haven't blown up by nuclear bombs, by then.


The first part of your post started out pretty good ... even if irrelevant to the J-20. But then you spew nonsense on the J-20. What makes you think that there will ever be 1000 J-20's? Do you realize that the PLAAF has a limited budget -- there are still hundreds of J-7's active -- and have no intention of bankrupting themselves. I'm not going to talk about the WS-15 as I have already made my thoughts loud and clear (you stand where you stand and I stand where I stand). And what do you mean when you talk about "world peace and harmony"? It's as if you're advocating for war between China and the United States because the J-20 is "way superior" to the F-22 in every aspect (what?!?) in a weird fashion. The US is never going to war with China or Russia; it knows what M.A.D is and does not want a nuclear winter.



Figaro said:


> I believe that there haven't been many problems with the WS-15 (the alleged core problem was solved). The Chinese had a very difficult time with the WS-10 because it was their first high performance turbofan that could rival other developed countries (at a time when the tech base of China was very primitive). Their WS-10 experience should factor in very nicely to the WS-15, especially considering the latter has been in development for 2 decades. Regarding testing, I meant from the IL-76 platform (which is to occur very soon) to the J-20 would take 2 to 3 years. Remember, technology is not a linear line but an exponential curve
> 
> I dug deeper into Asok's posts and found that he was indeed correct on one specific argument : how the J-20 did not engage afterburners during its performance at Zhuhai. If you look at multiple videos and angles of their debut, you'll notice that the J-20 did not need to turn on afterburners to perform the vertical climb and in particular its Chandelle maneuver, both of which were overlooked. This is not to say that Asok's WS-15 claims are true, but that the J-20's are indeed using powerful engines of most likely Russian origin (Deino's AL-31FM-2 theory). Unfortunately, this is where Asok's logical posts end, as he begins rambling on how the J-20 incorporates 3D vectoring.
> 
> 
> The first part of your post started out pretty good ... even if irrelevant to the J-20. But then you spew nonsense on the J-20. What makes you think that there will ever be 1000 J-20's? Do you realize that the PLAAF has a limited budget -- there are still hundreds of J-7's active -- and have no intention of bankrupting themselves. I'm not going to talk about the WS-15 as I have already made my thoughts loud and clear (you stand where you stand and I stand where I stand). And what do you mean when you talk about "world peace and harmony"? It's as if you're advocating for war between China and the United States because the J-20 is "way superior" to the F-22 in every aspect (what?!?) in a weird fashion. The US is never going to war with China or Russia; it knows what M.A.D is and does not want a nuclear winter.



I just saw that Asok's estimate of 210 kN was *"on the lower end" 
Congrats with your second child btw *


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> I believe that there haven't been many problems with the WS-15 (the alleged core problem was solved). The Chinese had a very difficult time with the WS-10 because it was their first high performance turbofan that could rival other developed countries (at a time when the tech base of China was very primitive). Their WS-10 experience should factor in very nicely to the WS-15, especially considering the latter has been in development for 2 decades. Regarding testing, I meant from the IL-76 platform (which is to occur very soon) to the J-20 would take 2 to 3 years. Remember, technology is not a linear line but an exponential curve
> 
> I dug deeper into Asok's posts and found that he was indeed correct on one specific argument : how the J-20 did not engage afterburners during its performance at Zhuhai. If you look at multiple videos and angles of their debut, you'll notice that the J-20 did not need to turn on afterburners to perform the vertical climb and in particular its Chandelle maneuver, both of which were overlooked. This is not to say that Asok's WS-15 claims are true, but that the J-20's are indeed using powerful engines of most likely Russian origin (Deino's AL-31FM-2 theory). Unfortunately, this is where Asok's logical posts end, as he begins rambling on how the J-20 incorporates 3D vectoring.
> 
> 
> The first part of your post started out pretty good ... even if irrelevant to the J-20. But then you spew nonsense on the J-20. What makes you think that there will ever be 1000 J-20's? Do you realize that the PLAAF has a limited budget -- there are still hundreds of J-7's active -- and have no intention of bankrupting themselves. I'm not going to talk about the WS-15 as I have already made my thoughts loud and clear (you stand where you stand and I stand where I stand). And what do you mean when you talk about "world peace and harmony"? It's as if you're advocating for war between China and the United States because the J-20 is "way superior" to the F-22 in every aspect (what?!?) in a weird fashion. The US is never going to war with China or Russia; it knows what M.A.D is and does not want a nuclear winter.
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw that Asok's estimate of 210 kN was *"on the lower end"
> Congrats with your second child btw *



I have posted a lot on WS-15 and J-20 in this thread. If you go to my profile, by clicking on my name, and click on "Postings", if you see a list of all my previous postings. And see what are my reasonings and proofs behind my conclusions.

*"I just t saw that Asok's estimate of 210 kN was "on the lower end" "
*
I understand your shocking reaction. You are not alone. Many people have reacted with the same disbelief and wall ramming with their heads.  Don't bang your head too hard, please.

*"This is not to say that Asok's WS-15 claims are true, but that the J-20's are indeed using powerful engines of most likely Russian origin (Deino's AL-31FM-2 theory). "*

I have debunked Deino's AM-31-FM-M2 theory, by pointing out, that the Russian announced the intended development of this engine on Sep of 2012, a full 18 months, *after* the first flight of J-20. Unless the Chinese had time travelled into the future, and stole this engine, brought it back to 2010. They would not have access to this engine.

And there has been no announcements, of sales and delivery of this AL-31-FM-M2 to China, in the last 6 years.

None whatsoever!

*"What makes you think that there will ever be 1000 J-20's? Do you realize that the PLAAF has a limited budget."*

I believe PLAAF will have 500-1000 J-20, in the next 10-20 years, not immediately or in the short term. 50 per years will take 10 years to build 500. How many J-20 will the PLAAF will end up having, is entirely depended on the geo-political climate.

If the relationship and trust between US and China are greatly improved in the next few years. China might not even need 500.

The USAF's plan was to have 800 F-22, but got whittled down to 187, mostly because of budget pressure and the intelligence estimate that China will have not J-20 before 2020, and only a few by 2025.

*"PLAAF has a limited budget." 
*
But aren't you are the one, who debated with me, that China's GDP in PPP per capita, right now is
14400.90? And by this measure, China' GDP is over 23.2 Trillions, instead of $10 trillions, the largest in the world.

And by this measure World Bank have estimated that China will have a GDP of $40 trillions by 2030.

The cost of 50 J-20s per year, at $150 millions a piece, will be $7.5 billions per year.

You don't think China, will have enough money, to pay for 500 J-20s, in the next 10 years?






*"And what do you mean when you talk about "world peace and harmony"? It's as if you're advocating for war between China and the United States because the J-20 is "way superior" to the F-22 in every aspect (what?!?) in a weird fashion."*

*"It's as if you're advocating for war between China and the United States"*

Oh boy, where do you get this idea from? I am advocating that US *will be less likely* to start a conventional war with China, if it knows J-20 is far superior to F-22, esp. in engine thrust, and have far greater numbers of J-20.

*"The US is never going to war with China or Russia;"*

By this statement, I know you are not one of those crazy one. Thanks for being sane, Bro. Normal, not dumbed down people is harder and harder to find, these days.

US is pushing for war with BOTH China and Russia. (This is Mad, I know. But Washington DC is filled with crazy neolibs and neocons, who wants perpetual wars, with the rest of the world, including China and Russia. I know because I have lived in Maryland for 18 years.)

US will never go to (conventional) war China or Russia,* if it know it doesn't have air superiority, anymore.* True. I agreed.

*"it knows what M.A.D is, and does not want a nuclear winter."*

US think, it is invulnerable to China and Russia's ICBMs, because it has deployed anti-missiles defense, THAAD, right on China and Russia's door steps.

*Congrats with your second child btw"*

Thanks Bro, may God bless you, too.


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> I have posted a lot on WS-15 and J-20 in this thread. If you go to my profile, by clicking on my name, and click on "Postings", if you see a list of all my previous postings. And see what are my reasonings and proofs behind my conclusions.
> 
> *"I just t saw that Asok's estimate of 210 kN was "on the lower end" "
> *
> I understand your shocking reaction. You are not alone. Many people have reacted with the same disbelief and wall ramming with their heads.  Don't bang your head too hard, please.
> 
> *"This is not to say that Asok's WS-15 claims are true, but that the J-20's are indeed using powerful engines of most likely Russian origin (Deino's AL-31FM-2 theory). "*
> 
> I have debunked Deino's AM-31-FM-M2 theory, by pointing out, that the Russian announced the intended development of this engine on Sep of 2012, a full 18 months, *after* the first flight of J-20. Unless the Chinese had time travelled into the future, and stole this engine, brought it back to 2010. They would not have access to this engine.
> 
> And there has been no announcements, of sales and delivery of this AL-31-FM-M2 to China, in the last 6 years.
> 
> None whatsoever!
> 
> *"What makes you think that there will ever be 1000 J-20's? Do you realize that the PLAAF has a limited budget."*
> 
> I believe PLAAF will have 500-1000 J-20, in the next 10-20 years, not immediately or in the short term. 50 per years will take 10 years to build 500. How many J-20 will the PLAAF will end up having, is entirely depended on the geo-political climate.
> 
> If the relationship and trust between US and China are greatly improved in the next few years. China might not even need 500.
> 
> The USAF's plan was to have 800 F-22, but got whittled down to 187, mostly because of budget pressure and the intelligence estimate that China will have not J-20 before 2020, and only a few by 2025.
> 
> *"PLAAF has a limited budget."
> *
> But aren't you are the one, who debated with me, that China's GDP in PPP per capita, right now is
> 14400.90? And by this measure, China' GDP is over 23.2 Trillions, instead of $10 trillions, the largest in the world.
> 
> And by this measure World Bank have estimated that China will have a GDP of $40 trillions by 2030.
> 
> The cost of 50 J-20s per year, at $150 millions a piece, will be $7.5 billions per year.
> 
> You don't think China, will have enough money, to pay for 500 J-20s, in the next 10 years?
> 
> View attachment 420483
> 
> 
> *"And what do you mean when you talk about "world peace and harmony"? It's as if you're advocating for war between China and the United States because the J-20 is "way superior" to the F-22 in every aspect (what?!?) in a weird fashion."*
> 
> *"It's as if you're advocating for war between China and the United States"*
> 
> Oh boy, where do you get this idea from? I am advocating that US *will be less likely* to start a conventional war with China, if it knows J-20 is far superior to F-22, esp. in engine thrust, and have far greater numbers of J-20.
> 
> *"The US is never going to war with China or Russia;"*
> 
> US is pushing for war with BOTH China and Russia. (This is Mad, I know. But Washington DC is filled with crazy neolibs and neocons, who wants perpetual wars, with the rest of the world, including China and Russia. I know because I have lived in Maryland for 18 years.)
> 
> US will never go to (conventional) war China or Russia,* if it know it doesn't have air superiority, anymore.* True. I agreed.
> 
> *"it knows what M.A.D is, and does not want a nuclear winter."*
> 
> US think, it is invulnerable to China and Russia's ICBMs, because it has deployed anti-missiles defense, THAAD, right on China and Russia's door steps.



*I have debunked Deino's AM-31-FM-M2 theory, by pointing out, that the Russian announced the intended development of this engine on Sep of 2012, a full 18 months, after the first flight of J-20. Unless the Chinese had time travelled into the future, and stole this engine, brought it back to 2010. They would not have access to this engine.*

This is not called debunking; Deino specifically stated that the initial prototypes came out with AL-31F's in 2012 and later received engine upgrades (LRIP included). 

*But aren't you are the one, who debated with me, that China's GDP in PPP per capita, right now is*
*14400.90? And by this measure, China' GDP is over 23.2 Trillions, instead of $10 trillions, the largest in the world.*

You're beating a straw-man here; China has a set military budget and varies in accordance with their economy. China simply cannot afford 1000 J-20's given its military budget which is less than 1/3 of the United States. If one were to base it on pure GDP alone, then the US could also afford 1000 F-22s which obviously is not the case.

*US think, it is invulnerable to China and Russia's ICBMs, because it has deployed anti-missiles defense, THAAD, right on China and Russia's door steps*

Do you really think that American military planners are that arrogant and ignorant about China's nuclear deterrence? In the event of a nuclear war, China could very easily jam THAAD's radar and destroy the batteries via surgical strike. And also, the THAAD is not intended to shoot down Chinese ICBM's crossing the polar trajectory (the name's TERMINAL). If the US is so "invulnerable", surely it would have started war with China already?


----------



## Asoka

"*Do you really think that American military planners are that arrogant and ignorant "*
I really afraid so. I am praying that I am wrong.

1.) I really think US pushing for war with China and Russian because it think it will win. 

2.) And I think any war, between nuclear powers, will quickly goes nuclear.

3.) And I believe US don't mind that, because it has deployed THAAD on China and Russia's door step. 

4.) And I believe the Pentagon really believe THAAD could stop the ICBMs.

*"If the US is so "invulnerable", surely it would have started war with China already?"*

Those CIA and Pentagon crazes are working hard at it. The war is not yet happening right now, its purely because China and Russia are working together to stop them.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"Like I said, You are almost famous in the "outer world" of non-PDF-supporters and indeed I re-posted Your claims (always without mentioning You by name) not to make You famous but to get a deeper understanding and an insight into Your claims .. "
> *
> Thanks for your considerations. I appreciate your efforts.
> *
> "However I must admit, none in any of these forums - You would say Western-infected forums - gave me a reason to follow Your claims. Even more none of them supports Your opinion. "
> *
> That is absolutely true, I am afraid. I can totally believe it. When a lie is told a thousands, it has became the "truth". When someone actually tell truth, he will not be believed.
> 
> People who believe J-20 is using the WS-15, is actually a very small minority, even in Chinese language Forums, except in one, where I got most my insights, http://bbs.meyet.com/forum-133-1.html. This blogger is definitely connected and authorized for leaks, otherwise, his website would have shutdown a long time ago.
> *
> But anyway IMO it is the way we can indeed come closer to the truth: Stay open minded also against "unique" opinions and claims in order to sort out, argue and come to an own conclusion.
> *
> When something is important, there will definitely many conflicting opinions, because people have different backgrounds and perspectives. Stay open minded is definitely a good idea.
> Why am I doing this?
> 
> I am a proud Chinese, who lived in US since 1999, married to an American, and we have a 3 years old daughter, and expecting our second child, in any days now. My father-in-law is a German descendant, who is built like Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have choose to settle in US. I love American Revolutionary period History. I greatly admire the High Moral Ideals of the American Founding Father's generation, which was part of the European Enlightenment period, of course.
> 
> I lived with a Austrian for several years, and learned a lot about friendship from him. So I have a favorable impression of German. We, Chinese, believe the straight German can't tell a lie, despite what the Minister Goebbels had said.
> 
> Beside Aviation, I am also into Geopolitics. I believe a group of foreign and domestic evil forces has seized control of the US political process and both the Republican and Democratic party. This evil force is bending on starting WWIII, which will end in a Global Thermonuclear War.
> 
> I see the *war clouds* have been gathering between US and China and Russia, for several years now. There has been a *lie *that is spreading among ordinary people by the US mass medias, and thinktanks, (which are controlled by that evil force), that US military superiority over China and Russia is *unassailable*, a war against these two countries will be *short and swift*, and it will not go nuclear.
> 
> And there is a also *lie* spreading among US generals and admirals, that Chinese and Russia ICBMs are useless against US, because US have anti-ballistics missiles defense, and US could nuke China and Russia, without the fear they would get nuked also. And US would win the war.
> 
> China and Russia is doing its part to stop this lie by developing hypersonic glide missile, that could change it flight path, in mid air, rendering missiles defense, useless.
> 
> As for conventional weapons, we know, air superiority is the tip of the spear. And air superiority is achieved by winning the sky, with massive number of air superiority fighters like F-15, F-22, Su-27 Su-35, Su-57, and J-20. As the WWWII, and the Iraqi wars have demonstrated, wars are first won by winning air superiority.
> 
> And this supposed air superiority over China and Russia is what gives the US generals, the false confidence, that they could win a conventional war against those nuclear powers, easily and quickly. And that's why they have been eager to go along with the WWIII war plan.
> 
> *But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor?  Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ??*
> 
> *Do we need to be worried ? Take care of You my most-favourite "opponent".
> 
> *
> The prospect of 1000 J-20, with engine that has +210kN thrust, against, 185 F-22 with engine that has 160-180kN thrust, will certainly shatter the claim of US air superiority over China, and the presumption of a quick and easy victory.
> 
> If you ask me why am I doing this?
> 
> I am doing it for World Peace and Harmony. I am doing it for myself and for my family. I don't want to see a war between US and China (War for what reason, for God sake?)
> 
> 
> *But don't You rate Yourself then as a traitor? *
> 
> No, of course not, I don't think I am hurting China.
> 
> *The campaign of deception has ran its course. It was highly successful. *The US is unlikely to re-open the F-22 production line, even if J-20 is using WS-15 with 210kN turns out to be true. But this would have *great deterrence value, to let the truth out*.
> 
> If WS-15 is already in service right now, but has only 160-180kN, this will *not* have great deterrence value. This would make J-20, only on par, with F-22. Not really earth shattering.
> 
> People have been expecting this number of 160-180kN for WS-15, we are just debating on the status of WS-15. Nothing to write home about, if this is true.
> 
> A powerful and already successful in service, WS-15 with +210kN and 3D TVC, will be *shocking to the world*, and force US *revaluate its lies, and war plans.*
> 
> China will not reveal the true Max. thrust of WS-15, of course, even if the service status was confirmed.
> 
> Remember, my estimate of 210kN is actually, the *low end* of my estimate. I am actually afraid to reveal, what's really in my mind. It is shocking even to me. China definitely has an ACE in its sleeve.
> 
> This truth that I am so insistent about, will be noticed by military intelligences and taken seriously, if some Journalist break the story, because the reasoning and analysis behind it, are solid. Any aviation professional will able to see the truth that is revealed in it.
> 
> *Telling the facts, "letting the truth out in other forums", exposing national secrets to opponents, isn't this the highest level of treason ?*
> 
> This is doing my patriotic duty, my German friend. I am doing this for China an US, and World Peace and Harmony.
> *
> Do we need to be worried ? Take care of You my most-favourite "opponent". *
> 
> I live in US. I have more fear for US government, than Chinese government, for upsetting their war plans with China and Russia. But I am not revealing US secrets. They can't charge me for revealing Chinese secrets.
> 
> Thank you for you concern, my friend.I can see you have a warm heart. You wife must be a luck lady. We may meet some day, and have a beer , if the world haven't blown up by nuclear bombs, by then.


 too much speculations with no prove, how can you prove that your Blogger bring inside news from PLAAF and not bring rumors?



Figaro said:


> *I have debunked Deino's AM-31-FM-M2 theory, by pointing out, that the Russian announced the intended development of this engine on Sep of 2012, a full 18 months, after the first flight of J-20. Unless the Chinese had time travelled into the future, and stole this engine, brought it back to 2010. They would not have access to this engine.*
> 
> This is not called debunking; Deino specifically stated that the initial prototypes came out with AL-31F's in 2012 and later received engine upgrades (LRIP included).
> 
> *But aren't you are the one, who debated with me, that China's GDP in PPP per capita, right now is*
> *14400.90? And by this measure, China' GDP is over 23.2 Trillions, instead of $10 trillions, the largest in the world.*
> 
> You're beating a straw-man here; China has a set military budget and varies in accordance with their economy. China simply cannot afford 1000 J-20's given its military budget which is less than 1/3 of the United States. If one were to base it on pure GDP alone, then the US could also afford 1000 F-22s which obviously is not the case.
> 
> *US think, it is invulnerable to China and Russia's ICBMs, because it has deployed anti-missiles defense, THAAD, right on China and Russia's door steps*
> 
> Do you really think that American military planners are that arrogant and ignorant about China's nuclear deterrence? In the event of a nuclear war, China could very easily jam THAAD's radar and destroy the batteries via surgical strike. And also, the THAAD is not intended to shoot down Chinese ICBM's crossing the polar trajectory (the name's TERMINAL). If the US is so "invulnerable", surely it would have started war with China already?


ignore @Asok bro *he is a problem child here on PDF*


----------



## Brainsucker

@Asok I don't have any opinion about the J-20 engine. But for 500 - 1000 J-20, you should count on how many J-10 (and it's variants) and J-11, J-15, J-16 (with all variants with it has now). Look at them, They are less sophisticated than J-20, but their number still has not reach 500. So unless they stop the production of J-10 and Flanker variants, I doubt that J-20 will reach 500 in 10 years. 200 maybe, if they stop the J-10 line production, but not 500.

But do you think that PLA will stop all those J-10 and Flanker variants development? There are still J-10D and J-11D, then J-15T, etc. So would they stop them to favor J-20? 

Plus, I don't think that J-20 will be their sole Jet-Fighters in the future. I don't have any doubt that China will have better Jet-Fighter than J-20 in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

"*ignore* [B]@Asok[/B]* bro he is a problem child here on PDF.*

Thank you, for joining the conversation, Bro. It's nice to hear from you. Please contribute productive and informational contents. no one liners, please. Thanks.

@Brainsucker, bro, I don't know how many J-20 will China end up with. But if China keep the production line open for 10-20 years, at the rate of 50 per years, it will have 500-1000.

I contend China have the money for 50 J-20 a years, for the next 10-20. How many China will end up having, depends on the geo-political climate, I believe.

US plans to build 2300 F-35, for itself, at $130 millions a pieces.

No one, here at PDF, think that's way too many, or US could not afford them. The number *2300* is *1300, or 130%* more than the maximum estimate, I have for J-20.

This is odd.

Isn't this double standards or double thinking or double accounting?

One for China, and one for US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> "ignore @Asok bro *he is a problem child here on PDF.*
> 
> Thank you, for joining the conversation. Please contribute productive and informational contents. no one liners, please. Thanks.


so you're contributing productive and informational content, *with no solid prove, you always bring your false assertion and wishful thinking every senior members on PDF like @ChineseTiger1986 , @cirr, @Beast, @wanglaokan and others is saying "that WS-15 is completed its ground testing last year and will be starting air testing on IL-76 testbed soon"*
*but you insisted you false arguments with no solid prove*
*what is the prove that WS-15 is on the J-20 from day one just your blogger wishful thinking and false assertions*


----------



## atan651

As long as Asok is not abusing this forum (and I don't think he is) then he can continue with his writing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

TANAHH said:


> As long as Asok is not abusing this forum (and I don't think he is) then he can continue with his writing.



Thank you, Bro, I appreciate your moral support! 

@pakistanipower, don't get too upset, Bro. This is an Internet Forum, with no prize to win or lose, just the pleasure to express our opinions. I can't afford, to cause you, a heart attack. Take care, please.


----------



## Brainsucker

Asok said:


> "*ignore* [B]@Asok[/B]* bro he is a problem child here on PDF.*
> 
> Thank you, for joining the conversation, Bro. It's nice to hear from you. Please contribute productive and informational contents. no one liners, please. Thanks.
> 
> @Brainsucker, bro, I don't know how many J-20 will China end up with. But if China keep the production line open for 10-20 years, at the rate of 50 per years, it will have 500-1000.
> 
> I contend China have the money for 50 J-20 a years, for the next 10-20. How many China will end up having, depends on the geo-political climate, I believe.
> 
> US plans to build 2300 F-35, for itself, at $130 millions a pieces.
> 
> No one, here at PDF, think that's way too many, or US could not afford them. The number *2300* is *1300, or 130%* more than the maximum estimate, I have for J-20.
> 
> This is odd.
> 
> Isn't this double standards or double thinking or double accounting?
> 
> One for China, and one for US.



J-20 belong to Chengdu. So we should count on how many jet-fighters that Chengdu has produce for this 10 years. Right now, they still produce J-10 (and maybe some other aircraft that we don't know). So let stop this J-10 line production and let Chengdu focus on J-20 solely. To have the same number of J-10 today will be already an optimistic prediction. Because to produce J-10 is cheaper and easier than J-20. Not to mention that it's also a mature technology that Chengdu has already mastered. While J-20 is a brand new Jet-Fighter that still considered alien for the factory to produce (not to mention it's more delicate, complex, and harder to build).

So for the next 10 years, China will have less J-20 than they have J-10 today. For the next 20 years, who know? They may have already possess a better jet-fighter than the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Brainsucker said:


> J-20 belong to Chengdu. So we should count on how many jet-fighters that Chengdu has produce for this 10 years. Right now, they still produce J-10 (and maybe some other aircraft that we don't know). So let stop this J-10 line production and let Chengdu focus on J-20 solely. To have the same number of J-10 today will be already an optimistic prediction. Because to produce J-10 is cheaper and easier than J-20. Not to mention that it's also a mature technology that Chengdu has already mastered. While J-20 is a brand new Jet-Fighter that still need to be prepared to produce.



Nice reasoning, Bro. It sounds very reasonable. But a wise man once said, the past performance is of no prediction of the future.

*"While J-20 is a brand new Jet-Fighter that still need to be prepared to produce."*

This is true. We don't even know, the production process is mature enough, to produce 100 reliable engines for 50 J-20 per years. I think the engine production capacity will be the chief limiting factor, not money.

WS-15 uses a lot of new technology and exotic alloy. It will take times to figure everything out for reliable mass production.


----------



## Brainsucker

Asok said:


> Nice reasoning, Bro. It sounds very reasonable. But a wise man once said, the past performance is of no prediction of the future.



Well, yes. They can expand the factory, build better support, etc in the future. But it require more money from the PLA. The question is, will PLA focus entirely to produce J-20? They still have H-20, Carrier dedicated aircraft, AWACS, Y-20, etc to produce. Unless of course, China raise their military budgets exponentially in the future. But it won't happen unless the tension raise into a hot war in near future. Then at that time, China will divert into war economy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Brainsucker said:


> Well, yes. They can expand the factory, build better support, etc in the future.




That's true for the airframe and other major components. More production lines means faster production.

But as we see from Liming Factory Documentation TV show, the production of the modern engines are painstaking, requires extreme tight tolerance, mostly assembled by experienced and highly skilled technicians.

Producing more engines, will be far more difficult, than producing more air-frames, I believe.

*"The question is, will PLA focus entirely to produce J-20? "*

At $150 millions per unit, 50 per year, is $7.5 billions per year. Will PLA have $7.5 billions for j-20 per year, in addition for another items?

I don't know, we will find out. I don't think production will hit 50/yr, for 2-3 years, because the engine production issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Asok said:


> That's true for the airframe and other major components. More production lines means faster production.
> 
> But as we see from Liming Factory Documentation TV show, the production of the modern engines are painstaking, requires extreme tight tolerance, mostly assembled by experienced and highly skilled technicians.
> 
> Producing more engines, will be far more difficult, than producing more air-frames, I believe.



They still can buy engines from Russia. What wrong with it? If the domestic production can't be reach, they can always import it from Ukraine or Russia. That's why it's better for J-20 to have 2 version of engine. Russian engine version and domestic engine version. So when the need arise, they can be produced faster. For now, they don't need it to rush. But you know it, tension is raising, both in China - Indian border and in North Korea. So who know about what happen in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Brainsucker said:


> They still can buy engines from Russia. What wrong with it? If the domestic production can't be reach, they can always import it from Ukraine or Russia. That's why it's better for J-20 to have 2 version of engine. Russian engine version and domestic engine version. So when the need arise, they can be produced faster. For now, they don't need it to rush. But you know it, tension is raising, both in China - Indian border and in North Korea. So who know about what happen in the future.



That's true, if China really want to push up j-20 production rate, could WS-15 rate couldn't keep, it could use WS-10 or Al-31, which China has plenty in storage. I have never thought of that. Of course, there needs to be many modifications of the airframe and more testing before that could happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Thank you, Bro, I appreciate your moral support!
> 
> @pakistanipower, don't get too upset, Bro. This is an Internet Forum, with no prize to win or lose, just the pleasure to express our opinions. I can't afford, to cause you, a heart attack. Take care, please.


Heart attack to whom, Every senior memberslike @ChineseTiger1986 , @cirr , @Beast ,@wanglaokan , and others is wrong and you're right what a loser you're China is relatively new is in a turbofan development fields and why you think 5th generations jets engine is that easy? its a most complex thing to develop and why you think W-15 development period of 10-15 years? with relatively new turbofan development industry  there is a possibility shorter lifetime and increased thurst versions of WS-10X as said to @Beast ,and @wanglaokan said

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Heart attack to whom, Every senior memberslike @ChineseTiger1986 , @cirr , @Beast ,@wanglaokan , and others is wrong and you're right what a loser you're China is relatively new is in a turbofan development fields and why you think 5th generations jets engine is that easy? its a most complex thing to develop and why you think W-15 development period of 10-15 years? with relatively new turbofan development industry  there is a possibility shorter lifetime and increased thurst versions of WS-10X as said to @Beast ,and @wanglaokan said




*"why you think 5th generations jets engine is that easy?. Its a most complex thing to develop and why you think W-15 development period of 10-15 years? "*

You are right. Bro. 5th generations jets engine is not easy. It's very complex. and It is exceedingly hard. 

China has been working on the Ws-10 and Ws-15, in parallel since the late 1980's. It took 15 years to produce the engine *core of Ws-15*, and the core meet all performance parameters in 2005.

The development of WS-15 has been going on for, at least, 27 years now, *not 10-15 years.*

China gained a lot of experiences in developing the Ws-10, which went into production around 2009. After nearly 20 years of hard struggle, full of unimaginable difficulties.

And the engine core of WS-10 is a copy of an american engine. And with an sample engine core to copy, China still spent 20 years on Ws-10.

"The WS-10 may have been based on the core of the CFM-56II (itself based on the General Electric F101); China purchased two CFM-56IIs in the 1980s before the arms embargo. "http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ws10.htm

The Ws-10 project helped a lot with the WS-15 project.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> You're beating a straw-man here; China has a set military budget and varies in accordance with their economy. China simply cannot afford 1000 J-20's given its military budget which is less than 1/3 of the United States. If one were to base it on pure GDP alone, then the US could also afford 1000 F-22s which obviously is not the case.


Didn't you say that PPP was the figure to look at? (I agree, by the way.) In PPP adjusted terms, the most conservative estimate of Chinese military spending is 285B USD (<1.4% of GDP), not less than a third of 600B USD.

The actual figure, also in PPP terms, is _very _likely north of 350B USD, perhaps even 400B USD (assuming 2% of GDP). China's military spending is quite healthy; it just doesn't have commensurate capabilities because it hasn't been spending such sums for very long. It's going to take a while to accumulate hardware.

And it shouldn't be looked at as number of J-20's vs. number of F-22's, what should be considered is how many fifth-generation aircraft will China field. Here I don't think the past is a good guide because China was much poorer then, and it's defense budget was nowhere near what it is now and what it will grow into in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Didn't you say that PPP was the figure to look at? (I agree, by the way.) In PPP adjusted terms, the most conservative estimate of Chinese military spending is 285B USD (<1.4% of GDP), not less than a third of 600B USD.
> 
> The actual figure, also in PPP terms, is _very _likely north of 350B USD, perhaps even 400B USD (assuming 2% of GDP). China's military spending is quite healthy; it just doesn't have commensurate capabilities because it hasn't been spending such sums for very long. It's going to take a while to accumulate hardware.
> 
> And it shouldn't be looked at as number of J-20's vs. number of F-22's, what should be considered is how many fifth-generation aircraft will China field. Here I don't think the past is a good guide because China was much poorer then, and it's defense budget was nowhere near what it is now and what it will grow into in the future.



If my memory serve right, prior the WTC black September, the USA military budget was around 100 - 200B dollar. Similar to today China's military budget. But after the WTC, they raise exponently to 500B USD. So I guess the current US military budget is basically a war time budget for military expenditure.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> China has been working on the Ws-10 and Ws-15, in parallel since the late 1980's. It took 15 years to produce the engine *core of Ws-15*, and the core meet all performance parameters in 2005.
> 
> The development of WS-15 has been going on for, at least, 27 years now, *not 10-15 years.*
> 
> China gained a lot of experiences in developing the Ws-10, which went into production around 2009. That helped a lot with the WS-15 project.


What they started the project of 5th gen jet engine before the project of 5th gen stealth jet that shows your mentality of a 8 year old kid and show me the prove that WS-15 project started in1980 their was project of turbofan develolpment for a canceled J-9 project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woshan_WS-6
WS-10 project was originate from unsuccessful WS-6 project

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Brainsucker said:


> If my memory serve right, prior the WTC black September, the USA military budget was around 100 - 200B dollar. Similar to today China's military budget. But after the WTC, they raise exponently to 500B USD. So I guess the current US military budget is basically a war time budget for military expenditure.


According to this:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
It was around 300B USD in 2000. I don't find the wartime/peacetime distinction helpful in the case of the US because the US is always at war. It's been in endless war since its foundation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

@Asok give me the answer bro that WS-15's project started in 1980s, but as for your information most site including Chinese sites are also stated that WS-15 project started in late 90s not in 80s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> @Asok give me the answer bro that WS-15's project started in 1980s, but as for your information most site including Chinese sites are also stated that WS-15 project started in late 90s not in 80s


Yes. The current WS-15 started around 1995, not 1980.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

*"What they started the project of 5th gen jet engine, before the project of 5th gen stealth jet? That shows your mentality of a 8 year old kid."*

Yes, the *preliminary research works* for a high thrust TWR >= 10 engine started around late 1980's, way before J-20 was ever conceived.

It entered into high gear, after receiving the Yak 141's engine and blue prints, and hired a lot of former USSR scientist.

As I have said, engine core of Ws-15 passed the performance elevation, in 2005, and the WS-15 project was formally initiated in 2006. The research for WS-15 existed, way before the designation of WS-15 was given in 2006.

The engine with TWR >= 8, the Ws-10, started same time as the J-10 project. By mid 1990's, it was realized that Ws-10 was never going to be ready, before early 2000's, so China decided to use the Su-27's AL-31 engine with J-10. 

With this decision, J-10 was able to do its first flight in 1998, and entered service around 2005.

Yes, the WS-15 was started way before J-20. This was because by early 1980's, from previous painful experiences of J-9 (*which failed because its turbofan engine, was way behind schedule*), China has realized that high performance turbofan engine, takes much longer to develop, than a new airframe. So they should not start together, at the same time.

If AL-31 wasn't available for J-10, but must use Ws-10, J-10 wouldn't have entered service by 2006.

China was lucky that Russia was willing to supply its state of the art, high performance engine to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Didn't you say that PPP was the figure to look at? (I agree, by the way.) In PPP adjusted terms, the most conservative estimate of Chinese military spending is 285B USD (<1.4% of GDP), not less than a third of 600B USD.
> 
> The actual figure, also in PPP terms, is _very _likely north of 350B USD, perhaps even 400B USD (assuming 2% of GDP). China's military spending is quite healthy; it just doesn't have commensurate capabilities because it hasn't been spending such sums for very long. It's going to take a while to accumulate hardware.
> 
> And it shouldn't be looked at as number of J-20's vs. number of F-22's, what should be considered is how many fifth-generation aircraft will China field. Here I don't think the past is a good guide because China was much poorer then, and it's defense budget was nowhere near what it is now and what it will grow into in the future.



I seriously doubt that China is spending 600 billion dollars on their military. The best estimate is around 220 billion accounted for PPP or not; the PLA typically does not strictly base the budget out of a "percentage" of China's economy but in accordance with their own needs (and economic growth).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"Yes. The current WS-15 started around 1995, not 1980."*

*Preliminary research works* started around 1980's. By 1995, it has moved into high gear because of Yak141 engine and russian helps.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"What they started the project of 5th gen jet engine, before the project of 5th gen stealth jet? That shows your mentality of a 8 year old kid."*
> 
> Yes, the *preliminary research works* for a high thrust TWR >= 10 engine started around late 1980's, way before J-20 was ever conceived.
> 
> It entered into high gear, after receiving the Yak 141's engine and blue prints, and hired a lot of former USSR scientist.
> 
> As I have said, engine core of Ws-15 passed the performance elevation, in 2005, and the WS-15 project was formally initiated in 2006. The research for WS-15 existed way before the designation of WS-15 was given in 2006.
> 
> The engine with TWR >= 8, the Ws-10, started same time as the J-10 project. By mid 1990's, it was realized that Ws-10 was never going to be ready before early 2000's, so China decided to use the Su-27's AL-31 engine with J-10.
> 
> With this decision, J-10 was able to do its first flight in 1998, and entered service around 2005.
> 
> Yes, the WS-15 was started way before J-20. This was because by early 1980's, from previous painful experiences, China has realized that high performance takes much longer to develop than a new airframe. So they should not start together at the same time.
> 
> If AL-31 wasn't available for J-10, but must use Ws-10, J-10 wouldn't have entered service by 2006.
> 
> China was lucky that Russia was willing to supply its state of the art, high performance engine to China.



Asok, I seriously doubt that China had the military expenditure or even technology to jump-start a TWR greather than 10; they couldn't even design an engine greater than 7 in the 1980's (due to Deng Xiaoping's military cuts). And please cite your source on when China received their "Yak-141 blueprints and engine parts". All I know is that USSR scientists helped partially design the core of the WS-15 in the late 90's but nothing beyond that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

So many distractions in this PRIME thread...

does anyone intend to saturate this with the irrelevances or petties for this big-value fighter jet?


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Asok, I seriously doubt that China had the military expenditure or even technology to jump-start a TWR greather than 10; they couldn't even design an engine greater than 7 in the 1980's (due to Deng Xiaoping's military cuts). And please cite your source on when China received their "Yak-141 blueprints and engine parts". All I know is that USSR scientists helped partially design the core of the WS-15 in the late 90's but nothing beyond that.



The decision to develop a TWR engine was triggered by the success of the American's F119 in the 1980's. China was very very behind in Turbo fan development. To even begin a TWR 8 engine was already audacious. But China purchased the CFM56 engine, which has the same core as the General Electric F101 which powers the Rockwell B-1 Lancer strategic bomber and F-16. 

This give them confidence, that they could produce a TWR 8 engine by copy it, just like the previous attempts on russian engines. They gravely underestimated the difficulties, and took them 20 years to copy this engine.

But as they said, people who don't know much of the difficulties that laying ahead, is more audacious.

As I have said, *preliminary research works* for TWR 10 engine was started in the 1980's, full blown developmental work didn't started until 1990's. There is a difference here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> The decision to develop a TWR engine was triggered by the success of the American's F119 in the 1980's. China was very very behind in Turbo fan development. To even begin a TWR 8 engine was already audacious. But China purchased the CFM56 engine, which has the same core as the General Electric F101 which powers the Rockwell B-1 Lancer strategic bomber and F-16.
> 
> This give them confidence, that they could produce a TWR 8 engine by copy it, just like the previous attempts on russian engines. They gravely underestimated the difficulties, and took them 20 years to copy this engine.
> 
> But as they said, people who don't know much of the difficulties that laying ahead, is more audacious.
> 
> As I have said, *preliminary research works* for TWR 10 engine was started in the 1980's, full blown developmental work didn't started until 1990's. There is a difference here.


So you're saying that the WS-15 was basically a pipe dream in the 1980's. If that's the case, then the preliminary work wouldn't have been very serious ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> So you're saying that the WS-15 was basically a pipe dream in the 1980's. If that's the case, then the preliminary work wouldn't have been very serious ...



*It was a pipe dream.*

Without the Russian help, without the Yak 141 and blueprints, without the purchase of the CFM56 engine, without the Su-27 and its Al-31 engine to study, and copy, I doubt even Ws-10 as completed by 2006, much less Ws-15.

You can copy an engine design, but not the metallurgy, and testing procedure manufacturing processes that produced it. *That was why China had so much difficulties.*

China learned the hard lessons, created the develop team, testing procedure, and manufacturing process with Ws-10, and that prepared the way for Ws-15, tremendously.

So it's a mistake to judge the progress of Ws-15, with Ws-10's long and tortuous progress.

China paid it's dues with Ws-10 by blood and toils, and learned the painful lessons.

Second attempt is always much easier than the first, as in most endeavors.

Remember, China made major advance in high temperature alloy since 2000. It's engine alloy could now stand 2000C temperature. And China made huge progress in Supercomputer design. China's supercomputers has been number 1 for several years now. That made possible very fast Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation possible, which speed up all fields of researches, tremendously.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> The decision to develop a TWR engine was triggered by the success of the American's F119 in the 1980's. China was very very behind in Turbo fan development. To even begin a TWR 8 engine was already audacious. But China purchased the CFM56 engine, which has the same core as the General Electric F101 which powers the Rockwell B-1 Lancer strategic bomber and F-16.
> 
> This give them confidence, that they could produce a TWR 8 engine by copy it, just like the previous attempts on russian engines. They gravely underestimated the difficulties, and took them 20 years to copy this engine.
> 
> But as they said, people who don't know much of the difficulties that laying ahead, is more audacious.
> 
> As I have said, *preliminary research works* for TWR 10 engine was started in the 1980's, full blown developmental work didn't started until 1990's. There is a difference here.


Give us the source that China started preliminary research work on WS-15 and get yak-141 engine and blue print in 80s your baseles and clueless posts worth nothing without prove, you live in your fantasy world and wishful thinking and as for your information WS-10 project started in late 80s with the project of J-10, fighter jets is designed around the jet engine instead jet engine designed around the fighter jets


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Give us the source that China started preliminary research work on WS-15 and get yak-141 engine and blue print in 80s your baseles and clueless posts worth nothing without prove, you live in your fantasy world and wishful thinking and as for your information WS-10 project started in late 80s with the project of J-10, fighter jets is designed around the jet engine instead jet engine designed around the fighter jets


I seriously doubt China ever had access to the Yak-141 engine, much less its blueprints. Unless Asok works in Liming factory or is an insider within the PLA, I find his posts very hard to beleive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *It was a pipe dream.*
> 
> Without the Russian help, without the Yak 141 and blueprints, without the purchase of the CFM56 engine, without the Su-27 and its Al-31 engine to study, and copy, I doubt even Ws-10 as completed by 2006, much less Ws-15.
> 
> You can copy an engine design, but not the metallurgy, and testing procedure manufacturing processes that produced it. *That was why China had so much difficulties.*
> 
> China learned the hard lessons, created the develop team, testing procedure, and manufacturing process with Ws-10, and that prepared the way for Ws-15, tremendously.
> 
> So it's a mistake to judge the progress of Ws-15, with Ws-10's long and tortuous progress.
> 
> China paid it's dues with Ws-10 by blood and toils, and learned the painful lessons.
> 
> Second attempt is always much easier than the first, as in most endeavors.
> 
> Remember, China made major advance in high temperature alloy since 2000, and made huge progress in Supercomputer design. That made possible very fast Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation possible, which speed up all fields of researches, tremendously.


Show us the source that China gets yak-141 engine and its blue print in 80s



Figaro said:


> I seriously doubt China ever had access to the Yak-141 engine, much less its blueprints. Unless Asok works in Liming factory or is an insider within the PLA, I find his posts very hard to beleive.[/QUOTEHeispri
> 
> 
> Figaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt China ever had access to the Yak-141 engine, much less its blueprints. Unless Asok works in Liming factory or is an insider within the PLA, I find his posts very hard to beleive.
> 
> 
> 
> @Asok is a problem child on J-20 discussion thread
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

pakistanipower said:


> Give us the source that China started preliminary research work on WS-15 and get yak-141 engine and blue print in 80s your baseles and clueless posts worth nothing without prove, you live in your fantasy world and wishful thinking and as for your information WS-10 project started in late 80s with the project of J-10, fighter jets is designed around the jet engine instead jet engine designed around the fighter jets



My friend, You are asking help from me. You could have asked* nicely*. Poor manner reflects badly on your self and on your country. You are from Pakistan. It pains me to see someone from our friend and brother country, Pakistan, don't treat me with respect.

https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/tag/ws-15-engine/

"According to a Russian military website, in 1996, China obtained from Russia the technology and a sample of R-79-300 engine developed for Yak-141 VTOL fighter jet, a project that Russia had to give up for lack of funds at that time.

Surprisingly, China has used R-79-300’s technology in successful development of its own WS-15 series of turbofans."

These articles in Chinese talks about the negotiations, and how China brought the Yak 141 and blueprints. You can do a machine translation of them, if you can't read Chinese.

https://kknews.cc/military/k4z3q.html
https://kknews.cc/military/kz8en5q.html
https://kknews.cc/military/yae64gg.html

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5387c42f0102xjuz.html

"七五规划：1986-1990 ---》八五规划：1991-1995---》九五规划： 1996-2000 ---》 十五规划： 2001-2005---》十一五规划： 2006-2010---》十二五规划：2011-2015

7-5规划/ 8-5规划/9-5规划期是预先研究，基础研究及核心机预研---》 10-5规划主攻核心机----》 11-5规划核心机-高空台通过测试---》 12-5规划工程机高空台测试，测试顺利否，绕过第三方飞行平台测试（伊尔76飞行台等）直接通过歼20飞行台测试成功。"

Specifically, this says, during the 7th 5 years plan (1986-1990) (planning, preliminary researches), 8th 5 years plan 1991-1995 (planning, preliminary researches) 9th 5 years plan 1996-2000(planning, preliminary researches and engine core researches), 10th 5 years plan 2000-2005(planning, focus on engine core), 11th 5 years plan 2005-2010 ( engine core pass bench test), *12th 5 years plan (2010-2015), if bench testes were successful, skip testing on third party platforms, and directly install on J-20 for testing , , ,*

The fact, that all went according, to this plan, amazed the hell out of me. There was no mentions of the heinous difficulty encountered by Ws-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> My friend, You are asking help from me. You could have asked nicely. Poor manner reflects badly on your self and on your country.
> 
> https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/tag/ws-15-engine/
> 
> "According to a Russian military website, in 1996, China obtained from Russia the technology and a sample of R-79-300 engine developed for Yak-141 VTOL fighter jet, a project that Russia had to give up for lack of funds at that time.
> 
> Surprisingly, China has used R-79-300’s technology in successful development of its own WS-15 series of turbofans."
> 
> These are in Chinese. You can do a machine translation of them, if you can't read Chinese.
> 
> https://kknews.cc/military/k4z3q.html
> https://kknews.cc/military/kz8en5q.html
> https://kknews.cc/military/yae64gg.html


You're saying you were gets R-79 in late 80s and now you're saying you were get R-79 in 96 after the fall of the Soviet Union and WS-15 project started after if you gets R-79 from Russian that's all I want to say, WS-15 project started in late 90s not in late 80s too much superstition is bad for your health, you're contridic yourself Mr @Asok


----------



## Asoka

*


pakistanipower said:



You're saying you were gets R-79 in late 80s and now you're saying you were get R-79 in 96 after the fall of the Soviet Union and WS-15 project started after if you gets R-79 from Russian that's all I want to say, WS-15 project started in late 90s not in late 80s too much superstition is bad for your health, you're contridic yourself Mr @Asok 

Click to expand...


*
I didn't said R-79 was purchased in 1980's. China and USSR wasn't in friendly term till after the collapse of USSR in 1991.
*
"WS-15 project started after if you gets R-79 from Russian that's all I want to say"*

Preliminary researches started in 1980's, and Ws-15 formally started in high gear in 1995, that is what I am trying say. Whether that's before or after R-79 was obtained. you can read the posts i listed.

"*you're contridic yourself Mr Asok"
*
I am merely trying to show you WS-15, started way before J-20, was even conceived, in 1999, and how R-79 was indeed obtained by China in 1995, by giving you all the links, you asked for.

And you are not being very grateful. At least show some good manners, and say *"thanks"*, please. It makes the interactions easier and far more pleasant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *
> *
> I didn't said R-79 was purchased in 1980's. China and USSR wasn't in friendly term till after the collapse of USSR in 1991.
> *
> "WS-15 project started after if you gets R-79 from Russian that's all I want to say"*
> 
> Preliminary researches started in 1980's, and Ws-15 formally started in high gear in 1995, that is what I am trying say. Whether that's before or after R-79 was obtained. you can read the posts i listed.


Nice urban legend type sites you havehave as i told you jet fighter is designed around the jet engine instead jet engine is designed around the jet fighter are you have a comprehension problem Mr @Asok

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"i told you jet fighter, is designed around the jet engine, instead, jet engine is designed around the jet fighter"
*
Are you saying develop the airframe first, then the engine, later?

Tell that to the Indians. The Indians are developing their HAL Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

Tell them don't do it like the American, Russian and Chinese, like the way they did F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, Su-27, Su-30, Su-57 and J-20.

Tell them don't bother to start the engine, years ahead, first. Tell them they could start the engine and air-frame, at the same time. Or after the air-frame was developed.

And see how far they will get, and see if they will keep their schedule.

Thats's what China did with J-9. It was a total disaster that ended in cancellation. J-10 was, saved only, because the Russians, was willing to supply, the excellent AL-31 engine to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"i told you jet fighter, is designed around the jet engine, instead, jet engine is designed around the jet fighter"
> *
> Tell that to the Indians. The Indians are developing their HAL Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
> 
> Tell them don't do it like the American, Russian and Chinese, like the way they did F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, Su-27, Su-30, Su-57 and J-20.
> 
> Tell them don't bother to start the engine, years ahead, first. Tell them they could start the engine and air-frame, at the same time.
> 
> And see how far they will get, and see if they will keep their schedule.


Please don't interject India into the conversation and throw flaim bait. India is merely piggy-backing off Russia's T-50 (or FGFA) and look where it got them. The AMCA is a wet dream ... it is impossible unless Russia is willing to transfer a bunch of classified T-50 technologies to India which would undermine its own defense. And don't even get me started on the Kaveri engine ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Please don't interject India into the conversation and throw flaim bait. India is merely piggy-backing off Russia's T-50 (or FGFA) and look where it got them. The AMCA is a wet dream ... it is impossible unless Russia is willing to transfer a bunch of classified T-50 technologies to India which would undermine its own defense. And don't even get me started on the Kaveri engine ...



OK, Bro. I think AMCA was wet dream too. There was no engine to go with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> OK, Bro. I think AMCA was wet dream too. There was no engine to go with it.


Then why you compare J-20 to an nonexistent jet ... you're giving legitimacy to an non-existent fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> The WS-15 is gonna be incorporated into the J-20 before 2019-2020. Its almost ready for transfer to IL-76 testbed.


bro this news is 1 year old its already testing on IL-76 testbed as per Chinese senior memebers here on PDF



Asok said:


> And what engine is J-20 flying right now?


W-10X as the @Beast and @wanglaokan said earlier on this thread Mr insane @Asok


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> bro this news is 1 year old its already testing on IL-76 testbed as per Chinese senior memebers here on PDF
> 
> 
> W-10X as the @Beast and @wanglaokan said earlier on this thread


Even better then


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> And what engine is J-20 flying right now?
> 
> *"PAK-FA example is front of you, if PAK-FA can fly with a Interim engine, so why not J-20?"*
> 
> J-20 certainly could fly with an interim engine first. I have already suggested J-20 *was flying with a prototype engine*, with a WS-15 engine core, and other technologies from WS-10 and AL-31, since 2011.
> 
> Now it is flying with a production WS-15, since around 2014-2015.
> 
> What is the name of this prototype engine, I am not certain, it could be designated as WS-10b or WS-10X, I really don't know.
> 
> What I am certain is that if this engine was designated as WS-10b, I am certain it's *NOT* made of WS-10a's core.
> 
> Because, this does not further WS-15 core testing, in any way.
> 
> What the WS-15 designers needs are, first hand data, from flying the engine core, in a real plane, not just simulated data.
> 
> So they could compare the actual data, with the simulated data, to see if they fit.
> 
> If not they must find out why, and make modifications.


What nonsense you have first you post WS-15 was installed on J-20 from the day one and then you have a this CRAPY false assertions and wishful thinking again with no prove, how can you directly put high risk extremely new engine to your sensitive stealth jet, to reduce the risk WS-15 will be air testing on other plate form instead directly putting WS-15 on J-20, even USA and russia can't put their new engines on there new airframes without extensive air testing on other aircrafts, I am reporting you for your baseless and clueless debates


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> I seriously doubt that China is spending 600 billion dollars on their military. The best estimate is around 220 billion accounted for PPP or not; the PLA typically does not strictly base the budget out of a "percentage" of China's economy but in accordance with their own needs (and economic growth).


The 600 billion is the US figure, which is also probably higher in actuality. The 220 billion SIPRI estimate is at market exchange rates, but since the _overwhelming_ majority of that is spent domestically, the PPP rate should be quoted. If that's done, it puts the figure at above 400 billion, i.e., two-thirds of US spending.

Furthermore, it's spent more "efficiently" since China doesn't have a sprawling network of bases around the world to maintain. A higher percentage of that money goes towards accumulating capabilities -- helped by the recent cuts to troop numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

ZeEa5KPul said:


> The 600 billion is the US figure, which is also probably higher in actuality. The 220 billion SIPRI estimate is at market exchange rates, but since the _overwhelming_ majority of that is spent domestically, the PPP rate should be quoted. If that's done, it puts the figure at above 400 billion, i.e., two-thirds of US spending.
> 
> Furthermore, it's spent more "efficiently" since China doesn't have a sprawling network of bases around the world to maintain. A higher percentage of that money goes towards accumulating capabilities -- helped by the recent cuts to troop numbers.



Why are you bothering with people who are predicting J-20 production with China's production
rate when it was much poorer and also did not have any reliable domestic engine supply?


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> The 600 billion is the US figure, which is also probably higher in actuality. The 220 billion SIPRI estimate is at market exchange rates, but since the _overwhelming_ majority of that is spent domestically, the PPP rate should be quoted. If that's done, it puts the figure at above 400 billion, i.e., two-thirds of US spending.
> 
> Furthermore, it's spent more "efficiently" since China doesn't have a sprawling network of bases around the world to maintain. A higher percentage of that money goes towards accumulating capabilities -- helped by the recent cuts to troop numbers.


China is *not *spending 600 billion dollars or around 4 trillion Yuan. If it was indeed, we would be seeing a massive Chinese military buildup to the likes of the former USSR. That just means China gets more bang for the buck; it can buy 600 billion dollars of equipment (at prices overseas) for just 180-200 billion because many things are cheaper in China (tbh, the 600B is probably too much).



Figaro said:


> China is *not *spending 600 billion dollars or around 4 trillion Yuan. If it was indeed, we would be seeing a massive Chinese military buildup to the likes of the former USSR. That just means China gets more bang for the buck; it can buy 600 billion dollars of equipment (at prices overseas) for just 180-200 billion because many things are cheaper in China (tbh, the 600B is probably too much, more like 400B).


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> *"Even more I really question these reports concerning the WS-15 being based on the R-79; in fact an unreliable and unsuccessful engine that was a failure even in Russia."*
> 
> I beg to differ, Bro.
> 
> Cancelling due to lack of funding, and cancelling due to technical failures, could be two entirely different things.
> 
> The YAK 141 was cancelled, *due to lack of further funding*, after USSR was collapsed. The R-79 engine continued development till 1996. The YAK 141 successfully demonstrated at Paris Airshow. It was the first VTOL aircraft with supersonic capability. Lockheed Martin even brought the tilting nozzle technology for its F-35.
> 
> Like other advanced formerUSSR technologies, the R-79 engine was put up for a fire sale, in the 1990s. It is not unconceivable, that China would be interested, in acquire such advanced technology, at a ridiculous fire sale price.
> 
> China brought the 70% finished Varyag Aircraft carrier at the incredible price of $20 millions. The Ukranians throws in all the technical documentations and blueprints for another 3 millions. China probably hired the same engineers, who worked on it, to help with refurbished the aircraft carrier.




Agreed; during these days no-one can be sure what was and what wasn't sold those years and given the close connection between Yakowlew and Hongdu for example it is not impossible that CHina also got hand on the Yak-141 and its engine.
Anyway I highly doubt that even if the R-79 was surely a powerful "beast" it is unlikely that the PLAAF's future high-thrust powerplant for the J-20 and future generation engines is based on an engine that was bench tested for the first time in 1984 ??

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"can't put their new engines, on there new airframes, without extensive air testing, on other aircrafts."*
> 
> Yes, first, bench tests, then third party platforms test, are the usual american and Russian testing procedures, but according to the development plan, I posted earlier, testing on third party platforms *was to be skipped,* if bench testing was successful, and put WS-15 onto J-20, directly, for further testing. This is more risky, for sure, but there are no laws against that.
> 
> "Specifically, this says, . . . during the 7th 5 years plan (1986-1990) (planning, preliminary researches), 8th 5 years plan 1991-1995 (planning, preliminary researches) 9th 5 years plan 1996-2000(planning, preliminary researches and engine core researches), 10th 5 years plan 2000-2005(planning, focus on engine core), 11th 5 years plan 2005-2010 ( engine core pass bench test), *12th 5 years plan (2010-2015), if bench tests were successful, skip testing on third party platforms, and directly install on J-20 for testing , , ,"*
> 
> It is more risking, I am sure, but J-20 was an extremely urgent project, they have to take more risks, to meet the tight schedule.
> 
> *"I am reporting you for your baseless and clueless debates."*
> 
> Be a little more mature, Bro.
> 
> Some people keep claiming WS-15 began bench testing on 2015, but according to this article, *ground bench testing of the engine core was completed on 2005*.
> 
> http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5387c42f0102xjuz.html
> 
> 1.) 2000年, WS-15核心机开始研制。 *"2000, WS-15 engine core start to develop."*
> 
> 2.) 2005年：WS-15核心机完成地面台架测试。*"2005: WS-15 engine core completed ground bench testings"*
> 
> 3.) 2006年: WS-15发动机立项。*"2006: WS-15 engine project was formally established."*
> 
> 4.) 2009年12月：WS-15核心机完成高空台测试。*"December 2009: WS-15 engine core completed high altitude platform tests."*
> 
> 5.) 2011年：中航黎明完成WS-15验证机, 并提前交付。*"2011: Liming Factory completed the WS-15 prototype, and was delivered ahead of schedule."*
> 
> 6.) 2012年底--2013年初：WS-15工程验证机通过高空台测试*。"early 2013: WS-15 engineering prototype passed high altitude testings."
> *
> 7.) 2014年：歼20第2011号进行WS-15单发试飞。*"2014: J-20, number 2011, started testing with one WS-15 engine." (the other engine was probably the older version of WS-15)
> *
> 8.) 2015年：歼20第2016号进行WS-15双发考核试飞；*"2015: J-20, number 2016, with two WS-15 engines verification testings.
> *
> 9.) 2016年：歼20第2101号生产型完成定型。*"2016: J-20, number 2101, completed production model testings."
> *
> 10.) 2016年底：歼20第2101号量产服役型奔赴珠海航展。*"end of 2016: J-20, number 2101, production and service model, demonstrated at the Zhuhai China Airshow.
> *
> Notice, This article gave very specific dates and testing and develop timeline. The writer obviously got insider level informations.


Stop living in your lala land and wishful thinking and those kind of sites are full on Internet your can't skip major engine development step to increase your project safety risks to become a failed project



Asok said:


> *"Even more I really question these reports concerning the WS-15 being based on the R-79; in fact an unreliable and unsuccessful engine that was a failure even in Russia."*
> 
> I beg to differ, Bro.
> 
> Cancelling due to lack of funding, and cancelling due to technical failures, could be two entirely different things.
> 
> The YAK 141 was cancelled, *due to lack of further funding*, after USSR was collapsed. The R-79 engine continued development till 1996. The YAK 141 successfully demonstrated at Paris Airshow. It was the first VTOL aircraft with supersonic capability. Lockheed Martin even brought the tilting nozzle technology for its F-35.
> 
> Like other advanced formerUSSR technologies, the R-79 engine was put up for a fire sale, in the 1990s. It is not unconceivable, that China would be interested, in acquire such advanced technology, at a ridiculous fire sale price.
> 
> China brought the 70% finished Varyag Aircraft carrier at the incredible price of $20 millions. The Ukranians throws in all the technical documentations and blueprints for another 3 millions. China probably hired the same engineers, who worked on it, to help with refurbished the aircraft carrier.


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> Yes, China got a lot of advanced military technologies from the former USSR, particularly Ukraine at a fire sale prices, and China hired a lot of their top rated scientists and engineers too.
> 
> I began to work for a US defense contractor in 1999, I have a lot of co-workers, who are Russian and Ukraine PH.Ds. They told me life was so hard, after the collapsed of the USSR, that daily surrival was constant struggle for everybody. Leaving the country was one of their only choice. A lot of talented Russians and Ukanians arrived at the New York, and Washington DC, area. A closest software engineering co-worker of mine was on the Russian Computer Programming Olympia Team. One of my first Tai Chi student was a Russian geology engineer. I even dated a beautiful Russian ph.d scientist, briefly.
> 
> "Anyway I highly doubt that even if the R-79 was surely a powerful "beast" "
> 
> Yes, R-79 was bench tested on 1984, but there are continuous development models well into 1990's, a version of R-79 was rated having over 200kN thrust. But remember, high thrust is not the only desirable requirements.
> 
> Engine life, fuel consumption rate, range of effective operating altitude, cost, complexity, size and weight or TWR are also very important.
> 
> "your can't skip major engine development step"
> 
> Tell that to the Chinese engineers. But they are successful with WS-15. The risk taking paid off.



Uhm, did you really work for an arms contractor? Or are u saying that to sound more credible?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Yes, China got a lot of advanced military technologies from the former USSR, particularly Ukraine at a fire sale prices, and China hired a lot of their top rated scientists and engineers too.
> 
> I began to work for a US defense contractor in 1999, I have a lot of co-workers, who are Russian and Ukraine PH.Ds. They told me life was so hard, after the collapsed of the USSR, that daily surrival was constant struggle for everybody. Leaving the country was one of their only choice. A lot of talented Russians and Ukanians arrived at the New York, and Washington DC, area. A closest software engineering co-worker of mine was on the Russian Computer Programming Olympia Team. One of my first Tai Chi student was a Russian geology engineer. I even dated a beautiful Russian ph.d scientist, briefly.
> 
> "Anyway I highly doubt that even if the R-79 was surely a powerful "beast" "
> 
> Yes, R-79 was bench tested on 1984, but there are continuous development models well into 1990's, a version of R-79 was rated having over 200kN thrust. But remember, high thrust is not the only desirable requirements.
> 
> Engine life, fuel consumption rate, range of effective operating altitude, cost, complexity, size and weight or TWR are also very important.
> 
> "your can't skip major engine development step"
> 
> Tell that to the Chinese engineers. But they are successful with WS-15. The risk taking paid off.


Wake up your wet dream kidin future you start to tell us you're the project manager of WS-15 or something like that huh Mr @Asok


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Uhm, did you really work for an arms contractor? Or are u saying that to sound more credible?



I am just trying to tell you, why the Chinese military technology is now, exploding, at an astonishing rate. One reason was the *massive technological transfer* in the 1990s and early 2000's from former USSR.

I did worked for a US defense contractor, in the non-military division. They have branched out, after the military budget cut, which happen, after the Cold War was over.

This has nothing to do with what I know about aviation and jet engine.

I only started this intensive self study on October 2016, after I became active in this Forum, (very recently, I admit. That's why attacking Mr. Deino for being not very technical on aviation, made me feel guilty and embarrassing. I am sorry Deino, Bro.), after I noticed the sustained vertical climbing, the J-20 was practicing, prior to the airshow demonstration.

Something it is very odd, that they could do that, without the use of afterburner. They were supposedly using either Ws-10x, or AL-31-FN engine, which have a maximum thrust of "only" 120-140kN.

This is incompatible with what I have saw on the youtube video.

A supposedly TWR 8 class engine (Ws-10 or AL-31), pushing up vertically, a huge and heavy 5 gen. fighter, *w/o the use of AB*, which I haven't even seen on a Su-27,SU-30 or J-11.

That made me want to solve the mystery of the J-20 engine. So I started reading on J-20 and Ws-15, and jet engine, in general, anything I could find on the internet. To my big surprise, that are a lot of highly technical Chinese papers on J-20 and WS-15, that are translated into English. Before, I was just reading general news reports and look at the pretty pictures, like other fan-boys. I am still just a fanboy, not an expert.

*"Wake up your wet dream kid. In future, you start to tell us, you're the project manager of WS-15, or something like that "*

Stop behaving like a little kid. You are making yourself look foolish, not me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> Stop behaving like a little kid. You are making yourself look foolish, not me.


you are behaving like a 8 year old kid,* why can you accept that fact J-20 is currently flying interim engine be cause of yours false bravado Chinese EGO can't believe that fact*, i am again reporting you for your baseless and clueless assertions of yours Mr @Asok

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"you are behaving like a 8 year old kid"
*
You are using, a lot of emoticons, that may be interpreted, as a provocatory and offensive. Mr. Deino and other Mods. have explicitly asked us, not to do that, and be polite and civil toward each other.

Let's listen to their wise advices, and admonitions and be nice.

*"Why can't you, accept, that fact J-20, is currently flying interim engine?"*

J-20 *was *flying an interim version (prototype) of WS-15 from 2011 to 2014, and is now flying with a production version of WS-15, IMO.

This interim engine, could possibly be an engine, designated as *Ws-10b*, to fool foreign intelligences. I am suggesting this engine may have a WS-15 core, and some technologies obtained from WS-10a and AL-31. (This is perfectly reasonable, because these two engines are the only TWR 8 engines, China has working experiences with)

The point that this interim engine *may be called Ws-10b (but with a WS-15 core)*, I am perfectly willing to concede.

We don't know its name. It was never officially disclosed. That's why so many heated arguments on the Internet Forums.

*Why can't you accept, this interim phase is now, over?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"you are behaving like a 8 year old kid"
> *
> You are using, a lot of emoticons, that may be interpreted, as a provocatory and offensive. Mr. Deino and other Mods. have explicitly asked us, not to do it, and be polite and civil toward each other.
> 
> Let's listen to their wise advices, and admonitions and be nice.
> 
> *"Why can't you, accept, that fact J-20, is currently flying interim engine?"*
> 
> J-20 *was *flying an interim version (prototype) of WS-15 from 2011 to 2014, and is now flying with a production version of WS-15, IMO.
> 
> This interim engine, could possibly be an engine, designated as *Ws-10b*, to fool foreign intelligences. I am suggesting this engine may have a WS-15 core, and some technologies obtained from WS-10a and AL-31. (This is perfectly reasonable, because these two engines are the only TWR 8 engines, China has working experiences with)
> 
> The point that this interim engine *may be called Ws-10b (but with a WS-15 core)*, I am perfectly willing to concede.
> 
> We don't know its name. It was never officially disclosed. That's why so many heated arguments on the Internet Forums.
> 
> *Why can't you accept, this interim phase is now, over?*


what a none-sense you have you repeated same none-sense again and again with no prove and your source is urban legend type sites that no one believe you no even our senior Chinese members here @Deino please banned @Asok permemently on this thread because of his baseless and clueless wet dream and wishful thinking thanks


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"you are behaving like a 8 year old kid"
> *
> You are using, a lot of emoticons, that may be interpreted, as a provocatory and offensive. Mr. Deino and other Mods. have explicitly asked us, not to do that, and be polite and civil toward each other.
> 
> Let's listen to their wise advices, and admonitions and be nice.
> 
> *"Why can't you, accept, that fact J-20, is currently flying interim engine?"*
> 
> J-20 *was *flying an interim version (prototype) of WS-15 from 2011 to 2014, and is now flying with a production version of WS-15, IMO.
> 
> This interim engine, could possibly be an engine, designated as *Ws-10b*, to fool foreign intelligences. I am suggesting this engine may have a WS-15 core, and some technologies obtained from WS-10a and AL-31. (This is perfectly reasonable, because these two engines are the only TWR 8 engines, China has working experiences with)
> 
> The point that this interim engine *may be called Ws-10b (but with a WS-15 core)*, I am perfectly willing to concede.
> 
> We don't know its name. It was never officially disclosed. That's why so many heated arguments on the Internet Forums.
> 
> *Why can't you accept, this interim phase is now, over?*


Please provide me an example of the PLA deliberately deceiving foreign observers like this? The Art of War isn't exactly gospel for China anymore ...


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Please provide me an example of the PLA deliberately deceiving foreign observers like this? The Art of War isn't exactly gospel for China anymore ...



*"Please provide me an example of the PLA deliberately deceiving foreign observers like this?"*

What? Are you kidding me, Figaro? I need to give you an example?

You never heard of intelligence agencies, try to deceive each other, using anyone, any means, anyways, they could?

Do you think, the Internet Forums, are just places, for a bunch of overgrown fanboys, trying to argue with each other, showing off their half-baked knowledges, trading rumors?

I am absolutely floored by your question. Please clarify for me, Bro.
*
"The Art of War isn't exactly gospel for China anymore"*

What do you mean? The Chinese people, don't read, this book anymore, and don't regard it, highly anymore?

How do you know that? I have never heard of Sun Tzi *being disregarded,* in any period of Chinese history.

We don't like brute force like the Roman. We were not very good at War, like the Roman. Often, the Chinese got defeated by the "barbarians". It was quite often, the Chinese ended up paying tributes to them, rather than the other way around. And some Chinese emperors have to call the "barbarian" Kings, Uncles, and send their daughters, to marry them to keep the peace.

Very funny, I know, but that's truth, some Chinese will not admit it.

Trying to use stratagems to fool the enemy, defeating them without fighting, is burned into our blood, and soaked into our bone marrow, by the "unfortunate" necessity, of not like fighting, or good at war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> What? Are you kidding me, Figaro? I need to give you an example?
> 
> You never heard of intelligence agencies, try to deceive each other, using anyone, any means, anyways, they could?
> 
> Do you think, the Internet Forums, are just places, for a bunch of overgrown fanboys, trying to argue with each other, showing off their half-baked knowledges, trading rumors?
> 
> I am absolutely floored by your question. Please clarify for me, Bro.


 just baseless wishful thinking and nothing more from you @Asok you're a problem child on J-20 disscussion threads you believe on false rumors, superstitions, wishful thinking and wet dreaming but you don't believe you n facts about J-20, WS-15 by other senior members here on PDF, and insisting your crap theories are right and others are all wrong huh Mr @Asok


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"Please provide me an example of the PLA deliberately deceiving foreign observers like this?"*
> 
> What? Are you kidding me, Figaro? I need to give you an example?
> 
> You never heard of intelligence agencies, try to deceive each other, using anyone, any means, anyways, they could?
> 
> Do you think, the Internet Forums, are just places, for a bunch of overgrown fanboys, trying to argue with each other, showing off their half-baked knowledges, trading rumors?
> 
> I am absolutely floored by your question. Please clarify for me, Bro.
> *
> "The Art of War isn't exactly gospel for China anymore"*
> 
> What do you mean? The Chinese people, don't read, this book anymore, and don't regard it, highly anymore?
> 
> How do you know that? I have never heard of Sun Tzi *being disregarded,* in any period of Chinese history.
> 
> We don't like brute force like the Roman. We were not very good at War, like the Roman. Often, the Chinese got defeated by the "barbarians". It was quite often, the Chinese ended up paying tributes to them, rather than the other way around. And some Chinese emperors have to call the "barbarian" Kings, Uncles, and send their daughters, to marry them to keep the peace.
> 
> Very funny, I know, but that's truth, some Chinese will not admit it.
> 
> Trying to use stratagems to fool the enemy, defeating them without fighting, is burned into our blood, and soaked into our bone marrow, by the "unfortunate" necessity, of not like fighting, or good at war.


*You never heard of intelligence agencies, try to deceive each other, using anyone, any means, anyways, they could?*
Still no example. Just because the CIA deceives foreign countries does not mean the Chinese are deceiving the J-20. Provide me an explicit example. 
*Very funny, I know, but that's truth, some Chinese will not admit it.*
If the Chinese followed Sun Tzu's deception to the core, the PLA would be a serective monolith like the former a Soviet Union. The fact is as you've mentioned before that there are many Chinese documents detailing advanced weaponry, meaning the Chinese are more than willing to show off. The truth is if you don't boast about yourself, you'll be pushed around by an enemy who perceives you as "weak".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> *You never heard of intelligence agencies, try to deceive each other, using anyone, any means, anyways, they could?*
> Still no example. Just because the CIA deceives foreign countries does not mean the Chinese are deceiving the J-20. Provide me an explicit example.
> *Very funny, I know, but that's truth, some Chinese will not admit it.*
> If the Chinese followed Sun Tzu's deception to the core, the PLA would be a serective monolith like the former a Soviet Union. The fact is as you've mentioned before that there are many Chinese documents detailing advanced weaponry, meaning the Chinese are more than willing to show off. The truth is if you don't boast about yourself, you'll be pushed around by an enemy who perceives you as "weak".


Bro @Asok has no examples @Asok lives in his wishful thinking, wet dreaming, false rumors, superstitions and assertions @Asok have no answer for you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"Provide me an explicit example."*

I am not going to give any examples. I am shocked by your request.

*"If the Chinese followed Sun Tzu's deception to the core, the PLA would be a serective monolith like the former a Soviet Union. "*

Absolute secrecy means, there is no deterrence value, either. If I don't know what you got, I am not going to be afraid of you.

Weapons are used to fight wars, but more often, its used to deter wars.

It is not true that the USSR was a secretive monolith. They paraded their military and weapons, every year, in the Red Square.

*"you've mentioned before that there are many Chinese documents detailing advanced weaponry, meaning the Chinese are more than willing to show off."*

It is true, Chinese scientific researches are quite open, about their research results, like other countries. They are deposited in searchable databases. This is true, until a research topic was advanced enough, that they got taken over by the military and classified.

This is the same as US, and other countries.

However, the papers published in China are written in Chinese. For a foreigner to understand them, he must be in that field and fluent in Chinese. Bing translation does not work in understanding technical subject.

That is the *barrier* that prevents the foreign intelligences, to understand the state of Chinese scientific researches.

This is not the same for Chinese.

Chinese could read foreign papers, because English proficiency are a requirement for University. And there are dedicated translators, in every fields, to translate English, German, French, Japanese, Russians technical books and papers.

This system have been set up, since the early 1950s.

For a CIA analyst to properly understand the state of Chinese aviation, he must have a background in Aviation, like a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, and is fluent in Chinese. So he could understand what he has downloaded, like me.

There is a problem here.

A US government employee is paid around 60k-80k a year, and thats the entry salary with a degree with engineering.

If this candidate was born in China with relatives in China, he has a zero chance in obtaining a top secret clearance and work in CIA.

So where or how do you get a fluent Chinese speaker, with an Aeronautical Engineering degree to work in CIA for 60k-80k a year, to do analysis on Chinese aviation?

When I do my research, I simply downloaded every Chinese papers on J-20 and WS-15, I could find. Those papers are written by professionals for professionals, in very technical languages.

But they don't contain the project names. They were censored out. Replaced by words like "certain airplane", "certain engine". So if your search is based on those keywords, you won't find many hits. But if you search with chinese technical terms, you will find them.

I discover this "trick", after reading the articles by a non-Chinese, American College professor, who is happen to be fluent in Chinese, and thus able to access the Chinese technical papers.

His predictions on the state Chinese military technology are right on the money, unlike the CIA reports, which often were years off, even a whole decade off.


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"Provide me an explicit example."*
> 
> I am not going to give any examples. I am shocked by your request.
> 
> *"If the Chinese followed Sun Tzu's deception to the core, the PLA would be a serective monolith like the former a Soviet Union. "*
> 
> Absolute secrecy means, there is no deterrence value, either. If I don't know what you got, I am not going to be afraid of you.
> 
> Weapons are used to fight wars, but more often, its used to deter wars.
> 
> It is not true that the USSR was a secretive monolith. They paraded their military and weapons, every year, in the Red Square.
> 
> *"you've mentioned before that there are many Chinese documents detailing advanced weaponry, meaning the Chinese are more than willing to show off."*
> 
> It is true, Chinese scientific researches are quite open, about their research results, like other countries. They are deposited in searchable databases. This is true, until a research topic was advanced enough, that they got taken over by the military and classified.
> 
> This is the same as US, and other countries.
> 
> However, the papers published in China are written in Chinese. For a foreigner to understand them, he must be in that field and fluent in Chinese. Bing translation does not work in understanding technical subject.
> 
> That is the *barrier* that prevents the foreign intelligences, to understand the state of Chinese scientific researches.
> 
> This is not the same for Chinese.
> 
> Chinese could read foreign papers, because English proficiency are a requirement for University. And there are dedicated translators, in every fields, to translate English, German, French, Japanese, Russians technical books and papers.
> 
> This system have been set up, since the early 1950s.
> 
> For a CIA analyst to properly understand the state of Chinese aviation, he must have a background in Aviation, like a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, and is fluent in Chinese. So he could understand the what he has downloaded, like me. I simply downloaded every Chinese papers on J-20 and WS-15, I could find. Those papers are written by professionals for professionals in very technical languages.
> 
> But they don't contain project names. They were censored out. Replaced by words like "certain airplane", "certain engine". So if your search is based on those keywords, you won't find many hits. But if you search with chinese technical terms, you will find them.
> 
> I discover this "trick", after reading the articles by a non-Chinese, American College professor, who is happen to be fluent in Chinese, and thus able to access the Chinese technical papers.
> 
> His predictions on the state Chinese military technology are right on the money, unlike the CIA reports, which often were years off, even a whole decade off.


*I am not going to give any examples. I am shocked by your request.

It is not true that the USSR was a secretive monolith. They paraded their military and weapons, every year, in the Red Square.*
They only paraded mature platforms which already passed development. The same is not true for China or the J-20. I'm not going to argue against your strawman; I've already stated that one doesn't need to be Chinese in order to access Chinese sources. This is the 21st century 



Figaro said:


> *I am not going to give any examples. I am shocked by your request.
> 
> It is not true that the USSR was a secretive monolith. They paraded their military and weapons, every year, in the Red Square.*
> They only paraded mature platforms which already passed development. The same is not true for China or the J-20. I'm not going to argue against your strawman; I've already stated that one
> doesn't need to be Chinese in order to access Chinese sources. This is the 21st century


So Chinese can read foreign documents while the same cannot be true vice-versa ... wut?!?


----------



## Asoka

*"I've already stated that one doesn't need to be Chinese in order to access Chinese sources. This is the 21st century"*

Sure, if you say so, Figaro. You have got *Bing* to do the translations for you. May your *Bing* could find "*an example of the PLA deliberately deceiving foreign observers"*


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"I've already stated that one doesn't need to be Chinese in order to access Chinese sources. This is the 21st century"*
> 
> Sure, if you say so, Figaro. You have got *Bing* to do the translations for you.


Your point being ... ?!? Doesn't that already contradict your bigoted argument?


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Your point being ... ?!? Doesn't that already contradict your bigoted argument?



sarcasm, my friend.

*"So Chinese can read foreign documents, while the same cannot be true, vice-versa?"*

As I have said, proficiency in English or other foreign languages are required in Chinese Universities. And there is a system setup to translation all major foreign languages' technical papers and books into Chinese.

Unless other countries have such system to translate Chinese technical papers and books into their own language, in that field.

Their non-chinese speaking researchers or intelligence analysts won't have access to Chinese materials, even though they are openly published, like other countries.

Your mention of using BING translation to help you understand Chinese technical papers, makes me want to laugh.

I can't even make sense of some BING translated news articles, without getting a headache.

But that's just me. There are people who could deciphers coded communications. May be you are such talented individual.

I am not trying to show off. I am merely trying to help you understand why CIA reports on China's military technology, are so wildly off target, in their predictions.

CIA predicted in 2009, that China will not have the 5 Gen. fighter before 2020, and only a few before 2025. And partly based on this prediction, Mr. Robert Gates, "happily" killed off the most formidable and fearsome, F-22, for good.

I haven't seen a bigger strategic blunder, since the end of the Cold War.

I predict, this blunder will end US's Air Superiority over the Pacific, since the end of WWII, for good.


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> sarcasm, my friend.
> 
> *"So Chinese can read foreign documents, while the same cannot be true, vice-versa?"*
> 
> As I have said, proficiency in English or other foreign languages are required in Chinese Universities. And there is a system setup to translation all major foreign languages' technical papers and books into Chinese.
> 
> Unless other countries have such system to translate Chinese technical papers and books into their own language, in that field.
> 
> Their non-chinese speaking researchers or intelligence analysts won't have access to Chinese materials, even though they are openly published, like other countries.
> 
> Your mention of using BING translation to help you understand Chinese technical papers, makes me want to laugh.
> 
> I can't even make sense of some BING translated news articles, without getting a headache.
> 
> But that's just me. There are people who could deciphers coded communications. May be you are such talented individual.


Poorly using sarcasm given the context of this debate makes you seem ignorant. You are completely basing your argument on how only *Chinese *are able to analyze Chinese documents, which I have proved you wrong on many occasions. There is substantial use of translator software, third parties, and other ways of accurately translating one language to another. And you can patronize Bing or other translating software all you want, but it does sum up the gist of the document to give you a general sense of what is going on. There is no shame in doing so ... maybe from your point of view though.


----------



## Asoka

*"You are completely basing your argument on, how only Chinese, are able to analyze Chinese documents, which I have proved you wrong, on many occasions."*

No, you didn't. You were only active on PDF, two days ago.


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"You are completely basing your argument on, how only Chinese, are able to analyze Chinese documents, which I have proved you wrong, on many occasions."*
> 
> No, you didn't. You were only active on PDF, two days ago.


I've already had more than 15 engagements with you ...


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> I've already had more than 15 engagements with you ...



You have not proven me wrong, on any occasion, Zero, None, Zip, in the last two days. Your "knowledge" on J-20, WS-15 and China, in general, are laughably poor. I am sorry to say, in danger, of being rude and offensive.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"Provide me an explicit example."*
> 
> I am not going to give any examples. I am shocked by your request.
> 
> *"If the Chinese followed Sun Tzu's deception to the core, the PLA would be a serective monolith like the former a Soviet Union. "*
> 
> Absolute secrecy means, there is no deterrence value, either. If I don't know what you got, I am not going to be afraid of you.
> 
> Weapons are used to fight wars, but more often, its used to deter wars.
> 
> It is not true that the USSR was a secretive monolith. They paraded their military and weapons, every year, in the Red Square.
> 
> *"you've mentioned before that there are many Chinese documents detailing advanced weaponry, meaning the Chinese are more than willing to show off."*
> 
> It is true, Chinese scientific researches are quite open, about their research results, like other countries. They are deposited in searchable databases. This is true, until a research topic was advanced enough, that they got taken over by the military and classified.
> 
> This is the same as US, and other countries.
> 
> However, the papers published in China are written in Chinese. For a foreigner to understand them, he must be in that field and fluent in Chinese. Bing translation does not work in understanding technical subject.
> 
> That is the *barrier* that prevents the foreign intelligences, to understand the state of Chinese scientific researches.
> 
> This is not the same for Chinese.
> 
> Chinese could read foreign papers, because English proficiency are a requirement for University. And there are dedicated translators, in every fields, to translate English, German, French, Japanese, Russians technical books and papers.
> 
> This system have been set up, since the early 1950s.
> 
> For a CIA analyst to properly understand the state of Chinese aviation, he must have a background in Aviation, like a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, and is fluent in Chinese. So he could understand what he has downloaded, like me.
> 
> There is a problem here.
> 
> A US government employee is paid around 60k-80k a year, and thats the entry salary with a degree with engineering.
> 
> If this candidate is born in China with relatives in China, he has a zero chance in obtaining a top secret clearance and work in CIA.
> 
> So where or how do you get a fluent Chinese speaker, with an Aeronautical Engineering degree to work in CIA for 60k-80k a year, to do analysis on Chinese aviation?
> 
> When I do my research, I simply downloaded every Chinese papers on J-20 and WS-15, I could find. Those papers are written by professionals for professionals, in very technical languages.
> 
> But they don't contain the project names. They were censored out. Replaced by words like "certain airplane", "certain engine". So if your search is based on those keywords, you won't find many hits. But if you search with chinese technical terms, you will find them.
> 
> I discover this "trick", after reading the articles by a non-Chinese, American College professor, who is happen to be fluent in Chinese, and thus able to access the Chinese technical papers.
> 
> His predictions on the state Chinese military technology are right on the money, unlike the CIA reports, which often were years off, even a whole decade off.


 What a crap reasons you have, CIA have not aviation experts in hand  nothing knows about Chinese languages and you do nothing about " certain engines" means WS-15 and " certain jets" means j-20 in any fighter jets preliminary design and development phases there are not single planform alignment assessment companies are working on different options for their country needs like Delta, Delta canard , crop deltas, tailed deltas, tailed cropped deltas, forward swept wings, arrow or diamond back back wings ( YF-23) and as for deception policy of your ill brain thoughts why China hiding WS-15 development from the world if China developed WS-15 and put in the j-20 , they proudly present to tell tells the world that China completed WS-15 development project and put in the j-20 and don't consider China is a weak country please answer my questions you brain fart @Asok kid


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> You have not proven me wrong, on any occasion, Zero, None, Zip, in the last two days. Your "knowledge" on J-20, WS-15 and China, in general, are laughably poor. I am sorry to say, in danger, of being rude and offensive.


Dude. You know that your argument is very weak. I have provided multiple instances when one does not need to speak Chinese in order to understand Chinese document. As for your superficial remark in the last sentence, I can just as easily say that you're being racist against non-Chinese people ...  keep that in mind


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"you're being racist against non-Chinese people ..."*
> 
> To claim that non-speaker of a foreign language, can not (at least, not easily) understand, what's written in that foreign language, *is not Racism*, my friend.
> 
> If someone said, Asok can not understand, what's written on this German, or French, or Russian, or Japanese . . . document, he is merely telling the truth, he is not being racist, because I really can't understand, any languages other Chinese and English.
> 
> Are you being offended by what I have said? I am sorry about that.  But being offended doesn't make you right. May be you shouldn't feel offended, in the first place.
> 
> Develop a thick skin like me. Figaro.
> 
> I got insulted here at PDF, all the time, for expressing my candid opinions regarding J-20 and WS-15.
> 
> I am beginning to develop an immunity to them.


Please answer my post # of 9094 @Asok and you are reported for your trolling without prove


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Please answer my post # of 9094 @Asok and you are reported for your trolling without prove


Don't report him ... I believe Asok does truly care about the J-20 and occasionally posts *some* logical stuff. Either way, he is much better than the racist trolls who come from one particular *unnamed* country just to spew hate on PDF.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Don't report him ... I believe Asok does truly care about the J-20 and occasionally posts *some* logical stuff. Either way, he is much better than the racist trolls who come from one particular *named* country just to spew hate on PDF.


No brother @Asok acting like insane he is knows everything about j-20/WS-15 is right all other Chinese Senior members here on PDF is wrong he is a problem child here on j-20 discussion thread


----------



## Asoka

*"you constantly reject other people's points, despite overwhelming evidence, and press on with your own ludicrous ideas."*

It is more like the other way, around, Bro. I am the one, with overwhelming evidence, and they have none, and still won't give up, their ludicrous ideas.

I can't be more understanding and compassionate now. A lie repeated a thousand times, has became the truth for them, now.

I am actually begin to appreciate them and thankful to them. Their vociferous opposition has made me to dig deeper and found the truth. And their incessant attacks and insults, *has worn down my pride*, and I am actually begin to apologize, if I think I was being rude and offensive.

This is unimaginable just 2 months, before.

Mr. @Deino, I thank God for him, and may God bless him. Banned me for two weeks, so I could cool down, when I went on a vicious attack on him. I have reflected on myself.

I realized that what I received in life, good or bad, is precisely what I dished out, myself.

If I give respect, where it is due, I will get respect, back. If I give disrespect, I will receive exactly the same thing, back, whether, I was "right" or not. It doesn't matter

I still want to tell the truths, as I know them, be of service to mankind. But I have much to learn to be gentle, and soften my "blows".

So I apologize if I have ruffled your feathers. Mr. Figaro.

I know you have said, that you came here to PDF to learn a few things or two.

I respect that.

If you want Peace, between China and US, and among all nations, on earth, then you are not my enemy, but my comrade, in arms.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asok said:


> *"you constantly reject other people's points, despite overwhelming evidence, and press on with your own ludicrous ideas."*
> 
> It is more like the other way, around, Bro. I am the one, with overwhelming evidence, and they have none, and still won't give up, their ludicrous ideas.
> 
> I can't be more understanding and compassionate now. A lie repeated a thousand times, has became the truth for them, now.
> 
> I am actually begin to appreciate them and thankful to them. Their vociferous opposition has made me to dig deeper and found the truth. And their incessant attacks and insults, *has worn down my pride*, and I am actually begin to apologize, if I think I was being rude and offensive.
> 
> This is unimaginable just 2 months, before.
> 
> Mr. @Deino, I thank God for him, and may God bless him. Banned me for two weeks, so I could cool down, when I went on a vicious attack on him. I have reflected on myself.
> 
> I realized that what I received in life, good or bad, is precisely what I dished out, myself.
> 
> If I give respect, where it is due, I will get respect, back. If I give disrespect, I will receive exactly the same thing, back, whether, I was "right" or not. It doesn't matter
> 
> I still want to tell the truths, as I know them, be of service to mankind. But I have much to learn to be gentle, and soften my "blows".
> 
> So I apologize if I have ruffled your feathers. Mr. Figaro.
> 
> I know you have said, that you came here to PDF to learn a few things or two.
> 
> I respect that.
> 
> If you want Peace, between China and US, and among all nations, on earth, then you are not my enemy, but my comrade, in arms.


What overwhelming evidence just some from Internet false bloggers who spreading false assertions and rumors on the net and what is talking about Chinese Senior members here on PDF knows nothing about history of chinese military you are a jester here on j-20 discussion thread Mr @Asok who don't listen other Chinese senior members with reasonable logic, @cirr ,@Beast ,@cnleio ,@ChineseTiger1986 ,@grey boy 2 and other knows nothing about history of j-20/WS-15 development, what a loser ego you have Mr @Asok


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"you constantly reject other people's points, despite overwhelming evidence, and press on with your own ludicrous ideas."*
> 
> It is more like the other way, around, Bro. I am the one, with overwhelming evidence, and they have none, and still won't give up, their ludicrous ideas.
> 
> I can't be more understanding and compassionate now. A lie repeated a thousand times, has became the truth for them, now.
> 
> I am actually begin to appreciate them and thankful to them. Their vociferous opposition has made me to dig deeper and found the truth. And their incessant attacks and insults, *has worn down my pride*, and I am actually begin to apologize, if I think I was being rude and offensive.
> 
> This is unimaginable just 2 months, before.
> 
> Mr. @Deino, I thank God for him, and may God bless him. Banned me for two weeks, so I could cool down, when I went on a vicious attack on him. I have reflected on myself.
> 
> I realized that what I received in life, good or bad, is precisely what I dished out, myself.
> 
> If I give respect, where it is due, I will get respect, back. If I give disrespect, I will receive exactly the same thing, back, whether, I was "right" or not. It doesn't matter
> 
> I still want to tell the truths, as I know them, be of service to mankind. But I have much to learn to be gentle, and soften my "blows".
> 
> So I apologize if I have ruffled your feathers. Mr. Figaro.
> 
> I know you have said, that you came here to PDF to learn a few things or two.
> 
> I respect that.
> 
> If you want Peace, between China and US, and among all nations, on earth, then you are not my enemy, but my comrade, in arms.


*It is more like the other way, around, Bro. I am the one, with overwhelming evidence, and they have none, and still won't give up, their ludicrous ideas.*
You have not given me even a single shred of evidence. I guess you'll just have to continue digging ...
*So I apologize if I have ruffled your feathers. Mr. Figaro.*
Don't worry about it, you haven't been rude ... although unnecessarily stubborn  . I have been in far more contentious arguments and topics. 
*If you want Peace, between China and US, and among all nations, on earth, then you are not my enemy, but my comrade, in arms.*
Really? Why do you have mention "peace" when your posts don't have any peaceful nature in them?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Why don't both sides to agree to disagree? It's tiring to see this never ending pointless debate like this. Asok opinion won't hurt anyone, so let his opinion alone. And if you afraid that his "baseless" opinion dirtied this thread, then you can make him a thread with title "Asok's prediction of J-20 development program". So he can post whatever he wants, and only people who believe in him can follow his thought without spark unnecessary debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"you constantly reject other people's points, despite overwhelming evidence, and press on with your own ludicrous ideas."*
> 
> It is more like the other way, around, Bro. I am the one, with overwhelming evidence, and they have none, and still won't give up, their ludicrous ideas.
> 
> I can't be more understanding and compassionate now. A lie repeated a thousand times, has became the truth for them, now.
> 
> I am actually begin to appreciate them and thankful to them. Their vociferous opposition has made me to dig deeper and found the truth. And their incessant attacks and insults, *has worn down my pride*, and I am actually begin to apologize, if I think I was being rude and offensive.
> 
> This is unimaginable just 2 months, before.
> 
> Mr. @Deino, I thank God for him, and may God bless him. Banned me for two weeks, so I could cool down, when I went on a vicious attack on him. I have reflected on myself.
> 
> I realized that what I received in life, good or bad, is precisely what I dished out, myself.
> 
> If I give respect, where it is due, I will get respect, back. If I give disrespect, I will receive exactly the same thing, back, whether, I was "right" or not. It doesn't matter
> 
> I still want to tell the truths, as I know them, be of service to mankind. But I have much to learn to be gentle, and soften my "blows".
> 
> So I apologize if I have ruffled your feathers. Mr. Figaro.
> 
> I know you have said, that you came here to PDF to learn a few things or two.
> 
> I respect that.
> 
> If you want Peace, between China and US, and among all nations, on earth, then you are not my enemy, but my comrade, in arms.


*Banned me for two weeks*
You were banned by Deino?  Wonder why ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"Really? Why do you have mention "peace" when your posts don't have any peaceful nature in them?"*

Yes, really. I want Peace between US and China.

I am living in US with my family. I don't want a war between US and China, or anybody. That's my bottom line.

Those crazy neolibs and neocons, wants a war with everybody, particularly China and Russia.

It's my desire to see China has enough Air Power to deter any aggression, because a war between two nuclear powers will quickly become nuclear.

China has built an amazing jet with an amazingly powerful engine. I want to see China will have 500-1000 in the future. So it will have a credible deterrence against any aggression.

That's all.

"*Banned me for two weeks"
*
Yes, banned for two weeks. I am less angry now, and have higher tolerance for insults. I have Deino, and those constant insults, to thank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> *"Really? Why do you have mention "peace" when your posts don't have any peaceful nature in them?"*
> 
> Yes, really. I want Peace between US and China.
> 
> I am living in US with my family. I don't want a war between US and China, or anybody. That's my bottom line.
> 
> Those crazy neolibs and neocons, wants a war with everybody, particularly China and Russia.
> 
> It's my desire to see China has enough Air Power to deter any aggression, because a war between two nuclear powers will quickly become nuclear.
> 
> China has built an amazing jet with an amazingly powerful engine. I want to see China will have 500-1000 in the future. So it will have a credible deterrence against any aggression.
> 
> That's all.
> 
> "*Banned me for two weeks"
> *
> Yes, banned for two weeks. I am less angry now, and have higher tolerance for insults. I have Deino, and those constant insults, to thank.



Neolibs and neocons are not stupid enough to get into wars with military superpowers ... the US can't even defeat the Taliban or Iraq despite 2 decades. Just imagine fighting China in the Pacific. I understand your longing to see the PLAAF gain air superiority, but the notion of 1000 J-20's are ridiculous in the short-medium term. And for the record, I never once insulted you or anything of that sort.


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... STOP NOW !! 

I agree with @Brainsucker: "Why don't both sides to agree to disagree?" ... non of us has proof, we all have only certain hints and evidences that we both weight differently and so come to different conclusions.

... and now back to topic.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## atan651

I'm so very delighted J20 engines are domestic!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Han Warrior said:


> Deino,
> 
> latest documentary from CCTV showcasing the latest weapons in PLA. See 7:55 min for the quote saying J-20 is using domestic engine.




Thanks but my concern is still how much this new report is just based on that other report, which was soon deleted again.

Anyway thanks.

Deino


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> Thanks but my concern is still how much this new report is just based on that other report, which was soon deleted again.
> 
> Anyway thanks.
> 
> Deino


The video was aired by CCTV-4 (an International channel carried out in Chinese language) under program [Chinese Perspective] 《深度国际》 with the title "Modernization of China's Armed Forces" on 29 July 2017, thus the video has been sitting openly for nearly one month, so I don't think it will go away.

The video duration is relatively short, about 00:27:20, yet it covers a lot and gives a good peek even to those who pay no attention into this matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Thanks but my concern is still how much this new report is just based on that other report, which was soon deleted again.
> 
> Anyway thanks.
> 
> Deino


Deino, this video did not feature any scenes of the deleted Liming documentary, which contained classified info. I don't even think it the same channel; CCTV-4 usually gets its military info directly from CCTV-7, the official military channel. You can see the documentary is mostly accurate; it details the Chinese advancement in EMALs just like professor Ma Weiming said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Ok .. so next we need - even if You might forgive my hesitation to celebrate - is the designation of that engine and its specifications.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Ok .. so next we need - even if You might forgive my hesitation to celebrate - is the designation of that engine and its specifications.



So do you agreed, Mr. Deino, the choice is now between Ws-15, and the supposed Ws-10b or WS-10X?

For the record, I do not think, there is any connection, whatsover, between what engine is installed in J-20 and being a good Moderator. And Mr. Deino is a good, able Mod. So I am perfectly willingly, to let go of, whatever bet, it was made on this issue, and let the bygone, be begone. And bury any hard feelings and passions, that was aroused by this issue.

It was unfortunate, that this bet was ever made, and I regretted that I raised it up, in the past. I hope Mr. Deino will continue be our Mod. , if the engine designation is unmistakably confirmed, once and for all.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Ok .. so next we need - even if You might forgive my hesitation to celebrate - is the designation of that engine and its specifications.


I think the WS-10X may be too classified at this point, just like the PLA's next generation nuclear submarines. But little by little, they're releasing information!


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> So do you agreed, Mr. Deino, the choice is now between Ws-15, and the supposed Ws-10b or WS-10X?
> 
> For the record, I do not think, there is any connection, whatsover, between what engine is installed in J-20 and being a good Moderator. And Mr. Deino is a good, able Mod. So I am perfectly willingly, to let go of, whatever bet, it was made on this issue, and let the bygone, be begone. And bury any hard feelings and passions, that was aroused by this issue.
> 
> It was unfortunate, that this bet was ever made, and I regretted that I raised it up, in the past. I hope Mr. Deino will continue be our Mod. , if the engine designation is unmistakably confirmed, once and for all.



No; I do not agree. It is a hint into a certain direction but I don't rate this a proof. In general "my" reliable friends in China, who I thrust very much and more than most of the regular posters at any forum, rate the typical CCTV-reports as not reliable. Most of the material is collected via different internet rumors and put together by "reporters", which are barely experts nor credible. Some of the commenters might indeed have access to classified information but they simply play that game. True classified information were never revealed to the public in this way ... this is at least their statement.

As such I beg to accept that I prefer to wait until I accept this mystery as solved.

And now guys I'm out to celebrate by daughter's birthday.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

I can't believe that some posters still resort to strawman attacks on CCTV's credibility; the CCTV-4 clearly gets its information off CCTV-7, the official military channel and thus is unlikely to be inaccurate. Especially since the interview got several other key areas correct, such as the Ma Weiming's IEPs and EMAL's. But as always, I got ripped by some posters for just hinting on the possibility of a domestic engine on the J-20 ... sad 



Deino said:


> No; I do not agree. It is a hint into a certain direction but I don't rate this a proof. In general "my" reliable friends in China, who I thrust very much and more than most of the regular posters at any forum, rate the typical CCTV-reports as not reliable. Most of the material is collected via different internet rumors and put together by "reporters", which are barely experts nor credible. Some of the commenters might indeed have access to classified information but they simply play that game. True classified information were never revealed to the public in this way ... this is at least their statement.
> 
> As such I beg to accept that I prefer to wait until I accept this mystery as solved.
> 
> Deino


Deino, these reliable friends did not even give us an accurate name on the Type 001A carrier which was named 002 all along. If they can't even name something this basic, how credible is that. CCTV's credibility should be better than any Big shrimp, especially given it hasn't been yanked from the website yet ... maybe we should start accepting the ways things are



Figaro said:


> I can't believe that some posters still resort to strawman attacks on CCTV's credibility; the CCTV-4 clearly gets its information off CCTV-7, the official military channel and thus is unlikely to be inaccurate. Especially since the interview got several other key areas correct, such as the Ma Weiming's IEPs and EMAL's. But as always, I got ripped by some posters for just hinting on the possibility of a domestic engine on the J-20 ... sad
> 
> 
> Deino, these reliable friends did not even give us an accurate name on the Type 001A carrier which was named 002 all along. If they can't even name something this basic, how credible is that. CCTV's credibility should be better than any Big shrimp, especially given it hasn't been yanked from the website yet ... maybe we should start accepting the ways things are. Many fellow members believe that they are so accurate and will not accept anything that contradicts their views. Have they even pointed out why CCTV is so inaccurate?



People saying CCTV is inaccurate, please point out an instance that it mistakenly reported something? Since there are so many straw-man arguments going on. You shouldn't just resort to attacking the credibility of a source without proper justification (Ad Hominem)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> ...
> Deino, these reliable friends did not even give us an accurate name on the Type 001A carrier which was named 002 all along. If they can't even name something this basic, how credible is that. CCTV's credibility should be better than any Big shrimp, especially given it hasn't been yanked from the website yet ... maybe we should start accepting the ways things are




Nope !
To admit the guys I know are not the typical big shrimps and they are surely not bloating around what they know. They are calm, careful in the way they answer, respectful and so far they were never deliberately wrong with anything answer they gave me.

As such some might call this ignorant, arrogant or plain stubborn ... I call it careful.

If You and others agree, then it's fine but out of the three options on the table (AL-31-derivate, WS-10-variant, WS-15) they all rejected the WS-options and even if ball were quite undecided with my theory, they all prefer my option. But we will see.


Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Or he smoked a lot of certain herbs  and mixed it with a very blooming imagination.
> 
> Come one; there are countless of such "very exact and detailed" reports all over the net. But point is, how reliable is this certain poster in general. Is this just one post that looks good and otherwise there's nothing from him ??
> 
> Even more I really question these reports concerning the WS-15 being based on the R-79; in fact an unreliable and unsuccessful engine that was a failure even in Russia.
> 
> Deino


These "herbs" are banned in China and violators may be executed


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Asok, if you want to provide better evidence, you should at least not use a ridiculous TVC demo when Jiang Zemin was around (the PLA in the 90's had no way to build thrust-vectoring engines). Please make it more believable.


please Mr figaro ignore him @Asok posted these images since last year with no prove either its WS-15 or WS-10X its viewing angles to Consider by the @Asok that is a TVC engine, and think that @Figaro how can install high risk new engine to its intended platform without air testing on test bed to reduce the risk you should tested on a test bed first then on the intended platform

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cybernetics

pakistanipower said:


> and you have typical *Chinese ignorance and arrogance to not understand others Mr @Asok *


Seems like you are not familiar with Chinese people. Do you feel moral superiority to paint the Chinese as ignorant and arrogant? Although I disagree with Asok's assessment of J-20, I find your perception of Chinese people grossly misguided and revealing. Your comment only reveals your own ignorance and arrogance on Chinese people. I would never judge an individual based their group and vice versa.

Dispite my disagreement with Asok's stubborn insistence on certain characteristics of J-20, I feel this is a forum for sharing opinions and ideas. There isn't any new content out on the J-20 so I understand members' frustrations. Please refrain from taking out your frustrations upon whole groups of people, its arrogant, ignorant, disrespectful, and people on this page do take offense. Attacking ideas is welcomed but attacks upon individuals and groups are not welcomed.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Figaro

Cybernetics said:


> Totally agree with the notion of criticism on Asok's arguments. Don't "quote" words I didn't even say. I didn't mention it was ""racist"" or think Pakistani Power is a racist, but his statement was very disrespectful and and offensive to Chinese people.


Where did he say that? @pakistanipower, you should keep down with the bolded and highlighted letters ... please. If anything, Asok's argument was demeaning non-Chinese ("foreigners" like me) on how they would never be able to understand Chinese military matters because of the so-called "language barrier"


----------



## Cybernetics

Figaro said:


> Where did he say that? @pakistanipower, you should keep down with the bolded and highlighted letters ... please. If anything, Asok's argument was demeaning non-Chinese ("foreigners" like me) on how they would never be able to understand Chinese military matters because of the so-called "language barrier"


I disagree with Asok's perspective that "foreigners" will never be able to understand Chinese military matters because of the "language barrier". On the other hand understanding the language will give you a time and depth advantage on understanding key technologies of Chinese weapons systems and the dreaded rumours. It is true that Chinese military research is mainly or entirely published in Chinese because many Chinese researchers themselves suffer from the "language barrier". They publish in the language that is most usable to them, Chinese is the easiest language for them to communicate complex ideas in and also the best language for their primary readers(Chinese military industrial complex) to understand. Same can be said of rumours, people who have personal access to rumours tend to be Chinese from China, who are generally not English speakers (not their fault). Over time some information will trickle down into English reports translated by people who understands both languages, but this takes time and not all information will be translated due to lack of translators and their time. English speaking experts get their understanding of Chinese weapons systems from reading Chinese reports too. Understanding Chinese does gives an advantage but its not absolute. Insisting that a "foreigner" can never understand is demeaning and dismisses human potential to adapt, a broad generalisation I do not condone.



pakistanipower said:


> @Asok has too much false assertions rumors how can he prove that WS-15 has a TVC, 210kn thrust and based on R-79 jet engine and @Asok always contridic himself in past he was saying that j-20 using WS-15 from day one and on the few pages back he was saying that j-20 was using WS-15 from 2015


He can't prove anything *definitively*, I think some where back Asok said it was based off rumours from a Chinese language forum. New information trickling down should be welcomed, I would feel bad if any members feel unconfident in sharing new information they have discovered, its a treasure for all of us to enjoy, even if they are just rumours. Many members have already dismissed the rumour but no need to shoot the messenger. If anyone thinks another's opinion/assessment is not in line with your own then just stay strong and be confident with yours. I understand the process of disproving another person can be frustrating especially if they feel its the right idea, sometimes its best to let the time pass until more information is present and read another thread. Lets stay civil and not have a civil war.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

*Ok guys ... and therefore let us all agree to disagree: All arguments are on the table, everything is said and repeated more than once.

Asok will not persuade me in the same way I do not persuade him and others ... Therefore as long as the discussion is civilised without name-callings and insults it's fine but IMO now it's enough said.

So go out and find some new images of J-20s ... and leave this back&forth!

Thank You.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sinait

pakistanipower said:


> What valid points I'm asking that valid points from @Asok at least from 6 months can you give me those valid points


I don't understand these useless to and fro, valid or not is up to us to decide.
No point dwelling on arguments based on speculation, guesses, and interpolation.
Until verifiable info turns up, just state your points, let readers decide, and move on.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

sinait said:


> I don't understand these useless to and fro, valid or not is up to us to decide.
> No point dwelling on arguments based on speculation, guesses, and interpolation.
> Until verifiable info turns up, just state your points, let readers decide, and move on.
> .


Thats my point sir let wait and see lets real confirmation will come out from the Chinese military

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> Thanks but my concern is still how much this new report is just based on that other report, which was soon deleted again.
> 
> Anyway thanks.
> 
> Deino


My personal opinion is it was not based on the previous documentary which had blurred images of machinery in the workshop producing the components. They deleted it because it was showing too much information on the production lines, anyway, this is the second confirmation of a domestic engine. I am not sure how else we can prove this point, CCTV is the official tv station of PRC. Even with new images, we can only deduce like always, now they are officially telling us it is CHINESE.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

*Hi guys ... in order to separate the on-going and already so often discussed question on the J-20's powerplant from the other J-20 news but also from the engine's thread I opened this new special thread.
*
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...ep-the-j-20-thread-clean.514445/#post-9796947

*Please continue there.

Deino*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

LOL!, Good move, Deino.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/J-25_a002931001.aspx
What aircraft are they incorrectly referencing here? Is it the FC-31 or J-20? Deagel is normally pretty accurate when it comes to specifications.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/J-25_a002931001.aspx
> What aircraft are they incorrectly referencing here? Is it the FC-31 or J-20? Deagel is normally pretty accurate when it comes to specifications.




Pure BS:



> The *J-25 along with the J-23* have already participated in military drills in the Pacific area. Chinese and Israeli sources revealed the existence of the *J-23 and J-25* stealth fighters in late 2013.


 

And deagel = relaible ???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xxqa_ds

lmjiao said:


> I believe that what CCTV reported is official.
> 
> However, I can not make sure that it is 100% percent describing the J-20 equipped with WS-15.
> The key point is, the Chinese language used in that report can have different meanings.
> I have studied frame by frame for that report. But right now, I think we need to wait for more proof.


no
I don't think so. Only the central one is official, and the contents of other stations are not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

By the way ... were any new LRIP-birds spotted at CAC recently ? 

As far as I remember the most recent one was the one with "15" on the MLG-doors.

Deino


----------



## akinkhoo

Figaro said:


> Poorly using sarcasm given the context of this debate makes you seem ignorant. You are completely basing your argument on how only *Chinese *are able to analyze Chinese documents, which I have proved you wrong on many occasions. There is substantial use of translator software, third parties, and other ways of accurately translating one language to another. And you can patronize Bing or other translating software all you want, but it does sum up the gist of the document to give you a general sense of what is going on. There is no shame in doing so ... maybe from your point of view though.


BRO, my country is majority CHINESE and even we have a fucking hard time understanding the technical document from China. even something as simple as the type of atomic bonding which you learn in middle school, most translator even trained human translator will have difficulty translating it from chinese to english. scientific language is something few translator can manage and that is the fact. you have to be a trained engineer to understand what they are talking about, much less translate it.

hell even the chinese translator we hired from CHINA get the term wrong way too many times. they can't even translate my name correctly and i am ethnically chinese. chinese as a language is way more complex because chinese really isn't a language, it a family of language and that are several way of saying the same thing and the same word can have up to a dozen different meanings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

So


Deino said:


> By the way ... were any new LRIP-birds spotted at CAC recently ?
> 
> As far as I remember the most recent one was the one with "15" on the MLG-doors.
> 
> Deino


some Sources claim 16 & 17



akinkhoo said:


> BRO, my country is majority CHINESE and even we have a fucking hard time understanding the technical document from China. even something as simple as the type of atomic bonding which you learn in middle school, most translator even trained human translator will have difficulty translating it from chinese to english. scientific language is something few translator can manage and that is the fact. you have to be a trained engineer to understand what they are talking about, much less translate it.
> 
> hell even the chinese translator we hired from CHINA get the term wrong way too many times. they can't even translate my name correctly and i am ethnically chinese. chinese as a language is way more complex because chinese really isn't a language, it a family of language and that are several way of saying the same thing and the same word can have up to a dozen different meanings.


Well then you guys need better translators ... Singapore is 80% Chinese and they still stick to traditional.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> So some Sources claim 16 & 17
> ...



But no images yet !  The most recent image I have is from the 11. June.


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> So
> 
> some Sources claim 16 & 17
> 
> 
> Well then you guys need better translators ... Singapore is 80% Chinese and *they still stick to traditional*.


To set it straight both Chinese Malaysian and Chinese Singaporean are adopting the Simplified Chinese instead of Traditional Chinese. Only Taiwan and Hong Kong SAR (and Macao!?) are using the Traditional Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> But no images yet !  The most recent image I have is from the 11. June.


They supposedly came out with number 15 in the same batch. And let's not forget those unmarked serials ...


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> To set it straight both Chinese Malaysian and Chinese Singaporean are adopting the Simplified Chinese instead of Traditional Chinese. Only Taiwan and Hong Kong SAR (and Macao!?) are using the Traditional Chinese.


Traditional is very outdated ... simple ... and many overseas cannot speak Mandarin, mostly Hokkien



Figaro said:


> Traditional is very outdated ... simple ... and many overseas cannot speak Mandarin, mostly Hokkien


I read on CJDBY that there's at least 24 current LRIP planes from 2 production lines. Can anyone confirm?


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/J-25_a002931001.aspx
> What aircraft are they incorrectly referencing here? Is it the FC-31 or J-20? Deagel is normally pretty accurate when it comes to specifications.



http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/J-25_a002931001.aspx

"Description: The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) *J-25*, also called the Ghost Bird, is a heavy stealth fighter developed by China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation to counter the US Air Force F-22 Raptor. 

The J-25 features a delta-wing airframe with canard fore-planes delivering superior stealth characteristics and potentially more advanced weapons, sensors as well as aerodynamic performance including supercruise speed. 

The new aircraft is not based in technology supplied from Russia but seems to be a Chinese-made product from end to end. The J-25 along with the *J-23* have already participated in military drills in the Pacific area. Chinese and Israeli sources revealed the existence of the *J-23 and J-25 stealth fighters* in late 2013. 

The same sources also refer to the Chinese intention to equip the new aircraft with* 117S thrust vectoring engines* from Russia or a similar Chinese engine to enhance its maneuverability."

OMG! Who can believe this sh*t? This is one of the worst B.S. I have seen yet. Not even the Chinese fanboys could make this up.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Asok said:


> http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/J-25_a002931001.aspx
> 
> "Description: The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) *J-25*, also called the Ghost Bird, is a heavy stealth fighter developed by China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation to counter the US Air Force F-22 Raptor.
> 
> The J-25 features a delta-wing airframe with canard fore-planes delivering superior stealth characteristics and potentially more advanced weapons, sensors as well as aerodynamic performance including supercruise speed.
> 
> The new aircraft is not based in technology supplied from Russia but seems to be a Chinese-made product from end to end. The J-25 along with the *J-23* have already participated in military drills in the Pacific area. Chinese and Israeli sources revealed the existence of the *J-23 and J-25 stealth fighters* in late 2013.
> 
> The same sources also refer to the Chinese intention to equip the new aircraft with* 117S thrust vectoring engines* from Russia or a similar Chinese engine to enhance its maneuverability."
> 
> OMG! Who can believe this sh*t? This is one of the worst B.S. I have seen yet. Not even the Chinese fanboys could make this up.


Deagel normally gets Chinese weapons correct ... dunno how they screwed up so badly here. Even if this article is fake, it's better than the trash Alex Lockie or Dave Mujamundar writes ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Figaro said:


> Traditional is very outdated ... simple ... and many overseas cannot speak Mandarin, mostly Hokkien



Not only Hokkien. There are also Hakka. Dunno which bigger between the two. Traditional is more complex. The simplified is easier to learn. There is one more country that still use traditional Chinese Character. That's Japan.


----------



## atan651

I'm from the old school. I still read and write in traditional Chinese. Furthermore I am a Buddhist and almost all Buddhist sutras are in traditional Chinese characters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Brainsucker said:


> Not only Hokkien. There are also Hakka. Dunno which bigger between the two. Traditional is more complex. The simplified is easier to learn. There is one more country that still use traditional Chinese Character. That's Japan.


Japanese Kanji is not the same as traditional Chinese ... although both share similarities


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> If it is a "heavy air superiority fighter" -- in your own words -- then it probably cannot perform those functions very well. Those secondary functions have their own dedicated platforms.


why not? they did it few months ago anyway`````



Figaro said:


> But we all know that the *WS-15* is progressing very smoothly and will be incorporated into the J-20 within the *next year or two*.


that is probably the amount of times for WS-15 to finish its test and to get her initial "certificate" in the first place```engine at this category is a hard nut, that only the U.S has cracked it successfully a decade ago with excessive experiences```more exciting news will come, I say, probably after 2020```the current "hybird" engine is doing just fine``


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> why not? they did it few months ago anyway`````
> 
> 
> that is probably the amount of times for WS-15 to finish its test and to get her initial "certificate" in the first place```engine at this category is a hard nut, that only the U.S has cracked it successfully a decade ago with excessive experiences```more exciting news will come, I say, probably after 2020```the current "hybird" engine is doing just fine``


A fighter jet is not an all in one plane. We know that the J-20 is a dedicated air superiority fighter; we don't know about how well it can perform strike or interception roles. The F-22 is also a dedicated air superiority fighter. We also know that it's ideal configuration is not in strike or interception. If you read Dr. Song Wenchong's aerodynamics paper, you'll see that the attributes of the J-20 clearly suit subsonic and supersonic maneuverability, which are not necessarily good attributes when it comes to strike fighters or interceptors.



rcrmj said:


> why not? they did it few months ago anyway`````
> 
> 
> that is probably the amount of times for WS-15 to finish its test and to get her initial "certificate" in the first place```engine at this category is a hard nut, that only the U.S has cracked it successfully a decade ago with excessive experiences```more exciting news will come, I say, probably after 2020```the current "hybird" engine is doing just fine``


*hybird*
I take issue with this "Frankenstein" theory where a Russian engine is "mated" with a Chinese one. This is not only technically unfeasible but also an extremely burdensome process. Either the J-20 is using a WS-10X engine or a variant of the AL-31F family but definitely not a weird fusion.


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> A fighter jet is not an all in one plane. We know that the J-20 is a dedicated air superiority fighter; we don't know about how well it can perform strike or interception roles. The F-22 is also a dedicated air superiority fighter. We also know that it's ideal configuration is not in strike or interception. If you read Dr. Song Wenchong's aerodynamics paper, you'll see that the attributes of the J-20 clearly suit subsonic and supersonic maneuverability, which are not necessarily good attributes when it comes to strike fighters or interceptors.
> 
> 
> *hybird*
> I take issue with this "Frankenstein" theory where a Russian engine is "mated" with a Chinese one. This is not only technically unfeasible but also an extremely burdensome process. Either the J-20 is using a WS-10X engine or a variant of the AL-31F family but definitely not a weird fusion.


Will J-7G essentially considered a family of Mig-21 but technology belongs to China and made in China?

The most distinctive feature is the crank delta wing which improves low attitude handling and increase fuel load. Different from other Mig-21. 

Can we borrow this analogy to J-20 domestic made engines?


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> Will J-7G essentially considered a family of Mig-21 but technology belongs to China and made in China?
> 
> The most distinctive feature is the crank delta wing which improves low attitude handling and increase fuel load. Different from other Mig-21.
> 
> Can we borrow this analogy to J-20 domestic made engines?


I don't understand what you're trying to compare here. The Chinese Mig-21 variants were *not *under-powered by any means. If the J-20 is using an imported Russian engine, chances are it is highly underpowered.


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> A fighter jet is not an all in one plane. We know that the J-20 is a dedicated air superiority fighter; we don't know about how well it can perform strike or interception roles. The F-22 is also a dedicated air superiority fighter. We also know that it's ideal configuration is not in strike or interception. If you read Dr. Song Wenchong's aerodynamics paper, you'll see that the attributes of the J-20 clearly suit subsonic and supersonic maneuverability, which are not necessarily good attributes when it comes to strike fighters or interceptors.
> 
> 
> *hybird*
> I take issue with this "Frankenstein" theory where a Russian engine is "mated" with a Chinese one. This is not only technically unfeasible but also an extremely burdensome process. Either the J-20 is using a WS-10X engine or a variant of the AL-31F family but definitely not a weird fusion.


so what is the "needed" characteristics for it to be a "dedicated" interceptor? 
air-superiority = dog fight? or = BV fight? or? ````because when seriouse war breaks out, what they are looking for is the ones that has the best pull of passive and active evasion (stealth is in the passive evasion tech family) plus longest fist```

and in terms of the hybird thing, we are quite good at it for decades```it is not confined with the conventinal thoughts of taking few parts of A's to be "mixed" with few parts taken from B's, and to make a hybird C````there are quite a lot things that those people have done, that seem very "frankenstein" to people like us,


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... I especially opened a new thread for this nasty engine discussion ! 

So please keep this one clean.* 

By the way this must be the most recent new LRIP J-20.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> *Guys ... I especially opened a new thread for this nasty engine discussion !
> 
> So please keep this one clean.*
> 
> By the way this must be the most recent new LRIP J-20.
> View attachment 421706




It looks like it has no canard at the front, and it has a vertical stabilizer,and it has horizontal tails at the back. So it could be a new variant of the JF-17 Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asok said:


> It looks like it has no canard at the front, and it has a vertical stabilizer,and it has horizontal tails at the back. So it could be a new variant of the JF-17 Pakistan.
> 
> View attachment 421709




It surely is a JF-17/FC-1 in the bottom right image.


----------



## Figaro

I 


Deino said:


> *Guys ... I especially opened a new thread for this nasty engine discussion !
> 
> So please keep this one clean.*
> 
> By the way this must be the most recent new LRIP J-20.
> View attachment 421706


I told you that 16 and 17 were out in the same batch as 15


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> I
> 
> I told you that 16 and 17 were out in the same batch as 15



Yes but we have no confirmation for these numbers. All we have confirmed is a yellow bird with a red "15" from June and now a yellow bird - without any number visible - on an image taken in July.

Deino


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> *Guys ... I especially opened a new thread for this nasty engine discussion !
> 
> So please keep this one clean.*
> 
> By the way this must be the most recent new LRIP J-20.
> View attachment 421706


But @Asok is right, it has a horizontal tails single vertical tail and no canards

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Yes but we have no confirmation for these numbers. All we have confirmed is a yellow bird with a red "15" from June and now a yellow bird - without any number visible - on an image taken in July.
> 
> Deino


Right. But there are other LRIP birds that were not captured in photos. We only have 1 photo of the 15th LRIP flying beside a Boeing jet. Some ppl claim that "15" was PSed. The PLAAF intentionally plays around with us observers to obscure their numerical strength. As far as I know, there are at least 20 birds in 2 production lines ... via CJDBY

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> ... As far as I know, there are at least 20 birds in 2 production lines ... via CJDBY




But for that rumour I would love to see some facts.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> But for that rumour I would love to see some facts.


The facts will come sooner than later


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> View attachment 422256


Is that a CG or real J-20 promotional photo? Can't really tell ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Is that a CG or real J-20 promotional photo? Can't really tell ....




IMO clearly a real one ... see this discussion:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903465620171137024

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

I really hope that "Skyhunter" shows off the J-20's super-maneuverability when it comes to turns and climbs. So far, we only have a handful of Youtube videos showing them ... sad! . Lest, it will put an end to all the dumb interceptor and strike-fighter theories flowing around ...



Deino said:


> IMO clearly a real one ... see this discussion:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903465620171137024


No serials?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> I really hope that "Skyhunter" shows off the J-20's super-maneuverability when it comes to turns and climbs. So far, we only have a handful of Youtube videos showing them ... sad! . Lest, it will put an end to all the dumb interceptor and strike-fighter theories flowing around ...
> 
> 
> No serials?




With the tails hidden their serials are also ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> With the tails hidden their serials are also ...


Or deliberately PS'ed out ... I really want to see its super-maneuverability that was envisioned in Dr. Song's design 10 years ago ... and pull some high g's. I'm sure you would care more about the serials, right Deino?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Judging from purely its TWR and aerodynamic configuration, the J-20 with its current Al-31 engines could only achieve Rafale/Eurofighter-level of maneuverability. Things will be greatly improved upon the introduction of the WS-15, provided that the engine indeed produces 180 kN of wet thrust as proposed.


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> Judging from purely its TWR and aerodynamic configuration, the J-20 with its current Al-31 engines could only achieve Rafale/Eurofighter-level of maneuverability. Things will be greatly improved upon the introduction of the WS-15, provided that the engine indeed produces 180 kN of wet thrust as proposed.


That's already really good ... the F-22 isn't much better than the Eurofighter in WVR. One can only imagine how the J-20 is gonna perform when it receives the WS-15 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

Pl-21-The Air to Air Missile of China's Fifth Generation Stealth Fighter & Attack Aircraft J-20...............!

Pl-21 is latest addition to the existing weaponry of J-20, This new Active radar guided missile that was initially rumored to be tested in March 2010 for the first time is expected to be similar to British Meteor advanced long range missile with an estimated range above 400KM and a speed over Mach 5.
The PL-21 features an active radar seeker and an integrated ramjet/solid rocket motor with a entral air inlet. 
Similar to the Russian R-27/AA-10, the PL-21 features 4 small stabilzing fins behind the active radar seeker. Two-way datalink antennas may be installed in the tail section for mid-course correction. 
Chinese Military Aviation reports that the first launch test took place in March 2010, with development projected to be completed by 2012.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

monitor said:


> Pl-21-The Air to Air Missile of China's Fifth Generation Stealth Fighter & Attack Aircraft J-20...............!
> 
> Pl-21 is latest addition to the existing weaponry of J-20, This new Active radar guided missile that was initially rumored to be tested in March 2010 for the first time is expected to be similar to British Meteor advanced long range missile with an estimated range above 400KM and a speed over Mach 5.
> The PL-21 features an active radar seeker and an integrated ramjet/solid rocket motor with a entral air inlet.
> Similar to the Russian R-27/AA-10, the PL-21 features 4 small stabilzing fins behind the active radar seeker. Two-way datalink antennas may be installed in the tail section for mid-course correction.
> Chinese Military Aviation reports that the first launch test took place in March 2010, with development projected to be completed by 2012.


I do not think your source is accurate .... where did you get this info from again? And we haven't seen a single PL-21 even though it was completed in 2012


----------



## Deino

Indeed ... only a GC - albeit a nice one - and an old designation, when the PL-15 was still called PL-21 esp. since the ones in the main bay are clearly standard PL-12.


----------



## Deino

[QUOTE="The SC, post: 9824369, member: 137182]...[/QUOTE]


Nice but already posted just the page before!


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> Well said. Some Chinese fanbois still claim that the J-20 can be used to hit high-value targets (AWEC, Tankers), *strike ground targets, carry anti-ship missile* and still be able to have outstanding maneuverability. Unfortunately, if one cannot even assess its proper role, their analysis of the J-20 is unlikely to be credible.



Highly unlikely given the size of the weaponsbay. However, hitting high-value targets isn't mutually exclusive with air-superiority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

siegecrossbow said:


> Highly unlikely given the size of the weaponsbay. However, hitting high-value targets isn't mutually exclusive with air-superiority.


You misunderstand me Siege ... I'm saying that many fanboys say that the J-20 can perform all these roles ... such as a Strike fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> You misunderstand me Siege ... I'm saying that many fanboys say that the J-20 can perform all these roles ... such as a Strike fighter




Whether J-20 is good for the ground strike role, is actually irrelevant. I suspect it will be used to launch unguided rockets, dropping dumb bombs, against ground targets like vehicles, bunkers, and infantry positions, like the PLAAF have been using their air-superiority fighters J-10 and J-11.

The PLAAF has came a long way in terms of equipments, but not in terms of doctrines, they are still stuck in the 50-70's. Some of the senior PLAAF commanders have a serious case of mental retardation, that can be cured by retiring them, wholesale.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

*Is the Stealth Technology, Game Over?*

I have always suggested, that Stealth Technology, is not a safe place, to bet your *Empire* in. There are already several technologies, arrayed against it. And China is actively researching all of them, and has made important progress.

1.) "*Passive Radar*, which is a receive-only system that uses transmitters of opportunity. Integrating a system of netted receivers, passive radar can detect, track, and target piloted and unpiloted stealth systems and provide cuing for antiair weapons systems."

2.) "*Quantum Radar, *which is a remote-sensing method based on quantum entanglement. The most convincing model has been proposed by an international team of researchers.[1][2] This team designed a model of quantum radar for remote sensing of a low-reflectivity target that is embedded within a bright microwave background, with detection performance well beyond the capability of a classical microwave radar."

3.) *Distributed and Networked AESAs*, where there is one or more active transmitters, working together, with one or more passive receivers, deployed in a wide area, forming a network, thus, exponentially increase the detection power of the individual AESA elements.

Encrypted radar signals with transmitter's ID, time, and location, are bounced off the target and then picked by the passive receivers, and integrated into a whole aerial picture, by fast supercomputers.

Since the shape of the stealth plane, do not absorb all the radar signals, but merely deflected them away, from the transmitters, and *concentrated in several directions*, it is inherently powerless, to countered this type of *distributed and networked AESAs*.,

4.) "*IRST, Infrared Search and Track System *is a method for detecting and tracking objects which give off infrared radiation (see Infrared signature) such as jet aircraft and helicopters. It has forward-looking to all-round situation awareness. Such systems are passive (thermographic camera), meaning they do not give out any radiation of their own, unlike radar. This gives them the advantage that they are difficult to detect."

The Pilots of Euro Typhoons, equipped with IRST, claimed they could detect the F-22 from 90km away. Of course, the detection range of the IRST, depends on the target's speed, altitude, and the state of its engine's Afterburner. (ie. is it on, and in full blast mode?)

5.) And now, Chinese scientists have made major breakthrough in a 2-D semiconductor material for AESA radars that will increase the effective power output by whooping *1000 times*, and sensitivity by *6000 times*.

This material could increase the effective detection range of current AESA by *50 times*, with the same size and same number of T/R elements.






This means if F-22's Frontal RCS is 0.0001m2 (more likely between 0.1m2 and 0.5m2, IMO), it could be detected *576km* away. This may be the end of the Stealth Technology as we know it. Note, you can not decrease the RCS, indefinitely, because it gets harder and harder, after a while.











@Figaro, you can read the original paper, in English, here. It contains a great deal of Chemical terms. @Deino might be, in a better position, to understand it.

“Solution Synthesis of Semiconducting Two-Dimensional Polymer via Trimerization of Carbonitrile ” *Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2017.*

or read the Chinese explanations of the significance of this new materials, here.

http://www.cailiaoniu.com/93971.html

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-09-02/doc-ifykpysa2733961.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2

Some close up HD pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


> Some close up HD pictures


Absolutely beautiful. Much better workmanship than the T-50 and on par with the F-35/F-22. Job well done Chengdu !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

A few interesting pictures with illustrations, can someone help explain what these are all about, i assume this must be technically more than my understanding of the Chinese wording?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Guys, this is a J-20 thread. Let's change subject back to J-20, before the overworked Deino say something.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

@Zhu Rong Zheng Yang !!

Calm down ! To tell the manufacturing quality of the J-20 better than the T50 is not "offensive and insulting for the most important PRC backbone ally" but a fact. As such leave all that strange historical issues and accusations against the US ... these are irrelevant, false and off topic. 

Deino



Asoka said:


> Guys, this is a J-20 thread. Let's change subject back to J-20, before the overworked Deino say something.




Already done ! ... by the way, what's Your conclusion on the latest engine discussion following cirr's post?

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...j-20-thread-clean.514445/page-14#post-9825798

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> @Zhu Rong Zheng Yang !!
> 
> Calm down ! To tell the manufacturing quality of the J-20 better than the T50 is not "offensive and insulting for the most important PRC backbone ally" but a fact. As such leave all that strange historical issues and accusations against the US ... these are irrelevant, false and off topic.
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already done ! ... by the way, what's Your conclusion on the latest engine discussion ?
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...-to-keep-the-j-20-thread-clean.514445/page-15


@Asoka still believes that the J-20 is equipped with a 3D thrust vectoring, 210 kN, and AL-31F nozzled WS-15 engine. So his conclusion remains the same ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> @Asoka still believes that the J-20 is equipped with a 3D thrust vectoring, 210 kN, and AL-31F nozzled WS-15 engine. So his conclusion remains the same ...



Yes, I do. That is still my conclusion

Some guy posted a picture of J-20, alongside with a picture of Taihang mountain, don't change anything.

It is strange that some people think it does.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> View attachment 422256



I dunno but it feel like not a real photo. It's a kind of an illustration / 3d picture than a real photo.
If you watched recent Star Wars movie (Rogue One) and see the 3d animation of some characters there (like Princess Leia and the Imperial General), you can see that this J-20 photo has the feel like them. It's look real, but not. And you can see the different if you see them carefully.


----------



## Deino

Brainsucker said:


> I dunno but it feel like not a real photo. It's a kind of an illustration / 3d picture than a real photo.
> If you watched recent Star Wars movie (Rogue One) and see the 3d animation of some characters there (like Princess Leia and the Imperial General), you can see that this J-20 photo has the feel like them. It's look real, but not. And you can see the different if you see them carefully.




It is most likely a digitally enhanced image - hey it's an advertising photo for a movie ! - but IMO not a CGI.


----------



## cirr

New bird with new engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> It is most likely a digitally enhanced image - hey it's an advertising photo for a movie ! - but IMO not a CGI.



From what we can see on the displayed landing gear and the details of the fuselage surface, it is not a CGI.

Looks to me from the original the image, it has been contrast increased, edge sharpened, saturation increased with the IRST windows blurred.


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> New bird with new engines?




Yes indeed ! Looks like a new bird and clearly with a WS-10 of some sort. Just look at the internal structure.
That image really made my day.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Yes indeed ! Looks like a new bird and clearly with a WS-10 of some sort. Just look at the internal structure.
> That image really made my day.
> 
> View attachment 422794



The typical ejector nozzle of WS-10 series -- It is a variant of the design finalized WS-10B2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> The typical ejector nozzle of WS-10 series -- It is a variant of WS-10B.




Indeed. What I find remarkable is that this "typical ejector nozzle of WS-10 series" is quite similar to the French M53.


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Indeed. What I find remarkable is that this "typical ejector nozzle of WS-10 series" is quite similar to the French M.53.


I suppose there are no trapezoidal valves inside M53.


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> I suppose there are no trapezoidal valves inside M53.




I just added an image for comparison above.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Yes indeed ! Looks like a new bird and clearly with a WS-10 of some sort. Just look at the internal structure.
> That image really made my day.
> 
> View attachment 422794


Deino, I would caution against suggesting anything of that sort. It could be a very good PS as well. We need to see more pictures from different angles to get a conclusion


----------



## Figaro

It seems that some people here are still *insistent *on the J-20 being a cumbersome strike-fighter or interceptor, with little air to air maneuverability. Here is a short excerpt from a paper published by Dr. Song (the J-10 designer), the former head of the 611 Institute and mentor of Yang Wei. The "future fighter" he is referring to is the J-20; straight from the horse's mouth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

More official commentary ...
*Mass production of turbine blades by Chinese private firm to benefit military*

By Liu Caiyu Source:Global Times Published: 2017/9/3





J-20 fighter jets showed at the military parade of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the PLA in a three-plane formation. Photo: CFP

A private Chinese company is mass-producing single-crystal turbine blades for aircraft engines, previously a monopoly of the US, which experts said will help Chinese fighter jets sustain prolonged battles.

The single crystals are a key indicator of a jet engine's capability, and its ultra-strong heat resistance can make it power high performance aircrafts.

Southwest China's Sichuan Province-based private company, Chengdu Aerospace Superalloy Technology Co. Ltd., is reportedly capable of producing single-crystal turbine blades, which, experts said could benefit the military and improve the quality of domestic parts.

The firm, which relies on its parent company that produces rhenium, became China's first company to mass produce single-crystal turbine blades, China Central Television (CCTV) reported Sunday.

Rhenium is a key metal used in producing single-crystal turbine blades, 80 percent of which are used to produce aircraft engines, either jets or rockets, and is vital to the military, the report said.

"Mastering the production technology of single-crystal turbine blades and aero engines will offer assured supply to the army and increase our fighter jets' ability to withstand prolonged battles," Xu Guangyu, a retired rear admiral and senior adviser to the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association told the Global Times.

It brings strategic benefits to the army since most fighter jets were powered by Western engines, Xu said.

*"China's J-20, J-31 and H-20 fighter jets are now powered by homemade engines that feature domestic single-crystal turbine blades," Xu added.*

According to Zhang Zheng, chairman of the board of the Chengdu Aerospace Superalloy Technology, told CCTV that products produced by his company have a huge market because the US had blocked core production techniques.

"Civil-military integration would boost not only the civil but also military aviation industry*. It would be great achievement if China's C919 passenger jumbo jet can be powered by domestic engines," Xu said.*

It's rare to see a private Chinese company master the technology used for aircraft engines, since most of technology of single-crystal turbine blades is in hands of State companies, Wang Yanan, chief editor of the Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times.

Private firms' entry into the aviation industry would help increase its capacity and efficiency, Wang said. "Because of differences in management style, private firms are more cost-efficient, which is likely to bring a new perspective to the current industry. They are more efficient and competitive in terms of quality," Wang said.

China's 13th Five-year Plan for the National Development of Strategic Emerging Industries, which was released in 2016, highlights the need to improve homemade aircraft engines and develop the domestic aircraft industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Oh come on ... "*China's J-20, J-31 and H-20 fighter jets are now powered by homemade engines that feature domestic single-crystal turbine blades," Xu added."
*
There is no J-31 right now and even less a H-20 fighter !  That report is so full of crap and BS.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Oh come on ... "*China's J-20, J-31 and H-20 fighter jets are now powered by homemade engines that feature domestic single-crystal turbine blades," Xu added."
> *
> There is no J-31 right now and even less a H-20 fighter !  That report is so full of crap and BS.


It's referring to the FC-31 and H-XX bomber respectively ... maybe they know more about the H-20 than we do?


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> It's referring to the FC-31 and H-XX bomber respectively ... maybe they know more about the H-20 than we do?




But that's the point: they are maybe, probably or whatever referring to the FC-31 and H-XX but saying J-31 and H-20 fighter !

I know what they wanted to say, but they did not and that's the point especially since some certain members here try to take each and every such report for holy gospel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

New picture?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


> New picture?


I think this has already been posted except with a new filter/tint (most likely edited)


----------



## j20blackdragon

cirr said:


> New bird with new engines?



Thank you.



Figaro said:


> *"China's J-20, J-31 and H-20 fighter jets are now powered by homemade engines that feature domestic single-crystal turbine blades," Xu added.*



Thank you.

What will the naysayers say now?

Also let me quickly remind everyone that the nozzle/afterburner of an engine can be a fully removable and interchangeable module, for example on the F100.




Until you've seen the J-20's engine core and fan, don't jump to conclusions.

The only thing we can confirm right now is that they are transitioning to a serrated stealth nozzle. Just because something looks like WS-10 doesn't mean it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

j20blackdragon said:


> Until you've seen the J-20's engine core and fan, don't jump to conclusions.
> 
> The only thing we can confirm right now is that they are transitioning to a serrated stealth nozzle. Just because something looks like WS-10 doesn't mean it is.



Well, another big shrimp Laoma stated in several years ago that the new engine with the serrated stealth nozzle as the real WS-15, and he also implied that the previous engines were the WS-10X incorporated with some WS-15 technology.

So soon we will the WS-10G vs WS-15 battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Asoka said:


> Note, *you can not decrease the RCS*, indefinitely, because it gets harder and harder, after a while.


Wrong. The radar cross section ( RCS ) value is often called, by professionals in the radar engineering field, as a 'fictitious' figure.

It is fictional not in the sense that we just made it up out of nothing. The value is fictional in the sense that the value changes because of many factors. Some within our control, some regardless.

For example...

Let us be clear on the difference between 'stationary' and 'fix'. People uses the two words interchangeably in casual conversations and nothing wrong with that. But in critical categorization, how they are used in certain contexts affects design parameters.

A radar station can be stationary but not fixed, meaning the radar is not mobile but can scan in 360 deg. The typical airport airspace management radar is this type.

If the seeking radar is stationary but not fixed, as the aircraft transverses the radar view, beginning from frontal, which is the smallest RCS, to full side view, which is the largest, then to rear aspect, which is smaller than side but greater than front, the RCS value changes as the radar follows the aircraft's path.

If the seeking radar is stationary and fixed, as the aircraft transverses the radar view, there will only a brief moment of detection of the frontal aspect.

The RCS value, which is a data processing function of the receiver part of the seeking radar, *COMPLETELY* depends on the reflected signals from the target. If the target is able to control those reflected signals to any degree, the RCS value changes accordingly.

The data processing function of the seeking radar is not within our control. But the reflected signals are absolutely within our control. The current method of affecting reflected signals is shaping with some assistance from absorber, which is materials control. We have done it to greater than %90 of degree of control as evident by actual combat experience. Shaping is essentially redirection of those reflected signals.

If we are able to achieve %100 degree of control of those reflected signals off the aircraft, the RCS value will drop to zero. At this point, there is a high probability that even quantum radar signals can be negatively affected.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1


----------



## clarkgap

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, another big shrimp Laoma stated in several years ago that the new engine with the serrated stealth nozzle as the real WS-15, and he also implied that the previous engines were the WS-10X incorporated with some WS-15 technology.
> 
> So soon we will the WS-10G vs WS-15 battle.



yankeesama and pupu both said it is a version of WS-10, also its impulsion only have a small improvement.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

clarkgap said:


> yankeesama and pupu both said it is a version of WS-10, also its impulsion only have a small improvement.



According to CCTV-4, the WS-10 is the third gen, while the WS-15 is the fifth gen. So the WS-10B must be considered as the fourth gen.

The WS-10B must be the J-20 engine that mentioned by the documentary of CCTV-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap

wanglaokan said:


> View attachment 422886
> 
> 
> View attachment 422886
> 
> 
> View attachment 422886




You already updated the image three times.


----------



## 帅的一匹

clarkgap said:


> You already updated the image three times.


Network problem



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to CCTV-4, the WS-10 is the third gen, while the WS-15 is the fifth gen. So the WS-10B must be considered as the fourth gen.
> 
> The WS-10B must be the J-20 engine that mentioned by the documentary of CCTV-4.


Yes,WS10b is the fourth gen.

I always think if there is a 'B' in the tail it must have something different from the 'a', look at the sawtooth nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

wanglaokan said:


> Network problem
> 
> 
> Yes,WS10b is the fourth gen.
> 
> I always think if there is a 'B' in the tail it must have something different from the 'a', look at the sawtooth nozzle.



There are so many examples of the improved version in the same family being a standalone generation.

Just look at the Type 093B from the Type 093, the DF-31AG from the DF-31, and the Type 002 from the Type 001.

Although the WS-10B is a member of the WS-10 family, but it is still a categorized as a generation ahead.

Since the original WS-10 is 120KN, and now the most optimized version used by the J-16 is 135KN.

So if the original WS-10B is 140KN, then the most optimized version used by the J-20 could be 155KN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> There are so many examples of the improved version in the same family being a standalone generation.
> 
> Just look at the Type 093B from the Type 093, the DF-31AG from the DF-31, and the Type 002 from the Type 001.
> 
> Although the WS-10B is a member of the WS-10 family, but it is still a categorized as a generation ahead.
> 
> Since the original WS-10 is 120KN, and now the most optimized version used by the J-16 is 135KN.
> 
> So if the original WS-10B is 140KN, then the most optimized version used by the J-20 could be 155KN.




WS-10 can not be 15t. Indeed, it perhaps is lower than 14t.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

clarkgap said:


> WS-10 can not be 15t. Indeed, it perhaps is lower than 14t.



Then it cannot be a generation ahead of the WS-10.

Even the WS-10A2 used by the J-16 is 135KN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Then it cannot be a generation ahead of the WS-10.
> 
> Even the WS-10A2 used by the J-16 is 135KN.




WS-10 IPE is still under developing. J-20 can not use it.


----------



## Ultima Thule

clarkgap said:


> WS-10 IPE is still under developing. J-20 can not use it.


but ther are lots prove that specially design for J-20 higher thrust version called WS-10B

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> but ther are lots prove that specially design for J-20 higher thrust version called WS-10B



Yep, the WS-10B and WS-10 are two different generations.

As a standalone new generation, the performance of the WS-10B must have some significant improvement.

The 117 is also a family member of the AL-31 family, and if the 117 can reach 15 tons of thrust, then why not the WS-10B? It is a generation ahead of its predecessor.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

Do we know how much thrust this new WS-10B has? What do the insiders say?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

pakistanipower said:


> but ther are lots prove that specially design for J-20 higher thrust version called WS-10B




Yes, this is WS-10 IPE. Bue some sources indicate that this project does not follow the schedule.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Do we know how much thrust this new WS-10B has? What do the insiders say?



Last year's Zhuhai show had unveiled the 140KN WS-10B.

And the thrust for all WS-10 variants is between 120-140KN， so the WS-10B still got a lot potential for the optimization to improve its thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

clarkgap said:


> Yes, this is WS-10 IPE. Bue some sources indicate that this project does not follow the schedule.


not WS-10 IPE bro its in development WS-10B is not WS-10 IPE bro, WS-10B is version specially design for J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Last year's Zhuhai show had unveiled the 140KN WS-10B.
> 
> And the thrust for all WS-10 is between 120-140KN， so the WS-10B still got a lot potential for the optimization to improve its thrust.
> 
> View attachment 422907


Pupu apparently said that the new WS-10 variant has a thrust of around 14 tonnes ...



pakistanipower said:


> not WS-10 IPE bro its in development WS-10B is not WS-10 IPE bro, WS-10B is version specially design for J-20


WS-10 IPE has a thrust of over 150kN and is finalizing development currently ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Pupu apparently said that the new WS-10 variant has a thrust of around 14 tonnes ...



So the initial batch of the J-20A2 will equip the 140KN one, while the later ones will have the 155KN.

Just like the earlier J-11B got the 120KN one, while the later ones got the 135KN one.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Figaro said:


> Do we know how much thrust this new WS-10B has? What do the insiders say?


The newest saying from sina=14tons
https://i.imgur.com/XBOGFnp.png

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> WS-10 IPE has a thrust of over 150kN and is finalizing development currently ...


give me source or something on this bro


----------



## Daniel808

*The latest image (September 2017) indicated that since early 2017 a J-20A prototype has been fitted with two indigenous WS-10X turbofan engines featuring stealth nozzles with saw tooth edges, suggesting the Chinese engine technology has become mature enough to finally have the Russian engines replaced.*






Congratulations

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> WS-10 IPE has a thrust of over 150kN and is finalizing development currently ...



Over 150KN will be after the optimization for the WS-10B, just like they did to the WS-10.



pakistanipower said:


> give me source or something on this bro



After the optimization, the most primitive version of the WS-10B will be around 140KN.

Just like the most primitive version of the WS-10 is around 120KN, while the optimized one has been improved to 135KN.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

@ChineseTiger1986 can you confirmed WS-10 IPE has thrust of 150kn and is under development

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> @ChineseTiger1986 can you confirmed WS-10 IPE has thrust of 150kn and is under development



The current one is 140KN, and after the optimization, the improved version will have the potential to exceed 150KN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The current one is 140KN, and after optimization, the improved version will have the potential to exceed 150KN.


wihch one WS-10B or WS-10 IPE?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> wihch one WS-10B or WS-10 IPE?



The name is irrelevant, the WS-10B and WS-10 belong to two different generations.

The WS-10 got many optimization with the improvement of thrust and lifespan, and the WS-10B will experience the same. So the WS-10B in the near future will have higher thrust and longer lifespan than the current one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The name is irrelevant, the WS-10B and WS-10 belong to two different generation.
> 
> The WS-10 got many optimization with the improvement of thrust and lifespan, and the WS-10B will experience the same. So the WS-10B in the near future will have higher thrust and longer lifespan than the current one.


And current one thrust are 140 KN as you stated

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

pakistanipower said:


> And current one thrust are 140 KN as you stated



Yep, the WS-10B starts with 140KN just like the WS-10 started with 120KN.

That's why the WS-10B is considered as the 4th gen, while the WS-10 is the 3rd gen.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lmjiao

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Yep, the WS-10B starts with 140KN just like the WS-10 started with 120KN.
> 
> That's why the WS-10B is considered as the 4th gen, while the WS-10 is the 3rd gen.


I have two questions.

1. Is there any link of official source for the number of trust of WS-10B?
2. Is there any link of rumour source for the number of trust of WS-10B?

I have to admit I didn't do much research on this. But I suppose you are the expert.
Could you please help?

Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Thanks again, but just a few more questions here and in the engine thread ... 



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> So the initial batch of the J-20A2 will equip the 140KN one, while the later ones will have the 155KN.



And also that You call this J-20 the A2, so all AL-31FX-powered current LRIP-aircraft are J-20A1?

Thanks a lot again,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

lmjiao said:


> I have two questions.
> 
> 1. Is there any link of official source for the number of trust of WS-10B?
> 2. Is there any link of rumour source for the number of trust of WS-10B?
> 
> I have to admit I didn't do much research on this. But I suppose you are the expert.
> Could you please help?
> 
> Thanks!



I am no expert, the specs of the WS-10B was unveiled in last year's Zhuhai show.



Deino said:


> Thanks again, but just a few more questions here and in the engine thread ...
> 
> 
> 
> And also that You call this J-20 the A2, so all AL-31FX-powered current LRIP-aircraft are J-20A1?
> 
> Thanks a lot again,
> Deino



Many big shrimps are making that kind of distinction.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Many big shrimps are making that kind of distinction.



So I'm not that off?

But jsut for the J-10B-version ? Is it now a WS-10B or a WS-10A2 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> So I'm not that off?
> 
> But jsut for the J-10B-version ? Is it now a WS-10B or a WS-10A2 ?



More likely the most primitive version of the WS-10B, also without the stealth nozzle.

I think there is the proof that indicates that the most optimized version of the third gen WS-10 could be close to 140KN, but they are still third gen, so no need to make a standalone exhibition for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lmjiao

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I am no expert, the specs of the WS-10B was unveiled in last year's Zhuhai show.


Thanks, we all know that WS-10B is officially confirmed in Zhuhai show.

But what I want to learn is it's trust. You are refering to a number > 150 KN, while I found some reports of the Zhuhai show saying something about 140KN.

I know that even for WS-10B, there are different optimizations that could lead to different trust. What I suppose is the number >150KN comes from some rumor or official source. Is it true?

What I get from sina is 142KN
Link:http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-03-15/doc-ifychhus1398358.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Another issue and maybe anyone here can help !

I got a mail from the publishers of Air Forces Monthly since they saw that latetst high-resolution J-20 image for the Sky Hunter film.

They asked me if I would know the photographer, if I can arrange a contact and ask if they can use that image for their magazine!???

Any idea how to handle that issue and all help appreciated.

Deino


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> But that's the point: they are maybe, probably or whatever referring to the FC-31 and H-XX but saying J-31 and H-20 fighter !
> 
> I know what they wanted to say, but they did not and that's the point especially since some certain members here *try to take each and every such report for holy gospel*.


Deino, wondering what did you mean actually... and to whom you pointed to by your loose statement.

Btw, for me there is no such holy gospel, and I definitely don't expect such transparency or much disclosure in military realm incl. the related industries as well as the insiders/commentators/experts/retirees there... it's simply against the principal nature of military things! They just tell or disclose on the need-to-know basis. Ofc the fans and outsiders may feel frustrated with the lack of info  but all should be realistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> Deino, wondering what did you mean actually... and to whom you pointed to by your loose statement.
> 
> Btw, for me there is no such holy gospel, and I definitely don't expect such transparency or much disclosure in military realm incl. the related industries as well as the insiders/commentators/experts/retirees there... it's simply against the principal nature of military things! They just tell or disclose on the need-to-know basis. Ofc the fans and outsiders may feel frustrated with the lack of info  but all should be realistic.




Agreed, for me too and that reply was surely not meant as a direct reply to You. I only want to point out that taking statements esp. from Newspapers and TV as pure gospel is sometimes even very much wrong.

I remember certain old discussions with some very special members here that saw such a post and insisted that they are fact: In this case there MUST be a J-31 and H-20 fighter since it is a more reliable source than that strange German ... and that behaviour is IMO plain wrong and stupid in fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

lmjiao said:


> Thanks, we all know that WS-10B is officially confirmed in Zhuhai show.
> 
> But what I want to learn is it's trust. You are refering to a number > 150 KN, while I found some reports of the Zhuhai show saying something about 140KN.
> 
> I know that even for WS-10B, there are different optimizations that could lead to different trust. What I suppose is the number >150KN comes from some rumor or official source. Is it true?
> 
> What I get from sina is 142KN
> Link:http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-03-15/doc-ifychhus1398358.shtml



140KN = current version
155KN = possible optimized version in the near future

The WS-10B starts with 140KN, while the WS-10 started with 120KN, and the WS-10 has been optimized to 135KN, so we won't rule out the possibility that the WS-10B in the near future could be optimized to 155KN.

BTW, I think the rumor about the 155KN WS-10G was referring to the optimized goal for the WS-10B.

I think @Deino can also agree me on that.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Yes !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> More official commentary ...
> *Mass production of turbine blades by Chinese private firm to benefit military*
> 
> By Liu Caiyu Source:Global Times Published: 2017/9/3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 fighter jets showed at the military parade of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the PLA in a three-plane formation. Photo: CFP
> 
> A private Chinese company is mass-producing single-crystal turbine blades for aircraft engines, previously a monopoly of the US, which experts said will help Chinese fighter jets sustain prolonged battles.
> 
> The single crystals are a key indicator of a jet engine's capability, and its ultra-strong heat resistance can make it power high performance aircrafts.
> 
> Southwest China's Sichuan Province-based private company, Chengdu Aerospace Superalloy Technology Co. Ltd., is reportedly capable of producing single-crystal turbine blades, which, experts said could benefit the military and improve the quality of domestic parts.
> 
> The firm, which relies on its parent company that produces rhenium, became China's first company to mass produce single-crystal turbine blades, China Central Television (CCTV) reported Sunday.
> 
> Rhenium is a key metal used in producing single-crystal turbine blades, 80 percent of which are used to produce aircraft engines, either jets or rockets, and is vital to the military, the report said.
> 
> "Mastering the production technology of single-crystal turbine blades and aero engines will offer assured supply to the army and increase our fighter jets' ability to withstand prolonged battles," Xu Guangyu, a retired rear admiral and senior adviser to the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association told the Global Times.
> 
> It brings strategic benefits to the army since most fighter jets were powered by Western engines, Xu said.
> 
> *"China's J-20, J-31 and H-20 fighter jets are now powered by homemade engines that feature domestic single-crystal turbine blades," Xu added.*
> 
> According to Zhang Zheng, chairman of the board of the Chengdu Aerospace Superalloy Technology, told CCTV that products produced by his company have a huge market because the US had blocked core production techniques.
> 
> "Civil-military integration would boost not only the civil but also military aviation industry*. It would be great achievement if China's C919 passenger jumbo jet can be powered by domestic engines," Xu said.*
> 
> It's rare to see a private Chinese company master the technology used for aircraft engines, since most of technology of single-crystal turbine blades is in hands of State companies, Wang Yanan, chief editor of the Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times.
> 
> Private firms' entry into the aviation industry would help increase its capacity and efficiency, Wang said. "Because of differences in management style, private firms are more cost-efficient, which is likely to bring a new perspective to the current industry. They are more efficient and competitive in terms of quality," Wang said.
> 
> China's 13th Five-year Plan for the National Development of Strategic Emerging Industries, which was released in 2016, highlights the need to improve homemade aircraft engines and develop the domestic aircraft industry.


And a related article about the crucial rare metal *rhenium* posted in the sibling thread should not be missed out... it tells more about the strategic importance of this material and the related technology.

"_China has been faced with a hurdle of self-developing aircraft engines, because the U.S. and some Western countries have blocked certain exports such as *rhenium* to China for many years._"

"China successfully purifies rare metal rhenium used to make aircraft engines*"*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> 140KN = current version
> 155KN = possible optimized version in the near future
> 
> The WS-10B starts with 140KN, while the WS-10 started with 120KN, and the WS-10 has been optimized to 135KN, so we won't rule out the possibility that the WS-10B in the near future could be optimized to 155KN.
> 
> BTW, I think the rumor about the 155KN WS-10G was referring to the optimized goal for the WS-10B.
> 
> I think @Deino can also agree me on that.




But some sources indicate that J-20 uses the 135KN WS-10, not 140KN.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

clarkgap said:


> But some sources indicate that J-20 uses the 135KN WS-10, not 140KN.



The WS-10B exhibited in the 2016 Zhuhai show is 140KN, and this is the engine designated for the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10B exhibited in the 2016 Zhuhai show is 140KN, and this is the engine designated for the J-20.



But it does not follow the plan.


----------



## Figaro

clarkgap said:


> But it does not follow the plan.


It's around 14 tonnes or almost 140 kN. That's what numerous "Big Shrimps" have been saying and corresponds with those AVIC brochures. I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally understated the thrust and it was rally around 145 kN. 


clarkgap said:


> But it does not follow the plan.


This is the plan my friend.



Deino said:


> Another issue and maybe anyone here can help !
> 
> I got a mail from the publishers of Air Forces Monthly since they saw that latetst high-resolution J-20 image for the Sky Hunter film.
> 
> They asked me if I would know the photographer, if I can arrange a contact and ask if they can use that image for their magazine!???
> 
> Any idea how to handle that issue and all help appreciated.
> 
> Deino


Uhm ... no need to ask them, I believe its open sourced. I saw a Global Times article use that image without permission so it shouldn't be that big of an issue. If you want, contact the Skyhunter producer directly ... the photographer probably works for the cast.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10B exhibited in the 2016 Zhuhai show is 140KN, and this is the engine designated for the J-20.


Once again, I wouldn't be surprised if the thrust is even higher (maybe 145kN?). This is pretty confidential information ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Once again, I wouldn't be surprised if the thrust is even higher (maybe 145kN?). This is pretty confidential information ...



The optimized version in the near future could even go up to 155KN if you follow the pattern of the WS-10, but as for now, we stick with 140KN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The optimized version in the near future could even go up to 155KN if you follow the pattern of the WS-10, but as for now, we stick with 140KN.


Indeed. Reliable Liyang insider @gongke101 states that the current WS-10B is around 14 tonnes. He also says that a WS-10 variant with its core enlarged by 1.4 times is also in the works.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Indeed. Reliable Liyang insider @gongke101 states that the current WS-10B is around 14 tonnes. *He also says that a WS-10 variant with its core enlarged by 1.4 times is also in the works.*



Could that one be the de facto WS-15?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Could that one be the de facto WS-15?


He says its split up into 2 groups : one with an all new design and another with this enlarged core. Personally, I don't think stick with the same design is possible but who knows???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Any idea if this is related to J-20A?
“太行改发动机”版歼20，又称歼-20A2状态。更清晰的发动机图片如下：



　　清晰而锐利的锯齿状叶片
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2017-09-04/doc-ifykpysa3082577.shtml


----------



## siegecrossbow

grey boy 2 said:


> Any idea if this is related to J-20A?
> “太行改发动机”版歼20，又称歼-20A2状态。更清晰的发动机图片如下：
> 
> 
> 
> 清晰而锐利的锯齿状叶片
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2017-09-04/doc-ifykpysa3082577.shtml



That particular image is p.s.ed and showed up several years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


>


Awesome pic! Do you know when this was taken?


----------



## lmjiao

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> 140KN = current version
> 155KN = possible optimized version in the near future
> 
> The WS-10B starts with 140KN, while the WS-10 started with 120KN, and the WS-10 has been optimized to 135KN, so we won't rule out the possibility that the WS-10B in the near future could be optimized to 155KN.
> 
> BTW, I think the rumor about the 155KN WS-10G was referring to the optimized goal for the WS-10B.
> 
> I think @Deino can also agree me on that.


Thanks for your detail explaination. 

The difference between WS-10A and WS-10B is larger than what I thought, but reasonable.

It seems that 155KN WS-10G may not have the oppotunity to be installed in J-20, it has to compete with WS-15. Unless the current WS-10 in J-20 is a type "G"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

The radar cross section (RCS) of J-20 at 10 GHz studied by the Taiwan Institute NCSIST ESRD through its mobile air defence systems.
NCSIST stands for National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903536551858241536

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

lmjiao said:


> Thanks for your detail explaination.
> 
> The difference between WS-10A and WS-10B is larger than what I thought, but reasonable.
> 
> It seems that 155KN WS-10G may not have the oppotunity to be installed in J-20, it has to compete with WS-15. Unless the current WS-10 in J-20 is a type "G"



I hope too, if the WS-15 can become mature soon, then the J-20 will not need the WS-10G anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I hope too, if the WS-15 can become mature soon, then the J-20 will not need the WS-10G anymore.


Respected member "Maya" (known for engine leaks) said back in 2008 that the WS-15 would take 10 years after the completion of high altitude core testing to be incorporated onto the J-20. So if things go according to plan, we should see the WS-15 in 2019.



samsara said:


> *The radar cross section (RCS) of J-20 at 10 GHz studied by the Taiwanese Institute NCSIST ESRD.*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/903536551858241536


Read Dr. Carlo Kopp's J-20 RCS analysis ... it's much more detailed and accurate

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Respected member "Maya" (known for engine leaks) said back in 2008 that the WS-15 would take 10 years after the completion of high altitude core testing to be incorporated onto the J-20. So if things go according to plan, we should see the WS-15 in 2019.



Let's assume the maiden flight of the WS-15 is scheduled for 2018-2019, the contemporary deployed J-20A2 may start to equip with the "WS-10G".

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Let's assume the maiden flight of the WS-15 is scheduled for 2018-2019, the contemporary deployed J-20A2 may start to equip with the "WS-10G".


Indeed. The WS-15 will be incorporated into the J-20 by 2018-19, but mass production will only commence a couple years latter ... perhaps 2022. So for now, we should turn our attention to the current WS-10X that appeared yesterday. On a side note, Pupu notes that the revealed engine yesterday may be a WS-15 enclosed in a WS-10 shell. Very interesting rumor ...
回复@左手王ZSW:自然不会是真[坏笑]//@左手王ZSW:曾闻言歼20使用的WS-10改进型是ws15的芯套了个ws10的壳...不知道是真是假

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Figaro said:


> Awesome pic! Do you know when this was taken?


i've no clue, just posted what i saw LOL

Rumors that J-20 may has been chosen as the next generation carrier based fight jet J20舰载赢了？？？

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Indeed. The WS-15 will be incorporated into the J-20 by 2018-19, but mass production will only commence a couple years latter ... perhaps 2022. So for now, we should turn our attention to the current WS-10X that appeared yesterday. On a side note, Pupu notes that the revealed engine yesterday may be a WS-15 enclosed in a WS-10 shell. Very interesting rumor ...
> 回复@左手王ZSW:自然不会是真[坏笑]//@左手王ZSW:曾闻言歼20使用的WS-10改进型是ws15的芯套了个ws10的壳...不知道是真是假



If he is making a sarcastic emoticon, then this means it is true.

Another big shrimp has also mentioned that, the J-20A will be powered by the WS-10X (or the de facto 155KN WS-10G) which is an engine that incorporates with the WS-15 technology. He didn't mention the AL-31F because the J-20A1 won't be mass produced.

All different big shrimps' leaks are starting to become convergent.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If he is making a sarcastic emoticon, then this means it is true.
> 
> Another big shrimp has also mentioned that, the J-20A will be powered by the WS-10X (or the de facto 155KN WS-10G) which is an engine that incorporated with the WS-15 technology. He didn't mention the AL-31F because the J-20A1 won't be mass produced.
> 
> All different big shrimps' leaks are starting to become convergent.


Exactly. This new engine may be the WS-10B, WS-10G, WS-10IPE, or the new WS-15. Nobody knows for sure! Even Pupu is not 100% on the WS-10B designation ... but as we see more photos, we'll get confirmation. So the CCTV-4 documentaries were right! The J-20 is indeed now using domestic engines ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> Respected member "Maya" (known for engine leaks) said back in 2008 that the WS-15 would take 10 years after the completion of high altitude core testing to be incorporated onto the J-20. So if things go according to plan, we should see the WS-15 in 2019.
> 
> 
> *Read Dr. Carlo Kopp's J-20 RCS analysis* ... it's much more detailed and accurate


Thanks for pointing to it, here's a related good read from the major think-tank CSIS's ChinaPower with reference to the Kopp's works.

*Does China’s J-20 rival other stealth fighters? | ChinaPower Project*
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> Thanks for pointing to it, here's a related good read from the major think-tank CSIS's ChinaPower with reference to the Kopp's works.
> 
> *Does China’s J-20 rival other stealth fighters? | ChinaPower Project*
> https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/


It's a very good summary; he places the J-20 RCS between the F-22 and F-35 (the last time I read this was back in 2011 LOL) ... he mentions the exact strong and weak points of the J-20. Superb analysis by a Western analyst ... perhaps one of the best I've ever seen. His exact analysis below .... and all of this just a couple months after J-20 was unveiled ...

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If he is making a sarcastic emoticon, then this means it is true.
> 
> Another big shrimp has also mentioned that, the J-20A will be powered by the WS-10X (or the de facto 155KN WS-10G) which is an engine that incorporates with the WS-15 technology. He didn't mention the AL-31F because the J-20A1 won't be mass produced.
> 
> All different big shrimps' leaks are starting to become convergent.



So theses first LRIP birds (aka Batch 00 if I'm not mistaken ?) are comparable to the Batch 01 J-11B, that also got the AL-31F as an interim and from Batch 02 they were powered by the WS-10A ? Or was it indeed the WS-10A that powers the J-11B?? I'm still a bit confused.

Deino



Figaro said:


> ... So the CCTV-4 documentaries were right! The J-20 is indeed now using domestic engines ...




Sorry to nit-pick: The J-20 is indeed now using domestic engines *since September 2017 !*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> Exactly. This new engine may be the WS-10B, WS-10G, WS-10IPE, or the new WS-15. Nobody knows for sure! Even Pupu is not 100% on the WS-10B designation ... but as we see more photos, we'll get confirmation. So the CCTV-4 documentaries were right! The J-20 is indeed now using domestic engines ...


Then in view of all these rumours on the engine things, a thick veil out of some revelations and indirect references, some of @Asoka own insistence may possibly carry its own weight, should not be outright ditched regardless the recent disclosure. Well, only time may possibly divulge at one or more fine day(s) {long} in the future if we all still remember to flash back to today's knowledge... 

Just shouldn't assume too much...  ha ha ha


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> So theses first LRIP birds (aka Batch 00 if I'm not mistaken ?) are comparable to the Batch 01 J-11B, that also got the AL-31F as an interim and from Batch 02 they were powered by the WS-10A ? Or was it indeed the WS-10A that powers the J-11B?? I'm still a bit confused.
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to nit-pick: The J-20 is indeed now using domestic engines *since September 2017 !*


We should give @Asoka more credit! He did say that the J-20 was using a domestic engine before most others (even if his WS-15 theory is quite fascinating). And how he stuck with conviction to the domestic engine theory is pretty great!



samsara said:


> Then in view of all these rumours on the engine things, a thick veil out of some revelations and indirect references, some of @Asoka own insistence may possibly carry its own weight, should not be outright ditched regardless the recent disclosure. Well, only time may possibly divulge at one or more fine day [long] in the future if we all remember to flash back to today's knowledge...
> 
> Just shouldn't assume too much...  ha ha ha


We should probably heed Asoka's words more then ...

@Deino, but what if this engine was already incorporated a month ago? Surely, this is a LRIP we don't know about ... so the CCTV documentary is technically correct? Unless the WS-10 was incorporated yesterday ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If he is making a sarcastic emoticon, then this means it is true.
> 
> Another big shrimp has also mentioned that, the J-20A will be powered by the WS-10X (or the de facto 155KN WS-10G) which is an engine that incorporates with the WS-15 technology. He didn't mention the AL-31F because the J-20A1 won't be mass produced.
> 
> All different big shrimps' leaks are starting to become convergent.




PUPU got the information from yankeesama.

yankeesama:
没什么矢量，就是太行b13.5吨
至少比99m1稳定
pupu:
哦！原来如此。

So, it can not be WS-15. Also the impulsion is lower than 140 KN.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> We should give @Asoka more credit! He did say that the J-20 was using a domestic engine before most others (even if his WS-15 theory is quite fascinating). And how he stuck with conviction to the domestic engine theory is pretty great!
> 
> 
> We should probably heed Asoka's words more then ...
> 
> @Deino, but what if this engine was already incorporated a month ago? Surely, this is a LRIP we don't know about ... so the CCTV documentary is technically correct? Unless the WS-10 was incorporated yesterday ...




Come on ! He was fixed purely on his ridiculous WS-15 theory which is simply wrong. Period and nothing more to add.

And even if that bird was fitted with that engine since months, it was surely not flying so far, nor any of all other J-20s as stated. Also a fact.

Deino


----------



## Figaro

clarkgap said:


> PUPU got the information from yankeesama.
> 
> yankeesama:
> 没什么矢量，就是太行b13.5吨
> 至少比99m1稳定
> pupu:
> 哦！原来如此。
> 
> So, it can not be WS-15. Also the impulsion is lower than 140 KN.


Pupu gave a range of 132kN to 138kN, slightly lower than 140.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> So theses first LRIP birds (aka Batch 00 if I'm not mistaken ?) are comparable to the Batch 01 J-11B, that also got the AL-31F as an interim and from Batch 02 they were powered by the WS-10A ? Or was it indeed the WS-10A that powers the J-11B?? I'm still a bit confused.
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to nit-pick: The J-20 is indeed now using domestic engines *since September 2017 !*



The J-20A will follow the pattern of the J-11B, and it is pretty sure that the WS-10 used by the J-11B is 3rd gen.



clarkgap said:


> PUPU got the information from yankeesama.
> 
> yankeesama:
> 没什么矢量，就是太行b13.5吨
> 至少比99m1稳定
> pupu:
> 哦！原来如此。
> 
> So, it can not be WS-15. Also the impulsion is lower than 140 KN.



It is the 14000 kg 4th gen WS-10B, so about 137-138KN.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20A will follow the pattern of the J-11B, and it is pretty sure that the WS-10 used by the J-11B is 3rd gen.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the 14000 kg 4th gen WS-10B, so about 137-138KN.


Pupu said it was slightly below 140 kN so 137 to 139 seems feasible (he suggests 138). I don't think the PLAAF would settle for anything lower ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Pupu said it was slightly below 140 kN so 137 to 139 seems feasible (he suggests 138). I don't think the PLAAF would settle for anything lower ...



The later optimized version will have higher thrust, and possibly its deployment will be parallel to the maiden flight of the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lmjiao

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is the 14000 kg 4th gen WS-10B, so about 137-138KN.



One should not only care about the trust. There are so may aspects necessary to make a good engine.

I don't actually care about 13200kg or 14000kg. Either of them is acceptable and more importantly replacable.

What I really focus is the stability, lifetime, FADEC, and so on for the WS-10B in J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

WHY does Russia suddenly agree to offer its *F117S* advanced engine to China?
*05 September 2017*
http://www.anannews.com/military/2017/09/05/65664.html

_"China's Air Force has already been away for a rainy day, start developed for production of the domestic engine replacement for J-20, and installed the "Taihang" modified engine for test inspection.

However, upon this latest development, suddenly Russia agreed to export to China *400 F117S engines*...
and the Russian suddenly made a move surprising everyone, take the initiative to solve for China in the field of engine block, and wanna sell a large number of advanced engine to China."_

Seems this site carries the machine-translated articles from Chinese language to English thus its readability is low.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> WHY does Russia suddenly agree to offer its *F117S* advanced engine to China?
> *05 September 2017*
> http://www.anannews.com/military/2017/09/05/65664.html
> 
> _"China's Air Force has already been away for a rainy day, start developed for production of the domestic engine replacement for J-20, and installed the "Taihang" modified engine for test inspection.
> 
> However, upon this latest development, suddenly Russia agreed to export to China *400 F117S engines*...
> and the Russian suddenly made a move surprising everyone, take the initiative to solve for China in the field of engine block, and wanna sell a large number of advanced engine to China."_
> 
> Seems this site carries the machine-translated articles from Chinese language to English thus its readability is low.




A typical Russian propaganda BS-report.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

via SDF:



siegecrossbow said:


> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1880932-1-1.html?_dsign=0c10d07a





siegecrossbow said:


> @Deino There is a serial number!





That would make sense as a new version like 101x were the J-10/J-10A, 102x were the J-10S/AS, 103x were the J-10B and 105x the J-10C.

So can we expect this to be the J-20B??

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

samsara said:


> WHY does Russia suddenly agree to offer its *F117S* advanced engine to China?
> *05 September 2017*
> http://www.anannews.com/military/2017/09/05/65664.html
> 
> _"China's Air Force has already been away for a rainy day, start developed for production of the domestic engine replacement for J-20, and installed the "Taihang" modified engine for test inspection.
> 
> However, upon this latest development, suddenly Russia agreed to export to China *400 F117S engines*...
> and the Russian suddenly made a move surprising everyone, take the initiative to solve for China in the field of engine block, and wanna sell a large number of advanced engine to China."_
> 
> Seems this site carries the machine-translated articles from Chinese language to English thus its readability is low.



Even if true, China should only consider 117 and above at this point.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

siegecrossbow said:


> Even if true, China should only consider 117 and above at this point.


For those who aren't familiar with these Russian engines:

117S vs 117

*117S*
Intended to power the *Su-35BM*, the izdeliye 117S (AL-41F1S) is an upgrade of the AL-31F that uses technology from the AL-41F. The engine produces 142 kN of thrust in afterburner and 86.3 kN dry. It features a fan 3% larger in diameter (932 millimetres versus 905 millimetres), advanced high- and low-pressure turbines, an all-new digital control system, and provisions for thrust-vectoring nozzles similar to the AL-31FP. This engine will have an assigned life of 4,000 hours and an MTBO of 1,000 hours. The first flight of this engine was completed in an Su-35BM on 20 February 2008. On 9 August 2010, Ufa-based company UMPO started supplying 117S engines (AL-41F1S) intended for Su-35S fighters.

*117*
Related to the 117S is the izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1), a highly improved AL-31F derivative designed for the Sukhoi *Su-57* fighter. The engine features an increased diameter fan, new high and low pressure turbines, and a digital control system (FADEC). According to Sukhoi director Mikhail Pogosyan, *the 117 is a new fifth generation engine built specifically for the Su-57*. Though the specifics of the 117 engine remain classified, the engine's thrust was increased by 24.5 kN over the AL-31 while the engine weight was reduced by 150 kg. The new engine produces 147 kN of thrust in afterburner and has a dry weight of 1,420 kg and thrust-to-weight ratio of 10.5:1. Like the AL-31F, the 117 has 4 low-pressure compressor (fan) and 9 high-pressure compressor stages.
Mikhail Pogosyan further mentioned that the 117 engine meets the Russian Air Force requirements and will be installed in production Su-57 fighter which will be supplied to the Russian Air Force and prospective foreign clients.

The 117 is an interim engine meant for prototype and initial production batches of the T-50. The definitive second stage for the aircraft is designated izdeliye 30 and will eventually replace the 117 after 2020. The new engine has increased thrust and fuel efficiency as well as improved reliability and lower costs. Bench testing of the new engine will start in 2014 according to the general designer-director of the NPO Saturn Eugeny Marchuk. Produced in Ufa.

AL-41F1S (117S) Advanced derivative for the Su-35 Builder: UMPO, 2010, Thrust: 142 kN, Su-35
AL-41F1 (117) Adv. derivative for the Sukhoi Su-57 UMPO, 2010, Thrust: 147 kN, Su-57 prototype

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> WHY does Russia suddenly agree to offer its *F117S* advanced engine to China?
> *05 September 2017*
> http://www.anannews.com/military/2017/09/05/65664.html
> 
> _"China's Air Force has already been away for a rainy day, start developed for production of the domestic engine replacement for J-20, and installed the "Taihang" modified engine for test inspection.
> 
> However, upon this latest development, suddenly Russia agreed to export to China *400 F117S engines*...
> and the Russian suddenly made a move surprising everyone, take the initiative to solve for China in the field of engine block, and wanna sell a large number of advanced engine to China."_
> 
> Seems this site carries the machine-translated articles from Chinese language to English thus its readability is low.


As Trump says : "Fake News"



siegecrossbow said:


> Even if true, China should only consider 117 and above at this point.


No way Russia is going to sell engines as a stand-alone product. Besides, with the WS-10X, the only benefit it would offer is the 3D thrust vectoring (which I'm not sure the Chinese are even interested at this point).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> via SDF:
> 
> 
> 
> That would make sense as a new version like 101x were the J-10/J-10A, 102x were the J-10S/AS, 103x were the J-10B and 105x the J-10C.
> 
> So can we expect this to be the J-20B??
> 
> Deino



J-20A2

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lmjiao

Deino said:


> via SDF:
> 
> 
> 
> That would make sense as a new version like 101x were the J-10/J-10A, 102x were the J-10S/AS, 103x were the J-10B and 105x the J-10C.
> 
> So can we expect this to be the J-20B??
> 
> Deino


No, it's just the J-20 A2 with WS-10B that we are discussing recently.

I mean, it is not a different one with J-20 A2. I am not claiming that the type will not be some "B", we had been wrong for 002.

Maybe we can also see some improvement for others beside the engine.


----------



## 帅的一匹

clarkgap said:


> Yes, this is WS-10 IPE. Bue some sources indicate that this project does not follow the schedule.


Means shorter lifespan


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

CCTV-4 (although not very credible) does mention the WS-10X, saying that one variant is over 14 tonnes @ 20:00


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> CCTV-4 (although not very credible) does mention the WS-10X, saying that one variant is over 14 tonnes @ 20:00



Pretty sure they are referring to IEP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

siegecrossbow said:


> Pretty sure they are referring to IEP.


Doesn't Pupu give an upper range of 138 kN, similar to 14 tonnes of thrust?

From respected member Maya many years ago ... WS-15 back in 2006

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> Doesn't Pupu give an upper range of 138 kN, similar to 14 tonnes of thrust?
> 
> From respected member Maya many years ago ... *WS-15 back in 2006*
> View attachment 423372


"*WS-15 back in 2006*" ==> 11 years has been elapsing ever since, no wonder that @Asoka has been so insisting at this Emei engine.

Btw I wonder whether Huangshan 黄山 as arguably the most magnificent mountain in China will get its turn when the 6th gen engine arrives  it's very cool to name the marvellous technology such as the aircraft engines after the names of the majestic mountains (Taihang Mountains 太行山, Mt. Emei 峨眉山)... and China has the most majestic mountains in the world incl. sharing with Nepal the highest peak, Mt Chomolungma or Qomolangma 珠穆朗玛峰... the Nepalese call it Sagarmatha (and the British colonial changed it into Mt. Everest).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

The important thing is we might be able to see a WS-15 on the J-20 within the next 2 years ... a truly astonishing development!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Guys, any updates on the WS-15 after the huge WS-10X revelation on Saturday? Is this good or bad for the WS-15's development? Thanks ...


----------



## clarkgap

wanglaokan said:


> Means shorter lifespan




No, this engine is more stable. But no great impulsion on thrust.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> The important thing is we might be able to see a WS-15 on the J-20 within the next 2 years ... a truly astonishing development!



please calm down ... otherwise the disappointment is too huge.

Soon in the meaning of Maya predicted in "2006 that in 2019 we will see"!??

Soon is quite a relative term. When Maya claimed some certain tests were done in 2006 and predicted this milestone in 2019 it is only a prediction 11 years old.

A long time in that - just look at the Russian T-50/PAK-FA program - a lot can happed.

If this prediction would have come from 2015, then 2019 would be likely but a statement from 2006 is nothing more than a guesswork.

Again I do not want to downrate or downplay the Chinese engine situation, but the fact that we now see a WS-10 on a J-20 tells me clearly that there will be another few years before we'll see the WS-15. Otherwise it does not make sense to re-engine then again.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> please calm down ... otherwise the disappointment is too huge.
> 
> Soon in the meaning of Maya predicted in "2006 that in 2019 we will see"!??
> 
> Soon is quite a relative term. When Maya claimed some certain tests were done in 2006 and predicted this milestone in 2019 it is only a prediction 11 years old.
> 
> A long time in that - just look at the Russian T-50/PAK-FA program - a lot can happed.
> 
> If this prediction would have come from 2015, then 2019 would be likely but a statement from 2006 is nothing more than a guesswork.
> 
> Again I do not want to downrate or downplay the Chinese engine situation, but the fact that we now see a WS-10 on a J-20 tells me clearly that there will be another few years before we'll see the WS-15. Otherwise it does not make sense to re-engine then again.
> 
> Deino


That may be their plan all alo


Deino said:


> please calm down ... otherwise the disappointment is too huge.
> 
> Soon in the meaning of Maya predicted in "2006 that in 2019 we will see"!??
> 
> Soon is quite a relative term. When Maya claimed some certain tests were done in 2006 and predicted this milestone in 2019 it is only a prediction 11 years old.
> 
> A long time in that - just look at the Russian T-50/PAK-FA program - a lot can happed.
> 
> If this prediction would have come from 2015, then 2019 would be likely but a statement from 2006 is nothing more than a guesswork.
> 
> Again I do not want to downrate or downplay the Chinese engine situation, but the fact that we now see a WS-10 on a J-20 tells me clearly that there will be another few years before we'll see the WS-15. Otherwise it does not make sense to re-engine then again.
> 
> Deino


youre right ... in approximately 2 years ... the WS-10x change may have been long planned. The notion that the incorporation of WS-10X at the expense of the WS-15 development is unfounded ... do we have any indication that the WS-15's progress is being impeded?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20B (确实叫千20B)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## clarkgap

Figaro said:


> That may be their plan all alo
> 
> youre right ... in approximately 2 years ... the WS-10x change may have been long planned. The notion that the incorporation of WS-10X at the expense of the WS-15 development is unfounded ... do we have any indication that the WS-15's progress is being impeded?




Some official reports talk about a set of serious problems during the testing of an new advanced turbofan engine.



grey boy 2 said:


> J-20B (确实叫千20B)




It is a old model. No one know what is it.


----------



## siegecrossbow

grey boy 2 said:


> J-20B (确实叫千20B)



Pretty sure that this is just a model and nothing more considering the fact that the stabilizers are inward canting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Figaro said:


> That may be their plan all alo
> 
> youre right ... in approximately 2 years ... the WS-10x change may have been long planned. The notion that the incorporation of WS-10X at the expense of the WS-15 development is unfounded ...





clarkgap said:


> Some official reports talk about a set of serious problems during the testing of an new advanced turbofan engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a old model. No one know what is it.


And what are these reports exactly ... others say that it progressing just fine

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> Guys, any updates on the WS-15 after the huge WS-10X revelation on Saturday? Is this good or bad for the WS-15's development? Thanks ...


I can asure you that no one here, or anyone I know that has a clear clue of WS-15, even they know, wouldnt say much of it`````````only few that their job has remotely related to those institutions hinted something that fits some of you guys assumptions```therefore, feel free to guess anything 

btw the current engine is doing just fine

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

rcrmj said:


> I can asure you that no one here, or anyone I know that has a clear clue of WS-15, even they know, wouldnt say much of it`````````only few that their job has remotely related to those institutions hinted something that fits some of you guys assumptions```therefore, feel free to guess anything
> 
> btw the current engine is doing just fine


INDEED! Well said! IF the true state is widely opened there for all to see then they all have failed miserably in doing their jobs... for such see-through brings only loses and no gains in return in my perception, at least not yet the time... and it's so hard for some to see here (visual proof any one,, then good luck with it... must be very patient in waiting ). However the current understanding shows those in charge are doing their tasks successfully. Just proceed on need-to-know/need-to-disclose basis... there are simply more strategic things than the false short-sighted pride or chest-thumping glories...  just like those subs this thing can be kept out of sight, unlike the carriers and many other obvious physical stuffs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Title123

grey boy 2 said:


> J-20B (确实叫千20B)


Is it J20 with WS15 W/ TWC? For 2019.New forth production line.


----------



## Figaro

Title123 said:


> Is it J20 with WS15 W/ TWC? For 2019.New forth production line.


No such thing as 4th production line ... and that photo dated back to early 2013


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> please calm down ... otherwise the disappointment is too huge.
> 
> Soon in the meaning of Maya predicted in "2006 that in 2019 we will see"!??
> 
> Soon is quite a relative term. When Maya claimed some certain tests were done in 2006 and predicted this milestone in 2019 it is only a prediction 11 years old.
> 
> A long time in that - just look at the Russian T-50/PAK-FA program - a lot can happed.
> 
> If this prediction would have come from 2015, then 2019 would be likely but a statement from 2006 is nothing more than a guesswork.
> 
> Again I do not want to downrate or downplay the Chinese engine situation, but the fact that we now see a WS-10 on a J-20 tells me clearly that there will be another few years before we'll see the WS-15. Otherwise it does not make sense to re-engine then again.
> 
> Deino


as some Chinese senior members said that *"it will install on J-20 in 2023"*


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> as some Chinese senior members said that *"it will install on J-20 in 2023"*


2023 as in engine maturity and full production... It's gonna be installed on J-20 tester in 2019


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> as some Chinese senior members said that *"it will install on J-20 in 2023"*



yes, IMO that timeframe - if nothing serious happens - would be realistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Figaro said:


> 2023 as in engine maturity and full production... It's gonna be installed on J-20 tester in 2019


We shouldn't use the WS-10 as a set time table for the WS-15, considering that the Chinese have learned a thing or two.


Deino said:


> yes, IMO that timeframe - if nothing serious happens - would be realistic.


do you mean batch production or appearance on j-20? 6 years on just an appearance of WS-15 on J-20 would imply an almost 2030 maturity date ...


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> 2023 as in engine maturity and full production... It's gonna be installed on J-20 tester in 2019




Never. If we see a WS-15 on a J-20 before 2020 it would be IMO a mayor surprise and being mature and in full production is way off. But just my two cents.

Deino


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Never. If we see a WS-15 on a J-20 before 2020 it would be IMO a mayor surprise and being mature and in full production is way off. But just my two cents.
> 
> Deino


What do u mean by 2023


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> What do u mean by 2023



@pakistanipower mentioned that date just a few posts above. IMO this date is likely to see a first WS-15 on a J-20, but not earlier.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> @pakistanipower mentioned that date just a few posts above. IMO this date is likely to see a first WS-15 on a J-20, but not earlier.


Your basicallt implying a 2028-30 entry date for the J-20B then? Imo that's too conservative. I have 2019-20 for first WS-15 and 2025 for full scale production

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

time will tell

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Han Patriot

lastone said:


> So the engine ws15 started before 2006 ,MIGHT see production in 2023.
> 17 years and counting.
> And where will competing engine manufacturers from Russia and Europe and USA be in another 7 years ?
> Has anyone written a non propaganda piece on the problems being faced by china in manufacturing ws15 ?


Troll alert?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Accountant

lastone said:


> So the engine ws15 started before 2006 ,MIGHT see production in 2023.
> 17 years and counting.
> And where will competing engine manufacturers from Russia and Europe and USA be in another 7 years ?
> Has anyone written a non propaganda piece on the problems being faced by china in manufacturing ws15 ?


No one is claiming that China is expert in metallurgy ,,, even after so many decades, Russia is much behind in engine tech than west ,,, it is complicated stuff and will take time


----------



## lastone

The Accountant said:


> No one is claiming that China is expert in metallurgy ,,, even after so many decades, Russia is much behind in engine tech than west ,,, it is complicated stuff and will take time


Exactly my point.
Most of the posters here have never seen a bolt being mfd and suddenly become experts in jet engines.
I work in the industry and as a engineer , ensuring repeatable quality of the most basic stuff requires a lot of effort.
20% of our equipment constitutes quality assurance equipment , even then due to human factors we face rejections.
Chinese are very average in metallurgy . From personal experience of rejecting their products.
When we talk about engines for fighter planes , temperatures exceed melting point of steel and only the special coatings and cooling channels keep the metal from becoming ductile.
Its a interesting read , thats why i wanted a reference to the problems their ws15 engine is facing.


----------



## PRC2025

I don't really understand why this engine discussion is taking so much "place" on here or on the other thread for that matter. The main point as of today is that whatever engine J-20A has today is still way above any level of upgraded J-10 / J-11 / J-15 / J-16 as a "total package". 

Other main point is to get every part of the infrastructure ready for a massive production when the newer engine is ready - however, one should still start buildning J-20A with present engine, because as a "total package aircraft", it's still better and above what most countries have. 

No one is a superpower because they have 50 or 100 stealth fighters. They can become superpower when you have 1500 - 2000 of those.
The same applies for submarines, destroyers and so on. One is not a superpower because a given country has only a handful of this and that. 
So mass production and resources along with infrastructury and economy is as important as this next generation engine that will power J-20 in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Don't troll te thread and first compelte your *KAVERI* engine with the foreign help then we talk and B/W you're reported for your trolls


they should be the last ones criticizing Chinese engine technology

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ozranger

PRC2025 said:


> I don't really understand why this engine discussion is taking so much "place" on here or on the other thread for that matter. The main point as of today is that whatever engine J-20A has today is still way above any level of upgraded J-10 / J-11 / J-15 / J-16 as a "total package".
> 
> Other main point is to get every part of the infrastructure ready for a massive production when the newer engine is ready - however, one should still start buildning J-20A with present engine, because as a "total package aircraft", it's still better and above what most countries have.
> 
> No one is a superpower because they have 50 or 100 stealth fighters. They can become superpower when you have 1500 - 2000 of those.
> The same applies for submarines, destroyers and so on. One is not a superpower because a given country has only a handful of this and that.
> So mass production and resources along with infrastructury and economy is as important as this next generation engine that will power J-20 in the future.



The most significant thing is China is progressively getting the Know-How for developing big fighter jet engines, on which the U.S. and Russia are the only two other players at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> View attachment 423770


No new serials . Guess they're pausing for the WS-10X

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> No new serials . Guess they're pausing for the WS-10X



No, I think since it is simply from the film with clearly #78273 being visible.
They surely won't show the very latest LRIP birds or even that WS-10B-powered prototype in a film.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PRC2025

ozranger said:


> The most significant thing is China is progressively getting the Know-How for developing big fighter jet engines, on which the U.S. and Russia are the only two other players at the moment.



China is getting there step-by-step, so there is no need to worry. Like I said, one needs to have the infrastructure for the massproduction in place. That is extremely important.
The F-35 is not some kind of "magic", or else the U.S. would be fine with only a handful of them. What makes one a superpower is if one has over 2.000 F-35 which is what the U.S. is planning for.

That's why the numbers are as important as technological parity.

Russians are having serious challenges themselves regarding Su-57, the same way the U.S. has problems with F-35. But still, the difference is that the U.S. is planning for more than 2.000 F-35, while Russia isn't. Hence, the biggest problem for Russia is the fact that even IF or whenever they get Su-57 ready, it will only be a handful of them and Russia is planning building them very slowly. I think the "latest target" was to have only 12 Su-57 by the end of 2019 - and I even doubt that will be the case, the same way as they planned for 2,300 Armata T-14 MBTs, and now they're hoping for about 100 of those by 2020. And again, I even doubt they'll have 100 by 2020, while 2,300 is just a pipe dream. Same goes for "Leader" cruisers, because they keep making new "deadlines" all the time. That is how it is when one doesn't have the money and infrastructure to actually massproduce these items in larger numbers.

So one needs to have money and resources in order to "play" at the top of the league globally. As pointed out earlier, J-20 is levels above already compared to any J-10 / J-11 / J-15 / J-16 which are already very good fighter aircraft. So J-20 production should be started already now. It doesn't matter what engine it uses. What matters is to have the airframes ready, along with sensors, radars, missiles, etc - and then put on whatever engine is used as of now, while developing the one that is "ideal" for later.

Also the development of J-31 is interesting and I believe one should use the same philosophy there. Accept the J-31 ASAP and start building that along with J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

PRC2025 said:


> China is getting there step-by-step, so there is no need to worry. Like I said, one needs to have the infrastructure for the massproduction in place. That is extremely important.
> The F-35 is not some kind of "magic", or else the U.S. would be fine with only a handful of them. What makes one a superpower is if one has over 2.000 F-35 which is what the U.S. is planning for.
> 
> That's why the numbers are as important as technological parity.
> 
> Russians are having serious challenges themselves regarding Su-57, the same way the U.S. has problems with F-35. But still, the difference is that the U.S. is planning for more than 2.000 F-35, while Russia isn't. Hence, the biggest problem for Russia is the fact that even IF or whenever they get Su-57 ready, it will only be a handful of them and Russia is planning building them very slowly. I think the "latest target" was to have only 12 Su-57 by the end of 2019 - and I even doubt that will be the case, the same way as they planned for 2,300 Armata T-14 MBTs, and now they're hoping for about 100 of those by 2020. And again, I even doubt they'll have 100 by 2020, while 2,300 is just a pipe dream. Same goes for "Leader" cruisers, because they keep making new "deadlines" all the time. That is how it is when one doesn't have the money and infrastructure to actually massproduce these items in larger numbers.
> 
> So one needs to have money and resources in order to "play" at the top of the league globally. As pointed out earlier, J-20 is levels above already compared to any J-10 / J-11 / J-15 / J-16 which are already very good fighter aircraft. So J-20 production should be started already now. It doesn't matter what engine it uses. What matters is to have the airframes ready, along with sensors, radars, missiles, etc - and then put on whatever engine is used as of now, while developing the one that is "ideal" for later.
> 
> Also the development of J-31 is interesting and I believe one should use the same philosophy there. Accept the J-31 ASAP and start building that along with J-20.


First, let's get the designation correct. The J-31 is officially called the FC-31. It is not as simple as "accepting" the FC-31 at the PLAAF's free will; its performance is unknown and probably does not live up to standards. Also, the FC-31 is private funded, meaning that it isn't prioritized by the PLAAF. Considering that the J-20 (which is not optimized) is winning the naval aviation fighter completion vs an obviously ideal platform (FC-31), that goes to show how far the FC-31 is coming along

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

PRC2025 said:


> China is getting there step-by-step, so there is no need to worry. Like I said, one needs to have the infrastructure for the massproduction in place. That is extremely important.
> The F-35 is not some kind of "magic", or else the U.S. would be fine with only a handful of them. What makes one a superpower is if one has over 2.000 F-35 which is what the U.S. is planning for.
> 
> That's why the numbers are as important as technological parity.
> 
> Russians are having serious challenges themselves regarding Su-57, the same way the U.S. has problems with F-35. But still, the difference is that the U.S. is planning for more than 2.000 F-35, while Russia isn't. Hence, the biggest problem for Russia is the fact that even IF or whenever they get Su-57 ready, it will only be a handful of them and Russia is planning building them very slowly. I think the "latest target" was to have only 12 Su-57 by the end of 2019 - and I even doubt that will be the case, the same way as they planned for 2,300 Armata T-14 MBTs, and now they're hoping for about 100 of those by 2020. And again, I even doubt they'll have 100 by 2020, while 2,300 is just a pipe dream. Same goes for "Leader" cruisers, because they keep making new "deadlines" all the time. That is how it is when one doesn't have the money and infrastructure to actually massproduce these items in larger numbers.
> 
> So one needs to have money and resources in order to "play" at the top of the league globally. As pointed out earlier, J-20 is levels above already compared to any J-10 / J-11 / J-15 / J-16 which are already very good fighter aircraft. So J-20 production should be started already now. It doesn't matter what engine it uses. What matters is to have the airframes ready, along with sensors, radars, missiles, etc - and then put on whatever engine is used as of now, while developing the one that is "ideal" for later.
> 
> Also the development of J-31 is interesting and I believe one should use the same philosophy there. Accept the J-31 ASAP and start building that along with J-20.



Well, according to Yankeesama, Russia can only supply us a handful of AL-31FM1 for the J-20A, and the J-20A now solely relies on the WS-10B.

So the production rate of the WS-10B is now becoming extremely crucial before the WS-15 being ready, otherwise most J-20 would be grounded even with Russia's supply.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, according to Yankeesama, Russia can only supply us a handful of AL-31FM1 for the J-20A, and the J-20A now solely relies on the WS-10B.
> 
> So the production rate of the WS-10B is now becoming extremely crucial before the WS-15 being ready, otherwise most J-20 would be grounded even with Russia's supply.



But that would imply that this recent image showing the WS-10B-equipped J-20A is already older - if not months - and not a recent one ?

Is there any info available when this image was taken?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> But that would imply that this recent image showing the WS-10B-equipped J-20A is already older - if not months - and not a recent one ?
> 
> Is there any info available when this image was taken?



According to the CCTV military experts during the interview of the fall 2016, the J-20 got the domestic engine, but not the WS-15. Although the development of the WS-15 is running smoothly, it still needs some time.

So these WS-10B on J-20A could be taken from the end of 2016 at the earliest, or maybe few months ago, but it is very possible that the pic is not the most recent one.

And CAC and Shenyang's Liming factory have reached the agreement of the deepening the cooperation, which can be translated into the agreement for the mass production of the jet engines for both J-20 and J-10.

https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2411408-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to the CCTV military experts during the interview of the fall 2016, the J-20 got the domestic engine, but not the WS-15. Although the development of the WS-15 is running smoothly, it still needs some time.
> 
> So these WS-10B on J-20A could be taken from the end of 2016 at the earliest, or maybe few months ago, but it is very possible that the pic is not the most recent one.



So we have no confirmation that this prototype already flew ... or better to say it is unlikely yet and also no LRIP or even serial J-20s were delivered with the new engine?




> And CAC and Shenyang's Liming factory have reached the agreement of the deepening the cooperation, which can be translated into the agreement for the mass production of the jet engines for both J-20 and J-10.
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2411408-1-1.html



Could this be a hint that finally the Block 03 J-10Cs will get the WS-10B?

Deino


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> So we have no confirmation that this prototype already flew ... or better to say it is unlikely yet and also no LRIP or even serial J-20s were delivered with the new engine?



The previous J-20 showed in the public didn't have all identical engine nozzle either.


Maybe this one is the WS-10B with the non-stealth nozzle?








While this is the AL-31FM1.








And this is the first WS-10B with the jagged(stealth) nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The previous J-20 showed in the public didn't have all identical engine nozzle either.
> Maybe this one is the WS-10B with the non-stealth nozzle?
> ...
> While this is the AL-31FM1.



Really ??? I know we had this discussion already much too often and I still don't agree. For me they are all the same and I think I can differ between a typical WS-10- and AL-31FN/FM-nozzle.

Anyway that's a lot and I can't wait to see that bird 2021 in the air.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Could this be a hint that finally the Block 03 J-10Cs will get the WS-10B?
> 
> Deino



Or maybe the WS-10A1/2 for the J-10C, since the WS-10B is a fourth gen aircraft that is going to be exclusively powered by the J-20.

BTW, the decision of using the WS-10B was made in the early 2016, and it was mentioned by the CCTV military experts in the late 2016.

So clearly these CCTV military experts also know some inside information.



Deino said:


> Really ??? I know we had this discussion already much too often and I still don't agree. For me they are all the same and I think I can differ between a typical WS-10- and AL-31FN/FM-nozzle.
> 
> Anyway that's a lot and I can't wait to see that bird 2021 in the air.
> 
> Deino



Yes, but all the AL-31 engines from both Salyut and Saturn never show any silver nozzle except the black ones.

Many production units of the J-20 also show the black nozzle, so these engines are clearly AL-31FM without any doubt, but the J-20 during the public event or parade could have used the WS-10B albeit with a non-stealth nozzle, and the jagged one is the first stealth nozzle we have seen so far.

Because the silver nozzle doesn't look like a traditional AL-31F either, and the AL-31F we saw on the J-20 looks clearly different.

If the jagged nozzle of the prototype 2021 is also longer than the nozzle of the regular WS-10, then it can pretty much confirm my speculation that the previous silver nozzle belongs to the non-stealth WS-10B.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

Is this....??

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## Figaro

*China's J-20 fighter jet may get homemade engine*
Source : Global Times Editor : Zhang Tao Time : 2017-09-08

Most experts and netizens said they believe photos posted online of China's J-20 fighter jets show homemade Taihang engines have replaced their Russian-made counterparts.

A report released by thepaper.cn on Wednesday said the new engine is the Taihang based on its appearance on the online photos.

The J-20 used to be outfitted with the Russia-made AL-31F engine, according to the report, but the homemade engines could be mass-produced.

"It is necessary for the J-20 to use homemade engines. This way, the fighter jet will be completely developed and manufactured in China," Huang Jun, a professor at Beihang University, told the Global Times on Thursday.

According to the report, the *insufficient supply of the Russian engines* could have led to the change, since orders for the homemade engine also come from overseas, while the price of the Russian engine has been increased from $3 million to $ 5 million each.

"*The Taihang engine's performance is nearly as good as the AL-31F. However, being new, the Taihang lacks the maturity of the Russian one*," said Huang.

*The report added it is much more complicated to change the engine of the fourth generation of J-20s than the second and the third one due to adjustments to the fourth generation's air inlet and engine compartment, among others.*

*The J-20 is expected to undergo another engine change with the homemade WS-15, which is currently being developed, said the report of thepaper.cn*.

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/view/2017-09/08/content_7747590.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The WS-10 engine has already powered several hundred PLAAF aircrafts for many years, and so far it got zero record of incident.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## lmjiao

Figaro said:


> *China's J-20 fighter jet may get homemade engine*
> Source : Global Times Editor : Zhang Tao Time : 2017-09-08
> 
> Most experts and netizens said they believe photos posted online of China's J-20 fighter jets show homemade Taihang engines have replaced their Russian-made counterparts.
> 
> A report released by thepaper.cn on Wednesday said the new engine is the Taihang based on its appearance on the online photos.


This media is actually the most official media of PLA.

It is really awkward that this official media write reports of J-20 based on forgien sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10 engine has already powered several hundred PLAAF aircrafts for many years, and so far it got zero record of incident.


They were referring to the new WS-10 variant ... not the reliable WS-10A. The latter is the one used in hundreds of aircraft ... not the WS-10X

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lmjiao

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10 engine has already powered several hundred PLAAF aircrafts for many years, and so far it got zero record of incident.


If you mean crash incident, it's really zero record.

In protype stage of Taihang, there was serious incidents of Taihang, however no crash occured because of engine failure.

After Taihang enter in service in 2010, there's still some incidents but no serious ones.

The only crash of fighter equipped with Taihang is the prototype of J-11BS No. 532. However, investigation shows that the crash is not related to the Taihang engine.




Only crash of Taihang fighter, but not due to engine.

Link (in Chinese):https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1736057&fromuid=170559
Author: Yankee

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> They were referring to the new WS-10 variant ... not the reliable WS-10A. The latter is the one used in hundreds of aircraft ... not the WS-10X



Yes, they believe the performance and reliability of this new WS-10B is pretty close to the best jet engine that Russia has offered China so far; the 117S.



lmjiao said:


> If you mean crash incident, it's really zero record.
> 
> In protype stage of Taihang, there was serious incidents of Taihang, however no crash occured because of engine failure.
> 
> After Taihang enter in service in 2010, there's still some incidents but no serious ones.
> 
> The only crash of fighter equipped with Taihang is the prototype of J-11BS No. 532. However, investigation shows that the crash is not related to the Taihang engine.
> View attachment 423843
> 
> Only crash of Taihang fighter, but not due to engine.
> 
> Link (in Chinese):https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1736057&fromuid=170559
> Author: Yankee



That's why Yankee believes that the WS-10B should be entered into the mass production before the introduction of the WS-15.

I believe the maximum potential for the WS-10B is around 155KN, so far this engine is not fully mature, so it hasn't been optimized to its maximum performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## clarkgap

[QUOTE =“费加罗，后：9841493，成员：186693”]这些报告究竟是什么...其他人说其进步很好[/ QUOTE]


Figaro said:


>




You can find it on huitong's web.


----------



## juj06750

hey . american assholes . No RUSSIAN ENGINES IN J20

it's been repeatedly confirmed by state media

americans hate chinese and

they strongly hope that china fails everything, hopefully engines too lol

I recommend that we may ban americans on this forum (this is chinese forum)

here we exchange credible information (NOT american ideology)

most americans and their state media don't even have credible sources for chinese weapons

I hope no more waste on this ridiculous topic

GO GO GO CHINA !!!

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

China #PLAAF #J20 #stealth on pylon GEDOI7/7/17 #Leizhuangcun Possibly testing canard RCS at various angles.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> According to the report, the *insufficient supply of the Russian engines* could have led to the change, since orders for the homemade engine also come from overseas, while the price of the Russian engine has been increased from $3 million to $ 5 million each.


This is great news. If it's Russian unreliability that's causing this reengining, then there's no reason to believe there are any setbacks in the WS-15 program.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

Not sure if this has been posted before "78271" 
"EDIT, old picture, posted a few months back, please ignore

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


> Not sure if this has been posted before "78271"
> "EDIT, old picture, posted a few months back, please ignore


It's from back in December but still looks great!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


>


Nice!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## onebyone

Three Chinese model airplane enthusiasts have spent nearly 14 months to build their own J-20 stealth fighter in #Wuhan, Hubei province.

To build the 1:1 model, they have spent 200,000 yuan and used about 5 tons of steel meterial.

"You can't tell if it's a real one or a model 20 meters away," one of the creators said.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

2021????


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> 2021????


Not clear unfortunately ... photo quality isn't exactly the best and the J-20 appears to be quite zoomed out


----------



## Figaro

Can someone please translate???


----------



## lmjiao

Figaro said:


> Can someone please translate???


It is something translated from an American journal. I will try to find the origional. But actually, I think everyone here knows more than the author.



Figaro said:


> Can someone please translate???



This is the origional English report:
Link: http://www.popsci.com/china-stealth-fighter-new-engine

*China's stealth fighter may be getting a new engine*


Relying on Russian engines has put China at the mercy of a single, foreign supplier. That could be changing.

By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer September 9, 2017







A FLIGHT SEEN AROUND THE WORLD

Two J-20s make the public debut of China's first stealth fighter, coming low over the Zhuhai runway.

dafeng cao (@xinfengcao)

With its J-20 heavy fighter, China became the second nation in the world (after the USA) to field a fleet of stealthy fifth generation fighters. But until recently, there has been a key limitation for the J-20 heavy fighter, and Chinese aerospace in general: a reliance on foreign engines. That's looks to be changing, quickly.

Images that just surfaced online show a new-built J-20 with stealthy WS-10 turbofan engines, which are developed and manufactured in China. These engines are distinguished by their serrated afterburner nozzles and interior flaps for manipulating the exhaust flow.

Once these new J-20s enter service, China will have comprehensively mastered the major parts of fighter technology, including radars, stealthy fuselage, missiles, computers, and engines. 





WS-10A

The WS-10A, which powers the J-11 heavy fighters, is China's first operational low bypass, afterburning turbofan engines.

Errymath

Both prototype and production models of the J-20 fighter currently rely on an advanced variant of the Russian Al-31 turbofan engine. Using this tech since the fighter's first flight in 2011 has put China at the mercy of a single, foreign supplier. But not for much longer, it seems.

Photos of the new Chinese J-20, production number "2021," reveal turbofan engines that clearly belong to the WS-10 Taihang (built by Shenyang Liming). Among the shared features are the semicircle of small flaps, vanes for controlling exhaust flows, on the inner nozzle, and wider afterburning, variable geometry petals. The Russian Salyut AL-31 does not have those features. 

Additionally, the WS-10X (possibly officially designated WS-10G or WS-10IPE) has sawtoothed serrations on the edges of its afterburning nozzles, like the F-35's F119 engine. The sawtooth edges provide a gain in stealthiness, as they redirect radar waves away from the nozzles. (The straight edges on non-stealthy engines like the AL-31 are major contributors to the radar cross section of a fighter). 

In addition to the gains in stealth, the WS-10X is believed to provide about 14-15 tons of thrust. This may be enough power to allow the J-20 to engage in low supersonic supercruise at Mach 1-1.2 speeds. The Eurofighter Typhoon has a similar low supercruise capability, which means it can hit supersonic speeds without using fuel-thirsty afterburners. 

The gains in engine connect to broader news in materials. The Chengdu Aerospace Superalloy Technology Company, a privately held corporation, made a major breakthrough in superalloy research. CASTC, according to the Global Times and People's Daily, is producing world class single crystal turbine blades from rhenium-nickel superalloys; adding rhenium to nickel increases the superalloy's melting point, allowing for a hotter and more efficient engine. High rhenium content superalloys are used in light weight, high thrust engines like the F-22 Raptor's F109 turbofan. Previously, the development of Chinese engines like the WS-10 were delayed as they suffered from quality control issues regarding single crystal turbine blades. China's mastery of the rhenium superalloy (and by the private sector, no less) won't just help China build current fighter engines, but also quickly research more capable, higher tech models.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

lmjiao said:


> It is something translated from an American journal. I will try to find the origional. But actually, I think everyone here knows more than the author.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the origional English report:
> Link: http://www.popsci.com/china-stealth-fighter-new-engine
> 
> *China's stealth fighter may be getting a new engine*
> 
> 
> Relying on Russian engines has put China at the mercy of a single, foreign supplier. That could be changing.
> 
> By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer September 9, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A FLIGHT SEEN AROUND THE WORLD
> 
> Two J-20s make the public debut of China's first stealth fighter, coming low over the Zhuhai runway.
> 
> dafeng cao (@xinfengcao)
> 
> With its J-20 heavy fighter, China became the second nation in the world (after the USA) to field a fleet of stealthy fifth generation fighters. But until recently, there has been a key limitation for the J-20 heavy fighter, and Chinese aerospace in general: a reliance on foreign engines. That's looks to be changing, quickly.
> 
> Images that just surfaced online show a new-built J-20 with stealthy WS-10 turbofan engines, which are developed and manufactured in China. These engines are distinguished by their serrated afterburner nozzles and interior flaps for manipulating the exhaust flow.
> 
> Once these new J-20s enter service, China will have comprehensively mastered the major parts of fighter technology, including radars, stealthy fuselage, missiles, computers, and engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WS-10A
> 
> The WS-10A, which powers the J-11 heavy fighters, is China's first operational low bypass, afterburning turbofan engines.
> 
> Errymath
> 
> Both prototype and production models of the J-20 fighter currently rely on an advanced variant of the Russian Al-31 turbofan engine. Using this tech since the fighter's first flight in 2011 has put China at the mercy of a single, foreign supplier. But not for much longer, it seems.
> 
> Photos of the new Chinese J-20, production number "2021," reveal turbofan engines that clearly belong to the WS-10 Taihang (built by Shenyang Liming). Among the shared features are the semicircle of small flaps, vanes for controlling exhaust flows, on the inner nozzle, and wider afterburning, variable geometry petals. The Russian Salyut AL-31 does not have those features.
> 
> Additionally, the WS-10X (possibly officially designated WS-10G or WS-10IPE) has sawtoothed serrations on the edges of its afterburning nozzles, like the F-35's F119 engine. The sawtooth edges provide a gain in stealthiness, as they redirect radar waves away from the nozzles. (The straight edges on non-stealthy engines like the AL-31 are major contributors to the radar cross section of a fighter).
> 
> In addition to the gains in stealth, the WS-10X is believed to provide about 14-15 tons of thrust. This may be enough power to allow the J-20 to engage in low supersonic supercruise at Mach 1-1.2 speeds. The Eurofighter Typhoon has a similar low supercruise capability, which means it can hit supersonic speeds without using fuel-thirsty afterburners.
> 
> The gains in engine connect to broader news in materials. The Chengdu Aerospace Superalloy Technology Company, a privately held corporation, made a major breakthrough in superalloy research. CASTC, according to the Global Times and People's Daily, is producing world class single crystal turbine blades from rhenium-nickel superalloys; adding rhenium to nickel increases the superalloy's melting point, allowing for a hotter and more efficient engine. High rhenium content superalloys are used in light weight, high thrust engines like the F-22 Raptor's F109 turbofan. Previously, the development of Chinese engines like the WS-10 were delayed as they suffered from quality control issues regarding single crystal turbine blades. China's mastery of the rhenium superalloy (and by the private sector, no less) won't just help China build current fighter engines, but also quickly research more capable, higher tech models.


Thanks so much!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

grey boy 2 said:


> J-20


五代机拍出三代机感觉


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

*

Two hobbyists in Wuhan spent 14 months building a J-20 mockup.*
*




*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

STRANGER BIRD said:


> *
> 
> Two hobbyists in Wuhan spent 14 months building a J-20 mockup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


The first one has already been posted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Again an idiot with too much time and not enough talent ... 






Here's the original one:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Again an idiot with too much time and not enough talent ...
> 
> View attachment 425160
> 
> 
> Here's the original one:
> 
> View attachment 425159


How does one not notice? The cockpit ?!?!?! The J-20 had a different cockpit since 2017 prototype

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


>




Care to explain or add a summary??


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Care to explain or add a summary??


Ask the Chinese members cause I don't know


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> Again an idiot with too much time and not enough talent ...
> 
> View attachment 425160
> 
> 
> Here's the original one:
> 
> View attachment 425159


The impostor simply fed on the "new serial#" to the ones who are eager to look for... a teasing effort  but most viewers won't notice it unless maintaining a strong database and have trained eyes. Of course a hindsight observation is easier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kuge

Deino said:


> Care to explain or add a summary??


j20 will be equipped with chinese heart, the engine problems will be surmounted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

A friend sent me this picture, nice but probably an old one

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## 星海军事

2021 is going to make its maiden flight soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

星海军事 said:


> 2021 is going to make its maiden flight soon.


Sources?


----------



## XiangLong

星海军事 said:


> 2021 is going to make its maiden flight soon.



Supposedly, #2021 is already equipped with a stealthy WS-10 variant turbofan engine! 

http://www.popsci.com/china-stealth-fighter-new-engine
If this is true, then it is truly a (unnoticed) milestone for Chinese aviation! 

EDIT: NVM @Imjiao already beat me to it

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

XiangLong said:


> Supposedly, #2021 is already equipped with a stealthy WS-10 variant turbofan engine!
> 
> http://www.popsci.com/china-stealth-fighter-new-engine
> If this is true, then it is truly a (unnoticed) milestone for Chinese aviation!
> 
> EDIT: NVM @Imjiao already beat me to it


This was already announced 2 weeks ago ... and it is true


----------



## lmjiao

The rumour from yikecat, the MOD of forum CJDBY, stating:


> I have just recieve an information that J-20 will become *carrier-borne aircraft*. It is already fixed.



He is actually the second one posting this news. The first post comes from 铁背心, who is the MOD of another forum FYJS.

Link:https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2412909&extra=page=1

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 on aircraft carrier is probably a done deal

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## clarkgap

grey boy 2 said:


> J-20 on aircraft carrier is probably a done deal




Is this the model in Military Museum? That model is designed by Warship Knowledge magzine press.


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> Yes, I did. And I still do, Sir.
> 
> *@Asoka is a bit too optimistic with his projections.*
> 
> 210kN is actually a conservative figure, which was reached by the F135 engine, back in the early 1990's. The P&W website listed F135 as a 190kN class engine, not its actual thrust figure. No need to be totally honest, here. Just a ball park figure.
> 
> If they have *understated* its thrust by just 10%, that would put its actual thrust over 210kN.
> 
> No doubt, the Americans have more powerful engines (TWR 12-15) for their 6-Gen. fighter by now.
> 
> I am afraid to reveal the max. Thrust figure, that is actually in my mind. I have already been warned, privately, and for several times, not to reveal too much details of current Chinese Aviation technologies to Westerners.
> 
> I don't want to get in trouble with the Chinese State Security. It takes nothing to find out who I am.
> 
> It is no secret that the Chinese Internet is extensively policed by the Chinese Government.
> 
> There is no doubt, that they are also monitoring closely, all the International Internet Forums, including PDF, SDF and many others, frequented by the Chinese users, to prevent leaking of state secrets.



You are crazy and desperate. Seems indeed as if your son is robbing you too much sleep so that you cannot think clearly anymore.

The debate is over. All use an AL-31 of some sort and the WS-10B will be used soon. The first image is real and no debate necessary to argue. There is also no WS-15 for years to come .... Just leave that BS.


By the way Guys, you are crazy again and sine we are again with even more ridiculous claims in the engine duscussion I close this thread.

We have a dedicated engine & J-20 thread to keep this one clean from too much speculating.

So take this as a warning. Thread closed until new evidence is presented.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Thread re-opened again ... but please keep the J-20-thread clean from engine-related discussions.

Deino*


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> *Thread re-opened again ... but please keep the J-20-thread clean from engine-related discussions.
> 
> Deino*

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> View attachment 426123
> 
> 
> View attachment 426124



@ChineseTiger1986

Are You at least a bit more relieved right now?

Oh, oh ... poor @Asoka !! 

You failed once again. First Your ridiculous WS-15/+210kN-claim, then Your alleged attempts to discredit trusted members and to twist words with PS-job... 
And now You are proven wrong again.  
Time to reconsider Your analytical abilities. 

Deino


----------



## leapx

Did anyone already post this ？
*曹春晓：先进战斗机歼20和歼31是怎么炼成的*
*http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2017-09-15/doc-ifykynia7360605.shtml*

Brief：A member of Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of science revealed what material is used on J-20&J31
J-20: 20% titanium,29% composite
J-31: 25% titanium

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

According to this, J-20's empty weight is only at 15-ton level, much lighter than that of F-22 (19.7 ton).

https://www.sohu.com/a/164298193_759857

The author of this article is a PhD in stealth tech of aircraft from northwest tech university from Xian.

He explain the reason why J-20 is so much lighter than F-22 is because advanced manufacturing process like 3D-printing/electoric-magnative-constrained shaping etc, were used to make J-20 require considerably lighter structure to afford similiar structural strength.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## leapx

52051 said:


> According to this, J-20's empty weight is only at 15-ton level, much lighter than that of F-22 (19.7 ton).
> 
> https://www.sohu.com/a/164298193_759857
> 
> The author of this article is a PhD in stealth tech of aircraft from northwest tech university from Xian.
> 
> He explain the reason why J-20 is so much lighter than F-22 is because advanced manufacturing process like 3D-printing/electoric-magnative-constrained shaping etc, were used to make J-20 require considerably lighter structure to afford similiar structural strength.


Is there any reliable source to confirm the empty weight？


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> @ChineseTiger1986
> 
> Are You at least a bit more relieved right now?
> 
> Oh, oh ... poor @Asoka !!
> 
> You failed once again. First Your ridiculous WS-15/+210kN-claim, then Your alleged attempts to discredit trusted members and to twist words with PS-job...
> And now You are proven wrong again.
> Time to reconsider Your analytical abilities.
> 
> Deino



I am waiting to see the engine nozzle in close detail.

So far the engine doesn't look like the jagged one we have seen in the blurred pic. Maybe the CD forum is telling the half truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I am waiting to see the engine nozzle in close detail.
> 
> So far the engine doesn't look like the jagged one we have seen in the blurred pic. Maybe the CD forum is telling the half truth.




Agreed, only clearer close-up images will finally solve this mystery, but this nozzle is 100% for sure NOT an AL-31 and IMO indeed a WS-10... however too see if it has the zig-zag-nozzles it is to blurred.



cirr said:


> ...




I just noted, these images are named "J-20T" ... why J-20T and for what is the T standing ??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

BTW, the J-20 is proven to be dimensionally larger than the F-22, and the empty weight of approximately same as the F-22 is already a big improvement.

I also think the claim about the 15 tons empty weight doesn't sound very credible. Yes, the J-20 can have more advanced composite materials than the F-22 since it is more than a decade later, but to reduce to 15 tons sounds too far-fetched to be believable.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

*"It was our own @cirr who posted this image here just scroll up (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-625#post-9873466),

again a more than respected member or do You want to accuse him too being a faker??"*

There is a stamp on the picture, saying its from http://www.fyjs.cn/. I am trying to find it there.

Thanks!

*"again a more than respected member or do You want to accuse him too being a faker??""*

if @cirr found it on http://www.fyjs.cn, obviously, he didn't post it first. He is not the originator.



leapx said:


> Did anyone already post this ？
> *曹春晓：先进战斗机歼20和歼31是怎么炼成的*
> *http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2017-09-15/doc-ifykynia7360605.shtml*
> 
> Brief：A member of Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of science revealed what material is used on J-20&J31
> J-20: 20% titanium,29% composite
> J-31: 25% titanium




That sounds right, from a leading expert on Aviation Structural Material.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

Indo china dicking contest ?? Move on


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> *"It was our own @cirr who posted this image here just scroll up (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-625#post-9873466),
> 
> again a more than respected member or do You want to accuse him too being a faker??"*
> 
> There is a stamp on the picture, saying its from http://www.fyjs.cn/. I am trying to find it there.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> *"again a more than respected member or do You want to accuse him too being a faker??""*
> 
> if @cirr found it on http://www.fyjs.cn, obviously, he didn't post it first. He is not the originator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds right, from a leading expert on Aviation Structural Material.




Here it is: ... strange that I with my inability to read Chinese can find it easier than You.

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1881879-1-1.html



khanasifm said:


> Indo china dicking contest ?? Move on




Why Indian ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> BTW, the J-20 is proven to be dimensionally larger than the F-22, and the empty weight of approximately same as the F-22 is already a big improvement.
> 
> I also think the claim about the 15 tons empty weight doesn't sound very credible. Yes, the J-20 can have more advanced composite materials than the F-22 since it is more than a decade later, but to reduce to 15 tons sounds too far-fetched to be believable.



*"Yes, the J-20 can have more advanced composite materials than the F-22 since it is more than a decade later"

曹春晓：先进战斗机歼20和歼31是怎么炼成的
http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2017-09-15/doc-ifykynia7360605.shtml
*
According to the article by China's leading expert on Aviation Structural Material, China is actually *behind* on Titanium alloy technology and uses only *20% of Ti* on J-20, vs 40% on F-22.

"我们歼8用钛很少是2%，歼10用钛4%，歼11用到15%，*歼20用到20%*，歼31用到25%，也算比较多。"

And J-20 uses *29% *of composite materials, about the same as *F-22's 24%. *

"Traditional aircraft materials such as aluminum and steel make up about 1/5 of the F-22's structure by weight. The high performance capabilities of the F-22 requires the significant use of *titanium (42 %* of all structural materials by weight) and composite materials (*24 % by weight*)"

我们国家复合材料在歼击机用的还可以，但还是需要不断再发展。我们歼20用到了29%。

So it can not be said from the opinions of China's leading expert, that China is more advance than US in Aviation Structural materials. 

Actually, according to him, China is quite behind in the use of Titanium.



Deino said:


> Here it is: ... strange that I with my inability to read Chinese can find it easier than You.
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1881879-1-1.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Indian ??



The title of the post is labeled *"渣图，对付着看，也算是纪念九一八了"*, which has nothing to do with J-20. That's why I didn't take a look inside.

Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> The title of the post is labeled *"渣图，对付着看，也算是纪念九一八了"*, which has nothing to do with J-20. That's why I didn't take a look inside.
> 
> Thanks!



But why then was I able to find it ???


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> But why then was I able to find it ???



i said, the title was mislabeled, and i didn't click the post.



Asoka said:


> i said, the title was mislabeled, and i didn't click the post.



you couldn;t read chinese, so you probably clicked it anyway, i guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> BTW, the J-20 is proven to be dimensionally larger than the F-22, and the empty weight of approximately same as the F-22 is already a big improvement.
> 
> I also think the claim about the 15 tons empty weight doesn't sound very credible. Yes, the J-20 can have more advanced composite materials than the F-22 since it is more than a decade later, but to reduce to 15 tons sounds too far-fetched to be believable.




Yes, a 15 tons J-20 sounds silly. it would weight the same as the F-35.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> BTW, the J-20 is proven to be dimensionally larger than the F-22, and the empty weight of approximately same as the F-22 is already a big improvement.
> 
> I also think the claim about the 15 tons empty weight doesn't sound very credible. Yes, the J-20 can have more advanced composite materials than the F-22 since it is more than a decade later, but to reduce to 15 tons sounds too far-fetched to be believable.




If anyone thinks J-20 is 5 tons lighter than F-22, despite its 3.5m-4.5m longer than it, and J-20 is the same weight as F-35, which is much smaller, then he is crazy, or simply have no idea what he is talking about.











Thanks for your enthusiastic moral support, @hirobo2. 

Well said by dianzhewudi, from CjDb

"一个是跟F-22比，J-20的重量低不了。

再一个是战斗机重量跟机动性和最大起飞重量挂钩。机动性越强，挂载能力越强，内油量越高，战斗机的结构强度要求就越高，重量自然更大。在结构设计理念和工艺技术没有重大更新的前提下，拥有相同机动性，相似挂在能力的战斗机空重不会有太大差别。

除非你承认J-20的机动性很差，挂在能力不强，内油含量也不高。空重是有可能做到这么轻的。"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

cirr said:


> View attachment 426123
> 
> 
> View attachment 426124



*Yellow primer* and *red numbers* would suggest to me that this J-20 #2021 is the *first production aircraft* and NOT a prototype or tech demonstrator.

Examples below.

J-10B #101...yellow primer and red numbers.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2013/12/j-10b-production-variants-101-and-103.html





J-20 #2101...yellow primer and red numbers.





That means we have (two?) options:

1. They did not flight test the WS-10X at all and moved straight to production...

2. They flight tested the WS-10X *in secret* for years and did not show you.

Which option would you prefer?

I don't think this situation is as obvious as people think it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

So yellow is for you a hint of being a serial bird?
What about the most obvious option 3 by looking at its number?

201x are the first serial prototypes ... And so is 2021 a prototype for the second model, nothing more nothing less.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> *Yellow primer* and *red numbers* would suggest to me that this J-20 #2021 is the *first production aircraft* and NOT a prototype or tech demonstrator.
> 
> Examples below.
> 
> J-10B #101...yellow primer and red numbers.
> http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2013/12/j-10b-production-variants-101-and-103.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 #2101...yellow primer and red numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means we have (two?) options:
> 
> 1. They did not flight test the WS-10X at all and moved straight to production...
> 
> 2. They flight tested the WS-10X *in secret* for years and did not show you.
> 
> Which option would you prefer?
> 
> I don't think this situation is as obvious as people think it is.



Nevermind, the oldest J-10B prototypes also appeared in yellow primer with red numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Early prototype aircraft will usually have a very noticeable pitot tube sticking out the front of the radome in order to place important sensors in undisturbed airflow.





We shall see (with clearer pictures later on) if this #2021 have the same features.

If this is indeed a prototype designed to test a new engine, it should be the same.

So far, I see no pitot tube.

You also have to admit that all previous J-20 prototypes appeared fully painted. Never in yellow primer. We shall see.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> Early prototype aircraft will usually have a very noticeable pitot tube sticking out the front of the radome in order to place important sensors in undisturbed airflow.
> View attachment 426276
> 
> 
> We shall see (with clearer pictures later on) if this #2021 have the same features.
> 
> If this is indeed a prototype designed to test a new engine, it should be the same.
> 
> So far, I see no pitot tube.
> 
> You also have to admit that all previous J-20 prototypes appeared fully painted. Never in yellow primer. We shall see.



Agreed, but IMO the serial number alone tells us more than a yellow colour (each aircraft rolling off the line is or was once yellow in primer) or a missing pitot (maybe the J-20 is now matured enough so that they just left it? ... no. 03 J-10B also had no pitot)

Also since all Your other explanations simply omit why it has a CAC-typical prototype serial number?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The J-20 got 20 tonnes empty and 40 tonnes takeoff.

These figures seem to be more realistic to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-20 got 20 tonnes empty and 40 tonnes takeoff.
> 
> These figures seem to be more realistic to me.



*It would be absolutely amazing that:*

1.) J-20 is *3.5-4.5m longer* than F-22.

2.) But J-20 weighs the *same* as F-22 at 20 tons.

3.) J-20 is able to carry *12 tons* internal fuels, which is 40% more than F-22's *8 tons*.

4.) And able to carry *8 tons *(4 tanks) more fuels externally, vs 2 external tanks for F-22.

5.) J-20 have the same structural strength to last over *8,000 hrs*, as F-22.

6.) J-20 could pull Max. *9G*, and able to pull *6.5G* at *Mach 1.5*.

7.) J-20 could achieve the same weight with* 20% Titanium*, 25% composite material, vs *f-22's 40% Ti*, and 29% composite material.

The rest are presumed to be Steel and Aluminum for both planes.

8.) With *3 tons *of internally carried weapons, (and possibly *several more tons* of externally carried weapons) that would put J-20's maximum take off weight to be 20 + 12 + 8 + 3 = *43 tons. vs F-22's 38 tons *maximum take off weight.

9.) And J-20 could carry all that *extra 5 tons* weight, with same the empty weight of 20 tons, and being 3.5-4.5m longer.

10.) Not all of the 20 tons empty weight will be used for structural support.

If we assume half of that is used for radar, avionics, landing gears, pilot's seat, and life support, miles and miles of internal wirings and tubes, and two engines, only 10 tons will be available for structural support. And this 10 tons must be able to keep a fully loaded *43+ tons* plane at max. 9G, cruise at mach 1.5 and able to pull 6.5G at that speed, and in service for 8,000 hrs or 30 years.

Simply incredible and utterly unbelievable.

I won't believe this nonsense for a second.

Who could believe this sh*t?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Look at the J-10B prototype numbering sequence...

1031





1033





1034





1035 (with WS-10), appeared in 2011.





All prototypes showed up prior to production in 2013, and the numbering sequence all stayed in the 1030s.

But for the J-20...

#2017: Last (AL-31?) prototype. November 2015.

#2101: (AL-31?) LRIP. December 2015.

#2021: First (WS-10X?) prototype? September 2017?!

Why the number skip? Why did the (WS-10X?) show up so late?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

@Asoka. See, I told you to wait a little longer ... Instead of dismissing it as a crappy PS on first sight, next time you should be a little more patient and less ridiculing. Anyways, this is IMO the biggest J-20 development since prototype 2011 back in February 2014. A great day for J-20 watchers!



khanasifm said:


> Indo china dicking contest ?? Move on


Why Indian? If anything, this is a three way "dicking contest" between the United States, China, and Russia. India is merely piggy-backing off their Russian counterparts as they do with every single defense project.


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> @Asoka. See, I told you to wait a little longer ... Instead of dismissing it as a crappy PS on first sight, next time you should be a little more patient and less ridiculing. Anyways, this is IMO the biggest J-20 development since prototype 2011 back in February 2014. A great day for J-20 watchers!




What are you trying to say? The engines nozzles of today's pictures, are too blurry to determine anything. I still believe the first two pictures are fakes by the same faker.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> What are you trying to say? The engines nozzles are too blurry to determine anything. I still believe the first two pictures are fakes by the same faker.


... you tried to deny the existence of 2021. Now you're trying to deny the existence of WS-10X engines on 2021. Sure we can wait for less blurry pictures, but you know that they will come out at some point ... and you'll be wrong again.


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> ... you tried to deny the existence of 2021. Now you're trying to deny the existence of WS-10X engines on 2021. Sure we can wait for less blurry pictures, but you know that they will come out at some point ... and you'll be wrong again.




I still contend there is no WS-10x on J-20, that can see, for sure. 2021 pictures are still too blurry to rule out they might be fakes like the previous two picture.

*"you'll be wrong again"*

I wasn't wrong in the first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> Yes, a 15 tons J-20 sounds silly. it would weight the same as the F-35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone thinks J-20 is 5 tons lighter than F-22, despite its 3.5m-4.5m longer than it, and J-20 is the same weight as F-35, which is much smaller, then he is crazy, or simply have no idea what he is talking about.
> View attachment 426233
> 
> 
> View attachment 426232
> 
> 
> Thanks for your enthusiastic moral support, @hirobo2.
> 
> Well said by dianzhewudi, from CjDb
> 
> "一个是跟F-22比，J-20的重量低不了。
> 
> 再一个是战斗机重量跟机动性和最大起飞重量挂钩。机动性越强，挂载能力越强，内油量越高，战斗机的结构强度要求就越高，重量自然更大。在结构设计理念和工艺技术没有重大更新的前提下，拥有相同机动性，相似挂在能力的战斗机空重不会有太大差别。
> 
> 除非你承认J-20的机动性很差，挂在能力不强，内油含量也不高。空重是有可能做到这么轻的。"


The J-20 is slightly longer than the F-22 at about 20 to 20.3 meters, so pretty marginal differences (please don't bring up the 23m J-20 rubbish talk all over again). I'm really not sure where you're getting the J-20's weight class from; I find it highly dubious that the J-20 is lighter than the F-35. If that were the case, I would have concerns with the materials in the J-20.



Asoka said:


> I still contend there is no WS-10x on J-20, that can see, for sure. 2021 pictures are still too blurry to rule out they might be fakes like the previous two picture.
> 
> *"you'll be wrong again"*
> 
> I wasn't wrong in the first place.


Yes you were. You flat out denied the existence of the 2021 with the WS-10X engine and attacked the credibility of the poster via Ad Hominem. Next time, please be a little more discreet ... thanks.


----------



## Asoka

"


Figaro said:


> The J-20 is slightly longer than the F-22 at about 20 to 20.3 meters, so pretty marginal differences (please don't bring up the 23m J-20 rubbish talk all over again). I'm really not sure where you're getting the J-20's weight class from; I find it highly dubious that the J-20 is lighter than the F-35. If that were the case, I would have concerns with the materials in the J-20.
> 
> 
> Yes you were. You flat out denied the existence of the 2021 with the WS-10X engine and attacked the credibility of the poster via Ad Hominem.



*"The J-20 is slightly longer than the F-22 at about 20 to 20.3 meters,"*

Wow, do your own pictures comparison, to show us, how much you think J-20 is longer than F-22. I came up the extra length, *from nose to nozzle*, to be 3.5-4.5m.

Notice, I did the comparison from *NOSE to NOZZLE.*



Asoka said:


> "
> 
> 
> *"The J-20 is slightly longer than the F-22 at about 20 to 20.3 meters,"*
> 
> Wow, do your own pictures comparison, to show us, how much you think J-20 is longer than F-22. I came up the extra length, *from nose to nozzle*, to be 3.5-4.5m.
> 
> Notice, I did the comparison from *NOSE to NOZZLE.*



*"I'm really not sure where you're getting the J-20's weight class from; I find it highly dubious that the J-20 is lighter than the F-35. "*

Some Chinese jokers claims J-20 is only 15 tons, which is the same as F-35 and 5 tons lighter than F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> "
> 
> 
> *"The J-20 is slightly longer than the F-22 at about 20 to 20.3 meters,"*
> 
> Wow, do your own pictures comparison, to show us, how much you think J-20 is longer than F-22. I came up the extra length, *from nose to nozzle*, to be 3.5-4.5m.
> 
> Notice, I did the comparison from *NOSE to NOZZLE.*


Oh come on. You're implying a 23 meter J-20 obviously ... please do not bring up these useless discussions. We have seen numerous satellite photos saying otherwise. There is simply no such thing as a 23 meter J-20 as you imply ... only a 20 to 20.3 meter one.



Asoka said:


> "
> 
> 
> *"The J-20 is slightly longer than the F-22 at about 20 to 20.3 meters,"*
> 
> Wow, do your own pictures comparison, to show us, how much you think J-20 is longer than F-22. I came up the extra length, *from nose to nozzle*, to be 3.5-4.5m.
> 
> Notice, I did the comparison from *NOSE to NOZZLE.*
> 
> 
> 
> *"I'm really not sure where you're getting the J-20's weight class from; I find it highly dubious that the J-20 is lighter than the F-35. "*
> 
> Some Chinese jokers claims J-20 is only 15 tons, which is the same as F-35 and 5 tons lighter than F-22.


Fanbois.


----------



## Asoka

*"You flat out denied the existence of the 2021 with the WS-10X engine and attacked the credibility of the poster via Ad Hominem"*

Yes, I did. I still claim the same faker faked the two previous pictures.

*"Fanbois."*

Yes, I am, and So is everyone here at PDF, including you @Figaro.

*" (please don't bring up the 23m J-20 rubbish talk all over again)" 'There is simply no such thing as a 23 meter J-20 as you imply"*

Where do I said J-20 is 23m long? That would be nearly 70 feet long. Where did this 23m nonsense came from?

Links please.

I always did the length comparison from *NOSE to NOZZLE*. And I found J-20 is 3.5 to 4.5m longer than F-22 in this measure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> *"You flat out denied the existence of the 2021 with the WS-10X engine and attacked the credibility of the poster via Ad Hominem"*
> 
> Yes, I did. I still claim the same faker faked the two previous pictures.[/QUOT





Asoka said:


> *"You flat out denied the existence of the 2021 with the WS-10X engine and attacked the credibility of the poster via Ad Hominem"*
> 
> Yes, I did. I still claim the same faker faked the two previous pictures.
> 
> *"Fanbois."*
> 
> Yes, I am, and So is everyone here at PDF.
> 
> *" (please don't bring up the 23m J-20 rubbish talk all over again)" 'There is simply no such thing as a 23 meter J-20 as you imply"*
> 
> Where do I said J-20 is 23m long? That would be nearly 70 feet long. Where did this 23m nonsense came from?
> 
> Links please.


The F-22 is 18.92 meters long. You said the J-20 was 3 to 4.5 meters longer than that. Wouldn't this assumption imply a 23 meter long J-20?


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> The F-22 is 18.92 meters long. You said the J-20 was 3 to 4.5 meters longer than that. Wouldn't this assumption imply a 23 meter long J-20?



Oh plz. Did you read, I mean *NOSE to NOZZLE *comparison, several times already?

There is a big tail stick out of F-22 that is at least 5-10 feet long. Including that will mess up the body length comparison, to determine the real size of both planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> Oh plz. Did you read, I mean *NOSE to NOZZLE *comparison, several times already?
> 
> There is a big tail stick out of F-22 that is at least 5-10 feet long. Including that will mess up the body length comparison, to determine the real size of both planes.


I'm really confused by your way of measurement ... why not just skip to the basic form?


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> I'm really confused by your way of measurement ... why not just skip to the basic form?



I find NOSE to NOZZLE more meaningful, if we were to determine relative length of two planes, that mean exclude the *Pitot* tube and the long tail that extend from the rear of the plane, like the F-22. Some plane might be tailless like the French Mirage 2000 and Mig-21.






From NOSE to NOZZLE, J-20 is *21.2m long (69.6ft)*, and F-22 is *17m long (55.8ft)*. The difference is *4.2M (13.8ft)*. We can argue whether these pictures are accurate representations. But they seems to be pretty professionally done.

Here is the length Comparison I made back in jan, 2017, and posted on PDF.






Note, J-20's body length is at least *3.5-4.5m (11.5ft-14.8ft) longer* when compared NOSE to NOZZLE to F-22, excluding the pitot tube of J-20 and the long tail of F-22. I also found, if we cut out the Canard section of the J-20, which has the length of 3.5m, then J-20 and F-22 are pretty much the same size.

Also note the NOSE to NOZZLE length of Su-27 (excluding the long middle tail) is 21m, which confirms the satellite image that both Su-27 and J-20 are about the same length, from NOSE to NOZZLE.

It is by incorporating the Canards that made J-20 *3.5-4.5m* longer than F-22. From Dr. Song's seminal paper, the designers of J-20 have determined to include the Canards in their design, from the very beginning. So, the extra length is not accidental.

Evidently, they are willing to pay for the extra weight penalty for the superior performance offered by the Canards.

From this body length difference, I concluded *J-20 is at least 2 tons heavier than F-22.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> I find NOSE to NOZZLE more meaningful, if we were to determine relative length of two planes, that mean exclude the *Pitot* tube and the long tail that extend from the rear of the plane, like the F-22. Some plane might be tailless like the French Mirage 2000 and Mig-21.
> View attachment 426308
> 
> 
> From NOSE to NOZZLE, J-20 is *21.2m long*, and F-22 is *17m long*. The difference is *4.2M*. We can argue whether these pictures are accurate representations. But they seems to be pretty professionally done.
> 
> Here is the length Comparison I made back in jan, 2017, and posted on PDF.
> 
> View attachment 426309
> 
> 
> Note, J-20's body length is at least *3.5-4.5m longer* when compared NOSE to NOZZLE to F-22, excluding the pitot tube of J-20 and the long tail of F-22. I also found, if we cut out the Canard section of the J-20, which has the length of 3.5, then J-20 and F-22 are pretty much the same size.
> 
> It is by incorporating the Canards that made J-20 *3.5-4.5m* longer than F-22. From Dr. Song's seminal paper, the designers of J-20 have determined to include the Canards in their design, from the very beginning. So, the extra length is not accidental.
> 
> Evidently, they are willing to pay for the extra weight penalty for the superior performance offered by the Canards.
> 
> From this body length difference, I concluded *J-20 is at least 2 tons heavier than F-22.*


That is an incorrect graph first of all. It heavily overstates the J-20's actual length and contradicts the various satellite images we've gotten. The reason for the extra length doesn't really have anything to do with the canards, it was mainly there for more fuel capacity and lesser supersonic/transonic drag.


----------



## khanasifm

Deino said:


> Here it is: ... strange that I with my inability to read Chinese can find it easier than You.
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1881879-1-1.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Indian ??



https://www.google.com/search?q=asoka&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> That is an incorrect graph first of all. It heavily overstates the J-20's actual length and contradicts the various satellite images we've gotten. The reason for the extra length doesn't really have anything to do with the canards, it was mainly there for more fuel capacity and lesser supersonic/transonic drag.




Do your own comparison and use real pictures to overlaid them on top of each other, NOSE to NOZZLE, and get a rough sense of their sizes.

I came up with a difference of 3.5m to 4.5m. I always prefer to use the lower bound 3.5m, so as to be conservative, in my estimate.

Bill Sweetman, Senior Editor of Aviation Week, did his own body length comparison and came up with the difference of 9.5ft (2.97m) longer for J-20. I am not sure he excluded F-22's long tail or not.

This clearly confirms everybody's first impression that J-20 is much longer and larger than F-22.

*"It heavily overstates the J-20's actual length and contradicts the various satellite images we've gotten."*

I disagreed that J-20's actual length is heavily overstated. If you look at the Su-27 on the left of the picture, I uploaded previously, it shows both Su-27 and J-20 has the same Nose to Nozzle length of *21m*. 

This confirm picture comparison that shows them to be about the same length.





*"various satellite images"* also use indirect length comparisons, not actual measurements.

*"The reason for the extra length doesn't really have anything to do with the canards, it was mainly there for more fuel capacity and lesser supersonic/transonic drag"*

The need to place the canards, at a distance fairly far away, from the main wing (to minimize supersonic drag), makes the body extra long, and allow* "for more fuel capacity and lesser supersonic/transonic drag*"

You are right.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> Do your own comparison and use real pictures to overlaid them on top of each other, NOSE to NOZZLE, and get a rough sense of their sizes.
> 
> I came up with a difference of 3.5m to 4.5m. I always prefer to use the lower bound 3.5m, so as to be conservative, in my estimate.
> 
> Bill Sweetman, Senior Editor of Aviation Week, did his own body length comparison and came up with the difference of 9.5ft (2.97m) longer for J-20. I am not sure he excluded F-22's long tail or not.
> 
> This clearly confirms everybody's first impression that J-20 is much longer and larger than F-22.
> 
> *"various satellite images"* also use indirect length comparisons, not actual measurements.
> 
> *"The reason for the extra length doesn't really have anything to do with the canards, it was mainly there for more fuel capacity and lesser supersonic/transonic drag"*
> 
> The need to place the canards, at a distance fairly far away, from the main wing (to minimize supersonic drag), makes the body extra long, and allow* "for more fuel capacity and lesser supersonic/transonic drag*"
> 
> You are right.


I'm telling you that the J-20 is around 20 to 20.3 meters ...
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/. The fact is that the J-20 is only about a meter longer than the F-22, if we use similar measurements for both jets. Why deviate form the standard length ???? Ask @Deino, he's also heard way too much of this 23 meter J-20 BS talk.


----------



## grey boy 2

Guys, this may be some great news from big shrimps, this maybe what the exhaust nozzle of J-20 looks like next (F-22 type?)




One interesting comment: 这是发动机收敛片（无矢量或者三元矢量）的一部分还是娘娘那种的二元矢量？

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> I'm telling you that the J-20 is around 20 to 20.3 meters ...
> https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/. The fact is that the J-20 is only about a meter longer than the F-22, if we use similar measurements for both jets. Why deviate form the standard length ???? Ask @Deino, he's also heard way too much of this 23 meter J-20 BS talk.




*"I'm telling you that the J-20 is around 20 to 20.3 meters ..."*

I am telling you from my comparison, J-20's length from NOSE to NOZZLE is 21m.

Many people did their own estimates, I don't know how each one did their calculations. I urge you to do your own, and then we talk. Quoting someone else's figure, without knowing how they did it, is a waste of time.

*"Why deviate form the standard length ???? "*

You don't like my way of length comparison? That's too bad. As I have said, not everyplane has pitot tube at the front or tails sticking at the back. Include them, mess up the body length comparison.

*"Ask @Deino, he's also heard way too much of this 23 meter J-20 BS talk."*

I have never heard of this *J-20 is 23m long*, in my life, until you mentioned.

For the record, I never claimed J-20 is 23m long. I always claimed J-20 is 3.5m-4.5m longer than F-22, from NOSE to NOZZLE.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


> Guys, this may be some great news from big shrimps, this maybe what the exhaust nozzle of J-20 looks like next (F-22 type?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One interesting comment: 这是发动机收敛片（无矢量或者三元矢量）的一部分还是娘娘那种的二元矢量？


WS-15 in 2019 . What kind of Big Shrimp is he?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> *"I'm telling you that the J-20 is around 20 to 20.3 meters ..."*
> 
> I am telling you from my comparison, J-20's length from NOSE to NOZZLE is 21m.
> 
> Many people did their own estimates, I don't know how each one did their calculations. I urge you to do your own, and then we talk. Quoting someone else's figure, without knowing how they did it, is a waste of time.
> 
> *"Why deviate form the standard length ???? "*
> 
> You don't like my way of length comparison? That's too bad. As I have said, not everyplane has pitot tube at the front or tails sticking at the back. Include them, mess up the body length comparison.
> 
> *"Ask @Deino, he's also heard way too much of this 23 meter J-20 BS talk."*
> 
> I have never heard of this *J-20 is 23m long*, in my life, until you mentioned.
> 
> For the record, I never claimed J-20 is 23m long. I always claimed J-20 is 3.5m-4.5m longer than F-22, from NOSE to NOZZLE.


Oh come on. Why don't you just accept that according to the same measurement, the J-20 is around 20 meters and the F-22 is 18.92 meters. Why are you using this weird measurement system which obviously is incorrect? The fact is the F-22 and J-20 are similar in size, not the 3.5-4.5 meter differentiation as you suggest for whatever reason.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> BTW, the J-20 is proven to be dimensionally larger than the F-22, and the empty weight of approximately same as the F-22 is already a big improvement.
> 
> I also think the claim about the 15 tons empty weight doesn't sound very credible. Yes, the J-20 can have more advanced composite materials than the F-22 since it is more than a decade later, but to reduce to 15 tons sounds too far-fetched to be believable.


If it was only 15 tonnes, I would be concerned with the structural viability of its materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> Oh come on. Why don't you just accept that according to the same measurement, the J-20 is around 20 meters and the F-22 is 18.92 meters. Why are you using this weird measurement system which obviously is incorrect? The fact is the F-22 and J-20 are similar in size, not the 3.5-4.5 meter differentiation as you suggest for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> If it was only 15 tonnes, I would be concerned with the structural viability of its materials.




*Can't read and comprehend plain english? *

I have said repeatedly, that I have come to my own conclusion, from my own research and calculation, that J-20 's length from Nose to Nozzle is 21m, which is 3.5-4.5m longer than F-22's body length from Nose to Nozzle.

Bill sweetman of "Aviation Week" did his own research and come to the difference of 9.5 ft or 2.97m.

Where is your effort? That I have urge you to do?

Do you just accept the numbers from the "authority", without bothering to do your own research to confirm?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

2021， successful maiden flight at 12：50pm. Congratulations to all!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 2021， successful maiden flight at 12：50pm. Congratulations to all!



Is "2021" a new variant of the J-20 or simply another testbed for the engine?


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2021， successful maiden flight at 12：50pm. Congratulations to all!




Can't wait to see images !!! Congrats 



Asoka said:


> *...*
> 
> I am telling you from my comparison, J-20's length from NOSE to NOZZLE is 21m.
> 
> Many people did their own estimates, I don't know how each one did their calculations. I urge you to do your own, and then we talk. Quoting someone else's figure, without knowing how they did it, is a waste of time.
> 
> *....*


*

And that's plain wrong. *Fact is that Your record of correct assumptions in recent times is close to ZERO .. So why should or how *COULD* it be "from [Your] comparison, J-20's length from NOSE to NOZZLE is 21m" if the J-20 is barely that long including the tails??

It is as ridiculous as all Your other J-20-realted theories. 

Again show us a good calculation and not only a rough overlay by the estimation "from nozzle to nozzle".

This is my - albeit a bit dated - estimation:






... and this from another member at another forum:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Try at least to quote correctly !


Those are extremely blurry satellite pictures. I don't find the finding reliable. The pixels count could be easily off by a dozen or more, so I used real high resolution pictures to do my own researches.






Your own estimates confirmed my own estimate of 21.2m from Nose to Nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Care to explain Your post ??
Even if there is a margin due to lower resolution, this in the end could never make an object larger than another one in direct comparison while standing side by side.

Fact is: we know the dimensions of the J-15 and the J-20 is shorter ... so how it be in the end by any error-margin longer?

You are again ignoring facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Care to explain Your post ??
> Even if there is a margin due to lower resolution, this in the end could never make an object larger than another one in direct comparison while standing side by side.
> 
> Fact is: we know the dimensions of the J-15 and the J-20 is shorter ... so how it be in the end by any error-margin longer?
> 
> You are again ignoring facts.




Read my last post again. Your own estimate confirmed my own estimate of 21.2m from Nose to Nozzle.

I don't know how to count pixels from a blurry picture. The difference between J-15 and J-20's pixel counts is 101 and 97, with only 4 pixels difference. That clearly is within the margin of error from a extremely blurry picture. Just where to place those thick yellow lines is problematic.

The J-15's yellow line at the bottom clearly *included the tail boom*, between the engines. Which could be easily over 2m long.











Now, exclude that central tail boom, the length of J-20 from Nose to Nozzle could conceivably longer than J-15 from Nose to Nozzle.

Here I overlaid J-15 over J-20, so that J-15's wing span is at least 1m slightly wider. I accept your estimate that J-15's wing span is 14.7 while J-20's is 13.47, a little more than 0.5 wider on each side.






Then I overlaid J-15 over J-20 aligned at the nose.
View attachment 426338

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Can't wait to see images !!! Congrats
> 
> *
> 
> And that's plain wrong. *Fact is that Your record of correct assumptions in recent times is close to ZERO .. So why should or how *COULD* it be "from [Your] comparison, J-20's length from NOSE to NOZZLE is 21m" if the J-20 is barely that long including the tails??
> 
> It is as ridiculous as all Your other J-20-realted theories.
> 
> Again show us a good calculation and not only a rough overlay by the estimation "from nozzle to nozzle".
> 
> This is my - albeit a bit dated - estimation:
> View attachment 426330
> 
> 
> ... and this from another member at another forum:
> View attachment 426331


Why you and @Figaro trying hard to convince @Asoka, he don't understand both of you sir and insisting his crap, may be @Asoka working on a project of J-20 and WS-15



Asoka said:


> Those are extremely blurry satellite pictures. I don't find the finding reliable. The pixels count could be easily off by a dozen or more, so I used real high resolution pictures to do my own researches.


But @Asoka length and span is quite clear in this sat image as compare to J-15 any photographic expert can easily calculate J-20 length as compare to J-15

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> Your own estimates confirmed my own estimate of 21.2m from Nose to Nozzle.



No, No, No again and once for all this is the final warning. The next time You twist words, You quote wrongly I will ban You. 

If You read properly I noted the first estimation is by me while the second one made by "another member at another forum". Even more he is NOT estimating from nose to nozzle but from nose to the tails.

I think You really need a break. Take care of Your family and play with Your kids ...

Deino



pakistanipower said:


> Why you and @Figaro trying hard to convince @Asoka, he don't understand both of you sir and insisting his crap, may be @Asoka working on a project of J-20 and WS-15
> 
> But @Asoka length and span is quite clear in this sat image as compare to J-15 any photographic expert can easily calculate J-20 length as compare to J-15



I slowly come to the feeling that his new-borne son is most likely in fact a girl and similar to these stupid assumptions he only wants it to be a boy. So it is in fact not that difficult to omit certain small detail ... could happen anytime if the wish is only strong enough. 



cirr said:


> 2021， successful maiden flight at 12：50pm. Congratulations to all!




Me again with the quetsion, why these images You posted yesterday are named "J-20T" ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> No, No, No again and once for all this is the final warning. The next time You twist words, You quote wrongly I will ban You.
> 
> If You read properly I noted the first estimation is by me while the second one made by "another member at another forum". Even more he is NOT estimating from nose to nozzle but from nose to the tails.
> 
> I think You really need a break. Take care of Your family and play with Your kids ...
> 
> Deino


I beg you Mr @Deino that if you wanna ban @Asoka , Ban @Asoka permanently on PDF, @Asoka acting like a insane 8 year old kid who is insisting he is always right and knows everything about J-20/WS-15 development, rest the world is wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> No, No, No again and once for all this is the final warning. The next time You twist words, You quote wrongly I will ban You.
> 
> If You read properly I noted the first estimation is by me while the second one made by "another member at another forum". Even more he is NOT estimating from nose to nozzle but from nose to the tails.
> 
> I think You really need a break. Take care of Your family and play with Your kids ...
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> I slowly come to the feeling that his new-borne son is most likely in fact a girl and similar to these stupid assumptions he only wants it to be a boy. So it is in fact not that difficult to omit certain small detail ... could happen anytime if the wish is only strong enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me again with the quetsion, why these images You posted yesterday are named "J-20T" ???




The chinese name of WS-10 is 太行. And the chinese pinyin of 太行 is TaiHang. So the T should means WS-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

As we can see J-20's Nose to Nozzle length is the *same* as J-15's length nose to tailboom. (21.19m)





This is exactly what I have been saying all along. J-20's length from nose to nozzle is 21.2m long.

I think my pictures are far clearer than your extremely blurry satellite pictures. Therefore, far more reliable for comparisons.

*"If You read properly I noted the first estimation is by me, while the second one made by "another member at another forum". Even more he is NOT estimating from nose to nozzle, but from nose to the tails."*

Well, it might be other member's estimate. But you didn't disagreed with him. and used his estimates without clarifications, so I assume it's your opinion too. Naturally, I pick the estimate from the two, that is close to my own.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> View attachment 426340
> 
> 
> As we can see J-20's Nose to Nozzle length is the *same* as J-15's length nose to tailboom. (21.19m)
> View attachment 426339
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I have been saying all along. J-20's length from nose to nozzle is 21.2m long.


@Asoka that means J-20 is larger than J-15 for about 0.02 meter without Tail-boom what a crap head you are you're contradicting you r own word Mr @Asoka


----------



## Deino

I try it for a final time ... stubborn kids sometimes need dramatic or better to say elementary reductions of content:

How can an object of an unknown dimension be in direct comparison to a known object of a larger size be bigger than the known object.






All Your attempts to overlay images taken from different angles will led to a much greater error than my calculation ... and again i said from "nose to nozzle" not from "nose to tailboom".
Not sure why it is so difficult. 

So again no more excuses, no additional images, just one answer:

*How can an object of an unknown dimension be in direct comparison to a known object of a larger size be bigger than the known object. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"How can an object, of an unknown dimension, be in direct comparison, to a known object of a larger size, be bigger than the known object."*

Simple, I adjust the picture size of J-15, so its wing span is approximately 1m wider than wing span of J-20.

Notice, I accepted Deino's estimates that J-15 wingspan is 14.7m, while J-20 is 13.47m. Therefore, I adjust the size of the J-15 picture, so its wing span, is at least 1m wider than J-20, while keeping the same proportion in the picture.

Without Deino's measurements, I wouldn't have known what is the wingspans of J-15 and J-20.

So a big thanks to Herr @Deino.  That's why I encourage @Figaro to do his own research and measurements. This is a collective effort to unravel the size/weight mystery of J-20.

Yes, all estimates contain certain amount of errors. This include my own estimates and your *extremely blurry satellite pictures estimates.*

Good night, Herr Deino.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

cirr said:


> 2021， successful maiden flight at 12：50pm. Congratulations to all!


Yeah, great news indeed








pakistanipower said:


> I beg you Mr @Deino that if you wanna ban @Asoka , Ban @Asoka permanently on PDF, @Asoka acting like a insane 8 year old kid who is insisting he is always right and knows everything about J-20/WS-15 development, rest the world is wrong


Why you wanted to ban someone that has different opinions than you? is this a discussion forum? where nobody is 100% right on the arguments, he deserved the right to continued his theory but perhaps on the engines thread

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

grey boy 2 said:


> Yeah, great news indeed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why you wanted to ban someone that has different opinions than you? is this a discussion forum? where nobody is 100% right on the arguments, he deserved the right to continued his theory but perhaps on the engines thread



Sir with respect Mr @Asoka acting like a 8 year old kid and against Chinese senior members like you and contradictions his own words, you guys currently provide a prove that engine on the J-20 is now WS-10B or IPE, , @Asoka insisting that J-20 had been using WS-15 from it first flight then @Asoka change his views and telling forum J-20 using WS-15 since 2014 i ask him to prove it but @Asoka provide nothing, same is here, he acting like a 8 year old kid, @Asoka always right and knows everything about J-20/WS-15 development senior Chinese members like @grey boy 2 ,@Beast ,@ChineseTiger1986 ,@wanglaokan ,@cirr ,@cnleio know nothing about the J-20/WS-15 developments


----------



## lmjiao

pakistanipower said:


> Sir with respect Mr @Asoka acting like a 8 year old kid and against Chinese senior members like you and contradictions his own words, you guys currently provide a prove that engine on the J-20 is now WS-10B or IPE, , @Asoka insisting that J-20 had been using WS-15 from it first flight then @Asoka change his views and telling forum J-20 using WS-15 since 2014 i ask him to prove it but @Asoka provide nothing, same is here, he acting like a 8 year old kid, @Asoka always right and knows everything about J-20/WS-15 development senior Chinese members like @grey boy 2 ,@Beast ,@ChineseTiger1986 ,@wanglaokan ,@cirr ,@cnleio know nothing about the J-20/WS-15 developments


Any 8 year old kid has his freedom to speek.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

lmjiao said:


> Any 8 year old kid has his freedom to speek.


but acting like a insane with no prove


----------



## samsara

pakistanipower said:


> I beg you Mr @Deino that if you wanna ban @Asoka , Ban @Asoka permanently on PDF, @Asoka acting like a insane 8 year old kid who is insisting he is always right and knows everything about J-20/WS-15 development, rest the world is wrong


@pakistanipower - It is a very ridiculous idea from YOU to suggest the banning of @Asoka... every cautious member at the Chinese Defence Column at PDF can see that he meticulously gathered and presented his propositions and explained them in great length.... whether one agrees or not with his thinking.

So WHY ever comes with the idea or insinuation to ban a diligent and hardworking member as such??? Asoka is not the kind of one liner poster here! 

Admit it that it takes lots of time to pull in together various info in one systematic post with high readability to prop one's thought or theory... more effort than reposting a whole article, that alone is sufficient to generate appreciation. As @grey boy 2 and several members have said... no one is 100% sure or right in this matter. "Only time will divulge" is the 100% sure element here!

I believe that YOU have been acting too far!!!

Suggestion to you: IF you don't like what he's posting on, simply put him into Your IGNORE list.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

samsara said:


> @pakistanipower - It is a very ridiculous idea from YOU to suggest the banning of @Asoka... every cautious member at the Chinese Defence Column at PDF can see that he meticulously gathered and presented his propositions and explained them in great length.... whether one agrees or not with his thinking.
> 
> So WHY ever comes with the idea or insinuation to ban a diligent and hardworking member as such??? Asoka is not the kind of one liner poster here!
> 
> I believe that YOU have been acting too far!!!
> 
> Suggestion to you: IF you don't like what he's posting on, simply put him into Your IGNORE list.


Read my post #9422 bro
one line poster still better than @Asoka who had not give solid prove to his J-20/Ws-15 day one theory and not using commonsense and reasonable logics, and not listening from other Chinese senior members here on PDF


----------



## atan651

pakistanipower said:


> Read my post #9422 bro
> one line poster still better than @Asoka who had not give solid prove to his J-20/Ws-15 day one theory and not using commonsense and reasonable logics, and not listening from other Chinese senior members here on PDF



I am quite certain Asoka the Great has more research prowess than you!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

pakistanipower said:


> Read my post #9422 bro
> one line poster still better than @Asoka who had not give solid prove to his J-20/Ws-15 day one theory and not using commonsense and reasonable logics, and not listening from other Chinese senior members here on PDF


@pakistanipower... you can only speak for your own self!

*As for many other ACTIVE members here, incl. the Chinese senior members here, they are the silent majority with regard to this engine polemic! Again, if you read carefully, no one is 100% sure or right in this engine thing. There is simply not such proof to be 100% sure about this matter! Mind you that Being silent does not mean one is agree or disagree with some particular theory! "Only time will divulge" is the 100% sure element here!*

Let's not derail this thread further but please refrain from suggesting such banning idea to any hardworking member. 

Above the one liner posters I absolutely disagree with your stand. But that's all. Bye for this OT.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

TANAHH said:


> I am quite certain Asoka the Great has more research prowess than you!


Then @Asoka will provide solid prove for his J-20/WS-15 day one theory but unfortunately @Asoka hasn't that prove




samsara said:


> @pakistanipower... you can only speak for your own self!
> 
> *As for many other ACTIVE members here, incl. the Chinese senior members here, they are the silent majority with regard to this engine polemic! Again, if you read carefully, no one is 100% sure or right in this engine thing. There is simply not such proof to be 100% sure about this matter! Mind you that Being silent does not mean one is agree or disagree with some particular theory! "Only time will divulge" is the 100% sure element here!*
> 
> Let's not derail this thread further but please refrain from suggesting such banning idea to any hardworking member.
> 
> Above the one liner posters I absolutely disagree with your stand. But that's all. Bye for this OT.


So you are saying that no one 100% sure about engine of J-20 , than why @Asoka is so ASSURED that J-20 using WS-15 from day one and now @Asoka is saying J-20 using WS-15 since 2014 which one is true or both are false @Asoka is always contradict himself, @Asoka said he is always right and know everything about J-20/WS-15 developments, rest of the world knows nothing abo
ut J-20/WS-15 developments
 
And what is you talking about hard working, I would say hard sh! tting member with no solid prove


----------



## grey boy 2

The successful J-20 (with Taihang engine test flight) last for a total of 27 mins

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Why you wanted to ban someone that has different opinions than you? is this a discussion forum? where nobody is 100% right on the arguments, he deserved the right to continued his theory but perhaps on the engines thread





lmjiao said:


> Any 8 year old kid has his freedom to speek.



To admit I have indeed some strong reservations against such a drastic decission and if executed it will not be due to having another opinion nor making himself a fool. My point I will no longer tolerate and that's what i told him quite vigorously more than once is:

- he's spreading lies by misquoting other post in the wrong context. 
- he's twisting words
- he's changing/editing his replies sometimes more than once even after a reply was already posted in order 

Again anyone can stick to his opinion as long as he wants to but at the moment he's again misquoting anyone or twisting words in order to prove his claims, in the moment he's again accusing other members to fake images without any proof it is enough since this is no longer "freedom of speech". This is manipulating, faking, lying ... in other words derailing a thread and acting like a troll.




TANAHH said:


> I am quite certain Asoka the Great has more research prowess than you!



Surely never ever. At least then he would agree to facts and accept that his claims are wrong.


Anyway ... let's go back to the topic and find some clear images of '2021' and even more of it's nozzle so that this nasty discussion has an end.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

pakistanipower said:


> Sir with respect Mr @Asoka acting like a 8 year old kid and against Chinese senior members like you and contradictions his own words, you guys currently provide a prove that engine on the J-20 is now WS-10B or IPE, , @Asoka insisting that J-20 had been using WS-15 from it first flight then @Asoka change his views and telling forum J-20 using WS-15 since 2014 i ask him to prove it but @Asoka provide nothing, same is here, he acting like a 8 year old kid, @Asoka always right and knows everything about J-20/WS-15 development senior Chinese members like @grey boy 2 ,@Beast ,@ChineseTiger1986 ,@wanglaokan ,@cirr ,@cnleio know nothing about the J-20/WS-15 developments


there is no one here who knows the actual development of J-20 and WS-15, I dont even bother to jump into some of the most ridiculous thoughts and fights of yours```but its a forum, everyone is guessing on something, and insisting on his/her own believes```should you suggest to ban all of us``??



Deino said:


> Anyway ... let's go back to the topic and find some clear images of '2021' and even more of* it's nozzle *so that this nasty discussion has an end.
> 
> Deino


you want a "round" one or "flat" one ??

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> ...
> you want a "round" one or "flat" one ??




For the start I would be happy already with a round zig-zag-nozzle ... but later a flat one would be fine.


----------



## samsara

rcrmj said:


> there is no one here who knows the actual development of J-20 and WS-15, I dont even bother to jump into some of the most ridiculous thoughts and fights of yours```but its a forum, everyone is guessing on something, and insisting on his/her own believes```should you suggest to ban all of us``??
> 
> 
> you want a "round" one or "flat" one ??


For the RCS sake of course the "flat" one

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

More please ....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

*Well, I just woke up, not yet having a cup of coffee. I strongly disagreed with what Deino has said about me.

@Deino "- he's spreading lies by misquoting other post in the wrong context. "*

This is total B.S. Last night, I quoted the figure of 21.19m from your post's satellite pictures. I didn't read carefully, that figure was from a different member. I thought you made a second estimate. And said your estimate confirmed by estimate. That was an error in quoting, not a deliberate lie.

*"- he's twisting words"*

About this fake pictures affair. I have consistently saying because you and figaro have pointed out the second picture was a fake. And I believed what you have said, and took a close look of the two pictures, and connected the dots by noticing the first one was faked the exactly the same way, with a most glaring obvious large gap on the nozzle. And since it's from the same Chinese poster at Weipo. I assume its faked by the same person.

I never said you think the first yellow picture was a fake too. That was my opinion. I am sure we could all find instances of other people misquoting us or thought they were "twisting our words". I don't blame them, if after correcting them, and they stopped.

*"- he's changing/editing his replies, sometimes more than once, even after a reply was already posted in order"
*
This I am guilty of 100%. I often notice inconsistency, omission, and errors in my posts, so I go back correct them and amplify them. I have no intention of making anyone, who responded to my posts, looking bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> *...*


*

So and no let us simply again agree to disagree until we get clear images of '2021' ... and I'm sure we will.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> *
> So and no let us simply again agree to disagree until we get clear images of '2021' ... and I'm sure we will.*


Guy can we stop this WS-15 debate bla bla bla, let's just enjoy the moment of this WS-10X J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> *
> So and no let us simply again agree to disagree until we get clear images of '2021' ... and I'm sure we will.*




In spite, of the harsh words I said about you, and our disagreement over the "engine things", I do agree that you are an able and diligent researcher and love what you do. You could not have written several books and written numerous articles for International Aviations Magazines, without being so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asoka said:


> In spite, of the harsh words I said about you, and our disagreement over the "engine things", I do agree that you are an able and diligent researcher and love what you do. You could not have written several books and written numerous articles for International Aviations Magazines, without being so.


And yet not once has he ever claimed to be afraid of running afoul of the Chinese intelligence services.


----------



## samsara

gambit said:


> And yet not once has he ever claimed to be afraid of running afoul of the Chinese intelligence services.


The folks who think as such may have learned the fate of Chelsea Manning; Edward Snowden; Julian Assange and plus many others being silenced for good...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

samsara said:


> The folks who think as such may have learned the fate of Chelsea Manning; Edward Snowden; Julian Assange and plus many others being silenced for good...


I have yet to see anything *TECHNICALLY* credible from Mr. Asoka that would earn my interest, let alone that of the Chinese authority. 

The problem for your feeble defense of Asoka is that all the people you cited provided much more detailed and damning information about what goes on in the US. All Mr. Asoka did was provide us his delusions of himself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

gambit said:


> I have yet to see anything *TECHNICALLY* credible from Mr. Asoka that would earn my interest, let alone that of the Chinese authority.
> 
> The problem for your feeble defense of Asoka is that all the people you cited provided much more detailed and damning information about what goes on in the US. All Mr. Asoka did was provide us his delusions of himself.


I just defended a hardworking member at the Chinese Defence Column at PDF to forward his theory or thought, whether one agrees or disagrees with the information he presented.

Is that too much for you to take? And imagine... I don't even claim to be an American... with all the free things....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> I just defended a hardworking member at the Chinese Defence Column at PDF to forward his theory or thought, whether one agrees or disagrees with the information he presented.
> 
> Is that too much for you to take? And imagine... I don't even claim to be an American... with all the free things....




Thanks Bro, I appreciate your moral support, very much.  What I presented here at PDF, irritates the hell out of those white racists or supremacists. I just love it. 

The rapid progress of China and other developing countries, thrash their racists ideas, with a hole, big enough for a giant oil tanker, to sail through.

The Western world, esp. US, is fast becoming (if not already) the world of George Orwell's 1984, a fascist state.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

*The WS-10B powered J-20 #2021 made the maiden flight this noon!*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910012475612946432

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909716199134523392

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

samsara said:


> The folks who think as such may have learned the fate of Chelsea Manning; Edward Snowden; Julian Assange and plus many others being silenced for good...



Actually, did Asoka really benefit this discussion? He just continusly post wasted words again and again. 沉默是金。


----------



## Asoka

clarkgap said:


> Actually, did Asoka really benefit this discussion? He just continusly post wasted words again and again. 沉默是金。



Why don't you benefit from your own advice, and stay silent?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Asoka said:


> Why don't you benefit from your own advice, and stay silent?



At least I will not post arguments with any evidence again and again.


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> Why don't you benefit from your own advice, and stay silent?




I think since I am not quite innocent or uninvolved in this whole story I beg to leave it ... let's wait for new images and I'm sure they will solve this issue once again at least a bit more.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

clarkgap said:


> At least I will not post arguments with any evidence again and again.




It's because you don't have any arguments, nor evidences. You will not heard from me, to reply to you, anymore. I am putting you on my ignore list.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

samsara said:


> I just defended a hardworking member at the Chinese Defence Column at PDF to forward his theory or thought, whether one agrees or disagrees with the information he presented.
> 
> Is that too much for you to take? And imagine... I don't even claim to be an American... with all the free things....


I have no problems with anyone presenting his hypothesis for discussions. Do note that I have consistently stay out of the J-20 engine debate.

But when someone starts bringing in spooky government agencies in trying to make himself look serious, as a former USAF guy who once had Top Secret clearance, I find that hard to swallow.

When I was on the F-111 at RAF Upper Heyford, I had Victor Alert duty...

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/March 2011/0311victor.aspx

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Features...3/30-years-past-20th-fw-role-in-victor-alert/

When an F-111 is scheduled for Victor Alert duty, the jet is armed with two live B61 free fall nuclear bombs and two external wing tanks enough to fly to Moscow and back. The jet is moved to a restricted part of the flightline. The aircrew is not allowed to be no more than one hr away from the jet and other than the gym, they must in duty uniform at all time. Throughout NATO bases in Western Europe, there are plenty of VA jets.

Am telling you details about a procedure that no one in this forum knew. Some of those procedures are still secret today.

So it is very hard for me to see and believe a civilian posting on an anonymous Internet forum on how spooky government agencies are monitoring his activities and, as he claimed, warned him about 'revealing' too much state secret. How can he 'reveal' anything ? To 'reveal' mean you must have actual access to start. So is he claiming to be an active duty PLA J-20 pilot or someone involved in the project ?

There is an old saying: How big you are depends on the size of your enemies.

So what Mr. Asoka is doing is making the Chinese government his enemy, thereby making himself look big in the eyes of gullible Chinese. You got played, buddy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

*J-20*

*Titanium 20%*
*Composite 29%*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/909284371093372928

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> Look at the J-10B prototype numbering sequence...
> 
> 1031
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1033
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1034
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1035 (with WS-10), appeared in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All prototypes showed up prior to production in 2013, and the numbering sequence all stayed in the 1030s.
> 
> But for the J-20...
> 
> #2017: Last (AL-31?) prototype. November 2015.
> 
> #2101: (AL-31?) LRIP. December 2015.
> 
> #2021: First (WS-10X?) prototype? September 2017?!
> 
> Why the number skip? Why did the (WS-10X?) show up so late?



Look at the J-10 prototype numbering when it jumped from J-10B to J-10C.

The first J-10B prototype was #1031.





The first J-10C prototype was #1051.





The *tens digit* changed from '3' to '5'. This signifies the jump from J-10B to J-10C.





Now look at J-20.

The first silver prototype was #2011.





The current (WS-10X?) prototype is #2021.

The *tens digit* changed again.

See the pattern yet?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> ...
> The *tens digit* changed again.
> See the pattern yet?



Exactly my point ... so the 200x-demontrators were most likely just J-20, the 201x-prototypes were then eventually J-20A and if it indeed follows the pattern used by the J-10-series 202x-prototype would stand for a J-20B.

... even if that designation is most often "reserved" for the final WS-15-powered variant.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Yes.

#200X...first iteration.

#201X...second iteration.

#202X...third iteration.

I suspect something big has changed about the J-20. And it may (or may not) be just the engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

So come on guys at CAC ... let's show us Your latest baby! 

I'm eager to say HELLO.


----------



## clibra

Asoka said:


> I find NOSE to NOZZLE more meaningful, if we were to determine relative length of two planes, that mean exclude the *Pitot* tube and the long tail that extend from the rear of the plane, like the F-22. Some plane might be tailless like the French Mirage 2000 and Mig-21.
> View attachment 426308
> 
> 
> From NOSE to NOZZLE, J-20 is *21.2m long (69.6ft)*, and F-22 is *17m long (55.8ft)*. The difference is *4.2M (13.8ft)*. We can argue whether these pictures are accurate representations. But they seems to be pretty professionally done.
> 
> Here is the length Comparison I made back in jan, 2017, and posted on PDF.
> 
> View attachment 426309
> 
> 
> Note, J-20's body length is at least *3.5-4.5m (11.5ft-14.8ft) longer* when compared NOSE to NOZZLE to F-22, excluding the pitot tube of J-20 and the long tail of F-22. I also found, if we cut out the Canard section of the J-20, which has the length of 3.5m, then J-20 and F-22 are pretty much the same size.
> 
> Also note the NOSE to NOZZLE length of Su-27 (excluding the long middle tail) is 21m, which confirms the satellite image that both Su-27 and J-20 are about the same length, from NOSE to NOZZLE.
> 
> It is by incorporating the Canards that made J-20 *3.5-4.5m* longer than F-22. From Dr. Song's seminal paper, the designers of J-20 have determined to include the Canards in their design, from the very beginning. So, the extra length is not accidental.
> 
> Evidently, they are willing to pay for the extra weight penalty for the superior performance offered by the Canards.
> 
> From this body length difference, I concluded *J-20 is at least 2 tons heavier than F-22.*



So this picture is the reason of your wrong calculation.


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

*China #PLAAF #Chengdu #stealth #J20 possible #2021 observed.*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

STRANGER BIRD said:


> *China #PLAAF #Chengdu #stealth #J20 possible #2021 observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Yes maybe indeed ... but that image was taken on 28. July already.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> No, No, No again and once for all this is the final warning. The next time You twist words, You quote wrongly I will ban You.
> 
> If You read properly I noted the first estimation is by me while the second one made by "another member at another forum". Even more he is NOT estimating from nose to nozzle but from nose to the tails.
> 
> I think You really need a break. Take care of Your family and play with Your kids ...
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> I slowly come to the feeling that his new-borne son is most likely in fact a girl and similar to these stupid assumptions he only wants it to be a boy. So it is in fact not that difficult to omit certain small detail ... could happen anytime if the wish is only strong enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me again with the quetsion, why these images You posted yesterday are named "J-20T" ???


I would much rather have a girl than a boy.

@Asoka. Please stop insisting on your J-20 length. Satellite imagery and various comparisons have indicated a length of around 20 meters for the J-20. Under the same measurements, the F-22 is 18.92 meters, which just so happens is its recorded length. Can we all end this useless discussion now? It seems we've suddenly turned back the clocks to 2011 ...


----------



## Asoka

@Figaro

You can insist on whatever you feel reasonable, and I will do the same, on my part. Last time, I checked. You are not an authority of anything, whom everyone must obey. So mind your own biz, plz. 

Thanks for your strong and staunch moral support, *hirobo2 ! *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Yes maybe indeed ... but that image was taken on 28. July already.
> 
> View attachment 426498
> View attachment 426499



This is definitely not 2021. The overexposure implies it is an object with high reflectivity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

The shape, color changed, even though it isn't the final goal, performance may not needed to be upgraded, however, the present change of engine should an requirement for going forward with the evolution process

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

If there would be a 2D flat nozzle version for the J-20 in the near future, then it would definitely destroy the previous WS-15 theory.

Otherwise, nobody can easily tell which one is the WS-15, which one is not, unless the WS-15 got the 2D flat nozzle which can be easily distinguished.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 星海军事

grey boy 2 said:


> The shape, color changed, even though it isn't the final goal, performance may not needed to be upgraded, however, the present change of engine should an requirement for going forward with the evolution process



Sorry for letting you down, however this is only a model. Although I appreciate your enthusiasm, please do not repost from this account anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-20 with "new heart" took off

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> @Figaro
> 
> You can insist on whatever you feel reasonable, and I will do the same, on my part. Last time, I checked. You are not an authority of anything, whom everyone must obey. So mind your own biz, plz.
> 
> Thanks for your strong and staunch moral support, *hirobo2 ! *


And neither are you. Why don't we agree to disagree?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 78273

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Still no news ... all I found is this !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

There's nothing wrong with doing a 'nose to nozzles' measurement because the majority of the weight of the plane is from nose to nozzles.






The F-22 is actually quite small when you remove the horizontal stabilizers.






The J-20, on the other hand, has a big fuselage, increasing weight.

Furthermore, if you look at the above pictures, you also realize how small (and swept back) the J-20's wings are. Remember that lift is the elevating force which should equal or better an aircraft's weight, and less wing area lowers lift. Swept back wings (while efficient at high speeds) also lower lift at low speeds. The Concorde was notorious for taking off at high speeds and requiring extra long runways because of the sweep angle of the wings. The J-20 is supposed to have short take-off capabilities. Remember the '4S' capabilities?

You can also increase lift by increasing velocity. But for that you need powerful engines and high thrust to weight ratio, which you probably can't do with underpowered AL-31 or WS-10.

That's why the J-20 is such a conundrum.

Why is the plane so big?
Why are the wings so small and swept back?
Where is the WS-15 to power this giant plane?
I have no idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> There's nothing wrong with doing a 'nose to nozzles' measurement because the majority of the weight of the plane is from nose to nozzles.



Point is only; if You take a wrong image - like this one above which is already so often used and dismissed as WRONG - or one showing them not in the same scale, then the whole "comparison from nose to nozzle" it's useless ...

Just look, the J-20 in that diagram is longer than the Flanker, which is WRONG:






Again, this comparison by a satellite image surely has a margin of error, but the J-20 cannot be longer than a Flanker esp. if in Your chart a standard "long-sting" Su-27 and not the short-sting Su-33 is used.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Image below overlays a Su-27 over the J-20. I assume they equalized the nozzle size. The J-20 is clearly bigger. Look at the length from nose to nozzles. Look at the thickness and girth of the fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

j20blackdragon said:


> Image below overlays a Su-27 over the J-20. I assume they equalized the nozzle size. The J-20 is clearly bigger. Look at the length from nose to nozzles. Look at the thickness and girth of the fuselage.


These kinds of diagrams are not accurate ... the J-20 angle was clearly different than that of the Su-27 ... hence, your overlapping claim is wrong. 



Deino said:


> Point is only; if You take a wrong image - like this one above which is already so often used and dismissed as WRONG - or one showing them not in the same scale, then the whole "comparison from nose to nozzle" it's useless ...
> 
> Just look, the J-20 in that diagram is longer than the Flanker, which is WRONG:
> 
> View attachment 426686
> 
> 
> Again, this comparison by a satellite image surely has a margin of error, but the J-20 cannot be longer than a Flanker esp. if in Your chart a standard "long-sting" Su-27 and not the short-sting Su-33 is used.


That diagram was published years ago and is known to be wrong. But yet @Asoka still insists that its right. I've also seen this picture being recirculated in the NextBigFuture website, only confirming its invalidity.


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> Image below overlays a Su-27 over the J-20. I assume they equalized the nozzle size. The J-20 is clearly bigger. Look at the length from nose to nozzles. Look at the thickness and girth of the fuselage.



Why is that so difficult to understand ! Don't You want to or do You prefer to ignore the fact?? 

You take two images of a J-20 and a Flanker, size them roughly by eyeballing to the same nozzle diameter and come to the conclusion that the J-20 is overall longer while on the other side You have a - YES I admit - blurred image of both a Flanker and a J-20 side by side and the J-20 is clearly shorter. How could it be then larger ????

That's impossible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Why is that so difficult to understand ! Don't You want to or do You prefer to ignore the fact??
> 
> You take two images of a J-20 and a Flanker, size them roughly by eyeballing to the same nozzle diameter and come to the conclusion that the J-20 is overall longer while on the other side You have a - YES I admit - blurred image of both a Flanker and a J-20 side by side and the J-20 is clearly shorter. How could it be then larger ????
> 
> That's impossible.


If you see someone post one image on top of another, that is a clear indication that it is inaccurate. Some posters don't seem to understand the frame of reference ...


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Why is that so difficult to understand ! Don't You want to or do You prefer to ignore the fact??
> 
> You take two images of a J-20 and a Flanker, size them roughly by eyeballing to the same nozzle diameter and come to the conclusion that the J-20 is overall longer while on the other side You have a - YES I admit - blurred image of both a Flanker and a J-20 side by side and the J-20 is clearly shorter. How could it be then larger ????
> 
> That's impossible.



First, it's not my image. I found it on the internet.

Second, explain how the overlay can be wrong if the nozzle size and angle of the AL-31 have been equalized?

Third, did you not "eyeball" a small and blurry satellite photo and draw the yellow lines yourself?

Fourth, what if the Chinese Flanker is slightly larger than the Russian Flanker? Now we're thinking outside of the box.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

j20blackdragon said:


> First, it's not my image. I found it on the internet.
> 
> Second, explain how the overlay can be wrong if the nozzle size and angle of the AL-31 have been equalized?
> 
> Third, did you not "eyeball" a small and blurry satellite photo and draw the yellow lines yourself?




Come on, what a lame argument !

I admitted that image is blurred and I also admitted that there is an error included but that error is for both the same since the blur is the same. So again even a blurred image showing a smaller horse standing beside a larger elephant does not make the horse larger if You use two different images in two different positions at different angles with just being sized to the same size by guess.

Again: explain how could a smaller thing become larger only by using different images ?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

j20blackdragon said:


> First, it's not my image. I found it on the internet.
> 
> Second, explain how the overlay can be wrong if the nozzle size and angle of the AL-31 have been equalized?
> 
> Third, did you not "eyeball" a small and blurry satellite photo and draw the yellow lines yourself?
> 
> Fourth, what if the Chinese Flanker is slightly larger than the Russian Flanker? Now we're thinking outside of the box.


Then you’re wrong. It’s just an internet image and yet you use it to prove your point. The fact is satellite imagery has indicated the J-20 is shorter in length than the flanker series by over a meter. The consensus for the J-20 is 20 to 20.3 meters. If you want to be incorrect ... the. Go ahead. I don’t k why you are so insistent on it’s lengh



Deino said:


> Come on, what a lame argument !
> 
> I admitted that image is blurred and I also admitted that there is an error included but that error is for both the same since the blur is the same. So again even a blurred image showing a smaller horse standing beside a larger elephant does not make the horse larger if You use two different images in two different positions at different angles with just being sized to the same size by guess.
> 
> Again: explain how could a smaller thing become larger only by using different images ?
> 
> Deino


These J-20 fanbois can’t even get the length of their aircraft right 



j20blackdragon said:


> There's nothing wrong with doing a 'nose to nozzles' measurement because the majority of the weight of the plane is from nose to nozzles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 is actually quite small when you remove the horizontal stabilizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20, on the other hand, has a big fuselage, increasing weight.
> 
> Furthermore, if you look at the above pictures, you also realize how small (and swept back) the J-20's wings are. Remember that lift is the elevating force which should equal or better an aircraft's weight, and less wing area lowers lift. Swept back wings (while efficient at high speeds) also lower lift at low speeds. The Concorde was notorious for taking off at high speeds and requiring extra long runways because of the sweep angle of the wings. The J-20 is supposed to have short take-off capabilities. Remember the '4S' capabilities?
> 
> You can also increase lift by increasing velocity. But for that you need powerful engines and high thrust to weight ratio, which you probably can't do with underpowered AL-31 or WS-10.
> 
> That's why the J-20 is such a conundrum.
> 
> Why is the plane so big?
> Why are the wings so small and swept back?
> Where is the WS-15 to power this giant plane?
> I have no idea.





j20blackdragon said:


> There's nothing wrong with doing a 'nose to nozzles' measurement because the majority of the weight of the plane is from nose to nozzles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 is actually quite small when you remove the horizontal stabilizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20, on the other hand, has a big fuselage, increasing weight.
> 
> Furthermore, if you look at the above pictures, you also realize how small (and swept back) the J-20's wings are. Remember that lift is the elevating force which should equal or better an aircraft's weight, and less wing area lowers lift. Swept back wings (while efficient at high speeds) also lower lift at low speeds. The Concorde was notorious for taking off at high speeds and requiring extra long runways because of the sweep angle of the wings. The J-20 is supposed to have short take-off capabilities. Remember the '4S' capabilities?
> 
> You can also increase lift by increasing velocity. But for that you need powerful engines and high thrust to weight ratio, which you probably can't do with underpowered AL-31 or WS-10.
> 
> That's why the J-20 is such a conundrum.
> 
> Why is the plane so big?
> Why are the wings so small and swept back?
> Where is the WS-15 to power this giant plane?
> I have no idea.


Your last 4 lines indicate you know nothing about the J-20 at all. I think Dave Mujumundar and Kyle Mizokami even know even more about it than you do. Seriously, go read up the facts and stop embarrassing yourself with these ignorant posts. Using terms such as “big”, “small”, and “giant” prove my point. The most surprising thing is that you have J-20 in your name. The J-20 is not a “conundrum” at all; if you even glance at the Wikipedia page, you’ll see why they designed it the way they did. Or even better, go and read up Dr. Song’s aerodynamic paper.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Explain how the overlay is wrong if the author equalized the size and angle of the nozzles. Still no answer?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

j20blackdragon said:


> Explain how the overlay is wrong if the author equalized the size and angle of the nozzles. Still no answer?


Oh come on ... there’s something called a frame of reference for any photo. Thats why satellite imagery is much more conducive than simply aligning 2 images and assuming they were taken at the exact same angle ... which they’re not. And once again, the J-20 is not a “giant” plane. Let’s stop playing around with kids terms shall we ...


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Why is that so difficult to understand ! Don't You want to or do You prefer to ignore the fact??
> 
> You take two images of a J-20 and a Flanker, size them roughly by eyeballing to the same nozzle diameter and come to the conclusion that the J-20 is overall longer while on the other side You have a - YES I admit - blurred image of both a Flanker and a J-20 side by side and the J-20 is clearly shorter. How could it be then larger ????
> 
> That's impossible.









The satellite images are extremely blurry and very low resolution. The number of pixels of J-15 is 101, and J-20 is 97, which differs by only 4 pixels.

At the ratio of 101 pixels and 21.2m, *Every 4.8 pixels equals to 1 meter.* Those are extremely tiny numbers.

The margin of errors is clearly much greater than 3 pixels, as stated in the pictures.

The blurriness is much more at the nose and the nozzle area, than at the wingspan area, which is why I accepted the wingspan estimates, but not the length estimate.













The length estimates, based on those *extremely blurry* and *very small satellite pictures*, are clearly not reliable.

Anyone, who accepted those length estimates as final, and taken as the GOLD STANDARD, and allow to be challenged, is foolish, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

People are too focused on the length and wingspan measurements while ignoring the obvious thickness, fatness, and girth of the J-20 fuselage.

The J-20 has internal weapons bays. The Su-27 has none.

The J-20 has much longer serpentine intake tunnels that are integrated within the fuselage. The Su-27 intakes are shorter and hanging out the bottom.

The J-20 fuselage cross section (viewed from the front) has a fat trapezoidal shape.










All of these things add weight.

You combine this fat fuselage with small and swept back main wings, and you get a really strange airframe. How do you even expect this thing to fly with underpowered engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

j20blackdragon said:


> People are too focused on the length and wingspan measurements while ignoring the obvious thickness, fatness, and girth of the J-20 fuselage.
> 
> The J-20 has internal weapons bays. The Su-27 has none.
> 
> The J-20 has much longer serpentine intake tunnels that are integrated within the fuselage. The Su-27 intakes are shorter and hanging out the bottom.
> 
> The J-20 fuselage cross section (viewed from the front) has a fat trapezoidal shape.
> View attachment 426694
> 
> 
> View attachment 426695
> 
> 
> All of these things add weight.
> 
> You combine this fat fuselage with small and swept back main wings, and you get a really strange airframe. How do you even expect this thing to fly with underpowered engines?



The image you made and posted is quite misleading IMHO. The nose of the Flanker, which is about 1 meter in diameter, is visually way too much smaller than the J-20's in the image. Those 2 planes are obviously on 2 different axes and the perspectives are not matching at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

ozranger said:


> The image you made and posted is quite misleading IMHO. The nose of the Flanker, which is about 1 meter in diameter, is visually way too much smaller than the J-20's in the image. Those 2 planes are obviously on 2 different axes and the perspectives are not matching at all.



That's because the J-20's nose and entire foward fuselage is massive. Intakes are massive too. 

It's like people can't tell the difference between fat and skinny on this forum...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> That's because the J-20's nose and entire foward fuselage is massive. Intakes are massive too.
> 
> It's like people can't tell the difference between fat and skinny on this forum...



To compare the weight and size of J-20, it's best to use the weight and size of F-22, which is in the same class of 5-Gen. Fighter.

Both J-20 and F-22 are expected to have similarly performance of max. 9G at subsonic speed, and 6.5g at Mach 1.5, and have superior supersonic maneuverability, and expect to last 8,000hr or 30 years.

This is the main reason I think F-22 is weighting at 19.7 tons, because the enormous airframe structural strength required at those incredible performance envelope.

The early su-27, pure dog-fighter, with a weaker frame is expected to last 2,000hr, and the later Su-30's airframe was strengthen to allow 4,000hr, and added air-ground capability, that added several tons of weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Asoka said:


> This is the main reason I think F-22 is weighting at 19.7 tons, because the enormous airframe structural strength required at those incredible performance envelope.



Also the unconventional stealth shaping of the airframe probably increases drag, which requires more structural support.

Which increases weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> View attachment 426698
> 
> 
> The satellite images are extremely blurry and very low resolution. The number of pixels of J-15 is 101, and J-20 is 97, which differs by only 4 pixels.
> 
> At the ratio of 101 pixels and 21.2m, *Every 4.8 pixels equals to 1 meter.* Those are extremely tiny numbers.
> 
> The margin of errors is clearly much greater than 3 pixels, as stated in the pictures.
> 
> The blurriness is much more at the nose and the nozzle area, than at the wingspan area, which is why I accepted the wingspan estimates, but not the length estimate.
> View attachment 426699
> View attachment 426700
> View attachment 426701
> View attachment 426702
> 
> The length estimates, based on those *extremely blurry* and *very small satellite pictures*, are clearly not reliable.
> 
> Anyone, who accepted those length estimates as final, and taken as the GOLD STANDARD, and allow to be challenged, is foolish, IMO.


That is only because you are zooming in too much ... the original satellite composite was good enough for comparison. And yes, there is going to be a slight discrepancy in terms of += 0.2 meters but that's generally good enough. At least @Deino didn't merge two photos together to prove his point, which is what you've done.



ozranger said:


> The image you made and posted is quite misleading IMHO. The nose of the Flanker, which is about 1 meter in diameter, is visually way too much smaller than the J-20's in the image. Those 2 planes are obviously on 2 different axes and the perspectives are not matching at all.


Because @j20blackdragon does not know what he is talking about. He uses a deliberately misleading diagram to prove an incorrect point. The axes and perspectives are indeed different but he still chooses to treat them as exactly the same ... much to everyone's frustration.



Asoka said:


> To compare the weight and size of J-20, it's best to use the weight and size of F-22, which is in the same class of 5-Gen. Fighter.
> 
> Both J-20 and F-22 are expected to have similarly performance of max. 9G at subsonic speed, and 6.5g at Mach 1.5, and have superior supersonic maneuverability, and expect to last 8,000hr or 30 years.
> 
> This is the main reason I think F-22 is weighting at 19.7 tons, because the enormous airframe structural strength required at those incredible performance envelope.
> 
> The early su-27, pure dog-fighter, with a weaker frame is expected to last 2,000hr, and the later Su-30's airframe was strengthen to allow 4,000hr, and added air-ground capability, that added several tons of weight.


F-22 statistics are already out there ... I'm not sure why you need to "think" about the F-22's weight. It's been gradually declassified over the last 20 years ...


----------



## rcrmj

j20blackdragon said:


> Image below overlays a Su-27 over the J-20. I assume they equalized the nozzle size. The J-20 is clearly bigger. Look at the length from nose to nozzles. Look at the thickness and girth of the fuselage.


J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers```end of this nonsense, there are many things of J-20 that is uncertain, but this one is a fact!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers```end of this nonsense, there are many things of J-20 that is uncertain, but this one is a fact!


Thank you !!!!


----------



## rcrmj

j20blackdragon said:


> Explain how the overlay is wrong if the author equalized the size and angle of the nozzles. Still no answer?


you have to know the fact that there are many different types of camera lens, like wide-angle lens can stretch things horizontally without affecting the objects' vertical diameter`````ask any professional photographers they will give a picture of one same object with two different sizes```````

`P.S I sometimes to use this technique to shoot a "long-legged" female``and they really like that`

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> That is only because you are zooming in too much ... the original satellite composite was good enough for comparison. And yes, there is going to be a slight discrepancy in terms of += 0.2 meters but that's generally good enough. At least @Deino didn't merge two photos together to prove his point, which is what you've done.
> 
> 
> Because @j20blackdragon does not know what he is talking about. He uses a deliberately misleading diagram to prove an incorrect point. The axes and perspectives are indeed different but he still chooses to treat them as exactly the same ... much to everyone's frustration.
> 
> 
> F-22 statistics are already out there ... I'm not sure why you need to "think" about the F-22's weight. It's been gradually declassified over the last 20 years ...



I know Lockeed Martin listed F-22's empty weight as 19.7 tons. I have used this figure repeatedly.

The original satellite pictures shows the length of J-15 is only 101 PIXELS, and J-20 is 97 PIXELS. If you think those resolutions are good enough and no need to seek better measurement, then I don't have anything else to say to you.

Guys, like you, I put on my ignore list. It's a waste of time to talk to you. So, you will not get any reply from me, anymore.



rcrmj said:


> J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers```end of this nonsense, there are many things of J-20 that is uncertain, but this one is a fact!



*"J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers`"*

Not, if you don't include, the 2 meters long tail boom, that sticks out past the nozzle. Nose to nozzle wise, J-20 is longer than the flankers. Those two meters long tail boom, don't add a lot of extra weight, and can't contain a lot of internal fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> I know Lockeed Martin listed F-22's empty weight as 19.7 tons. I have used this figure repeatedly.
> 
> The original satellite pictures shows the length of J-15 is only 101 PIXELS, and J-20 is 97 PIXELS. If you think those resolutions are good enough and no need to seek better measurement, then I don't have anything else to say to you.
> 
> Guys, like you, I put on my ignore list. It's a waste of time to talk to you. So, you will not get any reply from me, anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> *"J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers`"*
> 
> Not, if you don't include, the 2 meters long tail boom, that sticks out past the nozzle. Nose to nozzle wise, J-20 is longer than the flankers. Those two meters long tail boom, don't add a lot of extra weight, and can't contain a lot of internal fuel.


----------



## rcrmj

Asoka said:


> I know Lockeed Martin listed F-22's empty weight as 19.7 tons. I have used this figure repeatedly.
> 
> The original satellite pictures shows the length of J-15 is only 101 PIXELS, and J-20 is 97 PIXELS. If you think those resolutions are good enough and no need to seek better measurement, then I don't have anything else to say to you.
> 
> Guys, like you, I put on my ignore list. It's a waste of time to talk to you. So, you will not get any reply from me, anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> *"J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers`"*
> 
> Not, if you don't include, the 2 meters long tail boom, that sticks out past the nozzle. Nose to nozzle wise, J-20 is longer than the flankers. Those two meters long tail boom, don't add a lot of extra weight, and can't contain a lot of internal fuel.


no matter how you "change" the category of this nonsensical and funny "length" contest between J-20 and flankers (be it nozzle or tail or boom or loom!!!)```*with all of your "proposed" category, J-20 is "shorter" and "smaller" than any types of Flankers*```end of this discussion, you cant twist with the fact```*or should I ask you "have you ever seen the blueprints"????*


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> no matter how you "change" the category of this nonsensical and funny "length" contest between J-20 and flankers (be it nozzle or tail or boom or loom!!!)```*with all of your "proposed" category, J-20 is "shorter" and "smaller" than any types of Flankers*```end of this discussion, you can twist with the fact```*or should I ask you "have you ever seen the blueprints"????*


He claims that the J-20 is equipped with thrust vectoring and 210kN WS-15s since day 1 and intentionally deceive everyone with AL-31F nozzles


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> He claims that the J-20 is equipped with thrust vectoring and 210kN WS-15s since day 1 and intentionally deceive everyone with AL-31F nozzles


most of things I cant say with my upmost confidence, but WS-15 is one thing that I can assure you that it has not finished crutial tests yet````still years needed for them to put it on serving J-20s``````and I also mentioned the shape of the "菊花” ```it could be flat or it could be round```time will tell

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> most of things I cant say with my upmost confidence, but WS-15 is one thing that I can assure you that it has not finished crutial tests yet````still years needed for them to put it on serving J-20s``````and I also mentioned the shape of the "菊花” ```it could be flat or it could be round```time will tell


Big Shrimp claims that it has serrated nozzles similar to the F-35. I’m eyeing for a 2019 incorporation on the J-20 if it goes well and maturity by 2023/24


----------



## j20blackdragon

The second length estimate posted by Deino has the J-20 at 21.3m.







That correlates well with this second diagram I have. F-22 is listed at 18.92m. That's close enough.






Now back to my original point. If you measured the F-22 from nose to nozzles, it's actually quite short.






And yet, that short little plane is powered by two F119 engines. Could the F-22 still fly with AL-31? Maybe. But it wouldn't do its job very well. That's all I'm saying.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> Big Shrimp claims that it has serrated nozzles similar to the F-35. I’m eyeing for a 2019 incorporation on the J-20 if it goes well and maturity by 2023/24



which shrimp? I need verify it```


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> which shrimp? I need verify it```


I forgot which one. But it would seem very logical to have serrated nozzles to prevent rear RCS.


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> *"J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers`"*
> 
> Not, if you don't include, the 2 meters long tail boom, that sticks out past the nozzle. Nose to nozzle wise, J-20 is longer than the flankers. Those two meters long tail boom, don't add a lot of extra weight, and can't contain a lot of internal fuel.



That might be and no-one denies this but my point is: if the length of a Flanker including tail is shorter than 22 m how could then in Your end-calculation the J-20 be longer than 22m when it is clearly not longer than a Flanker?

I'm always speaking of overall-length !

Again, I don't say my estimation is exact; I clearly stated it has a margin of +/- 20 or 30 cm, but in the end regardless all blur a direct comparison side-by-side is always the more reliable one than taking two different images and scaling them up and down and again.

I don't understand why some don't accept this. Or do I need to repost my apple-vs-banana file?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> That might be and no-one denies this but my point is: if the length of a Flanker including tail is shorter than 20 m how could then in Your end-calculation the J-20 be longer than 22m when it is clearly not longer than a Flanker?
> 
> I'm always speaking of overall-length !
> 
> Again, I don't say my estimation is exact; I clearly stated it has a margin of +/- 20 or 30 cm, but in the end regardless all blur a direct comparison side-by-side is always the more reliable one than taking two different images and scaling them up and down and again.
> 
> I don't understand why some don't accept this. Or do I need to repost my apple-vs-banana file?
> 
> Deino


I got 19.8 to 20.4 range ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

I think 20 tonnes for the empty weight of the J-20 makes sense, since it got more reinforced structure than China's other aircrafts.

Thus, it should also be heavier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

This is my best effort yet, guys.

1.) I took the overall length* (18.80m)* and wingspan *(13.56m)* data of F-22 from Lockeed Martin's website, and use the wingspan data *(13.47m*) of J-20, posted Deino earlier.

2.) I took, two high resolution, and most flat pictures of J-20 and F-22, I can find, and overlaid F-22 ontop of J-20, while keeping the proportion, the same.

3.) I resize the F-22 picture, until, it's wingspan is about the *same* as J-20, then I align them at the nozzles. (You can also align them at the noses.)

4.) Then, I took a metric ruler image from the web, and overlaid it ontop of F-22, and resize it and align it, so the *mark 18.8* is exactly the same as F-22's overall length.

5.) I copied the same ruler, and place it at various measurement points, and obtained the following values, by using F-22's overall length of 18.8m as reference.

(1.) F-22 overall length: *18.80m*
(2.) F-22 nose-nozzle length: *16.7m*
(3.) J-20 overall length: *21.64m*
(4.) J-20 nose-nozzle length: *21.14m*
(5.) F-22 Wingspan: *13.56m* (given by Lockeed Martin)
J-22 wingspan: *13.47m* (posted by Deino)
(6.) Nose to Nozzle Fuselage Length difference b/n J-20 and F-22: *4.4m*
(7.) I obtained the overall length difference b/n J-20 and F-22, by subtracting 21.64m - 18.8m = *2.84m*

Those values are very close, to what I have posted before. I challenge anybody, who disagree with my findings, to do his own researches, not just quoting values, from some very blurry satellite pictures.

So my final conclusions are:

1.) *J-20's overall length is 21.6m, *not 20.35m, as from the blurry satellite picture.
* 
*
This is *2.84m longer than F-22, *which is not far from the *9.5ft (2.97m)* difference, published by Bill Sweetman in "Aviation Week" magazine.

2.) And *J-20 is 4.4m longer than F-22, *when measured from Nose to Nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> View attachment 426723
> 
> 
> This is my best effort yet, guys.
> 
> 1.) I took the overall length* (18.80m)* and wingspan *(13.56m)* data of F-22 from Lockeed Martin's website, and use the wingspan data *(13.47m*) of J-20, posted Deino earlier.
> 
> 2.) I two high resolution, and most flat pictures of J-20 and F-22, I can find, and overlaid F-22 ontop of J-20, while keeping the proportion, the same.
> 
> 3.) I resize the F-22 picture, until, it's wingspan is about the *same* as J-20, then I align them at the nozzles. (You can also align them at the noses)
> 
> 4.) Then, I took a ruler image from the web, and overlaid it ontop of F-22, and resize it and align it, so the *mark 18.8* is exactly the same as F-22's overall length.
> 
> 5.) I copied the same ruler, and place it at various measurement points, and obtained the following values, by using F-22's overall length of 18.8m as reference.
> 
> (1.) F-22 overall length: *18.80m*
> (2.) F-22 nose-nozzle length: *16.7m*
> (3.) J-20 overall length: *21.64m*
> (4.) J-20 nose-nozzle length: *21.14m*
> (5.) F-22 Wingspan: *13.56m* (given by Lockeed Martin)
> J-22 wingspan: *13.47m* (posted by Deino)
> (6.) Nose to Nozzle Fuselage Length difference b/n J-20 and F-22: *4.4m*
> (7.) I obtained the overall length difference b/n J-20 and F-22, by subtracting 21.64m - 18.8m = *2.84m*
> 
> Those values are very close to what I have posted before. I challenge anybody, who disagree with my findings to do his own researches, not just quoting values, from some very blurry satellite pictures.
> 
> So my final conclusion is *J-20's overall length is 21.6m* (which is 2.84m longer than F-22), not 20.35m, and *J-20 is 4.4m longer than F-22, *when measured from Nose to Nozzle.


. And I'm telling you you're wrong ... your measurement is just as ridiculous as the WS-15 theory ...


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> . And I'm telling you you're wrong ... your measurement is just as ridiculous as the WS-15 theory ...



I think we should take a rest ... like he just said:




Asoka said:


> This is my best effort yet, guys.
> ...



But sometimes even a best try can be far from good. 

Deino


----------



## Asoka

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I think 20 tonnes for the empty weight of the J-20 makes sense, since it got more reinforced structure than China's other aircrafts.
> 
> Thus, it should also be heavier.



Note: Lockeed Martin listed F-22's empty weight as *19.7 tons*.

*"I think 20 tonnes for the empty weight of the J-20 makes sense"*

If that's true, I bet the engineers from Lockeed Martin will bow down, to those guys at Chengdu, and worship them as Aeronautical Engineering gods.

The engineers at Lockheed Martin, didn't want to build an airplane as heavy as they could build. They tried as hard as they could to bring down the weight of F-22 and F-35, through a fanatic weight saving efforts. (Lots of ridiculously, very expensive Titanium and Carbon fiber composites components and parts)

At 21.2m, the fuselage length of J-20 is *26.35%* longer than F-22's 16.7m. It will be very lucky for J-20's weight not *26.35% (5.2 tons)* heavier's than F-22's 19.7 tons, while all the performance parameters and airframe structural strength and service life, matches F-22.

I have used the estimated empty weight of *22 tons* for J-20, out of the desire to be conservative in my estimate. If that turns out to be true, that would be mean J-20 is only *10% heavier* than F-22, despite its fuselage length is *26.35% longer*. 

This is a very incredible aeronautical achievement.

If the engineers from Chengdu, could build a 5-Gen plane that is the same class as F-22, with the similar airframe strength and maneuverability ability (9g at subsonic speed, 6.5g at Mach 1.5, and lasts over 8, 000 hrs or 30 years), *but it's fuselage is 4.4m longer, nose to nozzle*, and still, it *WEIGHTS THE SAME*, then they are gods, when compared to other guys from Lockeed Martin.

But Lockeed Martin is no losers and copycats, it is the company, which built all those airplanes, since WWII:
_*
C-130 Hercules, *_
F-104 Starfighter,
P-3 Orion,
U-2 spyplane,
C-5 Galaxy large transporter,
YF-12 Blackbird, supersonic interceptor
SR-71 Blackbird
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F-117 Nighthawk
*F-22 Raptor
F-35 Lightning II*

You can say Lockeed Martin is an Aviation Company that is second to none, when it comes to building high performance military airplanes.

And how many airplanes China has built that is not a copy of the Russian's Migs and Sukois, and planes from other countries?

@Deino, *"But sometimes even a best try can be far from good. *"

But, a best try is far better than not trying at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> . And I'm telling you you're wrong ... your measurement is just as ridiculous as the WS-15 theory ...


He will not understand you Mr @Figaro every respected site like jane's, flight global, aviation weekly stated that J-20 under 21m length, @Asoka who is true you or those respected sites they have lot of photographic experts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> He will not understand you Mr @Figaro every respected site like jane's, flight global, aviation weekly stated that J-20 under 21m length, @Asoka who is true you or those respected sites they have lot of photographic experts


I'm done countering his ridiculous claims ... he dismisses all "Big Shrimps" and PLAAF watchers as charlatans and calls himself an authority ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> I'm done countering his ridiculous claims ... he dismisses all "Big Shrimps" and PLAAF watchers as charlatans and calls himself an authority ...


No @Asoka is currently working on J-20/WS-15 projects he knows better than PLAAF and chinese goverments, right @Asoka

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

@Asoka is trying very hard possibly too hard trying to convince some others that the J-20 _*indeed has higher value*_ than what it's perceived at present; while some other members do not agree at all and steadily keep holding on the J-20's current nominal value as they perceive... and the exchanges look like the exchange of the FAITH / RELIGION matters that won't come into agreement even it sheds the blood....

Only time will be the true testimony which side is right and wrong (overrate; underrate; standard rate --- no one is sure 100%)...and IF ONLY new info is released as time goes by... and as far as concerning the Chinese interests this matter is not relevant at all!! They won't release and disclose all information to tell the world what's the true state of their jet fighter...China does not need such recognition for the crucial assets... the world may just believe whatever they may want to believe regarding these major military stuffs incl. the J-20 and many other prime assets... every one here can only guess guess then guess... thus to be deadly sure of anything about this J-20 let alone ridicule others is rather silly, IMO. Best perhaps to rest the case and switch the focus to other visible aspects

For me and many others perhaps the silent majority here, we are more interested to see the obvious ones and some other developments that can not be hidden... which are open to the many eyes to see.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> @Asoka is trying very hard possibly too hard trying to convince some others that the J-20 _*indeed has higher value*_ than what it's perceived at present; while some other members do not agree at all and steadily keep holding on the J-20's current nominal value as they perceive... and the exchanges look like the exchange of the FAITH / RELIGION matters that won't come into agreement even it sheds the blood....
> ...



Agreed, but IMO a nearly-religious belief in "everything has to be superior than others" claim even if contrary proof is on the table while at the same time taking everything else down as "a wish to look these achievements small" does not bode well to get a realistic perception of that fighter. And I'm sure, no-one here not even the biggest skeptics rate the value that low.

Anyway ... where are new images? 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> Agreed, but IMO a nearly-religious belief in "everything has to be superior than others" claim even if contrary proof is on the table while at the same time taking everything else down as "a wish to look these achievements small" does not bode well to get a realistic perception of that fighter. And I'm sure, no-one here not even the biggest skeptics rate the value that low.
> 
> Anyway ... where are new images?
> 
> Deino


@Deino
why closed the engine thread again？


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> @Deino
> why closed the engine thread again？




Really ??? It wasn't me !

But I just checked ... it is open.


----------



## Asoka

samsara said:


> @Asoka is trying very hard possibly too hard trying to convince some others that the J-20 _*indeed has higher value*_ than what it's perceived at present; while some other members do not agree at all and steadily keep holding on the J-20's current nominal value as they perceive... and the exchanges look like the exchange of the FAITH / RELIGION matters that won't come into agreement even it sheds the blood....
> 
> Only time will be the true testimony which side is right and wrong (overrate; underrate; standard rate --- no one is sure 100%)...and IF ONLY new info is released as time goes by... and as far as concerning the Chinese interests this matter is not relevant at all!! They won't release and disclose all information to tell the world what's the true state of their jet fighter...China does not need such recognition for the crucial assets... the world may just believe whatever they may want to believe regarding these major military stuffs incl. the J-20 and many other prime assets... every one here can only guess guess then guess... thus to be deadly sure of anything about this J-20 let alone ridicule others is rather silly, IMO. Best perhaps to rest the case and switch the focus to other visible aspects
> 
> For me and many others perhaps the silent majority here, we are more interested to see the obvious ones and some other developments that can not be hidden... which are open to the many eyes to see.


*

"the exchanges look like the exchange of the FAITH / RELIGION matters that won't come into agreement even it sheds the blood"
*
Somebody is indeed getting the poison of blind faith into their blood. Someone, like @Figaro, repeatedly refered to some individuals as *"big shrimps"* used their words like gospels, and probably worship them as gods.

At first, I didn't get what *"big shrimps"* was in Chinese, then it occurs to me, its *"大神"*, literally, it means *"Great God"*. No wonder, some westerners are so worshipful toward those Chinese *"Big Shrimps"*.

They are cult mongers.

They have done the same to the Indian gurus in the 1960's and 1970's, and worshiped them as gods, reincarnated.
*
"Only time will be the true testimony which side is right and wrong "*

I am not sure, the exact value of the empty weight and engine thrust, by just looking at a picture or video, but about the length, width, and size of an aircraft, looking at it and make comparison, is what the experts do all the time.

It's entirely a valid procedure, if done properly. I don't know why some people would rather accept the estimates from an extremely blurry satellite picture, than consider my estimates from two high resolution, very clear pictures.

*"Asoka is trying very hard, possibly too hard, trying to convince some others"*

That might be true. Guilt as charged, sir.

*"They won't release and disclose all information to tell the world what's the true state of their jet fighter"*

Not likely, True. Since US hasn't released many sensitive informations regarding F-22, either, even after 25 years. I won't hold my breath on China's secretive military to release any sensitive data. They haven't even officially release engine model yet, except that CCTV program.

*"thus to be deadly sure of anything about this J-20, let alone ridicule others, is rather silly, IMO."*

Ridicules, laughters, . . . possibly hate and hair pulling, when they read my posts. I get that a lot, here.

Thanks a lot for your moral support, samsara.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Agreed, but IMO a nearly-religious belief in "everything has to be superior than others" claim even if contrary proof is on the table while at the same time taking everything else down as "a wish to look these achievements small" does not bode well to get a realistic perception of that fighter. And I'm sure, no-one here not even the biggest skeptics rate the value that low.
> 
> Anyway ... where are new images?
> 
> Deino


There’s no need to counter @Asoka. He is clearly delusional and gives absolutely no credence on the facts, instead insisting on his own “observations”


----------



## Deino

Zhu Rong Zheng Yang said:


> It seems this picture has not been posted yet.
> 
> View attachment 426847



Actually it has already. It is just a cut-out part of this one:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

According to Bill Sweetman:

*The J-20 is a big aircraft. Although its overall length (around 66 ft.) is not much greater than that of the 62-ft. Lockheed Martin F-22, the main structure from nose to exhaust nozzles is considerably longer.*

http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-does-stealth

So we can conclude that the J-20's fuselage is larger (and heavier) than the F-22. I assume nobody is disputing this.

Deino's estimate puts the J-20's wingspan at 13.47m.

We know the F-22's wingspan is 13.56m.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

We can also see that the leading edges of the J-20's main wings are swept further back than the F-22.

That means the CAC engineers decided to build an aircraft that is considerably larger than the F-22, but with tiny little wings (relative to the J-20 fuselage).

Anyone want to guess why they would do such a thing?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

J-20 Skyhunter






Another image ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

From bill sweetman's article below:

"*The big difference, however, is that the J-20 is 9.5 ft. (17%) longer than the F-22, from the nose to the engine nozzles. Most of this is in the widest part of the fuselage, and since the weapon bays are similar in size, it is almost all available for fuel. It is a reasonable estimate that the J-20 could have as much as 40% more internal fuel capacity than the F-22. The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag."*

*J-20 Stealth Fighter Design Balances Speed And Agility. by - Bill sweetman, Aviationweek
Unique J-20 could fit anti-access role.*

Chengdu’s J-20 stealth fighter represents the pinnacle of China’s aerospace engineering, but its existence and development have posed mysteries since the unexpected appearance of the first prototype at the end of 2010, followed in May 2012 by the debut of a second, similar aircraft. The past few months, however, have seen the first flights of a pair of significantly different J-20s, identified by the serial Nos. 2011 and 2012.

The most substantial design change in the new aircraft appears to be that the fuselage aft of the main landing gear is a bit more slender, with a deeper tunnel in the undersurface between the engines. The tailbooms that extend aft of the all-moving vertical tails are longer, and the lower fixed stabilizers are moved aft. The trailing-edge tips of the vertical tails and canards are cropped, and the leading-edge root extensions are straight rather than curved.

The top line of the outer wall of the diverterless supersonic inlet has been drooped, and the landing gear doors changed: The main doors now close after the gear has extended and the nose landing gear door has been reshaped. The F-22-style one-piece frameless canopy on the early aircraft has given way to a separate windshield and canopy, the latter with detonation cord to shatter the canopy for ejection. What appears to be a housing for an infrared search and track system has been added below the nose, and a missile-warning sensor fairing installed below the aft fuselage.

The new variant aircraft appeared slightly more than three years after the first flight of No. 2001, so some of the changes may reflect lessons from flight testing. Other changes represent a move toward a production or pre-production design. So far, there have been few indications as to when the J-20 will enter service: The Pentagon, in its latest annual report to Congress, says it is unlikely to be operational before 2018.

However, the appearance of the new aircraft tends to confirm that the design has proved sound so far; all four prototypes are now reported to be at Yanliang air base in Xian, the Chinese air force’s main test site. The question now is what role the J-20—which is not only the first Chinese stealth fighter but the largest tactical aircraft built in China—will perform in the future force.

Close examination of the J-20 shows it has no direct analogue in the West or in Russia. The dimensions can be estimated accurately from open-source satellite images, but its characteristics are sometimes mis-assessed through a focus on overall size. Details of avionics and materials remain uncertain.

The J-20’s wing and control surface layout is very different from that of the Lockheed Martin F-22, but the body layout is quite similar, with twin main weapon bays under the belly and side bays for rail-launched air-to-air missiles (AAMs), all located under and outside the inlet ducts. On both aircraft, the main landing gear is housed in the fuselage behind the weapon bays and the engines are close together. *The big difference, however, is that the J-20 is 9.5 ft. (17%) longer than the F-22, from the nose to the engine nozzles. Most of this is in the widest part of the fuselage, and since the weapon bays are similar in size, it is almost all available for fuel. It is a reasonable estimate that the J-20 could have as much as 40% more internal fuel capacity than the F-22. The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag.*

Despite the larger body, the empty weight of the J-20 may be close to that of the F-22, largely because it has less-powerful engines without the heavy two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles of the F-22’s F119s. The J-20 prototypes are believed to be flying with United Engine Corp. (UEC) AL-31F engines. The thrust difference between the two designs is very large: The F-22 has almost as much power in intermediate thrust as the J-20 does in full afterburner, although newer versions of the UEC AL-31/117S/117 could close the gap in later versions of the Chinese aircraft.

The conventional circular nozzles and the aft-body shape are less conducive to stealth than the F-22, as is the case with the T-50. This is most likely a conscious decision because a fast aircraft can tolerate a higher radar cross-section in the aft quadrant. While some observers have suggested that canards are incompatible with stealth, an engineer who was active in Lockheed Martin’s early Joint Strike Fighter efforts says the final quad-tail configuration was no stealthier than the earlier canard-delta design. 

A detailed Chinese technical paper published in 2001 by Song Wencong, designer of the Chengdu J-10, points to key aerodynamic features of the J-20. The paper addresses the design of a fighter with a delta wing, canards and leading-edge root extensions (Lerxes), and discusses how the three interact. The J-20, unlike the J-10, has a broad body and the canard and wing are not close-coupled. However, according to the paper, the Lerx and canard, used together and in combination with a high degree of instability, can achieve maximum lift coefficients that are as high if not higher than those from a close-coupled canard.

The paper also discusses the vertical stabilizer design of a stealth configuration with outward-canted surfaces. Fixed, canted tails are exposed to powerful crossflows at high angles of attack, because of the formation of vortices from the wings and canard. The result is that the tails can develop powerful moments, and because the tails are canted, those forces will include pitch-up moments. One way to resolve this, the paper notes, is to use smaller, all-moving surfaces. The J-20 resembles the Sukhoi T-50 in being directionally unstable, and is actively controlled with the all-moving verticals. Song’s paper also says the canard layout provides positive post-stall recovery, without the use of thrust vectoring.

The paper identifies supersonic cruise as a requirement for a next-generation fighter and often refers to the need to reduce supersonic drag. The J-20’s supercruise performance will nevertheless be strongly affected by engine technology. China may well hope to acquire or emulate the technology being developed by Russia for the Su-35S and T-50. UEC’s 117S engine, developed for the Su-35S, is more powerful than the AL-31F (32,000 lb. maximum versus 27,500 lb. for the basic AL-31F) and has a digital control system. The T-50’s 117 engine is similar to the 117S, but it is further uprated to 33,000 lb. thrust, and according to a UEC engineer, the hot-end temperature limits are increased, to allow the engine to sustain maximum non-afterburning thrust to higher speeds. However, the J-20 will not match the F-22’s thrust-to-weight ratio, even with an engine equivalent to the 117.

The J-20’s weapon arrangement is similar to the F-22, except that the ventral bays are shorter and narrower, and are apparently capable of accommodating only four weapons the size of the SD-10 AAM. However, they do appear large enough to accommodate bigger folding-wing missiles—and China is reported to be negotiating to buy the Russian Kh-58UShKE, a Mach 4 anti-radar missile that is also intended for internal carriage on the T-50. 

The side missile bays differ from those of the F-22 in that the doors can be closed after the missile rail has been extended, and have been seen with a missile—or test shape—with low-aspect-ratio wings and folding tails. So far, no gun has been seen on J-20s, nor has there been a sign of provision for one.

The J-20 design, therefore, is an air-to-air fighter with an emphasis on forward-aspect stealth, efficient high-speed aerodynamics and range, with a modest internal payload and more than adequate agility for self-defense. The aircraft has considerable potential for development, because of its currently unsophisticated engines. But it is also large and expensive, and continued development of the J-10B shows that China plans to maintain a high-low mix of fighters for a long time to come.

This concept fits very well into an anti-access/area-denial strategy given China’s regional geography and the fact that the nation’s military and geopolitical ambitions are focused on the China Sea and its surrounding island chains. The U.S. has committed its armed forces to concentrate much of their funding on tactical fighters with a combat radius of 600 mi., much less than the distance from their bases to targets on the Chinese mainland, and has persuaded its allies to do the same.

As a result, operations are almost entirely dependent on two groups of aircraft: tankers and large intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft with long endurance. Under the “distributed control” concept favored by U.S. Air Force commanders as a hedge against electronic warfare, including cyberattacks, the ISR aircraft also have a control-and-communicationsfunction. However, both tankers and ISR aircraft are vulnerable to attack, and maintaining a defensive combat air patrol (CAP) over them at long range is also difficult.

The J-20’s primary mission, therefore, may be to use stealth and speed to break through the CAP and threaten vital tankers and ISR platforms. Its range gives it a “long lance” advantage—if the tankers, ISR aircraft and escorts have to stay out of the J-20’s range, the tactical aircraft that they support will not have the airborne radar cover or range needed to reach their targets.

Also, an anti-radar missile would give the J-20 some capability against shipping, even with internal weapons. China’s new CM-400AKG and YJ-12 high-speed antiship missiles will not fit the J-20’s weapon bays, but could probably be carried under the wings, and future internal weapons will increase its offensive capacity.

In a very broad sense, the J-20 could turn out to be an analogue to the Soviet-era Tu-22M2/3 Backfire bomber—an efficient and practical blend of low-risk technologies that generates options for its users and difficult problems for its adversaries. 


- translation of Dr Song's thesis courtesy of siegecrossbow@SDF

*"We can also see that the leading edges of the J-20's main wings are swept further back than the F-22.

That means the CAC engineers decided to build an aircraft that is considerably larger than the F-22, but with tiny little wings (relative to the J-20 fuselage).

Anyone want to guess why they would do such a thing?"*

They are all done to lower supersonic drag, which increases drastically once approaching Mach 0.8.
* 
"The longer body will also improve fineness ratio, with benefits for transonic drag." --bill sweetman*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

j20blackdragon said:


> According to Bill Sweetman:
> 
> *The J-20 is a big aircraft. Although its overall length (around 66 ft.) is not much greater than that of the 62-ft. Lockheed Martin F-22, the main structure from nose to exhaust nozzles is considerably longer.*
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-does-stealth
> 
> So we can conclude that the J-20's fuselage is larger (and heavier) than the F-22. I assume nobody is disputing this.
> 
> Deino's estimate puts the J-20's wingspan at 13.47m.
> 
> We know the F-22's wingspan is 13.56m.
> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html
> 
> We can also see that the leading edges of the J-20's main wings are swept further back than the F-22.
> 
> That means the CAC engineers decided to build an aircraft that is considerably larger than the F-22, but with tiny little wings (relative to the J-20 fuselage).
> 
> Anyone want to guess why they would do such a thing?



Both the J-20 and Eurofighter Typhoon are canard delta designs. Both are relatively modern designs.

However, one aircraft clearly has more wing area relative to the size of the fuselage.










Why did the J-20 designers put such tiny wings on the aircraft?

Would you design an aircraft like this? Why?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

j20blackdragon said:


> Both the J-20 and Eurofighter Typhoon are canard delta designs. Both are relatively modern designs.
> 
> However, one aircraft clearly has more wing area relative to the size of the fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the J-20 designers put such tiny wings on the aircraft?
> 
> Would you design an aircraft like this? Why?


The J-20’s wingspan is roughly the same as the F-22 ... dunnno what ure talking about. You’re just making yourself sound more ignorant with each and every post . Using words like “tiny” makes you sound like a petty ten year old.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Figaro said:


> The J-20’s wingspan is roughly the same as the F-22 ...



Do you know what wing loading is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

j20blackdragon said:


> Do you know what wing loading is?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading


We're talking about wingspan right now ... this is perhaps the best way quantifiably to compare how "small" or "large" wings are ... we can also use wing area if you'd like. The J-20 is roughly similar in size to the F-22 ... don't know why you bring this up.



j20blackdragon said:


> Do you know what wing loading is?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading


And if you're ranting on and on about the "long" appearance of the J-20's fuselage ... it is to reduce supersonic and transonic drag. Also, it provides the J-20 with more internal fuel.


----------



## ozranger

j20blackdragon said:


> Both the J-20 and Eurofighter Typhoon are canard delta designs. Both are relatively modern designs.
> 
> However, one aircraft clearly has more wing area relative to the size of the fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the J-20 designers put such tiny wings on the aircraft?
> 
> Would you design an aircraft like this? Why?



The J-20's wing span serves better supersonic maneuver, which was purposely decided by the designer. The loss of lift from the relatively small wings, when in subsonic and transonic regimes, is being offset by the lift from the vortex generated by the leading edge root extensions (LERX) behind the canards. One of the design key point of the LERX shape and position is direct the left and right vortex to meet and join together above the fuselage and hence create a low air pressure area to lift up the fuselage further.

Typhoon is well known for its good supersonic maneuver even though it's still inferior to F-22 in regards to supersonic performance. But, same with canard delta configuration, J-20 is even further optimized for supersonic maneuver while trying to maintain acceptable subsonic and transonic performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

ozranger said:


> The J-20's wing span serves better supersonic maneuver, which was purposely decided by the designer.



Yes, I agree. Supersonic maneuver *and in my opinion supercruise.*



ozranger said:


> The loss of lift from the relatively small wings, when in subsonic and transonic regimes



Yes.



ozranger said:


> J-20 is even further optimized for supersonic maneuver while trying to maintain acceptable subsonic and transonic performance.



Yes.

The J-20's inherent design puts it at an advantage at high speeds, and at a disadvantage at low speeds. You can't be optimized for everything. All aircraft design is a compromise.

Furthermore, supersonic maneuver combined with the J-20's large fuselage means MASSIVE ENERGY LOSS. Therefore, high thrust to weight ratio is desired, i.e. you need sufficient engines to make this design work.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

ozranger said:


> The J-20's wing span serves better supersonic maneuver, which was purposely decided by the designer. The loss of lift from the relatively small wings, when in subsonic and transonic regimes, is being offset by the lift from the vortex generated by the leading edge root extensions (LERX) behind the canards. One of the design key point of the LERX shape and position is direct the left and right vortex to meet and join together above the fuselage and hence create a low air pressure area to lift up the fuselage further.
> 
> Typhoon is well known for its good supersonic maneuver even though it's still inferior to F-22 in regards to supersonic performance. But, same with canard delta configuration, J-20 is even further optimized for supersonic maneuver while trying to maintain acceptable subsonic and transonic performance.




J-20 don't have a small wing. It's wingspan is about the same as F-22's. And swept back at about the same angle to maximize supersonic performance.

*At 6.63m (vs J-20's 13.47m) *, the F-104 has ridiculously small wingspan and wind surface area. It is noted for ridiculous fast acceleration and dangerous tendency that killed many new pilots.

"The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is a single-engine, supersonic interceptor aircraft which later ...... Crew: 1; Length: 54 ft 8 in (16.66 m); *Wingspan: 21 ft 9 in (6.63 m)*; Height: 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m); Wing area: 196.1 sq ft (18.22 m2); Airfoil: Biconvex ..."

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 星海军事

The world's largest integral titanium alloy frame.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Asoka

j20blackdragon said:


> Both the J-20 and Eurofighter Typhoon are canard delta designs. Both are relatively modern designs.
> 
> However, one aircraft clearly has more wing area relative to the size of the fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the J-20 designers put such tiny wings on the aircraft?
> 
> Would you design an aircraft like this? Why?



The enormous size difference between the Euro Typhoon and J-20.

*Crew:* 1 (operational aircraft) or 2 (training aircraft)
*Length:* 15.96 m (52.4 ft)
*Wingspan:* 10.95 m (35.9 ft)
*Height:* 5.28 m (17.3 ft)
*Wing area:* 51.2 m²[388] (551 sq ft)
*Empty weight:* 11,000 kg[389][N 6] (24,000 lb)
*Loaded weight:* 16,000 kg[390][N 7] (35,270 lb)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 23,500 kg[388] (51,800 lb)
*Fuel capacity:* 5,000 kg (11,020 lb) internal[391][392]
*Powerplant:* 2 × Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
*Dry thrust:* 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each
*Thrust with af*

We know the length of J-20 from nose to tailboom is: 21.76, and nose to canted vertical tail tips is:22.3m, and wingspan is:13.47m






J-20 and Typhoon Nose to Nozzle Difference: *6.3m*, which is more than that of difference between J-20 and F-22's *4.4m*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

Another FYJS drawing of 2021 ... it appears to have the sawtooth nozzles. 




http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1882221-1-1.html



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If there would be a 2D flat nozzle version for the J-20 in the near future, then it would definitely destroy the previous WS-15 theory.
> 
> Otherwise, nobody can easily tell which one is the WS-15, which one is not, unless the WS-15 got the 2D flat nozzle which can be easily distinguished.


If it has even 2D thrust vectoring on 2021, we shall see very soon when it performs aerial maneuvers. I'm of the kind that TVC isn't necessary but it would one bonus to the J-20's subsonic maneuverability if the latter does indeed incorporate it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ozranger

j20blackdragon said:


> Furthermore, supersonic maneuver combined with the J-20's large fuselage means MASSIVE ENERGY LOSS. Therefore, high thrust to weight ratio is desired, i.e. you need sufficient engines to make this design work.



Nope. J-20's fuselage is not bigger than other heavy fighters. Most people witnessing a real J-20 in Chengdu or Zhuhai said it's quite thin (I'd rather say it is relatively thin). While it is definitely not short, they described it as sort of "like a pencil".

Also J-20 is not a highly energy bleeding plane. All the J-20 performance we have seen so far showed that intervals between turns or climbs are pretty short without significant speed or altitude loss. Most of the time the climbs are rapid and steep as witnesses described the J-20 climbed like a rocket, which means that it maintains or regains energy even better than quite a lot of generation 4 fighters in low speeds. I for myself noticed that from quite a few YouTube videos that it was accelerating during the vertical climbs and showing it's gaining energy even when its climbing.

Don't mess it up with generation 4 fighter demos you usually see from the airshows. Most of them are doing eye catching tight turns with heavy energy loss that they normally end up with a long acceleration flight for regaining the energy. Those aircraft will not fly that way in real battles with stupid tight turns all around though.

The fighter demo which mostly impresses me with hints of heavy energy bleeding is the F-35 demo at Paris airshow. Every session of turns or rolls started after a required vertical climb. Yes it was able to climb vertically because the fuel it was carrying only half filled the tank or even less. But what's the point to have all its subsequent maneuvers only bleed energy until it is fully dried out without any sign of recovery? They seemed to put F-35 over there just to prove that it is a very sluggish plane when in normal flights with normal payloads.

Regarding super sonic performance, I don't know if J-20 can do supersonic cruise or not, but there is no problem on supersonic maneuver as its relatively large length/width ratio puts nearly all the fuselage behind the shock wave when flying supersonic. Supersonic performance optimization even applies to details such as the pointing direction of the actuator fairings under each wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

ozranger said:


> Nope. J-20's fuselage is not bigger than other heavy fighters. Most people witnessing a real J-20 in Chengdu or Zhuhai said it's quite thin (I'd rather say it is relatively thin), while it is definitely not short, and describe it as sort of "like a pencil".
> 
> Also J-20 is not a highly energy bleeding plane. All the J-20 performance we have seen so far showed that intervals between turns or climbs are pretty short without significant speed or altitude loss. Most of the time the climbs are rapid and steep as witnesses described the J-20 climbed like a rocket, which means that it maintains or regains energy even better than quite a lot of generation 4 fighters in low speeds. I for myself noticed that from quite a few YouTube videos I have seen, that it was accelerating during the vertical climbs, which meas it's gaining energy even when its climbing.
> 
> Don't mess it up with generation 4 fighter demos you usually see from the airshows. Most of them are doing eye catching tight turns with heavy energy loss that they normally end up with a long acceleration flight for regaining the energy. Those aircraft will not fly that way in real battles with stupid tight turns all around though.
> 
> The fighter demo which mostly impresses me with hints of heavy energy bleeding is the F-35 demo at Paris airshow. Every session of turns or rolls started after a required vertical climb. Yes it was able to climb vertically because the fuel it was carrying only half filled the tank or even less. But what's the point to have all its subsequent maneuvers only bleed energy until it is fully dried out without any sign of recovery? They seemed to put F-35 over there just to prove that it is a very sluggish plane when in normal flights with normal payloads.
> 
> Regarding super sonic performance, I don't know if J-20 can do supersonic cruise or not, but there is no problem on supersonic maneuver as its relatively large length/width ratio puts nearly all the fuselage behind the shock wave when flying supersonic. Supersonic performance optimization even applies to details such as the pointing direction of the actuator fairings under each the wing.


He doesn't know what he's talking about. That black dragon guy still insists that the J-20 is a giant plane with tiny wings ... 10 year old logic.



ozranger said:


> The J-20's wing span serves better supersonic maneuver, which was purposely decided by the designer. The loss of lift from the relatively small wings, when in subsonic and transonic regimes, is being offset by the lift from the vortex generated by the leading edge root extensions (LERX) behind the canards. One of the design key point of the LERX shape and position is direct the left and right vortex to meet and join together above the fuselage and hence create a low air pressure area to lift up the fuselage further.
> 
> Typhoon is well known for its good supersonic maneuver even though it's still inferior to F-22 in regards to supersonic performance. But, same with canard delta configuration, J-20 is even further optimized for supersonic maneuver while trying to maintain acceptable subsonic and transonic performance.


J-20 pilot says both it's supersonic and subsonic maneuverability are very good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> Really ??? It wasn't me !
> 
> But I just checked ... it is open.


It may have been set authority but not to every person.


----------



## Figaro

aliaselin said:


> It may have been set authority but not to every person.


You're right, the engine thread is still closer for me. Weird.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> You're right, the engine thread is still closer for me. Weird.




Strange ????  I see it open on my control-board. 

Will check again.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Strange ????  I see it open on my control-board.
> 
> Will check again.


"Not open for further replies"


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Another FYJS drawing of 2021 ... it appears to have the sawtooth nozzles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1882221-1-1.html
> 
> 
> If it has even 2D thrust vectoring on 2021, we shall see very soon when it performs aerial maneuvers. I'm of the kind that TVC isn't necessary but it would one bonus to the J-20's subsonic maneuverability if the latter does indeed incorporate it.





Ohhh come on guys ... CAC, You once had such a good photographer available always posting images taken even from within the fence. Just one clear image of 2021 at best from the rear side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Ohhh come on guys ... CAC, You once had such a good photographer available always posting images taken even from within the fence. Just one clear image of 2021 at best from the rear side.


This was drawn by a different witness ... all but confirming the WS-10X serrated nozzles even without a clear photo


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> This was drawn by a different witness ... all but confirming the WS-10X serrated nozzles even without a clear photo




Yes, but You know the usual suspects will again say: "Without a clear image or it never happened!"


----------



## 星海军事

Figaro said:


> Another FYJS drawing of 2021 ... it appears to have the sawtooth nozzles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1882221-1-1.html
> 
> 
> If it has even 2D thrust vectoring on 2021, we shall see very soon when it performs aerial maneuvers. I'm of the kind that TVC isn't necessary but it would one bonus to the J-20's subsonic maneuverability if the latter does indeed incorporate it.



That's true. Even WS-15 adopts axisymmetric TVC nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

1.) Just as I thought I was done with figuring out the length and width of J-20, I have a persistent urge to verify and confirm, whether the actual wingspan of J-20 is: 13.47m, as stated in the blurry low resolution satellite picture.

2.) To improve the possibility of a better estimate, I took the blurry picture, which was only about 300 pixels across, and resized it to 800%.

3.) This would allow me to view the resultant picture, across my 27 Inch screen, in its new size, and apply the thinnest red lines, that the iMac Preview would allow.







4.) Using the J-15's wingspan of *14.7m* as scale, I resized the Metric meter, so the 14.7m falls exactly between the redlines of J-25's wingspan.

5.) I then copied the metric meter image and applied it to the J-20 wingspan.

6.) It yielded the new wingspan value of *14.0m* for J-20, which is about 58cm longer than the old value of *13.47m.*

7.) I noticed that J-20 was not parked exactly parallel to J-15, but slightly tilted to the left. So I used the Pythagorean theorem to adjust the value to *14.05m*.

8.) J-15's wingspan is indeed longer than J-20's wingspan, but its only 0.42m longer, not 1.10m.

9.) The new wingspan values still have rooms for doubts or improvement, since the estimate is based on original low resolution satellite picture, that is extremely blurry.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

看到了，你确定这个董玉玺就是航展接受采访的那个董工吗？
下面这些话是这个董工的采访记录，这是一个航发工程师能说出来的话？

tp://www.ycwb.com/ePaper/ycwb/html/2014-11/13/content_579814.htm?div=-1

记者：12000KGF-14000KGF有什么含义？
老董：这是说明太行发展了很多种机型，我们最好的发动机已经达到14000公斤的推力。（苏35的发动机推力为14500公斤）
记者：达到这样的推力，就是说太行发动机与苏35的发动机推力大致相当了？
老董：是的，而且我们还在向前发展，这几年一直在完善和发展。这是最新的涡扇10发动机，已经定型了。
记者：它已经量产了吗？
老董：已经大批量装上歼10B、歼11B和运20。
记者：为什么歼10，比如八一飞行表演队的歼10用的还是俄罗斯的发动机呢？
老董：中国购买了那么多俄罗斯的发动机，还有已经装上的俄罗斯发动机还没到寿命，当然还要用呵。
记者：涡扇10在发动机寿命和稳定性方面与俄罗斯、美国三代机上的发动机比怎么样？
老董：这方面我们差一些，也可以说有较大的发展空间，比如说有些材料在科研单位的数据是不错的，但在实际应用时，还是不尽如人意，这就是研究航空发动机的难处，一个发动机要在相当长的时间内逐步完善它的稳定性，就算是美国也要十来年，而且还不算他们的预研阶段。
记者：网上有人质疑中国发动机不行，说太行发动机只有300小时的寿命，这是否属实？
老董：这个错大了，我们太行的寿命是1500小时，按照设计要求，300小时是定期维护。（林丹）
http://www.ycwb.com/ePaper/ycwb/html/2014-11/13/content_579813.htm?div=-1

Do you guys remember this interview with an employee working on the WS-10 in late 2014? Back then, the highest thrust (presumably the WS-10B or WS-10G) was already at 14,000 kgf. This was 3 years ago. I think that the J-20's WS-10X thrust is at least 14 tonnes (in line with what Pupu said) at this point, maybe even more to 14.5 tonnes given the large improvements over the past 3 years. It wouldn't surprise me if this WS-10B was indeed the IPE ... and we just don't know it yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

1.) By using the new wingspan estimate of 14.05m for J-20, I applied the same method to find the length as before.

2.) This yielded the following:

a.) Overall Length, J-20: 22.8m, F-22: 18.8m, *Difference: 4.0m, or 21.3% longer*
b.) Nose to Nozzle length, J-20: 21.7m, F-22: 16.7m, *Difference: 5.0m, or 29.94% longer*

*That is from nose to nozzle J-20 is 5 meters, or nearly 30% longer than F-22.*

Those extra 5 meters long fuselage could give J-20 enormous volume to store extra internal fuel.

The F-111's length is similar to J-20, but probably has wider fuselage, it has "Fuel tanks were distributed through the fuselage and in the wings, providing a total fuel load of over *19,000 liters (5,000 US gallons) or 18.56 tons*." --http://www.airvectors.net/avf111.html

Like F-22, F-111 and J-20 also have a large internal weapon bay, so the amount of space taken up for such purpose should be similar.

J-20 definitely has a much greater internal fuel capacity than F-22's *8 tons*. It's internal fuel capacity is probably in the range of *12-15 tons, or 50-87.5% more than F-22's 8 tons. *

This is not yet including the 4 external fuel tanks, which could add another 8 tons of fuel.

This is totally astounding and mind boggling.

Note the Combat Range of F-111 is *2,140km*, and Ferry range is: *6,760 km*, Max. Speed is: *Mach 2.5* . J-20's performance should be no less than that.

*F-111 **Performance*

*Maximum speed:* Mach 2.5 (1,650 mph, 2,655 km/h)
*Combat radius:* 1,330 mi (1,160 nmi, 2,140 km)
*Ferry range:* 4,200 mi (3,700 nmi, 6,760 km)
*Service ceiling:* 66,000 ft (20,100 m)
*Rate of climb:* 25,890 ft/min (131.5 m/s)
*Wing loading:* ** *Spread:* 126.0 lb/ft² (615.2 kg/m²)
*Swept:* 158 lb/ft² (771 kg/m²)

*Thrust/weight:* 0.61

*Lift-to-drag ratio:* 15.8
*Powerplant:* 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100
Lat turbofans

*Dry thrust:* 17,900 lbf (79.6 kN) each
*Thrust with afterburner:* 25,100 lbf (112 kN) each
J-20 will be powered by two an amazingly powerful engines, *WS-15*, capable of, at least *210kN, * of Maximum thrust, which is *100kN* more than F-111's PW TF30-P-100's *112 kN*.

I would bet J-20 and F-22 (because of their powerful engines, and highly aerodynamic airframes, with high lift-to-drag ratio) will be able to fly a lot faster's F-111's top speed of *Mach 2.5 *(F-111's highly swept back wings, allow it to have this kind of super fast performance).

Because of it long and slender shape, J-20 could possibly *capable of cruising, beyond Mach 3.0*, with its afterburner turned on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

OMG .. Asoka again at his best.

+210 kN minimum thrust... Mach 3....

OMG


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> OMG .. Asoka again at his best.
> 
> +210 kN minimum thrust... Mach 3....
> 
> OMG




Cruising near *Mach 2.0*, w/o AB, and cruising near or above *Mach 3*, with AB on.

There is a very good reason, why USAF won't disclose, the maximum speed of F-22, and keep it classified, because the top speed of F-22, could be shockingly high. If a F-15 and F-111 could do Mach 2.5, over 4-5 decades ago, F-22 could definitely go much faster, if it could supercruise, w/o AB, at Mach 1.6+.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> Cruising near *Mach 2.0*, w/o AB, and cruising near or above *Mach 3*, with AB on.
> 
> There is a very good reason, why USAF won't disclose, the maximum speed of F-22, and keep it classified, because the top speed of F-22, could be shockingly high. If a F-15 and F-111 could do Mach 2.5, over 4-5 decades ago, F-22 could definitely go faster.


@Asoka as per your theory both F-22 and J-20 can't maneuver at the top speed because increase in speed reduced capability of agility and maneuverability remember the SR-71 which had cruised at MACH-3 and its had a excess IR signature at this speed *lost of purpose of stealth* and you're just assuming that if you have valid source please provide us,your F-15 and F-111 theory is valid that doesn't mean F-22 and J-20's top speed is above mach 2.5 and not to forget at above mach 2.5 jet engine have turbine and compressor problems starting within the engine like MIG-31 have


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> OMG .. Asoka again at his best.
> 
> +210 kN minimum thrust... Mach 3....
> 
> OMG


I regrettably ignored him ... since then, this thread has seemed to calm down



pakistanipower said:


> @Asoka as per your theory both F-22 and J-20 can't maneuver at the top speed because increase in speed reduced capability of agility and maneuverability remember the SR-71 which had cruised at MACH-3 and its had a excess IR signature at this speed *lost of purpose of stealth* and you're just assuming that if you have valid source please provide us,your F-15 and F-111 theory is valid that doesn't mean F-22 and J-20's top speed is above mach 2.5 and not to forget at above mach 2.5 jet engine have turbine and compressor problems starting within the engine like MIG-31 have


You’re wasting your time here ... he ain’t gonna listen to you at all.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> You’re wasting your time here ... he ain’t gonna listen to you at all.


i'm trying to correct him from his falsehood


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> i'm trying to correct him from his falsehood


How can you correct him if he refuses to believe?


----------



## Asoka

Someone has said stealth plane can't fly at Mach 3?

I guess some people never heard of "High Temperature Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing materials."

I already posted this on Jan 7, 2017.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-499#post-9078781

*High Temperature Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing materials.
高温吸波材料基体的研究*
http://mmwqz.com/960261163/

This new class of *Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing Materials is High Temperature heat resistance, anti-oxidation, high strength and fracture resistant*.

In contrast to polymer based materials, this class of materials must be baked in high temperature oven. This is different from the applied (涂覆型 ) absorbing polymer rubbery materials, which could be easily damaged by rain, heat, sands, or even just by stepping on it.

This over come the heat problem that prevents radar absorbing materials to be use on missiles, inside the jet engine nozzle, and high speed aircrafts.

This class highly heat resistant materials could also forms a barrier to prevent high heat from entering the skin of the aircraft and damage the internal structure or delicate electronics equipments inside it.

http://www.yhclgy.com/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2276&flag=1
*Current Study of High Temperature Radar Absorbing Materials
高温吸波材料研究现状*

http://www.hgxx.org/News_View.aspx?id=415
*高温吸波材料研究新进展与趋势*

One of the paper I read said those High Temperature Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing Material could withstand 600C degree celsius, which is more than enough for cruising at Mach 3.

https://www.space.com/16666-*sr-71-blackbird*.html:

"The aircraft (SR-71, Blackbird) was also covered with *a special black paint to absorb radar, radiate excess heat* and to camouflage the aircraft against dark skies — a feature that inspired Air Force to give it the official "Blackbird" name.

Titanium skin helped protect the aircraft's aluminum airframe from the intense heat of supersonic flight. Temperatures ranged from *450 degrees F* (*232 C*) near the back part of the aircraft to *950 degrees F* (*510 C*) near the engine exhaust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Nice

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


> Nice


J-20B? Too bad no backside ...


----------



## Michael Corleone

basically, carbon titanium based composites?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## leapx

Figaro said:


> J-20B? Too bad no backside ...



probably just different angle or a new painting


----------



## leapx

Mohammed Khaled said:


> basically, carbon titanium based composites?



I dont know what carbon titanium based composites is.
there was some discussion about material used in J-20
20% titanium，29% composites.


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> 1.) Just as I thought I was done with figuring out the length and width of J-20, I have a persistent urge to verify and confirm, whether the actual wingspan of J-20 is: 13.47m, as stated in the blurry low resolution satellite picture.
> 
> 2.) To improve the possibility of a better estimate, I took the blurry picture, which was only about 300 pixels across, and resized it to 800%.
> 
> 3.) This would allow me to view the resultant picture, across my 27 Inch screen, in its new size, and apply the thinnest red lines, that the iMac Preview would allow.
> 
> View attachment 427129
> 
> 
> 4.) Using the J-15's wingspan of *14.7m* as scale, I resized the Metric meter, so the 14.7m falls exactly between the redlines of J-25's wingspan.
> 
> 5.) I then copied the metric meter image and applied it to the J-20 wingspan.
> 
> 6.) It yielded the new wingspan value of *14.0m* for J-20, which is about 58cm longer than the old value of *13.47m.*
> 
> 7.) I noticed that J-20 was not parked exactly parallel to J-15, but slightly tilted to the left. So I used the Pythagorean theorem to adjust the value to *14.05m*.
> 
> 8.) J-15's wingspan is indeed longer than J-20's wingspan, but its only 0.42m longer, not 1.10m.
> 
> 9.) The new wingspan values still have rooms for doubts or improvement, since the estimate is based on original low resolution satellite picture, that is extremely blurry.



Intesting approach but why not simply calculating the J-20's length directly from this enlarged image?

IMO sizing the image to calculate span only to then resize and upscale another image adds a larger margin of error than to measure directly.



Figaro said:


> J-20B? Too bad no backside ...



A CG only.


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Intesting approach but why not simply calculating the J-20's length directly from this enlarged image?
> 
> IMO sizing the image to calculate span only to then resize and upscale another image adds a larger margin of error than to measure directly.
> 
> 
> 
> A CG only.




The wingspan is clearly delineated even in this blurry image, but the nose and nozzle area are simply too indistinct to apply the thin red lines.

Once, we got the wingspan, and assuming it stays the same, we could obtain the length from other pictures. I noticed that the later models has a longer tailboom, than version 2001.

So the overall length for the LRIP planes is actually *23m, which is the about same as the F-111, and the nose and nozzle measurement is about the same too. *

What a coincident!

Those Lockeed Engineers are no ordinary guys. They have figured out the optimum shape for a large, high speed, supersonic, twin engined fighter, over 50 years ago.

*F-111 General characteristics*


*Crew:* two (pilot and weapon systems officer)
*Length:* 73 ft 6 in (22.4 m)
*Wingspan:*
*Spread:* 63 ft (19.2 m)
*Swept:* 32 ft (9.75 m)

*Height:* 17.13 ft (5.22 m)
*Wing area:*
*Spread:* 657.4 sq ft (61.07 m²)
*Swept:* 525 sq ft (48.77 m²)

*Airfoil:* NACA 64-210.68 root, NACA 64-209.80 tip
*Empty weight:* 47,200 lb (21,400 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 82,800 lb (37,600 kg)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 100,000 lb (45,300 kg)
*Zero-lift drag coefficient:* 0.0186[177]
*Drag area:* 9.36 sq ft (0.87 m²)
*Aspect ratio:* spread: 7.56, swept: 1.95
*Powerplant:* 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 turbofans
*Dry thrust:* 17,900 lbf (79.6 kN) each
*Thrust with afterburner:* 25,100 lbf (112 kN) each

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> The wingspan is clearly delineated even in this blurry image, but the nose and nozzle area are simply too indistinct to apply the thin red lines.
> 
> Once, we got the wingspan, and assuming it stays the same, we could obtain the length from other pictures. I noticed that the later models has a longer tailboom, than version 2001.
> 
> So the overall length for the LRIP planes is actually *23m, which is the about same as the F-111, and the nose and nozzle measurement is about the same too. *
> 
> What a coincident!
> 
> Those Lockeed Engineers are no ordinary guys. They have figured out the optimum shape for a large, high speed, supersonic, twin engined fighter, over 50 years ago.




Honestly ... You are such an idiot !

The only reason - and in fact a very lame excuse - that You chose Your plain incorrect variant was, since it again fit's nicely Your mega-long version.

Even if a direct measurement from that grainy image would include an error it would never ever result in a length larger than the J-15 exactly standing a few meters aside ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## leapx

Asoka said:


> View attachment 427130
> 
> 
> 1.) By using the new wingspan estimate of 14.05m for J-20, I applied the same method to find the length as before.
> 
> 2.) This yielded the following:
> 
> a.) Overall Length, J-20: 22.8m, F-22: 18.8m, *Difference: 4.0m, or 21.3% longer*
> b.) Nose to Nozzle length, J-20: 21.7m, F-22: 16.7m, *Difference: 5.0m, or 29.94% longer*
> 
> *That is from nose to nozzle J-20 is 5 meters, or nearly 30% longer than F-22.*
> 
> Those extra 5 meters long fuselage could give J-20 enormous volume to store extra internal fuel.
> 
> The F-111's length is similar to J-20, but probably has wider fuselage, it has "Fuel tanks were distributed through the fuselage and in the wings, providing a total fuel load of over *19,000 liters (5,000 US gallons) or 18.56 tons*." --http://www.airvectors.net/avf111.html
> 
> Like F-22, F-111 and J-20 also have a large internal weapon bay, so the amount of space taken up for such purpose should be similar.
> 
> J-20 definitely has a much greater internal fuel capacity than F-22's *8 tons*. It's internal fuel capacity is probably in the range of *12-15 tons, or 50-87.5% more than F-22's 8 tons. *
> 
> This is not yet including the 4 external fuel tanks, which could add another 8 tons of fuel.
> 
> This is totally astounding and mind boggling.
> 
> Note the Combat Range of F-111 is *2,140km*, and Ferry range is: *6,760 km*, Max. Speed is: *Mach 2.5* . J-20's performance should be no less than that.
> 
> *F-111 **Performance*
> 
> *Maximum speed:* Mach 2.5 (1,650 mph, 2,655 km/h)
> *Combat radius:* 1,330 mi (1,160 nmi, 2,140 km)
> *Ferry range:* 4,200 mi (3,700 nmi, 6,760 km)
> *Service ceiling:* 66,000 ft (20,100 m)
> *Rate of climb:* 25,890 ft/min (131.5 m/s)
> *Wing loading:* ** *Spread:* 126.0 lb/ft² (615.2 kg/m²)
> *Swept:* 158 lb/ft² (771 kg/m²)
> 
> *Thrust/weight:* 0.61
> 
> *Lift-to-drag ratio:* 15.8
> *Powerplant:* 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100
> Lat turbofans
> 
> *Dry thrust:* 17,900 lbf (79.6 kN) each
> *Thrust with afterburner:* 25,100 lbf (112 kN) each
> J-20 will be powered by two an amazingly powerful engines, *WS-15*, capable of, at least *210kN, * of Maximum thrust, which is *100kN* more than F-111's PW TF30-P-100's *112 kN*.
> 
> I would bet J-20 and F-22 (because of their powerful engines, and highly aerodynamic airframes, with high lift-to-drag ratio) will be able to fly a lot faster's F-111's top speed of *Mach 2.5 *(F-111's highly swept back wings, allow it to have this kind of super fast performance).
> 
> Because of it long and slender shape, J-20 could possibly *capable of cruising, beyond Mach 3.0*, with its afterburner turned on.



Why do you assume 210KN？ I myself is an aero-engine engineer.I worked in a AVIC research institution for 5 years followed by 4 years as CFM56 engineer in a CFMI-sino maintenance shop. 210KN is a ridiculous number

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Honestly ... You are such an idiot !
> 
> *The only reason - and in fact a very lame excuse - that You chose Your plain incorrect variant was, since it again fit's nicely Your mega-long version.*
> 
> Even if a direct measurement from that grainy image would include an error it would never ever result in a length larger than the J-15 exactly standing a few meters aside ....



*"You chose Your plain incorrect variant was, since it again fit's nicely Your mega-long version."*

The new LRIP's model dimension is basically the same as the version 2001. The difference is that the LRIP has a noticeably longer tailboom extended past the canted vertical tail, and that gives it a slightly longer overall length.

The Nose and Nozzle length stays the same.






In the picture above, I did not copy and past an image of a metric ruler onto the J-20, since I can not rotate the ruler precisely to align with the red lines. iMac's Preview program only allows me to rotate left or right, not at a precise angle.

I basically measure the wingspan, nose and nozzle length, and overall length, with a tape measure, on my computer screen, and then compute their ratios and multiple it with the wingspan value of *14.05m.*

It's easy to see that the new LRIP birds have a longer tailboom than version 2001, so that its overall length has increased from to *22.8m to 23.06m*

*"Even if a direct measurement from that grainy image would include an error it would never ever result in a length larger than the J-15 exactly standing a few meters aside ...."*

As I have said before, The nose and nozzle areas are so indistinct, I have absolutely no confidence of the lengths, obtained from the satellite pictures.

I challenge everyone to verify the my findings, by using the wingspan of *14.05m* obtained from the satellite picture, and then use the same picture, I have used, and follow the same procedures, i have used, to obtain the lengths of J-20.

*Note: it's very important to keep the dimension, in the same proportion, as you resize a picture. Drag only by the corners, not along the width or length.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Deino said:


> OMG .. Asoka again at his best.
> 
> +210 kN minimum thrust... Mach 3....
> 
> OMG




But....there is more. "Long and slender" now equates to Mach 3 flight and he thinks the J-20 is slender 

The guy has never heard of a Mig-25. The aircraft is 'fat', and has suprinsingly week engines. The guy know zilch about aviation. He is making a mockery out of aviation and his claims are pure fanboy fantasy. His claims such 210km+ engines are nonsense, his claims that long and slender aircraft can reach Mach 3 is nonsense. 

The guy didn't even know what vertical stabilizers were when he saw the J-20 use them. Naturally he started bragging to everyone that the J-20 was doing some super unique maneuver when in fact it just used its vertical stabilizers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

leapx said:


> Why do you assume 210KN？ I myself is an aero-engine engineer.I worked in a AVIC research institution for 5 years followed by 4 years as CFM56 engineer in a CFMI-sino maintenance shop. 210KN is a ridiculous number


Oh good, I finally have someone, who knows jet engine, to talk about jet engines, with me. I hope you are honest with your qualifications. I have no formal training or working experiences, in aeronautical engineering. 

I am self-taught, by reading everything, I can find on jet engines and particularly WS-15, and my learning is only 1 year long, so far.

I have posted my reasoning on how I arrived at the figure 210kN, many times already. If you search "210kN" and posts made by me, you will have many hits.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

ptldM3 said:


> But....there is more. "Long and slender" now equates to Mach 3 flight and he thinks the J-20 is slender
> 
> The guy has never heard of a Mig-25. The aircraft is 'fat', and has suprinsingly week engines. The guy know zilch about aviation. He is making a mockery out of aviation and his claims are pure fanboy fantasy. His claims such 210km+ engines are nonsense, his claims that long and slender aircraft can reach Mach 3 is nonsense.
> 
> The guy didn't even know what vertical stabilizers were when he saw the J-20 use them. Naturally he started bragging to everyone that the J-20 was doing some super unique maneuver when in fact it just used its vertical stabilizers.


S


Deino said:


> Intesting approach but why not simply calculating the J-20's length directly from this enlarged image?
> 
> IMO sizing the image to calculate span only to then resize and upscale another image adds a larger margin of error than to measure directly.
> 
> 
> 
> A CG only.


It would be interesting if the CG had sawtooth nozzles like the WS-15 or WS-10X ...


----------



## leapx

Asoka said:


> Oh good, I finally have someone, who knows jet engine, to talk about jet engines, with me. I hope you are honest with your qualifications. I have no formal training or working experiences, in aeronautical engineering.
> 
> I am self-taught, by reading everything, I can find on jet engines and particularly WS-15, and my learning is only 1 year long, so far.
> 
> I have posted my reasoning on how I arrived at the figure 210kN, many times already. If you search "210kN" and posts made by me, you will have many hits.
> 
> View attachment 427485



I can not tell anything about my work in the research institutions. It may get me into trouble. but I try to tell something about CFM56 and why I think 210 KN is ridiculous.

CFM-56 engine can be used at different thrust rating.
CFM56-3 use hydraulic-mechanical control, thrust changing need to replace some parts.
CFM56-5&-7 use FADEC so no parts need to be replaced. there is a plug for engine definition connected to ECU(basic a control unit). Adjust the plug will tell the ECU how much thrust we want then computer will take care of everything.

What real the engine do is to adjust the fuel sprayed into the core engine，so to change the energy out of core engine , thus change the speed of Low pressure turbine. Low pressure turbine drive fan to produce most thrust.
For CFM56-7 , more than 75% thrust is produced by fan on ground.

I need to sleep now . I will try to answer on the J-20 engine thread if I get the time.


----------



## Asoka

leapx said:


> I can not tell anything about my work in the research institutions. It may get me into trouble. but I try to tell something about CFM56 and why I think 210 KN is ridiculous.
> 
> CFM-56 engine can be used at different thrust rating.
> CFM56-3 use hydraulic-mechanical control, thrust changing need to replace some parts.
> CFM56-5&-7 use FADEC so no parts need to be replaced. there is a plug for engine definition connected to ECU(basic a control unit). Adjust the plug will tell the ECU how much thrust we want then computer will take care of everything.
> 
> What real the engine do is to adjust the fuel sprayed into the core engine，so to change the energy out of core engine , thus change the speed of Low pressure turbine. Low pressure turbine drive fan to produce most thrust.
> For CFM56-7 , more than 75% thrust is produced by fan on ground.
> 
> I need to sleep now . I will try to answer on the J-20 engine thread if I get the time.




I don't know anything about CFM56, not even just casual reading about it. We are talking about WS-15 for J-20 here, not WS-10X.

210kN is actually not ridiculous enough. This is a lower bound estimate I got for WS-15. I am afraid to tell what's really in my mind, for spilling out China State Military secrets.

It takes nothing for them to find out who I am. Some days, I want to go back to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## leapx

Asoka said:


> I don't know anything about CFM56, not even just casual reading about it. We are talking about WS-15 for J-20 here, not WS-10X.
> 
> 210kN is actually not ridiculous enough. This is a lower bound estimate I got for WS-15. I am afraid to tell what's really in my mind, for spilling out China State Military secrets.
> 
> It takes nothing for them to find out who I am. Some days, I want to go back to China.



I am not just talk about CFM56, I try to tell you how to increase the thrust of an engine.
But you are too much being yourself.


----------



## Figaro

leapx said:


> I am not just talk about CFM56, I try to tell you how to increase the thrust of an engine.
> But you are too much being yourself.


Ignore him ... he won’t listen to you. Besides, he says 210kN is a “low” estimate, saying that 240 is more probable. As I say, he is delusional

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> 1.) Just as I thought I was done with figuring out the length and width of J-20, I have a persistent urge to verify and confirm, whether the actual wingspan of J-20 is: 13.47m, as stated in the blurry low resolution satellite picture.
> 
> 2.) To improve the possibility of a better estimate, I took the blurry picture, which was only about 300 pixels across, and resized it to 800%.
> 
> 3.) This would allow me to view the resultant picture, across my 27 Inch screen, in its new size, and apply the thinnest red lines, that the iMac Preview would allow.
> 
> View attachment 427129
> 
> 
> 4.) Using the J-15's wingspan of *14.7m* as scale, I resized the Metric meter, so the 14.7m falls exactly between the redlines of J-25's wingspan.
> 
> 5.) I then copied the metric meter image and applied it to the J-20 wingspan.
> 
> 6.) It yielded the new wingspan value of *14.0m* for J-20, which is about 58cm longer than the old value of *13.47m.*
> 
> 7.) I noticed that J-20 was not parked exactly parallel to J-15, but slightly tilted to the left. So I used the Pythagorean theorem to adjust the value to *14.05m*.
> 
> 8.) J-15's wingspan is indeed longer than J-20's wingspan, but its only 0.42m longer, not 1.10m.
> 
> 9.) The new wingspan values still have rooms for doubts or improvement, since the estimate is based on original low resolution satellite picture, that is extremely blurry.



Again; Your estimation is plain wrong and I think I only answer Your false estimation since it includes at least a good start.
So .. even if blurred and surely not exactly the same angle, I used Your fine-rotated J-20 and set it exactly besides the J-15. It seems as if this GE image seems to be a bit distorted in length to span, since given the span-calculation the J-15 should be 792 pixels long, what simply never fits.
Therefore I used the same scale in pan to calculate the J-20's span and the J-15's length to calculate the J-20's length, which in order to give a few feet by were set quite long behind the nozzle. I order to estimate the length I used a few characteristic shadows which must be angled the same and come to the following estimations/calculations:

Span 13.90m
Length 20.48m








FACT again: the J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Michael Corleone

leapx said:


> I dont know what carbon titanium based composites is.
> there was some discussion about material used in J-20
> 20% titanium，29% composites.


so it's not a fully composite based aircraft (superstructure and outer fuselage) like the f-22 or f-35?


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Again; Your estimation is plain wrong and I think I only answer Your false estimation since it includes at least a good start.
> So .. even if blurred and surely not exactly the same angle, I used Your fine-rotated J-20 and set it exactly besides the J-15. It seems as if this GE image seems to be a bit distorted in length to span, since given the span-calculation the J-15 should be 792 pixels long, what simply never fits.
> Therefore I used the same scale in pan to calculate the J-20's span and the J-15's length to calculate the J-20's length, which in order to give a few feet by were set quite long behind the nozzle. I order to estimate the length I used a few characteristic shadows which must be angled the same and come to the following estimations/calculations:
> 
> Span 13.90m
> Length 20.48m
> 
> View attachment 427493
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FACT again: the J-20



Your finding of the J-20's wingspan to be 13.9m, I have no problem with. The difference is within the error of margin with my finding of 14.05m.

I still have great reservations about, where to place the lines, on the nose and on the tail. It's just too blurry on those area. Sorry. I don't have any confidence on the lengths obtained from the satellite.

I am glad to see that you are trying to confirm or disprove my findings by actual researches.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> Your finding of the J-20's wingspan to be 13.9m, I have no problem with. The difference is within the error of margin with my finding of 14.05m.
> 
> I still have great reservations about, where to place the lines, on the nose and on the tail. It's just too blurry on those area. Sorry. I don't have any confidence on the lengths obtained from the satellite.
> 
> I am glad to see that you are trying to confirm or disprove my findings by actual researches.



Nice that we finally agree on something and I'm sure all agree that the difference of 13.9 - 14.05 is very likely within the margin of error.
What I however then do not understand is that You still insist in such a nonsense:



Asoka said:


> ...
> So the overall length for the LRIP planes is actually *23m, *


If You are willing to accept an actual research, then You must accept that a length on 23m would be 780 pixel aka that long red line, which is 100% off any margin of error.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

By using the wingspan of 14.0m as reference, we got from the satellite image. Here is another measurements of the length, I obtained with an image, I downloaded from here. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3-1JfX4wWbA/maxresdefault.jpg






Make sure you keep the proportion, exactly the same, if you resize this picture. Otherwise, the measurements will be off.

*The overall length of J-20, version 2001, is definitely not 20.35m.*

The nose to nozzle length, alone, is 21.7m.

*"'Nice that we finally agree on something, and I'm sure all agree, that the difference of 13.9 - 14.05 is very likely, within the margin of error."*

That's for the wingspan. The nose and nozzle area is ridiculously blurry, and because of the shadow and non-perfectly parallel parking between J-15 and J-20.

I don't accept that the margin of errors could be within 3 pixels for the lengths, at all.

No way. Mr. Deino.

In fact, I won't place any confidence on the length measurements, obtain from it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> Someone has said stealth plane can't fly at Mach 3?
> 
> I guess some people never heard of "High Temperature Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing materials."
> 
> I already posted this on Jan 7, 2017.
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-499#post-9078781
> 
> *High Temperature Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing materials.
> 高温吸波材料基体的研究*
> http://mmwqz.com/960261163/
> 
> This new class of *Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing Materials is High Temperature heat resistance, anti-oxidation, high strength and fracture resistant*.
> 
> In contrast to polymer based materials, this class of materials must be baked in high temperature oven. This is different from the applied (涂覆型 ) absorbing polymer rubbery materials, which could be easily damaged by rain, heat, sands, or even just by stepping on it.
> 
> This over come the heat problem that prevents radar absorbing materials to be use on missiles, inside the jet engine nozzle, and high speed aircrafts.
> 
> This class highly heat resistant materials could also forms a barrier to prevent high heat from entering the skin of the aircraft and damage the internal structure or delicate electronics equipments inside it.
> 
> http://www.yhclgy.com/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2276&flag=1
> *Current Study of High Temperature Radar Absorbing Materials
> 高温吸波材料研究现状*
> 
> http://www.hgxx.org/News_View.aspx?id=415
> *高温吸波材料研究新进展与趋势*
> 
> One of the paper I read said those High Temperature Ceramic Based Radar Absorbing Material could withstand 600C degree celsius, which is more than enough for cruising at Mach 3.
> 
> https://www.space.com/16666-*sr-71-blackbird*.html:
> 
> "The aircraft (SR-71, Blackbird) was also covered with *a special black paint to absorb radar, radiate excess heat* and to camouflage the aircraft against dark skies — a feature that inspired Air Force to give it the official "Blackbird" name.
> 
> Titanium skin helped protect the aircraft's aluminum airframe from the intense heat of supersonic flight. Temperatures ranged from *450 degrees F* (*232 C*) near the back part of the aircraft to *950 degrees F* (*510 C*) near the engine exhaust.


@Asoka bro your stupidity at extreme ceramic based radar absorbing material dons''t hide excess IR signature of J-20 its natural physic, you go extreme fast you increases your IR signature massively you can make RAM and RAS whatever advance you can't hide your jet from IR signature, Mr @Asoka change natural physic i read somewhere on the net didn't remember the article *that SR-71 had been detected 300+ miles on civilian radars when its come to USA at top speed *



Asoka said:


> Someone has said stealth plane can't fly at Mach 3?


Mr @Asoka no one confirmed about the speed its classified just like F-22 *may be may be not how you're so sure about J-20 top speed is MACH-3 maybe you working on J-20/WS-15 projects and SR-71 is not using turbo fan it uses hybrid turbojet+ ramjet for MACH-3 cruise http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/j-58~1.htm whereas J-20 currently uses turbofan WS-10B and projected WS-15 which will be also a turbofan, turbofan has its limitations, the limitations is is that turbofan don't work very well above MACH-2.5 *



Figaro said:


> Ignore him ... he won’t listen to you. Besides, he says 210kN is a “low” estimate, saying that 240 is more probable. As I say, he is delusional


No 300 KN


----------



## Asoka

Here is another pic of J-20 without another plane laid over it.
View attachment 427529





Note: I am not responding to



theCat, thePakistaniGuy, Gambit_theGambler, rcrmj, and other jokers, is because they are on my Ignore list.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> Here is another pic of J-20 without another plane laid over it.
> View attachment 427529
> View attachment 427534
> 
> 
> Note: I am not responding to theCat, thePakistaniguy, and Gamble and other jokers, is because they are on my Ignore list.


@Asoka


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> Here is another pic of J-20 without another plane laid over it.
> View attachment 427529
> View attachment 427534
> 
> 
> Note: I am not responding to theCat
> View attachment 427537
> , thePakistaniGuy, Gambler and other jokers, is because they are on my Ignore list.


You're jester Mr @Asoka yes you know everything about J-20/WS-15 the world is all wrong about J-20 and yes J-20 is 100 gen totally invisible on radars and IR sensors, it uses plasma stealth tech, its radar range is



5000 km, it uses 300 Kn WS-15 that enables J-20 to cruise at MACH-10, its air to air missiles range is 4500 Km, now happy Mr @Asoka


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> You're jester Mr @Asoka yes you know everything about J-20/WS-15 the world is all wrong about J-20 and yes J-20 is 100 gen totally invisible on radars and IR sensors, it uses plasma stealth tech, its radar range is
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 km, it uses 300 Kn WS-15 that enables J-20 to cruise at MACH-10, its air to air missiles range is 4500 Km, now happy Mr @Asoka


Just stop responding to his posts ... you're just feeding him here. The ignore button sometimes really comes in handy ... the J-20 thread has become quite calmer after I used it


----------



## rcrmj

gosh, still going over this length nonsense````like we use to say "真理只能靠信仰了"````

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Just stop responding to his posts ... you're just feeding him here. The ignore button sometimes really comes in handy ... the J-20 thread has become quite calmer after I used it


I already did it sir but making fun to Mr @Asoka


----------



## rcrmj

Asoka said:


> I don't know anything about CFM56, not even just casual reading about it. We are talking about WS-15 for J-20 here, not WS-10X.
> 
> 210kN is actually not ridiculous enough. This is a lower bound estimate I got for WS-15. I am afraid to tell what's really in my mind, for spilling out China State Military secrets.
> 
> It takes nothing for them to find out who I am. Some days, I want to go back to China.


the project requirement states it will be lucky to have 150KN full thrust```maybe will finally go up to 165Kn on its "upgrades"````and bear in mind, every equipment has its physical limits!!!! ```210KN `````you are really need to have some basic military knowledge to reason your "believes"````

*and btw, the latest WS10 has two versions```one is upto 130KN (better relability) and the other is upto 140KN (shorter service life) ``` I can tell you lot this much`````(and first time in history that we have "options" to choose between good domestic turbo-fan engines````they have get to use to it   ````sometimes those people use this to banter``)*


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> J-20B? Too bad no backside ...



We need a backside

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> gosh, still going over this length nonsense````like we use to say "真理只能靠信仰了"````


Correction, only @Asoka


rcrmj said:


> the project requirement states it will be lucky to have 150KN full thrust```maybe will finally go up to 165Kn on its "upgrades"````and bear in mind, every equipment has its physical limits!!!! ```210KN `````you are really need to have some basic military knowledge to reason your "believes"````
> 
> *and btw, the latest WS10 has two versions```one is upto 130KN (better relability) and the other is upto 140KN (shorter service life) ``` I can tell you lot this much`````(and first time in history that we have "options" to choose between good domestic turbo-fan engines````they have get to use to it   ````sometimes those people use this to banter``)*


I have ...
WS-10A : 125 - 130 kN
WS-10B+ : 140 kN (pupu said that increased thrust would not compromise service life)
WS-10IPE : 150 kN 
WS-15 : 165 - 180 kN (the thrust requirement got increased ... hence program delay)


----------



## rcrmj

Asoka said:


> Here is another pic of J-20 without another plane laid over it.
> View attachment 427529
> View attachment 427534
> 
> 
> Note: I am not responding to
> View attachment 427537
> theCat, thePakistaniGuy, Gambit_theGambler, rcrmj, and other jokers, is because they are on my Ignore list.


you really serious by using this image???? is this picture 100% flat or has an angle? man``please, for last time stop your sheer stuidity and any amature assumption````J-20 is smaller than any of the Flankers no matter you want to measure from tail or any 'invented' method of yours````seriously *stop!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> you really serious by using this image???? is this picture 100% flat or has an angle? man``please, for last time stop your sheer stuidity and any amature assumption````J-20 is smaller than any of the Flankers no matter you want to measure from tail or any 'invented' method of yours````seriously *stop!*


ignore him! That's what I did and the thread is a lot emptier ...


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> Correction, only @Asoka
> 
> I have ...
> WS-10A : 125 - 130 kN
> WS-10B+ : 140 kN (pupu said that increased thrust would not compromise service life)
> WS-10IPE : 150 kN
> WS-15 : 165 - 180 kN (the thrust requirement got increased ... hence program delay)


we dont have these much designations here````will only being given one once equipt````they are choosing between 130KN and 140KN, all of them with FADAC ````

and the thrust about WS-15 I only know the "roughly" stated number on their paper````the initial type wont be that high as you stated``but anyway, nowadays they are good at surprises``


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> we dont have these much designations here````will only being given one once equipt````they are choosing between 130KN and 140KN, all of them with FADAC ````
> 
> and the thrust about WS-15 I only know the "roughly" stated number on their paper````the initial type wont be that high as you stated``but anyway, nowadays they are good at surprises``


Regarding the WS-15, they hit the 160kN mark back in 2009 but revised it up to 180, hence the program delay. It wouldn't make sense for the final version to be lower than the test one ...


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> we dont have these much designations here````will only being given one once equipt````they are choosing between 130KN and 140KN, all of them with FADAC ````
> 
> and the thrust about WS-15 I only know the "roughly" stated number on their paper````the initial type wont be that high as you stated``but anyway, nowadays they are good at surprises``



What engine will the J-11D ultimately have?


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> What engine will the J-11D ultimately have?


I though the J-11D was cancelled ... especially given the J-11B restart.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Correction, only @Asoka
> 
> I have ...
> WS-10A : 125 - 130 kN
> WS-10B+ : 140 kN (pupu said that increased thrust would not compromise service life)
> WS-10IPE : 150 kN
> WS-15 : 165 - 180 kN (the thrust requirement got increased ... hence program delay)


My assumption for the thrust for final version for the WS-15 will be 190-195 kn just my too cent


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> What engine will the J-11D ultimately have?


not quite clear of J-11D and J-10D`````but they are putting quite an effort on them, especially J-10D


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> not quite clear of J-11D and J-10D`````but they are putting quite an effort on them, especially J-10D



I thought that the J-11D was being put on hold due to both airframe and engine issues.


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> My assumption for the thrust for final version for the WS-15 will be 190-195 kn just my too cent


Geez ... let's not get ahead of ourselves like that. Kind of reminds me of @Asoka's 210 kN theory . If the J-20 had engines like that, they would surely shoot any American/Japanese plane down like turkeys in WVR ...


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> Regarding the WS-15, *they hit the 160kN mark back in 2009 but revised it up to 180,* hence the program delay. It wouldn't make sense for the final version to be lower than the test one ...


all rumors````not sure, not sure, not sure```even 150KN would make J-20 fly like F-22 and even better when its in supersonic maneuvers```F-22 is our benchmark in terms of maneuverability and F-35 is the benchmark of its avionics```what I say "benchmark" which basically means, the performance outcomes of our "target" version have to be better than theirs````and setting engine thrust at 150KN can serve the purpose``so `````



SinoSoldier said:


> I thought that the J-11D was being put on hold due to both airframe and engine issues.


there are reasons, but I dont know the excatly````


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Geez ... let's not get ahead of ourselves like that. Kind of reminds me of @Asoka's 210 kN theory . If the J-20 had engines like that, they would surely shoot any American/Japanese plane down like turkeys in WVR ...


just my assumptions sir i may be wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> just my assumptions sir i may be wrong


Let's first get to 180 ... but we know for sure that @Asoka's theory is just

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Let's first get to 180 ... but we know for sure that @Asoka's theory is just




Let's first finalise design and let that damn thing appear. Then we can talk about any estimations of thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Some member have questioned my image as whether it is totally flat.

I have the same question too. If the plane's wingspan is* not flat *against the plane of camera, it's wingspan will be *less* than its actual value, and when I use smaller wingspan value as a reference to figure out the length of the body, it will give a *longer* body length estimate than the actual value.

The way to check that is to draw a horizontal line across the body and thus divide the body into two halves. And if the wingspan is *totally flat* against the camera, then the wingspan of the two halves should be *equal*.

If the nose of the plane tilts either toward or away from the camera, it will have a shorter length than the actual value. The longest length value is when the length of the body is flat against the camera.







Here, this is what I did.

1.) The satellite image gave an estimate of *14.0m* wingspan for J-20.

2.) So I resize the ruler until the *7 mark* falls exactly within the two red lines of the top half of the body.

3.) Then, I copy the ruler, and place it on the lower half of the wing, and it falls exactly on the *7.1 mark*.

4.) So, the two halves of the wing, has a *1cm difference, *which indicates the wingspan of J-20 in the image
is *almost flat* against the camera.

5.) Most people here at PDF believe J-20's overall length is only *20.35 meters* as obtained from the blurry satellite picture. And I have calculated the overall length of the J-20 LRIP bird as actually *23.06 meters.
*
6.) Will this *1 cm difference* in wingspan, cause a *2.71 meters difference,* in the overall length of the J-20? I really don't think so.

In the image below, I used a measuring tape to measure the overall length and wingspan of J-20, then compute their ratio and multiply it by 14.0, which is the wingspan.

The J-20 LRIP version has a tailboom that is 30cm longer than the version 2001.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

*J-20, # 78274*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

STRANGER BIRD said:


> *J-20, # 78274
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Nice #78274, one of the two birds in splinter-scheme.


----------



## Asoka

China is experimenting mind-reading mind-control technology that could be integrated with J-20 and the 6-Gen. fighter, *soon*.

The mind reading technology seen in the Firefox movie is fast becoming reality.











http://www.dragons2017.orgs.pub/show/4018

*中國「意念控制武器」或成為現實 殲20飛行員將「想哪打哪」*
今日科技 2017-09-25 檢舉

原創 123軍情觀察室

用意念指揮作戰武器，如同電腦上玩遊戲，瞬間實現飛彈發射，摧毀對手目標，你相信嗎？由清華大學開發的一款黑科技有望成為現實，讓人直接用大腦意念控制作戰武器系統。





該消息由電腦報最早發布，全稱叫"動態窗穩太視覺誘發電位腦機接口系統"，操作者只需戴上相應的設備，注視著電腦上的模擬鍵盤，即可讓電腦系統檢測出想要打出的那句話，將其翻譯成文字。目前該系統已經實現了人用意念聊天的程度。其方法原理是，電腦虛擬鍵盤上都會以一定的機率注視到，一旦某個鍵的頻率超過某值，就能確定人想去打某個字母時，電腦波就會閃爍強度增大，電腦自動檢測出人要打的字，將其顯示出來。這種技術不同於目前飛行員頭盔顯示系統，那些系統是安裝攝像頭來檢測眼睛聚焦點變化，而這一技術則完全是基於對腦強度的檢測。





早在1990年，著名科學家錢學森就提出"我們要研究人與機器相結合的智能系統，不能把人排除在外，應該是一個人機智能系統"。經過多年不懈努力，我國人機智能系統取得實質性進展。這些技術並非空穴來風，相關技術早在航天航空領域進行過多次試驗。

2016年10月，我國"神州11號"載人飛船在一周多太空飛行中，太空人就藉助網際網路技術與地面指揮部進行了多次信息交互實驗，*其中, 最驚人的就是, 太空腦機交互實驗。去年10月, 我國航天員景海鵬, 頭載腦電極，與電腦進行了, 腦機交互實驗，實驗時間, 長達30分鐘*。

這也是人類歷史上第一次在太空環境下開展的人機互動實驗。






*說到意念控制，不得不提到殲-20。*

*殲-20是一款具備高隱身性、高態勢感知、高信息化集成、高機動性的第五代戰鬥機。*

*殲-20研發之初，就借鑑了美國F-22、F-35部分思路，而同時殲-20也有中國科研獨有的創新設計，即"人機合一"理念。*

*我們常說人工智慧是未來第五代戰機的指標之一，而人工智慧的終極形態即「人機合一"，這是標誌性革命。*

*目前殲-20的人機理念最直接的就是意念控制系統。*

*在現代戰爭中，當作戰雙方在戰場上對抗時，生死往往就是一瞬間，誰擁有更快的速度，誰就有可能贏得勝利。*

*試想，如果殲-20配上人機交換系統，飛行員採取意念控制武器，在複雜多變的環境下通過電腦波操控目標，完成飛彈發射和目標擊毀，將大大提高作戰的勝算率。*

*如果實現意念控制武器，殲-20將會如虎添翼。*
*（利刃/沉岩）*

*延伸閱讀： 中國意念控制武器技術重大進展！只要一個念頭敵人就掛了*
新蘭軍武庫

今天，就和大家聊聊咱們中國的意念控制術。這種神奇的意念控制術就是清華大學正研究的新型人機互動技術，全稱「動態窗穩態視覺誘發電位腦機接口系統」。那麼這個神奇的玩意又該怎麼操作呢？首先你需要戴上一頂插滿電路，能夠探測到腦電波的帽子，然後將注意力集中於螢幕中的模擬鍵盤，系統就可以將腦電波信號譯成相應文字。

麼犀利的技術可不單單是讓你聊微信、QQ的，這項偉大發明用途非常廣泛，除了在醫療康復、系統導航等方面應用以外，更可以讓人直接用大腦意念控制作戰武器系統。如今五代機在空中戰場上能傲視群雄、獨孤求敗，究其根本還是靠著自身強大的態勢感知能力，這當中它專用的頭盔更是功勞不小。現代空戰，飛行員除了需要掌握高度、爬升率、姿態等基本信息外，雷達、火控、數據鏈等等各種數據信息也紛至沓來。傳統平視顯示器已經不能滿足高度信息集成戰機要求了，平視顯示器很不利於飛行員順暢地操控飛機。如今先進頭盔瞄準顯示系統正彌補了這一缺憾，這種頭盔把平視顯示器顯示圖像，直接投影到頭盔前面，飛行員不管腦袋轉到那個方向都能看到飛機所有信息。

但這種頭盔目前還面臨著兩個困境。無論哪種瞄準系統鎖定目標後，還必須手動確認目標，並按發射按鈕，這就延緩了鎖定到發射的速度，還有，為了集成儘可能多的信息，飛行員頭盔功能越來越複雜，重量也隨之增加。

美國的F-35把目標信息、關鍵的飛行數據以及夜視能力整合到頭盔里，為了瞅誰打誰，眼球檢測設備裝在了頭盔中，為了檢測飛行員頭部的扭動，還必須在座艙下安裝一個磁場發生器，這樣搗鼓下來結果就是頭盔非常難用，效果非盡人意。

為什麼呢？您各位想想頭盔重量很大，戰時如果加上高機動的幾個G過載的話，搞不好脖子都被會扭斷，那酸爽誰用誰知道，和美國的F-35面臨的困境相同，殲-20頭盔為保障眾多傳感器的集成，控制頭盔重量也成了一大難題。






清華大學這種科技被運用頭盔顯示系統後，現在的磁場發生器和眼球轉動儀器都將被拋棄，利用這種腦機結合工程技術，電腦上虛擬鍵盤上每個鍵都會以一定的機率注視到，一旦某個鍵的頻率超過某閾值，就能確定飛行員的想法，電腦波就會閃爍強度增大，電腦自動檢測出飛行員需要信息，並將其顯示出來。

腦電波強度, 即可告訴, 系統飛行員, 想做什麼動作，想打哪裡，這種空戰, 簡直就像, 玩VR遊戲一樣，熟練操作後, 反應的靈敏迅速, 讓傳統戰機, 根本無法與其對抗。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Nice #78274, one of the two birds in splinter-scheme.


Unfortunately, we've seen the 7827x series all too many times. We need to see more new LRIPs and the illusive 2021


----------



## JSCh

from weibo,

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

JSCh said:


> from weibo,
> View attachment 427892




Ohhhhh .... give us more !!!


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

When the J-20 flies with Chinese engines

click on pic to zoom more.






*


here is a latest j20 model offer to pak AVM Muhammad Haseeb Paracha.





*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## shadows888

STRANGER BIRD said:


> When the J-20 flies with Chinese engines
> 
> click on pic to zoom more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> here is a latest j20 model offer to pak AVM Muhammad Haseeb Paracha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



WS-10X?


----------



## Deino

STRANGER BIRD said:


> When the J-20 flies with Chinese engines




Surely not or better to say, why do You think so??!

This is just one of the already known LRIP-birds and here exactly 78273 or 78274 ... we all know #2021 is the first and so far only one powered by the WS-10B.

Here it is:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

STRANGER BIRD said:


> When the J-20 flies with Chinese engines
> 
> click on pic to zoom more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> here is a latest j20 model offer to pak AVM Muhammad Haseeb Paracha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Those are AL-31F’s ... only 2021 is flying with Chinese engines ...


----------



## Asoka

STRANGER BIRD said:


> When the J-20 flies with Chinese engines
> 
> click on pic to zoom more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> here is a latest j20 model offer to pak AVM Muhammad Haseeb Paracha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



If China wants to keep *pretend* to be Pakistan's all weather friend, it must stop selling just low tech gears (like J-7 and FC-17) to Pakistan.

India has signed a deal with Russia to get the 5-Gen fighter from Russia, F-16 from USA, and Rafael from France.

J-10 or J-16 is out of the question, because Russia would object, and J-10(B, C) is not much better than the F-16, Pakistan already has.

A downgraded export version J-20 for Pakistan, with engines like WS-10X, and less powerful radar and avionic, would be appropriate.

CIA has infiltrated all levels of Pakistan society and government, including the military and security agency.There is a significant risk of US, getting its hand, on a full version J-20, if its exported to Pakistan.

So only a J-20, with a downgraded engine like WS-10x, should be exported, not the mega-powerful, +210kN, WS-15 engine, which is currently in service with the LRIP planes.

Pakistan has already said a big *"NO"* to the junky FC-31. If PLAAF is not interested, in the piece of sh*t, FC-31, I don't see why would, the battle hardened and highly competent Pakistan Air Force, would even take a look at it..

China is already working on the 6-Gen. fighter, so in 8-10 years, an export version of J-20 with downgraded engine like 15 tons WS-10X, could be exported.

Pakistan has already expressed strong interest in J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> If China wants to keep *pretend* to be Pakistan's all weather friend, it must stop selling just low tech gears (like J-7 and FC-17) to Pakistan.
> 
> India has signed a deal with Russia to get the 5-Gen fighter from Russia, F-16 from USA, and Rafael from France.
> 
> J-10 or J-16 is out of the question, because Russia would object, and J-10(B, C) is not much better than the F-16, Pakistan already has.
> 
> A downgraded export version J-20 for Pakistan, with engines like WS-10X, and less powerful radar and avionic, would be appropriate.
> 
> CIA has infiltrated all levels of Pakistan society and government, including the military and security agency.There is a significant risk of US, getting its hand, on a full version J-20, if its exported to Pakistan.
> 
> So only a J-20, with a downgraded engine like WS-10x, not the mega-powerful WS-15 engine, should be exported.
> 
> Pakistan has already said a big *"NO"* to the junky FC-31. If PLAAF is not interested, in the piece of sh*t, FC-31, I don't see why would, the battle hardened and highly competent Pakistan Air Force, would even take a look at it..
> 
> China is already working on the 6-Gen. fighter, so in 8-10 years, an export version of J-20 with downgraded engine like 15 tons WS-10X, could be exported.
> 
> Pakistan has already expressed strong interest in J-20.


Mr @Asoka your superstitions make you mentally ill person, as for your information Pakistan interested in both jets J-20 and FC-31 but more interested in FC-31 because its multi-role capabilities, whereas J-20 more intended toward air superiority and less ground attack capabilities not suits PAF doctrine


----------



## Akasa

Asoka said:


> If China wants to keep *pretend* to be Pakistan's all weather friend, it must stop selling just low tech gears (like J-7 and FC-17) to Pakistan.
> 
> India has signed a deal with Russia to get the 5-Gen fighter from Russia, F-16 from USA, and Rafael from France.
> 
> J-10 or J-16 is out of the question, because Russia would object, and J-10(B, C) is not much better than the F-16, Pakistan already has.
> 
> A downgraded export version J-20 for Pakistan, with engines like WS-10X, and less powerful radar and avionic, would be appropriate.
> 
> CIA has infiltrated all levels of Pakistan society and government, including the military and security agency.There is a significant risk of US, getting its hand, on a full version J-20, if its exported to Pakistan.
> 
> So only a J-20, with a downgraded engine like WS-10x, not the mega-powerful WS-15 engine, should be exported.
> 
> Pakistan has already said a big *"NO"* to the junky FC-31. If PLAAF is not interested, in the piece of sh*t, FC-31, I don't see why would, the battle hardened and highly competent Pakistan Air Force, would even take a look at it..
> 
> China is already working on the 6-Gen. fighter, so in 8-10 years, an export version of J-20 with downgraded engine like 15 tons WS-10X, could be exported.
> 
> Pakistan has already expressed strong interest in J-20.



A couple notes:

1. The J-10C would provide Rafale- or Eurofighter-esque capabilities to the PAF, which would be a boost, albeit a small one, over the current F-16 Block 52s.

2. There hasn't been any news regarding PAF and the FC-31, so it is too early to say that they had rejected the project.


----------



## Akasa

Asoka said:


> FC-31 is already dead on arrival. There is no hope for such poorly conceived and designed project.



That's an opinion, not an objective fact or accurate observation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Asoka said:


> FC-31 is already dead on arrival. There is no hope for such poorly conceived and designed project.


none of us can say that FC-31 is dead```and it is not "poorly" conceived and designed

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Asoka

As I have said, a downgraded, export version of J-20, with WS-10X engines, is a far better option, for Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> As I have said, a downgraded, export version of J-20, with WS-10X engines, is a far better option, for Pakistan.




Pardon to say so, but there as been a lot of rubbish been said including that the J-20 will be exported (what will never happen) and that the FC-31 is BS (which no-one of the usual suspects can know!).

All opinion, guesswork, and hyping the J-20 and bashing the FC-31 without knowing anything.

Deino

By the way ... please this image in full-size !


----------



## STRANGER BIRD




----------



## Deino

STRANGER BIRD said:


>




Why again ??? An old image from 2014 already posted more than once ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> Pardon to say so, but there as been a lot of rubbish been said including that the J-20 will be exported (what will never happen) and that the FC-31 is BS (which no-one of the usual suspects can know!).
> 
> All opinion, guesswork, and hyping the J-20 and bashing the FC-31 without knowing anything.
> 
> Deino
> 
> By the way ... please this image in full-size !
> 
> View attachment 428348



Amazing image! Where did you get it?


----------



## Deino

clarkgap said:


> Amazing image! Where did you get it?




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913007890310377473

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913007890310377473


Very nice photo op ... 



Deino said:


> Why again ??? An old image from 2014 already posted more than once ....


This was the one that the poor 2021 Photoshop was based upon


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913007890310377473



I found the bigger one from haohan.






Someone said it was an image from 81 parade.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## khanasifm

Apply thoroughly burnol for speedy recovery


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> "They" as in a joint SAC-CAC team? Because if the FC-31 doesn't get accepted by the PLAN, it is as good as cancelled.


things arent as simple as most of you thought```FC-31 isnt some Japanese or S.Korean mock-ups```few dozens of patents they have gained by just "making it" for start`````and thousands of hours initial researches and wind-turnnel tests were made before they putting any parts together````



Asoka said:


> As I have said, a downgraded, export version of J-20, with WS-10X engines, is a far better option, for Pakistan.


your delusion will never come to realization, I can assure that

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Why are ppl talking about FC-31 here? Isn't this a J-20 thread ...


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> So, how credible is this "hybrid plane" rumor? Is it a joint venture between the J-20 and FC-31 design teams?




I think it surely is not a hybrid plane in the same way such proposed Frankenstein-engines are impossible.

But what about a joint development of a navalised J-20 and transferring production of this variant to SAC?

Deino


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913324403869364224

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> Sounds extremely dubious ... especially the rivalry and distrust between CAC and SAC


but at the end of the day they are all belong to one big company



Deino said:


> I think it surely is not a hybrid plane in the same way such proposed Frankenstein-engines are impossible.
> 
> But what about a joint development of a navalised J-20 and transferring production of this variant to SAC?
> 
> Deino


the truth will reveal itself at 2019, its a good year! maybe earlier, who knows


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> the truth will reveal itself at 2019, its a good year! maybe earlier, who knows



Oh no ... I know 2017 was a great year, 2018 will surely be even better and now You promise 2019, maybe earlier. 
My impatience will kill me...


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## luciferdd



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## yusheng

China's J-20 fighter jet put into service: spokesman
Source：Xinhuanet Editor：Zhang Tao 2017-09-28
BEIJING, Sept. 28 (Xinhua) -- China's latest J-20 stealth fighter has been officially commissioned into military service, according to Wu Qian, spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense on Thursday.

The flight tests are being conducted as scheduled, Wu said at a press conference.

The J-20 is China's fourth-generation medium and long-range fighter jet. It made its maiden flight in 2011 and was first shown to the public at the 11th Airshow China in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, in November last year.

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/news/2017-09/28/content_4793397.htm

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
16


----------



## beijingwalker

*China’s Homegrown Stealth Fighter Jet Is Now in Service*
David Meyer
6:38 AM ET
China's new Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter is now in service, state media reported Thursday.

The jet is China's somewhat secretive answer to rivals such as Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor, which was developed for the U.S. Air Force. The country held a maiden test flight for the prototype of the J-20, its first stealth fighter, in 2011, surprising experts with the progress it had already made.


Like the F-22, the J-20 is a so-called fifth-generation fighter that boasts stealth technology and can cruise at supersonic speeds.

Earlier this month, China's air force started training a new generation of pilots for the J-20. Now, according to a brief article from the state media organization Xinhua, the jet has been "officially commissioned into military service."

When China showed off the production model of the J-20 in public for the first time in late 2016, some were surprised that it was doing so before putting the jet into service. This, observers suggested, showed a lot of confidence in the fighter. It is likely also symptomatic of China's current assertiveness in the region.

The announcement that the J-20 is now in service comes weeks before a crucial conference of China's Communist Party.

One interesting piece of information about the J-20 that emerged this month was the fact that China is building its own engines for the stealth fighter. This is important because current production models use a Russian engine—in future, China won't have to rely on a foreign supplier for that crucial part.

U.S. lawmakers have previously alleged that China stole American technology—specifically, that used in Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor—to develop the J-20

http://fortune.com/2017/09/28/china-chengdu-j-20-stealth-fighter-jet/

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## beijingwalker

*Defense Ministry: China's J-20 fighter jet put into service*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Samlee

Congrats

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.A. Khan

This is an indigenous fighter with a self-made turbo fan and other equipment. An incredible feat for China which wont need engine from US,Russia or Europe. A good lesson for Pakistan, we now need to get some of these.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Congrats !!

To admit I'm a bit surprised, since I thought that hand-over took place in late 2016 and service entry already in March but now it is official.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

_*The spokesman of the Chinese Ministry of Defence confirmed today (9/28)*_
_*the active commissioning of the J-20 at a press conference.*_

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913416332116291585

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

@beijingwalker !

Do me a favour and I have to admit, I'm indeed angry especially after I don't know how many requests to take care.

Why the hell do You - and a few others - always start a new thread whenever a certain topic is hot on the agenda, while there are still appropriate threads available and - You are a long-time member here, You MUST know - still active ???



Therefore I issue a kind reminder to take a look before starting a new thread and a warning to all, who IMO only make this in order to collect whatever or to annoy he moderators. 

It is not that difficult, but it is indeed hard work to keep such a section sorted while at the same time clean from trolling, nationalistic rants and stupidity.

Thanks in advance, 

Deino


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Congrats !!
> To admit I'm a bit surprised, since I thought that hand-over took place in late 2016 and service entry already in March but now it is official.



Could it be a hint for a soon to happen hand-over to a first front-line unit?

By the way an old image I haven't seen so far. 






@Asoka: Do You remember the missing panel on that yellow '2021' and Your alleged claim it would be PSED ??? Here it is the same.

PS: '2021' continued its flight testing today.... *I WANT IMAGES !!!!*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913410805021917184

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Khafee

Deino said:


> Could it be a hint for a soon to happen hand-over to a first front-line unit?
> 
> By the way an old image I haven't seen so far.
> 
> View attachment 428482
> 
> 
> @Asoka: Do You remember the missing panel on that yellow '2021' and Your alleged claim it would be PSED ??? Here it is the same.
> 
> PS: '2021' continued its flight testing today.... *I WANT IMAGES !!!!*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913410805021917184


How many aircrafts in the squadron?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Oh no ... I know 2017 was a great year, 2018 will surely be even better and now You promise 2019, maybe earlier.
> My impatience will kill me...


2017 was the best year for me in PLA watching since 2014, when all the 201X prototypes started rolling out. I have a good feeling that the years leading up to 2020 will be the best ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"@Asoka: Do You remember, the missing panel, on that yellow '2021', and Your alleged claim ,it would be PSED ?? Here it is the same."*

@Deino Are you saying, that since the crack or missing panel, on both pictures, looks similar, then the left picture is not a fake or P.Sed? That is the cracks or gaps are not artifacts of a poor P.S. job?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kuge

Deino said:


> @beijingwalker !
> 
> Do me a favour and I have to admit, I'm indeed angry especially after I don't know how many requests to take care.
> 
> Why the hell do You - and a few others - always start a new thread whenever a certain topic is hot on the agenda, while there are still appropriate threads available and - You are a long-time member here, You MUST know - still active ???
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore I issue a kind reminder to take a look before starting a new thread and a warning to all, who IMO only make this in order to collect whatever or to annoy he moderators.
> 
> It is not that difficult, but it is indeed hard work to keep such a section sorted while at the same time clean from trolling, nationalistic rants and stupidity.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Deino


it is becoz some people want attentions to them desperately....


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Oh no ... I know 2017 was a great year, 2018 will surely be even better and now You promise 2019, maybe earlier.
> My impatience will kill me...


and things like this have been going on for more than 20 years for me ```

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> View attachment 428497
> 
> 
> *"@Asoka: Do You remember, the missing panel, on that yellow '2021', and Your alleged claim ,it would be PSED ?? Here it is the same."*
> 
> @Deino Are you saying, that since the crack or missing panel, on both pictures, looks similar, then the left picture is not a fake or P.Sed? That is the cracks or gaps are not artifacts of a poor P.S. job?




Finally You get it ! 

It was always only You who claimed the left image being a photoshop-fake and I was saying from the beginning it *IS* real.

So it seems as if this is a rare but typical feature when an engines is mated to the J-20's airframe. Either by coincidence it is just the moment, the engine is not ready installed or IMO more likely there is plain and simple a panel missing.

Nothing special and even less a reason to spin another strange theory.

Deino


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Could it be a hint for a soon to happen hand-over to a first front-line unit?
> 
> By the way an old image I haven't seen so far.
> 
> View attachment 428482
> 
> 
> @Asoka: Do You remember the missing panel on that yellow '2021' and Your alleged claim it would be PSED ??? Here it is the same.
> 
> PS: '2021' continued its flight testing today.... *I WANT IMAGES !!!!*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913410805021917184



2021

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 2021
> 
> View attachment 428522




As far as I know NOT. This is an old - in fact quite very old - image showing 2101 but I cannot find it at the moment. 

Deino


----------



## samsara

_"I'm a little confused now."  _


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913664236957532161

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/913417976971481088

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## STRANGER BIRD



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

*@Deino "Finally, You get it ! 

It was always only You, who claimed the left image, being a photoshop-fake, and I was saying from the beginning, it IS real."*

From the beginning, I don't KNOW what to make of the first image, therefore, I have reserved my opinion.

Then second picture came out and was immediately pointed out as fake by Deino, and Figaro. Then, I connected the dots by noticing the identical large gaps. Further, i noticed BOTH pics was originated from the same professional rumor-monger, who never posted anything about J-20, before.

Therefore, I deduced BOTH pics, ware faked, by the same faker, in the same way, using the same WS-10 nozzle picture, copy and pasted onto two different J-2o pics.

If the first pic also shown the complete J-20, (as in second pic) instead of just the backside, it would be immediately spotted as fake by members such as Deino, IMO.

***********************

Note: Now, despite, what I think of the two images, I have not entirely discounted the possibility that WS-10 could be or will be installed on J-20, in the future.

In the private messages with @Figaro, before the second image came out, I have indicated that WS-15 may still have mass production problems, not yet resolved, despite the testings have been completed and passed verification.

Therefore, J-20 with WS-10 could temporary filled the production gap, and used to train the huge number of new pilots, for the necessary familiarization flights, with J-20.

Now, a second possibility has emerged. That J-20 flying with WS-10 could be an export version with a downgraded engine, and downgraded AESA radar and avionics. This could eliminate the risk of exposing the secrets of WS-15 to American agents in Pakistan. 

*****************************

What I disagree, is the implications of WS-10, being installed on J-20.

When the first image came out, some people, immediately, used it as "proof" that WS-15 was never installed, and never flown on J-20, because the Chinese engineers, has just now figured out, how to put, WS-10 on J-20, despite the fact, that it's been flown on hundreds of J-10 and J-11s, J-15, and J-16, for years, now.

And so, then those same people made *GIANT QUANTUM LEAP OF LOGIC* that J-20 must be flown with a Russian AL-31 variant engine, since 2011.

I don't know how they made this *GIANT QUANTUM LEAP OF LOGIC*. It seems to me *if* WS-10 and WS-15 was never flown on J-20, before, it doesn't has to mean that J-20 was flying with a Russian AL-31 variant engine.

*J-20 COULD HAVE FLOWN WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER ENGINES.*

1.) Such as the German engine, Junkers Jumo 210, that powered the world's first operational jet fighter,* 
Messerschmitt Me 262.





*
*2.) *The excellent Indian made *Kaveri engine,* which was designed to power the outstanding air superiority fighter, TEJAS.





3.) or the most powerful P&W F119 engine that powers the American F-22 stealth fighter.





4. or the Warp engines of the Star Trek Enterprise.





5. In fact, J-20 could have flown with any diesel, marine, turboprop, piston, turbofan fan engines, in the past 6 years, IMO.





Note: I have not lost my mind, and finally went crazy. I just want to indulge myself, by living completely *LOGIC-FREE* for a day or two, like those *who ignored all evidences and logics,*I have presented, and keep insisting J-20 was flying with a AL-31, for the past 6 years. 

I just want feel whats like to be living, in the *LOGIC-FREE LAND*, like those Russian AL-31 engine theory supporters, for a while.

***********************

My conclusion: That J-20 has been flying, a prototype of WS-15, since day one, and the production version of WS-15, is now officially, in service, with the LRIP version of J-20 -- *has not been changed. *

And I still think WS-15, is, indeed, mega-powerful. And it has, at least, 210kN of wet Thrust, and it has 3D-TVC engine nozzles.



*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

STRANGER BIRD said:


>


This was posted a very long time ago ... last year


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

I've been feeling boring about J20, looking forward the 6th gen.

If there is no breakthrough in the way they propel the fighter jet, all design seems very much alike and boring.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

sorry in advance 
if these pic old

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

wanglaokan said:


> I've been feeling boring about J20, looking forward the 6th gen.
> 
> If there is no breakthrough in the way they propel the fighter jet, all design seems very much alike and boring.


Oh geez ... how can one even talk about a 6th generation jet when they haven't even mastered its predecessor? Just look at the US with the F-35 or Russia with Su-57. Even the Chinese I bet haven't fully mastered the technologies in the J-20 ... and what do you mean by "breakthroughs" in jet propulsion ... all these countries will continue relying on turbofans for many decades to come ...


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> *...*


*

OMG. Madness in perfection.
Are theseprovocations really necesary??
We all know you are the one with the most "unique" theories that so far all failed. But tellung us all stupid or logic-free is an insult I will not tollerate.

Deino*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Please ban Mr. @Asoka *permanently* from J-20 discussion thread Mr @Deino


If you don't like him, just *ignore *him. Please don't respond to his messages anymore ... there's no need to post a bunch of posts bashing @Asoka; he has a right to express his nonsense unfortunately ...


----------



## khanasifm

Figaro said:


> If you don't like him, just *ignore *him. Please don't respond to his messages anymore ... there's no need to post a bunch of posts bashing @Asoka; he has a right to express his nonsense unfortunately ...



Check every Chinese and pak thread / forum, same question and Points and objections 

Opposition for the sake of opposition 


Stop complaining, Move on put in ignore list you, you are to be blamed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

khanasifm said:


> Check every Chinese and pak thread / forum, same question and Points and objections
> 
> Opposition for the sake of opposition
> 
> 
> Stop complaining, Move on put in ignore list you, you are to be blamed


*You had a good intention, it's well noted and appreciated*.... I also much agree with that.

But you should get used to read accurately first before responding, moreover those provoking posts are so obvious for being styled in *bold red color*.... otherwise you will just fire to the wrong target [who's indeed inline with your intention] as you just did above... thus be quite amusing when I read on this thread... ha ha  what fun to start a beautiful Sunday

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

星海军事 said:


>


Dat ***!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanasifm




----------



## clibra

rcrmj said:


> none of us can say that FC-31 is dead```and it is not "poorly" conceived and designed


Agree


----------



## Asoka

*"none of us can say that FC-31 is dead"*

Yes, we can say it. This stupid "thing" is dead, dead, . . . and dead. It never had a chance, in the first place. Now, I have said it. Are you happy now?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> View attachment 428955


It seems the engine do not have much different besides the angle nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> *"none of us can say that FC-31 is dead"*
> 
> Yes, we can say it. This stupid "thing" is dead, dead, . . . and dead. It never had a chance, in the first place. Now, I have said it. Are you happy now?


Mr @Asoka your @$$ is dead, its a export oriented jet, with a chance to be get inducted by PLNAF, for aircraft carrier J-20 will be too large and extremely heavy so there is a chance for FC-31 to be inducted by PLNAF because its a medium weight jet Mr @Asoka you fool

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Mr @Asoka your @$$ is dead, its a export oriented jet, with a chance to be get inducted by PLNAF, for aircraft carrier J-20 will be too large and extremely heavy so there is a chance for FC-31 to be inducted by PLNAF because its a medium weight jet Mr @Asoka you fool


@Asoka hates the FC-31 ... he referred to it as "trash" that no-one wanted ... as I say, he's a J-20 fanboi


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> @Asoka hates the FC-31 ... he referred to it as "trash" that no-one wanted ... as I say, he's a J-20 fanboi


In my view Mr. @Figaro FC-31 has better *STEALTH SHAPE* as compare to J-20, J-20 has a *CANARD* which is bad for stealth and also J-20 has a *ventral fins* which also bad for stealth, overall FC-31 is far better in the term of shape wise as compare to J-20, you increase surface area of your stealth jet then you have more chance to get detected by  *radars* just my 2 cent


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> In my view Mr. @Figaro FC-31 has better *STEALTH SHAPE* as compare to J-20, J-20 has a *CANARD* which is bad for stealth and also J-20 has a *ventral fins* which also bad for stealth, overall FC-31 is far better in the term of shape wise as compare to J-20, you increase surface area of your stealth jet then you have more chance to get detected by  *radars* just my 2 cent


Canards and ventral fins aren't necessarily bad for stealth. Multiple USAF stealth fighter prototypes incorporated canards; the notion that they have bad RCS is simply false. In this regard, @Asoka is correct. The J-20 probably does have better RCS, especially in the front. Regarding increased surface area, I'm not sure about the impact on stealth because there are a lot more factors at hand ... Dr. Carlo Kopp estimated that the J-20's stealth falls between the F-22 and F-35, which makes it quite decent and most definitely superior to the FC-31. And also, why do you keep responding to Asoka’s posts ... if you don’t like what he has to say, simply ignore him.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Canards and ventral fins aren't necessarily bad for stealth. Multiple USAF stealth fighter prototypes incorporated canards; the notion that they have bad RCS is simply false. In this regard, @Asoka is correct. The J-20 probably does have better RCS, especially in the front. Regarding increased surface area, I'm not sure about the impact on stealth because there are a lot more factors at hand ... Dr. Carlo Kopp estimated that the J-20's stealth falls between the F-22 and F-35, which makes it quite decent and most definitely superior to the FC-31


So why they put production of CANARD with Stealth Fuselage from ATF and early JSF competitions, there were lots of CANARD based design on both competitions and Dr. Carlo Kopp estimate *front/headon *RCS of J-20 *multiple radars *from different angles can be detect J-20 relatively ease from *sides/turning* and *slanting/diagonal* angles because of extra surface area that CANARD and ventral fins gives to *radars *


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> So why they put production of CANARD with Stealth Fuselage from ATF and early JSF competitions, there were lots of CANARD based design on both competitions and Dr. Carlo Kopp estimate *front/headon *RCS of J-20 *multiple radars *from different angles can be detect J-20 relatively ease from *sides/turning* and *slanting/diagonal* angles because of extra surface area that CANARD and ventral fins gives to *radars *


Dr. Carlo Kopp did a full overview of the J-20 on multiple axes ... not just heads on. The extra surface area is nonsense ... canards don't inhibit stealth characteristics. And the reason why JSF didn't end up with canards was not due to stealth problems at all ...


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Dr. Carlo Kopp did a full overview of the J-20 on multiple axes ... not just heads on. The extra surface area is nonsense ... canards don't inhibit stealth characteristics. And the reason why JSF didn't end up with canards was not due to stealth problems at all ...


But* multiple radars* on different angles not *one radar *may chance that J-20 detected/track relatively easily, as for your information Dr. Carlo Kopp is not RCS expert


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> But* multiple radars* on different angles not *one radar *may chance that J-20 detected/track relatively easily, as for your information Dr. Carlo Kopp is not RCS expert


You're not a *RCS *expert either ... by the same logic, the F-35 and F-22 can also be tracked "easily" (which is wrong). The RCS analysis was clearly focused on multiple angles ... regardless, I am not a RCS expert either. But Carlo Kopp's analysis the closest we have to the actual thing ... only the PLAAF knows the true RCS figures and I'm confident that they won't make a poor decision when it comes to RCS ... anyways ...
@pakistanipower, please stop responding to Asoka's posts. Why is it so hard just for you to ignore him? He's not forcing you to listen to his dumb arguments ... and yet you fill this thread with bold lettered posts bashing him. I've already told you repeatedly if you don't want to hear what he has to offer, then simply block him. Is it really that big of a task?


----------



## Asoka

*" J-20 will be too large and extremely heavy "*

hey PakistaniGuy, Mr. Deino and all other people says J-20's overall length is only 20.35m, less than J-15's 21.19m , while I claim it's 23m, the same as the F-111. And many Chinese jokers claims J-20 weights only 15 tons, 2.5 tons less than J-15's 18 tons, while I claims J-20 weights at least +22 tons (about same as F-111), or at least 2 tons more than F-22.

And if J-15 IS larger and heavier than J-20, as those jokers claimed, it didn't prevent J-15 to be China's first carrier based fighter. I guess you have never heard of *folding the wings *and use *CATAPULT* to launch the planes on aircraft carriers, do you?






Are you saying, you are finally agreed with me on something, that J-20 is *large and heavy*? If so, you are not such a big joker, as I think you are.

And despite being a very large and heavy aircraft (23m, and 22 tons, which is about the same as J-20, I believed), F-111 has no problem landing and take off from a US aircraft carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return? 

I seen some wrote that is bacause the canard's significant radar is due to refelection from its perpendicular position retaltive to fuselage, but if you observe carefully, this is not the case for J20's canard's positioning.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

*"I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?"*

Exactly!

You are better than those 'experts', because you have common sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> You're not a *RCS *expert either ... by the same logic, the F-35 and F-22 can also be tracked "easily" (which is wrong). The RCS analysis was clearly focused on multiple angles ... regardless, I am not a RCS expert either. But Carlo Kopp's analysis the closest we have to the actual thing ... only the PLAAF knows the true RCS figures and I'm confident that they won't make a poor decision when it comes to RCS


But *CANARD* gives the extra surface to radars *I SAID MULTIPLE RADARS, and as for your caomparision J-20 to (F-22, F-35) they don't have CANARDS and please give me answer to this quetion then why USA can't produce a stealth jets with canards*



lcloo said:


> I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?
> 
> I seen some wrote that is bacause the canard's significant radar is due to refelection from its perpendicular position retaltive to fuselage, but if you observe carefully, this is not the case for J20's canard's positioning.


Read my post no 36 minutes ago#9698 and 1 minute ago#9705 bro and i am not underestimating J-20 as compare to F-22, F-35 and PAK-FA


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> But *CANARD* gives the extra surface to radars *I SAID MULTIPLE RADARS, and as for your caomparision J-20 to (F-22, F-35) they don't have CANARDS and please give me answer to this quetion then why USA can't produce a stealth jets with canards*


I already told you that the reason why the USAF fifth gen got rid of canards was not due to stealth purposes. And please stop with the bold and colored letters ... it makes you seem if you're trying to toss out flame bait. Anyway, the RCS discussion is pointless and leads nowhere ... this has been debated for 6 years to no avail. Let us stop and not drag on this pointless discussion any longer. As for you, I *highly *recommend you not respond to @Asoka's posts. Please don't ... thanks.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> *"I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?"*
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> You are better than 'experts', because you have common sense.


You fool @Asoka CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars with exception to main wings and you ahve no common sense Mr. mentally retard @Asoka


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> You fool @Asoka CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars with exception to main wings and you ahve no common sense Mr. mentally retard @Asoka


Why do you keep responding to him then? This is what I'm talking about. Your posts make just as little sense as those of @Asoka's.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Mr @gambit sir can you give the advantages and disadvantages of CANARDS with aspect of stealth thank you sir


----------



## ozranger

pakistanipower said:


> Mr @gambit sir can you give the advantages and disadvantages of CANARDS with aspect of stealth thank you sir



It is more of lift management for flying supersonic than stealth. Canards like the Typhoon's, which are distant to main wings, and J-20's, which are big and with modest distance to main wings, can lift up the nose with minimum deflection while the aircraft tends to pitch down in supersonic than in subsonic due to the shift of lift center. F-22 can do so by tail deflection in bigger angle and skeptically TVC nozzle deflection. If there is no contribution from TVC nozzle deflection, F-22 needs to deflect the horizontal tails a lot to push down the aft fuselage to compensate the shift of lift center in supersonic, which seems to make it more unstealthy than the canards. That's why some people guessed F-22's TVC also kicks in when flying supersonic in order to minimize the deflection angle of the tails at the cost of thrust loss.

When cruising subsonic, canards are stealthy as they stay level with no deflection. The aircraft's pitch control would rely on the minimum deflection of elevons.

The only significantly unstealthy moment, as I can see, is when maneuvering in high angle of attack, canards would need to deflect more than usual to provide proper pitch control. But I think stealth is not important then as only close distance dog fights require high AoA maneuvers, and such big deflection only happens in short moments.

In general, canards and leading edge root extensions coupled with delta wings offer J-20 high supersonic performance, high stealth, beyond average subsonic performance with relatively underpowered engines.

Such configuration desperately rely on fly control computers, which presents an outstanding challenge to its developers comparing to their counterparts on F-22. lnstitute 611 should have employed a lot of experiences they obtained from J-9 project, which started from 1960s. As shown in historical photos, they did a lot of theoretical research and wind tunnel tests for a Mach 2.5 fighter jet with canard delta configuration although practically they weren't able to achieve it in any ways as then no good engine was available and no good in-flight computer systems were available to support all moving canards. But they did collect massive test data, built up their know-how and laid a solid foundation for J-10 and J-20 development.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

*Is this a 2021 with WS-10B engine modified ? 
claimed by ...

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914486691779497986*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914491234319663104

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

*"CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars*"

Hey pakistaniGuy, the engineers at Lockeed Martin, must have made a big mistake, according to your silly theory, because they have designed, a giant flying wing, with *wingspan 52.43 m* and *Wing surface area of 465.5 m²*.





*
DIMENSIONS:*
*Length* 69.00 ft (21.03 m)
*Wingspan* 172.00 ft (52.43 m)
*Height* 17.00 ft (5.18 m)
*Wing Area* 5,000 ft² (465.5 m²)

With such a giant wing and huge wing surface area, it must be no way stealthy, according to your limited knowledge. I guess, you have never heard of *COMPOSITE MATERIALS*, and *RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL(RAM)* coating to decrease radar signal reflection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> *"CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars*"
> 
> Hey pakistaniGuy, the engineers at Lockeed Martin, must have made a big mistake, according to your silly theory, because they have designed, a giant flying wing, with *wingspan 52.43 m* and *Wing surface area of 465.5 m²*.
> 
> View attachment 429148
> 
> *
> DIMENSIONS:*
> *Length* 69.00 ft (21.03 m)
> *Wingspan* 172.00 ft (52.43 m)
> *Height* 17.00 ft (5.18 m)
> *Wing Area* 5,000 ft² (465.5 m²)
> 
> With such a giant wing and huge wing surface area, it must be no way stealthy, according to your limited knowledge. I guess, you have never heard of *COMPOSITE MATERIALS*, and *RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL(RAM)* coating to decrease radar signal reflection.


But B-2 don't has *CANARDS *you fool to give extra surface to *RADARS* and how to make CANARDS *COMPOSITE MATERIALS* and *RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL(RAM)* they will give extra surface to RADARS they don't totally invisible to radars, and as for your information B-2 develop by Northrop Grumman not Lockheed Martin and you have all knowledge about *aerospace *and *aerodynamics* you mentally ill @Asoka


----------



## Asoka

"give *extra* surface to radars"

hey pakistaniGuy,

J-20 merely has the tails, moved to the front, and now they are called canards. That don't give *extra* surface to radars.

It's like moving your wallet, from your back pocket, to the front pocket, don't give you *extra* money in your wallet.

If you don't believe me, try it and see if you ended up with *extra* money, or ask your mother, or kindergarten teacher, since you can't count.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

I want to provide two examples from opposite ends of the spectrum.

ASH 31 glider with very high aspect ratio wings. Wingspan is massive. Wing area is high relative to the weight of the fuselage. The ASH 31 glider can fly with no engines (no thrust) at all.





On the other hand, air-to-air missiles have no main wings, just small fins. And yet, they can fly and maneuver well enough to intercept other aircraft.





Look at the two fighters below and determine which one has bigger wings relative to the weight of the fuselage.









Which plane has higher wing loading?
Which plane has lower wing loading?





Which plane is supporting more weight per square feet of wing?

Ask yourself WHY the wings are sized the way they are. There is always a reason. The aircraft designers are not stupid, nor are they incompetent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Asoka said:


> "give *extra* surface to radars"
> 
> hey pakistaniGuy,
> 
> J-20 merely has the tails, moved to the front, and now they are called canards. That don't give *extra* surface to radars.
> 
> It's like moving your wallet, from your back pocket, to the front pocket, don't give you *extra* money in your wallet.
> 
> If you don't believe me, try it and see if you ended up with *extra* money, or ask your mother, or kindergarten teacher, since you can't count.


Frontal/headon RCS is always far more important than rear/back RCS, and please explain me why they don't gives extra surface to radars?and don't tells me your stupid theories that composite and RAM that totally invisible to all radars Even sat can't detected J-20 you put large CANARDS in front of the main wings to your stealth jet and don't expect the radar return  what bogus logic you have or these on J-20 built some kind of out this universe materials that transparent to all electromagnetic waves,you have no brain in your head but sh!t in your head right Mr @Asoka


----------



## khanasifm



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Asoka

So this pakistaniGuy really think he will end up with more money, if he moved his wallet from the back, to the front pocket.

Some pakistani village is missing it's village idiot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

STRANGER BIRD said:


> *Is this a 2021 with WS-10B engine modified ?
> claimed by ...
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914486691779497986*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914491234319663104


Yes. It is a modified WS-10B engine ... nothing really to "claim" here


----------



## l0ngl0ng

Asoka said:


> *"CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars*"
> 
> Hey pakistaniGuy, the engineers at Lockeed Martin, must have made a big mistake, according to your silly theory, because they have designed, a giant flying wing, with *wingspan 52.43 m* and *Wing surface area of 465.5 m²*.
> 
> View attachment 429148
> 
> *
> DIMENSIONS:*
> *Length* 69.00 ft (21.03 m)
> *Wingspan* 172.00 ft (52.43 m)
> *Height* 17.00 ft (5.18 m)
> *Wing Area* 5,000 ft² (465.5 m²)
> 
> With such a giant wing and huge wing surface area, it must be no way stealthy, according to your limited knowledge. I guess, you have never heard of *COMPOSITE MATERIALS*, and *RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL(RAM)* coating to decrease radar signal reflection.


According to some self educated stealth expert living in this forum, t*he name of the parts is the key point to achieve stealthy,* no matter it is big or small. 




The two giant stabilizers generate 0.000000000001m^2 RCS, for it's called Stabilizers which is much closer to "stealthy".

They will lost this 0.000000000001m^2 RCS ability when move to front of the aeroplane and named as canards, that's a joke.

Wings, V-tails, H-Tails: good name. 
Canards: bad name

Your question is explained: B-2 is stealthy even the wings are much much much bigger than J-20 canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

l0ngl0ng said:


> According to some self educated stealth expert living in this forum, t*he name of the parts is the key point to achieve stealthy,* no matter it is big or small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The two giant stabilizers generate 0.000000000001m^2 RCS, for it's called Stabilizers which is much closer to "stealthy".
> 
> They will lost this 0.000000000001m^2 RCS ability when move to front of the aeroplane and named as canards, that's a joke.
> 
> Wings, V-tails, H-Tails: good name.
> Canards: bad name
> 
> Your question is explained: B-2 is stealthy even the wings are much much much bigger than J-20 canards.


Because @pakistanipower doesn't know what he's talking about ... he equates RCS only to surface area  ... idiot



Asoka said:


> So this pakistaniGuy really think he will end up with more money, if he moved his wallet from the back, to the front pocket.
> 
> Some pakistani village is missing it's village idiot.


For once, I agree with you. If @pakistanipower equates RCS only to surface area, then he's a bigger idiot than I've previously imagined ... . This proves that he doesn't have the slightest clue of how RCS reduction shaping works ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Because @pakistanipower doesn't know what he's talking about ... he equates RCS only to surface area  ... idiot
> 
> 
> For once, I agree with you. If @pakistanipower equates RCS only to surface area, then he's a bigger idiot than I've previously imagined ... . This proves that he doesn't have the slightest clue of how RCS reduction shaping works ...


With respect Mr. @Figaro you add 2 massive CANARDS in the front of main wing and expect that they don't give the extra return for radars including the main wing, what great logic you have Mr. @Figaro  




look at your self main wing RCS+ CANARD RCS= one added (CANARDS) for increased radar return
PAKFA's lavcon far more better than J-20 massive CANARDS in the term LO or STEALTH gives far less radar returns


----------



## 帅的一匹

pakistanipower said:


> With respect Mr. @Figaro you add 2 massive CANARDS in the front of main wing and expect that they don't give the extra return for radars including the main wing, what great logic you have Mr. @Figaro
> View attachment 429256
> 
> look at your self main wing RCS+ CANARD RCS= one added (CANARDS) for increased radar return
> PAKFA's lavcon far more better than J-20 massive CANARDS in the term LO or STEALTH gives far less radar returns
> View attachment 429257


Still need time to tell...let's not try to get ahead of ourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> With respect Mr. @Figaro you add 2 massive CANARDS in the front of main wing and expect that they don't give the extra return for radars including the main wing, what great logic you have Mr. @Figaro
> View attachment 429256
> 
> look at your self main wing RCS+ CANARD RCS= one added (CANARDS) for increased radar return
> PAKFA's lavcon far more better than J-20 massive CANARDS in the term LO or STEALTH gives far less radar returns
> 
> View attachment 429257


It honestly seems kinda dumb of you to bash @Asoka posts when you yourself cannot understand the basics of RCS reduction ... . First, the J-20 has closed coupled canard, which differ from the traditional usage. Then again, they are not perpendicular to the main body ... so conventional rules don't apply. Let's not use the words "huge" ... we don't want to sound like a 5 year old @j-20blackdragon


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> Still need time to tell...let's not try to get ahead of ourself.


Sir how can you hide 2 massive CANARD surfaces from *radars *in front of main wings whatever makes these CANARDS composite materials and RAM, i can't understand it or those CANARDS made of some kind of out of this universe materials that totally invisible/transparent to all electromagnetic waves as @Asoka said



Figaro said:


> It honestly seems kinda dumb of you to bash @Asoka posts when you yourself cannot understand the basics of RCS reduction ... . First, the J-20 has closed coupled canard, which differ from the traditional usage. Then again, they are not perpendicular to the main body ... so conventional rules don't apply. Let's not use the words "huge" ... we don't want to sound like a 5 year old @j-20blackdragon


Sir how can you hide 2 massive CANARD surfaces from *radars *in front of main wings whatever makes these CANARDS composite materials and RAM, i can't understand it or those CANARDS made of some kind of out of this universe materials that totally invisible/transparent to all electromagnetic waves as @Asoka said close couple CANARDS can't guarantee of reduction of excess radars returns there are currently 3 fighter jets and 1 former jet here it is
*J-10*




*RAFALE




GRIPEN




AND FORMER MIG-1.44




and J-20




so kindly please explain me that how can its hide excess radar returns with exception of the main wings
https://www.quora.com/How-do-canards-affect-the-aerodynamics-and-performance-of-a-combat-aircraft*


----------



## Deino

Guys could You calm down and esp. Dont use big letters and colours any more. It does not make your claims true.

If you look at several stealth designs including Northrop's navalised ATF proposal and Boeing's concept for its 6. Generation fighter, canards are not a no-go for stealth as some claim.

This is plain wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## l0ngl0ng

pakistanipower said:


> Sir how can you hide 2 massive CANARD surfaces from *radars *in front of main wings whatever makes these CANARDS composite materials and RAM, i can't understand it or those CANARDS made of some kind of out of this universe materials that totally invisible/transparent to all electromagnetic waves as @Asoka said












This is the best we can get from AESA image, can you tell us which are the wings, canards or _stabilator_?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

*Not Real But Cool *

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ozranger

Control surface would only have significantly increased RCS when deflected in big angles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## leapx

pakistanipower said:


> Sir how can you hide 2 massive CANARD surfaces from *radars *in front of main wings whatever makes these CANARDS composite materials and RAM, i can't understand it or those CANARDS made of some kind of out of this universe materials that totally invisible/transparent to all electromagnetic waves as @Asoka said
> 
> 
> Sir how can you hide 2 massive CANARD surfaces from *radars *in front of main wings whatever makes these CANARDS composite materials and RAM, i can't understand it or those CANARDS made of some kind of out of this universe materials that totally invisible/transparent to all electromagnetic waves as @Asoka said close couple CANARDS can't guarantee of reduction of excess radars returns there are currently 3 fighter jets and 1 former jet here it is
> *J-10*
> View attachment 429262
> 
> *RAFALE
> View attachment 429264
> 
> GRIPEN
> View attachment 429266
> 
> AND FORMER MIG-1.44
> View attachment 429267
> 
> and J-20
> View attachment 429276
> 
> so kindly please explain me that how can its hide excess radar returns with exception of the main wings
> https://www.quora.com/How-do-canards-affect-the-aerodynamics-and-performance-of-a-combat-aircraft*


why everybody is still spreading the canard that canards are bad for stealth？？？？？？

How to make carnards more stealthy？ the same way you deal with the wing,deflect, absorb. there is tons of pictures tell you how it is done. you just donot get the meaning of the white leading edge/trailing edge



ozranger said:


> Control surface would only have significantly increased RCS when deflected in big angles.



yes

when those control surface in a big angle, basically the aircraft is taking off/landing，or dog fighting. radar stealth is not that important in such situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Can we stick to the topic please? Some are more obsessed to their opinion even if it contradicts reality and we are now so much in general aerodynamics.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Source: 《兵器》2017年增刊B

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## beijingwalker

*China's New J-20 Fighter Jets Outclass Regional Rivals*
OCT 3, 2017 @ 05:00 AM 




Chinese J-20 stealth fighter jets fly past during a military parade at the Zhurihe training base in China's northern Inner Mongolia region on July 30, 2017. (STR/AFP/Getty Images)

China just started using its Chengdu J-20 fighter jets, a military official announced last week via state-run Xinhua News Agency. The long-range stealth fighters are evidently China’s best in their class. They should help the People’s Liberation Army air force with long-range interception or position it to strike first at infrastructure targets on the ground. China will probably focus on its coasts and land borders, the most likely sites of skirmishes given China’s turbid neighbor relations. “The PLA Air Force, like the PLA Navy, lagged behind for many years and is eager to acquire cutting-edge capabilities now that the Chinese industrial base has grown stronger and budgets are flush,” says Joshua Pollack, editor of _The Nonproliferation Review_ in Washington.

China’s latest can beat three other weighty countries that are developing similar aircraft, although this is largely because rival aircraft have yet to be released or proven yet in service. They are:


*India*: Indian aerospace and defense firm Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is working with Russian aircraft maker JSC Sukhoi Co. to develop what this news report describes as a fighter aircraft with stealth capability. It would be in the same class as the J-20. But the project is “complicated,” and work will go slowly, the head of a Russian state-owned export promotion firm was quoted saying in the report. The two countries have worked together since 2007. Russia’s military is considered stronger than China’s, but India is a step behind and troops from the two countries faced off over a disputed border region for 70 days in mid-2017.



*Japan*: An R&D institute under Japan’s Ministry of Defense has contracted Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to develop a stealth fighter called the X-2 Shinshin. After eight years of development, a test flight delayed due to parts failure went smoothly in April 2016, per this industry news report. The aircraft is built expressly to dodge radars. But the plane is still in development. On top of that, Japan is reportedly considering development of another fighter jet, dubbed the F-3. Why so many fighters? The rise of China’s military strength troubles Japan. The two face off regularly over a dispute tract of the East China Sea, and Tokyo is taking an ever stronger role in checking Beijing’s expansion in the South China Sea.
*Russia*: In addition to the fighter being developed with India, Sukhoi will finish research and development on another J-20 peer, the PAK FA T-50, in 2019 with initial trials due next year, the country’s news service TASS reports. This aircraft, two of which got into a mock dogfight at an aviation show in July, was originally due for use this year. China got there first. The two countries have lived in peace for the past 25 years, following several border clashes.

But China’s J-20 would also be a tough rival against the American-made, U.S. Air Force’s hundreds of F-35 fighter jets.




The United States is the “only country with a fully operational fifth-generation fighter,” think tank Center for Strategic & International Studies says in this analysis of the J-20. The F-35, first shipped in 2011, differs from the J-20 in its wing layout and the sources of key components such as engines, per this analysis. China and the United States, two old Cold War foes, regularly disagree now over geopolitical issues, though decades of dialogue have reduced the threat of war to near zero.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphj...ter-jets-beat-these-3-countries/#397f8e8a3b89

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

l0ngl0ng said:


> According to some self educated stealth expert living in this forum, t*he name of the parts is the key point to achieve stealthy,* no matter it is big or small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The two giant stabilizers generate 0.000000000001m^2 RCS, for it's called Stabilizers which is much closer to "stealthy".
> 
> They will lost this 0.000000000001m^2 RCS ability when move to front of the aeroplane and named as canards, that's a joke.
> 
> Wings, V-tails, H-Tails: good name.
> Canards: bad name
> 
> Your question is explained: B-2 is stealthy even the wings are much much much bigger than J-20 canards.




F-22's giant tail stabilizers, are actually much bigger, and has greater surface areas, than J-20's canards. According to the pakistaniGuy's claim that should be return greater RCS.



Figaro said:


> Because @pakistanipower doesn't know what he's talking about ... he equates RCS only to surface area  ... idiot
> 
> 
> For once, I agree with you. If @pakistanipower equates RCS only to surface area, then he's a bigger idiot than I've previously imagined ... . This proves that he doesn't have the slightest clue of how RCS reduction shaping works ...




Yes, this pakistaniGuy really is equating surface area with RCS return. And he really think by moving the tails, to the front, and call it canards, really gives the plane *EXTRA *surface area.

*"he's a bigger idiot than I've previously imagined"*

He is the biggest idiot in this J-20 thread. And he is not interested in learning new things, by picking up the technical keywords, and google and reading about them in articles, written by experts in the fields.



ozranger said:


> Control surface would only have significantly increased RCS when deflected in big angles.




And if the canards and other control surfaces, are made of composite materials, and coated with RAM, that would significantly reduces the RCS, even deflected in big angles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## -------

The way J-20 looks to me, it's as if the designers were intending to make it an unmanned aircraft. Like, the cockpit was an after thought.. Dunno, cockpit looks a little weird to me, was it suppose to be there ? hmmm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

I'm not sure if it has been posted before

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## khanasifm

Canards on SX0 and missing on SU35

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

As far as I now no posted yet here....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> As far as I now no posted yet here....
> 
> View attachment 429467
> View attachment 429468


Is this Jacksonbobo guy a special PLAAF photographer? He has a lot of weibo followers and posts very high quality shots ... insider access?


----------



## yantong1980

Combat-Master said:


> The way J-20 looks to me, it's as if the designers were intending to make it an unmanned aircraft. Like, the cockpit was an after thought.. Dunno, cockpit looks a little weird to me, was it suppose to be there ? hmmm



Too good to be true, sound like a dream become true if one day they announced creation unmanned J-20. But for me, I wouldn't surprised if in the future they 'use' unmanned J-20 as test platform for next 6th gen fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> View attachment 429547


#9651 had all the rest of this series of pics

He claimed its new

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## 帅的一匹

I think J20's canards won't turn in large angle only if it engage the enemy in WVR, so it's no exception with the RCS dealing of the main wing.

A state of art fighter jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## haidian

*What the J-20 Fighter's Arrival Means for China's Power Projection Capabilities*




15:48 05.10.2017(updated 17:35 05.10.2017)

The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has officially commissioned the Chengdu J-20 fifth-gen stealth fighter into military service, with testing underway to make the plane fully operational. In an exclusive analysis for Sputnik, Russian military observer Vasily Kashin outlines the capabilities that the new plane provides.

China has become the second country in the world after the United States to formally adopt a fifth-generation fighter plane into service. Alongside the American F-22 and F-35, and Russia's Su-57, the J-20 has brought China into a very small group of countries capable of building fifth-gen aircraft.

Last week, Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian confirmed that the twin-engine, single-seat jet had been "officially commissioned" into service with the PLAAF, adding that flight testing is being carried out "as scheduled."

"This is an outstanding achievement," according to military observer Vasily Kashin, "but its real impact on the combat capabilities of the PLAAF will depend on a large number of factors which are not entirely known to us," he wrote in an analysis of the new plane for Sputnik.

The analyst, a specialist Chinese military power, explained that these factors include the question of whether the Chinese aviation industry will be able to achieve a relatively high production rate for the new aircraft at an affordable price.

The history of the US effort to build fifth-gen fighters serves as a cautionary tale, Kashin noted. After all, he recalled, the high production cost of the world's first fifth-gen fighter, the US F-22 Raptor, led to the early termination of production of that aircraft.

Such things have already occurred in the Chinese military industry in the past, the analyst stressed. "It's enough to recall the story of the arrival of the first batch of JH-7 bombers into the Chinese' Navy's air force (the PLANAF), after which production of the planes was halted, and resumed only in 2004 with the advent of the more advanced JH-7A."

The navy was left dissatisfied with the JH-7's lack of precision air-to-surface strike capability, which the JH-7A remedied. The new plane also includes a stronger airframe (increasing its maximum ordnance load), improved sensor systems, electro-optics, counter-jamming, radar, flight control systems and other upgrades.






Kashin doesn't believe that the 'base' J-20 will meet the same fate as the JH-7. Nevertheless, the observer stressed that "mastering such a complicated machine will not be an easy task for the PLAAF," particularly if global experience in the production of fifth-gen fighters is anything to go by.

Recalling again the experience of the US, the observer pointed out that the US Air Force first began purchasing F-22s in 1999 for testing and pilot training. The planes didn't reach basic combat readiness until December 2005, after which they began to be used in major drills. Reaching full combat readiness required another two years, until December 2007.

The US wouldn't deploy its F-22s in the Persian Gulf until 2009, and they wouldn't see their first combat use until 2014, when they were used to strike Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, in spite of the fact that the US military was involved in several wars during this period (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).

"The development of the second US fifth-generation fighter, the F-35, has been even more painful," Kashin added. "The US Air Force received its first batch of F-35As in 2011, but was not ready to announce their basic combat readiness until the end of 2016."

Another problem with the F-35 is its staggering cost, with an estimated total price tag in excess of $1.5 trillion dollars and climbing. Military observers call the F-35 a perfect example of what happens when engineers are given a blank check to build a miracle super plane, and then given more and more money as the military attempts to get something for the immense funds committed to the program.

Russia has faced its own problems with the Sukhoi Su-57 (formerly known as the T-50 or PAK FA), an aircraft in the active prototype stage since 2009. Making its first flight in 2010, the plane, expected to be introduced sometime between 2018 and 2019, has faced problems with the creation of a truly fifth-generation engine, instead using NPO Saturn izdeliye 117 engines, the same as those used by the 4++ generation Su-35S air superiority fighter, in the interim. Designers expect to equip the T-50 with fifth-gen izdeliye 30 engines starting in 2020.

According to Kashin, part of the problem faced by fifth-generation fighter designers worldwide is that "many of the capabilities of these planes which lead to a huge increase in costs may prove superfluous in the wars for the future."

The analyst noted, for instance, China and other powers are allocating vast resources to combatting stealth capabilities via air defense. This means that many of the technologies used by these planes to ensure low-visibility on radar will depreciate in value with the passage of time.

Furthermore, the observer pointed out that "very often, air power will be used against irregular forces and insurgents. In the fight against this kind of adversary, there is no need for the capability to cruise at supersonic speed, low visibility or powerful radar with active phased array antennae. What the aircraft will need is the ability to maintain a very high rate of combat operations –flying several combat sorties per day, without interruptions or excessive time on the ground for maintenance."

For these kinds of missions, Kashin wrote, "fifth-gen planes may lose out to older planes."

Ultimately, the analyst believes that China will be likely to continue to maintain its fleet of less expensive fourth generation aircraft, such as the J-11B and the J-11D, as the backbone of the country's air defenses. "Fourth generation planes will also be used in ground operations where the capabilities of fifth-gen aircraft are clearly redundant –for example, near China's south and southwestern borders."





As far as the J-20 is concerned, Kashin said that for now, the PLAAN will continue to experiment with the new aircraft, "developing their own tactics for using stealth plane and, simultaneously, creating new tactics for combatting enemy stealth aircraft."
https://sputniknews.com/military/201710051057975225-j20-chinese-air-power-russian-perspective/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Asoka

haidian said:


> *What the J-20 Fighter's Arrival Means for China's Power Projection Capabilities*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15:48 05.10.2017(updated 17:35 05.10.2017)
> 
> The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has officially commissioned the Chengdu J-20 fifth-gen stealth fighter into military service, with testing underway to make the plane fully operational. In an exclusive analysis for Sputnik, Russian military observer Vasily Kashin outlines the capabilities that the new plane provides.
> 
> China has become the second country in the world after the United States to formally adopt a fifth-generation fighter plane into service. Alongside the American F-22 and F-35, and Russia's Su-57, the J-20 has brought China into a very small group of countries capable of building fifth-gen aircraft.
> 
> Last week, Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian confirmed that the twin-engine, single-seat jet had been "officially commissioned" into service with the PLAAF, adding that flight testing is being carried out "as scheduled."
> 
> "This is an outstanding achievement," according to military observer Vasily Kashin, "but its real impact on the combat capabilities of the PLAAF will depend on a large number of factors which are not entirely known to us," he wrote in an analysis of the new plane for Sputnik.
> 
> The analyst, a specialist Chinese military power, explained that these factors include the question of whether the Chinese aviation industry will be able to achieve a relatively high production rate for the new aircraft at an affordable price.
> 
> The history of the US effort to build fifth-gen fighters serves as a cautionary tale, Kashin noted. After all, he recalled, the high production cost of the world's first fifth-gen fighter, the US F-22 Raptor, led to the early termination of production of that aircraft.
> 
> Such things have already occurred in the Chinese military industry in the past, the analyst stressed. "It's enough to recall the story of the arrival of the first batch of JH-7 bombers into the Chinese' Navy's air force (the PLANAF), after which production of the planes was halted, and resumed only in 2004 with the advent of the more advanced JH-7A."
> 
> The navy was left dissatisfied with the JH-7's lack of precision air-to-surface strike capability, which the JH-7A remedied. The new plane also includes a stronger airframe (increasing its maximum ordnance load), improved sensor systems, electro-optics, counter-jamming, radar, flight control systems and other upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kashin doesn't believe that the 'base' J-20 will meet the same fate as the JH-7. Nevertheless, the observer stressed that "mastering such a complicated machine will not be an easy task for the PLAAF," particularly if global experience in the production of fifth-gen fighters is anything to go by.
> 
> Recalling again the experience of the US, the observer pointed out that the US Air Force first began purchasing F-22s in 1999 for testing and pilot training. The planes didn't reach basic combat readiness until December 2005, after which they began to be used in major drills. Reaching full combat readiness required another two years, until December 2007.
> 
> The US wouldn't deploy its F-22s in the Persian Gulf until 2009, and they wouldn't see their first combat use until 2014, when they were used to strike Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, in spite of the fact that the US military was involved in several wars during this period (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).
> 
> "The development of the second US fifth-generation fighter, the F-35, has been even more painful," Kashin added. "The US Air Force received its first batch of F-35As in 2011, but was not ready to announce their basic combat readiness until the end of 2016."
> 
> Another problem with the F-35 is its staggering cost, with an estimated total price tag in excess of $1.5 trillion dollars and climbing. Military observers call the F-35 a perfect example of what happens when engineers are given a blank check to build a miracle super plane, and then given more and more money as the military attempts to get something for the immense funds committed to the program.
> 
> Russia has faced its own problems with the Sukhoi Su-57 (formerly known as the T-50 or PAK FA), an aircraft in the active prototype stage since 2009. Making its first flight in 2010, the plane, expected to be introduced sometime between 2018 and 2019, has faced problems with the creation of a truly fifth-generation engine, instead using NPO Saturn izdeliye 117 engines, the same as those used by the 4++ generation Su-35S air superiority fighter, in the interim. Designers expect to equip the T-50 with fifth-gen izdeliye 30 engines starting in 2020.
> 
> According to Kashin, part of the problem faced by fifth-generation fighter designers worldwide is that "many of the capabilities of these planes which lead to a huge increase in costs may prove superfluous in the wars for the future."
> 
> The analyst noted, for instance, China and other powers are allocating vast resources to combatting stealth capabilities via air defense. This means that many of the technologies used by these planes to ensure low-visibility on radar will depreciate in value with the passage of time.
> 
> Furthermore, the observer pointed out that "very often, air power will be used against irregular forces and insurgents. In the fight against this kind of adversary, there is no need for the capability to cruise at supersonic speed, low visibility or powerful radar with active phased array antennae. What the aircraft will need is the ability to maintain a very high rate of combat operations –flying several combat sorties per day, without interruptions or excessive time on the ground for maintenance."
> 
> For these kinds of missions, Kashin wrote, "fifth-gen planes may lose out to older planes."
> 
> Ultimately, the analyst believes that China will be likely to continue to maintain its fleet of less expensive fourth generation aircraft, such as the J-11B and the J-11D, as the backbone of the country's air defenses. "Fourth generation planes will also be used in ground operations where the capabilities of fifth-gen aircraft are clearly redundant –for example, near China's south and southwestern borders."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the J-20 is concerned, Kashin said that for now, the PLAAN will continue to experiment with the new aircraft, "developing their own tactics for using stealth plane and, simultaneously, creating new tactics for combatting enemy stealth aircraft."
> https://sputniknews.com/military/201710051057975225-j20-chinese-air-power-russian-perspective/



LOL. This is Russian "expert", Vasily Kashin, writing for the trashy Russian sputniknews wants to compare the production of J-20 with JH-7.

Why not compare J-20 with Nanchang A-5?






If there is one country in the world, which could produce a 5-gen fighter, in large numbers, and at an affordable price, it will be China.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cnleio

Old photo of J-20 prototype maintain

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Asoka

An excellent piece of CG drawing of, a J-20 passing through an icy canyon, by an outstanding artist.










































*高手绘制歼20版“骷髅中队”想象图*

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## grey boy 2

2 yellow J-20 spotted on 9/7

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Taygibay

That almost looks like an IOC squadron. does it not?

Great day all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Taygibay said:


> View attachment 430220
> 
> 
> That almost looks like an IOC squadron does, it not?
> 
> Great day all, Tay.


Because it is ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Taygibay said:


> View attachment 430220
> 
> 
> That almost looks like an IOC squadron does, it not?
> 
> Great day all, Tay.




No ... Yes, maybe a bit, but that image was akready posted three ir four times and is from the 81-parade shiwing three J-20s and threeJ-16s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## STRANGER BIRD



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

STRANGER BIRD said:


> View attachment 430223


Already posted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

Deino said:


> No ... Yes, maybe a bit, but that image was already posted three or four times and is from the 81-parade showing three J-20s and three J-16s.



Ahhh, shucks! I thought it was from the July '17 parade.
That event did look like showing off new active matériels.

Thanks and good day both, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## usmankhan9

LOL. This is Russian "expert", Vasily Kashin, writing for the trashy Russian sputniknews wants to compare the production of J-20 with JH-7.

He isn't comparing just mentioning what has happend in the past with the production of fighters espacially the 5th generation. You should also read where he says it won't suffer the same fate as the jh-7.


----------



## gambit

ozranger said:


> When cruising subsonic, canards are stealthy as they stay level with no deflection. The aircraft's pitch control would rely on the minimum deflection of elevons.


I have said this on this forum many times over the last 8 yrs and so far, *NO ONE* have proved me wrong. In fact, under the current laws of nature, no one can prove me wrong.

So here goes...

In designing a 'low radar observable' body, there are three main rules:

1- Control of quantity of radiators
2- Control of array of radiators
3- Control of modes of radiation

The above maybe called 'rules' but they are more like guidelines. The body is by *DEGREES OF OBEDIENCE OR COMPLIANCE* rather than by violations.

Of being 'low radar observable', the sphere is considered the most obedient or compliance.

1- The sphere has only one radiator -- itself.

2- The sphere has only one array of that one radiator -- a small flat surface area facing the radar.

3- The sphere has three modes or ways on how a radar signal would leave its body -- specular, surface waves, and leaky waves.

This is why the sphere is used as a calibration body because no matter which way it is positioned, it still has the same degree of obedience to the three rules.

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1


> The Lincoln Calibration Sphere 1, or LCS-1, is a large aluminium sphere in Earth orbit since 6 May 1965. It is the oldest spacecraft still in use, having lasted for over 50 years. It was launched along with the Lincoln Experimental Satellite-2 on a Titan IIIA. It is technically the oldest operational spacecraft, but it has no power supply or fuel; it is merely a metal sphere. *It has been used for radar calibration since its launch.*


The human body, an automobile, or an aircraft, each is considered a complex body under radar bombardment. For each body, as its orientation to the radar changes, its radar cross section ( RCS ) changes. The body can move while the radar is stationary, or vice versa, or both can move in relation to each other. But no matter which, total RCS changes. So as RCS changes, it means the body's obedience to the three rules changes.

From the rear viewing angle, the canards are not be visible to the seeking radar.

From the starboard viewing angle, the port canard is not visible to the seeking radar.

From the port viewing angle, the starboard canard is not visible to the seeking radar.

If the canard moves, its orientation changes with respect to the seeking radar, so in this case, its RCS will increase. If the canard does not move, there is still a base RCS value. This is the law of nature that you cannot change, even if you are Chinese.

The J-20 has eight major structures protruding from its main body, pairs of: wings, vertical stabilators, ventral fins, and canards.

You can have these structures covered with absorbers but that will not change the laws of nature -- that the more quantity of radiators, the higher the quantity of reflected signals. Absorbers are just one method of reduction or negation of those reflected signals. But RAM do not change the laws of nature.



ozranger said:


> The only significantly unstealthy moment, as I can see, is when maneuvering in high angle of attack, canards would need to deflect more than usual to provide proper pitch control. But I think stealth is not important then as only close distance dog fights require high AoA maneuvers, and such big deflection only happens in short moments.


This does not negate Rule 1.

At high AOA maneuvers, you already present the main body to the seeking radar, so perhaps the canards, as they could be visible at the same time, does not matter much, if any at all. It is like looking at a plate, so why bother with looking at a couple of minor protrusions from that plate ?

But depending on viewing angle at BVR ranges, the less compliance you are to Rule 1, the greater your vulnerability at being seen first.



lcloo said:


> I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?
> 
> I seen some wrote that is bacause the canard's significant radar is due to refelection from its perpendicular position retaltive to fuselage, but if you observe carefully, this is not the case for J20's canard's positioning.


Then see Rule 2: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

The word 'array' means how these structures are in a layout in relations to each other. The closer they are to each other, the greater the interactions of reflected signals between structures. These interactions are either 'destructive interference' or 'constructive interference'.

Destructive -- good.
Constructive -- bad.

With constructive interference, there is a higher contribution to final RCS.

That is why Rule 1 says you should minimize the *QUANTITY* of radiators whenever feasible.



Figaro said:


> ...the RCS discussion is pointless and leads nowhere ... this has been debated for 6 years to no avail.


You are wrong. The RCS issue is not pointless because most people, yourself included, are generally ignorant on even basic radar detection principles, thereby producing misleading arguments.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

usmankhan9 said:


> LOL. This is Russian "expert", Vasily Kashin, writing for the trashy Russian sputniknews wants to compare the production of J-20 with JH-7.
> 
> He isn't comparing just mentioning what has happend in the past with the production of fighters espacially the 5th generation. You should also read where he says it won't suffer the same fate as the jh-7.


Sputnik is complete garbage. Their "expert", Vasily Kashin, is the go to person for all things military for basically all nations. Russia wants to badmouth the J-20 because they know their Su-57 hasn't gotten very far ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

l0ngl0ng said:


> According to some self educated stealth expert living in this forum, t*he name of the parts is the key point to achieve stealthy,* no matter it is big or small.


Actually -- No. See Rule 2 in post 9735.



Figaro said:


> Because @pakistanipower doesn't know what he's talking about ...


But I do.



Figaro said:


> ...he equates RCS only to surface area  ... idiot


Since I know what I am talking about, can I call you 'idiot' ?


----------



## Figaro

gambit said:


> Actually -- No. See Rule 2 in post 9735.
> 
> 
> But I do.
> 
> 
> Since I know what I am talking about, can I call you 'idiot' ?


Or how you spew pseudo-science in a condescending manner ... can I call you a 'bigot'

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> Or how you spew pseudo-science in a condescending manner ... can I call you a 'bigot'


What I 'spew' is not pseudo-science. Disprove me -- if you can.



leapx said:


> why everybody is still spreading the canard that canards are bad for stealth？？？？？？


See Rule 1 of post 9735.


----------



## Figaro

gambit said:


> What I 'spew' is not pseudo-science. Disprove me -- if you can.


I'm not going to sift through your "pseudo-science". I myself am not an authority on RCS either so I don't feel like pointlessly arguing with a stubborn poster. The *FACT *is you're not a RCS expert or an aerospace engineer. Do you work with Lockheed Martin ... or even better, do you have access to a RCS testing facility? Instead of berating the Chinese engineers on RCS, why don't you think about their qualifications versus yours. Why the hell should anyone listen to your RCS analysis actual experts? If I may, you're just starting a flame war ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> I'm not going to sift through your "pseudo-science". I myself am not an authority on RCS either so I don't feel like pointlessly arguing with a stubborn poster. The *FACT *is you're not a RCS expert or an aerospace engineer. Do you work with Lockheed Martin ... or even better, do you have excess to a RCS testing facility? Instead of berating the Chinese engineers on RCS, why don't you think about their qualifications versus yours. Why the hell should anyone listen to your RCS analysis over any other? If I may, you're just creating a flame war ...


I do not need to work for Lockheed to understand basic radar principles which creates the foundation for 'stealth'. Just like a civilian pilot flying a Cessna 172 do not need to be a fighter pilot to understand basic aerodynamics.

Where have I 'berate' the Chinese engineers ? In fact, I often used Chinese engineers to support my arguments.

How about the '10-lambda' rule ? Did you know that it dictate the shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and the J-20 ?

Just because you are ignorant of the science behind the aircraft, do not call what you do not understand 'pseudo-science'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

gambit said:


> I do not need to work for Lockheed to understand basic radar principles which creates the foundation for 'stealth'. Just like a civilian pilot flying a Cessna 172 do not need to be a fighter pilot to understand basic aerodynamics.
> 
> Where have I 'berate' the Chinese engineers ? In fact, I often used Chinese engineers to support my arguments.
> 
> How about the '10-lambda' rule ? Do you know that it dictate the shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and the J-20 ?
> 
> Just because you are ignorant of the science behind the aircraft, do not call what you do not understand 'pseudo-science'.


You make stealth sound like child's play ... guess the billions of dollars of investment was completely squandered . Unfortunately, stealth is quite complicated ... I daresay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Asoka said:


> F-22's giant tail stabilizers, are actually much bigger, and has greater surface areas, than J-20's canards. According to the pakistaniGuy's claim that should be return greater RCS.
> 
> Yes, this pakistaniGuy really is equating surface area with RCS return. And he really think by moving the tails, to the front, and call it canards, really gives the plane *EXTRA *surface area.


See Rule 1 of post 9735: Control of *QUANTITY* or radiators.

The more protruding structures you have in the radar stream, the higher total surface area.



Figaro said:


> You make stealth sound like child's play ... guess the billions of dollars of investment was completely squandered . Unfortunately, stealth is quite complicated ... I daresay.


The principles are understandable, even to the layman. But it is the execution that is difficult and expensive.

All you have to do is disprove me -- on principles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

l0ngl0ng said:


> This is the best we can get from AESA image, can you tell us which are the wings, canards or _stabilator_?


This is why posts like yours must be challenged, and I will say this gently: It is ignorant.

I can tell that you do not have even the basics of radar detection.







The above is how a radar -- ESA or else -- really sees a body, whether that body is a human, an automobile, or an aircraft: As a cluster of voltage spikes.

Each voltage spike has its own characteristics such as amplitude, freq, phase, and so on.

From this cluster, we can tell which *IS* the fuselage and which *ARE* flight control structures. So if a cluster of voltage spikes have a pair of spikes at a certain locations in front of the larger pairs of spikes that seems to indicate wings, we can assume that the aircraft has canards. It is not certain. But we are not looking for certainty if the spikes are canards or wings or fins. What we look for is any prominence. The more prominences, or voltage spikes, the greater the odds the radar computer will classify the return as a valid target. That is why a radar engineer do not need to have work experience in 'stealth' to even guess if an aircraft is 'stealthy' or not, and 'stealthy' to what degree.

Posts like yours *SEVERELY* mislead the readers.


----------



## leapx

gambit said:


> What I 'spew' is not pseudo-science. Disprove me -- if you can.
> 
> 
> See Rule 1 of post 9735.



You proved nothing. A regular design do not has canards, But it has horizontal tail. Is horizontal tail radiator？

J-20 has fins to block engine nozzle sideways. they manufacturer the fin with RAM as much as possible.

But this is a different question.

An old picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

hey everyone, don't feed this troller, the_gambler_guy, plz. It's a waste of your time, and pollutes this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

leapx said:


> You proved nothing. A regular design do not has canards, But it has horizontal tail. *Is horizontal tail radiator？*


It is. The question further support the conclusion that *ALL* of you are ignorant -- and I say that gently -- of the basic principles of radar detection.

In radar detection, if a structure reflects, it is called a 'radiator'. Some engineers would even use the word 'transmitter', but 'radiator' is the more common usage. The word indicates a behavior.


----------



## leapx

gambit said:


> It is. The question further support the conclusion that *ALL* of you are ignorant -- and I say that gently -- of the basic principles of radar detection.
> 
> In radar detection, if a structure reflects, it is called a 'radiator'. Some engineers would even use the word 'transmitter', but 'radiator' is the more common usage. The word indicates a behavior.


An arrogant posture will not help you. All you need to do is just answer the question



gambit said:


> It is. The question further support the conclusion that *ALL* of you are ignorant -- and I say that gently -- of the basic principles of radar detection.
> 
> In radar detection, if a structure reflects, it is called a 'radiator'. Some engineers would even use the word 'transmitter', but 'radiator' is the more common usage. The word indicates a behavior.


if it is, how are canards worse than horizontal tail？？ or Why do we always say canards are bad for stealth？

You proved nothing yet

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

leapx said:


> An arrogant posture will not help you. All you need to do is just answer the question


Saying that you are ignorant of the subject is not being arrogant. It is speaking the truth.



leapx said:


> if it is, how are canards worse than horizontal tail？？ or Why do we always say canards are bad for stealth？


I will repeat...

In designing a 'low radar observable' body, there are three main rules:

1- Control of quantity of radiators
2- Control of array of radiators
3- Control of modes of radiation

If you take any structure *BY ITSELF* -- wing, fin, or just a small antenna -- that structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. Do you understand ? You have to take that structure and apply it against the three rules above.

So when we say 'canard', there is only type of flight control structure that qualified, a pair of horizontal stabilators that are in front of the wings.

A structure *BY ITSELF* is *NOT* a wing, *NOT* a fin, *NOT* a horizontal stabilator, *NOT* a vertical stabilator, and *NOT* a canard. Do you understand ?

But if you take that structure and put it somewhere on a fuselage, then it becomes a wing, or a horizontal stabilator, or a vertical stabilator, or a canard. A structure have a name according to its location on the aircraft and aerodynamic relationships with other structures. Do you understand ?

So for the J-20, the canards at least suspicious because they contributes to Rule 1. Not because each canard *BY ITSELF* is somehow bad for 'stealth'. The J-20 with eight major flight controls structures are *LESS* obedient to the three rules than compares to the F-22 which has 6 structures. Do you understand ?



leapx said:


> You proved nothing yet


I proved that I understand the subject better than all of you.


----------



## leapx

gambit said:


> Saying that you are ignorant of the subject is not being arrogant. It is speaking the truth.
> 
> 
> I will repeat...
> 
> In designing a 'low radar observable' body, there are three main rules:
> 
> 1- Control of quantity of radiators
> 2- Control of array of radiators
> 3- Control of modes of radiation
> 
> If you take any structure *BY ITSELF* -- wing, fin, or just a small antenna -- that structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. Do you understand ? You have to take that structure and apply it against the three rules above.
> 
> So when we say 'canard', there is only type of flight control structure that qualified, a pair of horizontal stabilators that are in front of the wings.
> 
> A structure *BY ITSELF* is *NOT* a wing, *NOT* a fin, *NOT* a horizontal stabilator, *NOT* a vertical stabilator, and *NOT* a canard. Do you understand ?
> 
> But if you take that structure and put it somewhere on a fuselage, then it becomes a wing, or a horizontal stabilator, or a vertical stabilator, or a canard. A structure have a name according to its location on the aircraft and aerodynamic relationships with other structures. Do you understand ?
> 
> So for the J-20, the canards at least suspicious because they contributes to Rule 1. Not because each canard *BY ITSELF* is somehow bad for 'stealth'. The J-20 with eight major flight controls structures are *LESS* obedient to the three rules than compares to the F-22 which has 6 structures. Do you understand ?
> 
> 
> I proved that I understand the subject better than all of you.



nothing convincing at all. we hear about canards are bad for stealth for many years, No one give convincing explanation.Neither do you.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Hyperion

I come here to watch some nice pics of J20, and then I have to sift through pages upon pages of irrelevant info......

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

leapx said:


> nothing convincing at all. we hear about canards are bad for stealth for many years, No one give convincing explanation.Neither do you.


Because you looks at the canard as a *STANDALONE* structure. You are wrong in doing that. You have to look at the *WHOLE* aircraft and applies those three rules.

You are not convinced because you are not interested in an honest debate. You already made up your mind: No. You do not even want to consider: Maybe.

I will repeat...

A *STANDALONE* structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. Why is that so difficult to understand ? I have been saying that for yrs on this forum.

It is only when a structure is in physical relationships with other structures is when the *AIRCRAFT* -- not the structure -- is more or less 'stealthy' than its competitors. Why is that so difficult to understand ?

You focus on the canards because you do not know the subject and do not care for honest debate. It is the *AIRCRAFT* that matters, not the canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

gambit said:


> Because you looks at the canard as a *STANDALONE* structure. You are wrong in doing that. You have to look at the *WHOLE* aircraft and applies those three rules.
> 
> You are not convinced because you are not interested in an honest debate. You already made up your mind: No. You do not even want to consider: Maybe.
> 
> I will repeat...
> 
> A *STANDALONE* structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. Why is that so difficult to understand ? I have been saying that for yrs on this forum.
> 
> It is only when a structure is in physical relationships with other structures is when the *AIRCRAFT* -- not the structure -- is more or less 'stealthy' than its competitors. Why is that so difficult to understand ?
> 
> You focus on the canards because you do not know the subject and do not care for honest debate. It is the *AIRCRAFT* that matters, not the canards.


If you want to continue your RCS rant ... please do it somewhere else, instead of polluting this thread with countless back-and-forths. I really don't think posters in the J-20 thread have anything to care about what you say ... you've made your point *more *than enough. Now, let business return to normal ... thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> If you want to continue your RCS rant ... please do it somewhere else, instead of polluting this thread with countless back-and-forths. I really don't think posters in the J-20 thread have anything to care about what you say ... you've made your point *more *than enough. Now, let business return to normal ... thanks


This is a publicly available and accessible forum. Any point is fair game for debate. If you do not like it, take your own advice and ignore me. On the other hand, ignore me will do you no good. Precisely because this is a publicly available and accessible forum, it is the readers that matters more than the debate participants. It is their minds that you must change.

You guys are *TECHNICALLY* wrong. Deal with it.


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> This is a publicly available and accessible forum. Any point is fair game for debate. If you do not like it, take your own advice and ignore me. On the other hand, ignore me will do you no good. Precisely because this is a publicly available and accessible forum, it is the readers that matters more than the debate participants. It is their minds that you must change.
> 
> You guys are *TECHNICALLY* wrong. Deal with it.


Peoples like @Figaro and @Asoka don't understand you sir they lives in their fantasy land and wishful thinking than CANARDS has no/ minimal RCS to radars , you give more/extra surface to the radars, more chances to get detected by the radars


----------



## GiantPanda

pakistanipower said:


> Peoples like @Figaro and @Asoka don't understand you sir they lives in their fantasy land and wishful thinking than CANARDS has no/ minimal RCS to radars , you give more/extra surface to the radars, more chances to get detected by the radars



If it were that simple then why bother building the J-20 with canards? It takes extra material and cost to add the extra control surfaces.

Why make the extra effort to deliberately make J-20 less stealthy. Stop being a blind supporter of Gambit. You and Gambit are basically saying that you are smarter than the CAC engineers.

Gambit is a Vietnamese. His people has never made an airplane of any kind, much less a stealth fighter. And here he is telling us that he is smarter than the folks at Chengdu. His arrogance (and racism) is breathtaking.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ultima Thule

GiantPanda said:


> If it were that simple then why bother building the J-20 with canards? It takes extra material and cost to add the extra control surfaces.
> 
> Why make the extra effort to deliberately make J-20 less stealthy. Stop being a blind supporter of Gambit. You and Gambit are basically saying that you are smarter than the CAC engineers.
> 
> Gambit is a Vietnamese. His people has never made an airplane of any kind, much less a stealth fighter. And here he is telling us that he is smarter than the folks at Chengdu. His arrogance (and racism) is breathtaking.


you're all blinds and lives in wishful thinking and fantasy world, when you entered enemy aera you have multiple radars to deals it from sea, from air, and off-course on land, front/head-on section is most important parts of the stealth jet and more chance to get detected by sea, air and land based radars, use the commonsense, and don't have a blind patriotism


----------



## GiantPanda

BTW, pakistanipower even Gambit doesn’t say that CANARDS somehow magically create more reflection than tailplanes which are larger on the F-22. He coached his answers in insults and racism but he pretty much said that canards are no different than other extrusions. Otherwise, his so-called expertise would have been easily called out.

The J-20 has no tailplanes and you said the engineers should not have put on canards so what you want is a flying wing then. Flying wings are more suited for bombers. There is a reason why fighters have lots of control surfaces. It’s called maneuverability. Stop being an idiot.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

GiantPanda said:


> If it were that simple then why bother building the J-20 with canards? It takes extra material and cost to add the extra control surfaces.


Because the J-20's design *REQUIRES* the canards.



GiantPanda said:


> Gambit is a Vietnamese. His people has never made an airplane of any kind, much less a stealth fighter. And here he is telling us that he is smarter than the folks at Chengdu. His arrogance (and racism) is breathtaking.


As I have always said -- debate any issue with the Chinese long enough, and they will make race an issue.


----------



## Ultima Thule

GiantPanda said:


> BTW, pakistanipower even Gambit doesn’t say that CANARDS somehow magically create more reflection than tailplanes which are larger on the F-22. He coached his answers in insults and racism but he pretty much said that canards are no different than other extrusions. Otherwise, his so-called expertise would have been easily called out.
> 
> The J-20 has no tailplanes and you said the engineers should not have put on canards so what you want is a flying wing then. Flying wings are more suited for bombers. There is a reason why fighters have lots of control surfaces. It’s called maneuverability. Stop being an idiot.


 and Stop being stupid bro horizontal tails has much less radar reflection than CANARD, the biggest radar reflection on fighter jet is electronics emissions from radar and from the (cockpit, other sensors) which probably J-20 wont have,air intake/turbine blade RCS, which J-20 don't have (because of DSI),armament/weapon rack RCS, which J-20 don't have that problems (because of stealth) the biggest radar reflection except from the main wing is CANARDS


----------



## gambit

GiantPanda said:


> BTW, pakistanipower even Gambit doesn’t say that CANARDS somehow magically create more reflection than tailplanes which are larger on the F-22. He coached his answers in insults and racism but he pretty much said that canards are no different than other extrusions. Otherwise, his so-called expertise would have been easily called out.


You clearly are in over your head.

Why do you focus on the canards when you should be focused *ON THE AIRCRAFT* ? That is the issue.

The canards are *CONTRIBUTORS* just as anything else you want to add on the aircraft. The J-20 *REQUIRES* the canards and with 8 major flight control structures, there is no avoiding the laws of physics that the higher the *QUANTITY* of radiators, the higher the RCS.


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> You clearly are in over your head.
> 
> Why do you focus on the canards when you should be focused *ON THE AIRCRAFT* ? That is the issue.
> 
> The canards are *CONTRIBUTORS* just as anything else you want to add on the aircraft. The J-20 *REQUIRES* the canards and with 8 major flight control structures, there is no avoiding the laws of physics that the higher the *QUANTITY* of radiators, the higher the RCS.


@GiantPanda , @Figaro ,@Asoka wont understand you sir they lives in their fantasy world and wishful thinking


----------



## GiantPanda

gambit said:


> Because the J-20's design *REQUIRES* the canards.



And it doesn’t require horizontal stabilizers. 

All I get from your expertise is CAC engineers are not as smart as you because they could not develop a giant rifle round or flying saucer for a stealth fighter with no extrusions. Idiotic.



> As I have always said -- debate any issue with the Chinese long enough, and they will make race an issue.




Why are you here in a Chinese theme forum full of Chinese that you are so obvious racially bigoted against? 

Because you want to troll, isn’t it? 

Because your bigotry can’t allow you to safely sit in a Viet military forum, right?

You can take your “expertise” and racist attitude to a place where you don’t have to deal with Chinese people, you bigot.



gambit said:


> You clearly are in over your head.
> 
> Why do you focus on the canards when you should be focused *ON THE AIRCRAFT* ? That is the issue.



There we have the actions of a troll.

It is pakistanipower who repeatedly brought up canards. And yet you accused the Chinese of focusing on the canards?

Gambit, you know NOTHING but you can brag and browbeat with a lot of misdirection and half-truths.

No, canards are not magically more reflective than the generally bigger tailplanes that the J-20 LACKS and is designed to do without.

You can take your bullshit bragging elsewhere. We don’t need anti-chinese racists in a chinese forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

GiantPanda said:


> And it doesn’t require horizontal stabilizers.


Because of the large delta wings and the canards. 

See post 9735.



GiantPanda said:


> All I get from your expertise is CAC engineers are not as smart as you because they could not develop a giant rifle round or flying saucer for a stealth fighter with no extrusions. Idiotic.


No matter how smart are Chinese engineers, they cannot defy the laws of physics.



GiantPanda said:


> Why are you here in a Chinese theme forum full of Chinese that you are so obvious racially bigoted against?
> 
> Because you want to troll, isn’t it?
> 
> Because your bigotry can’t allow you to safely sit in a Viet military forum, right?
> 
> You can take your “expertise” and racist attitude to a place where you don’t have to deal with Chinese people, you bigot.


Here we go again...Over the yrs...

According to the Chinese, the *ONLY* reason why anyone would challenge their claims is because that person is racist.

Technical issues have nothing to do with it. Race is the only reason why anyone would challenge any Chinese claim. 



GiantPanda said:


> Gambit, you know NOTHING but you can brag and browbeat with a lot of misdirection and half-truths.


I am a USAF veteran, F-111 and F-16. After the military, I worked for a company that shall remains unnamed where I was a field engineer designing radar detection tests for low altitude autonomous flight vehicles, aka 'drones'. I know this subject better than *ALL* of you *COMBINED*.


----------



## Deino

Guys. STOP...

You all made your points and now no longer off topic nor peronell insults.

And by the way, a tecnical issue is no way an insult, so please refrain from taking technical arguments as nationalistic or otherwise attacks.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Guys. STOP...
> 
> You all made your points and now no longer off topic nor peronell insults.
> 
> And by the way, *a tecnical issue is no way an insult*, so please refrain from taking technical arguments as nationalistic or otherwise attacks.
> 
> Deino


Are you serious in making that statement ? Have you forgotten who you are talking about ? To the Chinese, no matter how technical valid is an argument, if it does not support Chinese claim, it is a racist insult. I thought you know that by now.


----------



## Ultima Thule

GiantPanda said:


> No, canards are not magically more reflective than the generally bigger tailplanes that the J-20 LACKS and is designed to do without.


kid do research before you post CANARD is a major contributor to multiple radar reflections, J-20 have CANARDS because it has no TVC engine currently, without TVC engine and CANARDS J-20 as maneuverable as those fighter jets
*F-106 DELA DART





JAS-35 DRAKEN



*
*MIRAGE-3*
*



*
*your blind in patriotism *


----------



## xxqa_ds

gambit said:


> Are you serious in making that statement ? Have you forgotten who you are talking about ? To the Chinese, no matter how technical valid is an argument, if it does not support Chinese claim, it is a racist insult. I thought you know that by now.



What you say on this thread, everybody knows, I can't see what you're say useful . What you're arguing about is just a waste of time. Besides, you even blame the Chinese for the argument". Just pride and prejudice.

Please discuss it rationally

It's no fun repeating some simple knowledge

I know there are always some pride and prejudice, both in the country and in the region. But please be more rational. You can't look at other people's arrogance, you also learn.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Guys ... WHAT DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ON STOP?!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

gambit said:


> Are you serious in making that statement ? Have you forgotten who you are talking about ? To the Chinese, no matter how technical valid is an argument, if it does not support Chinese claim, it is a racist insult. I thought you know that by now.


Wow, so quick to jump the horse... taking the advantage of the west wind  you're a real exploiter!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xxqa_ds

pakistanipower said:


> kid do research before you post CANARD is a major contributor to multiple radar reflections, J-20 have CANARDS because it has no TVC engine currently, without TVC engine and CANARDS J-20 as maneuverable as those fighter jets
> *F-106 DELA DART
> View attachment 430404
> 
> JAS-35 DRAKEN
> View attachment 430405
> *
> *MIRAGE-3*
> *
> View attachment 430407
> *
> *your blind in patriotism *



The J20 design chooses canard wings not because there is no TVC. But China's previous research on duck wings, a large number of achievements, technology is relatively mature. Designers should consider all aspects, and choose canard configuration after compromise. I personally think the delta wing does not meet the J20 mission requirements, so it is not selected. In fact, canard configurations should be considered as an improved form of delta wings.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## usmankhan9

Figaro said:


> Sputnik is complete garbage. Their "expert", Vasily Kashin, is the go to person for all things military for basically all nations. Russia wants to badmouth the J-20 because they know their Su-57 hasn't gotten very far ...



Its garbage because its a russian website and what about american websites? What has Russia got to do with just one persons opinion. I think you need to closely follow the su-57 progress before passing away your judjement.


----------



## rcrmj

pakistanipower said:


> kid do research before you post CANARD is a major contributor to multiple radar reflections, J-20 have CANARDS because it has no TVC engine currently, without TVC engine and CANARDS J-20 as maneuverable as those fighter jets
> *F-106 DELA DART
> View attachment 430404
> 
> JAS-35 DRAKEN
> View attachment 430405
> *
> *MIRAGE-3*
> *
> View attachment 430407
> *
> *your blind in patriotism *


no J-20 is going to have TVC, and the current one doesnt have it which is not the reason that J-20 is a canard config````J-20 was designed with TVC in the very begining!

and canard* is not *the "major contributor" to radar reflections, the degree of radar reflection various in great deal with different conditions and prospects, hunderds say the least````even tails can be the "major contributor" when condition applies

the mostly used/referenced radar cross sections are classic ones like vertical head-on cross-section, vertical tail cross-section, like these vertical interfaces````

in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

?


rcrmj said:


> no J-20 is going to have TVC, and the current one doesnt have it which is not the reason that J-20 is a canard config````J-20 was designed with TVC in the very begining!
> 
> and canard* is not *the "major contributor" to radar reflections, the degree of radar reflection various in great deal with different conditions and prospects, hunderds say the least``
> 
> the mostly used/referenced radar cross sections are classic ones like vertical head-on cross-section, vertical tail cross-section, like these vertical interfaces````
> 
> in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22


Sir without canards can J-20 as maneuverable as with canards?


----------



## rcrmj

pakistanipower said:


> Sir without canards can J-20 as maneuverable as with canards


what do you mean by 'without'? its was designed as a canard config with TVC at the very begining of the competitions during 90s````serioulsy, what is your point?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

I'm glad you forewent using insults even answering Figaro allowing
for the positive because as often this is an excellent post of yours.

But still, a precision and an added detail might fit in as well :


gambit said:


> You can have these structures covered with absorbers but that will not change the laws of nature -- that the more quantity of radiators, the higher the quantity of reflected signals. Absorbers are just one method of reduction or negation of those reflected signals. But RAM do not change the laws of nature.



Actually, you can make structures out of radar transparent
material as I'm sure you know, a complex affair however.
You not only need to find or create a material with enough
strength for the application along with the transparency but
also to make it so it "fails" correctly.

A good example of this from my fave bird is in the refuelling
perch, vertical stab and canards all made that way on Rafale.
I've seen a few pics of different impacts on the canards :
they will delaminate to some degree if the strike is important
but they do so in orderly fashion so to speak. Apart from say
30mike, only one surface will break and the integrity of the
spars keeps with the motorized elements inside the fuselage.

I don't have a good idea of Chinese capacities in that domain
but it can be learned and Chinese capacity of that is major so
let's say it is/_will get_ done.

Of course, anything made of matter can be seen. We're spotting
baryons between galaxies for Pete's sake! So that transparency
will differ from one composite to another usually still showing in
some rare radar bands to some degree.
EDIT


gambit said:


> See Rule 1 of post 9735: Control of *QUANTITY* or radiators.
> 
> The more protruding structures you have in the radar stream, the higher total surface area.



But the number of radiators doesn't change between a delta with
canards and a traditional design with elevators on stabs, only the
position they're in. Ventral fins are an addition however if present.
End EDIT.
As for the detail, a very simple example of destructive interference
would be if the canards entirely hid a surface behind it as the flaps
be them leading edge or inboard or an elevator in a rare set-up.

Of course, as these surfaces move, this effect is rarely achieved and
the next moment goes full constructive so that, as in Gambit's plate
example, it can be counted out.

Now I'll go through the new pages, LOL and end up to this post 
And ended up editing, facepalm ...

Good day to all, Tay

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

rcrmj said:


> what do you mean by 'without'? its was designed as a canard config with TVC at the very begining of the competitions during 90s````serioulsy, what is your point?


I mean simple as that
*Mirage-3






and this with canards




*



rcrmj said:


> what do you mean by 'without'? its was designed as a canard config with TVC at the very begining of the competitions during 90s````serioulsy, what is your point?


If we remove CANARDS from J-20 without tvc engine, can J-20 maneuverable as with canards i assume its not


----------



## Figaro

usmankhan9 said:


> Its garbage because its a russian website and what about american websites? What has Russia got to do with just one persons opinion. I think you need to closely follow the su-57 progress before passing away your judjement.


I'm sorry but Sputnik is not a reliable site ... I never said all Russian sites were like that. Sputnik cited this one guy for all their military articles ... they make it seem as if all Russian weapons are "wunderwaffe". In Sputnik's eyes, Russia's military is invincible ... granted, I've not seen too much of their reporting on China but the way they portray American weapons as somehow inferior to Russian ones

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## gambit

Taygibay said:


> Actually, you can make structures out of radar transparent material as I'm sure you know, a complex affair however. You not only need to find or create a material with enough strength for the application along with the transparency but also to make it so it "fails" correctly.


Absorbers fall under Rule 3: Control of *MODES* of radiation.

When there is a reflected signal, that reflection is a behavior, or a mode. In school, examples are usually of a surface with infinite dimensions, but in the real world, any structure is a finite structure so when a signal finally leave that structure, the mode is diffraction. What absorbers does is alter the behaviors of the radar signal.



Taygibay said:


> But the number of radiators doesn't change between a delta with canards and a traditional design with elevators on stabs, *only the position they're in.*


That -- the highlighted -- would fall under Rule 2: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

For example...Depending on the physical relationship between two structures, that relationship could produce an amplification of signal: corner reflector.



rcrmj said:


> and canard* is not *the "major contributor" to radar reflections,...


Wrong. Since the canard is a major flight control structure, its size, position, and behaviors made it a major contributor to final RCS.

Final RCS is an average value *AFTER* all aspects -- viewing angles -- are completed. In this, the greater the quantity of radiators, the higher that average figure.



rcrmj said:


> in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22


So is the F-16.


----------



## usmankhan9

Figaro said:


> I'm sorry but Sputnik is not a reliable site ... I never said all Russian sites were like that. Sputnik cited this one guy for all their military articles ... they make it seem as if all Russian weapons are "wunderwaffe". In Sputnik's eyes, Russia's military is invincible ... granted, I've not seen too much of their reporting on China but the way they portray American weapons as somehow inferior to Russian ones



For years I've been reading articles from American and Russian sites but trust me when I say this sputnik is as reliable as they get. There are many other military/defence experts/analysts in sputnik especially western. There are dozens of articles and that only of this expert in which he tells which American weapon system has an edge or is at parity with the Russian counterpart. So please just compare one defence related article of national interest online with a sputnik article and you'll understand me


----------



## ozranger

pakistanipower said:


> I mean simple as that
> *Mirage-3
> 
> View attachment 430419
> 
> and this with canards
> 
> View attachment 430420
> *
> 
> 
> If we remove CANARDS from J-20 without tvc engine, can J-20 maneuverable as with canards i assume its not



Both TVC and canards provide pitch down force when in high angle of attack. Canards can generate lift, which is an advantage over TVC. Meanwhile, TVC can effectively pull the aircraft out of stall when some such critical situation happens, which would minimize pilots panic on possible stall when maneuvering. Both indirectly improve maneuverability over conventional configuration.

Practically they are not designed to make the aircraft turn faster with higher angular velocity. BTW canards can not be simply thought as "horizontal stabilizers relocated to the front" either.

TVC shouldn't be used for low speed tight turns as what was done by Indian pilots while confronting F-15 in exercise using their Su-35MKI, because it will bleed energy a lot and turn the aircraft into a kind of stationary target.

Pure delta configuration is not a good choice as it also bleeds energy a lot, ie. losing speed and/or altitude, especially when performing turns, due to its horrible lift characteristic. In that regard, J-20 without canards is unthinkable. 

J-20 with TVC may not significantly improve its maneuverability or supersonic performance as canards already help, but it will minimize pilots panic on possible stalls and hence encourage them to push their maneuver to the edge.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 "78272"
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Leclan

i'm quite astonished when u compare J-20 with a mirage. yes J-20 has canards,but its not only a mirage 2000 or mirage 2000 with canards.....J-20 was designed with canards,and with LERX,which is one part. another part is,it was designed to utilize multiple-vortex generated by canards,air inlet upper-edge(not sure with the equiped ones),and LERX to improve lift. besides the body was designed as lifting body. the curvature of wing and body surface all has been strictly calculated and tested in wind tunnel. overall J-20's aerodynamic has a essential differences with mirage 2000 and the canards-one.
F-35A also doesnt have tvc,F-35A also has a traditional aerodynamic configuration,the main wing and the horizontal tail. is F-35A's maneuverability just like F-15? is F-15's maneuverability just like F-4? dont tell me the improvement of maneu all comes from thrust..

and of course,J-20 was designed with canards as part of whole aerodynamic system,without it J-20 is another aircraft. it's not just a mirage2000 with canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Daniel808

gambit said:


> You clearly are in over your head.
> 
> Why do you focus on the canards when you should be focused *ON THE AIRCRAFT* ? That is the issue.
> 
> The canards are *CONTRIBUTORS* just as anything else you want to add on the aircraft. The J-20 *REQUIRES* the canards and with 8 major flight control structures, there is no avoiding the laws of physics that the higher the *QUANTITY* of radiators, the higher the RCS.



@gambit If you still insist that J-20 Stealth fighter have more RCS than F-22 as a whole.

Than we also need to discuss that Stealth Aircraft capability as a whole.

If we compare J-20 with F-22 as a whole.
I will not compare J-20 with F-35, because it's plain stupid. it's like comparing Dragon with Fat pig. okay, leave F-35 alone.


You own can compare itself.

As a whole J-20 definetly *more Agile, have much Longer Combat range (and it's Important),
Can Load much more Payloads,
Have more Deadly radar because J-20 nose can hold bigger AESA radar with more T/R module on it than F-22,
,and
Also can carry heavier Advanced avionics.
*
Every stealth aircraft have their own pro and cons.
And that's pro and cons between J-20 and F-22
Deal with it.

Look at this one guys 
his another try, lol
@Martian2 @aliaselin @52051

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Daniel808 said:


> @gambit If you still insist that J-20 Stealth fighter have more RCS than F-22 as a whole.
> 
> Than we also need to discuss that Stealth Aircraft capability as a whole.
> 
> If we compare J-20 with F-22 as a whole.
> I will not compare J-20 with F-35, because it's plain stupid. it's like comparing Dragon with Fat pig. okay, leave F-35 alone.
> 
> 
> You own can compare itself.
> 
> As a whole J-20 definetly *more Agile, have much Longer Combat range (and it's Important),
> Can Load much more Payloads,
> Have more Deadly radar because J-20 nose can hold bigger AESA radar with more T/R module on it than F-22,
> ,and
> Also can carry heavier Advanced avionics.
> *
> Every stealth aircraft have their own pro and cons.
> And that's pro and cons between J-20 and F-22
> Deal with it.
> 
> Look at this one guys
> his another try, lol
> @Martian2 @aliaselin @52051


News for you, son. Look up Operation Bolo. That was when a bunch of 'fat pig' F-4s nearly decimated a flight of agile MIG-21s. And at that time, the F-4s had no guns and dubious missiles.

The qualities of the J-20 that you claimed to make the J-20 'superior' to the F-22 is dubious at best.

AESA radar ? What do *YOU* know of even basic radar detection principles in the first place ? I dare say -- Nothing. You think that just because one ESA array has 'more' T/R modules than the other that automatically make it better ? What you say are mere generalizations that you read from Chinese forums where the people are equally clueless as you. So am going to give you at least one clue, kid.

There is a percentage of T/R modules -- higher or lower -- that will make an ESA array qualitatively better than the other, and that figure is not lower than %10.

For example...If array A has 1000 T/R modules, array B must have at least %10 greater of T/R modules. Remember, am using %10 only as an example. The real figure ? You will have to find out on your own. 

Considering the fact that none of you can explain how the 10-lambda rule affects the design shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20, the odds of you completing the homework assignment I gave you -- is very low.

The point of Operation Bolo is that the PLAAF is a babe while the USAF/USN/USMC combined airpower is a proven combat veteran. So even if the J-20 is somehow a 'superior' fighter, only a fool would bet against US.

You can -- in your shortsightedness -- focus on the pros and cons of the hardware so you can get a lot of 'Thanks' for your posts. Those who are smarter than you focus on the pros and cons of the forces.


----------



## Asoka

oh plz, leave that gambler_troll, alone, and let him talk to himself.

1.) It's enough for all to see, after several years of this sh*ts, that he has no clue on what he is talking about.

2.) He has proven with his *"Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried"*, and *"J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44"*, and *"The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"* drivels that his USAF "credentials" is a joke.

3.) And his claim that is an *Vietnamese*, is a transparent ploy, to deflect the frequent charges of white racism, from many other members.

Can anyone, other than that pakistani_guy, still believe all those the_gambler_troll's bullsh*ts, after all those years?

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

Asoka said:


> oh plz, leave that gambler_troll, alone, and let him talk to himself.
> 
> It's enough for all to see, after several years of this sh*ts, that he has no clue on what he is talking about. He has proven with his *"Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-can't-make-it-stealthy"* drivels that his USAF "credential" is a joke. And his claim that is an vietnamese, is a transparent ploy, to deflect the charge of white racism.


The problem for your argument is that I *NEVER* said such things. 

Nowhere have I ever said on this forum that the canard is not 'stealthy'. I have consistently said that a *STANDALONE* structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. So if you take the canard off the aircraft, it is meaningless to 'stealth'. In fact, you cannot even call it a 'canard' once it is off the aircraft. A 'canard' is a flight controls structure that has a *SPECIFIC* location on the aircraft. Without that specific location, you cannot call it a 'canard' and it has no bearings on 'stealth'.

The canards -- once installed on the aircraft -- are *CONTRIBUTORS* to final RCS. And when the aircraft has X numbers of structural protrusions into the radar stream, its RCS will be higher than an aircraft that has less-than-X numbers of structural protrusions.

The reason you guys focus on the canards is because you have not bothered to learn the basics of aerodynamics and aircraft structures in the first place.

An aircraft needs a main lifting mechanism, so we call them 'wings'. An aircraft needs some form of yaw axis stability mechanism, so we create a structure for that and call it the 'vertical stabilator'. An aircraft needs a pitch axis control method so we create the 'horizontal stabilator' and put them aft of the 'wings'. If we move the 'horizontal stabilators' to fore of the 'wings', we call them 'canards'. Do you understand ?

So it is not the canard itself but whether how many of these flight controls structures that are on the aircraft. Do you understand ?

You focus on the canard is -- and I say this gently -- because you are ignorant.


----------



## Figaro

gambit said:


> The problem for your argument is that I *NEVER* said such things.
> 
> Nowhere have I ever said on this forum that the canard is not 'stealthy'. I have consistently said that a *STANDALONE* structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. So if you take the canard off the aircraft, it is meaningless to 'stealth'. In fact, you cannot even call it a 'canard' once it is off the aircraft. A 'canard' is a flight controls structure that has a *SPECIFIC* location on the aircraft. Without that specific location, you cannot call it a 'canard' and it has no bearings on 'stealth'.
> 
> The canards -- once installed on the aircraft -- are *CONTRIBUTORS* to final RCS. And when the aircraft has X numbers of structural protrusions into the radar stream, its RCS will be higher than an aircraft that has less-than-X numbers of structural protrusions.
> 
> The reason you guys focus on the canards is because you have not bothered to learn the basics of aerodynamics and aircraft structures in the first place.
> 
> An aircraft needs a main lifting mechanism, so we call them 'wings'. An aircraft needs some form of yaw axis stability mechanism, so we create a structure for that and call it the 'vertical stabilator'. An aircraft needs a pitch axis control method so we create the 'horizontal stabilator' and put them aft of the 'wings'. If we move the 'horizontal stabilators' to fore of the 'wings', we call them 'canards'. Do you understand ?
> 
> So it is not the canard itself but whether how many of these flight controls structures that are on the aircraft. Do you understand ?
> 
> You focus on the canard is -- and I say this gently -- because you are ignorant.


@gambit, please just leave it ... You're never going to win or get your point across in this thread ... really, it's a futile effort at this point (no one agrees with you! Even me ...) If you have a gripe with a specific member regarding RCS, just PM them ... okay?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> @gambit, please just leave it ... You're never going to win or get your point across in this thread ... really, it's a futile effort at this point (no one agrees with you! Even me ...) If you have a gripe with a specific member regarding RCS, just PM them ... okay?


Am not interested in 'winning' you guys over. You guys are too far gone for reasons. Am interested in educating the silent readers out there. Chinese claims that are *TECHNICALLY* wrong must be challenged.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Daniel808

gambit said:


> News for you, son. Look up Operation Bolo. That was when a bunch of 'fat pig' F-4s nearly decimated a flight of agile MIG-21s. And at that time, the F-4s had no guns and dubious missiles.
> 
> The qualities of the J-20 that you claimed to make the J-20 'superior' to the F-22 is dubious at best.
> 
> AESA radar ? What do *YOU* know of even basic radar detection principles in the first place ? I dare say -- Nothing. You think that just because one ESA array has 'more' T/R modules than the other that automatically make it better ? What you say are mere generalizations that you read from Chinese forums where the people are equally clueless as you. So am going to give you at least one clue, kid.
> 
> There is a percentage of T/R modules -- higher or lower -- that will make an ESA array qualitatively better than the other, and that figure is not lower than %10.
> 
> For example...If array A has 1000 T/R modules, array B must have at least %10 greater of T/R modules. Remember, am using %10 only as an example. The real figure ? You will have to find out on your own.
> 
> Considering the fact that none of you can explain how the 10-lambda rule affects the design shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20, the odds of you completing the homework assignment I gave you -- is very low.
> 
> The point of Operation Bolo is that the PLAAF is a babe while the USAF/USN/USMC combined airpower is a proven combat veteran. So even if the J-20 is somehow a 'superior' fighter, only a fool would bet against US.
> 
> You can -- in your shortsightedness -- focus on the pros and cons of the hardware so you can get a lot of 'Thanks' for your posts. Those who are smarter than you focus on the pros and cons of the forces.



That's your own baseless personal assumption that the one ESA radar have better qualitative than the others.
Unless, you can give me a Credible source that say J-20/F-22 ESA radar is better qualitatively than the others.

If you cannot give the source.
*Than we need to conclude, that both (J-20 and F-22) of them have on par ESA radar in terms of qualitatively.
So with both have on par qualitatively, the one that have more T/R modules is the one that have better detection range. And that's J-20 ESA radar.*

The main problem that many people in here argue you is because your personal assumptions, not formula that you use (many people know about it).

*For example :*
Yeah everybody in here know that 2+2=4.
But where do you get the "2"
That's the problem, not the formula.
Because the "2" is all based on your personal assumptions.

There is no one argue that "General formula" you use, but they argue your personal assumptions that you use in your posts.

By the way, Interesting that *YOU *(my mister viet) don't disscuss about Fuel Payload between J-20 and F-22.
That's the one of the most Important thing in Combat situation, anyway.
Interesting..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Daniel808 said:


> That's your own baseless personal assumption that the one ESA radar have better qualitative than the others.
> Unless, you can give me a Credible source that say J-20/F-22 ESA radar is better qualitatively than the others.
> 
> If you cannot give the source.
> *Than we need to conclude, that both (J-20 and F-22) of them have on par ESA radar in terms of qualitatively.
> So with both have on par qualitatively, the one that have more T/R modules is the one that have better detection range. And that's J-20 ESA radar.*
> 
> The main problem that many people in here argue you is because your personal assumptions, not formula that you use (many people know about it).
> 
> *For example :*
> Yeah everybody in here know that 2+2=4.
> But where do you get the "2"
> That's the problem, not the formula.
> Because the "2" is all based on your personal assumptions.
> 
> There is no one argue that "General formula" you use, but they argue your personal assumptions that you use in your posts.
> 
> By the way, Interesting that *YOU *(my mister viet) don't disscuss about Fuel Payload between J-20 and F-22.
> That's the one of the most Important thing in Combat situation, anyway.
> Interesting..




And you surely know and can explain how many TR-modules the J-20 has and why its radar has to be on-par?? Also only asumed most likely!??


----------



## Daniel808

Deino said:


> And you surely know and can explain how many TR-modules the J-20 has and why its radar has to be on-par?? Also only asumed most likely!??



I think, you need to ask him first.
How can he assume, the one is better qualitatively than the other one.
and not on par.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

WS-15 VCE pre-research

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Asoka

Wow, I just got a negative rating from Deino for calling the_gambler, a troller, while he got a free pass for insulting all our intelligences, *for years*, with his most stupid drivels.
*
1.) "Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried-because-he-said-so"*, and

*2.) * *"J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44"*, and

*3.) "The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"*

And He never got a ban, not even a warning, for all his trollings.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> Wow, I just got a negative rating from Deino for calling the_gambler, a troller, while he got a free pass for insulting all our intelligences, for years, with his most stupid drivels.
> *
> 1.) "Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried"*, and
> 
> *2.) * *"J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44"*, and
> 
> *3.) "The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"*
> 
> And He never got a ban, not even a warning, for all his trollings.


Gambit has bashed the J-20 from the 2001 prototype to the LRIP birds we see today. He offers scant evidence to back up his assertion and constantly criticizes other members' opinions via ad-hominem attacks. I really don't see why this is fair. He called me an "idiot" for disagreeing with his pseudo-science. Double standard ...

*"Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried"*
US fifth generation designs incorporated canards; although this was later dropped due to aerodynamic/FCS issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with RCS ... nice try 
*"J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44"*
I'm sorry. Is today's date October 10, 2017 or is it actually January 5, 2011?  Reminds me of the J-20 is an interceptor-bomber stupidity
*"The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"*
The F-35 is so superior that it has set American taxpayers back 1 trillion dollars and has countless glitches/issues within its subsystems. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most F-35s are grounded and declared not operationally ready by the USAF itself? It appears that America has taken 2 steps forward with the F-22 and 3 steps back with the F-35 ... he is one of those F-35 apologists. Now tell me where's the 2400 F-35's promised by Congress just a couple years ago

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ozranger

Figaro said:


> Gambit has bashed the J-20 from the 2001 prototype to the LRIP birds we see today. He offers scant evidence to back up his assertion and constantly criticizes other members' opinions via ad-hominem attacks. I really don't see why this is fair. He called me an "idiot" for disagreeing with his pseudo-science. Double standard ...
> 
> *"Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried"*
> US fifth generation designs incorporated canards; although this was later dropped due to aerodynamic/FCS issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with RCS ... nice try
> *"J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44"*
> I'm sorry. Is today's date October 10, 2017 or is it actually January 5, 2011?  Reminds me of the J-20 is an interceptor-bomber stupidity
> *"The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"*
> The F-35 is so superior that it has set American taxpayers back 1 trillion dollars and has countless glitches/issues within its subsystems. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most F-35s are grounded and declared not operationally ready by the USAF itself? It appears that America has taken 2 steps forward with the F-22 and 3 steps back with the F-35 ... he is one of those F-35 apologists. Now tell me where's the 2400 F-35's promised by Congress just a couple years ago



Just ignore his/her posts and never reply. Let's talk about aircraft design, RCS, aerodynamics and alike, those interesting stuff although we are no experts, instead of stupid topics like advantageous experience of US air force to which diverted by him/her.

BTW I sort of agree with the US air force that F-35 is somewhat more stealthy than F-22 for, from my understanding, the use of DSI instead of Caret intakes as the small gap between the Caret intake's splitter plate and the fuselage horribly falls into the range of resonance with incoming radiation in centimeter band. F-35's problem is on its maneuverability, too sluggish to be an eligible air superiority fighter due to energy bleeding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

ozranger said:


> Just ignore his/her posts and never reply. Let's talk about aircraft design, RCS, aerodynamics and alike, those interesting stuff although we are no experts, instead of stupid topics like advantageous experience of US air force to which diverted by him/her.
> 
> BTW I sort of agree with the US air force that F-35 is somewhat more stealthy than F-22 for, from my understanding, the use of DSI instead of Caret intakes as the small gap between the Caret intake's splitter plate and the fuselage horribly falls into the range of resonance with incoming radiation in centimeter band. F-35's problem is on its maneuverability, too sluggish to be an eligible air superiority fighter due to energy bleeding.


F-22 is definitely stealthier than F-35 ... almost all studies prove that. The rest of your points are valid. Particularly from heads on, F-22 is magnitudes stealthier than F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

pakistanipower said:


> I mean simple as that
> *Mirage-3
> 
> View attachment 430419
> 
> and this with canards
> 
> View attachment 430420
> *
> 
> 
> If we remove CANARDS from J-20 without tvc engine, can J-20 maneuverable as with canards i assume its not


J-20 was designed as canard config + TVC, why you keep assuming stupid things? seriously what is your point?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> J-20 was designed as canard config + TVC, why you keep assuming stupid things? seriously what is your point?


It was actually designed to achieve supermaneuverability (one of the 4S’s) without TVC, good foresight by CAC. Now just imagine what the J-20 could do if they added TVC to an already supermaneuverable design

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> *So is the F-16*.


you are just for the sake of it, thats it``` J-20 is a state-of-art 5th gen fighter as effective as F-22 some aspects are superior, and its a fact, you can debate pros and cons to death with your basement mentality, but you cant change the fact as simple as that.

if F-22 has same head-on vertical cross-section RCS than F-16, then those scientists can be as "brilliant" as your "knowledge" in this matter

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> And you surely know and can explain how many TR-modules the J-20 has and why its radar has to be on-par?? Also only asumed most likely!??


His style of debate is that his assertion is automatically correct -- regardless of sources. And if you cannot disprove him, he is correct.


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> It was actually designed to achieve supermaneuverability (one of the 4S’s) without TVC, good foresight by CAC. Now just imagine what the J-20 could do if they added TVC to an already supermaneuverable design



J-20 *HAS *3-D TVC along with WS-15 engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> if F-22 has same head-on vertical cross-section RCS than F-16, then those scientists can be as "brilliant" as your "knowledge" in this matter


Here is what you said...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-652#post-9931010


> in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22


You got any supporting sources for that ? The kind that have hard numbers ?

If not, then you missed my point about the F-16.


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> Here is what you said...
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-652#post-9931010
> 
> You got any supporting sources for that ? The kind that have hard numbers ?
> 
> If not, then you missed my point about the F-16.


and your sources being ? ````, c'mon gimme the figures

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> and your sources being ? ````, c'mon gimme the figures


Throughout the debates about 'stealth', of which I have proved that you guys do not know what you are talking about, I have always insisted that everyone avoid making assertions without supporting sources.

The frontal aspect of any aircraft is usually the lowest compares to other aspects *ON THE SAME AIRCRAFT*. If you are going to make an assertion that compares to another aircraft, it would be more credible if you can provide supporting sources.

When I made the comment about the F-16, that was to point out the error of your argument. Get it ? Probably not.



ozranger said:


> Let's talk about aircraft design, RCS, aerodynamics and alike, those interesting stuff *although we are no experts*,...


But you got no problems making assertions that cannot be supported by the laws of nature.

Yah...Real consistent here...


----------



## rcrmj

gambit said:


> Throughout the debates about 'stealth', of which I have proved that you guys do not know what you are talking about, I have always insisted that everyone avoid making assertions without supporting sources.
> 
> The frontal aspect of any aircraft is usually the lowest compares to other aspects *ON THE SAME AIRCRAFT*. If you are going to make an assertion that compares to another aircraft, it would be more credible if you can provide supporting sources.
> 
> When I made the comment about the F-16, that was to point out the error of your argument. Get it ? Probably not.
> 
> 
> But you got no problems making assertions that cannot be supported by the laws of nature.
> 
> Yah...Real consistent here...


you seem to be very irritated with other people's assertion, but you should really look at mirror````
J-20 is a mock-up
J-20 is a copy of Mig-41
J-20 is a large interceptor/bomber
F-35 is far more superior than J-20````and your funny assertion goes on and on

we are on the site for almost a decade now````we know how *igorant, stubborn and Sinophobia* you are, and yet your stubborness keeps denying that lol`````if you are really into *"correcting" *other people's* "wrong" technological claims *without prejudice, then you should be bombarding Indian sections like no tommorow, but only picking on Chinese````old man, how petty and sad are you really in real life???

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
10


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> you seem to be very irritated with other people's assertion, but you should really look at mirror


Not 'irritated'. Amused.



rcrmj said:


> J-20 is a mock-up


Never said that. In fact, quite often I praised the Chinese engineers for their creation.



rcrmj said:


> J-20 is a copy of Mig-41


Never said that. In fact, I said the J-20 is a cleaned-up version of the MIG 1.44. Big difference.



rcrmj said:


> J-20 is a large interceptor/bomber


Never commented about the J-20's mission.

You are 0-3, buddy.



rcrmj said:


> F-35 is far more superior than J-20


That I believe. You guys got nothing to prove otherwise. And please, spare us the usual tripe about range and speed. There are more to what make an aircraft a superior platform to its competition.



rcrmj said:


> ...and your funny assertion goes on and on


You guys actually have the funnier ones.

But let us continue on the technical front...

In designing a 'radar low observable' body, there are three rules to consider...

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation.

No rule is more important than the others, although rule 1 set the initial environment for the other two.

The sphere is considered the 'stealthiest' body because no matter its orientation to the seeking radar, it will exhibit the same reflective behaviors which will result in the same radar cross section ( RCS ). This make the sphere the ideal radar calibration and reference body.

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1


> The Lincoln Calibration Sphere 1, or LCS-1, is a large aluminium sphere in Earth orbit since 6 May 1965. It is the oldest spacecraft still in use, having lasted for over 50 years. It was launched along with the Lincoln Experimental Satellite-2 on a Titan IIIA. It is technically the oldest operational spacecraft, but it has no power supply or fuel; it is merely a metal sphere. It has been used for radar calibration since its launch.


For the J-20's hyper nationalist supporters...







Are you saying that the two bodies above will exhibit the same RCS under the three control rules ?

The J-20 has eight major structures protruding into the radar beam. The F-22 and F-35, each has six.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Guys... And now I close This Thread for further cleaning.

You Can argue, You Can debate even cotroversly, but I will longer accept twisting words, national rants, personell insults aven More wrong quotes ...

Thread closed until news appear.

Deino



Asoka said:


> J-20 *HAS *3-D TVC along with WS-15 engines.




BS again without any prof. You still don't want to accept that both your theories failed esp. with The appearance of the very First WS-10-powered prototype.

Stubborn until The end.

Deino


----------



## cirr

J-20 with WS-10X

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2

cirr said:


> J-20 with WS-10X
> 
> View attachment 430600


Beautiful bird, the tail looks different with "WS-10X domestic engine" also a minor difference as the below highlight part

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr

grey boy 2 said:


> Beautiful bird, the tail looks different with "WS-10X domestic engine" also a minor difference as the below highlight part



There are a number of other differences if you look closely

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> There are a number of other differences if you look closely



On the right side it does not have the serial 2021 painted. And indeed the rear part & intakes look different.

@cirr ... Pardon for the mis-rating. I corrected it already.


----------



## grey boy 2

grey boy 2 said:


> Beautiful bird, the tail looks different with "WS-10X domestic engine" also a minor difference as the below highlight part


A little brighter

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Intersting but not surprising that the intake is modified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

From the 航空工业发布最新宣传片！_O_大片独播 | 献礼十九大 我爱祖国的蓝天 
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Figaro

grey boy 2 said:


> From the 航空工业发布最新宣传片！_O_大片独播 | 献礼十九大 我爱祖国的蓝天
> Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.


What a gorgeous bird!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

grey boy 2 said:


> From the 航空工业发布最新宣传片！_O_大片独播 | 献礼十九大 我爱祖国的蓝天
> Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.


There need a General to speak something before the J-20 。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

Figaro said:


> What a gorgeous bird!


Indeed bro, here come the gif one, enjoy 
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Asoka

OMG! I just got an another warning from Mr. Deino for trolling. Is he that desperate to shut me down? LOL.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> There are a number of other differences if you look closely



However if You look closely, that grey stripe in the middle of the inkate was always there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Apparently, the J-20 is only 15 tonnes ... empty weight

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> Apparently, the J-20 is only 15 tonnes ... empty weight


If you dare to advance a claim like this in the other forum whereas you're also actively engaged then you'll be screwed... many incl. the generals there will scream out that *it's IMPOSSIBLE for J-20 to have less weight than the F-22!!! Are aliens helping the Chinese to create such jet fighter?  *To say it in other words, it's impossible that the Chinese technology ever exceeds what the USA is able to do... regardless the significant time frame difference between the two projects.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## clarkgap

samsara said:


> If you dare to advance a claim like this in the other forum whereas you're also actively engaged then you'll be screwed... many incl. the generals there will scream out that *it's IMPOSSIBLE for J-20 to have less weight than the F-22!!! Are aliens helping the Chinese to create such jet fighter?  *To say it in other words, it's impossible that the Chinese technology ever exceeds what the USA is able to do... regardless the significant time frame difference between the two projects.



Indeed, the author said the weight of 15 ton from the Academy Cao's speech. This the the speech: http://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1795628

This speech shows that J-20 contains 29% composite material. However, there is no any information about the weight of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 source: （图片来源：兵器 2017年增刊B）
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 in motions 歼20动起来！
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## JSCh

​

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## cirr

New system radar - there is no hiding for F-22s, F-35s and B-2s entering spaces hundreds of kms from Chinese shores 






National Science and Technology Progress Award Class I

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> New system radar - there is no hiding for F-22s, F-35s and B-2s entering spaces hundreds of kms from Chinese shores
> 
> View attachment 432647
> 
> 
> National Science and Technology Progress Award Class I



Pardon, but what does this image show ... and how is it related to the J-20 or the J-20's radar?


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> I think it is some kind of radar that can detect F-22 or F-35s. Maybe OTH? I'm not sure ...



Sorry, but where is there a radar? All I see is a satellite image showing "maybe" an alleged radar even if I cannot see anyone. But even if this is a radar, how is it related to the J-20 since it surely cannot fit into a J-20's radome.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Sorry, but where is there a radar? All I see is a satellite image showing "maybe" an alleged radar even if I cannot see anyone. But even if this is a radar, how is it related to the J-20 since it surely cannot fit into a J-20's radome.


Wrong thread maybe?


----------



## Deino

Exactly my point and therefor my question.


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Sorry, but where is there a radar? All I see is a satellite image showing "maybe" an alleged radar even if I cannot see anyone. But even if this is a radar, how is it related to the J-20 since it surely cannot fit into a J-20's radome.


The field is the antenna. The individual rods inside the field are elements. An OTH system. A single cruise missile can disable the system.


----------



## kurutoga

Looks like ~100MHz array? Will this overlap with civilian bandwidth?

Maybe the best solution will be a huge radio telescope array on the moon?


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> The field is the antenna. The individual rods inside the field are elements. An OTH system. A single cruise missile can disable the system.


Same thing Chinese can do with US OTH system with their ship and air launched cruise missile


----------



## Daniel808

Deino said:


> Exactly my point and therefor my question.



Anti Stealth Radar.



pakistanipower said:


> Same thing Chinese can do with US OTH system with their ship and air launched cruise missile



And with their Land Based Cruise Missile also (DF-10A Cruise Missile)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Daniel808 said:


> And with their Land Based Cruise Missile also (DF-10A Cruise Missile)


 land based cruise missile can't reach west coast of USA like Hawaii and Alaska with a range of 1000-1500 km not possible


----------



## Daniel808

pakistanipower said:


> land based cruise missile can't reach west coast of USA like Hawaii and Alaska with a range of 1000-1500 km not possible



But, can reach their military base in japan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Daniel808 said:


> But, can reach their military base in japan


but i am talking about *US OVER- THE- HORIZON* radars, is there US OTH radars in Japan?


----------



## Deino

Daniel808 said:


> Anti Stealth Radar.
> ...




But that all is irrelevant to the J-20 or in reverse, if China claims it can detect a F-22 with such a radar, why should the USA not be able to do the same with an J-20?


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> But that all is irrelevant to the J-20 or in reverse, if China claims it can detect a F-22 with such a radar, why should the USA not be able to do the same with an J-20?


Not sure on its relevancy with the J-20, but about the stealthy thing, we never knows, all these recent few years with the rapid technological progresses all are just one's claims vs the other's claims,,,, the masses never know the real ones...

Or are we really sure that the *major powers* cannot detect the aerial stealth things all these late years? Or they just see no advantage to unveil that kind of claims by other major competitor?

And just think what's the real advantage of any *major power* to openly & undeniably declare (furnished with hard proofs) that the competitor's stealth is ineffective at the current stage?
Is there any strong justification and benefit?

The aerial stealth things in particular, among the *major powers* are *more like a religious faith, the high priests keep on preaching their listeners that their holy books are the most correct ones as well as their God*... but we never really know the truth for no involved party is willing to do so... just no net benefits to point out the weakness of the other's perceived major striking force... all are just own claims & statements...  

but of course they're still effective against the majority lesser nations

_(that's why the imposing looks of the many CSG or those huge truly long-range strategic bombers with nuke strike capabilities pose their own merits regardless their huge total costs... among others they all pose the *physical presence* that cannot be denied... at the minimum they give the perceived advantage or superiority that's sufficient to keep the many lesser nations in order  though we don't really know how effective they're among the major powers in today's technological context! Sorry to sidetrack a bit)_

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ozranger

samsara said:


> Not sure on its relevancy with the J-20, but about the stealthy thing, we never knows, all these recent few years with the rapid technological progresses all are just one's claims vs the other's claims,,,, the masses never know the real ones...
> 
> Or are we really sure that the *major powers* cannot detect the aerial stealth things all these late years? Or they just see no advantage to unveil that kind of claims by other major competitor?
> 
> And just think what's the real advantage of any *major power* to openly & undeniably declare (furnished with hard proofs) that the competitor's stealth is ineffective at the current stage?
> Is there any strong justification and benefit?
> 
> The aerial stealth things in particular, among the *major powers* are *more like a religious faith, the high priests keep on preaching their listeners that their holy books are the most correct ones as well as their God*... but we never really know the truth for no involved party is willing to do so... just no net benefits to point out the weakness of the other's perceived major striking force... all are just own claims & statements...
> 
> but of course they're still effective against the majority lesser nations
> 
> _(that's why the imposing looks of the many CSG or those huge truly long-range strategic bombers with nuke strike capabilities pose their own merits regardless their huge total costs... among others they all pose the *physical presence* that cannot be denied... at the minimum they give the perceived advantage or superiority that's sufficient to keep the many lesser nations in order  though we don't really know how effective they're among the major powers in today's technological context! Sorry to sidetrack a bit)_



Once you have all those nuclear warheads, ICBMs and long range cruise missiles, from a strategic view, being aerial stealthy or not will be relatively not that important to you.

Stealth technology is a major technical blackmail to the second and third world countries, no matter whether they are allies or competitors.


----------



## JSCh

From CCTV program,

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/922508841710948352

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 in motions

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## grey boy 2

J-20 updates EDIT: found a few motion gif ones instead
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## grey boy 2

From flying J-16 upgraded to J-20 (机头到底有啥玄机，一上央视就打码?)
#制胜空天# 自信的歼20飞行员表态不过学习捍卫祖国领空




Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> However if You look closely, that grey stripe in the middle of the inkate was always there.
> 
> View attachment 431236



BY the way ... is this another new LRIP-bird?









At least on 2021 this area was grey and not brown / tan






... and on again older birds even plain yellow.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> BY the way ... is this another new LRIP-bird?
> 
> View attachment 433464
> View attachment 433465
> 
> 
> At least on 2021 this area was grey and not brown / tan
> 
> View attachment 433473
> 
> 
> ... and on again older birds even plain yellow.
> 
> View attachment 433475



May be it is still 2021, just coating new paint. I will try to ask the phtographer.


----------



## Deino

clarkgap said:


> May be it is still 2021, just coating new paint. I will try to ask the phtographer.




Thanks a lot !


----------



## cirr

A pair of freshly minted J-20s caught flying yesterday(only one shown in the pic)

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> A pair of freshly minted J-20s caught flying yesterday(only one shown in the pic)
> 
> View attachment 433531



Interesting. Do You have any more recent information on the current J-10C production? Seems as it has been slowed down a bit but given 2-59 spotted already in late 2016 they must be already producing batch 03 aircraft.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Can't you just copy and paste the file onto PDF? They seem to have a bunch of bandwidth ...




To admit I see nothing but that x. There is no image, no file, not even anything my PC can open and if I copy and paste the link it makes nothing.....

Do you see anything?

PS:


----------



## antonius123

*New J-20 WS-10X Engine Better Stealth, with 14-15 Ton Vector Thrust*
*Posted:* September 22, 2017 | *Author:* chankaiyee2 | *Filed under:* Uncategorized | *Tags:* China, J-20, WS-10X |7 Comments





Successful test flight of J-20 no. 2021 prototype. Photo: fyjs.cn




Successful landing of J-20 no. 2021 prototype. Photo: fyjs.cn

I reblogged Popular Science’s September-9 article “China’s J-20 stealth fighter may be getting a new engine” on September 12. According to the article, there was a new J-20 prototype no. 2021 installed with a new WS-10X engine better stealth with 14-15 ton vector thrust that enables J-20 to conduct supersonic supercruise without using fuel-thirsty afterburners.

On September 20, mil.huanqiu.com published the above photos of the successful test of the new J-20 prototype no. 2021.

Source: mil.huanqiu.com “Successful test flight of J-20 no. 2021 fighter jet” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese).
https://tiananmenstremendousachieve...-better-stealth-with-14-15-ton-vector-thrust/

How is the credibility of this news?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

antonius123 said:


> ...
> How is the credibility of this news?



Unreliable. Very much. 

The WS-10X has no TVC and most likely about 138 kN of thrust.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Unreliable. Very much.
> 
> The WS-10X has no TVC and most likely about 138 kN of thrust.


The WS-10B has a thrust of slightly less than 14 tonnes or around 138 kN. Since this is the WS-10B+, the engine's thrust is around 140-142kN ... a small but noticeable difference.



antonius123 said:


> *New J-20 WS-10X Engine Better Stealth, with 14-15 Ton Vector Thrust*
> *Posted:* September 22, 2017 | *Author:* chankaiyee2 | *Filed under:* Uncategorized | *Tags:* China, J-20, WS-10X |7 Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Successful test flight of J-20 no. 2021 prototype. Photo: fyjs.cn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Successful landing of J-20 no. 2021 prototype. Photo: fyjs.cn
> 
> I reblogged Popular Science’s September-9 article “China’s J-20 stealth fighter may be getting a new engine” on September 12. According to the article, there was a new J-20 prototype no. 2021 installed with a new WS-10X engine better stealth with 14-15 ton vector thrust that enables J-20 to conduct supersonic supercruise without using fuel-thirsty afterburners.
> 
> On September 20, mil.huanqiu.com published the above photos of the successful test of the new J-20 prototype no. 2021.
> 
> Source: mil.huanqiu.com “Successful test flight of J-20 no. 2021 fighter jet” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese).
> https://tiananmenstremendousachieve...-better-stealth-with-14-15-ton-vector-thrust/
> 
> How is the credibility of this news?


Anything from "tiananmentremendosachievements" should be regarded as not credible ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> Anything from "tiananmentremendosachievements" should be regarded as not credible ...



Better than WSJ and War is boring which is nothing but anti China stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

Deino said:


> Unreliable. Very much.
> 
> The WS-10X has no TVC and most likely about 138 kN of thrust.





Figaro said:


> The WS-10B has a thrust of slightly less than 14 tonnes or around 138 kN. Since this is the WS-10B+, the engine's thrust is around 140-142kN ... a small but noticeable difference.
> 
> 
> Anything from "tiananmentremendosachievements" should be regarded as not credible ...



How about this:

Additionally, the WS-10X (possibly officially designated WS-10G or WS-10IPE) has sawtoothed serrations on the edges of its afterburning nozzles, like the F-35's F119 engine. The sawtooth edges provide a gain in stealthiness, as they redirect radar waves away from the nozzles. (The straight edges on non-stealthy engines like the AL-31 are major contributors to the radar cross section of a fighter). 

In addition to the gains in stealth, the WS-10X is believed to provide about 14-15 tons of thrust. This may be enough power to allow the J-20 to engage in low supersonic supercruise at Mach 1-1.2 speeds. The Eurofighter Typhoon has a similar low supercruise capability, which means it can hit supersonic speeds without using fuel-thirsty afterburners.
https://www.popsci.com/china-stealth-fighter-new-engine​

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

antonius123 said:


> How about this:
> 
> Additionally, the WS-10X (possibly officially designated WS-10G or WS-10IPE) has sawtoothed serrations on the edges of its afterburning nozzles, like the F-35's F119 engine. The sawtooth edges provide a gain in stealthiness, as they redirect radar waves away from the nozzles. (The straight edges on non-stealthy engines like the AL-31 are major contributors to the radar cross section of a fighter).
> 
> In addition to the gains in stealth, the WS-10X is believed to provide about 14-15 tons of thrust. This may be enough power to allow the J-20 to engage in low supersonic supercruise at Mach 1-1.2 speeds. The Eurofighter Typhoon has a similar low supercruise capability, which means it can hit supersonic speeds without using fuel-thirsty afterburners.
> https://www.popsci.com/china-stealth-fighter-new-engine​




A bit better but it was written just a few days after these first image appeared and the thrust estimation is too high.


----------



## 52051

This sina news confirmed what people in China know for a few months:

The fourth production line of J-20 will be open soon, and PLAAF will have more J-20 than the F-22 in USA fleet in 3 years.

Each production line will produce about a regiment (24) J-20, so 4 means 96 J-20 per year.
*第四条歼20战机生产线将开通 3年内产量追上美F22*
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-10-30/doc-ifynhhay8493948.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

52051 said:


> This sina news confirmed what people in China know for a few months:
> 
> The fourth production line of J-20 will be open soon, and PLAAF will have more J-20 than the F-22 in USA fleet in 3 years.
> 
> Each production line will produce about a regiment (24) J-20, so 4 means 96 J-20 per year.
> *第四条歼20战机生产线将开通 3年内产量追上美F22*
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-10-30/doc-ifynhhay8493948.shtml


I think 300-400 J-20 will be enough for China 600/1000 will be a false assumptions/wishfulthinking by some members


----------



## 52051

pakistanipower said:


> I think 300-400 J-20 will be enough for China 600/1000 will be a false assumptions/wishfulthinking by some members



With 4 production line, to only produce 300-400 units will be a wishful thinking for many memebers here.

Btw: in most of time J-10 only have 1 production line, and now China produce ~300 J-10 already.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

52051 said:


> With 4 production line, to only produce 300-400 units will be a wishful thinking for many memebers here.
> 
> Btw: in most of time J-10 only have 1 production line, and now China produce ~300 J-10 already.


J-10 is a 4th and 4.5th gen fighter jet and was needed in numbers because it is replacing huge numbers of J-7/J-8 and other 3rd generation jets in PLAAF and not to forget J-10 cost 40-50 million $ (any versions) whereas J-20 estimated cost 110-150 million $ and will be more maintenance prone so in more realistic assumption 300-400 or may be 500 J-20 will be enough for china just my 2cents

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

52051 said:


> With 4 production line, to only produce 300-400 units will be a wishful thinking for many memebers here.
> 
> Btw: in most of time J-10 only have 1 production line, and now China produce ~300 J-10 already.



The military spending to GDP of China is basically constant value. If the economy does not explosively growth, PLA cannot pay for that.


----------



## That Guy

pakistanipower said:


> I think 300-400 J-20 will be enough for China 600/1000 will be a false assumptions/wishfulthinking by some members


It's questionable that they'd have even 300 to 400 in a few years time, considering the ridiculous costs associated with 5th gen fighters. I'd wager they'll be around 200-250 in the short to mid term, with double that in the medium to near long term.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> This sina news confirmed what people in China know for a few months:
> 
> The fourth production line of J-20 will be open soon, and PLAAF will have more J-20 than the F-22 in USA fleet in 3 years.
> 
> Each production line will produce about a regiment (24) J-20, so 4 means 96 J-20 per year.
> *第四条歼20战机生产线将开通 3年内产量追上美F22*
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-10-30/doc-ifynhhay8493948.shtml


I highly doubt the credibility of this Sina report ... or many Sina publications in general. There is absolutely no reason why China would manufacture this many J-20s without receiving their designated WS-15 engines ... and even then would be highly unlikely to produce at such a pace. This article does not take into account the costs and manufacturing difficulties associated with producing a very advanced fighter jet ... China is not about to immediately go to war. Sina fanbois at their finest 



52051 said:


> With 4 production line, to only produce 300-400 units will be a wishful thinking for many memebers here.
> 
> Btw: in most of time J-10 only have 1 production line, and now China produce ~300 J-10 already.


There is no such thing as 4 J-20 production lines currently ... how could the J-20, a much newer and more advanced aircraft than the J-10, overtake the latter in just 3 years???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> It's questionable that they'd have even 300 to 400 in a few years time, considering the ridiculous costs associated with 5th gen fighters. I'd wager they'll be around 200-250 in the short to mid term, with double that in the medium to near long term.


i think 450- 500 J-20 enough to tackle all threats for mid to long term sir



Figaro said:


> There is no such thing as 4 J-20 production lines currently ... how could the J-20, a much newer and more advanced aircraft than the J-10, overtake the latter in just 3 years???


and lot more expensive jet as compare to J-10


----------



## That Guy

pakistanipower said:


> i think 450- 500 J-20 enough to tackle all threats for mid to long term sir


Not all. The US will likely have around a thousand f-35s within a few decades. No matter what you may think about the f-35, no one can deny that it is extremely capable. China will have a tough time with that, and if the US decides to restart the f-22 production line, than China will likely face even more challenges.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

That Guy said:


> Not all. The US will likely have around a thousand f-35s within a few decades. No matter what you may think about the f-35, no one can deny that it is extremely capable. China will have a tough time with that, and if the US decides to restart the f-22 production line, than China will likely face even more challenges.


you're right sir about this but J-20 will be extremely expansive machine 110-150 million $ so think if FC-31 or any other medium weight stealth jet project which compliment J-20 which will be more cheaper to produce in numbrs instead of building 1000-1500 J-20, just like F-15/F-16, Su27/MIG-29 and F-22/F-35 combos just my 2 cent you may be right


----------



## samsara

That Guy said:


> Not all. The US will likely have around a thousand f-35s within a few decades. No matter what you may think about the f-35, no one can deny that it is extremely capable. China will have a tough time with that, and if the US decides to restart the f-22 production line, than China will likely face even more challenges.


_You have been too optimistic, ignoring the problem-ridden F-35 program... until today._

*The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Had A Pretty Rough Week - The Drive
By Joseph Trevithick - October 27, 2017*
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15550/the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-has-had-a-pretty-rough-week

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

samsara said:


> _You have been too optimistic, ignoring the problem-ridden F-35 program... until today._
> 
> *The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Had A Pretty Rough Week - The Drive
> By Joseph Trevithick - October 27, 2017*
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15550/the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-has-had-a-pretty-rough-week


We are optimistic because we have plenty of experience in aviation. Everything from designing to fixing problems. Can you say the same for your country, whatever it is ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino is quoted in an article by USNI.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-10/professional-notes-us-f-35-versus-prc-j-20



> Since early 2011, China has been testing the large multirole J-20 strike fighter/interceptor. According to the 2011 Pentagon report on Chinese military power, China was attempting to introduce stealth, advanced avionics, and supercruise capability to the J-20, which would give it an increased ability “to strike regional air bases, logistical facilities, and other ground-based infrastructure,” as well as giving “the PLA Air Force a platform capable of long range, penetrating strikes into complex air defense environments.” The 2016 edition of the Pentagon report stated that the J-20 had “modern avionics and sensors that offer more timely situational awareness for operations in network-centric combat environments, radars with advanced tracking and targeting capabilities, protection against enemy electronic countermeasures, and integrated EW systems.” China’s state media have recently confirmed press reports that the J-20 is operational.
> 
> *General*
> 
> Based on photographs available, the J-20 appears to be larger than the U.S. Air Force F-22, which is larger than the F-35. According to aviation journalist Piotr Butowski, the J-20 design “indicates the priority of speed and range over maneuverability.” 1 It appears optimized for a speed of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.8. The wing area of the J-20 is about 25 percent less than the F-22 , with wing loading almost identical to the F-35. 2 Apparently, it does not have a gun. *Aviation journalist Andreas Rupprecht states that its maneuverability is at least comparable to the Chinese J-11B (a Su-27/Su-33 Flanker derivative). 3This implies it has good fourth generation maneuverability and may be more maneuverable than the F-35, which was not designed to be more maneuverable than the F-16 or the F-18.* Absent a gun, an advantage in maneuverability is less important, although its ability to carry the Chinese version of the Sidewinder internally is a significant advantage in close range combat.
> 
> The J-20 should have long range, particularly when its current engines are replaced. Former head of the Russian Air Force Colonel General Alexander Zelin, says its combat radius is approximately 1,250 miles. Photographs of the J-20 show it carrying four large external fuel tanks and dropping them and their pylons, giving it the potential to increase range or loiter time substantially and allowing it to reconvert to stealth mode in flight.
> 
> *Weapons*
> 
> The J-20 is reported to carry a long-range air-to-air missile that could hit aircraft at ranges up to 180 miles. A photograph shows it being carried externally, and at some point such a missile could be carried internally. The J-20 clearly represents a threat to AWACS, tanker aircraft, and fourth-generation fighters. In large numbers, it could be a threat against the F-22 and F-35. Its large bomb bays could allow it to launch air-to-ground or antiship missiles beyond the detection range of U.S. systems.
> 
> Aviation Week reports that one of the J-20’s missions appears to be maritime reconnaissance and targeting for antiship ballistic missiles and in support of ship-launched cruise missiles. Its large weapon bays will enhance its ability as a strike-fighter, making it a serious long-range threat to land and naval targets. It reportedly can be armed with a precision air-to-surface missile with a 600-mile range. 4
> 
> *Stealth*
> 
> Like the Russian Pak FA, the J-20 apparently lacks some attributes of a 5th generation fighter. Mikhail Pogosyan, president of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation and Sukhoi Company, commented, “As for the development of a genuine 5th generation combat aircraft, China obviously has a long way to go.” 5This is an apparent reference to China’s problems developing advanced engines and avionics.
> 
> Lieutenant General David Deptula, U.S. Air Force (Retired), said that the J-20 appears to be more advanced than Russia’s Pak FA and “it may have some significant low-observable capabilities on the front end, but not all aspects—nor is it built as a dogfighter.” The J-20 has been characterized as having medium stealth with its best performance from the front and the worst from the rear. Business Insider quotes a senior scientist at Lockheed Martin as saying, “It’s apparent from looking at many pictures of the aircraft that the designers don’t fully understand all the concepts of LO [low observable] design.” 6 John A. Tirpak, executive editor of Air Force Magazine, wrote that the J-20 “may, in fact, be a stealthy strike platform, designed to be just stealthy enough to get close to a target, launch missiles, and retreat quickly.”
> 
> Current Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein has compared the J-20 to the F-117, which reportedly had a radar cross section of .269 square feet. 7 If true, the J-20 stealth level is first generation. *Andreas Rupprecht writes “The J-20 is most likely no match for the F-22 and the F-35… On the other hand, it is surely far stealthier than most other types of aircraft operational in the Asia-Pacific area.” 8*
> 
> By comparison, the official description of the stealth level of the F-35 is that of a metal golf ball. Aviation Week reports that the F-35 RCS is -30 dBsm or .001 square meters. 9 The F-35 is reported to be stealthier than the F-22 from the front, although it is generally said to have a less uniform RCS than the F-22. If true, the F-35 probably has a one-to-two order of magnitude advantage in stealth over the J-20, giving it a first shot/kill advantage in a one-on-one confrontation. This does not consider the F-35’s networking, data fusion, and electronic warfare capabilities, which likely increase its advantage considerably.
> 
> *Engines*
> 
> The 2014 Pentagon report on Chinese military power observed, “China faces numerous challenges to achieving full operational capability, including developing high-performance jet engines.” The flight characteristics of the J-20 are limited by inadequate engines because of delays in the development of the Chinese WS-15 engine, which is supposed to have about 40,000 pounds of thrust and thrust vectoring. The prototypes of the J-20 seem to be equipped with Russian AL-31FN engines, which lack thrust vectoring or adequate power to achieve supercruise speed or high maneuverability. 10
> 
> To compensate for the WS-15 problems, China is procuring the Russian Su-35 fighter to get its 117S engines, the most advanced Russian fighter engines. The sale of Su-35s to China was long delayed by Russia’s concern about Chinese reverse engineering. The Russian engine, however, reportedly will not have enough thrust to give the J-20 supercruise capability, though it will improve aerodynamic performance and provide thrust vectoring.
> 
> Lockheed Martin says the F-35 has a limited supercruise capability (150 miles at Mach 1.2.) giving it an advantage over the current J-20. If the F-35 thrust is increased through engine improvements, this should increase its supercruise potential and give it an advantage even over a J-20 equipped with the Russian engines.
> 
> *Sensors*
> 
> The J-20’s sensor capabilities appear to be impressive. In addition to its active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, the Chinese appear to have copied the stealthy electro-optical targeting system sensor housing from the F-35. The J-20 reportedly also has a 360-degree optical counterpart to the F-35s distributed aperture system. Just because it looks the same does not mean that it works the same. While the J-20’s AESA radar probably gives it enhanced detection against low RCS targets (compared to passive array or mechanically scanned radars), not all AESA radars have the same power and capabilities, including stealth, electronic protection, and electronic warfare capability. According to press reports, the F-35’s APG-81 radar operates “in LPI (low probability of intercept) and LPD (low probability of detection) modes that minimize the aircraft’s signature to comply with its low observable (LO) requirements. The radar is optimized for agility, very low noise, high efficiency, and fully supports the LO nature of the aircraft.” 11Since the J-20 radar is an early Chinese AESA, it is unlikely to be in the same class as the radar on the F-35. Moreover, it is unlikely China can match the “flying super computer” capabilities of the F-35, including sensor integration and networking to improve pilot situational awareness.
> 
> *Assessment*
> 
> In 2015, then-chief of the F-35 joint program office Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, U.S. Air Force, commented, “I’d put this airplane up against any airplane in the world today, tomorrow and for the next 20 or 30 years, and we will come out ahead.” The Air Force says the F-35 achieved 110 “kills” against “adversary aircraft” in Exercise Northern Lightning and achieved a 20-to-1 kill ratio in the early 2017 Red Flag exercise. Marine F-35Bs reportedly suppressed SAM sites without being targeted.
> 
> Overall, the J-20 is likely to be a serious threat to U.S. aircraft, ships, and bases for the foreseeable future. While the F-35 has better stealth and sensor capability and the J-20 may not be a matchup one-on-one, the Chinese may be able to put more of them in the sky. In 2017, General Herbert Carlisle, Commander Air Combat Command, stated that in the South China Sea the threat may be “10 squadrons of J-20s, plus Su-35s…and Su-30s and J-10s and J-11s.” So, while not as good as the F-35, the J-20 does not have to be as stealthy or have sensor parity to have an impact on the Far East military balance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Deino is quoted in an article by USNI.
> 
> https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-10/professional-notes-us-f-35-versus-prc-j-20




Thanks for the hint, however I'm not too happy with that report.

Especially the part here is right on a hint that it is not that well-researched or that the author simply came to wrong conclusions:



> Aviation Week reports that one of the J-20’s missions appears to be maritime reconnaissance and targeting for antiship ballistic missiles and in support of ship-launched cruise missiles. Its large weapon bays will enhance its ability as a strike-fighter, making it a serious long-range threat to land and naval targets. It reportedly can be armed with a precision air-to-surface missile with a 600-mile range.



... and calling the "J-11B (a Su-27/Su-33 Flanker derivative)" is also not helpful.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

pakistanipower said:


> J-10 is a 4th and 4.5th gen fighter jet and was needed in numbers because it is replacing huge numbers of J-7/J-8 and other 3rd generation jets in PLAAF and not to forget J-10 cost 40-50 million $ (any versions) whereas J-20 estimated cost 110-150 million $ and will be more maintenance prone so in more realistic assumption 300-400 or may be 500 J-20 will be enough for china just my 2cents



You have no idea:

The main reason is China produce all this stuff in China so you cannot really calculate the cost this way.

For instance China today produce 3x-5x more type 052D/type 055 DDGs than China did with old school 051B/C/052C.

China's military producation/expanding is at an accerlating phase, you cannot simply project the past to the future, otherwise you may deduce that China will build no more than 2 type 052D, instead of over 20 by now.

In the past, China's military was using the so-called "small step and rapid evoluation" strategy during 2000s, since at that time, China dont have military hardware that is on-peer with the US, so they just produce a few of each designs to keep the factory running but spend lots money on developing future systems.

But nowadays when the military can buy weapon system thats is on peer with the US, they will start to place very large orders, like 20+ type052D or 8+ type 055 in the first batch.

And thats why they produce 4 production line of J-20 instead of merely one just like J-10 had.

China will produce 700-1000 J-20, for PLAAF and PLAN.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

*Guys ??? Can we stay on topic and please not again follow a nationalistic-infected off-topic discussion?

Deino*



52051 said:


> ...
> And thats why they produce 4 production line of J-20 instead of merely one just like J-10 had.
> 
> China will produce 700-1000 J-20, for PLAAF and PLAN.



Sorry, but IMO these "4 production lines" simply do not exist - at least not yet !
How many J-20s are produced this year, maybe about 6-10 or about 1.5 per two months. Not really a sign for 4 production lines and to admit all I read so far on this issue is from quite "questionable" sources.

... therefore 1000 J-20s is way to many the PLAAF can neither afford nor CAC build in a at least reasonable timeframe.


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> *Guys ??? Can we stay on topic and please not again follow a nationalistic-infected off-topic discussion?
> 
> Deino*
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but IMO these "4 production lines" simply do not exist - at least not yet !
> How many J-20s are produced this year, maybe about 6-10 or about 1.5 per two months. Not really a sign for 4 production lines and to admit all I read so far on this issue is from quite "questionable" sources.
> 
> ... therefore 1000 J-20s is way to many the PLAAF can neither afford nor CAC build in a at least reasonable timeframe.



Media have already reported that, long after rumors about the fourth production float around in Chinese military BBS.

And yes, even CCTV have reported that on Dec 29 2016, their Today's Focus program:

http://junshi.xilu.com/xrjd/20161230/1000010000974960.html
http://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582676362241898914&wfr=spider&for=pc

And Ming Paper (usually regarded as CCP's news channel in Hong Kong) also reported that:
http://m9.baidu.com/feed/data/landingpage?s_type=news&dsp=wise&nid=3743066904263584645&p_from=4

You can of cause feel free to not believe any news source from China and rely your news throiugh oversea China "experters", and btw, if the US can afford thousands of F-35, I dont see any problem that China cannot afford 1000+ J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> Media have already reported that, long after rumors about the fourth production float around in Chinese military BBS.
> 
> And yes, even CCTV have reported that on Dec 29 2016, their Today's Focus program:
> 
> http://junshi.xilu.com/xrjd/20161230/1000010000974960.html
> http://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582676362241898914&wfr=spider&for=pc
> 
> And Ming Paper (usually regarded as CCP's news channel in Hong Kong) also reported that:
> http://m9.baidu.com/feed/data/landingpage?s_type=news&dsp=wise&nid=3743066904263584645&p_from=4
> 
> You can of cause feel free to not believe any news source from China and rely your news throiugh oversea China "experters", and btw, if the US can afford thousands of F-35, I dont see any problem that China cannot afford 1000+ J-20.



Thanks for these links, however I remain sceptical. As far as I understand they are proposing the WS-15 for 2019 and more such reports ... IMO unlikely.

But time will tell.


----------



## lcloo

Whether China will produce 200 or 1,000 J20 depends on the need of national interest. If the potential foes acquired 500-1000 F-35 and F-22, and may be SU-57 and AMCA as well, then the long term plan would be to build as many J20 (plus may be J31 if it is chosen by any branch of China's armed forces) to deter any external threat from the air.

We must remember that aircraft are fast mobilility military assets that can be deployed quickly to thousands of miles away from their home base. Thus when counting the potential opponents' total number of stealth jets that can threaten you home defence, this consideration must be accounted for.

And frankly, it is really useless to argue how many J20 China will produce, as none of us are authotitative enough to produce any figure, since we don't really know how many years J20 production line will be kept running nor would PLAAF and PLAN aviation will announce what is in their minds.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## randomradio

52051 said:


> Media have already reported that, long after rumors about the fourth production float around in Chinese military BBS.
> 
> And yes, even CCTV have reported that on Dec 29 2016, their Today's Focus program:
> 
> http://junshi.xilu.com/xrjd/20161230/1000010000974960.html
> http://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582676362241898914&wfr=spider&for=pc
> 
> And Ming Paper (usually regarded as CCP's news channel in Hong Kong) also reported that:
> http://m9.baidu.com/feed/data/landingpage?s_type=news&dsp=wise&nid=3743066904263584645&p_from=4
> 
> You can of cause feel free to not believe any news source from China and rely your news throiugh oversea China "experters", and btw, if the US can afford thousands of F-35, I dont see any problem that China cannot afford 1000+ J-20.





Deino said:


> Thanks for these links, however I remain sceptical. As far as I understand they are proposing the WS-15 for 2019 and more such reports ... IMO unlikely.
> 
> But time will tell.



From what I hear, PLAAF will order around 100-200 jets with the old engines and then switch their sights to the J-20 with the new engine later on. So I suppose 36 jets a year until the new engine is ready and then production will ramp up from there.


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> This sina news confirmed what people in China know for a few months:
> 
> The fourth production line of J-20 will be open soon, and PLAAF will have more J-20 than the F-22 in USA fleet in 3 years.
> 
> Each production line will produce about a regiment (24) J-20, so 4 means 96 J-20 per year.
> *第四条歼20战机生产线将开通 3年内产量追上美F22*
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2017-10-30/doc-ifynhhay8493948.shtml




That's excactly what I meant.

CAC was not able to produce more than 40 J-10s per year and now You are suggesting a close to that level or even higher number of J-20s. IMO impossible and only proof for fan-boyism at its best.

Not sure why so many give so much on these countless reports You can find at Sina.... anyway I would be surprised if a first front-line regiment will be established by the end of 2018 and please don't rate this as China-bashing or low-thinking of the Chinese capabilities. It's only a realistic estimation given of the PLAAF's needs, and the industrial capabilities.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

52051 said:


> You have no idea:
> 
> The main reason is China produce all this stuff in China so you cannot really calculate the cost this way.
> 
> For instance China today produce 3x-5x more type 052D/type 055 DDGs than China did with old school 051B/C/052C.
> 
> China's military producation/expanding is at an accerlating phase, you cannot simply project the past to the future, otherwise you may deduce that China will build no more than 2 type 052D, instead of over 20 by now.
> 
> In the past, China's military was using the so-called "small step and rapid evoluation" strategy during 2000s, since at that time, China dont have military hardware that is on-peer with the US, so they just produce a few of each designs to keep the factory running but spend lots money on developing future systems.
> 
> But nowadays when the military can buy weapon system thats is on peer with the US, they will start to place very large orders, like 20+ type052D or 8+ type 055 in the first batch.
> 
> And thats why they produce 4 production line of J-20 instead of merely one just like J-10 had.
> 
> China will produce 700-1000 J-20, for PLAAF and PLAN.


you're right sir about this but J-20 will be extremely expansive machine 110-150 million $ so think if FC-31 or any other medium weight stealth jet project which compliment J-20 which will be more cheaper to produce in numbrs instead of building 1000-1500 J-20, just like F-15/F-16, Su27/MIG-29 and F-22/F-35 combos just my 2 cent


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Thanks for the hint, however I'm not too happy with that report.
> 
> Especially the part here is right on a hint that it is not that well-researched or that the author simply came to wrong conclusions:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and calling the "J-11B (a Su-27/Su-33 Flanker derivative)" is also not helpful.
> 
> Deino


Did you really say “likely no match” ... LOL. Is this to please the American fanbois?? But all in all, what a garbage USNI report ... I’m pretty sure the J-20 is a match for the F-22 and F-35



Deino said:


> Thanks for these links, however I remain sceptical. As far as I understand they are proposing the WS-15 for 2019 and more such reports ... IMO unlikely.
> 
> But time will tell.


What they mean is the WS-15 will be flight tested on the J-20 by 2019 ... which is pretty reasonable

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Did you really say “likely no match” ... LOL. Is this to please the American fanbois?? But all in all, what a garbage USNI report ... I’m pretty sure the J-20 is a match for the F-22 and F-35



Not sure where You found that quote or if You know the original report but he indeed misquoted me or - IMO even worse - gives a hint to a wrong conclusion:??? ... all I was quoted:

"Aviation journalist Andreas Rupprecht states that its maneuverability is at least comparable to the Chinese J-11B (a Su-27/Su-33 Flanker derivative)." (in quote 3)

1. My original report said nothing to manoeuvrability but I said *"...at least until the planned WS-15 engine is available. In the meantime, the J-20's engines are probably adequate and will provide flight performance at least comparable to the latest J-11B fighter."*

Even worse he did not differ between a Su-27 and Su-33 ...

2. Also he implied another conclusion: “As for the development of a genuine 5th generation combat aircraft, China obviously has a long way to go.” This is an apparent reference to China’s problems developing advanced engines and avionics. (in quote 5)
This was also meant regarding the still not available WS-15.



Even worse he did not differ between a Su-27 and Su-33 ...



> What they mean is the WS-15 will be flight tested on the J-20 by 2019 ... which is pretty reasonable



IMO highly unlikely ... but again, time will tell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> *Andreas Rupprecht writes “The J-20 is most likely no match for the F-22 and the F-35…”*
> 
> ...




Again a misquote: My original sentence was ... "As regards to stealth the J-20 is most likely no match for the F-22 and the F-35 (see the non-stealthy engine exhaust, the uncovered countermeasures launchers and other details)."

And here I'm indeed not wrong that these issues are points of concern...


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> Again a misquote: My original sentence was ... "As regards to stealth the J-20 is most likely no match for the F-22 and the F-35 (see the non-stealthy engine exhaust, the uncovered countermeasures launchers and other details)."
> 
> And here I'm indeed not wrong that these issues are points of concern...


Perhaps not, but the quote (especially as it appeared when USNI dishonestly truncated it) makes is sound like the J-20 is a fundamentally unsound design. Do you believe so?

What you pointed out are minor details -- I'm sure you've seen the LOAN on the 2021 prototype. Besides the nozzles and the uncovered chaff and flare dispensers, what are the "other details" of your original quote?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## STRANGER BIRD



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## STRANGER BIRD

Figaro said:


> Old photo


if old then sorry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Then you should stop helping these people ... if they’re just going to keep intentionally misquoting you. Intentionally misrepresenting one’s statements is even worse than referencing a poor source. You should probably write to this USNI author to let him stop distorting your own statements ... it makes you seem like the one who said something you didn’t actually say. Otherwise, readers are going to take his misquote as something you actually said.



Sorry, but where do I help them??

If they would have come for an interview, asked a few questions then You would be correct ... they however took a collection of different sources including my report from the CA (Jan. '17) and made their story.

Not sure what You now propose?? ... stop publishing so that I cannot be misquoted anymore???

And I already did post a reply on that site.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Sorry, but where do I help them??
> 
> If then would have come for an interview, asked a few questions then You would be correct ... they however took a collection of different sources including my report from the CA (Jan. '17) and made their story.
> 
> Not sure what You now propose?? ... stop publishing so that I cannot be misquoted anymore???
> 
> And I already did post a reply on that site.


I’m suggesting sending an email or replying to them about this misuse. Since they cited you as saying something, they are dishonest through their deliberate mis-quotations. Buy as you already posted a reply to the website ... I digress. The author’s intentional manipulation with regards to your quotations shows his credibility ... zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Sorry, but where do I help them??
> 
> If they would have come for an interview, asked a few questions then You would be correct ... they however took a collection of different sources including my report from the CA (Jan. '17) and made their story.
> 
> Not sure what You now propose?? ... stop publishing so that I cannot be misquoted anymore???
> 
> And I already did post a reply on that site.



Speaking of interviews, how did you get one with Kyle Mizokami last year? Did he send you an email, make or phone call, or what?


----------



## gambit

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Perhaps not, but the quote (especially as it appeared when USNI dishonestly truncated it) makes is *sound like the J-20 is a fundamentally unsound design.* Do you believe so?


No, it is not an 'unsound' design. To be 'unsound' is to be fundamentally flawed. Comparisons are not meant to point out flaws but to point out differences based upon some criteria.

For example...

A truck and an F1 racer are both motor road vehicles. The most fundamental criteria is 'Can the vehicle move ?' Of course both can. Their designs are dictated by their respective missions. One to move as fast as possible. One to transport as much cargo as possible. Neither are fundamentally 'unsound'.

Unfortunately, people took that quote out of context and they did so -- to say it kindly -- out of technical ignorance.

All surface indicators strongly hint that the J-20 is more radar observable than the F-22 and probably more than the F-35 as well. That maybe an uncomfortable opinion for the Chinese nationalists here, but that opinion is based upon science, not emotion.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Speaking of interviews, how did you get one with Kyle Mizokami last year? Did he send you an email, make or phone call, or what?




Yes indeed, he contacted me via mail and send me a detailed list of questions we later discussed. IMO a fine way to prepare a report.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

gambit said:


> No, it is not an 'unsound' design. To be 'unsound' is to be fundamentally flawed. Comparisons are not meant to point out flaws but to point out differences based upon some criteria.
> 
> For example...
> 
> A truck and an F1 racer are both motor road vehicles. The most fundamental criteria is 'Can the vehicle move ?' Of course both can. Their designs are dictated by their respective missions. One to move as fast as possible. One to transport as much cargo as possible. Neither are fundamentally 'unsound'.
> 
> Unfortunately, people took that quote out of context and they did so -- to say it kindly -- out of technical ignorance.
> 
> All surface indicators strongly hint that the J-20 is more radar observable than the F-22 and probably more than the F-35 as well. That maybe an uncomfortable opinion for the Chinese nationalists here, but that opinion is based upon science, not emotion.


Irreparable high radar observability in a stealth fighter is an unsoundness of design, there are no conditions in which this is a positive trait. Having said that, I find the criticisms of those who "point out flaws" in the J-20 unconvincing, and "nationalism" has nothing to do with it:

1) The canard argument is very poor. It's no more observable in neutral configuration than any other control surface (certainly no more observable than the F-22's main wing). While it is more observable when its tilted to present to a radar, the _entire _airplane is tilted toward the radar during a manoeuvre -- that's the case whether the control surface is in the front (as in the J-20) or the back (as in the F-22). In both cases, the radar will catch a glint as the plane turns.

There might be an argument to be made about the canards' dihedral, but I have every confidence that the J-20's designers considered the effects on observability and chose the angle very carefully.

2) I buy the argument that LOAN's are less stealthy than square nozzles and both are far superior to round nozzles, so in this regard I can accept that the F-22 has one over the J-20. But I don't see why the J-20 should be inferior to the F-35 from the rear. The USAF is very pleased with the F-35, so I have no reason to think that the rearward observability of a LOAN is a cause for concern.

3) The strakes are (counter)planform aligned with the v-tails. That fact should caution people against counting them as "extra surfaces."

4) Coatings I have no comment on. I have no idea what the US or China uses for coatings.

Having said that, even if the J-20 is poorer than the F-22 or F-35 in stealth, no one -- to the best of my knowledge -- has publicly quantified how much poorer. If a radar can pick up an F-22 at 100 kilometers, while the same radar in the same conditions picks up a J-20 at 105 kilometers, is that really going to make much of a difference?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Irreparable high radar observability in a stealth fighter is an unsoundness of design, there are no conditions in which this is a positive trait.


There is no accepted standard on low radar observability.

The unofficial par is the F-117, of which its RCS value is still secret, so even if China release the J-20's data, there is still nothing to measure that data against.



ZeEa5KPul said:


> 1) The canard argument is very poor.


No, it is not. If you take any structure and measure its RCS as a *STANDALONE* structure, all you will have is an RCS value without context.

It appears to me you are unfamiliar with the basics of radar detection and low radar observability. This post will be longer than usual, but if you want to learn, you will make the time to read it. By the way, you will not learn this from any of the Chinese members in this forum, or even from other Chinese forums, for that matter.

In radar detection, everything is a radiator the moment the body is inside a radar beam.

There are three rules in designing a radar low observable body:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

The rules are more like guidelines. There is no violation of the rules, only the degree of obedience to them.

In radar detection, the sphere is considered the ideal body because it is the most obedient to the above three rules.

The sphere has only one radiator -- itself. That means it is the most obedient to the rule 2: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

To show that I am not making this up...

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1


> It has been used for radar calibration since its launch.


The sphere is used for radar system calibration because no matter its orientation to the seeking radar, its RCS will always be the same.

So the issue is not the canards but rather that the J-20 has eight major flight control structures while the F-22 and F-35 has six.







For the F-15 and F-22, each has six major flight control structures. But why is the F-22 'stealthy' while the F-15 is not ?

Because of rule 2 : Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

The word 'array' means 'in relation to'.

In designing a radar low observable body, the corner reflector *SHOULD* be avoided. If not possible, then the 90 deg corner reflector *MUST* avoided.

Like this...






In fact, the corner reflector is so good at increasing RCS that the structure is used in marine safety where small boats can appear on radars.

https://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/Selecting-a-Radar-Reflector

It is not about the canards' dihedral or its movements in flight. It is the *TOTALITY* of structures that are in the radar beam.






The reason why weapons are internalized in 'stealth' fighters is because -- as the example above -- weapons are the least obedient to the three rules.

Let us look at the YF-23...






The YF-23 is considered to be less radar observable or 'stealthier' than the F-22 even in the absence of hard measurement data. Why is that ?

Probably because the YF-23 has four major flight control structures. That makes the YF-23 more obedient to rule 1: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

Now we come to rule three: Control of *MODES* of radiation.

There is a reason why we moved away from the angled faceting techniques of the F-117: Modes of radiation.

Curvatures produces different ways on how a radar signal leave a structure. A flat surface produces large specular reflection.

Like this...






Curvatures produces surface waves actions that have lower but often longer duration of radiation. In school, infinite surfaces are used in hypothetical situations, but in real life, all structures are finite so a radar signal has to leave a structure somehow and some time. So we have rule three: Control of *MODES* of radiation.

The J-20 with its *EIGHT* major flight control structures are less obedient to the three rules.

You have been misled, my friend. It is not about the canards.



ZeEa5KPul said:


> Having said that, even if the J-20 is poorer than the F-22 or F-35 in stealth, no one -- to the best of my knowledge -- has publicly quantified how much poorer. If a radar can pick up an F-22 at 100 kilometers, while the same radar in the same conditions picks up a J-20 at 105 kilometers, is that really going to make much of a difference?


A five klicks difference is meaningless. But it is misleading to use such close figures.

No one is going to release hard measurement data. I could argue that the difference *MIGHT* be 20+ klicks. In that case, the J-20 will be at a disadvantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## That Guy

samsara said:


> _You have been too optimistic, ignoring the problem-ridden F-35 program... until today._
> 
> *The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Had A Pretty Rough Week - The Drive
> By Joseph Trevithick - October 27, 2017*
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15550/the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-has-had-a-pretty-rough-week


The f-35 may have problems, but even with its issues, it still outclasses 99% of fighters in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

That Guy said:


> The f-35 may have problems, but even with its issues, it still outclasses 99% of fighters in the world.




It is beaten by both F-22 and J-20, the only other 5th generation fighters in existence right now.

When the Turkish TF-X comes online towards the latter part of the next decade, it will fall to 4th place.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> It is beaten by both F-22 and J-20, the only other 5th generation fighters in existence right now.
> 
> When the Turkish TF-X comes online towards the latter part of the decade, it will fall to 4th place.


And people say that we Americans are optimistic ?


----------



## Deino

UKBengali said:


> It is beaten by both F-22 and J-20, the only other 5th generation fighters in existence right now.
> 
> When the Turkish TF-X comes online towards the latter part of the next decade, it will fall to 4th place.




Can we please stop this BS?? I really don't want to defend the F-35 but it was developed as a completely different class of fighter than the J-20 and F-22. Also as far as I know no aerial encounter between an J-20 and F-35 ever took place as such, such statements are purely based on wishful thinking, lack of understanding, wet dreams and ignorance since none of us here knows anything on the real data.

And if the Turkish TFX will ever fly is yet another issue.

Therefore stop these stupid off-topic discussions and back to the J-20.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

UKBengali said:


> It is beaten by both F-22 and J-20, the only other 5th generation fighters in existence right now.
> 
> When the Turkish TF-X comes online towards the latter part of the next decade, it will fall to 4th place.


When F-35 beaten by J-20 care to explain? you live in you wet dream and wishful thinking sir


----------



## samsara

That Guy said:


> The f-35 may have problems, but even with its issues, it still outclasses 99% of fighters in the world.





Deino said:


> Can we please stop this BS?? I really don't want to defend the F-35 but it was developed as a completely different class of fighter than the J-20 and F-22. Also as far as I know no aerial encounter between an J-20 and F-35 ever took place as such, such statements are purely based on wishful thinking, lack of understanding, wet dreams and ignorance since none of us here knows anything on the real data.
> 
> And if the Turkish TFX will ever fly is yet another issue.
> 
> Therefore stop these stupid off-topic discussions and back to the J-20.
> 
> Deino





pakistanipower said:


> When F-35 beaten by J-20 care to explain? you live in you wet dream and wishful thinking sir



As said, there has never been any encounter between the F-35 with the latest of the Chinese jet fighters as well as the Russian ones. Of course the Pentagon and the maker LM published the flying colour marks of the aircraft, *the project still has long ways to go*, _* huge money there involving many interests*_... *also many foreign clients are still sought after, think about all the betting with the big money attached there... *but how can any one be so sure that what said represents the truth only? Many just conveniently ignore or underestimate the repeated problems regardless the GAO reports. Talking about the shaped perception and psychological bias.

Just admit it that at the end, at best we all have no sure idea what is the real state except what's claimed by the concerning parties. That's why better drop the vital contest, 'my "tool" is bigger than yours' 

And if you're still so enthusiast to prove its superiority then go read at sinodef, you may find the lengthy discussion incl. the recent USNI article on F-35-versus-J-20 at the J-20 thread there... enough to say that the author of the article *has its own audience to cater* and *some "particular message" to deliver*... truth or factuality itself is not the objective... important enough the conveyed message that the publisher will prevent any weighted counter opinion that seems to weaken his narrative from appearing at that site, incl. the own *correction* from the quoted source against some inaccuracy like the one from Andreas Rupprecht....  I dunno why Deino does not post his "disappearing" reply here at pakdef for clarity purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Found these today on Sina.com. Real photo or CG? Hard to differentiate.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## That Guy

UKBengali said:


> It is beaten by both F-22 and J-20, the only other 5th generation fighters in existence right now.
> 
> When the Turkish TF-X comes online towards the latter part of the next decade, it will fall to 4th place.


On paper, we don't know anything about any of these fighters true capabilities, nor will any of the governments share them with the public.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## l0ngl0ng

gambit said:


> So the issue is not the canards but rather that the J-20 has eight major flight control structures while the F-22 and F-35 has six.


You troll theories are selected and based on your favor.
Flight control, T-50 has 14






F-22 has 12:





J-20 has 10:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

l0ngl0ng said:


> You troll theories are selected and based on your favor.
> Flight control, T-50 has 14
> 
> F-22 has 12:
> 
> J-20 has 10:


Wrong. We are talking about *MAJOR* structures.

The wing is a major structure. Flaps and ailerons are subordinates and they are already contributors to the wing's RCS measurement.

I doubt that you came up with that on your own. So wherever forum you got that from, tell him/her he/she is wrong.

Finally, for the J-20, missing are the count for the two ventral fins, which would raise the count to 12.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LJQC

Did a simple measurement on J20 nose to nozzle length based on J16 wing span using software.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Figaro

LJQC said:


> Did a simple measurement on J20 nose to nozzle length based on J16 wing span using software.
> 
> View attachment 434539


And there will still be idiots claiming a 23 meter long J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LJQC said:


> Did a simple measurement on J20 nose to nozzle length based on J16 wing span using software.
> 
> View attachment 434539




Finally no longer an estimation based on a grainy satellite image. But I’m sure @Asoka will again present us a theory why the J-20 is still about 22-23 m long.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

From weibo,

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yukihime

So finally the data is revealed, that J20 is 1.2Meter shorter than an ordinary Su-27 series fighter...

The mystery size of this stealth fighter is showed to the world,
and obviously it's a typical size fighter, just a little longer than the 19Meter F-22
Conclusion is the size of J-20 is between F-22 and Su-27

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> Finally no longer an estimation based on a grainy satellite image. But I’m sure @Asoka will again present us a theory why the J-20 is still about 22-23 m long.



Dude, are we sure what plane is behind J-20? And are we sure it's wingspan is 14.7m? From the picture, I know it's wingspan is a lot bigger than J-20. I am doubtful it's wingspan is 14.7m. And I am doubtful it's J-16.

To be absolutely sure, leaving no room for doubt, that this plane's wingspan is 14.7m seems premature to me.

I used Mr. Deino's previous estimate that J-15's wingspan is 14.7m, and from that I estimated J-20's wingspan is 14.05m. And from that I calculated the length of J-20 from Nose to Nozzle is 21.8m and overall length is 22.8m



.

Using the estimate of J-20's nose to nozzle length of 20.185m, it still leaves J-20's fuselage to be 3.485m longer than F-22.

This was my lower end estimate of their difference.

I had stated before that their nose to nozzle body length difference to be 3.5-4.5m. And then revised the estimate to be 5m, after estimated the J-20's wingspan to be 14.05m and nose to nozzle length of 21.8m.

There are internet references saying J-16's wingspan to be 14.7m. I simply don't know where they got that from, or how they did the calculation. Simply Assume J-16 to be exactly the same dimension in wingspan, as the original Su-27 is one huge assumption.

There is a report saying the wingspan of Su-35 to be 15.3 m (50.2 ft)
http://www.aviatia.net/f-35-lightning-ii-vs-su-35/

The Flankers behind the J-20 might be the new Su-35. From the picture, it seems it's wingspan is substantially wider than J-20. There is little doubt in my mind, that this difference is a lot bigger when J-15's wingspan is compared to J-20, in the previous satellite picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

@Asoka 

Why again riding a dead horse?? Is Your ego so important??

Come on. All Your images You were using for Your calculation were neither in an exact position (aka flat or straight from top), they were distorted and most often heavily blurred. Therefore none were really suitable to estimate an exact dimension.

Now we finally have a decent image. Close to straight from top and again - like my calculation You dismissed so much - side-by-side to a Flanker with a known length.

So I agree with You - and when I'm home will do my own calculation - we need to do that precisely but You were once again proven wrong. Your "22-23m-theory" crashed again similar to Your engine-theories. 

Just admit that fact and then back to the topic.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Deino said:


> @Asoka
> 
> Why again riding a dead horse?? Is Your ego so important??
> 
> Come on. All Your images You were using for Your calculation were neither in an exact position (aka flat or straight from top), they were distorted and most often heavily blurred. Therefore none were really suitable to estimate an exact dimension.
> 
> Now we finally have a decent image. Close to straight from top and again - like my calculation You dismissed so much - side-by-side to a Flanker with a known length.
> 
> So I agree with You - and when I'm home will do my own calculation - we need to do that precisely but You were once again proven wrong. Your "22-23m-theory" crashed again similar to Your engine-theories.
> 
> Just admit that fact and then back to the topic.
> 
> Deino



*"side-by-side to a Flanker with a known length."*

Not really. It's dimensions are far from proven.

I am simply questioning the identity of the flanker behind the J-20, and the statement that it's wingspan is 14.7m.

Why are you, or anybody else, so sure it's 14.7m?

Don't evade or ignore this simple and honest question, Mr. Deino!

You can go home and do your calculations, but to simply assume that flanker's wingspan to be 14.7m, is not serious.

It's one BIG assumption.

I have accepted J-15's wingspan to be 14.7m, which is the same as the early Su-27, because, J-15 was directly based on the Su-33, which was based on the early Su-27.

There is no reason to believe that dimensions of the J-16 or Su-35 could not have grown or changed, after 40 years of evolution. 

I state again that those Flankers behind the J-20s could be the new Su-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LJQC

If you don't know anything about J16, just remember it's a two-seater by observing the length of canopy in the picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Just here's my try ...


----------



## Asoka

LJQC said:


> If you don't know anything about J16, just remember it's a two-seater by observing the length of canopy in the picture.



it does look like, it might be a two seater.


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> *...
> I am simply questioning the identity of the flanker behind the J-20, and the statement that it's wingspan is 14.7m.
> Why are you, or anybody else, so sure it's 14.7m?*
> ....




Like I said ! Your EGO is so much on hyper-mode, it even excels Your +210kN theory.

Come on dude: The J-16 is a Flanker from tip to toe including its length, which is well known by all sources including the manufactor's. 

YES, I know You surely will claim that SAC changed the size by simply enlarging the Flanker b y say a factor of 1:1.2, so that in fact the span of the J-16 is 17m wide ... that surely would explain everything. 

Honestly, You are such a crazy, stubborn ignorant fan-boy; You would probably sell Your son Amadeus via e-bay if it would help proving Your claims.

Deino


----------



## Asoka

Assuming that Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m. I used it to find the following. I first resized the picture by 200% so it's easier to work with.

Flanker's Wingspan 14.7m (Assumed)
Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
Overall length: 22.5m (The tail boom sticks past the engine by 2m)

J-20's wingspan: 13m (Based on this picture and the estimate that this Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m)
Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
overall length: 21.5m

Previously, I used the estimate that the J-20's wingspan was 14m, which results in the lengths to be 1m longer as well.







*"I know You surely will claim that SAC changed the size by simply enlarging the Flanker b y say a factor of 1:1.2, so that in fact the span of the J-16 is 17m wide"*

Show me an authoritative statement from the SAC about J-16's wingspan, or show me some calculations did by someone, that J-16's wingspan is 14.7m, the same as the original Su-27.

This is a fair request.

I did not suggested J-16's wingspan is 17m. I have provided a report, which stated it's wingspan around *15.3m*

*"Honestly, You are such a crazy, stubborn ignorant fan-boy;"*

I would take that as an insult. I insulted that pakistani guy once, and you banned for two weeks. While that guy insulted me dozens of time, and called me all kinds of names, and you did NOTHING.

Show some fairness, for god's sake. You know why many people, here, don't respect you and want to get rid of you as Moderator? 

This is one of the reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## l0ngl0ng

gambit said:


> Wrong. We are talking about *MAJOR* structures.
> 
> The wing is a major structure. Flaps and ailerons are subordinates and they are already contributors to the wing's RCS measurement.
> 
> I doubt that you came up with that on your own. So wherever forum you got that from, tell him/her he/she is wrong.
> 
> Finally, for the J-20, missing are the count for the two ventral fins, which would raise the count to 12.


I'm the only one here to feed you troll.
My fault.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> *"I know You surely will claim that SAC changed the size by simply enlarging the Flanker b y say a factor of 1:1.2, so that in fact the span of the J-16 is 17m wide"*
> 
> Show me an authoritative statement from the SAC about J-16's wingspan, or show me some calculations did by someone, that J-16's wingspan is 14.7m, the same as the original Su-27.
> 
> This is a fair request.
> 
> I did not suggested J-16's wingspan is 17m. I have provided a report, which stated it's wingspan around *15.3m*



Come on ... it's a stupid request. We know it is a Flanker and span-wise all standard-Flankers are the same, the J-16 which is based on the Su-30MKK is no exception.
In return: Why should it be?



> *"Honestly, You are such a crazy, stubborn ignorant fan-boy;"*



And again You don't get it: If You call one a stupid Indian with a low IQ and condemn him it's different that to reply to an indeed simply stupid theory.

How else would You call anyone who constantly ignores all facts, all posts from reliable sources, reliable posters and even with such issues, where only a small margin of error remains, comes up with an even more crazy idea?

IMO *crazy, stubborn, ignorant or fan-boy *are still the nicest explanations for such a behavior: Maybe You prefer being called a Troll as given in this explanation?

Number 4 fits quite nicely:

- This troll is ALWAYS right and will battle to the death to prove it. There’s no point in trying to fight her. If she can’t back something up with reality, she’ll make something up, just to show you how wrong you are.

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls



> I would take that as an insult. I insulted that pakistani guy once, and you banned for two weeks. While that guy insulted me dozens of time, and called me all kinds of names, and you did NOTHING.
> 
> Show some fairness, for god's sake. You know why many people, here, don't respect you and want to get rid of you as Moderator?
> 
> This is one of the reason.



If You take a fact as an insult, then it's Your issue, but insulting one - and it was not "pakistani guy once" - a stupid Indian with a low IQ, disqualifying him from posting here it's different.
Therefore Your mentioned reason is not a honorable reason since I'm biased but simply since some here want to read such insults, they like such posts and since I don't accept them they don't like or respect me. But in fact that's their or Your problem.

Deino


----------



## siegecrossbow

lcloo said:


> Found these today on Sina.com. Real photo or CG? Hard to differentiate.
> 
> View attachment 434521
> View attachment 434522



Call them "real old photos".


----------



## gambit

l0ngl0ng said:


> I'm the only one here to feed you troll.
> My fault.


You posted an argument that was technically false and got 'Thanked' multiple times for it. That says all there is to understand about the Chinese on this forum.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Wrong. We are talking about *MAJOR* structures.
> 
> The wing is a major structure. Flaps and ailerons are subordinates and they are already contributors to the wing's RCS measurement.
> 
> I doubt that you came up with that on your own. So wherever forum you got that from, tell him/her he/she is wrong.
> 
> Finally, for the J-20, missing are the count for the two ventral fins, which would raise the count to 12.





gambit said:


> You posted an argument that was technically false and got 'Thanked' multiple times for it. That says all there is to understand about the Chinese on this forum.




You judge other argument false simply based your own argument?

Why dont you bring credible citation to support your theory? without citation - how do you expect others to buy your theory?

Longlong show the same 3 control on the wing of F-22 and J-20, so basically the controls at F-22 & J-20 are tie on the wing area.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Another attempt ...  (left my previous try)







... problem is, the J-16 is a bit distorted and the J-20's radome-tip is not exactly visible.


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> Assuming that Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m. I used it to find the following. I first resized the picture by 200% so it's easier to work with.
> 
> Flanker's Wingspan 14.7m (Assumed) FACT, also given my the designer !
> Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
> Overall length: 22.5m (The tail boom sticks past the engine by 2m) WRONG, since the manufactor says 21.93m
> 
> J-20's wingspan: 13m (Based on this picture and the estimate that this Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m)
> Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
> overall length: 21.5m
> 
> Previously, I used the estimate that the J-20's wingspan was 14m, which results in the lengths to be 1m longer as well.
> ....




Pardon, me again, but for the Flanker's span there's nothing to assume: It is a fact and the same for the length, A Su-30MKK - aka J-16 - is exactly 21.93m given by its designer. Again nothing to argue, nothing to assume ... it's a fact ! So I really don't get it how You try to convince anyone here with Your claims ... these are blatant lies only since You try to save Your theory instead of being a man and admit, "YES, I was wrong".

You are really a mess ...


----------



## AmirPatriot

If I may add, the J-20 and J-11/16's lifting body may have different heights off the ground, so I don't know if pixel counting will help here.


----------



## Deino

AmirPatriot said:


> If I may add, the J-20 and J-11/16's lifting body may have different heights off the ground, so I don't pixel counting will help here.




But will that really make such a huge difference say by 0.5m?

IMO even if the Flanker has a higher mounted wing this difference should lay within the regular margin of error which should be here about 2-3 pixels aka 8-12 cm.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Deino said:


> Another attempt ...  (left my previous try)
> 
> View attachment 434605
> 
> 
> ... problem is, the J-16 is a bit distorted and the J-20's radome-tip is not exactly visible.



F-22 Raptor

Length: 18.90 m
Wingspan: 13.56 m

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

This pretty much confirms that the J-20 has a smaller wingspan than the F-22, despite being the longer and heavier plane. Wing loading is higher, meaning each square foot of wing will be supporting more weight. Wing sweep angle is swept further back. 

The J-20 isn't a bomber. The FB-22 is a bomber. You want BIG WINGS to generate that extra lift to get that heavy bombload off the ground.









The J-20 is something else.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cookie Monster

UKBengali said:


> It is beaten by both F-22 and J-20, the only other 5th generation fighters in existence right now.
> 
> When the Turkish TF-X comes online towards the latter part of the next decade, it will fall to 4th place.


It is only "beaten" in a sense against F22 at most. One of the reasons for that is F22 was designed as an air superiority fighter while F35 is multirole.

Whether or not J20 or TFX are superior to it remains to be seen. No one can say conclusively that it is beaten against those two.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Asoka

*"but for the Flanker's span there's nothing to assume: It is a fact and the same for the length, A Su-30MKK - aka J-16 - is exactly 21.93m given by its designer. Again nothing to argue, nothing to assume ... it's a fact !"*

Excuse me, what's given on an official website is always correct? They are always facts, if given by an official?
May be that's true in Germany, but in many other countries, that's not necessarily true.

The problem, I have is that in the previous satellite, I have come to conclusion that J-20's wingspan is* 14.05m*, based on the assumption that J-15's wingspan is *14.7m*.






*
And you yourself, Mr. Deino has said you got 13.95m from the same picture. *That J-20's wingspan is less than J-20's, I have no doubt. And I accept its around 0.7m smaller. We have pretty good agreement and I believe the differences, we have, could be explained by the margin of error.

And now, we have another picture surfaced, and showing J-20's wingspan to be *13m*, assuming the J-16's wingspan to be *14.7m*. This makes J-20's wingspan to be *1.7m smaller* than the flanker family.

There is a difference of *1.7m-0.7m = 1.0m* difference between our previous and current estimates.

This I believe, could not be explained by margin of error. In the previous satellite picture, while the nose and nozzle areas are very blurry, the wingspan sections are not. They are quite clear, thus, making a reasonably accurate estimate, possible.

Now, what could explain the *1.0m* difference between our previous and current estimates of J-20's wingspan?

There could be at least two possibilities:

1.) The wingspan of J-16 and J-15's wingspan are *not* identical the same as 14.7m, so they gave different estimates of J-20's wingspan.

2.) The J-16 and J-15's wingspan are the *same as 14.7m*, but the wingspan of J-20's LRIP version is *1.0m smaller* than the previous non-LRIP version, which I believe is in the first satellite picture.

Having the same wingspan in all versions of the Flanker family does not make any aerodynamic and structural sense.

The early Su-27SK were pure air-superiority fighter, while the later Su-30MK were the multi-role fighters, with greatly strengthen airframe (thus adding more empty weight), to carry a lot more heavy weapons, and allow greater maximum take off weight.

If the wingspan stays the same, the wing loading factor will worsen, making the aircraft less maneuverable.

Indeed, we have seen the F-35's wingspan have increased from *10.7 m* for F-35A (airforce) and F-35B (Marine), to *13.1m* for F-35C (Navy), the CATOBAR version. And F-35C's airframe and landing gear was greatly strengthen to handle the vigor of aircraft carrier landings, making its empty weight *15.686 tons*, versus, F-35A's *13.2 tons*.


------------------------------------------------------------


Again, I based my derivation of J-20's nose to nozzle length and overall length on the Wingspan. If that's off by 1m, then the lengths will be off by 1m.

It's important to note, that I used Deino's satellite picture and his assumption that J-15's wingspan to be 14.7m, and I derived the J-20's wingspan as 14.05m and Deino got 13.95m.

What we disagreed is the lengths values I derived using high resolutions pictures of J-20, that are flat against the camera, so the length and width proportion is not distorted.

Mr. Deino strongly disagreed with my length values from several high resolution pictures, and insisted that the blurry satellite picture is good enough and stick to the conclusion that the overall length of J-20 is 20.38m.

This I could not accept.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Asoka said:


> Assuming that Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m. I used it to find the following. I first resized the picture by 200% so it's easier to work with.
> 
> Flanker's Wingspan 14.7m (Assumed)
> Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
> Overall length: 22.5m (The tail boom sticks past the engine by 2m)
> 
> J-20's wingspan: 13m (Based on this picture and the estimate that this Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m)
> Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
> overall length: 21.5m
> 
> Previously, I used the estimate that the J-20's wingspan was 14m, which results in the lengths to be 1m longer as well.
> 
> 
> View attachment 434550
> 
> 
> *"I know You surely will claim that SAC changed the size by simply enlarging the Flanker b y say a factor of 1:1.2, so that in fact the span of the J-16 is 17m wide"*
> 
> Show me an authoritative statement from the SAC about J-16's wingspan, or show me some calculations did by someone, that J-16's wingspan is 14.7m, the same as the original Su-27.
> 
> This is a fair request.
> 
> I did not suggested J-16's wingspan is 17m. I have provided a report, which stated it's wingspan around *15.3m*
> 
> *"Honestly, You are such a crazy, stubborn ignorant fan-boy;"*
> 
> I would take that as an insult. I insulted that pakistani guy once, and you banned for two weeks. While that guy insulted me dozens of time, and called me all kinds of names, and you did NOTHING.
> 
> Show some fairness, for god's sake. You know why many people, here, don't respect you and want to get rid of you as Moderator?
> 
> This is one of the reason.


I'm almost certain if not certain that the J-20 has a wingspan of around 13 meters ...



Asoka said:


> Dude, are we sure what plane is behind J-20? And are we sure it's wingspan is 14.7m? From the picture, I know it's wingspan is a lot bigger than J-20. I am doubtful it's wingspan is 14.7m. And I am doubtful it's J-16.
> 
> To be absolutely sure, leaving no room for doubt, that this plane's wingspan is 14.7m seems premature to me.
> 
> I used Mr. Deino's previous estimate that J-15's wingspan is 14.7m, and from that I estimated J-20's wingspan is 14.05m. And from that I calculated the length of J-20 from Nose to Nozzle is 21.8m and overall length is 22.8m
> View attachment 434546
> .
> 
> Using the estimate of J-20's nose to nozzle length of 20.185m, it still leaves J-20's fuselage to be 3.485m longer than F-22.
> 
> This was my lower end estimate of their difference.
> 
> I had stated before that their nose to nozzle body length difference to be 3.5-4.5m. And then revised the estimate to be 5m, after estimated the J-20's wingspan to be 14.05m and nose to nozzle length of 21.8m.
> 
> There are internet references saying J-16's wingspan to be 14.7m. I simply don't know where they got that from, or how they did the calculation. Simply Assume J-16 to be exactly the same dimension in wingspan, as the original Su-27 is one huge assumption.
> 
> There is a report saying the wingspan of Su-35 to be 15.3 m (50.2 ft)
> http://www.aviatia.net/f-35-lightning-ii-vs-su-35/
> 
> The Flankers behind the J-20 might be the new Su-35. From the picture, it seems it's wingspan is substantially wider than J-20. There is little doubt in my mind, that this difference is a lot bigger when J-15's wingspan is compared to J-20, in the previous satellite picture.
> 
> View attachment 434547


Your estimation is incorrect ... the J-20 in the picture was at an angle ... so there's no way to measure wingspan like that.


----------



## Asoka

Figaro said:


> I'm almost certain if not certain that the J-20 has a wingspan of around 13 meters ...
> 
> 
> Your estimation is incorrect ... the J-20 in the picture was at an angle ... so there's no way to measure wingspan like that.



I beg to differ. There is a difference of *1.0m* between and the current and previous wingspan estimates, that is way too big to be explained by margin of error.

The angle is so slight, that it makes no difference in wingspan estimation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You judge other argument false simply based your own argument?


Yes, because mine is the correct one.



antonius123 said:


> Why dont you bring credible citation to support your theory? without citation - how do you expect others to buy your theory?


I did -- the sphere.



antonius123 said:


> Longlong show the same 3 control on the wing of F-22 and J-20, so basically the controls at F-22 & J-20 are tie on the wing area.


Wing area ? 

That goes to show everyone what a fraud you are about your 'aviation education'.

The rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

The J-20 have eight major flight control structures. The F-22 and F-35, each have six.

Therefore, the J-20 is *LESS OBEDIENT* to the three rules than the F-22 and F-35.

If J-20 is less obedient to the rules, odds are very good that its RCS is higher than the American fighters.

I have cited plenty of sources to support my past arguments about 'stealth', and a few of them were Chinese engineers' sources. So far, no one, not even the PDF Chinese, have proved me wrong.

Homework for you with your alleged 'aviation education': Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?

I will give you a hint: It has to do with rules 2 and 3.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Yes, because mine is the correct one.



Prove it!



> I did -- the sphere.



LOLs. You build your own BS theory based on this sphere, and you dont have any citation that say the same with your theory about flight control.

What a joke






> Wing area ?
> 
> That goes to show everyone what a fraud you are about your 'aviation education'.
> 
> The rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> The J-20 have eight major flight control structures. The F-22 and F-35, each have six.
> 
> Therefore, the J-20 is *LESS OBEDIENT* to the three rules than the F-22 and F-35.
> 
> If J-20 is less obedient to the rules, odds are very good that its RCS is higher than the American fighters.
> 
> I have cited plenty of sources to support my past arguments about 'stealth', and a few of them were Chinese engineers' sources. So far, no one, not even the PDF Chinese, have proved me wrong.
> 
> Homework for you with your alleged 'aviation education': Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?
> 
> I will give you a hint: It has to do with rules 2 and 3.



LOLs.

Again you judge based on your groundless & BS theory. Just give me 1 citation that saying the same proven theory, not your missunderstanding/missenterpretation of a theory.

Also there are many other factors contribution for RCS besides the above you mention, such as inlet, fan blade, RAM coating, etc that you ignore.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Prove it!
> 
> 
> 
> LOLs. You build your own BS theory based on this sphere, and you dont have any citation that say the same with your theory about flight control.
> 
> What a joke
> 
> View attachment 434669
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOLs.
> 
> Again you judge based on your groundless & BS theory. Just give me 1 citation that saying the same proven theory, not your missunderstanding/missenterpretation of a theory.
> 
> Also there are many other factors contribution for RCS besides the above you mention, such as inlet, fan blade, RAM coating, etc that you ignore.




However, to show the readers I am willing to be fair, I will show what you guys know about 'stealth'. The question: 'Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?'

The three rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

The previous hint is that rules 2 and 3 are major factors in shaping the radomes of these jets.

Here is the second and *FINAL* hint: The 10-lambda rule.






If I go any further, I might as well give the answer.

Note the names of the authors. They are not Anglo-Americans. Am not sure but I think the names 'might' be Chinese and I think Shanghai is a city in mainland China. 

As for 'citations', what about it ? When steel was invented, there were no citations on how to mix iron and carbon. Whoever invented the formula on how to make steel did it on his own.

There are no citations on how to shape a radome with respect to 'stealth'. Either you have the education on the foundation of radar detection principles or you do not. And since we know *YOU* do not, you ended up making nonsensical posts in trying to cover up your ignorance.


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... just leave it.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

I won't be surprised if China produce 600 plus J20 fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Your post is the reason why no one calls upon you and the PDF Chinese for explanations on aviation in general and 'stealth' in particular. Simply put -- you are ignorant. It is *YOU* who are the joke.
> 
> However, to show the readers I am willing to be fair, I will give you and the PDF Chinese one last chance to show what you guys know about 'stealth'. The question: 'Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?'
> 
> The three rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> The previous hint is that rules 2 and 3 are major factors in shaping the radomes of these jets.
> 
> Here is the second and *FINAL* hint: The 10-lambda rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I go any further, I might as well give the answer.
> 
> Note the names of the authors. They are not Anglo-Americans. Am not sure but I think the names 'might' be Chinese and I think Shanghai is a city in mainland China.
> 
> As for 'citations', what about it ? When steel was invented, there were no citations on how to mix iron and carbon. Whoever invented the formula on how to make steel did it on his own.
> 
> The point here is that *YOU* and the PDF Chinese lack the technical *FOUNDATION* of aviation in general and of radar detection in particular. There are no citations on how to shape a radome with respect to 'stealth'. Either you have the education on the foundation of radar detection principles or you do not. And since we know *YOU* do not, you ended up making nonsensical posts in trying to cover up your ignorance.




Totally wrong!
LO is not simply about handling "creeping wave", you obviously misunderstood the citation, evidence of your low qualification and fraud 

Furthermore, It doesn't explain about the supposed number of control flight on the wing.
Your pathetic theory is also fall short in explaining the RAM contribution factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## clarkgap

gambit said:


> Yes, because mine is the correct one.
> 
> 
> I did -- the sphere.
> 
> 
> Wing area ?
> 
> That goes to show everyone what a fraud you are about your 'aviation education'.
> 
> The rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> The J-20 have eight major flight control structures. The F-22 and F-35, each have six.
> 
> Therefore, the J-20 is *LESS OBEDIENT* to the three rules than the F-22 and F-35.
> 
> If J-20 is less obedient to the rules, odds are very good that its RCS is higher than the American fighters.
> 
> I have cited plenty of sources to support my past arguments about 'stealth', and a few of them were Chinese engineers' sources. So far, no one, not even the PDF Chinese, have proved me wrong.
> 
> Homework for you with your alleged 'aviation education': Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?
> 
> I will give you a hint: It has to do with rules 2 and 3.



Features of radomes with low RCS.
1. Approximate rhombus shape cross-section. The junction between two curve surface make a special angle in ordor to aviod the radar waves are reflected in incident direction.
2. Band-pass FFS radome. The structure inside the radome can be approximarely a corner reflector. And FFS structure has good electromagnetic wave permeability for our radar frequency, and totally reflect waves of other frequency.
3. There are a lot of high frequency component (metal component) inside the radomes. Coating electromagnetic wave absorbing material on these component in order to reduce the RCS. This method can also provide a better working environment for our radar.
4. Remove the pitot tube from the radome to aviod the tip diffraction.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Asoka

As I have said earlier, despite almost all internet sources saying all flanker family has the wingspan of exactly *14.7m*, I strongly suspected that this is not true.

It simply makes no aerodynamic and structural sense.

The early pure air-superiority Su-27sk's empty weight is 15 tons and maximum take off weight is 30 tons, while the multi-role fighter Su-30's empty weight is 17.5 tons, and maximum take off weight is 34-35 tons. Adding several tons more structural weight and loading weight, without increase the wingspan, will make the wing loading factor worsen, thus making the aircraft much less maneuverable.

Here is more evidence showing the *Wingspan of J-16 are J-15 are not identical at 14.7m. *






In the above picture, the common element between the old satellite picture and the new picture is the J-20. I used the *J-20s as reference,* and aligned the J-16 and J-15 together, results the *J-16’s wingspan to 15.7m, not 14.7m. *J-15 was assumed to be 14.7m.

On the other hand, if we assume *both* J-16 and J-15's wingspan to be exactly *14.7m*, then there will be a *1.0m* difference between the J-20's in the two pictures.






Here is a picture that clearly shows the *Wingspan of J-16 to be 15.7m (1.7m wider than J-20), and J-15's wingspan to be 14.7m (0.7m wider than J-20), *when the J-20, which the common element, in both pictures, are used as reference object.
*




*
So, I standby my earlier conclusion that the wingspan of J-20 is *14.0m*, and nose to nozzle length of *21.7m*, and overall length of *22.7m*, that I was able to derived from high resolution pictures was correct.

This dimension puts J-20 squarely in the same class as the F-111 aircraft. When J-20 first debuted in 2011, many observers, immediately, has stated that J-20 is a large and heavy fighter as big as F-111, I think they are correct.

*F-111 General Characteristics:*

*Length:* 73 ft 6 in (22.4 m)
*Wingspan:*
*Spread:* 63 ft (19.2 m)
*Swept:* 32 ft (9.75 m)

*Height:* 17.13 ft (5.22 m)
*Wing area:*
*Spread:* 657.4 sq ft (61.07 m²)
*Swept:* 525 sq ft (48.77 m²)

*Empty weight:* 47,200 lb (*21,400 kg*)
*Loaded weight:* 82,800 lb (37,600 kg)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 100,000 lb (*45,300 kg*)






Notice that F-111 empty weight is *21.4 tons* and Max. take off weight is *45.3 tons*. I have estimated J-20's empty weight to be *22+ tons*, using the *19.7 tons* empty weight of F-22 as reference. And I have estimated that J-20 is *5.0m (30%)* longer than F-22 from nose to nozzle.

F-22's Max. take off weight is listed as *38 tons*, and F-111 is *45.3 tons. *F-22 could carry *8.2 tons* internal fuel and two external tanks of *2 tons* each.

J-20's internal fuel is estimated to be at least *12 tons*, about the same as the Su-35. J-20 is *5m* longer than F-22. This extra 5m fuselage length could be used to store internal fuels.

I think J-20 has more room to store more than *12 tons* of fuel. J-20 is known to be able to carry 4 extra external tanks of *2 tons*, each.

J-20 has demonstrated that it has astounding maneuverability, in the same class, as the awesome F-22 raptor. It could do a 180 degree u-turn in 3-4 seconds. And both F-22 and J-22 have demonstrated that they could perform sustained vertical climbing using dry or military power, alone.

With stealthy low observability, very long range, very low drag airframe, very tough airframe, TVC, (Plus Canards and full moving vertical tails for J-20) and very powerful engines *(175kn for F-22, +210kn for J-20)* I predict both F-22 and J-20, not only could supercruise at *March 1.8*, they could easily reach above *March 3*, and cruise there with afterburner turned on.

Further, I predict, they could easily perform the role of Air Dominance Machine, Long range/High Speed Interceptor, and Stealthy Penetrator/Striker, equally well.

While, many aspect of J-20 is still high classified, like it's engine performance and internal constructions, but there are many many publicly available informations on F-22.

The Chief Designer of J-20, Yang Wei, is said to have collected *several meters high* of informations on F-22, before his team designed the J-20. They have studied F-22, extensively.

The aim of J-20's design team is to come up with Machine, that could match and even beat F-22, in all aspects.

It's very fun to read about F-22, with this mind. What F-22 could do, J-20 is probably not far behind. 

We could gain a lot of knowledge about J-20 *by reading F-22*. 

*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

I think You should go over to SAC and Sukhoi and tell them that they are all stupid, they made a severe error and YOU - only YOU the GENIOUS himself - analysed the situation ... They were all wrong.

Or is there indeed a secret we did not notice all the years? SAC and Sukhoi changed the span for each Flanker version only to fool us??






Did it ever come into Your mind - like I already said so often - that these images are often distorted, so that You cannot make conclusions in all dimensions? You can probably compare length with length and span with span if they are side by side but they are not exactly taken in all directions. That makes it so difficult ... esp. in Your desperate attempt using air-to-air images and taking the engine diameter as reference.


Anyway ... if at least it's fun to You, go and play.
Deino


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> *"I think You should go over to SAC and Sukhoi and tell them that they are all stupid, they made a severe error and YOU - only YOU the GENIOUS himself - analysed the situation ... They were all wrong."*
> 
> No, they are not wrong. *They did it right, Mr. Deino.* They know what they are doing, better than you and me. It's just the publicly available information on the wingspan is wrong.
> 
> One way to verify this is to get someone, who is going to a Russia or China airshow, in the future, to ask the Guards' permission to measure the wingspan of the flankers.



Again ... these images are often distorted ... that's why Your theory of a +22m-monster similar to the F-111 is wrong again.
I really don't know what to say anymore .. go out at all forums You can find, they were all discussing, measuring and calculating the J-20's dimensions but none comes to Your BS.

All - really ALL reliable ones - come to the same conclusion.


----------



## 52051

Asoka, can you just stop it, you single-handed turn this J-20 thread into a eyesore, it is now beyond riduculus.

J-16 has the same dimension as Su-27/30, you have give SAC way too much credits for their capability, if they were capable of change the dimension of Su-27 they will brag it all over the place and fix the structure problem of original Su-27 design long before.

Yes, according to the joking chief designer Sun Cong of SAC, directly from his own mouth: "change the original (Su-27) design must be very very very caution", this just summarize his capablity well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

gambit said:


> Your post is the reason why no one calls upon you and the PDF Chinese for explanations on aviation in general and 'stealth' in particular. Simply put -- you are ignorant. It is *YOU* who are the joke.
> 
> However, to show the readers I am willing to be fair, I will give you and the PDF Chinese one last chance to show what you guys know about 'stealth'. The question: 'Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?'
> 
> The three rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> The previous hint is that rules 2 and 3 are major factors in shaping the radomes of these jets.
> 
> Here is the second and *FINAL* hint: The 10-lambda rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I go any further, I might as well give the answer.
> 
> Note the names of the authors. They are not Anglo-Americans. Am not sure but I think the names 'might' be Chinese and I think Shanghai is a city in mainland China.
> 
> As for 'citations', what about it ? When steel was invented, there were no citations on how to mix iron and carbon. Whoever invented the formula on how to make steel did it on his own.
> 
> The point here is that *YOU* and the PDF Chinese lack the technical *FOUNDATION* of aviation in general and of radar detection in particular. There are no citations on how to shape a radome with respect to 'stealth'. Either you have the education on the foundation of radar detection principles or you do not. And since we know *YOU* do not, you ended up making nonsensical posts in trying to cover up your ignorance.



If you are design aircraft or did research stuff like you claimed, then you would have already know citing paper without actually data means shit in today's engineering design.

Rules/laws/principles can only bring you so far, especially considering the fact many of these "rules" are merely EMPIRICAL at best, and usually lack rigorous proof.

Today's engineering are so complicate with conflicting goals binding together such that the output design is almost ALWAYS comparised, such that simulation and prototyping tests are a must to adjust all the parameters.

Thats why citing several simple design principle where even an self-proclaimed internet expert such as you can understand means little.

Meanwhile, some inconvient fact is some third-party studies carried out by crude numerical simulation by Kopp suggesting that J-20 has better RCS than the latest US F-35 mode, and only slight larger comparing to F-22 (mainly due to F-22's rare end has better RCS design comparing to J-20 batch A).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Asoka said:


> J-16 is based on Su-30. I am saying the Su-30's wingspan is *15.7m, not 14.7m*. I didn't give SAC way too much credits for their capability. They didn't change the dimension of Su-30 or J-16, nor they have changed dimension of Su-27 or J-15, which is based on Su-33, which is based on the early Su-27SK.
> 
> The Russian have changed the wingspan of Su-30, and Su-34 to from *14.7m to 15.7m*, but the public is knowing about it. I am the first one to point this out.
> 
> Why can't they? It's their aircraft. They designed and built it. They will do what's best.




Again ! You are such an idiot ! ... and please report that to all moderators here in order that they all see what an idiot Your are. You are spreading so much BS, brain-farts ... it's indeed incredible, unbelievable.

Assuming You are "the first one to point this out"! 

Again You are using a small, grainy image of two planes flying not at the same level - aka the Su-34 since it takes fuel is much more below the Il-78 and as such closer to the camera - and instead of coming alone to this simple conclusion You deduct that You are so brilliant and found out what none else found out before !

All I can say: You are a TROLL, the worst troll I ever noticed and that MUST end since You are derailing all regular discussion with Your stupidity.

Deino



LJQC said:


> I'm getting 14.6m using software.
> 
> View attachment 434827



The problem is: He is an idiot, a troll ! I can only say it that clear.

He will deny whatever You show and present him as calculation since his estimations made by eyeballing are anyway better. He is the only one who found out that Sukhoi secretly changed the span of the Flankers ... only since it fits his theory.

Again: He would sell his son at e-may only if it would help proving his theory.
Otherwise if he's not a troll, it must be a pathological issue.

Deino

*I know some won't like it but due to purely intentionally posting BS, false claims, always arguing against common sense and established facts, repeatedly twisting words, spreading lies and misquoting others I made a final decision.

@Asoka: You can go and open Your own thread in a Kindergarten section or in whatever other forum to spread Your lies and stupidity but as a moderator I finally decided it's enough.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> Asoka, can you just stop it, you single-handed turn this J-20 thread into a eyesore, it is now beyond riduculus.
> 
> J-16 has the same dimension as Su-27/30, you have give SAC way too much credits for their capability, if they were capable of change the dimension of Su-27 they will brag it all over the place and fix the structure problem of original Su-27 design long before.
> 
> Yes, according to the joking chief designer Sun Cong of SAC, directly from his own mouth: "change the original (Su-27) design must be very very very caution", this just summarize his capablity well.



You're the one who told everybody that there were 4 J-20 production lines currently from Sina! And you also claimed that the number of J-20's would surpass the F-22 within a couple years. Instead, you should correct yourself instead of criticizing @Asoka ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

New J-20 photo


----------



## 52051

Figaro said:


> You're the one who told everybody that there were 4 J-20 production lines currently from Sina! And you also claimed that the number of J-20's would surpass the F-22 within a couple years. Instead, you should correct yourself instead of criticizing @Asoka ...



As well as source from CCTV and Ming Paper.

Actually there is no source from China to claim J-20 has anything but 4 production line (to be precious: 3 and 1 is under construction), only sources to prove the alternative.

Now you can see the difference: I have sources to back my claim up, whilst you and asoka have no source to back you up but just wishful thinkings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> As well as source from CCTV and Ming Paper.
> 
> Actually there is no source from China to claim J-20 has anything but 4 production line (to be precious: 3 and 1 is under construction), only sources to prove the alternative.
> 
> Now you can see the difference: I have sources to back my claim up, whilst you and asoka have no source to back you up but just wishful thinkings.


Having an unreliable source is just as bad as having none at all ... so far, no reliable sources have claimed that there is going to be 4 production lines in the near time. They all suggest that J-20 mass production can only be attained after the WS-15 incorporation ...


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> New J-20 photo


I don't see the image brother


----------



## lcloo

More comparisons, I am no expert, you people be the judge of the accuracies of these illustrations.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> More comparisons, I am no expert, you people be the judge of the accuracies of these illustrations.




I think it fit's overall quite nicely so that if not by the exact cm we can be quite sure that the J-20 is highly likely about 21m long (most likely slightly less) and has a span of little under 13m.

Deino


----------



## j20blackdragon

The images posted by Icloo above are perfect.

The J-20 has a smaller wingspan than the F-22, despite having the longer and heavier fuselage. Wing area is small relative to the size and weight of the fuselage. Therefore, wing loading will be higher compared to the F-22, meaning each square foot of wing is supporting more weight. Wing sweep angle is swept further back than the F-22. This confirms what I've been saying all along. The J-20 has tiny, little wings.






If you are wondering why wingspan and wing sweep angles are important, figure out why variable-sweep wings exist. Why do they sweep the wings forward? Why do they sweep the wings back? Figure this out and you will have your answer.










Lastly, the side shot proves the J-20 has the longer and heavier fuselage, particularly from nose to nozzles.






Keep in mind that the CAC engineers could have designed an aircraft with larger wings and a smaller fuselage if they wanted to. They deliberately chose not to. The J-20 is a very ambitious design and is not a copy of the F-22 at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

One simple question. F-104 Star fighter has a short wing, fast speed but less maneuverable and short range. It is correct to say that besides providing short take-off capability, J20's canard solved the maneuverability problem due to smaller wing as in F-104?


----------



## jkroo

This thread turns to be very ridiculous. 

A mad mod carried out personal attack to a consistent member. And a loquacious old man...

My guess is rational than yours. My points are more with normal sense... bla bla

What a poor logic.

Faint....

Could you guys just stop it?！

I'm so sick with the situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> I think it fit's overall quite nicely so that if not by the exact cm we can be quite sure that the J-20 is highly likely about 21m long (most likely slightly less) and has a span of little under 13m.
> 
> Deino


20.7 meter is still quite a bit less than 21 meters. If anything, the length should be close to 20.5 to 20.7, not over 21. The span is really close to 13 meters ... the above diagram's wing loading area appears to be wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

52051 said:


> If you are design aircraft or did research stuff like you claimed, then you would have already know citing paper without actually data means shit in today's engineering design.
> 
> Rules/laws/principles can only bring you so far, especially considering the fact many of these "rules" are merely EMPIRICAL at best, and usually lack rigorous proof.
> 
> Today's engineering are so complicate with conflicting goals binding together such that the output design is almost ALWAYS comparised, such that simulation and prototyping tests are a must to adjust all the parameters.
> 
> Thats why citing several simple design principle where even an self-proclaimed internet expert such as you can understand means little.


Do not talk as if you yourself have any experience. And I did provide real world evidence for the principles I brought on to support my arguments.

From Chinese engineers themselves...






Their paper which surely passed peer reviewed then submitted for *PUBLIC* perusal -- the 1997 Asia Pacific Microwave Conference -- is far more than we have seen from you guys in this forum.

The three rules for designing a radar low observable body are:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

The creeping wave behavior falls under rule three. The radome shape of the F-22, F-35, and the J-20 is evidence enough.



52051 said:


> Meanwhile, some inconvient fact is some third-party studies carried out by crude numerical simulation by Kopp suggesting that J-20 has better RCS than the latest US F-35 mode, and only slight larger comparing to F-22 (mainly due to F-22's rare end has better RCS design comparing to J-20 batch A).


Crude simulations are open to interpretations. Interpret what Kopp did any way you like. Personally, I know people who are *DIRECTLY* involved in radar field testing of the F-22 at Nellis AFB rolled their eyes and laughed at Kopp. Kopp is taken seriously at the Internet forums level. Nowhere else. How inconvenient, eh ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## l0ngl0ng

gambit said:


> These are for different discussions. I was using shaping as a test. You get an 'A'. Your fellow Chinese, and their supporters, gets an 'F'.


Since you are old, you lived in your memories of the happy time.
The best of your life was in 1970s up to 1981, when F-117 was first fly.

Your obsoleted theory is memorized and fixed till you served as a cleaning worker in some airforce supplier.
Old man, stealthy technology had been developed alot in past decades and would become better and better.

Oldman like to nag everything all day long they know or don't know.

Look at the evolution of the stealth aircraft, *with the help of the super-computer*(China is No.1 many years) , they grew better and better. 

Obliviously, *they are so different and they are from different theory and concept*.




F-117, old man's best love. F-117 had been shot down and scrapped.




B-2. Old fat boy. Engineer actually don't know how to balance between tech and cost. This bomber is discontinued.





F-22. Short combat radius, overheat, widow maker. This is a bubble and banned to export from bubble-explosion.
F-22 had been discontinued.






T-50, developed by a nation GDP is even smaller than S.Korean.
Stealthy fighter are not for poor.





F-35ABC. Single engine with 2 V-tail, it was sentenced to death from the very beginning.
F-35 may be fully halted by Mr. Trump, a right thing he is going to do.





Money, Supercomputer, Manufacturing, Manpower.
China may the only nation can achieve a real stealthy fighter on this planet.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... give it a rest!*


----------



## Deino

gambit said:


> They cannot. This is the same pattern of behavior from the Chinese when they cannot stand on technical issues. If you go back to page 425 of this discussion, you will see that I gave the same explanation one yr ago and the same behavior from the Chinese then. You dealt with it then and you are dealing with it now. What has changed other the names of the Chinese members ?



but then I beg You to at least calm down Your tone. Putting "all Chinese PDF" members into one basket is indeed insulting.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Daniel808

Using *'PDF Chinese' *on almost every post he has in here is a Racist intended words and have purpose to flame bait other chinese members who don't involved in this discussion.
If he has a problem/discussion with that members, then he better mention @ MR.A @MR.B and @MR.C instead using word like "PDF Chinese Batallion/members"

It's just like call @ Mr Deino as *Germanic mod* instead of @Mr Deino in a Discussion.
I bet, @ Mr Deino will take this kind of post as a personal attack/insult to him instead of a constructive discussion.


Please Review this kind of Posts from this *"PROFESSIONAL" *member
@Horus @Slav Defence @waz, @Deino and others.

This kind of post only bait more flame from other members who feel insulted, instead of trying to build a constructive discussion in this Chinese Defence Forum section.

Please Review this.
Because this is really "Unprofessional" from a *Professional title member *in PDF
Thanks


Best Regards,



Daniel808

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
17


----------



## The Eagle

Few posts that contains nothing but useless cat fight are removed. Members are advised to continue the discussion based upon subject and content herein rather than generalizing about any nationality or be it a member in person. 

It is regret to see such behaviour on part of any member that most of the time, counter arguments are made with veiled or provocative wording whereby, having no choice but a post has to be removed due to unwanted content or mixture of it to say. 

A post that contains valuable information but a bit of irrelevant content, is mostly edited for courtesy and interest of the readers so the info along with efforts of poster may not lost but seeing such behaviour adopted as practice, actually leaves no choice but removal of post as such.

Post your arguments, counter arguments or back up your narrative with sources links w.r.t discussion in hand and if needed while having no mutual understanding, agree to disagree and move on. 

Avoid making everything as personal until & unless or if it is clearly intended then use report button and move on without derailing the topic further or becoming the part of trolling fest. Difference of opinion is healthy only for productive, quality and knowledgeable discussion but when it is found as name calling, provocation or insults, the one who instigate and the other who feeds or fuel, will be dealt accordingly. 

Hopefully, gentlemen wouldn't need any reminder in this regard.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## samsara

_It seems to me that some views here on the J-20 are unpublished, and of course it excludes the 4th picture but it is the one I prefer the most. The three J-16s behind on the first capture is for the personal collection of @Strike_Flanker. East Pendulum‏ @HenriKenhmann 2017.11.08_

















。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## 星海军事



Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> View attachment 436000




Thanks .. that finally should end this discussion on the J-20 is a 23m-long monster" !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

.. including span now!








星海军事 said:


> View attachment 436000



Interesting is also that there is yet another J-20A out with a slightly modified "Raptor-scheme".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Gomig-21

Hope these aren't reposts.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

Spotted this one via dafeng cao's retweet:

_For anyone wanting to estimate J-20 length using the new top view J-20/J-16 picture... Remember to use the right one!_


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929114543090941952

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

A FANBOY DREAM THAT CAME TRUE
(_though it does take some efforts to separate the wheat from the chaff! - samsara_)

"I recall this drawing coming out *around 2006/7* -- a decade ago, when J-10A was still new in service and *the idea of a Chinese stealth fighter was considered a fanboy dream (still is by some folks).*

Amazing how much it got right." ~ Rick Joe‏ @RickJoe_PLART 2017-11-11

(_text attribute emphasis is mine_)




。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Clearly a PL-10.


----------



## Yukihime

Appreciating that there is a dedicated J-20 News Thread, i think it is definitely needed.
As looking at experiences from other forums, seems that if the 'NEWS Thread' is mixed with 'Discussion Thread' then the unrelated content, mostly unprofessional and meaningless arguing/racist/attacks, would easily be introduced...

Maybe making it a 'NEWS' dedicated thread would help? Members can always publish/query/interact based on the PHYSICAL INFORMATION about J-20 news, which is no difference from what the thread is now.

Investigations and other activities based on personal implications can be underneath another thread if necessary, but it always kill the post and keeps readers confused if mixed with NEWS together...


----------



## Figaro

J-20 CCTV ... starts @ 1:40

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> J-20 CCTV ... starts @ 1:40


Thanks for the higher-res footage. Here's the tweet on a part of the same CCTV-7 video (shorter clip at lower-res).


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929761108033810432

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> View attachment 436419



Over 6 months old

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Over 6 months old




So it was in fact take at around the same time like this?






But did we have any conclusion on what this no. 15 means? is it J-20A LRIP no. 15 or no. 15 at all?? ... and what's now the number we know?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> So it was in fact take at around the same time like this?
> 
> View attachment 436577
> 
> 
> But did we have any conclusion on what this no. 15 means? is it J-20A LRIP no. 15 or no. 15 at all?? ... and what's now the number we know?
> 
> Deino



No.15 of the 01 batch count from 2011.


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> No.15 of the 01 batch count from 2011.




Thanks a lot for that insight since it would - at least give an argument to - my theory: All demonstrators are just J-20 whereas the 'prototypes' are of the revised configuration J-20A.

Since from 2011 to the current ones no dramatic changes were incorporated it makes sense to allocate them one progressive c/n ... But does that mean that the one after '2017' was in fact '2101'?

Deino


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Thanks a lot for that insight since it would - at least give an argument to - my theory: All demonstrators are just J-20 whereas the 'prototypes' are of the revised configuration J-20A.
> 
> Since from 2011 to the current ones no dramatic changes were incorporated it makes sense to allocate them one progressive c/n ... But does that mean that the one after '2017' was in fact '2101'?
> 
> Deino



2101 was originally denoted 2018.


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> 2101 was originally denoted 2018.




Fine .. that fit's perfectly. Just give a bit more time and I come up with an estimation ...



based on Henry K.'s old list from mid 2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Fine .. that fit's perfectly. Just give a bit more time and I come up with an estimation ...
> 
> 
> 
> based on Henry K.'s old list from mid 2017.
> 
> View attachment 436694


So there could be many more given that half a year has elapsed? Maybe double the number?


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> So there could be many more given that half a year has elapsed? Maybe double the number?



Unlikely even if an increase in rate can be noted.

Given these estimations - about 1 aircraft per 1.5 or 2 months - surely not double esp. since from Jan-June 5 were built - so that between June/July and now November 3 more + '2021' are likely.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Was this already posted?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Another calculation ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Another calculation ...
> 
> View attachment 436958
> View attachment 436959


Basically, the J-20’s length is around 20.7 to 20.8 meters and its wingspan is approximately 13 meters ... hopefully, this puts an end to the 23 meter and small wings interceptor theory that some posters here believe

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 21stCentury

*Flying Formation of 5 CHINA First Batch J-20 Stealth In Service*

nice video

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## clarkgap

AVIC's AR HMD:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 52051

J-20 with EOTS installed




Figaro said:


> Having an unreliable source is just as bad as having none at all ... so far, no reliable sources have claimed that there is going to be 4 production lines in the near time. They all suggest that J-20 mass production can only be attained after the WS-15 incorporation ...



Why news source such as Sina/CCTV are unreliable? because they tell things not agreed with a nobody such as you?
You are wasting my time here.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> J-20 with EOTS installed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why news source such as Sina/CCTV are unreliable? because they tell things not agreed with a nobody such as you?
> You are wasting my time here.


Sina is often unreliable. That is just the reality of such enthuasist sites. I never said CCTV was unreliable ... did CCTV ever claim that there was 4 J-20 production lines? Or was that something a Sina fanboy spoke of? You should check your sources before posting from Sina. No Big Shrimp has ever spoke of “4 production lines” currently or how the number of J-20s will magically surpass those of F-22s within 1-2 years ... and yet Sina writes some nonsense and you buy into it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mosu



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

mosu said:


> View attachment 437683



Nice but old .... from February.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Fine .. that fit's perfectly. Just give a bit more time and I come up with an estimation ...
> 
> 
> 
> based on Henry K.'s old list from mid 2017.
> 
> View attachment 436694



Hmm looks like I should also give Henri K a lot of credit on the post at sinodefence. The true co-authors of the table are actually German and French! I doubt anyone in China could guess that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

siegecrossbow said:


> Hmm looks like I should also give Henri K a lot of credit on the post at sinodefence. The true co-authors of the table are actually German and French! I doubt anyone in China could guess that.


Henri is not Chinese? I always thought he was an expat living in Paris

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## english_man

Figaro said:


> Henri is not Chinese? I always thought he was an expat living in Paris



I seem to remember Henri.K saying he is a French person, who had lived in China for sometime?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Via Henry K.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 52051

Congrats to Yang Wei, the J-20 chief designer, he is just be elected as fellow of China academy of sciences, as well as standing memeber of China central committe early this year.

So now Yang Wei is not only the highest rank official in AVIC and but also hold the only active fellowship of China academy of sciences in AVIC as well.

This suggesting the CCP and PLAAF are pleased with his work in J-20 and such promotion will give him all the power needed to conduct his future work without external interven.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Martian2

*China's J-20 doesn't need F-35 temperature and humidity control hangar.*

The American F-22 and B-2 are known as "hangar queens," because they require specialized temperature and humidity-control hangars to protect their stealth coatings. The reapplication of a stealth coating is laborious and time-consuming.

The F-35 is also a hangar queen that requires temperature and humidity control, because it has delicate electronics.

How To Supply Power And Air For The F-35 | Aviation Pros (June 27, 2013)
"With the F-35’s multiple, complex on-board electronic systems, the PCA requirements are very difficult to provide for the F-35. Not too hot … not too cold … it has to be very dry air and at a higher pressure than normal commercial PCA requirements."
----------

The photograph of a J-20 in front of a regular hangar suggests the J-20 does not require temperature or humidity control. This is important, because the J-20 should have quick turnaround times to permit more airborne hours.

China hails its fifth generation J-20 stealth jet fighter | Asia Times (November 20, 2017)

"The hangar in the background of the above photo has also piqued intense interest: It appears that J-20s can be parked in an ordinary hangar rather than one with constant temperature and humidity, while the US Air Force’s multirole F-35 Lightning II fighters are very expensive to maintain as they must be kept in a highly regulated environment to protect their ultra-delicate stealth coatings.

This means J-20s are more economical and easier to manage and can respond to emergencies more quickly than F-35s, noted an observer." (see second photograph below)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The American *F-22 and B-2 are known as "hangar queens,"* because they require specialized temperature and humidity-control hangars to protect their stealth coatings. The reapplication of a stealth coating is laborious and time-consuming.


Wrong. 

This is just another of your feeble attempt to appear knowledgeable when you are anything but.

In aviation maintenance, the phrase 'hangar queen' is used to denote an aircraft that has been off flight status for at least 30 days. Further, such an aircraft is usually used for cannibalization purposes, not necessarily because of parts shortages, but quite often because of parts availability. There is a difference. You can either order a part and wait for it, or you can just go to the hangar queen, remove the part you need, make a record of what you did, and use the part.

Where does this practice occurs ? In what is called a 'Red Ball' where the jet is all spooled up but encounter a problem. The pilot will radio in the problem, and maintenance will send a truck, with a crew, and try to fix the problem without moving the pilot to a back up jet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_ball


> Term used by the US Air Force, typically on the flight line, to identify supply or service requests that are needed urgently to avoid mission failure, and thus given highest priority.



http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/622830/cut-training-keeps-maintenance-mission-moving/


> Red ball is a term used when an aircraft is about to launch and the crew chief finds something wrong. If possible, the crew chief fixes the issue immediately to ensure the mission can continue.


A hangar queen jet is often the most expedient source for quickly removable part, like a cockpit indicator for something, that maintenance can use for a 'red ball'.

So you are saying it takes more than 30 days to perform those specialized procedures on the B-2 and F-22 ? I would love to see those non-Chinese and non-Russian sources that says so.

You should know better than to try something like this with me around to debunk you.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> It is not trivial. You are misleading the readers as to the real context of the phrase. In your interpretation, you give an impression that is patently untrue to those who have experience in the subject.
> 
> 
> What is 'lengthy' is relative. But when you used a phrase that is well known in the aviation community to denote the worst condition an aircraft can be, you are being dishonest. But then again, that much is known on this forum about you.
> 
> 
> Yes it does. Because each time duration affects planning, which affects the fully mission capable ( FMC ) rate, and so on and on about other subjects that you do not know about.
> 
> 
> Speculative at best.
> 
> 
> Yeah...This is like when you -- many yrs ago -- cited Rachel Maddow on how the F-22's low radar observability can be affected by rain. Until a picture of an F-22 being washed came out.


That's great if the F-22 is no longer technically a "hangar queen" because it doesn't require 30 days for maintenance. Nevertheless, the F-22 stealth coating still requires a humidity and temperature control hangar for the reapplication of its stealth coating. Shaving a few days off the "hangar queen" title does not change the F-22's relative disadvantage against the J-20, which can use a normal hangar.
----------

F-22, Decried as 'Hangar Queen,' Gets 1st Combat Mission | Law 360 (September 23, 2014)

"Law360, New York (September 23, 2014, 7:14 PM EDT) -- *The Air Force's advanced F-22 fighter jet, decried by critics such as Sen. John McCain as being a 'hangar queen'* that didn't contribute much to America's wars despite a $65 billion acquisition investment, was used to strike ground targets in Syria in its first ever combat mission, the Department of Defense said on Tuesday.

The F-22 program became a poster child for inefficient acquisition after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates engaged in a protracted congressional lobbying effort to cancel the plane, which he called a Cold War relic that was too expensive and too narrowly specialized for the DOD's current needs. *Gates' most vocal ally was McCain, who called the high-maintenance aircraft an 'expensive, corroding hangar queen' that contributed little to America's national defense, during a 2011 speech.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> Via Henry K.
> 
> View attachment 438017


Seeing this picture in limelight in many places.

Would any one please elaborate the significance of this picture? What does it imply indeed... about manoeuvrability etc?


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> Seeing this picture in limelight in many places.
> 
> Would any one please elaborate the significance of this picture? What does it imply indeed... about manoeuvrability etc?




As far as I know there is none, just a nice image that wasn't not posted before ... and in the end it came out it has a psed background.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I'm trying to make the substantive argument that the J-20 has an operational advantage over the F-22/F-35/B-2 due to less stringent maintenance requirements.


No, because of your lack of experience, ignorance, and arrogance, you have no substantive arguments.

Do you know the initials A G E ? No, it has nothing to how old you are. The initials stands for *A*erospace *G*round *E*quipment.

Here is the source for the F-35's AGE support...

http://aviationgroundequip.com/military/f-35-diesel-cart/

Do you see how portable they are ?

Next...If you had bothered to perform basic research for the keywords 'f-35 flightline', you would have found plenty of images where the F-35 is parked *IN OPEN RAMP*. You would also find that in some instances, the jet is parked under a covered shelter for some maintenance.

So when we take the portability of the jet's ground support equipment and how it can be parked outside the hangar even for maintenance issues, your claim that the J-20 has less stringent maintenance requirements is nothing but vapor.

Your source, which as usual you do not understand...

http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10943391/how-to-supply-power-and-air-for-the-f-35

...Is where the jet requires more in-depth maintenance, such as 'depot level' maintenance, of which the J-20 as the same levels.

Note this paragraph in your source...

_*The F-35 hangars also need to be multi-squadron ready. For instance, a Harrier squadron could occupy the F-35 hangar at some point. This aircraft, like most of the other legacy fighter aircraft, is based on 400 Hz power.*_

This facility is required to be multi platform support capable so that means it has to modify its equipment to supply the F-35's DC power system. That does not mean that every time an F-35 needs some maintenance, it has to go into this specialized hangar. I explained the three major levels of maintenance a long time ago. Can you find it ? Or were you asleep in class when I made that post ?

You want to cheer for your China and the J-20 ? Go for it and have fun. But if you are going to bring my country into the discussion and if you are wrong in *ANY* way, just as I have in the past, the consequence is that I will bury you with knowledge, facts, and the truth that no one, not even your friends, can save you from embarrassment to the silent readers out there.


----------



## Deino

Come on guys !! Leave out these personnel rants and baseless accusations and again to include Vietnam is plain stupid.

Anyway, what wonders me the most is that some immediately jump on tat wagon to assume the J-20 is not maintenance friendlier or better than the F-22 only since it was spotted in front of a hangar.

IMO plain stupid... since it tells nothing. Nothing on the stealth qualities, nothing on maintenance issues ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

I was under the impression that the special hangars for F-22s in Alaska are for the benefit of the crew since temperatures can get ridiculously low there. Working in subzero (Celsius) temperatures indoors violates U.S. workplace safety laws and is detrimental to the health of the workers. We've seen the Raptor operate in a variety of weather conditions (rain, snow, etc.) so I don't think that it reflects poorly on the plane for it to use special hangars.

Also keep in mind that the batch of J-20s show in the video footage were stationed in Western China, where the climate is relatively arid despite huge day/night temperature fluctuations. If J-20s are operated from non-special hangars in South/East Chinese airbases then we can conclude that it is hardened against corrosion from salt/moisture.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SingaporeGuy

its pointless to compare f22 vs j20 since there are so many unknown variables.

But china better make use of the j20's advantages to fully dominate the f22's weaknesses even though a china-usa air war is not possible at the moment but possible before 2049 when taiwan has to be forcefully reunited.

Its more likely that China will square off against Japan's F35s in any near future air war.

and of course, if J-20 cannot beat F-35/F-22, its always better to focus on alternative winning formulas like air defense submarines etc

Just like how DF21D is made to make the american carriers useless etc.

Obviously no chinese general would send the J-20s to fight against F-35/F-22. J-20s should be used against air tankers, surveillance/EW planes, non stealth fighter jets and command planes.

The F-22/F-35s should only be matched against chinese long range cruise missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

SingaporeGuy said:


> its pointless to compare f22 vs j20 since there are so many unknown variables.
> 
> But china better make use of the j20's advantages to fully dominate the f22's weaknesses even though a china-usa air war is not possible at the moment but possible before 2049 when taiwan has to be forcefully reunited.
> 
> Its more likely that China will square off against Japan's F35s in any near future air war.
> 
> and of course, if J-20 cannot beat F-35/F-22, its always better to focus on alternative winning formulas like air defense submarines etc
> 
> Just like how DF21D is made to make the american carriers useless etc.
> 
> Obviously no chinese general would send the J-20s to fight against F-35/F-22. J-20s should be used against air tankers, surveillance/EW planes, non stealth fighter jets and command planes.
> 
> The F-22/F-35s should only be matched against chinese long range cruise missiles.


Wow, some lines you said out are so blunt... so "undiplomatic"... something that I prefer to stay away 

it seems the Gambit persona was really successful in causing tumult here by its "gambit move" alias "sharp tongue" akin to the chess playing 

I remember the term often used by those professional military experts to refer to those situations/strategies that you outlined as the *ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE*, and while being there, please add the other lower cost solutions similar to the A2/AD strategy, such as the *drone swarm*, as well. China should not and cannot compete with the U.S. on the extravaganza military spending in term of the nominal amount... in no way the Chinese efforts of "labouring" can compete with the "printing" acts as long as the said currency is still holding the WRC status... the very key factor why "rampant printing" can still hold its feet at the moment. Of course thing will be completely different the moment the WRC status is abolished.
_It's a very closely entangled and interlocked relationship -- one exists because the other does: a strong military muscle serves as the very guardian of the WRC status (via the petro-dollar proxy) while the WRC status in turn is feeding rapaciously the hit men to safeguard it._
。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TheDarkKnight

Martian2 said:


> *China's J-20 doesn't need F-35 temperature and humidity control hangar.*
> 
> The American F-22 and B-2 are known as "hangar queens," because they require specialized temperature and humidity-control hangars to protect their stealth coatings. The reapplication of a stealth coating is laborious and time-consuming.
> 
> The F-35 is also a hangar queen that requires temperature and humidity control, because it has delicate electronics.
> 
> How To Supply Power And Air For The F-35 | Aviation Pros (June 27, 2013)
> "With the F-35’s multiple, complex on-board electronic systems, the PCA requirements are very difficult to provide for the F-35. Not too hot … not too cold … it has to be very dry air and at a higher pressure than normal commercial PCA requirements."
> ----------
> 
> The photograph of a J-20 in front of a regular hangar suggests the J-20 does not require temperature or humidity control. This is important, because the J-20 should have quick turnaround times to permit more airborne hours.
> 
> China hails its fifth generation J-20 stealth jet fighter | Asia Times (November 20, 2017)
> 
> "The hangar in the background of the above photo has also piqued intense interest: It appears that J-20s can be parked in an ordinary hangar rather than one with constant temperature and humidity, while the US Air Force’s multirole F-35 Lightning II fighters are very expensive to maintain as they must be kept in a highly regulated environment to protect their ultra-delicate stealth coatings.
> 
> This means J-20s are more economical and easier to manage and can respond to emergencies more quickly than F-35s, noted an observer." (see second photograph below)



What special hangars are required and used for the f35c - the carrier based version for USN? I dont see USN comming up with any new radical carrier designs that have special hangars on them for F35Cs? Carrier based aircrafts will be the most exposed and unprotected to weather conditions - water, salt, humidity etc., as they are parked completely exposed in open space.

F35C for USN

__
https://flic.kr/p/29286258716

A/C carriers fyi:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS...Sealift_Command_ship_USNS_Spica_(T-AFS_9).jpg

Regards


----------



## Deino

Martian2 said:


> ...
> 
> I'm trying to make the substantive argument that the J-20 has an operational advantage over the F-22/F-35/B-2 due to less stringent maintenance requirements.




And You deduct this all from one image showing a J-20 in front of a standard hangar???

Come on.


----------



## Martian2

Deino said:


> And You deduct this all from one image showing a J-20 in front of a standard hangar???
> 
> Come on.


Yes, specialized hangars require humidity and temperature control.

It is well known that the F-22 stealth coating reapplication requires many long hours. Since the J-20 does not appear to require special humidity and temperature controls to maintain its stealth coating, it is reasonable to surmise the turnaround time for the J-20 is substantially less than the F-22.

*The F-22 requires a high 42 man-hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time.*

F-22 Raptor retrofit to take longer, but availability hits 63% | Flight Global *(July 6, 2015)*

"On RAMMP, the air force says the Raptor availability improved by 3% since the last report and *the average number of 'maintenance man-hours per flight hour' has dropped by 10.1% from 46.6h in 2012 to 41.9h in 2014.*"
----------

The F-22's delicate stealth coating is a difficult problem to fix.

U.S. Air Force Tackles Repair To F-22 Stealth Coating | Aviation Week (November 30, 2016)

"Just two years after the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter made its combat debut in the skies above Syria, maintainers are tackling an issue with the fleet’s stealth coating that, if left untreated, could cause the radar-evading material to peel off the aircraft. Operators are beginning to see *“wrinkles” in the low-observable (LO) coating* that renders Lockheed Martin’s F-22 almost invisible to enemy radar. As the 1990s-era air superiority fighter ages, the ..."
----------

'F-22 Raptor stealth coatings are crap' case goes to court | The Register (November 13, 2009)

"A former Lockheed stealth-tech engineer has alleged that radar-invisibility coatings on the USA's F-22 'Raptor' ultrasuperfighter are 'defective', and that Lockheed supplied them knowing that this was the case. It has now been confirmed that Darrol Olsen's whistleblower lawsuit will be heard in federal court.
...
Olsen says that between 1995 and 1999, he witnessed Lockheed knowingly use on Raptors 'coatings that Lockheed knew were defective'. Olsen contends that he was 'one of the top... low observables engineers in the stealth technology industry', having worked on the original F-117 stealth fighter and at Northrop on the B-2 stealth bomber before joining the F-22 team. When he tried to raise the matter with company management, he was told to 'stay out of it'.

The suit goes further, saying that since Olsen ceased to be involved in Raptor development Lockheed has continued to conceal problems with the plane's stealth coatings 'through at least October 2004 and likely to the present date'. He adds that issues with the coatings being washed off by jet fuel or water meant they eventually had to be much thicker than the design called for, *compromising the Raptor's aerodynamics and adding as much as 600 pounds of unexpected weight.*"









TheDarkKnight said:


> What special hangars are required and used for the f35c - the carrier based version for USN? I dont see USN comming up with any new radical carrier designs that have special hangars on them for F35Cs? Carrier based aircrafts will be the most exposed and unprotected to weather conditions - water, salt, humidity etc., as they are parked completely exposed in open space.
> 
> F35C for USN
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/29286258716
> 
> A/C carriers fyi:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman#/media/File:US_Navy_030117-N-9851B-027_The_Military_Sealift_Command_ship_USNS_Spica_(T-AFS_9).jpg
> 
> Regards


The F-35 hangars are in the belly of the aircraft carrier. F-35s are not stored on-deck for long periods of time.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Martian2 said:


> Yes, specialized hangars require humidity and temperature control.
> ....



Don't get me wrong and the F-22's issues are well known. My point is, that from a single image showing a J-20 in front of a regular hangar to deduct it has an edge in maintainability or serviceability is very much far fetched; IMO impossible.

Do we know for sure that these are the true and only J-20 hangars? 
aybe these are the regular ones we've seen at Dinxing also for the J-16 and other aircraft and the special coating of the J-20 has to be treated with similar care and labour as the F-22's?
maybe the J-20 has indeed an easier to maintain stealth coating (wouldn't be surprising given the age of the F-22) ... but maybe it also has a less stringent requirement?

We simply don't know it ... only from this single image.

Again please don't take this as some sort of anti-Chinese bashing but I remember an image showing a KJ-200 flying over the Liaoning and the PLAN's statement that the C-16 has some sort of AEW-capability and right a moment later a certain fan-boy here claimed "look, the PLAN has a carrier capable AEW based on the KJ-200".

I only try to find facts and not to jump from a vague speculation onto a hyper-optimistic bandwagon.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

So Chengdu has done it again.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Martian2

Deino said:


> Don't get me wrong and the F-22's issues are well known. My point is, that from a single image showing a J-20 in front of a regular hangar to deduct it has an edge in maintainability or serviceability is very much far fetched; IMO impossible.
> 
> Do we know for sure that these are the true and only J-20 hangars?
> aybe these are the regular ones we've seen at Dinxing also for the J-16 and other aircraft and the special coating of the J-20 has to be treated with similar care and labour as the F-22's?
> maybe the J-20 has indeed an easier to maintain stealth coating (wouldn't be surprising given the age of the F-22) ... but maybe it also has a less stringent requirement?
> 
> We simply don't know it ... only from this single image.
> 
> Again please don't take this as some sort of anti-Chinese bashing but I remember an image showing a KJ-200 flying over the Liaoning and the PLAN's statement that the C-16 has some sort of AEW-capability and right a moment later a certain fan-boy here claimed "look, the PLAN has a carrier capable AEW based on the KJ-200".
> 
> I only try to find facts and not to jump from a vague speculation onto a hyper-optimistic bandwagon.
> 
> Deino


I said the J-20 turnaround time could be substantially less than the F-22 or F-35.

I mentioned it as a distinct possibility based on the photograph of the J-20 in front of a normal hangar.

*IF* the normal hangar is for the J-20 then the suggestion is the J-20 should have higher operational hours.

I never claimed the J-20 hangar had been established as a fact. We have to wait for more evidence.

I was only suggesting the possibility. I did not declare it as a done deal.

I use the J-20 thread to alert members to developing new situations. They can follow the news story if they choose to. However, I did not declare the J-20 has a clear operational edge. More information is needed, which will be released over time.
----------

The J-20 in front of a normal hangar is newsworthy and exciting, because we expected the J-20 to require specialized hangars.

If it is later confirmed that the J-20 does not need specialized hangars then it would provide an operational edge for the J-20. It would mean the J-20 stealth coating and electronics is more robust than the F-22 or F-35.

We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Martian2 said:


> ...
> I was only suggesting the possibility. I did not declare it as a done deal.
> ....




Then I need to apologise for not properly reading. Thanks 

I thought You posted this as a fact since some others were already high on emotion.

Deino



cirr said:


> So Chengdu has done it again.




Pardon ... each time You post such a message I immediately get a heart attack !!! CAC did what??

Fly a new prototype, fly '2021' again, test another variant, managed to get the first front-line J-20 ready??? 

PLEASE more....

Deino


----------



## Martian2

Deino said:


> Then I need to apologise for not properly reading. Thanks
> 
> I thought You posted this as a fact since some others were already high on emotion.
> 
> Deino


No problem.

I'm just posting new information.

It's a potentially interesting development.

From my original post: "The photograph of a J-20 in front of a regular hangar *suggests* the J-20 does not require temperature or humidity control. This is important, because the J-20 *should* have quick turnaround times to permit more airborne hours."

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SingaporeGuy

Well the J-20 is designed to be used as a strategic asset unlike the J-31 which is similar to F-35.

I suppose the turnaround times matter more for J-31 rather than J-20 - correct me if im wrong.

The design is made to intercept american warplanes/surface assets from california to guam/midway if possible from a stealth carrier with deep penetration capability in mind if the unthinkable happens.

Alternatively, it is a powerful airspace denial weapon against taiwan.

Anyway, China knows it cannot afford to do a pearl harbour on USA or risk full reprisal from the US armed forces. The determination of american armed forces are dependent on the american public opinion.

Even in the future, even if China can stave off american attacks, the military cost of doing so is simply too high for a pearl harbour kind of attack.

The J-20s can be used to deter off american forces while China retakes Taiwan from separatist forces.

China just needs to create a seemingly real attrition rate of 1:1 with the J-20 versus the F-22 and F-35 hence all combat between USA and China can be avoided, this is the power of the J-20. Where air dominance is guaranteed, everything else is settled thereafter. China needs to keep perfecting the J-20 and to keep the manufacturing lines open.

Until then, China has to keep improving such that taiwanese and mainland chinese cultures blend for easy assimilation.

As of right now, even a successful invasion is pointless because taiwanese think they are japanese.

Back to J-20. @gambit

Not sure if its still suffice to compare J-20 vs F-22

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> So Chengdu has done it again.



Let me guess, did they win the naval contract with the J-20?


----------



## Deino

Guys ... stay on topic please.

And by the way, what’s that incredible news?

Deino


----------



## gambit

SingaporeGuy said:


> Back to J-20. @gambit


Sure.



Martian2 said:


> No problem.
> 
> I'm just posting new information.


No, what you did was dishonest, as your usual self.

You effectively 'pre-loaded' the readers' perception of the F-22 by calling it a 'hangar queen', the worst derogatory label anyone can give to an aircraft even when you do not know when is the appropriate time to use it. What you posted was not information but baseless opinion.

A squadron of 12 jets, no matter what, do not mean there are 12 hangars. Not all jets have the same maintenance schedules. Not all jets have the same flying hrs on their airframes.

Let us look at that silly article...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...ews-discussions.111471/page-667#post-10030857

The comment that the F-22 *MUST* be stored in a specialized hangar is patently absurd.

Here is an example...

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Sep/18/2000114775/-1/-1/0/120917-F-QZ836-289.JPG

There is nothing specialized about the hangar above, and that image is from Guam, a tropical environment.

When I proved you wrong, you tried to back pedaled by calling the label trivial. If it is trivial, you would not have used it in the first place. But the label is not trivial. It is inflammatory enough and that was your intent.

Saying that the F-22 needs X hrs of maintenance is also misleading.

System complexity is dependent upon the need to win. By that criticism, maybe we should abandon the turbine engine in favor of the piston of WW II ? Maybe instead of complex avionics flying the jet, we should put the burden completely on the pilot like how the WW I pilots did it ? Maybe instead of the machine gun, we should return to single shot bolt action ? Why not bow and and arrow ? After all, with enough skill, the bow and arrow can be literally crafted in the field instead of a factory like the gun.

A specialized facility is for when there is a specialized need. Do you know what is a 'hush house' ? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. I know you do not know such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_house

On any flying base, there is at least one hush house and maybe two. There maybe dozens of aircrafts, but usually only one hush house. That is because the need to run an engine or a jet at full AB under unique testing is rare, so there is no need for any more than one even though the base may have 30 or 40 aircrafts.

Do you know the Top Gun scene where the F-14 were inverted over the MIG ? For experienced people like me, and I had flight training in high school, the article you posted is as nonsensical as that Top Gun scene. It is hilarious that someone could come up with something so _outre_. The only people who will take it seriously are the ignorant and the gullible.

This is not about changing your mind but about giving the readers out there *THE TRUTH* from someone who actually spent time in military aviation. Something you do not know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino, another essay writing competition on top. Please.....


----------



## Deino

Pardon? I don't understand your post.


----------



## Deino

Posted at the SDF by SinoSoldier:



> From "angadow" (CJDBY moderator):
> 
> "In a few days, we'll be ushering in a moment [of excitement] comparable to when the J-20 first appeared."
> 
> "要不了几天，大家将有机会迎来一轮媲美歼-20的高潮
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 。至于草根兄的问题，不能强求每个人都一样，且让他们自娱自乐去吧。"
> 
> Can somebody fix my translation, if necessary? Thanks.



Anyone with an idea???


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> Posted at the SDF by SinoSoldier:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an idea???



Not sure but it might be a good news from SAC? The guy is a very well known online hype maker and he is getting paid by SAC, the Russians and some others. He is believed to be a one who originated or/and propagated some made up stories, which turned out to be falsehood eventually.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

ozranger said:


> Not sure but it might be a good news from SAC? The guy is a very well known online hype maker and he is getting paid by SAC, the Russians and some others. He is believed to be a one who originated or/and propagated some made up stories, which turned out to be falsehood eventually.


That's ridiculous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> Posted at the SDF by SinoSoldier:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an idea???



Several days ago, the 中南海保镖(A photographer who always stay around Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group) said "Chengdu is great!"

Then, an image poseted by victoryzhou (another photographer).





The sentence means: "Brother's (J-20?) engine is so good."

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr

clarkgap said:


> At beginning, the 中南海保镖(A photographer who always stay around Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group) said "something as big as J-20 happened in Chengdu"
> 
> Then, an image poseted by victoryzhou (another photographer).
> View attachment 438959
> 
> 
> The sentence means: "Brother's (J-20?) engine is so good."



Interesting

Tests of WS15 have begun on J10C.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


> Interesting
> 
> Tests of WS15 have begun on J10C.



I think it is WS-10. Whatever, let's wait for real image.


----------



## lcloo

Let your imagination fly. You could hit the jackpot.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## yantong1980

lcloo said:


> Let your imagination fly. You could hit the jackpot.
> 
> View attachment 438962



TVC ? The nozzle shoot downward. Argh... why this 'clue' described this comical. Are this guy eyewitness this test directly?


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> Posted at the SDF by SinoSoldier:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an idea???



http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1881038&page=1&authorid=10174

中南海保镖(the photographer) had posted "对根毛,2021看不懂?1031,1051总该懂了嘛。棍子和20都要太行,当然要保质催货 (It is incorrect. You cannot understand 2021? At least you should understand 1031, 1051. J-10 and J-20 both need WS-10, so they are expediting order with quality. )" in this thread. So I think the new engine on J-10 is WS-10 from J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

clarkgap said:


> I think it is WS-10. Whatever, let's wait for real image.


WS-10 doesn't have TVC ....


----------



## clarkgap

Figaro said:


> WS-10 doesn't have TVC ....



Maybe it's not TVC.


----------



## Daniel808

星海军事 said:


> That's ridiculous.



Any new info about this one, sir? new engine? (WS-15?)
Seems like we will see good news from Chengdu (CAC)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Daniel808 said:


> Any new info about this one, sir? new engine? (WS-15?)
> Seems like we will see good news from Chengdu (CAC)


All we can do is wait with regard to WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> Posted at the SDF by SinoSoldier:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an idea???



The guy is not a very reliable soure, and he is no longer the mod of CJDBY, due to poor creditablity of his stories.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> The guy is not a very reliable soure, and he is no longer the mod of CJDBY, due to poor creditablity of his stories.



Thanks for Your explanation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Thanks for Your explanation.


I'm not sure. I recall back in 2015 that angadow got the 2017 prototype timing correct and his 2016 FC-31V2 prediction right. He seems credible... and besides, his statement coincided with that J-10 testbed drawing from another photographer. I think we will see something from chengdu in a very short amount of time


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> I'm not sure. I recall back in 2015 that angadow got the 2017 prototype timing correct and his 2016 FC-31V2 prediction right. He seems credible... and besides, his statement coincided with that J-10 testbed drawing from another photographer. I think we will see something from chengdu in a very short amount of time




But as far as I know, his credibility is most of all related to SAC not CAC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

A beautiful CG picture of J-20 (sorry if already posted earlier)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Indeed nice ... But only a CG.


----------



## khanasifm

Why are the actuator so big and bulgy on j-20 ??


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

khanasifm said:


> Why are the actuator so big and bulgy on j-20 ??


They aren't. They're out of proportion in the posted picture. In reality, they're not particularly large.
J-20 underside:




F-22 underside:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Yes ... please give us more !


----------



## ozranger

52051 said:


> The guy is not a very reliable soure, and he is no longer the mod of CJDBY, due to poor creditablity of his stories.



Yes lots of shameless fabrication.


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> View attachment 441990




Reminds me to this one taken on 15. November 2016, so in Germany we would sing "Alle Jahre wieder" (English: Every Year Again), as it is the text in the well known Christmas carol: Here today two J-20As were spotted at CAC (left image) quite similar to the same scene taken on 15. November 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940248644011352067

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940248644011352067


No 2021?


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> No 2021?



Either it is one of the two painted birds in @cirr's image or it is not visible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Testing of new engines on J20 has begun?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> Testing of new engines on J20 has begun?
> 
> View attachment 442799




Why new and begun?
That is most likely again the WS-10-powered no. 2021.

Deino


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> Why new and begun?
> That is most likely again the WS-10-powered no. 2021.
> 
> Deino


Sorry, but I cannot find in my photo collection of 2101 with saw tooth nozzle engine. I must have missed out something?

By the way, I believe "Has Begun" is correct grammatically, when referring to past and continuously to present action:-
_Begun is always used with have when someone's action has happened in the past and has a link to the present or had happened before something else,_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> Sorry, but I cannot find in my photo collection of 2101 with saw tooth nozzle engine. I must have missed out something?



Not 2101 but 2021 ! That's the latest prototype unveiled in September.



> By the way, I believe "Has Begun" is correct grammatically, when referring to past and continuously to present action:-
> _Begun is always used with have when someone's action has happened in the past and has a link to the present or had happened before something else,_



You are surely correct and much better in English and its grammar than me ...


----------



## Title1234

Figaro said:


> Basically, the J-20’s length is around 20.7 to 20.8 meters and its wingspan is approximately 13 meters ... hopefully, this puts an end to the 23 meter and small wings interceptor theory that some posters here believe


Sometime you can uses your common sense if you are Chinese planners you have no problem with your budget and man power you shall prepare to have how many production line now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

What happened here??


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> What happened here??
> 
> View attachment 443232


For a while I thought the J20 ran off the runway. However, there is no black tyre marks caused by emergency braking on runway surface.

According to a weibo posting, the aircraft was flying across the runway at low level. The location is Dinxin air base, dated Nov 15th.

_今天 05:48 来自 微博 weibo.com
11月15日，鼎新基地，一架J-20正从低空(注：不是超低空，因为地面没有阴影)飞过跑道。_

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Thank You.


----------



## Silicon0000

Deino said:


> What happened here??
> 
> View attachment 443232


seems just taking off

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Ohhhhh .. please give us photos !!!


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Ohhhhh .. please give us photos !!!



Pls take note of the colour of the interior wall of the engine nozzles

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Pls take note of the colour of the interior wall of the engine nozzles




Yes I did ... looks like some sort of ceramic layer. 

But I need images .... PLAESE.


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Pls take note of the colour of the interior wall of the engine nozzles



Did they incorporate the 117S from the Su-35s onto the J-20?


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> Did they incorporate the 117S from the Su-35s onto the J-20?


If that were the case, the Su-35s wouldn’t be flying with the PLAAF now would they? You don’t see them gathering dust in the hangars ... they are still out and about performing excercises. The notion that China could magically swap out engines at will or has that intention is nonsensical at best. Those are obviously WS-10X engines ... all previous J-20’s has AL-31F series 3 I believe. There would be absolutely no reason for the PLAAF to waste resources

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yantong1980

Pardon me, that flying J-20 in the pics, is that orange fire come from engine nozzles rather than blue?


----------



## Deino

yantong1980 said:


> Pardon me, that flying J-20 in the pics, is that orange fire come from engine nozzles rather than blue?




Which image you are referring to?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

From 21. February


----------



## yantong1980

cirr said:


> View attachment 443320



Sorry for lost in detail, I mean Cirr posted colored J-20 sketch, it show that J-20 flying with 'orange color' in the engine nozzle? Is that want to tell that this engine has orange flame rather than blue, or it just simply a color?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

yantong1980 said:


> Sorry for lost in detail, I mean Cirr posted colored J-20 sketch, it show that J-20 flying with 'orange color' in the engine nozzle? Is that want to tell that this engine has orange flame rather than blue, or it just simply a color?


Its just. a sketch don't fool yourself bro its just a artist imaginations its might be wrong


----------



## 52051

Rumors in Chinese-based military based mention that PLAAF has already conducted live-fire drill with their J-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## rcrmj

52051 said:


> Rumors in Chinese-based military based mention that PLAAF has already conducted live-fire drill with their J-20s.


yes``````



SinoSoldier said:


> Did they incorporate the 117S from the Su-35s onto the J-20?


the domestic engine on J-20 has nothing to do with 117S from Su-35, and also the purchase of Su-35 has nothing to do to its radar or engine too``````

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Maxpane

wow

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## leapx

52051 said:


> Rumors in Chinese-based military based mention that PLAAF has already conducted live-fire drill with their J-20s.



That is understandable. PLA AF needs to learn： 1 how to operate a stealthy fighter 2 how to fight against a stealthy fighter. It is so important to have such experience as soon as possible that they are ok with an old engine installed.



rcrmj said:


> yes``````
> 
> 
> the domestic engine on J-20 has nothing to do with 117S from Su-35, and also the purchase of Su-35 has nothing to do to its radar or engine too``````



One interesting thing about Su—35： it has one X-band PESA and two L-band AESA that are specified for detecting stealthy target. Su-35 VS J-20？ definitely gonna happen in future drill.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Silicon0000

leapx said:


> That is understandable. PLA AF needs to learn： 1 how to operate a stealthy fighter 2 how to fight against a stealthy fighter. It is so important to have such experience as soon as possible that they are ok with an old engine installed.
> 
> 
> 
> One interesting thing about Su—35： it has one X-band PESA and two L-band AESA that are specified for detecting stealthy target. Su-35 VS J-20？ definitely gonna happen in future drill.



SU35 with AESA ??? I think it has only PESA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

leapx said:


> One interesting thing about Su—35： it has one X-band PESA and two L-band AESA that are specified for detecting stealthy target. Su-35 VS J-20？ definitely gonna happen in future drill.



Definitely nothing to see here, note in the previous military drill involves J-20, the J-20 take out even AESA-based AWACS before they locate them.

According to PLA pilots, J-20 basically dominates any fighters PLA previously have, many of which has lots stealth-detecting radar/sensors as well, only to find they are useless against VLO oppoents, since the latter can feel to free to select where to enter the fight and when to leave the fight.

I dont think Su-35 make any difference here, afterall the Su-35 deal has more to do with balance of trading and political consideration than a military one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

leapx said:


> That is understandable. PLA AF needs to learn： 1 how to operate a stealthy fighter 2 how to fight against a stealthy fighter. It is so important to have such experience as soon as possible that they are ok with an old engine installed.
> 
> 
> 
> One interesting thing about Su—35： it has one X-band PESA and two L-band AESA that are specified for detecting stealthy target. Su-35 VS J-20？ definitely gonna happen in future drill.


35's radar system is quite average, the only "sparking" part is how they managed to round-up a radar that has all the inferior parts and techs, but to have similar end performance to those mainstream radars from US and China.

Russia still carries on the legacy of system engineering and industrial mathematic applications from the Soviet era. when given enough fund and manpower, they do come up with decent weapon systems. however, for complicated defence platforms you cant just rely on one wheel, you needs four in order for steady and fast pace. We learnt this well from Soviet````

anyway the game between Su-35 and J-20 will or had already taken places````but no leaks anything yet``

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> 35's radar system is quite average, the only "sparking" part is how they managed to round-up a radar that has all the inferior parts and techs, but to have similar end performance to those mainstream AESA radars from US and China.
> 
> Russia still carries on the legacy of system engineering and industrial mathematic applications from the Soviet era. when given enough fund and manpower, they do come up with decent weapon systems. however, for complicated defence platforms you cant just rely on one wheel, you needs four in order for steady and fast pace. We learnt this well from Soviet````
> 
> anyway the game between Su-35 and J-20 will or had already taken places````but no leaks anything yet``



Would be interesting to see if they've tested the Su-35 against the J-11D. Or the J-11D against the J-20.


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> Would be interesting to see if they've tested the Su-35 against the J-11D. Or the J-11D against the J-20.


any games tested by PLAF would be interesting no matter what platform they tested``````the hype for Su-35 is too overrated````just like when we first bought Su-27SK in 1990s, or slightly better this time```

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## leapx

Silicon0000 said:


> SU35 with AESA ??? I think it has only PESA.



The main radar is a X-band PESA. But It has two small L-band AESA installed inside leading edge of both wings.



rcrmj said:


> 35's radar system is quite average, the only "sparking" part is how they managed to round-up a radar that has all the inferior parts and techs, but to have similar end performance to those mainstream radars from US and China.
> 
> Russia still carries on the legacy of system engineering and industrial mathematic applications from the Soviet era. when given enough fund and manpower, they do come up with decent weapon systems. however, for complicated defence platforms you cant just rely on one wheel, you needs four in order for steady and fast pace. We learnt this well from Soviet````
> 
> anyway the game between Su-35 and J-20 will or had already taken places````but no leaks anything yet``



I do not think Su-35’s radar is superior neither. 

But for a long time we hear about that all stealthy aircrafts were optimized at X-band, not L-band.

So I really wonder whether the dual-band radar concept works against J-20. Maybe we can know that by :1. Will we buy more Su-35； 2 Will PLA implement similar modification.



52051 said:


> Definitely nothing to see here, note in the previous military drill involves J-20, the J-20 take out even AESA-based AWACS before they locate them.
> 
> According to PLA pilots, J-20 basically dominates any fighters PLA previously have, many of which has lots stealth-detecting radar/sensors as well, only to find they are useless against VLO oppoents, since the latter can feel to free to select where to enter the fight and when to leave the fight.
> 
> I dont think Su-35 make any difference here, afterall the Su-35 deal has more to do with balance of trading and political consideration than a military one.



I do not doubt J-20's ability.Putting stealth aside, its Super-cruise, sensors and avionics are lethal too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

Excuse me if some guy have had mentioned the news here before:

During a internal seminar on future air fight: The designers of J-20 from CAC give their thought about future air-fight:

In their PPT they ask an question to the PLAAF pilots in the seminar:

When your J-20 is against non-stealth fighters, on what occasion you should engage in close range and finish your enemy through dog-fight?

The answer in the PPT is something like:

On the occasion when you are very stupid.

VLO fighters have the huge advantage of being stealth to the enemies, and they can set up whatever position before engage the enemy and they can leave the battle at whatever point they feel like, that's a huge advantage, and they should use their advantage to the maximum, instead of the minimum.

That's why stealth, high-speed (super-cruise or not) and data fusion (formation and targets-sharing) are far more important features than dog-fights, at least according to designers of J-20s.

PLAAF's military exercises have proved that, in any cases, J-20 will first take out the AWACS, and then repeat infinite loop of hide-and-ambush-and-hide again until they finish all the other fighters off or they run out off missiles.

The rest PLAAF fighters simply don't have any chance and don't even find the fighter in the whole battle.

The gap between the 5th gen fighter and the rest is probably one of the largest ever, probably only next to the invention of fire-arm or nukes.

That's why I say people tend to underestimate the threaten of F-35, partly due to media's hype.

Unless the pilots screw up bigly, non-stealth fighters stand zero chance against them, that's why China need to field much more J-20 instead of try to combine J-20 with cheaper non-stealth fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

leapx said:


> The main radar is a X-band PESA. But It has two small L-band AESA installed inside leading edge of both wings.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think Su-35’s radar is superior neither.
> 
> But for a long time we hear about that all stealthy aircrafts were optimized at X-band, not L-band.
> 
> So I really wonder whether the dual-band radar concept works against J-20. Maybe we can know that by :1. Will we buy more Su-35； 2 Will PLA implement similar modification.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not doubt J-20's ability.Putting stealth aside, its Super-cruise, sensors and avionics are lethal too.


*“Putting stealth aside”*
Stealth is the most important feature of the J-20 ... LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

leapx said:


> The main radar is a X-band PESA. But It has two small L-band AESA installed inside leading edge of both wings.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think Su-35’s radar is superior neither.
> 
> But for a long time we hear about that all stealthy aircrafts were optimized at X-band, not L-band.
> 
> So I really wonder whether the dual-band radar concept works against J-20. Maybe we can know that by :1. Will we buy more Su-35； 2 Will PLA implement similar modification.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not doubt J-20's ability.Putting stealth aside, its Super-cruise, sensors and avionics are lethal too.


we are much ahead of Russia in radar technologies now`````dual-bands, multipul-bands, infrared+optical+radar integrated sensor system```etc```there are loads "arse kicking" projects under development in the sensor field``````so if the assumption of aquiring Su-35 was under the fact of its radar, then we wouldnt even pay a little interest in the first place`````so was the engine too`````

detecting a stealth object is a very complicated process, let alone to establish a firm track, and a solid lock, then finally stable guide and data links to firing missiles``````it is all about building a 5th gen network centric air combat system! and thats the real meaning and deadliness of F-35 (not the media hype or ignorant people's delusion). and this is what J-20 built to be!

so as I am going to say it again and again, there is no place for a plane like Su-35 in a 5th gen network centric air combat system`````it is just an average 4th gen (4.5 if you might want to call it) that can be very effective under some circumstance```thats it



Figaro said:


> *“Putting stealth aside”*
> Stealth is the most important feature of the J-20 ... LOL


and 5th gen network centric air combat system`````U.S and China`````only these two```I'm putting my words here and smoke like a bad-a$$``

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Can we stay on topic guys???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Can we stay on topic guys???


``````an health argue with minimum derailment should be accepted, ?````

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aliaselin

leapx said:


> for a long time we hear about that all stealthy aircrafts were optimized at X-band, not L-band



A basic knowledge，L band can detect target but can not guide missile to attack it，moreover，the L band radar on Su-35 has only very limited aperture and power because the space is limited there.
Many combat nodes can do this work much better, like ground-based UHF radar and AEWCS, but as Yangwei has said, these radar can only tell you the rough position of the stealthy fighter and you can not track it. Compared to this, EODAS is much more useful or just increase the power of the X-band radar and reduce the scanning angle

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Only two stealthy fighters will face each other in dog fight?


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> ``````an health argue with minimum derailment should be accepted, ?````




Agreed, but after about the tenth post concerning Russian technology, why the PLAAf bought the Su-35 and so on ?!!??

By the way ... is this a new bird?
https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2450687







... Since it is the one with the brown stuff on the intake.


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Agreed, but after about the tenth post concerning Russian technology, why the PLAAf bought the Su-35 and so on ?!!??
> ... Since it is the one with the brown stuff on the intake.


its a long story, and also the result of a very bad judgment made by SAC back in 2006````

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> Agreed, but after about the tenth post concerning Russian technology, why the PLAAf bought the Su-35 and so on ?!!??
> 
> By the way ... is this a new bird?
> https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2450687
> 
> View attachment 444945
> 
> 
> ... Since it is the one with the brown stuff on the intake.



Quite a few sources, as I saw before, said the Su-35 project received cash investment from the Chinese government intending to use it as a backup in case that the 5th generation fighter project encounters major technical difficulties and hence delay of delivery. The Chinese government later regretted as the J-20 project was going fast as scheduled. So they tried to minimize the total of the orders, rumored to be no more than 12, which caused some bilateral problems. Eventually they solved the problem after rounds of negotiations and the Russians delivered the first batch of Su-35 even earlier then expected.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Through the eyes of a plane spotter

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ozranger

rcrmj said:


> its a long story, and also the result of a very bad judgment made by SAC back in 2006````



Can you give some more details?


----------



## PRC2025

Deino said:


> Agreed, but after about the tenth post concerning Russian technology, why the PLAAf bought the Su-35 and so on ?!!??
> .



China bought only 24 Su-35, and much of the reason for this is also political. China and Russia wanted to take the strategic cooperation to the "next level" - while at the same time Su-35 is nothing "special" since the plane is also offered to other countries. So in a way, Su-35 is in the same category as S-400, which is also being offered to basically any country that can pay, but China did Russia a good favor while Russia was and still is under serious economic pressure and when China buys something "first", that is a "sign" of quality - hence, Russia might get additional orders because of that - not from China, but from other countries.

But J-20 have progressed very fast and with excellent results. The same goes for FC-31. So that does not mean that China is "desperate" to buy Su-35. China likes to fill in a gap for additional number of fighters while retireing the old fighters, much less capable than Su-35. J-7 / J-8 etc being retired. So it's great to fill in the "hole" with 24 Su-35, but China never wanted a huge number of these anyway.

Now that J-20 and FC-31 are progressing fast, it's all good. The same goes with the stealth bomber than China will have ready by early 2020s. Ten years ago, China wanted to buy Tu-22 bombers from Russia, but today you wouldn't have chance to make China pay for a single Tu-22 bomber from Russia. China prefers upgrading and integrating their own versions of H-6K++ before China rolls out stealth bomber in the early 2020s.

This whole Su-35 deliveries VS J-20 reminds me of Sovremmeny deliveries between 2000 and 2006, China was waiting for Soveremmeny destroyers while China itself was pumping out stealthy destroyers like Type 052C from 2003 - 2004, after allready having Type 051C and Type 052B in active service.

The same thing you can say about Improves Kilo class SSK. China stopped ordering more of those, and China has a production of advanced Yuan-class SSKs. Russia on the other hand is still producing Improved Kilo, and has serious problems taking it to the "next level", which is supposed to be "Lada / Kalina"-class SSK.

Now, China is building cruisers while Russia is still testing a Gorskhov frigate.

I remember something funny back in 2010 - just before J-20 launch, when Russia say publicly saying what countries are going to buy PAK-FA / Su-57 and how many.

Needless to say - Russia has totally failed with the whole "projection".

http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/13-09-2010/114900-sukhoi-0/

China was estimated as a "customer" buying "upto" 100 Su-57 from 2025 and onwards. Never going to happen, of course, because China doesn't need it. Neither is desperate India going to get 250 Su-57, because what going to be reality around 2025, is that China has a nice number of operational J-20 and very possibly FC-31, while India would have ZERO Su-57 and Russia only a handful of those.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> Indeed. Considering that the J-15 had to incorporate canards, that's really indicative of SAC's technical abilities ...



Now, to be fair, SAC had a T-10K-3 prototype to work with during the development of the J-15.


----------



## 帅的一匹

SinoSoldier said:


> Now, to be fair, SAC had a T-10K-3 prototype to work with during the development of the J-15.


Credit to Ukraine


----------



## rcrmj

ozranger said:


> Quite a few sources, as I saw before, said the Su-35 project received cash investment from the Chinese government intending to use it as a backup in case that the 5th generation fighter project encounters major technical difficulties and hence delay of delivery. The Chinese government later regretted as the J-20 project was going fast as scheduled. So they tried to minimize the total of the orders, rumored to be no more than 12, which caused some bilateral problems. Eventually they solved the problem after rounds of negotiations and the Russians delivered the first batch of Su-35 even earlier then expected.


nope```35 was never a "backup" of J-20```if it wasnt for the "bad" judgement from SAC regarding J-11B's future upgrade, there wouldnt be the deal of Su-35`````btw, we only wanted 2 of them at the very begining```



Figaro said:


> Indeed. Considering that the J-15 had to incorporate canards, that's really indicative of SAC's technical abilities ...


the "bad" judgement I mentioned wasnt for J-15, but J-11`````

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> nope```35 was never a "backup" of J-20```if it wasnt for the "bad" judgement from SAC regarding J-11B's future upgrade, there wouldnt be the deal of Su-35`````btw, we only wanted 2 of them at the very begining```
> 
> 
> the "bad" judgement I mentioned wasnt for J-15, but J-11`````


SAC is going to suck CAC's toes


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> SAC is going to suck CAC's toes


SAC has been doing great jobs too, its just their northen working culture and bad decisions made by their bosses````with good management and right pressure they can also do excellent jobs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> SAC has been doing great jobs too, its just their northen working culture and bad decisions made by their bosses````with good management and right pressure they can also do excellent jobs


They need a good leader

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

SAC has a very poor company culture, and the only way to get rid of such culture is to disband this company and set up a new one else-where.

There are sayings that CCP to set up new fighter manufacter else-where, and guess what? some of the guys from SAC (I assume these talents in SAC who get tired of their useless and imcompentent leaders) are among the strongest supporters of this plan, lets hope this will give CAC some much-needed competition, afterall CAC are also founded by someone from SAC.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## clarkgap

Just an unvaluable drawing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

clarkgap said:


> Just an unvaluable drawing.
> 
> View attachment 445137



2021 aborts ferry flight to CFTE.


----------



## clarkgap

星海军事 said:


> 2021 aborts ferry flight to CFTE.



Great! I thought it is just a background...


----------



## monitor

This new photo on the J-20 has confirmed at least one thing, very interesting...


----------



## Deino

monitor said:


> This new photo on the J-20 has confirmed at least one thing, very interesting...




Pardon, but I already asked Henry K. on what it confirms?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/947475890509725696
Indeed it seems to be most likely a certain "important" test - otherwise Yang Wei would not attend - but it's one of the prototypes so either it is an older image or anything important recent??





So either I'm already too much in celebration mode or I missed that "very interesting" detail. 
Could you please add a hint... ??

And all the best for 2018.

Deino


----------



## leapx

Deino said:


> Pardon, but I already asked Henry K. on what it confirms?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/947475890509725696
> Indeed it seems to be most likely a certain "important" test - otherwise Yang Wei would not attend - but it's one of the prototypes so either it is an older image or anything important recent??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So either I'm already too much in celebration mode or I missed that "very interesting" detail.
> Could you please add a hint... ??
> 
> And all the best for 2018.
> 
> Deino


_It is a CCTV journalist‘s blog._
It is about an interview with YangWei. I do not find the interview yet. The so called hint is probably about next generation fighter. The number 2035 is there for some reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Pretty sure this is a new image of the WS-10 equipped J-20?

https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2451771&extra=page=1

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Son and father

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

leapx said:


> _It is a CCTV journalist‘s blog._
> It is about an interview with YangWei. I do not find the interview yet. The so called hint is probably about next generation fighter. The number 2035 is there for some reason.



Pardon, but I still don't get what it could say?
Is this this poem?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## leapx

Deino said:


> Pardon, but I still don't get what it could say?
> Is this this poem?
> 
> View attachment 445957


yes, apparently I had a wrong guess.
That is the price of trying to be a smart ***.

PS：Why A s s is censored？

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

J-20 vs flanker??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Maybe my eyes are too bad already, but is this a J-20 performing a Cobra-manoeuvre?





__ https://www.facebook.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> Maybe my eyes are too bad already, but is this a J-20 performing a Cobra-manoeuvre?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/



It looks not. I believe the maneuver includes a climb and a following reverse. I have seen such combination in many J-20 clips. Please watch this video






from 0:00 until 0:22 or 0:35 to 0:45. It is the same maneuver but from a different angle.

Some J-20's vertical maneuver including this one is incredible to me. It can sustain velocity and even accelerate when climbing, described by many witnesses as "like a rocket", with a following reverse without significant speed loss. This type of climb had no preparatory dives to gain substantial energy like the 4th generation fighter jets. The J-20 normally flied straight and level, and then suddenly entered the climb.

Such energy sustainability poses bigger challenges to targeting AAMs because, if it can be used in some rolls with acceleration, the missiles would quickly lose their energy and therefore lose the trace of the target.

J-20's climb and energy sustainability is somewhat even more impressive than that of F-22. But F-22 can perform a very accurate 90 degree pitch down after a vertical climb, which really demonstrates the power of its TVC system. I believe such a pitch-down is still too challenging to J-20's flight control system even though its canards are already much more useful than the horizontal stabilizers in high AoA maneuvers. So almost all J-20 climbs ended up with a reverse. I hope J-20 can do the same thing after having a TVC system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> J-20 vs flanker??



https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2452328&extra=page=1

According to Yankee, the J-20 and J-16 were used to simulate F-22/F-15E in an aerial penetrative strike against an air base defended by SAMs and Fourth generation fighters. The aggressors achieved their objective with minimal losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2452328&extra=page=1
> 
> According to Yankee, the J-20 and J-16 were used to simulate F-22/F-15E in an aerial penetrative strike against an air base defended by SAMs and Fourth generation fighters. The aggressors achieved their objective with minimal losses.


In that case, wouldn't the J-20 be in OPFOR blue?


----------



## siegecrossbow

ZeEa5KPul said:


> In that case, wouldn't the J-20 be in OPFOR blue?



Red and blue are reversed in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> Red and blue are reversed in China.


I know. The J-20 is red in the picture, which means it's friendly. If it were simulating an F-22, shouldn't it be blue?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maxpane

great performance


----------



## siegecrossbow

ZeEa5KPul said:


> I know. The J-20 is red in the picture, which means it's friendly. If it were simulating an F-22, shouldn't it be blue?



That's a good point. Maybe the color coding is off?


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


> View attachment 446686



From fyjs @铁背心, J-20 No.2022 made its maiden fly at Christmas in Chengdu.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

The poem may suggest the engine tested is very powerful.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maxpane

congrats china

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Congrats ... but we need images !!!!!!


----------



## ozranger

siegecrossbow said:


> That's a good point. Maybe the color coding is off?



They swap sides a lot in the drills.


----------



## cirr

clarkgap said:


> From fyjs @铁背心, J-20 No.2022 made its maiden fly at Christmas in Chengdu.



According to same, 2021 left its "birth place" for where you know on the same day.


----------



## siegecrossbow

clarkgap said:


> From fyjs @铁背心, J-20 No.2022 made its maiden fly at Christmas in Chengdu.



So there are two J-20s with WS-10 engines now.


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> So there are two J-20s with WS-10 engines now.


Maybe its not WS-10X engine? Given the powerful thrust that hint. It may be the Ermei or Taishan engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Why Taishan, which is the WS-13??

That cannot be in the same way it cannit be the WS-15 already.

Why is it so unlikely that it is nothing more than the reported uprated WS-10X and a variant with about 150kN isn't that bad at all.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

It's just interesting how we haven't gotten any photo or video of the 2022 yet. Or of the J-10 TVC in its maiden flight ... cartoons are good, but pictures are better!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

So it seems as if the J-20 (as well as J-16) unit is indeed the 66th Brigade and not the 176th ... so the serial-number system for the CFTE- & FTTC-units is indeed different.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Is this really J-20A no. 78277 already? I can only see a stamp-sized image.... 

http://www.dser.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1044084&extra=page=1

Deino


----------



## IblinI



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## onebyone

*J-20 stealth fighter in first live fire drill since deployment*
*China shows the might of its fifth generation fighter jet in a large drill that also involved other advanced warplanes*

* China’s own fifth-generation air-superiority jet fighter the J-20 last week strutted its stuff in its first live-fire war game held since its March 2017 deployment, along with regiments of other warcraft including H-6K Badger bombers, a “Chubby Girl” Y-20 airlifter, and J-16 fighters, among others that entered service in recent years, the PLA Daily has reported.*

* 



*
*The well-orchestrated exercise encompassed nearly all major People’s Liberation Army airbases throughout the nation, with Y-20s bracing the frigidity when taking off from airstrips on the Tibetan Plateau and H-6Ks ascending through midnight smog in quick response to mock attacks.





Two J-20s take off from the Zhurihe base in a recent large drill. Photo: Xinhua
State broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) also aired on Wednesday footage of J-20 superfighters engaging in beyond-visual training, which also included mock combats against J-16s and J-10s.

Observers say what is significant is the report that J-20s and J-16s got airborne at the same time from the PLA Air Force’s Zhurihe base in northern China’s Inner Mongolia region and the indigenous fifth- and fourth-generation fighters had a simulated dogfight.

“This means both the two new fighters are now in full, operation-ready deployment and that the PLAAF is now able to hold combats between the two to hone the skills of its pilots, as both fighters are the cachets of their respective generations,” notes a commentary that appeared on Sohu, a Chinese news portal.





A grab from a China Central Television’s program on the air force drill that involved a number of J-20s. Photo: CCTV
One of the J-20 pilots, Chen Liu, whose grandfather Liu Yuti was a PLA air marshal who shot down eight US and South Korean jets during the Korean War, told CCTV that their task was like those of video-game testers or “white hat” hackers to identify mechanical and software glitches that must be fixed or debugged before the next mission or drill. They also compile manuals and instructions for other PLA units as J-20 production is being ratcheted up for wider deployment this year.

This coincides with rumors that large hangars have been built at the Zhurihe airbase, believed to house J-20s stationed there.





A satellite image of the Zhurihe airbase. Red arrows indicate the likely hangars for J-20s. Photo: Google Maps
Jim Smith, a British weapons expert, said on the UK-based aviation forum Hush-Kit that the main edge of the J-20 over foreign fifth-generation fighters was its ability to carry significantly more fuel, coupled with the scope for use of a longer weapons bay. The overall outcome could be a remarkable multi-role aircraft, with a particular strike role, carrying area-denial weapons.

http://www.atimes.com/article/j-20-stealth-fighter-first-live-fire-drill-since-deployment/
*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

From fyjs 中南海保镖

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Happy anniversary to 2001's maiden flight

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> Happy anniversary to 2001's maiden flight
> 
> View attachment 447593
> View attachment 447594


So Deino, now we can officially say " A CHINESE ENGINE POWERED THE J20"!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IblinI



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Clutch

Deino said:


> Happy anniversary to 2001's maiden flight
> 
> View attachment 447593
> View attachment 447594


That is the smokiest engine i have ever seen... Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Daniel808

Clutch said:


> That is the smokiest engine i have ever seen... Hope I'm wrong.



Fuel Dumping, not smoke

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Clutch said:


> That is the smokiest engine i have ever seen... Hope I'm wrong.


Cant even different between fuel dumping and smoke. LOL...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Han Patriot

Clutch said:


> That is the smokiest engine i have ever seen... Hope I'm wrong.


This is smoke. The infaous Russian RDs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Daniel808 said:


> Fuel Dumping, not smoke




Indeed, however I'm surprised that the WS-10 also uses this unique system by the AL-31-series to dump fuel via the AB ... as far as I know no other engine (esp. no Western one) has this too.


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> Indeed, however I'm surprised that the WS-10 also uses this unique system by the AL-31-series to dump fuel via the AB ... as far as I know no other engine (esp. no Western one) has this too.


Years of 'learning'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2




----------



## onebyone

*J-20 fighter takes part in first combat exercises*
By Zhao Lei | China Daily | Updated: 2018-01-12 07:26

















Two J-20 fighter jets conduct an exercise. LI SHAOPENG/XINHUA
Fifth-generation jet, pilots put to test during realistic drills

The Chinese Air Force has deployed its best combat plane - the J-20 stealth fighter jet - to conduct exercises with other advanced jets.

The Air Force of the People's Liberation Army said in a news release on Thursday that several J-20s took part in a series of combat exercises against the less-advanced J-16 and J-10C.

The exercises took place over the past nine days at an undisclosed air base and were realistic, the release said.

The military said J-20s practiced beyond-visual-range aerial fighting maneuvers during these drills, without elaborating.

This is the first time the Air Force has confirmed that the J-20 has participated in a combat exercise. In July, the Air Force sent three J-20s to a military parade at the Zhurihe Training Base in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region and used that occasion to make public some details about the inside of the jet's cockpit for the first time.

In late September, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry confirmed at a news conference that the fifth-generation aircraft has been com-missioned to the Air Force.

Wu Peixin, an aviation industry observer in Beijing, said sending J-20s on combat exercises would not only enable its pilots to get familiar with the plane and its tactics as soon as possible, but also would help other aviators hone their skills on how to confront a cutting-edge fifth-generation jet in combat.

He said China faces a big challenge in the Asia-Pacific airspace from the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II - the other stealth fighters in service - deployed by the United States and Japan respectively, so it is urgent for Chinese pilots to know how to deal with such warplanes.

China conducted the maid-en flight of the J-20 in January 2011 and declassified the plane in November 2016.

Developed by Aviation Industry Corp of China, the State-owned aircraft giant, the J-20 shoulders the heavy responsibility given by the Air Force to create space for other aircraft during an air battle, according to Zhang Hao, head of an Air Force flight-testing center that has deployed the jet.

"J-20 will be like a needle that can penetrate and break down the enemy's air-defense network," he previously told China Central Television. "The plane is a typical offensive weapon. It has good stability, stealth capability, situational awareness capacity, and fire-control systems."

Yang Wei, chief designer of the J-20, has predicted the plane will be the backbone of the PLA Air Force for the next 20 years.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/12/WS5a580a87a3102c394518eb05.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

Terahertz radar for J-20 in the future?

http://news.cctv.com/2018/01/11/ARTIdsFwXQoNdai48JtxuPY9180111.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

cirr said:


> Terahertz radar for J-20 in the future?
> 
> http://news.cctv.com/2018/01/11/ARTIdsFwXQoNdai48JtxuPY9180111.shtml



Terahertz radars have notoriously short range. I doubt they'll be of much use.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

cirr said:


> Terahertz radar for J-20 in the future?
> 
> http://news.cctv.com/2018/01/11/ARTIdsFwXQoNdai48JtxuPY9180111.shtml


No, please perform basic research before you post. The basic research here is not about the J-20 but about the freq itself. You can put a thz system on the J-20 if you want, but it would effectively render the jet worthless in combat.

As pointed out in post 10147 that _'...notoriously short range.'_. Why is that ? It is called 'physics', as in real physics, not the garbage that is often concocted in this forum.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/military/the-truth-about-terahertz


> But the goal of turning such laboratory phenomena into real-world applications has proved elusive. Legions of researchers have *struggled with that challenge for decades.*


See that ? *DECADES*. And yet on PDF, it can be done in a few yrs.



> What I really wanted were answers to questions like, *What exactly are terahertz frequencies best suited for?*


The application here is radar, of which the foundation of the real world application is the *PULSE*.






Radar detection needs *REFERENCE POINTS*. Anything that the radar computer can use to mark time. When a radar pulse is created, there are two reference points: leading and trailing edges.



> But orbiting terahertz instruments have a big advantage over their terrestrial counterparts: They’re in space! Specifically, they operate in a near-vacuum and don’t have to contend with a dense atmosphere, which absorbs, refracts, and scatters terahertz signals. *Nor do they have to operate in inclement weather.*


Problem One: The terahertz freqs already have greater vulnerabilities to effects from various atmospheric phenomenons.

Problem Two: A radar pulse is a finite packet of energy due to the cut off of transmission -- the trailing edge.

If we put the two problems together, it is clear to see why the terahertz freq is -- at this time -- unsuitable for long range radar applications.

The longer the pulse, the more energy is in the pulse which will give the pulse only marginal resistance to atmospheric interference, but the time markers, the leading and trailing edges, would be wider. The result is *REDUCTION OF ACCURACY* of these major target resolutions:

- Range
- Distance
- Heading
- Altitude
- Aspect angle

The shorter the pulse, the greater the accuracy of the above target resolutions, but precisely because a pulse is a finite packet of energy, less energy means greater vulnerabilities to atmospheric phenomenons, and this is not yet adding in *Problem One* as native to the terahertz freqs.

The longer the pulse, the greater the *TACTICAL* need for longer transmission periods for the radar computer to work, but this would give the J-20's position away, which defeats the purpose of 'stealth'. The shorter the pulse, the greater the atmospheric losses, thereby giving the J-20 near useless radar vision. Low radar observability is preserved, but at the expense of *TACTICAL* combat utility.

The problem with these fanboy-ish articles is that people are informed only of the theoretical benefits without educating them of the background information. Technically oriented articles, like the IEEE source, are considered too boring to read thru.

So absolutely yes, put a terahertz radar on the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Gomig-21

Deino said:


> Indeed, however I'm surprised that the WS-10 also uses this unique system by the AL-31-series to dump fuel via the AB ... as far as I know no other engine (esp. no Western one) has this too.



As opposed to what, dump and burn?


----------



## Safriz

J-20 prototype 2021 spotted with WS-10B engine.


----------



## Figaro

شاھین میزایل said:


> J-20 prototype 2021 spotted with WS-10B engine.


These are old pictures and have been postesd before ...


----------



## Deino

Gomig-21 said:


> As opposed to what, dump and burn?




No, You got me wrong or you are misinformed: Each aircraft has a system to dump fuel in case of emergency.

My point is that Western types use other methods (on the wings, tail or under the fuselage) to dump fuel and none does it thru the afterburner as it does the Russian AL-31F series ... and the WS-10.









Here Su-30MKK






Here a J-10





... but the JH-7 has a system thru the wings:

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Gomig-21

Deino said:


> No, You got me wrong or you are misinformed:



I did misunderstand you, and not sure why since it was pretty clear what you were saying. Must've been too much PDF participation in one day. That tends to turn the brain into mush after a few hours.



Deino said:


> Each aircraft has a system to dump fuel in case of emergency.
> 
> My point is that Western types use other methods (on the wings, tail or under the fuselage) to dump fuel and none does it thru the afterburner as it does the Russian AL-31F series ... and the WS-10.



I had this discussion many years ago with a former USAF F-15 pilot back in the 1980's who used to visit another forum we were on and was a treasure trove of information, and a great guy as well. He mentioned the concept that the USAF goes by when it comes to dumping fuel from its aircraft because of atmospheric and environmental concerns, even though fuel released at these altitudes is vaporized into gas and never reaches the ground to pose any threat, the idea was more that some were questioning whether the effectiveness of actually burning it off by using a fuel dump & burn (like the famous F-111 and I believe the F-14 did as well) was better overall, or just dumping it which turns out was actually much faster and obviously easier on the engines. It was a great bit of information I wish the forum was still on to look back at the details of the convo, but sadly it isn't.

A couple of points on your examples; despite aircraft such as the F-18 Super Hornet having fuel dumping outlets on the top of both its vertical stabilizers and the F-35 outlet is somewhere under the wings (or even just the port wing), the one in the Eurofighter 2000 is claimed by some to not necessarily be a fuel-dump outlet and that the EF does not have fuel dumping outlets, but that one on the tail fin is rather a "reheat drain."

_When reheat is cancelled, there’s a temporary over-pressure caused by unburnt fuel (accumulated in the jet pipe, upstream of the nozzles, after being ingested by the fuel injectors when the afterburner igniter is no longer functioning) that is automatically relieved by venting some 30 Kg (66 Lbs) of fuel through valves located underneath the jet pipe._

Read more at https://theaviationist.com/tag/fuel-dumping/#zxKwd4hT3ZmxOjDY.99

The concept is alleged to be similar to what the Tornado does. The Tornado's fuel dumping outlet is located at the top of the tail fin but its reheat drain system is under the nozzles.






This is a separate process from fuel dumping but supposedly the EF does not have fuel dumping (which I do find hard to believe and is it possible?) and that what it's actually doing when you see fuel released from the top of the V-stab is this reheat draining process.

The Rafale also has an interesting "fuel transfer" process it goes through. There was a thread about that during the Dubai air show when the Rafale demo was performing a negative G maneuver and as it was pulling out of that negative G, it released a bit of fuel from the AB pipe in the starboard nozzle which temporarily ignited by the hot gases and then dissipated. The commentator described it and it was pretty interesting which adds a bit more complexities to all this fuel dumping processes that are in all these different types of aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

*China J-20 stealth jets on training ops in Tibet*


----------



## Deino

onebyone said:


> *China J-20 stealth jets on training ops in Tibet*




Pardon, but AFAIK all images are ether from the PLAAF's anniversary parade or from Zhuhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

onebyone said:


> *China J-20 stealth jets on training ops in Tibet*



It is just a fake news intentionally created by the bosses of Indian media. India's ruling class always wants some border tension to frighten and blackmail the ruled classes.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Pardon, but AFAIK all images are ether from the PLAAF's anniversary parade or from Zhuhai.



The only J-20 confirmed to be near Tibet was the yellow prototype spotted in Daocheng Yading last year.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


>



A model.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ejaz007

*China’s Fifth-Gen J-20 Completes First Air Combat Exercise*
© REUTERS/ Stringer
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
22:02 23.01.2018(updated 22:12 23.01.2018)Get short URL
16313
China’s fifth-generation J-20 jets took part in their first air combat drills at the start of January, according to a People’s Liberation Army Air Force announcement.

The exercises featured J-20 aircraft simulating aerial combat with older J-16 and J-10 fighters and involved H-6K long-range bombers in some capacity, the Diplomat reported Tuesday, citing the air force. The location of the drills, which lasted nine days, has not been disclosed, the news outlet noted.





© AP PHOTO/ LI GANG/XINHUA
Meet the J-20: China Commissions First Non-US Stealth Aircraft (VIDEO)


The Chinese Ministry of National Defense declared last fall that the jet had been commissioned into service, but it's not clear whether the planes have reached full operational capability.

Adapting the J-20 to current operations is likely to be "a very long and painful" road, as the US has learned during costly F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter implementations, said Vasily Kashin, fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies in Moscow. "The process of fifth-gen fighters' introduction to the US Air Force was very long and painful… there's no reason to think China would be different."

The plane has spurred controversy among US officials who say that the J-20 virtually mirrors Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor. "What they've been able to do in such a rapid period of time without any R&D, do you believe that gives them a competitive advantage?" Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) asked during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in 2015.

"They're making leaps, which are uncommon, at the behest of us, and we know this… but we're not taking any actions against them," Manchin said to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. "We know the J-20 is pretty much mirroring our F-22," the senator said.

Clapper replied that a "proportional response" was being considered and response options don't necessarily follow a tit-for-tat pattern with Beijing. "I at least think it's good to think about the old saw that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks," the director noted.





© AP PHOTO/ EVAN VUCCI
Sputnik, RT - Grave Concern of Infamous Liar James Clapper

This response drew harsh criticism from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who said, "So it's okay for them to steal our secrets that are most important, including our fighters, because we live in a glass house? That is astounding," McCain said at the time.

But the J-20 isn't the only new aircraft being added to the Chinese air force: several also-new J-16 squadrons were added as part of the air force's modernizing trend earlier this month, Sputnik reported.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201801231061007599-china-fifth-gen-j20-combat-exercise/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rendong



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## siegecrossbow

ejaz007 said:


> *China’s Fifth-Gen J-20 Completes First Air Combat Exercise*
> © REUTERS/ Stringer
> MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
> 22:02 23.01.2018(updated 22:12 23.01.2018)Get short URL
> 16313
> China’s fifth-generation J-20 jets took part in their first air combat drills at the start of January, according to a People’s Liberation Army Air Force announcement.
> 
> *The exercises featured J-20 aircraft simulating aerial combat with older J-16 and J-10 fighters* and involved H-6K long-range bombers in some capacity, the Diplomat reported Tuesday, citing the air force. The location of the drills, which lasted nine days, has not been disclosed, the news outlet noted.



Guess they are using it against fighter targets after all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

J-20X(X=S? X=??)


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-20X(X=S? X=??)




So these rumours on a twin-seater J-20S or AS are correct?


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> So these rumours on a twin-seater J-20S or AS are correct?



It would be interesting to see if the "rumoured" J-20 derivative is developed into an aerial control platform for future drone swarm attack.


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> It would be interesting to see if the "rumoured" J-20 derivative is developed into an aerial control platform for future drone swarm attack.




How likely and how reliable are these reports and rumours??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rendong

Deino said:


> How likely and how reliable are these reports and rumours??
> 
> View attachment 450388


I don't think it possible

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

Deino said:


> How likely and how reliable are these reports and rumours??



If you're referring to a twin-seater, I say why not? I think it's absolutely doable given the size of the fuselage on the J-20. 

It seems to me the Chinese designed the J-20 with tremendous range in mind because of China's expansive territory. The concept of "interceptor" is still very important in these large, Asian countries such as Russia, China and even India. I don't think the Chinese are counting on the J-20 to serve as some sort of naval asset or servicing any of the islands or any shipping lanes etc. or venturing far over the seas. They've made it clear, at least to me, that they've dedicated an impeccably strong naval air command to deal with those tasks and the J-20 will most likely be a land-based operating platform that's made to reach all ends of China in quick time. If it's relegated to the interceptor role, a single seater works fine. If they want to use it as an offensive platform, which it certainly can, then its design seems to be easily adaptable to a 2-seater and perform in a mutli-role capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

@Gomig-21 Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AmirPatriot

Gomig-21 said:


> If you're referring to a twin-seater, I say why not?



I would say, why?

Modern targeting technology tremendously reduces workload on pilots in all mission types. That's why the Su-35 still carries a wide suite of A2G weapons, despite only having 1 seat. The J-20 being China's premiere fighter aircraft, I don't see why China would be saving money and going with 2 seats and less expensive electronics (which is why the Su-30SM is becoming relatively numerous in Russian service).

As to why not, it would seem to be a massive hassle to redesign the airframe just to accommodate a second seat, considering the J-20 is a stealth aircraft and that portion of the aircraft has to undergo more development to be made stealthy. Without radar absorbing coating, it may still be less stealthy than the single seater. China has some stealthy UCAVs in development...


----------



## Gomig-21

AmirPatriot said:


> I would say, why?



That's why the argument can be made either way.



AmirPatriot said:


> Modern targeting technology tremendously reduces workload on pilots in all mission types. That's why the Su-35 still carries a wide suite of A2G weapons, despite only having 1 seat. The J-20 being China's premiere fighter aircraft, I don't see why China would be saving money and going with 2 seats and less expensive electronics (which is why the Su-30SM is becoming relatively numerous in Russian service).



Who says it would have less expensive electronics? Quite the opposite. A prime example would be comparing the role of the Rafale in its single and two-seat version where you have the latest data fusion cockpit and it is a true, omni-role aircraft that's limitless in operational tasks. ATM, the J-20's function in strict stealth mode (if I'm not mistaken) is strictly A2A. Give it a mission that is relegated mostly to ground operation and a 2nd pilot is invaluable, especially when its role is now an offensive platform and not a defensive one. With all the new tech such as EW, AI, controlling drones from the aircraft and software technology as well as HMDS, no matter how easy it's designed to be for a single pilot, there will always be situations where there is just way too much sensory overload. There is no way around that when a pilot has to have situational awareness, fly the aircraft and combat an enemy, no matter how easier all these systems are made for the pilot, they will always be presented with situations where there is work overload, especially when the battle is taken deep into enemy territory. A single pilot limits the role of the aircraft no matter how advanced it is. 

This is clearly evident in the F-22 and the F-35. 

Also, larger aircraft (such as the J-20) that are relegated to very large combat radius and loiter time also pay a lesser penalty in fuel capacity for carrying a second seat than smaller aircraft. Given that premise, I would say that being a larger aircraft than the other current 5th gens in testing and production, it will also pay less of a price in RCS for a larger cockpit.



AmirPatriot said:


> As to why not, it would seem to be a massive hassle to redesign the airframe just to accommodate a second seat, considering the J-20 is a stealth aircraft and that portion of the aircraft has to undergo more development to be made stealthy. Without radar absorbing coating, it may still be less stealthy than the single seater. China has some stealthy UCAVs in development...



A 2nd seat will definitely reduce RCS, can't argue that, but I think it would be minimal and the reward would be greater in return for mission-specific tasks. Look at the eventual FGFA for example. It's going to be a design that will sacrifice some stealth to have that capability of a 2nd operator because the particular airforce looking to acquire a 2-seat PAK-FA has certain needs and mission tasks that require a 2nd pilot and are willing to give up a bit of stealth for that. There's also the notion that when you lose a little stealth coming from your avionics and cockpit, you fly higher altitudes to help reduce that. 

Also, as far as a massive hassle and cost, that might not necessarily be the case here since there are only 8 flying prototypes of the J-20 ATM. Granted they seem to be operational but it's still in developmental phase and we saw a major, redesign in structure and shape to the F-22 post testing and prior to entering production. If it's worth it to China since it's a huge country, why not? If it'll operate like the F-22 and F-35 which rely on huge outside support, then it probably won't need it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AmirPatriot

Gomig-21 said:


> Who says it would have less expensive electronics?



Well if you look at the Su-35 and Su-30SM, their only differences apart from the twin seat setup are engines, and radar. Otherwise, they carry the same types of weapons, including air-to-ground munitions. While the exact price is not known, the Su-35 was exported to China for about $83-85 million per aircraft, including various support infrastructure/equipment. The Su-30SM is said said to be around $50 million. Quite a lot of money there that won't just be because of the engines and radar. It is also common knowledge that the Su-35 has a more advanced cockpit with better electronics and systems designed to reduce workload on the pilot. It's quite hard to find examples of this as contemporary aircraft with much older technology had to use twin seats since there was little technology available to reduce workload on the pilot.



Gomig-21 said:


> they will always be presented with situations where there is work overload, especially when the battle is taken deep into enemy territory.



What situations?



Gomig-21 said:


> Also, larger aircraft (such as the J-20) that are relegated to very large combat radius and loiter time



Large combat radius and long loiter time are desirable characteristics. I think you mean there would be missions where this would be the case. In which case, a second seat isn't really going to help. It's not like the pilot can sleep mid flight and let the back seater take over. Even in very large combat radius aircraft like the F-14, the RIO didn't have flight controls.



Gomig-21 said:


> If it'll operate like the F-22 and F-35 which rely on huge outside support, then it probably won't need it.



The F-35 is designed to use "sensor fusion" to great effect to provide a ton of information about targets. It was designed from the ground up to be able to conduct air-to-ground missions effectively, including SEAD/DEAD, as well as interdiction, strike, and even CAS. Its technology can support this, even if many (including myself) consider these extra roles to implant too many compromises on the engine for it to conduct other roles effectively. Nevertheless, the cockpit is designed to reduce pilot workload to do this.

In a cockpit the main systems a pilot conducting air-to-ground missions has to worry about are 1. Flight 2. RWR 3. Jamming 4. Targeting.

1. Is no problem. Modern aircraft can fly level very easily and require little input from the pilot. They also have autopilot functions that can hold attitude during the ingress stage.

2. If you're in a stealth aircraft and maintaining proper signals discipline, you won't have to worry about this much, other than seeing enemy radars on search mode (not locked on).

3. Similar to 2.

4. The main portion of the pilots time and concentration will be in working the targeting systems. These are a bit clunky in older aircraft (try shooting a Kh-29 at an M1 Abrams in an Su-25 in DCS World... It needs a lot of practice) but modern electronics and interfaces can make everything much easier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## cirr

Carrier borne J-20 has had its first flight?


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Carrier borne J-20 has had its first flight?



 ... I think You need to better explain that?!! 

Do you really want to say that regardless all rumors and discussions on if or if not, what type and when a new carrier borne fighter will be unveiled, CAC surprised us with the maiden flight of a carrier-capable J-20??


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> ... I think You need to better explain that?!!
> 
> Do you really want to say that regardless all rumors and discussions on if or if not, what type and when a new carrier borne fighter will be unveiled, CAC surprised us with the maiden flight of a carrier-capable J-20??



It seems so. BTW there is a rumor that, with a recent accident on J-15 flight control system, PLAN successfully escalated some very strong complaint to the the big boss. It might have affected the outcome of the competition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ozranger said:


> It seems so. BTW there is a rumor that, with a recent accident on J-15 flight control system, PLAN successfully escalated some very strong complaint to the the big boss. It might have affected the outcome of the competition.



And it already flew???  Would be awesome, unbelievable ... 

Can you please post some of these links which discuss or claim this?

Deino


----------



## Hyperion

90% there. A matured beast indeed. Congrats to the Chinese people.


----------



## 帅的一匹

ozranger said:


> It seems so. BTW there is a rumor that, with a recent accident on J-15 flight control system, PLAN successfully escalated some very strong complaint to the the big boss. It might have affected the outcome of the competition.


FC31 is definitely better on carrier with conventional layout.


----------



## Deino

Hyperion said:


> 90% there. A matured beast indeed. Congrats to the Chinese people.




I hope you don't mind to wait for some hard facts like images before I open a bottle of champagne .... but if it's true I will surely open one, promised. 

So far I wasn't able to find any link or source for that... can anyone help?? @cirr

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> And it already flew???  Would be awesome, unbelievable ...
> 
> Can you please post some of these links which discuss or claim this?
> 
> Deino



It is a reliable rumor. However, there are two different way to unscramble it. So we can not sure it is about J-20 or FC-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

clarkgap said:


> It is a reliable rumor. However, there are two different way to unscramble it. So we can not sure it is about J-20 or FC-31.



Posted by whom?? 
So pardon, now it is even more confusing. I thought @cirr posted this rumour related to the J-20 or was his question to hint that he wasn't sure at all and that this alleged maiden flight could also be related to a FC-31VX- variant?

I'm only surprised that some here seem to be quite sure about this rumour while otherwise neither Xinfengcao, OedoSoldier or any other of these guys have posted anything.

Do you have a link on this ?

Best,
Deino


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> Posted by whom??
> So pardon, now it is even more confusing. I thought @cirr posted this rumour related to the J-20 or was his question to hint that he wasn't sure at all and that this alleged maiden flight could also be related to a FC-31VX- variant?
> 
> I'm only surprised that some here seem to be quite sure about this rumour while otherwise neither Xinfengcao, OedoSoldier or any other of these guys have posted anything.
> 
> Do you have a link on this ?
> 
> Best,
> Deino



huahua posts it in CJDBY. The original information is still a story, like he always do. It is about the next generation shipboard aircraft. The main problem is how to unscramble it. You better ignore this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Carrier borne J-20 has had its first flight?



But isn't the carrier-based 5g fighter supposed to be based on FC-31; can you explain?


----------



## cirr

Akasa said:


> But isn't the carrier-based 5g fighter supposed to be based on FC-31; can you explain?



A competition will be held between the 2 candidates.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## clarkgap

CAIC does not give up?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Result of the competition is not officially declared yet. 

The upper management wants 31 but the end users want 20, as huahua implied. SO let's wait for the ink to dry, and the fat lady sings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

lcloo said:


> Result of the competition is not officially declared yet.
> 
> The upper management wants 31 but the end users want 20, as huahua implied. SO let's wait for the ink to dry, and the fat lady sings.



Any idea as to how long it will take for them to reach a decision?


----------



## clarkgap

clarkgap said:


> CAIC does not give up?
> 
> View attachment 452153



By Odeosoldier, it is a old picture.

http://cac.avic.com/web/a/xinwen/20170331/193.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Delivery of J-20s to the 2nd unit under the Eastern Theater has started.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Delivery of J-20s to the 2nd unit under the Eastern Theater has started.




Any idea where they go to? 
Eastern Theater Command does not leave that many options for a newly equipped Brigade:

There are the Fuzhou and Shanghai Bases with their Brigades:

- Fuzhou at first (as it seems former 14th AD) just received J-16 (40th Brig) and is equipped with J-11B (41st Brig) … the third unit is a J-7E unit (42nd Brig) but this is unconfirmed and IMO not a prime candidate for getting the latest high-end fighter.

- Shanghai in return (the original one + former 3rd AD) has also just received J-16 (7th Brig), flies J-10A (8th) and Su-30MKK (9th) ... as such are quite new types, whereas the 78th has J-8DH, the 85th has Su-30MKK (maybe moved to Fuzhou), the 86th has J-7E and finally the 93rd with JZ-8F. So also at best the 78th Brigade at Shanghai.

Hmmm … anyway another important milestone if true.

Deino


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dungeness

2/9/2018, J-20 formally enter into PLAAF active service. 

中国空军新闻发言人申进科大校2月9日发布消息，中国自主研制的新一代隐身战斗机歼-20，开始列装空军作战部队，向全面形成作战能力迈出重要一步。
　　歼-20战机于2016年11月参加中国珠海国际航展，首次公开进行飞行展示；2017年7月参加庆祝中国人民解放军建军90周年阅兵，首次以战斗姿态展示在世人面前，标志着空军向空天一体、攻防兼备的目标迈出了新的步伐。
　　歼-20战机交付空军后，实战实训逐步展开，飞行人才稳步成长，在空军“红剑-2017”体系对抗演习中发挥重要作用，为空军新质作战能力的提升打下基础。
　　空军发言人表示，空军正向全疆域作战的现代化战略性军种迈进，成为有效塑造态势、管控危机、遏制战争、打赢战争的重要力量。歼-20战机列装空军作战部队，将进一步提升空军综合作战能力，有助于空军更好的肩负起维护国家主权、安全和领土完整的神圣使命。

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Dungeness said:


> 2/9/2018, J-20 formally enter into PLAAF active service.
> 
> 中国空军新闻发言人申进科大校2月9日发布消息，中国自主研制的新一代隐身战斗机歼-20，开始列装空军作战部队，向全面形成作战能力迈出重要一步。
> 歼-20战机于2016年11月参加中国珠海国际航展，首次公开进行飞行展示；2017年7月参加庆祝中国人民解放军建军90周年阅兵，首次以战斗姿态展示在世人面前，标志着空军向空天一体、攻防兼备的目标迈出了新的步伐。
> 歼-20战机交付空军后，实战实训逐步展开，飞行人才稳步成长，在空军“红剑-2017”体系对抗演习中发挥重要作用，为空军新质作战能力的提升打下基础。
> 空军发言人表示，空军正向全疆域作战的现代化战略性军种迈进，成为有效塑造态势、管控危机、遏制战争、打赢战争的重要力量。歼-20战机列装空军作战部队，将进一步提升空军综合作战能力，有助于空军更好的肩负起维护国家主权、安全和领土完整的神圣使命。




Interesting but even if the PLAAF officially confirmed this already last year, it is the first time it notes "full operational combat ready" aka some sort of FOC.

Come on ... all i want to know is what front-line unit gained them first. 

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dungeness

Deino said:


> Interesting but even if the PLAAF officially confirmed this already last year, it is the first time it notes "full operational combat ready" aka some sort of FOC.
> 
> Come on ... all i want to know is what front-line unit gained them first.
> 
> Deino



The information you are interested in is scattered around on Chinese forums. Now let's talk about the importance of learning Chinese.


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Any idea where they go to?
> Eastern Theater Command does not leave that many options for a newly equipped Brigade:
> 
> There are the Fuzhou and Shanghai Bases with their Brigades:
> 
> - Fuzhou at first (as it seems former 14th AD) just received J-16 (40th Brig) and is equipped with J-11B (41st Brig) … the third unit is a J-7E unit (42nd Brig) but this is unconfirmed and IMO not a prime candidate for getting the latest high-end fighter.
> 
> - Shanghai in return (the original one + former 3rd AD) has also just received J-16 (7th Brig), flies J-10A (8th) and Su-30MKK (9th) ... as such are quite new types, whereas the 78th has J-8DH, the 85th has Su-30MKK (maybe moved to Fuzhou), the 86th has J-7E and finally the 93rd with JZ-8F. So also at best the 78th Brigade at Shanghai.
> 
> Hmmm … anyway another important milestone if true.
> 
> Deino



The 9th

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> The 9th




So the 7th Brigade is getting J-16, which are are replacing the Su-30MKK in the 9th which in return gets J-20As ? That would make perfectly sense.

However why they not directly replaces the Su-30MKK with J-16 and assign J-20s to the 7th I don't know.

Thanks, 
Deino


----------



## 52051

The 9th brigade who get J-20s, is stationed in Wuhu, which is responsible for the East China sea direction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> The 9th brigade who get J-20s, is stationed in Wuhu, which is responsible for the East China sea direction.



Indeed ... I only wonder, why the PLAAF does not directly replaces the Su-30MKK with J-16 in the 9th Brigade and assign J-20s to the 7th.


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> Indeed ... I only wonder, why the PLAAF does not directly replaces the Su-30MKK with J-16 in the 9th Brigade and assign J-20s to the 7th.



Thats's because PLA want to hide the electronic/performance features of the fighters they plan to depend on in wartime.

In east China sea there are lots electronic warfare planes there from both sides everyday, all try to steal the electronic signature and other features (I dont know how to say the term in english but you get the idea) of enemy's fighters to gain an upper hand in wartime.

To PLA, Su-30/35 are frontline fighter and conduct daily patrol mission in peacetime with US fighters, etc, since Su-3x are Russian fighters that exported to all over the world, therefore there is little point to hide their performance/electronic signatures etc , the US may already know that.

The 9th brigade's mission include both patrol in peacetime and strike/interception mission in wartime, to conduct their patrol mission, they need patrol fighters: either imported fighters or somewhat outdated fighters.

Thats why you only see old school PLA fighters or imported fighters whenever there are some peacetime interception made in the news, they certainly would not want to put their newly induced J-20/J-16 in east China sea frontline for enemy to inspect.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 52051




----------



## lcloo

How many jets are there in a fully equiped airforce brigade? I read that 3 former regiments combined to make up 1 brigade. So in full strength there should be 24 X 3 = 72 aircraft. Correct me if I am wrong.

So how many J-20s are there now that PLAAF has made the statement, 12, 24 or 36? (assumed equal numbers of J-20 and J-16 in a brigade).


----------



## Deino

I want images !!!!!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/961924439653797889

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> Thats's because PLA want to hide the electronic/performance features of the fighters they plan to depend on in wartime.
> 
> In east China sea there are lots electronic warfare planes there from both sides everyday, all try to steal the electronic signature and other features (I dont know how to say the term in english but you get the idea) of enemy's fighters to gain an upper hand in wartime.
> 
> To PLA, Su-30/35 are frontline fighter and conduct daily patrol mission in peacetime with US fighters, etc, since Su-3x are Russian fighters that exported to all over the world, therefore there is little point to hide their performance/electronic signatures etc , the US may already know that.
> 
> The 9th brigade's mission include both patrol in peacetime and strike/interception mission in wartime, to conduct their patrol mission, they need patrol fighters: either imported fighters or somewhat outdated fighters.
> 
> Thats why you only see old school PLA fighters or imported fighters whenever there are some peacetime interception made in the news, they certainly would not want to put their newly induced J-20/J-16 in east China sea frontline for enemy to inspect.




But if both are updated anyway, why this unusual change?

AFAIK the 7th had J-7E until mid 2017. ... So we had:

- the 7th with J-7E now being replaced by J-16s
- the 8th with J-10A/AS
- the 9th with Su-30MKK (eventualyl being replaced by J-20)

My point is that it would seem to make more logical sense on paper to replace the 9th MKK with J-16 if both are updated anyway especialyl if the 7th and 9th are both operated off the same base. Or does anyone know if the 9th have a particular history that might single them out for a prestige role, overriding operational logic?

Deino


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## clarkgap

Figaro said:


> New bird?



Old J-20s was sent to 9th bridge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> But if both are updated anyway, why this unusual change?
> 
> AFAIK the 7th had J-7E until mid 2017. ... So we had:
> 
> - the 7th with J-7E now being replaced by J-16s
> - the 8th with J-10A/AS
> - the 9th with Su-30MKK (eventualyl being replaced by J-20)
> 
> My point is that it would seem to make more logical sense on paper to replace the 9th MKK with J-16 if both are updated anyway especialyl if the 7th and 9th are both operated off the same base. Or does anyone know if the 9th have a particular history that might single them out for a prestige role, overriding operational logic?
> 
> Deino



Well, I think that is more to do with the tradion of the force, due to the difference of history/training/excerise performance, there are elite/ace combat force and there are average force, elite force can get their equipments better and update more freqently than the regular force.

I think 9th brigade should be considered as an elite brigade in PLA due to their history or training/exercise/mission performance so the PLA want to give them the best fighters they get.

Note that 9th brigade is also the first few force who recieved Su-27 back in 1990s, so it is definitely an elite force who get priority in PLA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BHarwana

here is the video


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/962012668444815362

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng

copyright OF JacKsonbobo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## BHarwana

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/962098790927749120


----------



## Deino

clarkgap said:


> Old J-20s was sent to 9th bridge.





BHarwana said:


> here is the video
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/962012668444815362




But that's my concern ... this video is not from this alleged "new" unit - by their serial 78272 from the well known unit - and also the others are from the parade and from Zhuhai...

So are these "merely" J-20As from the well known unit temporarily assigned to on operational mission at Wuhu?


----------



## BHarwana

Deino said:


> But that's my concern ... this video is not from this alleged "new" unit - by their serial 78272 from the well known unit - and also the others are from the parade and from Zhuhai...
> 
> So are these "merely" J-20As from the well known unit temporarily assigned to on operational mission at Wuhu?



Let me see If I can find more image of this news and I will quote you and then we can discuss it better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Amazing shots ... but all older ones.

I esp. like these ones. 










__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/962282766883868672

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BHarwana



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> But that's my concern ... this video is not from this alleged "new" unit - by their serial 78272 from the well known unit - and also the others are from the parade and from Zhuhai...
> 
> So are these "merely" *J-20A*s from the well known unit temporarily assigned to on operational mission at Wuhu?



What is the improvement of J-20A compared to the J-20?


----------



## Deino

Brainsucker said:


> What is the improvement of J-20A compared to the J-20?



To admit officially AFAIK there is no difference between J-20 and J-20A, at best it is used for the WS-10-powered variant. I however prefer to use it already without confirmation since the original J-10 was the J-10, which became the slightly improved J-10A in its operational form now and since we have the J-20 demonstrators and the revised true prototypes & LRIP-birds I call the demonstrators J-20 and from the 201x-prototypes I call them J-20A.

Sorry for any confusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

20, 20, 20, 20, 20........................ and a few J-16.







No.... looks like no 20..... SORRY.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> 20, 20, 20, 20, ....



Are you sure? That is for sure Canzhou but as far as I know that image only shows Su-30s.


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> ...No.... looks like no 20..... SORRY.
> View attachment 453539




Thanks for posting this image even if I'm sorry that these birds are indeed NO J-20s: I remember that I've seen it already but I did not have it at hand.

Best,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cookie Monster

BHarwana said:


> here is the video
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/962012668444815362


@Deino In this video, one of the J20s is shown taxiing with its canards in the vertical position. The tails of the J20 are also moveable in such a way along with the canards that they can be used as air breaks.

I'm curious to know if these control surfaces would be used as airbreaks for short landing(if necessary)?

Also with the addition of the WS15 engine(when it's ready) and along with its control surfaces serving as massive air brakes...is it possible that the J20 can have a STOL(Short Take Off and Landing) capability?


----------



## gambit

Cookie Monster said:


> @Deino In this video, one of the J20s is shown taxiing with its canards in the vertical position. The tails of the J20 are also moveable in such a way along with the canards that they can be used as air breaks.
> 
> I'm curious to know *if these control surfaces would be used as airbreaks for short landing(if necessary)?*
> 
> Also with the addition of the WS15 engine(when it's ready) and along with its control surfaces serving as massive air brakes...is it possible that the J20 can have a STOL(Short Take Off and Landing) capability?


Airbrake and speedbrake are used interchangeably, but the preferred is 'speedbrake'.

Now...Regarding the video. At timestamp 0:03, we see the J-20's canards are in what seems to be full deflection, but there is a crucial visual clue that most would miss: *LEADING EDGE DOWN*.

Whether it is leading edge (LE) down or up is important for the flight controls engineer. It depends on the *MODE OF OPERATION* or to put simply -- what the aircraft is doing at that moment in *TRANSITION* to what you want the aircraft to do.

What you want the aircraft to do implies a *FUTURE* mode of operation. So at the time of change, as the pilot changes cockpit switches, the jet will know how to deflect the flight control surfaces to make controls smoothly and safely.

So what is so significant about LE down?

If it is LE up, you would create a nose-up condition, which when you are moving on the ground trying to land in as short a distance as possible, a nose-up condition would be a very bad thing to do.

Further, we do not want this level of deflection while the jet is still flying. Leading Edge (LE) down is nose-down. Full LE down command while still in the air would mean a crash. So we install a safety condition call 'weight-on-wheels' (WOW). All aircrafts has WOW automatic switching. Another word is 'squat switch'.

http://www.askacfi.com/20020/squat-switch.htm


> The *Squat Switch (also called Weight on Wheels Switch, or WoW)* is mounted on the telescoping landing gear by two attach points.
> 
> The Squat Switch actually activates/deactivates the Touchdown Relay. The landing gear, certain avionics, and many accessories are all wired through the Touchdown Relay. The idea, obviously, is *to prevent inappropriate systems from functioning when not in a safe condition to do so.*


The F-16 has three WOW switches -- one per gear -- and there is a logic to this.

So if the J-20's flight controls engineer want to design a safe speedbrake system using the canards, how would he do this *LOGICALLY*?

If you have WOW on the main gear, that means the jet has only a *PARTIAL* touchdown condition. Whether the jet is in a take-off or landing mode, partial WOW means a partial ground condition. You want WOW on all three landing gear struts before the avionics fully reconfigure itself for landing.

So in general principles, the logic would be in this sequence:

- Cockpit switch activation (this essentially prepare the avionics to let the system know that you want to land)

- Main WOW switches active (this tells the avionics that the jet is partially on the ground)

- Nose WOW switch active (this tells the avionics that the jet is fully on the ground)

- Canards LE down

All three WOW switches must be active in order for the canards to deflect LE down. The avionics should not expect first main gear WOW, then nose WOW. The logic should not be a 'first-then-second' or sequential condition. The logic should be a simple 'and' condition because there will be times when a jet could land with all three landing gear making ground contact at the same time. It would not be a smooth landing but it is possible, so we just want to know when the jet is fully on the ground.

Now we come to the vertical stabilators and how they could be used as speedbrakes.






Note the F-18's vertical stabs, especially the rudders. And note that the vertical stabilator and the rudder are not the same thing, even though people uses the two words interchangeably. The stab *CONTAINS* the rudder. Or the rudder is a component of the stab.

The F-18 is clearly taking off as we do not see the arresting cable anywhere. The rudders are pointing inwards, or in a 'toe-in' condition. This condition assists the horizontal stabs in generating down force, which means nose-up, which assists take-off. This toe-in condition also exists on landing to generate additional aerodynamic drag.

What is the difference between 'toe-in' and 'toe-out' ? Certainly they generate some kind of forces but also certainly those forces are different in directions.

- If the vertical stabs are canted (angled) outward, rudders toe-in would generate downward force to assist nose-up. So to generate drag to slow down the jet, rudders should be toe-out.

- If the vertical stabs are canted (angled) inward, rudders toe-out would generate downward force to assist nose-up. So to generate drag to slow down the jet, rudders should be toe-in.

The above two rules are not absolute as the F-18's avionics uses toe-in and toe-out with different angle-of-attack.

So for the J-20, until someone post a video of the J-20 landing and showing from the rear perspective, we do not know for certain how the J-20's flight controls engineering staff uses the vertical stabs during landing. But we can have a high degree of confidence that the J-20's vertical stabs are used in some ways as speedbrakes. Even though the J-20 do not have rudders, the all-moving stabs can still be used in the same ways as the rudders.

This does not mean the J-20 can exhibit true S/TOL capability. Speedbrakes are used by the F-15, F-16, and F-22 and they do not have true reduced runway length landing capability. For that, we need thrust redirection, aka 'reverser'.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 52051

More rumors about initial exercises of J-20 from reputable members in fyjs, this time J-20 is not equiped with lens so the RCS is not comprised:



> 一架歼20对付4架歼10，打狗斗，4架歼10咬住歼20，（歼20故意让歼10咬尾）歼20两个“大滚坡”，一个加力爬升，歼10找不着了，连干扰弹都没扔...........
> 
> 两架歼20穿透防空系统，防空系统由S300，红旗-16A，空警500，高新机跟几架歼10机组成，歼20一高一低，低的打S300跟红旗16A，高的打空警500跟高新机，打完了扬长而去，电科的几个高工直冒冷汗........
> 
> 两架歼20对付一个中队的歼10，歼10有空警500与地面雷达配合，歼20飞到15000米高空，捕捉到预警机的信号，直扑过去，打掉了预警机，扭头打歼10编队，32分钟结束战斗.........
> 
> 两架歼20对付一个中队的歼10，歼10有空警500与若干架高新机跟地面雷达配合，歼20飞到15000米高空，捕捉到预警机跟高新机信号，直扑过去，打掉预警机跟高新机，扭头打歼10编队，46分钟结束战斗.........


http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1890684&extra=page=&page=1

Rough translation:

1 J20 vs 4 J-10 in dog-fight, the J-20 leave the rear end to 4 J-10s, but climb suddenly with afterburn, all J-10 lost tracks, the J-20 have not release any countermeasures at all.

2 J20 vs defence array consist of C300/HQ-16A SAM and KJ500 AWACS and several J-10, the first J-20 take down KJ500, the second J-20 take out all SAM batteries, then they finish the mission and leave, neither J-10 nor KJ-500 have any response during the exerise, the senior engineers of the AESA radar developer for KJ-500 is very impressed about J-20's performance.

2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a electronic warfare plane, J-20 climb to 15,000 meter ceil, locate the KJ-500 and the EW plane, rush down to finish them and then take out the 4 J-10s, the whole fight last for 46 mins.

2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a ground radar station, same story, the J-20s climb to high ceil and take out KJ-500, then finish off the J-10s, the whole combat last for 32 mins.

Like some senior scientist in China claimed once: stealth fighter is the nuke weapon in our time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

52051 said:


> More rumors about initial exercises of J-20 from reputable members in fyjs, this time J-20 is not equiped with lens so the RCS is not comprised:
> 
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1890684&extra=page=&page=1
> 
> Rough translation:
> 
> 1 J20 vs 4 J-10 in dog-fight, the J-20 leave the rear end to 4 J-10s, but climb suddenly with afterburn, all J-10 lost tracks, the J-20 have not release any countermeasures at all.
> 
> 2 J20 vs defence array consist of C300/HQ-16A SAM and KJ500 AWACS and several J-10, the first J-20 take down KJ500, the second J-20 take out all SAM batteries, then they finish the mission and leave, neither J-10 nor KJ-500 have any response during the exerise, the senior engineers of the AESA radar developer for KJ-500 is very impressed about J-20's performance.
> 
> 2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a electronic warfare plane, J-20 climb to 15,000 meter ceil, locate the KJ-500 and the EW plane, rush down to finish them and then take out the 4 J-10s, the whole fight last for 46 mins.
> 
> 2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a ground radar station, same story, the J-20s climb to high ceil and take out KJ-500, then finish off the J-10s, the whole combat last for 32 mins.
> 
> Like some senior scientist in China claimed once: stealth fighter is the nuke weapon in our time.



So basically China needs a new radar to detect stealth fighter. Because in a fight against F-22, KJ-500 is impotent. I don't know about F-35, as it has less stealth feature. But at the same time, most of AEWAC in the world also impotent to stealth fighter. Yet, it's not an excuse. Maybe that's why they allow those senior scientists who develop KJ-500 to watch the exercise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

Brainsucker said:


> So basically China needs a new radar to detect stealth fighter. Because in a fight against F-22, KJ-500 is impotent. I don't know about F-35, as it has less stealth feature. But at the same time, most of AEWAC in the world also impotent to stealth fighter.



My take is these exericses have not involved ground anti-stealth radar array yet


----------



## Brainsucker

52051 said:


> My take is these exericses have not involved ground anti-stealth radar array yet



They use SAM system like C-300 and HQ-16A SAM, so they use ground radar array too. But maybe not the anti stealth radar. But what is Chinese ground anti stealth radar array? And what about KJ-500? Is it not an anti stealth AWAC?


----------



## 52051

Brainsucker said:


> They use SAM system like C-300 and HQ-16A SAM, so they use ground radar array too. But maybe not the anti stealth radar. But what is Chinese ground anti stealth radar array? And what about KJ-500? Is it not an anti stealth AWAC?



China have developed several models of anti-stealth radar, but my take is they can somehow locate the rough region where the stealth fighter could be, but dont have the accuracy required to guide missiles there, so you can regard such radar as early warning radar.

Such radar usually are tool large to put on airborne platform.


----------



## Brainsucker

52051 said:


> China have developed several models of anti-stealth radar, but my take is they can somehow locate the rough region where the stealth fighter could be, but dont have the accuracy required to guide missiles there, so you can regard such radar as early warning radar.
> 
> Such radar usually are tool large to put on airborne platform.



And do you see what funny with the exercise? Those Senior Engineers who develop KJ-500 are there. It just like a harsh reality that act as an eye opener to them


----------



## 52051

Brainsucker said:


> And do you see what funny with the exercise? Those Senior Engineers who develop KJ-500 are there. It just like a harsh reality that act as an eye opener to them



Not surprise, the stealth fighter is optimized to radar freqency that offer the highest possible resolution, whilst radar operates at other freqency may find the stealth fighter, the resolution is limited, thus they are not clear enough to locate it, maybe eventually with the aids of AI/machine learning/multi-source sensors, one can figure out a reliable way to track stealth fighters, or one may develop radar of new mechanism like China's quantum radar under R&D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

gambit said:


> Airbrake and speedbrake are used interchangeably, but the preferred is 'speedbrake'.
> 
> Now...Regarding the video. At timestamp 0:03, we see the J-20's canards are in what seems to be full deflection, but there is a crucial visual clue that most would miss: *LEADING EDGE DOWN*.
> 
> Whether it is leading edge (LE) down or up is important for the flight controls engineer. It depends on the *MODE OF OPERATION* or to put simply -- what the aircraft is doing at that moment in *TRANSITION* to what you want the aircraft to do.
> 
> What you want the aircraft to do implies a *FUTURE* mode of operation. So at the time of change, as the pilot changes cockpit switches, the jet will know how to deflect the flight control surfaces to make controls smoothly and safely.
> 
> So what is so significant about LE down?
> 
> If it is LE up, you would create a nose-up condition, which when you are moving on the ground trying to land in as short a distance as possible, a nose-up condition would be a very bad thing to do.
> 
> Further, we do not want this level of deflection while the jet is still flying. Leading Edge (LE) down is nose-down. Full LE down command while still in the air would mean a crash. So we install a safety condition call 'weight-on-wheels' (WOW). All aircrafts has WOW automatic switching. Another word is 'squat switch'.
> 
> http://www.askacfi.com/20020/squat-switch.htm
> 
> The F-16 has three WOW switches -- one per gear -- and there is a logic to this.
> 
> So if the J-20's flight controls engineer want to design a safe speedbrake system using the canards, how would he do this *LOGICALLY*?
> 
> If you have WOW on the main gear, that means the jet has only a *PARTIAL* touchdown condition. Whether the jet is in a take-off or landing mode, partial WOW means a partial ground condition. You want WOW on all three landing gear struts before the avionics fully reconfigure itself for landing.
> 
> So in general principles, the logic would be in this sequence:
> 
> - Cockpit switch activation (this essentially prepare the avionics to let the system know that you want to land)
> 
> - Main WOW switches active (this tells the avionics that the jet is partially on the ground)
> 
> - Nose WOW switch active (this tells the avionics that the jet is fully on the ground)
> 
> - Canards LE down
> 
> All three WOW switches must be active in order for the canards to deflect LE down. The avionics should not expect first main gear WOW, then nose WOW. The logic should not be a 'first-then-second' or sequential condition. The logic should be a simple 'and' condition because there will be times when a jet could land with all three landing gear making ground contact at the same time. It would not be a smooth landing but it is possible, so we just want to know when the jet is fully on the ground.
> 
> Now we come to the vertical stabilators and how they could be used as speedbrakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the F-18's vertical stabs, especially the rudders. And note that the vertical stabilator and the rudder are not the same thing, even though people uses the two words interchangeably. The stab *CONTAINS* the rudder. Or the rudder is a component of the stab.
> 
> The F-18 is clearly taking off as we do not see the arresting cable anywhere. The rudders are pointing inwards, or in a 'toe-in' condition. This condition assists the horizontal stabs in generating down force, which means nose-up, which assists take-off. This toe-in condition also exists on landing to generate additional aerodynamic drag.
> 
> What is the difference between 'toe-in' and 'toe-out' ? Certainly they generate some kind of forces but also certainly those forces are different in directions.
> 
> - If the vertical stabs are canted (angled) outward, rudders toe-in would generate downward force to assist nose-up. So to generate drag to slow down the jet, rudders should be toe-out.
> 
> - If the vertical stabs are canted (angled) inward, rudders toe-out would generate downward force to assist nose-up. So to generate drag to slow down the jet, rudders should be toe-in.
> 
> The above two rules are not absolute as the F-18's avionics uses toe-in and toe-out with different angle-of-attack.
> 
> So for the J-20, until someone post a video of the J-20 landing and showing from the rear perspective, we do not know for certain how the J-20's flight controls engineering staff uses the vertical stabs during landing. But we can have a high degree of confidence that the J-20's vertical stabs are used in some ways as speedbrakes. Even though the J-20 do not have rudders, the all-moving stabs can still be used in the same ways as the rudders.
> 
> This does not mean the J-20 can exhibit true S/TOL capability. Speedbrakes are used by the F-15, F-16, and F-22 and they do not have true reduced runway length landing capability. For that, we need thrust redirection, aka 'reverser'.


While the canards along with the all moving vertical stabilizers may not necessarily be enough(as speed brakes) to guarantee short landing ability...they would certainly be the biggest(together in terms of surface area) speed brakes on any fighter jet I've seen...including F15, F16, and F22.

I was just curious after seeing pictures/videos of the canards and vertical stabilizers in positions where they can serve as speed brakes. This in addition to J20 eventually having more powerful engines(for possible shorter take off) led me to think that STOL may be possible. Thanks for ur detailed explanation...much appreciated.


----------



## gambit

Cookie Monster said:


> While the canards along with the all moving vertical stabilizers may not necessarily be enough(as speed brakes) to guarantee short landing ability...they would certainly be the biggest(together in terms of surface area) speed brakes on any fighter jet I've seen...including F15, F16, and F22.


Regardless of runway length, you always want to land in as short a distance as possible. Does not matter military or civilian, for any aircraft, the most vulnerable points of a flight are the take-off and landing. Get as fast as you can, then get as slow as you can. Whatever in between is the proverbial gravy.



Cookie Monster said:


> I was just curious after seeing pictures/videos of the canards and vertical stabilizers in positions where they can serve as speed brakes. This in addition to J20 eventually having more powerful engines(for possible shorter take off) led me to think that STOL may be possible.


You are actually not that far off.

http://www.flight-mechanic.com/energy/


> Potential energy is defined as being energy at rest, or energy that is stored. Potential energy may be classified into three groups: (1) that due to position, *(2) that due to distortion of an elastic body,* and (3) that which produces work through chemical action.


Note no. 2.



> ...a stretched bungee chord on a Piper Tri-Pacer or compressed spring are examples of the *second group*;


At end-or-runway (EOR) at take-off, you will do what pilots calls 'stands on the brakes', meaning you will apply maximum pressure on the brake pedals, then you will throttle up.

At this point, the combination of engine thrust and restraint via the brakes turned the entire jet into something -- as the laws of physics says -- similar to a coiled spring. Lots of potential energy.

If engine thrust is powerful enough, the jet will start to move forward while the wheels are still locked. Practically all jets can do this and it is a *BAD* condition to be in. You will learn to gauge when to release the brakes and each aircraft has its unique point. My aviation experience began in high school with a Cessna 152.

So is there a way to build up as much potential energy as possible to achieve as high a take-off speed as possible in as short a runway distance as possible?

Yes, an external restraint. In other words, have something hold the jet down while engine thrust go as high as afterburner. But this is actually an impractical idea for most situations.

The alternative is to have as large wing surface areas as possible and this is what the C-130 and C-17 can do. At take-off, engines runs up to maximum, pilots stands on the brakes, and flaps/slats fully extended. At the right moment, the pilot released the brakes and the ideal combination produced the desired short take-off capability. There are plenty of C-17 short take-off videos on youtube. Look them up.



Cookie Monster said:


> Thanks for ur detailed explanation...much appreciated.


Yer welcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> Airbrake and speedbrake are used interchangeably, but the preferred is 'speedbrake'.
> 
> Now...Regarding the video. At timestamp 0:03, we see the J-20's canards are in what seems to be full deflection, but there is a crucial visual clue that most would miss: *LEADING EDGE DOWN*.
> 
> Whether it is leading edge (LE) down or up is important for the flight controls engineer. It depends on the *MODE OF OPERATION* or to put simply -- what the aircraft is doing at that moment in *TRANSITION* to what you want the aircraft to do.
> 
> What you want the aircraft to do implies a *FUTURE* mode of operation. So at the time of change, as the pilot changes cockpit switches, the jet will know how to deflect the flight control surfaces to make controls smoothly and safely.
> 
> So what is so significant about LE down?



lol. Don't get upset with me, I've know you for a long time so a bit of ball busting you should take lightly, especially coming from me yes? But this (below) is all you really needed to say looool! 



gambit said:


> If it is LE up, you would create a nose-up condition, which when you are moving on the ground trying to land in as short a distance as possible, a nose-up condition would be a very bad thing to do.



So it's always leading edge down when used as a speedbrake and leading edge up for take-off.

And I doubt that you'll see the deflection of the canards that drastic as in the taxiing video, as in almost vertical. They'll probably deflect about as much as the Gripen does when it uses them as speedbrakes.


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> And I doubt that you'll see the deflection of the canards that drastic as in the taxiing video, *as in almost vertical.* They'll probably deflect about as much as the Gripen does when it uses them as speedbrakes.


I am suspicious about that -- the highlighted -- based upon what I understand of flight control laws. Ninety deg is an extreme and in general we want to avoid extremes.

My guess is that the extreme deflection is based upon the combination of ground speed and that I think that extreme is unnecessary.

We know that surface deflection is based upon a combination of speed, gyro input, accelerometer input, air data, and pilot command. The lower the forward speed, the higher the deflection. But if the canards are used for speedbrake purposes, then WOW should replace pilot command. At taxiing speed, air data is irrelevant as the jet is moving too slow for any air pressure in the pitot-static system to have any significant effects. At ramp speed, meaning the jet is on the flightline ramp and not the runway, the brakes would have greater effects on the jet than the canards' deflection to assist in slowing down the jet.

So why the high deflection?


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> I am suspicious about that -- the highlighted -- based upon what I understand of flight control laws. Ninety deg is an extreme and in general we want to avoid extremes.
> 
> My guess is that the extreme deflection is based upon the combination of ground speed and that I think that extreme is unnecessary.
> 
> We know that surface deflection is based upon a combination of speed, gyro input, accelerometer input, air data, and pilot command. The lower the forward speed, the higher the deflection. But if the canards are used for speedbrake purposes, then WOW should replace pilot command. At taxiing speed, air data is irrelevant as the jet is moving too slow for any air pressure in the pitot-static system to have any significant effects. At ramp speed, meaning the jet is on the flightline ramp and not the runway, the brakes would have greater effects on the jet than the canards' deflection to assist in slowing down the jet.
> 
> So why the high deflection?



That's what I was saying. I don't think you will see the canard deflect so drastically (as in 90 degrees) when used as speed brakes. Although conventional wisdom would make you think that putting them as flat up against the air is the optimal way to use them as speed brakes and that way you'd get the maximum air stoppage with them being in that position. But if I'm not mistaken, that probably goes against the wanted aerodynamics of airflow since they probably wouldn't want that much blocked air, but rather have a certain amount of airflow to still pass over the canards. If the canards went up to 90 degrees, you're blocking all the air that's hitting them and hence creating unwanted turbulence? Does that make sense? That turbulence will make the front of the aircraft unstable is my guess and so the deflection is not as drastic as 90 degrees in order to still have some airflow to reduce unwanted turbulence. That's just my guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Gomig-21 said:


> That's what I was saying. I don't think you will see the canard deflect so drastically (as in 90 degrees) when used as speed brakes. Although conventional wisdom would make you think that putting them as flat up against the air is the optimal way to use them as speed brakes and that way you'd get the maximum air stoppage with them being in that position. But if I'm not mistaken, that probably goes against the wanted aerodynamics of airflow since they probably wouldn't want that much blocked air, but rather have a certain amount of airflow to still pass over the canards. If the canards went up to 90 degrees, you're blocking all the air that's hitting them and hence creating unwanted turbulence? Does that make sense? That turbulence will make the front of the aircraft unstable is my guess and so the deflection is not as drastic as 90 degrees in order to still have some airflow to reduce unwanted turbulence. That's just my guess.


I would guess the reason to not have them deflect at 90 degrees at high speeds(which is when it can be effective as a speed brake) might have to do more with the amount of stress it will place upon the joint(of the canard). Though the instability factor as u mentioned still would apply but I think it can be taken care of to some extent with the WOW(weight on wheels) thing as gambit mentioned. Once all the wheels have touched down and the aircraft is running flat on the runway, theoretically the instability(nose down) would no longer be the case with a flat 90 degree turn of canards as speed brakes.


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> That's what I was saying. I don't think you will see the canard deflect so drastically (as in 90 degrees) when used as speed brakes. Although conventional wisdom would make you think that putting them as flat up against the air is the optimal way to use them as speed brakes and that way you'd get the maximum air stoppage with them being in that position. But if I'm not mistaken, that probably goes against the wanted aerodynamics of airflow since they probably wouldn't want that much blocked air, but rather have a certain amount of airflow to still pass over the canards. If the canards went up to 90 degrees, you're blocking all the air that's hitting them and hence creating unwanted turbulence? Does that make sense? That turbulence will make the front of the aircraft unstable is my guess and so the deflection is not as drastic as 90 degrees in order to still have some airflow to reduce unwanted turbulence. That's just my guess.


I talked to a tire engineer once. Tire -- not tired. 

He asked: "What slows down your car?"

Answer: Your tires, not your brakes.

So when I looked at the J-20's seemingly full canard deflection, any force on the canards would translate *LONGITUDINALLY*, meaning along the jet's body axis. It would work, but it would be not as efficient as some pressure on the nose wheel to increase contact pressure to the runway. Contact pressure equates to improved controllability.

But the counter-argument would be: "What about the drag chute upon landing?"

That is a fair question since the drag chute would impart force along the jet's longitudinal axis, slowing it down.

Which then begs the question: "Then what is the point of using the flight control surfaces in coordination with each other as speedbrake mechanism?"

Drag chutes are actually dangerous, especially in high and/or cross wind. The F-4 has a no drag chute rule if cross wind >= 20 kts.

The drag chute is in no way implies a S/TOL capability and the J-20 uses drag chutes on landing.

So at what ground speed does the J-20 pilot discard the two drag chutes?

If the J-20's ground speed after drag chutes deployment is slow enough, why the need to use speedbrakes in any manner?

This is why I find the J-20's canards in full LE down deflection at ramp speed -- curious.


----------



## Gomig-21

Cookie Monster said:


> I would guess the reason to not have them deflect at 90 degrees at high speeds(which is when it can be effective as a speed brake) might have to do more with the amount of stress it will place upon the joint(of the canard). Though the instability factor as u mentioned still would apply but I think it can be taken care of to some extent with the WOW(weight on wheels) thing as gambit mentioned. Once all the wheels have touched down and the aircraft is running flat on the runway, *theoretically the instability(nose down) would no longer be the case with a flat 90 degree turn of canards as speed brakes.*



Would it, though? I'm not sure about that TBH. I completely understand what you're saying and I even thought about that but then realized that if the canards are not creating any airflow at all (meaning they're at 90 degrees) you lose that downward pressure on the wheels, hence negating the WoW. Now you don't have a stable front end of an aircraft. To me, it seems very important to still have that WoW and pressure on the front end to maintain control which the canards would create.

I also thought about the pressure on the canard hinge you mentioned, but I also think that's a non-factor. Reason being is that you don't have that much pressure on it at the point during the landing and the aircraft is slowing down since those hinges (or actuators whatever you want to call them) take a tremendous amount of pressure when the bird is flying and simply turning, or doing a barrel roll or going straight up from a level position. 

When the aircraft is flying at let's say 350 knts (400mph) and then suddenly pitches up, the pressure and stress on those actuators is much greater than what they would endure when the aircraft is landing at 150 knts and slowing down. I'm also guessing that the J-20 pitches up and down and puts much greater stress & pressure on those canards at much higher speeds than 350 knts.

A lot of stress here.






And here.






Even during a high-speed minimum radius turn, I bet there is much more stress on those actuators than when it's landing at much slower speeds.






Or maybe it does deflect them to the max when landing?


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


>


That image does not tell us anything. At best, we can guess landing.

Where are the drag chutes?

If the drag chutes were discarded, what was the groundspeed at that time?

Those canards are practically 90 deg LE down. For what? The drag chutes were to slow the jet upon landing, but even once they are discarded, the jet's ground speed is still high enough that we need to use the flight control surfaces to act as speedbrakes?


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> I talked to a tire engineer once. Tire -- not tired.
> 
> He asked: "What slows down your car?"
> 
> Answer: Your tires, not your brakes.



Makes total sense. Brakes are essentially ineffective if you don't have that grip from the tires.



gambit said:


> So when I looked at the J-20's seemingly full canard deflection, any force on the canards would translate *LONGITUDINALLY*, meaning along the jet's body axis. It would work, but it would be not as efficient as some pressure on the nose wheel to increase contact pressure to the runway. Contact pressure equates to improved controllability.



That's what I was thinking. You need that downward pressure on the aircraft's nose to get that tire grip to get that deceleration while keeping control of the front of the aircraft. 

I think it's the same principle in other designed aircraft with no canards; the same downward front pressure is achieved by lowering the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizers? That essentially does the same thing as the canards, but I don't think it's as drastic since that would probably create too much downward pressure.

You can see how much those control surfaces impact the pitch of the aircraft in either direction as it doesn't take much. A simple, minor pull back on the stick during takeoff is all that's needed to lift the front end, and I'm thinking that the higher the airspeed, the less motion required on the stick, not factoring what the FBW system does on its own.

I remember seeing an instructional video on the MiG-15 take-off and the pilot was saying that you have to be really careful when you reach lift-off speed, to pull the stick back just a inch or so or you could get the aircraft to do a back flip! It seems the same applies even with these latest and greatest with FBW systems, you never see the pilot make much of a move on the stick to get the aircraft to respond.



gambit said:


> This is why I find the J-20's canards in full LE down deflection at ramp speed -- curious.



It is a bit strange that it had its canards in full down like that when it was taxiing. Could it be the same thing that the F-22 does and even F/A-18 pilots do sometimes when they also taxi and check/move the control surfaces for whatever reason? You see that a lot, especially with the Raptor. The pilot seems to gyrate the stick and get all the control surfaces to crank to max positions etc. Kinda like this here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CrusherChamp

Gomig-21 said:


> Would it, though? I'm not sure about that TBH. I completely understand what you're saying and I even thought about that but then realized that if the canards are not creating any airflow at all (meaning they're at 90 degrees) you lose that downward pressure on the wheels, hence negating the WoW. Now you don't have a stable front end of an aircraft. To me, it seems very important to still have that WoW and pressure on the front end to maintain control which the canards would create.
> 
> I also thought about the pressure on the canard hinge you mentioned, but I also think that's a non-factor. Reason being is that you don't have that much pressure on it at the point during the landing and the aircraft is slowing down since those hinges (or actuators whatever you want to call them) take a tremendous amount of pressure when the bird is flying and simply turning, or doing a barrel roll or going straight up from a level position.
> 
> When the aircraft is flying at let's say 350 knts (400mph) and then suddenly pitches up, the pressure and stress on those actuators is much greater than what they would endure when the aircraft is landing at 150 knts and slowing down. I'm also guessing that the J-20 pitches up and down and puts much greater stress & pressure on those canards at much higher speeds than 350 knts.
> 
> A lot of stress here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even during a high-speed minimum radius turn, I bet there is much more stress on those actuators than when it's landing at much slower speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe it does deflect them to the max when landing?


Baki gala chado tasweera kitni payyari ha........


----------



## Brainsucker

52051 said:


> Not surprise, the stealth fighter is optimized to radar freqency that offer the highest possible resolution, whilst radar operates at other freqency may find the stealth fighter, the resolution is limited, thus they are not clear enough to locate it, maybe eventually with the aids of AI/machine learning/multi-source sensors, one can figure out a reliable way to track stealth fighters, or one may develop radar of new mechanism like China's quantum radar under R&D.



The US claims that The Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye has been optimized to be able to detect a Fighter size Stealth Aircraft. Maybe it is not impossible to KJ-500 to be improved like the Hawkeye. But I doubt that it will be easy. And we don't know the effectiveness of the Hawkeye to detect J-20.


----------



## 52051

Brainsucker said:


> The US claims that The Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye has been optimized to be able to detect a Fighter size Stealth Aircraft. Maybe it is not impossible to KJ-500 to be improved like the Hawkeye. But I doubt that it will be easy. And we don't know the effectiveness of the Hawkeye to detect J-20.



The exercises details indicate how J-20 deal with AWACS: J-20 take full advantage of the problem with KJ-500 or E-2D whatever: their ceil limit, so J-20 will climb to high ceil to significantly reduce the detect range of AWACS and significantly increase their own detecting range against AWACS, so even if KJ500 have somewhat anti-stealth radar, it may still at disadvantage against J-20s.

So large, slow and high value AWACS is kind of outdated in the era of stealth fighters, they need low value high-ceil distributed UAV detecting nodes through datalinking to a network to deal with stealth fighters, SAC's new twin-body UAV is believed to serve such roles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> I think it's the same principle in other designed aircraft with no canards; the same downward front pressure is achieved by lowering the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizers?


In principle, it seems workable. But I think there has to be a limit on deflection degree. You do not want too much pressure on the nose gear as that could induce some slippage on the main, but I do not know of any aircraft that uses the rear stabs as you suggested to reduce landing roll distance. Instead, when I was learning to fly back in high school, you can deflect the rear stabs as though for take-off, but not as fully needed for take-off, and with reduced throttle you have the rear stabs working as speedbrakes without the risk of taking off due to reduced throttle setting.

When I was on the F-111, the speedbrake is the main landing gear door, so when the landing gear handle is lowered, speedbrake deployment is inevitable. But the main gear door can be deployed by itself as a speedbrake function, meaning open without the main gear deployment. Once the jet has full WOW, and with full forward wing sweep, the wing spoilers pops up to kill lift and to serves as speedbrakes.

When I was on the F-16, this jet has unique landing characteristics -- it seemingly does not want to land. You almost has to do things to force it to land, even if the jet is loaded with externals. The F-16 has speedbrakes on the sides of the engine that are toggled on the throttle. Once full WOW, it is only these speedbrakes and the wheel brakes that slows the jet. Often I think the F-16 does not need the speedbrakes as usually the jet lands with almost empty tanks hence so light that the wheel brakes are enough. Sometimes I thought GD put the slim speedbrakes there as psychological devices and not as real functional devices.



Gomig-21 said:


> I remember seeing an instructional video on the MiG-15 take-off and the pilot was saying that you have to be really careful when you reach lift-off speed, to pull the stick back just a inch or so or you could get the aircraft to do a back flip!


When I was on the F-111 stationed in the UK, I talked to a few pilots -- US and foreign -- who have flown the MIG-15 and in their opinions, it was the F-16 of its days. Revolutionary, touchy almost twitchy to handle even on the ground at beyond ramp speed. What you described is probably a function of flight controls responses and aerodynamics tendencies.



Gomig-21 said:


> *It is a bit strange that it had its canards in full down like that when it was taxiing.* Could it be the same thing that the F-22 does and even F/A-18 pilots do sometimes when they also taxi and check/move the control surfaces for whatever reason? You see that a lot, especially with the Raptor. The pilot seems to gyrate the stick and get all the control surfaces to crank to max positions etc. Kinda like this here.


It is strange. Not a bit but a lot.

If a pilot 'cycle' the flight controls surfaces, either before or after a flight, it is to do his own personal checks of the flight controls outside of the standard automatic FLCS checks done in the chocks. Normally, the FLCS are not cycled thru the automatic checks after a flight, only before. Once the pilot returned the control stick to normal, all surfaces returns to default positions.

But with the J-20's canards, full deflection while on ramp speed is at least curious. With my understanding of flight controls laws, canard actuation *SHOULD* comes from the computerized FLCS. Whatever the pilot do in the cockpit, once he returned the control stick to normal, the canards should return to horizontal as default positions, just like the other FLCS surfaces with their default positions. Full vertical as the default? That sounds awfully strange.

Pilot (manual) control of a close-coupled canard system? That is dangerous.

The Wright Flyer was a canard-ed aircraft. But it does not fly at speed of today's jet fighters, so the pilot can have full manual control of the canard. When you learn to fly, you will learn to make 'coordinated turns' where you will have to pay close attention to how much turn of the yoke, how much pull back on the yoke, how much rudder pedal, and how much throttle increase, in order to turn the aircraft without losing altitude and airspeed.

With computer assisted FLCS systems, you do not need to do that anymore. With the F-111, there is a mechanical device on the backbone call the 'pitch-roll assembly' that combine appropriate pitch and roll degrees in conjunction with pilot command. The jet make the coordinated turn for you.

With computer controlled FLCS system, like the F-16 and the J-20, the flight control computer performs electronics pitch-roll combine and compensation signals and sends out appropriate deflection voltage commands to the surfaces. The jet make the coordinated turn for you.

Therefore...I find it difficult to envision the J-20's flight controls design team allows even partial pilot (manual) activation of the canards. Am *NOT* saying it is technically impossible. But just as we removed the need to make coordinated turns from the pilot to reduce his workload, why would the J-20's flight controls design team want to put the burden of canards actuation on the pilot?

The reason I went thru all this explanation is because manual pilot actuation of the canards is the best -- not the only -- way to explain the J-20's canards with their full vertical deflection at ramp speed. But that allowance even when full computer control when needed is still an additional pilot workload and possibly dangerous at critical times in flight, such as combat. And the J-20 is a single-seater.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

52051 said:


> More rumors about initial exercises of J-20 from reputable members in fyjs, this time J-20 is not equiped with lens so the RCS is not comprised:
> 
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1890684&extra=page=&page=1
> 
> Rough translation:
> 
> 1 J20 vs 4 J-10 in dog-fight, the J-20 leave the rear end to 4 J-10s, but climb suddenly with afterburn, all J-10 lost tracks, the J-20 have not release any countermeasures at all.
> 
> 2 J20 vs defence array consist of C300/HQ-16A SAM and KJ500 AWACS and several J-10, the first J-20 take down KJ500, the second J-20 take out all SAM batteries, then they finish the mission and leave, neither J-10 nor KJ-500 have any response during the exerise, the senior engineers of the AESA radar developer for KJ-500 is very impressed about J-20's performance.
> 
> 2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a electronic warfare plane, J-20 climb to 15,000 meter ceil, locate the KJ-500 and the EW plane, rush down to finish them and then take out the 4 J-10s, the whole fight last for 46 mins.
> 
> 2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a ground radar station, same story, the J-20s climb to high ceil and take out KJ-500, then finish off the J-10s, the whole combat last for 32 mins.
> 
> Like some senior scientist in China claimed once: stealth fighter is the nuke weapon in our time.



The poster admitted that he was joking in a following post. HOWEVER, it shouldn't be too hard for the J-20 to dispatch a squadron of Flankers or J-10s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Stop J11 and J10's production, concentrate all resource on producing J20 and J16/J11D.

Dedicated to develop quantum radar.

That's why American stop F22 production at only 200 units, because it's an overkill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

52051 said:


> More rumors about initial exercises of J-20 from reputable members in fyjs, this time J-20 is not equiped with lens so the RCS is not comprised:
> 
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1890684&extra=page=&page=1
> 
> Rough translation:
> 
> 1 J20 vs 4 J-10 in dog-fight, the J-20 leave the rear end to 4 J-10s, but climb suddenly with afterburn, all J-10 lost tracks, the J-20 have not release any countermeasures at all.
> 
> 2 J20 vs defence array consist of C300/HQ-16A SAM and KJ500 AWACS and several J-10, the first J-20 take down KJ500, the second J-20 take out all SAM batteries, then they finish the mission and leave, neither J-10 nor KJ-500 have any response during the exerise, the senior engineers of the AESA radar developer for KJ-500 is very impressed about J-20's performance.
> 
> 2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a electronic warfare plane, J-20 climb to 15,000 meter ceil, locate the KJ-500 and the EW plane, rush down to finish them and then take out the 4 J-10s, the whole fight last for 46 mins.
> 
> 2 J20 vs 4 J-10 and KJ500 as well as a ground radar station, same story, the J-20s climb to high ceil and take out KJ-500, then finish off the J-10s, the whole combat last for 32 mins.
> 
> Like some senior scientist in China claimed once: stealth fighter is the nuke weapon in our time.



It's a joke. HQ-16A SAM will not join Air Force exercise because it is the weapon of Army. If you watch the CCTV militory Report, you can find that they used HQ-9 in RedArrow(红箭)-2017 exercise. 磁爷 is not a reliable source. 观察者上席亚洲的文章更有参考价值，这个pupu也是认可的。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

clarkgap said:


> It's a joke. HQ-16A SAM will not join Air Force exercise because it is the weapon of Army. If you watch the CCTV militory Report, you can find that they used HQ-9 in RedArrow(红箭)-2017 exercise. 磁爷 is not a reliable source. 观察者上席亚洲的文章更有参考价值，这个pupu也是认可的。



Not really, as for the joke, the source always say he is kidding to avoid any potential legal problems, so thats common.

And just because news suggesting HQ-16A enter service in the army doesnt mean air-defence force wont equip them, coupling with HQ-9 or C300, the system can provide a complete coverage of airspace.

As for PUPU, actually if you even look at the thread, it is PUPU right below his post, agree with him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> The reason I went thru all this explanation is because manual pilot actuation of the canards is the best -- not the only -- way to explain the J-20's canards with their full vertical deflection at ramp speed. But that allowance even when full computer control when needed is still an additional pilot workload and possibly dangerous at critical times in flight, such as combat. And the J-20 is a single-seater.



Interesting observation on whether what's happening during taxiing is manual control or relayed through the FCS in this particular instance that started this discussion. You can see that extreme deflection of the canards is coupled with the flaps up and ailerons down. V-stabs are also inward and leading edge flaps are not engaged at all.

It looks like the J-20 behind this one also has its canards, flaps & ailerons in the same position. I'd venture to say that it is more likely all the control surfaces are engaged through the FCS rather than manually during taxiing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

52051 said:


> Not really, as for the joke, the source always say he is kidding to avoid any potential legal problems, so thats common.
> 
> And just because news suggesting HQ-16A enter service in the army doesnt mean air-defence force wont equip them, coupling with HQ-9 or C300, the system can provide a complete coverage of airspace.
> 
> As for PUPU, actually if you even look at the thread, it is PUPU right below his post, agree with him.



In another forum, PUPU said he only agree part of these rumor. And 席亚洲 had posted that part before 磁爷. There is not any video, image or official report about PLAAF's HQ-16.


----------



## 52051

clarkgap said:


> In another forum, PUPU said he only agree part of these rumor. And 席亚洲 had posted that part before 磁爷. There is not any video, image or official report about PLAAF's HQ-16.



Many of the equipments in PLA has not seen with pic or video, but that doesnt prevent PLA from equip them. Espeically since HQ-16 will most likely fill the void of middle range defence, which is coupling with HQ-9 or C300, so it is very reasonble the air-defence force will get this latest type of middle-range SAM as well.

Since airforce will most likely equip these missiles in their air defence array, how many pictures/videos about PLA air-defence array have ever been revealed from media? It could simply because it get higher classify level, the army are more open since HQ-16A for the army are mobile depolyed, but for airforce, thats part of its defence network, and therefore could be classified.

As for PUPU, PUPU in other threads simply imply he dont agree with the source's many views regarding 601/611, we all know FYJS is more favor 611, and the source love to belittle and make fun of 601's incompentence, whilst in CJDBY, there could be some guys on 601's payroll who love to promote fake postive news about 601, ridculus news like how PLA plan to only buy 200 J-20 yet 3000 FC-31 or how PLAAF/PLAN and all other will order FC-31 are all over there.

Yet, with more and more open news revealed like Yang Wei's various signficant promotion by CCP, 611's ex-head now return to 611, and airforce chief's openly high praise about J-20 in front of state media (probably be the first type PLA equipments recieved such honor), suggesting FYJS's many "biased" view regarding 601, actually could hold more water than you thought.

My mother side actually has NE root, but if you know anything about the problem of NE working culture, you tend to believe the stories about 601/SAC, it fit their working culture right, if China need a serious competitor to 611/CAC, then 601/SAC is not the right choice, they need to get a new one elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

52051 said:


> Many of the equipments in PLA has not seen with pic or video, but that doesnt prevent PLA from equip them. Espeically since HQ-16 will most likely fill the void of middle range defence, which is coupling with HQ-9 or C300, so it is very reasonble the air-defence force will get this latest type of middle-range SAM as well.
> 
> Since airforce will most likely equip these missiles in their air defence array, how many pictures/videos about PLA air-defence array have ever been revealed from media? It could simply because it get higher classify level, the army are more open since HQ-16A for the army are mobile depolyed, but for airforce, thats part of its defence network, and therefore could be classified.
> 
> As for PUPU, PUPU in other threads simply imply he dont agree with the source's many views regarding 601/611, we all know FYJS is more favor 611, and the source love to belittle and make fun of 601's incompentence, whilst in CJDBY, there could be some guys on 601's payroll who love to promote fake postive news about 601, ridculus news like how PLA plan to only buy 200 J-20 yet 3000 FC-31 or how PLAAF/PLAN and all other will order FC-31 are all over there.
> 
> Yet, with more and more open news revealed like Yang Wei's various signficant promotion by CCP, 611's ex-head now return to 611, and airforce chief's openly high praise about J-20 in front of state media (probably be the first type PLA equipments recieved such honor), suggesting FYJS's many "biased" view regarding 601, actually could hold more water than you thought.
> 
> My mother side actually has NE root, but if you know anything about the problem of NE working culture, you tend to believe the stories about 601/SAC, it fit their working culture right, if China need a serious competitor to 611/CAC, then 601/SAC is not the right choice, they need to get a new one elsewhere.




Again, please do not take regional discrimination to this thread. My hometown is Henan, and I have no any preference or stereotypical view for 611 and 601. 

Please tell me if you heared any rumor or new about PLAAF's HQ-16.

In another forum, PUPU said:"第一第二不清楚（此处指前两个战例，包括HQ-16那个），第三第四应该是一个事情。20带龙伯透镜，击落500 (此处指空警500)，被10c群殴掉一架。" and "别说我石锤，看过席亚洲那个叛徒的文章，里面说的很清楚。"

http://www.guancha.cn/XiYaZhou/2018_02_11_446687_2.shtml （Page 2-3）


----------



## 星海军事

Garbage in, garbage out. That's what Internet is all about. Never take it too serious.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

星海事 said:


> Garbage in, garbage out. That's what Internet is all about. Never take it too serious.


What do mean garbage care to explain or you're trolling @"星海事


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> What do mean garbage care to explain or you're trolling @"星海事




Why so offensive? If you know the internet you know what he means with that advice: There's always too much garbage around in the internet - and that's a fact - so you better don't take everything too serious.

Why should this be trolling?

Deino


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> I'd venture to say that it is more likely all the control surfaces are engaged through the FCS rather than manually during taxiing.


Same here. But for what purpose?

In the chocks before TO, the pilot will engage automatic FLCS self checks. The FLCC will cycle all the surfaces thru preset movements that will take each of them thru mid and maximum ranges of movements. Any displacement signal that is out of tolerance will trigger an alert and the pilot will call for maintenance. If the self tests are done with no incident, the pilot will manually cycle the surfaces again and this time it will be thru the control stick. Full pitch up and down, then full roll left and right, finally full rudder left and right. The crew chief will stand in full view and thru hand signals will let the pilot know where the surfaces are and they should correlate with pilot commands. Many pilots for final measure will then move the stick in a circular motion and the surfaces would be flapping like crazy. Uninformed observers would think there is something wrong going on. But those knowledgeable of flightline events will know that the jet is ready to taxi out.

So for the image posted, the hangars on both sides means the J-20s are out of the chocks and in the ramp, not the runway, so it is very curious as to why they are with surfaces at full deflections seemingly commanded by the FLCC self tests. We cannot tell if they are ready for TO or just landed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

A new year gift to all my Chinese friends. J-20 fitted with WS-10 engine and a New RADAR Dome.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Brainsucker

BHarwana said:


> A new year gift to all my Chinese friends. J-20 fitted with WS-10 engine and a New RADAR Dome.



Wait a minutes. It is 2021. If my memory serve right, there were another 2021 some time ago. This is the same aircraft, or a different one. @Deino, can you give a confirmation about this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Brainsucker said:


> Wait a minutes. It is 2021. If my memory serve right, there were another 2021 some time ago. This is the same aircraft, or a different one. @Deino, can you give a confirmation about this?



Look at the cover of front landing gear it is the 2021 dragon.


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> Same here. But for what purpose?
> 
> In the chocks before TO, the pilot will engage automatic FLCS self checks. The FLCC will cycle all the surfaces thru preset movements that will take each of them thru mid and maximum ranges of movements. Any displacement signal that is out of tolerance will trigger an alert and the pilot will call for maintenance. If the self tests are done with no incident, the pilot will manually cycle the surfaces again and this time it will be thru the control stick. Full pitch up and down, then full roll left and right, finally full rudder left and right. The crew chief will stand in full view and thru hand signals will let the pilot know where the surfaces are and they should correlate with pilot commands. Many pilots for final measure will then move the stick in a circular motion and the surfaces would be flapping like crazy. Uninformed observers would think there is something wrong going on. But those knowledgeable of flightline events will know that the jet is ready to taxi out.



Very cool the way you described that whole process. I've actually seen it in full display several times at various airshows, with the F-16, the F/A-18F and even the F-22. When they do it for an airshow, they go all out with the crew in military motion, kinda like robots as they accentuate all the little things to make an enjoyable theatrical out of it. 

You can see exactly what you described happening here with the F-22 @3:36 & again @4:55.








gambit said:


> So for the image posted, the hangars on both sides means the J-20s are out of the chocks and in the ramp, not the runway, so it is very curious as to why they are with surfaces at full deflections seemingly commanded by the FLCC self tests. We cannot tell if they are ready for TO or just landed.



If the jet is taxiing the ramp for takeoff, isn't the FCS on manual anyway? Up until it reaches the end of the runway and ready for takeoff, the pilot switches the controls to the automated system prior to putting it in full throttle?

Not sure in the case of these latest and greatest aircraft with FBWSs if the front landing gear is on casters or does it actually have independent turning ability, separate from the pilot using the brakes on the rear landing gears to turn the aircraft one way or the other? It looks like the front gear is tied in to the rudders (V-stabs in the case of the J-20) when the aircraft is grounded but I'm not sure if the front gear turns independently or casts with the rear brakes in these new, computerized jets. The reason I ask is maybe that might have something to do with the J-20 when it's grounded and is taxiing. Either it automatically goes into manual mode or the pilot sets it that way so he can turn and control the aircraft himself and as a result, the canards deflect to that position, sort of as either an indicator that the aircraft is in that mode or just as a result of just being in manual mode?

There's also the standard operating procedure that you, as a former USAF vet are familiar with the way US jets operate but that begs the question, are the systems operating the same way with let's say, French aircraft? British or Swedish? What about Russian? I'm guessing there's probably a standard, where computerized elements are the same across the board but there has to be some differences here and there that create these unusual operations, or ones that we're not familiar with.

Another thing to consider is that the US doesn't operate any canard-style platforms, so the process has to be different I would think. That said, the canards are essentially the horizontal stabilizers moved forward of the wings and fuselage and as a result there has to be certain differences in the way those surface controls react, just by default of being placed forward.


----------



## clarkgap

https://weibo.com/u/3299450937?refer_flag=1005055013_&is_all=1#_rnd1518710402555

https://weibo.com/577011770?refer_flag=1005055013_&is_all=1

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

And so we have three J-20s already with the Milka-scheme.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Brainsucker said:


> Wait a minutes. It is 2021. If my memory serve right, there were another 2021 some time ago. This is the same aircraft, or a different one. @Deino, can you give a confirmation about this?


The 2021 is the aircraft seen a couple months ago with WS-10X engines ... there are currently two prototypes with Taihang engines ... the 2021 and the yet to be photographed 2022

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng

HAPPY NEW YEAR
GOOD LUCK IN DOG YEAR

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 52051

According a fyjs insider, without lens, the ground radar station will lost the track of J-20 (without stealth coating) in a matter of mins after J-20 take off.

Thats why you see lens are always attached to J-20, even in its factory un-coating status.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


>



Old image. Someone had posted it in last month.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Grandy



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Grandy



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gomig-21

52051 said:


> According a fyjs insider, without lens, the ground radar station will lost the track of J-20 (without stealth coating) in a matter of mins after J-20 take off.
> 
> Thats why you see lens are always attached to J-20, even in its factory un-coating status.



So basically you're saying the J-20 is ridiculously stealthy even without its RAM coating that the luneberg lens has to be mounted on it at all times or GC will lose track of it very quickly? That's pretty amazing.



clarkgap said:


>



That's an incredible shot. Always wondered why the canards are dihedral.


----------



## clarkgap

Gomig-21 said:


> So basically you're saying the J-20 is ridiculously stealthy even without its RAM coating that the luneberg lens has to be mounted on it at all times or GC will lose track of it very quickly? That's pretty amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an incredible shot. Always wondered why the canards are dihedral.




磁爷 is an unreliable source. He may know something, but he always create some extra "detail" to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 52051

Gomig-21 said:


> So basically you're saying the J-20 is ridiculously stealthy even without its RAM coating that the luneberg lens has to be mounted on it at all times or GC will lose track of it very quickly? That's pretty amazing.
> 
> That's an incredible shot. Always wondered why the canards are dihedral.



Actually such performance is expected to a true VLO design:

The coating can at most reduce the RCS by 10dB or so, the shape should contribute the majority work of RCS reduction, and fighter can travel about 30km in mins since take-off, in other words, ground radar lost tracks in a matter of mins for J-20 without coating basically means: J-20 with coating should reduce a ground radar station's range of detection to <20km, which is expected for a VLO design.

The australian Klopp or someone did a rough RCS simulation about J-20 at the time J-20 first revealed, and he believe the RCS of J-20 is pretty good, the front RCS of J-20 is in the range of ~-40db according to his simulation, which is well qualified to be a VLO design.



clarkgap said:


> 磁爷 is an unreliable source. He may know something, but he always create some extra "detail" to them.



He just hate 601/SAC and love to mock them, but many of his informations are reliable as time proven, much more so than some sources in CJDBY like ridiculus rumors such as PLAN picked FC-31/PLAAF love FC-31/thousands of FC-31 are ordered by PLA or Yang Wei become irrelvant etc.

Many open news sidely proved his stories.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap

52051 said:


> Actually such performance is expected to a true VLO design:
> 
> The coating can at most reduce the RCS by 10dB or so, the shape should contribute the majority work of RCS reduction, and fighter can travel about 30km in mins since take-off, in other words, ground radar lost tracks in a matter of mins for J-20 without coating basically means: J-20 with coating should reduce a ground radar station's range of detection to <20km, which is expected for a VLO design.
> 
> The australian Klopp or someone did a rough RCS simulation about J-20 at the time J-20 first revealed, and he believe the RCS of J-20 is pretty good, the front RCS of J-20 is in the range of ~-40db according to his simulation, which is well qualified to be a VLO design.
> 
> 
> 
> He just hate 601/SAC and love to mock them, but many of his informations are reliable as time proven, much more so than some sources in CJDBY like ridiculus rumors such as PLAN picked FC-31/PLAAF love FC-31/thousands of FC-31 are ordered by PLA or Yang Wei become irrelvant etc.
> 
> Many open news sidely proved his stories.



That "extra detail" can destroy his credit.


----------



## 52051

clarkgap said:


> That "extra detail" can destroy his credit.



You have too high a standard for internet rumors and insiders, if such standard were applied, I guess you should stick to CCTV or other official channel who may take years after photo/video are all over the internet to even acknowldege the existence of something.

Generally speaking I found his stories are usually reliable, of cause he has some personal "bias" against SAC, but it is pretty easy to spot and you can screen these out if you want.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

52051 said:


> You have too high a standard for internet rumors and insiders, if such standard were applied, I guess you should stick to CCTV or other official channel who may take years after photo/video are all over the internet to even acknowldege the existence of something.
> 
> Generally speaking I found his stories are usually reliable, of cause he has some personal "bias" against SAC, but it is pretty easy to spot and you can screen these out if you want.



There are many relative reliable rumor source on internet like huahua，pb, 猫版, 席亚洲 and 星海.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Gomig-21 said:


> So basically you're saying the J-20 is ridiculously stealthy even without its RAM coating that the luneberg lens has to be mounted on it at all times or GC will lose track of it very quickly? That's pretty amazing.


I don't see what's so unusual about it, in every picture of the F-22 in primer I've seen it's had a lens, e.g.,





I couldn't find a picture of an F-35 in primer's underside. Even if I did, it has so many bumps I probably wouldn't be able to make out the lens.


Gomig-21 said:


> That's an incredible shot. Always wondered why the canards are dihedral.


I'm far from an expert, but if I had to take a guess it might be to get good airflow over the LERX.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

ZeEa5KPul said:


> I'm far from an expert, but if I had to take a guess it might be to get good airflow over the LERX.


CANARD is a vortex generators as well as provide a lift and LERX is also providing a lift as well as main wings so their are 3 lifting surfaces on j20


----------



## Shahzaz ud din

*China's J-20 stealth fighters and Su-35 jets in combat training*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964434230649352192

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

clarkgap said:


> There are many relative reliable rumor source on internet like huahua，pb, 猫版, 席亚洲 and 星海.



Well in CJDBY, I tend to believe two guys, huahua is working in the ship industry, and there is another guy in CJDBY, who is likely to work in the state-owned assert supervion commission (he showed his card and paper reports from AVIC), bu its a shame the CJDBY mod ban his account due to his not so optimistic tune regard the fate of FC-31.

Never heard of the rest through, so no comments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## UKBengali

wanglaokan said:


> View attachment 454425
> View attachment 454426


----------



## Ultima Thule

Janbaz Rao said:


> *China's J-20 stealth fighters and Su-35 jets in combat training*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964434230649352192


Already posted bro


----------



## Gomig-21

52051 said:


> Actually such performance is expected to a true VLO design:



Indeed.



52051 said:


> the shape should contribute the majority work of RCS



Couldn't agree more. If you take the 3 major elements of a stealth platform and put them in order or importance, I would put them this way.

1) Shaping
2) Coating
3) Infrared reduction.

Placing a percentage on all those 3 would be a bit difficult, especially the 3rd one since we've seen the US being the only one to really care about reducing the infrared signature in the Raptor (and even in the F-35 with the cooling elements of the engine but not as much as what they did with the F-22) and we haven't really seen that much attention given to reducing the IR signature of either the PAK-FA or the J-20, at least to the level of the F-22.

IR signature also falls a bit out of the stealth spectrum, although it's a very large consideration and so it does get lumped into the conditions, which makes assigning it a percentage of importance a rather difficult proposition.

Radar and avionics also play a role but I think those can be kept out of the "essentials" of stealth.



ZeEa5KPul said:


> I don't see what's so unusual about it, in every picture of the F-22 in primer I've seen it's had a lens, e.g.,



Very true. I do think that the lune lenses also give the aircraft a specific signature to not only enhance its RCS, but to be able to identify it specifically. 



ZeEa5KPul said:


> I'm far from an expert, but if I had to take a guess it might be to get good airflow over the LERX.



It's really an interesting observation because I don't think we see that dihedral in any of the other canard platforms. The Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-30 and even the J-10's canards are pretty much at the same angle as the main wings. The only reason I can think of is that on all those other aircraft, the canards are elevated on the fuselage from the main wings, whereas on the J-20, they're in the same plane as the main wings. So maybe they needed to separate the disturbance of airflow from the canards to the wings by putting them in a dihedral since they couldn't raise them or put them higher than the same plain of the wings? In a sense it's the same concept as what you just said with getting good airflow over the LERX.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

Gomig-21 said:


> whereas on the J-20, they're in the same plane as the main wings



I saw somewhere before that, as described by a Chinese academic publication, such design is mainly for minimizing RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap

Gomig-21 said:


> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more. If you take the 3 major elements of a stealth platform and put them in order or importance, I would put them this way.
> 
> 1) Shaping
> 2) Coating
> 3) Infrared reduction.
> 
> Placing a percentage on all those 3 would be a bit difficult, especially the 3rd one since we've seen the US being the only one to really care about reducing the infrared signature in the Raptor (and even in the F-35 with the cooling elements of the engine but not as much as what they did with the F-22) and we haven't really seen that much attention given to reducing the IR signature of either the PAK-FA or the J-20, at least to the level of the F-22.
> 
> IR signature also falls a bit out of the stealth spectrum, although it's a very large consideration and so it does get lumped into the conditions, which makes assigning it a percentage of importance a rather difficult proposition.
> 
> Radar and avionics also play a role but I think those can be kept out of the "essentials" of stealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. I do think that the lune lenses also give the aircraft a specific signature to not only enhance its RCS, but to be able to identify it specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> It's really an interesting observation because I don't think we see that dihedral in any of the other canard platforms. The Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-30 and even the J-10's canards are pretty much at the same angle as the main wings. The only reason I can think of is that on all those other aircraft, the canards are elevated on the fuselage from the main wings, whereas on the J-20, they're in the same plane as the main wings. So maybe they needed to separate the disturbance of airflow from the canards to the wings by putting them in a dihedral since they couldn't raise them or put them higher than the same plain of the wings? In a sense it's the same concept as what you just said with getting good airflow over the LERX.



In my memory, a journal indicates if the canards parallel to the main wings, it will cause huge RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> CANARD is a vortex generators as well as provide a lift and LERX is also providing a lift as well as main wings so their are 3 lifting surfaces on j20



What is LERX?


----------



## clarkgap

Brainsucker said:


> What is LERX?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> What is LERX?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading-edge_extension
Side of the both intakes of JF is called LERX
https://goo.gl/images/pYdSxY

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Gomig-21 said:


> It's really an interesting observation because I don't think we see that dihedral in any of the other canard platforms. The Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-30 and even the J-10's canards are pretty much at the same angle as the main wings. The only reason I can think of is that on all those other aircraft, the canards are elevated on the fuselage from the main wings, whereas on the J-20, they're in the same plane as the main wings. *So maybe they needed to separate the disturbance of airflow from the canards to the wings by putting them in a dihedral since they couldn't raise them or put them higher than the same plain of the wings?* In a sense it's the same concept as what you just said with getting good airflow over the LERX.



That's what most J-20 observers think as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

clarkgap said:


> In my memory, a journal indicates if the canards parallel to the main wings, it will cause huge RCS.


Not necessarily true. We have gone thru this before on this forum...

There are three main rules in designing a radar low observable body:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

They are not necessarily rules that can be violated. Rather, they are more like guidelines that indicate the degree of obedience to them.

The F-22 has six major flight controls structures. The J-20 has eight. That make the J-20 less obedient to Rule 1. But that does not automatically make the J-20 more visible EM-wise. It forces the engineers to focus on Rule 2.

Rule 2 is what make observers, many of them experts in the field, suspicious of the J-20's canards regarding trying to be as low radar observable as the American fighters.

The canard is a finite body, meaning at some time and somewhere, the radar signal has to leave this structure. How the exiting signals make contact with the other structures is what make the canard detrimental to 'stealth' or not a factor at all. But based upon the current understanding of signal behavior, the J-20's canards with their dihedral is at least suspect to be detrimental to the J-20's attempt to be as 'stealthy' as the American fighters as in Rule 3.

All three rules must work together and this is evident with the *UPPER* surface of the F-117...






Each 'ridge' is an exit point for an impinging radar signal. So under the three rules, the F-117 has many more structures than the J-20. Lockheed engineers paid close attention to how the three rules interact with each other and the result is that the F-117's RCS is still a secret. Everyone, including China, would love to know that figure. In some ways, the US have been more open with the F-117's RCS than China has with the J-20's RCS. Ben Rich's book at least hinted at that figure.

http://www.f117sfa.org/f117_history.htm


> The model was mounted on a 12-foot high pole, and the radar dish zeroed in from about 1,500 feet away. The site radar operator could not see the model on the radar, until a black bird landed right on top of the Hopeless Diamond. *The radar was only picking up the bird*....


This is why the criticism about the F-35's underside with all the bumps as detrimental to 'stealth' is nonsense. The critics cannot reconcile the F-117's topside and the F-35's underside. As if somehow the laws of physics behaves differently for each jet.

For now, conventional wisdom has it that being parallel in the root plane and no dihedral is ideal. The J-20's canards is one half of that conventional wisdom. Their roots are on the same plane as the main wings, but their dihedral affects how exiting radar signals contact the main wings in terms of direction, angle of approach, and distance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

gambit said:


> Not necessarily true. We have gone thru this before on this forum...
> 
> There are three main rules in designing a radar low observable body:
> 
> - Control of quantity of radiators
> - Control of array of radiators
> - Control of modes of radiation
> 
> They are not necessarily rules that can be violated. Rather, they are more like guidelines that indicate the degree of obedience to them.
> 
> The F-22 has six major flight controls structures. The J-20 has eight. That make the J-20 less obedient to Rule 1. But that does not automatically make the J-20 more visible EM-wise. It forces the engineers to focus on Rule 2.
> 
> Rule 2 is what make observers, many of them experts in the field, suspicious of the J-20's canards regarding trying to be as low radar observable as the American fighters.
> 
> The canard is a finite body, meaning at some time and somewhere, the radar signal has to leave this structure. How the exiting signals make contact with the other structures is what make the canard detrimental to 'stealth' or not a factor at all. But based upon the current understanding of signal behavior, the J-20's canards with their dihedral is at least suspect to be detrimental to the J-20's attempt to be as 'stealthy' as the American fighters as in Rule 3.
> 
> All three rules must work together and this is evident with the *UPPER* surface of the F-117...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each 'ridge' is an exit point for an impinging radar signal. So under the three rules, the F-117 has many more structures than the J-20. Lockheed engineers paid close attention to how the three rules interact with each other and the result is that the F-117's RCS is still a secret. Everyone, including China, would love to know that figure. In some ways, the US have been more open with the F-117's RCS than China has with the J-20's RCS. Ben Rich's book at least hinted at that figure.
> 
> http://www.f117sfa.org/f117_history.htm
> 
> This is why the criticism about the F-35's underside with all the bumps as detrimental to 'stealth' is nonsense. The critics cannot reconcile the F-117's topside and the F-35's underside. As if somehow the laws of physics behaves differently for each jet.
> 
> For now, conventional wisdom has it that being parallel in the root plane and no dihedral is ideal. The J-20's canards is one half of that conventional wisdom. Their roots are on the same plane as the main wings, but their dihedral affects how exiting radar signals contact the main wings in terms of direction, angle of approach, and distance.





> if the canards parallel to the main wings, it will cause huge RCS.



Did I talk anything about RCS of dihedral canards structure? J-20's canards must stay on different plane in order to improve lift. Just take the less evil.


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> If the jet is taxiing the ramp for takeoff, isn't the FCS on manual anyway? Up until it reaches the end of the runway and ready for takeoff, the pilot switches the controls to the automated system prior to putting it in full throttle?


There is no 'Manual' or 'Auto' mode for the flight controls system. Am not sure what you are asking here. The pre-F-16 aircrafts have fully manual FLCS and some have a form of hydraulic assist or 'boost' capability so we are not going to discuss them.

With a full fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FLCS), the system is constantly active. Closed loop and variable gains.

The major components are:

- Pilot commands (stick and rudder pedals)
- Gyros (pitch/roll/yaw attitude)
- Accelerometers (changes in speed 3 axes)
- Air data (pitot/static)
- Surface positions feedback (hydraulics shaft transducers)
- Flight Controls Computer (FCC)
- Central Air Data Computer (CADC)

Everything must be available for the FCC to calculate how much to displace the surfaces.






At timestamps 0:26, 0:35, and 0:46 you can see the F-16's horizontal stabs fluctuating up/down as the jets taxis by. The pilots are not doing anything to the stick.

The paved ramps and runways are not perfectly smooth. They are level, maybe less than one degree of incline, but never completely smooth. So as the jet runs over the many bumps, no matter how small, any changes would be in the pitch (x) axis. This is up/down motion as if you are driving over a dirt road and you feel it thru the car. So just running on the ramp, there is already constant pitch gyro input. If the jet has constant speed, there will be zero accelerometer inputs. There will be air data inputs, pitot (speed) and static (altitude). Pitot would be very low since the jet is at ramp speed. Static would be zero since the jet is physically on the ground.

So as the jet runs over the bumps and has a persistent but unpredictable up/down gyro inputs, the FCC constantly calculate the horizontal stabs movements as if the jet is actually flying. The hydraulics position transducers tells the FCC their actual physical displacements. The FCC readjust the horizontal stabs commands if needed. In other words, the entire FLCS behaves as if the jet is actually flying even though there is full WOW. The FCC constantly tries to make the 'flying' jet as stable as possible.

Off the ramp and on the runway.

As the jet speeds down the runway, higher and higher pitot air input. Accelerometer tells the FCC the rate of forward change. At this time there is still full WOW. As the nose lift and there is no nose WOW, the FCC changes the gains because now it knows the jet is becoming airborne. Once there is no WOW on the main gears, the FCC changes the gains again because now it knows the jet is fully airborne. When the pilot raised the landing gear handle and once all gears are locked up and doors closed, the FCC now has the lowest gains possible because the jet is fully configured for maximum performance flight. The higher the gains, the more the surfaces displace and at higher speed, this would be an out-of-control condition. Therefore, the higher the speed as calculated by the CADC, the less the surfaces will move because there is sufficient aerodynamic pressures on them to maneuver the jet. On the other hand, the higher the altitude, the thinner the air so there is less aerodynamic pressure available, so the jet will need more surface displacement for the same speed as at the lower altitude to perform the same maneuver.

This closed loop is constantly going. There is no pause. Of all the inputs cited above, zero volt is not the same as no voltage exist. A zero volt is actually a valid value for the FCC. So if any inputs above does not exist, the FCC will trigger a failure in pitch, roll, or yaw axis as appropriate. An air data input fail will have the FCC uses its own default air data values and this will trigger an FLCS failure. Any missing hydraulics position feedback signal will trigger the appropriate axis failure. Basically, *EVERYTHING* must exist.

There are interlock switches that will tell the FCC what the pilot want the jet to do. Switches like the landing gear handle and the landing gear positions. The landing gear handle switch tells the FCC what the pilot want. The landing gear position switch tells the FCC what the landing gear themselves are doing. The two sets of signals are not the same. These signals changes the positions of the wings leading edge and trailing edge for maximum lift. However, if the pilot lower the landing gear handle at 400 kts/hr, a disaster will result because these signals tells the FCC to reconfigure the jet for landing. At 400 kts/hr? The inevitable outcome is an out-of-control F-16 and a crash. So the pilot must know exactly what he is doing at what point in flight. The system is smart but cannot override what the pilot do, intentionally or unintentionally.

So to answer your question, the FBW-FLCS is constantly active and automatic. Like The Force in the Star Wars universe, the FCC obeys your command but also controls the jet for you.



Gomig-21 said:


> Not sure in the case of these latest and greatest aircraft with FBWSs if the front landing gear is on casters or does it actually have independent turning ability, separate from the pilot using the brakes on the rear landing gears to turn the aircraft one way or the other? It looks like the front gear is tied in to the rudders (V-stabs in the case of the J-20) when the aircraft is grounded but I'm not sure if the front gear turns independently or casts with the rear brakes in these new, computerized jets.


Once there is full nose WOW, the nose gear actually turns the jet on the ground via the rudder pedals while the rudder pedals are still (electronically) linked to the vertical stabs. So as the jet turns on the ground, the rudder(s), or the full stab(s) as appropriate to the jet, moves with the nose gear. Main gear brakes are activated by pressing on the top parts of the rudder pedals.



Gomig-21 said:


> There's also the standard operating procedure that you, as a former USAF vet are familiar with the way US jets operate but that begs the question, are the systems operating the same way with let's say, French aircraft? British or Swedish? What about Russian? I'm guessing there's probably a standard, where computerized elements are the same across the board but there has to be some differences here and there that create these unusual operations, or ones that we're not familiar with.


The F-16 pretty much set the foundation for the modern FBW-FLCS flight controls laws for all designs, no matter the national origins. The quad signals redundancy is proven reliable over the decades. Change the system at your peril. No one is going to be that foolish.



Gomig-21 said:


> Another thing to consider is that the US doesn't operate any canard-style platforms, so the process has to be different I would think. That said, the canards are essentially the horizontal stabilizers moved forward of the wings and fuselage and as a result *there has to be certain differences in the way those surface controls react, just by default of being placed forward.*


You are correct (highlighted). However, the closed loop with variable gains architecture is still the same, just going to a different set of control surfaces and with different displacement degree.


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> There is no 'Manual' or 'Auto' mode for the flight controls system.



But didn't you say this a few pages back?



gambit said:


> The reason I went thru all this explanation is because *manual pilot actuation of the canards is the best -- not the only -- way to explain the J-20's canards with their full vertical deflection at ramp speed.* But that allowance even when full computer control when needed is still an additional pilot workload and possibly dangerous at critical times in flight, such as combat. And the J-20 is a single-seater.



So by stating that a manual actuation of the canards means there is a manual option?
Don't these aircraft have mode switches when the aircraft is on the ground so they can actually operate them strictly by their commands and inputs instead of having the computer dictate the inputs?

Or does the FCS automatically switch once the aircraft is grounded, or no such thing?

I thought you also said that during the flight control checklist done with the crew chief, the pilot cycles through the controls in a manual mode and then through the FLCS, or did I misunderstand?



gambit said:


> *If a pilot 'cycle' the flight controls surfaces, either before or after a flight, it is to do his own personal checks of the flight controls outside of the standard automatic FLCS checks done in the chocks*. Normally, the FLCS are not cycled thru the automatic checks after a flight, only before. Once the pilot returned the control stick to normal, all surfaces returns to default positions.





gambit said:


> *Pilot (manual) control of a close-coupled canard system? That is dangerous.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> But didn't you say this a few pages back?
> 
> So by stating that a manual actuation of the canards means there is a manual option?
> Don't these aircraft have mode switches when the aircraft is on the ground so they can actually operate them strictly by their commands and inputs instead of having the computer dictate the inputs?
> 
> Or does the FCS automatically switch once the aircraft is grounded, or no such thing?
> 
> I thought you also said that during the flight control checklist done with the crew chief, the pilot cycles through the controls in a manual mode and then through the FLCS, or did I misunderstand?


You misunderstood -- but it was my fault. I will elaborate.

The loop I explained in post 10292 is called the 'stability augmentation' loop. Or 'stabaug' for short.

Pre F-16 aircrafts can turn off stabaug, making flying the jet very difficult and tiring.






From left to right: F-111 => F-4 => F-16.

For the F-111 FLCS panel, the three significant switches are the 'damper' switches, pitch, roll, and yaw. From engine start to landing, they are in the 'NORMAL' position.

For the F-4, I was not on that jet, but I can make an educated guess about its FLCS panel. It is not as sophisticated as the F-111, but it has the ability to turn off the stabaug process.

For the F-16, stabaug is constant.

When you disable stabaug, the burden of compensating for every jolt of turbulence, whether in level flight or in a maneuver, falls on *YOU* -- the pilot. Ask any non-F-16 pilot on what is it like to fly his jet without stabaug, and he will tell you that it is physically and mentally draining.

In Star Wars, Obi-wan Kenobi said that The Force controls your actions *BUT* also obeys your command. It is actually the wrong way to put it. The correct way to explain The Force regarding actions is: *AS* The Force controls your actions, it *ALSO* obeys your commands.

Flight Controls System Stability Augmentation works exactly like that: You command, the stabaug loop takes over the jet, and compensate for any other commands from you.

That was how I explained to my avionics trainees a long time ago after I got out of the USAF.

On the F-111, flying with the dampers off made for a physically demanding flight, especially at low altitude where there are weather phenomenons. Dampers on -- stabaug engaged -- was like night vs day.

So how does this applies to the J-20 and its canards?

The J-20 -- according to public information -- is an FBW-FLCS jet. That means it has the same FLCS basic architecture as the F-16. The flight controls laws would have some differences to account for the canards. But to give the pilot the option to control them fully manually, like the damper off position in the F-111 and F-4, that is dubious to say the least.

- The fully manual controls of the canards must be on the stick.

- Since the canards are active flight controls elements, the stick controls would have to be something like a wheel, perhaps a thumbwheel, to fully take advantage of its range of displacement.

- This increase the training requirement for the J-20. Like how the V-22 training requires the pilot to know how to fly the V-22 like a fixed wing and a rotary wing aircraft. Or like how the Su jets have full pilot authority over the 3D engine thrust.

- This increase the odds of pilot error. What if in under stress of combat, he turns the canard controls the opposite direction of where he actually want them?

- When is it appropriate to remove the canards from the stabaug loop? Under what flight conditions? Can it be done under maneuvers? Should it be done under maneuvers?

- If the canards under normal stabaug operation assist in roll, how complex must the manual control wheel be to give the pilot the same degree of control as under the FLCC? This also increase the odds of pilot error.

These questions are just the quickest I can come up with based upon my experience. You can be sure there are much more when you delve into the flight controls laws themselves, of which we do not have access to. That means you will have to settle for what I presented.

While it *IS* technically feasible to give the J-20 pilot full manual authority over the jet's canards, I find it difficult to justify it. The reason why we increasingly make the jet with greater autonomy regarding flight is because we want the pilot to be a killer, not a flyer.

Curious -- I do not see any of the resident Chinese 'experts' on the J-20 engaging in this discussion.


----------



## Beast

gambit said:


> Curious -- I do not see any of the resident Chinese 'experts' on the J-20 engaging in this discussion.



As if you are an expert on J-20? May I know which J-20 you have fly on? Zero...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> As if you are an expert on J-20? May I know which J-20 you have fly on? Zero...




To be fain, I'm sure no-one here in this forum ever flew in a J-20. So by that logic no-one is an expert... or am I wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> To be fain, I'm sure no-one here in this forum ever flew in a J-20. So by that logic no-one is an expert... or am I wrong.


I never claim I am an expert unlike some who BS about some canard control of J-20 as if he ever flow or sit inside a real J-20 cockpit? Got it?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> When you disable stabaug, the burden of compensating for every jolt of turbulence, whether in level flight or in a maneuver, falls on *YOU* -- the pilot. Ask any non-F-16 pilot on what is it like to fly his jet without stabaug, and he will tell you that it is physically and mentally draining.



I've read several accounts from pilots who flew platforms such as the Mirage and even the MiG-21, then were assigned to the F-16 back when it was first introduced to the export market. One of the comments I found very interesting was from a former Mirage pilot who flew the Mirage IIIC and then the V, then was assigned to the F-16 and he actually didn't like the easiness of flying a FBW aircraft. Probably because he was used to the hardship of the older system and was actually comfortable with it, which makes sense. One of his comments was "in the Mirage, you sat in it and had to work it which made you more part of it which was much more appealing. But in the F-16, you were just like a voting member." I thought that was pretty cool and actually very understandable.

I'm sure if he went about it the other way around, he probably would've greatly resented having to work so hard to fly an aircraft after being used to one with a FBWS.

Reminds me of my mother in-law who sat on this old, beat-up recliner for many years and the seat was sunken in and formed in the shape of her butt looool and it was all squeaky and raggedy and didn't look comfortable at all, anymore. My brother in-law goes out and buys her this super duper expensive leather recliner with push buttons and all sorts of easy, comfort settings and she says to him "get that thing outta here!" 



gambit said:


> In Star Wars, Obi-wan Kenobi said that The Force controls your actions *BUT* also obeys your command. It is actually the wrong way to put it. The correct way to explain The Force regarding actions is: *AS* The Force controls your actions, it *ALSO* obeys your commands.



A very subtle difference.



gambit said:


> When you disable stabaug, the burden of compensating for every jolt of turbulence, whether in level flight or in a maneuver, falls on *YOU* -- the pilot.



It's understandable that those burdensome adjustments are alleviated as a result of the FCS and essentially the computer, but this is the way it was for decades up to and even including fabulous aircraft like the F-15.

So based on 'stabaug,' it's constantly active in these new aircraft which is basically why you're saying that there really isn't an auto or manual mode. I got it now.

So is it reasonable to assume that there are levels of this automated mode or constant stabaug? For example when you separate the flight conditions ("take-off to landing" from "grounded or taxiing,") the levels of that automation is where it's different? It seems like that in the latter, there still is a lot of manual input from the pilot as he's moving and turning the aircraft on the ground, or even checking the flight controls and the computer doesn't play into the operations as much, except for maybe in this specific instance of the canards deflecting, or even the V-stabs turning because there really isn't any substantial outside elements to dictate the need for it. Once the aircraft is throttled up and is taking off, the computer takes a lot more control of the pilot's inputs because now the aircraft is operating and functioning in a much more complex dynamic where there are a lot more outside forces (such as the turbulence you mentioned) that the need for that level of automation increases substantially. That would make sense to me and so there really isn't a turning on or off of that auto mode, but maybe rather a degree of function to that mode based being on the ground or in flight. 



gambit said:


> While it *IS* technically feasible to give the J-20 pilot full manual authority over the jet's canards, I find it difficult to justify it. The reason why we increasingly make the jet with greater autonomy regarding flight is because we want the pilot to be a killer, not a flyer.



Now I'm guessing that the canards deflecting like that (or even any of the other control surfaces) while the aircraft is grounded is not a function of the pilot's command but rather an FCS generated command because we don't see it all the time as the J-20 is taxiing or at the ramp, only occasionally. Maybe the flight sensors pick up a headwind or a gust coming from the back of the aircraft (as an example) and the FLCS automatically adjusts to that by fully deflecting the canards to create an air brake enough to slow the aircraft from that gust of wind until the engine automatically decreases throttle to compensate? Seems like a very realistic scenario, no?

But that's only a possibility for the taxiing process. It still doesn't explain that photo where they look like they're being deployed as speed brakes upon landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sinait

Deino said:


> To be fain, I'm sure no-one here in this forum ever flew in a J-20. So by that logic no-one is an expert... or am I wrong.


You are absolutely correct. 
I believe no one here is an expert on the J-20 or the F-22 and F-35 for that matter.
It would be swell to have a F-22 or F-35 pilot comment here.
I guess we have to make do with retired old pilots with their ancient experience masquerade as experts on 5th gen planes.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> I never claim I am an expert unlike some who BS about some canard control of J-20 as if he ever flow or sit inside a real J-20 cockpit? Got it?


If what I have been saying is BS, then you guys should have no problems countering it, after all, you guys consistently criticizes my technical explanations as coming from only wiki.

But everybody sees thru all of you. No one with some degree of technical interest on how aircraft works takes your criticisms of me seriously. You think I made up the phrase 'stability augmentation'?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7322579/


> An insight into the knowledge of Automatic Flight Control Systems (AFCSs) gives an understanding of the basic problem of controlling the aircraft's flight, and enhance its ability to assess the solutions to the problems which are generally proposed. Before understanding automatic controlling of an aircraft, it is essential to know how an aircraft will respond dynamically to a deliberate movement of its control surfaces, or to an encounter with unexpected and random disturbances of the air through which it is flying. With these thoughts this paper presents a reasonable self-contained account of the most significant method of designing linear control systems which find *universal use in AFCSs.*


Note the highlighted 'universal'.

As I have always said in the past and to today, if I post a paywalled source, I will make sure the appropriate keywords are available for *ANYONE* to use as reference for his own research. That means you guys have *ALWAYS* been free to prove me wrong, either using your research to pose as someone else, or using your research to prove I misled the readers. The fact that since '09, none of you critics have ever even dinged my technical explanations means the laugh is on *YOU*, not me.

So from my own experience in aviation, in and out of the military, I understand the J-20 better than *ALL* of you. I may have been driving Chevrolets all my life, but that does not mean I cannot understand how Fords operates, while *ALL* of you been on bicycles.

Can any of you disprove that the J-20 canards are coupled to the stabaug loop? Or prove that the canards can be de-coupled from the same at command discretion? Yes, only the J-20 pilot can answer the questions, but that does not mean all my posts about flight controls in general and about the canards in specifics have been fraudulent. My technical speculations forms the foundation upon which the interested readers can do their own research and forms their own speculations. Far better than they can speculate from the real BS that came from you guys that often defies the laws of physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Beast said:


> I never claim I am an expert unlike some who BS about some canard control of J-20 as if he ever flow or sit inside a real J-20 cockpit? Got it?



The pilot didn't say anything about canard control in that video.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> The pilot didn't say anything about canard control in that video.


Are you trying to defend gambit claiming his BS claim about control of J-20?

The only person qualify to talk about J-20 and authentic about their talk in J-20 for the control are these few pilots who flow the real J-20.

Flip back my post and see where did I mention about these video related to what? You shall stick back at SDF and stop coming to here if you do not even know who the real culprit you shall challenge.



gambit said:


> You misunderstood -- but it was my fault. I will elaborate.
> 
> The loop I explained in post 10292 is called the 'stability augmentation' loop. Or 'stabaug' for short.
> 
> Pre F-16 aircrafts can turn off stabaug, making flying the jet very difficult and tiring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From left to right: F-111 => F-4 => F-16.
> 
> For the F-111 FLCS panel, the three significant switches are the 'damper' switches, pitch, roll, and yaw. From engine start to landing, they are in the 'NORMAL' position.
> 
> For the F-4, I was not on that jet, but I can make an educated guess about its FLCS panel. It is not as sophisticated as the F-111, but it has the ability to turn off the stabaug process.
> 
> For the F-16, stabaug is constant.
> 
> When you disable stabaug, the burden of compensating for every jolt of turbulence, whether in level flight or in a maneuver, falls on *YOU* -- the pilot. Ask any non-F-16 pilot on what is it like to fly his jet without stabaug, and he will tell you that it is physically and mentally draining.
> 
> In Star Wars, Obi-wan Kenobi said that The Force controls your actions *BUT* also obeys your command. It is actually the wrong way to put it. The correct way to explain The Force regarding actions is: *AS* The Force controls your actions, it *ALSO* obeys your commands.
> 
> Flight Controls System Stability Augmentation works exactly like that: You command, the stabaug loop takes over the jet, and compensate for any other commands from you.
> 
> That was how I explained to my avionics trainees a long time ago after I got out of the USAF.
> 
> On the F-111, flying with the dampers off made for a physically demanding flight, especially at low altitude where there are weather phenomenons. Dampers on -- stabaug engaged -- was like night vs day.
> 
> So how does this applies to the J-20 and its canards?
> 
> The J-20 -- according to public information -- is an FBW-FLCS jet. That means it has the same FLCS basic architecture as the F-16. The flight controls laws would have some differences to account for the canards. But to give the pilot the option to control them fully manually, like the damper off position in the F-111 and F-4, that is dubious to say the least.
> 
> - The fully manual controls of the canards must be on the stick.
> 
> - Since the canards are active flight controls elements, the stick controls would have to be something like a wheel, perhaps a thumbwheel, to fully take advantage of its range of displacement.
> 
> - This increase the training requirement for the J-20. Like how the V-22 training requires the pilot to know how to fly the V-22 like a fixed wing and a rotary wing aircraft. Or like how the Su jets have full pilot authority over the 3D engine thrust.
> 
> - This increase the odds of pilot error. What if in under stress of combat, he turns the canard controls the opposite direction of where he actually want them?
> 
> - When is it appropriate to remove the canards from the stabaug loop? Under what flight conditions? Can it be done under maneuvers? Should it be done under maneuvers?
> 
> - If the canards under normal stabaug operation assist in roll, how complex must the manual control wheel be to give the pilot the same degree of control as under the FLCC? This also increase the odds of pilot error.
> 
> These questions are just the quickest I can come up with based upon my experience. You can be sure there are much more when you delve into the flight controls laws themselves, of which we do not have access to. That means you will have to settle for what I presented.
> 
> While it *IS* technically feasible to give the J-20 pilot full manual authority over the jet's canards, I find it difficult to justify it. The reason why we increasingly make the jet with greater autonomy regarding flight is because we want the pilot to be a killer, not a flyer.
> 
> Curious -- I do not see any of the resident Chinese 'experts' on the J-20 engaging in this discussion.


I think you shall refrain from BS about J-20 until you can fully absorbed what the J-20 pilot interview I posted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

Figaro said:


> View attachment 455335


 
What a beauty. This angle you can see the cupping of the wingtips. 
That metallic RAM is awesome, almost identical to the F-22. 

Even though the J-20 is a delta/canard design, it has a few similarities to the Raptor, mainly the cockpit and front end of the fuselage. I even noticed a similarity on the inside of the cockpit and that's the PVC or white piping at the front that is probably some sort of conduit for sensitive wiring. I first noticed it on the F-22 many years ago and then it appeared on the J-20 as well.






Has this video been posted before? Either way it's awesome and worth watching again.





__ https://www.facebook.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> ...a former Mirage pilot who flew the Mirage IIIC and then the V, then was assigned to the F-16 and he actually didn't like the easiness of flying a FBW aircraft. Probably because he was used to the hardship of the older system and was actually comfortable with it, which makes sense. One of his comments was "in the Mirage, you sat in it and had to work it which made you more part of it which was much more appealing. But in the F-16, you were just like a voting member." I thought that was pretty cool and actually very understandable.


There are many reasons why the Joe Jetjocks of today's air forces reveres the WW II era fighter pilots and physicality in flying was one of the major reasons.

If Hollywood really wanted to be accurate, the hero's face would not be clear as he flies his Mustang or Spit or Focke-Wulf. The aircraft would be jinking up/down and sideways. Modern day racing prop jobbers are better designed and *BUILT* than the fighters of WW II. The WW II era fighters are pretty much the ideal man-machine combination. The analogy would be the WW I era fighters are like bicycles, the WW II fighters are motorcycles, and today's jets are automobiles. In the middle is where you will find that balance of what is required of the man to handle the machine. When the last of the WW II fighter pilot die, military aviation will finally lose the link to a time when it took a different form of physical fitness to fly.



Gomig-21 said:


> It's understandable that those burdensome adjustments are alleviated as a result of the FCS and essentially the computer, but this is the way it was for decades up to and even including fabulous aircraft like the F-15.
> 
> So based on 'stabaug,' it's constantly active in these new aircraft which is basically why you're saying that there really isn't an auto or manual mode. I got it now.


On the backbone of the F-111, there are three hydraulic components call 'dampers', one for each flight axis.

In the cockpit, the control stick has direct mechanical linkage all the way to the hydraulic actuators at the wings, horizontal rear stabs, and the vertical stab. Each damper is mechanically linked in parallel to the appropriate axis of those mechanical linkages of the three axes. Each damper is controlled by the FLCC, not by the pilot.

As I pulled back on the stick to execute a pitch up maneuver, the direct linkages moves the surfaces' hydraulic actuators. Let us keep it simple and say 10 mm of movement. As the pitch rate gyro, accelerometer, air data, and hydraulic shaft position transducers send their signals to the FLCC, the FLCC may decides to extend an additional 2 mm of travel. Since the pitch damper is connect in parallel of the pitch axis mechanical linkages, there will be a sum of 12 mm of movement. If the FLCC decides 10 mm of travel is too much to maintain a smooth and stable pitch up maneuver, the FLCC will command the damper to 'subtract' 2 mm for a final 8 mm of movement. This is constant stabaug.

If I turn the pitch damper switch to 'OFF', then I will have whatever displacement I command from the stick.

On the F-16, the three dampers are virtual. They are represented by a section of the FLCC circuit board and assorted math algorithm. Precisely because the F-16 is relaxed stability, there can be no 'OFF' switch. Stability augmentation is a necessity. The F-111 was not designed with relaxed stability. Same for the F-14, F-15, the Mirage series, and just about everything in that era.

If the design is relaxed stability, stabaug is mandatory throughout flight.



Gomig-21 said:


> So is it reasonable to assume that there are levels of this automated mode or constant stabaug? For example when you separate the flight conditions ("take-off to landing" from "grounded or taxiing,") the levels of that automation is where it's different?


No. Based upon known architecture, stabaug is in play even when there is full WOW. That is where you see the F-16's horizontal stabs go up/down as the jet taxis over uneven ground. It is actually the better and safe state for the jet to be in. When I am on the runway -- not the ramp -- and heading towards take-off speed, I am *STILL*l on the ground. The FLCS needs to know at the exact moment when the jet is airborne, even if only the nose wheel is off the ground. Better to have that stabaug loop in constant operation.



Gomig-21 said:


> It seems like that in the latter, there still is a lot of manual input from the pilot as he's moving and turning the aircraft on the ground, or even checking the flight controls and the computer doesn't play into the operations as much, except for maybe in this specific instance of the canards deflecting, or even the V-stabs turning because there really isn't any substantial outside elements to dictate the need for it.


The extreme displacement of the surfaces on the ground are because the FLCC thinks they need to be that way in order to move the jet. Never mind that it is the landing gear that is moving the jet. The FLCS and the stabaug loop is designed to assume the jet is flying -- all the time. WOW or not.



Gomig-21 said:


> Maybe the flight sensors pick up a headwind or a gust coming from the back of the aircraft (as an example) and the FLCS automatically adjusts to that by fully deflecting the canards to create an air brake enough to slow the aircraft from that gust of wind until the engine automatically decreases throttle to compensate? Seems like a very realistic scenario, no?


No.

The 'flight sensors' you talked about are in the air data system, which is composed of the pitot/static probes and all of them faces forward, and the central air data computer (CADC). Running a few kts/hr at the ramp is not enough to trigger any input voltage to the FLCC. You would need tornado force wind to push the jet fast enough for ram air thru the pitot/static probes to tell the CADC that there is sufficient forward speed.

Wheel brakes are enough for running on the ramp no matter the local wind condition.



Gomig-21 said:


> It still doesn't explain that photo where they look like they're being deployed as speed brakes upon landing.


That is why it is curious as to why we see so many J-20 with engines running on the ramp with their flight control surfaces fully deflected to maximum. With the canards nearly vertical, they look odd. They could be that way during FLCS self tests but those self tests should have been done in the chocks.

Here is what I speculate...

There is a speedbrake subroutine inside the stabaug loop for the J-20, assuming the jet is designed to use the flight control surfaces as speedbrake function. Never mind the drag chute for now. 

Try to imagine and follow me...

- As the jet have main WOW upon touchdown, the FLCC immediately engages the speedbrake utility in its algorithm.

- The flight control surfaces staged to go to their default displacement position for speedbrake function. They are not fully displaced. They displace just enough to create some drag. The canards deflects LE down -- say 5 deg -- to kill lift.

- As nose WOW finally engaged, the flight control surfaces deflects some more to create more drag. The canards deflect an additional 5 deg LE down.

- As airspeed (ground speed) approaches a certain value that the FLCC thinks the tires will be enough to take over maneuvers controls, all flight control surfaces fully deflects to create maximum drag. The canards are fully LE down.

So for all these pictures that we see the J-20 running on the ramp with the canards fully LE down, the pilot just simply left the speedbrake function switch to the 'ON' position.

That is my hypothesis.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Avicenna

sinait said:


> You are absolutely correct.
> I believe no one here is an expert on the J-20 or the F-22 and F-35 for that matter.
> It would be swell to have a F-22 or F-35 pilot comment here.
> I guess we have to make do with retired old pilots with their ancient experience masquerade as experts on 5th gen planes.
> .



If you are referring to @gambit, he is an asset to these forums.

Have some respect for a retired fighter pilot.

He has more experience and knowledge about these matters than you or I ever will.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UKBengali

Avicenna said:


> If you are referring to @gambit, he is an asset to these forums.
> 
> Have some respect for a retired fighter pilot.
> 
> He has more experience and knowledge about these matters than you or I ever will.



Who told you that @gambit is a retired fighter pilot.
He was a technician that maintained planes.
Most of his knowledge is gained from talking to pilots and general reading.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Avicenna

UKBengali said:


> Who told you that @gambit is a retired fighter pilot.
> He was a technician that maintained planes.
> Most of his knowledge is gained from talking to pilots and general reading.



Regardless, the point of my previous post remains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Avicenna said:


> Regardless, the point of my previous post remains.



He is someone with an agenda and an axe to grind and that is why so many people do not respect him.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Avicenna

UKBengali said:


> He is someone with an agenda and an axe to grind and that is why so many people do not respect him.



Eh. I disagree with a lot of what he says. But that being said, he has a lot of insight and experience into military matters that we living room generals just will never have.

When it comes to non-military matters i.e. political or religious, yes we are on a level playing field and I tend to disagree with his opinions more often than not.

But when it comes to defense matters, I defer to his expertise. How can you not?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

Avicenna said:


> Eh. I disagree with a lot of what he says. But that being said, he has a lot of insight and experience into military matters that we living room generals just will never have.



My point was if he stopped with his agenda and just stuck to imparting his knowledge in military matters in an unbiased way, then he would not have so many problems with posters on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Avicenna

UKBengali said:


> My point was if he stopped with his agenda and just stuck to imparting his knowledge in military matters in an unbiased way, then he would not have so many problems with posters on this forum.



Eh whatever. I maintain he is an asset to this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

According to Gongke in CJDBY (he seems to be a reliable insider there), at current configuration, J-20's empty weight is less than Su-27.

And according to Pupu (who is a quite reliable source), the current J-20 has the highest thrust/weight ratio among all PLA fighters in service, which sidely proved Gongke's claim.

Which means, J-20's empty weight should not be more than 16 ton, which is considerably lighter than F-22's 19.7 ton and slightly higher than F-35's 13.5 ton.

About a year ago, Sina has published an article on the innovation of J-20's manufacturing process, include the intensive usage of advanced process and 3d-printing to reduce structural weight yet maintain structural strength, and advanced stealth coating tech could be another reason why J-20 is so light-weighted.

Due to J-20's optimization at super-sonic, some source claimed even with AL-31F, J-20 can reach Mach-1.5 without afterburner, but the time takes it to that speed are not satisfy super-cruise standard, but still, quite an achievement. Thanks to the J-20 aerodynamic design, actually the ratio of supersonic resistance (sorry don't know the term in English) for J-20 is just 70% of Su-27, no wonder the PLAAF J-20 pilot say when it comes to supersonic range, no one can match the performance of it.

No wonder PLAAF chief openly praised J-20 (the only PLA equipment received such honor) and rush to mass production of J-20 even without target engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> According to Gongke in CJDBY (he seems to be a reliable insider there), at current configuration, J-20's empty weight is less than Su-27.
> 
> And according to Pupu (who is a quite reliable source), the current J-20 has the highest thrust/weight ratio among all PLA fighters in service, which sidely proved Gongke's claim.
> 
> Which means, J-20's empty weight should not be more than 16 ton, which is considerably lighter than F-22's 19.7 ton and slightly higher than F-35's 13.5 ton.
> 
> About a year ago, Sina has published an article on the innovation of J-20's manufacturing process, include the intensive usage of advanced process and 3d-printing to reduce structural weight yet maintain structural strength, and advanced stealth coating tech could be another reason why J-20 is so light-weighted.
> 
> Due to J-20's optimization at super-sonic, some source claimed even with AL-31F, J-20 can reach Mach-1.5 without afterburner, but the time takes it to that speed are not satisfy super-cruise standard, but still, quite an achievement. Thanks to the J-20 aerodynamic design, actually the ratio of supersonic resistance (sorry don't know the term in English) for J-20 is just 70% of Su-27, no wonder the PLAAF J-20 pilot say when it comes to supersonic range, no one can match the performance of it.
> 
> No wonder PLAAF chief openly praised J-20 (the only PLA equipment received such honor) and rush to mass production of J-20 even without target engine.


And where did Pupu say this ... direct Weibo link? And which sources said only 70% of supersonic resistance?


----------



## 52051

Figaro said:


> And where did Pupu say this ... direct Weibo link? And which sources said only 70% of supersonic resistance?



Go find it yourself, you can search pupu's post history
https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2460158&extra=page=1

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

52051 said:


> According to Gongke in CJDBY (he seems to be a reliable insider there), at current configuration, J-20's empty weight is less than Su-27.
> 
> And according to Pupu (who is a quite reliable source), the current J-20 has the highest thrust/weight ratio among all PLA fighters in service, which sidely proved Gongke's claim.
> 
> Which means, J-20's empty weight should not be more than 16 ton, which is considerably lighter than F-22's 19.7 ton and slightly higher than F-35's 13.5 ton.
> 
> About a year ago, Sina has published an article on the innovation of J-20's manufacturing process, include the intensive usage of advanced process and 3d-printing to reduce structural weight yet maintain structural strength, and advanced stealth coating tech could be another reason why J-20 is so light-weighted.
> 
> Due to J-20's optimization at super-sonic, some source claimed even with AL-31F, J-20 can reach Mach-1.5 without afterburner, but the time takes it to that speed are not satisfy super-cruise standard, but still, quite an achievement. Thanks to the J-20 aerodynamic design, actually the ratio of supersonic resistance (sorry don't know the term in English) for J-20 is just 70% of Su-27, no wonder the PLAAF J-20 pilot say when it comes to supersonic range, no one can match the performance of it.
> 
> No wonder PLAAF chief openly praised J-20 (the only PLA equipment received such honor) and rush to mass production of J-20 even without target engine.



The weight publicly release by Lockheed is probably not accurate either. According to a former moderator from CJDBY (presumably living in the U.S. or Canada), he personally contacted Lockheed in the early 2000s and they stated that the F-22's weight is around 16 metric tons.


----------



## 52051

siegecrossbow said:


> The weight publicly release by Lockheed is probably not accurate either. According to a former moderator from CJDBY (presumably living in the U.S. or Canada), he personally contacted Lockheed in the early 2000s and they stated that the F-22's weight is around 16 metric tons.



I know that guy, he is an junior american fanboy, that guy is a joke, he proved nothing, he simply add most of F-22 indivial components to put it as empty weight, which is a joking standard, since he didnt include weight for connecting components/coating/internal oil/electricnic lines etc.

And I read his so-called email from Lockheed martin marketing department, and the reply from it didnt say anything about F-22's empty weight, he just put his words and wild imagination into it.

And btw, he is by no way insider or expert, at that time he write his bullshit, he is just an undergraduate student, which is by no means can get any research position in aerospace industry in China.

I remeber I love to make fun of his ridiculus claim and ***-kissing, for instance this one:
https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=700913&page=1#pid20861762

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> The weight publicly release by Lockheed is probably not accurate either. According to a former moderator from CJDBY (presumably living in the U.S. or Canada), he personally contacted Lockheed in the early 2000s and they stated that the F-22's weight is around 16 metric tons.


If that is the case, J-20 might weight even lighter. Maybe same weight as F-35. J-20 used large number of latest alloy plus the most advance 3D printing method. This significantly reduce the weight compare to traditional method build plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sinait

Avicenna said:


> If you are referring to @gambit, he is an asset to these forums.
> 
> Have some respect for a retired fighter pilot.
> 
> He has more experience and knowledge about these matters than you or I ever will.


Sorry I have no respect for petty old man.
A grouchy narrow heart guy who don't know how to accept an apology in a civil manner in a public forum from another forum member who on reviewing his post made in the heat of a debate felt it was maybe inappropriate for a civil discourse.

We see political candidates smile and shake hands even after heated and acrimonious debates.
Not Here even though we are not fighting for important or strategic positions but just posting different views in a discussion.







Frankly I don't understand this old guy, it is well known that we tend to be more insensitive on the internet where we are anonymous and don't have face to face engagement.
These people who don't know how to be civil in a public forum want to keep yelping about their freedom of speech and Democracy.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

sinait said:


> Sorry I have no respect for petty old man.
> A grouchy narrow heart guy who don't know how to accept an apology in a civil manner in a public forum from another forum member who on reviewing his post made in the heat of a debate felt it was maybe inappropriate for a civil discourse.
> 
> We see political candidates smile and shake hands even after heated and acrimonious debates.
> Not Here even though we are not fighting for important or strategic positions but just posting different views in a discussion.
> 
> View attachment 455757
> 
> 
> Frankly I don't understand this old guy, it is well known that we tend to be more insensitive on the internet where we are anonymous and don't have face to face engagement.
> .


To be fair, Gambbit is also pretty racist - in his own words - "to the core". He always begins his arguments by attacking Chinese people in general ... rather than a specific poster

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Brainsucker

52051 said:


> According to Gongke in CJDBY (he seems to be a reliable insider there), at current configuration, J-20's empty weight is less than Su-27.
> 
> And according to Pupu (who is a quite reliable source), the current J-20 has the highest thrust/weight ratio among all PLA fighters in service, which sidely proved Gongke's claim.
> 
> Which means, J-20's empty weight should not be more than 16 ton, which is considerably lighter than F-22's 19.7 ton and slightly higher than F-35's 13.5 ton.
> 
> About a year ago, Sina has published an article on the innovation of J-20's manufacturing process, include the intensive usage of advanced process and 3d-printing to reduce structural weight yet maintain structural strength, and advanced stealth coating tech could be another reason why J-20 is so light-weighted.
> 
> Due to J-20's optimization at super-sonic, some source claimed even with AL-31F, J-20 can reach Mach-1.5 without afterburner, but the time takes it to that speed are not satisfy super-cruise standard, but still, quite an achievement. Thanks to the J-20 aerodynamic design, actually the ratio of supersonic resistance (sorry don't know the term in English) for J-20 is just 70% of Su-27, no wonder the PLAAF J-20 pilot say when it comes to supersonic range, no one can match the performance of it.
> 
> No wonder PLAAF chief openly praised J-20 (the only PLA equipment received such honor) and rush to mass production of J-20 even without target engine.



Yes. AL-31F is the engine of flying truck (Flanker is sooo big like a truck). So if J-20 has less weight than SU-27, then yes, it's not under-powered like what people said. Actually it's quite fast

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Brainsucker said:


> So if J-20 has less weight than SU-27, then yes, it's not under-powered like what people said.


It's a bit more complicated than that. As @52051 pointed out, the J-20's acceleration to > Mach 1 without afterburners in the current configuration leaves something to be desired. I believe the reason is although the WS-10B has a sticker thrust of ~130kN, that's the afterburner thrust. The dry thrust is lower as a percentage of the afterburner thrust than in the F119 (I speculate that this is because the WS-10B has a higher bypass ratio), so the non-afterburner thrust available to accelerate the J-20 is comparatively poor vis-a-vis the F-22, even though the F-22 is significantly heavier.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sinait

Figaro said:


> To be fair, Gambbit is also pretty racist - in his own words - "to the core". He always begins his arguments by attacking Chinese people in general ... rather than a specific poster


I wonder if this guy ever met a person who took the trouble to say words to try and alleviate some of the anger that may have been inadvertently caused to him due to harsh words used in the heat of a debate.
Ya, no point being nice to petty and racist types.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> WS-10B has a thrust of 140 kN ... not 130.


Same point applies, the dry thrust to wet thrust ratio in the WS-10 series is lower than that in the F119 - if it were otherwise and the reported weight of the J-20 is accurate, then it would have no problems accelerating to Mach 1.5 similarly to the F-22 (in fact, the J-20 would then have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-22, so the acceleration would be superior, if both have roughly the same drag).

If we assume the supercruise rumour is accurate, this leaves the following possibilities, just based on a simple balance-of-forces analysis:

The J-20 is significantly draggier than the F-22.
The J-20 is significantly heavier than reported.
The WS-10B has significantly lower wet thrust than reported.
The dry thrust to wet thrust ratio of the WS-10B is significantly lower than the F119's ratio.
If all of the above are false, then the F-22's acceleration to Mach 1.5 also sucks.


----------



## 52051

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Same point applies, the dry thrust to wet thrust ratio in the WS-10 series is lower than that in the F119 - if it were otherwise and the reported weight of the J-20 is accurate, then it would have no problems accelerating to Mach 1.5 similarly to the F-22 (in fact, the J-20 would then have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-22, so the acceleration would be superior, if both have roughly the same drag).
> 
> If we assume the supercruise rumour is accurate, this leaves the following possibilities, just based on a simple balance-of-forces analysis:
> 
> The J-20 is significantly draggier than the F-22.
> The J-20 is significantly heavier than reported.
> The WS-10B has significantly lower wet thrust than reported.
> The dry thrust to wet thrust ratio of the WS-10B is significantly lower than the F119's ratio.
> If all of the above are false, then the F-22's acceleration to Mach 1.5 also sucks.



Actually dry-thrust is not a static number, it varies at different flight conditions.

And you should think about that: the turbine-fan engine's fan could possibly mainly serve as a drag in supersonic range, the thrust for it could be less than it is in sub-sonic phase.

That's' why the by-pass ratio of F119 is extremely low, and it is considered as optimized towards supersonic phase, whilst AL-31F is still a traditional turbine fan engine with large by-pass ratio and therefore its thrust at supersonic range will be comprised without afterburner.

So Al-31F/WS-10 will has less thrust to push J-20 at supersonic range, could be well less than its rated dry thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

52051 said:


> Actually dry-thrust is not a static number, it varies at different flight conditions.
> 
> And you should think about that: the turbine-fan engine's fan could possibly mainly serve as a drag in supersonic range, the thrust for it could be less than it is in sub-sonic phase.
> 
> That's' why the by-pass ratio of F119 is extremely low, and it is considered as optimized towards supersonic phase, whilst AL-31F is still a traditional turbine fan engine with large by-pass ratio and therefore its thrust at supersonic range will be comprised without afterburner.
> 
> So Al-31F/WS-10 will has less thrust to push J-20 at supersonic range, could be well less than its rated dry thrust.


I see, very interesting. I take it this is the issue (supersonic performance vs range/fuel efficiency) is what variable cycle engines try to address?


----------



## 52051

ZeEa5KPul said:


> I see, very interesting. I take it this is the issue (supersonic performance vs range/fuel efficiency) is what variable cycle engines try to address?



To be honest I have no idea, I just read some book on that, it seems that actually trubine jet engine is optmized for supersonic phase, thats why F119 is estientally a turbine engine pretending to be turbofan one

Of cause turbine jet engine has the problem of low fuel efficieny and less rated dry thrust at a given size of flow, thats one of the reason why F-22 has a range issue.

And for the same reason, comparing to F119, F-135's increased thrust mainly come from increased by-pass ratio, thats one of the reason why despite of the high thrust of F-135, F-35 still cannot do super-cruise like F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> Are you trying to defend gambit claiming his BS claim about control of J-20?
> 
> The only person qualify to talk about J-20 and authentic about their talk in J-20 for the control are these few pilots who flow the real J-20.
> 
> Flip back my post and see where did I mention about these video related to what? You shall stick back at SDF and stop coming to here if you do not even know who the real culprit you shall challenge.
> 
> I think you shall refrain from BS about J-20 until you can fully absorbed what the J-20 pilot interview I posted.


Did you recently learn how to use the word 'shall'? 

If what I posted so far about the J-20's canard operations are obviously BS, then you should have no problems refuting me. Why have you not? Just because you did not understand a thing I posted, that does not mean what I speculated is baseless. The claim that the J-20 is '5th gen' does not excuse it from the real laws of physics.

Let us take an aerodynamicist who have been working only on glider wings. Do you really believe that when he sees the LE flaps on the J-20's delta wings, he is going to ask: 'WTF are they?'

No, he will know *EXACTLY* what they are and their functions. He may not know the mathematical details of their displacement and rate of, or how much the differential pressure over the wings, but he will have the general principles of wing shape alterations for higher lift for certain flight conditions. That is what flaps -- LE and TE -- does.

When professionals encounter something new, it is only natural that they will speculate about the new thing base upon their own experiences. If I am forbidden to speculate, then what make you guys qualified to speculate on non-Chinese hardware, especially when none of you ever had anything to do with aviation outside of being a passenger on an aircraft?

So what really sticks it to you are that...

1- You did not understand a thing posted.
2- You could not refute based upon content.
3- An American is doing a better job of talking about a Chinese jet than *ALL* of you could.

There are plenty of keywords for you to use. If you are too lazy and/or do not have the brains to use those keywords, then STFU. Hopefully, you will learn something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yantong1980

Figaro said:


> To be fair, Gambbit is also pretty racist - in his own words - "to the core". He always begins his arguments by attacking Chinese people in general ... rather than a specific poster



Agree, pity all of us stuck with these guy, unfortunately all of us confused by rumour, by based only by what someone talking about from another forum. Seems we need 'expert' kind of guy that based in China, really knowing what going on there, not biased. But I'm afraid it never gonna happen. Sorry being out of topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

yantong1980 said:


> Agree, pity all of us stuck with these guy, unfortunately all of us confused by rumour, by based only by what someone talking about from another forum. Seems we need 'expert' kind of guy that based in China, really knowing what going on there, not biased. But I'm afraid it never gonna happen. Sorry being out of topic.



People with inside information in China probably 1) don't know fluent English and 2) aren't allowed to post on forums.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## yantong1980

siegecrossbow said:


> People with inside information in China probably 1) don't know fluent English and 2) aren't allowed to post on forums.



Agree. Seems pretty much about J-20 will stay 'stealth', even we know what it look like now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## phancong

gambit said:


> Did you recently learn how to use the word 'shall'?
> 
> If what I posted so far about the J-20's canard operations are obviously BS, then you should have no problems refuting me. Why have you not? Just because you did not understand a thing I posted, that does not mean what I speculated is baseless. The claim that the J-20 is '5th gen' does not excuse it from the real laws of physics.
> 
> Let us take an aerodynamicist who have been working only on glider wings. Do you really believe that when he sees the LE flaps on the J-20's delta wings, he is going to ask: 'WTF are they?'
> 
> No, he will know *EXACTLY* what they are and their functions. He may not know the mathematical details of their displacement and rate of, or how much the differential pressure over the wings, but he will have the general principles of wing shape alterations for higher lift for certain flight conditions. That is what flaps -- LE and TE -- does.
> 
> When professionals encounter something new, it is only natural that they will speculate about the new thing base upon their own experiences. If I am forbidden to speculate, then what make you guys qualified to speculate on non-Chinese hardware, especially when none of you ever had anything to do with aviation outside of being a passenger on an aircraft?
> 
> So what really sticks it to you are that...
> 
> 1- You did not understand a thing posted.
> 2- You could not refute based upon content.
> 3- An American is doing a better job of talking about a Chinese jet than *ALL* of you could.
> 
> There are plenty of keywords for you to use. If you are too lazy and/or do not have the brains to use those keywords, then STFU. Hopefully, you will learn something.


Your not American, your just a naturalized US citizen. After 5 yrs holding US green card, anyone can become a US citizen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## seesonic

Avicenna said:


> If you are referring to @gambit, he is an asset to these forums.
> 
> Have some respect for a retired fighter pilot.
> 
> He has more experience and knowledge about these matters than you or I ever will.



Are you gambit? 



Beast said:


> I never claim I am an expert unlike some who BS about some canard control of J-20 as if he ever flow or sit inside a real J-20 cockpit? Got it?



Thats why we have leechers leeching off chinese members such as you to do free translation for them while they leech off with your translation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Avicenna

phancong said:


> Your not American, your just a naturalized US citizen. After 5 yrs holding US green card, anyone can become a US citizen.



Being a US citizen makes him American.



seesonic said:


> Are you gambit?
> 
> 
> 
> Thats why we have leechers leeching off chinese members such as you to do free translation for them while they leech off with your translation.



LOL no I’m not gambit.


----------



## phancong

Avicenna said:


> Being a US citizen makes him American.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL no I’m not gambit.


He spoke in a way of US born American, many in here opinion of him rode on the success of the US to belittle other nation but everyone knew the land he was born and raise up at still a poor 3rd world nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sinait

seesonic said:


> Are you gambit?





Avicenna said:


> Being a US citizen makes him American.
> LOL no I’m not gambit.


I believe he meant to tell you if @gambit is not too old and senile, he is more than capable to answer for himself and don't need busybodies like you to answer for him. 
Unless of course if you are caretaker for him.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jamal18

phancong said:


> Your not American, your just a naturalized US citizen. After 5 yrs holding US green card, anyone can become a US citizen.



Like your parents.


----------



## Deino

Anyway ... can we come back to the topic please!!!??

With each new post I'm getting a heart attack since I'm expecting finally a new image of 2022 or even one in serial numbers from the 9th Brigade... and then each time the frustration that you are discussing Gambit's history.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> Anyway ... can we come back to the topic please!!!??
> 
> With each new post I'm getting a heart attack since I'm expecting finally a new image of 2022 or even one in serial numbers from the 9th Brigade... *and then each time the frustration that you are discussing Gambit's history.*
> 
> Deino


Because they got nothing to go on. Mr. MIg and I are doing just fine. The Chinese and their supporters do not understand one whit of what I posted so what else can they do but go after personal attacks. I have asked this to various members of the admin staff: What do my origin has to do with avionics? And I have yet to receive a reply.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Anyway ... can we come back to the topic please!!!??
> 
> With each new post I'm getting a heart attack since I'm expecting finally a new image of 2022 or even one in serial numbers from the 9th Brigade... and then each time the frustration that you are discussing Gambit's history.
> 
> Deino



You should check use this instead.

https://lt.cjdby.net/

If the traffic on 空军版 (air force board) exceeds 1500, you know something is up.


----------



## Dungeness

gambit said:


> Because they got nothing to go on. Mr. MIg and I are doing just fine. The Chinese and their supporters do not understand one whit of what I posted so what else can they do but go after personal attacks. I have asked this to various members of the admin staff: *What do my origin has to do with avionics? *And I have yet to receive a reply.



Because Chinese members want to figure out the reason why a retired USAF guy can be so hateful to China and so racist to Chinese, and your "professional" opinion just lost its value in your daily China bashing. You know, just like some of those a-hole professors in any university, people could have taken them more seriously if not for their attitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

siegecrossbow said:


> You should check use this instead.
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/
> 
> If the traffic on 空军版 (air force board) exceeds 1500, you know something is up.



There's a rumor that 601 might unveil something pretty soon; is this related to that rumor?


----------



## gambit

Dungeness said:


> Because Chinese members want to figure out the reason why a retired USAF guy can be so hateful to China and so racist to Chinese,...


I was invited to this forum back in '09 and when I came here, I was respectful towards everyone, including the Chinese members. There were few Americans then, just as there are few Americans now.

When the J-20 came out, the Chinese made all kinds of fantastic claims about it. Politely, I challenged them all, with non-disputable sources like IEEE, .edu, .gov, and so on. First, I was nothing but an ignorant redneck, then when I revealed I am a Vietnamese-American, the personal attacks got even worse. Since you guys do not want to deal with me on an adult level, I will return in kind.

The bottom line is that, as a group, you guys do not have the maturity to debate like adults. I challenge China at the ideological and political level, never as a people. Nowhere have I ever said the Chinese people are stupid or called you 'monkeys', a racist slur that you guys are quite careless with slinging out. This is not new. The entire admin staff knows.

Debate me on *CONTENTS* is something you guys simply cannot do, no matter how polite I can be, and actually have done.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dungeness

gambit said:


> I was invited to this forum back in '09 and when I came here, I was respectful towards everyone, including the Chinese members. There were few Americans then, just as there are few Americans now.
> 
> When the J-20 came out, the Chinese made all kinds of fantastic claims about it. Politely, I challenged them all, with non-disputable sources like IEEE, .edu, .gov, and so on. First, I was nothing but an ignorant redneck, then when I revealed I am a Vietnamese-American, the personal attacks got even worse. Since you guys do not want to deal with me on an adult level, I will return in kind.
> 
> The bottom line is that, as a group, you guys do not have the maturity to debate like adults. I challenge China at the ideological and political level, never as a people. Nowhere have I ever said the Chinese people are stupid or called you 'monkeys', a racist slur that you guys are quite careless with slinging out. This is not new. The entire admin staff knows.
> 
> Debate me on *CONTENTS* is something you guys simply cannot do, no matter how polite I can be, and actually have done.




You challenged wrong audience as a professional. Chinese military professionals do not discuss classified military matter on line, and those who do in details are not professionals. There are some serious military forums that are not for common military fanboys, and even there people are resorting to some "black terminology" to get point across. Anybody works even one day in Chinese military industry complex knows what not to talk in open.

It is your misconception that Chinese are incompetent just because people here don't discuss the way you like. As for "return in kind", we can only set a bar for ourselves, we can't set it for others.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 帅的一匹

phancong said:


> Your not American, your just a naturalized US citizen. After 5 yrs holding US green card, anyone can become a US citizen.


American and US citizen is totally different concepts in my mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Dungeness said:


> You challenged wrong audience as a professional. Chinese military professionals do not discuss classified military matter on line, and those who do in details are not professionals.


What does this has to do with what we are debating -- avionics? Where have I revealed anything 'classified'?

So from the way you talk, by way of me being former USAF, I am automatically disqualified from debating you? That make no sense.



Dungeness said:


> It is your misconception that Chinese are incompetent just because people here don't discuss the way you like.


If you are untrained and/or uneducated, then if you speak about the subjects that requires education, then of course you are incompetent. You being Chinese/Briton/Italian/Spaniard/Russian/whatever has no bearing.

If you make a comment that is clearly wrong and I showed where you are wrong, including non-disputable technical sources, do not complain. Do not charge that I challenge you because I hate China and that I am a racist. You are *TECHNICALLY* wrong. That is all there is to it.



Dungeness said:


> As for "return in kind", we can only set a bar for ourselves, we can't set it for others.


Fine...Let us see if you Chinese, as a group, can raise that bar. Let me know when *ALL* of you are willing to debate me on contents.

We can start now...Can any of you explain why the J-20's canards are in full LE down deflection when running on the ramp?

There is nothing 'racist' or 'hateful' about that question, no?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Dungeness said:


> You never really get my point. It is fine.


Let me know when you guys are ready to debate me on contents.

We can start now...Can any of you explain why the J-20's canards are in full LE down deflection when running on the ramp?

This is a Chinese product and I was told many times in the past that only Chinese are *QUALIFIED* to debate this Chinese product.


----------



## Dungeness

gambit said:


> Let me know when you guys are ready to debate me on contents.
> 
> We can start now...Can any of you explain why the J-20's canards are in full LE down deflection when running on the ramp?
> 
> This is a Chinese product and I was told many times in the past that only Chinese are *QUALIFIED* to debate this Chinese product.




Real professionals usually don't try to show off the way you do. You try a little too hard to prove you know something.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Dungeness said:


> Real professionals usually don't try to show off the way you do. You try a little too hard to prove you know something.


So you are saying that by virtue of me being a USAF veteran, I am automatically disqualified from debating on military themed forum.

If I showed the technically correct ways of looking at something, I am showing off and deserves condemnation from those who are wrong.

Hey, @Deino, you seeing this nonsense? Since you are actually a printed author in aviation, that means you are disqualified as well.

This is what your forum has deteriorated to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Dungeness said:


> That says something about your decency.


The indecent thing is *NOT* to admit when you are wrong, especially when you are *TECHNICALLY* wrong.

I am not here to earn 'props' from anyone. I am here to speak for the US in general and the USAF in particular. I like aviation, so I will be interested in things about aviation. If you are wrong, I do not care if you thank me or not after I showed you the correct information. At the very least, say something vague like: 'I will consider your position.' That is all there is to it to save face. But you guys cannot even say that.

Again...Since the J-20 is a Chinese product, and I have been told many times in the past that only Chinese are qualified to debate Chinese products, even at the technical level, can any Chinese member in this forum explain why does the J-20's canards are in full LE down deflection when running on the ramp?


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> The indecent thing is *NOT* to admit when you are wrong, especially when you are *TECHNICALLY* wrong.
> 
> I am not here to earn 'props' from anyone. I am here to speak for the US in general and the USAF in particular. I like aviation, so I will be interested in things about aviation. If you are wrong, I do not care if you thank me or not after I showed you the correct information. At the very least, say something vague like: 'I will consider your position.' That is all there is to it to save face. But you guys cannot even say that.
> 
> Again...Since the J-20 is a Chinese product, and I have been told many times in the past that only Chinese are qualified to debate Chinese products, even at the technical level, can any Chinese member in this forum explain why does the J-20's canards are in full LE down deflection when running on the ramp?


I don't know why the canards are in full LE down deflection. I only know J20's canard is made of RAM(Nano composite grid structure filled with absorbing foam).

Maybe it's configuration set up of FBW 
?

If you know it, share with me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> I don't know why the canards are in full LE down deflection.


One down, a few more to go. Do you think my speculation -- post 10305 -- about their position is technically sound? Does not have to be correct, just have to be logical.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...ews-discussions.111471/page-687#post-10278060


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> One down, a few more to go. Do you think my speculation -- post 10305 -- about their position is technically sound? Does not have to be correct, just have to be logical.
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...ews-discussions.111471/page-687#post-10278060


I didn't read your previous post, it serves air brake. I think you are right.


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> I didn't read your previous post, it serves air brake. I think you are right.


And that is all I asked. I do not care if you really think I am correct. For all we know, I am absolutely wrong. But this kind of civil exchange is what should have happened. I explained what I am familiar with, why I believes it is applicable to the new product, and people can take it from there. No one 'forces' anyone to take any view.


----------



## azesus

Gambit you sound like Donald Trump, enough said

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

gambit said:


> Because they got nothing to go on. Mr. MIg and I are doing just fine. The Chinese and their supporters do not understand one whit of what I posted so what else can they do but go after personal attacks. I have asked this to various members of the admin staff: What do my origin has to do with avionics? And I have yet to receive a reply.



Gambit, if you're really a professional and mature, you should ignore them and move on. The way you answering some fan boys here show that you're not mature enough and not professional enough for the sake of this forum. You just waste the space in this thread with out of topics troll war; which is childish for a "Retired USAF pilot". Look at @Deino, even when people here attack him, he still can act very professionally and not flooding the thread with dumb troll war posts.

My suggestion for you is, ignore those troll's post that attack you and act gracefully and professionally, like a real mature and respectable person.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> You should check use this instead.
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/
> 
> If the traffic on 空军版 (air force board) exceeds 1500, you know something is up.



You mean here?

https://lt.cjdby.net/forum-4-1.html

Any hint on what might be coming soon? What's your guess?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> You mean here?
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/forum-4-1.html
> 
> Any hint on what might be coming soon? What's your guess?



Yup.

Actually right now there might be false positives due to Su-57 deployment in Syria. Let's wait till that dies down first.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> You mean here?
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/forum-4-1.html
> 
> Any hint on what might be coming soon? What's your guess?



I can't read Hua Yi, but it seems that there are a lot of new SU-57 threads in there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Brainsucker said:


> I can't read Hua Yi, but it seems that there are a lot of new SU-57 threads in there.



A lot of Chinese military fans are surprised that Russia is sending Su-57s to the frontline before officially inducting them and some are wondering whether J-20 should do the same.

Let's return to the topic now.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

The Russia will be mauled in syria even with Su-57 but China shall not send the J-20 to syria.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> - As nose WOW finally engaged, the flight control surfaces deflects some more to create more drag. The canards deflect an additional 5 deg LE down.
> 
> - As airspeed (ground speed) approaches a certain value that the FLCC thinks the tires will be enough to take over maneuvers controls, all flight control surfaces fully deflects to create maximum drag. The canards are fully LE down.



Too bad there isn't a video of a complete landing sequence to really see the process. 

That might explain why there is also the drag chute on the J-20, since it's probably a must, that ground speed reaches a certain value before using the canards as speed brakes because those are also control surfaces that dictate pitch, unlike for example, a spine speed brake such as the one in the F-15 of Su-27/30/35, or those two little lip flaps on the back of the F-16. The aircraft that have dedicated speed brakes are just used for that purpose and are usually designed in a way to deploy while not to affecting the pitch of the aircraft in any significant manner, even in flight. I suspect that even as the J-20's canards are slowly pitched LE down after touchdown, they create a huge downforce on the front of the aircraft that the speed most certainly needs to reach a certain value before they deflect completely. Otherwise I just think that not only would there be some instability and possibly be too much strain on the front gear. I don't think that the movement of the canards is sudden or abrupt, but rather gradual.

I think if they're used as speed brakes, they're supplemental to the drag chutes. 



gambit said:


> So for all these pictures that we see the J-20 running on the ramp with the canards fully LE down, the pilot just simply left the speedbrake function switch to the 'ON' position.



I can buy your hypothesis only if it's an SOP for all the pilots, and not just the occasional one who feels like leaving the speedbrake function switch in the on position since we saw 2 J-20's in a row do it as they exited the sun shelters. That's also assuming that the action is indeed a speedbrake function. Are there any other possibilities?


----------



## hirobo2

Lol. How about those canards flip vertically so the maintenance crews don't/can't step on them?


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> That might explain why there is also the drag chute on the J-20, since it's probably a must, that ground speed reaches a certain value before using the canards as speed brakes because those are also control surfaces that dictate pitch, unlike for example, a spine speed brake such as the one in the F-15 of Su-27/30/35, or those two little lip flaps on the back of the F-16.
> 
> *I think if they're used as speed brakes, they're supplemental to the drag chutes.*


The drag chute is a one-time use device, meaning for each landing, the pilot can use it only once -- deployment. Then once it is deployed, it must be ejected after a certain distance/time. So far, there is no design where the jet can retract the chute and redeploy as needed.

The drag chute is the most efficient way of slowing down a jet, however, the F-4 pilot operating manual have a drag chute section where certain landing conditions discourage deployment, namely high crosswind. So for the J-20, perhaps the speedbrake function using the flight control surfaces are supplemental to the drag chute for when landing conditions do not allow the use of the chute.



Gomig-21 said:


> The aircraft that have dedicated speed brakes are just used for that purpose and are usually designed in a way to deploy while not to affecting the pitch of the aircraft in any significant manner, even in flight. I suspect that even as the J-20's canards are slowly pitched LE down after touchdown, they create a huge downforce on the front of the aircraft that the speed most certainly needs to reach a certain value before they deflect completely. Otherwise I just think that not only would there be some instability and possibly be too much strain on the front gear. I don't think that the movement of the canards is sudden or abrupt, but rather gradual.


Going back to the flight controls laws...And remaining with full FBW-FLCS designs for now...

When the landing gear handle is lowered, this command takes priority over other logic in the laws. Lowering the landing gear handle is not a virtual command but a physical one, complete with lockout switches built into the handle. The reason we design the system this way is because we want the system to have no uncertainty as to what the pilot want, and landing is obviously mandatory at some time in flight.

So when the landing gear handle is lowered, we want the wings to be at their most efficient shape to produce the highest lift possible. The logic then is to lower the landing gears, we can assume landing gear switches are engaged once they are fully down and locked, *AND* to deploy wing LE and TE flaps to alter wing shape. The logic is not sequential but in parallel, meaning both actions takes place at the same time. The reasoning is that if there is something wrong with the landing gears, at least the wings are configured for landing, and if there is something wrong with reconfiguring the wings, at least the landing gears are down and locked.

And if both does not happen as the logic commanded, pull the ejection handle. Not sure if I want to try a landing with neither wing nor landing gear down even at the slowest speed.






At timestamp 0:04, even though the video is grainy, you can see the starboard wing's LE flap deflected down while there is no landing gear deployment. Faint, but discernible.

So what does this has to do with the J-20's speculative use of the flight control surfaces as speedbrake function? Plenty. As in the logic of the flight control laws.

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html


> *2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake*
> 
> The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.
> 
> ...the raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.
> 
> ...the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments.


Just like the TO/L logic where there are commanded and defaulted flight control surfaces' position, the F-18SH's speedbrake function has its own logic the moment the pilot activate the speedbrake switch. There is no dedicated speedbrake device. The jet uses all of its flight control surfaces in *DEFAULTED* balanced positions to create drag *WHILE* still giving the pilot full command authority to maneuver.

Assuming the J-20 uses the concept of 'balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces', the behaviors we see on the J-20 are inline with the concept. The logic maybe different with the inclusion of the canards and the delta wings, but the logic is definitely inferable based upon what we know of flight controls laws in general and with the F-18SH in particular as reference.



Gomig-21 said:


> I can buy your hypothesis only if it's an SOP for all the pilots, and not just the occasional one who feels like leaving the speedbrake function switch in the on position since we saw 2 J-20's in a row do it as they exited the sun shelters. That's also assuming that the action is indeed a speedbrake function. *Are there any other possibilities?*


Possibly, but from my perspective, the odds of them are low.

Keywords search 'aircraft landing hot brakes'.

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14014/css/Wheel-Assembly-Fires-348.htm

After a landing and once an aircraft is at end-of-runway (EOR), the EOR crew does a brief inspection of the jet prior to sending him to the chocks. Ground crews are trained to *NEVER* approach the wheel from its face, but from either front or rear.







The J-20 maybe landing with a full fuel load -- air refueled. Or unspent ordnance because of no targets. Or battle damaged. Deltas are known for higher than normal landing speed. The drag chute seems to be a requirement rather than an optional feature for the J-20. However, local conditions such as high crosswind makes usage of the chute an option rather than a requirement. So *WHEN* -- not if -- the J-20 pilot has to land his jet without the chute, he is stuck with only the wheel brakes? I cannot see that as acceptable by the J-20's designers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

China to develop the next(5th) generation anti-stealth radar.

Combining microwave and photonics technologies, the new radar is not only capable of detecting stealth fighter but also capable of distinguishing a particular aircraft type, even a specific aircraft. 

中电科38所吴剑旗：进军第五代反隐身雷达

2月23日上午，安徽省科学技术奖励大会在合肥隆重召开，中国电科首席科学家、38所科技委主任吴剑旗获得2017年度安徽省重大科技成就奖。“这是对我和我们科研团队的充分肯定和认可，对我们来说既是鼓励更是鞭策。 ”吴剑旗表示，下一步将继续瞄准反隐身雷达研究，探寻更先进的反隐身技术，将荣誉转化为前进的动力，不辜负大家的厚爱与鼓励。

走进位于合肥市高新区的中国电科38所，一座巨型的雷达雕塑首先映入眼帘。自1990年进入38所，吴剑旗28年来献身雷达技术研究。作为雷达专家，他勇于创新、另辟蹊径，以不达目的誓不罢休的决心和韧劲，实现我国雷达研究由“跟跑”到“领跑”的转变。他领衔研发多型反隐身米波雷达，如一双双 “火眼金睛”，让一切敢于来犯之敌无处遁形，让祖国的蓝天云轻星粲。

隐身战机，被誉为现代战争中的超级装备。 1991年，海湾战争爆发，美国隐身飞机首次大规模投入实战，可以在不被对方发现的情况下纵深打击防空体系、指挥体系关键节点，致其瘫痪，后续常规力量再肆意轰炸。 “雷达不能反隐身，一个国家基本国防安全就没有保障。 ”吴剑旗说，当时全世界都没有反隐身雷达，我国雷达技术水平更是与发达国家存在代差，主要任务就是追赶并缩小差距。 “美国是世界上雷达技术最先进的国家，它是造‘矛’的一方，绝不会告诉我们造‘盾’的方法。 ”

吴剑旗坦言，研究反隐身雷达没有明确追赶、模仿的对象，只能靠独立自主地探索。

从基本理论，到设计方法，再到工程实现……为了填补反隐身雷达的空白，吴剑旗带领团队整整探索了20年，2011年反隐身雷达终于变成了装备。“刚开始时，反隐身雷达在国内立项阻力很大，质疑声很多，因为当时都是习惯于跟随式发展，国际上没有先例。但我们顶住了压力，最终将想法变成了实用装备。 ”吴剑旗透露，上世纪九十年代，从事国防技术研究待遇较低，从事雷达基础性预先研究更是条件差、工作时间长、收入少，研究团队中也有很多人经不住高薪和优厚待遇的诱惑，或出国或跳槽去了高薪揽才的民企，但他不能一走了之。

“作为一名雷达人，既要敬畏这份职业，又要担当起责任和使命。 ”吴剑旗说。 1999年，我国驻南联盟大使馆被炸，中国成了联合国5个常任理事国中唯一被隐身飞机轰炸过的国家，这更激起他们不造出反隐身雷达誓不罢休的斗志。 20年潜心研究，20年大胆实践。最终，吴剑旗带领团队探索形成了独有的反隐身先进米波雷达理论、建立了基础数据模型和相应的独有设计方法，研制出了中国独有的反隐身先进米波雷达，解决了我国防空骨干雷达能力被隐身飞机“清零”的问题。这些反隐身雷达从理论、设计到制造都是中国独有、独创，完全摆脱了对进口的依赖。

28年来，吴剑旗始终坚守使命、守望蓝天，他参与研制的DBF体制三坐标雷达，获得国家科技进步一等奖，标志着中国雷达首次赶上世界先进水平；主导研制的稀布阵综合脉冲孔径雷达试验系统、机动式米波三坐标雷达，先后获得国家科技进步二等奖，填补了我国反隐身雷达装备空白，主要指标世界领先。因成绩突出，他先后获得全国优秀科技工作者、全国创新争先奖等荣誉。

“下一步，我们将向第五代反隐身雷达进军，并努力实现分布式协同探测。”吴剑旗表示，第五代反隐身雷达从作战应用上来说，将用来“对付”具有超音速巡航、无人驾驶、两栖作战等特性的第五代隐形战机；从技术方向上来说，要将微波与光子技术结合，实现全息感知、智能化和软件化，不仅可以探测到隐形战机，还要能够辨别具体机型，甚至可以分辨出是哪一架飞机。

良好的创新环境，是科技创新的肥沃土壤。 “安徽为科技工作者创新、创业营造了非常好的环境，建立了‘四个一’创新主平台，创新生态和政策环境走在了全国前列。 ”吴剑旗表示，他将努力当好提升自主创新能力的开拓者、建设现代化经济体系的生力军、培养提携青年才俊的引路人，在反隐身雷达领域敢为人先、再进一步，并推动先进雷达技术服务于城市安全，为建设现代化五大发展美好安徽作出更多贡献。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> China to develop the next(5th) generation anti-stealth radar.
> 
> Combining microwave and photonics technologies, the new radar is not only capable of detecting stealth fighter but also capable of distinguishing a particular aircraft type, even a specific aircraft.
> 
> 中电科38所吴剑旗：进军第五代反隐身雷达
> 
> 2月23日上午，安徽省科学技术奖励大会在合肥隆重召开，中国电科首席科学家、38所科技委主任吴剑旗获得2017年度安徽省重大科技成就奖。“这是对我和我们科研团队的充分肯定和认可，对我们来说既是鼓励更是鞭策。 ”吴剑旗表示，下一步将继续瞄准反隐身雷达研究，探寻更先进的反隐身技术，将荣誉转化为前进的动力，不辜负大家的厚爱与鼓励。
> 
> 走进位于合肥市高新区的中国电科38所，一座巨型的雷达雕塑首先映入眼帘。自1990年进入38所，吴剑旗28年来献身雷达技术研究。作为雷达专家，他勇于创新、另辟蹊径，以不达目的誓不罢休的决心和韧劲，实现我国雷达研究由“跟跑”到“领跑”的转变。他领衔研发多型反隐身米波雷达，如一双双 “火眼金睛”，让一切敢于来犯之敌无处遁形，让祖国的蓝天云轻星粲。
> 
> 隐身战机，被誉为现代战争中的超级装备。 1991年，海湾战争爆发，美国隐身飞机首次大规模投入实战，可以在不被对方发现的情况下纵深打击防空体系、指挥体系关键节点，致其瘫痪，后续常规力量再肆意轰炸。 “雷达不能反隐身，一个国家基本国防安全就没有保障。 ”吴剑旗说，当时全世界都没有反隐身雷达，我国雷达技术水平更是与发达国家存在代差，主要任务就是追赶并缩小差距。 “美国是世界上雷达技术最先进的国家，它是造‘矛’的一方，绝不会告诉我们造‘盾’的方法。 ”
> 
> 吴剑旗坦言，研究反隐身雷达没有明确追赶、模仿的对象，只能靠独立自主地探索。
> 
> 从基本理论，到设计方法，再到工程实现……为了填补反隐身雷达的空白，吴剑旗带领团队整整探索了20年，2011年反隐身雷达终于变成了装备。“刚开始时，反隐身雷达在国内立项阻力很大，质疑声很多，因为当时都是习惯于跟随式发展，国际上没有先例。但我们顶住了压力，最终将想法变成了实用装备。 ”吴剑旗透露，上世纪九十年代，从事国防技术研究待遇较低，从事雷达基础性预先研究更是条件差、工作时间长、收入少，研究团队中也有很多人经不住高薪和优厚待遇的诱惑，或出国或跳槽去了高薪揽才的民企，但他不能一走了之。
> 
> “作为一名雷达人，既要敬畏这份职业，又要担当起责任和使命。 ”吴剑旗说。 1999年，我国驻南联盟大使馆被炸，中国成了联合国5个常任理事国中唯一被隐身飞机轰炸过的国家，这更激起他们不造出反隐身雷达誓不罢休的斗志。 20年潜心研究，20年大胆实践。最终，吴剑旗带领团队探索形成了独有的反隐身先进米波雷达理论、建立了基础数据模型和相应的独有设计方法，研制出了中国独有的反隐身先进米波雷达，解决了我国防空骨干雷达能力被隐身飞机“清零”的问题。这些反隐身雷达从理论、设计到制造都是中国独有、独创，完全摆脱了对进口的依赖。
> 
> 28年来，吴剑旗始终坚守使命、守望蓝天，他参与研制的DBF体制三坐标雷达，获得国家科技进步一等奖，标志着中国雷达首次赶上世界先进水平；主导研制的稀布阵综合脉冲孔径雷达试验系统、机动式米波三坐标雷达，先后获得国家科技进步二等奖，填补了我国反隐身雷达装备空白，主要指标世界领先。因成绩突出，他先后获得全国优秀科技工作者、全国创新争先奖等荣誉。
> 
> “下一步，我们将向第五代反隐身雷达进军，并努力实现分布式协同探测。”吴剑旗表示，第五代反隐身雷达从作战应用上来说，将用来“对付”具有超音速巡航、无人驾驶、两栖作战等特性的第五代隐形战机；从技术方向上来说，要将微波与光子技术结合，实现全息感知、智能化和软件化，不仅可以探测到隐形战机，还要能够辨别具体机型，甚至可以分辨出是哪一架飞机。
> 
> 良好的创新环境，是科技创新的肥沃土壤。 “安徽为科技工作者创新、创业营造了非常好的环境，建立了‘四个一’创新主平台，创新生态和政策环境走在了全国前列。 ”吴剑旗表示，他将努力当好提升自主创新能力的开拓者、建设现代化经济体系的生力军、培养提携青年才俊的引路人，在反隐身雷达领域敢为人先、再进一步，并推动先进雷达技术服务于城市安全，为建设现代化五大发展美好安徽作出更多贡献。


The action must be spur by the fact J-20 thrashed KJ-500 in simulated air combat exercise

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

cirr said:


> China to develop the next(5th) generation anti-stealth radar.
> 
> Combining microwave and photonics technologies, the new radar is not only capable of detecting stealth fighter but also capable of distinguishing a particular aircraft type, even a specific aircraft.
> 
> 中电科38所吴剑旗：进军第五代反隐身雷达
> 
> 2月23日上午，安徽省科学技术奖励大会在合肥隆重召开，中国电科首席科学家、38所科技委主任吴剑旗获得2017年度安徽省重大科技成就奖。“这是对我和我们科研团队的充分肯定和认可，对我们来说既是鼓励更是鞭策。 ”吴剑旗表示，下一步将继续瞄准反隐身雷达研究，探寻更先进的反隐身技术，将荣誉转化为前进的动力，不辜负大家的厚爱与鼓励。
> 
> 走进位于合肥市高新区的中国电科38所，一座巨型的雷达雕塑首先映入眼帘。自1990年进入38所，吴剑旗28年来献身雷达技术研究。作为雷达专家，他勇于创新、另辟蹊径，以不达目的誓不罢休的决心和韧劲，实现我国雷达研究由“跟跑”到“领跑”的转变。他领衔研发多型反隐身米波雷达，如一双双 “火眼金睛”，让一切敢于来犯之敌无处遁形，让祖国的蓝天云轻星粲。
> 
> 隐身战机，被誉为现代战争中的超级装备。 1991年，海湾战争爆发，美国隐身飞机首次大规模投入实战，可以在不被对方发现的情况下纵深打击防空体系、指挥体系关键节点，致其瘫痪，后续常规力量再肆意轰炸。 “雷达不能反隐身，一个国家基本国防安全就没有保障。 ”吴剑旗说，当时全世界都没有反隐身雷达，我国雷达技术水平更是与发达国家存在代差，主要任务就是追赶并缩小差距。 “美国是世界上雷达技术最先进的国家，它是造‘矛’的一方，绝不会告诉我们造‘盾’的方法。 ”
> 
> 吴剑旗坦言，研究反隐身雷达没有明确追赶、模仿的对象，只能靠独立自主地探索。
> 
> 从基本理论，到设计方法，再到工程实现……为了填补反隐身雷达的空白，吴剑旗带领团队整整探索了20年，2011年反隐身雷达终于变成了装备。“刚开始时，反隐身雷达在国内立项阻力很大，质疑声很多，因为当时都是习惯于跟随式发展，国际上没有先例。但我们顶住了压力，最终将想法变成了实用装备。 ”吴剑旗透露，上世纪九十年代，从事国防技术研究待遇较低，从事雷达基础性预先研究更是条件差、工作时间长、收入少，研究团队中也有很多人经不住高薪和优厚待遇的诱惑，或出国或跳槽去了高薪揽才的民企，但他不能一走了之。
> 
> “作为一名雷达人，既要敬畏这份职业，又要担当起责任和使命。 ”吴剑旗说。 1999年，我国驻南联盟大使馆被炸，中国成了联合国5个常任理事国中唯一被隐身飞机轰炸过的国家，这更激起他们不造出反隐身雷达誓不罢休的斗志。 20年潜心研究，20年大胆实践。最终，吴剑旗带领团队探索形成了独有的反隐身先进米波雷达理论、建立了基础数据模型和相应的独有设计方法，研制出了中国独有的反隐身先进米波雷达，解决了我国防空骨干雷达能力被隐身飞机“清零”的问题。这些反隐身雷达从理论、设计到制造都是中国独有、独创，完全摆脱了对进口的依赖。
> 
> 28年来，吴剑旗始终坚守使命、守望蓝天，他参与研制的DBF体制三坐标雷达，获得国家科技进步一等奖，标志着中国雷达首次赶上世界先进水平；主导研制的稀布阵综合脉冲孔径雷达试验系统、机动式米波三坐标雷达，先后获得国家科技进步二等奖，填补了我国反隐身雷达装备空白，主要指标世界领先。因成绩突出，他先后获得全国优秀科技工作者、全国创新争先奖等荣誉。
> 
> “下一步，我们将向第五代反隐身雷达进军，并努力实现分布式协同探测。”吴剑旗表示，第五代反隐身雷达从作战应用上来说，将用来“对付”具有超音速巡航、无人驾驶、两栖作战等特性的第五代隐形战机；从技术方向上来说，要将微波与光子技术结合，实现全息感知、智能化和软件化，不仅可以探测到隐形战机，还要能够辨别具体机型，甚至可以分辨出是哪一架飞机。
> 
> 良好的创新环境，是科技创新的肥沃土壤。 “安徽为科技工作者创新、创业营造了非常好的环境，建立了‘四个一’创新主平台，创新生态和政策环境走在了全国前列。 ”吴剑旗表示，他将努力当好提升自主创新能力的开拓者、建设现代化经济体系的生力军、培养提携青年才俊的引路人，在反隐身雷达领域敢为人先、再进一步，并推动先进雷达技术服务于城市安全，为建设现代化五大发展美好安徽作出更多贡献。



Just because you can track doesn't necessarily mean you can target and engage.


----------



## Gomig-21



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Brainsucker

siegecrossbow said:


> Just because you can track doesn't necessarily mean you can target and engage.



That's better than nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Brainsucker said:


> That's better than nothing.


To be blunt -- it is next to nothing.

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/202684/raptor-debuts-at-red-flag-dominates-skies/


> *"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy,"* said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."


The Russian fanboys love to mock that statement but none of them have ever posted a credible argument refuting it at the technical level.

Your eyes detected the F-22, but this is not WW II where your eyes are good enough. Without the high freq high pulse rate radar, your eyes are useless against the F-22.


----------



## siegecrossbow

J-20 and H-6 in the same frame.

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1891346-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## azesus

I thought stealth only means shortens detect distance, not render completely ineffective. Didn't know that, thanx, learned


----------



## gambit

azesus said:


> I thought stealth only means *shortens detect distance*, not render completely ineffective. Didn't know that, thanx, learned


It is. Just that some designs have shorter detection distance than others.

Right now, if we go by anecdotal experiences, the American 'stealth' designs are the best, so until the Russians and the Chinese are willing to submit theirs to similar inspections, we will not know how theirs will stand against the Americans. Of course, neither of them are obligated to put their 'stealth' jets under anyone's examinations. So in the end, all we have are everyone's claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

gambit said:


> It is. Just that some designs have shorter detection distance than others.
> 
> Right now, if we go by anecdotal experiences, the American 'stealth' designs are the best, so until the Russians and the Chinese are willing to submit theirs to similar inspections, we will not know how theirs will stand against the Americans. Of course, neither of them are obligated to put their 'stealth' jets under anyone's examinations. So in the end, all we have are everyone's claims.



Nope. 80% of stealth is aircraft shape.

We know roughly the stealth of the J-20(VLO) and PAK-FA(LO).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

@gambit , good discussion on the deflection of he canards BTW. Hopefully at some point we'll see more and better footage of the J-20's full landing sequence and much more tarmac taxiing etc.



gambit said:


> Assuming the J-20 uses the concept of 'balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces', the behaviors we see on the J-20 are inline with the concept. The logic maybe different with the inclusion of the canards and the delta wings, but the logic is definitely inferable based upon what we know of flight controls laws in general and with the F-18SH in particular as reference.



I stand corrected on my original statement that only the J-20's canards are dihedral compared to the others. I listed the Eurocanards and also the J-10C but upon closer inspection of @clarkgap 's post on the J-10 thread, that beauty also has it's canards in a rather pronounced dihedral. Might be just a little less than the J-20 but it's still a considerable angle. The Chinese designers must have determined that they're either getting much better results from the upward angle of the canards than if they were simply level with the wings. I'm also guessing that it's much more of an aerodynamic reason as opposed to an RCS one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Gomig-21 said:


> @gambit , good discussion on the deflection of he canards BTW. Hopefully at some point we'll see more and better footage of the J-20's full landing sequence and much more tarmac taxiing etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on my original statement that only the J-20's canards are dihedral compared to the others. I listed the Eurocanards and also the J-10C but upon closer inspection of @clarkgap 's post on the J-10 thread, that beauty also has it's canards in a rather pronounced dihedral. Might be just a little less than the J-20 but it's still a considerable angle. The Chinese designers must have determined that they're either getting much better results from the upward angle of the canards than if they were simply level with the wings. I'm also guessing that it's much more of an aerodynamic reason as opposed to an RCS one.



"For the configurations with the canard in the wing chord plane, increasing the canard dihedral angle from -18.60 to 18.60 increased the maximum lift coefficient of the configuration. For the configurations with the canard above the wing chord plane, the highest maximum lift coefficient was developed when the canard had no dihedral."

So canard dihedral is important when the canard in the wing chord plane. But it cannot explain why canards on J-10 also have dihedral angle. I guess the special strucuture of airfoils on J-10 cause the result.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750004860.pdf

About RCS factors, I mean the configurations with the canard in the wing chord plane is less effective because "the configuration with the canards above the wing chord plane produced more linear pitching-moment curves throughout the angle-of-attack range than did the configuration with the canard in the wing chord plane." However, the canard above the wing chord plane also cause huge RCS, so they had to made choose among these factors.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maxpane



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Gomig-21 said:


> @gambit , good discussion on the deflection of he canards BTW. *Hopefully at some point we'll see more and better footage of the J-20's full landing sequence* and much more tarmac taxiing etc.


I hope so, too. This is just one point of curiosity that any technically minded person would have, especially if you have relevant experience relating to the subject under discussion. At the very least, we did not speculate wildly but with a modicum of background info.

When I was active duty, I learned that we minimize the use of the drag chute for logistical reasons. As aircrafts gets more and more complex, support for deployments also got more and more complex. If we want to see the economics of that, look at the airliners. There were not many civil aviation aircrafts that uses the drag chute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Caravelle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-104

If the jet *MUST* use the drag chute on landing, that limits where you can fly, so now we are talking about return-on-investment (ROI) because not every airport have certified parachute riggers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_rigger


> The course provides training on inspecting, packing, rigging, recovering, storing, and maintaining air item equipment.


A parachute is a composite of many individual cloth 'panels'. The rigger must inspect literally every panel no matter how large is the chute. Also under mandatory inspection are the cords and panel connection points for wear and tear. Keep in mind that as the drag chute is discarded by the aircraft, it gets tossed around on the runway before it is collected for reuse. 

The parachute rigger is a dedicated specialty in every airborne regiment in every army. He must be jump qualified and willing to put his life on every chute he inspected, repaired if necessary, repacked, and certified for (re)use. So for the airliners, to have a certified parachute rigger at every airport is a financial factor to be avoided.

The drag chute is ideal for slowing down a landing aircraft at less than ideal length runways, meaning the target runway is not optimal for the aircraft. This mean if the J-20 is to be used in an expeditionary manner, as any military is expected to be, the drag chute and its human component must be available at all times. The military can afford this but civil aviation cannot. Or rather -- *WILL NOT*. The rigger may not jump with the jet's drag chute, but there is the pilot who is staking his life on the rigger's work.

Anyway...The drag chute is an additional logistical component for the J-20 and is why I believe the jet uses the flight control surfaces in a speedbrake function. But I could be wrong...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Looks like 7xx32 ... could be indeed 172. Brigade.

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/972889584873951233

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Looks like 7xx32 ... could be indeed 172. Brigade.
> 
> https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/972889584873951233
> 
> 
> View attachment 458856



78232

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Thanks ... so I was right with my analysis !!!


----------



## TaiShang

*J-20 stealth fighter's capabilities to be enhanced*

By ZHAO LEI | China Daily | Updated: 2018-03-13






A J-20 stealth fighter is seen at a 2016 air show in Zhuhai, Guangdong province.[Photo/Provided to China Daily]

China will continue to improve and upgrade its cutting-edge J-20 stealth fighter jet, *giving it more capabilities than merely penetrating an enemy's air defense networks,* according to its chief designer.

Yang Wei, a deputy director of science and technology at Aviation Industry Corp of China and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told China Daily in an exclusive interview that designers will develop variants of the radar-evading J-20 and will open research on its successor－a sixth-generation fighter jet.

"*We are not complacent about what we have achieved. We will develop the J-20 into a large family and keep strengthening its information-processing and intelligent capacities. At the same time, we will think about our next-generation combat plane to meet the nation's future requirements,*" Yang said.

The designer made the remarks on the sidelines of the ongoing first session of the 13th National People's Congress in Beijing. He is a deputy in the nation's top legislature.

"In the past, we had to follow others' paths when it came to designing military aircraft because our research and development capabilities were primitive in this regard, but now we have become capable of designing and making what we want to have," he said.

The senior designer said that the J-20 is the best fighter jet in China, so it would be used at the most crucial moments during a war.

"Of course, *it will be tasked with penetrating air defense networks, but that will not be its only mission. It definitely has multiple functions.* How we will use it depends on its production and deployment scale," Yang said.

The J-20, China's first fifth-generation combat aircraft, made its maiden flight in January 2011 and was declassified in November 2016. It was the third such stealth fighter jet to enter service, after the United States' F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

It has been sent to take part in a series of combat exercises with other advanced fighter jets in the Air Force and practiced beyond-visual-range aerial fighting maneuvers during the drills, according to the Air Force.

The jet shoulders the important responsibility of making way for other aircraft in an air battle, said Zhang Hao, head of an Air Force flight-testing center that has deployed the jet.

In addition to the J-20, AVIC is testing the FC-31, another fifth-generation combat plane, and wants to use it to tap the international market for advanced fighter jets. *The Air Force has made clear that it will not allow exports of the J-20.*

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201803/13/WS5aa70928a3106e7dcc1412af.html

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## cirr

*J-20 stealth fighter's capabilities to be enhanced*

2018-03-13 08:40 China Daily _Editor: Li Yan_





A J-20 stealth fighter is seen at a 2016 air show in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province. (Photo/Provided to China Daily)

China will continue to improve and upgrade its cutting-edge J-20 stealth fighter jet, giving it more capabilities than merely penetrating an enemy's air defense networks, according to its chief designer.

Yang Wei, a deputy director of science and technology at Aviation Industry Corp of China and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told China Daily in an exclusive interview that *designers will develop variants of the radar-evading J-20 and will open research on its successor－a sixth-generation fighter jet.*

"We are not complacent about what we have achieved. We will develop the J-20 into a large family and keep strengthening its information-processing and intelligent capacities. At the same time, we will think about our next-generation combat plane to meet the nation's future requirements," Yang said.

The designer made the remarks on the sidelines of the ongoing first session of the 13th National People's Congress in Beijing. He is a deputy in the nation's top legislature. _*[Special coverage]*_

"In the past, we had to follow others' paths when it came to designing military aircraft because our research and development capabilities were primitive in this regard, but now we have become capable of designing and making what we want to have," he said.

The senior designer said that the J-20 is the best fighter jet in China, so it would be used at the most crucial moments during a war.

"Of course, it will be tasked with penetrating air defense networks, but that will not be its only mission. It definitely has multiple functions. How we will use it depends on its production and deployment scale," Yang said.

The J-20, China's first fifth-generation combat aircraft, made its maiden flight in January 2011 and was declassified in November 2016. It was the third such stealth fighter jet to enter service, after the United States' F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

It has been sent to take part in a series of combat exercises with other advanced fighter jets in the Air Force and practiced beyond-visual-range aerial fighting maneuvers during the drills, according to the Air Force.

The jet shoulders the important responsibility of making way for other aircraft in an air battle, said Zhang Hao, head of an Air Force flight-testing center that has deployed the jet.

In addition to the J-20, AVIC is testing the FC-31, another fifth-generation combat plane, and wants to use it to tap the international market for advanced fighter jets. The Air Force has made clear that it will not allow exports of the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> In addition to the J-20, AVIC is testing the FC-31, another fifth-generation combat plane, and wants to use it to tap the international market for advanced fighter jets. The Air Force has made clear that it will not allow exports of the J-20.



Does the following quote from pb19980515 imply that the land-based PLANAF will also use the FC-31?


> 还有其他海航部队的型号，总量在XXX架


----------



## BHarwana

@Deino just came across this. Does this means J-20 will be further developed.

J-20’s chief designer speaks on improvements to aircraft
http://alert5.com/2018/03/13/j-20s-...improvements-to-aircraft/#I6EClgF8qdVi5bRd.99

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

Maybe stealthy nozzle with 2D thrust vector like F-22....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

BHarwana said:


> @Deino just came across this. Does this means J-20 will be further developed.
> 
> J-20’s chief designer speaks on improvements to aircraft
> http://alert5.com/2018/03/13/j-20s-...improvements-to-aircraft/#I6EClgF8qdVi5bRd.99





BHarwana said:


> @Deino just came across this. Does this means J-20 will be further developed.
> 
> J-20’s chief designer speaks on improvements to aircraft
> http://alert5.com/2018/03/13/j-20s-...improvements-to-aircraft/#I6EClgF8qdVi5bRd.99


OFC


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> Maybe stealthy nozzle with 2D thrust vector like F-22....


How much work are you going to invest in that project?






Take a look at the A-10 for now. There is a reason why the A-10 was designed the way we know it today. The threat is infrared sensor-ed missile. The high locations of the engines and the overly large rudders were designed that way to minimize the infrared *AVAILABILITY* to IR-ed missiles.

Now look at the F-35 and J-20 regarding their engine nozzles. Both jets are in similar viewing profiles. Which jet has the greater exposure to both radar and IR sensors regarding their engine nozzles? Remember, we are taking a snapshot in time for both jets. If I am an IR-ed missile, the J-20 would be a more 'attractive' target.

Now look at this viewing angle for the F-35...






We are looking only a slight change in viewing angle and yet the F-35's engine nozzle is almost gone from sight.

For the American and Chinese designers of their respective 'stealth' platforms, they know that there will always be ideal situations for the threats but their missions are to reduce the odds of the threats acquiring the jets. For the J-20's designers, with what they had to work with, from airframe to engines, they had no choice but to make the J-20 more vulnerable than the American's jets in both radar and IR sensor views.

We are not talking about doing something external like on the F-15 and F-16 when we installed conformal fuel tanks. For what you want, if there is a shorter engine, then the airframe itself must be modified. Now you are looking at more complex issues like wiring, plumbing, weight and balances, and many more. If you want 2D thrust vectoring, you have to incorporate that into existing flight control laws, so for the flight controls avionics alone, you are looking at about 5 more yrs of development time for best case scenario. That is not speculative because yrs was how long it took the US in studying modified F-15 and F-16 with their canards systems. In the end, the US rejected the program.

The J-20 as is has been declared as deployable by China and is assigned to a front line unit, as China claimed. So how much work are you willing to put into the J-20 at this time?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

BHarwana said:


> @Deino just came across this. Does this means J-20 will be further developed.
> 
> J-20’s chief designer speaks on improvements to aircraft
> http://alert5.com/2018/03/13/j-20s-...improvements-to-aircraft/#I6EClgF8qdVi5bRd.99






> *Chengdu J-20 to become multi-role platform*
> 
> Beijing will evolve the Chengdu J-20 fighter into roles well beyond aerial supremacy.
> 
> The aircraft’s primary mission for the time being is “making way for other aircraft in an air battle,” says Zhang Hao, who heads an air force flight test centre.
> 
> Zhang made the remarks in a story carried by Beijing’s official China Daily news organ.
> 
> The type will be developed into variants and will also allow for the opening of research into a “sixth generation fighter,” says Yang Wei, a deputy director of science and technology at AVIC.
> 
> "We are not complacent about what we have achieved,” Yang is quoted as saying. “We will develop the J-20 into a large family and keep strengthening its information-processing and intelligent capacities. At the same time, we will think about our next-generation combat plane to meet the nation's future requirements," Yang added that the J-20 is “the best fighter in China, so it would be used in the most crucial moments during a war.”
> 
> The 418-word story is surprisingly candid about the J-20, which has been shrouded in secrecy since it first appeared on social media in 2010. The type made its maiden flight in 2011. At the 2016 iteration of Airshow China in Zhuhai, two examples flew above the crowd at the show’s opening, but AVIC officials declined to discuss the aircraft. The China Daily story, however, says the type was “de-classified” in November 2016.
> 
> A recent, seperate two-line story from state news agency Xinhua proclaimed that the type had been commissioned into combat service, but gave few details.
> 
> Apart from a plan to develop more J-20 variants, the story reveals that the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) will not allow exports of the type. It also revealed that the type has participated in beyond-visual-range (BVR) test engagements.
> 
> It does not reveal how many aircraft have been produced, how many will be operated, or the specific missions for which the J-20 will be developed.
> 
> Observers have suggested that a key mission for the type in the aerial supremacy role will be not just engaging enemy combat aircraft, but attacking critical support aircraft such as tankers and airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) aircraft. To this end China is developing the PL-21, a ramjet-powered missile guided by an active radar. Performance is believed to be comparable to the long-range MBDA Meteor.
> 
> A guide to possible missions is provided by Lockheed Martin’s mission list for the F-35. Apart from the air-to-air mission, it says the type is suitable for electronic attack, air-to-surface warfare, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). The F-22, originally developed as a fighter, is also capable of electronic attack and can carry bombs.
> 
> The report claims that the J-20 is the third fifth generation fighter to enter service after the F-22 and F-35. In addition, it reiterated that AVIC’s FC-31 is aimed at the international market, but gave no other details about development plans for this aircraft.
> 
> "In the past, we had to follow others' paths when it came to designing military aircraft because our research and development capabilities were primitive in this regard, but now we have become capable of designing and making what we want to have," said Yang.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/chengdu-j-20-to-become-multi-role-platform-446703/

+ a comment via the Secret Projects Forum ("hood"):



> An interview in China Daily with an air force test centre head, seems to indicate that further multi-role developments of the J-20 are likely and confirms that the type will not be exported, but no details were given.
> Also Flight quotes an interesting part from the interview, "In the past, we had to follow others' paths when it came to designing military aircraft because our research and development capabilities were primitive in this regard, but now we have become capable of designing and making what we want to have." This may be confirmation that the J-20 did not rely on imported designs/expertise, though perhaps a bit disingenuous given number of programmes undertaken since the 1980s (Super-7, JF-17, Xian JH-7, J-10 etc.) which must have helped the learning curve somewhat.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## clarkgap

gambit said:


> How much work are you going to invest in that project?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at the A-10 for now. There is a reason why the A-10 was designed the way we know it today. The threat is infrared sensor-ed missile. The high locations of the engines and the overly large rudders were designed that way to minimize the infrared *AVAILABILITY* to IR-ed missiles.
> 
> Now look at the F-35 and J-20 regarding their engine nozzles. Both jets are in similar viewing profiles. Which jet has the greater exposure to both radar and IR sensors regarding their engine nozzles? Remember, we are taking a snapshot in time for both jets. If I am an IR-ed missile, the J-20 would be a more 'attractive' target.
> 
> Now look at this viewing angle for the F-35...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are looking only a slight change in viewing angle and yet the F-35's engine nozzle is almost gone from sight.
> 
> For the American and Chinese designers of their respective 'stealth' platforms, they know that there will always be ideal situations for the threats but their missions are to reduce the odds of the threats acquiring the jets. For the J-20's designers, with what they had to work with, from airframe to engines, they had no choice but to make the J-20 more vulnerable than the American's jets in both radar and IR sensor views.
> 
> We are not talking about doing something external like on the F-15 and F-16 when we installed conformal fuel tanks. For what you want, if there is a shorter engine, then the airframe itself must be modified. Now you are looking at more complex issues like wiring, plumbing, weight and balances, and many more. If you want 2D thrust vectoring, you have to incorporate that into existing flight control laws, so for the flight controls avionics alone, you are looking at about 5 more yrs of development time for best case scenario. That is not speculative because yrs was how long it took the US in studying modified F-15 and F-16 with their canards systems. In the end, the US rejected the program.
> 
> The J-20 as is has been declared as deployable by China and is assigned to a front line unit, as China claimed. So how much work are you willing to put into the J-20 at this time?



From horizontal angle, the engine nozzles of J-20 are also been covered by ventral fin:

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

clarkgap said:


> From horizontal angle, the engine nozzles of J-20 are also been covered by ventral fin:


Of course there is an ideal situation where the J-20's engine nozzles are not seen by both radar and IR sensors. But ideal situations are rare in flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> Of course there is an ideal situation where the J-20's engine nozzles are not seen by both radar and IR sensors. But ideal situations are rare in flight.


i would like to say that very rare sir

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Path-Finder

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974063658534948864


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Path-Finder said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974063658534948864


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Path-Finder said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974063658534948864


LOL The F-35 is just an overly rated aircraft with a SINGLE engine. 

What is there for China to copy anyway today? 

Beside that both the F-35 and J-31 are meant for EXPORT!

All these acts are mere political ploys to discredit the other esp. the Chinese.

*One must be completely BLIND to conclude that the twin engine FJ-31 is a copy of the F-35!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

http://v.ifeng.com/program/special/cjck2018/

@Deino


----------



## Brainsucker

gambit said:


> Of course there is an ideal situation where the J-20's engine nozzles are not seen by both radar and IR sensors. But ideal situations are rare in flight.



But in different angle (the same angle as your J-20 photo), the F-35 engine nozzle is also exposed.


----------



## gambit

Brainsucker said:


> But in different angle (the same angle as your J-20 photo), the F-35 engine nozzle is also exposed.


The J-20's nozzles are more exposed, creating a higher IR intensity. The issue is about *GREATER* vulnerability, which means if flares are deployed, the J-20 will have less odds of a successful distraction than the F-35.


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> The J-20's nozzles are more exposed, creating a higher IR intensity. The issue is about *GREATER* vulnerability, which means if flares are deployed, the J-20 will have less odds of a successful distraction than the F-35.


It's hard to say.

Most of time it's head-on engage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> It's hard to say.
> 
> Most of time it's head-on engage.


Even though modern IR missiles can be used in a head on scenario, if a pilot can advantageously position himself in a tail chase or similar to maximize engine nozzle exposure, he will do so.

Attacking from the rear is always an advantage. Next best is superior altitude. Ultimate is both. An AWACS aside, all aircrafts are most vulnerable in the rear aspect. No radar warning system can replace an active radar to detect a hostile in the aft sector. If I am lost in low altitude in background clutter, I will let my opponent pass over me and take him in his six with either radar or IR guided missile. The head on scenario is the least desirable engagement.


----------



## clarkgap

gambit said:


> Of course there is an ideal situation where the J-20's engine nozzles are not seen by both radar and IR sensors. But ideal situations are rare in flight.



From other angles, vertical fin also can not complete cover the nozzle of F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> Even though modern IR missiles can be used in a head on scenario, if a pilot can advantageously position himself in a tail chase or similar to maximize engine nozzle exposure, he will do so.
> 
> Attacking from the rear is always an advantage. Next best is superior altitude. Ultimate is both. An AWACS aside, all aircrafts are most vulnerable in the rear aspect. No radar warning system can replace an active radar to detect a hostile in the aft sector. If I am lost in low altitude in background clutter, I will let my opponent pass over me and take him in his six with either radar or IR guided missile. The head on scenario is the least desirable engagement.


As a retired pilot, it's a pity that you can't fly F35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

Beast said:


> Maybe stealthy nozzle with 2D thrust vector like F-22....


If they r gonna go for thrust vectoring then why not 3d thrust vectoring

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Cookie Monster said:


> If they r gonna go for thrust vectoring then why not 3d thrust vectoring



You mean Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle or 3D-Thrust Vector Canard?


----------



## Figaro

clarkgap said:


> You mean Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle or 3D-Thrust Vector Canard?


I think he's talking about the former ... why would the PLAAF choose 2D thrust vectoring over 3D?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> I think he's talking about the former ... why would the PLAAF choose 2D thrust vectoring over 3D?



3D nozzle is not stealthy enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sinait

wanglaokan said:


> As a retired pilot, it's a pity that you can't fly F35.


He is not a pilot.
He does some technical work.
You can dig up old post to find out more.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975253588015398912

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

clarkgap said:


> From other angles, vertical fin also can not complete cover the nozzle of F-35.


We are not talking about %100 coverage but reduced exposure. Target contact is near constant with radar regardless of maneuvers. The same cannot be said for passive method like the IR sensor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Yang Wei NPC interview ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Figaro said:


> Yang Wei NPC interview ...



Straight from the horse's mouth: "supermaterials/metamaterials" have been used to make the J-20. 

https://weibo.com/tv/v/G8d1ZsdZC?fid=1034:ff272776633b5cdbf79fb2f0756970bd

*METAMATERIALS: COULD CHINA'S NEW 'INVISIBILITY CLOAKS' MAKE FIGHTER JETS INVISIBLE*

BY CHRISTINA ZHAO ON 3/13/18 AT 9:25 AM

China is mass producing metamaterials in a state-run lab that reportedly functions as 'invisibility cloaks' and could be used to make fighter jets impossible to detect, according to local media.

A broadcast by China Central Television Station (CCTV), revealed that a laboratory in Shenzhen, in southeastern China, is manufacturing various types of highly technological materials—including invisibility, anti-burning and anti-icing cloaks.

However, the functions of these materials have not yet been disclosed. Chinese news platform Sina reported that the assembly line is directly related to the military and the materials are likely to be used to camouflage J-20 fighter jets.

Metamaterials, known in China as "supermaterials," are materials engineered to have a property that is not found in nature. They are created from assemblies of multiple elements fashioned from various metals or plastics.

Some metamaterials can bend visible light (infrared radiation) through a novel optical material that effectively means they could act as an invisibility device. According to the CCTV broadcast, those materials are now being manufactured by an assembly line and will be used to help further China’s aviation industry.

Scientists are reportedly producing the materials at the State Key Laboratory of Metamaterial Electromagnet Modulation Technology, which was established in 2011 and is based in the Guangqi Advanced Institute of Technology. According to its website, the lab has an annual production capacity of more than 107,600 square feet of metamaterial plates.

“State key” indicates the organization is state-funded or run by the Chinese government.

The Sina report also confirmed that the materials will likely be used by the military, specifically for camouflaging the J-20 fighter jets as its chief engineer Yang Wei is also on the laboratory’s academic board.

Last December, a video of a man demonstrating the abilities of a quantum invisibility cloak went viral worldwide after it was shared to Weibo, a Chinese social media platform.

Some believed the clip was authentic as Chen Shiqu, the deputy director of Criminal Investigations Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security, was the user who posted the footage. However, many doubted the validity of the clip because it did not appear on the official Chinese government website or the Criminal Investigation Bureau page.

Zhu Zhensong, a producer at Quantum Video production company, told the Liberation Daily that the video was a sham and probably edited together with a plastic cloth.

"Softwares such as Adobe's After Effects, Nuke or Blackmagic Fusion can edit the background and blend the object into it. The effect has previously seen in a lot of action movies," he said.

http://www.newsweek.com/china-says-...ts-invisible-cloaks-made-metamaterials-842167

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## TaiShang

*China’s fighter jets to bring more surprises: J-20 
chief designer*

By Li Ruohan Source: Global Times Published: 2018/3/20 

*China’s fighter jets to bring more surprises: J-20 designer*

After China's latest J-20 stealth fighter was commissioned, the country will continue to explore new fighter jets that meet national needs and create more surprises, the fighter's chief designer said Tuesday. 

China will continue to support efforts to further prepare the fighter for combat, develop more versions of the fighter and explore new fighter jets, Yang Wei, a National People's Congress (NPC) deputy and chief designer of the J-20, told the press on the sidelines of the NPC annual meeting. 

"There will be more surprises in future fighter jets, which will be more mechanized, information-equipped and smarter," Yang said. 

The surprises include progress on the research of China's next generation of stealth fighters, which is expected to make China no longer a follower, but a leader in the development of stealth fighters, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Tuesday. 

*The J-20 series is also expected to undergo renovation, such as a high thrust engine and new electronic equipment and radars, Song said. *

The advanced series could help China seize air superiority in the Asia-Pacific region and safeguard national security when facing containment from the US, Japan, Australia and India, he added. 

The J-20 is China's fourth-generation medium and long-range fighter jet. It was first showcased in public on a fly-by at the Zhuhai air show in November 2016, and after it was delivered to the People's Liberation Army Air Force in March 2017, it joined the military parade at the Zhurihe military training base in July 2017. 

According to air force spokesperson Shen Jinke in February, air force combat troops had armed the J-20. 

China's J-20 jets have several unique designs and capabilities, such as the canard configuration design that provides them greater stealth while maintaining maneuverability and its supersonic speed, Yang said.* "The design allows the J-20 to fly further and with greater bomb load,"* he added. 

The J-20 is also capable of situation awareness, warfare and cooperative combat, which shows that China's aviation industry has progressed from a "follower" to a "leader," he said. 

The fighter is also a product of military-civilian integration, as its carbon fibers and metamaterials are produced by private companies, Yang said. 

Carbon fibers not only provide the fighter with greater stealth, but can also reduce the aircraft's weight to allow more weapons for greater attack power, Song said. 

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1094262.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## cirr

_The fighter is also a product of military-civilian integration, as its carbon fibers and metamaterials are produced by private companies, Yang said._ 

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1094262.shtml[/QUOTE]

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## BHarwana



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Phone wallpaper by songbird ....
https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404220047684989441#_0












+ more

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## IblinI




----------



## Grandy

*China's new stealth fighter uses powerful materials with geometry not found in nature*
* Metamaterials can make the J-20 an extra stealthy electromagnetic force. *
By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer 5 hours ago





Can you see me?
The J-20 is being deployed to elite PLAAF units. It likely uses metamaterials to increase stealth and electromagnetic performance.
Henri Kenhmann

China's new fighter, the J-20, uses a combination of stealth and datalinks to compete with the best fighters on the planet. Now, state media says the country is also mass-producing metamaterials for the aircraft, which could make it an electromagnetic force.

What are metamaterials? In this case, we're talking about composite metals and plastics that use artificial geometry to influence the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, as well as elastic waves and sounds. Some metamaterials built using nanotechnology can also be used as super strength materials. In fact, optical metamaterials have already been used to demonstrate invisibility by 'redirecting' visible light around itself to avoid reflection, hence their frequent reference to the popular fiction of "cloaking" in Star Trek and Harry Potter. (No real-life cloaking shields have yet been demonstrated).





Metamaterials
Composite materials create electromagnetic properties not found anywhere in nature. The State Key Laboratory of Electromagnetic Modulation Technology, based in Shenzhen, is reportedly producing more that 100,000 square feet of the stuff a year.
CCTV2

The metamaterials on the J-20 are likely to be used for as antennas and absorbers, given that the facility making them specializes in electromagnetic tech. Metamaterial antennas can increase radiated power, resulting in longer-range and more precise radar, as well as powerful jammers and datalinks. In turn, by fine-tuning their structures, metamaterial absorbers can be engineered to absorb specific wavelength ranges, such as those from the radars of enemy fighters and missiles. Such absorbers would likely be put on areas likely to reflect radar waves, such as the edges of canards, weapon bay doors, and engine nozzles.

Additionally, metamaterials optimized for infrared radiation can improve the sensitivity of the J-20's infrared sensors for tracking missiles and aircraft. Or, in large enough quantities, metamaterials could reduce the fighter's own infrared signature.
The next generation of Chinese aviation metamaterials could further increase stealth, improve communications, sensors and jamming, and even lighten airframe weight. Yang Wei, the J-20's chief designer, told the _People's Daily_ that China is already laying down the requirements for a sixth-generation follow-up to the J-20. Much as the USAF's envisioned futuristic Penetrating Counter Air platform, too, will likely include much more metamaterials. _Popular Science._

_Peter Warren Singer is a strategist and senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He has been named by Defense News as one of the 100 most influential people in defense issues. He was also dubbed an official "Mad Scientist" for the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command. Jeffrey is a national security professional in the greater D.C. area.
_

*A 'super material' that's INVISIBLE, 'invisibility cloak' metamaterial in bulk*

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Grandy

Quantum Invisibility Cloaks

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## terranMarine

Grandy said:


> Quantum Invisibility Cloaks



now visualize the J-20 having that romulan cloak (if you are a star trek fan you know what i mean) the only thing that's visible is the pilot's head

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Grandy said:


> Quantum Invisibility Cloaks


Not sure how this footage relates to the J-20. It is clearly fake and not of military usage ...


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




Care to explain????  PLEASE


----------



## lcloo

cirr said:


>


Let me guess, a new variant of certain bird of prey (i.e. fighter jet) , with canard wing, and a tail hook. The illustrator is suggesting a naval variant of J-20.

Note that the illustrator is the same person who posted drawings of J-10 and J-20 with new engine + variable thrust nozzle some time ago.

Remember this?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## jaybird

lcloo said:


> Let me guess, a new variant of certain bird of prey (i.e. fighter jet) , with canard wing, and a hook. The illustrator is suggesting a naval variant of J-20.
> 
> Note that the illustrator is the same person who posted drawings of J-10 and J-20 with new engine + variable thrust nozzle some time ago.
> 
> Remember this?
> View attachment 461272




That's a nice riddle drawing. I can only figure out it was some kind of canard wing fighter jet when first look at the picture. Thanks for decipher the meaning with the drawing lcloo. 

And since it's from the illustrator/leaker as the J-10 new engine variable thrust nozzle drawing. The credibility is pretty high if we go by the history then.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

lcloo said:


> Let me guess, a new variant of certain bird of prey (i.e. fighter jet) , with canard wing, and a tail hook. The illustrator is suggesting a naval variant of J-20.
> 
> Note that the illustrator is the same person who posted drawings of J-10 and J-20 with new engine + variable thrust nozzle some time ago.
> 
> Remember this?
> View attachment 461272



Could've been referring to a J-15 version. We know that a J-15D is under development and a recent rumor hinted that it might appear soon.


----------



## lcloo

Akasa said:


> Could've been referring to a J-15 version. We know that a J-15D is under development and a recent rumor hinted that it might appear soon.


You don't draw a picture of dino-bird for a flying shark.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

lcloo said:


> You don't draw a picture of dino-bird for a flying shark.



You draw a hammerhead shark .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> Care to explain????  PLEASE



I think it has something to do with aircraft-carrier based J-20:

(1) It is a large canard layout.

(2) Since the picture look like a kind of dinosaur with a long tail, dinosaur in Chinese called "scaring dragon", J-20 has a nickname called "powerful dragon", so it is very likely talking about J-20.

(3) The dinosaur has extra size of tail which look like the author try to let the reader to pay special attention to, yet the the leading gear for the aircraft carrier-based aircarft is called "tail hook" in Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## terranMarine

cirr said:


>



Very cryptic, as expected from some insider of PLAAF

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Silicon0000

I am not an expert but curious to know what could possibly be J20 variants? EW, Naval etc, can someone list others?

or what roles it could play?


----------



## beijingwalker

*J-20 COMBAT FLEET and THE ARRIVAL OF J-16*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

how many inducted in AF and what is the plan sir


----------



## Beast

Imran Khan said:


> how many inducted in AF and what is the plan sir


36 J-20 produced per year. J-16 is around 24 per year.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> 36 J-20 produced per year. J-16 is around 24 per year.


No sir you wont understand the question of @Imran Khan he asking how many J-20 and J-16 is in PLAAF invertory?


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> No sir you wont understand the question of @Imran Khan he asking how many J-20 and J-16 is in PLAAF invertory?


Hi, using my gauge and plus the start of induction date until now. You can do the maths estimation, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

*How China’s New Stealth Fighter Could Soon Surpass the US F-22 Raptor*
The J-20’s rapidly evolving combat capabilities could make it a world leading aerial warfare platform.

By Abraham Ait
March 30, 2018
China’s Chengdu J-20 fifth generation air superiority fighter first entered service in early 2017, providing the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) with an analog to the U.S. F-22 Raptor. The platform was the first fifth generation fighter to enter service anywhere in the world outside the United States, and came equipped with state-of-the-art radar evading capabilities, avionics, and air-to-air missiles. The fighter’s canard configuration served to further enhance stealth capabilities while maintaining high levels of maneuverability. With less than a year having passed since the J-20 was inducted into service, the next generation platform has already received its first set of upgrades aimed at enhancing its combat performance. These upgrades are but the first of many to come, which could well lead the J-20 to become a world leading aerial warfare platform.

A notable shortcoming of prototypes and early production models of the J-20 was their use of fourth generation engines, the WS-10G, which were heavily based on the Russian AL-31 used to power fourth generation heavy fighters. The platform lacked an engine comparable to the F119 used by the F-22 Raptor, leaving it underpowered and significantly less capable in an air superiority role. China’s military aviation industries have since the induction of the fighter however developed a fifth generation fighter engine, WS-15, with analogous capabilities to the F119. These new and superior engines will be installed on future fighters and represent a significant upgrade over previous capabilities. Reports from a number of analysts indicate that several J-20 fighters which took part in major military drills at the Zhurihe base in Inner Mongolia in mid 2017 were already equipped with the WS-15 for testing purposes.

Other upgrades for the J-20 include improved software, improvements to radar capabilities, enhanced avionics and superior electronic equipment. A lead engineer working on the J-20, speaking to the People’s Daily, said his team were making further modifications to the elite fighter’s engine, stealth coating and weapons bay. This would improve the platform’s flight performance, survivability, and firepower. The rate at which the J-20 has received upgrades is particularly significant when compared to the rate of upgrades for the F-22 Raptor, which has yet to complete installation of its second set of upgrades after almost 13 years of service. Upgrading the J-20’s weapons bay in a number of months, for example, represents an accomplishment the U.S. Air Force has attempted for years to achieve to improve the firepower of the F-22 and allow it to operate more advanced air to air missiles. F-22 upgrade programs such as the Raptor Agile Capability Release have taken years, not months, to implement and arguably are less significant than the upgrades China was able to so quickly apply to its J-20. By the time the U.S. Raptors have all been equipped with the new 180 km range AIM-120D air to air missiles, the J-20 is likely to have already begun to operate the new ramjet powered variants of the PL-21 and PL-12D air to air missiles with higher speeds, maneuverability and ranges estimated at 200-400 km. The pace at which the Chinese fighter’s capabilities are improving far exceeds those of the F-22.

The U.S. Air Force’s ability to improve the capabilities of the Raptor is limited largely due to the termination of production of the fighter, meaning it is no longer a “live program” undergoing continuous development in the same way as the F-35, F-15, and J-20. The age of the Raptor’s design, meaning it uses software and computer architecture developed in the 1990s with a core processor speed of just 25MHz, further complicates upgrades – causing particular issues when attempting to equip the fighter with newly developed weapons systems. The J-20’s far newer computer architecture is far easier to work with for China’s own military. While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22 upon its induction into service, the far faster rate at which upgrades can be applied are set to rapidly narrow the gap and could well lead the Chinese fighter to soon surpass the capabilities of its U.S. counterpart and in future go on to transcend them entirely. With both fighters representing the elite of each country’s respective aerial warfare capabilities, this will inevitably have significant implications for the balance of power in the Pacific.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/how...ighter-could-soon-surpass-the-us-f-22-raptor/

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

Makt it what you will

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Makt it what you will



Interesting; what does it translate to?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Is it me or does it look stubbier, a bit shorter esp. in the front section and the tail looks smaller too...

If it is indeed related to a carrier-variant, could it be that they are just using one aircraft more or less as it is similar as once one of the original J-11B prototypes was tested?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

Akasa said:


> Interesting; what does it translate to?


The point of this drawing is the black and yellow "B&W" logo/ roundel which was used by prototype J-15s, and also widely used in car crash impact tests.

So a deduction from this picture would be this prototype J-20 variant is being tested for impacts and "controlled crash landing" which is associated with hard landings normally encountered in aircraft carrier operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jaybird

The conversation in Chinese between the J-20 and the Jeep was probably just a little joke by the artist to be funny. Since the markers on J-20 looks kinda of like the BMW logo. The Jeep being ignorant was telling J-20 that you can't just put those markers(logo) on yourself just because you like BMW. And J-20 telling the Jeep to be a little more professional as those markers on the J-20 body obviously have different functions than just a logo or have anything to do with BMW.

I think the most important information we got from this J-20 drawing probably meant there is a new variant of J-20 being tested with those markers around the body. We don't know what changes are being make for the variant yet. Maybe ski-ramp version of J-20? New TVC Engine testing? It does look stubbier than the current version of J-20 but only if the drawing is accurate to those details. Ah.... we need more information or pics.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Cybernetics

Most likely a test plane to test flight characteristics for the carrier variant. There is a probe at the nose for gathering flight data, markers like J-15 had, and it's missimg the EOTS (save on unnecessary costs during testing)

The markers used in weapons testing were much smaller and had a different design.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

lcloo said:


> The point of this drawing is the black and yellow "B&W" logo/ roundel which was used by prototype J-15s, and also widely used in car crash impact tests.
> 
> So a deduction from this picture would be this prototype J-20 variant is being tested for impacts and "controlled crash landing" which is associated with hard landings normally encountered in aircraft carrier operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> View attachment 462776



Thanks; there has been talk that these calibration markers do not necessarily mean that it's a carrier-based project.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

A J-20 now flying with TVC engines。

@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> A J-20 now flying with TVC engines。
> 
> @Deino



With the same as the J-10B/C TVC-testbed?


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979960795323883520

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981520210330112000

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979960795323883520
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981520210330112000



I never heard about that rumor...


----------



## Deino

clarkgap said:


> I never heard about that rumor...




This one:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...ews-discussions.111471/page-696#post-10370066


----------



## 帅的一匹

cirr said:


> A J-20 now flying with TVC engines。
> 
> @Deino


Why?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> This one:
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...ews-discussions.111471/page-696#post-10370066



It is from FYJS but we don't have any images yet. Should probably wait for a while.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 463875
> View attachment 463876
> View attachment 463877
> View attachment 463878
> View attachment 463879


I think these are old photos from Zhuhai ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> I think these are old photos from Zhuhai ...


You are right.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 464183
> 
> View attachment 464193



Yankee said that the J-20 used to test TVC engine might've been either 2011 or 2012. Guess those demonstrators are good enough to last for years.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

---

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> ---
> View attachment 464388


----------



## clarkgap

pakistanipower said:


>



A laboratory model of internal carriage of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 464252
> 
> View attachment 464251


Could you post the entire academic paper or a link. Thanks.


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> ---
> View attachment 464388



What are they testing here?


----------



## Akasa

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 464883
> 
> 601... is very disappointing.



Please translate, what does the image represent?


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> After lost in the competition of J-20 with 611, 601 once proposed that one.




But it is a single-engined type! I canot think that it was for the same requirement or did SAC propose this one as a smaller and lighter complement aka J-10-successor?


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> But it is a single-engined type! I canot think that it was for the same requirement or did SAC propose this one as a smaller and lighter complement aka J-10-successor?


But FC-31came out.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> But FC-31came out.



But then again another design also from SAC additionally to the FC-31 makes even less sense?


----------



## Ethan XXX

can anyone identify the engines?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ethan XXX said:


> can anyone identify the engines?






Ethan XXX said:


> can anyone identify the engines?


 from that angle no one can tell @Ethan XXX


----------



## Ethan XXX

pakistanipower said:


> from that angle no one can tell @Ethan XXX


picture from Sina claiming it might be WS10...although Sina is not reliable, it is better not to leave anything out


----------



## Ultima Thule

Ethan XXX said:


> picture from Sina claiming it might be WS10...although Sina is not reliable, it is better not to leave anything out


it was one of the recent production jet, if you go to 10-15 pages back in this thread, one of pre production prototype had been equipped with WS-10, so it quite possible that this production jet is equipped with WS-10 @Ethan XXX


----------



## Figaro

Ethan XXX said:


> can anyone identify the engines?


This is an old picture posted a couple months ago. It kind of looks like WS-10 engines but no one can tell for sure ... from what I've heard, it is a PS of an older image. Besides, there are a lot more clearer images of the WS-10X J-20 prototypes than the one above.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Cybernetics

"雪鸮/Snow Owl" was the program which SAC and CAC competed in for the 4th generation fighter program.

SAC's design was even larger than the J-20 and emphasised kinematic performance over stealth.





The plane on the left looks like a stealth twin engine JF-17

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Cybernetics said:


> "雪鸮/Snow Owl" was the program which SAC and CAC competed in for the 4th generation fighter program.
> 
> SAC's design was even larger than the J-20 and emphasised kinematic performance over stealth.
> View attachment 467392
> 
> 
> The plane on the left looks like a stealth twin engine JF-17
> View attachment 467394
> View attachment 467393


Thank whatever gods there are CAC won is all I can say. What an ugly aircraft the "Snow Owl" is, now I know why SAC has the reputation it has.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Thank whatever gods there are CAC won is all I can say. What an ugly aircraft the "Snow Owl" is, now I know why SAC has the reputation it has.


Basically, SAC is a bunch of idiot without motivation to innovate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> Basically, SAC is a bunch of idiot without motivation to innovate.


that is not entirely correct, it is becuase of the working "culture" and bureaucracy in the north, but SAC works really hard to make PLAAF advance and strong.... hope there is a reforme to our SOE, the current system isnt fit for ever fasting trend, this applies to CAC too!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> that is not entirely correct, it is becuase of the working "culture" and bureaucracy in the north, but SAC works really hard to make PLAAF advance and strong.... hope there is a reforme to our SOE, the current system isnt fit for ever fasting trend, this applies to CAC too!


Lame culture

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

SAC has long history of strong politician backing and they are too conservative.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> Lame culture


this "culture" applies to all SOEs, the only difference is to what extend it goes. 
actually the government should really look into the serious problems facing SOE, it becomes chronic````those SOEs in the morth are becoming more like a family "cartel", friends and relatives are all in important positions with less concern of their competence. 

SOE will only do good jobs when there is a top-down authority from central government with serious strategic national security needs, like J-20, space tech and such```but the government cannot "look after" everything

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> this "culture" applies to all SOEs, the only difference is to what extend it goes.
> actually the government should really look into the serious problems facing SOE, it becomes chronic````those SOEs in the morth are becoming more like a family "cartel", friends and relatives are all in important positions with less concern of their competence.
> 
> SOE will only do good jobs when there is a top-down authority from central government with serious strategic national security needs, like J-20, space tech and such```but the government cannot "look after" everything


There is serious problem laying in North east province, they goverment is also having trouble to rectify it. Those lame practice had been embeded into their 'culture'.太懒了

And those bureaucracy has been astonishing.

And reason why Lin Zuo Ming was forced to retire is related to his arbitrary?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> There is serious problem laying in North east province, they goverment is also having trouble to rectify it. Those lame practice had been embeded into their 'culture'.太懒了
> 
> And those bureaucracy has been astonishing.


the system makes you lazy, as soon as you get in a good position, doing nothing is the best way to survive, and it wont affect your income and welfare```

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Chinese flying boom on Y20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

AI will make aerial refueling much easier and safer. Just like J-15 landing on carrier deck assisted by AI system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Cybernetics said:


> "雪鸮/Snow Owl" was the program which SAC and CAC competed in for the 4th generation fighter program.
> 
> SAC's design was even larger than the J-20 and emphasised kinematic performance over stealth.
> View attachment 467392
> 
> 
> The plane on the left looks like a stealth twin engine JF-17
> View attachment 467394
> View attachment 467393


Are these 2 new fighter planes China is working on??


----------



## LKJ86

Muhammad Omar said:


> Are these 2 new fighter planes China is working on??


There is only one survival in the competition of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/1497728405/4237041132126222

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/1617093763/4237064352350402

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 vs J-16 in FCS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 vs J-16 in FCS
> View attachment 472535
> View attachment 472537


plz translate


----------



## 星海军事

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 vs J-16 in FCS
> View attachment 472535
> View attachment 472537



This article was simply done by copy and paste and quoting remarks out of context.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 472637
> View attachment 472638
> View attachment 472639


That's the man, right there! A living legend.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rambro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> That's the man, right there! A living legend.


Why is he important?


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

rambro said:


> Why is he important?


No particular reason, he's just the child prodigy chief designer of the J-20 is all:




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Wei_(aircraft_designer)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Cybernetics

rambro said:


> Why is he important?


Yang Wei is great at what he does. He had contributed greatly to the development of China's fighter programs and is rumoured to be involved in China's 5th generation (international 6th generation) fighter program, though not sure if he is the lead for that program. His consistency in his work adds to this reputation. J-10 twin seater, fly-by-wire, JF-17, J-20. It is not just his work on fighter programs that has important implications but he helped bring up a future generation of engineers that will become the foundation of China's future military aviation industry. He played a big part in forming institutions that are foundational.

From Wiki
*Education*
Yang was the youngest general designer China ever had, completing his undergraduate education by the age of 19, and graduate education by the age of 22 from the Northwestern Polytechnical University. Yang first joined the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute in the late 1980s, and by the age of 38, he was promoted to the highest rank within the institute — director of the institute.

*Career*
Since 1998, Yang has become the general designer of numerous aircraft, and he is also one of the founders of fully digitized fly-by-wire control systems in China, a feat that greatly helped him become general designer of aircraft. Under his leadership, it took less than four years to achieve a maiden flight from scratch for FC-1, a record that remains unbroken in China today, and this was achieved while Yang was also the general designer of the Chengdu J-10 double seated version. Although only being the general designer of the twin seater version of the Chengdu J-10, Yang was the chief engineer of the digital fly-by-wire control systems for both the single seater and the twin seater version of the Chengdu J-10. Due to the nature of his work, Yang's achievements were kept secret and it wasn't until January, 2007 that Chengdu J-10 began to appear in a very limited fashion on official Chinese governmental websites, such as the Xinhua News Agency.

*Awards*
Recipient of Pakistan's high civilian honour Sitara-e-Imtiaz in 2017 for his services to design JF-17 Aircraft.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Wei_(aircraft_designer)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

On the way to super power, keep it up!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 472985
> View attachment 472986
> View attachment 472987
> View attachment 472988


I think first of your 4 pics above you last 2 post are old images post befor in this thread @LKJ86


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> I think first of your 4 pics above you last 2 post are old images post befor in this thread @LKJ86


Just for comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> Just for comparison.


For what comparison @LKJ86 ??? HMD/S


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 472985
> View attachment 472986
> View attachment 472987
> View attachment 472988



To admit I don't understand the posting of two different helmets??? 

The helmet on top (1+2. images) is surely not the same as in the lower two images. Just look at the clear part which on top clides under a cover whereas on the HMD-type below it is above.


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> For what comparison @LKJ86 ??? HMD/S


Maybe.



Deino said:


> To admit I don't understand the posting of two different helmets???
> 
> The helmet on top (1+2. images) is surely not the same as in the lower two images. Just look at the clear part which on top clides under a cover whereas on the HMD-type below it is above.


Pic 1 and Pic 3&4
Look carefully!

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

first three pics from your last 2 post is a same helmet/HMD-S but in your last post your 2nd pics shows a different helmet/HMD-S am i right @LKJ86


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Pic 1 and Pic 3&4
> Look carefully!



Indeed


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> first three pics from your last 2 post is a same helmet/HMD-S but in your last post your 2nd pics shows a different helmet/HMD-S am i right @LKJ86


Yes, PIC 2 in last post is an oid one.

video:http://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:3971457c42807a6956fa427df76a857f





@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## clarkgap

LKJ86 said:


> Yes, PIC 2 in last post is an oid one.
> 
> video:http://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:3971457c42807a6956fa427df76a857f
> 
> View attachment 472992
> 
> @Deino



Better Video:
http://t.cn/R3wafud

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

I'm proud of being a Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Going into open sea for training is dangerous. The foe may try to track signal and RCS of J-20 since it may be in international water.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Beast said:


> Going into open sea for training is dangerous. The foe may try to track signal and RCS of J-20 since it may be in international water.


Not at all. If the plane is well-designed (and it is), then they'll get absolutely nothing. A plane a country is too scared to fly isn't a warplane, it's a paperweight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Not at all. If the plane is well-designed (and it is), then they'll get absolutely nothing. A plane a country is too scared to fly isn't a warplane, it's a paperweight.


It will preserve the element of surprise and beat them hard when needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cybernetics

New hmd helmet for J-20 pilots 

Old:










New:

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> I don't think the old one was even a HMD.
> 
> 
> If that’s the case, the PLAAF will be at a significant disadvantage. In a future war, the J-20 is most likely going to operate in the open sea ... more specifically the East China Sea. The Americans probably already have a good guess of the J-20 RCS ... so not that much of a surprise


No, the American are always arrogant and underestimate China. Preserving emitting signal and RCS of J-20 will give them a rude shock when real battle started. You think too highly of American mentality. Their senator and top brass also high up the nose and think they are the best. Nothing to worry about others.

The J-20 sure has familiarize themselves with sea by using other simulating trainer or aircraft. It just transit into J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> No, the American are always arrogant and underestimate China. Preserving emitting signal and RCS of J-20 will give them a rude shock when real battle started. You think too highly of American mentality. Their senator and top brass also high up the nose and think they are the best. Nothing to worry about others.
> 
> The J-20 sure has familiarize themselves with sea by using other simulating trainer or aircraft. It just transit into J-20.


Dude. Let's not go to that length. Just because some "professional" western analysts are idiots does not mean the entire DoD apparatus is. The Chinese will need to make the fullest use of the J-20 ... I don't see the Japanese and Americans being too concerned about exposing the RCS signatures of their F-35s to Chinese radars. Why should they be? If the Chinese want to simulate real battle conditions as close as possible, their fighters have to train near the coast or on the sea. Simple. Let's not inject ideological differences into combat operations ... the Americans aren't as stupid/clueless as you think. I believe that VLO designers at Lockheed Martin can accurately gauge the RCS of the J-20 ...


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> Dude. Let's not go to that length. Just because some "professional" western analysts are idiots does not mean the entire DoD apparatus is. The Chinese will need to make the fullest use of the J-20 ... I don't see the Japanese and Americans being too concerned about exposing the RCS signatures of their F-35s to Chinese radars. Why should they be? If the Chinese want to simulate real battle conditions as close as possible, their fighters have to train near the coast or on the sea. Simple. Let's not inject ideological differences into combat operations ... the Americans aren't as stupid/clueless as you think. I believe that VLO designers at Lockheed Martin can accurately gauge the RCS of the J-20 ...


The engineer are smart but end of the day it’s the US senator that can make the decision. US Senator and top brass have many occasion make stupid comments and act too arrogant. I am stating a fact. I am sure you are aware of that. End of the day, if those US senator dismissed J-20 RCS as thrashed. There is nothing even the smartest US engineer can do to help US avert the threat of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

the RCS features of J-20 is among the best, but the latest developed *super material coating* is not yet used on J-20 which will furtuer reduce its all around RCS to XX%, and this new coating tech *was developed along with our 5th gen sea-borne stealth fighter*`````

they fly J-20 like no tomorrow , busy at drafting-up 5th-gen infomation centric air combat system's training and combat bills and manuscrips. and there are only two countries in the world who can get the real taste of the true power of 5th-gen information centric air combat system````U.S and China.

for the past year, *they say*, the J-20 effects brought to PLAAF was *overwhelming and alarming!*



Beast said:


> The engineer are smart but end of the day it’s the US senator that can make the decision. US Senator and top brass have many occasion make stupid comments and act too arrogant. I am stating a fact. I am sure you are aware of that. End of the day, if those US senator dismissed J-20 RCS as thrashed. There is nothing even the smartest US engineer can do to help US avert the threat of J-20.


the U.S related top decision makers know J-20 better than most of our Chinese fans, thats for sure, never underestimate their intelligence like how those so-called Western "experts" underestimate our technological power```

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 帅的一匹

@rcrmj what is actually the sea-borne stealthy fighter?


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> @rcrmj what is actually the sea-borne stealthy fighter?


you can call it J-31 if you want ````we might see it around 2019 latest

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Figaro said:


> Which US senator supposedly dismissed J-20 RCS? Especially since the F-22 is a very stealth fighter ... and they call the J-20 a “ripoff”


What is the definition of rip-off?

Why only China is able to make a 'rip-off'?

For national security, one can do anything to serve its purpose. Only matters is whether it will work or not. 
And I don't think other countries are able to produce F22 even they given the whole blueprint.

If partial reference is rip-off, then the whole world is based on rip-off.



rcrmj said:


> you can call it J-31 if you want ````we might see it around 2019 latest


Can you brief the super material coating? Is it a structural material or just a coating?



Beast said:


> Going into open sea for training is dangerous. The foe may try to track signal and RCS of J-20 since it may be in international water.


It may carry Luneberg lens.



rcrmj said:


> you can call it J-31 if you want ````we might see it around 2019 latest


If both PLAN and PAF induct FC31, then the cost will be much lower.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

wanglaokan said:


> What is the definition of rip-off?
> 
> Why only China is able to make a 'rip-off'?
> 
> For national security, one can do anything to serve its purpose. Only matters is whether it will work or not.
> And I don't think other countries are able to produce F22 even they given the whole blueprint.
> 
> If partial reference is rip-off, then the whole world is based on rip-off.
> 
> 
> Can you brief the super material coating? Is it a structural material or just a coating?
> 
> 
> It may carry Luneberg lens.
> 
> 
> If both PLAN and PAF induct FC31, then the cost will be much lower.


Go ask American senators. I cannot peer into their minds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> If both PLAN and PAF induct FC31, then the cost will be much lower


What is the cost of one J-20 and projected cost of finished FC-31 @wanglaokan


----------



## 帅的一匹

I don't even borther to ask them, most of them are ignorant War-monger.



pakistanipower said:


> What is the cost of one J-20 and projected cost of finished FC-31 @wanglaokan


I don't know man..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Avicenna

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 473114



What a beauty!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

wanglaokan said:


> What is the definition of rip-off?
> 
> Why only China is able to make a 'rip-off'?
> 
> For national security, one can do anything to serve its purpose. Only matters is whether it will work or not.
> And I don't think other countries are able to produce F22 even they given the whole blueprint.
> 
> If partial reference is rip-off, then the whole world is based on rip-off.
> 
> 
> Can you brief the super material coating? Is it a structural material or just a coating?
> 
> 
> It may carry Luneberg lens.
> 
> 
> If both PLAN and PAF induct FC31, then the cost will be much lower.


PLAN only, PLAAF has J-20 J-10C and J-16 is more than enough, and its coating```the costing factor of new 5th gen fighter is not determined by whether it is going to be deployed by PLAAF and PlAN. It is a 5th gen fighter espeically designed for navy warfare purpose```

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

wanglaokan said:


> I don't even borther to ask them, most of them are ignorant War-monger.
> 
> 
> I don't know man..


Nope! They are merely lining up their accounts from the weapons biz incl the war biz  That's why there are NO corruption at the ruling power circle there, aside from the facts that they're filthy rich after taking their long term seats.. for all the benefits are legitimized... Check also the *Revolving Doors *practices!!  CORPORATOCRACY at the finest form.. so great... HAHA!!!


The Chinese COSTS are highly classified, nobody knows such matter. But the Western think tanks may know better, occasionally they quote their own numbers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> you can call it J-31 if you want ````we might see it around 2019 latest


What is the powerplant we can expect? WS19?


----------



## rcrmj

there is a misconception regarding weapon costs of PLA need to be rectified.

people conviniently to think that* the reason of our weapons are cheap is becuse 1:cheap labour; 2:"copy"*

but in fact, the labour costing factor only contributes little to our weapon cost, R&D, moulding, production line and suppliers co-developing are the four major factors!

for these four factors, we are not that "cheap" compared to the U.S, some are even more expensive```for example at the very early days of our military development, we virtually had nothing, so had to pay ridiculously high premium prices to purchase necessary tools and equipments from Western countries and Japan, and those things were even considered sub-standard to their industrial standard````and the result was our production line's deffective rates are very high, which ultimately drove up the production cost and undermines our weapons quality.
(now we still have a vivid example of this bizarre situation which is India, they still have such problem that we faced 30 years ago)

luckily after 30 years stride, much of the industrial complex, fundations and technological know-how were established, advanced and grasped with our own effort. So this helped our weapons costing factors enormously!

And now lets talk about economy of scale. this concept is well-known to educated people, and infact a very important factor to make our weapon systems cost effective. However this step cannot be achieved if you have not accomplished advanced industrial complex, fundations and technological know-how. 

for example, it costs India $3 billion to acquire 4 Russian designed frigate, but with that money, China can produce 10 054As, people conviniently to believe that the reason 054A is cheap becuase its "not advanced"``and it is far from the truth, as its air defence system, electronic combat suit and anti-ship capability is world-class, not to mention its anti-sub capability is among world's premium. 

I will leave the topic of "copy"````as only clueless and ignorant people would parade on serious discussions with such shallow rants````

anyway, for recent years, the generals of PLAAF and PLAN are very very happy, not because their units are getting top quality leading edge weapon systems that only the U.S can develop alone, but also very cheap in quantity! Because in real war, quantity is always the decisive factor to assure victory! 

btw, our J-16Ds and J-15Ds are very very very expensive, more costly than J-20 and the other new 5th gen fighter```````2 J-15Ds can black out an entire Japanese task fleet, or a battle threatre, like the U.S did to us 2 decades ago```````````!



wanglaokan said:


> What is the powerplant we can expect? WS19?


ideal, yes``````could be ready around 2025

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Yukihime



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Starts at 2:39.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Yukihime said:


> View attachment 473185


I want to play basketball coach Anzai:Hisashi Mitsui.





http://m.iqiyi.com/w_19rsgodyv1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

wanglaokan said:


> I'm proud of being a Chinese.



You should be! This is an incredible achievement, this aircraft and everything you guys have built so far. Who in their right minds could deny anything of the sorts? I just read an article that interviewed a high-ranking USAF general who's one of the big fellas in the Pentagon and he was asked to comment on the Su-57 that was recently seen in the Russian military parade and he spoke about how the J-20 shares a lot of the quality machining and surface shaping for stealth as is in the F-22 and F-35 and that the SU-57 lacked a bit in that area. He detailed specifically the "gaps" between any movable surfaces such as flaps, ailerons and even the vertical stabs. He said that the Chinese put a lot of emphasis on shaping like we Americans did which means they invested in a lot of R&D and more importantly, understand it and how to apply it and obviously have the uniquely specialized machinery to produce these surfaces. And just for the record, he didn't dis the Su-57, he went into great detail about the Russian school of thought which was not to concentrate too much on the shaping but to make up for that in other fields such as the sideways radars it has etc. But I thought that was a great endorsement for China and the J-20. 



Cybernetics said:


> New hmd helmet for J-20 pilots



I have a question - when I first saw this one pic in your post, the oxygen mask immediately drew my attention because this is the standard, common issue, US made oxygen mask! Is this a Chinese copy, or did they actually purchase them from the US or someone else? The only difference I see is the microphone connection is circular rather than squarish one in the pic below of an American pilot. Any idea what the story is with the Chinese mask? Is it a Chinese reverse-engineered mask?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Gomig-21 said:


> You should be! This is an incredible achievement, this aircraft and everything you guys have built so far. Who in their right minds could deny anything of the sorts? I just read an article that interviewed a high-ranking USAF general who's one of the big fellas in the Pentagon and he was asked to comment on the Su-57 that was recently seen in the Russian military parade and he spoke about how the J-20 shares a lot of the quality machining and surface shaping for stealth as is in the F-22 and F-35 and that the SU-57 lacked a bit in that area. He detailed specifically the "gaps" between any movable surfaces such as flaps, ailerons and even the vertical stabs. He said that the Chinese put a lot of emphasis on shaping like we Americans did which means they invested in a lot of R&D and more importantly, understand it and how to apply it and obviously have the uniquely specialized machinery to produce these surfaces. And just for the record, he didn't dis the Su-57, he went into great detail about the Russian school of thought which was not to concentrate too much on the shaping but to make up for that in other fields such as the sideways radars it has etc. But I thought that was a great endorsement for China and the J-20.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question - when I first saw this one pic in your post, the oxygen mask immediately drew my attention because this is the standard, common issue, US made oxygen mask! Is this a Chinese copy, or did they actually purchase them from the US or someone else? The only difference I see is the microphone connection is circular rather than squarish one in the pic below of an American pilot. Any idea what the story is with the Chinese mask? Is it a Chinese reverse-engineered mask?


Bro, You don't know PLAAF is always a big fan of USAAF?

Since F16 age.

Have you ever heard of '看一眼就怀孕'?


----------



## Gomig-21

wanglaokan said:


> Bro, You don't know PLAAF is always a big fan of USAAF?
> 
> Since F16 age.



Of course! As a matter of fact, one of the biggest infractions laid on the EAF by the US was exactly that. But I believe the Israelis were much more guilty than us, but that's another matter.



wanglaokan said:


> Have you ever heard of '看一眼就怀孕'?



Mmmm, you might have lost me on that one, ma man. I tried google translate and it said "Take a look at pregnancy" lol. I think I get it. Hey, all the power to them. The way China has acquired equipment, technology, information etc. and taken it and used it to develop its own is a lesson for the rest of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Another reason why SCMP articles are full of horse**** . For anyone seeking to look at SCMP for Chinese military or J-20 insight, don't bother.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...j-20-stealth-fighter-jets-carry-out-first-sea


> China’s defence budget increased by 8.1 per cent this year to 1.1 trillion yuan (US$173 billion). But *manufacturing problems* with the J-20, *especially with its engines*, mean the air force does _*not have the number*_ of the stealth fighters it needs at present.


Hmm that's interesting. I wonder where SCMP got its information from . I guess a Hong Kong newspaper has a lot of “anonymous sources” within the PLA ready to freely give information without any repercussions. Makes sense ... 



Gomig-21 said:


> You should be! This is an incredible achievement, this aircraft and everything you guys have built so far. Who in their right minds could deny anything of the sorts? I just read an article that interviewed a high-ranking USAF general who's one of the big fellas in the Pentagon and he was asked to comment on the Su-57 that was recently seen in the Russian military parade and he spoke about how the J-20 shares a lot of the quality machining and surface shaping for stealth as is in the F-22 and F-35 and that the SU-57 lacked a bit in that area. He detailed specifically the "gaps" between any movable surfaces such as flaps, ailerons and even the vertical stabs. He said that the Chinese put a lot of emphasis on shaping like we Americans did which means they invested in a lot of R&D and more importantly, understand it and how to apply it and obviously have the uniquely specialized machinery to produce these surfaces. And just for the record, he didn't dis the Su-57, he went into great detail about the Russian school of thought which was not to concentrate too much on the shaping but to make up for that in other fields such as the sideways radars it has etc. But I thought that was a great endorsement for China and the J-20.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question - when I first saw this one pic in your post, the oxygen mask immediately drew my attention because this is the standard, common issue, US made oxygen mask! Is this a Chinese copy, or did they actually purchase them from the US or someone else? The only difference I see is the microphone connection is circular rather than squarish one in the pic below of an American pilot. Any idea what the story is with the Chinese mask? Is it a Chinese reverse-engineered mask?


Anyone who thinks that the USAF is ignorant towards PLAAF capabilities is sorely misinformed. Let me remind them that the Air Force Chief of Staff and Lockheed Martin are not comprised of online amateur journalists or the so called “Western experts”. The National Interest or Business Insider does not represent DoD’s view of the PLAAF! Just because a stupid analyst derides the J-20’s stealth features does not mean it is indicative of the USAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UserUnknown2025

Gomig-21 said:


> You should be! This is an incredible achievement, this aircraft and everything you guys have built so far. Who in their right minds could deny anything of the sorts? I just read an article that interviewed a high-ranking USAF general who's one of the big fellas in the Pentagon and he was asked to comment on the Su-57 that was recently seen in the Russian military parade and he spoke about how the J-20 shares a lot of the quality machining and surface shaping for stealth as is in the F-22 and F-35 and that the SU-57 lacked a bit in that area. He detailed specifically the "gaps" between any movable surfaces such as flaps, ailerons and even the vertical stabs. He said that the Chinese put a lot of emphasis on shaping like we Americans did which means they invested in a lot of R&D and more importantly, understand it and how to apply it and obviously have the uniquely specialized machinery to produce these surfaces. And just for the record, he didn't dis the Su-57, he went into great detail about the Russian school of thought which was not to concentrate too much on the shaping but to make up for that in other fields such as the sideways radars it has etc. But I thought that was a great endorsement for China and the J-20.


Where did you find the article? Can you provide us a link?


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

UserUnknown2025 said:


> Where did you find the article? Can you provide us a link?


Please do, @Gomig-21. It really sounds a cut above the usual cr*p that gets posted in places like _The Diplomat_ and _The National Interest_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Gomig-21 said:


> You should be! This is an incredible achievement, this aircraft and everything you guys have built so far. Who in their right minds could deny anything of the sorts? I just read an article that interviewed a high-ranking USAF general who's one of the big fellas in the Pentagon and he was asked to comment on the Su-57 that was recently seen in the Russian military parade and he spoke about how the J-20 shares a lot of the quality machining and surface shaping for stealth as is in the F-22 and F-35 and that the SU-57 lacked a bit in that area. He detailed specifically the "gaps" between any movable surfaces such as flaps, ailerons and even the vertical stabs. He said that the Chinese put a lot of emphasis on shaping like we Americans did which means they invested in a lot of R&D and more importantly, understand it and how to apply it and obviously have the uniquely specialized machinery to produce these surfaces. And just for the record, he didn't dis the Su-57, he went into great detail about the Russian school of thought which was not to concentrate too much on the shaping but to make up for that in other fields such as the sideways radars it has etc. But I thought that was a great endorsement for China and the J-20.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question - when I first saw this one pic in your post, the oxygen mask immediately drew my attention because this is the standard, common issue, US made oxygen mask! Is this a Chinese copy, or did they actually purchase them from the US or someone else? The only difference I see is the microphone connection is circular rather than squarish one in the pic below of an American pilot. Any idea what the story is with the Chinese mask? Is it a Chinese reverse-engineered mask?


Could you link this interview. Thanks.


----------



## beijingwalker

*China's J-20 stealth jets conduct first maritime combat training*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

beijingwalker said:


> *China's J-20 stealth jets conduct first maritime combat training*


There is a J-20 thead already!!! Why do you need to create a new one??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

siegecrossbow said:


> Starts at 2:39.


*The J-20, the first combat training over the sea (2018-05-09)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994392432904110086

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*new materials used in helmet of China air force*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

UserUnknown2025 said:


> Where did you find the article? Can you provide us a link?





ZeEa5KPul said:


> Please do, @Gomig-21. It really sounds a cut above the usual cr*p that gets posted in places like _The Diplomat_ and _The National Interest_.





Figaro said:


> Could you link this interview. Thanks.



Sorry, guys. I looked all over the place for it and couldn't find it. I get bombarded with news clips from my ISP and if I don't save it, it's almost impossible to backtrack and find it unless I save it as new ones flood and bury the old ones.



Figaro said:


> Anyone who thinks that the USAF is ignorant towards PLAAF capabilities is sorely misinformed. Let me remind them that the Air Force Chief of Staff and Lockheed Martin are not comprised of online amateur journalists or the so called “Western experts”. The National Interest or Business Insider does not represent DoD’s view of the PLAAF! Just because a stupid analyst derides the J-20’s stealth features does not mean it is indicative of the USAF.



That's why it caught my attention and what's interesting is that it's eerily similar to that Business Insider article, except that was through a scientific think-tank who was saying similar things, but he wasn't half as complementary or detailed. You don't usually hear anyone from the US military -- in any capacity -- say things like that unless they're trying to lobby congress for funds by purposely complementing the opponent and showing them as a viable threat that needs to be addressed with more funds for R&D. 

Here's the Business Insider article.

*Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the US *
Alex Lockie

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...-a-big-threat-to-the-us/ar-AAx1Le2?ocid=ientp








Business Insider Su-57 Moscow Victory Day parade 2018
Russia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.

Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India recently backed out of the program. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.

Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.

The scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of stealth work, pointed out six major problems from the pictures.

First, take a look at the seams between the flaps on the aircraft — they're big. For reference, look at the US's F-22, the stealthiest fighter jet on earth:

*The flaps at the end of the wing have very tight seams, which don't scatter radar waves, thereby maintaining a low profile. 

Secondly, look at the Su-57's vertical rear tails. They have a wide gap where they stray from the fuselage. Keeping a tight profile is essential to stealth, according to the scientist.

Look at the F-35's rear tails for reference — they touch the whole way.
*
Third, look at the nose of the Su-57 — it has noticeable seams around the canopy, which kills stealth. The F-35 and F-22 share a smooth, sloped look.
*
It's likely Russia doesn't have the machining technology to produce such a surface. The actual nose of the Su-57 looks bolted on with noticeable rivets.* 
*
Finally, take a look at the underside of the Su-57 — it has rivets and sharp edges everywhere. "If nothing else convinces that no effort at [stealth] was attempted, this is the clincher," said the scientist. *

Russia didn't even try at stealth, but that's not their purpose

As the scientist pointed out, Russia didn't even appear to seriously try to make a stealth aircraft. The Su-57 takes certain measures, like storing weapons internally, that improve the stealth, *but it's leaps and bounds from a US or even Chinese effort.*

This highlights the true purpose of Russia's new fighter — not to evade radar itself, but to kill US stealth jets like the F-35 and F-22. 

The Su-57 will feature side mounted radars along its nose, an infrared search and track radar up front, and additional radars in front and back, as well as on the wings. 

As The Drive's Tyler Rogoway points out, the side-mounted radars on the Su-57 allow it to excel at a tactic called "beaming" that can trick the radars on US stealth jets. Beaming entails flying perpendicular to a fighter's radar in a way that makes the fighter dismiss the signature of the jet as a non-target. 

Any fighter can "beam" by flying sideways, but the Su-57, with sideways-mounted radars, can actually guide missiles and score kills from that direction.

Russia has long taken a different approach to fighter aircraft than the US, but the Su-57 shows that even without the fancy precision-machined stealth of an F-22, Moscow's jets can remain dangerous and relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I will point out is that it is a bit unfair what this guy said about the V-stabs on the Su-57. He compares the all-movable surfaces to permanently molded and attached V-stabs with rudders. If you have a fully moving V-stab, it won't be seamless like a fixed one with a separate rudder.

There's another piece of literature (I'll be damned if I can find that one either) that mentions how the J-20's cockpit & avionics is probably just as good as the F-22s.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Gomig-21 said:


> Sorry, guys. I looked all over the place for it and couldn't find it. I get bombarded with news clips from my ISP and if I don't save it, it's almost impossible to backtrack and find it unless I save it as new ones flood and bury the old ones.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it caught my attention and what's interesting is that it's eerily similar to that Business Insider article, except that was through a scientific think-tank who was saying similar things, but he wasn't half as complementary or detailed. You don't usually hear anyone from the US military -- in any capacity -- say things like that unless they're trying to lobby congress for funds by purposely complementing the opponent and showing them as a viable threat that needs to be addressed with more funds for R&D.
> 
> Here's the Business Insider article.
> 
> *Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the US *
> Alex Lockie
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/close-up-photos-of-russias-new-stealth-jet-reveal-its-true-purpose-—-and-its-a-big-threat-to-the-us/ar-AAx1Le2?ocid=ientp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business Insider Su-57 Moscow Victory Day parade 2018
> Russia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.
> 
> Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India recently backed out of the program. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.
> 
> Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.
> 
> The scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of stealth work, pointed out six major problems from the pictures.
> 
> First, take a look at the seams between the flaps on the aircraft — they're big. For reference, look at the US's F-22, the stealthiest fighter jet on earth:
> 
> *The flaps at the end of the wing have very tight seams, which don't scatter radar waves, thereby maintaining a low profile.
> 
> Secondly, look at the Su-57's vertical rear tails. They have a wide gap where they stray from the fuselage. Keeping a tight profile is essential to stealth, according to the scientist.
> 
> Look at the F-35's rear tails for reference — they touch the whole way.
> *
> Third, look at the nose of the Su-57 — it has noticeable seams around the canopy, which kills stealth. The F-35 and F-22 share a smooth, sloped look.
> *
> It's likely Russia doesn't have the machining technology to produce such a surface. The actual nose of the Su-57 looks bolted on with noticeable rivets.
> 
> Finally, take a look at the underside of the Su-57 — it has rivets and sharp edges everywhere. "If nothing else convinces that no effort at [stealth] was attempted, this is the clincher," said the scientist. *
> 
> Russia didn't even try at stealth, but that's not their purpose
> 
> As the scientist pointed out, Russia didn't even appear to seriously try to make a stealth aircraft. The Su-57 takes certain measures, like storing weapons internally, that improve the stealth, *but it's leaps and bounds from a US or even Chinese effort.*
> 
> This highlights the true purpose of Russia's new fighter — not to evade radar itself, but to kill US stealth jets like the F-35 and F-22.
> 
> The Su-57 will feature side mounted radars along its nose, an infrared search and track radar up front, and additional radars in front and back, as well as on the wings.
> 
> As The Drive's Tyler Rogoway points out, the side-mounted radars on the Su-57 allow it to excel at a tactic called "beaming" that can trick the radars on US stealth jets. Beaming entails flying perpendicular to a fighter's radar in a way that makes the fighter dismiss the signature of the jet as a non-target.
> 
> Any fighter can "beam" by flying sideways, but the Su-57, with sideways-mounted radars, can actually guide missiles and score kills from that direction.
> 
> Russia has long taken a different approach to fighter aircraft than the US, but the Su-57 shows that even without the fancy precision-machined stealth of an F-22, Moscow's jets can remain dangerous and relevant.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> One thing I will point out is that it is a bit unfair what this guy said about the V-stabs on the Su-57. He compares the all-movable surfaces to permanently molded and attached V-stabs with rudders. If you have a fully moving V-stab, it won't be seamless like a fixed one with a separate rudder.
> 
> There's another piece of literature (I'll be damned if I can find that one either) that mentions how the J-20's cockpit & avionics is probably just as good as the F-22s.



Please don't quote Alex Lockie. He is a very bad source (almost on par with David Axe).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> Anyone who thinks that the USAF is ignorant towards PLAAF capabilities is sorely misinformed.


I really don't think so. I don't think the quality American intelligence (public or classified) is far above the level of David Axe, Kyle Mizokami, or Alex Lockie. There was a great discussion over on SDF recently about how Robert Gates was completely blindsided by the emergence of the J-20 - if American intelligence knew better than it did (does), the US would never have cancelled the F-22.


Gomig-21 said:


> There's another piece of literature (I'll be damned if I can find that one either) that mentions how the J-20's cockpit & avionics is probably just as good as the F-22s.


They're not as good, they're far better than the F-22's. The F-22's cockpit and avionics belong in a museum of technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## YeBeWarned

Wonderful Fighter Plane ...  shows the hard work and dedication of the Chinese People

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

ZeEa5KPul said:


> I really don't think so. I don't think the quality American intelligence (public or classified) is far above the level of David Axe, Kyle Mizokami, or Alex Lockie. There was a great discussion over on SDF recently about how Robert Gates was completely blindsided by the emergence of the J-20 - if American intelligence knew better than it did (does), the US would never have cancelled the F-22.
> 
> They're not as good, they're far better than the F-22's. The F-22's cockpit and avionics belong in a museum of technology.


The arrogance make their eyes blind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 473517



You can't officially induct an aircraft into the PLAAF unless it has fired dumb rockets.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> You can't officially induct an aircraft into the PLAAF unless it has fired dumb rockets.


For real. I've yet to see footage of any J aircraft carrying, let alone dropping a PGM. Plenty of rockets though...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ZeEa5KPul said:


> For real. I've yet to see footage of any J aircraft carrying, let alone dropping a PGM. Plenty of rockets though...


Better than Russian Su-57/PAKFA that never open their weapon bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rendong

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 473517


愚蠢的CG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Gomig-21 said:


> Sorry, guys. I looked all over the place for it and couldn't find it. I get bombarded with news clips from my ISP and if I don't save it, it's almost impossible to backtrack and find it unless I save it as new ones flood and bury the old ones.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it caught my attention and what's interesting is that it's eerily similar to that Business Insider article, except that was through a scientific think-tank who was saying similar things, but he wasn't half as complementary or detailed. You don't usually hear anyone from the US military -- in any capacity -- say things like that unless they're trying to lobby congress for funds by purposely complementing the opponent and showing them as a viable threat that needs to be addressed with more funds for R&D.
> 
> Here's the Business Insider article.
> 
> *Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the US *
> Alex Lockie
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/close-up-photos-of-russias-new-stealth-jet-reveal-its-true-purpose-—-and-its-a-big-threat-to-the-us/ar-AAx1Le2?ocid=ientp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business Insider Su-57 Moscow Victory Day parade 2018
> Russia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.
> 
> Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India recently backed out of the program. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.
> 
> Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.
> 
> The scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of stealth work, pointed out six major problems from the pictures.
> 
> First, take a look at the seams between the flaps on the aircraft — they're big. For reference, look at the US's F-22, the stealthiest fighter jet on earth:
> 
> *The flaps at the end of the wing have very tight seams, which don't scatter radar waves, thereby maintaining a low profile.
> 
> Secondly, look at the Su-57's vertical rear tails. They have a wide gap where they stray from the fuselage. Keeping a tight profile is essential to stealth, according to the scientist.
> 
> Look at the F-35's rear tails for reference — they touch the whole way.
> *
> Third, look at the nose of the Su-57 — it has noticeable seams around the canopy, which kills stealth. The F-35 and F-22 share a smooth, sloped look.
> *
> It's likely Russia doesn't have the machining technology to produce such a surface. The actual nose of the Su-57 looks bolted on with noticeable rivets.
> 
> Finally, take a look at the underside of the Su-57 — it has rivets and sharp edges everywhere. "If nothing else convinces that no effort at [stealth] was attempted, this is the clincher," said the scientist. *
> 
> Russia didn't even try at stealth, but that's not their purpose
> 
> As the scientist pointed out, Russia didn't even appear to seriously try to make a stealth aircraft. The Su-57 takes certain measures, like storing weapons internally, that improve the stealth, *but it's leaps and bounds from a US or even Chinese effort.*
> 
> This highlights the true purpose of Russia's new fighter — not to evade radar itself, but to kill US stealth jets like the F-35 and F-22.
> 
> The Su-57 will feature side mounted radars along its nose, an infrared search and track radar up front, and additional radars in front and back, as well as on the wings.
> 
> As The Drive's Tyler Rogoway points out, the side-mounted radars on the Su-57 allow it to excel at a tactic called "beaming" that can trick the radars on US stealth jets. Beaming entails flying perpendicular to a fighter's radar in a way that makes the fighter dismiss the signature of the jet as a non-target.
> 
> Any fighter can "beam" by flying sideways, but the Su-57, with sideways-mounted radars, can actually guide missiles and score kills from that direction.
> 
> Russia has long taken a different approach to fighter aircraft than the US, but the Su-57 shows that even without the fancy precision-machined stealth of an F-22, Moscow's jets can remain dangerous and relevant.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> One thing I will point out is that it is a bit unfair what this guy said about the V-stabs on the Su-57. He compares the all-movable surfaces to permanently molded and attached V-stabs with rudders. If you have a fully moving V-stab, it won't be seamless like a fixed one with a separate rudder.
> 
> There's another piece of literature (I'll be damned if I can find that one either) that mentions how the J-20's cockpit & avionics is probably just as good as the F-22s.


Of course the J-20's avionics and sensor suite is much better than that of the F-22. One was designed in the late 80s while the other just entered service. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to say that the J-20 sensor suite is a equal to that of the F-35 ... both of which are superior to the Su-57 in this regard. If you read Dr. Karlo Kopp's RCS study and other statements by academics, you'll find that the J-20 stealth shaping was heavily influenced by that of the F-22. And yes, we do not that the Su-57 is not a VLO fighter ... nothing out of the ordinary. As for the Russians, I do not know what they were thinking ... they are still stuck in the age of dog-fighting it seems with emphasis on subsonic maneuverability. The Su-57 may be pretty at an air show but not so much in an actual fight ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Figaro said:


> Of course the J-20's avionics and sensor suite is much better than that of the F-22. One was designed in the late 80s while the other just entered service. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to say that the J-20 sensor suite is a equal to that of the F-35 ... both of which are superior to the Su-57 in this regard. If you read Dr. Karlo Kopp's RCS study and other statements by academics, you'll find that the J-20 stealth shaping was heavily influenced by that of the F-22. And yes, we do not that the Su-57 is not a VLO fighter ... nothing out of the ordinary. As for the Russians, I do not know what they were thinking ... they are still stuck in the age of dog-fighting it seems with emphasis on subsonic maneuverability. The Su-57 may be pretty at an air show but not so much in an actual fight ...


三十年河东，三十年河西。


----------



## Gomig-21

ZeEa5KPul said:


> They're not as good, they're far better than the F-22's. The F-22's cockpit and avionics belong in a museum of technology.



Wah! That's pretty harsh, ma man. 



Figaro said:


> Of course the J-20's avionics and sensor suite is much better than that of the F-22. One was designed in the late 80s while the other just entered service. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to say that the J-20 sensor suite is a equal to that of the F-35 ... both of which are superior to the Su-57 in this regard. If you read Dr. Karlo Kopp's RCS study and other statements by academics, you'll find that the J-20 stealth shaping was heavily influenced by that of the F-22. And yes, we do not that the Su-57 is not a VLO fighter ... nothing out of the ordinary. As for the Russians, I do not know what they were thinking ... they are still stuck in the age of dog-fighting it seems with emphasis on subsonic maneuverability. The Su-57 may be pretty at an air show but not so much in an actual fight ...



I think the Russians felt the pressure to keep up with the US when they designed the PAK-FA and didn't take certain R&D procedures into consideration, or might have even bypassed them for the sake of timing and figured they would get back to addressing them once prototypes were built. I think that was the flaw in the way they approached the Su-57 and now they're dealing with ways to circumvent some of those shortcomings that they knew they were going to run into. Plasma cloud technologies and crazy things of that sort were all just shortcuts to a slightly premature design that while not necessarily bad in frontal and side shaping, the underside seems to be its biggest problem area. The rivets are hardly an issue with tape and RAM which all use, it's too many 90 degree corners, especially between the hanging engine nacelles and the belly where the weapons bays are. 

But what was said about the v-stabs on the PAK-FA applies just the same on the J-20 because of them being all-movable surfaces, instead of fixed V-stabs with separate rudders. However, first thing I thought of was how the YF-23 was supposedly stealthier than the YF-22 and it had all-movable stabilators which must have seams/gaps in order to function and rotate. So I don't think that was a particularly fair criticism of the Su-57 or the J-20.






But I hope you fellas don't get too bent out of shape when someone disagrees or offers a contrarian view. But just because the F-22 came out in what, 1996? That certainly doesn't mean it's a museum relic as far as its avionics compared to the J-20. That's a bit biased to be perfectly honest with you. One thing you might not be factoring is the immense head start AND experience the US has over everyone in all major aspects of aviation and technology as well as their abilities to constantly upgrade. If one is to be objective, one MUST take these things into consideration.

There's also other major factors that are associated with the overall prowess of a 5th generation aircraft and that is the engines. I don't think that anyone of us here are in any disagreement that the US makes the best military aircraft engines and has been for a long time. The P&W F119 engines on the Raptor are a huge part of its combat performance capabilities.

And BTW, the F-22 is getting a complete revamp of its glass cockpit and avionics that includes AI etc..
https://www.themaven.net/warriormav...ors-radar-avionics-ai-BMw9vbS3xk2dymJlS4PW2g/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UserUnknown2025

Gomig-21 said:


> Wah! That's pretty harsh, ma man.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Russians felt the pressure to keep up with the US when they designed the PAK-FA and didn't take certain R&D procedures into consideration, or might have even bypassed them for the sake of timing and figured they would get back to addressing them once prototypes were built. I think that was the flaw in the way they approached the Su-57 and now they're dealing with ways to circumvent some of those shortcomings that they knew they were going to run into. Plasma cloud technologies and crazy things of that sort were all just shortcuts to a slightly premature design that while not necessarily bad in frontal and side shaping, the underside seems to be its biggest problem area. The rivets are hardly an issue with tape and RAM which all use, it's too many 90 degree corners, especially between the hanging engine nacelles and the belly where the weapons bays are.
> 
> But what was said about the v-stabs on the PAK-FA applies just the same on the J-20 because of them being all-movable surfaces, instead of fixed V-stabs with separate rudders. However, first thing I thought of was how the YF-23 was supposedly stealthier than the YF-22 and it had all-movable stabilators which must have seams/gaps in order to function and rotate. So I don't think that was a particularly fair criticism of the Su-57 or the J-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I hope you fellas don't get too bent out of shape when someone disagrees or offers a contrarian view. But just because the F-22 came out in what, 1996? That certainly doesn't mean it's a museum relic as far as its avionics compared to the J-20. That's a bit biased to be perfectly honest with you. One thing you might not be factoring is the immense head start AND experience the US has over everyone in all major aspects of aviation and technology as well as their abilities to constantly upgrade. If one is to be objective, one MUST take these things into consideration.
> 
> There's also other major factors that are associated with the overall prowess of a 5th generation aircraft and that is the engines. I don't think that anyone of us here are in any disagreement that the US makes the best military aircraft engines and has been for a long time. The P&W F119 engines on the Raptor are a huge part of its combat performance capabilities.
> 
> And BTW, the F-22 is getting a complete revamp of its glass cockpit and avionics that includes AI etc..
> https://www.themaven.net/warriormav...ors-radar-avionics-ai-BMw9vbS3xk2dymJlS4PW2g/


By 2060, or even decades before this year, planes that are designed without consideration for newer anti-stealth countermeasures such as the F22 and J20 would become totally obsolete. China has been working on a clandestine satellite that can detect stealth aircraft for some time now. Also quantum and gravitational radars are being developed as we speak. Unless one can find a way to bend space time, stealth planes won’t be stealthy at all in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

UserUnknown2025 said:


> By 2060, or even decades before this year, planes that are designed without consideration for newer anti-stealth countermeasures such as the F22 and J20 would become totally obsolete. China has been working on a clandestine satellite that can detect stealth aircraft for some time now. Also quantum and gravitational radars are being developed as we speak. Unless one can find a way to bend space time, stealth planes won’t be stealthy at all in the future.


But it will be very effective to beat up 2nd tier countries who cannot afford such luxuries. Major power always fight proxy war. They will avoid confrontation with each other. Using third countries as punching bag.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Akasa

花里胡哨的玩艺，战时注定是一堆狗屎。


----------



## Brainsucker

UserUnknown2025 said:


> By 2060, or even decades before this year, planes that are designed without consideration for newer anti-stealth countermeasures such as the F22 and J20 would become totally obsolete. China has been working on a clandestine satellite that can detect stealth aircraft for some time now. Also quantum and gravitational radars are being developed as we speak. Unless one can find a way to bend space time, stealth planes won’t be stealthy at all in the future.



The current stealth technology will be obsolete. But it doesn't mean that the concept will be abandoned. There will be a new method of stealth. Whatever it is new material that we don't know yet, new shape of aircraft, new electronic warfare, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Akasa said:


> 花里胡哨的玩艺，战时注定是一堆狗屎。


Are you okay?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> Are you okay?



That was an opinion of a typical Chinese netizen in response to a report that J-16 pilots have begun using English callsigns. This is how typical citizens of China view their military, a far cry from the atmosphere here on PDF, don't you think.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Akasa said:


> That was an opinion of a typical Chinese netizen in response to a report that J-16 pilots have begun using English callsigns.


Of course, of course, it's all part of the Coming Collapse of China.


Akasa said:


> This is how typical citizens of China view their military, a far cry from the atmosphere here on PDF, don't you think.


At some point during your education, were you taught anything about drawing a conclusion from a single data point?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Of course, of course, it's all part of the Coming Collapse of China.
> 
> At some point during your education, were you taught anything about drawing a conclusion from a single data point?


I think he intentionally changed his profile picture to that of Brahmos missiles to annoy posters here .

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Akasa

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Of course, of course, it's all part of the Coming Collapse of China.
> 
> At some point during your education, were you taught anything about drawing a conclusion from a single data point?



No, the only thing I was taught (and everyone here should be taught that) was the wonderful literature of Mr. Gordon Chang. Seriously, you should read what he writes.


----------



## Figaro

Akasa said:


> No, the only I was taught (and everyone here should be taught that) were the wonderful works of Mr. Gordon Chang. Seriously, you should read what he writes.


Please tell me you're being sarcastic ... that idiot has been wrong for the past 25 years. I'd bet my entire savings that he's going to be wrong for the next 25 years also. He and Peter Navarro personify the epitome of American ignorance on the rise of China ... with their psuedo racist rants and doomsday scenarios.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> Please tell me you're being sarcastic ... that idiot has been wrong for the past 25 years. I'd bet my entire savings that he's going to be wrong for the next 25 years also. He and Peter Navarro personify the epitome of American ignorance on the rise of China ... with their psuedo racist rants and doomsday scenarios.



The immortal legend Mr. Chang has updated his prediction. This time, he is suspecting of an eventual 1929-style market crash secondary to the continued outflow of Chinese capital and the subsequent effects on the stability of the Chinese regime - according to him, the "point of no return" has passed in 2017.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gordon-chang-china-is-going-to-go-into-free-fall_2225666.html

I would also be careful of labeling Gordon Chang as "pseudo-racist"; his predictions may be a tad brash in the short run but his core premises are not far off from the truth.


----------



## Figaro

Akasa said:


> The immortal legend Mr. Chang has updated his prediction. This time, he is suspecting of an eventual 1929-style market crash secondary to the continued outflow of Chinese capital and the subsequent effects on the stability of the Chinese regime - according to him, the "point of no return" has passed in 2017.
> 
> https://www.theepochtimes.com/gordon-chang-china-is-going-to-go-into-free-fall_2225666.html
> 
> I would also be careful of labeling Gordon Chang as "pseudo-racist"; his predictions may be a tad brash in the short run but his core premises are not far off from the truth.


Oh come on! I thought you were being overly sarcastic ... Gordon Chang is an idiot whose premises are not substantiated in the slightest way. If you've read his book, you would have noticed that every SINGLE one of his predictions turned out to be 180 degrees off. He suspected a 1929 crash back in 2001 ... and now he's suspecting another 1929 crash in 2018??? Give me a break. And for the record, the Epoch Times is not a reliable source for Chinese economics ... but as they say, _*haters gonna hate*_

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> but as they say, _*haters gonna hate*_


and ain'ters gonna ain't.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Akasa said:


> The immortal legend Mr. Chang has updated his prediction. This time, he is suspecting of an eventual 1929-style market crash secondary to the continued outflow of Chinese capital and the subsequent effects on the stability of the Chinese regime - according to him, the "point of no return" has passed in 2017.
> 
> https://www.theepochtimes.com/gordon-chang-china-is-going-to-go-into-free-fall_2225666.html
> 
> I would also be careful of labeling Gordon Chang as "pseudo-racist"; his predictions may be a tad brash in the short run but his core premises are not far off from the truth.


And you know, you had a perfect combo of Gordon Chang wrote at the Epoch Times... It should be a reference article for every observer of the nation of China. And because the Chinese don't opt the sacred, the only correct political system of the west unlike your great country, India, their government (nope, I will still refrain myself from using the word of "regime" to describe the government of the 2nd most powerful nation on earth today) is in great risk, thus their paper-based, debt-ridden economy with so many, you know, the well-known ghost, unreclaimed build-ups!

Tip: @Akasa, you should not miss the views of Dean Cheng as well, he's another renowned expert on China! Thanks for your valuable info on the precarious condition of China's stability. What a fun reading  It's also great to learn your true color after showing all your great curious interests all this long  Cheers! Personally I take it as a great compliment from the greatest rivalry.



ZeEa5KPul said:


> and ain'ters gonna ain't.


And jealousy is indeed killing! Yet the talk-down is quite an effective way, time-tested method! I've been observing as of 80s. [Oops, it reveals me ]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Akasa said:


> The immortal legend Mr. Chang has updated his prediction. This time, he is suspecting of an eventual 1929-style market crash secondary to the continued outflow of Chinese capital and the subsequent effects on the stability of the Chinese regime - according to him, the "point of no return" has passed in 2017.
> 
> https://www.theepochtimes.com/gordon-chang-china-is-going-to-go-into-free-fall_2225666.html
> 
> I would also be careful of labeling Gordon Chang as "pseudo-racist"; his predictions may be a tad brash in the short run but his core premises are not far off from the truth.


Indeed, I always applaud Gordon Chang work. Hope this time he can convince Trump to drop the tariff on China imported goods that China will collapse soon and China is a paper Tiger. Stop all the military provocation against China cos China military is so weak

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> I think he intentionally changed his profile picture to that of Brahmos missiles to annoy posters here .


In my case I find Justin Trudeau more annoying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## azesus

Gordan Chang should tell Trump China army fight like a girl, that their soldiers wear bikini as army uniform and their men participate in the ufc women's division


----------



## Ultima Thule

azesus said:


> Gordan Chang should tell Trump China army fight like a girl, that their soldiers wear bikini as army uniform and their men participate in the ufc women's division


@Deino look at @azesus


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... can we stay on topic please???*


----------



## LKJ86

Just for fun:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Just for fun:
> View attachment 473914




Best post of the month ... but you should tell that this is a ps-job only, otherwise some stupid reporters go crazy again.


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> Just for fun:
> View attachment 473914


Yes, Just for Fun, akin to the incredible titbit brought here by the diligent, investigative Senior Akasa... What a pleasant Intermezzo indeed... If one is able to maintain his cool head


----------



## 帅的一匹

LKJ86 said:


> Just for fun:
> View attachment 473914


I think it's very uncool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

*最轻陶瓷吸波材料现身 可为隐形飞机减负 *

科技日报北京5月14日电 （实习记者崔爽）对电磁有吸收能力的吸波材料在防止电磁污染、电磁反射等方面有重要作用。记者14日获悉，哈尔滨工业大学（威海）张涛教授研究团队近期发现一种轻质、耐高温吸波新材料，其密度仅为每立方厘米15毫克，是已知陶瓷材料中最轻的。该研究发表在《碳材料》期刊上。

据该成果的第一作者、哈尔滨工业大学（威海）材料科学与工程学院张涛教授介绍，这种新吸波材料可以大大为飞行器、船舰减负，“以美军U-2飞机为例，其吸波剂为羰基铁粉，占到涂层重量的50％以上。如果将此次发现的新材料用于隐身和屏蔽，其占涂层重量的比例将降至10％以下。”

这种材料是通过先驱体分子设计合成的六方BCN三元化合物陶瓷，独特的微纳结构和成分可设计性使其在不同电磁波段（S、K等波段）具有优异的吸波性能。其吸波频段具有可调节特性。除此之外，这种具有微纳孔结构的三元化合物材料具有超疏水特性，不需借助任何外形设计即可漂浮在水面上。

这种新型三元材料可以极好地满足现代吸波材料“薄、轻、宽、强”的要求，其发现对新一代耐高温、全天候、超轻吸波材料的发展和应用具有重要指导价值。未来，它将被用作高马赫数隐身飞行器的涂层材料、高压输变站和大功率服务器的涂层材料等，防止电磁污染和信号干扰。

http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2018-05/15/content_394483.htm?div=-1

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Path-Finder

beijingwalker said:


> *new materials used in helmet of China air force*



What is being said in the video?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## nang2

cirr said:


> View attachment 474592


The dude on the right calls the dude on the left: rookie.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997739075254800385

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997739075254800385



I think you meant composite, Deino.


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> I think you meant composite, Deino.


What did he post?


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> What did he post?



"Interesting *composed* image showing a J-20A during a sharp turn"


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> "Interesting *composed* image showing a J-20A during a sharp turn"


I have posted a repeated picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

AVIC CG







https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/pVizjmB_H-5uNjyYdyH3VQ

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## samsara

siegecrossbow said:


> I think you meant composite, Deino.


Nope, Deino did mean "composed" i/o "composite".

One of the many meanings of the word "to compose" :_ to arrange to make a *pleasing picture*, artwork, etc, which fits the fascinating circular pics. _

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


>



Any idea why Chinese designer's preferred using explosive chords in the glass canopy of the J-20 instead of a fully ejectable canopy in order to reduce that ever so critical RCS that is compromised by the radar and other avionics from inside the cockpit? 

It seems to me that the canopy with a chord in it emits more of a return than one without. Anyone know if they ever spoke about that?


----------



## LKJ86

Gomig-21 said:


> Any idea why Chinese designer's preferred using explosive chords in the glass canopy of the J-20 instead of a fully ejectable canopy in order to reduce that ever so critical RCS that is compromised by the radar and other avionics from inside the cockpit?
> 
> It seems to me that the canopy with a chord in it emits more of a return than one without. Anyone know if they ever spoke about that?


It takes the style of F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Gomig-21 said:


> Any idea why Chinese designer's preferred using explosive chords in the glass canopy of the J-20 instead of a fully ejectable canopy in order to reduce that ever so critical RCS that is compromised by the radar and other avionics from inside the cockpit?
> 
> It seems to me that the canopy with a chord in it emits more of a return than one without. Anyone know if they ever spoke about that?



It is an explosive cord which helps to crack the canopy before the ejection seat has to do this all by itself. When ejection is commanded, the harness is tightened and the canopy is shattered, and only then the real ejection starts. Earlier designs would blow the full canopy off, but this takes longer than shattering it, especially when the canopy is large. 

Some seats have their own canopy breakers, but thick, tough canopies which are needed for flying at high dynamic pressure and for surviving bird strikes would slow the seat down too much. The F-16 canopy is 12mm thick in the area above the pilot. They are used widely for both land- and carrier-based aircraft, and modern designs try to make them less obvious. The F-35 canopy uses just one line down the middle.

Credit: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12821/what-are-these-wavy-lines-on-fighters-canopy

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Gomig-21

Okarus said:


> It is an explosive cord which helps to crack the canopy before the ejection seat has to do this all by itself. When ejection is commanded, the harness is tightened and the canopy is shattered, and only then the real ejection starts. Earlier designs would blow the full canopy off, but this takes longer than shattering it, especially when the canopy is large.



Yes, I'm familiar with how they work. I was asking why they chose that particular detonation chord and particularly that pattern. The jet is impeccably designed in almost every single aspect to reduce RCS and adding that zig-zag detchord pattern seems to defeat the purpose a little bit. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, I think it's basically like an antenna, if you think about it, and adding an antenna to an already heavily electronically filled glass canopy seems like a step back to otherwise a lot of effort to reduce RCS. I was wondering if they ever spoke about it and if it might be temporary or if it is indeed the final system they're going with.



Okarus said:


> Some seats have their own canopy breakers



Head seat spikes are a thing of the distant past. That's probably the WORST way to crack a canopy and makes it 10 times more of a violent and dangerous experience for a very stressed pilot when it needs to be as least stressful as possible. I'm glad they didn't go anywhere near that.



Okarus said:


> They are used widely for both land- and carrier-based aircraft, and *modern designs try to make them less obvious.* The F-35 canopy uses just one line down the middle.



That's what I was getting at. If the detchord is the way the Chinese engineers wanted to go, I would've thought they would have designed a lot less conspicuous layout like the F-35 or even used the full canopy jettison system.

Not that the F-35 is the standard to go by and neither is the F-22 which incorporates the full canopy jettison system, there are pros and cons for both systems but if we do look closely at the F-35, its detchord not only runs down the middle of the top part in one straight line like you mentioned (reducing as much chord as possible), but it travels along the front and bottom rails where the glass connects to the frame and back. It essentially splits the glass into two leafs from the frame. Kind of in-between a full canopy jettison and a zig-zag detchord just on the top but more importantly, it's less conspicuous.






It seems they took a lot of considerations into designing it not only for effectiveness, but specifically for lower RCS and any additional electronic emissions from the glass cockpit. They also had to consider that one of the three models is a carrier-based variant and the STOVL aircraft has a greater risk of dropping into the water. A detchord system is much better suited for that than a full canopy jettison. The latter doesn't work so well when the aircraft is submerged in water. 

But even with all those safety and water considerations, it seems they also made an effort to minimize something that would seem to increase the aircraft's RCS, and that's what I was wondering about the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

http://www.81.cn/jskj/2018-05/16/content_8033754_2.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Gomig-21 said:


> Any idea why Chinese designer's preferred using explosive chords in the glass canopy of the J-20 instead of a fully ejectable canopy in order to reduce that ever so critical RCS that is compromised by the radar and other avionics from inside the cockpit?
> 
> It seems to me that the canopy with a chord in it emits more of a return than one without. Anyone know if they ever spoke about that?



Lighter weight is one reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

*China confirms use of mature stealth testing technology*

2018-05-23 08:56:13 Global Times

*Aircraft company showcases deployment of radar detection capabilities*

China can comprehensively test the stealth capability of its aircraft and apply the mature technology to the design and manufacture of naval vessels, a military expert said Tuesday in response to a report in a technical review magazine.

Shenyang Aircraft Corporation successfully conducted a Radar Cross-Section (RCS) test for aircraft, according to the official WeChat social media account of Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Chinese periodical on national defense industries and technologies.

This is the first time China has openly released information confirming its use of the RCS testing technology on stealth fighters.

Tuesday's report included a photo of a fighter jet like the J-11 and a research team from the corporation based in Northeast China's Liaoning Province.

Military analysts said the article proved that Chinese stealth capability has massively improved, with multiple Chinese military industrial research institutes able to maturely apply the technology to their production of more sophisticated weapons including ships and tanks.

RCS is a measure of how detectable an object is by radar. A larger RCS index indicates that an object is more easily detected by radar.

According to the report, China long ago gained the technology and applied it to the design and manufacture of China's most advanced fifth generation stealth fighter, the J-20.

"The J-20 is built by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, and Shenyang Aircraft Corporation is also conducting research and development of another China-made stealth fighter, the FC-31, so the technology is very basic and essential," Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator said.

"If the RCS test can be used maturely, that means the fourth-generation fighter jets including the J-11 and J-16 that form the main body of the Chinese air force and are produced by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, can also improve their stealth capabilities."

The RCS index largely depends on the object's size, configuration and materials.

Although the older fighter jets in commission cannot change their aerodynamic configuration, they can reduce their index with a stealth coating, Song noted.

"This means that apart from the J-20, some other aircraft in the Chinese air force also have stealth capability," he said.

Only a few countries in the world have stealth testing capability: the U.S., Russia and a few EU members can conduct the test, according to the report.

The technology can also be used for navy vessels and armored ground vehicles.

http://www.ecns.cn/news/military/2018-05-23/detail-ifyuqkxh5542964.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Gomig-21 said:


> Yes, I'm familiar with how they work. I was asking why they chose that particular detonation chord and particularly that pattern. The jet is impeccably designed in almost every single aspect to reduce RCS and adding that zig-zag detchord pattern seems to defeat the purpose a little bit. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, I think it's basically like an antenna, if you think about it, and adding an antenna to an already heavily electronically filled glass canopy seems like a step back to otherwise a lot of effort to reduce RCS. I was wondering if they ever spoke about it and if it might be temporary or if it is indeed the final system they're going with.
> 
> 
> 
> Head seat spikes are a thing of the distant past. That's probably the WORST way to crack a canopy and makes it 10 times more of a violent and dangerous experience for a very stressed pilot when it needs to be as least stressful as possible. I'm glad they didn't go anywhere near that.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was getting at. If the detchord is the way the Chinese engineers wanted to go, I would've thought they would have designed a lot less conspicuous layout like the F-35 or even used the full canopy jettison system.
> 
> Not that the F-35 is the standard to go by and neither is the F-22 which incorporates the full canopy jettison system, there are pros and cons for both systems but if we do look closely at the F-35, its detchord not only runs down the middle of the top part in one straight line like you mentioned (reducing as much chord as possible), but it travels along the front and bottom rails where the glass connects to the frame and back. It essentially splits the glass into two leafs from the frame. Kind of in-between a full canopy jettison and a zig-zag detchord just on the top but more importantly, it's less conspicuous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems they took a lot of considerations into designing it not only for effectiveness, but specifically for lower RCS and any additional electronic emissions from the glass cockpit. They also had to consider that one of the three models is a carrier-based variant and the STOVL aircraft has a greater risk of dropping into the water. A detchord system is much better suited for that than a full canopy jettison. The latter doesn't work so well when the aircraft is submerged in water.
> 
> But even with all those safety and water considerations, it seems they also made an effort to minimize something that would seem to increase the aircraft's RCS, and that's what I was wondering about the J-20.



The cord is inside so I don't think it really has any impacts on the RCS, especially with the stealth coating on the canopy.

I don't know what caused the design differences. My guess is the US thought the cord would impede the pilot's sights, so they run it as little as possible. The PLAAF probably looked for the most effective design with the most surface area to break the glass.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/1740979351/4242960826703107

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Good news!




The first combat troops begin to receive J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Good news!
> View attachment 477760
> 
> The first combat troops begin to receive J-20.



Any mentioning or at least a hint where, what unit?


----------



## LKJ86

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
video:http://www.js7tv.cn/video/201805_147065.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ILC

^^
Nice.. Wonder what would be the production rate of J20, hope at least 12 a year(2018) and soon more...


----------



## Gomig-21

ILC said:


> ^^
> Nice.. Wonder what would be the production rate of J20, hope at least 12 a year(2018) and soon more...



It will probably start out a bit slow like the all do, maybe under 5 units and then crank it up from there.
Have they mentioned what they're total goal is? Did they publicize a number at any point?


----------



## cirr

Happy Children's Day

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## 帅的一匹

https://view.inews.qq.com/a/TWF201806010120000A?uid=8730528


----------



## Figaro

cirr said:


> Happy Children's Day
> 
> View attachment 477829


Wow ... the J-20's workmanship is excellent. Definitely on the same level as the F-35 or F-22. Great job China! A huge improvement from even just 5 years ago ...


----------



## LKJ86

cirr said:


> Happy Children's Day
> 
> View attachment 477829

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## ILC

Beautiful pics... The helmet is the first one that we had seen, so TK-31?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20180601A0L8NT00?uid=8730528
Just look at how J20 take off, amazing!

What a robust machine

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Gomig-21

The radome is very unique. The top half looks somewhat round but the bottom half looks faceted, or has a few different angles on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20180601A0L8NT00?uid=8730528
> Just look at how J20 take off, amazing!
> 
> What a robust machine




Care to explain what you think is so much amazing?? IMO it is a blurred not very good image of an ordinary J-20 taking off ... not even a dramatic climb, just take off. 

And image-wise this shot is much more impressive, at least IMO.



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 477772
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> video:http://www.js7tv.cn/video/201805_147065.html


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Cookie Monster

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 477917
> View attachment 477919


Could anyone translate in English?


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/6111786953/4246469906961401

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002728860591448066

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## beijingwalker



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 478161


any back ground or description of the attached pic ... ???


----------



## Gomig-21

wanglaokan said:


>



Interesting looking wide touchscreen display with digital gauges that look like they correspond to the engines.
Also interesting aircraft outline, doesn't match the J-20 but more like the J-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cookie Monster

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 478161


It's almost like a hybrid of F16 cranked arrow and J20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

wanglaokan said:


> View attachment 478010


This is not for the J-20 ...



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 478171


Translation?


----------



## ozranger

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 478161









It looks to be a fighter-bomber, like FB-22.









What about those designs from Institute 601?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Cookie Monster said:


> It's almost like a hybrid of F16 cranked arrow and J20.


no crank arrow head is the wholly different designs its a conventional delta wing design with LERX and with head on stealth look the F-16 XL
*F-16 XL



*​


----------



## cirr

HRK said:


> any back ground or description of the attached pic ... ???



Rumours circulating that the bigger of the two is being worked on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cookie Monster

pakistanipower said:


> no crank arrow head is the wholly different designs its a conventional delta wing design with LERX and with head on stealth look the F-16 XL
> *F-16 XL
> View attachment 478228
> *​


Dude try to understand a post before u reply. This is like the second time u've replied to my post without fully understanding it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Cookie Monster said:


> Dude try to understand a post before u reply. This is like the second time u've replied to my post without fully understanding it.


Its more like a Lockheed Martin cancelled FB-22 rather than F-16 XL @Cookie Monster


----------



## siegecrossbow

ozranger said:


> It looks to be a fighter-bomber, like FB-22.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about those designs from Institute 601?



The fighter-bomber variant of J-20 probably won't need ventral strakes because it wouldn't need to fly at high AOA.


----------



## Cookie Monster

pakistanipower said:


> Its more like a Lockheed Martin cancelled FB-22 rather than F-16 XL @Cookie Monster


I don't have the patience to deal with stupidity today.


----------



## ozranger

siegecrossbow said:


> The fighter-bomber variant of J-20 probably won't need ventral strakes because it wouldn't need to fly at high AOA.



If you look at FB-22, you will see that they removed horizontal stabilizer but still keep those 2 huge vertical stabilizer. So I think J-20 fighter-bomber can do the same, which is also removing some horizontal control surfaces like canards.

I mean, although I don't have profession in aerodynamics, but I think there must be a reason that they all look to reduce number of horizontal control surfaces but retain all the vertical ones.


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


>



That has to be the best angle to take a pic of that monster. It's so intimidating-looking made even cooler with that radical deflection angle of the V-stabs. The fact that they're all-movable too makes it look even more rad. That's a huge chunk of metal turning on a dime.

Weapon bay doors open is pretty cool too, especially with protruding missiles. Any idea what those are, PL-9?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Gomig-21 said:


> That has to be the best angle to take a pic of that monster. It's so intimidating-looking made even cooler with that radical deflection angle of the V-stabs. The fact that they're all-movable too makes it look even more rad. That's a huge chunk of metal turning on a dime.
> 
> Weapon bay doors open is pretty cool too, especially with protruding missiles. Any idea what those are, PL-9?


PL-10

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> PL-10



Ah, that's right I forgot the PL-10s are the smaller missiles for those upper bays. 
So is this the current complete set of armament for the J-20 or has the list changed?

- Side bays (PL-10) 
- Bottom bays (PL-9, PL-12C/D, PL-15 & PL-21)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Gomig-21 said:


> ...




Not sure if You missed it ... but that's the WS-10B-powered prototype !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gomig-21

Deino said:


> Not sure if You missed it ... but that's the WS-10B-powered prototype !



I didn't miss it but I wasn't sure of the veracity of that information, so I was reluctant to post it. But thanks for mentioning it! Big milestone!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1003273623220568064

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1003322008002859009


LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 478161



But how likely is such a project? There is the XAC H-20, then this rumoured JH-18/H-18, which some claim as an enlarged, evolved JH-XX transferred from SAC also to XAC ... so yet another heavy striker is IMO a bit too much?!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

不容易啊。。。



Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1003322008002859009
> 
> 
> But how likely is such a project? There is the XAC H-20, then this rumoured JH-18/H-18, which some claim as an enlarged, evolved JH-XX transferred from SAC also to XAC ... so yet another heavy striker is IMO a bit too much?!!


IMO, not all of them will survive, and it is good competition and pleasing for me to see.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Cookie Monster said:


> I don't have the patience to deal with stupidity today.[/QUOTE





Cookie Monster said:


> I don't have the patience to deal with stupidity today.


In which angle its look like a J-20 and F-16 XL combo/hybrid??? @Cookie Monster  JH-20 is delta wing design with LERX, F-16 XL has crank delta wing design,b a wholly different plan-form design take a look @Cookie Monster 








now show me where are the similarity on both Jet @Cookie Monster 

ok im stupid and do research before you making a post @Cookie Monster


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## waz

Dear bros how many J-20's are there flying with the WS-15, or is still undergoing more tests?


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Dear bros how many J-20's are there flying with the WS-15, or is still undergoing more tests?


J-20 has been inducted into combat troops.
WS-15 may be still in developping.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 has been inducted into combat troops.
> WS-15 may be still in developping.



Oh ok that's what I thought. I can't wait to see the WS-15 powering the J-20, that will be the ultimate milestone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cookie Monster

waz said:


> Oh ok that's what I thought. I can't wait to see the WS-15 powering the J-20, that will be the ultimate milestone.


I wanna see it with WS15 and TVC(if they decide to add TVC)...together with canards, that kind of maneuverability would be magnificent to witness.

...though it may be entirely unnecessary to add TVC...but one can hope

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

waz said:


> Oh ok that's what I thought. I can't wait to see the WS-15 powering the J-20, that will be the ultimate milestone.


China can produce anything by itself, which can't be bought from abroad.
Maybe, USA should do a better job.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

waz said:


> Oh ok that's what I thought. I can't wait to see the WS-15 powering the J-20, that will be the ultimate milestone.


I want WS15 to power AZM.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

waz said:


> Dear bros how many J-20's are there flying with the WS-15, or is still undergoing more tests?


J-20 is currently flying with a hybrid engine which has more thrust than standard AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ozranger

Beast said:


> J-20 is currently flying with a hybrid engine which has more thrust than standard AL-31F.



I personally believe it is an improved version manufactured by PLAAF's own facilities. I think they didn't change the structure but only upgraded the material and applied a higher temperature to it.


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> J-20 is currently flying with a hybrid engine which has more thrust than standard AL-31F.


There is no such thing as a hybrid engine! They are either flying with AL-31Fs or WS-10X (currently in testing). A hybrid engine is all but impossible ... it’s either Chinese or either Russian, but definitely not both.



LKJ86 said:


> J-20 has been inducted into combat troops.
> WS-15 may be still in developping.


WS-15 is still in development ... should be incorporated very soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> *There is no such thing as a hybrid engine! *They are either flying with AL-31Fs or WS-10X (currently in testing). A hybrid engine is all but impossible ... it’s either Chinese or either Russian, but definitely not both.
> 
> 
> WS-15 is still in development ... should be incorporated very soon.


not really, *WS-10 is a hybird to begine with*```its Chinese engineering architect with *American core, Russian control system, and AL-31 style low pressure bypass stage *```

well, they wanted everything to be indigenous, however they realized that we were much behind the U.S and Russia in heavy turbofan engine techs, so in order to speed up the project, they draw on the experiences of the U.S and Russia's```

and that is the major reason that WS-10 project was sucessfully finished in 2005, but takes so long to upgrade and improve, as many problems occured when in service (as happened to any U.S or Russia's engines too) , and because of it is kind a mix mash, so solving a problem* often became* like to *make a new start*, or *start it all over again* (before to make improvements and adjustment, you need datas for the part or few parts that you plan to work on, and because its a mix mash of American, Chinese, Russian standards, so you can imagine the difficulties of accquire them! )````

Luckily, with the finalization of *WS-10B and WS-10IPE,* then the problem is effectively solved```sometimes we ridicule them by saying "We are so prould of them that they can actually manage to squish 3 different systems and school of thoughts into one and to make a working engine```" 

btw, WS-15 is the first high performance heavy thrust turbofan engine that we actually started of from scratch```



Figaro said:


> There is no such thing as a hybrid engine! They are either flying with AL-31Fs or WS-10X (currently in testing). A hybrid engine is all but impossible ... it’s either Chinese or either Russian, but definitely not both.
> 
> 
> WS-15 is still in development ... should be *incorporated very soon*.


2025 if I am optimistic````WS-19 would be probably quicker than WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## wulff

rcrmj said:


> not really, *WS-10 is a hybird to begine with*```its Chinese engineering architect with *American core, Russian control system, and AL-31 style low pressure bypass stage *```
> 
> well, they wanted everything to be indigenous, however they realized that we were much behind the U.S and Russia in heavy turbofan engine techs, so in order to speed up the project, they draw on the experiences of the U.S and Russia's```
> 
> and that is the major reason that WS-10 project was sucessfully finished in 2005, but takes so long to upgrade and improve, as many problems occured when in service (as happened to any U.S or Russia's engines too) , and because of it is kind a mix mash, so solving a problem* often became* like to *make a new start*, or *start it all over again* (before to make improvements and adjustment, you need datas for the part or few parts that you plan to work on, and because its a mix mash of American, Chinese, Russian standards, so you can imagine the difficulties of accquire them! )````
> 
> Luckily, with the finalization of *WS-10B and WS-10IPE,* then the problem is effectively solved```sometimes we ridicule them by saying "We are so prould of them that they can actually manage to squish 3 different systems and school of thoughts into one and to make a working engine```"
> 
> btw, WS-15 is the first high performance heavy thrust turbofan engine that we actually started of from scratch```
> 
> 
> 2025 if I am optimistic````WS-19 would be probably quicker than WS-15



I'm confused about the IPE designation. Is it the TVC variant equipping the J-10B and J-20 prototypes or is it the supposedly 150kn version of Ws-10 that was meant as a backup to the WS-15? or neither?
thanks


----------



## rcrmj

wulff said:


> I'm confused about the IPE designation. Is it the TVC variant equipping the J-10B and J-20 prototypes or is it the supposedly 150kn version of Ws-10 that was meant as a backup to the WS-15? or neither?
> thanks


IPE is around 141kn, J-10B is not using WS-10B (well, they planned too) but AL-31 variants instead`````and it was never a back-up or anything,

in fact AL-31 variants on J-20 is a back-up in case new WS-10 variant goes under```WS-15 project is very important, once has it completed successfully, then we can proudly to say that we are only behind U.S on high performance turbofan engine tech on this planet```i'd say 20 years behind by then```

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ILC

^^
The pics we have seen of J20 with ws10, was ws10IPE or ws10B?


----------



## 帅的一匹

ILC said:


> ^^
> The pics we have seen of J20 with ws10, was ws10IPE or ws10B?


I think it's IPE.


----------



## wulff

rcrmj said:


> IPE is around 141kn, J-10B is not using WS-10B (well, they planned too) but AL-31 variants instead`````and it was never a back-up or anything,
> 
> in fact AL-31 variants on J-20 is a back-up in case new WS-10 variant goes under```WS-15 project is very important, once has it completed successfully, then we can proudly to say that we are only behind U.S on high performance turbofan engine tech on this planet```i'd say 20 years behind by then```




Thank you for clarifying those points. But I think I didnt write clearly enough in my first post. 

I was referring to this engine:









That is the TVC variant i was talking about. Is this the WS-10 IPE with 141 kN thrust?

Reg. the 150 kN WS-10, there was a lot of talk some years back about a "large diameter" WS-10 variant with 150+ kN thrust target that was being developed in parallel with the WS-15 effort. This large fan WS-10 variant was supposed to power the J-20 in case the WS-15 did not succeed. 

I mean, even if this large fan WS-10 variant doesn't end up on the J-20, it will still make a terrific upgrade to the J-10 and J-11 family. Has there been any update or news on this WS-10 variant?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## Figaro

wulff said:


> Thank you for clarifying those points. But I think I didnt write clearly enough in my first post.
> 
> I was referring to this engine:
> View attachment 479122
> View attachment 479123
> 
> 
> That is the TVC variant i was talking about. Is this the WS-10 IPE with 141 kN thrust?
> 
> Reg. the 150 kN WS-10, there was a lot of talk some years back about a "large diameter" WS-10 variant with 150+ kN thrust target that was being developed in parallel with the WS-15 effort. This large fan WS-10 variant was supposed to power the J-20 in case the WS-15 did not succeed.
> 
> I mean, even if this large fan WS-10 variant doesn't end up on the J-20, it will still make a terrific upgrade to the J-10 and J-11 family. Has there been any update or news on this WS-10 variant?


I think so. There has to be a greater thrust in this engine to offset the thrust loss caused by TVC deflection. Pupu said that the WS-10B has a thrust of 14 tons, so I’d expect this TVC engine to have around 14.5 tons of thrust. Regarding a 150+ kN WS-15 back up, I highly doubt its viability as the thrust target would be stretching the WS-10 core to its limit. The WS-10 was designed to be around 12 to 14 tons ... not F-119 thrust class, which requires an entirely new design. Hence I doubt that there is a serious backup effort ... the resources they pour into a 150+ kN WS-10 might as well go into the WS-15. The WS-15 is the PLAAF’s best bet.



rcrmj said:


> not really, *WS-10 is a hybird to begine with*```its Chinese engineering architect with *American core, Russian control system, and AL-31 style low pressure bypass stage *```
> 
> well, they wanted everything to be indigenous, however they realized that we were much behind the U.S and Russia in heavy turbofan engine techs, so in order to speed up the project, they draw on the experiences of the U.S and Russia's```
> 
> and that is the major reason that WS-10 project was sucessfully finished in 2005, but takes so long to upgrade and improve, as many problems occured when in service (as happened to any U.S or Russia's engines too) , and because of it is kind a mix mash, so solving a problem* often became* like to *make a new start*, or *start it all over again* (before to make improvements and adjustment, you need datas for the part or few parts that you plan to work on, and because its a mix mash of American, Chinese, Russian standards, so you can imagine the difficulties of accquire them! )````
> 
> Luckily, with the finalization of *WS-10B and WS-10IPE,* then the problem is effectively solved```sometimes we ridicule them by saying "We are so prould of them that they can actually manage to squish 3 different systems and school of thoughts into one and to make a working engine```"
> 
> btw, WS-15 is the first high performance heavy thrust turbofan engine that we actually started of from scratch```
> 
> 
> 2025 if I am optimistic````WS-19 would be probably quicker than WS-15


I thought Beast meant that the WS-10 uses a hybrid Sino-Russian engine core (I.e. Frankenstein engine).


----------



## Clutch

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 479513
> View attachment 479514


Huh?


----------



## rcrmj

wulff said:


> Thank you for clarifying those points. But I think I didnt write clearly enough in my first post.
> 
> I was referring to this engine:
> View attachment 479122
> View attachment 479123
> 
> 
> That is the TVC variant i was talking about. Is this the WS-10 IPE with 141 kN thrust?
> 
> Reg. the 150 kN WS-10, there was a lot of talk some years back about a "large diameter" WS-10 variant with 150+ kN thrust target that was being developed in parallel with the WS-15 effort. This large fan WS-10 variant was supposed to power the J-20 in case the WS-15 did not succeed.
> 
> I mean, even if this large fan WS-10 variant doesn't end up on the J-20, it will still make a terrific upgrade to the J-10 and J-11 family. Has there been any update or news on this WS-10 variant?


*I dont know where is 150Kn WS-10 coming from*```and there is *no such thing called "parallel development with WS-15"* ````and you said large fan? do you know* to change the size of lower pressure stage = start all over again*```it will change ws-10's performance to great extend and will be very like to *make it "useless"* ?

WS-15 and WS-10 are *two independent projects*, which means their core, engneering archetect, system structure* are distinct to each other*````the only thing t*hey might "share' would be the new material* designed alone the WS-15. Do you know the *main problem* facing WS-10 is not material, but its *system structure and engneering archetect*`

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## wulff

Figaro said:


> I think so. There has to be a greater thrust in this engine to offset the thrust loss caused by TVC deflection. Pupu said that the WS-10B has a thrust of 14 tons, so I’d expect this TVC engine to have around 14.5 tons of thrust. Regarding a 150+ kN WS-15 back up, I highly doubt its viability as the thrust target would be stretching the WS-10 core to its limit. The WS-10 was designed to be around 12 to 14 tons ... not F-119 thrust class, which requires an entirely new design. Hence I doubt that there is a serious backup effort ... the resources they pour into a 150+ kN WS-10 might as well go into the WS-15. The WS-15 is the PLAAF’s best bet.
> 
> 
> I thought Beast meant that the WS-10 uses a hybrid Sino-Russian engine core (I.e. Frankenstein engine).





rcrmj said:


> *I dont know where is 150Kn WS-10 coming from*```and there is *no such thing called "parallel development with WS-15"* ````and you said large fan? do you know* to change the size of lower pressure stage = start all over again*```it will change ws-10's performance to great extend and will be very like to *make it "useless"* ?
> 
> WS-15 and WS-10 are *two independent projects*, which means their core, engneering archetect, system structure* are distinct to each other*````the only thing t*hey might "share' would be the new material* designed alone the WS-15. Do you know the *main problem* facing WS-10 is not material, but its *system structure and engneering archetect*`



Appreciate your response. I've been trying to find those posts talking about an enlarged Ws-10 but haven't had much luck. They are years old and were posted at another forum. But I definitely remember that post/posts. I suppose like so many other things it was just an unsubstantiated rumor.

However, in terms of what is possible and useful: changing the low pressure stage or increasing fan diameter would definitely be possible with the WS-10-- The EJ2x0, among other things, replaces the LPC of the EJ200 with a new one to increase wet thrust from 90 kN to 120 kN. Similarly the F414 replaces both the LPC of the F404 and also introduces a larger fan derived from the YF120. So it is something that has definitely been done before, should it be required.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

wulff said:


> Appreciate your response. I've been trying to find those posts talking about an enlarged Ws-10 but haven't had much luck. They are years old and were posted at another forum. But I definitely remember that post/posts. I suppose like so many other things it was just an unsubstantiated rumor.
> 
> However, in terms of what is possible and useful: changing the low pressure stage or increasing fan diameter would definitely be possible with the WS-10-- The EJ2x0, among other things, replaces the LPC of the EJ200 with a new one to increase wet thrust from 90 kN to 120 kN. Similarly the F414 replaces both the LPC of the F404 and also introduces a larger fan derived from the YF120. So it is something that has definitely been done before, should it be required.


well as far as I know there is no such thing```if you heard it from English or foreign forums then it is 100% false```

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> Of course the J-20's avionics and sensor suite is much better than that of the F-22. One was designed in the late 80s while the other just entered service.


Wrong. There is no 'of course' about this. The claim is utter nonsense and ignorance based.

Let us take the ADA programming language, for example.

Boeing flies with ADA. There are newer languages, but does that automatically mean: newer = better? Absolutely not.

For the end user, in this case it is the pilot, the base technology of the avionics suite is -- and must be -- transparent to him. For the pilot, what make an avionics suite 'better' than the others, assuming he has access to alternatives and was able to make objective comparisons, are two equally important items: *FEATURES* and *EXECUTION*.

Each feature must be transparent in execution, meaning no lag, must be precise, and must end cleanly.

So let us take the HUD, for example.

The J-20 have a HUD. Everyone knows it stands for 'Heads Up Display'. But for those of us who are end users, which none of you guys are of the device, the original conceptual label was 'Eyes Up Display'. The initials HUD are just more speech friendly.

As a side note about linguistics, the original label was 'Light Oscillation by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation' or LOSER. No one liked that acronym so LASER was used instead. Look it up, if you doubt.

Anyway...

The overall mission of the HUD are as followed in no order of importance and priority:

- _Reduced pilot workload_. My mental workload is reduced when vital flight and aircraft data are properly aligned and referenced to outside the cockpit.

- _Increased flight precision_. Can I fly the aircraft and my sortie with reduced fuel and time?

- _Direct visualization of performances_. How many layers of interpretations must any data -- aircraft and mission -- travels before reaching the HUD, therefore, me?

- _Increased flight safety_. Can I execute maneuvers without jeopardizing aircraft boundaries?

At the end user level, the base technology of those four items are essentially irrelevant. Yes, the base technology can, and often does, improve the performance of those items, but since the HUD is real estate limited, it means each feature of the HUD must fight or justify itself on the display, or in the words of HUD designers: Not one pixel can be wasted.

So if a 1980s era electronics technology can display and execute the various HUD features _vis-a-vis_ the four mission items above as well as the electronics technology 20 yrs newer, for the end user, there are no differences and therefore, no advantages.

So just on the HUD alone, explain how is the J-20's HUD is superior the F-15's?

The HUD is a flight visual aid. So explain to us how is the J-20's HUD symbology superior to the F-15 that would raise the bar of those four items above. Do you have any info on the projection technology that reduces mass and volume? Do you have any lag time figures? The J-20 and F-22 have widely spaced vertical stabs to facilitate high AOA maneuvers, so how is the HUD sideslip cue in the J-20 superior to the F-22?

And this is just on the HUD alone.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Wrong. There is no 'of course' about this. The claim is utter nonsense and ignorance based.
> 
> Let us take the ADA programming language, for example.
> 
> Boeing flies with ADA. There are newer languages, but does that automatically mean: newer = better? Absolutely not.
> 
> For the end user, in this case it is the pilot, the base technology of the avionics suite is -- and must be -- transparent to him. For the pilot, what make an avionics suite 'better' than the others, assuming he has access to alternatives and was able to make objective comparisons, are two equally important items: *FEATURES* and *EXECUTION*.
> 
> Each feature must be transparent in execution, meaning no lag, must be precise, and must end cleanly.
> 
> So let us take the HUD, for example.
> 
> The J-20 have a HUD. Everyone knows it stands for 'Heads Up Display'. But for those of us who are end users, which none of you guys are of the device, the original conceptual label was 'Eyes Up Display'. The initials HUD are just more speech friendly.
> 
> As a side note about linguistics, the original label was 'Light Oscillation by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation' or LOSER. No one liked that acronym so LASER was used instead. Look it up, if you doubt.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> The overall mission of the HUD are as followed in no order of importance and priority:
> 
> - _Reduced pilot workload_. My mental workload is reduced when vital flight and aircraft data are properly aligned and referenced to outside the cockpit.
> 
> - _Increased flight precision_. Can I fly the aircraft and my sortie with reduced fuel and time?
> 
> - _Direct visualization of performances_. How many layers of interpretations must any data -- aircraft and mission -- travels before reaching the HUD, therefore, me?
> 
> - _Increased flight safety_. Can I execute maneuvers without jeopardizing aircraft boundaries?
> 
> At the end user level, the base technology of those four items are essentially irrelevant. Yes, the base technology can, and often does, improve the performance of those items, but since the HUD is real estate limited, it means each feature of the HUD must fight or justify itself on the display, or in the words of HUD designers: Not one pixel can be wasted.
> 
> So if a 1980s era electronics technology can display and execute the various HUD features _vis-a-vis_ the four mission items above as well as the electronics technology 20 yrs newer, for the end user, there are no differences and therefore, no advantages.
> 
> So just on the HUD alone, explain how is the J-20's HUD is superior the F-15's?
> 
> The HUD is a flight visual aid. So explain to us how is the J-20's HUD symbology superior to the F-15 that would raise the bar of those four items above. Do you have any info on the projection technology that reduces mass and volume? Do you have any lag time figures? The J-20 and F-22 have widely spaced vertical stabs to facilitate high AOA maneuvers, so how is the HUD sideslip cue in the J-20 superior to the F-22?
> 
> And this is just on the HUD alone.




He is right.

The U.S. Air Force’s ability to improve* the capabilities of the Raptor is limited largely due to the termination of production of the fighter, meaning it is no longer a “live program” undergoing continuous development in the same way as the F-35, F-15, and J-20. The age of the Raptor’s design, meaning it uses software and computer architecture developed in the 1990s with a core processor speed of just 25MHz, further complicates upgrades – causing particular issues when attempting to equip the fighter with newly developed weapons systems.* The J-20’s far newer computer architecture is far easier to work with for China’s own military. While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22 upon its induction into service,_ the far faster rate at which upgrades can be applied are set to rapidly narrow the gap and could well lead the Chinese fighter to soon surpass the capabilities of its U.S. counterpart and in future go on to transcend them entirely_. With both fighters representing the elite of each country’s respective aerial warfare capabilities, this will inevitably have significant implications for the balance of power in the Pacific.
Abraham Ait is a military analyst specializing in Asia-Pacific security and the role of air power in modern warfare. He is chief editor of Military Watch Magazine.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/how...ighter-could-soon-surpass-the-us-f-22-raptor/​Raptor's electronic technology is old 90's technology that need upgrade

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Via

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1006722821064515584

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> He is right.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force’s ability to improve* the capabilities of the Raptor is limited largely due to the termination of production of the fighter, meaning it is no longer a “live program” undergoing continuous development in the same way as the F-35, F-15, and J-20. The age of the Raptor’s design, meaning it uses software and computer architecture developed in the 1990s with a core processor speed of just 25MHz, further complicates upgrades – causing particular issues when attempting to equip the fighter with newly developed weapons systems.* The J-20’s far newer computer architecture is far easier to work with for China’s own military. While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22 upon its induction into service,_ the far faster rate at which upgrades can be applied are set to rapidly narrow the gap and could well lead the Chinese fighter to soon surpass the capabilities of its U.S. counterpart and in future go on to transcend them entirely_. With both fighters representing the elite of each country’s respective aerial warfare capabilities, this will inevitably have significant implications for the balance of power in the Pacific.
> Abraham Ait is a military analyst specializing in Asia-Pacific security and the role of air power in modern warfare. He is chief editor of Military Watch Magazine.
> https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/how...ighter-could-soon-surpass-the-us-f-22-raptor/​Raptor's electronic technology is old 90's technology that need upgrade


Good...Then you can take his place in explaining how the J-20's HUD is better than the F-15's. Remember, features and execution.


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 474438

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




 ... but is this a real image of a real PL-10 on a real J-20?

I remember a quite amazing CG from some years ago ... need to look when I'm back home.


----------



## LKJ86

The author confirms that it is PSed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

antonius123 said:


> He is right.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force’s ability to improve* the capabilities of the Raptor is limited largely due to the termination of production of the fighter, meaning it is no longer a “live program” undergoing continuous development in the same way as the F-35, F-15, and J-20. The age of the Raptor’s design, meaning it uses software and computer architecture developed in the 1990s with a core processor speed of just 25MHz, further complicates upgrades – causing particular issues when attempting to equip the fighter with newly developed weapons systems.* The J-20’s far newer computer architecture is far easier to work with for China’s own military. While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22 upon its induction into service,_ the far faster rate at which upgrades can be applied are set to rapidly narrow the gap and could well lead the Chinese fighter to soon surpass the capabilities of its U.S. counterpart and in future go on to transcend them entirely_. With both fighters representing the elite of each country’s respective aerial warfare capabilities, this will inevitably have significant implications for the balance of power in the Pacific.
> Abraham Ait is a military analyst specializing in Asia-Pacific security and the role of air power in modern warfare. He is chief editor of Military Watch Magazine.
> https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/how...ighter-could-soon-surpass-the-us-f-22-raptor/​Raptor's electronic technology is old 90's technology that need upgrade


I wouldn't trust an article that says this ... "While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22". 

Underestimate the enemy at your peril ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> I wouldn't trust an article that says this ... "While the J-20 was considered unable to match the capabilities of the F-22".
> 
> Underestimate the enemy at your peril ...


And overrate yourself is equally perilous.

For the interests of the readers out there who wonders how legitimate is the claim that the J-20's avionics is 'superior' to the F-22, here is an excellent example of what distinguish one technology from the other...

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/iss...rs-The-End-of-Vacuum-Gyro-Systems_6847-1.html


> In a recent policy statement, the FAA gave the regulatory green light to replace traditional vacuum-driven attitude instruments with electronically driven replacement indicators. This means you can remove the vacuum system from the aircraft, since the policy doesn’t require a backup spinning gyro. In many cases, you won’t need a backup at all.


For decades, backup instruments were raw air data sourced. The technology -- spinning gyros, bellows, gears -- remains the same from one era to another. Each manufacturer can only make superficial changes to their products such as a thinner glass or lighter casing. The *FEATURES* and the *EXECUTION* of these mechanical and analog devices were the same from one aircraft to another.

The reason for this constancy is reliability, as in assurance level. Raw air data maybe coarse, but if a pilot has to resort to using backup instruments to maintain controlled flight, it matters little if the airspeed graduation is 5 or 10 km/hr. He just need to know if his airspeed is within an acceptable range to prevent stall, for one example. He just need to know if he is below 10,000 ft altitude, not 10,001 or 10,010, for oxygen, for another example.

Assurance level is what make the majority of technology in aviation at least 5 yrs behind the consumer market. The criticism that the F-22's processor speed is 'only' so-and-so mhz is a stupid one, propagated by stupid people who do not know what they are talking about but eager to suck up to anyone non-US. What distinguish the F-22's avionics from previous generations of avionics are features and execution, not the processing speed of its processors.

In previous avionics design, each flight control axis have its own computer which have its own processor. The F-22's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) design eliminated that physical separation, or as one source used the word 'federated' to describe the old vs new avionics design...

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm


> Today's fighters have some of the same sensing capabilities and subsystems to be controlled, but their *federated architecture* (that is, each avionics function has its own processor and essentially works independently) makes the pilot the integrator of data and the manager of all the supporting subsystems.





> Coherent presentation and control (the pilot's view of integration) is not simply a way of organizing functions or routing lots of data to a single display. It actually includes *additional functionality*, such as situation assessment and weapons fire control.


The word 'federated' implies other notions such conjoining or cooperative. The F-22's CIP architecture removed all separation, physical and/or notional. The analogy is instead of having distinct states or provinces, each with its own administrator, all boundaries are dissolved. All decision making are centralized. All data sources can be better collated thru faster rerouting to accommodate situational changes. If the radar detects a cluster of target in one sector, the CIP architecture can faster collect *OTHER* information, such as air defense threats or even weather, in that sector, and display it. In the older -- federated -- design, it is the pilot who has to turn his head towards the RWR display and find threat information for that sector. And so on and on...Workload.

It is well known in the computer design world that the bottleneck in every system is memory, not processor speed. It is applicable in the gaming computer and in the F-22 avionics. In a federated architecture, physical memory are often unused. With the F-22's CIP architecture, memory space are consolidated *AS SITUATIONS REQUIRES*, making the entire avionics suite faster in terms of information integration and display.

The electronics used in the F-22 are not meant to impress but to give its designers the highest level of assurance that the electronics will perform *WITH NO MARGINS OF ERROR*. This goes back to the first F-16 with its analog electronics. Basically, the FBW architecture says: If the electronics fails for any reason, the aircraft crash.



> There are two CIPs in each F-22, with 66 module slots per CIP.
> 
> ...if the CIP module that is acting as radio dies, one of the other modules would automatically reload the radio program and take over the radio function. This approach to avionics makes the equipment extremely tolerant to combat damage as well as flexible from a design upgrade point of view.


Does the J-20 have this avionics design? If not, then it does not matter if its electronics have capacitors with newer dielectrics or its processor speed is faster. In short, if the J-20 remains with the federated architecture, its pilot workload are the same as '4th-gen' fighters, making it a far less capable platform than the F-22.

Deal with it.


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> Does the J-20 have this avionics design? If not, then it does not matter if its electronics have capacitors with newer dielectrics or its processor speed is faster. In short, if the J-20 remains with the federated architecture, its pilot workload are the same as '4th-gen' fighters, making it a far less capable platform than the F-22.
> 
> Deal with it.


we don't know whether J-20 using federated system/CIP architecture or something new @gambit


----------



## gambit

pakistanipower said:


> we don't know whether J-20 using federated system/CIP architecture or something new @gambit


Do not know? That is the problem. We should not make blanket statements from ignorance. Like these guys continually does.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

The next iteration of J-20 includes laser weapon test? 











The PLA Daily, 13.06.2018.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Armchair

Did anyone notice the LEVCON on the J/H-20?


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/2859620437/4250815532817183

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Armchair said:


> Did anyone notice the LEVCON on the J/H-20?




But isn't this JH-20 not more a fan-art yet?



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 480363
> 
> https://m.weibo.cn/2859620437/4250815532817183



Strange ... looks very much a Russian Ch-29 AGM and not like any known Chinese store??!!


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> But isn't this JH-20 not more a fan-art yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Strange ... looks very much a Russian Ch-29 AGM and not like any known Chinese store??!!
> 
> View attachment 480364



It looks more like PGM than AGM inside the J-20 weapon bay. The fin and shape is all wrong as a AGM.


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> It looks more like PGM than AGM inside the J-20 weapon bay. The fin and shape is all wrong as a AGM.



But I would have expeted something more akin to the LS-500J LGM or one of the newer designs we've already seen at Zhuhai. This design is either something completely new or - IMO more likely - just a placeholder since it looks in no way stealthy.



> LGB



But again, wouldn't then be a system based on the LS-500J with a new seeker be much more likely?


----------



## Armchair

Deino said:


> But isn't this JH-20 not more a fan-art yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Strange ... looks very much a Russian Ch-29 AGM and not like any known Chinese store??!!
> 
> View attachment 480364


Fan art or not, did you notice it? : )


----------



## Deino

> LGB



But again, wouldn't then be a system based on the LS-500J with a new seeker be much more likely?


Armchair said:


> Fan art or not, did you notice it? : )



Yes ... similar to the PAK-FA and the new French-German fighter concept. But if it is a fan-art, it's irrelevant anyway!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## LKJ86

cirr said:


>


The original one:

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ozranger

This publication sort of proved my speculation that PLAAF engineers developed a modified version of AL31F/FN engine for J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 had taken live-fire target practice last year.


----------



## Beast

ozranger said:


> This publication sort of proved my speculation that PLAAF engineers developed a modified version of AL31F/FN engine for J-20.


It is long known but some stubborn members refused to believe the so called hybrid or heavily modified AL-31F engines. I dare to claim the engine is so heavily modified that virtually every parts can be produced or tailored according to Chinese needs. Same as the J-10C. Remember the TVC engine tested on J-10C? The petal looks nothing sort of WS-10 but AL-31FN petal. Clearly shown Chinese can modify AL-31FN engine at will and master every single parts. And even produced a more superior counterparts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## +1S

ozranger said:


> This publication sort of proved my speculation that PLAAF engineers developed a modified version of AL31F/FN engine for J-20.


From which publication? It looks like a composition written by a high school student.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> It is long known but some stubborn members refused to believe the so called hybrid or heavily modified AL-31F engines. I dare to claim the engine is so heavily modified that virtually every parts can be produced or tailored according to Chinese needs. Same as the J-10C. Remember the TVC engine tested on J-10C? The petal looks nothing sort of WS-10 but AL-31FN petal. Clearly shown Chinese can modify AL-31FN engine at will and master every single parts. And even produced a more superior counterparts.


Dude, the Chinese have modified the AL-31 engines ... improving their lifespan by thousands of hours (search for IHS Janes article). But the TVC is clearly a WS-10 variant ... if you look closely, it is extremely obviously it is Taihang. China does not have any license to produce AL-31 engines ... they can only modify pre existing ones. To think that the Chinese would incorporate TVC to an imported engine is simply absurd. The WS-10 has mostly achieved maturity ... unless you can show us that some Big Shrimps corroborate your theory, no one can take it seriously

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ozranger

Beast said:


> It is long known but some stubborn members refused to believe the so called hybrid or heavily modified AL-31F engines. I dare to claim the engine is so heavily modified that virtually every parts can be produced or tailored according to Chinese needs. Same as the J-10C. Remember the TVC engine tested on J-10C? The petal looks nothing sort of WS-10 but AL-31FN petal. Clearly shown Chinese can modify AL-31FN engine at will and master every single parts. And even produced a more superior counterparts.


Modifying AL-31F is only transitional and was done by PLAAF itself. The current development shows that WS-10 TVC is the chosen mid-term solution.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

*浙大科研团队15载攻克歼20等飞机装配系列难题*

2018-06-19 10:24:56　来源: 人民网(北京)

（原标题：浙江大学科研团队潜心十五载—— 飞机装配，有了国产自动化设备）

随着我国自主研制的新一代隐身战斗机歼—20正式列装空军作战部队，肩负保家卫国使命的新型战鹰，终于在祖国的苍穹下振翅翱翔。

以歼—20为代表的跨代飞机，对装配准确度和连接可靠性提出了极为苛刻的要求。浙江大学飞机装配创新团队通过15年的“加速跑”，攻克了飞机装配领域的一系列技术难题，开创了我国飞机自动化装配新局面。

*突破核心技术*

飞机装配是缩短飞机制造周期、降低制造成本、保障制造质量的关键环节。直到20世纪末，我国飞机装配技术整体上仍较落后。当时的飞机装配，基本上完全依赖工人的肉眼观察和纯手工操作，自动化水平低，质量难以控制，问题不可溯源，装配效率低，严重影响了飞机的性能和使用寿命。

中国也尝试过引进、改造、升级的方法来改变窘境，但难以突破长期的技术封锁和市场垄断。“真正的核心技术是买不来的，中国人必须自己干。”浙江大学先进技术研究院副院长、飞机装配创新团队负责人柯映林教授说。怀揣这个信念，2003年，浙江大学飞机装配创新团队结合国家重大战略需求，从航空制造加工工艺基础研究转向飞机装配工程关键技术攻关。依靠跨学科、跨领域的科学研究，团队攻克了装配连接失效、制孔失准、定位变形三大技术难题，成功研制了动态成组定位系统、移动机器人制孔系统、环形轨道制孔系统、5+X轴专用机床制孔系统、卧式双机联合钻铆机等全产权、全配套的飞机自动化装配原创装备，为运—20、歼—20、运—9等9个重点型号飞机的成功研制和批量生产提供了工艺、技术、装备及系统的重要支撑。

技术国产化，创新是关键。自动钻铆机是功能集成度和技术复杂度极高的航空制造工艺装备。相较于同类产品，浙大研制的卧式双机联合钻铆机仅钉头的齐平度就从0.05毫米提高到0.02毫米。“这项技术的核心是在制孔、锪窝、检测、送钉、注胶、插钉、压铆等飞机壁板装配的工艺过程中全部实现自动化，故障率小于1‰，其中钻铆机的原创设计是赢得国际竞争对手尊重和赞誉的杀手锏！”?伴随着团队成长的浙大发展委员会副主席陈子辰教授说。

*实现大规模应用*

一飞冲天的运—20，是中国人从具有自主知识产权的飞机自动化装配线上飞出的第一架大型飞机。中国，从此成为少数几个拥有大型运输机生产能力的国家之一。

一块手表，即便是相同的零部件，不同国家的组装，产生的价值常常很悬殊。究其原因很大程度在于装配工艺。飞机的组件、部件、大部件和整机的自动化装配是一个多系统的复杂集成过程，更需要精湛的装配工艺和科研团队的支持。

“要拥有完全自主知识产权的飞机装配核心技术，建设一支团结拼搏、勇于创新的团队是关键。”陈子辰说。

2010年，浙大团队迎来了运—20的第一个生产线项目，即中机身自动化装配。当时，项目的最大困难在于没有人工的装备工装。“如果技术不能如期完成生产要求，整个项目就要因此停步。”团队负责人回忆，“这是考验我国自主研发的自动化装配技术和系统水平的关键时刻。”

毕运波是团队中年轻的技术骨干，2003年团队刚组建时，他还是一名刚读博的研究生。他回忆说，研制初期常常出差，要现场调试各种装备和系统，常常是打着“飞的”奔波于科研基地与工程现场。团队成员李和军和同伴们要在短短的3天之内完成某个任务。一天深夜，李和军还在设备上调试。“来一个扳手。”李和军转过头去接时，发现递过来扳手的是浙大机械工程学院李江雄教授。

针对飞机装配技术的高度集聚性和应用复杂性，团队开发了柔性定位、精准制孔、自动化钻铆等共性技术集成应用平台，与航空工业西飞、成飞、陕飞等飞机制造主机厂持续15年深度合作，创建了我国首个涵盖组件、部件、大部件和整机的飞机自动化装配技术体系，实现了飞机自动化装配技术在我国飞机制造行业的大规模推广应用。

*推动行业整体发展*

走进飞机自动化装配车间，设备上“浙大制造”的标志格外显眼。这些自主研发的先进装备，不仅提高了飞机装配的质量，更加快了飞机装配的效率。

由于技术的日新月异，团队还带动了企业生产模式的转变，促进了企业人才队伍建设，推动行业整体发展。柯映林说：“我们不仅要继续承担核心工艺装备研制和大系统集成开发，还要为新一代飞行器从源头上提供科学的自动化装配生产线建设规划，大幅度缩短研制周期、降低成本、提升质量。”在完成西飞、成飞、陕飞重大项目的同时，团队完成了研究型大学与行业的“产学研用”的连接。团队还不断结合重大工程项目，通过工程硕士专业学位研究生教育，培养一线优秀工程技术人员。

但团队成立之初，在“产学研用”的衔接上存在困难。

论文是许多高校衡量科研成果的指挥棒之一，团队成立之初很多工作因为保密无法公开发表，那么如何评价团队中的年轻人呢？浙江大学高度重视科技创新队伍建设，先后出台人事晋升特聘制度、毕业论文特别评审制度等，支持国家重大战略需求的科学技术研究。“把优秀文章写在祖国大地上，这是浙江大学的历史担当。”陈子辰说。

*目前，团队已研制了17套飞机自动化装配系统和2条飞机总装配脉动生产线，为我国大型运输机运—20和第四代隐形战斗机歼—20等9个重点型号的成功研制和批量生产作出了巨大贡献。*

在军用领域之外，国产支线客机ARJ21—700首次采用的全机三段大部件对接自动化装配系统也来自浙大飞机装配创新团队。在未来，下一代大型客机和舰艇的制造也将会留下更多“浙大制造”的印记。

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Please give at least a short translated summary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Deino said:


> Please give at least a short translated summary.


I thought that posting without at least a summary in English was against the forum rules?


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> I thought that posting without at least a summary in English was against the forum rules?


That is SinoDefence forum ... not PDF

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> Please give at least a short translated summary.


After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.

The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.

File photo from my collection.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.
> 
> The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.
> 
> File photo from my collection.
> View attachment 481452




Thanks ... even if the mist ironic part of that sentence is that this "achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts" is not to a small percentage relying to the acquisition of the German Kuka robotics.

https://www.kuka.com/de-de/über-kuka/unternehmensstruktur/kuka-roboter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UserUnknown2025

lcloo said:


> After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.
> 
> The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.
> 
> File photo from my collection.
> View attachment 481452


Are the robots in that image the same ones used in the production of the J20? If so, then I must admit that they are a bit embarrassing since they are German tech and it took the team supposedly 15 years to develop.


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> After 15 years of R & D, China has achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts, on production of Y-20 transport jet, J-20 fighter jet, Y-9 transport, ARJ-21 passenger jet etc. tataling 9 types of aircraft.
> 
> The R & D team has developed 17 types of automated aircraft assembly systems, and 2 types of automated pulse production lines.
> 
> File photo from my collection.
> View attachment 481452


Can you clarify what you mean by R&D? Are your referring to domestic Chinese robots or assembly lines? If it is the latter, what is the R&D behind it ... assuming they use imported robots. Couldn't they just replicate foreign assembly lines given the robots are similar?


----------



## Cybernetics

Deino said:


> Thanks ... even if the mist ironic part of that sentence is that this "achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts" is not to a small percentage relying to the acquisition of the German Kuka robotics.
> 
> https://www.kuka.com/de-de/über-kuka/unternehmensstruktur/kuka-roboter


Kuka has some impressive robots in its portfolio but that is just a stock photo taken from this video not the actual automated manufacturing facility in China.

@0:05

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> Thanks ... even if the mist ironic part of that sentence is that this "achieved automation (i.e. robotic) assembly of aircrafts" is not to a small percentage relying to the acquisition of the German Kuka robotics.


Do you have any evidence of this or is it just your speculation?


Deino said:


> https://www.kuka.com/de-de/über-kuka/unternehmensstruktur/kuka-roboter


As you constantly like to ask of members who post links in Chinese: translation, please.
LOL @ the hypocrisy of you posting a non-English link without a translation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

Figaro said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by R&D? Are your referring to domestic Chinese robots or assembly lines? If it is the latter, what is the R&D behind it ... assuming they use imported robots. Couldn't they just replicate foreign assembly lines given the robots are similar?


There is no mention of which robots they used, so we really don't know about that. As for the my file photo of a Kuka robot, it is actually a robot deployed in Boeing as shown by Cybrnetic's video posting. If there is confusion on the robot, I apologise.

I am sure the R & D involves both software and hardware, but it is a company secret so we may have to wait for declassification later. There is no detail of what they had done on R & D.

Anyway, I was just translating the Chinese statement.

As for the use of robots in Chinese military and aircraft building, pls go to this US government intelligent site:
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/...ustrial and Military Robotics Development.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## LKJ86

(Maybe CG)
https://m.weibo.cn/2001530981/4255452504502284

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## cirr

CAC seen stepping up its production and delivery of J-20s......

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> The original one:



One thing that has really peaked my curiosity about the weapons bay doors on the J-20 and particularly the upper side bay doors, are the notches on the doors for the missile rack brackets. Its fascinating that the Chinese engineers went through all the trouble of designing those notches which must have their own separate door for each notch. That seems such a complex set of mechanisms involved in order to give the pilot the ability to close the doors once the missile is extracted.

So instead of what we've seen on the F-22 and the F-35 so far with the idea of weapons bays is that the lock on target occurs, pilot presses the 'fire' button and the door opens, missile extracts and fires in succession, then bay door closes.

In this case here with the J-20, with those additional notches and smaller door panels for the notches, I'm guessing the idea is that the pilot has the luxury of pulling the missile out of the bay, then door closes leaving just the brackets and missile protruding until he decides to fire and then weapons bay door opens again, bracket retracted and bay door closes.

Am I right in this assessment? If so, did the Chinese designers & engineers figure this was a better way to deal with the firing of the missile so that it maintains low observability more so than the American method, or is there a different reason? It seems like quite the bit of engineering and process involved which makes me wonder what advantage were they trying to get out of that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Gomig-21 said:


> One thing that has really peaked my curiosity about the weapons bay doors on the J-20 and particularly the upper side bay doors, are the notches on the doors for the missile rack brackets. Its fascinating that the Chinese engineers went through all the trouble of designing those notches which must have their own separate door for each notch. That seems such a complex set of mechanisms involved in order to give the pilot the ability to close the doors once the missile is extracted.
> 
> So instead of what we've seen on the F-22 and the F-35 so far with the idea of weapons bays is that the lock on target occurs, pilot presses the 'fire' button and the door opens, missile extracts and fires in succession, then bay door closes.
> 
> In this case here with the J-20, with those additional notches and smaller door panels for the notches, I'm guessing the idea is that the pilot has the luxury of pulling the missile out of the bay, then door closes leaving just the brackets and missile protruding until he decides to fire and then weapons bay door opens again, bracket retracted and bay door closes.
> 
> Am I right in this assessment? If so, did the Chinese designers & engineers figure this was a better way to deal with the firing of the missile so that it maintains low observability more so than the American method, or is there a different reason? It seems like quite the bit of engineering and process involved which makes me wonder what advantage were they trying to get out of that?


The side weapon bay houses short range AA missiles meant for within visual range, thus the low observation characters becomes minimum relevance as the pilots should have little difficulties in detecting opposing fighter jets by eye sight or radar signature returns during dog fight.

The slight increase in radar signature of the short range AAM would not give the opponent any significant advantage. On the other hand, the time taken from pressing the "fire" button to the ignition of missile motor is shorter than the opponent who need to open the weapon bay door before the missile is dropped off and its motor ignited.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gomig-21

lcloo said:


> The side weapon bay houses short range AA missiles meant for within visual range, thus the low observation characters becomes minimum relevance as the pilots should have little difficulties in detecting opposing fighter jets by eye sight or radar signature returns.
> 
> The slight increase in radar signature of the short range AAM would not give the opponent any significant advantage. On the other hand, the time taken from pressing the "fire" button to the ignition of missile motor is shorter than the opponent who need to open the weapon bay door before the missile is dropped off and its motor ignited.



That is what I thought made the most sense but wasn't sure if that was really the main idea. It seems to be the most logical. 

In other words, it's basically having the missile on a pylon ready to be fired in that rapidly needed instance and bypassing the amount of time it would take to open the doors and fire it, since at short range, low observable isn't important at all, but rather the speed of firing the missile.

That is actually excellent and brilliant design and engineering. I'd say well worth the additional effort & mechanisms.

1+ for China vs America on this one!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Gomig-21 said:


> One thing that has really peaked my curiosity about the weapons bay doors on the J-20 and particularly the upper side bay doors, are the notches on the doors for the missile rack brackets. Its fascinating that the Chinese engineers went through all the trouble of designing those notches which must have their own separate door for each notch. That seems such a complex set of mechanisms involved in order to give the pilot the ability to close the doors once the missile is extracted.
> 
> So instead of what we've seen on the F-22 and the F-35 so far with the idea of weapons bays is that the lock on target occurs, pilot presses the 'fire' button and the door opens, missile extracts and fires in succession, then bay door closes.
> 
> In this case here with the J-20, with those additional notches and smaller door panels for the notches, I'm guessing the idea is that the pilot has the luxury of pulling the missile out of the bay, then door closes leaving just the brackets and missile protruding until he decides to fire and then weapons bay door opens again, bracket retracted and bay door closes.
> 
> Am I right in this assessment? If so, did the Chinese designers & engineers figure this was a better way to deal with the firing of the missile so that it maintains low observability more so than the American method, or is there a different reason? It seems like quite the bit of engineering and process involved which makes me wonder what advantage were they trying to get out of that?

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 483718



I get it now. The panels that cover the notches on the doors are part of the bracket itself. That's just brilliant man. Thanks.


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/1617093763/4257538578877381

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 483924



Sexy photoshop work. Which magazine is this?


----------



## Gomig-21

siegecrossbow said:


> Sexy photoshop work. Which magazine is this?



Better yet, which one did the magazine claim was in fact top dog!?


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 483924
> 
> https://m.weibo.cn/1617093763/4257538578877381


I see no SU-57

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Sexy photoshop work. Which magazine is this?




This one !

https://www.classicmagazines.co.uk/...alth-supercruise-supermaneuverability-agility
*
Deino*



Figaro said:


> I see no SU-57




The title clearly says "Fifth Generation Fighters"!  ... sorry, couldn't resist.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... can we stay on topic and most of all leave out all personnel rants?*


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## 52051

According to gongke and some other insiders, the design goal of J-20's empty weight is "heavier than F-22 and lighter than Su-27".

And only until the 6th protype J-20 achieved its design goal of being lighter than Su-27.

It seems that it is a mistake from the PLAAF intel that they get the wrong info about the empty weight of F-22, which is much heavier than their initial assements (partly due to poor stealth performance of F-22 which force LM using much thicker stealth coating to achieve its RCS goal).

From all the informations gathered from various reputatable military insiders in China, J-20's empty weight is less than Su-27 and much less than F-22.

Thats quite an achievement of the team of J-20, especially considering the fact J-20 is bigly yuge fighter and even more bigly than F-22 in size.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

52051 said:


> According to gongke and some other insiders, the design goal of J-20's empty weight is "heavier than F-22 and lighter than Su-27".
> 
> And only until the 6th protype J-20 achieved its design goal of being lighter than Su-27.
> 
> It seems that it is a mistake from the PLAAF intel that they get the wrong info about the empty weight of F-22, which is much heavier than their initial assements (partly due to poor stealth performance of F-22 which force LM using much thicker stealth coating to achieve its RCS goal).
> 
> From all the informations gathered from various reputatable military insiders in China, J-20's empty weight is less than Su-27 and much less than F-22.
> 
> Thats quite an achievement of the team of J-20, especially considering the fact J-20 is bigly yuge fighter and even more bigly than F-22 in size.


J 20 use more composite material and 3D printing technology, so its lighter than F 22. F22 is the product of early 1990s. with WS15 coming into play, J 20 will outgun F 22 for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr

yusheng said:


> View attachment 485988





风驱急雨洒高城，
云压轻雷殷地声。
雨过不知龙去处，
一池草色万蛙鸣。

---明 刘基

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

cirr said:


> 风驱急雨洒高城，
> 云压轻雷殷地声。
> 雨过不知龙去处，
> 一池草色万蛙鸣。
> 
> ---明 刘基


Nice


----------



## yusheng

cirr said:


> 风驱急雨洒高城，
> 云压轻雷殷地声。
> 雨过不知龙去处，
> 一池草色万蛙鸣。
> 
> ---明 刘基



let me try it in english：
title: " Pour rain on 19th May "
by Liu Ji,1311～1375, Ming dynasty

The gale drove the shower to the high city,
the heavy clouds roved lower and the thunders seem to have density.
In a moment, shower and clouds vanished, the dragon who made it left without trace;
only wet green grass flashed, and frogs were croaking in every place.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

The production of J-20 is increased.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 486820
> 
> The production of J-20 is increased.




Any guess to what rate? The reports or estimations range since some time depending source from 2 per month up to 8 ... what I must admit is unlikely IMO.

Deino


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Any guess to what rate? The reports or estimations range since some time depending source from 2 per month up to 8 ... what I must admit is unlikely IMO.
> 
> Deino


Two per month is terribly slow :/


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Two per month is terribly slow :/




I did not say this is my estimation but I only gave the span of estimated numbers per month. I agree that two per month would be quite low but given the complexity of the J-20 and given that J-10 pruduction was not much higher - probably 4 per month - I won't be surprised. Anyway jn the same way some deem 2 too low, I would say 8 per month would be unlikely high.

But these are just my 2 cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 & GX-11











Video:https://m.weibo.cn/6005843218/4263202630294879

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

An awesome video from PLAAF:https://m.weibo.cn/5707057078/4263213015284788

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 帅的一匹

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 & GX-11
> View attachment 486891
> View attachment 486892
> View attachment 486893
> 
> 
> Video:https://m.weibo.cn/6005843218/4263202630294879


that is the video im always talking about

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

yusheng said:


> View attachment 485988

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## yusheng

量产版歼20狂暴试飞 
Mass production version of the fighter 20 frenzy test flight

https://weibo.com/tv/v/GrwBIdkBP?fid=1034:4265601854590601

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

J-20's pre WS-15 production will be around 200-400 units````radar, optical sensors, stealth and supersonic maneuverability is exceeding expectation````the future AC based stealth fighter FC-31 will use quite a lot techs from J-20's project``

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## serenity

Wow that turn around 1:06 to 1:09 is impressive. Desperately want them to show off the performance in Zhuhai shows in future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ILC

rcrmj said:


> J-20's pre WS-15 production will be around 200-400 units````radar, optical sensors, stealth and supersonic maneuverability is exceeding expectation````the future AC based stealth fighter FC-31 will use quite a lot techs from J-20's project``


Hope we will see in the near future the pics of deployed J20 with WS10B.


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> J-20's pre WS-15 production will be around 200-400 units````radar, optical sensors, stealth and supersonic maneuverability is exceeding expectation````*the future AC based stealth fighter FC-31 *will use quite a lot techs from J-20's project``



There is no evidence that the FC-31 has been selected as the basis for the J-XX program. A few "insiders" have been claiming this fact but it was later revealed that their rumors were based off an unreliable SAC visit.


----------



## Figaro

serenity said:


> Wow that turn around 1:06 to 1:09 is impressive. Desperately want them to show off the performance in Zhuhai shows in future.


I don’t think they will. The PLAAF does not show off grand air maneuvers to impress people like Russia does ... they’re more low-key so to speak.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Akasa said:


> There is no evidence that the FC-31 has been selected as the basis for the J-XX program. A few "insiders" have been claiming this fact but it was later revealed that their rumors were based off an unreliable SAC visit.


indeed there is no evidence avaliable for public, but it is a fact```AC based project was long approved by the top and the money was already released```without a solid project with a prototyp these cannt be happening, this is something you dont know how the system works


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> indeed there is no evidence avaliable for public, but it is a fact```AC based project was long approved by the top and the money was already released```without a solid project with a prototyp these cannt be happening, this is something you dont know how the system works



The funding for the project might've been attained, but that doesn't give us a clue as to which design (FC-31 or J-20) the PLAN will ultimately select. A SAC demonstration of the FC-31 1.0 & 2.0 to PLAN officials impressed the latter, but it was later made clear that this is not a commitment of the PLAN to the FC-31 design.


----------



## rcrmj

Akasa said:


> The funding for the project might've been attained, but that doesn't give us a clue as to which design (FC-31 or J-20) the PLAN will ultimately select. A SAC demonstration of the FC-31 1.0 & 2.0 to PLAN officials impressed the latter, but it was later made clear that this is not a commitment of the PLAN to the FC-31 design.


forget J-20's configration, and again, the top wont approve the project if there is no working prototyp, as simple as that, and if the PLAN was not "happy", the project wont have the first stamp from PLAN's top boss, the government will only stamp the project after PLAN approved, fact

thats why I said, you have no clue of how the system works


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> forget J-20's configration, and again, the top wont approve the project if there is no working prototyp, as simple as that, and if the PLAN was not "happy", the project wont have the first stamp from PLAN's top boss, the government will only stamp the project after PLAN approved, fact
> 
> thats why I said, you have no clue of how the system works



The construction of a prototype does not mean that its design has been selected by the PLAN (just take a look at the development of the FC-31 v2.0 despite getting no government funding). "Gongke101", allegedly a "big shrimp", has repeatedly stated that the results are not in yet.


----------



## rcrmj

Akasa said:


> The construction of a prototype does not mean that its design has been selected by the PLAN (just take a look at the development of the FC-31 v2.0 despite getting no government funding). "Gongke101", allegedly a "big shrimp", has repeatedly stated that the results are not in yet.


the project was solid and proved, and SAC is in charge as simple as that, ``工科 works in engine department```without government funding there wondnt be 2.0/3.0/or whatever version you want to say


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> the project was solid and proved, and SAC is in charge as simple as that, ``工科 works in engine department```without government funding there wondnt be 2.0/3.0/or whatever version you want to say



We'll wait and see, I guess. I'll bear my doubts until solid evidence proves otherwise.


----------



## rcrmj

Akasa said:


> We'll wait and see, I guess. I'll bear my doubts until solid evidence proves otherwise.


as usual, the "evidence" will come out after the plane takes to the sky```so yes, no point of arguing over it, but the fact is that SAC is in charge of this project


----------



## rcrmj

J-20 has technological edge over F-22, F-35A is the hard nut that PLAAF and PLAN fears the most`````most people believe the "fat" thunder is clumsy at air-to-air fight, however, the reality is that it opens the new era of aerial combat`````

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

rcrmj said:


> J-20 has technological edge over F-22, F-35A is the hard nut that PLAAF and PLAN fears the most`````most people believe the "fat" thunder is clumsy at air-to-air fight, however, the reality is that it opens the new era of aerial combat`````


At this point, only Russia is stuck in the WVR nostalgia days ... just look at their Su-57. Apparently, the fighter is so "excellent" and "advanced" that only 12 will be produced. The J-20 and the F-35 will be the two foremost BVR fighters for the foreseeable future ...


----------



## rcrmj

Figaro said:


> At this point, only Russia is stuck in the WVR nostalgia days ... just look at their Su-57. Apparently, the fighter is so "excellent" and "advanced" that only 12 will be produced. The J-20 and the F-35 will be the two foremost BVR fighters for the foreseeable future ...


Russia's S-57 has its own shine too, they chose different approach to achieve battle awareness to China and the U.S````the latter ones pour loads of money and resources on stealth, optical techs and 5th gen battle networks, Russia did not have that luxury, so it works on conventional radars and areodynamics````


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rambro

Deino said:


> View attachment 488732


Im a cryptologist yet I failed to decipher :3

Wat does it mean


----------



## Deino

rambro said:


> Im a cryptologist yet I failed to decipher :3
> 
> Wat does it mean



Pardon? Does the image do not show up? ... it's just a factory fresh J-20A taking off and all I added was a "smiley". So, nothing to decipher....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rambro

Deino said:


> Pardon? Does the image do not show up? ... it's just a factory fresh J-20A taking off and all I added was a "smiley". So, nothing to decipher....


I see, I thought there was a meaning with that photo


----------



## cirr

Taking off in heavy rain today

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Taking off in heavy rain today



Exactly the same image as already posted or anything different?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

龙吟太行：WS-10?

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 488829
> 
> 龙吟太行：WS-10?



WS-10B engines with jagged nozzles and IR suppressor coating.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 488829
> 
> 龙吟太行：WS-10?



From Dafeng Cao's tweet on 2018-07-27:

*“A decent photo of rear view J-20 #2021 fitted with WS-10 engines.”*

Then the following thread as some netizen asked him there:

Q: _“What's the accepted terminology, WS-10B vs WS-10X...or is the X for the TVC-version?”_

*Cao's reply:* “I would say WS-10B is more proper. The X term I saw it only once refers to the unknown/undefined terminology, it's not an official designation, I don't use it in my post.”

Then some American guy posted there: “Important information!” and c/c it to our famous professor  Andrew Erickson, the Professor of Strategy at the US Naval War College and China Maritime Studies Institute, Associate in Research at Harvard and Fairbank Center! And a Term Member of the CFR — the Council on Foreign Relations, the extraordinary influential policy-shaping organization in the USA, whereas most of the presidents of the USA were once being members before going to presidency, and almost all presidents within the last 20 years to my memory (both Bush, father & son, Clinton & Hillary, Obama except Trump). 

The related tweet:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022882399577722881

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Guys, anyone want to guess what the super-cruise speed of J-20 is with the WS-10B that has 87.5kN dry and 140kN wet thrust?

I think it will be around Mach 1.3-1.4 and so quite a bit behind F-22 at Mach 1.8.

btw - congrats to China on the J-20 successful development as it can beat any fighter bar F-22 right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 489264
> View attachment 489265




Are these recent ones?


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 489264
> View attachment 489265



Is that a JF-17 to the left in the second photo?


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> Is that a JF-17 to the left in the second photo?


It looks like JF-17B.


----------



## LKJ86

Dingxin

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

I wish this dragon artwork would not be a PS job only  ... it's brilliant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> I wish this dragon artwork would not be a PS job only  ... it's brilliant.


Do you prefer Chinese dragons, or west ones?


----------



## Ultima Thule

siegecrossbow said:


> Is that a JF-17 to the left in the second photo?





LKJ86 said:


> It looks like JF-17B.


No i think its J-31 than a JF-17 a/b look at the tail & wings @seigercrossbow @LKG86 just my 2 cents


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 is also called 威龙 by CAC, one of Chinese dragons.



pakistanipower said:


> No i think its J-31 than a JF-17 a/b look at the tail & wings @seigercrossbow @LKG86 just my 2 cents


It is in Chengdu, and FC-31 can not be there.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Do you prefer Chinese dragons, or west ones?



In fact on a J-20 or J-10 surely a Chinese one.

Otherwise I like the Dragons from GoT the most.


----------



## I S I

Chinese Internet
China is giving us increasingly better views of their top fighter design which are helping to answer some important capability questions.

TYLER ROGOWAY @AVIATION_INTEL
JUL 31, 2018 10:50 PM EDT


Tyler has been obsessed with all things aviation and military as long as he can remember. He went on to develop the defense-oriented website _Foxtrot Alpha_ and can often be found with a camera around his neck, photographing aircraft and weaponry.

The steady flow of intriguing new images of China's stealthy heavy fighter-interceptor, the J-20, continues over seven years after the jet first appeared. The aircraft is already in operational service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and it continues to evolve and spread its wings, participating in increasingly high-profile joint-exercises and deployments near hotspots along China's borders. Three new shots help us better understand the build quality of this game-changing machine as well as handicap some aspects of its true capabilities. But above all else, like I have stressed since its first appearance, the photos are a reminder that China's ability to make great leaps in aerospace materials and manufacturing sciences should _not_ be underestimated.

The latest images, which recently emerged on Chinese internet, show a J-20 without its gray paint and in its primer coating flying out of Chengdu Aircraft Company's plant and test airfield. We have seen the J-20 in its yellow undercoatings before, but these images are very detailed in comparison to the vast majority of the shots that have surfaced in the past. Note that the dragon symbols on the nose and tail were added in post-processing and were not actually painted on the aircraft.

_




Chinese Internet

The images show the areas where antennas are embedded below the J-20's skin, as well as where other stealthy composite structures are used to minimize the aircraft's radar cross-section. The J-20's large Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) is shown in great detail as well, including various porous panels that also help separate turbulent boundary layer air from its skin—a process required to feed its engines with stable airflow throughout its flight envelope. 

The jet's giant maneuvering canard foreplanes are also displayed in grand fashion. These control surfaces help to give the big jet its agility, although they are unlikely to move much when the aircraft is in combat cruise configuration where minimizing its frontal radar signature is critical to its survival. They also work as big air brakes during rollout after touching down. 

A Luneburg lens is also seen attached below the jet to provide an ample radar return. Like American stealth fighters, these bolt-on devices are used to help air traffic controllers see the aircraft during transient flights and for some training operations. In some cases, they also work mask the true nature of the aircraft's radar signature.

On the J-20s nose, apertures for a missile approach warning system and what could eventually be a distributed aperture electro-optical system are seen, as are formation light strips embedded seamlessly into the jet's skin. A single pitot tube in the exact same place as the one found on the F-22 is also visible.

Maybe the most interesting of all is the under-nose optical sensor system. In the past, China has been quite sensitive about showing off this chin-mounted sensor enclosure, with it being blurred out in official J-20 images and videos. For a long time, the enclosure didn't really even exist, with an aerodynamic fairing acting as a placeholder. Then it seemed as if a fairly simple looking golden-mirrored enclosure with a far wider field of view than the one we see in these latest pictures appeared for a while. But this was likely just another placeholder—one with the added benefit of confusing foreign intelligence agencies.


Now, after years of avionics development, which has included the use of a specialized flying avionics laboratory, a real chin-mounted electro-optical capability looks to have become operational on China's growing J-20 force, and the PLAAF is more willing to show it off in pictures. Remember, very little actually leaks out of China in regards to sensitive weapon systems without the government allowing it. In other words, they let us see what they want us to see.

Many have posited that this enclosure is intended to house an analog to the F-35's Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). But based on these images, it seems to have a far more limited purpose. 






The F-35's EOTS enclosure offers a far wider field of view than the one seen on the J-20. This is necessary because it replaces the turreted targeting pods found on most western fighters that are used primarily to engage ground objects. With this in mind, the J-20's optical sensor is likely air-to-air centric, with limited to no ground attack capability at this time. USAF
Instead of acting as a multi-role optical ground surveillance sensor and laser designator for dynamically targeting objects on terra firma—as is the case with EOTS on the F-35—this sensor's enclosure appears to offer a far more limited field of view oriented towards the forward hemisphere of the aircraft. This points to it being used primarily as an air-to-air targeting and situational awareness sensor system. It's worth noting that the F-35's EOTS has integrated air-to-air functions as well, but air-to-ground remains its predominant use.











The J-20 was supposedly designed with a faceted, turret-mounted infrared-search and track (IRST) system—a critical sensor found on all Russian-built fighters that will allow the J-20 to better survive in a high-threat air combat environment even against America's advanced stealth fighters (read all about IRSTs in this past feature of mine). Known as EORD-31, the J-20's IRST lifts upwards out of its nose in front of the windscreen when in use. 

The large, diamond-like aperture for this system is clearly seen in photos of the jet, but its development could be delayed. In its place, Chengdu Aircraft Corporation engineers could have mounted a fixed IRST sensor in the stealthy ventral enclosure below the aircraft's nose. This would allow for the J-20 to maintain a constant radar signature while using its IRST.

Alternatively, and more likely, the sensor inside the under-nose enclosure could be the other planned primary optical sensor for the J-20 that would work with the aircraft's IRST, radar, end electronic support measures, and other combat systems. Dubbed the EOTS-86, this sensor surely operates at shorter wavelengths than an IRST and allows for long-range visual identification of potential threats. 

Used in conjunction with the IRST, it would allow the J-20 to silently detect and engage targets at beyond visual ranges—with the IRST detecting and the EOTS-86 identifying targets—even while operating under the most restrictive rules of engagement and without emitting any electromagnetic energy that can be detected by opposing forces. Even without the help of the IRST, the EOTS-86 would be able to be slaved to the J-20's radar and could provide visual tracking and identification of targets in a way in which its radar cannot.

America's F-15C/Ds are employing Sniper targeting pods in a very similar fashion and are slated to receive an advanced long wave-length IRST sensor as well. The Super Hornet will also feature a similar mix of capabilities and the F-35's EOTS does long-range airborne visual identification as a secondary function, but the jet lacks a traditional IRST entirely.

But once again, this sensor cannot be used to the extent of the F-35's EOTS. It would be used for target identification and possibly targeting from the frontal hemisphere only, not from steep angles below or even behind the aircraft as traditional targeting pods are capable of. It probably doesn't have a laser designator either. But just as a situational awareness tool alone, and a passive one at that, it represents a potent capability even the F-22 doesn't possess. 

It's also possible that a true multi-role sensor similar to the F-35's EOTS and its wide-field of view faceted sapphire glass enclosure will find its way on the J-20 sometime in the future as its mission set expands and as China's sensor know-how improves. But that simply doesn't exist at this time.






Chinese Internet
In these photos, we also get to see the fine details of the construction of the J-20's outer airframe, and they look very similar to those found on the F-22, and in some cases, on F-35, although the aircraft doesn't feature the continuous curvature structures of the latter aircraft and is far more akin generally the F-22 in this regard. Still, the construction quality appears to be quite impressive, with the near seamless joining of structures, sawtoothed access hatches and operating doors, edge-aligned apertures, and overall smooth surfaces. 

None of this comes as that much of a surprise as China has become a master at cyber espionage and the theft of classified intellectual property from America's most capable defense contractors. In particular, these operations have targeted stealth aircraft programs, with vast amounts of data being stolen over the last decade or so. Still, as I have said for many years, the J-20's overall shape and configuration has far more in common with defunct Russian fighter programs than American ones. 

The PLAAF's ascent from a third-rate air arm to the USAF's most threatening peer state competitor has been dizzying. And keep in mind, the J-20's design is now nearly a decade old. China is working very hard at moving into the broadband low-observable combat aircraft arena in the form of unmanned combat air vehicles and possibly a new stealth bomber that could emerge from the shadows at any time. China's medium-weight J-31/FC-31 stealth fighter is also showing signs of drastic maturation and is now in its second iteration of a flying prototype. 

The J-20 remains a highly interesting machine that will continue to improve in the coming decade. Powerplants have been a continuing issue for type, but China is making strides when it comes to indigenous engine manufacturing capabilities as well. But even without extreme kinematic performance, the J-20 appears to be a potent and stealthy sensor and weapons platform that could prove to be very challenging to deal with, especially when combined with creative cooperative platform tactics.

Yet what's most impressive is that China has leapfrogged Russia when it comes to advanced fighter aircraft design in most respects. And by many indications, that disparity will continue to widen with each passing day as the J-20 fleet grows and evolves while Russia's Su-57 program stagnates towards irrelevance. 

Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

Source: http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the...hter-offer-new-capability-insights?source=dam_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## I S I

I S I said:


>


Damn boi.


----------



## cirr

A set of 4 images.

According to the guy who took and posted the pics, one of the planes is DIFFERENT from the rest:

某架有不同，代表某事，慢慢找.

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1908775-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

I S I said:


> Chinese Internet
> China is giving us increasingly better views of their top fighter design which are helping to answer some important capability questions.
> 
> TYLER ROGOWAY @AVIATION_INTEL
> JUL 31, 2018 10:50 PM EDT
> 
> 
> Tyler has been obsessed with all things aviation and military as long as he can remember. He went on to develop the defense-oriented website _Foxtrot Alpha_ and can often be found with a camera around his neck, photographing aircraft and weaponry.
> 
> The steady flow of intriguing new images of China's stealthy heavy fighter-interceptor, the J-20, continues over seven years after the jet first appeared. The aircraft is already in operational service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and it continues to evolve and spread its wings, participating in increasingly high-profile joint-exercises and deployments near hotspots along China's borders. Three new shots help us better understand the build quality of this game-changing machine as well as handicap some aspects of its true capabilities. But above all else, like I have stressed since its first appearance, the photos are a reminder that China's ability to make great leaps in aerospace materials and manufacturing sciences should _not_ be underestimated.
> 
> The latest images, which recently emerged on Chinese internet, show a J-20 without its gray paint and in its primer coating flying out of Chengdu Aircraft Company's plant and test airfield. We have seen the J-20 in its yellow undercoatings before, but these images are very detailed in comparison to the vast majority of the shots that have surfaced in the past. Note that the dragon symbols on the nose and tail were added in post-processing and were not actually painted on the aircraft.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Internet
> 
> The images show the areas where antennas are embedded below the J-20's skin, as well as where other stealthy composite structures are used to minimize the aircraft's radar cross-section. The J-20's large Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) is shown in great detail as well, including various porous panels that also help separate turbulent boundary layer air from its skin—a process required to feed its engines with stable airflow throughout its flight envelope.
> 
> The jet's giant maneuvering canard foreplanes are also displayed in grand fashion. These control surfaces help to give the big jet its agility, although they are unlikely to move much when the aircraft is in combat cruise configuration where minimizing its frontal radar signature is critical to its survival. They also work as big air brakes during rollout after touching down.
> 
> A Luneburg lens is also seen attached below the jet to provide an ample radar return. Like American stealth fighters, these bolt-on devices are used to help air traffic controllers see the aircraft during transient flights and for some training operations. In some cases, they also work mask the true nature of the aircraft's radar signature.
> 
> On the J-20s nose, apertures for a missile approach warning system and what could eventually be a distributed aperture electro-optical system are seen, as are formation light strips embedded seamlessly into the jet's skin. A single pitot tube in the exact same place as the one found on the F-22 is also visible.
> 
> Maybe the most interesting of all is the under-nose optical sensor system. In the past, China has been quite sensitive about showing off this chin-mounted sensor enclosure, with it being blurred out in official J-20 images and videos. For a long time, the enclosure didn't really even exist, with an aerodynamic fairing acting as a placeholder. Then it seemed as if a fairly simple looking golden-mirrored enclosure with a far wider field of view than the one we see in these latest pictures appeared for a while. But this was likely just another placeholder—one with the added benefit of confusing foreign intelligence agencies.
> 
> 
> Now, after years of avionics development, which has included the use of a specialized flying avionics laboratory, a real chin-mounted electro-optical capability looks to have become operational on China's growing J-20 force, and the PLAAF is more willing to show it off in pictures. Remember, very little actually leaks out of China in regards to sensitive weapon systems without the government allowing it. In other words, they let us see what they want us to see.
> 
> Many have posited that this enclosure is intended to house an analog to the F-35's Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). But based on these images, it seems to have a far more limited purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35's EOTS enclosure offers a far wider field of view than the one seen on the J-20. This is necessary because it replaces the turreted targeting pods found on most western fighters that are used primarily to engage ground objects. With this in mind, the J-20's optical sensor is likely air-to-air centric, with limited to no ground attack capability at this time. USAF
> Instead of acting as a multi-role optical ground surveillance sensor and laser designator for dynamically targeting objects on terra firma—as is the case with EOTS on the F-35—this sensor's enclosure appears to offer a far more limited field of view oriented towards the forward hemisphere of the aircraft. This points to it being used primarily as an air-to-air targeting and situational awareness sensor system. It's worth noting that the F-35's EOTS has integrated air-to-air functions as well, but air-to-ground remains its predominant use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 was supposedly designed with a faceted, turret-mounted infrared-search and track (IRST) system—a critical sensor found on all Russian-built fighters that will allow the J-20 to better survive in a high-threat air combat environment even against America's advanced stealth fighters (read all about IRSTs in this past feature of mine). Known as EORD-31, the J-20's IRST lifts upwards out of its nose in front of the windscreen when in use.
> 
> The large, diamond-like aperture for this system is clearly seen in photos of the jet, but its development could be delayed. In its place, Chengdu Aircraft Corporation engineers could have mounted a fixed IRST sensor in the stealthy ventral enclosure below the aircraft's nose. This would allow for the J-20 to maintain a constant radar signature while using its IRST.
> 
> Alternatively, and more likely, the sensor inside the under-nose enclosure could be the other planned primary optical sensor for the J-20 that would work with the aircraft's IRST, radar, end electronic support measures, and other combat systems. Dubbed the EOTS-86, this sensor surely operates at shorter wavelengths than an IRST and allows for long-range visual identification of potential threats.
> 
> Used in conjunction with the IRST, it would allow the J-20 to silently detect and engage targets at beyond visual ranges—with the IRST detecting and the EOTS-86 identifying targets—even while operating under the most restrictive rules of engagement and without emitting any electromagnetic energy that can be detected by opposing forces. Even without the help of the IRST, the EOTS-86 would be able to be slaved to the J-20's radar and could provide visual tracking and identification of targets in a way in which its radar cannot.
> 
> America's F-15C/Ds are employing Sniper targeting pods in a very similar fashion and are slated to receive an advanced long wave-length IRST sensor as well. The Super Hornet will also feature a similar mix of capabilities and the F-35's EOTS does long-range airborne visual identification as a secondary function, but the jet lacks a traditional IRST entirely.
> 
> But once again, this sensor cannot be used to the extent of the F-35's EOTS. It would be used for target identification and possibly targeting from the frontal hemisphere only, not from steep angles below or even behind the aircraft as traditional targeting pods are capable of. It probably doesn't have a laser designator either. But just as a situational awareness tool alone, and a passive one at that, it represents a potent capability even the F-22 doesn't possess.
> 
> It's also possible that a true multi-role sensor similar to the F-35's EOTS and its wide-field of view faceted sapphire glass enclosure will find its way on the J-20 sometime in the future as its mission set expands and as China's sensor know-how improves. But that simply doesn't exist at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Internet
> In these photos, we also get to see the fine details of the construction of the J-20's outer airframe, and they look very similar to those found on the F-22, and in some cases, on F-35, although the aircraft doesn't feature the continuous curvature structures of the latter aircraft and is far more akin generally the F-22 in this regard. Still, the construction quality appears to be quite impressive, with the near seamless joining of structures, sawtoothed access hatches and operating doors, edge-aligned apertures, and overall smooth surfaces.
> 
> None of this comes as that much of a surprise as China has become a master at cyber espionage and the theft of classified intellectual property from America's most capable defense contractors. In particular, these operations have targeted stealth aircraft programs, with vast amounts of data being stolen over the last decade or so. Still, as I have said for many years, the J-20's overall shape and configuration has far more in common with defunct Russian fighter programs than American ones.
> 
> The PLAAF's ascent from a third-rate air arm to the USAF's most threatening peer state competitor has been dizzying. And keep in mind, the J-20's design is now nearly a decade old. China is working very hard at moving into the broadband low-observable combat aircraft arena in the form of unmanned combat air vehicles and possibly a new stealth bomber that could emerge from the shadows at any time. China's medium-weight J-31/FC-31 stealth fighter is also showing signs of drastic maturation and is now in its second iteration of a flying prototype.
> 
> The J-20 remains a highly interesting machine that will continue to improve in the coming decade. Powerplants have been a continuing issue for type, but China is making strides when it comes to indigenous engine manufacturing capabilities as well. But even without extreme kinematic performance, the J-20 appears to be a potent and stealthy sensor and weapons platform that could prove to be very challenging to deal with, especially when combined with creative cooperative platform tactics.
> 
> Yet what's most impressive is that China has leapfrogged Russia when it comes to advanced fighter aircraft design in most respects. And by many indications, that disparity will continue to widen with each passing day as the J-20 fleet grows and evolves while Russia's Su-57 program stagnates towards irrelevance.
> 
> Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com
> 
> Source: http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the...hter-offer-new-capability-insights?source=dam_


Aside from those techies things, here are two main conceptions of Tyler Rogoway:

1) The F-35 is much more superior than the J-20, almost in all areas that matter. 

2) China is a master thief (through cyber espionage) that stole its fighter jet technologies from those largest military contractors (MIC) of the USA. The J-20 is not yet the final outcome resulted from this stealing acts. However, regardless all these thefts, the J-20 looks like to have more similarities to RUS fighter jet designs than the American  

I just browsed quickly the rest of article

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> Aside from those techies things, here are two main conceptions of Tyler Rogoway:
> 
> 1) The F-35 is much more superior than the J-20, almost in all areas that matter.
> 
> 2) China is a master thief (through cyber espionage) that stole its fighter jet technologies from those largest military contractors (MIC) of the USA. The J-20 is not yet the final outcome resulted from this stealing acts. However, regardless all these thefts, the J-20 looks like to have more similarities to RUS fighter jet designs than the American
> 
> I just browsed quickly the rest of article


The moment the article said “heavy fighter interceptor”, I stopped reading. These stupid defense “specialists” cannot even get the most basic designations right ...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> The moment the article said “heavy fighter interceptor”, I stopped reading. These stupid defense “specialists” cannot even get the most basic designations right ...




Exactly, especially since the J-20 cannot be a fighter. It is a more than 23m long mega-monster heavy interdictor and striker similar to the F-111.

Sorry, could resist.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> The moment the article said “heavy fighter interceptor”, I stopped reading. These stupid defense “specialists” cannot even get the most basic designations right ...


All in one heavy interceptor/Air superiority fighter/Strike jets @Figaro

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.miaopai.com/show/channel/...393010&wm=3333_2001&weiboauthoruid=2280198017
J-20 can fly 52 Km in 1 minute on combat cruise??!
Interesting!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

The max speed is 2.45 Mach


----------



## ozranger

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 490077
> 
> https://m.miaopai.com/show/channel/...393010&wm=3333_2001&weiboauthoruid=2280198017
> J-20 can fly 52 Km in 1 minute on combat cruise??!
> Interesting!



It is still quite doubtful that for how long the aircraft can maintain such a speed. As an aviation fan estimated, it is nearly M2.88 at altitude 10km. So it could be the maximum speed and unlikely the cruise speed, suggested by the same person.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Grandy

*The nemesis of the stealth fighter? *
*China's new materials will increase the radar detection range by 50 times*

2018-08-04






Modern combat is a war based on electronic technology. Whoever has the advantage of electronic equipment can seize the electromagnetic power and seize it. The dominance of battlefield information. In the case of one-way transparency, the enemy is attacked. The performance of the electronic device is closely related to the material. For example, the F-16 and F-22 use active phased array radar, but the materials are completely different and the performance is very different. . The material mentioned here refers to the semiconductor material, which measures the main index power/mass ratio and reaction sensitivity of the semiconductor material. The former describes how much the device power is at a certain quality, and the latter describes the device's working state conversion and small signal detection capability. How strong, and China’s recent achievements in this area are likely to increase radar performance significantly.

The US F-22 airborne radar AN/APG-77 uses a semiconductor based on gallium nitride, and its electron mobility and mass-to-power ratio are improved relative to conventional GaAs radar. 5 to 10 times. This means that in the same radar and the same quality, the target can be detected more than 1.5 times the opponent's distance, which will inevitably bring great tactical advantages. Although China has successfully prepared gallium nitride crystals, it can be used in engineering. There are still gaps in materials, which also puts our military planes, ships and enemies at a disadvantage when they compete for electromagnetic power. A paper published by Professor Xu Yuzhen entitled "Interfacial Solution Method for Synthesizing Semiconductor Two-Dimensional Polymers" is very noteworthy, indicating that China has the ability to prepare two-dimensional semiconductor materials in the laboratory, and the power of this material will be large. Amplitude improves the performance of electronic devices.






The so-called two-dimensional semiconductor is relatively three-dimensional semiconductor, this semiconductor is very thin, only one by thickness The atomic composition of electrons in such semiconductors is very fast compared to bulk three-dimensional semiconductors. This is because, limited to the three-dimensional space environment, after the voltage is applied, although the electrons in the semiconductor partially move in a substantially certain direction, the whole will fly in a three-dimensional space, and most of the motion energy is consumed. In a two-dimensional semiconductor, electrons cannot move to the third dimension, which greatly increases the current. How much is this performance increase? The conclusion of the National Nanoscience Center paper is that the power quality ratio is 1000 times! Reaction sensitivity exceeds 6000 times! What does this mean? I will give you the calculation of this account.

The detection range of the radar is proportional to the power of the fourth power of the sensitivity. After using this material, the same volumetric radar will be able to achieve 50 times the existing radar! Taking the F-22 as an example, the RCS minimum value is 0.0001m2, which can reduce the detection distance of the existing radar to the normal fighter by 13 times. An airborne radar capable of detecting 150 kilometers can only find F near 10 kilometers. -22, but when the radar uses two-dimensional semiconductor materials, it can find the F-22 at 576km. Considering that the stealth capability of the stealth aircraft is almost at the limit, especially it is difficult to reduce the minimum value, so it can be said that once the species When the radar is put into production, the myth of the stealth plane can no longer be reproduced. In addition, it should be noted that this new material has the advantages of softness and plasticity. Under the influence of this feature, it is also possible to study the conformal radar antenna array that can be attached to the surface of the aircraft.






Two-dimensional semiconductor materials generally have thermal stability, which makes it possible to control by chemical methods, the general method It is a chemical vapor phase transport method that first synthesizes a semiconductor alloy block and then uses a mechanical lift-off method for preparation.

In the case of dichalcogenide, the chemical vapor transport method refers to placing a single component powder material and a certain amount of transport reagent in a vacuum quartz tube, and the quartz tube is placed in a certain amount. The temperature gradient of the reaction tube, and finally placed one end in a high temperature environment, one end placed in a low temperature environment, in the low temperature area will grow alloy monomer ingots. By repeated mechanical stripping, a two-dimensional disulfide material can be produced on a substrate of about 30 nm, but this method is rough, time consuming, and difficult to mass produce. Later, scientists invented physical vapor deposition and chemical vapor deposition.






Physical vapor deposition refers to the direct evaporation of a single component powder source at high temperatures and the deposition of condensation at low temperatures. A single-layer two-dimensional semiconductor material is obtained, and the temperature gradient in the deposition zone is extremely critical. If the operation is normal, a two-dimensional semiconductor film is finally obtained. Chemical vapor deposition refers to the use of an oxide and a material to be prepared as a reaction source, which is volatilized at a specific high temperature and undergoes a chemical reaction, and finally a film of a two-dimensional semiconductor material is deposited in the vicinity of the container.

The research group of Professor Xu Yuzhen is to improve the chemical vapor deposition method, using 1,4-trisonitrile to synthesize nitrile trimerization at the interface between dichloromethane and trifluoromethanesulfonic acid. Two-dimensional containing triazine polymer, this two-dimensional polymer has excellent dispersibility in organic solvents. This makes it possible to form a flexible polymer film with a fixed size by simply filtering, and even more magically, it can be suitably fabricated into a field effect transistor device and directly used for various electronic semiconductor components.






However, we should also see that the idea of developing this material is good, but it is still very practical. The road to the far is going. Two-dimensional semiconductor materials can only exist in a small part of the laboratory, which is costly, and there is currently no way to solve the problem of large-scale manufacturing. If you can make a few millimeters at a time, it is already at the top of the world. Moreover, the manufacture of a few millimeters has been to concentrate all the human and material resources of the entire laboratory for a long time. However, two-dimensional semiconductor materials are the development direction of future radar electronic systems, both China and the United States are engaged, but now they are just in their infancy.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## siegecrossbow

CCTV documentary on J-20 aerial combat exercise and training.

http://app.cctv.com/special/cportal/detail/arti/index.html?id=ArtiIhowtUq5JqLrKF4RDKju180811&allow_comment=0&isNoImg=0&isNight=0&fromapp=cctvnews&allow_comment=0

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

J-20A??!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 491678
> 
> J-20A??!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

@Deino what is that on the left? Jf-17?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

BHarwana said:


> @Deino what is that on the left? Jf-17?
> 
> View attachment 491946




Yes ... any info when this image was taken?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Deino said:


> Yes ... any info when this image was taken?



I am checking for it will update you.


----------



## BHarwana

@Deino the image is from Google earth if Dafeng give latitude or location date can be confirmed


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Yes ... any info when this image was taken?



It's the same one I commented on a couple weeks back.


----------



## Grandy

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028651753820975111

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


>


Zhuhai 2016?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Zhuhai 2016?




Most likely


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> Zhuhai 2016?


The breakaway moment @ 0:04:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 帅的一匹

sexy

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

wanglaokan said:


> sexy




Indeed ... now just paint it, add a Dragon artwork on its tail and bring it to Zhuhai!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> View attachment 492834
> View attachment 492835


Was it posted before?



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 488829
> 
> 龙吟太行：WS-10?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Was it posted before?



Yes indeed, but this scan from a magazine is of much higher resolution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 492332
> View attachment 492333
> View attachment 492334
> View attachment 492335



Nice. A bit early to add Tempest to that list, but cant wait to see it there one day soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

F-22 is not that small after all...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

August 1, 2018

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Ali_Baba said:


> Nice. A bit early to add Tempest to that list, but cant wait to see it there one day soon.



I think it is actually the FC-31.


----------



## zectech

siegecrossbow said:


> I think it is actually the FC-31.



yes, the first (on the first photo) and last (on the second photo) one is the j-31.

It goes something like J-31, SU-57, J-20, raptor, F-35, japanese 5th gen.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> August 1, 2018
> View attachment 493161




Where is this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Where is this?




It's actually Cangzhou

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AmirPatriot

LKJ86 said:


> August 1, 2018
> View attachment 493161


What website did you use to get that imagery?


----------



## Grandy




----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Grandy said:


>


Garbage like this has completely infested Youtube: a sh*tty voice synthesizer reading an article written by a sub-80 IQ "expert" (usually Kyle Mizokami, David Axe, Tyler Rogoway, or Alex Lockie - and that's the best of them) with background footage we've all seen before in much higher quality with the original audio. It's always from these excremental Indian channels that have turned finding China defense related videos into wading through the Ganges.

There's a special place in Hell for whoever connected India to the internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## ozranger

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Garbage like this has completely infested Youtube: a sh*tty voice synthesizer reading an article written by a sub-80 IQ "expert" (usually Kyle Mizokami, David Axe, Tyler Rogoway, or Alex Lockie - and that's the best of them) with background footage we've all seen before in much higher quality with the original audio. It's always from these excremental Indian channels that have turned finding China defense related videos into wading through the Ganges.
> 
> There's a special place in Hell for whoever connected India to the internet.



Worth a laugh though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Garbage like this has completely infested Youtube: a sh*tty voice synthesizer reading an article written by a sub-80 IQ "expert" (usually Kyle Mizokami, David Axe, Tyler Rogoway, or Alex Lockie - and that's the best of them) with background footage we've all seen before in much higher quality with the original audio. It's always from these excremental Indian channels that have turned finding China defense related videos into wading through the Ganges.
> 
> There's a special place in Hell for whoever connected India to the internet.


This "Grandy" poster is known for sourcing garbage websites or videos ... I would not get too upset. As for India, they seem to spend more time trying to belittle China than actually improving their own technology ... if I was China, I would be happy

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ozranger

Figaro said:


> This "Grandy" poster is known for sourcing garbage websites or videos ... I would not get too upset. As for India, they seem to spend more time trying to belittle China than actually improving their own technology ... if I was China, I would be happy



India's social structure systematically prevents them from making effective improvement.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Yang Wei, the chief designer of J-20, gets promoted to the vice general manager of AVIC.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86

战略忽悠局

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## cirr

http://www.avic.com.cn/cn/gxwm/index.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

http://www.avic.com.cn/cn/gxwm/index.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> http://www.avic.com.cn/cn/gxwm/index.shtml



Does this mean that the J-20 will become the PLAN's 5th-generation carrier fighter?


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 & J-10C

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## LKJ86

Any idea???

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




From Zhuhai 2016 !  .... can't wait to see a J-20 with my own eyes at Zhuhai this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> From Zhuhai 2016 !  .... can't wait to see a J-20 with my own eyes at Zhuhai this year.


Will you be there?


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Will you be there?



If nothing happens against it, then YES. ... will You attend too?


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> If nothing happens against it, then YES. ... will You attend too?


Maybe not.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Akasa

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 496297
> View attachment 496298
> View attachment 496299



Any news on the tender for the PLAN's 5th-gen carrier-borne fighter?


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 496297
> View attachment 496298
> View attachment 496299


I'm pretty sure the WS-15 has more thrust that 15 metric tonnes (147 kN) ... poster might have been confused with the WS-10IPE.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 499225
> View attachment 499226
> View attachment 499227
> View attachment 499228



Are these recent images?

They look a bit like those posted last year during the Zhurihe flyby preparations.


----------



## Clutch



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

The video of J-20 about 10 minutes taken by a fan: https://m.weibo.cn/5140337677/4244767003284492

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> The video of J-20 about 10 minutes taken by a fan: https://m.weibo.cn/5140337677/4244767003284492




Here at youtube:






looks like some sort of preparations for Zhuhai?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

J-20A 78277 confirmed

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045384802915037185

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 489665
> View attachment 489666
> View attachment 489667
> View attachment 489668



Those are some amazingly clear shots, something that is getting to be more prevalent than it's ever been.



I S I said:


> China is giving us increasingly better views of their top fighter design which are helping to answer some important capability questions.



Indeed. Not only are we starting to see many more photos, but much clearer views or every aspect of the aircraft.



I S I said:


> The J-20's large Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) is shown in great detail as well, including various porous panels that also help separate turbulent boundary layer air from its skin—a process required to feed its engines with stable airflow throughout its flight envelope.



It looks like they're still testing a few different materials on the divertless intakes. Something to take a close look at with these primed aircraft once they're painted and see if those div intakes have different finishes.



I S I said:


> Now, after years of avionics development, which has included the use of a specialized flying avionics laboratory, a real chin-mounted electro-optical capability looks to have become operational on China's growing J-20 force, and the PLAAF is more willing to show it off in pictures. Remember, very little actually leaks out of China in regards to sensitive weapon systems without the government allowing it. In other words, they let us see what they want us to see.
> 
> That's very true, but that gold reflection is genius since it doesn't allow us to see what's inside.
> 
> Many have posited that this enclosure is intended to house an analog to the F-35's Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). But based on these images, it seems to have a far more limited purpose.



The same one? lol. While I don't think it's the same one (but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a Chinese imitation of one), but I also don't think it's purpose is far more limited than that of the F-35's.



I S I said:


> Yet what's most impressive is that China has leapfrogged Russia when it comes to advanced fighter aircraft design in most respects. And by many indications, that disparity will continue to widen with each passing day as the J-20 fleet grows and evolves while Russia's Su-57 program stagnates towards irrelevance.



We've been amazed at what China has done for quite sometime, now. But it is sad to see what is happening with the Russian program, very sad. Competition is only good for everyone, so there really is no benefit to anyone that the Russian program is somewhat stalled TBH.



Grandy said:


> *The nemesis of the stealth fighter? *
> *China's new materials will increase the radar detection range by 50 times*



That was an excellent read. Thank you for posting it.



Beast said:


> F-22 is not that small after all...



It's certainly not. While I have not seen the J-20 first hand, I've seen the F-22 several times as well as the F-35 and if those side-by-side illustrations are accurate to some extent, the J-20 is a massive bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Gomig-21 said:


> It's certainly not. While I have not seen the J-20 first hand, I've seen the F-22 several times as well as the F-35 and if those side-by-side illustrations are accurate to some extent, the J-20 is a massive bird.


I think its little bigger from F-22 might be 5 -7 feet extra long (F-22 62 feet long), (Su-57 65 feet long), (J-20 67-69 feet long) @Gomig-21

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

pakistanipower said:


> I think its little bigger from F-22 might be 5 -7 feet extra long (F-22 62 feet long), (Su-57 65 feet long), (J-20 67-69 feet long) @Gomig-21



Yep, you are right @pakistanipower  It kinda defies logic in terms of stealth and of course this concept is not relegated to just the J-20, but the F-22 and Su-57 as well. Proves the fact that size does not matter as much as shape and technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Gomig-21 said:


> Yep, you are right @pakistanipower  It kinda defies logic in terms of stealth and of course this concept is not relegated to just the J-20, but the F-22 and Su-57 as well. Proves the fact that size does not matter as much as shape and technology.


 one part on missing on J-20, This is WS-15, now let wait and see that WS-15 what type of nozzles it will have either flat type LOAN nozzles that F-22 have or serrated one just like F-35 have @Gomig-21

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Akasa

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 502232
> 
> View attachment 502233
> 
> View attachment 502234
> 
> View attachment 502235
> 
> View attachment 502236
> 
> View attachment 502237
> 
> View attachment 502238
> 
> View attachment 502239
> 
> View attachment 502240



What TV series is this?


----------



## LKJ86

Akasa said:


> What TV series is this?


MacGyver

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino




----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 502444




I would love to know the current number count!


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

JSCh said:


>




Where is this?

... I just cannot check since I'm on the way to Italy.


----------



## JSCh

Deino said:


> Where is this?
> 
> ... I just cannot check since I'm on the way to Italy.


Yanliang

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

September 11, 2018

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Oh please ... in English!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Oh please ... in English!!



The gist of the information is that:

1) Liming has the capability to enhance the thrust of existing AL-31F series engines due to the process of test flying and inducting the J-20s.
2) J-20 has higher internal fuel storage than that of any SinoFlanker variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> The gist of the information is that:
> 
> 1) Liming has the capability to enhance the thrust of existing AL-31F series engines due to the process of test flying and inducting the J-20s.
> 2) J-20 has higher internal fuel storage than that of any SinoFlanker variant.



I dare to bet, the Chinese can even replicate a whole AL-31F. As I say its a hybrid of AL-31/WS-10 technology. The easiest way to upthrust a existing engine is to install a more superior fan blade that can withstand higher temp and longer duration. 

Finally, fan blade is considered the most crucial and difficult parts to make inside a engine due to the fact, it need to withstand the highest temperature inside the engine and not to mention , spinning in high speed while need to work for thousand of hours without breaking....

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> I dare to bet, the Chinese can even replicate a whole AL-31F. As I say its a hybrid of AL-31/WS-10 technology. The easiest way to upthrust a existing engine is to install a more superior fan blade that can withstand higher temp and longer duration.
> 
> Finally, fan blade is considered the most crucial and difficult parts to make inside a engine due to the fact, it need to withstand the highest temperature inside the engine and not to mention , spinning in high speed while need to work for thousand of hours without breaking....


Where is your evidence for this claim? The AL-31F is not a WS-10 hybrid ... at most the Chinese made some minor adjustments but nothing close to a hybrid

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Star Expedition

why not j40?
i m not happy


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> Where is your evidence for this claim? The AL-31F is not a WS-10 hybrid ... at most the Chinese made some minor adjustments but nothing close to a hybrid


If u can make a higher grade fan blade better than AL-31 F one, basically it's not an original anymore.

A TU-4 looks like a B-29, can we say it's 100% a B-29? External look can be deceiving. One thing for sure, SAC liming is capable of tweak basic AL-31 engine into better performance for their own need.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Beast said:


> I dare to bet, the Chinese can even replicate a whole AL-31F. As I say its a hybrid of AL-31/WS-10 technology. The easiest way to upthrust a existing engine is to install a more superior fan blade that can withstand higher temp and longer duration.
> 
> Finally, fan blade is considered the most crucial and difficult parts to make inside a engine due to the fact, it need to withstand the highest temperature inside the engine and not to mention , spinning in high speed while need to work for thousand of hours without breaking....



This does make sense. China has not officially purchases AL-31FNs from Russia last year yet squadrons of J-10B/Cs still entered service.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

September 25, 2018

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

Star Expedition said:


> why not j40?
> i m not happy


What is J-40 @Star Expedition


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> What is J-40 @Star Expedition




Probably either a joke or a provocation.


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


>



First time I've noticed fuel tanks on this beast. Is that something that has been seen before or is that a PS?



siegecrossbow said:


> 2) J-20 has higher internal fuel storage than that of any SinoFlanker variant.



Is there a published operational range without drop tanks?


----------



## Figaro

Gomig-21 said:


> First time I've noticed fuel tanks on this beast. Is that something that has been seen before or is that a PS?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a published operational range without drop tanks?


Wasn't this fuel tank image taken from a prototype like 3 years ago? Def not a PS if so


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Gomig-21 said:


> First time I've noticed fuel tanks on this beast. Is that something that has been seen before or is that a PS?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Gomig-21 said:


> First time I've noticed fuel tanks on this beast. Is that something that has been seen before or is that a PS?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a published operational range without drop tanks?



There is no reliable info that I am aware of.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gomig-21

According to this site https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=860 J-20's operational range is roughly 3,400 kilometers just with internal fuel which is pretty good. But I thought for its size, it would've had a little bit more but maybe that's also a factor due to its size & weight & twin engines, it simply burns a lot of fuel which makes sense. Still, it seems to be the longest range out of all the 5th gens out there so far and then add those 4 massive fuel tanks and AR and the sky's the limit, literally.


----------



## Brainsucker

Gomig-21 said:


> According to this site https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=860 J-20's operational range is roughly 3,400 kilometers just with internal fuel which is pretty good. But I thought for its size, it would've had a little bit more but maybe that's also a factor due to its size & weight & twin engines, it simply burns a lot of fuel which makes sense. Still, it seems to be the longest range out of all the 5th gens out there so far and then add those 4 massive fuel tanks and AR and the sky's the limit, literally.



J-20 is the same as flanker, isn't it? if we talk about engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> J-20 is the same as flanker, isn't it? if we talk about engine.


Are you talking about size then No, its few feet shorter than flanker @Brainsucker


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> Are you talking about size then No, its few feet shorter than flanker @Brainsucker



Nope, just engine. Until WS-15 ready, J-20 has the engine as flanker. Whatever it is AL-31 series or WS-10 one


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> Nope, just engine. Until WS-15 ready, J-20 has the engine as flanker. Whatever it is AL-31 series or WS-10 one


Nope its stop gap engine, not build for J-20 hence with AL-31 series or WS-10 J-20 has a low T/W ratio , so it has less range, just like Su-57 has a interim engine (AL-41F) @Brainsucker


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> Nope its stop gap engine, not build for J-20 hence with AL-31 series or WS-10 J-20 has a low T/W ratio , so it has less range, just like Su-57 has a interim engine (AL-41F) @Brainsucker



I write "Until WS-15 ready". Did you read it? What is the different between that and "Stop Gap Engine"? I'm not an expert in English, my grammar is clumsy. But at least I know that both have the same meaning. At least the same context.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Brainsucker said:


> I write "Until WS-15 ready". Did you read it? What is the different between that and "Stop Gap Engine"? I'm not an expert in English, my grammar is clumsy. But at least I know that both have the same meaning.


Meaning main engine (WS-15) is not installed currently (AL-31) engine (STOP GAP) is currently installed which is not build for J-20 specifically @Brainsucker


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> Meaning main engine (WS-15) is not installed currently (AL-31) engine (STOP GAP) is currently installed which is not build for J-20 specifically @Brainsucker



Yes, my post and your post has the same meaning. So let me say this, I agree. Because there is no other argument to defy this.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gomig-21

Brainsucker said:


> J-20 is the same as flanker, isn't it? if we talk about engine.



So you bring up a good point which is essentially that the aircraft is not producing close to it's projected capability considering the engines make up an overwhelming percentage of the value and caps of a 5th gen. aircraft. This is essentially the same problem plaguing the Su-57 when you really stop and think about it from an objective standpoint. If the Su-57 is held to a standard, that it's far behind and a huge reason is the engines, then the same should be applied to the J-20. Still a long ways to go to become a true 5th gen aircraft. This is not to take anything away from the J-20, but let the race for the final engine to be successfully operational first before claiming operational values. All these J-20's flying around, are essentially still prototypes just like the Su-57. 

Add weapon's testing. Same exact thing. We haven't seen diddly from either yet so how do we know that one is ahead of the other, wouldn't you agree?? 



siegecrossbow said:


> There is no reliable info that I am aware of.



Well we do have enough information from the current power plants and other factors of similarities to other aircraft to make very close final numbers which will be pretty good when the new engines are finished to compare and see how much of an improvement there is. If the current engines are producing less TtW ratio and the new ones will be greater and especially with cruise control, that will be a remarkable difference in not only speed, but operational range and fuel efficiency.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Gomig-21 said:


> So you bring up a good point which is essentially that the aircraft is not producing close to it's projected capability considering the engines make up an overwhelming percentage of the value and caps of a 5th gen. aircraft. This is essentially the same problem plaguing the Su-57 when you really stop and think about it from an objective standpoint. If the Su-57 is held to a standard, that it's far behind and a huge reason is the engines, then the same should be applied to the J-20. Still a long ways to go to become a true 5th gen aircraft. This is not to take anything away from the J-20, but let the race for the final engine to be successfully operational first before claiming operational values. All these J-20's flying around, are essentially still prototypes just like the Su-57.
> 
> Add weapon's testing. Same exact thing. We haven't seen diddly from either yet so how do we know that one is ahead of the other, wouldn't you agree??
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have enough information from the current power plants and other factors of similarities to other aircraft to make very close final numbers which will be pretty good when the new engines are finished to compare and see how much of an improvement there is. If the current engines are producing less TtW ratio and the new ones will be greater and especially with cruise control, that will be a remarkable difference in not only speed, but operational range and fuel efficiency.



Engine do not make up a large value of a 5th gen. F-35 without supercruise, great thrust to weight ratio is still considered a true 5th gen.... Stealth is top priority with significant amount of RCS reduction. Su-57 failed not becos of engine but Russian not able to catch up in avionics ,newest material, newest design concept. Russian industries as a whole is not ready for 5th gen fighter. If you think Russian industries is still some awesome and superpower. Tell me, how many modern destroyer has Russian commissioned since the collapse of Soviet union? Nope.. They even need to ask France to build a modern of LHD for them which is unheard of during Soviet times.

Trying to compare Su-57 with J-20 is absolutely a wrong comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86

Beast said:


> Engine do not make up a large value of a 5th gen. F-35 without supercruise, great thrust to weight ratio is still considered a true 5th gen.... Stealth is top priority with significant amount of RCS reduction. Su-57 failed not becos of engine but Russian not able to catch up in avionics ,newest material, newest design concept. Russian industries as a whole is not ready for 5th gen fighter. If you think Russian industries is still some awesome and superpower. Tell me, how many modern destroyer has Russian commissioned since the collapse of Soviet union? Nope.. They even need to ask France to build a modern of LHD for them which is unheard of during Soviet times.
> 
> Trying to compare Su-57 with J-20 is absolutely a wrong comparison.


J-20 is in mass-production already, and it means a lot.

No one knows what will happen to Su-57 in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Old pics (Zhuhai Airshow-2016)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## ozranger

Beast said:


> Engine do not make up a large value of a 5th gen. F-35 without supercruise, great thrust to weight ratio is still considered a true 5th gen.... Stealth is top priority with significant amount of RCS reduction. Su-57 failed not becos of engine but Russian not able to catch up in avionics ,newest material, newest design concept. Russian industries as a whole is not ready for 5th gen fighter. If you think Russian industries is still some awesome and superpower. Tell me, how many modern destroyer has Russian commissioned since the collapse of Soviet union? Nope.. They even need to ask France to build a modern of LHD for them which is unheard of during Soviet times.
> 
> Trying to compare Su-57 with J-20 is absolutely a wrong comparison.



The mass production of F-35 also helps validate the J-20 design, which is, yes, stealth first.


----------



## Cybernetics



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## ozranger

Can any one tell me what's the airframe in the background? That's a CAC place and the airframe doesn't look like a J-20. I can't match it with any known UAVs either. Sorry for posting this if it eventually proves not relating to J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

cirr said:


>


i can't see the picture sir


----------



## cirr

pakistanipower said:


> i can't see the picture sir



See above。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> View attachment 505887




Impressive ... would love to se it in full-size and colour


----------



## TOTUU

ozranger said:


> Can any one tell me what's the airframe in the background? That's a CAC place and the airframe doesn't look like a J-20. I can't match it with any known UAVs either. Sorry for posting this if it eventually proves not relating to J-20.


 It is F22 , subtitle means we stolen it from usa in 2004 , then we copy it , so western called J20 copy F22 , they are right . The management departments of American technology are all our spies .Trump, Clinton, and Obama were actually the ones we controlled to become presidents. They were all members of the Communist Party of China .To speed up China's rise, we let trump launch a trade war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Happy birthday to CAC!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## lcloo

cirr said:


> View attachment 505887


Post 10909 from cirr.

In case you people didn't notice the engine nozzle....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> Post 10909 from cirr.
> 
> In case you people didn't notice the engine nozzle....
> View attachment 506000
> 
> View attachment 506002


When are they going to start mass producing these J-20As?


----------



## Ultima Thule

lcloo said:


> Post 10909 from cirr.
> 
> In case you people didn't notice the engine nozzle....
> View attachment 506000
> 
> View attachment 506002


WS-10 but not WS-15 if you think so @lcloo  WS-15 still long way to go @lcloo


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> WS-10 but not WS-15 if you think so @lcloo  WS-15 still long way to go @lcloo


WS-15 will be flight tested soon


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> WS-15 will be flight tested soon


Not before 2023 @Figaro


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> Not before 2023 @Figaro


I don't think so.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> I don't think so.


Its your first attempt to produce F-22 class engine and you're still struggling for quality problem with your WS-10, you have no vast experience to build descent high performance engine from scratch your first attempt is WS-10, second WS-13 which is still development phase, third WS-15, so when you predict that WS-15 will be fit on J-20 @LKJ86


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Not before 2023 @Figaro


Why would flight testing be before 2023 ... there have been consistent developments indicating a flight testing of around 2019 to 2020



pakistanipower said:


> Its your first attempt to produce F-22 class engine and you're still struggling for quality problem with your WS-10, you have no vast experience to build descent high performance engine from scratch your first attempt is WS-10, second WS-13 which is still development phase, third WS-15, so when you predict that WS-15 will be fit on J-20 @LKJ86


What quality problems are you talking about exactly? The latest WS-10 variants have already surpassed the AL-31F in reliability and MTBF. Also keep in mind Chinese metallurgy has improved very significantly over the past few years. And you have to remember the WS-10 has many of its problems due to the fact it was based on a civilian engine core ... the WS-15 is a completely clean sheet design. WS-13 is currently much lower priority than either WS-10 or WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Why would flight testing be before 2023 ... there have been consistent developments indicating a flight testing of around 2019 to 2020
> 
> 
> What quality problems are you talking about exactly? The latest WS-10 variants have already surpassed the AL-31F in reliability and MTBF. And you have to remember the WS-10 has many of its problems due to the fact it was based on a civilian engine core ... the WS-15 is a completely clean sheet design.


Its your first attempt to produce F-22 class engine and you're still struggling for quality problem with your WS-10, you have *no vast experience to build descent high performance engine from scratch* your first attempt is WS-10, second WS-13 which is still development phase, third WS-15, so when you predict that WS-15 will be fit on J-20 @Figaro 



Figaro said:


> What quality problems are you talking about exactly? The latest WS-10 variants have already surpassed the AL-31F in reliability and MTBF. Also keep in mind Chinese metallurgy has improved very significantly over the past few years. And you have to remember the WS-10 has many of its problems due to the fact it was based on a civilian engine core ... the WS-15 is a completely clean sheet design. WS-13 is currently much lower priority than either WS-10 or WS-15.


*no vast experience to build descent high performance engine from scratch in the class of F-22's engine F-119, so its safe to assume that WS-15 takes little more time to be matured because this is their first attempt to develop F-119 class engine @Figaro *


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

pakistanipower said:


> Its your first attempt to produce F-22 class engine and you're still struggling for quality problem with your WS-10, you have *no vast experience to build descent high performance engine from scratch* your first attempt is WS-10, second WS-13 which is still development phase, third WS-15, so when you predict that WS-15 will be fit on J-20 @Figaro
> 
> 
> *no vast experience to build descent high performance engine from scratch in the class of F-22's engine F-119, so its safe to assume that WS-15 takes little more time to be matured because this is their first attempt to develop F-119 class engine @Figaro *


Protip: Writing in caps and using "descent" instead of "decent" doesn't make your "point" any more correct, it just makes you look like an idiot. Once upon a time the US also had *no vast experience to build descent*_ [sic] _*high performance engine from scratch* until it did. What evidence do you have that China doesn't have the requisite expertise to put together a prototype ready for testing in 2019-2020, if not sooner? Especially when a senior engineer has publicly stated that IOC will be achieved within 3 to 5 years?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Protip: Writing in caps and using "descent" instead of "decent" doesn't make your "point" any more correct, it just makes you look like an idiot. Once upon a time the US also had *no vast experience to build descent [sic] high performance engine from scratch *until it did. What evidence do you have that China doesn't have the requisite expertise to put together a prototype ready for testing in 2019-2020, if not sooner? Especially when a senior engineer has publicly stated that IOC will be achieved within 3 to 5 years?


When its claiming that IOC will achieved in 2019-2020 @ZeEa5KPul  if IOC achieved in lets say 2019 that its doesn't means that it will fit directly into J-20 but first ground test and air testing with IL-76 test-bed which takes 3 -4 year to complete @ZeEa5KPul


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

pakistanipower said:


> When its claiming that IOC will achieved in 2019-2020 @ZeEa5KPul


Read what I wrote more carefully. I didn't claim IOC would be in 2019-2020, I claimed _flight tests on a J-20 _would occur during this time. IOC (more accurately, design certification) within 3-5 years means IOC in 2021-2023. My source for that is this:
https://new.qq.com/omn/20180711/20180711A1307Z.html
Just in case you're wondering who Liu Daxiang is: http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/info/1056/1333.htm
There's also OedoSoldier's (a fairly reliable PLA observer) tweet from August that states a J-20 will be flight-testing a WS-15 prototype "soon":

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035556474431463424

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

US also had zero experience building rocket that can put man on moon. Until it did manage it successfully without failure on the first go. All the time, people can do this. What is important is all the smaller details and working culture, structure, and planning. WS-15 can or cannot be brought out for J-20 tests in 2019 or 2020 depends on these details. Does not depend at all on whether China has ever done something like this before. Very stupid thinking with so much evidence proving the exception like Saturn V rocket and I'm sure thousands more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Read what I wrote more carefully. I didn't claim IOC would be in 2019-2020, I claimed _flight tests on a J-20 _would occur during this time. IOC (more accurately, design certification) within 3-5 years means IOC in 2021-2023. My source for that is this:
> https://new.qq.com/omn/20180711/20180711A1307Z.html
> Just in case you're wondering who Liu Daxiang is: http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/info/1056/1333.htm
> There's also OedoSoldier's (a fairly reliable PLA observer) tweet from August that states a J-20 will be flight-testing a WS-15 prototype "soon":
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035556474431463424


I am thinking same first ground test will starts then air testing starts which takes 3-4 year to complete this means WS-15 will be ready in 2021-2023 time frame @ZeEa5KPul


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> WS-15 will be flight tested soon



But that's exactly the question and if you look how much over-interpret some these recent H-20 rumours it might appear "soon" it's always the question how "soon" is "soon".

IMO we are still a few years away from the definitive WS-15-powered variant in operational service, I'm even sceptical - more than you - that we might see a WS-15-powered prototype/-demonstrator soon, and I have the feeling your soon is more within "next" year, whereas my feeling of "soon" says me at best in 2020-2022.
Consequently I expect the first serial WS-10X-powered J-20As next year and.

Anyway, we are in interesting times ... and time will tell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> Its your first attempt to produce F-22 class engine and you're still struggling for quality problem with your WS-10, you have no vast experience to build descent high performance engine from scratch your first attempt is WS-10, second WS-13 which is still development phase, third WS-15, so when you predict that WS-15 will be fit on J-20 @LKJ86


1. WS-10 and WS-15 are large thrust turbofan engines, while WS-13 and WS-19 are middle thrust turbofan engines.
2. WS-10 and WS-13 are almost mature, and just their upgraded versions are in development.
3. The development of WS-15 has nothing to do with WS-13.
4. WS-15 needs more time to be mature and in mass-production, but will take flight tests soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> 1. WS-10 and WS-15 are large thrust turbofan engines, while WS-13 and WS-19 are middle thrust turbofan engines.
> 2. WS-10 and WS-13 are almost mature, and just their upgraded versions are in development.
> 3. The development of WS-15 has nothing to do with WS-13.
> 4. WS-15 needs more time to be mature and in mass-production, but will take flight tests soon.


as you says it will take time to be matured flight tests soon in only test-bed that's what is i'm talking about but other on this forum don't agree on this they are expecting that WS-15 will be fitted on J-20 within a year or two @LKJ86 bro


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> as you says it will take time to be matured flight tests soon in only test-bed that's what is i'm talking about but other on this forum don't agree on this they are expecting that WS-15 will be fitted on J-20 within a year or two @LKJ86 bro


On Zhuhai Airshow-2014, FC-31 V1 had one WS-13 already.
It is not surprise for J-20 to take one WS-15 for its test flights.


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> On Zhuhai Airshow-2014, FC-31 V1 had one WS-13 already.
> It is not surprise for J-20 to take one WS-15 for its test flights.


are you expecting that WS-15 will be flight tested on J-20 in a year or two @LKJ86


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> are you expecting that WS-15 will be flight tested on J-20 in a year or two @LKJ86


Very likely.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> Very likely.


That's you assumption or you have a reliable backup for your claim @LKJ86


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> That's you assumption or you have a reliable backup for your claim @LKJ86


Wait and see.


----------



## ozranger

pakistanipower said:


> That's you assumption or you have a reliable backup for your claim @LKJ86



Different sources indicated that WS-15 will progress to higher level testing this year. By the time we are talking, it might have already happened.


----------



## lcloo

The two polar world, non-Chinese posters always insist on photo evidence to be convinced mainly because they can not decipher Chinese media, while Chinese posters filtered through pictorial and written media and do educated guess on current status of development and come to a personal conclusion.

Just agree to disagree on method of assessing current development, there is un-ending to and fro argument if we don't accept others, let the others think what they want. At the end either side could be wrong when the truth unveiled.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

CG
https://m.weibo.cn/2149981442/4296799583761350

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

The J-20, China's 5th generation Stealth Jet Fighter, has been equipped with the new domestic engines — CCTV Short Clip 20181018

歼-20改进型细节首次曝光 已装备新型国产发动机 | 小央视频

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> That's you assumption or you have a reliable backup for your claim @LKJ86


LKJ usually has credible sources ... I wouldn’t doubt him

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> LKJ usually has credible sources ... I wouldn’t doubt him


No No No, I am no one special.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> No No No, I am no one special.




IMO you are ... and you are also very much modest.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> IMO you are ... and you are also very much modest.


I just tell the true, and don't take me seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TruthHurtz

How many J-20 in service now?


----------



## lcloo

TruthHurtz said:


> How many J-20 in service now?


No one outside AVIC is to be told, so we don't really know.

There are rumour of four production lines (unconfirmed) for J20, even if this is half true it still equate to two production line. During this low production period (common on initial years for new type aircraft production) minimum out put, IMO would be one aircraft every 2 months or 6 aircrafts in a year. On maximum 3 aircraft roll out every 2 month, or 18 aircraft each year.

Taking the median of this assumption, i.e. (18+6)/2 = 12 aircraft a year.

Disregard the first production year's (2016) out put, we have 1 1/2 years production run by now, the factory rolled out would be around 18 aircrafts.

Add this to the 3 aircrafts sighted during 2016, the total would be 21, using statistical median method.

Bear in mind, this is just an assumption. Forget about official confirmed numbers, you won't get one for many years to come.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/1740979351/4298204029538236

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 & IL-78


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 508178
> View attachment 508179
> View attachment 508180



The landing gears are down in the third photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## ozranger

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 508378



What's happened?


----------



## Cybernetics

ozranger said:


> What's happened?


J-20 flying over Xian with calibration markers. This could mean J-20 is flying to Xian to be equipped with WS-15 as it is manufactured by XAC.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

ozranger said:


> What's happened?


Terracotta Warriors!


----------



## Deino

Cybernetics said:


> J-20 flying over Xian with calibration markers. This could mean J-20 is flying to Xian to be equipped with WS-15 as it is manufactured by XAC.




To admit I wont overrate this since the CFTE us also at Xi'an.... could it be that it is the one prototype again we already saw last with calibration markings, abe related to the one fitted with the TVC-nozzle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> To admit I wont overrate this since the CFTE us also at Xi'an.... could it be that it is the one prototype again we already saw last with calibration markings, abe related to the one fitted with the TVC-nozzle?



There is no need to use those markings if there is no significant change on both flight control system and the fuselage.

Also there seems no change on the nozzles and, as we saw before, the plane with TVC nozzles is a different one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

ozranger said:


> There is no need to use those markings if there is no significant change on both flight control system and the fuselage.
> 
> Also there seems no change on the nozzles and, as we saw before, the plane with TVC nozzles is a different one.



Weapons testing is a possibility. Particularly if involving new weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 509379





LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 509492
> View attachment 509493
> View attachment 509494
> View attachment 509495
> View attachment 509496


In Zuahai @LKJ86 ???


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> In Zuahai @LKJ86 ???


Yep, 4 J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

The video of J-20: 
1) https://m.weibo.cn/2149981442/4300777272938848

2) https://m.weibo.cn/2149981442/4300792380580332

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

I hope some brave visitor go ahead and ask those PLAAF marshal for J-20 at zhuhai 2018 what is the engine it's currently using....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> I hope some brave visitor go ahead and ask those PLAAF marshal for J-20 at zhuhai 2018 what is the engine it's currently using....



Shall I try?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Shall I try?


Go ahead. Grill them hard but mind u. If they decide to arrest you on the ground of security issue. I will wash my hand over this issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Go ahead. Grill them hard but mind u. If they decide to arrest you on the ground of security issue. I will wash my hand over this issue.



Agreed ! ... by the way, will you attend the show? I know we has some issues and some of them I deeply regret; maybe you remember once I said we should better sit together , eat and drink and have a good chat on our common interest instead of hitting each other; now this would be a chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Agreed ! ... by the way, will you attend the show? I know we has some issues and some of them I deeply regret; maybe you remember once I said we should better sit together , eat and drink and have a good chat on our common interest instead of hitting each other; now this would be a chance.


No thanks, the last time I went to zhuhai is for work. Somehow zhuhai is the worst place to try out Cantonese crusine. I will prefer guangzhou.


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Imran Khan

Great look how many j20 in service now


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057297379165159425

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 510248


Wow these J-20 pictures look even more impressive than those from Zhuhai 2016


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> Wow these J-20 pictures look even more impressive than those from Zhuhai 2016


Why did you say that, @Figaro? 
Of course, it has been TWO years since the first public flight... somehow time just flies...  for us who are watching, two more years lapse


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ozranger

samsara said:


> Why did you say that, @Figaro?
> Of course, it has been TWO years since the first public flight... somehow time just flies...  for us who are watching, two more years lapse



I think they look more battle ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

想当年我们苦等歼10消息的时候，哪会想到我们现在会拥有歼20这样对战斗机。真是三十年河东，三十年河西。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

wanglaokan said:


> 想当年我们苦等歼10消息的时候，哪会想到我们现在会拥有歼20这样对战斗机。真是三十年河东，三十年河西。


please translate @wanglaokan sir


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 511343
> View attachment 511344
> View attachment 511345
> View attachment 511346
> View attachment 511347




Simply amazing both in size and quality ... however resolution is still not fine enough to read this number, which should be the construction number.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Simply amazing both in size and quality ... however resolution is still not fine enough to read this number, which should be the construction number.
> 
> View attachment 511348


The pics with high resolution are too big to be posted.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> The pics with high resolution are too big to be posted.




 ... and too less interesting to post only a small number on the landing gear door.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

Video: https://m.weibo.cn/5707057078/4302002034821737

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ZeEa5KPul



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Kompromat

Be wise with your power brothers, very wise.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

Horus said:


> Be wise with your power brothers, very wise.


and i feel very excited about project AZM.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 515518
> View attachment 515519



Looks like a high G maneuver. Where is the video?


----------



## jaybird

The J-20 video at 2:55 mark posted by Beast low flying then pull straight up was magnificent and beautiful to watch! Too bad the video quality is not HD.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Figaro

jaybird said:


> The J-20 video at 2:55 mark posted by Beast low flying then pull straight up was magnificent and beautiful to watch! Too bad the video quality is not HD.


Imagine the J-20 equipped with 2 of the J-10's WS-10 TVC ... or even better, the WS-15 TVC

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> Imagine the J-20 equipped with 2 of the J-10's WS-10 TVC ... or even better, *the WS-15 TVC*


That's just cheating at that point. Whatever the WS-15'd up J-20 is set against is going to get butchered. That's not war anymore, it's just murder. The enemy is going to get _*murdered*_!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Maxpane

Beauty

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ziaulislam

ZeEa5KPul said:


> That's just cheating at that point. Whatever the WS-15'd up J-20 is set against is going to get butchered. That's not war anymore, it's just murder. The enemy is going to get _*murdered*_!


no no rafale is 4.5 gen fighter while j20 is still 4th gen tech demonstrator

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

ziaulislam said:


> no no rafale is 4.5 gen fighter while j20 is still 4th gen tech demonstrator


No man ... the HAL Tejas is the true 5th gen fighter, beats out the Rafael and blows the J-20 out of the water. The only thing I’m curious is as to why they haven’t yet launched an air war against China

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> No man ... the HAL Tejas is the true 5th gen fighter, beats out the Rafael and blows the J-20 out of the water. The only thing I’m curious is as to why they haven’t yet launched an air war against China



The Indian will claim they are modest and not try to show off. They will claim Indian is the most benevolent people so they decide to spare Chinese lives despite having massive technology advantage over Chinese military.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ali_Baba

The J20 is a beautiful beautiful beautiful dragon !!! simply amazing that China has managed to get this far. Hopefully soon they can adopt nozzles similar to the F22 to reduce some of her rear radar signature(every bit helps).

I guess we will never see the cockpit shots of this puppy!!!!


----------



## gambit

Ali_Baba said:


> The J20 is a beautiful beautiful beautiful dragon !!! simply amazing that China has managed to get this far. Hopefully soon they can adopt nozzles similar to the F22 to reduce some of her rear radar signature(every bit helps).


You can count on at least 5 more yrs of development. The base airframe must be modified. Flight controls laws modified. Pilot retraining to accommodate those changes. The current flying inventory will be left as is, but their numbers are too small to be any effective contribution to the force, so that leave new airframes.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Ali_Baba said:


> The J20 is a beautiful beautiful beautiful dragon !!! simply amazing that China has managed to get this far. Hopefully soon they can adopt nozzles similar to the F22 to reduce some of her rear radar signature(every bit helps).
> 
> I guess we will never see the cockpit shots of this puppy!!!!


F35 like engine.nozzle is even.better.with.TVC.function.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> F35 like engine.nozzle is even.better.with.TVC.function.


F-35 engine is not truly TVC.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> F-35 engine is not truly TVC.


i mean the shape.


----------



## BHarwana

@Deino what do you understand from this?
So there is a J-20 with TVC.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059811950312460289

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

How come no one has posted this yet?






Obviously not as impressive as J-10B TVC, but it is still great considering the fact that the J-20 is using interim engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 515948



I have a new favorite!

There are so many good pictures that I don't know which one to use for my avatar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rambro

siegecrossbow said:


> I have a new favorite!
> 
> There are so many good pictures that I don't know which one to use for my avatar.


Select your favs compile it into a gif file
There it can flip between photos

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

In case anyone still has questions about J-20's primary role(s), AVIC has provided the answer in the form of airshow pamphlets.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/j-20s-in-conservative-flying-display-over-zhuhai-453351/



> For the first time, AVIC distributed a flyer with a very brief description of the aircraft: “The J-20 developed independently by China is a heavy stealth fourth-generation fighter (aka fifth generation internationally), renowned for its dominant role of *medium & long range air combat* and excellent capability in ground & marine precision strike,” it states.
> 
> “Its overall combat effectiveness marks significant improvement compared with that of third-generation fighters. Major operational missions include: *seizing and maintaining air superiority*, medium & long-range fast interception, escort and deep strike.”

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Akasa

siegecrossbow said:


> In case anyone still has questions about J-20's primary role(s), AVIC has provided the answer in the form of airshow pamphlets.
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/j-20s-in-conservative-flying-display-over-zhuhai-453351/



"Marine precision strike"? Is this hinting at something? Shore-based naval role, perhaps?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Akasa said:


> "Marine precision strike"? Is this hinting at something?



The pamphlet stated "ground and marine precision strike", which is nothing new if you followed J-20 related news.






Start at 2:21. They mentioned how the J-20 has practiced precision strikes against maritime targets during the exercise.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> The pamphlet stated "ground and marine precision strike", which is nothing new if you followed J-20 related news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start at 2:21. They mentioned how the J-20 has practiced precision strikes against maritime targets during the exercise.


I think J-20 weapon is capable of housing those stealth shape looking glide bombed which gives them decent stand off strike range given their RCS are low.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...ess-on-stealth-fighter-jet-at-zhuhai-airshow/


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2018-11/08/c_129988418.htm

Interview with J-20 test pilot Li Gang, which provided some interesting insights.



> “时间刚好是八个‘一’！”李刚说，时间上纯属巧合。原定7日进行的首飞计划，因为成都的天气原因被推迟到11日。



J-20's first flight was supposed to be on January 7th. Due to weather conditions, the flight was postponed till the 11th. The January 11th military holiday tradition is just nonsense cooked up by fans. 

He also mentioned that there are 8 "1"s in the first flight's takeoff time (August 1st!). I don't think anyone made the August 1st connection before this interview.



> “杨伟给我们发了很多空白的座舱图，给了好多电门开关的小图片，让我们自己去体验，把相应的开关贴在自己认为合理的位置上。”李刚说，如果大家都贴在一个位置上，说明意见一致；不一致，就开会讨论。



Chief designer Yang Wei allowed the test pilots themselves to design the cockpit layout.



> 李刚说，因其隐身需求，歼－20在气动外形设计上比一般飞机复杂得多。经过设计团队的不懈努力，终使歼－20具备了非常出色的敏捷性和操控性，与歼－10相差无异。



Li Gang stated that due to J-20's complex aerodynamic design, J-20 has* excellent agility and controllability on par with those of J-10*.



> “歼－20座舱还采用了侧杆操作，这在中国战机历史上也是第一次。”李刚介绍，这一设计理念有三点优势：一是飞行员视野更清晰；二是增强战机敏捷性；三是更有利于战机进行大过载飞行。



Li Gang confirmed that *J-20 uses a side control stick *--- a first in Chinese aviation history. He outlined the three advantages of this design: better field of view for the pilot, increased agility for the aircraft, and the fact that a side-stick is better for high-g maneuvers.



> “一架飞机装备部队是很不容易的，中间飞了好几千架次。”李刚介绍，从2011年首飞歼－20验证机，到2014年首飞原型机，再到今年年初正式列装作战部队，歼－20历时7年走完了从首飞到技术鉴定再到装备作战部队的完整过程。



J-20 underwent several thousand test flights from the first demonstrator in 2011 till the official prototype in 2014.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2018-11/08/c_129988418.htm
> 
> Interview with J-20 test pilot Li Gang, which provided some interesting insights.
> 
> 
> 
> J-20's first flight was supposed to be on January 7th. Due to weather conditions, the flight was postponed till the 11th. The January 11th military holiday tradition is just nonsense cooked up by fans.
> 
> He also mentioned that there are 8 "1"s in the first flight's takeoff time (August 1st!). I don't think anyone made the August 1st connection before this interview.
> 
> 
> 
> Chief designer Yang Wei allowed the test pilots themselves to design the cockpit layout.
> 
> 
> 
> Li Gang stated that due to J-20's complex aerodynamic design, J-20 has* excellent agility and controllability on par with those of J-10*.
> 
> 
> 
> Li Gang confirmed that *J-20 uses a side control stick *--- a first in Chinese aviation history. He outlined the three advantages of this design: better field of view for the pilot, increased agility for the aircraft, and the fact that a side-stick is better for high-g maneuvers.
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 underwent several thousand test flights from the first demonstrator in 2011 till the official prototype in 2014.


That means it will be quite thet same layout as F-22 raptor cockpit.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ozranger

J-20 clip 9 November
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av35611696?p=2

Really amazing, can't see flames within the nozzles!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

ozranger said:


> J-20 clip 9 November
> https://www.bilibili.com/video/av35611696?p=2
> 
> Really amazing, can't see flames within the nozzles!



You beat me to the video!

It is the same maneuver they performed on the opening day.


----------



## ozranger

siegecrossbow said:


> You beat me to the video!
> 
> It is the same maneuver they performed on the opening day.



I just watched https://www.newscctv.net/219news/video.html?videoId=ED3A242E-808D-AD9E-2FB6-CC5825F9D863

J-20 starts from 00:31:00. It seems to me this time the pilot had pushed the aircraft a little further than the opening day demo flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

ozranger said:


> I just watched https://www.newscctv.net/219news/video.html?videoId=ED3A242E-808D-AD9E-2FB6-CC5825F9D863
> 
> J-20 starts from 00:31:00. It seems to me this time the pilot had pushed the aircraft a little further than the opening day demo flight.



Starting at 4:50.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## chengdusudise

ozranger said:


> J-20 clip 9 November
> https://www.bilibili.com/video/av35611696?p=2
> 
> Really amazing, can't see flames within the nozzles!


really amazing,wonderful!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaybird

With all those long lens cameras around, no one able to take a pic of the low flying J-20 cockpit? And Z-10ME cockpit shouldn't be difficult to take as display on the ground with those selfie sticks, just reach up a little. All you international spies out there do your job! We want to see cockpit pics of J-10, J-20, Z-10ME etc.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

jaybird said:


> With all those long lens cameras around, no one able to take a pic of the low flying J-20 cockpit? And Z-10ME cockpit shouldn't be difficult to take as display on the ground with those selfie sticks, just reach up a little. All you international spies out there do your job! We want to see cockpit pics of J-10, J-20, Z-10ME etc.....


They dont want to drink tea with the authority.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Beast said:


> They dont want to drink tea with the authority.



That said, I don't think we've heard back from Deino ever since he went to Zhuhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

siegecrossbow said:


> That said, I don't think we've heard back from Deino ever since he went to Zhuhai.



https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...pictures-or-videos.t7240/page-105#post-531348

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> That said, I don't think we've heard back from Deino ever since he went to Zhuhai.



Thanks. In fact i am back but to busy still ... will post my stuff next week. But in summary, it was a gorgeous experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Thanks. In fact i am back but to busy still ... will post my stuff next week. But in summary, it was a gorgeous experience.



Some of us on sinodefence were joking that you got invited for tea because of the info you leaked in your books.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Interesting...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Silicon0000

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 517818
> View attachment 517819
> 
> Interesting...



Hmmm indeed intersting ........ what will happen if one engine power is more than the other?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Video by Japanese youtuber who filmed the best J-20 footage in 2016. Unfortunately, he didn't have a good spot this time and a guy's head got in the way of the view several times.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

And this was at Zhuhai today??


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> And this was at Zhuhai today??



I think this was yesterday's video.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> I think this was yesterday's video.



Pardon if I was misleading, I meant that J20 with those different nozzles.


----------



## ozranger

Silicon0000 said:


> Hmmm indeed intersting ........ what will happen if one engine power is more than the other?



The computer will adjust that dynamically in flight time.


Deino said:


> And this was at Zhuhai today??



Obviously not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Two of the J-20s carried 4 medium range missiles and two IR missiles each today! They demonstrated by opening their bays.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

After looking at the high res, I think that it is possible that the missiles they carried are live rounds. Practice PL-10D usually don't have transparent apertures for the seeker.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ozranger

siegecrossbow said:


> After looking at the high res, I think that it is possible that the missiles they carried are live rounds. Practice PL-10D usually don't have transparent apertures for the seeker.



Based on the color codes with PLAAF we have seen so far, they all are training rounds, despite the transparent seeker sections.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

There can be 6x new Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles in a J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

The high-resolution videos of J-20
November 10, 2018: https://www.bilibili.com/video/av35724051
November 11, 2018: https://www.bilibili.com/video/av35772600

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Best video from the 11th.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ozranger

Sensational work by the legendary Tonkatsu298

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Silicon0000

ozranger said:


> The computer will adjust that dynamically in flight time.
> 
> 
> Obviously not.



Agreed ..... but I was thinking could this difference of thrust can be used to change the direction ? May be someone good in physics can tell it better


----------



## gambit

siegecrossbow said:


> After looking at the high res, I think that it is possible that the missiles they carried are live rounds. Practice PL-10D usually don't have transparent apertures for the seeker.


There is a difference between a 'dummy' vs a 'training' ordnance.

A dummy round is completely inert. No warhead, propellant, avionics, and moving parts of any kind. It is literally just balanced mass/weight. The only semi-electrical item on a dummy round is a short that tells the aircraft's weapons management system that there is a missile or bomb at station.

A training round is slightly different. It contains the seeker/guidance section and functions exactly as a live round would.



Silicon0000 said:


> Agreed ..... but I was thinking could this difference of thrust can be used to change the direction ? May be someone good in physics can tell it better


Asymmetric thrust in a multi-engine aircraft is never a good thing, even with modern flight control system. The wider the spacing between the engines, the higher the tendency to enter a spin and eventually departure from controlled flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Silicon0000

gambit said:


> There is a difference between a 'dummy' vs a 'training' ordnance.
> 
> A dummy round is completely inert. No warhead, propellant, avionics, and moving parts of any kind. It is literally just balanced mass/weight. The only semi-electrical item on a dummy round is a short that tells the aircraft's weapons management system that there is a missile or bomb at station.
> 
> A training round is slightly different. It contains the seeker/guidance section and functions exactly as a live round would.
> 
> 
> Asymmetric thrust in a multi-engine aircraft is never a good thing, even with modern flight control system. The wider the spacing between the engines, the higher the tendency to enter a spin and eventually departure from controlled flight.



Yes but can that spin be used to change the plane direction spontaneously if controlled properly. I know it's extremely difficult but is it possible?

PS: I am not an expert, just thinking of an idea.


----------



## Cookie Monster

gambit said:


> Asymmetric thrust in a multi-engine aircraft is never a good thing, even with modern flight control system. The wider the spacing between the engines, the higher the tendency to enter a spin and eventually departure from controlled flight.


Can't that be used to gain more maneuverability in the yaw direction?...if the thrust output of each engine can be controlled on the fly then a quick turn(in yaw direction) in a controlled manner can be achieved after which both engines' thrust goes back to being equal.

It would be something like using negative stability for F16 for more maneuverability. Or using TVC(a departure from normal direction of thrust for a relatively short amount of time)...

It can come in really handy for jets using 2D TVC nozzles(like F22) which only gives super maneuverability in pitch and roll. For yaw, the F22 has to rely on its control surfaces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Silicon0000 said:


> Yes but can that spin be used to change the plane direction spontaneously if controlled properly. I know it's extremely difficult but is it possible?
> 
> PS: I am not an expert, just thinking of an idea.


If your wallet have no limits, then eventually you will overcome all technical hurdles.

But the real question is why would you want to use asymmetric thrust to affect a directional change? Under what tactical situation? When I used the word 'tactical', it is not restricted to military situations but also to civilian flying. In flying, you make many tactical decisions such as fuel mixture, trim, altitude, etc. So under what flying condition(s) would a pilot in a multi-engine aircraft use asymmetric thrust to change direction? Jet engines are more responsive than props, so this would force a difference in techniques.

So far, exploitation of aerodynamic forces via flight controls surfaces have proven to be the best method to flight.



Cookie Monster said:


> Can't that be used to gain more maneuverability in the yaw direction?...if the thrust output of each engine can be controlled on the fly then a quick turn(in yaw direction) in a controlled manner can be achieved after which both engines' thrust goes back to being equal.
> 
> It would be something like using negative stability for F16 for more maneuverability. Or using TVC(a departure from normal direction of thrust for a relatively short amount of time)...
> ...just curious


You are talking about designing an entirely new flight controls system architecture.

Here is a high level explanation of 'flight control laws'...

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

This have nothing to do with legalism but about what an aircraft is allowed to do with certain factors.

For example, if I lower the landing gear handle, the flaps/slats systems will actuate. That is one set of flight controls laws. Once there is weight-on-wheels (WOW), spoilers on top of the wings will deploy to kill lift and produce drag. That is another set of flight controls laws.

Currently, we have just managed to deploy thrust vectoring after decades of R/D. The flight controls laws for that must be as transparent as possible to the pilot, meaning the pilot's interactions must be minimal, if not none at all. In this speculation, we need the next level of engine responsiveness and fine grain control before we incorporate asymmetric thrust into the flight controls laws. But yes, the concept is 'do-able'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SME11B

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 518401
> View attachment 518402
> View attachment 518403
> View attachment 518404


Those pl-10 hanging outside like that lessen j-20's stealth and produce drag. Is that design there because it's not a lock on after launch missile?


----------



## siegecrossbow

SME11B said:


> Those pl-10 hanging outside like that lessen j-20's stealth and produce drag. Is that design there because it's not a lock on after launch missile?



I don't think that stealth is much of an issue when the J-20 is ready to use the PL-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ozranger

SME11B said:


> Those pl-10 hanging outside like that lessen j-20's stealth and produce drag. Is that design there because it's not a lock on after launch missile?



The design is trying to avoid the problems F-22 is having, which is launching SRAAMs from inside the weapon bays.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SME11B

siegecrossbow said:


> I don't think that stealth is much of an issue when the J-20 is ready to use the PL-10.


Perhaps not for who it's fighting in the merge but it's in trouble there because it doesn't have a lock on after launch missile and doens't appear to be very agile. Not sure if it has a gun but I'll assume it does. It relies on the traditional methods of dog fighting in that case. And any missile launched on it near of from afar will benefit form the extra signature of those missiles. Does J-20 incorporate any IR stealth? It's engines don't seem very far into the airframe and I haven't heard anything about that. Who knows when ws-15 will come out but it sounds like it's still delayed, I keep hearing mixed messages.



ozranger said:


> The design is trying to avoid the problems F-22 is having, which is launching SRAAMs from inside the weapon bays.


I wasn't aware there were problems with that.


----------



## siegecrossbow

SME11B said:


> Perhaps not for who it's fighting in the merge but it's in trouble there because it doesn't have a lock on after launch missile and doens't appear to be very agile. Not sure if it has a gun but I'll assume it does. It relies on the traditional methods of dog fighting in that case. And any missile launched on it near of from afar will benefit form the extra signature of those missiles. Does J-20 incorporate any IR stealth? It's engines don't seem very far into the airframe and I haven't heard anything about that. Who knows when ws-15 will come out but it sounds like it's still delayed, I keep hearing mixed messages.



I don't know if the PL-10 has lock on after launch missile currently, but I do know that the F-22 doesn't have it (currently) and the F-35 will only be getting the feature in the near future since they still have to carry the AIM-9X on external pylons. Interviews with J-20 pilots as well as the latest video from the Zhuhai Expo seems to indicate that the J-20 is designed with agility in mind, so I don't know what you are basing the "doesn't seem to be very agile" on.

I think what ozranger meant was that there is some disruption to the aerodynamics when the side bays are open.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SME11B

siegecrossbow said:


> I don't know if the PL-10 has lock on after launch missile currently, but I do know that the F-22 doesn't have it (currently) and the F-35 will only be getting the feature in the near future since they still have to carry the AIM-9X on external pylons. Interviews with J-20 pilots as well as the latest video from the Zhuhai Expo seems to indicate that the J-20 is designed with agility in mind, so I don't know what you are basing the "doesn't seem to be very agile" on.
> 
> I think what ozranger meant was that there is some disruption to the aerodynamics when the side bays are open.


What about the helmet sights? Obviously f-35 has one and if I'm not mistaken f-22 will get one soon as it's been made a priority. Does J-20 have one or are they developing one? I question the agility of J-20 because I don't hear much touting of it, it doesn't appear to have thrust vectoring and there haven't been exercises that have been published showcasing it good or bad. It seems to be a design trying to tick off the boxes but it's main strength seems to be range but I don't know what that is either. There just isn't much info on J-20 so making comparisons is hard.


----------



## siegecrossbow

SME11B said:


> What about the helmet sights? Obviously f-35 has one and if I'm not mistaken f-22 will get one soon as it's been made a priority. Does J-20 have one or are they developing one?



PL-10 has off-bore capabilities, so they are definitely developing one if there isn't one already. The Raptor will definitely get one since it received upgrades to use AIM-9X.


----------



## SME11B

siegecrossbow said:


> PL-10 has off-bore capabilities, so they are definitely developing one if there isn't one already. The Raptor will definitely get one since it received upgrades to use AIM-9X.


Sorry I edited my post.


----------



## Type59

When jet first appeared. Certain people were adamant it had no internal weapon bays

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Any idea, where this is?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Any idea, where this is?
> 
> View attachment 518713



Assuming that the picture is recent, we can deduct that it is in southern China since the trees and grass are still green.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Machism said:


> 4 Chinese stealth J-20s fly near Chinese airport
> 
> https://www.sinodefenceforum.com



Oh come on!! Is there a reason to start again this IMO completely irrelevant question??? First as a separate thread, now as a post again and the same at the SDF?? 

YES, there have been four J-20s at Zhuhai yesterday ... what's so special?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Assuming that the picture is recent, we can deduct that it is in southern China since the trees and grass are still green.



allegedly taken at Foshan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Oh come on!! Is there a reason to start again this IMO completely irrelevant question??? First as a separate thread, now as a post again and the same at the SDF??
> 
> YES, there have been four J-20s at Zhuhai yesterday ... what's so special?


He is a troll

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

The video of J-20s on the way to Zhuhai: https://m.weibo.cn/6407434127/4305658134027092



Deino said:


> allegedly taken at Foshan.


They are for Zhuhai Airshow-2018, and one of them is the backup.


----------



## LKJ86

New video of J-20 about the air refueling probe:
https://m.weibo.cn/5293335778/4306003262296001

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 was closing the weapon bays


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 518995



Great workmanship.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## j20blackdragon



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## rcrmj

J-20's main weapon bay has 6 weapon station, but it can only host 4 PL-15 long range (200KM+ effective range) air-to-air missiles````however, there is a new medium range missile that is under development, J-20's main weapon bay can host 6 of them (the new missile's performance is very much like the AIM-120D``)

regarding the new missile, it has already done extensive tests in wind tunel, new seeker, new multi pulse solid rocket engine and new body `````

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

rcrmj said:


> J-20's main weapon bay has 6 weapon station, but it can only host 4 PL-15 long range (200KM+ effective range) air-to-air missiles````however, there is a new medium range missile that is under development, J-20's main weapon bay can host 6 of them (the new missile's performance is very much like the AIM-120D``)
> 
> regarding the new missile, it has already done extensive tests in wind tunel, new seeker, new multi pulse solid rocket engine and new body `````



PL-15 missile is a huge and long missile. It cannot fit into the weapon bay.






J-20 is as agile as J-10. The cockpit is very modern and is different from conventional cockpit of 4th or 4.5th gen cockpit.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> PL-15 missile is a huge and long missile. It cannot fit into the weapon bay.
> 
> ....




Pardon, you mix it with the PL-XX, the one in the J-20's weapon bays is the PL-15 already.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Pardon, you mix it with the PL-XX, the one in the J-20's weapon bays is the PL-15 already.



So far we've only seen J-16 carrying the PL-XX (PL-21?), and since Yang Wei mentioned that "information" is one of the three J-20 attributes they can't demonstrate at an airshow, I wonder if J-20's role in AWAC/tanker interception is to provide guidance for PL-XX fired by the J-16.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SME11B

rcrmj said:


> J-20's main weapon bay has 6 weapon station, but it can only host 4 PL-15 long range (200KM+ effective range) air-to-air missiles````however, there is a new medium range missile that is under development, J-20's main weapon bay can host 6 of them (the new missile's performance is very much like the AIM-120D``)
> 
> regarding the new missile, it has already done extensive tests in wind tunel, new seeker, new multi pulse solid rocket engine and new body `````


I thought pl-15 was their aim-120D competition.


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062360104350044161

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062779588927983618

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

SME11B said:


> I thought pl-15 was their aim-120D competition.


no, its not, PL-15 is long range missile````



Beast said:


> PL-15 missile is a huge and long missile. It cannot fit into the weapon bay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 is as agile as J-10. The cockpit is very modern and is different from conventional cockpit of 4th or 4.5th gen cockpit.


you got all mixed up, the ones showed in J-20's weapon bay at Zhuhai air show were PL-15`````

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

J-20 XXX rod.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

yusheng said:


> View attachment 519412


Are you sure it is J-20's weapon bay?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SME11B

rcrmj said:


> no, its not, PL-15 is long range missile````
> 
> 
> you got all mixed up, the ones showed in J-20's weapon bay at Zhuhai air show were PL-15`````


Aim-120D is also long range. Is the pl-21 the one they are claiming is 300km+?


----------



## rcrmj

SME11B said:


> Aim-120D is also long range. Is the pl-21 the one they are claiming is 300km+?


compared to PL-15's 200km+ effective range, yes, 120D with 150km range is more like a medium plus`````pl-21 flies way more than that 300km in a test against a target````````````

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yusheng

LKJ86 said:


> Are you sure it is J-20's weapon bay?



seems you are sure that is not from J20,
ok, i made a mistake, it is from "H20 byside bay".


----------



## LKJ86

yusheng said:


> seems you are sure that is not from J20,
> ok, i made a mistake, it is from "H20 byside bay".


I am not sure. Maybe it is from F-22???


----------



## 星海军事

LKJ86 said:


> I am not sure. Maybe it is from F-22???


That's right. It'a CAD image of F-22's weapon bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Article by Blitzo from sinodefenceforum. He also has a blog called plarealtalk that I've linked in my signature.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/chinas-air-force-on-the-rise-zhuhai-airshow-2018/



> *J-20 Receives a Proper Showcase*
> 
> A pair of J-20s overflew Zhuhai Airshow 2016 in a brief 60 second debut; however, they did not demonstrate anything close to what the platform was capable of achieving, even when compared to amateur footage of J-20 test flights taken in Chengdu. But during Zhuhai 2018, multiple active service J-20s conducted more comprehensive displays lasting multiple minutes, on multiple days. The J-20 demonstrations started with a three or four ship formation overflight, leading into a series of tight turns and impressive climbs, showcasing arguably the most brisk maneuvers that have ever been observed from the J-20. Videos and photos taken at the scene show some of the best J-20 photos ever taken to date, with impressive vortex and condensation generation effects atop the aircraft in a manner never captured before.





> Some observers and enthusiasts felt the J-10B’s TVC demonstration overshadowed the J-20. However, considering the J-10B was equipped with TVC as well as a powerplant suited to its weight category (whereas J-20s remain relatively underpowered with AL-31s), not to mention likely constraints placed by the PLA on the public performance of its newest air superiority fighter, the J-20’s display was quite impressive. Indeed, after the J-20’s demonstration at Zhuhai this year, one would be rather obtuse to insist the aircraft is a dedicated interceptor or dedicated strike aircraft.
> 
> This nicely segues into revelation of new J-20 information away from the flight display. Some AVIC press conferences and pamphlets provided new details of the J-20 as a project, as well as confirming what has long been speculated about the J-20’s role and performance. An official AVIC pamphlet describes the J-20’s role as one of “seizing and maintaining air superiority” with additional missions including interception and strike, confirming what has been widely speculated about the J-20’s role since the mid-2000s, when it was only known as J-XX among the PLA watching community.
> 
> Another fascinating press conference with J-20 chief designer Yang Wei and the first J-20 test pilot Li Gang provided additional details surrounding the aircraft. Although we have yet to receive pictures of a J-20’s cockpit, Li Gang stated the J-20 uses a side control stick, in a first for a Chinese fighter jet. Extensive collaboration between pilots and designers were involved in the process of developing the aircraft’s cockpit. As expected, statements praising the aircraft’s stealth were also made. But most revealing however, was Li Gang’s statement that the J-20 boasted excellent agility and handling, as good as the J-10. Confirming that the large, stealthy air superiority J-20 fighter can achieve kinematic performance similar to one of the PLA’s most agile fourth generation aircraft using only underpowered interim engines further confirms past speculation that the J-20 was designed to achieve competitive aerodynamic performance even when using interim engines, while awaiting WS-15s.
> 
> A note has to be made of some articles over the last few days suggesting that the J-20 was to attend Zhuhai installed with WS-15 engines, and that mass production of the WS-15 was imminent, in a story dating back a few months. However, in the PLA watching community such claims were considered to be highly erroneous at best, as there have been no credible rumors or pictures of WS-15s even starting tests aboard a J-20, let alone powering in service J-20s for a sufficient period to be displayed at a high profile event like Zhuhai.
> 
> Finally, on the last day of Zhuhai, the J-20 display included a pair of J-20s opening weapons bays to reveal a full loadout of air-to-air training missiles, including two PL-10 short range missiles and four PL-15 beyond visual range missiles. Such openness is unprecedented for the PLA, and even rare for other air forces flying their own stealth fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SME11B

rcrmj said:


> compared to PL-15's 200km+ effective range, yes, 120D with 150km range is more like a medium plus`````pl-21 flies way more than that 300km in a test against a target````````````


I thought most sources put 120D at 160-180km and it is a well tested missile and design with combat experience so I wouldn't take it lightly. Anybody can make a big fat missile with long range but it's the guidance and delivery that count a lot. If "200+km is really like 205km than it seems a bit extreme to put them in separate categories. By that logic J-20 isn't 5th gen because it doesn't measure up to f-22/35 but most would put it in that category.


----------



## waz

Friends how many of the J-20 are currently flying with the WS-15 engine?


----------



## siegecrossbow

waz said:


> Friends how many of the J-20 are currently flying with the WS-15 engine?



Long answer: WS-15 has not yet completed inflight testing and probably won't be ready for mass production until the mid-2020s. As a stop-gag measure, current inservice J-20s are flying modified AL-31FN variants (either 99M1 or a domestically thrust enhanced version, as Yankee suggested) and there is at least one demonstrator flying with WS-10(B/C/G???) engines. The second batch of J-20s will enter mass production with WS-10 and depending on whether there is enough thrust, will probably use the same tvc engine nozzles as those used on J-10B TVC.

Short answer: Zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## waz

siegecrossbow said:


> Long answer: WS-15 has not yet completed inflight testing and probably won't be ready for mass production until the mid-2020s. As a stop-gag measure, current inservice J-20s are flying modified AL-31FN variants (either 99M1 or a domestically thrust enhanced version, as Yankee suggested) and there is at least one demonstrator flying with WS-10(B/C/G???) engines. The second batch of J-20s will enter mass production with WS-10 and depending on whether there is enough thrust, will probably use the same tvc engine nozzles as those used on J-10B TVC.
> 
> Short answer: Zero.



Ah no worries thanks for the information, I was expecting trials would be starting by the end of the year. I can’t wait to see the J-20 fly with the WS-15, as it will be full circle for this great aircraft.


----------



## siegecrossbow

waz said:


> Ah no worries thanks for the information, I was expecting trials would be starting by the end of the year. I can’t wait to see the J-20 fly with the WS-15, as it will be full circle for this great aircraft.



That would be extremely optimistic but I think everyone on this board wishes the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

rcrmj said:


> compared to PL-15's 200km+ effective range, yes, 120D with 150km range is more like a medium plus`````pl-21 flies way more than that 300km in a test against a target````````````


PL-XX/PL-21 against ISR plate forms like AWACS/Tankers/ intelligence/spy plate forms not for fighter jets @rcrmj


----------



## ozranger

Obviously the very long range AAM is too big to fit into J-20's weapon bay.







The most possible use of it is firstly locate an AWACS, Tanker or something alike by satellite, stealth UAV or J-20 and then launch such a missile from a J-16 fighter-bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SME11B

ozranger said:


> Obviously the very long range AAM is too big to fit into J-20's weapon bay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most possible use of it is firstly locate an AWACS, Tanker or something alike by satellite, stealth UAV or J-20 and then launch such a missile from a J-16 fighter-bomber.



A chinese flanker having to get even 400km with that big *** thing hanging off it from one of those protected assets is risky, it will need every km it can get. If it launches at max range it lowers the hit probability also. I imagine the AWACS itself could probably detect it before launch and even if not picket line f-35s would be hundreds of km around tankers or awacs. Even if it was just f-18s that would still be risky. May have to get creative with jamming or diversions or maybe J-20 could do something. Hard to say how likely that would succeed also because we don't know how well j-20 can penetrate that airspace. it would seem to be a threat to take seriously for the US but manageable. Also what stealth UAV are you talking about?


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> A chinese flanker having to get even 400km with that big *** thing hanging off it from one of those protected assets is risky, it will need every km it can get. If it launches at max range it lowers the hit probability also. I imagine the AWACS itself could probably detect it before launch and even if not picket line f-35s would be hundreds of km around tankers or awacs. Even if it was just f-18s that would still be risky. May have to get creative with jamming or diversions or maybe J-20 could do something. Hard to say how likely that would succeed also because we don't know how well j-20 can penetrate that airspace. it would seem to be a threat to take seriously for the US but manageable. Also what stealth UAV are you talking about?


They have also AWACS cover @SME11B


----------



## ozranger

SME11B said:


> A chinese flanker having to get even 400km with that big *** thing hanging off it from one of those protected assets is risky, it will need every km it can get. If it launches at max range it lowers the hit probability also. I imagine the AWACS itself could probably detect it before launch and even if not picket line f-35s would be hundreds of km around tankers or awacs. Even if it was just f-18s that would still be risky. May have to get creative with jamming or diversions or maybe J-20 could do something. Hard to say how likely that would succeed also because we don't know how well j-20 can penetrate that airspace. it would seem to be a threat to take seriously for the US but manageable. Also what stealth UAV are you talking about?



It is actually a ballistic missile with terminal maneuverability. The range is about 800-900km.


----------



## khanasifm

There are three Bvrs medium range sd-10x, a newer longer range and long range which is 200 + km
Range but it’s not meant for fighter but against strategic targets such as refueler and awacs


----------



## LKJ86

khanasifm said:


> There are three Bvrs medium range sd-10x, a newer longer range and long range which is 200 + km
> Range but it’s not meant for fighter but against strategic targets such as refueler and awacs


SD-10/PL-12 is not for J-20.
The range of PL-15 is about 200km.
A newer one is smaller than PL-15 in size.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## serenity

J-20 has already got a thinner missile with almost same range as PL-15. 6 total fit inside weapon bay. Was not shown in airshow. Officials considered too much to show everything and cause more need for worry and other countries make it seem like China is a big threat. These missiles have long time been developed along PL-15. The clue in J-20 is the third middle attachment mechanisms inside bay between the two PL-15. This new missile is purpose designed around PL-15 to fit inside J-20. I'm not sure if the missile fins are extracted or folded but Chinese sources have suggested 6 total can fit so maybe the fins managed either retracted inside a little or they are folded and unfold when ejected from bays. They are not developing this. It is already armed a while ago.

PL-XX long range and PL-21 cannot fit inside J-20. J-20 bays are not very long and missiles cannot be in front of each other like in F-22. At the moment the guys said the solid and liquid fuel technology is not USA level to make missiles small and thin for this kind of range they want. So for now, only 6 missiles even though J-20's bays are wide. They say PL-15 has much better probability for hit at end of its range than older missiles like PL-12. This is because it has a new rocket engine that can decide when to lower thrust and increase thrust at end to give boost in energy.


----------



## SME11B

pakistanipower said:


> They have also AWACS cover @SME11B


E2D hawkeye?



ozranger said:


> It is actually a ballistic missile with terminal maneuverability. The range is about 800-900km.


Ok well that has another group of countermeasures.


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> E2D hawkeye?


KJ-2000/KJ-600 @SME11B

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SME11B

pakistanipower said:


> KJ-2000/KJ-600 @SME11B


AWACS are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the Age of 5th gen fighters. They have very capable sensors, can get much closer to make up for whatever sensor power they lack and have the weapons to do something about it. AWACS can't seem to help opfor take down f-22's in exercises like red flag.


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> AWACS are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the Age of 5th gen fighters. They have very capable sensors, can get much closer to make up for whatever sensor power they lack and have the weapons to do something about it. AWACS can't seem to help opfor take down f-22's in exercises like red flag.


J-20 can J-16/J-11 can guide VLRAAM through AWACS without getting close to the target @SME11B

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> KJ-2000/KJ-600 @SME11B


KJ-200, KJ-500, and KJ-2000.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

pakistanipower said:


> J-20 can J-16/J-11 can guide VLRAAM through AWACS without getting close to the target @SME11B



Need help from massive satellite sensor network, like what we can see on the Chinese Jilin-1 constellation but can capture wider spectrum of signals,






and data relays. The data refresh rate must be high enough. The missile is for hitting slow targets. J-20 and/or stealth UAVs like CAC Wind Shadow upload target coordinates to satellites. Satellites execute data fusion with inputs from other sensor satellites and the missile downloads real-time target information during the flight. The missile will have an imaging seeker for approaching the target after being directed to somewhere close to it by the data link.

The missile is a ballistic missile and will climb up to near space after the launch. Then it will fly a hypersonic glide to approach the target.

The sensor satellites can use swing cameras or radars to trace the target in a given area. A constellation can ensure high data refresh rate in a limited size of area.






Just look at the video, an AWACS or a tanker can not be faster than a rocket, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

View attachment 520473
View attachment 520476
View attachment 520478
View attachment 520481

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SME11B

pakistanipower said:


> J-20 can J-16/J-11 can guide VLRAAM through AWACS without getting close to the target @SME11B


I'm saying that with an unstealthy flanker and f-35's patrolling 400km is cutting it close.


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> I'm saying that with an unstealthy flanker and f-35's patrolling 400km is cutting it close.


Sorry, what do you mean, idon't understand???? @SME11B


----------



## SQ8

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> View attachment 520465
> View attachment 520466
> View attachment 520467
> View attachment 520468
> View attachment 520469
> View attachment 520470
> View attachment 520471
> View attachment 520472
> View attachment 520473
> View attachment 520476
> View attachment 520478
> View attachment 520481


The cost difference comes from labor costs, material costs(todays cost for same materials used on the J-20 are much lower than similar materials for the F-22 15-18 years ago) and possible economies of scale.


----------



## SME11B

pakistanipower said:


> Sorry, what do you mean, idon't understand???? @SME11B


When you aren't stealthy ship radars, ground based radars and airborne radars see you from hundreds of kms. Its about the radar horizon as the limiting factor. If it is not emitting any signals to pick up and track it will stand a better chance the what I said before still applies. If f-35s are patrolling They can scan for hundreds of kms and not be seen so they control the engagement. One f-35 could chose to go active and scan and pick up contacts and risk giving away either that there is a fighter scanning or more info but then tipping off the others. The flankers can't do that against f-35. they would probably be hundreds of kms in front of a tanker or awacs and scan hundreds of kms further. If the flanker spots the target it is most likely it was spotted long ago and either being watched or about to be ambushed. Even launching at max range say 400km the awac might be able to detect the fighter or be warned by the escort f-35s or f-18s and then it becomes tail chase. Which means now the flanker needs to get closer and fly farther into enemy airspace. There is no reason f-35 should lose on paper. It can move about more or less free from detection and set up shots or coordinate others. Also how is the flanker getting target coordinates with it's radar off? If it switches on it becomes even more detectable if by luck it wasn't detected already. F-35's DAS is designed to track missiles from far off and trace their origin so other sensors can find the shooter. All I know about it's range is a ballistic missile or target was tracked by it 800 miles away. A lot of details aren't known but a big missile like that could probably be picked up by DAS alone from pretty long range. It would be tough to get in the area undetected, harder to get a max range shot, and even harder to get a closer shot more likely to hit and make it back.



LKJ86 said:


> KJ-200, KJ-500, and KJ-2000.


How will those defend against f-35?


----------



## LKJ86

SME11B said:


> How will those defend against f-35?


Why are you so confident in the "small" radar of a fighter aircraft, compared with AWACS?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SME11B

LKJ86 said:


> Why are you so confident in the "small" radar of a fighter aircraft, compared with AWACS?


Apg-81 is somewhat small but powerful and has lpi features making it harder to detect and indentify. I see figures anywhere from 150km against a 1m2 target to 400km but that would have to be in a narrow search beam. I think 200km+ is more realistic and for a larger rcs of a flanker with external stores and a big *** pl-21 hanging out there I would say 300km easily. It will see much farther than aim-120d can reach but that gives plenty of time to get into position, finish identifying or passing info and so on. APG-81 is also said to have very good electronic warfare but a lot of that is classified and it probably doesn't go much beyond X band but even that I am not sure of. I don't know the radar performance of j-10-11-15-16-20.


----------



## Beast

SME11B said:


> I don't know the radar performance of j-10-11-15-16-20.


Then how can u make a sweeping statement?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> When you aren't stealthy ship radars, ground based radars and airborne radars see you from hundreds of kms. Its about the radar horizon as the limiting factor. If it is not emitting any signals to pick up and track it will stand a better chance the what I said before still applies. If f-35s are patrolling They can scan for hundreds of kms and not be seen so they control the engagement. One f-35 could chose to go active and scan and pick up contacts and risk giving away either that there is a fighter scanning or more info but then tipping off the others. The flankers can't do that against f-35. they would probably be hundreds of kms in front of a tanker or awacs and scan hundreds of kms further. If the flanker spots the target it is most likely it was spotted long ago and either being watched or about to be ambushed. Even launching at max range say 400km the awac might be able to detect the fighter or be warned by the escort f-35s or f-18s and then it becomes tail chase. Which means now the flanker needs to get closer and fly farther into enemy airspace. There is no reason f-35 should lose on paper. It can move about more or less free from detection and set up shots or coordinate others. Also how is the flanker getting target coordinates with it's radar off? If it switches on it becomes even more detectable if by luck it wasn't detected already. F-35's DAS is designed to track missiles from far off and trace their origin so other sensors can find the shooter. All I know about it's range is a ballistic missile or target was tracked by it 800 miles away. A lot of details aren't known but a big missile like that could probably be picked up by DAS alone from pretty long range. It would be tough to get in the area undetected, harder to get a max range shot, and even harder to get a closer shot more likely to hit and make it back.


I am talking about VLRAAM Fired by J-11 series of jets against enemy's tankers/AWACS and other ISR plate-forms @SME11B


----------



## LKJ86

SME11B said:


> Apg-81 is somewhat small but powerful and has lpi features making it harder to detect and indentify. I see figures anywhere from 150km against a 1m2 target to 400km but that would have to be in a narrow search beam. I think 200km+ is more realistic and for a larger rcs of a flanker with external stores and a big *** pl-21 hanging out there I would say 300km easily. It will see much farther than aim-120d can reach but that gives plenty of time to get into position, finish identifying or passing info and so on. APG-81 is also said to have very good electronic warfare but a lot of that is classified and it probably doesn't go much beyond X band but even that I am not sure of. I don't know the radar performance of j-10-11-15-16-20.


If so, will USA cancel E-3 and E-2D?


----------



## Dazzler

Refuelling probe..


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062383422793019392


----------



## SME11B

Beast said:


> Then how can u make a sweeping statement?


I just did, I used safe assumptions based on well known unclassified data. Are you saying there is evidence the analysis is unfounded? What specifically do you doubt? Lets say i'll be a fanboy and put quantum in front of it and say it's superior to US radar. Unless they are far better or use some kind of new tech that breaks the old rules just about all of what I said would still apply because if it uses that super powerful radar it's more likely to be detected and even if it can target something at that missiles max range and even if it uses their party target data it is still a big easy to detect target. I have seen nothing to suggest chinese radars are close to catching up at this time and are probably closer to russian radars. That's my guess.



pakistanipower said:


> I am talking about VLRAAM Fired by J-11 series of jets against enemy's tankers/AWACS and other ISR plate-forms @SME11B


Yea, I know that's what I've been talking about. You think they will just be flying around alone?



LKJ86 said:


> If so, will USA cancel E-3 and E-2D?


No plans yet that I have heard but as AWACS capabilities are being increasingly taken over by 5th gen fighters and those big slow target planes start to have limited use in high end situations. They still have uses now and until another 5th gen shows up they can keep up their traditional role more or less but the trends seem clear. I don't see much plans for an awacs successor either. Those plans will be around for years more but in this most high end scenario they are vulnerable and need escorts.


----------



## gambit

SME11B said:


> No plans yet that I have heard but as AWACS capabilities are being increasingly taken over by 5th gen fighters and those big slow target planes start to have limited use in high end situations.


Not likely.

An AWACS is a wide area immediate intelligence platform for both ground and air. The radar antenna size carried by these large platforms made that intelligence gathering possible. Any fighter can use its radar and communication to gather and relay what it sees. When I was active duty, we did not have Link-16 or anything like it. We had to read the scope, key the mic, and voice what we see. Today, Link-16 and assorted data relay methods just made that process quicker and more secured, but does nothing to the reduced radar information the fighter sees. A fighter can be more focused to a particular ground or air region. But in no way does that mean any 5th-gen fighter can replace what the AWACS can do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

Amazing climbs show J-20's high energy sustainability.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 521226



That's a PSed photo.


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

yusheng said:


> View attachment 521248


PSed.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> If so, will USA cancel E-3 and E-2D?


According to @SME11B , the answer is yes


----------



## SME11B

Figaro said:


> According to @SME11B , the answer is yes


That's not what I said, you can go back and reread. I said trends seem to point to traditional AWACS being less useful in a high end setting but I also said they would be around for years and that there is no known program for replacement. Also 5th gen capabilities have been described as a "mini awacs". These are facts friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

J-31 numbered as 911 along with refuelling Y- 20 ！

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Accountant

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> J-31 numbered as 911 along with refuelling Y- 20 ！


Is it a real pic ? J31 cant be that big


----------



## Deino

Oh please .... this is nothing more than a what if CG !!! An nice one but not really realistic.

And even more it is off-topic: It shows a Y-20U with a boom - that still not exist - on a FC-31 - which is not the topic - being refuelled via boom, which is also not yet possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SME11B

Deino said:


> View attachment 522407


Is it possible for j-20 to carry more than 4 missiles in the main bay?


----------



## ILC

SME11B said:


> Is it possible for j-20 to carry more than 4 missiles in the main bay?


It will be 6, when the development of the new missile is completed.


----------



## SME11B

ILC said:


> It will be 6, when the development of the new missile is completed.


What missile is that?


----------



## Beast

ILC said:


> It will be 6, when the development of the new missile is completed.


Even currently, it can carry 6 (PL-15) inside the main weapon. The J-20 display their main weapon bay purposely, leave out the center pylon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Even currently, it can carry 6 (PL-15) inside the main weapon. The J-20 display their main weapon bay purposely, leave out the center pylon.




Nope ... all analysis agree: 6 PL-12 may fit, but 6 PL-15 never.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## siegecrossbow

My translation of the Xinhua interview with Li Gang (link below). Feel free to suggest and comment.

http://www.xinhuanet.com//mil/2018-11/08/c_129988418.htm



> At the 12th Zhuhai airshow, the stunning debut of three aircraft formation of J-20s with "new paint, new formation, and new appearance" is undoubtedly the greatest "Easter Egg" offered by the airshow.
> 
> From the one minute glimpse of its two aircraft formation at the last airshow till the blazing climax of this year's three aircraft formation, J-20 has kept the general audience full of anticipation throughout. On November 7th, PLAAF's "Golden Medal of Honor for Meritorious Pilots" winner and J-20's test pilot on its maiden flight, Li Gang, accepted an interview from Xinhua journalists and provided a detailed account of the behind the scenes stories of J-20's test flights.
> 
> *The takeoff time of J-20's successful maiden flight: there are exactly eight "ones" by coincidence*
> 
> January 11th, 2011, China's J-20 stealth fighter successfully flew for the first time in Chengdu. As China's first generation stealth fighter, J-20 not only initiated PLAAF's "Era of 20s", but also announced the arrival of its "Era of Stealth".
> 
> Even to this day, Li Gang has difficulties concealing his excitement when recalling that moment seven years ago. "As a test pilot," he said, "it is a tremendous fortune to test fly J-20's demonstrator on its maiden flight."
> 
> On 1:11PM, January 11th, 2011, Li Gang took off successfully.
> 
> "There are exactly eight 'ones' in the time of takeoff!" Li Gang said. He added that the takeoff time was just a coincidence. The first flight was originally scheduled for the 7th but was delayed till the 11th due to inclement weather in Chengdu.
> 
> Although Li Gang technically took off on 13:11 that day, Li Gang --- as a soldier --- prefers to interpret the time of this historic moment as 1:11 in the afternoon because there are exactly eight "ones" coincidentally. "[It makes me] feel proud." said Li Gang.
> 
> *China's most surreal fighter plane: "information before your eyes, control at your finger tips"*
> 
> When asked about J-20's piloting experience, Li Gang described it using a (two characters in Chinese) word that left infinite room for imagination: "Surreal!"
> 
> J-20's cockpit is not only spacious and neat but is also reasonably configured, making the piloting experience extremely comfortable. Li Gang refers to it as China's most "surreal fighter" by far.
> 
> "Everyone who has seen J-20's cockpit will exclaim: so neatly organized, so few electrical switches!" Li Gang said. He also stated that every switch in J-20's cockpit, soft or hard, feels extremely modern.
> 
> Li Gang said that one can figure out the purpose of every electrical switch in J-20's cockpit just by glancing at it; during night time flights, one can figure out the purpose of a switch just by touching it -- a very good error-proofing design. "Controlling the plane is like playing games on our phones, and the time from target detection to missile launch is very fast."
> 
> One pilot once described the experience of piloting the J-20 as "integrated LCD display and simple electrical switches truly realized the goal of 'information before your eyes, control at your finger tips'".
> 
> "Maybe many thing from science fiction are being realized through technology." Li Gang said.
> 
> *Cockpit layout: a cockpit "drawn" by test pilots on the blueprints*
> 
> Li Gang said that cockpit layout is very important for an aircraft. J-20's cockpit design is described by Li Gang as "[a pilot's] best office", and the key to its success is the in-depth participation of the test flight team under the leadership of Yang Wei --- J-20's chief designer and academician of the China Science Academy.
> 
> "Yang Wei sent us a lot of empty cockpit diagrams along with smaller cutouts of electrical switches. He let us to experience for ourselves by putting the pasting the corresponding switch cutout on what we think is a reasonable location." Li Gang added that if everyone pasted [the switch] on the same location, it means that the opinions agree; it not, the pilots will discuss the differences in a meeting.
> 
> There were at least five rounds of such meetings under Li Gang's impression. "In the end, every cockpit layout is a result of compromise."
> 
> From every blue prints drawn by the test flight team, to the wooden cockpit, then to the metal cockpit... The repeated collaborations between the designer and test pilots, as well as excessive attention lavished on even the most tiny of details, finally resulted in China's most scifi looking fighter jet cockpit.
> 
> *Design concept: agility matching that of the J-10, first use of side-stick controller*
> 
> As China's first stealth fighter, the J-20's maneuverability is inevitably compared with that of a "renowned fighter" from the previous generation, the J-10.
> 
> Li Gang said that due to the need for stealth, J-20's aerodynamic layout is far more complex than that of convention airplanes. The J-20, due to the unremitting efforts of the design team, is equipped with excellent agility and controllability virtually indistinguishable from those of the J-10.
> 
> During the flight display at Zhuhai on the 6th, a formation of three J-20s drew streaks of silvery vapors against the background of a starkly blue sky, earning both attention and tears alike from enraptured audiences; the agility displayed goes without saying.
> 
> "J-20's cockpit also employs a side control stick, a first in the history of Chinese combat aircraft." Li Gang introduced that there are three advantages to this design: superior field of view for the pilot, enhanced agility for the aircraft, and benefits for flying under high-g conditions.
> 
> Of course, as China's first stealth fighter, J-20's stealth capability is still the one capability that attracts the most external attentions. "[J-20's] stealth capability is very good." Li Gang said. He also stated stealth capability is crucial to the combat applications of a fighter aircraft.
> 
> *From demonstrator to equipping the combat force: several thousand test flights*
> 
> "It is very difficult for a plane to enter service since there are several thousand flights in between." Li Gang introduced that from the first flight of the J-20 demonstrator in 2011, to the prototype that first flew in 2014, and then the equipment of combat troops early this year, the J-20 underwent the entire process from maiden flight to technological verification and finally combat deployment within the span of seven years.
> 
> Ever since 2011, Li Gang has occupied the role of J-20's principal technical model owner in the Airforce Flight Testing Bureau and led the team to complete the tasks of J-20's experimentations.
> 
> "Many of J-20's new technologies are used for the first time by our country." Li Gang said. "I am extremely proud of the fact that we accomplished such a vast quantity of test flight tasks and allowed the J-20 to quickly equip the military and achieve IOC within a few short years."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

CG

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Cybernetics



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ozranger

Re-edited and recomposed J-20 agility display in Zhuhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 55100864

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> View attachment 520465


I’m not convinced that the J20 only cost 1/3 of F22, the so called cheap labor is insignificant and a myth, I expect some subsystem of the J20 cost even more than the F22 equivalent, but I believe the operation & maintenance cost of J20 is much lower.


----------



## UKBengali

55100864 said:


> I’m not convinced that the J20 only cost 1/3 of F22, the so called cheap labor is insignificant and a myth, I expect some subsystem of the J20 cost even more than the F22 equivalent, but I believe the operation & maintenance cost of J20 is much lower.




With the F-22, they included the development cost which was more than the cost of production as less than 200 was ever built.
Think the "flyaway" cost of the F-22 was around 130 million US dollars by 2010, which would be around 160-170 million dollars in today's money.
If the J-20 really costs 110-120 million US dollars to manufacture each plane, then it would be good value for money.


----------



## Brainsucker

UKBengali said:


> With the F-22, they included the development cost which was more than the cost of production as less than 200 was ever built.
> Think the "flyaway" cost of the F-22 was around 130 million US dollars by 2010, which would be around 160-170 million dollars in today's money.
> If the J-20 really costs 110-120 million US dollars to manufacture each plane, then it would be good value for money.



I thought J-20 was only around 70 million US, as there was an article about it long time ago. So it costs 110-120?


----------



## SME11B

UKBengali said:


> With the F-22, they included the development cost which was more than the cost of production as less than 200 was ever built.
> Think the "flyaway" cost of the F-22 was around 130 million US dollars by 2010, which would be around 160-170 million dollars in today's money.
> If the J-20 really costs 110-120 million US dollars to manufacture each plane, then it would be good value for money.


*Isn't the cost of J-20 still going up? There are many issues some of them major from what I have read so R&D costs are still being added.*


----------



## UKBengali

SME11B said:


> *Isn't the cost of J-20 still going up? There are many issues some of them major from what I have read so R&D costs are still being added.*



Think the one major R&D cost to be added is the WS-15 engine.


----------



## SME11B

UKBengali said:


> Think the one major R&D cost to be added is the WS-15 engine.


*Still pretty sure we are talking about billions added before the finished product.*


----------



## Brainsucker

UKBengali said:


> Think the one major R&D cost to be added is the WS-15 engine.



I don't think that WS-15 R&D cost will only be put into J-20 cost. Because that engine can also be put into another Chinese Fighters. Like maybe the future J-10 will adopt WS-15 instead of WS-10 like now. Or maybe the next generation PLANAF Naval Aircraft engine? Or perhaps the next generation of Flanker engine. Who know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

SME11B said:


> *Isn't the cost of J-20 still going up? There are many issues some of them major from what I have read so R&D costs are still being added.*


From where you know about those many issues?


----------



## SME11B

ozranger said:


> From where you know about those many issues?


*SCMP posts some articles among others. Listed issues include stealth, the IRST, and some others but the engines seem to get the most publicity. I don't see how all that can be fixed and the design altered without additional billions.*


----------



## Figaro

SME11B said:


> *SCMP posts some articles among others. Listed issues include stealth, the IRST, and some others but the engines seem to get the most publicity. I don't see how all that can be fixed and the design altered without additional billions.*


SCMP is not a reliable source I’m afraid


----------



## lcloo

SCMP is not only unreliable, it is one of the worst and unprofessional military article reporting, especially from the now famous Minnie Chan (for mis-information).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SME11B

Figaro said:


> SCMP is not a reliable source I’m afraid


What is? Either way they are still working on something so that doesn't change my original point.


----------



## Han Patriot

lcloo said:


> SCMP is not only unreliable, it is one of the worst and unprofessional military article reporting, especially from the now famous Minnie Chan (for mis-information).


Mr. India learns from Minnie? Great.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yukihime

On twitter Minnie chan n her small number of brainless fans are just animals exhibited in the zoo now, being laughed at by hundreds of thousand passengers everyday...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

SME11B said:


> What is? Either way they are still working on something so that doesn't change my original point.



Why do you think so? Really, NO-one takes her seriously, not anyone with the slightest understanding or knowledge. Her reports are not only utterly wrong and misleading, she mixes the simplest facts or get them wrong and always refers to an "unnamed insider".

At the SDF one well respected member even joked this "unnamed insider" might be Andrey Chang. 

So in essence: forget and to keep insisting on any of her strange thoughts as a hint there might be something wrong only makes a fool out of you.


----------



## ozranger

SME11B said:


> *SCMP posts some articles among others. Listed issues include stealth, the IRST, and some others but the engines seem to get the most publicity. I don't see how all that can be fixed and the design altered without additional billions.*



SCMP has no reliable sources. So they just lie. Unfortunately their made-up stories look so fake that I think they should consider firing those on the writing role as those employees are so incompetent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd

SME11B said:


> SCMP posts some articles among others. Listed issues include stealth, the IRST, and some others but the engines seem to get the most publicity. I don't see how all that can be fixed and the design altered without additional billions.



You better educate yourself properly and quickly before you post anything about CHN again. 
Otherwise, you make yourself acting like an outdated small time dimwit. 
Quickly learn about today Communist PRC and open your EYES Wide and Clear.

~ Learn how CHN has already significantly SURPASSED Americun in 
Hypersonic, Quantum tech, and EXASCALE Supercomputing.


----------



## Deino

OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd said:


> You better educate yourself properly and quickly before you post anything about CHN again.
> Otherwise, you make yourself acting like an outdated small time dimwit.
> Quickly learn about today Communist PRC and open your EYES Wide and Clear.
> 
> ~ Learn how CHN has already significantly SURPASSED Americun in
> Hypersonic, Quantum tech, and EXASCALE Supercomputing.



Not entirely in agreement - China made surely some impressive achievements - but concerning "surpassing the USA" I would be very, very careful.

Even more however again I'm concerned by your tone; so again: Calm down in the way you post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

via by78/SDF:



> The caption in the upper right is in the form of a conversation between two individuals, which I will translate below:
> 
> 
> 
> Unnamed person, "Mr. Wang, Chrysanthemums (engines) are all lined up, we are going to be busy around the end of the year."
> 
> Mr. Wang replies, “Oh it's nothing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not certain what these engines are, probably WS10 variant(s)?
> 
> Based on the drawings, what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

The engines don't have the serrated nozzles of the WS-10B nor are they the thrust-vectoring variant seen on the J-10B at Zhuhai. Looks to be standard AL-31s, nothing to get too excited about. Could just mean that more J-20 airframes are rolling off the line.


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> The engines don't have the serrated nozzles of the WS-10B nor are they the thrust-vectoring variant seen on the J-10B at Zhuhai. Looks to be standard AL-31s, nothing to get too excited about. Could just mean that more J-20 airframes are rolling off the line.


Standard AL-31 would not be noteworthy for this cartoon ... the focus here seems to be on engines

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Delete...


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> via by78/SDF:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 524776



Based on the conversation, I am 100% sure that the unnamed person is a member of the fair sex.


----------



## Brainsucker

Figaro said:


> Standard AL-31 would not be noteworthy for this cartoon ... the focus here seems to be on engines



Or maybe that the availability of the engines make the number of J-20 production increase?


----------



## 帅的一匹

55100864 said:


> I’m not convinced that the J20 only cost 1/3 of F22, the so called cheap labor is insignificant and a myth, I expect some subsystem of the J20 cost even more than the F22 equivalent, but I believe the operation & maintenance cost of J20 is much lower.


There is no term called cheap labor when it comes to high end technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SME11B

OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd said:


> You better educate yourself properly and quickly before you post anything about CHN again.
> Otherwise, you make yourself acting like an outdated small time dimwit.
> Quickly learn about today Communist PRC and open your EYES Wide and Clear.
> 
> ~ Learn how CHN has already significantly SURPASSED Americun in
> Hypersonic, Quantum tech, and EXASCALE Supercomputing.



The government is tight lipped, the contractors aren't saying much and there is plenty of reason to believe j-20 is not finished yet so why is it so ridiculous to at least bring up claims? It's not like they sound outlandish, is the some sort of wrong think? Communist prc are under tariffs and at the rate they are going maybe sanctions. China has not been confirmed to have surpassed in any other those save the hypersonic glide vehicle that is basically a modified mirv warhead. The supercomputing race jumps back and forth I just read somewhere that the US has the fastest supercomputer again what whatever that's worth. Not sure what you are trying to get across but I don't just believe government propaganda and I won't be put in a camp for it here.


----------



## Maxpane

Informative discussion about j 20


----------



## Figaro

SME11B said:


> The government is tight lipped, the contractors aren't saying much and there is plenty of reason to believe j-20 is not finished yet so why is it so ridiculous to at least bring up claims? It's not like they sound outlandish, is the some sort of wrong think? Communist prc are under tariffs and at the rate they are going maybe sanctions. China has not been confirmed to have surpassed in any other those save the hypersonic glide vehicle that is basically a modified mirv warhead. The supercomputing race jumps back and forth I just read somewhere that the US has the fastest supercomputer again what whatever that's worth. Not sure what you are trying to get across but I don't just believe government propaganda and I won't be put in a camp for it here.


It's not just government propaganda. These claims have been stated by Western media as well. Sure NYT is not a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party right? 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/technology/quantum-encryption.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SME11B

Figaro said:


> It's not just government propaganda. These claims have been stated by Western media as well. Sure NYT is not a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party right?
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/technology/quantum-encryption.html



Actually I am not so sure. Our media are communist sympathizers and are notorious for low quality across the board. The nytimes to my knowledge does not have the most unbiased reputation. I read the article and like so many other things we'll see.


----------



## cirr

Figaro said:


> Standard AL-31 would not be noteworthy for this cartoon ... the focus here seems to be on engines



"AL31FN-SEP3" with indigenous 3rd-generation single-crystal blade for higher turbine inlet temperature

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

SME11B said:


> The government is tight lipped, the contractors aren't saying much and there is plenty of reason to believe j-20 is not finished yet so why is it so ridiculous to at least bring up claims? It's not like they sound outlandish, is the some sort of wrong think? Communist prc are under tariffs and at the rate they are going maybe sanctions. China has not been confirmed to have surpassed in any other those save the hypersonic glide vehicle that is basically a modified mirv warhead. The supercomputing race jumps back and forth I just read somewhere that the US has the fastest supercomputer again what whatever that's worth. Not sure what you are trying to get across but I don't just believe government propaganda and I won't be put in a camp for it here.



Oh come on !!

It's one thing to say a fighter that is just in operational service for two years with not the final engines "is not finished yet" - that is something no-one denies or questions - or to take a proven utterly wrong, misleading and plain stupid source (aka SCMP) as proof there is something wrong.  

Just take a look, you can find nearly in each of Minnie's reports mistakes not even the dumbest member here would do...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

cirr said:


> "AL31FN-SEP3" with indigenous 3rd-generation single-crystal blade for higher turbine inlet temperature


In fact the whole engine is made in China despite being AL-31FN series.


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> In fact the whole engine is made in China despite being AL-31FN series.


How does that make sense it China hasn't received an export license from Russia?


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> How does that make sense it China hasn't received an export license from Russia?


How does it make sense when China flanker fleet are growing and old engine needs to be replace while no need order of AL-31 engines from Russia more than 3 years ago? Where do the new engines come from?

Do you really think China need license from Russia to do anything as long as China has the know how?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

China carried out an excercise where they pitted their j20 agaist their 3 rd generation plane. J20 scored 3.5:1 kill ratio. F22 has the same 100:1 kill ratio.


----------



## Deino

HariPrasad said:


> China carried out an excercise where they pitted their j20 agaist their 3 rd generation plane. J20 scored 3.5:1 kill ratio. F22 has the same 100:1 kill ratio.



Please mention the source and conditions under which allegedly these results were achieved!

Otherwise I think it's difficult or even impossible to compare anything.


----------



## Figaro

HariPrasad said:


> China carried out an excercise where they pitted their j20 agaist their 3 rd generation plane. J20 scored 3.5:1 kill ratio. F22 has the same 100:1 kill ratio.


Where is your source? So far I've only heard of a 10:0 kill ratio for the J-20 in exercises against the J-10, J-11, and Su-30


----------



## HariPrasad

On PDF itself. Please search.


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> How does it make sense when China flanker fleet are growing and old engine needs to be replace while no need order of AL-31 engines from Russia more than 3 years ago? Where do the new engines come from?
> 
> Do you really think China need license from Russia to do anything as long as China has the know how?


If the Chinese have the know how, then they wouldn't need to reverse engineer a Russian engine. They would place the resources into the WS-10


----------



## Deino

HariPrasad said:


> On PDF itself. Please search.



Oh come on?? There are hundreds of links, thousands of sometimes strange statements in this thread and now you quote something - in order to diminish the type's performance - without giving the source nor the number of aircrafts involved, mention no rules of engagements, just nothing? ... and then tell me to search on my own?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> If the Chinese have the know how, then they wouldn't need to reverse engineer a Russian engine. They would place the resources into the WS-10


 
AL-31 and WS-10 engines are 2 different design. AL-31 series may have more room for improvement due to backward of metallurgy like fan blade. Chinese improve on it and upgrade it. Plus it's good to have competition for a single area of products.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

Deino said:


> Oh come on?? There are hundreds of links, thousands of sometimes strange statements in this thread and now you quote something - in order to diminish the type's performance - without giving the source nor the number of aircrafts involved, mention no rules of engagements, just nothing? ... and then tell me to search on my own?



It is a thread posted by me.


----------



## Deino

HariPrasad said:


> It is a thread posted by me.




Then give the link if you know it or shut up.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

HariPrasad said:


> On PDF itself. Please search.



Can you provide a link?


----------



## Figaro

HariPrasad said:


> It is a thread posted by me.


So you are the source? How reliable


----------



## SME11B

Deino said:


> Oh come on !!
> 
> It's one thing to say a fighter that is just in operational service for two years with not the final engines "is not finished yet" - that is something no-one denies or questions - or to take a proven utterly wrong, misleading and plain stupid source (aka SCMP) as proof there is something wrong.
> 
> Just take a look, you can find nearly in each of Minnie's reports mistakes not even the dumbest member here would do...



Not really, I see articles everywhere talking about the "operational J-20". I take what I can get, seeing as there isn't much else other than rando's on the internet. I didn't even say it was a good source so why so sore about it? I don't follow them close enough to even know who Minnie is that is a mouse to me. Which source is the obvious one I should have brought up?



Beast said:


> How does it make sense when China flanker fleet are growing and old engine needs to be replace while no need order of AL-31 engines from Russia more than 3 years ago? Where do the new engines come from?
> 
> Do you really think China need license from Russia to do anything as long as China has the know how?



They can piss russia off by copying their design flagrantly then trying to sell it. That middle kingdom lawless attitude is already biting china in the *** as of late. What is the reason for the su-35 purchase? It was probably for the engines to help with j-20 but do you think anything else was coveted?



HariPrasad said:


> China carried out an excercise where they pitted their j20 agaist their 3 rd generation plane. J20 scored 3.5:1 kill ratio. F22 has the same 100:1 kill ratio.



How is a 3.5 to 1 ratio the same as over 100 to one?


----------



## HariPrasad

SME11B said:


> Not really, I see articles everywhere talking about the "operational J-20". I take what I can get, seeing as there isn't much else other than rando's on the internet. I didn't even say it was a good source so why so sore about it? I don't follow them close enough to even know who Minnie is that is a mouse to me. Which source is the obvious one I should have brought up?
> 
> 
> 
> They can piss russia off by copying their design flagrantly then trying to sell it. That middle kingdom lawless attitude is already biting china in the *** as of late. What is the reason for the su-35 purchase? It was probably for the engines to help with j-20 but do you think anything else was coveted?
> 
> 
> 
> How is a 3.5 to 1 ratio the same as over 100 to one?


 Who says they are same?


----------



## SME11B

HariPrasad said:


> Who says they are same?



You did. You said f-22 has the same ratio. Where is the link to this exercise?


----------



## HariPrasad

SME11B said:


> You did. You said f-22 has the same ratio. Where is the link to this exercise?



I said F22 has 100:1 agaonst 3.5:1 of chinese j20.


----------



## Beast

SME11B said:


> They can piss russia off by copying their design flagrantly then trying to sell it. That middle kingdom lawless attitude is already biting china in the *** as of late. What is the reason for the su-35 purchase? It was probably for the engines to help with j-20 but do you think anything else was coveted?



Yes yes, only Chinese copy... Russian, American don't. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articl...try-was-woven-from-intellectual-espionage.amp

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SME11B

Beast said:


> Yes yes, only Chinese copy... Russian, American don't.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4
> 
> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articl...try-was-woven-from-intellectual-espionage.amp



You have to go back to the 1700s I see quite telling. We are flattered that you think our designs and way of doing things is the best. Now if you would take our governance model you would be golden. The russians were not as good at stealing tech as the chinese have been in recent years. Times are changing and it won't be business as usual anymore so everyone will have to adapt tactics. Bringing things back to j-20, J-20 should have been called the sneaky snake. I say that because its best chance is to dart forward toward some strategic target and launch as far as possible and run. It may be stealthy enough for that to be a viable tactic but I don't think it is intended to confront f-22/35 directly.


----------



## Beast

SME11B said:


> You have to go back to the 1700s I see quite telling. We are flattered that you think our designs and way of doing things is the best.


Why? Does it matter? If You killed somebody 200 years ago and after that it will not make u a murderer now?

Or maybe went out of reason to rebute? How about swedish 40mm bofor gun?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SME11B

Beast said:


> Why? Does it matter? If You killed somebody 200 years ago and after that it will not make u a murderer now?
> 
> Or maybe went out of reason to rebute? How about swedish 40mm bofor gun?


Would be hard to kill someone 200 years ago. Sure we sometimes use other peoples stuff, but we come up with a lot of our own also. If you copy like 5 times as much as everybody else don't be surprised when people notice. It is efficient but it's not winning any good will and china can't do whatever it wants without repercussions. I almost feel bad for them they were taught for decades they could lie cheat and steal and the US would put up with it and all the sudden common sense kicks in. But this is getting off topic what did you think of my j-20 assessment? It would also be in line with the emphasis on long range anti awac missiles.


----------



## Beast

SME11B said:


> Would be hard to kill someone 200 years ago. Sure we sometimes use other peoples stuff, but we come up with a lot of our own also. If you copy like 5 times as much as everybody else don't be surprised when people notice. It is efficient but it's not winning any good will and china can't do whatever it wants without repercussions. I almost feel bad for them they were taught for decades they could lie cheat and steal and the US would put up with it and all the sudden common sense kicks in. But this is getting off topic what did you think of my j-20 assessment? It would also be in line with the emphasis on long range anti awac missiles.


Precisely, every major power started with copy first. Even america is not exempted. Same as Japan in WWII. But what matters is the country who acquire the technology will slowly evolve in their own innovation. 

Just like China J-20 and many weaponery.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## SME11B

scope said:


> You are a joke. America spies and steals from the world ever since they stole the lands from the First Nations people. They stole from Britain, France, Germany/Nazis, Imperial Japan, etc. Today, they use Cisco and other telecommunications hardware with NSA backdoors and other Trojan horses (as per Edward Snowden). They're hypocritically screaming about Huawei with lies to deflect attention away from their decades of vast intellectual property theft.
> 
> The US regime is the world's #1 sponsor and instigator of global terrorism. They have butchered over 20 million innocent people since the end of ww2. The US regime has zero credibility. Remember their fake wmd in Iraq and fake Gulf of Tonkin incident. Lying is a defining trait of the US totalitarian regime.



All governments are demonic, there are two types though. Those who at least pretend to respect the will and rights of the people and those who don't.


----------



## serenity

Governments can become very bad and use their power to further themselves of course. But pretending to be good while behaving badly is maybe even worse because it makes many innocent people believe and allow that government to do the evil things. This is too political and this thread is already well off topic. But best thing is to agree there are problems all over the world and we can begin solving them by starting with this understanding.

China copies a lot. This is a fact. It saves time and money from wasting on experimenting when the principles are already understood. Of course trying to catch up the massive gap is hard and almost impossible. We may never see African nations and other hundreds of countries catch up to technology of Europe, Canada, USA, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and now China... maybe Brazil and India in there too. So copying was China's best method. Now all the investments in technology and the tools like schools and research centers have helped China create the foundation for future. Already we see big improvements in supercomputing, space, materials, software, telecommunication, manufacturing, in China. Not the best but everyone starts somewhere. Same with J-20. They copied American stealth idea of reducing RCS. The method they applied is also similar, managing radio frequency using shaping, material, and electronic methods. They understood the principles and went to replicate those effects. As long as it is effective, we don't care if it's copied or not. You can give a country like Australia the technology, but they will not have the tools and funding to do it even if they have the brains. So copying like Japan also did, South Korea too. Russia and Soviet Union copied the west a lot. So did Germany in the past with cheap labor and industry to compete with France and UK. In history, everyone has copied from the best. Until they achieve a level where they are confident in moving in different directions without losing money and time. That time hasn't come to China just now in every industry. Only telecommunication is strong and arguably some supercomputing areas but fabricating the chips is still a challenge which soon will disappear in coming years.

We will continue to learn and copy until we have learned enough. It is still school time but at least Chinese understand we are behind. No arrogance and we are still many times better than those who have not even started year 1 class like 90% of the world population. Only the western nations can laugh at us if they want to but the rest of the world laugh with them even though they are much worse than China is and cannot copy even if given the opportunity. Western nations does choose to confront China about the copying issues with trade war but that's economics. Economically many western innovations are paid for by customers around the world not just in the western nations. Chinese government understand they have power because they control the population more than the western governments can control their's. So they bargain using the size of Chinese market. They can say a lot of Apple's profits are because of Chinese consumers so if they want access to Chinese consumers, they must find Chinese manufacturing businesses to partner with or move production out of China. They can do that if they wish. Not a hostage at all but they know their chances of finding equal value and quality for the dollar spent in other countries and no country has transport facilities and ports that can operate as smoothly and deliver on time as those businesses require their supply chain to operate. China's biggest advantage in competition with others is no longer cheap labor because other places offer even cheaper labor, it is in infrastructure and supply chain management.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Guys ... leave out politics.

So back to the J-20 ... and something funny indeed 


https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/...e-chinese-j-20-allegedly-spotted-at-u-s-base/



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070822217582292992

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

My opinion is China should do what ever it has to do to beat America bullies. Copy or not can't be less important. I would be highly disappointed if the current Chinese leadership can't give some hope to other developing countries under such bullies.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Guys ... leave out politics.
> 
> So back to the J-20 ... and something funny indeed
> 
> https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/...e-chinese-j-20-allegedly-spotted-at-u-s-base/
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070822217582292992



Wow, US can't copy J-20 precisely. It's not even close. I think J-31 's looks is more similar to F-35 than this J-20 copy to the original.


----------



## Mohrenn

SME11B said:


> You have to go back to the 1700s I see quite telling. We are flattered that you think our designs and way of doing things is the best. Now if you would take our governance model you would be golden. The russians were not as good at stealing tech as the chinese have been in recent years. Times are changing and it won't be business as usual anymore so everyone will have to adapt tactics. Bringing things back to j-20, J-20 should have been called the sneaky snake. I say that because its best chance is to dart forward toward some strategic target and launch as far as possible and run. It may be stealthy enough for that to be a viable tactic but I don't think it is intended to confront f-22/35 directly.



The US wasted trillions on military development contracts over decades and you're still struggling to keep up with Chinese military development, that's not something to be proud of. As for the governance model, it's a complete joke.


----------



## SME11B

ozranger said:


> My opinion is China should do what ever it has to do to beat America bullies. Copy or not can't be less important. I would be highly disappointed if the current Chinese leadership can't give some hope to other developing countries under such bullies.



1. China has no right to call anybody a bully. 2. You may be getting ahead faster but are also making enemies and not playing the long game as well as they used to. 3. I think China had a pragmatic strategy for a while but they overplayed their hand and have outed themselves and made many enemies. 4. Will ws-15 require a redesign of j-20? 5. Any reports on j-20 performance in exercises? I say someone was talking about kill ratios earlier.



Mohrenn said:


> The US wasted trillions on military development contracts over decades and you're still struggling to keep up with Chinese military development, that's not something to be proud of. As for the governance model, it's a complete joke.



Sarcasm?


----------



## Beast

@ChineseTiger1986 , you are famous now. Being quote by Chinese video media for your comment in PDF for J-20.

See from 1.42mins to 1.55mins.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

HariPrasad said:


> I said F22 has 100:1 agaonst 3.5:1 of chinese j20.


I have never seen this alleged 3.5 to 1 kill ratio for the J-20 ... why don't you present us a credible source instead of repeating this unsubstantiated claim?


----------



## 帅的一匹

HariPrasad said:


> China carried out an excercise where they pitted their j20 agaist their 3 rd generation plane. J20 scored 3.5:1 kill ratio. F22 has the same 100:1 kill ratio.


sheer jealous

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

wanglaokan said:


> sheer jealous


They are still reeling from their dead on arrival FGFAs 



scope said:


> You are a joke. America spies and steals from the world ever since they stole the lands from the First Nations people. They stole from Britain, France, Germany/Nazis, Imperial Japan, etc. Today, they use Cisco and other telecommunications hardware with NSA backdoors and other Trojan horses (as per Edward Snowden). They're hypocritically screaming about Huawei with lies to deflect attention away from their decades of vast intellectual property theft.
> 
> The US regime is the world's #1 sponsor and instigator of global terrorism. They have butchered over 20 million innocent people since the end of ww2. The US regime has zero credibility. Remember their fake wmd in Iraq and fake Gulf of Tonkin incident. Lying is a defining trait of the US totalitarian regime.


Theres nothing wrong with stealing imo. However there is something wrong with hypocritically blaming others for stealing. All great nations are forged on innovation and theft. The United states is no different.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## HariPrasad

wanglaokan said:


> sheer jealous



It was Chinese exercise not not my imagination you should have told them not to public outcome so that you guys have a convince in bragging.



Figaro said:


> I have never seen this alleged 3.5 to 1 kill ratio for the J-20 ... why don't you present us a credible source instead of repeating this unsubstantiated claim?



find out your self . it is here on pdf only.


----------



## 帅的一匹

HariPrasad said:


> It was Chinese exercise not not my imagination you should have told them not to public outcome so that you guys have a convince in bragging.
> 
> 
> 
> find out your self . it is here on pdf only.


since when.you.become a military insider.of China?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HariPrasad

wanglaokan said:


> since when.you.become a military insider.of China?



Not insider but a informed lay man who read with open eye and mind.


----------



## ozranger

Figaro said:


> I have never seen this alleged 3.5 to 1 kill ratio for the J-20 ... why don't you present us a credible source instead of repeating this unsubstantiated claim?



I would say he was just inside a secret PLAAF command center counting all the kills displayed in a big screen. LOL better than any version of 007 that you can imagine.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

A most interesting read and brilliant summary;

https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/chinas-stealth-fighter-its-time-to-discuss-j-20s-agility/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> A most interesting read and brilliant summary;
> 
> https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/chinas-stealth-fighter-its-time-to-discuss-j-20s-agility/


I think thediplomat is trying to be a professional military analysis website. Its starting years with childish argument and foolish mocking of US foes seems has passed the stage as readers get more matured and want some really in depth professional thoughts. It will sure captured more professional readers who really want good analysis of different platforms rather than chest thumping self bragging US article.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mohrenn

Beast said:


> I think thediplomat is trying to be a professional military analysis website. Its starting years with childish argument and foolish mocking of US foes seems has passed the stage as readers get more matured and want some really in depth professional thoughts. It will sure captured more professional readers who really want good analysis of different platforms rather than chest thumping self bragging US article.



It really depends on the author. Rick Joe is a very serious one, but I feel like he's more an exception than the rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Mohrenn said:


> It really depends on the author. Rick Joe is a very serious one, but I feel like he's more an exception than the rule.


Sure it depend on writer but the overall website owner still has the control of what he wants to post in his website. The fact, he allows such article to post show his sentiment. He can easily reject such article as it does not bent well on US superiority.. 

Seriously, many US self bragging article praising American military superiority are sometimes so absurd that any readers with normal IQ can sense the flaw in it... There is a limit of propaganda. End of the days, most readers are no idiot. If a lie is too big, it will have the side effect instead of the misleading you want to create.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Mohrenn

Beast said:


> Sure it depend on writer but the overall website owner still has the control of what he wants to post in his website. The fact, he allows such article to post show his sentiment. He can easily reject such article as it does not bent well on US superiority..
> 
> Seriously, many US self bragging article praising American military superiority are sometimes so absurd that any readers with normal IQ can sense the flaw in it... There is a limit of propaganda. End of the days, most readers are no idiot. If a lie is too big, it will have the side effect instead of the misleading you want to create.



I've stopped reading The Diplomat a long time ago because of its bias so maybe your right and it's more objective now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Mohrenn said:


> I've stopped reading The Diplomat a long time ago because of its bias so maybe your right and it's more objective now.


I can tell you the Diplomat is typically much more objective than the likes of National Interest or Business Insider. At least they allow authors of differing perspectives to post ... rather than your typical Kyle Mizokami or Alex Lockie.


----------



## Mohrenn

Figaro said:


> I can tell you the Diplomat is typically much more objective than the likes of National Interest or Business Insider. At least they allow authors of differing perspectives to post ... rather than your typical Kyle Mizokami or Alex Lockie.



Of course, those are near tabloid level. I used to read The Diplomat a lot a bunch of years ago and I liked it, but then it seemed to me that they were starting to be more mainstream and ideologically infiltrated so I just stopped.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Mohrenn said:


> It really depends on the author. Rick Joe is a very serious one, but I feel like he's more an exception than the rule.



Rick Joe is Blitzo from sinodefenceforum. You can read his personal blog at plarealtalk.com.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mohrenn

siegecrossbow said:


> Rick Joe is Blitzo from sinodefenceforum. You can read his personal blog at plarealtalk.com.



He's also PLArealtalk on Reddit where he and a user named I_H8_Y8s do a really good job educating some of the people on there about China and it's military. I discovered him on Twitter because he interacts with Henri Kenhmann who's also a very good China watcher.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ali_Baba

Enough of this, we all want to see the cockpit !! We have pictures of the F22 cockpit, time see if the J20's stacks up.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Grandy



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Grandy said:


> View attachment 527731



That's cool cockpit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Ali_Baba said:


> Enough of this, we all want to see the cockpit !! We have pictures of the F22 cockpit, time see if the J20's stacks up.



F-22 cockpit is really old. Early 1990s design.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Ali_Baba said:


> Enough of this, we all want to see the cockpit !! We have pictures of the F22 cockpit, time see if the J20's stacks up.


See how J-20's cockpit stacks up to that of the F-22


----------



## Deino

undertakerwwefan said:


> That's cool cockpit.



But neither a real cockpit nor a so far confirmed realistic representation of the true J-20's cockpit.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> But so far not confirmed an image of the true J-20's cockpit.



J-20 cockpit has 1 piece display, not 6 smaller pieces.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

undertakerwwefan said:


> J-20 cockpit has 1 piece display, not 6 smaller pieces.




But that too hasn't been confirmed.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> But that too hasn't been confirmed.



China uses best displays. Of course J-20 uses it. You can't compare an early 1990s cockpit in F-22 with a late 2000s cockpit in J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## Silicon0000

Just curious why we have so many pics of j20 with fog or rainbow color spread around it? Is it normal and happened with every fighter or may be some feature which causing it? 

P. S. I am not an expert.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> But that too hasn't been confirmed.



J-10B cockpit has that display no?


----------



## Beast

Silicon0000 said:


> Just curious why we have so many pics of j20 with fog or rainbow color spread around it? Is it normal and happened with every fighter or may be some feature which causing it?
> 
> P. S. I am not an expert.


The fog is air vortex. Showing the plane doing high G move which is a must characteristic of a 4.5/5th fighter jet. That means they will have very good angle of attack. Older generation fighter plane is not able to pull such high G.

That means they will slower in turning and easy become prey of new generation fighter jet in dogfight. High G also gives u great advantage in bleeding air to air missile chasing you to until the stage of evading it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Silicon0000

Beast said:


> The fog is air vortex. Showing the plane doing high G move which is a must characteristic of a 4.5/5th fighter jet. That means they will have very good angle of attack. Older generation fighter plane is not able to pull such high G.
> 
> That means they will slower in turning and easy become prey of new generation fighter jet in dogfight. High G also gives u great advantage in bleeding air to air missile chasing you to until the stage of evading it.



Thanks


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 527816



Is this the same magazine that Deino publishes to?


----------



## ptldM3

Beast said:


> The fog is air vortex. Showing the plane doing high G move which is a must characteristic of a 4.5/5th fighter jet.






You don't need to do any turn to get that vortex. Simply breaking the sound barrier will create a "fog". Those vortexes appear with very minimal G forces if the aircraft is traveling fast enough even automosphic conditions play a role in those vortexes.











Beast said:


> That means they will have very good angle of attack. Older generation fighter plane is not able to pull such high G.





No it doesn't mean that, even heavy dump trucks like the F-111 can creat a vortex and it's angle of attack is garbage. What it means is that it was traveling fast enough and the atmospheric conditions were conducive.



What G forces can "older" aircraft not pull? Are you suggesting that the J-20 can pull more then 10 Gs? Technically the SU-35 is an older generation aircraft, or at least in airframe. The SU-35 is the standard when it comes to maneuverability and high AoA. It put on one of the most impressive displays probably in the history of air shows or in gerneral while performing at the Paris air show in 2013. So now the J-20 can suddenly outturn an SU-35? And pull G forces that would likely damage the aircraft and hurt and incapacitate the pilot?


This is the result of a truly high G maneuver:







This is not:







Both have vortexes so they are nothing magical that only the J-20 has.





Beast said:


> That means they will slower in turning and easy become prey of new generation fighter jet in dogfight.






Angle of attack has nothing to do with sustained or instantaneous turning which is what you are referring to when you say "turning". And a big part of 'dogfighting' has to do with roll rate and T/W ratio.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

J-20's vortex is more similar to the picture of Su-35 than F-111's picture. Most good performance fighters can do this but it is also true that vortex can be generated in different conditions but not in the same way. The details are important. You can see from the airshow, J-20 is highly agile and not like F-111. Even without using afterburners it is capable of pulling a tight turn. There was one tight turn they were allowed to show and perform during the show while other turns were very held back and quite boring. You can sometimes see the flight control correction showing pilot input in holding turns back when they are pulling a wide circle. Most airshow fighters use full afterburner in many parts. Of course those performance are much nicer with tighter turning and faster acceleration but PLAAF is not too eager for Chengdu to show full set of performance and the pilots are new to the plane.

Su-35 is king of performance in subsonic speed. In the past, J-20's pilot and designer mentioned it is designed for supersonic turning similar to western fighter philosophy. Of course only Americans showed F-22 perform to Su-35 level in airshows before. F-22 is probably much better in supersonic speeds because that's what they designed it for. J-20 is said to be aiming for that and PLAAF will not show it publicly. It is just a new fighter and pilots are still training and developing flight routines for now. All are great performers. Chinese pilots and insiders have said that Su-35's Al-41 engine is excellent and if perfect world, they can have Al-41 in J-16 fighter. J-20 is still waiting for WS-15 which will improve on current performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Well done, J-20!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 528710
> 
> Well done, J-20!


J-20 win golden helmet air combat competition?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

Time to consider reducing production rates of J10 and flanker variants. Money spend on one J20 is far less than 10 J10C or 10 J11.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

undertakerwwefan said:


> F-22 cockpit is really old. Early 1990s design.



You know all F-22 have upgraded to Glass Cockpits a few years ago.

But well, then seeing it's you, mostly you don't know or care.

Anyway, this is not about F-22 so... Whatever


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

jhungary said:


> You know all F-22 have upgraded to Glass Cockpits a few years ago.
> 
> But well, then seeing it's you, mostly you don't know or care.
> 
> Anyway, this is not about F-22 so... Whatever
> 
> View attachment 528713



That's F-35 cockpit. This is F-22 cockpit. https://www.businessinsider.com/11-glimpses-inside-the-f-22-raptors-highly-classified-cockpit-2018-6

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 528710
> 
> Well done, J-20!




Could you please translate?


----------



## jhungary

undertakerwwefan said:


> That's F-35 cockpit. This is F-22 cockpit. https://www.businessinsider.com/11-glimpses-inside-the-f-22-raptors-highly-classified-cockpit-2018-6



Yeah, sure, you are right.

But still, they change their cockpit layout to all glass, not the same one from 1990s.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

jhungary said:


> Yeah, sure, you are right.
> 
> But still, they change their cockpit layout to all glass, not the same one from 1990s.



Maybe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Could you please translate?


From the poem, we can find that:
1. J-20 win "golden helmet" air combat competition.
2. J-20 defeats all fighters from J-10 and Su-27 family.
3. J-20 can't be found during the air combat competition.
4. J-20 has zero loss.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## jhungary

Deino said:


> Could you please translate?



That was a Poem about winning the golden helmet competition, not sure if you will understand if I translat it to you.

It goes :

Congratulation on winning the competition for the first time.

Winning the Golden Helmet ; The grandiose flew over the cloud
Slaying other dragon ; (I can't translate that into something that make sense in English)
Hidden and hard to find ; Nobody can catch it 
It was untouched after the game ; its name thunder forever.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Could you please translate?


Basically J-20 wiped the floor with J-10B, J-11B and Su-35 in exercises, while taking zero losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Tracking F-22 as far as 600km away

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Beast

S10 said:


> Basically J-20 wiped the floor with J-10B, J-11B and Su-35 in exercises, while taking zero losses.


From what I gather, previously many old PLAAF pilot don't use ECM in aerial combat. And they get badly whipped by young pilot. There was once a veteran PLAAF pilot suffer a humiliate 0:42 losses against a young pilot possible by pure jamming and BVRAAM killed. The young pilot flown an not so advanced J-11A to get the job done.
I think there is a reason why PLAAF want to get degree holder for new blood as they are more open to new concept and grasped new technology faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## SME11B

cirr said:


> Tracking F-22 as far as 600km away
> 
> View attachment 528786



How do they know? Was it low frequency? Did it have a luneburg lens or external fuel tanks?


----------



## cirr

New J-20 unit

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ozranger

cirr said:


> New J-20 unit


Congrats!


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> New J-20 unit




Could you please translate??


At least I found the video:

https://www.weibo.com/tv/v/H9qBqw0Ef?fid=1034:4322471697172118

... and if I'm not mistaken, they do not mention a specific unit which gained or will gain the J-20?

Deino

PS: but they included two MiG-29 flying at 0:26 !


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Could you please translate??
> 
> 
> At least I found the video:
> 
> https://www.weibo.com/tv/v/H9qBqw0Ef?fid=1034:4322471697172118
> 
> ... and if I'm not mistaken, they do not mention a specific unit which gained or will gain the J-20?
> 
> Deino
> 
> PS: but they included two MiG-29 flying at 0:26 !



The 9th.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> The 9th.




Thanks ... but is the 9th directly mentioned or is this what others say based on reports?


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Thanks ... but is the 9th directly mentioned or is this what others say based on reports?



Known by the name of the brigade head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Known by the name of the brigade head.




Thanks a lot again ...


----------



## samsara

There's some internet hearsay that by the end of May 2018 the J-20s were arriving with the 9th Air Brigade based in Wuhu, Shanghai. But no doubt that Eastern Theatre Command then Southern Theatre Command will get priority to house the new arrivals of J-20s due to their strategic values.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Maxpane



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## samsara

From the ever reliable Chinese Twitter blogger for the good source of Chinese military updates, however brief they are, Dafeng Cao (30 Dec in ASIA):

*“Time to say goodbye with these old fellows.”*

In the next line he hinted that the older fellows, Su-30 ==> J-20 @9th Air Brigade, as suggested by Cirr and Deino here just very recently. Some nice pics :-}















__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078868619306651648

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Maxpane



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Riz

cirr said:


>


Its a monster machine... Heavy battle air tank..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Riz said:


> Its a monster machine... Heavy battle air tank..




No it is not ... the J-20 is actually smaller than a Flanker.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> No it is not ... the J-20 is actually smaller than a Flanker.



I think this is the advantage of J-20, if compared to Flanker. It is smaller than a flanker, but use the same engine like the flanker.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Brainsucker said:


> I think this is the advantage of J-20, if compared to Flanker. It is smaller than a flanker, but use the same engine like the flanker.


it is smaller but not by a significant margin. A slight smaller only.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Beast said:


> it is smaller but not by a significant margin. A slight smaller only.


Welcome back.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Welcome back.



... and a Happy New Year.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Maxpane



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Beast said:


> it is smaller but not by a significant margin. A slight smaller only.



That's why it has advantage, if compared to Flanker.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maxpane



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Maxpane said:


> View attachment 530363




Nice but not real .. IMO models only.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## samsara

Beast said:


> it is smaller but not by a significant margin. A slight smaller only.


Thought you took an official new year leave for winter escape  folks shall appreciate the winter breeze in the four season regions. HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

611 is gradually shifting its focus to the R&D of next generation fighter jets.

The effort/work is likely to result in something concrete between 2030 and 2035.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## BERKEKHAN2

What if J-20 has 2D thrust vectoring stealth nozzles?

Credits to Lovely Swift for CGI

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ali_Baba

Interesting, I have wondered why China has not gone and developed thrust vectoring stealth nozzles. I can see it being extravagent for the FC31, but the J20 does qualify for the extra care and attention. It maybe, they will once they have their own range of engines they are comfortable in modifying ?

Turkey doesnt look like it will try with the TFX and the same almost applies to the BAE Tempest programme. Interesting only the F22 has it.


----------



## Beast

Ali_Baba said:


> Interesting, I have wondered why China has not gone and developed thrust vectoring stealth nozzles. I can see it being extravagent for the FC31, but the J20 does qualify for the extra care and attention. It maybe, they will once they have their own range of engines they are comfortable in modifying ?
> 
> Turkey doesnt look like it will try with the TFX and the same almost applies to the BAE Tempest programme. Interesting only the F22 has it.


Didn't u catch the latest news? I am surprised you don't know abt it. It is widely reported and a simple Google search can find u an answer in short time.


----------



## Figaro

Ali_Baba said:


> Interesting, I have wondered why China has not gone and developed thrust vectoring stealth nozzles. I can see it being extravagent for the FC31, but the J20 does qualify for the extra care and attention. It maybe, they will once they have their own range of engines they are comfortable in modifying ?
> 
> Turkey doesnt look like it will try with the TFX and the same almost applies to the BAE Tempest programme. Interesting only the F22 has it.


Have you not seen the J-10 TVC nozzle?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ali_Baba

Figaro said:


> Have you not seen the J-10 TVC nozzle?



Yes. I have.. the J-10 has a TVC nozzle.. and IS NOT a STEALTH TVC Nozzle.... look at the F22 nozzles to see what i am talking about.


----------



## Silicon0000

F22 has 2D TVC nozzles while J20 & Russian jets have 3D TVC nozzles. 

Being Stealthy nozzels depends on lots of things in fact stealthy to what (IR and/or Radar) is also a question. 



Ali_Baba said:


> Yes. I have.. the J-10 has a TVC nozzle.. and IS NOT a STEALTH TVC Nozzle.... look at the F22 nozzles to see what i am talking about.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Silicon0000 said:


> J20 & Russian jets have 3D TVC nozzles.


Currently J-20 have fixed WS-10IPE engine, but projected WS-15 will have 2D TVC capability not 3D @Silicon0000


----------



## Silicon0000

pakistanipower said:


> Currently J-20 have fixed WS-10IPE engine, but projected WS-15 will have 2D TVC capability not 3D @Silicon0000



Yes (Currently J-20 have fixed WS-10IPE engine) but I read somewhere that they have tested TVC on one of the prototype probably 2021 or I am forgetting the number.

Didn't know that (projected WS-15 will have 2D TVC capability not 3D), thanks for informing.


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Currently J-20 have fixed WS-10IPE engine, but projected WS-15 will have 2D TVC capability not 3D @Silicon0000


WS-15 will actually have 3D, not 2D ... the J-10 TVC is widely speculated as also being a testing platform for future WS-15 TVC

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> Currently J-20 have fixed WS-10IPE engine, but projected WS-15 will have 2D TVC capability not 3D @Silicon0000



Says who?? All information we have so far hint to a 3D similar to the one tested on the J-10B-TVC testbed as @Figaro pointed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Says who?? All information we have so far hint to a 3D similar to the one tested on the J-10B-TVC testbed as @Figaro pointed.


Even USAF pilot prefer a 3D TVC for F-22, due to the 360degrees rotating offer but end of the day, they emphasize more on exhaust stealth.



Ali_Baba said:


> Yes. I have.. the J-10 has a TVC nozzle.. and IS NOT a STEALTH TVC Nozzle.... look at the F22 nozzles to see what i am talking about.


It is stealth treated. The zig zag petal end suppose to offer RCS reduction. Checkout F-35 end nozzle too. Of cos 2D stealth exhuast offer more RCS reduction but at the sametime, it offer only 2 direction thrust vector which is less useful compare to 3D thrust vector.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SME11B

Beast said:


> Even USAF pilot prefer a 3D TVC for F-22, due to the 360degrees rotating offer but end of the day, they emphasize more on exhaust stealth.
> 
> 
> It is stealth treated. The zig zag petal end suppose to offer RCS reduction. Checkout F-35 end nozzle too. Of cos 2D stealth exhuast offer more RCS reduction but at the sametime, it offer only 2 direction thrust vector which is less useful compare to 3D thrust vector.


They going to give j-20 a gun?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Silicon0000 said:


> Yes (Currently J-20 have fixed WS-10IPE engine) but I read somewhere that they have tested TVC on one of the prototype probably 2021 or I am forgetting the number.
> 
> Didn't know that (projected WS-15 will have 2D TVC capability not 3D), thanks for informing.





Figaro said:


> WS-15 will actually have 3D, not 2D ... the J-10 TVC is widely speculated as also being a testing platform for future WS-15 TVC





Deino said:


> Says who?? All information we have so far hint to a 3D similar to the one tested on the J-10B-TVC testbed as @Figaro pointed.


Thanks for correcting me sir

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pkd

hina’s Chengdu J-20 fifth generation air superiority fighter has continued to dominate headlines since its entry into service in March 2017, years before Western analysts predicted it would be ready for combat, and recent information indicates that approximately 100 of the elite combat jets could already have left production lines. The J-20 represents the first fifth generation stealth fighter to enter service outside the United States, and is a direct analogue to the American F-22 Raptor which entered service in 2005. The twin engine combat platform’s airframe was designed to facilitate a long range, high weapons payload, high operational altitude, high speed and high manoeuvrability - thus optimising it for high end air to air combat missions in the same way as the Raptor. The J-20 is one of three Chinese fighters which have become part of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force’s new generation - alongside the ‘4++ generation’J-10C light multirole fighter and J-16 strike fighter - aircraft with comparable electronic warfare systems, avionics and weapons systems but lacking the J-20’s advanced radar cross section reducing profile. These three jets between them fulfil highly complementary roles, and the synergy between them will provide the PLA with a considerably more capable fighting capability than the sum of its parts ever could.













(Front to Back) J-20, J-16 and J-10C in Formation


Based on the considerable investments the PLA was seen to be making in expansion of J-20 production facilities across the country from early 2017, the majority of which are reported to have begun to manufacture the fifth generation fighters, the aircraft can today be said to be entering service at a very high rate - likely at a higher rate than the American F-22 Raptor did during its own brief production run. The Raptors were in mass production for little over four years from 2005 to 2009 - in which time approximately 180 were manufactured. The fighters’ immense expense, with each estimated to cost close over $700 million over its lifetime, combined with a considerably reduced order for the fighters and a lack of urgency to begin production at a time when American primacy appeared unchallenged, meant that they were manufactured at a relatively low rate of approximately 40 per year.












U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Fifth Generation Fighters


China by contrast is reportedly planning to deploy the J-20 in far larger numbers than the U.S. Air Force did for the F-22, and unlike the United States in the mid 2000s the East Asian state perceives a very real threat to its territorial integrity and a major challenge to its ability to dominate airspace - due to the advanced capabilities of its potential adversaries. With several hundred American made next generation fighters deploying to the Asia-Pacific, including large numbers of Raptors, it is viewed as imperative for China to produce large numbers of J-20 fighters to maintain qualitative parity in the air. In addition, the J-20 is estimated to come at a fraction of the cost of the F-22 Raptor - a similar price to the lighter F-35A single engine stealth jet. The result is that the production rate of the J-20 is likely to be considerably greater than than of the F-22 - likely comparable to that of the F-35 which saw over 90 units coming off production lines in 2018 alone. This would make the figure of approximately 100 J-20 fighters in service a highly realistic one.












Chinese J-20 Fifth Generation Air Superiority Fighter


Further indicating that the J-20 is being manufactured in large numbers, the PLA Air Force has begun a sizeable recruitment campaign for next generation fighter pilots. The recruitment drive is under way in 31 of the mainland's 33 provincial administrative areas, and the large demand for next generation fighter pilots strongly indicates that the J-20 is being manufactured on a considerable scale. One of the traits the PLA is best known for is its ability to manufacture high end munitions on a large scale, much as the Soviet Union previously did with its own elite combat jets such as the MiG-31. Given China’s large defence budget, well over $100 billion dollars, and its proven ability to organise large scale high tech manufacturing programs in an extremely short time period from smartphones to destroyer warships, the PLA is well placed to fund and oversee large scale production of the J-20.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...PH0WUhBsr8l9Sy1Tzy87kFS8_wyQHOaw_jDHfrxgx81b4

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

SME11B said:


> They going to give j-20 a gun?


No, Chinese considered gun outdated for modern era aerial warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Beast said:


> No, Chinese considered gun outdated for modern era aerial warfare.


That's incorrect. The J-20 has a gun compartment but no gun (according to yankeesama) currently to save weight and because firing the gun damages the stealth coating. The weight and paint issues will be sorted out in the future. It would be ludicrous for the J-20 - primarily an air-superiority fighter - not to have a close-range weapon for going up against enemy stealth fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

pkd said:


> hina’s Chengdu J-20 fifth generation air superiority fighter has continued to dominate headlines since its entry into service in March 2017, years before Western analysts predicted it would be ready for combat, and recent information indicates that approximately 100 of the elite combat jets could already have left production lines.
> ...



Pardon, but that's the plain stupid report ... 

There are never ever already 100 J-20s built and at least no-one reliable I know ever claimed that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ILC

Most likely, close to 30 with prototypes is the number of J20 which have been produced so far. We know that many J20s airframes are waiting for engines, there were rumors at the end of 2018 about that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ZeEa5KPul said:


> That's incorrect. The J-20 has a gun compartment but no gun (according to yankeesama) currently to save weight and because firing the gun damages the stealth coating. The weight and paint issues will be sorted out in the future. It would be ludicrous for the J-20 - primarily an air-superiority fighter - not to have a close-range weapon for going up against enemy stealth fighters.


The fact gun is a must stem from the fact US wvraam is primitive limited in firing range and not so reliable in Vietnam war times. The aerial of Vietnam battlefield is no more. Times has changed. Nowadays, WVRAAM can fired in even very short range and has matured a lot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> The fact gun is a must stem from the fact US wvraam is primitive limited in firing range and not so reliable in Vietnam war times. The aerial of Vietnam battlefield is no more. Times has changed. Nowadays, WVRAAM can fired in even very short range and has matured a lot.


but it vital for last resort, when all weapons are used @Beast

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> The fact gun is a must stem from the fact US wvraam is primitive limited in firing range and not so reliable in Vietnam war times. The aerial of Vietnam battlefield is no more. Times has changed. Nowadays, WVRAAM can fired in even very short range and has matured a lot.


But what if all your WVRAAM is all spent? What would you do then? I agree guns are a last resort option but they should still be there just in case.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> But what if all your WVRAAM is all spent? What would you do then? I agree guns are a last resort option but they should still be there just in case.


Withdraw and flee... If your foe still has WVRAAM left. I will not pick my chance to take them on with guns. This is no more era of mig-17 and F-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> Withdraw and flee... If your foe still has WVRAAM left. I will not pick my chance to take them on with guns. This is no more era of mig-17 and F-4.


Then you will do a same big mistake that USA made in Vietnam war, gun era is not over yet @Beast


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> Then you will do a same big mistake that USA made in Vietnam war, gun era is not over yet @Beast


As I say, Vietnam war is over. Clinging onto old horse is useless. It just like trying to say human waves tactic is still relevant in modern warfare's. Modern WVRAAM can be fired at even very short distance and has matured alot unlike Vietnam era where missiles is still at stage of infant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> As I say, Vietnam war is over. Clinging onto old horse is useless. It just like trying to say human waves tactic is still relevant in modern warfare's. Modern WVRAAM can be fired at even very short distance and has matured alot unlike Vietnam era where missiles is still at stage of infant.


if all WVRAAM missiles will expired and you're opponents will have WVRAAM what should you do, with respect i disagree with you sir, Gun still have a worth @Beast


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> if all WVRAAM missiles will expired and you're opponents will have WVRAAM what should you do, with respect i disagree with you sir, Gun still have a worth @Beast


Do F-35B/C have a gun inside?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Why is this even an point of argument? The source that claimed that the J-20 has no gun also stated that the aircraft has a space for a cannon should the need arise.

It is merely an issue of installing a cannon if a sortie requires such armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

And WHY are all these sickening gun matters filling up this thread?

Does anyone intend to troll this thread??? 


Just leave it behind: exists or not / be useful or not!!!


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> Do F-35B/C have a gun inside?


Optional gun pod @LKJ86 sir



samsara said:


> And WHY are all these sickening gun matters filling up this thread?
> 
> Does anyone intend to troll this thread???
> 
> 
> Just leave it behind: exists or not / be useful or not!!!


Its a important matter @samsara


----------



## Beast

pakistanipower said:


> if all WVRAAM missiles will expired and you're opponents will have WVRAAM what should you do, with respect i disagree with you sir, Gun still have a worth @Beast


Flee.... Dont make stupid Sacrifice. Enemy wth modern WVRAAM plus helmet mounted sight vs gun is sure one sided victory.

Days of vietnam war air battle is long over.. Technology improves, warfare evolves. We cannot continue cling onto the past.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

As usual...Those with no military experience speaks the loudest about subjects they know nothing about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Beast said:


> Flee.... Dont make stupid Sacrifice. Enemy wth modern WVRAAM plus helmet mounted sight vs gun is sure one sided victory.
> 
> Days of vietnam war air battle is long over.. Technology improves, warfare evolves. We cannot continue cling onto the past.


you repeating same big mistake as USA did in Vietnam war, they think WVRAAM battle had been over and emphasis on BVR battle, and reduce F-4 maneuverability/agility and paid the price for that, so i kindly disagree with you, gun still worths in future battles for last resort @Beast

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

gambit said:


> As usual...Those with no military experience speaks the loudest about subjects they know nothing about.


And you keep on trolling the Chinese thread along with Akasa / SinoSoldier.

Why don't guys fill up the USA threads?

I can care less YOUR opinions here!



pakistanipower said:


> Optional gun pod @LKJ86 sir
> 
> 
> Its a important matter @samsara


Important or not it's everyone own OPINION.

And there won't be conclusive info on thing like this, so enough is enough just leave it behind, no need to fill up this thread with the gun matter !

@Beast please do not feed the trolling acts to spoil this thread!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> Flee.... Dont make stupid Sacrifice. Enemy wth modern WVRAAM plus helmet mounted sight vs gun is sure one sided victory.
> 
> Days of vietnam war air battle is long over.. Technology improves, warfare evolves. We cannot continue cling onto the past.


This is exactly what engineers at Lockeed Martin thought before the Vietnam war as well. And guess what, they were wrong. Running out of WVRAAMs would make the J-20 extremely vulnerable in combat ... a gun would help alleviate this worst case scenario. Remember the J-20 is an air superiority fighter. The fact that TVC is being tested within the PLAAF should show you that WVR combat is still partially here to stay!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Silicon0000

The best use of gun would be use of it for low value targets like drones but for that China don't need to send J20


----------



## Ultima Thule

samsara said:


> And you keep on trolling the Chinese thread along with Akasa / SinoSoldier.
> 
> Why don't guys fill up the USA threads?
> 
> I can care less YOUR opinions here!
> 
> 
> Important or not it's everyone own OPINION.
> 
> And there won't be conclusive info on thing like this, so enough is enough just leave it behind, no need to fill up this thread with the gun matter !
> 
> @Beast please do not feed the trolling acts to spoil this thread!


this is not a trolling but important consideration, and we are discussing J-20 capabilities that why J-20 still haven't gun and what philosophy behind the J-20's gun elimination and last you're avoiding this important issue, now who is trolling @samsara



Figaro said:


> This is exactly what engineers at Lockeed Martin thought before the Vietnam war as well. And guess what, they were wrong. Running out of WVRAAMs would make the J-20 extremely vulnerable in combat ... a gun would help alleviate this worst case scenario. Remember the J-20 is an air superiority fighter. The fact that TVC is being tested within the PLAAF should show you that WVR combat is still partially here to stay!


please correct sir F-4 was a McDonald Douglas product not Lockheed Martin product @Figaro


----------



## SME11B

Beast said:


> Flee.... Dont make stupid Sacrifice. Enemy wth modern WVRAAM plus helmet mounted sight vs gun is sure one sided victory.
> 
> Days of vietnam war air battle is long over.. Technology improves, warfare evolves. We cannot continue cling onto the past.



A gun allows you to take out targets you sneak up on without wasting a missile, is insurance in a dog fight, and allows strafing for air support. All at cheap cost.



pakistanipower said:


> this is not a trolling but important consideration, and we are discussing J-20 capabilities that why J-20 still haven't gun and what philosophy behind the J-20's gun elimination and last you're avoiding this important issue, now who is trolling @samsara
> 
> 
> please correct sir F-4 was a McDonald Douglas product not Lockheed Martin product @Figaro



The rules of this forum are either agree with me or you're trolling apparently.


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> The rules of this forum are either agree with me or you're trolling apparently.


you're not Mod, senior analyst/defense expert here on PDF to agree with you, you're just troll, i just give my sane opinion @SME11B


----------



## gambit

Beast said:


> We cannot continue cling onto the past.


Really? What wise words -- *NOT*.

How many times in this forum have you guys posted images of Chinese soldiers practicing hand-to-hand combat techniques? The rifle is not good enough? But never mind soldiers. Pilots are essentially 'special operations' combatants. In the sky, the environment requires extraordinary skills and knowledge which inevitably only a few can assimilate, few have the physical attributes to endure the stresses of combat flying, and even fewer that can handle both. Combat pilots are indeed 'special operations' combatants in the same philosophical mold as ground forces have their specialists.

Now we look at the tools of specialists. For the ground forces, the special operations member carries with him an assortment of tools that ordinary infantry do not have. He will have a main weapon like the standard issued rifle and a pistol. Why a pistol? The pistol is shorter range and less accurate. Further, he will also be trained in hand-to-hand combat training that an infantry soldier do not have. Why hand-to-hand combat training? Because of the environment that the special operations soldier must be in. He is far from support so his tools must be as versatile as he can possible carry with him. The last resort weapon is himself -- what nature gave him.

This is why the fighter aircraft have two levels of ranged missiles like the radar guided AMRAAM and infrared guided AIM9. The gun is the weapon of last resort or when a situation requires the pilot to make positive identification which necessitate a distance that missiles are not feasible. Radar and infrared are not identifiers, the pilot is. Sensors tells of an object but it is the human that determines the details of that object for further classification and actions. Radar and infrared sensors cannot tell if the aircraft's insignia is Chinese or American or Russian. The pilot does that. When the pilot is required to make positive identification, the gun is the weapon of *ONLY* resort.

Just like the ground forces special operations experts, combat pilots must have as versatile tools as possible because of the environment they operates in. The SEAL have a rifle, a pistol, and hand-to-hand combat training. The fighter pilot should have similar gradations of weapons available to him to deal with situations that he may encounter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> Really? What wise words -- *NOT*.
> 
> How many times in this forum have you guys posted images of Chinese soldiers practicing hand-to-hand combat techniques? The rifle is not good enough? But never mind soldiers. Pilots are essentially 'special operations' combatants. In the sky, the environment requires extraordinary skills and knowledge which inevitably only a few can assimilate, few have the physical attributes to endure the stresses of combat flying, and even fewer that can handle both. Combat pilots are indeed 'special operations' combatants in the same philosophical mold as ground forces have their specialists.
> 
> Now we look at the tools of specialists. For the ground forces, the special operations member carries with him an assortment of tools that ordinary infantry do not have. He will have a main weapon like the standard issued rifle and a pistol. Why a pistol? The pistol is shorter range and less accurate. Further, he will also be trained in hand-to-hand combat training that an infantry soldier do not have. Why hand-to-hand combat training? Because of the environment that the special operations soldier must be in. He is far from support so his tools must be as versatile as he can possible carry with him. The last resort weapon is himself -- what nature gave him.
> 
> This is why the fighter aircraft have two levels of ranged missiles like the radar guided AMRAAM and infrared guided AIM9. The gun is the weapon of last resort or when a situation requires the pilot to make positive identification which necessitate a distance that missiles are not feasible. Radar and infrared are not identifiers, the pilot is. Sensors tells of an object but it is the human that determines the details of that object for further classification and actions. Radar and infrared sensors cannot tell if the aircraft's insignia is Chinese or American or Russian. The pilot does that. When the pilot is required to make positive identification, the gun is the weapon of *ONLY* resort.
> 
> Just like the ground forces special operations experts, combat pilots must have as versatile tools as possible because of the environment they operates in. The SEAL have a rifle, a pistol, and hand-to-hand combat training. The fighter pilot should have similar gradations of weapons available to him to deal with situations that he may encounter.


@Beast will not understand your sane logic and commonsense @gambit sir


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> you're not Mod, senior analyst/defense expert here on PDF to agree with you, you're just troll, i just give my sane opinion @SME11B


@SME11B is not in any position to make this call. He has trolled incessantly in this forum. Regarding the J-20, universal consensus is that even if current production models don’t carry a gun, they have a gun department designed for equip at later date.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Gun vs HMDS + EOTS + off boresight IIR AAM = suicide. That's why J-20 don't have gun.


----------



## SME11B

Figaro said:


> @SME11B is not in any position to make this call. He has trolled incessantly in this forum. Regarding the J-20, universal consensus is that even if current production models don’t carry a gun, they have a gun department designed for equip at later date.



Why couldn't I point out that troll is the lazy default response by those with a weak argument, even if I was a professional troll that doens't make sense. Why engage in some sort of character assassination just address what I say.



undertakerwwefan said:


> Gun vs HMDS + EOTS + off boresight IIR AAM = suicide. That's why J-20 don't have gun.


The opponent will have all that and more plus a gun, that's the problem in a high end scenario which is what j-20 is supposed to be for.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

SME11B said:


> The opponent will have all that and more plus a gun, that's the problem in a high end scenario which is what j-20 is supposed to be for.



Says who J-20 get into a gun fight? J-20 will never get into a gun fight.


----------



## SME11B

undertakerwwefan said:


> Says who J-20 get into a gun fight? J-20 will never get into a gun fight.


If it never fights in a high end war, I guess if it doesn't have a gun than it technically can't get into a gun fight. Well played china lol.


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Tempest II

cirr said:


>


Please explain a bit. Have you got a bigger picture?


----------



## Figaro

It appears that Business Insider is the new National Interest
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-j-20-stealth-fighters-will-lose-to-f-15-f-22-typhoon-2019-1

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kuge

cirr said:


>


it is either fake or the establishment is a dumbo


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> It appears that Business Insider is the new National Interest
> https://www.businessinsider.com/china-j-20-stealth-fighters-will-lose-to-f-15-f-22-typhoon-2019-1


Alex Lockie and Justin Bronk are idiots (to put it mildly). Why are you posting their effluent here?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 made its maiden flight on January 11, 2011

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> It appears that Business Insider is the new National Interest
> https://www.businessinsider.com/china-j-20-stealth-fighters-will-lose-to-f-15-f-22-typhoon-2019-1



It's just Alex Lockie being himself again. Poor Deino quoted out of context once more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## casual

Figaro said:


> It appears that Business Insider is the new National Interest
> https://www.businessinsider.com/china-j-20-stealth-fighters-will-lose-to-f-15-f-22-typhoon-2019-1


let them believe what they want.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

casual said:


> let them believe what they want.


It’s interesting that I don’t see too many Chinese military bashing articles from National Interest, Popular Mechanics, or War is Boring anymore. But BusinessInsider appears to have filled this void.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> It’s interesting that I don’t see too many Chinese military bashing articles from National Interest, Popular Mechanics, or War is Boring anymore. But BusinessInsider appears to have filled this void.



That's because those sources started quoting people like Deino and Blitzo in context. Also, it helps traffic volume if you diversify your view points so you can target different audiences. Worked wonders for SCMP.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

By the way 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083747390702653450

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> By the way
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083747390702653450


Send this to Robert Gates.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Send this to Robert Gates.



I must admit, I'm currently thinking about sending him - or new secretary of defence - another invitation to vision China. Maybe this could help to accelerate the unveiling of the H-20?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4327417121725872?#&video

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

cirr said:


> https://m.weibo.cn/status/4327417121725872?#&video


It was published before.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 532328



So far I have never noticed that the fixed front part of the J-20's vertical stabilizer is latticed or meshed! At least for the 201x prototypes.


----------



## LKJ86

Interesting...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

LKJ86 said:


> Interesting...
> View attachment 532356
> View attachment 532357



How credible is this blogger?


----------



## ozranger

Or a fighter bomber as imagined and posted on FYJS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Interesting year ahead for J20 derivatives.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

The first batch of 2 J-20s is handed over to Eastern Theater Command on January 13, 2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ozranger

LKJ86 said:


> The first batch of 2 J-20s is handed over to Eastern Theater Command on January 13, 2019.
> View attachment 532487



Good work!

As I said before, they are now working very, very hard and even trying to push to the extreme limit to meet the challenging urgency.

BTW I hope they can maximise their nuclear warfare at the same time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

LKJ86 said:


> The first batch of 2 J-20s is handed over to Eastern Theater Command on January 13, 2019.
> View attachment 532487



4 not 2. 







Followed by a pair of Y-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 4 not 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Followed by a pair of Y-20s.




But this image and report sound very much like from the rehearsal for the Zhuhai Airshow??






What's the source of this image??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> But this image and report sound very much like from the rehearsal for the Zhuhai Airshow??
> 
> View attachment 532562
> 
> 
> What's the source of this image??



The image is for illustrative purpose only.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> The image is for illustrative purpose only.



Ok ... the old issue again!? 

I want an actual authentic image of the exact situation as described and in CHina it is common to use a randome for for "illustrative purpose only". Thanks.

Anyway, I would love to see areal one with 62x0x serial numbers.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Replacing old Su-30s in the regiment?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Replacing old Su-30s in the regiment?



Most likely. At least it makes sense and was already reported since I think early last year.


----------



## leapx

Deino said:


> So far I have never noticed that the fixed front part of the J-20's vertical stabilizer is latticed or meshed! At least for the 201x prototypes.



I guess the meshed window is inlet of cooling air to reduce Infrared signature of exhaust?

Su-57 has similar design but no meshed window.
Such details make me believe J-20 is better at stealth than Su-57.


----------



## LKJ86

CAC

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> CAC
> View attachment 532681



Twin seater ... or why do you think it is related to the J-20??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> Twin seater ... or why do you think it is related to the J-20??


Look at the rear frame, it's mounted on a narrow body fuselage. So it should be J-10S.


----------



## luciferdd

https://weibo.com/3181052590/HbScqET1f?type=comment#_rnd1547434430589

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## leapx

Deino said:


> So far I have never noticed that the fixed front part of the J-20's vertical stabilizer is latticed or meshed! At least for the 201x prototypes.


After discussion with dudes on CD, I were told it is a old photo and this design was removed. Ouch....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ozranger said:


> Look at the rear frame, it's mounted on a narrow body fuselage. So it should be J-10S.




Yes, but why was it posted here?


----------



## monitor

Following several reports including an eyewitness at least 2 - 4 J-20s were flown to an aviation brigade within the ETC around noon. This corresponds to earlier reports, the 9th Brigade in Wuhu would become the first operational frontline unit to receive J-20 fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## cirr

Image on 28/10/2018

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JSCh

*J-20 variant may be world’s first two-seat stealth fighter jet: report*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/1/16 17:11:51





Concept art depicts the two-seat variant of the J-20 stealth fighter jet. Photo: cctv.com​
China's most advanced stealth fighter jet J-20 could be developed into a bomber, electric warfare (EW) aircraft and a carrier-based variant, Chinese military experts said on Wednesday as latest reports suggested a two-seat version of the warplane is under development.

All current stealth fighter jets feature single-seat, so the potential J-20 variant might become the first two-seat stealth fighter jet in the world, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Wednesday.

On a highly digitalized future battlefield, large amounts of information can easily overflow the entire control panel of an aircraft. Having a second pilot and a second panel sharing part of the work will be advantageous, the report said.

Yang Wei, the chief designer of the J-20, said in March 2018 that the aircraft will be serialized and see its combat capability constantly upgraded, People's Daily reported.

The current J-20 is a basic version, and it is by design highly customizable, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

Outfitting the warplane with a second seat allows it to play multiple roles in addition to winning air superiority, Song said, noting that the two-seat version can be further developed into a tactical bomber or EW aircraft.

Having variations that other countries do not possess will greatly expand the Chinese military's capability in an asymmetric warfare, analysts said.

The US had a similar plan with its stealth fighter jet the F-22 due to its supersonic speed and potential to penetrate airspace without being detected. However, the FB-22, a tactical bomber version of the F-22, was axed in 2006 because the US Air Force wanted a strategic bomber instead of a tactical one, US media outlet the National Interest reported.

Although the FC-31, another Chinese stealth fighter jet, is widely expected to become China's next generation carrier-borne fighter jet, Song said that J-20 can also be modified to fulfill the role.

Even if the J-20 does not make additions to its role, it will definitely see enhancements to its capability, as China has a tradition of upgrading its fighter jets with advanced technologies before moving on to an entirely new aircraft.

An upgraded J-20 will have improved avionics and fire control systems, more powerful engines and more weapons payload, Song said.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Image on 28/10/2018
> 
> View attachment 533343




That's still at CAC.


----------



## LKJ86

From PLAAF's weibo:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Piotr

*Upgraded J-20 fighter jet ‘overwhelmingly superior’ to US F-35: analysts*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/1/15 18:12:49





A J-20 fighter performs at the 12th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition (Airshow China) in Zhuhai, south China's Guangdong Province, Nov. 11, 2018. The air show closed on Sunday. (Photo: Xinhua)





F-35 Lightning II (US)The Lockheed F-35 Lightning II is a fifth-generation fighter development of the United States that incorporates new and learned stealth teconology and practice with advanced computer processing and systems through a "budget-friendly" modular approach. (Photo: Xinhua)

As South Korea became the latest country to buy and deploy US F-35 stealth fighter jets, Chinese military observers asserted that an upgraded Chinese J-20 fighter will gain overwhelming superiority over the F-35 in future and that China can fend off all potential threats from what media dubs the "US F-35 friends circle" in the Asia-Pacific region.

Yonhap News Agency reported on Monday that two F-35As will be assigned to South Korean combat units starting in April or May. The delivery is a part of South Korea's procurement of 40 F-35As in 2014 at a cost of more than $100 million each.

South Korea is not the only US ally that has purchased the stealth aircraft. Japan operates 10 F-35As, with 32 more due from a previous order, CNN reported in November 2018.

Japan is also preparing to order an additional 100 F-35 fighter jets. These aircraft include F-35Bs which are capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings, which will be deployed on the revamped Izumo-class helicopter destroyers, essentially making them aircraft carriers, Nikkei reported in November 2018.

Australia also received two F-35As in December 2018, local news site news.com.au reported. The country will eventually receive 100 of the jets, said the website of Australian Air Force.

Under the US' Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35 has three variations: the F-35A for the air force, the F-35B for marines and the F-35C for the navy.

By selling the stealth fighter jets to its allies in the West Pacific region, the US is building an "F-35 friend circle," Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military analyst, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

The US, Japan and South Korea may conduct more joint exercises near China using the F-35, making it easy for coordination, Wei said. The stealth capability makes the F-35 more difficult to detect and will impact China's national defense needs, he said.

Equipped with an advanced weapon system and capable of stealth and supersonic cruising, the F-35 is regarded as one of the most advanced fighter jets in the world. But China is no sitting duck in a potential clash with the US fighter jet.

China's fifth generation fighter jet J-20, which has been in service under the People's Liberation Army Air Force since early 2018, is endowed with state-of-the-art aviation and electronic technologies. Its range and weapons payload are widely considered to be better than the F-35's, enabling it to achieve its main mission of gaining aerial superiority in a 21st Century battlefield. 

Moreover, the J-20 has room for improvement. An upgraded version of the J-20 will have "overwhelming superiority" to the F-35 in the future, Wei said.

China's passive radars and meter wave radars can also detect stealth aircraft, and can guide anti-aircraft missiles such as the HQ-9 and HQ-16 to destroy them, Wei noted.

Meanwhile, the F-35 has its share of problems.

The F-35's stealth capability, one of the most important features that set it apart from previous generations of fighter jets, requires very high maintenance cost, as the radar wave-absorbing coating wears off and needs to be replaced after every flight, the news.com.au report said.

In September 2018, an F-35B under the US Marine Corps crashed due to faulty fuel-lines. F-35 jets have in the past made emergency landings, experienced in-flight incidents, including oxygen deprivation among crews, and suffered from engine fires and other failures on the ground, the Washington Post reported.

The Chinese military has not make public any reports of malfunctions of the J-20.

Source: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1135845.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Piotr said:


> The F-35's stealth capability, one of the most important features that set it apart from previous generations of fighter jets, requires very high maintenance cost, as the radar wave-absorbing coating wears off and needs to be replaced after every flight, the news.com.au report said.



That's crap. If paint falls off after a flight, you know that's bad paint.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

undertakerwwefan said:


> That's crap. If paint falls off after a flight, you know that's bad paint.


He's talking about the stealthy RAM on these fighters. I thought they mitigated this problem with the F-35 ... versus the F-22 which required constant maintenance.


----------



## fatman17

Air Platforms

China may be developing first two-seat stealth combat aircraft

Andrew Tate, London - Jane's Defence Weekly

18 January 2019

State broadcaster CCTV showed a CGI of a two-seat J-20 aircraft in a 16 January report. China may be developing a two-seat variant of the fighter, according to Chinese state-owned media. Source: Via CCTV.com

A two-seat version of China’s first stealthy combat aircraft, the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG) J-20, may be in development to fulfil roles as a tactical bomber, electronic warfare (EW), or carrier strike aircraft, according to a report published in the state-owned Global Times newspaper on 16 January.

The concept of a two-seat variant of the J-20 is not new and computer-generated images (CGIs) of such an aircraft have circulated on the Internet for some time.

However, the likelihood that such a variant will be produced has increased following state broadcaster China Central Television’s (CCTV’s) recent release of a TV report showing a CGI of a two-seat J-20. The 16 January report not only highlighted the advantages of having two aircrew in a complex tactical environment, but also asked whether China would be the first country to introduce a two-seat stealth combat aircraft.

A day earlier the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) published its China Military Power report, in which its assessment was that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) “is developing new medium- and long-range stealth bombers”.

The long-range stealth bomber will be the H-20, which the PLAAF confirmed was in development in 2016. No new programme for a medium-range stealth bomber has been identified in open sources, so development of the J-20 for such a role may reflect the DIA’s assessment.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Han Patriot

Figaro said:


> He's talking about the stealthy RAM on these fighters. I thought they mitigated this problem with the F-35 ... versus the F-22 which required constant maintenance.


I heard the F-22 needs airconditioned hangar to maintain the coating?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Any idea what's this?

http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1919418-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Any idea what's this?
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1919418-1-1.html
> 
> View attachment 533830


AVIC cultural centre. No need to probe too much about related to J-20. Probably some songs and dance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Any idea what's this?
> 
> http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1919418-1-1.html
> 
> View attachment 533830



Probably an "artistic" reinterpretation of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... please stop any political issues, leave out the F-35 .... and please back to topic.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

This J-20 thread is once again turned into a clown one   

Looks like a repeating bad habit by some personas when actual substance is rather quiet. Why not just let it rested when there is really nothing of substance to address ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Han Patriot

Please MODs clean it up and ban whoever is derailing this main thread. You want to troll please throw in your own thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> *Guys ... please stop any political issues, leave out the F-35 .... and please back to topic.*




*Guys, thread cleaned up. So please stay on topic. Otherwise take this as a warning - esp. @undertakerwwefan - not to derail this thread anymore with political, off-topic and plain stupid F-35-comparisons.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## fatman17

China may be developing the first two-seat version of its J-20 stealth combat aircraft, according to a January 2019 report. It is set to fulfill roles as a tactical bomber, electronic warfare, or a carrier strike aircraft. If the report is accurate, the Chinese Air Force could become the first air arm in the world to deploy a radar-evading fighter-bomber whose main mission is long-range ground-attack. Other stealth fighter types, including the U.S. military’s F-22 and F-35, the Russian air force’s Su-57 and the PLAAF’s J-20 and J-31 either primarily are air-to-air fighters or combine air-combat capability with the ability to strike ground targets.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

cirr said:


> 4 not 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Followed by a pair of Y-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

How many J-20 built so far? I'm guessing about 60.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

undertakerwwefan said:


> How many J-20 built so far? I'm guessing about 60.



Unlikely ... highly unlikely IMO.

Following the ones we know as operational - we know in fact 7 confirmed within the 176. Brigade, 4 confirmed within the 172. Brigade and maybe 4 more with the 9. Brigade - there are probably close to 20 but surely not 60.

Or what makes you believe that high number?


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> Or what makes you believe that high number?



Do you have any idea how fast China is? 10 times faster than America.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

undertakerwwefan said:


> Do you have any idea how fast China is? 10 times faster than America.




And how does "10 times faster than America" correlate to 60 operational J-20s?? ... or more concrete: what's your argument??

Could please argue in a realistic manner or can you only bubble your nationalistic fan-boy-like wet-dreams??

So ... simply facts ... not phantasy!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> And how does "10 times faster than America" correlate to 60 operational J-20s?? ... or more concrete: what's your argument??
> 
> Could please argue in a realistic manner or can you only bubble your nationalistic fan-boy-like wet-dreams??
> 
> So ... simply facts ... not phantasy!



At least 60 J-20, maybe more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

undertakerwwefan said:


> At least 60 J-20, maybe more.



Maybe in case You did not know how to act in a forum: one has to explain and give a reason especially for unproven or even unlikely arguments.

Otherwise It is barely possible to be taken seriously or do you only want to troll around with provoking statements?

... so again: What's your reason to believe that there are already 60 J-20 operational?? Not even so many J-10s were build in the same time.



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 534295



Impressive ... but again from Zhuhai?


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Unlikely ... highly unlikely IMO.
> 
> Following the ones we know as operational - we know in fact 7 confirmed within the 176. Brigade, 4 confirmed within the 172. Brigade and maybe 4 more with the 9. Brigade - there are probably close to 20 but surely not 60.
> 
> Or what makes you believe that high number?


Why only 20? The J-20 has been in production since March 2017 ... that's nearly 2 years!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> ... so again: What's your reason to believe that there are already 60 J-20 operational?? Not even so many J-10s were build in the same time.





Figaro said:


> Why only 20? The J-20 has been in production since March 2017 ... that's nearly 2 years!



Yeah. Most likely 60 by now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Ah ... someone who plays the  !

Fine ... so let the game begin.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> Why only 20? The J-20 has been in production since March 2017 ... that's nearly 2 years!


I'm a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, I want China to have as many fifth-gens as possible; on the other, I feel it would be a wasted investment if China ramped up production without having the WS-15 ready. Is it feasible to retrofit 100+ AL-31/WS-10 J-20s with WS-15s?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Ah ... someone who plays the  !
> 
> Fine ... so let the game begin.


@Deino sir please ban @undertakerwwefan from J-20 Thread he is just a ruthless troll @Deino sir and thanks


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Why only 20? The J-20 has been in production since March 2017 ... that's nearly 2 years!



Have you seen more? I know my calculation is most likely - and indeed I even hope so - on the lowest end of any estimation, but as I explained, these are the ones confirmed. Even if we assume both the 176. and 172. Brigades would probably have around 8-12 aircraft each - what is not confirmed - and maybe the 9. Brigade already has 4, then we are still at only 24-28 and NEVER EVER 60+.

So - similar to these stupid claims the J-20 already uses a +240kN WS-15, is Mach 3 capable and even more nonsense, - a claim there are already more 60 operational must be at least baked by some facts or an estimation.

Otherwise such posts are nothing but pointless, meaningless or simply trolling.



ZeEa5KPul said:


> I'm a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, I want China to have as many fifth-gens as possible; on the other, I feel it would be a wasted investment if China ramped up production without having the WS-15 ready. Is it feasible to retrofit 100+ AL-31/WS-10 J-20s with WS-15s?



Completely agree ... even more: Is there any reason - besides wishful thinking - that there are already that many??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SME11B

OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd said:


> ===
> 
> _NOTE:
> Deino, you force me to post this here, because you *ignored* or
> *you have refused to answer my PM*. _
> 
> ===
> 
> People are not blind.
> All PDF readers can watch how biased and onesided you are as a
> Germanese Internationally Famous Powerful Moderators ??
> 
> Deino, what about that Trolls SME11B ??
> 
> Are you certain that you as an Internationally Famous Powerful
> Moderators are acting FAIR and JUST ??
> 
> Or are you sneakily allowing SME11B to *always get away unpunished* for
> always derailing the CHN Military threads time and time again ??
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> _NOTE:
> BTW, Deino despite all CHN impressive military progresses over the last 20 years,
> don't worry CHN is very weak and gutless.
> 
> CHN Elites are internally extremely weak and gutless in using
> all those military hardware PLA have developed. _



What seems to be the problem with what I said? I responded to an earlier post and thought I did a good job, if it was slightly off topic oh well it was not completely off topic.



undertakerwwefan said:


> Do you have any idea how fast China is? 10 times faster than America.


By your logic I think there are 1000 j-20s in a secret underground superbase because dear leader Xi is so awesome. If china was 10 times faster why are they just now getting tech that the US has had for decades? Some people don't care to live in reality. They have rushed j-20 along as much as possible but they want to put out the best quality product they can because mass produced crap jets won't win the next war. They have 28 j-20s including prototypes with at least unfinished engines which will take years to remedy. That is the general consensus and I have never seen more than 4 in one spot, never seen anything suggesting they are operational in the western standard or have left chinese airspace. And I don't mean claimed airspace since ancient times. The chinese don't put out much info and I find the fanboys claims endearing when not annoying. Am I the only one who thinks the j-20 is kind of ugly? F-35 used to be the ugliest of the proposed 5 gens but I think j-20 has taken that spot.


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the j-20 is kind of ugly? F-35 used to be the ugliest of the proposed 5 gens but I think j-20 has taken that spot.


@Deino look at this troll by @SME11B

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

SME11B said:


> F-35 used to be the ugliest of the proposed 5 gens but I think j-20 has taken that spot.


Is this really what you think or are you just salty over @undertakerwwefan's response? If it is the former, let me remind you that the A-10 is no princess either but it is still one hell of a killing machine.



ZeEa5KPul said:


> I'm a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand, I want China to have as many fifth-gens as possible; on the other, I feel it would be a wasted investment if China ramped up production without having the WS-15 ready. Is it feasible to retrofit 100+ AL-31/WS-10 J-20s with WS-15s?


Good point. I don't think China can retrofit the older J-20s with WS-15 due to the likely inlet and internal changes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SME11B

pakistanipower said:


> @Deino look at this troll by @SME11B



Not a troll, just an opinion you don't like.



Figaro said:


> Is this really what you think or are you just salty over @undertakerwwefan's response? If it is the former, let me remind you that the A-10 is no princess either but it is still one hell of a killing machine.
> 
> 
> Good point. I don't think China can retrofit the older J-20s with WS-15 due to the likely inlet and internal changes.


Why would I care what that 12 year old says? Even most on this forum see his posts are a joke. The a-10 is certainly ugly but the sound that gun makes is awesome. Also traditionally in the looks department close air support aircraft are not scrutinized as much on looks but that's been military aircraft enthusiast culture for as long as I can remember. I remember many times the looks of the other jets compared but I haven't seen it with j-20 so I brought it up. Also isn't ws-15 significantly larger than ws-10? Will that require airframe modifications to accommodate?


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> I don't think China can retrofit the older J-20s with WS-15 due to the likely inlet and internal changes.


I wouldn't foreclose on the possibility - it would depend on how modular the J-20 is. Let's remember that it was designed from the get-go with the knowledge that the intended engine wouldn't be ready with the airframe, which argues for at least some thought given to retrofitting.

The DSI will surely need to be changed, the WS-15 will certainly require a higher airflow than the WS-10 (in fact, I think DSIs on earlier prototypes were smaller). As far as the internals, according to this thread the WS-10 variant being trialed on the J-20 is the WS-10B (originally developed for the J-10) with the gearbox and other protrusions pushed out to occupy the volume of the J-20's engine housing; further evidence for the feasibility of retrofitting.


----------



## Ultima Thule

SME11B said:


> Not a troll, just an opinion you don't like.


Yes you're trolling if you don't like j-20 don't say the bad word for J-20 or i will report you @SME11B 


SME11B said:


> Why would I care what that 12 year old says? Even most on this forum see his posts are a joke. The a-10 is certainly ugly but the sound that gun makes is awesome. Also traditionally in the looks department close air support aircraft are not scrutinized as much on looks but that's been military aircraft enthusiast culture for as long as I can remember. I remember many times the looks of the other jets compared but I haven't seen it with j-20 so I brought it up. Also isn't ws-15 significantly larger than ws-10? Will that require airframe modifications to accommodate?


Fighter jet is not build for aesthetic/look/beauty but design upon mission perspective that's @Figaro bro refer to don't look at the aesthetic/look/beauty of the j-20 but performance of j-20,just like A-10 and by the way J-20 isn't A bad looking jet but beauty and the beast @SME11B

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

pakistanipower said:


> Yes you're trolling if you don't like j-20 don't say the bad word for J-20 or i will report you @SME11B
> 
> Fighter jet is not build for aesthetic/look/beauty but design upon mission perspective that's @Figaro bro refer to don't look at the aesthetic/look/beauty of the j-20 but performance of j-20,just like A-10 and by the way J-20 isn't A bad looking jet but beauty and the beast @SME11B



I agree with you. If @SME11B doesn't like J-20, why is he coming here? And further more, what is the benefit of reading his bad words about J-20? Is he looking for troll fight or what?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## zectech

Brainsucker said:


> I agree with you. If @SME11B doesn't like J-20, why is he coming here? And further more, what is the benefit of reading his bad words about J-20? Is he looking for troll fight in here?



Anyone with first flag Amerika, I ignore. Except for Figaro.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

pakistanipower said:


> @Deino look at this troll by @SME11B



Just to make it clear, I won't ban anyone for posting an opinion that does not fit anyone else's opinion and Yes, IMO he often is too critical, but at least he argues.

Posting however stupid one-liner, without giving an explanation or a reason and doing this again and again even after a kind request, that's trolling and will result in a warning and finally ban.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> Have you seen more? I know my calculation is most likely - and indeed I even hope so - on the lowest end of any estimation, but as I explained, these are the ones confirmed. Even if we assume both the 176. and 172. Brigades would probably have around 8-12 aircraft each - what is not confirmed - and maybe the 9. Brigade already has 4, then we are still at only 24-28 and NEVER EVER 60+.
> 
> So - similar to these stupid claims the J-20 already uses a +240kN WS-15, is Mach 3 capable and even more nonsense, - a claim there are already more 60 operational must be at least baked by some facts or an estimation.
> 
> Otherwise such posts are nothing but pointless, meaningless or simply trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely agree ... even more: Is there any reason - besides wishful thinking - that there are already that many??


pictorial evidence is also guess you are seeing what the puppet masters let you see, there are also satellites and pictures where more than 20- 30 aircraft should be seen, if satellites can not see 20- 30 aircraft, then the number is low, no pictures of 5 or 6 J-20 together the number is likely low, how many there are? no one knows, close to 90 is niether a right one nor 28 simple because the puppet masters will let you see what they want



Deino said:


> Just to make it clear, I won't ban anyone for posting an opinion that does not fit anyone else's opinion and Yes, IMO he often is too critical, but at least he argues.
> 
> Posting however stupid one-liner, without giving an explanation or a reason and doing this again and again even after a kind request, that's trolling and will result in a warning and finally ban.


yes there was once a guy who told you China will buy Su-35 you and your friends said no, you were proven wrong in revenge you banned the guy, same was when you were proven wrong when you said Su-57 bort 05 was not going to fly again you banned the guy, some one told you do not speak Chinese, I do at least Japanese and read Chinese/Japanese ideograms you got angry and banned the guy, some one told you facts about J-20 aerodynamics but since you are a plane spotter not an aerodynamics engineer you felt angry too,since you know little about the subject, you banned the guy too, you really really are an honest guy regards from MiG-29

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087958672653856768

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087958672653856768



Those things look beautiful together! (Please don't troll me.)


----------



## serenity

There is about 18 to 20 in service according to most online people. Pace is slow because many steps are not mass production ready yet because this fighter is very new and some parts are very hard to make with high rejection rate. Also the engine is not ready until at least another three years. This suits slow production because new engine doesn't fit into old frame that uses current engines unless a lot of modifications are made.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

serenity said:


> This suits slow production because new engine doesn't fit into old frame that uses current engines unless a lot of modifications are made.


There are hundreds of J-10As, which can not be upgraded to the standard of J-10C.
It can be the same to J-20A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

serenity said:


> engine doesn't fit into old frame that uses current engines unless a lot of modifications are made.



No evidence to support that. The engine nacelles are quite large; a future WS-15-equipped J-20 shouldn't have any major modifications to its airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

Akasa said:


> No evidence to support that. The engine nacelles are quite large; a future WS-15-equipped J-20 shouldn't have any major modifications to its airframe.



One online source, as I saw weeks ago but now forget where it is, claimed that WS-15 is actually having a smaller diameter. So designers will fill some extra fuel tanks to newly spared room between the fuselage and the engines to help mitigate the fuel consumption increase problem as WS-15 will have a significantly smaller bypass ratio than that of WS-10.


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> pictorial evidence is also guess you are seeing what the puppet masters let you see, there are also satellites and pictures where more than 20- 30 aircraft should be seen, if satellites can not see 20- 30 aircraft, then the number is low, no pictures of 5 or 6 J-20 together the number is likely low, how many there are? no one knows, close to 90 is niether a right one nor 28 simple because the puppet masters will let you see what they want



Agreed, and therefore I mentioned my estimation is the lowest end, since I count only the ones confirmed by an image. So in essence I agree, the number is surely higher but an assumption of "surely more than 60" has to be at least added with an argument, why he thinks so many, an explanation where are all these then about 40 J-20s missing? 



> yes there was once a guy who told you China will buy Su-35 you and your friends said no, you were proven wrong in revenge you banned the guy, same was when you were proven wrong when you said Su-57 bort 05 was not going to fly again you banned the guy, some one told you do not speak Chinese, I do at least Japanese and read Chinese/Japanese ideograms you got angry and banned the guy, some one told you facts about J-20 aerodynamics but since you are a plane spotter not an aerodynamics engineer you felt angry too,since you know little about the subject, you banned the guy too, you really really are an honest guy regards from MiG-29




Yes I remember this quite well and even if he might be correct with SOME of his claims, most other were plain ridiculous. Anyway, this guy forgot - just for completeness - to add, that he was not banned for making claims I or any other moderator did not like, but for the fact that he had the habit to constantly post pages-long off irrelevant off topic stuff, that he ignored all reminders from ANY moderator, then got personnel insulting and finally was banned ... only to reappear with another identity with nearly the same stupid name as if we would not notice and repeated his game once again: post after post of endless.

So much on being honest, fair and correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 534750



Already posted on the page before.... any idea, where this is? At Twitter someone mentioned "Lion City" ???


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> Already posted on the page before.... any idea, where this is? At Twitter someone mentioned "Lion City" ???


Cangzhou in Hebei province is also known as Lion city. Photo is obviously taken in Summer, probably last year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> Cangzhou in Hebei province is also known as Lion city. Photo is obviously taken in Summer, probably last year.




Thanks a lot, so 172. Brigade.


----------



## Figaro

Su33KUB said:


> pictorial evidence is also guess you are seeing what the puppet masters let you see, there are also satellites and pictures where more than 20- 30 aircraft should be seen, if satellites can not see 20- 30 aircraft, then the number is low, no pictures of 5 or 6 J-20 together the number is likely low, how many there are? no one knows, close to 90 is niether a right one nor 28 simple because the puppet masters will let you see what they want
> 
> 
> yes there was once a guy who told you China will buy Su-35 you and your friends said no, you were proven wrong in revenge you banned the guy, same was when you were proven wrong when you said Su-57 bort 05 was not going to fly again you banned the guy, some one told you do not speak Chinese, I do at least Japanese and read Chinese/Japanese ideograms you got angry and banned the guy, some one told you facts about J-20 aerodynamics but since you are a plane spotter not an aerodynamics engineer you felt angry too,since you know little about the subject, you banned the guy too, you really really are an honest guy regards from MiG-29


So you’re the reincarnation of the b787 guy banned from SDF? Before blaming @Deino for a lack of humility, I advise you to consider your own.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> I have seen in real life aircraft like C-2, P-2, T-4, F-2 in airshows, good luck in all your endeavours, I wish you good luck, as an adult i see arguments are not good, about Su-35 and T-50 i was right, about the J-20 aerodynamics i was right most of time, but not all the time, any way have a nice day.





Su33KUB said:


> you are a plane spotter not an aerodynamics engineer you felt angry too,since you know little about the subject, you banned the guy too, you really really are an honest guy


going to some airshows doesn't make you aerodynamics engineer either @Su-33KUB  he want a proof not just wording @Su-33KUB

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> there are plenty of aerodynamic studies online, in fact there are so many by universities and research institutes nowadays that if you do some reading you can understand pretty much basic aerodynamics, I am an engineer, so if you now basic math and read, you get a pretty good idea why an aircraft has certain configuration, what trade offs are made, my approach to the J-20 has being trying to follow scientific and well known facts, I pretty well understand the configuration, my mistake was combat aircraft are not just raw aerodynamics, but also avionics and weaponry, facts such as Thrust vectoring do not improve an aircraft performance and handling beyond a certain %, however I live in Asia, last year I saw with my own eyes flying on an airport airshow the C-2 the Japanese cargo plane and the P-2 the anti-Submarine jet aircraft, nowadays my Japanese is good enough to watch a video of F-3 and understand on youtube available public information I also speak some Russian so I can watch videos about Su-35 or PAKFA, my point was I am well informed as an amateur, a fanboy if you want, so as a plane spotter I see things people do not see, because I look first hand sources in their language.


Then kindly tell me what is difference/trade off between tail delta wing and canard delta wing @Su33KUB


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> there are plenty of aerodynamic studies online, in fact there are so many by universities and research institutes nowadays that if you do some reading you can understand pretty much basic aerodynamics, I am an engineer, so if you now basic math and read, you get a pretty good idea why an aircraft has certain configuration, what trade offs are made, my approach to the J-20 has being trying to follow scientific and well known facts, I pretty well understand the configuration, my mistake was combat aircraft are not just raw aerodynamics, but also avionics and weaponry, facts such as Thrust vectoring do not improve an aircraft performance and handling beyond a certain %, however I live in Asia, last year I saw with my own eyes flying on an airport airshow the C-2 the Japanese cargo plane and the P-2 the anti-Submarine jet aircraft, nowadays my Japanese is good enough to watch a video of F-3 and understand on youtube available public information I also speak some Russian so I can watch videos about Su-35 or PAKFA, my point was I am well informed as an amateur, a fanboy if you want, so as a plane spotter I see things people do not see, because I look first hand sources in their language.



*I see you haven't changed a bit: Again - probably I can simply copy & paste the mails I sent you once - either stop with this personnel BS, telling others you can deduct anything about aerodynamics on Youtube-videos since you are a regular engineer, leave out anything concerning Japanese or whatever and stay on topic. Otherwise I promise you, your time here will be as short as on the SDF.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino, please jus ban the troll. This thread is for updates not debates.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 534412



@LKJ86 , really great stuff from you. Keep up the great work. You post the best and latest pics of the J-20 it's really enjoyable to see and always look forward to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 536066



Is this a recent image at CAC??



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 536079



And what do they celebrate?


----------



## Maxpane

what is written on this flag?


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> Is this a recent image at CAC??
> And what do they celebrate?



AVIC Missile Institute

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Deino

Oh what a beauty! But please show me your serial number.....


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/2859620437/4334955527704150

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## ozranger



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

ozranger said:


> View attachment 536574


Shenyang

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 535523



@Deino Did you write these too?


----------



## ozranger



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Shenyang
> View attachment 536624



Pardon, but why Shenyang??




siegecrossbow said:


> @Deino Did you write these too?



To admit I was only requested to write something for the FC-31 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

The video of J-20 from PLAAF's weibo:
https://m.weibo.cn/5707057078/4335574645600187

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

ozranger said:


> View attachment 536783
> View attachment 536784




Impressive images, but all already older ... the first one was posted on 9. February 2018.


----------



## TOTUU

https://v.qq.com/x/page/r0835o14z3x.html

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

[QUOTE="siegecrossbow, post: 11145202, member: 31334]...[/QUOTE]

via Your post at the SDF:



> Happy New Year from J-20 pilot Bai Long.



http://p.weibo.com/show/channerWbH5/1034:4335573427803848

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86

Happy Chinese New Year!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
22


----------



## luciferdd



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## cirr

luciferdd said:


> View attachment 537156



What the banner really/actually means to say is of great interest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> What the banner really/actually means to say is of great interest.




Care to give a translation please?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> Care to give a translation please?



Striving unswervingly for success in model development

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 537192
> 
> 
> View attachment 537194


Video:https://m.weibo.cn/5307012945/4336442282400113

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## lcloo

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 537192
> 
> 
> View attachment 537194


The number of pilots in the photo might have given away the clue on the number of J20 in service in this unit (of a regiment?).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

lcloo said:


> The number of pilots in the photo might have given away the clue on the number of J20 in service in this unit (of a regiment?).



Not necessarily. Some of them might be sharing the same plane until more are produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

siegecrossbow said:


> Not necessarily. Some of them might be sharing the same plane until more are produced.


Many of them are in fact cross train. Flying J-10C and J-16.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Seems as if Henry K./East Pendulum has found J-20A '78238'? 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094541620643418112

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Silicon0000

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 539359



Don't tell me a J20 VTOL wing folding Naval version ...... Am I high on ......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 539429



Looks manipulated?


----------



## LKJ86

What???

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> What???
> View attachment 539637


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


> What???
> View attachment 539637


If he wants to write about China exporting stealth fighters to Iran (which I think it should), he should have gone with the FC-31.


----------



## rambro

LKJ86 said:


> What???
> View attachment 539637


It would make a nice movie


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> What???
> View attachment 539637


This has to be PS ... and if it wasn't, the author should note China would never export the J-20


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ozranger

J-20 Firefang in Action

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/2859620437/4341147712950561

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 540091
> View attachment 540092

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

I'm not sure, but I think I see six J-20s

https://s.weibo.com/weibo?q=#我们一定要解放台湾#


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> I'm not sure, but I think I see six J-20s
> 
> https://s.weibo.com/weibo?q=#我们一定要解放台湾#



I cut out several frames each showing two hangars and pasted them together. Looks like one Flanker and 5 J-20A.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

J-20 fighter details HD display





























Deino said:


> I'm not sure, but I think I see six J-20s
> 
> https://s.weibo.com/weibo?q=#我们一定要解放台湾#


*我们一定要解放台湾=We will unify Taiwan at all costs!*

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## ozranger

Liberate, to be accurate.


----------



## SME11B

ozranger said:


> Liberate, to be accurate.





ozranger said:


> Liberate, to be accurate.


 Thats not the line from the ROC. That island just wants to be left alone, and buy leftover US weapons.


----------



## Pepsi Cola

SME11B said:


> Thats not the line from the ROC. That island just wants to be left alone, and buy leftover US weapons.


Republic of China's line would be "take back mainland China!" but yeah, whatever comforts you. XD


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 544163



Is this from the Sky Hunter movie?


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

China PLA new AD documentary.


siegecrossbow said:


> Is this from the Sky Hunter movie?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


> China PLA new AD documentary.



Was asking because there are obviously female pilots in the photo.


----------



## Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA

siegecrossbow said:


> Was asking because there are obviously female pilots in the photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

Chinese Commie said:


> Republic of China's line would be "take back mainland China!" but yeah, whatever comforts you. XD


And I just happened to watch an interesting footage of 20-min occurred some time last year, the location was in the Chinatown, NY City, the reporter asked a question in a street interview session to some common guy that ROC wanna reclaim China. The Chinese guy in street just asked back a simple question to the reporter "Do you know how many population the Taiwan Island has?"

The reporter answered correctly, 23 million. Then that's all. Period. Moved to next questions.

So can an anchovy prey the whale?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA said:


>



I know there are female pilots in PLAAF. But until recently I didn't know any who is flying the J-20/


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> ...
> View attachment 544677




Again taken at Cangzhou ?


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 544675
> View attachment 544676
> View attachment 544677


Video from AVIC's Weixin:
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=Mz...pxWAvolNnsB6TNCfOWVCy2nUFap0cm75z&wx_header=1

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> Video from AVIC's Weixin:
> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA5ODIwNTAyOQ==&mid=2659212715&idx=2&sn=d147481ef134f1681452138488967ffe&chksm=8be1d1a1bc9658b76e3a0acb0205310ae1e4a32f714cb9947a322918dc59cd0dbe102f270ef3&xtrack=1&scene=0&subscene=131&clicktime=1551932487&ascene=7&devicetype=android-28&version=2700033b&nettype=cmnet&abtest_cookie=BAABAAoACwASABMABAAjlx4AVpkeAMKZHgDTmR4AAAA=&lang=zh_CN&pass_ticket=Ar16Hhb97x6FRoKJqv4EBynXxm6aQHspxWAvolNnsB6TNCfOWVCy2nUFap0cm75z&wx_header=1


Thanks for the link, that's a COOL footage from AVIC. Unfortunately I couldn't access the clip at the Weixin link, instead I found it at Sohu network.

_Look at the `Achievement Reportʼ of the Aviation Industry at the “Two Sessions Annual” | AVIC (2019-03-07) – No Engsub._

戳视频 看航空工业“两会年度”成绩单
中航工业昌飞 
2019年3月7日

http://www.sohu.com/a/299824372_688751

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

http://www.dser.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1111980&extra=page=1&mobile=2

It was hard to monitor J-20 in the parade from the ground .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Grandy

*Advanced Helmet, PL-10 Missile Ensure J-20’s Killing of F-35, F-22*





J-20 pilot in helmet, a magic one compared with F-35’s. Mil.huanqiu’s photo





Justin Lee in the cockpit of an F-35 image Samuel King Jr./USAF
Note: the helmet is but a common one similar to those used decades ago.

There is no official information whether J-20 has a cannon or not, but National Interest is happy at the speculation that J-20 does not have one as no bulge or opening for cannon has been found in photographs of J-20. However, its article “Problem: China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn’t Have a Gun” on January 3, 2019 does not fully reveal its happiness that US fighter jet, even the non-stealth one, can kill a J-20 in dogfight. The word “Problem” in the article must be J-20’s problem, but it reads as if it is America’s problem.
Who’s problem is it after all?
America’s problem!

The two photos at top show how backward F-35 pilot’ helmet is compared with J-20 pilot’s. The former is taken from Popular Mechanics’ article “An F-35 Pilot Explains What It’s Like to Fly the Joint Strike Fighter” dated March 5 and the latter from mil.huanqiu.com’s report “Two dragons raise heads in February! Four J-20 Mighty Dragons were showcased the same time with overbearing appearance” on March 8.

In combat between stealth fighters, J-20 can discover and attack F-35 earlier as it is heavier able to carry more powerful radar, but F-22 is able to carry a radar as powerful so that they find each other about 80 km away.

Due to their high supersonic cruise speed, they are only less than 80 seconds away when they fire long-range air-to-air missile at each other. When they find both their missiles have missed their targets, they are so close that their pilots will be able to see each other’s plane.

F-22 pilot starts to lock on J-20 to fire his short-range air-to-air missile, it takes some time but according to mil.huanqiu.com’s report, with the advanced helmet J-20 pilot can immediately fire its PL-10 dogfight missile at F-22 he looks at. As a result, J-20 can fire at the enemy early.

PL-10 is highly maneuverable and will hit the target that J-20 pilot keeps looking at through the helmet no matter how its target maneuvers. The missile is guided by photoelectric system so that electronic jamming to disturb J-20’s radar does not work. J-20 pilot will keep on looking at F-22 and ignore the decoy F-22 releases; therefore, his target will surely be hit by his PL-10 dogfight missile.

Moreover, the report says that PL-10 can be fired at target an angle away from the direction J-20 is flying. When J-20 pilot find an enemy fighter jet an angle away from his direction, he has just to turn his head to look at the enemy and fire his PL-10 dogfight missile to hit the enemy fighter jet.

As F-22 fires its missile at least a second or two late, when PL-10 come to the distance of sure hit, J-20 will have enough time for maneuver to avoid being hit by F-22’s missile. When F-22 has been destroyed by PL-10, its missile loses the guidance of its radar or photoelectric system.

National Interest’s article on the indispensable need of a cannon for a fighter jet in dogfight is based on US experience in the air combats in Vietnam War that ended in 1975. It entirely ignores the development of modern technology.

A cannon has only a range of 800 feet and is too slow to lock on and inaccurate. When the target is a stealth fighter jet with high speed maneuverability, the probability of a stealth fighter jet flying to the position within 800 feet behind an enemy stealth fighter jet is too thin to justify the space and load taken by a cannon and its ammunition.

US media Business Insider says in its article “China’s J-20 stealth fighter has no cannon — and it shows the jet can’t dogfight with the US” on January 22. 2019, “A Business Insider review found that the last time a US plane shot down an enemy aircraft with guns was most likely the Cold War-era tank buster A-10 downing an Iraqi helicopter in 1991— hardly applicable to the world of fifth-generation fighter aircraft.”

China’s invention of advanced helmet and PL-10 has greatly enhanced J-20’s dogfight capability and enable J-20 to kill whatever US fighter jet in dogfight.

As a matter of fact, as far back as in July 2014 US well-known aviation website the “Aviators” revealed in an article the capabilities of J-20 and PL-10 missile in dogfight.

According to the article, unlike the US missile carried by F-22, PL-10 has better view when carried by J-20. It does not require the F-22’s complicated move of locking on its target after launch by the pilot. The pilot’s helmet of J-20 is so advanced that when a PL-10 is launched, it will hit at the target that the pilot looks at. As it takes time for an F-22 pilot to lock on a J-20 in a fight between the two fighters, the simplicity in taking aim enables J-20 to fire its PL-10 earlier and hit an F-22 earlier.

The article revealed that some F-22 pilots’ worry that when J-20 stealth fighters have been commissioned in Chinese air force, F-22 will entirely lose its superiority.

Therefore, what I reveal here is by no means a secret about J-20. In my opinion, there is no need for a cannon on J-20.
There are lots of magic functions of the helmet. I will disclose what can be disclosed later.
Comment by Chan Kai Yee on mil.huanqiu.com’s report, full text of which in Chinese can be viewed.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Bengal71

siegecrossbow said:


> I know there are female pilots in PLAAF. But until recently I didn't know any who is flying the J-20/



Wow, some pretty girls there. Are they pilots or models for the photoshoot?


----------



## OCguy

Yawn....lots of talk.


----------



## samsara

OCguy said:


> Yawn....lots of talk.


What did you mean indeed? Who or What did LOTS of talk?

Anyhow, compared to the neighbour forum, a vicinity one, the so-called pro, the talks here are considered as nothing! This is a relatively quiet one. Some even call this the amateurish "FB" one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... either you stop this and concentrate on the J-20 or I'll clean that stuff.

There too much politics, prejudice and ego involved. *


----------



## Pepsi Cola

Deino said:


> *Guys ... either you stop this and concentrate on the J-20 or I'll clean that stuff.
> 
> There too much politics, prejudice and ego involved. *



I've been waiting for you to clean this shit up, as everyone else. DO YOUR JOB.



gambit said:


> I do recognize some members -- like the air force brat guy -- that do have some smarts, but for most -- meh. Abuse of admin power is why sinusdefence is floundering in the water instead of being active like this place. Even you guys sees that and why you are here -- to learn info that do not exists there.
> 
> russiadefence is another forum that banned me and the reason is 'Not introducing yourself'. The funny part is my account was active in '09 and total post count since then is 86. Eighty six posts over ten yrs. So for 10 yrs, no one said anything about introducing myself, but only when I challenged Russian fanbois fantastic physics defying claims that I was banned. russiadefence no longer accepts new members.
> 
> The bottom line is that most forums that are hostile to US do not take well with American members who dares challenge the intellectual status quo. SDF is no different.



Are we seeing a trend here? Clearly, you've not been liked anywhere you go and you blame the international mods for doing their jobs? Wait until you go troll on a Chinese speaking forum with Chinese mods or even a Russian forum. I'm sure they won't be as nice.. lmao

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Chinese Commie said:


> I've been waiting for you to clean this shit up, as everyone else. DO YOUR JOB.



*I'm sorry for the late action, however I'm just out with a class and not at home so doing "my job" is a bit difficult right now. Besides that, there are also some other moderators out there ... but that might me a lame excuse.*

*Anyway, I moved all radar related and comparative stuff out into a separate thread and alos cleaned all insults, personnel issues and replies.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SME11B

This forum is a joke, a communist echo chamber. Keep telling yourselves what you want to hear and have your little parade and propaganda party. I'm a serious person and am done with you children.



Chinese Commie said:


> Republic of China's line would be "take back mainland China!" but yeah, whatever comforts you. XD



I like how this isn't considered trolling. Keep pretending to be a serious forum lol. You literally can't post anything here unless it licks j-20s balls. What a waste of time. Stop calling this a forum, make it clear that the narrative is tightly controlled so as to not waste any serious free thinking persons time. Stop false advertising.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## lcloo

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 546461


Freshly minted 3 + 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Significant achievement/breakthrough has been made in terahertz radar in the past year:

https://v.qq.com/x/page/g0849s9j79d.html

During the past year, the THz project team has continuously broken through the key technology barriers of system, process and algorithm, and successfully accomplished the prototype development task.

PS. Inst. No 14 of CETC is the 3rd team known in China that is working on terahertz radiation radar for detection of stealth flying objects.

Below is one from the China Academy of Engineering Physics:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201709271057760777-china-tests-radar-detect-stealth/

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## ozranger



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86

ozranger said:


> View attachment 547372

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cirr




----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




No image visible?


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 in mass production

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:

3


----------



## ahtan_china



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## ozranger

Not sure if someone posted it before but I just discovered some interesting illustrations, which were recommended by some online friends, from a paper written by research fellows of Harbin Institute of Technology in 2012.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 551605


Looks like J-20 don't new 5 star air conditioning hangar compare to high maintenance F-22 raptor

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 551605




Where is this?


----------



## samsara

*Dafeng Cao:* “Basking in the sun (Wuhu 9th Brigade, J-20)”


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114341831943180288
*Rupprecht Deino:* “Must be Wuhu ... so this finally the first clear image showing J-20As assigned to the 9th Air Brigade.”


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114469226159452160

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## UniverseWatcher

Not sure if this has ever been posted here but non the less good info....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

We've gone all in on 6th gen fighter jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115153426047033345

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

The video of J-20: https://m.weibo.cn/6111786953/4360699750527189

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115153426047033345



Roller coaster is from Happy Valley Chengdu?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SSGcommandoPAK



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## python-000

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 554334


What a beauty yr...


----------



## Imran Khan

why is production so slow of these birds ?


----------



## LKJ86

Imran Khan said:


> why is production so slow of these birds ?


How do you know it is so low?


----------



## Imran Khan

LKJ86 said:


> How do you know it is so low?


wiki is showing 28 units since long time now . no update after 28 .


----------



## LKJ86

Imran Khan said:


> wiki is showing 28 units since long time now . no update after 28 .


Why would you believe wiki?

Is it updated by CAC?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Avicenna

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 553812



That particular pic reminds me of the Firefox.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Imran Khan said:


> why is production so slow of these birds ?


It's still at the LRIP stage, where the plane is slowly introduced into service to test out tactics as well as training/logistical procedures. Second, WS-15 is not expected to enter service until past 2020, so current production jets are using interim engines. Once the intended engine is in place, that's when production rate will be increased.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Imran Khan

S10 said:


> It's still at the LRIP stage, where the plane is slowly introduced into service to test out tactics as well as training/logistical procedures. Second, WS-15 is not expected to enter service until past 2020, so current production jets are using interim engines. Once the intended engine is in place, that's when production rate will be increased.


They can make block1 and block2 also sir block 1 50 units with current configure


----------



## 帅的一匹

Imran Khan said:


> They can make block1 and block2 also sir block 1 50 units with current configure


in China we have a saying: 闷声发大财， which means get rich without being noticed.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## lcloo

What Wanglaokan meant is that China might produce a lot of J20 but they are not going to tell the world. The numbers will only be known when PLAAF decides when to "leak" out the information. It is called Sun Tzi Art of War.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> What Wanglaokan meant is that China might produce a lot of J20 but they are not going to tell the world. The numbers will only be known when PLAAF decides when to "leak" out the information. It is called Sun Tzi Art of War.



Indeed, and that's exactly what PLAAF following makes so juch interesting and fun.

Anyway, with a bit of extrapolation the number can be estimated or guessed within a certain margin of error. So we know confirmed that currently there are 8 within the 176th Brigade, a similar number or at least 4 for by serial within the 172nd Brigade and also about 4 within the 9th Brigade, so there are at least 16 confirmed by individual numbers. This number is surely higher and eventually up to twice the number we know confirmed, but I don't expect currently more than about 30 already finished not counting the prototypes.

But again, only when the PLAAF decides we should get more numbers, we will get them ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

The way I look at it, there are three priorities regarding deployment of the numbers of J20. 

First priority is to get sufficient numbers to balance out against F-35s threat from countries bordering China. What is sufficient numbers is up to the top brass. It could be from ratio of two J20 vs three F-35, up to one J20 vs one F35 for the time being. So the number of J20 from 20 to 30 is a reasonable expectation.

The second priority is not mass produce the aircraft but rather to train as many J20 qualified pilots as possible in anticipation of the future J20 serial production. Using 20 to 30 J20s playing the role of conversion training, and producing 20 to 30 J20 pilots each year. 

So instead of future serial production aircraft waiting for qualified pilots to be trained, it will be J20 qualified pilots waiting for new aircraft. This will quicken the combat readiness of a brigade/regiment receiving new J20.

Another priority, as in all new jet fighters, is to develop combat techniques by exploring all flight parameters and effectiveness of all sensors and weapons by the instructor pilots. It take years to write training and combat manual, and maintenance manual as well. So for the moment, there is no rush into mass production of J20, moreover the intended engine is not ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## kungfugymnast

Avicenna said:


> That particular pic reminds me of the Firefox.



The J20 does look like Firefox on the LERX part. When I first saw the J20 in the air, it reminds me of Firefox.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

lcloo said:


> The way I look at it, there are three priorities regarding deployment of the numbers of J20.
> 
> First priority is to get sufficient numbers to balance out against F-35s threat from countries bordering China. What is sufficient numbers is up to the top brass. It could be from ratio of two J20 vs three F-35, up to one J20 vs one F35 for the time being. So the number of J20 from 20 to 30 is a reasonable expectation.
> 
> The second priority is not mass produce the aircraft but rather to train as many J20 qualified pilots as possible in anticipation of the future J20 serial production. Using 20 to 30 J20s playing the role of conversion training, and producing 20 to 30 J20 pilots each year.
> 
> So instead of future serial production aircraft waiting for qualified pilots to be trained, it will be J20 qualified pilots waiting for new aircraft. This will quicken the combat readiness of a brigade/regiment receiving new J20.
> 
> Another priority, as in all new jet fighters, is to develop combat techniques by exploring all flight parameters and effectiveness of all sensors and weapons by the instructor pilots. It take years to write training and combat manual, and maintenance manual as well. So for the moment, there is no rush into mass production of J20, moreover the intended engine is not ready.



Still, US focus on F-35 procurement. While China still has another projects. Like J-10, Flanker series. And they still throw a lot of money on a lot of Ship Building project. If only they stop J-10, Flanker projects, and other things and focus only to J-20, the production rate can raise more than what they have right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Brainsucker said:


> Still, US focus on F-35 procurement. While China still has another projects. Like J-10, Flanker series. And they still throw a lot of money on a lot of Ship Building project. If only they stop J-10, Flanker projects, and other things and focus only to J-20, the production rate can raise more than what they have right now.



The J20 production will only go up after the WS15 engine is perfected. There might be lots of modifications required on existing J20 design to fit the new WS15 engines. To avoid risk of high incurring cost in upgrading existing J20, they decided not to build too many J20 with WS10 engines at the moment. 

The J10 and flankers projects are necessary to replace the many ageing fighters (J7, JH7) that are still in active service. If 1 day there is new type of radar that could defeat stealth at long range in future, these conventional fighters will be useful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

the full image ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> Why would you believe wiki?
> 
> Is it updated by CAC?


Nope, but the wiki page for J-20 was just edited FOUR days ago by *XenonNSMB*... Any one knows this dude? The magical wiki has page for almost every thing of significance! And its pages are guaranteed to be in TOP positions of the search results by its sibling Alphabet Google. Both are the very brainchilds of You Know Who Agency

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

kungfugymnast said:


> The J20 production will only go up after the WS15 engine is perfected. There might be lots of modifications required on existing J20 design to fit the new WS15 engines. To avoid risk of high incurring cost in upgrading existing J20, they decided not to build too many J20 with WS10 engines at the moment.
> 
> The J10 and flankers projects are necessary to replace the many ageing fighters (J7, JH7) that are still in active service. If 1 day there is new type of radar that could defeat stealth at long range in future, these conventional fighters will be useful.



That's what make F-35 and J-20 different. F-35 is the next generation of fighter. Because they are intended to replace the older fighters. While J-20 is a high tech, powerful, elite aircraft. That is not intended to replace the older designs. But to work together with the older designs as the elite. It's like J-20 is the special force of the fleet. Well, at least right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Brainsucker said:


> That's what make F-35 and J-20 different. F-35 is the next generation of fighter. Because they are intended to replace the older fighters. While J-20 is a high tech, powerful, elite aircraft. That is not intended to replace the older designs. But to work together with the older designs as the elite. It's like J-20 is the special force of the fleet. Well, at least right now.



Yes, J20 and future naval variant J31 will serve as strategic front line snipers but will be built in numbers when ready.

Future air engagement in case of US invasion, the J10 & Flankers will serve as decoy to lure in F18, F15, F16, F22 and F35 while J20 & navalized J31 will be flying ahead undetected to launch missiles taking out conventional fighters first. 

Conventional fighters will then use jammer and countermeasures to spoof incoming missiles while performing evasive maneuver fleeing from F22/35 while J20/31 will try to acquire lock and launch missiles on the F22/35. Stealth vs stealth will involve visual range engagements aided by tactical satellite uplink view.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

kungfugymnast said:


> Yes, J20 and future naval variant J31 will serve as strategic front line snipers but will be built in numbers when ready.
> 
> Future air engagement in case of US invasion, the J10 & Flankers will serve as decoy to lure in F18, F15, F16, F22 and F35 while J20 & navalized J31 will be flying ahead undetected to launch missiles taking out conventional fighters first.
> 
> Conventional fighters will then use jammer and countermeasures to spoof incoming missiles while performing evasive maneuver fleeing from F22/35 while J20/31 will try to acquire lock and launch missiles on the F22/35. Stealth vs stealth will involve visual range engagements aided by tactical satellite uplink view.


I hope PLA leadership take this seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

kungfugymnast said:


> Yes, J20 and future naval variant J31 will serve as strategic front line snipers but will be built in numbers when ready.
> 
> Future air engagement in case of US invasion, the J10 & Flankers will serve as decoy to lure in F18, F15, F16, F22 and F35 while J20 & navalized J31 will be flying ahead undetected to launch missiles taking out conventional fighters first.
> 
> Conventional fighters will then use jammer and countermeasures to spoof incoming missiles while performing evasive maneuver fleeing from F22/35 while J20/31 will try to acquire lock and launch missiles on the F22/35. Stealth vs stealth will involve visual range engagements aided by tactical satellite uplink view.



As far as I can see, J-20 and others are mainly for defensive use although some stealth hunting can be done. Same also applies to their naval fleets.

Offensive operations with real significance will be done using new concept weapons, typically near space, hyper-sonic weapons. They have been working on that for 2 decades, deployed quite some large scaled multi spectrum satellite constellations, fielded some battle ready, rocket boosted gliders and are still advancing very fast on a a couple of different directions including the scram jets. I am pretty sure they will keep on maximising their advantage on that.

That's why the US, in response to such threats, has been exercising the Rapid Raptor concepts since 2014.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

gambit said:


> I hope PLA leadership take this seriously.



Nice to see you around, feel free to debate anything and compare. You're ex military expert in radar detection, you sure know how it works and the downside of it against stealth target.

Since radar can't detect stealth aircraft from far, a good satellite is all you could count on before they get close to naval fleet or shore. The conventional fighters are the good decoy to distract the stealth aircraft. Like your country exercise where the F-15s stood zero chance against the F-22 (doesn't count evasive maneuver against missile), the only way is to make the F-22 launch missile to trace its position with assistance from satellites. The F-15s could only go evasive maneuver to spoof the incoming missiles before they could get close (only if there are F-15s left). If there's F-35A (on F-15 side) flanking from the side at high speed towards the possible F-22 location or if it is seen on satellite, the F-35 could get into right detection range to track and kill the F-22 while it is busy engaging the F-15s.

*The F-117 could only be spotted on old radar below 10Nm before it could be tracked (rumored below 5Nm) and shot at in Serbia. Maybe AESA radar would work better*

Conclusion is, if stealth vs stealth, both might need to get into visual pod range in order to spot each other if AESA can't see below 20Nm, 10Nm or less. IRST might or might not work at max range. This means dogfight is still important. Forgo dogfight will only repeat another US Air Force disaster in Vietnam.



ozranger said:


> As far as I can see, J-20 and others are mainly for defensive use although some stealth hunting can be done. Same also applies to their naval fleets.
> 
> Offensive operations with real significance will be done using new concept weapons, typically near space, hyper-sonic weapons. They have been working on that for 2 decades, deployed quite some large scaled multi spectrum satellite constellations, fielded some battle ready, rocket boosted gliders and are still advancing very fast on a a couple of different directions including the scram jets. I am pretty sure they will keep on maximising their advantage on that.
> 
> That's why the US, in response to such threats, has been exercising the Rapid Raptor concepts since 2014.



J-20 is for defensive at the moment, in future if necessary will go on the offensive. Think they'll focus on new small diameter armaments for the J-20 to carry more bombs, missiles in its main bay. Same goes to navalized J-31, might not be built for export market unless stealth no longer classifieds since US is selling F-35s to NATO & allies that will definitely reverse engineer the F-35 stealth coating in secret. Unless US selling the downgraded low RCS version instead of the actual stealth materials which is possible, don't think US will do that when it is the only country with 2nd generation stealth materials. China & Russia probably at either 1st generation (salvaged from F-117 wreckage) or already at 2nd generation (hacked information from US F-35 & some of the hired engineers that once worked for US manufacturers went to join China). The latest news, the JSDF crashed F-35 wreckage is believed to have been located (not realized until the wreckage is confirmed salvaged by US & Japan).

China Naval Fleet for now is on the defensive, their conventional carriers are mainly to safeguard the South China Sea, Yellow Sea and entrance to Pacific Ocean up to Guam and some of the pacific islands. Not meant for long range operation therefore they prefer conventional because it is lighter, faster and less risky maintenance. China invested in space technology because the good top down view that could see through clouds and bad storm is necessary to check for any stealth invader. Top down attack defenses, rail gun, hypersonic flight vehicles in progress.

Both will keep coming up with better new toys to counter each other, good for technology development.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CrazyZ

*China's new J-20 stealth fighter may be ready for a fight sooner than you think*
TONY CAPACCIO, BLOOMBERG NEWS 

May 02, 2019 at 02:07 PM

MILITARY TECH
https://taskandpurpose.com/china-j20-stealth-fighter-operational
A J-20 stealth fighter jet of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force performs during the 12th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition, also known as Airshow China 2018, in Zhuhai city, south China's Guangdong province on November 6, 2018. (Imaginechina via Associated Press)
NEW YORK — China may declare its first stealth fighter operational this year as it also develops long-range bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, part of a regional buildup by Beijing that the U.S. is closely monitoring, according to the U.S. Air Force's Pacific commander.

Gen. Charles Brown, the head of Pacific Air Forces, said the stealthy J-20 fighter could "possibly" be operational this year, a move he said would signal "greater threat, greater capability" for China in the Pacific. He went on to emphasize that U.S. efforts to counter those developments include rising deployments of next-generation F-35 jets and continuing overflights of strategic areas such as the South China Sea.

"My sense of the way the Chinese operate is somewhat incremental," Brown said in an interview this week at Bloomberg's headquarters in New York. "They'll continue to push the envelope to figure out does anybody say or do anything — if you don't push back it'll keep coming."

Fielding the J-20 would add to what's already the region's largest air force and world's third largest, with more than 2,500 total aircraft including 1,700 combat fighters, strategic bombers, tactical bombers and multi-mission tactical and attack aircraft, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said in a report earlier this year.

China's J-20 fighter is part of a modernization effort that's been "closing the gap with Western air forces across a broad spectrum of capabilities, such as aircraft performance, command and control and electronic warfare." according to the report.

Brown also said he thinks China is moving to develop dual-use bombers that would be "similar to our bombers" in terms of being able to carry nuclear weapons and nonnuclear precision-guided weapons. "I don't think it would be too far off the mark to say they could do that as well," Brown added, without indicating whether China may have a stealth bomber capability.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, in a statement Wednesday for the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said a Chinese long-range bomber "if successful, would make it only one of three nations" to "possess a nuclear triad" of land, sea and air-based nuclear capabilities.

The U.S. has a number of ways to counter China's buildup, Brown said. That includes being unpredictable in deployments of the B-1B, B-52 and B-2 bombers. The B-1B, Brown said, is now qualified to carry a new Lockheed Martin Corp. anti-ship missile, a few of which have been stockpiled in the Pacific region.

Brown, a four-star general who has logged more than 130 combat flight hours out of 2,900 overall, was on the U.S. East Coast this week to speak with Asia experts about the challenges facing his command. He started in the job more than eight months ago after serving as deputy commander of U.S. operations in the Middle East and head of the air war against Islamic State in 2015-2016.

A key issue for Brown in his latest post is "how do I gain a greater understanding of how China operates — not only their equipment capability — but how they operate, how they command and control. I want to understand what makes their blood pressure go up" so as to avoid miscalculations.

"Their propensity to fly out over the water has increased over the years," he said.

It's not just the U.S. noticing the increased Chinese capability, Brown said. He touched briefly on the State Department and Pentagon's review of a potential sale of new F-16s to Taiwan. President Donald Trump's advisers encouraged Taiwan to submit a formal request for the jets. That request would need to be converted into a formal proposal by the Defense and State departments, and then Congress would have 30 days to decide whether to block the sale.

"There's been a little increase in tension there recently, which may be the impetus" behind Taiwan's request, Brown said. The Beijing government considers Taiwan's fate a "core interest" — more important than almost any other issue, and has increased pressure on countries and multinational companies to avoid actions that could imply sovereign status for the island.

The U.S., wary of antagonizing China, hasn't sold advanced fighter jets to Taiwan since President George H.W. Bush announced the sale of 150 F-16s in 1992. The Obama administration rejected a similar Taiwanese request for new jets, agreeing in 2011 to upgrade the island's existing fleet.

Brown has more than a passing familiarity with the F-16 — he said it's his favorite military aircraft of the numerous ones he has piloted. In addition to the F-16, he has flown the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, V-2 tilt-rotor Osprey, AC-130U gunship, B-1B, B-2A and B-52H bombers, C-130J transport and KC-135 tanker, among others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

@Deino no need a separate threads please merge it to J-20 discussion threads thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 559947



Is it me, or does the radome looks different?


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

星海军事 said:


> It's a screenshot of a game.


Which game? I need to play it.


----------



## Kompromat

How many has China planned to procure?


----------



## samsara

_“At the moment, we are measuring a special stealth device. Assuming that the aircraft captured by the radar looks as big as a sparrow, then this device will make the aircraft smaller than the bee.” In the feature film, the researchers of the China Electronic Technology Group (CETC) are so shocked. It is speculated that the RCS value of J-20 歼-20 is likely to decrease to the lower limit of 0.001 m2 in the future._


歼20采用特殊装置瞬间变身蜜蜂 雷达要没“战绩”了


专题片中，中国电子科技集团有限公司（CETC）的科研人员经过多年的攻坚克难，最终成功掌握了RCS测量方法，并运用该技术对歼-20开展了测量评定工作。并且和歼-20的“娘家”成都飞机制造厂开展合作，大幅度降低了歼-20的RCS数值。眼下，歼-20的RCS数值被控制在了0.1㎡的下限，这就相当于一只小鸟的RCS。

“目前，我们正对一部特殊的隐身设备进行测量。假设雷达捕捉到的一个飞机看上去跟麻雀差不多大，那么这个设备就会让飞机变得比蜜蜂小。”专题片中，中国电科的科研人员如此爆料。根据推测，歼-20的RCS数值在未来很可能降低在0.001 ㎡的下限。

(…) 

https://mil.sina.cn/sd/2019-05-18/detail-ihvhiqax9519801.d.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ozranger

samsara said:


> _“At the moment, we are measuring a special stealth device. Assuming that the aircraft captured by the radar looks as big as a sparrow, then this device will make the aircraft smaller than the bee.” In the feature film, the researchers of the China Electronic Technology Group (CETC) are so shocked. It is speculated that the RCS value of J-20 歼-20 is likely to decrease to the lower limit of 0.001 m2 in the future._
> 
> 
> 歼20采用特殊装置瞬间变身蜜蜂 雷达要没“战绩”了
> 
> 
> 专题片中，中国电子科技集团有限公司（CETC）的科研人员经过多年的攻坚克难，最终成功掌握了RCS测量方法，并运用该技术对歼-20开展了测量评定工作。并且和歼-20的“娘家”成都飞机制造厂开展合作，大幅度降低了歼-20的RCS数值。眼下，歼-20的RCS数值被控制在了0.1㎡的下限，这就相当于一只小鸟的RCS。
> 
> “目前，我们正对一部特殊的隐身设备进行测量。假设雷达捕捉到的一个飞机看上去跟麻雀差不多大，那么这个设备就会让飞机变得比蜜蜂小。”专题片中，中国电科的科研人员如此爆料。根据推测，歼-20的RCS数值在未来很可能降低在0.001 ㎡的下限。
> 
> (…)
> 
> https://mil.sina.cn/sd/2019-05-18/detail-ihvhiqax9519801.d.html



Must be an active device.


----------



## Silicon0000

samsara said:


> _“At the moment, we are measuring a special stealth device. Assuming that the aircraft captured by the radar looks as big as a sparrow, then this device will make the aircraft smaller than the bee.” In the feature film, the researchers of the China Electronic Technology Group (CETC) are so shocked. It is speculated that the RCS value of J-20 歼-20 is likely to decrease to the lower limit of 0.001 m2 in the future._
> 
> 
> 歼20采用特殊装置瞬间变身蜜蜂 雷达要没“战绩”了
> 
> 
> 专题片中，中国电子科技集团有限公司（CETC）的科研人员经过多年的攻坚克难，最终成功掌握了RCS测量方法，并运用该技术对歼-20开展了测量评定工作。并且和歼-20的“娘家”成都飞机制造厂开展合作，大幅度降低了歼-20的RCS数值。眼下，歼-20的RCS数值被控制在了0.1㎡的下限，这就相当于一只小鸟的RCS。
> 
> “目前，我们正对一部特殊的隐身设备进行测量。假设雷达捕捉到的一个飞机看上去跟麻雀差不多大，那么这个设备就会让飞机变得比蜜蜂小。”专题片中，中国电科的科研人员如此爆料。根据推测，歼-20的RCS数值在未来很可能降低在0.001 ㎡的下限。
> 
> (…)
> 
> https://mil.sina.cn/sd/2019-05-18/detail-ihvhiqax9519801.d.html




Are you saying current J20 RCS is equal to Sparrow ???


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Silicon0000 said:


> Are you saying current J20 RCS is equal to Sparrow ???


He's not saying anything, that source is the _Daily Mail_ of PLA watching.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Silicon0000 said:


> Are you saying current J20 RCS is equal to Sparrow ???


No but a metal marble plate or beach vollyball approximately same as F-22/F-35 @Silicon0000

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Silicon0000 said:


> Are you saying current J20 RCS is equal to Sparrow ???


Even the media itself, SINA.CN says nothing about the actual J-20 RCS. It just gives an ANALOGY regarding the sparrow — bee thing! Read again more meticulously what I posted above: “ASSUMING… ".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 is often used to attack electronic jamming planes during exercises.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

April 9, 2019

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> April 9, 2019
> View attachment 561394



Where is this?

At the CFTE in Xi'an Yanliang?

And is it again a tank or for the first time an AAM?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Where is this?
> 
> At the CFTE in Xi'an Yanliang?



Nope ... at Dingxin !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Grandy

*China’s meter wave anti-stealth radar capable of guiding missiles to destroy stealth aircraft: senior designer*

China’s meter wave anti-stealth radar not only detects advanced stealth aircraft, but also guides missiles to destroy them, a senior Chinese radar designer said at a recent interview.

Meter wave radar can be deployed on vehicles, on land and warships, creating a dense web that gives hostile stealth aircraft nowhere to hide, Chinese military experts told the Global Times on Thursday.

“As long as they are designed to serve this purpose, meter wave anti-stealth radars can fulfill the requirement,” Wu Jianqi, a senior scientist at the state-owned China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC) who conducts researches and designs anti-stealth radar, said when asked in an interview with the Naval & Merchant Ships magazine whether a meter wave radar can guide missiles to shoot down stealth aircraft.

Meter wave radars can detect stealth aircraft because modern stealth aircraft are mainly designed to avoid detection by microwave radar, and are less stealthy to meter wave radar, military experts noted.

However, analysts previously said that because of their low resolution and accuracy, meter wave radars can only send warnings about incoming threats. And even if microwave radars compensate for the shortcomings of the meter wave radars, they are unable to entirely overcome these shortcomings.

Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military analyst, told the Global Times that older meter wave radars could only see roughly an object’s general direction, not its exact location.

Wu solved the issue by designing the world’s first practical meter wave sparse array synthetic impulse and aperture radar.

Wu said that his radar has multiple transmitting and receiving antennas tens of meters high, scattered in a range of tens to hundreds of meters. They can continuously cover the sky as the radar receives echoes from all directions.

Wei said that this significantly enhances the radar’s ability to track an aerial target, pinpointing the stealth aircraft’s exact coordinates by synthesizing parameters and data gathered by the radar under the support of advanced algorithms.

Since the radar can now see stealth aircraft clearly and track them continuously and accurately, it could become capable of guiding long-range anti-aircraft missiles and landing precision strikes on them, Wei said.

Although other countries like Russia are also developing meter wave radars, Wu seems confident that China’s are the best.

“As for now, I do not see a meter wave air defense radar from abroad that can match the criteria of the advanced meter wave radar [like the one China has],” Wu said.

_Source: Global Times “China’s meter wave anti-stealth radar capable of guiding missiles to destroy stealth aircraft: senior designer”_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 562208
> View attachment 562209




What's that?


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> What's that?



Maybe JASDF report of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> What's that?


I guess You will need the service of the sole Japanese member at this board, @Suika to help translate this JASDF Report   

+ if he's real


----------



## Zulfiqar

Deino said:


> Nope ... at Dingxin !
> 
> View attachment 561444
> View attachment 561445




Which site/service did you use for the first picture.

I previously used terraserver but now I can't access recent pictures (even with product overview watermark).


----------



## Deino

Zulfiqar said:


> Which site/service did you use for the first picture.
> 
> I previously used terraserver but now I can't access recent pictures (even with product overview watermark).



To admit, this is just an image posted here some long time ago ...


----------



## Suika

samsara said:


> I guess You will need the service of the sole Japanese member at this board, @Suika to help translate this JASDF Report
> 
> + if he's real



Not real sorry, can't help.


----------



## siegecrossbow

samsara said:


> I guess You will need the service of the sole Japanese member at this board, @Suika to help translate this JASDF Report
> 
> + if he's real



We need to get our hands on the actual report first. Right now the only thing available is the cover.


----------



## lcloo

siegecrossbow said:


> We need to get our hands on the actual report first. Right now the only thing available is the cover.


Give it a grain of salt. First note the wording "作 ：515" on the cover. Who is 515? He looks like white Caucasian. Secondly the website address printed on cover page is spelled wrong. And minimum use of Japanese words. The cover page does not look like done by Japanese.

Could be just a translation from the author aka 515. Better to go to Japan MOD official site instead, for accurate information.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 563980



Nice, but really old!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Grandy

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 562208
> View attachment 562209



Russia report of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## siegecrossbow

Grandy said:


> Russia report of J-20
> View attachment 565040



This was also shared on sinodefence a couple months back.


----------



## ozranger

Grandy said:


> Russia report of J-20
> View attachment 565040


Why in English?


----------



## nomi007

another weapon bay?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Aryeih Leib

Maybe for landing gear


nomi007 said:


> another weapon bay?
> View attachment 565263


----------



## Ultima Thule

nomi007 said:


> another weapon bay?
> View attachment 565263


Clearly a landing gear bay @nomi007


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

nomi007 said:


> another weapon bay?
> View attachment 565263


Another plane. That's an F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Another plane. That's an F-35.



... and even a Japanese one.


----------



## Figaro

nomi007 said:


> another weapon bay?
> View attachment 565263


Are you serious?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

ozranger said:


> Why in English?



Russian interference is real.


----------



## Stealth

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 561549



Raptor looks sleek and balance

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> View attachment 568663



Where did you get this? First time I've seen a six-plane formation.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Where did you get this? First time I've seen a six-plane formation.




Via this Tweet



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148907257368702976

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149612476008321024
And reportedly from today:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149612476008321024
> And reportedly from today:
> 
> View attachment 568838



Parade training?


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Stealth said:


> Raptor looks sleek and balance



But the big splitter makes a very big radar signature. J-20 is much stealthier to radar due to revolutionary DSI technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## vi-va

Stealth said:


> Raptor looks sleek and balance


Agree, but just looks like so. F-22 design is almost 2 decades ago. J-20 and F-35 benefit the latest technology, RCS is smaller compared with F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> F-22 design is almost 2 decades ago.


The SR-71 is 53 yrs old. And no one has anything equivalent.



viva_zhao said:


> J-20 and F-35 benefit the latest technology, RCS is smaller compared with F-22.


Really...??? You have any hard data to back that up?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 055_destroyer

gambit said:


> The SR-71 is 53 yrs old. And no one has anything equivalent.



Current modern warfare need no such dinosaur. Why bother building one?


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> The SR-71 is 53 yrs old. And no one has anything equivalent.
> 
> 
> Really...??? You have any hard data to back that up?


No, no one has F-22 data neither. But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?

If USA can't design a fighter better than F-22, why not keep producing F-22?

RCS control is all about material technology and shape for now. No magic. You don't even need supercomputing to get a better design than F-22. A supercomputer ranking 500 nowadays is way much faster than ranking 1 20 years ago.

No one will copy SR-71. Satellites can do much better job without any risk, why bother?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ozranger

viva_zhao said:


> No, no one has F-22 data neither. But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?
> 
> If USA can't design a fighter better than F-22, why not keep producing F-22?
> 
> RCS control is all about material technology and shape for now. No magic. You don't even need supercomputing to get a better design than F-22. A supercomputer ranking 500 nowadays is way much faster than ranking 1 20 years ago.
> 
> No one will copy SR-71. Satellites can do much better job without any risk, why bother?



The so called hack into F-22 or F-35 secret is purely propaganda and cheap excuse for losing a game. No real professionals would believe it, including those Americans.

However the good thing is, average Americans really buy this kind of bullshit, and then comfortably stay in their illusion. The helps other countries overtake.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

055_destroyer said:


> Current modern warfare need no such dinosaur. Why bother building one?


And who really defined 'current modern' warfare? Your China?



viva_zhao said:


> No, no one has F-22 data neither.


We do.



viva_zhao said:


> But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?


You have the simplistic notion that newer must be better. History of engineering of any field is filled with examples where that notion is not typical. And aviation is the most dangerous field to experiment. The B-52 is older than many of its pilots and today, there is no equivalent. Same for the venerable C-130.



viva_zhao said:


> If USA can't design a fighter better than F-22, why not keep producing F-22?


Who says we cannot?



viva_zhao said:


> RCS control is all about material technology and shape for now. No magic.


No one said it is 'magic'. The use of the word 'magic' means you really have no understanding of the idea of 'stealth' in the first place.



viva_zhao said:


> You don't even need supercomputing to get a better design than F-22.


Wrong. But in truth, it is technically feasible to design an F-22 equivalent with the slide rule. Just will take you about 50 yrs. 



viva_zhao said:


> A supercomputer ranking 500 nowadays is way much faster than ranking 1 20 years ago.


Fine. But that still does not negate the need for a supercomputer level capability to produce an F-117 equivalent, let alone the F-22. If what you argued is so casual, we would be seeing the F-22 equivalent flying all over. Yet we do not.



viva_zhao said:


> No one will copy SR-71. Satellites can do much better job without any risk, why bother?


There are limitations to satellites. Look them up.

Overall, looks like you really do not know what you are talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150337620867784704

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kungfugymnast

viva_zhao said:


> No, no one has F-22 data neither. But it doesn't matter. Because if China can't beat F-22 which was designed 20 years ago, what's the point of J-20 project?
> 
> If USA can't design a fighter better than F-22, why not keep producing F-22?
> 
> RCS control is all about material technology and shape for now. No magic. You don't even need supercomputing to get a better design than F-22. A supercomputer ranking 500 nowadays is way much faster than ranking 1 20 years ago.
> 
> No one will copy SR-71. Satellites can do much better job without any risk, why bother?



Turbofan powered fighter jet technology has already reached its max level, there's no further progress like end of ww2 fighters as the next stage will involve something totally different either drone or hypersonic capable fighters. 

In military world, major super powers don't share technology and would rely on reverse engineering done on captured, shot down or bought enemy machines. Export version machines bought by customers such as Japan, UK, Germans will secretly reverse engineer on their newly bought F35s. US itself can't build 5th generation chobm armor fitted on Challenger 2, their Abrams with 3rd generation chobm armor are fitted by British. If British became US enemy, Americans will reverse engineer chobm gen 3 armor and that's all they could do, still inferior to challenger 2 chobm. 

US became top mainly because they had hired the most engineers and scientists since ww2 from Britain, Germany, Russia, etc. Also they obtained almost every Russian equipments captured or bought from other countries such as mig29 from East Germany, Moldova and Su30 from Ukraine. 

China hired numbers of engineers and scientists that were once working for US military manufacturers that were downsizing or closing down when US no longer has high demand for war machines especially aviation. 

When Lockheed Martin.became dominant sole military aircraft manufacturer, they became corrupted building overpriced fighter jets with unreliable parts yet expensive to replace like BMW to milk cash out of US military. That's why the US didn't place high numbers of f22.



gambit said:


> And who really defined 'current modern' warfare? Your China?
> 
> 
> We do.
> 
> 
> You have the simplistic notion that newer must be better. History of engineering of any field is filled with examples where that notion is not typical. And aviation is the most dangerous field to experiment. The B-52 is older than many of its pilots and today, there is no equivalent. Same for the venerable C-130.
> 
> 
> Who says we cannot?
> 
> 
> No one said it is 'magic'. The use of the word 'magic' means you really have no understanding of the idea of 'stealth' in the first place.
> 
> 
> Wrong. But in truth, it is technically feasible to design an F-22 equivalent with the slide rule. Just will take you about 50 yrs.
> 
> 
> Fine. But that still does not negate the need for a supercomputer level capability to produce an F-117 equivalent, let alone the F-22. If what you argued is so casual, we would be seeing the F-22 equivalent flying all over. Yet we do not.
> 
> 
> There are limitations to satellites. Look them up.
> 
> Overall, looks like you really do not know what you are talking about.



F22 is surely the best fighter today despite heavy maintenance. Its stealth is better than F35 of course. 

The F35, I don't think US would allow the same stealth materials fitted on the export version F35. Most likely with toned down materials like the avionics fitted in export version F35. NATO despite being US allies, they too are military manufacturers and are direct competitors to US. EF2000, Rafale are answers to US F16. They are more likely to replicate F35 stealth, engine, avionics to come up with their equivalent tomorrow. 

As for the J20, it all depends on how well they could steal tech from US to beat the F22. J20 stealth tech derived from F117 stealth materials. There's rumor that B2 engineers were hired to assist in J20 development so it could have somewhere close stealth capability. If war happened, both J20 and F22 will still get into miles just before visual range engagement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

kungfugymnast said:


> Turbofan powered fighter jet technology has already reached its max level, there's no further progress like end of ww2 fighters as the next stage will involve something totally different either drone or hypersonic capable fighters.
> 
> In military world, major super powers don't share technology and would rely on reverse engineering done on captured, shot down or bought enemy machines. Export version machines bought by customers such as Japan, UK, Germans will secretly reverse engineer on their newly bought F35s. US itself can't build 5th generation chobm armor fitted on Challenger 2, their Abrams with 3rd generation chobm armor are fitted by British. If British became US enemy, Americans will reverse engineer chobm gen 3 armor and that's all they could do, still inferior to challenger 2 chobm.
> 
> US became top mainly because they had hired the most engineers and scientists since ww2 from Britain, Germany, Russia, etc. Also they obtained almost every Russian equipments captured or bought from other countries such as mig29 from East Germany, Moldova and Su30 from Ukraine.
> 
> China hired numbers of engineers and scientists that were once working for US military manufacturers that were downsizing or closing down when US no longer has high demand for war machines especially aviation.
> 
> When Lockheed Martin.became dominant sole military aircraft manufacturer, they became corrupted building overpriced fighter jets with unreliable parts yet expensive to replace like BMW to milk cash out of US military. That's why the US didn't place high numbers of f22.
> 
> 
> 
> F22 is surely the best fighter today despite heavy maintenance. Its stealth is better than F35 of course.
> 
> The F35, I don't think US would allow the same stealth materials fitted on the export version F35. Most likely with toned down materials like the avionics fitted in export version F35. NATO despite being US allies, they too are military manufacturers and are direct competitors to US. EF2000, Rafale are answers to US F16. They are more likely to replicate F35 stealth, engine, avionics to come up with their equivalent tomorrow.
> 
> As for the J20, it all depends on how well they could steal tech from US to beat the F22. J20 stealth tech derived from F117 stealth materials. There's rumor that B2 engineers were hired to assist in J20 development so it could have somewhere close stealth capability. If war happened, both J20 and F22 will still get into miles just before visual range engagement.


So according to your post above, all the Chinese scientists can do are STEALING from the United States. It implies that the Chinese scientists are too dumb to be capable to do R&D on their own, in particular on those areas regarding the Stealth and Engine matters, in developing the J-20. And the figure of Yang Wei is simply a hoax.

All one need is just the BOLDNESS to write all the accusations backed by own words wrapped in many unrelated matters, or parroting the NATO MSM lines that the Chinese are stealing from the U.S. in this forum about the "Chinese Military" 

You are just amazing in your defiance and agitation here!!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kungfugymnast

samsara said:


> So according to your post above, all the Chinese scientists can do are STEALING from the United States. It implies that the Chinese scientists are too dumb to be capable to do R&D on their own, in particular on those areas regarding the Stealth and Engine matters, in developing the J-20. And the figure of Yang Wei is simply a hoax.
> 
> All one need is just the BOLDNESS to write all the accusations backed by own words wrapped in many unrelated matters, or parroting the NATO MSM lines that the Chinese are stealing from the U.S. in this forum about the "Chinese Military"
> 
> You are just amazing in your defiance and agitation here!!



When you have nothing to begin with, you will start by replicating technology from existing. You can only start making your own after you managed to replicate and understand how it works. Regardless of how good you are being a scientist or engineer, invention is not something can be easily done. Innovation is easier way to go. 

US started with reverse engineering (replicating French and British before ww2 then Germans, Soviets after ww2), they too are not exempted. Nothing wrong with China started the same way, check history they only started building their own after replicating Russian, American & European technology.


----------



## ozranger

samsara said:


> So according to your post above, all the Chinese scientists can do are STEALING from the United States. It implies that the Chinese scientists are too dumb to be capable to do R&D on their own, in particular on those areas regarding the Stealth and Engine matters, in developing the J-20. And the figure of Yang Wei is simply a hoax.
> 
> All one need is just the BOLDNESS to write all the accusations backed by own words wrapped in many unrelated matters, or parroting the NATO MSM lines that the Chinese are stealing from the U.S. in this forum about the "Chinese Military"
> 
> You are just amazing in your defiance and agitation here!!



More important thing is if those R&D progresses in Chinese firms are organic and sustainable. Obviously they are and have been further pushed forward amid recent trade wars.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

kungfugymnast said:


> When you have nothing to begin with, you will start by replicating technology from existing. You can only start making your own after you managed to replicate and understand how it works. Regardless of how good you are being a scientist or engineer, invention is not something can be easily done. Innovation is easier way to go.
> 
> US started with reverse engineering (replicating French and British before ww2 then Germans, Soviets after ww2), they too are not exempted. Nothing wrong with China started the same way, check history they only started building their own after replicating Russian, American & European technology.


I can accept the notions of "imitating", "duplicating", "replicating", "inspiring", in the learning process… every nation follows such development steps… the US even had its Paperclip Operations to net the many brilliant Nazi scientists during the World War II, which pushed forward the substantial progresses in many scientific and technological areas in the United States and laid out the sound foundation for the subsequent progresses over the past decades (1960s~1990s)... as well as to host the many brilliant scientists from around the globe incl. those smart brains from China (yeah, brain drains for the rest of the world, but in the last decades China succeeded to much reduce such brain drains)... *but accusation of STEALING is a totally different creature!!  

One should NOT present such insulting notion about STEALING without being backed by any hard PROOF!!! And the burden to prove lies on the accuser!! *

Are the United States authorities or its military corporations so incompetent in protecting their confidential works that nations like China can just STEAL (the blueprints) from them????

I recall many years ago (possibly more than 5 years) I once read some article in the US think tank publication wrote that the US might better slow down its introduction of the new weaponry systems for China did match or emulate new advancements rapidly any new military stuffs the US introduced, and came out even at larger scale at the lower costs, and at the end the US faced its own great difficulties to maintain its superiority lead, the technology gap got narrower over time. At that time I didn't really grasp the true intent of that article, but later I got what did it mean to not stimulate the arm competitions. Just look at the EM Railgun, Hypersonic Craft, Quantum Satellite, Laser Weapons…

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Grandy

Science 
*Chinese scientists hail ‘incredible’ stealth breakthrough that may blind military radar systems*

Researchers at academy of science believe electromagnetic wave model is key that will herald new era in radar detection and avoidance for military ships and aircraft



Stephen Chen  
Published: 1:00am, 19 Jul, 2019






China’s J-20 stealth fighter. Photo: AFP

Chinese scientists have achieved a series of breakthroughs in stealth materials technology that they claim can make fighter jets and other weaponry lighter, cheaper to build and less vulnerable to radar detection.

Professor Luo Xiangang and colleagues at the Institute of Optics and Electronics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Chengdu, Sichuan province, said they had created the world’s first mathematical model to precisely describe the behaviour of electromagnetic waves when they strike a piece of metal engraved with microscopic patterns, according to a statement posted on the academy’s website on Monday.

With their new model and breakthroughs in materials fabrication, they developed a membrane, known as a meta surface, which can absorb radar waves in the widest spectrum yet reported.

At present, stealth aircraft mainly rely on special geometry – their body shape – to deflect radar signals, but those designs can affect aerodynamic performance. They also use radar absorbing paint, which has a high density but only works against a limited frequency spectrum.
In one test, the new technology cut the strength of a reflected radar signal – measured in decibels – by between 10 and nearly 30dB in a frequency range from 0.3 to 40 gigahertz.

A stealth technologist from Fudan University in Shanghai, who was not involved in the work, said a fighter jet or warship using the new technology could feasibly fool all military radar systems in operation today.

“This detection range is incredible,” the researcher said. “I have never heard of anyone even coming close to this performance. At present, absorbing technology with an effective range of between 4 and 18 GHz is considered very, very good.”
*https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mil...igh-frequency-radar-system-could-spot-stealth*
*China’s new radar system could spot stealth aircraft from at long range*

The lower the signal frequency, the longer a radar’s detection range. But detailed information about a moving target can only be obtained with higher frequency radio waves. Militaries typically use a combination of radars working at different frequencies to establish lines of defence.

The Medium Extended Air Defence System, Nato’s early warning radar, operates at a frequency range of 0.3 to 1 GHz. The American Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system, the missile defence radar that caught Beijing’s attention when it was deployed in South Korea in 2017, operates at frequencies around 10 GHz.

Some airports use extremely short-range, high-frequency radars running at 20 GHz or above to monitor vehicle and plane movements on the ground, but even they might not be able to see a jet with the new stealth technology until it is overhead.

“Materials with meta surface technology are already found on military hardware in China, although what they are and where they are used remains largely classified,” the Fudan researcher said.





Professor Luo Xiangang. Photo: Baidu

Luo and his colleagues could not be reached for comment. But according to the academy’s statement and a paper the team published in the journal _Advanced Science_ earlier this year, the stealth breakthroughs were based upon a discovery they made several years ago.

They found that the propagation pattern of radio waves – how they travelled – in extremely narrow metallic spaces was similar to a catenary curve, a shape similar to that assumed by chains suspended by two fixed points under their own weight.
*https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...now-you-dont-china-tests-stealth-invisibility*
*China tests stealth ‘invisibility cloaks’ on regular fighter jets*

Inspired by catenary electromagnetics, the team developed a mathematical model and designed meta surfaces suitable for nearly all kinds of wave manipulation.

These included energy-absorbing materials for stealth vehicles and antennas that can be used on satellites or military aircraft.

Zhu Shining, a professor of physics specialising in meta materials at Nanjing University, said the catenary model was a “novel idea”.

“The Institute of Optics and Electronics in Chengdu has conducted long-term research in this area which paved a solid foundation for their discoveries. They have done a good job,” Zhu said.

“Scientists are exploring new features of metal materials, some of them are already in real-life applications.”

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## gambit

samsara said:


> *but accusation of STEALING is a totally different creature!!  *



Yes, it is.



samsara said:


> Are the United States authorities or its military corporations so incompetent in protecting their confidential works that nations like China can just STEAL (the blueprints) from them????


There is little to no protection from HUMINT.

In industrial espionage, an employee from one company can be employed by another company and that employee can literally steal proprietary information.

We can start about 300 yrs ago...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2011-09-20/famous-cases-of-corporate-espionage 


> Père d'Entrecolles was a French Jesuit missionary in the early 1700s. By some descriptions, he was also an industrial spy.


Breaking past a corporate firewall and gained access to electronics storage qualifies as industrial espionage.

If the information is kept off Internet access, then HUMINT is the only resort. The question is not confined to the technical competency of the target, but also to the technical competency of the aggressor. If the aggressor have superior technical skills, then it is easy to cast the target as broadly 'incompetent' without context, fully satisfying one's own emotional needs to see the target as 'incompetent'. But with proper context, HUMINT is the most time consuming and labor intensive of all crafts of industrial espionage and in this arena, aggressor and target have mutual respects.

If China engaged in HUMINT, then it is/was theft in every sense of the word.

Finally, the US military does not have its own corporations to manufacture large scale items like ships, tanks, and jet fighters.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Turbofan powered fighter jet technology has already reached its max level, there's no further progress like end of ww2 fighters as the next stage will involve something totally different either drone or hypersonic capable fighters.
> 
> In military world, major super powers don't share technology and would rely on reverse engineering done on captured, shot down or bought enemy machines. Export version machines bought by customers such as Japan, UK, Germans will secretly reverse engineer on their newly bought F35s. US itself can't build 5th generation chobm armor fitted on Challenger 2, their Abrams with 3rd generation chobm armor are fitted by British. If British became US enemy, Americans will reverse engineer chobm gen 3 armor and that's all they could do, still inferior to challenger 2 chobm.
> 
> US became top mainly because they had hired the most engineers and scientists since ww2 from Britain, Germany, Russia, etc. Also they obtained almost every Russian equipments captured or bought from other countries such as mig29 from East Germany, Moldova and Su30 from Ukraine.
> 
> China hired numbers of engineers and scientists that were once working for US military manufacturers that were downsizing or closing down when US no longer has high demand for war machines especially aviation.
> 
> When Lockheed Martin.became dominant sole military aircraft manufacturer, they became corrupted building overpriced fighter jets with unreliable parts yet expensive to replace like BMW to milk cash out of US military. That's why the US didn't place high numbers of f22.
> 
> 
> 
> F22 is surely the best fighter today despite heavy maintenance. Its stealth is better than F35 of course.
> 
> The F35, I don't think US would allow the same stealth materials fitted on the export version F35. Most likely with toned down materials like the avionics fitted in export version F35. NATO despite being US allies, they too are military manufacturers and are direct competitors to US. EF2000, Rafale are answers to US F16. They are more likely to replicate F35 stealth, engine, avionics to come up with their equivalent tomorrow.
> 
> As for the J20, it all depends on how well they could steal tech from US to beat the F22. J20 stealth tech derived from F117 stealth materials. There's rumor that B2 engineers were hired to assist in J20 development so it could have somewhere close stealth capability. If war happened, both J20 and F22 will still get into miles just before visual range engagement.


If I recall, the head J-20 or J-10 test pilot said back in 2011 that the F-117 stealth technology were already outdated back then ... do you really think the Chinese are stupid enough to rely on obsolete tech for their top of the line fighter?Please read up on facts before spewing such ignorance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

gambit said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> 
> There is little to no protection from HUMINT.
> 
> In industrial espionage, an employee from one company can be employed by another company and that employee can literally steal proprietary information.
> 
> We can start about 300 yrs ago...
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2011-09-20/famous-cases-of-corporate-espionage
> 
> Breaking past a corporate firewall and gained access to electronics storage qualifies as industrial espionage.
> 
> If the information is kept off Internet access, then HUMINT is the only resort. The question is not confined to the technical competency of the target, but also to the technical competency of the aggressor. If the aggressor have superior technical skills, then it is easy to cast the target as broadly 'incompetent' without context, fully satisfying one's own emotional needs to see the target as 'incompetent'. But with proper context, HUMINT is the most time consuming and labor intensive of all crafts of industrial espionage and in this arena, aggressor and target have mutual respects.
> 
> If China engaged in HUMINT, then it is/was theft in every sense of the word.
> 
> Finally, the US military does not have its own corporations to manufacture large scale items like ships, tanks, and jet fighters.


You're simply parroting the USA politicians, from Trump to Pence to Pompeo and the cohorts, all accusations without providing any evidence or proof ... just empty accusations. So boring!

Just stupid who think that only the USA can produce some stuffs then other major nations incl China cannot produce them for good!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## yantong1980

samsara said:


> You're simply parroting the USA politicians, from Trump to Pence to Pompeo and the cohorts, all accusations without providing any evidence or proof ... just empty accusations. So boring!
> 
> Just stupid who think that only the USA can produce some stuffs then other major nations incl China cannot produce them for good!



Yes he indeed the PARROT, rather being PROFESSIONAL, forget that guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Han Patriot

Just agree to him and continue with the updates please. Chinese planes are just toy planes, I don't understand why the states is so worried.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> If I recall, the head J-20 or J-10 test pilot said back in 2011 that the F-117 stealth technology were already *outdated* back then ... do you really think the Chinese are stupid enough to rely on *obsolete* tech for their top of the line fighter?Please read up on facts before spewing such ignorance.


Here is an important clue -- by the time *ANY* product is in manufacture, its base technology is *ALREADY* outdated. Whether that product is a car, an airplane, or a computer chip, it is outdated at time of mass production.

But there is a difference between 'outdated' and 'obsolete'. To be 'outdated' mean the item is still functional, productive, and desirable by the users, even though its base technology improves. To be 'obsolete' is to be planned for discard from use or to be used until end of life with no plan for equivalent replacement. You used the two words -- highlighted -- without understanding their proper contexts.

The F-117 is dated but its 'stealth' technology is still functional -- shaping. For now, outside of the labs, there is nothing that can functionally replace shaping. The outer appearance of the F-117 is different from the F-22, but its foundation -- shaping -- is still the same.

In the same vein, the quadruple redundant voting technology that is the foundation for modern fly-by-wire flight controls systems remains the top with no feasible replacement in line. The individual components that make up one application of the technology maybe dated but the core concept that contains these items -- air data, input, gyros, accelerometers, computers -- remains. The computer maybe digital instead of analog, like the older F-16A/B to the newer F-16C/D, but in order for the flight controls system to work, there must be a computer. The flight controls systems of the F-16, F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2, and J-20 are conceptually and technically identical.

The Chinese are smart enough to realize that if they use the 'angular faceting' shaping technique, they would still be behind the US, but if they want to leapfrog the application of the technology, they must have assistance. How they got that assistance is for a different debate, but there is no denying the reality that without that assistance, the J-20 would not come to be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CIA Mole

gambit said:


> Here is an important clue -- by the time *ANY* product is in manufacture, its base technology is *ALREADY* outdated. Whether that product is a car, an airplane, or a computer chip, it is outdated at time of mass production.
> 
> But there is a difference between 'outdated' and 'obsolete'. To be 'outdated' mean the item is still functional, productive, and desirable by the users, even though its base technology improves. To be 'obsolete' is to be planned for discard from use or to be used until end of life with no plan for equivalent replacement. You used the two words -- highlighted -- without understanding their proper contexts.
> 
> The F-117 is dated but its 'stealth' technology is still functional -- shaping. For now, outside of the labs, there is nothing that can functionally replace shaping. The outer appearance of the F-117 is different from the F-22, but its foundation -- shaping -- is still the same.
> 
> In the same vein, the quadruple redundant voting technology that is the foundation for modern fly-by-wire flight controls systems remains the top with no feasible replacement in line. The individual components that make up one application of the technology maybe dated but the core concept that contains these items -- air data, input, gyros, accelerometers, computers -- remains. The computer maybe digital instead of analog, like the older F-16A/B to the newer F-16C/D, but in order for the flight controls system to work, there must be a computer. The flight controls systems of the F-16, F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2, and J-20 are conceptually and technically identical.
> 
> The Chinese are smart enough to realize that if they use the 'angular faceting' shaping technique, they would still be behind the US, but if they want to leapfrog the application of the technology, they must have assistance. How they got that assistance is for a different debate, but there is no denying the reality that without that assistance, the J-20 would not come to be.


Hey do you know if there are ethnically Chinese pilots flying F35’s? Or we they taking extra precautions to prevent espionage?


----------



## ozranger

samsara said:


> You're simply parroting the USA politicians, from Trump to Pence to Pompeo and the cohorts, all accusations without providing any evidence or proof ... just empty accusations. So boring!
> 
> Just stupid who think that only the USA can produce some stuffs then other major nations incl China cannot produce them for good!


No value to follow his posting


samsara said:


> You're simply parroting the USA politicians, from Trump to Pence to Pompeo and the cohorts, all accusations without providing any evidence or proof ... just empty accusations. So boring!
> 
> Just stupid who think that only the USA can produce some stuffs then other major nations incl China cannot produce them for good!



Can you guys just simply ignore his posts as what I've been doing? No need to pay any attention to some waste.


----------



## gambit

ozranger said:


> No value to follow his posting


Technically speaking -- a lot more value than all of you guys' combined. That is not in dispute.



ozranger said:


> Can you guys just simply ignore his posts as what I've been doing? No need to pay any attention to some waste.


Like I have been all these yrs -- you guys do not know why you debate. Not how, but why?

Why? It is the silent readers out there. That is why. Just because you ignore me does not mean they will follow suit.

This is a military oriented forum. I am a veteran. So right from the starting line, who is going to appear to have more credibility? Not only that, this is about military aviation and I am USAF veteran, F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. Then I have nearly 9 yrs as a radar field specialist in civilian life. So who is going to be more believable in terms of technical issues? You?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beidou2020

gambit said:


> Technically speaking -- a lot more value than all of you guys' combined. That is not in dispute.
> 
> 
> Like I have been all these yrs -- you guys do not know why you debate. Not how, but why?
> 
> Why? It is the silent readers out there. That is why. Just because you ignore me does not mean they will follow suit.
> 
> This is a military oriented forum. I am a veteran. So right from the starting line, who is going to appear to have more credibility? Not only that, this is about military aviation and I am USAF veteran, F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. Then I have nearly 9 yrs as a radar field specialist in civilian life. So who is going to be more believable in terms of technical issues? You?



With your bias....certainly not you

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 055_destroyer

gambit said:


> Technically speaking -- a lot more value than all of you guys' combined. That is not in dispute.
> 
> 
> Like I have been all these yrs -- you guys do not know why you debate. Not how, but why?
> 
> Why? It is the silent readers out there. That is why. Just because you ignore me does not mean they will follow suit.
> 
> This is a military oriented forum. I am a veteran. So right from the starting line, who is going to appear to have more credibility? Not only that, this is about military aviation and I am USAF veteran, F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. Then I have nearly 9 yrs as a radar field specialist in civilian life. So who is going to be more believable in terms of technical issues? You?


Keyboard warrior.. Show your face and give real name to prove you are the veteran since you are so sure of your war experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

Beidou2020 said:


> With your bias....certainly not you


My bias have nothing to do with my technical competence in these matters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

For the first time a J-20A assigned to the 9th Brigade at Wuhu spotted.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> For the first time a J-20A assigned to the 9th Brigade at Wuhu spotted.
> 
> View attachment 570662


How many J-20 are there now


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> How many J-20 are there now




If you want only those confirmed by imagery, then I quote this post at the SDF:



jobjed said:


> Check for yourself here. http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/gallery-i.html?m=1



But I have the feeling that there are between 8-12 for the 176th and 172nd Brigades each plus at least 4-6 for the 9th Brigade... I however would like to know how many are already built, how many are in preparation to delivery and at what rate they are produced.

And if possible, if the second batch will get the WS-10?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

I do believe there will NEVER be such (precise) info revealed for many years to come… until unless one day the policy is changed! But it will take long, pretty long time to arrive at such situation!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> I do believe there will NEVER be such (precise) info revealed for many years to come… until unless one day the policy is changed! But it will take long, pretty long time to arrive at such situation!




I fully agree with you.... nur to wish something is not forbidden. 

And this is, what makes PLA watching so much interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> I fully agree with you.... nur to wish something is not forbidden.
> 
> And this is, what makes PLA watching so much interesting.


We can only make estimate as below:-
Low rate production : 6 aircraft per year
Medium rate production : 8-12 aircraft per year
Peace time full rate (4 assembly lines with new engines) : 24-48 aircraft per year.

At this moment of time, I think medium rate production should have been started until the new engine is available or when there is a defence crisis threatening China. The figures are of course just estimate.

My personal estimate is 24 to 36 aircraft may have been produced, inclusive of those completed but not yet deliver to PLAAF. I think they will limit the production of J20 with existing engine to 50 or 60 units (using J10B as precedent), so that there will be just enough number of J20 for effective nation wide air defence coverage, before new engine variants roll out.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## aliaselin

Maybe there are something new happaned to J-20 yesterday


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> Maybe there are something new happaned to J-20 yesterday




What makes you believe this ? ... are there certain rumours?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JSCh

*J-20 fighter makes combat unit debut*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/7/28 22:53:39

PLA photo indicates new jet has passed trials: experts



A photo released by the People's Liberation Army Air Force on Wednesday shows for the first time what reports said to be a J-20 affiliated with a combat unit, suggesting that the aircraft has graduated from a trial unit and is ready for active duty. Photo: screenshot from cctv.com

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for the first time released a photo of a J-20 stealth fighter jet showing the serial number of a combat unit, indicating that the warplane has ended trials and become a potent warplane protecting the country.

A photo with the caption "An Air Force J-20 fighter conducts real combat training" was released by the PLA Air Force on Wednesday, along with a statement introducing its increasing strategic capability.

Although the warplane has been seen in previously published photos and videos, Wednesday's photo attracted attention as it showed a J-20 with the tail number 62001.

This is the first time a J-20 has been seen with tail number beginning with a "6," Weihutang, a program on military affairs affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Friday, noting that the numbers on previously seen J-20s began with a "7."

According to PLA Air Force's tradition, numbers starting with "7" indicate aircraft attached to a trial unit, while the "6" indicates the J-20 is affiliated with a combat unit under the PLA Eastern Theater Command, said Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Xi'an-based periodical on the national defense industry, in an article published on its WeChat account on Friday.

This suggests that the J-20 is already on combat duty, becoming an important new force in safeguarding China's skies, the magazine said.

In February 2018, the PLA Air Force announced the J-20 has been commissioned into its combat troops, but a photo of it had not been released until now.

The release of the photo of a J-20 with a "6" on its tail also indicates combat troops have mastered the fighter jet, Chinese analysts said.

Fu Qianshao, a Chinese air defense expert, told the Global Times on Sunday that training under a combat unit is different than under a trial unit.

While exploring specific capabilities is likely emphasized in trial unit training, the focus of training under a combat unit includes tactical practice, Fu said, noting that a training syllabus and a maintenance manual have also likely been completed for the aircraft.

Fu believes that the J-20 is now more sophisticated than US' F-35.

The J-20 is listed in China's latest national defense white paper as one of the new, high-tech weapons the Chinese military has commissioned.

Fu said that the aircraft will be mass produced and further enhanced in the future. Its engines, aerodynamic design, weapons and electronics systems including radar, avionics and flight control system could be upgraded, he said.

The public might get to see the J-20 in flight if it makes a flyby over Tiananmen Square in Beijing during an expected parade to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic's on October 1, analysts predicted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Su33KUB

JSCh said:


> *J-20 fighter makes combat unit debut*
> By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/7/28 22:53:39
> 
> PLA photo indicates new jet has passed trials: experts
> 
> 
> 
> A photo released by the People's Liberation Army Air Force on Wednesday shows for the first time what reports said to be a J-20 affiliated with a combat unit, suggesting that the aircraft has graduated from a trial unit and is ready for active duty. Photo: screenshot from cctv.com
> 
> The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for the first time released a photo of a J-20 stealth fighter jet showing the serial number of a combat unit, indicating that the warplane has ended trials and become a potent warplane protecting the country.
> 
> A photo with the caption "An Air Force J-20 fighter conducts real combat training" was released by the PLA Air Force on Wednesday, along with a statement introducing its increasing strategic capability.
> 
> Although the warplane has been seen in previously published photos and videos, Wednesday's photo attracted attention as it showed a J-20 with the tail number 62001.
> 
> This is the first time a J-20 has been seen with tail number beginning with a "6," Weihutang, a program on military affairs affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Friday, noting that the numbers on previously seen J-20s began with a "7."
> 
> According to PLA Air Force's tradition, numbers starting with "7" indicate aircraft attached to a trial unit, while the "6" indicates the J-20 is affiliated with a combat unit under the PLA Eastern Theater Command, said Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Xi'an-based periodical on the national defense industry, in an article published on its WeChat account on Friday.
> 
> This suggests that the J-20 is already on combat duty, becoming an important new force in safeguarding China's skies, the magazine said.
> 
> In February 2018, the PLA Air Force announced the J-20 has been commissioned into its combat troops, but a photo of it had not been released until now.
> 
> The release of the photo of a J-20 with a "6" on its tail also indicates combat troops have mastered the fighter jet, Chinese analysts said.
> 
> Fu Qianshao, a Chinese air defense expert, told the Global Times on Sunday that training under a combat unit is different than under a trial unit.
> 
> While exploring specific capabilities is likely emphasized in trial unit training, the focus of training under a combat unit includes tactical practice, Fu said, noting that a training syllabus and a maintenance manual have also likely been completed for the aircraft.
> 
> Fu believes that the J-20 is now more sophisticated than US' F-35.
> 
> The J-20 is listed in China's latest national defense white paper as one of the new, high-tech weapons the Chinese military has commissioned.
> 
> Fu said that the aircraft will be mass produced and further enhanced in the future. Its engines, aerodynamic design, weapons and electronics systems including radar, avionics and flight control system could be upgraded, he said.
> 
> The public might get to see the J-20 in flight if it makes a flyby over Tiananmen Square in Beijing during an expected parade to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic's on October 1, analysts predicted.


China is going the path of imperial Japan, it has been allowed to growth, but like Japan it will never rule, every thing is well planned, geopolitics wise the J-20 is not going to face directly F-35 but Su-57, China has not chances to really affect the US, a wide ocean separates them, Russia in the other hands has an empty territory, Siberia is full of resources. less than 30 million Russians in Siberia, Russia can not fight 2 front war, and win, but China can not win either, geopolitics wise J-20 are going to face west.


----------



## lcloo

Su33KUB said:


> China is going the path of imperial Japan, it has been allowed to growth, but like Japan it will never rule, every thing is well planned, geopolitics wise the J-20 is not going to face directly F-35 but Su-57, China has not chances to really affect the US, a wide ocean separates them, Russia in the other hands has an empty territory, Siberia is full of resources. less than 30 million Russians in Siberia, Russia can not fight 2 front war, and win, but China can not win either, geopolitics wise J-20 are going to face west.


Futile try to put Chinese against Russians. You can't break up Chinese-Russian strategic partnership.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> If I recall, the head J-20 or J-10 test pilot said back in 2011 that the F-117 stealth technology were already outdated back then ... do you really think the Chinese are stupid enough to rely on obsolete tech for their top of the line fighter?Please read up on facts before spewing such ignorance.



They only said F117 stealth technology outdated in 2011. Not in late 90's and 2000's. China hired numbers of engineers who used to work for US aircraft manufacturers when US began downsizing its air force and manufacturing line. Sources saying engineers involved in B2 stealth bomber development back then were hired for J20 development. This plus the claimed hacked stolen data on F35 will definitely make the materials used on J20 better than F117.

Seems like you're ignoring facts instead like trying to say a country could easily replicate top secret technology belonging to US without having to obtain from shot down or captured plane, hiring competitor's engineers, espionage at all. There is no shame and nothing wrong about it as Americans done the same thing before they became best. Do you know that if NATO without having access to reverse engineer F4, F16, mig29, European can't come up with EF2000. You might want to check how much reverse engineering did NATO countries conduct on fighters bought from US.



notmycolon said:


> Hey do you know if there are ethnically Chinese pilots flying F35’s? Or we they taking extra precautions to prevent espionage?



I've seen Chinese American flying the F22 when it was newly entered service



Su33KUB said:


> China is going the path of imperial Japan, it has been allowed to growth, but like Japan it will never rule, every thing is well planned, geopolitics wise the J-20 is not going to face directly F-35 but Su-57, China has not chances to really affect the US, a wide ocean separates them, Russia in the other hands has an empty territory, Siberia is full of resources. less than 30 million Russians in Siberia, Russia can not fight 2 front war, and win, but China can not win either, geopolitics wise J-20 are going to face west.


 
Yes China is following Japanese path except they took history lesson seriously by not repeating the same mistakes.



gambit said:


> Here is an important clue -- by the time *ANY* product is in manufacture, its base technology is *ALREADY* outdated. Whether that product is a car, an airplane, or a computer chip, it is outdated at time of mass production.
> 
> But there is a difference between 'outdated' and 'obsolete'. To be 'outdated' mean the item is still functional, productive, and desirable by the users, even though its base technology improves. To be 'obsolete' is to be planned for discard from use or to be used until end of life with no plan for equivalent replacement. You used the two words -- highlighted -- without understanding their proper contexts.
> 
> The F-117 is dated but its 'stealth' technology is still functional -- shaping. For now, outside of the labs, there is nothing that can functionally replace shaping. The outer appearance of the F-117 is different from the F-22, but its foundation -- shaping -- is still the same.
> 
> In the same vein, the quadruple redundant voting technology that is the foundation for modern fly-by-wire flight controls systems remains the top with no feasible replacement in line. The individual components that make up one application of the technology maybe dated but the core concept that contains these items -- air data, input, gyros, accelerometers, computers -- remains. The computer maybe digital instead of analog, like the older F-16A/B to the newer F-16C/D, but in order for the flight controls system to work, there must be a computer. The flight controls systems of the F-16, F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2, and J-20 are conceptually and technically identical.
> 
> The Chinese are smart enough to realize that if they use the 'angular faceting' shaping technique, they would still be behind the US, but if they want to leapfrog the application of the technology, they must have assistance. How they got that assistance is for a different debate, but there is no denying the reality that without that assistance, the J-20 would not come to be.



Thanks for replying to figaro while I was away. Ignore those against you here, just keep posting and debate with facts. 

To all those against gambit,
I'm neutral siding China more than US. I fought gambit multiple times over ego issues. I can say that gambit has been posting facts and truths all these while.


----------



## CIA Mole

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156086518336770048


----------



## aliaselin

They post picture of cornflower with chinese name 矢车菊。I think it means the TVC version of ws-10 insalled on J-20


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

If I'm not mistaken, these are the first images of the CAC facility showing everal J-10AS, J-10C and J-20 since years.


----------



## siegecrossbow

aliaselin said:


> They post picture of cornflower with chinese name 矢车菊。I think it means the TVC version of ws-10 insalled on J-20



I don't think so. The original caption says "bye bye", so I think it is saying goodbye to Russian engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Interestingly, the latest reports assume, that these both are fitted with domestically produced engines, and no Russian AL31FNs anymore. 
Even if difficult to say, for the J-10C I would agree, it looks indeed like a WS-10.


----------



## lcloo

As usual, first a blurred photo, follow by may be a cartoon drawing, then clearer photo weeks or months later. Will wait for that. 

China military watching is patience or frustration but fun to follow and surprise can be pleasant.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kuge

yeah, the photo taker suffered a vision seizure suddenly at this critical moment & then recover.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ghNH4Nff3NRJi5S3u7A8Ew

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Eagle

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 571799



metal shield doesn't appears to be installed for glass protection even it shows two holes like for vision... Or is it to deploy in battle scenario to save Pilot Face in-case of any hit?

Or the that metal shield is suppose to house some extra electronics/optics/queuing system etc?


----------



## LKJ86

The Eagle said:


> metal shield doesn't appears to be installed for glass protection even it shows two holes like for vision... Or is it to deploy in battle scenario to save Pilot Face in-case of any hit?
> 
> Or the that metal shield is suppose to house some extra electronics/optics/queuing system etc?


To house some extra electronics/optics/queuing system etc

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 571796
> 
> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ghNH4Nff3NRJi5S3u7A8Ew

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> They only said F117 stealth technology outdated in 2011. Not in late 90's and 2000's. China hired numbers of engineers who used to work for US aircraft manufacturers when US began downsizing its air force and manufacturing line. Sources saying engineers involved in B2 stealth bomber development back then were hired for J20 development. This plus the claimed hacked stolen data on F35 will definitely make the materials used on J20 better than F117.
> 
> Seems like you're ignoring facts instead like trying to say a country could easily replicate top secret technology belonging to US without having to obtain from shot down or captured plane, hiring competitor's engineers, espionage at all. There is no shame and nothing wrong about it as Americans done the same thing before they became best. Do you know that if NATO without having access to reverse engineer F4, F16, mig29, European can't come up with EF2000. You might want to check how much reverse engineering did NATO countries conduct on fighters bought from US.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen Chinese American flying the F22 when it was newly entered service
> 
> 
> 
> Yes China is following Japanese path except they took history lesson seriously by not repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for replying to figaro while I was away. Ignore those against you here, just keep posting and debate with facts.
> 
> To all those against gambit,
> I'm neutral siding China more than US. I fought gambit multiple times over ego issues. I can say that gambit has been posting facts and truths all these while.


There is simply no evidence that the Chinese ever acquired the F-117 stealth tech for R&D purposes. The Chinese test pilot said back in 2011 that the F-117 stealth properties were already outdated at the time of its shooting down back in the late 90s(not 2011). Its quite ironic that you say I am ignoring facts when you dont present any factual evidence yourself. I am not speaking from a position of pro-China or anti-China ... I am just speaking from facts.

Edit : What is your source that former B-2 engineers were hired for the J-20 program? Sounds like a bunch of pointless rumor mongering to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


>


New video released as the promotion in celebrating the 92th Anniversary of the People's Liberation Army 2019-08-01 八一 “Bayi” The August 1st, as well as to celebrate the coming 70th Anniversary of the Founding of New China, the People's Republic, 2019-10-01. The short footage features J-20 and H-6K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Does anyone know this company?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157342133378043905
In principle looking good, even if the main bay cannot hold 3 PL-15 each.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157401960024346624

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Does anyone know this company?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157342133378043905
> In principle looking good, even if the main bay cannot hold 3 PL-15 each.


梦模型 from China 





https://m.weibo.cn/1203691843/4400991238035606

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 572217

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> There is simply no evidence that the Chinese ever acquired the F-117 stealth tech for R&D purposes. The Chinese test pilot said back in 2011 that the F-117 stealth properties were already outdated at the time of its shooting down back in the late 90s(not 2011). Its quite ironic that you say I am ignoring facts when you dont present any factual evidence yourself. I am not speaking from a position of pro-China or anti-China ... I am just speaking from facts.
> 
> Edit : What is your source that former B-2 engineers were hired for the J-20 program? Sounds like a bunch of pointless rumor mongering to me.



China and Russia involved in experimenting sensor testing on US stealth planes flying by. The Serbs under guidance from Russian experts managed to track and shot down the F117. The residents said Russian and Chinese took the pieces home. Please note military news, they don't release official statement on what they salvaged, stolen, etc. 

Military news reported many engineers who used to work for US military aviation manufacturers were hired by China after massive downsizing and closed down resulted in massive layoff. These news mentioned engineers involved in B2 were hired by China. 

Whatever source you post and believe in are just copy paste website link. Website doesn't tell everything as military intel is always confidential and classifieds. You probably wanted to think a single race could invent and create everything on their own but reality is, no.


----------



## lcloo

kungfugymnast said:


> China and Russia involved in experimenting sensor testing on US stealth planes flying by. The Serbs under guidance from Russian experts managed to track and shot down the F117. The residents said Russian and Chinese took the pieces home. Please note military news, they don't release official statement on what they salvaged, stolen, etc.
> 
> Military news reported many engineers who used to work for *US military aviation manufacturers* were hired by China after *massive downsizing and closed down* resulted in massive layoff. These news mentioned *engineers involved in B2 were hired by China. *
> 
> Whatever source you post and believe in are just copy paste website link. Website doesn't tell everything as military intel is always confidential and classifieds. You probably wanted to think a single race could invent and create everything on their own but reality is, no.


_"...Military news reported many engineers who used to work for *US military aviation manufacturers* were hired by China after *massive downsizing and closed down* resulted in massive layoff. These news mentioned *engineers involved in B2 were hired by China...."*_

Where did you get all these, quote your source and link, otherwise they are just meaningless hot air.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd

Su33KUB said:


> China is going the path of imperial Japan, it has been allowed to growth, but like Japan it will never rule, every thing is well planned, geopolitics wise the J-20 is not going to face directly F-35 ... ...



_NOTE:
DEINO ... as the world most famous global moderator, ... ...

~ why have you failed to do your job to ban the obvious political and 
malicious post from false flagger Su33KUB poster above ??_

Because, you have failed to be fair and just ... ...
You are forcing me to post this below ... ...

=== ===

_Back to false flagger Su33KUB_, ... ...

Your post on J-20 usage is Absolutely DIMWITTED beyond repair.

All SANE and Patriotic Chinese know inside their backbone that ... J-20 and
all CHN military hitech toys are to be deployed against ...
the Earth global public criminal enemy #1 ... the united satan murica
F-22, F-35, and all its vomit tainted USBG ships, and
all the other murica semi obsolete and semi hitech toys.

Don't worry about CHN hitech toys, ... ...
85% of elites Chinese princelings in Beijing are *too coward* and *too gutless*
to fight the the Earth global public criminal enemy #1 ... the united satan murica.

=== ===



kungfugymnast said:


> _Chinese American flying the F22_ when ...



Sorry to say that you must be color blind observer.
Let's not be gullible and be stupid.

Only 100% caucasian whitey usaf pilots are allowed to touch and fly murica F-22.

There is ( NO--WAY--NO--HOW ) a yellow Chinese murica or even
Black murica ... usaf pilots be allowed to fly the murica super precious
semi low-tech F-22 and F-35.

===

Deino as the _world most famous global moderator 
_
~ Let's be fair and just.

This is my last post on this derailing topic.
There will be zero back and forth posting.

Now, back to the main unpolluted topic of *J-20*.
Thank you. <<< <<<

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## 055_destroyer

OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd said:


> _NOTE:
> DEINO ... as the world most famous global moderator, ... ...
> 
> ~ why have you failed to do your job to ban the obvious political and
> malicious post from false flagger Su33KUB poster above ??_
> 
> Because, you have failed to be fair and just ... ...
> You are forcing me to post this below ... ...
> 
> === ===
> 
> _Back to false flagger Su33KUB_, ... ...
> 
> Your post on J-20 usage is Absolutely DIMWITTED beyond repair.
> 
> All SANE and Patriotic Chinese know inside their backbone that ... J-20 and
> all CHN military hitech toys are to be deployed against ...
> the Earth global public criminal enemy #1 ... the united satan murica
> F-22, F-35, and all its vomit tainted USBG ships, and
> all the other murica semi obsolete and semi hitech toys.
> 
> Don't worry about CHN hitech toys, ... ...
> 85% of elites Chinese princelings in Beijing are *too coward* and *too gutless*
> to fight the the Earth global public criminal enemy #1 ... the united satan murica.
> 
> === ===
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to say that you must be color blind observer.
> Let's not be gullible and be stupid.
> 
> Only 100% caucasian whitey usaf pilots are allowed to touch and fly murica F-22.
> 
> There is ( NO--WAY--NO--HOW ) a yellow Chinese murica or even
> Black murica ... usaf pilots be allowed to fly the murica super precious
> semi low-tech F-22 and F-35.
> 
> ===
> 
> Deino as the _world most famous global moderator
> _
> ~ Let's be fair and just.
> 
> This is my last post on this derailing topic.
> There will be zero back and forth posting.
> 
> Now, back to the main unpolluted topic of *J-20*.
> Thank you. <<< <<<


I agree with what most you but disagree on Beijing not willing to challenge US. If CPC has no balls, they will not fight a trade war with US which lasted even today that none of the demand by US gives in and not to mention China still import Iranian oil which the China the only country do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd said:


> _NOTE:
> DEINO ... as the world most famous global moderator, ... ...
> 
> ~ why have you failed to do your job to ban the obvious political and
> malicious post from false flagger Su33KUB poster above ??_
> 
> Because, you have failed to be fair and just ... ...
> You are forcing me to post this below ... ...
> 
> === ===
> 
> _Back to false flagger Su33KUB_, ... ...
> 
> Your post on J-20 usage is Absolutely DIMWITTED beyond repair.
> 
> All SANE and Patriotic Chinese know inside their backbone that ... J-20 and
> all CHN military hitech toys are to be deployed against ...
> the Earth global public criminal enemy #1 ... the united satan murica
> F-22, F-35, and all its vomit tainted USBG ships, and
> all the other murica semi obsolete and semi hitech toys.
> 
> Don't worry about CHN hitech toys, ... ...
> 85% of elites Chinese princelings in Beijing are *too coward* and *too gutless*
> to fight the the Earth global public criminal enemy #1 ... the united satan murica.
> 
> === ===
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to say that you must be color blind observer.
> Let's not be gullible and be stupid.
> 
> Only 100% caucasian whitey usaf pilots are allowed to touch and fly murica F-22.
> 
> There is ( NO--WAY--NO--HOW ) a yellow Chinese murica or even
> Black murica ... usaf pilots be allowed to fly the murica super precious
> semi low-tech F-22 and F-35.
> 
> ===
> 
> Deino as the _world most famous global moderator
> _
> ~ Let's be fair and just.
> 
> This is my last post on this derailing topic.
> There will be zero back and forth posting.
> 
> Now, back to the main unpolluted topic of *J-20*.
> Thank you. <<< <<<


This rant is just as pointless as that of @SU-33 ... stop turning this thread ultra political just like su-33

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd said:


> _NOTE:
> DEINO ... as the world most famous global moderator, ... ...
> 
> ~ why have you failed to do your job to ban the obvious political and
> malicious post from false flagger Su33KUB poster above ??_
> 
> Because, you have failed to be fair and just ... ...
> You are forcing me to post this below ... ...
> 
> === ===
> 
> _...._



*Did you ever think about the usual way of reporting a post? *
*No, and I don't know why, but so you again started a rant and personnel insult against other members, a moderator and made up a lot of mess just for your ego. *

*By the way, a moderator cannot read each and every post and as long as an annoying post is not reported, it sometimes happens that I miiss them ... especially when in the holydays.*
*By the way, his posts are probably wrong, but anyway in no way insulting or offensive like yours. *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

lcloo said:


> _"...Military news reported many engineers who used to work for *US military aviation manufacturers* were hired by China after *massive downsizing and closed down* resulted in massive layoff. These news mentioned *engineers involved in B2 were hired by China...."*_
> 
> Where did you get all these, quote your source and link, otherwise they are just meaningless hot air.



from online military news ofcourse. I only took the points & news, didn't mark down the website and journal involved. There are way too many online and printed military magazines these days. Unless the news just came out recently, fine but not news that came several to over 10 years ago.


----------



## lcloo

kungfugymnast said:


> from online military news ofcourse. I only took the points & news, didn't mark down the website and journal involved. There are way too many online and printed military magazines these days. Unless the news just came out recently, fine but not news that came several to over 10 years ago.



That is as good as having no credible source. So which American company that made B2 bomber went belly up?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> from online military news ofcourse. I only took the points & news, didn't mark down the website and journal involved. There are way too many online and printed military magazines these days. Unless the news just came out recently, fine but not news that came several to over 10 years ago.


Link us the sources ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

lcloo said:


> That is as good as having no credible source. So which American company that made B2 bomber went belly up?



Ask you this, since when news on google are credible source? Intelligence related news, related parties most don't officially admit especially on obtaining enemy technology. Like Serbian downing F117, do you really think the Serbian done it alone without Russian experts? Russian experts would rather forgo credits than admitting they were there conducting research and experiment using Serbian military to shoot down the f117. 

Tell me, How many website links that you called sources posted in this thread alone credible? Some kept claiming ws15 engine ready and perfected the crystal cooled compressor but no progress on j20 with ws15 engine still. Even Bloomberg could post fake news about Huawei. Online source credible my foot. Can I find your true identity, particulars and online bank login password in google?



Figaro said:


> Link us the sources ...



Why not you try google see whether you can find that news since it was on military news websites?


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> ....Why not you try google see whether you can find that news since it was on military news websites?



*Pardon to step in ... that's not the way it works : You come with a ridiculous claim, on request you only say it was found on Google but You do not want - or can - search for it, so it is up to us to check.

Just take this as a warning: Either you present this "source" or your claim will be deleted.
Period.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

lcloo said:


> That is as good as having no credible source. So which American company that made B2 bomber went belly up?


The maker of B2 bomber that went belly up was* McDonnell Douglas!!!  *

 just taking some fun, lmao


----------



## lcloo

samsara said:


> The maker of B2 bomber that went belly up was* McDonnell Douglas!!!  *
> 
> just taking some fun, lmao


Initially, Northrop and McDonnell Douglas were selected for further development of The Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) program, but the winner of design was Northrop, and 21 B2 bombers were designed and built by Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman today employs about 85,000 people. They continue to design and develop B21 bomber for USAF.

McDonnell Douglas was merged with Boeing, and all their military programmes, including F-15, FA-18E/F and C-17 continued under Boeing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/1740979351/4403078058563738

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cloyce

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 572819
> View attachment 572820
> View attachment 572821
> View attachment 572822



Which TV show is this? Can you link us the full video?


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> *Pardon to step in ... that's not the way it works : You come with a ridiculous claim, on request you only say it was found on Google but You do not want - or can - search for it, so it is up to us to check.
> 
> Just take this as a warning: Either you present this "source" or your claim will be deleted.
> Period.*



I just simply google and found only this news left. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ng-US-stealth-bomber-technology-to-China.html

At 1 time, most of those that believe in google as sauce but they acted like they can't google themselves. Other news probably removed due to old news, but there's still 1 left. So what's the big deal of China hiring foreign engineers? Face issue?


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> I just simply google and found only this news left.
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ng-US-stealth-bomber-technology-to-China.html
> 
> At 1 time, most of those that believe in google as sauce but they acted like they can't google themselves. Other news probably removed due to old news, but there's still 1 left. So what's the big deal of China hiring foreign engineers? Face issue?


This is one case of military technology theft. No one said China never sourced any military technology from elsewhere. But you said this guy was somehow formally working for AVIC to develop military technologies for China ... which is incorrect. You have to differentiate between a US citizen AVIC employee (which I am almost certain there are none) and employees of US companies who stole these secrets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Globenim

kungfugymnast said:


> I just simply google and found only this news left.


You claimed China was "_hiring_" "_engineers_" (plural) "_involved in B2 stealth bomber development_" "_for J20 development_"

Your "news" article is about one Indian Northrop engineer who was accussed to *share* B2 related* documents *with more than a handful countries on the international market including *Israel, Switzerland *and *Germany* (countries we all know are struggling with technology and depend on Americans ) and *accussed *of somehow *aiding *China to design a nozzle for *cruise missiles* as a *consultant *by some Hawaiian U.S. cangaroo court, then left off with a minor sentence.

Even the accussations against China dont match up with your claims. Nevermind the lack of credibility giving the source of the accussations. But why would you bother to post it anyways? Saving face or just stubborn?



kungfugymnast said:


> Other news probably removed due to old news, but there's still 1 left.


 That's not how Google search works. And you are left with *0* not 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> I just simply google and found only this news left.
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ng-US-stealth-bomber-technology-to-China.html
> 
> At 1 time, most of those that believe in google as sauce but they acted like they can't google themselves. Other news probably removed due to old news, but there's still 1 left. So what's the big deal of China hiring foreign engineers? Face issue?




As @Globenim already noted, You seem to have a deep misunderstanding also, to call Google a source is more a joke than a fact.

So for the next time, please do your homework better, read and try to understand what's said in a certain source, mention this source so that we can decide on our own how reliable and if it is correct what you concluded, which in your case in fact is not too much left.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Maxpane



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Su33KUB

Globenim said:


> You claimed China was "_hiring_" "_engineers_" (plural) "_involved in B2 stealth bomber development_" "_for J20 development_"
> 
> Your "news" article is about one Indian Northrop engineer who was accussed to *share* B2 related* documents *with more than a handful countries on the international market including *Israel, Switzerland *and *Germany* (countries we all know are struggling with technology and depend on Americans ) and *accussed *of somehow *aiding *China to design a nozzle for *cruise missiles* as a *consultant *by some Hawaiian U.S. cangaroo court, then left off with a minor sentence.
> 
> Even the accussations against China dont match up with your claims. Nevermind the lack of credibility giving the source of the accussations. But why would you bother to post it anyways? Saving face or just stubborn?
> 
> That's not how Google search works. And you are left with *0* not 1.


simplistic view, aircraft take years to be developed, on average a modern aircraft takes between 10 to 15 years of development, translate it to many, many research and development hours a year, it is not 3 or 4 hours of research and development, but 10000 to 30000 hours of research, aircraft are made with millions of parts, it is pretty expensive work that result in modern aircraft very limited production numbers just to give you an example a simple cessna type aircraft was built in 44000 aircraft, and it is a pretty difficult aircraft to build and design, nations like Venezuela or Colombia barely can design and build such types of Aircraft, Today in Europe 2 or 3 nations take several years to build aircraft like Typhoon, to give you a simple example Eurofighter started development in 1980s first flew as technology demonstrator in the form of EAP in 1986 and flew as prototype form in 1994 and entered service in the early 2000s, to be exact in 2003, and similar was Rafale, now if you think China that was building J-8II in 1986 and passed to build a Gripen type aircraft with Russian and Israeli help in the form of J-10 in 1997 and later went to build the J-20 in 2011 is because they did it by themselves let me laugh about, if you know have many suppliers or just how many kilometers of aircraft harnesses are in a modern aircraft, then you know China received help, do you think it looks like F-35 just by coincidence only a fool can think like that, just consider that Japan will take until 2030s to develop an aircraft slightly better than F-22 and they flew their tech demonstrator 16 to 20 years earlier, and same will be Europe, just remember WWII, the best chess player is always the one that divides and conquer, and the americans are master players, to give you a simple example China was during clinton a nation favoured and Nixon knew Ribbentrop molotov pact was made for false allies, Remember the Soviets also invaded Poland but England and France never declared the war to the Soviet Union, and remember the Nazis trained their paratroopers in the Soviet Union.

Remember F-35 has almost 2 decades in the making and the Chinese have a tendency to copy F-35 and several other american aircraft projects.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> simplistic view, aircraft take years to be developed, on average a modern aircraft takes between 10 to 15 years of development, translate it to many, many research and development hours a year, it is not 3 or 4 hours of research and development, but 10000 to 30000 hours of research, aircraft are made with millions of parts, it is pretty expensive work that result in modern aircraft very limited production numbers just to give you and example a simple cessna type aircraft was built in 44000 aircraft, and it is a pretty difficult aircraft to build and design, nations like Venezuela or Colombia barely can design and build such types of Aircraft, Today in Europe 2 or 3 nations take several years to build aircraft like, to give you a simple example Eurofighter started development in 1980s first flew as technology demonstrator in the form of EAP in 1986 and flew as prototype form in 1994 and entered service in the early 2000s, to be exact in 2003, and similar was Rafale, now if you think China that was building J-8II in 1986 and passed to build a Gripen type aircraft with Russian and Israeli help in the form of J-10 in 1997 and later went to build the J-20 in 2011 is because they did it by themselves let me laugh about, if you know have many suppliers or just how many kilometers of aircraft harnesses are in a modern aircraft, then you know China received help, do you think it looks like F-35 just by coincidence only a fool can think like that, just consider that Japan will take until 2030s to develop an aircraft slightly better than F-22 and they flew their tech demonstrator 16 to 20 years earlier, and same will be Europe, just remember WWII, the best chess player is always the one that divides and conquer, and the americans are master players, to give you a simple example China was during clinton a nation favoured and Nixon knew Ribbentrop molotov pact was made to face to false allies, Remember the Soviets also invaded Poland but England and France never declared the war to the Soviet Union, and remember the Nazis trained their paratroopers in the Soviet Union.
> 
> Remember F-35 has almost 2 decades in the making and the Chinese have a tendency to copy F-35 and several other american aircraft projects.


You (Japan/USA) have no Proof that China copy tech of F-35, its just a blame/dirty game by USA and copy cat era in military tech is lover for China, J-20 could be *Inspired* by more then Mig-1.44 with *Stealth* (Innovation/inventions) then F-35 @Su33KUB

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Su33KUB said:


> ...if you know have many suppliers or just how many kilometers of aircraft harnesses are in a modern aircraft, then you know China received help, do you think it looks like F-35 just by coincidence only a fool can think like that,...


Very good, sir...

I will add some more controversy to the debate...

Here is the C-17, a cargo or 'trash hauler' design...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III

Here the F-104, an interceptor or 'go fast' design...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

These two jets are like east and west, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

In the middle between the C-17 and the F-104 are literally millions of conceptions, plans, prototypes, and deployed designs for every mission type. Here is what people do not understand: conceptions outnumber plans, plans outnumber prototypes, and prototypes outnumber deployed designs. What it means is that by the time the manufacturer and customer agreed upon a design, we are looking at several discarded conceptions, plans, and prototypes before said agreement. Then money exchanged hands and production begins.

Most people believes the F-15 came from the MIG-25. In fact, most Internet forum takes exceptional glee in pointing out how the Americans 'copied' from the MIG-25. In truth, the F-15 and the MIG-25 came from the A-5. The deployed A-5 design have a single vertical stabilizer, but the original readied to be deployed final design had twin vertical stabilizers, which the US Navy deemed too radical, so North American modified the design to have a single vertical stabilizer.

Using the A-5/F-15/MIG-25 example, the evidence for 'help' is clear. If you see someone flying a novel design, already at least 1/4 if not 1/3 of the hard work is completed for you. The assistance is indirect. There is no doubt of the genetic tie between the American F-16 and the Japanese F-2. Same for the older F-18 Hornet and the newer and larger F-18 Super Hornet.

When I transitioned from the F-111 to the F-16, I learned that when the F-16 debuted, its bubble canopy with its clarity and toughness practically shocked air forces worldwide. There have been canopies have been sort of bubble-like designs in the past, even as far back as WW II. What made the F-16's canopy exceptional was its curvature from front to rear. Past bubble-like canopies were partial with a planar section in front for HUD distortion free. The F-16's true bubble canopy was curved all around and still distortion free for the HUD camera view. Knowing this is possible with the F-16, aircraft makers worked to incorporate new transparent materials and manufacturing techniques for their designs. Knowing what a competitor can do is already 1/2 of the assistance. The other half is up to you.

When you said suppliers and kilometers of wiring, that is exceptional perception of logistics, sir.

In the US military, each service branch have its own version of 'foreign technology exploitation' office. Inside this office is the intelligence section where they tries to glean as much information as possible about any adversary hardware. Anything from who supplies the paint to the oil to the electronics. Have no doubt the PLA have the same intent and operations to extract information from any source.

When Lockheed was building the SR-71, if it was known that it was Lockheed who was buying titanium, that would have triggered an investigation by the Soviets, so a front company was created to buy titanium and even bought from the Soviets.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smit...lackbird-epitome-cold-war-spycraft-180953402/


> ...the SR-71 almost entirely out of titanium, a metal that is heat resistant and relatively lightweight but difficult to work with. In the early 1960s, it was also hard to find. One of the best sources was the Soviet Union, so the CIA, which also oversaw development of Blackbird’s predecessor, the A-12 Oxcart, set up *shell companies abroad to purchase the metal* from the very nation it was spying on.


Right now, any US company that is working on artificial intelligence is being closely watched by China's intelligence services. The idea that future versions of the F-22 and F-35 with AI as co-pilot is as great a threat as a new missile design.

The forum's Chinese members, and their supporters, takes great offense at any mention that Chinese 'stealth' designs may have foreign assistance of any type. But you are on the correct path.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> As @Globenim already noted, You seem to have a deep misunderstanding also, to call Google a source is more a joke than a fact.
> 
> So for the next time, please do your homework better, read and try to understand what's said in a certain source, mention this source so that we can decide on our own how reliable and if it is correct what you concluded, which in your case in fact is not too much left.



Only idiots would call google and website links as source. A news posted on printed magazines and books with renowned publisher is more genuine as they have rules to follow. However, the best source is from the manufacturer and military involved. None of these have links at all. So based on your mentality, source = website link?

If person like gambit served in US air force, he explained how to operate TWS, how to use the RWR perform evasive maneuver, etc that can't be found on google & no website link, are you going to label his facts as lies? The AESA incorporated RWR is never revealed on website where some claimed it could pinpoint incoming missile from the front angle. So if gambit explains this based on F15C with AESA radar is to be labelled as fake too?



Globenim said:


> You claimed China was "_hiring_" "_engineers_" (plural) "_involved in B2 stealth bomber development_" "_for J20 development_"
> 
> Your "news" article is about one Indian Northrop engineer who was accussed to *share* B2 related* documents *with more than a handful countries on the international market including *Israel, Switzerland *and *Germany* (countries we all know are struggling with technology and depend on Americans ) and *accussed *of somehow *aiding *China to design a nozzle for *cruise missiles* as a *consultant *by some Hawaiian U.S. cangaroo court, then left off with a minor sentence.
> 
> Even the accussations against China dont match up with your claims. Nevermind the lack of credibility giving the source of the accussations. But why would you bother to post it anyways? Saving face or just stubborn?
> 
> That's not how Google search works. And you are left with *0* not 1.



Do you know how to read? I said most of the news can't be found and only left 1 that still mentioned J20 and northrop. When US no longer buys fighter jets like it did back in 70's, 80's, 90's where most contracts awarded to politically favored Lockheed, several companies began merger, downsized or closed down. Numbers of engineers left and China began fishing for these experts. It came up hot in the news throughout newspapers, magazines at that time. So what's your issue if these news are true?


----------



## Globenim

Su33KUB said:


> simplistic view


Yeah, thanks for the wall of irrelevant trivia and usless opinions, that never once explained how a single Indian who never had longerterm or regular contact with China suddenly turned into multiple hired B2 engineers and how a cruise missle nozzle (allegedly) designed with some Indian subcontractors aid turned into a J20 stealth fighter co-engineered by those hired foreigners and his (allegedly) multiple (allegedly) military (alleged) sources turned into a single unrelated generic yellow press article the second people made those pesky demands to substantiate his claims with proof, to not broaden my "simplistic view" at all.



kungfugymnast said:


> Do you know how to read? I said most of the news can't be found and only left 1


Not the most genius reply to put right after the sentence calling bullshit on what you "said". And as said and explained you are left with *zero* not 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

kungfugymnast said:


> Do you know how to read? I said most of the news can't be found and only left 1 that still mentioned J20 and northrop. When US no longer buys fighter jets like it did back in 70's, 80's, 90's where most contracts awarded to politically favored Lockheed, several companies began merger, downsized or closed down. *Numbers of engineers left and China began fishing for these experts.* It came up hot in the news throughout newspapers, magazines at that time. So what's your issue if these news are true?


And this only Propaganda of west/US with no solid proofs and those newspaper/magazines are unreliable/propaganda machines of US/EU govts against China, in Past there it is true Russian and Ukrainian aerospace engineers/scientists cames to China after dissolution of Soviet Union @kungfugymnast


----------



## Su33KUB

Globenim said:


> Yeah, thanks for the wall of irrelevant trivia and usless opinions, that never once explained how a single Indian who never had longerterm or regular contact with China suddenly turned into multiple hired B2 engineers and how a cruise missle nozzle (allegedly) designed with some Indian subcontractors aid turned into a J20 stealth fighter co-engineered by those hired foreigners and his (allegedly) multiple (allegedly) military (alleged) sources turned into a single unrelated generic yellow press article the second people made those pesky demands to substantiate his claims with proof, to not broaden my "simplistic view" at all.
> 
> 
> Not the most genius reply to put right after the sentence calling bullshit on what you "said". And as said and explained you are left with *zero* not 1.


The state of the Chinese aviation industry is quite complex, J-20 reflexes more or less the state of their aviation, for a nation to go from one generation into another is not easy as real scientific and engineering goes, certainly China has a developed industry, but when you see the C-919 foreign suppliers you can guess what can they do, aircraft are not models but a composite of different technologies that require very large budgets and a very long process to absorb technologies, in the 2000s China was barely coping Su-27 and receiving an F-16 type aircraft in very small numbers to give you an example China has never produced as many J-10s as the USA has made F-16s, that tell you how difficult for them is to build aircraft, J-20, despite undoubtedly is build on the basis of immature design reflects concepts copied from the West which took to the Americans many years of development so basically they are riding on foreign knowledge, how they got their knowledge well it is a matter of debate but the americans said the F-35 technology was passed illegally to China, but in reality, F-35 is a F-105 type aircraft and China has copied an aircraft not an ideal fighter despite they tried to make it more advanced they cobbled ideas already proven in Russia and the USA, the aircraft is impressive no doubt, but still lack originality and it is obvious they are riding the american school of aeronautics


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> The state of the Chinese aviation industry is quite complex, J-20 reflexes more or less the state of their aviation, for a nation to go from one generation into another is not easy as real scientific and engineering goes, certainly China has a developed industry, but when you see the C-919 foreign suppliers you can guess what can they do, aircraft are not models but a composite of different technologies that require very large budgets and a very long process to absorb technologies, in the 2000s China was barely coping Su-27 and receiving an F-16 type aircraft in very small numbers to give you an example China has never produced as many J-10s as the USA has made F-16s, that tell you how difficult for them is to build aircraft, J-20, despite undoubtedly is build on the basis of immature design reflects concepts copied from the West which took to the Americans many years of development so basically they are riding on foreign knowledge, how they got their knowledge well it is a matter of debate but the americans said the F-35 technology was passed illegally to China, but in reality, F-35 is a F-105 type aircraft and China has copied an aircraft not an ideal fighter despite they tried to make it more advanced they cobbled ideas already proven in Russia and the USA, the aircraft is impressive no doubt, but still lack originality and it is obvious they are riding the american school of aeronautics


You have no Proof that J-20 copied tech from F-35 but inspired more Russian/Soviet tech of MIG-1.44 then F-35, are you talking about China don't have research/development facilities to conduct latest aerodynamics research, and last China is relatively new for designing jets from scratch and as for C-919 same goes to Boeing 787 avionics/body parts from Japan/EU, Russia/USA had lots of experience to design jets from scratch since ww2, China achieved that capability much later 80/90s @Su33KUB


----------



## serenity

God these people are so stupid. Learn some science please. So because I never done algebra before I learn it, therefore I can never understand it and go beyond the topic. So too, China never developed 5th generation fighter, therefore any 5th generation fighter China builds must be given or stolen in parts or entirely. That is laughable. They must convince themselves J-20 is either 1 of many possibilities. That 1. It is copied. 2. It is done by foreign engineers and as long as there is even one mention of spying or an engineer passing any document, it must mean J-20 is done completely through this spying or the pieces of paper sold by that engineer. NEvermind the evidence and don't examine it. 3. It is only a shell fighter and really has zero ability and Indian radar of Su-30mki can easily detect J-20 in stealth mode at more than 100km away.

The reality is China took very close look at F-22 and F-35 certainly. And CAC engineers asked themselves why F-35 and F-22 use this and use that. Examine, develop, test, re-do. Until J-20 is reached and lessons are learned. It is actually possible to learn and develop on your own. Believe me J-20 is just what is visible. Aerodynamics is too easy to China now. Difficult parts are material, engines, and software for controlling the flight of such complicated aerodynamics and software for information processing. These are much harder than modelling shapes that can achieve certain stealth or flight performance purposes. So many great wind tunnels and supercomputers to process models and data to speed up the whole process. There are some crazy designs that are not shown but whatever in some years some will be leaked and they are testing now. For a hint, PLAAF has J-20 drone wingman in testing with quite a new shape. Help yourself sleep better by believing Chinese are too stupid and can only steal. On one hand you tell the world that and on other hand you worry and you make us the villain of the story.

Believe me we working on J-20 for a LONG LONG time as well. The model changed several times and incorporated some US design ideas like how we position weapon bays, canopy piece and design for radar reflection and energy absorption by material type. In that way there are certainly many ways we copy US origin ideas like Soviets and Russians and Japanese, and Koreans, and Turkish now copy. Why do you think KFX, TFX, and Japanese 5th generation concept drawings and models all look more like F-22/F-35 than J-20? Even Su-57 look more closer to F-22 because of its layout. J-20 is a product of 2000s Chinese abilities. When in few years you see leaks of "new" Chinese UAV and fighter/ bomber, everyone will again say wow it took them no time to do this and all of a sudden they appear. Must be stolen or photocopied. Reality is these things started developing 20 years ago and we didn't email everyone our progress. They are testing now and many are ready. We spy on others, others spy on us and they already know a lot for sure. But I'm certain US black projects are the same and they already have many finished products not shown to world.

Back then, F-22 and F-35 images certainly were used to give ideas like Gambit said. There is 99.99% of work to be done left not like some say at that stage. If half the work is already done, let's see one other country outside of China and Russia that can produce a working fighter that even looks like F-22/F-35 let alone one that can fight with some substance.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Dai Toruko

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...hina-talks-sale-jet-engine-technology-germany

What happened to German engineering?


----------



## yantong1980

Well, not to interfere, guys, this thread need some 'positive' progress, so my suggestion just leave some poster with their delusion, whatever their 'sources', which I believe it's non-Chinese sources made by foreign reporters with their 'mysterious' unknown 'experts'. Debating this peoples lead to nowhere IMHO.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kungfugymnast

Globenim said:


> Yeah, thanks for the wall of irrelevant trivia and usless opinions, that never once explained how a single Indian who never had longerterm or regular contact with China suddenly turned into multiple hired B2 engineers and how a cruise missle nozzle (allegedly) designed with some Indian subcontractors aid turned into a J20 stealth fighter co-engineered by those hired foreigners and his (allegedly) multiple (allegedly) military (alleged) sources turned into a single unrelated generic yellow press article the second people made those pesky demands to substantiate his claims with proof, to not broaden my "simplistic view" at all.
> 
> 
> Not the most genius reply to put right after the sentence calling bullshit on what you "said". And as said and explained you are left with *zero* not 1.



If you're so smart and to you, any content listed on websites only considered facts, care to explain how to operate J10C, J20, J16, J11D radar to scan for target and track detected target? How do you switch air to air or air to ground mode? Do they have optronic pod and if yes, do they come with camera view and how do you designate target? If there's incoming missile, how do you use the RWR? I'll wait for your reply, if you failed to provide the details, it proves you're source website is useless nothing more than just general news. 

Gambit could explain to me on the fighters he flown back then yet no link to any website being provided.


----------



## Globenim

kungfugymnast said:


> If you're so smart and to you, any content listed on websites only considered facts, care to explain how to operate J10C, J20, J16, J11D radar to scan for target and track detected target? How do you switch air to air or air to ground mode? Do they have optronic pod and if yes, do they come with camera view and how do you designate target? If there's incoming missile, how do you use the RWR? I'll wait for your reply, if you failed to provide the details, it proves you're source website is useless nothing more than just general news.
> 
> Gambit could explain to me on the fighters he flown back then yet no link to any website being provided.


First, get off you imaginary high horse and stop projecting your smartass attitude every time you trolls get caught talking condensed bullshit, that can rarely even pass an undergrad tier reasoning check. Now, once again care to explain what your second completely irrelevant tantrum and circlejerking has to do with the posts you are replying to? What do you even mean with "you are source website is useless". I am on the team asking for a source. You are on the team not providing it. I can't tell if its just bad English or absolute nonsense you are posting. Or are you already back to the usual deflecting routine?

Your troll buddy made the claims. Your troll buddy stumbled over his lies when asked for evidence. Your troll buddy got called out trying to pass off a completely unrelated story to back up his claims Your troll buddy is the one struggling with lame excuses that his dog ate his homework and all sources and all references to his sources happen to be deleted. You got caught guzzling just loads of irrelevant bullshit just for the sake of talking back and trying to wiggle away from a lost case.

You absolute nobodies with zero credence are not in any position to demand people to proof themself to you either way, no matter how much you fellate each other. Talk crap and you get called out. Thats all you get for for your new load of bullshit. Don't get all flustered when people cant be bothered to play along with your farce.

Back to square one. Where is the proof for his J20 engineer claims? As long as your circlejerk fails to provide any details everyone can safely assume you guys were just talking from your asses to construe a false but convenient "big picture" again.

I'll wait.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

Globenim said:


> First, get off you imaginary high horse and stop projecting your smartass attitude every time you trolls get caught talking condensed bullshit, that can rarely even pass an undergrad tier reasoning check. Now, once again care to explain what your second completely irrelevant tantrum and circlejerking has to do with the posts you are replying to? What do you even mean with "you are source website is useless". I am on the team asking for a source. You are on the team not providing it. I can't tell if its just bad English or absolute nonsense you are posting. Or are you already back to the usual deflecting routine?
> 
> Your troll buddy made the claims. Your troll buddy stumbled over his lies when asked for evidence. Your troll buddy got called out trying to pass off a completely unrelated story to back up his claims Your troll buddy is the one struggling with lame excuses that his dog ate his homework and all sources and all references to his sources happen to be deleted. You got caught guzzling just loads of irrelevant bullshit just for the sake of talking back and trying to wiggle away from a lost case.
> 
> You absolute nobodies with zero credence are not in any position to demand people to proof themself to you either way, no matter how much you fellate each other. Talk crap and you get called out. Thats all you get for for your new load of bullshit. Don't get all flustered when people cant be bothered to play along with your farce.
> 
> Back to square one. Where is the proof for his J20 engineer claims? As long as your circlejerk fails to provide any details everyone can safely assume you guys were just talking from your asses to construe a false but convenient "big picture" again.
> 
> I'll wait.



What a bunch load of crap you posted. Yet you didn't answer at least 1 of my question on how to operate a simple avionic of new generation PLAAF fighter since you said all the facts can be found only on website.

As for the engineers hired by China, I read them from news on magazines, online news. You expect me to know everything as if I was 1 of the journalist involved, lol! Most of us here only read news from somewhere replying each other on latest news. Maybe few actually served in air force, army, navy of certain countries, that's all.


----------



## Globenim

kungfugymnast said:


> What a bunch load of crap you posted. Yet you didn't answer at least 1 of my question on how to operate a simple avionic of new generation PLAAF fighter since you said all the facts can be found only on website.
> 
> As for the engineers hired by China, I read them from news on magazines, online news. You expect me to know everything as if I was 1 of the journalist involved, lol! Most of us here only read news from somewhere replying each other on latest news. Maybe few actually served in air force, army, navy of certain countries, that's all.


So a third load of bullshit deflecting away from the question and still not a single of these many sources that you keep talking about.

Yes, of course I expect the anonymous people here to back up stories they post here. Is that a real question? No one cares about bullshit you pulled out of your ***. I'm not going to explain you the basics of human conversation. Since you immediately tried to swindle your way through with a false source, we already know you are fully aware how it works and just winding around in denial and deflecting after stumbling over your own lies. The boat sailed on that one.

Back to square one and your chance to redeem at least half of your reputation:
Post. The. Fucking. Source.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> What a bunch load of crap you posted. Yet you didn't answer at least 1 of my question on how to operate a simple avionic of new generation PLAAF fighter since you said all the facts can be found only on website.
> 
> As for the engineers hired by China, I read them from news on magazines, online news. You expect me to know everything as if I was 1 of the journalist involved, lol! Most of us here only read news from somewhere replying each other on latest news. Maybe few actually served in air force, army, navy of certain countries, that's all.


I have never heard of AVIC ever having a foreign engineer on its payrol. Use your common sense. Wouldnt having foreign engineers working for the Chinese MIC be a huge security risk for them??? You keep insulting other posters and yet refuse to divulge out any of your supposed sources. I'm sorry but "magazines" and "online" news do not count as credible sources.



Globenim said:


> Back to square one and your chance to redeem at least half of your reputation:
> Post. The. Fucking. Source.


Giving us low quality sources like the National Interest or Business Insider would be just as bad as giving us none.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## kungfugymnast

Globenim said:


> So a third load of bullshit deflecting away from the question and still not a single of these many sources that you keep talking about.
> 
> Yes, of course I expect the anonymous people here to back up stories they post here. Is that a real question? No one cares about bullshit you pulled out of your ***. I'm not going to explain you the basics of human conversation. Since you immediately tried to swindle your way through with a false source, we already know you are fully aware how it works and just winding around in denial and deflecting after stumbling over your own lies. The boat sailed on that one.
> 
> Back to square one and your chance to redeem at least half of your reputation:
> Post. The. Fucking. Source.



Why did you reply when you don't have answer to my questions?



Figaro said:


> I have never heard of AVIC ever having a foreign engineer on its payrol. Use your common sense. Wouldnt having foreign engineers working for the Chinese MIC be a huge security risk for them??? You keep insulting other posters and yet refuse to divulge out any of your supposed sources. I'm sorry but "magazines" and "online" news do not count as credible sources.
> 
> 
> Giving us low quality sources like the National Interest or Business Insider would be just as bad as giving us none.



China always have separate divisions for foreign engineers. Everything is getting commercialized, engineers work for money mostly, no issue. You want to say there's no foreign engineers in China reverse engineer department at all? There's no such thing as invention out of thin air.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> China always have separate divisions for foreign engineers. Everything is getting commercialized, engineers work for money mostly, no issue. You want to say there's no foreign engineers in China reverse engineer department at all? There's no such thing as invention out of thin air.


For the last time ... where is your evidence. Give me a source that references "special divisions." The refusal by you to provide those even one shred of evidence to back up your claim is truly astonishing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Globenim

kungfugymnast said:


> Why did you reply when you don't have answer to my questions


Why did you reply to me without posting the sources leave alone evidence for your stories about the J-20 program and just keep repeating and piling up completely irrelevant deflecting bullshit?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> For the last time ... where is your evidence. Give me a source that references "special divisions." The refusal by you to provide those even one shred of evidence to back up your claim is truly astonishing.



Both of you failed to tell me how to operate the MFD for searching and tracking air/ground targets in J10C, J20, J11D with your so called search engine & websites facts. What else you want to say about evidence?



Globenim said:


> Why did you reply to me without posting the sources leave alone evidence for your stories about the J-20 program and just keep repeating and piling up completely irrelevant deflecting bullshit?



I would rather believe words from related military personnel that whatever news on websites & google. So where's the source you said factual that tell us how to operate avionics in latest generation PLAAF fighters with AESA & touchscreen? Already several days past yet both of you can't answer like how @gambit did who replied with facts directly on fighter jets he operated back then.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Both of you failed to tell me how to operate the MFD for searching and tracking air/ground targets in J10C, J20, J11D with your so called search engine & websites facts. What else you want to say about evidence?


You're the one making the ridiculous claims. The burden of proof falls instead on you ... instead of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

@kungfugymnast 

*I really have to step in since this is not the way to act: The one who makes ridiculous claims or at least claims, which contradict a common opinion has the duty to prove them, either by a concrete link or a reliable source, so that anyone else can make up his/her own opinion on what to think about. Not we have to proof or disproof your claims; it Your duty.*

*Therefore take this as a warning, otherwise constantly ignoring these request and even replying with offensive posts will be rated as trolling.*


----------



## Nasr

I have a question for our Chinese friends, since the J-20 has entered serial production phase, does this mean that the WS-15 engines are now fully certified and will power the J-20s? And if this is true, then what is the best guesstimate on the number of J-20s China intends to procure. Lastly, what is the probability of J-20s envisaged for Navy? Or would the Navy Stealth Combat Aircraft be a completely different development altogether?


----------



## ILC

Nasr said:


> I have a question for our Chinese friends, since the J-20 has entered serial production phase, does this mean that the WS-15 engines are now fully certified and will power the J-20s? And if this is true, then what is the best guesstimate on the number of J-20s China intends to procure. Lastly, what is the probability of J-20s envisaged for Navy? Or would the Navy Stealth Combat Aircraft be a completely different development altogether?


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw1LNamyBYZKIAKSSLD38v8x

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Nasr said:


> I have a question for our Chinese friends, since the J-20 has entered serial production phase, does this mean that the WS-15 engines are now fully certified and will power the J-20s? And if this is true, then what is the best guesstimate on the number of J-20s China intends to procure. Lastly, what is the probability of J-20s envisaged for Navy? Or would the Navy Stealth Combat Aircraft be a completely different development altogether?


The WS-15 hasn't been certified yet ... I wouldn't expect so for a couple more years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## JSCh

J-20 promotion video from AVIC.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Avicenna

Not sure if this has been posted before.

Camo looks sweet.

Those are some big open bays.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Avicenna said:


> Not sure if this has been posted before.
> 
> Camo looks sweet.
> 
> Those are some big open bays.



Old footage from Zhuhai 2018.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dual Wielder

Are they battle proven?
Tell you what, if you test them over IOK, by destroying all Indian Air bases, and army installations, we will be happy to purchase a batch.

2 Batches, if it takes out all their coastal refineries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Dual Wielder said:


> Are they battle proven?
> Tell you what, if you test them over IOK, by destroying all Indian Air bases, and army installations, we will be happy to purchase a batch.
> 
> 2 Batches, if it takes out all their coastal refineries.


Even you got money, you still can't get it.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Figaro

Dual Wielder said:


> Are they battle proven?
> Tell you what, if you test them over IOK, by destroying all Indian Air bases, and army installations, we will be happy to purchase a batch.
> 
> 2 Batches, if it takes out all their coastal refineries.


I don't think a powerful country is willing to go to war with another powerful country just to prove that the J-20 is a viable export weapon (LOL). All jokes aside, the PLAAF is following the same route as what Congress did with the F-22, which was completely restrict exports of them. I think at one point Japan, America's number one ally in the Pacific, really tried to purchase them but the US still flat out refused.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

What an impressive image: Seven J-20s in formation flight .... would love to see them closer.

via

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168556196942491649

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> What an impressive image: Seven J-20s in formation flight .... would love to see them closer.
> 
> via
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168556196942491649
> View attachment 577095



I believe that's the record for the highest number of J-20s spotted in one place.

Do we know if the chaser aircraft is also a J-20?


----------



## LKJ86

http://www.top81cn.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1131930&extra=page=2&mobile=2

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168705170798272514

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Yes ... via

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168882506592063489


----------



## 055_destroyer

Deino said:


> Yes ... via
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168882506592063489


So at least it comfirmed 7 J-20 is operational.


----------



## Deino

055_destroyer said:


> So at least it comfirmed 7 J-20 is operational.




13 are confirmed by individual serial numbers, but I won't be surprised if the number would be almost twice already.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Yes ... via
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168882506592063489


From PLAAF's weibo

https://m.weibo.cn/5707057078/4412549065718523


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> 13 are confirmed by individual serial numbers, but I won't be surprised if the number would be almost twice already.



I think you are right. I doubt they sent the birds from the combat unit at Wuhu over. Mid-20s sounds just about right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bahadur999

*Video shows largest J-20 formation*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/9/3 21:21:54

*Jet fighter expected to star in national day parade*








*Photo: WeChat account of the PLA Air Force*

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for the first time showcased seven J-20 stealth fighter jets, the largest J-20 formation ever publicly shown, on Tuesday, leading experts to say China's military is already operating a considerable number of J-20s, which could achieve regional aerial superiority and destroy the enemy's strategic facilities deep in hostile territory.

In a video released by the PLA Air Force on social media on Tuesday, which was also the 74th anniversary of the victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1931-45), as many as seven J-20s can be seen flying in formation.

The number of J-20s flying in formation has gradually increased from two to five, and now seven, since China's most advanced fighter jet made its first public appearance at Airshow China in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province, which was held in November 2016.

Each increase in the number of J-20s has attracted considerable attention from military enthusiasts, Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Tuesday, noting that it reflects the scale and level at which the PLA Air Force is operating its fighter jet.

"A considerable number of units are probably ready to fly the J-20," Wang said.

Meanwhile, the PLA Air Force has not disclosed the total number of J-20s at its disposal. 

"If seven J-20s are sent simultaneously into battle, they would have a significant striking capability with their air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons," Wang said.

He noted that they could achieve regional air superiority and destroy enemy strategic nodes deep in hostile territory.

"To truly achieve peace, defending our homeland is not enough. We must not only defend but attack," said Yang Wei, J-20's chief designer, in the video.

"I feel really proud for my motherland. Respect to the guardians of the sky!" a Chinese net user commented on the video. 

Other Chinese internet users expressed their fervent desire to see the J-20s appear in the upcoming military parade on October 1 to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.

Wang said that in actual combat stealth fighter jets like the J-20 would not fly together in large numbers, but in twos or threes to achieve the highest combat potential, so the seven seen in the video could have been conducting a rehearsal for the upcoming national day parade. .

In July, the PLA Air Force for the first time released a photo of a J-20 stealth fighter jet with the serial number of a combat unit, indicating that the warplane has completed trials.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @inSky_1865 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86

Via @钢铁机机 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 578855
> 
> Via @钢铁机机 from Weibo




Hmmm??? But how reliable is this? AFAIK "Iron Eagle" is more an artist than a news-leaker? Or am I wrong?


----------



## LKJ86

Happy Mid-Autumn Festival to all Chinese!





Via @航空新视野-赤卫 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170850744225783808


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/


> The latest rumor (September 2019) claimed that *J-20* is being tested with the newly integrated WS-15 turbofan engine.


----------



## JSCh

Well known big shrimp 飞舞的摩羯 posted the above drawing. The text roughly translate to "I will have two more". It seem to be a hint that the J-20 is able to carry two SRAAM in each sidebay.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

JSCh said:


>



And what do they say??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

Deino said:


> And what do they say??


Edited with comment


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> And what do they say??


This guy's blog generally has some pretty juicy info, and is mostly legit. The picture implies that two SRAAM can be fitted inside J-20's side bay on each side.


----------



## Deino

JSCh said:


> Edited with comment




Thanks ... even if this would surprise me since at least IMO the internal space is very much limited?!


S10 said:


> This guy's blog generally has some pretty juicy info, and is mostly legit. The picture implies that two SRAAM can be fitted inside J-20's side bay on each side.




Agreed, but it seems via this "better" (?) translation via the SDF:

"Don't be fooled, the artist of this drawing posted this caption "以20这个体量，不多来两发真的可惜了。“ This translate to " With the size of J-20, it would be a real shame if there's not 2 more missiles." 
(by yuxiaochen)

So it was maybe more a joke.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> So it was maybe more a joke.







Maybe not...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 579916
> 
> Maybe not...



Now I'm even more confused.


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Thanks ... even if this would surprise me since at least IMO the internal space is very much limited?!
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but it seems via this "better" (?) translation via the SDF:
> 
> "Don't be fooled, the artist of this drawing posted this caption "以20这个体量，不多来两发真的可惜了。“ This translate to " With the size of J-20, it would be a real shame if there's not 2 more missiles."
> (by yuxiaochen)
> 
> So it was maybe more a joke.


Could be, but that isn't his style.

Some guy asked him in the comments whether it was real or fantasy. He said "do I look like a person to fantasize?".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> Could be, but that isn't his style.
> 
> Some guy asked him in the comments whether it was real or fantasy. He said "do I look like a person to fantasize?".




Exactly, and that's what confuses me since - at least by my understanding - I see not enough space to put a second PL-10 besids the first one in the same bay.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> Exactly, and that's what confuses me since - at least by my understanding - I see not enough space to put a second PL-10 besids the first one in the same bay.


It probably means two more missiles in the main bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pkd




----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @西野_Northwest from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

If anyone ever wonder about the P-51 Mustang, they were originally in service with ROC air force and several were captured by PLA during the Chinese civil war, and inducted into PLAAF.

During the first national parade celebrating formation of PRC in 1949, they were flown over Beijing as air display.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @前站起飞 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB

Japanese video analysis of J-20, it says J-20 was fitted with canards mainly for agility rather than stealth, it says Turkish Studies did say the stealth features of canards are detrimental to RCS reductions however it gains in terms of mobility (maneuvering capability) something repeated by other studies such

_Since all conﬁgurations have the same fuselage, dorsal intake and vertical empennage, the explanation of the RCS signature reduction for the Standard delta with LEX and Double delta is due to the planform of the conﬁgurations. Note that Standard delta with LEX and Double delta have different leading edges sweep, which enhances survivability by the non-uniform fringe surfaces.* By last, canards can potentially have poor stealth characteristics due to their large and angular surfaces that tend to reﬂect radar signals forwards.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...EATURES_FOR_NON-CONVENTIONAL_FIGHTER_AIRCRAFT*_


----------



## 055_destroyer

Su33KUB said:


> Japanese video analysis of J-20, it says J-20 was fitted with canards mainly for agility rather than stealth, it says Turkish Studies did say the stealth features of canards are detrimental to RCS reductions however it gains in terms of mobility (maneuvering capability) something repeated by other studies such
> 
> _Since all conﬁgurations have the same fuselage, dorsal intake and vertical empennage, the explanation of the RCS signature reduction for the Standard delta with LEX and Double delta is due to the planform of the conﬁgurations. Note that Standard delta with LEX and Double delta have different leading edges sweep, which enhances survivability by the non-uniform fringe surfaces.* By last, canards can potentially have poor stealth characteristics due to their large and angular surfaces that tend to reﬂect radar signals forwards.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...EATURES_FOR_NON-CONVENTIONAL_FIGHTER_AIRCRAFT*_


Turkey studies? Lol.... Try harder.


----------



## Deino

055_destroyer said:


> Turkey studies? Lol.... Try harder.



It's again as usual his desperate attempt to post anything that sheds bad light on this or any other Chinese projects.

We will surely again get the usual excuse, it is not forbidden to pots things that are not up to my China-hyping opinion but I must say it has a method.

Best way is to ignore such posts.


----------



## gambit

055_destroyer said:


> Turkey studies? Lol.... Try harder.


As you wished...

There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

They are not so much rules that you can break but more like guidelines that you can have varying degrees of obedience to them.

For example...Of all the basic shapes, the sphere is the most obedient to the three rules.

The sphere is the radar calibration shape and is effective enough that the sphere is in orbit to serve as a calibration object for ground based radars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1

The J-20 have two main wings, two vertical stabilizers, two canards, and two ventral fins. Total of 8 major structures. That falls under rule one: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

The J-20's flight control structures are not in alignment with each other compares to the F-22. That falls under rule two: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

Rules one and two affects rule three: Control of *MODES* of radiation.

The J-20 most likely have a higher RCS than the F-35 and F-22.



Deino said:


> It's again as usual his desperate attempt to post anything that sheds bad light on this or any other Chinese projects.
> 
> We will surely again get the usual excuse, it is not forbidden to pots things that are not up to my China-hyping opinion but I must say it has a method.
> 
> Best way is to ignore such posts.


You can call it a 'bad light' if you want. For those of us who have relevant experience in the subject, we call it balance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> It's again as usual his desperate attempt to post anything that sheds bad light on this or any other Chinese projects.
> 
> We will surely again get the usual excuse, it is not forbidden to pots things that are not up to my China-hyping opinion but I must say it has a method.
> 
> Best way is to ignore such posts.


Do you understand Japanese? i guess you think i made up the video do not you? go to the video if you understand japanese or ask any of your friends who speaks Japanese and verify if I am lying, the article sheds light upon the Japanese point of view because as the description on the video says China and Japan are developing stealth aircraft try to blame me for that video is not realistic better see no all the people had such views as you hold, in fact i can translate a few YouTube videos about the XF-7 engines and the test it has on video from Japanese YouTube regards


----------



## serenity

Alright guys. Let's say J-20 has more easy to observe by radar and missile than F-22 and F-35. Everybody can convinced one way or another but that's all good reasons why canards make J-20 less stealthy. Now we can move to another subject.


----------



## Su33KUB

gambit said:


> As you wished...
> 
> There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> They are not so much rules that you can break but more like guidelines that you can have varying degrees of obedience to them.
> 
> For example...Of all the basic shapes, the sphere is the most obedient to the three rules.
> 
> The sphere is the radar calibration shape and is effective enough that the sphere is in orbit to serve as a calibration object for ground based radars.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1
> 
> The J-20 have two main wings, two vertical stabilizers, two canards, and two ventral fins. Total of 8 major structures. That falls under rule one: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.
> 
> The J-20's flight control structures are not in alignment with each other compares to the F-22. That falls under rule two: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.
> 
> Rules one and two affects rule three: Control of *MODES* of radiation.
> 
> The J-20 most likely have a higher RCS than the F-35 and F-22.
> 
> 
> You can call it a 'bad light' if you want. For those of us who have relevant experience in the subject, we call it balance.


i agree with you but i think the J-20 was designed if it has a similar wing loading to F-35 to be more agile, the Japanese video basically says they sacrificed stealth in exchange for agility, in a head to head encounter the F-35 vs J-20 their RCS maybe are very similar, i think and agree with you F-35 very likely has a lower RCS than J-20, i think the Chinese used canards for high AoA lift requirements, canards do not offer higher lift at low AoA than horizontal tails, they only offer more lift beyond 16 degrees of AoA.


Armed with more missiles the J-20 will be a hard bone to chew in a dogfight against F-35, and more dangerous due to a longer range, in my opinion it was designed like a heavy weight F-35 but the use of canards is to better the F-35 in dogfights, at least once the missiles are depleted, and its wings and radome hint an aircraft designed for higher speeds than the F-35, the canards might even try to offset a higher wing loading than F-35 at high AoA.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> i agree with you but i think the J-20 was designed if it has a similar wing loading to F-35 to be more agile, the Japanese video basically says they sacrificed stealth in exchange for agility, in a head to head encounter the F-35 vs J-20 their RCS maybe are very similar, i think and agree with you F-35 very likely has a lower RCS than J-20, i think the Chinese used canards for high AoA lift requirements, canards do not offer higher lift at low AoA than horizontal tails, they only offer more lift beyond 16 degrees of AoA.
> 
> 
> Armed with more missiles the J-20 will be a hard bone to chew in a dogfight against F-35, and more dangerous due to a longer range, in my opinion it was designed like a heavy weight F-35 but the use of canards is to better the F-35 in dogfights, at least once the missiles are depleted, and its wings and radome hint an aircraft designed for higher speeds the F-35, the canards might even try to offset a higher wing loading than F-35 at high AoA.


NASA already states that their experimental X-36 with canards was extremely low RCS at all angles, and don't troll if you know nothing about stealth @Su33KUB

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fsjal

Su33KUB said:


> i agree with you but i think the J-20 was designed if it has a similar wing loading to F-35 to be more agile, the Japanese video basically says they sacrificed stealth in exchange for agility, in a head to head encounter the F-35 vs J-20 their RCS maybe are very similar, i think and agree with you F-35 very likely has a lower RCS than J-20, i think the Chinese used canards for high AoA lift requirements, canards do not offer higher lift at low AoA than horizontal tails, they only offer more lift beyond 16 degrees of AoA.
> 
> 
> Armed with more missiles the J-20 will be a hard bone to chew in a dogfight against F-35, and more dangerous due to a longer range, in my opinion it was designed like a heavy weight F-35 but the use of canards is to better the F-35 in dogfights, at least once the missiles are depleted, and its wings and radome hint an aircraft designed for higher speeds the F-35, the canards might even try to offset a higher wing loading than F-35 at high AoA.


Considering the size of the J-20, being a heavy fighter it'd probably be assigned by PLAAF mainly in an air-defense interceptor role along with an additional strike-fighter role. Its design including usage of canards means emphasis on maneuverability while its optronics makes it suitable for WVR dogfighting, so no doubt J-20 is a dogfighter but it's more highly likely the J-20 will be assigned for longer-range BVR operations, kinda like how the Su-27 was created as an air-defense fighter in the first place despite its supermaneuverable airframe and addition of IRST.

As for the canards, it's not necessarily a downside for a stealth fighter like the J-20. As mentioned, the X-36 achieved low RCS despite usage of canard (although tbh X-36 lacked vertical stabilizers which increased its stealth while J-20 still uses vertical stabilizers), meanwhile the Typhoon has a flight control software that maintains the angle of the canards where it has the lowest RCS, and then there's the hypothetical navalized F-23 that features canards for high AoA especially for carrier ops.

A shame there's not much information regarding how the J-20 maintains its stealth with its canards. Although tbf J-20 is still a new plane so there's still potential for improvements. A two-seater J-20 would be perfect for both interceptor and strike-fighter role while an improved J-20 with newer avionics and redesigned airframe similar to navalized F-23 would be ideal though it'd be unlikely we'll see a drastically-improved and redesigned J-20 probably until somewhere around ten-to-fifteen years from now..


----------



## LKJ86

Via Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

Fsjal said:


> Considering the size of the J-20, being a heavy fighter it'd probably be assigned by PLAAF mainly in an air-defense interceptor role along with an additional strike-fighter role. .


Almost 9 years later and this ignorance still persists. Hopefully you're just trying to troll instead of genuinely believing this what you just stated ...



pakistanipower said:


> NASA already states that their experimental X-36 with canards was extremely low RCS at all angles, and don't troll if you know nothing about stealth @Su33KUB


He first trolls the J-10 thread by making repeatedly debunked claims about the Lavi and now he goes on the J-20 thread ... perhaps there is a pattern?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fsjal

Figaro said:


> Almost 9 years later and this ignorance still persists. Hopefully you're just trying to troll instead of genuinely believing this what you just stated ...


Not trolling. The J-20 is a heavy fighter, its weight and size is comparable to the likes of an Su-27. And plus, heavy fighters don't put strong emphasis on dogfighting due to their size. Yes, supermaneuverable heavy fighters exist, the Flanker series and J-20 are those examples, but the reason why even the most supermaneuverable heavy fighters don't place WVR dogfighting as the main emphasis compared to light fighters such as JF-17 or SAAB Gripen is due to their size.

In a hypothetical WVR dogfight between an Su-27 and F-16, the F-16 still has a chance of winning over the Flanker despite the Su-27's IRST and off-boresight R-73 missiles, and this depends all on the skills of an F-16 pilot. If we compare the latest Su-35S to F-16V in WVR dogfight, the Viper can still hold on its own against the Su-35S as thrust vectoring results in low energy state and loss of energy, to which the F-16V can take advantage of due to be an energy fighter.

With the J-20 going up against the F-35 in a hypothetical WVR dogfight, the F-35's small size and optronics means it can keep up with the J-20 in a dogfight scenario. Which is why it's logical for a heavy fighter, especially a heavy stealth fighter like the J-20, to be used more in a long-range BVR aerial combat role. The J-20 has a 45% higher loaded weight than the F-35 along with longer-range and higher AAM payload. Plus the PL-15 has a longer range than the AIM-120C currently used by F-35. In terms of avionics, the F-35 has an advantage especially because of its APG-81, however the J-20's Type 1475 radar, regardless if it's less sophisticated than APG-81 or not, is larger therefore by that virtue would be more powerful. This type of advantage is seen among radars of heavy fighters against smaller radars of lighter-weight fighters, such as N011M Bars of Su-30MKI over N019 Sapfir-29 of MiG-29A, or APG-63(v)1 of F-15C/D over APG-66 of F-16A/B. So really, it's logical for the J-20 being an air-defense missile truck because of its size, range, and ordnance payload.

I don't get why the idea of the J-20 being a heavy air-defense fighter and strike fighter seems so controversial when that's actually the logical conclusion. The F-22A itself basically started off as the former but was later given the additional strike role by carrying precision munitions, though not on the same caliber as F-35. The J-20 is larger than the F-22A, which is fine to rationalize that the J-20 features strike capability as standard like F-35 rather than as an upgraded addition like F-22A. Plus, different unorthodox ideas aren't forms of trolling.


----------



## Figaro

Fsjal said:


> Not trolling. The J-20 is a heavy fighter, its weight and size is comparable to the likes of an Su-27. And plus, heavy fighters don't put strong emphasis on dogfighting due to their size. Yes, supermaneuverable heavy fighters exist, the Flanker series and J-20 are those examples, but the reason why even the most supermaneuverable heavy fighters don't place WVR dogfighting as the main emphasis compared to light fighters such as JF-17 or SAAB Gripen is due to their size.
> 
> In a hypothetical WVR dogfight between an Su-27 and F-16, the F-16 still has a chance of winning over the Flanker despite the Su-27's IRST and off-boresight R-73 missiles, and this depends all on the skills of an F-16 pilot. If we compare the latest Su-35S to F-16V in WVR dogfight, the Viper can still hold on its own against the Su-35S as thrust vectoring results in low energy state and loss of energy, to which the F-16V can take advantage of due to be an energy fighter.
> 
> With the J-20 going up against the F-35 in a hypothetical WVR dogfight, the F-35's small size and optronics means it can keep up with the J-20 in a dogfight scenario. Which is why it's logical for a heavy fighter, especially a heavy stealth fighter like the J-20, to be used more in a long-range BVR aerial combat role. The J-20 has a 45% higher loaded weight than the F-35 along with longer-range and higher AAM payload. Plus the PL-15 has a longer range than the AIM-120C currently used by F-35. In terms of avionics, the F-35 has an advantage especially because of its APG-81, however the J-20's Type 1475 radar, regardless if it's less sophisticated than APG-81 or not, is larger therefore by that virtue would be more powerful. This type of advantage is seen among radars of heavy fighters against smaller radars of lighter-weight fighters, such as N011M Bars of Su-30MKI over N019 Sapfir-29 of MiG-29A, or APG-63(v)1 of F-15C/D over APG-66 of F-16A/B. So really, it's logical for the J-20 being an air-defense missile truck because of its size, range, and ordnance payload.
> 
> I don't get why the idea of the J-20 being a heavy air-defense fighter and strike fighter seems so controversial when that's actually the logical conclusion. The F-22A itself basically started off as the former but was later given the additional strike role by carrying precision munitions, though not on the same caliber as F-35. The J-20 is larger than the F-22A, which is fine to rationalize that the J-20 features strike capability as standard like F-35 rather than as an upgraded addition like F-22A. Plus, different unorthodox ideas aren't forms of trolling.


If AVIC (the owner of Chengdu Aircraft Company) refers to the J-20 an "air superiority fighter", why then are you calling it an interceptor/heavy striker? If you analyze the J-20 closely, you can easily tell that it is not optimized for a heavy strike role at all. Sure the J-20's secondary role could be interception but its foremost role by far is air to air combat. If you have time, I recommend you read Dr. Song's (the J-10's designer) paper which laid out the J-20's aerodynamic base back in 2001.



serenity said:


> Alright guys. Let's say J-20 has more easy to observe by radar and missile than F-22 and F-35. Everybody can convinced one way or another but that's all good reasons why canards make J-20 less stealthy. Now we can move to another subject.


I was not aware canards by themselves make aircraft less stealthy. I am aware that there are American stealth aircraft designs incorporating canards (e.g. X-36) which ended up not being selected not due to their lack of stealth. The biggest problem with the J-20's stealth right now is probably its non serrated nozzles ... not its canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB

Fsjal said:


> Considering the size of the J-20, being a heavy fighter it'd probably be assigned by PLAAF mainly in an air-defense interceptor role along with an additional strike-fighter role. Its design including usage of canards means emphasis on maneuverability while its optronics makes it suitable for WVR dogfighting, so no doubt J-20 is a dogfighter but it's more highly likely the J-20 will be assigned for longer-range BVR operations, kinda like how the Su-27 was created as an air-defense fighter in the first place despite its supermaneuverable airframe and addition of IRST.
> 
> As for the canards, it's not necessarily a downside for a stealth fighter like the J-20. As mentioned, the X-36 achieved low RCS despite usage of canard (although tbh X-36 lacked vertical stabilizers which increased its stealth while J-20 still uses vertical stabilizers), meanwhile the Typhoon has a flight control software that maintains the angle of the canards where it has the lowest RCS, and then there's the hypothetical navalized F-23 that features canards for high AoA especially for carrier ops.
> 
> A shame there's not much information regarding how the J-20 maintains its stealth with its canards. Although tbf J-20 is still a new plane so there's still potential for improvements. A two-seater J-20 would be perfect for both interceptor and strike-fighter role while an improved J-20 with newer avionics and redesigned airframe similar to navalized F-23 would be ideal though it'd be unlikely we'll see a drastically-improved and redesigned J-20 probably until somewhere around ten-to-fifteen years from now..


try to understand what gambit said

There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

add the canard can not shield the wing, the wing does shield the canard in example F-22, aircraft follow rules of physics, the flight control system is designed upon calculations based upon the vectors, constraints the aircraft has.

The F-22 was designed with aft tails simply because they are thinner than the wing thus the wing shields the aft tails *reducing the quantity of radiators* in a head to head engagement and uses the thrust vectoring nozzles to take over the aft tail in trimming flight pitch moment the aircraft has, J-20 simply went that way because well in reality both aft tails and fore tails increase RCS, so they thought they were sacrificing little for higher gains in mobility, something logic, but the tailless aircraft are the most stealthy albeit they requiere complex systems for roll, pitch and yaw control and they might have reduced controlability.

this pictures says all, basically from a front view F-22 only has 4 radiators, two wings and two vertical tails




this is repeated in other stealth aircraft


----------



## CIA Mole

Can someone introduce me to a good reference on stealth design that talks about these things


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> try to understand what gambit said
> 
> There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> add the canard can not shield the wing, the wing does shield the canard in example F-22, aircraft follow rules of physics, the flight control system is designed upon calculations based upon the vectors, constraints the aircraft has.
> 
> The F-22 was designed with aft tails simply because they are thinner than the wing thus the wing shields the aft tails *reducing the quantity of radiators* in a head to head engagement and uses the thrust vectoring nozzles to take over the aft tail in trimming flight pitch moment the aircraft has, J-20 simply went that way because well in reality both aft tails and fore tails increase RCS, so they thought they were sacrificing little for higher gains in mobility, something logic, but the tailless aircraft are the most stealthy albeit they requiere complex systems for roll, pitch and yaw control and they might have reduced controlability.
> 
> this pictures says all, basically from a front view F-22 only has 4 radiators, two wings and two vertical tails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is repeated in other stealth aircraft


Reported for trolling @Su33KUB

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

pakistanipower said:


> Reported for trolling @Su33KUB


He was kicked out for trolling from another forum and has now found refuge in this forum ... . Some people can never get enough ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> If AVIC (the owner of Chengdu Aircraft Company) refers to the J-20 an "air superiority fighter", why then are you calling it an interceptor/heavy striker?


Air superiority is an assignment, not a design. If I want, I can assign the B-52 to an air superiority role.

That said, an interceptor should be a design where speed is paramount, like the F-104 Starfighter, for example. In a similar vein, an air superiority design should emphasize maneuverability and sensors over speed. Most of what we see ranges in the middle.



Figaro said:


> I was not aware canards by themselves make aircraft less stealthy. I am aware that there are American stealth aircraft designs incorporating canards (e.g. X-36) which ended up not being selected not due to their lack of stealth. The biggest problem with the J-20's stealth right now is probably its non serrated nozzles ... not its canards.


See post 11837.



notmycolon said:


> Can someone introduce me to a good reference on stealth design that talks about these things


There are none. You learn on-the-job (OJT).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fsjal

Figaro said:


> If AVIC (the owner of Chengdu Aircraft Company) refers to the J-20 an "air superiority fighter", why then are you calling it an interceptor/heavy striker? If you analyze the J-20 closely, you can easily tell that it is not optimized for a heavy strike role at all. Sure the J-20's secondary role could be interception but its foremost role by far is air to air combat. If you have time, I recommend you read Dr. Song's (the J-10's designer) paper which laid out the J-20's aerodynamic base back in 2001.


An air-superiority fighter can still work efficiently as an air-defense interceptor especially when fitted with a heavy long-range radar and armed with BVRAAMs, a reason why I mentioned the J-20 being used in air-defense roles. I agree that the J-20 was designed as an air-superiority fighter, the same with F-22A, however air-superiority fighters are an evolution of interceptors and still retain air-defense capability with the addition of air-supremacy capability, which is why dedicated interceptors aren't particularly common. F-22As from the 90th Fighter Squadron in Alaska are assigned to air patrols and there's the usual news of F-22As intercepting Russian bombers off the Alaskan coast, so it's not far-fetched for the J-20 to be assigned to air patrols off the coast of China. Air intercept, specifically area-defense intercept, is still an air-to-air role, and while air-superiority is a combination of WVR and BVR offensive combat for control of enemy airpsace, area-defense intercept is simply BVR defensive combat for the defense of national airspace. Until China enters into a major war that requires the usage of its J-20s, for now the J-20s would realistically be assigned to routine air patrols with air-superiority being practiced in mock exercises.

As for the strike role, the J-20 can still be upgraded to carrying precision-guided munitions. The F-22A isn't classed as multirole but maintains secondary strike capabilities after being upgraded to carry JDAMs or SDBs. Plus the J-20 has longer range than F-22A, its internal fuel capacity almost comparable to that of F-22A with drop tanks. It's not far-fetched for the J-20 to be upgraded with strike capability, but that's if PLAAF had such need to use the J-20 in deep strike operations.


Su33KUB said:


> try to understand what gambit said


Yes I saw it, I have eyes mate. Stop parroting what someone has already said.


----------



## gambit

Fsjal said:


> As for the canards, it's not necessarily a downside for a stealth fighter like the J-20. As mentioned, the X-36 achieved low RCS despite usage of canard (although tbh X-36 lacked vertical stabilizers which increased its stealth while J-20 still uses vertical stabilizers),...


The issue is less about the canards as flight controls elements as it is about rule one: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

Under radar bombardment, if it reflects, it becomes a 'radiator'.

Because of that, this is how a radar 'sees' any object, in this case, an aircraft...






... A *CLUSTER* of voltage spikes.

Sophisticated software can recognize patterns of these voltage spikes and tries to categorize the object as a car, a human body, or like above, an aircraft. But for the vast majority of radar systems out there, civilian and military, if there is a discernible cluster against a somewhat stable background, the radar computer will call the cluster a 'target'.

So going back to the canards. If you begins to reduce the *QUANTITY* of structures that produces those voltage spikes, you will begin to reduce the EM visibility of the cluster, which is the B-2 and the X-36, and finally, the sphere (post 11837) which is the most obedient to the three rules.

Since '09, I have been saying the same thing over and over about the canards -- it is less about the canards than it is about the three rules. A decade passed and it has not taken root in this forum. None of the rules are more or less important than the others. Modify one and you will affect the other two. Like a three legs stool, modify one and you will change how the structure performs under stress. Ten yrs passed and no one proved me wrong considering there are claimed Ph.Ds in this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

Su33KUB said:


> try to understand what gambit said
> 
> There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> add the canard can not shield the wing, the wing does shield the canard in example F-22, aircraft follow rules of physics, the flight control system is designed upon calculations based upon the vectors, constraints the aircraft has.
> 
> The F-22 was designed with aft tails simply because they are thinner than the wing thus the wing shields the aft tails *reducing the quantity of radiators* in a head to head engagement and uses the thrust vectoring nozzles to take over the aft tail in trimming flight pitch moment the aircraft has, J-20 simply went that way because well in reality both aft tails and fore tails increase RCS, so they thought they were sacrificing little for higher gains in mobility, something logic, but the tailless aircraft are the most stealthy albeit they requiere complex systems for roll, pitch and yaw control and they might have reduced controlability.
> 
> this pictures says all, basically from a front view F-22 only has 4 radiators, two wings and two vertical tails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is repeated in other stealth aircraft


F-22 use traditional "caret" style inlet. While J-20, F-35 use DSI(Divertless Supersonic Intakes).

None of us has experience on stealthy design. Meaningless discussion.



gambit said:


> The issue is less about the canards as flight controls elements as it is about rule one: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> Under radar bombardment, if it reflects, it becomes a 'radiator'.
> 
> Because of that, this is how a radar 'sees' any object, in this case, an aircraft...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... A *CLUSTER* of voltage spikes.
> 
> Sophisticated software can recognize patterns of these voltage spikes and tries to categorize the object as a car, a human body, or like above, an aircraft. But for the vast majority of radar systems out there, civilian and military, if there is a discernible cluster against a somewhat stable background, the radar computer will call the cluster a 'target'.
> 
> So going back to the canards. If you begins to reduce the *QUANTITY* of structures that produces those voltage spikes, you will begin to reduce the EM visibility of the cluster, which is the B-2 and the X-36, and finally, the sphere (post 11837) which is the most obedient to the three rules.
> 
> Since '09, I have been saying the same thing over and over about the canards -- it is less about the canards than it is about the three rules. A decade passed and it has not taken root in this forum. None of the rules are more or less important than the others. Modify one and you will affect the other two. Like a three legs stool, modify one and you will change how the structure performs under stress. Ten yrs passed and no one proved me wrong considering there are claimed Ph.Ds in this forum.


F-22 use traditional "caret" style inlet. While J-20, F-35 use DSI(Divertless Supersonic Intakes).

None of us has experience on stealthy design. Meaningless discussion.


----------



## CIA Mole

viva_zhao said:


> F-22 use traditional "caret" style inlet. While J-20, F-35 use DSI(Divertless Supersonic Intakes).
> 
> None of us has experience on stealthy design. Meaningless discussion.
> 
> 
> F-22 use traditional "caret" style inlet. While J-20, F-35 use DSI(Divertless Supersonic Intakes).
> 
> None of us has experience on stealthy design. Meaningless discussion.


Mr Gambit worked in aerospace?

But based on that figure he showed, wouldn’t the quality of the “radiators” trump the number of radiators? If you got one bad surface that reveals you, you’re screwed anyway no? So maybe the contribution of the j20 canards are trumped by the other radiators?

Overall surface area of plane should also matter?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

notmycolon said:


> Can someone introduce me to a good reference on stealth design that talks about these things


gambit did a pretty good explanation and he is very right, just let me add there is nothing truly stealthy, nor F-22, J-20 or F-35 just by simple high school physics you can understand stealth. Electromagnetic waves follow the rules the quantum mechanics dictate; radiation is absorbed or radiated upon small pockets of energy, in few words it is impossible to make invisible aircraft 100% all aircraft are detectable, because any material has a limit, some materials can absorb heat for example and only radiated back after the amount of heat excess the amount needed to raise it's temperature one degree so it will radiated or increase its temperature.

However remember light can be adsorbed in example black objects; it can also be reflected, or difracted, most faceting is reflection, most RAM is absorption, most smooth surfaces and planforming is diffraction, you can look for what is light grated diffraction pattern if you want .

AESA radars or yagi antenas use diffraction interference to steer radar waves, well smooth surfaces and planforming allow reflection of light only in one direction.



in few words the number of radiators, can be explained by simply thinking J-20 has a surface like a mirror, its canards send light into a different direction than its engine nacelles or chined nose and fore body, add its ventral fins allow diffraction by interacting with radiation from its wings or vertical tails, it is impossible for any aircraft to be radar invisible, thus all are detectable specially if you had detectors upon different frequencies of electromagnetic waves, UV or infrared are examples.



So i will put it simple, J-20 has canards not because its designers are smarter nor less capable than the F-22 designers, they designed J-20 trying to balance needs, they went for agility by using canards because at high AoA they increase wing lift, simple like that, the canard as gambit said is not inheritable less stealthy if you are illuminating X-36 from behind it is better that aft tails, the problem is many people here are fans that get angry if you tell them some compromises their aircraft have, J-20 for example has relatively speaking a more complex vortex system than F-35, potentially giving it higher lift at high AoA thus potentially better maneuverability.

DSI intakes are not really truly stealthy either too, they are just more economical for aircraft flying bellow Mach 2, radar signature management is not absolute, it is only a way to make it harder and more expensive to your rival detecting you.

Aircraft tactics are designed in a way you take your aircraft weaknesses and strengths either in stealth, speed, mobility, height, etc etc and use the opposition weaknesses to your advantage


from this view the canard will have a very strong radar reflection back to the emitter it will be very easy to detect it for a radar in front of it, of course J-20 does not fly like that, but that gives you an idea nothing is absolutely stealthy only it is harder to detect and more important the one using better tactics will win, to put it simple if well flown J-20 can beat F-35 using the right tactics, and under wrong tactics and more complex radar systems even a F-5 can defeat F-22

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Su33KUB said:


> gambit did a pretty good explanation and he is very right, just let me add there is nothing truly stealthy, nor F-22, J-20 or F-35 just by simple high school physics you can understand stealth. Electromagnetic waves follow the rules the quantum mechanics, radiation is absorbed or radiated upon small pockets of energy, in few words it is impossible to make invisible aircraft 100% all aircraft are detectable, because any material has a limit, some materials can absorb heat for example and only radiated back after the amount of heat excess the amount so it will radiated or increase its temperature.
> 
> However remember light can be adsorbed in example black objects; it can also be reflected, or difrated, most faceting is reflection, most RAM is absorption, most smooth surfaces and planforming is diffraction, you can look for what is light grated diffraction pattern if you want .
> 
> AESA radars or yagi antenas use diffraction interference to steer radar waves, well smooth surfaces and planforming allow reflection of light only in one direction.
> 
> 
> 
> in few words the number of radiators, can be explained by simply thinking J-20 has a surface like a mirror, its canards send light into a different direction than its engine nacelles or chined nose and fore body, add its ventral fins allow diffraction by interacting with radiation from its wings or vertical tails, it is impossible for any aircraft to be radar invisible, thus all are detectable specially if you had detectors upon different frequencies of electromagnetic waves, UV or infrared are examples.
> 
> 
> 
> So i will put it simple, J-20 has canards not because its designers are smarter nor less capable than the F-22 designers, they designed J-20 trying to balance needs, they went for agility by using canards because at high AoA they increase wing lift, simple like that, the canard as gambit said is not inheritable less stealthy if you are illuminating X-36 from behind it is better that aft tails, the problem is many people here are fans that get angry if you tell them some compromises their aircraft have, J-20 for example has relatively speaking a more complex vortex system than F-35, potentially giving it higher lift at high AoA thus potentially better maneuverability.
> 
> DSI intakes are not really truly stealthy either too, they are just more economical for aircraft flying bellow Mach 2, radar signature management is not absolute, it is only a way to make it harder and more expensive to your rival detecting you.
> 
> Aircraft tactics are designed in a way you take your aircraft weaknesses and strengths either in stealth, speed, mobility, height, etc etc and use the opposition weaknesses to your advantage
> 
> 
> from this view the canard will have a very strong radar reflection back to the emitter it will be very easy to detect it, of course J-20 does not fly like that, but that gives you an idea nothing is absolutely stealthy only it is harder to detect and more important the one using better tactics will win, to put it simple if well flown J-20 can beat F-35 using the right tactics, and under wrong tactics and more complex radar systems even a F-5 can defeat F-22


All 5th gen fighter jets including J-20, F-22 and F-35 can only control RCS in a very narrow angle, optimize for a certain range of bandwidth. @gambit theory is over simplified, and his theory can NOT justify F-22 is more stealthy than J-22 at all. F-22 use traditional "caret" style inlet, while J-20, F-35 use DSI(Divertless Supersonic Intakes). Base on @gambit theory, "caret" style inlet in the straight forward angle has maximized radiation reflection. It's nonsense. 

In real battle, none of those 5th gen fighter will use their radar freely, instead electronic silence in most of the time. Electronic warfare including infrared detection is the key. Air situation is provided by AEW&C(Airborne early warning and control) system. Using radar without air situation is suicidal, no matter it's 4th or 5th gen. Your enemy electronic warfare will detect you from 500 kilometers away or even further.

None of us has real experience on stealthy design. Meaningless discussion base on delusion, just some fanboy's fantasy.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Su33KUB

viva_zhao said:


> All 5th gen fighter jets including J-20, F-22 and F-35 can only control RCS in a very narrow angle, optimize for a certain range of bandwidth. @gambit theory is over simplified, and his theory can NOT justify F-22 is more stealthy than J-22 at all. F-22 use traditional "caret" style inlet, while J-20, F-35 use DSI(Divertless Supersonic Intakes). Base on @gambit theory, "caret" style inlet in the straight forward angle has maximized radiation reflection. It's nonsense.
> 
> In real battle, none of those 5th gen fighter will use their radar freely, instead electronic silence in most of the time. Electronic warfare including infrared detection is the key. Air situation is provided by AEW&C(Airborne early warning and control) system. Using radar without air situation is suicidal, no matter it's 4th or 5th gen. Your enemy electronic warfare will detect you from 500 kilometers away or even further.
> 
> None of us has real experience on stealthy design. Meaningless discussion base on delusion, just some fanboy's fantasy.


I do not speak upon my personal opinion, I usually look for scientific reports by experts, in fact i posted a Brazilian research to justify what i posted, furthermore if you have ever read the development history of other stealth aircraft ranging from MiG1.44, Su-47, Japanese shinshin, Turkish new stealth fighter, Europes new 6th generation, PAKFA or even F-35, YF-23 or F-22, you will see all have studied J-20 configuration all absolutely all, in fact F-35 originally had an early configuration like J-20, why then they discarded that version of F-35? because stealth is reduced but agility is improved, the Americans knew that version with canards was going to be more agile than the one with aft tails, now in order to understand why J-20 is like that you have to understand is not because the Chinese designers are not smart, not at all, they always weight advantages and disadvantages, the americans prefer BVR combat over WVR combat, the Russians believe WVR is very likely will be the zone you will need in combat between 5th generation aircraft plus both China and Russia boast they can detect stealth aircraft, the Russians went for agility and speed with just frontal stealth as the main priority and extensive use of jammers and other electromagnetic frequency detectors, China went for similar configuration with slightly less stealth than F-35 but with potentially better maneuverability and bigger weapons bays, they also consider the time they might need to get real 5th generation engines of 16 to 17 thousand kg thrust, they did sacrifice stealth in J-20 intentionally, because up to one point they know stealth is also propaganda and radar technology does catch up so they will need speed agility and avionics, remember China claims to be able to detect F-22 and Russia says the same.






The 6th generation is enhanced stealth so they have deleted canards and aft tails for tailless concepts and some even without vertical stabilizers, why simple they know 5th generations are indeed detectable and even F-117 was retired relatively early because it became obsolete, so he is not wrong, what happens if you need to see in China they weighted advantages and disadvantages and came to the conclusion J-20 is a system that can work with their awacs and radar system and be effective with long range weapons and advanced helmet cueing systems.

Further more tactics are very important using them right they will potentially overcome the weaknesses J-20 has, and believe me all aircraft have weaknesses

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Su33KUB said:


> I do not speak upon my personal opinion, I usually look by scientific reports by experts, in fact i posted a Brazilian research to justify what i posted, furthermore if you have ever read the development history of other stealth aircraft ranging from MiG1.44, Su-47, Japanese shinshin, Turkish new stealth fighter, Europes new 6th generation, PAKFA or even F-35, YF-23 or F-22, you will see all have studied J-20 configuration all absolutely all, in fact F-35 originally had an early configuration like J-20, why then they discarded that version of F-35? because stealth is reduced but agility is improved, the americans new that version with canards was going to be more agile than the one with aft tails, now in order to understand why J-20 is like that you have to understand is not because the Chinese designers are not smart, not at all, they always weight advantages and disadvantages, the americans prefer BVR combat over WVR combat, the Russians believe WVR is very likely will be the zone you will need in combat between 5th generation aircraft plus both China and Russia boast they can detect stealth aircraft, the Russians went for agility and speed with just frontal stealth as the main priority, China went for similar configuration with slightly less stealth than F-35 but with potentially better maneuverability and bigger weapons bays, they also consider the time they might need to get real 5th generation engines of 16 to 17 thousand kg thrust, they did sacrifice stealth in J-20 intentionally, because up to one point they know stealth is also propaganda and radar technology does catch up so they will need speed agility and avionics, remember China claims to be able to detect F-22 and Russia says the same.
> 
> The 6th generation is enhanced stealth so they have deleted canards and aft tails for tailless concepts and some even without vertical stabilizers, why simple they know 5th generations are indeed detectable and even F-117 was retired relatively early because it became obsolete, so he is not wrong, what happens if you need to see in China they weighted advantages and disadvantages and came to the conclusion J-20 is a system that can work with their awacs and radar system and be effective with long range weapons and advanced helmet cueing systems.
> 
> Further more tactics are very important using them right they will potentially overcome the weaknesses J-20 has, and believe me all aircraft have weaknesses





viva_zhao said:


> @gambit theory is over simplified, and his theory can NOT justify F-22 is more stealthy than J-22 at all. F-22 use traditional "caret" style inlet, while J-20, F-35 use DSI(Divertless Supersonic Intakes). Base on @gambit theory, "caret" style inlet in the straight forward angle has maximized radiation reflection. It's nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> None of us has experience on stealthy design. Meaningless discussion.


If what I posted is 'meaningless', then everything you guys said about the J-20 are equally meaningless. Further, this is a military oriented forum, I served, you have not. So what does that make your participation in this forum? How about meaningless?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> If what I posted is 'meaningless', then everything you guys said about the J-20 are equally meaningless. Further, this is a military oriented forum, I served, you have not. So what does that make your participation in this forum? How about meaningless?


your theory contradict with your statement.
by your theory, F-22 traditional "caret" style inlet is not stealthy at all.

Your theory has huge flaws and you didn't know it until I pointed it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

@Deino please control @Su33KUB this thread is only for news and discussion for J-20 not to compare other 5th gen jets with J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## vi-va

viva_zhao said:


> your theory contradict with your statement.
> by your theory, F-22 traditional "caret" style inlet is not stealthy at all.
> 
> Your theory has huge flaws and you didn't know it until I pointed it out.


@gambit, no further response anymore?


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> your theory contradict with your statement.
> by your theory, F-22 traditional "caret" style inlet is not stealthy at all.
> 
> Your theory has huge flaws and you didn't know it until I pointed it out.


The real flaws are in your understanding of the principles in the first place, as in post 11837.

So let us see what you really know about designing a low radar observable body...

*Q*: In theory, what is the first thing a radar engineer is taught about surfaces?

*Q*: Regarding the three rules...

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

Surface area falls under which?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CIA Mole

Anyone here wanna help estimate J20 RCS? 
http://s1.nonlinear.ir/epublish/book/Introduction_to_RF_Stealth_1891121219.pdf
From Introduction to RF Stealth:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> The real flaws are in your understanding of the principles in the first place, as in post 11837.
> 
> So let us see what you really know about designing a low radar observable body...
> 
> *Q*: In theory, what is the first thing a radar engineer is taught about surfaces?
> 
> *Q*: Regarding the three rules...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> Surface area falls under which?








The red cycled area is the strongest reflection of F-22 by your theory. What is worst, the reflection direction is straight forward, which should be avoid.

Your rule has huge flaws. Here are the rules I copied from the paper below(page 138), which was published on *Journal of Computations & Modelling, vol.4, no.1, 2014, 129-165*

In fact, the monostatic or backscatter RCS depends on the following

Target geometry
Target material composition, especially for the surface
Position of radar antenna relative to target
Angular orientation of target relative to radar antenna
Frequency of the electromagnetic energy
Radar antenna polarization.
The aim is always the same: reflect the radar energy to certain, irrelevant directions, and thus keeping the (monostatic) RCS low.

4.2 Radar absorbing materials
4.4 Active cancellation

*Low Observable Principles, Stealth Aircraft and Anti-Stealth Technologies*
http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf

You have no clue what *radar absorbing materials* J-20 and F-22 used, you don't know what *active cancellation* technologies J-20 and F-22 used neither. You don't know J-20 and F-22 radar design which is crucial for RCS deduction.

Without all those information above to back your arbitrary statement, your statement that J-20 has larger RCS than F-22 is just delusion.

Your theory worth nothing.

@Deino @notmycolon @Fsjal @Figaro @Su33KUB @pakistanipower @serenity @LKJ86 @S10 @*ZeEa5KPul @pkd @lcloo @055_destroyer @siegecrossbow @ZeEa5KPul @JSCh *

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> View attachment 581627
> 
> 
> The red cycled area is the strongest reflection of F-22 by your theory. What is worst, the reflection direction is straight forward, which should be avoid.
> 
> Your rule has huge flaws. Here are the rules I copied from the paper below(page 138), which was published on *Journal of Computations & Modelling, vol.4, no.1, 2014, 129-165*
> 
> In fact, the monostatic or backscatter RCS depends on the following
> 
> Target geometry
> Target material composition, especially for the surface
> Position of radar antenna relative to target
> Angular orientation of target relative to radar antenna
> Frequency of the electromagnetic energy
> Radar antenna polarization.
> The aim is always the same: reflect the radar energy to certain, irrelevant directions, and thus keeping the (monostatic) RCS low.
> 
> 4.2 Radar absorbing materials
> 4.4 Active cancellation
> 
> *Low Observable Principles, Stealth Aircraft and Anti-Stealth Technologies*
> http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf
> 
> You have no clue what *radar absorbing materials* J-20 and F-22 used, you don't know what *active cancellation* technologies J-20 and F-22 used neither. You don't know J-20 and F-22 radar design which is crucial for RCS deduction.
> 
> Without all those information above to back your arbitrary statement, your statement that J-20 has larger RCS than F-22 is just delusion.
> 
> Your theory worth nothing.
> 
> @Deino @notmycolon @Fsjal @Figaro @Su33KUB @pakistanipower @serenity @LKJ86 @S10 @*ZeEa5KPul @pkd @lcloo @055_destroyer @siegecrossbow @ZeEa5KPul @JSCh *


Stick to the topic bro @gambit knows for his anti Chinese statements and don't bring F-22 to the topic please bro @viva_zhao

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

viva_zhao said:


> View attachment 581627
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the monostatic or backscatter RCS depends on the following
> 
> Target geometry
> Target material composition, especially for the surface
> Position of radar antenna relative to target
> Angular orientation of target relative to radar antenna
> Frequency of the electromagnetic energy
> Radar antenna polarization.
> The aim is always the same: reflect the radar energy to certain, irrelevant directions, and thus keeping the (monostatic) RCS low.
> 
> 4.2 Radar absorbing materials
> 4.4 Active cancellation



the common problem in forums and why they become so uncivilized is consider an aircraft an extension of our own ego, the reason J-20 has DSI is not stealth, it is maintenance, F-22 has in the intake need for more maintenance, maintenance, reflects the numbers of sorties it will fly, to put it simple the DSI intakes give to the J-20 a relatively a very low RCS but more important allows it will fly more often than F-22, in time of war more reliability means more sorties, so the DSI allows to both the J-20, J-10, F-35 less maintenance, however this limits the aircraft to an ideal air pressure recovery for a speed of Mach 1.6, of course the aircraft can fly faster even Mach 2 or even more, but by lowering air pressure recovery acceleration suffers because the aircraft will not be able to go beyond an ideal Maximum thrust of a static jet engine rig , in few words flame outs, the engine will reduce max thrust between 8% in an ideal lose to 20% thus never achieving its max thrust.


To summarize has DSI for more reliability with relatively the same RCS, same is F-35, just consider the ideally flat surfaces direct the radar EM waves in a single direction, bulges and the DSI is one, will send it within 180 degrees albeit weakened, bulges have relatively speaking an sphere type scattering however they are a bit different.


He is not wrong, F-22 has diffraction grating in its intake, so they add RAM, due to a more complex structure due to the bleed and bypass systems., but pretty much is very stealthy, but J-20 has one that assure more reliability, F-22 might not fly due to RAM and maintenance issues on the intakes, J-20 might not suffer such problems it will fly more often and more sorties, but ideally it will fly between 1.6-1.8 Mach.

The F-22 has a very complex multi shock ramps in its caret type intakes that allow good pressure recovery at Mach 2+


If you can not see that each technology offers advantages and disadvantages this conversation will become a fight of egos, all technologies prioritize advantages but also suffer disadvantages

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Su33KUB said:


> the common problem in forums and why they become so uncivilized is consider an aircraft an extension of our own ego, the reason J-20 has DSI is not stealth, it is maintenance, F-22 has in the intake need for more maintenance, maintenance, reflects the numbers of sorties it will fly, to put it simple the DSI intakes give to the J-20 a relatively a very low RCS but more important allows it will fly more often than F-22, in time of war more reliability means more sorties, so the DSI allows to both the J-20, J-10, F-35 less maintenance, however this limits the aircraft to an ideal air pressure recovery for a speed of Mach 1.6, of course the aircraft can fly faster even Mach 2 or even more, but by lowering air pressure recovery acceleration suffers because the aircraft will not be able to go beyond an ideal Maximum thrust of a static jet engine rig , in few words flame outs, the engine will reduce max thrust between 8% in an ideal lose to 20% thus never achieving its max thrust.
> 
> 
> To summarize has DSI for more reliability with relatively the same RCS, same is F-35, just consider the ideally flat surfaces direct the radar EM waves in a single direction, bulges and the DSI is one, will send it within 180 degrees albeit weakened, bulges have relatively speaking an sphere type scattering however they are a bit different.
> 
> 
> He is not wrong, F-22 has diffraction grating in its intake, so they add RAM, due to a more complex structure due to the bleed and bypass systems., but pretty much is very stealthy, but J-20 has one that assure more reliability, F-22 might not fly due to RAM and maintenance issues on the intakes, J-20 might not suffer such problems it will fly more often and more sorties, but ideally it will fly between 1.6-1.8 Mach.
> 
> The F-22 has a very complex multi shock ramps in its caret type intakes that allow good pressure recovery at Mach 2+
> 
> 
> If you can not see that each technology offers advantages and disadvantages this conversation will become a fight of egos, all technologies prioritize advantages but also suffer disadvantages


To be stealthy, you need to control both RCS and thermal radiation. Flying at Mach 2.0 is much easier to be detected.

Nowadays, infrared detector array is much more advanced than the era when F-22 was born. To be stealthy, you can't fly too high at 20000 m, you can't fly too low at 3000 m. Most likely 6000-7000 m. The speed should be lower than 1 Mach, or a little bit higher than 1 Mach. Otherwise, it will be detected from a further distance.

As I said above, it's an arbitrary statement, we knew little about how J-20 is designed, nor F-22. No one can claim which is more stealthy at all. J-20 was designed 20 years later after F-22, there are a lot of new technologies J-20 can use while F-22 may or may not used.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> The red cycled area is the strongest reflection of F-22 by your theory. What is worst, the reflection direction is straight forward, which should be avoid.


So let us look at this graphic again...







Are you telling this forum that the classic diverter plate intake design on the F-22 produced that great of a contrast of a voltage spike compared to the newer DSI 'bump"?

Are you telling us that?

If you are saying so, give us supporting data.

The flaw in your feeble understanding of post 11837 page 790 (mine) is evident.



viva_zhao said:


> Your rule has huge flaws. Here are the rules I copied from the paper below(page 138), which was published on *Journal of Computations & Modelling, vol.4, no.1, 2014, 129-165*



Very good. Let us look at them...Remember, the red comments are *YOURS*...

In fact, the monostatic or backscatter RCS depends on the following

Target geometry
Target material composition, especially for the surface
Position of radar antenna relative to target
Angular orientation of target relative to radar antenna
Frequency of the electromagnetic energy
Radar antenna polarization.
The aim is always the same: reflect the radar energy to certain, irrelevant directions, and thus keeping the (monostatic) RCS low.

4.2 Radar absorbing materials
4.4 Active cancellation

*Low Observable Principles, Stealth Aircraft and Anti-Stealth Technologies*
http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf

This is my theory...Which is not really mine to start, but only what I learned from being in the field and active duty...

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

Target geometry -- this falls under under rule 2.

Target material composition -- -- this falls under under rule 2.

Position of radar antenna relative to target -- this falls under under rule 2.

Angular orientation of target relative to radar antenna -- this falls under under rule 2.

Frequency of the electromagnetic energy -- this falls under under rule 2.

Radar antenna polarization -- this falls under under rule 2.

What you do not understand is that the radar cross section (RCS) value of any body is a *FICTITIOUS* number. It is 'fictitious' not in the sense that we make it up but 'fictitious' in the sense that the value changes according to how the seeking radar and the body are in physical relation to each other.

Take rule one: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

If the F-22 is viewed from the rear aspect, Rule One is in effect to the seeking radar. In other words, the seeking radar cannot calculate what it cannot see. The F-22's intake did not physically disappeared from the jet. The seeking radar just simply cannot see the intakes and if it cannot see them, it cannot calculate the RCS value at that time. If we turn the F-22 around so that the seeking radar can 'see' the jet's intakes and calculate them, then we will have a new RCS value, hence the context of the word 'fictitious' and how Rule One is supported in principle and in actual math.

The contexts of the word 'control' are thus:

- What the target physically have
- What the seeking radar can actually 'see'

Each context affects the other.

This is why your dismissal of the the three rules indicates your ignorance of *ALL* the relevant subjects, starting with basic radar detection principles all the way to understanding how low radar observable bodies are designed.

Do you see post 11866? Everything in that post support the three rules. You are just too arrogant to admit to your ignorance.



viva_zhao said:


> You have no clue what *radar absorbing materials* J-20 and F-22 used, you don't know what *active cancellation* technologies J-20 and F-22 used neither.


Neither jet have active cancellation.

Active cancellation is for another debate but for now -- am willing to bet your ignorance on that subject is even worse than what we have seen so far.

But just for curiosity sake, for either passive or active cancellation, which rule is it?



viva_zhao said:


> You don't know J-20 and F-22 radar design which is crucial for RCS deduction.


We can see that at least I know far better than you and your Chinese friends -- *COMBINED*.



viva_zhao said:


> To be stealthy, you need to control both RCS and thermal radiation.


Control? Very good. Now you are learning. 



viva_zhao said:


> Flying at Mach 2.0 is much easier to be detected.
> 
> Nowadays, infrared detector array is much more advanced than the era when F-22 was born. To be stealthy, you can't fly too high at 20000 m, you can't fly too low at 3000 m. Most likely 6000-7000 m. The speed should be lower than 1 Mach, or a little bit higher than 1 Mach. Otherwise, it will be detected from a further distance.


Clue for you, buddy...

Being low radar observable does not give license to be careless. When I was active duty and on the F-111, we trained on how to 'read' the radar warning receiver (RWR) output to avoid detection and still penetrate defended airspace. We were good enough at it -- with 1960s tech -- that the Soviets had no effective defense against the UK based F-111s. That helplessness was confirmed by Adolf Tolkachev and you can look him up.



viva_zhao said:


> As I said above, it's an arbitrary statement, we knew little about how J-20 is designed, nor F-22. No one can claim which is more stealthy at all. J-20 was designed 20 years later after F-22, there are a lot of new technologies J-20 can use while F-22 may or may not used.


Hey...Your fellow Chinese on this forum made physics defying claims since the J-20 came out. I just debunked them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

viva_zhao said:


> To be stealthy, you need to control both RCS and thermal radiation. Flying at Mach 2.0 is much easier to be detected.
> 
> Nowadays, infrared detector array is much more advanced than the era when F-22 was born. To be stealthy, you can't fly too high at 20000 m, you can't fly too low at 3000 m. Most likely 6000-7000 m. The speed should be lower than 1 Mach, or a little bit higher than 1 Mach. Otherwise, it will be detected from a further distance.



you can consider J-20 first an element of weapons system, China had some limitations and also advantages, J-20 was designed pretty much like a Large F-35, adding very likely better manoeuvrability due to its canards, if it has similar wing loading and TWR.

If it has better engine very likely will super cruise, thus you can consider it a F-35 on steroids, it has wider and larger weapons bays, comparable avionics with probably better radar in terms of power, but the laws of physics do not change, Gambit is not wrong, RAM and Composite materials have limits and radars advance too, speed is very important regardless, F-22 has also disadvantages, its maintenance is expensive, but it is fast, very fast without afterburner , speed allows dodge missiles, I know fans think J-20 has no flaws, it does like any aircraft you can consider that China is addressing that in a new 6th generation fighter, but so are other powers, it is the dynamics of the arms race, but pretty much J-20 is a 5th generation fighter and with the aid of J-11s and J-10s will balance the chess game of the air for China, the 5th generation aircraft have flaws too, they are expensive, have low reliability, high maintenance, low numbers of production, and long development so long some countries already will skip it to go directly to the 6th generation, and most of these aircraft need TVC nozzles to fix poor aerodynamics result of too much stealth, they are more tools of propaganda and national pride, but i can consider J-10 will continue production for at least 15 years more due to the low production numbers of J-20 and J-31.


J-20 will act more like a stealth AWACS guiding drones and J-11s and only entering combat if other stealth fighters are in the area or advanced SAMs are deployed, but as weapon you have to consider cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are to fill up for the flaws China might have in its air force.

regards


----------



## LKJ86

Via @超侧卫 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> speed allows dodge missiles


How Can it outmaneuver the missile traveling at Mach-4+ and F-22 is super cruising at 1.6/1.8 Mach, and also by the agility F-22 can't evade a missiles maneuvering at 40-50 G whereas F-22 has a max agility of 11 G, the only way to defeat air to air missiles are ECM/EW/Chaff and flare not speed or maneuverability @Su33KUB

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Over the yrs, a lot of noise were produced by the ignorant about the supposedly 'non-stealthy' classic diverter plate intakes of the F-22 vs the supposedly more 'advanced' diverterless DSI 'bump' on the J-20. The problem for the ignorant is that the ideal angle that will allow the seeking radar to have unrestricted view of the intakes are nearly tactically non-existent, meaning that direct head-on aspect angle exists mostly in exercises.

Here is a more realistic view as 'seen' by any seeking radar in actual tactical combat situations...






Where are the F-22's intake diverter plates now?

Instead, what we and the seeking radar 'sees' are major protrusions from the J-20:

- Two wings
- Two canards
- Two rear stabs
- Two engine exhausts
- Two intakes

Total of ten major radiators.

Remember the three rules in designing a radar low observable body...

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* radiation

From this more tactically common aspect angle, the J-20 as 'seen' by a seeking radar is less obedient than the F-22 to Rule One: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

The F-22's classical intake diverter plates and the J-20 newer DSI 'bumps' are unseen by the seeking radar, therefore, mathematically irrelevant in calculating a temporary radar cross section (RCS). So instead of the F-22's classical diverter plates, the seeking radar 'sees' the J-20's prominent intake structures.

This is real physics, not 'Chinese' physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> Over the yrs, a lot of noise were produced by the ignorant about the supposedly 'non-stealthy' classic diverter plate intakes of the F-22 vs the supposedly more 'advanced' diverterless DSI 'bump' on the J-20. The problem for the ignorant is that the ideal angle that will allow the seeking radar to have unrestricted view of the intakes are nearly tactically non-existent, meaning that direct head-on aspect angle exists mostly in exercises.
> 
> Here is a more realistic view as 'seen' by any seeking radar in actual tactical combat situations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the F-22's intake diverter plates now?
> 
> Instead, what we and the seeking radar 'sees' are major protrusions from the J-20:
> 
> - Two wings
> - Two canards
> - Two rear stabs
> - Two engine exhausts
> - Two intakes
> 
> Total of ten major radiators.
> 
> Remember the three rules in designing a radar low observable body...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* radiation
> 
> From this more tactically common aspect angle, the J-20 as 'seen' by a seeking radar is less obedient than the F-22 to Rule One: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.
> 
> The F-22's classical intake diverter plates and the J-20 newer DSI 'bumps' are unseen by the seeking radar, therefore, mathematically irrelevant in calculating a temporary radar cross section (RCS). So instead of the F-22's classical diverter plates, the seeking radar 'sees' the J-20's prominent intake structures.
> 
> This is real physics, not 'Chinese' physics.


So why you're using DSI intakes on F-35 if its bad for Stealth @gambit

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178655404705775618

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

pakistanipower said:


> So why you're using DSI intakes on F-35 if its bad for Stealth @gambit


well put. 

@gambit , you are too arrogant. Nowadays, BVR dominate, instead of dog fight. J-20 don't have machine gun, that can demonstrate something.

2 bird in 200 kilometer away, which angle is most important? The straight forward position. F-35 use DSI intakes, don't tell me US technology move backward in recent years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> well put.
> 
> @gambit , you are too arrogant. Nowadays, BVR dominate, instead of dog fight. J-20 don't have machine gun, that can demonstrate something.
> 
> 2 bird in 200 kilometer away, which angle is most important? The straight forward position. F-35 use DSI intakes, don't tell me US technology move backward in recent years.


Even today net centering warfare no Jets whether its stealth or not, don't hide much from long range ground based Radars/AWACS/ Fighter jets AESA @viva_zhao 
And don't engage @gambit he is known for its anti Chinese statements because he is VIETNAMESE-AMERICAN @viva_zhao


----------



## vi-va

pakistanipower said:


> Even today net centering warfare no Jets whether its stealth or not, don't hide much from long range ground based Radars/AWACS/ Fighter jets AESA @viva_zhao
> And don't engage @gambit he is known for its anti Chinese statements because he is VIETNAMESE-AMERICAN @viva_zhao


you are right. It's system vs system, not bird vs bird.

Even in 2 birds vs 2 birds scenario, it's not just which one is more stealthy, it's electronic warfare vs electronic warfare. 

Any any scenarios, AEW&C is more and more important.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> well put.
> 
> @gambit , you are too arrogant. Nowadays, BVR dominate, instead of dog fight. J-20 don't have machine gun, that can demonstrate something.
> 
> 2 bird in 200 kilometer away, which angle is most important? The straight forward position. F-35 use DSI intakes, don't tell me US technology move backward in recent years.


This is why I enjoy debating you guys so much -- you do not think.

Nowhere did I even implied that the DSI design is 'bad' for a low radar observable body. The DSI 'bump' does not make up the intake itself. It is a *COMPONENT* of the entire intake *SYSTEM*. The DSI 'bump' follows the intake design no matter where the intake is positioned on the aircraft, like how this F-16 was modified to have the DSI intake system.

http://aviationintel.com/fast-history-lockheeds-diverterless-supersonic-inlet-testbed-f-16/

As far as beyond visual situations goes, my post 11875 demonstrate exactly such a situation.

Arrogant? You should go look in the mirror. I am a USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). What do you have? As far as I am concerned, you are not allowed to use the word 'bird' in talking about jets. Such language is reserved for those who have actually been directly involved in aviation, which am quite certain you do not qualify.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> This is why I enjoy debating you guys so much -- you do not think.
> 
> Nowhere did I even implied that the DSI design is 'bad' for a low radar observable body. The DSI 'bump' does not make up the intake itself. It is a *COMPONENT* of the entire intake *SYSTEM*. The DSI 'bump' follows the intake design no matter where the intake is positioned on the aircraft, like how this F-16 was modified to have the DSI intake system.
> 
> http://aviationintel.com/fast-history-lockheeds-diverterless-supersonic-inlet-testbed-f-16/
> 
> As far as beyond visual situations goes, my post 11875 demonstrate exactly such a situation.
> 
> Arrogant? You should go look in the mirror. I am a USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). What do you have? As far as I am concerned, you are not allowed to use the word 'bird' in talking about jets. Such language is reserved for those who have actually been directly involved in aviation, which am quite certain you do not qualify.


I drive car, doesn't mean I know how to make cars, nor how to evaluate which car design is better. Especially when the car you never touched, such as J-20.

None of us here knew J-20 much, just some pictures, which means nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> I drive car, doesn't mean I know how to make cars, nor how to evaluate which car design is better. Especially when the car you never touched, such as J-20.
> 
> None of us here knew J-20 much, just some pictures, which means nothing.


Big difference between you and I...

Stick time...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stick Time
_Time behind a joystick; flight time, flying time._

I have it. You do not. I have civilian flight training even before my USAF time. My technical understanding of radar detection as a field test engineer was after the USAF. Basically, I designed field tests to detect 'low altitude autonomous flight vehicles' aka 'drones' in both how to detect them and how they can avoid detection.

Bottom line, you know shit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yantong1980

gambit said:


> Arrogant? You should go look in the mirror. I am a USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). What do you have? As far as I am concerned, you are not allowed to use the word 'bird' in talking about jets. Such language is reserved for those who have actually been directly involved in aviation, which am quite certain you do not qualify.



Dude, your veterans things doesn't impress anyone here, keep that stuff for yourself, same with your cocky attitude. It's you the one that should check yourself into mirror.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## phancong

yantong1980 said:


> Dude, your veterans things doesn't impress anyone here, keep that stuff for yourself, same with your cocky attitude. It's you the one that should check yourself into mirror.


let him be the know all expert in everything on PDF. China have all the tool and facility to decide how to build their stealth fighter jet. Gammot expertise have no direct impact on China jet fighter development program.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> This is why I enjoy debating you guys so much -- you do not think.
> 
> Nowhere did I even implied that the DSI design is 'bad' for a low radar observable body. The DSI 'bump' does not make up the intake itself. It is a *COMPONENT* of the entire intake *SYSTEM*. The DSI 'bump' follows the intake design no matter where the intake is positioned on the aircraft, like how this F-16 was modified to have the DSI intake system.
> 
> http://aviationintel.com/fast-history-lockheeds-diverterless-supersonic-inlet-testbed-f-16/
> 
> As far as beyond visual situations goes, my post 11875 demonstrate exactly such a situation.
> 
> Arrogant? You should go look in the mirror. I am a USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). What do you have? As far as I am concerned, you are not allowed to use the word 'bird' in talking about jets. Such language is reserved for those who have actually been directly involved in aviation, which am quite certain you do not qualify.


Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit

@gambit in your post @gambit 


gambit said:


> *Over the yrs, a lot of noise were produced by the ignorant about the supposedly 'non-stealthy' classic diverter plate intakes of the F-22 vs the supposedly more 'advanced' diverterless DSI 'bump' on the J-20*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## phancong

pakistanipower said:


> Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit I suggest you check out the RT video on YouTube show how f35 can easily detect by unknown German company with their passive radar over 100 km without f35 pilot knowledge of the F35 being track for a long distance. Stealth technology is overrated.
> 
> @gambit in your post @gambit


----------



## Ultima Thule

What sir


----------



## phancong

pakistanipower said:


> Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit
> 
> @gambit in your post @gambit


Check out the RT video just posted today on YouTube about the mighty f35 been track and detected by passive radar in Germany over 100 km by an unknown German company.



pakistanipower said:


> What sir


I just want you check out RT news reported today last yr f35 stealth fighter jets were tracked and detected by a groundbase passive radar during the German airshow.


----------



## Ultima Thule

phancong said:


> Check out the RT video just posted today on YouTube about the mighty f35 been track and detected by passive radar in Germany over 100 km by an unknown German company.
> 
> 
> I just want you check out RT news reported today last yr f35 stealth fighter jets were tracked and detected by a groundbase passive radar during the German airshow.


100 km is nothing when enemy detect F-35 from 100 km, its already game over for the enemy (stand off/BVR weapons launches)


----------



## phancong

pakistanipower said:


> 100 km is nothing when enemy detect F-35 from 100 km, its already game over for the enemy (stand off/BVR weapons launches)


Yeah but stealth fighters jet isn't invincible in any war with any near peer enemy, f35 detected by a unknown company with unsophisticated makeshift of passive radar, you can only imagine Russia and China with their sophisticated radar system waiting on F35 flight into their airspace during the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

phancong said:


> Yeah but stealth fighters jet isn't invincible in any war with any near peer enemy, f35 detected by a unknown company with unsophisticated makeshift of passive radar, you can only imagine Russia and China with their sophisticated radar system waiting on F35 flight into their airspace during the war.


no, Stealth mean late detection but in network environments its lose its credibility Much


----------



## phancong

pakistanipower said:


> no, Stealth mean late detection but in network environments its lose its credibility Much


Just prove Gambit debate about more stealth or less stealth have no real impact on how or when stealth fighters can be track or detect in the battlefield.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

pakistanipower said:


> Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit
> 
> @gambit in your post @gambit


Clearly? I have been patient with you but now that you twisted my words, the gloves are off. 

Nowhere in my post 11875 'clearly' stated that the DSI 'bump' is bad for 'stealth'.

_Over the yrs, a lot of noise were produced by the ignorant about the supposedly 'non-stealthy' classic diverter plate intakes of the F-22 vs the supposedly more 'advanced' diverterless DSI 'bump' on the J-20._

The ignorant, which includes you, usually claimed that the classic diverter plates are bad for 'stealth'. In other words, my comment that you highlighted is actually the opposite of what you twisted of what I said.

This image...







...Is only to show that under most flight conditions, *BOTH* the diverter plates and the DSI 'bumps' are irrelevant to RCS calculations. Nowhere did I even implied that one is superior to the other.

The liar is *YOU*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## riscol

https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoi...racked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/

German radar maker Hensoldt claims to have tracked two F-35s for 150 kilometers. China and Russia with their sophisticated radar tech should have no problem detecting it from a much bigger range.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB

viva_zhao said:


> I drive car, doesn't mean I know how to make cars, nor how to evaluate which car design is better. Especially when the car you never touched, such as J-20.
> 
> None of us here knew J-20 much, just some pictures, which means nothing.


you are talking absolutes, that is the reason people sometimes do not understand each other, Gambit never said DSI intakes are less or more stealthy in absolute terms, both systems have stealth treatment, both have compromises, the Caret intake type requires more RAM, more maintenance, more money, it is harder to make, Lockheed chose the DSI to replace it on F-35 simple because is cheaper to maintain and make, not because is more stealthy, all shapes do reflect radar, flat plates or bumps will reflect radar, the advantages of flat plates is they send a strong signal only in one direction, a bump or sphere, send the signal in all directions, but it weakens the signal because it distributes it into many directions.

From a top view the F-22 shields the intake duct, the DSI does not do that as well.

In general terms, J-20 does not follow the rules for stealth treatment as F-22 does, but do not take it in absolutes, it was done intentional, it is not because the Chinese engineers do not know them, they do understand them but stealth does not go all the time well with aerodynamics, plus stealth imposes a weight penalty, that requiere more powerful engines, thus the Chinese engineers needed to balance aerodynamics, the engine thrust available with stealth, they sometimes gave priority to stealth, sometimes to aerodynamics and engine thrust, where you have less stealthy features is because aerodynamics and engine thrust were higher priority, its canards, ventral fins and the rear part of it are such parts.

The DSI intake is lighter than the caret one thus in order to save weight, it was better for China


----------



## phancong

Su33KUB said:


> you are talking absolutes, that is the reason people sometimes do not understand each other, Gambit never said DSI intakes are less or more stealthy in absolute terms, both systems have stealth treatment, both have compromises, the Caret intake type requires more RAM, more maintenance, more money, it is harder to make, Lockheed chose the DSI to replace it on F-35 simple because is cheaper to maintain and make, not because is more stealthy, all shapes do reflect radar, flat plates or bumps will reflect radar, the advantages of flat plates is they send a strong signal only in one direction, a bump or sphere, send the signal in all directions, but it weakens the signal because it distributes it into many directions.
> 
> From a top view the F-22 shields the intake duct, the DSI does not do that as well.
> 
> In general terms, J-20 does not follow the rules for stealth treatment as F-22 does, but do not take it in absolutes, it was done intentional, it is not because the Chinese engineers do not know them, they do understand them but stealth does not go all the time well with aerodynamics, plus stealth imposes a weight penalty, that requiere more powerful engines, thus the Chinese engineers needed to balance aerodynamics, the engine thrust available with stealth, they sometimes gave priority to stealth, sometimes to aerodynamics and engine thrust, where you have less stealthy features is because aerodynamics and engine thrust were higher priority, its canards, ventral fins and the rear part of it are such parts


So by your own words Gambit talk about more or less stealth jets just a bunch of nonsense? Up to the people develop the stealth jet know what best to go forward with the development of their choice?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB

phancong said:


> So by your own words Gambit talk about more or less stealth jets just a bunch of nonsense? Up to the people develop the stealth jet know what best to go forward with the development of their choice?


they have to choose priorities, stealth imposes many conditions that not always are the best solution for aerodynamics, for example the internal weapons bays make for a much bigger and heavier aircraft if they want to keep space for fuel to put it mildly F-35 weights more than 5 tonnes more than a F-16A, thus they need a much more powerful engine than a F-100, the F135 is almost 80% more powerful than f100.

the F-35 weighs as much as an F-15 at empty weight, and full max weight, by 1970 standards it is a heavyweight fighter, F-22 weighs almost 6 tonnes more than an F-15 at empty weight.


That require much more thrust to offset such constraigns, China unless at this moment they are powering the J-20 with WS-15 with full thrust vectoring nozzles, it has an operational fighter just in name, the J-20 to operate really as a truly F-22 counterpart needs engines that can allow a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio at normal take off, it has very likely a normal take off of 28-30 tonnes, so minimum a 14 tonnes thrust engine, otherwise that extra weight and stealth requirements need to be reduced, so they simply went the way where they only prioritized stealth in the front of the aircraft, leaving the rear with much less stealth, the ventral fins and canards plus the rounded engine nacelles at the rear of the J-20 are solutions to help the aircraft with all the extra weight and lack of thrust


----------



## phancong

Su33KUB said:


> they have to choose priorities, stealth imposes many conditions that not always are the best solution for aerodynamics, for example the internal weapons bays make for a much bigger and heavier aircraft if they want to keep space for fuel to put it mildly F-35 weights more than 5 tonnes more than a F-16A, thuis they need a much more powerful engine than a F-100, the F135 is almost 80% more powerful than f100.
> 
> the F-35 weighs as much as an F-15 at empty weight, and full max weight, by 1970 standards it is a heavy weight fighter, F-22 weighs almost 6 tonnes more than an F-15 at empty weight.
> 
> 
> That requiere much more thrust to offset such constraigns, China unless at this moment they are powering the J-20 with WS-15 with full thrust vectoring nozzles, it has an operational fighter just in name, the J-20 to operate really as a truly F-22 needs engines that can allow a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio at normal take off, it has very likely a normal take off of 28-30 tonnes, so minimum a 14 tonnes thrust engine, otherwise that extra weight and stealth requirements need to be reduced, so they simply went the way where they only prioritized stealth in the front of the aircraft, leaving the rear with much less stealth, the ventral fins and canards plus the rounded engine nacelles at the rear of the J-20 are solutions to help the aircraft with all the extra weight and lack of thrust


I'm not a aerospace engineering, you don't have to convince me or tell me how China develop their stealth jet, I'm not interested in knowing the detail you provide. Less stealth or more agile of a jet have no meaningful for me to be more inform.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> they have to choose priorities, stealth imposes many conditions that not always are the best solution for aerodynamics, for example the internal weapons bays make for a much bigger and heavier aircraft if they want to keep space for fuel to put it mildly F-35 weights more than 5 tonnes more than a F-16A, thus they need a much more powerful engine than a F-100, the F135 is almost 80% more powerful than f100.
> 
> the F-35 weighs as much as an F-15 at empty weight, and full max weight, by 1970 standards it is a heavyweight fighter, F-22 weighs almost 6 tonnes more than an F-15 at empty weight.
> 
> 
> That require much more thrust to offset such constraigns, China unless at this moment they are powering the J-20 with WS-15 with full thrust vectoring nozzles, it has an operational fighter just in name, the J-20 to operate really as a truly F-22 counterpart needs engines that can allow a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio at normal take off, it has very likely a normal take off of 28-30 tonnes, so minimum a 14 tonnes thrust engine, otherwise that extra weight and stealth requirements need to be reduced, so they simply went the way where they only prioritized stealth in the front of the aircraft, leaving the rear with much less stealth, the ventral fins and canards plus the rounded engine nacelles at the rear of the J-20 are solutions to help the aircraft with all the extra weight and lack of thrust


In network environment like China/Russia have stealth has no value, maybe its work on third world countries like Iraq where was no sophisticated IDS (INTERROGATED DEFENSE SYSTEM) have USA currently skipping stealth tech and their 6th generation jets more relying on electronics (AESA/AVIONICS/ECM/ESM/EW) and speed rather than a true stealth @Su33KUB



gambit said:


> Clearly? I have been patient with you but now that you twisted my words, the gloves are off.
> 
> Nowhere in my post 11875 'clearly' stated that the DSI 'bump' is bad for 'stealth'.
> 
> _Over the yrs, a lot of noise were produced by the ignorant about the supposedly 'non-stealthy' classic diverter plate intakes of the F-22 vs the supposedly more 'advanced' diverterless DSI 'bump' on the J-20._
> 
> The ignorant, which includes you, usually claimed that the classic diverter plates are bad for 'stealth'. In other words, my comment that you highlighted is actually the opposite of what you twisted of what I said.
> 
> This image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Is only to show that under most flight conditions, *BOTH* the diverter plates and the DSI 'bumps' are irrelevant to RCS calculations. Nowhere did I even implied that one is superior to the other.
> 
> The liar is *YOU*.


Oh sir my bad i accept my mistake i didn't fully understand your post pardon me sir


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> Big difference between you and I...
> 
> Stick time...
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stick Time
> _Time behind a joystick; flight time, flying time._
> 
> I have it. You do not. I have civilian flight training even before my USAF time. My technical understanding of radar detection as a field test engineer was after the USAF. Basically, I designed field tests to detect 'low altitude autonomous flight vehicles' aka 'drones' in both how to detect them and how they can avoid detection.
> 
> Bottom line, you know shit.


If you are that good. I hope I can learn something from you. But so far I only see arbitrary statement, not solid proof to back your statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Interesting, the J-20 was referred to as China's first "*supersonic* stealth fighter." So the J-20 can supercruise after all it seems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> If you are that good. I hope I can learn something from you. But so far I only see arbitrary statement, not solid proof to back your statement.


Arbitrary? In your ignorance, not mine.

Here we go again...There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

If the rules are 'arbitrary', then how do you explain the Lincoln Calibration Sphere in orbit and the B-2? The fact that Lincoln Sphere exists is proof enough. But wait...There is more...

https://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/

Why is the sphere -- but not the cube or the pyramid or the trapezoid or the cone or whatever -- the ideal calibration body for any radar design?

Because the sphere is the most obedient to Rule One: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.

Look at these...

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...-stealth-drone-has-no-moving-surfaces-at-all/
_BAE Systems has unveiled a new aircraft design that could be a major advance in stealth technology.

...uses blown air to change direction instead of complex mechanical controls._

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...hing-wing-technology-will-the-b-21-feature-it
_Joints are not good for low observability, and flapping around control surfaces exposing those joints are especially bad. Large, seamless, continuously rounded structures that are edge-aligned to the general aircraft design are best for broadband low observability._

What is the common theme for both attempts to reduce RCS?

Rule Two: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators

Moving structures affects how EM waves exits a finite body like a wing.

In post 11865 page 791, I asked *YOU*: In theory, what is the first thing a radar engineer is taught about surfaces?

In theory, the first thing an aspiring radar engineer is taught about surfaces is that it is infinite, whether that surface is on a plane or an edge. Of course, we know such a thing does not exist. All bodies are finite in shape and dimensions. But the reason an EE is trained to calculate on an infinite surface is to eliminate all other influences.

In real life, any body is a finite body and somehow some time an EM wave must leave that body as in Rule Three: Control of *MODES* of radiation

So now with the two above sources, we have rules two and three in play. A moving structure like an aileron changes its physical relationships -- array -- to other structures. As the EM wave exits the aileron, how or the mode it radiate into free space is important. Rules Two and Three affects each other.

If we can eliminate aileron like how BAE is exploring or by introducing curvatures like how the USAF is experimenting, we becomes more and more obedient to all three rules.

Still think I do not know what I am talking about? Then look at this...






Why is the radome on the Su-27 a rounded conic but the radomes on the F-22, J-20, and PAK-FA have ridges on the sides?

Because of Rule Three: Control of *MODES* of radiation

In radar detection, there is something called the '10-lambda rule'. To sum it up, lambda ( λ ) is the symbol for wavelength and if the diameter is less than 10-lambda, there will be an effect called the 'creeping wave'...






A radome is not a cylinder but mostly a conic, so that mean eventually, a radar signal will travel around the decreasing diameter of the radome and this is not what we want in a low radar observable design, hence the ridges or chines on the radomes of the F-22, J-20, and the PAK-FA. As the creeping wave travels around the radome, the ridges provided an exit point that will not be detected by the seeking radar on the other side. In this instance, we exploited Rules One and Three to our advantage: we increased the *QUANTITY* of radiators and altered the *MODES* of radiation.

And just in case you think I made up this 10-lambda rule, think again...






Look at the names of the authors and city where they came from. You can be quite sure they are non US, eh? Look at the yr of the conference. Look at the intro: >10 λ 

Like it or not, the J-20 is less obedient than the F-22 and the F-35 to the three rules. You can take everything I posted so far to any EE professor and I will be proven correct. You are treading into a domain you know nothing about but too arrogant to admit it.

I schooled you, pal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> Arbitrary? In your ignorance, not mine.
> 
> Here we go again...There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> If the rules are 'arbitrary', then how do you explain the Lincoln Calibration Sphere in orbit and the B-2? The fact that Lincoln Sphere exists is proof enough. But wait...There is more...
> 
> https://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
> 
> Why is the sphere -- but not the cube or the pyramid or the trapezoid or the cone or whatever -- the ideal calibration body for any radar design?
> 
> Because the sphere is the most obedient to Rule One: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.
> 
> Look at these...
> 
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...-stealth-drone-has-no-moving-surfaces-at-all/
> _BAE Systems has unveiled a new aircraft design that could be a major advance in stealth technology.
> 
> ...uses blown air to change direction instead of complex mechanical controls._
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...hing-wing-technology-will-the-b-21-feature-it
> _Joints are not good for low observability, and flapping around control surfaces exposing those joints are especially bad. Large, seamless, continuously rounded structures that are edge-aligned to the general aircraft design are best for broadband low observability._
> 
> What is the common theme for both attempts to reduce RCS?
> 
> Rule Two: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> 
> Moving structures affects how EM waves exits a finite body like a wing.
> 
> In post 11865 page 791, I asked *YOU*: In theory, what is the first thing a radar engineer is taught about surfaces?
> 
> In theory, the first thing an aspiring radar engineer is taught about surfaces is that it is infinite, whether that surface is on a plane or an edge. Of course, we know such a thing does not exist. All bodies are finite in shape and dimensions. But the reason an EE is trained to calculate on an infinite surface is to eliminate all other influences.
> 
> In real life, any body is a finite body and somehow some time an EM wave must leave that body as in Rule Three: Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> So now with the two above sources, we have rules two and three in play. A moving structure like an aileron changes its physical relationships -- array -- to other structures. As the EM wave exits the aileron, how or the mode it radiate into free space is important. Rules Two and Three affects each other.
> 
> If we can eliminate aileron like how BAE is exploring or by introducing curvatures like how the USAF is experimenting, we becomes more and more obedient to all three rules.
> 
> Still think I do not know what I am talking about? Then look at this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the radome on the Su-27 a rounded conic but the radomes on the F-22, J-20, and PAK-FA have ridges on the sides?
> 
> Because of Rule Three: Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> In radar detection, there is something called the '10-lambda rule'. To sum it up, lambda ( λ ) is the symbol for wavelength and if the diameter is less than 10-lambda, there will be an effect called the 'creeping wave'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A radome is not a cylinder but mostly a conic, so that mean eventually, a radar signal will travel around the decreasing diameter of the radome and this is not what we want in a low radar observable design, hence the ridges or chines on the radomes of the F-22, J-20, and the PAK-FA. As the creeping wave travels around the radome, the ridges provided an exit point that will not be detected by the seeking radar on the other side. In this instance, we exploited Rules One and Three to our advantage: we increased the *QUANTITY* of radiators and altered the *MODES* of radiation.
> 
> And just in case you think I made up this 10-lambda rule, think again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the names of the authors and city where they came from. You can be quite sure they are non US, eh? Look at the yr of the conference. Look at the intro: >10 λ
> 
> Like it or not, the J-20 is less obedient than the F-22 and the F-35 to the three rules. You can take everything I posted so far to any EE professor and I will be proven correct. You are treading into a domain you know nothing about but too arrogant to admit it.
> 
> I schooled you, pal.


Thank you for your long post. You finally showed me something worth reading. Since you are so superior, can you school me how to explain the red cycled area. Base on your theory, it's not a good design at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB

phancong said:


> I'm not a aerospace engineering, you don't have to convince me or tell me how China develop their stealth jet, I'm not interested in knowing the detail you provide. Less stealth or more agile of a jet have no meaningful for me to be more inform.





gambit said:


> Arbitrary? In your ignorance, not mine.
> 
> Here we go again...There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> If the rules are 'arbitrary', then how do you explain the Lincoln Calibration Sphere in orbit and the B-2? The fact that Lincoln Sphere exists is proof enough. But wait...There is more...
> 
> https://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
> 
> Why is the sphere -- but not the cube or the pyramid or the trapezoid or the cone or whatever -- the ideal calibration body for any radar design?
> 
> Because the sphere is the most obedient to Rule One: Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators.
> 
> Look at these...
> 
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...-stealth-drone-has-no-moving-surfaces-at-all/
> _BAE Systems has unveiled a new aircraft design that could be a major advance in stealth technology.
> 
> ...uses blown air to change direction instead of complex mechanical controls._
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...hing-wing-technology-will-the-b-21-feature-it
> _Joints are not good for low observability, and flapping around control surfaces exposing those joints are especially bad. Large, seamless, continuously rounded structures that are edge-aligned to the general aircraft design are best for broadband low observability._
> 
> What is the common theme for both attempts to reduce RCS?
> 
> Rule Two: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> 
> Moving structures affects how EM waves exits a finite body like a wing.
> 
> In post 11865 page 791, I asked *YOU*: In theory, what is the first thing a radar engineer is taught about surfaces?
> 
> In theory, the first thing an aspiring radar engineer is taught about surfaces is that it is infinite, whether that surface is on a plane or an edge. Of course, we know such a thing does not exist. All bodies are finite in shape and dimensions. But the reason an EE is trained to calculate on an infinite surface is to eliminate all other influences.
> 
> In real life, any body is a finite body and somehow some time an EM wave must leave that body as in Rule Three: Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> So now with the two above sources, we have rules two and three in play. A moving structure like an aileron changes its physical relationships -- array -- to other structures. As the EM wave exits the aileron, how or the mode it radiate into free space is important. Rules Two and Three affects each other.
> 
> If we can eliminate aileron like how BAE is exploring or by introducing curvatures like how the USAF is experimenting, we becomes more and more obedient to all three rules.
> 
> Still think I do not know what I am talking about? Then look at this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the radome on the Su-27 a rounded conic but the radomes on the F-22, J-20, and PAK-FA have ridges on the sides?
> 
> Because of Rule Three: Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> In radar detection, there is something called the '10-lambda rule'. To sum it up, lambda ( λ ) is the symbol for wavelength and if the diameter is less than 10-lambda, there will be an effect called the 'creeping wave'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A radome is not a cylinder but mostly a conic, so that mean eventually, a radar signal will travel around the decreasing diameter of the radome and this is not what we want in a low radar observable design, hence the ridges or chines on the radomes of the F-22, J-20, and the PAK-FA. As the creeping wave travels around the radome, the ridges provided an exit point that will not be detected by the seeking radar on the other side. In this instance, we exploited Rules One and Three to our advantage: we increased the *QUANTITY* of radiators and altered the *MODES* of radiation.
> 
> And just in case you think I made up this 10-lambda rule, think again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the names of the authors and city where they came from. You can be quite sure they are non US, eh? Look at the yr of the conference. Look at the intro: >10 λ
> 
> Like it or not, the J-20 is less obedient than the F-22 and the F-35 to the three rules. You can take everything I posted so far to any EE professor and I will be proven correct. You are treading into a domain you know nothing about but too arrogant to admit it.
> 
> I schooled you, pal.


thank you gambit, i really learnt something, this really helps to understand J-20 more


----------



## LKJ86

Via @goneless from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Su33KUB

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 581889
> 
> Via @goneless from Weibo


just from the picture you can see J-20 is around 21+ meters, as I knew, every new picture shows that i was right 21 meters at least


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> just from the picture you can see J-20 is around 21+ meters, as I knew, every new picture shows that i was right 21 meters at least


J-20 is shorter than Su-27/J-11 series of jet, you fool @Su33KUB

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

pakistanipower said:


> J-20 is shorter than Su-27/J-11 series of jet, you fool @Su33KUB


Another thing to add is that the Su-27/J-11 is almost 22 meters long. J-20 is only around 20 meters in length, and plus both the J-20s and Flankers are off-centered in the pic. As a result the composition gives the impression that J-20 is as long as the Flanker. A better pic for comparison would be a top view of both J-20 and Flanker side-by-side and center to the picture in order to accurately compare length.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 581889
> 
> Via @goneless from Weibo


A new video from PLAAF's Weibo:
https://m.weibo.cn/5707057078/4422694227168845

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @追风之翎 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV and @红色金银潍 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> Thank you for your long post. You finally showed me something worth reading. Since you are so superior, can you school me how to explain the red cycled area. Base on your theory, it's not a good design at all.


It is good enough. The problem with you is that you allowed your nationalistic passion takes over your critical thinking skills. A behavior common to the Chinese members here. And I say that kindly.

Let us take a look at this illustration again since you repeatedly failed to understand it...






Somewhere in those clusters of voltage spikes, there are spikes from doors and windows. But can you see them? Can you distinguish which spike came from which structure? No, you cannot and neither can any radar system, including Chinese ones. 

You can call the classic diverter plates as inferior to the DSI 'bump' all you want but in the larger scheme of things, its supposedly 'inferior' design is irrelevant.

There is something called 'interference' and there are two types of interference:

- Constructive
- Destructive

In designing a low radar observable body, we want *DESTRUCTIVE* interference. It means to cancel out.

https://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_2/Sec5_2.htm

Are the signals from the F-22's classic diverter plates canceled out by signals from other structures nearby? Only Lockheed knows.

The diverter plate is not a good design? Only in your delusions. The bottom line is that the F-22's intakes did not matter one whit.

On the other hand, unlike the F-22's intake diverter plates, the J-20's canards are visible most of the time in most flight aspect angles. Their positions on the fuselage do not make possible destructive interference. The canards are *CONSTANTLY* exposed. So when experts commented about the canards as being negative for 'stealth', they do not comment because they are anti-China but do so from the laws of physics.

The problem for you guys is that I posted these explanations *REPEATEDLY* since '09. New Chinese members comes and predictably, each of them thinks he posted something new and predictably, each got debunked by me. Just like you got schooled.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @耿直的鲁斯兰 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> Interesting, the J-20 was referred to as China's first "*supersonic* stealth fighter." So the J-20 can supercruise after all it seems.


Wrong. Supersonic and supercruise are not the same thing. They are not even synonymous.

Supersonic is faster than Mach. Supercruise is faster than Mach without using afterburner.



phancong said:


> Yeah but stealth fighters jet isn't invincible in any war with any near peer enemy,...


The problem with this idiotic criticism is that no one -- not even China -- want to fight a near peer adversary.

How do you not fight a near peer adversary? Two ways:

- By actually avoiding a near peer adversary
- By being so far ahead that there is no near peer adversary

Using Europe as an example. There are many countries in Europe and most of them are near peer to each other. Of those who are near peer status to each other, of course there are gradations among them as to who have numerical quantity over who else, but overall, in terms of technology and quantity, they are near peers. The same can be said to Africa and the ME.



phancong said:


> f35 detected by a unknown company with unsophisticated makeshift of passive radar, you can only imagine Russia and China with their sophisticated radar system waiting on F35 flight into their airspace during the war.


And imagination is all they have.

The F-22, F-35, and B-2 do not need to be 'invincible', just difficult enough. You do not know what you are talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## phancong

gambit said:


> Wrong. Supersonic and supercruise are not the same thing. They are not even synonymous.
> 
> Supersonic is faster than Mach. Supercruise is faster than Mach without using afterburner.
> 
> 
> The problem with this idiotic criticism is that no one -- not even China -- want to fight a near peer adversary.
> 
> How do you not fight a near peer adversary? Two ways:
> 
> - By actually avoiding a near peer adversary
> - By being so far ahead that there is no near peer adversary
> 
> Using Europe as an example. There are many countries in Europe and most of them are near peer to each other. Of those who are near peer status to each other, of course there are gradations among them as to who have numerical quantity over who else, but overall, in terms of technology and quantity, they are near peers. The same can be said to Africa and the ME.
> 
> 
> And imagination is all they have.
> 
> The F-22, F-35, and B-2 do not need to be 'invincible', just difficult enough. You do not know what you are talking about.


Whatever I'm not interest in your expertise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

phancong said:


> Whatever I'm not interest in your expertise.


Of course you are. Do not try to deny it. Nowhere else in the Chinese forums will you find information like I presented here. Since '09, no one have taken what I posted, independently checked, returned to the forum, and proved I misled the readers. In your case, what I posted went whooooooshed over your head so you have to act like you are not interested. But we know you are...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Yes Phancong. A American stealth fighter is more effective against for example Finland or Zimbabwe than it will be against Russia or China due to the near peer status we call it because on military matters Russia and China are more likely to face F-22 for example and have spend much more resources to diminish stealth fighter's ability compared to what we would call non-near peer player who doesn't care and will not have stealth fighter used against them.

But detecting F-35 recently they didn't mention how they detect and quality of tracking. Maybe they also can't target F-35 just detect presence. Anyway too little information provided to say anything important about stealth. But of course many resources are used by some very clever people to diminish and counter improvements to stealth technology. Only in a war can we know how effective everything is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yantong1980

serenity said:


> Yes Phancong. A American stealth fighter is more effective against for example Finland or Zimbabwe than it will be against Russia or China due to the near peer status we call it because on military matters Russia and China are more likely to face F-22 for example and have spend much more resources to diminish stealth fighter's ability compared to what we would call non-near peer player who doesn't care and will not have stealth fighter used against them.
> 
> But detecting F-35 recently they didn't mention how they detect and quality of tracking. Maybe they also can't target F-35 just detect presence. Anyway too little information provided to say anything important about stealth. But of course many resources are used by some very clever people to diminish and counter improvements to stealth technology. Only in a war can we know how effective everything is.



Agree, but sometime some 'hint' may come up in peace time also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空物语 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央广军事 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> It is good enough. The problem with you is that you allowed your nationalistic passion takes over your critical thinking skills. A behavior common to the Chinese members here. And I say that kindly.
> 
> Let us take a look at this illustration again since you repeatedly failed to understand it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere in those clusters of voltage spikes, there are spikes from doors and windows. But can you see them? Can you distinguish which spike came from which structure? No, you cannot and neither can any radar system, including Chinese ones.
> 
> You can call the classic diverter plates as inferior to the DSI 'bump' all you want but in the larger scheme of things, its supposedly 'inferior' design is irrelevant.
> 
> There is something called 'interference' and there are two types of interference:
> 
> - Constructive
> - Destructive
> 
> In designing a low radar observable body, we want *DESTRUCTIVE* interference. It means to cancel out.
> 
> https://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_2/Sec5_2.htm
> 
> Are the signals from the F-22's classic diverter plates canceled out by signals from other structures nearby? Only Lockheed knows.
> 
> The diverter plate is not a good design? Only in your delusions. The bottom line is that the F-22's intakes did not matter one whit.
> 
> On the other hand, unlike the F-22's intake diverter plates, the J-20's canards are visible most of the time in most flight aspect angles. Their positions on the fuselage do not make possible destructive interference. The canards are *CONSTANTLY* exposed. So when experts commented about the canards as being negative for 'stealth', they do not comment because they are anti-China but do so from the laws of physics.
> 
> The problem for you guys is that I posted these explanations *REPEATEDLY* since '09. New Chinese members comes and predictably, each of them thinks he posted something new and predictably, each got debunked by me. Just like you got schooled.


When Chinese said you schooled me, it's modesty. I think it's culture difference.

Every intake on F-22 or J-20 will use absorbing materials and destructive interference and some other technologies which I don't know to reduce reflection. What they can do depends on the technologies they mastered which none of us knew exactly.

The canards will not move much in most cases, the overall impact is uncertain since we don't know the composition neither. 

There are a lot of new technologies after F-22 was born, some of them may be adopted in F-35, or J-20 which none of us knew exactly.

Without accurate intelligence, it's very hard to make a judgement just base on with or without canards. The overall RCS depends on overall body design, as well as radar, composition, absorbing materials and many other things. Canard is just one of the many.

Regarding Russia, China, and U.S. All three countries use AEW&C heavily. AEW&C see stealthy jet from different angle. As I pointed it previously, stealthy jet can't fly too high or too fast, otherwise it will be detected from further distance by infrared detectors array. AEW&C can fly much higher. You can imagine, the angle is different, J-20, F-22 back are exposed to AEW&C.

Also, Russa Su-35 use L band as well (Su-57 not sure). None of the stealthy jets were designed for L band, it will be detected anyway.

Chinese AEW&C use dual band if I remember right. It's not hard to guess why they use dual band. F-22 is not as stealthy as before when facing Chinese dual band AEW&C.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Su33KUB

viva_zhao said:


> When Chinese said you schooled me, it's modesty. I think it's culture difference.
> 
> Every intake on F-22 or J-20 will use absorbing materials and destructive interference and some other technologies which I don't know to reduce reflection. What they can do depends on the technologies they mastered which none of us knew exactly.
> 
> The canards will not move much in most cases, the overall impact is uncertain since we don't know the composition neither.
> 
> There are a lot of new technologies after F-22 was born, some of them may be adopted in F-35, or J-20 which none of us knew exactly.
> 
> Without accurate intelligence, it's very hard to make a judgement just base on with or without canards. The overall RCS depends on overall body design, as well as radar, composition, absorbing materials and many other things. Canard is just one of the many.
> 
> Regarding Russia, China, and U.S. All three countries use AEW&C heavily. AEW&C see stealthy jet from different angle. As I pointed it previously, stealthy jet can't fly too high or too fast, otherwise it will be detected from further distance by infrared detectors array. AEW&C can fly much higher. You can imagine, the angle is different, J-20, F-22 back are exposed to AEW&C.
> 
> Also, Russa Su-35 use L band as well (Su-57 not sure). None of the stealthy jets were designed for L band, it will be detected anyway.
> 
> Chinese AEW&C use dual band if I remember right. It's not hard to guess why they use dual band. F-22 is not as stealthy as before when facing Chinese dual band AEW&C.


stealth is not invisibility, it is an attempt to make harder for the opposition to detect them, all radars will detect J-20 or F-22, the problem is always the range, light as well as radar are electromagnetic waves, they have diffraction, in few words light as well as radar bend their paths, light when diffracted by a prism has all the colors with different angle of diffraction, destructive interference does not mean radar will be silenced, it means in some parts you have a stronger signal in others no signal.

Use this analogy if your eyes can see J-20 or F-22, then a radar will do it too.

Now our eyes have limits, if you have not the sun, you will be unable to see anything at night unless you have a lamp, how far you can see in the night will depend upon the power of your lamp or the light of the moon and stars.


Radar is a lamp, a strong lamp will let you see farther, but as things are father from your eyes you see less details, radar has the same troubles, but aircraft are not build upon one material, but many so no aircraft can be invisible is like X-rays, bones will appear very well while some organs will be not visible, no aircraft is invisible all are visible, you have only to create more effective radars and a better radar network, that implies money, poor nations with a few radars have wide gaps of detection so stealth still is effective, most superpowers spent huge amounts of money in radar networks, J-20 pretty much needs air bases, due to the need to have maintenance, this implies easy to destroy on the ground, same are F-22 or F-35s, only F-35B is kind of an exception, so in all out war, stealth will be proven ineffective, then is when fighters like J-10, Su-35 or Gripen will be proven more effective, stealth is a bluff, a needed bluff, but remember in 1999, F-117s were escorted by F-15s and one was shot down and according to some sources 2 more damaged.

then you can see why stealth and speed is a must, faster aircraft have a narrower time window to be shot down, supercruise then is much more important, than stealth


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 13 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Well, a nice image of 78272 from the 176th Briagde

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> Every intake on F-22 or J-20 will use absorbing materials and destructive interference and some other technologies which I don't know to reduce reflection. What they can do depends on the technologies they mastered which none of us knew exactly.


You are doing exactly what amateurs do, which is to focus on one thing as if that thing is all that mattered. You saw the DSI intake design as somehow 'superior' to the classic diverter plate so...A-ha...!!! The F-22 will be inferior to the J-20. That is not how it works.

In this image...






The F-22's diverter plates are not visible but the J-20's intakes are clearly visible. Yes, we can see the J-20's intakes are treated with absorbers -- the darker grey areas -- but absorbers do not zero any diffraction signals, only reduce their intensity. Whatever that radiate off into free space *WILL* interact with the rest of the jet.

The F-22's intake diverter plates and the J-20's DSI 'bumps' do not matter. The intakes themselves -- are.

I do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp even when photographic evident are aplenty.



viva_zhao said:


> The canards will not move much in most cases, the overall impact is uncertain since we don't know the composition neither.


The canards do not have to move.

The word I have been using for yrs on PDF is 'contributor'. You have to understand that in the context of designing a low radar observable body, *EVERYTHING* contributes to final RCS. If a structure, no matter how small like a rivet head or how large like a fin, is 'seen' by the radar, it is a contributor to that temporary RCS value as calculated by the radar computer. As the jet maneuvers, its RCS fluctuates because various structures' visibility changes. But as long as a structure have any chance of being exposed in the radar stream, it contributes to that RCS calculation.

If you think I used the word 'contributor' with no technical validity, think again...

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/radar+cross-section+rcs
_Typical *vehicle components* are also discussed, together with their *contribution to total vehicle RCS* and their individual signature sensitivities._

Do you see the highlighted? Vehicle components -- like the canards -- adds up to total vehicle RCS.

When the J-20 maneuvers, the canards will move, no matter how slightly...

- Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

...The canards will fall under rule two: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.

If a canard moves just a few centimeters to maneuver the jet, any radar signal that exit that canard will impact nearby structure in different angles, changing 'total vehicle RCS', even if just for one second. We do not know it, but that one second maybe just long enough to reveal the J-20.

So when experts opined that the J-20's canards are negative to 'stealth', you may argue they are being hyperbolic, but they are not technically in error.



viva_zhao said:


> Regarding Russia, China, and U.S. All three countries use AEW&C heavily. AEW&C see stealthy jet from different angle. As I pointed it previously, stealthy jet can't fly too high or too fast, otherwise it will be detected from further distance by infrared detectors array. AEW&C can fly much higher. You can imagine, the angle is different, J-20, F-22 back are exposed to AEW&C.


IR is not the solution to 'stealth' any more than the supposedly 'passive' radar can. As for AWACS, no one have more experience in using AWACS in combat than US and that includes how to evade AWACS.



viva_zhao said:


> Also, Russa Su-35 use L band as well (Su-57 not sure). None of the stealthy jets were designed for L band, it will be detected anyway.
> 
> Chinese AEW&C use dual band if I remember right. It's not hard to guess why they use dual band. F-22 is not as stealthy as before when facing Chinese dual band AEW&C.


Long wavelengths have been debated here before and I debunked their claimed efficacy many times over. When you broadcast in whatever long wavelengths, I will see you and take evasive measures before you can see me, to put it simply.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 13 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> You are doing exactly what amateurs do, which is to focus on one thing as if that thing is all that mattered. You saw the DSI intake design as somehow 'superior' to the classic diverter plate so...A-ha...!!! The F-22 will be inferior to the J-20. That is not how it works.
> 
> In this image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22's diverter plates are not visible but the J-20's intakes are clearly visible. Yes, we can see the J-20's intakes are treated with absorbers -- the darker grey areas -- but absorbers do not zero any diffraction signals, only reduce their intensity. Whatever that radiate off into free space *WILL* interact with the rest of the jet.
> 
> The F-22's intake diverter plates and the J-20's DSI 'bumps' do not matter. The intakes themselves -- are.
> 
> I do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp even when photographic evident are aplenty.
> 
> 
> The canards do not have to move.
> 
> The word I have been using for yrs on PDF is 'contributor'. You have to understand that in the context of designing a low radar observable body, *EVERYTHING* contributes to final RCS. If a structure, no matter how small like a rivet head or how large like a fin, is 'seen' by the radar, it is a contributor to that temporary RCS value as calculated by the radar computer. As the jet maneuvers, its RCS fluctuates because various structures' visibility changes. But as long as a structure have any chance of being exposed in the radar stream, it contributes to that RCS calculation.
> 
> If you think I used the word 'contributor' with no technical validity, think again...
> 
> https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/radar+cross-section+rcs
> _Typical *vehicle components* are also discussed, together with their *contribution to total vehicle RCS* and their individual signature sensitivities._
> 
> Do you see the highlighted? Vehicle components -- like the canards -- adds up to total vehicle RCS.
> 
> When the J-20 maneuvers, the canards will move, no matter how slightly...
> 
> - Control of *QUANTITY* of radiators
> - Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
> - Control of *MODES* of radiation
> 
> ...The canards will fall under rule two: Control of *ARRAY* of radiators.
> 
> If a canard moves just a few centimeters to maneuver the jet, any radar signal that exit that canard will impact nearby structure in different angles, changing 'total vehicle RCS', even if just for one second. We do not know it, but that one second maybe just long enough to reveal the J-20.
> 
> So when experts opined that the J-20's canards are negative to 'stealth', you may argue they are being hyperbolic, but they are not technically in error.
> 
> 
> IR is not the solution to 'stealth' any more than the supposedly 'passive' radar can. As for AWACS, no one have more experience in using AWACS in combat than US and that includes how to evade AWACS.
> 
> 
> Long wavelengths have been debated here before and I debunked their claimed efficacy many times over. When you broadcast in whatever long wavelengths, I will see you and take evasive measures before you can see me, to put it simply.


In your image, none of the jets are stealthy at all. In this angle Su-27, F15, J-20, F-22, F35 make no difference at all. You are exaggerating.

To be honest, I knew expert in China. They involved much deeper in Radar field, and stealthy design. You are just a user, like I am a user of cars.

Very disappointed. What you provided is inaccurate, not solid evidence, and a lot of things you can NOT explain at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Su33KUB

viva_zhao said:


> In your image, none of the jets are stealthy at all. In this angle Su-27, F15, J-20, F-22, F35 make no difference at all. You are exaggerating.
> 
> To be honest, I knew expert in China. They involved much deeper in Radar field, and stealthy design. You are just a user, like I am a user of cars.
> 
> Very disappointed. What you provided is inaccurate, not solid evidence, and a lot of things you can NOT explain at all.


he is not wrong, pretty much from above the F-22 has intake shielding, stealth is no magic in fact pretty much with high school physics you can understand it, J-20 or F-22 are not magical machines, they still are visible to radar.

Planforming works basically as signaling mirrors, the chines of J-20 or its flat nacelles are mirror like surfaces







the sun rays have to be reflected into an angle to concentrate a beam of light visible for a pilot to see it, stealth is the opposite, you want that electromagnetic radar emitted signal on an angle with the radar to concentrate most of it on an angle away from the emitter






that last picture shows a woman concentrating light on a mirror and the next picture of J-20 with canards working like the mirror that the woman is holding






For a radar those canards are reflecting a very strong signal and bouncing them back to the radar increasing J-20 radar cross section, the plates of F-22 intake caret are mirrors that are aligned to the chines, J-20 has intake bumps working like a christmas tree ball in term of reflection and a Prism in terms of diffraction










diffraction interference can not cancel the whole radar signal, it is more like this







the number of slits creates an on and off light pattern, what he is telling you some patterns are betters than others, with 7 slits basically you are reducing radar visibility as well as it happens in light.

however you have to consider, flatter a plane with less control surfaces stealthier it becomes for low power radars, the reality is J-20 and F-22 are visible at least according to Chinese and Russian technology but S-400 claims it will down stealth machines.

So he is not wrong however stealth is more propaganda, if you know a bit of thermodynamics you will know, nothing can be made to do not reflect, emmit, absorb or diffract electromagnetic emissions


----------



## azesus

Su33KUB You are the most no life person I've ever seen on the internet, you seriously needs to get a girlfriend before you go crazy and then commit mass shootings

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Viking 63

azesus said:


> Su33KUB You are the most no life person I've ever seen on the internet, you seriously needs to get a girlfriend before you go crazy and then commit mass shootings


hahahahahahha, man you are wicked !!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

Su33KUB said:


> he is not wrong, pretty much from above the F-22 has intake shielding, stealth is no magic in fact pretty much with high school physics you can understand it, J-20 or F-22 are not magical machines, they still are visible to radar.
> 
> Planforming works basically as signaling mirrors, the chines of J-20 or its flat nacelles are mirror like surfaces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the sun rays have to be reflected into an angle to concentrate a beam of light visible for a pilot to see it, stealth is the opposite, you want that electromagnetic radar emitted signal on an angle with the radar to concentrate most of it on an angle away from the emitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that last picture shows a woman concentrating light on a mirror and the next picture of J-20 with canards working like the mirror that the woman is holding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a radar those canards are reflecting a very strong signal and bouncing them back to the radar increasing J-20 radar cross section, the plates of F-22 intake caret are mirrors that are aligned to the chines, J-20 has intake bumps working like a christmas tree ball in term of reflection and a Prism in terms of diffraction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> diffraction interference can not cancel the whole radar signal, it is more like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the number of slits creates an on and off light pattern, what he is telling you some patterns are betters than others, with 7 slits basically you are reducing radar visibility as well as it happens in light.
> 
> however you have to consider, flatter a plane with less control surfaces stealthier it becomes for low power radars, the reality is J-20 and F-22 are visible at least according to Chinese and Russian technology but S-400 claims it will down stealth machines.
> 
> So he is not wrong however stealth is more propaganda, if you know a bit of thermodynamics you will know, nothing can be made to do not reflect, emmit, absorb or diffract electromagnetic emissions


@azesus is right. You need a girlfriend, then you won't waste your time with me. hahaha.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

viva_zhao said:


> @azesus is right. You need a girlfriend, then you won't waste your time with me. hahaha.


yes of course it is easy to see you do not understand diffraction, hiding upon supposedly smart comments, the j-20 has ventral fins that do have diffraction and you lack of knowledge of even high school physics was shown by do not recognizing that the 7 slit already is eliminating great part of the light by destructive interference, Gambit is right here you show , patriotic physics, but not real physics knowledge therefore, you lack to understand that a sphere basically sends the light on a diffracted path because the train of waves will interact bending light like a prism and creating a pattern of light diffracted and each color has an angle, basically it is what creates the creeping wave.
A good tip read about soap bubbles diffracting light

DSI intakes has a bump, frontally it does not affect too much, but laterally the bump has a different reflection and diffraction pattern than the J-20 forebody chines, on F-22 the intake has plates on its caret intake but these are perfectly aligned with its forebody chines, by having more reflectors J-20 will generate more diffraction and will send radar signal reflected back to the radar, the canards with dihedral are not aligned with the chines, vertical tail, ventral fins and is not covered by the wing as F-22, of course is not because the Chinese do not know stealth technics, they do, but the aft part was left untreated for several reasons, one is area rule, the engine nacelles require less cross section area, stealth demands bigger cross section due to weapons bays, the need to have no 90 degree angles; and the inverted isosceles trapezoid frontal cross section increases drag thus the aft part has rounded cross section.










When you understand that you will see it was designed deliberately less stealthy to give higher mobility and less drag, they knew were sacrificing stealth but gaining performance due to lower drag and higher lift.
The ventrals fins are to give yaw and roll controllability at high alpha, despite they ruin stealth

But hiding in two post that do not bring any proof or debunk my claims with physics well says a lot about the high school physics of the previous posters.

theoretically speaking the ideal cross section for a stealth aircraft is a hexagon and rhombus

J-20 has a rhombus type cross section in the forebody






and a very distorted hexagon in the rest of the fuselaje that in reality is an inverted isosceles trapezoid except on the engine nacelles and jet pipes to reduce drag, this shape is not the best for high speed due to drag





this two shapes are the ideal for reflecting radar away from the emitter and eliminating part of the diffraction of the creeping wave


----------



## jaybird

Tyler Rogoway from thedrive just had an article out today talked about stealth missiles and fighter jets. Seems like some of you guys are only talking about stealthy aircraft visually. But non of us know what lies beneath the skin and substructures of the J-20 or F-22. Here is the part where Tyler was talking about. Don't just scream OH canard! No stealth like the Indians. In other word. We don't know how stealthy J-20 or F-22 actually is unless you work for Chengdu Aerospace Corporation or Lockheed Martin.

_Sometimes people superficially conclude there are 'radar traps' in certain areas of stealth aircraft just by looking at them. But what they may not realize is that even though a certain airframe component looks solid and opaque, it isn't to radar and structures are concealed below them that deflect and attenuate radar returns. This ability to build almost two different airframes in one—one that is an aerodynamic and stealthy shaped outer shell of sorts, and one that sits below the skin with areas that provide massive decreases in radar reflectivity where it's needed most, is truly fascinating. The fact that this is able to happen at all also creates the possibility that low-observable design teams and aerodynamic design teams can get to a point where both are satisfied while working together on a high-performance stealth aircraft.

The big takeaway here is that the blended relationship between these substructures and outer skins are usually not apparent when viewing stealthy aircraft visually. Their smooth skin can actually make stealthy aircraft look eerily simple in appearance, but an entirely different world lies beneath, and especially in key areas. This reality makes stealth aircraft even more of a technological accomplishment than they already appear to be, especially considering some of these designs are meant to be battered ruthlessly and heated and cooled for thousands of hours as they careen through the air under high G forces and rip across the sky at supersonic speeds. 

So, just remember, when it comes to stealthy aircraft and missiles, they are truly so much more than what meets the eye. 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...le-launch-shows-a-key-tenet-of-stealth-design_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

jaybird said:


> Tyler Rogoway from thedrive just had an article out today talked about stealth missiles and fighter jets. Seems like some of you guys are only talking about stealthy aircraft visually. But non of us know what lies beneath the skin and substructures of the J-20 or F-22. Here is the part where Tyler was talking about. Don't just scream OH canard! No stealth like the Indians. In other word. We don't know how stealthy J-20 or F-22 actually is unless you work for Chengdu Aerospace Corporation or Lockheed Martin.
> 
> _Sometimes people superficially conclude there are 'radar traps' in certain areas of stealth aircraft just by looking at them. But what they may not realize is that even though a certain airframe component looks solid and opaque, it isn't to radar and structures are concealed below them that deflect and attenuate radar returns. This ability to build almost two different airframes in one—one that is an aerodynamic and stealthy shaped outer shell of sorts, and one that sits below the skin with areas that provide massive decreases in radar reflectivity where it's needed most, is truly fascinating. The fact that this is able to happen at all also creates the possibility that low-observable design teams and aerodynamic design teams can get to a point where both are satisfied while working together on a high-performance stealth aircraft.
> 
> The big takeaway here is that the blended relationship between these substructures and outer skins are usually not apparent when viewing stealthy aircraft visually. Their smooth skin can actually make stealthy aircraft look eerily simple in appearance, but an entirely different world lies beneath, and especially in key areas. This reality makes stealth aircraft even more of a technological accomplishment than they already appear to be, especially considering some of these designs are meant to be battered ruthlessly and heated and cooled for thousands of hours as they careen through the air under high G forces and rip across the sky at supersonic speeds.
> 
> So, just remember, when it comes to stealthy aircraft and missiles, they are truly so much more than what meets the eye.
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...le-launch-shows-a-key-tenet-of-stealth-design_


How absurd. Some military fans can judge RCS with naked eyes. It's kind of like girls judging men by looking.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vi-va

https://p1-tt.byteimg.com/img/pgc-image/fff4d613e1cd493fbdbaf7483ca8414c~noop_640x422.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via Xinhua News and @电波震长空XYY from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

viva_zhao said:


> In your image, none of the jets are stealthy at all. In this angle Su-27, F15, J-20, F-22, F35 make no difference at all. You are exaggerating.


In what way am I 'exaggerating' and exaggerating what?

My point was that the F-22's classic intakes with their diverter plates are irrelevant at some aspects but the J-20's canards are available at all aspects.



viva_zhao said:


> To be honest, I knew expert in China. They involved much deeper in Radar field, and stealthy design. You are just a user, like I am a user of cars.


Really? Then have they proved me wrong? I did said you can take what I posted to anyone you like. You are telling the forum that you know some experts but nothing where I am wrong, other than your own opinion that I am wrong, except that you have not proved where I am wrong.



jaybird said:


> Tyler Rogoway from thedrive just had an article out today talked about stealth missiles and fighter jets. Seems like some of you guys are only talking about stealthy aircraft visually. But non of us know what lies beneath the skin and substructures of the J-20 or F-22. Here is the part where Tyler was talking about. Don't just scream OH canard! No stealth like the Indians. In other word. We don't know how stealthy J-20 or F-22 actually is unless you work for Chengdu Aerospace Corporation or Lockheed Martin.
> 
> _Sometimes people superficially conclude there are 'radar traps' in certain areas of stealth aircraft just by looking at them. But what they may not realize is that even though a certain airframe component looks solid and opaque, it isn't to radar and structures are concealed below them that deflect and attenuate radar returns. This ability to build almost two different airframes in one—one that is an aerodynamic and stealthy shaped outer shell of sorts, and one that sits below the skin with areas that provide massive decreases in radar reflectivity where it's needed most, is truly fascinating. The fact that this is able to happen at all also creates the possibility that low-observable design teams and aerodynamic design teams can get to a point where both are satisfied while working together on a high-performance stealth aircraft.
> 
> The big takeaway here is that the blended relationship between these substructures and outer skins are usually not apparent when viewing stealthy aircraft visually. Their smooth skin can actually make stealthy aircraft look eerily simple in appearance, but an entirely different world lies beneath, and especially in key areas. This reality makes stealth aircraft even more of a technological accomplishment than they already appear to be, especially considering some of these designs are meant to be battered ruthlessly and heated and cooled for thousands of hours as they careen through the air under high G forces and rip across the sky at supersonic speeds.
> 
> So, just remember, when it comes to stealthy aircraft and missiles, they are truly so much more than what meets the eye.
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...le-launch-shows-a-key-tenet-of-stealth-design_


The article is so general that anyone can interpret anything he wish. Who here who read that article -- besides myself -- is willing to guess what he was trying to stay?



viva_zhao said:


> How absurd. Some military fans can judge RCS with naked eyes.


Tell that to your fellow Chinese forum members. Since '09, you guys have been the ones who are/were willing to put hard numbers onto what they see.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

can we end this endless debate which one have more stealth or which one has less @gambit @viva_zhao

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

seven0seven said:


> can we end this endless debate which one have more stealth or which one has less @gambit @viva_zhao


The debate will never end. There will always be a Chinese or a Pakistani eager to suck up who will make a claim in favor of the Chinese who will re-start the debate all over again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rashid.sarwar

viva_zhao said:


> https://p1-tt.byteimg.com/img/pgc-image/fff4d613e1cd493fbdbaf7483ca8414c~noop_640x422.gif




No HMD, I guess...


----------



## Ultima Thule

gambit said:


> The debate will never end. There will always be a Chinese or a Pakistani eager to suck up who will make a claim in favor of the Chinese who will re-start the debate all over again.


Unfortunately you're right sir, ,most of us not knows the technicalities of Low observable AKA stealth


----------



## yantong1980

seven0seven said:


> Unfortunately you're right sir, ,most of us not knows the technicalities of Low observable AKA stealth



Come on, there's tons of reason how each of fifth generation fighter layout designed, but overall I pretty sure that has something to do with each nations AF strategic needs or doctrines such as American that place priority on full spectrum stealth, but of course different perspectives for China and Russia. So my point was to debated all stealth characteristic of J-20 and F-22 was pointless since their created based on different standard. From my point of view, J-20 for China was first step plus minus, build J-20 mean for China can gained a lot thing of stealth characteristics, beside J-20 still has plenty room for improvement. And don't forget China's 6th generation still on waiting list.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

All this talk about which plane is stealthier and not much of a mention of the YF-23 or the planned X-44 MANTA.


----------



## Su33KUB

yantong1980 said:


> Come on, there's tons of reason how each of fifth generation fighter layout designed, but overall I pretty sure that has something to do with each nations AF strategic needs or doctrines such as American that place priority on full spectrum stealth, but of course different perspectives for China and Russia. So my point was to debated all stealth characteristic of J-20 and F-22 was pointless since their created based on different standard. From my point of view, J-20 for China was first step plus minus, build J-20 mean for China can gained a lot thing of stealth characteristics, beside J-20 still has plenty room for improvement. And don't forget China's 6th generation still on waiting list.


the main issue for China, Japan or Russia at this moment is they lack operational engines as powerful as F119 or F135, both Su-57 and J-20 do not have full aspect stealth because 2D nozzles reduce thrust and add weight, less thrust means drag has a higher impact, the Japanese for example still are developing the XF9 engine which still is not better than 117S that powers Su-57, Su-57 may fit a 2D nozzles like F-22, but at the moment are regular axisymmetric nozzles in both 117S and T-30 engines.

In the case of F-35, flat 2D nozzles like those on F-22 means lower thrust and added weight, basically putting too much strain on the TWR of F-35, J-31 well has old RD-93 of very low power yield for a 5th generation aircraft.

This design constraint is behind some of the less stealthy features of J-20, in order to achieve higher STR, you need higher thrust, and in order to have maximum lift, canards were added, the wing canard interaction assures higher lift than with aft planes; the ventral fins are basically for high AoA regimes, because the J-20 fuselage can blank the dorsal all moving vertical fins and render them useless by the turbulent wake, so its ventral fins are not in the wake of turbulence assuring controllability at high AoA, the F-22 has taller and higher dorsal vertical fins but adds controllability by the use of Thrust vectoring control nozzles for pitch control and roll control by aft tails, but in order to have full aspect stealth and thrust vectoring control they have very powerful engines.

Then F-22 does not need ventral fins, Su-57 with 3D thrust vectoring nozzles well does not need ventral fins either.

J-20 future variants might change that once that have an engine powerful enough to add 2D flat nozzles and even a tailless design


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> In what way am I 'exaggerating' and exaggerating what?
> 
> My point was that the F-22's classic intakes with their diverter plates are irrelevant at some aspects but the J-20's canards are available at all aspects.



How?

How do you know canards contribute more rcs compared to classic intake with mechanical diverter?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

antonius123 said:


> How?
> 
> How do you know canards contribute more rcs compared to classic intake with mechanical diverter?


He doesn't. He's a know-nothing janitor with delusions of being an aeronautical engineer/pilot who should be booted from here like he was booted from SDF. As you've undoubtedly noticed, you'll get nothing but canned nonsense from him if you ask him anything outside janitorial lines. I'm being generous in assuming he can answer janitorial questions cogently, but it's a wholly unwarranted assumption.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Su33KUB said:


> the main issue for China, Japan or Russia at this moment is they lack operational engines as powerful as F119 or F135, both Su-57 and J-20 do not have full aspect stealth because 2D nozzles reduce thrust and add weight, less thrust means drag has a higher impact, the Japanese for example still are developing the XF9 engine which still is not better than 117S that power Su-57, Su-57 may fit a 2D nozzles like F-22, but at the moment are regular axisymmetric nozzles in both 117S and T-30 engines.
> 
> In the case of F-35, flat 2D nozzles like those on F-22 means lower thrust and added weight, basically putting too much strain on the TWR of F-35, J-31 well has old RD-93 of very low power yield for a 5th generation aircraft.
> 
> This design constraint is behind some of the less stealthy features of J-20, in order to achieve higher STR, you need higher thrust, and in order to have maximum lift, canards were added, the wing canard interaction assures higher lift than with aft planes; the ventral fins are basically for high AoA regimes, because the J-20 fuselage can blank them and render them useless by the turbulent wake, so its ventral fins are not in the wake of turbulence assuring controllability at high AoA, the F-22 has taller and higher dorsal vertical fins but adds controllability by the use of Thrust vectoring control nozzles for pitch control and roll control by aft tails, but in order to have full aspect stealth and thrust vectoring control they have very powerful engines.
> 
> Then F-22 does not need ventral fins, Su-57 with 3D thrust vectoring nozzles well does not need ventral fins either.
> 
> J-20 future variants might change that once that have an engine powerful enough to add 2D flat nozzles and even a tailless design





antonius123 said:


> How?
> 
> How do you know canards contribute more rcs compared to classic intake with mechanical diverter?


Can we stop arguing about this pointless topic? Clearly we are going in circles. This thread should consist of J-20 pictures, updates, and developments instead of a bunch of arguments based on conjecture.



rashid.sarwar said:


> No HMD, I guess...


There was a picture of the J-20 HMD picture taken this year or last year ... google it. Normally, there is only footage of the pilots in these light, non-HMD helmets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fsjal

_"both Su-57 and J-20 do not have full aspect stealth because 2D nozzles reduce thrust and add weight, less thrust means drag has a higher impact...

...flat 2D nozzles like those on F-22 means lower thrust and added weight..."_

Stealth-wise, 2D rectangular thrust nozzles have better stealth properties than 3D circular thrust nozzles. While the latter can swivel in any direction and is lighter, the former reflects radar waves in well-defined directions rather than scattering them everywhere. However, no thrust-vectoring and instead just fixed heat-ablating nozzle exhaust like YF-23 is the most superior for extremely-low stealth, but Chengdu picked circular nozzle for J-20 for lower weight and higher maneuverability, even F-35's F135 engine uses circular nozzle for similar reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

Fsjal said:


> _"both Su-57 and J-20 do not have full aspect stealth because 2D nozzles reduce thrust and add weight, less thrust means drag has a higher impact...
> 
> ...flat 2D nozzles like those on F-22 means lower thrust and added weight..."_
> 
> Stealth-wise, 2D rectangular thrust nozzles have better stealth properties than 3D circular thrust nozzles. While the latter can swivel in any direction and is lighter, the former reflects radar waves in well-defined directions rather than scattering them everywhere. However, no thrust-vectoring and instead just fixed heat-ablating nozzle exhaust like YF-23 is the most superior for extremely-low stealth, but Chengdu picked circular nozzle for J-20 for lower weight and higher maneuverability, even F-35's F135 engine uses circular nozzle for similar reasons.


in general most aircraft are designed with on design parameters and off design features, aircraft like F-117 have the ideal low IR, low RCS nozzles, disadvantage they cool and lower the pressure of the jet engine that the jet engines lose thrust, stealth not always goes well with aerodynamics in fact the Su-27 forebody is the ideal for low drag, basically its radome is a missile type forebody, but it is not good for stealth, J-20 has a better fuselage for stealth but creates more drag, so all technologies have pros and cons, in reality J-20 will need to know the rivals on design features to find the off design disadvantages, here is where tactics become relevant, it is not that any aircraft is the best in everything, that only exist in the mind of fans, in reality a fighter pilot has to find the advantages of his aircraft against its rival, to give you an example, most fighter aircraft during the cold war did not use weapons bays because they increase weight and size, semi-recessed weapons were the lowest drag possible in example Tornado or F-14, but that is not good for stealth, this forces J-20 to have a very powerful engine, let us remember it has a substantially larger fuselage than other stealth aircraft, i read a few days ago a Russian article that says chinese TV said they plan to make 36 J-20s a year, and one of the production lines will have Al-31s powered J-20 and other WS-15, but the fact is without a good engine is hard to make an equivalent to F-22.

_The fifth-generation Chinese fighter J-20 will be produced at a speed of at least 36 units per year, CCTV reported on October 1.
According to the channel, at the moment, three assembly lines for J-20 fighter jets are being equipped at enterprises in the military-industrial complex of China.

It is specified that two lines are designed for the production of a fighter with Russian AL-31F engines, and one for the production of aircraft with a Chinese-made WS-15 engine.

Chinese media say that the capacity of each of these lines makes it possible to produce one fighter per month, and in just a year it will be possible to assemble 36 aircraft of this type.

https://regnum.ru/news/2735501.html_


----------



## Su33KUB

To understand why F-117 type nozzles are not used on J-20 we need to know that this type of nozzles reduced the thrust of each engine of F-117 from 10540 lb to 9040lb, so it has a very low IR and RCS but it losses almost 1500lb of thrust in each engine around 3000 lb of thrust in total

J-20 does not have extra engine power to have lower IR and RCS

source
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=WaedCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=f-117+nozzle+reduced+thrust&source=bl&ots=fJVKZsyNEo&sig=ACfU3U2Rtx_iC4tKZfFy1P0i2Glfw5cqaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy4JH7mIblAhWEy4sBHTAFC5Q4ChDoATABegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=f-117 nozzle reduced thrust&f=false

. _*The major performance penalties associated with incorporation of IR suppressors are discussed below*: (a) *Additional weight of IR suppressor*: The IRSS systems prior to BHO included moving parts like blowers. The BHO does not have moving parts, and is lighter by 180 kg over prior systems [106]. Most passive IR suppressors for helicopters (based on optical blocking and mixing of exhaust gases with ambient) [4,117] add to the weight, as illustrated in Table 4. (b) Power loss due to bleeding of air and modification of exhaust geometry that increases engine backpressure: *Most IR suppressors need airflow to cool heated parts or ejector passages for sucking ambient air, resulting in reduced engine thrust*_
_*
*_
Infrared signature studies of aerospace vehicles Shripad P. Mahulikar, Hemant R. Sonawane, G. Arvind Rao Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology—Bombay, P.O. IIT Powai, Mumbai 400076, India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yantong1980

Figaro said:


> Can we stop arguing about this pointless topic? Clearly we are going in circles. This thread should consist of J-20 pictures, updates, and developments instead of a bunch of arguments based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> There was a picture of the J-20 HMD picture taken this year or last year ... google it. Normally, there is only footage of the pilots in these light, non-HMD helmets.



Agree

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Su33KUB said:


> ...to give you an example, most fighter aircraft during the cold war did not use weapons bays because they increase weight and size,...


When I was active duty and assigned to the F-111, the jet have a weapons bay but it was hardly ever used. In fact, the F-111's weapons bay became a cargo bay for deployment. We packed personal items to souvenirs.

Anway...One negative aspect of having a weapons bay is that it limits the type of ordnance you can carry, which limits upgrades. In other words, a weapons bay design will either limit flexibility or even lock the aircraft into what type of mission it can fly.

The advent of low radar observability or 'stealth' compelled the return of an internal weapons bay design, and yes, it does force the airframe's design to have a higher mass/weight and internal volume. In flight, aircraft performance is influenced by aerodynamics, which includes drag, and weight. Expendable weight like fuel, in internal and external tanks, do not reduce drag. Discarding the external fuel tanks reduces drag. Same with expendable weight like external ordnance. Internal weight like expendable ordnance do not reduce drag but reduce weight, which affects aircraft performance differently than with both reduced drag and weight. All of this must be factored in from conception, everything from airframe to propulsion to avionics. If the J-20 continues to have propulsion related issues, the jet will have less flexibility in what types of mission it can perform, whereas with the F-22, while it was originally designed for air superiority, the F-22 will be tasked for ground strike missions with no deterioration of performance whenever needed.

Technical issues like these are not 'minor' in any way. They may not be well known but they are as crucial as how to shape for 'stealth'. For most people on forums like this one, these technical issues are practically unheard of and supporters of one jet or the other talks about their jets as if they know everything about the jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> most fighter aircraft during the cold war did not use weapons bays because they increase weight and size


delta dart had a weapon bays, so did Voodoo


----------



## gambit

seven0seven said:


> delta dart had a weapon bays, so did Voodoo


That is why he said 'most'. My F-111 has a weapons bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via PLAAF's Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Su33KUB

seven0seven said:


> delta dart had a weapon bays, so did Voodoo








let me clarify, as Gambit already told a few aircraft carried internal weapons bays, but they were big or attack aircraft, F-111, A-5 Vigilante were interdictors, F-106 was huge, compared to a Mirage III it was too big, in order to have internal weapons bays, you need to increase thrust in a fighter.

F-15 has almost the same TWR to F-22, but F-22 has no aerodynamic clutter so it has no drag generated by external hardpoints or fuel tanks, but but here is the most important part it has engines of 16 tonnes, really economical compared to F100 so it can have higher performance.

try to see, internal weapons bays increase the fuselage size and weight, this creates more drag, in order to solve this you need no external weapons hardpoints, no external fuel tanks and much more powerful engines.

117S for example has less thrust than f119, so you can not expect Su-57 to have better performance than F-22, at similar weights.

F-15 does not need external weapons bays, it is lighter than F-22, thus it needs less thrust to achieve similar TWR than F-22.

Then you have to see both China and Russia if they do not develop high power engines, then J-20 and Su-57 are under powered and even if they do not carry weapons externally they have to overcome much more weight and drag, so F-22 has the need for bigger wings and more powerful engines, as shown in combat Eurofighter with semi-recessed weapons can outfight F-22 in WVR, because it has very high TWR and low wing loading.

F-22 uses TVC nozzles and has high power engines, without similar engines you can not expect J-20 to be a peer and outmaneuver F-22, J-20 is heavy, much much heavier than F-15 and if it uses engines for Su-27 type aircraft, no way it can compete with F-22 in tactics at BVR and WVR because without similar supercruise speed and TWR and TVC nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> let me clarify, as Gambit already told a few aircraft carried internal weapons bays, but they were big or attack aircraft, F-111, A-5 Vigilante were interdictors, F-106 was huge, compared to a Mirage III it was too big, in order to have internal weapons bays, you need to increase thrust in a fighter.
> 
> F-15 has almost the same TWR to F-22, but F-22 has no aerodynamic clutter so it has no drag generated by external hardpoints or fuel tanks, but but here is the most important part it has engines of 16 tonnes, really economical compared to F100 so it can have higher performance.
> 
> try to see, internal weapons bays increase the fuselage size and weight, this creates more drag, in order to solve this you need no external weapons hardpoints, no external fuel tanks and much more powerful engines.
> 
> 117S for example has less thrust than f119, so you can not expect Su-57 to have better performance than F-22, at similar weights.
> 
> F-15 does not need external weapons bays, it is lighter than F-22, thus it needs less thrust to achieve similar TWR than F-22.
> 
> Then you have to see both China and Russia if they do not develop high power engines, then J-20 and Su-57 are under powered and even if they do not carry weapons externally they have to overcome much more weight and drag, so F-22 has the need for bigger wings and more powerful engines, as shown in combat Eurofighter with semi-recessed weapons can outfight F-22 in WVR, because it has very high TWR and low wing loading.
> 
> F-22 uses TVC nozzles and has high power engines, without similar engines you can not expect J-20 to be a peer and outmaneuver F-22, J-20 is heavy, much much heavier than F-15 and if it uses engines for Su-27 type aircraft, no way it can compete with F-22 in tactics at BVR and WVR because without similar supercruise speed and TWR and TVC nozzles.


How can internal weapon bays increase drag of the 5th gen stealth jet kindly explain maybe it increases little bit weight and both Russia and China working their 5th gen engine for their 5th gen jets from day one both Su-57/J-20 known to have interim engine,and as they(China/Russia)have different philosophy then USA they will use tactics against enemy(USA)shoot and scoot (leave)guideness of BVR is/will be the job of AWACS @Su33KUB


----------



## Su33KUB

seven0seven said:


> How can internal weapon bays increase drag of the 5th gen stealth jet kindly explain maybe it increases little bit weight and both Russia and China working their 5th gen engine for their 5th gen jets from day one both Su-57/J-20 known to have interim engine,and as they(China/Russia)have different philosophy then USA they will use tactics against enemy(USA)shoot and scoot (leave)guideness of BVR is/will be the job of AWACS @Su33KUB


aircraft having internal weapons have more internal volume to accommodate the weapons, the racks and the systems to launch its weapons, thus will increase their internal volume, see how much bigger is F-35 compared to F-16 or Mirage III compared to F-106, in order to have similar performance you need much more powerful engines.

In F-35 it has a wider Cross section than F-16 with almost same length, but F-106 is not only wider than Mirage III, but also longer







As the F-117 had shown, s*tealth affects every aspect of a design. Internal weapon carriage, a must for a stealthy design, increases the cross section of an airplane. Larger cross sections increase supersonic drag and work against supercruise. "A stealthy airplane requires a big weapon bay," explains Hardy. "And the landing gear and the inlet duct want to be in the same place as the weapon bay.* You wind up with a guppy that won't go supersonic unless you make it very long with huge engines. Such an approach is a nonstarter because the airplane would be way too expensive."

Maneuverability requirements tend to increase the size of the wings and tails and make the engines bigger than necessary for supercruise alone, all of which make stealth more difficult to achieve. Those few pilots who were briefed on the F-117 knew about compromises in speed, maneuverability, payload, and other capabilities that went along with an all-out approach to stealth. Fighter pilots who would be flying the ATF would not willingly sacrifice these capabilities for stealth.


https://www.codeonemagazine.com/f22_article.html?item_id=179 







see J-20 has a huge fuselage because also has a huge cross section, as the article says

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民画报 from Weibo

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
12


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> aircraft having internal weapons have more internal volume to accommodate the weapons, the racks and the systems to launch its weapons, thus will increase their internal volume, see how much bigger is F-35 compared to F-16 or Mirage III compared to F-106, in order to have similar performance you need much more powerful engines.
> 
> In F-35 it has a wider Cross section than F-16 with almost same length, but F-106 is not only wider than Mirage III, but also longer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the F-117 had shown, s*tealth affects every aspect of a design. Internal weapon carriage, a must for a stealthy design, increases the cross section of an airplane. Larger cross sections increase supersonic drag and work against supercruise. "A stealthy airplane requires a big weapon bay," explains Hardy. "And the landing gear and the inlet duct want to be in the same place as the weapon bay.* You wind up with a guppy that won't go supersonic unless you make it very long with huge engines. Such an approach is a nonstarter because the airplane would be way too expensive."
> 
> Maneuverability requirements tend to increase the size of the wings and tails and make the engines bigger than necessary for supercruise alone, all of which make stealth more difficult to achieve. Those few pilots who were briefed on the F-117 knew about compromises in speed, maneuverability, payload, and other capabilities that went along with an all-out approach to stealth. Fighter pilots who would be flying the ATF would not willingly sacrifice these capabilities for stealth.
> 
> 
> https://www.codeonemagazine.com/f22_article.html?item_id=179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see J-20 has a huge fuselage because also has a huge cross section, as the article says


My question still remains how can internal weapon bays increase a drag for stealth jets give me valid/technical reasons for teen series of jets like f16 has more drag because external payloads,stealth jets has less drag than all teen series of jets and don't contradict yourself first saying f35 bigger than f16 and later you saying its matches f16 in length and i already told you in j20 there are still interim engine is , China is relatively new on engine field first they installed al31fn on j20 then WS-10 and within the few year (2023) they will install their intended engine on j20 named ws-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

seven0seven said:


> My question still remains how can internal weapon bays increase a drag for stealth jets give me valid/technical reasons for teen series of jets like f16 has more drag because external payloads,stealth jets has less drag than all teen series of jets and don't contradict yourself first saying f35 bigger than f16 and later you saying its matches f16 in length and i already told you in j20 there are still interim engine is , China is relatively new on engine field first they installed al31fn on j20 then WS-10 and within the few year (2023) they will install their intended engine on j20 named ws-15


get this


F-15 has external weapons drag, but its cross section is smaller and has semi-recessed air to air missiles of low drag, F-22 has no external weapons drag, but its bigger cross section makes for bigger surface pushing against the air, to overcome for that higher weight and bigger cross section then you need bigger wings, bigger wings are higher drag, but much powerful engines give a counter balance for drag, and no, Rafale can out turn or at least have parity in WVR combat against F-22 even without TVC nozzles why? better lift to drag ratio, you are using cliches of Forum, you can only have lesser drag if the jet has much more powerful engines because thrust counterbalances drag or you reduce cross section.

If you can not understand that then read more.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> get this
> 
> 
> F-15 has external weapons drag, but its cross section is smaller and has semi-recessed air to air missiles of low drag, F-22 has no external weapons drag, but its bigger cross section makes for bigger surface pushing against the air, to overcome for that higher weight and bigger cross section then you need bigger wings, bigger wings are higher drag, but much powerful engines give a counter balance for drag, and no, Rafale can out turn or at least have parity in WVR combat against F-22 even without TVC nozzles why? better lift to drag ratio, you are using cliches of Forum, you can only have lesser drag if the jet has much more powerful engines because thrust counterbalances drag.
> 
> If you can understand that read more.


Are you talking about RCS (RADAR CROSS SECTION) AND f22 and f15 have almost same lengths 62 feet (f22) 63 feet (f15) so cross section is/will be almost same but f22 much heavier than f15 that's why its uses high power engine to overcome weight issue and remember f15 is not stealth oriented design whereas f22


----------



## vi-va



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Su33KUB

seven0seven said:


> Are you talking about RCS (RADAR CROSS SECTION) AND f22 and f15 have almost same lengths 62 feet (f22) 63 feet (f15) so cross section is/will be almost same but f22 much heavier than f15 that's why its uses high power engine to overcome weight issue and remember f15 is not stealth oriented design whereas f22










Stealth increases cross sectional area because the need of internal weapons bays, larger cross sectional area means higher drag











It is self evident in this picture the F-16 is much thinner than F-35, F-35 has also the empty weight of a F-15 , around 13000kg while F-16 is much lighter around 8 tonnes depending in the version.


All these new fifth generation aircraft then use more powerful engines than the previous generation aircraft that they are replacing because they are heavier due to S shaped air intake ducting and internal weapons bays, J-20 will need engines in the region of 16 tonnes to achieve similar TWR to J-11 since its normal take off is around 30000 kg, without it, it is highly underpowered and its fixed air intakes limited to low acceleration at speeds beyond Mach 1.6, without such engines J-20 is not better than previous generation fighters at best


----------



## gambit

seven0seven said:


> Are you talking about RCS (RADAR CROSS SECTION) AND f22 and f15 have almost same lengths 62 feet (f22) 63 feet (f15) so *cross section is/will be almost same*...


That is *NOT* how it works. I have been saying this since '09 and I will repeat...

There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body...

- Control of *QUANTITY* radiators
- Control of *ARRAY* of radiators
- Control of *MODES* of radiation

In radar detection, the sphere is the calibration body because the sphere is most obedient to the three rules. In fact, there is a sphere in orbit so ground based radars can test their efficiency.

https://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1

The three rules are the laws of physics.

What this mean is that if you build a sphere whose diameter is the same as the F-15's length -- 63 ft -- the sphere would have a lower RCS. The F-22 was designed to be more obedient to the three rules than the F-15 so the F-22 will have a lower RCS.

Regarding the three rules, if you make a change to the body under one rule you will affect the other two. The only exception is rule three: Control of *MODES* of radiation. If you somehow managed to absorb/negate all incoming signals no matter their operating freq and amplitude, in effect, you have absolute control over all EM signals, you can ignore the other two rules.

The problem throughout the yrs since 'stealth' came into public view is that everyone want simple answers, especially if the answers swings in their favors, as in my country have the best 'stealth' fighters, and so on. And when the answers do not agree to their made up minds, they get angry and the inevitable results are nationalistic mud slinging and personal attacks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Su33KUB said:


> Stealth increases cross sectional area because the need of internal weapons bays, larger cross sectional area means higher drag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is self evident in this picture the F-16 is much thinner than F-35, F-35 has also the empty weight of a F-15 , around 13000kg while F-16 is much lighter around 8 tonnes depending in the version.
> 
> 
> All these new fifth generation aircraft then use more powerful engines than the previous generation aircraft that they are replacing because they are heavier due to S shaped air intake ducting and internal weapons bays, J-20 will need engines in the region of 16 tonnes to achieve similar TWR to J-11 since its normal take off is around 30000 kg, without it, it is highly underpowered and its fixed air intakes limited to low acceleration at speeds beyond Mach 1.6, without such engines J-20 is not better than previous generation fighters at best


ok

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

*Guys. .. how iften already has this been discussed to death? When I'm back home from the holidays I will move all this stealth related stuff into a separate thread.*

*It is similar boring as these once constant discussion on the engine issues.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Silicon0000

Someone seems confused between Radar Cross Section and Aircraft Cross Section.


----------



## Su33KUB

*Could China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Become Their Very Own 'F-14 Tomcat'?*

"As part of future Chinese carrier air wings, the J-20 most likely would perform beyond-visual-range air-superiority missions, firing heavy air-to-air missiles at distant targets much like the U.S. Navy’s now-retired F-14 fighter would have done."

by David Axe Follow @daxe on TwitterL

The Chinese military reportedly has decided to develop the air force’s J-20 stealth fighter into a sea-based variant to fly from the navy’s growing fleet of aircraft carriers.


The Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, favors the J-20 over the smaller FC-31 stealth fighter design, according to the Hong Kong _South China Morning Post_.

The Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, favors the J-20 over the smaller FC-31 stealth fighter design, according to the Hong Kong _South China Morning Post_.

“Operating from a carrier would certainly enable the J-20 to better perform what many analysts envision to be its two primary missions, long-range strike and long-range air superiority,” Robert Farley wrote at The Diplomat.

“Using the PL-15 [beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile], a carrier battle group with J-20s could push U.S. tanker and early warning aircraft deep into the Pacific, as well as threaten installations such as Guam,” Farley added. “Of course, any [Chinese navy] carrier leaving the friendly confines of the first island chain [beyond Japan and The Philippines] would become extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks from U.S. submarines and aircraft.”

According to Farley, Chinese planners also worry about the cost of developing a second stealth fighter in addition to the J-20. “An economic downturn will starve the service of resources,” Farley pointed out.

A carrier-based J-20 partially would replace the J-15, China’s first carrier fighter.


The J-15 is a clone of Russia's Su-33 naval fighter. Outwardly, the fighter has a lot in common with U.S., French and British carrier planes. "The J-15 has folding wings, strengthened landing gear, a tailhook under a shortened tail stinger, two-piece slotted flaps, canards and a retractable inflight-refueling probe on the left side of the nose," the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency explained in a January 2019 report.

The non-stealthy J-15 weighs 17 tons while empty and can launch via the ramp on the bow of China’s first two carriers, which lack catapults. But the ramp-launch method limits the J-15 to around 30 tons maximum weight, translating into a modest weapons load. The J-15 reportedly also is unreliable and accident-prone.

The J-20 weighs 21 tons without fuel and weapons and up to 40 tons with them.

“The J-20 would be big for a carrier-based fighter, but certainly not the largest that has ever flown,” Farley wrote. “The Grumman F-14 had a slightly higher take-off weight, although it was a bit shorter. The A-5 Vigilante, which operated from U.S. carriers in the 1960s, was slightly longer but somewhat lighter.”

The Chinese stealth fighter likely will require a catapult for launch from a carrier. The U.S. Navy's own carriers use steam catapults to launch aircraft weighing as much as 50 tons. The Chinese navy could commission its first catapult-equipped aircraft carrier in 2022, according to the May 2019 edition of the U.S. Defense Department’s annual report on Chinese military developments.

“China began construction of its second domestically built aircraft carrier in 2018, which will likely be larger and fitted with a catapult launch system,” the DIA noted. “This design will enable it to support additional fighter aircraft, fixed-wing early-warning aircraft, and more rapid flight operations. China’s second domestically built carrier is projected to be operational by 2022.”

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ghter-become-their-very-own-f-14-tomcat-86831


----------



## Figaro

Su33KUB said:


> *Could China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Become Their Very Own 'F-14 Tomcat'?*
> 
> "As part of future Chinese carrier air wings, the J-20 most likely would perform beyond-visual-range air-superiority missions, firing heavy air-to-air missiles at distant targets much like the U.S. Navy’s now-retired F-14 fighter would have done."
> 
> by David Axe Follow @daxe on TwitterL
> 
> The Chinese military reportedly has decided to develop the air force’s J-20 stealth fighter into a sea-based variant to fly from the navy’s growing fleet of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> The Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, favors the J-20 over the smaller FC-31 stealth fighter design, according to the Hong Kong _South China Morning Post_.
> 
> The Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, favors the J-20 over the smaller FC-31 stealth fighter design, according to the Hong Kong _South China Morning Post_.
> 
> “Operating from a carrier would certainly enable the J-20 to better perform what many analysts envision to be its two primary missions, long-range strike and long-range air superiority,” Robert Farley wrote at The Diplomat.
> 
> “Using the PL-15 [beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile], a carrier battle group with J-20s could push U.S. tanker and early warning aircraft deep into the Pacific, as well as threaten installations such as Guam,” Farley added. “Of course, any [Chinese navy] carrier leaving the friendly confines of the first island chain [beyond Japan and The Philippines] would become extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks from U.S. submarines and aircraft.”
> 
> According to Farley, Chinese planners also worry about the cost of developing a second stealth fighter in addition to the J-20. “An economic downturn will starve the service of resources,” Farley pointed out.
> 
> A carrier-based J-20 partially would replace the J-15, China’s first carrier fighter.
> 
> 
> The J-15 is a clone of Russia's Su-33 naval fighter. Outwardly, the fighter has a lot in common with U.S., French and British carrier planes. "The J-15 has folding wings, strengthened landing gear, a tailhook under a shortened tail stinger, two-piece slotted flaps, canards and a retractable inflight-refueling probe on the left side of the nose," the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency explained in a January 2019 report.
> 
> The non-stealthy J-15 weighs 17 tons while empty and can launch via the ramp on the bow of China’s first two carriers, which lack catapults. But the ramp-launch method limits the J-15 to around 30 tons maximum weight, translating into a modest weapons load. The J-15 reportedly also is unreliable and accident-prone.
> 
> The J-20 weighs 21 tons without fuel and weapons and up to 40 tons with them.
> 
> “The J-20 would be big for a carrier-based fighter, but certainly not the largest that has ever flown,” Farley wrote. “The Grumman F-14 had a slightly higher take-off weight, although it was a bit shorter. The A-5 Vigilante, which operated from U.S. carriers in the 1960s, was slightly longer but somewhat lighter.”
> 
> The Chinese stealth fighter likely will require a catapult for launch from a carrier. The U.S. Navy's own carriers use steam catapults to launch aircraft weighing as much as 50 tons. The Chinese navy could commission its first catapult-equipped aircraft carrier in 2022, according to the May 2019 edition of the U.S. Defense Department’s annual report on Chinese military developments.
> 
> “China began construction of its second domestically built aircraft carrier in 2018, which will likely be larger and fitted with a catapult launch system,” the DIA noted. “This design will enable it to support additional fighter aircraft, fixed-wing early-warning aircraft, and more rapid flight operations. China’s second domestically built carrier is projected to be operational by 2022.”
> 
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ghter-become-their-very-own-f-14-tomcat-86831


Since when did David Axe and the National Interest become a reliable source for J-20 (or Chinese weapons in general) analysis?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Since when did David Axe and the National Interest become a reliable source for J-20 (or Chinese weapons in general) analysis?




Enem more laughable when being based on a report from Minnie Chan


----------



## Su33KUB

most information used in this forum is not of experts, first there are not math involved, (most real experts use math and at least have work in the areas of expertise) so the forum manages at the most general public information, very graphic but most of the information at the most comes from Chinese TV which usually is general public, further more, there is classified information that is not spoken on TV programs, so who is an expert or who is not, well, is relative to the taste of each member, where no math is involved, no industrial manuals for J-20 are shown or no J-20 flight manuals are studied, So most of the information is general public from public sources, and in this forum, technicalities are not liked such as stealth in fact, is to laugh if some consider another source as less reliable without at least showing official information and a little bit of math such as differential equations, analytical chemistry or at least maxwell equations and fourier transform; pretty much the level of information used here is high school or general public from news papers online or youtube videos.


----------



## Figaro

Su33KUB said:


> is to laugh if some consider another source as less reliable without at least showing official information and a little bit of math such as differential equations, analytical chemistry or at least maxwell equations and fourier transform; pretty much the level of information used here is high school or general public from news papers online or youtube videos.


Are you for real

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> most information used in this forum is not of experts, first there are not math involved, (most real experts use math and at least have work in the areas of expertise) so the forum manages at the most general public information, very graphic but most of the information at the most comes from Chinese TV which usually is general public, further more, there are classified information that is not spoken on TV programs, so who is an expert or who is not, well, where no math is involved, no industrial manuals for J-20 are shown or no J-20 flight manuals are studied, So most of the information is general public from public sources, and in this forum, technicalities are not liked such as stealth in fact, is to laugh if some consider another source as less reliable without at least showing official information and a little bit of math such as differential equations, analytical chemistry or at least maxwell equations and fourier transform; pretty much the level of information used here is high school or general public from news papers online or youtube videos.




Why on earth do I have to possess a mathematical decree, why should I be able for a "little bit of math such as differential equations, analytical chemistry or at least maxwell equations and fourier transform" only to know that Minnie Chan is a highly unreliable source and the one you quoted is an idiot? It has nothing to do with math but more on common sense: Minnie Chan constantly posts things that are proven wrong, that are 100% false even by the images she sometimes adds in her reports. So all I need is common sense and experience in watching PLAAF matters and not an arrogant attitude by which I hide myself behind some irrelevant pseudo-science blabla.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> Why on earth do I have to possess a mathematical decree, why should I be able for a "little bit of math such as differential equations, analytical chemistry or at least maxwell equations and fourier transform" only to know that Minnie Chan is a highly unreliable source and the one you quoted is an idiot? It has nothing to do with math but more on common sense: Minnie Chan constantly posts things that are proven wrong, that are 100% false even by the images she sometimes adds in her reports. So all I need is common sense and experience in watching PLAAF matters and not an arrogant attitude by which I hide myself behind some irrelevant pseudo-science blabla.


that information you quote is general public, your conclusions at the most are based upon general public information, no technicalities are shown nor official manuals, the level of conversation of this forum sometimes is so low, that is only personal attacks or nationalistic rants, if it was truly of experts you could say J-20 does not weight 20 tonnes as quoted simply because this of that technical data from manuals or the manufacturer data, to guess you will need a lot of aeronautical knowledge, most of guesses here really amateurish and very poor in technical information, in that i even include my self because i also use public domain sources and no math.


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> that information you quote is general public, your conclusions at the most are based upon general public information, no technicalities are shown nor official manuals, the level of conversation of this forum sometimes is so low, that is only personal attacks or nationalistic rants, if it was truly of experts you could say J-20 does not weight 20 tonnes as quoted simply because this of that technical data from manuals or the manufacturer data, to guess you will need a lot of aeronautical knowledge, most of guesses here really amateurish and very poor in technical information, in that i even include my self because i also use public domain sources and no math.



But again, when she claims the J-15s currently in service are using WS-10H, the J-20 is already using preproduction models of the WS-15, then this is wrong and consequently she cannot be trusted. And when she is then quoted as a source by public domain or open source reports what does this tell you about these sites?

That does not need an official confirmation, nor a certain technical qualification and even less your claimed mathematical abilities.


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> But again, when she claims the J-15s currently in service are using WS-10H, the J-20 is already using preproduction models of the WS-15, then this is wrong and consequently she cannot be trusted. And when she is then quoted as a source by public domain or open source reports what does this tell you about these sites?
> 
> That does not need an official confirmation, nor a certain technical qualification and even less your claimed mathematical abilities.


look I am not attacking you, the article quotes Robert Farley, he gives his opinion, you can be right about her, but when i read the article it was interesting for me because they quoted a 20 tonnes weight for an empty J-20, considering it might be navalized well, i thought it could be, he is also guessing but i think we should have some degree of open mind, you might not agree, to me is perhaps a good guess, a good estimate, only that i see no need to attack the article and say it is automatically false or 100% right it is just an estimated, there is no need to get angry at each other, nor fight, the first time i talk to you i though you were a nice person, and believe, i have no hard feelings to you, i just meant in forums like this there are many guesses and people get angry at each other just for a guess, you might be right about J-15 but in the article they just say 30 tonnes weight and it is kind of unreliable so J-20 might be an ideal candidate, remember is a guess, it my be proven right, o wrong just do not need to get angry at some opinion, only that cheers


----------



## 帅的一匹

Su33KUB said:


> that information you quote is general public, your conclusions at the most are based upon general public information, no technicalities are shown nor official manuals, the level of conversation of this forum sometimes is so low, that is only personal attacks or nationalistic rants, if it was truly of experts you could say J-20 does not weight 20 tonnes as quoted simply because this of that technical data from manuals or the manufacturer data, to guess you will need a lot of aeronautical knowledge, most of guesses here really amateurish and very poor in technical information, in that i even include my self because i also use public domain sources and no math.


bro, seems you are chasing a dead end.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央视军事报道 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

9. Air Brigade at Wuhu


----------



## LKJ86

Via CJDBY

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

viva_zhao said:


>


@Deino , do you think the intake is adjustable?
https://www.china-arms.com/2019/10/j-20-intake-adjustable/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 584062
> View attachment 584063
> View attachment 584064
> 
> Via CJDBY


Now for more J-10C photos like this


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空新视野-赤卫 from Weibo





Via @DS谁明浪子心 from Weibo














Via @通行线Toursline from Weibo





Via @哈库纳玛塔塔_Sit from Weibo





Via @DS南海听风 from Weibo





Via @TEDAER from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

Via @yvonne-苏苏 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @goneless from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @垂直风行 from Weibo





Via @罗韬1515 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央视军事 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Via @B747SPNKG from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Via @哈库纳玛塔塔_Sit from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

Via @极简美学设计师HULIO from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## TOTUU



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JSCh

*J-20 jets showcase missiles*
By Xu Luming in Changchun and Liu Xuanzun in Beijing Source:Global Times Published: 2019/10/17 22:48:40

PLA Air Force has formed a complete system



China's most advanced fighter jet, J-20, performs at the Chinese Air Force's "open day" event in Changchun, Northeast China's Jilin Province on Thursday. This is the second time the stealth warplane opened its side missile bays and showcased its short-range combat missiles. They were first revealed at Airshow China 2018. Photo: IC

China's most advanced fighter jet, J-20, once again revealed its missiles at the Chinese Air Force's "open day" event on Thursday, which also showcased the outstanding flight performances of a number of the PLA's warplanes.

The open day, which runs from Thursday to Monday in Changchun, Northeast China's Jilin Province, is part of celebrations to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force.

A pair of J-20 stealth fighter jets flew during the event's flight performance on Thursday morning. Each of them showcased two short-range combat missiles, which rotated out from their side missile bays, where they were usually stored to maintain the aircraft's stealth capability.

This is only the second time the J-20 has showcased its missiles. The first was at the 2018 edition of Airshow China in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province. The aircraft did not open its main weapon bay on Thursday.

A series of aerobatic maneuvers, including high-speed dives, climbs and rolls from the country's most advanced fighter jets marveled the crowd.

The maneuvers were combat-oriented, as each one had a tactical meaning and were used in actual combat scenarios to gain a superior position or avoid an attack, analysts said.

The performance by the Y-20 large transport plane also attracted attention, as it showed its agility despite its size.

The J-16 multipurpose fighter jet shot flares during its performance, as visitors enjoyed the "fireworks."

Other performances featured J-11 fighter jets, J-10 fighter jets, training aircraft and parachute drops.

Military enthusiasts unable to attend the open day on Thursday watched the flight performances live on the internet, and reposted and commented on the event. While some of them only said "cool" or "awesome," others wondered how the Air Force managed to progress so much in the past 70 years.

The PLA Air Force also put 46 types of weapons and equipment on ground display, including the J-10B fighter jet, JH-7 fighter bomber, H-6K bomber, GJ-2 drone, Z-10K attack helicopter, Y-9 and Y-20 transport planes, KJ-200 and KJ-500 early warning aircraft, and HQ-9B, HQ-22 surface-to-air missiles and multiple types of early warning radars.

All weapons and equipment on display show that the PLA Air Force has formed a complete system for aerial combat, strategic lifting, early warning, information support, anti-air and training, analysts noted.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空新视野-赤卫 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

帅的一匹

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via ChinaPictorial

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ali_Baba

The J20 is a beautiful plane in its current form. I wonder when China can create/adapt stealth shaped engine exhauses like the F22. Must be only a matter of time.


----------



## ozranger

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 584829
> View attachment 584830
> 
> Via @航空新视野-赤卫 from Weibo


Outstanding build quality!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fsjal

Does anyone know what the little pod device behind the bottom bay is? Looks like some sort of countermeasure device (ECM?)


----------



## Deino

Fsjal said:


> Does anyone know what the little pod device behind the bottom bay is? Looks like some sort of countermeasure device (ECM?)



That's a Luneberg lense or in fact a device to maximise RCS in order to hide the true one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> That's a Luneberg lense or in fact a device to maximise RCS in order to hide the true one.


It's deep within Chinese airspace where these photos were taken, so I doubt it's about hiding RCS. It makes it easier for air traffic control to keep track of the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

S10 said:


> It's deep within Chinese airspace where these photos were taken, so I doubt it's about hiding RCS. It makes it easier for air traffic control to keep track of the plane.


Su-57 and FC-31: Where is the Luneberg lens?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @ColorFuL_晴朗 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fsjal

S10 said:


> It's deep within Chinese airspace where these photos were taken, so I doubt it's about hiding RCS. It makes it easier for air traffic control to keep track of the plane.


Tbf F-35 and F-22 do fly with Luneberg lens especially when within US airspace. J-20 probably most likely flies with them attached so as to keep its exact RCS classified, and also like what you said about keeping track of the plane too on ATC radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 585392
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo



 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186663010951147520

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fsjal

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186663010951147520


I have never seen a fighter jet, let alone a stealth fighter, do an asymmetrical tail position like that. I've seen asymmetrical wing position on swing-wing aircraft, but not asymmetrical tail position. I'm curious what maneuver that J-20 was executing on the pic.


----------



## Deino

*@Su33KUB and @seven0seven 

You are again and still potsing off topic. Stop this ... there is no need to post endless pages in this thread on how different aircraft and their rudder /or tails work. *


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> *@Su33KUB and @seven0seven
> 
> You are again and still potsing off topic. Stop this ... there is no need to post endless pages in this thread on how different aircraft and their rudder /or tails work. *


ok sorry



Deino said:


> *@Su33KUB and @seven0seven
> 
> You are again and still potsing off topic. Stop this ... there is no need to post endless pages in this thread on how different aircraft and their rudder /or tails work. *


'but you should stop @Su33KUB first he is always bring irrelevant topic to the J-20 thread sir

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Deino said:


> *@Su33KUB and @seven0seven
> 
> You are again and still potsing off topic. Stop this ... there is no need to post endless pages in this thread on how different aircraft and their rudder /or tails work. *


I have to say this -- but *YOU* enabled the diversion with your post 12012. It was you who pique curiosity. I have a good idea on how and why such a displacement occurred, but no need to enlightened the readers, is there?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

gambit said:


> I have to say this -- but *YOU* enabled the diversion with your post 12012. It was you who pique curiosity. I have a good idea on how and why such a displacement occurred, but no need to enlightened the readers, is there?




Pardon, but posting a certain detail of interest - at least for me it was new - and asking a question as @Fsjal did is probably the meaning of a forum? Or do you have another perception of discussing certain details of interest? 
At least IMO it is way different to posting endless pages of images and long text of explanations, which is more diverting into regular flight control and aerodynamics but an answer to @Fsjal's question "what maneuver that J-20 was executing on the pic".

In the end it seems as if - and that's quite understandable - we are oll here with a different focus: While I'm indeed mostly interested in (you would maybe say naive or simple things) things like news, great images, certain details and serial numbers, others try to go deep into technical issues (which I rate less interesting probably since I do not understand them as much) and other want to lecture ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> Pardon, but posting a certain detail of interest - at least for me it was new - and asking a question as @Fsjal did is probably the meaning of a forum? Or do you have another perception of discussing certain details of interest?
> At least IMO it is way different to posting endless pages of images and long text of explanations, which is more diverting into regular flight control and aerodynamics but an answer to @Fsjal's question "what maneuver that J-20 was executing on the pic".
> 
> In the end it seems as if - and that's quite understandable - we are oll here with a different focus: While I'm indeed mostly interested in (you would maybe say naive or simple things) things like news, great images, certain details and serial numbers, others try to go deep into technical issues (which I rate less interesting probably since I do not understand them as much) and other want to lecture ...


you asked a question my answer was right, in fact i was not off topic since you were the one that asked, I never did anything wrong, i fact i wonder why you never said you are wrong or right, why my answer was wrong, are not people to exchange ideas in forums?

In fact I gave you an understanding at least that PAKFA, F-18 or even F-35 use V tails, but if you think that is wrong, then this thread should be re-name no discussion J-20 photo album and to be honest it will become so boring, that is why I like secret projects forum, there they have a much better tolerance and overscan was pretty smart in the thread he has about J-20 DSI intake quiet en-lighting in fact pretty smart guy and all the forum members there quiet respectful, here is a bunch of insults and intolerance and pretty much low level conversation with a lot of fantasy and little technical detail, I think you should first look for people respect each other and later try to make it people learn otherwise it is to be honest kinder garden level photo album of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> you asked a question my answer was right, in fact i was not off topic since you were the one that asked, I never did anything wrong, i fact i wonder why you never said you are wrong or right, why my answer was wrong, are not people to exchange ideas in forums?
> 
> In fact I gave you an understanding at least that PAKFA, F-18 or even F-35 use V tails, but if you think that is wrong, then this thread should be re-name no discussion J-20 photo album and to be honest it will become so boring, that is why I like secret projects forum, there they have a much better tolerance and overscan was pretty smart in the thread he has about J-20 DSI intake quiet en-lighting in fact pretty smart guy and all the forum members there quiet respectful, here is a bunch of insults and intolerance and pretty much low level conversation with a lot of fantasy and little technical detail, I think you should first look for people respect each other and later try to make it people learn otherwise it is to be honest kinder garden level photo album of J-20




You don't get it, exactly as at the SDF: Again you are lecturing ad nauseum on irrelevant things and complain about YOUR point of view and then you feel offended. To tell us water is wet and the sky is blue is also not wrong, but it is irrelevant when the question was "what maneuver that J-20 was executing on the pic"?

Therefore I have nothing against discussions, quite to the contrary, but if a simple question is given and one certain member constantly goes off by his own ex-curses in avionics, then this is off. In fact I only noticed a certain detail and the question - not even mine - was "what maneuver that J-20 was executing on the pic"? Not again a long story about the difference of a V-tail, regular rudders and so on and if you prefer the Secretprojects forum, just go ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fsjal

My simple question was indeed about what maneuver the J-20 was doing in that twitter picture, and when talking about how _I've never seen such an asymmetrical tail position_, what I meant was _I've never seen a tail position in which the vertical stabilizers are facing the same direction but one is in a slightly different angle than the other_. I am fully aware of how vertical stabilizers work, and I am fully aware of what a slanted-angle all-moving V-tail is, I was simply asking about the J-20 in the twitter pic and what maneuver it was executing to have its tail position be in an asymmetrical way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

Fsjal said:


> My simple question was indeed about what maneuver the J-20 was doing in that twitter picture, and when talking about how _I've never seen such an asymmetrical tail position_, what I meant was _I've never seen a tail position in which the vertical stabilizers are facing the same direction but one is in a slightly different angle than the other_. I am fully aware of how vertical stabilizers work, and I am fully aware of what a slanted-angle all-moving V-tail is, I was simply asking about the J-20 in the twitter pic and what maneuver it was executing to have its tail position be in an asymmetrical way.


they are asymmetric for a law of vectors remember V tails are rudders and tailerons simple like that you do not understand that law, if you really understand how they work you will know the rudder and taileron are basicaly pitch and yaw, the J-20 was doing pitch and yaw at the same time there is a law of vectors, there is nothing special about it, when they do symmetric deflections each force cancels out or enforce each other but since each vector also does not only have a direction but a magnitude you can have different results if you have asymmetric deflections like the one on the picture

figure 3.3 explains it on regular aircraft 3.3A is rudder and elevator , 3.3b is V tail doing the same







In the picture you mention J-20 is turning but it is turning with a little picht, in few words a tighter turn, all V tails can do that from propeller aircraft with V tails to jet aircraft with V tails like Su-57, F-35 or F-18












the reason that picture is confusing is because V tails do yaw but also pitch, and they can do both at the same time, that asymmetric deflection of both tails represent a turn but by giving more deflection to one tail that is also adding lift, so the sums of both vectors is mostly yaw, basically turning but a little pitch is also playing, it is not new but normal behavior of V tails. To see where the aircraft is going you have to sum the vectors

However i was silenced just because people are ignorant and arrogant and if you are trying to help lies and pride count more here than science and truth

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

The video captures J-20's maneuverability at the best angle as I believe. It was recorded on the PLAAF Open Day, Changchun.

https://www.bilibili.com/video/av71969161?from=search&seid=6507727793430084722

Another one which might be even better
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av71778647?from=search&seid=6507727793430084722

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lcloo

When I was studying laws, one of the points that make a judge making decisions in a court was the intention of the offender. Regardless of the degree of actions or damages done, the sentence would be based on whether the offender's intention is malicious or un-intentional, as in planned murder, or accidental killing.

I think we all know some of the posters' intentions --- malicious, negative or contributory and positive.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

Via @MinorLogan from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## serenity

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 586012
> View attachment 586013
> View attachment 586014
> View attachment 586015
> View attachment 586016
> View attachment 586017
> 
> Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo
> 
> View attachment 586018



Do you have a link to the CCTV one with J-20? I missed it and cannot find.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 586012
> View attachment 586013
> View attachment 586014
> View attachment 586015
> View attachment 586016
> View attachment 586017
> 
> Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo
> 
> View attachment 586018




Is this an older report (or just now published) from the arrival of the fist J-20s at the 172nd Brigade or is it another event?



Fsjal said:


> My simple question was indeed about what maneuver the J-20 was doing in that twitter picture, and when talking about how _I've never seen such an asymmetrical tail position_, what I meant was _I've never seen a tail position in which the vertical stabilizers are facing the same direction but one is in a slightly different angle than the other_. I am fully aware of how vertical stabilizers work, and I am fully aware of what a slanted-angle all-moving V-tail is, I was simply asking about the J-20 in the twitter pic and what maneuver it was executing to have its tail position be in an asymmetrical way.




Via the SDF:



> If you like the photo, the actual roll can be found in this video at 0:11





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185854184400146432

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> Is this an older report (or just now published) from the arrival of the fist J-20s at the 172nd Brigade or is it another event?


thanks it is a roll, i was thinking it was a roll, but i doubted since is difficult to calculate the vector sum, but the wings trailing edges flaps of that picture are asymmetrically deflected and the aircraft is vertical well a bit diagonal hinting a climb or roll, but any way thanks, you have showed me you are fair Saludos


----------



## FuturePAF

Does the J-20 have a Pelican tail or just a modified four poster?


----------



## gambit

Fsjal said:


> My simple question was indeed about what maneuver the J-20 was doing in that twitter picture, and when talking about how _I've never seen such an asymmetrical tail position_, what I meant was _I've never seen a tail position in which the vertical stabilizers are facing the same direction but one is in a slightly different angle than the other_. I am fully aware of how vertical stabilizers work, and I am fully aware of what a slanted-angle all-moving V-tail is, I was simply asking about the J-20 in the twitter pic and what maneuver it was executing to have its tail position be in an asymmetrical way.


Your question maybe simple but the answer is not. The answer involves the foundation of avionics architectures itself. If I post my explanation which will involved an F-18 and supporting sources, it will be deemed too long and boring and will be deleted because someone whines about it. The reality is that the Chinese members of this forum are not interested in the technical details of the J-20 because -- irony abounds -- an American have better answers than they can.


----------



## KungFuLee

lcloo said:


> When I was studying laws, one of the points that make a judge making decisions in a court was the intention of the offender. Regardless of the degree of actions or damages done, the sentence would be based on whether the offender's intention is malicious or un-intentional, as in planned murder, or accidental killing.
> 
> I think we all know some of the posters' intentions --- malicious, negative or contributory and positive.



Maybe off topic, but what you said does not make sense as a Law Graduate

Malice and the Malice aforethought are two separate things, one is intention, the other is premeditation, and both are distinct from Mens Rea and Actus Reus, all those term are related to a different thing.

Case in point, While Malice is a factor on charging someone murder from manslaughter, however, one still need to proof a guilty mind and a guilty acts (Mens Rea and Actus Reus) to present to make a case, be it murder or manslaughter. However, you do not need to proof premeditation or as you said "Plan" to found one guilty for murder.

Also, sentence is ALWAYS depends on the degree of action and damages. Ie. Killing a adult aged female will have a different sentence of killing an adult aged male, and will have a different sentencing guideline than killing a adult aged pregnant female, or killing a young child. Although those are the same definition of "Homicide". Also the degree of damage done would also be counted into consideration during sentencing.

Again, this may be out of topic, I just want to say this...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Su33KUB said:


> thanks it is a roll, i was thinking it was a roll, but i doubted since is difficult to calculate the vector sum, but the wings trailing edges flaps of that picture are asymmetrically deflected and the aircraft is vertical well a bit diagonal hinting a climb or roll, but any way thanks, you have showed me you are fair Saludos


It was a typical aileron roll for airshow. An aileron roll is the most simple of rolls. In simpler aircrafts, like the Cessna 152 I trained on while in high school prior to the USAF, an aileron roll requires three actions: control (or yoke) to either with starboard or port, slight throttle increase, and slight rudder. In flight, every time you make a maneuver, you lose a bit of airspeed, hence the slight increase in throttle.

In avionics, flight control surface deflection is the result of the algorithm of command, airspeed, altitude, gyroscope, and accelerometer. The slower the airspeed, the greater the *VISIBILITY* of that deflection. So for the J-20 video, the fact that we can see the port vertical stab's high deflection at timestamp 00:10 mean airspeed just above stall, not cruise. After all, it was an airshow and airshow's airspace are designed to be limited.

The FLCC received a cockpit command. The Central Air Data Computer (CADC) sends airspeed and altitude data to the FLCC. The three rate gyros (pitch, roll, and yaw) sends their data to the FLCC, and the two accelerometers sends their data to the FLCC. Then the FLCC calculate the rate and final angle of displacement for the flight control surfaces. The higher the airspeed, the less surface deflection. Conversely, the lower the airspeed, the higher the deflection. So for us to see the deflection at timestamp 00:10, it means airshow airspeed. As the J-20 continues its aileron roll, the jet's AOA, to me, indicates a slight pitch askew (diagonal), further evidence of a lower airspeed than usual. The asymmetrical deflection of the various flight control surfaces is evidence of a computerized flight controls system (FLCS). Not necessarily all fly-by-wire, but for starter, at least a computerized FLCS. For the J-20, the public was informed of a FBW-FLCS.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.top81cn.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Su33KUB

gambit said:


> It was a typical aileron roll for airshow. An aileron roll is the most simple of rolls. In simpler aircrafts, like the Cessna 152 I trained on while in high school prior to the USAF, an aileron roll requires three actions: control (or yoke) to either with starboard or port, slight throttle increase, and slight rudder. In flight, every time you make a maneuver, you lose a bit of airspeed, hence the slight increase in throttle.
> 
> In avionics, flight control surface deflection is the result of the algorithm of command, airspeed, altitude, gyroscope, and accelerometer. The slower the airspeed, the greater the *VISIBILITY* of that deflection. So for the J-20 video, the fact that we can see the port vertical stab's high deflection at timestamp 00:10 mean airspeed just above stall, not cruise. After all, it was an airshow and airshow's airspace are designed to be limited.
> 
> The FLCC received a cockpit command. The Central Air Data Computer (CADC) sends airspeed and altitude data to the FLCC. The three rate gyros (pitch, roll, and yaw) sends their data to the FLCC, and the two accelerometers sends their data to the FLCC. Then the FLCC calculate the rate and final angle of displacement for the flight control surfaces. The higher the airspeed, the less surface deflection. Conversely, the lower the airspeed, the higher the deflection. So for us to see the deflection at timestamp 00:10, it means airshow airspeed. As the J-20 continues its aileron roll, the jet's AOA, to me, indicates a slight pitch askew (diagonal), further evidence of a lower airspeed than usual. The asymmetrical deflection of the various flight control surfaces is evidence of a computerized flight controls system (FLCS). Not necessarily all fly-by-wire, but for starter, at least a computerized FLCS. For the J-20, the public was informed of a FBW-FLCS.


thanks, by the way two of my favorite aircraft are F-14 and F-111, but i love MiG-23 and MiG-29, and from China the J-8 is my favorite Saludos


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空军发布 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @captain笨小航 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空天砺剑 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 586012
> View attachment 586013
> View attachment 586014
> View attachment 586015
> View attachment 586016
> View attachment 586017
> 
> Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo
> 
> View attachment 586018

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LJQC

Fsjal said:


> My simple question was indeed about what maneuver the J-20 was doing in that twitter picture, and when talking about how _I've never seen such an asymmetrical tail position_, what I meant was _I've never seen a tail position in which the vertical stabilizers are facing the same direction but one is in a slightly different angle than the other_. I am fully aware of how vertical stabilizers work, and I am fully aware of what a slanted-angle all-moving V-tail is, I was simply asking about the J-20 in the twitter pic and what maneuver it was executing to have its tail position be in an asymmetrical way.



My bet is that similar to how a F-16 utilises differential horizontal stabilisers to help with roll maneuver, the J-20 uses differential vertical stabilisers to increase roll control efficiency while at the same time uses it as an ARI (Aileron-Rudder Interconnect) to minimize side-slip.

Here you can find the F-16 FLCS block diagram for both analog and digital one (DFLCS): http://i.imgur.com/9XKCGrD.png, https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA189675/page/n39

Note that how pitch control output is mixed with roll control output. And also the section of Aileron-Rudder Interconnect where rudder deflection (automatically controlled by FLCS) syncs with aileron deflection and it increases as Angle of Attack (AOA) increases. The ARI is designed to minimize side-slip and make the jet roll around its velocity vector so that best roll performance can be attained.


----------



## seven7seven

KungFuLee said:


> Case in point, While Malice is a factor on charging someone murder from manslaughter, however, one still need to proof a guilty mind and a guilty acts (Mens Rea and Actus Reus) to present to make a case, be it murder or manslaughter. However, you do not need to proof premeditation or as you said "Plan" to found one guilty for murder.


----------



## KungFuLee

seven7seven said:


>



I do not get what you are trying to say.

If you think what I said is incorrect, please do point it out directly instead of sending me a cryptic youtube video.


----------



## LKJ86

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189182904703672322

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @白龙_龙腾四海 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

J-20A + WS-10C

(Image via 桜小路才華/@10969YUKIKAZE at Twitter)









PS: via https://lt.cjdby.net/forum

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## bahadur999

Deino said:


> J-20A + WS-10C
> 
> (Image via 桜小路才華/@10969YUKIKAZE at Twitter)
> 
> View attachment 586755
> View attachment 586756
> 
> 
> PS: via https://lt.cjdby.net/forum
> 
> View attachment 586757


Do you think the J-20 will go 'mass-production' in its current form? or will they make a J-20B after fixing/upgrading it and then proceed?
I find it unusual that this picture unveils this exposed-version of the J-20 - not something other countries should see if the PLA seeks to fight with it later...


----------



## Ultima Thule

bahadur999 said:


> Do you think the J-20 will go 'mass-production' in its current form? or will they make a J-20B after fixing/upgrading it and then proceed?
> I find it unusual that this picture unveils this exposed-version of the J-20 - not something other countries should see if the PLA seeks to fight with it later...


its already in production


----------



## bahadur999

seven0seven said:


> its already in production


Production - Yes
Mass-production - Not yet.
J-20 is still deployed in one Air Brigade (I count combat brigades, not Test Brigades) which i am sure it is not fully equipped yet...
The question in when the J-20 will go mass-production and on what technical conditions.


----------



## Deino

Hmmm??? Henry K. mentions, there are some changes visible, that hint to a future TVC engine ... can anyone spot them?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

bahadur999 said:


> Production - Yes
> Mass-production - Not yet.
> J-20 is still deployed in one Air Brigade (I count combat brigades, not Test Brigades) which i am sure it is not fully equipped yet...
> The question in when the J-20 will go mass-production and on what technical conditions.


main problem for J-20 is its not have it main engine WS-15, J-20 currently flying with interim AL-31FN or WS-10 series of engine, WS-15 will be available in 2023 @bahadur999


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

seven0seven said:


> main problem for J-20 is its not have it main engine WS-15, J-20 currently flying with interim AL-31FN or WS-10 series of engine, WS-15 will be available in 2023 @bahadur999



A Chinese aero expert back in 2017 already claimed that the prototype 2017 was testing with the WS-15.

But the CD forum would just deny it as usual, just like their stupid joke with the Type 075.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ultima Thule

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> A Chinese aero expert back in 2017 claimed that the prototype 2017 was testing with the WS-15.
> 
> But the CD forum would just deny it as usual, just like their stupid joke with the Type 075.


Sir no official confirmation of J-20 equipped with WS-15 so far , recent images show us/ give us the hint that current J-20 is still using Al-31FN for older prototypes, and new production models using a version of WS-10 at best @ChineseTiger1986


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

seven0seven said:


> Sir no official confirmation of J-20 equipped with WS-15 so far , recent images show us/ give us the hint that current J-20 is still using Al-31FN for older prototypes, and new production models using a version of WS-10 at best @ChineseTiger1986



Bro, CD forum ≠ China's official confirmation.

They are just a private forum running by a bunch of military amateurs.

The J-20 starting to equip with the WS-15 engine with TVC has already been hinted by several military insiders including the chief designer of the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ultima Thule

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Bro, CD forum ≠ China's official confirmation.
> 
> They are just a private forum running by a bunch of military amateurs.
> 
> The J-20 starting to equip with the WS-15 engine with TVC has already been hinted by several military insiders including the chief designer of the J-20.


can you give me the link/source sir and thank you


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

seven0seven said:


> can you give me the link/source sir and thank you



So far, there are three PLA officials can prove that the J-20 has been equipped with the WS-15.

Professor Song Xinzhi: He is a aerospace equipment specialist from the PLAAF.

Senior Colonel Xu Yongling: He was a veteran test pilot for the J-10.

Chief Designer Yang Wei: He is chief designer of the J-20 and will also carry the project for the 6th gen aircraft. Last year during the Zhuhai air show, he had already hinted that the J-20 using the TVC engine. Since we all know how a TVC version of the WS-10 looks like, and if the J-20 also using the TVC, then it can be nothing other than the legendary WS-15.

Ask any Chinese member to verify the validity of my statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Bro, CD forum ≠ China's official confirmation.
> 
> They are just a private forum running by a bunch of military amateurs.
> 
> The J-20 starting to equip with the WS-15 engine with TVC has already been hinted by several military insiders including the chief designer of the J-20.



Fully agreed ... but I think point is, so far no image has been leaked, what is not surprising given the importance of the WS-15 and in mind of how few images of the WS-10-powered J-20 we have.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Fully agreed ... but I think point is, so far no image has been leaked, what is not surprising given the importance of the WS-15 and in mind of how few images of the WS-10-powered J-20 we have.



According to Yang Wei, the J-20 has already equipped with the TVC. He is the chief designer of the J-20, no one else can know the specs of this aircraft more than him.

The problem is that this TVC looks very different from the WS-10 TVC demonstrator.

So they cannot be the same engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> According to Yang Wei, the J-20 has already equipped with the TVC. He is the chief designer of the J-20, no one else can know the specs of this aircraft more than him.
> 
> The problem is that this TVC looks very different from the WS-10 TVC demonstrator.
> 
> So they cannot be the same engine.



Again; fully agreed ... but still I think the point is, so far no image of any WS-15 has been leaked, what is not surprising given the importance of the WS-15 and in mind of how few images of the WS-10-powered J-20 we have.

Not sure, why my reply was misleading.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Again; fully agreed ... but still I think the point is, so far no image of any WS-15 has been leaked, what is not surprising given the importance of the WS-15 and in mind of how few images of the WS-10-powered J-20 we have.
> 
> Not sure, why my reply was misleading.



The new leaked images could be the WS-15 being mistakenly labelled as "WS-10B/C".

Since it does look similar to a WS-10 engine, but still different from a WS-10B with TVC.

You can see how even Russia's newest izdeliye 30 also looks like an AL-31 with sawtoothed nozzles. This indicates that the izdeliye 30 still shares the same bloodline with the AL-31 family despite being a generation more advanced.

By making the same analogy, the WS-15 can also look similar to the WS-10 but with sawtoothed nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

@ChineseTiger1986 What do you think is the likeliest thrust rating for the first variant of the WS-15? The consensus seems to be 180kN.


----------



## Ultima Thule

ZeEa5KPul said:


> @ChineseTiger1986 What do you think is the likeliest thrust rating for the first variant of the WS-15? The consensus seems to be 180kN.


yes most probably 43,000 lbs like F35's engine but question remains whether this engine will be low by pass engine like F-119 is or high by pass engine F-135 is

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ZeEa5KPul said:


> @ChineseTiger1986 What do you think is the likeliest thrust rating for the first variant of the WS-15? The consensus seems to be 180kN.



Professor Song Xinzhi had also stated by 2017 that the WS-15 got its afterburner thrust around 180kN.



seven0seven said:


> yes most probably 43,000 lbs like F35's engine but question remains whether this engine will be low by pass engine like F-119 is or high by pass engine F-135 is



It is low by pass like the F119.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Professor Song Xinzhi had also stated by 2017 that the WS-15 got its afterburner thrust around 180kN.


Excellent. I understand that the WS-15 uses a second generation monocrystalline superalloy (DD6)




There are already third and fourth generation alloys, so the WS-15 will have a lot of scope for improvement.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Excellent. I understand that the WS-15 uses a second generation monocrystalline superalloy (DD6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are already third and fourth generation alloys, so the WS-15 will have a lot of scope for improvement.



Indeed, Yang Wei and his team are preparing for a 2025 maiden flight of the 6th gen aircraft.

Even if the iconic 6th gen variable cycle engine is not ready by that time, the initial test flights of the 6th gen aircraft can still depend on the improved WS-15.

Can you imagine the maiden flight 6th gen aircraft being dependent on the AL-31F or WS-10X? If so, this is going to be absurd.

So the WS-15 being ready for the mass produced J-20, and the upgraded WS-15 for the maiden flight of the 6th gen aircraft by 2025 sounds reasonable to everyone with critical thinking capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> Hmmm??? Henry K. mentions, there are some changes visible, that hint to a future TVC engine ... can anyone spot them?
> 
> View attachment 586799


The position of the end of nozzle moved forward, it means the ws-10c engine is shorter, or somehow just leave more space for longer tvc nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Indeed, Yang Wei and his team are preparing for a 2025 maiden flight of the 6th gen aircraft.
> 
> Even if the iconic 6th gen variable cycle engine is not ready by that time, the initial test flights of the 6th gen aircraft can still depend on the improved WS-15.
> 
> Can you imagine the maiden flight 6th gen aircraft being dependent on the AL-31F or WS-10X? If so, this is going to be absurd.
> 
> So the WS-15 being ready for the mass produced J-20, and the upgraded WS-15 for the maiden flight of the 6th gen aircraft by 2025 sounds reasonable to everyone with critical thinking capability.




Thanks for Your long explanation, and sorry - now I understand - it was a misunderstanding on my side.

But ... even if I understand Your theory, aren't the WS-10 and WS-15 not built by different enterprises? From what i know the WS-10 is from Shenyang, but the WS-15 is developed by Xi'an? So how could they share a similar external design if the WS-15 is a new clean-sheet design by another team?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Don't know if I posted this previously but Huitong states that the J-20 is ready to test the WS-15



> The latest rumor (September 2019) claimed that *J-20* was ready to test the newly integrated WS-15 turbofan engine.



The phrasing "newly integrated" leads me to believe that at least one WS-15 has been installed on a J-20 airframe. There's probably going to be a period of ground and taxiing tests. Hopefully we'll see a flight test before the end of this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ILC

星海军事 said:


> They are all designed and built-in Shenyang.


So, do you think that's WS-10 equipped production variant J-20 or WS-15 prototype?


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Excellent. I understand that the WS-15 uses a second generation monocrystalline superalloy (DD6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are already third and fourth generation alloys, so the WS-15 will have a lot of scope for improvement.


I think there is a good chance the WS-15 will use DD-9 and upwards considering how old DD6 is (and how the Chinese have already progressed to DD32 and beyond).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Thanks for Your long explanation, and sorry - now I understand - it was a misunderstanding on my side.
> 
> But ... even if I understand Your theory, aren't the WS-10 and WS-15 not built by different enterprises? From what i know the WS-10 is from Shenyang, but the WS-15 is developed by Xi'an? So how could they share a similar external design if the WS-15 is a new clean-sheet design by another team?



According to CCTV-4, the WS-15 is also being built by the Liming aircraft engine factory from Shenyang.

Maybe they could later expand new production lines elsewhere in order to boost the production capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> I think there is a good chance the WS-15 will use DD-9 and upwards considering how old DD6 is (and how the Chinese have already progressed to DD32 and beyond).


I find that hard to believe. DD6 was first reported in 2000:
https://www.tms.org/Superalloys/10.7449/2000/Superalloys_2000_777_783.pdf
while DD9 was first reported in 2016 (by the same institute, even by some of the same researchers):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119075646.ch6

It's difficult to see how the first variant of the WS-15 could use this alloy as its design long predates it.


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> I find that hard to believe. DD6 was first reported in 2000:
> https://www.tms.org/Superalloys/10.7449/2000/Superalloys_2000_777_783.pdf
> while DD9 was first reported in 2016 (by the same institute, even by some of the same researchers):
> 
> It's difficult to see how the first variant of the WS-15 could use this alloy as its design long predates it.


DD9 was already around back in 2011. I believe i have seen DD9 back in a 2009 paper but I cannot seem to find it right now. 
Abstract

1 LI Jia-rong,LIU Shi-zhong,SHI Zhen-xue,LUO Yu-shi,WANG Xiao-guang(Science and Technology on Advanced High Temperature Structural Materials Laboratory,Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials,Beijing 100095,China);Third Generation Single Crystal Superalloy DD9[A];[C];2011

Link : http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-ZGJS201108003089.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> DD9 was already around back in 2011. I believe i have seen DD9 back in a 2009 paper but I cannot seem to find it right now.
> Abstract
> 
> 1 LI Jia-rong,LIU Shi-zhong,SHI Zhen-xue,LUO Yu-shi,WANG Xiao-guang(Science and Technology on Advanced High Temperature Structural Materials Laboratory,Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials,Beijing 100095,China);Third Generation Single Crystal Superalloy DD9[A];[C];2011
> 
> Link : http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-ZGJS201108003089.htm


Interesting, it seems the authors sat on the result for quite a while. I can see DD9 being used in the WS-15 if it was being published on back in 2009-2011.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

The mass-production version of J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines had made its maiden flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 587206
> 
> The mass-production version of J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines had made its maiden flight.



So one we've seen a few days ago was this maiden flight?


----------



## scherz

Specs of WS-10C? Does it has TVC?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @ccckkknnn2012 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 588098
> 
> Via @ccckkknnn2012 from Weibo



Just a nice artwork or is this the WS-10-powered one now painted?


----------



## LKJ86

Interesting...






According to 写小米,
1. One WS-10TVC engine had been tested in J-20.

2. WS-10/15/19 all used to be tested with two dimensional thrust vectoring nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192664175413059584


----------



## python-000

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192664175413059584


Its look like Pakistan  Just kidding...


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

J-20s from the 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu with the no. 62005 confirmed.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> J-20s from the 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu with the no. 62005 confirmed.
> View attachment 588278
> View attachment 588279


62007




Via @捣蛋就对 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> 62007
> View attachment 588441
> 
> Via @捣蛋就对 from Weibo



Also from Wuhu?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Also from Wuhu?




Yes


----------



## TruthHurtz

How many are there now?


----------



## lcloo

TruthHurtz said:


> How many are there now?


Photos of 15 J20 have been seen. Pessimistic count is 15 aircraft. At least 20 are in service judged by the serial numbers. 

Numbers produced? 
Confirmed in service = 20 (by serial numbers, including yet seen #62008)
Rolled out, in flight tests or delivered but not confirmed in service > 6

Mass production is expected to begin in 2020, with new engine (TH-10C?)


----------



## LKJ86

Via @wanquanfoto from Weibo





Via @空军发布 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民画报 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民画报 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## python-000

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 588732
> 
> Via @wanquanfoto from Weibo
> 
> View attachment 588733
> 
> Via @空军发布 from Weibo


Awesome Pics bro...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via 余红春

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196309823559737344

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jaybird

Follow Deino's link upstairs, there are some guys posted a reflection of one J-20 pilot's helmet visor. We kind of get to see what J-20 cockpit looks like. Although not a very clear view. But still nice to finally see something....















情强铁窗泪
‏

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195916592355266561

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Indos

jaybird said:


> Follow Deino's link upstairs, there are some guys posted a reflection of one J-20 pilot's helmet visor. We kind of get to see what J-20 cockpit looks like. Although not a very clear view. But still nice to finally see something....
> View attachment 590553
> View attachment 590554
> View attachment 590555
> View attachment 590556
> 
> 
> 情强铁窗泪
> ‏
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195916592355266561



So until so far J 20 cockpit is not available for public view ?


----------



## LKJ86

Indos said:


> So until so far J 20 cockpit is not available for public view ?


You should ask: Which fighter cockpit of PLAAF or PLAN is available for public view?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## jaybird

Indos said:


> So until so far J 20 cockpit is not available for public view ?




Yes, not just J-20 cockpit. But very difficult to find pictures of almost all new Chinese fighter jets, AEW aircraft, attack helo cockpits and warship station etc. It's usually not allow to be photographed. And censored out or Block out the sensitive parts of the photos afterward if the pictures deem vulnerable to leaking valuable information to adversaries by the magazines or newspapers.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

The 8th J-20 assigned to the 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu was spotted.

(Image via yangwansan1/https://lt.cjdby.net)






... and the 2nd bird too

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197157033314856960

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

Tbh, I do find it a shame that there's no publicly-released images of the J-20s cockpit, same with that of the J-10B/C, J-11B, J-15, J-16, and JH-7A. I understand that sensitive software shouldn't be leaked, however having some transparency and releasing a pic of the cockpit dashboard with the multi-function displays off wouldn't hurt since software secrets would still be protected.


----------



## vi-va

Fsjal said:


> Tbh, I do find it a shame that there's no publicly-released images of the J-20s cockpit, same with that of the J-10B/C, J-11B, J-15, J-16, and JH-7A. I understand that sensitive software shouldn't be leaked, however having some transparency and releasing a pic of the cockpit dashboard with the multi-function displays off wouldn't hurt since software secrets would still be protected.


What's the benefit of leaking cockpit image? None.
What's the damage of not leaking? None. Just disappointed some military fans.
There is no transparency issue, it's a hoax. US would like to show muscle for deterrence, to maximize their national interest.
What we got from public internet are unclassified stuff. Our rival has more channels to get classified info than military fans.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

viva_zhao said:


> What's the benefit of leaking cockpit image? None. Just disappointed some military fans.
> What's the damage of not leaking? None.
> There is no transparency issue, it's a hoax. US would like to show muscle for deterrence, to maximize their national interest.
> What we got from public internet are unclassified stuff. Our rival has more channels to get classified info than military fans.


It's purely the US Empire military and politician term about “transparency issue” for its own geopolitical purpose. And they speak from the high ground position.

It's basically an oxymoron to put the words “transparency” and “military” side by side, like the "deafening silence"  unless one wanna really buy into the misleading term.

One day we'll see again how and what if the Empire talks not from the position of high ground 
Live long to witness the changes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

viva_zhao said:


> What's the benefit of leaking cockpit image? None.
> What's the damage of not leaking? None. Just disappointed some military fans.
> There is no transparency issue, it's a hoax. US would like to show muscle for deterrence, to maximize their national interest.
> What we got from public internet are unclassified stuff. Our rival has more channels to get classified info than military fans.


There's no harm in showing a view of a cockpit regardless if the MFDs are on or off. It's not like the US will simply look at the cockpit and then make a detailed-recreation copy based on a picture, that's like saying China looked at a pic of an Su-33, then copied it and created the J-15. I would argue that if there's no benefits of leaking cockpit image, then there's no benefits of also keeping the cockpits of the fighter jets secret too. There's already a pic of the JH-7A's cockpit, an old pic of the J-10As cockpit, and a supposed possible recreation of the J-11B's cockpit.

Plus, military-transparency isn't necessarily a random political jargon that was created by Washington DC. There's a difference between displaying 'military jingoism' and displaying simple military information and data to the public. Transparency within the military means the public knows whether the government is doing something corrupt or excessive while also giving the military accountability. Transparency is also important because accountability means the military can be put under scrutiny during accidents, @gambit summarizes it well here and even the PLA Air Force admits to the importance of military transparency.


----------



## StormBreaker

@Deino @LKJ86 
How many numbers has J-20 crossed in total? And wha is the production rate and required fleet size by PLAAF?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @bingo1117 from Weixin

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

And now there is already the ninth J-20 confirmed from the 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu.

(Image via 捣蛋就对)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

A J-20A powered by WS-10B in full reheat ...

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## StormBreaker

Deino said:


> A J-20A powered by WS-10B in full reheat ...
> 
> View attachment 591890


Why are you calling it ‘J-20A’ since there’s no other variant ?


----------



## Deino

StormBreaker said:


> Why are you calling it ‘J-20A’ since there’s no other variant ?



since the regular J-20 - the one with a AL-31FN based engine - is most often called simply J-20 without an additional letter.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kuge

how come is there no video?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

kuge said:


> how come is there no video?



Maybe simply since none was shot ... but why should it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

_Au moins 2 chasseurs J-20 de la 9e brigade, basée sur la côte Est de la Chine, auraient participé à l'exercice annuel "Red Sword" de l'armée de l'air chinoise. Il s'agirait donc de la 1ère participation des J-20 de 1ère ligne dans cet exercice équivalent de "Red Flag" de l'USAF.
- East Pendulum _

At least 2 J-20 fighters from the 9th Brigade, based on China's east coast, are believed to have participated in the Chinese Air Force's annual "Red Sword" exercise. This would be the first participation of the first-line J-20s in this USAF's "Red Flag" exercise equivalent.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

A J-20A powered by WS-10B was spotted again at CAC.

(Image via siegecrossbow/SDF)






PS: Here at least a bit larger and it was already spotted on November 30th. (Image via 李伟明/FB)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

And indeed yet another J-20A + WS-10B spotted already on 29th November.
(Image via @angadow/Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## TruthHurtz

Are they getting re-engined or are these new J-20s?


----------



## Deino

they are new


----------



## aliaselin

Deino said:


> Maybe simply since none was shot ... but why should it?


If I remember correctly, it is WS-10C


----------



## Deino

aliaselin said:


> If I remember correctly, it is WS-10C



I must admit I'm not sure and even if I tend to agree with you, I'm a bit sceptical ...


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202224660051628034

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206187192491683840

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabotar

Why J20 don't have green panels like J10, JF17 and F35 etc?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Kabotar said:


> Why J20 don't have green panels like J10, JF17 and F35 etc?


What is green panels can you elaborate more


----------



## Kabotar

seven0seven said:


> What is green panels can you elaborate more


I think those represent composite materials.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Kabotar said:


> I think those represent composite materials.


Are you saying for cockpit or for fuselage, the whole J-20 build on composite materials


----------



## Deino

seven0seven said:


> What is green panels can you elaborate more





Kabotar said:


> I think those represent composite materials.



I think you are a bit wrong and his post was misleading. It seems as if he was referring to the often green-glowing panels in MFDs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabotar

seven0seven said:


> Are you saying for cockpit or for fuselage, the whole J-20 build on composite materials



Fuselage.


----------



## Deino

Kabotar said:


> Fuselage.



Oh?! So Your post was not a direct reply to the cockpit ... well. IMO since all J-20s we know in yellow primer are simply what they are: "Already in primer" and are not showing the different materials.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Kabotar said:


> Fuselage.


Bro whole Fuselage of J-20 build by Composite materials, and JF-17 and J-10 have least amount of Composite materials in their structure, green panel doesn't means its composite materials


----------



## S10

Can anyone see the image?

0.001 to 0.005m^2 frontal RCS

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GeHAC

S10 said:


> Can anyone see the image?
> 
> 0.001 to 0.005m^2 frontal RCS


The picture you quote says that if the edge components built in metal form, the scattering effect of radio wave would affect the stealth of a plane with 0.001 to 0.005m^2 RCS. The adoption of absorbing structure in edge parts, as stated in the chart, would effectively lower the overall RCS level in comparison, and is extremely effective for X-band waves.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

GeHAC said:


> The picture you quote says that if the edge components built in metal form, the scattering effect of radio wave would affect the stealth of a plane with 0.001 to 0.005m^2 RCS. The adoption of absorbing structure in edge parts, as stated in the chart, would effectively lower the overall RCS level in comparison, and is extremely effective for X-band waves.


So is this paper referring at all to the J-20?


----------



## GeHAC

Figaro said:


> So is this paper referring at all to the J-20?


Highly possible, coz this paper is based on analysis of a stealth plane with canard.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/tn-EYOc4u4XOm7N23rBKag

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 595319
> 
> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/tn-EYOc4u4XOm7N23rBKag




Please a summary?


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Please a summary?


It is said that the production rate of WS-15 would be about 5 per year in next few year.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kabotar

LKJ86 said:


> It is said that the production rate of WS-15 would be about 5 per year in next few year.


Isn't that very low?


----------



## LKJ86

Kabotar said:


> Isn't that very low?


Why?

WS-15 is just in trial production.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kabotar

LKJ86 said:


> Why?
> 
> WS-15 is just in trial production.



Doesn't that means only two J20s equipped with WS15?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Kabotar said:


> Doesn't that means only two J20s equipped with WS15?


J-20 equipped with WS-10 is in mass production now.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UKBengali

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 equipped with WS-10 is in mass production now.



Do you specs on the version of WS-10 installed on J-20?


----------



## LKJ86

UKBengali said:


> Do you specs on the version of WS-10 installed on J-20?


Yes

Take J-10 for example. Although J-10A is not perfect, but hundreds of ones had been builded.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

LKJ86 said:


> Yes



Can I ask what they are?


----------



## LKJ86

UKBengali said:


> Can I ask what they are?


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...-news-discussions.3218/page-653#post-11881208


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 equipped with WS-10 is in mass production now.




Indeed and I'm already speculating which unit will be the next to receive them?!


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

LKJ86 said:


> It is said that the production rate of WS-15 would be about 5 per year in next few year.



I don't believe this guy. He is not credible at all.

He claimed that Type 071 displaces only 18000 tons, and the Type 075 barely over 20000 tons.

He has Taiwanese origin, probably a military spy who works for the foreign country.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

星海军事 said:


> He's just paraphrasing a report.



Who knows the source is real or fake, most likely fake.

Who the hell would allow a 30 years old brat from Taiwan to access into our classified military information?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Yan Yan



Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Tempest II

PL-15 with folding wings: http://alert5.com/2019/12/31/research-paper-on-wind-tunnel-testing-of-pl-15-with-folding-fins/

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空军发布 from Weibo





Via @CAN-MUGUA from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @启草设绘 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

By 杨盼





Via @彩虹熊_白玮 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

Yan Yan said:


> View attachment 596564
> View attachment 596565


When will these new J-20s become operational?


----------



## Figaro

OrientalGamer said:


> Someone says it is al31 with a new nozzle.


No one is saying that ... at least no one credible is saying that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

OrientalGamer said:


> You cannot confirm it is ws10 either.


Yes we can ... just look at the number of petals and the distinctive look of each petal. It clearly is a serrated WS-10 nozzle for enhanced rear stealth design.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> haha you can ban me but you can not ban your own insecurities see you




What insecurities? It was a temporary ban only due to your collection of warnings, which resulted in a ban until now. As such, if You want to continue that stupid discussion, that there are only ten J-20s operational only since You read that in a Japanese magazine "that looked professional", please go ahead here since You have been banned now permanently at the SecretProjectForum.



OrientalGamer said:


> You cannot confirm it is ws10 either.




Then please explain what's the reason for you to think so against any commonly accepted understanding?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Su33KUB said:


> For insulting you I ask you an apology, and not because i care about being banned, no is because I admit mistakes, I know pride should not be a part of my personality.
> 
> About secret projects i careless, the guy thinks he is a God, all knowing and capable to judge people, even you bringing it to public i care less too.
> 
> 
> You can do as you wish, just remember this, you ask me to tell you what the article said, i offered you what it says, you distorted what i said by pretending i was saying it was right, without caring i said "*regardless of accuracy" which means it might be wrong or right *you know it means it is an example of many estimates.
> 
> 
> You insecurities are you took it personal in fact, you real purpose was the guy to ban me, if he was banning me, any way the guy has an ego trouble, but i am a grown man admitting mistakes if i have made them, and more important my morality tells me to ask you an apology because regardless you ban me or not, i know you came to stir the issues, but you know there are more forums, and more important for me my sincere apology is not because I care about you banning me but because i made something wrong, but I ask you, do you think i do not know forums are ego fights? thus since I insulted you, with the same words you have used in the past did you ask me an apology, the answer is not, So also grow, me and you have not been nice to each other and every human should be nice as a person I ask you an apology but also meditate if you are nice too, if you always show your best side regardless who is right which is a subjective issue since i know you think you have been always right, and i might not see where i have been rude or wrong too.
> 
> 
> Saludos i might come back later, I wish you the best.


I'm sorry but why do you deserve an apology? You were warned multiple times by @Deino and yet you kept on trolling, filling this thread with useless back and forths clearly designed at flame baiting without actual substance. Honestly, you should look into your own "insecurities" that cause you to literally roll over every single thread you touch. You were banned from one forum and now you have moved on to the next ... when will you finally realize what you're doing is just a huge waste of everyone's time and stop?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> For insulting you I ask you an apology, and not because i care about being banned, no is because I admit mistakes, I know pride should not be a part of my personality.
> 
> ...




You are such a blatant liar! Shame on you for lying, playing the innocent "who only has a different opinion" but who is always kind and honest!

And what is this? In my eyes, this is simply the last proof of what a wrong person, what a liar and deceiver you really are. You have been banned at the SDF for exactly the same behavior, You came back several times each time with a new name and now the same at the Secret Projects forum and here again ... May all other judge by your own words ... I can only say shame on you.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Back to the topic. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1215911549652520961

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## S10

Apparently there is a new missile in the works. Same range as PL-15 but smaller, so 6 can be fitted in the main weapon bay. They are also looking to cram 2 PL-10 into each side bay.

We should see it around 2023ish, along with WS-15 engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## StormBreaker

S10 said:


> Apparently there is a new missile in the works. Same range as PL-15 but smaller, so 6 can be fitted in the main weapon bay. They are also looking to cram 2 PL-10 into each side bay.
> 
> We should see it around 2023ish, along with WS-15 engine.


Wasn’t that folded fin version ?


----------



## S10

StormBreaker said:


> Wasn’t that folded fin version ?


No, different dimensions


----------



## StormBreaker

S10 said:


> No, different dimensions


Ramjet?


----------



## S10

StormBreaker said:


> Ramjet?


No, two rocket stages like PL15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StormBreaker

S10 said:


> No, two rocket stages like PL15


Any official name of rumoured?


----------



## Ultima Thule

StormBreaker said:


> Ramjet?


Ramjet has a large drag area hence loss of kinetic energy so early, only advantage of Ramjet engine is extended NEZ, that's why USA/China wont working on Ramjet powered AAM/BVR, only Russia and now EU have Ramjet powered BVR


----------



## StormBreaker

seven0seven said:


> Ramjet has a large drag area hence loss of kinetic energy so early, only advantage of Ramjet engine is extended NEZ, that's why USA/China wont working on Ramjet powered AAM/BVR, only Russia and now EU have Ramjet powered BVR


Extended NEZ is the biggest threat if paired up with medium/long range AAM.

It can only be replaced by hypersonic AAMs


----------



## Ultima Thule

StormBreaker said:


> Extended NEZ is the biggest threat if paired up with medium/long range AAM.
> 
> It can only be replaced by hypersonic AAMs


hyper sonic AAMs are already in service like R-37 which have speed of Mach-6 for Mig-31BM/ and USN retired AIM-154 had speed of Mach-5+

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

seven0seven said:


> hyper sonic AAMs are already in service like R-37 which have speed of Mach-6 for Mig-31BM/ and USN retired AIM-154 had speed of Mach-5+



Are you sure? AFAIK is the AIM-54 retired and the R-37 never entered service.


----------



## StormBreaker

seven0seven said:


> hyper sonic AAMs are already in service like R-37 which have speed of Mach-6 for Mig-31BM/ and USN retired AIM-154 had speed of Mach-5+


Ticket to hell !!!
What a beast they are, just read about them. AIM-54*
Does China have anything in that category ?

BTW Russia intends to integrate this with SU-35 as well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Are you sure? AFAIK is the AIM-54 retired and the R-37 never entered service.


According to Wikipedia AIM-154 retired along with F-14 and again from Wikipedia R-37 is in the weapon system of Mig-31BM


----------



## Ultima Thule

StormBreaker said:


> Ticket to hell !!!
> What a beast they are, just read about them. AIM-54*
> Does China have anything in that category ?
> 
> BTW Russia intends to integrate this with SU-35 as well


AIM-154 had a range of 190 KM, almost same as PL-15, and as for R-37 its range consider to be 300-400 km and its main mission is to shot down AWACS/Tankers and other ISR aircraft not Fighter jets, and China developing similar type of BVR comparable to R-37 named PL-XX

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

seven0seven said:


> According to Wikipedia AIM-154 retired along with F-14 and again from Wikipedia R-37 is in the weapon system of Mig-31BM



Then IMO Wiki is wrong ... will check.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Deino said:


> Then IMO Wiki is wrong ... will check.


I am confirmed about AIM-154 retirement, but induction R-37 for Mig-31BM is 50/50


----------



## S10

StormBreaker said:


> Extended NEZ is the biggest threat if paired up with medium/long range AAM.
> 
> It can only be replaced by hypersonic AAMs


Or you can have a two-stage pulse rocket like PL-15. First stage steers the missile towards target. When the guidance locks on to target, second stage is activated to increase NEZ.

The range is about 140km, somewhat shorter than widely reported.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StormBreaker

S10 said:


> Or you can have a two-stage pulse rocket like PL-15. First stage steers the missile towards target. When the guidance locks on to target, second stage is activated to increase NEZ.
> 
> The range is about 140km, somewhat shorter than widely reported.


----------



## Ultima Thule

StormBreaker said:


>


What do you mean ???


----------



## StormBreaker

seven0seven said:


> What do you mean ???


Jamai lera tha


----------



## Ultima Thule

StormBreaker said:


> Jamai lera tha


Speak in English bro this is international forum, aur Jamai lene ke lie kia sirif PDF hi hai mere bhai

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

AIM-54 cannot really hit fighter jet at long range. In fact anything longer range than 150km has hard time hitting target because of loss of energy. To improve range, French use ramjet in Meteor so they can still reliably hit targets above 150km. China uses ramjet on several secret missiles now and PL-15 has dual motor to counter the fighter's dodging. PL-21 the long thin missile is similar to AIM-54 but lower drag. It is hard to hit fighter targets but designed for refuel plane or AWAC or transport. R-37 is similar to these as well. Huge drag coefficient just big fuel tank and big rocket or ramjet.

Truly the best form is ramjet but with different design to Russian Kh style or Chinese YJ style. Japanese ASM-3 shape for anti-ship and French Meteor shape is better. Chinese anti air missile has several like these but not shown except in some old diagrams from 10 years ago. Even better than these is another type that can in theory reliably kill fighter agile small targets from more than 300km with same probability as AIM-120D or PL-15. These launch missiles from a larger missile platform but must be dropped from large aircraft flying higher altitude and speed like JH-xx or H-20. Development must be together.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @大水来 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @现在又叫Songbird了 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218428982833688576

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 600654
> View attachment 600655
> View attachment 600656
> View attachment 600657
> 
> Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo




What do they say? I somewhere read "东空9旅有两个大队已经换装歼20" - via Google: "Two brigades of the East Air 9 Brigade have been remodeled for the J-20" - which i would transcribe into "Two daduis (?) within the ETC 9th Air Brigade have been reequipped with the J-20". And given that a dadui aka Flying/Flight Group consists of 8 aircraft this would mean 16 now within the 9th Brigade at Wuhu.


----------



## UKBengali

serenity said:


> AIM-54 cannot really hit fighter jet at long range. In fact anything longer range than 150km has hard time hitting target because of loss of energy. To improve range, French use ramjet in Meteor so they can still reliably hit targets above 150km. China uses ramjet on several secret missiles now and PL-15 has dual motor to counter the fighter's dodging. PL-21 the long thin missile is similar to AIM-54 but lower drag. It is hard to hit fighter targets but designed for refuel plane or AWAC or transport. R-37 is similar to these as well. Huge drag coefficient just big fuel tank and big rocket or ramjet.
> 
> Truly the best form is ramjet but with different design to Russian Kh style or Chinese YJ style. Japanese ASM-3 shape for anti-ship and French Meteor shape is better. Chinese anti air missile has several like these but not shown except in some old diagrams from 10 years ago. Even better than these is another type that can in theory reliably kill fighter agile small targets from more than 300km with same probability as AIM-120D or PL-15. These launch missiles from a larger missile platform but must be dropped from large aircraft flying higher altitude and speed like JH-xx or H-20. Development must be together.



Meteor is mainly a UK missile.


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> What do they say? I somewhere read "东空9旅有两个大队已经换装歼20" - via Google: "Two brigades of the East Air 9 Brigade have been remodeled for the J-20" - which i would transcribe into "Two daduis (?) within the ETC 9th Air Brigade have been reequipped with the J-20". And given that a dadui aka Flying/Flight Group consists of 8 aircraft this would mean 16 now within the 9th Brigade at Wuhu.


If 9th Brigade has 16 J20, then the known numbers would be:-

78X7X = 8
78X3X = 4
62X0X = 16

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> If 9th Brigade has 16 J20, then the known numbers would be:-
> 
> 78X7X = 8
> 78X3X = 4
> 62X0X = 16




But is my 'translation' or interpretation correct?


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> But is my 'translation' or interpretation correct?


Yes, your translation is correct.

according to Chinese search engine Baidu
zhongdui 中队= squadron = 4 fighter jets
daduii 大队= flight group = 8 fighter jets each.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Video for J-20 starts at 18:53 mark.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via kj.81.cn and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## lcloo

18 pilots and a single seater J20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jaybird

Around 19:22 mark of the video posted by Siegecrossbow, it mention The Wang Hai J-20 Flight group "shot down" 29 other fighter jets in the exercise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

jaybird said:


> Around 19:22 mark of the video posted by Siegecrossbow, it mention The Wang Hai J-20 Flight group "shot down" 29 other fighter jets in the exercise.



Those 29 are real US planes they shot down mostly in the Korean War. The Wanghai brigade is famous for their group shoot-down record against the US air force.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220689733405179905

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

A great video of J-20:
https://www.xinpianchang.com/a10659504

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jaybird

ozranger said:


> Those 29 are real US planes they shot down mostly in the Korean War. The Wanghai brigade is famous for their group shoot-down record against the US air force.



I mistaken it was just recent war game counts because it was showing J-20. Thanks for correction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Philosopher

Beautiful figure jet. I have a feeling this jet will be fantastic when it comes to beyond visual range combat. Its radars and AA missiles will probably outrange other 5th gen fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Philosopher. said:


> Beautiful figure jet. I have a feeling this jet will be fantastic when it comes to beyond visual range combat. Its radars and AA missiles will probably outrange other 5th gen fighters.


once the J-20 gets the WS-15 with thrust vectoring, it will be just as fantastic in WVR combat (not that it is as important as BVR).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Compilation of all so far spotted (and confirmed by individual serial number) J-20 in PLAAF service.
(Image via by78/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Image via by78/SDF


Via @捣蛋就对 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StormBreaker

LKJ86 said:


> Via @捣蛋就对 from Weibo


How many have been produced in total


----------



## LKJ86

@Deino
I have an interesting question:
We all know that PLAAF has got 24 Su-35SK. But according to the pics only taken in China, how many of them can you confirm from serial numbers?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> @Deino
> I have an interesting question:
> We all know that PLAAF has got 24 Su-35SK. But according to the pics only taken in China, how many of them can you confirm from serial numbers?




I need to check when I'm back home but Huitong lists indeed only 14


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> I need to check when I'm back home but Huitong lists indeed only 14


I just mean the pics only taken in China.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> I just mean the pics only taken in China.




Oh well... that's even more difficult to know.


----------



## hirobo2

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 601493
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo



If I had to keep just 1 pic of the J-20, it would b this one!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Here an interesting cross-post from the IMO highly reliable "Bltizo", who summarized a post from yankee:



> In this paid piece from yankee (which I will not copy out of respect for him, given it is a paid subscription; this is the site however https://member.guancha.cn/post/view?id=1334), he writes some information about the J-20:
> 
> - He generally says that the reliability and readiness of J-20 for a new aircraft type is quite impressive
> - He states that this year, the next unit to receive J-20 will likely be a NTC unit
> - From the AAM thread, "Summarizing what he wrote, he states that a new BVRAAM that will enter service with J-20 has a similar range to PL-15 but smaller diameter (allowing carriage of 6 ventrally vs 4 PL-15s), and greater ability to target stealth aircraft, and also that the kinematic properties of this new missile is designed to emphasize greater ability to target and maeneuver to stealth aircraft at medium to short ranges."
> - He states that PL-15 has a capability which sounds a lot like CeC (where one aircraft launching PL-15 can be guided by a different aircraft), and again states it is dual pulse
> - He states PL-10 has LOAL
> - He states that an A2G missile for J-20 is in development (which we've known about for a while), but also that a Sino-SDB has entered testing
> - He states the luneberg lens on J-20 can be jettisoned from the aircraft in flight
> - He also strongly implies that a twin seater J-20 may make its appearance in 2020(?!)
> - He states J-20 has conducted training/cooperation with 3rd gen fighters, as well as drones (no additional details)
> 
> Those are some of the newest info tidbits I can garner from the piece. If anyone else has also paid for a subscription and has access to it, I'd be happy to be corrected if there's anything I missed.




Any additional thoughts?

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Here an interesting cross-post from the IMO highly reliable "Bltizo", who summarized a post from yankee:
> 
> 
> 
> Any additional thoughts?
> 
> Deino


Did Yankee mention anything about the new WS-10 equipped J-20s?


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> Any additional thoughts?
> 
> Deino


Pretty boring. Nothing about the WS-15, nothing about the ramjet AAM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> Here an interesting cross-post from the IMO highly reliable "Bltizo", who summarized a post from yankee:
> 
> 
> 
> Any additional thoughts?
> 
> Deino


Thank you Deino for sharing it here!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Pretty boring. Nothing about the WS-15, nothing about the ramjet AAM.


Honestly the only thing interesting developments in the J-20 program for me are the engines at this point.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Honestly the only thing interesting developments in the J-20 program for me are the engines at this point.



My fear is, if You wait for the WS-15 and only for that, I'll probably have to wait a few more years ... therefore I'm waiting for...:

- the first WS-10-powered ones in PLAAF grey
- the first new assignment, aka a new brigade following the 9th Air Brigade
- ...


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> My fear is, if You wait for the WS-15 and only for that, I'll probably have to wait a few more years ... therefore I'm waiting for...:
> 
> - the first WS-10-powered ones in PLAAF grey
> - the first new assignment, aka a new brigade following the 9th Air Brigade
> - ...


A J-20 with WS-10 in grey will indeed be a very pleasant surprise!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

A few more and much more detailed information to the post from Yankee above via *Bltizo*:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

0:26. Look into those inlets, what do you see? Nothing. Exactly how proper S-ducting is done. Any radar aimed at those inlets be like

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Via @秋秋Q30 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Rarely seen J-20s with pylons and if I'm not mistaken, it's the first time we see this twin-PL-12 launcher/adapter on the outer ones ... But are these really twin - or not even triple - adapters?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225125258958643200
What do you think? ... and by the way, what kind of AAM is this?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225125258958643200
> What do you think? ... and by the way, what kind of AAM is this?


https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fatf1FXd-FTF7vPWdA6dRA

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fatf1FXd-FTF7vPWdA6dRA






And any info on that unique unknown missile?


----------



## samsara

_The J-20 aerodynamic model was *first revealed* at a research exhibition on next-generation fighters in AVIC Chengdu (*2005*).

桜小路才華 2020.02.12








_

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> _The J-20 aerodynamic model was *first revealed* at a research exhibition on next-generation fighters in AVIC Chengdu (*2005*).
> 
> 桜小路才華 2020.02.12
> 
> View attachment 605073
> 
> View attachment 605072
> _




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227474327425212416

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

The 1st Chinese Air Force Air Brigade, based in Anshan, 170 km from the border with North Korea, reportedly received their first J-20. This would be the second front-line unit, and the 4th operational unit, to acquire this aircraft.

From East Pendulum/ Henry Kenhmann
La 1ère brigade d'aviation de l'armée de l'air chinoise, basée à Anshan, à 170 km de la frontière avec la Corée du Nord, aurait réceptionné leur premiers J-20. Il s'agirait donc de la 2e unité de première ligne, et la 4ème opérationnelle, à se doter de cet avion.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> The 1st Chinese Air Force Air Brigade, based in Anshan, 170 km from the border with North Korea, reportedly received their first J-20. This would be the second front-line unit, and the 4th operational unit, to acquire this aircraft.
> 
> From East Pendulum/ Henry Kenhmann
> La 1ère brigade d'aviation de l'armée de l'air chinoise, basée à Anshan, à 170 km de la frontière avec la Corée du Nord, aurait réceptionné leur premiers J-20. Il s'agirait donc de la 2e unité de première ligne, et la 4ème opérationnelle, à se doter de cet avion.
> 
> View attachment 606421




Can't wait for the first image and even more to know if they are WS-10C powered J-20As?!


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Can't wait for the first image and even more to know if they are WS-10C powered J-20As?!


The bloody PLAAF will always try to hide and try play low profile whatever they can especially with domestic engine used fighter...

All it takes was one article criticize them to force them to used Y-20 to do the airlift for Wuhan.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/20...-chinas-military-has-been-largely-mia/162950/

(Take Note of the date of posting )


BY PETER W. SINGERSTRATEGIST, NEW AMERICAREAD BIO
PETER WOODANALYST, BLUEPATH LABSREAD BIO
ALEX STONEANALYST, BLUEPATH LABSREAD BIO
FEBRUARY 6, 2020

_ *China has produced significant numbers of strategic Y-20 transport aircraft, bragging about the leap forward they offer to China’s ability to deploy at home and abroad, yet these have so far been notably absent from relief efforts.*_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Beast said:


> The bloody PLAAF will always try to hide and try play low profile whatever they can especially with domestic engine used fighter...
> 
> All it takes was one article criticize them to force them to used Y-20 to do the airlift for Wuhan.
> 
> https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/20...-chinas-military-has-been-largely-mia/162950/
> 
> (Take Note of the date of posting )
> 
> 
> BY PETER W. SINGERSTRATEGIST, NEW AMERICAREAD BIO
> PETER WOODANALYST, BLUEPATH LABSREAD BIO
> ALEX STONEANALYST, BLUEPATH LABSREAD BIO
> FEBRUARY 6, 2020
> 
> _ *China has produced significant numbers of strategic Y-20 transport aircraft, bragging about the leap forward they offer to China’s ability to deploy at home and abroad, yet these have so far been notably absent from relief efforts.*_


Lol @ thinking some article in some no-name Western rag forced the PLAAF's hand. Or, you know, they might have gone into action when the President ordered them to
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1179409.shtml
Would you rather the military just did whatever it felt like?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Lol @ thinking some article in some no-name Western rag forced the PLAAF's hand. Or, you know, they might have gone into action when the President ordered them to
> https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1179409.shtml
> Would you rather the military just did whatever it felt like?


But the date of the article and the almost immediate response of CPC to use Y-20 and mobilise large PLA can't rule out the fact, CPC is stung by these article to response.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khanivore

Click for larger images...



https://imgur.com/a/LfOmv83




https://imgur.com/a/WTYVwiB




https://imgur.com/a/L8Cl87D




https://imgur.com/a/jMK76y3

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Khanivore said:


> Click for larger images...
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/LfOmv83
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/WTYVwiB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/L8Cl87D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/jMK76y3





Figaro said:


> A J-20 with WS-10 in grey will indeed be a very pleasant surprise!


New engine. Your wish come true.


----------



## dbc

Beast said:


> New engine. Your wish come true.


I haven't read up on the J20 program in a while.

is that a pair of rail launched IR missiles hanging from the side bay? 
Interesting, any idea why this was done? Is it not possible to launch these missiles uncaged? Or does it take too long to open the side bay doors? Does this mean the aircraft is limited to two PL10s? 

Sorry if this was already discussed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> New engine. Your wish come true.




No, these are all old images and all are using the old engine.


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Khanivore

Hi guys, apologies if the images of J-20 above are old, Mods please feel free to remove them if need be.


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Khanivore said:


> Hi guys, apologies if the images of J-20 above are old, Mods please feel free to remove them if need be.



No problem; I only wanted to point out that these are not new ones and esp. not ones with the WS-10C ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> New engine. Your wish come true.


Bro those are obviously AL-31's! The Taihangs have a substantially different nozzle arrangements ...


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @B747SPNKG from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @机外停车Rabbit from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Funny artwork ! 






Via @Iron Eagle at Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

F-22, J-20, and Su-57










Via @彩虹熊_白玮 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Edwards

A short video of J20

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Khanivore



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Khanivore said:


>




Fan art


----------



## Khanivore

Deino said:


> Fan art


Please feel free to remove it.


----------



## Deino

Khanivore said:


> Please feel free to remove it.




No problem since anyway interesting. 

By the way, with the first WS-10 powered J-10C painted now and eventually close to being ready for delivery, what do you think, when will we see the first grey WS-10 powered J-20A??

@LKJ86 @Beast @lcloo


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> No problem since anyway interesting.
> 
> By the way, with the first WS-10 powered J-10C painted now and eventually close to being ready for delivery, what do you think, when will we see the first grey WS-10 powered J-20A??
> 
> @LKJ86 @Beast @lcloo


Not so soon. Maybe 3-4months later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> No problem since anyway interesting.
> 
> By the way, with the first WS-10 powered J-10C painted now and eventually close to being ready for delivery, what do you think, when will we see the first grey WS-10 powered J-20A??
> 
> @LKJ86 @Beast @lcloo


IMO, WS-10 powered J20 will rolled out from factory soon but they will keep the "photo leak" tight, I think the new engined J20 will make its "first appearance" in this year's Zhuhai 2020 Air show.

It is even possible that the some new WS-10 engined J20 are already in PLAAF.​

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

J-20, J-16, JL-10, and Su-30MKK







Via @空军发布 from Weixin and @yankeesama的帧察小队 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


> J-20, J-16, JL-10, and Su-30MKK
> View attachment 612325
> View attachment 612326
> 
> Via @空军发布 from Weixin and @yankeesama的帧察小队 from Weibo


No J-10C?


----------



## LKJ86

Beast said:


> No J-10C?


They are just from the same regiment...


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空天砺剑 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> They are just from the same regiment...




Looks like 172nd Air Brigade


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-20, J-16, JL-10, and Su-30MKK
> View attachment 612325
> View attachment 612326
> 
> Via @空军发布 from Weixin and @yankeesama的帧察小队 from Weibo



See here:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Old pics










Via @机外停车Rabbit from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Just for fun ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103717535050940416
... at first sight I thought it is the rumoured J-35 as a model!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 621696
> 
> Via @万全 from Weibo



Any idea what is the maximum dry & afterburning thrust WS10 can it tune? Dry 20,000lb & 31,000lb with afterburner? Or 22,000lb & 33,000lb respectively? 
Empty weight 42,000lb
Gross weight 71,000lb (larger internal fuel)

F22 dry thrust 26,000lb & 35,000lb with afterburner giving it high thrust to weight on dry thrust alone.
Empty weight 43,000lb
Gross weight 65,000lb

WS15 engine goal is to achieve 40,000lb with afterburner? It means dry thrust around 30,000lb? Looking at empty weight, the J20 is lighter than F22 and the gross weight depends on how much internal fuel it carries. The maximum takeoff weight also depends on armament payload. If it's not on long range strike interdiction, it could cut weight on internal fuel 15,000-18,000lb with 2x PL10 and 4x PL12, the WS10 thrust is adequate to power it around.


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250106914282901507
What do you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250106914282901507
> What do you think?


How can you tell its WS-10


----------



## ILC

For me, it looks like the usual Al-31

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## juj06750

Figaro said:


> How can you tell its WS-10


hey, annoying american
you ask the same question for years 
plz go to engine thread; thousands of asnwers for you;
this forum is not for repeated arguments but for exchange of solid evidence


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> hey, annoying american
> you ask the same question for years
> plz go to engine thread; thousands of asnwers for you;
> this forum is not for repeated arguments but for exchange of solid evidence



Hey, self-proclaimed China-specialist (in fact I try to avoid the term "annoying") ... please go to all the threads where you posted ridiculous claims without proof and against anything what all reliable "big-shrimps" post and prove what you post?! Otherwise such questions are more than legit ...

Therefore I only love to quote yourself "his forum is not for repeated arguments *but for exchange of solid evidence*" and none of these "solid evidence" You gave so far.

I would rate this post therefore as pure trolling!



Figaro said:


> How can you tell its WS-10



I cannot, my argument was that Yukikaze told me that it would be 100% for sure a WS-10C powered one - also since it is said to be a recent image taken at CAC and all J-20s built since last year are using that engine. Otherwise I agree, the nozzle is strange - too long and not dark enough - for a WS-10C.









ILC said:


> For me, it looks like the usual Al-31



I think you are correct, after looking again and again I think it is indeed a regular AL-31FN.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## juj06750

the pic quality is very low; hard to determine type of engine on it
but I rather discuss about why so many western foreigners are very sensitive to chinese engines
bringing such engine debate by just uploading uncertain pic is very ridicuous by itself
it never ends and goes forever on this forum 
I believe they really like the engine debate based on pic from uncertain media
again deino brought another pic for the unnecessary debate


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> the pic quality is very low; hard to determine type of engine on it
> but I rather discuss about why so many western foreigners are very sensitive to chinese engines
> bringing such engine debate by just uploading uncertain pic is very ridicuous by itself
> it never ends and goes forever on this forum
> I believe they really like the engine debate based on uncertain pic (especially deino)
> today deino brought another pic again




I think the main reason for our dispute are indeed actually cultural differences: While you constantly accuse me of better listening to Chinese sources - the right Chinese ones - instead of relying on foreign sources and photos only, I (and other long-noses too) do exactly the opposite: As long as nothing has been confirmed with a photo, there remains a doubt and if no photo, then at least that info must be from a reliable source. 
However, your statements (J-11B and J-15 are using already AESA, etc.) are not mentioned by any of the reliable Chinese sources, quite to the contrary, they even most often contradict you.

Therefore, at least as long as you don't provide a piece of evidence or proof, your statements are at exactly on the same level of reliability as all Indian statements, the Tejas Mk. 2 will be SUUUPER soon and Orca as a twin-engined development will be even better.

I'm a nature scientist, I studied Chemistry and Biology and therefore I simply cannot believe any claim without a proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

juj06750 said:


> View attachment 623734
> the pic quality is very low; hard to determine type of engine on it
> but I rather discuss about why so many western foreigners are very sensitive to chinese engines
> bringing such engine debate by just uploading uncertain pic is very ridicuous by itself
> it never ends and goes forever on this forum
> I believe they really like the engine debate based on pic from uncertain media
> again deino brought another pic for the unnecessary debate


What a ridiculous attack ... what does @Deino being a "western foreigner" have anything to do with his evaluation of the jet engine? Please explain



juj06750 said:


> hey, annoying american
> you ask the same question for years
> plz go to engine thread; thousands of asnwers for you;
> this forum is not for repeated arguments but for exchange of solid evidence


They are obviously AL-31s if you look closely ... not WS-10 I'm afraid. Am I annoying just because I tell you the truth you wish not to hear ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @pupu-2012 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LKJ86

Via @钢铁机机 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Daniel808

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 624741
> 
> Via @钢铁机机 from Weibo



J-31 is much bigger than I thought before


----------



## Beidou2020

juj06750 said:


> View attachment 623734
> the pic quality is very low; hard to determine type of engine on it
> but I rather discuss about why so many western foreigners are very sensitive to chinese engines
> bringing such engine debate by just uploading uncertain pic is very ridicuous by itself
> it never ends and goes forever on this forum
> I believe they really like the engine debate based on pic from uncertain media
> again deino brought another pic for the unnecessary debate



Ignore him. No one takes that guy seriously on this forum or the other one on anything related to China.


----------



## Beast

Daniel808 said:


> J-31 is much bigger than I thought before


In fact, J-31 is not a small plane. It just that J-20 is very big.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beidou2020 said:


> Ignore him. No one takes that guy seriously on this forum or the other one on anything related to China.




But you and he is taken seriously?? For all his claims with not a single proof!? Not sure if a look at your score is a reason to believe you more.


----------



## LKJ86

Beast said:


> It just that J-20 is very big.


Not bigger than Su-27.


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> Not bigger than Su-27.


BIGGER THAN SU-57/F-22 NUT DEFINITELY SMALLER THAN SU-27


----------



## LKJ86

seven0seven said:


> BIGGER THAN SU-57/F-22 NUT DEFINITELY SMALLER THAN SU-27

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## PeacefulWar

Beidou2020 said:


> Ignore him. No one takes that guy seriously on this forum or the other one on anything related to China.


LOL
Deino is much more knowledgeable and trustable than most Chinese military watchers.
His analysis and educated guesses make a lot of senses to me.

As far as I know in this forum, I only find two guys can be called as Chinese military expects, they are @Deino and @LKJ86 .

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> But you and he is taken seriously?? For all his claims with not a single proof!? Not sure if a look at your score is a reason to believe you more.
> 
> View attachment 624968


I wouldn't go with that argument if I were you. His like to post ratio is quite high which indicates his popularity. The negative ratings mean nothing, it's just a small group of completely undeserving people on this forum who can give these ratings. I'm sure you know that there are a bunch of pro-America ball washers, radical Islamists, jihadi sympathizers, etc. in that group.


PeacefulWar said:


> As far as I know in this forum, I only find two guys can be called as Chinese military expects


Nobody here is an "expert", we collect pictures and rumours from the Chinese internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PeacefulWar

ZeEa5KPul said:


> I wouldn't go with that argument if I were you. His like to post ratio is quite high which indicates his popularity. The negative ratings mean nothing, it's just a small group of completely undeserving people on this forum who can give these ratings. I'm sure you know that there are a bunch of pro-America ball washers, radical Islamists, jihadi sympathizers, etc. in that group.
> 
> Nobody here is an "expert", we collect pictures and rumours from the Chinese internet.


Expert doesn't mean he has connections or inside information. Those can collect information and *analyse* these information *intellectually *are experts *to me*.


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 608944
> 
> Via @B747SPNKG from Weibo



Great shot. Any truth to the news/rumor of a J-20 crashing a few weeks ago, I think it was?
Keep up the great work. Always enjoy seeing the pics you post.


----------



## LKJ86

Gomig-21 said:


> Any truth to the news/rumor of a J-20 crashing a few weeks ago, I think it was?


I just heard the news of a F-22 crashing...

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> I just heard the news of a F-22 crashing...



Yeah I just saw that. The other news was probably a rumor started on Twitter or something like that.


----------



## Figaro

Gomig-21 said:


> Great shot. Any truth to the news/rumor of a J-20 crashing a few weeks ago, I think it was?
> Keep up the great work. Always enjoy seeing the pics you post.


Cite the rumor ...


----------



## Ultima Thule

kungfugymnast said:


> Anyone wanted to compare the cockpit seat, comfort and interior space? If any of you been into the seat of US F/A-18, F-16, F-15 vs Russian Mig-29S, Su-27, you will prefer to sit in US aircraft.
> 
> Russian design puts cost on top priority therefore it is narrow, small and cramp inside especially when you're tall and big size, you'll need to slowly slide in after climbing into cockpit like small car inside. Despite SU-27 larger than all fighters, its cockpit is also narrow and cramped inside.
> 
> US fighters at the other hand put comfort, spacing as 1 of priority ensuring pilots on long mission won't suffer much. You tall and big size could still easily get into the cockpit and sit comfortably with ample space to rest hand leg, strecth out a little to relax when flying long hours with inflight refueling during BARCAP in conflict zone. Even the small F-16C interior is more spacious than Mig-29S.
> 
> Anyone knows how is the cockpit space of J-20 and J-10C?


@Deino please stop @kungfugymnast for off topic discussions and do you know what is the space of cockpits of F-22/F-35 and stop derailing the thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

J-20 MIGHTY DRAGON WITH FOUR DROP TANK

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

monitor said:


> View attachment 632960
> 
> J-20 MIGHTY DRAGON WITH FOUR DROP TANK



But that's a very old image... 2014 I would guess without checking.


----------



## monitor

Deino said:


> But that's a very old image... 2014 I would guess without checking.


 Opps. I didn't see it before that's why after found it in twitter is post it here.


----------



## Deino

monitor said:


> Opps. I didn't see it before that's why after found it in twitter is post it here.




No problem ... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261685563364704261

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

monitor said:


> View attachment 632960
> 
> J-20 MIGHTY DRAGON WITH FOUR DROP TANK


very bad look quickly remove them before its lays eggs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulWar

Imran Khan said:


> very bad look quickly remove them before its lays eggs


Hahaha, indeed looks a bit ugly.
Stealth drop tanks are needed for J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @钢铁机机 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## samsara

As posted by our Int'l moderator, Rupprecht Deino on 22 May:

Interesting *what-if conceptual artwork* of a multirole *twin-seater variant* of the J-20. 

(Artwork by @钢铁机机 from Weibo)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263847010211414017

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 with WS-10
Maybe on January 26, 2019







Via @谢婷的独家摄影师 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 with WS-10
> Maybe on January 26, 2019
> View attachment 635481
> View attachment 635482
> 
> Via @谢婷的独家摄影师 from Weibo


Wow ... that is 1.5 years ago


----------



## LKJ86

Via @东部战区 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

By 杨军

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 636405
> 
> By 杨军




Any news concerning the J-20s allegedly assigned to Anshan? ... and still no images of a grey-painted J-20A with the WS-10C??


----------



## Deino

For the second time am image of the J-20 prototype no. 2013 was revealed with these unique AAM pylon adapters, but this time much clearer.

(Image by @秋秋Q30 at Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> For the second time am image of the J-20 prototype no. 2013 was revealed with these unique AAM pylon adapters, but this time much clearer.
> 
> (Image by @秋秋Q30 at Weibo)
> 
> View attachment 636924



Wasn’t this taken several years ago?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Wasn’t this taken several years ago?




Yes, but posted only now

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zapper




----------



## Brainsucker

Zapper said:


>



This all over again? Duh. Don't we have discuss this matter long time ago in this forum?


----------



## juj06750

Zapper said:


>


another fool newcomer arrives here
asking the long ended issue over again 
it was up to russia; go to su35 thread for the answer

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Zapper said:


>




Oh well a a piece of BS and as it seems you only can post such crappy dated and misinformed propaganda videos!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Zapper said:


>


What's the point of posting a crap video in this thread when you know it is going to be torn apart?


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> What's the point of posting a crap video in this thread when you know it is going to be torn apart?




Just to provoke!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

*China’s J-20 fighter jet has ‘beast mode’ for arms like F-35: reports*

By Liu Xuanzun - Source: Global Times
Published: 2020/6/3

China's J-20 fighter jet has been spotted equipped with pylon adapters under its wings, indicating the stealth aircraft may also be able to enter a "*beast mode*" like the US' F-35 fighter jet if needed by giving up some stealth capability in exchange for larger weapons loads, reports said.

A J-20 prototype taking a test flight had *two external pylon adapters*, one under each side of its wings, and could carry a total of *four extra missiles*, Shanghai-based news website *eastday.com* reported on Monday, citing a recent photo widely circulated on Chinese social media.

Judging by a performance flight at Airshow China 2018, *a single J-20 can carry at least four PL-15 missiles in its main weapon bay and two PL-10 short-range combat missiles in its side weapon bays*, when not using external adapters.

Usually, stealth aircraft hide their weapons in bays to keep a low radar profile, making them difficult to be detected, and *using external pylons to carry weapons will make them less stealthy but more powerful*, a Chinese military expert who asked for anonymity told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The warplanes can choose different types of loadouts *according to different mission requirements*, the expert said.

This is similar to the US' F-35 fighter jet, which has a "stealth mode" that can only carry a small amount of internal ordnance and a "beast mode" that can carry a lot more internal and external ordnance, the eastday.com report said.

Stealth aircraft can use "stealth mode" to seize aerial superiority, and once the sky is clear and safe, they can ditch stealth and switch to "beast mode" by carrying more munitions via external adapters and launch extended attacks, the report said.

The photo indicates that the J-20 could enter a "beast mode" like the F-35 when engaged *in low-risk and low-threat missions*, eastday.com reported, noting that the J-20 could also carry external fuel tanks for extended range.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zectech

Ok, I am going to get ridiculed for stating the obvious...

External pylons can carry PL-15?

Fire every external PL-15s at 300km distance or greater. Drop pylons if they interfere with stealth, go back into stealth mode from beast. Change altitude and position if any missiles were fired at you and keep track of your missiles while you do this. You still have your internal weapons for closer kill zone range or whatever that is called where nobody escapes from the Air to Air Missile.

This is effective against 4th gen fighter.

Can also work for defensive tactics where your ground radars pick up their 5th gen fighters at very long range. First wave of enemy fighters are destroyed. Still have every missile in internal bay for second wave outside your ground radar range.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

zectech said:


> Ok, I am going to get ridiculed for stating the obvious...
> 
> External pylons can carry PL-15?
> 
> Fire every external PL-15s at 300km distance or greater. Drop pylons if they interfere with stealth, go back into stealth mode from beast. Change altitude and position if any missiles were fired at you and keep track of your missiles while you do this. You still have your internal weapons for closer kill zone range or whatever that is called where nobody escapes from the Air to Air Missile.
> 
> This is effective against 4th gen fighter.
> 
> Can also work for defensive tactics where your ground radars pick up their 5th gen fighters at very long range. First wave of enemy fighters are destroyed. Still have every missile in internal bay for second wave outside your ground radar range.



PL-15 does not have anywhere near 300km range. Even if dropped from near to space and at mach 2. PL-15 roughly 150km at absolutely maximum and more realistically is used around 70km range fired depending on conditions and purpose. Only PL-xx maybe R-37 extended range have this sort of 300km range.


----------



## Ultima Thule

serenity said:


> PL-15 does not have anywhere near 300km range. Even if dropped from near to space and at mach 2. PL-15 roughly 150km at absolutely maximum and more realistically is used around 70km range fired depending on conditions and purpose. Only PL-xx maybe R-37 extended range have this sort of 300km range.


Isn't PL-15's range is in between 150-205 km sir various website quoted sir, and R-37 has range of near 400 km, not sure what is the range of PL-XX because its still in a testing/development phase sir


----------



## IblinI

IAU said:


> Isn't PL-15's range is in between 150-205 km sir various website quoted sir, and R-37 has range of near 400 km, not sure what is the range of PL-XX because its still in a testing/development phase sir


So many projects is going on, don't trusted the social media and so called article from "military analyst".


----------



## Ultima Thule

IblinI said:


> So many projects is going on, don't trusted the social media and so called article from "military analyst".


No i am tell you respected military websites like Jane's/ flight global/Aviation weekly, saying that PL-15 have range of 150-200 km


----------



## IblinI

IAU said:


> No i am tell you respected military websites like Jane's/ flight global/Aviation weekly, saying that PL-15 have range of 150-200 km


Don't know if the numbers are right, but if comes to credibility,the foreign magazine are not better off than some social medias, they have been proven wrong many times.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

What is max payload for J-20?
12 tons and above? 
The airframe is very light. 
And why not? It is also a capable multi-role fighter and not just an air superiority fighter.


----------



## Ultima Thule

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> What is max payload for J-20?
> 12 tons and above?
> The airframe is very light.
> And why not? It is also a capable multi-role fighter and not just an air superiority fighter.


And how do you know that airframe is very light yeah right word is for multi-role stealth jet but remember main mission of j20 is air superiority to deny opponents at long ranges ground strike will always be a secondary mission for j20


----------



## vi-va

serenity said:


> PL-15 does not have anywhere near 300km range. Even if dropped from near to space and at mach 2. PL-15 roughly 150km at absolutely maximum and more realistically is used around 70km range fired depending on conditions and purpose. Only PL-xx maybe R-37 extended range have this sort of 300km range.


There is no absolute range for any missile, it totally depends on your target, their maneuverability, speed, directions and more importantly their electronic warfare system.

If your target is running away at March 2.5, range decrease.
If your target is running toward you at March 2.5, range increase.
If your target is P-8, or C-17, or KC-10, KC-46, range increase.
If your target is Boeing E-3 Sentry, range decrease.

So any figure on PL-15 range is misleading at least, it varies as many other systems as well, such as S-300, HQ-9, etc.


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> There is no absolute range for any missile, it totally depends on your target, their maneuverability, speed, directions and more importantly their electronic warfare system.
> 
> If your target is running away at March 2.5, range decrease.
> If your target is running toward you at March 2.5, range increase.
> If your target is P-8, or C-17, or KC-10, KC-46, range increase.
> If your target is Boeing E-3 Sentry, range decrease.
> 
> So any figure on PL-15 range is misleading at least, it varies as many other systems as well, such as S-300, HQ-9, etc.


How can j20 target E-3 with pl15 then the range is decreases, E-3 is a large aircraft based on airliner


----------



## vi-va

IAU said:


> And how do you know that airframe is very light yeah right word is for multi-role stealth jet but remember main mission of j20 is air superiority to deny opponents at long ranges ground strike will always be a secondary mission for j20


The designer of J-20 officially said J-20 reached and surpassed the F-22 lift coefficient, and found those F-22 lift coefficient was over advertised, and hormone. But J-20 still made it.

I have proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zectech

serenity said:


> PL-15 does not have anywhere near 300km range. Even if dropped from near to space and at mach 2. PL-15 roughly 150km at absolutely maximum and more realistically is used around 70km range fired depending on conditions and purpose. Only PL-xx maybe R-37 extended range have this sort of 300km range.



However, while the PL-12 has a range of approximately 100 kilometers, the P-15 is reportedly capable of destroying targets at a distance of 300km or even 400km, Kashin pointed out.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pl-15.htm

So global security is not reliable. Thanks.


----------



## zhxy

Is Chengdu better than ShenYang?


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> The designer of J-20 officially said J-20 reached and surpassed the F-22 lift coefficient, and found those F-22 lift coefficient was over advertised, and hormone. But J-20 still made it.
> 
> I have proof.


Oh bro lift coefficient is other things i don't want to start endless debate with you , you clearly lack the aviation terms interpretation i am talking about how do you know that j20 has light airframe as compare to other 5th gen jets


----------



## vi-va

IAU said:


> How can j20 target E-3 with pl15 then the range is decreases, E-3 is a large aircraft based on airliner


E-3 electronic warfare is much stronger than PL-15. Nowadays, modern Air-to-Air missile seeker are totally independent, missile itself is a small airplane, with it's own electronic warfare system, AESA radar, some use infrared seeker. 

But long range AtoA seeker are AESA radar, wider visual field. Next generation may integrate both AESA and Infrared seeker.

When PL-15 AESA confront with E-3 electronic warfare, little chance to win.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

Of course. All the ranges can be very inaccurate figures. Same with S-400 made up figures of 400km for longest range. Yes 400km against static target at low to medium altitude and when the missile hits target the missile itself has almost no energy for turning. So basically it is to say that the maximum ranges is useless. Same for PL-15. Anyway PL-15 range is 150km with most information suggested. Although this is about right for its size. Medium range air to air missile like R-77, AMRAAM, PL-12, and R-27 are all having ranges quite less than 100km as supported by official numbers. This is their near maximum effective range at usual launch speeds and who knows how high. Only modern version of these missiles have extended ranges to around 100KM and over this. PL-15 is about 150km at maximum. Ridiculous to say it is 300km range. PL-12 range is roughly 70km to 100km depending on launching conditions and what version of missile. PL-15 is impossible to triple this in almost same size

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

zectech said:


> However, while the PL-12 has a range of approximately 100 kilometers, the P-15 is reportedly capable of destroying targets at a distance of 300km or even 400km, Kashin pointed out.
> Global security is not updated since years
> And everyone knows that pl15 have a range of 150-200 km same in same class as AMRAAM D OR C7 WHICH HAS A RANGE OF 160 KM
> 
> https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pl-15.htm
> 
> So global security is not reliable. Thanks.


----------



## serenity

viva_zhao said:


> The designer of J-20 officially said J-20 reached and surpassed the F-22 lift coefficient, and found those F-22 lift coefficient was over advertised, and hormone. But J-20 still made it.
> 
> I have proof.



Chinese forums express doubt over this because we cannot be certain what F-22 lift is and true weight is. The Chengdu engineers claim to know some secrets but these are just claims.


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> E-3 electronic warfare is much stronger than PL-15. Nowadays, modern Air-to-Air missile seeker are totally independent, missile itself is a small airplane, with it's own electronic warfare system, AESA radar, some use infrared seeker.
> 
> But long range AtoA seeker are AESA radar, wider visual field. Next generation may integrate both AESA and Infrared seeker.
> 
> When PL-15 AESA confront with E-3 electronic warfare, little chance to win.


OH BRO I AM ASKING ABOUT HOW PL15 WILL HAVE LESS RANGE AGAINST E-3 J20 MIGHT DETECT E-3 AT LONG RANGES LETS SAY 250-300 KM
AND AS FOR YOUR INFORMATION E-3 IS NOT ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT BUT AN AWACS
E-8 JSTAR IS A ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT OF USAF


----------



## serenity

IAU said:


> How can j20 target E-3 with pl15 then the range is decreases, E-3 is a large aircraft based on airliner



J-20 can still aim for E-3 like aircraft with PL-12 and fire from 50km away. If they can detect J-20 from 200km then they obviously have full advantage but I think they will struggle and maybe around 50 to 100km detection and J-16 launches some very long range missiles, J-20 provide forward targeting.

Most BVR is at 30km or maybe a bit more for high chance of kill. Beyond 100km no one has yet recorded any such things! Modern BVR missile max range is around 70km in real world effectiveness not some dream of 200km kill. Only Meteor missile offers good range and high energy so high probability of kill. J-20 will be using some new missiles and probably already been using. PLA will not show anything until years after and replacement nearly done. PL-12 is so old and PL-15 should be standard but it is too expensive to mass produce when no war is happening. If there is threat of war, we switch completely to PL-15 and upgraded version of different missiles.


----------



## vi-va

IAU said:


> Oh bro lift coefficient is other things i don't want to start endless debate with you , you clearly lack the aviation terms interpretation i am talking about how do you know that j20 has light airframe as compare to other 5th gen jets


F-22 lift coefficient is public, at least US Airforce boasted their number. J-20 designer made it, and surpass F-22. Those designer complained a lot, they initially thought this is mission impossible, but still made it eventually.

And the designer finally found F-22 is not as good as they boasted. It was old cold war tactic. Those designer has their channel to get the spec we don't know.

I can assure you, Chinese culture don't and hate boast, those designers can NOT lie on those sensitive issues.

Lighter is a relative number, it depends on the total weight. F-22 is designed with less than 60000 hydraulic press machine. To make it lighter, China built world biggest hydraulic press machine. Biggest Die forging machine.

Those kind of debate is meaningless. But I watched J-20 designer interview, they beat F-22 on many aspect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

zectech said:


> However, while the PL-12 has a range of approximately 100 kilometers, the P-15 is reportedly capable of destroying targets at a distance of 300km or even 400km, Kashin pointed out.
> 
> https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pl-15.htm
> 
> So global security is not reliable. Thanks.



Definitely not reliable. I notice most english information on Chinese military stuff is usually very rare to find something honest and accurate. Often they get it so wrong and either it is too low or too high. PL-15 is around 150km range. 300km range is hard to ask from even PL-xx types, there are ballistic version and ramjet versions all should be at most 300km and much larger than PL-15 in size. Honestly 150km range is highly impressive. Close to Meteor and higher than reported best AMRAAM version from most modern upgrade.


----------



## Ultima Thule

serenity said:


> J-20 can target E-3 with anything! Why must it be with 50000km range missiles?! I don't understand so many members here. Is it really difficult to understand? J-20 can still aim for E-3 like aircraft with PL-12 and fire from 50km away. If they can detect J-20 from 200km then they obviously have full advantage but I think they will struggle and maybe around 50 to 100km detection and J-16 launches some very long range missiles, J-20 provide forward targeting.
> 
> Most BVR is at 30km or maybe a bit more for high chance of kill. Beyond 100km no one has yet recorded any such things! Modern BVR missile max range is around 70km in real world effectiveness not some dream of 200km kill. Only Meteor missile offers good range and high energy so high probability of kill. J-20 will be using some new missiles and probably already been using. PLA will not show anything until years after and replacement nearly done. PL-12 is so old and PL-15 should be standard but it is too expensive to mass produce when no war is happening. If there is threat of war, we switch completely to PL-15 and upgraded version of different missiles.


Oh bro don't live in the fools world technology is increasingly sophisticated and please do tell me why USA and Russia develop AIM-154 and R-33 in 70 nearly both have a range of 200 km and why USAF develop meteor like BVR if ducted rocket motor powered BVR is so effective and meteor has its own problem its intake creates drag so its kinetic performance degrades fairly quickly


----------



## vi-va

IAU said:


> OH BRO I AM ASKING ABOUT HOW PL15 WILL HAVE LESS RANGE AGAINST E-3 J20 MIGHT DETECT E-3 AT LONG RANGES LETS SAY 250-300 KM
> AND AS FOR YOUR INFORMATION E-3 IS NOT ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT BUT AN AWACS
> E-8 JSTAR IS A ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT OF USAF


Every AWACS is electronic warfare system compare with small AtoA missile. Their system is capable to detect and confront with small seeker. This is basic self defense of AWACS.

Detecting E-3 from 1000 is meaningless. You can NOT make a kill. To make a kill, first you need to penetrate their defense system, usually will be F-22, F-35, RIM-67 Standard ER. Get closer, and fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

viva_zhao said:


> F-22 lift coefficient is public, at least US Airforce boasted their number. J-20 designer made it, and surpass F-22. Those designer complained a lot, they initially thought this is mission impossible, but still made it eventually.
> 
> And the designer finally found F-22 is not as good as they boasted. It was old cold war tactic. Those designer has their channel to get the spec we don't know.
> 
> I can assure you, Chinese culture don't and hate boast, those designers can NOT lie on those sensitive issues.
> 
> Lighter is a relative number, it depends on the total weight. F-22 is designed with less than 60000 hydraulic press machine. To make it lighter, China built world biggest hydraulic press machine. Biggest Die forging machine.
> 
> Those kind of debate is meaningless. But I watched J-20 designer interview, they beat F-22 on many aspect.



J-20 can surpass F-22 lift due to HUGE canard application and ventral fins. Our fighter is also quite light for its size and for stealth fighter. Around 18 tonnes according to whispers. Heavier than flanker but for stealth fighter, it is surprisingly light. According to them, done by new manufacturing processes and material processing and 3D printing some parts. Also our metamaterials for the skin is high end stealth unlike what Americans love to say. Our fighter is as stealthy as their's on F-35 and better than F-22. F-22 uses old stealth method of materials and paint. Already seen them breaking off and cracking only after 10 years and still they store them very preciously. Their F-35 matched our's with metamaterials latest generation stealth technology but their systems and engines are probably much better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> Every AWACS is electronic warfare system compare with small AtoA missile. Their system is capable to detect and confront with small seeker. This is basic self defense of AWACS.
> 
> Detecting E-3 from 1000 is meaningless. You can NOT make a kill. To make a kill, first you need to penetrate their defense system, usually will be F-22, F-35, RIM-67 Standard ER. Get closer, and fire.


 I am still waiting for my ANSWER why pl15 have a decrease range against E-3
And when any one can try to shoot down an E-3 like targets not single fighter jet try to shoot down AWACS like targets but fighter jets comes into a whole package with your AWACS/electronic warfare aircraft and support aircraft etc etc


----------



## serenity

What is this conversation about? E-3 is defended by many layers of things. Killing it means either the PL-xx with long range like above 150km maybe up to 300km can slip through and hit it, then yes it is killable. Who said J-20 and PL-15 is there to kill E-3?? J-20 and PL-15 only improves PLAAF fighting ability. Up to doing more in terms of presenting some dangers to E-3 and those types of aircraft. It is not 100% or 0%.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

serenity said:


> What is this conversation about? E-3 is defended by many layers of things. Killing it means either the PL-xx with long range like above 150km maybe up to 300km can slip through and hit it, then yes it is killable. Who said J-20 and PL-15 is there to kill E-3?? J-20 and PL-15 only improves PLAAF fighting ability. Up to doing more in terms of presenting some dangers to E-3 and those types of aircraft. It is not 100% or 0%.


To deny E-3 mission and most BVR are not fire at max range to increase a chance of hit all BVR fired in NEZ( NO ESCAPE ZONE) to increase the chance of hit and its lot bigger than as compare to NEZ against fighter jets


----------



## vi-va

IAU said:


> To deny E-3 mission and most BVR are not fire at max range to increase a chance of hit all BVR fired in NEZ( NO ESCAPE ZONE) to increase the chance of hit and its lot bigger than as compare to NEZ against fighter jets


E-3 no escape zone is smaller than fighter, that's for sure. The problem is not maneuverability, it's electronic warfare.


viva_zhao said:


> There is no absolute range for any missile, it totally depends on your target, their maneuverability, speed, directions and more importantly their electronic warfare system.
> 
> If your target is running away at March 2.5, range decrease.
> If your target is running toward you at March 2.5, range increase.
> If your target is P-8, or C-17, or KC-10, KC-46, range increase.
> If your target is Boeing E-3 Sentry, range decrease.
> 
> So any figure on PL-15 range is misleading at least, it varies as many other systems as well, such as S-300, HQ-9, etc.


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> E-3 no escape zone is smaller than fighter, that's for sure. The problem is not maneuverability, it's electronic warfare


Why its large aircraft this shows you you have no knowledge about military aviation


----------



## vi-va

IAU said:


> Why its large aircraft this shows you you have no knowledge about military aviation


My major is C4ISR, what do you think?


----------



## Ultima Thule

viva_zhao said:


> My major is C4ISR, what do you think?


Its about RCS not whether its C4ISR platform or not


----------



## Deino

Guys ... can we stick to the topic plaese!

Not sure how far the RCS of an E-3 or C4ISR is relevant in a longer discussion?!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dbc

serenity said:


> J-20 can surpass F-22 lift due to HUGE canard application and ventral fins. Our fighter is also quite light for its size and for stealth fighter. Around 18 tonnes according to whispers. Heavier than flanker but for stealth fighter, it is surprisingly light. According to them, done by new manufacturing processes and material processing and 3D printing some parts. Also our metamaterials for the skin is high end stealth unlike what Americans love to say. Our fighter is as stealthy as their's on F-35 and better than F-22. F-22 uses old stealth method of materials and paint. Already seen them breaking off and cracking only after 10 years and still they store them very preciously. Their F-35 matched our's with metamaterials latest generation stealth technology but their systems and engines are probably much better.



Where do you get this from? Photos of the J20?.


----------



## Indos

serenity said:


> J-20 can surpass F-22 lift due to HUGE canard application and ventral fins. Our fighter is also quite light for its size and for stealth fighter. Around 18 tonnes according to whispers. Heavier than flanker but for stealth fighter, it is surprisingly light. According to them, done by new manufacturing processes and material processing and 3D printing some parts. Also our metamaterials for the skin is high end stealth unlike what Americans love to say. Our fighter is as stealthy as their's on F-35 and better than F-22. F-22 uses old stealth method of materials and paint. Already seen them breaking off and cracking only after 10 years and still they store them very preciously. Their F-35 matched our's with metamaterials latest generation stealth technology but their systems and engines are probably much better.



J 20 empty weight is 19.391 kg, but KFX/IFX is much lighter with 11.800 kg while it has longer range and more speed. J20 is also quite big, so it will likely to have bigger RCS. So your statement saying J20 is surprisingly light compared to another Stealth Fighter is not true.


----------



## Deino

Trumpeter's J-20 in 1/48

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1WD4y1D7YG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zectech

serenity said:


> Only PL-xx maybe R-37 extended range have this sort of 300km range.



PL-XX do not fit in internal bay of J-20? Then use the same example above in putting PL-XX on external pylons for certain select missions. South China seas patrols with Island radar providing enemy stealth detection, is a possible scenario for using J-20s with PL-XX. Over India they would be useless, for stealth cover would be lost. Over Korea the same. Only over you own territory/open ocean can such a tactic be somewhat useful in certain cases.


----------



## dbc

viva_zhao said:


> F-22 lift coefficient is public, at least US Airforce boasted their number. J-20 designer made it, and surpass F-22. Those designer complained a lot, they initially thought this is mission impossible, but still made it eventually.
> 
> And the designer finally found F-22 is not as good as they boasted. It was old cold war tactic. Those designer has their channel to get the spec we don't know.
> 
> I can assure you, Chinese culture don't and hate boast, those designers can NOT lie on those sensitive issues.
> 
> Lighter is a relative number, it depends on the total weight. F-22 is designed with less than 60000 hydraulic press machine. To make it lighter, China built world biggest hydraulic press machine. Biggest Die forging machine.
> 
> Those kind of debate is meaningless. But I watched J-20 designer interview, they beat F-22 on many aspect.



So the J20 designer claims the J20 is more maneuverable and agile than the Raptor?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

dbc said:


> So the J20 designer claims the J20 is more maneuverable and agile than the Raptor?


I didn't say that. But he said J-20 has better lift coefficient.


----------



## dbc

viva_zhao said:


> I didn't say that. But he said J-20 has better lift coefficient.


You said the J20 beat the Raptor in many aspects according to the J20 chief designer.
Lift coefficient is one but an Airbus A380 also has a better lift coefficient than the Raptor-so what?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

dbc said:


> You said the J20 beat the Raptor in many aspects according to the J20 chief designer.
> Lift coefficient is one but an Airbus A380 also has a better lift coefficient than the Raptor-so what?


I am out of this question.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

viva_zhao said:


> F-22 lift coefficient is public, at least US Airforce boasted their number. J-20 designer made it, and surpass F-22. Those designer complained a lot, they initially thought this is mission impossible, but still made it eventually.
> 
> And the designer finally found F-22 is not as good as they boasted. It was old cold war tactic. Those designer has their channel to get the spec we don't know.
> 
> I can assure you, Chinese culture don't and hate boast, those designers can NOT lie on those sensitive issues.
> 
> Lighter is a relative number, it depends on the total weight. F-22 is designed with less than 60000 hydraulic press machine. To make it lighter, China built world biggest hydraulic press machine. Biggest Die forging machine.
> 
> Those kind of debate is meaningless. But I watched J-20 designer interview, they beat F-22 on many aspect.


You are absolutely right. 
J-20 airframe is supposedly constructed using a very special alloy with lithium, titanium and aluminum. It is also very light in weight.


----------



## samsara

dbc said:


> You said the J20 beat the Raptor in many aspects according to the J20 chief designer.
> Lift coefficient is one but an Airbus A380 also has a better lift coefficient than the Raptor-so what?


Moreover the A380 can even carry more loads, and have longer flight range.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

zectech said:


> PL-XX do not fit in internal bay of J-20? Then use the same example above in putting PL-XX on external pylons for certain select missions. South China seas patrols with Island radar providing enemy stealth detection, is a possible scenario for using J-20s with PL-XX. Over India they would be useless, for stealth cover would be lost. Over Korea the same. Only over you own territory/open ocean can such a tactic be somewhat useful in certain cases.



Yes PL-xx is too large for J-20. J-20 is more for operating in front and share data to J-16 and other fighters. AEWC aircraft and J-16 also share data with J-20. I don't think J-20 will be asked for carry any long range missiles. Only PL-12 improvements and PL-15 slim versions. It should carry 6 medium range not 4 because 4 is for the older larger PL-15.



Indos said:


> J 20 empty weight is 19.391 kg, but KFX/IFX is much lighter with 11.800 kg while it has longer range and more speed. J20 is also quite big, so it will likely to have bigger RCS. So your statement saying J20 is surprisingly light compared to another Stealth Fighter is not true.



KFX and IFX is no even in prototype. Talk about 11.8 tonne weight after service. F-22 and F-35 true weight is secret but stealth fighter are much heavier that's why I said J-20 is light for its size and being a stealth fighter of that size. It is nearly F-22 weight. Lift is claimed by Chengdu engineers to be better than F-22's which they thought was excellent. This is believable but just claims. Believable because J-20 has huge canards for extra lift unlike F-22's arrangement its horizontal stabilizer does not add much lift at all due to flow of air after wings. Like F-35 and F-22, J-20 also incorporates a lifting body design. RCS depends on materials nowadays and how to manage the electronics and other spectrums of active and passive sensors. The aircraft itself relies all on metamaterials, workmanship, and good shaping. J-20 has good shaping and workmanship on surface and some official leaks also show some metamaterials even hinting next generation of materials can do things from children's imagination. Lockheed Martin already trialing some exotic things I bet and some videos they also hint at them. One is circuit one is invisibility to eye and of course all moving surfaces for much more variability in the geometry.



dbc said:


> You said the J20 beat the Raptor in many aspects according to the J20 chief designer.
> Lift coefficient is one but an Airbus A380 also has a better lift coefficient than the Raptor-so what?



F-22 vs Airbus then. So nothing truly but also for similar class fighters, then there is something. It doesn't matter much though because all depends on speed and altitude. F-22 has much better engines anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dbc

serenity said:


> F-22 vs Airbus then. So nothing truly but also for similar class fighters, then there is something. It doesn't matter much though because all depends on speed and altitude. F-22 has much better engines anyway.



The canard on the J20 generates both lift and drag which is further aggravated by the need to constantly negate pitching moment caused by the canard. This is one of the compromises of a close coupled canard design and hence the need to carry lots of fuel internally. Looking at the Lift coefficient in isolation is not the best way to compare aerodynamic efficiency of two platforms and hence my rather sarcastic remark about the Airbus A380.

Drag is the price paid to obtain lift. The lift to drag ratio (L/D) is the amount of lift generated by a wing or airfoil compared to its drag. The lift/drag ratio is used to express the relation between lift and drag and is determined by dividing the *lift coefficient by the drag coefficient*, CL/CD. A ratio of L/D indicates airfoil efficiency. Aircraft with higher L/D ratios are more efficient than those with lower L/D ratios.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

dbc said:


> The canard on the J20 generates both lift and drag which is further aggravated by the need to constantly negate pitching moment caused by the canard. This is one of the compromises of a close coupled canard design and hence the need to carry lots of fuel internally. Looking at the Lift coefficient in isolation is not the best way to compare aerodynamic efficiency of two platforms and hence my rather sarcastic remark about the Airbus A380.
> 
> Drag is the price paid to obtain lift. The lift to drag ratio (L/D) is the amount of lift generated by a wing or airfoil compared to its drag. The lift/drag ratio is used to express the relation between lift and drag and is determined by dividing the *lift coefficient by the drag coefficient*, CL/CD. A ratio of L/D indicates airfoil efficiency. Aircraft with higher L/D ratios are more efficient than those with lower L/D ratios.



*J-20 is NOT a close coupled canard*. All airfoils produce drag which is redundant comment. The canards presence offer the J-20 more lift than without canard. This is the point. J-20 has more lift with the canards than with conventional tail design.

Thank you for reminder of basic fluid mechanics. I know the relationship between lift and drag. Look at comment above. It is simple. The canards offer more lift. Can you prove then that J-20's canards gives penalty instead of giving us pointless comment. It's like I will say this larger engine offers more power to the car, and you return by saying power to weight ratio is the power output of the engine over the mass of the car. It is pointless without the numbers. I am saying canard offers J-20 more lift and of course there is some penalty in drag. This doesn't need to be said. Why will they go with canard design and ventral fins if the drag is too much compared to design advantages?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Perhaps someone can reference Dr. Song's 2000 paper on this subject? If anything, his analysis of the J-20s aerodynamics should be the most authoritative one on here ...


----------



## vi-va

Figaro said:


> Perhaps someone can reference Dr. Song's 2000 paper on this subject? If anything, his analysis of the J-20s aerodynamics should be the most authoritative one on here ...


一种小展弦比高升力飞机的气动布局研究.pdf






宋文骢 Song Wencong
*Song Wencong* (Chinese: 宋文骢; 26 March 1930 – 22 March 2016) was a Chinese aircraft designer, who was responsible for the development of the single seat version of the Chengdu J-10.[1] He was a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering.
*
A Research on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Small Aspect Ratio, High Lift Fighter Configuration*
Song Wencong, Xie Pin, Zheng Sui, Li Yupu ( Chengdu A ircr af t Design & Research I nstitute, Chengdu 610041, China) 

[ Abstract] Focused on the features of stealth, supermaneuverability and supersonic cruise of the future fight er, the authors identified the main difficulties and gave some practical solutions to liftdrag characteristics at sub/ transonic speed, high A. O. A. aerody namic performances at low speed and supersonic drag characteris tics. T he authors believed that design g oals could only be achieved by study ing flow principles deeply , digging up the potentials of present aerodynamic improving measures, developing new aerodynamic concepts, adopting interrelated integration and flight control measures and compromising on the multiple desig n points. [Key words] aerodynamic configuration; supersonic cruise; stealth; poststall maneuvers


----------



## dbc

serenity said:


> *J-20 is NOT a close coupled canard*.



I stopped reading after after this...


----------



## vi-va

dbc said:


> I stopped reading after after this...


What he said is true. Seems you are the one has little experience and knowledge about jet. Rafale is close canard actually.











serenity said:


> *J-20 is NOT a close coupled canard*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

dbc said:


> I stopped reading after after this...



Canards can offer unstability and increased drag but for J-20 like Typhoon and Gripen and Rafale, their canards are unloaded. Eurofighter Typhoon and J-20 are similar application of long arm canard and generally should be better for cruising speed turns while the close couple canards like Gripen Rafale and J-10 can generally be better for maneuverability.

It all has to do with pressure at front of wings and their size and geometry too. There are so many details involved here but generally long arm canard application for J-20 makes sense. Anyway all canard modern fighters feature better L/D than conventional because they are all unloaded and aim to achieve low front wing gauge pressures relative to any leading edge. It is quite public knowledge that european canards are all better L/D than conventional tail configuration. Saying add drag is obvious and unimportant. The important question is the detail of L/D. Find some sources saying European canards have poor L/D. They have better lift. Why does Su-33 add canards for extra lift off carrier? Even in this application they achieved overall better lift than drag penalty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zhxy

Why didn't China think of developing a single-engine version of the J-20? That was amazing


----------



## serenity

zhxy said:


> Why didn't China think of developing a single-engine version of the J-20? That was amazing



Single engine has much shorter range and capability unless China has F135 it can use. Maybe after WS15 has 10 years of proven service like WS10, they may put WS15 onto a single engine fighter like J-10 now uses WS10.

I think some people have confusion over what a long arm and close couple is referring to. It is the moment arm along the center of gravity or physical centroid models. Couple refers to the combination of forces to create motion. Close vs long is in the moment arm. At least this is how I understand it with English being second language and my engineering understanding of these mechanics. Perhaps the aerodynamic definitions are different to my assumptions but google indicates Eurofighter is long arm as well. So I suspect I am correct.

Chengdu engineers had problem of no engines in class of F135 anytime until mid 2020s. WS10 and AL-31 upgrades approach the thrust of F119 but we don't know many more important details and I suspect F119 is much more advanced engine than at least the modified high thrust versions of AL-31 and WS10. They focused to reduce weight of aircraft, reduce drag where they can, and improve lift to compensate in this deficiency. I don't know or care how successful they were but they have some claims that lift is excellent and weight is 15 tonnes says some and 18 tonnes says others maybe a matter of equipment and how they measure or define. Anyway it will seem this is light and they created great lift with this body, low drag thanks to internal weapons. Against F-22? Well J-20 wish it has WS15. Honestly more interesting is the J-20's metamaterials and skin.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

serenity said:


> Single engine has much shorter range and capability unless China has F135 it can use. Maybe after WS15 has 10 years of proven service like WS10, they may put WS15 onto a single engine fighter like J-10 now uses WS10.
> 
> I think some people have confusion over what a long arm and close couple is referring to. It is the moment arm along the center of gravity or physical centroid models. Couple refers to the combination of forces to create motion. Close vs long is in the moment arm. At least this is how I understand it with English being second language and my engineering understanding of these mechanics. Perhaps the aerodynamic definitions are different to my assumptions but google indicates Eurofighter is long arm as well. So I suspect I am correct.


F-135 paid a price for higher thrust, which is much higher bypass ratio.
F-135 0.57:1
F-119 0.30:1
F135-PW-100 dry trust 128 kN
F119-PW-100 dry trust 116 kN
China can sacrifice bypass ratio to improve dry trust, but is it what we need?


----------



## lcloo

Video from PLAAF itself.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270353244011651074

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Anyone want a laugh?? 

Here's quite a strange link published by the USAF university:

https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/...PCDntgAmy0pwq6ppw5yZCoHGq6gDr12nMoZSPtxAPpJNM

... with a most "interesting"



analogy and strange conclusion:



> C*hina has demonstrated an apparent capability to develop stealth fighters. While Chinese aviation technology should not be underestimated, this essay strikes a cautionary note.* Using historical examples from Argentina, Egypt, and India, the author contends that Chinese stealth fighters are being unveiled in part to highlight China’s arrival as a global power; *however, future Chinese jet fighter development will be hindered by technical challenges such as the development of indigenous engines—not to mention advanced weapons and sensors.*



Well  ... what relevance do have some historical examples from Argentina, Egypt, and India with China's ability to build stealth fighters??And I'm indeed shocked



since this is really written by someone working for the USAF University!? 

It reminds me to a tweet I saw some weeks ago from the US Naval institute. 

https://twitter.com/navalinstitute/status/1252246949627125760 

Pure pity that they fell to such a low level.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## PeacefulWar

Deino said:


> Anyone want a laugh??
> 
> Here's quite a strange link published by the USAF university:
> 
> https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/...PCDntgAmy0pwq6ppw5yZCoHGq6gDr12nMoZSPtxAPpJNM
> 
> ... with a most "interesting"
> View attachment 640749
> analogy and strange conclusion:
> 
> 
> 
> Well  ... what relevance do have some historical examples from Argentina, Egypt, and India with China's ability to build stealth fighters??And I'm indeed shocked
> View attachment 640748
> since this is really written by someone working for the USAF University!?
> 
> It reminds me to a tweet I saw some weeks ago from the US Naval institute.
> 
> https://twitter.com/navalinstitute/status/1252246949627125760
> 
> Pure pity that they fell to such a low level.


Argentina, Egypt, and India
The author try hard to avoid historical examples from China itself

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> Anyone want a laugh??
> 
> Here's quite a strange link published by the USAF university:
> 
> https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/...PCDntgAmy0pwq6ppw5yZCoHGq6gDr12nMoZSPtxAPpJNM
> 
> ... with a most "interesting"
> View attachment 640749
> analogy and strange conclusion:
> 
> 
> 
> Well  ... what relevance do have some historical examples from Argentina, Egypt, and India with China's ability to build stealth fighters??And I'm indeed shocked
> View attachment 640748
> since this is really written by someone working for the USAF University!?
> 
> It reminds me to a tweet I saw some weeks ago from the US Naval institute.
> 
> https://twitter.com/navalinstitute/status/1252246949627125760
> 
> Pure pity that they fell to such a low level.


When one sees more messages like these, then one knows they are facing difficulties to lead… and the confidence is diminishing.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Anyone want a laugh??
> 
> Here's quite a strange link published by the USAF university:
> 
> https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/...PCDntgAmy0pwq6ppw5yZCoHGq6gDr12nMoZSPtxAPpJNM
> 
> ... with a most "interesting"
> View attachment 640749
> analogy and strange conclusion:
> 
> 
> 
> Well  ... what relevance do have some historical examples from Argentina, Egypt, and India with China's ability to build stealth fighters??And I'm indeed shocked
> View attachment 640748
> since this is really written by someone working for the USAF University!?
> 
> It reminds me to a tweet I saw some weeks ago from the US Naval institute.
> 
> https://twitter.com/navalinstitute/status/1252246949627125760
> 
> Pure pity that they fell to such a low level.


Hopefully the top brass of the Pentagon does not share this mindset in the slightest ... otherwise I worry for the US military. Underestimating the Japanese in the early stages of WW2 and the Vietnamese air force proved extremely costly ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## riscol

How can US call itself an industrious super power when it cannot compete with Siemens, Alstom, Toshiba, ZTE, Huawei, TSMC and need to use unfair practices to punish them, throwing executives in jail, forcing them to admit crimes they did not commit and forcing Alstom to sell to US. Since this is about stealth fighters the only way to belittle China is to call the J-31 a copy of F-35 and China lacking the capability to develop a true 6th gen fighters and advanced weapons, sensors and indigenous engine . The nonsense gets more intensified as China is an opponent the US cannot militarily defeat or contain.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## obj 705A

So I actually took the time to read this report (obviously not all of it but the main parts) & here is a summary:-
He says the Argentian & Egyptian projects (called Pulqui-II & Ha-300 respectively) failed because they had poor management, there were constant disagreements between the foreign designers that they hired & their own local engineers , they did not have clear mission requirements, they were mainly status symbols to give legitimacy to the government & they did not have enough funding & also they failed to export those fighters which exacerbated the cost overruns even more.

For the Indian project the HF-24, it failed because of poor management, over dependence of foreign made parts to the point were the aircraft can barely be said to be indigenous, cost overruns & delays, constant redesign of the aircraft, and finally the aircraft couldn't fulfill it's mission requirements.

Finnaly he talks about China's own fighters & draws parallels between China's own program & those of the aforementioned three countries, he says China is developing those fighters to serve as a status symbol, & he says all of China's operational frontline fighters exclusively use Russian engines, he says both the J-31 & J-20 use only Russian engines which means China is still not self-sufficient and thus the aircraft's capability will be limited & it's export potential will be reduced (I presume he means not exporting it will lead to cost overruns), then he says the design & technologies of China's stealth fighters are not integrated with each other well enough for them to be compared to the F-22, F-35.
And finally he says by the time the J-20 , J-31 are produced in large enough numbers after 8-10 years from now, the technologies they are using may become obsolete because aircraft technology is a time sensitive matter.

At the very end he says something that is somewhat contradictory just so that his argument sounds less stupid, he says China will eventually join the elite club of countries that can design & produce their own aircrafts (I assume by "elite club" he means the US ,Russia, France, UK) due to it's financial technological technical expertise, but there will be a lot of obstacles, in other words I assume he means China will only enter the elite club of the US, Russia, France, UK in the far future (not any where near say 15 years from now).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

riscol said:


> How can US call itself an industrious super power when it cannot compete with Siemens, Alstom, Toshiba, ZTE, Huawei, TSMC and need to use unfair practices to punish them, throwing executives in jail, forcing them to admit crimes they did not commit and forcing Alstom to sell to US. Since this is about stealth fighters the only way to belittle China is to call the J-31 a copy of F-35 and China lacking the capability to develop a true 6th gen fighters and advanced weapons, sensors and indigenous engine . The nonsense gets more intensified as China is an opponent the US cannot militarily defeat or contain.


Talking about the hilarious case of `forcedʼ acquisition of Alstom (biz unit of energy, 70% of the company's total biz) by its main rival, General Electric, one must read the book “The American Trap” authored by Frédéric Pierucci.
https://www.newstatesman.com/the-american-trap-federic-pierucci-reivew

Frédéric Pierucci, the former Vice President of the Alstom International Sales:
















And the original edition in French language:

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Gomig-21

obj 705A said:


> So I actually took the time to read this report (obviously not all of it but the main parts) & here is a summary:-
> He says the Argentian & Egyptian projects (called Pulqui-II & Ha-300 respectively) failed because they had poor management, there were constant disagreements between the foreign designers that they hired & their own local engineers , they did not have clear mission requirements, they were mainly status symbols to give legitimacy to the government & they did not have enough funding & also they failed to export those fighters which exacerbated the cost overruns even more.
> 
> For the Indian project the HF-24, it failed because of poor management, over dependence of foreign made parts to the point were the aircraft can barely be said to be indigenous, cost overruns & delays, constant redesign of the aircraft, and finally the aircraft couldn't fulfill it's mission requirements.
> 
> Finnaly he talks about China's own fighters & draws parallels between China's own program & those of the aforementioned three countries, he says China is developing those fighters to serve as a status symbol, & he says all of China's operational frontline fighters exclusively use Russian engines, he says both the J-31 & J-20 use only Russian engines which means China is still not self-sufficient and thus the aircraft's capability will be limited & it's export potential will be reduced (I presume he means not exporting it will lead to cost overruns), then he says the design & technologies of China's stealth fighters are not integrated with each other well enough for them to be compared to the F-22, F-35.
> And finally he says by the time the J-20 , J-31 are produced in large enough numbers after 8-10 years from now, the technologies they are using may become obsolete because aircraft technology is a time sensitive matter.
> 
> At the very end he says something that is somewhat contradictory just so that his argument sounds less stupid, he says China will eventually join the elite club of countries that can design & produce their own aircrafts (I assume by "elite club" he means the US ,Russia, France, UK) due to it's financial technological technical expertise, but there will be a lot of obstacles, in other words I assume he means China will only enter the elite club of the US, Russia, France, UK in the far future (not any where near say 15 years from now).



Well done. Someone who actually bothered to read the pertinent portions of the article to understand what the author was actually saying instead of just seeing the 3 countries mentioned and then ignorantly laughing. And coming from someone who's supposedly a teacher somewhere is even more surprising. But actually not after witnessing the way the discussion is controlled on this thread, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's actually much more disappointing than anything else. 

At least you had the wherewithal to do what was supposed to be done. Good job. I'm not familiar with the Argentinian project as much but certainly am of the Egyptian one, Helwan-300 and you would think that this would be well known to that individual considering Willie Messerschmitt was involved with it as well LOL!!!! My goodness!

What's also interesting in what that author from the USAF mentions is that there is a connection between the Egyptian-built fighter and the Indian HF-24. So a lot of relevance to what he said and I'm pretty sure that had Egypt not gotten itself mired in countless wars after the development of this fighter, it would've had a much better chance to evolve and keep producing newer aircraft and who knows where things would've been by now. Certainly some relevant pertinence to the analogy he was making, even given that China is way way way ahead of that starter stage he was referring to with the 3 examples. But that was part of his eventual point.

The *Helwan HA-300* (Arabic: حلوان ٣٠٠‎) was a single-engine, delta-wing, light supersonic interceptor aircraft developed in Egypt during the 1960s. It was designed by the German aircraft designer Willy Messerschmitt.

At various stages, Spain and India were involved in the development program. Spain was financing two projects, the HA-200 and the *Hispano HA-300*, but cancelled the HA-300 project before a prototype was built due to overruns. Egypt then took over financing, and the program was transferred to Egypt where both it and its engine would be made, and where the aircraft was successfully flown. Near the end of the program, India began financing the development of the E-300 engine for use in the Indian HF-24 Marut jet fighter.

The HA-300 was an ambitious and costly project for Egypt, at a time when it was seeking to expand both its civilian and defense aviation industry. Six aircraft had entered service before the project was terminated in 1969.

*National origin* Egypt
*Manufacturer* Egyptian General Aero Organisation
*Designer* Willy Messerschmitt
*First flight* 7 March 1964





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helwan_HA-300


----------



## Deino

Gomig-21 said:


> Well done. Someone who actually bothered to read the pertinent portions of the article to understand what the author was actually saying instead of just seeing the 3 countries mentioned and then ignorantly laughing. And coming from someone who's supposedly a teacher somewhere is even more surprising. But actually not after witnessing the way the discussion is controlled on this thread, it doesn't surprise me at all. It's actually much more disappointing than anything else.
> ...




Indeed interesting that you bash me for not having read that report - a plain wrong assumption - and not that reporg , which is based more on political bias than on facts.

To assume the J-20 was developed alone as a polotical prestige project and must therefore fail is wrong since it completely ignores certain important facts. Why does he ignore China's industrial base and its experience in developing other types before like the J-10 for example? And exactly this is where this reports fails: it equals the J-20 as China's first attempt to develop a fighter with these other ones.

And also to say the J-20 is in prototype phase only ignores all operational ones delivered to now already three units and the fact that several are using the WS-10.

As such your conclusion my post as a teacher would be a disappointed is nothing against your pathetic failure to notice what the author realy wanted and where he failed.

But anyone is entitled to have its own opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## riscol

Drawing conclusions based on what happened to these few countries very much related to China's development of stealth fighters is a misrepresentation of the actual reality. There is no misinterpretation to what the author and the US Naval College are trying to say, both are just underestimating or belittle China.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## fallstuff

So how many j-20 is have been procured by the Chinese air Force ?


----------



## Gomig-21

Deino said:


> Indeed interesting that you bash me for not having read that report - a plain wrong assumption - and not that reporg , which is based more on political bias than on facts.
> 
> To assume the J-20 was developed alone as a polotical prestige project and must therefore fail is wrong since it completely ignores certain important facts. Why does he ignore China's industrial base and its experience in developing other types before like the J-10 for example? And exactly this is where this reports fails: it equals the J-20 as China's first attempt to develop a fighter with these other ones.



It actually does mention China's successful productions and not by specifically mentioning the J-10, but this is what it said which essentially means the J-10.
_
Second: China’s development of jet fighters has been uneven.* It has made tremendous strides in indigenous aviation design in recent years;* yet, to date, its frontline operational fighters still rely exclusively on Russian-built jet engines.123_

The whole point of that article was to show that a full, indigenous capability to produce a completely indigenous fighter much include the engines as well as lack the issues that cause the failure of the 3 examples of Argentina, Egypt and India (the latter actually was more of a success, really, rather than a failure but eventually was to be considered a failed project unfortunately despite the Indian Merut going into production and lasting 2 decades! It just fell short of mission assigned designs. And that's it, really. It wasn't comparing those 3 failures with China's success whatsoever and that's where you went with it.

Out of the 3, the Indian project was the most successful and so there is a correlation with the Chinese aviation industry despite China's inarguable success to date.

In reality, the content of that essay shows more of an inclination that China is more or less much closer to the big dogs, i.e. the US, Russia, France & the UK, all of whom have successfully built their own engines to go with their own jets. So the article has a lot of merit.



Deino said:


> And also to say the J-20 is in prototype phase only ignores all operational ones delivered to now already three units and the fact that several are using the WS-10.



All militarily advanced countries would consider what China has produced so far as prototypes simply because it hasn't produced an indigenous engine to complete the entire package. That's it! Whether it's fair or not, that's the way it is. To be called a successful, indigenously built fighter jet in the eyes of US military analyst (in this case), if the ENTIRE package is not complete, then it's simply a prototype. That might sound unfair or whatever (and I personally don't agree with it) but it is what it is. And the fact that two are flying with WS-10 engines means they're still in the early phases of testing.



Deino said:


> As such your conclusion my post as a teacher would be a disappointed is nothing against your pathetic failure to notice what the author realy wanted and where he failed.
> 
> But anyone is entitled to have its own opinion.



You basically mocked it and like someone else said, it's pretty obvious why you do it but I'm not going to repeat it again since it's time to move on. I think you've had enough criticism for now. And "my pathetic failure to notice what the author really wanted and where he failed" is just a jab back from you, lol, it's ok by me. You can attack me but maybe this is why you fail to understand the concept of "discussions" as is in the title of the thread? So it's better to throw out a couple of slap happy emoticons and call it a day? Instead of breaking down the important points of the article, no, that's not permitted as per your rules, right?

Or is it the fact that there can't be any criticism whatsoever? Is that what you're saying? There can't be any challenges from anyone out there and if there is, everyone here must laugh at it and ridicule it and its content because we all must suck up to anything and everything posted about the great Chinese J-20? While many of us actually acknowledge the incredible success of Chinese aviation (especially the J-20,) we also look at the criticisms and try to determine if it is valid or not. We don't just simply sheep along...



dbc said:


> The word ‘close coupled‘ implies an interaction between the canard and the wing typically to generate lift. The Rafale and the J20 both are close coupled designs. But weirdly the J20 designers coupled the canard with a high mounted wing, while the Rafale has mid mounted wing. This design choice for the J20 further illustrates my point, the J20 is designed to carry large payload for long range undetected penetration into contested airspace. It wasn’t designed for close combat ..period.



I actually brought up the dihedral positioning of the canards on this thread about a year ago or more. I think we were also talking about whether they were used as speed brakes as well, but we discussed the diherdral position of the canards on the J-20 (not focusing much at the time that the wings were anhedral) and I was actually interested in learning more about why they positioned the canards that way, regardless if it was based on a close-coupled design or not. Perhaps it doesn't matter since we know the Rafale's canards are close-coupled for the specific reason of controlling the airflow over the main wings. But the J-20's wings are anhedral like you mentioned which makes the J-20's delta/canard combination a very interesting and quite unique design. Looking at the EFT and how the canards are pushed much more forward to the nose and act much more as stabilizers than close-coupled canards, but taking a close look at them, they're also anhedral on the EFT, the opposite of the J-20's design. I think it's just all about the complex and ultimate result of aerodynamic testing for each aircraft respectively.


----------



## Figaro

dbc said:


> *In my opinion you were trolling with the objective of pandering to your Chinese followers*. The author of the feature you posted OWEN L SIRRS is an adjunct professor of cultural and regional studies at the University of Montana. Mr Sirrs has nothing to do with the USAF University - there is no such thing.


Is this really necessary? I thought mods were supposed to set the standards for others ... instead of going around hurling blatant accusations. @Deino is very respected around here.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## IblinI



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

By the way does anyone have any news concerning the second formed operational frontline unit after the 9th Air Brigade (Anshan with the 1st Air Brigade in the NTC was rumored) and even more where are all these WS-10C-equipped J-20s?

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## samsara

IblinI said:


>


I read somewhere somebody commended her as an attractive reporter… which I concur and also think the pilot is handsome.

Any video of this scene made available in public?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> I read somewhere somebody commended her as an attractive reporter… which I concur and also think the pilot is handsome.
> 
> Any video of this scene made available in public?




I only know the original thread it was posted in together with some more images

https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2627029-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

samsara said:


> I read somewhere somebody commended her as an attractive reporter… which I concur and also think the pilot is handsome.
> 
> Any video of this scene made available in public?



This might be the interview in 2018 when Bai Long finally declared that he could fly J-20.

I think the PLA are probably exploiting Bai Long as a spokes person since he is very good looking for a Chinese pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> This might be the interview in 2018 when Bai Long finally declared that he could fly J-20.
> 
> I think the PLA are probably exploiting Bai Long as a spokes person since he is very good looking for a Chinese pilot.




And given his name a very appropriate one since he's a dragon flying a dragon!



Scorpiooo said:


> Simply an amazing image of a PLAAF J-20.
> 
> By the way does anyone have any news concerning the second formed operational frontline unit after the 9th Air Brigade (Anshan with the 1st Air Brigade in the NTC was rumored) and even more where are all these WS-10C-equipped J-20s?
> View attachment 643468




Oh come on  ... is there a certain reason why you once again copy&paste one of my own posts which was just posted a few minutes ago without a source or credit given! Not that I would or could demand credit for the image, but isn't that simply stupid?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Deino said:


> And given his name a very appropriate one since he's a dragon flying a dragon!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on  ... is there a certain reason why you once again copy&paste one of my own posts which was just posted a few minutes ago without a source or credit given! Not that I would or could demand credit for the image, but isn't that simply stupid?
> 
> View attachment 643469


My mistake , removed it


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

IblinI said:


>


Such a pretty smile she has


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> Deino, may you please move the latest batch of opinion posts to that particular thread:
> 
> *https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...arate-from-the-j-20-news.514445/#post-9800065*
> 
> That extra thread should be expanded to not only cover the engine matters but other aspects that tend to trigger many subjective opinion exchanges such as RCS / stealthiness; materials and so forth.
> 
> The J-20 is a MAJOR thread within the PLA Air Force, should not be cluttered with the many opinion exchanges. Feel annoyed to have *this* thread being flashed repeatedly by the many opinions. Let such exchanges be accomplished in *that* designated, complimentary thread. Thanks.


@samsara is correct, the discussions below in this thread https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...to-separate-from-the-j-20-news.514445/page-48


----------



## Safriz

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280697075030609920

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Safriz said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280697075030609920


This is from June 2, 2018 ... over 2 years ago


----------



## Figaro

Does anyone know what happened to the FYJS forum? I have not been able to access it for a couple months now ... did they disable it to IPs outside of China?


----------



## luciferdd

Figaro said:


> Does anyone know what happened to the FYJS forum? I have not been able to access it for a couple months now ... did they disable it to IPs outside of China?



This site was closed few months ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

luciferdd said:


> This site was closed few months ago.


Thank you but why? It was a very high quality forum imo ... even higher than CD


----------



## vi-va

Figaro said:


> Thank you but why? It was a very high quality forum imo ... even higher than CD


CD is very badly managed, I was banned in CD. Truth hurts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indos

Deino said:


> View attachment 643434
> 
> 
> By the way does anyone have any news concerning the second formed operational frontline unit after the 9th Air Brigade (Anshan with the 1st Air Brigade in the NTC was rumored) and even more where are all these WS-10C-equipped J-20s?



Is there any official confirmation that these grey J20 already use WS-10 ?


----------



## Figaro

Indos said:


> Is there any official confirmation that these grey J20 already use WS-10 ?


Haha official confirmation is almost impossible to come by in the world of Chinese weaponry. But sooner or later, they'll be a picture of a grey J-20 with WS-10X engines flying a combat patrol! There is only one place to go for the yellow J-20 productions with Taihangs we've been getting pictures of since last year ... I would be shocked if there wasn't any J-20 with WS-10X in service right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Indos said:


> Is there any official confirmation that these grey J20 already use WS-10 ?




As @Figaro pointed out, it is indeed unique mystery and in fact part of the fun of PLAAF watching that we know J-20As with WS-10C since August (?) 2019 and at least AFAIR we haven't seen any new-built at CAC with AL-31s since then. The same applies to the WS-10B-powered J-10C and even if we know one image of a grey J-10C, we haven't seen a single grey WS-10C-powered J-20A yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ozranger

Figaro said:


> Haha official confirmation is almost impossible to come by in the world of Chinese weaponry. But sooner or later, they'll be a picture of a grey J-20 with WS-10X engines flying a combat patrol! There is only one place to go for the yellow J-20 productions with Taihangs we've been getting pictures of since last year ... I would be shocked if there wasn't any J-20 with WS-10X in service right now.



From my point of view, photos of those with yellow primer coating indicate that J-20 with WS-10X are already under ongoing batch production.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Figaro

ozranger said:


> From my point of view, photos of those with yellow primer coating indicate that J-20 with WS-10X are already under ongoing batch production.
> View attachment 649305


You don't have to say "my point of view", it's already been confirmed these yellow J-20s are production types and are probably already in service already. We just haven't see any pictures yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> You don't have to say "my point of view", it's already been confirmed these yellow J-20s are production types and are probably already in service already. We just haven't see any pictures yet.



Any idea why there's no photo? Trying to keep it secretive for element of surprise should war happen especially when not telling how many being built.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Any idea why there's no photo? Trying to keep it secretive for element of surprise should war happen especially when not telling how many being built.


Well I guess revealing too much serial numbers might tip off US/foreign intelligence in the area, which is probably why secrecy has gone up in recent years. The first pictures we had of production J-20s and J-10s came out last year, so I do expect pictures to appear in the near term hopefully. We did see a grey J-10C with WS-10B in operation a few months ago but unfortunately there was no serial number ... no grey J-20 yet however even though they're certainly already in service.


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> The first pictures we had of production J-20s and J-10s came out last year


The pictures came out last year, not meaning that they were taken at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jamie Brooks

Integrated heat pipes? Fuel as heat sink? Source: https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2633928&extra=page=1&mobile=2

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IblinI

Jamie Brooks said:


> View attachment 649786
> View attachment 649785
> View attachment 649784
> View attachment 649783
> Integrated heat pipes? Fuel as heat sink? Source: https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2633928&extra=page=1&mobile=2


Suprised me that you understand Chinese.?


----------



## PeacefulWar

Jamie Brooks said:


> View attachment 649786
> View attachment 649785
> View attachment 649784
> View attachment 649783
> Integrated heat pipes? Fuel as heat sink? Source: https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2633928&extra=page=1&mobile=2


According this paper, yes.
It's kinda of mind blogging to know how sophisticated the design needed for 5G fighters.
This heat management system is to reduce weight and infrared signal as the paper mentioned.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

ozranger said:


> From my point of view, photos of those with yellow primer coating indicate that J-20 with WS-10X are already under ongoing batch production.
> View attachment 649305


The J-20 really has amazing workmanship ... such a huge improvement since the days of the J-10A. I really think the level rivals that of the F-35 or F-22. Meanwhile the Su-57s workmanship leaves quite a bit to be desired.



PeacefulWar said:


> According this paper, yes.
> It's kinda of mind blogging to know how sophisticated the design needed for 5G fighters.
> This heat management system is to reduce weight and infrared signal as the paper mentioned.


Fifth generation fighters are more sophisticated than we could even imagine ... just imagine what goes in the stealth coating alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## serenity

Designing engines and aircraft using heat capacity of aviation fuel is old now. Just did not incorporate in WS-10 and works from 1980s and 1990s such as J-10 series. However the theory always ongoing and WS-15 and J-20 design incorporate fuel's heat capacity to manage thermo efficiency of engines and manage heat signature of aircraft. This is old information.

No way F-22 carries so much liquid nitrogen. How does it keep it under such pressures for gradual use? It will take too much space for 2 tonnes of pressurized liquid nitrogen sealed and using valves to release every 10 minutes? I think this is just rumors. They used similar engine heat management like F-135 and F-35 does.


----------



## Jamie Brooks

IblinI said:


> Suprised me that you understand Chinese.?


I am just a beginner at chinese... Hope to get better in the future

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ozranger

Someone on CJDBY says that 20 or more of recently built J-20A (J-20 with WS-10X ?) will enter service in coming months.

https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2634100-1-1.html






PS: They definitely look being built in batch production as all test aircraft in China we have seen so far have been painted with finishing coating before their flights. In that regard, a flight with primer coating on the aircraft normally means a trial flight for delivery.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

ozranger said:


> Someone on CJDBY says that 20 or more of recently built J-20A (J-20 with WS-10X ?) will enter service in coming months.
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2634100-1-1.html
> 
> View attachment 650213
> 
> 
> PS: They definitely look being built in batch production as all test aircraft in China we have seen so far have been painted with finishing coating before their flights. In that regard, a flight with primer coating on the aircraft normally means a trial flight for delivery.


Didnt we get pictures of the Taihang J-20 production types as far as a year ago? Why would it take so long for them to enter service? Or does is the poster suggesting these already entered service?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jupiter2007

I think they are still being built in small batches and not in full production.


----------



## CIA Mole

China should skip this jet and stall for time to get to 6th generation fighter.


----------



## Ultima Thule

CIA Mole said:


> China should skip this jet and stall for time to get to 6th generation fighter.


WHY TELL US


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> China should skip this jet and stall for time to get to 6th generation fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

Ultima Thule said:


> WHY TELL US





Figaro said:


>




China would be better in all aspects by 2030. New engines, submarines, stealth bombers, better drones, more carriers with jets, more destroyers....

China is not ready right now for war.


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> China would be better in all aspects by 2030. New engines, submarines, stealth bombers, better drones, more carriers with jets, more destroyers....
> 
> China is not ready right now for war.


How can it skip a 5th generation fighter and move on to 6th generation? Please enlighten us ... 


CIA Mole said:


> China should skip this jet and stall for time to get to 6th generation fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CIA Mole

Figaro said:


> How can it skip a 5th generation fighter and move on to 6th generation? Please enlighten us ...



The plan is 2035 for 6th gen right? That's not far away.

J20 feels like a half baked 5th gen. China's next jet should be on par with US next gen jet.


----------



## Indos

5 gen will be further developed through blocks. There will be no 6 gen fighter yet until the next 20 -30 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PeacefulWar

CIA Mole said:


> The plan is 2035 for 6th gen right? That's not far away.
> 
> J20 feels like a half baked 5th gen. China's next jet should be on par with US next gen jet.


Why you think it's half baked? The real part of it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

PeacefulWar said:


> Why you think it's half baked? The real part of it?



The engine and stealth and production rates seem below the expectations.

Why not design new airframe for when new engine come out?

Meanwhile produce j31’s and j10’s to master production?


How many J20’s do you expect to be produced in next 10 years?


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> The engine and stealth and production rates seem below the expectations.


Provide evidence of all of this. How are the engines, stealth, and the production rates below expectations? Moreover, can you clarify on what expectations you were referring to?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zhxy

CIA Mole said:


> The engine and stealth and production rates seem below the expectations.



That's the problem with * "snowy owl"* fighter
ShenFei 601 lost when competing with ChengDu J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulWar

CIA Mole said:


> The engine and stealth and production rates seem below the expectations.
> 
> Why not design new airframe for when new engine come out?
> 
> Meanwhile produce j31’s and j10’s to master production?
> 
> 
> How many J20’s do you expect to be produced in next 10 years?


I don't see stealth is half baked. If you are referring the rear part then same can be said to F-35
For the engine, yes WS15 is not ready, but I don't think that's a stop-ship issue. Super cruise is not a must for 5G IMHO

For production rate, rumor said 20 J-20 have been produced from mid-2019 to this month and ready to enter into service. Let's wait and see for some time whether this true or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

PeacefulWar said:


> I don't see stealth is half baked. If you are referring the rear part then same can be said to F-35
> For the engine, yes WS15 is not ready, but I don't think that's a stop-ship issue. Super cruise is not a must for 5G IMHO
> 
> For production rate, rumor said 20 J-20 have been produced from mid-2019 to this month and ready to enter into service. Let's wait and see for some time whether this true or not.


The J-20 was designed initially to have good maneuverability without a great engine (i.e. WS-15). We already know that the subsonic agility of the J-20 matches that of the J-10, which by itself is pretty impressive. 

Regarding the rumor, why would J-20s produced in mid 2019 have to take over a year to enter service? That seems awfully long. I would be very surprised if some of the J-20s with Taihangs were not already in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PeacefulWar

Figaro said:


> Regarding the rumor, *why would J-20s produced in mid 2019 have to take over a year to enter service*? That seems awfully long. I would be very surprised if some of the J-20s with Taihangs were not already in service.


Agreed, sounds not very credible to me as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Figaro said:


> Regarding the rumor, why would J-20s produced in mid 2019 have to take over a year to enter service? That seems awfully long. I would be very surprised if some of the J-20s with Taihangs were not already in service.


When an aircraft is 'produced', the word itself means a production slot is allocated, parts, including materials, are ordered, and time and manpower are assigned.

Once the aircraft is finished assembly...

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/how-is-an-aircraft-built/test-programme-and-certification.html

The manufacturer try to certify the aircraft as soon as possible, but the aircraft will take time sitting on the ramp waiting for test flight inspections. Just because the assembly line work is done, that does not mean the test flight crew can simply start their job. Their lives are on the line so they will have their own inspection regime. This can take weeks or even a couple months.

Once the aircraft is delivered to the customer, the customer have his own certification regime and that can take up to one calendar month. The aircraft will be hangared and undergo the equivalent of a 'phase maintenance' inspection.

https://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1270998/final-hill-afb-f-16-goes-through-phase/
_The time required for a phase inspection varies based on several factors, but the jet is typically scheduled for 10-14 days in the phase hangar._​Once manufacturer acceptance is done, there is the 'functional flight check' (FCF). Look it up. If there are no issues found from the FCF, the aircraft can start formal induction into service. So yes, it can take up to one yr from formal production to service.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CIA Mole

gambit said:


> When an aircraft is 'produced', the word itself means a production slot is allocated, parts, including materials, are ordered, and time and manpower are assigned.
> 
> Once the aircraft is finished assembly...
> 
> https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/how-is-an-aircraft-built/test-programme-and-certification.html
> 
> The manufacturer try to certify the aircraft as soon as possible, but the aircraft will take time sitting on the ramp waiting for test flight inspections. Just because the assembly line work is done, that does not mean the test flight crew can simply start their job. Their lives are on the line so they will have their own inspection regime. This can take weeks or even a couple months.
> 
> Once the aircraft is delivered to the customer, the customer have his own certification regime and that can take up to one calendar month. The aircraft will be hangared and undergo the equivalent of a 'phase maintenance' inspection.
> 
> https://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1270998/final-hill-afb-f-16-goes-through-phase/
> _The time required for a phase inspection varies based on several factors, but the jet is typically scheduled for 10-14 days in the phase hangar._​Once manufacturer acceptance is done, there is the 'functional flight check' (FCF). Look it up. If there are no issues found from the FCF, the aircraft can start formal induction into service. So yes, it can take up to one yr from formal production to service.





Do you work in aerospace? How is j20 in your opinion?


----------



## ozranger

Figaro said:


> Didnt we get pictures of the Taihang J-20 production types as far as a year ago? Why would it take so long for them to enter service? Or does is the poster suggesting these already entered service?


No idea why as I am only an outside watcher.


----------



## Deino

Minnie Chan was bored again


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1282360466413629448


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Minnie Chan was bored again
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1282360466413629448


More shocking than the piss poor quality of her articles is how often she gets quoted by outside media, such as National Interest, Business Insider, or Popular Mechanics. They seem to believe what she says without any hesitation despite the obvious false facts and contradictory statements.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> More shocking than the piss poor quality of her articles is how often she gets quoted by outside media, such as National Interest, Business Insider, or Popular Mechanics. They seem to believe what she says without any hesitation despite the obvious false facts and contradictory statements.




Simply since her BS fits their agenda ... and since every Chinese media outlet must be an official confirmation, it must be true.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gomig-21

ozranger said:


> From my point of view, photos of those with yellow primer coating indicate that J-20 with WS-10X are already under ongoing batch production.



That's just awesome! What a great photo and a great-looking machine.

And this one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ziaulislam

its disappointing to see china still not mass producing j20


----------



## Figaro

ziaulislam said:


> its disappointing to see china still not mass producing j20


Define mass production then ... mass production is a very ambiguous term

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jupiter2007

Figaro said:


> Define mass production then ... mass production is a very ambiguous term



Mass production usually means in large numbers or up to the capacity. Chinese can easily produce 40+ J-20 each year.


----------



## Figaro

jupiter2007 said:


> Mass production usually means in large numbers or up to the capacity. Chinese can easily produce 40+ J-20 each year.


We do not have a good estimate of the number of J-20s produced at all ... and it is very difficult to accurately predict a number since we don't know what the PLAAF requirements are. Perhaps they only want limited numbers of J-20s before the WS-15 becomes available? IMO, this is very understandable. Why mass produce an obviously inferior version when a much better version is going to be available in the not too distant future. Of course, this might be wrong and the PLAAF wants to produce as many J-20s as possible right now to deal with the F-35 threat in the Pacific. But we cannot be sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jupiter2007

Figaro said:


> We do not have a good estimate of the number of J-20s produced at all ... and it is very difficult to accurately predict a number since we don't know what the PLAAF requirements are. Perhaps they only want limited numbers of J-20s before the WS-15 becomes available? IMO, this is very understandable. Why mass produce an obviously inferior version when a much better version is going to be available in the not too distant future. Of course, this might be wrong and the PLAAF wants to produce as many J-20s as possible right now to deal with the F-35 threat in the Pacific. But we cannot be sure.



You might be correct, building in small batches and wait for WS-15 engine which will have more thrust than Russian engine but recent article suggest that J-20B is in mass production and WS-15 engine won’t be ready until 2022.
China has also increased the production of J-16s to make up the numbers to go against F-18s.


----------



## Figaro

jupiter2007 said:


> You might be correct, building in small batches and wait for WA-15 engine which will have more thrust than Russian engine but recent article suggest that J-20B is in mass production and WA-15 engine won’t be ready until 2022.
> China has also increased the production of J-16s to make up the numbers to go against F-18s.


First off, the engine is called the WS-15. Regarding your article, hopefully you are not referring to the one written by Minnie Chan, which is full of false information and contradictions.

In my opinion, the WS-15 will most likely be fitted onto the J-20 relatively soon (currently its undergoing flight testing most likely aboard a J-11). But from then to mass production for the J-20B will take another couple years. In 2018, Dr. Liu Daxiang, former 624 Gas Turbine Institute director, said the WS-15 would receive design certification within 3 to 5 years, which translates to 2021 to 2023. Only after design certification can the WS-15 commence mass production. So until then, the PLAAF will have to make do with the Taihangs, offering around 140 kN of thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jupiter2007

Figaro said:


> First off, the engine is called the WS-15. Regarding your article, hopefully you are not referring to the one written by Minnie Chan, which is full of false information and contradictions.
> 
> In my opinion, the WS-15 will most likely be fitted onto the J-20 relatively soon (currently its undergoing flight testing most likely aboard a J-11). But from then to mass production for the J-20B will take another couple years. In 2018, Dr. Liu Daxiang, former 624 Gas Turbine Institute director, said the WS-15 would receive design certification within 3 to 5 years, which translates to 2021 to 2023. Only after design certification can the WS-15 commence mass production. So until then, the PLAAF will have to make do with the Taihangs, offering around 140 kN of thrust.



yes, I was referring to Minnie Chan‘s article. There are also rumors that China is in talk with Russia to acquire large number of SU-35S.


----------



## Figaro

jupiter2007 said:


> yes, I was referring to Minnie Chan‘s article. There are also rumors that China is in talk with Russia to acquire large number of SU-35S.


All non credible ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Nothing really new but Pupu confirms that the WS-15 will come with 3D TVC on J-20B


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Nothing really new but Pupu confirms that the WS-15 will come with 3D TVC on J-20B
> View attachment 650558




... but the question is: *WHEN*?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> ... but the question is: *WHEN*?


The WS-15 is already conducting flight tests aboard a modified J-11 ... it shouldn't be long before it moves to the J-20 for testing, which I think is when we are going to get the pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> The WS-15 is already conducting flight tests aboard a modified J-11 ... it shouldn't be long before it moves to the J-20 for testing, which I think is when we are going to get the pictures



J-11 powered by 40,000lb engine, do you think its top speed will increase apart from fast acceleration with extra 10,000lb per engine? The SU-35 maximum speed is the same as standard Su-27, probably the design doesn't allow it any faster. J-20 with less frontal surface could go Mach 2.5 if the specification on Wikipedia is correct


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> J-11 powered by 40,000lb engine, do you think its top speed will increase apart from fast acceleration with extra 10,000lb per engine? The SU-35 maximum speed is the same as standard Su-27, probably the design doesn't allow it any faster. J-20 with less frontal surface could go Mach 2.5 if the specification on Wikipedia is correct


Well I think the PLAAF would only put the WS-15 as one of the engines, with the other one being the WS-10 for testing reasons but I would expect superior aerodynamic performance given this extra thrust (albeit I don't think the speed would increase too much given the flanker's design as you mentioned). Regarding Wikipedia's Mach 2.4 claim, I don't think that has any basis. The J-20 is not a dedicated interceptor so why would it need to fly so fast?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

CIA Mole said:


> Do you work in aerospace?


USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm.



CIA Mole said:


> How is j20 in your opinion?


In order of accomplishments: Good => Excellent => Outstanding.

The J-20 is an excellent/outstanding effort by China, and the Chinese engineers have all the rights to be proud of what they did. Here is the deal...

In designing a low radar observable body, there are three rules to go by:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

They are not so much rules that can be broken as they are guidelines that there are degrees of obedience to them.

The sphere is the reference calibration body in radar design. Look up *'Lincoln Calibration Sphere'*. The reason the sphere is used is because the sphere is the most obedient to the three rules.

The J-20, as opined by many, is not as obedient to the three rules as the American F-22 and F-35. Ultimately, the only way to know is to have all the current 'stealth' aircrafts under 3rd party supervised measurement, which will never happen. So for now, all we have is what we observe and educated guesses.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## _NOBODY_

gambit said:


> USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm.


Wouldn't transition from F-111 to F-15 have made more sense?


----------



## gambit

_NOBODY_ said:


> Wouldn't transition from F-111 to F-15 have made more sense?


I requested F-16. I knew what I wanted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> The WS-15 is already conducting flight tests aboard a modified J-11 ... it shouldn't be long before it moves to the J-20 for testing, which I think is when we are going to get the pictures



Has this been confirmed?


----------



## PeacefulWar

gambit said:


> USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm.
> 
> 
> In order of accomplishments: Good => Excellent => Outstanding.
> 
> The J-20 is an excellent/outstanding effort by China, and the Chinese engineers have all the rights to be proud of what they did. Here is the deal...
> 
> In designing a low radar observable body, there are three rules to go by:
> 
> - Control of quantity of radiators
> - Control of array of radiators
> - Control of modes of radiation
> 
> They are not so much rules that can be broken as they are guidelines that there are degrees of obedience to them.
> 
> The sphere is the reference calibration body in radar design. Look up *'Lincoln Calibration Sphere'*. The reason the sphere is used is because the sphere is the most obedient to the three rules.
> 
> The J-20, as opined by many, is not as obedient to the three rules as the American F-22 and F-35. Ultimately, the only way to know is to have all the current 'stealth' aircrafts under 3rd party supervised measurement, which will never happen. So for now, all we have is what we observe and educated guesses.


We probably will never know the answer.
Personally I think J-20 is not as stealth as F-22 and F-35. 
But the gap is small enough so that J-20 can have a good fight against these jets.
This by itself is huge, no other country other than Russia has the capability at the moment.
People easily forget that fact that USA is just far far ahead of the world in terms of military tech in debates. China is leaving rest players behind in the journey of chasing up USA.
This is the significance of J-20 IMHO



gambit said:


> I requested F-16. I knew what I wanted.


Ahhhhh, but F-15 is so much cooler!
I guess you want to fly a bird alone? (all F-15 are dual seats IIRC)


----------



## gambit

PeacefulWar said:


> Ahhhhh, but F-15 is so much cooler!
> I guess you want to fly a bird alone? (all F-15 are dual seats IIRC)


The F-15 is the strongman powerlifter. The F-16 is the gymnast.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gomig-21

gambit said:


> The F-15 is the strongman powerlifter. The F-16 is the gymnast.



Since you were a crew man, which one was easier to work on, the 111 of F-16? And what specific type of maintenance were you assigned to work on these fighter jets, anything particular or just the general maintenance and stuff like that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @JacKsonbobo from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Well I think the PLAAF would only put the WS-15 as one of the engines, with the other one being the WS-10 for testing reasons but I would expect superior aerodynamic performance given this extra thrust (albeit I don't think the speed would increase too much given the flanker's design as you mentioned). Regarding Wikipedia's Mach 2.4 claim, I don't think that has any basis. The J-20 is not a dedicated interceptor so why would it need to fly so fast?



The fastest Russian flanker Su-27 is mach 2.35. Fastest China flanker could hit Mach 2.4 is considered miracle with that design.

Flat belly long fuselage design could achieve higher maximum speed. Example, the Mig-25/31 thrust is around >35,000lb thrust (around F22 F119 engine) and could easily reach Mach 2.82. Mig-31 with 4x R33 could go max Mach 2.4 at above 36,000ft thanks to fuselage & wings design sacrificing maneuverability. Old F-15A with only 23,000lb thrust could go Mach 2.5. J-20 with AL-31 could reach mach 2.5, could be faster with WS-15 engines. The J-20 could serve as interceptor for its speed and sneak attack.

There are already rumors that J-20 with WS-15 will be designated J-20B


----------



## Deino

Since when are the CHinese Flankers rated at Mach 2.4? ... and where is written that the J-20 can reach M. 2.5??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Since when are the CHinese Flankers rated at Mach 2.4? ... and where is written that the J-20 can reach M. 2.5??


Apparently Wikipedia



Deino said:


> Has this been confirmed?


According to this post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Apparently Wikipedia
> 
> According to this post.



Thanks ... but in both cases I'm highly sceptical esp for the second "confirmation"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Thanks ... but in both cases I'm highly sceptical esp for the second "confirmation"


It is said the first article's author is very reliable ...


----------



## lcloo

Blindly chasing for maximum supersonic speed has been proven a a useless attempt for fighter jet as in the case of F-104 starfighter which performed poorly in Vietnam war.

High supersonic speed is important in recon jets, and in a lesser level for 1960s interceptor jets. Today's modern fighters need to be able to detect enemy first and shoot first, electronic superiority and stealth are far more desired than high speed.

Interceptors jets were primarily designed to counter long range bombers carrying nuke bombs, the 1960s doctrine does not applied today because modern heavy bombers are now carrying long range cruise missiles with range of more than 1,000 km. And they can launch their missiles and turn back home before the interceptors arrive within firing range.

J20's size and range is designed for the geographical defence of China from seaward side attack. Experience from operating on large aircraft like SU-27SK, J11A/B and SU-30MKK/MK2 might have big influence on the size of J20. On the East China sea, enemy will come in from islands on the East side as well as from aircraft carriers, thus long range fighter jets like flankers and J20 play important roles for keeping enemy at bay up to 1,000km from Chinese shores.

J20 and Flankers will compliment each other in the South China Sea as well. Lessons learnt from China-Vietnam sea battles is that lack of long range fighter jets put China at disadvantage on control of air space. Flankers filled in the void after 1990s, and J20 will continue to cover the air space beyond 2040, thanks to their long combat range. 

And Flankers and J20 are designed as air superiority fighters, not interceptors nor strike jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> And Flankers and J20 are designed as air superiority fighters, not interceptors nor strike jets.


The strike fighter/interceptor theory flown around for the J-20 has got to be one of the stupidest theories ever. Even dumber than the Mig 25 super-dogfighter theory. The people who somehow believe this theory need to ask themselves the following question : why would China design a dedicated strike or interceptor aircraft to counter the F-22/F-35? Only after AVIC released an official description saying the J-20 was an air superiority fighter did these dumb theories finally go away (for the most part).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


>



Couple of questions: is this pretty much the final paint scheme or is there a RAM coming in the eventual pipelines? I'm guessing there probably is to cover all the panel seams and rivets?

Also, has there been any discussion of the J-20 operating slave drones? Has any of the literature expressed that to be part of the J-20's future capabilities or nothing of that sort just yet? Thanks.


----------



## Deino

According to the well known blogger Pupu - and in contrast to the recent report in the SCMP - the next batch of J-20s use a thrust enhanced WS-10 variant. He also noted that general Zhang Youxia (Head of the Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission) was present during the test flights and was both impressed and satisfied.

via https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4526516967515937

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> He also noted that general Zhang Youxia (Head of the Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission) was present during the test flights and was both impressed and satisfied.


And also including general Xu Qiliang, Vice Chairman of CMC

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> And also including general Xue Qiliang, Vice Chairman of CMC
> View attachment 651089




Thanks again for the correction and additional info, but what do you think, when will we see a first clear image of such one in PLAAF colours? Slightly before Zhuhai, only later ...??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> According to the well known blogger Pupu - and in contrast to the recent report in the SCMP - the next batch of J-20s use a thrust enhanced WS-10 variant. He also noted that general Zhang Youxia (Head of the Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission) was present during the test flights and was both impressed and satisfied.
> 
> via https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4526516967515937
> View attachment 651088


Wait I'm confused. So the next batch will feature a higher rated WS-10 variant than the one we've seen currently on the J-20?


----------



## lcloo

Figaro said:


> Wait I'm confused. So the next batch will feature a higher rated WS-10 variant than the one we've seen currently on the J-20?


I think he meant a more powerful WS-10 variant compare with current ones fitted to J11B and J16.


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> I think he meant a more powerful WS-10 variant compare with current ones fitted to J11B and J16.


I'm pretty sure now Pupu is talking about the 14.5 tonne WS-10 that has been in development for a couple years (confirmed at Zhuhai 2016 I believe). Back in 2017, he already mentioned the WS-10B had a thrust of nearly 14 tonnes, so 14.5 tonnes seems to fit the more power WS-10 description.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

If the latest WS-10B for J-20 has 14.5 tons of thrust, then the rumor that WS-15 went back to the drawing board around 2014 might be true.

PLA was rumoured to be unimpressed with the original specs, progress and design. I think they're going to aim for at least 16 to 17 tons of thrust as opposed to 15 tons of the original design. Otherwise there isn't that much performance gain from WS-10.

All of the above are my speculation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

S10 said:


> If the latest WS-10B for J-20 has 14.5 tons of thrust, then the rumor that WS-15 went back to the drawing board around 2014 might be true.
> 
> PLA was rumoured to be unimpressed with the original specs, progress and design. I think they're going to aim for at least 16 to 17 tons of thrust as opposed to 15 tons of the original design. Otherwise there isn't that much performance gain from WS-10.
> 
> All of the above are my speculation.


WS-10B has a thrust of approximately 14 tonnes. The latest variant has 14.5 tonnes (which I believe is the one Pupu is referring to). If I'm not mistaken, the original WS-15 was supposed to be in the 150 kN class range ... which would mean from 150 kN to 160 kN (very comparable to the F-119). But in 2012, AVIC stated the goal had been moved up to 180 kN. Honestly though, the original core was said to have a maximum thrust of 175 kN, so even if using the original design it shouldn't be difficult to increase the thrust to that value.




https://web.archive.org/web/20131208202208/http://turbineengine.org/pdf/China Aerospace Propulsion Technology Summit.pdf




Note YWH-30-27 is the original core. It should offer up to 175 kN of wet and 110 kN of dry thrust. But ofc given the changes applied by 606, the engine should have better specs than this.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vi-va

gambit said:


> USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm.
> 
> 
> In order of accomplishments: Good => Excellent => Outstanding.
> 
> The J-20 is an excellent/outstanding effort by China, and the Chinese engineers have all the rights to be proud of what they did. Here is the deal...
> 
> In designing a low radar observable body, there are three rules to go by:
> 
> - Control of quantity of radiators
> - Control of array of radiators
> - Control of modes of radiation
> 
> They are not so much rules that can be broken as they are guidelines that there are degrees of obedience to them.
> 
> The sphere is the reference calibration body in radar design. Look up *'Lincoln Calibration Sphere'*. The reason the sphere is used is because the sphere is the most obedient to the three rules.
> 
> The J-20, as opined by many, is not as obedient to the three rules as the American F-22 and F-35. Ultimately, the only way to know is to have all the current 'stealth' aircrafts under 3rd party supervised measurement, which will never happen. So for now, all we have is what we observe and educated guesses.


care to explain the superiority of F-22 with this below?





Care to explain the superiority of F-35 with bumpy belly.





F-35 is fat, really fat. Can NOT do supersonic cruise. Maneuverability is very bad, much worse than F-16. Flight envelope is bad.











Sorry @Deino , I should not derail this thread, but again @gambit is a driver, not a jet designer. So I suppose I can have a fight back to his arrogance.
I read enough research paper, your guideline is nothing new, very basic actually. I can write the 3 guideline in my high school.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## serenity

WS15 indeed restarted many years ago. Original one was ready to come out with J-20 when it was ready both planned to be together and upgraded and improved together. Original engine was not much better than WS10's power now and did not have the reliability and experience. Only slightly better power of 15 ton. Higher ups probably thought it isn't good enough and by then WS10 engineers were confident to extract much more power out of WS10 as technology and materials improve in some fields that were just lagging. WS15 program restarted so they can deliver better power output but project means suffered 10 year delay. Basically restart totally and even some change to core according to new abilities and materials.


----------



## gambit

vi-va said:


> care to explain the superiority of F-22 with this below?


Already have. Yrs ago before you came on this forum. Use the search feature.



vi-va said:


> I read enough research paper, your guideline is nothing new, very basic actually. I can write the 3 guideline in my high school.


If you did read, you would not have made that silly 'challenge' post. You would have known how and why the F-22's diverter plates are statistically lower in terms of contribution to total RCS. Same for the F-35. But it looks like you did not read well enough.


----------



## Figaro

serenity said:


> WS15 indeed restarted many years ago. Original one was ready to come out with J-20 when it was ready both planned to be together and upgraded and improved together. Original engine was not much better than WS10's power now and did not have the reliability and experience. Only slightly better power of 15 ton. Higher ups probably thought it isn't good enough and by then WS10 engineers were confident to extract much more power out of WS10 as technology and materials improve in some fields that were just lagging. WS15 program restarted so they can deliver better power output but project means suffered 10 year delay. Basically restart totally and even some change to core according to new abilities and materials.


I don't think a 10 year delay ... the WS-15 initially was slated to enter production around 2020. It is now projected to be a couple years after that (design certification between 2021-2023 and mass production afterwards).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> I don't think a 10 year delay ... the WS-15 initially was slated to enter production around 2020. It is now projected to be a couple years after that (design certification between 2021-2023 and mass production afterwards).




I also doubt that it had been "uprated" at all as even 10 years ago, all the available information said that the Chinese were aiming for 180KN of after-burning thrust.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> I also doubt that it had been "uprated" at all as even 10 years ago, all the available information said that the Chinese were aiming for 180KN of after-burning thrust.


The WS-15 design parameters back in the early 2000s indeed pointed to an engine in the 150kN class (roughly equal to that of the F-119). It was only in the beginning of the last decade that we heard the WS-15 had its thrust, among other design parameters, increased (hence the additional development time).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> The WS-15 design parameters back in the early 2000s indeed pointed to an engine in the 150kN class (roughly equal to that of the F-119). It was only in the beginning of the last decade that we heard the WS-15 had its thrust, among other design parameters, increased (hence the additional development time).


But sir as we know that J-20 is bigger jet than F-22/Su-57 and slightly heavier, so if they could develop WS-15 with a same class of F-119 than it would under-perform than F-22/Su-57, so i think sir their intention for developing the engine for J-20 to build WS-15 with Better thrust and Better T/W ratio than F-119 from the beginning, I could be wrong but this is my just 2 cent

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Ultima Thule said:


> But sir as we know that J-20 is bigger jet than F-22/Su-57 and slightly heavier, so if they could develop WS-15 with a same class of F-119 than it would under-perform than F-22/Su-57, so i think sir their intention for developing the engine for J-20 to build WS-15 with Better thrust and Better T/W ratio than F-119 from the beginning, I could be wrong but this is my just 2 cent


We actually don't know the J-20s weight ... it could be lighter than both of them given the amount of composites used. Either way, the original WS-15 design ensured the J-20 was sufficiently powered as the F-22. But considering the F119 is an almost 30 year old engine, it is no surprise that the Chinese wanted to upgrade the WS-15 to become competitive with the F135 and the Russian Id. 30 engines. Especially given the pace of the WS-10s development, the WS-15's original design specs don't look very impressive anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> We actually don't know the J-20s weight ... it could be lighter than both of them given the amount of composites used. Either way, the original WS-15 design ensured the J-20 was sufficiently powered as the F-22. But considering the F119 is an almost 30 year old engine, it is no surprise that the Chinese wanted to upgrade the WS-15 to become competitive with the F135 and the Russian Id. 30 engine.


Yes sir you're how much and what kind of composite used by J-20 and what is real weight of J-20 but according to Wikipedia F-22 has MAX weight of 80,000 LBS, if we assume that J-20 in a same weight class then you're right sir for J-20 F-119 class engine is best for J-20, but If they developing/want higher thrust class than F-119 than it doesn't means sir J-20 is heavier than F-22/Su-57, or they trying to overpowering J-20???


----------



## Figaro

Ultima Thule said:


> Yes sir you're how much and what kind of composite used by J-20 and what is real weight of J-20 but according to Wikipedia F-22 has MAX weight of 80,000 LBS, if we assume that J-20 in a same weight class then you're right sir for J-20 F-119 class engine is best for J-20, but If they developing/want higher thrust class than F-119 than it doesn't means sir J-20 is heavier than F-22/Su-57, or they trying to overpowering J-20???


We don't know what the real weight of the J-20 is. But I think it is safe to assume it is in the same class as the Su-57 and F-22. With that being said, it is very possible the Chinese want to strive for a fighter more capable than the F-22 ... it is after all almost 30 years old. If the US were to make a twin engine fighter instead of the F-35, I'm certain they would've used two F135 engines. IIRC, the Russian Id.30 engine also offers around 170 to 180 kN of thrust and the Su-57 weighs around the same as the F-22 ... I think it is safe to say they also want better performance than the F-22. Just because the Chinese want an engine with higher thrust than the F-22 does not mean they are doing so to compensate for the J-20s weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> We don't know what the real weight of the J-20 is. But I think it is safe to assume it is in the same class as the Su-57 and F-22. With that being said, it is very possible the Chinese want to strive for a fighter more capable than the F-22 ... it is after all almost 30 years old. If the US were to make a twin engine fighter instead of the F-35, I'm certain they would've used two F135 engines. IIRC, the Russian Id.30 engine also offers around 170 to 180 kN of thrust and the Su-57 weighs around the same as the F-22 ... I think it is safe to say they also want better performance than the F-22. Just because the Chinese want an engine with higher thrust than the F-22 does not mean they are doing so to compensate for the J-20s weight.


But with a F-119 class (150 KN) engine as you said in your above post, and if we assume J-20 has in the same weight as F-22/Su-57, J-20 has same Thrust to Weight Ratio/maneuverability/agility as rest of the 5th gen jets, so why J-20 expected WS-15 can add so much power, I don't understand the logic sir??? and F-135 have so much power because F-35 uses only one engine and can not super cruise because F-135 is a high bypass engine


----------



## Figaro

Ultima Thule said:


> But with a F-119 class (150 KN) engine as you said in your above post, and if we assume J-20 has in the same weight as F-22/Su-57, J-20 has same Thrust to Weight Ratio/maneuverability/agility as rest of the 5th gen jets, so why J-20 expected WS-15 can add so much power, I don't understand the logic sir??? and F-135 have so much power because F-35 uses only one engine and can not super cruise because F-135 is a high bypass engine


What I meant to say was if the US decided to build a twin engined stealth fighter instead of the JSF for example, it would also use the F135 (albeit with a lower bypass ratio). I am sure that the US is more than capable of developing a F135 variant with 190 kN thrust and a bypass ratio similar to that of the F119. But that is just hypotheticals. If you want a better comparison, why not compare with the Russian Id.30 engine? That engine is said to have a thrust of around 175 kN and has a comparatively small bypass ratio. Obviously the Su-57 equipped with the Id.30 will offer better kinematic performance than the F-22 simply based on the additional thrust alone ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> What I meant to say was if the US decided to build a twin engined stealth fighter instead of the JSF for example, it would also use the F135 (albeit with a lower bypass ratio). I am sure that the US is more than capable of developing a F135 variant with 190 kN thrust and a bypass ratio similar to that of the F119. But that is just hypotheticals. If you want a better comparison, why not compare with the Russian Id.30 engine? That engine is said to have a thrust of around 175 kN and has a comparatively small bypass ratio. Obviously the Su-57 equipped with the Id.30 will offer better kinematic performance than the F-22 simply based on the additional thrust alone ...


 USA developing VARIABLE CYCLE ENGINE for their next 6th gen fighter jets Sir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_cycle_engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Ultima Thule said:


> USA developing VARIABLE CYCLE ENGINE for their next 6th gen fighter jets Sir
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_cycle_engine


Both Russia and China did the same. There are at least 20 parallel engine projects going on in China, including variable cycle engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ultima Thule

vi-va said:


> Both Russia and China did the same. There are at least 20 parallel engine projects going on in China, including variable cycle engine.


I know bro and good luck for these projects

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

vi-va said:


> Both Russia and China did the same. There are at least 20 parallel engine projects going on in China, including variable cycle engine.


Apparently Chinese VCE verification engines models were already developed a long time ago
https://new.qq.com/omn/20181117/20181117A1KGDG.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Figaro said:


> Apparently VCE verification engines models were already developed a long time ago
> https://new.qq.com/omn/20181117/20181117A1KGDG.html


Thanks. 
What's public on news channels are usually old ones. The pioneers keep an close eye on modern technology development.

China is a weird combination. 2nd industrial revolution, 3rd industrial revolution, 4th industrial revolution mixed together, in a more or less same time frame.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

vi-va said:


> Thanks.
> What's public on news channels are usually old ones. The pioneers keep an close eye on modern technology development.
> 
> China is a weird combination. 2nd industrial revolution, 3rd industrial revolution, 4th industrial revolution mixed together, in a more or less same time frame.


Right now the number one most important product in the Chinese aviation industry imo is the WS-15 ... I really can't wait to see it and of course the specs. I think it is the number one most anticipated development for the PLAAF in the first half of this decade.


----------



## vi-va

Figaro said:


> Right now the number one most important product in the Chinese aviation industry imo is the WS-15 ... I really can't wait to see it and of course the specs. I think it is the number one most anticipated development for the PLAAF in the first half of this decade.


Also CJ-1000A.


----------



## Trailer23

@K Shehzad 
That article you posted - as a new Topic...

You know the one that got deleted by the Mods, is 5 Years old - from March 2015

Link: https://www.defenceaviation.com/2015/03/china-bans-export-of-chengdu-j-20.html

Try to stay current, if you don't want your Topics to be Deleted.


----------



## Beast

Trailer23 said:


> @K Shehzad
> That article you posted - as a new Topic...
> 
> You know the one that got deleted by the Mods, is 5 Years old - from March 2015
> 
> Link: https://www.defenceaviation.com/2015/03/china-bans-export-of-chengdu-j-20.html
> 
> Try to stay current, if you don't want your Topics to be Deleted.


Very likely false flagger.


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> Very likely false flagger.


What indications make you believe the Chinese want to export the J-20?


----------



## Trailer23

*China 5th Gen J-20B Breathing Down India’s Neck; Can Rafales, Sukhois Match The ‘Stealth’ Jet?*​
*China joins Russia and the US after an upgraded version of the Chinese J-20B stealth fighter jet formally entered mass production. This poses a big risk for neighbours like India, Japan and other ASEAN nations.*

*Chinese stealth fighter jet – J-20B has undergone an upgrade to finally classify itself as a full-fledged fifth-generation aircraft. In doing so, it now aims to directly challenge the US dominance led by F-35 and F-22 fighter jets and dominate its neighbours.*

An upgraded version of the Chinese J-20B stealth fighter jet has formally entered mass production. The modification has earned it the title of being a fifth-generation fighter jet. Fifth-generation fighters are defined by their stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, super manoeuvrability, and highly integrated avionics.

Although J-20 has been on active duty since 2017, western aviation experts had described the jet as a “dedicated interceptor aircraft” because of its lack of agility. The modified J-20B was unveiled earlier this week. The ceremony was hosted by many senior military leaders including the Central Military Commission (CMC) vice-chairman General Zhang Youxia.

Speaking at the event, Zhang, who is also in charge of weapons development for the People’s Liberation Army, confirmed the mass production of the J-20B. He said that J-20B is now equipped with thrust vector control thus helping the jet achieve agility criteria required to ‘classify’ as a fifth-generation fighter jet.

Thrust vector control (TVC) allows pilots to better control the aircraft by redirecting engine thrust. Chinese advancement in TVC technology was first displayed in 2018 when Beijing debuted its J-10C multirole fighter at the air show in Zhuhai.

Besides challenging the US stealth fighter jets, the J-20s are anticipated to dominate the Asian skies and pose a direct challenge to soon to be acquired Japanese F-35s and Indian Rafale and other aircraft that New Delhi is in the process of acquiring.

*J-20B vs F-35 and Rafale*​
The mass production of J-20B has handed a massive boost to the Chinese Air Force. With adversaries like India, Japan and South Korea equipped with modern fighter jets such as Dassault Rafale and Lockheed Martin F-35, the original Chinese J-20 did not offer much competition.

However, with the mass production of J-20B, the Chinese Air Force would now have an aircraft that levels the playing field in the Asia-Pacific. According to experts, the J-20B could give a stiff challenge to the F-35s but would simply overwhelm the Taiwanese F-16s.


As EurAsian Times reported earlier, the US recently approved the sale of 105 F-35 joint strike fighters to Japan at an estimated cost of $23 billion. The approved package includes 63 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft and 42 F-35 short takeoff and landing variants as part of a December 2018 decision by Japan to increase its procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147.

India is set to receive 36 Rafale from France and would be purchasing more hi-tech jets as part of the MMRCA contract. This led to Beijing speeding up its own fighter jet program, experts argue.

Although the current J-20B is currently powered by Russian Saturn AL-31 engines, Beijing aims to power the jet with its domestic WS-15 engine.

Chinese engineers have been developing high-thrust turbofan WS-15 engines for the J-20 and it is expected to be ready in the next one to two years. The ultimate goal is to equip the J-20B fighter jets with domestic engines.

Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), which manufactures the J-20s, has already received ‘heavy orders’ from the PLA. *CAC set up its fourth production line in 2019, each one with a capacity to make about one J-20 a month*.

Once China is able to power its J-20B fighter jet with Chinese made engines, it will only become the third country after the United States and Russia to have a fully indigenously developed fifth-generation fighter jet.

Source: https://eurasiantimes.com/after-us-...fully-indigenous-5th-generation-jet-in-j-20b/

*----------------------------------------------------*​
So basically, now that CAC has 4 Production Lines, they can pump out Four J-20B's each Month.

*04* by July
*08* by August
*12* by September
*16* by October
*20* by November
*24* by December (if they want).

@LKJ86 @Beast

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Trailer23 said:


> *China 5th Gen J-20B Breathing Down India’s Neck; Can Rafales, Sukhois Match The ‘Stealth’ Jet?*​
> *China joins Russia and the US after an upgraded version of the Chinese J-20B stealth fighter jet formally entered mass production. This poses a big risk for neighbours like India, Japan and other ASEAN nations.*
> 
> *Chinese stealth fighter jet – J-20B has undergone an upgrade to finally classify itself as a full-fledged fifth-generation aircraft. In doing so, it now aims to directly challenge the US dominance led by F-35 and F-22 fighter jets and dominate its neighbours.*
> 
> An upgraded version of the Chinese J-20B stealth fighter jet has formally entered mass production. The modification has earned it the title of being a fifth-generation fighter jet. Fifth-generation fighters are defined by their stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, super manoeuvrability, and highly integrated avionics.
> 
> Although J-20 has been on active duty since 2017, western aviation experts had described the jet as a “dedicated interceptor aircraft” because of its lack of agility. The modified J-20B was unveiled earlier this week. The ceremony was hosted by many senior military leaders including the Central Military Commission (CMC) vice-chairman General Zhang Youxia.
> 
> Speaking at the event, Zhang, who is also in charge of weapons development for the People’s Liberation Army, confirmed the mass production of the J-20B. He said that J-20B is now equipped with thrust vector control thus helping the jet achieve agility criteria required to ‘classify’ as a fifth-generation fighter jet.
> 
> Thrust vector control (TVC) allows pilots to better control the aircraft by redirecting engine thrust. Chinese advancement in TVC technology was first displayed in 2018 when Beijing debuted its J-10C multirole fighter at the air show in Zhuhai.
> 
> Besides challenging the US stealth fighter jets, the J-20s are anticipated to dominate the Asian skies and pose a direct challenge to soon to be acquired Japanese F-35s and Indian Rafale and other aircraft that New Delhi is in the process of acquiring.
> 
> *J-20B vs F-35 and Rafale*​
> The mass production of J-20B has handed a massive boost to the Chinese Air Force. With adversaries like India, Japan and South Korea equipped with modern fighter jets such as Dassault Rafale and Lockheed Martin F-35, the original Chinese J-20 did not offer much competition.
> 
> However, with the mass production of J-20B, the Chinese Air Force would now have an aircraft that levels the playing field in the Asia-Pacific. According to experts, the J-20B could give a stiff challenge to the F-35s but would simply overwhelm the Taiwanese F-16s.
> 
> 
> As EurAsian Times reported earlier, the US recently approved the sale of 105 F-35 joint strike fighters to Japan at an estimated cost of $23 billion. The approved package includes 63 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft and 42 F-35 short takeoff and landing variants as part of a December 2018 decision by Japan to increase its procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147.
> 
> India is set to receive 36 Rafale from France and would be purchasing more hi-tech jets as part of the MMRCA contract. This led to Beijing speeding up its own fighter jet program, experts argue.
> 
> Although the current J-20B is currently powered by Russian Saturn AL-31 engines, Beijing aims to power the jet with its domestic WS-15 engine.
> 
> Chinese engineers have been developing high-thrust turbofan WS-15 engines for the J-20 and it is expected to be ready in the next one to two years. The ultimate goal is to equip the J-20B fighter jets with domestic engines.
> 
> Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), which manufactures the J-20s, has already received ‘heavy orders’ from the PLA. *CAC set up its fourth production line in 2019, each one with a capacity to make about one J-20 a month*.
> 
> Once China is able to power its J-20B fighter jet with Chinese made engines, it will only become the third country after the United States and Russia to have a fully indigenously developed fifth-generation fighter jet.
> 
> Source: https://eurasiantimes.com/after-us-...fully-indigenous-5th-generation-jet-in-j-20b/
> 
> *----------------------------------------------------*​
> So basically, now that CAC has 4 Production Lines, they can pump out Four J-20B's each Month.
> 
> *04* by July
> *08* by August
> *12* by September
> *16* by October
> *20* by November
> *24* by December (if they want).
> 
> @LKJ86 @Beast


Since when did CAC have 4 production lines for the J-20?


----------



## PakFactor

Figaro said:


> Since when did CAC have 4 production lines for the J-20?



That's a pretty low number with 4 production lines.


----------



## Trailer23

Figaro said:


> Since when did CAC have 4 production lines for the J-20?


I think its more of a combined Production Line not limited to jet One Jet.

That being said, if they do not have an further J-10's or another aircraft on order/production, CAC could use it for exclusively for the J-20.


----------



## IblinI

J20A to be more precise, equipped with two 14.5 tons WS10 IPE engines, J20 has finally entered mass production stage.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> What indications make you believe the Chinese want to export the J-20?


I mean the newcomer who posted the 2015 article.


----------



## Figaro

Trailer23 said:


> Although J-20 has been on active duty since 2017, western aviation experts had described the jet as a “dedicated interceptor aircraft” because of its lack of agility. The modified J-20B was unveiled earlier this week. The ceremony was hosted by many senior military leaders including the Central Military Commission (CMC) vice-chairman General Zhang Youxia.
> 
> *Speaking at the event, Zhang, who is also in charge of weapons development for the People’s Liberation Army, confirmed the mass production of the J-20B. He said that J-20B is now equipped with thrust vector control thus helping the jet achieve agility criteria required to ‘classify’ as a fifth-generation fighter jet.*
> 
> @LKJ86 @Beast


Wait this is huge news if CMC Vice Chairman Zhang Youxia actually confirmed this. I did not expect TVC to be featured on the J-20s with Taihangs. @Deino, what do you think of this development? Did Zhang actually say this?


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Wait this is huge news if CMC Vice Chairman Zhang Youxia actually confirmed this. I did not expect TVC to be featured on the J-20s with Taihangs. @Deino, what do you think of this development? Did Zhang actually say this?



Deino is not with China military nor had any link with Chengdu manufacturer, he can't clarify anything other than waiting for further official news release just like everyone else. Not even those serving in air force of other countries could comment. TVC on J-20 would be added advantage when comes to dogfight as proven by pilots who flown Su-30MK series allowing it to out maneuver smaller agile fighters such as F-16C, F/A-18, mirage2000 in friendly exercise.


----------



## ariez168

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1284110170096726018

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Deino is not with China military nor had any link with Chengdu manufacturer, he can't clarify anything other than waiting for further official news release just like everyone else. Not even those serving in air force of other countries could comment. TVC on J-20 would be added advantage when comes to dogfight as proven by pilots who flown Su-30MK series allowing it to out maneuver smaller agile fighters such as F-16C, F/A-18, mirage2000 in friendly exercise.


I asked @Deino to see if he heard about any similar report. Of course I know he is not with the Chinese military or CAC. Regarding TVC, it would be a huge boost to the J-20 in dog fights and getting out of stalls. We saw what the J-10 was capable of at Zhuhai 2018 ... the J-20 equipped with a 14.5 tonne thrust engine + 3D TVC would basically have the maneuverability as the current Su-57s with the AL-41Fs.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> I asked @Deino to see if he heard about any similar report. Of course I know he is not with the Chinese military or CAC. Regarding TVC, it would be a huge boost to the J-20 in dog fights and getting out of stalls. We saw what the J-10 was capable of at Zhuhai 2018 ... the J-20 equipped with a 14.5 tonne thrust engine + 3D TVC would basically have the maneuverability as the current Su-57s with the AL-41Fs.




problem is, that I'm right now in France for vacation

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> According to the well known blogger Pupu - and in contrast to the recent report in the SCMP - the next batch of J-20s use a thrust enhanced WS-10 variant. He also noted that general Zhang Youxia (Head of the Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission) was present during the test flights and was both impressed and satisfied.
> 
> via https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4526516967515937
> View attachment 651088


Pupu also stated that the next batch will be called the J-20B and feature thrust vectoring.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## flowerfan2020

ariez168 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1284110170096726018


Americans are the real master of copy cat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Pupu also stated that the next batch will be called the J-20B and feature thrust vectoring.
> View attachment 652053
> 
> View attachment 652054



J-20 received B designation not because it has WS-10G or WS-15 engine apart from TVC?


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> J-20 received B designation not because it has WS-10G or WS-15 engine apart from TVC?


I think the J-20B just refers to the next batch of thrust increased (14.5t) WS-10s with TVC. J-20C will refer to the WS-15. I'd take the designations with a grain of salt though considering the 001A naming fiasco a couple of years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IblinI

Figaro said:


> I think the J-20B just refers to the next batch of thrust increased (14.5t) WS-10s with TVC. J-20C will refer to the WS-15. I'd take the designations with a grain of salt though considering the 001A naming fiasco a couple of years ago.


I have doubt on whether the WS-10 version is going to adapt TVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


> I have doubt on whether the WS-10 version is going to adapt TVC.


Interesting ... why do you think so? Credible rumors are pointing in this direction.


----------



## IblinI

Figaro said:


> Interesting ... why do you think so? Credible rumors are pointing in this direction.


Pupu sound pretty certain that TVC will be applied on J20B but later he replied to another guy days later said the one in mass production *Heard* to be J20B, which means he is also not too sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


> Pupu sound pretty certain that TVC will be applied on J20B but later he replied to another guy days later said the one in mass production *Heard* to be J20B, which means he is also not too sure.


I believe he thinks the next batch of J-20s will be called J-20B and feature TVC. Of course, he may not be 100% confident but I think he most likely is implying this. Also, there have been a couple of simultaneous reports saying the next batch will feature TVC (I believe one of the guys was the same person who first leaked the J-10B TVC's maiden flight back in 2017).

https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2450666-3-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

https://www.airrecognition.com/inde...ocal-made-j-20b-stealth-fighter-aircraft.html


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> I think the J-20B just refers to the next batch of thrust increased (14.5t) WS-10s with TVC. J-20C will refer to the WS-15. I'd take the designations with a grain of salt though considering the 001A naming fiasco a couple of years ago.



I see. Any idea what will be the maximum thrust of this WS-10 with TVC? Wikipedia said WS-10G has 35,000lb that is considered ok for J-20 that is lighter than F-22 powered by 36,000lb F119/120 engines.



IblinI said:


> Pupu sound pretty certain that TVC will be applied on J20B but later he replied to another guy days later said the one in mass production *Heard* to be J20B, which means he is also not too sure.



Who is this pupu by the way? Military article journalist, military fan in China or he serves in the China military? If the WS-10 tuned to maximum thrust of 35,000lb, it is adequate for TVC. WS-15 40,000lb thrust is extra bonus for the raw power far beyond F-22.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> I see. Any idea what will be the maximum thrust of this WS-10 with TVC? Wikipedia said WS-10G has 35,000lb that is considered ok for J-20 that is lighter than F-22 powered by 36,000lb F119/120 engines.


14.5 tonnes of thrust ... the Wikipedia specs are out of date. The new WS-10 variant is a little more powerful than the 117S of the Su-35.


kungfugymnast said:


> Who is this pupu by the way? Military article journalist, military fan in China or he serves in the China military? If the WS-10 tuned to maximum thrust of 35,000lb, it is adequate for TVC. WS-15 40,000lb thrust is extra bonus for the raw power far beyond F-22.


Very big shrimp with close ties to the PLAAF ... IIRC, he was a former PLAAF officer. As for the 35,000 lbf figure, it is inaccurate.



Safriz said:


> https://www.airrecognition.com/inde...ocal-made-j-20b-stealth-fighter-aircraft.html


"According to information published by the _South China Morning Post_" - Please do not quote anything coming from this source, it is known for false and often contradictory information.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> 14.5 tonnes of thrust ... the Wikipedia specs are out of date. The new WS-10 variant is a little more powerful than the 117S of the Su-35.
> 
> Very big shrimp with close ties to the PLAAF ... IIRC, he was a former PLAAF officer. As for the 35,000 lbf figure, it is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> "According to information published by the _South China Morning Post_" - Please do not quote anything coming from this source, it is known for false and often contradictory information.



I used converter and 14.5 tonnes of thrust is slightly less than 32,000lb. 35,000lb is around 15.9 tonnes of thrust as per Wikipedia info on WS-10G. Noted that this is inaccurate. 

Noted on pupu the big shrimp.

South China Morning Post said China is speeding up construction of type 003 and 004 carriers with EMALS launch. Is the news fake?


----------



## Deino

Trailer23 said:


> *China 5th Gen J-20B Breathing Down India’s Neck; Can Rafales, Sukhois Match The ‘Stealth’ Jet?*​
> *China joins Russia and the US after an upgraded version of the Chinese J-20B stealth fighter jet formally entered mass production. This poses a big risk for neighbours like India, Japan and other ASEAN nations.*
> 
> *Chinese stealth fighter jet – J-20B has undergone an upgrade to finally classify itself as a full-fledged fifth-generation aircraft. In doing so, it now aims to directly challenge the US dominance led by F-35 and F-22 fighter jets and dominate its neighbours.*
> 
> An upgraded version of the Chinese J-20B stealth fighter jet has formally entered mass production. The modification has earned it the title of being a fifth-generation fighter jet. Fifth-generation fighters are defined by their stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, super manoeuvrability, and highly integrated avionics.
> 
> Although J-20 has been on active duty since 2017, western aviation experts had described the jet as a “dedicated interceptor aircraft” because of its lack of agility. The modified J-20B was unveiled earlier this week. The ceremony was hosted by many senior military leaders including the Central Military Commission (CMC) vice-chairman General Zhang Youxia.
> 
> Speaking at the event, Zhang, who is also in charge of weapons development for the People’s Liberation Army, confirmed the mass production of the J-20B. He said that J-20B is now equipped with thrust vector control thus helping the jet achieve agility criteria required to ‘classify’ as a fifth-generation fighter jet.
> 
> Thrust vector control (TVC) allows pilots to better control the aircraft by redirecting engine thrust. Chinese advancement in TVC technology was first displayed in 2018 when Beijing debuted its J-10C multirole fighter at the air show in Zhuhai.
> 
> Besides challenging the US stealth fighter jets, the J-20s are anticipated to dominate the Asian skies and pose a direct challenge to soon to be acquired Japanese F-35s and Indian Rafale and other aircraft that New Delhi is in the process of acquiring.
> 
> *J-20B vs F-35 and Rafale*​
> The mass production of J-20B has handed a massive boost to the Chinese Air Force. With adversaries like India, Japan and South Korea equipped with modern fighter jets such as Dassault Rafale and Lockheed Martin F-35, the original Chinese J-20 did not offer much competition.
> 
> However, with the mass production of J-20B, the Chinese Air Force would now have an aircraft that levels the playing field in the Asia-Pacific. According to experts, the J-20B could give a stiff challenge to the F-35s but would simply overwhelm the Taiwanese F-16s.
> 
> 
> As EurAsian Times reported earlier, the US recently approved the sale of 105 F-35 joint strike fighters to Japan at an estimated cost of $23 billion. The approved package includes 63 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft and 42 F-35 short takeoff and landing variants as part of a December 2018 decision by Japan to increase its procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147.
> 
> India is set to receive 36 Rafale from France and would be purchasing more hi-tech jets as part of the MMRCA contract. This led to Beijing speeding up its own fighter jet program, experts argue.
> 
> Although the current J-20B is currently powered by Russian Saturn AL-31 engines, Beijing aims to power the jet with its domestic WS-15 engine.
> 
> Chinese engineers have been developing high-thrust turbofan WS-15 engines for the J-20 and it is expected to be ready in the next one to two years. The ultimate goal is to equip the J-20B fighter jets with domestic engines.
> 
> Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC), which manufactures the J-20s, has already received ‘heavy orders’ from the PLA. *CAC set up its fourth production line in 2019, each one with a capacity to make about one J-20 a month*.
> 
> Once China is able to power its J-20B fighter jet with Chinese made engines, it will only become the third country after the United States and Russia to have a fully indigenously developed fifth-generation fighter jet.
> 
> Source: https://eurasiantimes.com/after-us-...fully-indigenous-5th-generation-jet-in-j-20b/
> 
> *----------------------------------------------------*​
> So basically, now that CAC has 4 Production Lines, they can pump out Four J-20B's each Month.
> 
> *04* by July
> *08* by August
> *12* by September
> *16* by October
> *20* by November
> *24* by December (if they want).
> 
> @LKJ86 @Beast




Pure BS hyped up from that stupid SCMP report.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Pure BS hyped up from that stupid SCMP report.


I don't like SCMP or Minnie Chan but I think it's pretty pathetic for the Eurasian Times to rip off her report, however false, without giving proper accreditation.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> I don't like SCMP or Minnie Chan but I think it's pretty pathetic for the Eurasian Times to rip off her report, however false, without giving proper accreditation.



Although the news is inaccurate but some of the points are right though such as building more J-20 to counter the rising threat from F-35 and F-22 instead of Rafale. The right counter for Rafale would be FC-31 for export market such as Pakistan that would face IAF Rafale & later F-16 with more US weapons purchases. The engine part is definitely wrong.


----------



## pkd

*Shenyang’s losing J-20 design Snow Owl is officially revealed*
Posted on July 21, 2020

Shenyang’s losing submission for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) stealth fighter competition has been revealed officially for the first time.







China Central Television (CCTV) has produced a second series of its documentary Memory of Military Industry – 军工记忆 – and in episode five, the subject was the Shenyang J-11.

In the video, viewers were taken to a gallery with models of aircraft in the hall. On the wall was the Snow Owl, Shenyang’s project name for the 4th generation fighter it had proposed to the military.

The aircraft has a main double delta wing with tailplane and the addition of canards at the front. The design philosophy then was to achieve maneuverability over stealth. The PLAAF had set a requirement for 60 degrees angle of attack, similar to the F-22. To reach the goal, the designer Li Tian chose the three-wing layout. It is said that the Snow Owl had an angle of attack of up to 65 degrees during wing tunnel testing.

However, the shape of the aircraft lead to several weaknesses. First, the selection of the double delta creates a possible reflector for radar returns on the leading edge. In order to have three sets of wings, the fuselage is much longer compared to the J-20. This lead to heavier weights and increase demands on the engines. To reduce the overall weight, engineers at Shenyang reduce the size of the radome. This size of the radar was therefore smaller compared to Chengdu’s winning design.
http://alert5.com/2020/07/21/shenyangs-losing-j-20-design-snow-owl-is-officially-revealed/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

pkd said:


> *Shenyang’s losing J-20 design Snow Owl is officially revealed*
> Posted on July 21, 2020
> 
> Shenyang’s losing submission for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) stealth fighter competition has been revealed officially for the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Central Television (CCTV) has produced a second series of its documentary Memory of Military Industry – 军工记忆 – and in episode five, the subject was the Shenyang J-11.
> 
> In the video, viewers were taken to a gallery with models of aircraft in the hall. On the wall was the Snow Owl, Shenyang’s project name for the 4th generation fighter it had proposed to the military.
> 
> The aircraft has a main double delta wing with tailplane and the addition of canards at the front. The design philosophy then was to achieve maneuverability over stealth. The PLAAF had set a requirement for 60 degrees angle of attack, similar to the F-22. To reach the goal, the designer Li Tian chose the three-wing layout. It is said that the Snow Owl had an angle of attack of up to 65 degrees during wing tunnel testing.
> 
> However, the shape of the aircraft lead to several weaknesses. First, the selection of the double delta creates a possible reflector for radar returns on the leading edge. In order to have three sets of wings, the fuselage is much longer compared to the J-20. This lead to heavier weights and increase demands on the engines. To reduce the overall weight, engineers at Shenyang reduce the size of the radome. This size of the radar was therefore smaller compared to Chengdu’s winning design.


Source please, without posting source is against the forum rules, bro


----------



## Figaro

SAC's losing design for the fifth generation fighter






Documentary link

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

Figaro said:


> SAC's losing design for the fifth generation fighter
> 
> View attachment 652972
> 
> 
> Documentary link


I don't see it being longer than J20, but ofc, just my feeling.


----------



## S10

CCTV revealed J-20 could fly 52km in a minute assuming they were not mistaken. Let's do some simple math.

52km X 60 mins = 3120km/hr
Mach 1 = 1234.8km/hr
3210/1234.8 = Mach 2.52

This is with WS-10B or AL-31FM2 engine, both with higher bypass ratio than WS-15. It's going to be a speed demon once WS-15 is fitted in a few years.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## S10

Figaro said:


> Where did CCTV say this?


https://news.qq.com/a/20180802/012212.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

S10 said:


> https://news.qq.com/a/20180802/012212.htm


Very interesting ... I wonder what @Asoka has to say about this?


----------



## S10

Figaro said:


> Very interesting ... I wonder what @Asoka has to say about this?



"一分钟，歼20可以战斗巡航52公里"

"In a minute, J-20 can combat cruise 52km."

I think they worded it wrong, and it should be maximum speed. I would shit myself if it was supercruising speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

S10 said:


> "一分钟，歼20可以战斗巡航52公里"
> 
> "In a minute, J-20 can combat cruise 52km."
> 
> I think they worded it wrong, and it should be maximum speed. I would shit myself if it was supercruising speed.


Supercruising at over Mach 2.5 would make it faster than dedicated interceptors like the Mig 31 ... that would be absolutely crazy. But yeah I think it should be maximum speed as well ... a max speed of Mach 2.5 is still very impressive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Ultima Thule said:


> Source please, without posting source is against the forum rules, bro




Calm down ... it was mentioned in the first post already by @Figaro 

http://tv.cntv.cn/video/VSET100398827216/da91dad4d5404ea6ace1f53ff553abdf



Figaro said:


> Supercruising at over Mach 2.5 would make it faster than dedicated interceptors like the Mig 31 ... that would be absolutely crazy. But yeah I think it should be maximum speed as well ... a max speed of Mach 2.5 is still very impressive.




Oh, Im sure certain members again take this for granted and proif for +240 kN WS-15 engines from day one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Figaro said:


> Supercruising at over Mach 2.5 would make it faster than dedicated interceptors like the Mig 31 ... that would be absolutely crazy. But yeah I think it should be maximum speed as well ... a max speed of Mach 2.5 is still very impressive.


Assuming the new batch of WS-10B with 14.5 tons of thrust has not been installed yet, Mach 2.5 is very impressive. There is rumored to be a 16 ton thrust WS-10 variant (IPE?) in the works. If that materializes, I'm not sure if WS-15 is even necessary any longer.


----------



## PeacefulWar

Figaro said:


> SAC's losing design for the fifth generation fighter
> 
> View attachment 652972
> 
> 
> Documentary link


Thank God it was not selected.
The shape is not impressive


----------



## Figaro

S10 said:


> Assuming the new batch of WS-10B with 14.5 tons of thrust has not been installed yet, Mach 2.5 is very impressive. There is rumored to be a 16 ton thrust WS-10 variant (IPE?) in the works. If that materializes, I'm not sure if WS-15 is even necessary any longer.


Well WS-15 is a generational improvement over the WS-10 ... not to mention higher thrust to weight ratio (10 vs 8), considerably lower specific fuel consumption, and usage of more advanced materials (e.g. next gen superalloys) to achieve better reliability. Also, I don't think the WS-10's rather high bypass ratio is optimal. Finally, WS-15 still offers higher thrust than the WS-10 at around 180 kN ... a 16 tonne Taihang would be the absolute limit of the engine core while the WS-15 could potentially go beyond 180 kN.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

*J-20 fighter jet wins China Patent Award*
Source China Military Online
Editor Li Wei
Time 2020-07-21 19:53:20

BEIJING, July 21 -- The National Intellectual Property Administration (NIPA) announced that China's stealth fighter J-20 won the Gold Medal for Appearance Design of China Patent Award on July 14. This is the first time for the Chengdu Aircraft Design & Research Institute (CADI), a division of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), to won such a national-level patent award.

The China Patent Award was co-established in 1989 by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which aims to strengthen the protection and application of intellectual property rights, and accelerate the implementation of intellectual property strategies and innovation-driven development strategies. It is also the only government award in China for the inventions and creations with patent rights.

The award won by J-20 fighter jet is not only the recognition of the CADI' work, but also the affirmation of its independent innovation capability in aircraft design.

The J-20 is an all-weather, medium and long-range, heavy-duty supersonic stealth fighter jet independently developed by China. With excellent air combat performance and accurate strike capability, it took the first test flight in Chengdu, Sichuan province, on January 11, 2011, and was commissioned to the Chinese PLA Air Force in early 2018.

http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2020-07/21/content_9857965.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 603626


A better one:





Via @秋秋Q30 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Figaro

https://www.scmp.com/announcements/...-morning-posts-new-digital-subscription-plans

Looks like there will be less Minnie Chan articles from now on


----------



## rambro

Figaro said:


> https://www.scmp.com/announcements/...-morning-posts-new-digital-subscription-plans
> 
> Looks like there will be less Minnie Chan articles from now on


How's that, isn't she a senior reporter with scmp?


----------



## Figaro

rambro said:


> How's that, isn't she a senior reporter with scmp?


What I mean is since SCMP will become subscription based (meaning you need to pay money to read their articles), less people will be able to view Minnie Chan's articles as they are behind a paywall.


----------



## Globenim

Figaro said:


> https://www.scmp.com/announcements/...-morning-posts-new-digital-subscription-plans
> 
> Looks like there will be less Minnie Chan articles from now on


Lol no. SCMP is a blatantly obvious mouthpiece and echochamber for blatant to subversive anti-Chinese and pro-American propaganda. Their official and inofficial publishing partners in Washington and Hong Kong wont be locked out by some paywall, they are the reason why SCMP is being circulated so much in first place and you will see SCMPs claims quoted like its the Chinese Foreign Ministry nevertheless. You will just not be able to verify that the disinfo is completely baseless or based on spins and dubious sources because the little man is locked out.

I suspect the security law is connected to this move, making it harder to cooperate directly with slanderous American propaganda mouthpieces like Bloomberg behind closed doors and to secure deals. The dependency is however still there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via 八一电视 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Stealth

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 655821
> View attachment 655822
> 
> Via 八一电视 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo




Just imagine, the second line with J-31 and then SU30... damn force!



LKJ86 said:


> A better one:
> View attachment 654427
> 
> Via @秋秋Q30 from Weibo



What is the exact role of this aircraft? always seems like too bulky ... too wide too long with small canopy...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Stealth said:


> Just imagine, the second line with J-31 and then SU30... damn force!


No Su-30...
Even J-11B can perform better than Su-30 in PLAAF/PLAN...



Stealth said:


> What is the exact role of this aircraft? always seems like too bulky ... too wide too long with small canopy...


The size of J-20 is not bigger than that of Su-27.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

Stealth said:


> Oo
> What is the exact role of this aircraft? always seems like too bulky ... too wide too long with small canopy...



Optical illusion caused by low vertical height of the canted tails and its relatively small size. Putting on the vertical tails of Flankers or the huge tails of F-22, this air craft instantly becomes smaller and slimmer than before.

J20 with huge tails of Flankers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

lcloo said:


> Optical illusion caused by low vertical height of the canted tails and its relatively small size. Putting on the vertical tails of Flankers or the huge tails of F-22, this air craft instantly becomes smaller and slimmer than before.
> 
> J20 with huge tails of Flankers.
> View attachment 655875











Via @feel的小步舞曲 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

With F-22 tails replacing original J20 tails.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## JSCh

*Next gen fighter jet forthcoming in great power competition: J-20 chief designer*
By Liu Xuanzun Source: Global Times Published: 2020/7/27 19:33:07



A J-20 fighter performs at the 12th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition (Airshow China) in Zhuhai, south China's Guangdong Province, Nov. 11, 2018. The air show closed on Sunday. (Xinhua)

A revolutionary, cognition-subverting next generation fighter jet, characterized by long-range, high capabilities in penetration, awareness, firepower and fast decision-making, is about to come into being amid great power competition, according to a recent paper by the chief designer of China's J-20 stealth fighter jet.

Artificial intelligence is a key field to help pilots process vast information and make decisions in complicated battlefield environments, it said.

Amid great power competition and the commissioning of more and more fourth generation fighter jets (or fifth generation under US classification, which includes China's J-20, US' F-22 and F-35), there have been extensive discussions on the changes in types of warfare, and the development of post-fourth generation fighter jets, said Yang Wei of Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), in a paper published in Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, a Chinese monthly journal on aeronautics, last month.

Yang is the chief designer of China's first fourth generation fighter jet, the J-20.

In the paper, Yang said that in older generations of fighter jets, maneuverability used to be the deciding factor, but this concept is becoming outdated with the development of advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles with their beyond-visual-range attack capabilities. 

Information has now become the deciding factor, as modern fighter jets focus on gaining more information with the help of AESA radars and data chains, while also reducing opponents' ability to gain information, including using stealth technology and electronic countermeasures.

When aircraft can get more information with these advanced devices, pilots must have extensive knowledge, sharp analysis and sound decision-making to put them to use.

Yang said artificial intelligence will help pilots process the information, and help them become mission objective-oriented.

Each step in the original observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) loop in the air combat decision-making process will feature artificial intelligence's assistance, the paper said. "Intelligence becoming the deciding factor" will be the essence of what Yang calls an OODA 3.0.

Citing foreign projects, Yang said that a future fighter jet will generally require a longer combat range, longer endurance, stronger stealth capability, a larger load of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons, and the functionality to provide its pilot with easy-to-understand battlefield situation images and predictions. In an integrated system, the aircraft should be able to form a network, draw real-time integrated situational images, create multiple attack routes, and transmit target information across mission areas in real time.

Yang's vision could indicate what China's future fighter jet might be like, a Chinese military expert told the Global Times on Monday under the condition of anonymity.

Usually the Chinese military simultaneously equips a current generation of weapons, develops a next generation, and conducts pre-study on a further generation at the same time. So as J-20s are being commissioned into the Chinese Air Force, the next generation fighter jet must have already started development, the expert said.

China is eyeing to develop a next generation fighter jet by 2035 or earlier, which could feature laser, adaptive engines and the ability to command drones, reports in early 2019 quoted Wang Haifeng, another senior designer at AVIC who participated in the development of the J-20 and J-10 fighter jets, as saying.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


> No Su-30...
> Even J-11B can perform better than Su-30 in PLAAF/PLAN...
> 
> 
> The size of J-20 is not bigger than that of Su-27.
> 
> View attachment 655841



Su-27 bigger on overall length, wingspan & surface area. But the fuselage density, thickness, the J-20 is bigger than Su-27 that is quite skinny with engines spread apart and forward fuselage sitting higher. Your photo of J-20 lining abreast in front of J-11B shows the big difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beefeatergin

JSCh said:


> *Next gen fighter jet forthcoming in great power competition: J-20 chief designer*
> By Liu Xuanzun Source: Global Times Published: 2020/7/27 19:33:07
> 
> 
> 
> A J-20 fighter performs at the 12th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition (Airshow China) in Zhuhai, south China's Guangdong Province, Nov. 11, 2018. The air show closed on Sunday. (Xinhua)
> 
> A revolutionary, cognition-subverting next generation fighter jet, characterized by long-range, high capabilities in penetration, awareness, firepower and fast decision-making, is about to come into being amid great power competition, according to a recent paper by the chief designer of China's J-20 stealth fighter jet.
> 
> Artificial intelligence is a key field to help pilots process vast information and make decisions in complicated battlefield environments, it said.
> 
> Amid great power competition and the commissioning of more and more fourth generation fighter jets (or fifth generation under US classification, which includes China's J-20, US' F-22 and F-35), there have been extensive discussions on the changes in types of warfare, and the development of post-fourth generation fighter jets, said Yang Wei of Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), in a paper published in Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, a Chinese monthly journal on aeronautics, last month.
> 
> Yang is the chief designer of China's first fourth generation fighter jet, the J-20.
> 
> In the paper, Yang said that in older generations of fighter jets, maneuverability used to be the deciding factor, but this concept is becoming outdated with the development of advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles with their beyond-visual-range attack capabilities.
> 
> Information has now become the deciding factor, as modern fighter jets focus on gaining more information with the help of AESA radars and data chains, while also reducing opponents' ability to gain information, including using stealth technology and electronic countermeasures.
> 
> When aircraft can get more information with these advanced devices, pilots must have extensive knowledge, sharp analysis and sound decision-making to put them to use.
> 
> Yang said artificial intelligence will help pilots process the information, and help them become mission objective-oriented.
> 
> Each step in the original observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) loop in the air combat decision-making process will feature artificial intelligence's assistance, the paper said. "Intelligence becoming the deciding factor" will be the essence of what Yang calls an OODA 3.0.
> 
> Citing foreign projects, Yang said that a future fighter jet will generally require a longer combat range, longer endurance, stronger stealth capability, a larger load of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons, and the functionality to provide its pilot with easy-to-understand battlefield situation images and predictions. In an integrated system, the aircraft should be able to form a network, draw real-time integrated situational images, create multiple attack routes, and transmit target information across mission areas in real time.
> 
> Yang's vision could indicate what China's future fighter jet might be like, a Chinese military expert told the Global Times on Monday under the condition of anonymity.
> 
> Usually the Chinese military simultaneously equips a current generation of weapons, develops a next generation, and conducts pre-study on a further generation at the same time. So as J-20s are being commissioned into the Chinese Air Force, the next generation fighter jet must have already started development, the expert said.
> 
> China is eyeing to develop a next generation fighter jet by 2035 or earlier, which could feature laser, adaptive engines and the ability to command drones, reports in early 2019 quoted Wang Haifeng, another senior designer at AVIC who participated in the development of the J-20 and J-10 fighter jets, as saying.


Still publishing articles on behalf of avic. Looks like Indians were totally out to lunch on him being sacked


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 655876
> 
> View attachment 655877
> 
> Via @feel的小步舞曲 from Weibo



Korean KFX is fake model kit that doesn't fly and shouldn't be on this list. Japanese ATD-X is just a trainer aircraft that copied design from F-22 and is not stealth therefore it shouldn't be here neither. 

The YF-23 is 67ft long and 12ft height, it looks small compared to J-20. T50 took design from YF-23, should put them next to each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Here is the full paper the article was referring to by Yang Wei. If a member would be so kind to translate the key details of this paper, that would be awesome!


> This paper introduced the full-scale aircraft ground strength test and its requirements and analyzed the new problems and challenges in the test. Through the top-level planning for the test, new design mode and advanced loading technology are adopted to develop the overall technical scheme from the aspects of test boundary conditions, integrated platform, power system, measurement and control, and damage detection and monitoring. A number of new technologies, such as full-hard single-side bidirectional loading technology, test comprehensive platform design technology, boundary condition simulation technology, and power system design technology, have been studied and applied, which have improved design efficiency, accelerated test implementation speed, and improved test safety and reliability. These new technologies of this project have been successfully applied in the full-scale aircraft static/fatigue tests. The results showed that the test systems are safe and reliable, indicating that the test requirements and expected objectives have been achieved. The technologies have made great progress in the full-scale aircraft ground strength test, and the results have provided a high reference value for subsequent tests.































https://tieba.baidu.com/p/6800371885

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Korean KFX is fake model kit that doesn't fly and shouldn't be on this list. Japanese ATD-X is just a trainer aircraft that copied design from F-22 and is not stealth therefore it shouldn't be here neither.
> 
> The YF-23 is 67ft long and 12ft height, it looks small compared to J-20. T50 took design from YF-23, should put them next to each other.




And this is a plain stupid ignorant post  since the KFX is in no way fakes, its prototype is just in final assembly, the Japanese ATD is no trainer but a test bed and the Su-57 was never based on the YF-23's design.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JSCh

Beefeatergin said:


> Still publishing articles on behalf of avic. Looks like Indians were totally out to lunch on him being sacked


Being sacked ???
From Leadership | AVIC EngLish






Politically, he is also an alternate member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

JSCh said:


> Being sacked ???
> From Leadership | AVIC EngLish
> 
> View attachment 656108
> 
> 
> Politically, he is also an alternate member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China - Wikipedia


Came from a bogus Epoch Times article a long time ago ... just goes to how desperate some certain posters are to bash Chinese military development @Surya 1

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ultima Thule

kungfugymnast said:


> Su-27 bigger on overall length, wingspan & surface area. But the fuselage density, thickness, the J-20 is bigger than Su-27 that is quite skinny with engines spread apart and forward fuselage sitting higher. Your photo of J-20 lining abreast in front of J-11B shows the big difference.


What is you talking about J20 has length of 66 feet and Chinese flankers have a length of 72 feet J20 definitely smaller than Chinese flankers but larger than rest of the 5th gen jets (F35/f-22/su57) there was lot of pictures ( satellite) side by side with Chinese flankers showing j20 is smaller than Chinese flankers in this vary thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abdul salam farooqi

Deino said:


> And this is a plain stupid ignorant post  since the KFX is in no way fakes, its prototype is just in final assembly, the Japanese ATD is no trainer but a test bed and the Su-57 was never based on the YF-23's design.




You are right

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistan Space Agency

How many J-20s in service now?


----------



## Figaro

Pakistan Space Agency said:


> How many J-20s in service now?


No one really knows ... the PLAAF has significantly increased secrecy around new J-20s. We haven't even seen a single picture of a WS-10X J-20 in operation even though it's been over a year since they rolled off the production line. They without a doubt are in service ... the problem is we do not have any pictures.


----------



## Pakistan Space Agency

Figaro said:


> No one really knows ... the PLAAF has significantly increased secrecy around new J-20s. We haven't even seen a single picture of a WS-10X J-20 in operation even though it's been over a year since they rolled off the production line. They without a doubt are in service ... the problem is we do not have any pictures.



Are people not recording the serial numbers of the ones seen already to get an idea of how many are in service?


----------



## Figaro

Pakistan Space Agency said:


> Are people not recording the serial numbers of the ones seen already to get an idea of how many are in service?


Most pictures don't even have serial numbers on them anymore ... and the ones which do have already been recorded. I can't remember when was the last time we got a new J-20 serial number even though we have been getting a lot of J-20 production birds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> And this is a plain stupid ignorant post  since the KFX is in no way fakes, its prototype is just in final assembly, the Japanese ATD is no trainer but a test bed and the Su-57 was never based on the YF-23's design.



Korean and Japan rely entirely on buying engines from GE & P&W. They could only barely build the airframe. US military don't share technology especially stealth materials with allies. The F-35 sold to US allies have strict restrictions to obey and US as always downgrade whatever they sold including stealth materials in export version F-35. Both Koreans and Japanese would have hard times in their attempt to reverse engineer, replicate and steal the technology from US. 

China and Russia obtained stealth technology from F-117 shot down over Serbia and hacked technology. That is why none from NATO able to develop stealth fighter so far all hoping on replicating stealth, radar, optronic, ECM, engine, missiles on F-35. 

Su-57 indeed took lots of design cue from YF-23, can't deny that. Their mig-41 might took some from X-32.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Ultima Thule said:


> What is you talking about J20 has length of 66 feet and Chinese flankers have a length of 72 feet J20 definitely smaller than Chinese flankers but larger than rest of the 5th gen jets (F35/f-22/su57) there was lot of pictures ( satellite) side by side with Chinese flankers showing j20 is smaller than Chinese flankers in this vary thread



Fuselage density and volume wise, the J-20 is actually bigger. Between a 6 feet tall skinny person and a muscular bodybuilder 5'9". Who has larger volume to you? Difference between Su-27 and J-20 can be placed under this comparison


----------



## Ultima Thule

kungfugymnast said:


> Korean and Japan rely entirely on buying engines from GE & P&W. They could only barely build the airframe. US military don't share technology especially stealth materials with allies. The F-35 sold to US allies have strict restrictions to obey and US as always downgrade whatever they sold including stealth materials in export version F-35. Both Koreans and Japanese would have hard times in their attempt to reverse engineer, replicate and steal the technology from US.
> 
> China and Russia obtained stealth technology from F-117 shot down over Serbia and hacked technology. That is why none from NATO able to develop stealth fighter so far all hoping on replicating stealth, radar, optronic, ECM, engine, missiles on F-35.
> 
> Su-57 indeed took lots of design cue from YF-23, can't deny that. Their mig-41 might took some from X-32.


Don't read national interest too much bro its a retard website


kungfugymnast said:


> Fuselage density and volume wise, the J-20 is actually bigger. Between a 6 feet tall skinny person and a muscular bodybuilder 5'9". Who has larger volume to you? Difference between Su-27 and J-20 can be placed under this comparison


And how do you know that please tell us


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> China and Russia obtained stealth technology from F-117 shot down over Serbia and hacked technology

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Ultima Thule said:


> ...
> And how do you know that please tell us




No, please not since otherwise he will span and derail this thread again with his BS claims and theories.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## PeacefulWar

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 657641
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo


So satisfying to see the smooth surfaces!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 657641
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo



Just so you know the dragon is a watermark added by the photographer.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vi-va

PeacefulWar said:


> So satisfying to see the smooth surfaces!


me too. a piece of art.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## _NOBODY_

siegecrossbow said:


> Just so you know the dragon is a watermark added by the photographer.


Damn it, you have ruined the swagger of the photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PeacefulWar

_NOBODY_ said:


> Damn it, you have ruined the swagger of the photo.





siegecrossbow said:


> Just so you know the dragon is a watermark added by the photographer.


Oh boy, I only wish PLAAF can be more open to such nice "modern" marks

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 657641
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo


I don't understand what's going on with this picture. It doesn't look shopped, but there's heat mirage from the exhaust yet the inlet is covered.


----------



## PeacefulWar

ZeEa5KPul said:


> I don't understand what's going on with this picture. It doesn't look shopped, but there's heat mirage from the exhaust yet the inlet is covered.


It's summer, you can often see heat mirage from surfaces exposed under sun.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

PeacefulWar said:


> It's summer, you can often see heat mirage from surfaces exposed under sun.


The mirage is exactly behind the airplane. There isn't any on the right side of the picture.


----------



## PeacefulWar

ZeEa5KPul said:


> The mirage is exactly behind the airplane. There isn't any on the right side of the picture.


Indeed, I overlooked that.
The shape of mirage doesn't look like from exhaust though(and it can't be as you pointed the inlets are covered)


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Just so you know the dragon is a watermark added by the photographer.




But it would sooooo cool to have more such tail arts besides the otherwise boring serial numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> But it would sooooo cool to have more such ta arts besides the otherwise boring serial numbers.



When all the old codgers in charge of propaganda are dead maybe your wish will come true.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Grandy

*China’s J-20 carrier-based jet fighter influenced by US – not Soviet – thinking, designer says*

As the race to find the best platform for a modified fighter hots up, designer wins critics’ support by selling the American angle
PLA Navy ‘should choose a reliable platform that has a long combat range and potential for development … and the best choice is the J-20,’ expert says
Minnie Chan
Published: 10:00pm, 2 Aug, 2020

The chief designer of the J-20 said the plane was a better match for US fighters.




The chief designer of the J-20 said the plane was a better match for US fighters. Photo: Xinhua

As tensions between Beijing and Washington continue to rise, China’s military aircraft designers are racing to develop a next-generation fighter jet for use on the nation’s aircraft carriers capable of competing with their American rivals.

The two contenders are Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute (CADI), which is working on a modified version of its J-20, and Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute, which is adapting its FC-31.

While both aircraft have been in development for many years, CADI’s chief designer, Yang Wei, said recently the J-20 was a better match for US fighters.

The aircraft was inspired by American theories on air combat and jet development, he said in a recent article published in the Chinese journal Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica.

Military observers said that by openly stating he had learned from American ideas, Yang was trying to promote the modified J-20 as a superior option to the adapted FC-31, which is based on much older, Soviet, designs.

The designer also said in the article that the US military had been able to develop a carrier-based jet fighter and put it into mass production in less than six years.

“If the [Chinese] leadership decides to use the FC-31 as the platform for the new carrier-based fighter, it would be at least 10 years before it was ready for full deployment, by which time the Americans would be even further ahead,” said a person with links to the military, who asked not to be named.

Yang said in the article, which was widely shared on military news websites, it was essential that the next-generation fighter had a long combat range, enhanced stealth capabilities and a bigger weapon load.






Beijing-based military expert Zhou Chenming said Yang wanted to prove the J-20 was not only a fifth-generation fighter, but could be a platform for “advanced induction reaction devices and other new technologies” capable of targeting the shortcomings of its American rival, the F-22 Raptor.

Fifth-generation fighters feature stealth technology, supersonic cruising speeds, super manoeuvrability and highly integrated avionics.

Zhou said that in the past, China’s aircraft designers had been heavily influenced by Russian thinking and because of that focused almost exclusively on the fighting capabilities of their jets. But Yang, he said, stressed the need to consider other factors as well.

“Because of the Russian influence, Chinese designers ignored things like avionics systems and weapons,” Zhou said. “Russia’s MiG-29, for instance, had no chance of competing with its American counterpart, the all-weather multirole F-16.”




China’s FC-31 is up to 12 tonnes lighter than the J-20. Photo: Weibo

One possible disadvantage of the J-20 as a carrier-based fighter is that it is much heavier than the FC-31. China’s newest aircraft carriers will be fitted with an electromagnetic catapult launch system, which although reducing take-off times comes with a weight restriction.

With a maximum weight of 25 tonnes, the FC-31 is up to 12 tonnes lighter than the J-20 and about three metres (10 feet) shorter.






The FC-31 was developed to match the United States’ F-35, which was built by Lockheed Martin and the platform for the carrier-based F-35B and F-35C.

Despite that comparison, Macau-based military expert Antony Wong Tong said the FC-31 was no match for the F-35 in terms of manoeuvrability or firepower.

“Based on China’s current technology and production capacity, the PLA Navy should choose a reliable platform that has a long combat range and potential for development. And the best choice for that is the J-20,” he said.

_This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: J-20 carrier-based fighter ‘influenced by US ideas’

_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Grandy said:


> *China’s J-20 carrier-based jet fighter influenced by US – not Soviet – thinking, designer says*
> 
> As the race to find the best platform for a modified fighter hots up, designer wins critics’ support by selling the American angle
> PLA Navy ‘should choose a reliable platform that has a long combat range and potential for development … and the best choice is the J-20,’ expert says
> Minnie Chan
> Published: 10:00pm, 2 Aug, 2020
> 
> The chief designer of the J-20 said the plane was a better match for US fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chief designer of the J-20 said the plane was a better match for US fighters. Photo: Xinhua
> 
> As tensions between Beijing and Washington continue to rise, China’s military aircraft designers are racing to develop a next-generation fighter jet for use on the nation’s aircraft carriers capable of competing with their American rivals.
> 
> The two contenders are Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute (CADI), which is working on a modified version of its J-20, and Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute, which is adapting its FC-31.
> 
> While both aircraft have been in development for many years, CADI’s chief designer, Yang Wei, said recently the J-20 was a better match for US fighters.
> 
> The aircraft was inspired by American theories on air combat and jet development, he said in a recent article published in the Chinese journal Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica.
> 
> Military observers said that by openly stating he had learned from American ideas, Yang was trying to promote the modified J-20 as a superior option to the adapted FC-31, which is based on much older, Soviet, designs.
> 
> The designer also said in the article that the US military had been able to develop a carrier-based jet fighter and put it into mass production in less than six years.
> 
> “If the [Chinese] leadership decides to use the FC-31 as the platform for the new carrier-based fighter, it would be at least 10 years before it was ready for full deployment, by which time the Americans would be even further ahead,” said a person with links to the military, who asked not to be named.
> 
> Yang said in the article, which was widely shared on military news websites, it was essential that the next-generation fighter had a long combat range, enhanced stealth capabilities and a bigger weapon load.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beijing-based military expert Zhou Chenming said Yang wanted to prove the J-20 was not only a fifth-generation fighter, but could be a platform for “advanced induction reaction devices and other new technologies” capable of targeting the shortcomings of its American rival, the F-22 Raptor.
> 
> Fifth-generation fighters feature stealth technology, supersonic cruising speeds, super manoeuvrability and highly integrated avionics.
> 
> Zhou said that in the past, China’s aircraft designers had been heavily influenced by Russian thinking and because of that focused almost exclusively on the fighting capabilities of their jets. But Yang, he said, stressed the need to consider other factors as well.
> 
> “Because of the Russian influence, Chinese designers ignored things like avionics systems and weapons,” Zhou said. “Russia’s MiG-29, for instance, had no chance of competing with its American counterpart, the all-weather multirole F-16.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s FC-31 is up to 12 tonnes lighter than the J-20. Photo: Weibo
> 
> One possible disadvantage of the J-20 as a carrier-based fighter is that it is much heavier than the FC-31. China’s newest aircraft carriers will be fitted with an electromagnetic catapult launch system, which although reducing take-off times comes with a weight restriction.
> 
> With a maximum weight of 25 tonnes, the FC-31 is up to 12 tonnes lighter than the J-20 and about three metres (10 feet) shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FC-31 was developed to match the United States’ F-35, which was built by Lockheed Martin and the platform for the carrier-based F-35B and F-35C.
> 
> Despite that comparison, Macau-based military expert Antony Wong Tong said the FC-31 was no match for the F-35 in terms of manoeuvrability or firepower.
> 
> “Based on China’s current technology and production capacity, the PLA Navy should choose a reliable platform that has a long combat range and potential for development. And the best choice for that is the J-20,” he said.
> 
> _This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: J-20 carrier-based fighter ‘influenced by US ideas’
> _


Can you please not post any articles from Minnie Chan? She is perhaps the single most *unreliable* authority on Chinese military developments.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Can you please not post any articles from Minnie Chan? She is perhaps the single most *unreliable* authority on Chinese military developments.



Despite Minnie Chan is not popular with many here, her article seems quite realistic and true about J-20 being not suitable for carrier fighter even if EMRAL carrier & WS15 engines became available. Reason being the design of J-20 is not suitable for low speed stability and it is too fast for carrier landing. 

J-35 will be designed for carrier based, probably new design differ from FC-31. Or there'll be navalized FC-31 to fill the gap while waiting for J-35 to become available. 

For J-20, no news on J-20B yet?


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Despite Minnie Chan is not popular with many here, her article seems quite realistic and true ...




Indeed; realistic and true in the same way a defective clock is also correct and true twice a say!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Despite Minnie Chan is not popular with many here, her article seems quite realistic and true about J-20 being not suitable for carrier fighter even if EMRAL carrier & WS15 engines became available. Reason being the design of J-20 is not suitable for low speed stability and it is too fast for carrier landing.
> 
> J-35 will be designed for carrier based, probably new design differ from FC-31. Or there'll be navalized FC-31 to fill the gap while waiting for J-35 to become available.
> 
> For J-20, no news on J-20B yet?


No they are not ... her articles are extremely self contradictory and the claims have been outright debunked. There is a reason why her articles are basically taboo here.


Deino said:


> Indeed; realistic and true in the same way a defective clock is also correct and true twice a say!


I wouldn't even call her a defective clock at all ... at least the clock is right two times a day. I've yet to see Minnie be correct about a single thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Very nice

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291769250772901888

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Very nice
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291769250772901888




But how real?


----------



## casual

Deino said:


> But how real?


The drone even has US base code on the tail... How real do you think it is.


----------



## Deino

casual said:


> The drone even has US base code on the tail... How real do you think it is.




That artwork si surely only fanart, nut we all know the Dark Sword in mock up form ... as such the question is at least a bit legit


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> That artwork si surely only fanart, nut we all know the Dark Sword in mock up form ... as such the question is at least a bit legit


Twin seater J20,some people said it does exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


> Twin seater J20,some people said it does exist.


I don't see why there would not be a twin seater J-20 variant in the future ... other CAC aircraft like the JF-17 and the J-10 all have twin seater variants, why not the premier CAC aircraft?


----------



## IblinI

Figaro said:


> I don't see why there would not be a twin seater J-20 variant in the future ... other CAC aircraft like the JF-17 and the J-10 all have twin seater variants, why not the premier CAC aircraft?


Yang Wei mentioned we will see more variants, thus the guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

IblinI said:


> Yang Wei mentioned we will see more variants, thus the guess.


If twin seat version of J-20 exist than why we haven't pics of it???


----------



## Figaro

Ultima Thule said:


> If twin seat version of J-20 exist than why we haven't pics of it???


Because it isn't ready yet? Since we haven't had any pictures of the H-20 either are we just to assume the H-20 does not exist?


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> Because it isn't ready yet? Since we haven't had any pictures of the H-20 either are we just to assume the H-20 does not exist?


 Looks like @lblinl trying to say twin seat J-20 exist for long time???


----------



## Figaro

Ultima Thule said:


> Looks like @lblinl trying to say twin seat J-20 exist for long time???


He just mentioned Yang Wei stated we will see more J-20 variants in the future, which is something he did say. But I think he means in the future.


----------



## Ultima Thule

Figaro said:


> He just mentioned Yang Wei stated we will see more J-20 variants in the future, which is something he did say. But I think he means in the future.


See brother his post # 12594 sense that twin engine J-20 exist from long time


*Twin seater J20,some people said it does exist.*


----------



## IblinI

Ultima Thule said:


> See brother his post # 12594 sense that twin engine J-20 exist from long time
> 
> 
> *Twin seater J20,some people said it does exist.*


I mean some people said the project does exist, sry for the misunderstanding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

IblinI said:


> I mean some people said the project does exist, sry for the misunderstanding.


thanks bro


----------



## PeacefulWar

IblinI said:


> I mean some people said the project does exist, sry for the misunderstanding.


I wonder what would a twin seater J-20 for...
Maybe EW? But we already have J-16D.
I don't see a need for stealthy EW jet.
Strike task is obviously not for J-20 either.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292407381045972993

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292407381045972993


How do you know what it's assigned to? The number is blacked (blued) out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> How do you know what it's assigned to? The number is blacked (blued) out.




From what others said it was spotted at Wuhu, but You are correct, it is not confirmed.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


>


CGTN had to use tonkatsu's footage because their own is so crappy. Good, at least now they understand how they should film the J-20 and will improve their coverage for this year's Zhuhai airshow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> CGTN had to use tonkatsu's footage because their own is so crappy. Good, at least now they understand how they should film the J-20 and will improve their coverage for this year's Zhuhai airshow.


Honestly we really need to see the J-20 Taihangs at Zhuhai ... getting bored of these old J-20s.


----------



## Figaro

Pupu says there are definitely 60 J-20s already.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 52051

Old news, J-20 has entered mass production phase this year, the annual production rate is reach 50-60 this year, and still at acceralating speed, some of J-20's sub-system providers say that they received the largest ever order in history from CAC this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

52051 said:


> Old news, J-20 has entered mass production phase this year, the annual production rate is reach 50-60 this year, and still at acceralating speed, some of J-20's sub-system providers say that they received the largest ever order in history from CAC this year.




But 60 per year does neither fit the number seen in service, spotted at CAC, the operational units flying J-20s ... IMO it is vastly exaggerated or where are all these J-20s?

By that account at least two if not three more Brigades must fly that type.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

52051 said:


> Old news, J-20 has entered mass production phase this year, the annual production rate is reach 50-60 this year, and still at acceralating speed, some of J-20's sub-system providers say that they received the largest ever order in history from CAC this year.



It would be nice large numbers of J-20 entering service, hopefully they are fitted with at least 32,000lb tuned up WS-10 variant engines of WS-15 is still not ready.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> But 60 per year does neither fit the number seen in service, spotted at CAC, the operational units flying J-20s ... IMO it is vastly exaggerated or where are all these J-20s?
> 
> By that account at least two if not three more Brigades must fly that type.


Just because we do not have photos does not mean these birds don't exist. We also have yet to see a single photo of a grey WS-10 J-20 thus far ... does this mean they don't exist? The most likely conclusion is that operations security has been greatly tightened up in the PLAAF in recent years, unfortunately.


kungfugymnast said:


> It would be nice large numbers of J-20 entering service, hopefully they are fitted with at least 32,000lb tuned up WS-10 variant engines of WS-15 is still not ready.


The previous J-20s with WS-10B have around 14 tonnes thrust per engine. The new J-20 TVC WS-10s coming out this year have 14.5 tonnes thrust per engine (WS-10 IPE).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zhxy

52051 said:


> Old news, J-20 has entered mass production phase this year, _*the annual production rate is reach 50-60 this year*_, and still at acceralating speed, some of J-20's sub-system providers say that they received the largest ever order in history from CAC this year.



Quantity 50-60 is too much. It is enough to develop a new fighter such as the J-10D or the Rafale (Chinese version).


----------



## Figaro

zhxy said:


> Quantity 50-60 is too much. It is enough to develop a new fighter such as the J-10D or the Rafale (Chinese version).


What does the production rate of the J-20 have to do with the R&D of the future J-10?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulWar

52051 said:


> Old news, J-20 has entered mass production phase this year, the annual production rate is reach 50-60 this year, and still at acceralating speed, some of J-20's sub-system providers say that they received the largest ever order in history from CAC this year.





zhxy said:


> Quantity 50-60 is too much. It is enough to develop a new fighter such as the J-10D or the Rafale (Chinese version).


Kindly post source.
I don't believe this number at all.

Just few days ago, the more "creditable" source says 30 J-20s per year.
Even 30 is a bit high IMHO.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央广军事 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> Pupu says there are definitely 60 J-20s already.
> View attachment 661089

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

This year's planned production of J20 is 20, that means there are at least 40 J20s at end 2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> This year's planned production of J20 is 20, that means there are at least 40 J20s at end 2019.


I thought it was 30?


LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 661174


So the 60 includes all of this year's production ... interesting. This would be more reasonable.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

Figaro said:


> I thought it was 30?
> 
> So the 60 includes all of this year's production ... interesting. This would be more reasonable.


You are right, this years' plan is 30, which means there are 30 J20s at end of 2019. Sorry for the error.

So 2020 is the beginning of mass production of the J20, with the new engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## zhxy

Figaro said:


> What does the production rate of the J-20 have to do with the R&D of the future J-10?



the money to develop J-10D, F-16 or Rafale (Chinese version) is equivalent to 40-60 J-20s.

Another option is to use the money to build 60 J-20s to invest in the J-31 program, speeding up the project.


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> I thought it was 30?
> 
> So the 60 includes all of this year's production ... interesting. This would be more reasonable.





lcloo said:


> You are right, this years' plan is 30, which means there are 30 J20s at end of 2019. Sorry for the error.
> 
> So 2020 is the beginning of mass production of the J20, with the new engines.


We also can say accurately that there were less than 60 J-20s at the end of 2019, according to Pupu.

"60" is not from Pupu.


----------



## Figaro

zhxy said:


> the money to develop J-10D, F-16 or Rafale (Chinese version) is equivalent to 40-60 J-20s.
> 
> Another option is to use the money to build 60 J-20s to invest in the J-31 program, speeding up the project.


Procurement and R&D expenses are separate under the Chinese military. Besides, why should China not scale up production of its foremost fighter aircraft? It would not make sense to divert money away when more J-20s are desperately needed to counter the influx of F-35s.


----------



## Grandy

*China unveils two-seater design for stealth plane based on J-20 fighter*

Breakthrough variant intended as early-warning aircraft and command centre for jets and rocket launchers
Seating design similar to Russian Su-34 would be a world first among single-seater stealth warplanes
*Posted:* August 15, 2020






China’s advanced J-20 jet fighter is the template for a two-seater stealth aircraft in development. Photo: Xinhua

China is developing a new generation two-seater stealth warplane, based on its most advanced fighter the J-20, intended as an early-warning aircraft that will serve as a command centre for other weapons such as fighter jets and rocket launchers.

Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute (CADI), developer of the J-20, is working on the breakthrough variant which will be the first stealth fighter in the world to accommodate two pilots. It will also be more innovative, according to an online report published earlier this week.

The report, which appeared on War Industry Black Technology, a social media platform run by Shenzhen-based Quantum Defence Cloud Technology, included a design sketch of the twin-seater variant and said it would serve as a small, early-warning warplane.





The design sketch for the twin-seater J-20 variant, with a similar cockpit configuration to the Russian Su-34. Photo: Handout

The design is similar to the Russian Su-34 twin-seater supersonic medium-range fighter bomber, with a side-by-side seating arrangement in the cockpit which the report said would help the two pilots better communicate and share information effectively.

“As the new generation aircraft with capabilities of stealth and supersonic cruise, the new platform also needs to command drones, other fighter jets, and even ground-based rocket launchers, as well as surface warships and submarines, making it a small early-warning aircraft,” it said.

A military insider said the new plane would be equipped with defensive air-to-air weapons, but would not be used as a bomber, contrary to mainland media reports.

“It is not a real bomber. To maintain stealth and agility, all missiles should be put inside the bays, that means only light air-to-air bombs are allowed,” said the insider, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.

The heavy explosives required for air-to-ground and air-to-sea missiles could only be accommodated under the craft’s wings, drastically reducing its stealth capabilities.





A Sukhoi Su-34 cockpit simulator. Photo: Handout

“All bombers carrying heavy bombs would be easily detected by the integrated air defence system (IADS),” the insider said. “That means two-seater stealth fighters could not cause any threat to American military bases or even aircraft carrier strike groups.”

Most training planes and bombers feature tandem seating, with the front seat pilot taking care of the flight while the co-pilot focuses from the back seat on the weaponry, so the design of the new variant is noteworthy.

Hong Kong-based military commentator Song Zhongping said the J-20 could be upgraded and modified to different variants because of its strong detection capability and capacity to connect multichannel intelligence and electronic warfare information.

“But it may take longer [to develop] if the new aircraft uses the double-seat design. The aerodynamic shape of the aircraft should make major changes,” Song said. “Then it would no longer be the original J-20 model, but another new type.”

The two-seater stealth fighter is just one of the variants developed by CADI based on the J-20 platform. According to the military insider, the institute’s top priority is to develop a carrier-based stealth fighter jet for China’s next generation aircraft carrier, the Type 002, currently in final assembly and featuring electromagnetic catapult launching systems.

CADI and its sister company, Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute – which developed the J-15, China’s only active carrier-based fighter jet – are racing to develop a next-generation fighter capable of competing with the American F35 ship-borne fighter.

Variants of the J-20 were flagged by its chief designer Yang Wei at the 2018 China Airshow in Zhuhai, Guangdong province, when he told a press conference that more variants of the J-20 would be developed to meet the new requirements of future warfare.

_This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: "Two-seater stealth fighter jet hailedas breakthrough"._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Grandy said:


> Minnie Chan


What is it with you quoting Minnie Chan and other low quality articles despite being told numerous times by numerous members not to do so?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

zhxy said:


> the money to develop J-10D, F-16 or Rafale (Chinese version) is equivalent to 40-60 J-20s.
> 
> Another option is to use the money to build 60 J-20s to invest in the J-31 program, speeding up the project.



They w


Figaro said:


> What is it with you quoting Minnie Chan and other low quality articles despite being told numerous times by numerous members not to do so?



@Grandy
The side by side seats configuration is not ideal for J-20 2-seater. It loses its dogfight capability with the limited rear view compared to bubble canopy. 

Anyone wanted to comment this article that took info from scmp? The point on F-22 as cold war land based fighter for defending Europe and J-20 as long range fighter requiring to cover larger coast are quite correct. 

https://eurasiantimes.com/f-22-rapt...ey-were-designed-to-fight-ussr-j-20-designer/


----------



## obj 705A

52051 said:


> Old news, J-20 has entered mass production phase this year, the annual production rate is reach 50-60 this year, and still at acceralating speed, some of J-20's sub-system providers say that they received the largest ever order in history from CAC this year.


Wait so are you saying the production rate (right now) is 4-5 per month?
And old news? When was this revealed?


----------



## Figaro

obj 705A said:


> Wait so are you saying the production rate (right now) is 4-5 per month?
> And old news? When was this revealed?


Most likely from the rumor mill ... nothing confirmed or revealed. Personally, I think a production rate of 60 per year given that the J-20 still has interim engines (WS-10) and this early on (only 4 years after LRIP) is pretty unrealistic. The more accurate statement is a production rate of around 30 aircraft per year, but even this is not confirmed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

Figaro said:


> given that the J-20 still has interim engines (WS-10)



there are no limitations imposed by the engine on the number of J-20 fighters that can be produced, China will not wait for WS-15 to be ready to ramp up the production rate of the J-20, a 5th gen fighter with WS-10 is better than a 4th gen fighter with WS-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

obj 705A said:


> there are no limitations imposed by the engine on the number of J-20 fighters that can be produced, China will not wait for WS-15 to be ready to ramp up the production rate of the J-20, a 5th gen fighter with WS-10 is better than a 4th gen fighter with WS-10.


What I mean is that China would rather hold off on producing too many J-20s with interim engines, given the vast capability upgrade warranted by the WS-15. I was not saying that the WS-10 production is limiting the J-20s numbers.


----------



## Brainsucker

Figaro said:


> Most likely from the rumor mill ... nothing confirmed or revealed. Personally, I think a production rate of 60 per year given that the J-20 still has interim engines (WS-10) and this early on (only 4 years after LRIP) is pretty unrealistic. The more accurate statement is a production rate of around 30 aircraft per year, but even this is not confirmed.



Well, I think for J-20 production to reach 30 / year is already good. Long time ago, prior J-10B, Chinese production of J-10 were also 25 - 30 / year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> What I mean is that China would rather hold off on producing too many J-20s with interim engines, given the vast capability upgrade warranted by the WS-15. I was not saying that the WS-10 production is limiting the J-20s numbers.




What would China lose by mass producing J-20s with WS-10 engines?

US and Japan are building up a sizeable fleet of F-22/F-35s in the region and China needs as many J-20s as quickly as possible.

When the WS-15 engine is available they can replace with it and redirect those WS-10s into the 4th gen fleet.


----------



## kungfugymnast

UKBengali said:


> What would China lose by mass producing J-20s with WS-10 engines?
> 
> US and Japan are building up a sizeable fleet of F-22/F-35s in the region and China needs as many J-20s as quickly as possible.
> 
> When the WS-15 engine is available they can replace with it and redirect those WS-10s into the 4th gen fleet.



Maybe they wanted to avoid risk of not able to fit WS15 with current J-20 with WS10 engine design. Just look at J-10A vs B & C model differences. Many parts that are not in common and J-10A can't be modified into J-10C. Imagine if China already built many J-20 with WS-10, when J-20 with WS-15 came out with different design, there's less budget left to build more J-20 with WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

Figaro said:


> What I mean is that China would rather hold off on producing too many J-20s with interim engines, given the vast capability upgrade warranted by the WS-15. I was not saying that the WS-10 production is limiting the J-20s numbers.



Yeah I knew what you meant when I replyed that a 5th gen fighter with WS-10 is better than a 4th gen fighter with WS-10, thus China will not hold back on producing J-20 regardless of what kind of engine is available, instead they will always produce the maximum number of J-20s that their production lines can churn out.


----------



## UKBengali

kungfugymnast said:


> Maybe they wanted to avoid risk of not able to fit WS15 with current J-20 with WS10 engine design. Just look at J-10A vs B & C model differences. Many parts that are not in common and J-10A can't be modified into J-10C. Imagine if China already built many J-20 with WS-10, when J-20 with WS-15 came out with different design, there's less budget left to build more J-20 with WS-15.



Yes that would be the only reason not to maximise J-20 production now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

UKBengali said:


> What would China lose by mass producing J-20s with WS-10 engines?


Nothing, they will lose nothing which is why it entered service and began mass production long before the WS-15 was any where near ready, they have all the money to build as many J-20s per year as they want, there are no financial or political limitations, the only limitation is how many production lines can actually produce a J-20.


----------



## obj 705A

kungfugymnast said:


> Maybe they wanted to avoid risk of not able to fit WS15 with current J-20 with WS10 engine design.



If for what ever reason an existing J-20 cannot be upgraded with new engines then that will still not stop China from procuring them now, once the WS-15 is ready they can simply produce many more additional J-20s with WS-15.


----------



## UKBengali

obj 705A said:


> If for what ever reason an existing J-20 cannot be upgraded with new engines then that will still not stop China from procuring them now, once the WS-15 is ready they can simply produce many more additional J-20s with WS-15.



I am not too sure about this.

Would China really want to be stuck with many hundreds of inferior J-20s with the WS-10 engines?
I would say maybe no as then they have wasted billions for maybe not that much gain while the WS-15 is readied.
China does not need many J-20s for India or Russia, just to face off Japan/USA and so maybe a lower number of J-20 may suffice in the meantime.
It all really depends if the WS-15 is “hot- swappable” with the WS-10 and no-one here knows the answer to that question.


----------



## serenity

WS-10 is already providing as much thrust as the most advanced upgraded Al-31 and F-110 series engines between 135 and 145 thousand newton. Second WS-15 program is aiming for around 180. 145 is not too far from F119 and the fuel expense is lower. F-22 have short range due to extremely high fuel consumption of F119 this engine is most fuel consumption rating of all modern high power engines. Much more than WS-10, Al-31, and even F135. WS-15 first did not achieve required fuel and thrust for the technology of the 2010s. So WS-10 is not weak or unsuitable. It is already giving J-20 same or better thrust to weight than something like Mig-29 or J-10. With WS-15 that can reach 180kN, the J-20 should have even better thrust to weight than F-22 and F-35 or Su-35 even.

People who think J-20 is underpowered with WS-10 is just reading the random western articles who have no idea what truth is. J-20's real weight will surprise all of them and its lift is excellent. WS-10 with 140kN can give J-20 with >1 thrust to weight which is slightly better than most 4th generation fighters. Consider that J-20 also does not carry weapons outside which further improve lifting surface efficiency and lower drag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

UKBengali said:


> Would China really want to be stuck with many hundreds of inferior J-20s with the WS-10 engines?
> I would say maybe no as then they have wasted billions for maybe not that much gain while the WS-15 is readied.



Those billions of dollars are like pocket change for a 14$ trillion, there are no financial restrictions on the number of J-20 to be aquired.

The only case in which China would have to hold off on acquiring as many J-20s (with WS-10) as they can is if there are financial restrictions that would force them to hold back till the WS-15 is available however outside of Gordon Chang's brain these financial restrictions do not exist, by that I mean China will be producing stealth fighters from this point till 20 years from now at the maximum poduction capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

And just to further clarify just how insignificant (from a purely financial point of view) spending some billions of dollars is for China:-
Let us assume the J-20 costs 120$ million, so aquiring 60 aircrafts per year would cost 7.2$ billion a year till the WS-15 is ready, do you know how much China makes in an hour? 1.6$ billion, so China needs just 4.5 hours to have enough money for 60 J-20s per year! If China was a person then he could take a 7.2$ billion bank note and then literally wipe his @$$ with it and through the banknote in the trash bin and it would still be absolutely nothing for him.


----------



## UKBengali

obj 705A said:


> And just to further clarify just how insignificant (from a purely financial point of view) spending some billions of dollars is for China:-
> Let us assume the J-20 costs 120$ million, so aquiring 60 aircrafts per year would cost 7.2$ billion a year till the WS-15 is ready, do you know how much China makes in an hour? 1.6$ billion, so China needs just 4.5 hours to have enough money for 60 J-20s per year! If China was a person then he could take a 7.2$ billion bank note and then literally wipe his @$$ with it and through the banknote in the trash bin and it would still be absolutely nothing for him.




China does not have unlimited resources and like all other countries it has to make choices.

If it does not urgently need hundreds of J-20s for imminent war with USA/Japan then it will not build them quickly if it will get stuck with inferior WS-10 engines for their lifespan. Those 10s of billions saved can be spent on other more urgent weapons that it deems to need.

Like I already said we do not yet know whether the WS-15 is "hot-swappable" with the WS-10 and if it is then it loses nothing by building J-20s to maximum capacity now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

serenity said:


> WS-10 is already providing as much thrust as the most advanced upgraded Al-31 and F-110 series engines between 135 and 145 thousand newton. Second WS-15 program is aiming for around 180. 145 is not too far from F119 and the fuel expense is lower. F-22 have short range due to extremely high fuel consumption of F119 this engine is most fuel consumption rating of all modern high power engines. Much more than WS-10, Al-31, and even F135. WS-15 first did not achieve required fuel and thrust for the technology of the 2010s. So WS-10 is not weak or unsuitable. It is already giving J-20 same or better thrust to weight than something like Mig-29 or J-10. With WS-15 that can reach 180kN, the J-20 should have even better thrust to weight than F-22 and F-35 or Su-35 even.
> 
> People who think J-20 is underpowered with WS-10 is just reading the random western articles who have no idea what truth is. J-20's real weight will surprise all of them and its lift is excellent. WS-10 with 140kN can give J-20 with >1 thrust to weight which is slightly better than most 4th generation fighters. Consider that J-20 also does not carry weapons outside which further improve lifting surface efficiency and lower drag.




Nope.

The public maximum thrust of the F-119 of F-22 is 156kN but it is likely to be much more than that. USA engine tech is absolutely superb and decades ahead of anyone else but maybe the UK. In 1990 the demonstrator engines they built for YF-22/YF-23 prototypes were already delivering 160kN.

Other thing to consider is that 5th gen engines have low-bypass ratios to deliver even greater dry thrust to allow "super-cruise" and so the public specs of the F119 have a dry thrust to wet thrust ratio of 0.7. With 4th gen engines like WS-10 this is more like 0.6. 

Make no mistake the J-20 is severely compromised in aerodynamic performance till it gets WS-15 engine.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

obj 705A said:


> Those billions of dollars are like pocket change for a 14$ trillion, there are no financial restrictions on the number of J-20 to be aquired.


Exactly right. In addition, there's a lot of benefit in ramping up J-20 production now so that an ecosystem of parts suppliers can be set up and expanded.


UKBengali said:


> China does not have unlimited resources and like all other countries it has to make choices.


This just doesn't cut the mustard. You were given an analysis of how trivial this cost is and your response is a banal platitude, that's inadequate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

ZeEa5KPul said:


> This just doesn't cut the mustard. You were given an analysis of how trivial this cost is and your response is a banal platitude, that's inadequate.




No it is not "trivial" the cost of making 100s of J-20s with WS-10 engines that may not be swappable with Ws-15s.

I repeat no country has unlimited resources and there are always choices that need to be made.

China needs to spend more on health as an example away from defence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

UKBengali said:


> No it is not "trivial" the cost of making 100s of J-20s with WS-10 engines that may not be swappable with Ws-15s.


Why are you assuming they're not swappable in an MLU? And it is a trivial cost for a $14 trillion economy as @obj 705A pointed out. I'd also add that the $120 million is probably ludicrously overestimating the cost of the J-20, which would come down with scale. The most important thing is to establish the facilities to produce J-20s at scale, even if they have to be done with WS-10Cs for now.


----------



## UKBengali

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Why are you assuming they're not swappable in an MLU? And it is a trivial cost for a $14 trillion economy as @obj 705A pointed out. I'd also add that the $120 million is probably ludicrously overestimating the cost of the J-20, which would come down with scale. The most important thing is to establish the facilities to produce J-20s at scale, even if they have to be done with WS-10Cs for now.



I am NOT assuming at all.

Read through all my posts.

Like I already said if they are "hot-swappable" then China can make as many as they can produce with WS-10 engines. If fact I would not be surprised if the WS-10 and Ws-15 are indeed "hot-swappable" or can be swapped out with minor work.


----------



## LKJ86

UKBengali said:


> I am not too sure about this.
> 
> Would China really want to be stuck with many hundreds of inferior J-20s with the WS-10 engines?
> I would say maybe no as then they have wasted billions for maybe not that much gain while the WS-15 is readied.
> China does not need many J-20s for India or Russia, just to face off Japan/USA and so maybe a lower number of J-20 may suffice in the meantime.
> It all really depends if the WS-15 is “hot- swappable” with the WS-10 and no-one here knows the answer to that question.


China had built many hundreds of J-10A and J-10S that can't be upgraded to the standard of J-10C, instead of waiting for J-10C.


----------



## UKBengali

LKJ86 said:


> China had built many hundreds of J-10A and J-10S that can't be upgraded to the standard of J-10C, instead of waiting for J-10C.



Totally different as J-10 is a 4th gen fighter and AL-31F and WS-10C are similar in performance.

AL-31F maximises performance of J-10 whereas WS-10 limits aerodynamic performance of J-20.


----------



## LKJ86

UKBengali said:


> Totally different as J-10 is a 4th gen fighter and AL-31F and WS-10C are similar in performance.
> 
> AL-31F maximises performance of J-10 whereas WS-10 limits aerodynamic performance of J-20.


J-10A and J-10S are 4th-generation fighters, while J-10C a 4.5th-generation fighter.


----------



## UKBengali

LKJ86 said:


> J-10A and J-10S are 4th-generation fighters, while J-10C a 4.5th-generation fighter.



I have no idea why you are bringing in J-10 into this argument.

Speculated 180 KN WS-15 with low-bypass ratio will greatly improve aerodynamic ability of J-20.

It will be able to "supercruise" at speeds approaching Mach 2 like the F-22 and be far more agile as well.

Simply J-20 is at a massive disadvantage to F-22 till it gets the WS-15 engine.


----------



## LKJ86

UKBengali said:


> I have no idea why you are bringing in J-10 into this argument.
> 
> Speculated 180 KN WS-15 with low-bypass ratio will greatly improve aerodynamic ability of J-20.
> 
> It will be able to "supercruise" at speeds approaching Mach 2 like the F-22 and be far more agile as well.
> 
> Simply J-20 is at a massive disadvantage to F-22 till it gets the WS-15 engine.


1. The engine is not everything.
2. Nothing is perfect.
3. Weapons are just tools and consumables.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Oh well ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1295403141421101056

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1295361493207257088

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

One of the posts on twitter (by an Indian I assume) said those are just for delivering a message, even though personaly I don't think they are for delivering a message.. if there is any message to be delivered then it would be "these two J-20s are enough to take out the 5 Rafales you recieved".


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> I have no idea why you are bringing in J-10 into this argument.
> 
> Speculated 180 KN WS-15 with low-bypass ratio will greatly improve aerodynamic ability of J-20.
> 
> It will be able to "supercruise" at speeds approaching Mach 2 like the F-22 and be far more agile as well.
> 
> Simply J-20 is at a massive disadvantage to F-22 till it gets the WS-15 engine.


Not necessarily true ... the J-20 is underpowered relative to the F-22 but not severely underpowered. The F-119 has a thrust of 155 kN. Meanwhile, the most recent WS-10 variant thrust is roughly the same as that of the 117S, meaning over 142 kN of thrust. Since the weights of the aircraft are roughly comparable, the J-20 is only off by a mere 26 kN of thrust (13x2). A 180 kN WS-15 would then give the J-20 significant aerodynamic performance over the F-22 ... having said this, I think it would be pretty overkill tbh. A F-119 thrust class engine is more than powerful enough for a twin engine heavy air air superiority fighter like the F-22 or J-20. A 180 kN engine would be more targeted towards a single engine fighter than something like a J-20 IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

While on this subject, there are additional WS-15 developments from Pupu. He basically states that current vanilla WS-15s have a thrust of slightly less than 16.5 tonnes.





He then goes on to say that there is no problem in developing a 18 tonne (~180 kN) WS-15, only that it will be in the future as part of an improved variant (cites the evolution of the AL-31F).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> Not necessarily true ... the J-20 is underpowered relative to the F-22 but not severely underpowered. The F-119 has a thrust of 155 kN. Meanwhile, the most recent WS-10 variant thrust is roughly the same as that of the 117S, meaning over 142 kN of thrust. Since the weights of the aircraft are roughly comparable, the J-20 is only off by a mere 26 kN of thrust (13x2). A 180 kN WS-15 would then give the J-20 significant aerodynamic performance over the F-22 ... having said this, I think it would be pretty overkill tbh. A F-119 thrust class engine is more than powerful enough for a twin engine heavy air air superiority fighter like the F-22 or J-20. A 180 kN engine would be more targeted towards a single engine fighter than something like a J-20 IMO.



The actual thrust of F119 is classified and is likely to be more than 156kn.

The USAF states 156kn+ in the public domain and we can be fairly certain it is higher than that.

Also it is a low bypass engine which gives around a 0.7 dry/wet thrust ratio compared to about 0.6 for 4th gen engines like WS-10X series. A high dry/wet thrust ratio is critical for good "supercruise" capability.


Make no mistake, the WS-15 will be required to allow J-20 to aerodynamically compete with F-22.WS-10X is a severe hindrance to J-20 performance.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> The actual thrust of F119 is classified and is likely to be significantly more than 156kn.
> 
> The USAF states 156kn+ in the public domain and we can be fairly certain it is a LOT higher than that.
> 
> Also it is a low bypass engine which gives around a 0.7 dry/wet thrust ratio compared to about 0.6 for 4th gen engines like WS-10X series. A high dry/wet thrust ratio is critical for good "supercruise" capability.
> 
> 
> Make no mistake, the WS-15 will be required to allow J-20 to aerodynamically compete with F-22.WS-10X is a severe hindrance to J-20 performance.


We do not have any evidence of the F119 being more than 156 kN. You can argue that the thrust to weight ratio is higher than publicly stated (maybe over 10) but the thrust should be in that range. As I have stated earlier, a 156 kN engine like the F119 is more than sufficient to power twin engine stealth aircraft like the F-22, J-20, or Su-57.


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> We do not have any evidence of the F119 being more than 156 kN. You can argue that the thrust to weight ratio is higher than publicly stated (maybe over 10) but the thrust should be in that range.



Do you really believe the T/W ratio of F119 is only 8:1 from the weight of engine and public domain thrust figures?

US has a massive interest in hiding the true capability of the F-22 and no-one apart from the US even knows what it's supercruise capability really is.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> Do you really believe the T/W ratio of F119 is only 8:1 from the weight of engine and public domain figures?
> 
> US has a massive interest in hiding the true capability of the F-22 and no-one apart from the US even knows what it's supercruise capability really is.


Once again I said they could have increased the thrust to weight ratio by lowering the weight of the engine. But the truth is we don't know whether that 7.95 figure is incorrect. But I do believe the reported thrust figure of the F119. A near 160 kN engine is more than enough to power the F-22. The reason why the F135 has much higher thrust of around 190 kN is because it is a relatively large bypass ratio aeroengine (which inhibits super-cruise capabilities) meant for a single engine fighter. Even the designer of the WS-15 himself wrote that the thrust requirements for fourth generation twin engine fighters (e.g. F-22, J-20, Su-57) is between 150 kN to 160 kN while the requirements for single engine fighters are between 170 kN to 180 kN. Go figure.


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> Once again I said they could have increased the thrust to weight ratio by lowering the weight of the engine. But the truth is we don't know whether that 7.95 figure is correct or not. But I do believe the reported thrust figure of the F119. A near 160 kN engine is more than enough to power the F-22. The reason why the F135 has much higher thrust of around 190 kN is because it is a relatively large bypass ratio aeroengine (which inhibits super-cruise capabilities) for a single engine fighter.



Like I say information like maximum engine thrust is likely to be classified, as with this information and guessing it's weight, would allow competitor countries like China to work out it's aerodynamic performance quite accurately.

USAF only really stated 156KN+ and never revealed it's top supercruise(just stated Mach 1.5+) so that maybe is telling us something.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> Like I say information like maximum engine thrust is likely to be classified, as with this information and guessing it's weight, would allow competitor countries like China to work out it's aerodynamic performance quite accurately.
> 
> USAF only really stated 156KN+ and never revealed it's top supercruise(just stated Mach 1.5+) so that maybe is telling us something.


Fair enough but I'm just taking issue to your statement that the J-20 would need a 180 kN WS-15 to be competitive with the F-22 aerodynamically, which simply is not true. A 180 kN engine would be on the same level as the F135 PW-600 (for F-35B) and only 10 kN less than the F135 PW-100 (for F-35A/C). Even if the F119s thrust was underreported, it could not possibly be even close to 180 kN as that would be the territory of the high bypass and much newer/improved F135 engine.


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> Fair enough but I'm just taking issue to your statement that the J-20 would need a 180 kN WS-15 to be competitive with the F-22 aerodynamically, which simply is not true. A 180 kN engine would be on the same level as the F135 PW-600 (for F-35B) and only 10 kN less than the F135 PW-100 (for F-35A/C). Even if the F119s thrust was underreported, it could not possibly be even close to 180 kN as that would be the territory of the high bypass and much newer/improved F135 engine.



I never said the WS-15 needs 180KN to be competitive with the engine in F-22.

That number just comes from it's speculated specs that have been on the internet for 10 years or so.


----------



## azesus

J-20 only needs an engine of 117KN to match with the F-22 aerodynamically because delta canard design is 25% more efficient


----------



## juj06750

Figaro said:


> While on this subject, there are additional WS-15 developments from Pupu. He basically states that current vanilla WS-15s have a thrust of slightly less than 16.5 tonnes.
> View attachment 661783
> 
> He then goes on to say that there is no problem in developing a 18 tonne (~180 kN) WS-15, only that it will be in the future as part of an improved variant (cites the evolution of the AL-31F).
> View attachment 661784


omg;; this american boy still keeps talking about our engine 
anyway, this time, who is pupu? another random maniac? lol
we no longer put any russian junks since a long time ago;; we make much better engines now
and there's J20 engine threads below; plz talk there
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...to-separate-from-the-j-20-news.514445/page-54


----------



## Figaro

juj06750 said:


> omg this american boy still keeps talking about our engine
> this time, who is pupu? another random maniac? lol
> we no longer put any russian junks since a long time ago;; we make much better engines now
> and there's J20 engine threads here; plz talk here
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...to-separate-from-the-j-20-news.514445/page-54


Your extreme ignorance and naivety is well noted


----------



## juj06750

Figaro said:


> Your extreme ignorance and naivety is well noted


your terrible obsession with our engine;; UNBELIEVABLE!!


----------



## Figaro

juj06750 said:


> your terrible obsession with our engine;; UNBELIEVABLE!!


your terrible obsession with harassing members who are not from China;; UNBELIEVABLE!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## no smoking

Figaro said:


> your terrible obsession with harassing members who are not from China;; UNBELIEVABLE!!



Please ignore that guy, he gets no contribution but personal attack.
I can't imagine any mature military dares to call Russian engine as "junk".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bolo

juj06750 said:


> your terrible obsession with our engine;; UNBELIEVABLE!!


Obsessed with Korean engines?


----------



## juj06750

no smoking said:


> Please ignore that guy, he gets no contribution but personal attack.
> I can't imagine any mature military dares to call Russian engine as "junk".


yes, now it's junk;; most NOT yet know that russian arms industry is already over due to the lack of money
now it usually takes dozens of years to develop new jet or ship; so far russia repeatedly starts and cancels new arms projects; my friends, just be await; we all would see soon in the next upcoming years


----------



## serenity

Figaro said:


> Your extreme ignorance and naivety is well noted



This guy is proven Indian false flag. Always talking rubbish and he's objective is to make Chinese seem like Indians, dumb and arrogant.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

serenity said:


> This guy is proven Indian false flag. Always talking rubbish and he's objective is to make Chinese seem like Indians, dumb and arrogant.


Agree with you and several others.

His words are very rude, appears *as if* a Chinese poster, using the atypical jingoistic, ultra-nationalistic language to stir commotion, to instigate hatred on Chinese and China in this forum. I don't believe his "Chineseness" at all, and I believe more that personality is a *fake one* playing out false flag personality here to create trouble!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> Agree with you and several others.
> 
> His words are very rude, appears *as if* a Chinese poster, using the atypical jingoistic, ultra-nationalistic language to stir commotion, to instigate hatred on Chinese and China in this forum. I don't believe his "Chineseness" at all, and I believe more that personality is a *fake one* playing out false flag personality here to create trouble!


Indeed ... now the trolls have become more sophisticated in their ways. Previously it was just making demeaning provocative statements on Chinese weaponry. Now they are trying to infiltrate these threads by appearing super pro-Chinese even though no Chinese member would act like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> Indeed ... now the trolls have become more sophisticated in their ways. Previously it was just making demeaning provocative statements on Chinese weaponry. Now they are trying to infiltrate these threads by appearing super pro-Chinese even though no Chinese member would act like that.


YOU phrased it more aptly than me

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## obj 705A

Just tell him to type in Chinese a very long sentence that Google translate can't handle, if he can do that then yes he is Chinese who is just constantly pissed off, if not then he is a false flagger.


----------



## IblinI

obj 705A said:


> Just tell him to type in Chinese a very long sentence that Google translate can't handle, if he can do that then yes he is Chinese who is just constantly pissed off, if not then he is a false flagger.


we have 1.4 billion of Chinese with different background across the globe, you know what I mean.


----------



## Figaro

Beautiful old image

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## kungfugymnast

obj 705A said:


> If for what ever reason an existing J-20 cannot be upgraded with new engines then that will still not stop China from procuring them now, once the WS-15 is ready they can simply produce many more additional J-20s with WS-15.



J-10 is best example. The J-10A design is optimized for AL-31 engine especially the air intake. When J-10B first being introduced, it could fit both AL-31 and WS-10, everyone was asking why haven't they started mass production of J-10B. Then came J-10C with final addition that will go on full mass production. 

The same can be said for J-20 as further changes will be made especially when WS-15 is perfected with potential for TVC being explored. To fill the gap, they'll build maybe in smaller hundred J-20 with WS10 tuned up saving budget for revised J-20 with more capable WS-15 that is likely to be far different from present J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> J-10 is best example. The J-10A design is optimized for AL-31 engine especially the air intake. When J-10B first being introduced, it could fit both AL-31 and WS-10, everyone was asking why haven't they started mass production of J-10B. Then came J-10C with final addition that will go on full mass production.
> 
> The same can be said for J-20 as further changes will be made especially when WS-15 is perfected with potential for TVC being explored. To fill the gap, they'll build maybe in smaller hundred J-20 with WS10 tuned up saving budget for revised J-20 with more capable WS-15 that is likely to be far different from present J-20.


3D TVC is confirmed for the WS-15 ... even the J-20 with TVC WS-10 is entering production later this year. The TVC has been explored extensively for at least two decades now by the Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> 3D TVC is confirmed for the WS-15 ... even the J-20 with TVC WS-10 is entering production later this year. The TVC has been explored extensively for at least two decades now by the Chinese.




Since when is the "J-20 with TVC WS-10" confirmed? So far it is a rumour ... a quite reliable one but again; as long as I don't see it, it remains unconfirmed.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Since when is the "J-20 with TVC WS-10" confirmed? So far it is a rumour ... a quite reliable one but again; as long as I don't see it, it remains unconfirmed.


The presence of both CMC Vice Chairmen attending the demonstration of the J-20 TVC was confirmed. The rumor was that the J-20 with TVC WS-10 will be produced this year. Either way, this is the closest we get to confirmation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## dbc

Figaro said:


> 3D TVC is confirmed for the WS-15 ... even the J-20 with TVC WS-10 is entering production later this year. The TVC has been explored extensively for at least two decades now by the Chinese.



J-20's needs thrust vector for high altitude maneuverability *and not* for turning fights but it will get a lot of pilots killed. This is a common misconception TV was added to the F/22 for short take off and high altitude maneuverability, at 50,000 feet control surface all less effective. The delta-canard design in particular are handicapped at high altitude without TV. But you will lose 10% of engine thrust as a consequence of adding a TV nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## azesus

Another big god Puffinus*剪水鹱*said TVC is for taking maneuverability load off from canard because using canard too much increase RCS from all that moving around forming bigger angle deflecting radar, all TVC does is helping climb rate, for now canard is perfect fine for maneuverability 
https://www.zhihu.com/people/wang-xiao-hui-50-34

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> 3D TVC is confirmed for the WS-15 ... even the J-20 with TVC WS-10 is entering production later this year. The TVC has been explored extensively for at least two decades now by the Chinese.



The J-20 sure needs the TVC. Having a gun in future is ideal too, better than not having. WS10 TVC with maxed out 32,000lb engines are adequate for the J-20 carrying air to air missiles in air engagement.


----------



## PeacefulWar

dbc said:


> J-20's needs thrust vector for high altitude maneuverability *and not* for turning fights but it will get a lot of pilots killed. This is a common misconception TV was added to the F/22 for short take off and high altitude maneuverability, at 50,000 feet control surface all less effective. The delta-canard design in particular are handicapped at high altitude without TV. But you will lose 10% of engine thrust as a consequence of adding a TV nozzle.


The 10% loss happens only when the nozzle is bent or all the time?
I suppose there is no thrust loss when it's straight?


----------



## kungfugymnast

PeacefulWar said:


> The 10% loss happens only when the nozzle is bent or all the time?
> I suppose there is no thrust loss when it's straight?



My country flies the Su-30MK with TVC, using it is like turning OD off in 90's cars based on demand. The thrust loss only happens when turning and banking. However turning it on when flying straight would drain some energy due to changes on exhaust nozzle, designer expects you to go dogfight so the mode goes to maneuverability rather than picking speed.

For J-20, designer might change the configuration to high speed maneuver rather than dogfight tight turn. Or they could come up with 2 different modes for its TVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> My country flies the Su-30MK with TVC, using it is like turning OD off in 90's cars based on demand. The thrust loss only happens when turning and banking. However turning it on when flying straight would drain some energy due to changes on exhaust nozzle, designer expects you to go dogfight so the mode goes to maneuverability rather than picking speed.
> 
> For J-20, designer might change the configuration to high speed maneuver rather than dogfight tight turn. Or they could come up with 2 different modes for its TVC.


The downside comes more from the added weight of the TVC nozzle than the thrust lost, because this only occurs in specific flight regimes (as you mentioned). But IIRC, it appears Shenyang's current multi-axis TVC system has incorporated significant weight reduction techniques from one of the academic papers I saw a while ago. It is clear the Chinese have put a very high priority on TVC; otherwise they would not have purchased the Su-35 or conducted the extensive research they did on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wulff

Figaro said:


> The presence of both CMC Vice Chairmen attending the demonstration of the J-20 TVC was confirmed. The rumor was that the J-20 with TVC WS-10 will be produced this year. Either way, this is the closest we get to confirmation.



i didnt know the TVC WS-10 had been installed on a J-20. I thought it was only the black-nozzled WS-10X.

Do we have any photos of the TVC WS-10 on J-20?


----------



## Figaro

wulff said:


> i didnt know the TVC WS-10 had been installed on a J-20. I thought it was only the black-nozzled WS-10X.
> 
> Do we have any photos of the TVC WS-10 on J-20?


No pictures unfortunately but there were many reports of TVC be tested on the J-20 as far as 2 to 3 years ago. But the gathering of the CMC Vice Chairmen a couple weeks ago to see the J-20 WS-10 TVC was confirmed and it is said this version will enter production this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> ...But the gathering of the CMC Vice Chairmen a couple weeks ago to see the J-20 WS-10 TVC was confirmed ...




Again, ... confirmed by whom?


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Again, ... confirmed by whom?


Numerous sources such as Pupu and the guy who leaked the J-10B TVC test back in 2017 ... and several others. These sources are the closest to "confirmation" we will get besides an official source (which is impossible) or pictures (which is also very difficult to come by). But the fact numerous credible sources said this should give credence to this development. Besides, it's been known that TVC has been tested on J-20 for the past 2 to 3 years ... it makes a lot of sense for them to be finally be produced this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wulff

Figaro said:


> Numerous sources such as Pupu and the guy who leaked the J-10B TVC test back in 2017 ... and several others. These sources are the closest to "confirmation" we will get besides an official source (which is impossible) or pictures (which is also very difficult to come by). But the fact numerous credible sources said this should give credence to this development. Besides, it's been known that TVC has been tested on J-20 for the past 2 to 3 years ... it makes a lot of sense for them to be finally be produced this year.



thanks figaro. 

OT:
And if you dont mind me asking, what is this stuff the other chinese members here say about you being ethnically Indian? and "undercover indian" lol. Don't get me wrong, i value your commentary, and I always though you were chinese-american. But I noticed some messages in this thread which are somewhat confusing. Or are you indian-american??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

wulff said:


> thanks figaro.
> 
> And if you dont mind me asking, what is this stuff the other chinese members here say about you being ethnically Indian? I though you were chinese-american. So why they saying this?


I cannot guarantee that I was not Indian in my previous life

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wulff

Figaro said:


> I cannot guarantee that I was not Indian in my previous life


lol, maybe in next life you'll be chinese

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI




----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


>


Your image is not showing on the thread. I can only see when it is quoted.


----------



## dbc

PeacefulWar said:


> The 10% loss happens only when the nozzle is bent or all the time?
> I suppose there is no thrust loss when it's straight?



Depends on the nozzle dimension, with the F/22 due to its rectangular exhaust its perpetual otherwise when engaged.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

IblinI said:


> ...





Figaro said:


> Your image is not showing on the thread. I can only see when it is quoted.



Indeed strange!??

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Numerous sources such as Pupu and the guy who leaked the J-10B TVC test back in 2017 ... and several others. These sources are the closest to "confirmation" we will get besides an official source (which is impossible) or pictures (which is also very difficult to come by). But the fact numerous credible sources said this should give credence to this development. Besides, it's been known that TVC has been tested on J-20 for the past 2 to 3 years ... it makes a lot of sense for them to be finally be produced this year.



For sure they have been experimenting with TVC on J-20 along with other changes on flight prototypes while in preparation for WS-15. No info will be revealed until design finalized.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Grandy

Deino said:


> Again, ... confirmed by whom?



The modified J-20B was unveiled last week. 
The ceremony was hosted by many senior military leaders including the Central Military Commission (CMC) vice-chairman General Zhang Youxia.
Speaking at the event, Zhang, who is also in charge of weapons development for the People’s Liberation Army, confirmed the mass production of the J-20B.
He said that J-20B is now equipped with thrust vector control thus helping the jet achieve agility criteria required to ‘classify’ as a fifth-generation fighter jet.
Thrust vector control (TVC) allows pilots to better control the aircraft by redirecting engine thrust. Chinese advancement in TVC technology was first displayed in 2018 when Beijing debuted its J-10C multirole fighter at the air show in Zhuhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Grandy said:


> The modified J-20B was unveiled last week. The ceremony was hosted by many senior military leaders including the Central Military Commission (CMC) vice-chairman General Zhang Youxia.
> Speaking at the event, Zhang, who is also in charge of weapons development for the People’s Liberation Army, confirmed the mass production of the J-20B.
> He said that J-20B is now equipped with thrust vector control thus helping the jet achieve agility criteria required to ‘classify’ as a fifth-generation fighter jet.
> Thrust vector control (TVC) allows pilots to better control the aircraft by redirecting engine thrust. Chinese advancement in TVC technology was first displayed in 2018 when Beijing debuted its J-10C multirole fighter at the air show in Zhuhai.


This Eurasian Times (Indian news network) report was a blatant ripoff Minnie Chan's SCMP article. While the CMC Vice Chairmen event Minnie Chan reported did indeed happen (as this was corroborated by other credible sources on CJDBY and Weibo), the rest of the article is completely wrong (she said the J-20s were going to use TVC AL-31s). The TVC engine in question is the WS-10 IPE, which has a thrust of 14.5 tonnes.


kungfugymnast said:


> For sure they have been experimenting with TVC on J-20 along with other changes on flight prototypes while in preparation for WS-15. No info will be revealed until design finalized.


Indeed ... nothing solid on the WS-15 except only for it has a target thrust of 180 kN, thrust to weight ratio of 10, and 3D TVC. Everything else is a mystery.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## serenity

Chinese engineers are working 24 hours in teams across the country some sleep while the ones start work in the east. Government have shown nothing new to public just old stuff. J-20B with thrust vectoring is just for mainstream service. Been playing and testing for years before even J-10 thrust vector shown in 2018. Guys the shown things are years and years old! You think J-10 thrust vectoring in 2018 mean they started working in 2017? That J-20B with vectoring start work last year? These projects take nearly 10 years to develop even with full time teams working 24 hours every day for 360 days of 365. Project been going on since 2010 maybe. What they show is old news. J-10 decision to add or not thrust vector engine and if they want to add then which engine all already done and settled before they show public J-10 vectoring. Probably even many years later they decide to show. All show is for politics for country itself and for outside agents. They never show the top stuff. Not even the second shelf.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

Also the J-10 show for vectoring is not equal to Mig-29 vectoring demonstration or early Su-27 modification demonstrations. Those Russian have different methods due to sales purpose. Those demonstrations were never fully developed. J-10 vector was showing old piece when J-10B frame is standard production at Chengdu. So they showed their step 3 out of step 10 for example and step 10 is for mass production standard. Step 3 is proven to work for public show and low chance of problem. Step 10 is secret and won't show for another few years at least. By that time some other things are at step 10 in development chain.

Russian show step 1 once it is proven to find some customers but notice Mig-35 can be ordered with vector engine after many years from step 1 and standard order does not include it. If you talk to them seriously, they may even tell you quietly why they don't recommend you buy the vectoring type. Su-35 and Su-57 vectoring engines are different and very important to Russia itself and these are much more developed programs. Even with Su-57 first batch engines they are similar to the Su-35 ones and not full 3D just V shaped angles. Although these are fully developed product.


----------



## Figaro

serenity said:


> Also the J-10 show for vectoring is not equal to Mig-29 vectoring demonstration or early Su-27 modification demonstrations. Those Russian have different methods due to sales purpose. Those demonstrations were never fully developed. J-10 vector was showing old piece when J-10B frame is standard production at Chengdu. So they showed their step 3 out of step 10 for example and step 10 is for mass production standard. Step 3 is proven to work for public show and low chance of problem. Step 10 is secret and won't show for another few years at least. By that time some other things are at step 10 in development chain.
> 
> Russian show step 1 once it is proven to find some customers but notice Mig-35 can be ordered with vector engine after many years from step 1 and standard order does not include it. If you talk to them seriously, they may even tell you quietly why they don't recommend you buy the vectoring type. Su-35 and Su-57 vectoring engines are different and very important to Russia itself and these are much more developed programs. Even with Su-57 first batch engines they are similar to the Su-35 ones and not full 3D just V shaped angles. Although these are fully developed product.


The J-10B TVC demonstration was quite impressive IIRC ... it performed all the classic poststall maneuvers excellently. The TVC performance is more or less in line with what we've seen on the Mig 29, Su-27s, and the F-16 VISTA. I really didn't see much of a difference; TVC performance has more or less been the same for a very long time. What is more important is lowering the weight of the TVC system and reducing thrust loss as much as possible during these maneuvers. Also, having maintenance for TVC should also be key.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## serenity

People surprised of J-20B first is J-20 reaching new levels of production numbers and second surprise is thrust vectoring incorporated. These people expect CCP to personally send them daily updates. These programs are 10 years old and fruit receive today. Today's programs are these people's imaginations.

In war or in 10 years when they give some hints, then these people again caught with pants down for 10 years in surprise huh how come they could do this so fast?!??!?!?!?! They don't begin to think this is old and maybe the Chinese are more capable and much more ahead than they believe due to their news and each other telling each other they are Chinese experts lol.

Since 1960s the CCP give technology and science revolution orders where for high technology programs, there is nothing too expensive, nothing that can be called taking too long, nothing too unworthy of investigation. If you can copy, copy, if you can steal do it and learn. Not everything is about copy and steal but at first there is more and less in future. Nothing not worth eating grass for years for sacrifice for long term eventual happiness. Bitterness before sweet since 1960s thanks to CCP. Sweet age from years of bitterness. Indians still try to pretend the bitterness they taste is really honey good democracy and freedom to shit and rape wherever. This is why Indians dream to have stealth fighter in 20 years and dream to be able to make smartphones and anything. China has for long time and Indians cannot believe cannot admit cannot face reality. Indian soldiers get killed so must be 10000 Chinese killed instead. Cannot face bitterness and will not pay price and sacrifice for sweetness. Therefore sweetness is in imagination and will always be until the journey is traveled.

Since 1960s there are armies of 钱学森 genius and even bigger armies of good engineers and scientists working 24 hours a day across China for these things since 1960s of hydrogen bomb to today's hypersonic weapons and quantum weapons and electronic weapons that is in regular people's imaginations. They recognize the gap is huge and because CCP knows the USA is holder of high technology and technology and science is number 1 and nothing else exists in this world. So when they have 10 good engineers to one program China has 1000 same level engineers and 1 million supporting this 1000. It is quiet war for 70 years!

This began since Europeans and Japanese invaded and nothing else on this earth means anything except technology and science ability. These westerners and observers been surprised since the first hydrogen bomb and continue being surprised today. They will never stop being surprised it seems even when China reaches equal level to USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

@Deino ... it looks like PDF has finally moved over to the DefenceTalk/SDF type forum style  ... and also, the positive/negative rating structure seems to be gone .


----------



## IblinI

@Deino ... it looks like PDF has finally moved over to the DefenceTalk/SDF type forum style  ... and also, the positive/negative rating structure seems to be gone .
[/QUOTE]
I was like wt..


----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


> @Deino ... it looks like PDF has finally moved over to the DefenceTalk/SDF type forum style  ... and also, the positive/negative rating structure seems to be gone .
> 
> I was like wt..


The forum still looks buggy and is quite glitchy compared to SDF and other Defencetalk forums. And it appears they removed all the reaction score for everyone (everyone's score are now back to near 0) and the positive/negative ratings are completely gone. The flags seem very out of place too.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2


----------



## lcloo

May be it is my eyes, I hardly can read any poster's name, the font colors are too dark.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

lcloo said:


> May be it is my eyes, I hardly can read any poster's name, the font colors are too dark.


you are not the only one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> The forum still looks buggy and is quite glitchy compared to SDF and other Defencetalk forums. And it appears they removed all the reaction score for everyone (everyone's score are now back to near 0) and the positive/negative ratings are completely gone. The flags seem very out of place too.



Now users can give positive or negative ratings.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

serenity said:


> Also the J-10 show for vectoring is not equal to Mig-29 vectoring demonstration or early Su-27 modification demonstrations. Those Russian have different methods due to sales purpose. Those demonstrations were never fully developed. J-10 vector was showing old piece when J-10B frame is standard production at Chengdu. So they showed their step 3 out of step 10 for example and step 10 is for mass production standard. Step 3 is proven to work for public show and low chance of problem. Step 10 is secret and won't show for another few years at least. By that time some other things are at step 10 in development chain.
> 
> Russian show step 1 once it is proven to find some customers but notice Mig-35 can be ordered with vector engine after many years from step 1 and standard order does not include it. If you talk to them seriously, they may even tell you quietly why they don't recommend you buy the vectoring type. Su-35 and Su-57 vectoring engines are different and very important to Russia itself and these are much more developed programs. Even with Su-57 first batch engines they are similar to the Su-35 ones and not full 3D just V shaped angles. Although these are fully developed product.



Russian TVC working fine on export market. My country SU-30MK comes with forward canard & TVC proven well against smaller nimble fighters such as F/A-18, F-16, Mig-29 that don't come with TVC. If you're into cost saving and confident that your fighters won't get into dogfight much, then you can choose to take the SU-30MK without forward canard and TVC requiring less maintenance yet enjoy faster top speed & better cruising range. 

For China & Russia, they knew the only way to shoot down US stealth fighters is to get into visual range with missiles effective range unknown. Might need to switch to guns if missiles not acquiring lock. That's why J-20 needed TVC.


----------



## samsara

lcloo said:


> May be it is my eyes, I hardly can read any poster's name, the font colors are too dark.


Same as you. Appearance-wise I like more the previous board software, the old readability is better, clearer. Old layout is simpler thus better. Wonder what's the improvement this new board software has.

//EDIT: Just found out that the "Like" button now carries more emphasis options from Like, Love, Wow to the negative ones: sad, Angry. Just hover the mouse to the "Like" to see the choices

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

The latest issue of ordnance industry science and tech told that there are more than 50 J-20 has already produced by CAC, and China will produce 200 to 300 J-20B that entered production this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> The latest issue of ordnance industry science and tech told that there are more than 50 J-20 has already produced by CAC, and China will produce 200 to 300 J-20B that entered production this year.
> View attachment 663401
> 
> View attachment 663402
> 
> View attachment 663403


If I'm reading this section correctly, it says the WS-10's (most likely the WS-10B) design was finalized in 2015 has a thrust of approximately 14 tonnes, uses third generation single crystal superalloys and P/M disks, and has FADEC. So good confirmation on the WS-10 specs, although I'm pleasantly surprised its using 3rd generation superalloys (e.g. DD9, DD10) as opposed to the 2nd generation materials we've been hearing about (e.g. DD6).


----------



## obj 705A

52051 said:


> The latest issue of ordnance industry science and tech told that there are more than 50 J-20 has already produced by CAC, and China will produce 200 to 300 J-20B that entered production this year.
> View attachment 663401
> 
> View attachment 663402
> 
> View attachment 663403



so is this "ordnance industry science and tech" an official magazine? or is it at least semi official? does it have any connection to the government? or is it just a collection of analysts that have zero access to China's current military?


----------



## Figaro

obj 705A said:


> so is this "ordnance industry science and tech" an official magazine? or is it at least semi official? does it have any connection to the government? or is it just a collection of analysts that have zero access to China's current military?


From what I've been reading around, it is pretty official/reliable. Its word should not be taken lightly.

Edit: Ppl on SDF said it quoted SCMP so I'm not sure of the credibility anymore .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

obj 705A said:


> so is this "ordnance industry science and tech" an official magazine? or is it at least semi official? does it have any connection to the government? or is it just a collection of analysts that have zero access to China's current military?











兵工科技_百度百科


《兵工科技》杂志是经国家新闻出版总署正式批准，面向国内外公开发行的国家期刊，《中国核心期刊（遴选）数据库》、《中国期刊全文数据库》、《中文科技期刊数据库》、《中国期刊网》等数据库全文收录期刊，杂志集权威性、理论性与专业性于一体，具有很高的学术价值，是作者科研、晋级等方面的权威依据。




baike.baidu.com





This magainze is listed in "China core journal database" and "Chinese-language Science Journal database", both are administrated by depart of Science and Tech in China, and the magazine itself is an offspring to the committe of Science and Technology in Shanxi, China.

I believe it contain more officiality or authority than random "analysts" in PDF, especially these who barely read or speak Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulWar

52051 said:


> 兵工科技_百度百科
> 
> 
> 《兵工科技》杂志是经国家新闻出版总署正式批准，面向国内外公开发行的国家期刊，《中国核心期刊（遴选）数据库》、《中国期刊全文数据库》、《中文科技期刊数据库》、《中国期刊网》等数据库全文收录期刊，杂志集权威性、理论性与专业性于一体，具有很高的学术价值，是作者科研、晋级等方面的权威依据。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> baike.baidu.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This magainze is listed in "China core journal database" and "Chinese-language Science Journal database", both are administrated by depart of Science and Tech in China, and the magazine itself is an offspring to the committe of Science and Technology in Shanxi, China.
> 
> I believe it contain more officiality or authority than random "analysts" in PDF, especially these who barely read or speak Chinese.


It clearly stated in the very beginning of the article: according to SCMP and foreign media reports....

Reactions: Sad Sad:
1


----------



## 52051

PeacefulWar said:


> It clearly stated in the very beginning of the article: according to SCMP and foreign media reports....



Read again.

They cited SCMP in the first sentence on the news that J-20B will about to enter production phase, the following are another source.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulWar

52051 said:


> Read again.
> 
> They cited SCMP in the first sentence on the news that J-20B will about to enter production phase, the following are another source.


Yes, that's what I trying to say: it's source is SCMP and foreigner medias...
This magazine didn't give new info neither confirming those info


----------



## IblinI

obj 705A said:


> so is this "ordnance industry science and tech" an official magazine? or is it at least semi official? does it have any connection to the government? or is it just a collection of analysts that have zero access to China's current military?


you will never find certatinty in these kind of magazine, all quoting foreign news and mixed with some anaylst.


----------



## 52051

PeacefulWar said:


> Yes, that's what I trying to say: it's source is SCMP and foreigner medias...
> This magazine didn't give new info neither confirming those info



Where did they say the source is foreign media in that line? don't put your words into their mouth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulWar

52051 said:


> Where did they say the source is foreign media in that line? don't put your words into their mouth.

















52051 said:


> The latest issue of ordnance industry science and tech told that there are more than 50 J-20 has already produced by CAC, and China will produce 200 to 300 J-20B that entered production this *year*.










It also says according to foreigner media's analysis, *eventually *as many as 200-300 J-20Bs could be produced.
They never mention *this year*.

Indeed, please "don't put your words into their mouth"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

PeacefulWar said:


> View attachment 663472
> 
> View attachment 663473
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 663475
> 
> 
> 
> It also says according to foreigner media's analysis, *eventually *as many as 200-300 J-20Bs could be produced.
> They never mention *this year*.
> 
> Indeed, please "don't put your words into their mouth"


This is unfortunate. Ordinance Science & Technology is usually a credible source ... I guess nothing is immune to Minnie Chan's toxic articles.


----------



## PeacefulWar

Figaro said:


> This is unfortunate. Ordinance Science & Technology is usually a credible source ... I guess nothing is immune to Minnie Chan's toxic articles.


Like @IblinI also mentioned.
Most military related article in Chinese magazines are all like that: according to foreigner news blah blah... (except those history reviews of some old models).
They are not meant for leaking new info/progress.
They are for public science education and fun read for fans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

And quoted from Breadbox, a 'new member' of the SDF:

_"I read the article, they are 100% going off Minnie Chan, no questions asked, J20B+Vector Thrust. If you are following this thread, there isn’t anything there we don’t already know._
_I can tell you for a fact that Sinodefence.com is *more informed on J20 than anything else* in the world."_


Posters at PDF (esp. those who not frequent there) may have to grasp the deep imprinted psyche of the so-called professional forum of SDF while there are overwhelming their members who are also members here, both the known and clearly identifiable (use the same userIDs) and those who are surreptitious, be underground here (you never see their traces here but they clearly visit here regularly and even quoted info posted here at there). The materials of essences posted here are right immediately ported there within a fraction of time, mostly with the due credits but some merely ignored such courtesy, while the reverse actions are unfortunately less seen here, thus it's professional there yet here's a fan club, in their words.

It seems some "China Watchers" expect China to open its belly widely to the world through the direct words which are unmistakably understood, done from the position of catching up thus they forget to draw the wisdom of indirect interpretation from the various circulated information. Well, just live with that situation and ignore as necessary all the noises!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> And quoted from Breadbox, a 'new member' of the SDF:
> 
> _"I read the article, they are 100% going off Minnie Chan, no questions asked, J20B+Vector Thrust. If you are following this thread, there isn’t anything there we don’t already know._
> _I can tell you for a fact that Sinodefence.com is *more informed on J20 than anything else* in the world."_
> 
> 
> Posters at PDF (esp. those who not frequent there) may have to grasp the deep imprinted psyche of the so-called professional forum of SDF while there are overwhelming their members who are also members here, both the known and clearly identifiable (use the same userIDs) and those who are surreptitious, be underground here (you never see their traces here but they clearly visit here regularly and even quoted info posted here at there). The materials of essences posted here are right immediately ported there within a fraction of time, mostly with the due credits but some merely ignored such courtesy, while the reverse actions are unfortunately less seen here, thus it's professional there yet here's a fan club, in their words.
> 
> It seems some "China Watchers" expect China to open its belly widely to the world through the direct words which are unmistakably understood, done from the position of catching up thus they forget to draw the wisdom of indirect interpretation from the various circulated information. Well, just live with that situation and ignore as necessary all the noises!


There is a SDF poster I know for a fact steals pictures from LKJ86 without due credit (and has been for years). And yes you are correct ... there are quite a few members on SDF who have a feeling of superiority over everyone else. The fact of the matter is a lot of important developments are posted on PDF or other forums way before SDF; some of the material never even reaches SDF. The people who have this attitude rarely offer any deep insights anyway. Of course, this is not to say SDF is a bad forum or anything since there are still very knowledgeable posters there ... however as you mentioned the arrogant/snobbish attitude of some particular members is extremely annoying.


PeacefulWar said:


> View attachment 663472
> 
> View attachment 663473
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 663475
> 
> 
> 
> It also says according to foreigner media's analysis, *eventually *as many as 200-300 J-20Bs could be produced.
> They never mention *this year*.
> 
> Indeed, please "don't put your words into their mouth"


Dude 52051 never said 200 to 300 J-20Bs could be produced this year. His original statement was the following.

_*The latest issue of ordnance industry science and tech told that there are more than 50 J-20 has already produced by CAC, and China will produce 200 to 300 J-20B that entered production this year.*_

This means that China will produce 200 to 300 of the J-20Bs that entered production this year (which by all accounts is indeed true), not that it will produce 200 to 300 J-20s this specific year. There is a difference. But I agree the article relies too much on SCMP, which is unfortunate.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

The "foreign media" mentioned in Chinese media may often be referring to SDF and PDF, so the "news" is always some 2nd hand postings (on SDF and PDF) originally from Chinese media, and later on the Chinese media will refer to them as if sourced from foreign media.

Usually I won't read too much into such news. Just treat them as "may be true" news. Until we have seen semi-official or government related news media, just don't take them as confirmation. Not worth to waste our brain energy arguing who is wrong or right.

Smart China military watchers must know how to filter the news, but that can only be gained through experience. The truth always revealed itself after some time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> Smart China military watchers must know how to filter the news, but that can only be gained through experience. The truth always revealed itself after some time.


This is the problem though ... the PLAAF especially has significantly tightened censorship. We haven't seen a single Taihang equipped J-20 in operation despite them entering production in late 2018, nor have we seen a Y-20 equipped with WS-20 even though AVIC confirmed this to have occurred last year. And this is not to mention the only picture of the WS-15 is from a 2009 (not to mention the last specs we got dated back to 2012).


----------



## obj 705A

If I'm not mistaken no one on any website other than this magazine has ever said China will have 200-300 J-20B , so at least in regards to this bit of information it was not taken from "foreign media". meaning either this was a true insider information that they got or in the worst case scenario a pure guess.

And even if it was just a guess in any case the lower estimate they gave (200 fighters) is actually quite conservative so I thought the conservative/pessimistic members would welcome it, reaching the lower pessimistic estimate is actually quite easy, let us take the worst case scenario and say that Pupu's "60 fighters by the end of this year" is an exageration and assume it is actually 36 by end of 2020, *if* a new improved variant doesn't enter mass production earlier than 2025 that means for the next 4 years (starting from 2021) they will have to produce a total of at least 168 fighters (eg:- 24, 36, 48, 60 fighters per year in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 respectively) to reach 204 fighters.

By the way regarding "professionals" in SDF & PDF, 99% of members on these forums (me included) are armchair generals, the only case in which a person is not an armchair general is if he actually served in the PLAN or PLAAF or has alternatively worked (or is working) on Chinese military aircrafts or in the shipbuilding industry (if it is information related to navy).


----------



## PeacefulWar

obj 705A said:


> If I'm not mistaken no one on any website other than this magazine has ever said China will have 200-300 J-20B , so at least in regards to this bit of information it was not taken from "foreign media". meaning either this was a true insider information that they got or in the worst case scenario a pure guess.



View attachment 663475



This magazine clearly stated: *according to foreign media, *more J-20B will be produced than the common type(J-20A), maybe 200-300 eventually.
Let's move on.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Oh man this is hilarious. I guess Minnie Chan does get taken seriously after all.

Actually it isn’t just Minnie but all supposedly foreign sources as well. David Ace also gets quoted with an air of authority on CJDBY.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

J-20 is supposed to replace J-8. 500 planes should be the required number.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

Austin Powers said:


> J-20 is supposed to replace J-8. 500 planes should be the required number.



if we are talking about the J-20 in general and not just the J-20B variant, indeed the total number would probably be no less than 500 J-20 plus a minimum of 1500 J-31 (propably much higher) some of which would be for the navy's aircraft carriers, China currently has 1200 fighters, in general all countries are increasing their strength therefore China too will increase the size of it's airforce, furthermore 6th gen fighters of other countries will be entering service somewhere in the thirties or fourties meaning all of China's 4th gen fighters would have to be retired by the 2040s at the latest.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> Oh man this is hilarious. I guess Minnie Chan does get taken seriously after all.
> 
> Actually it isn’t just Minnie but all supposedly foreign sources as well. David Ace also gets quoted with an air of authority on CJDBY.


So is the entire article worthless?


----------



## Deino

Austin Powers said:


> J-20 is supposed to replace J-8. 500 planes should be the required number.




Since when the J-8? So far the only front-line unit operational replaced Su-30MKK and given the rumours with Anshan it is another Flanker unit.


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> So is the entire article worthless?


The excerpt about the WS-10 was quite insightful ... it didn't seem to be quoting any foreign sources there. 


Austin Powers said:


> J-20 is supposed to replace J-8. 500 planes should be the required number.


No where near 500 J-20s until the WS-15 arrives. Peak J-20 production will not be hit with the current interim WS-10 engines.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Since when the J-8? So far the only front-line unit operational replaced Su-30MKK and given the rumours with Anshan it is another Flanker unit.



Even then you don’t need to replace legacy aircraft on an one-to-one basis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> Since when the J-8? So far the only front-line unit operational replaced Su-30MKK and given the rumours with Anshan it is another Flanker unit.



J-20 replaces J-8 in the twin engine heavy fighter role. J-20 complements various Flanker types.


----------



## Figaro

Austin Powers said:


> J-20 replaces J-8 in the twin engine heavy fighter role. J-20 complements various Flanker types.


The J-8 is an interceptor though, not a fighter. The J-8s role could be taken by the J-20, J-16, or the J-10C.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Figaro said:


> The J-8 is an interceptor though, not a fighter. The J-8s role could be taken by the J-20, J-16, or the J-10C.



J-8 is Chinese counterpart of MiG-23 / F-4.


----------



## samsara

obj 705A said:


> If I'm not mistaken no one on any website other than this magazine has ever said China will have 200-300 J-20B , so at least in regards to this bit of information it was not taken from "foreign media". meaning either this was a true insider information that they got or in the worst case scenario a pure guess.
> 
> And even if it was just a guess in any case the lower estimate they gave (200 fighters) is actually quite conservative so I thought the conservative/pessimistic members would welcome it, reaching the lower pessimistic estimate is actually quite easy, let us take the worst case scenario and say that Pupu's "60 fighters by the end of this year" is an exageration and assume it is actually 36 by end of 2020, *if* a new improved variant doesn't enter mass production earlier than 2025 that means for the next 4 years (starting from 2021) they will have to produce a total of at least 168 fighters (eg:- 24, 36, 48, 60 fighters per year in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 respectively) to reach 204 fighters.
> 
> By the way regarding "professionals" in SDF & PDF, 99% of members on these forums (me included) are armchair generals, the only case in which a person is not an armchair general is if he actually served in the PLAN or PLAAF or has alternatively worked (or is working) on Chinese military aircrafts or in the shipbuilding industry (if it is information related to navy).


Give these thoughts some play:

how far this magazine knew
how much truth it revealed
the xxx number of J-20B variant; how about the possibility of C (with yyy number) even D (zzz number) variants in future?
what does prevent China from adding new production lines if it wanna jack up the quantity of J-20 series? A better question will be what quantity does China need to meet its defence strategy (with economy constraint, how many can the nation afford?) Compared to the past one or two decades, the current tensions and threats as well as in the future is seemingly getting higher and higher. As the country grows stronger and richer, it draws more attention as well as causes higher irritation to the declining unipolar establishment. The peer rivalry is growing out dangerously and there is no guarantee it'll remain under control and stay peacefully.

At the end the public just know partially what the nation plans and does. Keeping some under sleeves maintains the surprise factor and keep opponent(s) wondering. Guess at best but never draw conclusion prematurely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Austin Powers said:


> J-20 replaces J-8 in the twin engine heavy fighter role. J-20 complements various Flanker types.




And this is based on what?? Especially since it contradicts the current PLAAF replacements ... most J-8 units are getting J-16s now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## obj 705A

samsara said:


> the xxx number of J-20B variant; how about the possibility of C (with yyy number) even D (zzz number) variants in future?



Indeed just like what I said this is assuming no new variants are available earlier than 2025, it's all about time, if a J-20C is available 2 or 3 years from now then sure why not *when* it's available stop J-20B production and start producing the new variant.



samsara said:


> better question will be what quantity does China need to meet its defence strategy (with economy constraint, how many can the nation afford?)



The needs of China is that in an all out conventional war with the US they need to be able to at least reach a draw if not outrightly defeat the US, there is a myth that because the US has it's forces spread out it cannot redirect them towards China, how long would it take these forces to be redirected towards China, few days, few weeks? no problem, obviously if they want to wage a war they would be doing all preparations in advance.
that is not to mention America's allies, , if US bases in Japan start targeting China, then China would have to target Japan, meaning you would have to add the the Japanese military to the comparison and then comes Europe, American bombers taking off from there can and will target China. US fighters taking off from Turkey & Qatar can reach western China with a good amount of aerial refueling. ofcourse now one might say "what about Russia?" you can't really depend on Russia, their economy is in ruins and they can barely afford to buy their own weapons that they develope. a 14$ trillion economy which is set to surpass the US GDP some point in the future should not depend on any one else but itself, no such things as economic contraints refer to post #12,644 on page 843, I don't want to copy paste it here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

The J-20 designations are confusing. I assume the J-20s with AL-31Fs are called J-20, the J-20s with the standard WS-10X are called J-20A, and the J-20s with the TVC WS-10X are called J-20B (from the rumors at least). That would mean then the WS-15 version would be called the J-20C.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## casual

China's probably mass producing J20s now even if it did in fact plan to hold out for ws-15 before. The reason being the increased defense pressure from the US recently. Just my own analysis.


----------



## S10

casual said:


> China's probably mass producing J20s now even if it did in fact plan to hold out for ws-15 before. The reason being the increased defense pressure from the US recently. Just my own analysis.


This is enabled by the latest WS-10 variant with 14.5 tons of thrust and FADEC, bringing thrust to weight ratio to more than 10:1. I expect China to have at least another regiment (24 planes) in service by the end of the year, bring the total closer to 90 (60 are known to be in service).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ILC

60 are not known in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

ILC said:


> 60 are not known in service.


Well not known does not mean not exist. I really don't know why people are so shocked at the possibility of over 60 J-20s at this point ... after all we have not seen even a single operational Taihang J-20 even though they've been produced since late 2018. More likely than not, the PLAAF has deliberately increased censorship of the serials or even photographs. So we are truly in the dark when it comes to the numbers.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Well not known does not mean not exist. I really don't know why people are so shocked at the possibility of over 60 J-20s at this point ... after all we have not seen even a single operational Taihang J-20 even though they've been produced since late 2018. More likely than not, the PLAAF has deliberately increased censorship of the serials or even photographs. So we are truly in the dark when it comes to the numbers.





Not shocked, but highly sceptical and that's the point.

On the one side we have some reliable reports from some big-shrimps suggesting about "60 until year's end", which is eagerly picked up by some - one forgives me - "fan-boys" as "60 per year", which means 60 in 2018, 2019 and 2020 and as such more than 200. But let us take a look if 60 are possible or realistic.

On the other side - and I'm well aware to ruin the party again - there are those with the minimalist approach accepting only confirmed units and confirmed aircraft numbers.

So as such let me try to put both arguments side by side in the meaning that the truth lies most likely somewhere between the 60 altogether and the about 20 "confirmed".

-* 60 per year* is highly unlikely (IMO plain impossible) given any so far seen comparable production rate of J-10s, J-11/15/16s. It also does not fit to any other confirmed point and that's the issue:

We know so far exactly 18 J-20s confirmed by individual numbers, we know production of the WS-10C-powered ones started at around mid-2019. Since then we've seen "several" yellow painted ones at CAC ... but: these "several" are altogether only a hand full of images with a maximum of 4 in a shelter together. As such assuming 60 per year - which would equal a rate of 5/month - we must have seen more, we must have seen more delivered to operational units and most of all we must have hear anything on a new Brigade besides the three known ones. Not even Anshan is confirmed even if we have reports since late 2019/early 2020. And I cannot think that all three units at Dingxin, Cangzhou and Wuhu are using 20 each since no satellite image so far shows so many.

-* 60 altogether* is likely but even here I'm sceptical due to one major argument: namely we have not even rumours on additional units. 60 altogether would fit to my assumption of about 8 each at Dingxin and Cangzhou and maybe 12-16 (aka 2 daduis) at Wuhu. These would be about 32 in the first 3 units and about 28 or exactly one additional brigade - at an so far unknown unit. Again so far there are no rumours of a new unit besides Anshan (1st Brigade) and I'm at least confident that such a high number of J-20s would have been spotted.

Therefore in conclusion I find 60 not unrealistic, but unlikely and my guess would be around 32 aircraft by now and maybe 40 altogether by year's end.

Otherwise I urge all supporters of "there are 60 or even more" to explain, where these missing birds should be?!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## obj 705A

Deino said:


> We know so far exactly 18 J-20s confirmed by individual numbers, we know production of the WS-10C-powered ones started at around mid-2019. Since then we've seen "several" yellow painted ones at CAC ... but: these "several" are altogether only a hand full of *images* with a maximum of 4 in a shelter together.



If you are waiting for photographic evidence then I assure you.. even if you wait for 1 million years you won't get photographs of every new number.
The PLA is not running a National Geographic documentary, they are not obliged to provide photographic evidence of every single aircraft they provide , in fact it is absolutely the opposite & I'm confident that the entire PLA & Chinese intelligence agencies are doing their best to hide the PLA's capabilities in almost every field including number of J-20s available. and why they would do that? well it's just like what a Chinese general said when he was talking about why the PLA is so secretive and sensitive about disclosing it's capabilities when compared to the US, he said the US is like a powerfull muscular man so they like to show off their strength to everybody while China on the other hand is like a skinny one next to the US so China has to do it's best to hide it's capabilities. and even though the CIA probably already knows many of the PLA's secretes still the PLA is doing it's best to hide it's capabilities, so when the PLA is trying this hard to reduce the flow of information to the number one intelligence agnecy that is the CIA.. what makes you think a bunch of civilians sitting on their chair like us could uncover PLA secretes! that is why whatever small evidence you receive through Googling.. it represents a fraction of the true number of fighters.

The only case in which the PLA would stop being this secretive and become less strict about the flow of information to the outside world is when they become as muscular as the US military. and when will that happen? 20 or 30 years from now maybe? do you want to wait that long to get photographic evidence?

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

obj 705A said:


> If you are waiting for photographic evidence then I assure you.. even if you wait for 1 million years you won't get photographs of every new number.
> The PLA is not running a National Geographic documentary, they are not obliged to provide photographic evidence of every single aircraft they provide , in fact it is absolutely the opposite & I'm confident that the entire PLA & Chinese intelligence agencies are doing their best to hide the PLA's capabilities in almost every field including number of J-20s available. and why they would do that? well it's just like what a Chinese general said when he was talking about why the PLA is so secretive and sensitive about disclosing it's capabilities when compared to the US, he said the US is like a powerfull muscular man so they like to show off their strength to everybody while China on the other hand is like a skinny one next to the US so China has to do it's best to hide it's capabilities. and even though the CIA probably already knows many of the PLA's secretes still the PLA is doing it's best to hide it's capabilities, so when the PLA is trying this hard to reduce the flow of information to the number one intelligence agnecy that is the CIA.. what makes you think a bunch of civilians sitting on their chair like us could uncover PLA secretes! that is why whatever small evidence you receive through Googling.. it represents a fraction of the true number of fighters.
> 
> The only case in which the PLA would stop being this secretive and become less strict about the flow of information to the outside world is when they become as muscular as the US military. and when will that happen? 20 or 30 years from now maybe? do you want to wait that long to get photographic evidence?



That's for sure and nothing I expect (even if that would be great), but given an assumption based on other units - J-10C, J-11B, J-16, ... - that we know about 1/2 to 2/3 of a given unit, and even then I end at 40 or best at between 8-12 for each of the FTTB units and 24-28 units at Wuhu making in summary 48-50 J-20s and still not 60. 

This however - and given the public interest in that type - would be needed to sum up to 60+, namely that one complete additional unit is missing. I find it most unlikely that such a high number of J-20s would suddenly come out of the blue especially not one of the premier fighter units which are quite well know.

And one additional argument exactly picking up your "the entire PLA & Chinese intelligence agencies are doing their best to hide the PLA's capabilities" story: In a similar way the PLAAF is hiding a much larger number of J-20 in order to look weaker it could also be that they simply have not more but instead spread such rumours, which were eagerly picked up by the community and even more hyped up by such BS-reporters like Minnie Chan, only to look stronger than they are in fact!

Just a similar - and IMO more likely - option!


----------



## serenity

PLA strength is hidden and important information and important weapons are also totally hidden. Because they do not want to give Americans concern and worry even further. If the Americans know the true levels of PLA beyond just what we already know, they will spent even more money and energy to develop even better things. PLA is worried to let Americans feel the threat and use even more funds from GPD to military purposes. PLA will always show itself as much weaker than really is. If USA spends the same level as always, it is less work for PLA. If PLA announce and show what they really already using now and have close to readiness, the USA will have a revolution in politics and instead of low level trade war and calm military development, the USA will suddenly increase military spending to 10% GPD maybe and change its culture into a world war like mentality. PLA's strategy is to keep US military as comfortable feeling as possible for as long as possible.

Even though many American generals and military leaders talk about how strong China is now, most politicians still think the USA is 50 years ahead every way. This is what CCP and PLA would prefer and would prefer those Generals and military men be more quiet and think confidently like the civilians and normal soldiers.

J-20 is interpret as 60 total. Only some interpret as 60 per year although 60 per year could also become possible in future but will require many new factories and all producing J-20. So Deino is right. At moment maybe the best situation is 60 total I think. I don't have any doubts this is what's happening. But China is surprise. It could be many more than this. I do not believe they do the opposite and say they have 60 now when only truly have 30 or 40. It's much more likely when they say 60 they have many more than 60 and have been building factories all over China from 5 years ago while the program is finishing up with factory changing along with any final changes. Things happen together in China rather than one after another. With problems solved as discarding if there are any. Non-Chinese do not understand Chinese engineering program management at all. Everything happens together. Foundation is built while material for top is already supplied. If there is a problem, the next day the top material supply is corrected and problem parts as loss discarded.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> That's for sure and nothing I expect (even if that would be great), but given an assumption based on other units - J-10C, J-11B, J-16, ... - that we know about 1/2 to 2/3 of a given unit, and even then I end at 40 or best at between 8-12 for each of the FTTB units and 24-28 units at Wuhu making in summary 48-50 J-20s and still not 60.
> 
> This however - and given the public interest in that type - would be needed to sum up to 60+, namely that one complete additional unit is missing. I find it most unlikely that such a high number of J-20s would suddenly come out of the blue especially not one of the premier fighter units which are quite well know.
> 
> And one additional argument exactly picking up your "the entire PLA & Chinese intelligence agencies are doing their best to hide the PLA's capabilities" story: In a similar way the PLAAF is hiding a much larger number of J-20 in order to look weaker it could also be that they simply have not more but instead spread such rumours, which were eagerly picked up by the community and even more hyped up by such BS-reporters like Minnie Chan, only to look stronger than they are in fact!
> 
> Just a similar - and IMO more likely - option!


Honestly it would be smarter to spend less money on the J-20s with interim engines given how large of an upgrade the WS-15 (180 kN vs the 140-150 kN currently) will bring. I really don't see the PLAAF procuring a massive number of J-20s currently for this single reason alone. And given the massive difference between the WS-15 and WS-10 (especially in bypass ratio), I doubt current J-20s could be re-engined to the WS-15 due to the likely change in intake design to accommodate the new engine.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Honestly it would be smarter to spend less money on the J-20s with interim engines given how large of an upgrade the WS-15 (180 kN vs the 140-150 kN currently) will bring. I really don't see the PLAAF procuring a massive number of J-20s currently for this single reason alone. And given the massive difference between the WS-15 and WS-10 (especially in bypass ratio), I doubt current J-20s could be re-engined to the WS-15 due to the likely change in intake design to accommodate the new engine.




Sorry, but how refers this to my post?


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Sorry, but how refers this to my post?


I was mainly counteracting this bolded assertion. 

_And one additional argument exactly picking up your "the entire PLA & Chinese intelligence agencies are doing their best to hide the PLA's capabilities" story: In a similar way the *PLAAF is hiding a much larger number* of J-20 in order to look weaker it could also be that they simply have not more but instead spread such rumours, which were eagerly picked up by the community and even more hyped up by such BS-reporters like Minnie Chan, only to look stronger than they are in fact!_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> We know so far exactly 18 J-20s confirmed by individual numbers, we know production of the WS-10C-powered ones started at around mid-2019. Since then we've seen "several" yellow painted ones at CAC ... but: these "several" are altogether only a hand full of images with a maximum of 4 in a shelter together.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297143688783630337

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291638191880122368

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292961335769210880Obviously, PLAAF doesn't want you guys to get such images.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> I was mainly counteracting this bolded assertion.
> 
> _And one additional argument exactly picking up your "the entire PLA & Chinese intelligence agencies are doing their best to hide the PLA's capabilities" story: In a similar way the *PLAAF is hiding a much larger number* of J-20 in order to look weaker it could also be that they simply have not more but instead spread such rumours, which were eagerly picked up by the community and even more hyped up by such BS-reporters like Minnie Chan, only to look stronger than they are in fact!_


China has built over 500 J-10s, and how many ones do you know?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> Honestly it would be smarter to spend less money on the J-20s with interim engines given how large of an upgrade the WS-15 (180 kN vs the 140-150 kN currently) will bring. I really don't see the PLAAF procuring a massive number of J-20s currently for this single reason alone. And given the massive difference between the WS-15 and WS-10 (especially in bypass ratio), I doubt current J-20s could be re-engined to the WS-15 due to the likely change in intake design to accommodate the new engine.


1. There is an annual budget for PLAAF, and why can't PLAAF buy what she needs?
2. PLAAF desperately needs to upgrade her fighter jets, and is there any one better than J-20 equipped with WS-10?
3. Nothing is perfect. PLAAF also bought hundreds of J-10A, instead of just waiting for J-10B/C.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297143688783630337
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291638191880122368
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292961335769210880Obviously, PLAAF doesn't want you guys to get such images.




I know and exactly this cat & mice game is what I like so much.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## LKJ86

J-20Q























Via @Fighterman_久丽美学研究 and @模人一架 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Otherwise I urge all supporters of "there are 60 or even more" to explain, where these missing birds should be?!


According to the same standard, does PLAAF have 24 Su-35SK?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Enigma SIG

LKJ86 said:


> J-20Q
> View attachment 664392
> View attachment 664393
> View attachment 664394
> View attachment 664395
> View attachment 664396
> View attachment 664397
> View attachment 664398
> 
> Via @Fighterman_久丽美学研究 and @模人一架 from Weibo


Cute Kit. I remember doing a F-104 Starfighter in my school days. Fun times.


----------



## Clutch

*Problem: China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun*

January 3, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Asia Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags:

ChinaMilitaryTechnologyWorldJ-20Stealth


Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.

Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.


Aviation journalist Andreas Rupprecht confirmed the weapon's absence in the January 2019 issue of _Combat Aircraft_.

The same story detailed the J-20's standard weapons loadout. The 67-feet-long warplane, the first squadron of which became operational in early 2018, features three weapons bays -- one each along each intake "cheek" and a third, larger bay along the centerline.












Problem China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun










NOW
PLAYING









At the Zhuhai air show in November 2018, a pair of J-20s opened their weapons bays in full view of the crowd. Each fighter carried a one PL-10 short-range air-to-air missile in each side bay plus four long-range PL-15 missiles in the centerline bay.


The PL-10 is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Sidewinder missile. The PL-15 is similar to the American Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM.

The J-20's bay layout is unsurprising. The U.S. Air Force's own F-22 stealth fighter also has three weapons bays in similar locations to those on the Chinese jet. The American plane's bays are bigger and together accommodate eight missiles.

The U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighter, by contrast, has a single, large centerline bay that, as of late 2018, could carry just two AMRAAMs. However, both the F-22 and F-35 also boast cannons as back-up to their missiles. The F-22 has an internal 20-millimeter gun. The F-35's 35-millimeter gun is internal on the type's conventional-takeoff A- and C-models. In the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B, the gun is in a detachable pod.

The F-35's gun is not without controversy. Many early-model F-35s lack the software to use the gun at all. And the weapon is inaccurate, according to the office of the U.S. Defense Department's chief weapons-tester.

But at least the F-35 has a gun. Marine Corps F-35s carried their cannon pods on the type's first combat sortie in U.S. service, over Afghanistan in September 2018.

The U.S. military learned the hard way to arm its fighters with guns. As air-to-air missiles became common in the 1950s and '60s, American warplane-designers omitted guns from many fighter types, assuming all air-battles would be fought at long distances, rendering redundant shorter-range weapons.

During the Vietnam War, air crews flying early F-4s and other fighter types quickly came to regret that design choice. Close, chaotic dogfights in crowded airspace favored traditional gunnery. “That was the biggest mistake on the F-4,” John Chesire, who flew 197 combat missions during two tours in Vietnam, told_ Air & Space_. “Bullets are cheap and tend to go where you aim them. I needed a gun, and I really wished I had one.”

The U.S. military added a gun to the ultimate E model of the F-4, as well as to all subsequent American fighter types. "The aerodynamic limitations inherent in employing missiles at minimum range makes the gun weapon system crucial for tomorrow’s combat arena," U.S. Air Force major Stuart Nichols explained in a 1998 paper for the Air Command and Staff College.

"The gun is a simple weapon system to employ and maintain," Nichols added. "It cannot be degraded by enemy electronic countermeasures or flare decoys which all help to degrade missile performance. Another significant benefit of using a gun is that it isn’t reliant on the aircraft’s radar system. Radar missiles must work in concert with the aircraft’s radar, which is very susceptible to enemy aircraft maneuver and countermeasures."

Today most of the world's fighters possess a gun. The J-20 is the exception. And the Chinese air force eventually might learn what the U.S. Air Force learned two generations ago over Vietnam. Giving up the gun is risky.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Clutch said:


> *Problem: China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun*
> 
> January 3, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Asia Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags:
> 
> ChinaMilitaryTechnologyWorldJ-20Stealth
> 
> 
> Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.
> 
> Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.
> 
> 
> Aviation journalist Andreas Rupprecht confirmed the weapon's absence in the January 2019 issue of _Combat Aircraft_.
> 
> The same story detailed the J-20's standard weapons loadout. The 67-feet-long warplane, the first squadron of which became operational in early 2018, features three weapons bays -- one each along each intake "cheek" and a third, larger bay along the centerline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOW
> PLAYING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the Zhuhai air show in November 2018, a pair of J-20s opened their weapons bays in full view of the crowd. Each fighter carried a one PL-10 short-range air-to-air missile in each side bay plus four long-range PL-15 missiles in the centerline bay.
> 
> 
> The PL-10 is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Sidewinder missile. The PL-15 is similar to the American Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM.
> 
> The J-20's bay layout is unsurprising. The U.S. Air Force's own F-22 stealth fighter also has three weapons bays in similar locations to those on the Chinese jet. The American plane's bays are bigger and together accommodate eight missiles.
> 
> The U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighter, by contrast, has a single, large centerline bay that, as of late 2018, could carry just two AMRAAMs. However, both the F-22 and F-35 also boast cannons as back-up to their missiles. The F-22 has an internal 20-millimeter gun. The F-35's 35-millimeter gun is internal on the type's conventional-takeoff A- and C-models. In the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B, the gun is in a detachable pod.
> 
> The F-35's gun is not without controversy. Many early-model F-35s lack the software to use the gun at all. And the weapon is inaccurate, according to the office of the U.S. Defense Department's chief weapons-tester.
> 
> But at least the F-35 has a gun. Marine Corps F-35s carried their cannon pods on the type's first combat sortie in U.S. service, over Afghanistan in September 2018.
> 
> The U.S. military learned the hard way to arm its fighters with guns. As air-to-air missiles became common in the 1950s and '60s, American warplane-designers omitted guns from many fighter types, assuming all air-battles would be fought at long distances, rendering redundant shorter-range weapons.
> 
> During the Vietnam War, air crews flying early F-4s and other fighter types quickly came to regret that design choice. Close, chaotic dogfights in crowded airspace favored traditional gunnery. “That was the biggest mistake on the F-4,” John Chesire, who flew 197 combat missions during two tours in Vietnam, told_ Air & Space_. “Bullets are cheap and tend to go where you aim them. I needed a gun, and I really wished I had one.”
> 
> The U.S. military added a gun to the ultimate E model of the F-4, as well as to all subsequent American fighter types. "The aerodynamic limitations inherent in employing missiles at minimum range makes the gun weapon system crucial for tomorrow’s combat arena," U.S. Air Force major Stuart Nichols explained in a 1998 paper for the Air Command and Staff College.
> 
> "The gun is a simple weapon system to employ and maintain," Nichols added. "It cannot be degraded by enemy electronic countermeasures or flare decoys which all help to degrade missile performance. Another significant benefit of using a gun is that it isn’t reliant on the aircraft’s radar system. Radar missiles must work in concert with the aircraft’s radar, which is very susceptible to enemy aircraft maneuver and countermeasures."
> 
> Today most of the world's fighters possess a gun. The J-20 is the exception. And the Chinese air force eventually might learn what the U.S. Air Force learned two generations ago over Vietnam. Giving up the gun is risky.


Gun is useless. I know some will claim Vietnam era airwar as gun is still relevant. But ask yourself, how many years is Vietnam war? 50 years ago thing. We are into the era of even unmanned drone.

The sidewinder during Vietnam era cannot engage enemy aircraft at close range of 1-3km. Modern WVRAAM can even engage enemy aircraft at gun range and not to mention multi angle which gun is not possible to do it.

I can for sure bet, there will never be a scenario where u need gun to engage a competitive enemy aircraft in modern era aerial warfare.


----------



## LKJ86

Clutch said:


> Today most of the world's fighters possess a gun. The J-20 is the exception.


What about F-35B and F-35C?


----------



## Figaro

Clutch said:


> *Problem: China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun*
> 
> January 3, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Asia Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags:
> 
> ChinaMilitaryTechnologyWorldJ-20Stealth
> 
> 
> Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.
> 
> Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.
> 
> 
> Aviation journalist Andreas Rupprecht confirmed the weapon's absence in the January 2019 issue of _Combat Aircraft_.
> 
> The same story detailed the J-20's standard weapons loadout. The 67-feet-long warplane, the first squadron of which became operational in early 2018, features three weapons bays -- one each along each intake "cheek" and a third, larger bay along the centerline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOW
> PLAYING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the Zhuhai air show in November 2018, a pair of J-20s opened their weapons bays in full view of the crowd. Each fighter carried a one PL-10 short-range air-to-air missile in each side bay plus four long-range PL-15 missiles in the centerline bay.
> 
> 
> The PL-10 is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Sidewinder missile. The PL-15 is similar to the American Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM.
> 
> The J-20's bay layout is unsurprising. The U.S. Air Force's own F-22 stealth fighter also has three weapons bays in similar locations to those on the Chinese jet. The American plane's bays are bigger and together accommodate eight missiles.
> 
> The U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighter, by contrast, has a single, large centerline bay that, as of late 2018, could carry just two AMRAAMs. However, both the F-22 and F-35 also boast cannons as back-up to their missiles. The F-22 has an internal 20-millimeter gun. The F-35's 35-millimeter gun is internal on the type's conventional-takeoff A- and C-models. In the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B, the gun is in a detachable pod.
> 
> The F-35's gun is not without controversy. Many early-model F-35s lack the software to use the gun at all. And the weapon is inaccurate, according to the office of the U.S. Defense Department's chief weapons-tester.
> 
> But at least the F-35 has a gun. Marine Corps F-35s carried their cannon pods on the type's first combat sortie in U.S. service, over Afghanistan in September 2018.
> 
> The U.S. military learned the hard way to arm its fighters with guns. As air-to-air missiles became common in the 1950s and '60s, American warplane-designers omitted guns from many fighter types, assuming all air-battles would be fought at long distances, rendering redundant shorter-range weapons.
> 
> During the Vietnam War, air crews flying early F-4s and other fighter types quickly came to regret that design choice. Close, chaotic dogfights in crowded airspace favored traditional gunnery. “That was the biggest mistake on the F-4,” John Chesire, who flew 197 combat missions during two tours in Vietnam, told_ Air & Space_. “Bullets are cheap and tend to go where you aim them. I needed a gun, and I really wished I had one.”
> 
> The U.S. military added a gun to the ultimate E model of the F-4, as well as to all subsequent American fighter types. "The aerodynamic limitations inherent in employing missiles at minimum range makes the gun weapon system crucial for tomorrow’s combat arena," U.S. Air Force major Stuart Nichols explained in a 1998 paper for the Air Command and Staff College.
> 
> "The gun is a simple weapon system to employ and maintain," Nichols added. "It cannot be degraded by enemy electronic countermeasures or flare decoys which all help to degrade missile performance. Another significant benefit of using a gun is that it isn’t reliant on the aircraft’s radar system. Radar missiles must work in concert with the aircraft’s radar, which is very susceptible to enemy aircraft maneuver and countermeasures."
> 
> Today most of the world's fighters possess a gun. The J-20 is the exception. And the Chinese air force eventually might learn what the U.S. Air Force learned two generations ago over Vietnam. Giving up the gun is risky.


Please do not quote the National Interest here ... its quality (or lack thereof) is only rivaled by that of Minnie Chan over at SCMP.


LKJ86 said:


> What about F-35B and F-35C?


Responding to a National Interest article will just cause loss of brain cells.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> The J-20 designations are confusing. I assume the J-20s with AL-31Fs are called J-20, the J-20s with the standard WS-10X are called J-20A, and the J-20s with the TVC WS-10X are called J-20B (from the rumors at least). That would mean then the WS-15 version would be called the J-20C.



Most likely as you can see from J-10C. J-20B is powered by WS-10X TVC. It is always the B variant that goes full production in PLAAF history while C is the perfect variant


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


> What about F-35B and F-35C?



F-35B carries external gun pod underbelly while F-35C has internal gun like F-35A

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## LKJ86

kungfugymnast said:


> while F-35C has internal gun like F-35A


Are you seriously?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Are you seriously?




I fear he is ... 

So just for completelness ... F-35C = NO GUN! 







F-35A = GUN






*And now please back to the topic!*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Clutch said:


> *Problem: China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun*
> 
> January 3, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Asia Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags:
> 
> ChinaMilitaryTechnologyWorldJ-20Stealth
> 
> 
> Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.
> 
> Observers of the twin-engine stealth fighter long had speculated that the J-20 lacks a cannon. Photography of J-20s since the type's first flight in January 2011 hadn't revealed bulges or openings that might point to an internal gun. The J-20 hadn't appeared in public carrying an external gun pod.
> 
> 
> Aviation journalist Andreas Rupprecht confirmed the weapon's absence in the January 2019 issue of _Combat Aircraft_.
> 
> The same story detailed the J-20's standard weapons loadout. The 67-feet-long warplane, the first squadron of which became operational in early 2018, features three weapons bays -- one each along each intake "cheek" and a third, larger bay along the centerline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Doesn't Have a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOW
> PLAYING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the Zhuhai air show in November 2018, a pair of J-20s opened their weapons bays in full view of the crowd. Each fighter carried a one PL-10 short-range air-to-air missile in each side bay plus four long-range PL-15 missiles in the centerline bay.
> 
> 
> The PL-10 is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Sidewinder missile. The PL-15 is similar to the American Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM.
> 
> The J-20's bay layout is unsurprising. The U.S. Air Force's own F-22 stealth fighter also has three weapons bays in similar locations to those on the Chinese jet. The American plane's bays are bigger and together accommodate eight missiles.
> 
> The U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighter, by contrast, has a single, large centerline bay that, as of late 2018, could carry just two AMRAAMs. However, both the F-22 and F-35 also boast cannons as back-up to their missiles. The F-22 has an internal 20-millimeter gun. The F-35's 35-millimeter gun is internal on the type's conventional-takeoff A- and C-models. In the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B, the gun is in a detachable pod.
> 
> The F-35's gun is not without controversy. Many early-model F-35s lack the software to use the gun at all. And the weapon is inaccurate, according to the office of the U.S. Defense Department's chief weapons-tester.
> 
> But at least the F-35 has a gun. Marine Corps F-35s carried their cannon pods on the type's first combat sortie in U.S. service, over Afghanistan in September 2018.
> 
> The U.S. military learned the hard way to arm its fighters with guns. As air-to-air missiles became common in the 1950s and '60s, American warplane-designers omitted guns from many fighter types, assuming all air-battles would be fought at long distances, rendering redundant shorter-range weapons.
> 
> During the Vietnam War, air crews flying early F-4s and other fighter types quickly came to regret that design choice. Close, chaotic dogfights in crowded airspace favored traditional gunnery. “That was the biggest mistake on the F-4,” John Chesire, who flew 197 combat missions during two tours in Vietnam, told_ Air & Space_. “Bullets are cheap and tend to go where you aim them. I needed a gun, and I really wished I had one.”
> 
> The U.S. military added a gun to the ultimate E model of the F-4, as well as to all subsequent American fighter types. "The aerodynamic limitations inherent in employing missiles at minimum range makes the gun weapon system crucial for tomorrow’s combat arena," U.S. Air Force major Stuart Nichols explained in a 1998 paper for the Air Command and Staff College.
> 
> "The gun is a simple weapon system to employ and maintain," Nichols added. "It cannot be degraded by enemy electronic countermeasures or flare decoys which all help to degrade missile performance. Another significant benefit of using a gun is that it isn’t reliant on the aircraft’s radar system. Radar missiles must work in concert with the aircraft’s radar, which is very susceptible to enemy aircraft maneuver and countermeasures."
> 
> Today most of the world's fighters possess a gun. The J-20 is the exception. And the Chinese air force eventually might learn what the U.S. Air Force learned two generations ago over Vietnam. Giving up the gun is risky.


Why does it needs a gun when it can easily be equipped to carry a laser pod?


----------



## Deino

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Why does it needs a gun when it can easily be equipped to carry a laser pod?




Since this "easily be equipped to carry a laser pod" is in fact not that easy!


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Deino said:


> Since this "easily be equipped to carry a laser pod" is in fact not that easy!








Military developing airborne laser attack pod, says report - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

China Is Developing an Airborne Laser Weapon


For the U.S. military, airborne lasers are more than a potentially useful weapon to fry enemy aircraft, or protect American planes from anti-aircraft missiles. They could also be a key component of ballistic missile defense: manned aircraft or drones, armed with high-powered lasers and flying...




nationalinterest.org


----------



## Deino

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> China Is Developing an Airborne Laser Weapon
> 
> 
> For the U.S. military, airborne lasers are more than a potentially useful weapon to fry enemy aircraft, or protect American planes from anti-aircraft missiles. They could also be a key component of ballistic missile defense: manned aircraft or drones, armed with high-powered lasers and flying...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org




Exactly ... and the difference between "is developing" and "easily be equipped to carry a laser pod" is in fact not that easy!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Deino said:


> Exactly ... and the difference between "is developing" and "easily be equipped to carry a laser pod" is in fact not that easy!


Yes. For one, the existence of this laser weapon has already been established. 
So it existed. 
Only thing is due to its secrecy, we have no idea at what stage of development this weapon is in. 
But I have seen an image of it posted on the internet some time ago. 
Assuming it is real and ready, so what is so difficult about it? 
It is just mounting another electronic pod.


----------



## Deino

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Yes. For one, the existence of this laser weapon has already been established.
> So it existed.
> Only thing is due to its secrecy, we have no idea at what stage of development this weapon is in.
> But I have seen an image of it posted on the internet some time ago.
> Assuming it is real and ready, so what is so difficult about it?
> It is just mounting another electronic pod.



Nope ... it is reported to be under development and even if tested it is not yet an established operational system


----------



## CAPRICORN-88




----------



## CAPRICORN-88

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> I guess we will have to wait for years before it is verified using your methodology.
> Just like the H20 or the TVC that first appeared mounted a WS-10 turbofan years ago.
> And if the China decided to keep it under the wrapper, guess we will never find the answer.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> I fear he is ...
> 
> So just for completelness ... F-35C = NO GUN!
> 
> View attachment 664685
> 
> 
> F-35A = GUN
> 
> View attachment 664686
> 
> 
> *And now please back to the topic!*



Even if F-35C doesn't come with internal gun, it still has underbelly external gun pod. Indirectly it still has a gun. My mistake only shows that I didn't have time to refer Wikipedia. 

Instead you insist that J-20 won't have TVC but at the end, majority here telling J-20 is bound to have TVC on WS-10 and WS-15 engines. I should haha... on your post now


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Even if F-35C doesn't come with internal gun, it still has underbelly external gun pod. Indirectly it still has a gun. My mistake only shows that I didn't have time to refer Wikipedia.
> 
> Instead you insist that J-20 won't have TVC but at the end, majority here telling J-20 is bound to have TVC on WS-10 and WS-15 engines. I should haha... on your post now



Oh well, still angry and stil having reading comprehension issues. I never said "it won't have" but I said it "has not yet". 

So much on haha.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @前站起飞 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


> Gun is useless. I know some will claim Vietnam era airwar as gun is still relevant. But ask yourself, how many years is Vietnam war? 50 years ago thing. We are into the era of even unmanned drone.
> 
> The sidewinder during Vietnam era cannot engage enemy aircraft at close range of 1-3km. Modern WVRAAM can even engage enemy aircraft at gun range and not to mention multi angle which gun is not possible to do it.
> 
> I can for sure bet, there will never be a scenario where u need gun to engage a competitive enemy aircraft in modern era aerial warfare.



Guns are indeed important when you run out of missiles or the active radar guided PL-12/15 can't lock on F-22 & you already used up the 2 PL-10E in dogfight. 

Vietnam war, it was the AIM-7C/D/E that failed to hit enemy Migs mostly while the AIM-9B rear aspect missiles had more successful hits. The F-4B lacks the guns therefore it can't kill the Migs when it ran out of AIM-9B. The F-4B/C/D later had to carry external gun pod SUU-223 under wing without proper gun reticle. Newer F-4E/J variants came with internal guns. 

For present era, fighters equipped with advanced AESA incorporated RWR, MAWS, ECM, ECCM could perform evasive maneuver well and spoof incoming missiles better. Also the stealth and low RCS reduced missiles effective range a lot bringing back visual range engagement. Even large new bombers will be fully stealth nowadays. You'll need guns to fire warning shots telling the stealth bomber to surrender or shoot it down as IR guided missiles are vital to keep them for self defense against F-22.

@Deino try come up with points like this rather than going personal with fault finding to ban someone you dislike


----------



## samsara

kungfugymnast said:


> Guns are indeed important when you run out of missiles or the active radar guided PL-12/15 can't lock on F-22 & you already used up the 2 PL-10E in dogfight.
> 
> Vietnam war, it was the AIM-7C/D/E that failed to hit enemy Migs mostly while the AIM-9B rear aspect missiles had more successful hits. The F-4B lacks the guns therefore it can't kill the Migs when it ran out of AIM-9B. The F-4B/C/D later had to carry external gun pod SUU-223 under wing without proper gun reticle. Newer F-4E/J variants came with internal guns.
> 
> For present era, fighters equipped with advanced AESA incorporated RWR, MAWS, ECM, ECCM could perform evasive maneuver well and spoof incoming missiles better. Also the stealth and low RCS reduced missiles effective range a lot bringing back visual range engagement. Even large new bombers will be fully stealth nowadays. You'll need guns to fire warning shots telling the stealth bomber to surrender or shoot it down as IR guided missiles are vital to keep them for self defense against F-22.
> 
> @Deino try come up with points like this rather than going personal with fault finding to ban someone you dislike


May you please have your courtesy to not fill up this important thread with your "gun" matters. Believe as you wish the importance of such gun, but please refrain yourself from flagging this thread with such matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Guns are indeed important when you run out of missiles or the active radar guided PL-12/15 can't lock on F-22 & you already used up the 2 PL-10E in dogfight.
> 
> Vietnam war, it was the AIM-7C/D/E that failed to hit enemy Migs mostly while the AIM-9B rear aspect missiles had more successful hits. The F-4B lacks the guns therefore it can't kill the Migs when it ran out of AIM-9B. The F-4B/C/D later had to carry external gun pod SUU-223 under wing without proper gun reticle. Newer F-4E/J variants came with internal guns.
> 
> For present era, fighters equipped with advanced AESA incorporated RWR, MAWS, ECM, ECCM could perform evasive maneuver well and spoof incoming missiles better. Also the stealth and low RCS reduced missiles effective range a lot bringing back visual range engagement. Even large new bombers will be fully stealth nowadays. You'll need guns to fire warning shots telling the stealth bomber to surrender or shoot it down as IR guided missiles are vital to keep them for self defense against F-22.
> 
> @Deino try come up with points like this rather than going personal with fault finding to ban someone you dislike


IMHO, the gun is near 100% confirmed since the J-20 is receiving TVC engines. It makes sense why the initial J-20s powered by the AL-31Fs did not receive one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> IMHO, the gun is near 100% confirmed since the J-20 is receiving TVC engines. It makes sense why the initial J-20s powered by the AL-31Fs did not receive one.



Good, the more powerful engine has enough thrust for J-20 to fit internal gun. It sure needs the gun & TVC


----------



## Figaro

For all who still think the J-20 is not a maneuverable fighter, akin to some dedicated interceptor, here is what the latest Pentagon report has to say about it. Some people just refuse to accept reality. 






https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> View attachment 666276




Nice, but already old (I think from March/April 2019) ... I would love to see more recent ones and even more first images of J-20As at Anshan.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Nice, but already old (I think from March/April 2019) ... I would love to see more recent ones and even more first images of J-20As at Anshan.



Yeah that photo from Wuhu hasn't changed in a year or so.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空军在线 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
13 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Ali_Baba

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 666840
> 
> Via @空军在线 from Weixin




This is a beautful picture and shows the modern fighting force and, the sharp edge of the PLAAF in one go.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Figaro

Another production J-20 with WS-10X engines

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @机外停车Rabbit from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
4


----------



## Grandy

*J-20 to be like a bee on radar*






According to CCTV’s report on CETC, its experts are testing a special stealth equipment as small as a cigarette box, to make stealth fighters like a bee on radar.

It’s speculated that once the new equipment is developed, it would be applied to J-20 fighter.





Besides, CCTV also unveiled the corporation’s RCS measuring microwave chamber, which has a group of metal balls of different sizes. And its RCS standard ball is as big as an American football, indicating that J-20’s initial stealth performance is as good as F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Grandy

*J-20 has the highest lift coefficient and aerodynamic layout better than F-22: expert*

Posted on August 25, 2020 by CAS editor 





According to a report from China’s “Ordnance Science and Technology” magazine on August 24, prior to July 15, the State Intellectual Property Administration of China announced the results of the 21st China Patent Awards. And the appearance design patent of J-20’s “lifting body side strip canard wing layout” won the gold prize of China Patent Award.

The report quoted equipment expert from the Chinese Air Force – Fu Qianshao as saying that J-20 uses a lift body fuselage, canards, sidebars, wings, rear side rails, camber double ventral fins, and camber full-motion double vertical tails based on vortex control technology. If the design level is high and properly controlled, it will produce huge lift gains and drag reduction effects. And its lift coefficient is about 2.1 to 2.2, ranking the first in the world.

Fu Qianshao said that the conventionally deployed US F-22 fighter has a lift coefficient reported to be about 1.7 and a supersonic cruise zero-lift drag coefficient of about 0.035. China has used a high-precision scaled-down model for wind tunnel tests, and the measured data are similar to the reported numbers, proving that *the lift and drag coefficients of J-20 are significantly better than those of the F-22*.

According to the report, in the conventional layout, when tail flatting maneuver the aircraft to raise its head, it has to deflect downward to generate negative lift and press down the tails, which belongs to the loading rudder surface. However, after the aircraft has a positive angle of attack, it will partially offset the negative angle of attack for the flat tails, reducing its efficiency.

However, J-20 has a mid-to-late canard layout, with large canard wing areas and long distances from the wings, with a side strip transition in the middle, which can use the multi-vortex interference generated by different aerodynamic surfaces to improve the lift and drag characteristics of the aircraft, thereby improved its control torque.

In addition, J-20 has larger rear side rails, double camber ventral fins, and full-moving double vertical tails with a larger camber angle. At high angles of attack, the side rails of the rear aircraft can provide certain pitch stability and head-down moment; the camber double ventral fins are located in a low position and are not easily affected by wing turbulence, and can provide certain lateral stability and head-down moment; and due to the large effective rudder surface area, full-motion camber double vertical tails can also play a part in flatting tails.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Grandy said:


> *J-20 has the highest lift coefficient and aerodynamic layout better than F-22: expert*
> 
> Posted on August 25, 2020 by CAS editor




May I ask what a strange site www.china-arms.com is?
Most reports are dramatically overhyping issues, posting most speculative things - often based as it seems on forums-posts, the SCMP (Minnie Chan) and rumours - as facts. Nearly seems as if our old friend Asoka has found a new site.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> May I ask what a strange site www.china-arms.com is?
> Most reports are dramatically overhyping issues, posting most speculative things - often based as it seems on forums-posts, the SCMP (Minnie Chan) and rumours - as facts. Nearly seems as if our old friend Asoka has found a new site.


Thanks for bringing it into highlight. Among others that media gives place to those nuances and voices from the less notable media (not those big names like Xinhua, China Daily, People's Daily, etc) from mainland China (perhaps from the responses in the social media in China), therefore one can, for example, read more articulation like this, which is far less likely in the most places.

From its article: "Chinese military urged to shoot down US U-2 reconnaissance aircraft"







So, if readers don't like to read info like this kind (in that spirit) , then just stay away. I can not say that this website is always "accurate" in its representation (if such thing is ever possible), but I cannot either say that this website packs "fake news" / "falsification" / "propaganda lies" like the qualities of "Saddam Hussein's WMD" / "Assad gassing Syrian people" / "Muammar Gaddafi's genocidal mass-murdering Libyan people" etc etc as the kinds of facts carried by many Big name media in the past.
I always tell everyone on how to check any media's reliability / credibility ==> verify its record in the past several years in any big, hot, controversial issue, what's its angle of coverage then one can conclude. It's easier to deceive at current time and be tough to identify, but one cannot lie and cover any further its systematic deception in the past!

So, does anyone see such deliberate efforts to pack "false information" AS "news / facts" there????

For in today's world, to have the "right/precise information" is a struggle for each.... and I have to say, it's a very politically charged world esp. in the past decade to nowadays, in my case it takes more than a decade ever since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 with intensive reading in various topics to sharpen my radar to detect the many fakes from news worthy.

I have to remind every one about this crucial change in 2012 why propaganda is being intensified in the last decade: "*The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012*" -- I suggest every one to refresh his understanding by revisiting this very important yet less-covered change, and always keep that thing in mind!

In English world, writing on specifically about China in regard to military matters, I spot some authors as very good or good, and be cautious in judgement: Rupprecht Deino (himself), Rick Joe, HI Sutton... for others, I don't know, and still learning.

Thanks for taking my rant here.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> Thanks for bringing it into highlight. Among others that media gives place to those nuances and voices from the less notable media from mainland China, therefore one can, for example, read more articulation like this, which is far less likely in the most places.
> ...
> 
> Thanks for taking my rant here.



Always welcome!


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> May I ask what a strange site www.china-arms.com is?
> Most reports are dramatically overhyping issues, posting most speculative things - often based as it seems on forums-posts, the SCMP (Minnie Chan) and rumours - as facts. Nearly seems as if our old friend Asoka has found a new site.


I don't think Grandy is Asoka lol


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> I don't think Grandy is Asoka lol



No, not Grandy but that unknown "CAS editor".


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> No, not Grandy but that unknown "CAS editor".


Has said unknown CAS editor made a statement regarding the 240 kN WS-15 yet


----------



## Gomig-21

Grandy said:


> *J-20 has the highest lift coefficient and aerodynamic layout better than F-22: expert*
> 
> Posted on August 25, 2020 by CAS editor
> 
> 
> View attachment 668839
> 
> 
> According to a report from China’s “Ordnance Science and Technology” magazine on August 24, prior to July 15, the State Intellectual Property Administration of China announced the results of the 21st China Patent Awards. And the appearance design patent of J-20’s “lifting body side strip canard wing layout” won the gold prize of China Patent Award.
> 
> The report quoted equipment expert from the Chinese Air Force – Fu Qianshao as saying that J-20 uses a lift body fuselage, canards, sidebars, wings, rear side rails, camber double ventral fins, and camber full-motion double vertical tails based on vortex control technology. If the design level is high and properly controlled, it will produce huge lift gains and drag reduction effects. And its lift coefficient is about 2.1 to 2.2, ranking the first in the world.
> 
> Fu Qianshao said that the conventionally deployed US F-22 fighter has a lift coefficient reported to be about 1.7 and a supersonic cruise zero-lift drag coefficient of about 0.035. China has used a high-precision scaled-down model for wind tunnel tests, and the measured data are similar to the reported numbers, proving that *the lift and drag coefficients of J-20 are significantly better than those of the F-22*.
> 
> According to the report, in the conventional layout, when tail flatting maneuver the aircraft to raise its head, it has to deflect downward to generate negative lift and press down the tails, which belongs to the loading rudder surface. However, after the aircraft has a positive angle of attack, it will partially offset the negative angle of attack for the flat tails, reducing its efficiency.
> 
> However, J-20 has a mid-to-late canard layout, with large canard wing areas and long distances from the wings, with a side strip transition in the middle, which can use the multi-vortex interference generated by different aerodynamic surfaces to improve the lift and drag characteristics of the aircraft, thereby improved its control torque.
> 
> In addition, J-20 has larger rear side rails, double camber ventral fins, and full-moving double vertical tails with a larger camber angle. At high angles of attack, the side rails of the rear aircraft can provide certain pitch stability and head-down moment; the camber double ventral fins are located in a low position and are not easily affected by wing turbulence, and can provide certain lateral stability and head-down moment; and due to the large effective rudder surface area, full-motion camber double vertical tails can also play a part in flatting tails.



lol. That's a pretty nutty article. What the hell are "flatting tails"?


----------



## IblinI

Not sure if these has been posted here before.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
4


----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


> Not sure if these has been posted here before.
> View attachment 669043
> 
> View attachment 669044
> 
> View attachment 669048
> 
> View attachment 669045
> 
> View attachment 669046
> View attachment 669047


I am dying to see one of the Taihang J-20s in these colors

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
4 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Leishangthem

Apparently there's an old report by lNDlAN major that they saw j-20 on the SU variant's radar.

Is that even possible? Indians lying from their teeth isn't new,but how do you determine J-20 just from radar? How did the Indian side knew the cross-section or the dot spotted on their radar is J-20? not any other jet? They never claim they saw j-20 ,because J-20 was probably never even there.
Considering that Indian side actually saw something.How could they determine it's j-20?
How's such a claim even posssible?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Figaro

Leishangthem said:


> Spoiler: j-20
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there's an old report by lNDlAN major that they saw j-20 on the SU variant's radar.
> 
> Is that even possible? the Indians lying from their teeth isn't new,but how do you determine J-20 just from radar? How did the Indian side knew the beep/crossecton or the dot spotted on their radar is J-20? not any other jet? They never claim they saw j-20 ,because J-20 was probably never even there.
> Considering that Indian side actually saw something.How could they determine it's j-20?
> How's such a claim even posssible?


Fake news. The J-20 was never even deployed to Tibet ... and if it had flown anywhere close to the Indian border, it would be equipped with a luneburg lens, which scatters the radar beams and causes the aircraft to light up on radar in order to prevent the enemy from gathering extremely classified intel on the RCS. But either way, this is completely fake since the J-20 was never even deployed close enough to where there would be any possibility of an Indian aircraft flying in Indian airspace to spot it. Period. Remember, you are talking about a country which claims to have downed a Pakistani F-16, even when there is zero evidence.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Leishangthem

Figaro said:


> Fake news. The J-20 was never even deployed to Tibet ... and if it had flown anywhere close to the Indian border, it would be equipped with a luneburg lens, which scatters the radar beams and causes the aircraft to light up on radar in order to prevent the enemy from gathering extremely classified intel on the RCS. But either way, this is completely fake since the J-20 was never even deployed close enough to where there would be any possibility of an Indian aircraft flying in Indian airspace to spot it. Period. Remember, you are talking about a country which claims to have downed a Pakistani F-16, even when there is zero evidence.




I'm aware of that,but playing along, isn't it apparently impossible to determine the variant of fighter jet from that su variant's radar alone?it could be any jet

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Figaro

Leishangthem said:


> Spoiler: j-20
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of that,but playing along, isn't it apparently impossible to determine the variant of fighter jet from that su variant's radar alone?it could be any jet


I think you have the spoiler setting accidentally toggled on. But you are correct yes ... I don't think it is possible to determine the aircraft type based on the radar alone, which is exactly another reason why the Indians are BSing. You can probably only see what type of aircraft it is (e.g. fighter, tanker) from the radar return, but whether it is a J-10 or F-16 I doubt you can tell the difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## serenity

Bollywood radar can determine exact aircraft type with 100% accuracy and can even create a live drawing of the aircraft flying. That is the power of incredible india.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
11


----------



## Leishangthem

Figaro said:


> I think you have the spoiler setting accidentally toggled on. But you are correct yes ... I don't think it is possible to determine the aircraft type based on the radar alone, which is exactly another reason why the Indians are BSing. You can probably only see what type of aircraft it is (e.g. fighter, tanker) from the radar return, but whether it is a J-10 or F-16 I doubt you can tell the difference.




That 's my point,there is no mechanism in su-30 to determine or track j-20 from far,at best it will see a cross section like figure. or a dot, can be any jet.
And there's also a lot of other variables to take into consideration,one of them is,what are the chances that a j-20 somehow flew 200k within the said su-30 mki?(bc that's the range of su-30 radar) near indian border? the chances are extremely unlikely.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Leishangthem said:


> That 's my point,there is no mechanism in su-30 to determine or track j-20 from far,at best it will see a cross section like figure. or a dot.
> And there's also a lot of other variables to take into consideration,one of them is,what are the chances that a j-20 somehow flew 200k within the said su-30 mki?(bc that's the range of su-30 radar) near indian border? the chances are extremely unlikely and unreasonable.


The Su-30MKI never saw the J-20 period. The Indians are completely BSing here, as they usually do. How would the J-20 even show up as a tiny dot on the Su-30s radar when it literally was never deployed to the region at all? The Indians should know that the Chinese also have the Su-35, which is much more advanced than the Su-30MKI in every regard; the PLAAF has definitely tested the Su-35 against the J-20, and almost certainly the J-20 beat it considering the Su-35 could not even out WVR and BVR a J-10C. In wartime, the Su-30MKI would have already been shot down by a PL-15 long before even a dot appeared on the radar from the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## j20611

Didn’t these Indian morons mistaken Venus for a spy aircraft?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
7


----------



## Figaro

j20611 said:


> Didn’t these Indian morons mistaken Venus for a spy aircraft?


They mistaked planets for Chinese UAVs.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## lcloo

Today's article on www.81.cn

In the hands of a pilot with about 100 hours flight time on a "new modified fighter jet", he scored a zero to 17 air-to-air fights in his favour. This "new fighter jet" is obviously a J20 judged by the 0 to 17 score.

Also amazing is that the pilot has only about 100 flight hours on this jet, shows easy integration between pilot and aircraft.

I find the description "*新型改装战机" (a new modified fighter jet) *interesting, does it referred to a J20 with new engine?

“截获目标！”“发射！”烈日当空，一场空中对抗激战正酣。东部战区空军航空兵某旅“王海大队”年轻飞行员陈鑫浩，面对来自不同方向多批“敌机”的拦截，与战友灵活协同、勇敢出击，在兵力明显处于劣势的情况下，以“零损伤”的代价一举“击落敌机”17架。

“你很难想到，陈鑫浩驾驭这款*新型改装战机*飞行时间刚过100小时。这种情形，与抗美援朝战场上的空战情形何其相似。尽管跨越历史的天空，但咱们飞行员骨子里的胜战精神仍然充盈如初：闻战则喜、英勇顽强、敢打必胜、有我无敌！”“王海大队”大队长杨俊成说。

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> Today's article on www.81.cn
> 
> In the hands of a pilot with about 100 hours flight time on a "new fighter jet", he scored a zero to 17 air-to-air fights in his favour. The is "new fighter jet" is obviously a J20 judged by the 0 to 17 score.
> 
> Also amazing is that the pilot has only about 100 flight hours on this jet, shows easy integration between pilot and aircraft.
> 
> 
> “截获目标！”“发射！”烈日当空，一场空中对抗激战正酣。东部战区空军航空兵某旅“王海大队”年轻飞行员陈鑫浩，面对来自不同方向多批“敌机”的拦截，与战友灵活协同、勇敢出击，在兵力明显处于劣势的情况下，以“零损伤”的代价一举“击落敌机”17架。
> 
> “你很难想到，陈鑫浩驾驭这款新型改装战机飞行时间刚过100小时。这种情形，与抗美援朝战场上的空战情形何其相似。尽管跨越历史的天空，但咱们飞行员骨子里的胜战精神仍然充盈如初：闻战则喜、英勇顽强、敢打必胜、有我无敌！”“王海大队”大队长杨俊成说。
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 669674


Do we know what specific aircraft the J-20 scored the 17 kills against?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Figaro said:


> Do we know what specific aircraft the J-20 scored the 17 kills against?


No details, most probably these are J10A/B/C, J11A/B and J16.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jazzbot

serenity said:


> Bollywood radar can determine exact aircraft type with 100% accuracy and can even create a live drawing of the aircraft flying. That is the power of incredible india.




This is out dated man, they have recently developed a new radar that can even draw the enemy jet pilot's undies from distance of 3000 km.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
6


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> No details, most probably these are J10A/B/C, J11A/B and J16.


17:0 is very good. Apparently, there was an analysis done by the PLAAF which said that only 24 J-20s were needed to counter 700 4th generation aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> 17:0 is very good. Apparently, there was an analysis done by the PLAAF which said that only 24 J-20s were needed to counter 700 4th generation aircraft.




Not too sure how this was worked out.

The 24 J-20s will have a little more than 100 missiles and they would rapidly run out of fuel when engaging in WVR with guns(does the J-20 even have a gun?) to try to shoot down so many hundreds of fighters.


----------



## lcloo

UKBengali said:


> Not too sure how this was worked out.
> 
> The 24 J-20s will have a little more than 100 missiles and they would rapidly run out of fuel when engaging in WVR with guns(does the J-20 even have a gun) to try to shoot down so many hundreds of fighters.


It is not a scenario of 24 J20 against 400 4th gen jets in a *single sortie *for each aircraft*.* No country put up in the air 400 4th gen fighter jets all at the same hours. 

It meant if the opposite side fielded up to 400 4th gen fighter jets, 24 J20 would be sufficient to counter them during the conflict. The air engagement could be over several tens or hundreds of sorties.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## UKBengali

lcloo said:


> It is not a scenario of 24 J20 against 400 4th gen jets in a *single sortie.* No country put up in the air 400 4th gen fighter jets all at the same hours.
> 
> It meant if the opposite side fielded up to 400 4th gen fighter jets, 24 J20 would be sufficient to counter them during the conflict. The air engagement could be over several tens or hundreds of sorties.




No as the remaining 4th gen fighters from 1st engagement would be free to attack while the J-20s are being refuelled/rearmed.

To be able to "counter" them you need to be able to stop them overflying your territory and attacking targets.


----------



## lcloo

UKBengali said:


> No as the remaining 4th gen fighters from 1st engagement would be free to attack while the J-20s are being refuelled/rearmed.
> 
> To be able to "counter" them you need to be able to stop them overflying your territory and attacking targets.


Again, no all 24 J20 will be air borne at the same time. and only the foolish 4th gen jet pilots will continue to fight if half of his squadron are shoot down even before his can detect the J20. And PLAAF commander is not stupid to put all his air assets in the air without reserve.

For every squadron of incoming hostile 4th gen jets, a couple of J20 in front will empty their missiles first, and another couple 20 to 30km away can cover for them, and a few others on standby at 50km ready to engage the remaining enemy jets if they continue, or to carry on CAP to counter second and third waves ventures from enemy jets.

Moreover, J20 has range endurance advantage which mean they can be turned around on airfields beyond effective range of enemy's ground attack. And they can extend their already long range with tanker support.

Modern day air to air engagement seldom last for few hours, and usually single digit shoot down are achieved. Example the Feb air engagement between Pakistan and India. And you cannot use the Gulf war or Balkan scenario for comparison because China's air defence capability is not the same as Iraq or Serbia.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Leishangthem said:


> Apparently there's an old report by lNDlAN major that they saw j-20 on the SU variant's radar.
> 
> Is that even possible? Indians lying from their teeth isn't new,but how do you determine J-20 just from radar? How did the Indian side knew the cross-section or the dot spotted on their radar is J-20? not any other jet? They never claim they saw j-20 ,because J-20 was probably never even there.
> Considering that Indian side actually saw something.How could they determine it's j-20?
> How's such a claim even posssible?



I asked them before, the news claimed the SU-30MKI detected J-20 from more than 60 miles away. I asked again, how to tell what aircraft being tracked when the targets appearing on MFD and HUD only display aircraft RCS (large for large aircraft and small for fighters), altitude, heading, speed. Do they have HUD recording, FLIR that could zoom that far to identify shape of the plane? The best FLIR US sniper pod believed to have almost 20 miles zoom and could see through cloud can't even do 60miles. They said don't question their claim credibility, it's true and final. Anything from IAF is mythical claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## serenity

All those examples are really just to simply say Chinese 4th generation fighters cannot detect J-20 at any meaningful range. Even when the range is short enough to detect and trace, they cannot get lock on target. This is really what is meant by those statements. To let everyone know 5th generation truly is much superior to 4th.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 669490
> View attachment 669491
> View attachment 669492
> View attachment 669493
> View attachment 669494
> View attachment 669495
> 
> Via @航空工业 from Weixin



Since tencent had shares in transformers movie, they can make this jetfire or skyfire in bumblebee movie sequel.


----------



## kungfugymnast

serenity said:


> All those examples are really just to simply say Chinese 4th generation fighters cannot detect J-20 at any meaningful range. Even when the range is short enough to detect and trace, they cannot get lock on target. This is really what is meant by those statements. To let everyone know 5th generation truly is much superior to 4th.



If radar and IR guided missiles can't acquire lock on stealth aircraft at all, does it tell you that stealth aircraft must have guns then? If its aircraft radar & IRST, they should be able to track stealth aircraft within dogfight range below 5 miles but effective hits probably reduced compared to conventional fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

There is a lot behind the 17:0 ratio.

- Were both sides supported by AWACS and ground radars?
- Did J-20 have its radar reflectors on?
- Were the losing side flying with J-10A, J-11B, J-10B, Su-35 or J-10C? There are huge variation in performance.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @白龙_龙腾四海 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Figaro

lcloo said:


> I find the description "*新型改装战机" (a new modified fighter jet) *interesting, does it referred to a J20 with new engine?


你很难想到，陈鑫浩驾驭这款*新型改装战机*飞行时间刚过100小时。
This almost certainly means the J-20 equipped with WS-10. Or if we are going to be even more speculative, it could mean the J-20 with WS-10 TVC, which was said to go into production in the second half of the year.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> 你很难想到，陈鑫浩驾驭这款*新型改装战机*飞行时间刚过100小时。
> This almost certainly means the J-20 equipped with WS-10. Or if we are going to be even more speculative, it could mean the J-20 with WS-10 TVC, which was said to go into production in the second half of the year.



There is no way that he could’ve gotten 100 hours of it was a WS-10 J-20. They only went into production this year and we don’t know if they’ve equipped any of the combat brigades.


----------



## Figaro

siegecrossbow said:


> There is no way that he could’ve gotten 100 hours of it was a WS-10 J-20. They only went into production this year and we don’t know if they’ve equipped any of the combat brigades.


Then it was not the WS-10 TVC then, it was the standard WS-10 equipped J-20s, which would make more sense too.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> Then it was not the WS-10 TVC then, it was the standard WS-10 equipped J-20s, which would make more sense too.



I think it was a normal J-20 with AL engines.


----------



## Figaro

siegecrossbow said:


> I think it was a normal J-20 with AL engines.


But why would it say modified then? A modified J-20 can only point to a J-20 with WS-10 engines given our current knowledge of the modifications done thus far. An AL-31 J-20 would hardly constitute a modified J-20.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> But why would it say modified then? A modified J-20 can only point to a J-20 with WS-10 engines given our current knowledge of the modifications done thus far. An AL-31 J-20 would hardly constitute a modified J-20.



You guys misinterpreted the article. 改装 in the context of the article does not mean modified aircraft but newly equipped aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

S10 said:


> There is a lot behind the 17:0 ratio.
> 
> - Were both sides supported by AWACS and ground radars?
> - Did J-20 have its radar reflectors on?
> - Were the losing side flying with J-10A, J-11B, J-10B, Su-35 or J-10C? There are huge variation in performance.



There's no such thing as radar reflector. If the J-20 is stealth, its body is laminated with stealth coating layers of materials along with its slippery shape that radar can't detect beyond visual range at least over 5 or 10miles.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> There's no such thing as radar reflector. If the J-20 is stealth, its body is laminated with stealth coating layers of materials along with its slippery shape that radar can't detect beyond visual range at least over 5 or 10miles.


He is talking about this. Of course they exist. 








Luneburg lens - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> He is talking about this. Of course they exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luneburg lens - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



There's only positional gps tracking system that US stealth aircraft could switch on to inform its position but not appearing on radar.

The EMCOM 1-5 on F-22 and F-35 is not about turning on stealth but modes/action that determines how stealth it will be. For example, EMCOM 1 is to turn off radar and internal load only using IRST and IR guided missiles with total radio silence & all sorts of emitters off. EMCOM 2 if not mistaken is sharing radar with AWACS or other aircraft. EMCOM 3 is partial radar on with intermittent off, EMCOM 4 is radar on and EMCOM 5 is attack mode (BVR range) with bay open to launch AMRAAM or with external load.

Unless the J-20 is fitted with extra deflectors that can be activated then it makes sense coz stealth layer is passive system built in the aircraft itself. Like your car suspension is part of passive safety whereas your car ABS, stability control are active safety

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

kungfugymnast said:


> There's no such thing as radar reflector. If the J-20 is stealth, its body is laminated with stealth coating layers of materials along with its slippery shape that radar can't detect beyond visual range at least over 5 or 10miles.


Yes they exist. They're call corner reflector, mounted yo amplify radar signature for ground control and preventing true RCS from being seen by competitors during peace time.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kungfugymnast

S10 said:


> Yes they exist. They're call corner reflector, mounted yo amplify radar signature for ground control and prevention true RCS from being seen by competitors during peace time.
> 
> View attachment 670289
> 
> View attachment 670290



This I remember now. Even if this is not turned on, the aircraft built in stealth materials good enough to divert radar waves away which means IAF Su-30MKI can't detect a stealth aircraft at more than 60 miles away, it just won't appear on HUD & MFD at all. The active reflector defense helps when enemy is within closer range especially when the stealth aircraft is banking exposing its larger surface area.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> This I remember now. Even if this is not turned on, the aircraft built in stealth materials good enough to divert radar waves away which means IAF Su-30MKI can't detect a stealth aircraft at more than 60 miles away, it just won't appear on HUD & MFD at all. The active reflector defense helps when enemy is within closer range especially when the stealth aircraft is banking exposing its larger surface area.


No need to even bring up the Su-30MKI ... its detection is completely impossible because the J-20 was never even in its radar's maximum detection range (against a 5 m^2 target that is). The Indians just completely made this BS up to compensate for their insecurity about the J-20. Nothing better than trashing something you are super scared of.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> No need to even bring up the Su-30MKI ... its detection is completely impossible because the J-20 was never even in its radar's maximum detection range (against a 5 m^2 target that is). The Indians just completely made this BS up to compensate for their insecurity about the J-20. Nothing better than trashing something you are super scared of.



Their exaggeration is entertaining by the way, I like to ask them whenever there's encounter, clash, etc and the story goes Bollywood style plots. Wait and see what are their next Bollywood plot when full J-20B wings being assigned near Tibet border airbase. Expect more detection story from them, maybe next actor will be flying Rafale & Tejas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaybird

Not only Su-30MKI can detect J-20 from 200Km away. There is prove Su-30MKI is actually more stealthy than J-20. Indian pilot Abhinandan flow within visual distance of J-20 without J-20 even notice it. A selfie was taken by Abhinandan on his new MKI.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
7


----------



## 52051

According to one Mod@lt.cjdby.net, the cost of J-20 at the moment is reduced to about $100 million per unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> According to one Mod@lt.cjdby.net, the cost of J-20 at the moment is reduced to about $100 million per unit.


USD?


----------



## 52051

Figaro said:


> USD?



yes, he talk about the cost/flyaway price of J-20 is down from about 800 million RMB to less than 700 million RMB now.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> yes, he talk about the cost/flyaway price of J-20 is down from about 800 million RMB to less than 700 million RMB now.


That is still quite expensive ... even more expensive than the F-35. I expected it to be roughly in the 70 million USD range. But a cut of 100 million RMB or around 15 million USD is very nice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

Figaro said:


> That is still quite expensive ... even more expensive than the F-35. I expected it to be roughly in the 70 million USD range. But a cut of 100 million RMB or around 15 million USD is very nice.



Actually I think it is quite cheap, since J-20 merely enter mass production phase now, and it is a twin engine heavy fighter.

At this price tag, China can afford to use J-20 as its sole 5th gen fighter (at least for PLAAF), J-20 WS-10 as low end fighter(cheaper, and better range thanks to high bypass ratio engine), and J-20 with WS-15 as high end fighter(better flight characters).

Reactions: Like Like:
 6


----------



## obj 705A

100$ million for J-20 is fantastic, J-20 is a heavy fighter so it is the equivalent to the F-22 not the F-35, the J-31 is the answer to the F-35.
the price of the F-22 is like 350$ million, even if they continued producing it in large numbers and somehow brought the price down to 200$ million that would still be double the price of the J-20. since the F-35 costs like 80$ million or so, the J-31 may end up costing the same as your average 4th gen fighter.
a while ago I was reading some articles/leaks on CJDBY that said the developers of the J-31/J-35 are now working mainly to (or already did) reduce the weight and cost of the J-31 while still keeping the same capabilities.


----------



## UKBengali

obj 705A said:


> 100$ million for J-20 is fantastic, J-20 is a heavy fighter so it is the equivalent to the F-22 not the F-35, the J-31 is the answer to the F-35.
> the price of the F-22 is like 350$ million, even if they continued producing it in large numbers and somehow brought the price down to 200$ million that would still be double the price of the J-20. since the F-35 costs like 80$ million or so, the J-31 may end up costing the same as your average 4th gen fighter.
> a while ago I was reading some articles/leaks on CJDBY that said the developers of the J-31/J-35 are now working mainly to (or already did) reduce the weight and cost of the J-31 while still keeping the same capabilities.




The flyaway cost of a F-22 went down to 130 million US dollars per piece and it would have gone down further if they produced more than 187.

What you quote is the development costs + production costs of 187 F-22s.


----------



## obj 705A

UKBengali said:


> The flyaway cost of a F-22 went down to 130 million US dollars per piece and it would have gone down further if they produced more than 187.
> 
> What you quote is the development costs + production costs of 187 F-22s.



even then it is still much cheaper, because the cost of a J-20 would be 76% that of a F-22 , and then when you add in the J-31.. yeah the price of a J-31 will go down below that of the F-35 so probably around 60-80$ million for the J-31.


----------



## UKBengali

obj 705A said:


> even then it is still much cheaper, because the cost of a J-20 would be 76% that of a F-22 , and then when you add in the J-31.. yeah the price of a J-31 will go down below that of the F-35 so probably around 60-80$ million for the J-31.



F-22 has much better engine than J-20.
It's stealth, radar and avionics are also probably a little better as well.


----------



## S10

UKBengali said:


> F-22 has much better engine than J-20.
> It's stealth, radar and avionics are also probably a little better as well.


Engine I agree with, but I don't agree with radar and avionics. F-22 was developed in the 1990's and early 2000's. Two decades of advancement had gone by since that time. What was top of the line then has since become obsolete.

As far as stealth, it's anyone's guess without having data.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UKBengali

S10 said:


> Engine I agree with, but I don't agree with radar and avionics. F-22 was developed in the 1990's and early 2000's. Two decades of advancement had gone by since that time. What was top of the line then has since become obsolete.
> 
> As far as stealth, it's anyone's guess without having data.



You think.China has caught up to US in stealth tech?
J-20 is the 1st stealth plane from China, whereas US had been building stealth aircraft for decades before F-22 went into service.
Radar and avionics are constantly upgraded and while China is catching up, it is still a little behind from USA.


----------



## LeGenD

S10 said:


> Engine I agree with, but I don't agree with radar and avionics. F-22 was developed in the 1990's and early 2000's. Two decades of advancement had gone by since that time. What was top of the line then has since become obsolete.
> 
> As far as stealth, it's anyone's guess without having data.


F-22A Raptor is being upgraded over time:

"As noted by _Janes World Air Forces_ , since its introduction into service in 2003 the F-22 has been subject to a rolling upgrade path that has included improved avionics, updated life support systems, and new air-to-air and air‐to‐ground weapons."

Link: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...unch-ares-modernisation-plan-for-f-22-fighter

Americans are usually tight-lipped about advances of F-22A. Some of the capabilities of this aircraft are not even hinted in Public domain.

F-22A is excellent in VLO aspects - its uniform RCS is widely believed/asserted to be lower than that of any other fighter jet in existence. Just the shaping considerations are self-explanatory (even crude understanding of LO sciences is sufficient to get the memo) - minute details are only clear to those in the knowhow who are few.

FYI: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/28/the-f-22-imperative/

One blunder that Americans seem to regret is stopping production of F-22A - they virtually killed a platform in short. Now they are pouring resources into development of NAGF which will replace F-22A and more eventually.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> F-22 has much better engine than J-20.
> It's stealth, radar and avionics are also probably a little better as well.



Nope, the thrust and TWR are similar.

The only difference is that the F119 and F135 are more mature products, thus the lifespan is about twice as the long as the current WS-15.

The WS-15 will take few more years to match the lifespan of the best US engine.

Our aero expert has recently declassified many information about the WS-10B and WS-15 with authorization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Nope, the thrust and TWR are similar.
> 
> The only difference is that the F119 and F135 are more mature products, thus the lifespan is about twice as the long as the current WS-15.
> 
> The WS-15 will take few more years to match the lifespan of the best US engine.
> 
> Our aero expert has recently declassified many information about the WS-10B and WS-15 with authorization.



Let us talk when WS-15 is in service.

Currently J-20s are powered by WS-10X engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Avicenna

LeGenD said:


> F-22A Raptor is being upgraded over time:
> 
> "As noted by _Janes World Air Forces_ , since its introduction into service in 2003 the F-22 has been subject to a rolling upgrade path that has included improved avionics, updated life support systems, and new air-to-air and air‐to‐ground weapons."
> 
> Link: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...unch-ares-modernisation-plan-for-f-22-fighter
> 
> Americans are usually tight-lipped about advances of F-22A. Some of the capabilities of this aircraft are not even hinted in Public domain.
> 
> F-22A is excellent in VLO aspects - its uniform RCS is widely believed/asserted to be lower than that of any other fighter jet in existence. Just the shaping considerations are self-explanatory (even crude understanding of LO sciences is sufficient to get the memo) - minute details are only clear to those in the knowhow who are few.
> 
> FYI: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/28/the-f-22-imperative/
> 
> One blunder that Americans seem to regret is stopping production of F-22A - they virtually killed a platform in short. Now they are pouring resources into development of NAGF which will replace F-22A and more eventually.



The US wasted 2 decades fighting useless wars instead of keeping its eyes on emerging threats. 

i.e. hundreds of billions spent that could have been used more wisely. Like buying more F-22s.

F-22 was killed due to a false sense of security.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Let us talk when WS-15 is in service.
> 
> Currently J-20s are powered by WS-10X engines.



The WS-15 has already started its maiden flight in 2017.

The J-20 started with the WS-10B in 2011 according to our official aero-aviation expert.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> F-22 has much better engine than J-20.
> It's stealth, radar and avionics are also probably a little better as well.


I doubt it, the F-22 was made using 90s era electronics and avionics while the J-20 is using state of the art Chinese electronics. Just think about how much the computers/electronics/IC industry has improved since the 90s. The only advantage is the engines. Regarding stealth, the J-20 has DSI while the F-22 does not, so it is anyone's guess as S10 said. However, the F-22 does have a key advantage in the tail aspect sector due to the superior rectangular nozzles over even serrated nozzles the J-20 (and the F-35) currently have.


LeGenD said:


> F-22A Raptor is being upgraded over time:
> 
> "As noted by _Janes World Air Forces_ , since its introduction into service in 2003 the F-22 has been subject to a rolling upgrade path that has included improved avionics, updated life support systems, and new air-to-air and air‐to‐ground weapons."
> 
> Link: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...unch-ares-modernisation-plan-for-f-22-fighter
> 
> Americans are usually tight-lipped about advances of F-22A. Some of the capabilities of this aircraft are not even hinted in Public domain.
> 
> F-22A is excellent in VLO aspects - its uniform RCS is widely believed/asserted to be lower than that of any other fighter jet in existence. Just the shaping considerations are self-explanatory (even crude understanding of LO sciences is sufficient to get the memo) - minute details are only clear to those in the knowhow who are few.
> 
> FYI: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/28/the-f-22-imperative/
> 
> One blunder that Americans seem to regret is stopping production of F-22A - they virtually killed a platform in short. Now they are pouring resources into development of NAGF which will replace F-22A and more eventually.


It is more appropriate to compare the avionics, including radar, with the F-35 than the F-22. We don't know what extent the F-22 subsystems have been upgraded to.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> I doubt it, the F-22 was made using 90s era electronics and avionics while the J-20 is using state of the art Chinese electronics. The only advantage is the engines.



Nope, F-22 is only a decade older the J-20 and it gets upgrades all the time in areas like avionics. Although the radar has not been upgraded yet hardware wise, the software is being improved all the time.

I would put my money on the decade older AESA radar on F-22 being better than that on the J-20. US has more experience than China.

As for stealth, US is ahead of China by a fair margin as it has been making stealth planes since the 1970s. China can take stealth shaping design cues from US but has to design and manufacture the stealth materials by itself from scratch.


----------



## S10

UKBengali said:


> You think.China has caught up to US in stealth tech?
> J-20 is the 1st stealth plane from China, whereas US had been building stealth aircraft for decades before F-22 went into service.
> Radar and avionics are constantly upgraded and while China is catching up, it is still a little behind from USA.


Britain built the first steamship and train, but do you see it having any significant market share on shipbuilding and high speed train manufacturing today? Past history is a poor indicator of present performance. Unless you have classified information on RCS return on both aircraft, you're speculating based on existing assumptions that China is behind. It's called technology leapfrogging.





__





Leapfrogging - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





While F-22 received incremental upgrades to its avionics and radar, the architecture remained the same. Several generations in terms of radar development and electronics have passed since then and introduction of J-20 into service.
_
"At least [the F-22s] are safe from cyberattack," wrote former Navy Secretary John Lehman over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal. "No one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them." 








Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com


A Senate victory over spending resisted by the Administration raises the prospects for a major Pentagon overhaul




content.time.com




_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Avicenna said:


> F-22 was killed due to a false sense of security.


F-22 did not have good operational range either. This is absolutely crucial in the Pacific theatre, where the front is much wider than that in Europe. So the USAF was going to have to design a new fighter no matter what to confront China because the F-22 just does not have enough range.


UKBengali said:


> Nope, F-22 is only a decade older the J-20 and it gets upgrades all the time in areas like avionics. Although the radar has not been upgraded yet hardware wise, the software is being improved all the time.
> 
> I would put my money on the decade older AESA radar on F-22 being better than that on the J-20. US has more experience than China.
> 
> As for stealth, US is ahead of China by a fair margin as it has been making stealth planes since the 1970s. China can take stealth shaping design cues from US but has to design and manufacture the stealth materials by itself from scratch.


Unless you can give us concrete evidence, saying you would put your money on X does not make your argument any more credible. Its just like saying how did the Chinese get their EM catapult to work when the USN has been plagued by its issues even though the US has almost seven more decades of experience in catapults than the US! The good thing about being the one who is catching up is progress tends to be much quicker than the leader in the field, which is indisputably the US with regards to avionics/radars. China already fielded its first AESA in 2002 or 2003 so in this regard it is not far at all behind the US.


----------



## UKBengali

S10 said:


> Britain built the first steamship and train, but do you see it having any significant market share on shipbuilding and high speed train manufacturing today? Past history is a poor indicator of present performance. Unless you have classified information on RCS return on both aircraft, you're speculating based on existing assumptions that China is behind.
> 
> While F-22 received incremental upgrades to its avionics and radar, the architecture remained the same. Several generations in terms of radar development and electronics have passed since then and introduction of J-20 into service.



Facts:

1. US has been making stealth planes since the 1970s. F-22 is the 3rd stealth plane it has made, after F-117 and B-2. 

2. J-20 is the first stealth plane that China has made.

Even a child would know that China cannot beat the US in stealth tech with just 1 plane.


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> Unless you can give us concrete evidence, saying you would put your money on X does not make your argument any more credible. Its just like saying how did the Chinese get their EM catapult to work when the USN has been plagued by its issues even though the US has almost seven more decades of experience in catapults than the US! The good thing about being the one who is catching up is progress tends to be much quicker than the leader in the field, which is indisputably the US with regards to avionics/radars.




You are just speculating just like me.

If you really think that China is on the same level as US on stealth, avionics and radar as USA then no amount of logic will convince you otherwise.

PS - EM catapults are totally different tech than steam catapults and US experience in steam catapults did not really give that much useful experience to build EM catapults.


----------



## S10

LeGenD said:


> F-22A Raptor is being upgraded over time:
> 
> Americans are usually tight-lipped about advances of F-22A. Some of the capabilities of this aircraft are not even hinted in Public domain.
> 
> F-22A is excellent in VLO aspects - its uniform RCS is widely believed/asserted to be lower than that of any other fighter jet in existence. Just the shaping considerations are self-explanatory (even crude understanding of LO sciences is sufficient to get the memo) - minute details are only clear to those in the knowhow who are few.
> 
> FYI: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/28/the-f-22-imperative/
> 
> One blunder that Americans seem to regret is stopping production of F-22A - they virtually killed a platform in short. Now they are pouring resources into development of NAGF which will replace F-22A and more eventually.


I can upgrade a 1969 Shelby Mustang as much as I want, but it's not going to match the performance of 2020 GT500 Shelby. China has been releasing a new generation of avionics and radars every half a decade since 2000. Those aren't upgrades, but new products.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> Your are just speculating just like me.
> 
> If you really think that China is on the same level as US on stealth, avionics and radar as USA then no amount of logic will convince you otherwise.


No I don't. But I think it is more accurate to compare the J-20 to the F-35 in these regards, whether it be RCS reduction, avionics, and radar. Please tell me why both the J-20 and F-35 have DSI while the F-22 does not? If you actually offered concrete evidence beyond the US has decades of experience in field A, B, or C, then you would be much more convincing. Under your assumption, something like a Chinese EM catapult would be impossible for another two decades because the US had started working on them a lot earlier than the Chinese (or hypersonics for another matter).

If you said what you said 10 or 20 years ago, then the Chinese military would not even be close to the state it is today lmao.


----------



## S10

UKBengali said:


> Facts:
> 
> 1. US has been making stealth planes since the 1970s. F-22 is the 3rd stealth plane it has made, after F-117 and B-2.
> 
> 2. J-20 is the first stealth plane that China has made.
> 
> Even a child would know that China cannot beat the US in stealth tech with just 1 plane.


And I have already told you that Britain has been building trains and ships since the 18th century. That doesn't guarantee their current success (or lackoff).

Going by that logic, a 20 year old athlete can't beat a 60 year old former athlete because the latter has more experience. The political situation had changed. China has more STEM research and patent filed than US, and is the largest industrial power. The economic situation has changed. The technological situation had changed.

Your thinking has not.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> No I don't. But I think it is more accurate to compare the J-20 to the F-35 in these regards, whether it be RCS reduction, avionics, and radar. Please tell me why both the J-20 and F-35 have DSI while the F-22 does not? If you actually offered evidence beyond the US has decades of experience in field A, B, or C, then you would be much more convincing.





Are you even aware that F-22 has much higher degree of stealth than F-35?

This along with it's far better kinematic performance is why it was banned for export.

F-35 only really compares to F-22 in the areas of avionics. In stealth and kinematic performance F-22 totally dominates it.

Saying that the F-22 does receive incremental avionics and software upgrades on it's radar. What is inside the F-22 now is not exactly the same as back in 2005.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> Are you even aware that F-22 has much higher degree of stealth than F-35?
> 
> This along with it's far better kinematic performance is why it was banned for export.
> 
> F-35 only really compares to F-22 in the areas of avionics. In stealth and kinematic performance F-22 totally dominates it.


From what sector? The F-35 has DSI while the F-22 does not, which would lend to better performance in frontal aspect returns. The F-22s advantage is in its rectangular nozzles, which is considerably better than even serrated axisymmetric nozzles.

Anyways, could you please tell me how the Chinese got their EM catapult to work since the US started their efforts way before the Chinese and are still struggling?



UKBengali said:


> Saying that the F-22 does receive incremental avionics and software upgrades on it's radar. What is inside the F-22 now is not exactly the same as back in 2005.


As S10 mentioned, these are incremental upgrades, not evolutional or generation upgrades. The fact is its radar was designed in the 90s and uses technology of that area, with some minor improvements along the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> From what sector? The F-35 has DSI while the F-22 does not, which would lend to better performance in frontal aspect returns. The F-22s advantage is in its rectangular nozzles, which is considerably better than even serrated axisymmetric nozzles.




F-22 - RCS is "marble" sized.
F-35 - RCS is "golf ball" sized.

This is the only public statements that the US has made about the RCS of the F-22 and F-35.

The export F-35 does not have the same degree of stealth as the US version though.


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> As S10 mentioned, these are incremental upgrades, not evolutional or generation upgrades. The fact is its radar was designed in the 90s and uses technology of that area, with some minor improvements along the way.




J-20 radar was designed in the 2000s and so only 10 years newer than that of F22 - hardly a massive amount of time for China to allow China to catch up to USA.

The F-22 was upgraded with the APG-77v1 in 2007 and the new radar variant also captured some advances made in AESA design for the F-35 (APG-81) and Block 60 F-16E/F (APG-80). The APG-77(V)1 successfully completed flight-test certification March 2007.

The AN/APG-77(V)3 is the latest variant and AN/APG-77(V)4 will soon be rolled out to the fleet.

You would really need to be very optimistic to think that the J-20 radar is as good as the latest radar on the F-22.


----------



## LKJ86

UKBengali said:


> F-22 - RCS is "marble" sized.
> F-35 - RCS is "golf ball" sized.
> 
> This is the only public statements that the US has made about the RCS of the F-22 and F-35.
> 
> The export F-35 does not have the same degree of stealth as the US version though.


When U.S. was the only country in the world that had stealth fighters, there were myths about stealth, just like what you said.

But after China and Russia also have them, U.S. starts to keep silent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

S10 said:


> I can upgrade a 1969 Shelby Mustang as much as I want, but it's not going to match the performance of 2020 GT500 Shelby. China has been releasing a new generation of avionics and radars every half a decade since 2000. Those aren't upgrades, but new products.


This is not sound logic.

The current B-52G is an entirely different aircraft than the original B-52 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current F-16 Block 70/72 is an entirely different aircraft than the original F-16 Block 15 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

The current M1A2C is an entirely different MBT than the original M1 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.

Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades. These FRAMES are usually trend-setters for much of the world.

It is a mistake to assume that countries are at par with each other in developing technologies. There are gaps which are virtually unlikely to bridge in practice because everything is not shared and taught and espionage considerations are not infallible.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> J-20 radar was designed in the 2000s and so only 10 years newer than that of F22 - hardly a massive amount of time for China to allow China to catch up to USA.
> 
> The F-22 was upgraded with the APG-77v1 in 2007 and the new radar variant also captured some advances made in AESA design for the F-35 (APG-81) and Block 60 F-16E/F (APG-80). The APG-77(V)1 successfully completed flight-test certification March 2007.
> 
> The AN/APG-77(V)3 is the latest variant and AN/APG-77(V)4 will soon be rolled out to the fleet.
> 
> You would really need to be very optimistic to think that the J-20 radar is as good as the latest radar on the F-22.


This is operating under the assumption that China was massively behind the US in radar technologies in the first place, which just simply is not true. Please tell me how this is the case, since it deployed its first AESA radar only a couple years after that of the US. I would buy this if we were talking about aero-engines, but for radars I won't. Also, why do you only assume the F-22s radar received upgrades but not that of the J-20? Do you really think that the radars of the production variants are at the same level of the prototypes ... have the Chinese been just lying dormant on their Type 1475 radar for the past 10 years (the first J-20 prototype rolled out almost 10 years ago)? I fail to understand why only the APG-77 would receive upgrades while the Type 1475 does not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## UKBengali

LKJ86 said:


> When U.S. was the only country in the world that had stealth fighters, there were myths about stealth, just like what you said.
> 
> But after China and Russia also have them, U.S. starts to keep silent.




Russia does not have a "stealth" aircraft.

Even India rejected it saying it is not stealth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LeGenD said:


> Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades.


It is not true.

U.S. had established total supremacy over its rivals, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, it was enough for U.S. to just upgrade its old weapons.

But times have changed now.


----------



## S10

LeGenD said:


> This is not sound logic.
> 
> The current B-52G is an entirely different aircraft than the original B-52 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.
> 
> The current F-16 Block 70/72 is an entirely different aircraft than the original F-16 Block 15 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.
> 
> The current M1A2C is an entirely different MBT than the original M1 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.
> 
> Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades. These FRAMES are usually trend-setters for much of the world.
> 
> It is a mistake to assume that countries are at par with each other in developing technologies. There are gaps which are virtually unlikely to bridge in practice because everything is not shared and taught and espionage considerations are not infallible.


That's a perfectly good analogy.

You have an existing system architecture being given incremental upgrades over time. It will perform a lot better than the original, but that's not the same as a new system with two decades of advancement. An Intel i7 - 975 processor, no matter how much you overclock and give it aftermarket coolers, is still not as good as the latest stock Intel i5 -9600k, despite its status as a flagship product at the time of introduction. Now I am not saying that J-20 is superior to F-22 in every aspect, but the logic that Americans did it first therefore they are ahead is deeply flawed.

You are right that countries are not on par with each other in developing technologies, but you forget that countries advance at a different pace. UK was the largest and more advance industrial power than US in 1776. By 1876, that edge essentially fizzled. Chinese and Indian economy was neck and neck in 1990, with India actually being slightly bigger. By the end of this year, China will be 6 times the size of the Indian economy.

China is the largest industrial power on earth. Its higher education system produces 6 times the number of science and engineering graduates than US. It has more patent filings and published STEM researches than US. Twenty years ago China doesn't make Top 10 in the TOP500 supercomputer list. More than half the systems on that list is Chinese today.

I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

LeGenD said:


> This is not sound logic.
> 
> The current B-52G is an entirely different aircraft than the original B-52 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.
> 
> The current F-16 Block 70/72 is an entirely different aircraft than the original F-16 Block 15 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.
> 
> The current M1A2C is an entirely different MBT than the original M1 in terms of capabilities and otherwise.
> 
> Americans prefer to develop long-lasting FRAMES which enable/accomodate futuristic upgrades. These FRAMES are usually trend-setters for much of the world.
> 
> It is a mistake to assume that countries are at par with each other in developing technologies. There are gaps which are virtually unlikely to bridge in practice because everything is not shared and taught and espionage considerations are not infallible.


But is the B-52G as capable as a B-1B?


----------



## LeGenD

LKJ86 said:


> It is not true.
> 
> U.S. had established total supremacy over its rivals, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, it was enough for U.S. to just upgrade its old weapons.
> 
> But times have changed now.


Sir,

Americans have a history of developing FRAMES with futuristic considerations in mind. I provided some examples in my previous post. 

Some of the technologies that WE notice becoming true today were first proposed back in the 1960s and 1970s. Imagine this. 

There are databases which will not be made public.



S10 said:


> That's a perfectly good analogy.
> 
> You have an existing system architecture being given incremental upgrades over time. It will perform a lot better than the original, but that's not the same as a new system based on an architecture that are two decades ahead.
> 
> An Intel i7 - 975 processor, no matter how much you overclock and give it aftermarket coolers, is still not as good as the latest stock Intel i5 -9600k, despite its status as a flagship product at the time of introduction.
> 
> You are right that countries are not on par with each other in developing technologies, but you forget that countries advance at a different pace. UK was the largest and more advance industrial power than US in 1776. By 1876, that edge essentially fizzled. China is the largest industrial power on earth. Its higher education system produces 6 times the number of science and engineering graduates than US. It has more patent filings and published STEM researches than US. Twenty years ago China doesn't make Top 10 in the TOP500 supercomputer list. More than half the systems on that list is Chinese today.
> 
> I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.


Dear,

Consider PC analogy.

FRAME = Casing

Components inside the Casing can be replaced from time-to-time.

In case of defensive applications, even the Casing itself can be amended to accomodate new stuff if absolutely necessary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LeGenD said:


> Sir,
> 
> Americans have a history of developing FRAMES with futuristic considerations in mind. I provided some examples in my previous post.
> 
> Some of the technologies that WE notice becoming true today were first proposed back in the 1960s and 1970s. Imagine this.
> 
> There are databases which will not be made public.


How did U.S. refresh its weapons during the cold war?


----------



## S10

LeGenD said:


> Dear,
> 
> Consider PC analogy.
> 
> FRAME = Casing
> 
> Components inside the Casing can be replaced from time-to-time.
> 
> In case of defensive applications, even the Casing itself can be amended to accomodate new stuff.


Sure, if the casing was the only issue. The problem is you're upgrading on the same motherboard. Like I said, new toys on a old platform makes a really nice old platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakFactor

S10 said:


> Sure, if the casing was the only issue. The problem is you're upgrading on the same motherboard. Like I said, new toys on a old platform makes a really nice old platform.



The casing is just a shell, what's inside is the main factor (motherboard)-- tech that determines engagement, data collection, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> This is operating under the assumption that China was massively behind the US in radar technologies in the first place, which just simply is not true. Please tell me how this is the case, since it deployed its first AESA radar only a couple years after that of the US. I would buy this if we were talking about aero-engines, but for radars I won't. Also, why do you only assume the F-22s radar received upgrades but not that of the J-20? Do you really think that the radars of the production variants are at the same level of the prototypes ... have the Chinese been just lying dormant on their Type 1475 radar for the past 10 years (the first J-20 prototype rolled out almost 10 years ago)? I fail to understand why only the APG-77 would receive upgrades while the Type 1475 does not.



Let us go by date of introduction into service:

F-22 - 2005
J-20 - 2017

J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar.

I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.


----------



## S10

PakFactor said:


> The casing is just a shell, what's inside is the main factor (motherboard)-- tech that determines engagement, data collection, etc.


So glad you agree that incremental upgrades to F-22's 1990's avionic and radar architecture are limited in scope by the confines of such architecture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Figaro said:


> But is the B-52G as capable as a B-1B?


Read this: https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20190209.aspx


----------



## LKJ86

UKBengali said:


> Let us go by date of introduction into service:
> 
> F-22 - 2005
> J-20 - 2017
> 
> J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
> F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar.
> 
> I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.


There is something called Moore's Law.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> Let us go by date of introduction into service:
> 
> F-22 - 2005
> J-20 - 2017
> 
> J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
> F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar
> 
> I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.


Oh come on your argument just simply does not make any sense. We know the first J-20 prototype rolled out in December 2010, which is almost 10 years ago, with the AESA radar on board then. Do you assume there has been no variation in that radar in the 10 years since then? Of course the J-20s produced in 2017 will have improved variants of the AESA radar in the original prototype. Regarding the 5 to 10 years behind ... I don't know but I feel throwing arbitrary numbers around is not a good practice at all. The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used ... think about the capability of an upgraded Type 1475 radar now. Unlike something like aeroengines, which require long term investment and development, radar tech evolves a lot in ten years.


LKJ86 said:


> There is something called Moore's Law.


Moore's Law does not really matter here because the chips used in radars do not have to be very small or advanced.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LeGenD

S10 said:


> Sure, if the casing was the only issue. The problem is you're upgrading on the same motherboard. Like I said, new toys on a old platform makes a really nice old platform.


Motherboard cannot be replaced?

What F-22A used to be back in 2003, is no longer a valid consideration in the present. The aircraft is being refitted with latest technologies lately.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used ... think about the capability of an upgraded Type 1475 radar now.




No, you are saying my argument does not make sense as it does not fit your narrative.

Of course it makes sense that you start off with the original start of service date of both aircraft.

J-20 started off with production radar version 1 in 2017, like F-22 started off with production radar version 1 in 2005.

Shall we instead go all the way back to 1997 for the F-22 prototype radar then and say it would have been upgraded by 2005 when it came into service?

"The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used"

What does "advanced" mean in this case?

Do you have actual figures for F-22 radar's detection range, multi-target tracking capability, jamming and LPI capability etc and figures for J-20 as a comparison?

Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time in 2017. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> No, you are saying my argument does not make sense as it does not fit your narrative.
> 
> Of course it makes sense that you start off with the original start of service.
> 
> J-20 started off with production radar version 1 in 2017, like F-22 started off with production radar version 1 in 2005.
> 
> Shall we instead go all the way back to 1997 for the F-22 prototype radar then and say it would have been upgraded by 2005 when it came into service?
> 
> "The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used"
> 
> What does "advanced" mean in this case?
> 
> Do you have actual figures for F-22 radar's detection range, multi-target tracking capability, jamming and LPI capability etc and figures for J-20 as a comparison?
> 
> Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.


It is very difficult arguing with you because your underlying assumption is that the J-20s radar does not receive any upgrades from the time it was first developed to now whereas the F-22 receives continually upgrades. Note I am not disputing the latter but I am disputing the former.

If the J-20 production I radar came out in 2017, then why do you keep harping about its radar being designed in the 2000s? Wouldn't the radar which came out in 2017 then itself be a significantly upgraded form over the initial radar developed in the early 2000s and placed on the first J-20 prototype? I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish here.


UKBengali said:


> Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.


So you believe that the J-20 radar that came out in 2017, which itself has already undergone upgrades in the nearly 10 years since its inception, only at the same level as the 2005 F-22 radar? Are you serious? This assumption would only make sense if Chinese technological advancement progressed at equal speed as that of the US and also the Chinese having a large gap in radar to begin with, both of which are faulty positions to say the least. Your radar argument is even less coherent and more mind-boggling than the engine argument you spewed out a couple of weeks back.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> So you believe that the J-20 radar that came out in 2017, which itself has already undergone upgrades in the nearly 10 years since its inception, only at the same level as the 2005 F-22 radar? Are you serious? This assumption would only make sense if Chinese technological advancement progressed at equal speed as that of the US and also the Chinese having a large gap in radar to begin with, both of which are faulty positions to say the least.




No as I already said the 2017 J-20 radar is probably better than the 2005 F-22 radar.

What I think is that the 2020 F-22 radar is a little ahead of the 2020 J-20 radar, especially if the J-20 still has it's original production radar.

If you look at iterations of US fighters like the F-16, the later iterations of the radar in those fighters were some way better than the initial production radar.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> No as I already said the 2017 J-20 radar is probably better than the 2005 F-22 radar.
> 
> What I think is that the 2020 F-22 radar is a little ahead of the 2020 J-20 radar, especially if the J-20 still has it's original production radar.
> 
> If you look at iterations of US fighters like the F-16, the later iterations of the radar in those fighters were some way better than the initial production radar.


I could buy this if the F-22s were retrofitted with the APG-81 but not if its just some variant of the APG-77. Even you said it yourself that the J-20s radar was designed over ten years after that of the APG-77 ... please tell me then how does the APG-77 retain a lead over the Type 1475 (J-20s radar) considering both countries have similar developmental progress of AESA radars? As I mentioned earlier, you can upgrade the B-52 all you want (and maybe to the extent that it is a new aircraft entirely), but is it going to be better than a B-1B?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

@Figaro

The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested

“It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.

AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.

It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”

Get the memo now?

I understand that China want to equip J-20 with best possible technologies at its disposal but what are the claimed performance parameters of NRIET Type 1475 radar system to begin with? There are so many variables to consider outside marketing hype.

The original AN/APG-77 is a 3rd generation AESA radar system in strictly American terms. The AN/APG-77(v)1 is a complete redesign of the original variant to bring it on par with 4th generation AESA radar systems in use.

1st generation AESA = URR (1985)

2nd generation AESA = ATF (1989)

3rd generation AESA = AN/AGP-77 (1996)

4th generation AESA = AN/APG-80; ANAPG-77(v)1; AN/APG-81; SABR

There are further advances in American radar systems – revolutionary advances to say the least.

Coming back to NRIET Type 1475 radar system:

T/R module count = 1856

Maximum detection range = 370 KM

LPI

What else?

Even in crude comparison, it is easy to pinpoint that AN/APG-77(v)1 have superior performance parameters.

Rumors are circulating that China is looking forward to replace Type 1475 with KLJ-7A radar system. True or not?

Appreciate your advances man but do not push the narrative.

There is much more to F-22A Raptor than meets the eye.

This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies. They are not sitting idle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

LeGenD said:


> @Figaro
> 
> The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested
> 
> “It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.
> 
> AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.
> 
> It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”
> 
> Get the memo now?


I don't think it is fair to compare civilian electronics accessory with AESA radar development. Please tell me how this links to AESA radar?


LeGenD said:


> @Figaro
> 
> Get the memo now?


Not at all.


LeGenD said:


> @Figaro
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that China want to equip J-20 with best possible technologies at its disposal but what are the claimed performance parameters of NRIET Type 1475 radar system to begin with? There are so many variables to consider outside marketing hype.
> 
> The original AN/APG-77 is a 3rd generation AESA radar system in strictly American terms. The AN/APG-77(v)1 is a complete redesign of the original variant to bring it on par with 4th generation AESA radar systems in use.
> 
> 1st generation AESA = URR (1985)
> 
> 2nd generation AESA = ATF (1989)
> 
> 3rd generation AESA = AN/AGP-77 (1996)
> 
> 4th generation AESA = AN/APG-80; ANAPG-77(v)1; AN/APG-81; SABR
> 
> There are further advances in American radar systems – revolutionary advances to say the least.
> 
> Coming back to NRIET Type 1475 radar system:
> 
> T/R module count = 1856
> 
> Maximum detection range = 370 KM
> 
> LPI
> 
> What else?
> 
> Even in crude comparison, it is easy to pinpoint that AN/APG-77(v)1 have superior performance parameters.


I'm not sure where you got the maximum detection range from. Nanjing never released any statistics on that ... the T/R module count was leaked out and that is correct. From the data published, the AN/APG-77 has 1500 T/R modules while the AN/APG-81 has over 1600. Of course, radar performance should not be solely based of T/R module numbers but how does this prove anything?


LeGenD said:


> @Figaro
> 
> Rumors are circulating that China is looking forward to replace Type 1475 with KLJ-7A radar system. True or not?


Mistranslation by IHS Janes. The KLJ-7A itself uses technologies in the Type 1475 according to the Chinese report ... but Janes misinterpreted it to be the Chinese are going to use the KLJ-7A into the J-20. And given the size of the J-20s nose, a much more powerful radar than the KLJ-7A would be placed.


LeGenD said:


> @Figaro
> 
> Appreciate your advances man but do not push the narrative.
> 
> There is much more to F-22A Raptor than meets the eye.
> 
> This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies, mind you.


Sorry but what am I pushing here at all? The other poster was the one who started this whole mess. Never did I ever say that Chinese radar technology was equal or exceeded that of the US ... all I said was that they are roughly comparable (i.e. on a similar level). I called him out on making sweeping statements without any solid evidence, whether it be numbers or concrete developments, just as I did on the engine thread. If he came here with solid evidences and numbers, then we can have a meaningful discussion and come to an agreement. But when he says "I will bet my money" on this or that occurring, you know it becomes a poor discussion. Note @LeGenD I do not have any problems with your postings because you provide evidence, which makes the argument/debate substantive. But when someone comes in here with a blanket assertion and no solid evidence (especially numbers) to back up his/her claims, then that is a problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ravenman

Is there a export version? 

And if there is, what is the prize?


----------



## Figaro

Ravenman said:


> Is there a export version?
> 
> And if there is, what is the prize?


Not yet at least. And what do you mean "what is the prize"?


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... aren't you already a bit too far off-topic? You are discussing radar systems, generations of radars and estimate the capability growth only by guessing and then try to conclude the fighter's capabilities?! Come on ... *

*And nothing of this is directly related to the J-20 ... at least it is pure speculation. *

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

LeGenD said:


> @Figaro
> 
> The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested
> 
> “It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.
> 
> AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.
> 
> It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”
> 
> Get the memo now?
> 
> ...
> 
> This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies. They are not sitting idle.



X86 is a proprietary and closed standard with few competitors thus it is neither fair nor representative of real world capabilities to compare CPU performance on this single standard, since there are only 3 companies in the entire world making X86 chips. When the number of samples are small, random factors abound.

In the much more competitive ARM and RISC-V markets, Huawei made one of the best processor ARM series in the world - Kirin - while Alibaba has the best RISC-V processor in the world right now - Xuantie.

The X86 processors are important at all mostly because of the momentum of Windows.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Grandy

.
*The U.S. military disclosed the progress of the sixth-generation aircraft, and the verification aircraft has flown for the first time! ** What is the opportunity for the domestic sixth generation?*

The United States has always been blindly confident in its technological leadership. Now the US military has disclosed the progress of the sixth-generation aircraft and has entered the stage of actual testing. The US sixth-generation aircraft is about to fly for the first time, so what is the opportunity for my country's domestic-made sixth-generation aircraft?

*The sixth-generation American*
China's sixth-generation fighter is indeed not far away. As far as the sixth-generation fighter is concerned, just like the difference between the third-generation and the fourth-generation fighters, the true appearance and technical level of the sixth-generation fighters are actually not much better than the fifth-generation fighters. The current standard of the sixth-generation aircraft must exceed the fifth-generation. It pays more attention to stealth and supersonic cruise. It will be equipped with active defense systems such as small lasers or projected interceptor bombs. The radar will use active phased array radar or more advanced technology, with high intelligence. The perception computer can link satellites, a large number of wingmen, and ground battlefield systems for coordinated operations, and has the ability to control multiple UAVs in the small air command. Overall, these new concepts can be used to outline what China's sixth-generation fighters look like.

*Sixth-generation aircraft in the United States*
Six-generation aircraft in China and the United States are likely to develop in two completely different directions. Why do you say that? At present, the global standards for the fifth-generation aircraft are all proposed by the United States. Our F-20 and Russian Su 57 are all based on this standard. This means that we always let others lead the way and always walk behind others. It may not fall, but it is always impossible to surpass. But the 6th generation machine belongs to the next-generation plan. After all, there are still many problems in related technologies. This gives us the opportunity to overtake. If my country's sixth-generation machine is born first, it will lead the international standard for the next six-generation machine.

*J-20*
Has reached the sixth generation, because the United States is still in the stage of concept determination, or the concept has been determined to be under development, but in strict confidentiality, we do not know. But our current fifth-generation machine is mature, and the problem of heart disease has been solved. According to China's equipment development, equipment generation and pre-research generation equipment layout, it is very likely that China's sixth-generation aircraft is already under development. And it is very likely that the US is taking a completely different route, because no one knows what the standard of the sixth-generation machine is? Maybe from now on, we and the United States will have completely different technology trees. According to our country’s “national treasure”-level great gods, my country’s six generations of opportunities have the function of automatic repair and transformation. As for the science fiction films mentioned by Mr. Yang, we will also have them. We don’t know what it is. It should be top secret. But it is definitely a great black technology.

*The domestic six-generation aircraft model*
Judging from the characteristics of the next-generation fighters currently exposed in the United States, the biggest features of the next-generation fighters are unmanned, highly informatized, and ultra-stealth. From the current China’s latest military research and development trends, no one Engines, absorbing materials, high-performance radars, and large thrust ratio engines are the main focus projects. Judging from various signs, my country's sixth-generation aircraft is not far away. I believe that one day China's military industry will keep pace with or even surpass the United States and achieve a great revival. Come on! China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Well, I am respecting the statement of the Moderator of this thread, and will not expand on my arguments further.

@Figaro
@FairAndUnbiased

Both gentlemen offer thought-provoking arguments. Credit where due.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Saahir Malik

A single-seat, multirole stealth fighter aircraft, the Chengdu J-20 is manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG) of China.
It is a fifth-generation aircraft being built for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). Its Nato reporting name is Black Eagle. Two prototypes were developed in November 2010 for aerial and ground testing.
Potential customers of the J-20 are Pakistan, the Middle East, Latin America, South-East Asia and African countries.


----------



## Deino

LeGenD said:


> Well, I am respecting the statement of the Moderator of this thread, and will not expand on my arguments further.
> 
> @Figaro
> @FairAndUnbiased
> 
> Both gentlemen offer thought-provoking arguments. Credit where due.




It was not my intention to kill the discussion and if you like I would move it into a better fitting thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Deino said:


> It was not my intention to kill the discussion and if you like I would move it into a better fitting thread.


No need, my friend. You made the right call.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Saahir Malik said:


> Potential customers of the J-20 are Pakistan, the Middle East, Latin America, South-East Asia and African countries.


No potential export customers for now ... it isn't even cleared for export and probably won't be for this entire decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

jaybird said:


> Not only Su-30MKI can detect J-20 from 200Km away. There is prove Su-30MKI is actually more stealthy than J-20. Indian pilot Abhinandan flow within visual distance of J-20 without J-20 even notice it. A selfie was taken by Abhinandan on his new MKI.
> View attachment 670312



If IAF really posted this photo claiming it as evidence will end up putting IAF the laughing stock. It is obvious the J-20 and the sky are photoshop with very poor editing done. The claim at 200km away is already too exaggerated.


----------



## kungfugymnast

52051 said:


> Actually I think it is quite cheap, since J-20 merely enter mass production phase now, and it is a twin engine heavy fighter.
> 
> At this price tag, China can afford to use J-20 as its sole 5th gen fighter (at least for PLAAF), J-20 WS-10 as low end fighter(cheaper, and better range thanks to high bypass ratio engine), and J-20 with WS-15 as high end fighter(better flight characters).



You're probably right. J-20C with WS15 engines might receives design modification and would look slightly different from J-20B with WS-10. PLAAF could afford to build at least 200 J-20B before J-20C enter service


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> You're probably right. J-20C with WS15 engines might receives design modification and would look slightly different from J-20B with WS-10. PLAAF could afford to build at least 200 J-20B before J-20C enter service


I heard the intakes would be altered considerably to accommodate the WS-15s' low bypass ratio, versus the WS-10s relatively high ratio.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## laser911

UKBengali said:


> Facts:
> 
> 1. US has been making stealth planes since the 1970s. F-22 is the 3rd stealth plane it has made, after F-117 and B-2.
> 
> 2. J-20 is the first stealth plane that China has made.
> 
> Even a child would know that China cannot beat the US in stealth tech with just 1 plane.



Actually, a MIG21/J7 and a J8 have been modified for stealth tech testing in 1980s. I guess you can say nobody can make better aircraft than US as the first plane was made by US.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
5


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> I heard the intakes would be altered considerably to accommodate the WS-15s' low bypass ratio, versus the WS-10s relatively high ratio.



Agree, as usual with most significant modifications made besides the air intake will be the rear and probably the bubble canopy, radome and wings too. The more powerful WS15 would surely change the requirements.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Agree, as usual with most significant modifications made besides the air intake will be the rear and probably the bubble canopy, radome and wings too. The more powerful WS15 would surely change the requirements.




Why would the canopy need some changes?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Why would the canopy need some changes?



FC-31 changed its canopy to YF-23 style that is believed to be stealthier than F-22. If this proven better than expect J-20 to follow.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> FC-31 changed its canopy to YF-23 style that is believed to be stealthier than F-22. If this proven better than expect J-20 to follow.




But the canopy already changed twice during the J-20's development phase, I think it is fine as it is .. and the FC-31 did not change the outline, but only how much of the canopy opens.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> FC-31 changed its canopy to YF-23 style that is believed to be stealthier than F-22. If this proven better than expect J-20 to follow.


The J-20 canopy also changed, first from the 2001/2002 demonstrators to the 2011 prototype, and then again from the 2011 prototype to the LRIP models. But what does the canopy have to do with switching an engine though? IMO the canopy is already ideal.


----------



## CIA Mole

What is role of j20? To shoot off missiles and kill support aircraft?

If so why need canards, tvc, and good maneuverability? Just to evade missiles and run away?

For such a role why not use unmanned fighter? Perhaps even suicide drone to deliver AA missiles.


----------



## _NOBODY_

CIA Mole said:


> What is role of j20? To shoot off missiles and kill support aircraft?
> 
> If so why need canards, tvc, and good maneuverability? Just to evade missiles and run away?
> 
> For such a role why not use unmanned fighter? Perhaps even suicide drone to deliver AA missiles.


J-20 is primarily an air superiority platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

lcloo said:


> Today's article on www.81.cn
> 
> In the hands of a pilot with about 100 hours flight time on a "new modified fighter jet", he scored a zero to 17 air-to-air fights in his favour. This "new fighter jet" is obviously a J20 judged by the 0 to 17 score.
> 
> Also amazing is that the pilot has only about 100 flight hours on this jet, shows easy integration between pilot and aircraft.
> 
> I find the description "*新型改装战机" (a new modified fighter jet) *interesting, does it referred to a J20 with new engine?
> 
> “截获目标！”“发射！”烈日当空，一场空中对抗激战正酣。东部战区空军航空兵某旅“王海大队”年轻飞行员陈鑫浩，面对来自不同方向多批“敌机”的拦截，与战友灵活协同、勇敢出击，在兵力明显处于劣势的情况下，以“零损伤”的代价一举“击落敌机”17架。
> 
> “你很难想到，陈鑫浩驾驭这款*新型改装战机*飞行时间刚过100小时。这种情形，与抗美援朝战场上的空战情形何其相似。尽管跨越历史的天空，但咱们飞行员骨子里的胜战精神仍然充盈如初：闻战则喜、英勇顽强、敢打必胜、有我无敌！”“王海大队”大队长杨俊成说。
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 669674

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> But the canopy already changed twice during the J-20's development phase, I think it is fine as it is .. and the FC-31 did not change the outline, but only how much of the canopy opens.



Right, then current canopy design stays


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> The J-20 canopy also changed, first from the 2001/2002 demonstrators to the 2011 prototype, and then again from the 2011 prototype to the LRIP models. But what does the canopy have to do with switching an engine though? IMO the canopy is already ideal.



Noted. Changes mostly related to WS15 fittings and depends on what this powerful engine could do to aerodyamic, stealth, internal bay load.


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> If so why need canards, tvc, and good maneuverability? Just to evade missiles and run away?


All the reasons why the J-20 is a dedicated air superiority fighter first and foremost

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## _NOBODY_

@Deino @IblinI @LKJ86 
Can J-20 carry ALCM and bombs in it's internal bay?


----------



## kungfugymnast

_NOBODY_ said:


> @Deino @IblinI @LKJ86
> Can J-20 carry ALCM and bombs in it's internal bay?



Laser or GPS guided bombs probably, air to ground missiles possible. ALCM is too big to fit as standard ALCM size is 17 feet or longer with wide diameter therefore no. 

WS-15 engine when perfected will probably be fitted in larger long range stealth heavy fighter bomber that might carry ALCM as PLAAF has plan to have such aircraft with range of over 4000 miles to attack targets over Pacific Ocean.


----------



## kungfugymnast

CIA Mole said:


> What is role of j20? To shoot off missiles and kill support aircraft?
> 
> If so why need canards, tvc, and good maneuverability? Just to evade missiles and run away?
> 
> For such a role why not use unmanned fighter? Perhaps even suicide drone to deliver AA missiles.



Never put 100% trust on drones alone. Fighters flown by pilots are expected to face enemy fighters and missiles threat in visual range engagement especially. Also US is developing AI fighter drone that will pose serious threat to J-20. The latest US test, the AI defeated US top pilots in dogfight. Imagine such AI is implemented on stealth X-47, the J-20B would need everything it got to face the x-47 that could turn tighter without worry on G-effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

Figaro said:


> No potential export customers for now ... it isn't even cleared for export and probably won't be for this entire decade.



I remember a few years ago, that list of countries mentioned by that other member in his post came out but I don't think most people in the know-how or whom followed the development of the J-20 up to that point and were aware of China's extent of exporting its aircraft believed that there was any truth to that.

And at first when I read your comment about not even for this entire decade, I thought that might be a bit of an exaggeration but then after giving it some thought, I think you're probably correct on that as well. It seems like the J-20 is really designed for China's landscape defense. It's size correlates to the massive landscape of China and it makes more sense that it was designed and engineered to really satisfy the entire defensive needs of China and only China. I don't think they had any exporting aspirations in its creation from the begining.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CIA Mole

kungfugymnast said:


> Never put 100% trust on drones alone. Fighters flown by pilots are expected to face enemy fighters and missiles threat in visual range engagement especially. Also US is developing AI fighter drone that will pose serious threat to J-20. The latest US test, the AI defeated US top pilots in dogfight. Imagine such AI is implemented on stealth X-47, the J-20B would need everything it got to face the x-47 that could turn tighter without worry on G-effect.



I think china can probably do better than j20, maybe stall till next generation?


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> I think china can probably do better than j20, maybe stall till next generation?


The J-20 is the best aircraft possible to meet China's 5th generation requirements ... this was why it was chosen as the PLAAF fifth generation fighter back in 2007, because it not only met all the design requirements but also exceeded them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

CIA Mole said:


> I think china can probably do better than j20, maybe stall till next generation?



Right now China focus is on perfecting the WS15, come up with navalized J-35 and put the Type 003 into active service to protect China shores and seas engaging enemies beyond missiles effective range. 

The large heavy fighter bomber is latter project. In future, medium & long range stealth bombers (known as heavy fighter bomber) will be fitted with AESA radar carrying air to air missiles, air to ground and ALCM for intercontinental warfare. US FB-22/23, B-1R is part of such project and China is getting into such race trying to be ahead of US. 

Stealth bomber B-2 without air to air capability is defenseless left at mercy of enemy fighters if spotted by satellite. Even old Mig-21 could take sweet time to intercept scaring the B-2 pilot forcing him to land if doesn't want to try the 23mm rounds

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

Why j20 need those ventral fins


----------



## kungfugymnast

CIA Mole said:


> Why j20 need those ventral fins



Stability or better maneuver?


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> Why j20 need those ventral fins


A very good answer.

_Why does the J-20 need two ventral fins even though Russian and US stealth fighters like the Su-57 PAK FA, F-22, and F-35 do not?

I’m assuming you mean those small ones at the rear.

Ventral fins like those ones are usually implemented because of one of several reasons.

First is that it can potentially yield an improvement in turbulent airflow, potentially increasing back pressure. This lowers drag overall, and helps increase speed slightly.

The second reason is that they can alter airflow, potentially improving tail control authority and efficiency, mostly in the pitch axis.

The third reason they might be installed is the aircraft is simply too stable. In these cases, it’s because the jet suffer’s from rolling difficulties. It’s used to help boost agility.

*The final reason a jet might have them is that the jet is too unstable, particularly with it’s yaw. It’s done as way of improving stability, and allowing the jet to be more easily kept flying in a straight line.

All in all, I would say that reason four might be the most likely one. The J-20’s a very unstable design to begin with, thanks to it’s canard delta configuration.

Stealth aircraft also tend to benefit from minimizing control surface movements during flight, since this mitigates changes in their planform alignment. So, an airframe with a very low degree of yaw stability runs into a number of challenges in staying stealthy. Adding ventral fins help to mitigate this yaw instability, improving stealth. The fact that the ventral fins are also placed at the same angle as the dorsal fin on the opposing side means that they maintain planform alignment for the airframe.

Overall, they likely help deal with a high degree of existing yaw instability, and improve stealth as a result of correcting this issue. *Yaw instability has not been a major problem in previous stealth designs, though nobody has attempted to build a stealth fighter that relies on a canard delta configuration either._









Why does the J-20 need two ventral fins even though Russian and US stealth fighters like the Su-57 PAK FA, F-22, and F-35 do not?


Answer (1 of 9): I’m assuming you mean those small ones at the rear. Ventral fins like those ones are usually implemented because of one of several reasons. First is that it can potentially yield an improvement in turbulent airflow, potentially increasing back pressure. This lowers drag overall...




www.quora.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## obj 705A

CIA Mole said:


> I think china can probably do better than j20, maybe stall till next generation?



I have a feeling the final J-31 will become more advanced & perfected than the J-20, and will end up becoming the main fighter of not just the PLAN but also the PLAAF. The J-20 was China's first ever stealth aircraft, even though both were competing at the same time & the J-20 won. the J-31 went through drastic changes since then and the experience they got from the J-20 & the first variant of the J-31 became like a stepping stone towards developing a perfect J-31/J-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

obj 705A said:


> I have a feeling the final J-31 will become more advanced & perfected than the J-20, and will end up becoming the main fighter of not just the PLAN but also the PLAAF. The J-20 was China's first ever stealth aircraft, even though both were competing at the same time & the J-20 won. the J-31 went through drastic changes since then and the experience they got from the J-20 & the first variant of the J-31 became like a stepping stone towards developing a perfect J-31/J-35.


Funny...
Why do you think J-20 can't be evloving with the times?
The production of F-22 has stopped, but J-20 not.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

obj 705A said:


> I have a feeling the final J-31 will become more advanced & perfected than the J-20, and will end up becoming the main fighter of not just the PLAN but also the PLAAF. The J-20 was China's first ever stealth aircraft, even though both were competing at the same time & the J-20 won. the J-31 went through drastic changes since then and the experience they got from the J-20 & the first variant of the J-31 became like a stepping stone towards developing a perfect J-31/J-35.


No it will not ... how can an aircraft (i.e. the FC-31), whose design was rejected in favor of the J-20 become better than the J-20, especially when it has the full backing of the PLAAF and AVIC? The J-20 is a proven aircraft that is already in operation versus the FC-31 which is still languishing in the prototype phase. Meanwhile, variants of the J-20 are being worked on, with the J-20B or J-20C equipped with WS-15 engines being the most imminent one. There is a reason why the J-20 is not available for export, while the FC-31 is.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## obj 705A

LKJ86 said:


> Funny...
> Why do you think J-20 can't be evloving with the times?
> The production of F-22 has stopped, but J-20 not.



Wait when did I ever say the J-20 cannot evolve? we already know there is a new variant j-20B and there will be more enhancement and upgrades in successor variants, but it is exactly because the J-20 is already in production while the J-31 is still not in production that the they can make the kind of drastic changes required to obtain a perfect fighter.
There is a limit to how much you can upgrade and enhance an existing design that is already in production, but there is no such limit on an aircraft that has yet to enter production in is still in development stage.



Figaro said:


> No it will not ... how can an aircraft (i.e. the FC-31), whose design was rejected in favor of the J-20 become better than the J-20, especially when it has the full backing of the PLAAF and AVIC? The J-20 is a proven aircraft that is already in operation versus the FC-31 which is still languishing in the prototype phase. Meanwhile, variants of the J-20 are being worked on, with the J-20B or J-20C equipped with WS-15 engines being the most imminent one. There is a reason why the J-20 is not available for export, while the FC-31 is.



Languishing in development? I mean we know it is under developmemt but were there actually any news/leaks that said the J-31 is "languishing"!
There is a drastic difference between the current J-31/J-35 and that fighter that lost in the competition, even just by the looks of the aircraft it looks like a new fighter different from the FC-31, that is how much they could change it.


----------



## LKJ86

obj 705A said:


> Wait when did I ever say the J-20 cannot evolve? we already know there is a new variant j-20B and there will be more enhancement and upgrades in successor variants, but it is exactly because the J-20 is already in production while the J-31 is still not in production that the they can make the kind of drastic changes required to obtain a perfect fighter.
> There is a limit to how much you can upgrade and enhance an existing design that is already in production, but there is no such limit on an aircraft that has yet to enter production in is still in development stage.


As we know, the later JF-17 has benefited from the development of J-10.
Do you think JF-17 BLK III would perform better than J-10C?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

obj 705A said:


> There is a limit to how much you can upgrade and enhance an existing design that is already in production


As J-20 is still in production, there is no a such limit.
Take J-10 for exmple. J-10A can't be upgraded to the standard of J-10C.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> As J-20 is still in production, there is no a such limit.
> Take J-10 for exmple. J-10A can't be upgraded to the standard of J-10C.


And the production of F-22 has stopped, so F-22 does have a such limit.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

obj 705A said:


> Wait when did I ever say the J-20 cannot evolve? we already know there is a new variant j-20B and there will be more enhancement and upgrades in successor variants, but it is exactly because the J-20 is already in production while the J-31 is still not in production that the they can make the kind of drastic changes required to obtain a perfect fighter.
> There is a limit to how much you can upgrade and enhance an existing design that is already in production, but there is no such limit on an aircraft that has yet to enter production in is still in development stage.
> 
> 
> 
> Languishing in development? I mean we know it is under developmemt but were there actually any news/leaks that said the J-31 is "languishing"!
> There is a drastic difference between the current J-31/J-35 and that fighter that lost in the competition, even just by the looks of the aircraft it looks like a new fighter different from the FC-31, that is how much they could change it.


Only if FC-31/J-35 is desgined to be a 6th-generation fighter jet from the beginning, you would be right, and FC-31/J-35 can perform better that the 5th-generation J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> No it will not ... how can an aircraft (i.e. the FC-31), whose design was rejected in favor of the J-20 become better than the J-20, especially when it has the full backing of the PLAAF and AVIC? The J-20 is a proven aircraft that is already in operation versus the FC-31 which is still languishing in the prototype phase. Meanwhile, variants of the J-20 are being worked on, with the J-20B or J-20C equipped with WS-15 engines being the most imminent one. There is a reason why the J-20 is not available for export, while the FC-31 is.



Pretty irrelevant as by the mid-2030s a far more advanced 6th gen fighter will start joining the PLAAF.


FC-31 will only be coming into service in the second half of this decade
and so not many years before China's 6th gen fighter.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @34号军事室 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Falcon26

When do you expect the WS-15 engines to enter production? @Deino


----------



## Figaro

Falcon26 said:


> When do you expect the WS-15 engines to enter production? @Deino


Head of GTE said design certification by 2021 to 2023 back in 2018. Once design certification is achieved, then mass production can begin. It is currently in flight testing stage, most likely aboard a modified J-11B. Its incorporation into the J-20 I presume will not take long.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CIA Mole

Figaro said:


> Head of GTE said design certification by 2021 to 2023 back in 2018. Once design certification is achieved, then mass production can begin. It is currently in flight testing stage, most likely aboard a modified J-11B. Its incorporation into the J-20 I presume will not take long.



So j20 will have supercruise then?


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> So j20 will have supercruise then?


Definitely. The WS-15 was designed from the ground up for supercruise (i.e. low bypass ratio like the F119)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

obj 705A said:


> I have a feeling the final J-31 will become more advanced & perfected than the J-20, and will end up becoming the main fighter of not just the PLAN but also the PLAAF. The J-20 was China's first ever stealth aircraft, even though both were competing at the same time & the J-20 won. the J-31 went through drastic changes since then and the experience they got from the J-20 & the first variant of the J-31 became like a stepping stone towards developing a perfect J-31/J-35.



FC-31 development will be carried forward to J-35 navalized stealth fighter that manufacturer is still deciding whether to proceed building 1 powered by tuned up WS-10X or can it wait for WS-15. FC-31 itself will be export variant stealth fighter or low RCS fighter with external load. 

It is not known whether the J-35 will adopt conventional layout with elevator at the back like F-35C or with forward canard design as in never built navalized X-32, navalized YF-23 concept. But 1 thing for sure, to achieve low speed stability & maneuverability suited for carrier landing, the design of J-35 would slow down its top speed to just mach 1.8, 2.1 or 2.2 sacrificing aerodynamic.

The J-20B and later J-20C will be more advanced than J-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> FC-31 development will be carried forward to J-35 navalized stealth fighter that manufacturer is still deciding whether to proceed building 1 powered by tuned up WS-10X or can it wait for WS-15. FC-31 itself will be export variant stealth fighter or low RCS fighter with external load.
> 
> It is not known whether the J-35 will adopt conventional layout with elevator at the back like F-35C or with forward canard design as in never built navalized X-32, navalized YF-23 concept. But 1 thing for sure, to achieve low speed stability & maneuverability suited for carrier landing, the design of J-35 would slow down its top speed to just mach 1.8, 2.1 or 2.2 sacrificing aerodynamic.
> 
> The J-20B and later J-20C will be more advanced than J-35.


The navalized stealth fighter is not in the same weight class of heavy air superiority fighter as the J-20 and as such does not need WS-15 or even uprated WS-10. It needs the WS-19, or more specifically an advanced T/W 10 engine that generates 110 to 120 kN of thrust, has good specific fuel consumption, high service life/MTBO, and possibly thrust vectoring.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> The navalized stealth fighter is not in the same weight class of heavy air superiority fighter as the J-20 and as such does not need WS-15 or even uprated WS-10. It needs the WS-19, or more specifically an advanced T/W 10 engine that generates 110 to 120 kN of thrust, has good specific fuel consumption, high service life/MTBO, and possibly thrust vectoring.



You can do the maths. China fighters need the range and power coz they are on the defensive whereas US is on the offensive outnumbering their enemies. China navalized stealth fighters would have to take more payloads than US F-35C but close to F/A-18E/F with ability to fly long range. WS-10X is more ideal for the navalized stealth fighter around the size of F-22. 

2x WS19 with 23,000-25,000lb each vs 2x WS10X max thrust 32,000lb each, which is better to propel the navalized stealth fighter into the air to deliver weapons fast before enemy stealth aircrafts getting into striking range of China carrier fleet. Acceleration is important despite lower top speed (mach 1.8 to 2.0) from the wings design.

FC-31 might get its navalized version to serve as secondary support stealth fighters carrying J-xx designation.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> You can do the maths. China fighters need the range and power coz they are on the defensive whereas US is on the offensive outnumbering their enemies. China navalized stealth fighters would have to take more payloads than US F-35C but close to F/A-18E/F with ability to fly long range. WS-10X is more ideal for the navalized stealth fighter around the size of F-22.
> 
> 2x WS19 with 23,000-25,000lb each vs 2x WS10X max thrust 32,000lb each, which is better to propel the navalized stealth fighter into the air to deliver weapons fast before enemy stealth aircrafts getting into striking range of China carrier fleet. Acceleration is important despite lower top speed (mach 1.8 to 2.0) from the wings design.
> 
> FC-31 might get its navalized version to serve as secondary support stealth fighters carrying J-xx designation.



*Take this now as the second and final warning to stay on topic, which is the J-20 and NOT the J-35 or whatever. You are constantly derailing threads with your strange ideas ... those are alone to say it mildly "strange" sometimes, but when they are off-topic, they are annoying.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @Oneninety from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1309379633591320578

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Grandy

.
*Not behind! China's sixth-generation aircraft program has designed 8 models, 4 of which have completed low-altitude test flights*

2020-09-26 

Recently, the sudden appearance of the sixth-generation fighters of the superpower caused an uproar. Judging from public information, this sixth-generation aircraft is a "penetrating fighter" with a flying wing layout, focusing on full-frequency stealth performance, flying faster and having a longer range. At present, there is no recognized technical standard for the sixth-generation aircraft in the world, so it is very doubtful how powerful this sixth-generation aircraft is suddenly appearing. Moreover, even if the so-called sixth-generation machine verification machine appears, there is still a long way to go before it is actually put into use. As the sixth-generation aircraft may have huge technical advantages, military fans have begun to worry whether the progress of the domestic-made sixth-generation aircraft will be too slow. In fact, in accordance with the convention of "production generation, trial production generation, pre-research generation and exploration generation", the development of China's sixth-generation aircraft has already begun, and it may be more powerful.

According to reports, as early as 2019, the "Future Aircraft Collaborative Innovation Center" of Northwestern Polytechnical University, a top domestic aerospace university, made it clear that it had come up with eight sixth-generation aircraft design schemes and conducted low-altitude flight technology verification for the four schemes. And formed an important influence in the country. The publicity board issued by the university pointed out that this industry-university-research model has cultivated a large number of leading talents for the Chinese aviation industry, including the J-20 chief engineer, chief designer and field commander. The dean is an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, absolutely not It's a joke.
What the sixth-generation opportunity in China looks like is still a mystery, but we can still see a general direction of efforts from the papers published by the J-20 chief engineer and related verification technologies developed by the country. A paper published by the J-20 chief engineer believes that the next generation of fighter jets will pay more attention to information superiority and adopt a large number of artificial intelligence technologies to make fighter control easier; it has broadband and wide-spectrum stealth performance and can penetrate modern air defense systems; The laser weapon near-defense weapon system has the ability to defend against terminal hard killers; the sixth-generation aircraft will focus on air combat beyond visual range, further highlighting the importance of information perception capabilities, and can form an information advantage for existing fighters. The article pointed out that the next-generation fighter jets have greater range, ammunition carrying capacity, and flight speed, which may blur the boundaries between fighters and bombers, requiring penetration and attack operations to be completed in high-risk environments. Therefore, China's sixth-generation aircraft may not meet any clear standards, or it may be a penetrating air superiority fighter.

It can be seen that "penetrating air superiority fighters" may be the common endeavour of all major countries, but the technical content is graded. Although the sixth-generation aircraft being developed by the superpowers has better stealth performance and long range, it does not have a particularly huge technological advancement compared to the fifth-generation aircraft. On the contrary, China recently announced that it has successfully developed a combined power engine that allows people to see the future development direction of China's sixth-generation aircraft-a hypersonic stealth fighter that can freely enter and exit the space and atmosphere.

If China's sixth-generation aircraft is a "penetrating air-control fighter" equipped with combined-engine maneuvering, its most powerful feature is that it can freely enter and exit the atmosphere to perform operations, flying at speeds exceeding Mach 6, and having a large combat radius. Fighters with hypersonic flight capabilities will cause existing missile weapons to become invalid due to their slow speed. Combined with broadband stealth performance, they can be undetectable by the existing air defense network and prevent air defense missiles from being effectively blocked. They are capable of performing dimensionality reduction attacks on fifth-generation aircraft. Ability to carry out important target strike missions deep behind enemy lines.
When will China's sixth-generation opportunities appear? The aviation industry said in an article on September 15: "We will achieve the strategic goal of contemporaneous rivalry and leading innovation by 2025-2035." In other words, China's sixth-generation aircraft has the combat capability to compete with the world's most advanced similar models. , And will be unveiled in 2035 at the latest. The J-20 Deputy Chief Commander also stated on the program that the sixth-generation aircraft will come out before 2035. It will be the same as the J-20 with some trade-offs and prominence, and will not be exactly the same as foreign fighters.

Judging from various information, the development of China's sixth-generation aircraft is not behind, but will complete the development task at its own pace. The superpower has only built a test and verification aircraft with a flying wing layout, while a Chinese university has conducted low-altitude flight verification for four sixth-generation aircraft programs. China has also taken the lead in the development of the combined engine required for the sixth-generation aircraft, indicating that the progress of the project is not behind. In comparison, the sixth-generation aircraft of the superpower looks more like a strategic flicker, and China has the opportunity to overtake corners in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kungfugymnast

Grandy said:


> .
> *Not behind! China's sixth-generation aircraft program has designed 8 models, 4 of which have completed low-altitude test flights*
> 
> 2020-09-26
> 
> Recently, the sudden appearance of the sixth-generation fighters of the superpower caused an uproar. Judging from public information, this sixth-generation aircraft is a "penetrating fighter" with a flying wing layout, focusing on full-frequency stealth performance, flying faster and having a longer range. At present, there is no recognized technical standard for the sixth-generation aircraft in the world, so it is very doubtful how powerful this sixth-generation aircraft is suddenly appearing. Moreover, even if the so-called sixth-generation machine verification machine appears, there is still a long way to go before it is actually put into use. As the sixth-generation aircraft may have huge technical advantages, military fans have begun to worry whether the progress of the domestic-made sixth-generation aircraft will be too slow. In fact, in accordance with the convention of "production generation, trial production generation, pre-research generation and exploration generation", the development of China's sixth-generation aircraft has already begun, and it may be more powerful.
> 
> According to reports, as early as 2019, the "Future Aircraft Collaborative Innovation Center" of Northwestern Polytechnical University, a top domestic aerospace university, made it clear that it had come up with eight sixth-generation aircraft design schemes and conducted low-altitude flight technology verification for the four schemes. And formed an important influence in the country. The publicity board issued by the university pointed out that this industry-university-research model has cultivated a large number of leading talents for the Chinese aviation industry, including the J-20 chief engineer, chief designer and field commander. The dean is an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, absolutely not It's a joke.
> What the sixth-generation opportunity in China looks like is still a mystery, but we can still see a general direction of efforts from the papers published by the J-20 chief engineer and related verification technologies developed by the country. A paper published by the J-20 chief engineer believes that the next generation of fighter jets will pay more attention to information superiority and adopt a large number of artificial intelligence technologies to make fighter control easier; it has broadband and wide-spectrum stealth performance and can penetrate modern air defense systems; The laser weapon near-defense weapon system has the ability to defend against terminal hard killers; the sixth-generation aircraft will focus on air combat beyond visual range, further highlighting the importance of information perception capabilities, and can form an information advantage for existing fighters. The article pointed out that the next-generation fighter jets have greater range, ammunition carrying capacity, and flight speed, which may blur the boundaries between fighters and bombers, requiring penetration and attack operations to be completed in high-risk environments. Therefore, China's sixth-generation aircraft may not meet any clear standards, or it may be a penetrating air superiority fighter.
> 
> It can be seen that "penetrating air superiority fighters" may be the common endeavour of all major countries, but the technical content is graded. Although the sixth-generation aircraft being developed by the superpowers has better stealth performance and long range, it does not have a particularly huge technological advancement compared to the fifth-generation aircraft. On the contrary, China recently announced that it has successfully developed a combined power engine that allows people to see the future development direction of China's sixth-generation aircraft-a hypersonic stealth fighter that can freely enter and exit the space and atmosphere.
> 
> If China's sixth-generation aircraft is a "penetrating air-control fighter" equipped with combined-engine maneuvering, its most powerful feature is that it can freely enter and exit the atmosphere to perform operations, flying at speeds exceeding Mach 6, and having a large combat radius. Fighters with hypersonic flight capabilities will cause existing missile weapons to become invalid due to their slow speed. Combined with broadband stealth performance, they can be undetectable by the existing air defense network and prevent air defense missiles from being effectively blocked. They are capable of performing dimensionality reduction attacks on fifth-generation aircraft. Ability to carry out important target strike missions deep behind enemy lines.
> When will China's sixth-generation opportunities appear? The aviation industry said in an article on September 15: "We will achieve the strategic goal of contemporaneous rivalry and leading innovation by 2025-2035." In other words, China's sixth-generation aircraft has the combat capability to compete with the world's most advanced similar models. , And will be unveiled in 2035 at the latest. The J-20 Deputy Chief Commander also stated on the program that the sixth-generation aircraft will come out before 2035. It will be the same as the J-20 with some trade-offs and prominence, and will not be exactly the same as foreign fighters.
> 
> Judging from various information, the development of China's sixth-generation aircraft is not behind, but will complete the development task at its own pace. The superpower has only built a test and verification aircraft with a flying wing layout, while a Chinese university has conducted low-altitude flight verification for four sixth-generation aircraft programs. China has also taken the lead in the development of the combined engine required for the sixth-generation aircraft, indicating that the progress of the project is not behind. In comparison, the sixth-generation aircraft of the superpower looks more like a strategic flicker, and China has the opportunity to overtake corners in the future.



First of all, what are 6th generation fighter criteria & requirements? Ramjet hypersonic stratosphere capable armed with energy beam gun or AI piloted drone unmanned super maneuverable stealth fighter? Like X-47 is considered 6th generation? My guess is AI stealth fighter that will sit in 6th generation fighter while stratosphere stealth laser gun ramjet hypersonic fighter belongs to 7th generation which won't realize at the moment. 

All those 6th generation starfighters are fake news, only AI controlled unmanned fighter is real. China is still focusing on perfecting WS15 engine and their next project is J-20C, navalized J-35, heavy fighter bomber, EMALS carrier. If there's starfighter technology, US won't be wasting time developing F-15X now to fill the gap that F-35A failed to fill.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1309379633591320578



From what I've heard the airfields in Wuhu are undergoing maintenance so they are stationing the J-20s in Quzhou for now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wulff

Grandy said:


> .
> *Not behind! China's sixth-generation aircraft program has designed 8 models, 4 of which have completed low-altitude test flights*
> 
> 2020-09-26
> 
> Recently, the sudden appearance of the sixth-generation fighters of the superpower caused an uproar. Judging from public information, this sixth-generation aircraft is a "penetrating fighter" with a flying wing layout, focusing on full-frequency stealth performance, flying faster and having a longer range. At present, there is no recognized technical standard for the sixth-generation aircraft in the world, so it is very doubtful how powerful this sixth-generation aircraft is suddenly appearing. Moreover, even if the so-called sixth-generation machine verification machine appears, there is still a long way to go before it is actually put into use. As the sixth-generation aircraft may have huge technical advantages, military fans have begun to worry whether the progress of the domestic-made sixth-generation aircraft will be too slow. In fact, in accordance with the convention of "production generation, trial production generation, pre-research generation and exploration generation", the development of China's sixth-generation aircraft has already begun, and it may be more powerful.
> 
> According to reports, as early as 2019, the "Future Aircraft Collaborative Innovation Center" of Northwestern Polytechnical University, a top domestic aerospace university, made it clear that it had come up with eight sixth-generation aircraft design schemes and conducted low-altitude flight technology verification for the four schemes. And formed an important influence in the country. The publicity board issued by the university pointed out that this industry-university-research model has cultivated a large number of leading talents for the Chinese aviation industry, including the J-20 chief engineer, chief designer and field commander. The dean is an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, absolutely not It's a joke.
> What the sixth-generation opportunity in China looks like is still a mystery, but we can still see a general direction of efforts from the papers published by the J-20 chief engineer and related verification technologies developed by the country. A paper published by the J-20 chief engineer believes that the next generation of fighter jets will pay more attention to information superiority and adopt a large number of artificial intelligence technologies to make fighter control easier; it has broadband and wide-spectrum stealth performance and can penetrate modern air defense systems; The laser weapon near-defense weapon system has the ability to defend against terminal hard killers; the sixth-generation aircraft will focus on air combat beyond visual range, further highlighting the importance of information perception capabilities, and can form an information advantage for existing fighters. The article pointed out that the next-generation fighter jets have greater range, ammunition carrying capacity, and flight speed, which may blur the boundaries between fighters and bombers, requiring penetration and attack operations to be completed in high-risk environments. Therefore, China's sixth-generation aircraft may not meet any clear standards, or it may be a penetrating air superiority fighter.
> 
> It can be seen that "penetrating air superiority fighters" may be the common endeavour of all major countries, but the technical content is graded. Although the sixth-generation aircraft being developed by the superpowers has better stealth performance and long range, it does not have a particularly huge technological advancement compared to the fifth-generation aircraft. On the contrary, China recently announced that it has successfully developed a combined power engine that allows people to see the future development direction of China's sixth-generation aircraft-a hypersonic stealth fighter that can freely enter and exit the space and atmosphere.
> 
> If China's sixth-generation aircraft is a "penetrating air-control fighter" equipped with combined-engine maneuvering, its most powerful feature is that it can freely enter and exit the atmosphere to perform operations, flying at speeds exceeding Mach 6, and having a large combat radius. Fighters with hypersonic flight capabilities will cause existing missile weapons to become invalid due to their slow speed. Combined with broadband stealth performance, they can be undetectable by the existing air defense network and prevent air defense missiles from being effectively blocked. They are capable of performing dimensionality reduction attacks on fifth-generation aircraft. Ability to carry out important target strike missions deep behind enemy lines.
> When will China's sixth-generation opportunities appear? The aviation industry said in an article on September 15: "We will achieve the strategic goal of contemporaneous rivalry and leading innovation by 2025-2035." In other words, China's sixth-generation aircraft has the combat capability to compete with the world's most advanced similar models. , And will be unveiled in 2035 at the latest. The J-20 Deputy Chief Commander also stated on the program that the sixth-generation aircraft will come out before 2035. It will be the same as the J-20 with some trade-offs and prominence, and will not be exactly the same as foreign fighters.
> 
> Judging from various information, the development of China's sixth-generation aircraft is not behind, but will complete the development task at its own pace. The superpower has only built a test and verification aircraft with a flying wing layout, while a Chinese university has conducted low-altitude flight verification for four sixth-generation aircraft programs. China has also taken the lead in the development of the combined engine required for the sixth-generation aircraft, indicating that the progress of the project is not behind. In comparison, the sixth-generation aircraft of the superpower looks more like a strategic flicker, and China has the opportunity to overtake corners in the future.



I believe the generation that comes after the F-22/J-20 will have 3 types of fighters:

1. Conventional Manned Fighter
2. Autonomous/Remotely Controlled Unmanned Fighter
3. Manned/unmanned Spaceplane

engine technology is probably the frontier which will determine who comes out on top in this race.


----------



## LKJ86

https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4553912292933640?from=old_pc_videoshow


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4553912292933640?from=old_pc_videoshow



How old is this video?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> How old is this video?




But this is or these are clearly WS-10C powered one(s)! But given that it shows J-10C 5-05 (or -09) I assume it to be older.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> But this is or these are clearly WS-10C powered one(s)! But given that it shows J-10C 5-05 (or -09) I assume it to be older.


So all J-10C 4 and 5th batches are equipped with Taihangs?


----------



## PeacefulWar

Deino said:


> But this is or these are clearly WS-10C powered one(s)! But given that it shows J-10C 5-05 (or -09) I assume it to be older.


The uploader of the video said it's recorded this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> So all J-10C 4 and 5th batches are equipped with Taihangs?




Seems so.


----------



## Figaro

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310943927722274816

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310943927722274816



Looks like WS-15 is much shorter than current engines and that they won’t get rid of the ventral strakes even after engine change.


----------



## Figaro

siegecrossbow said:


> Looks like WS-15 is much shorter than current engines and that they won’t get rid of the ventral strakes even after engine change.


How do we know that is the WS-15 though? It's nozzles look more or less like AL-31Fs to me ... I don't think the model maker was paying too much attention to the engine here tbh.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> How do we know that is the WS-15 though? It's nozzles look more or less like AL-31Fs to me ... I don't think the model maker was paying too much attention to the engine here tbh.


 WS-15 was the target engine when the project and as Deion stated, the model was from 2004 or earlier. The engine is set farther into the body of the plane compared to both WS-10 and Al-31.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Daniel808

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 674880
> View attachment 674882
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo



WS-10 Engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 674880
> View attachment 674882
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo







Via @探索月球 from Weibo

For comparison:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

Video:https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4555740103507992?from=old_pc_videoshow

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312467985160794112

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1312467985160794112


It could also be the WS-10 TVC version J-20s ... given that the standard WS-10 J-20s entered production in late 2018, they must have been transferred to CFTE much longer ago. We know for sure there was a J-20 TVC demo in front of CMC Vice Chairmen back in July so most likely these are the TVC version, not the standard.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Every batch of J-20 receives minor refinements and incremental upgrades. Once WS-15 is installed, I believe there will be major overhaul in its sensor and avionics systems to reflect improvements made in the last 10 years.

Remember, most of J-20's sub-systems were based around designs from 2010 to 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

Any chance China does limited production of J20 like F22, and skip to 6th gen when ws-15/ws-19 is complete?


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> Any chance China does limited production of J20 like F22, and skip to 6th gen when ws-15/ws-19 is complete?


No ... the J-20 numbers will probably match the F-35 numbers in all of East Asia. Also, the WS-15 was always meant for the J-20, not the sixth generation fighter. You could probably power the sixth generation fighter using a heavily modified/upgraded WS-15, but the base WS-15 and its variants will be intended for the J-20. The only reason why the F-22 was cancelled was because its numerous operational shortcomings that the JSF could better serve. Unfortunately, the Chinese Air Force will continue to rely on the J-20 as probably its only fifth generation fighter due to the FC-31s limited prospects (all resources have been diverted towards the naval variant, which is significantly different than the base FC-31).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CIA Mole

Figaro said:


> No ... the J-20 numbers will probably match the F-35 numbers in all of East Asia.



But say they come up with a better design, and they have the engines, why shouldn't they move on?


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> But say they come up with a better design, and they have the engines, why shouldn't they move on?


The sixth generation fighter is not coming anytime soon though. At the earliest, it will be operational by 2030, which is already an extremely tense timetable. It is only 2020 right now, so for the next 10 years, the primary objective for the Chinese would be to match F-35 deployment as there is no operational sixth generation fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CIA Mole

Figaro said:


> The sixth generation fighter is not coming anytime soon though. At the earliest, it will be operational by 2030, which is already an extremely tense timetable. It is only 2020 right now, so for the next 10 years, the primary objective for the Chinese would be to match F-35 deployment as there is no operational sixth generation fighter.



i feel like 100000 manned/unmanned cheaper jets suit china more than J20's


----------



## kungfugymnast

CIA Mole said:


> i feel like 100000 manned/unmanned cheaper jets suit china more than J20's



You forgot the cost of maintaining the 10,000 fighters which will be costly. No stealth means they would have to survive by spoofing at least 3-4 waves of 2x AMRAAMs (per wave) before they could get close to F-22 and F-35. AIM-120C7/D hit percentage against 4th & 4.5 conventional fighters are like 50-60% which means most of these fighters will be shot down ending with high casualties. 

Also relying 100% on conventional fighters mean they'll be too occupied with evading & spoofing missiles allowing enemy stealth bombers and strike fighters to past through defenses to drop bombs on friendlies assets, supplies & probably cities resulting in massive losses of lives and ability to retaliate. 

J-20B and later J-20C with WS15 will be built in large numbers probably more than F-35A/B and F-22 combined.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> It could also be the WS-10 TVC version J-20s ... given that the standard WS-10 J-20s entered production in late 2018, they must have been transferred to CFTE much longer ago. We know for sure there was a J-20 TVC demo in front of CMC Vice Chairmen back in July so most likely these are the TVC version, not the standard.




It's an old image of late 2018!

Reactions: Sad Sad:
2


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> It's an old image of late 2018!










Here the most recent one dated 17. March 2020. However it shows 6 yellow coloured Flanker!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Grandy

.
*The era when a stealth fighter can paralyze an air defense system is gone*
* 2020-10-05 23:10:58 

Graphene materials are used in radar, stealth fighters have nowhere to hide

Graphene single crystal breaks the bottleneck, and the chip speed is increased by 1000 times. *








Graphite is a very common substance in life, but single-layer graphene is a kind of Very good two-dimensional nanomaterials, with excellent optical, electrical and mechanical properties, are widely used in the fields of material processing, nanotechnology, and biomedicine, and are considered to be a revolutionary future material. However, it is very difficult to prepare single-layer graphene. In 2010, a British physicist and a Russian physicist won the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering graphene at room temperature. It can be seen that graphene is in the future scientific system. Great value.






my country's Chinese Academy of Sciences successfully broke through the graphene preparation problem last year and established the first fully automated mass-produced graphene production line. The delay frequency of silicon-graphene-transistors prepared with graphene as the main raw material has been shortened by more than 1,000 times. It is expected to realize the production of ultra-high-speed transistors in the future. Compared with traditional high-integrated circuits, it has a faster response speed. If applied in electronics In the equipment, the electronic reaction speed will be greatly improved.

* Graphene materials are used in radar, stealth fighters have nowhere to hide *






The emergence of graphene has brought revolutionary changes to information technology, and all electronic equipment Performance will also improve by leaps and bounds. Adding one-thousandth of graphene to the non-conductive plastic can make the plastic have good conductivity and increase the heat resistance by 30°C; the graphene material has the characteristics of light and thin, good stretchability, and strong toughness. Use it to make The screen can be bent arbitrarily; using the characteristic that lithium ions can shuttle freely between the graphene electrodes and the surface, the battery produced can be charged for a few minutes and can continue to discharge for thousands of hours.






In the military industry, graphene has a greater effect. Radars made of graphene have faster response speed and resolution, and processing capabilities have increased exponentially, even for F-22 The stealth fighter has nowhere to hide. The application of graphene in the military is bound to set off a new round of technological revolution, forcing active fighters to be updated and upgraded, and the era when a stealth fighter can paralyze an air defense system is gone.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Angry Angry:
1


----------



## ILC

Graphene another bingo article material. We've been talking about it for two decades? Nothing happend. Overhyped.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

ILC said:


> Graphene another bingo article material. We've been talking about it for two decades? Nothing happend. Overhyped.


You can usually tell these articles have little value when they use stock images like those that serve absolutely no purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Grandy

.
*Look this J-20 chief engineer Yang Wei told about J 20 :*

Recently, the J-20 chief engineer Yang Wei published an article in the Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics, that confirmed that the F-22 was not a global leader because it was designed in the 1980s. The design concept of the J-20 must be a whole generation ahead.






The article pointed out that the advanced standard for evaluating fighter design concepts is the "OODA Cycle Theory". This theory was invented by the famous American military strategist and pilot John Boyd, which divides the fighter combat activity organization capabilities into Four cycle stages: observation-judgment-decision-attack. Based on this theory, the stronger the fighter's ability in the four stages, the higher the combat strength. The proposal of this theory has a significant impact on the design of the fourth-generation aircraft of the Western standard. At that time, it was believed that the physical mobility of fighter jets could be transformed into combat advantages in combat. The advantage of compaction.

This cycle theory was called OODA cycle 1.0 at the time, which highlights the agility of fighter jets. The development of F-22 also practiced this theory a lot, and finally became a model with super maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability. The fifth generation machine. In order to achieve super maneuverability, F-22 even made concessions on cruising speed and stealth performance, which eventually led to the dismantling of the more avant-garde design concept YF-23.






However, with the rapid advancement of electronic information technology, coupled with the slower advancement of aviation launch technology, there has been a situation in which old fighters equipped with new avionics can counter the new generation of fighters. For the first time, importance surpassed mobility and became the primary factor in determining the outcome of air combat. The US F-35 pilots confirmed that the ability of information perception will directly determine the victory or defeat of an air battle. How to improve the situational awareness of the enemy plane and prevent the enemy's perception of the plane is the key. Lockheed Martin pointed out in 2017 that the OODA cycle has entered the 2.0 era. The key factors that determine the victory of air combat, thrust, acceleration, and lift, have declined, and more importantly, information entropy, sensoriness and information transmission rate.

F-22 due to the long design time, no optical fiber data link, no distributed hole system and photoelectric aiming system, unable to implement networked operations, and the situational awareness capabilities are seriously lagging behind. The machine was not designed with an open structure, and the system cannot be upgraded after the production line is closed, and it is becoming a "functional machine" that lags behind the times. Therefore, from a design perspective, the J-20 and F-35 are products of OODA cycle 2.0, while the F-22 is a product of 1.0, one generation behind.






The J-20 is not only one generation ahead of the F-22 in theory, but a comprehensive lead on many devices. The factors that determine the air combat level of a fighter include stealth performance, situational awareness, maneuverability, missile weapons, and data link. Since the F-22 was discontinued 10 years ago, in addition to its advantages in the engine field, it has more powerful subsonic maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability, but it is almost behind in other aspects. The radar reflection area of F-22 and F-20 is almost at the same level. F-22 only has small infrared characteristics, but it has no practical meaning in close combat. There is a big gap between the two aircraft in other aspects including:

First of all, the radar performance of the two airborne aircraft has a large gap. The J-20 has a larger nose than the F-22 and is also equipped with an advanced generation of active phased array radar. The key to determining the performance of the phased array radar is the T/R module transmission power and the number of modules. The F-22 is equipped with APG77 radar with 2200 modules, using the second-generation gallium arsenide technology, and its total power is only 15 kilowatts. The radar equipped with the J-20 uses the third-generation gallium arsenide technology. The total power is 5 times that of the F-22, and the detection range exceeds 70% of the F-22 radar.






followed by F-22 In close combat, situational awareness is one generation behind. Both F-35 and J-20 are equipped with a distributed optical aperture system and photoelectric tracking and aiming system, which can sense the situation of the fighter aircraft within a 360-degree range. The F-22 not only is not equipped with these systems, but also has no interfaces, and cannot be installed after closing the production line. The F-22 still relies on the forward-looking radar to detect targets at close range. There is a huge blind spot for enemy aircraft, and it is unable to exert the performance of the fourth-generation combat missile with off-axis launch capability. Even with super maneuverability, it is still difficult to gain an advantage.

Third, the F-22 equipped with missile weapons lags behind the J-20 generation. The advanced missile that F-22 can use is AIM-120D with a maximum range of 160 kilometers, while the J-20 equipped with J-20 has a range of over 200 kilometers; the F-22 equipped with AIM-9X missile has a maximum range of 19 kilometers. The angle is ±90°, with 128X128 matrixes. The J-20 equipped with the J-20 is the world’s largest combat missile, with a maximum range of 60 kilometers and a 256X256 matrix. It can perform off-axis omni-directional attacks, has stronger anti-jamming capabilities, and is more advanced.






Finally, the F-22 data link is one generation behind. The United States launched the F-22 data link update plan in 2018, but the effect is still not satisfactory, mainly because the data transmission rate of all subsystems of the aircraft is seriously behind. The advantage of the J-20 is that it can carry out networked operations with other fighters, and can implement the "A shoot and B guide" tactics. All the airborne equipment of its own fighters can become part of situational awareness. The F-22 can only exchange information with its friendly aircraft, but cannot directly use the equipment of the friendly aircraft, and is in an information "island" during combat. Both the J-20 and F-35 adopt an open architecture, which can upgrade the subsystems indefinitely, while the F-22 will lag behind in the field of information perception and data transmission and is becoming a functional machine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## samsara

Grandy said:


> .
> *Look this J-20 chief engineer Yang Wei told about J 20 :*
> 
> Recently, the J-20 chief engineer Yang Wei published an article in the Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics, that confirmed that the F-22 was not a global leader because it was designed in the 1980s. The design concept of the J-20 must be a whole generation ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article pointed out that the advanced standard for evaluating fighter design concepts is the "OODA Cycle Theory". This theory was invented by the famous American military strategist and pilot John Boyd, which divides the fighter combat activity organization capabilities into Four cycle stages: observation-judgment-decision-attack. Based on this theory, the stronger the fighter's ability in the four stages, the higher the combat strength. The proposal of this theory has a significant impact on the design of the fourth-generation aircraft of the Western standard. At that time, it was believed that the physical mobility of fighter jets could be transformed into combat advantages in combat. The advantage of compaction.
> 
> This cycle theory was called OODA cycle 1.0 at the time, which highlights the agility of fighter jets. The development of F-22 also practiced this theory a lot, and finally became a model with super maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability. The fifth generation machine. In order to achieve super maneuverability, F-22 even made concessions on cruising speed and stealth performance, which eventually led to the dismantling of the more avant-garde design concept YF-23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, with the rapid advancement of electronic information technology, coupled with the slower advancement of aviation launch technology, there has been a situation in which old fighters equipped with new avionics can counter the new generation of fighters. For the first time, importance surpassed mobility and became the primary factor in determining the outcome of air combat. The US F-35 pilots confirmed that the ability of information perception will directly determine the victory or defeat of an air battle. How to improve the situational awareness of the enemy plane and prevent the enemy's perception of the plane is the key. Lockheed Martin pointed out in 2017 that the OODA cycle has entered the 2.0 era. The key factors that determine the victory of air combat, thrust, acceleration, and lift, have declined, and more importantly, information entropy, sensoriness and information transmission rate.
> 
> F-22 due to the long design time, no optical fiber data link, no distributed hole system and photoelectric aiming system, unable to implement networked operations, and the situational awareness capabilities are seriously lagging behind. The machine was not designed with an open structure, and the system cannot be upgraded after the production line is closed, and it is becoming a "functional machine" that lags behind the times. Therefore, from a design perspective, the J-20 and F-35 are products of OODA cycle 2.0, while the F-22 is a product of 1.0, one generation behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 is not only one generation ahead of the F-22 in theory, but a comprehensive lead on many devices. The factors that determine the air combat level of a fighter include stealth performance, situational awareness, maneuverability, missile weapons, and data link. Since the F-22 was discontinued 10 years ago, in addition to its advantages in the engine field, it has more powerful subsonic maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability, but it is almost behind in other aspects. The radar reflection area of F-22 and F-20 is almost at the same level. F-22 only has small infrared characteristics, but it has no practical meaning in close combat. There is a big gap between the two aircraft in other aspects including:
> 
> First of all, the radar performance of the two airborne aircraft has a large gap. The J-20 has a larger nose than the F-22 and is also equipped with an advanced generation of active phased array radar. The key to determining the performance of the phased array radar is the T/R module transmission power and the number of modules. The F-22 is equipped with APG77 radar with 2200 modules, using the second-generation gallium arsenide technology, and its total power is only 15 kilowatts. The radar equipped with the J-20 uses the third-generation gallium arsenide technology. The total power is 5 times that of the F-22, and the detection range exceeds 70% of the F-22 radar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> followed by F-22 In close combat, situational awareness is one generation behind. Both F-35 and J-20 are equipped with a distributed optical aperture system and photoelectric tracking and aiming system, which can sense the situation of the fighter aircraft within a 360-degree range. The F-22 not only is not equipped with these systems, but also has no interfaces, and cannot be installed after closing the production line. The F-22 still relies on the forward-looking radar to detect targets at close range. There is a huge blind spot for enemy aircraft, and it is unable to exert the performance of the fourth-generation combat missile with off-axis launch capability. Even with super maneuverability, it is still difficult to gain an advantage.
> 
> Third, the F-22 equipped with missile weapons lags behind the J-20 generation. The advanced missile that F-22 can use is AIM-120D with a maximum range of 160 kilometers, while the J-20 equipped with J-20 has a range of over 200 kilometers; the F-22 equipped with AIM-9X missile has a maximum range of 19 kilometers. The angle is ±90°, with 128X128 matrixes. The J-20 equipped with the J-20 is the world’s largest combat missile, with a maximum range of 60 kilometers and a 256X256 matrix. It can perform off-axis omni-directional attacks, has stronger anti-jamming capabilities, and is more advanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the F-22 data link is one generation behind. The United States launched the F-22 data link update plan in 2018, but the effect is still not satisfactory, mainly because the data transmission rate of all subsystems of the aircraft is seriously behind. The advantage of the J-20 is that it can carry out networked operations with other fighters, and can implement the "A shoot and B guide" tactics. All the airborne equipment of its own fighters can become part of situational awareness. The F-22 can only exchange information with its friendly aircraft, but cannot directly use the equipment of the friendly aircraft, and is in an information "island" during combat. Both the J-20 and F-35 adopt an open architecture, which can upgrade the subsystems indefinitely, while the F-22 will lag behind in the field of information perception and data transmission and is becoming a functional machine.


Correcting some typos and errors... for the 2nd mentioning of the obviously PL series of AAM, but I can't ascertain which PL series it mean (tho I guess it may be the short range PL-10, thus I just put "PL-xx", while for the 1st mentioning I believe it meant "PL-15" for the very long range one. Too bad a good article is being filled up with typos and errors even some omission here and there, if only the proofreading is being done. Feel free to further correct the below adaption, suggestion is welcomed.

Some questionable terms: "no distributed hole system"

--------------------------------------

*Recently, the J-20 chief engineer Yang Wei published an article in the Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics (October 2020)*

That confirmed that the F-22 was not a global leader because it was designed in the 1980s. The design concept of the J-20 must be a whole generation ahead.

The article pointed out that the advanced standard for evaluating fighter design concepts is the "OODA Cycle Theory" [OODA: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act]. This theory was invented by the famous American military strategist and pilot John Boyd, which divides the fighter combat activity organization capabilities into Four Cycle Stages: Observation - Judgement - Decision - Attack. Based on this theory, the stronger the fighter's ability in the four stages, the higher the combat strength. The proposal of this theory has a significant impact on the design of the fourth-generation aircraft of the Western standard. At that time, it was believed that the physical mobility of fighter jets could be transformed into combat advantages in combat situation. The advantage of compaction.

This cycle theory was called OODA Cycle 1.0 at the time, which highlights the agility of fighter jets. The development of F-22 also practiced this theory a lot, and finally became a model with super maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability. The fifth generation aircraft. In order to achieve super maneuverability, F-22 even made concessions on cruising speed and stealth performance, which eventually led to the dismantling of the more avant-garde design concept of the YF-23.

However, with the rapid advancement of electronic information technology, coupled with the slower advancement of aviation launch technology, there has been a situation in which old fighters equipped with new avionics can counter the new generation of fighters. For the first time, the importance of the situational awareness surpassed mobility and became the primary factor in determining the outcome of air combat. The U.S. F-35 pilots confirmed that the ability of information perception will directly determine the victory or defeat of an air battle. How to improve the situational awareness of the enemy plane and prevent the enemy's perception of the plane is the key. Lockheed Martin pointed out in 2017 that the OODA Cycle has entered the 2.0 era. The key factors that determine the victory of air combat: engine thrust, acceleration, and lift, have declined, while aspects like information entropy, sensoriness and information transmission rate are growing in their importance.

The F-22 due to its much earlier design period, has no optical fiber data link, no distributed hole system and photoelectric aiming system, unable to implement networked operations, and the situational awareness capabilities are seriously lagging behind. The machine was not designed with an open structure, and the system cannot be upgraded after the production line is closed, and it is becoming a "functional machine" that lags behind the time. Therefore, from a design perspective, the J-20 and F-35 are products of OODA Cycle 2.0, while the F-22 is a product of 1.0, one generation behind.

The J-20 is not only one generation ahead of the F-22 in theory, but it has a comprehensive lead on many devices. The factors that determine the air combat level of a fighter include stealth performance, situational awareness, maneuverability, missile weapons, and data link. Since the F-22 was discontinued 10 years ago, in addition to its advantages in the engine field, it has more powerful subsonic maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability, but it is almost behind in other aspects. The radar reflection area of F-22 and J-20 is almost at the same level. F-22 only has small infrared characteristics, but it has no practical meaning in close combat. There is a big gap between the two aircraft in other aspects including those mentioned below.

First of all, the radar performance of the two airborne aircraft has a large gap. The J-20 has a larger nose than the F-22 and is also equipped with an advanced generation of active phased array radar. The key to determining the performance of the phased array radar is the T/R module transmission power and the number of modules. The F-22 is equipped with APG77 radar with 2200 modules, using the second-generation gallium arsenide technology, and its total power is only 15 kilowatts. The radar equipped with the J-20 uses the third-generation gallium arsenide technology. The total power is 5 times that of the F-22, and the detection range exceeds 70% of the F-22 radar.

Second, followed by F-22 weakness in close combat, situational awareness is one generation behind. Both F-35 and J-20 are equipped with a distributed optical aperture system and photoelectric tracking and aiming system, which can sense the situation of the fighter aircraft within a 360-degree range. The F-22 not only is not equipped with these systems, but also has no interfaces, and cannot be installed after closing the production line 10 years ago. The F-22 still relies on the forward-looking radar to detect targets at close range. There is a huge blind spot for enemy aircraft, and it is unable to exert the performance of the fourth-generation combat missile with off-axis launch capability. Even with super maneuverability, it is still difficult to gain an advantage.

Third, the F-22 equipped with missile weapons lags behind the J-20 generation. The advanced missile that F-22 can use is AIM-120D with a maximum range of 160 kilometers, while the J-20 equipped with the PL-15, an active radar-guided air-to-air missile, has a range of over 200 kilometers; the F-22 equipped with AIM-9X missile has a maximum range of 19 kilometers. The angle is ±90°, with 128 x 128 arrays. The J-20 equipped with the PL-xx is the world’s largest combat missile, with a maximum range of 60 kilometers and a 256 x 256 arrays. It can perform off-axis omni-directional attacks, has stronger anti-jamming capabilities, and is more advanced.

Finally, the F-22 data link is one generation behind. The United States launched the F-22 data link update plan in 2018, but the effect is still not satisfactory, mainly because the data transmission rate of all subsystems of the aircraft is seriously lagging behind. The advantage of the J-20 is that it can carry out networked operations with other fighters, and can implement the "A shoot and B guide" tactics. All the airborne equipment of its own fighters can become part of situational awareness. The F-22 can only exchange information with its friendly aircraft, but cannot directly use the equipment of the friendly aircraft, and is in an information "island" during combat. Both the J-20 and F-35 adopt an open architecture, which can upgrade the subsystems indefinitely, while the F-22 will lag behind in the field of information perception and data transmission and is simply becoming a functional machine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

Grandy said:


> .
> *Look this J-20 chief engineer Yang Wei told about J 20 :*
> 
> Recently, the J-20 chief engineer Yang Wei published an article in the Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics, that confirmed that the F-22 was not a global leader because it was designed in the 1980s. The design concept of the J-20 must be a whole generation ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article pointed out that the advanced standard for evaluating fighter design concepts is the "OODA Cycle Theory". This theory was invented by the famous American military strategist and pilot John Boyd, which divides the fighter combat activity organization capabilities into Four cycle stages: observation-judgment-decision-attack. Based on this theory, the stronger the fighter's ability in the four stages, the higher the combat strength. The proposal of this theory has a significant impact on the design of the fourth-generation aircraft of the Western standard. At that time, it was believed that the physical mobility of fighter jets could be transformed into combat advantages in combat. The advantage of compaction.
> 
> This cycle theory was called OODA cycle 1.0 at the time, which highlights the agility of fighter jets. The development of F-22 also practiced this theory a lot, and finally became a model with super maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability. The fifth generation machine. In order to achieve super maneuverability, F-22 even made concessions on cruising speed and stealth performance, which eventually led to the dismantling of the more avant-garde design concept YF-23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, with the rapid advancement of electronic information technology, coupled with the slower advancement of aviation launch technology, there has been a situation in which old fighters equipped with new avionics can counter the new generation of fighters. For the first time, importance surpassed mobility and became the primary factor in determining the outcome of air combat. The US F-35 pilots confirmed that the ability of information perception will directly determine the victory or defeat of an air battle. How to improve the situational awareness of the enemy plane and prevent the enemy's perception of the plane is the key. Lockheed Martin pointed out in 2017 that the OODA cycle has entered the 2.0 era. The key factors that determine the victory of air combat, thrust, acceleration, and lift, have declined, and more importantly, information entropy, sensoriness and information transmission rate.
> 
> F-22 due to the long design time, no optical fiber data link, no distributed hole system and photoelectric aiming system, unable to implement networked operations, and the situational awareness capabilities are seriously lagging behind. The machine was not designed with an open structure, and the system cannot be upgraded after the production line is closed, and it is becoming a "functional machine" that lags behind the times. Therefore, from a design perspective, the J-20 and F-35 are products of OODA cycle 2.0, while the F-22 is a product of 1.0, one generation behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 is not only one generation ahead of the F-22 in theory, but a comprehensive lead on many devices. The factors that determine the air combat level of a fighter include stealth performance, situational awareness, maneuverability, missile weapons, and data link. Since the F-22 was discontinued 10 years ago, in addition to its advantages in the engine field, it has more powerful subsonic maneuverability and supersonic cruise capability, but it is almost behind in other aspects. The radar reflection area of F-22 and F-20 is almost at the same level. F-22 only has small infrared characteristics, but it has no practical meaning in close combat. There is a big gap between the two aircraft in other aspects including:
> 
> First of all, the radar performance of the two airborne aircraft has a large gap. The J-20 has a larger nose than the F-22 and is also equipped with an advanced generation of active phased array radar. The key to determining the performance of the phased array radar is the T/R module transmission power and the number of modules. The F-22 is equipped with APG77 radar with 2200 modules, using the second-generation gallium arsenide technology, and its total power is only 15 kilowatts. The radar equipped with the J-20 uses the third-generation gallium arsenide technology. The total power is 5 times that of the F-22, and the detection range exceeds 70% of the F-22 radar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> followed by F-22 In close combat, situational awareness is one generation behind. Both F-35 and J-20 are equipped with a distributed optical aperture system and photoelectric tracking and aiming system, which can sense the situation of the fighter aircraft within a 360-degree range. The F-22 not only is not equipped with these systems, but also has no interfaces, and cannot be installed after closing the production line. The F-22 still relies on the forward-looking radar to detect targets at close range. There is a huge blind spot for enemy aircraft, and it is unable to exert the performance of the fourth-generation combat missile with off-axis launch capability. Even with super maneuverability, it is still difficult to gain an advantage.
> 
> Third, the F-22 equipped with missile weapons lags behind the J-20 generation. The advanced missile that F-22 can use is AIM-120D with a maximum range of 160 kilometers, while the J-20 equipped with J-20 has a range of over 200 kilometers; the F-22 equipped with AIM-9X missile has a maximum range of 19 kilometers. The angle is ±90°, with 128X128 matrixes. The J-20 equipped with the J-20 is the world’s largest combat missile, with a maximum range of 60 kilometers and a 256X256 matrix. It can perform off-axis omni-directional attacks, has stronger anti-jamming capabilities, and is more advanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the F-22 data link is one generation behind. The United States launched the F-22 data link update plan in 2018, but the effect is still not satisfactory, mainly because the data transmission rate of all subsystems of the aircraft is seriously behind. The advantage of the J-20 is that it can carry out networked operations with other fighters, and can implement the "A shoot and B guide" tactics. All the airborne equipment of its own fighters can become part of situational awareness. The F-22 can only exchange information with its friendly aircraft, but cannot directly use the equipment of the friendly aircraft, and is in an information "island" during combat. Both the J-20 and F-35 adopt an open architecture, which can upgrade the subsystems indefinitely, while the F-22 will lag behind in the field of information perception and data transmission and is becoming a functional machine.




What a load of nonsense.

1. J-20 came into service a decade later than F-22 and so was designed 10 years later and not 20-25 years as the article implies.

2. The F-22 is on the 4th upgrade of it's radar and it's hardware has already been upgraded. J-20 is probably on the first version of it's production radar.

3. For a stealth fighter AIM-120D with 160km range is more than sufficient. AIM-120 missile is combat tested and refined through many iterations whereas the PL-15 is new and has never been fired in anger.

F-22 with it's superior 5th generation engine would aerodynamically dominate the weak-engined J-20 and is far stealthier from behind.

The F-22 would win against the J-20 many times before it lost once.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CIA Mole

Hi I see this at wikipedia:

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## LKJ86

CIA Mole said:


> Hi I see this at wikipedia:
> View attachment 677898


Why didn't all of them crash?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> Hi I see this at wikipedia:
> View attachment 677898


It appears that Indians were editing this ... naturally they are venting their Galwan anger out on any related Chinese military page lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Beast

UKBengali said:


> What a load of nonsense.
> 
> 1. J-20 came into service a decade later than F-22 and so was designed 10 years later and not 20-25 years as the article implies.
> 
> 2. The F-22 is on the 4th upgrade of it's radar and it's hardware has already been upgraded. J-20 is probably on the first version of it's production radar.
> 
> 3. For a stealth fighter AIM-120D with 160km range is more than sufficient. AIM-120 missile is combat tested and refined through many iterations whereas the PL-15 is new and has never been fired in anger.
> 
> F-22 with it's superior 5th generation engine would aerodynamically dominate the weak-engined J-20 and is far stealthier from behind.
> 
> The F-22 would win against the J-20 many times before it lost once.


There is reason why US decide to close F-22 production at 187 made and focus on F-35. Of cos they will not tell u the reason is becos it is outdated or inferior. The non export clause is to also hide it's Inferiority if exported and disappoint the buyer. 

If F-22 is really so magical, they wouldnt close the production line. Simple logic. Just like Zumalt class destroyer with only 3 produced. It's simply an expensive white elephant

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dbc

Beast said:


> Of cos they will not tell u the reason is becos it is outdated or inferior. The non export clause is to also hide it's Inferiority if exported and disappoint the buyer.



Is that why the J-20 is not exported? I get it now ...makes a lot of sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

dbc said:


> Is that why the J-20 is not exported? I get it now ...makes a lot of sense.


Logic failed... J-20 is still under production and F-22 decide to close shop soon becos it's a failure. 

Try harder

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## dbc

Beast said:


> Logic failed... J-20 is still under production and F-22 decide to close shop soon becos it's a failure.
> 
> Try harder



lol...ok.. J-20 is mighty will you sell to the US... please 😪


----------



## Beast

dbc said:


> lol...ok.. J-20 is mighty will you sell to the US... please 😪


Why China will sell to US?

You r asking a stupid question. @Deino , pls take care of this troll and his reply.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dbc

Beast said:


> Why China will sell to US?
> 
> You r asking a stupid question. @Deino , pls take care of this troll and his reply.



@Deino yes please take care of the *original troll post from Mr. Beast* and the subsequent reactionary post.





__





Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions


Is that why the J-20 is not exported? I get it now ...makes a lot of sense. :enjoy: Logic failed... J-20 is still under production and F-22 decide to close shop soon becos it's a failure. Try harder :enjoy:



defence.pk


----------



## Beast

dbc said:


> @Deino yes please take care of the *original troll post from Mr. Beast* and the subsequent reactionary post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions
> 
> 
> Is that why the J-20 is not exported? I get it now ...makes a lot of sense. :enjoy: Logic failed... J-20 is still under production and F-22 decide to close shop soon becos it's a failure. Try harder :enjoy:
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk


How is my original post is even a troll? You can agree or disagree but to simply post a rubbish post of asking China to sell J-20 to US is anything but trolling. Not to mention added with a clown smiley. You have lost your plot. Don't post just for the sake of face saving...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Beast said:


> There is reason why US decide to close F-22 production at 187 made and focus on F-35. Of cos they will not tell u the reason is becos it is outdated or inferior. The non export clause is to also hide it's Inferiority if exported and disappoint the buyer.
> 
> If F-22 is really so magical, they wouldnt close the production line. Simple logic. Just like Zumalt class destroyer with only 3 produced. It's simply an expensive white elephant





F-22 is described as a "marble" on radar whereas the F-35 is "golf-ball". Non-US versions of the F-35 will not be as stealthy as the US version.

While F-35 currently has a better radar and avionics than F-22, this will change soon as the F-22 will get a brand new radar and avionics suite as part of it's mid-life upgrade.

The reason they stopped production at 187 is that it was initially designed to fight the Soviets in Europe and they no longer exist.

US won't reopen the F-22 production line as it is looking at 6th generation from 2030 onwards and no country is in any position to challenge the combined might of the F-22/F-35 fleet this decade at least.

Going back to J-20, it really needs a proper 5th generation engine to stand a chance against F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dbc

Beast said:


> How is my original post is even a troll? You can agree or disagree but to simply post a rubbish post of asking China to sell J-20 to US is anything but trolling. Not to mention added with a clown smiley. You have lost your plot. Don't post just for the sake of face saving...



I merely highlighted the fallacy of your argument. The effectives or ineffectiveness can't be proven or disproven by the lack of exports. Using your logic, the J-10,J-11, J15,J20 and J-31 are all failures.

You are the one that started trolling by inserting the F/22 into a J-20 discussion. 
There is plenty of credible open source information to ascertain the facts about F-22 production.


----------



## siegecrossbow

CIA Mole said:


> Hi I see this at wikipedia:
> View attachment 677898



Wikipedia army strikes again!

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

UKBengali said:


> F-22 is described as a "marble" on radar whereas the F-35 is "golf-ball". Non-US versions of the F-35 will not be as stealthy as the US version.
> 
> While F-35 currently has a better radar and avionics than F-22, this will change soon as the F-22 will get a brand new radar and avionics suite as part of it's mid-life upgrade.
> 
> The reason they stopped production at 187 is that it was initially designed to fight the Soviets in Europe and they no longer exist.
> 
> US won't reopen the F-22 production line as it is looking at 6th generation from 2030 onwards and no country is in any position to challenge the combined might of the F-22/F-35 fleet this decade at least.
> 
> Going back to J-20, it really needs a proper 5th generation engine to stand a chance against F-22.



Yes, only fools would say F-35 stealth is better than F-22. F-22 is using US only stealth materials that the Americans don't share with allies. The F-35, probably US owned only has the same stealth materials as F-22. Export variant F-35 has reduced ingredient and probably less stealthy to just low RCS to prevent allies from reverse engineer and obtain stealth technology. With these allies that never owned stealth aircraft, whatever US sold to them won't know if these export variant has the same stealth as US version F-35. 

As for J-20, underestimating F-22 is fastest way to lose especially whether the PL-15 & PL-10E would be able to acquire lock, track and hit the F-22, how much reduction on effective tracking range are unknown until they meet in combat. The article posted as if F-22 can be detected more than 20 miles away that J-20 could track and launch PL-15 and PL-10E at it shows the self claimed expert doesn't know anything about F-22 that is highly classified.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


> There is reason why US decide to close F-22 production at 187 made and focus on F-35. Of cos they will not tell u the reason is becos it is outdated or inferior. The non export clause is to also hide it's Inferiority if exported and disappoint the buyer.
> 
> If F-22 is really so magical, they wouldnt close the production line. Simple logic. Just like Zumalt class destroyer with only 3 produced. It's simply an expensive white elephant



Lockheed Martin got greedy and made the F-22, F-35 like BMW with parts that don't last long, expensive and required lots of maintenance attention. Corrupted politicians at that time cancelled the F-22 production because maintaining these F-22 reduced their own pocket earnings. If you notice, Lockheed Martin monopolies US defence contracts because of ties that they began to let corruption taken over. 

The J-20 is made with countering US threat in mind therefore there's no room for non-durable parts aimed at making money from users. Development of J-20 is still in progress depending on WS-15, threat, reverse engineer and later combat experience that there will be C, D variant later on.


----------



## Grandy

.
*The pre-research plan for the sixth-generation aircraft is exposed*
2020-10-09 20:30:23






Recently, a peculiar design of a mid-size fighter appeared at an air show, which is likely to be the pre-research plan for the sixth-generation aircraft to be launched in the next stage, and the canard layout has another “new trick“.





The sixth-generation aircraft development plan, one of them is a tailless delta wing. In order to pursue high speed and excellent stealth effect, air intake is behind it. The canards originally located on both sides of the fuselage are connected to the nose this time, and the overall lines are smoother and in line with aerodynamics, minimizing wind resistance. With the addition of a vector engine, the aircraft's ability to fly at supersonic speeds can reach a new height. But this design also has a serious problem. The pilot's field of vision will be limited by the wings. For this reason, DAS technology is specially added to the pilot helmet display system. The canard-wing layout without a vertical tail and the addition of supramolecular wave-transmitting materials make the stealth performance of the 6th generation aircraft even better. In future wars, the ability to master battlefield information will become higher and higher. The nose and canards can be integrated to install larger Airborne radar.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> F-22 is described as a "marble" on radar whereas the F-35 is "golf-ball". Non-US versions of the F-35 will not be as stealthy as the US version.
> 
> While F-35 currently has a better radar and avionics than F-22, this will change soon as the F-22 will get a brand new radar and avionics suite as part of it's mid-life upgrade.
> 
> The reason they stopped production at 187 is that it was initially designed to fight the Soviets in Europe and they no longer exist.


This is incorrect. Yes the F-35 has inferior RCS to the F-22, yes it is much worse aerodynamically, and yes it also cannot supercruise but you are missing the whole point here ... this was meant to be. If you read the design specifications mentioned in the late 1990s/early 2000s, you will find none of this was ever listed as design requirements for the F-35. The USAF has basically completely bet on the F-35s huge superiority in avionics and various other BVR measures ... if you are saying the F-22 will somehow be upgraded to these specs, then you are wrong. The fact of the matter is even with upgrades and overhaul, the overall capability of the F-22 is quite outdated, especially with regards to stuff like datalink and radar. A lot of said upgrades are not even possible and would cost a bunch of money, which would otherwise be used to build more F-35s. Put it frankly, the F-22 is going to endure a slow death like the B-2 bomber. People need to let go of the F-22 fanboyism and instead look to the present and the future, which by all means is the F-35 and whatever 6th generation design Lockheed is working on.


kungfugymnast said:


> Yes, only fools would say F-35 stealth is better than F-22. F-22 is using US only stealth materials that the Americans don't share with allies. The F-35, probably US owned only has the same stealth materials as F-22. Export variant F-35 has reduced ingredient and probably less stealthy to just low RCS to prevent allies from reverse engineer and obtain stealth technology. With these allies that never owned stealth aircraft, whatever US sold to them won't know if these export variant has the same stealth as US version F-35.


The radar absorbing materials on the F-35 for sure is a generation beyond the F-22. Note that RAM also plays a huge factor to the RCS returns in addition to the shaping (i.e. VLO components of the plane). Also do not forget that the F-35 also has DSI, which is a pretty huge advantage in reducing RCS versus the F-22.


kungfugymnast said:


> As for J-20, underestimating F-22 is fastest way to lose especially whether the PL-15 & PL-10E would be able to acquire lock, track and hit the F-22, how much reduction on effective tracking range are unknown until they meet in combat. The article posted as if F-22 can be detected more than 20 miles away that J-20 could track and launch PL-15 and PL-10E at it shows the self claimed expert doesn't know anything about F-22 that is highly classified.


The J-20 was designed as a direct counter to the F-22 because when it was conceptualized in the late 1990s, when the F-22 was the premier stealth fighter. That is why you see a lot of F-22 VLO inspired features on the J-20. To counter the F-35, the Chinese can only focus on upgrading the Type 1475 radar, their ECM suite, and A2A missiles as much as possible. Everyone knows the J-20 will come out on top in dogfights, so the F-35 will never engage in those anyway. The real question is how the J-20 will fare in BVR combat against the F-35 and that we will only know if the two meet on the battlefield one day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

UKBengali said:


> What a load of nonsense.
> 
> 1. J-20 came into service a decade later than F-22 and so was designed 10 years later and not 20-25 years as the article implies.
> 
> 2. The F-22 is on the 4th upgrade of it's radar and it's hardware has already been upgraded. J-20 is probably on the first version of it's production radar.
> 
> 3. For a stealth fighter AIM-120D with 160km range is more than sufficient. AIM-120 missile is combat tested and refined through many iterations whereas the PL-15 is new and has never been fired in anger.
> 
> F-22 with it's superior 5th generation engine would aerodynamically dominate the weak-engined J-20 and is far stealthier from behind.
> 
> The F-22 would win against the J-20 many times before it lost once.


 
That's for a good laugh since USAF do not have the necessary funding needed for its OODA.2 compliant upgradation.
Even if it does, it will only fulfilled probably OODA1.5 since it would be gargantuan task to upgrade the basic design structure or other crutical area.
This explained why is USAF seeking a replacement for its super super ultimate F-22?

When PAF shot down SU-30MKI, I begin to discover the correlation of what protegee Chief Designer Yang Wei was trying to relate.

PLAAF H6M bomber can never be matched with H-20 or USAF B1 or B2. It is fully acceptable and reasonable argument.

Self denial is what demagogue like Trumps and team will do.

You should be better than that.

Unless you are a racist and is saying Chinese and China is incapable of producing advanced high technological product that can supersede USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Grandy said:


> .
> *The pre-research plan for the sixth-generation aircraft is exposed*
> 2020-10-09 20:30:23
> 
> View attachment 678006
> 
> Recently, a peculiar design of a mid-size fighter appeared at an air show, which is likely to be the pre-research plan for the sixth-generation aircraft to be launched in the next stage, and the canard layout has another “new trick“.
> 
> View attachment 678007
> 
> The sixth-generation aircraft development plan, one of them is a tailless delta wing. In order to pursue high speed and excellent stealth effect, air intake is behind it. The canards originally located on both sides of the fuselage are connected to the nose this time, and the overall lines are smoother and in line with aerodynamics, minimizing wind resistance. With the addition of a vector engine, the aircraft's ability to fly at supersonic speeds can reach a new height. But this design also has a serious problem. The pilot's field of vision will be limited by the wings. For this reason, DAS technology is specially added to the pilot helmet display system. The canard-wing layout without a vertical tail and the addition of supramolecular wave-transmitting materials make the stealth performance of the 6th generation aircraft even better. In future wars, the ability to master battlefield information will become higher and higher. The nose and canards can be integrated to install larger Airborne radar.
> 
> View attachment 678008




*Can you please stop posting any random stuff - like that one one graphene and this one too - in the J-20 thread? It has nothing to do with the topic and eventually we can start a new thread, but posting any such reports (and IMO of highly questionable credibility ... would be nice to know, who's the author!?) is annoying.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

kungfugymnast said:


> Lockheed Martin got greedy and made the F-22, F-35 like BMW with parts that don't last long, expensive and required lots of maintenance attention. Corrupted politicians at that time cancelled the F-22 production because maintaining these F-22 reduced their own pocket earnings. If you notice, Lockheed Martin monopolies US defence contracts because of ties that they began to let corruption taken over.
> 
> The J-20 is made with countering US threat in mind therefore there's no room for non-durable parts aimed at making money from users. Development of J-20 is still in progress depending on WS-15, threat, reverse engineer and later combat experience that there will be C, D variant later on.



I agree that J-20 will become a real threat to F-22 and F-35s when it gets the WS-15 engine.
With upgraded radar, avionics and stealth materials, the J-20 of 2025 with WS-15 should be better than F-35 and somewhat comparable to the F-22 of the time.

We will probably see the definitive version of J-20 around 2030-2035 and then the focus should be on getting the Chinese 6th generation fighter.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

UKBengali said:


> Going back to J-20, it really needs a proper 5th generation engine to stand a chance against F-22.



proof?

the engine is only part of aerodynamic performance. the other part is shaping.

actual data:

J-20 thrust:weight is 0.92, F-22 thrust:weight is 1.08
J-20 wing loading: 340 kg/m2, F-22 wing loading: 377 kg/m2
J-20 max speed: M2, F-22 max speed: M2.2
J-20 and F-22: same service ceiling, 20 km
J-20 and F-22: nearly same empty weight, 19000 kg.

F-22 and J-20 have comparable aerodynamic performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

Figaro said:


> It appears that Indians were editing this ... naturally they are venting their Galwan anger out on any related Chinese military page lol.


What kind of people we have to deal with,gosh.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## UKBengali

FairAndUnbiased said:


> proof?
> 
> the engine is only part of aerodynamic performance. the other part is shaping.
> 
> actual data:
> 
> J-20 thrust:weight is 0.92, F-22 thrust:weight is 1.08
> J-20 wing loading: 340 kg/m2, F-22 wing loading: 377 kg/m2
> J-20 max speed: M2, F-22 max speed: M2.2
> J-20 and F-22: same service ceiling, 20 km
> J-20 and F-22: nearly same empty weight, 19000 kg.
> 
> F-22 and J-20 have comparable aerodynamic performance.



F-22 engine maximum thrust is classified and US only says 156kn+.
In 15 years it could have been pushed even higher than in-service thrust from 2005.

Also we need to look at dry thrust/wet thrust ratio and F-22 is around 0.7 and WS-10 on J-20 is more likely 0.6-0.65 as that is 4th gen engine.
J-20 cannot use wet-thrust too much as it will use up too much fuel and potentially give away it’s location to IRST systems.


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

UKBengali said:


> F-22 engine maximum thrust is classified and US only says 156kn+.
> In 15 years it could have been pushed even higher than in-service thrust from 2005.
> 
> Also we need to look at dry thrust/wet thrust ratio and F-22 is around 0.7 and WS-10 on J-20 is more likely 0.6-0.65 as that is 4th gen engine.
> J-20 cannot use wet-thrust too much as it will use up too much fuel and potentially give away it’s location to IRST systems.



shaping also matters, and the J-20 has canards for additional lift/control surfaces. Eurofighter for instance has similar layout (just smaller due to no internal bays) and is considered highly maneuverable.

T:R isn't the end all be all either. the final judge of aerodynamic performance is the actual maneuverability: climb rate and turn radius.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Are dozens of newly-built J-20s about to be handed over to the north???








Via @飞扬军事铁背心 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Are dozens of newly-built J-20s about to be handed over to the north???
> View attachment 678129
> View attachment 678130
> 
> Via @飞扬军事铁背心 from Weibo





Overall a new unit makes sense given the 176th Brigade in late 2016, the 172nd Brigade in late 2017 and the 9th Brigade in late 2019 receiving the first J-20s it almost looks like a pattern.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Grandy said:


> View attachment 678006



This Photoshop taken from F-22, YF-23 and s-37 berkut reminds me of the original planned YF-22 design with forward canard. Lockheed Martin decided to change the design to conventional at last minute to avoid too much effort to put an entire new design to work causing YF-22 prototype unveiled later than YF-23. The original design was adopted by Russian Mig 1.42 and decade later J-20 took the design.


FairAndUnbiased said:


> proof?
> 
> the engine is only part of aerodynamic performance. the other part is shaping.
> 
> actual data:
> 
> J-20 thrust:weight is 0.92, F-22 thrust:weight is 1.08
> J-20 wing loading: 340 kg/m2, F-22 wing loading: 377 kg/m2
> J-20 max speed: M2, F-22 max speed: M2.2
> J-20 and F-22: same service ceiling, 20 km
> J-20 and F-22: nearly same empty weight, 19000 kg.
> 
> F-22 and J-20 have comparable aerodynamic performance.



Thought J-20 maximum speed at Mach 2.5? Its long flat bottom fuselage gives it the speed aerodynamic similar to F-15, Mig-25, Mig-31 that have long flat bottom


----------



## kungfugymnast

UKBengali said:


> I agree that J-20 will become a real threat to F-22 and F-35s when it gets the WS-15 engine.
> With upgraded radar, avionics and stealth materials, the J-20 of 2025 with WS-15 should be better than F-35 and somewhat comparable to the F-22 of the time.
> 
> We will probably see the definitive version of J-20 around 2030-2035 and then the focus should be on getting the Chinese 6th generation fighter.



J-20B with WS-10X is good enough to take on F-35 and F-22. WS-15 will give J-20C supercruise and extra acceleration.


----------



## UKBengali

kungfugymnast said:


> J-20B with WS-10X is good enough to take on F-35 and F-22. WS-15 will give J-20C supercruise and extra acceleration.



Nah WS-10X will have poor dry thrust, even if it's wet-thrust is not far off F-119 in F-22.

Too much use of wet-thrust will hamper range and also potentially open up J-20 to being detected on IRST systems.

J-20 needs new engine and probably better stealth materials to take on F-22. It will come but needs some more time.
J-20 will need better radar and avionics to take on F-35 and with the WS-15 engine it should be superior.


----------



## Figaro

UKBengali said:


> Nah WS-10X will have poor dry thrust, even if it's wet-thrust is not far off F-119 in F-22.
> 
> Too much use of wet-thrust will hamper range and also potentially open up J-20 to being detected on IRST systems.
> 
> J-20 needs new engine and probably better stealth materials to take on F-22. It will come but needs some more time.
> J-20 will need better radar and avionics to take on F-35 and with the WS-15 engine it should be superior.


The main downside with the WS-10 is actually not its thrust but the relatively high bypass ratio (~0.60). This means current J-20s most likely cannot supercruise, even if its dry thrust is now pretty high. That and its relatively low lifespan, TIT, and SFC, all limited by the dated design are the largest drawbacks. 

Regarding radars, the US is still number one in AESA ... but the Chinese are very close behind and adopted AESA technologies very quickly as well (unlike say the Russians or the Europeans). The US could maintain a lead in this field for the foreseeable future but the gap I think is so small that it will not be any determinant of future BVR fights.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Figaro said:


> The main downside with the WS-10 is actually not its thrust but the relatively high bypass ratio (~0.60). This means current J-20s most likely cannot supercruise, even if its dry thrust is now pretty high. That and its relatively low lifespan, TIT, and SFC, all limited by the dated design are the largest drawbacks.
> 
> Regarding radars, the US is still number one in AESA ... but the Chinese are very close behind and adopted AESA technologies very quickly as well (unlike say the Russians or the Europeans). The US could maintain a lead in this field for the foreseeable future but the gap I think is so small that it will not be any determinant of future BVR fights.




Actually a low bypass ratio like 0.3- 0.4 as seen in F-22 and Eurofighter is not required to super-cruise.

F-15 can do that with low fuel and carrying some air-to-air ordnance. The GE F110 engine has bypass ratio a little more at 0.7 than the 0.6 of the WS-10 engine.

As regards AESA, yes I agree that US is in the lead but I disagree that China is ahead of the Europeans. Of course the Russians are behind all the rest.

UK has the best AESA technology in Europe as it came out with the SAMPSON AESA radar in the Type-45 destroyer in 2009 and also built the AESA for both the Gripen E and the Eurofighter. The SAMPSON AESA radar was rated the best in Nato at the time of introduction by the USA and others.
UK saw that it's AESA radar for Eurofighter was quite inferior to the AESA radar on the F-35Bs it got from the USA and so is building an even more advanced one for it's Eurofighters that it aims to get into service in the mid-2020s, which it claims will be the best in the world at the time but I doubt that.

I think the order of AESA radar tech probably is from best to worst:

1. USA
2. China = UK, although Chinese are moving ahead a little quicker due to more money and more projects they are working on.
3. France
4. Japan = Israel
5. Russia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Figaro said:


> The main downside with the WS-10 is actually not its thrust but the relatively high bypass ratio (~0.60). This means current J-20s most likely cannot supercruise, even if its dry thrust is now pretty high. That and its relatively low lifespan, TIT, and SFC, all limited by the dated design are the largest drawbacks.
> 
> Regarding radars, the US is still number one in AESA ... but the Chinese are very close behind and adopted AESA technologies very quickly as well (unlike say the Russians or the Europeans). The US could maintain a lead in this field for the foreseeable future but the gap I think is so small that it will not be any determinant of future BVR fights.


I actually think in its current state, J-20 can supercruise. Pilots interview stated that it can fly at Mach 2.5 as maximum speed. I don't think a sustained Mach 1.5 is too far fetched at dry thrust, especially with the latest WS-10 having 14.5 tons of thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

S10 said:


> I actually think in its current state, J-20 can supercruise. Pilots interview stated that it can fly at Mach 2.5 as maximum speed. I don't think a sustained Mach 1.5 is too far fetched at dry thrust, especially with the latest WS-10 having 14.5 tons of thrust.




Unlikely to be Mach 1.5 super-cruise as the dry thrust/wet ratio would be around 0.6 and so maybe Mach 1.2-1.3 would be more nearer the mark


----------



## kungfugymnast

UKBengali said:


> Nah WS-10X will have poor dry thrust, even if it's wet-thrust is not far off F-119 in F-22.
> 
> Too much use of wet-thrust will hamper range and also potentially open up J-20 to being detected on IRST systems.
> 
> J-20 needs new engine and probably better stealth materials to take on F-22. It will come but needs some more time.
> J-20 will need better radar and avionics to take on F-35 and with the WS-15 engine it should be superior.



WS-10X is reverse engineered from F-15 & Su-27 engines plus the long flat fuselage of J-20B could allow it to cruise at higher speed under military dry thrust. Besides, the J-20B will be carrying just air to air missiles internally with lighter weight than F-22 so it should be fine. WS-15 engines will be superb and required if it carries higher payload and having to dogfight.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> WS-10X is reverse engineered from F-15 & Su-27 engines plus the long flat fuselage of J-20B could allow it to cruise at higher speed under military dry thrust. Besides, the J-20B will be carrying just air to air missiles internally with lighter weight than F-22 so it should be fine. WS-15 engines will be superb and required if it carries higher payload and having to dogfight.


Nonsense ... the WS-10 is based off a reverse engineered CFM-56 core but that is hardly enough to call it a reverse engineered engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> WS-10X is reverse engineered from F-15 & Su-27 engines ...




Can you finally stop posting plain stupid BS?   ...and where did they get a Pratt & Whitney F100-engine from? Please don't try to spin a new conspiration theory they got it from Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Nonsense ... the WS-10 is based off a reverse engineered CFM-56 core but that is hardly enough to call it a reverse engineered engine.



Where do you think technology of CFM-56 coming from when China had nothing to begin with if US did not provide the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine as part of friendship technology transfer? It's considered reward to China for pleasing US by attacking Vietnam at that time. 

The same goes to how Soviet jet engine technology started with British giving technology to Stalin as token of appreciation in fighting Hitler's forces. Soviet immediately came up with advanced turboprop aircrafts followed by Mig-15 fighter.


Deino said:


> Can you finally stop posting plain stupid BS?   ...and where did they get a Pratt & Whitney F100-engine from? Please don't try to spin a new conspiration theory they got it from Pakistan.



Facts are facts and we can't deny that. You shouldn't spin things around instead by dragging Pakistan into this. My post to Figaro contained historical political because these tech provided part of political good ties at that time that are part of the engine origin so don't try to give me warning, etc.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Where do you think technology of CFM-56 coming from when China had nothing to begin with if US did not provide the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine as part of friendship technology transfer? It's considered reward to China for pleasing US by attacking Vietnam at that time.
> 
> The same goes to how Soviet jet engine technology started with British giving technology to Stalin as token of appreciation in fighting Hitler's forces. Soviet immediately came up with advanced turboprop aircrafts followed by Mig-15 fighter.



What the fxxx!?? You know - or at least should know and check - that the CFM-56 is built by CFM International (CFMI), a 50–50 joint-owned company of *Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma) *of France, and *GE Aviation (GE)* of the United States.

Pratt & Whitney has nothing to do with this engine and as such even less with the J-20's engine.

No PW F100 was provided by the US to China and especially not "as part of friendship technology transfer".
The CFM-56 delivered to China and allegedly "lost" were delivered together with some B737s and from all we know China reverse engineered the WS-10's core by using the CFM-56's core.

OMG, get the facts correct or check what you are posting ..  



> Facts are facts and we can't deny that. You shouldn't spin things around instead by dragging Pakistan into this. My post to Figaro contained historical political because these tech provided part of political good ties at that time that are part of the engine origin so don't try to give me warning, etc.




Yes, facts are facts but it seems this is not valid for you ... "F100 by Pratt Whitney provided to China as a gift for friendship based on the FCM-56 and used to develop the WS-10 by mating it with the AL-31 nozzle."  So much on your facts!  

I'll give you warning exactly for that reason ... you are posting BS, fake and off topic stuff and either you know it or you simply do it for fun, which is trolling.

Also your post towards @Figaro contained NO "historical political" things but simply plain wrong BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Death_Angels

I have a few questions. I will be glad if you answer. 

1- J-20 fifth generation airplane ?
2- Is there any improvement in engine ?
3- Has it started mass production? 

Thanks...


----------



## lcloo

Death_Angels said:


> I have a few questions. I will be glad if you answer.
> 
> 1- J-20 fifth generation airplane ?
> 2- Is there any improvement in engine ?
> 3- Has it started mass production?
> 
> Thanks...


Yes, Yes and Yes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Death_Angels said:


> I have a few questions. I will be glad if you answer.
> 
> 1- J-20 fifth generation airplane ?
> 2- Is there any improvement in engine ?
> 3- Has it started mass production?
> 
> Thanks...


@lcloo provided a short response and I'll provide more detailed answer.

Yes. The J-20 is classified by the US DoD as a fifth generation fighter and has all the attributes of a fifth generation fighter. You can read what characteristics the J-20 was designed from below, written by the former head of Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (i.e. the institute responsible for the J-20) and also the chief designer for the J-10. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/translation-of-j-20-article-by-dr-song-wencong.165231/
Yes. Actually there are four improvements to be precise. The first is from the AL-31F on the prototypes and LRIP models to the WS-10C, which offers higher thrust and reliability. The second is from the WS-10C to the 3D thrust vectoring WS-10C variant, which is around the same level as the Su-35's 117S engine. The third and final switch will be from this engine to the WS-15, which is the intended engine (i.e. 180 kN, T/W 10, 3D TVC, low SFC, much greater reliability). The first two switches have been completed (the J-20 WS-10 TVC version has started production in the summer) so only the switch the WS-15 is left.
Yes. LRIP began in 2016 and a report stated the plan is for 30 J-20s being produced this year alone. The total number of J-20s by the end of this year should be greater than 60.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

New WS-10 J-20s

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## IblinI

Figaro said:


> New WS-10 J-20s
> 
> View attachment 679352
> 
> View attachment 679353


How many in the first photo, two or three? also noticed the J10C at the back with WS-10 engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> New WS-10 J-20s
> 
> View attachment 679352
> 
> View attachment 679353




Indeed!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Figaro said:


> New WS-10 J-20s
> 
> View attachment 679352
> 
> View attachment 679353


Is the yellow J-10C equipped with an AL-31FN engine??? If so, the pic is a bit old...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Is the yellow J-10C equipped with an AL-31FN engine??? If so, the pic is a bit old...
> View attachment 679474




I had the same thought ... maybe that image is from the same occasion when these two were spotted. At least that image was posted first about one year ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jamie Brooks

Did a WS-15 equipped J-20 also made test flight? Looks like there is not a alot of time before we see ws-15 Test.


----------



## IblinI

Jamie Brooks said:


> Did a WS-15 equipped J-20 also made test flight?
> View attachment 679568


No, he just said let's dump AL31 once WS15 matured.


----------



## Figaro

IblinI said:


> No, he just said let's dump AL31 once WS15 matured.


Does this guy not know what the WS-10 is?


----------



## samsara

Jamie Brooks said:


> Did a WS-15 equipped J-20 also made test flight? Looks like there is not a alot of time before we see ws-15 Test.
> View attachment 679568


And who's the poster of the attached pictorial?

WHY does the seemingly a random post of this sort matter or be relevant?


----------



## Jamie Brooks

The sawtooth patern ....  Gotta love it!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> And who's the poster of the attached pictorial?
> 
> WHY does the seemingly a random post of this sort matter or be relevant?


Given that the poster does not even know the WS-10 is installed on the J-20 instead of the AL-31F, we can safely assume he is of no credibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jamie Brooks

Figaro said:


> Given that the poster does not even know the WS-10 is installed on the J-20 instead of the AL-31F, we can safely assume he is of no credibility.


Yup it was a false alarm on my part .i checked some of his other posts and they were way in the realm of fantasy . He claims Ws-19 trails on J-35.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @战鹰解码记者吴杰 from Weibo


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 680215
> 
> Via @战鹰解码记者吴杰 from Weibo



Based on the uncropped canard tips and shape of LERX I think this is an older J-20 prototype (2001 or 2002) modified to feature a second main bay.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Based on the uncropped canard tips and shape of LERX I think this is an older J-20 prototype (2001 or 2002) modified to feature a second main bay.




That was my first idea too (besides I missed the bays) but otherwise I'm not even sure if it is full sized?!
PS ... also an interesting read!









Will China Roll out a Twin Seat J-20?


Rumors abound over a twin-seat variant of the fifth-generation stealth fighter – but does it make sense?



thediplomat.com


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> That was my first idea too (besides I missed the bays) but otherwise I'm not even sure if it is full sized?!
> PS ... also an interesting read!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will China Roll out a Twin Seat J-20?
> 
> 
> Rumors abound over a twin-seat variant of the fifth-generation stealth fighter – but does it make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> thediplomat.com



I think it is. If I am not mistaken they still have an inlet blocker in one of the inlets. Why do that if it is just a model?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> I think it is. If I am not mistaken they still have an inlet blocker in one of the inlets. Why do that if it is just a model?




My biggest concern is that several details simply don't fit to the true 2001!







... need to look for a better image!


----------



## LKJ86

Via @铁幕君SSS from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @卫星图像发烧员 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 681374
> 
> Via @卫星图像发烧员 from Weibo




Wow ... So the question now is: are these deployed from 9th Brigade at Wuhu like some say due to maintenance work there or is it in fact the re-equipped 85th AB replacing Su-30MKKs as with the 9th Brigade before at Wuhu and as such the long expected next J-20 brigade? 


Here's even a small gif: via https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2659793&extra=page%3D1


----------



## Deino

By the way, does anyone where this is? 

The fact that it both shows the silhouette of Flankers and J-20s could be a hint that these barracks belong to an air base and even more it could indicate a transition from Flankers to J-20s at this base?

(Image via by78/SDF)


----------



## retaxis

Nice Video of J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Old pics











































Via @hunterchen from www.top81cn.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @飞扬军事铁背心 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 682776
> 
> Via @飞扬军事铁背心 from Weibo




Spotted at CAC


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1320724625895182336


----------



## UKBengali

You can see how far the Chinese have come in airframe technology with the smooth surfaces seen on the J-20 airframe which is very similar to the F-22.


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.81.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.js7tv.cn and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1


----------



## lcloo

Photo was taken from a CAC office.

Inscription said a certain twin seat aircraft "break through"/ validation(?) team. The award description is masked. It is either J10 or J20 twin seater jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 683127
> 
> Via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322912274693185536

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

retaxis said:


> Nice Video of J-20



That is one of the better videos of the J-20 I've seen to date! Some excellent action photography and even the close-up shots of the really large and spacious cockpit, which brings me to my point which is I remember some post about a year ago or so where there was a new helmet these J-20 pilots were wearing but I don't seem to see it in this video. Either way, if there is no need and those helmets and standard oxygen masks do the trick, then fine. But I would think that with all the technology being touted in the J-20 that a brand new and exceptionally designed helmet with JHMCS and all the goodies in it would be on track for the pilots of this aircraft. Maybe it's on the board for the future?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI



Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


>




But this looks photoshopped!?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @兵器知识杂志 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

Honestly, I'm actually not sure if this is real or a Photoshop image.
Overall not impossible since we know there is a tanker variant of the Y-20A, but it would be the first time we see it in action and then refuelling a J-20.

(Image via Nanda0206 at https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=...enQfiKm0a90CG1SRD3ZCfhHsK5062C9iSlOCD-w0HPsPg)

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## LKJ86

November 13, 2020




Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4570825118908429?from=old_pc_videoshow

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> November 13, 2020
> View attachment 687984
> 
> Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4570825118908429?from=old_pc_videoshow



When is it gonna put on the grey paint?


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> When is it gonna put on the grey paint?


Isn't it quite normal to find the yellow newly-built ones in CAC?


----------



## ALIYAN_AR

amazing... i dont get the trending western ideology that all chinese made stuff is just fake and useless , in my opinion j10 is exactly how a 5th gen fighter should look like no offense to the others but j10 looks much more intimidating than the rest 5th gen fighters.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Isn't it quite normal to find the yellow newly-built ones in CAC?
> View attachment 687990




Yes for sure its normal ... but we yet haven't seen of these WS-10C-powered new-built ones and that's indeed a bit strange esp since some claim - IMO baseless - that CAC has reached a production rate of 30-60 per year already? How likely is it that since about 1 1/2 years that many should be built and we don't know a new unit, we haven't heard a rumour and haven't seen one in grey?!


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> we don't know a new unit, we haven't heard a rumour and haven't seen one in grey?!


The first batch of J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines has serviced in PLAAF this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> The first batch of J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines has serviced in PLAAF this year.
> View attachment 688024




Did this report give any hint there?


ALIYAN_AR said:


> amazing... i dont get the trending western ideology that all chinese made stuff is just fake and useless , in my opinion j10 is exactly how a 5th gen fighter should look like no offense to the others but j10 looks much more intimidating than the rest 5th gen fighters.



You mean J-20? ... J-10 is surely NOT a fifth-generation fighter.


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> Did this report give any hint there?
> 
> 
> You mean J-20? ... J-10 is surely NOT a fifth-generation fighter.


Not hint, but a direct translation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

IblinI said:


> Not hint, but a direct translation.




Pardon, since I cannot speak or read Chinese ... but is there a hint, where they are assigned to or based?


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> November 13, 2020
> View attachment 687984
> 
> Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4570825118908429?from=old_pc_videoshow



They should get UNDER it and get some killer belly shots! That's pics, not the other kind of "shots" just to be sure there is no misunderstanding here!


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> Pardon, since I cannot speak or read Chinese ... but is there a hint, where they are assigned to or based?


Not really because he is mainly focused on talking about the air force in 2027, PLA's 100th years anniversary, beside the things we already knows, he talked about ultra long range a2a missile, Y20 tanker, stealth air to ground missile for bomber, hypersonic bm, hypersonic tactical air to ground, antiship missile etc...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## White and Green with M/S

IblinI said:


> hypersonic bm


 you means Hypersonic Ballistic Missiles?


----------



## IblinI

White and Green with M/S said:


> you means Hypersonic Ballistic Missiles?


yeah, we have already seen it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1327543367228682241

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## White and Green with M/S

IblinI said:


> yeah, we have already seen it.
> View attachment 688151


Almost all Ballistic Missiles are hypersonic, at least at terminal phase, so what so special about it??


----------



## IblinI

White and Green with M/S said:


> Almost all Ballistic Missiles are hypersonic, at least at terminal phase, so what so special about it??


DF-17 alike HGV.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## White and Green with M/S

IblinI said:


> DF-17 alike HGV.


And conventional Ballistic Missiles warheads are also have terminal velocity of over Mach-5 during reentries


----------



## IblinI

White and Green with M/S said:


> And conventional Ballistic Missiles warheads are also have terminal velocity of over Mach-5 during reentries


I know


----------



## White and Green with M/S

IblinI said:


> I know


So hypersonic ballistic missiles term is incorrect, now back to J-20 discussion


----------



## LKJ86

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1327570646872829952A bad translation...
He just said that in 2027, the number of J-20 would be in the same order of magnitude as that of F-22 anyway.
It only means that the number of J-20 will increase from dozens now to hundreds in 2027, and there is nothing new.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Old pics



















Via @航空知识 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 689874
> View attachment 689875
> View attachment 689877
> View attachment 689878
> View attachment 689879
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo




How long do we need to wait until we'll see them in PLAAf grey?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
3


----------



## jaybird

Little translation of LKJ86's post upstairs. 

_"I*n this year military news, everyone is mainly talking about Y-20 changing engines with WS-20. Not much was mention regarding our best fighter jet J-20 mainly due to no new information was revealed. *_

_*But there will actually be a big news regarding a major upgrade/improved version of J-20 soon. I believe a lot of people will be drunk happy on the date when the news is revealed. The pictures are old pictures from 2019 air force exhibition."*_

I do hope he is right and something really worth celebrating is revealed soon._**_

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
4


----------



## kuge

jaybird said:


> Little translation of LKJ86's post upstairs.
> 
> _"I*n this year military news, everyone is mainly talking about Y-20 changing engines with WS-20. Not much was mention regarding our best fighter jet J-20 mainly due to no new information was revealed.
> 
> But there will actually be a big news regarding a major upgrade/improved version of J-20 soon. I believe a lot of people will be drunk happy on the date when the news is revealed. The pictures are old pictures from 2019 air force exhibition."*_
> 
> I do hope he is right and something really worth celebrating is revealed soon._**_


ws-15??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

jaybird said:


> Little translation of LKJ86's post upstairs.
> 
> _"I*n this year military news, everyone is mainly talking about Y-20 changing engines with WS-20. Not much was mention regarding our best fighter jet J-20 mainly due to no new information was revealed.
> 
> But there will actually be a big news regarding a major upgrade/improved version of J-20 soon. I believe a lot of people will be drunk happy on the date when the news is revealed. The pictures are old pictures from 2019 air force exhibition."*_
> 
> I do hope he is right and something really worth celebrating is revealed soon._**_




I would already be "_*drunk happy on the date when the news is revealed*_" when I see a WS-10C powered one in PLAAF grey with serial numbers of a new unit?


----------



## samsara

From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.11.21:

_A* J-20 landed with a *__*lateral missile side extended*__. We also notice that this device did not wear its Lüneburg lens as for the others. The context of all this remains to be defined._

Photo via 燃烧 的 哈尔科夫








__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1330154545356402688

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Seems as if something is going on ... 

歼20这是憋了啥大招。-空军版-超级大本营军事论坛-最具影响力军事论坛 - (cjdby.net)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

samsara said:


> From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.11.21:
> 
> _A* J-20 landed with a *__*lateral missile side extended*__. We also notice that this device did not wear its Lüneburg lens as for the others. The context of all this remains to be defined._
> 
> Photo via 燃烧 的 哈尔科夫
> 
> View attachment 690055
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1330154545356402688



Probably came back from a military exercise in which it had to leverage the stealth advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

Deino said:


> Seems as if something is going on ...
> 
> 歼20这是憋了啥大招。-空军版-超级大本营军事论坛-最具影响力军事论坛 - (cjdby.net)



can you provide any indication of what they are talking about???


----------



## Deino

Ali_Baba said:


> can you provide any indication of what they are talking about???




at the SDF a member noted this:



> I have been hearing a similar rumour about the maiden flight of a new J-20 variant over at cjdby. In the rumour I've been hearing it's a twin seat version. The rumour didn't say if it was regular twin seat or tandem seat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

Oh well, when even 秋秋Q30 confirms this!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1330545187232362499


> I've checked my timeline and seems like no one is discussing about it?
> "A major variant of J-20", Q30 has confirmed that it will be the long-rumored twin seater. He even already know the dimensions of the aircraft-despite of course he can't said the number.




But probably after the most recent Y-20B & WS-20 fiasco we all should be a bit more patient and careful with posting rumours, reports and images?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Oh well, when even 秋秋Q30 confirms this!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1330545187232362499
> 
> 
> 
> But probably after the most recent Y-20B & WS-20 fiasco we all should be a bit more patient and careful with posting rumours, reports and images?


Give us the WS-15 already ... the twin seater can wait (I don't even think it is necessary at all).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> Give us the WS-15 already ... the twin seater can wait (I don't even think it is necessary at all).


Yeah, who gives a sh*t about a twin seater gimmick?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Daniel808

Figaro said:


> Give us the WS-15 already ... the twin seater can wait (I don't even think it is necessary at all).



I thought twin seater is also important.
Because the twin seater can control the wingman UCAV, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Daniel808 said:


> I thought twin seater is also important.
> Because the twin seater can control the wingman UCAV, right?
> View attachment 690234
> 
> View attachment 690237



Dark sword drone has ventral stakes?


----------



## 52051

Deino said:


> I would already be "_*drunk happy on the date when the news is revealed*_" when I see a WS-10C powered one in PLAAF grey with serial numbers of a new unit?



The way he put this one certainly looks like something bigger than that.

I suspect of a WS-15 powered J-20 finally surfaced to the public.

One very high-level scientist in military Aero-Engine tech, Liu Daxiang, told the media that WS-15 will be ready in 3-5 years, and he told that in 2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> The way he put this one certainly looks like something bigger than that.
> 
> I suspect of a WS-15 powered J-20 finally surfaced to the public.
> 
> One very high-level scientist in military Aero-Engine tech, Liu Daxiang, told the media that WS-15 will be ready in 3-5 years, and he told that in 2017.


He said this in July 2018. Sometime in 2021 would be the best case scenario but I think 2023 is more realistic for design certification. We should probably see the WS-15 next year or the year after on a new J-20 prototype for flight testing should Dr. Liu's timeline be correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 52051

Figaro said:


> He said this in July 2018. Sometime in 2021 would be the best case scenario but I think 2023 is more realistic for design certification. We should probably see the WS-15 next year or the year after on a new J-20 prototype for flight testing should Dr. Liu's timeline be correct.



He said the engine will be ready by then, if the 3-5 year timeframe is right, then it is about time the prototype engine of WS-15 being fitting on J-20 for test.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

52051 said:


> He said the engine will be ready by then, if the 3-5 year timeframe is right, then it is about time the prototype engine of WS-15 being fitting on J-20 for test.


2018+5=2023 don't you understand simple maths


----------



## 52051

White and Green with M/S said:


> 2018+5=2023 don't you understand simple maths



Be ready means everything is done, that's means in 3-5 years you will finish the test of the engine (including test the engine in the target platform) and ready to go


----------



## White and Green with M/S

52051 said:


> Be ready means everything is done, that's means in 3-5 years you will finish the test of the engine (including test the engine in the target platform) and ready to go


its not easy that you thinks so, jet engine development is one of the most difficult industry very few have the capability to produce jet engine and you're quite new in this field, so delays is more probable


----------



## 52051

White and Green with M/S said:


> its not easy that you thinks so, jet engine development is one of the most difficult industry very few have the capability to produce jet engine and you're quite new in this field, so delays is more probable



Its not easy to dispute what expert says in the area his expertise lies, since Liu Daxiang is basically the highest-rank scientist in military aero-engine in China, I believe his words more than your ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## White and Green with M/S

52051 said:


> Its not easy to dispute what expert says in the area his expertise lies, since Liu Daxiang is basically the highest-rank scientist in military aero-engine in China, I believe his words more than your ones.


And he was talking about from 2018
2018+5= 2023 it might be testing on ground than in 2021 or 2023 will start testing on J-20


----------



## 52051

White and Green with M/S said:


> And he was talking about from 2018
> 2018+5= 2023 it might be testing on ground than in 2021 or 2023 will start testing on J-20



He is talking about be ready in 3-5 years, which means by 2021 to 2023 you will see full functioned WS-15 on J-20, which means flight test of this engine can be anytime from now.

Go checking the typical schedule/timeframe of engine development, and stop writing your thoughts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## White and Green with M/S

52051 said:


> He is talking about be ready in 3-5 years, which means by 2021 to 2023 you will see full functioned WS-15 on J-20, which means flight test of this engine can be anytime from now.
> 
> Go checking the typical schedule/timeframe of engine development, and stop writing your thoughts.


ITS YOUR FIRST ENGINE FROM SCRACH, AND ENGINE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT EASY THAT YOU THINK ESPCIALLY FOR CHINA WHICH IS NEW ON THIS FIELD, ITS NEED EXTRA TEST TO GET RID OF ALL OF BUGS, AND MOST OF CHINESE SENIOR/PROFESSIONAL MEMBERS HERE TO AGREE THAT WS-15 WILL START TESTING IN 2023 ON J-20, AND 2020 IS ALMOST OVER, YOU'RE NOBODY TO ASSUMED THAT


----------



## Deino

Wow, yes for sure, Mr. Liu Daxiang si more credible but we don't know the exact context of his statement, if any delays happened since then or what he really once said ...

As such @White and Green with M/S & @52051, IMO Your discussion is academic since even if we rate Mr. Liu Daxiang higher than other reports, it might not automatically mean we will see it READY by the earlier date. Just look how other projects are delayed ...

Just look at the WS-10C. We've seen the first J-20A & WS-10C since early 2017 ,,, we know it is in production since mid-2019 and still we haven't seen it READY or in service. I really - regardless how credible I rate his words, I cannot think we see the first WS-10C powered operational J-20A in 2021 and right a few years later the first WS-15 powered ones as combat ready especially when we haven't seen one at least in prototype form. 

As such all we can do is to sit and wait.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

White and Green with M/S said:


> ITS YOUR FIRST ENGINE FROM SCRACH, AND ENGINE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT EASY THAT YOU THINK ESPCIALLY FOR CHINA WHICH IS NEW ON THIS FIELD, ITS NEED EXTRA TEST TO GET RID OF ALL OF BUGS, AND MOST OF CHINESE SENIOR/PROFESSIONAL MEMBERS HERE TO AGREE THAT WS-15 WILL START TESTING IN 2023 ON J-20, AND 2020 IS ALMOST OVER, YOU'RE NOBODY TO ASSUMED THAT


Yeah, you are quite right, the Chinese will require many more decades to build some good aero-engines, they still need to close the 50-year development duration cycle to come out with any solid engine as you postulated... the time-span is an absolute process, and cannot be jumped over, shortcut or accelerated in any meaningful ways.... (yet it comes to my thought, when the Chinese do arrive at the 50-year time span, then other earlier players will already arrive at 100 years journey... thus it will be a forever catch-up game, always trailing because others had started earlier...)

Well, now please stop posting in all capital letters, and not flaming this thread any further. We already learned your faith.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> Yeah, you are quite right, the Chinese will require many more decades to build some good aero-engines, they still need to close the 50-year development duration cycle to come out with any solid engine as you postulated... the time-span is an absolute process, and cannot be jumped over, shortcut or accelerated in any meaningful ways.... (yet it comes to my thought, when the Chinese do arrive at the 50-year time span, then other earlier players will already arrive at 100 years journey... thus it will be a forever catch-up game, always trailing because others had started earlier...)
> 
> Well, now please stop posting in all capital letters, and not flaming this thread any further. We already learned your faith.


If the WS-10, WS-20, or WS-13 are not good aero engines, then people these days have unrealistically high standards. The latest WS-10's performance is already on par with the Saturn 117S, which is currently Russia's best operational gas turbine engine. I'm really not sure why this member keeps on trying to flamebait (e.g. all caps) and rant on super petty things. I am in shock that people apparently think you need 50 years to close a 50 year gap ...   .


52051 said:


> He is talking about be ready in 3-5 years, which means by 2021 to 2023 you will see full functioned WS-15 on J-20, which means flight test of this engine can be anytime from now.
> 
> Go checking the typical schedule/timeframe of engine development, and stop writing your thoughts.


Although Liu is a pretty credible source (former chief engineer at the 624 Institute), I think this is just a ballpark estimate. The truth is it is very possible that it will take longer than 2023 ... advanced weapons projects, especially something on the level of the WS-15 (which Russia is even struggling with on their Idz 30) takes a lot of time and effort. Delays are completely normal. I expect the Chinese will make sure that the WS-15 that first enters service will not be plagued with reliability issues like the WS-10. As such delays are perfectly reasonable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4575272419393567?from=old_pc_videoshow

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 691034
> 
> View attachment 691036
> 
> Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4575272419393567?from=old_pc_videoshow




WS-10-powered? ... it is too small at my mobile.


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 691034
> 
> View attachment 691036
> 
> Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4575272419393567?from=old_pc_videoshow


*From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.11.26:*

_*A J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines*, in Chinese Air Force low-visibility livery, was *filmed at CAC's assembly plant in Chengdu*. Video via 斯图卡 98


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331662865288183808_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*From Rupprecht Andreas Deino @RupprechtDeino on 2020.11.25:*

_For anyone who cannot access the link here are a few stills from the video __*showing eventually the first images of a PLAAF grey-coloured J-20A powered by WS-10C engines*__. (gifs & video via @斯图卡98 from Weibo)_


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331630255610736642
A question posted there: _"What the thrust capacity of the WS-10C engines please?"_
answered by some blogger, 日月同明 @onceggyy123 (joined Aug.2012): _"the chances are 144kn-150kn"_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Any confirmation how recent these images are?


----------



## siegecrossbow

samsara said:


> *From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.11.26:*
> 
> _*A J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines*, in Chinese Air Force low-visibility livery, was *filmed at CAC's assembly plant in Chengdu*. Video via 斯图卡 98
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331662865288183808_
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> *From Rupprecht Andreas Deino @RupprechtDeino on 2020.11.25:*
> 
> _For anyone who cannot access the link here are a few stills from the video __*showing eventually the first images of a PLAAF grey-coloured J-20A powered by WS-10C engines*__. (gifs & video via @斯图卡98 from Weibo)_
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331630255610736642
> A question posted there: _"What the thrust capacity of the WS-10C engines please?"_
> answered by some blogger, 日月同明 @onceggyy123 (joined Aug.2012): _"the chances are 144kn-150kn"_



150 kn is way too high.


----------



## LKJ86

Luneberg lens & no Luneberg lens













Via @燃烧的哈尔科夫 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

siegecrossbow said:


> 150 kn is way too high.


Probably on the lower end ... 145 kN.


----------



## S10

siegecrossbow said:


> 150 kn is way too high.


Yeah there's no point in WS-15 if WS-10C can produce 150kn of thrust, except easier time supercruising. Even as of now, J-20 can reach a speed of Mach 2.52.

I did, however, heard that the upper limit of WS-10 core can support that.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

S10 said:


> Yeah there's no point in WS-15 if WS-10C can produce 150kn of thrust, except easier time supercruising. Even as of now, J-20 can reach a speed of Mach 2.52.
> 
> I did, however, heard that the upper limit of WS-10 core can support that.


The WS-15 is widely believed to have a wet thrust of 180kN, that's significantly higher than even the 150kN upper limit of the WS-10C (which stretches credulity for an engine from that generation).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 690787



That's pretty cool how it caught the air moving around in the intake like that. Not often do you see that.


----------



## juj06750

siegecrossbow said:


> 150 kn is way too high.





Figaro said:


> Probably on the lower end ... 145 kN.


expecting afterburn 150kN-170kN from C variant;
but not sure if those image is C variant;
sources say that latest batches of J16 and J20 are reportedly equipped with very powerful WS10B, which dry powers 96kN / afterburning powers 145kN

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> ...
> 
> Even as of now, J-20 can reach a speed of Mach 2.52.
> 
> ...




Sonce when and who claimed or even stated this other than our old friend with his ridiculous claim of a +245 kN WS-15 since day one.


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Sonce when and who claimed or even stated this other than our old friend with his ridiculous claim of a +245 kN WS-15 since day one.


Screen caption from People's Daily:







52km in a single minute = Mach 2.52


----------



## samsara

From 日月同明 @onceggyy123 on 2020-11-20:

F22, F35 and J20 all use *integrated cockpit*. Don't underestimate this piece of glass, which is *made of high-strength composite materials by compression layer by layer*. *The process is very difficult.* Even the Russians can't make it, and the Su57 can only use the old cockpit.

















Old cockpit will destroy stealth ability. Pay attention to the *yellow lines in the cockpit*.






The design of stealth fighter is not as rough as you think. J20, F22 and F35 should be combined with *parallel design principle* even at the *joint of canopy*. This is why the *integrated cockpit* is designed to reduce RCS.











Due to the rough design and process of Su57, its RCS is much higher than that of J20.










The relatively large gaps in *stealth fighters must meet the principle of parallel design*. This is why the fifth generation fighters all use *integrated cockpits*. Interested friends can draw a parallel line of F22 and F35. #J20 #F35 #F22 #stealth #China







Even the gap in the weapons warehouse conforms to the *principle of parallel design*. *For smaller gaps, serrated stealth should be used*. Russian Su57 fighters do not meet the above conditions. Su57 only meets the basic parallel design.


















Even such a small gap in China J20 weapons warehouse *must meet the principle of parallel design*。 #stealth #F22 #F35 #J20






OP thread:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1329476300134760448
_The blogger, 日月同明 @onceggyy123, has joined Twitter since August 2012._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> From 日月同明 @onceggyy123 on 2020-11-20:
> 
> F22, F35 and J20 all use *integrated cockpit*. Don't underestimate this piece of glass, which is *made of high-strength composite materials by compression layer by layer*. *The process is very difficult.* Even the Russians can't make it, and the Su57 can only use the old cockpit.
> 
> View attachment 691337
> View attachment 691336
> 
> View attachment 691335
> 
> View attachment 691334
> 
> 
> Old cockpit will destroy stealth ability. Pay attention to the *yellow lines in the cockpit*.
> 
> View attachment 691338
> 
> 
> The design of stealth fighter is not as rough as you think. J20, F22 and F35 should be combined with *parallel design principle* even at the *joint of canopy*. This is why the *integrated cockpit* is designed to reduce RCS.
> 
> View attachment 691341
> 
> View attachment 691340
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the rough design and process of Su57, its RCS is much higher than that of J20.
> 
> View attachment 691343
> 
> View attachment 691342
> 
> 
> The relatively large gaps in *stealth fighters must meet the principle of parallel design*. This is why the fifth generation fighters all use *integrated cockpits*. Interested friends can draw a parallel line of F22 and F35. #J20 #F35 #F22 #stealth #China
> 
> View attachment 691344
> 
> 
> 
> Even the gap in the weapons warehouse conforms to the *principle of parallel design*. *For smaller gaps, serrated stealth should be used*. Russian Su57 fighters do not meet the above conditions. Su57 only meets the basic parallel design.
> 
> View attachment 691348
> 
> View attachment 691347
> 
> View attachment 691346
> 
> View attachment 691345
> 
> 
> Even such a small gap in China J20 weapons warehouse *must meet the principle of parallel design*。 #stealth #F22 #F35 #J20
> 
> View attachment 691349
> 
> 
> OP thread:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1329476300134760448
> _The blogger, 日月同明 @onceggyy123, has joined Twitter since August 2012._


Su-57 RCS/IR Suppression is very poor ... honestly it shouldn't even be in the same tier as the F-35/J-20/F-22. It may have the best subsonic kinematics out of all three aircraft, but that hardly matters when you will be shot down before entering WVR.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

S10 said:


> Screen caption from People's Daily:
> 
> View attachment 691333
> 
> 
> 52km in a single minute = Mach 2.52



You are lucky that People’s Daily didn’t caption the image as F-22. The editors don’t have legit military knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

siegecrossbow said:


> You are lucky that People’s Daily didn’t caption the image as F-22. The editors don’t have legit military knowledge.


I'm sure they don't, but that data has to be provided by air force or pilots. It's the closet thing you can get to an official figure.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 52051

Even if WS-10C has a thrust over 150KN, it doesn't mean there is no point to have WS-15. WS-10 series has much higher bypass ratio comparing to WS-15, suggesting J-20 equipped with WS-15 will has much better supersonic performance (like super-cruise), although the ferry range will be comprised. 

Thats why I think PLA should go for two version of J-20, J-20A with WS-10 for low cost and long range, J-20B with WS-15 for much better supersonic performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

52051 said:


> Even if WS-10C has a thrust over 150KN, it doesn't mean there is no point to have WS-15. WS-10 series has much higher bypass ratio comparing to WS-15, suggesting J-20 equipped with WS-15 will has much better supersonic performance (like super-cruise), although the ferry range will be comprised.
> 
> Thats why I think PLA should go for two version of J-20, J-20A with WS-10 for low cost and long range, J-20B with WS-15 for much better supersonic performance.


After the WS-15 becomes operational, the WS-10 version will gradually cease in production. The fact is that the WS-15 is a generational leap over even the latest WS-10 variant. The slight range improvement and lower cost with the WS-10 is not nearly enough to offset the massive benefits offered by the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Figaro said:


> After the WS-15 becomes operational, the WS-10 version will gradually cease in production. The fact is that the WS-15 is a generational leap over even the latest WS-10 variant. The slight range improvement and lower cost with the WS-10 is not nearly enough to offset the massive benefits offered by the WS-15.


Fuel consumption and range will be issues. If they develop a twin-seater variant for strike roles, I think it should retain WS-10C as engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zhxy

WS-15 will not completely replace WS-10C

WS-10C has its own advantages. China can optimize and improve the WS-10C for special J-20 versions.


----------



## Gomig-21

samsara said:


> From 日月同明 @onceggyy123 on 2020-11-20:
> 
> F22, F35 and J20 all use *integrated cockpit*. Don't underestimate this piece of glass, which is *made of high-strength composite materials by compression layer by layer*. *The process is very difficult.* Even the Russians can't make it, *and the Su57 can only use the old cockpit.*
> 
> Due to the rough design and process of Su57, its RCS is much higher than that of J20.
> 
> Even the gap in the weapons warehouse conforms to the *principle of parallel design*. *For smaller gaps, serrated stealth should be used*. Russian Su57 fighters do not meet the above conditions. Su57 only meets the basic parallel design.
> 
> OP thread:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1329476300134760448
> _The blogger, 日月同明 @onceggyy123, has joined Twitter since August 2012._



lol! There are so many untruths in that post but especially in that tweet by whomever that dude is lol. The Su-57 bashing is really strong from China, why is that? There is a TON OF UNTRUTH in the information about the glass cockpit of the Su-57 and that it's actually a totally new design that they mentioned in a recent video of how it's layered with many layers. Which is the opposite of the claim in this post so right there is a complete lie and untruthful bashing.

Also, the Russians have used irridium based glass for their cockpits and the gold effect (which is quite similar to the USAF F-16 and F-22 to reduce radar RCS) can easily be seen even in the MiG-35s and Su-35. lol so to claim such BS is really a shame, especially when China has learned SO MUCH from Russia.



Figaro said:


> Su-57 RCS/IR Suppression is very poor ... honestly it shouldn't even be in the same tier as the F-35/J-20/F-22. It may have the best subsonic kinematics out of all three aircraft, but that hardly matters when you will be shot down before entering WVR.



No offense, but how would you know that the Su-57's RCS -- and you're even going as far as to claim it's infrared signature is also higher!? -- than the J-20? How could you possibly know that when there is 0 data out there to support any of that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Gomig-21 said:


> lol! There are so many untruths in that post but especially in that tweet by whomever that dude is lol. The Su-57 bashing is really strong from China, why is that? There is a TON OF UNTRUTH in the information about the glass cockpit of the Su-57 and that it's actually a totally new design that they mentioned in a recent video of how it's layered with many layers. Which is the opposite of the claim in this post so right there is a complete lie and untruthful bashing.
> 
> Also, the Russians have used irridium based glass for their cockpits and the gold effect (which is quite similar to the USAF F-16 and F-22 to reduce radar RCS) can easily be seen even in the MiG-35s and Su-35. lol so to claim such BS is really a shame, especially when China has learned SO MUCH from Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but how would you know that the Su-57's RCS -- and you're even going as far as to claim it's infrared signature is also higher!? -- than the J-20? How could you possibly know that when there is 0 data out there to support any of that?







__





A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype


APA Analysis Paper APA-2011-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Chengdu J-20 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...



www.ausairpower.net








__





A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype


APA Analysis Paper APA-2012-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Sukhoi T-50 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...



www.ausairpower.net








You can read up on more RCS tests of the Su-57 ... there are quite a few out there. This is the conclusion of Dr. Karlo Kopp, who performed the most in-depth/accurate RCS analysis at least publicly available of the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## samsara

Gomig-21 said:


> lol! There are so many untruths in that post but especially in that tweet by whomever that dude is lol. The Su-57 bashing is really strong from China, why is that? There is a TON OF UNTRUTH in the information about the glass cockpit of the Su-57 and that it's actually a totally new design that they mentioned in a recent video of how it's layered with many layers. Which is the opposite of the claim in this post so right there is a complete lie and untruthful bashing.
> 
> Also, the Russians have used irridium based glass for their cockpits and the gold effect (which is quite similar to the USAF F-16 and F-22 to reduce radar RCS) can easily be seen even in the MiG-35s and Su-35. lol so to claim such BS is really a shame, especially when China has learned SO MUCH from Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but how would you know that the Su-57's RCS -- and you're even going as far as to claim it's infrared signature is also higher!? -- than the J-20? How could you possibly know that when there is 0 data out there to support any of that?


First of all, I need to correct your statement: _"The Su-57 bashing is really strong from China, why is that?"_

That is NOT a China's bashing on Su-57.

BUT some individual blogger has opinion as such. Since he has been around for many years, since 2012, and posted with efforts and seriousness seeing all the accompanying graphics, I think it's worth to verify 

However, if you have more accurate info then I have no problem to take yours. I myself don't opine in this regard, for I don't know, and also not curious that much to dig deeply in that aspect. So just take it as is... some individual blogger has view like that and made it public with efforts in Twitter. But feel free to counter if his view ain't accurate and you have better info.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Beast

Gomig-21 said:


> lol so to claim such BS is really a shame, especially when China has learned SO MUCH from Russia.



Like how China build a brand new better CV-17 aircraft carrier while Russian still struggle to repair their kuznetsov?

China even build its own LHD 075 while Russian even need to beg France for mistral? I guess you r still living in the past or 90s...

Now is the time for Russian to learn from Chinese or we teaching them a thing or two.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## White and Green with M/S

juj06750 said:


> expecting afterburn 150kN-170kN from C variant;
> but not sure if those image is C variant;
> sources say that latest batches of J16 and J20 are reportedly equipped with very powerful WS10B, which dry powers 96kN / afterburning powers 145kN


And what your source that WS-10C have burner thrust of 170 kn??


----------



## Figaro

samsara said:


> First of all, I need to correct your statement: _"The Su-57 bashing is really strong from China, why is that?"_
> 
> That is NOT a China's bashing on Su-57.
> 
> BUT some individual blogger has opinion as such. Since he has been around for many years, since 2012. But he posted with efforts seeing all the accompanying graphics
> 
> If you have more accurate info then I have no problem to take yours. I myself don't opine in this regard, for I don't know, and also not curious that much to dig deeply in that aspect. So just take it as is... some individual blogger has view like that and made it public with efforts in Twitter. But feel free to counter if his view ain't accurate and you have better info.


Honestly the Su-57 gets extremely harsh responses from Western and Chinese critics alike. And a lot of it is justified. 


White and Green with M/S said:


> And what your source that WS-10C have burner thrust of 170 kn??


The latest WS-10 variant probably has most 145 kN. I really don't see the WS-10 expanding past anything beyond that due to design limitations and the fact that the WS-15 is just around the corner. After all why struggle just to get a few more kN out of a relatively dated engine design when a 180 kN+ modern engine is just around the corner?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zhxy

Figaro said:


> After the WS-15 becomes operational, the WS-10 version will gradually cease in production. The fact is that the WS-15 is a generational leap over even the latest WS-10 variant. The slight range improvement and lower cost with the WS-10 is not nearly enough to offset the massive benefits offered by the WS-15.





Figaro said:


> The latest WS-10 variant probably has most 145 kN. I really don't see the WS-10 expanding past anything beyond that due to design limitations and the fact that the WS-15 is just around the corner. After all why struggle just to get a few more kN out of a relatively dated engine design when a 180 kN+ modern engine is just around the corner?



Mass production of Ws-15 for the J-20 and further optimization of the Ws-10 is a more streamlined approach.

The WS-10 is the most efficient engine for the J-10, J-15 and J-16.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Figaro said:


> Honestly the Su-57 gets extremely harsh responses from Western and Chinese critics alike. And a lot of it is justified.
> 
> The latest WS-10 variant probably has most 145 kN. I really don't see the WS-10 expanding past anything beyond that due to design limitations and the fact that the WS-15 is just around the corner. After all why struggle just to get a few more kN out of a relatively dated engine design when a 180 kN+ modern engine is just around the corner?



The WS-10B is 150KN, and it has powered the J-20A since 2011.

The WS-15 is 180KN, and it had its first maiden flight with the J-20B since 2017.

Our aero expert has already confirmed it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10B is 150KN, and it has powered the J-20A since 2011.
> 
> The WS-15 is 180KN, and it had its first maiden flight with the J-20B since 2017.
> 
> Our aero expert has already confirmed it.




Surely not ... no J-20 flew in 2011 with the WS-10 and all operational ones are powered by AL-31FN (mod or -M2. The first J-20A - as prototype 2021- was seen first in mid-2017 and as such maybe available since early the same year. But surely NO J-20 flew in 2011 using a WS-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Surely not ... no J-20 flew in 2011 with the WS-10 and all operational ones are powered by AL-31FN (mod or -M2. The first J-20A - as prototype 2021- was seen first in mid-2017 and as such maybe available since early the same year. But surely NO J-20 flew in 2011 using a WS-10.
> 
> View attachment 691759
> 
> View attachment 691758



It has already been declassified by our aero expert, and why I have to buy the nonsense from the CD forum?

Let me clarify it, the J-20 has NEVER been powered by any kind of Russian engine.

The CD forum is now infamously known as the source of fake news, and never trust anything from them.







宋心之：涡扇-15推力可以达到18吨，看到翻修寿命后都不敢相信 - 西瓜视频


宋心之：涡扇-15推力可以达到18吨，看到翻修寿命后都不敢相信，于2020年08月26日上线，由航空新观察上传。西瓜视频为您提供高清视频，画面清晰、播放流畅，看丰富、高质量视频就上西瓜视频。




www.ixigua.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It has already been declassified by our aero expert, and why I have to buy the nonsense from the CD forum?
> 
> Let me clarify it, the J-20 has NEVER been powered by any kind of Russian engine.
> 
> The CD forum is now infamously known as the source of fake news, and never trust anything from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 宋心之：涡扇-15推力可以达到18吨，看到翻修寿命后都不敢相信 - 西瓜视频
> 
> 
> 宋心之：涡扇-15推力可以达到18吨，看到翻修寿命后都不敢相信，于2020年08月26日上线，由航空新观察上传。西瓜视频为您提供高清视频，画面清晰、播放流畅，看丰富、高质量视频就上西瓜视频。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ixigua.com




But why does it look exactly like an AL-31, has the same external and internal details which are vastly different to the WS-10? As such when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is not a chicken, regardless what any "expert" says.

Anyway thanks for the link.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It has already been declassified by our aero expert, and why I have to buy the nonsense from the CD forum?
> 
> Let me clarify it, the J-20 has NEVER been powered by any kind of Russian engine.
> 
> The CD forum is now infamously known as the source of fake news, and never trust anything from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 宋心之：涡扇-15推力可以达到18吨，看到翻修寿命后都不敢相信 - 西瓜视频
> 
> 
> 宋心之：涡扇-15推力可以达到18吨，看到翻修寿命后都不敢相信，于2020年08月26日上线，由航空新观察上传。西瓜视频为您提供高清视频，画面清晰、播放流畅，看丰富、高质量视频就上西瓜视频。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ixigua.com


I'm pretty sure the chief test pilot of the J-10 who knew the people who flew on the J-20 prototypes stated all the prototypes and initial batch were powered by Russian engines.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> But why does it look exactly like an AL-31, has the same external and internal details which are vastly different to the WS-10? As such when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is not a chicken, regardless what any "expert" says.
> 
> Anyway thanks for the link.



Only coincidence, but he definitely stressed that only two types of engine have been used for the J-20: WS-10B and WS-15.

Our veteran test pilot of J-10 had also leaked about the WS-15 back in 2018; the J-20B already got it.

Two true military insiders have already declassified the WS-15, yet most people still ignore their words, but choose to believe those fake military insiders from the CD forum.


Figaro said:


> I'm pretty sure the chief test pilot of the J-10 who knew the people who flew on the J-20 prototypes stated all the prototypes and initial batch were powered by Russian engines.



No, he never claimed that the J-20 was powered by the Russian engine.

But he had leaked the WS-15 being powered for the J-20B since 2017.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> No, he never claimed that the J-20 was powered by the Russian engine.
> 
> But he had leaked the WS-15 being powered for the J-20B since 2017.




But in aeroengine design there is nothing like coincidence. So why do all WS-10 variants look more or less the same and this one should look like an exact internal and external copy of an AL-31?? It simply makes no sense and even more does not fit to any report from other most reliable insiders who claim the WS-15 is not ready yet; and surely not in 2011.

IMO this old fellow is simply wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> But in aeroengine design there is nothing like coincidence. So why do all WS-10 variants look more or less the same and this one should look like an exact internal and external copy of an AL-31?? It simply makes no sense and even more does not fit to any report from other most reliable insiders who claim the WS-15 is not ready yet; and surely not in 2011.
> 
> IMO this old fellow is simply wrong.



Back in 2011, the CCTV also declassified the WS-10B being powered for the J-20A, but most people said it was fake news.

Now the official PLAAF expert did say the same thing, and it is still the fake news?

According to their own logic, the F-18 should also be powered by the Russian engines, because the pair of engines also got the black hue like the AL-31FN!









So far, two real PLAAF insiders have proved that the J-20 has never used any kind of Russian engine.

They both know the chief designer of the J-20 in person, often had private conversation with him.














Yet the anonymous "military experts" from the CD forum suggest the J-20 being powered by the AL-31FN, yet nobody known what type of punks are hiding behind their computer screen. In the meantime, they have successfully brainwashed so many military fans from China.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Back in 2011, the CCTV also declassified the WS-10B being powered for the J-20A, but most people said it was fake news.
> 
> Now the official PLAAF expert did say the same thing, and it is still the fake news?
> 
> According to their own logic, the F-18 should also be powered by the Russian engines, because the pair of engines also got the black hue like the AL-31FN!
> 
> 
> View attachment 691765




Oh please come on ... the F404 in the F/A-18C is vastly different to an AL-31, I think this comparison is ridicolous.

Concerning the question on why it seems as if two "official PLAAF expert did say the same thing", I don't know, maybe for propaganda - You know the very first report in CCTV was based on Minnie Chan's SCMP report and as such I can imagine taht they continue with thsi claim since it created a lot of positive thinking and enthusiasm in the public.

Anyway no-one including youself so far explained why all WS-10s look more or less the same and are vastly different to the AL-31 in certain details and "by coincidence" this mystical WS-15 should look exactly like an AL-31??

Even more why would the PLAAF accept now a "downgraded" WS-10C-powered version, when the WS-15 is running smoothly since 201? Again, it makes no sense.

IMO impossible and I don't believe in coincidence; I believe in visual recognisable facts and when an enbgine looks the same it is the same in the same way it is a different one when it looks different.

But let's wait when we see the first real WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Oh please come on ... the F404 in the F/A-18C is vastly different to an AL-31, I think this comparison is ridicolous.
> 
> Concerning the question on why it seems as if two "official PLAAF expert did say the same thing", I don't know, maybe for propaganda - You know the very first report in CCTV was based on Minnie Chan's SCMP report and as such I can imagine taht they continue with thsi claim since it created a lot of positive thinking and enthusiasm in the public.
> 
> Anyway no-one including youself so far explained why all WS-10s look more or less the same and are vastly different to the AL-31 in certain details and "by coincidence" this mystical WS-15 should look exactly like an AL-31??
> 
> Even more why would the PLAAF accept now a "downgraded" WS-10C-powered version, when the WS-15 is running smoothly since 201? Again, it makes no sense.
> 
> IMO impossible and I don't believe in coincidence; I believe in visual recognisable facts and when an enbgine looks the same it is the same in the same way it is a different one when it looks different.
> 
> But let's wait when we see the first real WS-15.



The engine of the original J-20 is also vastly different from the AL-31FN, even the internal layout is vastly different.

These guys belong to the inner circle, and the engine of the J-20 is just like public information for them.

If you want to suggest that they were wrong unless you can prove that they were both lying.


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The engine of the original J-20 is also vastly different from the AL-31FN, even the internal layout is vastly different.
> 
> These guys belong to the inner circle, and the engine of the J-20 is just like public information for them.
> 
> If you want to suggest that they were wrong unless you can prove that they were both lying.




Sorry, the engine on all early J-20s is exactly the same as the one we see in all J-10B/C fighters, there are no external or even internal differences visible; at least that I know.

If you know some I would be more than happy be corrected but otherwise even if I don't have an explanation for their claim nor do I have the right to claim they are lying, all evidence is against their claim.

As such if a NASA expert claims there is live on Mars and it only looks by coincidence like sand and rock, I would still rate his claim wrong unless he gives an explanation for this ... and it must be a better one than "by coincidence" regardless if he is an expert,

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

*From Rupprecht Andreas Deino @RupprechtDeino on 2020.11.29:*

_I must admit, I'm surprised that I missed this image, but *perhaps this is the second J-20A prototype no. 2022 powered by WS-10C engines*. 

So far I knew only a hand-full of images showing *no. 2021, which flew first on 19. Sept. 2017* and *reports of a second one in Jan. 2018*._


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1332940857885020161

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Sorry, the engine on all early J-20s is exactly the same as the one we see in all J-10B/C fighters, there are no external or even internal differences visible; at least that I know.
> 
> If you know some I would be more than happy be corrected but otherwise even if I don't have an explanation for their claim nor do I have the right to claim they are lying, all evidence is against their claim.
> 
> As such if a NASA expert claims there is live on Mars and it only looks by coincidence like sand and rock, I would still rate his claim wrong unless he gives an explanation for this ... and it must be a better one than "by coincidence" regardless if he is an expert,



No, these are not the same engines. It looks as different as the American engine from the Russian engine.








Here is another military insider General Yin Zhuo who has asserted that the J-20 from 2016 was the WS-10B.






尹卓一锤定音：歼-20已交付数月 用的就是国产发动机_中华网
 

当歼20从头顶飞过的时候，航展现场传出了震耳欲聋的欢呼声，有大批民众自发高喊“中国空军，牛逼”的口号，民众的爱国热情在这一瞬间被彻底点燃。从最初的“马拉飞机”、四处拼凑，到如今的自主研发、战略转型，中国空军在飞速发展的道路上不断地给予国人惊喜。




3g.china.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gomig-21

samsara said:


> First of all, I need to correct your statement: _"The Su-57 bashing is really strong from China, why is that?"_
> 
> That is NOT a China's bashing on Su-57.
> 
> BUT some individual blogger has opinion as such. Since he has been around for many years, since 2012, and posted with efforts and seriousness seeing all the accompanying graphics, I think it's worth to verify
> 
> However, if you have more accurate info then I have no problem to take yours. I myself don't opine in this regard, for I don't know, and also not curious that much to dig deeply in that aspect. So just take it as is... some individual blogger has view like that and made it public with efforts in Twitter. But feel free to counter if his view ain't accurate and you have better info.



You are absolutely correct 100%. My criticism was intended for the subject matter of the tweet and not at you whatsoever. So thank you for pointing that out.



Figaro said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype
> 
> 
> APA Analysis Paper APA-2011-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Chengdu J-20 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ausairpower.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype
> 
> 
> APA Analysis Paper APA-2012-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Sukhoi T-50 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ausairpower.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 691702
> 
> You can read up on more RCS tests of the Su-57 ... there are quite a few out there. This is the conclusion of Dr. Karlo Kopp, who performed the most in-depth/accurate RCS analysis at least publicly available of the J-20.
> View attachment 691703



Australian Power, ey? Wasn't that the same group that trashed the F-35? Remember all the nonsense they spewed about that aircraft and now they're comparing the J-20 to it. Kinda shifting the goal posts wouldn't you say?  Kopp is actually pretty good and I've read a lot of his stuff on radars and much of it is pretty informative. But even still, much of what he lays out here is speculative when you really get down to it despite all the information he uses and lists. Even the section you quoted shows him essentially giving the Su-57 better beam aspect specular RCS behavior than the F-35 but almost in the same breath he compliments the J-20's divertless air intake because it's similar to that of the F-35.

My point is that we really don't know much about the Su-57's stealth performance and until it's actually completed and out there flying with everything on it that it's supposed to have, then have at it. Right now it wouldn't be fair and neither would it be for the J-20 until the engines are also complete and we have stats to go by.



Beast said:


> Like how China build a brand new better CV-17 aircraft carrier while Russian still struggle to repair their kuznetsov?
> 
> China even build its own LHD 075 while Russian even need to beg France for mistral? I guess you r still living in the past or 90s...
> 
> Now is the time for Russian to learn from Chinese or we teaching them a thing or two.



Hey hey hey woah take it easy. No where in my post was there a knock on China whatsoever. lol, that's the thing around here you really have to watch your words as any form of disagreement can be taken badly.

Much of what Russia has suffered through has not been imposed on China whatsoever, and actually quite the opposite and particularly in the form of sanctions. Russia doesn't have the indispensable funding to pursue much of those carrier projects you referred to amongst other things.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Gomig-21 said:


> You are absolutely correct 100%. My criticism was intended for the subject matter of the tweet and not at you whatsoever. So thank you for pointing that out.
> 
> 
> 
> Australian Power, ey? Wasn't that the same group that trashed the F-35? Remember all the nonsense they spewed about that aircraft and now they're comparing the J-20 to it. Kinda shifting the goal posts wouldn't you say?  Kopp is actually pretty good and I've read a lot of his stuff on radars and much of it is pretty informative. But even still, much of what he lays out here is speculative when you really get down to it despite all the information he uses and lists. Even the section you quoted shows him essentially giving the Su-57 better beam aspect specular RCS behavior than the F-35 but almost in the same breath he compliments the J-20's divertless air intake because it's similar to that of the F-35.
> 
> My point is that we really don't know much about the Su-57's stealth performance and until it's actually completed and out there flying with everything on it that it's supposed to have, then have at it. Right now it wouldn't be fair and neither would it be for the J-20 until the engines are also complete and we have stats to go by.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey hey hey woah take it easy. No where in my post was there a knock on China whatsoever. lol, that's the thing around here you really have to watch your words as any form of disagreement can be taken badly.
> 
> Much of what Russia has suffered through has not been imposed on China whatsoever, and actually quite the opposite and particularly in the form of sanctions. Russia doesn't have the indispensable funding to pursue much of those carrier projects you referred to amongst other things.


I would read these two analyses to get a good idea of the RCS features of these two aircrafts. These are probably the most detailed open source RCS estimates we have, even if they are very old (which is all the more surprising).




__





A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype


APA Analysis Paper APA-2011-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Chengdu J-20 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...



www.ausairpower.net








__





A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype


APA Analysis Paper APA-2012-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Sukhoi T-50 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...



www.ausairpower.net






Gomig-21 said:


> Australian Power, ey? Wasn't that the same group that trashed the F-35?


Kopp is a F-35 hater yes but he makes quite a few valid points of the F-35s shortcomings that are valid nonetheless. Compared to the F-22, there are quite a few shortcomings with the F-35 indeed. But that doesn't make his analysis less accurate or detailed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Figaro said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype
> 
> 
> APA Analysis Paper APA-2011-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Chengdu J-20 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ausairpower.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype
> 
> 
> APA Analysis Paper APA-2012-03; Title: A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype; Abstract: This study has explored the specular Radar Cross Section of the Sukhoi T-50 prototype aircraft shaping design. Simulations using a Physical Optics...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ausairpower.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 691702
> 
> You can read up on more RCS tests of the Su-57 ... there are quite a few out there. This is the conclusion of Dr. Karlo Kopp, who performed the most in-depth/accurate RCS analysis at least publicly available of the J-20.
> View attachment 691703


very detailed high quality analysis. Thanks.


----------



## Deino

Again a surprise... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1333457213118062592

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Again a surprise...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1333457213118062592


I wonder why they haven't placed it into operation yet ...


----------



## jaybird

Deino said:


> Again a surprise...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1333457213118062592



Are we sure that screenshot is not from some kind of movie? Maybe that's not a real J-20 but only mockup
for the movie. And I don't believe there are 2 female J-20 pilots out there.


----------



## Deino

jaybird said:


> Are we sure that screenshot is not from some kind of movie? Maybe that's not a real J-20 but only mockup
> for the movie. And I don't believe there are 2 female J-20 pilots out there.




I'm not sure, but wasn't this from a PLAAF promotional video?


----------



## Jamie Brooks

Do you perhaps have a link of the promotional video? This New RAM coating Is quite interesting, to me i think the image is a little over saturated or some CC maybe, if there is a video we might get a better idea.


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> Again a surprise...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1333457213118062592


air break in early design stage, but no more needed in final design,
It's quite normal, most Flanker has air break, such as su-27, su-30. but no more air break in su-35.

Air break is quite efficient, but su-35 and j-20 use other aircraft flight control surfaces combined to do the same thing as air break.

Air break will add around hundreds of kg of weight, so if other control surface can do the job, it will be eliminated.

US fighter jet has air break as well, but neither f-22 nor f-35 has air break.

Nowadays, the aircraft flight control system is much more advanced that, computer can coordinate all those flight control surfaces all together. It wasn't back in 90s.

Cancelling air break is a big step forward in aerodynamics.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> air break in early design stage, but no more needed in final design,
> It's quite normal, most Flanker has air break, such as su-27, su-30. but no more air break in su-35.
> 
> Air break is quite efficient, but su-35 and j-20 use other aircraft flight control surfaces combined to do the same thing as air break.
> 
> Air break will add around hundreds of kg of weight, so if other control surface can do the job, it will be eliminated.
> 
> US fighter jet has air break as well, but neither f-22 nor f-35 has air break.
> 
> Nowadays, the aircraft flight control system is much more advanced that, computer can coordinate all those flight control surfaces all together. It wasn't back in 90s.
> 
> Cancelling air break is a big step forward in aerodynamics.


If the computers fails/crash what happen than, please tell us


----------



## vi-va

White and Green with M/S said:


> If the computers fails/crash what happen than, please tell us


come on, I am talking about air break.

If the whole system fail, with/without air break it will crash anyway.
Nowadays, aircraft control system has triple/quad modular redundancy. That's common sense.

The whole aircraft control system, has redundancy in *Fly-By-Wire* system, hydraulic machinery system, and many others.

There is no 100% guarantee especially in fighter jet, you have to balance between safety and performance.

In civil aviation, triple/quad modular redundancy is everywhere.

Let me show you what modern aircraft control system are capable of.

This is a F-15 with only one wing left. Safely come home and landed successfully.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> come on, I am talking about air break.
> 
> If the whole system fail, with/without air break it will crash anyway.
> Nowadays, aircraft control system has triple/quad modular redundancy. That's common sense.
> 
> The whole aircraft control system, has redundancy in *Fly-By-Wire* system, hydraulic machinery system, and many others.
> 
> There is no 100% guarantee especially in fighter jet, you have to balance between safety and performance.
> 
> In civil aviation, triple/quad modular redundancy is everywhere.


I know i know but what happened if all system are fails, air brakes are necessary for all jet in case of emergency


----------



## vi-va

White and Green with M/S said:


> I know i know but what happened if all system are fails, air brakes are necessary for all jet in case of emergency


In J-20, F-22 and F-35, definitely they care more about performance.
It's fighter jet, if there is something can reduce hundreds of kg weight, go for it.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> In J-20, F-22 and F-35, definitely they care more about performance.
> It's fighter jet, if there is something can reduce hundreds of kg weight, go for it.


All do have some kind of air brake


----------



## Deino

Wow ... Here is at least to my knowledge the first clear image of J-20A '2022' and it clearly shown that patch! Any info when this image was posted first? ... and even more why I missed it? 

(Image via @szheng615 from the http://lt.cjdby.net/forum)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Deino said:


> Wow ... Here is at least to my knowledge the first clear image of J-20A '2022' and it clearly shown that patch! Any info when this image was posted first? ... and even more why I missed it?
> 
> (Image via @szheng615 from the http://lt.cjdby.net/forum)
> 
> View attachment 692195


looks like upper weapon bay to me  just joking


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> Wow ... Here is at least to my knowledge the first clear image of J-20A '2022' and it clearly shown that patch! Any info when this image was posted first? ... and even more why I missed it?
> 
> (Image via @szheng615 from the http://lt.cjdby.net/forum)
> 
> View attachment 692195


surprise, surprise. The location is very weird


----------



## Deino

vi-va said:


> surprise, surprise. The location is very weird




IMO not and it could well fit to a gun installation...


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> IMO not and it could well fit to a gun installation...


Agree. but no gun in final design for sure.


----------



## Figaro

vi-va said:


> Agree. but no gun in final design for sure.


There for sure is going to be a gun in the final design ... otherwise what is the point of MATV TVC for the J-20?


----------



## vi-va

Figaro said:


> There for sure is going to be a gun in the final design ... otherwise what is the point of MATV TVC for the J-20?


I don't think gun is needed in the first place. It's 21 century, Air to Air missile is way better than gun.
J-20 is not designed for ground attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> I don't think gun is needed in the first place. It's 21 century, Air to Air missile is way better than gun.
> J-20 is not designed for ground attack.


 And if all missile expired by J-20 how can J-20 defend itself from rest of the enemy, and all air superiority 5th gen have gun with exception of J-20, gun is necessary for last diched weapon, so J-20 definitely need a gun


----------



## vi-va

White and Green with M/S said:


> And if all missile expired by J-20 how can J-20 defend itself from rest of the enemy, and all air superiority 5th gen have gun with exception of J-20, gun is necessary for last diched weapon, so J-20 definitely need a gun


F-22 is old cold war design.
F-35 is not designed for confronting J-20, not in their original design. F-35 is multi role combat jet, but mainly play attack role in NATO.
J-20 is a surprise to US.
F-35 need guns, doesn't mean J-20 need guns. 
Not always US lead the warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> F-22 is old cold war design.
> F-35 is not designed for confronting J-20, not in their original design. F-35 is multi role combat jet, but mainly play attack role in NATO.
> J-20 is a surprise to US.
> F-35 need guns, doesn't mean J-20 need guns.
> Not always US lead the warfare.


You don't answer my question, how can J-20 save itself from rest of the enemy when all its missiles ammunitions expired????


----------



## vi-va

White and Green with M/S said:


> You don't answer my question, how can J-20 save itself from rest of the enemy when all its missiles ammunitions expired????


funny. when you have gun, you already lost 1 missile or 2. Gun is heavy, occupy a big chunk of space.
Any space and weight is precious, you have to balance your options, and think how to take the maximum usage of those space and weight.
Everything comes a cost. You carry a gun, lose space and weight for more air to air missiles in the first place.

F-35 can not do super cruise for good reasons. Bulky body, very limited space for weapon bay.

I stop here, mod @Deino will delete our meaningless discussion anyway.

It seems you are quite new to jet design.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## zhxy

The J-20 is a supersonic aircraft. long range, stealth

1. The J-20 is not stationary, it is continuously moving. Want to shoot down with a gun, the enemy must move with a faster speed and must approach within 500m -> 1km. How do you accurately locate the J-20 and make sure it can be shot down with a few hundred bullets when the j-20 moves at supersonic speed and not in a straight line?

2. Assume that the F-22 and F-35 are faster than the J-20 and have a magic gun hit with 100% probability. Then, how did the F-22 and the F-35 return with the remaining fuel?

3. The J-20 is not alone, it is usually in teams, sharing information with each other and can be aided by early warning systems, satellites, air defense radars. It is unlikely that the J-20 runs out of missiles and is approached by enemy fighters within a very close distance of <2 km. What is the probability that all teams will use up all the missiles (including medium- and short-range air-to-air missiles within the range of 50-100 km)? If the F-35 and F-22 stealth aircraft approached the J-20 within visible distance, it would lose stealth effectiveness and could be shot down by J-16, J-11, J-10. In fact, without getting close to the J-20 within a range of 50-100 km, it will be shot down by another J-20 with a short and medium-range air-to-air missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> funny. when you have gun, you already lost 1 missile or 2. Gun is heavy, occupy a big chunk of space.
> Any space and weight is precious, you have to balance your options, and think how to take the maximum usage of those space and weight.
> Everything comes a cost. You carry a gun, lose space and weight for more air to air missiles in the first place.
> 
> F-35 can not do super cruise for good reasons. Bulky body, very limited space for weapon bay.
> 
> I stop here, mod @Deino will delete our meaningless discussion anyway.
> 
> It seems you are quite new to jet design.


 you still avoiding my main question, J-20 have a storage of 6-8 AAMs in its WEAPON BAYS if we can assume that 4 AAMs are on the wings for non stealthy missions thats makes 10-12 AAMs , IF J-20 could expand all these AAMs so how can J-20 defend itself from rest of the enemy

sorry dude you have no logic and knowledge of military tactics and strategies


----------



## LKJ86

White and Green with M/S said:


> you still avoiding my main question, J-20 have a storage of 6-8 AAMs in its WEAPON BAYS if we can assume that 4 AAMs are on the wings for non stealthy missions thats makes 10-12 AAMs , IF J-20 could expand all these AAMs so how can J-20 defend itself from rest of the enemy
> 
> sorry dude you have no logic and knowledge of military tactics and strategies


LOL
Technology determines the tactics.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## zhxy

If China wants to build an aircraft equipped with heavy artillery like the A-10, I support. But integrating gun on the J-20, I'm not sure


----------



## White and Green with M/S

LKJ86 said:


> LOL
> Technology determines the tactics.
> View attachment 692258


So you have different tactics than western and Russian counterparts
It might be shoot and scoot tactics at bvr arena???


----------



## Figaro

vi-va said:


> I don't think gun is needed in the first place. It's 21 century, Air to Air missile is way better than gun.
> J-20 is not designed for ground attack.


I still don't see this though. Otherwise, why would China place so much resources into an operational TVC for the J-20? If the plan was just to rely on AAM, they would definitely not choose this route, going with something like the F-35. The current PLAAF doctrine I think is using AAMs as the mainstay but having a backup option in the form of a cannon. Even Yankeesama says the later production variants will hold a gun and that there is a place reserved on the J-20 for this.


zhxy said:


> If China wants to build an aircraft equipped with heavy artillery like the A-10, I support. But integrating gun on the J-20, I'm not sure


With the J-16, I highly doubt the PLAAF will be going for an A-10 like aircraft anytime soon. Especially since the A-10 is not a very versatile aircraft these days ... after all, it was designed for basically the sole purpose of decimating huge Soviet armored columns in Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FIIL

害，要我我就跟他说美国跟俄罗斯牛逼不就完了？虽然有点无聊但是来来回回嘴炮杠精看起来更= =？话说你们不觉得那个德国人有点像间谍吗？大家各种踊跃提供情报😅

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

White and Green with M/S said:


> So you have different tactics than western and Russian counterparts
> It might be shoot and scoot tactics at bvr arena???


1. AAMs have become much more mature than ever before.
2. When all AAMs have been spent, why would you choose dog fights by using gun, instead of leaving the battle?
3. After having fired all available bullets, would you suggest that the pilots should use a handgun in cockpit?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
6


----------



## White and Green with M/S

LKJ86 said:


> 1. AAMs have become much more mature than ever before.
> 2. When all AAMs have been spent, why would you choose dog fights by using gun, instead of leaving the battle?
> 3. After having fired all available bullets, would you suggest that the pilots should use a handgun in cockpit?
> View attachment 692263


And for the rest of the enemy in the air???


----------



## LKJ86

White and Green with M/S said:


> And for the rest of the enemy in the air???


Do you mean there would be only one fighter to face the targets?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Deino

A slightly better version of that image with 2022 and another new one with 2021.

(Images via by78/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## casual

White and Green with M/S said:


> You don't answer my question, how can J-20 save itself from rest of the enemy when all its missiles ammunitions expired????


J20 would evac when it uses all of its bvraams it wouldn't stick around.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @南部战区 from Weixin and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Daniel808

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 694498



Any summary?


----------



## Beast

Daniel808 said:


> Any summary?


New J-20 can supercruise ,better than Typhoon. Data sharing and situation awareness improve a lot compare to previous batch.

J-16 is good but not as good as J-20. Price is half or less than J-20.

FC-31 new version will be more than just upgrade. From sensor and data sharing will be a level up.

J-10 is definitely one of the best 3th(4th gen western) fighter.
J-10D will have improve range and more weapon payload increase.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Brainsucker

White and Green with M/S said:


> you still avoiding my main question, J-20 have a storage of 6-8 AAMs in its WEAPON BAYS if we can assume that 4 AAMs are on the wings for non stealthy missions thats makes 10-12 AAMs , IF J-20 could expand all these AAMs so how can J-20 defend itself from rest of the enemy
> 
> sorry dude you have no logic and knowledge of military tactics and strategies



I remember an old time when I played the supposedly Jet Fighter Simulator game, but actually more arcade than a simulation. As the game let you, a single pilot with single fighter fight the whole enemy elements in the battlefield.

I don't think a real war work like that. J-20 won't sortie alone. There should be another elements in the battlefield. In some posts that I read, J-20 will sortie with a bunch of J-16, PLAAF Missiles truck. With today level of data-link capability of PLA, Even with 6 - 8 missiles in each J-20 will be enough for an engagement. Because her job is not only to deliver missiles and kill the enemy, but also can become a "playmaker" on the field.

If you say that 6 - 8 missiles for J-20 is not enough, then what about the 4 missiles for F-35? Do you think that F-35 is way more superior in dog fight against excellent 4th generation of fighters out there? Why don't let the expensive 5th generation fighters to do her job with her superior stealth and radar technology and let cheaper 3rd / 4th generations ones to handle risker jobs like WVR and dogfight?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Ten J-20 fighters have been spotted at the Quzhou AB in mid-November. Also there are at least two JL-10 trainers visible.

(Image by GE via A.Man/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> New J-20 can supercruise ,better than Typhoon. Data sharing and situation awareness improve a lot compare to previous batch.
> 
> J-16 is good but not as good as J-20. Price is half or less than J-20.
> 
> FC-31 new version will be more than just upgrade. From sensor and data sharing will be a level up.
> 
> J-10 is definitely one of the best 3th(4th gen western) fighter.
> J-10D will have improve range and more weapon payload increase.




Any guess, when we will see the new FC-31 variant (aka J-35) and even more the J-10D?


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> You don't answer my question, how can J-20 save itself from rest of the enemy when all its missiles ammunitions expired????



I'm back after being banned by deino just for sharing history on how China obtained military technology & reverse engineer. 

If J-20 doesn't have a gun and not intended to have 1, then it will turn around and go full throttle leaving the danger zone before getting into visual range of enemy fighters. If turned around before getting less than 10Nm is fine but if it's dogfight range, it could be risky as the AESA and IR seeker from enemy fighters could track the J-20 under 5 Nm.


----------



## kungfugymnast

vi-va said:


> funny. when you have gun, you already lost 1 missile or 2. Gun is heavy, occupy a big chunk of space.
> Any space and weight is precious, you have to balance your options, and think how to take the maximum usage of those space and weight.
> Everything comes a cost. You carry a gun, lose space and weight for more air to air missiles in the first place.
> 
> F-35 can not do super cruise for good reasons. Bulky body, very limited space for weapon bay.
> 
> I stop here, mod @Deino will delete our meaningless discussion anyway.
> 
> It seems you are quite new to jet design.



That is not a good excuse for not having a gun. F-22 has internal gun, no issue, same goes to F-15, F-16, F/A-18E, they all have guns, M-61A1/A2 with 475 to 600 rounds of 20mm. 

You can turn around and flee after launching all missiles if you're on the offensive but in most situations, bogeys would somehow get past detection sometimes and appear out of no where or they just get too close during air engagement. In Iraq Operation Desert Storm, despite US having AWACS, tactical satellite view and fighters with large radars on air patrol, Iraqi's fighters sometimes managed to slip through and jump on friendlies forcing to dogfight. If you got into enemy's rear below 0.5/0.8nm, you can't use IR guided missile and have to switch to gun. 

In Vietnam war, F-4B that ran out of missiles could flee if its squadron and friendlies outnumbered enemy fighters. If outnumbered or same, friendlies busy engaging enemy fighters in dogfight, your last missile missed and you tried to flee, the MIG would get to your tail and start shooting. Sometimes it's another Mig that was trying to get to F-4's tail while that F-4 trying to get to a Mig's tail. Numbers of fighters being shot down while trying to flee due to out of missiles and low on fuel. North Vietnam best fighter pilot died while fleeing in his Mig-17 due to low on fuel and has no ejection seat. Also when friendlies in danger of being shot down with enemy fighters trying to get to their tails, you ran out of missile, you could still switch to gun to save them. No gun, they won't make it back alive.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> I'm back after being banned by deino just for sharing history on how China obtained military technology & reverse engineer.
> 
> If J-20 doesn't have a gun and not intended to have 1, then it will turn around and go full throttle leaving the danger zone before getting into visual range of enemy fighters. If turned around before getting less than 10Nm is fine but if it's dogfight range, it could be risky as the AESA and IR seeker from enemy fighters could track the J-20 under 5 Nm.



*And I promise You if you once again insult others - which was the main reason for the ban - and repeatedly post endless off-topic post, I will do it again!*



kungfugymnast said:


> That is not a good excuse for not having a gun. F-22 has internal gun, no issue, same goes to F-15, F-16, F/A-18E, they all have guns, M-61A1/A2 with 475 to 600 rounds of 20mm.
> 
> You can turn around and flee after launching all missiles if you're on the offensive but in most situations, bogeys would somehow get past detection sometimes and appear out of no where or they just get too close during air engagement. In Iraq Operation Desert Storm, despite US having AWACS, tactical satellite view and fighters with large radars on air patrol, Iraqi's fighters sometimes managed to slip through and jump on friendlies forcing to dogfight. If you got into enemy's rear below 0.5/0.8nm, you can't use IR guided missile and have to switch to gun.
> 
> In Vietnam war, F-4B that ran out of missiles could flee if its squadron and friendlies outnumbered enemy fighters. If outnumbered or same, friendlies busy engaging enemy fighters in dogfight, your last missile missed and you tried to flee, the MIG would get to your tail and start shooting. Sometimes it's another Mig that was trying to get to F-4's tail while that F-4 trying to get to a Mig's tail. Numbers of fighters being shot down while trying to flee due to out of missiles and low on fuel. North Vietnam best fighter pilot died while fleeing in his Mig-17 due to low on fuel and has no ejection seat. Also when friendlies in danger of being shot down with enemy fighters trying to get to their tails, you ran out of missile, you could still switch to gun to save them. No gun, they won't make it back alive.



So with these two posts, which are useless to the J-20 discussion but only an historical lecture You are already close as one can only get to your next vacation!


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> *And I promise You if you once again insult others - which was the main reason for the ban - and repeatedly post endless off-topic post, I will do it again!*
> 
> 
> 
> So with these two posts, which are useless to the J-20 discussion but only an historical lecture You are already close as one can only get to your next vacation!



What is your occupation in reality world? Whether it's military or business world, you ignore history completely without bother to identify mistakes, you're likely to repeat the same thing in history. J-20 is designed and made out of past war involving fighters. What is irrelevant? I'm in the army, the strategists studied war tactics in the past taken from combat in my country, neighboring and others especially guerilla and urban warfare on how not to get killed and win. You want to say irrelevant? J-20 is made to counter world's largest military, don't assume they don't look into all these.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> What is your occupation in reality world? Whether it's military or business world, you ignore history completely without bother to identify mistakes, you're likely to repeat the same thing in history. J-20 is designed and made out of past war involving fighters. What is irrelevant? I'm in the army, the strategists studied war tactics in the past taken from combat in my country, neighboring and others especially guerilla and urban warfare on how not to get killed and win. You want to say irrelevant? J-20 is made to counter world's largest military, don't assume they don't look into all these.




Yes it is irrelevant since neither a long story about the F-4 Phanton nor what type carries what gun is relevant and especially the J-20 and a gun or not is irrelevant since in modern warfare - esp. aerial warfare - the J-20 will not be used for "guerilla and urban warfare ".  

The problem therefore is that You post stuff that is irrelevant, in endless long lecture-like posts and even after a kind reminder to come back to the topic you don't stop. 

As such STOP it or you are out.


----------



## Death_Angels

J-20 engine is not ready lol..


----------



## Deino

Death_Angels said:


> J-20 engine is not ready lol..




And what is this? ... even if it is not yet the desired WS-15, it is already a working engine and at least more of an indigenous engine than Turkey will have within the next 10 years.

So much on lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## jaybird

Death_Angels said:


> J-20 engine is not ready lol..




I'm not sure if you are a real new Turkish member or one of the numerous shameless false flag Indians pretending to be one and tried to incite hatred and stir the pot. So, I don't want to insult the Turkish here and fell in the trap. 

For your troll comment. The next generation WS-15 engine for future J-20 upgrade is not ready yet. But is very close. Mean while, China already using domestic engines WS-10 variant on J-20. That's better than 99.9% of the countries including India who can't made their own bullets.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Yes it is irrelevant since neither a long story about the F-4 Phanton nor what type carries what gun is relevant and especially the J-20 and a gun or not is irrelevant since in modern warfare - esp. aerial warfare - the J-20 will not be used for "guerilla and urban warfare ".
> 
> The problem therefore is that You post stuff that is irrelevant, in endless long lecture-like posts and even after a kind reminder to come back to the topic you don't stop.
> 
> As such STOP it or you are out.



There numbers of F-22, F-35, F/A-18E/F, F-16C/D/V, F-15C/E deployed to China theater combined in worst case scenario are outnumbering China modern comparable fighters so most likely J-20 would have to score more kills coz enemies aren't going to let fly home rearm and refuel. Same goes to real assault case, you fall down, your assailant won't wait for you to get up but pounce on you and keep beating and it's over for you if you can't do floor fighting. Out of missile, the gun is your chance to kill the last enemy fighter or when your missile doesn't work on F-22/35.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Death_Angels

[QUOTE = "jaybird, gönderi: 12861327, üye: 189124"]
Gerçekten yeni bir Türk üye misiniz, yoksa sayısız utanmaz sahte bayraklı Kızılderililerden biri gibi davranıp nefreti kışkırtmaya ve potu karıştırmaya çalıştığınızda emin değilim. Yani burada Türklere hakaret edip tuzağa düşmek istemiyorum.

Trol yorumunuz için. Gelecekteki J-20 yükseltmesi için gelecek nesil WS-15 motoru henüz hazır değil. Ama çok yakın. Bu arada, Çin zaten J-20'de WS-10 modelini yerli motor kullanıyor. Bu, Hindistan dahil kendi mermilerini yapamayan ülkelerin% 99,9'undan daha iyi.: p:
[/ALINTI]

t I'm a Turk, don't worry. I just said my opinion and it was correct


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 697927



What is that plane between JF-17 and WZ-8?


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> What is that plane between JF-17 and WZ-8?


I thought you would be interested in J-9.


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> I thought you would be interested in J-9.



J-9 is the first of the bunch and isn't obscured by characters.

My guess would be Wingloong I or II.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> J-9 is the first of the bunch and isn't obscured by characters.
> 
> My guess would be Wingloong I or II.




Indeed


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> I thought you would be interested in J-9.




Looks similar to this one ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Death_Angels said:


> [QUOTE = "jaybird, gönderi: 12861327, üye: 189124"]
> Gerçekten yeni bir Türk üye misiniz, yoksa sayısız utanmaz sahte bayraklı Kızılderililerden biri gibi davranıp nefreti kışkırtmaya ve potu karıştırmaya çalıştığınızda emin değilim. Yani burada Türklere hakaret edip tuzağa düşmek istemiyorum.
> 
> Trol yorumunuz için. Gelecekteki J-20 yükseltmesi için gelecek nesil WS-15 motoru henüz hazır değil. Ama çok yakın. Bu arada, Çin zaten J-20'de WS-10 modelini yerli motor kullanıyor. Bu, Hindistan dahil kendi mermilerini yapamayan ülkelerin% 99,9'undan daha iyi.: p:
> [/ALINTI]
> 
> t I'm a Turk, don't worry. I just said my opinion and it was correct


Please explain where your opinion is correct here ... the facts are the same whether or not you are Turkish, which is irrelevant in this whole discussion.


----------



## Death_Angels

[QUOTE = "Figaro, gönderi: 12862857, üye: 186693"]
Lütfen burada fikrinizin nerede doğru olduğunu açıklayın ... Türk olsanız da olmasanız da gerçekler aynıdır, bu tüm tartışmada alakasızdır.
[/ALINTI]

FIt is strange that everyone became enemies because I expressed my opinion ... I am saying that the J-20 is not the 5th Generation. I compare it with America. Explain to me, let me believe that I have the 5th generation.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Death_Angels said:


> [QUOTE = "Figaro, gönderi: 12862857, üye: 186693"]
> Lütfen burada fikrinizin nerede doğru olduğunu açıklayın ... Türk olsanız da olmasanız da gerçekler aynıdır, bu tüm tartışmada alakasızdır.
> [/ALINTI]
> 
> FIt is strange that everyone became enemies because I expressed my opinion ... I am saying that the J-20 is not the 5th Generation. I compare it with America. Explain to me, let me believe that I have the 5th generation.



Didn't Figaro explain in a separate post a while back?



> @lcloo provided a short response and I'll provide more detailed answer.
> 
> Yes. The J-20 is classified by the US DoD as a fifth generation fighter and has all the attributes of a fifth generation fighter. You can read what characteristics the J-20 was designed from below, written by the former head of Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (i.e. the institute responsible for the J-20) and also the chief designer for the J-10. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/translation-of-j-20-article-by-dr-song-wencong.165231/
> Yes. Actually there are four improvements to be precise. The first is from the AL-31F on the prototypes and LRIP models to the WS-10C, which offers higher thrust and reliability. The second is from the WS-10C to the 3D thrust vectoring WS-10C variant, which is around the same level as the Su-35's 117S engine. The third and final switch will be from this engine to the WS-15, which is the intended engine (i.e. 180 kN, T/W 10, 3D TVC, low SFC, much greater reliability). The first two switches have been completed (the J-20 WS-10 TVC version has started production in the summer) so only the switch the WS-15 is left.
> Yes. LRIP began in 2016 and a report stated the plan is for 30 J-20s being produced this year alone. The total number of J-20s by the end of this year should be greater than 60.



Also it looks like you are trying to communicate via Google translate. It makes it hard for us to understand what you are writing.


----------



## Death_Angels

[QUOTE = "siegecrossbow, gönderi: 12862993, üye: 31334"]
Figaro bir süre önce ayrı bir gönderide açıklamadı mı?



Ayrıca Google çeviri aracılığıyla iletişim kurmaya çalıştığınız anlaşılıyor. Ne yazdığınızı anlamamızı zorlaştırıyor.
[/ALINTI]


Yes, I'm sorry. I'm new in form I could not read old messages.


----------



## Figaro

Death_Angels said:


> [QUOTE = "Figaro, gönderi: 12862857, üye: 186693"]
> Lütfen burada fikrinizin nerede doğru olduğunu açıklayın ... Türk olsanız da olmasanız da gerçekler aynıdır, bu tüm tartışmada alakasızdır.
> [/ALINTI]
> 
> FIt is strange that everyone became enemies because I expressed my opinion ... I am saying that the J-20 is not the 5th Generation. I compare it with America. Explain to me, let me believe that I have the 5th generation.


There seems to be an issue with you quoting messages. Please use the reply button to respond.

Anyway back to the discussion, what makes you think the J-20 is not a 5th generation fighter, especially when all major institutions (e.g. the US Department of Defense) classifies it as such? The only portion of the J-20 I would not classify as 5th generation is the engine, which is only on the level of the 117S versus something like the F119 or F135. However, even this will be rectified soon with the WS-15.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Death_Angels said:


> [QUOTE = "Figaro, gönderi: 12862857, üye: 186693"]
> Lütfen burada fikrinizin nerede doğru olduğunu açıklayın ... Türk olsanız da olmasanız da gerçekler aynıdır, bu tüm tartışmada alakasızdır.
> [/ALINTI]
> 
> FIt is strange that everyone became enemies because I expressed my opinion ... I am saying that the J-20 is not the 5th Generation. I compare it with America. Explain to me, let me believe that I have the 5th generation.


and pentagon/ EU countries accept and count J-20 is the 5th gen jet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

I suggest ban anyone who raises meaningless arguments not related to sharing information about J-20. Death_Angels has brought too much craps into this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Death_Angels

[QUOTE = "ozranger, gönderi: 12864099, üye: 140681"]
J-20 hakkında bilgi paylaşmakla ilgili olmayan anlamsız iddialarda bulunanları yasaklamayı öneririm. Death_Angels bu konuya çok fazla barbut getirdi.
[/ALINTI]

SI asked a question. Where is the freedom?


----------



## Indos

Death_Angels said:


> [QUOTE = "ozranger, gönderi: 12864099, üye: 140681"]
> J-20 hakkında bilgi paylaşmakla ilgili olmayan anlamsız iddialarda bulunanları yasaklamayı öneririm. Death_Angels bu konuya çok fazla barbut getirdi.
> [/ALINTI]
> 
> SI asked a question. Where is the freedom?



Look like you use automatic translation on your web browser

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## samsara

Death_Angels said:


> [QUOTE = "ozranger, gönderi: 12864099, üye: 140681"]
> J-20 hakkında bilgi paylaşmakla ilgili olmayan anlamsız iddialarda bulunanları yasaklamayı öneririm. Death_Angels bu konuya çok fazla barbut getirdi.
> [/ALINTI]
> 
> SI asked a question. *Where is the freedom?*


* How about you LEARN to read THIS thread from the beginning, instead of just jumping in with questions derailing this thread?

WHAT you believe or disbelieve is not relevant for us. It is up to you what you wanna believe.

* Imagine the quality of this thread if every "new member to this column" (CDF) exerts his "freedom" and jumps in with question or statement restarting the discussion: "We BELIEVE the XYZ / PQR / ... whatsoever" ==> sorry, but we just don't care what you believe or disbelieve! You can keep 'em for own self.

Your "freedom" is our agonies then!

* And please turn off the automatic translation in your browser, such feature is annoying.
Why don't you just copy and paste the English texts? There is nothing to do with the Turkish or Turkey here... this is NOT the Turkish Defence Forum!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 698503
> View attachment 698504
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo




Looks like older images of 2021, 2022 or even 2101?! ... I would say 2101!


----------



## kungfugymnast

Death_Angels said:


> [QUOTE = "Figaro, gönderi: 12862857, üye: 186693"]
> Lütfen burada fikrinizin nerede doğru olduğunu açıklayın ... Türk olsanız da olmasanız da gerçekler aynıdır, bu tüm tartışmada alakasızdır.
> [/ALINTI]
> 
> FIt is strange that everyone became enemies because I expressed my opinion ... I am saying that the J-20 is not the 5th Generation. I compare it with America. Explain to me, let me believe that I have the 5th generation.



If you compared to US 5th generation fighters, even the J-20A with Lyulka Saturn AL31 is already considered 5th generation fighter. A fighter that has stealth with ability to dogfight is considered 5th generation fighter.

If you look at F-35, it can't supercruise and can't fly faster than Mach 1.8 failing JSF original requirements yet it can still be called 5th generation fighter. If F-35 caught in dogfight against conventional 4th generation Su-27SM3 or Su-35, most likely F-35 will be shot down. So you see, as long as a fighter has stealth, it is fifth generation. 

Hope this explains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Happy birthday J-20!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341295491485736960

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341315867271839744

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.12.24:

_Nice Christmas present: *A 2021 calendar on the theme of J-20, with a different photo of the plane per week.*_
_
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all!
_
_P.S. The *2101* aircraft is indeed the *first of series production*, stolen [got pictured] for the first time on 2016-01-18._




















__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342016252563210243
_* Acquired from the Aviation Knowledge (publication) 航空知识_

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Beast

ozranger said:


> I suggest ban anyone who raises meaningless arguments not related to sharing information about J-20. Death_Angels has brought too much craps into this thread.


@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 697927


J-9VI-2







Via 中国航空报

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-9VI-2
> View attachment 700119
> View attachment 700120
> 
> Via 中国航空报




Oh well ... I know this book 😉

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

An interesting CG




Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


> An interesting CG
> View attachment 700855
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo


Come on, @Deino, interpret the CG's tail number for us.


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Come on, @Deino, interpret the CG's tail number for us.




Already done 😉 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343613908783931395

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## TNT

The J20 design is unique. It has very small vertical stabalizers. This also creates a kind of illusion of making it look huge. With TVC it will be highly maneuverable. I think Pakistan should talk to china for acquisition of J20 for our future requirements.


----------



## Sharma Ji

TNT said:


> The J20 design is unique. It has very small vertical stabalizers. This also creates a kind of illusion of making it look huge. With TVC it will be highly maneuverable. I think Pakistan should talk to china for acquisition of J20 for our future requirements.


Probably not going to happen, this is like their F-22, not for export even to strongest allies.


----------



## TNT

dharmi said:


> Probably not going to happen, this is like their F-22, not for export even to strongest allies.



China have not said anything of that sort. If Pakistan really wants it, they will provide a Pakistan specific version.


----------



## Deino

TNT said:


> China have not said anything of that sort. If Pakistan really wants it, they will provide a Pakistan specific version.




Exactly ... since I haven't said I cannot fly it proves I can??? 

Come on, several posts from most reliable members say so, the J-20 is NOT available for export, accept this.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Come on, several posts from most reliable members say so, the J-20 is NOT available for export, accept this.


USA shut down F-22's production line too early...

After J-20's quantity has satisfied the needs of PLAAF/PLAN, its export will be possible. But at that moment, 6th-generation fighters are in development already.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

TNT said:


> China have not said anything of that sort. If Pakistan really wants it, they will provide a Pakistan specific version.



Pakistan will consider buying FC-31 for export market. J-20 is not for sale unless it is getting obsolete. FC-31 and JF-17 could share engine parts so PAF prefers FC-31 on maintenance practicality.


----------



## CIA Mole

Unless J20 is really cheap, isn't it overly complex for limited tasks such as getting to AWACs or shooting off 6 missiles and running away?

Why not have unmanned delivery vehicle for the same task which would be more disposable, smaller/stealthier, cheaper, and less complex (no canards?)?

Why risk a good pilot and expensive vehicle for such a task?


----------



## lcloo

CIA Mole said:


> Unless J20 is really cheap, isn't it overly complex for limited tasks such as getting to AWACs or shooting off 6 missiles and running away?
> 
> Why not have unmanned delivery vehicle for the same task which would be more disposable, smaller/stealthier, cheaper, and less complex (no canards?)?
> 
> Why risk a good pilot and expensive vehicle for such a task?


Shooting down an AWCCs or shooting 6 missiles and run away is Western ideas imposed on J20, and picked up by forum members as if this is the PLAAF doctrine for J20. PLAAF never mentioned such doctrine.

Fact is that J20s have been engaged in aerial combat exercises with J10, J11 and J16 and have scored great number of kills against zero loss. They don't just shoot at some slow moving large aircraft and run away, they will engage any enemy fighter jets, including stealth jets.

Western experts expect that J20 would be like cold war era interceptor merely based on the shape and size of J20. This is a flaw thinking.

Taking advantage of its stealth, J20 would shoot first at long range before the enemy can act. If all 6 missiles hit their targets, that would be a huge achievement by a single fighter jet since WW2. Even in Vietnam war and Korea war no pilot could achieve 6 kills in a single sortie. This is not just a big deal, but huge one, if all missiles score kills.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

lcloo said:


> Shooting down an AWCCs or shooting 6 missiles and run away is Western ideas imposed on J20, and picked up by forum members as if this is the PLAAF doctrine for J20. PLAAF never mentioned such doctrine.
> 
> Fact is that J20s have been engaged in aerial combat exercises with J10, J11 and J16 and have scored great number of kills against zero loss. They don't just shoot at some slow moving large aircraft and run away, they will engage any enemy fighter jets, including stealth jets.
> 
> Western experts expect that J20 would be like cold war era interceptor merely based on the shape and size of J20. This is a flaw thinking.
> 
> Taking advantage of its stealth, J20 would shoot first at long range before the enemy can act. If all 6 missiles hit their targets, that would be a huge achievement by a single fighter jet since WW2. Even in Vietnam war and Korea war no pilot could achieve 6 kills in a single sortie. This is not just a big deal, but huge one, if all missiles score kills.



Still, if the role is to hit with 6 missiles, does it need to be manned and so complex? Wouldn't unmanned fighter have even better maneuverability and response times?

I would like to see China jump to 6th gen and limit J20 production.


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> Unless J20 is really cheap, isn't it overly complex for limited tasks such as getting to AWACs or shooting off 6 missiles and running away?
> 
> Why not have unmanned delivery vehicle for the same task which would be more disposable, smaller/stealthier, cheaper, and less complex (no canards?)?
> 
> Why risk a good pilot and expensive vehicle for such a task?


You have basically debunked the theory that the J-20 is primarily an AWAC interceptor/aerial sniper. Now you can see why the theory is so stupid (along with the stealthy striker). The J-20 is first and foremost an air superiority fighter aimed at taking on other fifth generation fighters (e.g. F-35, F-22, Su-57).


CIA Mole said:


> Still, if the role is to hit with 6 missiles, does it need to be manned and so complex? Wouldn't unmanned fighter have even better maneuverability and response times?
> 
> I would like to see China jump to 6th gen and limit J20 production.


Why? The J-20 is a very capable fighter that has been in development for the past two decades. Chengdu claims that its 6th generation fighter will become operational before 2035, which if true, is already insane. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

CIA Mole said:


> if the role is to hit with 6 missiles


1. how many missiles do you need a 5th-generation fighter to lanuch in a mission?
2. What can't J-20 do by comparing with F-22, F-35, or Su-57?


----------



## CIA Mole

LKJ86 said:


> 1. how many missiles do you need a 5th-generation fighter to lanuch in a mission?
> 2. What can't J-20 do by comparing with F-22, F-35, or Su-57?



It doesn't have internal anti-surface/ship loadout and cannon? (I may be wrong on this)


----------



## LKJ86

CIA Mole said:


> It doesn't have internal anti-surface loadout


LOL
How do you know it doesn't have?



CIA Mole said:


> cannon?


J-20 has side weapon bays, and short-range AAMs can do that job.
Besides, F-35B/C also don't have cannon.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> It doesn't have internal anti-surface/ship loadout and cannon? (I may be wrong on this)


J-20 actually has a gun port ... it has not been equipped with one yet because the WS-15 isn't ready yet. Yankee confirmed this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Hi, 2021!





Via @机外停车Rabbit from Weibo















Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> Hi, 2021!
> View attachment 701918
> 
> Via @机外停车Rabbit from Weibo
> 
> 
> View attachment 701919
> View attachment 701920
> View attachment 701921
> View attachment 701923
> 
> Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo



Old photos.


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 has side weapon bays, and short-range AAMs can do that job.
> Besides, F-35B/C also don't have cannon.


Worst, F-35B do not have side WVRAAM bay.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Old photos.




Yes, but anyway nice and I think they were not posted in this quality.


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> J-20 actually has a gun port ... it has not been equipped with one yet because the WS-15 isn't ready yet. Yankee confirmed this.


Nothing to do with engine but more to do with doctrine. Days of gun battle is very likely over. This is no more era of mig-17 vs F-4 phantom


----------



## LKJ86

CG







Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> Nothing to do with engine but more to do with doctrine. Days of gun battle is very likely over. This is no more era of mig-17 vs F-4 phantom


The gun is still a fail safe ... in the Vietnam War, they too thought the era of gun battles were over initially. There is always a chance that the aircraft will come within visual range, and then what would you do? What you're saying is like not purchasing car insurance because you don't think you will get into an accident. Besides, Yankee said there was a dedicated gunport so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Figaro said:


> The gun is still a fail safe ... in the Vietnam War, they too thought the era of gun battles were over initially. There is always a chance that the aircraft will come within visual range, and then what would you do? What you're saying is like not purchasing car insurance because you don't think you will get into an accident. Besides, Yankee said there was a dedicated gunport so it shouldn't come as a surprise.


If you're getting into dogfights with a stealth jet, you're doing it wrong. On top of that, the reliability of missiles are magnitude better than the Vietnam war era, which was half a century ago. To sum it up:

_为什么_战斗机_要狗斗_？因为我有超机动

错！因为你傻


----------



## Figaro

S10 said:


> If you're getting into dogfights with a stealth jet, you're doing it wrong. On top of that, the reliability of missiles are magnitude better than the Vietnam war era, which was half a century ago. To sum it up:
> 
> _为什么_战斗机_要狗斗_？因为我有超机动
> 
> 错！因为你傻


How can you guarantee a stealth fight will not evolve into a WVR fight? It's not like the J-20 is just going up against 4th generation fighters where it can easily shoot down from very far away. But either way, I don't see what is the use of debating this when Yankee already said there was a reserved gunport on the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Figaro said:


> How can you guarantee a stealth fight will not evolve into a WVR fight? It's not like the J-20 is just going up against 4th generation fighters where it can easily shoot down from very far away. But either way, I don't see what is the use of debating this when Yankee already said there was a reserved gunport on the J-20.


You have the most sophisticated sensors (radar, IR, optical) on the planet, and missiles (PL-10) that can be cued using HMD. Somehow you're still going to risk a high value asset by trying to get into a WWII style gunfight. On top of that you're using 50 year old experience that no longer applies today.

Yankee has been wrong a lot before, so take it with a grain of salt. I rather leave out the gun and save some space/weight for future upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Beast

Figaro said:


> How can you guarantee a stealth fight will not evolve into a WVR fight? It's not like the J-20 is just going up against 4th generation fighters where it can easily shoot down from very far away. But either way, I don't see what is the use of debating this when Yankee already said there was a reserved gunport on the J-20.


Why they leave out gun for F-35B? 
Vietnam war is 50 years old battle. Tell me ,how many aircraft shot down by aircraft gun in gulf war 1 or last 40 years old air battle?


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 702126
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo




Wow ... a nice start for 2021 and if it continues that way I won't complain. 

Happy new year to all.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 702126
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo


Is this is WS-10 engine sir???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> Is this is WS-10 engine sir???




Yes

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

White and Green with M/S said:


> Is this is WS-10 engine sir???




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1344904108432633866

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 702126
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo




Is there anything known if this image was taken at CAC at CHengdu-Huangtianba or already at an operational base?

At least it looks as if the serial number is indeed applied but psed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Death_Angels said:


> Su-57 I've heard it's superior, but I don't want to believe it. Is it correct?


Yes, it's superior. And the non-existent Turkish stealth fighter is superior to American 7th gen aircraft. Now get lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
7


----------



## kristisipe

Now y'all understand why I hammered that uneducated dishonest turk right from the beginning.  Don't take that thing seriously, just hammer that thing and have some fun with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## serenity

White and Green with M/S said:


> First initially J-20 fitted with AL-31FN engine, i don't guess what engine in J-20, @LKJ86 just only post pics of J-20 without any explanations, if i asked a question about Engine of J20 in particular pic, you have the any problem for my query, if you have don't answer me, nobody have any problem to gives my answer except you troll



Ignore that false flag. The engine in newer J-20 seems to be using WS-10 with saw nozzle. Similar to prototypes flying the engine in tests like prototype 2021 in the past.






From 2017 2018

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> ... back to about 10 years ago only initial prototypes of J20 were equipped with russian engine because our engine was NOT ready yet back then; *after year of 2011 to 2012, we fit J20 with our engine; since then, we evolve our engine with J20;* ...




That's wrong, there was NO change in engines at that time and the first J-20A with a new engine - aka that WS-10 variant most often known as the WS-10C - was no. 2021 which was unveiled in late 2017.

As such, STOP with these ridiculous claims or prove it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## juj06750

Deino said:


> That's wrong, there was NO change in engines at that time and the first J-20A with a new engine - aka that WS-10 variant most often known as the WS-10C - was no. 2021 which was unveiled in late 2017.
> As such, STOP with these ridiculous claims or prove it.


could be later a bit since I remember slightly
as I along this thread almost 10 years


----------



## kungfugymnast

S10 said:


> You have the most sophisticated sensors (radar, IR, optical) on the planet, and missiles (PL-10) that can be cued using HMD. Somehow you're still going to risk a high value asset by trying to get into a WWII style gunfight. On top of that you're using 50 year old experience that no longer applies today.
> 
> Yankee has been wrong a lot before, so take it with a grain of salt. I rather leave out the gun and save some space/weight for future upgrades.



If you're up against F-22A and F-35A, you can't track them and launch missiles beyond 20Nm and no one knows how close range they'll get before you could acquire lock and launch missiles. Risk of radar guided missiles might not able to lock at all is there and IR guided missiles effective range too might reduced. J-20 will get its gun when the WS-10C is proven capable enough to give the J-20B adequate thrust or wait for WS-15 in J-20C only to get gun.


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... please both calm down and stop with this personnel issues!*

let's concentrate on this ... and where the next unit will be formed! 😉

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 702688



Do we know where the new brigade will be stationed? Rumors in October indicated that they'll be in the North Eastern provinces.


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> Why they leave out gun for F-35B?
> Vietnam war is 50 years old battle. Tell me ,how many aircraft shot down by aircraft gun in gulf war 1 or last 40 years old air battle?


This is because the air wars fought after the Vietnam War were extremely one sided ... do you really think any Iraqi aircraft during the First Gulf War had any chance against US aircraft? This is why almost all engagements were fought in WVR ... where the Americans dominated and the Iraqis were extremely encumbered. If the J-20 (or really any 5th generation aircraft) was only going up against these types, a gun may not be necessary but against other 5th generation fighters, it is still necessary as a fail safe. You don't buy car insurance because you know you definitely will get into an accident; you buy it just in case you do. Besides, if there is seriously no need for a gun and everything will 100% be fought in WVR, why then is the J-20 getting 3D TVC?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 702688


*Congratulation to AVIC for exceeding the annual production, tasking ahead of schedule and achieving the high level goal of balanced production. Congratulation to aviation industry.*

*The second brigade has arrived! A higher production rate (of the new generation) is now can be expected, a high level goal of balanced production (referring to the capacity conversion between the new generation and the old generation before the mass production of the new generation), the completed preparation for the expansion of the new generation of aircraft...now the J-20 can be produced more... *

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> This is because the air wars fought after the Vietnam War were extremely one sided ... do you really think any Iraqi aircraft during the First Gulf War had any chance against US aircraft? This is why almost all engagements were fought in WVR ... where the Americans dominated and the Iraqis were extremely encumbered. If the J-20 (or really any 5th generation aircraft) was only going up against these types, a gun may not be necessary but against other 5th generation fighters, it is still necessary as a fail safe. You don't buy car insurance because you know you definitely will get into an accident; you buy it just in case you do. Besides, if there is seriously no need for a gun and everything will 100% be fought in WVR, why then is the J-20 getting 3D TVC?



Many think that when a BVR missile has 80 miles effective range, they can launch the missile at 80 miles with guaranteed hit. The 80 miles on specification recorded from launcher at above 36000ft over 500kts hitting target that is static. In Iraq Operation Desert Storm, all the air to air engagement took place below 20 miles despite AIM-7M & AIM-120A/B effective range at 43-45 miles. Despite up against inferior fighters with poor avionics the pk was 60-80%. 

J-20B with 4x PL-15 & 2x PL-10E up against wings of F/A-18E/F & F-35C, the PL-15 launched at F/A-18E/F probably below 30miles as the Super Hornets with advanced RWR would perform evasive maneuver, turning on ECM & spoofing chaffs with pk around 50-70%. Up against F-35C would start engagement below 15 miles or even closer to dogfight range. Most likely J-20B will be fitted with gun if the engines thrust are proven adequate. Do you think they'll add TVC to J-20B or later for J-20C?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Do you think they'll add TVC to J-20B or later for J-20C?


A J-20 equipped with TVC WS-10 was flew this past summer ... so if you call that variant the J-20B and then the WS-15 one the J-20C, then yes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

samsara said:


> *Congratulation to AVIC for exceeding the annual production, tasking ahead of schedule and achieving the high level goal of balanced production. Congratulation to aviation industry.
> 
> The second brigade has arrived! A higher production rate (of the new generation) is now can be expected, a high level goal of balanced production (referring to the capacity conversion between the new generation and the old generation before the mass production of the new generation), the completed preparation for the expansion of the new generation of aircraft...now the J-20 can be produced more... *



*To put better clarification on above passage:*

From 苗子猫 @mys_721tx:

_“Chengdu, Harbin, and Changhe all exceeded the annual production targets and achieved the balance between old and new models. The other commentator pointed out that *balancing means the conversion of old production lines before serial production*.

Based on the comment, I guess some J-10 production lines are getting axed. Not sure which helicopters are getting it though.”_


As commented at Deino's below post 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1345600291140464640

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> A J-20 equipped with TVC WS-10 was flew this past summer ... so if you call that variant the J-20B and then the WS-15 one the J-20C, then yes.



J-20B having internal gun fitted with WS-10C that has TVC will be almost perfect. What gun fitted will be fitted in later J-20? Are J-11B, J-15B, J-16 and J-10C using Russian GSH-30-1 & GSH-23-6 or China made guns?


----------



## LKJ86

Via https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/h3kBIuNP_oadCUpPBMWsJg

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## samsara

From Rick Joe @RickJoe_PLA on 2021.01.01:

The release on this date is *just another example to me* that there are *probably troves of photos taken in the past* waiting for enough time to pass to release.

*That's why I don't think pictures are useful to measure production or service progress, cause it's deliberately withheld.*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1344905159185371137

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## samsara

samsara said:


> *To put better clarification on above passage:*
> 
> From 苗子猫 @mys_721tx:
> 
> _“Chengdu, Harbin, and Changhe all exceeded the annual production targets and achieved the balance between old and new models. The other commentator pointed out that *balancing means the conversion of old production lines before serial production*.
> 
> Based on the comment, I guess some J-10 production lines are getting axed. Not sure which helicopters are getting it though.”_
> 
> 
> As commented at Deino's below post
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1345600291140464640


Following Israeli blogger at Twitter caught some interest with his slight mentioning as below. This guy is very actively tracking and mapping China's AB, radar installations and units through various remote observation. A little wondering that some Israeli community has keen interests and follow very closely the Chinese military development  

~~~~~~~~~~

From נודלס בפיתה @nudelsinpita on 2021.01.03:
_(the strange characters are Hebrew means "The community of Chinese observers in Israel")_

_Latest SAT images I got from last month __*(Can't share - sorry!)*__ show no indications for J-20As deployment at Anshan (93056/93158)._

_I am also aware of these rumors but I think we should keep an eye on different candidates._


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1345686302725959680

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via 中国航空报

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 703447
> 
> Via 中国航空报


In order for the naturally cool, seemingly simple, plain picture to have its right context... thanks to Henri!

_*First Prize in a photo competition, entitled 《The Happy Flight Test Staff》. *_

Photo via 中国航空报


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1346360008804483072
Some more info:

* Henri Kenhmann: The volume available in the radome appears to be substantial.

* 逆襲 @horobeyo: 1800+ T/R单元，瓦片式封装（2009年状态） 
1800+ T/R elements, tile-pattern encapsulation (2009 status)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 703128
> 
> View attachment 703129
> 
> Via https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/h3kBIuNP_oadCUpPBMWsJg

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


>



Screen cap of J-20 with WS-10 from this TF Bomber video. Apparently everyone was so concentrated on the H-20 non-reveal at the end that the missed this.

At 2:13 mark.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Tatatatata ... 

With a good guess it looks like no. 78034, what would correspond to the 172th Air Brigade at the PLAAF Cangzhou Flight Training Base.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2021.01.06:

_A J-20 series, with Chinese *WS-10 engines and toothed nozzles*, which appears to be registered as 78034. To be confirmed._

Image via 空军在线


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1346808066986033152

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2021.01.06:
> 
> _A J-20 series, with Chinese *WS-10 engines and toothed nozzles*, which appears to be registered as 78034. To be confirmed._
> 
> Image via 空军在线
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1346808066986033152




Interesting, Huitong has listed this particular aircraft now as 78234.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


>



Is this movie? Sky Hunter 2 starring Wu Jing? H-20 bomber won't be flying wing, too complex would involve too much time constraints, lots of trial and error to build.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Is this movie? Sky Hunter 2 starring Wu Jing? H-20 bomber won't be flying wing, too complex would involve too much time constraints, lots of trial and error to build.




No, its the recent PLAAF recruitment video

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


>


I think the promotion video is terrible. Need to hire better PR stunt.


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> I think the promotion video is terrible. Need to hire better PR stunt.


Doesn't matter if its terrible if we got an operational J-20 with WS-10C and a serial number


----------



## GiantPanda

Figaro said:


> Doesn't matter if its terrible if we got an operational J-20 with WS-10C and a serial number



People here pointed out Wu Jing but the young man in the promo is Yi Yangqianxi (Jackson Yee) who is even more well known among China younger crowd. His latest film "Little Red Flower" took in over $116M on its first weekend. He is also a member of the top CPOP boyband TFBoys:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343210570074488832
The PLAAF knows exactly what they want for recruitment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

GiantPanda said:


> People here pointed out Wu Jing but the young man in the promo is Yi Yangqianxi (Jackson Yee) who is even more well known among China younger crowd. His latest film "Little Red Flower" took in over $116M on its first weekend. He is also a member of the top CPOP boyband TFBoys:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343210570074488832
> The PLAAF knows exactly what they want for recruitment.



Hence the nickname TF Bomber for H-20.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> Is this movie? Sky Hunter 2 starring Wu Jing? H-20 bomber won't be flying wing, too complex would involve too much time constraints, lots of trial and error to build.


according to various sources H-20 will be flying wing design, and from the help of CAD software there isn't much issue to design and develop H-20, and stick to the topic please this is J-20 thread not H-20 thread


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> No, its the recent PLAAF recruitment video



Noted, they need to hire better director and videographer as the scripts, lighting and CGI are bad. 









China jettisons Russian jet engine for next J-20 stealth fighter


Chinese engineers directed to modify the WS-25 engine until it matches America’s F-22 Raptor, says insider.




www.scmp.com





Minnie Chan posted slow news, only now she said it has WS-10C engines


White and Green with M/S said:


> according to various sources H-20 will be flying wing design, and from the help of CAD software there isn't much issue to design and develop H-20, and stick to the topic please this is J-20 thread not H-20 thread



I only commented on the video.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

kungfugymnast said:


> Noted, they need to hire better director and videographer as the scripts, lighting and CGI are bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China jettisons Russian jet engine for next J-20 stealth fighter
> 
> 
> Chinese engineers directed to modify the WS-25 engine until it matches America’s F-22 Raptor, says insider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scmp.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minnie Chan posted slow news, only now she said it has WS-10C engines
> 
> 
> I only commented on the video.



What the hell is a WS-25 engine?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

siegecrossbow said:


> What the hell is a WS-25 engine?



Typo error from Minnie probably


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

She is probably refering to WS-15 engine.


----------



## Deino

Nice representation of a J-20 twin-seater ... but does this image and video have any meaning or is it just some fan-art?

via: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ACRDhBGK...fDYV4NGoQgyM9_YL0TceUCVx6tJvs-hC2oNvv4KazQtLs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Nice representation of a J-20 twin-seater ... but does this image and video have any meaning or is it just some fan-art?
> 
> via: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ACRDhBGK...fDYV4NGoQgyM9_YL0TceUCVx6tJvs-hC2oNvv4KazQtLs
> 
> View attachment 704786


The key point is that the video is from AVIC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> The key point is that the video is from AVIC.




So it is true?? I only read some forums where they claim it would be AVIC's or even the official CAC account showing this video for the 10th anniversary of the J-20.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> So it is true?? I only read some forums where they claim it would be AVIC's or even the official CAC account showing this video for the 10th anniversary of the J-20.


@航空工业 from Weixin is AVIC's official account.


https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ACRDhBGKYN1ZG9B4iF4UAQ?fbclid=IwAR1NobqXRuEtyPfDYV4NGoQgyM9_YL0TceUCVx6tJvs-hC2oNvv4KazQtLs

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kabira

*Chinese engineers directed to modify the WS-25 engine until it matches America’s F-22 Raptor, says insider*
*The pandemic and other issues have caused delays, with warning that China risks falling behind in long-term aircraft development*



China will cease using the Russian engine currently fitted on China’s new generation 
J-20 stealth fighter jet
, replacing it with an upgraded home-grown engine.

*A military insider told the South China Morning PostChinese aircraft engineers found their domestically built WS-10C, the modified version of the WS-10 engine, to be as good as the *
*Russian AL-31F engines*
.
“It’s impossible for China to rely on the Russian engine, because Russia asked China to purchase more Su-35 fighter jets in exchange for the AL-31F engine deals,” the insider, who requested anonymity, said.

“The key problem is – except for its longer combat range advantage – the radar, navigation system and other electronic components on the Su-35s are inferior to Chinese aircraft like the J-16 strike fighter.”









China jettisons Russian jet engine for next J-20 stealth fighter


Chinese engineers directed to modify the WS-25 engine until it matches America’s F-22 Raptor, says insider.




www.scmp.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Nice representation of a J-20 twin-seater ... but does this image and video have any meaning or is it just some fan-art?
> 
> via: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ACRDhBGK...fDYV4NGoQgyM9_YL0TceUCVx6tJvs-hC2oNvv4KazQtLs
> 
> View attachment 704786

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Globenim

Kabira said:


> *says insider
> The pandemic and other issues have caused delays, with warning that China risks falling behind
> A military insider told the South China Morning Post Chinese aircraft engineers found*
> the insider, who requested anonymity, said.


Source: South China Morning Post
Doubt 😐
Author: Minnie Chan
Even bigger doubt 😐
Template: Piece of superficial old already public information + dubious reports from nameless sources + thinly veiled denigrating comments about country, people or products
Even greater doubt 😐

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Figaro

Kabira said:


> *Chinese engineers directed to modify the WS-25 engine until it matches America’s F-22 Raptor, says insider*
> *The pandemic and other issues have caused delays, with warning that China risks falling behind in long-term aircraft development*
> 
> 
> 
> China will cease using the Russian engine currently fitted on China’s new generation
> J-20 stealth fighter jet
> , replacing it with an upgraded home-grown engine.
> 
> *A military insider told the South China Morning PostChinese aircraft engineers found their domestically built WS-10C, the modified version of the WS-10 engine, to be as good as the *
> *Russian AL-31F engines*
> .
> “It’s impossible for China to rely on the Russian engine, because Russia asked China to purchase more Su-35 fighter jets in exchange for the AL-31F engine deals,” the insider, who requested anonymity, said.
> 
> “The key problem is – except for its longer combat range advantage – the radar, navigation system and other electronic components on the Su-35s are inferior to Chinese aircraft like the J-16 strike fighter.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China jettisons Russian jet engine for next J-20 stealth fighter
> 
> 
> Chinese engineers directed to modify the WS-25 engine until it matches America’s F-22 Raptor, says insider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scmp.com


Any article by Minnie Chan or the SCMP should be considered not credible at first sight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


>


The song "Covering the sky" praises the 10th anniversary of the maiden flight of the J-20!


From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2021.01.09:

_In a video published yesterday *by AVIC* on its Weixin account, to celebrate the 10 years of J-20 test flight, the *two-seater version appeared for the 1st time* as a synthetic image._

_The technological demonstrator of the J-20 (2001) made its *maiden flight on 2011-01-11*._


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347755811146067968

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## juj06750

kungfugymnast said:


> China jettisons Russian jet engine for next J-20 stealth fighter
> 
> 
> Chinese engineers directed to modify the WS-25 engine until it matches America’s F-22 Raptor, says insider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scmp.com


NONE of true; once again, please leave any article by Minnie Chan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

A new slightly clearer image of the J-20's cockpit was posted based again on an enhanced reflection in the pilot's visor showing what appears to show a large touchscreen panoramic cockpit display (PCD) & a smaller LCD set below. 

(Image courtesy of DSSL via Huitong's CMA-Blog)

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Deino said:


> A new slightly clearer image of the J-20's cockpit was posted based again on an enhanced reflection in the pilot's visor showing what appears to show a large touchscreen panoramic cockpit display (PCD) & a smaller LCD set below.
> 
> (Image courtesy of DSSL via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 705067
> 
> View attachment 705069


most probably but can say for sure of this blurry image


----------



## Gomig-21

Not sure if these are new or not. Supposedly 9th Air Brigade, Wuhu Air Base.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

Gomig-21 said:


> Not sure if these are new or not. Supposedly 9th Air Brigade, Wuhu Air Base.


These are photos from November 2018 Zhuhai Airshow. Anyway they are nice recap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Gomig-21 said:


> Not sure if these are new or not. Supposedly 9th Air Brigade, Wuhu Air Base.




As noted ... those are old but VERRY nice - especially since I attended the show - but they are all from the 172nd Air Brigade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Speaking of recapping Zhuhai 2018, here's some great footage from the show:




4:26, dat condensation...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> A new slightly clearer image of the J-20's cockpit was posted based again on an enhanced reflection in the pilot's visor showing what appears to show a large touchscreen panoramic cockpit display (PCD) & a smaller LCD set below.
> 
> (Image courtesy of DSSL via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 705067
> 
> View attachment 705069



How could they tell that it is one monitor or two?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JSCh

*Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances*
By Liu XuanzunPublished: Jan 10, 2021 06:43 PM



The twin-seat variation of the J-20 fighter jet, depicted by computer-generated imagery, is seen in a video released by AVIC celebrating the 10th anniversary of the aircraft's maiden flight in 2021. Photo: Screenshot from the AVIC video​
A twin-seat variation of China's J-20 stealth fighter jet and a J-20 version equipped with a domestically made engine have been spotted for the first time in official videos recently released by its developer and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force , only days before the 10th anniversary on Monday of the aircraft's maiden flight.

The twin-seat variation of the J-20 could be used for electronic warfare, command of wingman drones or bombing, and the domestic engine means the J-20 is no longer reliant on Russian engines, analysts said on Sunday.

Depicted by computer-generated imagery, four twin-seat J-20 variations were seen flying in formation in a video released by state-owned Aviation Industry Corp of China (AVIC), the developer of the aircraft, on Friday, in celebration of the 10th anniversary on Monday of the aircraft's maiden flight

This is the first time the twin-seat J-20 has been featured in an official promotional source, although media reports had speculated about its existence for years. It will also make the J-20 variation the world's first twin-seat stealth fighter jet, media reported.

By adding another seat to the cockpit, the aircraft could, in exchange for some level of stealth capability and maneuverability, carry a second pilot designated for more complicated tasks such as electronic warfare, command of wingman drones or tactical bombing, a Chinese military analyst told the Global Times on Sunday, requesting anonymity.

This means the twin-seat J-20 could spawn more variations that are equipped with devices corresponding to these tasks, the analyst predicted.

AVIC's video did not elaborate on the twin-seat J-20 or its designed functions.

In a separate video, released on Tuesday by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for its pilot recruitment program, Chinese media outlets identified a J-20 that is equipped with domestically developed WS-10C engines instead of imported Russian engines.

This is also the first time the PLA Air Force has confirmed that a J-20 equipped with a domestically made engine has entered service, Passion News, a media outlet under k618.cn, a news portal run by the Communist Youth League of China Central Committee, reported on Friday.

Designed with stealth capability, the WS-10C engines provide more powerful thrust than the Russian engines previously used on the J-20, since the Chinese engines use full authority digital engine control technology and improved afterburners, the Passion News report said.

Domestic engines will not only let the J-20 become stronger, but also enable the mass production of the aircraft without the limitation of imported engines, analysts said, noting that the J-20 will eventually use the WS-15, an even more powerful domestically developed engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## juj06750

JSCh said:


> *Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances*
> By Liu XuanzunPublished: Jan 10, 2021 06:43 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The twin-seat variation of the J-20 fighter jet, depicted by computer-generated imagery, is seen in a video released by AVIC celebrating the 10th anniversary of the aircraft's maiden flight in 2021. Photo: Screenshot from the AVIC video
> 
> A twin-seat variation of China's J-20 stealth fighter jet and a J-20 version equipped with a domestically made engine have been spotted for the first time in official videos recently released by its developer and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force , only days before the 10th anniversary on Monday of the aircraft's maiden flight.


*J-20 variant may be world’s first two-seat stealth fighter jet: report*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/1/16 17:11:51





Concept art depicts the two-seat variant of the J-20 stealth fighter jet. Photo: cctv.com

China's most advanced stealth fighter jet J-20 could be developed into a bomber, electric warfare (EW) aircraft and a carrier-based variant, Chinese military experts said on Wednesday as latest reports suggested a two-seat version of the warplane is under development.

All current stealth fighter jets feature single-seat, so the potential J-20 variant might become the first two-seat stealth fighter jet in the world, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Wednesday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

already two years 🤔 let see if twin-seat really comes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

juj06750 said:


> *J-20 variant may be world’s first two-seat stealth fighter jet: report*
> By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/1/16 17:11:51
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concept art depicts the two-seat variant of the J-20 stealth fighter jet. Photo: cctv.com
> 
> China's most advanced stealth fighter jet J-20 could be developed into a bomber, electric warfare (EW) aircraft and a carrier-based variant, Chinese military experts said on Wednesday as latest reports suggested a two-seat version of the warplane is under development.
> 
> All current stealth fighter jets feature single-seat, so the potential J-20 variant might become the first two-seat stealth fighter jet in the world, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Wednesday.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> has been 2 years 🤔 let see if twin-seat really comes


You thinks that twin seater version of J-20 is that easy to design and develop???


----------



## Figaro

White and Green with M/S said:


> You thinks that twin seater version of J-20 is that easy to design and develop???


Actually it should not be hard ... having said this, I don't really see a need for a two seater besides possibly controlling UAVs.


----------



## CIA Mole

Does moving to ws-10 signify the engines satisfied performance requirements? Or did they simply do it to go domestic?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

CIA Mole said:


> Does moving to ws-10 signify the engines satisfied performance requirements? Or did they simply do it to go domestic?


no more imported engine from Russia that's means, they will start mass produce J-20A without any dependence of foreign engine


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> Does moving to ws-10 signify the engines satisfied performance requirements? Or did they simply do it to go domestic?


Engine improvements ... the WS-10 on the J-20 is on par with the 117S of the Su-35, currently Russia's most advanced aeroengine in operation. If the Chinese really really wanted to go domestic at the cost of some performance/reliability, they could have plopped the WS-10 into the first J-20 prototype in 2011.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央视军事 from Weixin










Via @航空工业成飞 from Weixin









Via @酒色财气吕洞宾 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @白龙_龙腾四海 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 705708
> View attachment 705709
> View attachment 705710
> View attachment 705711
> 
> Via @白龙_龙腾四海 from Weibo


I looked at the first picture and was like

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @feel的小步舞曲 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @机外停车Rabbit from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2


----------



## samsara

From OedoSoldier @OedoSoldier on 2021-01-11:

*TODAY, 2021-01-11, marks the 10th anniversary of the J-20's first flight.*

_*Photo of the J-20 prototype No.1 painted by the Flight Test Institute.*_







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348471177019228167

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 705731


_*On October 13, 2019, the J-20 was embedded into the "Wanghai Brigade", a brigade of the air force under the Eastern Theater Command. At the same year the aircraft was deployed, it sent a small team to take part in the "Red Sword-2019 system confrontation" and launched live ammunition to destroy the target aircraft. As more young pilots become the new generation of "Dragon Knights", even if their flight time on the J-20 is just over 100 hours, they can still play the power of "Galaxy warship" in the exercise. This is also the result of the further optimization of the "bottom-copying modification mode" mentioned above, which is further optimized after adapting to the characteristics of the J-20.*_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

From Rupprecht Andreas Deino @RupprechtDeino on 2021.01.11:

*Simply an amazing image of a PLAAF J-20A.*

(Image courtesy of JSCQLDB via Huitong's CMA-Blog)







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348395801647730688

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业成都所 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空知识 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Test pilot Li Gang on J-20’s maiden flight.



https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eLVbq0dm4QGH_iRggZHIOA


----------



## S10

It's been 10 years since J-20 had been seen. In the next few years, we can expect WS-15 to be installed on the mass production model. I wonder if there is going to be a major upgrade in avionics/sensors package given more than a decade would have passed since the design was finalized. China's expertise in electronics and radar has only grown since then.


----------



## kungfugymnast

CIA Mole said:


> Does moving to ws-10 signify the engines satisfied performance requirements? Or did they simply do it to go domestic?



Depends on how much thrust the WS-10C generate. If it gets 32,000-35,000lb then it is adequate for 2 seater. Actually the maximum dry thrust is important as the fighter would not go afterburner most of the time. If maximum dry thrust good enough to lift the loaded weight, then everything is good, could install internal gun too if the added weight could be supported


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Engine improvements ... the WS-10 on the J-20 is on par with the 117S of the Su-35, currently Russia's most advanced aeroengine in operation. If the Chinese really really wanted to go domestic at the cost of some performance/reliability, they could have plopped the WS-10 into the first J-20 prototype in 2011.



If Chengdu fitted WS-10B on J-20 prototype instead of AL-31, the J-20 prototype and J-20A would have 30,000lb reheat thrust, that's 1000lb more compared to weaker AL-31. The reason why AL-31 was fitted mainly because there were more AL-31 engines available compared to WS-10B at that time. WS-10B had better low & mid end thrust compared to AL-31 giving it better payload while AL-31 advantage is quicker to afterburner and max thrust. This comparison is similar to turbofan vs turbojet theory.


----------



## siegecrossbow

https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/j-20-the-stealth-fighter-that-changed-pla-watching-forever/ 



> The weeks leading up to January 11, 2011, marked a watershed episode for PLA watching. After years of cross-referencing enthusiast Chinese language defense chatter, monitoring the People’s Liberation Army’s operational security (OPSEC), carefully tracking rare semi-official and official statements, and debates about realism and ambition, the elusive fifth generation fighter project known since the mid-2000s variously as J-XX, J-13, J-14, XXJ, finally emerged in blurry poor-quality pictures at Chengdu Aircraft Corporation’s (CAC) factory from late December 2010. It arrived right on schedule.
> 
> As clearer pictures percolated from Chinese-language defense boards to the English language PLA watching forums, and then onto aerospace and defense blogs and mainstream alphabet soup media outlets, the finalized designation – J-20 – became accepted and widely used. Finally, on the aforementioned date, the first J-20 technology demonstrator conducted a successful maiden flight, accompanied by a J-10AS twin-seater chase plane.
> 
> In the years since then, including recently, much has been said and debated over the exact military and strategic consequences of the emergence of J-20 and the kind of fighter it will be. Less spoken of is the vindication and emergence of the modern PLA watching grapevine and methodology, whose open-source collaboration and dissemination of information was at the time able to predict various key aspects of the aircraft’s characteristics, milestones, and parameters, months or in many cases years before they were conveyed by traditional defense media or open-source government and military publications.
> 
> Big ticket PLA projects prior to the J-20 – such as the J-10 fourth generation fighter, 054/A frigates, 052B/C destroyers, and KJ-2000 AEW&C – all enjoyed their own lengthy period of speculation and analysis prior to their unveiling, but the limited number of stealth fighter types in the mid-2000s up to J-20’s maiden flight put the methodology of PLA watching to the test, which it ultimately passed with flying colors. It is not an exaggeration to say that since the J-20, the predictions and anticipation for various big ticket PLA projects that have emerged – the 052D and 055 destroyers, Y-20 strategic transport, FC-31 5th generation demonstrator, 002 and 003 aircraft carriers, 075 amphibious assault ship, among many others – as well as, various projects to emerge in the near future – the FC-31 derived carrier-borne fifth generation fighter, H-20 stealth bomber, and next generation surface combatants – would not have been taken seriously had the years of lead up to J-20 not so accurately predicted aspects of the aircraft, from configuration to role to expected arrival period.
> 
> It is in this context that the first decade of the J-20’s development, entry into service, and maturation will be discussed and reflected upon, and the prospects for its second decade be considered.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## samsara

siegecrossbow said:


> https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/j-20-the-stealth-fighter-that-changed-pla-watching-forever/


Another very good reading by *Rick Joe*, suggested to every one who wanna grasp the proper understanding of the J-20 development, present and future as well as the general development and maturity of the Chinese military industrial complex in virtually all domains. I just passed along the article to friends via other medium

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Oi! @Deino, what is this shite?


> I’m still going to ask you…how does the J-20 compare to the F-22?
> 
> Only the PLAAF and CAC know this for sure as such, I have to admit I don’t like questions like that. On the one hand because it is not my area of expertise and on the other hand because there is hardly any information available that enables an assessment. I also dare to doubt whether I could do this at all. For me, the question is more how the J-20 compares to its predecessor in PLAAF service and even more so, how the J-20 evolved. With this in mind, I am convinced that the F-22 was actually the benchmark for CAC but I am also convinced that it was clear to CAC that developing a twin-engine heavy fighter and a stealth aircraft for the first time after the J-10 would be a huge challenge. All of this coupled with the knowledge that one has hardly any experience in this area and, above all, that the engines will still only be temporary solutions. On the other hand, it has been around 15 years since the development of the F-22 and a lot has happened in China in the area of electronics, sensors and materials since then. But, it’s important to note that the predecessor of the J-20 in PLAAF service is the ‘Flanker’ and this came from a completely different period, was for a completely different requirement and was designed by a company with vastly more experience. So in conclusion, *I am sure the J-20 is no worse than a J-11B* in all areas of performance, but certainly – especially with the current interim engines – *it does not come close to a F-22*. I do not presume to make any further judgment.











Everything you always wanted to know about Chinese air power (but were afraid to ask) – Interview with Andreas Rupprecht


Few have written more on the subject of Chinese air power than Andreas Rupprecht. We grilled him on the hottest topics in that most dynamic of subjects, Chinese warplanes. China appears to be produ…




hushkit.net





"Does not come close to a F-22" does it? Do you think F-22s have Romulan invisibility cloaks? I can buy that the J-20 needs a bit of kinematic oomph from the WS-15, and rear RCS needed cleaning up with nozzle serrations, but does not come close?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via 高东兴

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 706246
> 
> Via 高东兴


78231. inb4 @Deino.


----------



## GumNaam

given J20's full stealth features along with the size of its massive, powerful engines, this aircraft is the quite literally the embodiment of the saying "they wouldn't know what hit 'em"...invisible on radar, it flies in from extremely high altitudes at extremely fast speeds, knocks out whatever the hell it wants to knock out either on land, sea or in the air and then disappears without the adversary even getting a chance of knowing what the hell happened on account of being undetected by any of its radars. pretty sure the f35 can't say the same due to its short legs. f22 is the only contender that can come close.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Oi! @Deino, what is this shite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you always wanted to know about Chinese air power (but were afraid to ask) – Interview with Andreas Rupprecht
> 
> 
> Few have written more on the subject of Chinese air power than Andreas Rupprecht. We grilled him on the hottest topics in that most dynamic of subjects, Chinese warplanes. China appears to be produ…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hushkit.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Does not come close to a F-22" does it? Do you think F-22s have Romulan invisibility cloaks? I can buy that the J-20 needs a bit of kinematic oomph from the WS-15, and rear RCS needed cleaning up with nozzle serrations, but does not come close?


I would be actually very surprised if @Deino really said this. Most likely, the author of the article deliberately misquoted him, which was something that happened before IIRC.


GumNaam said:


> given J20's full stealth features along with the size of its massive, powerful engines, this aircraft is the quite literally the embodiment of the saying "they wouldn't know what hit 'em"...invisible on radar, it flies in from extremely high altitudes at extremely fast speeds, knocks out whatever the hell it wants to knock out either on land, sea or in the air and then disappears without the adversary even getting a chance of knowing what the hell happened on account of being undetected by any of its radars. pretty sure the f35 can't say the same due to its short legs. f22 is the only contender that can come close.


This is not the primary role of the J-20 at all ... what you are describing is an ultra stealthy interceptor, which is not what the J-20 is. The J-20 has the same missions as the F-22, F-35, and Su-57.


----------



## GumNaam

Figaro said:


> I would be actually very surprised if @Deino really said this. Most likely, the author of the article deliberately misquoted him, which was something that happened before IIRC.
> 
> This is not the primary role of the J-20 at all ... what you are describing is an ultra stealthy interceptor, which is not what the J-20 is. The J-20 has the same missions as the F-22, F-35, and Su-57.


what I said is based on the observation that a friend of mine, a retired usaf colonel, made when the J20 was first revealed. I'm no expert so took what he said at face value which was that this bird is built to fly super high & super fast, go in, kill & get out without being found.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Figaro said:


> This is not the primary role of the J-20 at all ... what you are describing is an ultra stealthy interceptor, which is not what the J-20 is. The J-20 has the same missions as the F-22, F-35, and Su-57.


F-35 is more intended to strike/CAS rather than a True air superiority jet Like F-22, China following a similar trends of USA make 2 stealth jets for different class and weights to perform different kinds of missions, 
1- medium class and multirole (F-35)
2-Heavy class near purely air superiority Missions (F-22)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## White and Green with M/S

GumNaam said:


> what I said is based on the observation that a friend of mine, a retired usaf colonel, made when the J20 was first revealed. I'm no expert so took what he said at face value which was that this bird is built to fly super high & super fast, go in, kill & get out without being found.


Interception are old synonymous terms of modern Air superiority terms, but air superiority terms is more broad term than interception term, interception term is only for intercept enemy jets within the country which are defending its airspace, whereas air superiority term means your jet will go in or around enemy airspace and destroy the attacking defending or offending air superiority jets and clear the path for bombers and other strike packages,

prime example is that was the first gulf war where USAF's F-15/F-16 jets clear the paths for B-52/A-10/F-111 and other coalition strike packages


----------



## Figaro

GumNaam said:


> what I said is based on the observation that a friend of mine, a retired usaf colonel, made when the J20 was first revealed. I'm no expert so took what he said at face value which was that this bird is built to fly super high & super fast, go in, kill & get out without being found.


Yes that was the prevailing assumption at the very beginning but now as @White and Green with M/S states, the J-20 is an air superiority fighter more similar to the F-22 than the F-35. The days of a true aerial interceptor you mention like the Mig 25 are long gone due to their lack of versatility. A fifth generation fighter must take on all types of roles, with air superiority being foremost.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Figaro said:


> Yes that was the prevailing assumption at the very beginning


Where and when i said that J-20 will be have similar role to Mig-25??? i always said J-20 is more closer to F-22 than any other 5th gen jets (Su-57/F-35) ???


----------



## Figaro

White and Green with M/S said:


> Where and when i said that J-20 will be have similar role to Mig-25??? i always said J-20 is more closer to F-22 than any other 5th gen jets (Su-57/F-35) ???


I didn't say you ... I was referring to the prevailing assumption at the time, as Gunnam said his USAF friend suggested. I said that you stated the J-20 was closer to the F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

You guys see those aerodynamic, bullet-like covers for the actuators on the flaps and ailerons? There's two on each wing one for each flap and one for each aileron, but then there's another one under the LERX?! It's a bit longer than the actuator covers but very similar. Any idea what that is for? Is it part of the landing gear doors or something associated with the landing gear? Or is it something else? Anyone know?






Never noticed that until recently. Not sure if it was always there or it was added relatively recently or what? Interesting spot for something like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

Gomig-21 said:


> You guys see those aerodynamic, bullet-like covers for the actuators on the flaps and ailerons? There's two on each wing one for each flap and one for each aileron, but then there's another one under the LERX?! It's a bit longer than the actuator covers but very similar. Any idea what that is for? Is it part of the landing gear doors or something associated with the landing gear? Or is it something else? Anyone know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never noticed that until recently. Not sure if it was always there or it was added relatively recently or what? Interesting spot for something like that.



For containing part of the landing gear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Gomig-21 said:


> You guys see those aerodynamic, bullet-like covers for the actuators on the flaps and ailerons? There's two on each wing one for each flap and one for each aileron, but then there's another one under the LERX?! It's a bit longer than the actuator covers but very similar. Any idea what that is for? Is it part of the landing gear doors or something associated with the landing gear? Or is it something else? Anyone know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never noticed that until recently. Not sure if it was always there or it was added relatively recently or what? Interesting spot for something like that.


It's the canard actuator.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

ozranger said:


> For containing part of the landing gear.



That's what I thought. The reason we don't see it that often is because part of it only opens while the landing gear is folding in or out and then it closes immediately after. During that gear-folding few seconds is the only time I think you can see a portion of that open with the upper landing gear cover.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空知识 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kungfugymnast

GumNaam said:


> what I said is based on the observation that a friend of mine, a retired usaf colonel, made when the J20 was first revealed. I'm no expert so took what he said at face value which was that this bird is built to fly super high & super fast, go in, kill & get out without being found.



J-20 is made to perform roles of F-22 and F-35A having FLIR pod for designating ground targets and large main internal bays to carry air to ground missiles and guided bombs. You could use it for air to air an air to ground, it's multi-role fighter that could fly fast at high altitude or low altitude terrain masking if required.


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> F-35 is more intended to strike/CAS rather than a True air superiority jet Like F-22, China following a similar trends of USA make 2 stealth jets for different class and weights to perform different kinds of missions,
> 1- medium class and multirole (F-35)
> 2-Heavy class near purely air superiority Missions (F-22)



China combined F-22 and F-35 roles into 1 where J-20 could perform multi-role. Unlike F-35 that carries just 2x JDAMs & 2x AIM-120C7 or 4x JDAMs without air to air missiles at all, the J-20 could carry 4 heavy bombs or air to ground missiles while having 2x PL-10E in sidebays for self defense. 

The FC-31 is made for export to close allies that will be attacked by country having advanced air force. Also the FC-31 will serve as testbed for developing new navalized stealth fighter for Type 003 that is likely totally new different aircraft.

F-35 is designed to be inferior without side bay meant for export to US allies and to make money. China is not taking this approach and intend to come up with real multi-role stealth fighter instead.


----------



## Beast

kungfugymnast said:


> F-35 is designed to be inferior without side bay meant for export to US allies and to make money. China is not taking this approach and intend to come up with real multi-role stealth fighter instead.



USAF and USN going to deploy 1000 F-35 in near future. What are you talking about?


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


> USAF and USN going to deploy 1000 F-35 in near future. What are you talking about?



That's why USAF & USN need twice or 3x more F-35 to complete the roles of few F-15E, F-16C or F/A-18E. F-22 and F-35 aren't multi-role fighters if they aren't going to carry external payloads. In past wars, US has been superior than the countries it attacked therefore US requirements for aircraft have gone from reliable multi-role to more attention to maintenance with reduction on multi-role capability as if they'll be fighting only weaker countries without air superiority.

This is why J-20 have larger internal bay to pass multi-role fighter requirements. The new blue arrow multi-purpose missiles (equivalent to AGM-65G) if being fitted on new type of racks designed for J-20 internal bay, it could carry 6-12 internally allowing it to destroy as many ground targets as the F/A-18E or if not at least somewhere close. F-22 and F-35 would rely on mini 250lb SDB with small warheads to take out 6 ground targets at are less armored without blast radius.


----------



## Stealth

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1351792296019316737

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Stealth said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1351792296019316737



You are two weeks late to the party my friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

siegecrossbow said:


> You are two weeks late to the party my friend.


I look forward to the stealth UCAV that will accompany the twin seater.


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> I look forward to the stealth UCAV that will accompany the twin seater.




Me too ... but first I would like to see this twin-seater!


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Me too ... but first I would like to see this twin-seater!



Good chance it is GJ-11 and if we are really luck, Dark Sword.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Good chance it is GJ-11 and if we are really luck, Dark Sword.




Indeed, but any guess or estimate WHEN the J-20AS will be unveiled?


----------



## khansaheeb

Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn






Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances
By Liu XuanzunPublished: Jan 10, 2021 06:43 PM





The twin-seat variation of the J-20 fighter jet, depicted by computer-generated imagery, is seen in a video released by AVIC celebrating the 10th anniversary of the aircraft's maiden flight in 2021. Photo: Screenshot from the AVIC video
A twin-seat variation of China's J-20 stealth fighter jet and a J-20 version equipped with a domestically made engine have been spotted for the first time in official videos recently released by its developer and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force, only days before the 10th anniversary on Monday of the aircraft's maiden flight.

The twin-seat variation of the J-20 could be used for electronic warfare, command of wingman drones or bombing, and the domestic engine means the J-20 is no longer reliant on Russian engines, analysts said on Sunday.

Depicted by computer-generated imagery, four twin-seat J-20 variations were seen flying in formation in a video released by state-owned Aviation Industry Corp of China (AVIC), the developer of the aircraft, on Friday, in celebration of the 10th anniversary on Monday of the original aircraft's maiden flight.

This is the first time the twin-seat J-20 has been featured in an official promotional source, although media reports had speculated about its existence for years. It will also make the J-20 variation the world's first twin-seat stealth fighter jet, media reported.

By adding another seat to the cockpit, the aircraft could, in exchange for some level of stealth capability and maneuverability, carry a second pilot designated for more complicated tasks such as electronic warfare, command of wingman drones or tactical bombing, a Chinese military analyst told the Global Times on Sunday, requesting anonymity.

This means the twin-seat J-20 could spawn more variations that are equipped with devices corresponding to these tasks, the analyst predicted.

AVIC's video did not elaborate on the twin-seat J-20 or its designed functions.

In a separate video, released on Tuesday by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for its pilot recruitment program, Chinese media outlets identified a J-20 that is equipped with domestically developed WS-10C engines instead of imported Russian engines.

This is also the first time the PLA Air Force has confirmed that a J-20 equipped with a domestically made engine has entered service, Passion News, a media outlet under k618.cn, a news portal run by the Communist Youth League of China Central Committee, reported on Friday.

Designed with stealth capability, the WS-10C engines provide more powerful thrust than the Russian engines previously used on the J-20, since the Chinese engines use full authority digital engine control technology and improved afterburners, the Passion News report said.

Domestic engines will not only let the J-20 become stronger, but also enable the mass production of the aircraft without the limitation of imported engines, analysts said, noting that the J-20 will eventually use the WS-15, an even more powerful domestically developed engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

khansaheeb said:


> Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances - Global Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globaltimes.cn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances
> By Liu XuanzunPublished: Jan 10, 2021 06:43 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The twin-seat variation of the J-20 fighter jet, depicted by computer-generated imagery, is seen in a video released by AVIC celebrating the 10th anniversary of the aircraft's maiden flight in 2021. Photo: Screenshot from the AVIC video
> A twin-seat variation of China's J-20 stealth fighter jet and a J-20 version equipped with a domestically made engine have been spotted for the first time in official videos recently released by its developer and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force, only days before the 10th anniversary on Monday of the aircraft's maiden flight.
> 
> The twin-seat variation of the J-20 could be used for electronic warfare, command of wingman drones or bombing, and the domestic engine means the J-20 is no longer reliant on Russian engines, analysts said on Sunday.
> 
> Depicted by computer-generated imagery, four twin-seat J-20 variations were seen flying in formation in a video released by state-owned Aviation Industry Corp of China (AVIC), the developer of the aircraft, on Friday, in celebration of the 10th anniversary on Monday of the original aircraft's maiden flight.
> 
> This is the first time the twin-seat J-20 has been featured in an official promotional source, although media reports had speculated about its existence for years. It will also make the J-20 variation the world's first twin-seat stealth fighter jet, media reported.
> 
> By adding another seat to the cockpit, the aircraft could, in exchange for some level of stealth capability and maneuverability, carry a second pilot designated for more complicated tasks such as electronic warfare, command of wingman drones or tactical bombing, a Chinese military analyst told the Global Times on Sunday, requesting anonymity.
> 
> This means the twin-seat J-20 could spawn more variations that are equipped with devices corresponding to these tasks, the analyst predicted.
> 
> AVIC's video did not elaborate on the twin-seat J-20 or its designed functions.
> 
> In a separate video, released on Tuesday by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for its pilot recruitment program, Chinese media outlets identified a J-20 that is equipped with domestically developed WS-10C engines instead of imported Russian engines.
> 
> This is also the first time the PLA Air Force has confirmed that a J-20 equipped with a domestically made engine has entered service, Passion News, a media outlet under k618.cn, a news portal run by the Communist Youth League of China Central Committee, reported on Friday.
> 
> Designed with stealth capability, the WS-10C engines provide more powerful thrust than the Russian engines previously used on the J-20, since the Chinese engines use full authority digital engine control technology and improved afterburners, the Passion News report said.
> 
> Domestic engines will not only let the J-20 become stronger, but also enable the mass production of the aircraft without the limitation of imported engines, analysts said, noting that the J-20 will eventually use the WS-15, an even more powerful domestically developed engine.



My friend you are late to the party by 2 weeks + 1 day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> China combined F-22 and F-35 roles into 1 where J-20 could perform multi-role. Unlike F-35 that carries just 2x JDAMs & 2x AIM-120C7 or 4x JDAMs without air to air missiles at all, the J-20 could carry 4 heavy bombs or air to ground missiles while having 2x PL-10E in sidebays for self defense.
> 
> The FC-31 is made for export to close allies that will be attacked by country having advanced air force. Also the FC-31 will serve as testbed for developing new navalized stealth fighter for Type 003 that is likely totally new different aircraft.
> 
> F-35 is designed to be inferior without side bay meant for export to US allies and to make money. China is not taking this approach and intend to come up with real multi-role stealth fighter instead.


Stop it with your Stupid conspiracy theory, J-20 is not multirole stealth jet, it has a similar mission profile than F-22, first Mission for J-20 is always AIR SUPERIORITY and then it SECONDRY MISSION WILL BE GROUND ATTACK/CAS/ANTI SHIPING ROLE, just like F-22

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> Stop it with your Stupid conspiracy theory, J-20 is not multirole stealth jet, it has a similar mission profile than F-22, first Mission for J-20 is always AIR SUPERIORITY and then it SECONDRY MISSION WILL BE GROUND ATTACK/CAS/ANTI SHIPING ROLE, just like F-22




Again, why do you even argue with him? It's like stirring into a wasp's nest?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> The 1st Chinese Air Force Air Brigade, based in Anshan, 170 km from the border with North Korea, reportedly received their first J-20. This would be the second front-line unit, and the 4th operational unit, to acquire this aircraft.
> 
> From East Pendulum/ Henry Kenhmann
> La 1ère brigade d'aviation de l'armée de l'air chinoise, basée à Anshan, à 170 km de la frontière avec la Corée du Nord, aurait réceptionné leur premiers J-20. Il s'agirait donc de la 2e unité de première ligne, et la 4ème opérationnelle, à se doter de cet avion.
> 
> View attachment 606421




Very interesting ... this post is now almost one year old and since then nothing! 

Nothing until I received a mail from a friend ... and YES, as it seems, the first J-20A for Anshan no. 61x2x was spotted.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Very interesting ... this post is now almost one year old and since then nothing!
> 
> Nothing until I received a mail from a friend ... and YES, as it seems, the first J-20A for Anshan no. 61x2x was spotted.



Huitong leaked info again?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Huitong leaked info again?




Nope, I got it from another source including an image 😉


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Nope, I got it from another source including an image 😉



Do post to SDF if it won’t get him/her in trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Do post to SDF if it won’t get him/her in trouble.




I promised him not to show. Anyway it clearly shows the number 61022 and that particular aircraft was seen at CAC. I'm in fact a bit surprised that so far none of the regular spotters at CAC leaked anything.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> I promised him not to show. Anyway it clearly shows the number 61022 and that particular aircraft was seen at CAC. I'm in fact a bit surprised that so far none of the regular spotters at CAC leaked anything.



Any info on engines?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Any info on engines?




WS-10C! 😉

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> WS-10C! 😉



WS-10C and no longer in yellow primer?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> WS-10C and no longer in yellow primer?




Yes ... grey with low visibility markings like any other operational J-20 but finally with a 61x2x number!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## CIA Mole

Deino said:


> Yes ... grey with low visibility markings like any other operational J-20 but finally with a 61x2x number!


Does China have any other bottlenecks besides engine?

Like stealth coating and stuff?


----------



## siegecrossbow

CIA Mole said:


> Does China have any other bottlenecks besides engine?
> 
> Like stealth coating and stuff?



Not that I am aware of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

The Chief designer of J20 Yang wei passed his national college entrance examnation (Gaokao) and went to the universty at 15.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## samsara

IblinI said:


> The Chief designer of J20 Yang wei passed his national college entrance examnation (Gaokao) and went to the universty at 15.


Yang Wei had *fateful journey* to arrive at his education, achievements and career today. Even though his exam score met the Northwestern Polytechnical University standard but he's color blind thus failed the physical & health requirements. Fortunately his school teacher knowing his good marks helped him by making some call to the university, and it happened that the head of the department in NWPU, a student of Qian Xuesen, was also color blind. Yang Wei was asked to come and met in person, and eventually was admitted to the NWPU.

And another crossroad, also from his own words in above footage, at one point of time he was just short of one point mark to get the first place when there's a vacant for government scholarship for studying abroad, thus the other candidate who was selected. Upon his flash back, that narrow miss was helpful for his life. Had he obtained that scholarship and studied abroad, he might not have been what he's today.

Some story about his admission into the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS):
如何看待歼20战机总设计师杨伟当选中国科学院院士？ - 知乎




__





如何看待歼20战机总设计师杨伟当选中国科学院院士？ - 知乎


我觉得这个问题问的是：为什么杨伟当选的是科学院院士，而不是工程院院士？当选科学院院士是不是意味着杨…




www.zhihu.com

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## IblinI

samsara said:


> Yang Wei had *fateful journey* to arrive at his education, achievements and career today. Even though his exam score met the Northwestern Polytechnical University standard but he's color blind thus failed the physical & health requirements. Fortunately his school teacher knowing his good marks helped him by making some call to the university, and it happened that the head of the department in NWPU, a student of Qian Xuesen, was also color blind. Yang Wei was asked to come and met in person, and eventually was admitted to the NWPU.
> 
> And another crossroad, also from his own words in above footage, at one point of time he was just short of one point mark to get the first place when there's a vacant for government scholarship for studying abroad, thus the other candidate who was selected. Upon his flash back, that narrow miss was helpful for his life. Had he obtained that scholarship and studied abroad, he might not have been what he's today.
> 
> Some story about his admission into the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS):
> 如何看待歼20战机总设计师杨伟当选中国科学院院士？ - 知乎
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 如何看待歼20战机总设计师杨伟当选中国科学院院士？ - 知乎
> 
> 
> 我觉得这个问题问的是：为什么杨伟当选的是科学院院士，而不是工程院院士？当选科学院院士是不是意味着杨…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zhihu.com


He once wanted to leave CAC for Japan but Song weng cong given him the opportunity to be his right arm man.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Besides the news concerning the eventually halted J-10C deliveries, this is the - at least IMO - even more important part:

So come on ... please show us such a J-20A with 61x2x-serials!??

PS: And yes I know this image of J-20A no. 61021 is a BAD FAKE.


----------



## Ali_Baba

Why would China stop J10C deliveries? Granted J20 is very good, but the platforms form different roles? Do you have an article/news story on this stop ?


----------



## Deino

Ali_Baba said:


> Why would China stop J10C deliveries? Granted J20 is very good, but the platforms form different roles? Do you have an article/news story on this stop ?




Here you go:









Deliveries Chengdu J-10C seems to have been stopped


Deliveries Chengdu J-10C seems to have been stopped. A visit to Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC) at Chengdu/Huangtianba (China) early January 2021 revealed that deliveries of th...




www.scramble.nl

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Ali_Baba said:


> Why would China stop J10C deliveries? Granted J20 is very good, but the platforms form different roles? Do you have an article/news story on this stop ?



J-10C is only good for home border patrol and air to ground search & destroy roles more towards defensive. The J-20A has the combat radius to cover larger area and ideal for offensive. If J-20A willing to forgo stealth could carry far more air to ground armaments and with the FLIR pod, it could perform search and destroy roles with less risk from being targeted by enemy SAM compared to J-10C. Rather than wasting resources on building J-10C with limited role, better build more J-20A/B instead.


Deino said:


> Besides the news concerning the eventually halted J-10C deliveries, this is the - at least IMO - even more important part:
> 
> So come on ... please show us such a J-20A with 61x2x-serials!??
> 
> PS: And yes I know this image of J-20A no. 61021 is a BAD FAKE.
> 
> View attachment 709705
> 
> View attachment 709706



Replace J-11? Not phasing out totally obsolete old J-7 and J-8?


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> Stop it with your Stupid conspiracy theory, J-20 is not multirole stealth jet, it has a similar mission profile than F-22, first Mission for J-20 is always AIR SUPERIORITY and then it SECONDRY MISSION WILL BE GROUND ATTACK/CAS/ANTI SHIPING ROLE, just like F-22



This is not conspiracy but facts. Why do you think the purpose of J-20 having built-in FLIR pod similar to F-35 underneath the nose radome for? That is for search and destroy purpose allowing J-20 to designate ground targets. F-14A/B, F-15C & F-22 don't have FLIR pods because their roles are solely air to air. F-22A can't carry JDAM but could carry GPS guided SDB if really necessary but the plan was scrapped. 

China is not planning to have its variant of F-35 therefore stealth strategic strike role is flown by J-20. FC-31 is test bed for J-35 and also for export market won't enter service with PLAAF. When there's J-20 carrying air to ground armaments, what will you say then? It was stated in PLAAF statement that J-20 is meant for multi-role fighter bomber, not just a fighter which is why they made the internal bay large enough to fit air to ground missiles and bombs that it could designate ground targets.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> J-10C is only good for home border patrol and air to ground search & destroy roles more towards defensive. The J-20A has the combat radius to cover larger area and ideal for offensive. If J-20A willing to forgo stealth could carry far more air to ground armaments and with the FLIR pod, it could perform search and destroy roles with less risk from being targeted by enemy SAM compared to J-10C. Rather than wasting resources on building J-10C with limited role, better build more J-20A/B instead.
> 
> 
> Replace J-11? Not phasing out totally obsolete old J-7 and J-8?


Stop you stupid conspiracy theory about J-20, J-20 is not a multirole jet but its primary mission will be always AIR SUPERIORTY and then its has secondary missions of strike/cas just like F-22, stop being stupid, J-20 isn't a STEALTH VERSION OF SU-34 as you think


kungfugymnast said:


> This is not conspiracy but facts. Why do you think the purpose of J-20 having built-in FLIR pod similar to F-35 underneath the nose radome for? That is for search and destroy purpose allowing J-20 to designate ground targets. F-14A/B, F-15C & F-22 don't have FLIR pods because their roles are solely air to air. F-22A can't carry JDAM but could carry GPS guided SDB if really necessary but the plan was scrapped.
> 
> China is not planning to have its variant of F-35 therefore stealth strategic strike role is flown by J-20. FC-31 is test bed for J-35 and also for export market won't enter service with PLAAF. When there's J-20 carrying air to ground armaments, what will you say then? It was stated in PLAAF statement that J-20 is meant for multi-role fighter bomber, not just a fighter which is why they made the internal bay large enough to fit air to ground missiles and bombs that it could designate ground targets.


Your this false theory is already debunk by senior Chinese member here J-20 ETOS is basically a stealth oriented IRST (to detect air targets first than it has secondary mission to detect and destroy ground target) with only glide bombs and wind corrected munitions, same like F-22


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> J-10C is only good for home border patrol and air to ground search & destroy roles more towards defensive. The J-20A has the combat radius to cover larger area and ideal for offensive. If J-20A willing to forgo stealth could carry far more air to ground armaments and with the FLIR pod, it could perform search and destroy roles with less risk from being targeted by enemy SAM compared to J-10C. Rather than wasting resources on building J-10C with limited role, better build more J-20A/B instead.
> 
> 
> Replace J-11? Not phasing out totally obsolete old J-7 and J-8?




This is quite a typical habit, the PLAAF replaces the old top-tier fighters (like in this case the old Su-30MKK and J-11/Su-27SK) with the new top-tier fighter in the elite regiments/brigades and then replaces even older types like J-7 and J-7 with those fighters. As such, nothing unusual nor unexpected.

For example the former 44th Division's 131st AR was the first to receive the J-10A ... and when they gained J-10C the J-10A were delivered to the 132nd AR to replace J-7.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> This is quite a typical habit, the PLAAF replaces the old top-tier fighters (like in this case the old Su-30MKK and J-11/Su-27SK) with the new top-tier fighter in the elite regiments/brigades and then replaces even older types like J-7 and J-7 with those fighters. As such, nothing unusual nor unexpected.
> 
> For example the former 44th Division's 131st AR was the first to receive the J-10A ... and when they gained J-10C the J-10A were delivered to the 132nd AR to replace J-7.



They are essentially the hand-me-down clothes of the fighter jet world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

siegecrossbow said:


> They are essentially the hand-me-down clothes of the fighter jet world.



What will they do with the hundreds of j7?


----------



## Deino

CIA Mole said:


> What will they do with the hundreds of j7?



At best scrapped

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

CIA Mole said:


> What will they do with the hundreds of j7?



Most are scrapped like Deino suggested. Some are placed in reserve.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

siegecrossbow said:


> Most are scrapped like Deino suggested. Some are placed in reserve.



Drones too. Target and otherwise.

China had been doing this to old fighters for a few decades now. 

The J-6 based B-6 drones:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deliveries Chengdu J-10C seems to have been stopped
> 
> 
> Deliveries Chengdu J-10C seems to have been stopped. A visit to Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC) at Chengdu/Huangtianba (China) early January 2021 revealed that deliveries of th...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scramble.nl


Whose visit? Their own visit? Source?

No additional info aside from the Scramble's own statement, which is a media of/for Dutch aviation society. I will take the words from the South China Morning Post than a Dutch media "in this subject" for the apparent reason, accessibility to the source


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

CIA Mole said:


> What will they do with the hundreds of j7?


They will be coverted to unmanned drones.


----------



## Beast

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> They will be coverted to unmanned drones.


For pilots to gain flight times.


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> Stop you stupid conspiracy theory about J-20, J-20 is not a multirole jet but its primary mission will be always AIR SUPERIORTY and then its has secondary missions of strike/cas just like F-22, stop being stupid, J-20 isn't a STEALTH VERSION OF SU-34 as you think
> 
> Your this false theory is already debunk by senior Chinese member here J-20 ETOS is basically a stealth oriented IRST (to detect air targets first than it has secondary mission to detect and destroy ground target) with only glide bombs and wind corrected munitions, same like F-22



If you can't stick to proper debate, you shouldn't be on forum. Stupid applies to you as only stupid can't stick to proper explanation with facts. If you talk like this in real world especially at work, you'll be receiving warning letter. Probably you did due to serious attitude issue 

If the built in pod below radome is just IRST, then it's a disappointment because it looks like F-35 FLIR pod but just an oversized IRST.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> This is quite a typical habit, the PLAAF replaces the old top-tier fighters (like in this case the old Su-30MKK and J-11/Su-27SK) with the new top-tier fighter in the elite regiments/brigades and then replaces even older types like J-7 and J-7 with those fighters. As such, nothing unusual nor unexpected.
> 
> For example the former 44th Division's 131st AR was the first to receive the J-10A ... and when they gained J-10C the J-10A were delivered to the 132nd AR to replace J-7.



Thanks for the information. Glad that only obsolete J-7 being phasing out for good


Deino said:


> This is quite a typical habit, the PLAAF replaces the old top-tier fighters (like in this case the old Su-30MKK and J-11/Su-27SK) with the new top-tier fighter in the elite regiments/brigades and then replaces even older types like J-7 and J-7 with those fighters. As such, nothing unusual nor unexpected.
> 
> For example the former 44th Division's 131st AR was the first to receive the J-10A ... and when they gained J-10C the J-10A were delivered to the 132nd AR to replace J-7.



Thanks for the information. Glad that only obsolete J-7 being phasing out for good

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CIA Mole

Is


samsara said:


> Whose visit? Their own visit? Source?
> 
> No additional info aside from the Scramble's own statement, which is a media of/for Dutch aviation society. I will take the words from the South China Morning Post than a Dutch media "in this subject" for the apparent reason, accessibility to the source
> 
> View attachment 710249




Would be nice to see China make like 100-200 J20/year even with WS-10 instead of ws-15

Is 1 J20 worth 2 J10's?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> If you can't stick to proper debate, you shouldn't be on forum. Stupid applies to you as only stupid can't stick to proper explanation with facts. If you talk like this in real world especially at work, you'll be receiving warning letter. Probably you did due to serious attitude issue
> 
> If the built in pod below radome is just IRST, then it's a disappointment because it looks like F-35 FLIR pod but just an oversized IRST.


Believe what you want, but fact and realities is that J-20 is pure air superiority jet with secondary strike capability, and your baseless assumption can't change that fact


CIA Mole said:


> Is
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see China make like 100-200 J20/year even with WS-10 instead of ws-15


Oh my god do you know how expensive to produce 100/200 J-20/year even for west/China/Russia, this is impossible


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> If you can't stick to proper debate, you shouldn't be on forum. Stupid applies to you as only stupid can't stick to proper explanation with facts. If you talk like this in real world especially at work, you'll be receiving warning letter. Probably you did due to serious attitude issue
> 
> If the built in pod below radome is just IRST, then it's a disappointment because it looks like F-35 FLIR pod but just an oversized IRST.


 i am using logic and common sense unlike you that imposing forcefully your stupid assumptions and theories on others and tell me which air to ground weapons (long range hundred of kilometers) shown by CAC or PLAAF on J-20 Chinese version of small diameter bomb and LS-PGB can carried by J-20, and J-20 ETOS is also act as countermeasures against IR guided AAM, and look at you negative rating, my guess is you already received to many warning from MODS


----------



## samsara

TO MODS here:

@Deino @waz @BHarwana @LeGenD

I'd like to raise to the attention of all in moderating and administrative positions due to there are too many *"low effort posts"* even in the flagship military threads like J-20; Y-20; 00X/003 and so on.

This kind of problem is being tackled well in competing English-language forum like SDF

but the same situation cannot be said about this forum.

Therefore not only the quality of members and active posters play important factor differentiating the two forums, but also the rules and administrative efforts do affects the two -- thus they call themselves "prof" and here "fan-boys". There the ACTIVE mods are several -- ACTIVE for they are engaging in discussions there, thus response is quick. Here the active one is mostly Deino.

There, as its name stipulates, the "Sino or Chinese Defence subject" is the main feat, thus gets most or all resources.
Here, the "Chinese Defence subject" is just the minor part of the bigger subject.

With some members here *at the posting binge throwing out all kinds of opinions at ease, without self-refrain efforts, due to lack of administrative actions*, repeatedly, from one occasion to another, stirring annoying turbulence, will anyone in doubt that the quality of this Chinese section is deteriorating over time (vis-à-vis the American-owned SDF) ???

I hope mods will put attention and efforts to minimize those *"low effort posts"* include but not limited to the* troublesome individual opinion push, even the ridiculous ones* due to the lax administrative measures and attention given here.

Please take a look at above link to get some idea to rectify the overall, general situation in this section. Thing is unhealthy here, no wonder the quality is decreasing!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> Is
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see China make like 100-200 J20/year even with WS-10 instead of ws-15
> 
> Is 1 J20 worth 2 J10's?


Yes. One J-20 is probably worth 10 J-10s to be honest, maybe even more.


----------



## CIA Mole

Figaro said:


> Yes. One J-20 is probably worth 10 J-10s to be honest, maybe even more.


Is Ws10 currently on par with al41?

Would that give j20 supercruise


----------



## kungfugymnast

CIA Mole said:


> Is Ws10 currently on par with al41?
> 
> Would that give j20 supercruise



Depends on its maximum military trust in thrust to weight ratio. If WS-10C could generate more than 20,000lb dry thrust per engine, with J-20 loaded take off weight around 60-70,000lb, it should be able to cruise faster than 1.2, 1.5 at high altitude. F-22 has about 23,000lb dry thrust per engine, with both engines having 46,000lb on 100% military thrust which is higher than F/A-18E maximum thrust with afterburner at 22,000lb each engine. EF2000 relies on lightweight carbon fiber to supercruise with medium size engines not more powerful than super hornet. 

Until now, there's no confirmed specifications whether WS-10C maximum thrust on afterburner at 32,000lb or 35,000lb. Without actual data, we could do simple maths with general estimate on dry & reheat thrust difference at 10,000lb+ boundary. 
- Earlier Su-27 engines thrust dry 17,0000lb, reheat 28,000lb each.
- F-15E engines thrust dry 18,000lb, reheat 29,000lb each.
- Su-35 at 19,000lb dry 32000lb reheat each.
- F-22 at 23,000lb dry, 35,000lb reheat each. 
- J-20 if having 32,000lb reheat thrust, dry thrust could be 20-21,000lb if tuned higher. If it has 35,000lb, probably similar to F-22 or 1000-2000lb less?


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

CIA Mole said:


> Is
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see China make like 100-200 J20/year even with WS-10 instead of ws-15
> 
> Is 1 J20 worth 2 J10's?



1 J-20 is worth 6 J-10 the way 1 Type 45 destroyer is worth 6 Type 42 destroyers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Tai Hai Chen said:


> 1 J-20 is worth 6 J-10 the way 1 Type 45 destroyer is worth 6 Type 42 destroyers.




Can we stop with such plain stupid BS posts? ... and I promise you, if you try to expand your trolling here like you constantly do in other threads it will be only a short time here.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Can we stop with such plain stupid BS posts? ... and I promise you, if you try to expand your trolling here like you constantly do in other threads it will be only a short time here.


But he was just answering this guy's question ...


CIA Mole said:


> Is 1 J20 worth 2 J10's?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> But he was just answering this guy's question ...




But is it an *answer *if one says it is worth 2 and the next one tops this number with 6 and the maybe even 20? 

These exaggerated numbers are nothing but unsubstantial fan-boy's claims but not true "answers" and as such exactly what @samsara wanted to avoid: the raising numbers of too many *"low effort posts"* even in the flagship military threads like J-20; Y-20; 00X/003 and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> But is it an *answer *if one says it is worth 2 and the next one tops this number with 6 and the maybe even 20?
> 
> These exaggerated numbers are nothing but unsubstantial fan-boy's claims but not true "answers" and as such exactly what @samsara wanted to avoid: the raising numbers of too many *"low effort posts"* even in the flagship military threads like J-20; Y-20; 00X/003 and so on.


Deino, the problem is some one will start the loop by throwing out some arbitrary xyz question to stimulate such kind of discussion in the flagship threads...

If you will reprimand the bait taker then you should do the same on the initiator as well  

not sure if some are in agreement to stir up some commotion here... must keep on watching the names and patterns involved.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> But is it an *answer *if one says it is worth 2 and the next one tops this number with 6 and the maybe even 20?
> 
> These exaggerated numbers are nothing but unsubstantial fan-boy's claims but not true "answers" and as such exactly what @samsara wanted to avoid: the raising numbers of too many *"low effort posts"* even in the flagship military threads like J-20; Y-20; 00X/003 and so on.


I think the fault lies on the person asking the question in this case, as @samsara states.
_*Original question: Is 1 J20 worth 2 J10's?*_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 711611
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo


CG




Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kungfugymnast

Tai Hai Chen said:


> 1 J-20 is worth 6 J-10 the way 1 Type 45 destroyer is worth 6 Type 42 destroyers.



What's with the guy's grudge on you for this comparison? Do you have any information on J-20A WS-10C engine? From articles you read so far on WS-10C, do you think the thrust is at 32,000lb same as Su-35BM or 35,000lb? 

In comparison of empty/max to weights from Wikipedia:
J-20 - 42,750lb / 81,600lb
WS-10C thrust same as AL-41F or tweaked to 35,000lb?

Su-57 - 39,683lb / 77,162lb
AL-41F Thrust 20,900lb dry, 33,100lb aft
Izdeliye 24,300lb dry, 39,700lb aft

F-22A - 43,340lb / 83,500lb
Thrust 26,000lb dry, 35,000lb aft

F-35A - 29,300lb / 70,000lb
Thrust 28,000lb dry, 43,000lb aft


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空军新闻 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
3


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> What's with the guy's grudge on you for this comparison? Do you have any information on J-20A WS-10C engine? From articles you read so far on WS-10C, do you think the thrust is at 32,000lb same as Su-35BM or 35,000lb?
> 
> In comparison of empty/max to weights from Wikipedia:
> J-20 - 42,750lb / 81,600lb
> WS-10C thrust same as AL-41F or tweaked to 35,000lb?
> 
> Su-57 - 39,683lb / 77,162lb
> AL-41F Thrust 20,900lb dry, 33,100lb aft
> Izdeliye 24,300lb dry, 39,700lb aft
> 
> F-22A - 43,340lb / 83,500lb
> Thrust 26,000lb dry, 35,000lb aft
> 
> F-35A - 29,300lb / 70,000lb
> Thrust 28,000lb dry, 43,000lb aft


F-22 engine specifications is still classified, 35,000 is just best guestimate by defense web sites and military experts


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356551478358536192

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

onebyone said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356551478358536192




And the sad part of this great image is ... I'm getting old since I tweeted the image already on 17. December!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356555318138986496

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

From what I've heard they already completed construction at Wuhu. The planes at Quzhou might've moved back.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> F-22 engine specifications is still classified, 35,000 is just best guestimate by defense web sites and military experts



F-22 maximum speed and thrust are classifieds but the fuel consumption in lbs per second is not. In US fighters inventory and Russian fighters up to Su-27/30 and Mig-29, the F-22 is most fuel thirsty on military dry thrust burning close to 20lb per second, more than F-14A+ & earlier F-15C on afterburner but slightly less than Su-27 on afterburner. Used to remember the fighters fuel consumption but forgot most of them now. The maximum thrust is around 35000-36000lb, already met the ATF requirements and fuel consumption over 30lb per second. It could tweak to over 40,000lb but there's no point of doing so unless USAF intended to use F-22 to carry heavy air to ground payload. The endurance of F-22 staying in the air is not long, tuning it more fuel thirsty will end up even shorter. 

J-20B with WS-15 engines, if it had 40,000lb thrust each will definitely consume more fuel in lb per second compared to 35,000lb of thrust. That is more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> F-22 maximum speed and thrust are classifieds but the fuel consumption in lbs per second is not. In US fighters inventory and Russian fighters up to Su-27/30 and Mig-29, the F-22 is most fuel thirsty on military dry thrust burning close to 20lb per second, more than F-14A+ & earlier F-15C on afterburner but slightly less than Su-27 on afterburner. Used to remember the fighters fuel consumption but forgot most of them now. The maximum thrust is around 35000-36000lb, already met the ATF requirements and fuel consumption over 30lb per second. It could tweak to over 40,000lb but there's no point of doing so unless USAF intended to use F-22 to carry heavy air to ground payload. The endurance of F-22 staying in the air is not long, tuning it more fuel thirsty will end up even shorter.
> 
> J-20B with WS-15 engines, if it had 40,000lb thrust each will definitely consume more fuel in lb per second compared to 35,000lb of thrust. That is more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71.


And how/when do you get 20lb per second quotes please share the source, rest is your nonsense with no base and spreading your false assumptions and conspiracy theories

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> F-22 maximum speed and thrust are classifieds but the fuel consumption in lbs per second is not. In US fighters inventory and Russian fighters up to Su-27/30 and Mig-29, the F-22 is most fuel thirsty on military dry thrust burning close to 20lb per second, more than F-14A+ & earlier F-15C on afterburner but slightly less than Su-27 on afterburner. Used to remember the fighters fuel consumption but forgot most of them now. The maximum thrust is around 35000-36000lb, already met the ATF requirements and fuel consumption over 30lb per second. It could tweak to over 40,000lb but there's no point of doing so unless USAF intended to use F-22 to carry heavy air to ground payload. The endurance of F-22 staying in the air is not long, tuning it more fuel thirsty will end up even shorter.
> 
> J-20B with WS-15 engines, if it had 40,000lb thrust each will definitely consume more fuel in lb per second compared to 35,000lb of thrust. That is more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71.




Can you please stop with such BS?   ... estimating Thrust ratio on estimated fuel consumption and then coming to the conclusion the "J-20B with WS-15 engines" would have "...more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71" is nothing but nonsense.

Stop this!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> And how/when do you get 20lb per second quotes please share the source, rest is your nonsense with no base and spreading your false assumptions and conspiracy theories



From US military encyclopedia ofcourse. Maybe you guys don't pay to view US military encyclopedia that contains detailed information. I doubt you have ever read Jane's, Maris encyclopedia that contain detailed specifications of every aircraft variant they could have. Your reading from free online google search write-up are more likely false compared to Jane's, Maris, McGraw Hill, Salamander's authorized military journals that took information directly from military & manufacturer. 

As per fuel efficiency, F/A-18 is more fuel efficient than F-15C (old & new), F-14 but because of poor aerodynamic plus smaller fuel tank, the F/A-18 can't fly far. Su-27 consumes more fuel than US teen series fighters but due to its aerodynamic designed for speed and large internal fuel tank allows it to fly far with longer combat radius but endurance wise to stay in the air is shorter. If you don't know this means you never read technical specifications of aircrafts. F-22 high engine thrust comes at price of burning more fuel. USAF maintenance crew could tell you this if you're close to them, no big deal no matter how refine the fuel feed system. 

Deino would try to say this irrelevant but this is common sense and related to J-20A/B unless Deino wanted to say J-20 doesn't use jet fuel. You want higher output, more fuel being injected for combustion. The technology that allows an engine to generate higher thrust limit allows the engine to take higher heat without causing damage to compressors. WS-15 superior to WS-10C because it could withstand faster spools and heat to support 35,000lb, 40,000lb or higher. If you & Deino so smart with access to almost everything, why not you guys get the actual fuel consumption of J-11 and post here the lbs per second? If J-11 classified then post F-16, Su-27 or Su-30 then. I can hint you F-16C is around 6-9 lbs per second dry, can you answer precisely the lb per second?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> ...
> 
> Deino would try to say this irrelevant but this is common sense and related to J-20A/B unless Deino wanted to say J-20 doesn't use jet fuel. You want higher output, more fuel being injected for combustion. The technology that allows an engine to generate higher thrust limit allows the engine to take higher heat without causing damage to compressors. WS-15 superior to WS-10C because it could withstand faster spools and heat to support 35,000lb, 40,000lb or higher. If you & Deino so smart with access to almost everything, why not you guys get the actual fuel consumption of J-11 and post here the lbs per second? If J-11 classified then post F-16, Su-27 or Su-30 then. I can hint you F-16C is around 6-9 lbs per second dry, can you answer precisely the lb per second?




I'm really not sure what the f... ! It this some side-effect of COVID but only since I don't know the fuel actual consumption of a J-11, does not mean I'm not allowed to criticise. I'm not the one who's claiming to know everything but estimating some sort of fuel consumption for the WS-10 and assuming the WS-15 has a higher consumption only to deduct it must have a higher thrust than the SR-71 is ridiculous. 

Stop this off topic stuff, nothing you post is based on facts but all on speculation to again speculate even further and then claim this double speculative result as a fact!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> I'm really not sure what the f... ! It this some side-effect of COVID but only since I don't know the fuel actual consumption of a J-11, does not mean I'm not allowed to criticise. I'm not the one who's claiming to know everything but estimating some sort of fuel consumption for the WS-10 and assuming the WS-15 has a higher consumption only to deduct it must have a higher thrust than the SR-71 is ridiculous.
> 
> Stop this off topic stuff, nothing you post is based on facts but all on speculation to again speculate even further and then claim this double speculative result as a fact!



Praising J-20B with WS-15 having higher thrust than SR-71 engines is called assumption to you? Where did you get the idea that WS-15 consume more fuel than SR-71? Think you have problem reading & interpreting. 

SR-71 is serious fuel guzzler due to having turbojet and no fighter with turbofan would be that thirsty. Turbojet vs turbofan in fuel efficiency, turbofan is far more fuel saving if the thrust is similar or slightly higher. Time for aviation engineering tutorial for you.

1) Turbojet draws any air and burn therefore it could generate higher thrust but poor fuel efficiency & poor combustion resulting in poorer payload capability. There's lots more black smoke too due to inefficient combustion. That's why turbojet powered fighter can't carry heavy payload compared to turbofan.

2) Turbofan draws and gathers dense air O2 before sending into combustion creating more power per bang allowing it to carry more payload and less smoke. 

WS-10B if its technology taken from US & Russia with China able to perfect the technology would consume less fuel than AL-31 engines being more refined. WS-10C probably had improved compressors to withstand higher heat and generate higher thrust, either similar to Su-35 at 32,000lb or having 35,000lb if China done better, that is already around F-22 level looking at both having similar empty weight. In aviation, the higher lbs per second fuel consumption doesn't matter if its fuel tank is large enough. Besides when up in the air at cruising, they'll lower throttle to 70% to preserve fuel. They don't stay at 100% military thrust or afterburner all the time.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

PSed







Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

Reactions: Haha Haha:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


> PSed
> View attachment 714032
> View attachment 714033
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo



It looks fake to me as there's no grove for the swing canard, also it's not practical for moving canard that serves as elevator. It can't pitch well with canard swept back. Whoever edited this photo is hoping for navalized J-20 instead of J-35?


----------



## siegecrossbow

kungfugymnast said:


> It looks fake to me as there's no grove for the swing canard, also it's not practical for moving canard that serves as elevator. It can't pitch well with canard swept back. Whoever edited this photo is hoping for navalized J-20 instead of J-35?



He already stated that it is p.s.ed


----------



## Akasa

Eight twin-seat J-20s will be produced by May 2021.


----------



## Deino

Akasa said:


> Eight twin-seat J-20s will be produced by May 2021.



And this is based on what? We have not even seen one, not even a prototype...


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> And this is based on what? We have not even seen one, not even a prototype...









A possibility, although not certain how credible the original source is.


----------



## Deino

Akasa said:


> View attachment 714236



Thanks but as you know me, I prefer to waif for a more obvious confirmation


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Thanks but as you know me, I prefer to waif for a more obvious confirmation



Yes of course.


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> Thanks but as you know me, I prefer to waif for a more obvious confirmation


99% fake.


----------



## LKJ86

J-7, J-10, and J-20 got together recently.




Via @HTB95 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sunny4pak



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Based on this new and allegedly recent image not only the J-10Cs but also the J-20As are gone and new J-10Cs have taken their places in the shelters now!

(Image via @军戈飞扬 from Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

The Shenyang’s design that lost to Chengdu and it’s J-20 design.
Source : https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...r-may-arrive-soon-heres-what-it-could-include





BTW, any chance the J-10 will eventually get the WS-10C (147 kn max thrust) engines, once enough are made for the J-20B?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GiantPanda

Deino said:


> Based on this new and allegedly recent image not only the J-10Cs but also the J-20As are gone and new J-10Cs have taken their places in the shelters now!
> 
> (Image via @军戈飞扬 from Weibo)
> 
> View attachment 716557



In hindsight, the large number of J-10s and J-20s was nothing out of the ordinary.

I was able to dig this satellite photo from December of 2017. There were about 20 J-10s parked at Chengdu then too. Those would have been J-10Cs as well but with AL-31s.






I think it is a normal part of the production cycle on the J-10 line. I would expect the same for the J-20 eventually. We might see 20+ J-20s parked at CAC one day too. But remember these precedences before speculating about issues

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

FuturePAF said:


> The Shenyang’s design that lost to Chengdu and it’s J-20 design.
> Source : https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...r-may-arrive-soon-heres-what-it-could-include
> View attachment 716681
> 
> 
> BTW, any chance the J-10 will eventually get the WS-10C (147 kn max thrust) engines, once enough are made for the J-20B?



Where did you get the 147 kn number? That is in no way or shape accurate. Also, the answer is probably no. J-10C will stick with WS-10B.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

siegecrossbow said:


> Where did you get the 147 kn number? That is in no way or shape accurate. Also, the answer is probably no. J-10C will stick with WS-10B.











China's Enhanced J-20B Stealth Fighter May Arrive Soon, Here's What It Could Include


A new version of the Mighty Dragon might already be in production and it could feature new engines, thrust vectoring, and more.




www.thedrive.com


----------



## siegecrossbow

FuturePAF said:


> China's Enhanced J-20B Stealth Fighter May Arrive Soon, Here's What It Could Include
> 
> 
> A new version of the Mighty Dragon might already be in production and it could feature new engines, thrust vectoring, and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com



Those guys don't know jack. 140 kn is the upper estimate for WS-10C. Range for maximum thrust is between 132 kn to 140 kn. If it really is 147 kn then that is only 3 kn short of WS-15's max thrust.


----------



## FuturePAF

siegecrossbow said:


> Those guys don't know jack. 140 kn is the upper estimate for WS-10C. Range for maximum thrust is between 132 kn to 140 kn. If it really is 147 kn then that is only 3 kn short of WS-15's max thrust.



I thought the WS-15 had a goal of 180kn. What do you estimate is the max thrust of the WS-10B?









Chinese airpower reaches for the big leagues in 2021


The development of Chinese airpower will continue to be a major defence theme in 2021, as observers look for enhancements of existing types and the possible emergence of a new stealth bomber.




www.flightglobal.com





It also seems to have come up years ago on another forum, where a user says he is quoting “2012 China Aerospace Propulsion Technology Summit”





__





J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V


Last time I heard, everyone was talking about the J-20's engine was about 135-140KN. What's up with the 190 assertion? New year new number, everything new. Maybe next year you'll have something like 210kn.



www.sinodefenceforum.com





Even Izdeliye 30 design max thrust is suppose to be 19,000kg (approx. 180+ kn). Which might be why the Chinese may buy some T-50, if the need arises to advance the engine program.




__





Izdeliye-30
 






www.globalsecurity.org


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

It's well established that the WS-15 has a wet thrust of 180kN, and the WS-10B and C are identical engines (both around 145kN), with the C differing from the B only by having serrated nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> It's well established that the WS-15 has a wet thrust of 180kN, and the WS-10B and C are identical engines (both around 145kN), with the C differing from the B only by having serrated nozzles.




In principle I agree with you, but I would add one minor correction to your sentence:

"It's well established that the WS-15 *is expected/rumoured to have *a wet thrust of 180kN,"

Since nothing is established or even confirmed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> In principle I agree with you, but I would add one minor correction to your sentence:
> 
> "It's well established that the WS-15 *is expected/rumoured to have *a wet thrust of 180kN,"
> 
> Since nothing is established or even confirmed.




180kn equals 40,466lb on afterburner is good enough. Let's see whether WS-15 or Izdeliye engines will be ready first in the race. 

WS-10B has 32,000lb thrust? So WS-10C difference is only the nozzle and no change on the output?


----------



## kungfugymnast

FuturePAF said:


> I thought the WS-15 had a goal of 180kn. What do you estimate is the max thrust of the WS-10B?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese airpower reaches for the big leagues in 2021
> 
> 
> The development of Chinese airpower will continue to be a major defence theme in 2021, as observers look for enhancements of existing types and the possible emergence of a new stealth bomber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.flightglobal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also seems to have come up years ago on another forum, where a user says he is quoting “2012 China Aerospace Propulsion Technology Summit”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
> 
> 
> Last time I heard, everyone was talking about the J-20's engine was about 135-140KN. What's up with the 190 assertion? New year new number, everything new. Maybe next year you'll have something like 210kn.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sinodefenceforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Izdeliye 30 design max thrust is suppose to be 19,000kg (approx. 180+ kn). Which might be why the Chinese may buy some T-50, if the need arises to advance the engine program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Izdeliye-30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalsecurity.org



Russia would ask for guarantee royalty in return as insurance policy in case China reverse engineer the Izdeliye engine. This means China will have to buy the T-50 in large numbers at high price. China wanted to use their skills and efforts to perfect the WS-15 after identifying materials used in AL-41F Su-35 that could withstand higher heat and thrust

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

kungfugymnast said:


> Russia would ask for guarantee royalty in return as insurance policy in case China reverse engineer the Izdeliye engine. This means China will have to buy the T-50 in large numbers at high price. China wanted to use their skills and efforts to perfect the WS-15 after identifying materials used in AL-41F Su-35 that could withstand higher heat and thrust



Similar to the Su-35 deal, The Chinese would probably consider buying 24 or even 48 T-50, if need be, as being worth it to acquire a successful 180 kn engine.

The T-50 could probably used in frontline units, along the coast or along the Indian border, where they could afford to lose a plane, in the event of any potential accident, instead of a J-20, as is currently deployed at places like Hotan Air Force Base.

Consider the amount of money and time spent and the delay to the J-20 program, buying a few dozen T-50 with the right engine would Be worth it.


----------



## UKBengali

FuturePAF said:


> Similar to the Su-35 deal, The Chinese would probably consider buying 24 or even 48 T-50, if need be, as being worth it to acquire a successful 180 kn engine.
> 
> The T-50 could probably used in frontline units, along the coast or along the Indian border, where they could afford to lose a plane, in the event of any potential accident, instead of a J-20, as is currently deployed at places like Hotan Air Force Base.
> 
> Consider the amount of money and time spent and the delay to the J-20 program, buying a few dozen T-50 with the right engine would Be worth it.





Absolutely impossible to reverse-engineer a modern military turbofan in the way you have suggested, as the trick is in the manufacturing process rather than what materials are being used.

If this was the case then China could also do the same with civilian engines, rather than spending 10s of billions of US dollars developing their own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

UKBengali said:


> Absolutely impossible to reverse-engineer a modern military turbofan in the way you have suggested, as the trick is in the manufacturing process rather than what materials are being used.
> 
> If this was the case then China could also do the same with civilian engines, rather than spending 10s of billions of US dollars developing their own.



I presume, there is a lot that can be learned from having a working engine, with the goal capabilities, then not having the engine at all. Figuring out the manufacturing technique will still pose a challenge, as we have seen with the WS-10 engines and the years China has been operating the Al-31 Class of engines, but it helps the overall development. At the very least, once Russia sells the 180kn class engines to China it will be more likely to sell them for use in the J-20 directly. China may take 3, 5, even 10 years to catch up, but in the mean times they will be learning from operating the Russian engines and investing as much as is needed to reverse engineer it (by hook or crook) as is needed.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

_1. NPO Saturn have not been able to resolve the overheating problems with its 17 tons Izdeliye-30. It is still being tested and under development. 

2. Any SU-57 that will be exported will be powered by the same 14 tons 117S turbofan as SU-35 which is basically a tweaked up AL-31F or AL-41F.

So what is there to reverse-engineer and copy. China own WS-10 is already in mass production and more powerful variants have emerged. 

China own 18 tons WS-15 rumored to have ben fitted and tested on J-20 last year should be ready very soon for LRIP. 
All we are waiting for is confirmation and some images. _

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> ....
> 
> _China own 18 tons WS-15 rumored to have ben fitted and tested on J-20 last year *should be ready very soon *for LRIP.
> All we are waiting for is confirmation and some images. _




But even this might take several years. If you remember, we've seen the WS-10C first on a J-20 prototype in September 2017 and since about September 2019 it is in production, and the WS-10 itself is a mature engine.

As such I think it will still take some time especially before LRIP starts.

By the way, 

Allegedly the "31st Captain of the "Wang Hai Brigade" and as we all know, this brigade is the former 3rd Air Division's 9th Air Regiment, today the PLAAF's 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu flying J-20A. So this seems to be the 9th Brigade's unit badge?

(Image via @空天砺剑 from Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

FuturePAF said:


> I presume, there is a lot that can be learned from having a working engine, with the goal capabilities, then not having the engine at all. Figuring out the manufacturing technique will still pose a challenge, as we have seen with the WS-10 engines and the years China has been operating the Al-31 Class of engines, but it helps the overall development. At the very least, once Russia sells the 180kn class engines to China it will be more likely to sell them for use in the J-20 directly. China may take 3, 5, even 10 years to catch up, but in the mean times they will be learning from operating the Russian engines and investing as much as is needed to reverse engineer it (by hook or crook) as is needed.




You cannot just put the SU-57 engine into the J-20 without very extensive modifications to the J-20s airframe, which may or may not even be possible.

China looks like it is just as advanced with it's WS-15 engine for J-20 as the Russians are with the SU-57 engine, and so trying to learn anything from SU-57 engine is now pointless and will just distract from the WS-15 engine program.


Russia and China are now pretty much peers in engine tech, with the Russians slightly ahead overall but the Chinese are progressing quicker. I expect Chinese engine tech to be at a more advanced level than Russia's by the end of this decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

UKBengali said:


> You cannot just put the SU-57 engine into the J-20 without very extensive modifications to the J-20s airframe, which may or may not even be possible.
> 
> China looks like it is just as advanced with it's WS-15 engine for J-20 as the Russians are with the SU-57 engine, and so trying to learn anything from SU-57 engine is now pointless and will just distract from the WS-15 engine program.
> 
> 
> Russia and China are now pretty much peers in engine tech, with the Russians slightly ahead overall but the Chinese are progressing quicker. I expect Chinese engine tech to be at a more advanced level than Russia's by the end of this decade.



Russia still has a clear lead for the time being. China has achieved self sufficiency but let’s not overstate things.


----------



## UKBengali

siegecrossbow said:


> Russia still has a clear lead for the time being. China has achieved self sufficiency but let’s not overstate things.




What "clear lead"?

Please explain your reasoning in detail.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

UKBengali said:


> What "clear lead"?
> 
> Please explain your reasoning in detail.



China hasn’t equipped WS-10B with comparable performance to AL-31FN series 3 on the J-10 series until last year. They didn’t resolve the relatively long spool up time for the WS-10 until the late 2010s as well. To date we haven’t seen WS-15 equipping any J-20 prototypes whereas a Su-57 has flown with its final engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> China hasn’t equipped WS-10B with comparable performance to AL-31FN series 3 on the J-10 series until last year. They didn’t resolve the relatively long spool up time for the WS-10 until the late 2010s as well. To date we haven’t seen WS-15 equipping any J-20 prototypes whereas a Su-57 has flown with its final engine.


"Haven't seen" and "hasn't happened" are distinct concepts. Even granting that the izd. 30's testing is ahead, the difference isn't sufficient to give Russia a clear lead. The difficulties you mentioned with China's engine program are significant, but the sums China has invested in the field (most notably since the establishment of AECC) are far greater than Russia's.

Given these factors, I don't think it's tenable that Russia has a clear lead. If it still has a lead, it's a very slight one and it will soon be overtaken. The story is different in high-bypass turbofans (especially civilian ones) - there I think China needs about five more years to catch up, but that's not the subject of this discussion.

That's just engines. When it comes to overall capability, the numbers of J-20s vs Su-57s speak for themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

FuturePAF said:


> I presume, there is a lot that can be learned from having a working engine, with the goal capabilities, then not having the engine at all. Figuring out the manufacturing technique will still pose a challenge, as we have seen with the WS-10 engines and the years China has been operating the Al-31 Class of engines, but it helps the overall development. At the very least, once Russia sells the 180kn class engines to China it will be more likely to sell them for use in the J-20 directly. China may take 3, 5, even 10 years to catch up, but in the mean times they will be learning from operating the Russian engines and investing as much as is needed to reverse engineer it (by hook or crook) as is needed.


There is no way China would turn back to Russia for engine dependency on their pre-eminent fighter especially after just switching to WS-10 in the past 3 years. And considering that the latest WS-10 is already on par with the 117S, I don't see why the WS-15 cannot come close or possibly even exceed the Izd 30 engine. Note the Izd 30 has already been in flight testing since late 2017 and has barely moved a needle in terms of progress. Both countries, China and Russia, used clean sheet designs in their newest generation gas turbines (WS-15/Izd 30), so the footing should be much more equal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

kungfugymnast said:


> Is the Izdeliye engine with 40,000lb perfected yet? The last I heard, T-50 both prototypes are fitted with AL-41F engines. If Izdeliye is still in development stage, WS-15 might be ready sooner due to better funding and resources.
> 
> The Indian border, PLAAF finds IAF threat as low compared to east and south east border where there's threat from US. IAF kept asking why there's no J-20 in west border.



If the WS-15 engine ready before the Izdeliye Engine, then its a moot point. But if the Russian engine becomes ready and the Chinese engine looks like it’s still years away, then it would only be prudent to buy the Russian engine, until Chinese scientists can catch up.

Weren’t there J-20’s deployed to Hotan recently? India maybe a lower priority threat, but it can flare up, which is why Hotan seems to be undergoing a major upgrade. You are right, Just like the Su-35, the Chinese will probably deploy any T-50 it acquires primarily along the coastal regions, but a few near India (6-12) could be adequate to maintain a strike force or blocking force in the event of any sudden escalation along the western LAC.









Chinese Stealth Fighters Head West To Confront India


Two Chinese air force J-20 stealth fighters have appeared at an air base in China’s far west as the mountain stand-off between India and Chine enters its fourth months.




www.google.com






Figaro said:


> There is no way China would turn back to Russia for engine dependency on their pre-eminent fighter especially after just switching to WS-10 in the past 3 years. And considering that the latest WS-10 is already on par with the 117S, I don't see why the WS-15 cannot come close or possibly even exceed the Izd 30 engine. Note the Izd 30 has already been in flight testing since late 2017 and has barely moved a needle in terms of progress. Both countries, China and Russia, used clean sheet designs in their newest generation gas turbines (WS-15/Izd 30), so the footing should be much more equal.



Hopefully the WS-15 will be ready before the Izd 30, but if it isn’t, and if major delays come up in the WS-15 program and if the Izd 30 reaches performance goals, then its just prudent to buy a batch of Izd 30 to speed up the J-20’s development.


----------



## UKBengali

ZeEa5KPul said:


> "Haven't seen" and "hasn't happened" are distinct concepts. Even granting that the izd. 30's testing is ahead, the difference isn't sufficient to give Russia a clear lead. The difficulties you mentioned with China's engine program are significant, but the sums China has invested in the field (most notably since the establishment of AECC) are far greater than Russia's.
> 
> Given these factors, I don't think it's tenable that Russia has a clear lead. If it still has a lead, it's a very slight one and it will soon be overtaken. The story is different in high-bypass turbofans (especially civilian ones) - there I think China needs about five more years to catch up, but that's not the subject of this discussion.
> 
> That's just engines. When it comes to overall capability, the numbers of J-20s vs Su-57s speak for themselves.






The difference is that China is closing the technological gap with the US while the Russians are steadily falling further behind.

By 2030, no-one would seriously think that Russia was even on a par with China in military technology, let alone be ahead in any area.


----------



## S10

UKBengali said:


> The difference is that China is closing the technological gap with the US while the Russians are steadily falling further behind.
> 
> By 2030, no-one would seriously think that Russia was even on a par with China in military technology, let alone be ahead in any area.


No one is seriously thinking Russia is on par today.









Russian and Chinese Combat Air Trends: Current Capabilities and Future Threat Outlook


This Whitehall Report examines Russian and Chinese combat air trends, and looks specifically at fast jets and their weapons systems and capabilities.




rusi.org

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

S10 said:


> No one is seriously thinking Russia is on par today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russian and Chinese Combat Air Trends: Current Capabilities and Future Threat Outlook
> 
> 
> This Whitehall Report examines Russian and Chinese combat air trends, and looks specifically at fast jets and their weapons systems and capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rusi.org




Well a “think tank” here seems to think so.

Russia is a has been and no match for China anymore.


----------



## S10

UKBengali said:


> Well a “think tank” here seems to think so.
> 
> Russia is a has been and no match for China anymore.


The only area where Russia still maintains parity, or perhaps a slight edge, is engine development. China will inevitably close this gap in the next few years as it can invest significantly more resources than Russia can afford to.

Last year, Russia's entire economy is smaller than my home province of Guangdong. Also in the last year, China's per capita GDP exceeded that of Russia's. The comparison at this point should be focused on China-US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

_IMO Russia has many great aeronautical engineers and aircraft designers but their works are led down by Russia obsolescent Military Manufacturing Complexes and other related technologies e.g. metallurgy, electronic, etc. 
Today China are assisting Russia to upgrade her military industries as well as others. 

Look at Hongdu L-15 advance trainer. 
The design of the L-15 is in fact submitted by Yakovlev and that is why it looks almost similar to Yak-130. 
Apart from the design, everything else inside the L-15 are developed by the Chinese themselves.
Yakovlev has admitted that fact openly. 
They are design consultant for the L-15.
An example of collaboration between China and Russia aeronautical companies. 
CR-929 airliner is another one. _

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> You're twisting story desperately to win. Refer older replies, manufacturers do provide fuel consumption and richer authors willing to buy the details would get the specifications.
> 
> Military aircraft information that is classified mostly on avionics capabilities, effectiveness and how they actually fare against enemy. That is why video on latest F-15C with AESA radar documentary, they would censor the MFD when powered up.
> 
> You can go to manufacturer or their marketing agents only if you are potential buyers but they won't entertain low life like you that can't even afford to buy Jane's book.


Can we please stop arguing about this matter ... it's not even related to the J-20 anymore. Thanks. And honestly, I think you both should just place each other on the ignore list because all you guys do is get into heated arguments.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... it is enough!*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Type59

CIA Mole said:


> What will they do with the hundreds of j7?



Museums, sell them to private collectors and of course the most worn will be scrapped.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> *Guys ... it is enough!*



You are a mod here. Time to act.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

*Ok guys ... let's keep it simple!

I already requested you to stop with these constant back&forth off topic and insulting replies. As such both of you will get a warning and since you are both calling me the other one to ban, I give you yet another warning: The one of you two with the next comment to ban the other one will get a looooong vacation from PDF.*

*I really have enough! *

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## flowerfan2020

J20 Maneuver

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

4 J-20As were spotted by an Airline pilot on a domestic flight. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1366991351703691264

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367093797134417923

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Deino

And as a gif!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1378260595800035331

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1378247520472588288

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

First image of J-20 launching a missile? It is so blurry that I can't tell if it is legit or CGI. It is at the 1:03 mark. Blink and you'll miss it.

https://b23.tv/HVL0op

If confirmed this is not only the first image of a J-20 missile launch, but the first image of a PL-15 missile launch as well since it is fired from the belly bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

onebyone said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1378247520472588288



What engine is that? WS-10?


----------



## Deino

Tai Hai Chen said:


> What engine is that? WS-10?




No, clearly an AL-31FN

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> No, clearly an AL-31FN



So how many J-20 being built so far? I see the serial number 62006.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tai Hai Chen said:


> What engine is that? WS-10?



Ws-10 nozzles on operational J-20s are not only jagged but also black. As per current estimates there are at least 40 operational J-20s built including WS-10 equipped ones spotted in Chengdu earlier this year.


----------



## world of power

Tai Hai Chen said:


> What engine is that? WS-10?


in recent years, I am carefully watching chinese engines;
clearly ALL operational J16 & J20 are equipped with powerful chinese engines
currently china is switching more powerful chinese engine for J16 & J20
also, china is recently deploying J10C and J15 with powerful chinese engines
it NO longer uses old russian engine; it has better and more powerful engines


Deino said:


> No, clearly an AL-31FN


clearly NOT; and even technically impossible; AL31FN is too low thrust to maneuver such 20-ton heavyweight fighter; agile J20 CAN'T go with the old russian engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

world of power said:


> in recent years, I am carefully watching chinese engines;
> clearly ALL operational J16 & J20 are equipped with powerful chinese engines
> currently china is switching more powerful chinese engine for J16 & J20
> also, china is recently deploying J10C and J15 with powerful chinese engines
> it NO longer uses old russian engine; it has better and more powerful engines
> 
> clearly NOT; and even technically impossible; AL31FN is too low thrust to maneuver such 20-ton heavyweight fighter; agile J20 CAN'T go with the old russian engine




Maybe I should have better said "clearly an AL-31FN-based one!" but regardless what you and some others wish, this one is NOT a WS-10.


----------



## onebyone

China's J-20 stealth fighter jet flies without Luneburg lens, shows combat readiness
By 
Liu Xuanzun
Published: Apr 05, 2021 08:09 PM





A J-20 stealth fighter jet attached to the Chinese People's Liberation Army Eastern Theater Command takes part in exercises. The aircraft is not equipped with a Luneburg lens, a radar reflector used to make a stealth aircraft visible to others in training or non-combat flights. Photo: Screenshot from China Central Television



The J-20, the most advanced, stealth-capable fighter jet of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force, has entered the next level of combat readiness, analysts said on Monday, after the aircraft was spotted flying without a Luneburg lens, a small device used to intentionally expose a stealth aircraft to others in situations like training or non-combat flights.

At the Qingming Festival on Sunday, the traditional tomb-sweeping day, pilots of J-20 jets paid respect to the heroic Chinese pilots who fought in the Korean War (1950-53), China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Sunday.

The former unit of Sun Shenglu, a heroic Chinese pilot in the war, is now equipped with J-20 fighter jets, Sun Teng, a J-20 fighter jet pilot, said on CCTV.

Sun Shenglu was part of the Wang Hai Air Group, which is now affiliated with the PLA Eastern Theater Command, according to openly available information. The PLA Air Force announced in 2019 that the Wang Hai Air Group was equipped with the J-20.

"Air Force pilots in the new age will inherit the spirit of 'aerial bayonet fighting,' train to prepare for combat, be ready at all times for combat, and resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and dignity," Sun Teng said.

The CCTV footage also showed a J-20 making aerial maneuvers, and some frames showed that this J-20 was not equipped with a Luneburg lens. Further, the lines of the aircraft's side missile bay were different from previous J-20 fighters, a separate report by CCTV said on Monday,

A Luneburg lens is a small device used to expand the radar cross-section of an aircraft, which means it can make a stealth aircraft visible to radar, a Chinese military expert who asked to remain anonymous told the Global Times on Monday.

In regular training, friendly radar facilities need to track stealth aircraft to monitor their activities and assess training results. In other non-combat scenarios like transit flights, making the presence of stealth aircraft known to others can avoid accidents, the expert said, noting that in some military operations, there could also be a need for such planes to show themselves to achieve deterrence while also hiding their true stealth specifications.

In most previous reports on the J-20, the stealth aircraft shown carried this radar reflector under its belly, military affairs observers said.

By removing it, the J-20 will go stealth as it was designed to, and this means it is engaged in a real combat scenario-oriented mission, the expert said, noting that the J-20 has entered the next level of combat readiness. 









China's J-20 stealth fighter jet flies without Luneburg lens, shows combat readiness - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Team Blue

Today I learned what a Luneburg lens is. Also that it exists.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## UKBengali

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 731588
> View attachment 731589





Beautiful fighter and will turn into an even better aircraft once the WS-15 engine is installed.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

*China Claims Its J-20 Stealth Fighter Can Supercruise at Mach 2.55*

April 15, 2021 

Can this powerful stealth fighter really fly faster than the high-tech American F-22?

by Kris Osborn

China claims its fifth-generation, stealthy J-20 fighter jet is now taking yet another massive step toward war preparedness by flying in what could be referred to as “full stealth” mode.

A report from the Chinese-government backed Global Times says the J-20 was “spotted” flying without a Luneburg lens, a small device used to intentionally expose a stealth aircraft to others in situations like training or non-combat flights.

Does this mean the aircraft has taken new steps toward combat and operational “readiness?” Furthermore, just how stealthy is it?

The Chinese J-20 certainly appears slightly larger than an F-22 or F-35 stealth jet fighter, given its dual wing configuration, an engineering method employed to optimize air flow and achieve improved aerodynamic performance. While the wing configurations of a J-20 and F-22 are decidedly different, the J-20 fuselage itself appears to resemble that of an F-22 with two engine exhaust and blended, curved or rounded main body exterior.


What would it mean to truly rival or surpass the F-22 stealth fighter? Now that the J-20 has been flow in full stealth capacity and modified slightly with the integration of a new engine, some might wonder if the Chinese aircraft could achieve any kind of “supercruise” capability that has—so far—been unique to the F-22.

The F-22 has a forty-four-foot wingspan and is, at certain high altitudes, able to hit speeds as fast as Mach 2.25. Various data spec sheets and articles cite that, by comparison, a J-20 is several meters longer but built with a similar 44-ft wingspan. The articles, in _Air Force Technology_ and _The National Interest_ say the J-20 can reach speeds of Mach 2.55. It is unsure if this is confirmed per se and speed metrics don’t necessarily translate into maneuverability or sustained speed.

Regardless of a J-20’s speed, a key F-22 advantage is that it not only can reach supercruise speeds but also sustain them as well without needing afterburners, a major technical enhancement. Also, a slightly shorter, sleeker, and more streamlined fuselage, coupled with potentially unmatched levels of propulsion, thrust, and high-speed maneuverability, could very well give the F-22 a decisive advantage.

The F-22 is also armed with massively upgraded weapons such as the now software-enhanced AIM-120D and AIM-9X air-to-air and air-to-ground or surface weapons. Ultimately, the F-22’s advantage may reside in its often discussed role as an “aerial quarterback,” described by innovators as an ability to exchange real-time, two-way information amid warfare with both fourth- and fifth-generation American and allied warplanes.

_Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> *China Claims Its J-20 Stealth Fighter Can Supercruise at Mach 2.55*
> 
> April 15, 2021
> 
> Can this powerful stealth fighter really fly faster than the high-tech American F-22?
> 
> by Kris Osborn
> 
> China claims its fifth-generation, stealthy J-20 fighter jet is now taking yet another massive step toward war preparedness by flying in what could be referred to as “full stealth” mode.
> 
> A report from the Chinese-government backed Global Times says the J-20 was “spotted” flying without a Luneburg lens, a small device used to intentionally expose a stealth aircraft to others in situations like training or non-combat flights.
> 
> Does this mean the aircraft has taken new steps toward combat and operational “readiness?” Furthermore, just how stealthy is it?
> 
> The Chinese J-20 certainly appears slightly larger than an F-22 or F-35 stealth jet fighter, given its dual wing configuration, an engineering method employed to optimize air flow and achieve improved aerodynamic performance. While the wing configurations of a J-20 and F-22 are decidedly different, the J-20 fuselage itself appears to resemble that of an F-22 with two engine exhaust and blended, curved or rounded main body exterior.
> 
> 
> What would it mean to truly rival or surpass the F-22 stealth fighter? Now that the J-20 has been flow in full stealth capacity and modified slightly with the integration of a new engine, some might wonder if the Chinese aircraft could achieve any kind of “supercruise” capability that has—so far—been unique to the F-22.
> 
> The F-22 has a forty-four-foot wingspan and is, at certain high altitudes, able to hit speeds as fast as Mach 2.25. Various data spec sheets and articles cite that, by comparison, a J-20 is several meters longer but built with a similar 44-ft wingspan. The articles, in _Air Force Technology_ and _The National Interest_ say the J-20 can reach speeds of Mach 2.55. It is unsure if this is confirmed per se and speed metrics don’t necessarily translate into maneuverability or sustained speed.
> 
> Regardless of a J-20’s speed, a key F-22 advantage is that it not only can reach supercruise speeds but also sustain them as well without needing afterburners, a major technical enhancement. Also, a slightly shorter, sleeker, and more streamlined fuselage, coupled with potentially unmatched levels of propulsion, thrust, and high-speed maneuverability, could very well give the F-22 a decisive advantage.
> 
> The F-22 is also armed with massively upgraded weapons such as the now software-enhanced AIM-120D and AIM-9X air-to-air and air-to-ground or surface weapons. Ultimately, the F-22’s advantage may reside in its often discussed role as an “aerial quarterback,” described by innovators as an ability to exchange real-time, two-way information amid warfare with both fourth- and fifth-generation American and allied warplanes.
> 
> _Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University._


There was a video of People's daily reporting that J-20 can fly 52km in a minute. Given the speed of sound is 343m/s, that would be 866.67m/s. That's Mach 2.52, which should be its maximum speed.

The article is also written with outdated information. AIM-120D and AIM-9X no longer have any real advantage over PL-15 + PL-10 combo. Furthermore, J-20 was built with network-centric warfare and sensor fusion in mind, with newer system architecture. The writer's knowledge is stuck in the early 2000's.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

_incidentally this concided with a rumor that Xi'an Aero-Engine Corporation has just delivered its third batch of WS-15.

It seems that these new engines have achieved max. thrust of 197 kilowewton and internal turbine temperature of 1850 Kelvin. 

We will just have to wait and see. _

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Globenim

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> *China Claims* *Its J-20 Stealth Fighter Can Supercruise at Mach 2.55*
> April 15, 2021
> Can this powerful stealth fighter really fly faster than the high-tech American F-22?
> by *Kris Osborn*
> *China claims* its fifth-generation, stealthy J-20 fighter jet is now taking yet another massive step toward war preparedness by flying in what could be referred to as “*full stealth*” mode.
> A report from the Chinese-government backed *Global Times says the J-20 was “spotted” flying without a Luneburg lens*, a small device used to intentionally expose a stealth aircraft to others in situations like training or non-combat flights.
> Does this mean the aircraft has taken new steps toward combat and operational “readiness?” Furthermore, just how stealthy is it?
> The Chinese J-20 certainly appears slightly larger than an F-22 or F-35 stealth jet fighter, given its dual wing configuration, an engineering method employed to optimize air flow and achieve improved aerodynamic performance. While the wing configurations of a J-20 and F-22 are decidedly different, the J-20 fuselage itself appears to resemble that of an F-22 with two engine exhaust and blended, curved or rounded main body exterior.
> *What would it mean* to truly rival or surpass the F-22 stealth fighter? Now that the J-20 has been flow in full stealth capacity and modified slightly with the integration of a new engine, *some might wonder *if the Chinese aircraft could achieve any kind of *“supercruise**”* capability that has—so far—been unique to the F-22.
> The F-22 has a forty-four-foot wingspan and is, at certain high altitudes, able to hit speeds as fast as Mach 2.25. Various data spec sheets and articles cite that, by comparison, a J-20 is several meters longer but built with a similar 44-ft wingspan. The articles, in _Air Force Technology_ and _The National Interest_ say the J-20 can reach speeds of Mach 2.55. It is unsure if this is confirmed per se and speed metrics don’t necessarily translate into maneuverability or sustained speed.
> Regardless of a J-20’s speed, a key F-22 advantage is that it not only can reach supercruise speeds but also sustain them as well without needing afterburners, a major technical enhancement. Also, a slightly shorter, sleeker, and more streamlined fuselage, coupled with potentially unmatched levels of propulsion, thrust, and high-speed maneuverability, could very well give the F-22 a decisive advantage.
> The F-22 is also armed with massively upgraded weapons such as the now software-enhanced AIM-120D and AIM-9X air-to-air and air-to-ground or surface weapons. Ultimately, the F-22’s advantage may reside in its often discussed role as an “aerial quarterback,” described by innovators as an ability to exchange real-time, two-way information amid warfare with both fourth- and fifth-generation American and allied warplanes.
> _Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the_ *National Interest*_. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University._


Its just a US government backed media mouthpiece trying to move goalposts and making up stuff, following the usual pattern of US government disinformation campaigns, while masturbating over its financial backers unrelated products. The article they reference is literally two posts above yours and hidding behind the reference link for the Lunenberg lens and never mentions anything about supercruise nor does it imply any such thing. The headline of that article is categorically false.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Can anyone help with a translation??






歼-20首席试飞员披露重磅信息


歼-20首飞试飞员李刚在接受采访时表示，歼-20的推力矢量发动机应该是二元推力矢量，并且歼-20下一步要加强空对地的能力。




v.cctv.com





I only saw, there was an interview with the first chief test pilot Li gang, but i wasn't able to find out on what:

"CCTV News: Li Gang, the first flight test pilot of the J-20, said in an interview that the thrust vectoring engine of the J-20 should be a dual thrust vector, and the next step is to strengthen the air-to-ground capabilities of the J-20."

Since I don't understand him since I don't understand Chinese I don't get what he says, but the text says so. Otherwise I would have expected TVC on the J-20 more related to aerial warfare not air to ground?!


----------



## Death_Angels

WS-15 2D Thurst Vec Will it have a system?


----------



## JSCh

*Test pilot sees China's J-20 to get 2D thrust vectoring nozzles*

By Liu Xuanzun
Published: Apr 19, 2021 10:43 PM



China's J-20 stealth fighter jet displays its new coating of stealth material and flies over the exhibition hall at Airshow China 2018 on Tuesday. Photo: Cui Meng/GT

The pilot who first flew the J-20 believes that China's most advanced stealth fighter jet will be upgraded with 2D thrust vectoring nozzles for its engines, according to a recent news report.

This means the warplane will receive enhanced maneuverability and stealth capability and surpass its US counterpart, the F-22, a Chinese military expert said on Monday.

The J-20 is expected to be equipped with engines with 2D thrust vectoring nozzles, said Li Gang, the pilot of the J-20's first flight, when asked about his expectations on the future development of the J-20's thrust vector control capability in a recent interview with Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV aired on Monday.

J-20s in service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force currently all use circular nozzles with no thrust vector control capability, analysts said.

Thrust vector control will provide extra maneuverability and 2D nozzles can enhance stealth capabilities of the J-20, Fu Qianshao, a Chinese military aviation expert, told the Global Times on Monday.

With the flight performance of the J-10B thrust vector control demonstrator at the Airshow China 2018 in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province, China displayed its capability to develop and apply 3D thrust vectoring technology on fighter jets.

Explaining the differences between 2D and 3D thrust vectoring, Fu said that 2D nozzles are rectangular and 3D nozzles are circular, meaning that 2D nozzles have better radar and infrared stealth capabilities than the 3D nozzles.

The F-22 stealth fighter jet of the US Air Force uses 2D thrust vectoring, analysts noted.

3D nozzles are often believed to be capable of providing more thrust angles than 2D nozzles, as F-22's 2D nozzles can only move vertically, but this is a common misunderstanding, Fu said, noting that 2D nozzles can also move horizontally to provide horizontal thrust when so designed, but this design could add development costs.

In the Phoenix TV report, Li also said that he expects the J-20's thrust vectoring nozzles to move only vertically like the F-22, but Fu said that he hopes the J-20's future nozzles will be able to move horizontally, which will make the PLA fighter jet surpass its US counterpart in this aspect.

It has been long expected that the J-20 will eventually receive thrust vectoring-capable engines.

When asked about when the J-20 can get thrust vectoring-capable engines at a press conference of Airshow China 2018, shortly after the J-10B thrust vector control demonstrator made its flight performance, Yang Wei, chief designer of the J-20, replied, "You asked about when, but how do you know it hasn't?" This statement is widely interpreted by military observers that the J-20's developers have been testing thrust vector control on the aircraft for a long time.

2021 marks the 10th year of the J-20's maiden flight, and the stealth fighter jet is seeing many new developments, including domestically made engines, removal of Luneburg lens in exercises, and possible development of a twin-seat variation, according to media reports.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

"When asked about when the J-20 can get thrust vectoring-capable engines at a press conference of Airshow China 2018, shortly after the J-10B thrust vector control demonstrator made its flight performance, Yang Wei, chief designer of the J-20, replied, "*You asked about when, but how do you know it hasn't?"* This statement is widely interpreted by military observers that the J-20's developers have been testing thrust vector control on the aircraft for a long time."
_
A very revealing statement. It is a state secret. _

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

I think the test pilot is also guessing only. He think 2D vector based on his opinion. Surely, J-20 will get thrust vector but 2D or 3D is the question.

2D is bulky and limited vector angle. 3D is less stealthy but gives great all angle moves and less weight penalty.


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> I think the test pilot is also guessing only. He think 2D vector based on his opinion. Surely, J-20 will get thrust vector but 2D or 3D is the question.
> 
> 2D is bulky and limited vector angle. 3D is less stealthy but gives great all angle moves and less weight penalty.




Indeed ... as you know I cannot read Chinese, but here is a kind summary from "taxiya" at the SDF:



> Brief translation:
> ifeng: In your opinion, what kind of TVC should J-20 have?
> Li Gang: 2D TVC works like this. (demonstrating with his hands).
> 
> My observation:
> 
> It is ifeng reporter, not CCTV reporter.
> The video belongs to "Xiao Yang Shi Pin", a youtube like video platform operated by CCTV. It does not belong to any CCTV official channel. Therefor this reporter is more like a "Self Media".
> Apperantly Li Gang's words were cut out from a full sentence. So he might not even talk about J-20's TVC. He might not even talk to the ifeng reporter.
> Even he was interviewed by this ifeng reporter, he did not say anything about J-20, not shown by the video at least.
> My conclusion is, there is no value in this video. From the way the video is cut, I highly suspect that the ifeng reporter is deliberately fabricating 2D TVC using Li Gang's position. A very common practice by "Self Media".



By the way ... I know this image if far from conclusive and also unconfirmed but anyway, this J-20A was allegedly spotted at Anshan, home of the #PLAAF's 1st Air Brigade.
As it seems the first J-20A with 61x2x serial number was spotted in January at CAC and the first J-20 at Anshan was noted via a satellite image in April.

(Image via siegecrossbow/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Indeed ... as you know I cannot read Chinese, but here is a kind summary from "taxiya" at the SDF:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way ... I know this image if far from conclusive and also unconfirmed but anyway, this J-20A was allegedly spotted at Anshan, home of the #PLAAF's 1st Air Brigade.
> As it seems the first J-20A with 61x2x serial number was spotted in January at CAC and the first J-20 at Anshan was noted via a satellite image in April.
> 
> (Image via siegecrossbow/SDF)
> 
> View attachment 735725



Hey Deino, do you have the satellite image handy?


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Hey Deino, do you have the satellite image handy?




Yes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Yes


Thanks I got it!


----------



## Deino

An interesting formation flight of six J-20 and one JL-10A trainer was seen today over Quzhou. Are the rehearsing for a flyby for the CCP centennial celebration on 23 July? 

(Image via @siegecrossbow/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

Since the original poster claimed that he saw "tens" of J-20s, I assume that this was taken near Quzhou.





















First time we've seen 10 of them in the air simultaneously.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Beast

Interesting enough, few day ago. Russia also have their multiple Su-57 flypast together.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Second Combat Brigade of PRC Air Force Likely Receives Stealth Fighter


Something unusual appeared in a recent satellite image of an airbase in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In the image, a J-20 appears to be taxiing from the runway at Anshan Airport, a



www.airuniversity.af.edu







> During the PRC National Defense Ministry’s monthly press conference for January 2021, the ministry’s spokesman was asked whether the J-20 was being fielded on a large scale.3 The spokesman’s response emphasized the “objective laws” governing the research and development of an aircraft and the progressive testing that the J-20 has undergone. 4 In effect, he answered negatively, but having another aviation brigade transition to the J-20 would suggest that his answer was not alluding to problems with the J-20. *On the contrary, it would suggest that the PLAAF is satisfied with, and confident in, the capabilities of the J-20, and that more combat units are likely to receive the J-20 in the future. *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Indeed ... that's the image I know since early April: 

So finally there is confirmation that the PLAAF's 1st Air Brigade based at Anshan, Northern Theater Command is getting J-20As. 

Revealed by @roderick_s_lee via a satellite image taken in early April and published by @CASI_Research. 
Even more there are images available but not published yet taken at CAC in January clearly showing at least one J-20A using WS-10C engines spotting a 61x2x serial number.

(Image via @DigitalGlobe at https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Po...alth Fighter.pdf?ver=y95ih0ULPkrPO4VKIC6BPA==)


----------



## Scorpiooo

How many jets are there in one Chinese brigade @Deino 


Deino said:


> Indeed ... that's the image I know since early April:
> 
> So finally there is confirmation that the PLAAF's 1st Air Brigade based at Anshan, Northern Theater Command is getting J-20As.
> 
> Revealed by @roderick_s_lee via a satellite image taken in early April and published by @CASI_Research.
> Even more there are images available but not published yet taken at CAC in January clearly showing at least one J-20A using WS-10C engines spotting a 61x2x serial number.
> 
> (Image via @DigitalGlobe at https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/CASI Articles/2021-05-03 Second PLAAF Combat Brigade Gets Stealth Fighter.pdf?ver=y95ih0ULPkrPO4VKIC6BPA==)
> 
> 
> View attachment 740188


----------



## siegecrossbow

Scorpiooo said:


> How many jets are there in one Chinese brigade @Deino



Wanghai Brigade has at least 10 J-20s based on satellite photos.


----------



## sheik

siegecrossbow said:


> Wanghai Brigade has at least 10 J-20s based on satellite photos.



I think he just raised a general question on CAF/PLAAF's organization. It's around 30-50 fighters for an air brigade to my knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Beast said:


> I think the test pilot is also guessing only. He think 2D vector based on his opinion. Surely, J-20 will get thrust vector but 2D or 3D is the question.
> 
> 2D is bulky and limited vector angle. 3D is less stealthy but gives great all angle moves and less weight penalty.


I thought the 3D was decided in favor over the 2D TVC a long time ago? The only reason for 2D would be RCS improvements on the tail although serrated nozzles should be good enough already.


----------



## Scorpiooo

sheik said:


> I think he just raised a general question on CAF/PLAAF's organization. It's around 30-50 fighters for an air brigade to my knowledge.


Thanks, ues my question was in general


----------



## Deino

sheik said:


> I think he just raised a general question on CAF/PLAAF's organization. It's around 30-50 fighters for an air brigade to my knowledge.




Officially is 50 the maximum, but there is NO PLAAF brigade with that huge number. Most have been for years in the range of 24+4 or 28+4 but recently some units have been expanded to up to more than 40

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Scorpiooo

Deino said:


> Officially is 50 the maximum, but there is NO PLAAF brigade with that huge number. Most have been for years in the range of 24+4 or 28+4 but recently some units have been expanded to up to more than 40


@Deino + 4 you mentioned are spare jets


----------



## Deino

Scorpiooo said:


> @Deino + 4 you mentioned are spare jets




No, these are usually trainer/twin seater. ... since there is however no twin-seater J-20 yet, this role is filled up by JL-10 but I think Wuhu has even 8 of them!?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空天砺剑 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Great image of J-20A serial number 78233 ... but can anyone help with the original Weibo-account?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> Great image of J-20A serial number 78233 ... but can anyone help with the original Weibo-account?
> 
> View attachment 743526



Is there an estimate how many serial units have been built based on this serial number?


----------



## Deino

Tai Hai Chen said:


> Is there an estimate how many serial units have been built based on this serial number?




To admit, this number alone tells not much: 78233 means in fact 78x3x as standing for this particular unit - the 172nd Air Brigade at the PLAAF Cangzhou Flight Training Base and the xx = 23 means simply it is aircraft number 23. But this does not mean it is the 23rd J-20 within that unit nor the 23rd overall built. It is just a bort-number.

Otherwise I estimate, that there are about 36 built within the first batch equipping the two FTTB units at Dingxin and Cangzhou and the 9th Air Brigade at Wuhu. How many from the second batch are built I don't know.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Great image of J-20A serial number 78233 ... but can anyone help with the original Weibo-account?
> 
> View attachment 743526












Via @三七V博 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @三七V博 from Weibo

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 743532
> View attachment 743533
> 
> Via @三七V博 from Weibo




Thank you so much!


----------



## siegecrossbow

Face It: China’s J-20 Is A Fifth-Generation Fighter | Aviation Week Network


The U.S. should account for an advanced adversary when making decisions about its future fighter force.




aviationweek.com







> "The adversary gets a vote,” is a much-touted phrase in the halls of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, not everyone in the U.S. military is responding quickly enough to China’s vote: the development and fielding of its Chengdu J-20 fifth-generation fighter.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force has launched a series of projects to produce revolutionary air combat capabilities, but those programs will not bear fruit until the latter half of the decade or beyond. Any changes in the next five years may be tied to altering procurement of existing platforms. But Adm. Philip Davidson, Indo-Pacific Command chief, says the time to transform is now. “Our adversaries are developing or are fielding already fifth-gen fighters themselves,” he says. “To go backward into fourth-generation capability as a substitute, broadly, would be a mistake in my view and would actually put us at a severe disadvantage over the course of this decade.”
> 
> For years, the Air Force touted the advantage that its fifth-generation Lock-heed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II would hold over their fourth-generation adversaries. The notion that the service’s fourth-generation Lock-heed F-16s and Boeing F-15s soon will be confronted by significant numbers of advanced Chinese aircraft has not sunk in. Yet the emerging arena of fifth-generation versus fifth generation fighter combat still looms on the horizon.
> 
> Since the release of the 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy, China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has equipped three units with production configuration J-20As. This group includes the 9th Brigade at Wuhu, the 172nd Brigade at Changzhou and the 1st Brigade at Anshan. The J-20s at Anshan are powered by domestic WS-10 engines. Despite its smaller J-20A fleet, the 172nd holds particular importance as it develops new techniques, tactics and procedures for the type in concert with the 176th Brigade at Dingxin. The total J-20 fleet numbers at least 40 airframes of all types and by 2027 could equal the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of 185 F-22s.
> 
> Western sources describe the J-20 as a low-observable (LO) interceptor operating within an anti-access/aerial denial (A2/AD) framework, optimized to target tankers and command, control, computers, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) aircraft—thereby eroding U.S. power projection capabilities. Domestic sources, however, *universally describe the aircraft as China’s premier air-superiority fighter meant to engage other fighters.*
> 
> In a 2017 interview, PLAAF Brigade Commander Xiao Jun agreed that the J-20’s purpose was to sweep away all fourth-generation fighters, though he added that the true strength of the aircraft was part of a broader systems of systems approach. A September 2020 article published in the Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party outlet, reported kill ratios of 17:0 by the 9th Air Brigade in exercises between the J-20 and other fighters. PLAAF pilot Chen Xinhao, who reportedly had only 100 flight hours in the aircraft, remained unde-feated throughout the event. Newly minted Air Force F-35 pilots have claimed sim-ilar kill ratios about the Lightning II while participating in Red Flag exercises. Even though all performance claims in exercises are generally subject to scrutiny regard-ing the rules of engagement, scenarios and so forth, J-20s are continually pitted against other fighters, affirming the aircraft’s role in air dominance.* Andreas Rupprecht, author of Modern Chinese Warplanes, notes in a recent interview with Hush-Kit digital magazine that the F-22 was the benchmark against which Chengdu evaluated the J-20’s performance.*
> 
> Moreover, the J-20’s design features—the extensive flight-control surfaces on its wing, its bubble canopy, the use of foreplanes for angle-of-attack control, among others—point toward a platform expected to operate in air-superiority missions or even within-visual-range engagements. *Chief test pilot Li Gang described the J-20 as having comparable maneuverability to the F-16-class Chengdu J-10 while having significantly better LO performance. The J-20 could act as an interceptor against high-value targets, just not exclusively so.*
> 
> Clearly, Chengdu’s engineers understand the foundation of fifth-generation design: the ability to attain situational awareness through advanced fused sensors while denying situational awareness to the adversary through stealth and electronic warfare. The J-20 features an ambitious integrated avionics suite consisting of multispectral sensors that provide 360-deg. coverage. This includes a large active, electronically scanned array radar designed by the 14th Research Institute, electrooptical distributed aperture system, electro-optical targeting system, electronic support measures system and possibly side-array radars. In a 2017 CNTV interview, J-20 pilot Zhang Hao said: “Thanks to the multiple sensors onboard the aircraft and the very advanced data fusion, the level of automation of J-20 is very high. . . . The battlefield has become more and more transparent for us.”
> 
> The J-20 employs a holistic approach to reduce its radar cross section (RCS), such as a chined forebody and diverterless supersonic inlets leading into serpentine ducts. These latter design features obscure the highly reflective face of the engine from radar returns. Additional LO features include a flat fuselage bottom, internal weapons bays, sawtooth edges on compartment doors, mesh coverings on small cooling ports at the base of the vertical tails, embedded antennas, modified radome and radar, radar-absorbent material coatings, electroconductive canopy and extensive use of forward-facing planform alignment.* Frequent critiques over the J-20’s use of canard foreplanes with respect to its RCS are largely unfounded. U.S. LO concepts featuring canard configurations, such as Northrop Grumman’s Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter concept and Lockheed’s Joint Strike Fighter precursor designs, suggest LO canard designs are feasible. This conclusion was echoed by a group of Chengdu-affiliated engineers who published a paper in the Chinese aeronautics journal Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica.* Overall, the J-20’s basic design choices should give it a level of signature performance superior to that of Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 frontally but inferior to the F-35 overall—particularly from the rear.
> 
> Most criticism of the J-20 involves the aircraft’s engines and centers on insufficient thrust, which would hobble the aircraft’s supercruise and maneuvering performance. In a multiship engagement, high angle-of-attack maneuvers at low airspeed can provide a temporary advantage against one opponent while opening a vulnerability to another adversary. For high-thrust aircraft with exceptional acceleration, such as the F-22, the ability to regain airspeed quickly closes this window of vulnerability and increases the viability of maneuvers at low airspeed. China has sought higher-thrust derivatives of the Russian AL-31 and Chinese WS-10 as it develops the more capable WS-15, but it is unclear the extent to which these interim engines will offer greater power and thermal management system (PTMS) capabilities.
> 
> Engines are a critical source of electrical power and systems cooling for aircraft— especially for fifth-generation fighters given the need to suppress their infrared signature while accommodating growing avionics requirements. Even purpose-built fifth-generation engines in the U.S. would benefit from additional electrical power and cooling capacity. Therefore, deficiencies in PTMS from the AL-31 and WS-10 could diminish the J-20’s avionics performance and infrared suppression potential.
> 
> Despite these challenges, the J-20 represents a revolutionary progression of the PLAAF’s air superiority capability. Cursory pronouncements that the J-20 is inferior to U.S. fifth-generation platforms miss the mark. The Air Force is still reeling from the 2009 decision to end F-22 production—195 airframes were produced out of the 2001 requirement for 381 aircraft to replace fully the F-15C/D fleet. Of the 185 Raptors remaining in service, approximately 120 are assigned to combat units. Upgrades that cost some $10 billion and new adaptive basing concepts will ensure that the Raptor remains a small “silver bullet force” able to operate on Day 1 of a conflict within the enemy’s integrated air defense system while performing offensive counter air missions. Yet, as capable as the Raptor fleet is, it is simply too small relative to the geography and threat environment of the Asia-Pacific region.
> 
> For more than a decade, U.S. fifth-generation fighters were touted as having a “first look, first shot and first kill” advantage over their fourth-generation adversaries. The J-20’s inherent benefits of LO and situational awareness will similarly present a significant challenge to U.S. fourth-generation fighters. Stealth makes every step of the kill chain more difficult—especially when paired with electronic warfare, from initial detection to tracking and ultimately engagement. The large-scale deployment of the J-20 must also be viewed in the context of broader Chinese capabilities, from the J-10C and DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile to improved training and readiness. Clearly, the U.S. Air Force will not retain an overmatch advantage without recommitting toward modernization.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force has launched a series of projects to produce revolutionary capabilities, but many of these—such as the Advanced Battle Management System, the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter and airpower teaming concepts—will take time to mature. Despite the Air Force’s concerns regarding cost per flight hour and sustainment issues, the F-35 is the only fifth-generation fighter currently in production. Even if the Air Force buys 60 F-35As every year, the majority of its fleet will be fourth-generation platforms until 2030. Securing air dominance in the Asia-Pacific region has become the U.S. Air Force’s raison d’etre, and fifth-generation fighters will remain the foundation of that mission for years to come.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Thanks to @siegecrossbow !


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1393905109210472457

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Thanks to @siegecrossbow !
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1393905109210472457



There were four additional J-20s not shown in the video. At least 19 J-20s will participate in the CCP centennial celebration.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> There were four additional J-20s not shown in the video. At least 19 J-20s will participate in the CCP centennial celebration.




Are they filmed close to Quzhou?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Are they filmed close to Quzhou?



No they were filmed near Tianjin.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

siegecrossbow said:


> At least 19 J-20s will participate in the CCP centennial celebration.



More like Chinese celebration, but I get your point.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
4


----------



## LKJ86

15 J-20s




Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4639961899794475?from=old_pc_videoshow

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
4 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> 15 J-20s
> View attachment 746533
> 
> Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4639961899794475?from=old_pc_videoshow




Any info where these J-20s are preparing for the parade?

Just noticed that some of the comments under the video say Yangcun!? 🤔


----------



## sheik

Deino said:


> Any info where these J-20s are preparing for the parade?
> 
> Just noticed that some of the comments under the video say Yangcun!? 🤔



Should be the Yangcun at the Wuqing District, Tianjin City. Very close to Beijing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @inSky_1865 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86

Via Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Amavous

Close up of J-20s nose and cockpit taken in flight

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @九月飞鹰001 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 750539
> View attachment 750540
> 
> Via @九月飞鹰001 from Weibo





PLEASE let those be WS-10C-powered ones from Anshan ... even if my feeling says otherwise!


----------



## LKJ86

Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4644783134801940?from=old_pc_videoshow

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## IblinI

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 750758
> 
> Via https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4644783134801940?from=old_pc_videoshow


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> PLEASE let those be WS-10C-powered ones from Anshan ... even if my feeling says otherwise!



Those are for the parade. Given how conservative PLAAF is they want to make sure everything is absolutely reliable. WS-10 has officially integrated with J-20 on production aircraft for just a year. We’d be lucky to see those at Zhuhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Those are for the parade. Given how conservative PLAAF is they want to make sure everything is absolutely reliable. WS-19 has officially integrated with J-20 on production aircraft for just a year. We’d be lucky to see those at Zhuhai.




Exactly my thoughts too


----------



## ozranger

siegecrossbow said:


> Those are for the parade. Given how conservative PLAAF is they want to make sure everything is absolutely reliable. WS-19 has officially integrated with J-20 on production aircraft for just a year. We’d be lucky to see those at Zhuhai.


WS-19 was said to be a medium thrust engine?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Deino

ozranger said:


> WS-19 was said to be a medium thrust engine?




I think this was a typo only and he meant the WS-10C.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

ozranger said:


> WS-19 was said to be a medium thrust engine?


I meant ws-10. 9 and 0 are close on the keyboard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines










Via CCTV 7

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-20 equipped with WS-10 engines
> View attachment 754445
> View attachment 754446
> View attachment 754447
> 
> Via CCTV 7




Indeed ... but here a bit larger:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Clearer image of jagged nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Clearer image of jagged nozzles.
> 
> View attachment 754647




But still no serial number visible!


----------



## PakFactor

Deino said:


> But still no serial number visible!



Question WS-10 is temp until WS-19 comes online?


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

PakFactor said:


> Question WS-10 is temp until WS-19 comes online?



WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

PakFactor said:


> Question WS-10 is temp until WS-19 comes online?



WS-15 is the target engine for the J-20 and WS-19 the target engine for FC-31/J-31/J-35. And contrary to what AustinPowers stated, the WS-15 is not a member of the WS-10 family. It has a much smaller bypass ratio and uses a completely different core.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @朱大象 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @前站起飞 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
3 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @双垂尾无影侠 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 754766
> 
> Via @前站起飞 from Weibo



Nice gaggle of J-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Gomig-21 said:


> Nice gaggle of J-20s.



China is not Russia. Russia can only make 1 or 2 Su-57 per year. China makes dozens of J-20 per year.


----------



## Gomig-21

@Deino, new pic? Old pic? Photoshopped? Just saw it on Twitter and looks pretty amazing. Looks like the main belly doors are not open all the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Gomig-21 said:


> @Deino, new pic? Old pic? Photoshopped? Just saw it on Twitter and looks pretty amazing. Looks like the main belly doors are not open all the way.
> 
> View attachment 754887



This is from Zhuhai Airshow 2018. Blue missiles are training dummies of PL-15 and PL-10.

Despite what certain idiots think, PLAAF is happy with WS-10 equipped J-20s. Happy enough that the CAC is working on delivery of a new batch yesterday. Maybe WS-15 equipped J-20s will enter service en mass before a certain light fighter is finally ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> Despite what certain idiots think, PLAAF is happy with WS-10 equipped J-20s.


In my self-important opinion as a years-long PLA watcher  the J-20/WS-10C is 100% Chinese, 50% real (as in the rap definition of "real"). The J-20/WS-15 will be 100% Chinese, 100% real. I'm sure the J-20 is a beast and a half now and the most potent weapon in the PLAAF's arsenal, but it needs those extra 60 kilonewtons to be the monster it was meant to be.


siegecrossbow said:


> Happy enough that the CAC is working on delivery of a new batch yesterday.


Great stuff. The best thing is to get as many J-20 production lines up and working, more so now than with the Russian engines since both airframe and engine production lines established now can be later produce the J-20/WS-15.


siegecrossbow said:


> Maybe WS-15 equipped J-20s will enter service en mass before a certain light fighter is finally ready.


Bruh, Chinese 7th gen fighters will enter service en masse before a certain light fighter is finally ready.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
5


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> Happy enough that the CAC is working on delivery of a new batch yesterday.


Why yesterday???


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> Why yesterday???



They were test flying yesterday. Anyway another batch will be near delivery soon. This can be confirmed via satellite photo from April.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> They were test flying yesterday. Anyway another batch will be near delivery soon. This can be confirmed via satellite photo from April.


The new batches had started to be delivered much earlier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> The new batches had started to be delivered much earlier.



Yes a new batch has been delivered to Anshan. But now more WS-10 equipped J-20s are being produced. How else can you explain the sighting at CAC?


----------



## Ali_Baba

The use of WS-10's means, that the production rate of the J20 can be stepped up as they are no longer restricted by the supply of Russian engines, and China can now prioritise between the Su-27 "derivatives" in PLAAF service and the J20's.

Interesting to see how they start to ramp up now.


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> Yes a new batch has been delivered to Anshan. But now more WS-10 equipped J-20s are being produced. How else can you explain the sighting at CAC?


Why should you need to explain something that is so obvious?


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> Why should you need to explain something that is so obvious?



What’s your problem?


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Ali_Baba said:


> The use of WS-10's means, that the production rate of the J20 can be stepped up as they are no longer restricted by the supply of Russian engines, and China can now prioritise between the Su-27 "derivatives" in PLAAF service and the J20's.
> 
> Interesting to see how they start to ramp up now.



Russian production is slow poke since Cold War. They can't even supply their own Flanker and Su-57 production. It's a good thing J-20 switched to WS-10C which enables dozens of J-20 to be built annually.

Reactions: Angry Angry:
1


----------



## LKJ86

siegecrossbow said:


> What’s your problem?


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## bshifter

ws-15 batch 3 already revealed, flight tests performed. In 5 years time should have 300+ j-20


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

bshifter said:


> ws-15 batch 3 already revealed, flight tests performed. In 5 years time should have 300+ j-20



Russia slow poke engine production has been holding up J-20 production. But now with WS-10 mature this final constraint is gone.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Deino

bshifter said:


> ws-15 batch 3 already revealed, flight tests performed. In 5 years time should have 300+ j-20




Care to prove this? At least from what i read - and I read a lot all days - not even a single WS-15 image has been revealed. In fact NOTHING ... as such I'm most interested in that source.


----------



## Figaro

Tai Hai Chen said:


> Russia slow poke engine production has been holding up J-20 production. But now with WS-10 mature this final constraint is gone.


Why would Russian engines be holding up the J-20 when the PLAAF has already switched to WS-10s in the latest batches? There has been no order for the AL-31Fs for a while now.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Care to prove this? At least from what i read - and I read a lot all days - not even a single WS-15 image has been revealed. In fact NOTHING ... as such I'm most interested in that source.



There is zero evidence, even credible rumor, that WS-15 has ever been installed on a J-20. There has been sighting of WS-10 TVC on a J-20 demonstrator, which prompted the “how do you know we haven’t” statement by Yang Wei at Zhuhai Airshow 2018, but we unfortunately don’t have photographic or video proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> There is zero evidence, even credible rumor, that WS-15 has ever been installed on a J-20. There has been sighting of WS-10 TVC on a J-20 demonstrator, which prompted the “how do you know we haven’t” statement by Yang Wei at Zhuhai Airshow 2018, but we unfortunately don’t have photographic or video proof.




Exactly my point and therefore I'm always quite allergic against such - IMO stupid - exaggerated claims without proof.


----------



## zhxy

Jin Canrong, professor at renmin university stated: China will have 300 J-20 equipped with WS15 engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

zhxy said:


> Jin Canrong, professor at renmin university stated: China will have 300 J-20 equipped with WS15 engine
> 
> 
> View attachment 755197



He just said that they will be equipped with WS-15. He didn’t say that all three hundred of them will be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

zhxy said:


> Jin Canrong, professor at renmin university stated: China will have 300 J-20 equipped with WS15 engine
> 
> 
> View attachment 755197



Not 300. More than 300. 超过 means more than. I would guess about 400 to 600 before switching to J-40 6th gen fighter.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> Why would Russian engines be holding up the J-20 when the PLAAF has already switched to WS-10s in the latest batches? There has been no order for the AL-31Fs for a while now.


He meant to write "had" instead of "has".


siegecrossbow said:


> There is zero evidence, even credible rumor, that WS-15 has ever been installed on a J-20.







__





Chinese Military Aviation


China Air Force




chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com






> The latest rumor (September 2019) claimed that *J-20* (J-20C?) was ready to test the newly integrated WS-15 turbofan engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

ZeEa5KPul said:


> He meant to write "had" instead of "has".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Military Aviation
> 
> 
> China Air Force
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com



I’ll believe it when I see it. There was a report that the fan blades for the WS-15 just finished testing in late 2019. I find it hard to believe that they already flew it on a J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> I’ll believe it when I see it. There was a report that the fan blades for the WS-15 just finished testing in late 2019. I find it hard to believe that they already flew it on a J-20.


huitong has always been reliable. What's your source for the fan blade test in 2019? That doesn't match established timelines for WS-15 development




__





Chinese Engine Development


Must have test fired the TBCC, wonder how long until the first test flight? Incidentally, didn't Henri K mention that another Chinese research institute had successfully flown a TBCC last month?



www.sinodefenceforum.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

ZeEa5KPul said:


> huitong has always been reliable. What's your source for the fan blade test in 2019? That doesn't match established timelines for WS-15 development
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Engine Development
> 
> 
> Must have test fired the TBCC, wonder how long until the first test flight? Incidentally, didn't Henri K mention that another Chinese research institute had successfully flown a TBCC last month?
> 
> 
> 
> www.sinodefenceforum.com



Huitong is great but no one is infallible. Even he states that it is based on a rumor.

I’m PMing you the link in case some nut job censor kills the last forum source that routinely discusses the J-20 in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @斯文的威猛 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

And another new one! ... looks like 62100 or at least 6210x.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

I cannot read the number ....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Deino

There is rumour that an alleged maiden flight of a certain type was a success!

Based on some hints it is said to be type in its "final form" of the aircraft and some therefore suggest it might be the first WS-15 powered J-20! 

As it seems it is indeed the WS-15 and the particular J-20 prototype has even been seen and photographed but quite understandable those guys don’t want to post. Allegedly President Xi visited CAC and eventually there will be an official unveiling or announcement next week. 😮


Hope for more soon …








__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408044661646626824

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> There is rumour that an alleged maiden flight of a certain type was a success!
> 
> Based on some hints it is said to be type in its "final form" of the aircraft and some therefore suggest it might be the first WS-15 powered J-20!
> 
> As it seems it is indeed the WS-15 and the particular J-20 prototype has even been seen and photographed but quite understandable those guys don’t want to post. Allegedly President Xi visited CAC and eventually there will be an official unveiling or announcement next week. 😮
> 
> 
> Hope for more soon …
> 
> 
> View attachment 756070
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408044661646626824


How reliable is this? Most of us were expecting 2023 at the earliest.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> How reliable is this? Most of us were expecting 2023 at the earliest.


This is looking more and more like the real deal. I expect a lot of fake stuff to be posted around now, like the image of the WS-10B TVC "implying" that it's the WS-15, but I believe the core rumour (a test flight with two WS-15 engines) is likelier to be true than not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> This is looking more and more like the real deal. I expect a lot of fake stuff to be posted around now, like the image of the WS-10B TVC "implying" that it's the WS-15, but I believe the core rumour (a test flight with two WS-15 engines) is likelier to be true than not.




I still don't know what to believe ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408104406080438274

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> I still don't know what to believe ...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408104406080438274


Like I said, there'll be a lot of dubious stuff posted where we won't know the real from the fake until much later. Like the Y-20 with WS-20 engines, there were a lot of rumours and a lot of fake pictures until we saw pictures and video of 7810. The fact that this picture is likely fake doesn't detract from the truth of the core rumour, similarly to the Y-20.

There was certainly activity recently at CAC and it jives well with the timelines and previous rumours. According to huitong, the J-20 was test-flown with a WS-15 in September 2019 - that was probably a flight with one engine. It makes sense that this would be a flight with two WS-15s.

The second most likely possibility is a TVC WS-10C flight test.

Edit: Huitong recently posted this update


> The latest rumor (June 2021) suggested that a “full standard” *J-20* (J-20C?) powered by the WS-15 turbofan engine flew for the first time.


As far as I'm concerned, this along with PiSigma's post does it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> As far as I'm concerned, this along with PiSigma's post does it.


What was his post?


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> What was his post?








J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII


If the rumors about WS-15 are false, why they are baiting us so much? Come on, stop! I've prepared my patience for 2025 :cool:



www.sinodefenceforum.com


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

So, there's been some interesting developments in the English PLA watching space vis-à-vis this topic. It seems the recent mentions of the WS-15 have been removed from huitong's blog (both the recent rumour and the September 2019 rumour of a test flight with one engine). He's now doing an "I dunno lol, maybe it's a twin seater J-20, maybe it's the naval AEW plane" routine.

Now, it could just be an honest correction on his part, but the conspiratorial part of me thinks that he and a bunch of others got a "suggestion" from .gov.cn that any mention of WS-15 test flights is unadvisable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

ZeEa5KPul said:


> So, there's been some interesting developments in the English PLA watching space vis-à-vis this topic. It seems the recent mentions of the WS-15 have been removed from huitong's blog (both the recent rumour and the September 2019 rumour of a test flight with one engine). He's now doing an "I dunno lol, maybe it's a twin seater J-20, maybe it's the naval AEW plane" routine.
> 
> Now, it could just be an honest correction on his part, but the conspiratorial part of me thinks that he and a bunch of others got a "suggestion" from .gov.cn that any mention of WS-15 test flights is unadvisable.


Thanks for this informative report. Seems like the maiden flight story about WS-15 is real.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xuxu1457

How many are there?
Chengdu Aircraft Company, with three production lines, produces 36 aircraft annually, and begins normal speed production in mid-2018. In three years, nearly 100 have been produced.


----------



## Stealth

One brigade of J20 is enough to takeout half of IAF poor shit fleet lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

ozranger said:


> Thanks for this informative report. Seems like the maiden flight story about WS-15 is real.


I don't think we can claim that with complete confidence. Rather, several pieces of circumstantial evidence convince me that it's likelier than not that a J-20 was test flown with two WS-15 engines, and we may never see direct evidence for this. To review the circumstantial evidence:

Early reports indicated that at least one senior official visited CAC. Some even indicated it was President Xi himself. Whether or not he did, this indicates that a major event occurred at that time. It's difficult to imagine that this was simply installing thrust vectoring nozzles on an existing engine. However, the first twin engine test flight of a new, next-generation engine is certainly a far more significant event - almost on par with the J-20's first test flight in 2011.
Huitong's expunging of two passages related to the WS-15 from his blog. The later passage references this event, and had it been the only one deleted I would have put it down to him being dubious about the rumour. However, *the much earlier passage* *dating to September 2019 was also deleted*. This starts to look less like a normal edit and more like someone tapped huitong (or his sources) on the shoulder and told him in no uncertain terms that the WS-15 test schedule is not to be discussed.
We know from a lecture given by Dr. Liu Daxiang that the WS-15 is expected to attain design certification around 2023 and be in mass production by 2025. If this schedule is to hold, we expected the WS-15 to be integrated with the J-20 airframe and be test flown around now.
I don't consider the posted picture to be any kind of evidence at all. It could be a test of a thrust vectoring nozzle from some time back, or it could simply be a shop.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## onebyone

*China deploys J-20 stealth fighter jets to units monitoring Taiwan Strait*
*

*


New brigade of upgraded J-20s deployed in ceremony forming part of Communist Party’s centenary
Deployment aimed at telling South Korea and Japan that China is strengthening its air defence, observer says







China has begun mass-producing the upgraded version of the J-20. Photo: 81.com
China has deployed its 
most advanced stealth fighter jet
to air force units monitoring the Taiwan Strait and the East China Sea, state media said, in a move Chinese observers saw as a warning to South Korea and Japan, the US’ allies in the region.

The deployment indicated China had delivered at least four aviation brigades with a total of 150 J-20 fighter jets, including two training bases in Inner Mongolia and Hebei and two aviation brigades in the eastern and northern theatre commands, a military insider said.
“China will accelerate the deployment of the upgraded version J-20C, with probably at least one or two brigades in every theatre command to defend the country’s five strategic directions in the next five years,” the insider, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity, told the _South China Morning Post_. The five directions referred to the 
People’s Liberation Army’s
(PLA’s) five theatre commands, in the north, south, west, east and central.

“As one brigade needs at least 36 aircraft, it means the PLA Air Force will need more than 300 J-20s in the future,” they said. “But the progress will rely on the delivery of the home-built WS-10C engine and the latest development of the tailor-made WS-15 engine for the J-20s.”

China has stopped using 
Russian AL-31F engines
originally fitted on the J-20s, replacing them with the 
upgraded home-built WS-10C
, a stopgap choice, with development of the more powerful WS-15 engine affected by the 
Covid-19 pandemic
.



The new aviation brigade, Military Development Vanguard Air Group, based in Anshan, Liaoning province, has been equipped with the upgraded J-20C jets in a ceremony, state broadcaster China Central Television reported last Friday.

That air group, under the Northern Theatre Command, became the second J-20 aviation brigade, after the Wuhu-based Wang Hai Flight Group under the Eastern Theatre Command in Anhui province, CCTV said.

The two brigades originated from the air force units of the People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) during the Korean war (1950-53).

“The J-20’s new deployment, announced ahead of the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary on July 1, is aimed at telling South Korea and Japan that China is strengthening its air defence along the coastal areas, warning them not to join Washington and intervene in the Taiwan issue,” Li Jie, a Beijing-based naval expert, said.

A ceremony for the deployment of J-20s was held on Friday at the former site of the air force’s cradle, the original Northeast China Democratic United Army Aviation School in Jilin province in the northeast, as part of the events marking the party centenary, CCTV said.

The PVA’s early pilots and engineers were trained at the school by Japanese pilots who surrendered to China after World War II. The Chinese pilots were trained for only dozens of hours before being sent to the Korean war to fight American counterparts, CCTV said.
Shanghai-based military expert Ni Lexiong said the deployment of J-20s to Wuhu and Anshan, respectively 800km (500 miles) and 1,700km from Taiwan, was aimed at preventing the bases there becoming targets for Taipei’s new home-built Hsiung Feng-2E (Brave Wing) cruise missile.

“The Hsiung Feng missile has a firing range of 600km, and its extended version could hit targets more than 1,000km away,” Ni said.
“The J-20 is the PLA’s most powerful and sophisticated weapon, and may become the first bombing target for Taipei if a war between mainland China and Taiwan were to happen.”

Beijing sees Taiwan as a breakaway province, to be brought under its control by force if necessary, and is opposed to other countries intervening in its “reunification mission”, planned for decades.

Li said the J-20s would not be the spearhead in a possible cross-strait war, with the mainland’s short and medium-range DF-11, DF-15 and DF-17 missiles expected to be deployed on the front line.
“None of the J-20s will be deployed near the coasts, because of their 2,000km-plus combat range, which is more than enough to cover the mainland coastal provinces and Taiwan,” Li said.

The upgraded version of the J-20C entered mass production last June, although Zhou Chenming, a researcher from the Yuan Wang military science institute in Beijing, said J-20s were currently believed to be in short supply.
“Once a war happens, the PLA needs to deal with all US allies in the region, meaning it needs at least 200 J-20s, given that Beijing expects Washington to deploy between 200 and 300 F-35s to Japan and South Korea by 2025,” Zhou said.

Beijing rushed the J-20, its first stealth fighter jet, into service ahead of schedule in 2017, when the US started deploying the F-35, its fifth-generation all-weather stealth multi-role fighter, to the Asia-Pacific region.








China deploys stealth fighter jets to units monitoring Taiwan Strait


New brigade of upgraded J-20s, deployed in ceremony forming part of Communist Party’s centenary, sends a signal to South Korea and Japan, observer says.




www.scmp.com


----------



## Globenim

onebyone said:


> *China deploys J-20 stealth fighter jets to units monitoring Taiwan Strait*
> 
> New brigade of upgraded J-20s deployed in ceremony forming part of Communist Party’s centenary
> Deployment aimed at telling South Korea and Japan that China is strengthening its air defence, observer says
> *Minnie Chan*
> 
> View attachment 756719
> 
> 
> China has begun mass-producing the upgraded version of the J-20. Photo: 81.com
> China has deployed its most advanced stealth fighter jet to air force units monitoring the Taiwan Strait and the East China Sea, state media said, in a move Chinese observers saw as a warning to South Korea and Japan, the US’ allies in the region.
> 
> The deployment indicated China had delivered at least four aviation brigades with a total of 150 J-20 fighter jets, including two training bases in Inner Mongolia and Hebei and two aviation brigades in the eastern and northern theatre commands, a military insider said.
> “China will accelerate the deployment of the upgraded version J-20C, with probably at least one or two brigades in every theatre command to defend the country’s five strategic directions in the next five years,” the insider, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity [because its an pro American troll in Japan], told the _South China Morning Post_. The five directions referred to the
> People’s Liberation Army’s
> (PLA’s) five theatre commands, in the north, south, west, east and central.
> 
> “As one brigade needs at least 36 aircraft, it means the PLA Air Force will need more than 300 J-20s in the future,” they said. “But the progress will rely on the delivery of the home-built WS-10C engine and the latest development of the tailor-made WS-15 engine for the J-20s.”
> 
> China has stopped using
> Russian AL-31F engines
> originally fitted on the J-20s, replacing them with the
> upgraded home-built WS-10C
> , a stopgap choice, with development of the more powerful WS-15 engine affected by the
> Covid-19 pandemic
> .
> The new aviation brigade, Military Development Vanguard Air Group, based in Anshan, Liaoning province, has been equipped with the upgraded J-20C jets in a ceremony, state broadcaster China Central Television reported last Friday.
> 
> That air group, under the Northern Theatre Command, became the second J-20 aviation brigade, after the Wuhu-based Wang Hai Flight Group under the Eastern Theatre Command in Anhui province, CCTV said.
> 
> The two brigades originated from the air force units of the People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) during the Korean war (1950-53).
> 
> “The J-20’s new deployment, announced ahead of the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary on July 1, is aimed at telling South Korea and Japan that China is strengthening its air defence along the coastal areas, warning them not to join Washington and intervene in the Taiwan issue,” Li Jie, a Beijing-based naval expert, said.
> 
> A ceremony for the deployment of J-20s was held on Friday at the former site of the air force’s cradle, the original Northeast China Democratic United Army Aviation School in Jilin province in the northeast, as part of the events marking the party centenary, CCTV said.
> 
> The PVA’s early pilots and engineers were trained at the school by Japanese pilots who surrendered to China after World War II. The Chinese pilots were trained for only dozens of hours before being sent to the Korean war to fight American counterparts, CCTV said.
> Shanghai-based military expert Ni Lexiong said the deployment of J-20s to Wuhu and Anshan, respectively 800km (500 miles) and 1,700km from Taiwan, was aimed at preventing the bases there becoming targets for Taipei’s new home-built Hsiung Feng-2E (Brave Wing) cruise missile.
> 
> “The Hsiung Feng missile has a firing range of 600km, and its extended version could hit targets more than 1,000km away,” Ni said.
> “The J-20 is the PLA’s most powerful and sophisticated weapon, and may become the first bombing target for Taipei if a war between mainland China and Taiwan were to happen.”
> 
> Beijing sees Taiwan as a breakaway province, to be brought under its control by force if necessary, and is opposed to other countries intervening in its “reunification mission”, planned for decades. [Reminder that half of the SCMP staff working for the USA is not allowed to call Taiwan part of China]
> 
> Li said the J-20s would not be the spearhead in a possible cross-strait war, with the mainland’s short and medium-range DF-11, DF-15 and DF-17 missiles expected to be deployed on the front line.
> “None of the J-20s will be deployed near the coasts, because of their 2,000km-plus combat range, which is more than enough to cover the mainland coastal provinces and Taiwan,” Li said.
> 
> The upgraded version of the J-20C entered mass production last June, although Zhou Chenming, a researcher from the Yuan Wang military science institute in Beijing, said J-20s were currently believed to be in short supply.
> “Once a war happens, the PLA needs to deal with all US allies in the region, meaning it needs at least 200 J-20s, given that Beijing expects Washington to deploy between 200 and 300 F-35s to Japan and South Korea by 2025,” Zhou said.
> 
> Beijing rushed the J-20, its first stealth fighter jet, into service ahead of schedule in 2017, when the US started deploying the F-35, its fifth-generation all-weather stealth multi-role fighter, to the Asia-Pacific region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China deploys stealth fighter jets to units monitoring Taiwan Strait
> 
> 
> New brigade of upgraded J-20s, deployed in ceremony forming part of Communist Party’s centenary, sends a signal to South Korea and Japan, observer says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scmp.com


Everything marked in red is just outright false and fabrications and the usual SCMP hyberbole and straight out trolling.

English GT report:








J-20 stealth fighter in service for 2nd PLA ace force with home developed engines - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn




Orginal CCTV report:





人民空军多支英雄部队列装歼-20战机


空军今天（18日）发布消息，国产新一代隐身战斗机歼-20，列装人民空军多支英雄部队。




military.cctv.com

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

From 17:00 on






《正午国防军事》 20210627


本期节目主要内容： 习近平在中共中央政治局第三十一次集体学习时强调：用好红色资源赓续红色血脉，努力创造无愧于历史和人民的新业绩；“七一勋章”颁授仪式将隆重举行；百年·英雄辈出：“王海大队”的制胜密码。 （《正午国防军事》 20210627）



tv.cctv.com






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1409093937411862529

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> From 17:00 on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 《正午国防军事》 20210627
> 
> 
> 本期节目主要内容： 习近平在中共中央政治局第三十一次集体学习时强调：用好红色资源赓续红色血脉，努力创造无愧于历史和人民的新业绩；“七一勋章”颁授仪式将隆重举行；百年·英雄辈出：“王海大队”的制胜密码。 （《正午国防军事》 20210627）
> 
> 
> 
> tv.cctv.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1409093937411862529



This does beg the question — where are the surplus Sukhois being sent to?


----------



## TNT

What thrust class is the WS 15 supposed to be in?


----------



## siegecrossbow

TNT said:


> What thrust class is the WS 15 supposed to be in?



F-119 class.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Wow 😲... one one of the clearest images of a WS-10C powered J-20A.

And as per image data by the photographer it was taken already on 7th July 2019.

(Image by YY.Li via Airliners.com)







And again some J-20 rumours ... here is another image showing a J-20 with what appears to be a TVC-nozzle; at least it looks as if the nozzle is dropping. Some say it is the WS-15 🤔 but it could also be the WS-10B-3. 

At least it seems to be taken at the CAC facility.

(Image credits as per right bottom of the picture)

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> And again some J-20 rumours ... here is another image showing a J-20 with what appears to be a TVC-nozzle; at least it looks as if the nozzle is dropping. Some say it is the WS-15 🤔 but it could also be the WS-10B-3.
> 
> At least it seems to be taken at the CAC facility.
> 
> (Image credits as per right bottom of the picture)
> 
> View attachment 757693


The image is too grainy to tell, but that nozzle looks stubbier than the WS-10B TVC. This could be a picture of the WS-15 single engine integration test that was rumoured to take place in September 2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> The image is too grainy to tell, but that nozzle looks stubbier than the WS-10B TVC. This could be a picture of the WS-15 single engine integration test that was rumoured to take place in September 2019.




WS-15 in September 2019?? From what I know the WS-15 was said to be „eventually ready for integration“ but a WS-10B3 TVC was installed.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> WS-15 in September 2019?? From what I know the WS-15 was said to be „eventually ready for integration“ but a WS-10B3 TVC was installed.


Huitong had a rumour about it on his blog that he recently removed. I discuss this here




__





Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions


How reliable is this? Most of us were expecting 2023 at the earliest. This is looking more and more like the real deal. I expect a lot of fake stuff to be posted around now, like the image of the WS-10B TVC "implying" that it's the WS-15, but I believe the core rumour (a test flight with two...



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Wow 😲... one one of the clearest images of a WS-10C powered J-20A.
> 
> And as per image data by the photographer it was taken already on 7th July 2019.
> 
> (Image by YY.Li via Airliners.com)
> 
> View attachment 757691
> 
> 
> 
> And again some J-20 rumours ... here is another image showing a J-20 with what appears to be a TVC-nozzle; at least it looks as if the nozzle is dropping. Some say it is the WS-15 🤔 but it could also be the WS-10B-3.
> 
> At least it seems to be taken at the CAC facility.
> 
> (Image credits as per right bottom of the picture)
> 
> View attachment 757693



Original OP implies that it was taken from the roof of a car for a better view. Unless there is obvious evidence of photo tampering I think that it is age to say that this image is legit.

However, this only raises more questions. Since the left engine nozzle is not drooping, does this mean that it is using a non-TVC nozzle/engine? What is the TVC engine? Is it WS-15 as speculated or WS-10 TVC. I think that if only one engine was installed, the evidence points overwhelmingly to WS-15 since China has already fielded WS-10 J-20. No reason to only change one nozzle for TVC related tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bshifter

When i posted about the WS-15 recently some bratwurst would label it as stupid exaggerated claim, now look at that moron getting hyped by some rumour tweet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## PakFactor

Deino said:


> Wow 😲... one one of the clearest images of a WS-10C powered J-20A.
> 
> And as per image data by the photographer it was taken already on 7th July 2019.
> 
> (Image by YY.Li via Airliners.com)
> 
> View attachment 757691
> 
> 
> 
> And again some J-20 rumours ... here is another image showing a J-20 with what appears to be a TVC-nozzle; at least it looks as if the nozzle is dropping. Some say it is the WS-15 🤔 but it could also be the WS-10B-3.
> 
> At least it seems to be taken at the CAC facility.
> 
> (Image credits as per right bottom of the picture)
> 
> View attachment 757693



It looks clear the right nozzle is dropping.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

bshifter said:


> When i posted about the WS-15 recently some bratwurst would label it as stupid exaggerated claim, now look at that moron getting hyped by some rumour tweet.




It's always nice to have a honest and open minded discussion with an educated and eloquent member 

As such I'm a bit surprised that you took a kind question to prove your claim that "WS-15 batch 3 already revealed, flight test performed ..." by providing a source.
Even more your post claimed it already flew, which was by all accounts WRONG nor that there is a hint that there is something like a batch 3, that this is actually the real WS-15 and not the WS-10B3 and even more there is nothing that makes 300 J-20s in 5 years - or an annual production rate of 60 J-20s likely or reasonable.

As such, still a claim, big words and nothing more ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> As such I'm a bit surprised that you took a kind question to prove your claim that "WS-15 batch 3 already revealed, flight test performed ..." by providing a source.


Source for the Batch 3:




__





Chinese Engine Development


Must have test fired the TBCC, wonder how long until the first test flight? Incidentally, didn't Henri K mention that another Chinese research institute had successfully flown a TBCC last month?



www.sinodefenceforum.com




As for the source of the test flight, huitong had a post that he recently removed where he clearly stated that the rumoured test flight took place in September 2019. I remember the rumours circulating at the time (some people thought the WS-15 was mounted on a J-11).
If you'd like another source for the test flight, take a close look at the picture _*you just posted.*_
What's unreasonable about 60 J-20s being produced per year 5 years after it entered service? Current annual production of the F-35 is 100+ units per year.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Source for the Batch 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese Engine Development
> 
> 
> Must have test fired the TBCC, wonder how long until the first test flight? Incidentally, didn't Henri K mention that another Chinese research institute had successfully flown a TBCC last month?
> 
> 
> 
> www.sinodefenceforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the source of the test flight, huitong had a post that he recently removed where he clearly stated that the rumoured test flight took place in September 2019. I remember the rumours circulating at the time (some people thought the WS-15 was mounted on a J-11).
> If you'd like another source for the test flight, take a close look at the picture _*you just posted.*_
> What's unreasonable about 60 J-20s being produced per year 5 years after it entered service? Current annual production of the F-35 is 100+ units per year.




Thanks a lot for this post, I completely missed that one albeit I'm quite sceptical with the claim of a WS-15 being test-flown in/on a J-20 since in this post you mentioned, it says:



> The conclusion I get from this is we should expect a first flight of the WS-15 aboard the Il-76LL testbed within two years, quite possibly occurring this year.



As such a likely first flight in 2019 on an Il-76LL testbed is unlikely to proceed already to a flight in a J-20 within the same year. Even more timeline-wise it fits nicely to other reports stating a WS-10B3 with TVC was to be tested "soon" ... IMO much more likely than a WS-15 already in 2019.

Anyway, time will tell and thanks again.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @凰天霸 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空军视-河马Liujun from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空军在线 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业成飞 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaybird

Breaking News: Indian radar in Ladakh was able to detect all 15 J-20 flying over Beijing the other day. And all of them was being locked on by the magical newest long range SAM version of barhomel missile. 

PM Modi personally congratulated IAF for their newest achievement over China. Another game changer is made by India.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
9


----------



## White and Green with M/S

jaybird said:


> Breaking News: Indian radar in Ladakh was able to detect all 15 J-20 flying over Beijing the other day. And all of them was being locked on by the magical newest long range SAM version of barhomel missile.
> 
> PM Modi personally congratulated IAF for their newest achievement over China. Another game changer is made by India.


Don't bring India brother and remain on topic, its a J20 discussion thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Daniel808



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.81.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 21stCentury

jaybird said:


> Breaking News: Indian radar in Ladakh was able to detect all 15 J-20 flying over Beijing the other day. And all of them was being locked on by the magical newest long range SAM version of barhomel missile.
> 
> PM Modi personally congratulated IAF for their newest achievement over China. Another game changer is made by India.


Because the Luneburg lens were turned on. If the J-20s were on a mission to dicapatate Indians troops/assets on the border, you would not know what hit you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GiantPanda

No Indian radar ever detected a J-20. It was all in their imagination unless they had a radar that covered 3000 miles.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @飞舞的摩羯 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

GiantPanda said:


> No Indian radar ever detected a J-20. It was all in their imagination unless they had a radar that covered 3000 miles.


   

_Well. It was Indian News Media that claimed that IAF SU-30MKI radar detected the J-20 on their radar. 

As far as we know J-20 was never based anywhere next to India. _

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 759530
> View attachment 759531
> 
> Via @飞舞的摩羯 from Weibo



this is for ws 15 ? would be amazing if true

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

CIA Mole said:


> this is for ws 15 ? would be amazing if true




I'm still sceptical and think it is more likely the J-20 fitted with a WS-10B3 than the WS-15.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> I'm still sceptical and think it is more likely the J-20 fitted with a WS-10B3 than the WS-15.


How could you tell the difference if both engines use the same TVC nozzle?


----------



## CIA Mole

Deino said:


> I'm still sceptical and think it is more likely the J-20 fitted with a WS-10B3 than the WS-15.



the progress they make from ws15 should also help ws19 due to turbine blade improvements?


ZeEa5KPul said:


> How could you tell the difference if both engines use the same TVC nozzle?



chineee TVC is 3D?


----------



## GiantPanda

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> _Well. It was Indian News Media that claimed that IAF SU-30MKI radar detected the J-20 on their radar.
> 
> As far as we know J-20 was never based anywhere next to India. _



Yes, the Indian flanker is the only one out of all the flankers that has a radar that can reach all across Tibet from India to Chengdu! 

The funny thing is India doesn't even use their own radar in the MKI but a Russian export model...

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

CIA Mole said:


> the progress they make from ws15 should also help ws19 due to turbine blade improvements?
> 
> 
> chineee TVC is 3D?



We’ve seen it in action over Zhuhai in 2018.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> How could you tell the difference if both engines use the same TVC nozzle?




I cannot but from what we have seen it looks like the WS-10B3 and since when have ever two very different engines used the same nozzle? As such I expect the WS-15 to be vastly different to a WS-10.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> I cannot but from what we have seen it looks like the WS-10B3 and since when have ever two very different engines used the same nozzle? As such I expect the WS-15 to be vastly different to a WS-10.


It's clear that the TVC nozzle was never made with the WS-10 in mind, else we'd be seeing it equipped on fighters like the J-10C or J-11B. It was a one-off proof of principle, which is why I suspect the nozzle was made for the WS-15 and was just tested using the WS-10 since China had no other engine.

You're positing an entire new TVC nozzle for the WS-15 with no indication that such a thing has been developed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

@Deino I have a photo of the plane inflight!



Spoiler: WS-15 J-20?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Akasa

siegecrossbow said:


> @Deino I have a photo of the plane inflight!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: WS-15 J-20?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 759719


Too blurry to make out anything. WS-15 is like the PAF + J-10C saga - there's always talk of an "imminent" reveal that has turned out to be nothing but a fairy tale every single time.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Akasa said:


> Too blurry to make out anything. WS-15 is like the PAF + J-10C saga - there's always talk of an "imminent" reveal that has turned out to be nothing but a fairy tale every single time.


It seems you've uncovered it. There's no such thing as the WS-15, whatever shall China do?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Akasa

ZeEa5KPul said:


> It seems you've uncovered it. There's no such thing as the WS-15, whatever shall China do?



Let's not be snide. The photo is too grainy to make out anything other than a supposed J-20 airframe, much less an engine that China has been working on for over two decades without much success.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Akasa said:


> Too blurry to make out anything. WS-15 is like the PAF + J-10C saga - there's always talk of an "imminent" reveal that has turned out to be nothing but a fairy tale every single time.



That may very well be the case. However, I think that chances are high that my new born son will see it enter service in numbers before he reaches my age.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Akasa said:


> Let's not be snide. The photo is too grainy to make out anything other than a supposed J-20 airframe, much less an engine that China has been working on for over two decades without much success.


How are your Kaveri (engine ) project is going

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
5


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> ...
> You're positing an entire new TVC nozzle for the WS-15 with no indication that such a thing has been developed.



Maybe I misread your reply but indeed I'm proposing an entire new nozzle, a nozzle that can be similar but surely not the same - at least like I read your post above - since just asked in return: Whenever was a nozzle from one engine mated to a completely different one?

At least i know no such case.


----------



## GiantPanda

White and Green with M/S said:


> How are your Kaveri (engine ) project is going



The WS-10 was the contemporary of the Kaveri. Today the WS-10 is powering everything from the J-11 to J-16 to J-10C to J-20.

The WS-15 program came much later but the witless Hindus are trying to sooth their own butthurt by hoping somehow it won't be inducted. 

When the WS-15 is put on the J-20, a matter of time, then they will move on to the WS-19 and say why is it not inducted after "decades" because the initial J-35s will mostly likely use WS-13 variants.

Mind blowing that a people who never had an Indian engine power anything would be talking smack!

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Maybe I misread your reply but indeed I'm proposing an entire new nozzle, a nozzle that can be similar but surely not the same - at least like I read your post above - since just asked in return: Whenever was a nozzle from one engine mated to a completely different one?
> 
> At least i know no such case.



Is it though? The photo we have is too grainy to confirm and the cartoon may not reflect the absolute truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

21stCentury said:


> Because the Luneburg lens were turned on. If the J-20s were on a mission to dicapatate Indians troops/assets on the border, you would not know what hit you.


Even with Luneburg lenses turned on, I highly doubt the IAF would be able to discern the type of aircraft. You are talking about a military which mistook planets and stars for Chinese drones.

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
14


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> Even with Luneburg lenses turned on, I highly doubt the IAF would be able to discern the type of aircraft. You are talking about a military which mistook planets and stars for Chinese drones.



I’m sure they’d be able to tell what kind of plane it is from “several kilometers away” as per BS Dhanoa.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Han Patriot

siegecrossbow said:


> I’m sure they’d be able to tell what kind of plane it is from “several kilometers away” as per BS Dhanoa.


This is an air force who shot down their own.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
9


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Han Patriot said:


> This is an air force who shot down their own.


See, that means they can find planes!

Reactions: Haha Haha:
8


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

Beautiful fighter, new engine will make J20 more powerful.





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412595343410155521

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> Beautiful fighter, new engine will make J20 more powerful.
> View attachment 761154
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412595343410155521



But it is not a new engine, just the regular WS-10C we know already since years.


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> But it is not a new engine, just the regular WS-10C we know already since years.



Are you certain it is WS-10C? The serrated nozzle seems to be WS-15 no?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tai Hai Chen said:


> Are you certain it is WS-10C? The serrated nozzle seems to be WS-15 no?



WS-15 will have TVC. The nozzles shown obviously doesn’t.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

siegecrossbow said:


> WS-15 will have TVC. The nozzles shown obviously doesn’t.



There is no evidence WS-15 will certainly have TVC.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tai Hai Chen said:


> There is no evidence WS-15 will certainly have TVC.



The one shown in the photo certainly looks like WS-10C.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## White and Green with M/S

siegecrossbow said:


> WS-15 will have TVC. The nozzles shown obviously doesn’t.


WS 15 will comes in online 2023 by most of respected Chinese professional and senior members here on PDF, This is definitely a version of WS 10 or WS 10C confirmed by various Chinese sources


Tai Hai Chen said:


> Are you certain it is WS-10C? The serrated nozzle seems to be WS-15 no?


WS 15 will comes in online 2023 by most of respected Chinese professional and senior members here on PDF, This is definitely a version of WS 10 or WS 10C confirmed by various Chinese sources

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Titanium100

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 759932
> 
> Via @万全 from Weibo


----------



## Scorpiooo

Any idea about flyaway cost per hours for J20s


----------



## leviathan

Scorpiooo said:


> Any idea about flyaway cost per hours for J20s


lol No one know, In face we don't even know the actual size and weight of J20...


----------



## Figaro

Tai Hai Chen said:


> There is no evidence WS-15 will certainly have TVC.


Actually there is every bit of evidence

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

Cool Animated Video of J-20 from Weibo 三角龙 MITSUNORYW


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1414955557677670400

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> Cool Video of J-20 from Weibo 三角龙 MITSUNORYW
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1414955557677670400




But isn't this just a CG ... at least from 1:03 on?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> But isn't this just a CG ... at least from 1:03 on?


Seems you're right, still a cool one

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via 杨盼

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

You never know what's around the corner...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> You never know what's around the corner...
> View attachment 763381



This is several years old.


----------



## Deino

Apparently video posted at the CJBDY forum showing a J-20 in yellow primer caught on film in Chengdu displaying super-manoeuvrability, including Pugachev's Cobra. 😯

Has anyone seen it before it was deleted? 🤔

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Apparently video posted at the CJBDY forum showing a J-20 in yellow primer caught on film in Chengdu displaying super-manoeuvrability, including Pugachev's Cobra. 😯
> 
> Has anyone seen it before it was deleted? 🤔
> 
> 
> View attachment 765770
> 
> View attachment 765771


So this is the TVC equipped J-20 ...


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> So this is the TVC equipped J-20 ...




Why? At least not necessarily, the Flanker flies this maneuver since decades without TVC.


----------



## Olli Ranta

Deino said:


> Apparently video posted at the CJBDY forum showing a J-20 in yellow primer caught on film in Chengdu displaying super-manoeuvrability, including Pugachev's Cobra. 😯
> 
> Has anyone seen it before it was deleted? 🤔
> 
> 
> View attachment 765770
> 
> View attachment 765771


Do you mean this one? "J-20 does cobra maneuver over snowy mountain, warns India (china-arms.com)" 
"https://www.china-arms.com/2021/07/j20-cobra-maneuver-snowy-mountain/"
(This site china-arms is weird. It was inactive from 2016 to 2020. It's definitely not run by PLA but could it be by US DIA?)


----------



## Daniel808

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1421680964296577027

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IblinI



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ozranger

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423252771566804993

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TNT

An all moving vertical stabilizer would definitely make it more manoeuvrable. This also means the vertical stabs can be kept smaller.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

TNT said:


> An all moving vertical stabilizer would definitely make it more manoeuvrable. This also means the vertical stabs can be kept smaller.



Downside is that you need ventral strakes to provide stability at high AOA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TNT

siegecrossbow said:


> Downside is that you need ventral strakes to provide stability at high AOA.



Yes but not a bad trade-off id say. Ventral strakes are also used with traditional vertical stabalizers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

siegecrossbow said:


> Downside is that you need ventral strakes to provide stability at high AOA.



Those ventral strakes were reportedly known as made of electromagnetic wave absorbent material. Worth noting it is wave absorbent material but wave transparent or wave through material, which means EM wave will not get through and hit the fuselage. Instead its energy will be partially absorbed by the ventral strakes while remaining energy will be deflected to other directions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423502005910212609

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Titanium100

onebyone said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423502005910212609



Damn it is flying so low and not far from that tree in the first few seconds before going around the building


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423461468943503361

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ACE OF HEARTS

onebyone said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423461468943503361


Love the engine's sound

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

J-20s flew over the Sino-Russian military exercise at Qingtongxia at 1:07 mark.



https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4668316737603397

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Wow. A J-20 pilot does a roll for some chicks in some small town and everyone loses his mind but J-20 participates in the first international exercise for the type and no one even comments...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> Wow. A J-20 pilot does a roll for some chicks in some small town and everyone loses his mind but J-20 participates in the first international exercise for the type and no one even comments...


Welcome to the Instagram Age.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## chinasun



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

J-20 fighter jets highlight China-Russia joint strategic drills opening - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn







> This is the first time the PLA has sent the J-20 in joint drills with another country, and this, along with other exercise arrangements like sharing PLA main battle equipment with the Russian troops, displayed a high-level of cooperation and mutual trust between the Chinese and Russian militaries at a time when the two countries are facing challenges from the changing security situation in Central Asia following the US' troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and direct threats from the US and its allies, Chinese experts said.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Wow. A J-20 pilot does a roll for some chicks in some small town and everyone loses his mind but J-20 participates in the first international exercise for the type and no one even comments...




Sorry, I‘m in Italy right now and my family will kill my if I‘m sitting as long on the PC as at home … also, this is quite common: I‘m on vacation far away and the most interesting news will happen. As such I won‘t be surprised when within the next 10 days we‘ll see clear images of the J-35, KJ-600, new units and eventually even the H-20.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## 艹艹艹



Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1429821553336746007

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430411934562537477

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

@Deino

Recent hot news from Philippines on mystery aircraft entering its airspace with photo of bomber released. Some said it looks like H-20 stealth bomber but the trail of smoke is alot. Do you think it's Xian H-6? Philippines Air Force scrambled pair of FA-50 to intercept but failed. 










Mystery Unidentified Aerial Vehicle Photographed In Daylight Flying Over The Philippines As Local Air Force Issues ‘Scramble Order’ But Cannot Catch


Local press in the Philippines has reported on a scramble of fighters on a mystery unresponsive aerial contact UFO that they couldn't catch.




www.nowtheendbegins.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

It is more than obviously a USAF RQ-180

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GiantPanda

This looks like a TVC assisted maneuver out of a falling flat spin at low altitude.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434566745533079559

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

GiantPanda said:


> This looks like a TVC assisted maneuver out of a falling flat spin at low altitude.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434566745533079559




Actually I'm not sure, but indeed anyway intersting!


----------



## ozranger

GiantPanda said:


> This looks like a TVC assisted maneuver out of a falling flat spin at low altitude.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434566745533079559


Obviously not. However J-20 has a very high roll rate, much higher than most twin engine fighter jets, even likely higher than that of single engine F-16 or J-10. By having than kind of roll rate, J-20 can change direction and point the nose to target very quickly when manoeurvering. What you have seen in the video is actually a roll and the following change of flying direction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## ozranger

Pay attention to the rolls, not the turns. BTW it seems like the pilots are now allowed to turn the afterburners up a little bit so the turns are looking sharper than in previous airshows. Globally J-20 is now the only one of two stealth fighters which can really dogfight.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434713436571648007

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## serenity

ozranger said:


> Pay attention to the rolls, not the turns. BTW it seems like the pilots are now allowed to turn the afterburners up a little bit so the turns are looking sharper than in previous airshows. Globally J-20 is now the only one of two stealth fighters which can really dogfight.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434713436571648007



Totally incredible roll rate at slow speed.

Usual roll rate decrease with lower airspeed passing control surface and decrease by quite a lot. These roll rate speeds for these near stalling speeds is at least double most fighters.

No Su-27 type or F-16 or F-15 can even get half this roll rate at the same speed. Whenever you pay attention to their videos of airshow performance, they need to pick up huge speed to perform turns and rolling just about as fast as the J-20 does at stalling speeds.

I believe the J-20 is actually quite good at low speed maneuvering. Maybe not overall as good as modern Su-35 or thrust vectoring flanker fighters because they are the best at this routine but the J-20's is still very good. J-20's real maneuverability performance is in supersonic speed. Pilots say its performance is about even with 4th generation flankers but in supersonic flight it is so much better than flankers. Eurofighter and F-22 are also extremely good in supersonic speeds. This is the domain that matter more than low speed maneuvering but low speed maneuvering shows flight control capability and how much lift the aircraft has and how well it manages angle of attack. Thrust vectoring can help a lot as well.

They cannot show J-20 performance in supersonic speeds to the public especially in a city but in training, J-20 absolutely dominates over 4th generation fighters in PLAAF and probably also in dogfighting.

I think flying them around so often really is saying there are more J-20s in service already than official estimates assume. Probably 2 or 3 times as many. Right now it is assumed between 30 or 40 in service but really there is at least 80 a few months ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

GiantPanda said:


> This looks like a TVC assisted maneuver out of a falling flat spin at low altitude.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434566745533079559



Looks like a standard Immelmann’s turn to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DJ_Viper

GiantPanda said:


> This looks like a TVC assisted maneuver out of a falling flat spin at low altitude.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1434566745533079559



Heavy engines, lighter / stealthier airframe with composites, no loadout and light fuel, you'd see the agility. Plus, the canards as is will give it agility. With a full loadout, it will be difficult to point to anyone's six without the TVC. It will be needed in case of a faceoff.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> It is more than obviously a USAF RQ-180



Good, I can suggest this in their thread when others guessed B-2, H-20


----------



## 52051

kungfugymnast said:


> Good, I can suggest this in their thread when others guessed B-2, H-20



It takes tremendously amount of fanboyism to believe China would fly her top secret prototype bomber in a contested airspace like South China sea.


----------



## IblinI

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435158034850861056not sure about this 150 though. @Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

DJ_Viper said:


> Heavy engines, lighter / stealthier airframe with composites, no loadout and light fuel, you'd see the agility. Plus, the canards as is will give it agility. With a full loadout, it will be difficult to point to anyone's six without the TVC. It will be needed in case of a faceoff.



Yes TVC is important for dogfight and also high altitude maneuvering especially when flying fast. Also the J-20 will be perfect if fitted a gun.


52051 said:


> It takes tremendously amount of fanboyism to believe China would fly her top secret prototype bomber in a contested airspace like South China sea.



Definitely not the prototype, at least production model where everything is proven and working such as J-20B/C


----------



## DJ_Viper

kungfugymnast said:


> Yes TVC is important for dogfight and also high altitude maneuvering especially when flying fast. Also the J-20 will be perfect if fitted a gun.



That's a horrible idea to take a large strike jet and put a gun for it for a dog fight. The stealth tier should never come to a situation for a dog fight. For that, the USAF would move up the -15 and -16's. Similarly, the Chinese would probably put the J-10's, J-11's, and J-16's for that role.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

IblinI said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435158034850861056not sure about this 150 though. @Deino




Surely not! There are in no way 150 J-20s already in service and even if we surely don't know all individual aircraft, there are at best between 50-60 operational now in two FTTB units and two true fighter brigades.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435507068849504256


----------



## kungfugymnast

DJ_Viper said:


> That's a horrible idea to take a large strike jet and put a gun for it for a dog fight. The stealth tier should never come to a situation for a dog fight. For that, the USAF would move up the -15 and -16's. Similarly, the Chinese would probably put the J-10's, J-11's, and J-16's for that role.



Never underestimate the requirement of having gun on fighter. If there's a B-2 about to enter cruise missile effective range and your J-20 ran out of PL-10 while PL-15 can't track, you can still destroy the B-2 using gun. Also if J-20 is up against F-22 and missiles don't work due to stealth, the gun is all you can count on. J-20 & F-22 never met in combat, both won't know if their missiles would be able to hit each other.


----------



## DJ_Viper

kungfugymnast said:


> Never underestimate the requirement of having gun on fighter. If there's a B-2 about to enter cruise missile effective range and your J-20 ran out of PL-10 while PL-15 can't track, you can still destroy the B-2 using gun. Also if J-20 is up against F-22 and missiles don't work due to stealth, the gun is all you can count on. J-20 & F-22 never met in combat, both won't know if their missiles would be able to hit each other.



This is fundamental difference in how the US strategists think and others. Your J-20 or B1, etc, should never be in a position to requiring a gun. If that ever could happen, that immediately means that your Tier I, II and support / backup aircraft have all been destroyed. So then your one jet won't see any different of a fat, even IF it had a weapon. Weapons are created per strategies, strategies are created to counter scenarios and situations, these jets are not created for a dog fight like an F-16 or F-16 would do. That's a billion dollars being put at risk to be quickly wasted. A race car, a truck and a bus are designed for VERY different applications in life. They can't be the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

I must admit, I'm still sceptical ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435920352446615557

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> I must admit, I'm still sceptical ...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435920352446615557


So am I.

I think it might be an improved WS-10C with 15 tons of thrust. From all the info I've been reading, it doesn't look like WS-15 would be ready before 2023.



IblinI said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435158034850861056not sure about this 150 though. @Deino


150 is way to many. I think approximate 4 regiments (~80) is the more likely number.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

S10 said:


> From all the info I've been reading, it doesn't look like WS-15 would be ready before 2023.


What info is that? And ready as in ready for production or ready for flight testing?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

ZeEa5KPul said:


> What info is that? And ready as in ready for production or ready for flight testing?


I think ready for flight testing on J20


----------



## S10

ZeEa5KPul said:


> What info is that? And ready as in ready for production or ready for flight testing?


I think it would be the start of LRIP at that stage.


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1436231925128073228

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## kungfugymnast

DJ_Viper said:


> This is fundamental difference in how the US strategists think and others. Your J-20 or B1, etc, should never be in a position to requiring a gun. If that ever could happen, that immediately means that your Tier I, II and support / backup aircraft have all been destroyed. So then your one jet won't see any different of a fat, even IF it had a weapon. Weapons are created per strategies, strategies are created to counter scenarios and situations, these jets are not created for a dog fight like an F-16 or F-16 would do. That's a billion dollars being put at risk to be quickly wasted. A race car, a truck and a bus are designed for VERY different applications in life. They can't be the same.



There's no actual stealth fighter vs stealth fighter engagement before and it is expected that missiles effective pk would greatly reduced especially radar guided missiles. If an Iraqi Mig-25 successful spoofed and evaded dozens of AIM-120 launched from F-15C squadron, a stealth fighter could do it even better. Both stealth fighters can't kill each other at medium range would get into dogfight. The 1 with gun would have better chance than the 1 without after all effective missiles depleted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DJ_Viper

kungfugymnast said:


> There's no actual stealth fighter vs stealth fighter engagement before and it is expected that missiles effective pk would greatly reduced especially radar guided missiles. If an Iraqi Mig-25 successful spoofed and evaded dozens of AIM-120 launched from F-15C squadron, a stealth fighter could do it even better. Both stealth fighters can't kill each other at medium range would get into dogfight. The 1 with gun would have better chance than the 1 without after all effective missiles depleted.



Clearly, you didn't understand anything from my post!


----------



## khanasifm




----------



## ozranger

Excellent J-20 manoeuvrability demo. PLAAF just cannot be happier with this kind of roll rate and energy substainability.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## johncliu88

ozranger said:


> Excellent J-20 manoeuvrability demo. PLAAF just cannot be happier with this kind of roll rate and energy substainability.


Great video. Thanks. Wait till WS-15 in service, then we will see better dance of J-20.


----------



## ozranger

This video shows J-20's exceptionally first roll at 0:58. I suggest viewers rewind to 0:00 to watch this excellent compilation of J-20 clips.


----------



## ozranger



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## scherz

Beautiful


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441858588406734851

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441714353346998272

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ozranger




----------



## siegecrossbow

Stats are unveiled. It is 21.2 meters long and Mach 2.0 capable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

J-20 at Zhuhai 2021 Day 2

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

kungfugymnast said:


> Never underestimate the requirement of having gun on fighter. If there's a B-2 about to enter cruise missile effective range and your J-20 ran out of PL-10 while PL-15 can't track, you can still destroy the B-2 using gun. Also if J-20 is up against F-22 and missiles don't work due to stealth, the gun is all you can count on. J-20 & F-22 never met in combat, both won't know if their missiles would be able to hit each other.


You are forgetting EOTS and IR-guided missiles with SALCOS.


----------



## Su33KUB

siegecrossbow said:


> View attachment 780637
> 
> 
> Stats are unveiled. It is 21.2 meters long and Mach 2.0 capable.


Long long time ago i said it is near 21,3 meters check MiG-29 post in sino defence nobody believe and so was Su-35 purchase and so was J-10 only can do cobra with thrust vectoring and Su-57-5 was going to be rebuilt, of course while some hate aerodynamics, aerodynamics tell things things people do not see.

*Great Victory MiG-29*

he size of the J-20 seems to be around 21 meters something between 20.5 and 21.5, all these pixels are difficult to see where a fighter starts and ends and most western or Russian estimates gave a 21-23 meters length.

Which is pretty accurate considering here many were saying it was 19.5 meters 





__





J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)


If your "experts" are like David Axe, they make money like all authors, telling the readers what they want to hear, within our own DOD, there are people who "know" the specs on all these birds and could likely tell you the length and breadth, thrust to weight ratio, and within reason which bird...



www.sinodefenceforum.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1443956090627002368

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Deino

Close up of the J-20A's WS-10C. (via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo)









onebyone said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1443956090627002368




Wow, I did have even time to re-post it here too!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Deino said:


> Close up of the J-20A's WS-10C. (via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo)
> 
> 
> View attachment 781367
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I did have even time to re-post it here too!



Seems to be identical to F-35's engine's nozzles.

Reactions: Angry Angry:
1


----------



## PakAlp

ozranger said:


> J-20 at Zhuhai 2021 Day 2



Phenomenal plane. Its time for the world to accept China as a technology power, they will keep rising.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Close up of the J-20A's WS-10C. (via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo)
> 
> 
> View attachment 781367
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I did have even time to re-post it here too!


Can do a photo comparison of WS-10A vs WS-10C nozzle?


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> Long long time ago i said it is near 21,3 meters check MiG-29 post in sino defence nobody believe and so was Su-35 purchase and so was J-10 only can do cobra with thrust vectoring and Su-57-5 was going to be rebuilt, of course while some hate aerodynamics, aerodynamics tell things things people do not see.
> 
> *Great Victory MiG-29*
> 
> he size of the J-20 seems to be around 21 meters something between 20.5 and 21.5, all these pixels are difficult to see where a fighter starts and ends and most western or Russian estimates gave a 21-23 meters length.
> 
> Which is pretty accurate considering here many were saying it was 19.5 meters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
> 
> 
> If your "experts" are like David Axe, they make money like all authors, telling the readers what they want to hear, within our own DOD, there are people who "know" the specs on all these birds and could likely tell you the length and breadth, thrust to weight ratio, and within reason which bird...
> 
> 
> 
> www.sinodefenceforum.com



I'm the only 1 believed your details. Now they know and owe you big apology. 

The J-20 length is obviously at around 70ft with its height at 16ft yet it looks so long clearly tells that it has length close to Su-27, RA-5C & F-111 category. 

Unlike YF-23 that is only 12ft in height it looks long and already at 67ft. So J-20 at 16ft to look that long would be 70ft at least. 

The J-10 small wing surface area definitely can't perform cobra without TVC. Its wings are even smaller than Rafale & EF-2000.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

RAMPAGE said:


> You are forgetting EOTS and IR-guided missiles with SALCOS.



Those probably works but the question here is, if the J-20 ran out of PL-10, there's no guarantee that the PL-15 could track and home in on the B-2 within visual range. If the PL-15 can't acquire lock and the B-2 is getting into its cruise missiles effective range, is the J-20 going to ram the B-2 in kamikaze because it doesn't have gun?


----------



## Beast

kungfugymnast said:


> is the J-20 going to ram the B-2 in kamikaze because it doesn't have gun?


One J-20 take out one B-2... Quite worth it!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

kungfugymnast said:


> I'm the only 1 believed your details. Now they know and owe you big apology.
> 
> The J-20 length is obviously at around 70ft with its height at 16ft yet it looks so long clearly tells that it has length close to Su-27, RA-5C & F-111 category.
> 
> Unlike YF-23 that is only 12ft in height it looks long and already at 67ft. So J-20 at 16ft to look that long would be 70ft at least.
> 
> The J-10 small wing surface area definitely can't perform cobra without TVC. Its wings are even smaller than Rafale & EF-2000.


To be honest this picture convinced me it was its length






see some one long time ago, and it was not me, some person calculated the size, the canopies are almost equal sized, so the calculation this person made was correct.

About J-10 it is simple to do cobra you need pitch down the nose to recover, canards stall before the wings and are ahead the wing and center of lift of the main wing.

but well If I am honest nobody needs to apollogize to me, it only makes me happy when I was right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> To be honest this picture convinced me it was its length
> 
> View attachment 781768
> 
> 
> see some one long time ago, and it was not me, some person calculated the size, the canopies are almost equal sized, so the calculation this person made was correct.
> 
> About J-10 it is simple to do cobra you need pitch down the nose to recover, canards stall before the wings and are ahead the wing and center of lift of the main wing.
> 
> but well If I am honest nobody needs to apollogize to me, it only makes me happy when I was right.



In fact numbers of analyst took the side photos under same scale to evaluate the length of J-20. Since most of the frontal design on early J-20 prototype took similar or almost exact cues from F-22, they could just determine the frontal fuselage from nose radome to fore air intake at almost the same length as F-22 while the extra back are ones that they need to calculate. This is why analyst been saying that the J-20 is more of long range interceptor bomber rather than fighter for present day fighters maneuverability standard. Unless PLAAF intends to come up with enlarged FC-31 to F-22's 62ft size, that would be formidable nimble fighter, not going to happen anyway, rather save that for navalized stealth fighter programme. 

Frankly speaking, those who condemned your comments to the max back then should really apologize.


Beast said:


> One J-20 take out one B-2... Quite worth it!



If China is being outnumbered in that future war, losing a J-20 just to kill a B-2 is not really ideal. US would have far more stealth bombers and fighters if war broke out before 2025.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

kungfugymnast said:


> In fact numbers of analyst took the side photos under same scale to evaluate the length of J-20. Since most of the frontal design on early J-20 prototype took similar or almost exact cues from F-22, they could just determine the frontal fuselage from nose radome to fore air intake at almost the same length as F-22 while the extra back are ones that they need to calculate. This is why analyst been saying that the J-20 is more of long range interceptor bomber rather than fighter for present day fighters maneuverability standard. Unless PLAAF intends to come up with enlarged FC-31 to F-22's 62ft size, that would be formidable nimble fighter, not going to happen anyway, rather save that for navalized stealth fighter programme.
> 
> Frankly speaking, those who condemned your comments to the max back then should really apologize.
> 
> 
> If China is being outnumbered in that future war, losing a J-20 just to kill a B-2 is not really ideal. US would have far more stealth bombers and fighters if war broke out before 2025.


it is around 21 meters, it could be 20.9 or 21.1, in the picture you posted the Su-27 is slightly ahead of where the J-20`s tail end, the Flanker is around 21.9 almost 22 meters, of course since the details are so blur people will see what ever they want, the F-22 and J-20 pictur*e i posted before has a realistic scale since they use the canopies as measurement and they give a measure of 21.1 meters.


But i bet when the official dimensions are disclosed the J-20 length will be in the 21meters length range
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-iv-closed-to-posting.6233/page-25 

It took me 9 years to see it*

In reality an apology should be voluntary and felt, so I do not need them, it only makes me happy to see the 21 meters length was correct, and the guy that made that picture was very smart.

at that time did not understand many things. Now I know more things and among one is stealth requierements demand larger aircraft due to internal weapons bays and the need for more internal fuel.

For a 1960s A-5 was an attack aircraft, same F-111, so wen J-20 appeared many people thought it was huge, well Su-35 is big and agile, but it is mostly for Thrust vectoring, the reality really agile aircraft are small like Rafale or Eurofighter.


J-20 is multirole, with TVC nozzles it will be able to make tighter turns and with high thrust keeo sustained tight turns but in reality is highly dependant upon avionics and weapons.

You will never see J-20 without TVC nozzles doing great maneuvres, but it does not need them advanced weapons and avionics allow it to fight.

Anyway regards Saludos

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## ozranger

Better angles for watching J-20's turns. 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1444329544433881099

Reactions: Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Can do a photo comparison of WS-10A vs WS-10C nozzle?




vs the latest Series 3 WS-10B in a J-16.








Tai Hai Chen said:


> Seems to be identical to F-35's engine's nozzles.




What??    ... not sure if this again is just to provoke or plain stupid.


----------



## Deino

I just noticed, @scramble_nl changed the status of the 85th Air Brigade at Quzhou as being under conversion to J-20s. 

Anyone with any explanation why they think it is getting them? AFAIK they are in fact from the 9th Brigade at Wuhu and at Quzhou due to air base renovations.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> it is around 21 meters, it could be 20.9 or 21.1, in the picture you posted the Su-27 is slightly ahead of where the J-20`s tail end, the Flanker is around 21.9 almost 22 meters, of course since the details are so blur people will see what ever they want, the F-22 and J-20 pictur*e i posted before has a realistic scale since they use the canopies as measurement and they give a measure of 21.1 meters.
> 
> 
> But i bet when the official dimensions are disclosed the J-20 length will be in the 21meters length range
> https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-iv-closed-to-posting.6233/page-25
> 
> It took me 9 years to see it*
> 
> In reality an apology should be voluntary and felt, so I do not need them, it only makes me happy to see the 21 meters length was correct, and the guy that made that picture was very smart.
> 
> at that time did not understand many things. Now I know more things and among one is stealth requierements demand larger aircraft due to internal weapons bays and the need for more internal fuel.
> 
> For a 1960s A-5 was an attack aircraft, same F-111, so wen J-20 appeared many people thought it was huge, well Su-35 is big and agile, but it is mostly for Thrust vectoring, the reality really agile aircraft are small like Rafale or Eurofighter.
> 
> 
> J-20 is multirole, with TVC nozzles it will be able to make tighter turns and with high thrust keeo sustained tight turns but in reality is highly dependant upon avionics and weapons.
> 
> You will never see J-20 without TVC nozzles doing great maneuvres, but it does not need them advanced weapons and avionics allow it to fight.
> 
> Anyway regards Saludos



The Su-27 without TVC is very maneuverable that it could challenge F-16C & F/A-18C/E in dogfight. The Su-27 despite being large at 21.9m long, its design is more of a giant kite spreading the fuselage apart from 2 engines. Overall weight is just as heavy as the F-15E and F-14B. Whereas Mig-31, F-111F at 70ft have full volume fuselage making them heavier at 90,000-100,000lb max takeoff weight. There's internal gun in Mig-31 mainly because of requirement to gun down stealth bomber or any high asset value aircraft that it managed to catch up with its high speed should it runs out of missiles (spent on enemy fighters escorting the AWACS, bombers).

The J-20 has more volume of fuselage than the Su-35 therefore the J-20 is considered bigger and heavier. Since stealth aircraft relies on internal bay to retain stealth, China opted for large internal tank and internal bay to carry more missiles and bombs as opposed to US stealth fighters that can't fly multi-role sorties, yes you're right on this. Russian Su-57 adopted YF-23 approach while retaining everything stretch apart wings design to achieve high maneuverability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

kungfugymnast said:


> The Su-27 without TVC is very maneuverable that it could challenge F-16C & F/A-18C/E in dogfight. The Su-27 despite being large at 21.9m long, its design is more of a giant kite spreading the fuselage apart from 2 engines. Overall weight is just as heavy as the F-15E and F-14B. Whereas Mig-31, F-111F at 70ft have full volume fuselage making them heavier at 90,000-100,000lb max takeoff weight. There's internal gun in Mig-31 mainly because of requirement to gun down stealth bomber or any high asset value aircraft that it managed to catch up with its high speed should it runs out of missiles (spent on enemy fighters escorting the AWACS, bombers).
> 
> The J-20 has more volume of fuselage than the Su-35 therefore the J-20 is considered bigger and heavier. Since stealth aircraft relies on internal bay to retain stealth, China opted for large internal tank and internal bay to carry more missiles and bombs as opposed to US stealth fighters that can't fly multi-role sorties, yes you're right on this. Russian Su-57 adopted YF-23 approach while retaining everything stretch apart wings design to achieve high maneuverability.


I agree, but point is not to belittle any aircraft, is based upon physics, chemestry, that even a high school student should know. To put it simple carbon and aluminium are the lightest materials used in aerospace and all aircraft use them, basically is a limitation by chemestry.

Speed demand different features to an aircraft than stealth or agility.

In 1970 or 2021 if you want speed, no agility and no stealth a shape like Concorde is needed.
If you do not care for speed or stealth just agility, something like Su-29 or AM6 Zero is what you need.
If you want stealth F-117 or have blue is the ideal shape.

What I mean is all aircraft ask contradictory demands, J-20 is no exception, the aircraft is way too heavy, in order to be agile or fast needs lots of thrust.
Add TVC nozzles and it will give a stunning air show demostration, now it only flies like most other aircraft, nothing outstanding.

Su-27 has speed and agility as main contradictory demands but stealth did not play an important requirement.

Su-57 has speed, agility and stealth, like J-20 or F-22,

Su-35 can keep up with F-22 mostly due to better aerodynamics, but F-22 can keep up with Su-35 thanks to raw power I mean very powerful engine.

Speed asks for slender fuselages, basically bullet shaped something like concorde or Tu-160.

Agility basically asks if it is subsonic agility, for straight wings; or LEX and low swept wings like F-18 for something in the region of Mach 2.

Stealth asks for faceted fuselages, flat sides, and diamond shaped cross sections.

J-20 main contradiction is internal weapons bays and s shaped inlet ducts that add substantial weight, volume, size which is reflected on a larger aircraft and larger drag that needs bigger wings and more powerful engines with thrust vectoring.

Thrust vectoring also adds weight too and even can reduce thrust.

Flying wings have troubles of controlability so J-20 retains the main fuselage traights and control surfaces.

In few words contradictions and preference of requirements shape aircraft.

As it stands now J-20 is a bigger F-35 with canards to increase slightly agility.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

Modern TVC on high speed fighters is not meant for improving agility for dogfights, which was discovered by Russian researchers in Soviet era as it will bleed a lot of energy and make the aircraft a sitting duck. However they also stated that it will help pilots conduct manoeuvre more freely as TVC can come to the rescue whenever the aircraft enters stall if ongoing manoeuvre goes wrong.

F-22 and Su-57 use TVC mainly for maintaining good pitch controllability for supersonic flight and therefore the aircraft can obtain sufficient supersonic manoeuvrability. I don't really know about the rationale behind Su-30MKI using TVC anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

ozranger said:


> Modern TVC on high speed fighters is not meant for improving agility for dogfights, which was discovered by Russian researchers in Soviet era as it will bleed a lot of energy and make the aircraft a sitting duck. However they also stated that it will help pilots conduct manoeuvre more freely as TVC can come to the rescue whenever the aircraft enters stall if ongoing manoeuvre goes wrong.
> 
> F-22 and Su-57 use TVC mainly for maintaining good pitch controllability for supersonic flight and therefore the aircraft can obtain sufficient supersonic manoeuvrability. I don't really know about the rationale behind Su-30MKI using TVC anyway.


Instantaneous turn rate is only the result of lift, thrust vectoring can not enhance it.

Sustained turn rate is improved by thrust vectoring and so is roll rate.

X-31 was able to defeat F-18s on TVC nozzles, however it was one on one combat.

On multi-aircraft engagements the over use of post-stall can lead to defeat, that is true.

For J-20 in order to have good climb rate, good acceleration and sustained turn rate, it needs a very powerful engine, thus WS-15 is needed.

The current engines WS-10s just by the display of Zhuhai by the J-20s, showed no post stall, and regular turns and rolls.

The reality is TVC only improves sustained turn rates 10%, its main mission is to use it for post-stall and reduce the need for larger aerodynamic control surfaces.

You can say for J-20 is more important to have a f119 or F135 type engine.

Post stall is only a safety feature but it can be used for air combat in the right situation for advantage in dogfights, Su-30MKI has TVC nozzles well Su-35 and Su-30MS to enhance sustained turn rates, or roll rates. but TVC nozzles add around 100 kg per engine so it reduces engine thrust to weight ratio.

J-20 might only need a better engine and a good helmet mounted sight.


----------



## zhxy

Su33KUB said:


> You can say for J-20 is more important to have a f119 or F135 type engine.



There are no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. I think it is possible for China to buy F-119 and F-135 from the US with full TOT. $100 billion is enough for the deal. But hell, this number is way too big. China must be crazy to pay this amount to buy technology

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Deino

zhxy said:


> There are no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. *I think it is possible for China to buy F-119 and F-135 from the US with full TOT*. $100 billion is enough for the deal. But hell, this number is way too big. China must be crazy to pay this amount to buy technology




Oh my god ... not sure, what you smoked, but you should stop it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> I'm the only 1 believed your details. Now they know and owe you big apology.
> 
> The J-20 length is obviously at around 70ft with its height at 16ft yet it looks so long clearly tells that it has length close to Su-27, RA-5C & F-111 category.
> 
> Unlike YF-23 that is only 12ft in height it looks long and already at 67ft. So J-20 at 16ft to look that long would be 70ft at least.
> 
> The J-10 small wing surface area definitely can't perform cobra without TVC. Its wings are even smaller than Rafale & EF-2000.


Mr fake expert its clearly state here that j-20 considerably smaller than PLAAF su series of jets, slightly more larger than f-22/su-57 (66 feet) we have a sat pics of j-20 along with PLAAF su/j-11s in this thread


----------



## Beast

kungfugymnast said:


> If China is being outnumbered in that future war, losing a J-20 just to kill a B-2 is not really ideal. US would have far more stealth bombers and fighters if war broke out before 2025.



Chances of B-2 being outnumber by J-20 is more realistic than J-20 being out numbered by B-2. We all know how expensive a B-2 cost and a big reason why B-2 is produced in such limited number.


----------



## FuturePAF

Any update coming out of Zhuhai about the WS-15?


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> Mr fake expert its clearly state here that j-20 considerably smaller than PLAAF su series of jets, slightly more larger than f-22/su-57 (66 feet) we have a sat pics of j-20 along with PLAAF su/j-11s in this thread



Seems like you're the only 1 having trouble understanding English. Most likely you're trolling. How come you're the only 1 that is having problem can't stick to topic? You owed Su-33KUB an apology because he guessed the length of J-20 correctly at 70ft range. Even I came up with that answer while you're the 1 condemning us as you sided with the google search information that proven wrong.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> Seems like you're the only 1 having trouble understanding English. Most likely you're trolling. How come you're the only 1 that is having problem can't stick to topic? You owed Su-33KUB an apology because he guessed the length of J-20 correctly at 70ft range. Even I came up with that answer while you're the 1 condemning us as you sided with the google search information that proven wrong.


 anything you left from your baseless troll and rants, every major defense websites stating that J20 has length of under 70 feet and has almost length of Su57 (1 feet ) longer


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> Instantaneous turn rate is only the result of lift, thrust vectoring can not enhance it.
> 
> Sustained turn rate is improved by thrust vectoring and so is roll rate.
> 
> X-31 was able to defeat F-18s on TVC nozzles, however it was one on one combat.
> 
> On multi-aircraft engagements the over use of post-stall can lead to defeat, that is true.
> 
> For J-20 in order to have good climb rate, good acceleration and sustained turn rate, it needs a very powerful engine, thus WS-15 is needed.
> 
> The current engines WS-10s just by the display of Zhuhai by the J-20s, showed no post stall, and regular turns and rolls.
> 
> The reality is TVC only improves sustained turn rates 10%, its main mission is to use it for post-stall and reduce the need for larger aerodynamic control surfaces.
> 
> You can say for J-20 is more important to have a f119 or F135 type engine.
> 
> Post stall is only a safety feature but it can be used for air combat in the right situation for advantage in dogfights, Su-30MKI has TVC nozzles well Su-35 and Su-30MS to enhance sustained turn rates, or roll rates. but TVC nozzles add around 100 kg per engine so it reduces engine thrust to weight ratio.
> 
> J-20 might only need a better engine and a good helmet mounted sight.



In fact you are absolutely correct.

My country operates Su-30MK with TVC and they said they'll use it whenever they need tighter turn during dogfight. Tested against F/A-18, Mig-29, BAe Hawk, the TVC eases things up in getting to their tails enjoying smaller turn radius. Of course they'll use it wisely based on limit, avoid bleeding out which would end up being easy target for enemy missiles.

J-20 is a large & heavy aircraft that it's perfect only to have powerful WS-15 40,000lb engine each with TVC and preferably having fitted internal gun. J-20 needed the TVC for high altitude maneuvering apart from improving turn radius. Current turn radius is too big, better than the F-14 but no where near Su-27, F/A-18E.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


> Chances of B-2 being outnumber by J-20 is more realistic than J-20 being out numbered by B-2. We all know how expensive a B-2 cost and a big reason why B-2 is produced in such limited number.



Have you seen present US aircraft inventory? If China is unlucky being ganged up like Iraq, looking at India being close ally to US providing FOB to US, then China would fight outnumbered war. Based on Russian strategy against US in Mig-31, the internal gun is there to take out bombers if the Mig-31 managed to splash all the fighters escort with its R-33 left R-73 and GSH-23 for the bombers. The R-73 might not pack enough explosives to down the multi-engines bomber, so the gun is what it needs. If you have long range missiles and the enemy fighters aren't stealth, you would use your long range missiles on the fighters first removing deadly threats them the bombers, it's not an option if the bombers are stealth. I picked the Mig-31 as comparison because the J-20 reflects Mig-31 role more of F-22. Unless the bombers are B-52G/H then you may engage the bombers first.


----------



## LeGenD

White and Green with M/S said:


> Mr fake expert its clearly state here that j-20 considerably smaller than PLAAF su series of jets, slightly more larger than f-22/su-57 (66 feet) we have a sat pics of j-20 along with PLAAF su/j-11s in this thread


Language alert.


----------



## Su33KUB

kungfugymnast said:


> In fact you are absolutely correct.
> 
> My country operates Su-30MK with TVC and they said they'll use it whenever they need tighter turn during dogfight. Tested against F/A-18, Mig-29, BAe Hawk, the TVC eases things up in getting to their tails enjoying smaller turn radius. Of course they'll use it wisely based on limit, avoid bleeding out which would end up being easy target for enemy missiles.
> 
> J-20 is a large & heavy aircraft that it's perfect only to have powerful WS-15 40,000lb engine each with TVC and preferably having fitted internal gun. J-20 needed the TVC for high altitude maneuvering apart from improving turn radius. Current turn radius is too big, better than the F-14 but no where near Su-27, F/A-18E.


thanks.

The J-20 only needs high thrust, I mean Eurofighter can keep up with F-22 just by having a very low wing loading and high thrust to weight ratio.

What I mean post stall is useful, but nowadays helmet mounted sights and highly off boresight missiles can do the same in combat.

Usually TVC nozzles are used to regain some agility lost due to weight without increasing thrust, to increase sustained vertical or horizontal turns an aircraft needs thrust.

So as long as WS-15 is fitted to J-20 there is going to be increses in sustained turn rates compared to a WS-10 or Al-31 equipped earlier J-20.

TVC nozzles post stall capability is mostly to have aircraft without post stall limits and this can be used to re-direct the nose at any direction while moving on a fixed direction or flight path, however this bleed energy, the thrust increase reduces the speed bleed thus sustained turn rates are increased.

So while a WS-10 with TVC nozzles increases turn rate, a WS-15 without TVC nozzles will do the same for J-20 without adding extra weight for the engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> thanks.
> 
> The J-20 only needs high thrust, I mean Eurofighter can keep up with F-22 just by having a very low wing loading and high thrust to weight ratio.
> 
> What I mean post stall is useful, but nowadays helmet mounted sights and highly off boresight missiles can do the same in combat.
> 
> Usually TVC nozzles are used to regain some agility lost due to weight without increasing thrust, to increase sustained vertical or horizontal turns an aircraft needs thrust.
> 
> So as long as WS-15 is fitted to J-20 there is going to be increses in sustained turn rates compared to a WS-10 or Al-31 equipped earlier J-20.
> 
> TVC nozzles post stall capability is mostly to have aircraft without post stall limits and this can be used to re-direct the nose at any direction while moving on a fixed direction or flight path, however this bleed energy, the thrust increase reduces the speed bleed thus sustained turn rates are increased.
> 
> So while a WS-10 with TVC nozzles increases turn rate, a WS-15 without TVC nozzles will do the same for J-20 without adding extra weight for the engine



I totally agree with you. At the mean time, they don't seem keen to add TVC to WS-10C. We'll wait and see what are they up to next, everyone is waiting for WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

kungfugymnast said:


> I totally agree with you. At the mean time, they don't seem keen to add TVC to WS-10C. We'll wait and see what are they up to next, everyone is waiting for WS-15.


 Future will talk

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clibra

ozranger said:


> Better angles for watching J-20's turns.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1444329544433881099





kungfugymnast said:


> J-20 needed the TVC for high altitude maneuvering apart from improving turn radius. Current turn radius is too big, better than the F-14 but no where near Su-27, F/A-18E.


Watch carefully, from 0:24 to 0:27, J20 made 180 degree turn within 3 seconds.
please show us clip of su27 or F/A18E/F with better maneuverability, thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

clibra said:


> Watch carefully, from 0:24 to 0:27, J20 made 180 degree turn within 3 seconds.
> please show us clip of su27 or F/A18E/F with better maneuverability, thanks.



I think that is due to the camera angle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clibra

siegecrossbow said:


> I think that is due to the camera angle.



Brilliant !


----------



## ozranger

siegecrossbow said:


> I think that is due to the camera angle.


The telephoto lens of a Canon DSLR is a good reference in the video clip, as well as the tips of the hills or trees on the ground. So, based on those references, the video capturing device, probably a mobile phone, did not make any big and fast movement, or rotation if more specifically, when it was tracing J-20'S turn. J-20 did make such a sharp turn with a very small turning radius in very short time.

I don't believe it is very easy for the cameraman to move the telephoto lens rapidly as it is so heavy and physically challenging. I saw in the video he even gave up tracing J-20 for a short moment by dropping the lens.

The key point is J-20 did turn in a very small turning radius as seen with reference to background hills or trees. Is that possible the cameraman accelerated the video on those specific frames of turning? Look, if the actual turning speed were then any slower in such a small space, J-20 would have entered a stall and fell.

PS: I am not going to respond to Su33KUB as there is obviously nil value for doing so. BTW I am highly impressed by @siegecrossbow for his/her new avatar - excellent camera angle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Su33KUB

clibra said:


> Watch carefully, from 0:24 to 0:27, J20 made 180 degree turn within 3 seconds.
> please show us clip of su27 or F/A18E/F with better maneuverability, thanks.


that is not possible, at that speed, a Max 25 deg/sec which is very high, it will take more than 3 seconds,.

You are quoting a 60 deg/sec which basically is not even real, J-20 must be flying at least at 400 km/h






consider that formula, consider the aircraft has a bank angle.




The J-20 in that video has a more realistic turn rate 18 deg/sec









Load Factors (Part Four)


Vg Diagram The flight operating strength of an aircraft is presented on a graph whose vertical scale is based on load factor. [Figure 5-55] The diagram is called a Vg diagram—velocity versus G load…




www.flightliteracy.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

ozranger said:


> The telephoto lens of a Canon DSLR is a good reference in the video clip, as well as the tips of the hills or trees on the ground. So, based on those references, the video capturing device, probably a mobile phone, did not make any big and fast movement, or rotation if more specifically, when it was tracing J-20'S turn. J-20 did make such a sharp turn with a very small turning radius in very short time.
> 
> I don't believe it is very easy for the cameraman to move the telephoto lens rapidly as it is so heavy and physically challenging. I saw in the video he even gave up tracing J-20 for a short moment by dropping the lens.
> 
> The key point is J-20 did turn in a very small turning radius as seen with reference to background hills or trees. Is that possible the cameraman accelerated the video on those specific frames of turning? Look, if the actual turning speed were then any slower in such a small space, J-20 would have entered a stall and fell.


Realistic turn rates for J-20 are around 30 deg/sec Instantaneous turn rate and 25 deg/sec sustained and that is a very high STR. see

Mig 29'smaximum turn-rate of *28 degrees per second* is better than that of the nimblest of West's fighters: F 16's 26 degrees per second. And its sustained turn rate 23 degrees per second is better than West's most advanced air defence fighter F 15's sustained turn rate of 16 degrees per second. 









India buying MIG 29 from Russia – Part 1


‘Strength lies not in defence but in attack.’ – Marquis de Acerba Mig 29 test pilot, Anatoly Kvochur, was awarded ‘Hero of Russia,’ the highest honorary title of the Russian Federation, and The Order ‘For...




timesofindia.indiatimes.com






The J-20`s Zhuhai air demo is unimpressive, a realistic number is 30 deg/sec instantaneous and 21 deg/sec sustained and that will make as good as Gripen which is pretty agile, but the turns it made were in the region of 18 deg/second.


*Sustained - approx.* *20 deg/sec.* *Instantaneous - approx.* *30 deg/sec.* 





Saab JAS 39 Gripen


The Saab JAS 39 Gripen is a fourth generation, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft built in Sweden.



www.fighter-planes.com


----------



## clibra

Su33KUB said:


> Realistic turn rates for J-20 are around 30 deg/sec Instantaneous turn rate and 25 deg/sec sustained and that is a very high STR. see
> 
> Mig 29'smaximum turn-rate of *28 degrees per second* is better than that of the nimblest of West's fighters: F 16's 26 degrees per second. And its sustained turn rate 23 degrees per second is better than West's most advanced air defence fighter F 15's sustained turn rate of 16 degrees per second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India buying MIG 29 from Russia – Part 1
> 
> 
> ‘Strength lies not in defence but in attack.’ – Marquis de Acerba Mig 29 test pilot, Anatoly Kvochur, was awarded ‘Hero of Russia,’ the highest honorary title of the Russian Federation, and The Order ‘For...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timesofindia.indiatimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20`s Zhuhai air demo is unimpressive, a realistic number is 30 deg/sec instantaneous and 21 deg/sec sustained and that will make as good as Gripen which is pretty agile, but the turns it made were in the region of 18 deg/second.
> 
> 
> *Sustained - approx.* *20 deg/sec.* *Instantaneous - approx.* *30 deg/sec.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saab JAS 39 Gripen
> 
> 
> The Saab JAS 39 Gripen is a fourth generation, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft built in Sweden.
> 
> 
> 
> www.fighter-planes.com



Please provide your calculation details of your 30/21 deg/sec results.
Don't tell me you did a simulation in your brain. 
Don't tell me "I don't konw why but I just believe turn rate of J20 can not be better than mig29/gripen/F16"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Su33KUB

clibra said:


> Please provide your calculation details of your 30/21 deg/sec results.
> Don't tell me you did a simulation in your brain.
> Don't tell me "I don't konw why but I just believe turn rate of J20 can not be better than mig29/gripen/F16"


180 deg in 3 seconds is 60 STR, that will be post stall, there is no postall maneovre in that video, in fact A Hornet can not get very good numbers above 500km/h.




What you are saying is fantasy, most aircraft even the most agile are in the region of 25-28 deg/s and here I am saying with TVC nozzles, your 60 deg/sec is fantasy.


----------



## Crimson Blue

zhxy said:


> I think it is possible for China to buy F-119 and F-135 from the US with full TOT. $100 billion is enough for the deal. But hell, this number is way too big. China must be crazy to pay this amount to buy technology



This comment deserves permanent ban of this member from all defense related forums on the internet.... !

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## ozranger

clibra said:


> Please provide your calculation details of your 30/21 deg/sec results.
> Don't tell me you did a simulation in your brain.
> Don't tell me "I don't konw why but I just believe turn rate of J20 can not be better than mig29/gripen/F16"



Past experience tells me you are wasting your time. Don't go into it or your energy will bleed .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Oh well ...









China Likely Stepping Up Stealth Fighter Production | Air & Space Forces Magazine


Production of the J-20, touted by China as a stealth fighter, is set to increase, with one US lawmaker saying the inventory could soon challenge the US.




www.airforcemag.com





... if this is the USAF's official understanding on the PLAAF's J-20, so what what an epic fail!

1. Not sure, what Zhuhai Airshow they saw, but 15 J-20s in a formation? Here on earth? What?
There were only two and no "additional group of the aircraft parked on the runway."...

But even more:

2. Why still citing SCMP? Minnie Chan is probably the most unreliable source and this report was criticised as simply wrong. To claim there are 150 J-20s in service is ridiculous all the more in "four air regiments, most operating in the interior of the country"
At best there 60-70 J-20s in service yet and the PLAAF operates them in Brigades!

As such, PLEASE beware of such reports and even more the mentioned "source".

In fact, I rate her the most unreliable "source" at all; I would even go as far that she has no true internal PLA-related sources at all. All she does is lurking around at some certain social media platforms and picks up the most obscure rumours, she then hypes as "based on internal contacts ...".

So, by my understanding, she's simply not able or willing to differ between reliable and unreliable internet rumours and to put them into the correct context.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kungfugymnast

clibra said:


> Watch carefully, from 0:24 to 0:27, J20 made 180 degree turn within 3 seconds.
> please show us clip of su27 or F/A18E/F with better maneuverability, thanks.



The J-20 is already banking when the camera started recording on the turn radius. I calculated few times minus the bad camera angle, it took 9 seconds to complete the 180degree turn and the turning radius is actually big compared to Su-27 and F/A-18E. There's no manned aircraft that could perform 60 degree turn per second unless it's an AIM-9X sidewinder missile.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> Realistic turn rates for J-20 are around 30 deg/sec Instantaneous turn rate and 25 deg/sec sustained and that is a very high STR. see
> 
> Mig 29'smaximum turn-rate of *28 degrees per second* is better than that of the nimblest of West's fighters: F 16's 26 degrees per second. And its sustained turn rate 23 degrees per second is better than West's most advanced air defence fighter F 15's sustained turn rate of 16 degrees per second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India buying MIG 29 from Russia – Part 1
> 
> 
> ‘Strength lies not in defence but in attack.’ – Marquis de Acerba Mig 29 test pilot, Anatoly Kvochur, was awarded ‘Hero of Russia,’ the highest honorary title of the Russian Federation, and The Order ‘For...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timesofindia.indiatimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20`s Zhuhai air demo is unimpressive, a realistic number is 30 deg/sec instantaneous and 21 deg/sec sustained and that will make as good as Gripen which is pretty agile, but the turns it made were in the region of 18 deg/second.
> 
> 
> *Sustained - approx.* *20 deg/sec.* *Instantaneous - approx.* *30 deg/sec.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saab JAS 39 Gripen
> 
> 
> The Saab JAS 39 Gripen is a fourth generation, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft built in Sweden.
> 
> 
> 
> www.fighter-planes.com



Zhuhai air demo is nothing spectacular in terms of stunts in the air. The J-20 is just for attraction to those never seen the J-20 with own eyes. Military expo is just for customers to browse for suitable weapons or just sight seeing

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> 180 deg in 3 seconds is 60 STR, that will be post stall, there is no postall maneovre in that video, in fact A Hornet can not get very good numbers above 500km/h.
> View attachment 783514
> 
> What you are saying is fantasy, most aircraft even the most agile are in the region of 25-28 deg/s and here I am saying with TVC nozzles, your 60 deg/sec is fantasy.



Fighters maneuverability best at mach 0.75-0.85 having the thrust to throw high yoyo, hard 9G banking, etc. However, after bleeding out & whenever it's hard to gain speed during dogfight, mostly doing below 300kts, at lower speed below 200kts, aircraft with less aerodynamic less swept wings such as F/A-18E, Rafale, J-10C, EF-2000, would enjoy the low speed maneuverability having the advantage of being able to still turn well.


----------



## Deino

*Guys … this back & forth Must end here !
You can continue your discussion in the general aerial warefare thread, but please stop here in the J-20 thread.*


----------



## truthseeker2010

Deino said:


> Oh well ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Likely Stepping Up Stealth Fighter Production | Air & Space Forces Magazine
> 
> 
> Production of the J-20, touted by China as a stealth fighter, is set to increase, with one US lawmaker saying the inventory could soon challenge the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... if this is the USAF's official understanding on the PLAAF's J-20, so what what an epic fail!
> 
> 1. Not sure, what Zhuhai Airshow they saw, but 15 J-20s in a formation? Here on earth? What?
> There were only two and no "additional group of the aircraft parked on the runway."...
> 
> But even more:
> 
> 2. Why still citing SCMP? Minnie Chan is probably the most unreliable source and this report was criticised as simply wrong. To claim there are 150 J-20s in service is ridiculous all the more in "four air regiments, most operating in the interior of the country"
> At best there 60-70 J-20s in service yet and the PLAAF operates them in Brigades!
> 
> As such, PLEASE beware of such reports and even more the mentioned "source".
> 
> In fact, I rate her the most unreliable "source" at all; I would even go as far that she has no true internal PLA-related sources at all. All she does is lurking around at some certain social media platforms and picks up the most obscure rumours, she then hypes as "based on internal contacts ...".
> 
> So, by my understanding, she's simply not able or willing to differ between reliable and unreliable internet rumours and to put them into the correct context.



Sir, do you have latest list of PLAAF inventory?


----------



## jaybird

The clearest J-20 cockpit ever From 彩云香江.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447412003270660096

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

jaybird said:


> The clearest J-20 cockpit ever From 彩云香江.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447412003270660096
> View attachment 783818
> View attachment 783819



Is this taken from real flying aircraft of scale model kit?


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Is this taken from real flying aircraft of scale model kit?



Clearly a real one taken at Zhuhai

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

kungfugymnast said:


> Is this taken from real flying aircraft of scale model kit?


No it's the real deal.

1 HUD, 3 displays (2 large 1 small)

I am actually glad that it's not a giant one piece screen.


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> No it's the real deal.
> 
> 1 HUD, 3 displays (2 large 1 small)
> 
> I am actually glad that it's not a giant one piece screen.




But I see s huge single one !


----------



## luciferdd

https://weibo.com/tv/show/1034:4691511749836891?from=old_pc_videoshow


A 4K120HZ Video about J-20 in Zhuhai

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## serenity

I think it's one large display and one small display. The large display looks like it might be two because it is a curved display which is why it looks like it is angled which explains why some people think it's two large at the top. I think it's one large that is curved at the top and bottom display.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TOTUU

*4K * 
*China J-20 stealth fighter amazing flying at Airshow China 2021*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> But I see s huge single one !


Looks like an edge in between to me. Not a fan of one piece monitor. If the display goes down, there's no backup.


----------



## clibra

kungfugymnast said:


> The J-20 is already banking when the camera started recording on the turn radius. I calculated few times minus the bad camera angle, it took 9 seconds to complete the 180degree turn and the turning radius is actually big compared to Su-27 and F/A-18E. There's no manned aircraft that could perform 60 degree turn per second unless it's an AIM-9X sidewinder missile.


9 seconds? please be more specific on the beginning point and ending point in the video.


----------



## clibra

Deino said:


> But I see s huge single one !


me 2


----------



## Su33KUB

kungfugymnast said:


> Zhuhai air demo is nothing spectacular in terms of stunts in the air. The J-20 is just for attraction to those never seen the J-20 with own eyes. Military expo is just for customers to browse for suitable weapons or just sight seeing


The Zhuhai air displays tells a lot about J-20 performance and specifications.

First since it lacks thrust vectoring nozzles it had no post stall capability, but it also tell another fact, have you seen models of Su-57 on board of potential russian aircraft carriers? well Su-57 has a very short take off run, so they can navalize it.

Why then J-31 will be used for a carrier version? everything is weight, even with catapults a lighter aircraft will be more capable to take off with a higher fuel and weapons load.

See that the flight display only shows some vertical loops and horizontal turns and rolls, pretty very basic maneouvres, no post stall, no post stall means faster speeds to keep the minimun lift it needs to do not stall and fall from the sky.

So it means in order to keep safety for the expectators you need higher speeds.

So basically the display is the highest turns at the safest speeds, the turn you quoted and our friend says 60 deg/s starts at 20 second and ends at 40 seconds, so that is a 18 deg/sec turn rate.

Now why they are making such very tight turn? because that is a tight turn it is comparable to an F-14 turning.

See that F-14 was an 18190kg aircraft at empty weight, pretty much the minimun weight J-20 could achieve, since most aerospace materials are carbon, aluminium, steel and titanium, regardless of additive technologies 3D printing or composite materials


However see F-22 has a Max take off of 38000 kg, 6 tonnes more than an F-14








F-22 Raptor


The F-22 Raptor is combination of stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, and integrated avionics, coupled with improved supportability, represents an exponential leap in warfighting capabilities. The



www.af.mil




Now consider fuel weight, since fuel basically is kerosene it is basically hydrogen and carbon, so fuel in J-20 or F-22 is the same (The formula of kerosene is *C12H26−C15H32*. )


What does it say? well that Su-57, J-20 or F-22 weight range does not change that much due to aerospace materials and fuel.

So if WS-10 has lower yield thrust, the flight display shows the limitation due to weight and thrust J-20 has now.

See that best turns are achieved at sea level any aircraft manual says that due to higher air density, so you are seeing J-20 at its best.

Since WS-10 also uses Kerosene based fuel lower yield thrust means to achieve higher speeds with a lower yield engine means more weight in fuel.

So you can calculate J-20 very likely has a max take off weight of 38000kgs too specially since WS-10 are less capable than F119 engines or type 30 engines thus shows a more conservative and less impressive flight display than F-22 or Su-57.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## DJ_Viper

ozranger said:


> Modern TVC on high speed fighters is not meant for improving agility for dogfights, which was discovered by Russian researchers in Soviet era as it will bleed a lot of energy and make the aircraft a sitting duck. However they also stated that it will help pilots conduct manoeuvre more freely as TVC can come to the rescue whenever the aircraft enters stall if ongoing manoeuvre goes wrong.
> 
> F-22 and Su-57 use TVC mainly for maintaining good pitch controllability for supersonic flight and therefore the aircraft can obtain sufficient supersonic manoeuvrability. I don't really know about the rationale behind Su-30MKI using TVC anyway.



TVC is great for the 5th gen fighters, if they ever have to come down to WVR / close in fights, it helps the fighter maneuver very quickly and point to enemy's 6 at all times as it's turn would be instantaneous. While, a non-TVC fighter will have to do a full turn within 16-20 seconds. A kill is almost guaranteed with HOBS missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> The Zhuhai air displays tells a lot about J-20 performance and specifications.
> 
> First since it lacks thrust vectoring nozzles it had no post stall capability, but it also tell another fact, have you seen models of Su-57 on board of potential russian aircraft carriers? well Su-57 has a very short take off run, so they can navalize it.
> 
> Why then J-31 will be used for a carrier version? everything is weight, even with catapults a lighter aircraft will be more capable to take off with a higher fuel and weapons load.
> 
> See that the flight display only shows some vertical loops and horizontal turns and rolls, pretty very basic maneouvres, no post stall, no post stall means faster speeds to keep the minimun lift it needs to do not stall and fall from the sky.
> 
> So it means in order to keep safety for the expectators you need higher speeds.
> 
> So basically the display is the highest turns at the safest speeds, the turn you quoted and our friend says 60 deg/s starts at 20 second and ends at 40 seconds, so that is a 18 deg/sec turn rate.
> 
> Now why they are making such very tight turn? because that is a tight turn it is comparable to an F-14 turning.
> 
> See that F-14 was an 18190kg aircraft at empty weight, pretty much the minimun weight J-20 could achieve, since most aerospace materials are carbon, aluminium, steel and titanium, regardless of additive technologies 3D printing or composite materials
> 
> 
> However see F-22 has a Max take off of 38000 kg, 6 tonnes more than an F-14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 Raptor
> 
> 
> The F-22 Raptor is combination of stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, and integrated avionics, coupled with improved supportability, represents an exponential leap in warfighting capabilities. The
> 
> 
> 
> www.af.mil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now consider fuel weight, since fuel basically is kerosene it is basically hydrogen and carbon, so fuel in J-20 or F-22 is the same (The formula of kerosene is *C12H26−C15H32*. )
> 
> 
> What does it say? well that Su-57, J-20 or F-22 weight range does not change that much due to aerospace materials and fuel.
> 
> So if WS-10 has lower yield thrust, the flight display shows the limitation due to weight and thrust J-20 has now.
> 
> See that best turns are achieved at sea level any aircraft manual says that due to higher air density, so you are seeing J-20 at its best.
> 
> Since WS-10 also uses Kerosene based fuel lower yield thrust means to achieve higher speeds with a lower yield engine means more weight in fuel.
> 
> So you can calculate J-20 very likely has a max take off weight of 38000kgs too specially since WS-10 are less capable than F119 engines or type 30 engines thus shows a more conservative and less impressive flight display than F-22 or Su-57.




Can you please stop with these stupid analysis? They are all based on the premise that they are showing the full capabilities, which is plain wrong.

The Chinese have no intention to reveal any notable true capabilities, there is no intention for chest-bumping with hyper-fancy manoeuvres like the Russian's do at MAKS. 

All you can deduct from this display is the PLAAF political will to show it to the public and as such it's confidence in the WS-10C.

Anything else like turn-radius, speed of climb, thrust to weight ratio, manoeuvrability and whatever MUST be WRONG, since - in Germany we would say: "Der Pilot is mit angezogener Handbremse geflogen!" - this was just to show the J-20 flying, and not to impress the audience or any armchair analyst!

So please stop it.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

What a ridiculous word salad. Is that you, Inst?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Su33KUB said:


> I do not need German for this analysis, but Math, that you have disregarded, something any engineer will not do, can you know things by the display? yes with Math yes.
> 
> Any one who knows basic aerodynamics knows the importance of trigonometry to deduce lift, banking angle, corner speed, turn rate and turn radius, in fact you are completly wrong the banking angle gives you the G load force, the G load for gives you the corner speed which is defined by the max turn ability.
> 
> Simple graphs and formulas gives you a basic way to analyse the video.
> 
> First let us go by Lift and Bank angle
> 
> View attachment 785091
> 
> 
> See the lift has a bank angle effective lift
> 
> View attachment 785094
> 
> Consider the Max lift coefficien limit is corner speed, which is basically the highest turn rate at the lowest speed, at the max G load
> 
> View attachment 785095
> 
> 
> The Max G will be equal to the max turn rate
> 
> View attachment 785096
> 
> 
> the Tangent is very important because it will help to see the lift weight vector, and it is used to calculate the turn rate and turn radius
> 
> View attachment 785097
> 
> you can see therefore that if you look at J-20 banking angle you can really see how many Gs are applied on the aircraft thus how close is to stall and Max instantaneous turn rate
> View attachment 785098
> 
> 
> What you have disregarded is the bank angle is telling you the stall speed too,
> 
> So I will put it simple, the Bank angle the J-20 is executing is telling you a lot of things given the speed, at a higher bank angle of 82 deg means G loads near 9Gs, thus it means the J-20 is close to the corner speed, basically if you look at that video there is a high bank angle
> see the video
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1444329544433881099
> View attachment 785099
> 
> 
> so regardles your opinion I am wrong, the bank angle shows a near 90 degrees one, J-20 is turning at its best there because the G loads are near 9 or 9G.
> 
> Ask any engineer in Germany about the bank angle and G forces and corner velocities all will agree with me, Math is the true language.
> 
> 
> The lift equation states that *lift L is equal to the lift coefficient Cl times the density r times half of the velocity V squared times the wing area A*. For given air conditions, shape, and inclination of the object, we have to determine a value for Cl to determine the lift.
> *The Lift Equation*
> https://www.grc.nasa.gov › www › airplane › lifteq
> 
> 
> Consider it is flying at sea level J-20 thus the air density is high but since it has a low aspect ratio the lift coefficient is not as high as a unpowered glider at the same given speed since the high aspect ratio has lower drag due to vortices otherwise known to induced lift drag..


He is talking about your stupid analysis of getting SU57 for PLAN

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## lcloo

ZeEa5KPul said:


> What a ridiculous word salad. Is that you, Inst?


He has the posting style of Gambit. Same company.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GiantPanda

lcloo said:


> He has the posting style of Gambit. Same company.



LOL. Trying convey intelligence with a jumble of big sounding words. What pompous asses.


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> I do not need German for this analysis, but Math, that you have disregarded, something any engineer will not do, can you know things by the display? yes with Math yes.
> …...



I‘m not disregarding math, but you are overhyping a demonstration as the corner-stones of the J-20‘s aerodynamic capabilities in order to analyse its flight performances. 

If I crawl on all four arms and legs across a street, you have nothing to calculate my top speed from. And that‚s exactly what the J-20A did at Zhuhai … it was crawling tru the sky and in now way demonstrated its true capabilities. As such, any conclusion event with math MUST be wrong.

And again: Just take this as a warning: Stop with this non-sense … we had this stupid discussion already so often under different names and you have been banned for the same BS from several forums. Therefore if you don‘t want the same fate again … stop it!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> The Zhuhai air displays tells a lot about J-20 performance and specifications.
> 
> First since it lacks thrust vectoring nozzles it had no post stall capability, but it also tell another fact, have you seen models of Su-57 on board of potential russian aircraft carriers? well Su-57 has a very short take off run, so they can navalize it.
> 
> Why then J-31 will be used for a carrier version? everything is weight, even with catapults a lighter aircraft will be more capable to take off with a higher fuel and weapons load.
> 
> See that the flight display only shows some vertical loops and horizontal turns and rolls, pretty very basic maneouvres, no post stall, no post stall means faster speeds to keep the minimun lift it needs to do not stall and fall from the sky.
> 
> So it means in order to keep safety for the expectators you need higher speeds.
> 
> So basically the display is the highest turns at the safest speeds, the turn you quoted and our friend says 60 deg/s starts at 20 second and ends at 40 seconds, so that is a 18 deg/sec turn rate.
> 
> Now why they are making such very tight turn? because that is a tight turn it is comparable to an F-14 turning.
> 
> See that F-14 was an 18190kg aircraft at empty weight, pretty much the minimun weight J-20 could achieve, since most aerospace materials are carbon, aluminium, steel and titanium, regardless of additive technologies 3D printing or composite materials
> 
> 
> However see F-22 has a Max take off of 38000 kg, 6 tonnes more than an F-14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 Raptor
> 
> 
> The F-22 Raptor is combination of stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, and integrated avionics, coupled with improved supportability, represents an exponential leap in warfighting capabilities. The
> 
> 
> 
> www.af.mil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now consider fuel weight, since fuel basically is kerosene it is basically hydrogen and carbon, so fuel in J-20 or F-22 is the same (The formula of kerosene is *C12H26−C15H32*. )
> 
> 
> What does it say? well that Su-57, J-20 or F-22 weight range does not change that much due to aerospace materials and fuel.
> 
> So if WS-10 has lower yield thrust, the flight display shows the limitation due to weight and thrust J-20 has now.
> 
> See that best turns are achieved at sea level any aircraft manual says that due to higher air density, so you are seeing J-20 at its best.
> 
> Since WS-10 also uses Kerosene based fuel lower yield thrust means to achieve higher speeds with a lower yield engine means more weight in fuel.
> 
> So you can calculate J-20 very likely has a max take off weight of 38000kgs too specially since WS-10 are less capable than F119 engines or type 30 engines thus shows a more conservative and less impressive flight display than F-22 or Su-57.



Great info. Basically, any aircraft with 30,000lb max thrust engine could easily take off from carrier. Su-57, F-22, J-20 can be fitted with strengthened landing gear, no issue. It is the landing approach part that matters most, as they would approach too fast due to their design. Aircraft such as F/A-18E, Rafale, J-10C, FC-31, F-35 however are designed for low speed maneuverability & stability allowing them to approach slower and land safe. 

F-14B+ swingwings would extend forward being less aerodynamic to gain more lift, better control & slower approach. F-14B+ internal fuel tank max 15,000lb fuel while F-22 max fuel 18,000lb. F-14B+ vs J-20 in terms of maneuverability, the J-20 would win because of better lift from larger wing area. F-14 could hardly get 9G and known of pulling mostly 7G. An F-15C could easily out turn the F-14 in dogfight. F-22 and J-20 have higher max takeoff weight 80,000lb mainly from larger fuel tank 18,000-22,000lb and heavier armament payload >18,000lb compared to F-14B+ max take off 74,000lb (aircraft weight 34,000lb + payload max 14,500,lb + internal fuel 15,000lb). Fighters with large internal fuel tank don't fill full tank unless needed to travel long range. They don't carry full payload neither depending on mission. 

J-20A with WS-10C, it would fly more like an F-15E on full internal fuel + CFTs than F-14B.


lcloo said:


> He has the posting style of Gambit. Same company.



Gambit is ex-USAF pilot by the way, he posted facts and he's definitely different person.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> Great info. Basically, any aircraft with 30,000lb max thrust engine could easily take off from carrier. Su-57, F-22, J-20 can be fitted with strengthened landing gear, no issue. It is the landing approach part that matters most, as they would approach too fast due to their design. Aircraft such as F/A-18E, Rafale, J-10C, FC-31, F-35 however are designed for low speed maneuverability & stability allowing them to approach slower and land safe.
> 
> F-14B+ swingwings would extend forward being less aerodynamic to gain more lift, better control & slower approach. F-14B+ internal fuel tank max 15,000lb fuel while F-22 max fuel 18,000lb. F-14B+ vs J-20 in terms of maneuverability, the J-20 would win because of better lift from larger wing area. F-14 could hardly get 9G and known of pulling mostly 7G. An F-15C could easily out turn the F-14 in dogfight. F-22 and J-20 have higher max takeoff weight 80,000lb mainly from larger fuel tank 18,000-22,000lb and heavier armament payload >18,000lb compared to F-14B+ max take off 74,000lb (aircraft weight 34,000lb + payload max 14,500,lb + internal fuel 15,000lb). Fighters with large internal fuel tank don't fill full tank unless needed to travel long range. They don't carry full payload neither depending on mission.
> 
> J-20A with WS-10C, it would fly more like an F-15E on full internal fuel + CFTs than F-14B.


your all terminologies are false, you only trying say WING AREA, that's shows your expertise in this field, And j10/FC31, specially FC31 still not have wing area to land on Carrier and forget about J20/F22


----------



## Deino

truthseeker2010 said:


> Sir, do you have latest list of PLAAF inventory?




Yes, but this to publish would ruin my income

Reactions: Haha Haha:
5


----------



## truthseeker2010

Deino said:


> Yes, but this to publish would ruin my income



I am asking for any open source doc.


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> your all terminologies are false, you only trying say WING AREA, that's shows your expertise in this field, And j10/FC31, specially FC31 still not have wing area to land on Carrier and forget about J20/F22



That's not your expertise neither since you don't have certs in aeronautics engineering. Everyone here only took general aeronautical physics knowledge to post 

Do you know that US General Dynamics had landed F-16N (navalized variant F-16) on carrier deck before? A-7 Corsair 2, F-8 Crusader are single engine aircraft that used to operate from USS Saratoga, USS Kitty Hawk.

J-10C wing area + fuselage bottom surface area are good enough to land on carrier with slower approach speed than J-15. FC-31 copied design cue from F-35 to get similar RCS and aerodynamic, you think it can't land on carrier better than J-15? 

Whereas, J-20A & F-22 can't because they would approach the carrier too fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Su33KUB

kungfugymnast said:


> Great info. Basically, any aircraft with 30,000lb max thrust engine could easily take off from carrier. Su-57, F-22, J-20 can be fitted with strengthened landing gear, no issue. It is the landing approach part that matters most, as they would approach too fast due to their design. Aircraft such as F/A-18E, Rafale, J-10C, FC-31, F-35 however are designed for low speed maneuverability & stability allowing them to approach slower and land safe.
> 
> F-14B+ swingwings would extend forward being less aerodynamic to gain more lift, better control & slower approach. F-14B+ internal fuel tank max 15,000lb fuel while F-22 max fuel 18,000lb. F-14B+ vs J-20 in terms of maneuverability, the J-20 would win because of better lift from larger wing area. F-14 could hardly get 9G and known of pulling mostly 7G. An F-15C could easily out turn the F-14 in dogfight. F-22 and J-20 have higher max takeoff weight 80,000lb mainly from larger fuel tank 18,000-22,000lb and heavier armament payload >18,000lb compared to F-14B+ max take off 74,000lb (aircraft weight 34,000lb + payload max 14,500,lb + internal fuel 15,000lb). Fighters with large internal fuel tank don't fill full tank unless needed to travel long range. They don't carry full payload neither depending on mission.
> 
> J-20A with WS-10C, it would fly more like an F-15E on full internal fuel + CFTs than F-14B.
> 
> 
> Gambit is ex-USAF pilot by the way, he posted facts and he's definitely different person.


J-20 is still limited by TWR, So using a lighter aircraft is better for a naval fighter.

Regardless of opinion, the bank angle tells you the max G load a 82 deg of bank angle generates 9Gs and the aircraft is close to stall, at Zhuhai the J-20 showed bank angles near 80 or more.

When they get WS-15 the turn rate will improve, but now still in underpowered, taking off from an aircraft carrier still will be harder.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

I found a yoytube channel called mhdefence or something that show about j20 carrier version with arresting gear. Is it legit?

Is that mean that j20 will become the next csg and not j35? Or is it fake?


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> Can you please stop with these stupid analysis? They are all based on the premise that they are showing the full capabilities, which is plain wrong.
> 
> The Chinese have no intention to reveal any notable true capabilities, there is no intention for chest-bumping with hyper-fancy manoeuvres like the Russian's do at MAKS.
> 
> All you can deduct from this display is the PLAAF political will to show it to the public and as such it's confidence in the WS-10C.
> 
> Anything else like turn-radius, speed of climb, thrust to weight ratio, manoeuvrability and whatever MUST be WRONG, since - in Germany we would say: "Der Pilot is mit angezogener Handbremse geflogen!" - this was just to show the J-20 flying, and not to impress the audience or any armchair analyst!
> 
> So please stop it.


I care less about you banning me, as long as I am right, and there are more forums I am happy, any way math does not lie, a bank angle in a turn close to 80 degs means 9Gs, it means corner speed.

Can I say the exact Turn rate of J-20? no of course not, but by looking at that bank I can see it is turning tight, and is a better aproximation by method than just saying "we can not know" , I am using math and physics.







And I have used known data easy to use, that turn on the picture shows a close to 90 degree bank, that approximation by bank angles is a much better method to guess the real capabilities by using physics, now you might think it is stupid but the reality the bank angle method is a scientific approximation since it is a fact that bank angles tell you the G load, 

So do as you wish ban me if you want ban me i careless about it, as long as physics and math support me and there are other forums i careless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> J-20 is still limited by TWR, So using a lighter aircraft is better for a naval fighter.
> 
> Regardless of opinion, the bank angle tells you the max G load a 82 deg of bank angle generates 9Gs and the aircraft is close to stall, at Zhuhai the J-20 showed bank angles near 80 or more.
> 
> When they get WS-15 the turn rate will improve, but now still in underpowered, taking off from an aircraft carrier still will be harder.



With CATOBAR in Type 003, you can launch the heavy F-111 (old TF-30 with only 23,000lb thrust on afterburner) up in the air, no problem.

Only ski ramp Type 001 would require lighter aircraft with enough thrust to dust off safely. That's why Shenyang made the J-15A more aerodynamic to gain speed fast in order to carry more payload than Su-33 which made landing approach speed faster too which is bad. J-15B probably being redesigned to less aerodynamic with max speed just almost mach 2. 

You're right on the J-20 flight envelope, just compare the performance of J-20A vs J-10A/B could tell the maneuverability and nimbleness between the 2. Like the F-15, the J-20 would avoid dogfight unless really necessary.


Su33KUB said:


> I care less about you banning me, as long as I am right, and there are more forums I am happy, any way math does not lie, a bank angle in a turn close to 80 degs means 9Gs, it means corner speed.
> 
> Can I say the exact Turn rate of J-20? no of course not, but by looking at that bank I can see it is turning tight, and is a better aproximation by method than just saying "we can not know" , I am using math and physics.
> 
> View attachment 785446
> 
> 
> And I have used known data easy to use, that turn on the picture shows a close to 90 degree bank, that approximation by bank angles is a much better method to guess the real capabilities by using physics, now you might think it is stupid but the reality the bank angle method is a scientific approximation since it is a fact that bank angles tell you the G load,
> 
> So do as you wish ban me if you want ban me i careless about it, as long as physics and math support me and there are other forums i careless.



Just ignore them and stick to facts talk, they can't do anything other than angering you hoping that you would respond with anger posting wrong words that could get you banned.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Brainsucker said:


> I found a yoytube channel called mhdefence or something that show about j20 carrier version with arresting gear. Is it legit?
> 
> Is that mean that j20 will become the next csg and not j35? Or is it fake?



Could be real and for testing on mock deck purpose. If they wanted a navalized J-20, the first thing they'll alter will be the wings to less swept angle, too much modification required therefore better for them to come up with totally new design instead. To play safe, they'll pick design from F-35C but with twin engines and longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> ...
> And I have used known data easy to use, that turn on the picture shows a close to 90 degree bank, that approximation by bank angles is a much better method to guess the real capabilities by using physics, now you might think it is stupid but the reality the bank angle method is a scientific approximation since it is a fact that bank angles tell you the G load,
> 
> So do as you wish ban me if you want ban me i careless about it, as long as physics and math support me and there are other forums i careless.




I#m not interested in banning you, but in a decent discussion and all you do is extrapolating - or by your definition "calculating" - something as facts based on a wrong premise! The J-20 at Zhuhai did not demonstrate its full potential and manoeuvrability - in fact not even close to - and therefore I ask you again: 

*Why do you think it did and even more why do you think that any reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it?*

Otherwise I beg you both - including @kungfugymnast not again to derail this thread with baseless stupid claims *since this will lead to consequences.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> I#m not interested in banning you, but in a decent discussion and all you do is extrapolating - or by your definition "calculating" - something as facts based on a wrong premise! The J-20 at Zhuhai did not demonstrate its full potential and manoeuvrability - in fact not even close to - and therefore I ask you again:
> 
> *Why do you think it did and even more why do you think that any reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it?*
> 
> Otherwise I beg you both - including @kungfugymnast not again to derail this thread with baseless stupid claims *since this will lead to consequences.*


First let me tell you this:

If in the past I was rude with you, I beg you to forgive me for such behavior, I do not like feel I have disrespect any one, so please forgive me if I was rude, offensive or unpolite.

Now I do not want to speak pages, basically I have said all.

The video has a turn where the aircraft is doing a turn in 20 seconds or around that time so you can guess estimation of 18 deg/s turn.

In order to know if the aircraft is doing its max turn rate, you can use the bank amgle G load chart, 






Beyond 80 deg bank angle you get 9Gs, 






The stall speed means at a very high AoA or bank angle the aircraft is close to stall thus sustained turn rates are lower than instantaneous turn rates.

Pretty much the video shows a J-20 banking a lot, 





If you look at the picture taken from the bellow video the J-20 is turning almost in a 90 deg bank angle.


now see this

To make a maximum rate turn,* you need to turn at the highest angle of bank that can be sustained at the lowest possible airspeed* – just above VS – that is why the stall warning is used to indicate maximum rate.






Maximum rate turns | aviation.govt.nz







www.aviation.govt.nz










In the aforementioned videos J-20 is flying at sea level which is the highest density thus it can generate the most of lift and the aircraft is flying with a very high angle of attack.

Thus the J-20 is showing low speed high bank angles at low altitude so basically you are seeing turning at its best see the engine factor 

*to turn at maximum rate we need maximum centripetal force and maximum lift. The increased angle of attack means increased drag, so full power is used.* As rate of turn is proportional to velocity, the limiting factor in a maximum rate turn is power.





Maximum rate turns | aviation.govt.nz







www.aviation.govt.nz





What I am saying is by the low speed and high bank angles you know it is turning at its best or close to it, but still the J-20 is not turning very well the result of still not having WS-15


Now 18 deg/sec is like a F-18 Hornet, so J-20 now very likely can keep up with the Hornet.


----------



## lcloo

Brainsucker said:


> I found a yoytube channel called mhdefence or something that show about j20 carrier version with arresting gear. Is it legit?
> 
> Is that mean that j20 will become the next csg and not j35? Or is it fake?


I can assure you that MH Defence youtube video are unreliable. You can go thro' several of his past video if you have time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Su33KUB said:


> First let me tell you this:
> 
> If in the past I was rude with you, I beg you to forgive me for such behavior, I do not like feel I have disrespect any one, so please forgive me if I was rude, offensive or unpolite.
> 
> Now I do not want to speak pages, basically I have said all.
> 
> .....



You have not been rude in the past, only too often far too much off topic and too long and this post is it again:

Please just a short answer to short question: *Why do you think it did and even more why do you think that any reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it?*




truthseeker2010 said:


> I am asking for any open source doc.



via these books: https://www.harpia-publishing.com/serieschina


----------



## FuturePAF

@Deino Have you seen the videos by the YouTuber “Binkov’s Battlegrounds” called “Is F-22 early retirement a gift to China?” And “Chinese Air Forces: Flaming Dragons or a Baby Tiger?”.

If so, what are you thought on his speculations on the inventory of the USAF and PLAAF by today and by 2030 and 2040? Do you think his estimations are reasonable or just speculations?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> That's not your expertise neither since you don't have certs in aeronautics engineering. Everyone here only took general aeronautical physics knowledge to post
> 
> Do you know that US General Dynamics had landed F-16N (navalized variant F-16) on carrier deck before? A-7 Corsair 2, F-8 Crusader are single engine aircraft that used to operate from USS Saratoga, USS Kitty Hawk.
> 
> J-10C wing area + fuselage bottom surface area are good enough to land on carrier with slower approach speed than J-15. FC-31 copied design cue from F-35 to get similar RCS and aerodynamic, you think it can't land on carrier better than J-15?
> 
> Whereas, J-20A & F-22 can't because they would approach the carrier too fast.


you're claiming to be an expert, not me, and your expertise on aerodynamics, aeronautics really sucks man, mostly based on pictures

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

FuturePAF said:


> @Deino Have you seen the videos by the YouTuber “Binkov’s Battlegrounds” called “Is F-22 early retirement a gift to China?” And “Chinese Air Forces: Flaming Dragons or a Baby Tiger?”.
> 
> If so, what are you thought on his speculations on the inventory of the USAF and PLAAF by today and by 2030 and 2040? Do you think his estimations are reasonable or just speculations?




Nope ... which video is it?


----------



## FuturePAF

Deino said:


> Nope ... which video is it?


Primarily this one





But a second follow up to that video is this


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Nope ... which video is it?



It's on YouTube, you can watch it when you're really free because it's waste of time watching Binkov's opinion that always rated Russia & China as weak incompetent adversaries. F-22 is not retiring until there's better replacement. Unless USAF wanted to revive the YF-23.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> It's on YouTube, you can watch it when you're really free because it's waste of time watching Binkov's opinion that always rated Russia & China as weak incompetent adversaries. F-22 is not retiring until there's better replacement. Unless USAF wanted to revive the YF-23.


Most of 6th gen jets will be inspire YF23 design i think


----------



## Su33KUB

Deino said:


> You have not been rude in the past, only too often far too much off topic and too long and this post is it again:
> 
> Please just a short answer to short question: *Why do you think it did and even more why do you think that any reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> via these books: https://www.harpia-publishing.com/serieschina


I will tell you my final conclusion:

When you see an aircraft turning you must ask 2 questions?

Did it turn at its max turn rate?
To answer that you need to see the bank angle, a 82 deg turn rate is telling you 9Gs are applied no human pilot seated will endure for more than 9Gs for the entire turn, 86 deg the G forces are exponentially increased. (see chart of G load and Bank angle)

Second question what was the altitude?
The answer is:
The best turn of any aircraft is always at sea level (Zhuhai airport is at sea level and the J-20 flew very close to the crowd at very low altitude )

If you look at any aircraft manual the best turn will be at sea level, however some manuals give you 1 km like in the case of Russian aircraft manuals.

*So the conclusion is J-20 was turning at sea level and very high bank angles, thus its near its max instantaneous turn rate but low thrust will reduce its sustained turn rate a lot.*

My personal conclusion, and here I will leave it here and perhaps in 3 or 4 months or 1 year we can talk about it. it is.

WS-15 must be in the class of 16000-19000kg of thrust, because the J-20 must be as heavy as F-22, or even heavier because stealth demands too much internal volume and the materials and technologies of both aircraft are contemporary ( just a few years difference and China is playing catch up)


*Zhuhai showed an unimpresive flight display, because the J-20 has not TVC nozzles, the engines are not WS-15 but an interim engine however the main highlight it was using WS-10s showing at least they can build it with domestic engines, once it has the WS-15 very likely will match or even surpass F-22*.

The J-20 flying at Zhuhai was not fully loaded, it did not even have external stores,

Any way I will not extend any more and I really beg you to forgive my unpolite ways, I was rude ( and younger) but you are very nice by forgiving my rude ways.

Saludos

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> Most of 6th gen jets will be inspire YF23 design i think



yes, YF-23, B-2 & UCAV x-45/47 will be the inspirational trend for 6th generation aircraft design. Russian took design from YF-23 for Su-57 and X-32 for checkmate fighter rather than Lockheed Martin F-22 & F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> I will tell you my final conclusion:
> 
> When you see an aircraft turning you must ask 2 questions?
> 
> Did it turn at its max turn rate?
> To answer that you need to see the bank angle, a 82 deg turn rate is telling you 9Gs are applied no human pilot seated will endure for more than 9Gs for the entire turn, 86 deg the G forces are exponentially increased. (see chart of G load and Bank angle)
> 
> Second question what was the altitude?
> The answer is:
> The best turn of any aircraft is always at sea level (Zhuhai airport is at sea level and the J-20 flew very close to the crowd at very low altitude )
> 
> If you look at any aircraft manual the best turn will be at sea level, however some manuals give you 1 km like in the case of Russian aircraft manuals.
> 
> *So the conclusion is J-20 was turning at sea level and very high bank angles, thus its near its max instantaneous turn rate but low thrust will reduce its sustained turn rate a lot.*
> 
> My personal conclusion, and here I will leave it here and perhaps in 3 or 4 months or 1 year we can talk about it. it is.
> 
> WS-15 must be in the class of 16000-19000kg of thrust, because the J-20 must be as heavy as F-22, or even heavier because stealth demands too much internal volume and the materials and technologies of both aircraft are contemporary ( just a few years difference and China is playing catch up)
> 
> 
> *Zhuhai showed an unimpresive flight display, because the J-20 has not TVC nozzles, the engines are not WS-15 but an interim engine however the main highlight it was using WS-10s showing at least they can build it with domestic engines, once it has the WS-15 very likely will match or even surpass F-22*.
> 
> The J-20 flying at Zhuhai was not fully loaded, it did not even have external stores,
> 
> Any way I will not extend any more and I really beg you to forgive my unpolite ways, I was rude ( and younger) but you are very nice by forgiving my rude ways.
> 
> Saludos



Good one, that's the spirit. Replying in forum is just like debating in court where the evil lawyer will always try to make you angry so that you'll lose control and say the wrong thing. Just stay rational and reply facts. Thanks for the info, guess DCS should really add this 86 degree blackout on human pilot endurance limit. 

Most fighters can only maneuver best with minimal air to air missiles to get best turn radius. With WS-10C engines, the J-20A at best could out turn the F-15 but not nimble EF2000, Mirage 2000, Rafale, Su-35, Su-27. J-20A could still win limited dogfight if up against F-35 but not against F-22. Stealth vs stealth air combat will surely get into knife fight since radar & missiles could only track and hit stealth aircraft below 10-15nm or less, nobody knows unless they get to meet for real. 

Conclusion, the J-20 is only perfect when it gets WS-15 with TVC if its goal is to counter F-22. Unless there's new navalized stealth fighter at 60ft that is more nimble but then the carrier based fighter might not be able to hit beyond mach 2 so the F-22 could still turn around and speed off fleeing from dogfight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

FuturePAF said:


> Primarily this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But a second follow up to that video is this



The question should be Does Binkov really know what he's talking about? Does he a Retired General of a military force or something? I don't believe in him at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

White and Green with M/S said:


> Most of 6th gen jets will be inspire YF23 design i think



No. More like Dark Sword.









A first look at the 'Dark Sword' – China's supersonic stealth drone


China released images of a new, unmanned, stealth fighter-style jet, and they present a shocking look into how close Beijing has come to unseating the US as the dominant military air power.China has <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/the…




www.wearethemighty.com










Defense World


View News at Defense World




www.defenseworld.net


----------



## S10

Brainsucker said:


> The question should be Does Binkov really know what he's talking about? Does he a Retired General of a military force or something? I don't believe in him at all.


I think he definitely knows more than the average Joe, but he's far from being an expert.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FuturePAF

Brainsucker said:


> The question should be Does Binkov really know what he's talking about? Does he a Retired General of a military force or something? I don't believe in him at all.



He quotes his sources, which are open source, which could be real or disinformation. Which is why I wanted to know if @Deino thought his numbers were realistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Globenim

FuturePAF said:


> He quotes his sources, which are open source


"Open source" sources claim the earth is flat and the average Indian border guard kills 50 PLA 5 Star generals per week.
Binkov is just an American style Disinfo-tainment channel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

FuturePAF said:


> He quotes his sources, which are open source, which could be real or disinformation. Which is why I wanted to know if @Deino thought his numbers were realistic.



But number doesn't proof anything. Maybe the real battle result will favor China, but there is a chance too, that it can destroy China entirely. Nobody know the real result.

To understand China true power, we should study their capability in their latest standoff against India in 2020. We can see how they handle the logistic, how they deployed their brigades,Their capability to build the infrastructure in battlefield, What is PLA way of thinking / respond to India deployment strategy, their rapid deployment capability, to their preparation to face the worst possible outcome in this incident. That's the true power of PLA today. Not from the number, like what Binkov said in his video.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Binkov sound like an imitator of Pinkov (or a knock-off) . I don't think we should take any serious view on his youtube, one of his video is on how China would attack Singapore.

IMO he is just making China related military video to attract people and try to make money by youtube subscriptions.

I don't see any informative value in his video.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

lcloo said:


> Binkov sound like an imitator of Pinkov (or a knock-off) . I don't think we should take any serious view on his youtube, one of his video is on how China would attack Singapore.
> 
> IMO he is just making China related military video to attract people and try to make money by youtube subscriptions.
> 
> I don't see any informative value in his video.


He is piece of filth. I know american fanboy are his loyal fan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FuturePAF

Brainsucker said:


> But number doesn't proof anything. Maybe the real battle result will favor China, but there is a chance too, that it can destroy China entirely. Nobody know the real result.
> 
> To understand China true power, we should study their capability in their latest standoff against India in 2020. We can see how they handle the logistic, how they deployed their brigades,Their capability to build the infrastructure in battlefield, What is PLA way of thinking / respond to India deployment strategy, their rapid deployment capability, to their preparation to face the worst possible outcome in this incident. That's the true power of PLA today. Not from the number, like what Binkov said in his video.



The US is not India. The US is an actual professional military, with considerable logistical and force projection capabilities. The PLA anticipates for the US to be more capable then itself (hence the asymmetrical capabilities), which is why, even as China reaches parity with the us in key technologies, it does not surpass the US, except that it’s fighting in its region, which is why numbers matter.

this is why I’m asking if Binkov’s numbers sound realistic or are disinformation.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Tai Hai Chen said:


> No. More like Dark Sword.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A first look at the 'Dark Sword' – China's supersonic stealth drone
> 
> 
> China released images of a new, unmanned, stealth fighter-style jet, and they present a shocking look into how close Beijing has come to unseating the US as the dominant military air power.China has <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/the…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wearethemighty.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defense World
> 
> 
> View News at Defense World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defenseworld.net


do you know in what context i m talking about???, does i referred dark sword or something???, in future warfare maneuverability and agiliy will be useless because future war will be fought in BVR arena


----------



## kungfugymnast

FuturePAF said:


> The US is not India. The US is an actual professional military, with considerable logistical and force projection capabilities. The PLA anticipates for the US to be more capable then itself (hence the asymmetrical capabilities), which is why, even as China reaches parity with the us in key technologies, it does not surpass the US, except that it’s fighting in its region, which is why numbers matter.
> 
> this is why I’m asking if Binkov’s numbers sound realistic or are disinformation.



Binkov came up with Armenia vs Azerbaijan war about 1-2 years before the Karabakh war. Binkov's prediction is more of computer strategy game level which turned out far from accurate. He always left out combat skills and technology in his analysis.

The Karabakh war turns out differently, Azerbaijan won namely because of drone and precision guided attack technology defeating the Armenian (known of their superior fighting skills). Without working air force, the mountainous uneven terrain block ground radar views badly that Azerbaijan drones could loiter freely from SAM threat, designating targets for guided artillery strikes. Binkov failed to look into this at all.

Also, Binkov analysis often showing stealth aircraft can be easily detected and brought down in his scenario of US vs EU, Russia vs Turkey, China vs India, etc. J-20A, F-35, F-22, Su-57 are stealth yet Binkov depicted conventional EF-2000, Gripen, Rafale could actually find out where they are, head in & shoot down couples of them in air to air.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Su33KUB said:


> I will tell you my final conclusion:



Quoting you to check this comparison video done by Hong Kong uncle. Just take the J-20A vs F-22A without engaging TVC. What's your opinion in this after watching the video?






I want to compare your review to the uncle's statement 🙂

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

kungfugymnast said:


> Quoting you to check this comparison video done by Hong Kong uncle. Just take the J-20A vs F-22A without engaging TVC. What's your opinion in this after watching the video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to compare your review to the uncle's statement 🙂



The English subs?


----------



## applesauce

kungfugymnast said:


> Binkov came up with Armenia vs Azerbaijan war about 1-2 years before the Karabakh war. Binkov's prediction is more of computer strategy game level which turned out far from accurate. He always left out combat skills and technology in his analysis.
> 
> The Karabakh war turns out differently, Azerbaijan won namely because of drone and precision guided attack technology defeating the Armenian (known of their superior fighting skills). Without working air force, the mountainous uneven terrain block ground radar views badly that Azerbaijan drones could loiter freely from SAM threat, designating targets for guided artillery strikes. Binkov failed to look into this at all.
> 
> Also, Binkov analysis often showing stealth aircraft can be easily detected and brought down in his scenario of US vs EU, Russia vs Turkey, China vs India, etc. J-20A, F-35, F-22, Su-57 are stealth yet Binkov depicted conventional EF-2000, Gripen, Rafale could actually find out where they are, head in & shoot down couples of them in air to air.




Agreed, Binkov's videos are trash video game levels of analysis.

I remember watching one, might be a taiwan invasion by the PLA with the us backing taiwan.
where he declares that a country like china would run out of guided missiles after something like 6 months of war and therefore its airfare would have minimum effect on RoC/US ground forces after that time.
Like in what scenario, where china, with the largest industrial production on earth, doesn't produce more guided munitions in such a war?
I think in the same video he thinks china will simply send its invasion force toward taiwan with virtually zero protection. its like his analysis was based on the chinese planners and generals being actually brain dead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Brainsucker said:


> The English subs?



There's no English subs. The Hong Kong uncle said the J-10B with TVC could perform most of the F-22's moves but not the powerful vertical climb. The J-20A with WS-10C could perform some tight banks maneuver, vertical climb but without TVC & more thrust, it just can't compete against F-22. The F-35 however should turn around and flee if it's facing J-20 as the J-20 would easily kill the F-35.


applesauce said:


> Agreed, Binkov's videos are trash video game levels of analysis.
> 
> I remember watching one, might be a taiwan invasion by the PLA with the us backing taiwan.
> where he declares that a country like china would run out of guided missiles after something like 6 months of war and therefore its airfare would have minimum effect on RoC/US ground forces after that time.
> Like in what scenario, where china, with the largest industrial production on earth, doesn't produce more guided munitions such a war?
> I think in the same video he thinks china will simply send its invasion force toward taiwan with virtually zero protection. its like his analysis was based on the chinese planners and generals being actually brain dead.



Also, Binkov scenario placed China as aggressor but he can say China didn't prepare and deploy all offensive forces on ready status before starting the invasion. The funniest part, the defender US and Taiwan could mobilize everything as if they were the attacker instead had all their forces on frontline when caught by surprise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> There's no English subs. The Hong Kong uncle said the J-10B with TVC could perform most of the F-22's moves but not the powerful vertical climb. The J-20A with WS-10C could perform some tight banks maneuver, vertical climb but without TVC & more thrust, it just can't compete against F-22. The F-35 however should turn around and flee if it's facing J-20 as the J-20 would easily kill the F-35.
> 
> 
> Also, Binkov scenario placed China as aggressor but he can say China didn't prepare and deploy all offensive forces on ready status before starting the invasion. The funniest part, the defender US and Taiwan could mobilize everything as if they were the attacker instead had all their forces on frontline when caught by surprise.


first study aerodynamics/aeronautics than talk


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> first study aerodynamics/aeronautics than talk



What does that got to do with the Hong Kong narrator's comment in the video? You don't need to study aeronautics just to repeat what the uncle said. You need either cantonese speaking skills or Chinese characters reading skills.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> What does that got to do with the Hong Kong narrator's comment in the video? You don't need to study aeronautics just to repeat what the uncle said. You need either cantonese speaking skills or Chinese characters reading skills.


----------



## Deino

Wow ... if true!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452686967175630853

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## johncliu88

Dual seater is out now? That was quick, to my surprise.


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452865649118748673

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

JSCh said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452865649118748673


not a rumor anymore @Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

JSCh said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452865649118748673



Still waiting for confirmation, but it looks at least realistic … allegedly the first two images of the J-20 twin-seater were leaked. (Image via Quian CDer/SDF) 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452874222133563392

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

Deino said:


> Still waiting for confirmation, but it looks at least realistic … allegedly the first two images of the J-20 twin-seater were leaked. (Image via Quian CDer/SDF)
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452874222133563392
> View attachment 787720
> 
> 
> View attachment 787719


I both see the utility and don’t. Simulator technology should provide all the pilot training required as such especially for a very connected 5th generation asset. Unless there is another purpose to it in terms of a “loyal wingman” control platform which would be very very forward thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

SQ8 said:


> Unless there is another purpose to it in terms of a “loyal wingman” control platform which would be very very forward thinking.


PLA trainer jet ends at JL-10
dual seat J20 is sort of like the mothership.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jaybird

Yeah, J-20 twin-seater is probably dedicated for drone swarm command/control force multiplier.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

I know this is far from a conclusive confirmation or even a proof, but just after a rough comparison with single seater images, the new prototype - if real - has as expected a different and larger canopy. 🤔 

So waiting now for better clearer images.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## araz

Deino said:


> But I see s huge single one !


Hi Deino.
Do we have any figures on WS10C MTBO? Help appreciated please.
Kind regards
A


----------



## Deino

araz said:


> Hi Deino.
> Do we have any figures on WS10C MTBO? Help appreciated please.
> Kind regards
> A




Unfortunately nothing official. We have some rumours and reports claiming a thrust range between 142-145 kN, but nothing more.

Sorry

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## araz

Deino said:


> Unfortunately nothing official. We have some rumours and reports claiming a thrust range between 142-145 kN, but nothing more.
> 
> Sorry


This is the only way we will know the maturity/quality of the Chinese engines. Till we know that MTBO is decent at least in the mark of 2k hrs we will not be able to say the Chinese engines have matured.
Kind regards
A

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ali_Baba

araz said:


> This is the only way we will know the maturity/quality of the Chinese engines. Till we know that MTBO is decent at least in the mark of 2k hrs we will not be able to say the Chinese engines have matured.
> Kind regards
> A



Agree - the total lifespan of the engine, MTBO and fuel efficiency are the important things to assess the quality of an engine ( spool times are a military secret though  ). Would be interesting to see the former to see how China is progressing relative to Russia and the west.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaybird

This Is Our First Look At A Two-Seat Variant Of China's J-20 Stealth Fighter (Updated)


The arrival of the long-rumored two-seat 'J-20B' would signify a major boost to China's future air combat capabilities.




www.thedrive.com





*This Could Be Our First Look At A Two-Seat Variant Of China's J-20 Stealth Fighter*
*The arrival of the long-rumored two-seat 'J-20B' would signify a major boost to China's future air combat capabilities.*

By Tyler Rogoway October 26, 2021


Pictures have emerged from Chengdu Aerospace Corporation's plant and flight test airfield that appear to show a J-20 in yellow primer paint with a two-place tandem cockpit and an elongated canopy to enclose it. If the images are indeed legitimate, the appearance of this J-20 variant, often referred to as the J-20B, J-20AS, or J-20S, wouldn't be much of a surprise as China's military-industrial complex has been hinting at its development in an increasing manner for some time now. In fact, we covered its potential development just this summer.

This new J-20 variant would give China something the United States and other competitors do not have—a stealthy high-performance tactical jet that has two heads in the cockpit instead of one. Why the two-person crew concept is becoming a big deal again is that two people are better able to exploit the enormous information advanced sensors and networking, as well as close proximity to the enemy, that a stealthy advanced fighter with good endurance can provide. In doing so, they can become force multipliers, helping to enable other, less capable assets by working as a 'quarterback of sorts of the localized tactical air battle. Having another brain available to help best employ the J-20's own weapons is also a plus, especially as its arsenal expands and its missions continue to evolve. 

There are also clear training advantages of having a two-seat variant of any aircraft. Even if the 'J-20B' is not configured with full controls in the rear cockpit, crews can still benefit from exposure to tactical training and basic flight operations via the second seat accommodation. 


Beyond this more basic function, and especially important to this development, the emergence of manned-unmanned teaming and loyal wingmen drones will be greatly enabled by a second person acting as a 'mission commander' of sorts that helps control unmanned systems and coordinate tactics with them near the forward edges of the fight. This is precisely where the J-20 was designed to be employed. 

Even some competitive disadvantages in unmanned autonomy and networking capabilities could be at least partially offset by having another crewman in the cockpit who is focused on the implementation of manned-unmanned teaming tactics. Regardless, China is working hard on its own artificial intelligence-related air combat initiatives, both for use in the cockpit and in unmanned platforms, as well as loyal wingman programs. 


As to the question of whether the images of a two-seat J-20 are real or not, we cannot say for certain, but they do fit well with an established pattern of 'leaks' on the internet in China that show increasingly more detailed images of new aircraft developments out of Chengdu. In fact, these images are very similar to the first glimpses we got of the J-20. At the time, many said they were fakes. They, and many in the U.S. government, were soon proven quite wrong when it came to their chronic underestimation of Chinese engineering capabilities and the level of espionage at work that helped it advance so quickly. 

Still, these images could easily be altered. We have seen some great fakes before. The timing is key here, though, as two-seat J-20 concept art has increasingly been present at major events, including China's big air show and arms expo in Zhuhai that just wrapped up earlier this month. 


As such, it really isn't as much a question of _if_ we are getting a 'J-20B,' but _when_.

It will be interesting to see if this new variant also has other major refinements to the core J-20 design. We have seen the aircraft evolve over the last decade on many fronts and it is known that its avionics have progressively improved. The advent of a two-seater would be a great time to introduce more major modifications, some of which are thought to be on the way. 

So, we'll have to see if more images emerge of this potentially impactful two-seat J-20. If these are indeed the real McCoy, we will likely see higher resolution images of the jet in question very soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Scorpiooo



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Congrats again !!! *BUT THIS IS A FAKE!!!  *

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Windjammer

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453326420931919872

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## jaybird

A short video clip from 彩云香江.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453325869162778625

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
2


----------



## SD 10

2nd pilot for controlling wingman?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Congrats again !!!
> 
> View attachment 788073




This is a fake again … look at the slimmer frame between both canopies and the grey radome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453698059095871499

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 52051

Just hope it is CAC's attempt at carrier-based fighter for China.

Its almost look like an utter joke if not borderline treason if China's future CV depend on the joke called FC-31 as its primer air defense fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> This is a fake again … look at the slimmer frame between both canopies and the grey radome.
> 
> View attachment 788079



It sure looks like bad editing job done with the uneven curve line. If this is fake, many being fooled into posting this on youtube. Heavier 2 seater variant will likely fly only after WS-15 enter production.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> It sure looks like bad editing job done with the uneven curve line. If this is fake, many being fooled into posting this on youtube. Heavier 2 seater variant will likely fly only after WS-15 enter production.




I think you missed the point: Only that single very clear image is fake, ... the J-20B is real for sure!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Scorpiooo

J20B has more RCS then J20A due to be dual seater or will be same


----------



## S10

Scorpiooo said:


> J20B has more RCS then J20A due to be dual seater or will be same


Probably around the same. It's not a redesign or anything.

I think it will control several combat drones, which expands its capability significantly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

S10 said:


> Probably around the same. It's not a redesign or anything.
> 
> I think it will control several combat drones, which expands its capability significantly.


In that case those will be loyal wingman stealth drones

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## johncliu88

J-20 is a great platform. Maybe just a little change will make it a 6th Gen fighter.


----------



## Deino

johncliu88 said:


> J-20 is a great platform. Maybe just a little change will make it a 6th Gen fighter.




Something like this?  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455527022449602565

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## casual

Deino said:


> Something like this?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455527022449602565


looks like they removed the vertical stabilizers too


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> I think you missed the point: Only that single very clear image is fake, ... the J-20B is real for sure!



Good, luckily just 1 fake photo. Nice to know that J-20B is real. It needs WS-15 engines.


----------



## kungfugymnast

S10 said:


> Probably around the same. It's not a redesign or anything.
> 
> I think it will control several combat drones, which expands its capability significantly.



Combat drones remote controlled by RIO or automated AI? Does China have automated AI because it is still under development in US. Whereas all existing drones and UCAV are still Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPV) from forward airbase. If the UCAV is RPV then the RIO could only pilot 1x UCAV.


casual said:


> looks like they removed the vertical stabilizers too



If without vertical stabilizer and elevator/canard, the maneuverability will be poor like A-12 & B-2 unless fitted with TVC engines.


----------



## siegecrossbow



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## S10

52051 said:


> Its almost look like an utter joke if not borderline treason if China's future CV depend on the joke called FC-31 as its primer air defense fighters.


How do you know it's a joke? If you have information on its capabilities do share.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Show down between a rookie and experience J-20 pilot. It appears that even after the advent of 5th generation fighter aircraft, maneuverability is important and could be decisive in the outcome of a battle.



https://weibo.com/6005843218/L11MSs8EF

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

kungfugymnast said:


> If without vertical stabilizer and elevator/canard, the maneuverability will be poor like A-12 & B-2 unless fitted with TVC engines.


Bullshit. This statement reveals ignorance of flight controls laws.


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458869991932141572

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1458886775586361357

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Love Love:
3


----------



## world of power

Deino said:


> This is a fake again … look at the slimmer frame between both canopies and the grey radome.
> 
> View attachment 788079


so it was NOT fake?


----------



## kungfugymnast

gambit said:


> Bullshit. This statement reveals ignorance of flight controls laws.



Great, my old foe you're back. The A-12 and B-2 indeed have really poor maneuverability especially the yaw without the fin stabilizers. Since you're the expert, care to clarify since there's no maneuverable aircraft without fin stabilizer in active service so far. Also, I need you to explain the aircraft suited for carrier approach in J-15 thread. 

Welcome you with the photo I took in the hanger of USS George Washington during friendly military visit. 

Since moderator said we must post relevant topic, what do you think about the new J-20B twin seat variant? Is 32,000lb WS-10C engine adequate since it's carrying mostly air to air missiles internally? Is F-22 empty weight heavier or J-20 because Wikipedia specifications keep changing differ from my Jane's book info.


----------



## Deino

world of power said:


> so it was NOT fake?




The aircraft was real for sure, but that specific image was faked. You cannot see it?


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> ….
> 
> Since moderator said we must post relevant topic, what do you think about the new J-20B twin seat variant? Is 32,000lb WS-10C engine adequate since it's carrying mostly air to air missiles internally? Is F-22 empty weight heavier or J-20 because Wikipedia specifications keep changing differ from my Jane's book info.




Sto again with that BS  … in several of your lasts post you rem,ember others to prove what they say and always refer to me, but you yourself ignore this, refuse to answer and explain. Not only I but several too are still waiting for an explanation and source, why the J-15T should be of an aerodynamic revised shape / form and should have different approach speeds, Still all of your wrong claims - numbers of aircraft built, J-15s for Shandong - are uncommitted!

DSo you can post whatever BS you want but as soon as it does not fit you demand others to prove! In fact this is trolling!

And PS: @gambit is not a foe, he is only a very critical but very knowledgable member.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Sto again with that BS  … in several of your lasts post you rem,ember others to prove what they say and always refer to me, but you yourself ignore this, refuse to answer and explain. Not only I but several too are still waiting for an explanation and source, why the J-15T should be of an aerodynamic revised shape / form and should have different approach speeds, Still all of your wrong claims - numbers of aircraft built, J-15s for Shandong - are uncommitted!
> 
> DSo you can post whatever BS you want but as soon as it does not fit you demand others to prove! In fact this is trolling!
> 
> And PS: @gambit is not a foe, he is only a very critical but very knowledgable member.



Weren't you trying to ban him the last time he posted just because you disagreed? The way you suppresed him was just like how you tried to get me banned. I told him to stay just like how I told SU-33KUB that was picked on by you too over personal matter. I was gambit's rival but I enjoy debating with him because he sticks to topics which I agreed with him.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Weren't you trying to ban him the last time he posted just because you disagreed? The way you suppresed him was just like how you tried to get me banned. I told him to stay just like how I told SU-33KUB that was picked on by you too over personal matter. I was gambit's rival but I enjoy debating with him because he sticks to topics which I agreed with him.




That‘s a lie again! So take this as a warning … I have no issues with someone having a different opinion, it is always the tone and in your case, You are lying again: 

Prove and argue, why you think J-15 production stopped after batch 02 when we know there is already Batch 03 &04? Tell us why you think there are no aircraft for the Shandong when there is a new base at Lingshiu, the CV-17 was always seen with J-15s and all we get as a reply is some stupid BS the J-15T will be different!

NO, prove it or shut up … in fact‘s that trolling and even more stop lying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clibra



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> That‘s a lie again! So take this as a warning … I have no issues with someone having a different opinion, it is always the tone and in your case, You are lying again:
> 
> Prove and argue, why you think J-15 production stopped after batch 02 when we know there is already Batch 03 &04? Tell us why you think there are no aircraft for the Shandong when there is a new base at Lingshiu, the CV-17 was always seen with J-15s and all we get as a reply is some stupid BS the J-15T will be different!
> 
> NO, prove it or shut up … in fact‘s that trolling and even more stop lying.



Trace back old post if you haven't removed @gambit post stating F-22 vs J-20 comparison where he mentioned the F-22 superior in terms of flight envelope and avionics. That was when he stopped his post after you condemned him while I told him to stay. 

Since you're debating as user with me and in a bet to prove your claim, by ethic you are not fit to give me warning due to conflict of interest. Let other moderator be the judge while other users as jury. You claimed PLAN will purposely build the J-15A for Shandong carrier, why not wait several more months later and let everyone see whether your prediction is right or mine. By the way this is J-20 thread, why did you bring up J-15 and Shandong carrier here instead of J-15 thread?


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

clibra said:


> View attachment 792672


I'll be honest, I dreaded ever since the twin-seater was rumoured that it would come out looking ugly as sin. It's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

Those new features below the hexagonal vents are interesting. More datalink antennae? That would fit in with the MUMT drone controller role that's speculated for this variant.

I'm also happy that this and the J-XY have finally emerged. I considered them lower-tier developments that hogged the spotlight from what we really want to see: the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

One plane + 4 loyal wingman drones for twin seater

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow said:


> Show down between a rookie and experience J-20 pilot. It appears that even after the advent of 5th generation fighter aircraft, maneuverability is important and could be decisive in the outcome of a battle.
> 
> 
> 
> https://weibo.com/6005843218/L11MSs8EF








Victory in 2 minutes at 10KM or above.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

siegecrossbow said:


> Victory in 2 minutes at 10KM or above.


"Highly manoeuvrable" said the J20 pilot in the interview, describing the dog fight scene. Again debunked the so called long and large unmanoeuvrable shape of J20, this time by the first hand end-user.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

lcloo said:


> "Highly manoeuvrable" said the J20 pilot in the interview, describing the dog fight scene. Again debunked the so called long and large unmanoeuvrable shape of J20, this time by the first hand end-user.


While the model wasn't completely accurate, I knew this years ago from its RC model.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## applesauce

S10 said:


> While the model wasn't completely accurate, I knew this years ago from its RC model.



crappy civilian RC toys have nothing to do with actual jets and indicates nothing about the performance of the actual plane.

you can make any shape fly well with enough power behind it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

kungfugymnast said:


> The A-12 and B-2 indeed have really poor maneuverability especially the yaw without the fin stabilizers. Since you're the expert, care to clarify since there's no maneuverable aircraft without fin stabilizer in active service so far.


For starter, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'poor'. Only comparators such as 'better' or 'poorer' or 'lesser'. To say 'good' or 'poor' implies absolutes which is not true. Am not being pedantic, just accurate when it comes to technical issues.

Now, what are 'flight controls laws'? It has nothing to do with managing airlines and airliners in the sky.






Flight Control Laws | SKYbrary Aviation Safety


Description Modern large commercial transport aircraft designs rely on sophisticated flight computers to aid and protect the aircraft in flight. These are governed by computational laws which assign flight control modes during flight.




www.skybrary.aero





Am going to simplify this as much as possible.

This is a 'push-pull' rod.



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hawk-200-push-pull-control-rod-system_fig3_342106041



A push-pull rod is a mechanical linkage from the cockpit to the flight controls surfaces, with pneudraulics in-between for heavier aircrafts.

If a push-pull rod have length of 100 cm, for example. That 100 cm is a law. If that push-pull rod have a load rating, that rating is a law. If that push-pull rod have a travel distance, that distance is a law. Because the push-pull rod is a mechanical device, all those *laws are non-negotiable*.

When the F-16 came on the scene, flight controls laws became much more flexible due to its fly-by-wire FLCS. The limiters are the actual flight controls surfaces themselves and the hydraulics system. The early F-16 flight controls laws writers were electronics engineers because the A/B models were analog computers. The digital FLCS have more software based flight controls laws. Essentially, %99 of the flight controls system's mechanical components became virtual. First, they became capacitors, resistors, and transistors. Then with digital technology, the mechanical components became 1s and 0s. *Most flight controls components became virtual and their virtual characteristics are negotiable.*

How does this affects flight axes controls? For this, we go to the F-18SH example.






Flying the F/A-18F Super Hornet


F/A-18F Super Hornet, pilot report



www.ausairpower.net





*2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake*​​The next handling demonstration involved involved the speedbrake and some high alpha low speed handling, an area in which many fighters experience problems in maintaining direction and avoiding a departure into uncontrolled flight.​​The first demonstration involved the virtual speedbrake effectiveness and handling in this configuration. The F/A-18A-D, like the F-15 series, employs an upper fuselage hydraulically deployed speedbrake. *The Super Hornet has no such device*, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. *The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces*, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.​​Dave demonstrated the speedbrake function, and I was asked to observe over the shoulder and in the mirrors the *raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders*. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.​​At Mach 0.63 Dave invited me to fly another 360 aileron roll, to observe that the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the *rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments.* I applied roughly 1/2 stick input and the aircraft very cleanly rolled through 360 degrees at about 90 degrees/sec roll rate. I commented on the lower roll rate and Dave observed that we were significantly slower, he then proceeded to *demonstrate the roll again with a full stick input, producing around 180 degrees/sec* with a slight overshoot on recovery. The aircraft feels very stable throughout the manoeuvre and there is no observable change in control forces or control input response by the FCS.​​To create a *VIRTUAL* speedbrake, the SH's flight controls laws were written to deploy all flight controls surfaces in precise rate of movement, degrees of movements, and final positions to slow down the jet and still enable the pilot to maneuver the jet. The absence of a real mechanical speedbrake equals to the absence of several hundred kilos of physical weight, and yet, the *FUNCTION* of the speedbrake still exists via a combination of displacements by the entire FLCS. The SH's flight controls laws were even written to allow full stick input even when all flight controls surfaces were in virtual speekbrake mode.

Is it possible to remove the yaw axis stabilator and have the other FLCS components works in its place? Not only is it possible but *ALREADY DONE*: The B-2.

The reason the B-2 is less maneuverable than the F-22 is because of its flying wing design, not because of the absence of the vertical stab.









A Look Back at…Northrop Flying Wings - Part 1


This is the first in a series of articles that will take a historical look back to the early days of aviation and traces the birth of John Northrop’s dreams for an all-wing design for aircraft.



www.afmc.af.mil





Northrop found the Model 1 to have *remarkable maneuverability* and performance with speeds 25% greater than contemporary designs of similar power and capacity.​
When there is the vertical stab, aerodynamics forces acts upon both sides of that structure, keeping physical pressure on that structure and eventually keeping the aircraft stable in the yaw axis. The rudder is a component of the vertical stab on the trailing edge of the stab. The rudder deflects, aerodynamics pressure changes which changes physical pressure which changes the direction of the aircraft.









How Stealth Bombers Work


There is some serious technology and ingenuity involved in making a 172-foot-wide, bomb-carrying aircraft "disappear." Find out how the B-2 bomber deals with enemy radar.




science.howstuffworks.com






http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/b2/b2_04.jpg



In the above image, the outer ailerons are splitted to create a virtual yaw axis stab, and the inner surfaces functions as normal pitch/roll axis controls.

For the F-22 with thrust vector controls, the TVC are flight controls laws components.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269064311_F-22_control_law_development_and_flying_qualities



*The initial control law version did not have active thrust vectoring.*​
Many enhanced capabilities were added to the YF-22 control laws as the prototype program matured and flight test approached. *The use of thrust vectoring nozzles to augment the aerodynamic pitch control power of the aircraft was incorporated into the control laws* and the high angle of attack control laws were also added to the basic structure.​
For the J-20 with the canards, the canards are flight controls laws components. If the J-20 will be equipped with TVC, the TVC can be written as flight controls laws components or leave as manual options for the pilot like how the Russians done it the Su series.

The advantage for the having the TVC as flight controls laws is that it is less flying burden for the pilot. The *POTENTIAL* disadvantage is that the laws *COULD BE* less flexible than what the pilot need, especially in BFM. Personally, I prefer the auto version.

The evolution of the next generation of combat fighters to have no yaw axis structure is inevitable and it is speculated that the US '6th gen' fighter is such. Since low radar observability requires twin canted vertical stabs, the removal of these two major physical structures would add to that 'stealthy' capability, like how the B-2 have it, plus, reduction in weight.

Is it possible for the existing F-22 and J-20 to remove their twin canted vertical stabs and have new flight controls laws to replace the twin canted vertical stabs? Yes, but why? The development time would require both platforms to nearly start from their beginnings because you now have to put both platforms back into wind tunnel testings, modify a few existing jets, test flights, data analyses, and so on. Might as well start anew.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kungfugymnast

gambit said:


> For starter, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'poor'. Only comparators such as 'better' or 'poorer' or 'lesser'. To say 'good' or 'poor' implies absolutes which is not true. Am not being pedantic, just accurate when it comes to technical issues.
> 
> Now, what are 'flight controls laws'? It has nothing to do with managing airlines and airliners in the sky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flight Control Laws | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
> 
> 
> Description Modern large commercial transport aircraft designs rely on sophisticated flight computers to aid and protect the aircraft in flight. These are governed by computational laws which assign flight control modes during flight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.skybrary.aero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am going to simplify this as much as possible.
> 
> This is a 'push-pull' rod.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hawk-200-push-pull-control-rod-system_fig3_342106041
> 
> 
> 
> A push-pull rod is a mechanical linkage from the cockpit to the flight controls surfaces, with pneudraulics in-between for heavier aircrafts.
> 
> If a push-pull rod have length of 100 cm, for example. That 100 cm is a law. If that push-pull rod have a load rating, that rating is a law. If that push-pull rod have a travel distance, that distance is a law. Because the push-pull rod is a mechanical device, all those *laws are non-negotiable*.
> 
> When the F-16 came on the scene, flight controls laws became much more flexible due to its fly-by-wire FLCS. The limiters are the actual flight controls surfaces themselves and the hydraulics system. The early F-16 flight controls laws writers were electronics engineers because the A/B models were analog computers. The digital FLCS have more software based flight controls laws. Essentially, %99 of the flight controls system's mechanical components became virtual. First, they became capacitors, resistors, and transistors. Then with digital technology, the mechanical components became 1s and 0s. *Most flight controls components became virtual and their virtual characteristics are negotiable.*
> 
> How does this affects flight axes controls? For this, we go to the F-18SH example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flying the F/A-18F Super Hornet
> 
> 
> F/A-18F Super Hornet, pilot report
> 
> 
> 
> www.ausairpower.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake*​​The next handling demonstration involved involved the speedbrake and some high alpha low speed handling, an area in which many fighters experience problems in maintaining direction and avoiding a departure into uncontrolled flight.​​The first demonstration involved the virtual speedbrake effectiveness and handling in this configuration. The F/A-18A-D, like the F-15 series, employs an upper fuselage hydraulically deployed speedbrake. *The Super Hornet has no such device*, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. *The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces*, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.​​Dave demonstrated the speedbrake function, and I was asked to observe over the shoulder and in the mirrors the *raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders*. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.​​At Mach 0.63 Dave invited me to fly another 360 aileron roll, to observe that the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the *rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments.* I applied roughly 1/2 stick input and the aircraft very cleanly rolled through 360 degrees at about 90 degrees/sec roll rate. I commented on the lower roll rate and Dave observed that we were significantly slower, he then proceeded to *demonstrate the roll again with a full stick input, producing around 180 degrees/sec* with a slight overshoot on recovery. The aircraft feels very stable throughout the manoeuvre and there is no observable change in control forces or control input response by the FCS.​​To create a *VIRTUAL* speedbrake, the SH's flight controls laws were written to deploy all flight controls surfaces in precise rate of movement, degrees of movements, and final positions to slow down the jet and still enable the pilot to maneuver the jet. The absence of a real mechanical speedbrake equals to the absence of several hundred kilos of physical weight, and yet, the *FUNCTION* of the speedbrake still exists via a combination of displacements by the entire FLCS. The SH's flight controls laws were even written to allow full stick input even when all flight controls surfaces were in virtual speekbrake mode.
> 
> Is it possible to remove the yaw axis stabilator and have the other FLCS components works in its place? Not only is it possible but *ALREADY DONE*: The B-2.
> 
> The reason the B-2 is less maneuverable than the F-22 is because of its flying wing design, not because of the absence of the vertical stab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Look Back at…Northrop Flying Wings - Part 1
> 
> 
> This is the first in a series of articles that will take a historical look back to the early days of aviation and traces the birth of John Northrop’s dreams for an all-wing design for aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> www.afmc.af.mil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northrop found the Model 1 to have *remarkable maneuverability* and performance with speeds 25% greater than contemporary designs of similar power and capacity.​
> When there is the vertical stab, aerodynamics forces acts upon both sides of that structure, keeping physical pressure on that structure and eventually keeping the aircraft stable in the yaw axis. The rudder is a component of the vertical stab on the trailing edge of the stab. The rudder deflects, aerodynamics pressure changes which changes physical pressure which changes the direction of the aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Stealth Bombers Work
> 
> 
> There is some serious technology and ingenuity involved in making a 172-foot-wide, bomb-carrying aircraft "disappear." Find out how the B-2 bomber deals with enemy radar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> science.howstuffworks.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/b2/b2_04.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> In the above image, the outer ailerons are splitted to create a virtual yaw axis stab, and the inner surfaces functions as normal pitch/roll axis controls.
> 
> For the F-22 with thrust vector controls, the TVC are flight controls laws components.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269064311_F-22_control_law_development_and_flying_qualities
> 
> 
> 
> *The initial control law version did not have active thrust vectoring.*​
> Many enhanced capabilities were added to the YF-22 control laws as the prototype program matured and flight test approached. *The use of thrust vectoring nozzles to augment the aerodynamic pitch control power of the aircraft was incorporated into the control laws* and the high angle of attack control laws were also added to the basic structure.​
> For the J-20 with the canards, the canards are flight controls laws components. If the J-20 will be equipped with TVC, the TVC can be written as flight controls laws components or leave as manual options for the pilot like how the Russians done it the Su series.
> 
> The advantage for the having the TVC as flight controls laws is that it is less flying burden for the pilot. The *POTENTIAL* disadvantage is that the laws *COULD BE* less flexible than what the pilot need, especially in BFM. Personally, I prefer the auto version.
> 
> The evolution of the next generation of combat fighters to have no yaw axis structure is inevitable and it is speculated that the US '6th gen' fighter is such. Since low radar observability requires twin canted vertical stabs, the removal of these two major physical structures would add to that 'stealthy' capability, like how the B-2 have it, plus, reduction in weight.
> 
> Is it possible for the existing F-22 and J-20 to remove their twin canted vertical stabs and have new flight controls laws to replace the twin canted vertical stabs? Yes, but why? The development time would require both platforms to nearly start from their beginnings because you now have to put both platforms back into wind tunnel testings, modify a few existing jets, test flights, data analyses, and so on. Might as well start anew.



Great info, thanks for the detailed explanation especially on how the F/A-18E/F air brake mechanism works and how the B-2 yaw. The theory on removing the fins for yaw seems really complicated, looking forward to see the real thing, I'll wait for new agile fighter without tail fins to see how it works.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> The A-12 and B-2 indeed have really poor maneuverability especially the yaw without the fin stabilizers.


They don't need maneuverability, because one was cancelled attack jet and one is strategic bomber


----------



## FuturePAF

Has China considered a single engine J-20 variant for the export market, now that Russia is promoting its Su-75 Checkmate design?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> A-12 & B-2


A12 and B2 doesn't have the agility as their top priority because one was cancelled attack jet, and one was strategic bomber


----------



## johncliu88

FuturePAF said:


> Has China considered a single engine J-20 variant for the export market, now that Russia is promoting its Su-75 Checkmate design?


Just like the US F-22 & F-35, I don't think China will sell J-20 to any foreign country. The best bet will be the FC-31 model.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Wow  … would be interesting to get an image from Wuhu taken at the same time/date. At least I thought they already returned … otherwise it could indeed be a hint that the 85th AB is the PLAAF‘s third unit to fly J-20s. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462790580635934726

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Wow  … would be interesting to get an image from Wuhu taken at the same time/date. At least I thought they already returned … otherwise it could indeed be a hint that the 85th AB is the PLAAF‘s third unit to fly J-20s.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462790580635934726



Do you have the latest satellite photo of Wuhu?


----------



## Shotgunner51

FuturePAF said:


> *a single engine J-20 variant*


Technically speaking I bet possibility of *a J-10 stealth variant* is higher then redesigning the J-20, so very likely exportable if it happens. It's a big IF though, cos there is FC-31/J-XY also in the same class.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Do you have the latest satellite photo of Wuhu?




This one … but barely anything visible.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> This one … but barely anything visible.
> 
> View attachment 796078



Looks like the hanger work is complete though. I'm pretty sure that whatever J-20s moved to Quzhou should be back by now. Interesting that China didn't officially report induction of J-20 in Quzhou.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast




----------



## Deino

Beast said:


>




In fact I don't think this is something very special nor a "J-20 fighter crazy maneuver, does it turn faster than F-16" ... anyway:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1463856013736611845

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> In fact I don't think this is something very special nor a "J-20 fighter crazy maneuver, does it turn faster than F-16" ... anyway:


Maneuverability is not as important as before, anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Title1234

FuturePAF said:


> Has China considered a single engine J-20 variant for the export market, now that Russia is promoting its Su-75 Checkmate design?


Single engine J31 is more possible or modify J20 royal wing man to man stealth fighter are more possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Beast said:


>



This is good news, based on the turn radius, the large J-20 maneuverability is considered good although not as nimble as the medium fighters with known maneuverability. It could still get into limited dogfight.


vi-va said:


> Maneuverability is not as important as before, anyway.



It is added advantage in unexpected situation. Despite having off boresight highly maneuverable PL-10E, some dogfight is still required in order to get confirmed good kill. Test proven agile short range IR guided R-73/74 & AIM-9X would still overshoot and miss target against nimble fighters at bad angle despite lock acquired.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468419197214490625

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

ozranger said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468419197214490625



It's interesting that the J-20 pilot both has a pen/paper notepad and a tablet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

siegecrossbow said:


> It's interesting that the J-20 pilot both has a pen/paper notepad and a tablet.



US pilots have them too attached to lap. It is current trend nowadays since decade ago, convenient and easy with everything in the tablet replacing manual notes.


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470106185076510736

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ARMalik

China ramps up J-20 stealth fighter production after domestic engine switch - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn




*
China ramps up J-20 stealth fighter production after domestic engine switch *

The maker of the J-20, China's most advanced stealth fighter jet, revealed that it recently broke records in terms of aircraft delivery due to high demand, with experts saying on Sunday that the J-20 has entered a mass production phase after it solved the last missing piece of the puzzle, the domestically developed WS-10 engine.

Since the start of the fourth quarter, Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group Co Ltd under the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China has been facing challenging research and development, production and delivery missions, as multiple users were waiting to receive delivery of many aircraft, the company said in a statement released over the weekend on its social media account.

In this period, the company completed several key test flight missions, and indexes related to aircraft delivery have broken record highs, the statement said.

Out of nine photos attached to the statement, seven depict test flights of the J-20, one shows a test flight of the J-10, and one shows the work of staff members.

This could be an indication that the production of the J-20 is being ramped up, Fu Qianshao, a Chinese military aviation expert, told the Global Times on Sunday.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force displayed J-20s equipped with domestically developed engines at Airshow China 2021.

The switch to domestically made WS-10 engines from imported ones has made mass production possible, Fu said, noting that other systems on the J-20, including the avionics system, radar system and weapons systems, were already domestically developed.

Now that there is no limitation caused by the import of engines, and the homemade WS-10 engine has been tested on other aircraft like the J-10, J-11 and J-16, the J-20 is in a position to start mass production, Fu said. 

Responding to an inquiry from the Global Times concerning the production capacity of the J-20 at a press conference at Airshow China in late September, Wang Haitao, deputy designer of the aircraft, said that China's aviation industry can satisfy any level of demand from the PLA Air Force.

It is good to see the industry is busy, because this means the J-20 has started entering service in large numbers, Fu said.

"In a short time, we will be able to see J-20s operated by all eastern, southern, western, northern and central theater commands, and become the main force to safeguard China's sovereignty and territorial airspace security," Fu predicted.

For the next step, the J-20 will continue to evolve, for example, by switching to use more advanced engines, Fu said

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Shotgunner51



Reactions: Like Like:
15 | Love Love:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Shotgunner51 said:


> View attachment 800918
> View attachment 800919
> View attachment 800920
> View attachment 800921



Great detailed up close photos.


JSCh said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470106185076510736



Good to see J-20 entering mass production


----------



## johncliu88

Shotgunner51 said:


> View attachment 800918
> View attachment 800919
> View attachment 800920
> View attachment 800921


Thanks for sharing these great photos. Really love this bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Finally again a clearer image of the J-20AS (?) twin-seater prototype no. 2031 and it got its grey camouflage in the meantime. 
Also noteworthy, now it is clear that like all J-20A single seaters it is powered by WS-10C engines. 

(Image via @航空EXIA from Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
12 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Deino

Two more so far not posted images showing the J-20AS prototype no. 2031. (Images via by78/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Two more so far not posted images showing the J-20AS prototype no. 2031. (Images via by78/SDF)
> 
> View attachment 805160
> View attachment 805161



Looks much better in grey paint.


----------



## appliedfor

ARMalik said:


> China ramps up J-20 stealth fighter production after domestic engine switch - Global Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globaltimes.cn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *China ramps up J-20 stealth fighter production after domestic engine switch *
> 
> The maker of the J-20, China's most advanced stealth fighter jet, revealed that it recently broke records in terms of aircraft delivery due to high demand, with experts saying on Sunday that the J-20 has entered a mass production phase after it solved the last missing piece of the puzzle, the domestically developed WS-10 engine.
> 
> Since the start of the fourth quarter, Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group Co Ltd under the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China has been facing challenging research and development, production and delivery missions, as multiple users were waiting to receive delivery of many aircraft, the company said in a statement released over the weekend on its social media account.
> 
> In this period, the company completed several key test flight missions, and indexes related to aircraft delivery have broken record highs, the statement said.
> 
> Out of nine photos attached to the statement, seven depict test flights of the J-20, one shows a test flight of the J-10, and one shows the work of staff members.
> 
> This could be an indication that the production of the J-20 is being ramped up, Fu Qianshao, a Chinese military aviation expert, told the Global Times on Sunday.
> 
> The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force displayed J-20s equipped with domestically developed engines at Airshow China 2021.
> 
> The switch to domestically made WS-10 engines from imported ones has made mass production possible, Fu said, noting that other systems on the J-20, including the avionics system, radar system and weapons systems, were already domestically developed.
> 
> Now that there is no limitation caused by the import of engines, and the homemade WS-10 engine has been tested on other aircraft like the J-10, J-11 and J-16, the J-20 is in a position to start mass production, Fu said.
> 
> Responding to an inquiry from the Global Times concerning the production capacity of the J-20 at a press conference at Airshow China in late September, Wang Haitao, deputy designer of the aircraft, said that China's aviation industry can satisfy any level of demand from the PLA Air Force.
> 
> It is good to see the industry is busy, because this means the J-20 has started entering service in large numbers, Fu said.
> 
> "In a short time, we will be able to see J-20s operated by all eastern, southern, western, northern and central theater commands, and become the main force to safeguard China's sovereignty and territorial airspace security," Fu predicted.
> 
> For the next step, the J-20 will continue to evolve, for example, by switching to use more advanced engines, Fu said


Any chance in near future to get some numbers after the mass production with indigenous engine?


----------



## ARMalik

appliedfor said:


> Any chance in near future to get some numbers after the mass production with indigenous engine?



Well the US is planning for 2500 F-35s fighters ! So China would need to come up with respectable numbers soon. So I wouldn't be surprised if China starts producing these like hot potatoes.


----------



## appliedfor

ARMalik said:


> Well the US is planning for 2500 F-35s fighters ! So China would need to come up with respectable numbers soon. So I wouldn't be surprised if China starts producing these like hot potatoes.



Thanks for the reply. 
Actually my Question was, we, Pakistan, any chance to get these birds in PAF after such mass production. 
I also heard that ex chief got China clearance to export it to Pakistan (because these are not available for export to any country in the world at the moment)


----------



## jupiter2007

Indian defense analyst said China will allow Pakistan to purchase J-20 in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Bleek

appliedfor said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> Actually my Question was, we, Pakistan, any chance to get these birds in PAF after such mass production.
> I also heard that ex chief got China clearance to export it to Pakistan (because these are not available for export to any country in the world at the moment)


I feel that it's unlikely, since in the chance that an adversary, likely India, if any, manages to take down a J-20 jet or detect it (somehow) during a conflict, it could ruin China's military technological credibility in the eyes of the world.

I think maybe we could get the J-35 (FC-31), which is another 5th generation jet being produced by a Chinese company. In the case of this being taken down, it still leaves a question mark on the J-20 due to it's export ban, which allows a sense of mystery on its true capabilities so it wouldn't be as easy to discredit it.

I didn't really think this through much though, but what does everyone else think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ARMalik

appliedfor said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> Actually my Question was, we, Pakistan, any chance to get these birds in PAF after such mass production.
> I also heard that ex chief got China clearance to export it to Pakistan (because these are not available for export to any country in the world at the moment)



It is only a matter of time depending on geopolitical situation. If US can give F-35s to its allies then so can China give J-20s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

jupiter2007 said:


> Indian defense analyst said China will allow Pakistan to purchase J-20 in the future.




Indians even say they can fly the AMCA in 2024 and have it ready for serial production and service entry in 2028!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
5 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## jupiter2007

Deino said:


> Indians even say they can fly the AMCA in 2024 and have it ready for serial production and service entry in 2028!



I am not saying they are 100% correct but the way things are moving, there is a possibility.

China is already working on 6th generation fighter with Autonomous system; there is a possibility that that may sell scale down version of J-20 to Pakistan.


----------



## Deino

jupiter2007 said:


> I am not saying they are 100% correct but the way things are moving, there is a possibility.
> 
> China is already working on 6th generation fighter with Autonomous system; there is a possibility that that may sell scale down version of J-20 to Pakistan.




No, plain and simply NO chance at all. Either - some day under changed political circumstances - Pakistan may get J-20s, but surely not a scaled down variant! Did you consider that a scaled down variant is not a variant, but de facto a new aircraft and why should China pay for its development when they have the J-35?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CIA Mole

jupiter2007 said:


> I am not saying they are 100% correct but the way things are moving, there is a possibility.
> 
> China is already working on 6th generation fighter with Autonomous system; there is a possibility that that may sell scale down version of J-20 to Pakistan.



wtf is this

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1478962501350203392

Reactions: Love Love:
2


----------



## S10

CIA Mole said:


> wtf is this
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1478962501350203392


That seems a little suspect. WS-10C was just installed on J-20 last year. We haven't seen WS-15 being put on a test bed yet.


----------



## casual

S10 said:


> That seems a little suspect. WS-10C was just installed on J-20 last year. We haven't seen WS-15 being put on a test bed yet.


You are wrong. WS10 on J-20 maiden flight was done much earlier then last year.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MajesticPug

S10 said:


> That seems a little suspect. WS-10C was just installed on J-20 last year. We haven't seen WS-15 being put on a test bed yet.



I saw multiple Youtube videos claiming WS-15 spotted on J20 and test flights will start soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

MajesticPug said:


> I saw multiple Youtube videos claiming WS-15 spotted on J20 and test flights will start soon.




Yes, and saw multiple Youtube videos claiming there si intelligent live on Mars and Venus!

Reactions: Haha Haha:
4


----------



## Scorpiooo

What's is operational cost of j20 per hour


----------



## zhxy

Scorpiooo said:


> What's is operational cost of j20 per hour



55 000 USD

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

zhxy said:


> 55 000 USD


Thats very much high


----------



## no smoking

casual said:


> You are wrong. WS10 on J-20 maiden flight was done much earlier then last year.



The point is the gap between the two engine is too small to make any economic sense.


----------



## casual

no smoking said:


> The point is the gap between the two engine is too small to make any economic sense.


j20 was designed for the ws15. ws10 was only a stopgap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

no smoking said:


> The point is the gap between the two engine is too small to make any economic sense.



The gap in military thrust (without afterburner) is much higher than you think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no smoking

siegecrossbow said:


> The gap in military thrust (without afterburner) is much higher than you think.


No, I mean the time gap.
If WS-15 is so quick, why bother to try WS-10 on it.


----------



## siegecrossbow

no smoking said:


> No, I mean the time gap.
> If WS-15 is so quick, why bother to try WS-10 on it.



You underestimate how long it takes to get an engine to a ready state.


----------



## no smoking

siegecrossbow said:


> You underestimate how long it takes to get an engine to a ready state.


Unless we are expecting the WS-15 test on J-20 will last for over 5 years, it will be waste to install another engine to fill this gap.


----------



## Deino

Maybe baby?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481977402486054917

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Finally!!!  The first J-20A assigned to the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan is confirmed. And with no. 61120

(Image via @CN_military_21)


----------



## MajesticPug

Deino said:


> Finally!!!  The first J-20A assigned to the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan is confirmed. And with no. 61120
> 
> (Image via @CN_military_21)
> 
> 
> View attachment 808547
> 
> View attachment 808548



Now Deino believes Youtube's dinosaur eggs are real. LOL...


----------



## Deino

MajesticPug said:


> Now Deino believes Youtube's dinosaur eggs are real. LOL...




Care to expalin? I already had an image of J-10A no. 61022 already one year ago but I'm still allowed to post it. So I never questioned the 1st AB at Anshan flies them, it is only the first leaked image.


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482596648442380288

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Slowly images of J-20As assigned to the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan are being released ... here is no. 61026 

(Image via Huitong's CMA-Blog)


----------



## SQ8

Deino said:


> Slowly images of J-20As assigned to the 1st Air Brigade at Anshan are being released ... here is no. 61026
> 
> (Image via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
> 
> View attachment 809141


Going back a few pages but could not figure this out - is there a difference between saying J-20 and J-20A? IPA vs Serial production?


----------



## GiantPanda

SQ8 said:


> Going back a few pages but could not figure this out - is there a difference between saying J-20 and J-20A? IPA vs Serial production?



J-20A for WS-10 equipped J-20. Not official I don't believe but accepted terminology among watchers community.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shotgunner51

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482681979900362753

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Wow ... already no. 15 spotted!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482976702506897412


----------



## cssniper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482886509703299072
Afterburner

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Now that engine is no longer a bottleneck you’ll be seeing them popping up in every theater command.


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> Now that engine is no longer a bottleneck you’ll be seeing them popping up in every theater command.




It's Christmas time today!!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483101280176427016

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483110273225482244

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Bin Laden

Will WS10 equipped j20s get TVC?
Or it is planned with WS15 ones only.


----------



## Deino

Bin Laden said:


> Will WS10 equipped j20s get TVC?
> Or it is planned with WS15 ones only.




IMO unlikely ... PLAAF will get TVC with the WS-15


----------



## siegecrossbow

Conservative estimate is probably 100 aircraft in service at this point in time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ZeEa5KPul



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Wow …

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## xuxu1457

It is good to have money. Military expenditure in 2021 is 1.35 trillion RMB, US $210 billion, accounting for only 1.18% of GDP in 2021. The smallest proportion of major countries

1.3% in Japan, 3.7% in the United States, 2.9% in India, 2.8% in South Korea, 2.1% in Australia, 1.4% in Germany
but 1.18% in China is advised not to be militaristic every day.

The Chinese Air Force has an annual equipment purchase cost of 20 billion US dollars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Polestar 2

Deino said:


> Wow …
> 
> View attachment 809568


Looks like the TVC nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Polestar 2 said:


> Looks like the TVC nozzle.


No it's not


----------



## kuge

Deino said:


> Wow …
> 
> View attachment 809568


is that the ws15 on the right?


----------



## Polestar 2

White and Green with M/S said:


> No it's not


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> No it's not




Care to explain, why you think it is not a TVC-nozzle? IMO it looks remarkably like the WS-10B-3 on the J-10B testbed, maybe it is even the same engine but to say it is no TVC needs at least an explanation!!??


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Polestar 2 said:


> View attachment 809573


Brother as far as we seen domestic engine on j20 is non TVC


----------



## Polestar 2

White and Green with M/S said:


> Brother as far as we seen domestic engine on j20 is non TVC


I think you are mixing it up with operational J-20 vs prototype testing of WS-15 on this J-20.


----------



## Shotgunner51

Hi-Res Wallpaper (Perhaps #61127 of 1st Brigade)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
3


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Polestar 2 said:


> I think you are mixing it up with operational J-20 vs prototype testing of WS-15 on this J-20.


There is no confirmation that this engine is WS-15 on this j20, its just a rumors


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> Brother as far as we seen domestic engine on j20 is non TVC



Yes, but we are referring to this one in the middle!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Care to explain, why you think it is not a TVC-nozzle? IMO it looks remarkably like the WS-10B-3 on the J-10B testbed, maybe it is even the same engine but to say it is no TVC needs at least an explanation!!??



Hard to tell from such a blurry image but the petals seem longer than what is on WS-10B-3.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Deino said:


> Yes, but we are referring to this one in the middle!
> 
> View attachment 809593


Sir I think we had have similar image of j20's engine in past that you talking about for your middle image


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> There is no confirmation that this engine is WS-15 on this j20, its just a rumors




That's exactly what I noted, but you claimed it is NOT a TVC nozzle, which is irrelevant from the question is it a WS-10 TVC or the WS-15 ... at least in my opinion it is clearly a TVC-nozzle regardless what engine.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Deino said:


> That's exactly what I noted, but you claimed it is NOT a TVC nozzle, which is irrelevant from the question is it a WS-10 TVC or the WS-15 ... at least in my opinion it is clearly a TVC-nozzle regardless what engine.


Isn't nonTVC version of ws-10 are being utilize on j20 according to various senior Chinese members here on PDF sir?


----------



## Clutch

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482742071093911556

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Polestar 2

White and Green with M/S said:


> Isn't nonTVC version of ws-10 are being utilize on j20 according to various senior Chinese members here on PDF sir?


But then the image of 2 different engine install on J-20 prototype testing is not about operational J-20. The rumour of WS-15 tested onboard is very credible because clearly the 2 engine running on the J-20 are different from each other.

You are clearly confusing yourself between prototype testing and operational units.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> Isn't nonTVC version of ws-10 are being utilize on j20 according to various senior Chinese members here on PDF sir?



Not according to some users, but it is undeniable ... but this new nozzle is different. Is thsi so difficult to see?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Polestar 2 said:


> But then the image of 2 different engine install on J-20 prototype testing is not about operational J-20. The rumour of WS-15 tested onboard is very credible because clearly the 2 engine running on the J-20 are different.
> 
> You are clearly confusing yourself between prototype testing and operational units.


Brother may be TVC version of ws-10 is being tessted on this j-20, ws-15 is just a rumor


----------



## Polestar 2

siegecrossbow said:


> Hard to tell from such a blurry image but the petals seem longer than what is on WS-10B-3.


It's not to difficult to spot the different. The segregation between each petal are wide and clear. It matches the TVC used by the J-10C demonstrator during Zuhai 2018 airshow.

Surely, its a TVC engine on the J-20. If u look clearly at AL-31FN and WS-10C, there is virtually very little gap between each petal. Almost no thick , clear outline.


White and Green with M/S said:


> Brother may be TVC version of ws-10 is being tessted on this j-20, ws-15 is just a rumor


So now u admits it's TVC engine?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Polestar 2 said:


> So now u admits it's TVC engine?


May be or may be not


----------



## Polestar 2

The chief designer Yang Wei had mention the TVC will have penalty of thrust reduction vs non TVC version. Surely PLAAF will be more willing to added TVC on the 18tons thrust WS-15 for operational units compare to 14tons thrust WS-10C. 

As for the J-10C TVC during Zuhai 2018, clearly they mention it as a tech demonstrator to verify the feasible of Chinese TVC technology.

I am quite sure the rumour of WS-15 tested on this J-20 is quite credible since the penalty of TVC on a 18ton thrust WS-15 will be negligible as WS-15 TVC might have a 10% reduction which still gives it a good thrust of more than 16tons.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Polestar 2 said:


> The chief designer Yang Wei had mention the TVC will have penalty of thrust reduction vs non TVC version. Surely PLAAF will be more willing to added TVC on the 18tons thrust WS-15 for operational units compare to 14tons thrust WS-10C.
> 
> As for the J-10C TVC during Zuhai 2018, clearly they mention it as a tech demonstrator to verify the feasible of Chinese TVC technology.
> 
> I am quite sure the rumour of WS-15 tested on this J-20 is quite credible since the penalty of TVC on a 18ton thrust WS-15 will be negligible as WS-15 TVC might have a 10% reduction which still gives it a good thrust of more than 16tons.


You have no proofs that this engine is ws-15 brother


----------



## Polestar 2

White and Green with M/S said:


> You have no proofs that this engine is ws-15 brother


You are correct but sometimes we need to use abit of logic to grasp the correct answer. 

Is it better to add TVC on WS-10C or WS-15 with the penalty of thrust reduction taken into consideration?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Polestar 2 said:


> You are correct but sometimes we need to use abit of logic to grasp the correct answer.
> 
> Is it better to add TVC on WS-10C or WS-15 with the penalty of thrust reduction taken into consideration?


Let's agree to disagree but I think it's a TVC version of WS-10 for testing rather than ws-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shotgunner51

siegecrossbow said:


> Hard to tell from such a blurry image but the petals seem longer than what is on WS-10B-3.


Interesting that you mention petals. I count 15 petals on the TVC engine used in Zhuhai 2018 aka WS-10B-3 (see below), how many on that J-20 testbed? But from that blurry image apparently I can count 13 petals on the "unknown engine".

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SQ8

Deino said:


> Not according to some users, but it is undeniable ... but this new nozzle is different. Is thsi so difficult to see?


A different nozzle may not necessarily imply a “new” engine.


----------



## Beidou2020

*J-20 fighters conduct nocturnal battle drill to hone stealth advantages*
Liu Xuanzun 
04:55 Jan 17 2022




J-20 stealth fighter jets perform aerobatics during the 13th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition, or Airshow China 2021, in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province, September 29, 2021. Photo:Xinhua
J-20 stealth fighter jets of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force recently conducted a nocturnal battle exercise against other types of warplanes with experts saying on Sunday that the stealthy J-20 demonstrated its all-time and all-weather combat readiness.

During the recent, undated aerial confrontational exercise that was organized in an undisclosed training base of the PLA Air Force, several J-20 stealth fighter jets took off under the curtain of night and started the combat drill against the simulated enemy after entering a designated area, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Sunday.

The report indicates that the J-20s did not carry Luneburg lenses, which are radar reflectors used to make a stealth aircraft visible to others in training or non-combat flights. CCTV showed some images of the J-16 heavy fighter jet taking part in the exercise.

In addition to air-to-air combat, other realistic combat-oriented courses, including attack on ground targets and electronic warfare, were also carried out, according to the report.

On the first day of training of 2022, the J-20s also held similar combat exercises against other types of aircrafts, including J-16s and J-11Bs, according to media reports.

At nighttime, pilots can get confused and might not be able to tell if they are flying up, down or if they are rolling. For this reason, pilots must pay more attention while flying the aircraft at night than during the day, Cheng Xia, a J-20 pilot who participated in the latest exercise, told CCTV.

By holding combat drills at night, the J-20 displayed its highly reliable all-weather combat readiness and capability, Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military expert, told the Global Times on Sunday.

"In recent air combat exercises, the J-20 took advantages of its stealth and attack capabilities and realized the tactical goals of finding the enemy first, firing missiles first, breaking away from combat first and destroying the target first," Chen said.

However, warplanes on the other team were also able to spot opponents with their radars and launched missiles, forcing their adversaries to make high G evasive maneuvers, according to the CCTV report.

Wei said that the combat drills helped the J-20 hone its stealth capabilities in hunting down non-stealth aircrafts. At the same time, non-stealth aircrafts were forced to find ways to counter stealth aircraft like the J-20.

While CCTV did not specify how the two teams were formed, it is possible that the J-20s fought against other types of warplanes as well as other J-20s, Wei said.

The J-20 could be used to penetrate hostile defenses and seize air superiority, and other types of non-stealth aircraft could be used to unload a large amount of munitions on targets, Wei explained.

The growing media reports on the training and exercises of the J-20 also indicate that more of these aircrafts are being commissioned to the PLA Air Force, observers said.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Daniel808

What a Beast 😍

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

Nocturnal time is great for launching an offensive since the opponent's pilots are not as alert when said attack happens. Conversely, you need to learn how to properly defend from a nocturnal aerial assault as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Daniel808

*WS-10C Engine onboard J-20 Stealth Fighter*  That's a Fvcking hot

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
4


----------



## johncliu88

Nice looking rare end! Yes, it is very hot for sure.
On the other hand, what if Pakistani has a squadron of this beast? And how will Indian do? Buy SU-57 from Russia?


----------



## SD 10

johncliu88 said:


> Nice looking rare end! Yes, it is very hot for sure.
> On the other hand, what if Pakistani has a squadron of this beast? And how will Indian do? Buy SU-57 from Russia?


F35 most likely.......... so i dont think paf would induct 5 th generation as long as india doesn't

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beidou2020

Chinese engine-equipped J-20 fighter proves plateau ability
Liu Xuanzun 
01:44 Jan 20 2022




J-20 fighter jets attached to an aviation brigade under the PLA Air Force taxi in close formation during a flight training exercise on January 7, 2022. Photo: eng.chinamil.com.cn
Since China's J-20 stealth fighter jet switched to use domestically developed engines, the advanced warplane has proved its operability under extreme environments, including in regions at high altitude, under harsh cold weather and with high humidity and temperatures, a senior designer of the aircraft said on Wednesday.

This shows that the Chinese engines suit the demands of the J-20's operations in all regions across the country, experts said.

Gong Feng, the deputy chief designer of the J-20, shared some new insights on the J-20's switch to domestically developed engines in a speech published by a social media account affiliated with the Xinhua News Agency on Wednesday.

Gong said that the domestic engines unleashed the potential of the J-20, since the old engines were not customized for the aircraft, and it had to make compromises in its performance.

In addition to developing the engines, the J-20, including its airframe, structure, pipelines, electric circuits and subsystems, were redesigned, Gong said.

To ensure the upgraded J-20 can operate anywhere, Gong was tasked to conduct reliability tests and verification test flights, including in regions at high altitude, under harsh cold weather and with high humidity and temperature.

The tests went smoothly, Gong said. "I can proudly tell everyone, that the J-20 with Chinese engines has it all, both from the inside and outside."

It was important to test the engine's performance under different environments across the country, Fu Qianshao, a Chinese military aviation expert, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

In high altitude plateau regions, the takeoff of the aircraft could be a problem because it requires high power from the engine, but plateaus have thin air; near the sea, high humidity could cause corrosion, Fu explained.

The tests proved that the domestically developed engine can satisfy the operating requirements under all environments across the country, allowing the J-20 to enhance its comprehensive combat capabilities, Fu said.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force displayed J-20s equipped with domestically developed engines at Airshow China 2021, and analysts said the aircraft's production has accelerated thanks to the new engines.

"As an aircraft designer, I firmly believe that we can meet all of the PLA's requirements," Gong said.

He added that after the J-20, he is developing new types of aviation weapons and equipment, but without elaborating.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## beijingwalker

*China to start upgrading J-20 fighter engines, the Mighty Dragon will be fitted with thrust vector nozzles to improve performance *
Published: 5:00am, 20 Jan, 2022 





China will start upgrading the engines of its most advanced stealth fighter jet, the J-20, this year to bring its performance closer to the American F-22 Raptor, according to a military source.
The performance of the fighter, also known as the Mighty Dragon, had been limited because it has been using a stopgap engine, the WS-10C, the latest model of an engine used in earlier Chinese warplanes.

These are now being fitted with new thrust-vectoring nozzles, a technology Chinese engineers have spent two decades trying to master and which the country first unveiled at the 2018 Zhuhai air show.

The US Raptor uses the technology, which controls the direction of the engine thrust, allowing the jet to perform sudden manoeuvres that earlier generations of aircraft cannot.

Chinese engineers have been developing a high-thrust engine, known as the WS-15, to allow its most advanced fighter to close the gap with US warplanes.

But this project has fallen behind schedule, prompting its developer, the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, to use the WS-10C on the planes instead.

A source familiar with the engine development programme said all WS-10C engines fitted to J-20s will be given thrust vectoring capabilities this year.

“Because verification of the two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles, the technology used by the F-22, has been completed, the manoeuvrability and stealth capability of the J-20s will be upgraded,” the source, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic, said.

“The upgrading project aims at meeting the PLA’s intensive training demands, as the country plans to deploy about 200 J-20s.”

State media has previously reported that the PLA has deployed the J-20 to air force units responsible for the Taiwan Strait and East China Sea – which would involve at least four brigades or 150 fighters.

This week, state broadcaster China Central Television aired footage showing J-20 brigades conducting nighttime combat drills and other clips that showed the planes had been fitted with WS-10C engines.

Macau-based military observer Antony Wong Tong said: “It’s the first time the PLA showed simulated dogfight drills between different J-20 brigades, which is supposed to be regular training for PLA fighter jet pilots.


“But the thrust of the J-20 will still lag behind the US F-22, until China delivers the WS-15 engines for the aircraft.”

The J-20 entered service in 2017 after the US deployed more than 100 F-35s to Japan and South Korea.

At the time it was equipped with a Russian-made engine and China only began producing J-20s equipped with the domestically produced WS-10C engine in 2020.

The source said checks on the WS-15 engine are taking place and are expected to finish next year.

“The J-20 engines will be replaced by the WS-15 once the checks are completed,” the source said, adding there would be no technological problems because the existing Russian and Chinese engines were a similar size and shape.









China to start upgrading J-20 fighter engines


A source says the jet, also known as the Mighty Dragon, will be fitted with thrust vector nozzles to improve performance.




www.scmp.com

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

beijingwalker said:


> The J-20 entered service in 2017 *after the* *US deployed more than 100* *F-35s* to Japan and South Korea.



hmm...after 100 F-35s deployed...back in 2017...


ah i see where that number came from.
August 23, 2017








US, ROK, Japan to Deploy Over 100 F-35 Fighter Jets Near North Korea by 2020s


More F-35 fighter jets could soon be deployed to South Korea and Japan.



thediplomat.com




*US, ROK, Japan to Deploy Over 100 F-35 Fighter Jets Near North Korea by **2020s*


----------



## beijingwalker

Hamartia Antidote said:


> hmm...100 F-35s deployed...back in 2017...


US tends not to have a good chance every time when something starts to mass produce in China.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

beijingwalker said:


> US tends not to have a good chance every time when something starts to mass produce in China.



No that 100 number was the typical after-the-fact weasel wording to make it look like China was simply reacting to something.


----------



## FuturePAF

Guess they finished the 2D nozzles. Coupled with the more powerful WS-15 engines to compensate for the added weight and to allow the plane to supercruise, why would China stop at only a few hundred J-20s? Estimates for the production run on a separate thread said 400 fighters. Why wouldn’t the PLAAF want to go for enough to match or overwhelm the potentially 1000+ stealth fighters being built around her, from the KFX/IFX, to Japanese F-3, to the US F-22 and NGFA, as well as all the operators of the F-35?

What’s the estimate of the J-20’s annual production run? It would have to be more than double the 30 a year I reckon is being done to reach the numbers being put out of nearly 200 by 2023-2025. 









Test pilot sees China's J-20 to get 2D thrust vectoring nozzles - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn





PS image for reference




source:


https://m.facebook.com/pladupdate/posts/what-if-j-20-has-2d-thrust-vectoring-stealth-nozzles-credits-to-lovely-swift-for/1938353682868217/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

FuturePAF said:


> Guess they finished the 2D nozzles. Coupled with the more powerful WS-15 engines to compensate for the added weight and to allow the plane to supercruise, why would China stop at only a few hundred J-20s? Estimates for the production run on a separate thread said 400 fighters. Why wouldn’t the PLAAF want to go for enough to match or overwhelm the potentially 1000+ stealth fighters being built around her, from the KFX/IFX, to Japanese F-3, to the US F-22 and NGFA, as well as all the operators of the F-35?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Test pilot sees China's J-20 to get 2D thrust vectoring nozzles - Global Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globaltimes.cn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS image for reference
> View attachment 809981
> 
> source:
> 
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/pladupdate/posts/what-if-j-20-has-2d-thrust-vectoring-stealth-nozzles-credits-to-lovely-swift-for/1938353682868217/


Mass production just started cause many things were not finalised for this plane, but no one should doubt China's ability on mass production once it started, China can easily outproduce anyone on this planet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

beijingwalker said:


> Mass production just started cause many things were not finalised for this plane, but no one should doubt China's ability on mass production once it started, China can easily outproduce anyone on this planet.



No one doubts China’s ability to manufacture, especially once the technology has matured. It’s the talk of possibly limiting the production run to 400 J-20s and perhaps 500 J-35s. But considering how mature and capable the J-20 is, a total production run of over 1000 and counting by the middle of the next decade is not impossible to imagine.

Considering the PLAAF still operates the F-7s and F-8s; it would be a sight to behold to see pilots go from those planes to the J-20s. Like that picture of the train operate with the steam train and then the same driver in a high speed train.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

FuturePAF said:


> Considering the PLAAF still operates the F-7s and F-8s;


F-7s and F-8s now are only for training now, retired from real combat. J-20 is very expensive, you don't want rookies to learn flying with this expensive bird.
我军现役的歼-7战斗机实际上也退役的差不多了，主要是表演机和教练机

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal9

beijingwalker said:


> F-7s and F-8s now are only for training now, retired from real combat. J-20 is very expensive, you don't want rookies to learn flying with this expensive bird.
> 我军现役的歼-7战斗机实际上也退役的差不多了，主要是表演机和教练机



I thought F-7 line was shut down after F-7BGI's were supplied to Bangladesh in 2013. They converted F-7 to new design trainer Guizhou JL-9 AKA FTC-2000G. Did a few get sold to Mynamar?


----------



## Deino

beijingwalker said:


> *China to start upgrading J-20 fighter engines, the Mighty Dragon will be fitted with thrust vector nozzles to improve performance *
> Published: 5:00am, 20 Jan, 2022
> View attachment 809978
> 
> 
> China will start upgrading the engines of its most advanced stealth fighter jet, the J-20, this year to bring its performance closer to the American F-22 Raptor, according to a military source.
> The performance of the fighter, also known as the Mighty Dragon, had been limited because it has been using a stopgap engine, the WS-10C, the latest model of an engine used in earlier Chinese warplanes.
> 
> These are now being fitted with new thrust-vectoring nozzles, a technology Chinese engineers have spent two decades trying to master and which the country first unveiled at the 2018 Zhuhai air show.
> 
> The US Raptor uses the technology, which controls the direction of the engine thrust, allowing the jet to perform sudden manoeuvres that earlier generations of aircraft cannot.
> 
> Chinese engineers have been developing a high-thrust engine, known as the WS-15, to allow its most advanced fighter to close the gap with US warplanes.
> 
> But this project has fallen behind schedule, prompting its developer, the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, to use the WS-10C on the planes instead.
> 
> A source familiar with the engine development programme said all WS-10C engines fitted to J-20s will be given thrust vectoring capabilities this year.
> 
> “Because verification of the two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles, the technology used by the F-22, has been completed, the manoeuvrability and stealth capability of the J-20s will be upgraded,” the source, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic, said.
> 
> “The upgrading project aims at meeting the PLA’s intensive training demands, as the country plans to deploy about 200 J-20s.”
> 
> State media has previously reported that the PLA has deployed the J-20 to air force units responsible for the Taiwan Strait and East China Sea – which would involve at least four brigades or 150 fighters.
> 
> This week, state broadcaster China Central Television aired footage showing J-20 brigades conducting nighttime combat drills and other clips that showed the planes had been fitted with WS-10C engines.
> 
> Macau-based military observer Antony Wong Tong said: “It’s the first time the PLA showed simulated dogfight drills between different J-20 brigades, which is supposed to be regular training for PLA fighter jet pilots.
> 
> 
> “But the thrust of the J-20 will still lag behind the US F-22, until China delivers the WS-15 engines for the aircraft.”
> 
> The J-20 entered service in 2017 after the US deployed more than 100 F-35s to Japan and South Korea.
> 
> At the time it was equipped with a Russian-made engine and China only began producing J-20s equipped with the domestically produced WS-10C engine in 2020.
> 
> The source said checks on the WS-15 engine are taking place and are expected to finish next year.
> 
> “The J-20 engines will be replaced by the WS-15 once the checks are completed,” the source said, adding there would be no technological problems because the existing Russian and Chinese engines were a similar size and shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China to start upgrading J-20 fighter engines
> 
> 
> A source says the jet, also known as the Mighty Dragon, will be fitted with thrust vector nozzles to improve performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scmp.com




Sorry, but this is again a plain stupid report by our most favourite ignorant Minnie Chan:

Her fantasy is indeed interesting, we have just a handful of images suggesting a TVC nozzle is under *test*, some sources claim it is a WS-10B-3 others it is the WS-15, but she spins yet another story ... and again all based on her typical "contacts close to the" whatever!   

China will start upgrading the engines of its most advanced stealth fighter jet, the J-20, this year ...
The performance of the fighter, also known as the Mighty Dragon, had been limited because it has been using a stopgap engine, the WS-10C ...
These are now being fitted with new thrust-vectoring nozzles ...
A source familiar with the engine development programme said all WS-10C engines fitted to J-20s will be given thrust vectoring capabilities this year.
I really don't know what she is smoking

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Bin Laden

Deino said:


> Sorry, but this is again a plain stupid report by our most favourite ignorant Minnie Chan:
> 
> Her fantasy is indeed interesting, we have just a handful of images suggesting a TVC nozzle is under *test*, some sources claim it is a WS-10B-3 others it is the WS-15, but she spins yet another story ... and again all based on her typical "contacts close to the" whatever!
> 
> China will start upgrading the engines of its most advanced stealth fighter jet, the J-20, this year ...
> The performance of the fighter, also known as the Mighty Dragon, had been limited because it has been using a stopgap engine, the WS-10C ...
> These are now being fitted with new thrust-vectoring nozzles ...
> A source familiar with the engine development programme said all WS-10C engines fitted to J-20s will be given thrust vectoring capabilities this year.
> I really don't know what she is smoking


Well it's not out of question.My guess is PLAAF wants to equip large proportion of the j20s with TVC.
Total planned fleet(for now) is of 400 aircrafts.
Out of which around 100-140 are with AL-31FM2 witn no TVC
And with WS10C ones being mass produced, we'll see a large number of them like ~100 j20s
Because Ws15 matured and mass produced is couple years away.
So if these ones aren't equipped with TVC half of the PLAAF's j20 fleet would be missing it which I guess they don't want to.


----------



## Shotgunner51

Hi-Res Photos (with PL-10 on rail outside closed side bays)









A little animation:

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Deino

Bin Laden said:


> …
> Out of which around 100-140 are with AL-31FM2 witn no TVC
> …




How do you explain 100-140 powered by AL-31FN/FM engines, when there are „only“ about 100 today and alone 50 of them using WS-10C?


----------



## Shotgunner51

beijingwalker said:


> F-7s and F-8s now are only for training now, retired from real combat. J-20 is very expensive, you don't want rookies to learn flying with this expensive bird.
> 我军现役的歼-7战斗机实际上也退役的差不多了，主要是表演机和教练机





Bilal9 said:


> I thought F-7 line was shut down after F-7BGI's were supplied to Bangladesh in 2013. They converted F-7 to new design trainer Guizhou JL-9 AKA FTC-2000G. Did a few get sold to Mynamar?


Nope, neither J-7 or J-8 is used for training, nor aerobatics. The last brigades with J-7G are anxiously awaiting for their turn of new birds, and J-8F are used as hi-speed recon.

PLAAF academy has changed its pilot training program since 2018 from 4 phases to 3: Indoctrination - Development - Transition. K-8 and LIFT are used in early phases, *in the final phase ("Transition") cadets are trained on jets re-commissioned from combat duties* like J-10A/AS, J-11B/BS. Recently the 1st batch of cadets graduated from the new program with J-10 (J-10AS for ccompanied flight, J-10A for solo flight) transferred from combat troops.






PLAAF flight academy introduces J-10 fighers in flight training program of pilot cadets - China Military


Recently, the PLA Air Force (PLAAF)'s first batch of pilot cadets that has been directly trained with the third-generation fighter jets completed their solo flight assessment.




eng.chinamil.com.cn





Yes, Chengdu shut down their J-7 line after delivery of last F-7BGI to Bangladesh. But Guizhou carry on with this legendary airframe, which is either exported under designation of FTC-2000 (Sudan & I guess Cambodia cos Myanmar has chosen far more expensive JF-17), or used under designation JL-9 as LIFT (competing share with Hongdu JL-10) in PLAAF/PLANAF academy.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## luciferdd

TRAD for J-20

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bin Laden

Deino said:


> How do you explain 100-140 powered by AL-31FN/FM engines, when there are „only“ about 100 today and alone 50 of them using WS-10C?


Most estimates put total number around 150+





Military Watch Magazine







militarywatchmagazine.com




So there *aren't only* 100.Plus ws10C ones just got cleared for mass production after testing so not sure about the 50 WS10C ones any source? Although I don't deny the possibility since use of Al31 supposedly stopped in mid 2019. They could've produced atleast 40 by now given the production rate.
But again I didn't claim to know the exact number of AL31ones either, My guess is that's they are atleast 100'ish since most j20s produced predominantly use them.


----------



## Deino

Bin Laden said:


> Most estimates put total number around 150+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military Watch Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> militarywatchmagazine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there *aren't only* 100.Plus ws10C ones just got cleared for mass production after testing so not sure about the 50 WS10C ones any source? Although I don't deny the possibility since use of Al31 supposedly stopped in mid 2019. They could've produced atleast 40 by now given the production rate.
> But again I didn't claim to know the exact number of AL31ones either, My guess is that's they are atleast 100'ish since most j20s produced predominantly use them.




No, most estimated, which base their reports on that BS written by Minnie Chan. Already in mid-2021 she claimed a wrong number of units, each with a full complement of daduis and a production rate that is impossible. Just look at her latest false-claim concerning engines ... as such, forget it and read what is written here by reliable and credible members.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Bin Laden said:


> Most estimates put total number around 150+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military Watch Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> militarywatchmagazine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there *aren't only* 100.Plus ws10C ones just got cleared for mass production after testing so not sure about the 50 WS10C ones any source? Although I don't deny the possibility since use of Al31 supposedly stopped in mid 2019. They could've produced atleast 40 by now given the production rate.
> But again I didn't claim to know the exact number of AL31ones either, My guess is that's they are atleast 100'ish since most j20s produced predominantly use them.


We have to consider the following points on why we cannot use the F-22 production rates as bench mark for J20, as suggested by Airforce Monthly magazine.

1) F-22 was already in final design mode when the mass productionn started, thus they proceeded with normal full production rates vs low initial production rates for J20 during the same first few years of production.

2) J20's initial production rates were kept low because Russian engines are interim solution to keep just enough number of J20 for training of instructors and seed pilots. The number of these inital batches of J20 could not be more than 50. At this stage of time, they probably have only one production line running.

3) J20II with domestic WS-10C engines means the first interim stage with Russian engines are over, and with 3 or 4 production lines running, the annual production rates of J20II can be 3 to 4 times that of early J20 equiped with Russian engine.

4) If China decides that total production of J20 should exceed 1,000 units, then the peak annual production rates should belong to J20III with WS-15 engines, but this is yet to be seen many years from now, probably after 2025 at the earliest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kamil_baku

Chine still use Russian engines for their j20? its more than 5 years that you shared pictures that local engine is ready... when will the local engine be ready?

Reactions: Angry Angry:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Kamil_baku said:


> Chine still use Russian engines for their j20? its more than 5 years that you shared pictures that local engine is ready... when will the local engine be ready?



What are you talking about? WS-10C has been in service for at least two years. In fact we've been sharing photos of the new engines with black nozzles for the past few pages.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Piotr

J-20 fighter could get directed-energy weapon, drone-control capability: experts​By Liu Xuanzun
Published: Jan 23, 2022 08:29 PM






China's domestically developed J-20 stealth fighter jet could in the future be equipped with directed-energy weapons, and it can also spawn variants for early warning, unmanned flight and drone control, military experts predicted after the aircraft received concentrated media coverage over the past week.

"I believe our industrial departments can turn some of our ideas into reality, including those from the current trend of aviation main battle equipment," Wang Mingliang, a Chinese military expert, was quoted as saying in a China Central Television (CCTV) program on Saturday.

The J-20 could be equipped with directed-energy weapons, or it could be fitted with more powerful radar and fire control systems and become a small early warning aircraft, Wang predicted.

It is also possible that the J-20 could become capable of unmanned flight, Wang said, noting that the J-20 could also conduct coordinated operation with drones by leading them, or commanding a drone swarm in combat.

The J-20 is now equipped with domestically developed engines, but it is expected to get even more powerful domestic engines in the future, and this will enable the J-20 to carry more payload and carry out more types of missions, Wang predicted.

Wang made the remarks when asked about his expectations on the future development of the J-20, after the program rounded-up the recent concentrated media coverage of the J-20, including intense nocturnal combat drills and interviews with pilots. 

In early 2020, state broadcaster CCTV reported that China was developing an airborne laser attack pod. Chinese defense firms have also publicly displayed laser defense weapon systems at exhibitions, like the LW-30, which could use a directional-emission high-energy laser to intercept aerial targets.

Lasers are a great tool for aerial interception because there is no time delay, but it requires a large amount of energy to be effective and that is the issue that must be addressed for it to be mounted on an aircraft, analysts said.

Foreign media reported in November 2021 that the twin-seat variant of the J-20 made its maiden flight at the time.

An extra pilot on the twin-seat fighter jet could be utilized in more complicated combat situations, like to control loyal wingman-style drones, which will accompany the manned fighter in flight and carry different types of payloads for a wide variety of missions, including ground and surface attacks, air-to-air combat and electronic disruption, Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times in a previous interview.

Wang Ya'nan predicted that combat data from the second seat could be gathered, analyzed and used to train artificial intelligence, which could eventually replace the second pilot.

These are in line with general trends of warplane development worldwide, as countries like the US are also exploring some of the related technologies, another Beijing-based military expert told the Global Times on Sunday, requesting anonymity.

China is making concrete steps to make these sci-fi-looking concepts a reality, the expert said.

Beyond upgrades for J-20s, even better warplanes of a next generation are expected to replace them in the future, analysts said.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202201/1246676.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beidou2020

Piotr said:


> J-20 fighter could get directed-energy weapon, drone-control capability: experts​By Liu Xuanzun
> Published: Jan 23, 2022 08:29 PM
> 
> View attachment 810723
> 
> 
> China's domestically developed J-20 stealth fighter jet could in the future be equipped with directed-energy weapons, and it can also spawn variants for early warning, unmanned flight and drone control, military experts predicted after the aircraft received concentrated media coverage over the past week.
> 
> "I believe our industrial departments can turn some of our ideas into reality, including those from the current trend of aviation main battle equipment," Wang Mingliang, a Chinese military expert, was quoted as saying in a China Central Television (CCTV) program on Saturday.
> 
> The J-20 could be equipped with directed-energy weapons, or it could be fitted with more powerful radar and fire control systems and become a small early warning aircraft, Wang predicted.
> 
> It is also possible that the J-20 could become capable of unmanned flight, Wang said, noting that the J-20 could also conduct coordinated operation with drones by leading them, or commanding a drone swarm in combat.
> 
> The J-20 is now equipped with domestically developed engines, but it is expected to get even more powerful domestic engines in the future, and this will enable the J-20 to carry more payload and carry out more types of missions, Wang predicted.
> 
> Wang made the remarks when asked about his expectations on the future development of the J-20, after the program rounded-up the recent concentrated media coverage of the J-20, including intense nocturnal combat drills and interviews with pilots.
> 
> In early 2020, state broadcaster CCTV reported that China was developing an airborne laser attack pod. Chinese defense firms have also publicly displayed laser defense weapon systems at exhibitions, like the LW-30, which could use a directional-emission high-energy laser to intercept aerial targets.
> 
> Lasers are a great tool for aerial interception because there is no time delay, but it requires a large amount of energy to be effective and that is the issue that must be addressed for it to be mounted on an aircraft, analysts said.
> 
> Foreign media reported in November 2021 that the twin-seat variant of the J-20 made its maiden flight at the time.
> 
> An extra pilot on the twin-seat fighter jet could be utilized in more complicated combat situations, like to control loyal wingman-style drones, which will accompany the manned fighter in flight and carry different types of payloads for a wide variety of missions, including ground and surface attacks, air-to-air combat and electronic disruption, Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times in a previous interview.
> 
> Wang Ya'nan predicted that combat data from the second seat could be gathered, analyzed and used to train artificial intelligence, which could eventually replace the second pilot.
> 
> These are in line with general trends of warplane development worldwide, as countries like the US are also exploring some of the related technologies, another Beijing-based military expert told the Global Times on Sunday, requesting anonymity.
> 
> China is making concrete steps to make these sci-fi-looking concepts a reality, the expert said.
> 
> Beyond upgrades for J-20s, even better warplanes of a next generation are expected to replace them in the future, analysts said.
> 
> https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202201/1246676.shtml



I’m most looking forward to the J-20 flying with WS-15 engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Kamil_baku said:


> Chine still use Russian engines for their j20? its more than 5 years that you shared pictures that local engine is ready... when will the local engine be ready?




Did you miss the news since about two years or is this just plain trolling?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

Beidou2020 said:


> I’m most looking forward to the J-20 flying with WS-15 engines.


Any realistic estimate of when that is expected to happen?


----------



## siegecrossbow

FuturePAF said:


> Any realistic estimate of when that is expected to happen?



No earlier than 2027.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

siegecrossbow said:


> No earlier than 2027.


For trial run or full introduction into service? Because 2027 for trial run is very pessimistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

S10 said:


> For trial run or full introduction into service? Because 2027 for trial run is very pessimistic.



Full intro if all goes according to plan. They are already trialing with one engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

siegecrossbow said:


> No earlier than 2027.


2025.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Beidou2020 said:


> I’m most looking forward to the J-20 flying with WS-15 engines.



In this year.

The prototype 2041 will be a twin-seat J-20 with the WS-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Polestar 2

siegecrossbow said:


> No earlier than 2027.


I don't think is that late. With experience of WS-10 turbofan plus advance of technology especially super computer which can realistically simulate many aspect. Time to put into service will be much shorter. 2024 is possible for this to enter service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> In this year.
> 
> The prototype 2041 will be a twin-seat J-20 with the WS-15.



Very specific. This is legit?!


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> In this year.
> 
> The prototype 2041 will be a twin-seat J-20 with the WS-15.




So this image is only a placeholder since it is clearly not a WS-15 powered one, but the standard no. 2031?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

ZeEa5KPul said:


> 2025.



It is better to underestimate and be thought a fool than run your mouth and remove all doubt.









India's Space Station: As China Set To Become The Only Country With A Space Station, Will ISRO Hit Its 2030 Deadline?


Space Station: As China gears up to become the only country to have an exclusive space station, Indian ISRO is planning big.




eurasiantimes.com

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Polestar 2

siegecrossbow said:


> It is better to underestimate and be thought a fool than run your mouth and remove all doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India's Space Station: As China Set To Become The Only Country With A Space Station, Will ISRO Hit Its 2030 Deadline?
> 
> 
> Space Station: As China gears up to become the only country to have an exclusive space station, Indian ISRO is planning big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eurasiantimes.com


India so called module is not space station but more like a lab module which can only sustain human presence for 17-20days. 

True space station can have human presence for years or even decades as long as replenishment is available.


----------



## Kamil_baku

Deino said:


> Did you miss the news since about two years or is this just plain trolling?


i asked a normal question.. 
why Chine order 400 engine from Ukraine? is it hard to make an engine with 4600kgf like ai322f? 
to be honest, these questions in my head.
any plan to export j20 to any country soon?


----------



## Beast

Kamil_baku said:


> i asked a normal question..
> why Chine order 400 engine from Ukraine? is it hard to make an engine with 4600kgf like ai322f?
> to be honest, these questions in my head.
> any plan to export j20 to any country soon?


China can make Z-18 but why still order Mi-17V5 helicopter? They are cheap and easy to maintain.

USA can make all kinds of plane but why would US order C-290 spartan for their armed forces from Italy?

AI322f engines are lightweight turbo thrust. Plus Ukraine still owe China USD 7 billion and they inform us they do not have any money. So tell me what will u do? Take their engine or get back zero dollar?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## KampfAlwin

Kamil_baku said:


> i asked a normal question..
> why Chine order 400 engine from Ukraine? is it hard to make an engine with 4600kgf like ai322f?
> to be honest, these questions in my head.
> any plan to export j20 to any country soon?


Since when did China use low-thrust Ukrainian engines for their J-20s? Please go back at least 50 pages and then go through each page from there, so you can see J-20s with domestic engines.
If you are not satisfied, why not give AVIC(J-20's manufacturer) a call? I'm sure they'll explain why they did, what you think they did.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Kamil_baku said:


> i asked a normal question..
> why Chine order 400 engine from Ukraine? is it hard to make an engine with 4600kgf like ai322f?
> to be honest, these questions in my head.
> any plan to export j20 to any country soon?




Sorry, but in this thread related to the J-20 this is „not a normal„ question as such either it is a language issue or I don‘t get the point!?



Kamil_baku said:


> Chine still use Russian engines for their j20? its more than 5 years that you shared pictures that local engine is ready... when will the local engine be ready?



You clearly asked if China still uses Russian engines, which is indeed late And strange: Since mid-2019 no J-20 was built using Russian engines, this was reported all over since last year‘s Zhuhai Airshow and if you would look at the latest images, you would notice. As such I don‘t understand why this question??

Now you connect this to a sale of 400 engines from Ukraine, which again has even lesser a connection to the J-20 since the Ukraine builds no suitable engines for this type … and for the AI322F, see @Beast‘s reply

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1


----------



## tphuang

It'd be interesting to see what the breakdown in WS-10C equipped vs AL-31FN equipped J-20 is. Clearly, production has picked up in the last couple of year as J-20 switched to using WS-10C. Aside from engine, I'd imagine other subsystems have also matured a lot more leading to more production.

From what I can see, basically 2 out of 3 daduis in FTTC uses AL-31FN + all of 9th brigade. That would indicate 45 to 50 production J-20s using AL-31FNs.

All of 1st and 5th brigade, 1 out of 3 daduis in FTTC are using WS-10C. Assuming that CAC does 2 major deliveries a year. The mid year delivery probably filled up most of the 1st brigade (which is how we saw all those pictures coming out) and started maybe 4 aircraft in 5th brigade. And the end of the year deliveries filled up all of 1st brigade and maybe half of 5th brigade. That would mean about 55 production J-20s using WS-10C if we include all of the end of the year deliveries that have not really started training yet.

If I had to guess, their yearly production would look something like this. What do you think @Deino?
2016 4
2017 10
2018 16
2019 20
2020 20
2021 32

Keep in mind that in the second half of 2021, they may well have been producing 3 to 4 a month. And if the news of shifting J-10 production to Guizhou is true, then they will probably be at 45 to 50 J-20s a year by 2022. Still far behind the production rate of F-35, but that rate would be as high as J-10s were ever reached. I would imagine this jump would not have been possible if they were still dependent on the Russians for engine.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Do we have any idea how many factories CAC operates and what the ultimate J-20 annual production rate could be?


siegecrossbow said:


> It is better to underestimate and be thought a fool than run your mouth and remove all doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India's Space Station: As China Set To Become The Only Country With A Space Station, Will ISRO Hit Its 2030 Deadline?
> 
> 
> Space Station: As China gears up to become the only country to have an exclusive space station, Indian ISRO is planning big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eurasiantimes.com


India doesn't belong in the same sentence as China and the 2025 date is the best estimate we have currently until we receive new information.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

KampfAlwin said:


> Since when did China use low-thrust Ukrainian engines for their J-20s? Please go back at least 50 pages and then go through each page from there, so you can see J-20s with domestic engines.
> If you are not satisfied, why not give AVIC(J-20's manufacturer) a call? I'm sure they'll explain why they did, what you think they did.



I think you misunderstood his point. What he tried to imply is that there is no way China could get a high thrust turbofan engine ready if it imports low thrust engines from Ukraine. That said, the point is still absurd. WS-10 and its variants have been used on J-11B/J-16 for over a decade and they are comfortable enough to use them on a single engine jet like the J-10. China has also stopped importing AL-31 variants for quite some time. How would the new jets get built if there haven’t been any new engine orders?



ZeEa5KPul said:


> Do we have any idea how many factories CAC operates and what the ultimate J-20 annual production rate could be?
> 
> India doesn't belong in the same sentence as China and the 2025 date is the best estimate we have currently until we receive new information.



Four production lines in the CAC.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## KampfAlwin

siegecrossbow said:


> I think you misunderstood his point. What he tried to imply is that there is no way China could get a high thrust turbofan engine ready if it imports low thrust engines from Ukraine. That said, the point is still absurd. WS-10 and its variants have been used on J-11B/J-16 for over a decade and they are comfortable enough to use them on a single engine jet like the J-10. China has also stopped importing AL-31 variants for quite some time. How would the new jets get built if there haven’t been any new engine orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Four production lines in the CAC.


If that's the case, then I agree with you with their point being absurd. To add to your point, China produced engines with similar thrust to the Ukrainian engines in 90s, it's not like they can't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

KampfAlwin said:


> If that's the case, then I agree with you with their point being absurd. To add to your point, China produced engines with similar thrust to the Ukrainian engines in 90s, it's not like they can't.



I think he just has a personal grudge with Deino.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KampfAlwin

siegecrossbow said:


> I think he just has a personal grudge with Deino.


A _personal _grudge against someone, on the internet? What's the point? The internet is a confusing place...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

"Much enemy, much honor" as we say in German: Viel Feind, viele Ehr! ... just look around, I think I have some very dear buddies in the Pakistani section as well who ALWAYS disagree no matter what I post.  And indeed, the internet is a strange place where you met a lot of strange persons, some of whom simply have no living ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487809086758342657

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## vi-va

JSCh said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487809086758342657


Fly height seems like only 50 meters


----------



## Deino

Allegedly the second J-20AS twin seater spotted:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1496091620701351936
Here shown in a gif via @CN_military_21

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## casual

Deino said:


> Allegedly the second J-20AS twin seater spotted:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1496091620701351936
> Here shown in a gif via @CN_military_21


has the J-20AS flown before? I don't recall it ever taking off before.


----------



## Deino

casual said:


> has the J-20AS flown before? I don't recall it ever taking off before.



 ... I think there is no doubt!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Wergeland

Deino said:


> ... I think there is no doubt!
> 
> View attachment 817713
> View attachment 817714
> View attachment 817715
> View attachment 817716
> View attachment 817717



Although J-20 is a good aircraft and looks spaceagesque from certain angles. The rear half of it belly is less esthetically pleasing than f-22. It has to do with the sleek and upwrds curving rear half of F-22, which further flattens out and almost efforlessly blends into the 2D vector nozzles.

J-20 underbelly seems more boxy and discontinous. I often imagine what it would look like with 2D nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

Underbelly comparison

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

ozranger said:


> Underbelly comparison
> 
> View attachment 817773
> 
> 
> View attachment 817777





Wergeland said:


> Although J-20 is a good aircraft and looks spaceagesque from certain angles. The rear half of it belly is less esthetically pleasing than f-22. It has to do with the sleek and upwrds curving rear half of F-22, which further flattens out and almost efforlessly blends into the 2D vector nozzles.
> 
> J-20 underbelly seems more boxy and discontinous. I often imagine what it would look like with 2D nozzles.


From another bias comment. Photo speaks louder than fantasy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Beast said:


> From another bias comment. Photo speaks louder than fantasy.


Look dude j20 is less stealthy than f22 especially from the rear and from front

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Kamil_baku said:


> i asked a normal question..
> why Chine order 400 engine from Ukraine? is it hard to make an engine with 4600kgf like ai322f?
> to be honest, these questions in my head.
> any plan to export j20 to any country soon?











China’s J-10C secures Pakistan as its first export market


Pakistan appears to have become the first export customer for the Chengdu J-10 fighter, with images of J-10Cs in Pakistan air force markings appearing on Chinese social media.




www.flightglobal.com







> Judging from the aircraft’s thrust petals, the Pakistani J-10s use are powered by the Shenyang WS-10B engine, as opposed to the Saturn AL-31F. It was only in May 2021 that the first clear images emerged of a People’s Liberation Army Air Force J-10C powered by the WS-10B.
> 
> Mounted inside the J-10, the WS-10 can be identified by a few subtle features. One is that the afterburner nozzle petals are notably wider than on the AL-31. The WS-10 also has a ring structure around the interior of the nozzle that is absent on the AL-31.


----------



## Deino

(Image via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498521925366136834

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Wergeland 2.0

ozranger said:


> Underbelly comparison
> 
> View attachment 817773
> 
> 
> View attachment 817777



Look i get what you mean. 
But you can compare J-20 with J-35. No boubt J-35 has a more estetiq belly, which is similar to F-22. Now J-22 and especially J-35 would probably look pretty cool with 2D nozzles.


----------



## ozranger

Wergeland 2.0 said:


> Look i get what you mean.
> But you can compare J-20 with J-35. No boubt J-35 has a more estetiq belly, which is similar to F-22. Now J-22 and especially J-35 would probably look pretty cool with 2D nozzles.



Underbelly comparison between the three.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> View attachment 819774
> 
> 
> (Image via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo)
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498521925366136834

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ahtan_china

The latest version of WS-10C engine

Reactions: Like Like:
10 | Love Love:
4


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502606254925291523
Can any one say what the video says. Are they saying WS 15 engine is ready ?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502606254925291523
> Can any one say what the video says. Are they saying WS 15 engine is ready ?



It is in development. I assume things are going smoothly because they actually mentioned the aircraft engine by type and explicitly stated that it will be thrust vectored, information they never release in official capacity before.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## vi-va

Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502606254925291523
> Can any one say what the video says. Are they saying WS 15 engine is ready ?


They say WS-15 is designed for 5th generation fighter jet. The performance is better than WS-10. That's it.


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502671857631211524

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502606254925291523
> Can any one say what the video says. Are they saying WS 15 engine is ready ?


WS15 for medium 5th gen

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## world of power

Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502606254925291523
> Can any one say what the video says. Are they saying WS 15 engine is ready ?





帅的一匹 said:


> WS15 for medium 5th gen


in video, it means 1 x WS15 for medium jet; 2 x WS15 for heavy jet

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Stealth said:


> View attachment 823631




That's well known a faked image only!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bleek

帅的一匹 said:


> WS15 for medium 5th gen


J-35? Or is this an unknown 5th gen?


----------



## GiantPanda

Bleek said:


> J-35? Or is this an unknown 5th gen?



No, the intended engine for J-35 would be the medium WS-19 (WS-13 variant interim.)

The WS-15 is a heavy engine for the J-20 and in the same size/weight class as the WS-10. 

It would therefore be a new single-engine design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Bleek

GiantPanda said:


> It would therefore be a new single-engine design.


Has anything about this single engine design been revealed?

This might be the first reference to it


----------



## luciferdd

GiantPanda said:


> No, the intended engine for J-35 would be the medium WS-19 (WS-13 variant interim.)
> 
> The WS-15 is a heavy engine for the J-20 and in the same size/weight class as the WS-10.
> 
> It would therefore be a new single-engine design.


PLAN likes the double-engines J-35 as carrier-borne fighter,but PLAAF don't like it at all=>it's still too expensive and it has a different engine to J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

luciferdd said:


> PLAN likes the double-engines J-35 as carrier-borne fighter,but PLAAF don't like it at all=>it's still too expensive and it has a different engine to J-20.



Yes going by their doctrine, PLAAF will most likely end up with a single WS-15 engined fighter as a complement to the J-20 and a successor to the J-10.

That said, if the J-35 turns out to be successful then the PLAAF might buy some. It has traditionally dealt with multiple engines in its fleet. The JH-7 has a different engine and will be around for a while and it was initially a PLANAF plane too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Mean


GiantPanda said:


> No, the intended engine for J-35 would be the medium WS-19 (WS-13 variant interim.)
> 
> The WS-15 is a heavy engine for the J-20 and in the same size/weight class as the WS-10.
> 
> It would therefore be a new single-engine design.


Mean can be something 5th generation plus like 6th generation



GiantPanda said:


> Yes going by their doctrine, PLAAF will most likely end up with a single WS-15 engined fighter as a complement to the J-20 and a successor to the J-10.
> 
> That said, if the J-35 turns out to be successful then the PLAAF might buy some. It has traditionally dealt with multiple engines in its fleet. The JH-7 has a different engine and will be around for a while and it was initially a PLANAF plane too.


Why Chinese will go for 3rd 5th generation when they know American are very close to 6th generation jets induction so they definitely focus on there 6th generation jet or atleast 5.5 th Gen these engine definitely will part of them


----------



## ozranger

Scorpiooo said:


> Mean
> Mean can be something 5th generation plus like 6th generation
> 
> 
> Why Chinese will go for 3rd 5th generation when they know American are very close to 6th generation jets induction so they definitely focus on there 6th generation jet or atleast 5.5 th Gen these engine definitely will part of them



Probably a Su-75 like model dedicated for export? With a single engine on high thrust, more cost friendly for foreign customers.

BTW a flyable drone for verifying aerodynamic designs for 6 gen fighters spotted at CAC airfield in Chengdu.









https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/satellite-images-reveal-unusual-airframe-resembling-tailless-fighter-design-at-chinese-test-airfield/news-story/cfa82b84b1a0610c46a3c973c0c75dab


----------



## Stealth

Deino said:


> That's well known a faked image only!


Sorry I wasn't aware of this...


----------



## rcrmj

GiantPanda said:


> Yes going by their doctrine, PLAAF will most likely end up with a single WS-15 engined fighter as a complement to the J-20 and a successor to the J-10.
> 
> That said, if the J-35 turns out to be successful then the PLAAF might buy some. It has traditionally dealt with multiple engines in its fleet. The JH-7 has a different engine and will be around for a while and it was initially a PLANAF plane too.


there is no such single engined 5th gen fighter in development in China atm. The closest assumption would go to J-10D. 
anyway, J-35 is by far the most collaborated, advanced, reliable and technologically integrated fighter in China, of course PLAAF will "buy some"`````

not only PLAAF others will buy that too!



Zarvan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502606254925291523
> Can any one say what the video says. Are they saying WS 15 engine is ready ?


far from being ready``````


----------



## luciferdd

rcrmj said:


> there is no such single engined 5th gen fighter in development in China atm. The closest assumption would go to J-10D.
> anyway, J-35 is by far the most collaborated, advanced, reliable and technologically integrated fighter in China, of course PLAAF will "buy some"`````
> 
> not only PLAAF others will buy that too!
> 
> 
> far from being ready``````


PLAAF didn't spend even one coin on J-35 projet at the past ten years,obviously they want a mini j-20 with single WS-15 as their low end fighter.


----------



## rcrmj

luciferdd said:


> PLAAF didn't spend even one coin on J-35 projet at the past ten years,obviously they want a mini j-20 with single WS-15 as their low end fighter.


funniest "obvious" ever`````and why should PLAAF or PLAAN spend money on a plane that is still on development? dont assume how the China's weapon acquisition processes work. it has nothing to do with your "thinking'```lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

ozranger said:


> Probably a Su-75 like model dedicated for export? With a single engine on high thrust, more cost friendly for foreign customers.
> 
> BTW a flyable drone for verifying aerodynamic designs for 6 gen fighters spotted at CAC airfield in Chengdu.
> 
> View attachment 823880
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/satellite-images-reveal-unusual-airframe-resembling-tailless-fighter-design-at-chinese-test-airfield/news-story/cfa82b84b1a0610c46a3c973c0c75dab


Russian are still very much behind in 5th generation from American and even Chinese


----------



## onebyone

China’s J-20 stealth fighters are getting an engine upgrade, source says


State television reports that the new engine has been put through a series of tests.




www.scmp.com





WS-15


----------



## The SC

*After J-10, Pakistan will get J-20 stealth fighters from China




*

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan's interior minister, was the first official to announce the J-10C deal last December when he said the newly acquired aircraft would take part in the Pakistan Day celebration on March 23, 2022..

The minister also made a surprising comment, saying: “We have the J-10C...God willing, the time will come...I am not sure when the J-20C will also arrive in Pakistan, which will be the most recent aircraft in the world...”

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed's comments came just weeks after Pakistani and Turkish authorities indicated that the two countries were working together on a stealth aircraft.


----------



## Clutch




----------



## siegecrossbow

F-35s have encountered J-20s over East China Sea: USAF general


A top US Air Force (USAF) general says that Lockheed Martin F-35s have had at least one encounter with Chengdu J-20s, and that the Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft has a key role in long-range air-to-air kill chains.




www.flightglobal.com





First interception of fifth gen aircraft by hostile fifth gen. Mic dropped.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
3


----------



## Al_Muhannad

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504049804397133833

Reactions: Love Love:
2


----------



## ozranger

I got the above screenshot from Twitter

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504060729498157057
Original page behind a pay wall https://www.flightglobal.com/defenc...f-general/147936.article#.YjHK4nyoyQQ.twitter

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Bin Laden

Timestamp : 47:30

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

Bin Laden said:


> Timestamp : 47:30



Difference between professional air force service man of the world's most powerful air force and BS AMRAAM dodger general who claims that Sukhois could spot J-20 from "kilometers away" is vast indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ahtan_china



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bleek

siegecrossbow said:


> Difference between professional air force service man of the world's most powerful air force and BS AMRAAM dodger general who claims that Sukhois could spot J-20 from "kilometers away" is vast indeed.


Honestly the Indians don't know when to stop, every time I think, alright, maybe they have a limit to their claims, they always break past that limit

And their population actually eats it up

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bin Laden

siegecrossbow said:


> Difference between professional air force service man of the world's most powerful air force and BS AMRAAM dodger general who claims that Sukhois could spot J-20 from "kilometers away" is vast indeed.


Same 'RAPTOR of the East' couldn't fire a single shot against PESA equipped F16s 💀💀💀.

Can't imagine what would happen to them when both j10c and jf17 got AESA's along with pl15s.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ozranger

Bin Laden said:


> Same 'RAPTOR of the East' couldn't fire a single shot against PESA equipped F16s 💀💀💀.
> 
> Can't imagine what would happen to them when both j10c and jf17 got AESA's along with pl15s.



Worth noting that even though PL-15 was advertised to have a 145km range, Americans believe that the actual range should be 200+km.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bin Laden

ozranger said:


> Worth noting that even though PL-15 was advertised to have a 145km range


Not PL-15, PL-15e is advertised as 145km range missile.
Real range of PL-15 is classified but 200km is a educated guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Bin Laden said:


> Not PL-15, PL-15e is advertised as 145km range missile.
> Real range of PL-15 is classified but 200km is a educated guess.



Based on a research paper on dual-pulse rocket motor and how it affects missile range, the maximum range of a missile suspected to be PL-15 against non-maneuvering, fighter sized aircraft traveling at Mach 0.9 at 10KM (missile launched at 1.2 Mach) is 182 KM.


----------



## luciferdd

siegecrossbow said:


> Based on a research paper on dual-pulse rocket motor and how it affects missile range, the maximum range of a missile suspected to be PL-15 against non-maneuvering, fighter sized aircraft traveling at Mach 0.9 at 10KM (missile launched at 1.2 Mach) is 182 KM.


The missile in the article is AIM-120D....the writer just use it as a typical mid-range AAM 😓

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

luciferdd said:


> The missile in the article is AIM-120D....the writer just use it as a typical mid-range AAM 😓



My bad. Guess true range of PL-15 remains a mystery. But you can use it to extrapolate PL-15’s performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## luciferdd

siegecrossbow said:


> My bad. Guess true range of PL-15 remains a mystery. But you can use it to extrapolate PL-15’s performance.


Yes,from the article we can know that dual-pulse rocket motor can enhance the range of the missile effectively.


----------



## Ali_Baba

ozranger said:


> View attachment 824560
> 
> I got the above screenshot from Twitter
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504060729498157057
> Original page behind a pay wall https://www.flightglobal.com/defenc...f-general/147936.article#.YjHK4nyoyQQ.twitter



Interesting mention of the KJ-500 - does PAF also need the KJ-500 to get the full benefit of the JF17 Block III and J10C combo for the PL-15 ? ( just a thought )


----------



## ahtan_china



Reactions: Love Love:
3


----------



## Shotgunner51

Ali_Baba said:


> Interesting mention of the KJ-500 - does PAF also need the KJ-500 to get the full benefit of the JF17 Block III and J10C combo for the PL-15 ? ( just a thought )


Just saw one ZDK-03 flying with J-10C today, it was supposed to support JF-17 as well. Not sure about how it works with PL-15 though, perhaps some upgrade needed if not already in progress.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503822741232918538


----------



## Leishangthem

Jian 20 sounds better than j20,j 20 kind of sounds like cheap samsung j series.



siegecrossbow said:


> Difference between professional air force service man of the world's most powerful air force and BS AMRAAM dodger general who claims that Sukhois could spot J-20 from "kilometers away" is vast indeed.


Many people buy into Indians being good in maths and Indian brilliance hype due to their incessant self aggrandizing stemming from dunning kruger effect. Even though Indians are bottom tier in maths olympiads,pisa and Indian institutes ranks very low on global ranking.
Indians are easily some of the most delusional ,and many are too unintelligent to know their own flaws or understand what's right or wrong. Due to their incompetence ,their culture is scamming their way to glor. It's ingrained in Indian culture,genetics and psyche.

Not that the Indian claim should be taken seriously ,but what evidence is there that j20 was flying without luneberg lens ? At peace time,stealth fighter jets fly with luneberg lens. But to make up for incompetence and incapablity, indians have to run their big mouth to try and scam as much as possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## luciferdd

Shotgunner51 said:


> Just saw one ZDK-03 flying with J-10C today, it was supposed to support JF-17 as well. Not sure about how it works with PL-15 though, perhaps some upgrade needed if not already in progress.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503822741232918538


Those ZDK-03 need an additional bidirectional data-link device to connet&guide the PL-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kahu

F-35s have encountered J-20s over East China Sea: USAF general


----------



## Shotgunner51

luciferdd said:


> Those ZDK-03 need an additional bidirectional data-link device to connet&guide the PL-15.


Good to know, tkx!


----------



## sheik

Shotgunner51 said:


> Just saw one ZDK-03 flying with J-10C today, it was supposed to support JF-17 as well. Not sure about how it works with PL-15 though, perhaps some upgrade needed if not already in progress.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503822741232918538



I heard that ZDK-03's were back to China for upgrade last year.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Deino

And if true again a surprise... IMO a two-folded one!  

First if this image is legit and not again a faked one, the 56th Air Brigade assigned to the Central Theater Command based at Zhengzhou and currently flying J-10B & J-10AS seems to have gained its first J-20A.

... and second since I expected yet another Su-30MKK unit like the 54th or 85th AB to become the PLAAF's next unit to convert to the J-20A.

What do you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

Shotgunner51 said:


> Just saw one ZDK-03 flying with J-10C today, it was supposed to support JF-17 as well. Not sure about how it works with PL-15 though, perhaps some upgrade needed if not already in progress.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503822741232918538


ZDK-03s are going to be upgraded but JF-17s sport Link-17s which is common on the Erieyes. So the primary asset is still the erieye system.

So far the targeting data being provided for PL-15s is not available and/or hasn’t satisfied requirements

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clibra

Scorpiooo said:


> Mean
> Mean can be something 5th generation plus like 6th generation
> 
> 
> Why Chinese will go for 3rd 5th generation when they know American are very close to 6th generation jets induction so they definitely focus on there 6th generation jet or atleast 5.5 th Gen these engine definitely will part of them


 American are very close to 6th generation jets induction ? I don't think so.
China's 6th gen. development is not slow at all. 
If there's a single WS-15 fighter project exist, I think it'll be Gen. 5.5, and will finally evolve to 6th Gen(low end). And there should be a high-end 6th gen. with dual engines.


----------



## clibra

Leishangthem said:


> Jian 20 sounds better than j20,j 20 kind of sounds like cheap samsung j series.
> 
> 
> Many people buy into Indians being good in maths and Indian brilliance hype due to their incessant self aggrandizing stemming from dunning kruger effect. Even though Indians are bottom tier in maths olympiads,pisa and Indian institutes ranks very low on global ranking.
> Indians are easily some of the most delusional ,and many are too unintelligent to know their own flaws or understand what's right or wrong. Due to their incompetence ,their culture is scamming their way to glor. It's ingrained in Indian culture,genetics and psyche.
> 
> Not that the Indian claim should be taken seriously ,but what evidence is there that j20 was flying without luneberg lens ? At peace time,stealth fighter jets fly with luneberg lens. But to make up for incompetence and incapablity, indians have to run their big mouth to try and scam as much as possible.


man r you really from India? 😂😂

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## ahtan_china



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505423893808533504

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

How many do you see … but even more interesting would be to know, where this images was taken?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> How many do you see … but even more interesting would be to know, where this images was taken?
> 
> View attachment 827606


I would say there are 7 or 8 in this pic.

In total, I think there are around ~90 in service. Mass production doesn't seem likely if WS-15 is not ready for service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

S10 said:


> I would say there are 7 or 8 in this pic.
> 
> In total, I think there are around ~90 in service. Mass production doesn't seem likely if WS-15 is not ready for service.


I am sure they will try ws-15 on J-11/J-16, and then J-20.
But I am NOT optimistic that WS-15 will be in service on J-20 in the next 5 years.

Edit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

Mass production is already happening with the WS-10C if you look at the formations that got the J-20 recently. The issue was always having a domestic engine available not waiting for an optimal one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

GiantPanda said:


> Mass production is already happening with the WS-10C if you look at the formations that got the J-20 recently. The issue was always having a domestic engine available not waiting for an optimal one.


百鸟在林不如一鸟在手

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> I would say there are 7 or 8 in this pic.
> 
> In total, I think there are around ~90 in service. Mass production doesn't seem likely if WS-15 is not ready for service.




I totally agree with you, however I must admit, I completely changed my mind towards a much higher number in service today. You surely know I‘m rather conservative in accepting something as confirmed and always rated the number much lower than lets say Minnie Chan who claimed already last year about 150 are operational. However now I‘m pretty sure that even if her number much ans still is much too hing, there are today about 100-120 in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

LKJ86 said:


> 百鸟在林不如一鸟在手



In English the same famous proverb is "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush." 

True today as much as the past.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @Megadelica2 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

What an impressive image showing three J-20A and one J-20AS outside at the CAC facility at Chengdu/Huangtianba with several more J-20s behind partially visible in the halls.

(Image via @第八舰队- from Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gomig-21

Deino said:


>



Is that rear aircraft a 2-seater? And is that what they're calling the J-20AS?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Gomig-21 said:


> Is that rear aircraft a 2-seater? And is that what they're calling the J-20AS?




Yes it is!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509892372850614279

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## ahtan_china



Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Deino

Wow



... is this image a real photography or a CG?

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
2


----------



## ahtan_china

It's said that the design of the F-22 is updated becase of the laser weapon of China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightEdge

Currently how many divisions are using J20?


----------



## S10

StraightEdge said:


> Currently how many divisions are using J20?



Around 2 or 3, with approximately 100 to 120 planes in service

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gomig-21

Deino said:


> Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... is this image a real photography or a CG?



Very hard to tell. Could go either way. A lot of shadowing from the powerful sunlight and to do that in a CGI I think would be very tedious, unless the software does it automatically which I doubt. That would be where you would find faults, but I don't see any.


----------



## Deino

Gomig-21 said:


> Very hard to tell. Could go either way. A lot of shadowing from the powerful sunlight and to do that in a CGI I think would be very tedious, unless the software does it automatically which I doubt. That would be where you would find faults, but I don't see any.




It is indeed a CG only mabe by "WinWordW"

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## StraightEdge

S10 said:


> Around 2 or 3, with approximately 100 to 120 planes in service



I thought it would be more, isn't a division like 24 fighters?


----------



## S10

StraightEdge said:


> I thought it would be more, isn't a division like 24 fighters?


Not the whole division is equipped with the same plane type

24 plane is roughly the size of an aviation regiment, not a division.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

They're called "squadrons" in military aviation. A squadron can be anywhere from 12 to 24 aircraft. The 12 is the most common amongst most air forces because of the number of aircraft is usually not that high. Larger air forces like the USAF would be 24. The USN because space is super tight on a carrier would tend to keep their squadrons at 12. 

Not sure what China does but my guess is also 24 because of its huge size, requiring a large number of aircraft.


----------



## Samar111

Gomig-21 said:


> They're called "squadrons" in military aviation. A squadron can be anywhere from 12 to 24 aircraft. The 12 is the most common amongst most air forces because of the number of aircraft is usually not that high. Larger air forces like the USAF would be 24. The USN because space is super tight on a carrier would tend to keep their squadrons at 12.
> 
> Not sure what China does but my guess is also 24 because of its huge size, requiring a large number of aircraft.


How many aircraft in a squadron for the Egyptian air force?


----------



## Gomig-21

Samar111 said:


> How many aircraft in a squadron for the Egyptian air force?



12 in the EAF. India is 20 IIRC, right?


----------



## Samar111

Gomig-21 said:


> 12 in the EAF. India is 20 IIRC, right?


Only 12? Surprising considering EAF huge size. 16-18 I think in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... if you want to discuss the IAF's or EAF's composition, then PLEASE NOT in the J-20 thread!*

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

When will J20 will see its loyal wingman drone


----------



## ahtan_china




----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空EXIA from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

J-20 fighter jet starts routine training patrols in East, South China Seas - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11 | Love Love:
5 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Ali_Baba

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 835053



Beautful shot! The J20's are now seriously coming online - i think we should start seeing them in units of a few hundred before its production run is over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

siegecrossbow said:


> View attachment 835154


Unfortunately a fake again …

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## ahtan_china



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Not truly unexpected, since some time a prime candidate to become the first WTC brigade to gain the J-20A, but anyway a surprise, this one appears to be serial number 72027 assigned to the 111th Air Brigade at Korla-Xinjiang (?).

(Image courtesy of BSN via Huitong's CMA-Blog)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/kj/2022-04/21/content_10149578.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/tp/2022-01/21/content_10125011.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/tp/2022-01/19/content_10124262.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## waz

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 835053



Oh man what great footage!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lightning F57

A noob question, those movable canards do they help in turning quickly, slowing down basically increased maneuverability.


----------



## vi-va

lightning F57 said:


> A noob question, those movable canards do they help in turning quickly, slowing down basically increased maneuverability.


increase maneuverability a lot.
increase lift coefficient a lot.
decease landing speed, shorten take-off distance

canards is good design

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> increase maneuverability a lot.
> increase lift coefficient a lot.
> decease landing speed, shorten take-off distance
> 
> canards is good design


But also big reflector to radar


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> But also big reflector to radar




Not more than a regular aft-mounted tail in case the design is correct

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Deino said:


> Not more than a regular aft-mounted tail in case the design is correct


rear side is less prone than front side sir


----------



## Deino

White and Green with M/S said:


> rear side is less prone than front side sir




Maybe @gambit can explain it better and even correct it, but overall a radar reflecting part is a radar reflecting part regardless where it is mounted. I agree that for certain typical profiles the "rear side [may be] less prone than front side" but a canard must not necessarily be less stealthy. You surely know the Northrop NATF proposal had canards, one of the earlier concepts from Boeing for the 6th generation fighter had canards ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> Maybe @gambit can explain it better and even correct it, but overall a radar reflecting part is a radar reflecting part regardless where it is mounted. I agree that for certain typical profiles the "rear side [may be] less prone than front side" but a canard must not necessarily be less stealthy. You surely know the Northrop NATF proposal had canards, one of the earlier concepts from Boeing for the 6th generation fighter had canards ...


Hi, Deino, finally saw your personal photo a few days ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

IblinI said:


> Hi, Deino, finally saw your personal photo a few days ago.




Indeed a funny story! A Pakistani friend posted some images from his former company and the FL-series UAVs and I posted in reply a few showing standing besides these models at Zhuhai 2018.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vi-va

White and Green with M/S said:


> rear side is less prone than front side sir


How about this






How about this.





Stealthy is designed by computer and tested in lab, not by looking, bro.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

vi-va said:


> How about this
> View attachment 840363
> 
> 
> How about this.
> View attachment 840364
> 
> 
> Stealthy is designed by computer and tested in lab, not by looking, bro.


F-22 has fixed intake ramp, I forgetting aviation term of this intake design, but it has minimal effect on stealth and same goes to F-35 bumps on underbelly


----------



## vi-va

White and Green with M/S said:


> F-22 has fixed intake ramp, I forgetting aviation term of this intake design, but it has minimal effect on stealth and same goes to F-35 bumps on underbelly


I just want to show you that if canard is possible an issue, then f-22 has issues too by looking.

You don't know the materials of F-22 intake, I don't know the canard of J-20 either.

But I do know there are lots of means to avoid radar reflection, not only by shape.

Do you know the front area of B-2 has half meter thick Radiation-absorbent material? We just can't judge by naked eyes.









Radiation-absorbent material - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ozranger

vi-va said:


> How about this
> View attachment 840363
> 
> 
> How about this.
> View attachment 840364
> 
> 
> Stealthy is designed by computer and tested in lab, not by looking, bro.



This alone will generate much stronger radar reflection or resonance to X band radars than any canards at any angles, and RAM coating cannot mitigate it substantially.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

New J-20 pilot.


----------



## gambit

ozranger said:


> This alone will generate much stronger radar reflection or resonance to X band radars than any canards at any angles, and RAM coating cannot mitigate it substantially.


Unless you got hard data to back it up , it is the other way around. The canard is worse and I bet you cannot explain either way.


----------



## sheik

gambit said:


> Unless you got hard data to back it up , it is the other way around. The canard is worse and I bet you cannot explain either way.



What's the hard data to back up your point then?


----------



## dbc

gambit said:


> Unless you got hard data to back it up , it is the other way around. The canard is worse and I bet you cannot explain either way.



canard is metal or metal composite typically titanium and then creeping waves plus actuation….duh!


----------



## ozranger

sheik said:


> What's the hard data to back up your point then?


Waste of time and energy to debate with him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## flowerfan2020

gambit said:


> Unless you got hard data to back it up , it is the other way around. The canard is worse and I bet you cannot explain either way.


All American need is send a F22 or F354 to Chinese territory to test it out.


----------



## dbc

flowerfan2020 said:


> All American need is send a F22 or F354 to Chinese territory to test it out.


bin there done that....


----------



## huanghong

dbc said:


> bin there done that....


No, it was previously discovered by China in South Korean airspace, not in China

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

dbc said:


> bin there done that....



Smells of bullshit


----------



## White and Green with M/S

flowerfan2020 said:


> All American need is send a F22 or F354 to Chinese territory to test it out.


this incident already happened your J-20 intercepted F-35 over South China Sea



S10 said:


> Smells of bullshit


look my below post


----------



## dbc

S10 said:


> Smells of bullshit



why so serious


----------



## huanghong

An interesting report made by Wu Jianqi, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and a radar expert, at the Academy.
The photos show the content displayed by the air situation system at that time, and describe in detail how the anti-stealth radar of the Chinese Air Force found the f-22 in the air defense identification zone of South Korea hundreds of kilometers away in 2013, and guided the Air Force aircraft to observe the f-22 closely.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## flowerfan2020

dbc said:


> bin there done that....


But what was the outcome?


dbc said:


> bin there done that....


That's right. So did your air force found out how good is J20 yet? try shoot one down to test how good it is.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## S10

huanghong said:


> An interesting report made by Wu Jianqi, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and a radar expert, at the Academy.
> The photos show the content displayed by the air situation system at that time, and describe in detail how the anti-stealth radar of the Chinese Air Force found the f-22 in the air defense identification zone of South Korea hundreds of kilometers away in 2013, and guided the Air Force aircraft to observe the f-22 closely.
> View attachment 840978



Well did F-22 fly with Luneburg lens? That makes a whole lot of difference in this situation.


----------



## huanghong

S10 said:


> Well did F-22 fly with Luneburg lens? That makes a whole lot of difference in this situation.


There is no Luneburg lens, because according to Wu's speech, the conventional radar working at the same time cannot find the target. Therefore, after the anti-stealth radar found this special target, the Air Force plane was guided to observe it in order to determine the target type.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

huanghong said:


> There is no Luneburg lens, because according to Wu's speech, the conventional radar working at the same time cannot find the target. Therefore, after the anti-stealth radar found this special target, the Air Force plane was guided to observe it in order to determine the target type.




In fact I‘m surprised … why was that F-22/J-20 encounter? From all we know it was a F-35 but not with a Raptor. Can anyone explain more?


----------



## huanghong

Deino said:


> In fact I‘m surprised … why was that F-22/J-20 encounter? From all we know it was a F-35 but not with a Raptor. Can anyone explain more?


The photo of Academician Wu's speech makes it clear that the f-22 was discovered in 2013, not the f-35. I think this should be a confirmed result of the Air Force's close observation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## mili

huanghong said:


> An interesting report made by Wu Jianqi, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and a radar expert, at the Academy.
> The photos show the content displayed by the air situation system at that time, and describe in detail how the anti-stealth radar of the Chinese Air Force found the f-22 in the air defense identification zone of South Korea hundreds of kilometers away in 2013, and guided the Air Force aircraft to observe the f-22 closely.
> View attachment 840978


And that was 2013, long b4 J20, and we still have kids who think f22 is some kind of mystery to PLA.
Like I always said, f22 has been to that part of the world for 10 yrs or more.
U dont really need semi confidential news like above. Public domain news of the progress made by China in East China Sea over the yrs already indicate how PLAAF vs usaf, incl f22, is like over there.


----------



## gambit

sheik said:


> What's the hard data to back up your point then?


I got the laws of physics.


----------



## huanghong

Deino said:


> In fact I‘m surprised … why was that F-22/J-20 encounter? From all we know it was a F-35 but not with a Raptor. Can anyone explain more?


This tracking of the F-22 happened in 2013, so it has nothing to do with the j-20. The encounter with the j-20 and f-35 is very recent.


----------



## Deino

huanghong said:


> This tracking of the F-22 happened in 2013, so it has nothing to do with the j-20. The encounter with the j-20 and f-35 is very recent.




From what I learned, there was no tracking of an F-22 by a J-20, but this - even mot mentioned which - radar was used to track F-22s on that occasion and that they were monitored. Later the J-20 was also "tested against" that radar and this report mentions in relation to this radar, how the J-20 and F-22 fared. 

There was NOTHING about the F-22s being monitored by J-20s.


----------



## huanghong

Deino said:


> From what I learned, there was no tracking of an F-22 by a J-20, but this - even mot mentioned which - radar was used to track F-22s on that occasion and that they were monitored. Later the J-20 was also "tested against" that radar and this report mentions in relation to this radar, how the J-20 and F-22 fared.
> 
> There was NOTHING about the F-22s being monitored by J-20s.


Testing the j-20's performance in real-world use with a radar capable of spotting the f-22 is a logical move.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dbc

Deino said:


> From what I learned, there was no tracking of an F-22 by a J-20, but this - even mot mentioned which - radar was used to track F-22s on that occasion and that they were monitored. Later the J-20 was also "tested against" that radar and this report mentions in relation to this radar, how the J-20 and F-22 fared.
> 
> There was NOTHING about the F-22s being monitored by J-20s.



The guy is talking about a meter wave radar in a multi-static arrangement, nothing earth shattering. It is a known vulnerability of stealth fighters, but multi-static radar is fixed, can be easily spoofed / jammed and degraded and cannot be reliably used to direct fire. Tell you what, a gaggle of F-22's or F-35's is also capable of accurate active/ passive geolocation ..so like I said nothing earth shattering...


----------



## serenity

Deino said:


> From what I learned, there was no tracking of an F-22 by a J-20, but this - even mot mentioned which - radar was used to track F-22s on that occasion and that they were monitored. Later the J-20 was also "tested against" that radar and this report mentions in relation to this radar, how the J-20 and F-22 fared.
> 
> There was NOTHING about the F-22s being monitored by J-20s.



I think there is some confusion here. This presentation slide photo leaked from an event held in 2013 has nothing to do with J-20.

It simply mentions that some unspecified from the leak counter stealth radar detected F-22 around South Korea. It probably was flying in full stealth configuration without RCS enhancer lens since they could not detect it using any other conventional radars. Again the conventional radars compared with the counter stealth one wasn't able to find F-22 but the range again is strange. Unless it was located near to Korean peninsula.

It is probably simply referring to high wavelength band radars but somehow the range being discussed here is strange and surprising unless it's some form of over the horizon radar on from a ship? Anyway those are just guesses and doesn't involve J-20 since back in 2013, J-20 was only in test flight and not completed. Perhaps being confused with recent F-35 and J-20 encounters... again with that one we have no idea if RCS enhancers are involved and I'm sure many other factors that shouldn't be guessed on and conclusions arrived at.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## huanghong

According to the anti-stealth radar photos shown in Academician Wu's speech, it should be this kind of radar. Mobile air defense warning radar in UHF band YLC-8E

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

dbc said:


> why so serious


China J-20 already flew over washington and visit Biden. He didn't know it?


----------



## dbc

Beast said:


> China J-20 already flew over washington and visit Biden. He didn't know it?



I know, I saw it fly past the Washington monument and zoom climb into space with Captain Marvel in hot pursuit.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## gambit

dbc said:


> The guy is talking about a meter wave radar in a multi-static arrangement, nothing earth shattering. It is a known vulnerability of stealth fighters, but multi-static radar is fixed, can be easily spoofed / jammed and degraded and cannot be reliably used to direct fire. Tell you what, a gaggle of F-22's or F-35's is also capable of accurate active/ passive geolocation ..so like I said nothing earth shattering...


I have been pointing out these 'solutions' and their weaknesses since '09. The problem for these people is that they do not bother to do basic research. Someone fed them one bit of information and they think that is the total, voila, 'stealth' is defeated. One guy even said Russia stopped developing the Su-57 because the Kolchuga system worked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ozranger

dbc said:


> The guy is talking about a meter wave radar in a multi-static arrangement, nothing earth shattering. It is a known vulnerability of stealth fighters, but multi-static radar is fixed, can be easily spoofed / jammed and degraded and cannot be reliably used to direct fire. Tell you what, a gaggle of F-22's or F-35's is also capable of accurate active/ passive geolocation ..so like I said nothing earth shattering...



There is no effective way to jam meter wave radars and anti-radiation missiles cannot locate them autonomously as the wavelength is too large. The only way to deactivate meter wave radars is search for their exact locations by optical reconnaissance and then use ballistic or cruise missiles to physically destroy them.

BTW there are mobile meter wave radars available as well http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2018/12/


----------



## ozranger

huanghong said:


> According to the anti-stealth radar photos shown in Academician Wu's speech, it should be this kind of radar. Mobile air defense warning radar in UHF band YLC-8E
> View attachment 841064
> 
> View attachment 841065



Static ones (sparse array) were unveiled in some way as well.





Also airborne as reported from https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/stealth-and-anti-stealth-technology.html.









For the western world, I saw some report before which says they are also developing static, sparse array based meter wave radars in Australia.


----------



## dbc

ozranger said:


> There is no effective way to jam meter wave radars


nope, it is easier to jam and deceive - its a no brainer, meter wave has a narrow absolute bandwidth.This means a jammer needs to focus on small range of frequencies to effectively neutralize the radar. A netted arrangement as suggested by Wu Jianqi is a bit harder to jam and deceive but this arrangement is very static, because it requires several days of laborious configuration and hence of limited military utility.


----------



## huanghong

An introduction to Wu Jianqi, reporting how he developed a distributed mobile 3-coordinate metric-wave radar after completing a stationary metric-wave radar capable of detecting stealth targets.
Article excerpts
After the realization of the anti-stealth advanced meter wave radar target, Wu Jianqi did not stop his exploration: this anti-stealth radar can only work as a fixed station and cannot achieve maneuvering transfer. In order to meet the needs of mobile operations, Wu Jianqi also explored a new theory and method of "divisional terrain matching" to overcome meter wave multipath interference, and proposed a unique technical plan, successfully developed my country's first mobile meter wave three-coordinate radar, and became the world's first distributed mobile meter wave three-coordinate radar.


https://www.mwrf.net/news/interview/2017/22676.html


----------



## huanghong

In an interview with Wu Jianqi, Wu Jianqi made it clear that the metric wave radar adopts new technology to meet the needs of the Air Force's guided air combat capability and direct air defense missiles to shoot stealth targets. The Air Force is very satisfied after actual use.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

dbc said:


> nope, it is easier to jam and deceive - its a no brainer, meter wave has a narrow absolute bandwidth.This means a jammer needs to focus on small range of frequencies to effectively neutralize the radar. A netted arrangement as suggested by Wu Jianqi is a bit harder to jam and deceive but this arrangement is very static, because it requires several days of laborious configuration and hence of limited military utility.


WTF you don't know size of radar aperture is related to wavelength? How big can that kind of jammer be feasible with acceptable mobility?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vi-va

ozranger said:


> WTF you don't know size of radar aperture is related to wavelength? How big can that kind of jammer be feasible with acceptable maneuverability?



I am surprised that after so many years, you don't know him. He is not tech guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## dbc

ozranger said:


> How big can that kind of jammer be feasible with acceptable mobility?



not very big, it fits in a pod on the EA-18 F growler. But never mind, like @vi-va said I'm not a tech guy.


----------



## dbc

gambit said:


> I have been pointing out these 'solutions' and their weaknesses since '09. The problem for these people is that they do not bother to do basic research. Someone fed them one bit of information and they think that is the total, voila, 'stealth' is defeated. One guy even said Russia stopped developing the Su-57 because the Kolchuga system worked.



some of these guys are clearly here for their 50 cents. I guess I'm wasting my time with them.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## vi-va

ozranger said:


> WTF you don't know size of radar aperture is related to wavelength? How big can that kind of jammer be feasible with acceptable maneuverability?





dbc said:


> some of these guys are clearly here for their 50 cents. I guess I'm wasting my time with them.


what's your major, btw? and any military experience? how many years?

jamming YLC-8E or JY-27A is not as easy as you thought.

Wait until AN/ALQ-249(V)2 Next Generation Jammer Low Band (NGJ-LB) is ready





AN/ALQ-249(V)2 Next Generation Jammer Low Band (NGJ-LB)







www.globalsecurity.org












Navy's Next Gen Jammer Is Three Pods, Not One, And Competition For One Of Them Just Heated Up


With Raytheon out of the running for one pod, Northrop Grumman and L3 are vying to be a major part of the Navy's future electronic warfare ecosystem.




www.thedrive.com





The current AN/ALQ-99 still not very capable of doing it.









AN/ALQ-99 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dbc

vi-va said:


> what's your major, btw? and any military experience? how many years?


I'm a middle school drop out, I flip burgers at the shake shack and sleep under a bridge.


----------



## dbc

vi-va said:


> what's your major, btw? and any military experience? how many years?
> 
> jamming YLC-8E or JY-27A is not as easy as you thought.
> 
> Wait until AN/ALQ-249(V)2 Next Generation Jammer Low Band (NGJ-LB) is ready
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AN/ALQ-249(V)2 Next Generation Jammer Low Band (NGJ-LB)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalsecurity.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy's Next Gen Jammer Is Three Pods, Not One, And Competition For One Of Them Just Heated Up
> 
> 
> With Raytheon out of the running for one pod, Northrop Grumman and L3 are vying to be a major part of the Navy's future electronic warfare ecosystem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current AN/ALQ-99 still not very capable of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AN/ALQ-99 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



damn son! even the retired F-111 had a low band jammer - ask @gambit he flew one...


----------



## S10

dbc said:


> I'm a middle school drop out, I flip burgers at the shake shack and sleep under a bridge.



Sounds like middle class with the way inflation is going.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## vi-va

dbc said:


> damn son! even the retired F-111 had a low band jammer - ask @gambit he flew one...


I have a low band jammer at home, just let you know, it's 30 dollars. dual band

VHF: 136－174MHZ, meter wave. 









Very high frequency - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Technology evolves, both jammer and radar

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Deino

Guys … we are deep in radar issues not really related to the J20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Beast

dbc said:


> I'm a middle school drop out, I flip burgers at the shake shack and sleep under a bridge.


No wonder you spew rubbish and pretend to be expert in tech.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## dbc

Beast said:


> No wonder you spew rubbish and pretend to be expert in tech.



My middle school degree is enough to debunk Chinese physics


----------



## Wergeland

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 845022


Looks like a giant stealthy dragonfly from front


----------



## siegecrossbow




----------



## MajesticPug

dbc said:


> My middle school degree is enough to debunk Chinese physics



It's well known US high school degree is equivalent to elementary school graduates in most countries. So middle school grads (worse -- drop outs) are just a bunch of no-goods but having a teenager-like feel good about themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

MajesticPug said:


> It's well known US high school degree is equivalent to elementary school graduates in most countries. So middle school grads (worse -- drop outs) are just a bunch of no-goods but having a teenager-like feel good about themselves.


Even compared to other western countries like UK and Canada, students from there say US schools are ez pz. Most US high school can't pass UK A levels.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lightning F57

The J-20 should be called "The Terminator"


----------



## Deino

Second J-20 unit within the ETC???


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527157110131331072


----------



## kungfugymnast

lightning F57 said:


> The J-20 should be called "The Terminator"


Su-37 already taken this nickname given by the west.



dbc said:


> damn son! even the retired F-111 had a low band jammer - ask @gambit he flew one...



Even you know this, if he is still in tactical air command today, he would probably fly the F-15E or F-15EX. After Desert Storm and Kosovo campaign, USAF would arm their strike fighters with precision guided missiles and bombs engaging ground targets without getting into visual range. @gambit won't have to fly supersonic at low altitude like he did in F-111 anymore avoid getting spiked flying into deadly new generation enemy SAM threat. 

What's your thought on J-20 air to ground capability?



gambit said:


> I have been pointing out these 'solutions' and their weaknesses since '09. The problem for these people is that they do not bother to do basic research. Someone fed them one bit of information and they think that is the total, voila, 'stealth' is defeated. One guy even said Russia stopped developing the Su-57 because the Kolchuga system worked.


It's just another Russian lame excuse to hide their shame of not having cash to build more Su-57. If Kolchuga system land based passive radar really works, their military would have easily detect and track all the enemy drones monitoring Russian forces movement and designate target for Ukraine Army artillery and anti-tank units ambush. The best radar is always up in the air that could see the most. Your thoughts on J-20 air to ground capability?


----------



## dbc

kungfugymnast said:


> Even you know this, if he is still in tactical air command today, he would probably fly the F-15E or F-15EX. After Desert Storm and Kosovo campaign, USAF would arm their strike fighters with precision guided missiles and bombs engaging ground targets without getting into visual range. @gambit won't have to fly supersonic at low altitude like he did in F-111 anymore avoid getting spiked flying into deadly new generation enemy SAM threat.
> 
> What's your thought on J-20 air to ground capability?


low altitude penetration is still a niche served by the B1-B Lancer in the USAF. Penetration cannot occur at stand off range using stand off munitions sometimes you have to kick the door down and see what pops up before you can kill it.

I think low altitude ingress will over time be the sole preserve of unmanned platforms. Today, we have loitering munitions like the Tomahawk for pop up threats. This new Tomahawk capability was tested very effectively in Libya, fly in low below 50 or 100 ft hug the terrain and you are practically invisible. Use your conformal interferometer arrays to geolocate and evade or destroy threats. 

What are my thoughts on J-20's ATG capabilities? Not a clue, when I saw a picture of the J-20 for the first time, I thought it was purpose built for defensive counter air, I think the Pentagon came to the same conclusion and have since then introduced platforms and tactics to mitigate the risk to slow air in or near the theatre. I don't think the J-20 was designed for SAM hunting or close air support. Strategic deep strikes sure - but, I'm not convinced the J-20 has long legs.


----------



## vi-va

dbc said:


> low altitude penetration is still a niche served by the B1-B Lancer in the USAF. Penetration cannot occur at stand off range using stand off munitions sometimes you have to kick the door down and see what pops up before you can kill it.
> 
> I think low altitude ingress will over time be the sole preserve of unmanned platforms. Today, we have loitering munitions like the Tomahawk for pop up threats. This new Tomahawk capability was tested very effectively in Libya, fly in low below 50 or 100 ft hug the terrain and you are practically invisible. Use your conformal interferometer arrays to geolocate and evade or destroy threats.
> 
> What are my thoughts on J-20's ATG capabilities? Not a clue, when I saw a picture of the J-20 for the first time, I thought it was purpose built for defensive counter air, I think the Pentagon came to the same conclusion and have since then introduced platforms and tactics to mitigate the risk to slow air in or near the theatre. I don't think the J-20 was designed for SAM hunting or close air support. Strategic deep strikes sure - but, I'm not convinced the J-20 has long legs.


Base on reliable source, J-20 has higher lift coefficient than F-22, quite a big margin.

Canard wing design usually has higher lift coefficient than F-22 clipped delta wing configuration. Even Dafale has better lift coefficient, J-20 is even superior.

Not sure what's the standard of long leg, but definitely much longer leg than F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## dbc

vi-va said:


> Base on reliable source, J-20 has higher lift coefficient than F-22, quite a big margin.
> 
> Canard wing design usually has higher lift coefficient than F-22 clipped delta wing configuration. Even Dafale has better lift coefficient, J-20 is even superior.
> 
> Not sure what's the standard of long leg, but definitely much longer leg than F-22.



I believe you. But did you know the StarFighter had a lousy lift coefficient and less than half the thrust of an F-16 but could easily sustain Mach 2. Yes the F-104 has a small stubby wing, the consequence of higher lift is higher drag. Also, every time you deflect a control surface you increase drag.When you bank, pitch up or down and turn. On a delta canard, in level flight; the control surfaces on the aircraft is constantly trimming the nose incurring more drag as a result. The J-20 was deliberately designed to carry a lot of fuel. I can't make any comments about it's engine fuel efficiency but I *speculate* Chinese engines have not hit the sweet spot of engine performance in terms of fuel efficiency ,reliability and thrust. And the J-20 engineers did not expect to fully resolve these issues during the design phase of the project.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

dbc said:


> low altitude penetration is still a niche served by the B1-B Lancer in the USAF. Penetration cannot occur at stand off range using stand off munitions sometimes you have to kick the door down and see what pops up before you can kill it.
> 
> I think low altitude ingress will over time be the sole preserve of unmanned platforms. Today, we have loitering munitions like the Tomahawk for pop up threats. This new Tomahawk capability was tested very effectively in Libya, fly in low below 50 or 100 ft hug the terrain and you are practically invisible. Use your conformal interferometer arrays to geolocate and evade or destroy threats.
> 
> What are my thoughts on J-20's ATG capabilities? Not a clue, when I saw a picture of the J-20 for the first time, I thought it was purpose built for defensive counter air, I think the Pentagon came to the same conclusion and have since then introduced platforms and tactics to mitigate the risk to slow air in or near the theatre. I don't think the J-20 was designed for SAM hunting or close air support. Strategic deep strikes sure - but, I'm not convinced the J-20 has long legs.



The B-1B seems to be 1 huge target to fly in and out of danger zone safely at such low terrain masking altitude today given the deadly new generation SAM system that has ability to detect, track, acquire lock and shoot in short time? Better deploy numbers of smaller lower cost fighters such as F-16 for search and destroy sorties while F-15E on second line clearing the path out of enemy SAMs and AAAs paving way for fighters and bombers on strike package for enemy structures. Over Afghanistan, the US fighters didn't really fly low to release JDAM, Paveways as newer FLIR targeting pods such as SNIPER, ATFLIR, Litening are superior than the old LANTIRN.

Russian Air Force Su-30SM and Russian Navy Su-34 shot down over Ukraine clearly tells the deadly effective SAM system as even MANPADS such as Starstreak could accelerate to Mach 4 splashing the Mi-28 before it could even react for defensive countermeasures and maneuver at range of less than 2Nm. Most of Russian air to ground missiles Kh-25, Kh-31, Kh-59 seekers relying on active radar guidance that can't distinguish friendly and enemy targets if enemies are hiding in populated cities. Their laser guided missiles and bombs have shorter effective range than US counterpart due to poorer targeting system requiring fighters to fly closer in order to designate target on the blurry TV on MFD or through HUD. Looking at big heavy Kh-29T/L vs AGM-65E/F/D/G, the Mavericks have longer effective range and accuracy whereas Kh-29T/L relying on huge warhead to blast anything within that radius if it didn't land exactly on target. Unguided rockets and bombs are totally obsolete to be carried on fighters nowadays looking at how hopeless the 4th generations Russian fighter bombers are over Ukraine.

PLAAF fighters been relying mostly on similar air to ground ordnance until after they managed to reverse engineer LANTIRN and come up with more laser guided missiles and bombs for their newer fighters such as J-16, J-10B/C and J-11D. Guess they should be able to fit FLIR targeting pod for J-20 later as some expert in forum said that the angular spade glass beneath the J-20 fore bottom fuselage just after radome (that looks like F-35 built in EOTS FLIR + IRST pod ) is only IRST without the FLIR pod. Everyone including me thought the J-20 has EOTS FLIR + IRST like F-35 until few guys in this forum told me that is just IRST, not for designating ground targets. If J-20A/B aren't equipped with FLIR, then its air to ground capability is just limited to launching radar guided missiles or passive guided missiles or GPS guided missiles/bombs. Apart from Blue Arrow series laser guided air to ground missiles and LS series laser guided bombs, I don't see any other tactical air to ground missiles that don't need to turn radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dbc

kungfugymnast said:


> The B-1B seems to be 1 huge target to fly in and out of danger zone safely at such low terrain masking altitude today given the deadly new generation SAM system that has ability to detect, track, acquire lock and shoot in short time?


True, but these platforms can fly in low and detect emitters and skirt around the enemy SAMs where possible. Star Streak or similar is not an issue since the B1-B flies in low, fast and releases its pay load in a single pass. Typically, the B1-B will be too fast for the Star Streak operator to laser track and launch a missile. Star Streak is effective against fighters that churn over their target and drop munitions. The greatest threat to the B1-B is quick reaction IR SAMs operating 'uncaged' over the target area.

The B1-B is one of the many options at the commanders disposal, against a near peer adversary it may require sustained effort using multiple platforms (LO / autonomous / loitering munitions/ decoys/ ECM/ sabotage..and so on) and tactics to systematically degrade the integrated air defence over the target, this may take several days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dbc

kungfugymnast said:


> the angular spade glass beneath the J-20 fore bottom fuselage just after radome (that looks like F-35 built in EOTS FLIR + IRST pod ) is only IRST without the FLIR pod.


Yes, I was aware from Hi resolution photos of the J20. EOTS on the J20 is still work in progress.


----------



## kungfugymnast

dbc said:


> Yes, I was aware from Hi resolution photos of the J20. EOTS on the J20 is still work in progress.



Thanks for the info on B-1B, the goose is still deadly against numbers of countries military today. Which is the best MANPADS today according to your opinion? For manportable anti-tank missile is still the Javelin as per performance in Ukraine while NLAW and panzerfaust failed to destroy Russian MBT in single hit. 

As for J-20, without EOTS, it could only carry radar guided, GPS guided and passive guided air to ground missiles. The war in Ukraine shows how important FLIR targeting pod and IR/Laser guided missiles and glide bombs are as no advanced aircraft is safe being less than 2nm from enemy AAA/SAM today.


----------



## luciferdd

kungfugymnast said:


> Thanks for the info on B-1B, the goose is still deadly against numbers of countries military today. Which is the best MANPADS today according to your opinion? For manportable anti-tank missile is still the Javelin as per performance in Ukraine while NLAW and panzerfaust failed to destroy Russian MBT in single hit.
> 
> As for J-20, without EOTS, it could only carry radar guided, GPS guided and passive guided air to ground missiles. The war in Ukraine shows how important FLIR targeting pod and IR/Laser guided missiles and glide bombs are as no advanced aircraft is safe being less than 2nm from enemy AAA/SAM today.


In fact there is such EOTS named EOTS-86,but j-20 didn't choised it because J-20 will not opera A2G mission in most case in short tern.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vi-va

dbc said:


> I believe you. But did you know the StarFighter had a lousy lift coefficient and less than half the thrust of an F-16 but could easily sustain Mach 2. Yes the F-104 has a small stubby wing, the consequence of higher lift is higher drag. Also, every time you deflect a control surface you increase drag.When you bank, pitch up or down and turn. On a delta canard, in level flight; the control surfaces on the aircraft is constantly trimming the nose incurring more drag as a result. The J-20 was deliberately designed to carry a lot of fuel. I can't make any comments about it's engine fuel efficiency but I *speculate* Chinese engines have not hit the sweet spot of engine performance in terms of fuel efficiency ,reliability and thrust. And the J-20 engineers did not expect to fully resolve these issues during the design phase of the project.


U.S. always has better engine, better reliability, efficiency, as well as trust. During Cold War, Soviet never had any better engine neither. I think China at least need 10-20 years to catch up.

China J-20 is specially designed for West Pacific theater:

First island chain depth is 500km (Okinawa, Japan), 1200 km (Yokosuka, Japan), and 2000 km (Singapore).
Width is around 5000 km, from north (Yokosuka, Japan) to Singapore.

West pacific theater is much larger both in width and depth than Central Europe theater during the Cold War:

Width is 700 km from Baltic to the Adriatic Sea. 
Depth is zero, the border is frontline.
There are tens of military airfields and hundreds of civilian airports in West Europe available for F-22.


*F-22 is designed for Central Europe theater during Cold War, short leg is no problem. *
*J-20 is designed for West Pacific theater, long leg is a priority.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ali_Baba

vi-va said:


> U.S. always has better engine, better reliability, efficiency, as well as trust. During Cold War, Soviet never had any better engine neither. I think China at least need 10-20 years to catch up.
> 
> China J-20 is specially designed for West Pacific theater:
> 
> First island chain depth is 500km (Okinawa, Japan), 1200 km (Yokosuka, Japan), and 2000 km (Singapore).
> Width is around 5000 km, from north (Yokosuka, Japan) to Singapore.
> 
> West pacific theater is much larger both in width and depth than Central Europe theater during the Cold War:
> 
> Width is 700 km from Baltic to the Adriatic Sea.
> Depth is zero, the border is frontline.
> There are tens of military airfields and hundreds of civilian airports in West Europe available for F-22.
> 
> 
> *F-22 is designed for Central Europe theater during Cold War, short leg is no problem. *
> *J-20 is designed for West Pacific theater, long leg is a priority.*



There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.

So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Ali_Baba said:


> There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.
> 
> So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.



Ah, the great doritos war!


----------



## vi-va

Ali_Baba said:


> There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.
> 
> So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.


Agree, and it will be manned/unmanned mixed.


----------



## S10

Ali_Baba said:


> There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.
> 
> So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.



I am unconvinced that we will see any 6th generation fighter from US in significant numbers until after 2035.


----------



## kungfugymnast

luciferdd said:


> In fact there is such EOTS named EOTS-86,but j-20 didn't choised it because J-20 will not opera A2G mission in most case in short tern.
> View attachment 846085



Thanks for the info, China focus now is more towards anti-ship rather than air to ground as they expect enemies to come from sea to shore rather than from land. There are dozen types of anti-ship missiles but not many air to ground laser & IR guided missiles with over 9nm range meant for search & destroy. 

The importance of J-20 having EOTS is to sneak & designate targets for friendly fighters to launch preemptive missiles and accurately hit all designated targets. Not sure if China EOTS works the same as F-35 where it could designate targets for friendlies via datalink allowing use of laser guided & GPS guided missiles/gliding bombs. 

Radar guided air to ground missiles only work if it's group of enemy tanks on the field or assault on enemy military base where there's no discriminate fire required. Radar switched to ground search mode on MFD shows dots, can't really tell whether you're tracking high asset value target, high threat target, low priority target, irrelevant target or civilian target. That is why Russian fighters and attack aircraft in Ukraine didn't carry radar guided Kh-25 at all against Zelensky forces massing in cities because the MFD can't tell whether the pilot is tracking a civilian car or enemy vehicle.


----------



## kungfugymnast

vi-va said:


> U.S. always has better engine, better reliability, efficiency, as well as trust. During Cold War, Soviet never had any better engine neither. I think China at least need 10-20 years to catch up.
> 
> China J-20 is specially designed for West Pacific theater:
> 
> First island chain depth is 500km (Okinawa, Japan), 1200 km (Yokosuka, Japan), and 2000 km (Singapore).
> Width is around 5000 km, from north (Yokosuka, Japan) to Singapore.
> 
> West pacific theater is much larger both in width and depth than Central Europe theater during the Cold War:
> 
> Width is 700 km from Baltic to the Adriatic Sea.
> Depth is zero, the border is frontline.
> There are tens of military airfields and hundreds of civilian airports in West Europe available for F-22.
> 
> 
> *F-22 is designed for Central Europe theater during Cold War, short leg is no problem. *
> *J-20 is designed for West Pacific theater, long leg is a priority.*



Distance from China to Guam is 3000km, the military exercise conducted by PLAAF & PLAN in South China Sea clearly tells the drills of assaulting Guam with fighters, bombers, ships followed by seizing the island with paratroopers & beach landing. Yes, the J-20 is made for long range sorties with the long wide fuselage for optimum higher cruising speed and range.



Ali_Baba said:


> There are alot of articles stating that the USA 6th Gen will be as large as a F-111 jet and has been designed for the Pacific theatre specifically.
> 
> So - the J20 will ultimately have to face the USA 6th Gen until it can get its 6th Gen in place.



Could be larger than F-111 looking at the volume and requirement to operate at stratosphere altitude making it almost a space fighter powered by ramjet or scramjet or something more sci-fi. It's more of intercontinental fighter bomber. Its armament depends whether US could perfect the laser cannon, if no then it would carry hypersonic missiles & usual standoff missiles.


----------



## luciferdd

kungfugymnast said:


> Thanks for the info, China focus now is more towards anti-ship rather than air to ground as they expect enemies to come from sea to shore rather than from land. There are dozen types of anti-ship missiles but not many air to ground laser & IR guided missiles with over 9nm range meant for search & destroy.
> 
> The importance of J-20 having EOTS is to sneak & designate targets for friendly fighters to launch preemptive missiles and accurately hit all designated targets. Not sure if China EOTS works the same as F-35 where it could designate targets for friendlies via datalink allowing use of laser guided & GPS guided missiles/gliding bombs.
> 
> Radar guided air to ground missiles only work if it's group of enemy tanks on the field or assault on enemy military base where there's no discriminate fire required. Radar switched to ground search mode on MFD shows dots, can't really tell whether you're tracking high asset value target, high threat target, low priority target, irrelevant target or civilian target. That is why Russian fighters and attack aircraft in Ukraine didn't carry radar guided Kh-25 at all against Zelensky forces massing in cities because the MFD can't tell whether the pilot is tracking a civilian car or enemy vehicle.


Don't worry,WZ-7,8&GJ-11&spy-satellites etc will finish that works...PLA don't need J-20s to finish all the jobs.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via 央视军事 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 848066
> View attachment 848067
> View attachment 848068
> 
> Via 央视军事 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @大漠神箭 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via 解放军报

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央视军事 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-06/15/content_10163163.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gomig-21

LKJ86 said:


>



Looks like a tarantella was somehow able to breed with a pterodactyl which then mated with a dragon.


----------



## xuxu1457

The J-20 fighter has now entered the stage of high-speed production.

Chengdu Aircraft Manufacturing Company, four pulse production lines of J-20 fighter aircraft had been built.
At least 50 J-20 fighters are produced every year. Each of China's five major war zones has 24 aircraft, which have been equipped.The Western Theater has replaced the previous J7 with J-20 and J-16 fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## johncliu88

Can't wait to see the next batch when WS-15s are ready.


----------



## Wergeland

xuxu1457 said:


> The J-20 fighter has now entered the stage of high-speed production.
> 
> Chengdu Aircraft Manufacturing Company, four pulse production lines of J-20 fighter aircraft had been built.
> At least 50 J-20 fighters are produced every year. Each of China's five major war zones has 24 aircraft, which have been equipped.The Western Theater has replaced the previous J7 with J-20 and J-16 fighters.



Any guess on how many China intend to produce?

500? 1000?


----------



## MajesticPug

Wergeland said:


> Any guess on how many China intend to produce?
> 
> 500? 1000?



I wouldn't think China needs 1000 like the US deploying all over the world. 500 is likely because China will deploy more J16 variants and JX35.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @大漠神箭 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via 央广军事 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 858273
> View attachment 858274
> View attachment 858275
> View attachment 858276
> 
> Via 央广军事 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo




Any idea what base this is?


----------



## siegecrossbow

Deino said:


> Any idea what base this is?



Dingxin.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.plapic.com.cn/pub/2022-06/29/content_10167409.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 858523
> 
> Via http://www.plapic.com.cn/pub/2022-06/29/content_10167409.htm




cn. CB0013


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 858523
> 
> Via http://www.plapic.com.cn/pub/2022-06/29/content_10167409.htm


Chen Liu looks like he forgot something but he doesn't know what.


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1544244697916289025

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

J-20AS no. 2032

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Two new and very clear close up images of the J-20AS' second prototype number 2032.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Zee-shaun



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546141087500185600

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/kj/2022-07/21/content_10172392.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @弹射电战海侧卫 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## shi12jun



Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
8 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## K_Bin_W

fear the wrath of China

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Love Love:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民画报 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Corax

Truly astonishing seeing the pace of development of the Chinese military. I'm going to show my age here now, but I remember frequenting defence forums (Airforces monthly, PakDef, Sinodefence) over 20 years ago in the last 90s and the Chinese military back then was essentially comprised of Soviet era weapons, and the most they had to show in terms of indigenous development was the J-8 and Mig-21 copies...how times change so quickly.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via 中国摄影报

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Wergeland

Deino said:


> Two new and very clear close up images of the J-20AS' second prototype number 2032.
> 
> View attachment 859964
> View attachment 859965



The proportions actually looks more aesthetically pleasing with elongated canopy.


----------



## johncliu88

Turkey media says that China will use J-20 technology to exchange for Turkish drone technology. Can you believe that? News link below.



https://min.news/en/military/afc927c2f3b1fd80e27b197487a564c6.html


----------



## Deino

johncliu88 said:


> Turkey media says that China will use J-20 technology to exchange for Turkish drone technology. Can you believe that? News link below.
> 
> 
> 
> https://min.news/en/military/afc927c2f3b1fd80e27b197487a564c6.html




No, never ever

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

johncliu88 said:


> Turkey media says that China will use J-20 technology to exchange for Turkish drone technology. Can you believe that? News link below.
> 
> 
> 
> https://min.news/en/military/afc927c2f3b1fd80e27b197487a564c6.html


That's like exchanging your Lamborghini Aventador for a Ford Mustang.


----------



## flowerfan2020

johncliu88 said:


> Turkey media says that China will use J-20 technology to exchange for Turkish drone technology. Can you believe that? News link below.
> 
> 
> 
> https://min.news/en/military/afc927c2f3b1fd80e27b197487a564c6.html


Is is just a joke? China has much better drone technology than Turkey.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dBSPL

johncliu88 said:


> Turkey media says that China will use J-20 technology to exchange for Turkish drone technology. Can you believe that? News link below.
> 
> 
> 
> https://min.news/en/military/afc927c2f3b1fd80e27b197487a564c6.html




There is an official statement(by presidency spox) that talks are continuing with a leading country on aeropsace, about on opening a new perspective in the field of defense. This explanation basically refers to an exploratory study of a two-way cooperation.

However, the name of this country was not disclosed. I have read the content in the link. There is absolutely no such explanation, and frankly, it seems imaginary to me. So things beyond official statement can only be a fantasy.

It makes no sense for China to open its best combatant platform to TR at the moment. Let alone dozens of technical problems, It's a very difficult politically. Not to mention that such a step could have devastating consequences for Turkish air forces. Even if the Turkish side is willing to make such a sharp political move, it can only afford it, for example, for an F-35B equivalent platform(if you have already) to be developed for naval platforms. Because these STOVL jets were very important in the navy structuring plans and this access was lost. May be, just maybe...

In the background, could China want to help Turkiye on some specific sub-work areas? Or it can be an alternative source for engine supply, for example? This is a completely separate topic of discussion. We have received support from China on many issues in the past, and there is experience in this kind of covert agreements. In the early 2000s, there were cooporation by some of our defense industry companies, and even were even staff working here.

Forget the details and the weird claims. This possibility "J-20 or any other aircraft buying from China" could be important(by TR) in terms of its political consequences (gains and losses). Because on the technical side of the business, there will be nothing but a ball of problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dBSPL

Turkiye is moving away from the western bloc day by day. It cannot do this sharply and quickly. Because it sees that in such a situation it will have to fight against NATO immediately and suddenly. For Turkiye, the most important reason for its presence in NATO today is to protect itself from NATO. I'm not going into the technical details of why and how. In short, Turkiye must take the final step by completing its preparations in an environment that it has created its own conditions, so that it can keep itself out of such a war. Another issue is the effects on other target (by the NATO bloc) countries. Russia's S-400 sale, nuclear cooperation, etc. These are not without reason. If there is anything better for Russia than a NATO without Turkiye, it is the creation of conditions that will allow NATO to struggle with both Russia and Turkiye. Russia and Turkiye still have many disagreements, but relations between the two states are probably better than they've ever been in history.

China is the driving force of the great asia formation. I will not touch on how China will benefit from the centuries-old paradigm's changing in eastern Europe, which I have briefly summarized above.

Could China want to sell jets to Turkiye? If it's going to create some of the conditions that would cause NATO to lose its eastern flank, why not? But this will complicate the current air force logistics for Turkiye with a comprehensive CAATSA sanctions. Turkiye is a country that woke up very late from its sleep. If things go well, we will enter the process of independence in the air force from the 2030s, but as you can see from the current combat jet inventory, active and current flying jets are entirely US aviation products. This is exactly why Turkiye is currently stuck with US options, which creates a risk gap of at least 10 years in the air force's combat jet fleets.

All this is not the subject of this topic. However, since you shared a not very credible claim above, I wanted to briefly outline the subject in order to avoid diluting this issue and to let you know the conditions on the Turkish side. Thank you for your patience if you read both posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

According to this image, the second J-20AS prototype number 2032 is now grey too.

(Image via @by78/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @Oneninety from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CSAW

J-20 two-seater version


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559937359449182208

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @苏两栖dearwux from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## S10

I wonder if they had conducted any combat exercise yet between J-20 units. They will need to practice going up against F-22 and F-35.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rashel234

Amazing topic. Thanks


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @前站起飞 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @bassman1 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563410562020651009


----------



## Beny Karachun

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563410562020651009


Damn that other jet looks so much better


----------



## Deino

here a different video of the same maneuver

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1563410536682835968/pu/vid/1270x720/xfVTOS8jZDnLwaG8.mp4

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

S10 said:


> I wonder if they had conducted any combat exercise yet between J-20 units. They will need to practice going up against F-22 and F-35.



Yes, multiple times.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @太湖啥个 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Ali_Baba

Beny Karachun said:


> Damn that other jet looks so much better



Nah - honestly the J20 looks much much better. The other SAC jet that was rejected looks like a gimped up Su-27 series with canards - just like the Su-57 was and it would have met the same fate as the Su-57 as a failed project.

The J20 is a clean sheet design that is now at the 5th gen level by western standards and will have a growth path for the next 30 years.


----------



## python-000

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 873734
> View attachment 873735
> 
> Via @bassman1 from Weibo


Soo sleek...


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Ali_Baba said:


> Nah - honestly the J20 looks much much better. The other SAC jet that was rejected looks like a gimped up Su-27 series with canards - just like the Su-57 was and it would have met the same fate as the Su-57 as a failed project.
> 
> The J20 is a clean sheet design that is now at the 5th gen level by western standards and will have a growth path for the next 30 years.



Su-57 is not as good as J-20 but it's far more capable than Eurofighter which is what your country has.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen said:


> Su-57 is not as good as J-20 but it's far more capable than Eurofighter which is what your country has.



Looking at the performance of Russian systems in Ukraine - it shows the Typhoon outclasses the Su-57 many times over. There is no engagement model where Su-57 can overcome the Typhoon in actual combat conditions.

When you consider that most of the Russian military systems seem to be powered by CPU's harvested from washing machines ...... your faith in the "actual" capabilities of the Su-57 are misplaced.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民画报 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

As per @scramble_nl, the 8th Air Brigade at Changxing has started conversion to J-20A fighters as the PLAAF‘s overall 6th combat unit and the second within the ETC.


----------



## LKJ86

Via 人民画报

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @罗韬1515 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @前站起飞 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

@Deino


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> @Deino




Is this the same video, where he misquoted me?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567513746460876800


----------



## casual

Deino said:


> Is this the same video, where he misquoted me?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567513746460876800


No, not the same one. I don't see the video where he misquoted you in the channel so I think he removed it.


----------



## Deino

casual said:


> No, not the same one. I don't see the video where he misquoted you in the channel so I think he removed it.




Thanks, but at least in this one I heard my name, but since I do not understand his spoken words, it would be fine to know what he is telling.


----------



## casual

Deino said:


> Thanks, but at least in this one I heard my name, but since I do not understand his spoken words, it would be fine to know what he is telling.


I remember watching the video. He misquoted you saying you thought J-20S needed ws-15 due to extra weight and will have AI instead of second pilot. He's comment was J-20S would be fine with ws-10 and he agreed with you that the AI pilot is possible.



Deino said:


> Thanks, but at least in this one I heard my name, but since I do not understand his spoken words, it would be fine to know what he is telling.


If I hear any chinese source quoting you in the future i'll post it on this forum and tag you.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen said:


> Su-57 is not as good as J-20 but it's far more capable than Eurofighter which is what your country has.


Opposite will true EF2000 will eat Su 57 in breakfast for sure 😃


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Is this the same video, where he misquoted me?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567513746460876800


I don't recommend listening to that guy. He makes bad claims and errors all the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

S10 said:


> I don't recommend listening to that guy. He makes bad claims and errors all the time.




Thanksgiving my friend  and indeed, he not only deleted the old video but corrected the old one.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568856452952952833


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空军在线 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Super Falcon

Best fighter jet in Asia today atleast with it's artificial intelligence

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Deino said:


> Thanksgiving my friend  and indeed, he not only deleted the old video but corrected the old one.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568856452952952833


for me it is such an unsightly jet with very wrong proportions. small wings 
almost like a rectangular shoebox lacking a symmetry one sees in SU57 and F22.

chinese must have their reasons for how they designed it and that is fine but my observation is purely on looks. and I just can't get that statement off my head by a western aviation expert who said of it looks great it will fly great which is true for all successful jets like Mirages and American F teen series.

I have yet to see a video which shows this jet fly half as good as any 4.5 generation jet. I am sorry I am no fan.


----------



## Elernal

Irfan Baloch said:


> for me it is such an unsightly jet with very wrong proportions. small wings
> almost like a rectangular shoebox lacking a symmetry one sees in SU57 and F22.
> 
> chinese must have their reasons for how they designed it and that is fine but my observation is purely on looks. and I just can't get that statement off my head by a western aviation expert who said of it looks great it will fly great which is true for all successful jets like Mirages and American F teen series.
> 
> I have yet to see a video which shows this jet fly half as good as any 4.5 generation jet. I am sorry I am no fan.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563417929907339265

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564074445928480768
At present the most can show its maneuverability shooting, I do not want to comment on the views of others, but perhaps you are exposed to too little news, of course originally China's exposure to this fighter is also very low, and even deliberately hidden maneuverability, but as an aircraft with duck wings and all-moving tail, it maneuvering is difficult to become not excellent

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

Irfan Baloch said:


> for me it is such an unsightly jet with very wrong proportions. small wings
> almost like a rectangular shoebox lacking a symmetry one sees in SU57 and F22.
> 
> chinese must have their reasons for how they designed it and that is fine but my observation is purely on looks. and I just can't get that statement off my head by a western aviation expert who said of it looks great it will fly great which is true for all successful jets like Mirages and American F teen series.
> 
> I have yet to see a video which shows this jet fly half as good as any 4.5 generation jet. I am sorry I am no fan.



Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people can’t stand the appearance of Typhoon since the canards look like small mustaches from the front, but I love the look and the bird flies well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yaoudelizard

Irfan Baloch said:


> for me it is such an unsightly jet with very wrong proportions. small wings
> almost like a rectangular shoebox lacking a symmetry one sees in SU57 and F22.
> 
> chinese must have their reasons for how they designed it and that is fine but my observation is purely on looks. and I just can't get that statement off my head by a western aviation expert who said of it looks great it will fly great which is true for all successful jets like Mirages and American F teen series.
> 
> I have yet to see a video which shows this jet fly half as good as any 4.5 generation jet. I am sorry I am no fan.


If you want to talk about ugly look no further than the F35. Stubby thing looks like the midget cousin of the F22.

I think J20 looks the most aggressive of the 5 gens. Su57 is the prettiest but least stealthy and f22 is the most bland one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @MinorLogan from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## F-22Raptor

The US PACAF doesn’t hold the J-20 in very high regard. Refers to it as an “OK” fighter.







China should ‘worry’ about Taiwan 2027 timeline, J-20 is just ‘OK’ fighter and “isn’t anything to lose sleep over”: US PACAF chief


AFA 2022 — The head of US Air Forces in the Pacific isn’t downplaying the challenge from China. But when it comes to a potential invasion of Taiwan, he thinks Beijing and its top military planners should be “worried” about their ability to take over the island nation. Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the...



defence.pk


----------



## S10

F-22Raptor said:


> The US PACAF doesn’t hold the J-20 in very high regard. Refers to it as an “OK” fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China should ‘worry’ about Taiwan 2027 timeline, J-20 is just ‘OK’ fighter and “isn’t anything to lose sleep over”: US PACAF chief
> 
> 
> AFA 2022 — The head of US Air Forces in the Pacific isn’t downplaying the challenge from China. But when it comes to a potential invasion of Taiwan, he thinks Beijing and its top military planners should be “worried” about their ability to take over the island nation. Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk


His opinion is just okay, not very well regarded.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Deino

By the way, what’s this?

In fact I don’t know but at least by my understanding looks like some sort of TVC maneuver… maybe a surprise for Zhuhai?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572175436783976450
*Edit*

As it seems, this clip is part of this video and since those two J-20s were regular ones powered by AL-31FN or its derivate engines it proves that no TVC is involved and so it cannot be the WS-15.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MPgIztI6Dw8&t=29s

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/yw/2022-09/22/content_10186419.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## F-22Raptor

“Well, I'm like Gen. Wilsbach,” Air Force Chief of Staff Brown had subsequently said. "[The J-20 is] not something to lose a lot of sleep over, but I'm gonna pay attention to it.”


Wilsbach qualified his comments by saying that the Air Force has "had a limited opportunity to assess it [the J-20], but it seems ok." He added that after “some recent close engagements we had with our 5th gen jets and some of their J-20s” in the Pacific region, the Air Force had “learned a lot from that," but that "it is nothing frankly that I would worry too much about."









Air Force Generals Aren't "Losing Sleep" Over China's J-20 Stealth Fighter


Air Force chiefs aren't too concerned with China's J-20 stealth fighter, but say the service has to keep modernizing to keep it that way.




www.thedrive.com





The USAF Chief of Staff doesn’t seem very impressed with the J-20 either.


----------



## Yaoudelizard

F-22Raptor said:


> “Well, I'm like Gen. Wilsbach,” Air Force Chief of Staff Brown had subsequently said. "[The J-20 is] not something to lose a lot of sleep over, but I'm gonna pay attention to it.”
> 
> 
> Wilsbach qualified his comments by saying that the Air Force has "had a limited opportunity to assess it [the J-20], but it seems ok." He added that after “some recent close engagements we had with our 5th gen jets and some of their J-20s” in the Pacific region, the Air Force had “learned a lot from that," but that "it is nothing frankly that I would worry too much about."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force Generals Aren't "Losing Sleep" Over China's J-20 Stealth Fighter
> 
> 
> Air Force chiefs aren't too concerned with China's J-20 stealth fighter, but say the service has to keep modernizing to keep it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USAF Chief of Staff doesn’t seem very impressed with the J-20 either.


Keep sleeping just like good ol Joe.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## F-22Raptor

Yaoudelizard said:


> Keep sleeping just like good ol Joe.



Considering the USAF is about to debut the B-21 Bomber and is in the EMD phase already for its 6th Gen fighter, the last one sleeping is the USAF.


----------



## S10

F-22Raptor said:


> “Well, I'm like Gen. Wilsbach,” Air Force Chief of Staff Brown had subsequently said. "[The J-20 is] not something to lose a lot of sleep over, but I'm gonna pay attention to it.”
> 
> 
> Wilsbach qualified his comments by saying that the Air Force has "had a limited opportunity to assess it [the J-20], but it seems ok." He added that after “some recent close engagements we had with our 5th gen jets and some of their J-20s” in the Pacific region, the Air Force had “learned a lot from that," but that "it is nothing frankly that I would worry too much about."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force Generals Aren't "Losing Sleep" Over China's J-20 Stealth Fighter
> 
> 
> Air Force chiefs aren't too concerned with China's J-20 stealth fighter, but say the service has to keep modernizing to keep it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USAF Chief of Staff doesn’t seem very impressed with the J-20 either.


Just like China isn't too impressed with F-35. I guess we can both by unimpressed by each other.



F-22Raptor said:


> Considering the USAF is about to debut the B-21 Bomber and is in the EMD phase already for its 6th Gen fighter, the last one sleeping is the USAF.


Funny, H-20 is coming, and we got a bunch of UCAVs out in a few years.


----------



## lightning F57

China will eventually catch up. Until then only a fool underestimates their enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen said:


> Su-57 is not as good as J-20 but it's far more capable than Eurofighter which is what your country has.


Su-57 would be ripped to shreds in BVR by Eurofighter before it ever has a chance to engage its fancy post stall maneuvers. The Russians are still reminiscing about the days when the Su-27 was the most maneuverable aircraft in the world.



Deino said:


> Wow …
> 
> View attachment 809568


So it's confirmed that this is the WS-15? Would make sense since WS-15 is also TVC equipped. Timeline also matches for WS-15 flight testing.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Su-57 would be ripped to shreds in BVR by Eurofighter before it ever has a chance to engage its fancy post stall maneuvers. The Russians are still reminiscing about the days when the Su-27 was the most maneuverable aircraft in the world.
> 
> 
> So it's confirmed that this is the WS-15? Would make sense since WS-15 is also TVC equipped. Timeline also matches for WS-15 flight testing.




No it is not, there is a longer clip available showing that this is part of the rehearsals from the PLAAF open day flights and those J-20s flown there have confirmed just the ordinary AL-21 eninges


----------



## ozranger

Deino said:


> No it is not, there is a longer clip available showing that this is part of the rehearsals from the PLAAF open day flights and those J-20s flown there have confirmed just the ordinary AL-21 eninges


AL-31?

AL-21 is in a generation earlier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ozranger said:


> AL-31?
> 
> AL-21 is in a generation earlier.




Indeed, a stupid typo


----------



## Solidify

_For all those concerned, this is a Giant leap of pilotless mankind into A.I. & machine learning controls pilots of 6th generation if not 7th Generation._

J-20 twin-seat fighter jets might be used in sync with drones to increase firepower.
China's military has suggested its advanced J-20 twin-seat fighter jets might be used in conjunction with drones to increase firepower.

J-20 as commander of Drones flying in formation




The twin-seat J-20s can carry out coordinated reconnaissance, coordinated strikes, and coordinated command missions when coupled with drones, South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on Sunday, quoting a Chinese military magazine.

"The purpose of building such a twin-seat J-20 is not to treat it simply as a trainer, its major role then will almost certainly be to coordinate with drones," said Yang Wei, the chief designer of the aircraft, in an article published in Ordnance Industry Science Technology.

"*As a manned aircraft, the J-20 can act as the commander of the drone swarm*," claimed the article.

Despite the fact that the fighter can only carry four to six ground-strike munitions, its firepower can be increased by a swarm of drones, each of which can carry four to ten precision-guided munitions.

"*The drones can be used as 'eyes and ears*' that expand the scope of the J-20's situational awareness and enhance manned aircraft's ability to spy and locate enemy targets," said the article quoted by SCMP.

A J-20 equipped with a swarm of drones, according to the article, may carry out operations, including early-warning missions and combat reconnaissance.

The report further stated that China will "still need to develop and expand the combat strategies between a manned plane and unmanned drones," said the article.

"The use of drones allows a military force to initiate attacks faster and also to keep fighting despite losses … And they can bring a real advantage in modern combat." Timothy Heath, a senior international defense researcher at the Rand Corporation, told SCMP.

Source https://interestingengineering.com/science/china-to-pilot-drone-swarm-with-fighter-jet

Related topic China shows drones recycled from Soviet era fighter jets

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 883357
> View attachment 883358
> View attachment 883359
> View attachment 883360
> 
> Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

As it seems, we finally have a clear(er) image of the J-20's cockpit ... or at least its simulator! 
(Image via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Solidify

Update


----------



## IblinI

F-22Raptor said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575572568735510529


You seems to be in a love n hate situation with us, you are clearly obsessed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abid123

IblinI said:


> You seems to be in a love n hate situation with us, you are clearly obsessed.


Looks like he is trying to get banned again.


----------



## luciferdd

Deino said:


> As it seems, we finally have a clear(er) image of the J-20's cockpit ... or at least its simulator!
> (Image via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo)
> 
> 
> View attachment 883486
> 
> 
> View attachment 883484



In fact ,this pic is more clear

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ali_Baba

Deino said:


> As it seems, we finally have a clear(er) image of the J-20's cockpit ... or at least its simulator!
> (Image via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo)
> 
> 
> View attachment 883486
> 
> 
> View attachment 883484



Thanks - i was wondering when we could see it - not unexpected i guess. The symbology and User Interface may take a few more decades.

I wa hoping that the J10C and JF17 Block III adopted the same large MFD but i suspect now, they wil turn up in future interations of these platforms if they are further developed.

Judging from the "smudges" on the screen - i wonder if there is a "touchscreen" component to this MFDs ... or random smudges( i may be reading tooo much into it.. )


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/tp/2022-10/03/content_10188054.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via 解放军报

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 884380
> 
> Via 解放军报




Is this a H-6N in the background?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 1 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via Yip-HuiWing from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 889363
> 
> Via Yip-HuiWing from Weibo


The build quality of the J20 is excellent - spot-less in its execution ..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

[DCS WORLD] Chengdu J-20 mod release now!​

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1587613335586975744

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @浩汉-菜兵 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## lcloo

J20 with domestic engines arrived in Zhuhai.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @Ds走近哈佛 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Wow … 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588820289840123905

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

Deino said:


> Wow …
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588820289840123905


 
Is that mean PLAAF has operated 370 J-20 so far?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @拓跋尊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

antonius123 said:


> Is that mean PLAAF has operated 370 J-20 so far?




No, it is in fact the most interesting detail so far spotted, it’s a construction number and if we are correct, it means Batch 03 aircraft number 70 (the second one had CB0369).

Just to remember: when the 1st Air Brigade unveiled its J-20As in January 2022 construction number CB0256 was spotted, now these are CB0369 & CB0370.

And since these two numbers are serial numbers 78130 & 78131, it must be reminded, that serial 78132 was identified back in April 2022. So assuming the 10 serials aircraft were delivered sequentially, it would imply this CB0370 airframe existed back in April! … and this means we eventually - to phrase is carefully - need to raise our number estimates of J-20As in service dramatically?!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> No, it is in fact the most interesting detail so far spotted, it’s a construction number and if we are correct, it means Batch 03 aircraft number 70 (the second one had CB0369).
> 
> Just to remember: when the 1st Air Brigade unveiled its J-20As in January 2022 construction number CB0256 was spotted, now these are CB0369 & CB0370.
> 
> And since these two numbers are serial numbers 78130 & 78131, it must be reminded, that serial 78132 was identified back in April 2022. So assuming the 10 serials aircraft were delivered sequentially, it would imply this CB0370 airframe existed back in April! … and this means we eventually - to phrase is carefully - need to raise our number estimates of J-20As in service dramatically?!


My current guess is between 160 to 220.


----------



## ozranger

Best ever J-20 demo as the pilot turned the afterburner on most of the time.









歼-20落地首次静态展示 杰哥惊到语无伦次_哔哩哔哩_bilibili


歼-20落地首次静态展示 杰哥惊到语无伦次, 视频播放量 527219、弹幕量 4008、点赞数 24008、投硬币枚数 4096、收藏人数 3411、转发人数 4495, 视频作者 军迷天花板杰哥, 作者简介...




www.bilibili.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @酸梅梅梅干 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 893963
> 
> Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ali_Baba

Deino said:


> View attachment 894015



The mytical partial cockpit picture - will get filed with the collection of mythical unicorns i guess! ( A bit like the JF17 Block III cockpit aswell ! ).


----------



## Super Falcon

Still believe F 22 raptor superior against J 20


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589170431788916737


----------



## LKJ86

Via @中国军号 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MajesticPug

onebyone said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589170431788916737


The comparison will always be speculative until they meet in the air. But saying an early 5th-gen F22 is superior because it's American-made while ignoring all the J20's latest sensor and communication tech improvements in the last two decades over the F22 is blind and superstitious. And there are a lot of Paks like that. Or actually they were bought by the DC as in their 'donations' to America in some $470mils buying services to outdated F16s.

I have suggested China not to sell the most advanced military techs to Pakistan because Pak military are all American-trained,influenced, and bound to retired in America. Let the Paks buy 2nd-rate American techs. US will not sell their first-tier techs to Paks because of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bleek

MajesticPug said:


> The comparison will always be speculative until they meet in the air. But saying an early 5th-gen F22 is superior because it's American-made while ignoring all the J20's latest sensor and communication tech improvements in the last two decades over the F22 is blind and superstitious. And there are a lot of Paks like that. Or actually they were bought by the DC as in their 'donations' to America in some $470mils buying services to outdated F16s.
> 
> I have suggested China not to sell the most advanced military techs to Pakistan because Pak military are all American-trained,influenced, and bound to retired in America. Let the Paks buy 2nd-rate American techs. US will not sell their first-tier techs to Paks because of India.


America has decades of experience and R&D advantages over China, so it's not a far-fetched claim to make.

Also it's not like the F-22 will remain stagnant since 2005 while the J-20 continues to receive upgrades.









Lockheed wins $10.9B contract to modernize F-22


However, by the time the F-22′s modernization is finished, it could already be nearing the end of its life span.




www.defensenews.com













The F-22 Is Finally Getting Some Much Needed Upgrades


The new upgrades for the F-22 have been teased both in official Air Force artworks and FY23 budget. 25 years after it entered service in the U.S. Air




www.google.com


----------



## FuturePAF

Manned unmanned teaming with the FH-97A seems to be how China maybe planning on making up the numbers difference. Hundreds if not Thousands of Unmanned loyal wingmen maybe the future in the PLA, not just in the air but across all domains.

Secure mesh network will be the key to if this strategy will succeed. Any information on Chinese datalinks out of this year’s Zhuhai?


----------



## Abramar

Ali_Baba said:


> The mytical partial cockpit picture - will get filed with the collection of mythical unicorns i guess! ( A bit like the JF17 Block III cockpit aswell ! ).


Block retains the 3 MFD design cockpit. It doesn't use a single large MFD.


----------



## MajesticPug

Bleek said:


> America has decades of experience and R&D advantages over China, so it's not a far-fetched claim to make.
> 
> Also it's not like the F-22 will remain stagnant since 2005 while the J-20 continues to receive upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed wins $10.9B contract to modernize F-22
> 
> 
> However, by the time the F-22′s modernization is finished, it could already be nearing the end of its life span.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 Is Finally Getting Some Much Needed Upgrades
> 
> 
> The new upgrades for the F-22 have been teased both in official Air Force artworks and FY23 budget. 25 years after it entered service in the U.S. Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com


The F22 will receive pods that allow it to have _IRST _and _EOTS _like the F35 and J20 already have '_built-in_'. By the time F22 receives its upgrades, it's at the end of its life expectancy. But of course I expect F22's service life will be extended _not technically but politically_ by then. The F22 still has its designed shortcoming, such as the data link and short legs in intensive engagements in East Asia (Remember, F22 was deisgned in the close airspaces in Europe). Years ago the Pentagon has tried to resolved the issue but not been successful. Recently, China even shows off J20's loyal wingman F97A UAVs working with the twin-seated J20. That's another shortcoming neither F22 or F35 could overcome.

So based on what we know about the jets, F22 doesn't hold much water _as of today_. Maneuverability may be F22's advantage, but with today's high-G, off-axis super-/hypersonic AA missiles, it's a non-factor. J20 designer Yang Wei even published a paper claiming maneuverability is not a factor. With all that we know, it's then superstition to still claim F22 is superior.

Oh, I haven't mentioned American AA missiles are shorter and slower too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## lcloo

MajesticPug said:


> The comparison will always be speculative until they meet in the air. But saying an early 5th-gen F22 is superior because it's American-made while ignoring all the J20's latest sensor and communication tech improvements in the last two decades over the F22 is blind and superstitious. And there are a lot of Paks like that.


This is to be expected because most of the reading material/information that they get are in English or in local language directly translated from MSM English language source. All these information are dominated by MSM and dictated by the West/USA (CNN/ Bloomberg/ Guardian/ NY Times/ VOA etc etc), and always tainted by biased agenda.

I am a living example of above because I used to get information in English language reading material and television. I had a bad view of everything on China then.

Later when I started to read Chinese language media and had a first hand view while living inside China, my perception changed to a more balance one. There are good and bad things in China, so is the whole world. However, you seldom read any thing positive about China in English language media.

Pakistani read in their local language mainly translated from MSM, or read in English which many well educated Pakistani do.

Just accept the reality that many Pakistani, especially those lived in the West and USA have a different biased mind sets due to the silence unconscious indoctrination by the MSM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

Even better J-20 demo with afterburners on. When the afterburners are on, J-20 becomes a flying beast.


----------



## ozranger

Horrible weather, very low clouds and poorly performing camera. But J-20 still shines with its maneuverability.






【2022珠海航展】8号 歼20表演_哔哩哔哩_bilibili


8号开幕表演中4架歼20空中展示, 视频播放量 3025、弹幕量 8、点赞数 80、投硬币枚数 7、收藏人数 25、转发人数 7, 视频作者 跑道05可以起飞, 作者简介 ，相关视频：【第3期】珠海航展已将轰-20推上热搜，轰-6K飞行员一句话引爆全网！20家族齐了！彩虹家族将首次全谱系亮相，彩虹无人机遭全球17个买家疯抢！，我们拍到了歼20！珠海航展4K实拍，珠海航展歼20 外国人评论，2022珠海航展...




www.bilibili.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ozranger

4K 120p








「4K120P」首发！2022珠海航展歼20逆天机动！_哔哩哔哩_bilibili


若各位觉得视频拍摄的还不错请多多点赞、投币、弹幕、转发！这会对我有非常大的帮助，谢谢！！封面以及视频全部由本人拍摄，一律拒绝任何形式在任何平台转载。拍摄设备：尼康Z9+Z400 F2.8手持拍摄, 视频播放量 473、弹幕量 0、点赞数 64、投硬币枚数 26、收藏人数 15、转发人数 6, 视频作者 Lufthansa456, 作者简介 ，相关视频：【珠海航展】歼20表演超高难度“两机对撞”，2022珠海航展 歼20战机首次公开起降展示，2022中国航展歼-20首演...




www.bilibili.com


----------



## siegecrossbow

onebyone said:


>



Best public display thus far.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## onebyone

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589921113685262338

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @白龙_龙腾四海 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @瘦驼 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## onebyone



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Bleek

lcloo said:


> This is to be expected because most of the reading material/information that they get are in English or in local language directly translated from MSM English language source. All these information are dominated by MSM and dictated by the West/USA (CNN/ Bloomberg/ Guardian/ NY Times/ VOA etc etc), and always tainted by biased agenda.
> 
> I am a living example of above because I used to get information in English language reading material and television. I had a bad view of everything on China then.
> 
> Later when I started to read Chinese language media and had a first hand view while living inside China, my perception changed to a more balance one. There are good and bad things in China, so is the whole world. However, you seldom read any thing positive about China in English language media.
> 
> Pakistani read in their local language mainly translated from MSM, or read in English which many well educated Pakistani do.
> 
> Just accept the reality that many Pakistani, especially those lived in the West and USA have a different biased mind sets due to the silence unconscious indoctrination by the MSM.


Also the stereotype of "Chinese copy, low quality" is very strong globally.

But actually I think you're overestimating the perception in Pakistan, I think it's a lot weaker than other countries especially because Pakistan operates a lot of Chinese tech and the military officials show satisfaction in the tech verbally, and by continuing to procure more, which reassures the general populace.

It's just that Pakistan also has a very strong perception tilting towards western tech due to it dominating their inventory historically and proving dominant over the adversary, especially the F-16.

It will always remain strong globally until we see a future skirmish involving modern Chinese tech like fighter jets, score a kill against western aircraft. I believe after this the perception will come crashing down, and the ignorance and sense of superiority in the west will fast turn into a strong sense of panic.

It is possible in the future if the J-10C clashes with the Rafale, perfect opportunity to destroy the stereotype and the sense of superiority/ignorance in the west will be replaced by panic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590010008183668736

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

Bleek said:


> Also the stereotype of "Chinese copy, low quality" is very strong globally.
> 
> But actually I think you're overestimating the perception in Pakistan, I think it's a lot weaker than other countries especially because Pakistan operates a lot of Chinese tech and the military officials show satisfaction in the tech verbally, and by continuing to procure more, which reassures the general populace.
> 
> It's just that Pakistan also has a very strong perception tilting towards western tech due to it dominating their inventory historically and proving dominant over the adversary, especially the F-16.
> 
> It will always remain strong globally until we see a future skirmish involving modern Chinese tech like fighter jets, score a kill against western aircraft. I believe after this the perception will come crashing down, and the ignorance and sense of superiority in the west will fast turn into a strong sense of panic.
> 
> It is possible in the future if the J-10C clashes with the Rafale, perfect opportunity to destroy the stereotype and the sense of superiority/ignorance in the west will be replaced by panic.



A lot of countries use a lot of Chinese equipment but the populace's perception is still negative because there is a deliberate attempt to project a negative narrative even when Chinese products are used successfully for years in critical areas (and Chinese equipment are used in huge numbers especially in the infrastructure space -- you don't get to a $1T trade surplus with just toy and bikini exports.)

A prime example is Chinese cranes at American docks lol:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439482267290669060
I have little doubt that most Pakistanis harbor some of the same views because of the dominance of Anglo traditional media and social media.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Bleek

GiantPanda said:


> A lot of countries use a lot of Chinese equipment but the populace's perception is still negative because there is a deliberate attempt to project a negative narrative even when Chinese products are used (and Chinese equipment is used in huge numbers especially in the infrastructure space.)
> 
> A prime example is Chinese cranes at American docks lol:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439482267290669060


Doesn't matter, they can try as hard as they like but I stand by my last point.

A 2019 like skirmish in the future with modern Chinese tech scoring a kill and dominating against western aircraft will bring all of that crashing down.

It is possible in the future if the J-10C clashes with the Rafale, perfect opportunity to destroy the stereotype and the sense of superiority/ignorance in the west will be replaced by panic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

MajesticPug said:


> The F22 will receive pods that allow it to have _IRST _and _EOTS _like the F35 and J20 already have '_built-in_'. By the time F22 receives its upgrades, it's at the end of its life expectancy. But of course I expect F22's service life will be extended _not technically but politically_ by then. The F22 still has its designed shortcoming, such as the data link and short legs in intensive engagements in East Asia (Remember, F22 was deisgned in the close airspaces in Europe). Years ago the Pentagon has tried to resolved the issue but not been successful. Recently, China even shows off J20's loyal wingman F97A UAVs working with the twin-seated J20. That's another shortcoming neither F22 or F35 could overcome.
> 
> So based on what we know about the jets, F22 doesn't hold much water _as of today_. Maneuverability may be F22's advantage, but with today's high-G, off-axis super-/hypersonic AA missiles, it's a non-factor. J20 designer Yang Wei even published a paper claiming maneuverability is not a factor. With all that we know, it's then superstition to still claim F22 is superior.
> 
> Oh, I haven't mentioned American AA missiles are shorter and slower too.


Clutching at straws for this argument - short legs in intensive engagements.. lol.
The F-22 was designed(in the late 80s btw before even the J-10 had a single metal cut of) to gain air superiority deep inside warsaw pact territory.
Then there is claim of loyal wingman… CGIs aren’t showing off anything. The Kratos is flying and testing in the air right now.

That’s why America has already built and flown the next generation aircraft - and by the time the so called upgrades falter and other things happen … the NGAD will be the fighter China faces. 

The Chinese military will be fairly well equipped and has made rapid gains - but these are all without any actual conflict deployments which is why there is no measure to it. 

The issue isn’t whether the J-20 is superior or the F-22.. but whether the J-20 working in conjunction with the rest of Chinese war machine will be superior to what the F-22 and F-35 bring with as their war machine.

Also, laughed at the “short and fat” comment - these are air to air missiles that are designed with aerodynamic and other requirements in mind.. not women.



ozranger said:


> Even better J-20 demo with afterburners on. When the afterburners are on, J-20 becomes a flying beast.


Most aircraft become beasts during wet thrust - its raw fuel being burnt out like a rocket.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

SQ8 said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Most aircraft become beasts during wet thrust - its raw fuel being burnt out like a rocket.




Do we know a video, showing a J-20 during take-off staring with the first movement to light-up of the AB and take-off?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IblinI

FuturePAF said:


> Manned unmanned teaming with the FH-97A seems to be how China maybe planning on making up the numbers difference. Hundreds if not Thousands of Unmanned loyal wingmen maybe the future in the PLA, not just in the air but across all domains.
> 
> Secure mesh network will be the key to if this strategy will succeed. Any information on Chinese datalinks out of this year’s Zhuhai?


FH-97 has not being chosen yet, there are a lots of compaines competing for it.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Judging from the latest interviews with Chief Designer Yang Wei platform vs platform may very well be a thing of the past.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## S10

siegecrossbow said:


> Judging from the latest interviews with Chief Designer Yang Wei platform vs platform may very well be a thing of the past.


The future will be networked drone swarms controlled by artificial intelligence. The line between army, air force and navy will blur as everything will become interconnected.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

S10 said:


> The future will be networked drone swarms controlled by artificial intelligence. The line between army, air force and navy will blur as everything will become interconnected.


The caliber of a nation’s mesh networks, AI, and Cyber war will be the true deciding factors of a modern military. Diplomacy, industrial capacity, and economy will be the keys to logistics and resupply. Domestic Politics will be the key to morale and will to fight, if the war is long and protracted, while offensive and defensive media will be key to morale if the war is short sharp and devastating to civilians and in the number of lives injured and lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## onebyone



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

onebyone said:


>




What is this??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Al_Muhannad

FuturePAF said:


> The caliber of a nation’s mesh networks, AI, and Cyber war will be the true deciding factors of a modern military. Diplomacy, industrial capacity, and economy will be the keys to logistics and resupply. Domestic Politics will be the key to morale and will to fight, if the war is long and protracted, while offensive and defensive media will be key to morale if the war is short sharp and devastating to civilians and in the number of lives injured and lost.


Excellent observation. This brings us to the question that how does next-generation industrial innovation happen?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## etylo

今日头条







www.toutiao.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## onebyone

【4K纯享】歼–20：我要“撕裂”这天空！_哔哩哔哩_bilibili


【4K纯享】歼–20：我要“撕裂”这天空！, 视频播放量 629991、弹幕量 2419、点赞数 50349、投硬币枚数 18402、收藏人数 13518、转发人数 7273, 视频作者 百岁山不甜pro, 作者简介...




www.bilibili.com


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央视军事 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Wergeland

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 896188
> View attachment 896189
> View attachment 896190
> 
> Via @央视军事 from Weibo



Like a fuming dragon.
Cant wait to see it with 2D stealth nozzles. Im convinced PLA seriously considering it.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Can anyone explain, what's the J-20A is doing here?






在见到J20之前我没想过一架飞机还能这样飞_哔哩哔哩_bilibili


在见到J20之前我没想过一架飞机还能这样飞共计2条视频，包括：在见到J20之前我没想过一架飞机还能这样飞、当天拍的其它一些J20视频（渣拍摄，见谅）等，UP主更多精彩视频，请关注UP账号。




www.bilibili.com


----------



## MajesticPug

Deino said:


> Can anyone explain, what's the J-20A is doing here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 在见到J20之前我没想过一架飞机还能这样飞_哔哩哔哩_bilibili
> 
> 
> 在见到J20之前我没想过一架飞机还能这样飞共计2条视频，包括：在见到J20之前我没想过一架飞机还能这样飞、当天拍的其它一些J20视频（渣拍摄，见谅）等，UP主更多精彩视频，请关注UP账号。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bilibili.com


Not sure. But impressive flight. 👍👍👍

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## johncliu88

I watched several clips on Youtube, the J-20 moves seemed to be held back by the pilots. And I think they were told not to show too much to the public due to security reason maybe. Generally speaking, the performance was quite stunning.


----------



## ozranger

johncliu88 said:


> I watched several clips on Youtube, the J-20 moves seemed to be held back by the pilots. And I think they were told not to show too much to the public due to security reason maybe. Generally speaking, the performance was quite stunning.


I watched and compared quite a bit as well. From my point of view, the best performance happened on the first day of the airshow, when the weather was pretty bad and the cloud was very low. I think the pilot worried that the aircraft could enter stall as it was to fly so low and he pushed up the afterburners quite high with nozzles brighter than ever, which makes the demo unexpectedly well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

ozranger said:


> I watched and compared quite a bit as well. From my point of view, the best performance happened on the first day of the airshow, when the weather was pretty bad and the cloud was very low. I think the pilot worried that the aircraft could enter stall as it was to fly so low and he pushed up the afterburners quite high with nozzles brighter than ever, which makes the demo unexpectedly well.


You wouldn't normally see 4 stealth jets flying in formation anyway. In actual operation you'd most likely see a pair or a trio flying at least 1km apart.


----------



## Deino

The J-20AS twin seater was spotted again ...









__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1594941874024124416

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## StraightEdge

World-class production lines speed up deliveries of China’s J-20 stealth jet fighter | South China Morning Post (scmp.com)



> It costs about *US$110 million to build a J-20*, according to a report posted on the PLA’s social media account in 2018



That sounds too high to me, though that's just my speculation. How reliable is this information? I have seen weird comments by Minnie Chan in past.


----------



## S10

StraightEdge said:


> World-class production lines speed up deliveries of China’s J-20 stealth jet fighter | South China Morning Post (scmp.com)
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds too high to me, though that's just my speculation. How reliable is this information? I have seen weird comments by Minnie Chan in past.


That's not too high actually. J-10C already cost approximately $50 million USD per unit.

As planes get more advanced, labor cost become less relevant to component cost. China is not going to produce a plane at 1/3 the price of American planes given similar performance.


----------



## Brainsucker

S10 said:


> That's not too high actually. J-10C already cost approximately $50 million USD per unit.
> 
> As planes get more advanced, labor cost become less relevant to component cost. China is not going to produce a plane at 1/3 the price of American planes given similar performance.



Actually, if a J-20 cost is similar to US equivalent, like F-35 or F-22, then actually it's more expensive than US jet fighter. Because it is China, and RMB value is lower than USD.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @saga-City from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @前站起飞 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## TopGun786



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Finally officially confirmed!! 

A J-20 fitted with WS-15 has already taken its maiden flight. Apparently the speaker in that video is a famous academician from the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He is allegedly specialized in turbofan engines.

Video by @星辰大海SLC on Bilibili.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602687065749131271

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## casual

Deino said:


> Finally officially confirmed!!
> 
> A J-20 fitted with WS-15 has already taken its maiden flight. Apparently the speaker in that video is a famous academician from the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He is allegedly specialized in turbofan engines.
> 
> Video by @星辰大海SLC on Bilibili.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602687065749131271


he only said WS-15 has taken maiden flight. Didn't say it was with J-20


----------



## Horse_Rider

S10 said:


> That's not too high actually. J-10C already cost approximately $50 million USD per unit.
> 
> As planes get more advanced, labor cost become less relevant to component cost. China is not going to produce a plane at 1/3 the price of American planes given similar performance.



That's a catch 22 situation. Because China also can't produce a jet that's 1:1 match price wise with the US / EU. Because then the buyer will go direct to the US and EU simply due to their solid reputation of building top notch jets and many of the platforms are combat proven, while the Chinese platforms are paper-proven as they've not seen combat yet. Combat proven is a HUGE capability by itself.



johncliu88 said:


> I watched several clips on Youtube, the J-20 moves seemed to be held back by the pilots. And I think they were told not to show too much to the public due to security reason maybe. Generally speaking, the performance was quite stunning.



It's actually not hard to understand it's flight characteristics as the airframe gives it up. Additionally, the Chinese gave up frontal stealth capability for canards. If I was designing it, I'd have kept the canards away to achieve further reduction in frontal RCS and would've instead planned on TVC for agility, similar to the F-22.



Deino said:


> Finally officially confirmed!!
> 
> A J-20 fitted with WS-15 has already taken its maiden flight. Apparently the speaker in that video is a famous academician from the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He is allegedly specialized in turbofan engines.
> 
> Video by @星辰大海SLC on Bilibili.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1602687065749131271



Congrats! Deino - Will you be able to point me to specs for WS-15 please? I'm interested to compare it with other Chinese engines and see it's performance.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业成飞 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 906645
> 
> Via @航空工业成飞 from Weibo



WZ-7, J-10, J-20, JF-17, and WZ-8?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Messerschmitt

An intersting open-source radar scattering simulation of the J-20: https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsanda.../2022/11/27/j-20-radar-scattering-simulation/

Summary (excerpt):
From the simulation results, it is easy to note that J-20 has good signature characteristic. Even though, J-20 RCS is higher than F-35A RCS through the frequency range (approximately 3.5 times in X-band, 1.5 times in VHF band), it still has much better RCS characteristic when compared to Su-57. The canard return blended very well with the main wing return, and due to their high swept angle, the first high RCS spike of J-20 actually located at around 50 degrees boresight. This mean it is very easy for J-20 pilots to keep enemy adversary within their stealthy sector. Add to the fact that J-20 has very big antenna aperture, it can be highly lethal in BVR combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lightning F57

Messerschmitt said:


> From the simulation results, it is easy to note that J-20 has good signature characteristic. Even though, J-20 RCS is higher than F-35A RCS through the frequency range (approximately 3.5 times in X-band, 1.5 times in VHF band), it still has much better RCS characteristic when compared to Su-57.


I have always wondered how accurate the RCS figures are. Someone posted maybe in this thread Japanese figures, the F22 looked impressive had lowest RCS and then F35 then was J20. Are these being calculated through simulations using the structure of the aircraft as an indication, because I'm pretty sure materials, coating will also make a difference. Or has the RCS been calculated by being spotted on a radar somewhere such as the alleged interaction between F35s and J20s.


----------



## Messerschmitt

lightning F57 said:


> I have always wondered how accurate the RCS figures are. Someone posted maybe in this thread Japanese figures, the F22 looked impressive had lowest RCS and then F35 then was J20. Are these being calculated through simulations using the structure of the aircraft as an indication, because I'm pretty sure materials, coating will also make a difference. Or has the RCS been calculated by being spotted on a radar somewhere such as the alleged interaction between F35s and J20s.


The RCS figures were calculated using 3D models i.e. the shape of the aircraft. Some minor surface details aren't captured in these models which should contribute to RCS but probably not much. The use of radar absorbing material was not taken into account since doing so would be guesswork. The RCS figures should be „roughly“ accurate, excluding the effects of radar absorbing materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @飞舞的摩羯 from Weibo


----------



## 大汉奸柳传志

so where is the rumored B variant


----------



## Deino

大汉奸柳传志 said:


> so where is the rumored B variant




As it seems this one!











LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 907325
> 
> Via @飞舞的摩羯 from Weibo


But he modified his drawing …

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## kuge

looks like it has made the maiden flight said by Liu Daxiang?


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> As it seems this one!
> 
> View attachment 907339
> View attachment 907340
> 
> 
> 
> But he modified his drawing …
> 
> View attachment 907341


my problem but can't tell noticeable changes?


----------



## Deino

Here it is indeed 2051 …. And now show us the rear section!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Corax

Deino said:


> Here it is indeed 2051 …. And now show us the rear section!
> 
> View attachment 907381



There's a noticeable change to the cockpit and the 'hump', similar to what they did to the J-35. It's no longer a bubble canopy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jamie Brooks

Deino said:


> Here it is indeed 2051 …. And now show us the rear section!
> 
> View attachment 907381


Fingers crossed for ws-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Here's already a first side profile available for comparison: On top prototype no. 2051 aka eventually J-20B and on the bottom the regular J-20A.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Here's already a first side profile available for comparison: On top prototype no. 2051 aka eventually J-20B and on the bottom the regular J-20A.
> 
> View attachment 907420







Via @彩虹熊_白玮 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ali_Baba

Deino said:


> Here's already a first side profile available for comparison: On top prototype no. 2051 aka eventually J-20B and on the bottom the regular J-20A.
> 
> View attachment 907420



Very interesting - wonder what they will use that extra space for ? More electronics or more fuel ?!! I was not expecting a change like this - wondering ( as are all ) what they are up to.


----------



## S10

My guess is that they're giving up 6'clock visibility in the cockpit for additional sensor processing capability.


----------



## Deino

It cannot be shared yet but as it seems, 2051 flew already!


----------



## lightning F57

S10 said:


> My guess is that they're giving up 6'clock visibility in the cockpit for additional sensor processing capability.


Maybe more stealth as well with a smoother profile.


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606578903794999296

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @Captain小潇 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606578903794999296


Via @052D成都舰 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

lightning F57 said:


> *I have always wondered how accurate the RCS figures are.* Someone posted maybe in this thread Japanese figures, the F22 looked impressive had lowest RCS and then F35 then was J20. Are these being calculated through simulations using the structure of the aircraft as an indication, because I'm pretty sure materials, coating will also make a difference. Or *has the RCS been calculated by being spotted on a radar somewhere* such as the alleged interaction between F35s and J20s.


No good at all. Simply put -- there are too many unknown variables.

Let us take your last sentence: '...spotted on a radar somewhere...'

If you think, or that someone told you, that an open environment will provide sufficient radar return to calculate an RCS, you or that person is flat out wrong. An open environment is populated, or as radar designers would say 'contaminated', with too much 'non-discretionary' signals, meaning signals that you cannot physically remove. By 'physically', I mean that signal is somehow not part of your calculation. An open environment contains 'cosmic background radiation' or 'CBR'. Can you physically remove that? No, but you isolate the test body from CBR being a variable. That isolation is the anechoic chamber.









Understanding Anechoic Chambers for Electromagnetic and RF Testing - Technical Articles


In this article, learn about anechoic chambers for electromagnetic measurement and testing, specifically for radio frequency (RF).




www.allaboutcircuits.com





Not only CBR but also stray EM signals from common communication such as cell phone, TV, and radios. An EM anechoic chamber will shield the body from these non-discretionary signals from your test radar signals, leaving only the reflected test signals to measure the best RCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Well






LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 907526
> 
> Via @Captain小潇 from Weibo



... at first sight it looks impressive but after a second sight and even more some careful comparisons it looks as if again a bored joker wanted to fool us. I agree now, there are too many differences in important details, which make me think it is unfortunately faked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画匠 from Weibo


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 907656
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层-军事画匠 from Weibo



Is this a new image? I thought so far it had only one fitted?


----------



## TopGun786

Deino said:


> Is this a new image? I thought so far it had only one fitted?


Which engine is it?


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 907656
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层-军事画匠 from Weibo



Unfortunately faked again

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Does anyone know about this rumour? allegedly 2051 will make its first flight today.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @CadderFli and @大包CG from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 907797
> 
> Via @CadderFli and @大包CG from Weibo


Is the new design in anticipation of utilizing the more powerful WS-15 engines higher thrust and electrical power (for more sensors)?


----------



## Deino

Some more …

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Deino

Hmmm??

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Just want to appreciate all of our members who have been contributing to this thread for the last 11 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @捣蛋就捣蛋 and @Captain小潇 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## FuturePAF

When equipped with the WS-15, is it suppose to have 2D TVC?

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1607924067331629056


----------



## Deino

(Images via @Captain小潇 from Weibo)



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 908091
> View attachment 908092
> View attachment 908093
> View attachment 908094
> View attachment 908095
> View attachment 908096
> 
> Via @捣蛋就捣蛋 and @Captain小潇 from Weibo




You beat me by a few minutes ... but are these J-20AS twin-setaer images also recent?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> but are these J-20AS twin-setaer images also recent?


No

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Slowly getting better ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## S10

Do you think the avionics and sensors would be upgraded beside the new engines? It's been more than 10 years since they unveiled the prototype and 5 years since they introduced it into service. I think around 2025 would be a fitting time for MLU.


----------



## serenity

3D model RCS estimation is useless because it cannot accurately model the gaps and gap treatment methods employed by actual aircraft. The material of those methods and seals, the spaces behind them and many other aspects. Furthermore, it does not assume any material properties that contribute to stealth. The estimates can be very inaccurate in either direction.

The only thing such an endeavor can say is that the general design without considering any of the details which can work in either direction in terms of stealthiness, is good. In this case, the canards penalize stealth a bit but in reality, exactly by how much these such models and estimations cannot actually tell us because the precise geometric qualities and material application in important minute detail areas can be too varied to estimate using assumptions when the model zooms in to any detail.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

S10 said:


> Do you think the avionics and sensors would be upgraded beside the new engines? It's been more than 10 years since they unveiled the prototype and 5 years since they introduced it into service. I think around 2025 would be a fitting time for MLU.


Almost certainly yes.


----------



## ZeEa5KPul



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> View attachment 908318
> 
> View attachment 908319




and these only give a rudimentary idea of which photos are still on the wallclimber's SD-cards but have not yet been posted.


----------



## Ali_Baba

Now that the J20B is out - maybe we will finally get to see the J20A cockpit properly 

( edited-thanks!)


----------



## Abu Shaleh Rumi

Ali_Baba said:


> Now that the J10B is out - maybe we will finally get to see the J10A cockpit properly


*J-20


----------



## casual

I want some clear uncensored pics of that rear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/tp/2022-12/30/content_10204303.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/yw/2022-12/30/content_10208494.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> View attachment 908318
> 
> View attachment 908319




You already know it!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608898549361827841

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/kj/2023-01/03/content_10209252.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @空军在线 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Hmm I just noticed the sensor behind the cockpit, which I think it's the EODAS on J-20. I wonder if the new J-20B kept it after the shaping change.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画匠 from Weibo


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 910264
> View attachment 910265
> 
> Via @四川地产界高层-军事画匠 from Weibo




But are they real? @四川地产界高层-军事画匠 is famous and best known for his magnificent GG/PS-works!


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weibo


----------



## Deino

Happy 12th anniversary  to the J-20's maiden flight! Would be a great date, for the number 2051‘s first flight?!


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央广军事 from Weibo


----------

